This study considers the ranges of the power of self-determination in human action, attending to the « status quaestionis » of the matter as it is contained in statements of Cicero on the Stoic position, his own thoughts on this matter, and the reception and re-reading of the theme in Thomas Aquinas. We thus attend to the Ciceronian exposition in De natura deorum, De divinatione and De fato on the Stoic position regarding the need for causal connection. (...) We also study the criticism added by Cicero to its transmission, and the projections of the problematic in Aquinas’s quaestio De fato, in the Summa Theologiae, and in other parallel passages. (shrink)

Book 1 of De Natura Deorum exhibits in a nutshell Cicero's philosophical method, with the prior part stating the case for Epicurean theology, the latter part refuting it. Thus the reader observes Cicero at work in both constructive and skeptical modes as well as his art of characterizing speakers. Prefaced to the Book is Cicero's most elaborate justification of his philosophical writing. The Book thus makes an ideal starting point for the study of Cicero's philosophica or indeed of (...) any philosophical writing in Latin, since it delineates the problems such a project raised in the minds of Roman readers and shows how Cicero thought they could be met. There is also a systematic and detailed doxography of ancient views about the deity, an important document in itself, presented from an Epicurean perspective. The volume's Introduction situates this text within Cicero's intellectual development and ancient reflection about the gods. (shrink)

Los llamados tratados "teológicos" de Cicerón (De natura deorum, De divinatione, De fato y la traducción parcial de Timeo platónico) fueron muy apreciados a partir de la antigüedad tardía y tuvieron gran influencia en la literatura europea medieval. Sin embargo, la transmisión de estas obras filosóficas parece haber sido en España muy escasa -y fundamentalmente indirecta- hasta el siglo XIV, adquiriendo una relevancia sólo algo mayor durante los siglos XV y XVI, debido seguramente a las dificultades que (...) suponía adaptar el escepticismo del pensamiento ciceroniano a la ortodoxia cristiana, a pesar de los ensayos humanísticos en esta dirección. (shrink)

En l’absence de traduction française récente du De natura deorum depuis l’édition bilingue de Ch. Appuhn chez Garnier, c’est une évi­dence que la traduction de Clara Auvray-Assayas comble un vide de l’édition française. Aussi surprenant que cela puisse paraître, La nature des dieux est en effet, avec les Académiques et le De divinatione, le seul traité philosophique de Cicéron qui n’ait jamais bénéficié d’une édi­tion Budé. L’ouvrage semble être l’équivalent latin des traités grecs Παερι` θεῶ...

Chapters I.4 and IV.3 of the Memorabilia, where Socrates presents an anthropocentric teleology and an elaborate conception of the divine providence that rules the universe, had a profound influence on the Stoics. The ancients were well aware of this influence, but modern acknowledgement of it was slow in coming, sometimes because these chapters of the Memorabilia were seen as interpolations of Stoic origin, sometimes because the teleology presented by Socrates was attributed to Diogenes of Apollonia. Fortunately, recent commentators no longer (...) seek to deny Xenophon’s authorship of these two chapters, and it is therefore possible to attempt to determine the extent of their legacy among the Stoics. The aim of the following study is to shed light on the numerous overlaps that can be observed between the text of the Memorabilia (chapters I.4 and IV.3) and book II of Cicero’s De natura deorum, where Balbus offers a detailed presentation of Stoic theology. It appears that the influence of the Memorabilia on Cicero’s text is much more important than has been recognized before now. (shrink)

