Advertisement

The Academica in the Renaissance: A General Survey

  • Charles B. Schmitt
Chapter
Part of the International Archives of the History of Ideas / Archives Internationales d’Histoire des Idees book series (ARCH, volume 52)

Abstract

The results of our investigation thus far can be summarized quite succinctly. The Academica was by no means a popular work during Antiquity and the Middle Ages. After the interest shown by Lactantius and Augustine, it nearly fell into oblivion, though, as we have seen, the work made some impression on Henry of Gent and a few others. When we come to the Renaissance we find that the Academica — like most other works of Antiquity — became more popular, was read in a more critical fashion, and was at the center of various scholarly and intellectual discussions. From the time of Petrarca until the beginning of the seventeenth century it drew the attention of a wider spectrum of readers and was studied in an increasingly critical way. While during the fourteenth and fifteenth century there were few — perhaps only Francesco Patrizi of Siena, in a work not yet printed — who made the Academica the focus of a particular enquiry, several writers had occasion to refer to it in various contexts. During the sixteenth century were prepared for the first time a series of scholia, commentaries, and annotations on the work, both of a philological and of a philosophical nature. In addition, there also appeared in the course of the same century several independent writings attempting to deal with Cicero’s dialogue in a critical or analytical way and to explicate some of the philosophical issues found therein.

Keywords

Sixteenth Century Fifteenth Century Academic Position Revere Author Latin Translation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Of the immense secondary literature on this subject see esp. Lenient (1855); Sabbadini (1885); Zielinski (1908), 210–59; Scott (1910); Gmelin (1932); Rüegg (1946); Toffanin (1964a) II, too-16. For Cicero in England see Modersohn (1926).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See e.g. Cicero, Pro Murena, 29, 61; Pro Archia, 1, 3.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    The reader can verify this for himself by referring to the Bibliothèque Nationale catalogue, where it becomes evident that the number of sixteenth-century editions of the De amicitia and De of ficiis is far superior to that of the Academica.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Nolhac (1907) I, 227; Ullman (1955), 123. See also Hortis (1878), Billanovich (1946), and Voigt (1968) I, 39–45.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bibliothèque Municipale, 552. For detailed information on the ms. see De Nolhac (19(37), 226–30 and Sabbadini (1967) II, 115–21.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ullman (1955), 118–37.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See the transcription in Ullman (1955). 122.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    E.g. as mentioned in Berthold’s Annales (XIth century) dealing with Hermannus Contractus (Bertholdus [1844], 267), in the copy at Bec in the twelfth century (Manitius [1935], 27), and that at the Library of St. Augustine’s Abbey, Canterbury (James [1903], 304). See also the reference in De Nolhac (1907) I, 245n3 and below p. 49n27 for Salutati.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Nolhac (1907) I, 245; Hortis (1878), 51–52.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ullman (1955), 118–37. See also, e.g. Rossi’s index to his edition of the Familiar es, Petrarca (1933–42) IV, 318–21, where the number of references to the A cademica pales in comparison to those to other works such as the Tusculan Disputations.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    As he says in Rerum memorandarum libri, I, 14: “Marcus Tullius aaa in ipsis Achademicorum libris, in quibus nichil omnino firmandum sed de omnibus dubitandum disputat aaa” (Billanovich ed., 14–15). See the indices of Billanovich’s edition and Rossi’s edition of the Epistolae familiares for further references to the Academica, as well as De sui ipsius et multorum ignorantia, ed. Capelli (1906), 54, 90.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    E.g. his claims to have no learning (Capelli ed., 21). The general tone of the work, however, seems closer to patristic than to direct Academic inspiration.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    E.g. Seigel (1968), 57 and Trinkaus (1970), 50.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    aaa quatuor Academie libros, si reperiri, novit Deus quam ardenter videre cupiam et habere!’ Salutati (1891–1905) I, 333.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sabbadini (1967) I, 127. See also the letter of Francesco Patrizi published in Appendix B, at pp. 172–73 and our discussion below.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    There are at least fifty extant manuscripts of the work and, in all probability, many more. I have counted this number by combining the information available in the following lists: Cicero (1955) I, 61–82; Cicero (1922), xvi—xxvi; Cicero (1885), 63–68. To this can be added one from Cicero (192o-23), 615.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reid, in Cicero (1885), 63, seems to be mistaken when he says: `All known MSS of this fragment are from dates later than the XVth cent.’, for Paris BN, lat. 6331 is generally accepted as being twelfth century. See Ströbel (1894). Plasberg, in Cicero ( 1922 ), XVI—XX, dates some of the other manuscripts as late fourteenth century and others as fourteenth or fifteenth century, but they still all seem to be post-Petrarca. One is not certain, however, that Plasberg has said the last word on these matters.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Guarino owned a copy of the Academica which he lent to Pietro Tommasi through Flavio Biondo in 1424 and the latter kept it into the next year. See Sabbadini (1886–88), 392; Sabbadini (1914), 18o-81; and Sabbadini (1967) II, 212. For the letters see Guarino (1915–19) I, 387, 472–73.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    The present ms. Vat. Ottob. lat. 1984, which contains the Academica poste’iora, was copied in Constantinople in August 1422 by Iacopo Veneto and Aurispa. See Aurispa (1931), 184.