18. This and fragm. 19 evidently hang very closely together. As Krische notes, the Stoic e?a??e?a had evidently been translated earlier in the book by _perspicuitas_ as in _Luc._ 17.
19. See on _Luc._ 57.
BOOK IV.
Further information on all these pa.s.sages will be found in my notes on the parallel pa.s.sages of the _Lucullus_.
21. _Viam_ evidently a mistake for the _umbram_ of _Luc._ 70.
23. The best MS. of Nonius points to _flavum_ for _ravum_ (_Luc._ 105).
Most likely an alteration was made in the second edition, as Krische supposes, p. 64.
28. _Corpusculis_: _Luc._ 121 has _corporibus_. Krische"s opinion that this latter word was in the second edition changed into the former may be supported from I. 6, which he does not notice. The conj. is confirmed by Aug. _Contr. Ac._ III. 23.
29. _Magnis obscurata_: in _Luc._ 122 it is _cra.s.sis occultata_, so that we have another alteration, see Krische, p. 64.
30. Only slight differences appear in the MSS. of the _Luc._ 123, viz.
_contraria_, for _in c._, _ad vestigia_ for _contra v._
31. _Luc._ 137 has _dixi_ for _dictus_. As Cic. does not often leave out _est_ with the pa.s.sive verb, Nonius has probably quoted wrongly. It will be noted that the fragments of Book III. correspond to the first half of the _Luc._, those of Book IV. to the second half. Cic. therefore divided the _Luc._ into two portions at or about 63.
UNCERTAIN BOOKS.
32. I have already said that this most likely belonged to the preliminary a.s.sault on the senses made by Cic. in the second book.
33. In the Introd. p. 55 I have given my opinion that the substance of Catulus" speech which unfolded the doctrine of the _probabile_ was incorporated with Cicero"s speech in the second book of this edition. To that part this fragment must probably be referred.
34. This important fragment clearly belongs to Book II., and is a jocular application of the Carneadean _probabile_, as may be seen from the words _probabiliter posse confici_.
35. Krische a.s.signs this to the end of Varro"s speech in the third Book.
With this opinion I find it quite impossible to agree. A pa.s.sage in the _Lucullus_ (60) proves to demonstration that in the first edition this allusion to the esoteric teaching of the Academy could only have occurred either in the speech of Catulus or in that of Cicero. As no reason whatever appears to account for its transference to Varro I prefer to regard it as belonging to Cic."s exposition of the positive side of Academic doctrine in the second book. Cic. repeatedly insists that the Academic school must not be supposed to have no truths to maintain, see _Luc._ 119, also 66 and _N.D._ I. 12. Also Aug. _Contra. Ac._ II. 29.
36. It is difficult to see where this pa.s.sage could have been included if not in that prooemium to the third book which is mentioned _Ad. Att._ XVI.
6, 4. I may here add that Krische seems to me wrong in holding that the whole four books formed one discussion, finished within the limits of a single day. Why interrupt the discussion by the insertion of a prologue of so general a nature as to be taken from a stock which Cic. kept on hand ready made? (Cf. _Ad Att._ as above.)
Besides the actual fragments of the second edition, many indications of its contents are preserved in the work of Augustine ent.i.tled _Contra Academicos_, which, though written in support of dogmatic opinions, imitated throughout the second edition of the _Academica_ of Cic. No writings of the Cla.s.sical period had so great an influence on the culture and opinions of Augustine as the _Academica_ and the lost _Hortensius_. I give, partly from Krische, the scattered indications of the contents of the former which are to be gathered from the bishop"s works. In Aug. _Contr.
Ac._ II. 14, 15, we have what appears to be a summary of the lost part of Book I. to the following effect. The New Academy must not be regarded as having revolted against the Old, all that it did was to discuss that new doctrine of ?ata????? advanced by Zeno. The doctrine of a?ata????a though present to the minds of the ancients had never taken distinct shape, because it had met with no opposition. The Old Academy was rather enriched than attacked by the New. Antiochus, in adopting Stoicism under the name of the Old Academy, made it appear that there was a strife between it and the New. With Antiochus the historical exposition of Cic. must have ended. From this portion of the first book, Aug. derived his opinion (_Contra. Ac._ II.
