[6]
The Stoics, on the other hand (for Zeno in his
writings had, as it were, scattered certain seed which
Cleanthes had fertilized somewhat), defended nearly
every sort of divination. Then came Chrysippus,
a man of the keenest intellect, who exhaustively
discussed the whole theory of divination in two books,
and, besides, wrote one book on oracles and another
on dreams. And following him, his pupil, Diogenes of
Babylon, published one book, Antipater two, and my
friend, Posidonius, five. But Panaetius, the teacher
of Posidonius, a pupil, too, of Antipater, and, even
a pillar of the Stoic school, wandered off from the
Stoics, and, though he dared not say that there
was no efficacy in divination, yet he did say that he
[p. 231]
was in doubt. Then, since the Stoics—much against
their will I grant you—permitted this famous Stoic
to doubt on one point will they not grant to us
Academicians the right to do the same on all other
points, especially since that about which Panaetius
is not clear is clearer than the light of day to the
other members of the Stoic school?
Cicero: De Senectute De Amicitia De Divinatione. With An English Translation. William Armistead Falconer. Cambridge. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, Mass., London, England. 1923.
The Annenberg CPB/Project provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.