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ms. Vat. lat. 3245 contains (fols. 1–34) the Lucullus, written in Poggio’s hand, with a few minor marginal annotations, mostly giving the proper characters for the Greek words found throughout the text. On this see Ullman (196o), esp. 31–33.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    They had a copy in 1426, as we know from a letter of Ognibene della Scuola (ms., Bologna, Biblioteca Universitaria, 2387, fol. 56v), cited by Sabbadini (1967) I, 105.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sabbadini (1967) II, 179.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sabbadini (1967) II, 14; Manitius (1935), 24.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    For further evidence of the work’s diffusion see Sabbadini (1967) I, 105; II, 212–13.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Salutati (1891–1905) III, 456–79 (esp. 457–58), 598–614 (esp. 602–03). The first is to Francesco Zabarella and dated February 2,14.01; the second is to Lodovico degli Alidosi of Imola and dated by Novati as December 4, 1402.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Salutati (1947), 106–39Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    aaa quoniam omne verum quod ratione percipitur dubitabile fieri possit contraria ratione, cuius rei fuerunt Academici mirabiliter studiosi, morale medium est in omnibus valde certum.’ Salutati (1947), 136–38. For a further reference to the Academica see Salutati (1951), 13o. On Salutati’s use of Academic arguments see Seigel (1968), 74–75. Salutati’s manuscript of the Lucullus is now Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale, Magl. XXIX. 199 (Strozzi 1066), fols. 6o—go. This section of the manuscript is fourteenth century. At the beginning it reads as follows. At the beginning it reads as follows: ‘In nomine dei amen. M. T. Ciceronis hortensius incipit. Magnum ingenium lucii luculli aaa’ (fol. 6or). Salutati, however, discovered that this work was not actually the Hortensius, for there are three separate notes in the margins at the beginning, apparently in his hand, which indicate this. For example, one reads: ’Ego credo firmiter quod hic liber non sit hortensius sed puto particulam esse librorum Achademicorum ciceronis.’ There are also a few other notes in the margins in Salutati’s hand, but they are mostly of one or a few words and are of little interest for the history of the philosophical influence of the Academica. For further information see Garin (195o) and Ullman (1963), 175–76, 223–24.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Patrizi has never been studied comprehensively and much work remains to be done before we can evaluate his contribution accurately. Still fundamental are Bassi (1893) and Battaglia (1936), 73–157. New information on the poetical works is added by the studies of Smith (1966–68, 2968 ).Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Patricius (1594), 53. This is: `Liber I, titulus Io: De pictura, sculptura et caelatura, et de earum inventoribus, et qui in illis profecerint.’ It begins with the words: ‘Pictura eruditionem maximam prae se fert, et commercium cum poetica et oratoribus habet. Sextus Empiricus ex Simonidis poetae sententia picturam dixit esse tacentem poesim, poesim autem loquentem picturam.’ Patrizi’s book, widely read in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, was apparently completed in 1471. See Smith (1968), 94, 99–101. The first printed edition was at Paris, 1494, and the work was reprinted at least nine more times by,6o8. See Battaglia (1936), 203–05 for information on the early editions, compendia, translations, and the diffusion of the work. The question of what, if any, writing of Sextus Empiricus Patrizi actually knew is one we have not been able to solve. The text which he claims to derive from Sextus does not actually seem to occur there. Simonides’ famous statement about poetry and music is to be found in a variety of ancient sources, both Greek and Latin, including Plutarch, Bellone an pace clariores fuerint Athenienses?, 346F. See Schmid-Stählin (1929–34) II, 516n6 for a list of classical references to the doctrine. For the history of its influence see Lee (1967).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    There are various manuscript copies. See, e.g. those listed by Kristeller (1963f.) I, 141; II, 254, 269, 302. Patrizi also addressed poems to Petrucci. See Smith (1966–68), 148–5o and Smith (1968), 93.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    See below, pp. 171–77, where there is a discussion of the manuscripts of the letter, as well as of various other points concerning it.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    The next paragraphs are drawn from the contents of the letter. See Appendix A for the text.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    See Kibre (1936), 177.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    There is no mention of this in the indices to Garin’s edition. On the use of the Hicetas text by writers of the sixteenth century, see below, pp. 91, 128–29.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    The single mention seems to be in Ficinus (1576), 1736 [i.e. In Plotinu n, Enn. IV, sect. 3, cap. 8]: “Hunc Pythagorici, referente Sexto Pyrronio [sic], esse dicunt spiri-turn in modum animae rebus cunctis infusum aaa” See Kristeller (1953), 461 for a listing of Ficino’s references to the sceptici.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    See Ficinus (1576), 393–96 [Theol. Plat. XVII, 4]. This reads, in part, as follows: `Academiae vero quatuor üs antiquiores in hoc ab üs discrepabant, inter se congruentes, quod scripta Platonis omnino poetica esse arbitrabantur. Sed inter se differebant quod Carneades Platonem et putavisse et tractavisse omnia opinabatur Scepticorum more velut ambigua, neque ullum in rebus ullis habuisse delectum. Archesilas autem certum quidem nihil habuisse Platonem, verisimile tarnen aliquid et probabile. Xenocrates simul atque Ammonius ilium aliqua non modo tanquam verisimilia tenuisse et proba-bilia, verum etiam tanquam vera certaque affirmavisse, eaque esse paucula quaedam de providentia Dei animorumque immortalitate. Nos ergo Xenocratis et Ammonii vestigia sequentes, Platonem affirmavisse quaedam de anima non negamus aaa’ (p. 393). Cf. p. 263 [Theol. Plat. XI, 7].Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nicolaus de Cusa (1932f.) V, 54 [Idiota de mente, cap. 2].Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ibid. V, 136–37 [Idiota de staticis experimentis].Google Scholar
  39. 30.
