Academica · Marcus Tullius Cicero
INTRODUCTION.
In the beginning of June Cicero spent a few days at his villa near Antium[144], where he wrote a treatise addressed to Caesar, which he afterwards suppressed[145]. From the same place he wrote to Atticus of his intention to proceed to Tusculum or Rome by way of Lanuvium about the middle of June[146]. He had in the time immediately following Tullia's death entertained an aversion for Tusculum, where she died. This he felt now compelled to conquer, otherwise he must either abandon Tusculum altogether, or, if he returned at all, a delay of even ten years would make the effort no less painful[147]. Before setting out for Antium Cicero wrote to Atticus that he had finished while at Astura _duo magna_ συνταγματα, words which have given rise to much controversy[148]. Many scholars, including Madvig, have understood that the first edition of the _Academica_, along with the _De Finibus_, is intended. Against this view the reasons adduced by Krische are convincing[149]. It is clear from the letters to Atticus that the _De Finibus_ was being worked out book by book long after the first edition of the _Academica_ had been placed in the hands of Atticus. The _De Finibus_ was indeed begun at Astura[150], but it was still in an unfinished state when Cicero began to revise the _Academica_[151]. The final arrangement of the characters in the _De Finibus_ is announced later still[152]; and even at a later date Cicero complains that Balbus had managed to obtain surreptitiously a copy of the fifth book before it was properly corrected, the irrepressible Caerellia having copied the whole five books while in that state[153]. A passage in the _De Divinatione_[154] affords almost direct evidence that the _Academica_ was published before the _De Finibus_. On all these grounds I hold that these two works cannot be those which Cicero describes as having been finished simultaneously at Astura.
Another view of the συνταγματα in question is that they are simply the two books, entitled _Catulus_ and _Lucullus_, of the _Priora Academica_. In my opinion the word συνταγμα, the use of which to denote a portion of a work Madvig suspects[155], thus obtains its natural meaning. Cicero uses the word συνταξις of the whole work[156], while συνταγμα[157], and συγγραμμα[158], designate definite portions or divisions of a work. I should be quite content, then, to refer the words of Cicero to the _Catulus_ and _Lucullus_. Krische, however, without giving reasons, decides that this view is unsatisfactory, and prefers to hold that the _Hortensius_ (or _de Philosophia_) and the _Priora Academica_ are the compositions in question. If this conjecture is correct, we have in the disputed passage the only reference to the _Hortensius_ which is to be found in the letters of Cicero. We are quite certain that the book was written at Astura, and published before the _Academica_. This would be clear from the mention in the _Academica Posteriora_ alone[159], but the words of Cicero in the _De Finibus_[160] place it beyond all doubt, showing as they do that the _Hortensius_ had been published a sufficiently long time before the _De Finibus_, to have become known to a tolerably large circle of readers. Further, in the _Tusculan Disputations_ and the _De Divinatione_[161] the _Hortensius_ and the _Academica_ are mentioned together in such a way as to show that the former was finished and given to the world before the latter. Nothing therefore stands in the way of Krische's conjecture, except the doubt I have expressed as to the use of the word συνταγμα, which equally affects the old view maintained by Madvig.
Whatever be the truth on this point, it cannot be disputed that the _Hortensius_ and the _Academica_ must have been more closely connected, in style and tone, than any two works of Cicero, excepting perhaps the _Academica_ and the _De Finibus_. The interlocutors in the _Hortensius_ were exactly the same as in the _Academica Priora_, for the introduction of Balbus into some editions of the fragments of the _Hortensius_ is an error[162]. The discussion in the _Academica Priora_ is carried on at Hortensius' villa near Bauli; in the _Hortensius_ at the villa of Lucullus near Cumae. It is rather surprising that under these circumstances there should be but one direct reference to the _Hortensius_ in the _Lucullus_[163]. While at his Tusculan villa, soon after the middle of June, B.C. 45, Cicero sent Atticus the _Torquatus_, as he calls the first book of the _De Finibus_[164]. He had already sent the first edition of the _Academica_ to Rome[165]. We have a mention that new prooemia had been added to the _Catulus_ and _Lucullus_, in which the public characters from whom the books took their names were extolled. In all probability the extant prooemium of the _Lucullus_ is the one which was then affixed. Atticus, who visited Cicero at Tusculum, had doubtless pointed out the incongruity between the known attainments of Catulus and Lucullus, and the parts they were made to take in difficult philosophical discussions. It is not uncharacteristic of Cicero that his first plan for healing the incongruity should be a deliberate attempt to impose upon his readers a set of statements concerning the ability and culture of these two noble Romans which he knew, and in his own letters to Atticus admitted, to be false. I may note, as of some interest in connection with the _Academica_, the fact that among the unpleasant visits received by Cicero at Tusculum was one from Varro[166].
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 δεινος ανηρ, ταχα κεν και αναιτιον αιτιοωιτο.
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_, 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].
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].
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.