The Project Gutenberg eBook of ...

Still, amid much depreciation, sufficient interest and sympathy were roused by his first philosophical works to encourage Cicero to proceed. The elder generation, for whose approbation he most cared, praised the books, and many were incited both to read and to write philosophy ^[130]. Cicero now extended his design, which seems to have been at first indefinite, so as to bring within its scope every topic which Greek philosophers were accustomed to treat ^[131]. Individual questions in philosophy could not be thoroughly understood till the whole subject had been mastered ^[132]. This design then, which is not explicitly stated in the two earliest works which we possess, the Academica and the De Finibus, required the composition of a sort of philosophical encyclopaedia. Cicero never claimed to be more than an interpreter of Greek philosophy to the Romans. He never pretended to present new views of philosophy, or even original criticisms on its history. The only thing he proclaims to be his own is his style. Looked at in this, the true light, his work cannot be judged a failure. Those who contrive to pronounce this judgment must either insist upon trying the work by a standard to which it does not appeal, or fail to understand the Greek philosophy it copies, or perhaps make Cicero suffer for the supposed worthlessness of the philosophy of his age.

In accordance with Greek precedent, Cicero claims to have his oratorical and political writings, all or nearly all published before the Hortensius, included in his philosophical encyclopaedia ^[133]. The only two works strictly philosophical, even in the ancient view, which preceded the Academica, were the De Consolatione, founded on Crantor's book, περι πενθους, and the Hortensius, which was introductory to philosophy, or, as it was then called, protreptic.

For a list of the philosophical works of Cicero, and the dates of their composition, the student must be referred to the Dict. of Biography, Art. Cicero.

IV. History of the Academica.

On the death of Tullia, which happened at Tusculum in February, 45 B.C., Cicero took refuge in the solitude of his villa at Astura, which was pleasantly situated on the Latin coast between Antium and Circeii ^[134]. Here he sought to soften his deep grief by incessant toil. First the book De Consolatione was written. He found the mechanic exercise of composition the best solace for his pain, and wrote for whole days together ^[135]. At other times he would plunge at early morning into the dense woods near his villa, and remain there absorbed in study till nightfall ^[136]. Often exertion failed to bring relief; yet he repelled the entreaties of Atticus that he would return to the forum and the senate. A grief, which books and solitude could scarcely enable him to endure, would crush him, he felt, in the busy city ^[137].

It was amid such surroundings that the Academica was written. The first trace of an intention to write the treatise is found in a letter of Cicero to Atticus, which seems to belong to the first few weeks of his bereavement ^[138]. It was his wont to depend on Atticus very much for historical and biographical details, and in the letter in question he asks for just the kind of information which would be needed in writing the Academica. The words with which he introduces his request imply that he had determined on some new work to which our Academica would correspond ^[139]. He asks what reason brought to Rome the embassy which Carneades accompanied; who was at that time the leader of the Epicurean school; who were then the most noted πολιτικοι at Athens. The meaning of the last question is made clear by a passage in the De Oratore^[140], where Cicero speaks of the combined Academic and Peripatetic schools under that name. It may be with reference to the progress of the Academica that in a later letter he expresses himself satisfied with the advance he has made in his literary undertakings ^[141]. During the whole of the remainder of his sojourn at Astura he continued to be actively employed; but although he speaks of various other literary projects, we find no express mention in his letters to Atticus of the Academica^[142]. He declares that however much his detractors at Rome may reproach him with inaction, they could not read the numerous difficult works on which he has been engaged within the same space of time that he has taken to write them ^[143].

In the beginning of June Cicero spent a few days at his villa near Antium ^[144], where he wrote a treatise addressed to Caesar, which he afterwards suppressed ^[145]. From the same place he wrote to Atticus of his intention to proceed to Tusculum or Rome by way of Lanuvium about the middle of June ^[146]. He had in the time immediately following Tullia's death entertained an aversion for Tusculum, where she died. This he felt now compelled to conquer, otherwise he must either abandon Tusculum altogether, or, if he returned at all, a delay of even ten years would make the effort no less painful ^[147]. Before setting out for Antium Cicero wrote to Atticus that he had finished while at Astura duo magna συνταγματα, words which have given rise to much controversy ^[148]. Many scholars, including Madvig, have understood that the first edition of the Academica, along with the De Finibus, is intended. Against this view the reasons adduced by Krische are convincing ^[149]. It is clear from the letters to Atticus that the De Finibus was being worked out book by book long after the first edition of the Academica had been placed in the hands of Atticus. The De Finibus was indeed begun at Astura ^[150], but it was still in an unfinished state when Cicero began to revise the Academica^[151]. The final arrangement of the characters in the De Finibus is announced later still ^[152]; and even at a later date Cicero complains that Balbus had managed to obtain surreptitiously a copy of the fifth book before it was properly corrected, the irrepressible Caerellia having copied the whole five books while in that state ^[153]. A passage in the De Divinatione^[154] affords almost direct evidence that the Academica was published before the De Finibus. On all these grounds I hold that these two works cannot be those which Cicero describes as having been finished simultaneously at Astura.

