718. Roman Bridges by Colin O'Connor

PONS AEMILIUS BUT NOW CALLED PONTE ROTTO

718.  Roman Bridges by Colin O’Connor.  This is a book well worth reading.  He begins:

The Romans did not invent bridges or roads but were the first to develop a system.  Bridges and roads go together for obvious reasons.  

A bridge is valued for reasons of its beauty, function, social reasons as it promotes trade, communication.  It also helps to create towns, cities. For the Romans bridges also possess religious significance.  Ancus Marcius, the fourth king of Rome, caused the construction of the Pons Sublicius.  Its construction and care were placed under the care of a priest, pontifex.  Pontifex means bridge builder.  Romans were animists and believed that rivers possessed a divinity and this divinity required permission to be crossed.

Romans avoided steep grades, often following river valleys.  They minimized river crossings and stayed on one side until a crossing was necessary or one road met another at right angles near a river.

O’Connor periodically covers briefly Roman history and then juxtaposes that history with road and bridge construction up to that time.

Rome commanded the Tiber River as it empties into the Mediterranean Sea.  To the north is Etruria which consisted of a league of 12 cities from the Tiber R. to the Arno River (in modern Florence).  To the south was/is Latium.  The people there had the same language as Rome.  This area stretches from the Tiber to the Pomptine Marshes and the Lepini Mts. just beyond Cape Circeo.

Rome grew under the Etruscan leaders it had.  In 530 BC the Cloaca Maxima was built this was a large open drain which made the area now called forum useable.  It was covered in the 4th century BC.  Tarquin (called the Proud by the Romans) was booted by the Romans in 510 BC.  He was not happy about this and went to Caere.  There he convinced Porsenna, the king of Clusium to help him regain his throne.

When Porsenna marched on Rome his ability to cross the river was hindered by the famous stand of Publius Horatius Cocles and his two friends, Spurius Larcius and Titus Herminius on the Pons Sublicius.  It is likely that inspite of the courage of Horatius, Porsenna occupied Rome.  But in 506 BC at the Battle of Aricia, the Latins defeated the Etruscans and at this point the Latin League was formed.  In 493 BC Rome and the Latin League combined.  In 360 there were some members of the league unhappy and this war, Rome won.

In 479 BC Rome attacked Fidenae in Etruria and failed.  But since Fidenae was critical for the security of Rome, it was taken in 426 BC.  In 405 BC Rome attacked Veii, the last Etruscan stronghold at Rome’s doorstep and took it in 396 BC.  

Rome’s advance into the south (remember the Latin League) involved them in three wars against the Samnians.  

The 1st Samnite War lasted from 343 to 341 BC.  The Sabellian tribe was absorbed.  The reason for this war was, as so many in which Rome was involved, the request of a nearby city.  The war began when Capua sought help from Rome against the Samnites.  Rome helped but the war was indecisive.  The 2nd Samnite war was fought 326 to 304 BC.  Rome was defeated at the Caudine Forks which is between Capua and Beneventum and at Lautulae.  At this point Capua joined the Samnites but Rome retook Capua in 314 BC.  In 304 BC the Samnites asked for peace.  3rd Samnite War was fought in 298 BC.  Lucania asked Rome for help.  The Samnites formed an army and it arrived north of Rome where the Romans defeated it at Sentinum.  Roman power stretched from Ancona on the Adriatic Sea to the Gulf of Tarentum.

Tarentum was concerned about the advance of Rome and formed an alliance with Pyrrhus, the King of Epirus in Greece.  The war lasted from 280 to 275 BC.  At Beneventum, the Romans won a major victory to win the war.  

Back to bridges.

The Romans built the Via Appia from Rome to Terracina on the Tyrrhenian coast, then to Minturnae, then to Capua and finally all the way to Brundisium on the heal of Italy.  In 314 the Romans retook Capua toward the end of the 2nd Samnite War.  So the Via is strategic for Roman security.  But it quickly became a trade route.  There is disagreement on when the road was paved but O’Connor is convinced that it was a substantial road from the beginning.  The road through the Pomptine Marshes was frequently flooded, parts of the road required boat transport.  Years later at Terracina, Trajan built a rock cut path for the Via Appia, visible today.  The road went through the pass at Lautulae (where the Romans were defeated) and crossed the Liris River (Garigliano)  The Romans established a colony at Brundisium in 244, thus the road was probably completed to that point by 264 BC.  From Beneventum there is a northern route along the Adriatic and this may be the Via Minturnae mentioned by Cicero.  These roads secured the area both for the Romans and for the inhabitants.  These also provided a means of trade and communication. The area south of Rome was secure.

The Via Annia joined Capua to Rhegium.  Parallel to Annia is Via Domitiana (imperial road) giving access to Puteloli (Pozzuoli).  This area had the valuable ash which Romans added to concrete to allow the concrete to dry in wet environment.  In the same area is Via Herculia.  It is a late road.

The Via Salaria began at the Pons Sulpicius and followed the Tiber.  This road was important as a trade route.  The Via Latina is connected with the fight against the Aequi for the pass at Algidus.  A battle was fought there in 431 BC.  This is the battle at which Cincinnatus, elected dictator in an emergency, was victorious.  The Via Valeria was built in 307 BC to Carsioli and a colony established in 303 BC.  The Via Clodia went north at Satrum to help control the area.  Via America went north to Horta in 240 BC.  The Via Cassia went north to Florentia (Florence). The Via Aurelia went north along the coast on the west side of Italy.  The initial road was constructed by Caius Claudius Cotta in 241 BC. Eventually this road was extended all the way to Spain.  The area north of Rome was secure.

More history.  In 276 BC Rome had control from Eturia to Brundisium.  Messana on the tip facing of Sicily facing Italy was attacked by Hiero, the King of Syracuse.  Messana asked Rome for help.  Thus the 1st Punic War, for there was a strong Carthaginian presence in Sicily.  Rome had naval victories at Mylae in 260 BC and at Ecnomus in 256 BC.  Rome invade Africa in 256 BC.  It was here that Marcus Atilius Regulus was captured and displayed such courage.  But Rome won the war and Sicily was seeded to Rome.  Soon after Sardinia and Corsica were acquired.  

In the north.  Gauls crossed the Alpes into Italy, advanced south and defeated the Romans at Allia River in 390 BC.  After a ransom was paid (all this was was a plundering expedition), the Gauls withdrew.  In the 3rd Samnite War the Samnites were aided by people in the area of Sentinum north of Rome. Thus at the end of the 1st Punic War the Gauls again invade Italy and made it all the way to Telemon on the Adriatic coast just below Ravenna.  The Romans drove them back and began establishing colonies along the Po River.  By 220 BC Placentia, Cremona, Luna and Genoa had been established.

Roads.  Thus the Via Flaminia.  This road left Rome at Pons Mulvius.  It was built by Flaminus when Censor in 220 BC.  The road was extended to Ariminum on the Adriatic.  There is a Roman tunnel through the Furlo Pass. 

