This argument is very well stated, but Balbus, in a considerable degree, weakens its effect, by proceeding to contend, that the world, or universe itself, (the stoical deity,) and its most distinguished parts, the sun, moon, and stars, are possessed of reason and wisdom. This he founds partly on a metaphysical argument, and partly on the regularity, beauty, and order of their motions.
Balbus, after various other remarks, enters on the topic of the creation of the world, and its government by the providence of the G.o.ds. He justly observes, that nothing can be more absurd than to suppose that a world, so beautifully adorned, could be formed by chance, or by a fortuitous concourse of atoms(436). "He who believes this possible," says he, "may as well believe, that if a great number of the one-and-twenty letters, composed either of gold, or any other metal, were thrown on the ground, they would fall into such order as legibly to form the Annals of Ennius. I doubt whether fortune could make a single verse of them." He quotes a very beautiful pa.s.sage from a now lost work of Aristotle, in which that philosopher urges the argument that may be deduced from providential design, with more soundness and imagination than are usual with him.
Balbus then proceeds to display the marks of deliberate plan in the universe, beginning with astronomy. In treating of the constellations, he makes great use of Cicero"s poetical version of Aratus, much of which he is supposed, perhaps with little probability, or modesty in the author, to have by heart; and, accordingly, we are favoured with a considerable number of these verses. He also adduces manifold proofs of design and sovereign wisdom, from a consideration of plants, land animals, fishes, and the structure of the human body; a subject on which Cicero discovers more anatomical knowledge than one should have expected. Balbus also contends that the G.o.ds not only provide for mankind universally, but for individuals. "The frequent appearances of the G.o.ds," he observes, "demonstrate their regard for cities and particular men. This, indeed, is also apparent from the foreknowledge of events, which we receive either sleeping or waking."
Cicero makes Balbus, in the conclusion of his discourse, express but little confidence in his own arguments.-"This is almost the whole," says he, "that has occurred to my mind, on the nature of the G.o.ds, and that I thought proper to advance. Do you, Cotta, if I may advise, defend the same cause. Remember that in Rome you keep the first rank-remember you are Pontifex. It is a pernicious and impious custom, either seriously or seemingly to argue against the G.o.ds."
In the third book of this very remarkable work, Cicero exhibits Cotta as refuting the doctrines of Balbus. "But before I enter on the subject,"
says Cotta, "I have a word to say concerning myself; for I am greatly influenced by your authority, and your exhortation at the conclusion of your discourse, to remember I was Cotta, and Pontifex; by which, I presume, you intimated that I should defend the religion and ceremonies which we received from our ancestors: Truly, I always have, and always will defend them, nor shall the arguments, either of the learned or unlearned, ever remove the opinions I have imbibed concerning the worship of the immortal G.o.ds. In matters of religion, I submit to the rules of the High Priests, T. Coruncanius, P. Scipio, and P. Scaevola. These, Balbus,"
continues he, "are my sentiments, both as a priest and Cotta. But you must bring me to your opinion by the force of your reason; for a philosopher should prove to me the religion he would have me embrace; but I must believe without proof the religion of our ancestors."
The Pontifex thus professing to believe the existence of the G.o.ds merely on the authority of his ancestors, proceeds to ridicule this very authority. He represents the appearances of Castor and Pollux, and those others adduced by Balbus, as idle tales. "Do you take these for fabulous stories?" says Balbus. "Is not the temple built by Posthumius, in honour of Castor and Pollux, to be seen in the Forum? Is not the decree of the Senate concerning Vatienus still subsisting? Ought not such authorities to move you?"-"You oppose me," replies Cotta, "with stories; but I ask reasons of you."
A chasm here follows in the original, in which Cotta probably stated the reasons of his scepticism, in spite of the acts of the Senate, and so many public memorials of supernatural facts. "You believe," continues Cotta, "that the Decii, in devoting themselves to death, appeased the G.o.ds. How great, then, was the iniquity of the G.o.ds, that they could not be appeased, but at the price of such n.o.ble blood!-As to the voice of the Fauns, I never heard it; if you a.s.sure me you have, I shall believe you; though I am absolutely ignorant what a Faun is. Truly, Balbus, you have not yet proved the existence of the G.o.ds. I believe it, indeed, but not from any arguments of the Stoics. Cleanthes, you said, attributes the idea that men have of the G.o.ds to four causes. The first is a foreknowledge of future events; the second,-tempests and other shocks of nature; the third,-the utility and plenty of things we enjoy; the fourth,-the invariable order of the stars and heavens. Foreknowledge I have already answered. With regard to tempests in the air, the sea, and the earth, I own, that many people are affrighted by them, and imagine that the immortal G.o.ds are the authors of them. But the question is not, whether there be people who believe there are G.o.ds, but whether there are G.o.ds or not. As to the two other causes of Cleanthes, one of which is derived from the plenty we enjoy, the other from the invariable order of the seasons and heavens, I shall treat on them when I answer your discourse concerning the providence of the G.o.ds."
In the meantime, Cotta goes on to refute the Stoical notions with regard to the reason and understanding attributed to the sun, moon, and stars. He then proceeds to controvert, and occasionally to ridicule, the opinions entertained of numerous heathen G.o.ds; the three Jupiters, and other deities, and sons of deities.-"You call Jupiter and Neptune G.o.ds," says he; "their brother Pluto, then, is one; Charon, also, and Cerberus, are G.o.ds, but that cannot be allowed. Nor can Pluto be placed among the deities; how then can his brothers?" Cotta next ridicules the Stoics for the delight they take in the explication of fables, and in the etymology of names; after which he says, "Let us proceed to the two other parts of our dispute. 1st, Whether there is a Divine Providence that governs the world? and, lastly, Whether that Providence particularly regards mankind?
