| 1. Aristophanes, Fragments, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Radicke (2022), Roman Women’s Dress: Literary Sources, Terminology, and Historical Development, 141 |
2. Aristophanes, Lysistrata, 150 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Radicke (2022), Roman Women’s Dress: Literary Sources, Terminology, and Historical Development, 142| 150. κἀν τοῖς χιτωνίοισι τοῖς ̓Αμοργίνοις | |
|
| 3. Menander, Fragments, None (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess (2012), Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens, 342 |
| 4. Menander, Fabula Incerta 1, 2, 7, 5 (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess (2012), Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens, 342 |
| 5. Aeschines, Letters, 1.97 (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Radicke (2022), Roman Women’s Dress: Literary Sources, Terminology, and Historical Development, 142 |
| 6. Menander, Fragments, None (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Radicke (2022), Roman Women’s Dress: Literary Sources, Terminology, and Historical Development, 138 |
| 7. Menander, Fragments, None (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess (2012), Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens, 342 |
| 8. Plautus, Cistellaria, 178, 177 (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess (2012), Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens, 342 |
| 9. Ennius, Annales, 522-523 (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 34 |
10. Cicero, De Oratore, 1.38, 1.154, 2.257 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 101; Pausch and Pieper (2023), The Scholia on Cicero’s Speeches: Contexts and Perspectives, 180| 1.38. Ego vero si velim et nostrae civitatis exemplis uti et aliarum, plura proferre possim detrimenta publicis rebus quam adiumenta, per homines eloquentissimos importata; sed ut reliqua praetermittam, omnium mihi videor, exceptis, Crasse, vobis duobus, eloquentissimos audisse Ti. et C. Sempronios, quorum pater, homo prudens et gravis, haudquaquam eloquens, et saepe alias et maxime censor saluti rei publicae fuit: atque is non accurata quadam orationis copia, sed nutu atque verbo libertinos in urbanas tribus transtulit, quod nisi fecisset, rem publicam, quam nunc vix tenemus, iam diu nullam haberemus. At vero eius filii diserti et omnibus vel naturae vel doctrinae praesidiis ad dicendum parati, cum civitatem vel paterno consilio vel avitis armis florentissimam accepissent, ista praeclara gubernatrice, ut ais, civitatum eloquentia rem publicam dissipaverunt. 1.154. In cotidianis autem commentationibus equidem mihi adulescentulus proponere solebam illam exercitationem maxime, qua C. Carbonem nostrum illum inimicum solitum esse uti sciebam, ut aut versibus propositis quam maxime gravibus aut oratione aliqua lecta ad eum finem, quem memoria possem comprehendere, eam rem ipsam, quam legissem, verbis aliis quam maxime possem lectis, pronuntiarem; sed post animadverti hoc esse in hoc viti, quod ea verba, quae maxime cuiusque rei propria quaeque essent ornatissima atque optima, occupasset aut Ennius, si ad eius versus me exercerem, aut Gracchus, si eius orationem mihi forte proposuissem: ita, si eisdem verbis uterer, nihil prodesse; si aliis, etiam obesse, cum minus idoneis uti consuescerem. 2.257. illa "si tu et adversus et aversus impudicus es." Etiam interpretatio nominis habet acumen, cum ad ridiculum convertas, quam ob rem ita quis vocetur; ut ego nuper Nummium divisorem, ut Neoptolemum ad Troiam, sic illum in campo Martio nomen invenisse; atque haec omnia verbo continentur. Saepe etiam versus facete interponitur, vel ut est vel paululum immutatus, aut aliqua pars versus, ut Stati a Scauro stomachante; ex quo sunt non nulli, qui tuam legem de civitate natam, Crasse, dicant: st, tacete, quid hoc clamoris? Quibus nec mater nec pater, tanta confidentia? Auferte istam enim superbiam. Nam in Caelio sane etiam ad causam utile fuit tuum illud, Antoni, cum ille a se pecuniam profectam diceret testis et haberet filium delicatiorem, abeunte iam illo, sentin senem esse tactum triginta minis? | |
|
| 11. Cicero, Pro S. Roscio Amerino, 46-47 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 108 |
| 12. Cicero, Pro Caelio, 38, 37 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 136 |
| 13. Cicero, In Pisonem, 65 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 126 |
| 14. Cicero, Letters, 7.3.10-7.3.11, 10.4.5 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius •statius caecilius (poet) Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 165; Gilbert, Graver and McConnell (2023), Power and Persuasion in Cicero's Philosophy. 236; Pausch and Pieper (2023), The Scholia on Cicero’s Speeches: Contexts and Perspectives, 180 |
| 15. Cicero, On Old Age, 24-25, 60-61, 14 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 34 |
16. Cicero, Tusculan Disputations, 3.44 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 26| 3.44. haec Epicuro confitenda sunt aut ea, quae modo expressa ad verbum dixi, tollenda de libro vel totus liber potius abiciundus; est enim confertus voluptatibus. Quaerendum igitur, quem ad modum aegritudine privemus privemur X corr. K 2 R 2 V 3 eum qui ita dicat: Pol mi/hi fortuna ma/gis nunc defit qua/m quam quod G 1 genus. Enn. Thyest. sc. 354 Na/mque namque neque K regnum su/ppetebat mi, mihi X corr. Grotius u/t scias, quanto e/ loco, Qua/ntis opibus, qui/bus de rebus la/psa fortuna a/ccidat. occidat Ribb. sed cf. Th. l. l. I p. 290 quid? huic calix mulsi impingendus est, ut plorare desinat, quid? plorare se desinat Non. 545, 20 aut aliquid eius modi? ecce tibi ex altera parte ab eodem poëta; ex opibus summis opis egens, Hector, haector X tuae —huic subvenire debemus; quaerit enim auxilium: Qui/d petam prae/sidi praesidii X aut e/xequar quo/ve nunc Ennius Andr. sc. 85. 6 Au/xilio e/xili exilii X (exillii K 1 ) de hiatu cf. Plaut. Aul. 142 al. ( Jacobsohn, Quaest. Plaut. Gött. 1904 p. 21 ) au/t fugae fugae s Bentl. fuga fre/ta sim? A/rce et urbe o/rba sum. quo a/ccidam? accedam X (accedam' K) corr. s quo a/pplicem? Cui/ nec arae pa/triae domi stant, fra/ctae et disiectae/ iacent, Fa/na flamma de/flagrata, to/sti alti alii X corr. M 2 s stant pa/rietes De/formati atque a/biete crispa— scitis quae sequantur, et illa in primis: ilium primis X corr. Tr. illud in primis V c s cf. p. 260, 26 O pa/ter, o patria, o Pri/ami domus, Saeptum a/ltisono cardi/ne templum! Vidi e/go te adstante dstantem X ( def. Va. ) sed m eras. in V astante p. 260, 22 ope ba/rbarica Tecti/s caelatis la/queatis, Auro e/bore instructam re/gifice. regificem X sed m exp. K 1 B | |
|
17. Cicero, De Optimo Genere Oratorum, 2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Pausch and Pieper (2023), The Scholia on Cicero’s Speeches: Contexts and Perspectives, 180| 2. oratorum autem si quis ita numerat plura genera, ut alios grandis aut gravis aut copiosos, alios tenuis aut subtilis aut brevis, alios eis interiectos et tamquam medios putet, de homini- bus dicit de hominibus dicit Orelli : hominibus deicit GP aliquid, de re parum. In re enim quid optimum sit quaeritur, in homine dicitur quod est. Itaque licet dicere et Ennium summum epicum poetam, si cui ita videtur, et Pacuvium tragicum et Caecilium fortasse comi- cum. | |
|
18. Polybius, Histories, 9.10.7-9.10.10 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •freed slaves, historical, caecilius statius Found in books: Richlin (2018), Slave Theater in the Roman Republic: Plautus and Popular Comedy, 374| 9.10.7. οὐ γὰρ οὕτως ὁ θεώμενος οὐδέποτε μακαρίζει τοὺς τἀλλότρια κεκτημένους, ὡς ἐν τῷ φθονεῖν ἅμα καί τις ἔλεος αὐτὸν ὑποτρέχει τῶν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἀποβαλόντων. 9.10.8. ἐπὰν δὲ καὶ προβαίνῃ τὰ τῆς εὐκαιρίας καὶ πάντα συνάγῃ πρὸς αὑτὸν τὰ τῶν ἄλλων, καὶ ταῦτα συγκαλῇ τρόπον τινὰ τοὺς ἐστερημένους ἐπὶ θέαν, διπλάσιον γίνεται τὸ κακόν. 9.10.9. οὐ γὰρ ἔτι τοὺς πέλας ἐλεεῖν συμβαίνει τοὺς θεωμένους, ἀλλὰ σφᾶς αὐτούς, ἀναμιμνησκομένους τῶν οἰκείων συμπτωμάτων. 9.10.10. ἐξ ὧν οὐ μόνον φθόνος, ἀλλʼ οἷον ὀργή τις ἐκκαίεται πρὸς τοὺς εὐτυχοῦντας· ἡ γὰρ τῶν ἰδίων περιπετειῶν ἀνάμνησις ὡς ἂν εἰ προτροπή τις ἐστι πρὸς τὸ κατὰ τῶν πραξάντων μῖσος. | 9.10.7. For in no case is one who contemplates such works of art moved so much by admiration of the good fortune of those who have possessed themselves of the property of others, as by pity as well as envy for the original owners. 9.10.8. And when opportunities become ever more frequent, and the victor collects around him all the treasures of other peoples, and these treasures may be almost said to invite those who were robbed of them to come and inspect them, things are twice as bad. 9.10.9. For now spectators no longer pity their neighbours, but themselves, as they recall to mind their own calamities. 9.10.10. And hence not only envy, but a sort of passionate hatred for the favourites of fortune flares up, for the memories awakened of their own disaster move them to abhor the authors of it. |
