I. CONTRAACADEMICOSLIBRITRES. LIBERPRIMUS. outinam, Romaniane, hominemsibiaptumitauicissimuirtusfortunaerepugnantipossetauferre, utabeasibiauferrineminepatitur, iamtibiprofectoiniecissetmanussuiqueiuristeesseproclamansetinbonorumcertissimorumpossessionemtraducensneprosperisquidemcasibusseruirepermitteret.
I. AGAINST THE ACADEMICS, THREE BOOKS. BOOK ONE. O Romanianus, would that virtue could in turn wrest from resisting fortune a man suited to itself, just as it suffers itself to be wrested from him by no one! Then indeed it would already have laid hands upon you, and, proclaiming that you are of its own right and leading you into possession of the most certain goods, it would not permit you to be a slave even to prosperous chances.
But since it has been so arranged, whether by our deserts or by the necessity of nature, that the haven of wisdom in no way receives the divine soul while it cleaves to mortal things — where it would be moved neither by the adverse blast of fortune nor by the favouring one — unless either the favourable or the seemingly adverse itself lead it thither: nothing else remains for us on your behalf but prayers, whereby, if we can, we may obtain from that God to whom these things are a care, that he restore you to yourself — for so he will easily restore you to us also — and permit that mind of yours, which has long been labouring to draw breath, at last to emerge into the airs of true liberty.
For perhaps that which is commonly called fortune is governed by some hidden order, and we call nothing else in things 'chance' except that whose reason and cause is secret; and nothing, whether of advantage or of disadvantage, befalls in one part which does not fit and accord with the whole. This opinion, published in the oracles of the most fruitful teachings and set very far from the understanding of the profane, philosophy promises to demonstrate to her true lovers — to which philosophy I am inviting you. Wherefore, when many things unworthy of your spirit befall you, do not despise yourself; for if divine providence extends even to us — which is by no means to be doubted, believe me — it is fitting, so I hold, that it should deal with you as it is dealing.
For when, with that great natural endowment of yours which I always admire, you were entering upon human life — most full of all errors — from your early youth, with reason's step still weak and slipping, a superabundance of riches received you, which had begun to swallow up in its enticing whirlpools that age and spirit of yours, greedily pursuing what seemed beautiful and honourable — had not those blasts of fortune, which are thought adverse, snatched you away as you were all but drowning.
But truly, if the applause of the theatre — always most favourable — had received you as you gave the shows of bears and spectacles never before seen there to our fellow-citizens; if by the combined and consenting voices of foolish men, whose crowd is immense, you were borne to the sky; if no one dared to be your enemy; if the municipal tablets marked you in bronze as patron not only of citizens but even of neighbours; if statues were set up, if honours flowed in, if powers too were added which overtopped the municipal station; if at daily banquets sumptuous tables were laid, so that whatever anyone needed, whatever anyone's delight thirsted for, he might unhesitatingly ask and unhesitatingly quaff, and much be poured out even upon those who did not ask, and the estate itself,
diligently and faithfully administered by your people, showed itself adequate and ready-prepared for such great expenditures; while you meanwhile were living amid the most exquisite piles of buildings, in the splendour of baths, at the dice-tables which honour does not spurn, in hunts, in banquets, on the lips of your clients, on the lips of your fellow-citizens, on the lips finally of whole peoples — and were being flaunted as most humane, most liberal, most refined, most fortunate: would anyone, Romanianus, would anyone, I ask, dare to make mention to you of that other blessed life, which alone is blessed?
Could anyone persuade you that not only are you not happy, but that you are most wretched precisely in that you would least seem so to yourself? But now, indeed, how briefly must you be admonished, seeing that so many and so great the adversities are which you have endured! For you need not be persuaded by others' examples how fleeting and fragile and full of calamities are all those things which mortals reckon goods, since you have so experienced it that from yourself we can persuade the rest.
That therefore, that quality of yours — by which you always desired what is comely and honourable, by which you chose to be liberal rather than rich, by which you never coveted to be more powerful than more just, and never yielded to adversities or to villainies — that very thing, I say, which is divine in you and has been lulled asleep by I know not what slumber and torpor of this life, secret providence has decreed to awaken by those varied and hard buffetings. Awake, awake, I pray you;
much, believe me, will you rejoice that scarcely by any prosperities — by which the incautious are held — have the gifts of this world flattered you; those gifts which were daily contriving to capture me myself as I sang these very songs, had not the pain in my chest compelled me to cast off my windy profession and take refuge in the bosom of philosophy. She now nourishes and cherishes me in the leisure we so vehemently desired; she has utterly freed me from that superstition into which I had cast myself headlong, and you along with me. For she teaches, and teaches truly, that nothing at all is to be worshipped, and that whatever is discerned by mortal eyes, whatever any sense attains, is wholly to be despised.
She promises that she will clearly demonstrate the most true and most hidden God, and now, even now, she deigns as it were through luminous clouds to show him. In this pursuit our friend Licentius lives most zealously with me; wholly turned to it from youthful enticements and pleasures, so that I would not rashly propose him to his father as a model to be imitated. For it is philosophy from whose breasts no age will complain of being shut out. And that I might spur you the more eagerly to lay hold of her and to drink from her — although I well know your thirst — I nevertheless wished to send you a taste; which I beg may prove most sweet to you and, so to speak, an inducement, that I may not have hoped in vain. For I have sent you, set down in writing, the disputation which Trygetius and Licentius held between themselves.
For that young man too, as though to wipe away his distaste for the disciplines, had usurped to himself a little of military service, and thus restored himself to us most ardent and most voracious for the great and honourable arts. When, therefore, a few days had passed, after we had begun to live in the countryside, as I was exhorting and animating them to their studies, and saw them prepared beyond what I had wished and downright gaping for it, I resolved to test, according to their age, what they could do — especially since Cicero's book Hortensius seemed already for the most part to have won them over to philosophy. And so, a shorthand-writer having been brought in, lest the breezes should scatter our labour, I allowed nothing to perish. Indeed, in this book you will read their matter and opinions, but the very words of myself and of Alypius.
When, therefore, at my urging we had all been gathered together into one place for this purpose, where it seemed opportune, I said: 'Do you doubt at all that we ought to know the truth?' — 'By no means,' said Trygetius, and the rest signified by their very countenance that they approved. — 'What,' said I, 'if we can be happy even without truth being comprehended: do you think the comprehension of truth necessary?' — Here Alypius: 'This question,' he said, 'I think it safer for me to be the judge of. For since a journey into the city has been fixed for me, I ought to be relieved of the burden of undertaking any one side; and at the same time because I can more easily delegate to someone the part of judge than the defence of anyone. Wherefore henceforth expect nothing from me on behalf of either side.'
When this had been granted him by all, and I had repeated my question, Trygetius said: 'Certainly we wish to be happy, and if we can arrive at this without truth, the truth need not be sought by us.' — 'What of this very thing?' said I; 'do you think we can be happy even without the truth being found?' — Then Licentius: 'We can,' he said, 'if we seek the truth.' — Here, when I demanded the opinion of the others by a nod, Navigius said: 'What Licentius has said moves me. For perhaps this very thing may be to live happily: to live in the inquiry after truth.'
— 'Define, then,' said Trygetius, 'what the happy life is, so that from it I may gather what it is fitting to answer.' — 'What,' said I, 'do you think it is to live happily, other than to live according to that which is best in man?' — 'I will not,' said he, 'pour out words rashly; for what that very best is, I think must be defined for me by you.' — 'Who,' said I, 'would doubt that man's best is nothing other than that part of the soul which, when it rules, it is fitting for all the other things in man to obey? This, moreover — that you may not demand another definition — can be called mind or reason. But if this does not seem so to you, seek how you yourself would define either the happy life or man's best.' — 'I assent,' said he. 'What then?'
'That we may return to our proposition,' said I, 'does it seem to you that one can live happily without truth being found, if only it be sought?' — 'I repeat,' said he, 'that opinion of mine: it does not seem so.' — 'You,' said I, 'what do you think?' — Then Licentius: 'To me it does altogether seem so,' he said. 'For our forefathers, whom we have received as wise and happy, by this alone, that they sought the truth, lived well and happily.' — 'I give thanks,' said I, 'that together with Alypius you have made me the judge — a role which, I confess, I had already begun to envy him.'
'Since, therefore, to one of you it seems that the happy life can be attained by the mere investigation of truth, and to the other only by its discovery, while Navigius a little before showed that he wishes to cross over to your side, Licentius, I greatly look to see what sort of advocates of your opinions you can be. For the matter is great and most worthy of diligent discussion.' — 'If the matter is great,' said Licentius, 'it requires great men.' — 'Do not seek,' said I, 'especially in this country villa, what is hard to find anywhere among the nations; but rather explain why that which was uttered by you not rashly, as I suppose, seems so to you, and on what reasoning. For even the greatest matters, when they are inquired into by small men, are wont to make them great.'
'Since,' said he, 'I see you greatly pressing us to dispute against one another — which I trust you usefully wish — I ask: why cannot he be happy who seeks the truth, even if he does not find it?' — 'Because,' said Trygetius, 'we wish the happy man to be perfect and wise in all things. But he who is still seeking is not perfect. How, then, you can assert this man to be happy, I do not at all see.' — And the other: 'Has the authority of our forefathers,' he said, 'any weight with you?' — 'Not of all,' said Trygetius. — 'Of whom, then?' — He: 'Of those, namely, who were wise.' — Then Licentius: 'Does Carneades,' he said, 'not seem wise to you?' — 'I,' said he, 'am no Greek; I do not know who that Carneades was.'
'What,' said Licentius, 'do you think, then, of that Cicero of ours?' — Here, after he had long kept silent: 'He was wise,' he said. — And the other: 'Therefore his opinion on this matter has some weight with you?' — 'It has,' said he. — 'Receive, then, what it is; for I think it has slipped from your memory. For it pleased our Cicero that he is happy who investigates truth, even if he cannot succeed in attaining to its discovery.' — 'Where,' said he, 'did Cicero say this?' — And Licentius: 'Who does not know that he vehemently affirmed that nothing can be perceived by man, and that nothing remains to the wise man except the most diligent inquiry after truth — for this reason, that if he assented to uncertain things, even though perhaps they were true,
he could not be freed from error, which is the greatest fault of a wise man? Wherefore, if it must be believed both that the wise man is necessarily happy, and that the sole inquiry after truth is the perfect function of wisdom, why do we doubt to reckon that the happy life can be attained even by the very investigation of truth in itself?' Then the other: 'Is it permitted at last to return to those things which were rashly conceded?' — Here I: 'They,' said I, 'are not wont to grant this, whom to disputation not a desire of finding the truth but a childish vaunting of talent impels. And so, before these — especially since you are still to be nourished and educated — it is not only granted but I wish you even to hold it among your precepts, that you ought to return to examining those things which you conceded incautiously.'
— And Licentius: 'I think it no small advance in philosophy,' he said, 'when, in comparison with finding out the right and the true, victory is despised by the disputant. And so I gladly obey your precepts and your judgment, and I permit Trygetius to return to that which he thinks he conceded rashly — for the matter is within my right.' — Then Alypius: 'You yourselves do not yet recognize with me what are the parts of the office I have undertaken. But since the departure long arranged compels me to break off, for my part too, sharing in the judgment, he will not refuse me a doubled power for himself until my return; for I see this contest of yours going to proceed rather far.' — And when he had departed: 'What,' said Licentius, 'had you conceded rashly? Bring it forth.'
— And the other said: 'I rashly granted that Cicero was wise.' — 'Then was not Cicero wise, by whom in the Latin tongue philosophy was both begun and perfected?' — 'Even if I concede,' said he, 'that he is wise, yet I do not approve everything of his.' — 'And yet you ought to refute many other things of his, that you may not seem impudently to disapprove this thing which is under discussion.' — 'What if I am prepared to affirm that in this alone he did not judge rightly? It matters nothing to you, I suppose, except of what weight are the reasons I bring to assert what I wish.' — 'Proceed,' said the other. — 'For what,' said he, 'should I dare against him who professes himself the adversary of Cicero?' Here Trygetius: 'I wish you to attend,' he said, 'you our judge, to how earlier you defined the happy life;
for you said that he is happy who lives according to that part of the soul which it is fitting to command the rest. But you, Licentius, I wish you even now to concede to me — for now, by the liberty into which philosophy chiefly promises she will vindicate us, I have shaken off that yoke of authority — that he is not perfect who still requires the truth.' — Then the other, after a long silence: 'I do not concede it,' he said. — Trygetius: 'Why, pray? Explain. For here I stand and long to hear in what manner a man can both be perfect and still seek the truth.' — Here he: 'He who,' said he, 'has not arrived at the end, I confess, is not perfect.
But that truth I think God alone knows, or perhaps the soul of man when it has left this body — that is, this dark prison. But man's end is to seek the truth perfectly; for we seek one perfect, yet still a man. — And Trygetius: 'Then man cannot be happy. For how, when he cannot attain that which he greatly covets? But man can live happily, if indeed he can live according to that part of the soul which it is right should rule in man. He can, therefore, find the truth. Or else let him collect himself and not covet the truth, lest, when he cannot attain it, he be necessarily wretched.' — 'But this very thing is man's blessedness,' said the other, 'to seek the truth perfectly;
for this is to arrive at the end, beyond which one cannot proceed. Whoever, then, seeks the truth less earnestly than he ought, does not arrive at man's end; but whoever gives such effort to finding the truth as a man can and ought, even if he does not find it, is happy; for he does the whole of that for the doing of which he was born. But if the finding be lacking, that will be lacking which nature did not give. Finally, since a man must necessarily be either happy or wretched, is it not the mark of a madman to call him wretched who, day and night, as much as he can, presses on to investigate the truth? He will therefore be happy. And then that definition, as I think, supports me the more richly;
for if he is happy — as indeed he is — who lives according to that part of the soul which it is fitting should reign over the rest, and this part is called reason, I ask whether he does not live according to reason who seeks the truth perfectly. But if that is absurd, why do we doubt to call a man happy by the sole investigation of truth itself?' — 'To me,' said the other, 'whoever errs seems neither to live according to reason nor to be happy at all. But everyone errs who always seeks and does not find. Whence you must show me one of two things: either that one who errs can be happy, or that he who never finds what he seeks does not err.' — Here he: 'A happy man cannot err.' And when he had long been silent: 'But he does not err,' said he, 'while he seeks, because he seeks in order not to err.' — And Trygetius:
'He seeks, indeed, in order not to err,' said he, 'but he errs when he does not find. And so you thought it would profit you that he does not wish to err — as though no one errs unwillingly, or as though anyone at all errs except unwillingly.' — Then I, when the other long delayed as to what he should reply, said: 'You must define what error is; for you will more easily see its bounds, into which you have now deeply entered.' — 'I,' said Licentius, 'am not fit to define anything, although to define error is easier than to set it a limit.' — 'I,' said the other, 'will define it, which is most easy for me — not by talent, but by the best of causes. For to err is assuredly always to seek, never to find.'
— 'I,' said Licentius, 'if I could easily refute even that definition, would long since not have failed my own cause. But since the matter itself is either of itself difficult, or so appears to me, I ask of you that the question be deferred until tomorrow's light, if today I can find nothing to answer, when I turn it over diligently with myself.' — When I thought this must be granted, the others not refusing, we rose to go for a walk; and while we conversed among ourselves on many and various matters, he remained fixed in thought. When he perceived that this was in vain, he chose rather to relax his mind and to mingle himself in our conversation. Afterwards, when it was growing toward evening, they had returned to the same conflict;
but I imposed a limit and persuaded them to suffer it to be deferred to another day. Thence to the baths. But on the next day, when we had sat down: 'Bring forth,' said I, 'what you began yesterday.' — Then Licentius: 'We had deferred the disputation, if I am not mistaken, at my request, since the definition of error was most difficult for me.' — 'Here plainly,' said I, 'you do not err; and that this may be an omen to you for the rest, I would gladly have wished.' — 'Hear then,' said he, 'what yesterday, had you not intervened, I would have brought forth. Error seems to me to be the approval of the false for the true. Into this in no way falls one who always thinks the truth must be sought; for he cannot approve the false who approves nothing; therefore he cannot err. But he can most easily be happy;
for, not to go too far afield, if it were permitted us daily to live as we were permitted yesterday, nothing occurs to me why we should doubt to call ourselves happy. For we lived with great tranquillity of mind, vindicating the soul from every taint of the body and being removed very far from the torches of the lusts, giving effort, as much as is permitted to man, to reason — that is, living according to that divine part of the soul which, by yesterday's definition agreed among us, is the happy life; and yet, as I think, we found nothing, but only sought the truth. Therefore the happy life can befall a man by the sole investigation of truth, even if he can by no means find it. For see with how great ease your definition is excluded by the common notion.'
'For you said that to err is to seek always and never to find. But what if someone were seeking nothing, and, being asked, for example, whether it were now day, should rashly and at once suppose it to be night and answer accordingly — would he not seem to you to be in error? This kind of error, then, and a most monstrous one, your definition has not embraced. And what if it has embraced even those who do not err — can any definition be more faulty? For if someone were seeking Alexandria and were making for it by a straight road, I do not think you could call him one who errs. But what if he should traverse that same road for a long time, hindered by various causes, and were overtaken by death upon it — has he not both sought always and never found, and yet not erred?' 'No,' said he, 'he has not sought always.'
