Roman Letters: A Digital Corpus of Late Antique Correspondence

Vander Galien, Craig

doi:10.5281/zenodo.19142059

Letter 117

Y ou will be fabricating much trouble for me, and you will be unconsciously embroiling me in a great discussion, and in considerable bother, if you put such petty questions as these; for in settling them I cannot disagree with my fellow-Stoics without <Ep3-337> impairing my standing among them, nor can I subscribe to such ideas without impairing my conscience. Your query is, whether the Stoic belief is true: that wisdom is a Good, but that being wise is not a Good. I shall first set forth the Stoic view, and then I shall be bold enough to deliver my own opinion. We of the Stoic school believe that the Good is corporeal, because the Good is active, and whatever is active is corporeal. That which is good, is helpful. But, in order to be helpful, it must be active; so, if it is active, it is corporeal. They (the Stoics) declare that wisdom is a Good; it therefore follows that one must also call wisdom corporeal. But they do not think that being wise can be rated on the same basis. For it is incorporeal and accessory to something else, in other words, wisdom; hence it is in no respect active or helpful. "What, then?" is the reply; "Why do we not say that being wise is a Good?" We do say so; but only by referring it to that on which it depends -in other words, wisdom itself. Let me tell you what answers other philosophers make to these objectors, before I myself begin to form my own creed and to take my place entirely on another side. "Judged in that light," they say, "not even living happily is a Good. Willy nilly, such persons ought to reply that the happy life is a Good, but that living happily is not a Good." And this objection is also raised against our school: "You wish to be wise. Therefore,being wise is a thing to be desired. And if it be a thing to be desired it is a Good." So our philosophers are forced to twist their words and insert another syllable into the word "desired," - a syllable which our language does not normally allow to be <Ep3-339> inserted. But, with your permission, I shall add it. "That which is good," they say, "is a thing to be desired; the desirable thing is that which falls to our lot after we have attained the Good. For the desirabl is not sought as a Good; it is an accessory to the Good after the Good has been attained." I myself do not hold the same view, and I judge that our philosophers have come down to this argument because they are already bound by the first link in the chain and for that reason may not alter their definition. People are wont to concede much to the things which all men take for granted; in our eyes the fact that all men agree upon something is a proof of its truth. For instance, we infer that the gods exist, for this reason, among others - that there is implanted in everyone an idea concerning deity, and there is no people so far beyond the reach of laws and customs that it does not believe at least in gods of some sort. And when we discuss the immortality of the soul, we are influenced in no small degree by the general opinion of mankind, who either fear or worship the spirits of the lower world. I make the most of this general belief: you can find no one who does not hold that wisdom is a Good, and being wise also. I shall not appeal to the populace, like a conquered gladiator; let us come to close quarters, using our own weapons. W hen something affects a given object, is it outside the object which it affects, or is it inside the object it affects? If it is inside the object it affects, it is as corporeal as the object which it affects. For nothing can affect another object without touching it, and that which touches is corporeal. If it is outside, it withdraws after having affected the object. And withdrawal means motion. And that which possesses <Ep3-341> motion, is corporeal. You expect me, I suppose, to deny that "race" differs from "running," that "heat" differs from "being hot," that "light" differs from "giving light." I grant that these pairs vary, but hold that they are not in separate classes. If good health is an indifferent quality, then so is being in good health; if beauty is an indifferent quality, then so is being beautiful. If justice is a Good, then so is being just. Annbsp; And if baseness is an evil, then it is an evil to be base - just as much as, if sore eyes are an evil, the state of having sore eyes is also an evil. Neither quality, you may be sure, can exist without the other. He who is wise is a man of wisdom; he who is a man of wisdom is wise. So true it is that we cannot doubt the quality of the one to equal the quality of the other, that they are both regarded by certain persons as one and the same. Here is a question, however, which I should be glad to put: granted that all things are either good or bad or indifferent - in what class does being wise belong? People deny that it is a Good; and, as it obviously is not an evil, it must consequently be one of the media. "But we mean by the "medium," or the "indifferent" quality that which can fall to the lot of the bad no less than to the good - such things as money, beauty, or high social position. But the quality of being wise can fall to the lot of the good man alone; therefore being wise is not an indifferent quality. Nor is it an evil, either; because it cannot fall to the lot of the bad man; therefore, it is a Good. That which the good man alone can possess, is a Good; now being wise is the possession of the good man only; therefore it is a Good. The objector replies: "It is only an accessory of wisdom." Very well, then, I say, this quality which you call <Ep3-343> being wise - does it actively produce wisdom, or is it a passive concomitant of wisdom? It is corporeal in either case. For that which is acted upon and that which acts, are alike corporeal; and, if corporeal, each is a Good. The only quality which could prevent it from being a Good, would be incorporeality. The Peripatetics believe that there is no distinction between wisdom and being wise, since either of these implies the other also. Now do you suppose that any man can be wise except one who possesses wisdom? Or that anyone who is wise does not possess wisdom? The old masters of dialectic, however, distinguish between these two conceptions; and from them the classification has come right down to the Stoics. What sort of a classification this is, I shall explain: A field is one thing, and the possession of the field another thing; of course, because "possessing the field" refers to the possessor rather than to the field itself. Similarly, wisdom is one thing and being wise another. You will grant, I suppose, that these two are separate ideas - the possessed and the possessor: wisdom being that which one possesses, and he who is wise its possessor. Now wisdom is Mind perfected and developed to the highest and best degree. For it is the art of life. And what is being wise? I cannot call it "Mind Perfected," but rather that which falls to the lot of him who possesses a "mind perfected"; thus a good mind is one thing, and the so-called possession of a good mind another. "There are," it is said, "certain natural classes of bodies; we say: 'This is a man,' 'this is a horse.' Then there attend on the bodily natures certain movements of the mind which declare something about the body. And these have a certain essential quality <Ep3-345> which is sundered from body; for example: 'I see Cato walking.' The senses indicate this, and the mind believes it. What I see, is body, and upon this I concentrate my eyes and my mind. Again, I say: 'Cato walks.' What I say," they continue, "is not body; it is a certain declarative fact concerning body -called variously an 'utterance,' a 'declaration,' a 'statement.' Thus, when we say 'wisdom,' we mean something pertaining to body; when we say 'he is wise,' we are speaking concerning body. And it makes considerable difference whether you mention the person directly, or speak concerning the person." Supposing for the present that these are two separate conceptions (for I am not yet prepared to give my own opinion); what prevents the existence of still a third - which is none the less a Good? I remarked a little while ago that a "field" was one thing, and the "possession of a field" another; of course, for possessor and possessed are of different natures; the latter is the land, and the former is the man who owns the land. But with regard to the point now under discussion, both are of the same nature - the possessor of wisdom, and wisdom itself. Besides, in the one case that which is possessed is one thing, and he who possesses it is another; but in this case the possessed and the possessor come under the same category. The field is owned by virtue of law, wisdom by virtue of nature. The field can change hands and go into the ownership of another; but wisdom never departs from its owner. Accordingly, there is no reason why you should try to compare things that are so unlike one another. I had started to say that these can be two separate conceptions, and yet that both can be Goods - for instance, wisdom and the wise man being <Ep3-347> two separate things and yet granted by you to be equally good. And just as there is no objection to regarding both wisdom and the possessor of wisdom as Goods, so there is no objection to regarding as a good both wisdom and the possession of wisdom, - in other words, being wise. For I only wish to be a wise man in order to be wise. And what then? Is not that thing a Good without the possession of which a certain other thing cannot be a Good? You surely admit that wisdom, if given without the right to be used, is not to be welcomed! And wherein