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 general New Academic doctrines which had been so brilliantly supported by the pupil of Clitomachus in his earlier days.  The two chief sources for Cicero’s speech in the Catulus were, doubtless, Philo himself and Clitomachus.

In that intermediate form of the Academica, where Cato and Brutus appeared in the place of Hortensius and Lucullus, there can be no doubt that Brutus occupied a more prominent position than Cato.  Consequently Cato must have taken the comparatively inferior part of Hortensius, while Brutus took that of Lucullus.  It may perhaps seem strange that a Stoic of the Stoics like Cato should be chosen to represent Antiochus, however much that philosopher may have borrowed from Zeno.  The role given to Hortensius, however, was in my view such as any cultivated man might sustain who had not definitely committed himself to sceptical principles.  So eminent an Antiochean as Brutus cannot have been reduced to the comparatively secondary position assigned to Hortensius in the Academica Priora.  He would naturally occupy the place given to Varro in the second edition[276].  If this be true, Brutus would not speak at length in the first half of the work.  Cato is not closely enough connected with the Academica to render it necessary to treat of him farther.