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 for
himself[267]. The more the matter is examined the more clearly does it
appear that the main purpose of Cicero in this speech was to justify from
the history of philosophy the position of the New Academy, and not to
advance sceptical arguments against experience, which were reserved for his
answer to Lucullus. In his later speech, he expressly tells us that such
sceptical paradoxes as were advanced by him in the first day's discourse
were really out of place, and were merely introduced in order to disarm
Lucullus, who was to speak next[268]. Yet these arguments must have
occupied some considerable space in Cicero's speech, although foreign to
its main intention[269]. He probably gave a summary classification of the
sensations, with the reasons for refusing to assent to the truth of each
class[270]. The whole constitution and tenor of the elaborate speech of
Cicero in the _Lucullus_ proves that no general or minute demonstration of
the impossibility of [Greek: episteme] in the dogmatic sense had been
attempted in his statement of the day before. Cicero's argument in the
_Catulus_ was allowed by Lucullus to have considerably damaged the cause of
Antiochus[271]. The three speeches of Catulus, Hortensius, and Cicero had
gone over nearly the whole ground marked out for the discussion[272], but
only cursorily, so that there was plenty of room for a more minute
examination in the _Lucullus_.

One question remains: how far did Cicero defend Philo against the attack of
Catulus? Krische believes that the argument of Catulus was answered point
by point. In this opinion I cannot concur. Cicero never appears elsewhere
as the defender of Philo's reactionary doctrines[273]. The expressions of
Lucullus seem to imply that this part of his teaching had been dismissed by
all the disputants[274]. It follows that when Cicero, in his letter of
dedication to Varro, describes his own part as that of Philo (_partes mihi
sumpsi Philonis_[275]), he merely attaches Philo's name to those g