|
| 19. Cicero, On The Haruspices, 41 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Pausch and Pieper (2023), The Scholia on Cicero’s Speeches: Contexts and Perspectives, 180 |
20. Cicero, De Finibus, 2.12-2.15, 5.63 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 26, 168, 169, 171 | 2.12. What need is there to introduce so abandoned a character as Mistress Pleasure into the company of those honourable ladies the Virtues? Her very name is suspect, and lies under a cloud of disrepute â so much so that you Epicureans are fond of telling us that we do not understand what Epicurus means by pleasure. I am a reasonably good-tempered disputant, but for my own part when I hear this assertion (and I have encountered it fairly often), I am sometimes inclined to be a little irritated. Do I not understand the meaning of the Greek word hÄdonÄ, the Latin voluptas? Pray which of these two languages is it that I am not acquainted with? Moreover how comes it that I do not know what the word means, while all and sundry who have elected to be Epicureans do? As for that, your sect argues very plausibly that there is no need for the aspirant to philosophy to be a scholar at all. And you are as good as your word. Our ancestors brought old Cincinnatus from the plough to be dictator. You ransack the country villages for your assemblage of doubtless respectable but certainly not very learned adherents. 2.13. Well, if these gentlemen can understand what Epicurus means, cannot I? I will prove to you that I do. In the first place, I mean the same by 'pleasure' as he does by hÄdonÄ. One often has some trouble to discover a Latin word that shall be the precise equivalent of a Greek one; but in this case no search was necessary. No instance can be found of a Latin word that more exactly conveys the same meaning as the corresponding Greek word than does the word voluptas. Every person in the world who knows Latin attaches to this word two ideas â that of gladness of mind, and that of a delightful excitation of agreeable feeling in the body. On the one hand there is the character in Trabea who speaks of 'excessive pleasure of the mind,' meaning gladness, the same feeling as is intended by the person in Caecilius who describes himself as being 'glad with every sort of gladness.' But there is this difference, that the word 'pleasure' can denote a mental as well as a bodily feeling (the former a vicious emotion, in the opinion of the Stoics, who define it as 'elation of the mind under an irrational conviction that it is enjoying some great good'), whereas 'joy' and 'gladness' are not used of bodily sensation. 2.14. However pleasure according to the usage of all who speak good Latin consists in the enjoyment of a delightful stimulation of one of the senses. The term 'delight' also you may apply if you like to the mind ('to delight' is said of both mind and body, and from it the adjective 'delightful' is derived), so long as you understand that between the man who says So full am I of gladness That I am all confusion, and him who says Now, now my soul with anger burns, one of whom is transported with gladness and the other tormented with painful emotion, there is the intermediate state: Though our acquaintanceship is but quite recent, where the speaker feels neither gladness nor sorrow; and that similarly between the enjoyment of the most desirable bodily pleasures and the endurance of the most excruciating pains there is the neutral state devoid of either. 2.15. "Well, do you think I have properly grasped the meaning of the terms, or do I still require lessons in the use of either Greek or Latin? And even supposing that I do not understand what Epicurus says, still I believe I really have a very clear knowledge of Greek, so that perhaps it is partly his fault for using such unintelligible language. Obscurity is excusable on two grounds: it may be deliberately adopted, as in the case of Heraclitus, The surname of the Obscure who bore, So dark his philosophic lore; or the obscurity may be due to the abstruseness of the subject and not of the style â an instance of this is Plato's Timaeus. But Epicurus, in my opinion, has no intention of not speaking plainly and clearly if he can, nor is he discussing a recondite subject like natural philosophy, nor a technical subject such as mathematics, but a lucid and easy topic, and one that is generally familiar already. And yet you Epicureans do not deny that we understand what pleasure is, but what he means by it; which proves not that we do not understand the real meaning of the word, but that Epicurus is speaking an idiom of his own and ignoring our accepted terminology. 5.63. But I need not speak of ourselves, whose birth, breeding and education point us towards glory and towards honour; think of the uneducated multitude, â what a tempest of applause rings through the theatre at the words: I am Orestes, and at the rejoinder: No, no, 'tis I, I say, I am Orestes. And then when each offers a solution to the king in his confusion and perplexity: Then prithee slay us both; we'll die together: as often as this scene is acted, does it ever fail to arouse the greatest enthusiasm? This proves that all men without exception approve and applaud the disposition that not only seeks no advantage for itself, but is loyal and true even to its own disadvantage. |
|
21. Cicero, On Divination, 1.9, 1.11, 1.34, 1.72, 1.109-1.110, 2.13, 2.16-2.27, 2.100, 2.104 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •statius caecilius •caecilius statius, synephebi Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 215; Maso (2022), CIcero's Philosophy, 81| 1.9. Eius rationi non sane desidero quid respondeam; satis enim defensa religio est in secundo libro a Lucilio, cuius disputatio tibi ipsi, ut in extremo tertio scribis, ad veritatem est visa propensior. Sed, quod praetermissum est in illis libris (credo, quia commodius arbitratus es separatim id quaeri deque eo disseri), id est de divinatione, quae est earum rerum, quae fortuitae putantur, praedictio atque praesensio, id, si placet, videamus quam habeat vim et quale sit. Ego enim sic existimo, si sint ea genera dividi vera, de quibus accepimus quaeque colimus, esse deos, vicissimque, si di sint, esse qui divinent. 1.11. Ego vero, inquam, philosophiae, Quinte, semper vaco; hoc autem tempore, cum sit nihil aliud, quod lubenter agere possim, multo magis aveo audire, de divinatione quid sentias. Nihil, inquit, equidem novi, nec quod praeter ceteros ipse sentiam; nam cum antiquissimam sententiam, tum omnium populorum et gentium consensu conprobatam sequor. Duo sunt enim dividi genera, quorum alterum artis est, alterum naturae. 1.34. Iis igitur adsentior, qui duo genera divinationum esse dixerunt, unum, quod particeps esset artis, alterum, quod arte careret. Est enim ars in iis, qui novas res coniectura persequuntur, veteres observatione didicerunt. Carent autem arte ii, qui non ratione aut coniectura observatis ac notatis signis, sed concitatione quadam animi aut soluto liberoque motu futura praesentiunt, quod et somniantibus saepe contingit et non numquam vaticitibus per furorem, ut Bacis Boeotius, ut Epimenides Cres, ut Sibylla Erythraea. Cuius generis oracla etiam habenda sunt, non ea, quae aequatis sortibus ducuntur, sed illa, quae instinctu divino adflatuque funduntur; etsi ipsa sors contemnenda non est, si et auctoritatem habet vetustatis, ut eae sunt sortes, quas e terra editas accepimus; quae tamen ductae ut in rem apte cadant, fieri credo posse divinitus. Quorum omnium interpretes, ut grammatici poe+tarum, proxime ad eorum, quos interpretantur, divinationem videntur accedere. 