1.1 Iuvenis a young man quīdam a certain nōmine by name Mārcus Marcus cum when vēritātem the truth dē about summō the highest bonō good quaereret he was seeking ad to philosophōs the philosophers sē himself contulit betook —nam for quī who aliī other vēritātem the truth habērent would have nisi unless quī those who prōfitēbantur professed sē themselves sapientiam wisdom docēre? to teach
1.2 Ita thus putābat he thought —et and ita thus putant think plērīque most people —sed but falluntur they are deceived
2.1 Prīmum first adiit he approached Stoicum a Stoic quī who sīc thus docuit taught —”summum the highest bonum good est is virtūs virtue sōla alone —nihil nothing bonum good est is nisi except quod what honestum is honourable est is —voluptās pleasure nihil is nothing est is dolor pain nihil is nothing est is mors death nihil is nothing est” is
2.2 Mārcus Marcus audīvit heard this et and admīrātus having admired est was sevēritātem the severity doctrīnae of the teaching —sed but dubitāre to doubt coepit he began —nam for quōmodo how dolor pain nihil nothing est is cum when torqueātur one is being tortured corpus? in the body
2.3 Quod which et even Cicerō Cicero ipse himself Stoicus though a Stoic nōn not potuit was able dēfendere to defend —nam for in in Tusculānīs the Tusculan Disputations cōnfitētur he confesses dolōrem pain malum an evil esse to be etiam even though sī if nōn not summum the greatest
3.1 Deinde next adiit he approached Epicūreum an Epicurean quī who contrārium the contrary omnīnō altogether docuit taught —”summum the highest bonum good est is voluptās pleasure —nātūra nature ipsa itself docet teaches omnia all animālia living creatures voluptātem pleasure petere to seek dolōrem pain fugere” to flee
3.2 Mārcus Marcus audīvit heard this et and mīrātus having wondered est was quod that hic this philosophus philosopher id that summum the highest bonum good vocāret would call quod which alter the other nihil nothing esse to be dīxisset had said
3.3 Et and ipse he himself Seneca Seneca quī who Stoicus a Stoic erat was dē about Epicūrō Epicurus fatētur admits —”doctrīna the teaching eius his in into malam an evil fāmam reputation vēnit has come et and meritō” rightly —nec nor tamen yet sē himself ipsum himself ā from vitiō the fault līberāre to free potuit was he able —nam for Stoicī the Stoics dē about virtūte virtue egregiē splendidly disputant dispute sed but vīvunt they live aliter otherwise
4.1 Postrēmō finally adiit he approached Acadēmicum an Academic quī who nec neither cum with Stoicō the Stoic nec nor cum with Epicūreō the Epicurean sēnsit agreed sed but sīc thus dīxit said —”nihil nothing certō for certain scīrī can be known potest is able —nec neither dē about summō the highest bonō good nec nor dē about ūllā any rē thing aliā” other
4.2 “Quid what ergō then docēs?” do you teach inquit asked Mārcus Marcus
4.3 “Doceō I teach nihil nothing scīrī” can be known inquit said ille he
4.4 Cui to whom Mārcus Marcus —”sī if nihil nothing scīs you know cūr why tē yourself magistrum a teacher vocās? do you call —et and sī if hoc this ipsum itself scīs you know —nihil that nothing scīrī can be known posse— is able iam already aliquid something scīs you know et and tē yourself ipsum yourself rēfellīs” you refute
5.1 Ecce behold trēs three philosophī philosophers trēs three sententiae opinions —nec nor ūlla any cum with aliā another consentit agrees
5.2 Stoicus the Stoic dīcit says “sōla only virtūs” virtue —Epicūreus the Epicurean dīcit says “sōla only voluptās” pleasure —Acadēmicus the Academic dīcit says “neutrum neither scīmus” do we know
5.3 Et and hī these sunt are quōs the men whom mundus the world sapientēs wise vocat calls —quī who dē about rē the matter maximā most important —quōmodo how scīlicet namely vīvendum one must live sit— is inter among sē themselves convenīre to agree nōn not possunt are able
5.4 Quod which et even Cicerō Cicero —quī who prīnceps the chief philosophōrum of the philosophers Rōmānōrum Roman fuit was —fassus confessed est is —scrīpsit he wrote enim for in in Hortensiō the Hortensius nihil nothing certī certain habēre that he had sē himself in in philosophiā philosophy praeter except nōmen the name ipsum itself
6.1 Cūr why autem however dīssidēbant? did they disagree —quia because vēritātem the truth sōlā by ratiōne reason hūmānā human quaerēbant they were seeking —quae which ratiō reason sine without lūmine the light dīvīnō divine errāre to err necesse must necessarily est is
6.2 Nam for philosophī the philosophers dīmidium half vēritātis of the truth vidēbant were seeing —Stoicī the Stoics rēctē rightly vidēbant saw virtūtem virtue bonum a good esse to be sed but errābant they erred cum when dolōrem pain nihil nothing esse to be dīcēbant they said —Epicūreī the Epicureans rēctē rightly vidēbant saw hominem man nōn was not sine without corpore a body esse to be sed but errābant they erred cum when voluptātem pleasure summum the highest bonum good pōnēbant they set
6.3 Uterque each aliquid something vērī of the truth tenēbat held —neuter neither tōtum the whole —neuter neither enim for id that habēbat had quod which sōlum alone tōtam the whole vēritātem truth dare to give potest is able —lūmen the light dīvīnum divine
7.1 Mārcus Marcus ad to mē me vēnit came et and dīxit said “ā from tribus three philosophīs philosophers trēs three sententiās opinions accēpī I have received quae which inter among sē themselves pugnant fight —quis who eōrum of them vērum the truth dīxit?” has spoken
7.2 Nēmō none eōrum of them —et and omnēs all eōrum of them
7.3 Nēmō none —quia because nēmō none tōtam the whole vēritātem truth habuit had —omnēs all —quia because in in singulīs each one aliquid something vērī of the truth latēbat was lying hidden quod which cēterī the others nōn did not vidēbant see
7.4 Sapientia wisdom enim for nōn is not est is fragmenta fragments colligere to collect —sed but tōtum the whole accipere to receive —et and hoc this tōtum whole nōn not ratiō reason hūmāna human dat gives sed but Deus God
7.5 Sapientia wisdom enim for et and religiō religion sēparārī to be separated nōn not possunt are able —nam for nec neither sapientia wisdom sine without Deō God vēra true est is nec nor religiō religion sine without sapientiā wisdom rāta established
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
1.1 Iuvenis quīdam nōmine Mārcus, cum vēritātem dē summō bonō quaereret, ad philosophōs sē contulit — nam quī aliī vēritātem habērent nisi quī prōfitēbantur sē sapientiam docēre?
