Chap. II.—Of Philosophy, and How Vain Was Its Occupation in Setting Forth the Truth.

Now, since the falsehood of superstitions350    Fill up and complete the outline which he has conceived.      [Religionum falsitas. He does not here employ superstitio By the way, Lactantius derives this word from those “qui superstitem memoriam hominum, tanquam deorum, colerent.” Cicero, however, derives it from those who bother the gods with petitions,—”pro superstite prole.” See note of the annotator of the Delphin Cicero, on the Natura Deor., i. 17.]   has been shown in the two former books, and the origin itself of the whole error has been set forth, it is the business of this book to show the emptiness and falsehood of philosophy also, that, all error being removed, the truth may be brought to light and become manifest. Let us begin, therefore, from the common name of philosophy, that when the head itself is destroyed, an easier approach may be open to us for demolishing the whole body; if indeed that can be called a body, the parts and members of which are at variance with one another, and are not united together by any connecting link,351    Lactantius charges Cicero with want of courage, in being unwilling to declare the truth to the Romans, lest he should incur the peril of death. The fortitude with which Socrates underwent death, when condemned by the Athenians, is related by Xenophon and Plato.      A joint or fastening.   but, as it were, dispersed and scattered, appear to palpitate rather than to live. Philosophy is (as the name indicates, and they themselves define it) the love of wisdom. By what argument, then, can I prove that philosophy is not wisdom, rather than by that derived from the meaning of the name itself? For he who devotes himself to wisdom is manifestly not yet wise, but devotes himself to the subject that he may be wise. In the other arts it appears what this devotedness effects, and to what it tends: for when any one by learning has attained to these, he is now called, not a devoted follower of the profession, but an artificer. But it is said it was on account of modesty that they called themselves devoted to wisdom, and not wise. Nay, in truth, Pythagoras, who first invented this name, since he had a little more wisdom than those of early times, who regarded themselves as wise, understood that it was impossible by any human study to attain to wisdom, and therefore that a perfect name ought not to be applied to an incomprehensible and imperfect subject. And, therefore, when he was asked what was his profession,352    Lactantius here follows Plato, who placed the essence of man in the intellectual soul. The body, however, as well as the soul, is of the essence of man; but Lactantius seems to limit the name of man to the higher and more worthy part. [Rhetorically, not dogmatically.]      What he professed—gave himself out to be.   he answered that he was a philosopher, that is, a searcher after wisdom. If, therefore, philosophy searches after wisdom, it is not wisdom itself, because it must of necessity be one thing which searches, and another which is searched for; nor is the searching itself correct, because it can find nothing.  

But I am not prepared to concede even that philosophers are devoted to the pursuit of wisdom, because by that pursuit there is no attaining to wisdom. For if the power of finding the truth were connected353    Lucretius, De Rerum Natura, vi. 5. [“Premunt ad terram.”]      Subjaceret.   with this pursuit, and if this pursuit were a kind of road to wisdom, it would at length be found. But since so much time and talent have been wasted in the search for it, and it has not yet been gained, it is plain that there is no wisdom there. Therefore they who apply themselves to philosophy do not devote themselves to the pursuit of wisdom; but they themselves imagine that they do so, because they know not where that is which they are searching for, or of what character it is. Whether, therefore, they devote themselves to the pursuit of wisdom or not, they are not wise, because that can never be discovered which is either sought in an improper manner, or not sought at all. Let us look to this very thing, whether it is possible for anything to be discovered by this kind of pursuit, or nothing.  

0351B CAPUT II. De philosophia, et quam inanis fuerit ejus in exponenda veritate occupatio.

Nunc quoniam duobus prioribus libris religionum falsitas demonstrata est, nec non origo ipsa totius erroris exposita: hujus libri munus est philosophiam quoque ostendere, quam inanis et falsa sit; ut, omni errore sublato, veritas patefacta clarescat. Ordiamur itaque a communi philosophiae nomine, ut ipso capite 0352A destructo, facilior nobis aditus pateat ad excidendum omne corpus: si tamen potest corpus vocari, cujus partes ac membra discordent, nec ulla compage inter se cohaereant, sed quasi disjecta et dissipata, palpitare potius, quam vivere videantur. Philosophia est (ut nomen indicat, ipsique definiunt) studium sapientiae. Unde igitur probem magis philosophiam non esse sapientiam, quam ex ipsius nominis significatione? Qui enim sapientiae studet, utique nondum sapit, sed ut sapere possit studet. In caeteris artibus, studium quid efficiat, et quo tendat, apparet. Quas cum discendo aliquis assecutus est, jam non studiosus artificii, sed artifex nominatur. At enim verecundiae causa studiosos se sapientiae, non sapientes vocaverunt. Immo vero Pythagoras, qui hoc primus 0352B nomen invenit, cum paulo plus saperet, quam illi priores, qui se sapientes putaverunt, intellexit nullo humano studio posse ad sapientiam perveniri, et ideo non oportere, incomprehensae atque imperfectae rei perfectum nomen imponi. Itaque cum ab eo quaereretur, quemnam se profiteretur, respondit: philosophum, id est, quaesitorem sapientiae. Si ergo philosophia sapientiam quaerit, nec ipsa sapientia est; quia necesse est aliud esse, quod quaerit; aliud, 0353A quod quaeritur: nec quaesitio ipsa recta est, 0353A quia nihil potest invenire.

Ego vero ne studiosos quidem sapientiae philosophos esse concesserim, quia illo studio ad sapientiam non pervenitur. Nam si facultas inveniendae veritatis huic studio subjaceret, et si esset id studium tamquam iter ad sapientiam, aliquando esset inventa. Cum vero tot temporibus, tot ingeniis in ejus inquisitione contritis non sit comprehensa, apparet nullam esse ibi sapientiam. Non ergo sapientiae student, qui philosophantur: sed ipsi studere se putant; quia illud quod quaerunt, ubi, aut quale sit nesciunt. Sive ergo sapientiae student, sive non student, sapientes non sunt; quia nunquam reperiri potest, quod aut non recte quaeritur, aut omnino non quaeritur. Videamus tamen id 0353B ipsum, possit ne hoc studio reperiri aliquid, an nihil.