1) that New Academicism was excusable from the necessities of the age in which it appeared. Indications of Book II. in Aug. are scarce, but to it I refer _Contra. Ac._ I. 7 _placuit Ciceroni nostro beatum esse qui verum investigat etiam si ad eius inventionem non valeat pervenire_, also _ibid._ III. 10 _illis (Academicis) placuit esse posse hominem sapientem, et tamen in hominem scientiam cadere non posse_. These I refer to Cicero"s development of the _probabile_ in Book II., although I ought to say that Krische, p. 65, maintains that the substance of Catulus" exposition in the _Ac. Priora_ transferred to Book IV. of the _Ac. Posteriora_. As this would leave very meagre material for Book II., nothing indeed excepting the provisional proof of the deceptiveness of the senses, I cannot accede to his arrangement; mine, I may remark, involves a much smaller departure from the first edition. Allusions in Aug. to the attack on the senses by Cic. in Book II. are difficult to fix, as they apply equally well to the later attack in Book IV. As to Books III. and IV., I do not think it necessary here to prove from Aug. the points of agreement between them and the _Lucullus_, which will find a better place in my notes on the latter, but merely give the divergences which appear from other sources. These are the translation of s?f?sata by _cavillationes_ in _Luc._ 75 (Seneca _Ep._ III.), and the insertion in 118 of _essentia_ as a translation of ??s?a.
BOOK II.
ENt.i.tLED _LUCULLUS_.
----1--12. Summary. Lucullus, though an able and cultivated man, was absent from Rome on public service too long during his earlier years to attain to glory in the forum (1). He unexpectedly proved a great general. This was due to his untiring study and his marvellous memory (2). He had to wait long for the reward of his merits as a commander and civil administrator, and was allowed no triumph till just before my consulship. What I owed to him in those troublous times I cannot now tell (3). He was not merely a general; he was also a philosopher, having learned much from Antiochus and read much for himself (4). Those enemies of Greek culture who think a Roman n.o.ble ought not to know philosophy, must be referred to the examples of Cato and Africa.n.u.s (5).
Others think that famous men should not be introduced into dialogues of the kind. Are they then, when they meet, to be silent or to talk about trifles? I, in applying myself to philosophy, have neglected no public duty, nor do I think the fame of ill.u.s.trious citizens diminished, but enriched, by a reputation for philosophical knowledge (6). Those who hold that the interlocutors in these dialogues had no such knowledge show that they can make their envy reach beyond the grave. Some critics do not approve the particular philosophy which I follow--the Academic.
This is natural, but they must know that Academicism puts no stop to inquiry (7). My school is free from the fetters of dogma; other schools are enslaved to authority (8). The dogmatists say they bow to the authority of the wise man. How can they find out the wise man without hearing all opinions? This subject was discussed by myself, Catulus, Lucullus, and Hortensius, the day after the discussion reported in the _Catulus_ (9). Catulus called on Lucullus to defend the doctrines of Antiochus. This Lucullus believed himself able to do, although the doctrines had suffered in the discussion of the day before (10). He spoke thus: At Alexandria I heard discussions between Herac.l.i.tus Tyrius the pupil of c.l.i.tomachus and Philo, and Antiochus. At that very time the books mentioned by Catulus yesterday came into the hands of Antiochus, who was so angry that he wrote a book against his old teacher (11 and 12). I will now give the substance of the disputes between Herac.l.i.tus and Antiochus, omitting the remarks made by the latter against Philo (12).
--1. _Luculli_: see Introd. p. 58, and _Dict. Biog._ _Digna homini n.o.bili_: a good deal of learning would have been considered _unworthy_ of a man like Lucullus, see Introd. p. 30. _Percepta_: "gained," "won;" cf. _percipere fruges_, "to reap," _Cat. Mai._ 24. _Caruit_: "was cut off from;" _carere_ comes from a root _skar_ meaning to divide, see Corss. I. 403. For the three nouns with a singular verb see Madv. _Gram._ 213 A, who confines the usage to nouns denoting things and impersonal ideas. If the common reading _dissensit_ in _De Or._ III. 68 is right, the restriction does not hold.
_Admodum_: "to a degree." _Fratre_: this brother was adopted by a M.