'You speak rightly,' said Licentius, 'and you admonish me well. For from that very point your definition has nothing at all to do with the matter; for I did not say that he is blessed who always seeks the truth. This indeed cannot even happen, first because a man does not always exist, and next because it is not from the time he begins to be a man that he can at once seek the truth, since his age hinders him. Or if you think it must always be said thus — that no portion of the time in which he is already able to seek is allowed to perish — then you must return to Alexandria once more.'
'For suppose someone, from the time when either his age or his affairs permit him to make the journey, begins to set out on that road, and, as I said above, though he nowhere strays from it, yet departs from life before he arrives — you will surely be greatly mistaken if this man shall seem to you to have erred, even though for all the time he could he neither ceased to seek nor was able to find that whither he was going. Wherefore, if my description is true, and according to it he does not err who seeks perfectly, though he does not find the truth, and is blessed for this reason, namely that he lives according to reason — then your definition has both come to nothing; and even if it had not, I ought to give it no heed, if only on the ground of what I have defined.'
'The case has been sufficiently established. Why then, I ask, is this question between us not yet resolved?' Here Trygetius said: 'Do you grant that wisdom is the straight road of life?' 'I do,' said he, 'without doubt; but nevertheless I want you to define wisdom for me, that I may know whether what seems to me the same seems so to you also.' And the other replied: 'Does it seem too little defined for you by this very thing about which you have just been asked? You have even conceded what I wished. For, if I am not mistaken, the straight road of life is called wisdom.' Then Licentius: 'Nothing,' said he, 'seems to me so ridiculous as that definition.' 'Perhaps so,' said he; 'yet I beg you, step by step, that reason may forestall your laughter; for nothing is more shameful than laughter most worthy of derision.'
'For what?' said he. 'Do you not admit that death is contrary to life?' 'I admit it,' he said. 'To me, then,' said he, 'no road seems more truly the road of life than that by which each one proceeds so as not to fall into death.' Trygetius assented. 'Therefore, if some traveller, avoiding a byway which he had heard was beset by robbers, should proceed to go straight on and thus escape destruction, has he not both followed the road of life and a straight one? And yet no one calls that wisdom. How then is every straight road of life wisdom?' 'I granted that it is such, but not that it alone is.' 'But a definition ought to embrace nothing that is foreign to it. And so define again, if you please: what does wisdom seem to you to be?' For a long while he was silent; then:
'Behold,' said he, 'I define once more, if you have determined never to make an end of this. Wisdom is the straight road which leads to the truth.' 'This too is refuted in like manner,' said he; 'for when in Virgil it was said to Aeneas by his mother, «Only go on, and where the road leads you, direct your step,» he, following this road to that which had been spoken of — that is, to the truth — arrived at it. Contend, if you please, that where he set his advancing foot may be called wisdom — although it is quite foolishly that I try to break down this description of yours; for nothing aids my cause more. For you said that wisdom is not the truth itself, but the road which leads to it. Whoever, then, uses this road, uses wisdom, assuredly; and he who uses wisdom must needs be wise.
Therefore he will be wise who has sought the truth perfectly, even if he has not yet attained it. For the road which leads to the truth, I think, is understood to be nothing better than the diligent search for truth. Using this road alone, then, this man will already be wise. And no one who is wise is wretched; but every man is either wretched or blessed: therefore not only the finding, but the very investigation of truth in and of itself will make a man blessed.' Then the other, smiling: 'Deservedly,' said he, 'do these things befall me, while I confidently assent to my adversary in a matter that is not necessary — as if indeed I were some great definer, or thought anything more superfluous in disputation.'
'For what limit will there be, if I in turn should wish something to be defined by you, and again should demand — feigning that I understand nothing — that the words of the same definition, and likewise every one of its consequences singly, be defined? For why should I compel by my right the plainest thing to be defined, if a definition of wisdom is rightly demanded of me? For of what word did nature wish there to be in our minds a clearer notion than of wisdom? But somehow or other, when the notion has, as it were, left the harbour of our mind and, as it were, spread the sails of words for itself, straightway a thousand shipwrecks of cavils rush upon it. Wherefore, either let no definition of wisdom be required, or let our judge deign to come down to its defence.'
Then I, since night was now hindering my pen and I saw that a great matter seemed to arise, to be discussed as it were afresh, put it off to another day. For we had begun to dispute when the sun was already declining toward its setting, and almost the whole day had been spent partly in ordering matters of the farm, partly in reviewing the first book of Virgil. Then presently, as soon as it grew light — for so matters had been arranged the day before, that there might be ample leisure — straightway the business we had undertaken was taken up to be finished. Then I said: 'Yesterday, Trygetius, you demanded that I come down from the office of judge to the defence of wisdom, as if indeed wisdom would suffer any adversary in your discourse, or, with anyone defending it, laboured so as to have need to implore greater aid.
For neither has anything else arisen to be sought among you than what wisdom is — in which neither of you attacks it, since each of you longs for it — nor, if you think you have failed in defining wisdom, ought you on that account to abandon the rest of the defence of your opinion. And so from me you shall have nothing else than a definition of wisdom, which is neither mine nor new, but both belongs to men of old and one which I marvel that you do not recall. For it is not now for the first time that you hear that wisdom is the knowledge of things human and divine.' Here Licentius, whom after that definition I thought would long ponder what to say, at once put in:
'Why then, I ask, do we not call that most infamous man wise, whom we ourselves know well to be wont to dissipate himself through countless harlots — I mean that Albicerius, who at Carthage for many years gave to those who consulted him certain marvellous and unerring answers? I could recount innumerable things, were it not that I am speaking among those who have themselves had experience, and that for now a few examples suffice for what I intend. Was it not the case that, when a spoon — so he told me — could not be found at home, at your command he, being questioned, most swiftly and most truly answered not only what was being sought, but also by name whose the thing was and where it lay hidden?
Likewise in my presence — I pass over that, that in the thing about which he was asked he was in no way at all mistaken; but when a boy, who was carrying the money, had stolen a certain portion of it as we were on our way to him, he bade that all of it be counted out to himself, and compelled the boy, before our very eyes, to give back what he had taken away — before ever he himself had either seen those same coins or heard from us how much had been brought to him. What of the fact that we have received from you that Flaccianus, a most learned and most distinguished man, was wont to marvel — who, when he had been speaking about buying a farm, so laid the matter before that diviner that the man might declare, if he were able, what he had been doing?
And he at once pronounced not only the kind of business, but also — at which the man cried out vehemently in astonishment — the very name of the farm, though it was so odd that Flaccianus himself scarcely remembered it. And this too I cannot tell without amazement of soul: that to a friend of ours, your pupil, who was insolently wishing to provoke him and demanding that he tell what he himself was silently turning over within, he replied that he was pondering a verse of Virgil. When that man, struck dumb, could not deny it, he went on to ask which verse it was; and Albicerius — who had scarcely, in passing, ever once glanced at a grammarian's school — did not hesitate, unconcerned and voluble, to recite the very verse.
'Were they, then, not human affairs about which he was being consulted, or did he answer those who consulted him with things so certain and true without a knowledge of divine matters? But both are absurd. For human affairs are nothing else than the affairs of men — such as silver, coins, a farm, and finally even thought itself; and who would not rightly judge those to be divine matters through which divination itself falls to a man's lot? Albicerius therefore was wise, if by that definition we concede that wisdom is the knowledge of things human and divine.' Here the other said: 'In the first place, I do not call it knowledge, in which he who professes it is sometimes deceived.'
'For knowledge consists not only in things comprehended, but in things so comprehended that no one may err in it, nor be made to waver, driven by any opposing forces whatever. Whence it is most truly said by certain philosophers that it can be found in no one save in the wise man, who ought not only to have that which he guards and follows in perfect form, but also to hold it unshaken. But we know that the man you have mentioned often said many false things, which I have found out not only from others reporting it to me, but which I have myself sometimes perceived when present. Shall I then call him one who knows, when he has often spoken falsehoods — a man I would not call so even had he spoken truths hesitantly?
You are to suppose that I have said this concerning soothsayers and augurs and all those who consult the stars, and concerning interpreters of dreams; or else produce someone of this class of men, if you can, who, when consulted, has never doubted about his own responses, and who, finally, has never given false answers. For about prophets I think I need take no trouble, who speak with a mind not their own. Next, that I may grant human affairs to be the affairs of men — do you reckon anything to be ours which chance can either give or snatch away? Or when the knowledge of human affairs is spoken of, is that meant by which each one knows how many or what sort of farms we have, how much gold, how much silver, or, finally, what verses of others we are pondering?
That is the knowledge of human affairs which knows the light of prudence, the grace of temperance, the strength of fortitude, the sanctity of justice. For these are the things which, fearing no fortune, we dare truly to call our own; and if that Albicerius had learned these, never, believe me, would he have lived so luxuriously and so basely. But as for his saying which verse the man by whom he was consulted was turning over in his mind, I do not think that this either should be reckoned among our own affairs — not that I would deny that the most honourable disciplines pertain to a certain possession of our soul, but because to recite and pronounce another man's verse is granted even to the most unlearned.
Therefore, when such things come into our memory, it is no wonder if they can be sensed by certain most vile animals of this air, whom men call demons — by whom I concede that we can be surpassed in the keenness and subtlety of the senses, but in reason I deny it; and this comes about in some way most secret and most remote from our senses. For if we marvel that the little bee, by some sagacity whereby it surpasses man, flies from wheresoever to the honey set out, we ought not on that account to prefer it to ourselves, or even to compare it with us. And so I would rather that this Albicerius, being questioned by one who desired to learn, had taught the very metres themselves, or, compelled by some one of those consulting him, had sung his own verses on a subject at once proposed to him.
For you are wont to relate that the same Flaccianus often said — when he was deriding and despising that kind of divination with great loftiness of mind, and attributing it to some most abject little soul (for so he used to speak), by which that man, as if admonished or inflated by a spirit, was wont to give these answers — for that most learned man used to ask of those who marvelled at such things whether Albicerius could teach grammar or music or geometry. And who that knew him would not confess him to be the most unskilled of all these?
For which reason, in the end, he used to exhort that those who had learned such things should without hesitation prefer their own minds to that divination, and should give their effort to instructing and strengthening their mind with these disciplines, by which it might befall them to leap over and fly above that airy nature of invisible living creatures. And now, since divine things, by the concession of all, are far better and more august than human, in what way could that man attain them, who did not know what he himself was — unless perhaps reckoning the stars, which we daily contemplate, to be something great in comparison with the most true and most secret God, whom rarely perhaps the intellect, but no sense at all, reaches? These things, however, are present to our eyes.
Neither, then, are these the divine things which wisdom professes that it alone knows; and the rest, which those diviners — whoever they are — abuse either for empty boasting or for gain, are surely more worthless than the stars. Albicerius therefore did not partake of the knowledge of things human and divine, and in vain has our definition been assailed by you in this manner. Finally, since it behoves us to reckon as most worthless, and altogether to despise, whatever is beside things human and divine, I ask: in what things does that wise man of yours seek the truth?' 'In divine things,' said he; 'for virtue too, even in a man, is without doubt divine.' 'These, then, did Albicerius already know, which your wise man will always seek?' Then Licentius:
'He too had known divine things,' said he, 'but not those which are to be sought by the wise man. For who would not overturn every custom of speaking, if he should concede divination to that man, while taking away divine things, from which divination is named? Wherefore that definition of yours, unless I am mistaken, included I know not what other thing that did not pertain to wisdom.' Then Trygetius: 'That definition,' said he, 'let the man who put it forward defend, if he pleases. Now do you answer me, that we may at last come to the point at issue.' 'Here I am,' said he. 'Do you grant,' said he, 'that Albicerius knew the truth?' 'I grant it,' he said. 'Better, then, than your wise man.' 'By no means,' said he;
'for that kind of truth which the wise man seeks, not only that raving soothsayer, but not even the wise man himself, so long as he lives in this body, attains. Yet it is so great that it is far more excellent always to seek this than at some time to find that. 'It is necessary,' said Trygetius, 'that that definition come to my aid in my straits. If it seemed faulty to you for this reason, that it embraced one whom we cannot call wise, I ask whether you approve it if we call wisdom the knowledge of things human and divine — but of those things which pertain to the blessed life.' 'That too is wisdom,' said he, 'and not it alone. Whence the former definition invaded what is foreign, but this one has deserted what is proper to it;
'wherefore the former can be convicted of avarice, the latter of folly. And so, that I may now myself unfold in a definition what I feel: wisdom seems to me to be, of things human and divine which pertain to the blessed life, not knowledge alone, but also diligent inquiry. If you should wish to divide this description, the first part, which holds knowledge, is God's; but this part, which is content with inquiry, is man's. By the former, therefore, God is blessed, but by this latter, man.' Then the other: 'I marvel,' said he, 'how you assert that your wise man spends his labour in vain.' 'How,' said Licentius, 'in vain does he spend his labour, when he searches with so great a reward?
'for by this very thing, in that he seeks, he is wise, and in that he is wise, thereby is he blessed — since he unwinds his mind, as far as he can, from all the wrappings of the body, and gathers himself into himself; since he does not permit himself to be torn by desires, but, ever tranquil, strains toward himself and toward God — so that both here he may enjoy through reason that which we agreed above to be blessed, and on the last day of life may be found ready to attain that which he has desired, and may deservedly enjoy the divine beatitude, having first enjoyed the human.' Then I, while Trygetius was long seeking what he should answer, said: 'I do not think, Licentius, that arguments will be lacking to this man either, if we allow him to inquire at leisure. For what, in any place, has he lacked wherewith to answer?
For first he himself brought in that, since the question of the blessed life had arisen, and it is necessary that the wise man alone be blessed — inasmuch as folly, even by the judgement of fools, is wretched — the wise man ought to be perfect; but that he is not perfect who is still inquiring what the truth may be, whence he is not even blessed.
To which point, when you cast up the mass of authority against him, being somewhat modestly disturbed by the name of Cicero, he nevertheless at once raised himself up and, with a certain noble defiance, leapt to the summit of liberty and again snatched up what had been violently shaken from his hands, and asked of you whether one who was still inquiring seemed to you to be perfect — so that, if you should admit that he was not perfect, he might run back to the head of the matter and show, if he could, through that definition, that a man who governed his life according to the law of the mind was perfect, and that through this a man could not be blessed unless perfect.
From which snare when you had extricated yourself more warily than I thought, and said that the perfect man is the most diligent inquirer of truth, and had fought more confidently and more openly by that very definition — by which we had said that that alone is the blessed life which is conducted according to reason — he plainly countered you; for he seized upon your defence, whence, once driven off, you had utterly lost the sum of things, had not a truce restored you. For where have the Academics, whose opinion you defend, placed their citadel, save in the definition of error? And unless perhaps by night, through a dream, this returned into your mind, you now had nothing to answer, since in setting forth Cicero's opinion you yourself had beforehand mentioned that very thing.
Then it came to the definition of wisdom, which, when you were trying with such cunning to undermine it — so that not even your helper Albicerius could perhaps have detected your thefts — with what vigilance, with what strength did he resist you, how nearly did he entangle and press you down, had you not at the last protected yourself by your new definition and said that human wisdom is the inquiry of truth, from which, on account of the tranquillity of the soul, the blessed life results! To this opinion this man will not reply, especially if, in the prolonging of the day, or the part of it that remains, he demands that the favour be returned to him. But, that we may not make this long, now, if it please you, let this discourse be brought to a close, in which I think it superfluous even to linger.
For the matter has been treated enough for the business undertaken; and it could altogether be finished after a few words — did I not wish to exercise you, and to explore your sinews and your zeal, which is a great care to me. For when I had determined earnestly to exhort you to the seeking of truth, I had begun to ask of you how much weight you placed upon it; and you all placed so much that I could desire no more. For since we desire to be blessed, whether that cannot come to pass except when the truth has been found, or only when it has been diligently sought, the truth is to be sought out by us above all other things set aside, if we wish to be blessed. Wherefore let us now, as I said, bring this disputation to an end, and, committed to writing, send it, Licentius, above all to your father.'
For his mind, as regards philosophy, I now altogether hold; but I am still asking what fortune may admit of. He can, however, be kindled more vehemently into these studies, when he learns that you yourself now live with me in this way — not only by hearing, but also by reading these things. But as for you, if, as I perceive, the Academics please you, prepare stronger forces to defend them; for them I have resolved to accuse.' When these things had been said, we rose. BOOK TWO.
If it were as necessary that wisdom be found while it is sought, as it is necessary that no man be wise who is void of the discipline and knowledge of wisdom, then assuredly all the calumny of the Academics, or their obstinacy, or their stubbornness, or — as I sometimes think — the reasoning suited to that time, would together with that time itself, and with the very bodies of Carneades and Cicero, have been buried.
