Book 2, Chapter 50
Original Latin
103 O acutos homines! quam paucis verbis confectum negotium putant! ea sumunt ad concludendum, quorum iis nihil conceditur. Conclusio autem rationis ea probanda est, in qua ex rebus non dubiis id, quod dubitatur, efficitur.
Videsne Epicurum, quem hebetem et rudem dicere solent Stoici, quem ad modum, quod in natura rerum omne esse dicimus, id infinitum esse concluserit? ‘Quod finitum est’, inquit, ‘habet extremum.’ Quis hoc non dederit? ‘Quod autem habet extremum, id cernitur ex alio extrinsecus.’ Hoc quoque est concedendum. ‘At, quod omne est, id non cernitur ex alio extrinsecus.’ Ne hoc quidem negari potest. ‘Nihil igitur cum habeat extremum, infinitum sit necesse est.’
104 Videsne, ut ad rem dubiam <a> concessis rebus pervenerit? Hoc vos dialectici non facitis, nec solum ea non sumitis ad concludendum, quae ab omnibus concedantur, sed ea sumitis, quibus concessis nihilo magis efficiatur, quod velitis. Primum enim hoc sumitis: ‘Si sunt di, benefici in homines sunt.’ Quis hoc vobis dabit? Epicurusne? qui negat quicquam deos nec alieni curare nec sui; an noster Ennius? qui magno plausu loquitur adsentiente populo:
E/go deum genus ésse semper díxi et dicam caélitum,Séd eos non curáre opinor, quíd agat humanúm genus.
Et quidem, cur sic opinetur, rationem subicit; sed nihil est necesse dicere, quae sequuntur; tantum sat est intellegi, id sumere istos pro certo, quod dubium controversumque sit.
Musean translation
Complete machine-assisted Musean translation, made directly from the Latin in separate source-only tasks and reviewed throughout against it. Both books, all 130 chapters and 282 numbered sections; no historical English translation used. Latin transcription credited to the Perseus Project under CC BY-SA 4.0, Müller’s 1915 Teubner edition.
103 “What penetrating minds! How few words they think it takes to settle the business! They base their conclusion on assumptions not one of which is granted them. But sound reasoning reaches its disputed conclusion from things beyond dispute.
“Consider Epicurus, whom the Stoics commonly call dull and uncultivated. See how he proved that what we call the whole of reality is infinite. ‘Whatever is finite,’ he says, ‘has a boundary.’ Who would not grant that? ‘Whatever has a boundary is viewed from something else outside it.’ That too must be granted. ‘But the whole of reality is not viewed from something else outside it.’ That cannot be denied either. ‘Since, then, it has no boundary, it must be infinite.’
104 “Do you see how he reached a disputed point from things already granted? You dialecticians do not do that. Not only do you fail to base your conclusions on what everyone grants; you use assumptions which, even if granted, bring you no closer to proving what you want. Your first assumption is this: ‘If gods exist, they are beneficent toward human beings.’ Who will grant you that? Epicurus, who denies that the gods concern themselves at all with anyone else’s affairs or even their own? Or our own Ennius, who says, to great applause and with the people’s assent:
“‘I have always said, and always shall, that a race of gods lives in heaven;But I believe they do not care what the human race may do.’
“He goes on to give the reason for his view; but there is no need to quote what follows. It is enough to recognize that these men take as certain what is doubtful and disputed.
Plain English translation
Complete machine-assisted Plain English translation, made independently and directly from the Latin, never from the Musean edition. Both books and every numbered section; a separate Latin-source model review covered the entire text. No human specialist review is claimed.
103 “What sharp minds! They think they have settled the matter in so few words! They base their conclusion on claims not one of which has been granted to them. We should accept a logical argument only when it proves a disputed point from facts that are not in doubt.
“Look at Epicurus, whom the Stoics regularly call dull and uneducated. Consider his proof that the totality of nature, as we call it, has no limit. ‘Whatever is finite,’ he says, ‘has an outer edge.’ Who would not grant that? ‘Whatever has an outer edge can be viewed from something else outside it.’ We must grant that too. ‘Yet there is no outside standpoint from which to see the whole.’ Again, we cannot deny this. ‘So, since the whole has no outer edge, it must be infinite.’
104 “Notice how agreed facts have brought him to a conclusion that was in doubt. Your practice as logicians is different. Your starting claims are not accepted by everyone; worse, granting them would leave you no closer to proving what you want. First you assume this: ‘If gods exist, they are generous to humans.’ Who will grant you that? Epicurus? He denies that the gods concern themselves with anyone's affairs, their own or others'. Or our own Ennius? He says this to great applause, with the people's agreement:
“‘I have always said, and always will, that a race of heavenly gods exists,But I think they do not care what the human race does.’
“He goes on to give a reason for this view. We need not repeat the rest. All we need to see is that they treat a disputed, doubtful claim as settled.
About this section
Book 2, Chapter 50 is part of On Divination by Marcus Tullius Cicero. This page sets the Latin original beside 2 direct-source translations, so any line can be checked against the source. It is chapter 108 of 130 in the work, which is kept in the Roman tradition.
Open the work page for the full contents, every edition, and the download links, or go back to Explore to browse other complete works in the Roman tradition. The reader keeps your place when you are signed in and lets you compare the original with each translation, one edition at a time.