739. Paradoxa Stoicorum by Cicero. This has been an interesting exercise. I found some of the essays very difficult to translate. I think that the concise Stoic manner of speaking combined with technical terms of philosophy took some time. Number six was the easiest to translate. I think that this one was most similar to his other philosophical works (De Finibus, De Officiis, De Legibus) and this made it easier.
I read these because Elizabeth Rawson in her book, Cicero, suggested that Cicero put these together to help friends who lost so much during the Civil War between Pompey and Caesar to deal with their troubles.
Each is prefaced with a premise.
#1 Paradoxon
That the only good is what is morally good.
Money, fine houses, riches, power, I never considered these among the true goods. Those who have these goods ( in the common sense of the term) in abundance never have enough.
These, fine house, riches etc, should never have been given the name of goods.
Do goods determine who is good? No matter what is the common accepted means of speaking, true reason with me carries more weight than the opinion of the crowd. This last is a famous latin sentence:
plus apud me tamen vera ratio valebit quam vulgi opinio….
Cicero goes on to say that he never considered the loss of expensive things as the loss of those concepts truly good.
There is the story of Bias whose city was sacked by the enemy. People were fleeing the city in droves. One person as he passed Bias warned him to get his stuff while he could- he replied that he already did for “I carry all that is mine in me.”
So if the loss of cattle and fine furniture is not the loss of goods, what is?
The only good is what is right and honorable and morally perfect.
It is irritating to discuss these calmly, says Cicero. So he illustrates these with examples of those from the past.
Did Mucius Scaevola do what he did for gold? Money? Would someone rather be like Mucius or someone whose house if stuffed with gold or expensive furniture?
Some claim that riches are not that important, yet these same defend pleasure as the highest good. To do so puts someone on the same footing as a quadruped.
Each person who shares of the good is especially deserving of praise. So does anything which is good makes a person better? Yes.
Does the pursuit of pleasure make a person more praiseworthy? Does anyone publish himself adept in obtaining pleasure?
If pleasure is not listed among the good, then to live well and happy is to live honorably and conscientiously.
#2 Paradoxon
Nothing is lacking for living well in whom there is virtue.
What is virtue?
The development and exercise of the intellect for what is good.
All are most blessed who place everything in themselves. Can we place everything in fortune? In that there is no certainty. Those who place their life in material things will face problems in misery. To these death is terrible. Lusts and wrong doing torment day and night.
Being a good person has its own rewards and means there is no remorse over past events because such things were never done.
#3 Paradoxon
Moral offenses are equal and right actions are equal.
Moral wrongs are equal in and of themselves. Moral wrongs can not be measured by how things turn out. A wrong is a wrong.
If virtue is equally virtuous, then faults are equally faulty. There are no degrees of good or bad. There may be degrees in circumstance but not in the act itself. It may be worse to kill a parent than a slave but both are wrong.
#4 Paradoxon
Every fool is insane
Cicero takes an extreme case (perhaps his own).
Can someone actually be exiled? Not really. For a state which exiles a good citizen can not at that moment actually be a state. But I was recalled by the true state by a true assembly, by a true Senate. Whereas when exiled, none of these existed.
So see, those attacks, destruction of my property, the loss of property, these were not who and what I am. What I am is in me. It is not material, but in the very depths of what I am.
Consequently I was a citizen all of the time. Exile is a penalty for a crime. I committed none. You, the fool, understood none of this.
You are the exile.
#5 Paradoxon
The wise person alone is free and every fool is a slave
People often stand in awe of a Commander. But a commander in what sense? Can he control his own desires? Can he curb his lusts? Display restraint? As long as these are beyond his control, he is no commander and certainly not free.
Thus many philosophers have said that only the wise person is free. What is freedom? The power of living as one wishes. Who lives as he desires unless he follows what is right, who rejoices in doing what is right, who does not even follow the laws because of fear or follows these and cherishes these because they are the safe thing to do, but does so because he knows that it is proper to do so.
Whoever does not conduct their life in knowledge of what is right in themselves is not free.
Anyone under the thumb of another is a fool. Or who believes that the possession of fine things is the key to greatness. Just bring back someone like Manlius Curius. Manlius Curius Dentatus, consul 290 BC defeated and conquered the Samnites after a war which lasted for almost 50 years. A Samnite embassy tried to bribe him with money when they found him on his farm. He looked at them and said that he preferred controlling those who had money instead of possessing it himself. Would this guy be impressed with someone making pets out of expensive fish?
What could possibly be worse than being subject to the values others place on things, instead what is truly important?
#6 Paradoxon
Only the wise person is rich
That person who is content with less has more than that person who is always in need of more. This is virtue- to know in oneself what is important based on a study of life and those who have lived it.
Besides many have no idea how much money there is in being thrifty.
Realtors often value highly estates in a prime location. How much more must virtue be valued which can not be stolen or taken away, or lost in shipwreck or in a fire or storm or civil disturbance?
Signed,
The Obstinate Classicist
No comments:
Post a Comment