Seneca Epistulae ad Lucilium CXXIV
SENECA LVCILIO SVO SALVTEM
This letter contains many Stoic claims about the good, what it
is, its relation to rationality, and the idea that as humans we
should pursue above all perfect rationality in order to achieve
the good. It does not contain much argument that would persuade a
critical non-Stoic. Rather, it explains parts of Stoic positions
and how they fit together: knowledge from outside of this letter
is crucial to understanding Seneca's points. Readers should
consult Anthony Long and David Sedley's The Hellenistic
Philosophers for a thorough introductory guide to the ancient
arguments and their source texts on such matters, or
Brennan's The Stoic Life for a good introduction to Stoic
ethics.
[1] Seneca hooks Lucilius by flattery: surely Lucilius
won't despise Seneca's tenuis curas. Next,
he introduces the topic, whether we grasp 'the good' by our senses
or our intellect.
[1] Possum multa tibi veterum praecepta referre, ni refugis
tenuisque piget cognoscere curas. Non refugis autem nec ulla te
subtilitas abigit: non est elegantiae tuae tantum magna sectari,
sicut illud probo, quod omnia ad aliquem profectum redigis et tunc
tantum offenderis ubi summa subtilitate nihil agitur. Quod ne nunc
quidem fieri laborabo. Quaeritur utrum sensu conprendatur an
intellectu bonum; huic adiunctum est in mutis animalibus et
infantibus non esse.
Sentence structure:
- Possum multa tibi veterum praecepta referre, (main
clause; simple indicative apodosis)
- ni refugis (first part of simple indicative
protasis)
- tenuisque piget cognoscere curas. (2nd part of
simple indicative protasis: ni negates this verb too:
tenuis modifies curas)
- Non refugis autem (1st main clause)
- nec ulla te subtilitas abigit: (2nd coordinate main
clause)
- non est elegantiae tuae tantum magna sectari, (main
clause: elegantiae tuae predicate genitive; sectari
subject of est; tantum modifies magna,
which is direct object of sectari)
- sicut illud probo, (main clause: sicut
demonstrative adverb, "in this way," or more loosely "that is
why": illud 'the following,' prepares for the quod
clause)
- quod omnia ad aliquem profectum redigis (1st quod
"the fact that" clause)
- et tunc tantum offenderis (further quod
clause: offenderis 2 sg. future passive indicative) BE
SURE OF THAT
- ubi summa subtilitate nihil agitur. (relative
clause: antecedent of ubi is tunc: summa
subtilitate ablative of manner)
- Quod ne nunc quidem fieri laborabo. ('linking'
relative quod referring to the thought of the ubi
clause preceding)
- Quaeritur (quasi-impersonal main clause: the pair of
alternative indirect questions which follow are its grammatical
subject)
- utrum sensu conprendatur (indirect question,
introduced by conjunction utrum)
- an intellectu bonum; (2nd indirect question: an
can introduce the second of such "alternative" questions)
- huic adiunctum est ('quasi-impersonal' est:
the grammatical subject is the acc. + inf. clause which
follows: huic refers to the question introduced by quaeritur)
- in mutis animalibus et infantibus non esse. (acc. +
inf. clause, subject of adiunctum est: the acc.
subject of esse is an understood bonum)
[2] Seneca thinks the good is grasped by the intellect:
those who think the good is pleasure think it is grasped by the
senses, as is clear from the fact that pleasure attracts everyone.
If pleasure, or some pleasures, are intellectual, or if there are
good and bad pleasures, or if pleasure and pain are not opposed to
each other in the right way, the argument may not work, but Seneca
is not really trying to establish his case beyond a doubt (or if
he is, he is not doing it well).
Note the parallelism of the last 5 clauses: Seneca frequently
constructs such parallels.
[2] Quicumque voluptatem in summo ponunt sensibile iudicant
bonum, nos contra intellegibile, qui illud animo damus. Si de bono
sensus iudicarent, nullam voluptatem reiceremus; nulla enim non
invitat, nulla non delectat; et e contrario nullum dolorem
volentes subiremus; nullus enim non offendit sensum.
Sentence structure:
- Quicumque voluptatem in summo ponunt
- sensibile iudicant bonum, (sc. esse;
1st main clause)
- nos contra intellegibile, (sc. iudicamus bonum:
2nd main clause)
- qui illud animo damus. (relative clause: antecedent
is nos)
- Si de bono sensus iudicarent, (present contrary to
fact conditional protasis; sensus nom. plural)
- nullam voluptatem reiceremus; (1st present contrary to
fact conditional apodosis)
- nulla enim non invitat, (nulla sc. voluptas;
grammatically coordinated, conceptually subordinate, this clause
explains previous clause, as enim indicates)
- nulla non delectat; (nulla sc. voluptas:
also explanatory introduced by previous enim; asyndeton
where English prefers to use a conjunction)
- et e contrario nullum dolorem volentes subiremus; (2nd
contrary to fact apodosis: volentes modifies the subject
as is typical in Latin idiom--English would use an adverb,
"willingly")
- nullus enim non offendit sensum. (nullus sc. dolor;
grammatically coordinate, conceptually subordinate, explains
previous clause, as enim indicates)
[3] Seneca bolsters his case by the empirical claim
that people find fault with those who are overly pleased with
pleasure or fearful of pain: that begs the question, however,
for those who think pleasure is the good won't find fault with
people overly pleased with pleasure. Perhaps they think them
enlightened. Likewise, Seneca's judgements about lust and those
who lack courage out of fear of pain have no purchase on someone
who doesn't already agree with him. This means that Seneca is
'preaching to the choir' and explaining the stoic position to
someone already disposed toward stoicism, a fine task to
undertake.
