290 Harry M. Huhhell, Ph.D., 



II 94, fr. II (A refutation of an argument against rhetoric based on the 

 fr. XVII.' mutual recrimination of orators.) If Aeschines charges Demos- 

 thenes with using Ouv/xara instead of py/xara^^ of what use is that 

 as an argument? Do not the philosophers revile one another?^* 

 II, 97, fr. This fragment yields nothing of importance except the distinction 



^^^' between practical orators, Demosthenes and Lycurgus, and sophists, Iso- 



crates and Alatris. Cf. II, 233, 15. 

 II, 100, fr. This deals with the argument that rhetoric is not an art because it has 



• been excluded from some cities.^" 



II, 102, fr. Phocion studied the political art with Plato or Aristotle, and 



VI i 



became a statesman. 



II, 102, fr. Rivalry between Critolaus and the rhetors. 



II, 105, fr. The next argument* is : "All practice and observation and 



^^- training has some end to which all the parts ought to tend; 



rhetoric has no such end." 

 II, 105, fr. [Rhetoricians] were not in good repute at the very beginning, 



in Egypt and Rhodes and Italy. 



II. 107, fr. We shall next consider the statement that every art is invented 



XV 



for some useful purpose, but rhetoric tends [to deceive]. ^*^ 



II, 108, fr. [I think that he wishes to] say that they do not have theoretical 



acquaintance with all subjects, but only with some; that the 



speakers in actual debates discuss many political problems, and, 



therefore some are able to speak to the point, others not ; and 



that those who have a theoretical acquaintance with all subjects 



are good speakers.^'^ 



''Aesch. Ill, 167. 



°*For dav/xaa-iovpylav ]. 6 Fuhr, Rhein. Mus. LVII (1902) p. 431, pro- 

 poses to read Oav/xaToirouav. 



"' Cf. I, 16, fr. IX. 



^" Cf. I, 2, 6, i¥. = Suppl. 4, 4, ff. Possibly this is the opinion of Crito- 

 laus; cf. Sext. Emp. Adv. Rhet. 10-12. 



" It is impossible to determine the identity of the person from whom 

 Philodemus quotes this opinion. It may be of interest to note, however, 

 that a similar opinion of the need of universal knowledge in oratory was 

 warmly supported by Cicero. The most striking passage for purposes of 

 comparison with Philodemus is in the De Oratore, I, 5, 17: Est enim 

 scientia comprehendenda rerum plurimarum ; but the thought is elaborated 

 in a large number of passages which I have collected in my dissertation — 

 The Influence of Isocrates on Cicero, Dionysius and Aristides, pp. 20 ff. 

 It would be rash to make the claim that Philodemus was aiming at Cicero, 

 for Philodemus in spite of his long residence at Rome, and his close con- 

 nection with a prominent Roman family is entirely Greek in his literary 