consists the use of wisdom? In being wise; that is its most valuable attribute; if you withdraw this, wisdom becomes superfluous. If processes of torture are evil, then being tortured is an evil - with this reservation, indeed, that if you take away the consequences, the former are not evil. Wisdom is a condition of "mind perfected," and being wise is the employment of this "mind perfected." How can the employment of that thing not be a Good, which without employment is not a Good? If I ask you whether wisdom is to be desired, you admit that it is. If I ask you whether the employment of wisdom is to be desired, you also admit the fact; for you say that you will not receive wisdom if you are not allowed to employ it. Now that which is to be desired is a Good. Being wise is the employment of wisdom, just as it is of eloquence to make a speech, or of the eyes to see things. Therefore, being wise is the employment of wisdom, and the employment of wisdom is to be desired. Therefore being wise is a thing to be desired; and if it is a thing to be desired, it is a Good. Lo, these many years I have been condemning myself for imitating these men at the very time <Ep3-349> when I am arraigning them, and of wasting words on a subject that is perfectly clear. For who can doubt that, if heat is an evil, it is also an evil to be hot? Or that, if cold is an evil, it is an evil to be cold? Or that, if life is a Good, so is being alive? All such matters are on the outskirts of wisdom, not in wisdom itself. But our abiding-place should be in wisdom itself. Even though one takes a fancy to roam, wisdom has large and spacious retreats: we may investigate the nature of the gods, the fuel which feeds the constellations, or all the varied courses of the stars; we may speculate whether our affairs move in harmony with those of the stars, whether the impulse to motion comes from thence into the minds and bodies of all, and whether even these events which we call fortuitous are fettered by strict laws and nothing in this universe is unforeseen or unregulated in its revolutions. Such topics have nowadays been withdrawn from instruction in morals, but they uplift the mind and raise it to the dimensions of the subject which it discusses; the matters, however, of which I was speaking a while ago, wear away and wear down the mind, not (as you and your maintain) whetting, but weakening it. And I ask you, are we to fritter away that necessary study which we owe to greater and better themes, in discussing a matter which may perhaps be wrong and is certainly of no avail? How will it profit me to know whether wisdom is one thing, and being wise another? How will it profit me to know that the one is, and the other is not, a Good? Suppose I take a chance, and gamble on this prayer: "Wisdom for you, and being wise for me! We shall come out even. <Ep3-351> T ry rather to show me the way by which I may attain those ends. Tell me what to avoid, what to seek, by what studies to strengthen my tottering mind, how I may rebuff the waves that strike me abeam and drive me from my course, by what means I may be able to cope with all my evils, and by what means I can be rid of the calamities that have plunged in upon me and those into which I myself have plunged. Teach me how to bear the burden of sorrow without a groan on my part, and how to bear prosperity without making others groan; also, how to avoid waiting for the ultimate and inevitable end, and to beat a retreat of my own free will, when it seems proper to me to do so. I think nothing is baser than to pray for death. For if you wish to live, why do you pray for death? And if you do not wish to live, why do you ask the gods for that which they gave you at birth? For even as, against your will, it has been settled that you must die some day, so the time when you shall wish to die is in your own hands. The one fact is to you a necessity, the other a privilege. I read lately a most disgraceful doctrine, uttered (more shame to him!) by a learned gentleman: "So may I die as soon as possible!" Fool, thou art praying for something that is already thine own! "So may I die as soon as possible!" Perbaps thou didst grow old while uttering these very words! At any rate, what is there to hinder? No one detains thee; escape by whatsoever way thou wilt! Select any portion of Nature, and bid it provide thee with a means of departure! These, namely, are the elements , by which the world's work is carried on water, earth, air. All these are no more the causes of life than they are the ways of death. "So may <Ep3-353> I die as soon as possible!" And what is thy wish with regard to this "as soon as possible"? What day dost thou set for the event? It may be sooner than thy prayer requests. Words like this come from a weak mind, from one that courts pity by such cursing; he who prays for death does not wish to die. Ask the gods for life and health; if thou art resolved to die, death's reward is to have done with prayers. I t is with such problems as these, my dear Lucilius, that we should deal, by such problems that we should mould our minds. This is wisdom, this is what being wise means - not to bandy empty subtleties in idle and petty discussions. Fortune has set before you so many problems - which you have not yet solved -and are you still splitting hairs? How foolish it is to practise strokes after you have heard the signal for the fight! Away with all these dummy-weapons; you need armour for a fight to the finish. Tell me by what means sadness and fear may be kept from disturbing my soul, by what means I may shift off this burden of hidden cravings. Do something! "Wisdom is a Good, but being wise is not a Good;" such talk results for us in the judgment that we are not wise, and in making a laughing-stock of this whole field of study - on the ground that it wastes its effort on useless things. Suppose you knew that this question was also debated: whether future wisdom is a Good? For, I beseech you, how could one doubt whether barns do not feel the weight of the harvest that is to come, and that boyhood does not have premonitions of approaching young manhood by any brawn and power? The sick person, in the intervening period, is not helped by the health that is to come, any more <Ep3-355> than a runner or a wrestler is refreshed by the period of repose that will follow many months later. Who does not know that what is yet to be is not a Good, for the very reason that it is yet to be? For that which is good is necessarily helpful. And unless things are in the present, they cannot be helpful; and if a thing is not helpful, it is not a Good; if helpful, it is already. I shall be a wise man some day; and this Good will be mine when I shall be a wise man, but in the meantime it is non-existent. A thing must exist first, then may be of a certain kind. How, I ask you, can that which is still nothing be already a Good? And in what better way do you wish it to be proved to you that a certain thing is not, than to say: "It is yet to be"? For it is clear that something which is on the way has not yet arrived. "Spring will follow": I know that winter is here now. "Summer will follow:" I know that it is not summer. The best proof to my mind that a thing is not yet present is that it is yet to be. I hope some day to be wise, but meanwhile I am not wise. For if I possessed that Good, I should now be free from this Evil. Some day I shall be wise; from this very fact you may understand that I am not yet wise. I cannot at the same time live in that state of Good and in this state of Evil; the two ideas do not harmonize, nor do Evil and Good exist together in the same person. Let us rush past all this clever nonsense, and hurry on to that which will bring us real assistance. No man who is anxiously running after a midwife for his daughter in her birth-pangs will stop to read the praetor's edict or the order of events at the games. No one who is speeding to save his burning house will scan a checker-board to speculate how <Ep3-357> the imprisoned piece can be freed. But good heavens! - In your case all sorts of news are announced on all sides - your house afire, your children in danger, your country in a state of siege, your property plundered. Add to this shipwreck, earthquakes, and all other objects of dread; harassed amid these troubles, are you taking time for matters which serve merely for mental entertainment? Do you ask what difference there is between wisdom and being wise? Do you tie and untie knots while such a ruin is hanging over your head? Nature has not given us such a generous and free-handed space of time that we can have the leisure to waste any of it. Mark also how much is lost even when men are very careful: people are robbed of one thing by ill- bealth and of another thing by illness in the family; at one time private, at another public, business absorbs the attention; and all the while sleep shares our lives with us. O ut of this time, so short and swift, that carries us away in its flight, of what avail is it to spend the greater part on useless things? Besides, our minds are accustomed to entertain rather than to cure themselves, to make an aesthetic pleasure out of philosophy, when philosophy should really be a remedy. What the distinction is between wisdom and being wise I do not know; but I do know that it makes no difference to me whether I know such matters or am ignorant of them. Tell me: when I have found out the difference between wisdom and being wise, shall I be wise? Why then do you occupy me with the words rather than with the works of wisdom? Make me braver, make me calmer, make me the equal of Fortune, make me her superior. And I can be her superior, if I apply to this end everything that I learn. Farewell. <Ep3-359>

