Academica · Marcus Tullius Cicero
ENTITLED _LUCULLUS_.
Some critics do not approve the particular philosophy which I follow--the Academic. This is natural, but they must know that Academicism puts no stop to inquiry (7). My school is free from the fetters of dogma; other schools are enslaved to authority (8). The dogmatists say they bow to the authority of the wise man. How can they find out the wise man without hearing all opinions? This subject was discussed by myself, Catulus, Lucullus, and Hortensius, the day after the discussion reported in the _Catulus_ (9). Catulus called on Lucullus to defend the doctrines of Antiochus. This Lucullus believed himself able to do, although the doctrines had suffered in the discussion of the day before (10). He spoke thus: At Alexandria I heard discussions between Heraclitus Tyrius the pupil of Clitomachus and Philo, and Antiochus. At that very time the books mentioned by Catulus yesterday came into the hands of Antiochus, who was so angry that he wrote a book against his old teacher (11 and 12). I will now give the substance of the disputes between Heraclitus and Antiochus, omitting the remarks made by the latter against Philo (12).
69 and Arist. on the progress of philosophy as there quoted. _Arcesilas Zenoni ... obtrectans_: see n. on I. 34. These charges were brought by each school against the other. In Plutarch _Adv. Colotem_ p. 1121 F, want of novelty is charged against Arcesilas, and the charge is at once joyfully accepted by Plut. The scepticism of Arcesilas was often excused by the provocation Zeno gave, see Aug. _Contra Acad._ II. 14, 15 and notes on fragm. 2 and 35 of the _Academica Posteriora_. _Immutatione verborum_: n. on I. 33. This phrase has also technical meanings; it translates the Greek τροποι (_Brut._ 69) and αλληγορια in _De Or._ II. 261, where an ex. is given. _Definitiones_: n. on 18. _Tenebras obducere_: such expressions abound in Cic. where the New Academy is mentioned, cf. 30 (_lucem eripere_), _N.D._ I. 6 (_noctem obfundere_) Aug. _Contra Ac._ III. 14 (_quasdam nebulas obfundere_), also the joke of Aug. II. 29 _tenebrae quae patronae Academicorum solent esse_. _Non admodum probata_: cf. the passage of Polybius qu. by Zeller 533. _Lacyde_: the most important passages in ancient authorities concerning him are quoted by Zeller 506. It is important to note that Arcesilas left no writings so that Lacydes became the source of information about his teacher's doctrines. _Tenuit_: cf. the use of _obtinere_ in _De Or._ I. 45. _In Aeschine_: so Dav. for the confused MSS. reading. For this philosopher see Zeller 533. As two MSS. have _hac nonne_ Christ conj. _Hagnone_ which Halm, as well as Baiter takes; Zeller 533 seems to adopt this and at once confuses the supposed philosopher with one Agnon just mentioned in Quint. II. 17, 15. There is not the slightest reason for this, Agnon and Hagnon being known, if known at all, from these two passages only.
It must not be forgotten that the Stoics held a sensation to be a real alteration (‛ετεροιωσις) of the material substance of the soul through the action of some external thing, which impresses its image on the soul as a seal does on wax, cf. Zeller 76 and 77 with footnotes. _Ex eo unde esset ... unde non esset_: this translation corresponds closely to the definition given by Sextus in four out of the six passages referred to by Zeller (in _Adv. Math._ VIII. 86 _Pyrrh. Hypotyp._ III. 242, the definition is clipt), and in Diog. Laert. VII. 50 (in 46 he gives a clipt form like that of Sextus in the two passages just referred to). It is worth remarking (as Petrus Valentia did, p. 290 of Orelli's reprint of his _Academica_) that Cic. omits to represent the words κατ' αυτο το ‛υπαρχον. Sextus _Adv. Math._ VII. 249 considers them essential to the definition and instances Orestes who looking at Electra, mistook her for an Erinys. The φαντασια therefore which he had although απο ‛υπαρχοντος (proceeding from an actually existent thing) was not κατα το ‛υπαρχον, i.e. did not truly represent that existent thing. Aug. _Cont. Acad._ II.