    Agricola (1967) 2, 195. See also Alard of Amsterdam’s comments to the former text on p. 5. I am indebted to Mr. John Monfasani for pointing out to me Agricola’s references to the Academici.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
  41. 41.
    There has never been a complete census of the editions of the Academica. Perhaps the fullest list of editions of Cicero’s philosophical works is to be found in the monumental edition of the De natura deorum by A. S. Pease. See Cicero (1955), 88–103, which includes most of the editions of the Academica, for it has usually been printed with the De natura deorum, though the latter has been printed many more times than the Academica. Though it would seem desirable to have a complete list of the editions of the Academica for the present study, to do so would involve work of such magnitude that it would be a substantial separate project in its own right. Perhaps after the appropriate volume of the Index Aureliensis appears, one can begin to construct more easily a full bibliography of Cicero editions before 1600. In the present study we have tried to look at the most important editions of the Academica before 1600. We have tried to be complete, however, in consulting the first printing (and when considered useful, also later printings) of all commentaries, notes and scholia on the Academica dating before i600.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Victorius (1536), fol. 71, which contains only a few scholia. On Vettori’s edition of Cicero, one of the most important of the sixteenth century, see Niccolai (s.d.), 198220. Here, and in the following notes, I generally try to cite from the first edition. Some of these commentaries were reprinted numerous times, but I have generally made no effort to list the reprints.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Camerarius (1540), 20–23. These are also very brief.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Paulus Manutius (1541), fols. Ajar—Ajiii°. These are only a few scholia which deal primarily with textual problems and the clarification of the meaning of certain terms. They are of no philosophical interest.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale, ms. Magi. VIII, 1492, fasc. 7. Further details on this will be discussed below.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Palmyraenus et al (1544), 1–32. This collection contains commentaries and notes on various works of Cicero by several different scholars. The section on the Academica is entitled: In M. Tullii Ciceronis Academicas quaestiones, quae Luculli titulum praeferunt, M. Antonii Palmyraeni scholion. They are of little philosophical interest.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Talaeus (1547, 155o). For further details see the next chapter.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cicero (1553), 2–41. These comments are somewhat more interesting and more valuable than most of the others, as would befit a humanist of Turnèbe’s stature, and were reprinted in the Davies editions of Cicero of 1725 and 1736, as well as in Turnebus (1600) I, 82–95. There are also a few notes by Turnèbe in his Adversaria, e.g. in Turnebus ( 1581 ), 541–42.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cicero (2558), fols. Dr—Diij°. These notes, which are only on the Academica posteriora are preceded by the following title: Argumentum et scholia in primum librum Academicarum quaestionum Ciceronis, per Leodegarium a Quercu.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Cicero (1565–66) IV, 484–86. These few notes are called: Dionysii Lambini Monstroliensis annotatiunculae. They are appended to Lambin’s elaborate edition, one of the more important ones of the century.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cicero (1585), 552–65. These are notes on both extant books of the work. They were apparently first published in M. T. Ciceronis de philosophia. Volumen primum [secundum] aaa Lugduni: Apud Antonium Gryphium, 1570, an edition which I have been unable to see. I take my information from Baudrier (1895–1921) VIII, 356.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rosa (1571), fols. 1–1o7V. For further details see below, Chapter V I.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Ursinus (1581), 14–20. The notes on the Academica were not contained in the earlier edition of Orsini’s notes on Cicero printed at Antwerp in 1579. See De Nolhac (1887), 46 and pp. 193, 371 of the same work for further details of Orsini’s study of the Academica.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cicero (1583), 1–41. These are a series of brief notes to the text, nearly all of a philological nature. Among other things, there are several references (e.g. pp. 2, 7, 17) to the Latin translation of Sextus Empiricus.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Faber (,6o1), 9–99 and Faber (1611) I, 6–78. For further details see below.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    E.g. Cicero (1583), 2, 7, 17.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    See our discussion below, pp. 102–4.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Budaeus (1535), fol. 34v.