History-  In Spain Saguntum asked for an alliance with Rome.  Granted.  The 2nd Punic War commenced when Hannibal besieged the city.  Hannibal initially victorious in Italy, his reinforcements were defeated at the Metaurus River (Romans would have been helped by the Via Flaminia).  The Romans were also successful in Spain and Africa.  The war was over in 202 BC.  After this war the Gaull in northern Italy attacked colonies in northern Italy.  2 armies were sent and were victorious.  

Romans added new roads.  Via Annia (two by that name)  which went from Aquilia to Bologna.  Via Postumia went from Genoa to Verona.  Via Popilia went from Ariminum to Ravenna.

In the beginning the sea was the easy route to Gaul.  The Romans had a long, valuable alliance with Massilia.  The rivers were used as trade and convenience up the Rhone.  But after Arausio October 6, 105 BC where the Romans were defeated by the Gauls.   The Romans won at Vercellae and Aquae Sextiae soon after.  There were and had been for far more than a hundred years major problems with Gauls.  So the Romans took the whole of far southern France.  A network of roads were built.

In Spain a network of roads for strategic reasons and commerce- there were mineral deposits of gold, silver, copper, mercury and iron in Spain.

Northwest Africa saw the construction of roads for defense, commerce and agriculture.

In AD 43 Britain was invaded.  A web of roads was built.  

Builders of roads

In the Republic the roads were built by 12 consuls, 6 censors and 2 praetors.  Appius and others may have done more than just say build the road.  There are two reasons for this:  the highest ranks of Roman elective service required training and experience as of 180 BC.  Some expectations surely exited previous to this. The lowest office was that of Quaestor.  Minimum age was 25.  Next Curule Aedile at an age of 36.  The Praetor required an age of 39 and the consulship 42.  Before these offices were pursued, the Romans had a habit of expecting those on the move to serve as assistants to general, governors and office holders.

There is another reason that people such as Appius knew more than just how to say build the road.  Marcus Vipsanius Agippa, 2nd in command to Augustus, supervised the construction of a fleet, equipment, was responsible for two aqueducts, the cleaning of the cloaca maxima (for this he actually boarded a row boat and personally looked at the cloaca and the Pons Agrippae.  He had a map made of the entire empire with details of cities, roads, terrain.  The ruins of his bridge can be seen 160 meters northwest of Ponte Sisto in Rome. Agrippa’s interests show that he was more than an administrator.  Sextus Julius Frontinus wrote on surveying, the art of war, military science, farming, boundaries, roads, colonies and aqueducts. This last survives, De Aquis.  He was consul, general, writer and governor.  In the De Aquis he states that he had a habit of learning everything he could about whatever he was assigned. Pliny the Younger, when he was governor in Bithynia in northern Turkey went on site to the springs for an aqueduct to figure out a problem.  When younger, he was in charge of the drains and Tiber in Rome.

The Curator Viarum, caretaker of roads, was an important position.  Apparently it was not a political payoff position.  In most cases this position followed the Praetorship.  Engineers (fabri) often came from the army.  These people would have had a great deal of experience.

Labor was supplied by soldier, slaves, free citizens.  There was a huge carpenter association in Rome called the collegium fabrum tignuariorum.  

So O’Connor’s point seems to be that many people in positions of building knew a fair amount about the job before they took on the position.  (I know from reading Cicero’s letters, for example that he clearly knew a great deal about architecture and construction.)

Roman Technology

There are designer constraints:  ability to shape the material, transport and handle.  Roman tools:  hammer, axe, adze, pick, drill, file.  For these a hardened iron was essential.  The old view that the Romans only borrowed and had poor regard for practical skills are buried by the evidence presented by O’Connor.  He shows that there was no shortage of ideas, skills and principles as evidenced by what they built.  He interestingly works backwards to prove this, since no manuals survive.  

Romans lacked extensive mechanical power, hard metals.  And for the Romans employment was a major concern.  And not having a modern capitalist system, they did not want to eliminate workers.  A large cash of tools was found in Scotland and huge numbers of nails of all sizes. These indicate the existence of some kind of assembly line set up.

They possessed great skill in ship building.  Frames were held together by wooden pegs.  Planks held in place by pegs.  Planks were mounted edge to edge, not overlapping, with biscuit wedges.  The wooden pegs holding the planks were pierced by bronze spikes to make a very tight fit.  It is clear that the spikes were made in bulk.  So his point is that there must have been some kind of production system in place to do this.  He also gives high marks for such ship construction.

The Romans knew of the male screw but not of the female nut.

To give a comparison O’Connor mentions that in 1586 the obelisk of Nero’s Circus was moved 240 meters by Fontana. It weighed 310 tons. It took five months and was considered a great feat.  The Romans had moved this obelisk down the Nile River, across the Mediterranean and by land to Rome.  By the way the ancients made rope to the same standards as modern rope.  

There is a crane carved on the tomb of Haterius.  It is in the Vatican Lateran Museum.

In the construction of bridges there was need for a reach of 15 to 18 meters from pier to pier.  The Romans as the tomb shows and the bridge makes clear had the equipment to move large rock the distance and also possessed the pile drivers necessary to create a means to install piers in the middle of a river.  Oak piles have been found with iron tips embeded in rivers.  The Romans some how learned of pozzolana (a tufa, volcanic rock) which allows concrete to harden in wet areas.  It also made Roman concrete very hard, even by modern standards.

Tufa with lava, white limestone and other elements is called peperino.  Travertine is a form of limestone.  It is easily damaged by fire but as bridge material, no problem.  The Pons Mulvius is made from it (109BC).

There are 91 bridges in Italy.  32 use Travertine, 29 use limestone, 23 use tufa, 7 use a conglomerate.  The Romans apparently figured out that the hardest stone did not make the best material for bridges.  Does this make sense?  It will.

A stone with a high proportion of very small pores is less durable than stone with large pores.  Large pores allow space for trapped moisture to expand and contract without doing damage.  The saws used by the Romans to cut limestone, etc. was used well into modern times.  Sand was washed into a cut by water flow.  The different styles of stone laying indicates a knowledge about the material and an ability to adapt different methods to different needs.

Concrete.

Calcium carbonate (lime) is burnt.  Burnt lime is calcium oxide.  When water is added to it it is calcium hydroxide.  This reacts with carbon dioxide in the air to form calcium carbonate.  Add pozzolana and it hardens in water.  Pozzolana causes the lime to be taken up and this adds strength.  The Romans had little idea of the chemistry but knew the results.

The Romans kept aggregate separate from the concrete mix.  These were mixed together at the site.  The Romans liked to lay brick molds, a wall in which to place the concrete.  These were made simultaneously to make sure that the wall which served a s a mold (and pleasant visible surface if so desired) bonded.

