Reviewed by:

• From Moral Theology to Moral Philosophy: Cicero and Visions of Humanity from Locke to Hume by Tim Stuart-Buttle
• James A. Harris

It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of Cicero to British—and not only British—philosophers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. For the most part, interest appears to have been much greater in De Officiis, De Finibus Malorum et Bonorum, De Natura Deorum, Academica, De Legibus, and so on, than in the works of Plato or of Aristotle. Yet Cicero was different things to different people. To many, he was the paradigmatic moderate Stoic, critical of the paradoxical excesses of Zeno and Chrysippus, but unwilling to follow the Epicureans in their reduction of the goods of life to the merely useful and agreeable. In this rich and rewarding study of British moral philosophy from Locke to Hume, Tim Stuart-Buttle is interested in another reading of Cicero, according to which he was first and foremost a skeptic, albeit a skeptic of a moderate, “academic,” kind. This Cicero was neither an Epicurean nor a Stoic. He was above all a cautious empiricist in his method, highly conscious of the limits of reason, and interested in how it is that most people, ignorant as they are of the real basis of morality, are nevertheless able, despite the deleterious influence of factionalism, to live responsibly as trustworthy members of civil society. Stuart-Buttle argues persuasively that this Cicero was Locke’s Cicero. Locke used him to illustrate both the potential and the limits of a properly cultivated faculty of reason. A skeptical Cicero served to expose the errors of dogmatic versions of Christianity, thereby making clear the need both for the separation of politics from religion and for Christ’s revelation as the ultimate ground of saving belief.

Stuart-Buttle goes on to explore how Cicero was read in much the same way, though to different ends, by the deist Conyers Middleton and by Hume. Both, like Locke, saw Cicero’s philosophical works as embodying the highest achievement of pre-Christian moral thought. As a result, Cicero brought into sharp focus the question of what, exactly, Christianity had added to humanity’s stock of moral knowledge. Where William Warburton had read Cicero as showing how little mankind had achieved in the way of genuine virtue before the coming of Christ, Middleton, possibly inadvertently, possibly intentionally, was so fulsome in his Life of Cicero (1741) and his Free Inquiry into the Miraculous Powers (1749) that he could not help [End Page 151] suggesting that all that Jesus had done was restate what Cicero had already said. Certainly everything that had followed in the history of Christianity had been a corruption of the moral doctrine that Christ, and also Cicero, had taught. Stuart-Buttle’s Hume is, likewise, a Ciceronian academic skeptic—not the Pyrrhonist that his contemporaries took him to be. Stuart-Buttle points out that Hume excepted Cicero from his critique of the pretensions of ancient philosophy. Cicero is the “presiding presence” in Hume’s mature moral philosophy, as laid out in the Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, and also, of course, in the Dialogues concerning Natural Religion. And Hume used Cicero in order to be explicit where Middleton had been ambiguous. In Hume’s hands, the Roman philosopher showed that the virtuous person had no need of Christianity. He also showed, resurrected as Philo in the Dialogues, that Locke had severely exaggerated the reasonableness of Christian belief. In Hume, the shift from moral theology to moral philosophy is complete.

Stuart-Buttle acknowledges that another book on the place of a skeptical Cicero in early modern British thought would have begun with Erasmus and would have got to Locke by way of Chillingworth. A full study of Ciceronianism in this time and place would have covered the Stoic interpretation of Cicero also in, for example, Samuel Clarke and Francis Hutcheson. Instead, and for reasons that are not entirely obvious, Stuart-Buttle devotes a chapter each to Shaftesbury...

审核人：

• 从道德神学到道德哲学：西塞罗与蒂姆·斯图尔特·布特尔从洛克到休ume的人类视野
• 詹姆斯·哈里斯（James A. Harris）

在17世纪和18世纪，很难夸大西塞罗对英国哲学家（不仅是英国哲学家）的重要性。在大多数情况下，人们对De Officiis，De Finibus Malorum et Bonorum，De Natura Deorum，Academica，De Legibus的兴趣似乎更大等等，比柏拉图或亚里斯多德的作品更重要。然而西塞罗对不同的人来说是不同的事情。对许多人来说，他是范式适度的斯多葛派人，对芝诺和克里斯蒂普斯的自相矛盾的过分行为提出了批评，但他不愿意跟随伊壁鸠鲁人将生活品减为仅有用和令人愉快的东西。在从洛克到休this的英国道德哲学的丰富而有意义的研究中，蒂姆·斯图尔特·巴特尔（Tim Stuart-Buttle）对西塞罗（Cicero）的另一种读物感兴趣，据此，他首先是怀疑者，尽管他是一个温和的，“学术的”类型的怀疑者。 。这个西塞罗既不是伊壁鸠鲁人也不是斯多葛派人。最重要的是，他在方法上持谨慎态度，对理性的局限性高度了解，并且对大多数人，尽管他们是道德的真正基础却一无所知，却感到有能力，尽管有派系主义的有害影响，但要以负责任的态度作为公民社会值得信赖的成员生活。斯图尔特·布特尔（Stuart-Buttle）有说服力地认为，这辆西塞罗是洛克的西塞罗。洛克用他来说明合理培养的理性教师的潜力和局限性。持怀疑态度的西塞罗（Cicero）揭露了基督教教条式的错误，从而明确表明既需要将政治与宗教分开，又需要基督的启示作为拯救信仰的最终依据。

Stuart-Buttle继续探索，由不同的科涅尔·米德尔顿（Conyers Middleton）和休。（Hume）以相同的方式（尽管达到了不同的目的）阅读西塞罗。两者都像洛克一样，都认为西塞罗的哲学著作体现了基督教前道德思想的最高成就。结果，西塞罗将注意力集中在基督教到底在人类的道德知识中增加了什么的问题上。威廉·沃伯顿（William Warburton）读西塞罗（Cicero）的故事，表明人类在基督复临之前以纯正的美德取得了什么成就，而米德尔顿（Middleton）可能在无意中，有意地在他的《西塞罗生活》（Life of Cicero，1741）和他对《自由世界》中的自由查询奇迹般的力量（1749年），他不由自主[End Page 151]暗示耶稣所做的一切只是重申西塞罗已经说过的话。当然，基督教历史上所发生的一切都是对基督以及西塞罗所教导的道德学说的破坏。Stuart-Buttle的Hume同样是Ciceronian的学术怀疑论者，而不是他的同时代人将他当做Pyrrhonist的人。斯图尔特·布特（Stuart-Buttle）指出，休ume（Hume）将西塞罗（Cicero）排除在对古代哲学假说的批判之外。西塞罗是休谟的成熟道德哲学的“主持在场”，如制定了询问关于道德的原则，而且，当然，在对话有关自然宗教。休ume使用西塞罗是为了明确米德尔顿的模棱两可之处。在休ume的手中，罗马哲学家表明，这个贤惠的人不需要基督教。他还表明，洛克在对话中以菲洛的身份复活，他严重夸大了基督教信仰的合理性。在休ume中，从道德神学到道德哲学的转变是完整的。

斯图尔特·布特尔（Stuart-Buttle）承认，另一本关于怀疑的西塞罗在近代英国思想中的地位的书本应该以伊拉斯mus斯（Erasmus）开头，并以席林沃斯（Chillingworth）的名义写给洛克。在这个时间和地点对西塞罗尼主义进行全面研究，可能会涵盖斯多葛对塞塞罗的解释，例如塞缪尔·克拉克（Samuel Clarke）和弗朗西斯·哈钦森（Francis Hutcheson）。相反，出于不完全清楚的原因，Stuart-Buttle分别为Shaftesbury撰写了一个章节...