This was the second of two Cicero texts I focused on this term, and also equally fascinating as the other, though perhaps for different reasons. Once again, I pity the poor Epicurean who dares to walk into Cicero’s villa. Second… I actually learned quite a fair bit about ancient religious practices and attitudes, which was really useful, not to mention Cicero’s own attitudes about himself. (Who could forget the man and great legend?) This one I also did read a fair bit in Latin as well, so it was great that I had the opportunity to brush up on my Latin this term. As always, reading Cicero in Latin can be an enjoyable… but sometimes confusing task. It’s worth it, though.

I alternatively read the Walsh and Rackham editions of this along with the Latin. I do think Walsh’s translation is well-done and quite accessible to the average reader (if there is such a thing for this kind of work). Walsh includes a ridiculous amount of footnotes for every reference, so fear not if you have no clue about ancient religion or ancient historical figures.

As in the other Cicero text I looked at, the explanation of Stoic theology, and especially of the rational ordering of the cosmos, were my favorite parts from Book 2. (I’m not going to get into Velleius or the Epicurean arguments here, as I much prefer Lucretius’s account. Velleius leaves a much less favorable impression.) There is some important discussion on the driving force of the world, pneuma, and how one can find hints of the divine spread throughout everything in the cosmos. The dialogue is also very revealing about Roman attitudes towards religion, and how significant the state’s cultivation and use of religion was in promoting its image and engaging with the populace.

Even though I’m an atheist, reading this was beautiful. There is something to be said about the appeal of the Stoic rationally ordered cosmos. I had an extremely emotionally compelling experience recently looking up at the night sky on my walk home, and being able to see so many stores on a clear night is breathtaking no matter how many times you do it. This feeling of being interconnected with the universe, and perhaps even with the very figures that are speaking in this dialogue, is a great quirk of human existence.

There are also some fascinating arguments presented in the dialogue, both by Balbus (the Stoic spokesman) and later Cotta (the Academic Skeptic). There is a proto-watchmaker argument given by Balbus in defense of the divine creation of the world, and even a proto-ontological argument like Anselm’s. Cotta in his refutation even points out the classic problem of evil dilemma. There is even something like the infinite monkey theorem. An entire section in Book 2 deals with astronomy and the detail contained therein is astounding; the geocentric view is completely false, of course, but so many other things were ‘right’. It’s quite sensible and yet surprising that such arguments have a long and storied history. There is also a fair bit said about divine providence, which lends itself well to continuing on with Cicero’s On Fate, which we also read bits of in the seminar. It certainly gives a more contextualized and detailed account of Roman religion. I used to be irked when people claimed that the Romans simply ‘copied’ the Greek gods and just changed a few names around, but I’m liable to be even more aggravated now that I realize just how foolish of a claim that is.

Perhaps the most contentious thing about this dialogue is the ending, so ‘spoiler alert’, if you care about that here… Cicero’s reveal that in fact, he prefers the Stoic position over Cotta’s Academic refutations, has been given much attention in scholarship, but it nonetheless remains a puzzling remark. There may be some credence to the idea that Cotta was a replacement for Cicero’s character, and he was concerned with offending public sensibility by speaking against the gods (either their existence, or divine providence, which is a huge aspect of Roman religious culture). It is unfortunate that large sections of Cotta’s refutations are missing, especially related to these topics. But we still have a lot of extant material, including a fun digression on how there are many different variations of ‘Jupiters’, ‘Minervas’, ‘Dionysuses’, etc. Does Cicero actually find the Stoic account more probabile, or is he just trying to placate his Roman readers? It’s well worth reading this dialogue to explore both arguments for yourself and learn a lot about Roman attitudes towards the gods. This book makes me feel like a small speck of dust in the universe, but in an awe-inspiring way.

I will include a few (but non-exhaustive) of my favorite quotes (from Walsh’s translation) below.

‘How splendid it would be, Velleius, if you were to admit ignorance of what you do not know, rather than puking and feeling disgust with yourself for uttering such balderdash!’

‘The gods reveal signs of future events, and if individuals go astray in interpreting these, the fault lies not with the nature of the gods but with the inferences made by humans.’

‘Man has emerged for the contemplation and imitation of the universe; though he is in no way perfect, in a sense he is a fragment of perfection.’

‘To turn now to our fundamental possessions of mind, intelligence, reason, prudence, and wisdom, any person who does not realize that these have been brought to perfection by divine supervision seems to me to lack those very qualities.’

‘Either God wishes to remove evils and cannot, or he can do so and is unwilling, or he has neither the will nor the power, or he has both the will and the power. If he has the will but not the power, he is a weakling, and this is not characteristic of God. If he has the power but not the will, he is grudging, and this is a trait equally foreign to God. If he has neither the will nor the power, he is both grudging and weak, and is therefore not divine. If he has both the will and the power (and this is the sole circumstance appropriate to God), what is the source of evils, or why does God not dispel them?’

‘This attitude is surely justified, for we ourselves rightly gain praise for virtue, and we rightly take pride in it. This would not be the case if we obtained it as a gift from God, and if it did not emanate from ourselves. On the other hand, if we gain distinctions or family property, or if we obtain some other unlooked-for blessing, or shrug off some misfortune, we then thank the gods, and we believe that nothing has accrued to our own praise. Did anyone, I ask, ever thank the gods for being a good person?’

‘Whether poets have corrupted Stoics, or Stoics have lent their authority to poets, I can not readily say, for both groups recount marvels and monstrous deeds.’

(The following are some quotes from Walsh’s introduction.)

‘In contrast to the Greek literary depiction of gods as fallible human beings writ large, the Roman deities are impersonal and remote.’

‘Behind all this ceremonial lies the fundamental fact that Roman religion was a bargaining religion. Roman commanders in the field vowed public thanksgivings and shrines provided that victory was granted them. The characteristic formula in ceremonial prayer is: “If you deities duly lend your aid, we in return will reward you.”’

‘In describing this atmospheric current of fire which pervades the world, the Stoics alternate between scientific and religious language; at one time they call it fiery breath, and at another the divine element, or Providence, or Reason, or Destiny, or Necessity.’