Chap. XIV.—That Lucretius and Others Have Erred, and Cicero Himself, in Fixing the Origin of Wisdom.

Lucretius, accordingly, acts more correctly in praising him who was the first discoverer of wisdom; but he acts foolishly in this, that he supposed it to be discovered by a man,—as though that man whom he praises had found it lying somewhere as flutes at the fountain,392    A proverbial expression, denoting an accidental occurrence.   according to the legends of the poets. But if he praised the inventor of wisdom as a god,—for thus he speaks:393    Book v. 6.  —  

yet God ought not to have been praised on this account, because He discovered wisdom, but because He created man, who might be capable of receiving wisdom. For he diminishes the praise who praises a part only of the whole. But he praised Him as a man; whereas He ought to have been esteemed as a God on this very account, because He found out wisdom. For thus he speaks:394    Book v. 51.  —  

From this it appears, either that he wished to praise Pythagoras, who was the first, as I have said,395    Ch. ii.   to call himself a philosopher; or Thales of Miletus, who is reported to have been the first who discussed the nature of things. Thus, while he seeks to exalt, he has depressed the thing itself. For it is not great if it could have been discovered by man. But he may be pardoned as a poet. But that same accomplished orator, that same consummate philosopher, also censures the Greeks, whose levity he always accuses, and yet imitates. Wisdom itself, which at one time he calls the gift, at another time the invention, of the gods, he fashions after the manner of the poets, and praises on account of its beauty. He also grievously complains that there have been some who disparaged it. “Can any one,” he says, “dare to censure the parent of life, and to defile himself with this guilt of parricide, and to be so impiously ungrateful?”  

Are we then parricides, Marcus Tullius, and in your judgment worthy to be sewed396    The allusion is to the punishment of parricides, who were sewed into a bag with an ape, a serpent, and a cock, and thus thrown into the sea.   up in a bag, who deny that philosophy is the parent of life? Or you, who are so impiously ungrateful towards God (not this god whose image you worship as he sits in the Capitol, but Him who made the world and created man, who bestowed wisdom also among His heavenly benefits), do you call her the teacher of virtue or the parent of life, having learned397    If any one has approached her as a learner.   from whom, one must be in much greater uncertainty than he was before? For of what virtue is she the teacher? For philosophers to the present time do not explain where she is situated. Of what life is she the parent? since the teachers themselves have been worn out by old age and death before they have determined upon the befitting course of life. Of what truth can you hold her forth as an explorer? since you often testify that, in so great a multitude of philosophers, not a single wise man has yet existed. What, then, did that mistress of life teach you? Was it to assail with reproaches the most powerful consul,398    Marcus Antonius, who was consul with C. Cæsar in the year when Cæsar was assassinated. It was against Antonius that Cicero wrote those speeches full of invectives, which, in imitation of Demosthenes, he named Philippics.   and by your envenomed speeches to render him the enemy of his country? But let us pass by those things, which may be excused under the name of fortune. You applied yourself, in truth, to the study of philosophy, and so, indeed, that no one ever applied himself more diligently; since you were acquainted with all the systems of philosophy, as you yourself are accustomed to boast, and elucidated the subject itself in Latin writings, and displayed yourself as an imitator of Plato. Tell us, therefore, what you have learned, or in what sect you have discovered the truth. Doubtless it was in the Academy which you followed and approved. But this teaches nothing, excepting that you know your own ignorance.399    This point is discussed by Cicero in his Academic questions.   Therefore your own books refute you, and show the nothingness of the learning which may be gained from philosophy for life. These are your words: “But to me we appear not only blind to wisdom, but dull and obtuse to those very things which may appear in some degree to be discerned.” If, therefore, philosophy is the teacher of life, why did you appear to yourself blind, and dull, and obtuse? whereas you ought, under her teaching, both to perceive and to be wise, and to be engaged in the clearest light. But how you confessed the truth of philosophy we learn from the letters addressed to your son, in which you advise him that the precepts of philosophy ought to be known, but that we must live as members of a community.400    [Advice which he took to heart as a swinish debauchee.]    

What can be spoken so contradictory? If the precepts of philosophy ought to be known, it is on this account that they ought to be known, in order to our living well and wisely. Or if we must live as members of a community, then philosophy is not wisdom, if it is better to live in accordance with society than with philosophy. For if that which is called philosophy be wisdom, he assuredly lives foolishly who does not live according to philosophy. But if he does not live foolishly who lives in accordance with society, it follows that he who lives according to philosophy lives foolishly. By your own judgment, therefore, philosophy is condemned of folly and emptiness. And you also, in your Consolation, that is, not in a work of levity and mirth, introduced this sentiment respecting philosophy: “But I know not what error possesses us, or deplorable ignorance of the truth.” Where, then, is the guidance of philosophy? or what has that parent of life taught you, if you are deplorably ignorant of the truth? But if this confession of error and ignorance has been extorted almost against your will from your innermost breast, why do you not at length acknowledge to yourself the truth, that philosophy which, though it teaches nothing, you extolled with praises to the heavens, cannot be the teacher of virtue?  

CAPUT XIV. Quod Lucretius et alii erraverunt, ac ipse Cicero, in statuenda sapientiae origine.

