academica of cicero. - 912 Freedom Library

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Project Gutenberg eBook of ... showed, after the principles of Antiochus, that such a basis was provided by the older philosophy, which both Carneades and Philo had wrongly abandoned. Thus Philo becomes the central point or pivot of the discussion. With this arrangement none of the indications in the Lucullus clash. Even the demand made by Hortensius upon Catulus [254] need only imply such a bare statement on the part of the latter of the negative Arcesilaean doctrines as would clear the ground for the Carneadean p??a???. One important opinion maintained by Catulus after Carneades, that the wise man would opine [255] (t?? s?f?? d??ase??), seems another indication of the generally constructive character of his exposition. Everything points to the conclusion that this part of the dialogue was mainly drawn by Cicero from the writings of Clitomachus. Catulus was followed by Hortensius, who in some way spoke in favour of Antiochean opinions, but to what extent is uncertain [256] . I think it extremely probable that he gave a résumé of the history of philosophy, corresponding to the speech of Varro in the beginning of the Academica Posteriora. One main reason in favour of this view is the difficulty of understanding to whom, if not to Hortensius, the substance of the speech could have been assigned in the first edition. In the Academica Posteriora it was necessary to make Varro speak first and not second as Hortensius did; this accounts for the disappearance in the second edition of the polemical argument of Hortensius [257] , which would be appropriate only in the mouth of one who was answering a speech already made. On the view I have taken, there would be little difficulty in the fact that Hortensius now advocates a dogmatic philosophy, though in the lost dialogue which bore his name he had argued against philosophy altogether [258] , and denied that philosophy and wisdom were at all the same thing [259] . Such a historical résumé as I have supposed Hortensius to give would be within the reach of any cultivated man of the time, and would only be put forward to show that the New Academic revolt against the supposed old Academico-Peripatetic school was unjustifiable. There is actual warrant for stating that his exposition of Antiochus was merely superficial [260] . We are thus relieved from the necessity of forcing the meaning of the word commoveris [261] , from which Krische infers that the dialogue, entitled Hortensius, had ended in a conversion to philosophy of the orator from whom it was named. To any such conversion we have nowhere else any allusion. The relation in which Hortensius stood to Cicero, also his character and attainments, are too well known to need mention here. He seems to have been as nearly innocent of any acquaintance with philosophy as it was possible for an educated man to be. Cicero's materials for the speech of Hortensius were, doubtless, drawn from the published works and oral teaching of Antiochus. The speech of Hortensius was answered by Cicero himself. If my view of the preceding speech is correct, it follows that Cicero in his reply pursued the same course which he takes in his answer to Varro, part of which is preserved in the Academica Posteriora [262] . He justified the New Academy by showing that it was in essential harmony with the Old, and also with those ancient philosophers who preceded Plato. Lucullus, therefore, reproves him as a rebel in philosophy, who appeals to great and ancient names like a seditious tribune [263] . Unfair use had been made, according to Lucullus, of Empedocles, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Parmenides, Xenophanes, Plato, and Socrates [264] . But Cicero did not merely give a historical summary. He must have dealt with the theory of ?ata??pt??? fa?tas?a and e????a? (which though really Stoic had been adopted by Antiochus), since he found it necessary to "manufacture" (fabricari) Latin terms to represent the Greek [265] . He probably also commented on the headlong rashness with which the dogmatists gave their assent to the truth of phenomena. To this a retort is made by Lucullus [266] . That Cicero's criticism of the dogmatic schools was incomplete may be seen by the fact that he had not had occasion to Latinize the terms ?ata????? (i.e. in the abstract, as opposed to the individual ? ata??pt??? fa?tas?a), e?a??e?a, ???µ?, ap?de????, d??µa, ???e???, ad??a, ep???, nearly all important terms in the Stoic, and to some extent in the Antiochean system, all of which Lucullus is obliged to translate for himself [267] . The more the matter is examined the more clearly does it http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14970/14970-h/14970-h.htm[1/5/2010 10:31:57 AM] [lii] [liii] [liv]
