18 Cicero, De Amicitia 51
Laelius argues (against some earlier Greek theorists) that “advantage” or “expediency” (utilitas) is not the basis for friendship, although friendship certainly does bring advantages.
| 1 | [51] Atque etiam mihi quidem videntur, quī ūtilitātum causā fingunt amīcitiās, amābilissimum nōdum amīcitiae tollere. |
| 2 | Nōn enim tam ūtilitās parta per amīcum quam amīcī amor ipse dēlectat, tumque illud fit, quod ab amīcō est prōfectum, iūcundum, sī cum studiō est prōfectum; |
| 3 | tantumque abest, ut amīcitiae propter indigentiam cōlantur, ut iī, quī opibus et cōpiīs maximēque virtūte praeditī, in quā plūrimum est praesidiī, minimē alterīus indigeant, līberālissimī sint et beneficentissīmī. |
| 4 | Atque haud sciō an nē opus sit quidem nihil umquam omnīnō dēesse amīcīs… |
| 5 | Nōn igitur ūtilitātem amīcitia, sed ūtilitās amīcitiam secūta est. |
| 1 | quī: the understood antecedents for this relative are the Greek thinkers Laelius has been discussing in previous sections (which we have not read).
fingunt: this verb has a negative tone, implying deceit or cold calculation. nōdum: this can mean literally a “knot” in a rope, so it is a very tangible metaphor for the “bonds” of friendship. |
| 2 | parta: the 4th principle part < pario -īre.
quam: correlative with tam (“as much…as…”). amīcī amor: the position of amīcī suggests that it is a possessive (or subjective) genitive, “a friend’s love” rather than “love of/for a friend” (AG 343). illud: this is rather vague; “that thing” could be any favor or advantage coming from a friend. est prōfectum > proficīscor -ī. |
| 3 | tantumque…beneficentissīmī: there is a lot going on in this sentence: two ut clauses (NEITHER of which is a purpose clause) and two relative clauses disguise the relatively simple main verb—abest. First of all, what is “absent”? How absent is it? So, take the first ut clause as the subject of abest and the second ut clause is then “triggered” by tantum.
quā: the form of the relative shows that its antecedent must be which key word from the preceding clause? indigeant: please note that this verb takes the genitive; Laelius’ argument here seems to be that the wealthiest men have the least need of any one, and if friendships were formed merely for need/advantage, the wealthy would have the fewest friends; but, in fact, the wealthy are the most liberal and beneficent (towards friends), and so the premise (that friendships are based on advantage) cannot be true; is this a persuasive argument? |
| 4 | haud sciō an: the indirect question here (“whether or not”) is just about the equivalent of “perhaps” or “I think”, but it does govern the subjunctive construction, opus sit (which then governs an indirect statement); the idea seems to be that it is good for friends to be “in need” at least some times, as illustrated by the mutual friendship of Laelius and Scipio, although the idea of self-sufficiency (autarkeia) was an important one in Epicurean philosophy. |
| 5 | nē…quidem: the familiar construction “not even (the word they encompass)”. |
Interrogata
- Did any of your friendships start purely because of “advantages” you thought you might gain from them?
- Is it true that rich are better suited to friendship than the poor? Why does Cicero make this argument? Apart from reflexive egalitarianism, how would you critique Cicero’s argument here?