1.72. in quo haruspices, augures coniectoresque numerantur. Haec inprobantur a Peripateticis, a Stoicis defenduntur. Quorum alia sunt posita in monumentis et disciplina, quod Etruscorum declarant et haruspicini et fulgurales et rituales libri, vestri etiam augurales, alia autem subito ex tempore coniectura explicantur, ut apud Homerum Calchas, qui ex passerum numero belli Troiani annos auguratus est, et ut in Sullae scriptum historia videmus, quod te inspectante factum est, ut, cum ille in agro Nolano inmolaret ante praetorium, ab infima ara subito anguis emergeret, cum quidem C. Postumius haruspex oraret illum, ut in expeditionem exercitum educeret; id cum Sulla fecisset, tum ante oppidum Nolam florentissuma Samnitium castra cepit. 1.109. Sed ut, unde huc digressa est, eodem redeat oratio: si nihil queam disputare, quam ob rem quidque fiat, et tantum modo fieri ea, quae commemoravi, doceam, parumne Epicuro Carneadive respondeam? Quid, si etiam ratio exstat artificiosae praesensionis facilis, divinae autem paulo obscurior? Quae enim extis, quae fulgoribus, quae portentis, quae astris praesentiuntur, haec notata sunt observatione diuturna. Adfert autem vetustas omnibus in rebus longinqua observatione incredibilem scientiam; quae potest esse etiam sine motu atque inpulsu deorum, cum, quid ex quoque eveniat, et quid quamque rem significet, crebra animadversione perspectum est. 1.110. Altera divinatio est naturalis, ut ante dixi; quae physica disputandi subtilitate referenda est ad naturam deorum, a qua, ut doctissimis sapientissimisque placuit, haustos animos et libatos habemus; cumque omnia completa et referta sint aeterno sensu et mente divina, necesse est cognatione divinorum animorum animos humanos commoveri. Sed vigilantes animi vitae necessitatibus serviunt diiunguntque se a societate divina vinclis corporis inpediti. 2.13. Sed animadverti, Quinte, te caute et ab iis coniecturis, quae haberent artem atque prudentiam, et ab iis rebus, quae sensibus aut artificiis perciperentur, abducere divinationem eamque ita definire: divinationem esse earum rerum praedictionem et praesensionem, quae essent fortuitae. Primum eodem revolveris. Nam et medici et gubernatoris et imperatoris praesensio est rerum fortuitarum. Num igitur aut haruspex aut augur aut vates quis aut somnians melius coniecerit aut e morbo evasurum aegrotum aut e periculo navem aut ex insidiis exercitum quam medicus, quam gubernator, quam imperator? 2.16. Medicus morbum ingravescentem ratione providet, insidias imperator, tempestates gubernator; et tamen ii ipsi saepe falluntur, qui nihil sine certa ratione opitur; ut agricola, cum florem oleae videt, bacam quoque se visurum putat, non sine ratione ille quidem; sed non numquam tamen fallitur. Quodsi falluntur ii, qui nihil sine aliqua probabili coniectura ac ratione dicunt, quid existimandum est de coniectura eorum, qui extis aut avibus aut ostentis aut oraclis aut somniis futura praesentiunt? Nondum dico, quam haec signa nulla sint, fissum iecoris, corvi cantus, volatus aquilae, stellae traiectio, voces furentium, sortes, somnia; de quibus singulis dicam suo loco; nunc de universis. 2.17. Qui potest provideri quicquam futurum esse, quod neque causam habet ullam neque notam, cur futurum sit? Solis defectiones itemque lunae praedicuntur in multos annos ab iis, qui siderum motus numeris persequuntur; ea praedicunt enim, quae naturae necessitas perfectura est. Vident ex constantissimo motu lunae, quando illa e regione solis facta incurrat in umbram terrae, quae est meta noctis, ut eam obscurari necesse sit, quandoque eadem luna subiecta atque opposita soli nostris oculis eius lumen obscuret, quo in signo quaeque errantium stellarum quoque tempore futura sit, qui exortus quoque die signi alicuius aut qui occasus futurus sit. Haec qui ante dicunt, quam rationem sequantur, vides. 2.18. Qui thesaurum inventum iri aut hereditatem venturam dicunt, quid sequuntur? aut in qua rerum natura inest id futurum? Quodsi haec eaque, quae sunt eiusdem generis, habent aliquam talem necessitatem, quid est tandem, quod casu fieri aut forte fortuna putemus? Nihil enim est tam contrarium rationi et constantiae quam fortuna, ut mihi ne in deum quidem cadere videatur, ut sciat, quid casu et fortuito futurum sit. Si enim scit, certe illud eveniet; sin certe eveniet, nulla fortuna est; est autem fortuna; rerum igitur fortuitarum nulla praesensio est. 2.19. Aut si negas esse fortunam et omnia, quae fiunt quaeque futura sunt, ex omni aeternitate definita dicis esse fataliter, muta definitionem divinationis, quam dicebas praesensionem esse rerum fortuitarum. Si enim nihil fieri potest, nihil accidere, nihil evenire, nisi quod ab omni aeternitate certum fuerit esse futurum rato tempore, quae potest esse fortuna? qua sublata qui locus est divinationi? quae a te fortuitarum rerum est dicta praesensio. Quamquam dicebas omnia, quae fierent futurave essent, fato contineri. Anile sane et plenum superstitionis fati nomen ipsum; sed tamen apud Stoicos de isto fato multa dicuntur; de quo alias; nunc quod necesse est. 2.20. Si omnia fato, quid mihi divinatio prodest? Quod enim is, qui divinat, praedicit, id vero futurum est, ut ne illud quidem sciam quale sit, quod Deiotarum, necessarium nostrum, ex itinere aquila revocavit; qui nisi revertisset, in eo conclavi ei cubandum fuisset, quod proxuma nocte corruit; ruina igitur oppressus esset. At id neque, si fatum fuerat, effugisset nec, si non fuerat, in eum casum incidisset. Quid ergo adiuvat divinatio? aut quid est, quod me moneant aut sortes aut exta aut ulla praedictio? Si enim fatum fuit classes populi Romani bello Punico primo, alteram naufragio, alteram a Poenis depressam, interire, etiamsi tripudium solistumum pulli fecissent L. Iunio et P. Claudio consulibus, classes tamen interissent. Sin, cum auspiciis obtemperatum esset, interiturae classes non fuerunt, non interierunt fato; vultis autem omnia fato; 2.21. nulla igitur est divinatio. Quodsi fatum fuit bello Punico secundo exercitum populi Romani ad lacum Trasumennum interire, num id vitari potuit, si Flaminius consul iis signis iisque auspiciis, quibus pugnare prohibebatur, paruisset? Certe potuit. Aut igitur non fato interiit exercitus, aut, si fato (quod certe vobis ita dicendum est), etiamsi obtemperasset auspiciis, idem eventurum fuisset; mutari enim fata non possunt. Ubi est igitur ista divinatio Stoicorum? quae, si fato omnia fiunt, nihil nos admonere potest, ut cautiores simus; quoquo enim modo nos gesserimus, fiet tamen illud, quod futurum est; sin autem id potest flecti, nullum est fatum; ita ne divinatio quidem, quoniam ea rerum futurarum est. Nihil autem est pro certo futurum, quod potest aliqua procuratione accidere ne fiat. 2.22. Atque ego ne utilem quidem arbitror esse nobis futurarum rerum scientiam. Quae enim vita fuisset Priamo, si ab adulescentia scisset, quos eventus senectutis esset habiturus? Abeamus a fabulis, propiora videamus. Clarissimorum hominum nostrae civitatis gravissimos exitus in Consolatione collegimus. Quid igitur? ut omittamus superiores, Marcone Crasso putas utile fuisse tum, cum maxumis opibus fortunisque florebat, scire sibi interfecto Publio filio exercituque deleto trans Euphratem cum ignominia et dedecore esse pereundum? An Cn. Pompeium censes tribus suis consulatibus, tribus triumphis, maximarum rerum gloria laetaturum fuisse, si sciret se in solitudine Aegyptiorum trucidatum iri amisso exercitu, post mortem vero ea consecutura, quae sine lacrimis non possumus dicere? 2.23. Quid vero Caesarem putamus, si divinasset fore ut in eo senatu, quem maiore ex parte ipse cooptasset, in curia Pompeia ante ipsius Pompeii simulacrum tot centurionibus suis inspectantibus a nobilissumis civibus, partim etiam a se omnibus rebus ornatis, trucidatus ita iaceret, ut ad eius corpus non modo amicorum, sed ne servorum quidem quisquam accederet, quo cruciatu animi vitam acturum fuisse? Certe igitur ignoratio futurorum malorum utilior est quam scientia. 2.24. Nam illud quidem dici, praesertim a Stoicis, nullo modo potest: Non isset ad arma Pompeius, non transisset Crassus Euphratem, non suscepisset bellum civile Caesar. Non igitur fatalis exitus habuerunt; vultis autem evenire omnia fato; nihil ergo illis profuisset divinare; atque etiam omnem fructum vitae superioris perdidissent; quid enim posset iis esse laetum exitus suos cogitantibus? Ita, quoquo sese verterint Stoici, iaceat necesse est omnis eorum sollertia. Si enim id, quod eventurum est, vel hoc vel illo modo potest evenire, fortuna valet plurimum; quae autem fortuita sunt, certa esse non possunt. Sin autem certum est, quid quaque de re quoque tempore futurum sit, quid est, quod me adiuvent haruspices? qui cum res tristissimas portendi dixerunt, addunt ad extremum omnia levius casura rebus divinis procuratis; 2.25. si enim nihil fit extra fatum, nihil levari re divina potest. Hoc sentit Homerus, cum querentem Iovem inducit, quod Sarpedonem filium a morte contra fatum eripere non posset. Hoc idem significat Graecus ille in eam sententiam versus: Quod fóre paratum est, íd summum exsuperát Iovem. Totum omnino fatum etiam Atellanio versu iure mihi esse inrisum videtur; sed in rebus tam severis non est iocandi locus. Concludatur igitur ratio: Si enim provideri nihil potest futurum esse eorum, quae casu fiunt, quia esse certa non possunt, divinatio nulla est; sin autem idcirco possunt provideri, quia certa sunt et fatalia, rursus divinatio nulla est; eam enim tu fortuitarum rerum esse dicebas. 