[3] Praeterea non essent digni reprehensione quibus
nimium voluptas placet quibusque summus est doloris timor. Atqui
inprobamus gulae ac libidini addictos et contemnimus illos qui
nihil viriliter ausuri sunt doloris metu. Quid autem peccant si
sensibus, id est iudicibus boni ac mali, parent? his enim
tradidistis adpetitionis et fugae arbitrium.
Sentence structure:
- Praeterea non essent digni reprehensione (continued
contrary-to-fact conditional--the protasis is still Si de
bono sensus iudicarent from previous sentence; digni
takes abl. where English says "worthy of")
- quibus nimium voluptas placet
- quibusque summus est doloris timor.
- Atqui inprobamus gulae ac libidini addictos
- et contemnimus illos
- qui nihil viriliter ausuri sunt doloris metu. (metu
ablative of cause)
- Quid autem peccant (autem adversative,
introducing an objection; quid "how," "in what manner";
apodosis to simple condition)
- si sensibus, ... (begin simple condition protasis)
- id est iudicibus boni ac mali, (parenthetical
clause; equivalent to an appositive phrase)
- ... parent? (conclusion of simple conditional
protasis)
- his enim tradidistis adpetitionis et fugae arbitrium. (enim
marks this as explanatory; it explains why Seneca made the
objection in the sentence preceding it; his = sensibus)
[4] Seneca explains that those who let sense instead of
intellect judge the good are entrusting judgement to the less
capable of the two faculties: humans have dull senses compared
to animals, and their reason is a superior faculty.
[4] Sed videlicet ratio isti rei praeposita est: illa
quemadmodum de beata vita, quemadmodum de virtute, de honesto, sic
et de bono maloque constituit. Nam apud istos vilissimae parti
datur de meliore sententia, ut de bono pronuntiet sensus, obtunsa
res et hebes et in homine quam in aliis animalibus tardior.
Sentence structure:
- Sed videlicet ratio isti rei praeposita est: (praeposita
est = 'has been put in charge of' + dat. isti rei,
which refers to the matter of deciding what the good is)
- illa ... (begin 2nd main clause; illa refers
to ratio)
- quemadmodum de beata vita, (sc. constituit,
from end of series of clauses; quemadmodum "in the
manner in which," "in the same manner ... as (sic)")
- quemadmodum de virtute, (sc. constituit;
repetition of quemadmodum for effect)
- de honesto, (sc. constituit; omission of quemadmodum
also for effect; the effect is variety, cleverness,
liveliness, vel sim.)
- ... sic et de bono maloque constituit. (conclude 2nd
main clause; sic is a demonstrative and corresponds to quemadmodum
in the corresponding subordinate clauses above)
- Nam apud istos vilissimae parti datur de meliore sententia,
(nam marks this clause as explaining something about
what precedes: here explanation is offered of how ratio
comes to serve instead of be in charge; istos
pejoratively refers to 'those' who hold the wrong opinion, that
pleasure and the senses determine the bonum; vilissimae
parti = sensus; de meliore sententia = "a
judgement about its better")
- ut de bono pronuntiet sensus, (result clause)
- obtunsa res et hebes et in homine quam in aliis
animalibus tardior. (res is in apposition to sensus,
which makes this bullet point unusual in that it is not a
clause, but a phrase; note that this apposition is parallel in
function to the id est clause above, because Seneca
likes to vary things up a bit; et ... et ... "both
... and ..."; quam "than" with tardior)
[5] The senses are the wrong instrument to use
to detect the good.
[5] Quid si quis vellet non oculis sed tactu minuta
discernere? Subtilior adhoc acies nulla quam oculorum et intentior
daret bonum malumque dinoscere. Vides in quanta ignorantia
veritatis versetur et quam humi sublimia ac divina proiecerit apud
quem de summo, bono malo, iudicat tactus.
Sentence structure:
- Quid (a highly elliptical protasis: similarly
to "what" in English "What if ...," quid has an
understood verb, perhaps evenit or ageres or putares
or the like)
- si quis vellet non oculis sed tactu minuta discernere?
(contrary to fact protasis)
- Subtilior adhoc acies nulla quam (sc. acies)
oculorum et intentior daret bonum malumque dinoscere. (daret
potential subjunctive; here somewhat unusually daret
'would allow, permit' takes a complementary infinitive
dinoscere; subtilior and intentior take
the comparative quam (sc. acies) oculorum).
- Vides
- in quanta ignorantia veritatis versetur (indirect
question; the subject of versetur is the antecedent of
apud quem, the person described earlier who wants to
judge detailed things with touch, not eyesight; veritatis
is objective genitive dependent on ignorantia)
- et quam humi sublimia ac divina proiecerit. (another
indirect question; perfect subjunctive: quam 'how')
- apud quem de summo, bono malo, iudicat tactus.
(subordinate relative clause in indirect question, hence
subjunctive; bono malo are in asyndeton--English
needs an 'and' or 'or' between them; the antecedent is the
subject of versetur and proiecerit)
[6] As he often does, Seneca
creates an imaginary interlocutor to argue and discuss an issue:
here the interlocutor invokes a principle that every area of
knowledge originates from some clear sense perception, and so
knowledge of the ultimate good too ought to have clear
phenomena that the senses perceive as its origin.
[6] 'Quemadmodum' inquit 'omnis scientia atque ars aliquid
debet habere manifestum sensuque conprehensum ex quo oriatur et
crescat, sic beata vita fundamentum et initium a manifestis ducit
et eo quod sub sensum cadat. Nempe vos a manifestis beatam vitam
initium sui capere dicitis.'
