The Rhetorica of Philodenius. 295 



Ku\y] ^pao-is belongs to the Epicurean philosophers, but is not I. i49, col. 

 even remotely connected with the rhetoricians or sophists. For 

 if by KaXr'] one means the use of words in their proper meaning, 

 why should the philosophers take second place? 



Any "imitation" of things by words is impossible. In the I- i49. 

 beautiful style of Isocrates, or the grand style of Demosthenes j 150 col. 

 we do not find this attempt to fit sound to sense. VI. 



If there were no naturally beautiful style, it might be neces- I; 151. col. 

 sary to be content with one established by arbitrary authority. 

 But as there is a naturally beautiful style it is a shame to seek 

 for another. For the arbitrary style is not accepted by all, nor 

 is it always the same in the same author ; some imitate the style 

 of Isocrates, others that of Thucydides.- 



Whom then shall we imitate, especially since it is so formidable I, 152, col. 



• VIII 



a task? Perchance we might imitate all who have been success- 

 ful at any time or place. One cannot even say that all rhetors 

 adopt one style. 



Only two or three at the most imitate Isocrates, and some I- 152, col. 

 say that the style of Isocrates is not uniform in. all his works. 



Therefore the grammarians and philosophers who refuse to I- ^53- 

 follow these rules, but write in simple style and not in the 

 ridiculous style prescribed by the manuals [write better than 

 the sophists]. We have now discussed every possible phase of 

 the subject. 



Now in regard to a correct use of the Greek language which I. 154, col. 

 some say consists in observing the local peculiarities of speech 

 (dialectical peculiarities), and in the avoidance of soloecism and 

 barbarism^ — some call the failure to observe the local peculiari- 

 ties soloecism, still others make a distinction between barbarism 

 and incorrect pronunciation, e. g. a mistake in aspiration or 

 accent — it is not convenient to speak at present.* 



^ Radermacher, Rhein. Mus. LIV (1899) p. 365, quotes Maximus 

 Planudes, Schol. Hermog. vol. V, p. 440, 25W; 6 5e ye'EiriKovpos iv T(p irepl 

 pr]Topi.K7Js avdaSicrrepov ol/xai \iywv (pricriu aiirbs p.bvo% eiipyjKivai t^x^V" t^oKitlkwv 

 Xoyuv ■ Tovs d^ AWovs airoffKopaKii^oji' prjTopas eavru) ttws fxax^i-i-eva \^yei • (picns ydp 

 iaTLv'T) Karopdovaa \6yovs. rix^n ovde/^ua. Apparently lie thought that Epicurus 

 was a rhetorician ! 



^Reading in 1. 11 m^^ for oi de as suggested by von Arnim, Hermes 

 XXVIII (1893) p. 153. 



*The distinction between barbarism and soloecism which is given by the 

 later grammarians when the theory had become crystallized was that 