Another view of the συνταγματα in question is that they are simply the two books, entitled Catulus and Lucullus, of the Priora Academica. In my opinion the word συνταγμα, the use of which to denote a portion of a work Madvig suspects ^[155], thus obtains its natural meaning. Cicero uses the word συνταξις of the whole work ^[156], while συνταγμα ^[157], and συγγραμμα ^[158], designate definite portions or divisions of a work. I should be quite content, then, to refer the words of Cicero to the Catulus and Lucullus. Krische, however, without giving reasons, decides that this view is unsatisfactory, and prefers to hold that the Hortensius (or de Philosophia) and the Priora Academica are the compositions in question. If this conjecture is correct, we have in the disputed passage the only reference to the Hortensius which is to be found in the letters of Cicero. We are quite certain that the book was written at Astura, and published before the Academica. This would be clear from the mention in the Academica Posteriora alone ^[159], but the words of Cicero in the De Finibus^[160] place it beyond all doubt, showing as they do that the Hortensius had been published a sufficiently long time before the De Finibus, to have become known to a tolerably large circle of readers. Further, in the Tusculan Disputations and the De Divinatione^[161] the Hortensius and the Academica are mentioned together in such a way as to show that the former was finished and given to the world before the latter. Nothing therefore stands in the way of Krische's conjecture, except the doubt I have expressed as to the use of the word συνταγμα, which equally affects the old view maintained by Madvig.

Whatever be the truth on this point, it cannot be disputed that the Hortensius and the Academica must have been more closely connected, in style and tone, than any two works of Cicero, excepting perhaps the Academica and the De Finibus. The interlocutors in the Hortensius were exactly the same as in the Academica Priora, for the introduction of Balbus into some editions of the fragments of the Hortensius is an error ^[162]. The discussion in the Academica Priora is carried on at Hortensius' villa near Bauli; in the Hortensius at the villa of Lucullus near Cumae. It is rather surprising that under these circumstances there should be but one direct reference to the Hortensius in the Lucullus^[163].

While at his Tusculan villa, soon after the middle of June, B.C. 45, Cicero sent Atticus the Torquatus, as he calls the first book of the De Finibus^[164]. He had already sent the first edition of the Academica to Rome ^[165]. We have a mention that new prooemia had been added to the Catulus and Lucullus, in which the public characters from whom the books took their names were extolled. In all probability the extant prooemium of the Lucullus is the one which was then affixed. Atticus, who visited Cicero at Tusculum, had doubtless pointed out the incongruity between the known attainments of Catulus and Lucullus, and the parts they were made to take in difficult philosophical discussions. It is not uncharacteristic of Cicero that his first plan for healing the incongruity should be a deliberate attempt to impose upon his readers a set of statements concerning the ability and culture of these two noble Romans which he knew, and in his own letters to Atticus admitted, to be false. I may note, as of some interest in connection with the Academica, the fact that among the unpleasant visits received by Cicero at Tusculum was one from Varro ^[166].