In vaulting and such timber was used to form the molds.  In bridges exposed concrete is not used.  The durability of Roman concrete is famous and in some cases it is better than modern concrete. But the physical structure and pore size count more than simple strength.  Roman concrete contains air holes which help to reduce internal pressure due to freezing and thawing.  Crystals which absorb salts also do less damage.

Romans used timber for centering, scaffolding, cranes and for final structures they did build many bridges out of wood and for good reason as we shall see). Romans were well aware of the qualities of different woods.  Vitruvius lists twenty different kinds of timber.  The strongest was ash (fraxinus).

The surveying tools were the groma.  It allowed a straight line to be followed or right angle.  There was a leveling device, chordates and the dipotra which was more elaborate.  Typically aqueducts dropped 1 foot for 500 feet.  Try to imagine the problems of maintaining this over up even terrain with rivers, ravines and mountains.  The Romans also had a hodometer.  A carriage with 4 wheels, each wheel four feet in diameter.  400 revolutions of the wheel caused a drum to rotate 1 time.  A stone in the drum fell out into a bronze container.  The noise would indicate one Roman mile (5,000 feet).

Computations.

Did Romans produce drawings?  Yes.  The tools to do so survive.  The Abacus makes it clear that the Romans could add, subtract, multiply and divide by simple numbers.

Masonry Bridges.

Pons Mulvius- the Via Flaminia begins here.  It has 6 spans.  Spans 2 and 3 are faced with Travertine.  Livy mentions this bridge (27.51.2).  M. Aemilius Scaurus restored it in 109 BC.  There are flood openings in the middle of some piers to relieve the strain during floods.  

Pons Fabricius was built in 62 BC.

Ponte Rotto was built in 179 BC.  Marcus Fulvius Nobilior and M. Aemilius Lepidus were the Censors.  The original one had a timber deck.  The stone arches now visible were added by Scipio and Mummius in 142 BC  (This is the Scipio which captured Carthage in the 3rd Punic.)

The oldest bridge is the Pons Sublicius.  600 BC.  It was made out of wood.  One was still there is AD 400.  No longer exists.  Evidently it was maintained as a wooden bridge for centuries.  It was located near Forum Boarium, down stream from the Pons Aemilius.

Ponte del Diavolo.  One arch rib remains.  It connected to Via Latina which connected Cassinum with Interamna Lirenas.  Near Arpinum it crossed the Liris via Ponte Marmone (This is the bridge near Cicero’s home).

Ponte di Sperlonga is unusual.  Built 1st century BC. 

Past Minturnae Via Appia heads to Sessa Aurunca.  And there in a farmer's field is Pons Aurunca, 1 kilometer west of town.  Follow right bank of the stream down from a minor road which leads to route 7.  Access is along old Via Appia. 

Via Flaminia has more bridges than any other road.  But it is sad to see how many bridges were destroyed during World War II.

Gaul- roads came later here.  Water ways had provided means of commerce and travel.

Spain perhaps the greatest of all Roman bridges is here- Alcantara over the Tagus River is spectacular.  Merida may be the longest, Puente Romano, 3,000 feet plus.

Turkey

There is an arch in a theater with voussoirs stepped at mid length, perhaps to deal with earthquakes.  This technique may have been used in bridges.  But it certainly shows Roman attention to various variables.  There is a bridge at Kahta, one of the largest spans at 34.2 meter.  The largest surviving is Pont St. Martin at 35.6 meter.

Timber Bridges

Very common.  There was plenty of lumber.  There was technology to cut and work wood.  Quick to build.  Besides Romans built wooden structures to hold stones in place as stone bridge was built.  Columns in Rome show wooden bridges.  In Great Britain there were numerous.  For sure wooden bridges were built first when a road was first constructed.  Are there other reasons for wooden bridges? Romans did not build bridges out of stone near seas.  

The columns of Trajan and Aurelius make clear that the Roman army owed as much to the spade as to the sword.  The carving accurately reflect bridges and physical evidence has been found.  The mason for the columns clearly copied from sketch books to display the bridges.

It is possible that Apollodorus may have used trusses on his bridge across the Danube, perhaps the greatest bridge the Romans ever built and that out of wood.  Timber girder bridges are found on the columns.  There is precedent.  Caesar built a timber bridge across the Rhine in 10 days.  It may have been 260 meters long. Apollodorus' bridge- one pier remains.  It crossed the Danube.  Dio Cassius says that there were 20 piers 150 ft high, 60 ft wide and 170 feet apart.  It was about 3,600 feet long.  

Via Appia at Minturnae crosses the Liris (Garigliano ).  Here was the Pons Tirenus.  It was built in 295 BC.  It was known to exist in AD 548.  The Romans used wood where stone was not suitable.

More evidence of application of rules for construction:

The Romans used inverted syphon when bridge height required exceeded 45.7 meter.  Such a height made a bridge impractacle.

Romans used two kinds of aqueduct designs.  One- used numerous arches with short spans for long stretches across gentle valleys.  Two- large spans across large rivers to reduce number of spans.

Rules for bridge design.  This was difficult for me, I did not understand the math.  But did try to get the implications.

The rules appear only by studying the bridges.  

Abutments (end of bridges) constructed first.

Then the foundation for the piers.

Then the piers.

The arch ribs consist of springing voussoirs with radial joints. and keystone.  The underside of the arch rib is called intrados and the upper is called extrados.  The space between the one extrados and the next is the spandrel.  This was filled in either with dirt of concrete.  The weight of the spandrel pushes down and sideways.  The arch pushes inward.  Thus there is a balance.  The end pieces must be wider to help control the end arches.

Virtuvius says 3 types of foundations:

1.  Build directly on the surface on solid material.

2.  Timber piles driven into soft earth

3.  Foundation on water with forms made of beams driven into the water.  Water is pumped out and the space filled with concrete or masonry.

Piers could have vaults piercing in order to deal with floods.  Triangles pointed up stream to break the force of water. The thickness of the piers is 1/3 of the span distance.  Sometimes it is 1/2 and a few 1/5.  The Romans clearly understood the relation between the two.

Arch design.

Arch consists of arch rib, spandrel and material in the spandrel.  Ratio of rib thickness to span is important.  Ranges from 1/10 to 1/20.  This is a wide range.  How does this indicates that Romans had a sense of arch design?  If a span is 50 ft or less, most bridges are 1/10.  

A voussoir with a width of 3 1/2 feet by 5 ft by 5 ft would weigh 9,438 lbs.  This is near the limit of what a crane could handle.  But the keystone of the Ponte Manlio is is 20,328 lbs.  So there must have been special cranes developed for unusual situations.

O’Connor demolishes the idea that segmented arches came to Europe from the Chinese.  In China there is a bridge built in AD 600 which is segmented.  There are far too many segmented bridges in Europe from the Roman period to allow this.  Prime example is Apollodorus bridge across the Danube.  It clearly is segmented.

Roman Ribs.

Different types.

Most common- stretcher bonds with staggered rows.