Sentence structure:
- 'Quemadmodum' ... (relative adverb
introducing beginning of a relative clause: antecedent is sic
below)
- inquit (introduces direct speech quotation)
- ... 'omnis scientia atque ars aliquid debet habere
manifestum sensuque conprehensum (relative
clause started by quemadmodum continued; sensu
ablative of means dependento on comprehensum)
- ex quo oriatur et crescat, (relative
clause of purpose)
- sic beata vita fundamentum et initium a manifestis
ducit et eo
- quod sub sensum cadat. (relative clause of
characteristic)
- Nempe vos ... (begin main clause; nempe
invokes the agreement of another, as does "surely" in English)
- a manifestis beatam vitam initium sui capere (indirect
speech dependent on dicitis; beatam vitam is
subject of capere; sui is objective genitive
dependent on initium;
- ... dicitis.' (conclude main clause begun by nempe
vos)
[7] Further explanation of the Stoics' position (the
'we' of dicimus) in contradistinction to
the anonymous interlocutor (tu here). The
principle of the previous section leads to discussion of the
meaning of secundum naturam, which Stoics use to
describe what is good. The idea seems to be that the state of a
human being before things may have gone wrong, i.e. at birth,
might be where the good is manifest. Seneca rejects that,
stating that the natural state at birth is the initium,
not the pinnacle, of human good.
[7] Dicimus beata esse quae secundum naturam sint; quid autem
secundum naturam sit palam et protinus apparet, sicut quid sit
integrum. Quod secundum naturam est, quod contigit protinus nato,
non dico bonum, sed initium boni. Tu summum bonum, voluptatem,
infantiae donas, ut inde incipiat nascens quo consummatus homo
pervenit; cacumen radicis loco ponis.
Sentence structure:
- Dicimus (main clause)
- beata esse (indirect speech)
- quae secundum naturam sint; (relative
clause in indirect speech, hence subjunctive; antecedent of
quae is the omitted subject of esse)
- quid autem secundum naturam sit (1st indirect
question dependent on apparet; the interrogative quid
refers to the same thing as the subject of apparet)
- palam et protinus apparet,
- sicut (sc. apparet)
- quid sit integrum. (2nd indirect question;
the antecedent of the interrogative pronoun quid is
also the omitted subject of apparet: integer
has a range of meanings from 'untouched, pristine' to
'irreproachable, virtuous' to 'healthy, sane')
- Quod secundum naturam est, (relative clause;
the antecedent is the omitted direct object of dico)
- quod contigit protinus nato,
- non dico bonum, (main clause; dico here
as an understood object such as illud, which serves as
antecedent for the preceding relative clauses)
- sed initium boni. (sc. dico illud)
- Tu summum bonum, voluptatem, infantiae donas, (main
clause; voluptatem is in apposition to bonum)
- ut inde incipiat nascens (result clause; inde
provides the antecedent for the relative adverb quo)
- quo consummatus homo pervenit; (relative
clause; note that it is not attracted into subjunctive:
Seneca is presenting it as a fact)
- cacumen radicis loco ponis. (2nd main clause; loco
is a locative ablative without a preposition for an indefinite
place A&G 429; radicis, a genitive, gives
the specification of loco)
[8] Seneca is still explaining the Stoic position, but
this section contains some argument, argument which some
non-Stoics might accept. The argument is that the newborn is not
capable of good. One premise is the claim that birth is not a
particularly important breaking point for rationality: the fetus
is as rational as the newborn. Another premise is the claim that
the newborn is no more capable of good than a tree or any old
animal. If those two premises are accepted as accurate, the
newborn is not at all capable of good. But people will still
reject this argument if they think rationality has nothing to do
with being, grasping, or doing good.
[8] Si quis diceret illum in materno utero latentem, sexus
quoque incerti, tenerum et inperfectum et informem iam in aliquo
bono esse, aperte videretur errare. Atqui quantulum interest inter
eum qui cum [que] maxime vitam accipit et illum qui maternorum
viscerum latens onus est? Uterque, quantum ad intellectum boni ac
mali, aeque maturus est, et non magis infans adhoc boni capax est
quam arbor aut mutum aliquod animal. Quare autem bonum in
arbore animalique muto non est? quia nec ratio. Ob hoc in
infante quoque non est; nam et huic deest. Tunc ad bonum perveniet
cum ad rationem pervenerit.
Sentence structure:
- Si quis diceret (present contrary to fact
protasis; quis = aliquis after si)
- illum in materno utero latentem, sexus quoque
incerti, tenerum et inperfectum et informem iam in
aliquo bono esse, (indirect speech: sexus
incerti genitive of description modifying illum)
- aperte videretur errare. (main clause; present
contrary to fact apodosis)
- Atqui quantulum interest inter eum ... (main
clause begun)
- qui cum [que] maxime vitam accipit (relative
clause: antecedent is eum; cum maxime = 'just
(now),' a usage common in Seneca, which is why the editor
rejects que, which would have been quicumque
'whoever')
- ... et illum (main clause concluded)
- qui maternorum viscerum latens onus est? (relative
clause: antecedent is illum; latens onus is
predicate nominative)
- Uterque, ... (main clause begun)
- quantum ad intellectum boni ac mali, (quantum
ad + acc. = "in terms of," "concerning," "as far as ...
goes" or the like: without a verb, this may not be a clause at
all, but sometimes quantum ad comes with a verb such
as est, pertinet, or attinet, and so
forms a clause: a verb could be understood here: Seneca uses quantum
ad several times in the Epistulae and Naturales
Quaestiones, but not elsewhere, and only once with a
verb, pertinet).
