uit Ciceroni
nostro beatum esse qui verum investigat etiam si ad eius inventionem non
valeat pervenire_, also _ibid._ III. 10 _illis (Academicis) placuit esse
posse hominem sapientem, et tamen in hominem scientiam cadere non posse_.
These I refer to Cicero's development of the _probabile_ in Book II.,
although I ought to say that Krische, p. 65, maintains that the substance
of Catulus' exposition in the _Ac. Priora_ transferred to Book IV. of the
_Ac. Posteriora_. As this would leave very meagre material for Book II.,
nothing indeed excepting the provisional proof of the deceptiveness of the
senses, I cannot accede to his arrangement; mine, I may remark, involves a
much smaller departure from the first edition. Allusions in Aug. to the
attack on the senses by Cic. in Book II. are difficult to fix, as they
apply equally well to the later attack in Book IV. As to Books III. and
IV., I do not think it necessary here to prove from Aug. the points of
agreement between them and the _Lucullus_, which will find a better place
in my notes on the latter, but merely give the divergences which appear
from other sources. These are the translation of [Greek: sophismata] by
_cavillationes_ in _Luc._ 75 (Seneca _Ep._ III.), and the insertion in 118
of _essentia_ as a translation of [Greek: ousia].

BOOK II.

ENTITLED _LUCULLUS_.

Sec.Sec.1--12. Summary. Lucullus, though an able and cultivated man, was
absent from Rome on public service too long during his earlier years to
attain to glory in the forum (1). He unexpectedly proved a great
general. This was due to his untiring study and his marvellous memory
(2). He had to wait long for the reward of his merits as a commander
and civil administrator, and was allowed no triumph till just before my
consulship. What I owed to him in those troublous times I cannot now
tell (3). He was not merely a general; he was also a philosopher,
having learned much from Antiochus and read much for himself (4). Those
enemies of Greek culture who think a Roman noble ought not to know
philosophy, must be referred to the examples of Cato and Africanus (5).
Others think that famous men should not be introduced into dialogues of
the kind. Are they then, when they meet, to be silent or to talk about
trifles? I, in applying myself to philosophy, have neglected no public
duty, nor do I think the fame of illustrious citizens diminished, but
enriched,