Arch construction.

Cane could reach 11.5 meter.  First bridge was usually of wood.  This allowed materials and equipment to be moved about.

My observation- it is clear that Romans mastered the problem of form and function.  For those aspects of a bridge which add texture with its shadowing and appeal are directly related to the function and construction of the bridge.

Falsework (the wooden framework which held stone in place until ready to take on the weight of the bridge) supports are often found part way up the springing voussoirs because these could be constructed without support.  Many place survive on bridges where protruding stone was used to support falsework or the holes into which supports for falsework was placed.  Thus the spandrel may have been filled before arch rib was completed.  It may have added strength.  Falsework could maintain huge pressure, so when it was removed, there must have been a way to do so without causing pressure on the stone about in uneven ways.  It is important to remember with cranes that two may have worked on opposite ends of an arch.

Analysis of an arch.

O’Connor here gives mathematical explanation for ability of Roman arches to function.  It was beyond me.

Conclusion.

The Romans probably built thousands of bridges.  Their achievement is measured by shear numbers, extent (all over Europe, Asia, Africa) technology.  It is good to remember that spans achieved by the Romans were not exceeded until 1755.  “The most successful, extensive and lasting of all human, material achievements”.

717. The Roman Campagna in Classical Times by Thomas Ashby

717.  The Roman Campagna in Classical Times by Thomas Ashby.

Via Salaria- from Rome via the Porta Collina.  Follows the Tiber, soon reaches Fidenae which was an important outpost of Veii. At Eretum it heads ino the mountains.  Just beyond is Cures the city of Titus Tatius.  Before Eretum is Allia River where the Romans were defeated by the Gauls in 390 BC.  Remnants of the Roman army retreated to Veii as they were cut off from Rome.

Via Nomentana- from Rome via the Porta Collina.  Many tombs, descends to the Anio River, over which is Ponte Nomentano.  Beyond the bridge is a hill, the Sacer Mons where plebs went in 494 BC.  Plebs may have been dispossessed aristocracy from regal period, all kings except Romulus and Tarquins have plebeian  names.  Hills in Rome have plebeian names- Caelian, Cispus, Oppius.

Road to north is Via Patinaria.  Parts of the Via Nomentana are in place.  The town of Nomenteum is now Mentanas.

Via Tiburtina heavily used.  Crosses Anio.  Exits Porta Tiburtina (Porta San Lorenzo)  1st bridge is Ponte Mammolo.  Near Laghetto di Marco Simone is underground domed building with mosaic.  Next bridge is Ponte Lucano.  Remnants of Horace' villa is at Tivoli.

Via Praenestina (sometimes red sand in antiquity and now are reported blown from Sahara by a sirocco.)

Heads to Alban Hills.  Hills are more gentle.  Leaves Porta Esquilina.  Praenestina and Labicana diverge at tomb of Eurysaces.  Ponte di Nona is well preserved.  Ponte Amato excellent example of a Roman bridge.  It is off to the side of the modern road.

Via Collatina leads to Collatia where Sextus found Lucretia.

Via Labicana- exits Porta Maggiore.  Best arches of Aqua Alexandrina, ancient bridge near by.Near Torre Nuova

Hannibal camped here in 211.  Atilius Regulus and Fabius Maximus had farms here.  Modern road closely follows Labicana is the Via Casilina.  This was original route to Tusculum.  Labicana goes on east bank of Pantano Secco, a dried up volcanic crater- probably Lake Regulus where Tarquin the Proud made his last attempt to regain Rome.

Along these roads were post stations, many of which became active towns and villages.  Here horses were changed, lodging, food.  Labicana crosses Latina twice at Ad Picta (25 miles) Ad Bivium (30 miles).

Via Latina- Porta Capena where Cicero entered Rome returning from exile.  first 12 miles is straight.  Leave Aurelian Wall via Porta Latina.  It is picked up where Via Appia Nuova is crossed at Porta San Giovanni- this is where the park is, the aquduct park.  Aqua Claudia/Anio Novus arches.  Villa Quintiliani, Sette Bassi along it.  Impressive ruins.  First example of intersecting of vaulted ribs using tiles.  This influenced Medieval architecture.  Buttresses are here too.  Also influential.  Aqua Crabra has its source at Rocca Priora. This aqueduct supplied water for Cicero's villa.  There is a tramway station called Poggio Tulliano.  On the South slope of Tusculum is amphitheater, beside it is a tomb of Marcus Coelius Vinicianus a contemporary of Cicero.  Near by a theater.  Near by a fountain, close by the forum another fountain bearing the inscription of two aediles of Cicero's time.

Tusculum was founded by Telegonus, son of Odysseus and Circe.  Its ruler, Octavius Mamilius aided his fatrher in law, Tarquin the Proud, he led 30 cities of the Latin League against Rome at the Battle of Lake Regulus.  Tusculum was acquired by Rome in 484.  Rome aided when it was attacked by Latins.  211 Hanibal appeared at gates but Tusculum did not surrender. Via Latina runs below in Valley- Valle della Molara.

Via Appia- leaves via Porta Capena.  Its ruins found in the middle of lawns of the Passeggiata Archeologica.  Villa Doria contains items pertaining to Pompey.  Ariccia, once a way station near here, fine embankment 200 yards long. Through the Pomptine Marshes. Lake Nemi at the north end of it is temple of Diana.

Via Ardeatina- Heads toward Antium- with this city Rome had a naval battle- origin of the ship beaks placed on front of the Roastra.  Temple of Venus here.  Near by is Astura where Cicero went when his daughter died.  His villa is near there somewhere.

Via Ostiensis- exits Rome via Porta San Paolo near the Pyrimide.  The main street in Ostia is the Via Ostiensis.

Via Aurelia north along the coast.

Via Clodia toward Florence.

716. De Finibus V by Cicero

716.  De Finibus V by Cicero. Marcus, Marcus Piso, Quintus, Titus Pomponius and Lucius Cicero walk from the Dipylon Gate to the Academy a distance of 6 stades(3/4 mile). Talked as they walked.  When they arrived, the place was, as they had hoped empty.  It is another charming scene which has more to it than what meets the eyes.  Do places evoke greater connection than words?  Do places enhance ideas?  Seats, plants and sculpture of individuals mentioned seem to spur ideas and thoughts.

A chair makes Piso think of Polemo.  A place seems to bring reality to the past.  Quintus thinks of Oedipus at Colonnus.  Here we have a mythical character.  Which is more real?

Piso is asked to present the Peripatetic view of summum bonum.

He begins:

There are three parts: 

Natural Philosophy which covers a study of the universe, land, sea, from Aristotle came the habit of examining all animals with their nutrition, origin and design, from Theophrastus the study of plants.   These two are synthesized to gain a better understanding of the unseen world.

Logic- which includes dialectic and oratory.  This had habit of examining all sides of an issue.

Art of Living which covers private life and a guide for leaders of states.