On the 23rd July, Cicero left Home for Arpinum, in order, as he says, to arrange some business matters, and to avoid the embarrassing attentions of Brutus ^[167]. Before leaving Astura, however, it had been his intention to go on to Arpinum ^[168]. He seems to have been still unsatisfied with his choice of interlocutors for the Academica, for the first thing he did on his arrival was to transfer the parts of Catulus and Lucullus to Cato and Brutus ^[169]. This plan was speedily cast aside on the receipt of a letter from Atticus, strongly urging that the whole work should be dedicated to Varro, or if not the Academica, the De Finibus^[170]. Cicero had never been very intimate with Varro: their acquaintance seems to have been chiefly maintained through Atticus, who was at all times anxious to draw them more closely together. Nine years before he had pressed Cicero to find room in his works for some mention of Varro ^[171]. The nature of the works on which our author was then engaged had made it difficult to comply with the request ^[172]. Varro had promised on his side, full two years before the Academica was written, to dedicate to Cicero his great work De Lingua Latino. In answer to the later entreaty of Atticus, Cicero declared himself very much dissatisfied with Varro's failure to fulfil his promise. From this it is evident that Cicero knew nothing of the scope or magnitude of that work. His complaint that Varro had been writing for two years without making any progress ^[173], shows that there could have been little of anything like friendship between the two. Apart from these causes for grumbling, Cicero thought the suggestion of Atticus a "godsend ^[174]." Since the De Finibus was already "betrothed" to Brutus, he promised to transfer to Varro the Academica, allowing that Catulus and Lucullus, though of noble birth, had no claim to learning ^[175]. So little of it did they possess that they could never even have dreamed of the doctrines they had been made in the first edition of the Academica to maintain ^[176]. For them another place was to be found, and the remark was made that the Academica would just suit Varro, who was a follower of Antiochus, and the fittest person to expound the opinions of that philosopher ^[177]. It happened that continual rain fell during the first few days of Cicero's stay at Arpinum, so he employed his whole time in editing once more his Academica, which he now divided into four books instead of two, making the interlocutors himself, Varro and Atticus ^[178]. The position occupied by Atticus in the dialogue was quite an inferior one, but he was so pleased with it that Cicero determined to confer upon him often in the future such minor parts ^[179]. A suggestion of Atticus that Cotta should also be introduced was found impracticable ^[180].

Although the work of re-editing was vigorously pushed on, Cicero had constant doubts about the expediency of dedicating the work to Varro. He frequently throws the whole responsibility for the decision upon Atticus, but for whose importunities he would probably again have changed his plans. Nearly every letter written to Atticus during the progress of the work contains entreaties that he would consider the matter over and over again before he finally decided ^[181]. As no reasons had been given for these solicitations, Atticus naturally grew impatient, and Cicero was obliged to assure him that there were reasons, which he could not disclose in a letter ^[182]. The true reasons, however, did appear in some later letters. In one Cicero said: "I am in favour of Varro, and the more so because he wishes it, but you know he is

δεινος ανηρ, ταχα κεν και αναιτιον αιτιοωιτο.

So there often flits before me a vision of his face, as he grumbles, it may be, that my part in the treatise is more liberally sustained than his; a charge which you will perceive to be untrue ^[183]." Cicero, then, feared Varro's temper, and perhaps his knowledge and real critical fastidiousness. Before these explanations Atticus had concluded that Cicero was afraid of the effect the work might produce on the public. This notion Cicero assured him to be wrong; the only cause for his vacillation was his doubt as to how Varro would receive the dedication ^[184]. Atticus would seem to have repeatedly communicated with Varro, and to have assured Cicero that there was no cause for fear; but the latter refused to take a general assurance, and anxiously asked for a detailed account of the reasons from which it proceeded ^[185]. In order to stimulate his friend, Atticus affirmed that Varro was jealous of some to whom Cicero had shown more favour ^[186]. We find Cicero eagerly asking for more information, on this point: was it Brutus of whom Varro was jealous? It seems strange that Cicero should not have entered into correspondence with Varro himself. Etiquette seems to have required that the recipient of a dedication should be assumed ignorant of the intentions of the donor till they were on the point of being actually carried out. Thus although Cicero saw Brutus frequently while at Tusculum, he apparently did not speak to him about the De Finibus, but employed Atticus to ascertain his feeling about the dedication ^[187].

