unread, even by the Peripatetics themselves'. The later Peripatetics had adopted many Stoic doctrines in physics, as in ethics and dialectic, which they at the same time gave out as Aristotelian. Hence Antiochus, and Cicero with him, often supposed himself to be following Aristotle, when he was really treading in the track of Zeno. Thus far I have spoken almost entirely of the effect produced on Cicero's mind by the ethical and physical speculations of the Stoics and Antiochus, inasmuch as these teachers influenced him more powerfully than any others. Very few words are needed to characterize his estimate of the Peripatetic and Epicurean schools. The former was not very powerfully represented in his time. Peripateticism had long since been penetrated through and through by the spirit of Stoicism. The Peripatetic teachers of Cicero's age appear to have confined themselves almost entirely to the discussion of ethical questions, and in the treatment of these they were often only divided from the Stoics by the finest of lines. The principal point in dispute between the two schools was whether (as the Stoics said) virtue was the sole constituent of happiness, or whether (as the Peripatetics maintained) other endowments contributed to happiness, though to an utterly infinitesimal extent. One curious fact shews the decadence of the Peripatetic school at this time : the intellectual descendants of the author of the 'Organon' were notorious for their ignorance of logic. While not much influenced by the school, Cicero generally treats it tenderly for the sake of its great past, deeming it a worthy branch of the true Socratic family. His feeling for the Epicureans was wholly different. Though he often compliments them on their gentle dispositions and their love for one another, he expresses nothing but contempt and loathing for their philosophy. In physics they stood as absolutely alone as did the New Academy in dialectic; their system was grossly unintellectual and they dispensed with the use of mathematics. Their ethical doctrines excited in Cicero only disgust; dialectic they eschewed, and they crowned all their errors by a sin which the great orator could never pardon, for they were completely indifferent to every adornment and beauty of language. 1 Grote's Aristotle, Vol. 1. ch. 2. 2 Cf. for example Off. III. §§ 11, 35. 3 Tusc. IV. 9; Fin. III. 41. See n. on Ac. 11. 115 Epicureos tam bonos, tam inter se amantis uiros. 5 Acad. 1. § 6 with nn. § 3. On the aim of Cicero in writing his philosophical works, and their character. In the preceding sections some idea has been conveyed of the intellectual atmosphere in which Cicero lived, and the opinions concerning philosophy which he adopted. For the right appreciation of his philosophical works, one thing more is wanted, a clear notion of the objects he set before himself in writing them, and of the conditions under which they were written. Many of his modern critics have not had the patience to inquire what it was that he set himself to accomplish, and have condemned him for not achieving what he never intended to achieve. We have already seen that the last idea which could have entered into the mind of Cicero or his contemporaries would have been that of creating a new philosophy. He depended entirely on his predecessors, and so drew necessarily upon Greek sources. There is not one of his works (if we except the third book of the De Officiis), which he does not freely admit to have been derived from the Greek. When Cicero began to write, Latin may be said to have been destitute of a philosophical literature. Philosophy was a sealed study to those who were not thoroughly familiar with Greek. That the cultivated Roman public had some superficial acquaintance with the names and leading characteristics of the chief Greek philosophers is shown. by the allusions which meet us in the Roman literature of the stage from an early period'. But this slight and dim knowledge came entirely through Greek sources. Down to Cicero's time there was a strong prejudice against the teaching of philosophy in Latin, similar to that which led Antonius the orator in his consulship to close the schools of the teachers of rhetoric who gave their lessons in Latin. Throughout his life Cicero was a strong advocate for the use of Latin in imparting all forms of culture to the Roman youth. 