C. Academic Criticism of Epicurean Theology Ch. xx1 § 57—

Ch xxiv § 124.
Aa. Importance and difficulty of the subject, variety of opinions, some asserting the existence of the Gods, some doubting, some denying it. Those who believe in their existence differ as to their nature; the Epicureans denying that they pay any regard to human affairs, the Stoics aflirming that the universe is ordered by them for the good of man, while the Academy holds that man has no right to dog- matize, and confines itself to the criticism of other schools, 1—5,
XXXVill INTRODUCTION.
Ab, C.’s defence against his critics. He had always been a student of philosophy, but had only lately begun to write upon it, partly by way of useful employment in his enforced absence from public life, partly as a solace under his heavy loss. His manner of expounding the different tenets of each school without stating his own opinion was intentionally adopted to provoke thought. The Academic school to which he belonged was unfairly branded as sceptical. It simply maintained the doctrine of probability in oppo- sition to Stoic dogmatism. m1 d—v 12.
Ac. Preamble to the dialogue itself. In order that the reader may be enabled to form his own judgment, C. reports a conversation held at the house of Cotta in which the Epicureans were represented by Velleius, the Stoics by Balbus, the Academics by Cotta, Cicero forming the audience. vi 13—17.
La. Epicurean polemic against the orthodox theology of Plato and the Stoics, with their beliefs in a Creator, a mundane God, and a superintending Providence. vir 18—x 24.
Lb. Historical Section. i, Epicurean criticism of the theological tenets of twenty seven philosophers from Thales to Diogenes of Babylon. x 25—xv 41.
li. Epicurean criticism of the popular belief, as seen in the writings of the poets or in Oriental religions. xvi 42, 43.
Be, Epicurean exposition. Universal consent is a sufficient proof of the existence, blessedness, and immortality of the Gods. Such Gods must be free from care and passion, and are to be regarded with reverence, but without fear. Experience and reason both assure us that they are formed like men, but their bodies are of far finer texture than ours, and are perceptible to the mind alone, not to the bodily senses. That they are immortal is farther shown by the law of equilibrium, which provides that what is deficient in one place is compensated for in another. Thus the destructive forces which pre- vail in this mortal region are balanced by conservative forces else- where. To believe in a divine Creator and Governor of the world is to believe in a God who is full of care and trouble himself, and who causes pain to others, and is therefore an object of superstitious fear. The God of Epicurus passes his time in tranquil contemplation, while worlds are made and unmade by the fortuitous movements of innu- merable atoms throughout the infinity of space. xvi 43—xx 56.
ANALYSIS OF BOOK I. XXX1X
Ca. Cotta commences his reply with an expression of his belief in the existence of the Gods, but holds it impossible to arrive at any certainty with regard to the divine nature. xx1 57—xxu 61.
Cb. Weakness of the argument derived from universal consent. Negatively, such consent is unproved: positively, many have held a contrary opinion, xxii 62—64.
Cc. The atomic doctrine is opposed to science. If it were true it would be inconsistent with the belief in the immortality of the Gods. When Epicurus, by way of evading the difficulty, speaks of quasi-corporeal Gods, he becomes unintelligible. xxur 65—xxvir 75.
Cd. Weakness of the argument in favour of anthropomorphism. If the Gods present themselves to our eyes in human form only, that is because our ancestors, whether from superstition or policy, established that belief among us; elsewhere the case is different. If that form seems to men the most beautiful, that is merely the preju- dice of race. If it is said that experience shows rationality to be confined to that form, on the same ground we might attribute all the properties of man to the Gods; but reason shows the danger of arguing from our limited experience, and it shows also that a body which is suitable for man is unsuitable for such a being as God is supposed to be. xxvir 76—xxxvi 102.
Ce. Even if we grant that there are such images as Epicurus describes, what ground have we for thinking that there is any reality corresponding to them? or, in any case, for supposing that they reveal to us a blessed and immortal being? Immortality you think proved by your doctrine of equilibrium, but the same doctrine would prove the immortality of men. And how can beings be happy who are without activity and therefore without virtue? As to pleasures of sense they are worse off than men. All that can be predicated of them is absence of pain, yet even this is impossible since they must be in constant fear of dissolution from the influx and efflux of atoms. xxxvii 103—xu1 114.
Cf. The Epicurean principles, if accepted, are fatal to religion. What inducement is there to worship beings without activity and without benevolence? LEpicurus’ profession of piety was merely a blind to deceive the multitude. xxii 115—xuiv 124.
INTRODUCTION.
a ——
§ 3. DRAMATIS PERSONAE.