But because — whether through the many and various tossings of this life (that you may prove yourself to be, as it were, in Rome amid the very same), or through a certain stupor of minds, or through sloth, or through the torpor of dullness, or through despair of finding — since not so easily does the star of wisdom rise upon our minds as this light upon our eyes — or even (which is altogether the error of the peoples) through a false opinion that they have themselves found the truth, men do not diligently seek, and, if any do seek, they are turned aside from the will of seeking: it comes to pass that knowledge falls to few and seldom; and hence it results that the arms of the Academics, when it comes to close quarters with them, seem to men — not to mediocre men, but to acute and well-instructed ones — unconquered and, as it were, forged by Vulcan.
Wherefore, against those waves and storms of fortune, both must one strive with the oars of virtues of whatever kind, and above all must the divine help be implored with all devotion and piety, so that the most constant intention of good studies may hold its course, from which no chance may dash it, so that the safest and most delightful harbour of philosophy may receive it. This is your first cause; from this I fear for you, from this I desire that you be delivered, from this — if only I am worthy to obtain it — I cease not with daily vows to pray for prosperous breezes for you; and I pray to the very Virtue and Wisdom of the most high God. For what else is he whom the mysteries deliver to us as the Son of God?
But you will greatly help me as I intercede for you, if you do not despair that we can be heard, and if you strive together with us, and not only with vows but also with your will and with that natural loftiness of mind of yours — on account of which I seek you, in which I am singularly delighted, which I ever admire, which in you — oh, the shame! — is wrapped, as it were like lightning, in those clouds of domestic affairs, and lies hidden from many and almost all; but from me, and from one or a second of your most intimate friends, it cannot lie hidden — we who have often not only attentively heard your murmurings, but have also beheld some flashes nearer to lightning-bolts.
For who — to pass over other things according to the occasion and to recall but one — who, I say, ever thundered so suddenly and so greatly, and flashed forth with so great a light of mind, that under one roar of reason and a certain coruscation of temperance, in a single day that lust, most savage the day before, should utterly die? Shall not, then, this virtue at some time burst forth, and turn the laughter of many who despair into horror and stupor, and, having spoken on earth as it were certain signs of things to come, cast off again the burden of the whole body and hasten back to heaven? Has, then, Augustine said these things of Romanianus in vain? He will not suffer it — he to whom I have given myself wholly, whom I have now begun somewhat to recognize. Therefore, take up philosophy with me;
here is whatever is wont marvellously to move you, often anxious and doubting. For I fear nothing from any sloth of character or from any dullness in your talent. Who, when you have been granted a little breathing-space, has appeared more vigilant, who more acute, in our discussions? Shall I not repay you the favour? Or do I perhaps owe but a little? You received me, a poor young man setting out for my studies, with your home, and your expense, and — what is more — with your heart; when I was orphaned of my father, you consoled me with friendship, animated me with exhortation, aided me with your means; in our own township you made me, by your favour, your familiarity, the sharing of your house, almost as illustrious and eminent as yourself.
When I was returning to Carthage for the sake of a more illustrious profession, since I had disclosed my plan and my hope to you and to none of my own — although, through that love of your native place implanted in you (because I was already teaching there), you hesitated somewhat — yet, when you were unable to overcome the young man's eager desire, striving toward what seemed the better things, you were changed, with wonderful moderation of goodwill, from a dissuader into a helper. You furnished my journey with all things needful; you there again, who had cherished the cradle and, as it were, the nest of my studies, sustained the first efforts of one now daring to fly;
you too, when I had sailed away in your absence and without your knowledge, being somewhat displeased that I had not shared it with you as I was wont, and suspecting anything rather than obstinacy, remained unshaken in friendship; nor was there more before your eyes a pupil deserted by his master than the inmost recesses and purity of our mind. Finally, whatever I now rejoice in concerning my leisure — that I have flown away from the bonds of superfluous desires, that, having laid aside the burdens of dead cares, I breathe again, come to my senses, return to myself; that I most intently seek the truth, that I am now beginning to find it, that I trust I shall arrive at the very highest measure itself — you animated, you impelled, you brought it about.
But whose minister you have been, I have as yet conceived by faith more than comprehended by reason. For when, present to you present, I had set forth the inner fears of my soul, and vehemently and repeatedly asserted that no fortune seemed to me prosperous save that which gave the leisure for philosophizing, and no life blessed save that in which one lived in philosophy — but that I was held back by so great a burden of my dependents, upon whose life my duty hung, and by many necessities either of shame or of the foolish misery of my kin — you were lifted up with so great a joy, so inflamed with a holy ardour for this life, that you said that, if you could in any way be freed from the bonds of those troublesome lawsuits, you would break all my bonds too, sharing with me even your patrimony.
And so, once you had departed after applying a kindling-brand to us, we never ceased to gaze longingly toward philosophy and toward that manner of life which we had agreed and resolved upon among ourselves; and we thought of nothing else at all, and pursued it indeed steadily, though with too little intensity. Yet we supposed we were pursuing it enough. And since that flame had not yet come which was to seize us at its highest, we imagined that the one by which we were kindled was the greatest there could be. When behold, certain books, full — as Celsinus says — of good things from Arabia, breathed their fragrance upon us, and dripped upon that little flame the very few drops of a most precious ointment; and — incredible, Romanianus, incredible, and beyond what perhaps even you believe of me — what more shall I say?
— they kindled within me, even for myself concerning myself, an incredible blaze. What honour then moved me, what human pomp, what desire for empty fame, what comfort or restraint of this mortal life? Utterly and wholly I was returning at a run into myself. Yet I looked back, I confess, as if from the road, upon that religion which was implanted in us as children and interwoven into our very marrow; but she herself was drawing me, unknowing, toward herself. And so, tottering, hastening, hesitating, I snatched up the Apostle Paul. For truly, said I, these men could never have had such power, nor lived as it is manifest that they lived, if their writings and their teachings were opposed to so great a good. I read the whole through, most attentively and most reverently.
But then, with even so slight a light sprinkled upon me, so great a countenance of philosophy opened itself to me that — I will not say to you, who have ever burned with hunger for her though you never knew her, but even to your own adversary (by whom I know not whether you are more exercised than hindered) — if I could but have displayed her, then indeed, casting off and abandoning Baiae, and pleasant orchards, and dainty and gleaming banquets, and household actors, and finally whatever keenly stirs him toward any delights whatsoever, he would fly to the beauty of this one, a tender lover and a holy one, marvelling, panting, aflame.
For he too has — this must be confessed — a certain grace of soul, or rather as it were the seed of grace, which, striving to burst forth into true beauty, sprouts crookedly and misshapenly amid the brambles of vices and the thickets of false opinions; yet it does not cease to sprout, and to a few who look keenly and carefully into the dense growth it stands out, as far as is permitted. Thence comes that hospitality of his; thence, at banquets, the many seasonings of courtesy; thence the very elegance, the polish, the most spotless appearance of all things, and that urbanity of a shadowed grace which pours itself over everything on every side. This is commonly called philocalia. Do not despise this name because it comes from the name of the common crowd.
For philocalia and philosophy are named almost alike, and wish to seem — and truly are — as it were of one kindred. For what is philosophy? The love of wisdom. What is philocalia? The love of beauty. Inquire of the Greeks. What then is wisdom? Is she not the very true beauty? These two, therefore, are utterly sisters, born of the same parent; but the one, dragged down by the birdlime of lust from her own heaven and shut in a common cage, has nonetheless kept the neighbourliness of her name, to warn the fowler not to despise her. This one, then — wingless, soiled, and destitute — her sister, flitting freely, often recognizes, but rarely sets free; for this philocalia does not recognize whence she draws her lineage, except through philosophy.
This whole fable — for suddenly I have turned into Aesop — Licentius will set forth to you in verse more sweetly; for he is a poet almost perfect. Therefore that man, if he could with eyes healed and a little unveiled gaze upon true beauty, of whose false likeness he is a lover, with what pleasure would he wrap himself in the bosom of philosophy? How there would he embrace you, recognized as a true brother? You marvel at these things, and perhaps you laugh. What if I unfolded them as I wished? What if at least the voice, if the face of philosophy herself cannot yet be seen by you, could be heard? You would surely marvel, but you would not laugh, you would not despair. Believe me, no one is to be despaired of, and least of all such men; there are examples in every case.
Easily does this kind of bird escape, easily does it fly back, though many are shut in and many marvel. But let me return to us. Let us, I say, Romanianus, do philosophy; I shall repay you thanks — your son has begun to philosophize. I hold him back, so that, first cultivated in the necessary disciplines, he may rise up more vigorous and more firm. And that you may not fear yourself to be a stranger to these disciplines — if I know you well — I wish for you only free breezes. For as to your natural gifts, what shall I say? Would that it were not so rare in men as it is certain in you! There remain two vices and hindrances to finding the truth, from which I do not much fear for you; yet I do fear, lest you despise yourself and despair of ever finding, or else lest you believe you have already found.
Of these, if the first is nonetheless present in you, perhaps this disputation will strip it away from you. For you have often grown angry at the Academics — the more heavily, the less learned you were; the more gladly, because you were enticed by love of the truth. And so now, with Alypius as your supporter, I shall contend with you, and shall easily persuade you of what I wish — probably, at least; for you will not see the truth itself unless you have entered wholly into philosophy. But that other vice, that perhaps you presume you have found something — although you departed from us already inquiring and doubting — nonetheless, if any superstition has rolled back into your mind, it will surely be cast out, either when I send you some disputation of ours about religion, or when, being present, I confer many things with you.
For I now do nothing else than cleanse myself from vain and pernicious opinions. And so I do not doubt that I am better off than you. There is only one thing for which I envy your fortune: that you alone enjoy my Lucilianus. Or do you too envy, because I said 'my'? But what did I say other than 'yours,' and everyone's, whoever we are who are one? Yet, that you may come to the aid of this desire of mine, what shall I ask of you? Or do I of myself deserve it? You only know that you owe it. But now I say to both of you: beware lest you think you know anything, except what you have at least learned in such a way as you know that one, two, three, four gathered together make ten in sum. But likewise beware lest you think, through philosophy, either that you will not come to know the truth, or that it can in no way be so known.
For believe me, or rather believe Him who said, 'Seek and you shall find,' that knowledge is not to be despaired of, and that it will become more manifest than those numbers are. Now let us come to the matter proposed. For already, late as it is, I have begun to fear lest this preface exceed due measure. And it is no light thing — for measure is beyond doubt divine, but it can deceive when it leads us sweetly along. I shall be more cautious — when I am wise. After the earlier discourse, which we gathered into the first book, we rested from disputing for about seven days, during which, however, we went over three books of Virgil after the first, and discussed them as seemed to suit the occasion. Yet by that work Licentius was so inflamed with zeal for poetry that I thought he even needed somewhat to be restrained by me.
For now he could not gladly bear to be recalled from this pursuit to any other matter. Yet at last, to take up again the question about the Academics which we had postponed, he came not unwillingly, once the light of philosophy had been praised by me as far as I could. And by chance the day had dawned so bright that it seemed to suit nothing more than the clearing of our minds. And so, rising earlier than usual, we left our beds and dealt a little with the country folk, as the season pressed us to do. Then Alypius said: 'Before I hear you disputing about the Academics, I want that discourse of yours read to me, which you say was completed in my absence;'
'for I cannot do otherwise, since from that place the occasion of this debate arose, than either err in listening to you, or at least labour twice over.' When this had been done, and we saw that almost the whole forenoon had been consumed in it, we resolved to return home from the field, which had received us as we walked about. And Licentius said: 'I beg you, before lunch, do not be reluctant to run through and repeat for me briefly the whole opinion of the Academics, lest anything in it escape me which might be on the side of my party.' 'I shall do so,' I said, 'and the more gladly, since by thinking about this matter you will eat but little lunch.' 'Do not,' said he, 'be secure on that score; for I have often observed many men, and especially my father, to be the more voracious the more they are stuffed with cares.'
'Besides, you yourself have experienced that a man thinking about those metres of yours is not such that my care makes his table free of care. Indeed, I am often wont to marvel at this within myself; for what does it mean, that we then most stubbornly crave food precisely when we bend our mind to something else? Or who is he that, when our hands and teeth are already busy, becomes too imperious a master over us?' 'Rather listen,' I said, 'to what you had asked about the Academics, lest, while you turn over those metres, I should endure you not only in your food without metre but even in our questions. But if I conceal anything on my side, Alypius will betray it.' 'Your good faith is needed,' said Alypius;
'for if it is to be feared that you conceal something, I judge it hard for it to be detected by me — from whom no one who knows me is ignorant that I learned these very things — especially since, in bringing forth the truth, you will be consulting no more for victory than for your own conscience.' 'I shall proceed,' I said, 'in good faith, since you prescribe by the rule of right. For the Academics held both that knowledge cannot fall to a man — of those matters at least which pertain to philosophy (for Carneades denied that he cared for the rest) — and yet that a man can be wise, and that the whole task of the wise man, as was set forth by you too, Licentius, in that discourse, is unfolded in the search for truth: from which it follows that the wise man assents to nothing at all;
'for he must err — which is a sin in the wise man — if he assents to uncertain things. And they not only said that all things are uncertain, but affirmed it with the most abundant arguments. But that the truth cannot be comprehended they seemed to have seized upon from that definition of the Stoic Zeno, who says that this can be perceived as true which is so impressed upon the mind from that whence it is, that it could not be from that whence it is not. Which is said more briefly and plainly thus: the truth can be comprehended by these signs which those things cannot have that are false. That this can in no way be found, they laboured most vehemently to prove. Thence the disagreements of the philosophers.'
'Thence the deceptions of the senses; thence dreams and frenzies; thence the liar-paradox and the sorites flourished in defence of that cause. And since they had received from the same Zeno that nothing is baser than to hold mere opinion, they concluded most cunningly that, if nothing can be perceived and opinion is the basest thing, the wise man will never approve anything. Hence great ill-will was stirred up against them; for it seemed to follow that a man who approved nothing would do nothing. Whence the Academics seemed to describe your wise man as ever sleeping and a deserter of all duties, whom they judged to approve of nothing.'
'Here they, introducing a certain 'probable,' which they also named 'truth-like,' asserted that the wise man in no way ceases from his duties, since he has something to follow — while truth, whether because of certain shadows of nature or because of the resemblance of things, lay hidden, either overwhelmed or confused. Yet they said that even this reining-in and, as it were, suspension of assent was in itself a great action of the wise man. I seem to myself to have set forth the whole briefly, as you wished, and to have departed in nothing from your prescription, Alypius — that is, to have acted, as it is said, in good faith. For if I have said anything either not as it is, or perhaps have failed to say it, nothing has been done by me willingly. Good faith, then, is according to the mind's intention.'
'For to a man, a false man ought to seem one to be taught, a deceitful man one to be guarded against; of these, the former requires a good teacher, the latter a cautious pupil.' Then Alypius said: 'I am grateful, since you have both satisfied Licentius and relieved me of the burden laid upon me. For you had no more to fear lest something be said by you too little for the sake of testing me — for how else could it have been done? — than I had, if it had been necessary in anything to betray you. Wherefore, do bring it about that what is lacking — not so much to the inquiry as to the inquirer himself — you may not be loath to expound: I mean, concerning the difference between the New and the Old Academy.' 'I confess outright,' said I, 'that I am loath.'
'Wherefore you will have done me a kindness — for I cannot deny that what you mention pertains most of all to the matter — if, while I take a little rest with myself, you should be willing to distinguish these names and to lay open the cause of the New Academy.' 'I would believe,' said he, 'that I too wished to call you away from lunch, did I not think that just now you were rather frightened off by Licentius, and that his request had prescribed to us that whatever there is of this tangle should be unravelled for him before lunch.' And as he was pressing on to say the rest, our mother — for we were now at home — began to push us in to lunch in such a way that there was no room for making words. Then, after we had taken as much nourishment as was enough to restrain hunger, and had returned to the meadow, Alypius said:
'I shall obey your judgment and shall not dare to refuse. For if nothing escapes me, I shall rejoice both in your learning and in my own memory. But if perchance I stray in anything, you will correct it, so that henceforth I may not dread a commission of this kind. I judge that the schism of the New Academy was stirred up not so much against the Old, as it was conceived, as against the Stoics. Nor indeed is it to be thought a schism, if indeed the new question brought in by Zeno needed to be resolved and thrashed out. For concerning the non-perceiving — though agitated by no conflicts — the opinion, nonetheless dwelling even in the minds of the ancient Academics, was not immodestly held.'
'This is easily proved even by the authority of Socrates himself and of Plato and of the rest of the ancients, who believed that they could thus far be defended from error, if they had not rashly committed themselves to assent — although they did not introduce a proper disputation on this matter into their schools, nor was it ever inquired by them in a thorough way whether truth can be perceived or not. And when Zeno had brought this in as something crude and new, and contended that nothing can be perceived except what is so true that it may be distinguished from the false by dissimilar marks, and that no opinion is to be undertaken by the wise man — and Arcesilas heard this — he denied that anything of this kind could be found by man, and that the wise man's life was to be committed to the shipwreck of opinion.'
'Whence he also concluded that assent is to be given to nothing. But since the matter so stood that the Old Academy seemed rather augmented than assailed, there arose Antiochus, a hearer of Philo, who — as he seemed to some, more desirous of glory than of truth — brought the opinions of both Academies into feud. For he said that the New Academics had attempted to introduce a thing unwonted and most remote from the opinion of the ancients.'
