[320] At etiam liber est Epicuri de sanctitate. Ludimur ab homine non tam faceto, quam ad scribendi licentiam libero. Quæ enim potest esse sanctitas, si Dii humana non curant? Cic. de Nat. Deor. p. 78.
[321] The principles of the new academy, that doubting sect, which Cicero had espoused, led so directly to scepticism, that he keeps us in a state of perpetual doubt and uncertainty as to his opinions. Mr. Baxter in his Inquiry into the nature of the Human Soul, vol. 2. p. 70. complaining of Cicero’s inconsistencies and self-contradictions, observes, that—“as philosophers he teaches men to be scepticks, or to maintain that truth is not to be perceived.” And afterwards adds—“But it is long since it hath been observed of this great man, that his academical writings are at variance with his other works; and that he may be confuted out of himself, and in his own words.”
Dr. Warburton expatiates largely upon the great difficulties there are in getting to Cicero’s real sentiments. I shall mention only two of them and in his own words. “A fourth difficulty arises from Tully’s purpose in writing his works of philosophy; which was, not to deliver his own opinion on any point of ethicks or metaphysicks; but to explain to his countrymen in the most intelligible manner, whatsoever the Greeks had taught concerning them. In the execution of which design, no sect could so well serve his turn as the new academy, whose principle it was, not to interfere with their own opinions, &c. But the principal difficulty proceeds from the several and various characters he sustained in his life and writings; which habituated him to feign and dissemble his opinions. Here (though he acted neither a weak nor an unfair part) he becomes perfectly inscrutable. He may be considered as an orator, a statesman, and a philosopher; characters all equally personated, and no one more the real man than the other; but each of them taken up and laid down, for the occasion. This appears from the numerous inconsistencies we find in him throughout the course of his sustaining them, &c.” And afterwards, p. 171, the Dr. adds—“We meet with numbers of the like contradictions delivered in his own person, and under his philosophical character,” of which he gives us several instances. In the note upon the word personated, p. 169. the Dr. observes, “that as a philosopher, his end and design in writing was not to deliver his own opinion; but to explain the Grecian philosophy; on which account he blames those as too curious, who were for having his own sentiments. In pursuance of his design, he brings in Stoicks, Epicureans, Platonists, Academicks, new and old, in order to instruct the Romans in their various opinions, and several ways of reasoning. But whether it be himself or others that are brought upon the stage, it is the academick not Cicero; it is the Stoick, the Epicurean, not Balbus, nor Velleius, who deliver their opinions.” See Warburton’s Divine Legation, part 2. book 3. last edition, where the character of Cicero, as drawn by that very learned and able writer, p. 165, &c. is the best clew I know of to guide us through his philosophical works. See also, Critical Inquiry into the opinions and practice of the ancient philosophers, passim.
[322] Verius est igitur nimirum illud quod familiaris omnium nostrum Posidonius disseruit in libro quinto de natura deorum, nullos esse deos Epicuro videri: quæque is de Diis immortalibus dixerit, invidiæ detestandæ gratia dixisse, p. 78.
[323] Οἱ τὰ κοινὰ χειρίζοντες παρὰ μὲν τοῖς Ἕλλησιν, ἐὰν τάλαντον μόνον πιστευθῶσιν ἀντιγραφεῖς ἔχοντες δέκα, καὶ σφραγῖδας τοσαύτας, καὶ μάρτυρας διπλασίους, οὐ δύνανται τηρεῖν τὴν πίστιν. παρὰ δὲ Ῥωμαίοις, κατά τε τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ πρεσβείας πολύ τι πλῆθος χρημάτων χειρίζοντες δι’ αὐτῆς τῆς κατὰ τὸν ὅρκον πίστεως, τηροῦσι τὸ καθῆκον. Polyb. lib. 6. p. 693.
I have called ἀντιγραφεῖς, notary publick, because that office answers the idea much better, in my opinion, than contralotulator, from which may possibly be derived our comptroller, which, I think, is by no means what is here meant.
[324] Te neque hominum neque deorum pudet, quos perfidia et perjurio violasti. Sall. Fragm. Orat. L. Phil. Cont. Lep. p. 146.
[325] Μεγίστην δέ μοι δοκεῖ διαφορὰν ἔχειν τὸ Ῥωμαίων πολίτευμα πρὸς τὸ βέλτιον ἐν τῇ περὶ θεῶν διαλήψει. καί μοι δοκεῖ τὸ παρὰ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀνθρώποις ὀνειδιζόμενον, τοῦτο συνέχειν τὰ Ῥωμαίων πράγματα· λέγω δὲ τὴν δεισιδαιμονίαν. Polyb. lib. 6. p. 692.
[326] There is indeed little occasion for an apology for this translation. The judicious critick will easily see, that in this passage there is a plain contrast drawn between the manners of the Grecians and the Romans in the time of Polybius. The cause of that difference this able writer justly ascribes to that δεισιδαιμονία, or awful fear of the gods, so strongly inculcated amongst the Romans, and so much despised and ridiculed amongst the Grecians, who were at that time greatly tinctured with the atheism of Epicurus. The instance he selects in proof, drawn from the very different effect of an oath upon the manners of those two people, must convince us beyond a doubt, that by the words τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀνθρώποις ὀνειδιζόμενον, he plainly characterizes his own countrymen. As by “οἱ νῦν εἰκῇ καὶ ἀλόγως ἐκβάλλειν αὐτὰ,” they who now (that is, in his time) inconsiderately and absurdly reject those great sanctions of religion, he evidently points at such of the leading men amongst the Romans, as in his time had embraced the pernicious tenets of Epicurus. For though he had stigmatized the Carthaginians immediately before their avarice and lust of gain, yet no man knew better than Polybius, that the Carthaginians rather exceeded the Romans in superstition. That they were sincere too in their belief, is evident from that most horrible method, by which they expressed their δεισιδαιμονία, which was their frequent sacrifices of great numbers of their own children (those of the very first families not excepted) to their god Moloch, who, by the Greeks and Romans, was termed Chronos and Saturn.
I thought this remark might not be unuseful, because as none of the commentators have taken any notice of it, so neither Casaubon, nor any translator I have yet met with, seems to have given us the true spirit and meaning of this remarkable passage.