Sec.16. Hic ... illum:  for this repetition of pronouns see M.D.F. IV. 43. Varie et copiose:  MSS. omit et, but it may be doubted whether Cic. would let two adverbs stand together without et, though three may (cf.  II. 63), and though with pairs of nouns and adjectives, et often is left out, as in the passages quoted here by Manut. Ad Att. IV. 3, 3, Ad Fam. XIII. 24, XIII. 28, cf. also the learned note of Wesenberg, reprinted in Baiter and Halm’s edition, of Cic.’s philosophical works (1861), on T.D. III. 6. Varie et copiose is also in De Or. II. 240.  Cf. the omission of que in 23, also II. 63. Perscripti:  Cic. like Aristotle often speaks of Plato’s dialogues as though they were authentic reports of Socratic conversations, cf.  II. 74. Nihil adfirmet:  so T.D. I. 99. “Eoque praestare ceteris” this is evidently from Plato Apol. p. 21, as to the proper understanding of which see note on II. 74. Ab Apolline, Plato Apol. 21 A, Omnium:  Dav. conj. hominum needlessly. Dictum:  Lamb., followed by Schutz, reads iudicatum, it is remarkable that in four passages where Cic. speaks of this very oracle (Cato Mai. 78, Lael. 7, 9, 13) he uses the verb iudicare. Una omnis:  Lamb. hominis, Baiter also. Omnis eius oratio tamen:  notwithstanding his negative dialectic he gave positive teaching in morals. Tamen:  for MSS. tam or tum is due to Gruter, Halm has tantum. Tam, tum and tamen are often confused in MSS., e.g. In Veri (Act II.) I. 3, 65, II. 55, 112, V. 78, where see Zumpt.  Goer. abuses edd. for not knowing that tum ... et, tum ... que, et ... tum, correspond in Cic. like tum ... cum, tum ... tum.  His proofs of this new Latin may be sampled by Ac. II. 1, 43. Ad virtutis studium cohortandis:  this broad assertion is distinctly untrue; see Zeller’s Socrates 88, with footnote.

Sec.17. Varius et multiplex, et copiosus:  these characteristics are named to account for the branching off from Plato of the later schools.  For multiplex “many sided,” cf. T.D. V. 11. Una et consentiens:  this is an opinion of Antiochus often adopted by Cic. in his own person, as in D.F. IV. 5 De Leg. I. 38, De Or. III. 67.  Five ancient philosophers are generally included in this supposed harmonious Academico-Peripatetic school, viz.  Aristotle, Theophrastus, Speusippus, Xenocrates, Polemo (cf. D.F. IV. 2), sometimes Crantor is added.  The harmony was supposed to have been first broken by Polemo’s pupils; so Varro says (from Antiochus) in Aug. De Civ.  Dei XIX. 1, cf. also 34.  Antiochus doubtless rested his theory almost entirely on the ethical resemblances of the two schools.