378 Harry M. Huhhell, Ph.D., 



II, 105, fr. XI, I, 4 liao"*?? Tpi^rj'i Kol TrapaTr]prj(Te(t)<; ert Si do-KrJcretos 

 ecTTtv Ti reAos, e^ b iravra ra p-^prj crvvvtvuv 6(j>ei\ei, Trj<; Bk pr)TopLKrj<; ovSiv 

 iaTL TcAos". This corresponds to the first argument in Quintilian. 

 The other fragment in Philodemus is evidently the second in a 

 series of quotations unfavorable to rhetoric, and inasmuch as it 

 is the counterpart of the second argument in Quintilian, it seems 

 reasonable to suppose that it belongs after the fragment just 

 quoted. It runs as follows: II, 125, fr. IX, ToiawT^s Sk ttJs 



7rp(i)Trf<; aTroSei'^ews irecfiVKVLas ^XiirtTaL to hi-qiiapr-qixivov rjhiq kuI t^s 

 6/<Se^o/i,eV77S, Ka6' ^v cAeyero Tracra Ti)(yrj Tuy^avetv aei rov reXov; rj kutol to 

 TrXetcrrov, rj 8e prjTopiKr) fxrfSeTepov yc'vovs ix€T€)(tLv ktX. 



The same thought occurs in Sextus 13 — 15; in none of the 

 three places however is there any hint of the source from which 

 they come. The two illustrations which Quintilian uses to prove 

 that rhetoric deserves to be called an art are drawn from navi- 

 gation and medicine; the captain and physician as well as the 

 orator have a definite end in view ; whether they attain or not 

 may depend on circumstances beyond their control, but they 

 nevertheless work "artistically" when they do all in their power 

 to attain the desired end. These illustrations occur again in 



Philodemus, I, I9:^Suppl. 11, I 'Evibre yap oIkoSo/xo^ oiKiav 

 KaTa<ji6upei Kal t,wypd<f)0<; mvaKa Koi vavv TrepLTpenei kv jiepvrjTrjs Kai tarpos 



avOptnTTov aTTOKTitvet p-idoSiKw^ ktX. The close parallelism of examples 

 suggests that they are replies to the same argument. Now the 

 passage just preceding this in Philodemus is too fragmentary 

 to prove anything. It is worth noting, however, that one of the 

 few distinct words, KaropOow, (I, 18, 28) might very well cor- 

 respond to Quintilian's praestabit (hunc finem) (23). I am 

 inclined to believe therefore that this passage in Philodemus 

 follows II, 125, and that the three fragments thus put together 

 form a complete parallel to Quintilian. 



Sudhaus thought that Critolaus was the author of the argu- 

 ment which is answered in I, 19. He inferred this from Sextus 

 ]0 — 12. But Sextus refers there to Plato as well as Critolaus 

 as author of the argument which he discusses ; and furthermore 

 it is very doubtful if the thought of Sextus 10-12 is a proper 

 prelude to the answer given in Philodemus I, 19. Sextus argues 

 that rhetoric is not a system of "perceptions," that its principles 

 are false and deceptive. That does not seem to fit Philodemus' 

 answer so well as the following paragraph in Sextus: 13-15 