'For this matter he implored the good faith of the ancient natural philosophers and of the other great philosophers, attacking even the Academics themselves — who contended that they followed the truth-like, while confessing that they were ignorant of the truth itself — and he had gathered many arguments, over which I now think we should pass, yet he defended nothing more strongly than that the wise man can perceive. This, I think, was the controversy between the New Academics and the Old. If it is otherwise, I would ask that you fully instruct Licentius on behalf of both parties. But if it is as I have been able to state, carry through the disputation you have undertaken.' Then I said: 'How long, Licentius, will you rest in this discourse of ours, longer than I thought? You have heard who your Academics are?'
But he, smiling shyly and somewhat disturbed by this address, said: 'It grieves me that I so vehemently affirmed, against Trygetius, that the happy life consists in the search for truth. For this question so troubles me that I am almost wretched — I who certainly seem to you, if you bear any humanity, worthy of pity. But why do I, foolish, torment myself? Or why do I shudder, upheld by so good a cause? I shall utterly not yield except to the truth.' 'Do the New Academics please you?' I said. 'Very much,' said he. 'Do they then seem to you to speak truly?' Then he, being now about to assent, made more cautious by Alypius' smile, hesitated a little and then said: 'Repeat your little question.' 'Do the Academics,' I said, 'seem to you to speak truly?'
And again, after he had long been silent, he said: 'Whether it is true, I do not know; nevertheless it is probable. For I see nothing further that I might follow.' 'Do you know, then,' I said, 'that the very word probable is also named by them truth-like?' 'So it seems,' he said. 'Therefore,' I said, 'the opinion of the Academics is truth-like.' 'So it is,' he said. 'I beg you,' I said, 'attend more carefully. If anyone affirmed that your brother was like your father, but did not know your father himself, would he not seem to you insane or foolish?' And here he was long silent; then he said: 'This does not seem absurd to me.' And when I had begun to answer him: 'Wait, I beg you, a little,' he said; and then, smiling: 'Tell me, I pray you, are you now certain of your victory?' Then I said: 'Grant that I am certain;'
'yet you ought not on that account to desert your cause, especially since this disputation has been undertaken among us for the sake of exercising you and provoking you to polish your mind.' 'Have I,' said he, 'either read the Academics, or been trained in the many disciplines with which you come to me equipped?' 'The Academics,' I said, 'neither had those men read by whom this opinion was first defended. But if learning and abundance of disciplines fail you, your natural talent nevertheless ought not to be so feeble that, without any assault made, you should succumb to my very few words and questions. For I have now begun to fear that Alypius may succeed you sooner than I wish — with which adversary I shall not walk about so free of care.'
'Then would that,' said he, 'I might already be conquered, so that at some time I may hear you disputing, and, what is more, may see you — a spectacle than which nothing more happy can be shown to me. For since it has pleased you to pour out these things rather than to pour them away — if indeed you catch with the pen the words bursting from your mouth, and do not let them fall, as they say, to the ground — it will even be permitted us to read them; but somehow, when the very same persons among whom the discourse is struck out are brought before the eyes, a good disputation, if not more usefully, at least more joyfully floods the soul.' 'We are grateful,' I said; 'but these sudden joys of yours have rashly forced you to slip past that opinion by which you said that no spectacle could be shown to you more happy. What, indeed, if you were to see that father of yours' —
'than whom assuredly no one, after so long a thirst, will drink philosophy more ardently — inquiring and disputing about these things together with us, when I shall never think myself more fortunate: what, pray, is it fitting for you to feel and to say?' Here indeed that man wept somewhat, and, when he could speak, stretching out his hand and looking up to heaven, he said: 'And when, O God, shall I see this?' — 'But nothing is to be despaired of concerning you.' Here, when almost all of us had begun to be released from the intensity of the disputation into tears, struggling against me and scarcely collecting myself, I said: 'Come rather, and return to your strength, which — that you might gather it from wheresoever you could, being about to be the patron of the Academy — I had warned you long before.'
'I do not think it is so that, just now, before the trumpet, trembling should seize your limbs, or that, from a desire to behold another's fight, you should so quickly wish yourself to be a captive.' Here Trygetius, when he had sufficiently noted that our faces were now serene, said: 'Why should not this man wish it, so holy a man that God has granted him this before his prayers? Believe already, Licentius; for you who find nothing to answer, and still wish to be conquered, seem to me of little faith.' We smiled. Then Licentius said: 'Speak, O blessed one — not by finding the truth, but at least by not seeking it.' And when, at the gaiety of the young men, we had become more cheerful, I said: 'Attend to the question, and return to the path firmer and stronger, if you can.' 'Behold, here I am,' said he, 'as much as I can be. For what' —
'if that seer of my brother should have learned by report that he is like his father, can he be insane or foolish if he believes it?' 'Can he,' I said, 'at least be called stupid?' 'Not at once,' he said, 'unless he should contend that he knows it. For if he follows as probable what frequent report has bandied about, he can be charged with no rashness.' Then I said: 'Let us for a little consider the matter itself, and set it, as it were, before our eyes. Behold, suppose that man of ours, whom we describe, to be present; your brother arrives from somewhere. There this fellow says: whose son is this boy? It is answered: a certain Romanianus'. But he says: how like his father he is! how not rashly had report brought this to me! Here you or someone else: do you know Romanianus, good man? I do not know him, he says;'
'nevertheless he seems to me like him. Could anyone hold back laughter?' 'By no means,' said he. 'Therefore,' I said, 'you see what follows.' 'I have seen it this long while,' he said; 'but nevertheless I wish to hear the very conclusion from you; for it is fitting that you begin to nourish him whom you have taken captive.' 'Why should I not,' I said, 'conclude? The matter itself cries out that your Academics are to be laughed at in like manner, who say they follow in life the likeness of truth, while they are ignorant of what the truth itself is.' Then Trygetius said: 'The caution of the Academics seems to me far unlike the foolishness of this man whom you have described. For they by reasonings attain what they say is truth-like, whereas that foolish fellow followed report, than whose authority nothing is cheaper.'
'As if, indeed,' I said, 'he were not more foolish if he said: his father I do not at all know, nor have I learned by report how like his father he is; yet nevertheless he seems to me like him.' 'More foolish, certainly,' he said. 'But to what end are these things?' 'Because,' I said, 'such are those who say: the truth indeed we do not know, but this which we see is like that which we do not know.' 'It is probable,' he said, 'that they say.' To whom I: 'How do you mean that? Do you deny that they call it truth-like?' And he: 'I,' said he, 'wished to say this in order to exclude that likeness. For it seemed to me that report had improperly burst into your question, since the Academics do not trust even human eyes, much less report — not indeed a thousand-eyed one, as the poets feign, but with monstrous lights all the same.'
'For who am I, after all, to be a defender of the Academy? Or in this question do you envy my security? Behold, you have Alypius, whose arrival, I pray, may have given us a holiday — whom we may judge you have not vainly dreaded this long while.' Then, silence being made, they both turned their eyes upon Alypius. Then he said: 'I could wish indeed, as far as my strength allows, to aid your side to some extent, were not your omen a terror to me. But this dread, unless hope has deceived me, I shall easily put to flight. For at once it consoles me that the present assailant of the Academics has almost taken up the burden of the vanquished Trygetius; and now that it is probable, by your own confession, that I am the victor.'
'That which I fear more is lest I be unable to avoid both the negligence of a deserted office and the impudence of an usurped one. For I do not believe you have forgotten that the office of judge was assigned to me.' Here Trygetius said: 'That is one thing, and this another; wherefore we beg that you would at some time suffer yourself to be a private man.' 'Let me not refuse,' he said, 'lest, while I desire to avoid impudence or negligence, I fall into the snares of pride, than which vice nothing is more monstrous, should I hold the honour granted me by you longer than you permit. Accordingly I should wish you to expound to me, good accuser of the Academics, your office — that is, in whose defence you attack these men. For I fear lest, in refuting the Academics, you should wish to prove yourself an Academic.' 'Of accusers,' —
'as I suppose,' I said, 'you well know there are two kinds. For if it was said by Cicero most modestly that he was the accuser of Verres in such a way as to be the defender of the Sicilians, it is on that account necessary that he who accuses someone should have another whom he defends.' And he: 'Have you at least anything in which your opinion now stands firmly founded?' 'It is easy,' I said, 'for me especially to answer this question, which is not sudden to me; I have already dealt with this whole thing within myself and long and much turned it over in my mind. Wherefore hear, Alypius, what, as I think, you already know very well: I do not want this disputation to have been undertaken for the sake of disputing. Let it be enough that we have made our preludes with these youths, where philosophy has played, as it were, pleasantly with us.'
'Wherefore let childish little tales be taken from our hands. The matter concerns our life, our morals, our soul, which presumes that it will overcome the enmities of all deceptions, and, having grasped the truth, as if returning into the region of its own origin, will triumph over the lusts, and thus, having received temperance as a spouse, will reign — destined to return more secure into heaven. You see what I say. Let us now take from our midst all those arms that are to be wielded by a fierce man; nor have I ever wished anything less than that, among those who have lived much together and conversed much, something should arise from which, as it were, a new conflict might spring up.'
'But on account of memory, which is a faithless keeper of things devised, I wished to have set down in writing what we have often discussed among ourselves — at the same time, so that these young men might both learn to attend to these matters, and might attempt to approach and undertake them. Do you not then know that I hold nothing certain as yet as to what I should think, but am hindered from inquiring into it by the arguments and disputations of the Academics? For somehow they wrought in my mind a certain probability — that I may not yet withdraw from their own word — that a man cannot find the truth; whence I had become sluggish and utterly slothful, and dared not inquire into what it was not granted to the keenest and most learned men to find.'
'Unless, then, I first persuade myself that the truth can be found, as fully as they persuaded themselves that it cannot, I shall not dare to inquire, nor have I anything to defend. So remove that interrogation, if you please; rather let us discuss between ourselves, as sagaciously as we can, whether indeed the truth can be found. And on my side I seem to myself to have already many things by which I strive to press against the reasoning of the Academics; between whom and myself just now there is for the moment no difference, except that to them it seemed probable that the truth cannot be found, whereas to me it is probable that it can be found. For ignorance of the truth is either peculiar to me — if they were only feigning — or at least common to us both.' Then Alypius said: 'Now I shall advance free of care;'
'for I see that you will be not so much an accuser as a helper. And so, that we may not stray too far, let us first, I pray, see to it that through this question — in which I seem to have succeeded with those who yielded to you — we do not fall into a controversy about a word, which, at your own prompting and on the authority of that famous saying of Cicero, we have often confessed to be most base. For when — if I am not mistaken — Licentius said that the opinion about probability of the Academics pleased him, you added, and he without doubt confirmed it, whether he knew that this was also named by them truth-likeness. And I well know, if indeed I have learned these things from you, that the tenets of the Academics are not apart from you. Since these, as I said, are fixed in your mind, I do not know why you pursue words.'
'This is not,' I said, 'believe me, a great controversy of words, but of the things themselves. For I do not think those men were such as not to know how to impose names on things; rather, these terms seem to me to have been chosen by them both to hide their meaning from the duller and to signify it to the more vigilant. And why and how this seems so to me, I shall expound, when I have first thrashed out those things which men think were said by them as if they were enemies of human knowledge. And so I hold it a very great pleasure that our discourse has thus far advanced today, so that it is sufficiently and openly established what is being inquired between us. For those men seem to me to have been altogether serious and prudent men.'
But if there is anything that we shall now dispute, it will be against those who have believed that the Academics were opposed to the discovery of truth. And that you may not think me alarmed, I shall not unwillingly arm myself even against those very men, if it was not for the sake of concealing their own opinion — lest certain sacred things of truth should be rashly betrayed to them, men of polluted and, as it were, profane minds — but rather that they defended from the heart those doctrines which we read in their books. This I would do today, were not the setting of the sun already compelling us to return home. — Thus far the discussion went on that day. But on the next day, although a day no less mild and calm had dawned, we scarcely disentangled ourselves from domestic affairs.
For we had spent a great part of it especially in the writing of letters, and when scarcely two hours were now left, we went out to the meadow; for the exceeding serenity of the sky invited us, and it seemed good that we should not allow even the little time that remained to be lost. And so, when we had come to the usual tree and had settled in the place, I said: I should like you, young men, since today no great matter is to be undertaken, to recall to my memory how Alypius answered yesterday that little question which so disturbed you. — Here Licentius said: It is so brief that there is no trouble in remembering it; but how trifling it is, you shall see. For, as I think, he forbade you, when the fact was agreed, to raise a question about words. — And I said:
Have you sufficiently observed this very thing — what it is and what force it has? — I seem, he said, to see what it is; but I beg you to explain it a little. For I have often heard from you that it is shameful for disputants to linger over a question of words, when no contest about the matters themselves remains. But this is too subtle a thing for its explanation to be demanded of me. Hear then, I said, what it is, you all. That which we can be invited to act upon without assent, the Academics call probable or truth-like. And I say 'without assent' in this sense: that what we do we do not suppose to be true, nor do we judge that we know it, and yet we do it:
as, for example, if someone were to ask us whether, after so clear and pure a night as last night's, the sun would today rise as bright. I believe we should deny that we know this, and yet should say that it so appears. — Such things, said the Academic, seem to me all those which I have thought ought to be named probable or truth-like; and if you wish to call them by another name, I do not fight about it. For it is enough for me that you have now well grasped what I mean — that is, upon what things I impose these names. For it befits the wise man to be not a fashioner of words, but an investigator of things. Have you sufficiently understood how those playthings, with which I was harassing you, have been struck from my hands? — Here, when both replied that they had understood, and by their very look demanded my answer:
What do you think, I said — of Cicero, whose words these are — that he was so poor in the Latin tongue as to impose on things names less fitting to what he perceived? Then Trygetius: Now, he said, it pleases us, since the matter is known, to stir up no cavils about words. Therefore consider rather what you may answer to this man who has freed us, upon whom, being driven on, you try once more to rush. — And Licentius: Wait, he said, I beg; for something or other gleams faintly upon me, whereby I see that so great an argument ought not to have been so easily wrested from you. And when he had sat silent for a while, fixed in thought: I ask, he said — nothing seems more absurd than to say that a man follows the truth-like who is ignorant of what the truth is; nor does that comparison of yours disturb me.
For when I am rightly asked whether, from this present temperateness of the sky, no rain is being gathered for the morrow, I answer that it is truth-like; and I do not deny that I know something true. For I know that this tree cannot presently be turned to silver, and I say — not impudently — that I truly know many such things, of which I see those to be similar which I call truth-like. But you, Carneades — or whatever other Greek pestilence, to spare our own men (for why should I hesitate to cross over to this side, to him to whom I am owed as captive by right of victory?) — you, then, since you say you know nothing true, whence do you follow this truth-like? But indeed, he could not impose another name on it. Why then must we dispute with one who cannot even speak? I, said Alypius, shall not fear deserters;
how much less that Carneades, against whom, moved by I know not what youthful or childish levity, you thought that curses rather than any weapon should be hurled. For to him indeed, for the strengthening of his opinion — which was always founded only so far as the probable — this will meanwhile easily suffice against you: namely, that we are placed far from the discovery of truth, so that you yourself can be a great proof of it to yourself, you who were so moved from your ground by one little question that you were utterly ignorant where you ought to stand. But let us defer these things, and that knowledge of yours which you confessed a little while ago was impressed upon you concerning this tree, to another time. For although you have already chosen another side, still you must be diligently taught what I said a little before. We had not yet, as I think,
advanced into that question in which it is asked whether truth can be found; but I thought only that other point should be laid down in the very vestibule of my defense — the point at which I had seen you weary and prostrate — namely, that we need not inquire whether it should be called truth-like, or probable, or by some other name, which the Academics say suffices them. For if you now seem to yourself the best finder of truth, it is nothing to me. Afterward, if you are not ungrateful for this patronage of mine, you will perhaps teach me the same things. Here, when Licentius, out of modesty, dreaded Alypius' onset, I said: You have preferred, Alypius, to say anything rather than how we are to dispute with these men who know not how to speak. — And he:
Since it has long been known both to me and to all, and now by your own profession you sufficiently indicate that you are skilled in speaking, I should like you to unfold, first, the usefulness of this inquiry of his. Which either is superfluous, as I think — and to answer it is far more superfluous still — or, if it shall have seemed advantageous, and cannot be unfolded by me, I would obtain from you by entreaty that you not be reluctant to fulfill the office of a teacher. — You remember, I said, that yesterday I promised I would treat afterward of those terms. And now yonder sun warns me that I should gather back into their boxes the playthings I set before the boys, especially since I now set them out rather for adorning than for selling.
Now, before the darkness — which is wont to be the patroness of the Academics — seizes our pen, I wish it to stand most fully established among us today, to what question we must rise in the morning to unfold. So answer, I pray: does it seem to you that the Academics held a fixed opinion about truth and were unwilling rashly to betray it to minds unknown to them or unpurified; or did they truly think as their disputations hold themselves out to be? Then he: What their intention was, he said, I shall not rashly affirm. For as far as can be gathered from their books, you know better in what words they are wont to bring forth their opinion; but if you consult me about myself, I think the truth has not yet been found.