For these are the remaining propositions of your discourse."
There follows a considerable _hiatus_ in the original, so that we are deprived of all the arguments of Cotta on the proposition maintained by Balbus, that there is a Divine Providence which governs the world. At the end of this chasm, we find him quoting long pa.s.sages from tragedies, and arguing against the advantages of reason, from the ill use which has been made of it. He then adduces a number of instances, drawn from history and observation, of fortunate vice, and of wrecked and ruined virtue, in order to overturn the doctrine of _particular providence_; contending, that as no family or state can be supposed to be formed with any judgment or discipline, if there are no rewards for good actions, or punishment for bad, so we cannot believe that a Divine Providence regulates the world, when there is no distinction between the honest and the wicked.
"This," concludes Cotta, "is the purport of what I had to say concerning the nature of the G.o.ds, not with a design to destroy their existence, but merely to show what an obscure point it is, and with what difficulties an explanation of it is attended." Balbus observing that Cotta had finished his discourse, "You have been very severe," says he, "against the being of a Divine Providence, a doctrine established by the Stoics, with piety and wisdom; but, as it grows too late, I shall defer my answer to another day."-"There is nothing," replied Cotta, "I desire more than to be confuted."-"The conversation ended here, and we parted. Velleius judged that the arguments of Cotta were the truest, but those of Balbus seemed to me to have the greater probability."
It seems likely that this profession or pretext, that the discourse is left unfinished, may (like the occasional apologies of Cotta) be introduced to save appearances(437). It is evident, however, that Cicero intended to add, at least, new prefaces to the two latter books of this work, probably from suspecting, as he went on, that the discourses are too long to have taken place in one day, as they are now represented. Balbus says, in the second book, "Velut a te ipso, hesterno die dictum est(438)."
Fulvius Ursinus had remarked that this was an inadvertence, either in Cicero or a transcriber, as the discourse is continued throughout the same day. That it was not owing to a transcriber, or to any inadvertence in Cicero, but to a design of altering the introductions to the second and third books, appears from a pa.s.sage in book third, where Cotta says to Balbus, "Omniaque, quae a te _nudiustertius_ dicta sunt(439)." Now, it is extremely unlikely that there should have been two such instances of inadvertency in the author, or carelessness in the copyist.
The work on the Nature of the G.o.ds, though in many respects a most valuable production, and a convincing proof of the extensive learning of its author, gives a melancholy picture of the state of his mind. Unfitted to bear adversity, and borne down by the calamities of his country, and the death of his beloved daughter, (misfortunes of which he often complains,) Cicero seems to have become a sceptic, and occasionally to have doubted even of a superintending Providence. Warburton appears to be right in supposing, that Cicero was advanced in years before he seriously adopted the sceptical opinions of the new Academy. "This farther appears,"
says he, after some remarks on this head, "from a place in his Nature of the G.o.ds, where he says, that his espousing the new Academy of a sudden, was a thing altogether unlooked for(440). The change, then, was late, and after the ruin of the republic, when Cicero retired from business, and had leisure in his recess to plan and execute this n.o.ble undertaking. So that a learned critic appears to have been mistaken, when he supposed the choice of the new Academy was made in his youth. "This sect," says he, "did best agree with the vast genius, and ambitious spirit, of _young Cicero_(441)." "
It appears not, however, to have been, as Warburton supposes, altogether from a systematic plan, of explaining to his countrymen the philosophy of the Greeks, that Cicero became a sceptic; but partly from gloomy views of nature and providence. It seems difficult otherwise to account for the circ.u.mstance, that Cotta, an ancient and venerable Consul, the _Pontifex_ of the metropolis of the world, should be introduced as contending, even against an Epicurean, for the non-existence of the G.o.ds. Lord Bolingbroke has justly remarked, "that Cotta disputes so vehemently, and his arguments extend so far, that Tully makes his own brother accuse him directly, and himself by consequence indirectly, of atheism.-"Studio contra Stoicos disserendi deos mihi videtur funditus tollere." Now, what says Tully in his own name? He tells his brother that Cotta disputes in that manner, rather to confute the Stoics than to destroy the religion of mankind.-"Magis quam ut hominum deleat religionem." But Quintus answers, that is, Tully makes him answer, he was not the bubble of an artifice, employed to save the appearance of departing from the public religious inst.i.tutions. "Ne communi jure migrare videatur(442)." " Cotta, indeed, goes so far in his attack on Providence, that Lord Bolingbroke, who is not himself a model of orthodoxy, takes up the other side of the question against the Roman Pontiff, and pleads the cause of Providence with no little reason and eloquence.(443)
