the mouth of one who was answering a speech already made.  On the view I have taken, there would be little difficulty in the fact that Hortensius now advocates a dogmatic philosophy, though in the lost dialogue which bore his name he had argued against philosophy altogether[258], and denied that philosophy and wisdom were at all the same thing[259].  Such a historical resume as I have supposed Hortensius to give would be within the reach of any cultivated man of the time, and would only be put forward to show that the New Academic revolt against the supposed old Academico-Peripatetic school was unjustifiable.  There is actual warrant for stating that his exposition of Antiochus was merely superficial[260].  We are thus relieved from the necessity of forcing the meaning of the word commoveris[261], from which Krische infers that the dialogue, entitled Hortensius, had ended in a conversion to philosophy of the orator from whom it was named.  To any such conversion we have nowhere else any allusion.

The relation in which Hortensius stood to Cicero, also his character and attainments, are too well known to need mention here.  He seems to have been as nearly innocent of any acquaintance with philosophy as it was possible for an educated man to be.  Cicero’s materials for the speech of Hortensius were, doubtless, drawn from the published works and oral teaching of Antiochus.

The speech of Hortensius was answered by Cicero himself.  If my view of the preceding speech is correct, it follows that Cicero in his reply pursued the same course which he takes in his answer to Varro, part of which is preserved in the Academica Posteriora[262].  He justified the New Academy by showing that it was in essential harmony with the Old, and also with those ancient philosophers who preceded Plato.  Lucullus, therefore, reproves him as a rebel in philosophy, who appeals to great and ancient names like a seditious tribune[263].  Unfair use had been made, according to Lucullus, of Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Parmenides, Xenophanes, Plato, and Socrates[264].  But Cicero did not merely give a historical summary.  He must have dealt with the theory of [Greek:  kataleptike phantasia] and [Greek:  ennoiai] (which though really Stoic had been adopted by Antiochus), since he found it necessary to “manufacture” (fabricari) Latin terms to represent the Greek[265].  He probably also commented on the headlong rashness with which the dogmatists gave their assent to the truth of phenomena.  To this a retort is made by Lucullus[266].  That Cicero’s criticism of the dogmatic schools was incomplete may be seen by the fact that he had not had occasion to Latinize the terms [Greek:  katalepsis] (i.e. in the abstract, as opposed to the individual [Greek:  kataleptike phantasia]), [Greek:  enargeia, horme, apodeixis, dogma, oikeion, adela, epoche], nearly all important terms in the Stoic, and to some extent in the Antiochean system, all of which Lucullus is obliged to translate