Terentius Varro, and was a man of distinction also; see _Dict. Biog._ _Magna c.u.m gloria_: a ref. to _Dict. Biog._ will show that the whole affair was discreditable to the father; to our notions, the sons would have gained greater glory by letting it drop. _Quaestor_: to Sulla, who employed him chiefly in the civil administration of Asia. _Continuo_: without any interval. _Legis praemio_: this seems to mean "by the favour of a special law," pa.s.sed of course by Sulla, who had restored the old _lex annalis_ in all its rigour, and yet excepted his own officers from its operation.
_Prooemio_, which has been proposed, would not be Latin, see _De Leg._ II.
16. _Consulatum_: he seems to have been absent during the years 84--74, in the East. _Superiorum_: scarcely that of Sulla.
--2. _Laus_: "merit," as often, so _praemium_, Virg. _Aen._ XII. 437, means a deed worthy of reward. _Non admodum exspectabatur_: Cic. forgets that Luc. had served with distinction in the Social War and the first Mithridatic war. _In Asia pace_: three good MSS. have _Asiae_; Baiter ejects _Asia_; Guilelmus read _in Asia in pace_ (which Davies conjectures, though he prints _Asiae_). _Consumere_ followed by an ablative without _in_ is excessively rare in Cic. Madv. _D.F._ V. 53 denies the use altogether.
In addition, however, to our pa.s.sage, I note _hoc loco consumitur_ in _T.D._ IV. 23, where Baiter"s two texts (1861 and 1863) give no variants.
_Pace_ here perhaps ought to be taken adverbially, like _tranqullo_.
_Indocilem_: this is simply pa.s.sive, = "untaught," as in Prop. I. 2, 12, Ov. _Fast._ III. 119 (the last qu. by Dav.). Forc. s.v. is wrong in making it active. _Factus_: = _perfectus_; cf. Hor. _Sat._ I. 5, 33 _h.o.m.o factus ad unguem_, Cic. _De Or._ III. 184, _In Verr._ IV. 126. So _effectus_ in silver Latin. _Rebus gestis_: military history, so often. _Divinam quandam memoriam_: the same phrase in _De Or._ II. 360. _Rerum, verborum_: same distinction in _De Or._ II. 359. _Oblivisci se malle_: the same story is told _D.F._ II. 104, _De Or._ II. 299. The ancient art of memory was begun by Simonides (who is the person denoted here by _cuidam_) and completed by Metrodorus of Scepsis, for whom see _De Or._ II. 360. _Consignamus_: cf.
_consignatae in animis notiones_ in _T.D._ I. 57. _litteris_ must be an ablative of the instrument. _Mandare monum._: cf. I. 3. _Insculptas_: rare in the metaphorical use, cf. _N.D._ I. 45.
--3. _Genere_: "department" cf. I. 3. _Navalibus pugnis_: ?a?a??a??.
_Instrumento et adparatu_: ?atas?e?? ?a? pa?as?e??. _Rex_: Mithridates.
_Quos legisset_: = _de quibus l._; cf. the use of the pa.s.sive verb so common in Ovid, e.g. _Trist._ IV. 4, 14. I take of course _rex_ to be nom.
to _legisset_, the suggestion of a friend that Lucullus is nom. and that _quos legisset_ = _quorum commentarios legisset_ I think improbable.
_Hodie_: Drakenborch on Livy V. 27 wants to read _hodieque_, which however, is not Ciceronian. In pa.s.sages like _De Or._ I. 103 and _Verr._ V. 64, the _que_ connects clauses and does not modify _hodie_. On this subject see Madv. _Opuscula_ I. 390. _Etsi_: _M.D.F._ V. 68, shows that in Cic. a parenthetic clause with _etsi_ always has a common verb with its princ.i.p.al clause; a rule not observed by the silver writers. The same holds of _quamquam_, see n. on I. 5. _Calumnia_: properly a fraudulent use of litigation, s???fa?t?a. The chief enemy was the infamous Memmius who prosecuted him. _In urbem_: until his triumph Luc. would remain outside the city. _Profuisset_: this ought properly to be _profuerit_, but the conditional _dicerem_ changes it. _Potius ... quam ... communicem_: n. on 23.
--4. _Sunt ... celebrata_: cf. I. 11, 17 for the collocation of the words.
