3o6 Harry M. Huhbell, Ph.D., 



statesman suffer death, exile and dishonor from the people they try to lead, 

 and that if they succeed in avoiding popular displeasure, very few attain 

 eminence ; the toils of rhetoric more than counterbalance its advantages. 

 The rhetorician's claim that the promises of rhetoric are possible of ful- 

 fillment, and those of philosophy, impossible, can hardly be meant seri- 

 ously; if rhetoric promises to satisfy all one's desires, the philosopher 

 replies that most of these desires are unnatural and impossible of satis- 

 faction ; the true way is to apply the teachings of philosophy and so limit 

 one's desires. If it be asked what benefit philosophy confers on a state, 

 we reply, it makes men good citizens, content with their lot; philosophy 

 is the only true benefactor. 



Rhetoric claims to be able to "sail the deep seas" i. e. to speak at length 

 on any subject, while the philosophers use the dialectic method. But the 

 philosophers can use both methods when they desire ; the real difference 

 between the two is that the philosophers use strict logic, while the rhetori- 

 cians use only probabilities and guesswork. But moral questions cannot 

 be settled by guesswork. 



The rhetoricians say that there is no morality except that established by 

 popular opinion, and that the philosophers try to establish a new morality, 

 like a new coinage. This is not true of the Epicureans. They agree with 

 the people that the end of all conduct is pleasure, but they differ on the 

 means to be employed to attain the end. It is really the statesman who 

 differs from the popular conceptions. 



The rhetoricians say that a virtuous man unable to defend himself from 

 malicious attacks is a miserable sight; rhetoric defends a man, virtue does 

 not. But the disgrace falls on the attackers not on the virtuous man. 

 Philosophy provides everything necessary for a happy life. 



11, 131, fr. I. (Quoting from some Epicurean? author) — he adds that the 

 training given by the sophists does not prepare for forensic or 

 dehberative oratory. 



(Frgs. II and III are hopeless.) 

 1 1, 133, fr. To tell the truth the rhetors do a great deal of harm to many 



'^'- people, and incur the enmity of powerful rulers, whereas phi- 



losophers gain the friendship of public men by helping them 

 out of their troubles. Ought we not to consider that men who 

 incur the enmity of those in authority are villains, and hated by 

 both gods and men. 

 II, 1,4, [Those trained in other arts, without training in rhetoric] 



'''■ ^'- can speak, not. to be sure rhetorically, but as laymen or dia- 



lecticians or philosophers. What is the loss incurred by inability 

 to speak rhetorically? I do not mean to say that one trained to 

 be a soldier, a gymnast or a dialectician could not possess a 



