The RJictor'ica of Philodemus. 311 



contests of speaking, but that he acquired the inability to speak 

 rhetorically. 



(First part obscure.) It is impossible to check up the relative II, 164, fr. 

 success of speakers rhetorically trained and those not so trained. ^^'^^^• 

 No one has ever counted all the cases, not even those in his own 

 lifetime, or in a single year ; and yet you have the confidence to 

 say that more persuade by rhetorical means than by the simple 

 processes of nature. 



There remains the subject of "proof," of which Anaximenes 

 says . . . "Speech is the best means to persuade the soul." 

 In the first place this is false, for money and a thousand other 

 things persuade more powerfully than speech. 



In a picture all is light and shadow ; painting cannot produce II, 165, fr. 

 a living being. XXaI. 



Epicurus has this in dialogue form ; "First let us agree on 

 the end for which we do everything, in order that we may 

 know. . . ." 



It is worth our while to consider what sort of a life those II, 166, fr. 

 have lived who have spent it all in prosecution and defence. " 

 Even when priding themselves on their profession they admit 

 that it is well not to pass one's whole life in such occupation ; 

 but just as it is possible not to have any experience in law courts, 

 so it is desirable not to be idle, or to see children or friends 

 suffer, or suffer misfortune in marriage, or lose money, or suffer 

 similar misfortune. 



Philosophy is more profitable than epideictic rhetoric, espe- I, 225, fr, I. 

 cially if one practice rhetoric in the fashion of the sophists. . . . 



The philosopher has many roiroi concerning practical justice I, 226, 

 and other virtues about which he is confident ; the busybody 

 (i. e. the rhetorician) is quite the opposite. Nor is one who 

 •does not appear before kings and popular assemblies forced to 

 play second part to the rich, as do rhetors who are compelled to 

 employ flattery all their lives. 



The instruction given by the sophists is not only stupid but I, 223, fr. 

 shameless, and lacking in refinement and reason. 



(Fragments IV — VIII and col. II are hopeless.) 



He makes an incredible statement when he claims that one I. 231, col. 

 skilled in such subjects (viz. philosophy) could not be of noble 



