3IO 



Harry M. Huhhell, Ph.D., 



II. 157, fr. 



xvn. 



II, 157, fr. 

 XVIII. 



II, 158, fr. 

 XIX. 



II, 159, fr. 

 XX. 



II, 160. 



XXI-XXV. 

 II, 162, fr. 

 XXVII. 



II, 163, fr. 

 XXIX. 



but with different intent, and with varying experience they 

 turned to managing the pubhc revenues and other matters of 

 administration, and were quite inferior to CalHstratus and 

 Demosthenes.* 



(Fragments XV and XVI are hopeless.) 



It is better to learn (from philosophy) to care for oneself, 

 than (from rhetoric) to care for the multitude of common people 

 in all sorts of conditions. A rhetor is like a magician ; able to 

 bring down the moon, but what good does he get from it? 



[An opponent says] "No philosopher qua philosopher could 

 benefit anyone." If he had added that the philosophers refrain 

 from speaking their mind freely whether at home or in exile, 

 he would have brought his impudence to the proper conclusion. 

 For by their lives, their conversation (they benefit their fol- 

 lowers). 



A complete investigation of the causes destructive of friend- 

 ship would reveal that politics is the worst foe of friendship; 

 for it generates envy, ambition and discord. 



If we throw them (the philosophers) some small change we 

 find them satisfied, not affecting a proud and haughty attitude 

 like the rhetors. If we are right in considering externals of 

 little importance, and the soul more important than anything 

 else, then philosophy is the only true benefactor. Moreover the 

 rhetors charge for the help they give, and so cannot be considered 

 benefactors ; the philosophers give their instruction without cost. 



(Fragments XXI — XXV are hopeless.) 



Furthermore we must add that philosophers are not really 

 hated by all men, for they live in peace and justice and tried 

 friendship ; those whom they find opposed to them they quickly 

 soften. 



They acquired the inability to speak rhetorically from the 

 ability. You can not rightly say that anyone acquired inability 

 in war from rhetorical ability. That one derives the inability 

 to speak rhetorically from the ability is not correct, nor merely 

 that he acquired that as being able to accomplish something in 



^The meaning would be plainer if we had the beginning of the first 

 sentence. Apparently Philodemus is combating the claim that rhetoric 

 produces great statesmen. Many, he says, have to content themselves with 

 menial tasks. 