I add also — what you were demanding concerning the Academics — that I think it cannot be found; and this not only by that opinion of mine, ingrained, as you have almost always noticed, but also by the authority of great and more excellent philosophers, to whom, whether it be our weakness or their sagacity, we offer our necks; for beyond them it must, somehow, be believed that nothing further can now be found. — This, I said, is what I wished. For I feared that, since to you too it seemed as it does to me, our disputation might remain crippled, there being no one to compel the matter from the other side to come to grips, so that it might be diligently handled as much as we are able.
And so, if that had happened, I was prepared to ask you to take up the Academics' part in such a way that they should seem to you not only to have disputed but also to have held the view that the truth cannot be comprehended. It is asked, then, between us whether, by their arguments, it is probable that nothing can be perceived and that assent should be given to no thing. If you make this good, I shall yield gladly; but if I can demonstrate that it is far more probable both that the wise man can arrive at truth and that assent is not always to be withheld, you will have, I think, no reason not to allow yourself to cross over to my opinion. — And when this had pleased him and those who were present, now overshadowed by the evening, we returned home. BOOK THREE.
When, after that discourse which the second book contains, we had on another day sat down in the baths — for the day was too gloomy for it to be pleasant to go down to the meadow — I began thus: I judge that you have now sufficiently noticed on what matter the question to be discussed among us has been set. But before I come to my part, which pertains to unfolding it, I pray you willingly to hear a few things — not foreign to the matter — concerning our hope, our life, and our purpose. I judge our business to be not slight or superfluous, but necessary and supreme: to seek truth with great effort. On this it is agreed between me and Alypius.
For both the other philosophers thought that their wise man had found it, and the Academics professed that it must be sought by their wise man with the utmost endeavor, and that he pursues this diligently; but since it either lay buried and hidden or, being confused, did not stand out, he follows, for the conduct of life, that which occurs to him as probable and truth-like. This too was settled by your earlier debate. For when one of you asserted that a man is made blessed by the truth found, and the other only by the truth diligently sought, there is no doubt to any of us that nothing is to be preferred by us to this business. Wherefore how, I pray, do we seem to you to have passed yesterday? To you indeed it was permitted to live amid your studies.
For both you, Trygetius, delighted yourself with the songs of Virgil, and Licentius gave himself leisure for composing verses, with love of which he has been so smitten that on his account chiefly I thought this discourse must be brought in — a discourse whereby philosophy (for now is the time) may claim and vindicate to itself in his soul the greater part, not only more than poetry, but than any other discipline whatever. But I pray you, did you not pity us, when the day before we had gone to bed in such a way that we should rise only for the deferred question and for utterly nothing else — because such great domestic affairs, necessarily to be dispatched, arose that, wholly taken up with these, we could scarcely breathe upon our own selves in the last two hours of the day? Wherefore it has always been my opinion that the man already wise has need of nothing;
but that, in order to become wise, fortune is most necessary — unless Alypius thinks otherwise. Then he: How much right you assign to fortune, he said, I do not yet well know. For if you judge that, in order to despise fortune, fortune itself is needed, I too give myself to you as companion in this opinion. But if you grant to fortune nothing other than those things which cannot be supplied to the body's need except by fortune's own consent, I do not think so. For either it is permitted to one not yet wise, though desirous of wisdom — even with fortune reluctant and unwilling — to take up those things which we confess necessary to life; or it must be granted that fortune dominates even in the whole life of the wise man, since even the wise man himself cannot be free from need of those things necessary to the body.
You say, then, I said, that fortune is necessary to the one zealous for wisdom, but you deny it of the wise man. — It is not amiss to repeat the same things, he said. And so now I too ask you: do you reckon that fortune helps at all toward despising fortune itself? For if you think so, I say that the one desirous of wisdom greatly needs fortune. — I think so, I said, if indeed through it he will become such as can despise it. Nor is this absurd; for so also, when we are little, the breasts are necessary to us, whereby it is brought about that afterward we can live and be strong without them.
— Our opinions, he said, if the mind's conception is not discordant, plainly agree, as it appears to me — unless perhaps it seems to anyone that it must be argued that it is not the breasts themselves or fortune, whether of fortune or of the breasts, but some other thing that makes us their despisers. — It is no great thing, I said, to use another similar comparison.
For just as no one crosses the Aegean Sea without a ship or any vehicle whatever, or altogether — that I need not even fear Daedalus himself — without any instruments fitted for this thing or some more hidden power, although he proposes nothing else than to arrive (and when this has befallen him, he is ready to cast off and despise all those things by which he was conveyed): so whoever wishes to arrive at the harbor of wisdom, and as it were at its most firm and most quiet ground — since (to omit other things) if he be blind and deaf he cannot, which lies within the power of fortune — to him fortune seems to me necessary for that which he has desired.
And when he has obtained this, although he may be thought to need certain things pertaining to the body's health, yet this stands firm: that he has need of these not in order to be wise, but in order to live among men. — Nay, said he, if he be blind and deaf, both the wisdom to be attained and the very life for whose sake wisdom is sought, in my opinion he will rightly despise. — Yet, I said, since our very life, while we live here, is in the power of fortune, and no one can become wise except while living, must it not be confessed that there is need of its favor, whereby we may be carried through to wisdom? — But since wisdom, said he, is necessary to none but the living, and, life removed, there is no need of wisdom, I fear fortune in nothing as to the prolonging of life.
For indeed, because I live, therefore I want wisdom; not because I desire wisdom do I want life. Whence, if fortune shall have taken away my life, it will take away the cause of seeking wisdom. I have therefore no reason why, in order to become wise, I should either wish the favor of fortune or dread its impediments — unless perhaps you bring forward something else. — Then I: Do you not then judge that the one zealous for wisdom can be hindered by fortune from arriving at wisdom, even if it does not take away his life from him? — I do not think so, he said. — I wish, I said, that you would open up to me a little what seems to you to differ between the wise man and the philosopher. — I think the wise man differs from the zealous seeker in nothing, he said, except that of those things of which a certain settled possession is present in the wise man, there is in the seeker only an ardor.
— What then, pray, are these things? I said. For to me nothing else seems to be the difference, except that the one knows wisdom, the other desires to know it. — If you determine knowledge, he said, by a modest limit, you have expressed the thing itself more plainly. — In whatever way, I said, I may determine it, this has pleased all: that there cannot be knowledge of false things. — On this, said he, a caveat seemed to me to be interposed, lest by my unconsidered agreement your speech should easily go galloping into the fields of that principal question. — Plainly, I said, you have left me nothing where I might gallop. For, unless I am mistaken, we have arrived at the very end which I have long been laboring for.
For if, as you have subtly and truly said, there is no difference between the one zealous for wisdom and the wise man, except that the one loves and the other possesses the discipline of wisdom — whence also you did not hesitate to express the very name, that is, a certain settled possession (habitus) — and no one can possess a discipline in his mind who has learned nothing, and no one has learned anything who knows nothing, and no one can know a false thing: therefore the wise man knows the truth, he whom you yourself have already confessed to possess in his mind the discipline of wisdom, that is, the settled possession of it. — I know not, said he, of what impudence I should be, if I should wish to deny that I confessed that there is in the wise man a settled possession of the investigation of things divine and human. But how it should seem to you not to be a settled possession of probable findings, I do not see.
— Do you grant me, I said, that no one knows false things? — Easily indeed, he said. — Now say, if you can, I said, that the wise man does not know wisdom. — What then? he said; do you enclose all things by this boundary, so that it cannot seem to him that he has comprehended wisdom? — Give me your right hand, I said. For, if you remember, this is what I said yesterday I would bring about — which now I rejoice has been not concluded by me but offered to me freely by you. For when I had said that this is the difference between me and the Academics — that to them it seemed probable that truth cannot be comprehended, but to me it seems that, though not yet found by me, it can nevertheless be found by the wise man — now, when you were being pressed by my question, whether the wise man does not know wisdom, you said 'he seems to himself to know it.'
— What then afterward? he said. — Because, I said, if he seems to himself to know wisdom, it does not seem to him that the wise man can know nothing; or, if wisdom is nothing, I wish you to affirm it. — I should truly believe, he said, that we had come to the finishing-line and to the goal, but suddenly, when you interposed the joining of right hands, I see that we are most disjoined and have advanced into a long distance apart — namely because yesterday no other question seemed to have been set up by us, except that, while you affirmed that the wise man can arrive at the comprehension of truth, I had denied it; but now I think I have conceded to you nothing more than that it can seem to the wise man that he has attained a wisdom of probable things;
which wisdom, however, I think none of us doubts that he set up as consisting in the investigation of things divine and human. — Not, I said, because you wrap yourself up, are you thereby unwrapped; for you now seem to me to be disputing for the sake of exercising yourself, and, because you well know that these young men can as yet scarcely discern what things are argued acutely and subtly, you abuse the ignorance of the judges, as it were, so that it may be permitted you to talk as much as you please, with no one crying out against you. For a little while ago you said, when I asked whether the wise man knows wisdom, that he seems to himself to know it. To whom, then, it seems that the wise man knows wisdom, to him it certainly does not seem that the wise man knows nothing. For this cannot be maintained, unless someone should dare to say that wisdom is nothing.
From which it comes about that this seems to you which also seems to me; for it seems to me that the wise man knows something, and to you also, I think, to whom it is pleasing that it seems to the wise man that the wise man knows wisdom. — Then he: I no more think that you wish to exercise your talent than I do, and I marvel at it; for you have no need in this matter of any exercise. For to me, still perhaps blind, there seems to be a difference between seeming to oneself to know and knowing, and between wisdom, which is placed in investigation, and truth. Since either of these is said by us, how they square with one another I do not find. — Then I, when we were now being called to lunch: It does not displease me, I said, that you resist so much;
for either both of us know not what we are saying — and effort must be given lest we be so base — or one of us does, which likewise to leave aside and neglect is no less base. But in the afternoon hours we shall return to one another. For when it seemed to me that we had now arrived at the finishing-line, you even mixed in fists. — Here, when they had smiled, we departed. And when we had returned, we found Licentius — to whom Helicon had never come to the aid when he thirsted — gaping after verses to be devised. For from almost the middle of lunch — although the same was the beginning of our lunch as its end — he had risen secretly and had drunk nothing. To him I said:
I wish indeed for you, I said, that you may someday embrace that poetics which you have coveted — not because that perfection greatly delights me, but because I see that you have so blazed up that, unless by satiety, you cannot escape from this love, which is wont easily to happen after perfection. Then, since you are well-tuned of voice, I should prefer that you drum your own verses into our ears, rather than that, in those Greek tragedies, after the manner of the little birds which we see shut up in cages, you sing words that you do not understand.
Yet I admonish you to go on to drink, if you will, and to return to our school, if indeed Hortensius and philosophy still deserve anything of you — to whom, by that discourse of yours, you have already offered up the sweetest firstfruits, which had inflamed you more vehemently than that poetics of yours toward the knowledge of great and truly fruitful things. But while I desire to recall you to the circle of those disciplines by which minds are cultivated, I fear lest it become a labyrinth to you, and I am almost sorry to have checked you from that impulse. — He blushed and departed, to drink. For he both thirsted much, and an occasion was given of avoiding me, who was perhaps about to say more and harsher things. And when he had returned, with all attentive, I began thus:
Is it so, Alypius, that between us there is no agreement about a matter now, as it seems to me, most manifest? — It is no wonder, he said, if what you assert to be ready-at-hand should be obscure to me, since indeed very many manifest things can be more manifest to others, and likewise certain obscure things more obscure to some. For if this is truly manifest to you, believe me there is some other person to whom this manifest thing of yours is even more manifest, and likewise another to whom my obscure thing is more obscure. But lest you think me too pugnacious any longer, I would beseech you to expound this manifest thing more manifestly. — Attend, I pray, diligently, I said, and, laying aside for a little while the care of answering.
For if I know both myself and you well, what I say will easily become clear, effort being applied, and the one will quickly persuade the other. Did you say, then — or had I perhaps grown deaf — that it seems to the wise man that he knows wisdom? — He nodded. — Let us leave aside for a little, I said, that wise man. Are you yourself wise, or not? — Nothing less, he said. — Yet I wish, I said, that you would answer me what you yourself feel about the Academic wise man: does it seem to you that he knows wisdom? — Whether it seems to him that he knows, he said, or whether he knows — do you think this one and the same or diverse? For I fear lest this confusion furnish a refuge to some one of us. — This, I said, is that Tuscan wrangling, as it is wont to be called, when to a question not attempted, not its solution but the raising of another seems to bring remedy.
which even our poet — that I may give myself a little to Licentius' ears — fittingly judged, in his Bucolic song, to be a rustic and plainly shepherd-like thing, when one asks the other where the space of heaven lies open no wider than three ells, and the other, in what lands are born flowers inscribed with the names of kings. And this, I pray, Alypius, do not think permissible for us in a country villa. Surely even these little baths may make some recollection of the ornament of the gymnasia; to this, if you please, to what I ask, answer: does the wise man of the Academics seem to you to know wisdom? — Lest by referring words to words we go on at length, he said, it seems that it seems to him that he knows. — Does it seem to you, then, I said, that he does not know?
For I do not ask what seems to you to seem to the wise man, but whether it seems to you that the wise man knows wisdom. You can, I think, here either affirm or deny. — Oh, would, he said, that it were either as easy for me as for you, or as hard for you as for me — then you would neither be so troublesome, nor would you hope for anything in these matters. For when you asked me what seems to me concerning the Academic wise man, I answered that it seems to me that it seems to him that he knows wisdom, lest either I should rashly affirm that I know, or should say, no less rashly, that he knows.
— As a great favor, I said, I beseech you to grant me: first, that you deign to answer to what I ask, not to what you yourself ask; next, that you now lay aside for a little my hope, which I know is no less a care to you than your own — surely, if I deceive you by this question, I shall quickly cross over to your side and end the controversy — finally, that, dispelling I know not what anxiety by which I see you touched, you attend more diligently, so that you may easily understand what I wish answered to me by you. For you said that therefore you neither affirm nor deny — which surely must be done as to what I ask — lest you rashly say you know what you do not know; as though indeed I had asked what you know, and not what seems to you.
And so now I ask the same thing more plainly — if indeed it can be said more plainly: does it seem to you that the wise man knows wisdom, or does it not seem so? — If a wise man can be found, he said, such as reason discloses, it can seem to me that he knows wisdom. — Reason, then, I said, discloses to you that the wise man is such as does not ignore wisdom; and rightly so, for it could not befit you to seem otherwise. I ask therefore now whether a wise man can be found. For if he can, he can also know wisdom, and the whole question between us is dissolved. But if you say he cannot, then it will no longer be asked whether the wise man knows anything, but whether anyone can be wise.
When this is established, we shall now have to withdraw from the Academics, and this question must be handled with you diligently and cautiously, as far as we are able. For to them it was pleasing — or rather, it seemed — both that a man can be wise, and yet that knowledge cannot fall into a man (wherefore they affirmed that the wise man knows nothing); but to you it seems that he knows wisdom, which is surely not to know nothing. For it was at the same time agreed between us — as also among all the ancients and among the Academics themselves — that no one can know false things;
whence this now remains: that either you contend that wisdom is nothing, or you confess that such a wise man is described by the Academics as reason does not admit; and, these things being dismissed, you consent that we inquire whether such wisdom can come to a man as reason discloses. For we ought not, nor can we, rightly call anything else wisdom. — Even if I should grant, he said, what I see you greatly striving for — that wisdom is known by the wise man, and that something has been apprehended between us which the wise man can perceive — nevertheless the whole intention of the Academics by no means occurs to me as overthrown.
For I foresee that no small place of defense is reserved for them, and that that suspension of assent has not been cut off, since here they cannot fail their own cause on the very point on which you think them convicted. For they will say that to such a degree is nothing comprehended and assent to be given to no thing, that even this — about nothing being perceived, which they had for almost their whole life probably persuaded themselves of up to your time — has now been wrested from them by this very conclusion; so that, whether then the force of this argument prevails through the slowness of my talent, or whether in very truth it is unconquered by its own strength, it cannot move them from their ground, since they are still able boldly to affirm that not even now is assent to be given to any thing.
For perhaps someday, against this too, something can be found — either by themselves or by anyone — that is said acutely and probably; and one ought to observe their image and, as it were, a kind of mirror in that Proteus, who is reported to be wont to be caught by that whereby he was least caught, and whose investigators never held the same one except by the indication of some divine power. May it be present, and deign to demonstrate to us that truth which is our sole care! Then I too, even against their will — which I by no means suppose — shall confess that they have been overcome. — It is well, I said; truly I have wished nothing further. For see, I pray, how many and how great goods have come to me.
