§§142--146. Summary. To pass to Dialectic, note how Protagoras, the Cyrenaics, Epicurus, and Plato disagree (142). Does Antiochus follow any of these? Why, he never even follows the _vetus Academia_, and never stirs a step from Chrysippus. Dialecticians themselves cannot agree about the very elements of their art (143). Why then, Lucullus, do you rouse the mob against me like a seditious tribune by telling them I do away with the arts altogether? When you have got the crowd together, I will point out to them that according to Zeno all of them are slaves, exiles, and lunatics, and that you yourself, not being _sapiens_, know nothing whatever (144). This last point Zeno used to illustrate by action Yet his whole school cannot point to any actual _sapiens_ (145). Now as there is no knowledge there can be no art. How would Zeuxis and Polycletus like this conclusion? They would prefer mine, to which our ancestors bear testimony. §142. _Venio iam_: Dialectic had been already dealt with in 91--98 here it is merely considered with a view to the choice of the supposed _sapiens_, as was Ethical Science in 129--141 and Physics in 116--128. With the enumeration of conflicting schools here given compare the one Sextus gives in _A.M._ VII. 48 sq. _Protagorae_: R. and P. 132 sq. _Qui putet_: so MSS., Halm and Bait. _putat_ after Lamb. Trans. "inasmuch as he thinks". _Permotiones intimas_: cf. 20 _tactus interior_, also 76. _Epicuri_: nn. on 19, 79, 80. _Iudicium_: κριτηριον as usual. _Rerum notitiis_: προληψεσι, Zeller 403 sq. _Constituit_: note the constr. with _in_, like _ponere in_. _Cogitationis_: cf. I. 30. Several MSS. have _cognitionis_, the two words are frequently confused. See Wesenberg _Fm._ to _T.D._ III. p. 17, who says, _multo tamen saepius "cogitatio" pro "cognitio" substituitur quam contra_, also _M.D.F_ III. 21.