2.26. Sed haec fuerit nobis tamquam levis armaturae prima orationis excursio; nunc comminus agamus experiamurque, si possimus cornua commovere disputationis tuae. Duo enim genera dividi esse dicebas, unum artificiosum, alterum naturale; artificiosum constare partim ex coniectura, partim ex observatione diuturna; naturale, quod animus arriperet aut exciperet extrinsecus ex divinitate, unde omnes animos haustos aut acceptos aut libatos haberemus. Artificiosa divinationis illa fere genera ponebas: extispicum eorumque, qui ex fulgoribus ostentisque praedicerent, tum augurum eorumque, qui signis aut ominibus uterentur, omneque genus coniecturale in hoc fere genere ponebas. 2.27. Illud autem naturale aut concitatione mentis edi et quasi fundi videbatur aut animo per somnum sensibus et curis vacuo provideri. Duxisti autem divinationem omnem a tribus rebus, a deo, a fato, a natura. Sed tamen cum explicare nihil posses, pugnasti commenticiorum exemplorum mirifica copia. De quo primum hoc libet dicere: Hoc ego philosophi non esse arbitror, testibus uti, qui aut casu veri aut malitia falsi fictique esse possunt; argumentis et rationibus oportet, quare quidque ita sit, docere, non eventis, iis praesertim, quibus mihi liceat non credere. 2.100. Restant duo dividi genera, quae habere dicimur a natura, non ab arte, vaticidi et somniandi; de quibus, Quinte, inquam, si placet, disseramus. Mihi vero, inquit, placet; his enim, quae adhuc disputasti, prorsus adsentior, et, vere ut loquar, quamquam tua me oratio confirmavit, tamen etiam mea sponte nimis superstitiosam de divinatione Stoicorum sententiam iudicabam; haec me Peripateticorum ratio magis movebat et veteris Dicaearchi et eius, qui nunc floret, Cratippi, qui censent esse in mentibus hominum tamquam oraclum aliquod, ex quo futura praesentiant, si aut furore divino incitatus animus aut somno relaxatus solute moveatur ac libere. His de generibus quid sentias et quibus ea rationibus infirmes, audire sane velim. 2.104. Videsne, ut ad rem dubiam a concessis rebus pervenerit? Hoc vos dialectici non facitis, nec solum ea non sumitis ad concludendum, quae ab omnibus concedantur, sed ea sumitis, quibus concessis nihilo magis efficiatur, quod velitis. Primum enim hoc sumitis: Si sunt di, benefici in homines sunt. Quis hoc vobis dabit? Epicurusne? qui negat quicquam deos nec alieni curare nec sui; an noster Ennius? qui magno plausu loquitur adsentiente populo: E/go deum genus ésse semper díxi et dicam caélitum, Séd eos non curáre opinor, quíd agat humanúm genus. Et quidem, cur sic opinetur, rationem subicit; sed nihil est necesse dicere, quae sequuntur; tantum sat est intellegi, id sumere istos pro certo, quod dubium controversumque sit. | 1.9. However, I am really at no loss for a reply to his reasoning; for in the second book Lucilius has made an adequate defence of religion and his argument, as you yourself state at the end of the third book, seemed to you nearer to the truth than Cottas. But there is a question which you passed over in those books because, no doubt, you thought it more expedient to inquire into it in a separate discussion: I refer to divination, which is the foreseeing and foretelling of events considered as happening by chance. Now let us see, if you will, what efficacy it has and what its nature is. My own opinion is that, if the kinds of divination which we have inherited from our forefathers and now practise are trustworthy, then there are gods and, conversely, if there are gods then there are men who have the power of divination. [6] 1.11. Really, my dear Quintus, said I, I always have time for philosophy. Moreover, since there is nothing else at this time that I can do with pleasure, I am all the more eager to hear what you think about divination.There is, I assure you, said he, nothing new or original in my views; for those which I adopt are not only very old, but they are endorsed by the consent of all peoples and nations. There are two kinds of divination: the first is dependent on art, the other on nature. 1.34. I agree, therefore, with those who have said that there are two kinds of divination: one, which is allied with art; the other, which is devoid of art. Those diviners employ art, who, having learned the known by observation, seek the unknown by deduction. On the other hand those do without art who, unaided by reason or deduction or by signs which have been observed and recorded, forecast the future while under the influence of mental excitement, or of some free and unrestrained emotion. This condition often occurs to men while dreaming and sometimes to persons who prophesy while in a frenzy — like Bacis of Boeotia, Epimenides of Crete and the Sibyl of Erythraea. In this latter class must be placed oracles — not oracles given by means of equalized lots — but those uttered under the impulse of divine inspiration; although divination by lot is not in itself to be despised, if it has the sanction of antiquity, as in the case of those lots which, according to tradition, sprang out of the earth; for in spite of everything, I am inclined to think that they may, under the power of God, be so drawn as to give an appropriate response. Men capable of correctly interpreting all these signs of the future seem to approach very near to the divine spirit of the gods whose wills they interpret, just as scholars do when they interpret the poets. 1.72. But those methods of divination which are dependent on conjecture, or on deductions from events previously observed and recorded, are, as I have said before, not natural, but artificial, and include the inspection of entrails, augury, and the interpretation of dreams. These are disapproved of by the Peripatetics and defended by the Stoics. Some are based upon records and usage, as is evident from the Etruscan books on divination by means of inspection of entrails and by means of thunder and lightning, and as is also evident from the books of your augural college; while others are dependent on conjecture made suddenly and on the spur of the moment. An instance of the latter kind is that of Calchas in Homer, prophesying the number of years of the Trojan War from the number of sparrows. We find another illustration of conjectural divination in the history of Sulla in an occurrence which you witnessed. While he was offering sacrifices in front of his head-quarters in the Nolan district a snake suddenly came out from beneath the altar. The soothsayer, Gaius Postumius, begged Sulla to proceed with his march at once. Sulla did so and captured the strongly fortified camp of the Samnites which lay in front of the town of Nola. 1.109. But let us bring the discussion back to the point from which it wandered. Assume that I can give no reason for any of the instances of divination which I have mentioned and that I can do no more than show that they did occur, is that not a sufficient answer to Epicurus and to Carneades? And what does it matter if, as between artificial and natural divination, the explanation of the former is easy and of the latter is somewhat hard? For the results of those artificial means of divination, by means of entrails, lightnings, portents, and astrology, have been the subject of observation for a long period of time. But in every field of inquiry great length of time employed in continued observation begets an extraordinary fund of knowledge, which may be acquired even without the intervention or inspiration of the gods, since repeated observation makes it clear what effect follows any given cause, and what sign precedes any given event. 1.110. The second division of divination, as I said before, is the natural; and it, according to exact teaching of physics, must be ascribed to divine Nature, from which, as the wisest philosophers maintain, our souls have been drawn and poured forth. And since the universe is wholly filled with the Eternal Intelligence and the Divine Mind, it must be that human souls are influenced by their contact with divine souls. But when men are awake their souls, as a rule, are subject to the demands of everyday life and are withdrawn from divine association because they are hampered by the chains of the flesh. 