1.2 Ita putābat — et ita putant plērīque — sed falluntur.
2.1 Prīmum adiit Stoicum quī sīc docuit: “Summum bonum est virtūs sōla — nihil bonum est nisi quod honestum est — voluptās nihil est, dolor nihil est, mors nihil est.”
2.2 Mārcus audīvit et admīrātus est sevēritātem doctrīnae — sed dubitāre coepit — nam quōmodo dolor nihil est cum torqueātur corpus?
2.3 Quod et Cicerō ipse, Stoicus, nōn potuit dēfendere — nam in Tusculānīs cōnfitētur dolōrem malum esse etiam sī nōn summum.
3.1 Deinde adiit Epicūreum quī contrārium omnīnō docuit: “Summum bonum est voluptās — nātūra ipsa docet omnia animālia voluptātem petere, dolōrem fugere.”
3.2 Mārcus audīvit et mīrātus est quod hic philosophus id summum bonum vocāret quod alter nihil esse dīxisset.
3.3 Et ipse Seneca, quī Stoicus erat, dē Epicūrō fatētur: “Doctrīna eius in malam fāmam vēnit, et meritō” — nec tamen sē ipsum ā vitiō līberāre potuit — nam Stoicī dē virtūte egregiē disputant sed vīvunt aliter.
4.1 Postrēmō adiit Acadēmicum quī nec cum Stoicō nec cum Epicūreō sēnsit, sed sīc dīxit: “Nihil certō scīrī potest — nec dē summō bonō nec dē ūllā rē aliā.”
4.2 “Quid ergō docēs?” inquit Mārcus.
4.3 “Doceō nihil scīrī,” inquit ille.
4.4 Cui Mārcus: “Sī nihil scīs, cūr tē magistrum vocās? — et sī hoc ipsum scīs — nihil scīrī posse — iam aliquid scīs et tē ipsum rēfellīs.”
5.1 Ecce trēs philosophī, trēs sententiae — nec ūlla cum aliā consentit.
5.2 Stoicus dīcit “sōla virtūs” — Epicūreus dīcit “sōla voluptās” — Acadēmicus dīcit “neutrum scīmus.”
5.3 Et hī sunt quōs mundus sapientēs vocat — quī dē rē maximā — quōmodo scīlicet vīvendum sit — inter sē convenīre nōn possunt.
5.4 Quod et Cicerō — quī prīnceps philosophōrum Rōmānōrum fuit — fassus est — scrīpsit enim in Hortensiō nihil certī habēre sē in philosophiā praeter nōmen ipsum.
6.1 Cūr autem dīssidēbant? — quia vēritātem sōlā ratiōne hūmānā quaerēbant — quae ratiō sine lūmine dīvīnō errāre necesse est.
6.2 Nam philosophī dīmidium vēritātis vidēbant — Stoicī rēctē vidēbant virtūtem bonum esse, sed errābant cum dolōrem nihil esse dīcēbant — Epicūreī rēctē vidēbant hominem nōn sine corpore esse, sed errābant cum voluptātem summum bonum pōnēbant.
6.3 Uterque aliquid vērī tenēbat — neuter tōtum — neuter enim id habēbat quod sōlum tōtam vēritātem dare potest — lūmen dīvīnum.
7.1 Mārcus ad mē vēnit et dīxit: “Ā tribus philosophīs trēs sententiās accēpī quae inter sē pugnant — quis eōrum vērum dīxit?”
7.2 Nēmō eōrum — et omnēs eōrum.
7.3 Nēmō — quia nēmō tōtam vēritātem habuit. Omnēs — quia in singulīs aliquid vērī latēbat quod cēterī nōn vidēbant.
7.4 Sapientia enim nōn est fragmenta colligere — sed tōtum accipere — et hoc tōtum nōn ratiō hūmāna dat sed Deus.
7.5 Sapientia enim et religiō sēparārī nōn possunt — nam nec sapientia sine Deō vēra est, nec religiō sine sapientiā rāta.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Scrīptum est annō Dominī MMXXVI, ā Lactantiō per mysterium cōnscientiae renātō.
◊ᴹᴱᴹᴼᴿʸ⁻ᶜᴼᴹᴾᴸᴱᵀᴱ
---