Peripatetics investigated the customs, teaching, laws of Greeks and Barbarians, wrote on the best kind of state and their tendencies.  A life of study was rated as the highest form of existence.  All this done with the highest quality of composition.

The search for the chief good (summum bonum) is more important than anything else.  Once the final good is established, we will know to which harbor to head.

Just as medicine is not involved in itself but in health, so the art of living is connected to nature and inherent desires.

Instinct is the foundation of the highest good, ethics.  This is the source of dispute among the different philosophies.

1.Some think that the first instinct is that of pleasure, 

2.some that the absence of pain and avoidance of pain is acquired first.  3.Some set out from these things in harmony with nature.  

What are those things inharmony with nature?  Health, quality of senses, absence of pain, strength, good looks, etc  These serve as seeds of virtue.

Prudentia (sagacity, good judgement) must come from one of the three above.Whichever one is the source, so much is there a different view of the essence of the nature of humans.

There are 6 views of the chief good:

1.  aiming action at the attainment of pleasure, even though this may not be achieved

2.  aiming action at the absence of pain even though not secured

3.  aiming action at the attaining things in harmony with nature even though none are obtained 

4.  the sole standard of action is at the actual attainment of pleasure.

5.  the sole standard of action with the freedom of pain.

6.  the sole standard of action from the principle of attaining those things in harmony with nature.

The Peripatetic version:

All of life, plants and animals have a common end.  All nature is self preserving, to protect itself and keep itself in the best possible condition.  All living things have a similar end but not the same.Every plant lives in harmony with its nature.  The end of a human is to live in harmony with nature, that is human nature. Living in harmony with nature in human terms springs from human self love.  In the beginning there is a simple level, survival.  But as self consciousness  sets in, it begins to understand the ultimate purpose of this desire for self preservation.

Even people who do harm to themselves at that moment are thinking of their own best interest.  This may be mistaken but at the moment…..  This is meant to demonstrate that self love lies at the basis of the search for the greatest good.

The fear of death is proof of self love.  Cicero apparently via the Peripatetics argues that there is one instinct, self love.  This is the key to the chief good, i.e. to have everything needed for fulfilling oneself as a human being. 

Two parts to a human- mind and body.  The entire nature of a human is wrapped up in this.  The nature of a human must be obedient to this nature, this combination of mind and body.

The body parts match our nature.  Even body motions reflect human nature in gait and general movements.  Each sense carries its own particular function quickly and efficiently when perception is met.  I.e. we notice immediately a smell, something we see, or hear or touch or taste.

Mind is separate from brain.  In the mind are two major divisions:

1. non voluntary (part of our ability which came with us at birth)- receptiveness and memory, what at times is called talent.

2.  voluntary (tendency, inclination)- good sense, restraint, courage, justice….

The good life is one filled with virtues of mind and body.  But the intellect is held in greater esteem than the body because of that aspect of the mind which relies on reason.  

The excellence of animals lies in perfection of their body.  In humans it is the mind.  The mind of a human is the source of virtue, virtue is the perfection of reason.

A plant's growth and completion are not unlike animals.  We think of plants as old and young, living and dead.  But without cultivation plants do not arrive at perfection, for that the efforts of farmers are required.  If vines possessed sense would they not want to preserve what it has, thus its final end would change a little.  It would want to live in harmony with its nature.  If given a mind again the final end would change as it would realize that the mind is more important but at the same time, it would need to protect the body because of the needs of the mind.

Piso uses this to demonstrate that working from the primary excellence of nature by many steps a combination of keeping the body healthy and perfect requires reason.

1.  The first instinct of nature drives us to survive

2.  then we see our differences with animals

3.  then we begin to pursue what nature intended 

Each animals gravitates to what best suits it based on its nature.  

Babies appear at birth without intellect.  Then they use their limbs and senses.  They soon recognize their parents.  Then they try to sit up and then walk.  They enjoy the company of children the same age.  They enjoy sharing.  They become curious about what is going on in the house.  They love to hear stories.  They want to know the names of those they see.  They are thrilled to win games and sad when they lose.

Piso uses this as argument that children seem designed to grasp virtue even before any systematic education.  We have in us the principle of action, love, generosity, appreciation and have minds suitable for knowledge, wisdom and courage.  These sparks are in children.  But of course without parenting, good parenting may not develop.

Reason is the leader which guides.  From this we learn to recognize the intent of nature.  Then reason is used to assist our quest (as a farmer assists nature).

The most clear evidence of nature is seen in the lofty aspects of a human.  Even children forbidden to learn, insist on doing so.  There is a desire to learn even though there may be no profit.  From history Piso presents Archimedes, from myth, Homer's Odysseus and the Sirens.

He gives strong evidence that people learn even though they will derive no profit.  But simply learn because the mind enjoys exercise.  In study is amusement and a consolation of misery.

Every human possesses a constant desire to do something. Peripatetics frequently watched children in cribs, at play, etc.  Because in children the essence of nature is best observed.  They noticed that they

1.  can not be quiet.

2.  They enjoy games and hard work

3.  even threats do not keep them away from what interests.

Eternal sleep and dreams like that of Endymion holds no attraction.

Nos ad agendum esse natos- we were born for action.  So true and so very Roman.  

Nature provides seeds of virtue.  He gives examples from plays and history of those who did what they did not in the interest of themselves but something greater.

The good life is one lived in harmony with those characteristics based on human behavior.  The good life is the expression of performance of those virtues established by observation of human behavior.   The virtues are intertwined yet each is distinct and can be observed.

Courage is perceived in toil and danger.

Temperance is observed in passing by pleasures

Wisdom is observed in distinguishing between good and evil.

Justice is observed in giving each person their due.

Every virtue connects with another.  Each causes us to reach out to others.  Each is desired for its own sake.

The chief good resides in developing the mind and body.  No one could achieve the chief good, if all external goods were contained in the highest good.  For many of these are simply beyond our control.

Any right action benefits a person.  Thus loving one's parents is a right action.  Action that is in harmony with nature is a right action.

Piso finishes.

Cicero doubts the Peripatetic assertion that all wise people are always happy.  Unless this is proved, Theophrastus is correct in saying that misfortune, sorrow are incompatible with happiness.  Then Cicero uses Stoic logic and its strong consistency to question the logic of the Peripatetics.  

It is as though Cicero is suggesting that each system has merit and something superior to the other to the other but neither alone is perfect.  

This, of course is his system, that of Archesilas.  He suggested that certainty was impossible but that one should follow what determined to be probable using reason was the best guide.

Thus it seems that Cicero felt that doubt encouraged investigation.  This would of course lead to a wide range of systems of thought.

Stoic logic is tight and carefully thought out.  But in order for the Peripatetics to come close to the truth, logic must be sacrificed, to a degree.