11 quotes Cicero's definition and condenses it thus; _his signis verum posse comprehendi quae signa non potest habere quod falsum est_. _Iudicium_: κριτηριον, a test to distinguish between the unknown and the known. _Eo, quo minime volt_: several things are clear, (1) that Philo headed a reaction towards dogmatism, (2) that he based the possibility of knowledge on a ground quite different from the καταληπτικη φαντασια, which he pronounced impossible, (3) that he distorted the views of Carneades to suit his own. As to (1) all ancient testimony is clear, cf. 11, Sextus _Pyrr. Hyp._ I. 235, who tells us that while the Carneadeans believed all things to be ακαταληπτα, Philo held them to be καταληπτα, and Numenius in Euseb. _Praep. Ev._ XIV. 8, p. 739, who treats him throughout his notice as a renegade. (2) is evident from the _Academica_ and from Sextus as quoted above. The foundation for knowledge which he substituted is more difficult to comprehend. Sextus indeed tells us that he held things to be _in their own nature_ καταληπτα (‛οσον δε επι τη φυσει των πραγματων αυτων καταλ.). But Arcesilas and Carneades would not have attempted to disprove this; they never tried to show that things _in themselves_ were incognisable, _but_ that human faculties do not avail to give information about them.
Unless therefore Philo deluded himself with words, there was nothing new to him about such a doctrine. The Stoics by their καταληπτικη φαντασια professed to be able to get at _the thing in itself_, in its real being, if then Philo did away with the καταλ. φαντ. and substituted no other mode of curing the defects alleged by Arcesilas and Carneades to reside in sense, he was fairly open to the retort of Antiochus given in the text. Numenius treats his polemic against the καταλ. φαντ. as a mere feint intended to cover his retreat towards dogmatism. A glimpse of his position is afforded in 112 of this book, where we may suppose Cic. to be expressing the views of Philo, and not those of Clitomachus as he usually does. It would seem from that passage that he defined the cognisable to be "_quod impressum esset e vero_" (φαντασια απο ‛υπαρχοντος εναπομεμαγμενη), refusing to add "_quo modo imprimi non posset a falso_ (‛οια ουκ αν γενοιτο απο μη ‛υπαρχοντος), cf. my n. on the passage. Thus defined, he most likely tried to show that the cognisable was equivalent to the δηλον or πιθανον of Carneades, hence he eagerly pressed the doubtful statement of the latter that the wise man would "opine," that is, would pronounce definite judgments on phenomena.
(See 78 of this book.) The scarcity of references to Philo in ancient authorities does not allow of a more exact view of his doctrine. Modern inquiry has been able to add little or nothing to the elucidation given in 1596 by Petrus Valentia in his book entitled _Academica_ (pp. 313--316 of the reprint by Orelli). With regard to (3), it it not difficult to see wherein Philo's "lie" consisted. He denied the popular view of Arcesilas and Carneades, that they were apostles of doubt, to be correct (12). I may add that from the mention of Philo's ethical works at the outset of Stobaeus' _Ethica_, he would appear to have afterwards left dialectic and devoted himself to ethics. What is important for us is, that Cic. never seems to have made himself the defender of the new Philonian dialectic. By him the dialectic of Carneades is treated as genuinely Academic. _Revolvitur_: cf. _De Div._ II. 13, also 148 of this book. _Eam definitionem_: it is noteworthy that the whole war between the sceptics and the dogmatists was waged over the definition of the single sensation. Knowledge, it was thought, was a homogeneous compound of these sense atoms, if I may so call them, on all hands it was allowed that _all_ knowledge ultimately rests on sense; therefore its possibility depends on the truth of the individual perception of sense.
