Epistola Sebast. Curionis ad amplissimum Collegium Iurisconsult. Patavinae civitatis

for he interpreted a passage from the Orator, in which Cicero, according to the opinion of Aristotle, says that Rhetoric "answers" original: "respondere" from the other side of Dialectic—"answers from the other side," i.e., is "opposite," just as antistrophos. In this, the man of acute talent does not notice that although "to answer" is sometimes found for "to look back at" or "to be placed against," as in the passages he himself adduced—"The Gnosian land answers original: 'respondet' against those rising from the sea," or "To build a portico which answers original: 'respondeat' to the palace," and others of this kind—in such a way that our Dialectician has slipped from the category of position into the post-predicaments. Furthermore, if Cicero had wished to be understood in that way, why would he have said "from the other side"? For since "the other" is said of two, he wished to signify to us that they are not altogether similar (otherwise they would be only one art), but since all things have material and form, he wanted us to know that they are similar in material, according to the sentiment of Aristotle, but dissimilar in form. And in this way, it does not stand against us that Cicero shows a certain dissimilarity between them in that place. If these things are so, how will he be able to properly profess that art whose definition he still does not know? Is this, then, a Christian? Is this a civil or moral philosopher? Is this to be called a prudent man or an orator? An excellent Christian indeed, who scorns the precepts of Christ. A famous philosopher, who is overcome by the perturbations of the mind and runs into every kind of vice. A prudent man, who does not foresee his own greatest disgrace and ignominy. A distinguished orator, who speaks against the precepts of art, against decorum, against all reason, and against his own dignity, who does not even understand the definition of Rhetoric, who casts things at others