_Externa ... interiora_: cf. _De Div._ II. 124 _sed haec quoque in promptu, nunc interiora videamus_. _Pro quaestore_: for this Faber wrote _quaestor_, arguing that as Luc. was Sulla"s _quaestor_ and Sulla sent him to Egypt, he could not be _pro quaestor_. But surely after the first year he would be _pro quaestor_. Dav. reads _quaestor_ here and 11, saying "_veterem lectionem iugulavit Faber_". _Ea memoria ... quam_: Bentl., Halm, Baiter give _qua_, Halm refers to Bentl. on Hor. _Sat._ I. 6, 15. A pa.s.sage like ours is _D.F._ I. 29, _ista sis aequitate, quam ostendis_, where one MS.
has _qua_. Read Madvig"s lucid note there. _De quibus audiebat_: Madv.
_Em._ 121 makes this equivalent to _de eis rebus de quibus_, the necessity of which explanation, though approved by Halm, I fail to see. The form of expression is very common in Cic., and the relative always refers to an actually expressed antecedent, cf. e.g. _Cat. Mai._ 83. I take _quibus_ as simply = _libris_.
--5. _Ac_: strong, as often, = ?a? ??. _Personarum_: public characters, p??s?p?? p??e?? (_Ad. Fam._ XV. 17, 2), so _personas_ 6. _Multi ...
plures_: cf. Introd. p. 30. _Reliqui_: many MSS. insert _qui_ by _dittographia_, as I think, though Halm, as well as Bait., retains it. On the retention or omission of this _qui_ will depend the choice of _putant_ or _putent_ below. _Earum rerum disputationem_: for _disp._ followed by genitive see n. on I. 33. _Non ita decoram_: for this feeling see Introd.
p. 30. For _non ita_ cf. the Lowland Scottish "no just sae". _Historiae loquantur_: _hist._ means in Cic. rather "memoirs" than "history," which is better expressed by _res gestae_. Note that the verb _loqui_ not _dicere_ is used, and cf. n. on 101. _Legatione_: to the kings in Egypt and the East in alliance with Rome. The censorship was in 199 B.C. About the emba.s.sy see _Dict. Biogr._ art. "Panactius". _Auctorem_: one would think this simple and sound enough, Bentl. however read _fautorem_, Dav. _auditorem_.
--6. _Illigari_: "entangled" as though in something bad. For this use Forc.
qu. Liv. x.x.xIII. 21, Tac. _Ann._ XIII. 40. _Aut ludicros sermones_: = _aut clar. vir. serm. ludic. esse oporteat_. _Rerum leviorum_: a similar argument in _D.F._ I. 12. _Quodam in libro_: the _Hortensius_. _Gradu_: so the word "degree" was once used, e.g. "a squire of low degree" in the ballad. _De opera publica detrahamus_: the dative often follows this verb, as in _D.F._ III. 7 _nihil operae reipublicae detrahens_, a pa.s.sage often wrongly taken. _Operae_ is the dat. after the verb, not the gen. after _nihil_, _reip._ the gen. after _operae_, like _opera publica_ here, not the dat. after _detrahens_. _Nisi forensem_: the early oratorical works may fairly be said to have this character; scarcely, however, the _De Republica_ or the _De Leg._ both of which fall within the period spoken of.
_Ut plurimis prosimus_: cf. Introd. p. 29. _Non modo non minui, sed_: notice _non modo ... sed_ thrice over in two sentences.
--7. _Sunt ... qui negent_: and truly, see Introd. p. 38. In _Cat. Mai._ --3 Cic. actually apologises for making Cato more learned than he really was.
_Mortuis_: Catulus died in 60, Lucullus about 57, Hortensius 50. _Contra omnis dicere quae videntur_: MSS. mostly insert _qui_ between _dicere_ and _quae_, one of the best however has _dicere quae aliis_ as a correction, while another has the marginal reading _qui scire sibi videntur_. The omission of _qui_, which I conjectured, but now see occurs in a MS. (Pal.
2) referred to by Halm, gives admirable sense. _Verum invenire_: cf. 60.
_Contentione_: = f????e???a as usual. _In ... rebus obscuritas_: cf. I. 44 _rerum obscuritate_. _Infirmitas_: cf. I. 44 _imbecillos animos_.