All powers of sensation with the Stoics, who are perhaps imitated here, were included in the ‛ηγεμονικον, cf. n. on I. 38. _Alia quasi_: so Faber for _aliqua_. "_In vera et aperta partitione nec Cicero nec alius quisquam aliquis--alius dixit, multo minus alius--aliquis_," _M.D.F._ III. 63. Goer. on the other hand says he can produce 50 exx. of the usage, he forbears however, to produce them. _Recondit_: so the εννοιαι are called αποκειμεναι νοησεις (Plut. _De Sto. Repug._ p. 1057 a). In Sext. _Adv. Math._ VII. 373 μνημη is called θησαυρισμος φαντασιων. _Similitudinibus_: καθ' ‛ομοιωσιν Sext. _Pyrr. Hyp._ II. 75. Cic. uses this word as including all processes by which the mind gets to know things not immediately perceived by sense. In _D.F._ III. 33 it receives its proper meaning, for which see Madv. there, and the passages he quotes, "analogies" will here best translate the word, which, is used in the same wide sense in _N.D._ II. 22 38. _Construit_: so MSS. Orelli gave _constituit_. _Notitiae_: cf. 22. Cic. fails to distinguish between the φυσικαι εννοιαι or κοιναι which are the προληψεις, and those εννοιαι which are the conscious product of the reason, in the Stoic system. Cf. _M.D.F._ III. 21, V. 60, for this and other inaccuracies of Cic. in treating of the same subject, also Zeller 79. _Rerumque_: "facts". _Perfecta_: _sapientia_, _virtus_, _perfecta ratio_, are almost convertible terms in the expositions of Antiocheanism found in Cic. Cf. I. 20.
I do not think our passage at all analogous to those he quotes, and still prefer to construe _quem_ as a strong relative, making a pause between _quis_ and _quem_. _Visionem_: Simply another trans. of φαντασια. _Ut Carneades_: see Sext. _A.M._ VII. 166 την τε πιθανην φαντασιαν και την πιθανην ‛αμα και απερισπαστον και διεξωδευμενην (R. and P. 411). As the trans. of the latter phrase in Zeller 524 "probable undisputed and tested" is imperfect, I will give Sextus' own explanation. The merely πιθανη is that sensation which at first sight, without any further inquiry, seems probably true (Sext. _A.M._ VII. 167--175). Now no sensation is perceived _alone_; the percipient subject has always other synchronous sensations which are able to turn him aside (περισπαν, περιελκειν) from the one which is the immediate object of his attention. This last is only called απερισπαστος when examination has shown all the concomitant sensations to be in harmony with it. (Sext. as above 175--181.) The word "undisputed," therefore, is a misleading trans. of the term. The διεξωδευμενη ("thoroughly explored") requires more than a mere apparent agreement of the concomitant sensations with the principal one. Circumstances quite external to the sensations themselves must be examined; the time at which they occur, or during which they continue; the condition of the space within which they occur, and the apparent intervals between the person and the objects; the state of the air; the disposition of the person's mind, and the soundness or unsoundness of his eyes (Sext. 181--189).
8, 4 says Carneades allowed that truth and falsehood (or reality and unreality) could be affirmed of _things_, though not of _sensations_. If we could only pierce _through_ a sensation and arrive at its source, we should be able to tell whether to believe the sensation or not. As we cannot do this, it is wrong to assume that _sensation_ and _thing_ correspond. Cf. Sext. _P.H._ I. 22 περι μεν του φαισθαι τοιον η τοιον το ‛υποκειμενον (i.e. the thing from which the appearance proceeds) ουδεις ισως αμφισβητει, περι δε του ει τοιουτον εστιν ‛οποιον φαινεται ζητειται. Neither Carneades nor Arcesilas ever denied, as some modern sceptics have done, the actual existence of things which cause sensations, they simply maintained that, granting the existence of the things, our sensations do not give us correct information about them. _Eiusdem modi_: cf. 33 _eodem modo_. _Non posse accidere_: this is a very remarkable, and, as Madv. (_D.F._ I. 30) thinks, impossible, change from _recta oratio to obliqua_. Halm with Manut. reads _potest_. Cf. 101. §41. _Neque enim_: a remark of Lucullus' merely. _Quod sit a vero_: cf. Munio on Lucr. II. 51 _fulgor ab auro_. _Possit_: for the om. of _esse_ cf. n. on I. 29. §42. _Proposita_: cf. προτασεις _passim_ in Sext. _In sensus_: = _in ea, quae ad sensus pertinent_ cf. I. 20. _Omni consuetudine_: "general experience" εμπειρια, cf. _N.D._ I. 83. _Quam obscurari volunt_: cf. I. 33. _quod explanari volebant_; the em. of Dav. _obscurare_ is against Cic.'s usage, that of Christ _quam observari nolunt_ is wanton without being ingenious. _De reliquis_: i.e. _iis quae a sensibus ducuntur_. _In singulisque rebus_: the word _rebus_ must mean _subjects_, not _things_, to which the words _in minima dispertiunt_ would hardly apply. _Adiuncta_: Sext. _A.M._ VII. 164 (R. and P. 410) πασηι τη δοκουσηι αληθει καθεσταναι ευρισκεται τις απαραλλακτος ψευδης, also VII. 438, etc.
