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]].