El artículo cuya traducción presento a continuación es considerado hoydía un clásico en los estudios de la filosofía ciceroniana. Todo aquel queha regresado sobre los problemas que en él se tratan, ha tenido que volversobre las tesis de Pease, bien sea para aprobarlas y prolongarlas, bien seapara rechazarlas (e.g. Fott, 2012). La pregunta central del artículo consiste encómo interpretar la polémica sentencia que hace Cicerón al final de su obrade Natura Deorum. En dicha obra, como es usual en (...) las obras ciceronianas,tres representantes de las escuelas filosóficas más importantes de la épocahan sido invitados a discutir la difícil cuestión sobre cuál es la naturaleza delos dioses. Al final del diálogo, Cicerón, que aparece como un personaje desu propia obra, afirma que las tesis estoicas le han parecido más verosímilesque las tesis de la nueva academia. ¿Esta afirmación implica que Cicerónhabía abandonado el escepticismo académico para adherir al dogmatismoestoico?, ¿Cicerón, en realidad, trató de ocultar su verdadera postura? Muchas respuestas se han dado al respecto. La virtud del trabajo de Peaseconsiste en clasificar y examinar las diversas respuestas que históricamentese han dado a estas preguntas. Con todo, y pese a la vigencia del artículo de Pease, es necesario reconocer que el texto fue escrito en una época en laque los estudios de la filosofía de Cicerón eran germinales y plagados delos prejuicios de la tradición mommsiana y del Quellenforschung. Hoy día,después de la renovación de los estudios ciceronianos de las últimas décadas,podemos volver sobre el artículo de Pease con más y mejores herramientasconceptuales y metodológicas con las que él contó.Sobre los aspectos formales de la traducción resalto lo siguiente. Enprimer lugar, Pease no refiere en ningún lugar las ediciones de las obraslatinas que cita y en base a las cuales realiza sus propias traducciones. Poresta razón, en las referencias bibliográficas referencio sólo el título de laobra junto a su respectiva abreviatura. En segundo lugar, todas las citasde las obras latinas que aparecen en el artículo fueron traducidas a partirde la traducción inglesa del propio Pease. No obstante, en donde Pease norealizó una traducción de las obras latinas, propongo una traducción propia.En tercer lugar, las citas que hace Pease de estudiosos en alemán, inglés yfrancés también fueron traducidas por mí. Finalmente, todas las referenciasy citas fueron convertidas, en la medida de lo posible, al actual sistema decitación APA. (shrink)

Concepts of reason play a decisive role in the discussion of the different ideas of god in Cicero’s De natura deorum. However, the dialogue uses many different conceptual terms (such as ratio, mens, consilium, intelligentia or cogitatio) to refer to the achievements and potentials of reason. The variable use of the expressions across the dialogue at first suggests purely rhetorical criteria – variatio delectat – in selecting the terms for reason. However, the investigation presented here into the use (...) of terms reveals that Cicero ascribes to each of his dialogue partners a specific use of terms for reason. As will be shown, the use of terms relates not only to the underlying concepts of reason of the Epicurean, Stoic and Academic schools, but is also closely linked to their ideas about god. (shrink)

Para comprender íntegramente los diálogos redactados por San Agustín en la villa de Casicíaco, se hace necesario e imprescindibleentender previamente cómo se relacionan con las obras filosóficas que -ya anteriormente- había escrito Marco Tulio Cicerón. Así, podemos apreciar que el Contra Academicos agustiniano constituye una clara respuesta al Academica ciceroniano, o también el De beata vita al De finibus y Tusculanae disputationes. Asimismo, su De ordine lo será a la trilogía de obras que el Arpinate elabora sobre la providencia: De (...) natura deorum, De divinatione y De fato. Por otra parte, numerosos autores también señalan sus Soliloquios como un “nuevo diálogo de Casicíaco”, en donde el maestro de Hipona y la razón establecen una “edificante y sólida conversación”. Sin embargo, no está pensado para constituir una respuesta a ningún escrito ciceroniano en concreto. (shrink)