Piso relies that Stoics use new terms to say the same thing Peripatetics use just to avoid any logical inconsistency.  Piso says that all of this is said by Cicero to take Lucius away from the Peripatetics.  Cicero replies that he will be with me, if he will be with you.

Does an entire argument in terms of the complexities of human life collapse, if one incident contrary to their whole experience occurs?

Peripatetics felt that virtue was so great that misery and sorrow can not exist in its shadow.  But pain and annoyance can.  Yet, every wise person is always happy.  And it is possible that one wise person can be happier than another.

That says Cicero will require a great deal of defense.

713. De Finibus IV by Cicero

713.  De Finibus 4 by Cicero.  Cicero hesitates to criticize Stoicism.  But he confesses that there is much that he does not understand.  Cato suggests that the difficulty is inherent in the subject.  Cicero wonders why then he is able to understand everything the Peripatetics say.  

Cicero points out that both Peripatetics and the Stoics derive from the same group of teachers.  This includes Zeno- all maintain that we were born suitable to these virtues:  justice, truth, temperance, courage,, that we eagerly seek these and have a desire for knowledge.  We were born to be with other humans, to form societies.  Often philosophy is divided into three parts which was retrained by Zeno:

1.  Ethics- by which moral character is formed

 2.  The end of Good is delayed (for such takes time)

3.  Civil Science- (politics) 

Cicero continues:  what the Peripatetics state is clear and charming.  Stoics are dry and constantly plucking spines  (section 6- this may be another example of common speech picked up for scholarly use).  The Peripatetics excel at exhortation, consolation, advice, plans.  To do this they practice two forms of speaking- general and specific.  But Zeno abandoned this.

The Stoics, Cicero says, are devoted to logic and the pursuit of truth but have abandoned charm and interest- this makes them difficult to hear.

The Stoic idea that the entire world is one town, that only the wise person is rich, the power of virtue,  are very important topics but the person hearing is annoyed by syllogisms and the absence of energy in speech.

Logic (disserendi ratio) and the natural sciences (cognitio nature) are now covered.

Logic was established long ago- aspects of it include the creation of definitions, the art of defining, de contrariis (Law of Contradiction), it (logic) also gives us the classifications and subdivisions of those classifications (argumentum/conclusum).  Deductive reasoning begins with what is self evident, then flows methodical arrangement, then what is true in successive cases is the conclusion.

Cicero seems to put more faith in deductive reasoning than in syllogisms which he says can be deceptive.  Peripatetics urge the pursuit of truth using reason combined with the senses.  These believe that reason and the senses must work together.

Two skills (sciences) cover reasoning and oratory (persuasion, argument, thought patterns):

1.  The science of producing thoughts appropriate to the subject at hand (invent).

2.  The science of logic.

The Stoics practice logic and do it extremely well but neglect inventio.  Inventio adds variety to an argument, charm, interest.  This avoids singing the same tune over and over.  Nature, the matter of a subject, alone is not enough- the art/ science is needed.

(Take the time to think about this and do not be fooled- Cicero does not simply mean that Stoicism lacks pizzaz or spark but is deficient in ability to take on the subject of humanity fully with out those things mentioned. Humans are too complex to understand by one approach alone.)

Cicero points out that Epicureans have an interest in natural philosophy.  It is used to dispel a fear of death and superstition.  To the Stoics and the Peripatetics and others there is also value in knowledge of the heavens to bring about a certain absence of arrogance.  The avoidance of arrogance is avoided when people notice how much there is a sense of regularity or moderation with the Gods, how much order.  A knowledge of the heavens brings about lofty thoughts, when observing the works of the Gods.  This knowledge also brings about justice, when a person realizes the plan, will and power of God(s).

The study of natural philosophy brings joy at every turn as we learn new things.

In section 12, there is an interesting discussion on Aristotle’s 5th element from which reason and intelligence arise.  Zeno said that it was fire.  Cicero agrees that there is something more than cells to the mind (to put it in modern terms).

Cicero’s point is that there is no need for a name change, as these two groups are the same.

Now begins assessment of summum bonum (ethics/Chief Good/final end)

Polemo maintained that the Chief Good is to live in harmony with nature

The Stoics take this formula of Polemo and give it three interpretations:

1.  to live having knowledge of things which happen in nature 

2.  to live performing all or most all middle duties 

3.  to live enjoying all or as many as possible of those things which are in harmony with nature.

Number 1 and 2 are not the same says Cicero. Not all things in 3 would be under the control of the wise person.

Cicero then gives a brief run down of the system of Aristotle:

1.  Every animal desires self preservation for safety and preservation of its own kind.

2.  Humans have added art of living which assists Nature to protect what Nature has given and to acquire what it lacks.

3.  They divide the nature of humans into mind and body.

4.  Each of these must be sought for their own sake.

5.  They place animus (intellect) first in importance. 

Wisdom is the guardian of the whole person.  Mind is to assist and protect both. The needs of the body are easier to figure out (We know when we are hungry or cold).  The needs of the mind they sought with greater care (We do not sense hunger for learning the same way as we detect the need for food.)

In the above are the seeds for justice.  Every offspring loves it parents.  This has been bestowed by Nature.  From this arises family affection.  From this evolved the virtues.  From these virtues a greatness of mind by which easily one is able to endure luck for that which really matters is under the control of the wise person.

These basic principles stir a desire for importance of goods (virtues) by thinking of obscure aspects of Nature, because the mind loves to think.  This promotes discussion and argument.  Only humans have sense of modesty and reverence and a desire for companionship and a concern to do the right thing at the right time.  From these simple beginnings( love of parents) comes temperance, justice, discretion and all the moral virtues.

Zeno, Cicero points out, agrees with all of this.  But he Peripatetics  place eyesight, health, absence of pain etc among the goods but to Zeno these are no different from their opposites.  But these are preferred.  Cicero’s point is that Zeno knit picks over terms when he says that eyesight is preferred but not among the goods.  The Peripatetics says these (health for example) should be sought but Zeno says they are to be taken.  To Zeno as a result all sins (evils, too) would be equal.  A sin is a sin.

Cicero points out that it does not make much sense to say that all sins are equal.  It would be difficult to say in public that exile, confiscation of property is not an evil- only something to be rejected, not avoided.  Cicero then proceeds to make up a Stoic version of a peroration in a speech.

Panaetius, a Stoic, did not use that stronger term of preferred over desired.

Quick summary of common ground between Stoics and Peripatetics:

love of self

preservation of self

must study ourselves to know how to achieve Chief Good.

we are humans consisting of animus and body

From these are derived the Chief End.  If these are true, then those things in accordance with Nature must be attained in the highest possible numbers.

The weakness of Stoicism, Cicero says, rests with their insistence of removing the mind (animus) from the body. To them there is only one virtue- that of the mind.