In the foregoing a.n.a.lysis, or abridgment of the work on the Nature of the G.o.ds, it will have been remarked, that two chasms occur in the argument of Cotta. Olivet enters into some discussion with regard to the latter and larger chasm. "I cannot," says he, "see any justice in the accusation against the primitive Christians, of having torn this pa.s.sage out of all the MSS. What appearance is there, that through a pious motive they should have erased this any more than many others in the same book, which they must undoubtedly have looked upon as no less pernicious?" Olivet seems inclined to suspect the Pagans; but, in my opinion, the chasms in the discourse of Cotta, if not accidental, are to be attributed rather to Christian than pagan zeal. Arn.o.bius, indeed, speaking of this work, says, That many were of opinion that it ought to have been destroyed by the Roman Senate, as the Christian faith might be approved by it, and the authority of antiquity subverted(444). There is no evidence, however, that any such destruction or mutilation was attempted by the Pagans; and we find that the satire directed against the heathen deities has been permitted to remain, while the chasms intervene in portions of the work, which might have been supposed by a pious zealot, to bear, in some measure, against the Christian, as well as the Pagan faith. In the first of them, the Pontifex begins, and is proceeding to contend, that in spite of Acts of the Senate, temples, statues, and other commemorations of miraculous circ.u.mstances, all such prodigies were nothing but mere fables, however solemnly attested, or generally believed. Now, the transcriber might fear, lest a similar inference should be drawn by the sceptic, to that which has in fact been deduced by the English translator of this work, in the following pa.s.sage of a note:-"Hence we see what little credit ought to be paid to facts, said to be done out of the ordinary course of nature. These miracles are well attested: They were recorded in the annals of a great people-believed by many learned and otherwise sagacious persons, and received as religious truths by the populace; but the testimonies of ancient records, the credulity of some learned men, and the implicit faith of the vulgar, can never prove that to have been, which is impossible in the nature of things ever to be." At the beginning of the other and larger chasm, Cotta was proceeding to argue against the proposition of the Stoics, that there is a Divine Providence which governs the world. Now, there is a considerable a.n.a.logy between the system of the ancient Stoics, and the Christian scheme of Providence, both in the theoretical doctrine, and in the practical inference, of the propriety of a cheerful and unqualified submission to the chain of events-to the dispensations of nature in the Stoical, and of G.o.d in the purer doctrine.
To Christian zeal, therefore, rather than to pagan prudence, we must attribute the two chasms which now intervene in the discourse of Cotta.
In the remarks which have been now offered on this work, _De Natura Deorum_, I trust I have brought no unfounded or uncharitable accusation against Cicero. He was a person, at least in his own age and country, of unrivalled talents and learning-he was a great, and, on the whole, a good man-but his mind was sensitive, and feeble against misfortune. There are aeras, and monuments perhaps in every aera, when we are ready to exclaim with Brutus, "That virtue is an empty name:" And the doubts and darkness of such a mind as that of Cicero, enriched with all the powers of genius, and all the treasures of philosophy, afford a new proof of the necessity for the appearance of that Divine Messenger, who was then on the eve of descending upon earth.
_De Divinatione_.-The long account which has been given of the dialogue on the Nature of the G.o.ds, renders it unnecessary to say much on the work _De Divinatione_. This treatise may be considered, in some measure, as a supplement to that _De Natura Deorum_. The religion of the Romans consisted of two different branches-the worship of the G.o.ds, and the observation of the signs by which their will was supposed to be revealed.
Cicero having already discussed what related to the nature and worship of the G.o.ds, a treatise on Divination formed a natural continuation of the subject(445). In his work on this topic, which was one almost peculiar to the Romans, Cicero professes to relate the substance of a conversation held at Tusculum with his brother, in which Quintus, on the principles of the Stoics, supported the credibility of divination, while Cicero himself controverted it. The dialogue consists of two books, the first of which comprehends an enumeration by Quintus of the different kinds or cla.s.ses of divination, with the reasons or presumptions in their favour. The second book contains a refutation by Cicero of his brother"s arguments.
Quintus, while walking with his brother in the Lyceum at Tusculum, begins his observations by stating, that he had read the third book which Cicero had lately written, on the Nature of the G.o.ds, in which Cotta seemed to contend for atheism, but had by no means been able to refute Balbus. He remarks, at the same time, that the subject of divination had not been treated of in these books, perhaps in order that it might be separately discussed more fully, and that he would gladly, if his brother had leisure and inclination, state his own opinions on the subject. The answer of Cicero is very n.o.ble.-"Ego vero, inquam, Philosophiae, Quinte, semper vaco.
Hoc autem tempore, quum sit nihil aliud quod libenter agere possim multo magis aveo audire de divinatione quid sentias."
Quintus, after observing that divinations of various kinds have been common among all people, remarks, and afterwards frequently repeats, that it is no argument against different modes of divination, that we cannot explain how or why certain things happen. It is sufficient, that we know from experience and history, that they do happen(446). He contends that Cicero himself supports the doctrine of divination, in the poem on his Consulship, from which he quotes a long pa.s.sage, sufficient to console us for the loss of that work. He argues, that although events may not always succeed as predicted, it does not follow that divination is not an art, more than that medicine is not an art, because cures may not always be effected. In the course of this book we have a complete account of the state contrivances which were practised by the Roman government, to instil among the people those hopes and fears whereby it regulated public opinion, in which view it has been justly termed a chapter in the history of man. The great charm, however, of the first book, consists in the number of histories adduced by Quintus, in proof of the truth of different kinds of omens, dreams, portents, and divinations.-"Negemus omnia," says he, "comburamus annales." He states various circ.u.mstances consistent with his and his brother"s own knowledge; and, among others, two remarkable dreams, one of which had occurred to Cicero, and one to himself. He asks if the Greek history be also a fable.-"Num etiam Graecorum historia ment.i.ta est?" and, in short, throughout takes the following high ground:-"Quid est, igitur, cur dubitandum sit, quin sint ea, quae disputavi, verissima?