Rectius itaque Lucretius, cum eum laudat, qui sapientiam primus invenit: sed hoc inepte, quod ab homine inventam putavit. Quasi vero illam alicubi 0386C jacentem homo ille, quem laudabat, invenerit, tanquam tibias ad fontem, ut poetae aiunt. Quod si 0387A repertorem 0387A sapientiae, ut deum, laudavit; ita enim dicit: Nemo (ut opinor) erit mortali corpore cretus. Nam si, ut ipsa petit majestas cognita rerum, Dicendum est, Deus ille fuit, Deus, inclyte Memmi:tamen non erat sic laudandus Deus, quod sapientiam invenerit, sed quod hominem fecerit, qui posset capere sapientiam. Minuit enim laudem, qui partem laudat ex toto. Sed ille, ut hominem, laudavit, qui tamen ob id ipsum deberet pro Deo haberi, quod sapere invenerit. Nam sic ait: Nonne decebit, Hunc hominem numero divum dignarier esse?Unde apparet, aut Pythagoram voluisse laudare, qui se primus, ut dixi (supra cap. 2), philosophum nominavit; 0387B aut Milesium Thalem, qui de rerum natura primus traditur disputasse. Ita dum hominem quaerit 0388A extollere, rem ipsam depressit. Non est enim magna, si ab homine potuit inveniri. Verum potest, ut poetae, dari venia. At ille idem perfectus orator, idem summus philosophus, et Graecos reprehendit, quorum levitatem semper accusat, et tamen sequitur; ipsam sapientiam, quam alias donum, alias inventum deorum vocat, poetice figuratam laudat in faciem. Graviter etiam queritur extitisse aliquos, qui eam vituperarent. «Quisquamne, inquit, vituperare vitae» parentem, et hoc parricidio se inquinare audeat,» et tam impie ingratus esse?»

Nos ergo, Marce Tulli, parricidae sumus, et insuendi te judice in culeum, qui philosophiam negamus parentem esse vitae? An tu, qui adversus Deum tam impie ingratus es (non hunc cujus effigiem veneraris 0388B in Capitolio sedentem, sed illum qui mundum fecit, hominemque generavit, qui sapientiam quoque 0389A ipsam inter coelestia sua beneficia 0389A largitus est) magistram tu virtutis, aut parentem vitae vocas, ad quam si quis accesserit, multo sit incertior necesse est, quam prius fuerit? Cujus enim virtutis? quae ipsa, ubi sita sit, adhuc philosophi non expediunt. Cujus vitae? cum ipsi doctores ante fuerint senectute ac morte confecti, quam constituerint quomodo vivi deceat. Cujus veritatis indagatricem profiteri potes? qui saepe testaris, cum tanta multitudo fueri philosophorum, sapientem tamen extitisse adhuc neminem. Quid ergo te magistra illa vitae docuit? An ut potentissimum consulem maledictis incesseres, eumque hostem patriae venenatis orationibus faceres? Sed omittamus illa, quae possunt excusari fortunae nomine. Studuisti nempe philosophiae, et quidem sic, 0389B ut nullus umquam diligentius; quippe qui omnes cognoveris disciplinas, sicut ipse gloriari soles, eamque ipsam latinis litteris illustraveris, imitatoremque te Platonis ostenderis. Cedo igitur quid didiceris, aut in qua secta veritatem deprehenderis. In academia scilicet, quam secutus es, quam probasti. At haec nihil docet, nisi ut scias te nihil scire. Tui ergo te libri arguunt, quam nihil a philosophia disci possit ad vitam. Haec tua verba sunt: «Mihi autem non modo ad sapientiam caeci videmur, sed ad ea ipsa, quae aliqua ex parte cerni videantur, hebetes et obtusi.» Si ergo philosophia est magistra vitae, cur tibi ipse caecus, et hebes, et obtusus videbare, quem oportuit, illa docente, et sentire, et sapere, et in clarissima 0389C luce versari? At quam confessus fueris philosophiae 0390A veritatem, docent ad filium composita praecepta, quibus mones philosophiae quidem praecepta noscenda, vivendum autem esse civiliter.

Quid tam repugnans dici potest? Si noscenda sunt praecepta philosophiae, ideo utique noscenda sunt ut recte sapienterque vivamus. Vel, si civiliter vivendum est, non est igitur philosophia sapientia; siquidem melius est civiliter, quam philosophice vivere. Nam si sapientia est, quae dicitur philosophia, stulte profecto vivit, qui non secundum philosophiam vivit. Si autem non stulte vivit, qui civiliter vivit, sequitur ut stulte vivat, qui philosophice vivit. Tuo itaque judicio philosophia stultitiae, inanitatisque damnata est. Idem in Consolatione, id est, in opere non joculari, hanc de philosophia sententiam tulisti: «Sed nescio 0390B quis nos teneat error, aut miserabilis ignoratio veri.» Ubi est ergo philosophiae magisterium? aut quid te docuit illa vitae parens, si verum miserabiliter ignoras? Quod si haec erroris ignorationisque confessio pene invito tibi ab intimo pectore expressa est, cur non tibi verum fateris aliquando, philosophiam, quam tu nihil docentem in coelum laudibus extulisti, magistram virtutis esse non posse?