academica of cicero. - 912 Freedom Library
academica of cicero. - 912 Freedom Library
academica of cicero. - 912 Freedom Library
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
The Project Gutenberg eBook <strong>of</strong> ...<br />
appellemus, vel promota et remota. If this language be closely pressed, the ap?p????µe?a are<br />
made <strong>of</strong> a subdivision <strong>of</strong> the p????µe?a, though no sensible reader would suppose Cic. to have<br />
had that intention. So if his words in D.F. V. 90 be pressed, the sumenda are made to include both<br />
producta and reducta, in D.F. III. 16 appeterent includes fugerent, ibid. II. 86 the opposite <strong>of</strong><br />
beata vita is abruptly introduced. So D.F. II. 88 frui dolore must be construed together, and ibid.<br />
II. 73 pudor modestia pudicitia are said coerceri, the writer's thoughts having drifted on rapidly to<br />
the vices which are opposite to these virtues.<br />
I now pass on to a second class <strong>of</strong> difficulties. Supposing that by ex iis Cic. means mediis, and<br />
not sumendis, about which he had intended to talk when he began the sentence; I believe that<br />
pluris aestimanda and minoris aestimanda simply indicate the a??a and apa??a <strong>of</strong> the Greek, not<br />
different degrees <strong>of</strong> a??a (positive value). That minor aestimatio should mean apa??a need not<br />
surprise us when we reflect (1) on the excessive difficulty there was in expressing this apa??a or<br />
negative value in Latin, a difficulty I have already observed on 36; (2) on the strong negative<br />
meaning which minor bears in Latin, e.g. sin minus in Cic. means "but if not." Even the Greeks<br />
fall victims to the task <strong>of</strong> expressing apa??a. Stobaeus, in a passage closely resembling ours<br />
makes e?att?? a??a equivalent to p???? apa??a (II. 6, 6), while Sext. Emp. after rightly defining<br />
ap?p????µe?a as ta ???a??? apa??a? e???ta (Adv. Math. XI. 62—64) again speaks <strong>of</strong> them as ta<br />
µ? ???a??? e???ta a??a? (Pyrrhon. Hypot. III. 191) words which usually have an opposite<br />
meaning. Now I contend that Cicero's words minoris aestimanda bear quite as strong a negative<br />
meaning as the phrase <strong>of</strong> Sextus, ta µ? ???a??? a??a? e???ta. I therefore conclude that Cicero<br />
has striven, so far as the Latin language allowed, to express the Stoic doctrine that, <strong>of</strong> the ad?af?<br />
?a, some have a??a while others have apa??a. He may fairly claim to have applied to his words<br />
the rule "re intellecta in verborum usu faciles esse debemus" (D.F. III. 52). There is quite as good<br />
ground for accusing Sextus and Stobaeus <strong>of</strong> misunderstanding the Stoics as there is for accusing<br />
Cicero. There are difficulties connected with the terms ???a?? a??a and ???a?? apa??a which<br />
are not satisfactorily treated in the ordinary sources <strong>of</strong> information; I regret that my space forbids<br />
me to attempt the elucidation <strong>of</strong> them. The student will find valuable aid in the notes <strong>of</strong> Madv. on<br />
the passages <strong>of</strong> the D.F. quoted in this note. Non tam rebus quam vocabulis: Cic. frequently<br />
repeats this assertion <strong>of</strong> Antiochus, who, having stolen the clothes <strong>of</strong> the Stoics, proceeded to<br />
prove that they had never properly belonged to the Stoics at all. Inter recte factum atque<br />
peccatum: Stob. speaks II. 6, 6 <strong>of</strong> ta µeta?? a?et?? ?a? ?a??a?. (This does not contradict his<br />
words a little earlier, II. 6, 5, a?et?? de ?a? ?a??a? ??de? µeta??, which have regard to divisions<br />
<strong>of</strong> men, not <strong>of</strong> actions. Diog. Laert., however, VII. 127, distinctly contradicts Cic. and Stob., see<br />
R. and P. 393.) Recte factum = ?at????µa, peccatum = ?aµa?t?µa, <strong>of</strong>ficium = ?a????? (cf. R.<br />
and P. 388—394, Zeller 238—248, 268—272). Servata praetermissaque: MSS. have et before<br />
servata, which all edd. since Lamb. eject. Where et and que correspond in Cic., the que is always<br />
an afterthought, added in oblivion <strong>of</strong> the et. With two nouns, adjectives, adverbs, or participles,<br />
this oblivion is barely possible, but when the conjunctions go with separate clauses it is possible.<br />
Cf. 43 and M.D.F. V. 64.<br />
§38. Sed quasdam virtutes: see 20. This passage requires careful construing: after quasdam<br />
virtutes not the whole phrase in ratione esse dicerent must be repeated but dicerent merely, since<br />
only the virtutes natura perfectae, the d?a???t??a? a?eta? <strong>of</strong> Arist., could be said to belong to<br />
the reason, while the virtutes more perfectae are Aristotle's ????a? a?eta?. Trans. "but spoke <strong>of</strong><br />
certain excellences as perfected by the reason, or (as the case might be) by habit." Ea genera<br />
virtutum: both Plato and Arist. roughly divided the nature <strong>of</strong> man into two parts, the intellectual<br />
and the emotional, the former being made to govern, the latter to obey (cf. T.D. II. 47, and Arist.<br />
t? µe? ??? ????? e???, t? de ep?pe??e? ?????); Zeno however asserted the nature <strong>of</strong> man to be<br />
one and indivisible and to consist solely <strong>of</strong> Reason, to which he gave the name ???eµ??????<br />
(Zeller 203 sq.). Virtue also became for him one and indivisible (Zeller 248, D.F. III. passim).<br />
When the ???eµ?????? was in a perfect state, there was virtue, when it became disordered there<br />
was vice or emotion. The battle between virtue and vice therefore did not resemble a war<br />
between two separate powers, as in Plato and Aristotle, but a civil war carried on in one and the<br />
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14970/14970-h/14970-h.htm[1/5/2010 10:31:57 AM]