Si ratio mec.u.m facit, si eventa, si populi, si nationes, si Graeci, si barbari, si majores etiam nostri, si summi philosophi, si poetae, et sapientissimi viri qui res publicas const.i.tuerunt, qui urbes condiderunt; si denique hoc semper ita putatum est: an dum bestiae loquantur, expectamus, hominum consentiente auctoritate, contenti non sumus(447)?"
The second book of this work is introduced by a preface, in which Cicero enumerates the philosophical treatises which he had lately written. He then proceeds to state, that at the conclusion of the discourse of Quintus, which was held while they were walking in the Lyceum, they sat down in the library, and he began to reply to his brother"s arguments. His commencement is uncommonly beautiful.-"Atque ego; Accurate tu quidem, inquam, Quinte, et Stoice Stoicorum sententiam defendisti: quodque me maxime delectat, plurimis nostris exemplis usus es, et iis quidem claris et ill.u.s.tribus. Dicendum est mihi igitur ad ea, quae sunt a te dicta, sed ita, nihil ut affirmem, quaeram omnia, dubitans plerumque, et mihi ipse diffidens(448)." It is unnecessary to give any summary of the arguments of Cicero against auguries, auspices, astrology, lots, dreams, and every species of omens and prodigies. His discourse is a masterpiece of reasoning; and if sufficiently studied during the dark ages of Europe, would have sufficed, in a great degree, to have prevented or dispelled the superst.i.tious gloom. Nothing can be finer than the concluding chapter on the evils of superst.i.tion, and Cicero"s efforts to extirpate it, without injuring religion. The whole thread, too, of his argumentative eloquence, is interwoven and strengthened by curious and interesting stories. As a specimen of the agreeable manner in which these are introduced, the twenty-fourth chapter may be cited:-"Vetus autem illud Catonis admodum scitum est, qui mirari se aiebat, quod non rideret haruspex, haruspicem quum vidisset. Quota enim quaeque res evenit praedicta ab ipsis? Aut si evenit quippiam, quid afferri potest, cur non casu id evenerit? Rex Prusias, quum Annibali apud eum exsulanti depugnari placeret, negabat se audere, quod exta prohiberent. An tu, inquit, carunculae vitulinae mavis, quam imperatori veteri, credere? Quid? Ipse Caesar, quum a summo haruspice moneretur, ne in Africam ante brumam transmitteret, nonne transmisit? Quod ni fecisset, uno in loco omnes adversariorum copiae convenissent. Quid ego haruspic.u.m responsa commemorem, (possum equidem innumerabilia,) quae aut nullos habuerunt exitus, aut contrarios? Hoc civili bello, Dii Immortales!
Quam multa luserunt-quae n.o.bis in Graeciam Roma responsa haruspic.u.m missa sunt? Quae dicta Pompeio? Etenim ille admodum extis et ostentis movebatur.
Non lubet commemorare, nec vero necesse est, tibi praesertim, qui interfuisti. Vides tamen, omnia fere contra, ac dicta sunt, evenisse." One great charm of all the philosophical works of Cicero, and particularly of this treatise, consists in the anecdotes with which they abound. This practice of intermingling histories, might have been partly owing to Tully"s habits as a pleader-partly to the works having been composed in "narrative old age." His moral conclusions seem thus occasionally to have the certainty of physical experiments, by the support which they receive from occurrences, suggested to him by his wide experience; while, at the same time,-
"His candid style, like a clean stream doth slide, And his bright fancy, all the way, Doth like the sun-shine on it play(449)."
_De Fato_.-This tract, which is the last of Cicero"s philosophical works, treats of a subject which occupied as important a place in the metaphysics and theology of the ancients, as free will and necessity have filled in modern speculation. The dialogue _De Fato_ is held in the villa of Cicero, called the Puteolan or the Academia, which was situated on the sh.o.r.e of Baiae, between the lake Avernus and the harbour of Puteoli. It stood in the curve of the bay, and almost on the beach, so as to enjoy the breezes and murmurs of the sea. The house was built according to the plan of the Academy at Athens, being adorned with a portico and grove, for the purposes of philosophical conference(450); and with a gallery, which surrounded a square court in the centre. "Twelve or thirteen arches of the Puteolan villa," says Mr Kelsall, "are still seen on the side next the vineyard, and, intermixed as they are with trees, are very picturesque seen from the sea. These ruins are about one mile from Pozzuolo, and have always been styled _l"Academia di Cicerone_. Pliny is very circ.u.mstantial in the description of the site, "_Ab Averno lacu Puteolos tendentibus imposita littori_." The cla.s.sical traveller will not forget that the Puteolan villa is the scene of some of the orator"s philosophical works. I searched in vain for the mineral spring commemorated by Laurea Tullius, in the well-known complimentary verses preserved by Pliny; for it was defaced by the convulsions which the whole of this tract experienced in the 16th century, so poetically described in Gray"s hexameters." After the death of Cicero, the villa was acquired by Antistius Vetus, who repaired and improved it. It was subsequently possessed by the Emperor Hadrian, who, while expiring here(451), breathed out the celebrated address to his fleeting, fluttering soul, on its approaching departure for those cold and pallid regions, that must have formed in his fancy such a gloomy contrast to the glowing sunshine and animated sh.o.r.e which he left with so much reluctance.