- ... aeque maturus est, (main clause concluded)
- et non magis infans adhoc boni capax est (main
clause: adhoc is a variant of adhuc, 'as of
yet,' and modifies capax, which is predicate nominative)
- quam arbor aut mutum aliquod animal (sc.
boni capax est). (comparative clause)
- Quare autem bonum in arbore animalique muto non est? (main
clause; bonum is subject)
- quia nec ratio (sc. in arbore animalique
muto est). (main clause)
- Ob hoc in infante quoque non est (sc. ratio);
(main clause)
- nam et huic deest (sc. ratio).
(main clause)
- Tunc ad bonum perveniet (main clause)
- cum ad rationem pervenerit. (temporal cum
clause indexed by tunc in the main clause; fut.
perf. indicative; another way to explain tunc ... cum
is that cum is a relative temporal word that refers
back to tunc; all correlative pairs can be explained
as a demonstrative and a relative)
[9] Seneca is clearly back to preaching to the choir:
no argument is offered for the claim that reason brings the good
with itself. Once that claim is granted, Seneca's argument is
granted. While it is not an implausible claim for Stoics,
it may be for others.
[9] Est aliquod inrationale animal, est
aliquod nondum rationale, est rationale sed inperfectum: in nullo
horum bonum, ratio illud secum adfert. Quid ergo inter ista quae
rettuli distat? In eo quod inrationale est numquam erit bonum; in
eo quod nondum rationale est tunc esse bonum non potest; <in eo
quod rationale est> sed inperfectum iam potest bonum
<esse>, sed non est.
Sentence structure:
- Est aliquod inrationale animal, (main clause)
- est aliquod nondum rationale, (main clause)
- est rationale sed inperfectum: (main clause)
- in nullo horum bonum (sc. est), (main
clause)
- ratio illud secum adfert. (main clause; illud
refers to bonum)
- Quid ergo inter ista ... (main clause begun)
- quae rettuli (relative clause)
- ... distat? (main clause concluded)
- In eo ... (begin main clause)
- quod inrationale est (relative clause;
antecedent is eo)
- ... numquam erit bonum; (conclude main clause)
- in eo ... (begin main clause)
- quod nondum rationale est (relative clause;
antecedent is eo)
- ... tunc esse bonum non potest; (conclude main
clause)
- <in eo ... (begin main clause; pointy
brackets indicate that an editor felt that the words in pointy
brackets are necessary, although they are no found in manuscript
readings)
- quod rationale est> sed inperfectum (relative
clause; antecedent is eo)
- ... iam potest bonum <esse>, (conclude
main clause)
- sed non est (sc. bonum). (main
clause)
[10] Seneca sums up the argument so far: the good is
not in people at just any stage of development, newborn babies,
fetuses, or sperm. It will emerge in the next section that
Seneca is not talking of just any 'good,' but the 'good' that is
specific to humans, for he admits that there is 'good' for a
tree, etc., and so there is likely a 'good' for a baby, but it
is not the human good: see ยง13.
[10] Ita dico, Lucili: bonum
non in quolibet corpore, non in qualibet aetate invenitur et
tantum abest ab infantia quantum a primo ultimum, quantum ab
initio perfectum; ergo nec in tenero, modo coalescente corpusculo
est. Quidni non sit? non magis quam in semine.
Sentence structure:
- Ita dico, Lucili: (main clause; ita "thus,"
"as follows")
- bonum non in quolibet corpore (sc. invenitur),
(main clause; verb invenitur to be supplied from
following clause, which is parallel to this one)
- non in qualibet aetate invenitur (sc. bonum)
(main clause; bonum is to be supplied from previous
clause as subject; aetate refers to age of a person, or
stage of development, such as infancy, childhood, adulthood)
- et tantum abest ab infantia (sc. bonum) (main
clause; bonum is to be supplied from previous clause as
subject)
- quantum a primo ultimum (sc. abest), (relative
clause; quantum "as" refers back to tantum
"as much," "as far")
- quantum ab initio perfectum (sc. abest); (relative
clause; quantum "as" refers back to tantum
"as much," "as far")
- ergo nec in tenero, modo coalescente corpusculo est. (main
clause; bonum is to be supplied from previous clause as
subject; modo "just now," an adverb modifying coalescente)
- Quidni non sit (sc. bonum in tenero modo
coalescente corpusculo)? (quidni "why not"
introduces rhetorical questions, which don't expect a real
answer, and always takes subjunctive; quidni non is a
usage almost confined to Seneca and has the effect of a double
negative, "Why shouldn't it not be?"="Why should it be?")
- non magis quam in semine (sc. in tenero modo
coalescente corpusculo bonum est). (main
clause)
[11] Seneca explains that the good of a thing is found
in its fullest development, not in its early stages.
[11] Hoc sic dicas: aliquod arboris ac sati bonum novimus: hoc non
est in prima fronde quae emissa cum maxime solum rumpit. Est
aliquod bonum tritici: hoc nondum est in herba lactente nec cum
folliculo se exerit spica mollis, sed cum frumentum aestas et
debita maturitas coxit. Quemadmodum omnis natura bonum suum nisi
consummata non profert, ita hominis bonum non est in homine nisi
cum illi ratio perfecta est.
