Chapter III: Introduction (2)

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

[Greek: deinos anêr, tacha ken kai anaition aitioôito.]

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_, [Greek: Akadêmikê syntaxis], 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 [Greek: atripsia] with respect to philosophy[211]. This [Greek: atripsia] did not amount to [Greek: apaideusia], 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 [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: adêla] and [Greek: akatalêpta] 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: epistêmê], 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 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 [Greek: katalêptikê phantasia] and [Greek: ennoiai] (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 [Greek: katalêpsis] (i.e. in the abstract, as opposed to the individual [Greek: katalêptikê phantasia]), [Greek: enargeia, hormê, apodeixis, dogma, oikeion, adêla, epochê], 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 [Greek: epistêmê] 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,_ [Greek: elikta kai ouden][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 [Greek: kôphon prosôpon].

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_.

* * * * *

M. TULLII CICERONIS

ACADEMICORUM POSTERIORUM

LIBER PRIMUS.

* * * * *

I. 1. In Cumano nuper cum mecum Atticus noster esset, nuntiatum est nobis a M. Varrone, venisse eum Roma pridie vesperi et, nisi de via fessus esset, continuo ad nos venturum fuisse. Quod cum audissemus, nullam moram interponendam putavimus quin videremus hominem nobiscum et studiis isdem et vetustate amicitiae coniunctum. Itaque confestim ad eum ire perreximus, paulumque cum _ab_ eius villa abessemus, ipsum ad nos venientem vidimus: atque ilium complexi, ut mos amicorum est, satis eum longo intervallo ad suam villam reduximus. 2. Hic pauca primo, atque ea percontantibus nobis, ecquid forte Roma novi, Atticus: Omitte ista, quae nec percontari nec audire sine molestia possumus, quaeso, inquit, et quaere potius ecquid ipse novi. Silent enim diutius Musae Varronis quam solebant, nec tamen istum cessare, sed celare quae scribat existimo. Minime vero, inquit ille: intemperantis enim arbitror esse scribere quod occultari velit: sed habeo opus magnum in manibus, idque iam pridem: ad hunc enim ipsum--me autem dicebat--quaedam institui, quae et sunt magna sane et limantur a me politius. 3. Et ego: Ista quidem, inquam, Varro, iam diu exspectans, non audeo tamen flagitare: audivi enim e Libone nostro, cuius nosti studium--nihil enim eius modi celare possumus--non te ea intermittere, sed accuratius tractare nec de manibus umquam deponere. Illud autem mihi ante hoc tempus numquam in mentem venit a te requirere: sed nunc, postea quam sum ingressus res eas, quas tecum simul didici, mandare monumentis philosophiamque veterem illam a Socrate ortam Latinis litteris illustrare, quaero quid sit cur, cum multa scribas, genus hoc praetermittas, praesertim cum et ipse in eo excellas et id studium totaque ea res longe ceteris et studiis et artibus antecedat.