The Dialogue is represented as taking place on occasion of the Feriae Latinae at the house of C. Aurelius Cotta. The year of its supposed occurrence has to be determined from the following data supplied by the Dialogue. Cotta and Cicero are both residing at home; the former is Pontifex but not consul, the latter, in spite of his youth, is treated as an authority in philosophical questions, and allusion is made to his Athenian experience, which is however as- signed to Cotta, The facts of Cotta’s life may be briefly summed up. He was born 124 B.c. and like his brothers Marcus and Lucius (who so warmly espoused the cause of C. against Catiline and Clodius) took an active part in the politics of his time. He be- longed ‘to that wise and far-seeing party in the Senate, which aimed at checking the corrupt and oppressive rule of the jury-courts of equites, and at breaking the power of the city rabble by giving the franchise to the Italian yeomen’ (Wilkins De Oratore p. 5). After the murder of their leader Drusus in 91 B.c. (WV. D. ur 80), Cotta with many others of the party was driven into exile under the law of Q. Varius (V.D. 1 81), by which all who had encouraged the insurrection of the Italian allies were declared guilty of treason. He remained in exile throughout the Social War, and only returned home when order had been restored by Sulla in 82.B.c. Shortly afterwards he became a member of the college of ponti/ices and in the year 75 B.c. was elected consul. During his year of office he re- stored to the tribunes some of the privileges which Sulla had taken from them. On ceasing to be consul he was appointed to the pro- vince of Gallia, where he gained some unimportant successes for which a triumph was decreed to him, but he died of the effects of an old wound before he was able to enjoy it. He appears in company with P. Sulpicius Rufus as one of the younger interlocutors in the De Oratore; and his quiet persuasive style of reasoning is contrasted with the passionate energy of the latter in the Brutus § 201 foll. In the 3rd book of the De Oratore Cotta is said to have devoted himself to the study of the Academic system of philosophy as a part of the training of an orator, in consequence of a speech of Crassus there recorded, see § 145 numquam conqguiescam ante quam Ulorum ancipites vias rationesque et pro omnibus et contra omnia disputandi
DRAMATIS PERSONAE. xli
percepero. One of his most famous speeches was that in defence of his uncle Rutilius alluded to in V.D. 111 80.
To allow of Cotta’s being pontifex and not consul, the time of the Dialogue must be laid between 82 and 75 B.c.; and as Cicero was studying at Athens in 79 and 78 and did not return to Rome till 77 B.c., we narrow the possible limits to the interval between 77 and 75, when Cicero was about 30 years of age and Cotta about 48.
Little is known of C. Velleius, the spokesman of the Epicureans, beyond the fact that he was born at Lanuvium (WV. D. 1 82), was a friend of the orator Crassus (see note on 1 98) and. held the office of Tribune in the year 90 B.c. He is called rudis dicendi (Or. u1 78), and is described as holding the first place among the Romans of his sect (V.D.115). In the De Finibus L. Manlius Torquatus is the Epicurean disputant.
Of Q. Lucilius Balbus, the spokesman of the Stoics, we know even less. He was an interlocutor in the lost dialogue entitled Hortensius and is praised as not inferior to the most distinguished Stoics of Greece. In the De Finibus the Stoics are represented by Cato, in the De Divinatione by Q. Cicero.
In this dialogue as in the De Republica and De Oratore Cicero himself merely appears as a kwddv zpdcwrov: see my-note on I 34 s.v. Heraclides.
The dialogue is dedicated to M. Junius Brutus, the conspirator, who had been carefully trained in philosophy by his maternal uncle Cato, and had embraced with ardour the Stoico-Academic doctrines of Antiochus. It is a tribute not less to the weight of character, than to the philosophical attainments of Brutus, that Cicero, twenty one years his senior, dedicated to him four of his treatises besides the Natura Deorum, viz. the Orator, Paradoxa, De Finibus and Tus- culanae Disputationes, and has also introduced him as an interlocutor in the dialogue de claris oratoribus which is called after him. It appears from the De Finibus that Brutus had previously addressed a treatise De Virtute to Cicero cf. 1 8; quem timeam lectorem, cum ad te ne Graecis quidem cedentem in philosophia audeam scribere? Quam- quam a te ipso id quidem facio provocatus gratissimo mihi libro, quem ad me de virtute misisti. Quintilian speaks in high terms of the merits of the philosophical writings of Brutus x 1 §123 sufficit ponderi rerum: scias eum sentire quae dicit, with which may be compared Caesar’s judgment of the man, magni refert hic quid velit; sed quicquid volet,