The criticism in 50 shows that the argument is meant to be based on the assumption known to be Stoic, _omnia deum posse_. If the god can manufacture (_efficere_) sensations which are false, but probable (as the Stoics say he does in dreams), why can he not manufacture false sensations which are so probable as to closely resemble true ones, or to be only with difficulty distinguishable from the true, or finally to be utterly indistinguishable from the true (this meaning of _inter quae nihil sit omnino_ is fixed by 40, where see n.)? _Probabilia_, then, denotes false sensations such as have only a slight degree of resemblance to the true, by the three succeeding stages the resemblance is made complete. The word _probabilia_ is a sort of tertiary predicate after _efficere_ ("to manufacture so as to be probable"). It _must not be repeated_ after the second _efficere_, or the whole sense will be inverted and this section placed out of harmony with 50. _Plane proxime_: = _quam proxime_ of 36.
The dogmatists maintained that the similarity between two phenomena could never be great enough to render it impossible to guard against mistaking the one for the other, the sceptics argued that it could. _Quod rerum natura non patitur_: again Lucullus confounds _essential_ with _phenomenal_ difference, and so misses his mark; cf. n. on 50. _Nulla re differens_: cf. the _nihil differens_ of 99, the substitution of which here would perhaps make the sentence clearer. The words are a trans. of the common Gk. term απαραλλακτος (Sext. _A.M._ VII. 252, etc.). _Ulla communitas_: I am astonished to find Bait. returning to the reading of Lamb. _nulla_ after the fine note of Madv. (_Em._ 154), approved by Halm and other recent edd. The opinion maintained by the Stoics may be stated thus _suo quidque genere est tale, quale est, nec est in duobus aut pluribus nulla re differens ulla communitas_ (ουδε ‛υπαρχει επιμιγη απαραλλακτος). This opinion is negatived by _non patitur ut_ and it will be evident at a glance that the only change required is to put the two verbs (_est_) into the subjunctive. The change of _ulla_ into _nulla_ is in no way needed. _Ut_ [_sibi_] _sint_: _sibi_ is clearly wrong here.
Madv., in a note communicated privately to Halm and printed by the latter on p. 854 of Bait. and Halm's ed of the philosophical works, proposed to read _nulla re differens communitas visi? Sint et ova_ etc. omitting _ulla_ and _ut_ and changing _visi_ into _sibi_ (cf. Faber's em. _novas_ for _bonas_ in 72). This ingenious but, as I think, improbable conj. Madv. has just repeated in the second vol. of his _Adversaria_. Lamb. reads _at tibi sint_, Dav. _at si vis, sint_, Christ _ut tibi sint_, Bait. _ut si sint_ after C.F.W. Muller, I should prefer _sui_ for _sibi_ (SVI for SIBI). B is very frequently written for V in the MSS., and I would easily slip in. _Eosdem_: once more we have Lucullus' chronic and perhaps intentional misconception of the sceptic position; see n. on 50. Before leaving this section, I may point out that the επιμιγη or επιμιξια των φαντασιων supplies Sext. with one of the sceptic τροποι, see _Pyrrh. Hyp._ I. 124. §55. _Irridentur_: the contradictions of physical philosophers were the constant sport of the sceptics, cf. Sext. _A.M._ IX. 1. _Absolute ita paris_: Halm as well as Bait. after Christ, brackets _ita_; if any change be needed, it would be better to place it before _undique_. For this opinion of Democr. see R. and P. 45. _Et eo quidem innumerabilis_: this is the quite untenable reading of the MSS., for which no satisfactory em. has yet been proposed, cf. 125. _Nihil differat, nihil intersit_: these two verbs often appear together in Cic., e.g._D.F._ III. 25.
