Some arts, however, are based on examination, that is to say on the
knowledge and proper appreciation of things, as for instance astronomy,
theoretical. Others again are concerned with
action: this is their end, which is realised in action, so that, the
action once performed, nothing more remains to do: these arts we style
practical, and dancing will provide us with
an example.
Thirdly there are others which consist in producing a certain result and
achieve their purpose in the completion of a visible task: such we style
productive, and painting may be quoted as an illustration. In view of these
facts we must come to the conclusion that, in the main, rhetoric is
concerned with action; for in action it accomplishes that which it is
its duty to do.
This view is universally accepted, although in my opinion rhetoric draws largely on the two other kinds of art. For it may on occasion be content with the mere examination of a thing. Rhetoric is still in the orator's possession even though he be silent, while if he gives up pleading either designedly or owing to circumstances over which he has no control, he does not therefore cease to be an orator, any more than a doctor ceases to be a doctor when he withdraws from practice.
Perhaps the highest of all pleasures is that which we derive from private study, and the only circumstances under which the delights of literature are unalloyed are when it withdraws from action, that is to say from toil, and can enjoy the pleasure of self-contemplation.
But in the results that the orator obtains by writing speeches or
historical narratives, which we may reasonably count as part of the task
of oratory, we shall recognise features resembling those of a productive
art. Still, if rhetoric is to be regarded as one of these three classes
of art, since it is with action that its