II. 4. Tum ille: Rem a me saepe deliberatam et multum agitatam requiris. Itaque non haesitans respondebo, sed ea dicam, quae mihi sunt in promptu, quod ista ipsa de re multum, ut dixi, et diu cogitavi. Nam cum philosophiam viderem diligentissime Graecis litteris explicatam, existimavi, si qui de nostris eius studio tenerentur, si essent Graecis doctrinis eruditi, Graeca potius quam nostra lecturos: sin a Graecorum artibus et disciplinis abhorrerent, ne haec quidem curaturos, quae sine eruditione Graeca intellegi non possunt: itaque ea nolui scribere, quae nec indocti intellegere possent nec docti legere curarent. 5. Vides autem--eadem enim ipse didicisti--non posse nos Amafinii aut Rabirii similis esse, qui nulla arte adhibita de rebus ante oculos positis volgari sermone disputant, nihil definiunt, nihil partiuntur, nihil apta interrogatione concludunt, nullam denique artem esse nec dicendi nec disserendi putant. Nos autem praeceptis dialecticorum et oratorum etiam, quoniam utramque vim virtutem esse nostri putant, sic parentes, ut legibus, verbis quoque novis cogimur uti, quae docti, ut dixi, a Graecis petere malent, indocti ne a nobis quidem accipient, ut frustra omnis suscipiatur _labor_. 6. Iam vero physica, si Epicurum, id est, si Democritum probarem, possem scribere ita plane, ut Amafinius. Quid est enim magnum, cum causas rerum efficientium sustuleris, de corpusculorum--ita enim appellat atomos--concursione fortuita loqui? Nostra tu physica nosti, quae cum contineantur ex effectione et ex materia ea, quam fingit et format effectio, adhibenda etiam geometria est, quam quibusnam quisquam enuntiare verbis aut quem ad intellegendum poterit adducere? _Quid_, haec ipsa de vita et moribus, et de expetendis fugiendisque rebus? Illi enim simpliciter pecudis et hominis idem bonum esse censent: apud nostros autem non ignoras quae sit et quanta subtilitas. 7. Sive enim Zenonem sequare, magnum est efficere ut quis intelligat quid sit illud verum et simplex bonum, quod non possit ab honestate seiungi: quod bonum quale sit negat omnino Epicurus sine voluptatibus sensum moventibus ne suspicari _quidem_. Si vero Academiam veterem persequamur, quam nos, ut scis, probamus, quam erit illa acute explicanda nobis! quam argute, quam obscure etiam contra Stoicos disserendum! Totum igitur illud philosophiae studium mihi quidem ipse sumo et ad vitae constantiam quantum possum et ad delectationem animi, nec ullum arbitror, ut apud Platonem est, maius aut melius a dis datum munus homini. 8. Sed meos amicos, in quibus est studium, in Graeciam mitto, id est, ad Graecos ire iubeo, ut ea a fontibus potius hauriant quam rivulos consectentur. Quae autem nemo adhuc docuerat nec erat unde studiosi scire possent, ea, quantum potui--nihil enim magno opere meorum miror--feci ut essent nota nostris. A Graecis enim peti non poterant ac post L. Aelii nostri occasum ne a Latinis quidem. Et tamen in illis veteribus nostris, quae Menippum imitati, non interpretati, quadam hilaritate conspersimus, multa admixta ex intima philosophia, multa dicta dialectice +quae quo facilius minus docti intelligerent, iucunditate quadam ad legendum invitati, in laudationibus, in his ipsis antiquitatum prooemiis +philosophe scribere voluimus, si modo consecuti sumus.

III. 9. Tum, ego. Sunt, inquam, ista, Varro. Nam nos in nostra urbe peregrinantis errantisque tamquam hospites tui libri quasi domum deduxerunt, ut possemus aliquando qui et ubi essemus agnoscere. Tu aetatem patriae, tu descriptiones temporum, tu sacrorum iura, tu sacerdotum, tu domesticam, tu bellicam disciplinam, tu sedem regionum locorum, tu omnium divinarum humanarumque rerum nomina, genera, officia, causas aperuisti, plurimumque poetis nostris omninoque Latinis et litteris luminis et verbis attulisti, atque ipse varium et elegans omni fere numero poema fecisti philosophiamque multis locis incohasti, ad impellendum satis, ad edocendum parum. 10. Causam autem probabilem tu quidem adfers; aut enim Graeca legere malent qui erunt eruditi aut ne haec quidem qui illa nesciunt. Sed da mihi nunc: satisne probas? Immo vero et haec qui illa non poterunt et qui Graeca poterunt non contemnent sua. Quid enim causae est cur poetas Latinos Graecis litteris eruditi legant, philosophos non legant? an quia delectat Ennius, Pacuvius, Attius, multi alii, qui non verba, sed vim Graecorum expresserunt poetarum? Quanto magis philosophi delectabunt, si, ut illi Aeschylum, Sophoclem, Euripidem, sic hi Platonem imitentur, Aristotelem, Theophrastum? Oratores quidem laudari video, si qui e nostris Hyperidem sint aut Demosthenem imitati. 11. Ego autem--dicam enim, ut res est--dum me ambitio, dum honores, dum causae, dum rei publicae non solum cura, sed quaedam etiam procuratio multis officiis implicatum et constrictum tenebat, haec inclusa habebam et, ne obsolescerent, renovabam, cum licebat, legendo. Nunc vero et fortunae gravissimo percussus volnere et administratione rei publicae liberatus, doloris medicinam a philosophia peto et otii oblectationem hanc honestissimam iudico. Aut enim huic aetati hoc maxime aptum est aut iis rebus, si quas dignas laude gessimus, hoc in primis consentaneum aut etiam ad nostros civis erudiendos nihil utilius aut, si haec ita non sunt, nihil aliud video quod agere possimus. 12. Brutus quidem noster, excellens omni genere laudis, sic philosophiam Latinis litteris persequitur, nihil ut iisdem de rebus Graecia desideret, et eandem quidem sententiam sequitur quam tu. Nam Aristum Athenis audivit aliquam diu, cuius tu fratrem Antiochum. Quam ob rem da, quaeso, te huic etiam generi litterarum.

