Duquesne University Duquesne Scholarship Collection Electronic Theses and Dissertations Spring 5-11-2018 Toward a New Reading of Cicero's De Finibus Kelsey Ward Follow this and additional works at: https://dsc.duq.edu/etd Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, and the History of Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Ward, K. (2018). Toward a New Reading of Cicero's De Finibus (Doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University). Retrieved from https://dsc.duq.edu/etd/1457 This One-year Embargo is brought to you for free and open access by Duquesne Scholarship Collection. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Duquesne Scholarship Collection. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TOWARD A NEW READING OF CICERO’S DE FINIBUS A Dissertation Submitted to the McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts Duquesne University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy By Kelsey Ward May 2018 Copyright by Kelsey Ward 2018 TOWARD A NEW READING OF CICERO’S DE FINIBUS By Kelsey Ward Approved April 6, 2018 ________________________________ ________________________________ Dr. Ronald M. Polansky Dr. Michael Harrington Professor of Philosophy Associate Professor of Philosophy (Committee Chair) (Committee Member) ________________________________ Dr. Thérèse Bonin Associate Professor of Philosophy (Committee Member) ________________________________ ________________________________ Dr. James Swindal Dr. Ronald M. Polansky Dean of McAnulty College Chair, Department of Philosophy Professor of Philosophy Professor of Philosophy iii ABSTRACT TOWARD A NEW READING OF CICERO’S DE FINIBUS By Kelsey Ward May 2018 Dissertation supervised by Professor Ronald Polansky In this dissertation, I argue that Cicero has two primary, interdependent aims in De finibus: the critical assessment of the dominant ethical positions, and the education of his readers. These aims are accomplished through four key devices. First, Cicero develops flat, useful readings of the dominant ethical positions without rejecting eudaimonism itself. This allows Cicero to demonstrate Academic practices while also insisting upon the importance of virtue, which suggests the best ethical view for Cicero is a skeptically grounded eudaimonism. Second, the arrangement of the text in reverse chronological order dramatically enacts Cicero’s own alternative to the cradle argument on which the dominant positions rely. Third, he uses truth- disclosive terminology to suggest the relative strength of different positions. Fourth, he obscures his own position, if he has one, in several ways over the course of the text. Cicero uses each of these devices to direct De finibus at the interlocutors and at the readers. The relative successes iv and failures of philosophical positions in the dialogue instruct the readers about the general terrain of ethical discourse. In learning about ethics, the readers are ideally thinking more critically about the principles on which they guide their lives and become better people. As better people, they might also become the virtuous citizens who could steady Roman politics again. Cicero is in some sense concerned with the impact of De finibus on the political future of Rome even when he deals with the minutiae, down to the knuckle bone, of Hellenistic ethics. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This dissertation, like all projects of its kind, would never have been produced if not for an extensive network of supportive institutions and people. I would like to thank the philosophy department at Duquesne University, the McAnulty School at Duquesne University, and Mathesis Publications for funding three years of doctoral studies and two summers of intensive language study. I would also like to thank all the organizers and attendees of the conferences in which I’ve presented parts of the dissertation, including the Society for Ancient Greek Philosophy and the Visitors’ Conference at the University of Pittsburgh, and the research librarians at the University of Cincinnati’s Classics library and Topher Kurfess for their technical expertise and research assistance. I am truly grateful to the faculty and staff of the philosophy department who have helped me at every stage of my education at Duquesne, including my committee for their patience and care, and Ron Polansky, Joan Thompson, and George Yancy for their unwavering generosity, support, and guidance. I thank all of my family and friends for their support, especially Chelsea Harry, Justin Habash, Bethany Somma, and John Fritz, who have kept me motivated and pushed me to develop my research at every opportunity. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract.................................................................................................................................iv Acknowledgement................................................................................................................vi Introduction............................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: The Aims of De finibus......................................................................................16 Chapter 2: The Appeal to Nature.........................................................................................62 Chapter 3: Truth-Disclosive Terminology in De finibus.....................................................87 Chapter 4: Author, Character, Translator, Teacher............................................................131 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................152 Bibliography.......................................................................................................................159 vii INTRODUCTION The study of Cicero and his works has a long and varied history. Cicero’s influence is significant through the Renaissance, but the re-discovery and distribution of ancient Greek texts precipitated the swift decline of his philosophical reputation. His decline is marked by rebellion against scholasticism and Ciceronianism as a confining style and practice by Erasmus and others (Wilamowitz 1982, 28, 44). In addition, the rise of Hellenism in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries had a significant deleterious effect on the study of Latin texts (Davies 1971, 105; Douglas 1968, 27). Perhaps the final straw is Drumann’s influential treatment of Cicero and its distillation by Mommsen, now understood to be striking misrepresentations of Cicero and his abilities (Douglas 1968, 5). In the aftermath, Cicero has been read for the sake of some other end, from learning Latin to reconstructing the views of the Hellenistic schools represented in his philosophical works. In recent years, Cicero’s philosophical reputation has undergone a rapid recovery. It is no longer controversial to say that Cicero fell out of favor as the result of historical accident and the incorrect assessment of his work as unoriginal and derivative by modern scholars. Especially telling is the shift that has occurred in the last few years from defending Cicero’s philosophical abilities to assuming them. Cicero’s competence is now generally accepted, but it is interpreted differently by different scholars. As a result, there are two main interpretive camps concerning his philosophical works. The first camp isolates arguments in the text, extracts them from their context, and evaluates them for strength, detail, and accuracy.1 This camp, which I call ‘excavationist’, 1 Irwin 1986 is the quintessence of this tendency when he describes the Stoic position concerning care for and about the body and cites De finibus iii 41; iv 36, 72; v 74, 89 as his sources (205). Others in the excavationist camp include Reydams-Schils 2005, Schofield and Striker 1986, and Long 2006 on questions of ethics. On questions concerning knowledge, see Striker 1996, Bett 1 produces valuable work, but it is necessarily limited by the assumption that Cicero is an eclectic commentator whose works can generally be used as sourcebooks for the contents of Stoic, Epicurean, and Academic arguments. Reading his work in this way makes it possible to overlook Cicero’s craftsmanship in engineering the texts as he does. This may be especially true in the case of the philosophical works. Cicero is far better known as an orator than as a philosopher. Cicero defended the idea of the Roman republic, was a sought-after litigator in the courts, and was an influential writer and orator in his public life. The historical circumstances of his life make his political involvement a seeming preoccupation that he and his commentators cannot avoid. Unfortunately, such a focus usually overshadows for interpreters his training and philosophical background. In several dialogues Cicero recounts his acquaintance with philosophers throughout his youth, including the Epicureans Phaedrus and Zeno of Sidon, the Academic Philo of Larissa and his student Antiochus of Ascalon. Several of his friends and colleagues were patrons of philosophers. Some of these also serve as characters in Cicero’s dialogues, including Piso and Lucullus, who hosted Staseas of Naples and Antiochus, respectively. Cicero even sends his son to be educated by Cratippus, the most prominent Peripatetic philosopher at the time. The second camp would accept Cicero’s interest in philosophy is genuine and that his philosophical training arguably has as much