The first point is this: the Academics are said to have been so thoroughly refuted that nothing remains to them for their defense except what cannot possibly be. For who could in any way understand or believe that a man who has been beaten should, by the very fact by which he was beaten, boast himself the victor? Next, if any ground of dispute still remains with them, it does not arise from their saying that nothing can be known, but from their contending that assent must be given to nothing. Now, therefore, we are in agreement. For to me, as also to them, it seems that the wise man knows wisdom. Yet they warn that one must nonetheless refrain from assent. For they say that things only seem so to them, but that they know nothing at all — as if I were professing that I know. I too say that this same thing seems so to me;
for I am foolish, just as they too are, if they do not know wisdom. But I think we ought to approve something — namely, the truth. Concerning this I ask them whether they deny it — that is, whether it pleases them that assent should not be given to the truth. They will never say this, but will maintain that it cannot be found. Therefore even here they hold me as their ally in some measure, since it displeases neither party — indeed, of necessity it pleases both — that we must consent to the truth. 'But who will point it out?' they say. Here I will not trouble to contend with them; it is enough for me that it is now no longer probable that the wise man knows nothing, lest they be forced to say the most absurd thing of all: either that there is no such thing as wisdom, or that the wise man does not know wisdom.
But as to who can display the truth — this was spoken by you, Alypius, and I must strive greatly not to dissent from it. For you said that only some divine power can show a man what is true — briefly, yet also piously. And so in this discourse of ours I heard nothing more gladly, nothing weightier, nothing more probable; and if that divine power, as I trust, is present, nothing truer. For that famous Proteus too — with what loftiness of mind was he recalled by you, with what earnestness toward the noblest kind of philosophy! — that Proteus, I say, that you young men might see that the poets are not to be utterly despised as apart from philosophy, is brought forward as an image of truth;
Proteus, I say, in the poems displays and sustains the person of truth, which no one can grasp and hold if, deceived by false images, he loosens or lets slip the knots of comprehension. For these are the very images that, through the habit of corporeal things, by means of those senses which we use for the necessities of this life, contrive to deceive and mock us even when the truth is held and, as it were, grasped in our hands. This, then, is the third good that has befallen me, and I do not find at what price I should value it.
For my most intimate friend agrees with me not only concerning the probability of human life but also concerning religion itself — which is the clearest sign of a true friend, if indeed friendship has been most rightly and most holily defined as agreement, with goodwill and charity, upon things human and divine. Nevertheless, lest either the arguments of the Academics should seem to spread some sort of mist, or lest we should seem arrogantly to resist the authority of most learned men — among whom especially Cicero cannot fail to move us — if it please you, I shall first say a few things against those by whom those disputations seem to be set against the truth, and then, as it seems to me, I shall show what cause the Academics had for concealing their own opinion.
And so, Alypius, although I see you wholly on my side, nevertheless take up the case for them a little and answer me. — 'Since today,' he said, 'you have set out, as they say, under good auspices, I will not hinder your fullest victory, and I will now more securely attempt to take up those parts which are imposed on me by you — provided, however, that this which you signify you will do by questioning, you would rather, if it is convenient to you, turn into a continuous oration, lest, truly like an obstinate adversary — which is very far from your kindness — I, already your captive, be tormented by those tiny darts.' And I, when I noticed that they too were expecting this, as though entering upon another opening, said:
'I will comply with you,' I said; 'and although after that labor of the rhetorical school I had presumed that in this light armor I would rest somewhat — so as to conduct these matters by questioning rather than by speaking — nevertheless, both because we are very few, so that I need not raise my voice against my health, and because I wished this pen, for the sake of that same well-being, to be as it were the charioteer and moderator of my discourse, lest I be swept along by my mind more violently than care for the body demands, hear in continuous oration, as you wish, what I think. But first let us consider of what sort that is from which the lovers of the Academics are wont to boast too much.'
For there is in the books of Cicero, which he wrote in patronage of this cause, a certain passage — seasoned, as it seems to me, with wondrous wit, but, as to some, even fortified with force. It is altogether difficult that it should not move anyone, what is there said: that to the Academic wise man second place is granted by all of the other sects who think themselves wise, since each must necessarily claim first place for himself. From which it can be probably concluded that he is by his own judgment rightly first who is second in the judgment of all the rest. For let there be present, for the sake of argument, a Stoic wise man; for it was against them chiefly that the genius of the Academics blazed forth.
Therefore, if Zeno or Chrysippus be asked who is the wise man, he will answer that it is the one whom he himself has described. On the contrary, Epicurus or some other of the adversaries will deny it, and will contend rather that his own most expert fowler of pleasures is the wise man. Thence to the quarrel. Zeno shouts and that whole Porch is in an uproar, that man is born for nothing other than honorableness; that this by its own splendor draws minds to itself, with no advantage whatever placed on the outside and no pandering wage, as it were; and that that pleasure of Epicurus is shared among beasts alone, into whose society it is impious to thrust both man and the wise man.
On the other side, that one — having summoned to his aid from his little gardens a crowd of drunkards, as though a band of Bacchus, yet seeking someone whom, raving with unkempt nails and rough mouth, they might tear to pieces — presses on fiercely, exalting, with the people as witness, the name of pleasure, its sweetness, its repose, so that without these no one seems able to be happy. If the Academic runs into their brawl, he will hear both sides dragging him to their own parts; but if he goes over to these or to those, by those whom he deserts he will be cried out as mad, ignorant, and rash. And so, when he has diligently applied his ear this way and that, being asked what seems to him, he will say that he doubts. Now ask the Stoic which is the better man:
Epicurus, who cries out that he is raving, or the Academic, who declares that on so great a matter he must still deliberate? No one doubts that the Academic will be preferred. Again, turn to that one and ask whom he loves more: Zeno, by whom he is called a beast, or Arcesilas, from whom he hears: 'You perhaps speak the truth, but I will inquire more diligently.' Is it not plain that that whole Porch seems mad to Epicurus, but the Academics, in comparison with them, seem modest and cautious men?
Thus, quite evenly, concerning almost all the sects, Cicero most abundantly offers, as it were, a most delightful spectacle to his readers, showing as it were that there is none of them who, when he has given first place to himself — which is necessary — does not say that he gives second place to the one whom he has beheld not fighting back but doubting. In this I will offer no opposition, nor will I take away from them any glory. Let it indeed seem to whomever one pleases that this Cicero was not jesting, but wished to pursue and gather certain empty and windy things — which would be repugnant to the very frivolity of those little Greeks. For what hinders me, if I should wish to resist this vanity, from easily showing how much less an evil it is to be unlearned than to be unteachable?
Whence it comes about that, when that boastful little Academic has given himself as a disciple, as it were, to each one, and no one has been able to persuade him of what he thinks he knows, he is afterwards laughed at by the great consensus of them. For now each will judge that any other of his adversaries has learned nothing, but that this one can learn nothing. From which, thereupon, he will be thrown out from the schools of all — not with rods, which would be more disgraceful than troublesome, but with the keys and cudgels of those cloaked men. For it will be no great business, against the common pest, to demand, as it were, certain Herculean aids from the Cynics.
But if it should please us to contend with these for that most worthless glory — which must be granted with easier pardon to me who am already indeed philosophizing but not yet wise — what will they have that they can refute? For behold, let us suppose that I and an Academic have rushed into those quarrels of the philosophers; let all be present without exception, let them briefly set forth their opinions as time permits. Let inquiry be made of Carneades what he thinks. He will say that he doubts. And so each will prefer him to the rest — therefore all to all — a great and truly lofty glory, no doubt. Who would not wish to imitate him? And so I too, when asked, will answer the same; the praise will be equal. In that glory, then, the wise man rejoices, in which the fool is made his equal. What if he even easily surpasses him? Does shame accomplish nothing?
For I will hold that Academic as he is already withdrawing from the judgment; for folly is greedier of this kind of victory. Therefore, holding him back, I will betray to the judges what they do not know, and I will say: I, most excellent men, have this in common with him — that he doubts which of you follows the truth. But we have also our own opinions, on which I ask you to judge. For it is indeed uncertain to me, although I have heard your decrees, where the truth is — but for this reason: that I do not know who among us is the wise man. This man, however, denies that even the wise man himself knows anything — not even that very wisdom from which he is called wise. Who would not see whose the palm is? For if my adversary shall say this, I shall conquer in glory;
but if, blushing, he shall confess that the wise man knows wisdom, I shall conquer in judgment. But let us now withdraw from this litigious tribunal into some place where no crowd may trouble us — and would that it were into the very school of Plato, which is said to have received its name from this, that it was set apart from the people. Here let us now discourse, not about glory, which is a light and childish thing, but about life itself and about some hope of a blessed soul, as far as we can among ourselves. The Academics deny that anything can be known. Whence did this please you, most zealous and most learned men? 'The definition of Zeno,' they say, 'admonished us.' Why, I pray? For if it is true, he who knows even it knows something of the truth; but if false, it ought not to have moved men so constant.
But let us see what Zeno says: namely, that such an appearance can be comprehended and perceived as, when it is from a real thing, would not have signs in common with the false. Did this move you, O Platonic man, so that with all your strength you drew the studious back from the hope of learning, so that they should desert the whole business of philosophizing — with even a certain groaning torpor of mind aiding it? But how would it not move him, if both nothing such can be found and, unless it is such, it cannot be perceived? If this is so, it ought rather to have been said that wisdom cannot befall a man, than that the wise man does not know why he lives, does not know how he lives, does not know whether he lives, and finally — than which nothing can be called more perverse and more mad and insane — that he is at once both wise and ignorant of wisdom.
For which is harder to accept: that a man cannot be wise, or that the wise man does not know wisdom? Nothing is to be disputed on this point if the matter itself is not so posited as to be capable of judgment. But if perchance that were said, men would be utterly turned away from philosophizing; whereas now they must be enticed by the sweetest and holiest name of wisdom, so that, when they have learned nothing through a worn-out lifetime, they may afterwards pursue you with the direst curses — you whom, having at least left behind the pleasures of the body, they followed to the torments of the soul. But let us see through whom they are rather to be deterred from philosophy: through the one who has said, 'Hear, friend: philosophy is called not wisdom itself, but the study of wisdom;
and to which if you betake yourself, you will not indeed be wise while you live here — for wisdom is with God and cannot come to man — but when you have sufficiently exercised and cleansed yourself in such a study, your soul, after this life, that is, when you have ceased to be a man, will easily enjoy it to the full' — or through the one who has said: 'Come, mortals, to philosophy! Great is the fruit here; for what is dearer to a man than wisdom? Come, therefore, that you may be wise and yet not know wisdom!' 'It will not,' he says, 'be so put by me.' This is to deceive; for nothing else will be found in your case. And so it comes about that, if you say this, they flee as from a madman; if by some other means you lead them to it, you make them mad.
But let us grant that, on account of either opinion, men equally do not wish to philosophize. If Zeno's definition compelled him to say something pernicious to philosophy — my good man, was that to be said to a man from which he would grieve, or that from which he would deride you? Nevertheless, let us examine, so far as we fools can, what Zeno defined. He says that appearance can be comprehended which so appears that it could not appear false. It is manifest that nothing else comes into perception. 'This I too,' says Arcesilas, 'see, and by this very thing I teach that nothing is perceived. For no such thing can be found.' Perhaps by you and by other fools; but why can it not be found by the wise man?
Although I think that nothing can be answered even to the fool, if he should say to you: refute, with that memorable acumen of yours, this very definition of Zeno, and show that even the false can be comprehended; but if you cannot, then this very thing which you might perceive, you have. But if you refute it, you do not have that whereby you might be hindered from perceiving. I do not see that it can be refuted, and I judge it altogether most true. And so, when I know it, although I am a fool, I know something. But grant that it yields to your cunning. I will use a most secure dilemma. For it is either true or false. If true, I hold it well; if false, something can be perceived, even though it have signs in common with the false. 'Whence,' he says, 'can it?'
Most truly, therefore, did Zeno define, nor did anyone who agreed with him even in this err. Or shall we think it a definition of small praise and sincerity, which, against those who were going to say many things against perception, when it designated of what sort was that which could be perceived, showed that it itself was of that very sort? Thus of comprehensible things there is both a definition and an example. 'Whether,' he says, 'that very definition is itself true, I do not know; but because it is probable, therefore, following it, I show that there is nothing of that sort which it expressed could be comprehended.' You show, perhaps, besides it itself, and you see, I think, what follows. But if we are uncertain even of it, knowledge does not thus desert us. For we know that it is either true or false; therefore we do not know nothing.
Although it will never bring it about that I am ungrateful — I altogether judge that definition most true. For either even false things can be perceived, which the Academics fear too vehemently and which is truly absurd; or else not even those things can be perceived which are most like the false — whence that definition is true. But now let us see the rest. Although these things, unless I am mistaken, may be enough for victory, yet perhaps not for a surfeit of victory. There are two things said by the Academics against which, as we are able, we have determined to go: that nothing can be perceived, and that assent must be given to nothing. Of assenting, presently; now we will say a few other things about perception. Do you say that absolutely nothing can be comprehended?
Here Carneades awoke — for none of them slept less deeply than he — and looked around at the evidence of things. And so, I believe, speaking with himself, as happens, he said: 'Then, Carneades, are you going to say that you do not know whether you are a man or an ant? Or shall Chrysippus triumph over you? Let us say that we do not know those things which are inquired into among philosophers, and that the rest do not pertain to us — so that, if I stumble in the daily and common light, I may appeal to those shadows of the ignorant, where certain divine eyes alone see, which, even if they behold me quivering and falling, cannot betray me to the blind — especially the arrogant and those who are ashamed to be taught anything.'
Elegantly indeed, O Greek industry, girt up and prepared do you advance; but you do not look back at that definition, which was both the invention of a philosopher and fixed and founded in the very vestibule of philosophy. If you attempt to cut it down, the axe will rebound into your legs; for once it is overthrown, not only can something be perceived, but even that can be perceived which is most like the false — if you will not dare to overturn it. For it is your hiding-place, from which you burst out violently and leap upon the incautious who wish to pass by; some Hercules will strangle you in your own cave, as a half-man, and crush you with its own mass, teaching that there is something in philosophy which cannot be made uncertain by you as being like the false. Certainly I was hastening to other things;
whoever presses this affects you yourself, Carneades, with great insult, since he thinks that you can be overcome by me anywhere and from any quarter, even though dead. But if he does not think so, he is merciless, who compels me everywhere to desert my defenses and to contend with you on the field; and when I had begun to descend into it, terrified by your name alone, I drew back my foot and hurled from the higher ground I know not what — which, whether it reached you or what it did, let those see under whose scrutiny we do battle. But why do I, foolish, fear? If I remember well, you are dead, nor does Alypius any longer fight by right for your tomb; God will easily aid me against your shade.
You say that nothing in philosophy can be perceived, and, in order to spread your oration far and wide, you seize upon the brawls and dissensions of the philosophers, and you think they furnish you weapons against them. For how shall we judge the dispute between Democritus and the earlier physicists concerning one world and innumerable worlds, when between him and his heir Epicurus concord could not remain? For that luxurious fellow, since he permits his atoms — as though his little handmaids, that is, the little bodies which he joyfully embraces in the darkness — not to keep their own way but to swerve of their own accord here and there into others' boundaries, has squandered his whole patrimony, even through quarrels. But this indeed pertains nothing to me.
For if it pertains to wisdom to know any of these things, it cannot lie hidden from the wise man. But if it is something else, the wise man knows that wisdom of his, and despises these things. Nevertheless I, who am still far even from the neighborhood of the wise man, know something in these physical matters. For I hold it certain that either there is one world or not one; and if not one, then either of a finite number or of an infinite. Carneades will hold that this opinion is like the false.
Likewise I know that this world of ours is so arranged either by the nature of bodies or by some providence, and that it either always was and will be, or began to exist but will by no means cease, or does not have a beginning in time but will have an end, or both began to abide and will not abide perpetually — and I know innumerable physical things in this manner. For these disjunctions are true, nor can anyone confound them by any likeness of the false. But 'assume something,' says the Academic. I will not; for this is to say: 'Abandon what you know; say what you do not know.' 'But the statement is left hanging.' Certainly it is better that it hang than that it fall; surely it is complete; surely it can now be named either false or true. This I say that I know.
You, who both deny that these things pertain to philosophy and assert that nothing of them can be known, show me that I do not know these things; say that these disjunctions are either false or have something in common with the false, whereby they cannot be distinguished at all. 'Whence,' he says, 'do you know that this world exists, if the senses are deceived?' Never have your reasonings been able so to refute the force of the senses as to convince us that nothing seems to us, nor have you ever at all dared to attempt this, but you have labored vehemently to persuade us that a thing can be otherwise than it seems. And so I call this whole thing, whatever it is, which contains and nourishes us — this, I say, which appears to my eyes and is perceived by me to have earth and heaven, or as it were earth and as it were heaven — I call it the world.
If you say that nothing seems to me, I shall never err. For he errs who rashly approves what seems to him. For you say that the false can seem to those who perceive; you do not say that nothing seems. For the whole ground of every disputation will be taken away — where you like to reign — if we not only know nothing but even nothing seems to us. But if you deny that this which seems to me is the world, you are making a controversy about the name, since I said that it is by me called the world. 'Even so,' you will say, 'if you are asleep, is this which you see the world?' It has already been said that whatever seems to me such, I call the world.
