These are the principal objections which have been made against
rhetoric. There are others of less moment but derived from the same
source. That rhetoric is an art is thus briefly demonstrated. If art, as
Cleanthes thinks, is a power which prepares a way and establishes an
order, can it be doubted that we must keep to a certain way and a
certain order for speaking well? And if, according to the most generally
accepted opinion, we ought to call art, everything which by a
combination of agreeing and co-exercised principles conducts to a useful
end, have we not already shown that nothing of all this is lacking in
rhetoric? Has it not, likewise, the two constituent parts of other
arts, theory and practise? Again, if dialect be an art, as it is
granted, for the same reason; so is rhetoric an art, the chief
difference lying not so much in the genus as in the species. But we must
not forget this observation, that art must be where a thing is done
according to rule, and not at random; and art must be where he who has
learned succeeds better than he who has not learned. But in matter of
eloquence not only will the ignorant person be surpassed by the learned,
but also the learned by the more learned; otherwise we should not have
so many rules nor so many excellent masters. This ought to be
acknowledged by all, but more especially by us who do not separate
eloquence from the man of integrity.