Sentence structure:
- Hoc sic dicas: (main clause, potential subjunctive; sic
= 'as follows')
- aliquod arboris ac sati bonum novimus: (main clause)
- hoc non est in prima fronde (main clause; hoc
refers to aliquod bonum arboris ac sati)
- quae emissa cum maxime solum rumpit. (relative
clause; antecedent is prima fronde; cum maxime
'just (now)' modifies emissa; solum is a noun,
not solus, -a, -um)
- Est aliquod bonum tritici: (main clause; tritici
'of wheat')
- hoc nondum est in herba lactente (main clause)
- nec (sc. est in herba) (main clause)
- cum folliculo se exerit spica mollis, (cum
temporal clause; future perfect)
- sed (sc. est in herba) (main clause)
- cum frumentum aestas et debita maturitas coxit. (cum
temporal clause)
- Quemadmodum omnis natura bonum suum ... (relative
clause begun; this clause is also an apodosis to the nisi
clause that interrupts it; quemadmodum is an adverb
whose antecedent is ita; quemadmodum ... ita
can be translated "in the way in which ..., in that way ..."
or "just as ..., so ...")
- nisi consummata (sc. est; protasis)
- ... non profert, (relative clause concluded)
- ita hominis bonum non est in homine (main clause
apodosis)
- nisi (sc. est in homine) (protasis)
- cum illi ratio perfecta est. (cum
temporal clause; illi is dative of ownership)
[12] The human good is only attainable after
long hard studious work, which means that it is graspable by the
intellect. alia subiciens sibi, se nulli apparently
refers to independence, autonomy, and autarky.
[12] Quod autem hoc bonum? Dicam: liber animus,
erectus, alia subiciens sibi, se nulli. Hoc bonum adeo non recipit
infantia ut pueritia non speret, adulescentia inprobe speret; bene
agitur cum senectute si ad illud longo studio intentoque pervenit.
Si hoc est bonum, et intellegibile est.
Sentence structure:
- Quod autem hoc bonum? (sc. est; main clause; quod
is typically an interrogative adjective, not a pronoun)
- Dicam: (main clause)
- liber animus, erectus, alia subiciens sibi, se nulli (sc.
bonum est). (main clause)
- Hoc bonum adeo non recipit infantia (main clause; adeo
non recepit 'is so far from acquiring' preparing for the
result clauses to follow)
- ut pueritia non speret, (result clause--the idea is
that infants are so far from being rational and acquiring the
good that even later stages of youth can't reach it: English
might translate non as 'not even')
- adulescentia inprobe speret; (second result clause;
inprobe = 'presumptuously')
- bene agitur cum senectute (main clause apodosis)
- si ad illud longo studio intentoque pervenit. (protasis)
- Si hoc est bonum, (protasis)
- et intellegibile est. (main clause apodosis)
[13] The good of a tree, for instance, is not good
full stop: it is good 'for a tree,' but not truly good. Because
each thing has a nature, it has a sort of good which it has as
that thing, but that good is not good without qualification.
Reason alone can arrive at good without qualification.
[13] 'Dixisti' inquit 'aliquod bonum esse
arboris, aliquod herbae; potest ergo aliquod esse et infantis.'
Verum bonum nec in arboribus nec in mutis animalibus: hoc quod in
illis bonum est precario bonum dicitur. 'Quod est?' inquis. Hoc
quod secundum cuiusque naturam est. Bonum quidem cadere in mutum
animal nullo modo potest; felicioris meliorisque naturae est. Nisi
ubi rationi locus est, bonum non est.
- inquit (introduces direct quotation)
- 'aliquod bonum esse arboris, aliquod herbae; (indirect
speech dependent on dixisti)
- potest ergo aliquod esse et infantis.' (main clause)
- Verum bonum nec in arboribus nec in mutis animalibus (sc.
est) : (main clause: note verum 'true',
which marks the good of plants and animals as not true good)
- hoc ... (main clause beginning)
- quod in illis bonum est (relative clause; hoc
is antecedent)
- ... precario bonum dicitur. (main clause ending; precario
is adverbial here, meaning something like 'on loan'--it would
have been nice had Seneca expanded on the status of this 'good')
- 'Quod est?' (main clause)
- inquis. (main clause)
- Hoc (sc. bonum est) (main clause; hoc
must refer to the bonum precario of plants and animals)
- quod secundum cuiusque naturam est. (relative
clause; antecedent is hoc)
- Bonum quidem cadere in mutum animal nullo modo potest; (main
clause; this bonum must be verum bonum,
not bonum precario: otherwise it is hard for this
thought to make sense)
- felicioris meliorisque naturae est. (main clause;
subject is verum bonum, the true good)
- Nisi ubi rationi locus est, (protasis)
- bonum non est. (main clause, apodosis)
[14] Seneca explains that
some things, such as plants and animals, are good "in their
nature": they are good as plants or as animals.
Other things, humans and divine things, can be good in an
unqualified way, the humans by their cura, the divine by
their nature, which is rational.
[14] Quattuor hae naturae sunt, arboris, animalis, hominis, dei:
haec duo, quae rationalia sunt, eandem naturam habent, illo
diversa sunt quod alterum inmortale, alterum mortale est. Ex his
ergo unius bonum natura perficit, dei scilicet, alterius cura,
hominis. Cetera tantum in sua natura perfecta sunt, non vere
perfecta, a quibus abest ratio. Hoc enim demum perfectum est quod
secundum universam naturam perfectum, universa autem natura
rationalis est: cetera possunt in suo genere esse perfecta.
- Quattuor hae naturae sunt, arboris, animalis, hominis, dei:
(main clause; genitives arboris, animalis, hominis
and dei are genitives of material and each goes with an
understood natura, which is in apposition to hae
naturae)
- haec duo, ... (main clause beginning; haec
refers to things nearer in the text)
- quae rationalia sunt, (relative clause: antecedent
is haec duo)
- ... eandem naturam habent, (main clause ending)
- illo diversa sunt (main clause; asyndeton; illo
abl. of specification, 'in the following way')
- quod alterum inmortale, alterum mortale est. (relative
clause; antecedent is illo)
- Ex his ergo unius bonum natura perficit, dei scilicet,
alterius cura, hominis. (main clause)
- Cetera tantum in sua natura perfecta sunt, (main
clause; tantum adverbial)
- non vere perfecta, (main clause)
- Hoc enim demum perfectum est (main clause)
- quod secundum universam naturam perfectum, universa autem
natura rationalis est:
- cetera possunt in suo genere esse perfecta. (main
clause)
[15] Seneca makes a series of
claims which are not argued for, but add up to the conclusion that
the good is not in mute animals.