[1] Multum mihi negotii concinnabis et, dum nescis, in magnam me litem ac molestiam inpinges, qui mihi tales quaestiunculas ponis, in quibus ego nec dissentire a nostris salva gratia nec consentire salva conscientia possum. Quaeris an verum sit quod Stoicis placet, sapientiam bonum esse, sapere bonum non esse. Primum exponam quid Stoicis videatur; deinde tunc dicere sententiam audebo. [2] Placet nostris quod bonum est corpus esse, quia quod bonum est facit, quidquid facit corpus est. Quod bonum est prodest; faciat autem aliquid oportet ut prosit; si facit, corpus est. Sapientiam bonum esse dicunt; sequitur ut necesse sit illam corporalem quoque dicere. [3] At sapere non putant eiusdem condicionis esse. Incorporale est et accidens alteri, id est sapientiae; itaque nec facit quicquam nec prodest. 'Quid ergo?' inquit 'non dicimus: bonum est sapere?' Dicimus referentes ad id ex quo pendet, id est ad ipsam sapientiam. [4] Adversus hos quid ab aliis respondeatur audi, antequam ego incipio secedere et in alia parte considere. 'Isto modo' inquiunt 'nec beate vivere bonum est. Velint nolint, respondendum est beatam vitam bonum esse, beate vivere bonum non esse.' [5] Etiamnunc nostris illud quoque opponitur: 'vultis sapere; ergo expetenda res est sapere; si expetenda res est, bona est'. Coguntur nostri verba torquere et unam syllabam expetendo interponere quam sermo noster inseri non sinit. Ego illam, si pateris, adiungam. 'Expetendum est' inquiunt 'quod bonum est, expetibile quod nobis contingit cum bonum consecuti sumus. Non petitur tamquam bonum, sed petito bono accedit.' [6] Ego non idem sentio et nostros iudico in hoc descendere quia iam primo vinculo tenentur et mutare illis formulam non licet. Multum dare solemus praesumptioni omnium hominum et apud nos veritatis argumentum est aliquid omnibus videri; tamquam deos esse inter alia hoc colligimus, quod omnibus insita de dis opinio est nec ulla gens usquam est adeo extra leges moresque proiecta ut non aliquos deos credat. Cum de animarum aeternitate disserimus, non leve momentum apud nos habet consensus hominum aut timentium inferos aut colentium. Utor hac publica persuasione: neminem invenies qui non putet et sapientiam bonum et sapere. [7] Non faciam quod victi solent, ut provocem ad populum: nostris incipiamus armis confligere. Quod accidit alicui, utrum extra id cui accidit est an in eo cui accidit? Si in eo est cui accidit, tam corpus est quam illud cui accidit. Nihil enim accidere sine tactu potest; quod tangit corpus est: nihil accidere sine actu potest; quod agit corpus est. Si extra est, postea quam acciderat recessit; quod recessit motum habet; quod motum habet corpus est. [8] Speras me dicturum non esse aliud cursum, aliud currere, nec aliud calorem, aliud calere, nec aliud lucem, aliud lucere: concedo ista alia esse, sed non sortis alterius. Si valetudo indifferens est, <et> bene valere indifferens est; si forma indifferens est, et formonsum esse. Si iustitia bonum est, et iustum esse; si turpitudo malum est, et turpem esse malum est, tam mehercules quam si lippitudo malum est, lippire quoque malum est. Hoc ut scias, neutrum esse sine altero potest: qui sapit sapiens est; qui sapiens est sapit. Adeo non potest dubitari an quale illud sit, tale hoc sit, ut quibusdam utrumque unum videatur atque idem. [9] Sed illud libenter quaesierim, cum omnia aut mala sint aut bona aut indifferentia, sapere in quo numero sit? Bonum negant esse; malum utique non est; sequitur ut medium sit. Id autem medium atque indifferens vocamus quod tam malo contingere quam bono possit, tamquam pecunia, forma, nobilitas. Hoc, ut sapiat, contingere nisi bono non potest; ergo indifferens non est. Atqui ne malum quidem est, quod contingere malo non potest; ergo bonum est. Quod nisi bonus non habet bonum est; sapere non nisi bonus habet; ergo bonum est. [10] Accidens est' inquit 'sapientiae.' Hoc ergo quod vocas sapere, utrum facit sapientiam an patitur? Sive facit illud sive patitur, utroque modo corpus est; nam et quod fit et quod facit corpus est. Si corpus est, bonum est; unum enim illi deerat quominus bonum esset, quod incorporale erat. [11] Peripateticis placet nihil interesse inter sapientiam et sapere, cum in utrolibet eorum et alterum sit. Numquid enim quemquam existimas sapere nisi qui sapientiam habet? numquid quemquam qui sapit non putas habere sapientiam? [12] Dialectici veteres ista distinguunt; ab illis divisio usque ad Stoicos venit. Qualis sit haec dicam. Aliud est ager, aliud agrum habere, quidni? cum habere agrum ad habentem, non ad agrum pertineat. Sic aliud est sapientia, aliud sapere. Puto, concedes duo esse haec, id quod habetur et eum qui habet: habetur sapientia, habet qui sapit. Sapientia est mens perfecta vel ad summum optimumque perducta; ars enim vitae est. Sapere quid est? non possum dicere 'mens perfecta', sed id quod contingit perfectam mentem habenti; ita alterum est mens bona, alterum quasi habere mentem bonam. [13] 'Sunt' inquit 'naturae corporum, tamquam hic homo est, hic equus; has deinde sequuntur motus animorum enuntiativi corporum. Hi habent proprium quiddam et a corporibus seductum, tamquam video Catonem ambulantem: hoc sensus ostendit, animus credidit. Corpus est quod video, cui et oculos intendi et animum. Dico deinde: Cato ambulat. Non corpus' inquit 'est quod nunc loquor, sed enuntiativum quiddam de corpore, quod alii effatum vocant, alii enuntiatum, alii dictum. Sic cum dicimus "sapientiam", corporale quiddam intellegimus; cum dicimus "sapit", de corpore loquimur. Plurimum autem interest utrum illud dicas an de illo.' [14] Putemus in praesentia ista duo esse (nondum enim quid mihi videatur pronuntio): quid prohibet quominus aliud quidem <sit> sed nihilominus bonum? Dicebam paulo ante aliud esse agrum, aliud habere agrum. Quidni? in alia enim natura est qui habet, in alia quod habetur: illa terra est, hic homo est. At in hoc de quo agitur eiusdem naturae sunt utraque, et qui habet sapientiam et ipsa. [15] Praeterea illic aliud est quod habetur, alius qui habet: hic in eodem est et quod habetur et qui habet. Ager iure possidetur, sapientia natura; ille abalienari potest et alteri tradi, haec non discedit a domino. Non est itaque quod compares inter se dissimilia. Coeperam dicere posse ista duo esse et tamen utraque bona esse, tamquam sapientia et sapiens duo sunt et utrumque bonum esse concedis. Quomodo nihil obstat quominus et sapientia bonum sit et habens sapientiam, sic nihil obstat quominus et sapientia bonum sit et habere sapientiam, id est sapere. [16] Ego in hoc volo sapiens esse, ut sapiam. Quid ergo? non est id bonum sine quo nec illud bonum est? Vos certe dicitis sapientiam, si sine usu detur, accipiendam non esse. Quid est usus sapientiae? sapere: hoc est in illa pretiosissimum, quo detracto supervacua fit. Si tormenta mala sunt, torqueri malum est, adeo quidem ut illa non