The Project Gutenberg eBook of ... appear that the main purpose of Cicero in this speech was to justify from the history of philosophy the position of the New Academy, and not to advance sceptical arguments against experience, which were reserved for his answer to Lucullus. In his later speech, he expressly tells us that such sceptical paradoxes as were advanced by him in the first day's discourse were really out of place, and were merely introduced in order to disarm Lucullus, who was to speak next [268] . Yet these arguments must have occupied some considerable space in Cicero's speech, although foreign to its main intention [269] . He probably gave a summary classification of the sensations, with the reasons for refusing to assent to the truth of each class [270] . The whole constitution and tenor of the elaborate speech of Cicero in the Lucullus proves that no general or minute demonstration of the impossibility of ep?st?µ? in the dogmatic sense had been attempted in his statement of the day before. Cicero's argument in the Catulus was allowed by Lucullus to have considerably damaged the cause of Antiochus [271] . The three speeches of Catulus, Hortensius, and Cicero had gone over nearly the whole ground marked out for the discussion [272] , but only cursorily, so that there was plenty of room for a more minute examination in the Lucullus. One question remains: how far did Cicero defend Philo against the attack of Catulus? Krische believes that the argument of Catulus was answered point by point. In this opinion I cannot concur. Cicero never appears elsewhere as the defender of Philo's reactionary doctrines [273] . The expressions of Lucullus seem to imply that this part of his teaching had been dismissed by all the disputants [274] . It follows that when Cicero, in his letter of dedication to Varro, describes his own part as that of Philo (partes mihi sumpsi Philonis [275] ), he merely attaches Philo's name to those general New Academic doctrines which had been so brilliantly supported by the pupil of Clitomachus in his earlier days. The two chief sources for Cicero's speech in the Catulus were, doubtless, Philo himself and Clitomachus. In that intermediate form of the Academica, where Cato and Brutus appeared in the place of Hortensius and Lucullus, there can be no doubt that Brutus occupied a more prominent position than Cato. Consequently Cato must have taken the comparatively inferior part of Hortensius, while Brutus took that of Lucullus. It may perhaps seem strange that a Stoic of the Stoics like Cato should be chosen to represent Antiochus, however much that philosopher may have borrowed from Zeno. The rôle given to Hortensius, however, was in my view such as any cultivated man might sustain who had not definitely committed himself to sceptical principles. So eminent an Antiochean as Brutus cannot have been reduced to the comparatively secondary position assigned to Hortensius in the Academica Priora. He would naturally occupy the place given to Varro in the second edition [276] . If this be true, Brutus would not speak at length in the first half of the work. Cato is not closely enough connected with the Academica to render it necessary to treat of him farther. b. The "Lucullus." The day after the discussion narrated in the Catulus, during which Lucullus had been merely a looker-on, the whole party left the Cuman villa of Catulus early in the morning, and came to that of Hortensius at Bauli [277] . In the evening, if the wind favoured, Lucullus was to leave for his villa at Neapolis, Cicero for his at Pompeii [278] . Bauli was a little place on the gulf of Baiae, close to Cimmerium, round which so many legends lingered [279] . The scenery in view was magnificent [280] . As the party were seated in the xystus with its polished floor and lines of statues, the waves rippled at their feet, and the sea away to the horizon glistened and quivered under the bright sun, and changed colour under the freshening breeze. Within sight lay the Cuman shore and Puteoli, thirty stadia distant [281] . Cicero strove to give vividness to the dialogue and to keep it perfectly free from anachronisms. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14970/14970-h/14970-h.htm[1/5/2010 10:31:57 AM] [lv] [lvi] [lvii] [lviii]
Page 1 and 2: The Project Gutenberg eBook of ...
Page 21: The Project Gutenberg eBook of ...
Page 73 and 74:
The Project Gutenberg eBook of ...
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141:
show all

academica of cicero. - 912 Freedom Library

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?