TJic Rhctorica of Philodemus. 301 



beginning", they take refuge in this, that the actors try to rival 



the deHvery taught by the rhetoricians, is not consistent with 



their magnifying the art of rhetoric because of deHvery. and 



claiming that for this reason it is better than philosophy. If 



they say that they are the only ones who have formulated an 



art of delivery, they do violence to the plain fact that the poets 



and writers of prose have a theory of delivery even though they 



have not committed it to writing. 



Much of delivery is the natural and unconscious bodily expres- I, 195. col. 



sion of the emotions. Delivery depends, too, on natural endow- -^^^^y^- 



ment, beauty of voice, grace of body, selfpossession, qualities 



the lack of which caused Isocrates to refrain from public 



appearances. But Demosthenes said that delivery was the first ^ol. XV^'. 



thing in oratory, and the second and the third, and actors say 



that it is everything in their art. However it w^as ridiculous to 



say that this element w^hich is of assistance to all is of more 



account in rhetoric than in other forms of prose. Although 



Demosthenes was in the first rank of rhetors, still he is criticized 



by xA.eschines for his shrill voice, and again for loudness,^* and 



by Demetrius of Phalerum for being too theatrical, and not 



simple and noble in his delivery. Moreover most of the sophists, 



judged by their writings, seem to have had a poor delivery. 



Their long periods are hard to pronounce, teste Demetrio}^ 



Hieronymus also criticizes Isocrates. His orations he says are 



easy to read, but hard to deliver in public ; there is no fire in , „ 



. 1 ^- ^98' col. 



them ; everythmg is monotonously smooth. He sounds like a XVIP, 23. 



boy speaking through a heroic mask. Sophists of the present 



day have somewhat improved in delivery. 



The formal instruction in delivery is a product of recent 'I. 200, 



foolishness ; however many of the heroes had an excellent ' 



delivery. W^hat the technographers have done is to make plain 



what had been kept secret before by the statesmen, viz. that 



they have a system for making themselves appear dignified and 



noble, and for misleading their audiences. This system is not 



needed by any other artist, certainly not by the philosopher. 



The fact is. each profession has its own peculiar delivery. 



" Aesch. 2, 157: ivTei.v6.fj.evoz tt)v o^etav Kal avbffiov (puvi^v. lot, dya^oq. 

 Trafi/xey^ees ArjiuxTeivrji. Cf. 86 ; In Ctes. 2l8. 



^° For Isocrates' own opinion on the way people delivered his orations 

 V. Panath. 17, Phil. 25-29. 