The dialogue is held between Cicero and Hirtius, on one of the many occasions on which they met to consult concerning the situation of public affairs. Hirtius was the author of the Commentaries on the Civil Wars, and perished a few months afterwards, at the battle of Modena, in the moment of victory. The wonderful events which had recently occurred, and the miserable fate of so many of the greatest and most powerful of the Romans, naturally introduced a conversation on destiny. We have now neither the commencement nor conclusion of the dialogue; but some critics have supposed that it originally consisted of two books, and that the fragment we at present possess formed part of the second book-an opinion which seems justified by a pa.s.sage in the seventeenth chapter of the second book, where the first conversation is cited. Others, however, refer these words to a separate and previous work on Fate. The part of the dialogue now extant, contains a refutation of the doctrine of Chrysippus the Stoic, which was that of fatality. "The spot," says Eustace, "the subject, the speakers, both fated to perish in so short a time, during the contest which they both foresaw, and endeavoured in vain to avert, were circ.u.mstances which give a peculiar interest to this dialogue, and increase our regret that it has not reached us in a less mutilated state(452)."
I have now enumerated what may be strictly regarded as the philosophical and theological writings of Cicero. Some of the advantages to be derived from these productions, have already been pointed out during our progress.
But on a consideration of the whole, it is manifest that the chief profit accruing from them, is the satisfactory evidence which they afford of the little reason we have to regret the loss of the writings of Zeno, Cleanthes, Chrysippus, and other Greek philosophers. The intrinsic value of these works of Cicero, consists chiefly in what may be called the Roman portion of them-in the anecdotes of distinguished Romans, and of the customs and opinions of that sovereign people.
We now proceed to the _moral_ writings of Cicero, of which the most important is the work _De Officiis_. The ancient Romans had but an imperfect notion of moral obligations; their virtues were more stern than amiable, and their ardent exclusive patriotism restricted the wide claims of philanthropy, on the one hand, and of domestic duties, on the other.
Panaetius, a Greek philosopher, who resided at Rome, in the time of Scipio, wrote a book ent.i.tled ?e?? ?a?????t??. He divided his subject according to the threefold considerations which he conceived should operate in determining our resolutions with regard to the performance of moral duties; 1. Whether the thing itself be virtuous or shameful; 2. Whether it conduce to utility and the enjoyment of life; 3. What choice is to be made when an apparent utility seems to clash with virtue. Cicero followed nearly the same arrangement. In the first book he treats of what is virtuous in itself, and shows in what manner our duties are founded in morality and virtue-in the right perception of truth, justice, fort.i.tude, and decorum; which four qualities are referred to as the const.i.tuent parts of virtue, and the sources from which all our duties are drawn. In the second book, the author enlarges on those duties which relate to utility, the improvement of life, and the means employed for the attainment of wealth and power. This division of the work princ.i.p.ally regards political advancement, and the honourable means of gaining popularity, as generosity, courtesy, and eloquence. Thus far Cicero had, in all probability, closely followed the steps of Panaetius. Garve, in his commentary on this work(453), remarks, that it is quite clear, when he comes to the more subtle and philosophic parts of his subject, that Cicero translates from the Greek, and that he has not always found words in his own language to express the nicer distinctions of the Greek schools. The work of Panaetius, however, was left imperfect, and did not treat of the third part of the subject, the choice and distinction to be made when there was a jarring or inconsistency between virtue and utility. On this topic, accordingly, Cicero was left to his own resources. The discussion, of course, relates only to the subordinate duties, as the true and undoubted _honestum_ never can be put in compet.i.tion with private advantage, or be violated for its sake. As to the minor duties, the great maxim inculcated is that nothing should be accounted useful or profitable but what is strictly virtuous, and that, in fact, there ought to be no separation of the principles of virtue and utility. Cicero enters into some discussion, however, and affords some rules to enable us to form a just estimate of both in cases of doubt, where seeming utility comes into compet.i.tion with virtue. Accordingly, he proposes and decides a good many questions in casuistry, in order to fix in what situations one may seek private gain with honour. He takes his examples from Roman history, and particularly considers the case of Regulus in the obligation of his oath, and the advice which he gave to the Roman Senate. The author disclaims having been indebted to any preceding writers on this subject; but it appears, from what he afterwards states, that the sixth book of the work of Hecato, a scholar of Panaetius, was full of questions of this kind: As, for example-If something must be thrown into the sea to lighten a vessel in a storm, whether one should sacrifice a valuable horse, or a worthless slave? Whether, if, during a shipwreck, a fool has got hold of a plank, a wise man ought to take it from him, if he be able? If one, unknowingly, receives bad money for his goods, may he pay it away to a third hand, after he is aware that it is bad? Diogenes, it seems, one of the three philosophic amba.s.sadors who came to Rome from Athens, in the end of the sixth century, maintained the affirmative of this last proposition.
The subject being too extensive for dialogue, (the form of his other philosophical treatises,) the author has addressed the work _De Officiis_ to his son, and has represented it as written for his instruction. "It is," says Kelsall, "the n.o.blest present ever made by a parent to a child."
Cicero declares, that he intended to treat in it of all the duties(454); but it is generally considered to have been chiefly drawn up as a manual of political morality, and as a guide to young Romans of his son"s age and distinction, which might enable them to attain political eminence, and to tread with innocence and safety "the slippery steeps of power."