2.13. But I observed, Quintus, that you prudently withdrew divination from conjectures based upon skill and experience in public affairs, from those drawn from the use of the senses and from those made by persons in their own callings. I observed, also, that you defined divination to be the foreknowledge and foretelling of things which happen by chance. In the first place, that is a contradiction of what you have admitted. For the foreknowledge possessed by a physician, a pilot, and a general is of things which happen by chance. Then can any soothsayer, augur, prophet, or dreamer conjecture better than a physician, a pilot, or a general that an invalid will come safely out of his sickness, or that a ship will escape from danger, or that an army will avoid an ambuscade? 2.16. By the use of reason the physician foresees the progress of a disease, the general anticipates the enemys plans and the pilot forecasts the approach of bad weather. And yet even those who base their conclusions on accurate reasoning are often mistaken: for example, when the farmer sees his olive-tree in bloom he expects also, and not unreasonably, to see it bear fruit, but occasionally he is disappointed. If then mistakes are made by those who make no forecasts not based upon some reasonable and probable conjecture, what must we think of the conjectures of men who foretell the future by means of entrails, birds, portents, oracles, or dreams? I am not ready yet to take up one by one the various kinds of divination and show that the cleft in the liver, the croak of a raven, the flight of an eagle, the fall of a star, the utterances of persons in a frenzy, lots, and dreams have no prophetic value whatever; I shall discuss each of them in its turn — now I am discussing the subject as a whole. 2.17. How can anything be foreseen that has no cause and no distinguishing mark of its coming? Eclipses of the sun and also of the moon are predicted for many years in advance by men who employ mathematics in studying the courses and movements of the heavenly bodies; and the unvarying laws of nature will bring their predictions to pass. Because of the perfectly regular movements of the moon the astronomers calculate when it will be opposite the sun and in the earths shadow — which is the cone of night — and when, necessarily, it will become invisible. For the same reason they know when the moon will be directly between the earth and the sun and thus will hide the light of the sun from our eyes. They know in what sign each planet will be at any given time and at what time each day any constellation will rise and set. You see the course of reasoning followed in arriving at these predictions. [7] 2.18. But what course of reasoning is followed by men who predict the finding of a treasure or the inheritance of an estate? On what law of nature do such prophecies depend? But, on the other hand, if the prophecies just mentioned and others of the same class are controlled by some natural and immutable law such as regulates the movements of the stars, pray, can we conceive of anything happening by accident, or chance? Surely nothing is so at variance with reason and stability as chance? Hence it seems to me that it is not in the power even of God himself to know what event is going to happen accidentally and by chance. For if He knows, then the event is certain to happen; but if it is certain to happen, chance does not exist. And yet chance does exist, therefore there is no foreknowledge of things that happen by chance. 2.19. But if you deny the existence of chance and assert that the course of everything present or future has been inevitably determined from all eternity, then you must change your definition of divination, which you said was the foreknowledge of things that happen by chance. For if nothing can happen, nothing befall, nothing come to pass, except what has been determined from all eternity as bound to happen at a fixed time, how can there be such a thing as chance? And if there is no such thing as chance, what room is there for that divination, which you termed a foreknowledge of things that happen by chance? And you were inconsistent enough, too, to say that everything that is or will be is controlled by Fate! Why, the very word Fate is full of superstition and old womens credulity, and yet the Stoics have much to say of this Fate of yours. A discussion on Fate is reserved for another occasion; at present I shall speak of it only in so far as it is necessary. [8] 2.20. of what advantage to me is divination if everything is ruled by Fate? On that hypothesis what the diviner predicts is bound to happen. Hence I do not know what to make of the fact that an eagle recalled our intimate friend Deiotarus from his journey; for if he had not turned back he must have been sleeping in the room when it was destroyed the following night, and, therefore, have been crushed in the ruins. And yet, if Fate had willed it, he would not have escaped that calamity; and vice versa. Hence, I repeat, what is the good of divination? Or what is it that lots, entrails, or any other means of prophecy warn me to avoid? For, if it was the will of Fate that the Roman fleets in the First Punic War should perish — the one by shipwreck and the other at the hands of the Carthaginians — they would have perished just the same even if the sacred chickens had made a tripudium solistimum in the consulship of Lucius Junius and Publius Claudius! On the other hand, if obedience to the auspices would have prevented the destruction of the fleets, then they did not perish in accordance with Fate. But you insist that all things happen by Fate; therefore there is no such thing as divination. 2.21. Again, if it was the will of Fate that the Roman army should perish at Lake Trasimenus in the Second Punic War, could that result have been avoided if the consul Flaminius had obeyed the signs and the auspices which forbade his joining battle? Assuredly not. Therefore, either the army did not perish by the will of Fate, or, if it did (and you are certainly bound as a Stoic to say that it did), the same result would have happened even if the auspices had been obeyed; for the decrees of Fate are unchangeable. Then what becomes of that vaunted divination of you Stoics? For if all things happen by Fate, it does us no good to be warned to be on our guard, since that which is to happen, will happen regardless of what we do. But if that which is to be can be turned aside, there is no such thing as Fate; so, too, there is no such thing as divination — since divination deals with things that are going to happen. But nothing is certain to happen which there is some means of dealing with so as to prevent its happening. [9] 2.22. And further, for my part, I think that a knowledge of the future would be a disadvantage. Consider, for example, what Priams life would have been if he had known from youth what dire events his old age held in store for him! But let us leave the era of myths and come to events nearer home. In my work On Consolation I have collected instances of very grievous deaths that befell some of the most illustrious men of our commonwealth. Passing by men of earlier day, let us take Marcus Crassus. What advantage, pray, do you think it would have been to him, when he was at the very summit of power and wealth, to know that he was destined to perish beyond the Euphrates in shame and dishonour, after his son had been killed and his own army had been destroyed? Or do you think that Gnaeus Pompey would have found joy in his three consulships, in his three triumphs, and in the fame of his transcendent deeds, if he had known that he would be slain in an Egyptian desert, after he had lost his army, and that following his death those grave events would occur of which I cannot speak without tears? 