Cicero's own judgment about the completed second edition of the Academica is often given in the letters. He tells us that it extended, on the whole, to greater length than the first, though much had been omitted; he adds, "Unless human self love deceives me, the books have been so finished that the Greeks themselves have nothing in the same department of literature to approach them.... This edition will be more brilliant, more terse, and altogether better than the last ^[188]." Again: "The Antiochean portion has all the point of Antiochus combined with any polish my style may possess ^[189]." Also: "I have finished the book with I know not what success, but with a care which nothing could surpass ^[190]." The binding and adornment of the presentation copy for Varro received great attention, and the letter accompanying it was carefully elaborated ^[191]. Yet after everything had been done and the book had been sent to Atticus at Rome, Cicero was still uneasy as to the reception it would meet with from Varro. He wrote thus to Atticus: "I tell you again and again that the presentation will be at your own risk. So if you begin to hesitate, let us desert to Brutus, who is also a follower of Antiochus. 0 Academy, on the wing as thou wert ever wont, flitting now hither, now thither!" Atticus on his part "shuddered" at the idea of taking the responsibility ^[192]. After the work had passed into his hands, Cicero begged him to take all precautions to prevent it from getting into circulation until they could meet one another in Rome ^[193]. This warning was necessary, because Balbus and Caerellia had just managed to get access to the De Finibus^[194]. In a letter, dated apparently a day or two later, Cicero declared his intention to meet Atticus at Rome and send the work to Varro, should it be judged advisable to do so, after a consultation ^[195]. The meeting ultimately did not take place, but Cicero left the four books in Atticus' power, promising to approve any course that might be taken ^[196]. Atticus wrote to say that as soon as Varro came to Rome the books would be sent to him. "By this time, then," says Cicero, when he gets the letter, "you have taken the fatal step; oh dear! if you only knew at what peril to yourself! Perhaps my letter stopped you, although you had not read it when you wrote. I long to hear how the matter stands ^[197]." Again, a little later: "You have been bold enough, then, to give Varro the books? I await his judgment upon them, but when will he read them?" Varro probably received the books in the first fortnight of August, 45 B.C., when Cicero was hard at work on the Tusculan Disputations^[198]. A copy of the first edition had already got into Varro's hands, as we learn from a letter, in which Cicero begs Atticus to ask Varro to make some alterations in his copy of the Academica, at a time when the fate of the second edition was still undecided ^[199]. From this fact we may conclude that Cicero had given up all hope of suppressing the first edition. If he consoles Atticus for the uselessness of his copies of the first edition, it does not contradict my supposition, for Cicero of course assumes that Atticus, whatever may be the feeling of other people, wishes to have the "Splendidiora, breviora, meliora." Still, on every occasion which offered, the author sought to point out as his authorised edition the one in four books. He did so in a passage written immediately after the Academica Posteriora was completed ^[200], and often subsequently, when he most markedly mentioned the number of the books as four ^[201]. That he wished the work to bear the title Academica is clear ^[202]. The expressions Academica quaestio, Ακαδημικη συνταξις, and Academia, are merely descriptive ^[203]; so also is the frequent appellation Academici libri^[204]. The title Academicae Quaestiones, found in many editions, is merely an imitation of the Tusculanae Quaestiones, which was supported by the false notion, found as early as Pliny ^[205], that Cicero had a villa called Academia, at which the book was written. He had indeed a Gymnasium at his Tusculan villa, which he called his Academia, but we are certain from the letters to Atticus that the work was written entirely at Astura, Antium, and Arpinum.

Quintilian seems to have known the first edition very well ^[206], but the second edition is the one which is most frequently quoted. The four books are expressly referred to by Nonius, Diomedes, and Lactantius, under the title Academica. Augustine speaks of them only as Academici libri, and his references show that he knew the second edition only. Lactantius also uses this name occasionally, though he generally speaks of the Academica. Plutarch shows only a knowledge of the first edition ^[207].

I have thought it advisable to set forth in plain terms the history of the genesis of the book, as gathered from Cicero's letters to Atticus. That it was not unnecessary to do so may be seen from the astounding theories which old scholars of great repute put forward concerning the two editions. A fair summary of them may be seen in the preface of Goerenz. I now proceed to examine into the constitution and arrangement of the two editions.

a. The lost dialogue "Catulus."

The whole of the characters in this dialogue and the Lucullus are among those genuine Optimates and adherents of the senatorial party whom Cicero so loves to honour. The Catulus from whom the lost dialogue was named was son of the illustrious colleague of Marius. With the political career of father and son we shall have little to do. I merely inquire what was their position with respect to the philosophy of the time, and the nature of their connection with Cicero.