But if it please you to call only that the world which is seen by those who are awake, or even by the sane, then maintain, if you can, that those who sleep and rave do not rave and sleep in the world. For this reason I say this: that this whole mass and machine of bodies, in which we are, whether sleeping or raving or waking or sane, either is one or is not one. Explain how that opinion can be false. For if I am asleep, it may be that I have said nothing; or if even from the mouth of a sleeper words have escaped, as is wont, it may be that I have not said it here, not sitting thus, not with these listeners; but that this should be false, it cannot be. Nor do I say that I have perceived it while I am awake.
For you can say that this could have seemed so to me even when asleep, and therefore this can be most like the false. But if there are one and six worlds, that there are seven worlds is manifest, in whatever state I am affected, and I affirm not impudently that I know it. Therefore teach that either this connection or those disjunctions above can be false through sleep or through madness or through the vanity of the senses; and if, when awakened, I shall remember these things, I will concede that I have been vanquished. For I believe it is now sufficiently clear which things seem false through sleep and dementia — namely, those which pertain to the bodily senses; for that thrice three is nine, and the square of intelligible numbers, must necessarily be true even while the human race is snoring.
Although I see that many things can also be said on behalf of the senses themselves, which we do not find reprehended by the Academics. For I believe the senses are not accused, either because the raving suffer false imaginations, or because we see false things in dreams. For if the senses have reported truly to those awake and sane, it is nothing to them what the mind of one sleeping or insane fashions for itself. It remains to be asked whether, when they report, they report the truth. Come, if some Epicurean should say: 'I have nothing to complain of concerning the senses; for it is unjust to demand from them more than they can; but whatever the eyes can see, they see truly' — is then that true which they see concerning the oar in the water? Absolutely true.
For, since a cause was present why it should so appear, if the oar submerged in the wave appeared straight, I would rather accuse my eyes of a false report. For they would not see what, such causes existing, had to be seen. What need of many words? This can be said of the movement of towers, this of the little feathers of birds, this of countless other things. 'Yet I am deceived, if I assent,' someone says. Do not assent to more than that you persuade yourself that it so appears to you, and there is no deception. For I do not see how the Academic refutes him who says: 'I know that this seems white to me; I know that this delights my hearing; I know that this smells pleasant to me; I know that this tastes sweet to me; I know that this is cold to me.'
Tell me rather whether the leaves of the wild olive, which the goat so persistently craves, are bitter in themselves. O shameless man! Is not the goat itself more moderate? I do not know how they may be to the flock; to me, however, they are bitter. What more do you ask? But perhaps there is even some man to whom they are not bitter. Are you straining after annoyance? Have I said anywhere that they are bitter to all? I said to myself, and even here I do not always affirm it. For what if at different times, from a different cause, now something sweet, now something bitter, be perceived in the mouth? This I say: that a man, when he tastes something, can in good faith swear that he knows it is sweet to his palate, or the contrary, nor can he be led away from this knowledge by any Greek cavil.
For who would be so shameless as to say to me, licking something with delight: 'Perhaps you are not tasting, but this is a dream'? Do I resist him? But that would still delight me even in a dream. Wherefore that which I said I know, no likeness of false things confounds; and the Epicurean or the Cyrenaics and many others may perhaps say things on behalf of the senses, against which I have received that nothing has been said by the Academics. But what is that to me? If they wish those things, and if they can, let them, even with my favor, cut them down. For whatever is disputed by them against the senses does not avail against all philosophers.
For there are those who confess that all these things which the mind receives through the bodily sense can beget opinion, but they deny knowledge — which nevertheless they wish to be contained in the understanding and, removed from the senses, to live in the mind. And perhaps in the number of these is that wise man whom we seek. But of this another time. Now let us proceed to the rest, which, on account of those things already said, we shall, unless I am mistaken, explain in few words. For what does the bodily sense either help or hinder one inquiring about morals?
Unless indeed nothing hinders those very men who have placed the highest true good of man in pleasure — neither the neck of a dove, nor an uncertain voice, nor a heavy weight for a man which is light for camels, nor six hundred other things — from saying that they know they are delighted by that in which they are delighted, or are offended by that in which they are offended; which I do not see can be refuted. Will these move him who embraces the end of good with the mind? Which of these do you choose? If you ask what seems to me, I judge that the highest good of man is in the mind. But now we are inquiring about knowledge. Therefore ask the wise man, who cannot be ignorant of wisdom;
but to me nonetheless, slow and foolish as I am, it is permitted meanwhile to know that the end of human good, in which the blessed life dwells, is either nothing, or is in the soul, or in the body, or in both. Convince me, if you can, that I do not know this — which those most famous reasonings of yours by no means accomplish. But if you cannot — for you will not find that to which it is like the false — shall I hesitate to conclude that it rightly seems to me that the wise man knows whatever is true in philosophy, since I myself have come to know from it so many true things? But perhaps he fears lest, while asleep, he should choose the highest good. There is no peril; when he has awakened, he will repudiate it if it displeases, will hold it if it pleases. For who will rightly blame him because he saw something false in dreams?
Or perhaps you will fear this: that while sleeping he may lose his wisdom, if he should approve falsehoods as true? Not even a sleeper would dare to dream up such a thing—to call a man wise while awake and deny him to be so if he sleeps. These same things may also be said concerning madness; but the discourse hastens on to other matters. Yet I do not leave these points without a most secure conclusion. For either wisdom is lost through madness, and he whom you cry out is ignorant of the truth will then no longer be wise; or his knowledge remains in his understanding, even though the remaining part of the soul imagines, as in dreams, whatever it has received from the senses. There remains dialectic, which the wise man certainly knows well, and no one can know a falsehood.
But if he does not know it, then the knowledge of that thing does not pertain to his wisdom—the thing without which he could still be wise—and it is superfluous for us to ask whether it is true or whether it can be perceived. Here perhaps someone may say to me: 'You are always giving yourself away, foolish man—did you know what you claim, or were you unable to know anything about dialectic?' I, in truth, know more about it than about any other part of philosophy. For, first, it was dialectic that taught me that all those propositions which I used above are true. Then, through it, I have come to know many other true things. But count them, if you can, how many there are: if there are four elements in the world, there are not five; if there is one sun, there are not two; one and the same soul cannot both die and be immortal; a man cannot be at once both happy and wretched; here it cannot be both that the sun shines and that it is night;
either we are now awake or we are asleep; either there is a body which I seem to myself to see, or there is not a body. These and many other things, which it would be exceedingly long to recount, I have learned through dialectic to be true—true in themselves, in whatever way our senses may be disposed. It taught me that, if the antecedent part of any of those things which I just now set forth by way of connection be assumed, that which is annexed necessarily follows; and that those things which I have stated by way of incompatibility or disjunction have this nature: that when the rest are removed, whether they be one or many, there remains something which is confirmed by their removal.
Dialectic also taught me that, when the matter about which words are spoken is agreed upon, one ought not to wrangle about the words; and that whoever does so, if he does it from ignorance, is to be instructed; if from malice, is to be abandoned; if he cannot be taught, is to be admonished to do something else rather than waste time and effort on superfluous things; and if he does not comply, is to be disregarded. And concerning captious and deceptive little arguments there is a brief precept: if they are drawn from an ill-made concession, one must return to what has been conceded; if truth and falsehood clash in a single conclusion, one must accept from it what is understood and leave aside what cannot be unraveled; but if the manner of some matters lies wholly hidden from a man, its knowledge is not to be sought.
These things indeed I have from dialectic, and many others which it is not necessary to recount; for I ought not to show myself ungrateful. But that wise man either disregards these things, or, if perfected dialectic is itself the very knowledge of truth, he knows it so well that he despises—and does not pity—that most beggarly slander of theirs: 'if it is true, it is false; if it is false, it is true,' letting it perish of hunger. I think this suffices concerning perception, because when I begin to speak about assent, the whole matter will again be treated there. Now then let us come to that part in which Alypius still seems to be in doubt, and first let us examine of what sort this very thing is that moves you so keenly and so cautiously.
For if this discovery of yours—by which we are compelled to confess that it is far more probable that the wise man knows wisdom—shakes the opinion of the Academics (fortified, as you said, by so many and such great arguments), the opinion in which it pleased them that the wise man knows nothing, then all the more must assent be withheld. For by this very fact it is shown that nothing can be established by however copious and subtle arguments, without its being resisted no less keenly, or perhaps more keenly, from the opposite side, if the wit be present. Hence it comes about that, when the Academic is conquered, he has conquered. Oh, would that he might be conquered! Yet he will never bring it about by any Pelasgian art that the conquered and the conqueror depart together at once. Surely let nothing else be found that can be said against these things, and I of my own accord confess myself conquered.
For we are not dealing with the winning of glory, but with the finding of truth. It is enough for me by any means to surmount that mass which sets itself against those entering upon philosophy, and which, veiling its darkness in I know not what recesses, threatens that all philosophy is of that kind, and permits no hope that any light will be found in it. If it is already probable that the wise man knows something, I have nothing further to desire. For there was no other reason why it seemed truth-like that he ought to withhold assent, except that it was truth-like that nothing can be comprehended. Once this is removed—for the wise man does perceive at least wisdom itself, as is now granted—no reason will now remain why the wise man should not assent at least to wisdom itself.
For it is without doubt more monstrous that the wise man should not approve wisdom than that the wise man should not know wisdom. For I ask that we set before our eyes for a little while, if we can, such a spectacle: a certain quarrel between the wise man and wisdom. What else does wisdom say than that she is wisdom? But on the contrary this fellow says, 'I do not believe it.' Who says to wisdom, 'I do not believe you to be wisdom'? Who but he with whom she was able to speak and in whom she deigned to dwell—namely, the wise man? Go now and seek me out to do battle with the Academics; you now have a new contest: the wise man and wisdom fight with each other. The wise man refuses to consent to wisdom. I along with you wait untroubled. For who would not believe wisdom to be invincible?
Nevertheless, let us fortify ourselves with some complexion of argument. For either in this contest the Academic will conquer wisdom—and be conquered by me, since he will not be wise; or he will be overcome by her, and we shall have shown that the wise man consents to wisdom. Either, therefore, the Academic is not wise, or the wise man will assent to some thing—unless perchance one who was ashamed to say that the wise man does not know wisdom will not be ashamed to say that the wise man does not consent to wisdom. But if it is now truth-like that even the perception of wisdom itself falls to the wise man, and there is no reason why he should not assent to what can be perceived, I see what I wished to be truth-like: namely, that the wise man will assent to wisdom. If you ask where he may find wisdom itself, I shall answer: in his very self.
If you say that he does not know what he has, you return to that absurdity: that the wise man does not know wisdom. If you deny that the wise man himself can be found, then we shall discourse in another kind of debate—not with the Academics, but with you, whoever you are who holds this. For they, when they dispute these things, certainly dispute about the wise man. Cicero cries out that he himself is a great opiner, but that he inquires about the wise man. And if you young men still find this unknown, you have surely read in the Hortensius: 'If, therefore, nothing is certain, and it is not the part of the wise man to opine, the wise man will never approve anything.' Whence it is manifest that in those disputations of theirs, against which we strive, they inquire about the wise man.
Therefore I judge that to the wise man wisdom is certain—that is, that the wise man has perceived wisdom, and on this account he does not merely opine when he assents to wisdom; for he assents to that thing which, had he not perceived it, he would not be wise. Nor do these men affirm that no one ought to assent except to things which cannot be perceived; and yet wisdom is not nothing. Since, therefore, he both knows wisdom and assents to wisdom, he neither knows nothing nor does the wise man assent to no thing. What more do you want? Or are we inquiring at all about that error which they say is wholly avoided if assent inclines the mind to no thing? For, they say, whoever approves not only a false thing but even a doubtful one, though it be true, errs.
But I find nothing that is not doubtful. Yet the wise man finds wisdom itself, as we were saying. But from here now you perhaps wish me to withdraw. Positions so utterly secure are not easily to be relinquished; we are dealing with most cunning men; yet I will humor you. But what shall I say here? What? What indeed? Doubtless that old saying must be uttered, where they too have something to say. For what am I to do, whom you thrust forth out of my own camp? Shall I implore the aid of the learned, with whom, if I cannot conquer, it will perhaps be less shameful to be conquered? I will therefore hurl, with what strength I can, a weapon smoky indeed and rough, but, unless I am mistaken, most powerful: 'He who approves nothing does nothing.' Oh rustic fellow! And where is the probable? Where is the truth-like?
This is what you wanted. Do you hear how the Greek shields ring out? What was caught up was indeed most sturdy, but with what a hand we have hurled it! And these men of mine suggest to me nothing more powerful, nor, as I see, have we inflicted any wound. I will turn myself to those things which the country-house and the field supply; but these burden me rather than equip me. For when I had long pondered at leisure in that countryside in what way this 'probable' or 'truth-like' could defend our actions from error, at first it seemed to me, as it is wont to seem when I was selling these wares, fair, roofed, and fortified; then, when I had surveyed the whole more cautiously, I seemed to myself to have seen a single entrance by which error might rush in upon the unsuspecting.
For I think that not only he errs who follows a false way, but also he who does not follow the true one. Let us imagine two travelers heading to one place, of whom the one has resolved to believe no one, while the other is over-credulous. They have come to some fork in the road. Here that credulous one says to the shepherd who was present, or to some countryman: 'Hail, honest fellow! Tell me, pray, by which way does one go well to that place?' The answer is: 'If you go this way, you will not go astray.' And he to his companion: 'He speaks the truth; let us go this way.' The most cautious man laughs, and wittily mocks the assent given so quickly, and meanwhile, as the other departs, he stays rooted at the fork.
And now it begins to seem shameful to be idle, when behold, from another arm of the road a certain sleek and elegant fellow, mounted on a horse, comes into view and begins to draw near. This man rejoices, then, and when the newcomer has arrived and been greeted, he reveals his purpose, asks the way, and even tells the reason for his lingering, so that he may render him more kindly by preferring him to the shepherd. But that man, as it happened, was one of those cheats whom the crowd now calls 'samardocos.' This worst of men kept up his habit even for nothing. 'Go this way,' he says; 'for I am coming from there.' He deceived him and went off. But when would this cautious one be deceived? 'For I do not approve that direction as though true,' he says, 'but because it is truth-like, and here to be idle is neither honorable nor useful; let me go this way.'
Meanwhile that man who erred by assenting, so quickly reckoning the shepherd's words to be true, was already refreshing himself in that very place toward which they were heading; but the other, who did not err—if indeed he follows the probable—wandered about through I know not what forests, and now no longer met anyone to whom that place was known to which he had proposed to come. He found. Truly I tell you, when I was thinking over these things, I could not restrain my laughter—that through the words of the Academics it somehow comes about that the one errs who holds the true way even by chance, while the other, who was led plausibly through pathless mountains and did not find the region he sought, does not seem to err. For, that I may rightly condemn rash consent, both men err more readily than that this one does not err.
From this, now more vigilant against those words, I began to consider the very deeds and morals of men. And then so many and so capital things came into my mind against those men, that I no longer laughed, but partly grew angry, partly grieved, that men most learned and most acute had rolled down into such crimes of doctrine and such disgraceful teachings. For certainly not everyone who errs perhaps sins; yet everyone who sins is granted either to err or to do something worse. What, then, if some young man, when he has heard these men saying, 'It is shameful to err, and therefore we ought to consent to no thing;
but nevertheless, when anyone does what seems to him probable, he neither holds back nor errs, provided only he remembers this: that whatever presents itself, whether to the mind or to the senses, is not to be approved as true'—hearing this, then, that young man will lie in wait for the chastity of another man's wife? You, you I consult, Marcus Tullius; we are treating of the morals and life of young men, for whose education and instruction all those writings of yours kept vigil. What else will you say than that it is not probable to you that a young man should do this? But to him it is probable. For if we live by another's probable—nor ought you to have administered the republic, since it seemed to Epicurus that it ought not to be done. That young man, then, will commit adultery with another's spouse;
and if he be caught, where will he find you, by whom he may be defended? And yet, even if he should find you, what will you say? You will assuredly deny it. What if it is so clear that you deny it in vain? You will want to persuade—doubtless as though in the Cumaean, or rather the Neapolitan, gymnasium—that he has committed no sin, nay, that he has not even erred. For he did not persuade himself that adultery ought to be committed as true; a probable thing occurred to him, he followed it. He did it; or perhaps he did not do it, but only seemed to himself to have done it. But that husband, a foolish man, throws everything into confusion with lawsuits, crying out for the chastity of his wife—with whom perchance he is now sleeping, and knows it not.
If the judges understand this, they will either disregard the Academics and punish him as a most true crime, or, complying with those same men, they will condemn the man truth-likely and probably, so that this advocate would utterly not know what he is doing. For he will have no one with whom to be angry, since all say they have erred in nothing, seeing that they did what seemed probable without assenting to it. He will therefore lay aside the person of an advocate and take up that of a philosopher and consoler; and thus he will easily persuade the young man—who has by now made such progress in the Academy—to think himself condemned as though in a dream. But you think I am jesting.
It is clear that I could swear by everything divine that I utterly do not know how this man has sinned, if whoever does what seems probable does not sin—unless perhaps they say that to err is one thing altogether, and to sin another; and that he acted according to those precepts of theirs, lest we err, but reckoned it no great matter to sin. I am silent about murders, parricides, sacrileges, and all the disgraceful acts and crimes whatsoever that can be done or thought, which are defended in a few words and—what is more grievous—before the wisest judges: 'I consented to nothing, and therefore I did not err; but how could I help doing what seemed probable?'