2.23. Or what do we think of Caesar? Had he foreseen that in the Senate, chosen in most part by himself, in Pompeys hall, aye, before Pompeys very statue, and in the presence of many of his own centurions, he would be put to death by most noble citizens, some of whom owed all that they had to him, and that he would fall to so low an estate that no friend — no, not even a slave — would approach his dead body, in what agony of soul would he have spent his life!of a surety, then, ignorance of future ills is more profitable than the knowledge of them. 2.24. For, assuming that men knew the future it cannot in any wise be said — certainly not by the Stoics — that Pompey would not have taken up arms, that Crassus would not have crossed the Euphrates, or that Caesar would not have embarked upon the civil war. If so, then, the deaths that befell these men were not determined by Fate. But you will have it that everything happens by Fate; consequently, knowledge of the future would have done these men no good. In reality it would have entirely deprived the earlier portion of their lives of enjoyment; for how could they have been happy in reflecting what their ends would be? And so, however the Stoics turn and twist, all their shrewdness must come to naught. For, if a thing that is going to happen, may happen in one way or another, indifferently, chance is predomit; but things that happen by chance cannot be certain. But if it is certain what is going to befall me in reference to any matter and on every occasion, how do the soothsayers help me by saying that the greatest misfortunes await me? [10] 2.25. To the last point the Stoics make the rejoinder that every evil which is going to befall us is made lighter by means of religious rites. But if nothing happens except in accordance with Fate, no evil can be made lighter by means of religious rites. Homer shows his appreciation of this fact when he represents Jupiter as complaining because he could not snatch his son Sarpedon from death when Fate forbade. The same thought is expressed in the following verses translated from a Greek poet:That which has been decreed by Fate to beAlmighty Jove himself cannot prevent.The whole idea of Fate in every detail is justly, as I think, the subject of derision even in Atellan farces, but in a discussion as serious as ours joking is out of place. So then let us sum up our argument: If it is impossible to foresee things that happen by chance because they are uncertain, there is no such thing as divination; if, on the contrary, they can be foreseen because they are preordained by Fate, still there is no such thing as divination, which, by your definition, deals with things that happen by chance. 2.26. But this introductory part of my discussion has been mere skirmishing with light infantry; now let me come to close quarters and see if I cannot drive in both wings of your argument.[11] You divided divination into two kinds, one artificial and the other natural. The artificial, you said, consists in part of conjecture and in part of long-continued observation; while the natural is that which the soul has seized, or, rather, has obtained, from a source outside itself — that is, from God, whence all human souls have been drawn off, received, or poured out. Under the head of artificial divination you placed predictions made from the inspection of entrails, those made from lightnings and portents, those made by augurs, and by persons who depend entirely upon premonitory signs. Under the same head you included practically every method of prophecy in which conjecture was employed. 2.27. Natural divination, on the other hand, according to your view, is the result — the effusion, as it were — of mental excitement, or it is the prophetic power which the soul has during sleep while free from bodily sensation and worldly cares. Moreover, you derived every form of divination from three sources — God, Fate, and Nature. And although you could not give a reason for any kind of divination, still you carried on the war by marshalling an astonishing array of examples from fiction. of such a course I wish to say emphatically that it is not becoming in a philosopher to introduce testimony which may be either true by accident, or false and fabricated through malice. You ought to have employed arguments and reason to show that all your propositions were true and you ought not to have resorted to so‑called occurrences — certainly not to such occurrences as are unworthy of belief. [12] 2.100. There remain the two kinds of divination which we are said to derive from nature and not from art — vaticination and dreams, — these, my dear Quintus, if agreeable to you, let us now discuss.Delighted, I assure you, said he, for I am in entire accord with the views which you have so far expressed. To be quite frank, your argument has merely strengthened the opinion which I already had, for my own reasoning had convinced me that the Stoic view of divination smacked too much of superstition. I was more impressed by the reasoning of the Peripatetics, of Dicaearchus, of ancient times, and of Cratippus, who still flourishes. According to their opinion there is within the human soul some sort of power — oracular, I might call it — by which the future is foreseen when the soul is inspired by a divine frenzy, or when it is released by sleep and is free to move at will. I should like very much to learn your views of these two classes of divination and by what arguments you disprove them. [49] 2.104. You see how Epicurus proceeds from admitted premises to the proposition to be established. But this you Stoic logicians do not do; for you not only do not assume premises which everybody concedes, but you even assume premises which, if granted, do not tend in the least to establish what you wish to prove. For you start with this assumption: If there are gods they are kindly disposed towards men. Now who will grant you that? Epicurus? But he says that the gods do not trouble a whit about themselves or about anybody else. Is it our own Ennius? But he says with general approval and applause:I always said that there were gods on high,And this I never will neglect to say;But my opinion is they do not careWhat destiny befalls the human race.To be sure he proceeds to give the reason for his opinion in succeeding lines, but there is no need to repeat them. Enough has been shown to make it clear that your Stoic friends assume as certain what is the subject of doubt and discussion. [51] |
|
22. Cicero, Brutus, 103-106, 258, 3, 75-76, 2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 42| 2. augebat augebat ivulg. : augebam L etiam molestiam quod magna sapientium civium bonorumque penuria vir egregius con- iunctissimusque mecum consiliorum omnium societate alienissimo rei publicae tempore exstinctus et auctoritatis et prudentiae suae triste nobis desiderium reliquerat, dole- bamque quod non, ut plerique putabant, adversarium aut obtrectatorem laudum mearum sed socium potius et consortem gloriosi laboris amiseram. | |
|
23. Cicero, Brutus, 3, 2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 42| 2. augebat augebat ivulg. : augebam L etiam molestiam quod magna sapientium civium bonorumque penuria vir egregius con- iunctissimusque mecum consiliorum omnium societate alienissimo rei publicae tempore exstinctus et auctoritatis et prudentiae suae triste nobis desiderium reliquerat, dole- bamque quod non, ut plerique putabant, adversarium aut obtrectatorem laudum mearum sed socium potius et consortem gloriosi laboris amiseram. | |
|
| 24. Varro, On The Latin Language, 5.7-5.9, 6.50, 7.82, 8.21 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius •freed slaves, historical, caecilius statius Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 143, 166, 171; Richlin (2018), Slave Theater in the Roman Republic: Plautus and Popular Comedy, 74 |
25. Terence, The Eunuch, 114-115, 539 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 165| 539. In hunc diem ut de symbolis essemus. Chaeream ei rei | |
|
26. Terence, Adelphi, 121, 120 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 136| 120. Ubi non erit fortasse excludetur foras. | |
|