IV. 13. Tum, ille. Istuc quidem considerabo, nec vero sine te. Sed de te ipso quid est, inquit, quod audio? Quanam, inquam, de re? Relictam a te veterem illam, inquit, tractari autem novam. Quid? ergo, inquam, Antiocho id magis licuerit, nostro familiari, remigrare in domum veterem e nova quam nobis in novam e vetere? certe enim recentissima quaeque sunt correcta et emendata maxime. Quamquam Antiochi magister Philo, magnus vir, ut tu existimas ipse, negat in libris, quod coram etiam ex ipso audiebamus, duas Academias esse erroremque eorum, qui ita putarunt, coarguit. Est, inquit, ut dicis: sed ignorare te non arbitror, quae contra _ea_ Philonis Antiochus scripserit. 14. Immo vero et ista et totam veterem Academiam, a qua absum iam diu, renovari a te, nisi molestum est, velim, et simul, adsidamus, inquam, si videtur. Sane istud quidem, inquit: sum enim admodum infirmus. Sed videamus idemne Attico placeat fieri a me, quod te velle video. Mihi vero, ille: quid est enim quod malim quam ex Antiocho iam pridem audita recordari? et simul videre satisne ea commode dici possit Latine? Quae cum essent dicta, in conspectu consedimus [omnes].

15. Tum Varro ita exorsus est: Socrates mihi videtur, id quod constat inter omnis, primus a rebus occultis et ab ipsa natura involutis, in quibus omnes ante eum philosophi occupati fuerunt, avocavisse philosophiam et ad vitam communem adduxisse, ut de virtutibus et vitiis omninoque de bonis rebus et malis quaereret, caelestia autem vel procul esse a nostra cognitione censeret vel, si maxime cognita essent, nihil tamen ad bene vivendum _valere_. 16. Hic in omnibus fere sermonibus, qui ab iis qui illum audierunt perscripti varie _et_ copiose sunt, ita disputat ut nihil adfirmet ipse, refellat alios: nihil se scire dicat nisi id ipsum, eoque praestare ceteris, quod illi quae nesciant scire se putent, ipse se nihil scire, id unum sciat, ob eamque rem se arbitrari ab Apolline omnium sapientissimum esse dictum, quod haec esset una omnis sapientia non arbitrari sese scire quod nesciat. Quae cum diceret constanter et in ea sententia permaneret, omnis eius oratio tamen in virtute laudanda et in hominibus ad virtutis studium cohortandis consumebatur, ut e Socraticorum libris, maximeque Platonis, intellegi potest. 17. Platonis autem auctoritate, qui varius et multiplex et copiosus fuit, una et consentiens duobus vocabulis philosophiae forma instituta est, Academicorum et Peripateticorum: qui rebus congruentes nominibus differebant. Nam cum Speusippum, sororis filium, Plato philosophiae quasi heredem reliquisset, duos autem praestantissimo studio atque doctrina, Xenocratem Chalcedonium et Aristotelem Stagiritem, qui erant cum Aristotele, Peripatetici dicti sunt, quia disputabant inambulantes in Lycio, illi autem, qui Platonis instituto in Academia, quod est alterum gymnasium, coetus erant et sermones habere soliti, e loci vocabulo nomen habuerunt. Sed utrique Platonis ubertate completi certam quandam disciplinae formulam composuerunt et eam quidem plenam ac refertam, illam autem Socraticam dubitationem de omnibus rebus et nulla adfirmatione adhibita consuetudinem disserendi reliquerunt. Ita facta est, quod minime Socrates probabat, ars quaedam philosophiae et rerum ordo et descriptio disciplinae. 18. Quae quidem erat primo duobus, ut dixi, nominibus una: nihil enim inter Peripateticos et illam veterem Academiam differebat. Abundantia quadam ingeni praestabat, ut mihi quidem videtur, Aristoteles, sed idem fons erat utrisque et eadem rerum expetendarum fugiendarumque partitio.