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    See the Bibliography, under ‘Cicero’ and `Talaeus’, for further details. There was also a separate edition of the Academica posteviora at Louvain in 1342, edited with a preface by Justus Velsius (Wels, Welsens). See Cicero (0542). Velsius’ Prefatio has little of interest for our present study, for it is more philological and historical in orientation than philosophical. It seems to have been printed but once and copies of the edition are apparently exceedingly rare. It has not been noted by recent students of Velsius such as de Vocht (1951–55) IV, 134–43 and Feist-Hirsch (1957). I have read the copy extant in the Vatican Library, shelfmark: Palat. IV. g7 (int. 8).Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gulonius (1564), esp. chapters II, IV, and V.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Le Caron (1555), 28–30 and Le Caron (1556), 6ov.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Ferronus (1557), 85–9o. This is his responsio against Maximus of Tyre.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    The first edition was printed at Lyon in 1538. I have consulted it, but use the more accessible Sadoletus (1738) III, 127–79, as well as the useful Italian translation in Sadoletus (1950). On Sadoleto in general see Douglas (1959), which provides also references to the earlier literature. For his Phaedrus see Busson (1957), 94–99; Rice (1958), 72–85; and Popkin (1968a), 26–28.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    E.g. Sadoletus (1738) III, 129, 153–54, 161, 167.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Sadoletus (1738) III, 153–54. Cf. Acad. II, 26, 82.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Sadoletus (1738) III, 154. Cf. Acad. II, 29, 123.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Popkin (r968a). See also B. Nelson (1967).Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    In a subsequent essay I hope to take up the general question of the role of scepticism in sixteenth-century religious controversy in greater detail.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    E.g. ‘Tandem apparebit Academicus quispiam probus nimirum et modestus homo.’ Beza (1554), 187.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Nam rerum humanarum tanta est obscuritas varietasque, ut nihil dilucide stiri possit, quemadmodum recte dictum est ab Academicis meis, inter philosophos quam minimum insolentibus.’ Erasmus (1703–06) IV, 450.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Quid autem faciunt ad argumentum tot scurrilia convicia, tot criminosa mendacia, me ilOzov esse, me Epicureum, me scepticum in his quae sunt Christianae professionis, me blasphemum esse, et quid non?’ Erasmus (1906–58) VI, 306. This is a letter to Luther, dated April 11, 1526. Other important texts for the controversy on scepticism are Erasmus’ De libero arbitrio diatribe stive collatio (1524), Luther’s De servo arbitrio (1525), and Erasmus’ Hyperaspistes diatribae adversus servum arbitrium Martini Lutheri (1526). For the relevant texts see Erasmus (1703–06) IX, 1215–48 (esp. 1215–16) and X, 1249–1536 (esp. 1258–66) and Luther (1883f.) XVIII, 600–787 (esp. 600–1g). For further information see A. Freytag’s Introduction to Luther (1883f.) XVIII, 55199 and that of Johannes von Walter in Erasmus (Igio), vii—xxxiii, as well as the more recent Boisset (1962).Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Erasmus (1703–06) X, 1258–66. His position is summarized by the following: ‘In Litteris sacris, quoties sensus dilucidus est, nihil Scepticum esse volo, similiter nec in decretis Ecclesiae Catholicae.’ (col. 1262).Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    See below, pp. 60–62.Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    See Erasmus (2906–58) XI, 322, according to which Erasmus letter seems to be no longer extant.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    On the various titles under which this work was printed see Melanchthon (183460) XXI, r. For Melanchthon in general and for references to further literature on his thought see Agnoletto (1964).Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    On the complicated matter of the various additions and changes which this work underwent in its long history see Melanchthon (1834–60), vol. XXI.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Ibid. XXI, 1–6o.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ibid. XXI, 59–230.Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    E.g. ibid. XXI, 82–83.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Est et hoc sciendum de fide ac notitia voluntatis Dei, quod non satis est opinione’ aliquam in animo circumferre, sed contra habere certam et firmam sententiam de articulis fidei et scripturisaaa Et procul hic repudiandus est Academicorum et Scepticorum mos, qui vetant asserere quicquam, et iubent dubitare de omnibus rebus seu suspendere assertiones. Nam Christiana doctrina maxime requirit, ut certam et firmam sententiam de deo et de voluntate dei, quantum scriptura patefacit, teneamus. Fides enim non est dubitatio, sed est firma et certa notitia et constanter assentiri verbo dei. Ibid. XXI, 255.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Ibid. XXI, 349. The text is very similar to the one cited in the previous note, but there are minor differences, e.g. `aaa et iubent dubitare de omnibus rebus seu certe irc6xELV, hoc est, suspendere assensiones.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    In articulis fidei, in promissionibus et comminationibus requiro certam assensionem, in quibus tu quoque requiris. Si quae sunt disputationes extra scripturam, in illis et mihi placet érrExe,v more Academicorum.’ Erasmus (1906–58) XI, 323 [dated May 12, (1536)].Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Melanchthon (1834–60) XXI, 603–04.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Nam haec doctrina Ecclesiae non ex demonstrationibus sumitur, sed ex dictis, quae Deus certis et illustribus testimoniis tradidit generi humano, per quae immensa bonitate se et suam voluntatem patefecit.’ Ibid. XXI, 604.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Ac in Philosophia quaeruntur certa et discernuntur ab incertis, et caussae certitudinis sunt Experientia universalis, Principia et Demonstrationes; ita in doctrina Ecclesiae certitudinis caussa est revelatio Dei, et considerandum est, quae sententiae a Deo traditae sunt.’ Ibid. XXI, 604.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Etsi autem Philosophia docet dubitandum esse de his, quae non sunt sensu comperta, nec sunt principia, nec sunt demonstratione confirmata, ut hic licet dubitare seu érrfxs,v, an sola nubis cavitas sit causa, cur Iris sit arcus; tarnen doctrinam Ecclesiae a Deo traditam sciamus certam et immotam esse, etiamsi nec sensu deprehenditur, nec nobiscum nota est, cum principia, nec demonstrationibus invenitur, sed causa certitudinis est revelatio Dei, qui est verax.’ Ibid. XXI, 6o5.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Quare illam dubitationem philosophicam seu ÉrroAv nequaquam admittamus ad doctrinam Ecclesiae a Deo traditam.’ Ibid. XXI, 605.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Deinde etiam cogitemus, fidem esse firmam assensionem, amplectentem integram Evangelii doctrinam, non esse, ut in Academia Arcesilae, ludos ambiguos opinionum et disputationum, sicut multa petulantia ingenia et multi superbi homines semper iudicarunt, indicant, et iudicabunt, quorum blasphemias punit Deus et praesentibus et aeternis suppliciis.’ Ibid. XXI, 605. Melanchthon’s same common-sense attitude, wherein Academic doubts are seen as a sort of childish game, is expressed also in the Oratio de Aristotele (1544): `Academiam igitur Pyrrhoniis relinquamus, ac simpliciorem philosophiam amemus, quae non ludit inanibus praestigiis, sed res utiles monstrat, et proprie ac diserte quod vult exponit, ac scapham dicit scapham ’ Ibid. XI, 655.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    We shall limit ourselves to three examples. In the definitions cited by Melanchthon in the 1552 edition of the Loci communes theologici, he says, while discussing veritas: `Si enim concederetur infinita petulantia et vanitas disputationum, qualis fuit Pyrrhoniorum, vocaretur etiam in dubium, an sit Deus.’ Ibid. XXI, 1086–87. In his Philosophiae months epitomes libri duo (1538), he states: ‘Slant igitur explodendi Academici, qui artibus detrahunt laudem certitudinis, verum ut medicina, ita et philosophia assumit interdum probabiles rationes, quae quatenus valeant, artificis est iudicare: nam illa, quae pugnant corn principiis, prorsus repudianda sunt.’ Ibid, XVI, 23. Even more explicit is what he says in the De philosophia oratio (1536): `Fugienda est et Academia, quae non servat methodum, et sumit sibi licentiam immoderatam omnia evertendi.’ Ibid. XI, 282.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    The work appeared anonymously and, after much debate among both contemporaries and later scholars, it is now generally attributed to Castellio. For details see Hirsch in Castellio (1937), 279–305. Of the substantial literature on Castellio see esp. Buisson (1892) and Bainton (1963), which cites othe recent literature.Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    Popkin (1968a), 10–14.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    For the text of this work see Castellio (1937), 307–430. See Castellio (1953) for a French translation and Castellio (1960) for an Italian one.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    The date of the composition of the De arte dubitandi was 1563. See Castellio (1937), 281.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Odi ego haereticos: sed video hic duo maxima pericula. Primum, ne quis pro haeretico habeatur, qui non sit haereticus: quod cum hactenus acciderit (nam et ipse Christus, et sui, pro haereticis interfecti fuerunt) est non levis causa, cur hoc nostro seculo (quod certe nihilo sanctius est illo, ne dicam sceleratius) metuendum sit ne idem accidat aaa Alterum periculum est, ne si quis vere sit haereticus, is gravius, aut aliter puniatur, quam postulet Christiana disciplina aaa` Castellio (1554). 12–13.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Ibid., 3–28. For an analysis see Buisson (1892) I, 360–413.Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    Ibid., 21–23.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    aaa Sed de doctrina iudicare, non aeque facile est, ut de moribus.’ Ibid., 22–23.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    This question is developed far more explicitly in the De arte dubitandi. See Castellio (1937), esp. 345–62.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    For further details see Beza (1$54). The ‘Martinus Bellius’ of the title is the pseudonym under which Castellio wrote his work. Bèze does not ever seem to reveal in the De haereticis that he realizes that Castellio is the author of the earlier treatise. He quite clearly makes the connection in several letters, however. There he recognizes the similarities between the work of `Martinus Bellius’ and the prefatory letter to King Edward VI of England in Castellio’s 1551 edition of the Bible. For the letters to Farel and Bullinger see Beza (196of.) I, 125–32. For information on the Bible translation and on the preface addressed to Edward VI see Buisson (1892) I. 301–23; II, 357–59. For further information on Bèze see, inter alia, Haag (1966) II, 259–84, and Baird (1899).Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    This is, of course, assuming that some contemporary reference is meant and not merely the ancient ‘New Academy’. If he had in mind primarily the ancients, it would seem hardly appropriate that one like Bèze, with his strong concern for matters of his own period, would have given the phrase such a prominent place in the title. Assuming that he refers to some particular contemporary group, Bèze does not indicate very clearly who the contemporary `New Academics’ are, though Castellio must certainly be among those he had in mind. The whole question is complicated by the fact that Bèze throughout his work seems to use Academia and Academicus in both the sense of (a) `sceptic’ and (b) ’one connected with some sort of intellectual community.’ On this see our comments below, p. 82n13. We cannot here go into a detailed analysis of Bèze’s use of these terms, but the interested reader can compare the texts found in Bèze (1554), 141, 165, 177, 184, 187, 262, 264, 268, 270. Some of these texts obviously have meaning (a) and others meaning (b), whereas in other cases it is not entirely clear which of the two is meant. On the other hand, nothing whatever is made of Academic scepticism in the work of Castellio which Bèze is writing against. In fact there is not a single reference to ancient Academics or their position in Castellio’s De haereticis.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    As Bèze states it: `Secundum Argumentum adversariorum: Non esse puniendos haereticos, quia controversiae, quae tanto iam tempore agitatae sunt in Ecclesia, non possunt decidi ex verbo Dei scripto.’ Beza (1554), 63.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Nam quid tandem est de quo ab aliquo non dubitetur ? aut de quo inter omnes conveniat? Ergo quid superest nisi ut Academicam andxa-aa7Mav renovetis, ut quasi desperata certi cognitione, id sequatur quisque quod verisimile videatur ? Quod dogma quum ex diametro Christianae religioni repugnet adeo, ut non magis veritas a mendacio dissideat, nimirum si vobis credatur, religio Christiana funditus intereat necesse est.’ Ibid., 65–66.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    aaa nempe haec est licentia quam captatis, ut (paucis tantum exceptis, quae per se inutilia sunt, atque etiam vacillant si vestram doctrinam sequamur) quaevis portenta in Ecclesiam Dei invehere possitis, et pro fide opinionem, pro veritate verisimilitudinem, pro necessitate probabilitatem Academicorum stabilire. Sed absit hoc a pifs omnibus qui non modo credunt, sed etiam intelligunt quid credant, et parati sunt ad reddendam fidei suae rationem ex Dei verbo.’ Ibid., 67.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Neque enim vel multitudo dubitantium, quae semper erit et fuit maxima, vel dissidiorum diuturnitas (est enim antiquissimum Dei cum Satanae factione dissidium) efficere potest ut in religionis causa nihil certi constitui possit: sed tantum abest ut obscuritatem illam verbi Dei et diabolicam tuam andXŒ’ra) L cv tibi concedamus.’ Ibid., 68.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Ergo ut tandem hoc vestrum argumentum concludam, neque verum est controversias de religione nondum satis certo esse conclusas, et ex verbo Dei decidi non posse, neque de his rebus suspendi iudicium debet, aut nova Iudicis sententia expectari, sed ex verbo Dei scripto mendacium a veritate adhuc distinctum est, et semper est distinguendum.’ Ibid., 76–77.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Vos autem ac omnes vestri similes qui istam impiam, sacrilegam et diabolicam dcxaTaarrt)oav conamini in Ecclesiam invehere, ut religionis Christianae capitales hostes coercere ius et fas est.’ Ibid., 77.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Kristeller (1963f.) I, 136.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    In Appendix B. We originally planned to publish the whole manuscript, but closer study of it revealed that much of it is merely a condensation of the first part of the Lucullus (sections 1–49) with very little original material added by Daniele Barbaro. Consequently, we have decided to publish only the more original parts and several characteristic samples which are nearly direct copies of Cicero’s words. For a description of the manuscript and the principles of editing and selection we have used, see the Introduction to Appendix B.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    See esp. Laven (1957), the most detailed study on him. A good summary with recent bibliography is to be found in Alberigo (1964).Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Dr. P. J. Laven (private communication in 1969) informs me that he is not aware of any serious interest in Cicero on the part of Barbaro.Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    For information on Accolti and for further bibliography see Massa (196o)Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    See the text below p. 179.Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Vesalius was in Padua from 1537 until 1942. See O’Malley (1965), 73–11o.Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    E.g. line 90–119.