ed 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 [Greek: syntagmata] in question is that they are simply
the two books, entitled _Catulus_ and _Lucullus_, of the _Priora
Academica_. In my opinion the word [Greek: syntagma], the use of which to
denote a portion of a work Madvig suspects[155], thus obtains its natural
meaning. Cicero uses the word [Greek: syntaxis] of the whole work[156],
while [Greek: syntagma][157], and [Greek: syngramma][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 [Greek: syntagma], 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 so