27. Cicero, On The Nature of The Gods, 1.13-1.14, 3.5 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius, synephebi •statius caecilius Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 41; Maso (2022), CIcero's Philosophy, 81 | 1.13. However, to free myself entirely from ill‑disposed criticism, I will now lay before my readers the doctrines of the various schools on the nature of the gods. This is a topic on which it seems proper to summon all the world to sit in judgement and pronounce which of these doctrines is the true one. If it turn out that all the schools agree, or if any one philosopher be found who had discovered the truth, then but not before I will convict the Academy of captiousness. This being so, I feel disposed to cry, in the words of the Young Comrades: O ye gods and O ye mortals, townsmen, gownsmen, hear my call; I invoke, implore, adjure ye, bear ye witness one and all — not about some frivolous trifle such as that of which a character in the play complains — . . . here's a monstrous crime and outrage in the land; Here's a lady who declines a guinea from a lover's hand! 1.14. but to attend in court, try the case, and deliver their verdict as to what opinions we are to hold about religion, piety and holiness, about ritual, about honour and loyalty to oaths, about temples, shrines and solemn sacrifices, and about the very auspices over which I myself preside; for all of these matters ultimately depend upon this question of the nature of the immortal gods. Surely such wide diversity of opinion among men of the greatest learning on a matter of the highest moment must affect even those who think that they possess certain knowledge with a feeling of doubt. 3.5. "Very well," rejoined Cotta, "let us then proceed as the argument itself may lead us. But before we come to the subject, let me say a few words about myself. I am considerably influenced by your authority, Balbus, and by the plea that you put forward at the conclusion of your discourse, when you exhorted me to remember that I am both a Cotta and a pontife. This no doubt meant that I ought to uphold the beliefs about the immortal gods which have come down to us from our ancestors, and the rites and ceremonies and duties of religion. For my part I always shall uphold them and always have done so, and no eloquence of anybody, learned or unlearned, shall ever dislodge me from the belief as to the worship of the immortal gods which I have inherited from our forefathers. But on any question of el I am guided by the high pontifes, Titus Coruncanius, Publius Scipio and Publius Scaevola, not by Zeno or Cleanthes or Chrysippus; and I have Gaius Laelius, who was both an augur and a philosopher, to whose discourse upon religion, in his famous oration, I would rather listen than to any leader of the Stoics. The religion of the Roman people comprises ritual, auspices, and the third additional division consisting of all such prophetic warnings as the interpreters of the Sybil or the soothsayers have derived from portents and prodigies. While, I have always thought that none of these departments of religion was to be despised, and I have held the conviction that Romulus by his auspices and Numa by his establishment of our ritual laid the foundations of our state, which assuredly could never have been as great as it is had not the fullest measure of divine favour been obtained for it. |
|
28. Cicero, On The Ends of Good And Evil, 2.12-2.15, 5.63 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 26, 168, 169, 171| 2.12. quid enim necesse est, tamquam meretricem in matronarum coetum, sic voluptatem in virtutum concilium adducere? invidiosum nomen est, infame, suspectum. suspectum subiectum R itaque hoc frequenter dici solet a vobis, non intellegere nos, quam dicat Epicurus voluptatem. quod quidem mihi si quando dictum est—est autem dictum non parum saepe—, etsi satis clemens sum in disputando, tamen interdum soleo subirasci. egone non intellego, quid sit h(donh/ Graece, Latine voluptas? utram tandem linguam nescio? deinde qui fit, ut ego nesciam, sciant omnes, quicumque Epicurei esse voluerunt? voluerint BE quod vestri quidem vel optime disputant, nihil opus esse eum, qui philosophus futurus sit, philosophus qui futurus sit A (cf. Iw. Mue. II p. 10 sq.); qui futurus sit philosophus BE scire litteras. itaque ut maiores nostri ab aratro adduxerunt Cincinnatum illum, ut dictator esset, sic vos de pagis pagis cod. 1 Eliens. Davisii, Turneb. adversar. IV8; plagis omnibus colligitis bonos illos quidem viros, sed certe non pereruditos. 2.13. ergo illi intellegunt quid Epicurus dicat, ego non intellego? ut scias me intellegere, primum idem esse dico voluptatem, quod ille h(donh/n . et quidem saepe quaerimus verbum Latinum par Graeco et quod idem valeat; hic nihil fuit, quod quaereremus. nullum inveniri verbum potest quod magis idem declaret Latine, quod Graece, quam declarat voluptas. huic verbo omnes, qui ubique sunt, qui Latine sciunt, qui latine sciunt qui ubique sunt BE duas res subiciunt, laetitiam in animo, commotionem suavem iucunditatis iocunditatis suavem BE in corpore. nam et ille apud Trabeam voluptatem animi nimiam laetitiam dicit eandem, quam ille Caecilianus, qui omnibus laetitiis laetum esse se narrat. sed hoc interest, quod voluptas dicitur etiam in animo—vitiosa res, ut Stoici putant, qui eam sic definiunt: sublationem animi sine ratione opitis se magno bono frui—, non dicitur laetitia nec gaudium in corpore. 2.14. in eo autem voluptas omnium Latine loquentium more ponitur, cum percipitur ea, quae sensum aliquem moveat, iucunditas. hanc quoque iucunditatem, si vis, transfer in animum; iuvare enim in utroque dicitur, ex eoque iucundum, modo intellegas inter illum, qui dicat: 'Ta/nta laetitia au/ctus sum, ut nihil co/nstet', et eum, qui: 'Nunc demum mihi animus ardet', quorum alter laetitia gestiat, alter dolore crucietur, esse illum medium: 'Quamquam hae/c inter nos nu/per notitia a/dmodum est', qui nec laetetur nec angatur, itemque inter eum, qui potiatur corporis expetitis voluptatibus, et eum, qui crucietur excrucietur BE summis doloribus, esse eum, qui utroque careat. 2.15. Satisne igitur videor vim verborum tenere, an sum etiam nunc vel Graece loqui vel Latine docendus? et tamen vide, ne, si ego non intellegam quid Epicurus loquatur, cum Graece, ut videor, luculenter sciam, sit aliqua culpa eius, qui ita loquatur, ut non intellegatur. quod duobus modis sine reprehensione fit, si aut de industria facias, ut Heraclitus, 'cognomento qui skoteino/s perhibetur, quia de natura nimis obscure memoravit', aut cum rerum obscuritas, non verborum, facit ut non intellegatur oratio, qualis est in Timaeo Platonis. Epicurus autem, ut opinor, nec non vult, si possit, plane et aperte loqui, nec de re obscura, ut physici, aut artificiosa, ut mathematici, sed de illustri et facili et iam et iam P. Man. etiam (eciam V) in vulgus pervagata loquitur. loquitur (i in ras. ) N loquatur ( etiam A) Quamquam non negatis nos intellegere quid sit voluptas, sed quid ille dicat. e quo efficitur, non ut nos non intellegamus quae vis sit istius verbi, sed ut ille suo more loquatur, nostrum neglegat. 5.63. Quid loquor loquor V loquar de nobis, qui ad laudem et ad et ad qui ad BE decus nati, suscepti, instituti sumus? qui clamores vulgi atque imperitorum excitantur in theatris, cum illa dicuntur: 'Ego sum Orestes', contraque ab altero: Immo enimvero ego sum, inquam, Orestes! cum autem etiam exitus ab utroque datur conturbato errantique regi, ambo ergo se una necari cum precantur, se una necari cum precantur Se. sueganum precamur BE suegamū precamur R una uivere precamur ( ab alt. m. in ras., sub a u inferior pars g erasae cognosci potest ) N negancium una vivere precamur V quotiens hoc agitur, ecquandone ecquandone Dav. et quando ne BER et quando|ve N 2 est quando ne V et, ut vid., N 1 nisi admirationibus maximis? nemo est igitur, quin hanc affectionem animi probet atque laudet, qua non modo utilitas nulla quaeritur, sed contra utilitatem etiam conservatur fides. | 2.12. What need is there to introduce so abandoned a character as Mistress Pleasure into the company of those honourable ladies the Virtues? Her very name is suspect, and lies under a cloud of disrepute â so much so that you Epicureans are fond of telling us that we do not understand what Epicurus means by pleasure. I am a reasonably good-tempered disputant, but for my own part when I hear this assertion (and I have encountered it fairly often), I am sometimes inclined to be a little irritated. Do I not understand the meaning of the Greek word hÄdonÄ, the Latin voluptas? Pray which of these two languages is it that I am not acquainted with? Moreover how comes it that I do not know what the word means, while all and sundry who have elected to be Epicureans do? As for that, your sect argues very plausibly that there is no need for the aspirant to philosophy to be a scholar at all. And you are as good as your word. Our ancestors brought old Cincinnatus from the plough to be dictator. You ransack the country villages for your assemblage of doubtless respectable but certainly not very learned adherents. 