TJic Rlictorica of Philodemus. 



371 



Ouintilian 



II, 17, II 

 Quo illud quoque ex- 

 cluditur, quod dicunt, 

 non esse artis id, 

 quod faciat, qui non 

 didicerit : dicere au- 

 tem homines et qui 

 non didicerint. ad 

 cuius rei confirma- 

 tionem adferunt De- 

 maden remigem et 

 Aeschinen hypocriten 

 oratores fuisse. • 



Philodemus 

 II, 97, fr. VIII 



2a<^(ii)S yap Ae'yet on 

 i\ 7] jx dSr) <i ovK efJAxdtv. 



Sextus 

 Adv. Rhet. 16 



EiTTCp re ivSe^erai ye- 

 veadai pr'jTopa fxrj fX€Ta- 

 (T)(OVTa TT^S prjTopiKrj? 



rjTOL Kal Trap aXXiav rj 8l T€^vrj^, ovk av eiV/ Tts 



avTwv TO. /xedoSLKa Trj<; re^vrj prjTOpLKi]. evSe'^erat 



pr]TOpiKrj<; ovr airXaTa to 8e ye iKavoJS kol Kara tov 



TrXrjOo<i ovra TrpoaKapTeprj- Tpotrov prjTopeviLV p-r] 



(Tew^ T€ iroWrjs ov oe6p.eva. p.eTa(T^6vTa prjToptKrj^^ ws 



TOV p.ev yap Ar]p.oad€vr]V Kal irepl Ar] p,dSov ira- 



TravTCs KCKpayacnv ol KaT peiXr](f>ap.€V. KwirrjXaTr]^ 



avTov T€)(yLTr]v elvau Kal yap wv ajyaoAoyeirat dpL- 



KptToAaos OVK aTrapveLTai. (tto^ yeyovevat pr]Twp. Kai 

 aw TOvTO) dXXoL ttu/xttAjj- 



^£tS. TOLVVV OVK (.(TTi Te)(Vr] 



rj prjTopLKi'j. 



The similarity of thought is striking", and the employment of 

 Demades as an example by all three, and Aeschines by two of 

 our authors makes it almost certain that we are dealing with 

 material drawn from a common source. There are two possi- 

 bilities to be considered. Philodemus mentions Critolaus in the 

 sentence following the reference to Demades and Aeschines. 

 This sentence is to the effect that Critolaus did not deny that 

 Demosthenes was an artist. This seems to imply that Critolaus 

 did deny that some orators owed their success to art, and hence 

 it is a plausible conjecture that the preceding statement that 

 Demades and Aeschines were self taught is also part of the 

 argument of Critolaus. 



The situation is somewhat similar in regard to the passage in 

 Sextus. Critolaus is not specifically mentioned as the author of 

 the argument, but he is mentioned shortly before (10) and 

 immediately after (20). This in itself is not sufficient ground 

 for supposing that the argument under discussion is also derived 

 from Critolaus, but the combination of the references in Philo- 

 demus and Sextus led Radermacher to infer that he was the 

 source from which they both drew. But the occurrence of the 

 name Critolaus in section 20 of Sextus does not lend as much 