Catulus the younger need not detain us long. It is clear from the Lucullus^[208] that he did little more than put forward opinions he had received from his father. Cicero would, doubtless, have preferred to introduce the elder man as speaking for himself, but in that case, as in the De Oratore, the author would have been compelled to exclude himself from the conversation ^[209]. The son, therefore, is merely the mouthpiece of the father, just as Lucullus, in the dialogue which bears his name, does nothing but render literally a speech of Antiochus, which he professes to have heard ^[210]. For the arrangement in the case of both a reason is to be found in their ατριψια with respect to philosophy ^[211]. This ατριψια did not amount to απαιδευσια, or else Cicero could not have made Catulus the younger the advocate of philosophy in the Hortensius^[212]. Though Cicero sometimes classes the father and son together as men of literary culture and perfect masters of Latin style, it is very evident on a comparison of all the passages where the two are mentioned, that no very high value was placed on the learning of the son ^[213]. But however slight were the claims of Catulus the younger to be considered a philosopher, he was closely linked to Cicero by other ties. During all the most brilliant period of Cicero's life, Catulus was one of the foremost Optimates of Rome, and his character, life, and influence are often depicted in even extravagant language by the orator ^[214]. He is one of the pillars of the state ^[215], Cicero cries, and deserves to be classed with the ancient worthies of Rome ^[216]. When he opposes the Manilian law, and asks the people on whom they would rely if Pompey, with such gigantic power concentrated in his hands, were to die, the people answer with one voice "On you ^[217]." He alone was bold enough to rebuke the follies, on the one hand, of the mob, on the other, of the senate ^[218]. In him no storm of danger, no favouring breeze of fortune, could ever inspire either fear or hope, or cause to swerve from his own course ^[219]. His influence, though he be dead, will ever live among his countrymen ^[220]. He was not only glorious in his life, but fortunate in his death ^[221].

Apart from Cicero's general agreement with Catulus in politics, there were special causes for his enthusiasm. Catulus was one of the viri consulares who had given their unreserved approval to the measures taken for the suppression of the Catilinarian conspiracy, and was the first to confer on Cicero the greatest glory of his life, the title "Father of his country ^[222]." So closely did Cicero suppose himself to be allied to Catulus, that a friend tried to console him for the death of Tullia, by bidding him remember "Catulus and the olden times ^[223]." The statement of Catulus, often referred to by Cicero, that Rome had never been so unfortunate as to have two bad consuls in the same year, except when Cinna held the office, may have been intended to point a contrast between the zeal of Cicero and the lukewarmness of his colleague Antonius ^[224]. Archias, who wrote in honour of Cicero's consulship, lived in the house of the two Catuli ^[225].

We have seen that when Cicero found it too late to withdraw the first edition of the Academica from circulation, he affixed a prooemium to each book, Catulus being lauded in the first, Lucullus in the second. From the passages above quoted, and from our knowledge of Cicero's habit in such matters, we can have no difficulty in conjecturing at least a portion of the contents of the lost prooemium to the Catulus. The achievements of the elder Catulus were probably extolled, as well as those of his son. The philosophical knowledge of the elder man was made to cast its lustre on the younger. Cicero's glorious consulship was once more lauded, and great stress was laid upon the patronage it received from so famous a man as the younger Catulus, whose praises were sung in the fervid language which Cicero lavishes on the same theme elsewhere. Some allusion most likely was made to the connection of Archias with the Catuli, and to the poem he had written in Cicero's honour. Then the occasion of the dialogue, its supposed date, and the place where it was held, were indicated. The place was the Cuman villa of Catulus ^[226]. The feigned date must fall between the year 60 B.C. in which Catulus died, and 63, the year of Cicero's consulship, which is alluded to in the Lucullus^[227]. It is well known that in the arrangement of his dialogues Cicero took every precaution against anachronisms.

The prooemium ended, the dialogue commenced. Allusion was undoubtedly made to the Hortensius, in which the same speakers had been engaged; and after more compliments had been bandied about, most of which would fall to Cicero's share, a proposal was made to discuss the great difference between the dogmatic and sceptic schools. Catulus offered to give his father's views, at the same time commending his father's knowledge of philosophy. Before we proceed to construct in outline the speech of Catulus from indications offered by the Lucullus, it is necessary to speak of the character and philosophical opinions of Catulus the elder.

In the many passages where Cicero speaks of him, he seldom omits to mention his sapientia, which implies a certain knowledge of philosophy. He was, says Cicero, the kindest, the most upright, the wisest, the holiest of men ^[228]. He was a man of universal merit, of surpassing worth, a second Laelius ^[229]. It is easy to gather from the De Oratore, in which he appears as an interlocutor, a more detailed view of his accomplishments. Throughout the second and third books he is treated as the lettered man, par excellence, of the company ^[230]. Appeal is made to him when any question is started which touches on Greek literature and philosophy. We are especially told that even with Greeks his acquaintance with Greek, and his style of speaking it, won admiration ^[231]. He defends the Greeks from the attacks of Crassus ^[232]. He contemptuously contrasts the Latin historians with the Greek ^[233]. He depreciates the later Greek rhetorical teaching, while he bestows high commendation on the early sophists ^[234]. The systematic rhetoric of Aristotle and Theophrastus is most to his mind ^[235]. An account is given by him of the history of Greek speculation in Italy ^[236]. The undefiled purity of his Latin style made him seem to many the only speaker of the language ^[237]. He had written a history of his own deeds, in the style of Xenophon, which Cicero had imitated ^[238], and was well known as a wit and writer of epigrams ^[239].