1 I append a list of passages containing allusions to philosophy and philosophical reflections which I have marked in Ribbeck's Fragmenta: Ennius v. 340; Pacuuius: vv. 83-92, 348, 366-7; Attius: vv. 142, 296, 422; Trabea: v. 6; Caecilius: vv. 259 sq., 264, 266; Turpilius: vv. 9, 143; Afranius: v. 298; Pomponius entitled a play 'philosophia'; Laberius: vv. 17, 36, 72 sq. 98, p. 301; Incerti Auctores ap. Ribbeck 11. p. 120, v. 48; ib. p. 125, v. 75. Cf. too Ter. Andr. 57, Such philosophical literature as existed in Latin when Cicero began to write was almost entirely Epicurean, and that too (putting Lucretius aside) of a very miserable character. C. Amafinius, mentioned in the Academica', was the first to write, and his books seem to have had an enormous circulation. He found a host of imitators, who obtained such a favourable reception that, in Cicero's strong language, they took possession of the whole of Italy. A certain Rabirius and one Catius an Insubrian, of whom scarcely anything is known but their names, were two of the most noted of these writers. Cicero assigns various reasons for their extreme popularity: the easy nature of the Epicurean physics, the fact that there was no other philosophy for Latin readers, and the voluptuous blandishments of pleasure when proposed as an ethical end. This last cause, as in one passage he seems to allow, must have been of small importance. It is not a little remarkable that the whole of the Roman Epicurean literature was almost exclusively devoted to the physical side of the system. The Romans had as yet a strong practical basis for morality in the legal and social constitution of the family, and in their political life, and did not feel the need of theoretical systems, though the extinction of liberty was soon to produce the same effect it had occasioned in Greece. On the other hand the general decay among the educated classes of a belief in the supernatural, accompanied as it was by an increase of superstition among the masses, caused many readers to turn with avidity to a philosophy which offered a purely mechanical explanation of the universe. These Roman Epicureans are continually reproached by Cicero with their uncouth style of writing. They are bad translators of bad originals. He indeed confesses he had not read them, but we may well believe that the reports he followed were true. A curious question here arises, how it was that Cicero, in speaking of the Roman Epicurean literature, never mentioned Lucretius. Probably at this time the poems. of Lucretius had not yet made their way, and Cicero, unable to include the great poet in his sweeping condemnation, and unwilling to allow that anything good could come from the school of Epicurus, preferred 1 1. § 6. 2 Tusc. IV. §§ 6, 7 (a passage of great interest but too long to quote). 3 Tusc. IV. 6 commota multitudo contulit se ad eam potissimum disciplinam; ib. § 7 Italiam totam occupauerunt; cf. Fin. II. 44 populus cum illis facit. 4 Catius was not the same man as the epicure and friend of Horace (see Cic. Fam. xv. 16, 1). As regards Amafinius, Rabirius and Catius, this conclusion follows from Ac. I. § 6, and the casual mention in Fam. xv. 16, 1. 6 Acad. 1. § 6; Tusc. IV. §§ 6, 7; ib. II. 7 and III. 33; Fin. III. 40. 7 Fam. XV. 19, 2. 8 Tusc. II. 7. to keep silence concerning a little-known writer, about whom his readers would not expect him to express an opinion'. Cicero hated and despised Epicureanism most sincerely, and one of his chief aims in undertaking his philosophical works was to stem. the tide of its popularity in Italy. At the same time, as a patriot, he felt shame that the literature of his country should be destitute just where Greek was richest. He often tries by the most far-fetched arguments to shew that philosophy had left its mark on the Italian peoples in early times. We have seen that there were many men of culture who did not object to philosophy so long as it was taught and read in Greek. To these he replies with indignation, accusing them of being untrue to their country. It would be a glorious thing, he thinks, if Romans were no longer absolutely compelled to resort to the Greeks'. He will not even concede that Greek is a richer tongue than Latin". As for the alleged incapacity of the Roman intellect to deal with philosophical inquiries, he will not hear of it. It is only, he says, because the energy of the nation has been diverted into other channels that so little progress has been made in this direction. The history of Roman oratory is referred to in support of this opinion. If only an impulse were given at Rome to the pursuit of philosophy, already on the wane in Greece, Cicero thought that it would flourish and take the place of oratory, which he believed to be expiring amid the din of civil war'. He moreover clearly foresaw that the abolition of the old constitution of the state would drive many Romans in future to seek consolation in abstract studies. There can be no doubt that Cicero was penetrated by the belief that if he wrote on philosophy he would do his country a real service". 