Crassus introduces us to the question: is there an art of rhetoric? Initially, Crassus, sez there is no art, or if there is, it is a “thin one” (p. 304). If art is complete control over a task, then no art exists; if art is management of a constantly changing situation, then there are some guidelines available in rhetoric. Crassus even lists a few (pp. 308-11). Some of these tricks will be familiar to you, since you’ve read Aristotle: commonplaces (topics), arguing a question on both sides, translating from Greek to Latin. But Crassus insists that these exercises are suitable only for schoolchildren, not for the mature orator (p. 309). Since Crassus is so invested in the orator’s ideal and full development, would he deride the young man schooled in the tricks of argumentation but lacking the general wisdom and decorum that he attributes to the mature orator? Would he say such a young man is not virtuous? Would he say that Frank Luntz, though technically proficient, is not a true orator?