academica of cicero. - 912 Freedom Library

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