"Wenn es auch viele Fragen in der Philosophie gibt, die bis heute noch nicht genügend geklärt sind, so ist doch die Frage nach dem Wesen der Götter ganz besonders schwierig und überaus dunkel...". Um eine Klärung bemühen sich im Haus von Ciceros Freund C. Aurelius Cotta neben dem Hausherren, der die Schule der Akademiker vertritt, der Epikureer C. Velleius und der Stoiker Q. Lucilius Balbus. Cicero - zum fiktiven Datum der Unterredung mit etwa dreißig Jahren der Jüngste - begnügt sich (...) hauptsächlich mit der Rolle des stummen Zuhörers. Seine Gesprächswiedergabe besticht durch die Schärfe der Gedankenführung und die meisterhafte Komposition. Ihm verdanken die Römer zum großen Teil die lateinische Terminologie, die weiteren Kreisen den Zugang zur griechischen Philosophie erst ermöglichte. Olof Gigon und Laila Straume-Zimmermann haben den Text neu übertragen und mit profundem Detailwissen und philosophischem Weitblick kommentiert. (shrink)

The work of Richard H. Popkin both introduced the concept of skeptical fideism and served to impressively document its importance in the philosophies of a diverse range of thinkers, including Montaigne, Pascal, Huet, and Bayle. Popkin’s landmark History of Scepticism, however, begins its coverage with the Renaissance. In this paper I explore the roots of skeptical fideism in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, with special attention to Cicero’s De Natura Deorum, the oldest surviving text to clearly develop a (...) skeptical fideist perspective. (shrink)

This article wants to recall a hitherto unnoticed edition of Cicero’s De Natura Deorum, which the classical philologist Matthäus Dresser (1536–1615) published with an extensive commentary. This edition, however, represents a remarkable peculiarity within the reception history of Cicero’s text, since Dresser neither claims to be a philologist, interested in textual criticism, nor a neutral historian of the philosophy of religion. Rather, as an apologetically oriented Protestant in times of confessional conflict, he is concerned with the argumentative validity (...) of the different answers to the questions discussed in Cicero’s text: Do gods exist? What qualities do they have? What activities do they display? And which relevance do these answers have for Christian monotheism? Hence, we may speak of a selective commentary, first and foremost interested in the truth or falsehood of the various answers to these main questions, in order to set contemporary readers (especially scholars and students) on the right track and to save them from severe religious errors. Dresser aims to achieve his goal by adding to the text not only extensive Annotationes, but also an introductory Argumentum to each of the three Ciceronian books of De Natura Deorum. He also gives two Disputationes (in the form of theses) at the end of each book, which provide a résumé and further guidance on interpretation. Thus he firmly rejects the atomism of Epicureanism and its denial of Providence, as explained in the first book. Dresser has to take a differentiated view of the views of Stoicism as presented in the second book: Besides many beneficial doctrines, this school of philosophers also holds fatalistic and pantheistic views which have to be rejected as dangerous to the Christian faith. As the sceptic Cotta radically rebukes the religious views of Epicureanism in the third book, but also attacks in large part Stoic theism and its idea of providence, which is also dear to Dresser’s heart, he is forced to oppose academic scepticism. This gives rise to a “theodicy” avant la lettre by Dresser, since Cottas denial of providence had also argued with the existence of evil in God’s creation. The Epicurean conceptions of God are thus not an option. Those of Stoicism are acceptable if purged of dangerous elements. Scepticism in its radical academic form must be eliminated by argument. In this article, these features of Dresser’s Annotationes and Disputationes are described and analysed in detail. Important parts of his commentaries are quoted in the author’s translation. Completely translated are the Disputationes 1 and 2 to Book III, dealing with the sceptical ’epoché’ or retention of judgement. Thus, the contribution not only represents a unique example of the reception of Cicero’s De Natura Deorum in the age of confessionalism, but also gives an insight into the reception of the three Hellenistic schools of philosophy in the early modern period in general, especially that of scepticism. (shrink)