_De Senectute_.--
"O Thou all eloquent, whose mighty mind Streams from the depths of ages on mankind, Streams like the day-who angel-like hast shed Thy full effulgence on the h.o.a.ry head; Speaking in Cato"s venerable voice- "Look up and faint not-faint not, but rejoice"- From thy Elysium guide us(455)."
The treatise _De Senectute_ is not properly a dialogue, but a continued discourse, delivered by Cato the Censor, at the request of Scipio and Laelius. It is, however, one of the most interesting pieces of the kind which have descended to us from antiquity; and no reader can wonder that Cicero experienced such pleasure in its composition, that the delightful employment, not only, as he says, made him forget the infirmities of old age, but rendered that portion of existence agreeable. In consequence of the period of life to which Cicero had attained, at the time of its composition, and the circ.u.mstances in which he was then placed, it must, indeed, have been penned with peculiar interest and feeling. It was written by him in his 63d year, and is addressed to his friend Atticus, (who reached the same term of existence,) with a view of rendering to both the acc.u.mulating burdens of age as light as possible. In order to give his precepts the greater force, he represents them as delivered by the elder Cato, (while flourishing in the eighty-fourth year of a vigorous and useful old age,) on occasion of young Scipio and Laelius expressing their admiration at the wonderful ease with which he still bore the load of life. This affords the author an opportunity of entering into a full explanation of his ideas on the subject. His great object is to show that the closing period of life may be rendered, not only tolerable, but comfortable, by internal resources of happiness. He reduces those causes which are commonly supposed to const.i.tute the infelicity of advanced age, under four general heads:-That it incapacitates from mingling in the affairs of the world-that it produces infirmities of body-that it disqualifies for the enjoyment of sensual gratifications-and that it brings us to the verge of death. Some of these supposed disadvantages, he maintains, are imaginary, and for any real pleasures of which old men are deprived, others more refined and higher may be subst.i.tuted. The whole work is agreeably diversified and ill.u.s.trated by examples of eminent Roman citizens, who had pa.s.sed a respected and agreeable evening of life.
Indeed, so much is said of those individuals who reached a happy old age, that it may rather be styled a Treatise on Old Men, than on Old Age. On the last point, the near approach of death, it is argued, conformably to the first book of the Tusculan Questions, that if death extinguish the soul"s existence, it is utterly to be disregarded, but much to be desired, if it convey her to a happier region. The apprehension of future punishment, as in the Tusculan Disputations, is laid entirely aside, and it is a.s.sumed as a principle, that, after death, we either shall not be miserable, or be superlatively happy. In other respects, the tract _De Senectute_ almost seems a confutation of the first book of the Tusculan Questions, which is chiefly occupied in showing the wretchedness of long-protracted existence. The sentiments put into the mouth of Cato, are acknowledged by Cicero as his own; but, notwithstanding this, and also a more elegant and polished style of composition than could be expected from the Censor, many characteristics of his life, conversation, and manners, are brought before us-his talk is a little boastful, and his sternness, though softened down by old age into an agreeable gossipping garrulity, is still visible; and, on the whole, the discourse is so managed, that we experience, in reading it, something of that complaisant respect, which we feel in intercourse with a venerable old man, who has around him so much of the life to come, as to be purified at least from the grosser desires of this lower world.
It has been remarked as extraordinary, that, amidst the anxious enumeration of the comforts of age, those arising from domestic society are not mentioned by Cicero; but his favourite daughter Tullia was now no more, and the husband of Terentia, the father of Marcus Cicero, and the father-in-law of Dolabella, may have felt something on that subject, of which he was willing to spare himself the recollection. But though he has omitted what we number among its chief consolations, still he has represented advanced age under too favourable a view. He denies, for instance, that the memory is impaired by it-a.s.serting, that everything continues to be remembered, in which we take an interest, for that no old man ever forgot where he had concealed his treasure. He has, besides, only treated of an old age distinguished by deeds or learning, terminating a life great and glorious in the eyes of men. The table of the old man whom he describes, is cheered by numerous friends, and his presence, wherever he appears, is hailed by clients and dependants. All his examples are drawn from the higher and better walks of life. In the venerable picture of the Censor, we have no traces of second childhood, or of the slippered pantaloon, or of that melancholy and almost frightful representation, in the tenth satire of Juvenal. But even persons of the station, and dignity, and talents of Cato, are, in old age, liable to weaknesses and misfortunes, with which the pleasing portrait, that Tully has drawn, is in no way disfigured:-
"In life"s last scene, what prodigies surprise, Fears of the brave, and follies of the wise!
From Marlborough"s eyes the tears of dotage flow, And Swift expires a driveller and a show."
The treatise _De Senectute_ has been versified by Denham, under the t.i.tle of _Cato Major_. The subject of the evils of old age is divided, as by Cicero, into four parts. "I can neither," says he, in his preface, "call this piece Tully"s nor my own, being much altered from the original, not only by the change of the style, but by addition and subtraction." In fact, the fine sentiments are Cicero"s-the doggerel English verse, into which he has converted Cicero"s cla.s.sical prose, his own. The fourth part, on the approach of death, is that which is best versified.