[15] In quo non potest beata vita esse nec id potest quo beata
vita efficitur; beata autem vita bonis efficitur. In muto animali
non est beata vita <nec id quo beata vita> efficitur: in
muto animali bonum non est.
- In quo non potest beata vita esse (relative clause;
in quo = "in a thing in which" which justifies the
understood in eo in the main clause)
- nec id potest (sc. in eo esse) (main
clause)
- quo beata vita efficitur; (relative clause;
antecedent is id)
- beata autem vita bonis efficitur. (main clause)
- In muto animali non est beata vita (main clause)
- <nec id (sc. est) (main clause)
- quo beata vita> efficitur: (relative clause;
antecedent is id)
- in muto animali bonum non est. (main clause)
[16] An interesting section
for its claims about animal awareness: they grasp things present
via their senses, they are reminded of things past by things
present (but only when things are present to their senses), but
they have no awareness of the future. Seneca relies on empirical
observation for these claims.
[16] Mutum animal sensu conprendit praesentia; praeteritorum
reminiscitur cum <in> id incidit quo sensus admoneretur,
tamquam equus reminiscitur viae cum ad initium eius admotus est.
In stabulo quidem nulla illi via est quamvis saepe calcatae
memoria [est]. Tertium vero tempus, id est futurum, ad muta non
pertinet.
- Mutum animal sensu conprendit praesentia; (main clause)
- praeteritorum reminiscitur (main clause; verbs
of remembering take genitive)
- cum <in> id incidit (cum temporal
clause)
- quo sensus admoneretur, (relative clause of
characteristic, perhaps result: antecedent is id)
- tamquam equus reminiscitur viae (adverbial clause; tamquam
"just as")
- cum ad initium eius admotus est. (cum
temporal clause)
- In stabulo quidem nulla illi via est (main clause)
- quamvis saepe calcatae memoria [est]. (concessive
clause)
- Tertium vero tempus, ... (main clause
beginning)
- id est futurum, (parenthetical clause; separate from
syntax of rest of sentence)
- ... ad muta non pertinet. (main clause ending)
[17] This section claims that beings which have
no experience of 'perfect' (completed?) time cannot have perfect
natures. Animals have no experience of the past unless it is being
currently called to mind by a current sensory input, and no
experience at all of the future, and so, for some reason that
involves perfect time, they cannot have perfect good.
[17] Quomodo ergo potest eorum videri perfecta natura
quibus usus perfecti temporis non est? Tempus enim tribus partibus
constat, praeterito, praesente, venturo. Animalibus tantum quod
brevissimum est <et> in transcursu datum, praesens:
praeteriti rara memoria est nec umquam revocatur nisi praesentium
occursu.
- Quomodo ergo potest eorum videri perfecta natura (main
clause)
- quibus usus perfecti temporis non est? (relative
clause; antecedent is eorum)
- Tempus enim tribus partibus constat, praeterito, praesente,
venturo. (main clause)
- Animalibus tantum ... (main clause beginning)
- quod brevissimum est (relative clause; antecedent is
the unexpressed tempus)
- <et> in transcursu datum (sc. est),
- ... praesens (sc. tempus est): (main
clause conclusion)
- praeteriti rara memoria est (main clause)
- nec umquam revocatur (main clause)
- nisi praesentium occursu (sc. revocatur).
(protasis to a simple condition)
[18] Seneca's words have the
form of conclusions and arguments here and in the previous section
(ergo among other things): the argument, however, is
not clear. Evidently habent et sata is meant to be an
absurd idea, which makes what precedes a reductio ad absurdum.
Perhaps absolute good must include awareness of absolute good
to be absolute good. Perhaps absolute good must include awareness
of its own absence (in the past) to be absolute good.
[18] Non potest ergo perfectae naturae bonum in
inperfecta esse natura, aut si natura talis [habet] hoc habet,
habent et sata. Nec illud nego, ad ea quae videntur secundum
naturam magnos esse mutis animalibus impetus et concitatos, sed
inordinatos ac turbidos; numquam autem aut inordinatum est bonum
aut turbidum.
- Non potest ergo perfectae naturae bonum in inperfecta esse
natura, (main clause)
- aut ... (conjunction connecting main clauses)
- si natura talis [habet] hoc habet, (protasis to habent
et sata; natura talis = animal nature/imperfecta
nature; hoc = perfectum bonum)
- habent et sata. (main clause; the understood direct
object of habent is naturam perfectam; this is
the apodosis to preceding protasis; sata literally 'sown
things' likely refers to plants in general, or seeds in
particular)
- Nec illud nego, (main clause; note that nec nego
= dico, logically; illud 'the following')
- ad ea ... (indirect speech clause begins)
- quae videntur secundum naturam (relative
clause: antecedent is ea)
- ... magnos esse mutis animalibus impetus et
concitatos, (indirect speech clause ends; mutis
animalibus dative of ownership)
- sed inordinatos ac turbidos (sc. eos impetus
esse) (indirect speech clause subordinate to understood
nec nego/dico main clause; sed introduces
additional information rather than contrasting information)
- numquam autem aut inordinatum est bonum aut turbidum. (main
clause)
[19] Seneca claims that
animals lack a capacity for ordinem, and so cannot have it
or lack it: it is not clear what Seneca means when he suggests
that animals move perturbate et indisposite ('agitated
and disorderly'). But Seneca's point is that just as we
don't say that fire lacks long division, because fire just isn't
the sort of thing that could have long division, so with
animals, we can't say that they lack ordinem because their
nature is not such as to have ordinem. The same is true of
virtue and vice: things which have no capacity for them cannot
have either.
