than with that of the earlier sceptic.  It is also exceedingly probable that he touched only very lightly on the negative Academic arguments, while he developed fully that positive teaching about the [Greek:  pithanon] which was so distinctive of Carneades.  All the counter arguments of Lucullus which concern the destructive side of Academic teaching appear to be distinctly aimed at Cicero, who must have represented it in the discourse of the day before[252].  On the other hand, those parts of Lucullus’ speech which deal with the constructive part of Academicism[253] seem to be intended for Catulus, to whom the maintenance of the genuine Carneadean distinction between [Greek:  adela] and [Greek:  akatalepta] would be a peculiarly congenial task.  Thus the commendation bestowed by Lucullus on the way in which the probabile had been handled appertains to Catulus.  The exposition of the sceptical criticism would naturally be reserved for the most brilliant and incisive orator of the party—­Cicero himself.  These conjectures have the advantage of establishing an intimate connection between the prooemium, the speech of Catulus, and the succeeding one of Hortensius.  In the prooemium the innovations of Philo were mentioned; Catulus then showed that the only object aimed at by them, a satisfactory basis for [Greek:  episteme], was already attained by the Carneadean theory of the [Greek:  pithanon]; whereupon Hortensius showed, after the principles of Antiochus, that such a basis was provided by the older philosophy, which both Carneades and Philo had wrongly abandoned.  Thus Philo becomes the central point or pivot of the discussion.  With this arrangement none of the indications in the Lucullus clash.  Even the demand made by Hortensius upon Catulus[254] need only imply such a bare statement on the part of the latter of the negative Arcesilaean doctrines as would clear the ground for the Carneadean [Greek:  pithanon].  One important opinion maintained by Catulus after Carneades, that the wise man would opine[255] ([Greek:  ton sophon doxasein]), seems another indication of the generally constructive character of his exposition.  Everything points to the conclusion that this part of the dialogue was mainly drawn by Cicero from the writings of Clitomachus.

Catulus was followed by Hortensius, who in some way spoke in favour of Antiochean opinions, but to what extent is uncertain[256].  I think it extremely probable that he gave a resume of the history of philosophy, corresponding to the speech of Varro in the beginning of the Academica Posteriora.  One main reason in favour of this view is the difficulty of understanding to whom, if not to Hortensius, the substance of the speech could have been assigned in the first edition.  In the Academica Posteriora it was necessary to make Varro speak first and not second as Hortensius did; this accounts for the disappearance in the second edition of the polemical argument of Hortensius[257], which would be appropriate only in