2.13. Well, if these gentlemen can understand what Epicurus means, cannot I? I will prove to you that I do. In the first place, I mean the same by 'pleasure' as he does by hÄdonÄ. One often has some trouble to discover a Latin word that shall be the precise equivalent of a Greek one; but in this case no search was necessary. No instance can be found of a Latin word that more exactly conveys the same meaning as the corresponding Greek word than does the word voluptas. Every person in the world who knows Latin attaches to this word two ideas â that of gladness of mind, and that of a delightful excitation of agreeable feeling in the body. On the one hand there is the character in Trabea who speaks of 'excessive pleasure of the mind,' meaning gladness, the same feeling as is intended by the person in Caecilius who describes himself as being 'glad with every sort of gladness.' But there is this difference, that the word 'pleasure' can denote a mental as well as a bodily feeling (the former a vicious emotion, in the opinion of the Stoics, who define it as 'elation of the mind under an irrational conviction that it is enjoying some great good'), whereas 'joy' and 'gladness' are not used of bodily sensation. 2.14. However pleasure according to the usage of all who speak good Latin consists in the enjoyment of a delightful stimulation of one of the senses. The term 'delight' also you may apply if you like to the mind ('to delight' is said of both mind and body, and from it the adjective 'delightful' is derived), so long as you understand that between the man who says So full am I of gladness That I am all confusion, and him who says Now, now my soul with anger burns, one of whom is transported with gladness and the other tormented with painful emotion, there is the intermediate state: Though our acquaintanceship is but quite recent, where the speaker feels neither gladness nor sorrow; and that similarly between the enjoyment of the most desirable bodily pleasures and the endurance of the most excruciating pains there is the neutral state devoid of either. 2.15. "Well, do you think I have properly grasped the meaning of the terms, or do I still require lessons in the use of either Greek or Latin? And even supposing that I do not understand what Epicurus says, still I believe I really have a very clear knowledge of Greek, so that perhaps it is partly his fault for using such unintelligible language. Obscurity is excusable on two grounds: it may be deliberately adopted, as in the case of Heraclitus, The surname of the Obscure who bore, So dark his philosophic lore; or the obscurity may be due to the abstruseness of the subject and not of the style â an instance of this is Plato's Timaeus. But Epicurus, in my opinion, has no intention of not speaking plainly and clearly if he can, nor is he discussing a recondite subject like natural philosophy, nor a technical subject such as mathematics, but a lucid and easy topic, and one that is generally familiar already. And yet you Epicureans do not deny that we understand what pleasure is, but what he means by it; which proves not that we do not understand the real meaning of the word, but that Epicurus is speaking an idiom of his own and ignoring our accepted terminology. 5.63. But I need not speak of ourselves, whose birth, breeding and education point us towards glory and towards honour; think of the uneducated multitude, â what a tempest of applause rings through the theatre at the words: I am Orestes, and at the rejoinder: No, no, 'tis I, I say, I am Orestes. And then when each offers a solution to the king in his confusion and perplexity: Then prithee slay us both; we'll die together: as often as this scene is acted, does it ever fail to arouse the greatest enthusiasm? This proves that all men without exception approve and applaud the disposition that not only seeks no advantage for itself, but is loyal and true even to its own disadvantage. |
|
| 29. Juvenal, Satires, 6.519 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Radicke (2022), Roman Women’s Dress: Literary Sources, Terminology, and Historical Development, 140 |
30. Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory, 1.8.11-1.8.12 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 99 | 1.8.11. For we find, more especially in the pages of Cicero, but frequently in Asinius and in other orators of that period, quotations from Ennius, Accius, Pacuvius, Lucilius, Terence, Caecilius and others, inserted not merely to show the speaker's learning, but to please his hearers as well, since the charms of poetry provide a pleasant relief from the severity of forensic eloquence. 1.8.12. Such quotations have the additional advantage of helping the speaker's case, for the orator makes use of the sentiments expressed by the poet as evidence in support of his own statements. But while my earlier remarks have special application to the education of boys, those which I have just made apply rather to persons of riper years; for the love of letters and the value of reading are not confined to one's schooldays, but end only with life. |
|
| 31. Gellius, Attic Nights, 2.23, 4.20.12-4.20.13 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius •freed slaves, historical, caecilius statius Found in books: Radicke (2022), Roman Women’s Dress: Literary Sources, Terminology, and Historical Development, 138; Richlin (2018), Slave Theater in the Roman Republic: Plautus and Popular Comedy, 74, 374 |
| 32. Nonius Marcellus, De Conpendiosa Doctrina, 865.22, 867.25, 880.30 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Radicke (2022), Roman Women’s Dress: Literary Sources, Terminology, and Historical Development, 629 |
| 34. Papyri, P.Oxy., None Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Riess (2012), Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens, 342 |
| 35. Papyri, P.Hamb., 656 Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Riess (2012), Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens, 342 |
| 36. Papyri, P.Cair., 43227 Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Riess (2012), Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens, 342 |
| 37. Papyri, P.Ant., 1.15 Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Riess (2012), Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens, 342 |
| 38. Caecilius Statius, Pausimachus, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Radicke (2022), Roman Women’s Dress: Literary Sources, Terminology, and Historical Development, 138, 139 |
| 39. Apologia, Metamorphoses, 8.9 Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Radicke (2022), Roman Women’s Dress: Literary Sources, Terminology, and Historical Development, 140 |
| 40. Terence, Heauton Timorumenos, 53 Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 169 |
| 41. Aristophanes Boeotus, Fragments, None Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Radicke (2022), Roman Women’s Dress: Literary Sources, Terminology, and Historical Development, 141 |
| 42. Aeschines, Or., 1.97 Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Radicke (2022), Roman Women’s Dress: Literary Sources, Terminology, and Historical Development, 142 |
| 43. Men., Hiereia (Arnott, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Riess (2012), Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens, 342 |
| 45. Caecilius Statius, Unknown Comedy, Ed. Ribbeck, 230, 231, 232-233, 237-238, 241-242, 245, 246, 258, 252 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 168 |
| 46. Homer, Unknown Comedy, Ed. Ribbeck, 3-4, 2 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 171 |
| 47. Ennius, Fpl Pp, 13-14 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 35 |
| 48. Ennius, Alexander , Trrf, 2.16 Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 143 |
| 49. Caecilius Statius, Synephebi, Ed. Ribbeck, 211-212, 213-214, 210 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 35 |
| 50. Pacuvius, Teucer (Schierl Fr., 241, 238 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 166 |
| 51. Pacuvius, Hermiona (Schierl Fr., 134 Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 166 |
| 52. Pacuvius, Chryses (Schierl Fr., 69 Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 26 |
| 53. Ennius, Andromacha , Trrf, 2.23, 2.25 Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 26, 143 |
| 54. Anon., Ribbeck, 37 Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 169 |
| 55. Ennius, Telamo , Trrf, 2.117 Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius, synephebi Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 215 |
| 56. Trabea, Unknown Comedy, Ed. Ribbeck, 6 Tagged with subjects: •caecilius statius Found in books: Culík-Baird (2022), Cicero and the Early Latin Poets, 168 |