sint mala si quod sequitur detraxeris. Sapientia habitus perfectae mentis est, sapere usus perfectae mentis: quomodo potest usus eius bonum non esse quae sine usu bonum non est? [17] Interrogo te an sapientia expetenda sit: fateris. Interrogo an usus sapientiae expetendus sit: fateris. Negas enim te illam recepturum si uti ea prohibearis. Quod expetendum est bonum est. Sapere sapientiae usus est, quomodo eloquentiae eloqui, quomodo oculorum videre. Ergo sapere sapientiae usus est, usus autem sapientiae expetendus est; sapere ergo expetendum est; si expetendum est, bonum est. [18] Olim ipse me damno qui illos imitor dum accuso et verba apertae rei inpendo. Cui enim dubium potest esse quin, si aestus malum est, et aestuare malum sit? si algor malum est, malum sit algere? si vita bonum est, et vivere bonum sit? Omnia ista circa sapientiam, non in ipsa sunt; at nobis in ipsa commorandum est. [19] Etiam si quid evagari libet, amplos habet illa spatiososque secessus: de deorum natura quaeramus, de siderum alimento, de his tam variis stellarum discursibus, an ad illarum motus nostra moveantur, an corporibus omnium animisque illinc impetus veniat, an et haec quae fortuita dicuntur certa lege constricta sint nihilque in hoc mundo repentinum aut expers ordinis volutetur. Ista iam a formatione morum recesserunt, sed levant animum et ad ipsarum quas tractat rerum magnitudinem attollunt; haec vero de quibus paulo ante dicebam minuunt et deprimunt nec, ut putatis, exacuunt, sed extenuant. [20] Obsecro vos, tam necessariam curam maioribus melioribusque debitam in re nescio an falsa, certe inutili terimus? Quid mihi profuturum est scire an aliud sit sapientia, aliud sapere? Quid mihi profuturum est scire illud bonum esse, <hoc non esse>? Temere me geram, subibo huius voti aleam: tibi sapientia, mihi sapere contingat. Pares erimus. [21] Potius id age ut mihi viam monstres qua ad ista perveniam. Dic quid vitare debeam, quid adpetere, quibus animum labantem studiis firmem, quemadmodum quae me ex transverso feriunt aguntque procul a me repellam, quomodo par esse tot malis possim, quomodo istas calamitates removeam quae ad me inruperunt, quomodo illas ad quas ego inrupi. Doce quomodo feram aerumnam sine gemitu meo, felicitatem sine alieno, quomodo ultimum ac necessarium non expectem sed ipsemet, cum visum erit, profugiam. [22] Nihil mihi videtur turpius quam optare mortem. Nam si vis vivere, quid optas mori? sive non vis, quid deos rogas quod tibi nascenti dederunt? Nam ut quandoque moriaris etiam invito positum est, ut cum voles in tua manu est; alterum tibi necesse est, alterum licet. [23] Turpissimum his diebus principium diserti mehercules viri legi: 'ita[que]' inquit 'quam primum moriar'. Homo demens, optas rem tuam. 'Ita quam primum moriar.' Fortasse inter has voces senex factus es; alioqui quid in mora est? Nemo te tenet: evade qua visum est; elige quamlibet rerum naturae partem, quam tibi praebere exitum iubeas. Haec nempe sunt et elementa quibus hic mundus administratur; aqua, terra, spiritus, omnia ista tam causae vivendi sunt quam viae mortis. [24] 'Ita quam primum moriar': 'quam primum' istud quid esse vis? quem illi diem ponis? citius fieri quam optas potest. Inbecillae mentis ista sunt verba et hac detestatione misericordiam captantis: non vult mori qui optat. Deos vitam et salutem roga: si mori placuit, hic mortis est fructus, optare desinere. [25] Haec, mi Lucili, tractemus, his formemus animum. Hoc est sapientia, hoc est sapere, non disputatiunculis inanibus subtilitatem vanissimam agitare. Tot quaestiones fortuna tibi posuit, nondum illas solvisti: iam cavillaris? Quam stultum est, cum signum pugnae acceperis, ventilare. Remove ista lusoria arma: decretoriis opus est. Dic qua ratione nulla animum tristitia, nulla formido perturbet, qua ratione hoc secretarum cupiditatium pondus effundam. Agatur aliquid. [26] 'Sapientia bonum est, sapere non est bonum': sic fit <ut> negemur sapere, ut hoc totum studium derideatur tamquam operatum supervacuis. Quid si scires etiam illud quaeri, an bonum sit futura sapientia? Quid enim dubi est, oro te, an nec messem futuram iam sentiant horrea nec futuram adulescentiam pueritia viribus aut ullo robore intellegat? Aegro interim nil ventura sanitas prodest, non magis quam currentem luctantemque post multos secuturum menses otium reficit. [27] Quis nescit hoc ipso non esse bonum id quod futurum est, quia futurum est? Nam quod bonum est utique prodest; nisi praesentia prodesse non possunt. Si non prodest, bonum non est; si prodest, iam est. Futurus sum sapiens; hoc bonum erit cum fuero: interim non est. Prius aliquid esse debet, deinde quale esse. [28] Quomodo, oro te, quod adhuc nihil est iam bonum est? Quomodo autem tibi magis vis probari non esse aliquid quam si dixero 'futurum est'? nondum enim venisse apparet quod veniet. Ver secuturum est: scio nunc hiemem esse. Aestas secutura est: scio aestatem non esse. Maximum argumentum habeo nondum praesentis futurum esse. [29] Sapiam, spero, sed interim non sapio; si illud bonum haberem, iam hoc carerem malo. Futurum est ut sapiam: ex hoc licet nondum sapere me intellegas. Non possum simul et in illo bono et in hoc malo esse; duo ista non coeunt nec apud eundem sunt una malum et bonum. [30] Transcurramus sollertissimas nugas et ad illa quae nobis aliquam opem sunt latura properemus. Nemo qui obstetricem parturienti filiae sollicitus accersit edictum et ludorum ordinem perlegit; nemo qui ad incendium domus suae currit tabulam latrunculariam prospicit ut sciat quomodo alligatus exeat calculus. [31] At mehercule omnia tibi undique nuntiantur, et incendium domus et periculum liberorum et obsidio patriae et bonorum direptio; adice isto naufragia motusque terrarum et quidquid aliud timeri potest: inter ista districtus rebus nihil aliud quam animum oblectantibus vacas? Quid inter sapientiam et sapere intersit inquiris? nodos nectis ac solvis tanta mole inpendente capiti tuo? [32] Non tam benignum ac liberale tempus natura nobis dedit ut aliquid ex illo vacet perdere. Et vide quam multa etiam diligentissimis pereant: aliud valetudo sua cuique abstulit, aliud suorum; aliud necessaria negotia, aliud publica occupaverunt; vitam nobiscum dividit somnus. Ex hoc tempore tam angusto et rapido et nos auferente quid iuvat maiorem partem mittere in vanum? [33] Adice nunc quod adsuescit animus delectare se potius quam sanare et philosophiam oblectamentum facere cum remedium sit. Inter sapientiam et sapere quid intersit nescio: scio mea non interesse sciam ista an nesciam. Dic mihi: cum quid inter sapientiam et sapere intersit didicero, sapiam? Cur ergo potius inter vocabula me sapientiae detines quam inter opera? Fac me fortiorem, fac securiorem, fac fortunae parem, fac superiorem. Possum autem superior esse si derexero <eo> omne quod disco. Vale. Seneca the YoungerThe Latin Library The Classics Page