A man who has mistaken P. for Q. Geminus could have no infallible mode of recognising Cotta. You say that no such indistinguishable resemblances _exist_. Never mind, they _seem_ to exist and that is enough. One mistaken sensation will throw all the others into uncertainty (84). You say everything belongs to its own _genus_ this I will not contest. I am not concerned to show that two sensations _are_ absolutely similar, it is enough that human faculties cannot distinguish between them. How about the impressions of signet rings? (85) Can you find a ring merchant to rival your chicken rearer of Delos? But, you say, art aids the senses. So we cannot see or hear without art, which so few can have! What an idea this gives us of the art with which nature has constructed the senses! (86) But about physics I will speak afterwards. I am going now to advance against the senses arguments drawn from Chrysippus himself (87). You said that the sensations of dreamers, drunkards and madmen were feebler than those of the waking, the sober and the sane. The cases of Ennius and his Alcmaeon, of your own relative Tuditanus, of the Hercules of Euripides disprove your point (88, 89). In their case at least 'mind and eyes agreed. It is no good to talk about the saner moments of such people; the question is, what was the nature of their sensations at the time they were affected? (90)
210 on behalf of Epicurus. _Sed hic_: Bait. _sit hic_. _Maiorum_: cf. 143. _Quasi quaeratur_: Carneades refused to discuss about things in themselves but merely dealt with the appearances they present, το γαρ αληθες και το ψευδες εν τοις πραγμασι συνεχωρει (Numen in Euseb. _Pr. Eu._ XIV. 8). Cf. also Sext. _P.H._ I. 78, 87, 144, II. 75. _Domi nascuntur_: a proverb used like γλαυκ' εσ' Αθηνας and "coals to Newcastle," see Lorenz on Plaut. _Miles_ II. 2, 38, and cf. _Ad Att._ X. 14, 2, _Ad Fam._ IX. 3. _Deus_: cf. 19. _Audiret ... ageret_: MSS. have _audies ... agerent_. As the insertion of _n_ in the imp. subj. is so common in MSS. I read _ageret_ and alter _audies_ to suit it. Halm has _audiret ... ageretur_ with Dav., Bait. _audiet, egerit_. _Ex hoc loco video ... cerno_: MSS. have _loco cerno regionem video Pompeianum non cerno_ whence Lipsius conj. _ex hoc loco e regione video_. Halm ejects the words _regionem video_, I prefer to eject _cerno regionem_. We are thus left with the slight change from _video_ to _cerno_, which is very often found in Cic., e.g. _Orat._ 18. Cic. sometimes however joins the two verbs as in _De Or._ III. 161. _O praeclarum prospectum_: the view was a favourite one with Cic., see _Ad Att._ I. 13, 5.
To paraphrase the sense is this "But say my opponents, the Stoics and Antiocheans, we desire no better senses than we have." Well you are like the mole, which does not yearn for the light because it does not know what light is. Of course all the ancients thought the mole blind. A glance will show the insipidity of the sense given by Halm's reading. _Quererer cum deo_: would enter into an altercation with the god. The phrase, like λοιδορεσθαι τινι as opposed to λοιδορειν τινα implies mutual recrimination, cf. _Pro Deiotaro_ 9 _querellae cum Deiotaro_. The reading _tam quererer_ for the _tamen quaereretur_ of the MSS. is due to Manut. _Navem_: Sextus often uses the same illustration, as in _P.H._ I. 107, _A.M._ VII. 414. _Non tu verum testem_, etc.: cf. 105. For the om. of _te_ before _habere_, which has strangely troubled edd. and induced them to alter the text, see n. on I. 6.
