Meta Description: Join Dr. David Noe and Dr. Jeff Winkle as they conclude their deep dive into Cicero’s De Natura Deorum. In Episode 73, they explore Book 3, the conflict between Roman tradition and Greek reason, and why the Latin language captures the essence of divine authority.
Introduction: Daylight in the Vomitorium
Welcome back to the “vomitorium,” classical gourmands! In Episode 73 of the Ad Navseam Podcast, hosts Dr. Jeff Winkle and Dr. David Noe return for the finale of their three-part series on Cicero’s philosophical masterpiece, De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods).
Broadcasting from a “rare daylight session,” the hosts are feeling “somewhat bright-eyed” as they tackle Book 3, the text where Cicero’s academic skeptic, Cotta, takes the stage to dismantle the arguments of the Stoics.
If you are a student of the Latin language, Roman history, or just someone who enjoys a good theological throwdown, this episode is essential listening. It moves beyond the mechanics of translation to the heart of what it meant to be a religious Roman.
A Eulogy for the Translator: Harris Rackham
Before diving into the arguments of Cotta, the hosts take a moment to honor the man whose words have guided English speakers through Cicero for nearly a century: Harris Rackham.
Thanks to a listener submission from the “Right Reverend Dr. Henry Jansma,” Dr. Noe shares details from Rackham’s 1944 obituary. A fellow of Christ’s College, Cambridge, Rackham was a brilliant scholar who dedicated his life to translation. While original scholarship is often the coin of the realm in academia, the hosts argue that a good translator—like Rackham or Stanley Lombardo—often has a more lasting impact.
However, even the best translations age. Rackham’s 1933 translation of De Natura Deorum is a classic, but as Dr. Noe notes, the Latin language is timeless, while English evolves. Perhaps it is time for a new edition?
Book 3: The Academic Attack
In the previous episode (Book 2), the Stoic Balbus argued that the gods exist, created the world, and actively care for humanity (Providence). Now, in Book 3, Cotta—an adherent of the Academic school—steps up to refute him.
Cotta’s opening gambit is disarming. He claims he doesn’t want to “refute” Balbus so much as “ask for an explanation”. But as Dr. Winkle observes, this is the “serpent under the flower”—or perhaps more mundanely, the “clog in the ice maker”. Cotta is the friendly attorney who smiles before tearing the witness apart on cross-examination.
The Argument from Evil
Cotta attacks the Stoic claim that the gods care for the human race (Deus generi humano consulere). His primary weapon? The problem of evil.
- The Stoic Sage: The Stoics claimed that the gods gave man reason to achieve perfect wisdom. Yet, they also admitted that no man had ever actually achieved this perfect state.
- The Result: Cotta argues that if the gods truly cared, they would have ensured at least one person attained this wisdom. Since the “morally good do not invariably receive good things” and the wicked often prosper, the evidence for a benevolent Providence is shaky at best.
The Roman Twist: Reason vs. Authority
Here is where the Latin language and Roman culture diverge sharply from their Greek predecessors.
While Cotta relentlessly attacks the rational arguments for the gods using Greek dialectic, he simultaneously affirms his unwavering belief in Roman religious tradition.
- The Quote: Cotta states he will always defend the opiniones, sacra, ceremonias, and religiones received from the ancestors (a maioribus).
- The Capeduncula: He famously says he has learned more about how to worship the gods from the “little clay pots” (capeduncula) left behind by Numa (Rome’s second king) than from all the syllogisms of the Stoics.
Greek Reason vs. Roman Authority
Dr. Noe explains the “rift” in Cicero’s thought here. For a Greek philosopher, if reason (logos) contradicts tradition, reason wins. For a Roman, if reason contradicts tradition (mos maiorum), tradition wins. Cotta is essentially saying: “Rationally, your arguments for God make no sense. But as a Roman Pontifex, I believe them because our ancestors told us to.” It is the ultimate triumph of authority (auctoritas) over dialectic.
Cicero’s Final Verdict
The dialogue ends with a sentence that has baffled scholars for centuries. After Cotta destroys the Stoic arguments, Cicero (speaking as the narrator) delivers his verdict:
“Velleius thinking Cotta’s discourse to be the truer, while I felt that of Balbus approximated more nearly to a semblance of the truth.”
Why does Cicero side with the Stoic Balbus after his own representative (Cotta) just dismantled him?
The hosts argue that Cicero isn’t just checking a box. He sides with Balbus because the Stoic view of a provident, orderly universe aligns best with the Roman state religion. Without the gods, the state collapses. Therefore, nature (natura) and tradition must be upheld, even if the academic arguments against them are logically sound.
A Gustatory Parting Shot
No episode of Ad Navseam is complete without a culinary send-off. This week, Dr. Winkle serves up a quote from Lisa Harrison regarding a food item that, much like Roman religion, binds people together:
“A burrito is a delicious food item that breaks down all social barriers and leads to temporary spiritual enlightenment.”
Whether you find enlightenment in a burrito or in the capeduncula of Numa, the journey is always worth taking.
Valete!
Resources for the Latin Learner
- Hackett Publishing: For excellent translations of the classics (including Rackham’s successors), use code AN2022 for 20% off.
- Ratio Coffee: Brew your morning cup with the precision of a Stoic sage. Use code ANCO for 15% off.
- Gold River Trading Co: Prefer tea? Get 10% off premium blends with code ANTEA.
- Latin Per Diem: Ready to master the Latin language? Take Dr. Noe’s Lingua Latina Per Se Illustrata course.
Check out the video version of this episode on YouTube and don’t forget to leave a review!