This paper explores the role of the Ciceronian tradition in the radical religious discourse of John Toland . Toland produced numerous works seeking to challenge the authority of the clergy, condemning their ‘priestcraft’ as a significant threat to the integrity of the Commonwealth. Throughout these anticlerical writings, Toland repeatedly invoked Cicero as an enemy to superstition and as a religious sceptic, particularly citing the theological dialogues De Natura Deorum and De Divinatione. This paper argues that Toland adapted (...) the Ciceronian tradition so that it could function as an active influence on the construction of his radical discourse. First, it shows that Toland championed a particular interpretation of Cicero's works which legitimised his use of Cicero in this rational context. Then, it shows the practical manifestations of this interpretation, examining the ramifications for how Toland formed three important facets of his campaign against priestcraft: his identification of priestcraft as a superstition; his argument for a rational religion in which priestcraft could play no role; and his portrayal of anticlericalism as a service to the Commonwealth. (shrink)

Ist das menschliche Handeln vorbestimmt oder kann der Einzelne frei entscheiden? In Auseinandersetzung mit den Positionen von Chrysipp, Epikur und Karneades gelangt Cicero zur Auffassung, dass es für den menschlichen Willen keine von außen wirkenden und vorausgehenden Ursachen gebe, die diesen Entscheidungsprozess bestimmen. Die Mitte 44 v.Chr. begonnene und unvollendet gebliebene Schrift schließt sich unmittelbar an "De divinatione" und "De natura deorum" an.

Ist das menschliche Handeln vorbestimmt oder kann der Einzelne frei entscheiden? In Auseinandersetzung mit den Positionen von Chrysipp, Epikur und Karneades gelangt Cicero zur Auffassung, dass es für den menschlichen Willen keine von außen wirkenden und vorausgehenden Ursachen gebe, die diesen Entscheidungsprozess bestimmen. Die Mitte 44 v.Chr. begonnene und unvollendet gebliebene Schrift schließt sich unmittelbar an "De divinatione" und "De natura deorum" an.

This is an outstanding contribution to the study of Cicero's philosophical works. Wynne argues for a nuanced view of De natura deorum and De divinatione as components of Cicero's larger philosophical project, specifically revealing how Greek philosophy might serve to moderate or clarify Roman religion. In an extensive introduction, Wynne lays out his interpretative approach, adding to the growing consensus that these texts are worth reading for more than the reconstruction of lost sources. The first chapter elaborates (...) Cicero's project in these dialogues. The central aim is to help his readers avoid the superstitious belief that the gods care more for us than they do as well as the impious belief that... (shrink)

Naturae vero rerum vis atque majestas in omnibus momentis fide caret, si quis modo partes ejus ac non totam coplectatur animo.1In the De natura deorum, Cicero recalls that followers of Pythagoras often justified justified their acceptance of a statement by appealing to the authority of their teacher. For them, inasmuch as Pythagoras “himself said it,” his words should be accepted unreservedly and there was no reason to argue further.2 Since antiquity, “ipse dixit” has been considered the most straightforward (...) summary of the argument from authority. It also seems to condense all of the negative characteristics of an attitude that we nowadays regard as the contrary to modern scientific... (shrink)

El debate sobre si procede establecer un paralelismo entre las _Meditaciones _y la actividad jurídica y política de su autor ha llevado a la historiografía a plantear diversas hipótesis en cuanto a la adscripción filosófica de Marco Aurelio. Teniendo en cuenta estos trabajos previos, nos preguntamos cómo abordar el pasaje _Med. _VI, 44, en el que Marco Aurelio se pregunta por la providencia divina. El tema parece retomar un debate propio de la filosofía helenística con un vocabulario y un planteamiento (...) típicamente estoicos, pero su finalidad ya no es meramente teológica ni su posicionamiento sigue la ortodoxia de esta escuela. La inspiración estoica le permite defender la exigencia del culto a los dioses mediante ritos institucionalizados, aunque filosóficamente no pueda concluirse con certeza la existencia de la divinidad. Para alcanzar este objetivo reproduce la posición del Cota ciceroniano, quien, en _De natura deorum_, representa la posición del pontífice que debe proteger los ritos religiosos y el filósofo que busca una fundamentación teórica que facilite su defensa. De esta manera, Marco Aurelio, como antes Cicerón, politiza al servicio de Roma un debate que, en un primer momento, se hallaba circunscrito a la teología. (shrink)