1 It is difficult to decide whether the Epicurean prose literature was published before or after the death of Lucretius. If, with Mr Munro, we interpret the boast of Lucretius in V. 336 that he wrote of Epicureanism in Latin 'primus cum primis,' to mean that he was the first Latin Epicurean writer in order of time, the matter would be settled. But it is not altogether certain that the expression 'primus cum primis' has this sense; and if it had, we should not be bound to take Lucretius au pied de la lettre. In 1. 66, for example, he says that Epicurus was the first man who dared to face the gods without terror, and in I. 117 that Ennius was the first Italian who gained fame from Helicon; statements not literally true. On the other hand Lucretius' words 'auia Picridum peragro loca' must be taken to indicate that he was the first Latin Epicurean poet, so that even if Rabirius did write before Lucretius, he cannot be identified with the poet mentioned by Ovid (Pont. IV. 16, 5), Velleius and Quintilian. 2 Tusc. IV. 3. 3 Ac. I. 10; Fin. 1. 4-6; ib. III. 5. Diu. II. 5 magnificum illud etiam Romanisque hominibus gloriosum, ut Graecis de philosophia litteris non cgeant; cf. Orat. 22 esset egregium non quaerere externa, domesticis esse contentos. 5 Fin. III. 5; N. D. 1. 8; Tusc. III. §§ 10, 16. Some of these passages almost look as though they might be meant for answers to Lucretius' laments about the 'patrii sermonis egestas.' 7 Tusc. II. 5. 6 Tusc. I. 5. 9 Cf. Leg. 1. 5 where the writing of In his enforced political inaction and amid the disorganisation of the law courts, it was only by such work that he could render any service at all'. He is within his right when he claims praise for not abandoning himself to idleness or worse, as did so many of the most prominent men of his time. For Cicero, idleness was at all times misery, and in those evil days he was spurred on to exertion by the deepest sorrow3. Philosophy took for him the place of forensic oratory, public harangues and politics. It is strange to find Cicero making such elaborate apologies for devoting himself to the study of philosophy, and a careless reader might set them down to egotism. But it must never be forgotten that at Rome all literary and artistic pursuits were merely the amusement of the wealthy; the total devotion of a life to them seemed well enough for Greeks, but for Romans unmanly and unpractical. Politics, oratory and war were the only worthy lifelong occupations for the Romans of wealth and ability. There were plenty of Romans, even in Cicero's time, ready to condemn literature and art altogether, as effeminate inventions of the Greeks. Some, while not objecting to other forms of literature, despised philosophy, and thought any Roman statesman degraded who meddled with it. Others, like the Neoptolemus of Ennius, thought a little learning in philosophy was good, but that a great deal of it was a dangerous thing. Some few preferred that Cicero should write on other subjects. To these he replies by urging the pressing necessity there was for works in Latin on philosophy. Still, amid much depreciation, sufficient interest and sympathy were roused by his first philosophical works to encourage Cicero to proceed. The elder generation, for whose approbation he most cared, praised the books, and many were induced both to read and to write works on philosophy. Cicero now extended his plan, which was at first only tentative, so as to bring within its scope every topic which Greek philosophers were accustomed to treat". Separate topics in philosophy 6 Fin. 1. 1 quibusdam et eis quidem non admodum indoctis totum hoc displicet, philosophari. Among these, for example, was Hortensius. In Orator § II we hear of people who, while not objecting to the pursuit of rhetoric, repudiated any attempt to treat it in connexion with philosophy. Cf. also Ac. II. 6; Arch. 12; Phil. II. 20. 7 Tusc. II. 1; Fin. 1. §§ 1, 3. 8 Fin. 1. § 1, 11. Among these was Atticus. 9 Din. 11. 5; Off. II. 2. 10 Din. 11. 4. |