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.
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.)