_Antiquissimi et doctissimi_: on the other hand _recentissima quaeque sunt correcta et emendata maxime_ I. 13. _Diffisi_: one of the best MSS. has _diffissi_, which reminds one of the spelling _divisssiones_, a.s.serted to be Ciceronian in Quint. _Inst. Or_. I. 7, 20. _In utramque partem_: ep"
af?te?a, cf. I. 45. _Exprimant_: "embody," cf. n. on I. 19.
--8. _Probabilia_: p??a?a, for which see 33. _Sequi_: "act upon," cf.
99-101. _Liberiores et solutiores_: these two words frequently occur together in Cic. and ill.u.s.trate his love for petty variations; see 105, also _T.D._ V. 43, _De Div._ I. 4, _De Rep._ IV. 4, _N.D._ I. 56, _Orat._ 64. _Integra_: "untrammelled," cf. the phrase "_non mihi integrum est_"--"I have committed my self." _Et quasi_: MSS. have _et quibus et quasi_.
_Cogimur_: for this Academic freedom see Introd. p. 18. _Amico cuidam_: Orelli after Lamb. _cuipiam;_ for the difference see Madv. _Gram._ 493 _b_, c.
--9. _Ut potuerint, potuerunt_: thus Lamb. corrected the MSS. reading which was simply _ut potuerunt_, "granting that they had the ability, they gained it by hearing all things, now as a matter of fact they _did_ decide on a single hearing," etc. _Iudicaverunt autem_: so Lamb. for MSS. _aut_.
Muretus, by what Dav. calls an "_arguta hariolatio_," read _an_ for _aut_ and put a note of interrogation at _contulerunt_. C.F. Hermann (Schneidewin"s _Philologus_ VII. 466) introduces by conj. a sad confusion into the text, but no other good critic since Madvig"s remarks in _Em._ 125 has impugned Lambinus" reading. Goerenz indeed, followed by the faithful Schutz, kept the MSS. reading with the insertion of _aut_ between _sed_ and _ut_ at the beginning; of this Madv. says "_non solum Latina non est, sed sanae menti repugnat_." For the proceeding which Cic. deprecates, cf.
_N.D._ I. 10, _De Leg._ I. 36. _Quam adamaverunt_: "which they have learned to love;" the _ad_ has the same force as p?? in p??a??a?e??, which means "to learn _on and on_, to learn by degrees" (cf. p???a??? ste??e??
?a????), not, as the lexica absurdly say, "to learn beforehand, i.e. to learn thoroughly." _Constantissime_: "most consistently". _Quae est ad Baulos_: cf. Introd. p. 57. _In spatio_: this _xystus_ was a colonnade with one side open to the sea, called ??st?? from its polished floor and pillars. _Consedimus_: n. on I. 14.
--10. _Servatam oportuit_: a construction very characteristic of Terence, found, but rarely, in Cic. and Livy. _In promptu ... reconditiora_: cf. _in promptu ... interiora_ in _De Div._ II. 124, also _Ac._ I. 4. _Quae dico_: Goer. is exceedingly troubled by the pres. tense and wishes to read _dixero_. But the subst.i.tution of the pres. for the future is common enough in all languages cf. Iuv. IV. 130 with Mayor"s copious note. _Si non fuerint_: so all Halm"s best MSS. Two, however, of Davies" have _si vera_ etc. In support of the text, see I. 9 (_sunt ista_) and note.
_Labefactata_: this is only found as an alteration in the best MSS. and in _Ed. Rom._ (1471); the others have _labefacta_. Orelli"s statement (note to his separate text of the _Academica_ 1827) that Cic. commonly uses the perfect _labefeci_ and the part, _labefactus_ is quite wrong. The former is indeed the vulg. reading in _Pro Sestio_ 101, the latter in _De Haruspic.u.m Responsis_ 60, but the last of these two pa.s.sages is doubtful. Cic. as a rule prefers long forms like _sustentatus_, which occurs with _labefactatus_ in _Cat. Mai._ 20. For the perfect _labefactavit_ cf. I. 33.
_Agam igitur_: Cic. rather overdoes the attempt to force on his readers a belief in the learning of Lucullus.