Although so much is said of his general culture, it is only from the Academica that we learn definitely his philosophical opinions. In the De Oratore, when he speaks of the visit of Carneades to Rome ^[240], he does not declare himself a follower of that philosopher, nor does Crassus, in his long speech about Greek philosophy, connect Catulus with any particular teacher. The only Greek especially mentioned as a friend of his, is the poet Antipater of Sidon ^[241]. Still it might have been concluded that he was an adherent either of the Academic or Peripatetic Schools. Cicero repeatedly asserts that from no other schools can the orator spring, and the whole tone of the De Oratore shows that Catulus could have had no leaning towards the Stoics or Epicureans ^[242]. The probability is that he had never placed himself under the instruction of Greek teachers for any length of time, but had rather gained his information from books and especially from the writings of Clitomachus. If he had ever been in actual communication with any of the prominent Academics, Cicero would not have failed to tell us, as he does in the case of Antonius ^[243], and Crassus ^[244]. It is scarcely possible that any direct intercourse between Philo and Catulus can have taken place, although one passage in the Lucullus seems to imply it ^[245]. Still Philo had a brilliant reputation during the later years of Catulus, and no one at all conversant with Greek literature or society could fail to be well acquainted with his opinions ^[246]. No follower of Carneades and Clitomachus, such as Catulus undoubtedly was ^[247], could view with indifference the latest development of Academic doctrine. The famous books of Philo were probably not known to Catulus ^[248].

I now proceed to draw out from the references in the Lucullus the chief features of the speech of Catulus the younger. It was probably introduced by a mention of Philo's books ^[249]. Some considerable portion of the speech must have been directed against the innovations made by Philo upon the genuine Carneadean doctrine. These the elder Catulus had repudiated with great warmth, even charging Philo with wilful misrepresentation of the older Academics ^[250]. The most important part of the speech, however, must have consisted of a defence of Carneades and Arcesilas against the dogmatic schools ^[251]. Catulus evidently concerned himself more with the system of the later 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 πιθανον 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 αδηλα and ακαταληπτα 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 επιστημη, was already attained by the Carneadean theory of the πιθανον; 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 πιθανον. One important opinion maintained by Catulus after Carneades, that the wise man would opine ^[255] (τον σοφον δοξασειν), 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 résumé 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 made. On the view I have taken, there would be little difficulty in the fact that Hortensius now advocates a dogmatic philosophy, though in the lost dialogue which bore his name he had argued against philosophy altogether ^[258], and denied that philosophy and wisdom were at all the same thing ^[259]. Such a historical résumé as I have supposed Hortensius to give would be within the reach of any cultivated man of the time, and would only be put forward to show that the New Academic revolt against the supposed old Academico-Peripatetic school was unjustifiable. There is actual warrant for stating that his exposition of Antiochus was merely superficial ^[260]. We are thus relieved from the necessity of forcing the meaning of the word commoveris^[261], from which Krische infers that the dialogue, entitled Hortensius, had ended in a conversion to philosophy of the orator from whom it was named. To any such conversion we have nowhere else any allusion.

The relation in which Hortensius stood to Cicero, also his character and attainments, are too well known to need mention here. He seems to have been as nearly innocent of any acquaintance with philosophy as it was possible for an educated man to be. Cicero's materials for the speech of Hortensius were, doubtless, drawn from the published works and oral teaching of Antiochus.

