nd, hence they
_defined_ everything about which they argued, and also used verbal
explanations, from which they drew proofs. In these two processes
consisted their dialectic, to which they added persuasive rhetoric
(32).

Sec.30. _Quae erat_: the Platonic [Greek: en], = was, as we said. _In ratione
et disserendo_: an instance of Cicero's fondness for tautology, cf. _D.F._
I. 22 _quaerendi ac disserendi_. _Quamquam oriretur_: the sentence is
inexact, it is _knowledge_ which takes its rise in the senses, not the
criterion of truth, which is the mind itself; cf. however II. 30 and n.
_Iudicium_: the constant translation of [Greek: kriterion], a word foreign
to the older philosophy. _Mentem volebant rerum esse iudicem_: Halm with
his pet MS. writes _esse rerum_, thus giving an almost perfect iambic,
strongly stopped off before and after, so that there is no possibility of
avoiding it in reading. I venture to say that no real parallel can be found
to this in Cic., it stands in glaring contradiction to his own rules about
admitting metre in prose, _Orator_ 194 sq., _De Or._ III. 182 sq. _Solam
censebant ... tale quale esset_: probably from Plato's _Tim._ 35 A thus
translated by Cic., _Tim._ c. 7 _ex ea materia quae individua est et unius
modi_ ([Greek: aei kata tauta echouses] cf. 28 A. [Greek: to kata tauta
echon]) _et sui simile_, cf. also _T.D._ I. 58 _id solum esse quod semper
tale sit quale sit, quam_ [Greek: idean] _appellat ille, nos speciem_, and
_Ac._ II. 129. _Illi_ [Greek: idean], etc.: there is more than one
difficulty here. The words _iam a Platone ita nom_ seem to exclude Plato
from the supposed old Academico-Peripatetic school. This may be an
oversight, but to say first that the school (_illi_, cf. _sic tractabatur
ab utrisque_) which included Aristotle held the doctrine of [Greek: ideai],
and next, in 33, that Aristotle crushed the same doctrine, appears very
absurd. We may reflect, however, that the difference between Plato's
[Greek: ideai] and Aristotle's [Greek: ta kathalou] would naturally seem
microscopic to Antiochus. Both theories were practically as dead in his
time as those of Thales or Anaxagoras. The confusion must not be laid at
Cicero's door, for Antiochus in reconciling his own dialectics with Plato's
must have been driven to desperate shifts. Cicero's very knowledge of Plato
has, however, probably led him to intensify what inconsistency there was in
Antiochus, who would have glide