d 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 the mouth of one who was answering a speech already mad