[19] 'Quid ergo?' inquis 'muta animalia perturbate et
indisposite moventur?' Dicerem illa perturbate et indisposite
moveri si natura illorum ordinem caperet: nunc moventur secundum
naturam suam. Perturbatum enim id est quod esse aliquando et non
perturbatum potest; sollicitum est quod potest esse securum. Nulli
vitium est nisi cui virtus potest esse: mutis animalibus talis ex
natura sua motus est.
- 'Quid ergo?' (main clause)
- inquis (main clause)
- 'muta animalia perturbate et indisposite moventur?' (main
clause; rhetorical question, 'no' being the expected default
answer)
- Dicerem (main clause, potential subjunctive)
- illa perturbate et indisposite moveri (indirect
speech; apodosis)
- si natura illorum ordinem caperet: (protasis;
subjunctive because in subordinate clause in indirect
speech)
- nunc moventur secundum naturam suam. (main clause)
- Perturbatum enim id est (main clause)
- quod esse aliquando et non perturbatum potest; (relative
clause; antecedent is id)
- sollicitum est (main clause)
- quod potest esse securum. (relative clause;
antecedent is omitted subject of sollicitum est)
- Nulli vitium est (main clause, apodosis)
- nisi (sc. ei vitium est) (protasis)
- cui virtus potest esse: (relative clause;
antecedent is the understood ei)
- mutis animalibus talis ex natura sua motus est. (main
clause)
[20] Animals lack reason and
so cannot have full virtue and full goodness: they have only a
sort of good, a sort of virture, and a sort of perfection.
[20]Sed ne te diu teneam, erit aliquod bonum in muto animali, erit
aliqua virtus, erit aliquid perfectum, sed nec bonum absolute nec
virtus nec perfectum. Haec enim rationalibus solis contingunt,
quibus datum est scire quare, quatenus, quemadmodum. Ita bonum in
nullo est nisi in quo ratio.
- Sed ...
- ne te diu teneam, (purpose clause)
- ... erit aliquod bonum in muto animali, (main clause;
aliquod 'a sort of')
- erit aliqua virtus,
- erit aliquid perfectum,
- sed nec bonum absolute nec virtus nec perfectum (sc.
erit).
- Haec enim rationalibus solis contingunt, (main clause)
- quibus datum est scire (relative clause; antecedent
is rationalibus solis; subject of datum est is
scire)
- quare, quatenus, quemadmodum. (incomplete indirect
questions)
- Ita bonum in nullo est (main clause; apodosis)
- nisi in quo ratio. (protasis; sc. est)
[21] The point of what has
been said up to now has been to benefit Lucilius' soul.
[21] Quo nunc pertineat ista disputatio quaeris, et quid
animo tuo profutura sit? Dico: et exercet illum et acuit et utique
aliquid acturum occupatione honesta tenet. Prodest autem etiam quo
moratur ad prava properantes. Sed <et> illud dico: nullo
modo prodesse possum magis quam si tibi bonum tuum ostendo, si te
a mutis animalibus separo, si cum deo pono.
- Quo nunc pertineat ista disputatio (indirect
question)
- quaeris, (main clause)
- et quid animo tuo profutura sit? (indirect question)
- Dico: (main clause)
- et exercet illum (main clause)
- et acuit (main clause)
- et utique aliquid acturum occupatione honesta tenet. (main
clause)
- Prodest autem etiam (main clause)
- quo moratur ad prava properantes. (quo
'because')
- Sed <et> illud dico: (main clause; illud
"the following")
- nullo modo prodesse possum magis (main clause)
- quam (sc. prodesse possum)
(comparison clausemodifying prodesse magis;
apodosis to subsequent si clauses)
- si tibi bonum tuum ostendo, (protasis)
- si te a mutis animalibus separo, (2nd protasis)
- si cum deo pono. (3rd protasis)
[22] Why strive for strength,
speed, or beautiful hair when animals handily outdo all human
efforts in those regards.
One might ask why strive to be like god, when god handily exceeds
all human efforts. Seneca has yet to explain why reason is so much
better that other things (it might well be, but
Seneca has not explained it here).
[22] Quid, inquam, vires corporis alis et exerces? pecudibus
istas maiores ferisque natura concessit. Quid excolis formam? cum
omnia feceris, a mutis animalibus decore vinceris. Quid capillum
ingenti diligentia comis? cum illum vel effuderis more Parthorum
vel Germanorum modo vinxeris vel, ut Scythae solent, sparseris, in
quolibet equo densior iactabitur iuba, horrebit in leonum cervice
formonsior. Cum te ad velocitatem paraveris, par lepusculo non
eris.
- Quid, (adverbial 'why' modifying alis;
parallel to quid in quid excolis formam? and quid
capillam ...?)