◆

Y ou will be fabricating much trouble for me,
and you will be unconsciously embroiling me in a great discussion, and
in considerable bother, if you put such petty questions as these; for in
settling them I cannot disagree with my fellow-Stoics without
<Ep3-337>

impairing my standing among them, nor can I subscribe to such ideas
without impairing my conscience. Your query is, whether the Stoic
belief is true: that wisdom is a Good, but that being wise is not a Good.
I shall first set forth the Stoic view, and then I shall be bold enough
to deliver my own opinion. We of the Stoic school believe that the
Good is corporeal, because the Good is active, and whatever is active is
corporeal. That which is good, is helpful. But, in order to be helpful,
it must be active; so, if it is active, it is corporeal. They (the
Stoics) declare that wisdom is a Good; it therefore follows that one must
also call wisdom corporeal. But they do not think that being wise
can be rated on the same basis. For it is incorporeal and accessory
to something else, in other words, wisdom; hence it is in no respect active
or helpful. "What, then?" is the reply; "Why do we not say that being wise
is a Good?" We do say so; but only by referring it to that on which it
depends -in other words, wisdom itself. Let me tell you what answers
other philosophers make to these objectors, before I myself begin to form
my own creed and to take my place entirely on another side. "Judged in
that light," they say, "not even living happily is a Good. Willy
nilly, such persons ought to reply that the happy life is a Good, but that
living happily is not a Good." And this objection is also raised against
our school: "You wish to be wise. Therefore,being wise is a thing to be
desired. And if it be a thing to be desired it is a Good." So our
philosophers are forced to twist their words and insert another syllable
into the word "desired," - a syllable which our language does not normally
allow to be
<Ep3-339>

inserted. But, with your permission, I shall add it. "That which
is good," they say, "is a thing to be desired; the desirable thing is
that which falls to our lot after we have attained the Good. For
the desirabl is not sought as a Good; it is an accessory to the Good after
the Good has been attained." I myself do not hold the same view, and I
judge that our philosophers have come down to this argument because they
are already bound by the first link in the chain and for that reason may
not alter their definition. People are wont to concede much to the
things which all men take for granted; in our eyes the fact that all men
agree upon something is a proof of its truth. For instance, we infer
that the gods exist, for this reason, among others - that there is implanted
in everyone an idea concerning deity, and there is no people so far beyond
the reach of laws and customs that it does not believe at least in gods
of some sort. And when we discuss the immortality of the soul, we
are influenced in no small degree by the general opinion of mankind, who
either fear or worship the spirits of the lower world. I make the
most of this general belief: you can find no one who does not hold that
wisdom is a Good, and being wise also. I shall not appeal to the
populace, like a conquered gladiator; let us come to close quarters, using
our own weapons.
W hen something affects a given object, is
it outside the object which it affects, or is it inside the object it affects?
If it is inside the object it affects, it is as corporeal as the object
which it affects. For nothing can affect another object without touching
it, and that which touches is corporeal. If it is outside, it withdraws
after having affected the object. And withdrawal means motion.
And that which possesses
<Ep3-341>

motion, is corporeal. You expect me, I suppose, to deny that "race"
differs from "running," that "heat" differs from "being hot," that "light"
differs from "giving light." I grant that these pairs vary, but hold that
they are not in separate classes. If good health is an indifferent
quality, then so is being in good health; if beauty is an indifferent quality,
then so is being beautiful. If justice is a Good, then so is being
just. Annbsp; And if baseness is an evil, then it is an evil to be base
- just as much as, if sore eyes are an evil, the state of having sore eyes
is also an evil. Neither quality, you may be sure, can exist without the
other. He who is wise is a man of wisdom; he who is a man of wisdom
is wise. So true it is that we cannot doubt the quality of the one
to equal the quality of the other, that they are both regarded by certain
persons as one and the same. Here is a question, however, which I
should be glad to put: granted that all things are either good or bad or
indifferent - in what class does being wise belong? People deny that
it is a Good; and, as it obviously is not an evil, it must consequently
be one of the media. "But we mean by the "medium," or the "indifferent"
quality that which can fall to the lot of the bad no less than to the good
- such things as money, beauty, or high social position. But the
quality of being wise can fall to the lot of the good man alone; therefore
being wise is not an indifferent quality. Nor is it an evil, either; because
it cannot fall to the lot of the bad man; therefore, it is a Good.
That which the good man alone can possess, is a Good; now being wise is
the possession of the good man only; therefore it is a Good. The
objector replies: "It is only an accessory of wisdom." Very well, then,
I say, this quality which you call
<Ep3-343>

being wise - does it actively produce wisdom, or is it a passive concomitant
of wisdom? It is corporeal in either case. For that which is
acted upon and that which acts, are alike corporeal; and, if corporeal,
each is a Good. The only quality which could prevent it from being
a Good, would be incorporeality. The Peripatetics believe that there
is no distinction between wisdom and being wise, since either of these
implies the other also. Now do you suppose that any man can be wise
except one who possesses wisdom? Or that anyone who is wise does
not possess wisdom? The old masters of dialectic, however, distinguish
between these two conceptions; and from them the classification has come
right down to the Stoics. What sort of a classification this is,
I shall explain: A field is one thing, and the possession of the
field another thing; of course, because "possessing the field" refers to
the possessor rather than to the field itself. Similarly, wisdom
is one thing and being wise another. You will grant, I suppose, that
these two are separate ideas - the possessed and the possessor: wisdom
being that which one possesses, and he who is wise its possessor.
Now wisdom is Mind perfected and developed to the highest and best degree.
For it is the art of life. And what is being wise? I cannot
call it "Mind Perfected," but rather that which falls to the lot of him
who possesses a "mind perfected"; thus a good mind is one thing, and the
so-called possession of a good mind another. "There are," it is said, "certain
natural classes of bodies; we say: 'This is a man,' 'this is a horse.'
Then there attend on the bodily natures certain movements of the mind which
declare something about the body. And these have a certain essential
quality
<Ep3-345>

which is sundered from body; for example: 'I see Cato walking.' The
senses indicate this, and the mind believes it. What I see, is body,
and upon this I concentrate my eyes and my mind. Again, I say: 'Cato
walks.' What I say," they continue, "is not body; it is a certain declarative
fact concerning body -called variously an 'utterance,' a 'declaration,'
a 'statement.' Thus, when we say 'wisdom,' we mean something pertaining
to body; when we say 'he is wise,' we are speaking concerning body.
And it makes considerable difference whether you mention the person directly,
or speak concerning the person." Supposing for the present that these are
two separate conceptions (for I am not yet prepared to give my own opinion);
what prevents the existence of still a third - which is none the less a
Good? I remarked a little while ago that a "field" was one thing,
and the "possession of a field" another; of course, for possessor and possessed
are of different natures; the latter is the land, and the former is the
man who owns the land. But with regard to the point now under discussion,
both are of the same nature - the possessor of wisdom, and wisdom itself.
Besides, in the one case that which is possessed is one thing, and he who
possesses it is another; but in this case the possessed and the possessor
come under the same category. The field is owned by virtue of law,
wisdom by virtue of nature. The field can change hands and go into
the ownership of another; but wisdom never departs from its owner.
Accordingly, there is no reason why you should try to compare things that
are so unlike one another. I had started to say that these can be
two separate conceptions, and yet that both can be Goods - for instance,
wisdom and the wise man being
<Ep3-347>

two separate things and yet granted by you to be equally good.
And just as there is no objection to regarding both wisdom and the possessor
of wisdom as Goods, so there is no objection to regarding as a good both
wisdom and the possession of wisdom, - in other words, being wise.
For I only wish to be a wise man in order to be wise. And what then?
Is not that thing a Good without the possession of which a certain other
thing cannot be a Good? You surely admit that wisdom, if given without
the right to be used, is not to be welcomed! And wherein consists
the use of wisdom? In being wise; that is its most valuable attribute;
if you withdraw this, wisdom becomes superfluous. If processes of
torture are evil, then being tortured is an evil - with this reservation,
indeed, that if you take away the consequences, the former are not evil.
Wisdom is a condition of "mind perfected," and being wise is the employment
of this "mind perfected." How can the employment of that thing not be a
Good, which without employment is not a Good? If I ask you whether
wisdom is to be desired, you admit that it is. If I ask you whether
the employment of wisdom is to be desired, you also admit the fact; for
you say that you will not receive wisdom if you are not allowed to employ
it. Now that which is to be desired is a Good. Being wise is
the employment of wisdom, just as it is of eloquence to make a speech,
or of the eyes to see things. Therefore, being wise is the employment
of wisdom, and the employment of wisdom is to be desired. Therefore being
wise is a thing to be desired; and if it is a thing to be desired, it is
a Good. Lo, these many years I have been condemning myself for imitating
these men at the very time
<Ep3-349>