Crit. ad Or. p. Sestio_ p. 51 this explanation, "_cum furor eius initio remissior paulatim incitatior et vehementior factus esset_," he also refers to Wopkens _Lect. Tull._ p. 55 ed. Hand. _Incedunt_ etc.: the MSS. have _incede_, which Lamb. corrected. The subject of the verb is evidently _Furiae_. _Adsunt_: is only given once by MSS., while Ribbeck repeats it thrice, on Halm's suggestion I have written it twice. _Caerulea ... angui_: _anguis_ fem is not uncommon in the old poetry. MSS. here have _igni_. _Crinitus_: ακερσεκομης, "never shorn," as Milton translates it. _Luna innixus_: the separate mention in the next line of _Diana_, usually identified with the moon, has led edd. to emend this line. Some old edd. have _lunat_, while Lamb. reads _genu_ for _luna_, cf. Ov. _Am._ I. 1, 25 (qu. by Goer.) _lunavitque genu sinuosum fortiter arcum_. Wakefield on Lucr. III. 1013 puts a stop at _auratum_, and goes on with _Luna innixans_. Taber strangely explains _luna_ as = _arcu ipso lunato_, Dav. says we ought not to expect the passage to make sense, as it is the utterance of a maniac. For my part, I do not see why the poet should not regard _luna_ and _Diana_ as distinct. §90. _Illa falsa_: sc. _visa_, which governs the two genitives. Goer. perversely insists on taking _somniantium recordatione ipsorum_ closely together. _Non enim id quaeritur_: cf. 80 n. Sext. very often uses very similar language, as in _P.H._ I. 22, qu. in n. on 40. _Tum cum movebantur_: so Halm for MSS. _tum commovebantur_, the em. is supported by 88.
"There are two kinds of εποχη, one which prevents a man from expressing any assent or disagreement (in either of the two senses above noticed), another which does not prevent him from giving an answer to questions, provided his answer be not taken to imply absolute approval or absolute disapproval; the result of which will be that he will neither absolutely deny nor absolutely affirm anything, but will merely give a qualified 'yes' or 'no,' dependent on probability." My defence of the clause impugned is substantially the same as that of Hermann in the _Philologus_ (vol. VII.), which I had not read when this note was first written. _Alterum placere ... alterum tenere_: "the one is his formal dogma, the other is his actual practice." For the force of this see my note on _non probans_ in 148, which passage is very similar to this. _Neget ... aiat_: cf. 97. _Nec ut placeat_: this, the MSS. reading, gives exactly the wrong sense, for Clitomachus _did_ allow such _visa_ to stand as were sufficient to serve as a basis for action. Hermann's _neu cui_ labours under the same defect. Various emendations are _nam cum_ (Lamb., accepted by Zeller 522), _hic ut_ (Manut.), _et cum_ (Dav. followed by Bait.), _sed cum_ (Halm). The most probable of these seems to me that of Manut. I should prefer _sic ut_, taking _ut_ in the sense of "although." _Respondere_: "to put in as an answer," as in 93 and often. _Approbari_: sc. _putavit_. Such changes of construction are common in Cic., and I cannot follow Halm in altering the reading to _approbavit_.
We know nothing of our bodies, which we can dissect, while we have not the advantage of being able to dissect the constitution of things or of the earth to see whether she is firmly fixed or hovers in mid air (122). Xenophanes, Hicetas, Plato and Epicurus tell strange things of the heavenly bodies. How much better to side with Socrates and Aristo, who hold that nothing can be known about them! (123) Who knows the nature of mind? Numberless opinions clash, as do those of Dicaearchus, Plato and Xenocrates. Our _sapiens_ will be unable to decide (124). If you say it is better to choose any system rather than none, I choose Democritus. You at once upbraid me for believing such monstrous falsehoods (125). The Stoics differ among themselves about physical subjects, why will they not allow me to differ from them? (126) Not that I deprecate the study of Physics, for moral good results from it (127). Our _sapiens_ will be delighted if he attains to anything which seems to resemble truth. Before I proceed to Ethics, I note your weakness in placing all perceptions on the same level. You must be prepared to asseverate no less strongly that the sun is eighteen times as large as the earth, than that yon statue is six feet high. When you admit that all things can be perceived no more and no less clearly than the size of the sun, I am almost content (128).
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.