- inquam, (introduces direct quotation, in this case
self-quotation)
- vires corporis alis (main clause, interrogative; alis
main verb)
- et exerces? (2nd main clause, interrogative)
- pecudibus istas maiores ferisque natura concessit. (main
clause; istas (sc. vires))
- Quid excolis formam? (main clause)
- cum omnia feceris, (temporal cum clause)
- a mutis animalibus decore vinceris. (main clause)
- Quid capillum ingenti diligentia comis? (main clause,
interrogative; ingenti diligentia is ablative of manner)
- cum illum vel effuderis more Parthorum (temporal cum
clause)
- vel Germanorum modo vinxeris (temporal cum
clause)
- vel, ... (begin temporal cum clause)
- ut Scythae solent, (adverbial clause modifying sparseris)
- ... sparseris, (conclude temporal cum
clause)
- in quolibet equo densior iactabitur iuba, (main
clause)
- horrebit in leonum cervice formonsior (sc. iuba).
(main clause; asyndetic)
- Cum te ad velocitatem paraveris, (temporal cum
clause)
- par lepusculo non eris. (main clause)
[23] As a rational animal, Lucilius' greatest
good would be perfect rationality. Hence, he should devote his
attention to that.
[23] Vis tu relictis in quibus vinci te necesse est, dum in aliena
niteris, ad bonum reverti tuum? Quod est hoc? animus scilicet
emendatus ac purus, aemulator dei, super humana se extollens,
nihil extra se sui ponens. Rationale animal es. Quod ergo in te
bonum est? perfecta ratio. Hanc tu ad suum finem hinc evoca,
<sine> in quantum potest plurimum crescere.
- Vis tu ... (main clause beginning)
- relictis (ablative absolute; the second element is
the unexpressed antecedent of quibus)
- in quibus ... (relative clause beginning;
antecedent is unexpressed nominal things that relictis modifies)
- vinci te (acc. + inf. dependent on necesse
est)
- ... necesse est, (relative clause ending)
- dum in aliena niteris, (dum + indicative
expressing temporal simultaneity, "as long as," "while")
- ... ad bonum reverti tuum? (end of main clause; reverti
complementary infinitive dependent on vis; tuum
is reflexive "your own," not just possessive "your")
- Quod est hoc? (main clause)
- animus scilicet emendatus ac purus, aemulator dei, super
humana se extollens, nihil extra se sui ponens (sc. hoc
est). (main clause; the first se is direct
object of extollens; second se is object of extra;
sui is partitive genitive of the reflexive pronoun se,
dependent on nihil, which is the direct object of ponens)
- Rationale animal es. (main clause)
- Quod ergo in te bonum est? (main clause)
- perfecta ratio (sc. bonum in te est). (main
clause)
- Hanc tu ad suum finem hinc evoca, (imperative main
clause; suum 'its' referring to ratio)
- <sine> ... (imperative main clause beginning)
- in quantum potest (relative clause; antecedent of quantum
could be considered to be an unexpressed tantum,
although in quantum potest is an easily understood
phrase that needs no antecedent)
- ... plurimum crescere. (imperative main clause ending;
complementary infinitive dependent on sine)
[24] It is permissible to
prefer things most humans desire, but not to desire them: reliable
joy comes from the self. These are important Stoic ideas: virtue
alone is good, while everything else is at best 'preferable.'
While emotions are to be gotten rid of, because they are based on
false beliefs, once one has done that and become a Stoic sage,
true joy will come from one's self. Seneca leaves Lucilius with an
aphoristic parting thought, as is common in the Epistulae:
the 'fortunate' are least fortunate.
[24] Tunc beatum esse te iudica cum tibi ex te gaudium omne
nascetur, cum visis quae homines eripiunt, optant, custodiunt,
nihil inveneris, non dico quod malis, sed quod velis. Brevem tibi
formulam dabo qua te metiaris, qua perfectum esse iam sentias:
tunc habebis tuum cum intelleges infelicissimos esse felices.
Vale.
- Tunc ... (begin imperative main clause)
- beatum esse te (indirect speech dependent on iudica)
- ... iudica (end imperative main clause)
- cum tibi ex te gaudium omne nascetur, (cum
temporal clause, correlated with tunc; te
'yourself')
- cum ... (begin temporal cum clause)
- visis (ablative absolute; as with relictis
in the previous section, the nominal part is understood and
is the omitted antecedent of the relative quae)
- quae homines eripiunt, (relative clause;
antecedent is the omitted nominal part of the ablative
absolute visis)
- optant, (2nd verb of relative clause, in
asyndeton)
- custodiunt, (3rd verb of relative clause, in
asyndeton)
- ... nihil inveneris, (temporal cum clause
concluded)
- non dico (this clause serves only to reject malis
as an accurate word conveying Seneca's thought; strictly
speaking, it disrupts and restarts the syntax of the sentence;
if not for non dico, the clause quod malis
would be dependent on nihil, its antecedent; non
dico ... sed ... is neither subordinate nor
coordinate with anything else in the sentence, but simply
exists in asyndeton and mild anacoluthon)
- quod malis, (relative clause of characteristic,
hence subjunctive; antecedent is nihil)
- sed (coordinates with non dico; Seneca non
dico quod malis but he does dico quod velis)
- quod velis. (relative clause of characteristic,
hence subjunctive; antecedent is nihil)
- Brevem tibi formulam dabo (main clause)
- qua te metiaris, (relative clause of characteristic,
hence subjunctive; antecedent is formulam)
- qua ... (begin 2nd relative clause of
characteristic, hence subjunctive sentias; antecedent
is once again formulam)
- perfectum esse iam (sc. te)
(indirect speech dependent on sentias)
- ... sentias: (conclude relative clause of
characteristic)
- tunc habebis tuum (main clause; tuum 'what is
right for you'--see L&S tuus I.B)
- cum intelleges (cum temporal correlated with
tunc)
- infelicissimos esse 'felices.' (indirect speech
dependent on intelleges; felices =
'so-called fortunate')
- Vale. (imperative main clause)