when I am arraigning them, and of wasting words on a subject that is
perfectly clear. For who can doubt that, if heat is an evil, it is
also an evil to be hot? Or that, if cold is an evil, it is an evil
to be cold? Or that, if life is a Good, so is being alive? All such
matters are on the outskirts of wisdom, not in wisdom itself. But
our abiding-place should be in wisdom itself. Even though one takes
a fancy to roam, wisdom has large and spacious retreats: we may investigate
the nature of the gods, the fuel which feeds the constellations, or all
the varied courses of the stars; we may speculate whether our affairs move
in harmony with those of the stars, whether the impulse to motion comes
from thence into the minds and bodies of all, and whether even these events
which we call fortuitous are fettered by strict laws and nothing in this
universe is unforeseen or unregulated in its revolutions. Such topics
have nowadays been withdrawn from instruction in morals, but they uplift
the mind and raise it to the dimensions of the subject which it discusses;
the matters, however, of which I was speaking a while ago, wear away and
wear down the mind, not (as you and your maintain) whetting, but weakening
it. And I ask you, are we to fritter away that necessary study which
we owe to greater and better themes, in discussing a matter which may perhaps
be wrong and is certainly of no avail? How will it profit me to know
whether wisdom is one thing, and being wise another? How will it
profit me to know that the one is, and the other is not, a Good?
Suppose I take a chance, and gamble on this prayer: "Wisdom for you, and
being wise for me! We shall come out even.
<Ep3-351>

T ry rather to show me the way by which I may
attain those ends. Tell me what to avoid, what to seek, by what studies
to strengthen my tottering mind, how I may rebuff the waves that strike
me abeam and drive me from my course, by what means I may be able to cope
with all my evils, and by what means I can be rid of the calamities that
have plunged in upon me and those into which I myself have plunged.
Teach me how to bear the burden of sorrow without a groan on my part, and
how to bear prosperity without making others groan; also, how to avoid
waiting for the ultimate and inevitable end, and to beat a retreat of my
own free will, when it seems proper to me to do so. I think nothing
is baser than to pray for death. For if you wish to live, why do
you pray for death? And if you do not wish to live, why do you ask the
gods for that which they gave you at birth? For even as, against
your will, it has been settled that you must die some day, so the time
when you shall wish to die is in your own hands. The one fact is
to you a necessity, the other a privilege.
I read lately a most disgraceful doctrine,
uttered (more shame to him!) by a learned gentleman: "So may I die as soon
as possible!" Fool, thou art praying for something that is already thine
own! "So may I die as soon as possible!" Perbaps thou didst grow old while
uttering these very words! At any rate, what is there to hinder?
No one detains thee; escape by whatsoever way thou wilt! Select any
portion of Nature, and bid it provide thee with a means of departure!
These, namely, are the elements , by which
the world's work is carried on water, earth, air. All these are no
more the causes of life than they are the ways of death. "So may
<Ep3-353>

I die as soon as possible!" And what is thy wish with regard to this
"as soon as possible"? What day dost thou set for the event?
It may be sooner than thy prayer requests. Words like this come from
a weak mind, from one that courts pity by such cursing; he who prays for
death does not wish to die. Ask the gods for life and health; if
thou art resolved to die, death's reward is to have done with prayers.
I t is with such problems as these, my dear
Lucilius, that we should deal, by such problems that we should mould our
minds. This is wisdom, this is what being wise means - not to bandy
empty subtleties in idle and petty discussions. Fortune has set before
you so many problems - which you have not yet solved -and are you still
splitting hairs? How foolish it is to practise strokes after you
have heard the signal for the fight! Away with all these dummy-weapons;
you need armour for a fight to the finish. Tell me by what means
sadness and fear may be kept from disturbing my soul, by what means I may
shift off this burden of hidden cravings. Do something! "Wisdom is
a Good, but being wise is not a Good;" such talk results for us in the
judgment that we are not wise, and in making a laughing-stock of this whole
field of study - on the ground that it wastes its effort on useless things.
Suppose you knew that this question was also debated: whether future wisdom
is a Good? For, I beseech you, how could one doubt whether barns
do not feel the weight of the harvest that is to come, and that boyhood
does not have premonitions of approaching young manhood by any brawn and
power? The sick person, in the intervening period, is not helped
by the health that is to come, any more
<Ep3-355>

than a runner or a wrestler is refreshed by the period of repose that
will follow many months later. Who does not know that what is yet
to be is not a Good, for the very reason that it is yet to be? For
that which is good is necessarily helpful. And unless things are
in the present, they cannot be helpful; and if a thing is not helpful,
it is not a Good; if helpful, it is already. I shall be a wise man
some day; and this Good will be mine when I shall be a wise man, but in
the meantime it is non-existent. A thing must exist first, then may be
of a certain kind. How, I ask you, can that which is still nothing
be already a Good? And in what better way do you wish it to be proved
to you that a certain thing is not, than to say: "It is yet to be"?
For it is clear that something which is on the way has not yet arrived.
"Spring will follow": I know that winter is here now. "Summer will
follow:" I know that it is not summer. The best proof to my mind
that a thing is not yet present is that it is yet to be. I hope some
day to be wise, but meanwhile I am not wise. For if I possessed that
Good, I should now be free from this Evil. Some day I shall be wise;
from this very fact you may understand that I am not yet wise. I
cannot at the same time live in that state of Good and in this state of
Evil; the two ideas do not harmonize, nor do Evil and Good exist together
in the same person. Let us rush past all this clever nonsense, and
hurry on to that which will bring us real assistance. No man who
is anxiously running after a midwife for his daughter in her birth-pangs
will stop to read the praetor's edict or the order of events at the games.
No one who is speeding to save his burning house will scan a checker-board
to speculate how
<Ep3-357>

the imprisoned piece can be freed. But good heavens! - In your
case all sorts of news are announced on all sides - your house afire, your
children in danger, your country in a state of siege, your property plundered.
Add to this shipwreck, earthquakes, and all other objects of dread; harassed
amid these troubles, are you taking time for matters which serve merely
for mental entertainment? Do you ask what difference there is between
wisdom and being wise? Do you tie and untie knots while such a ruin
is hanging over your head? Nature has not given us such a generous
and free-handed space of time that we can have the leisure to waste any
of it. Mark also how much is lost even when men are very careful:
people are robbed of one thing by ill- bealth and of another thing by illness
in the family; at one time private, at another public, business absorbs
the attention; and all the while sleep shares our lives with us.
O ut of this time, so short and swift, that
carries us away in its flight, of what avail is it to spend the greater
part on useless things? Besides, our minds are accustomed to entertain
rather than to cure themselves, to make an aesthetic pleasure out of philosophy,
when philosophy should really be a remedy. What the distinction is
between wisdom and being wise I do not know; but I do know that it makes
no difference to me whether I know such matters or am ignorant of them.
Tell me: when I have found out the difference between wisdom and being
wise, shall I be wise? Why then do you occupy me with the words
rather than with the works of wisdom? Make me braver, make me calmer,
make me the equal of Fortune, make me her superior. And I can be
her superior, if I apply to this end everything that I learn. Farewell.
<Ep3-359>

Latin / Greek Original

[1] Multum mihi negotii concinnabis et, dum nescis, in magnam me litem ac molestiam inpinges, qui mihi tales quaestiunculas ponis, in quibus ego nec dissentire a nostris salva gratia nec consentire salva conscientia possum. Quaeris an verum sit quod Stoicis placet, sapientiam bonum esse, sapere bonum non esse. Primum exponam quid Stoicis videatur; deinde tunc dicere sententiam audebo.