The speech of Hortensius was answered by Cicero himself. If my view of the preceding speech is correct, it follows that Cicero in his reply pursued the same course which he takes in his answer to Varro, part of which is preserved in the Academica Posteriora^[262]. He justified the New Academy by showing that it was in essential harmony with the Old, and also with those ancient philosophers who preceded Plato. Lucullus, therefore, reproves him as a rebel in philosophy, who appeals to great and ancient names like a seditious tribune ^[263]. Unfair use had been made, according to Lucullus, of Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Parmenides, Xenophanes, Plato, and Socrates ^[264]. But Cicero did not merely give a historical summary. He must have dealt with the theory of καταληπτικη φαντασια and εννοιαι (which though really Stoic had been adopted by Antiochus), since he found it necessary to "manufacture" (fabricari) Latin terms to represent the Greek ^[265]. He probably also commented on the headlong rashness with which the dogmatists gave their assent to the truth of phenomena. To this a retort is made by Lucullus ^[266]. That Cicero's criticism of the dogmatic schools was incomplete may be seen by the fact that he had not had occasion to Latinize the terms καταληψις (i.e. in the abstract, as opposed to the individual καταληπτικη φαντασια), εναργεια, ‛ορμη, αποδειξις, δογμα, οικειον, αδηλα, εποχη, nearly all important terms in the Stoic, and to some extent in the Antiochean system, all of which Lucullus is obliged to translate 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 επιστημη 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 rôle 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.

b. The "Lucullus."

The day after the discussion narrated in the Catulus, during which Lucullus had been merely a looker-on, the whole party left the Cuman villa of Catulus early in the morning, and came to that of Hortensius at Bauli ^[277]. In the evening, if the wind favoured, Lucullus was to leave for his villa at Neapolis, Cicero for his at Pompeii ^[278]. Bauli was a little place on the gulf of Baiae, close to Cimmerium, round which so many legends lingered ^[279]. The scenery in view was magnificent ^[280]. As the party were seated in the xystus with its polished floor and lines of statues, the waves rippled at their feet, and the sea away to the horizon glistened and quivered under the bright sun, and changed colour under the freshening breeze. Within sight lay the Cuman shore and Puteoli, thirty stadia distant ^[281].

Cicero strove to give vividness to the dialogue and to keep it perfectly free from anachronisms. Diodotus is spoken of as still living, although when the words were written he had been dead for many years ^[282]. The surprise of Hortensius, who is but a learner in philosophy, at the wisdom of Lucullus, is very dramatic ^[283]. The many political and private troubles which were pressing upon Cicero when he wrote the work are kept carefully out of sight. Still we can catch here and there traces of thoughts and plans which were actively employing the author's mind at Astura. His intention to visit Tusculum has left its mark on the last section of the book, while in the last but one the De Finibus, the De Natura Deorum and other works are shadowed forth ^[284]. In another passage the design of the Tusculan Disputations, which was carried out immediately after the publication of the Academica and De Finibus, is clearly to be seen ^[285].

Hortensius and Catulus now sink to a secondary position in the conversation, which is resumed by Lucullus. His speech is especially acknowledged by Cicero to be drawn from the works of Antiochus ^[286]. Nearly all that is known of the learning of Lucullus is told in Cicero's dialogue, and the passages already quoted from the letters. He seems at least to have dallied with culture, although his chief energy, as a private citizen, was directed to the care of his fish-ponds ^[287]. In his train when he went to Sicily was the poet Archias, and during the whole of his residence in the East he sought to attach learned men to his person. At Alexandria he was found in the company of Antiochus, Aristus, Heraclitus Tyrius, Tetrilius Rogus and the Selii, all men of philosophic tastes ^[288]. He is several times mentioned by Pliny in the Natural History as the patron of Greek artists. Yet, as we have already seen, Cicero acknowledged in his letters to Atticus that Lucullus was no philosopher. He has to be propped up, like Catulus, by the authority of another person. All his arguments are explicitly stated to be derived from a discussion in which he had heard Antiochus engage. The speech of Lucullus was, as I have said, mainly a reply to that of Cicero in the Catulus. Any closer examination of its contents must be postponed till I come to annotate its actual text. The same may be said of Cicero's answer.

In the intermediate form of the Academica, the speech of Lucullus was no doubt transferred to Brutus, but as he has only such a slight connection with the work, I do not think it necessary to do much more than call attention to the fact. I may, however, notice the close relationship in which Brutus stood to the other persons with whom we have had to deal. He was nephew of Cato, whose half-sister Servilia was wife of Lucullus ^[289]. Cato was tutor to Lucullus' son, with Cicero for a sort of adviser: while Hortensius had married a divorced wife of Cato. All of them were of the Senatorial party, and Cato and Brutus lived to be present, with Cicero, during the war between Pompey and Caesar. Brutus and Cicero were both friends of Antiochus and Aristus, whose pupil Brutus was ^[290].

c. The Second Edition.