v. 1. Academicarum quæstionum editionis primæ liber secondus. Editionis secundæ liber primus. De finibus bonorum & malorum libri v. Tusculanarum quæstionum libri v. -v. 2. M. T. C. De natura deorum libri III. De diuinatione libri II. De fato liber I. Scipionis somnium, quod e sex. De rep. libris superest. De legibus libri III. De Vniuersitate liber I. Q. Ciceronis de petitione consulatus ad Marcum fratrem liber I.0.

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Academic Skepticism in Early Modern PhilosophyJosé R. Maia NetoAncient skepticism was more influential in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries than it had ever been before. Thanks to the groundwork of Charles B. Schmitt and Richard H. Popkin on the influence of ancient skepticism in early modern philosophy and to the extensive research that followed their lead, skepticism is now recognized as having played a major role in the rise (...) of modern thought. 1There were two ancient skeptical schools, Academic skepticism and Pyrrhon-ism. Were both equally influential? Until the sixteenth century, Pyrrhonism was scarcely known. Only a few copies of Sextus’s books (the only surviving primary source of ancient Pyrrhonism) have been discovered in medieval libraries. By contrast the main source of Academic skepticism, Cicero’s Aca-demica, was occasionally referred to by medieval authors and was the object of some commentaries and criticism in the Renaissance. 2 Academic skepticism was preserved from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance not only through Cicero’s Academica, but also through Lactantius’s Divinae Institutiones and [End Page 199] Augustine’s Contra Academicos. 3 This situation changed when Sextus’s works were translated to latin and published in 1562 and 1569. Sextus presents a much more complete and detailed account and defense of ancient skepticism than that of Cicero’s Academica. Sextus presents Pyrrhonism as a coherent form of skepticism and Academic skepticism as a kind of negative dogmatism. 4 It was thus natural that the ancient skepticism that fascinated some (and troubled so many) early modern thinkers was mostly Pyrrhonian. Because of the publication of Sextus’s works, according to Schmitt, the increasing influence of Cicero’s Academica in the Renaissance was halted. Sextus’s Hypotyposes and Adversus Mathematicos took the place of Cicero’s Academica and drastically increased the influence of ancient skepticism. 5 The skeptical crisis at the dawn of modern philosophy is called “pyrrhonienne” not “academicienne.”While the appearance of Sextus’s works in Latin turned him and Pyrrhonism into the main source and influence of ancient skepticism in early modern philosophy, further research on the history of skepticism in the period has shown that the role of Cicero’s Academica and of Academic skepticism in general continued to be considerable. First, Cicero’s works were important items in the university curricula. Although Cicero’s works of rhetoric and morals were those more read, the students could certainly learn about Academic skepticism through at least some of them. Second, many editions of De Natura Deorum, a work of Cicero’s in which Academic skepticism is quite central, were published during the seventeenth century. Third, features of Academic skepticism, exhibited above all in Cicero’s Academica, are basic to the skepticism revived in the late Renaissance by Montaigne and Charron; were related to the new science in the first half of the seventeenth century by Gassendi; were used in the anti-Cartesian reaction of the late seventeenth century by Rapin, Huet, Bayle, and above all Foucher; and were radicalized in the eighteenth century by Hume. Despite the Academic features of Montaigne’s, Charron’s, and Gassendi’s skepticisms, it does seem that from the publication of Sextus’s works to the mid-seventeenth century, Academic skepticism was secondary to Pyrrhonism. But the appearance of Descartes and the development of Cartesianism in the second half of the seventeenth century set conditions for a complete revamping of Academic skepticism, bringing about what Schmitt thought was precluded by the appearance of Sextus in the modern scene, namely, a “full flowering of the Academica as a work to inspire new directions of philosophical thought.” 6 [End Page 200]Montaigne’s Apologie pour Raimond Sebond is rightly considered the first major result of the revival of ancient Pyrrhonism in modern thought. 7 Montaigne never cites the name of Sextus nor acknowledges his source and, by contrast, fills his Apology with passages from Cicero on the Academic skeptics. It is clear, however, that Montaigne follows closely Sextus’s Outlines of Pyrrhonism in the central part of the Apology where he gives a detailed and sympathetic exposition of ancient skepticism.After dwelling on the evils and problems arising from knowledge and science, Montaigne... (shrink)

In antiquity the consensus gentium argument for God’s existence was believed to have merit (cf. Cicero, De Natura Deorum, Book II, sect.2,4), but has been considered blatantly fallacious during more recent times. In this article Bayes’ Theorem is applied to show that the argument is in fact a valid inductive argument. A two hypothesis and a four hypothesis version of the argument are analyzed. Perusal of available statistical evidence suggests that when better worldwide opinion polling data becomes available (...) it will turn out to be sound as well. (shrink)

In Book 19, chapter 9 of the Nodes Atticae Gellius describes the birthday party of a young Greek of equestrian rank at which a group of professional singers entertained the guests by performing poems by Anacreon, Sappho, ‘et poetarum quoque recentium λεγεα quaedam erotica’ . After the singing, Gellius goes on, some of the Greek συμπόται present challenged Roman achievements in erotic poetry, excepting only Catullus and Calvus, and criticized in particular Laevius, Hortensius, Cinna, and Memmius. Rising to meet this (...) charge, Gellius’ teacher of rhetoric, Antonius Julianus, admits the superiority of the Greeks in what he calls ‘cantilenarum mollitiae’ in general , but to show that the Romans too have some good erotic poets, he recites four early Latin love epigrams, by Valerius Aedituus , Porcius Licinus , and Lutatius Catulus . The same three poets are listed in the same order in Apuleius’ Apology in a list of amatory poets which he provides in order to establish precedents and thus invalidate his prosecutors’ referral to his erotic poems in their accusation . Catulus is also enumerated in Pliny's list of Roman dignitaries who composed ‘uersiculos seueros parum’ like his own , and an amatory epigram of his is cited by Cicero in De Natura Deorum 1.79 . We possess no further evidence connecting the other two with the composition of either erotic or, more generally, ‘light’ verse, but a poem by Porcius Licinus on Roman literary history is attested by several sources including Varro, Suetonius, and Gellius himself. (shrink)

: In Contra Academicos 3.11.24, Augustine responds to skepticism about the existence of the external world by arguing that what appears to be the world — as he terms things, the "quasi-earth" and "quasi-sky" — cannot be doubted. While some (e.g., M. Burnyeat and G. Matthews) interpret this passage as a subjectivist response to global skepticism, it is here argued that Augustine's debt to Epicurean epistemology and theology, especially as presented in Cicero's De Natura Deorum 1.25.69 - 1.26.74, (...) provides the basis for a much more plausible, realist interpretation of Augustine's argument. (shrink)

Para entender completamente los diálogos de Casiciaco de san Agustín, es preciso comprender cómo se relacionan con las obras filosóficas de Marco Tulio Cicerón. En concreto, "Contra Academicos" de Agustín es una respuesta a "Academica" de Cicerón. "De beata uita" es una respuesta a los ciceronianos "De finibus" y "Tusculanae disputationes". Su "De ordine" es una respuesta a la trilogía de Cicerón sobre la providencia: "De natura deorum", "De diuinatione" y "De fato". Reconocer la conexión entre estas obras (...) arroja luz nueva sobre el sentido e importancia de los diálogos de Casiciaco. (shrink)