[2] Placet nostris quod bonum est corpus esse, quia quod bonum est facit, quidquid facit corpus est. Quod bonum est prodest; faciat autem aliquid oportet ut prosit; si facit, corpus est. Sapientiam bonum esse dicunt; sequitur ut necesse sit illam corporalem quoque dicere. [3] At sapere non putant eiusdem condicionis esse. Incorporale est et accidens alteri, id est sapientiae; itaque nec facit quicquam nec prodest. 'Quid ergo?' inquit 'non dicimus: bonum est sapere?' Dicimus referentes ad id ex quo pendet, id est ad ipsam sapientiam.

[4] Adversus hos quid ab aliis respondeatur audi, antequam ego incipio secedere et in alia parte considere. 'Isto modo' inquiunt 'nec beate vivere bonum est. Velint nolint, respondendum est beatam vitam bonum esse, beate vivere bonum non esse.' [5] Etiamnunc nostris illud quoque opponitur: 'vultis sapere; ergo expetenda res est sapere; si expetenda res est, bona est'. Coguntur nostri verba torquere et unam syllabam expetendo interponere quam sermo noster inseri non sinit. Ego illam, si pateris, adiungam. 'Expetendum est' inquiunt 'quod bonum est, expetibile quod nobis contingit cum bonum consecuti sumus. Non petitur tamquam bonum, sed petito bono accedit.'

[6] Ego non idem sentio et nostros iudico in hoc descendere quia iam primo vinculo tenentur et mutare illis formulam non licet. Multum dare solemus praesumptioni omnium hominum et apud nos veritatis argumentum est aliquid omnibus videri; tamquam deos esse inter alia hoc colligimus, quod omnibus insita de dis opinio est nec ulla gens usquam est adeo extra leges moresque proiecta ut non aliquos deos credat. Cum de animarum aeternitate disserimus, non leve momentum apud nos habet consensus hominum aut timentium inferos aut colentium. Utor hac publica persuasione: neminem invenies qui non putet et sapientiam bonum et sapere.

[7] Non faciam quod victi solent, ut provocem ad populum: nostris incipiamus armis confligere. Quod accidit alicui, utrum extra id cui accidit est an in eo cui accidit? Si in eo est cui accidit, tam corpus est quam illud cui accidit. Nihil enim accidere sine tactu potest; quod tangit corpus est: nihil accidere sine actu potest; quod agit corpus est. Si extra est, postea quam acciderat recessit; quod recessit motum habet; quod motum habet corpus est. [8] Speras me dicturum non esse aliud cursum, aliud currere, nec aliud calorem, aliud calere, nec aliud lucem, aliud lucere: concedo ista alia esse, sed non sortis alterius. Si valetudo indifferens est, <et> bene valere indifferens est; si forma indifferens est, et formonsum esse. Si iustitia bonum est, et iustum esse; si turpitudo malum est, et turpem esse malum est, tam mehercules quam si lippitudo malum est, lippire quoque malum est. Hoc ut scias, neutrum esse sine altero potest: qui sapit sapiens est; qui sapiens est sapit. Adeo non potest dubitari an quale illud sit, tale hoc sit, ut quibusdam utrumque unum videatur atque idem. [9] Sed illud libenter quaesierim, cum omnia aut mala sint aut bona aut indifferentia, sapere in quo numero sit? Bonum negant esse; malum utique non est; sequitur ut medium sit. Id autem medium atque indifferens vocamus quod tam malo contingere quam bono possit, tamquam pecunia, forma, nobilitas. Hoc, ut sapiat, contingere nisi bono non potest; ergo indifferens non est. Atqui ne malum quidem est, quod contingere malo non potest; ergo bonum est. Quod nisi bonus non habet bonum est; sapere non nisi bonus habet; ergo bonum est. [10] Accidens est' inquit 'sapientiae.' Hoc ergo quod vocas sapere, utrum facit sapientiam an patitur? Sive facit illud sive patitur, utroque modo corpus est; nam et quod fit et quod facit corpus est. Si corpus est, bonum est; unum enim illi deerat quominus bonum esset, quod incorporale erat.

[11] Peripateticis placet nihil interesse inter sapientiam et sapere, cum in utrolibet eorum et alterum sit. Numquid enim quemquam existimas sapere nisi qui sapientiam habet? numquid quemquam qui sapit non putas habere sapientiam? [12] Dialectici veteres ista distinguunt; ab illis divisio usque ad Stoicos venit. Qualis sit haec dicam. Aliud est ager, aliud agrum habere, quidni? cum habere agrum ad habentem, non ad agrum pertineat. Sic aliud est sapientia, aliud sapere. Puto, concedes duo esse haec, id quod habetur et eum qui habet: habetur sapientia, habet qui sapit. Sapientia est mens perfecta vel ad summum optimumque perducta; ars enim vitae est. Sapere quid est? non possum dicere 'mens perfecta', sed id quod contingit perfectam mentem habenti; ita alterum est mens bona, alterum quasi habere mentem bonam.

[13] 'Sunt' inquit 'naturae corporum, tamquam hic homo est, hic equus; has deinde sequuntur motus animorum enuntiativi corporum. Hi habent proprium quiddam et a corporibus seductum, tamquam video Catonem ambulantem: hoc sensus ostendit, animus credidit. Corpus est quod video, cui et oculos intendi et animum. Dico deinde: Cato ambulat. Non corpus' inquit 'est quod nunc loquor, sed enuntiativum quiddam de corpore, quod alii effatum vocant, alii enuntiatum, alii dictum. Sic cum dicimus "sapientiam", corporale quiddam intellegimus; cum dicimus "sapit", de corpore loquimur. Plurimum autem interest utrum illud dicas an de illo.'

[14] Putemus in praesentia ista duo esse (nondum enim quid mihi videatur pronuntio): quid prohibet quominus aliud quidem <sit> sed nihilominus bonum? Dicebam paulo ante aliud esse agrum, aliud habere agrum. Quidni? in alia enim natura est qui habet, in alia quod habetur: illa terra est, hic homo est. At in hoc de quo agitur eiusdem naturae sunt utraque, et qui habet sapientiam et ipsa. [15] Praeterea illic aliud est quod habetur, alius qui habet: hic in eodem est et quod habetur et qui habet. Ager iure possidetur, sapientia natura; ille abalienari potest et alteri tradi, haec non discedit a domino. Non est itaque quod compares inter se dissimilia.

Coeperam dicere posse ista duo esse et tamen utraque bona esse, tamquam sapientia et sapiens duo sunt et utrumque bonum esse concedis. Quomodo nihil obstat quominus et sapientia bonum sit et habens sapientiam, sic nihil obstat quominus et sapientia bonum sit et habere sapientiam, id est sapere. [16] Ego in hoc volo sapiens esse, ut sapiam. Quid ergo? non est id bonum sine quo nec illud bonum est? Vos certe dicitis sapientiam, si sine usu detur, accipiendam non esse. Quid est usus sapientiae? sapere: hoc est in illa pretiosissimum, quo detracto supervacua fit. Si tormenta mala sunt, torqueri malum est, adeo quidem ut illa non sint mala si quod sequitur detraxeris. Sapientia habitus perfectae mentis est, sapere usus perfectae mentis: quomodo potest usus eius bonum non esse quae sine usu bonum non est? [17] Interrogo te an sapientia expetenda sit: fateris. Interrogo an usus sapientiae expetendus sit: fateris. Negas enim te illam recepturum si uti ea prohibearis. Quod expetendum est bonum est. Sapere sapientiae usus est, quomodo eloquentiae eloqui, quomodo oculorum videre. Ergo sapere sapientiae usus est, usus autem sapientiae expetendus est; sapere ergo expetendum est; si expetendum est, bonum est.