When Cicero dedicated the Academica to Varro, very slight alterations were necessary in the scenery and other accessories of the piece. Cicero had a villa close to the Cuman villa of Catulus and almost within sight of Hortensius' villa at Bauli ^[291]. Varro's villa, at which the scene was now laid, was close to the Lucrine lake ^[292]. With regard to the feigned date of the discourse, we may observe that at the very outset of the work it is shown to be not far distant from the actual time of composition ^[293]. Many allusions are made to recent events, such as the utter overthrow of the Pompeian party, the death of Tullia ^[294], and the publication of the Hortensius^[295]. Between the date of Tullia's death and the writing of the Academica, it can be shown that Varro, Cicero and Atticus could not have met together at Cumae. Cicero therefore for once admits into his works an impossibility in fact. This impossibility would at once occur to Varro, and Cicero anticipates his wonder in the letter of dedication ^[296].

For the main facts of Varro's life the student must be referred to the ordinary sources of information. A short account of the points of contact between his life and that of Cicero, with a few words about his philosophical opinions, are alone needed here. The first mention we have of Varro in any of Cicero's writings is in itself sufficient to show his character and the impossibility of anything like friendship between the two. Varro had done the orator some service in the trying time which came before the exile. In writing to Atticus Cicero had eulogised Varro; and in the letter to which I refer he begs Atticus to send Varro the eulogy to read, adding "Mirabiliter moratus est, sicut nosti, ελικτα και ουδεν ^[297]." All the references to Varro in the letters to Atticus are in the same strain. Cicero had to be pressed to write Varro a letter of thanks for supposed exertions in his behalf, during his exile ^[298]. Several passages show that Cicero refused to believe in Varro's zeal, as reported by Atticus ^[299]. On Cicero's return from exile, he and Varro remained in the same semi-friendly state. About the year 54 B.C., as we have already seen, Atticus in vain urged his friend to dedicate some work to the great polymath. After the fall of the Pompeian cause, Cicero and Varro do seem to have been drawn a little closer together. Eight letters, written mostly in the year before the Academica was published, testify to this approximation ^[300]. Still they are all cold, forced and artificial; very different from the letters Cicero addressed to his real intimates, such for instance as Sulpicius, Caelius, Paetus, Plancus, and Trebatius. They all show a fear of giving offence to the harsh temper of Varro, and a humility in presence of his vast learning which is by no means natural to Cicero. The negotiations between Atticus and Cicero with respect to the dedication of the second edition, as detailed already, show sufficiently that this slight increase in cordiality did not lead to friendship ^[301].

The philosophical views of Varro can be gathered with tolerable accuracy from Augustine, who quotes considerably from, the work of Varro De Philosophia^[302]. Beyond doubt he was a follower of Antiochus and the so-called Old Academy. How he selected this school from, among the 288 philosophies which he considered possible, by an elaborate and pedantic process of exhaustion, may be read by the curious in Augustine. My notes on the Academica Posteriora will show that there is no reason for accusing Cicero of having mistaken Varro's philosophical views. This supposition owes its currency to Müller, who, from Stoic phrases in the De Lingua Latina, concluded that Varro had passed over to the Stoics before that work was written. All that was Stoic in Varro came from Antiochus ^[303].

The exact specification of the changes in the arrangement of the subject-matter, necessitated by the dedication to Varro, will be more conveniently deferred till we come to the fragments of the second edition preserved by Nonius and others. Roughly speaking, the following were the contents of the four books. Book I.: the historico-philosophical exposition of Antiochus' views, formerly given by Hortensius, now by Varro; then the historical justification of the Philonian position, which Cicero had given in the first edition as an answer to Hortensius ^[304]. Book II.: an exposition by Cicero of Carneades' positive teaching, practically the same as that given by Catulus in ed. I.; to this was appended, probably, that foretaste of the negative arguments against dogmatism, which in ed. 1. had formed part of the answer made by Cicero to Hortensius. Book III.: a speech of Varro in reply to Cicero, closely corresponding to that of Lucullus in ed. 1. Book IV.: Cicero's answer, substantially the same as in ed. 1. Atticus must have been almost a κωφον προσωπον.

I may here notice a fact which might puzzle the student. In some old editions the Lucullus is marked throughout as Academicorum liber IV. This is an entire mistake, which arose from a wrong view of Nonius' quotations, which are always from the second edition, and can tell us nothing about the constitution of the first. One other thing is worth remark. Halm (as many before him had done) places the Academica Priora before the Posteriora. This seems to me an unnatural arrangement; the subject-matter of the Varro is certainly prior, logically, to that of the Lucullus.