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 />
same country. Virtutis usum: cf. the description <strong>of</strong> Aristotle's finis in D.F. II. 19. Ipsum habitum:<br />
the mere possession. So Plato, Theaetet. 197 B, uses the word ?e???, a use which must be clearly<br />
distinguished from the later sense found in the Ethics <strong>of</strong> Arist. In this sense virtue is not a ?e???,<br />
according to the Stoics, but a d?a?es?? (Stob. II. 6, 5, Diog. VII. 89; yet Diog. sometimes speaks<br />
<strong>of</strong> virtue loosely as a ?e???, VII. 92, 93; cf. Zeller 249, with footnotes). Nec virtutem cuiquam<br />
adesse ... uteretur: cf. Stob. II. 6, 6 d?? ?e?? t?? a????p?? e??a? t? µe? t?? sp??da???, t? de t?<br />
? fa????, ?a? t? µe? t?? sp??da??? d?a pa?t?? t?? ß??? ???s?a? ta?? a?eta??, t? de t?? fa???<br />
? ta?? ?a??a??. Perturbationem: I am surprised that Halm after the fine note <strong>of</strong> Wesenberg,<br />
printed on p. 324 <strong>of</strong> the same volume in which Halm's text <strong>of</strong> the Acad. appears, should read the<br />
plural perturbationes, a conj. <strong>of</strong> Walker. Perturbationem means emotion in the abstract;<br />
perturbationes below, particular emotions. There is exactly the same transition in T.D. III. 23, 24,<br />
IV. 59, 65, V. 43, while perturbatio is used, in the same sense as here, in at least five other<br />
passages <strong>of</strong> the T.D., i.e. IV. 8, 11, 24, 57, 82. Quasi mortis: a trans. <strong>of</strong> Stoic pa?es?, which Cic.<br />
rejects in D.F. III. 35. Voluit carere sapientem: emotion being a disturbance <strong>of</strong> equilibrium in the<br />
reason, and perfect reason being virtue (20), it follows that the Stoic sapiens must be emotionless<br />
(Zeller 228 sq.). All emotions are reasonless; ??d??? or laetitia for instance is a????? epa?s??.<br />
(T.D. Books III. and IV. treat largely <strong>of</strong> the Stoic view <strong>of</strong> emotions.) Wesenberg, Em. to the T.D.<br />
III. p. 8, says Cic. always uses efferri laetitia but ferri libidine.<br />
§39. Aliaque in parte: so Plato, Tim. 69 C, Rep. 436, 441, Arist. De Anima II. 3, etc.; cf. T.D. I.<br />
20. Voluntarias: the whole aim <strong>of</strong> the Stoic theory <strong>of</strong> the emotions was to bring them under the<br />
predominance <strong>of</strong> the will. How the moral freedom <strong>of</strong> the will was reconciled with the general<br />
Stoic fatalism we are not told. Opinionisque iudicio suscipi: all emotion arose, said the Stoics,<br />
from a false judgment about some external object; cf. Diog. VII. 111. ta pa?? ???se?? e??a?.<br />
Instances <strong>of</strong> each in Zeller 233. For iudicio cf. D.F. III. 35, T.D. III. 61, IV. 14, 15, 18.<br />
Intemperantiam: the same in T.D. IV. 22, Gk. a???as?a, see Zeller 232. Quintam naturam: the<br />
peµpt? ??s?a or peµpt?? s?µa <strong>of</strong> Aristotle, who proves its existence in De Coelo I. 2, in a<br />
curious and recondite fashion. Cic. is certainly wrong in stating that Arist. derived mind from this<br />
fifth element, though the finest and highest <strong>of</strong> material substances. He always guards himself<br />
from assigning a material origin to mind. Cic. repeats the error in T.D. I. 22, 41, 65, D.F. IV. 12.<br />
On this last passage Madv. has an important note, but he fails to recognise the essential fact,<br />
which is clear from Stob. I. 41, 33, that the Peripatetics <strong>of</strong> the time were in the habit <strong>of</strong> deriving<br />
the mind from a????, which is the very name that Aristotle gives to the fifth element (s?µa a??<br />
e???? in the De Coelo), and <strong>of</strong> giving this out to be Aristotle's opinion. The error once made, no<br />
one could correct it, for there were a hundred influences at work to confirm it, while the works <strong>of</strong><br />
Aristotle had fallen into a strange oblivion. I cannot here give an exhaustive account <strong>of</strong> these<br />
influences, but will mention a few. Stoicism had at the time succeeded in powerfully influencing<br />
every other sect, and it placed ???? e? a??e?? (see Plutarch, qu. R. and P. 375). It had destroyed<br />
the belief in immaterial existence The notion that ???? or ???? came from a???? was also<br />
fostered by the language <strong>of</strong> Plato. He had spoken <strong>of</strong> the soul as ae?????t?? in passages which<br />
were well known to Cic. and had taken great hold on his mind One from the Phaedrus 245 C is<br />
translated twice, in Somnium Scipionis (De Rep. VI.), and T.D. I. 53 sq. Now the only thing with<br />
Aristotle which is ae?????t?? in eternal perfect circular motion (for to the ancients circular<br />
motion is alone perfect and eternal), is the a???? or peµpt?? s?µa, that fiery external rim <strong>of</strong> the<br />
universe <strong>of</strong> which the stars are mere nodes, and with which they revolve. How natural then, in<br />
the absence <strong>of</strong> Aristotle's works, to conclude that the ae?????t?? ???? <strong>of</strong> Plato came from the<br />
ae?????t?? a???? <strong>of</strong> Aristotle! Arist. had guarded himself by saying that the soul as an a??? ???<br />
?se?? must be a????t??, but Cic. had no means <strong>of</strong> knowing this (see Stob. I. 41, 36). Again,<br />
Plato had <strong>of</strong>ten spoken <strong>of</strong> souls at death flying away to the outer circle <strong>of</strong> the universe, as though<br />
to their natural home, just where Arist. placed his peµpt?? s?µa Any one who will compare T.D.<br />
I. 43 with the Somn. Scipionis will see what power this had over Cicero. Further, Cic. would<br />
naturally link the mind in its origin with the stars which both Plato and Arist. looked on as divine<br />
(cf. Somn. Scip. 15) These considerations will be enough to show that neither Cic. nor Antiochus,<br />
whom Madv. considers responsible for the error, could have escaped it in any way not<br />
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14970/14970-h/14970-h.htm[1/5/2010 10:31:57 AM]