Book 2, Chapter 6
Original Latin
Primum igitur de inbecillitate multorum et de variis disciplinis philosophorum loquar. quorum princeps et auctoritate et antiquitate Socraticus Aristippus non dubitavit summum malum dolorem dicere. deinde ad hanc enervatam muliebremque sententiam satis docilem se Epicurus praebuit. hunc post Rhodius Hieronymus dolore vacare summum bonum dixit: tantum in dolore duxit mali. ceteri praeter Zenonem, Aristonem, Pyrrhonem idem fere quod modo tu: malum illud quidem, sed alia peiora.
16 ergo id quod natura ipsa et quaedam generosa virtus statim respuit, ne scilicet dolorem summum malum diceres oppositoque dedecore sententia depellerere, in eo magistra vitae philosophia tot saecula permanet. quod huic officium, quae laus, quod decus erit tanti, quod adipisci cum dolore corporis velit, qui dolorem summum malum sibi esse persuaserit? quam porro quis ignominiam, quam turpitudinem non pertulerit, ut effugiat dolorem, si id summum malum esse decreverit? quis autem non miser non modo tunc, cum premetur summis doloribus, si in his est summum malum, sed etiam cum sciet id sibi posse evenire? et quis est, cui non possit? ita fit, ut omnino nemo esse possit beatus.
17 Metrodorus quidem perfecte eum beatum putat, cui corpus bene constitutum sit et exploratum ita semper fore. quis autem est iste, cui id exploratum possit esse?
Musean translation
Complete machine-assisted translation from the Latin. Latin transcription by the Perseus Project, Trustees of Tufts University, CC BY-SA 4.0.
“First, then, I shall speak about the weakness of many people, and the various schools of philosophy. Foremost among them in both authority and antiquity, the Socratic Aristippus did not hesitate to call pain the supreme evil. Epicurus then proved a willing pupil of this feeble, womanish doctrine. After him Hieronymus of Rhodes declared freedom from pain the supreme good, so great an evil did he consider pain. The rest, apart from Zeno, Aristo, and Pyrrho, held much the same view you expressed just now: pain is an evil, certainly, but other things are worse.
16 “So philosophy, the teacher of life, has persisted for all these centuries in a view that nature herself and a certain nobility of spirit made you reject at once: you would not call pain the supreme evil, and the mere mention of dishonor drove you from your position. What duty, what glory, what honor will seem worth winning at the cost of bodily pain to someone convinced that pain is the supreme evil? Again, what humiliation, what disgrace will he not endure to escape pain, if he has decided it is the supreme evil? And who would not be miserable, not only while suffering the severest pains, if they contain the supreme evil, but even when he knows that such suffering may befall him? And who is exempt from that possibility? It follows that no one at all can be happy.
17 “Metrodorus, indeed, considers a person perfectly happy if his body is in good order and he has the assurance that it will always remain so. But who could possibly have that assurance?”
Plain English translation
Complete independent machine-assisted translation directly from the Latin. Latin transcription by the Perseus Project, Trustees of Tufts University, CC BY-SA 4.0.
“First I’ll talk about the weakness of many people and the different schools of philosophy. Among them, Aristippus, a follower of Socrates, comes first both in standing and in date. He had no hesitation in calling pain the worst thing there is. Then Epicurus proved quite ready to learn that spineless, womanish view. After him, Hieronymus of Rhodes said that being free from pain was the greatest good. That shows how much badness he found in pain. Apart from Zeno, Aristo, and Pyrrho, the others said much the same as you did just now: pain is bad, certainly, but other things are worse.
16 “So philosophy, our teacher in living, has stuck for all these centuries to a position that nature itself and a certain inborn nobility immediately rejected in you. You wouldn’t call pain the worst thing; once disgrace was put against it, you were driven from that view. If someone has convinced himself that pain is the worst thing for him, what duty, what praise, what distinction will be worth enough to him that he’ll choose to gain it at the cost of bodily pain? And once he’s decided pain is the worst thing, what dishonor or shame won’t he put up with to escape it? If extreme pain is the worst thing, who won’t be miserable, not only while suffering it but even when he knows it might happen to him? And who is there it couldn’t happen to? The result is that nobody at all can be happy.
17 “Metrodorus thinks a person is completely happy if his body is in good condition and he’s sure it will always stay that way. But who could possibly be sure of that?”
About this section
Book 2, Chapter 6 is part of Tusculan Disputations 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 55 of 189 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.