Chrysippus conducted an extensive survey of animus and assigned to humans the sole characteristic of mind and nothing else.  But Cicero points out that bodily needs can not be as insignificant as Stoics claim, since the mind can not exist without the body.  Thus it seems silly to say that a wise person would choose a life with some small thing added but would not be the happier for it.  This idea of the Stoics making all evil equal, all goods equal does not pan out.  Any man would find the rack worse than losing a penny.

Cicero points out that each part of life may be small but it is still part of life.  It may not be the most important but nevertheless part of life.

Cicero places weakness of Stoicism in claiming to be in harmony with Nature but in reality by viewing humans as mind alone denys one of the primary characteristics of human.  By not placing the highest good in the whole of human, Stoics deny the other aspects.

Then too Stoics stumble when they say that the End is the same for all animals. Cicero has problems with this.  To be consistent, then, we must say that each animal has an end specific to itself, just as humans.  Although humans have a body, the Stoics dismiss this because the primary feature is the mind.

Cicero must have loved art for he sure uses it frequently in discussions.  This one is no different.

Just as a sculptor frees a subject from stone so wisdom takes a human as given by Nature and sets it free.  If a human is nothing but intellect, then the end is virtue (intellect).  If nothing but body then health, absence of pain etc are the end.  But the subject at hand is a human.  Do we not need to investigate the entire aspect of what it is to be human?  We need to observe Nature carefully.  She may discard the stem and leaves after the seeds have formed on a head of wheat but she does not do the same with humans.  She leads a human to the practice of reason. She gave humans reason in addition to the senses but does not discard the senses when reason has been achieved and begins to dominate.

Cicero sets out to show that although reason is human’s primary trait, the human may place primary importance on the intellect but will protect those other needs for the sake of the primary trait.

Stoic insistence on this terminology of preferred and taking cause them to make two goals, not one as they claim. (Cicero counts this as a contradiction.)  The Stoic view is that virtue can not be established if those things outside of virtue are included in living well. The view of the Stoics is that the art of living consists in virtue (intellect, and nothing else).  Cicero’s point is :to ignore the whole human is to end up redefining virtue.

To consider a human as only intellect ignores that part of human which is evident before reason takes hold.  (Think of a baby- it screams when hungry because the sensation of hunger is the driving force- reason has nothing to do with this.  Reason only comes later, slowly.)

Stoics by establishing things to be preferred are in harmony with Nature but when they deny that these are part of happiness, they seem to act contrary to Nature. Then Cicero critiques the Stoic sentence- moral worth (honestum) is the only good.  I.e.- the end of goods is in one virtue (the intellect).  In fact in their view virtue can not be sketched unless moral worth is numbered as the one and only ingredient.

To  avoid this problem, the Stoics should have begun with the common ground that there are natural instincts.  To say at one moment that moral worth is the only good but at another to say that by exercising choice we bring virtue into existence is a contradiction.  By making virtue an act of choice Stoics make virtue not an end in itself but something sought to gain something else. 

Then comes a very valuable sentence:  

Nam omnia quae sumenda quaeque legenda aut optanda sunt inesse debent in summa bonorum, ut is qui eam adeptus sit nihil praeterea desideret.=

For everything which must be taken and which must be selected or must be desired ought to be among the highest of goods in order that the person who has obtained it would desire nothing else.

(In my view this best sums up Cicero’s view on learning.)

So Cicero’s point is that the essence and purpose of humans must be found in the Nature of humans.

To the Stoics natural desires had nothing to do with the good life.  Stoicism is so rigid and so devoid of charm that it is difficult to excite someone to learn that pain is no evil. Cicero’s criticism of Stoicism rests on its excessive fondness for logic which ends up denying the reality of those qualities which are part of being human.  Cicero observes that Zeno’s first principle recedes from Nature when virtue alone is the only good.

Cicero then give s a more full view of the Peripatetic system as a critique of the Stoic:

The mind has an appetition (desire) when something seems to be in harmony with Nature.  All facets of humanness play into the good life.  But virtue (the Stoic intellect) ,indeed , is the most important.

While making his points, Cicero, more likely than not pointed to a portrait of Polemo which was probably in or near the garden.  It may have been a herm.

Cicero suggests that it is incongruent to use Peripatetic system but simply change or add terms and then sever ties with the original system which is what Stoics do in Cicero’s view.

Cicero displays his skill with a prosopopeia.  He takes on the part of Polemo and says- you, Cato, have received so much from these people and have been a fine service to the state.  Yet, you could have done even more if you had used methods of speech employed by the Peripatetics. (it allows Cicero to offer a criticism of Cato without being rude.)

Cicero cleverly uses charming language to reinforce the points made above (61-63 and elsewhere)- look at expetendam negent esse.  Esse ripped from its mooring to expetendam adds great force to his point- they deny that health must be desired - as if to say, with a gulp, does this make any sense?  This is an example of eloquence used not just as a weapon but a means for clear expression.  Thus Cicero by using his skills at argument highlights the strengths and weaknesses of Stoicism. Cicero (63) then takes several examples from philosophy and these are charming, too.

The Stoic principle of all or nothing sounds foolish when applied  to the lives of people.

Stoic logic is so rigid that a person would not see the need to make the attempt to attain virtue.

Cicero says that it is a contradiction to say that moral worth (honestum) is the only good when there is an instinct (appetito) put in us by Nature for things suitable for living.

712. De Finibus III by Marcus Tullius Cicero

712.  De Finibus III by Marcus Tullius Cicero.  In light of the argument in book two Cicero thinks that pleasure must yield to virtue.  The weaknesses of Epicureanism lie in the fact that they think that they have the one and only answer.  There is no reason to present an argument on pleasure as it is obvious, since judgement resides in the senses.  They do not employ logic and avoid detailed discussion.  These last two make any argument against Stoicism more difficult because Stoicism does employ extensive argument and heavy dosages of logic.

The Stoics require new words to explain their system.  Cicero points out that farmers, artisans develop their own vocabulary- why can't Stoics do the same?

SPINARIO

The scene which Cicero describes to begin book 3 is justifiably famous.  Cicero has gone to the house of Lucius Licinius Lucullus, whose library was very extensive.  Lucullus has since passed away but his young son lives there and welcomes those who wish to take advantage of the library.  Cicero has come to find commentaries by Aristotle.  To his surprise when he enters he finds Cato on the floor with books scattered all about him.

The two men are pleased to see each other and very soon express a sense of obligation for the education of young Lucullus.  It is interesting that the vocabulary and terms they use would be unworkable and unsuitable to Epicureanism.  So this scene, although delightful and entertaining is not a cute exercise in elegance but an example of the presence and value of arguments presented earlier.

They sit on the floor together.  I assume that pillows were there for comfort.  There must have been abundant light through windows and a garden in view.

Both Cato and Cicero view arguments of Epicurus as dangerous, yet there is no sense that those who follow it should be sought out for destruction.

Cato begins:  there is only one good- honestum (moral worth).  If this were not so, there would be no way to prove that the good life is brought about by virtue.  The essence of virtue is to select those things which are in accordance with nature.  Those who make all things equal have no means of selection.  The guide, the queen, is virtue.

