academica of cicero. - 912 Freedom Library
academica of cicero. - 912 Freedom Library
academica of cicero. - 912 Freedom Library
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
The Project Gutenberg eBook <strong>of</strong> ...<br />
titles <strong>of</strong> at least seven ethical works, while Stob. II. 6, 4 quotes his definition <strong>of</strong> the a?a???.<br />
Diligenter ... tuebantur: far from true as it stands, Polemo was an inchoate Stoic, cf. Diog. Laert.<br />
IV. 18, Ac. II. 131, D.F. II. 34, and R. and P. Congregati: "all in the Academic fold," cf. Lael. 69,<br />
in nostro, ut ita dicam, grege. Of Crates and Crantor little is known. Polemonem ... Zeno et<br />
Arcesilas: scarcely true, for Polemo was merely one <strong>of</strong> Zeno's many teachers (Diog. VII. 2, 3),<br />
while he is not mentioned by Diog. at all among the teachers <strong>of</strong> Arcesilas. The fact is that we<br />
have a mere theory, which accounts for the split <strong>of</strong> Stoicism from Academicism by the rivalry <strong>of</strong><br />
two fellow pupils. Cf. Numenius in Euseb. Praep. Ev. XIV. 5, s?µf??t??te? pa?a ???eµ??? ef???<br />
t?µ???sa?. Dates are against the theory, see Zeller 500.<br />
§35. Anteiret aetate: Arcesilas was born about 315, Zeno about 350, though the dates are<br />
uncertain. Dissereret: was a deep reasoner. Bentl. missing the meaning conj. definiret. Peracute<br />
moveretur: Bentl. partiretur; this with definiret above well illustrates his licence in emendations.<br />
Halm ought not to have doubted the soundness <strong>of</strong> the text, the words refer not to the emotional,<br />
but to the intellectual side <strong>of</strong> Zeno's nature. The very expression occurs Ad Fam. XV. 21, 4, see<br />
other close parallels in n. on II. 37. Nervos ... inciderit: same metaphor in Philipp. XII. 8, cf. also<br />
T.D. II. 27 nervos virtutis elidere, III. 83 stirpis aegritudinis elidere. (In both these passages<br />
Madv. Em. Liv. 135 reads elegere for elidere, I cannot believe that he is right). Plato uses ?e??a<br />
e?teµ?e?? metaphorically. Notice inciderit but poneret. There is no need to alter (as Manut.,<br />
Lamb., Dav.) for the sequence is not uncommon in Cic., e.g. D.F. III. 33. Omnia, quae: MSS.<br />
quaeque, which edd. used to take for quaecunque. Cf. Goerenz's statement "negari omnino nequit<br />
hac vi saepius pronomen illud reperiri" with Madvig's utter refutation in the sixth Excursus to his<br />
D.F. Solum et unum bonum: for the Stoic ethics the student must in general consult R. and P. and<br />
Zeller for himself. I can only treat such points as are involved in the special difficulties <strong>of</strong> the<br />
Academica.<br />
§36. Cetera: Stoic ad?af??a, the presence or absence <strong>of</strong> which cannot affect happiness. The<br />
Stoics loudly protested against their being called either bona or mala, and this question was one<br />
<strong>of</strong> the great battle grounds <strong>of</strong> the later Greek philosophy. Secundum naturam ... contraria: Gr. ?<br />
ata f?s??, pa?a f?s??. His ipsis ... numerabat: I see no reason for placing this sentence after the<br />
words quae minoris below (with Christ) or for suspecting its genuineness (with Halm). The word<br />
media is the Gk. µesa, which word however is not usually applied to things, but to actions.<br />
Sumenda: Gk. ??pta. Aestimatione: a??a, positive value. Contraque contraria: Cic. here as in<br />
D.F. III. 50 feels the need <strong>of</strong> a word to express apa??a (negative value). (Madv. in his note on<br />
that passage coins the word inaestimatio.) Ponebat esse: cf. 19, M.D.F. V. 73.<br />
§37. To cope thoroughly with the extraordinary difficulties <strong>of</strong> this section the student must read<br />
the whole <strong>of</strong> the chapters on Stoic ethics in Zeller and Ritter and Preller. There is no royal road<br />
to the knowledge, which it would be absurd to attempt to convey in these notes. Assuming a<br />
general acquaintance with Stoic ethics, I set out the difficulties thus: Cic. appears at first sight to<br />
have made the ap?p????µe?a a subdivision <strong>of</strong> the ??pta (sumenda), the two being utterly<br />
different. I admit, with Madv. (D.F. III. 50), that there is no reason for suspecting the text to be<br />
corrupt, the heroic remedy <strong>of</strong> Dav., therefore, who reads media in the place <strong>of</strong> sumenda, must be<br />
rejected. Nor can anything be said for Goerenz's plan, who distorts the Stoic philosophy in order<br />
to save Cicero's consistency. On the other hand, I do not believe that Cic. could so utterly<br />
misunderstand one <strong>of</strong> the cardinal and best known doctrines <strong>of</strong> Stoicism, as to think even for a<br />
moment that the ap?p????µe?a formed a branch <strong>of</strong> the ??pta. This view <strong>of</strong> Madvig's is strongly<br />
opposed to the fact that Cic. in 36 had explained with perfect correctness the Stoic theory <strong>of</strong> the<br />
ad?af??a, nor is there anywhere in the numerous passages where he touches on the theory any<br />
trace <strong>of</strong> the same error. My explanation is that Cic. began with the intention to speak <strong>of</strong> the<br />
sumenda only and then rapidly extended his thought so as to embrace the whole class <strong>of</strong> ad?af??<br />
a, which he accordingly dealt with in the latter part <strong>of</strong> the same sentence and in the succeeding<br />
sentence. (The remainder has its own difficulties, which I defer for the present.) Cic. therefore is<br />
chargeable not with ignorance <strong>of</strong> Stoicism but with careless writing. A striking parallel occurs in<br />
D.F. III. 52, quae secundum locum obtinent, p????µe?a id est producta nominentur, quae vel ita<br />
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14970/14970-h/14970-h.htm[1/5/2010 10:31:57 AM]