<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:2.17.39-2.17.43</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2:2.17.39-2.17.43</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div n="urn:cts:latinLit:phi1002.phi001.perseus-eng2" type="translation" xml:lang="eng"><div n="2" type="textpart" subtype="book"><div n="17" type="textpart" subtype="chapter"><div n="39" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p><quote>But,</quote> they say, <quote>he does not know whether the cause
                                which he has undertaken is true.</quote> But not even a doctor can
                            tell whether a patient who claims to be suffering from a headache,
                            really is so suffering: but he will treat him on the assumption that his
                            statement is true, and medicine will still be an art. Again what of the
                            fact that rhetoric does not always aim at telling the truth, but always
                            at stating what is probable? The answer is that the orator knows that
                            what he states is no more than probable. </p></div><div n="40" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> My opponents further object that advocates often defend in one case what
                            they have attacked in another. This is not the fault of the art, but of
                            the man. Such are the main points that are urged against rhetoric; there
                            are others as well, but they are of minor importance and drawn from the
                            same sources. <pb n="v1-3 p.345"/> That rhetoric is an art may, however,
                        </p></div><div n="41" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> be proved in a very few words. For if Cleanthes <note anchored="true" place="unspecified">Fr. 790.</note> definition be accepted that
                                <quote>Art is a power reaching its ends by a definite path, that is,
                                by ordered methods,</quote> no one can doubt that there is such
                            method and order in good speaking: while if, on the other hand, we
                            accept the definition which meets with almost universal approval that
                            art consists in perceptions agreeing and cooperating to the achievement
                            of some useful end, we shall be able to show that rhetoric lacks none of
                            these characteristics. </p></div><div n="42" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> Again it is scarcely necessary for me to point out that like other arts
                            it is based on examination and practice. And if logic is an art, as is
                            generally agreed, rhetoric must also be an art, since it differs from
                            logic in <hi rend="italic">species</hi> rather than in <hi rend="italic">genus.</hi> Nor must I omit to point out that where it is possible
                            in any given subject for one man to act without art and another with
                            art, there must necessarily be an art in connexion with that subject, as
                            there must also be in any subject in which the man who has received
                            instruction is the superior of him who has not. </p></div><div n="43" type="textpart" subtype="section"><p> But as regards the practice of rhetoric, it is not merely the case that
                            the trained speaker will get the better of the untrained. For even the
                            trained man will prove inferior to one who has received a better
                            training. If this were not so, there would not be so many rhetorical
                            rules, nor would so many great men have come forward to teach them. The
                            truth of this must be acknowledged by everyone, but more especially by
                            us, since we concede the possession of oratory to none save the good
                            man. <note anchored="true" place="unspecified"><hi rend="italic">i.e.</hi> since our ideals are so high. </note>
                     </p></div></div></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>