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.) * * * * *