Come now, suppose that I, just as I am, still ignorant which of them all has the truth, should choose your way, putting my trust in you, a friend, but one who knows only the way of the Stoics and has travelled by this road alone; then suppose one of the gods brought Plato, Pythagoras, Aristotle, and the rest, back to life, and they stood round me and put questions to me, or even, by Zeus, brought me into court and sued me each and every one of them for maltreatment, saying: “My good Lycinus, what was the matter with you? Who persuaded you to give Chrysippus and Zeno preference over us, who are older by far than they? They were born only yesterday, or the day before, and you have given us no chance to speak, and you have put nothing of what we say to the test.” Supposing they said this,


 


how could I answer them? Or will it be enough if I say that I was persuaded by Hermotimus, a friend of mine? Their answer I know would be: “We, Lycinus, do not know this Hermotimus, whoever he is, and he does not know us either. So you had no right to condemn us all and give a judgment in default against us through relying on a man who is acquainted with only one way in philosophy, and even that perhaps not fully. Lawgivers, Lycinus, do not instruct judges to adopt this procedure, or to give one party a hearing and not allow the other to speak on its own behalf what it thinks is to its own advantage. No, they say that both sides must be given an equal hearing, so that by comparing the opposing arguments they may be assisted in discovering the true and the false, and if they do not adopt this procedure the law allows an appeal to another court.”