ABSTRACT
In the previous chapters we have seen how Philodemus rejects the technical status of activities usually termed political and forensic rhetoric and yet insists that sophistic rhetoric is an art. The exclusion of practical rhetoric presents few difficulties: it is entirely consistent with Epicurus’ prescriptions for a life free from needless anxieties. Philodemus’ defence of sophistic is a little more puzzling. A solution might be found in a full investigation of Philodemus’ view of its relationship to other discursive and creative activi ties, such as poetry and music, but such an enterprise is beyond the scope of this study. However, I should like to devote this, the final chapter, to a con sideration of one aspect of discourse which might help to explain why politi cal and forensic rhetoric cannot achieve their intended goal-persuasion-, unlike sophistic rhetoric which has both aesthetic value and practical pur pose in communication.1
