29S Harry M. Huhbell, Ph.D., 



the distinction between grand and plain and middle or smooth 

 style.^ It is foolish to apply the term 7rXao-/xa to everything which 

 transgresses the bounds of plain speech. 



J, 166-169. Cols. V — IX are too fragmentary to permit a restoration of a complete 



sentence. It is evident from such phrases as fj-eTacp^pnv ras ovofxaaias 

 (167, col. VII, 6), TrXeicTTas iv roTs irpdyfj.acnv otxoidTrjTas ivvoeiv Kcd dta4>opds 

 (168, 24), fi€Ta4>opais (169, 16), that they are devoted to a discussion of 

 Tpbwos (cf. col. III). Apparently in col. VIII there was some discus- 

 sion of the propriety of metaphors in deliberative oratory. Col. X 

 sub fin. and col. XI discuss some plan for a scientific classification of 

 metaphors, the details of which are not clear. He continues (coll. XII, 

 XIII) with a criticism of the common rhetorical doctrine of metaphors. 



I, 171. 2. The rhetoricians are content to classify and describe metaphors, 



^'^ ' • e. g. animate objects are compared to animate, or animate to 

 inanimate, inanimate to animate etc.. but they give no practical 

 working instructions. 



L 173, col. They will ridicule a metaphor without explaining why it is 



faulty or how a good metaphor is to be invented. While they 

 divert the attention of young men from philosophy they do not 

 give specific instructions when to use metaphors and allegories, 



I i-^A col ^^^' ^'^^y consider that the use of metaphors is of advantage 



XV. only to teachers, but to one engaged in the intercourse of active 

 life they are superfluous baggage. If the use of literal expres- 

 sions is extended over so wide a field, every art will be silent 

 because deprived of the helpful assistance of metaphors. Some 

 even apply opprobrious epithets to those who call in the aid of 

 figurative language. 



I, 175, col. The language again becomes fragmentary. Apparently the charge is 



XVI, I, 176, made that the sophists use metaphors even more freely than the poets, not 

 col. Avli. ^Q mention the other writers of prose. Other fragments of these two 



columns are almost too small to notice. 

 I, 177. col. Some say that they use metaphors for the sake of the compari- 



■ son or resemblance ; not however resemblance per se, but . . . 



I, 179, col. This column deals with the far-fetched metaphors of which two 



XX. e.xamples are given. These were criticized by persons whose own use of 



metaphors was not above reproach on this score. 



I, 180, col. Many who have received an education, and who are acquainted 



with the sciences, use metaphors nearly as much as the sophists. 



* For fi^edos 1. 4 read ixeffbT-qra with Radermacher, Rhein. Mus. LIV 

 (1899) p. 361, n. I. 



XXI. 