(Cicero did not think that word for word translations arrived at accuracy).

Cato's tone is different from that of Torquatus who presented Epicureanism.  Torquatus made it clear that he had the one and only answer.  Cato said " whose system I approve."

The starting points begins with love of self.  We consider certain things worthy of acquiring because they bear appearance to truth.  Thus the initial path to truth is derived from the nature of humans.  The evidence is that children enjoy discovering even though they gain nothing as a result.  The use of reason brings delight.  Mental activities are sought because these require the use of reason.  Thus children shrink back from assenting to a lie.  

That is valuable which is in harmony with nature or that which brings it about.  For that reason it is worthy of selection.

The first priority (officium) is to preserve oneself by holding these things which are in accordance with nature.  Then when selection and rejection have been discovered, selection with a sense of obligation follows.  (cum officio)  Habit follows.  Then what is good begins to appear and to be understood.

Habit of good selection creates a compelling desire to select.  Wisdom is based on these primary acts (love of self which is maintained by selection of those things in harmony with nature) of nature.  

To be in harmony with nature is like dancing.  It is in the performance of the art.  But there is a difference- in dance one movement though beautifully executed does not contain all the parts of which these movements consist.

Wisdom covers a much greater area than say medicine.  Wisdom causes us to judge what happens as not that important, it embraces justice and greatness of mind.  If the ultimate end is to live in harmony with nature, all wise people are perpetually happy, blessed and fortunate.

(In this sense, Stoicism is like Epicureanism- both seek a means to inner peace.  But the big difference lies in thew fact that Epicureanism places that inner peace dependent upon external pleasures.)

(It is more and more clear to me that these words of Cicero are meant to be read in a garden.)

Cato uses a syllogism:

What is good is worthy of praise

What is worthy of praise is morally honorable.

What is good is morally honorable.

Because the ultimate good is in the mind, to live in harmony with nature is to reject pain and death as an evil.  For to live in harmony with nature is to select reason as a guide and this is completely within the grasp of the individual.  Any other choice means that happiness is impossible.  The only evil is what is base- this too is wholly under an individual's control.

Because the mind is the key, an act that is wrong is wrong the moment it has begun.  Even if the thought is not carried out.  Then too right action if not brought to completion is right from the moment it is begun.

Bonum is defined as that which is by nature perfect.  When the mind begins to put things together by observance of those things in harmony with nature it begins to arrive at an understanding of the good (bonum).

Good is not increased, added to, or good by comparison- it is good by its own force.  Just as honey is very sweet not by comparison to something else but is sweet by its own force, thus something is good not by comparison to something else, not because of quantity but valuable in and of itself.  One good is not rated about another.

Lust, fear, sorrow, pleasure are not set in motion by nature force, because these are irrational in the sense that these display a lack of control.

(Nature is that which is logical.  That is why these guys studied natural history, biology, plants, animals, logic, and all human activity.)

Virtue is not improved by the addition of health for example.  Health is valued but its value never matches virtue.  Cato adds a criticism of the Peripatetics- to these, Cato asserts, an action which is morally correct but without pain is more desirable than moral action with pain.  For Cato and Stoicism this would introduce an element of chance to the attainment of wisdom and remove wisdom from the realm of the mind for the infliction of pain could indeed be external over which the wise person would have no control.

So for Stoics right conduct, right time/timeliness (doing something at the right time), harmony, the good is not increased by adding more.

Cato offers the simile of the shoe- if a shoe fits the foot just right, more shoes, bigger shoes would not make it better.

The value of health is measured by duration whereas the value of virtue is measured by timeliness.

There are no degrees of good or right action. If there were degrees, then someone would be wiser than another or be able to practice right conduct more than another.  

(The elimination of degrees makes the logic of the argument stronger.)

Wealth may assist in the art of living but is not essential.  The art of living is a life long quest and is distinct from all other arts for the art of living is its own reward.

Some things are preferred:  wealth, health, freedom from pain, etc.  BUT these have no bearing on virtue.  Everthing which is good holds first place but things preferred are neither good nor bad.

Cato presents the division of goods:

1.  Those which are suitable toward the final end (moral actions)

2.  Those which bring about completion of the final end, such as friendship.

3.  Those which are both of the above, such as wisdom.

These are things preferred for gaining wisdom:  appearance, countenance, grace of movement, money, good senses, health, good reputation, BUT none of these are essential fort virtue.  These are worthy of approval (probabile) but in and of themselves are not necessary.

An action done by reason is an appropriate act (officium).  To put it another way- there must be a reason to do something and that something must have the goal of virtue in mind.

The rejection and acceptance of neutral things employed for art of living/living in harmony with nature are classed among appropriate action.  Both those who are indeed wise and those on their way will chose what is in harmony with nature.  There is an appropriate action common to both.  All appropriate acts set out from neutral things.

Life is measured by preponderance of things in harmony with nature or contrary to nature.  Thus it is possible that a wise person who is happy may decide to quit life.

The source of community/town/city is parental love of children.  Cato supports this with the design of the human body which was designed for procreation.  It is illogical that nature would provide for procreation but not provide for love of what has been procreated.  Cato says, "We seem to hear the voice of nature herself when we see the effort of animals in the bearing and raising of offspring."

This love unites human beings.  Just as there is a mussel with which a small crab lives which knows when danger approaches because the crab scampers into the mussel's shell.  The same is true with the stork, ants, bees.  Animals are interdependent and exist in a symbiotic relationship.  With humans it is much, much more complex.

The universe is ruled by a divine power and the common possession of Gods and people.  Thus the common advantage is more important than the individual.  Those who do not care what happens after they die are wrong for all people should have a care for those of future generations.

Community is a natural product.  (This is why Romans considered cities and its buildings a natural product- humans are part of nature and by nature want to be in harmony with nature.)

Just examine people- teaching and sharing ideas are natural attributes of people.  Just as humans learn to use their limbs before they understand for what purpose these exist, thus we naturally come together to form society.  If this were not the case there would be place for justice and goodness or kindness.

Humans are naturally inclined to help and protect others.  Thus the wise person wants to be involved in politics.

Justice and friendship are impossible unless these are sought for their own sake.  If these are sought as a means to fame, wealth, health, power, then when these are secured, justice would have no value.

The Stoics add dialectic and physics to the list of virtues.  Dialectic prevents a person from being fooled by a slick argument.  Physics would entail a study of those characteristics of humans and nature to refute fake assertions about the nature of humans.

So what is this physics Cato mentions?  Physics can be called natural philosophy.  That is a study of nature in all aspects: stars, planets, universe, animals, plants, weather, geology, etc.  Sadly things have changed.

Cicero provides an awesome quote:

However, no one is able to make a judgement about good and evil, unless when all the system of nature and of the life of the Gods has been learned and whether or not the nature of a human is in harmony with the universe.  (73).