[18] Olim ipse me damno qui illos imitor dum accuso et verba apertae rei inpendo. Cui enim dubium potest esse quin, si aestus malum est, et aestuare malum sit? si algor malum est, malum sit algere? si vita bonum est, et vivere bonum sit? Omnia ista circa sapientiam, non in ipsa sunt; at nobis in ipsa commorandum est. [19] Etiam si quid evagari libet, amplos habet illa spatiososque secessus: de deorum natura quaeramus, de siderum alimento, de his tam variis stellarum discursibus, an ad illarum motus nostra moveantur, an corporibus omnium animisque illinc impetus veniat, an et haec quae fortuita dicuntur certa lege constricta sint nihilque in hoc mundo repentinum aut expers ordinis volutetur. Ista iam a formatione morum recesserunt, sed levant animum et ad ipsarum quas tractat rerum magnitudinem attollunt; haec vero de quibus paulo ante dicebam minuunt et deprimunt nec, ut putatis, exacuunt, sed extenuant. [20] Obsecro vos, tam necessariam curam maioribus melioribusque debitam in re nescio an falsa, certe inutili terimus? Quid mihi profuturum est scire an aliud sit sapientia, aliud sapere? Quid mihi profuturum est scire illud bonum esse, <hoc non esse>? Temere me geram, subibo huius voti aleam: tibi sapientia, mihi sapere contingat. Pares erimus. [21] Potius id age ut mihi viam monstres qua ad ista perveniam. Dic quid vitare debeam, quid adpetere, quibus animum labantem studiis firmem, quemadmodum quae me ex transverso feriunt aguntque procul a me repellam, quomodo par esse tot malis possim, quomodo istas calamitates removeam quae ad me inruperunt, quomodo illas ad quas ego inrupi. Doce quomodo feram aerumnam sine gemitu meo, felicitatem sine alieno, quomodo ultimum ac necessarium non expectem sed ipsemet, cum visum erit, profugiam. [22] Nihil mihi videtur turpius quam optare mortem. Nam si vis vivere, quid optas mori? sive non vis, quid deos rogas quod tibi nascenti dederunt? Nam ut quandoque moriaris etiam invito positum est, ut cum voles in tua manu est; alterum tibi necesse est, alterum licet. [23] Turpissimum his diebus principium diserti mehercules viri legi: 'ita[que]' inquit 'quam primum moriar'. Homo demens, optas rem tuam. 'Ita quam primum moriar.' Fortasse inter has voces senex factus es; alioqui quid in mora est? Nemo te tenet: evade qua visum est; elige quamlibet rerum naturae partem, quam tibi praebere exitum iubeas. Haec nempe sunt et elementa quibus hic mundus administratur; aqua, terra, spiritus, omnia ista tam causae vivendi sunt quam viae mortis. [24] 'Ita quam primum moriar': 'quam primum' istud quid esse vis? quem illi diem ponis? citius fieri quam optas potest. Inbecillae mentis ista sunt verba et hac detestatione misericordiam captantis: non vult mori qui optat. Deos vitam et salutem roga: si mori placuit, hic mortis est fructus, optare desinere.

[25] Haec, mi Lucili, tractemus, his formemus animum. Hoc est sapientia, hoc est sapere, non disputatiunculis inanibus subtilitatem vanissimam agitare. Tot quaestiones fortuna tibi posuit, nondum illas solvisti: iam cavillaris? Quam stultum est, cum signum pugnae acceperis, ventilare. Remove ista lusoria arma: decretoriis opus est. Dic qua ratione nulla animum tristitia, nulla formido perturbet, qua ratione hoc secretarum cupiditatium pondus effundam. Agatur aliquid. [26] 'Sapientia bonum est, sapere non est bonum': sic fit <ut> negemur sapere, ut hoc totum studium derideatur tamquam operatum supervacuis.

Quid si scires etiam illud quaeri, an bonum sit futura sapientia? Quid enim dubi est, oro te, an nec messem futuram iam sentiant horrea nec futuram adulescentiam pueritia viribus aut ullo robore intellegat? Aegro interim nil ventura sanitas prodest, non magis quam currentem luctantemque post multos secuturum menses otium reficit. [27] Quis nescit hoc ipso non esse bonum id quod futurum est, quia futurum est? Nam quod bonum est utique prodest; nisi praesentia prodesse non possunt. Si non prodest, bonum non est; si prodest, iam est. Futurus sum sapiens; hoc bonum erit cum fuero: interim non est. Prius aliquid esse debet, deinde quale esse. [28] Quomodo, oro te, quod adhuc nihil est iam bonum est? Quomodo autem tibi magis vis probari non esse aliquid quam si dixero 'futurum est'? nondum enim venisse apparet quod veniet. Ver secuturum est: scio nunc hiemem esse. Aestas secutura est: scio aestatem non esse. Maximum argumentum habeo nondum praesentis futurum esse. [29] Sapiam, spero, sed interim non sapio; si illud bonum haberem, iam hoc carerem malo. Futurum est ut sapiam: ex hoc licet nondum sapere me intellegas. Non possum simul et in illo bono et in hoc malo esse; duo ista non coeunt nec apud eundem sunt una malum et bonum.

[30] Transcurramus sollertissimas nugas et ad illa quae nobis aliquam opem sunt latura properemus. Nemo qui obstetricem parturienti filiae sollicitus accersit edictum et ludorum ordinem perlegit; nemo qui ad incendium domus suae currit tabulam latrunculariam prospicit ut sciat quomodo alligatus exeat calculus. [31] At mehercule omnia tibi undique nuntiantur, et incendium domus et periculum liberorum et obsidio patriae et bonorum direptio; adice isto naufragia motusque terrarum et quidquid aliud timeri potest: inter ista districtus rebus nihil aliud quam animum oblectantibus vacas? Quid inter sapientiam et sapere intersit inquiris? nodos nectis ac solvis tanta mole inpendente capiti tuo? [32] Non tam benignum ac liberale tempus natura nobis dedit ut aliquid ex illo vacet perdere. Et vide quam multa etiam diligentissimis pereant: aliud valetudo sua cuique abstulit, aliud suorum; aliud necessaria negotia, aliud publica occupaverunt; vitam nobiscum dividit somnus. Ex hoc tempore tam angusto et rapido et nos auferente quid iuvat maiorem partem mittere in vanum? [33] Adice nunc quod adsuescit animus delectare se potius quam sanare et philosophiam oblectamentum facere cum remedium sit. Inter sapientiam et sapere quid intersit nescio: scio mea non interesse sciam ista an nesciam. Dic mihi: cum quid inter sapientiam et sapere intersit didicero, sapiam? Cur ergo potius inter vocabula me sapientiae detines quam inter opera? Fac me fortiorem, fac securiorem, fac fortunae parem, fac superiorem. Possum autem superior esse si derexero <eo> omne quod disco. Vale.

Seneca the YoungerThe Latin Library The Classics Page

Translation source →

Lucius Annaeus Seneca→Lucilius Juniorc. 63 · seneca #14

Lucius Annaeus Seneca→Lucilius Juniorc. 64 · seneca #64

Lucius Annaeus Seneca→Lucilius Juniorc. 65 · seneca #105

Lucius Annaeus Seneca→Lucilius Juniorc. 64 · seneca #47

Related Letters