The Rh.ctorica of Philodemus. 291 



They do not show that rhetoricians were contemporary with il, 109, fr. 

 the physicists. The fact that there were poHtical rhetors before ^^'^• 

 the technical treatises of the sophists were written, does not 

 prove that poHtical rhetoric is not an art. 



The same form of ars:ument could be used with damaging: II. no, fr. 

 effect against its author ; there were certainly statesmen before ' 

 Plato and Aristotle wrote on politics, and it can be proven that 

 philosophy is not an episteme, for there were good men before 

 Zeno, Cleanthes, Socrates and Aristotle. 



If we consider that he (i. e. Homer) was the founder {evperrj's) n, in, fr. 

 of philosophy, as he is held to 'be not by the Critics alone but by XXI. 

 the philosophers of all sects, it is just as reasonable to hold that 

 he was the founder of rhetoric.^* 



Does rhetoric help body or soul? II, 112. fr. I. 



Let us now take up the statement of these same people that II. 113, fr. 

 political rhetoric is an art, but less so than others ; for they agreed ^ * 

 that a few who had reached the top would be capable speakers. 



He who says that the end of rhetoric is to persuade, does not II, 114, 

 persuade himself but his neighbor. ^^' ^■ 



He holds the art to blame for the mistakes of those who are ii, up. fr. 

 only partially acquainted with it. a.vi. 



H many are able to attain an easy end, oftentimes better than II, ng, fr. 

 the artist, still artists are to be admired, and are able to attain XVIII. 

 difficult end. For a physician who can cure ten out of a hundred 

 difficult cases cannot be said to succeed in the majority of cases, 

 yet we might call him a good artist. 



There is no method by which one can persuade the multitude. II, 120, fr. 



XTX 



either always or in the majority of cases. 



. and they say that Isocrates and Gorgias and Lysias II, 122, fr. 

 acknowledged that they did not possess science. This is incred- ^• 

 ible and impossible, since they professed to be artists, and to 



references. Cicero's opinions, however, were not unique but merely repre- 

 sentative of the revival of the 'philosophic rhetoric' of Isocrates, which 

 is represented on the Greek side by Dionysius, and, as we know from the 

 introduction to his Attic Orators, by many others, some of whom may 

 have been in the mind of Philodemus. Furthermore, any reference to 

 Cicero is excluded by the probability that the Rhetorica of Philodemus 

 antedates the De Oratore. 



^® Wilamowitz, Hermes XXXIV (1899) p. 636, reads 1. 10 ovx vwS I. 13 

 aipeaeus and explains kpltlkQv as the school of Crates. 



