22 Cicero, De Amicitia 79–81
Real friends are quite rare. Most people seek some advantage or profit (fructum) in their friendships and so miss the best part of the relationship. People love themselves without seeking any profit from that feeling.
| 1 | Dignī autem sunt amīcitiā, quibus in ipsīs inest causa, cūr dīligantur. Rārum genus! |
| 2 | Et quidem omnia praeclāra rāra, nec quicquam difficilius quam reperīre, quod sit omnī ex parte in suō genere perfectum. |
| 3 | Sed plērīque neque in rēbus hūmānīs quicquam bonum nōrunt, nisi quod frūctuōsum sit, |
| 4 | et amīcōs tamquam pecudēs eōs potissimum dīligunt, ex quibus spērant sē maxumum frūctum esse captūrōs |
| 5 | [80] Ita pulcherrimā illā et maxumē nātūrālī carent amīcitiā per sē et propter sē expetītā nec ipsī sibi exemplō sunt, haec vīs amīcitiae et quālis et quanta sit. |
| 6 | Ipse enim sē quisque dīligit, nōn ut aliquam ā sē ipse mercēdem exigat cāritātis suae, sed quod per sē sibi quisque cārus est. |
| 1 | amīcitiā: why the ablative?
dīligantur: what is causing this indirect question? rārum genus: what kind of accusative? (AG 397d) |
| 2 | sit: what kinds of relative clauses take the subjunctive? |
| 3 | nōrunt: a syncopated form, nō(vē)runt; remember this verb has present meaning in the perfect tense. |
| 5 | nātūrālī: in the sense of “not synthetic”, i.e., “spontaneous.”
amīcitiā: has to be ablative, why is this case required? 7 sibi exemplō: ah! the “double dative” in the wild! sibi is just a dative of reference (to the subject ipsī) and exemplō serves as the predicate (which some grammars analyze as a “dative of purpose”); it would be convenient for our English-speaking brains if Latin just used an expected predicate noun in the nominative here (exemplum), but this is, in fact, a common construction (AG 382). 7-8 quālis et quanta sit: these indirect questions are triggered by exemplō. |
| 6 | ipse…sē quisque: what an excellent time to review the intensifying, reflexive and indefinite pronouns and adjectives! (there are more to come) (AG 144-146, 151). The self-love described here is not narcissism but nature love of the self, which is a Stoic principal (Cicero, De Finibus 3.16, 5.28)
ut: some ut clauses ARE purpose clauses! mercēdem…cāritātis: the OLD entry for mercēs says that it can take a “genitive of service rewarded.” Now there’s some linguistic precision for you! You could just consider this an extension of the genitive of the charge/penalty (AG 352). |
Interrogata
- Who is to blame for the dissolution of this friendship?
- What significance do you find in the introduction of political imagery in the poem’s last line?
- Has a friend ever taken advantage of your friendship? Did the relationship recover or was it irreparably diminished?
