Again, Parasitic is not the same sort of thing as
beauty and strength, so as to be considered a gift,.
like them, rather than an art. Again a thrust at Rhetoric, which some considered “vis tantum” ; cf. Quintilian 2, 15, 2.
But on the other hand, it is not want of art; for
want of art never achieves anything for its possessor. Rhetoric is a want of art: cf. § 27, and Quint. 2, 15, 2.
Not by any means.
How about a man who should take horses in hand without knowing how to drive?
He would not come through, either.
Why, pray, except because he does not possess the art by which he would be able to save himself?
To be sure.
Then the parasite would not be saved by Parasitic if it were want of art? TY CHIADES True.
Then it is art that saves him, and not want of art ?
Quite so.
It is, apparently.
I assure you I know of many instances when good helmsmen have been wrecked and expert drivers thrown from their seats, and some had _ broken bones, while others were completely done for; but nobody can cite any such mishap in the case of a parasite. Then if Parasitic is not want of art and not a gift, but a complex of knowledges exercised in combination, evidently we have reached an agreement to-day that it is an art.