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.