This tract is also the model of the dialogue _Spurinna, or the Comforts of Old Age_, by Sir Thomas Bernard. Hough, Bishop of Worcester, who is in his ninetieth year at the date of the conference, supposed to be held in 1739, is the Cato of the dialogue. The other interlocutors are Gibson, Bishop of London, and Mr Lyttleton, subsequently Lord Lyttleton. After considering, in the same manner as Cicero, the disadvantages of old age, the English author proceeds to treat of its advantages, and the best mode of increasing its comforts. Many ideas and arguments are derived from Cicero; but among the consolations of advanced age, the promises of revelation concerning a future state of happiness, to which the Roman was a stranger, are prominently brought forward, and the ill.u.s.trations are chiefly drawn from British, instead of Grecian or Roman history.
_De Amicitia_.-In this, as in all his other dialogues, Cicero has most judiciously selected the persons whom he introduces as speakers. They were men of eminence in the state; and though deceased, the Romans had such a just veneration for their ancestors, that they would listen with the utmost interest even to the supposed conversation of the ancient heroes or sages of their country. Such ill.u.s.trious names bestowed additional dignity on what was delivered, and even now affect us with sentiments of veneration far superior to that which is felt for the itinerant sophists, who, with the exception of Socrates, are the chief speakers in the dialogues of Plato.
The memorable and hereditary friendship which subsisted between Laelius and the younger Scipio Africa.n.u.s, rendered them the most suitable characters from whom the sentiments expressed on this delightful topic could be supposed to flow. Their mutual and unshaken attachment threw an additional l.u.s.tre over the military glory of the one, and the contemplative wisdom of the other. "Such," says Cicero in the introduction to the treatise _De Republica_, "was the common law of friendship between them, that Laelius adored Africa.n.u.s as a G.o.d, on account of his transcendent military fame; and that Scipio, when they were at home, revered his friend, who was older than himself, as a father(456)." The kindred soul of Cicero appears to have been deeply struck with this delightful a.s.semblage of all the n.o.blest and loveliest qualities of our nature. The friendship which subsisted between himself and Atticus was another beautiful example of a similar kind: And the dialogue _De Amicitia_ is accordingly addressed with peculiar propriety to Atticus, who, as Cicero tells him in his dedication, could not fail to discover his own portrait in the delineation of a perfect friend. This treatise approaches nearer to dialogue than that _De Senectute_, for there is a story, with the circ.u.mstances of time and place. Fannius, the historian, and Mucius Scaevola, the Augur, both sons-in-law of Laelius, paid him a visit immediately after the sudden and suspicious death of Scipio Africa.n.u.s. The recent loss which Laelius had thus sustained, leads to an eulogy on the inimitable virtues of the departed hero, and to a discussion on the true nature of that tie by which they had been so long connected. Cicero, while in his earliest youth, had been introduced by his father to Mucius Scaevola; and hence, among other interesting matters which he enjoyed an opportunity of hearing, he was one day present while Scaevola related the substance of the conference on Friendship, which he and Fannius had held with Laelius a few days after the death of Scipio. Many of the ideas and sentiments which the mild Laelius then uttered, are declared by Scaevola to have originally flowed from Scipio, with whom the nature and laws of friendship formed a favourite topic of discourse. This, perhaps, is not entirely a fiction, or merely told to give the stamp of authenticity to the dialogue. Some such conversation was probably held and related; and I doubt not, that a few of the pa.s.sages in this celebrated dialogue reflect the sentiments of Laelius, or even of Africa.n.u.s himself.
The philosophical works of Cicero, which have been hitherto enumerated, are complete, or nearly so. But it is well known that he was the author of many other productions which have now been entirely lost, or of which only fragments remain.
Of these, the most important was the Treatise _De Republica_, which, in the general wreck of learning, shared the fate of the inst.i.tutions it was intended to celebrate. The greater part of this dialogue having disappeared along with the _Origines_ of Cato, the works of Varro, and the History of Sall.u.s.t, we have been deprived of all the writings which would have thrown the most light on the Roman inst.i.tutions, manners, and government-of everything, in short, which philosophically traced the progress of Rome, from its original barbarism to the perfection which it had attained in the age of the second Scipio Africa.n.u.s.
There are few monuments of ancient literature, of which the disappearance had excited more regret, than that of the work _De Republica_, which was long believed to have been the grand repository of all the political wisdom of the ancients. The great importance of the subject-treated, too, by a writer at once distinguished by his genius and former official dignity; the pride and predilection with which the author himself speaks of it, and the sublimity and beauty of the fragment ent.i.tled _Somnium Scipionis_, preserved from it by Macrobius, all concurred to exalt this treatise in the imagination of the learned, and to exasperate their vexation at its loss. The fathers of the church, particularly Lactantius, had afforded some insight into the arguments employed in it on different topics; several fragments existed in the works of the grammarians, and a complete copy was extant as late as the 11th century. Since that time the literary world have been flattered at different periods with hopes of its discovery; but it is only within the last few years that such a portion of it has been recovered, as may suffice, in a considerable degree, to satisfy curiosity, though not perhaps to fulfil expectation.
It is well known to many, and will be mentioned more fully in the _Appendix_, that owing to a scarcity of papyrus and parchment, it was customary, at different times, to erase old, in order to admit new, writing. To a MS. of this kind, the name of Palimpsest has been given-a term made use of by Cicero himself. In a letter to the lawyer Trebatius, who had written to him on such a sheet, Cicero says, "that while he must praise him for his parsimony in employing a palimpsest, he cannot but wonder what he had erased to scribble such a letter, except it were his law notes: For I cannot think," adds he, "that you would efface my letter to subst.i.tute your own(457)." This practice became very common in the middle ages, when both the papyrus and parchment were scarce, and when the cla.s.sics were, with few exceptions, no longer the objects of interest.
