19. See on Luc. 57.
Further information on all these passages will be
found in my notes on the parallel passages 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 crassis 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
passive 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 assault 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 assigns this to the end of Varro’s
speech in the third Book. With this opinion I
find it quite impossible to agree. A passage 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 passage
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.)