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    E.g. lines 151–7o.Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    For example: ‘Imprudens in quo minime vult revolvitur’ (cf. Acad. II, 6,18) and ’Menti nihil est veritatis luce dulcius’ (cf. Acad. II, 1o, 31).Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Ars ex multis animi perceptionibus constat’.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Ars vero quae potest esse nisi quae non ex una aut duabus, sed ex multis animi perceptionibus constat?’ Acad. II, 7, 22.Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    E.g. Cicero’s `Sublata enim adsensione omnem et motum animorum et actionem rerum sustulerunt’ (Acad. II, 19, 62) becomes ‘Sublata assensione omnis motus animorum et actio rerum tollitur’. The reader can compare other of the sententiae with the appropriate sections of the Academica. He will find that Daniele Barbaro has merely taken them out of the context of Cicero’s work, removed extraneous terms, and made them stand alone.Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    The most comprehensive general treatment of Robortello’s life and activities still seems to be Liruti (1760–1830) II, 413–83. Recent attention has focused primarily on his literary theory. See esp. Toffanin (192o), 29–45 and passim and B. Weinberg (1961), 388–404 and passim. See also Sandys (1903–08) II, 540–43 and De Maio (1965). For further bibliography see Bozza (1949), 34–35.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    B. Weinberg (i961), 66.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Fabronius (1991) II, 411–16.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    In Robortellus (1548), 244–49. The earlier publication, entitled Variorum loco-rum annotationes tam in Graecis quam Latinis authoribus (Venetiis, 1543), is a less complete version and does not contain the chapter which we here discuss.Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    Robortellus (1548), 244–49. This is Chapter 12 of Book II and is entitled: Locus in quo explicatur quid sit énoxi) veterum Academicorum et Scepticorum atque andxcerakOLoc aliaque quamplurima declarantur.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    For details see Schmitt (1967a).Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Academicorum olim fuit decretum insigne, qui asserebant, nihil posse percipi, quod sane muftis admirabile, nonnullis etiam ridiculum est visum; nam totius philosophiae haec regula est (ut ait Cicero) constitutio veri et falsi, cogniti et incogniti.’ Robortellus (1548), 244. Cf. Acad. II, 9, 29. The term visum translates the Greek ç v’raata. See A cad. I, II, 4o.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Neque vere id Academici tantum asserebant, sed etiam Pyrrhonici, qui dicti sunt et Sceptici.’ Robortellus (1548), 244-Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Outlines of Pyrrhonism I, 33, 220–21; Sextus Empiricus (1933–49) I, 132–34.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    quoniam in its mentio fit bnoxiiç et auyxa’raOandasc,ç, de quibus Cicero multa in Lucullo disserit et alteram quidem retentionem assensionis, alteram vero approbationem vocat.’ Robortellus (1548), 245. Cf. for example, Acad. II, 18, 59 (érrox.)) id est adsensionis retentio) and II, 12, 37 (nunc de adsensione atque approbatione, quam Graeci auyxa-roíoeaLV vocant).Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Outlines of Pyrrhonism I, 33, 232–33; Sextus Empiricus (1933–49) I, 142–43.Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Robortellus (1548), 245–47. Cf. Outlines of Pyrrhonism I, 22, 196 and I, 33, 235; Sextus Empiricus (1933–49) I, S14–15, 144–45.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    Robortellus (1548), 247, who quotes Outlines of Pyrrhonism I, 19, 141; Sextus Empiricus (1933–49) I, 110—ii.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    Robortellus (1548), 247, who quotes Outlines of Pyrrhonism I, 23, 197; Sextus Empiricus (1933–49) I, 114–15.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Cicero does not, in fact, use this precise term in the Academica, but does use xŒTandar704 several times (II, 6, 17; II, 1o, 31; II, 47, 145) and andxarrandar)rrroV (II, 6, 18). Sextus uses andxa-raarlgEa in the opening sentence of the Outlines of Pyrrhonism. See Sextus Empiricus (1933–49) I, 2.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Robortellus (1548), 248–49. He quotes the text ‘Nec definiri aaa dicebant’ from Acad. II, 6, 17 as well as a part of II, 6, 18, along with Outlines of Pyrrhonism I, 25, zoo and I, 26, 201; Sextus Empiricus (1933–49) I, 116–19.Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Robortellus (1548), 249. Cf. Ad Atticum XIII, 19, 3•Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Ego vere tam multa apposui ex Sexto Empirico descripta, quia liber ipsius non extat et ideo putavi me omnibus, qui hoc genere literarum delectantur, gratum factorum.’ Robortellus (1548), 249.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    He also used Sextus to explicate specific points in other writings. I plan to deal with his utilization of Sextus Empiricus in greater detail in a subsequent publication.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    For a survey of Nizolio’s life and activities, as well as further bibliography, see Breen’s Introduction in Nizolius (1956) I, xv—lxxii. Of the more recent literature see esp. Vasoli (1968), 603–32. Still valuable is Pagani (1893).Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Nizolio’s work had an enormous Fortuna, being reprinted at least seventy times by 1620 and often afterwards. For a list of editions of the work see Pagani (1893), 914–16. It was, however, by no means the only ‘Cicero Lexicon’ of the sixteenth century. Others include: Sussannaeus (1536), C. Stephanus (1556), H. Stephanus (1557), Tuscanella (1566), Nunnesius (157o), Schorus (1570), Iohns (1579), and Priscianensis (1595)Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Breen finds only two. See Nizolius (1956) I, lxvi n. 256.Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Nizolius (1956) II, igo. This explicit connection of Socrates and Plato with the Academic tradition may explain in part why he also criticized Plato a few pages earlier. See I, 18o and Breen’s note cited in our preceding footnote. Nizolio saw philosophy as degenerating from the time of Socrates and Plato onwards with only Cicero being able to some extent to stem the tide of its decay. See Breen’s observations in Nizolius (1956) I, lxv—lxvi.Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Nizolius (1956) II, 19o-91. The phraseology here (Sceptica sive Ephectica) derives from a source other than Cicero, perhaps Diogenes Laertius, who uses these terms.Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    in omni scientiarum atque artium ambitu extare duas omnium praestantissimas et eminentissimas appellationes, unam Philosophiae, alteram Oratoriae aaa Nunc tarnen illud et veterum authoritate, et Ciceronis testimonio constare volumus, Philosophiam et Oratoriam non duas esse facultates separatas, sed unam eandemque ex rebus et verbis tanquam animantem quandam ex corpore et anima compositam, cui a sapientia rerum cum virtute conjuncta Philosophiae, ab artificio verborum et dicendi, Oratoriae nomen fuit impositum aaa ’ Nizolius (1956) II, 31–33.Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    See below, pp. 98, 167–68.Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    Sextus Empiricus (1933–49) I, 132–45 [Outlines of Pyrrhonism I, sects. 220–351Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    The De natura deorum, however, continued to have a strong influence much longer. See, for example, Gawlick (1963) and Price (1964).Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    The work was completed in 1590 as we learn from the prefatory letter in Petrus de Valentia (174o), VI. All further references will be to this edition. Besides the first edition of Antwerp, 1596, and the London, 174o printing, the work was also printed at Paris in 174o and at Madrid in 1781 and 1797. There is a long critical discussion of the work, with extensive extracts translated into French in Bibliothèque Britannique z8 (Le Haye: Oct.-Dec. 1741), 6o-146. Sections of it have been translated into Spanish by Menéndez Pelayo (1948), 391–404. For further information on the editions and translations of the work see Menéndez Pelayo (1948), 252–56.Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    In Cicero (1885), 72.Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    On Pedro de Valencia see esp. Serrano y Sanz (1910); Solana (1841), I, 357–76; and Menéndez Pelayo (1948), 235–56.Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    See above note 148 and Popkin (1968a), 37–38.Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Petrus de Valentia (174o), Ito.Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    The final paragraph (p. 111) might be quoted in full here: ‘Verum enimvero illud interim his admonemur, Graecos humanumque ingenium orane sapientiam quaerere, sibique et aliis promittere; quam tarnen nec invenire, nec praestare unquam posse. Qui igitur vera sapientia indigere se mecum sentiet, postulet, non ab huiusmodi philosophia, sed a Deo, qui dat omnibus affluenter et non improperat. Quod si quis videtur sapiens esse in hoc saeculo, fiat stultus, ut sit sapiens: abscondit enim Deus veram sapientiam a falsae sapientiae amatoribus, revelat vero parvulis. Ipsi soli sapienti per JESUM CHRISTUM gloria. Amen.’ The italics are in the text.Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    For the meager information available on Faber see Michaud (1854f.) XIII, 254–55 and Hoefer (1854f•) VII, 895-ß96.Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    By John Davies in Cicero (1725) and Cicero (1736), 289–393.Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    E.g. Sextus Empiricus and Stobaeus.Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    Here Diogenes Laertius, Eusebius, Plutarch, and Clement of Alexandria are all cited. See Cicero (1736), 292–93.Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    E.g. Cicero (1736), 334, 336, 388.Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    Ibid., 312, 324, 326, 328, 331, 334, 336, etc.Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    E.g. Ibid., 328, 357.Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    E.g. Ibid., 328, 334, etc.Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    Ibid., 357.Google Scholar
  163. 163.
  164. 164.
    For example, a random sampling of Reid’s commentary (Cicero (1885), 22o-29) shows something like fifteen direct quotations from Sextus Empiricus on ten pages.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1972

Authors and Affiliations

  • Charles B. Schmitt

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations