as wide in their meaning as the ancient terms themselves. I have sometimes seen it urged that in translating ancient philosophical works, and especially those of Cicero, the technical terms of modern philosophy should be employed. But to do so would be to destroy, and not to represent the original—to substitute in fact modern ideas for the ancient. Only a few of the commonest and vaguest modern expressions are in fact applicable. I have, however, tried to avoid paraphrase, and, to help the reader, have sometimes placed in italics words used to represent the technical phrases of the Latin. There is some inconvenience, but I hope very slight, in issuing the translation in advance of the text and commentary. My text, when actually printed, will not differ very largely from that of Madvig, and a great many of the alterations will be such as to affect the translation but little. My plan required me to complete the translation before writing out the commentary, and I trust the present volume may be useful to some students in the interval that must elapse before the rest of the edition appears. I hope to publish at some future time a separate edition of the translation for English readers, with an introduction and notes especially intended to shew the historical importance of the ancient ethical systems treated in the De Finibus. I have compared my translation throughout with that of R. Kühner (Stuttgart 1861), which is scholarly and valuable. GONVILLE AND CAIUS COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, September, 1883. J. S. REID. CICERO DE FINIBUS BOOK I. WHILE I was engaged, Brutus, in transferring to our Latin 1 literature those investigations which in the Greek tongue had been handled by philosophers of consummate ability and profound learning, it did not escape me that this task of mine would meet with censure of different kinds. Some there are indeed (persons, I admit, not entirely without learning) who look with disfavour on the whole pursuit of philosophy. Some again do not so much object to it, if it be laxly carried on, but think that so much devotion and such great energy should not be expended upon it. Some too, men no doubt skilled in the literature of Greece, but indifferent to Latin, will declare that they would rather devote their energy to the perusal of works written in Greek. Finally, I imagine there will be some who will invite me into other paths of literature, affirming that this style of composition, refined though it be, is still not in accord with my character and position. In reply to all these 2 critics I deem it necessary to say a few words, though certainly the depreciators of philosophy have received a sufficient reply in the treatise wherein I championed and eulogised philosophy, while it was attacked and depreciated by Hortensius. Finding that this treatise was manifestly acceptable, not only to yourself, but to all whom I supposed competent to form an opinion, I have taken in hand several other subjects; for I feared it might be thought that I aroused the interest of R. C. F. 1 readers, without the power to sustain it. Again those who, however much they approve of my design, still desire that it should be executed with some reserve, call for a self-control that is hard to exercise in a matter where, when the rein is once loosened, no check nor curb can be applied; hence we feel that the critics who beckon us entirely away from philosophy treat us almost more fairly than men who try to set a bound to matters which admit of no limitation, and who call for moderation in the treatment of a subject which increases in value 3 precisely as its range is extended. Now if on the one hand it is possible for us to arrive at wisdom, we are not only to acquire it, but to reap enjoyment from it; if on the other hand our task is hard, still not only is discovery the sole limit to the exploration of truth, but when the object of search is the noblest possible, weariness in the search becomes disgraceful. Further, if writing is a pleasure to me, who is so grudging as to drag me away from that occupation? Or if it tasks my energy, who is there that should set a bound to the employments of another? So while the Chremes of Terence shews no unkindly spirit when he wishes that his new neighbour should not dig nor plough nor toil indeed at all (for he tries to withdraw him not from occupation, but from menial toil) these critics are fussy who feel displeasure at exertions which to me are by no means unpleasant. 4 II. Well then, it is still harder to meet the views of men who say they are indifferent to works written in Latin. With regard to these persons, the first thing I fail to understand is why their mother tongue, when employed upon the most weighty themes, gives them no pleasure, though the same persons are not unwilling to read Latin plays which are translated word for word from Greek. Pray, what man exists so unfriendly, I might almost say, to the name of Roman, that he treats the Medea of Ennius or the Antiopa of Pacuvius with scorn or condemnation, on the plea that he takes pleasure in the same plays as written by Euripides, while he feels a distaste for Latin literature? Am I, says such an one, to read the Young Comrades of Caecilius or the Andrian Woman of Terence in 5 preference to both plays by Menander? I am so far from agreeing |
