On Duties
- Language:
- Latin
- Status:
- Complete work
- Authorship:
- Written by the author
- Condition of the text:
- No scanning noise detected (automatic measure over the whole text, not checked by hand)
- Extent:
- ~130,000 words · 600 passages
Cite this work
- APACicero. (n.d.). De Officiis by Marcus Tullius Cicero [On Duties]. Digital reproduction: SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/cicero/de-officiis-by-marcus-tullius-cicero
- MLACicero. De Officiis by Marcus Tullius Cicero [On Duties]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/en/works/cicero/de-officiis-by-marcus-tullius-cicero.
- ChicagoCicero. De Officiis by Marcus Tullius Cicero [On Duties]. Digital reproduction, SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/en/works/cicero/de-officiis-by-marcus-tullius-cicero.
Reference to the edition that SigPhi reproduces: SigPhi is its digital reproduction, not its publisher. The edition's year is not in the metadata (hence "n.d."), and the translator appears only when recorded.
What it is about
On Duties, in Latin: three books on what is honourable, what is expedient, and what to do when the two appear to clash.
Context and history
He wrote it in 44 BC, addressed to his son Marcus, then studying at Athens, a few months after Caesar's murder and with his own position already dangerous; he was killed the following year. It is his last work and his most widely circulated: among the first books printed with movable type, and for centuries a moral handbook across half of Europe. The underlying thesis is that the honourable and the expedient never truly conflict.
Editorial context, not a citable source: unlike the passages of the work itself, these statements cannot be checked against the corpus.
dicere? Sed sunt non nullae disciplinae, quae propositis bonorum et malorum finibus officium omne pervertant. Nam qui summum bonum sic instituit, ut nihil habeat cum virtute coniunctum, idque suis commodis, non honestate metitur, hic, si sibi ipse consentiat et non interdum naturae bonitate vincatur neque amicitiam colere possit nec iustitiam nec liberalitatem; fortis vero dolorem summum malum iudicans aut temperans voluptatem summum bonum statuens esse certe nullo modo potest. #de Fin. II, 12 ff.; Tusc. Disp. IV-V; de Off. III, 117# *6* Quae quamquam ita sunt in promptu, ut res disputatione non egeat, tamen sunt a nobis alio loco disputata. Hae disciplinae igitur si sibi consentaneae velint esse, de officio nihil queant dicere, neque ulla officii praecepta firma, stabilia, coniuncta naturae tradi possunt nisi aut ab iis, qui solam, aut ab iis, qui maxime honestatem propter se dicant expetendam. Ita propria est ea praeceptio Stoicorum, Academicorum, Peripateticorum, quoniam Aristonis, Pyrrhonis, Erilli iam pridem explosa sententia est; qui tamen haberent ius suum disputandi de officio, si rerum aliquem dilectum[5] reliquissent, ut ad officii inventionem aditus esset. Sequemur[6] igitur hoc quidem tempore et hac in quaestione potissimum Stoicos non ut interpretes, sed, ut solemus, e fontibus eorum iudicio arbitrioque nostro, quantum quoque modo videbitur, hauriemus. *7* Placet igitur, quoniam omnis disputatio de officio futura est, ante definire, quid sit officium; quod a Panaetio praetermissum esse miror. Omnis enim, quae [a] ratione[7] suscipitur de aliqua re institutio, debet a definitione proficisci, ut intellegatur, quid sit id, de quo disputetur....[8] [4] _et neglegendo_ A H a b, Edd.; _et in neglegendo_ B c. [5] _dilectum_ B H a b, Edd.; _delectum_ A c. [6] _sequemur_ Graevius, Edd.; _sequimur_ MSS. [7] [_a_] _ratione_ Ed.; _a ratione_ MSS.; _ratione_ Müller.…