moving or convincing the hearer. All this instruction had a practical value: though Plato, both here and elsewhere, treats it as worthless. A citizen who stood mute and embarrassed, unable to argue a case with some propriety before an audience, felt himself helpless and defective in one of the characteristic privileges of a Greek and a freeman: while one who could perform the process well, acquired much esteem and influence.[113] The Platonic Sokrates in the Gorgias consoles the speechless men by saying--What does this signify, provided you are just and virtuous? Such consolation failed to satisfy: as it would fail to satisfy the sick, the lame, or the blind. [Footnote 109: Plato, Phædrus, pp. 273-274. [Greek: ê(\n ou)ch e(/neka tou= le/gein kai\ pra/ttein pro\s a)nthrô/pous dei= diaponei=sthai to\n sô/phrona, a)lla\ tou= theoi=s kecharisme/na me\n le/gein du/nasthai], &c. (273 E).] [Footnote 110: Thucyd. ii. 39-40-41.] [Footnote 111: Plato, Phædrus, p. 288 A.] [Footnote 112: See what is said by Aristotle about [Greek: ê( Gorgi/ou pragmatei/a] in the last chapter of De Sophisticis Elenchis.] [Footnote 113: I have illustrated this point in my History of Greece, by the example of Xenophon in his command of the Cyreian army during its retreat. His democratical education, and his powers of public speaking, were of the greatest service not only in procuring influence to himself, but also in conducting the army through its many perils and difficulties. See Aristot. Rhet. i. 1, 3, p. 1355, b. 1.] [Side-note: The Rhetorical teachers conceived the Art too narrowly: Plato conceived it too widely. The principles of an Art are not required to be explained to all learners.] The teaching of these rhetors thus contributed to the security, dignity, and usefulness of the citizens, by arming them for public speech and action. But it was essentially practical, or empirical: it had little system, and was founded upon a narrow theory. Upon these points Plato in the Phædrus attacks them. He sets little value upon the accomplishments arming men for speech and action ([Greek: lektikou\s kai\ praktikou\s ei)=nai])--and he will not allow such teaching to be called an Art. He explains, in opposition to them, what he himself conceived the Art of Rhetoric to be, in the comprehensive way which I have above described. But if the conception of the Art, as entertained by the Rhetors, is too narrow--that of Plato, on the other hand, is too wide.