V. Sed quid ago? inquit, aut sumne sanus, qui haec vos doceo? nam etsi non sus Minervam, ut aiunt, tamen inepte quisquis Minervam docet. Tum Atticus: Tu vero, inquit, perge, Varro: valde enim amo nostra atque nostros, meque ista delectant, cum Latine dicuntur, et isto modo. Quid me, inquam, putas, qui philosophiam iam professus sim populo nostro exhibiturum? Pergamus igitur, inquit, quoniam placet. 19. Fuit ergo iam accepta a Platone philosophandi ratio triplex: una de vita et moribus, altera de natura et rebus occultis, tertia de disserendo et quid verum sit, quid falsum, quid rectum in oratione pravumve, quid consentiens, quid repugnans iudicando. Ac primum partem illam bene vivendi a natura petebant eique parendum esse dicebant, neque ulla alia in re nisi in natura quaerendum esse illud summum bonum quo omnia referrentur, constituebantque extremum esse rerum expetendarum et finem bonorum adeptum esse omnia e natura et animo et corpore et vita. Corporis autem alia ponebant esse in toto, alia in partibus: valetudinem, viris pulchritudinem in toto, in partibus autem sensus integros et praestantiam aliquam partium singularum, ut in pedibus celeritatem, vim in manibus, claritatem in voce, in lingua etiam explanatam vocum impressionem: 20. animi autem, quae essent ad comprehendendam ingeniis virtutem idonea, eaque ab iis in naturam et mores dividebantur. Naturae celeritatem ad discendum et memoriam dabant: quorum utrumque mentis esset proprium et ingeni. Morum autem putabant studia esse et quasi consuetudinem: quam partim exercitationis adsiduitate, partim ratione formabant, in quibus erat philosophia ipsa. In qua quod incohatum est neque absolutum, progressio quaedam ad virtutem appellatur: quod autem absolutum, id est virtus, quasi perfectio naturae omniumque rerum, quas in animis ponunt, una res optima. Ergo haec animorum. 21. Vitae autem--id enim erat tertium--adiuncta esse dicebant, quae ad virtutis usum valerent. Nam virtus animi bonis et corporis cernitur, et _in_ quibusdam quae non tam naturae quam beatae vitae adiuncta sunt. Hominem esse censebant quasi partem quandam civitatis et universi generis humani, eumque esse coniunctum cum hominibus humana quadam societate. Ac de summo quidem atque naturali bono sic agunt: cetera autem pertinere ad id putant aut adaugendum aut tuendum, ut divitias, ut opes, ut gloriam, ut gratiam. Ita tripartita ab iis inducitur ratio bonorum.

VI. 22. Atque haec illa sunt tria genera, quae putant plerique Peripateticos dicere. Id quidem non falso: est enim haec partitio illorum: illud imprudenter, si alios esse Academicos, qui tum appellarentur, alios Peripateticos arbitrantur. Communis haec ratio et utrisque hic bonorum finis videbatur, adipisci quae essent prima natura quaeque ipsa per sese expetenda, aut omnia aut maxima. Ea sunt autem maxima, quae in ipso animo atque in ipsa virtute versantur. Itaque omnis illa antiqua philosophia sensit in una virtute esse positam beatam vitam, nec tamen beatissimam, nisi adiungerentur et corporis et cetera, quae supra dicta sunt, ad virtutis usum idonea. 23. Ex hac descriptione agendi quoque aliquid in vita et officii ipsius initium reperiebatur: quod erat in conservatione earum rerum, quas natura praescriberet. Hinc gignebatur fuga desidiae voluptatumque contemptio: ex quo laborum dolorumque susceptio multorum magnorumque recti honestique causa et earum rerum, quae erant congruentes cum descriptione naturae, unde et amicitia exsistebat et iustitia atque aequitas: eaeque voluptatibus et multis vitae commodis anteponebantur. Haec quidem fuit apud eos morum institutio et eius partis, quam primam posui, forma atque descriptio.

24. De natura autem--id enim sequebatur--ita dicebant, ut eam dividerent in res duas, ut altera esset efficiens, altera autem quasi huic se praebens, ea quae efficeretur aliquid. In eo, quod efficeret, vim esse censebant, in eo autem, quod efficeretur, materiam quandam: in utroque tamen utrumque: neque enim materiam ipsam cohaerere potuisse, si nulla vi contineretur, neque vim sine aliqua materia. Nihil est enim quod non alicubi esse cogatur. Sed quod ex utroque, id iam corpus et quasi qualitatem quandam nominabant: dabitis enim profecto, ut in rebus inusitatis, quod Graeci ipsi faciunt, a quibus haec iam diu tractantur, utamur verbis interdum inauditis.