But let those who think that such things cannot be probably urged read the oration of Catiline, by which he persuaded to the parricide of the fatherland, in which one crime all crimes are contained. And who does not now laugh at this? They themselves say that they follow nothing in acting except the probable, and they seek the truth with great effort, though it is probable to them that it cannot be found. O wondrous monstrosity! But let us pass this by; it pertains less to us, less to the peril of our life, less to the danger of our fortunes.
This is the capital thing, this is the frightful thing, this is what every best man should fear: that every impiety—if this reasoning of the probable holds good—when it has seemed to anyone that it ought to be done, provided only that he assents to nothing as though true, he may commit not only without the reproach of crime but even without the reproach of error. What then? Did those men not see this? Nay, they saw it most skillfully and most prudently, nor would I in any way arrogate to myself so much as to follow Marcus Tullius in any part in industry, vigilance, genius, or learning; yet to him, asserting that man can know nothing, if only this one thing were said—'I know that it seems so to me'—he would have nothing whereby to refute it.
Why, then, did it please such great men to carry on with perpetual and stubborn contentions, that the knowledge of the truth might seem to fall to no one? Hear now a little more attentively—not what I know, but what I judge; for this I was reserving to the last, that I might unfold, if I could, of what sort the whole design of the Academics seems to me. Plato, a man most wise and most learned of his times, who both so spoke that whatever he said became great, and spoke such things that in whatever way he said them they did not become small, is said, after the death of Socrates his master, whom he had singularly loved, to have learned many things also from the Pythagoreans.
But Pythagoras, not content with Greek philosophy, which then was either almost nothing or at any rate most hidden, after he, moved by the disputations of a certain Pherecydes the Syrian, believed the soul to be immortal, had also heard many wise men, having traveled far and wide. Plato, therefore, adding to the charm and subtlety of Socrates—which he had in moral matters—the expert knowledge of natural and divine things, which he had diligently received from those whom I have mentioned, and joining on, as it were, dialectic to be the shaper and judge of those parts—which either was itself wisdom, or without which wisdom could in no way exist—is said to have composed a perfect discipline of philosophy, about which there is now no time to discourse.
For it is enough for what I want that Plato held there to be two worlds: one intelligible, in which truth itself dwelt, and this sensible one, which it is manifest that we perceive by sight and touch; and so the former is the true world, this one truth-like and made after the image of that; and therefore from that former world truth is, as it were, refined and, so to speak, made serene in the soul that knows itself, but from this sensible one there can be generated in the minds of the foolish not knowledge but opinion; yet whatever was done in this world through those virtues which he called civil—similar to the other true virtues, which are unknown save to a few wise men—could not be named anything but truth-like.
These things and others of this kind seem to me to have been preserved among his successors, as far as they could, and guarded as mysteries. For either these things are not easily perceived except by those who, cleansing themselves from all vices, have laid claim to some manner of life more than human; or he sins not lightly, whoever, knowing them, has wished to teach them to any and every sort of men. And so I suspect that Zeno, the chief of the Stoics, when he had come—after certain things had been heard and believed—into the school left by Plato, which Polemo then held, was held in suspicion, and did not seem such a one to whom those Platonic decrees, as though sacrosanct, ought easily to be betrayed and entrusted, before he had unlearned those things which he had brought into that school, received from others.
Polemo dies; Arcesilaus succeeds him—a fellow-pupil of Zeno, but under the mastership of Polemo. Wherefore, when Zeno delighted in a certain opinion of his own about the world and especially about the soul—on whose account true philosophy keeps vigil—saying that it is mortal, and that there is nothing beyond this sensible world, and that nothing is done in it except by body (for he thought even God himself to be fire), Arcesilaus seems to me to have acted most prudently and most usefully, when that evil was creeping widely, in concealing the opinion of the Academy utterly, and burying it, like gold to be found at some time by posterity.
Wherefore, since the crowd is more prone to rush into false opinions, and, from the habit of bodies, it is most easily but harmfully believed that all things are corporeal, that most acute and most humane man determined rather to unteach those whom he suffered to be badly taught than to teach those whom he did not judge to be teachable. Thence were born all those things which are attributed to the New Academy, because the ancients did not have the necessity of them. But if Zeno had at some time awakened and seen that nothing could be comprehended except such as he himself was defining, and that no such thing could be found in bodies, to which he attributed all things, that whole kind of disputations, which had blazed up from great necessity, would long since have been extinguished.
But Zeno, deceived by an image of constancy, as it seemed to the Academics themselves and does not seem otherwise to me, was obstinate; and that pernicious faith in bodies, in whatever way it could, survived on into Chrysippus, who was giving it (for he was most able) great strength to spread itself more widely, had not Carneades, keener and more vigilant than all the rest before him, so resisted it, that I marvel that opinion afterward had any force at all. For Carneades first laid aside that impudence, as it were, of slandering, by which he saw Arcesilaus had been not moderately defamed, lest he should seem to wish to speak against all things as though for the sake of ostentation; but he proposed to himself that the Stoics properly, and Chrysippus, must be pulled down and overthrown.
Then, when he was pressed on all sides with the argument that, if there were assent to no thing, the wise man would do nothing—O wondrous man, and yet not wondrous, for it flowed forth from the very fountains of Plato!—he wisely attended to what sort of actions those men approved, and, seeing them to be similar to I know not what true things, he named that which in this world one should follow for acting 'truth-like.' To what it was similar he both expertly knew and prudently concealed, and this too he called 'probable.' For whoever contemplates the exemplar of an image well approves it. For how does the wise man approve, or how does he follow the truth-like, when he is ignorant of what the true itself is? Therefore those men knew and approved falsehoods, in which they discerned a praiseworthy imitation of true things.
But because it was neither lawful nor easy to show this to the profane, as it were, they left to posterity, and to those whom at that time they could, a certain sign of their opinion; but those good dialecticians they forbade to raise a question about words, insulting and mocking them. On account of these things Carneades is also said to have been the founder and author of the Third Academy. Then this conflict endured down into our own Tullius, now plainly wounded and about to inflate Latin letters with its last breath. For nothing seems to me more inflated than to say so many things most copiously and most ornately while not thinking so. Yet by those winds that hay-like Platonist, Antiochus, was, as it seems to me, sufficiently scattered and dispersed.
Indeed Antiochus, a hearer of Philo—a man, as I judge, most circumspect, who had already begun, as it were, to open the gates to the retreating enemy and to recall the Academy and its laws to the authority of Plato (although Metrodorus too had earlier attempted to do this, who is said to have been the first to confess that it had not been the direct view of the Academics that nothing can be comprehended, but that they had of necessity taken up arms of this kind against the Stoics)—Antiochus, therefore, as I had begun to say, having heard Philo the Academic and Mnesarchus the Stoic, had crept into the Old Academy as though into a place empty of defenders and secure as though with no enemy, like a helper and citizen, introducing I know not what evil out of the ashes of the Stoics, whereby he might violate the inner shrines of Plato.
But against him Philo again took up those arms and resisted, until he died, and all the remnants of him our Tullius crushed—being, while he lived, impatient that whatever he had loved should be shaken or contaminated. Indeed after those times, at no long interval, when all willfulness and obstinacy had died away, that face of Plato, which in philosophy is the purest and most luminous, shone forth—the clouds of error being scattered—most of all in Plotinus, who was judged to be so like that Platonic philosopher that one would think they had lived at the same time; yet so great is the interval of time, that he must be thought to have lived again in this man.
And so now we see almost no philosophers except either Cynics, or Peripatetics, or Platonists; and the Cynics indeed, because a certain freedom and license of life delights them. But as regards erudition and doctrine and the morals by which the soul is cared for, because there have not been lacking most acute and skillful men who taught in their disputations that Aristotle and Plato so accord with one another that they seem to disagree only to the inexpert and less attentive—through many ages indeed and many contentions, yet at last there has been strained out, as I think, one discipline of the truest philosophy. For that is not the philosophy of this world, which our sacred rites most deservedly detest, but of another, the intelligible world.
To that world souls, blinded by the manifold darkness of error and befouled by the deepest defilements from the body, this most subtle reasoning would never recall, unless the most high God, by a certain popular clemency, had bent down and lowered the authority of the divine intellect even to the human body itself, by whose precepts and even by whose deeds the souls, once roused, might return into themselves and behold their fatherland again, even without the contention of disputations. This much concerning the Academics I have for the present persuaded myself of probably, as I could. But if it is false, it is nothing to me, for whom it is now enough no longer to think that truth cannot be found by man. But whoever thinks that the Academics held this—let him hear Cicero himself.
For he says that it was their custom to conceal their opinion, and not to be wont to open it to anyone except to those who had lived with them even to old age. But what that opinion is, let God see; yet I judge it to have been Plato's. But that you may briefly grasp my whole proposal: in whatever way human wisdom may be, I see that I have not yet perceived it. Yet, though I am in the thirty-third year of my age, I do not judge that I ought to despair of attaining it at some time. For, despising all those other things which mortals reckon goods, I have proposed to devote myself to the investigation of this. And since the reasonings of the Academics were deterring me from this business not lightly, I have, as I judge, sufficiently fortified myself against them by this disputation.
But no one doubts that we are impelled to learning by a twofold weight: that of authority and that of reason. For me, therefore, it is certain never anywhere at all to depart from the authority of Christ; for I find none more powerful. But as for what must be pursued by most subtle reasoning—for I am now so disposed that I impatiently desire to apprehend what is true not only by believing but also by understanding—I am confident that I shall for the present find among the Platonists what does not conflict with our sacred rites. Here, after they perceived that I had made an end of my discourse—although it was already night, and something had even been written after the lamp was brought in—yet those young men were most intently waiting to see whether Alypius would promise to reply either then or on another day. Then he:
'I am prepared to affirm,' he said, 'that nothing has ever turned out for me so much according to my wish as that I depart from today's disputation overcome. Nor do I think that this joy of mine ought to be mine alone. I will therefore share it with you, my fellow-contenders or our judges, since indeed the Academics themselves perhaps wished by this very compact to be conquered by their own posterity. For what could seem or be shown to us more delightful than this charm of discourse, more weighed in the gravity of its sentiments, more ready in benevolence, more expert in learning? I am utterly unable to marvel worthily that things so harsh were treated so wittily, things so desperate so bravely, things so refuted so moderately, things so obscure so lucidly.'
Therefore now, my companions, turn the expectation with which you were urging me to reply into a surer hope, and join me in learning. We have a guide who may lead us into the very secrets of truth, with God now showing the way. At this point, when out of a certain boyish eagerness they showed by their faces that they felt cheated—because Alypius did not seem about to answer—I said with a smile: Do you begrudge me my praises? But since I am now secure about Alypius' steadfastness and fear nothing from him, so that you too may thank me, I arm you against him who has thwarted so great an intentness of your expectation. Read the Academics, and when there—for what is easier?
—find Cicero the champion of those trifles, then let him be compelled by you to defend this discourse of ours against those unconquered arguments. This harsh recompense, Alypius, I render you in return for your false praise of me. At this they laughed, and we brought to an end that great contest—whether on the firmest footing I do not know—yet more modestly and more quickly than I had hoped. FROM BOOK I OF AUGUSTINE'S RETRACTATIONS, CHAPTER I (page 11, line 3, Knöll's edition).
When therefore I had abandoned both what I had attained in the desires of this world and what I still wished to attain, and had betaken myself to the leisure of the Christian life, then, not yet baptized, I first wrote against the Academics, or concerning the Academics, so that with all the reasoning I could muster I might remove from my mind—since they were troubling me—their arguments, which instill in many a despair of finding the truth, forbid the wise man to assent to any matter or to approve anything at all as though it were manifest and certain, since to them all things seem obscure and uncertain. And this was done by the Lord's mercy and help.
But in those same three books of mine it does not please me that I so often invoke fortune—although by that name I did not intend some goddess to be understood, but the chance outcome of things, whether in the goods or evils of our body or in external ones. Hence come also those words which no religion forbids us to utter: perchance, perhaps, maybe, possibly, by chance—all of which, nonetheless, must be referred back to divine providence. This too I did not pass over in silence there, saying: For perhaps what is commonly called fortune is governed by a certain hidden order, and we call nothing in things 'chance' except that whose reason and cause is secret.
I did indeed say this; yet nonetheless I regret having there named fortune in such a way, since I see that men have the very bad habit of saying, where they ought to say 'God willed this,' 'Fortune willed this.' And as for what I said in a certain place: 'It is so arranged, whether by our deserts or by the necessity of nature, that a mind divine cleaving to mortal things is by no means received by the harbor of philosophy,' and the rest—either neither of those two ought to have been said, since even so the sense could be sound, or it was enough to say 'by our deserts,' inasmuch as it is true that our misery is derived from Adam, and not to add 'or by the necessity of nature,' since indeed the harsh necessity of our nature has arisen deservedly from the preceding iniquity. Likewise, as for what I said there:
'Nothing whatsoever ought to be worshipped, and everything must be cast off—whatever is discerned by mortal eyes, whatever any sense reaches'—words ought to have been added, so that it might be said: 'whatever the sense of the mortal body reaches'; for there is also a sense of the mind. But I was then speaking in the manner of those who call nothing 'sense' except that of the body, and nothing 'sensible' except things corporeal. And so, wherever I spoke thus, the ambiguity is too little avoided except among those whose customary way of speaking this is. Likewise I said: 'What else do you suppose it is to live happily, than to live according to that which is best in man?' And explaining a little later what I had said is best in man:
'Who,' said I, 'would doubt that man's best is nothing other than that part of the soul which the rest, and whatever else is in man, ought to obey as their ruler? This part—lest you demand another definition—may be called mind or reason.' This indeed is true—for as far as concerns man's nature, there is nothing in him better than mind and reason—but he who wishes to live happily ought not to live according to it. Otherwise he lives according to man, whereas one ought to live according to God, in order to be able to attain to blessedness; and for the sake of attaining it, our mind ought not to be content with itself, but must be made subject to God. Likewise, answering him with whom the discussion was held, I said: 'Here plainly you do not err;
and that this may be an omen for you as to the rest, I would gladly wish.' Though this was said not in earnest but in jest, yet I should not have wished to use that word. For I do not recall having read 'omen' either in our sacred writings or in the discourse of any ecclesiastical disputant—although 'abomination,' which is derived from it, is constantly found in the divine books. But in the second book, that so-called fable about philocalia and philosophy—that they are sisters born of the same parent—is downright inept and insipid.
For either what is called philocalia exists only in trifles, and on that account is by no reasoning sister to philosophy; or, if this name is to be honored because, translated into Latin, it signifies 'love of beauty,' and there is a true and supreme beauty of wisdom, then that same philocalia, in incorporeal and supreme things, is the very thing that philosophy is, and they are in no way like two sisters. In another place, when I was treating of the soul, I said: 'the more securely to return into heaven.' But I would more safely have said 'to go' rather than 'to return,' on account of those who suppose that human souls, on account of the deserts of their sins, are cast down or thrust from heaven into these bodies.
But I for my part did not hesitate to say it, because I said 'into heaven' just as I would say 'to God,' who is its author and creator; just as the blessed Cyprian did not hesitate to say: 'For since we possess our body from the earth, our spirit from heaven, we ourselves are earth and heaven.' And in the book of Ecclesiastes it is written: 'Let the spirit return to God who gave it.' This assuredly must be so understood that no contradiction is offered to the Apostle who says that those not yet born have done nothing good or evil. Without controversy, then, a certain original region of the soul's blessedness is God himself, who, though he did not indeed beget the soul out of himself, yet created it out of no other thing, just as he created the body out of the earth.
For as concerns its origin, whereby it comes to be in the body—whether it is from that one soul which was first created when man was made into a living soul, or whether individual souls come to be for individuals in like manner—I neither knew then nor do I yet know. In the third book: 'If you ask what seems to me,' I said, 'I judge that man's highest good is in the mind.' I would have spoken more truly had I said: 'in God'; for the mind enjoys him, in order to be blessed, as its highest good. Nor does that please me which I said: 'It is fitting to swear by everything divine.'
Likewise, what I said about the Academics—that they knew the truth, whose likeness they called the 'truthlike' (verisimile), and that I called this very 'truthlike' the false which they approved—was for two reasons not rightly said: either because it would be false, being in some way like something true (since in its own kind this too is true), or because they were approving as false those things which they called 'truthlike,' when in fact they approved nothing and affirmed that the wise man approves nothing. But since they also called this very 'truthlike' the 'probable,' from this it came about that I spoke of them thus. The very praise, too, with which I extolled Plato, or the Platonic or Academic philosophers, more than became impious men—was it not?
—rightly displeased me, especially seeing that against their great errors Christian doctrine must be defended. That also, where in comparison with Cicero's arguments, which he used in his Academic books, I called my own reasonings 'trifles'—by which I refuted those arguments with the most certain reasoning—although it was said in jest and was rather spoken with irony, ought nevertheless not to have been said. This work begins thus: 'O that, Romanianus, a man suited to himself...'