Montfaucon had remarked, that these obliterated MSS. were perhaps more numerous than those which had been written on for the first time(458). But though in some cases the original writing was still visible on close observation, no practical use was made of such inspection till Angelo Mai published some fragments recovered from palimpsest MSS. in the Ambrosian library, of which he was keeper. Encouraged by his success, he persevered in this new pursuit, and published at intervals fragments of considerable value. At length, being called to Rome as a recompense for his learned labours, Mai prosecuted in the Vatican those n.o.ble researches which he had commenced at Milan; and it is to him we now owe the discovery and publication of a considerable portion of Cicero _De Republica_, which had been expunged, (it is supposed in the 6th century,) and crossed by a new writing, which contained a commentary by St Augustine on the Psalms(459).
The work _De Republica_ was begun by Cicero in the month of May, in the year 699, when the author was in the fifty-second year of his age, so that, of all his philosophical writings, it was at least the earliest commenced. In a letter to his brother Quintus, he tells him that he had employed himself in his c.u.man and Pompeian villas, in writing a large and laborious political work; that, should it succeed to his mind, it would be well, but, if not, he would cast it into that sea which was in view when he wrote it; and, as it was impossible for him to be idle, commence some other undertaking(460). He had proceeded, however, but a little way, when he repeatedly changed the whole plan of the work; and it is curious to perceive, that an author of so perfect a genius as Cicero, had similar advices from friends, and the same discouragement, and doubts, and irresolution, which agitate inferior writers.
When he had finished the first and second books, they were read to some of his friends at his Tusculan villa. Sall.u.s.t, who was one of the company present, advised him to change his plan, and to treat the subject in his own person-alleging that the introduction of those ancient philosophers and statesmen, to whom Cicero had a.s.signed parts in the dialogue, instead of adding gravity, gave a fict.i.tious air to the argument, which would have greater weight if delivered from Cicero himself, as being the work, not of a sophist or contemplative theorist, but of a consular senator and statesman, conversant in the greatest affairs, and writing only what his own experience had taught him to be true. These reasons seemed to Cicero very plausible, and for some time made him think of altering his plan, especially since, by placing the scene of the dialogue so far back, he had precluded himself from touching on those important revolutions in the Republic, which were later than the period to which he had confined himself. But after some deliberation, feeling reluctant to throw away the two books which were already finished, and with which he was much pleased, he resolved to adhere to his original plan(461). And as he had preferred it from the first, for the sake of avoiding offence, so he pursued it without any other alteration than that he now limited to six what he had before proposed to extend to nine books. These six were made public previously to his departure for the government of Cilicia. While there, he received the epistolary congratulations of his friends on their success(462), and in his answers he discloses all the delight of a gratified and successful author(463).
Mai discusses at considerable length the question, To whom the treatise _De Republica_ was dedicated. The beginning of the promium to the first book, which might have determined this point, is lost; but the author says, "Disputatio repetenda memoria est, quae mihi, _tibique quondam adolescentulo_, est a P. Rutilio Rufo, Zmyrnae c.u.m simul essemus, complures dies exposita." Cicero was at Smyrna in the twenty-ninth year of his age, and it is evident that his companion, to whom this treatise is dedicated, was younger than himself, as he says, "Mihi, _tibique_ quondam _adolescentulo_." Atticus was two years older than Cicero, and therefore could not be the person. In fact, there is every reason to suppose that the treatise _De Republica_ was dedicated to its author"s younger brother Quintus, who, as we know from the promium of the last book, _De Finibus_, was with Cicero at Athens during the voyage, in the course of which he touched at Smyrna-who probably attended him to Asia,-and whose age suited the expression "mihi, tibique adolescentulo." Add to this, that Cicero, when he mentions to his brother, (in the pa.s.sage of the letter above referred to,) that he meant to alter the plan of his work, says, "Nunc loquar ipse _tec.u.m_, et tamen illa quae inst.i.tueram ad te, si Romam venero, mittam(464)." The work in its first concoction, therefore, was addressed to Quintus, and, as the author, after some hesitation, published it nearly in its original form, it can scarcely be doubted that it was still dedicated to his brother.
The first book _De Republica_, which was one of those read by Cicero to Sall.u.s.t and some other friends, in his Tusculan villa, is, as already mentioned, imperfect at the commencement. Not much, however, seems to be wanting, and a prologue of considerable length still remains, in which the author (pleading, perhaps, his own cause) combats the opinions of philosophers, who, preferring a contemplative to an active life, blame those who engage in public affairs. To the former he opposes the example of many wise and great men, and answers those objections to a busy political life, which have been repeatedly urged against it. This prologue contains some good reasoning, and, like all the writings of its ill.u.s.trious author, displays a n.o.ble patriotic feeling. He remarks, that he had entered into this discussion as introductory to a book concerning the republic, since it seemed proper, as prefatory to such a work, to combat the sentiments of those who deny that a philosopher should be a statesman. "As to the work itself," says he, addressing (as I have supposed) his brother, "I shall lay down nothing new or peculiar to myself, but shall repeat a discussion which once took place among the most ill.u.s.trious men of their age, and the wisest of our state, such as it was related to myself, and to you when a youth, by P. Rutilius Rufus, when we were with him some days at Smyrna-in which discussion nothing of importance to the right const.i.tution of a commonwealth, appears to have been omitted."