Lactantius — Divine Institutes 3.18
But others dispute things contrary to these, that souls remain after death: and these are especially Pythagoreans and Stoics, whom although one must pardon because they sense the true, yet I cannot but reprove them, because they fell upon the truth not by knowledge but by chance. And so in that very thing which they sensed rightly they erred somewhat. For when they feared that argument by which it is gathered that souls must perish with bodies because they are born with bodies, they said souls are not born but rather are slipped into bodies and migrate from some into others. They did not think it could otherwise happen that souls survive after bodies unless they seem to have been before bodies. Equal therefore and almost like is the error of either party. But this is false in the past, that in the future. For no one saw what is most true—both that souls are born and that they do not perish—because they did not know why that should happen or what the human's reason is.
Many therefore of those who suspected souls are eternal, as if about to migrate into heaven, laid hands on themselves—as Cleanthes, Chrysippus, Zeno, Empedocles who cast himself into Etna's burning hollow in dead of night that when suddenly he did not appear he might be believed to have gone to the gods; and among Romans Cato, who through all his life was imitator of Stoic vanity. For Democritus was of another persuasion, yet still of his own will he himself offered his head to meet death—than which nothing more criminal can be done. For if a murderer is wicked because he is a human's extinguisher, he is bound to the same crime who kills himself, because he kills a human. Indeed that deed must be thought greater, whose vengeance lies under God alone. For just as we did not come into this life of our own will, so again from this dwelling of the body, which has been assigned us to keep, we must withdraw by the command of the same who led us into this body to dwell so long until He orders us dismissed.
And if some force is brought, it must be borne with even mind, since an innocent's extinguished soul cannot be unavenged and we have a great Judge with whom alone vengeance is always intact. Therefore all those philosophers are murderers, and Cato himself prince of Roman wisdom, who before he killed himself is said to have read through Plato's book written on souls' eternity, and was driven to the highest crime by a philosopher's authority. And yet this one seems to have had some cause of dying—hatred of slavery. What of that Ambraciot who, when he had read through the same book, threw himself headlong for no other cause than that he believed Plato? Utterly execrable and to-be-fled teaching, if it drives humans from life. But if Plato had known and taught by whom and how and to whom and for what deeds and at what time immortality is granted, he would have driven neither Theombrotus nor Cato into voluntary death, but rather would have trained them to life and justice.
Latin
Alii autem contraria his disserunt, superesse animas post mortem: et hi sunt maxime Pythagorei ac Stoici, quibus etsi ignoscendum est, quia uerum sentiunt, non possum tamen non reprehendere eos, quia non scientia, sed casu inciderunt in ueritatem. itaque in eo ipso quod recte sentiebant, aliquid errarunt. nam cum timerent argumentum illud quo colligitur necesse esse ut occidant animae cum corporibus, quia cum corporibus nascuntur, dixerunt non nasci animas, sed insinuari 20 potius in corpora et de aliis in alia migrare. non putauerunt aliter fieri posse ut supersint animae post corpora, nisi uideantur fuisse ante corpora. par igitur ac prope similis error est partis utriusque. sed haec in praeterito falsa est, illa in futuro. nemo enim uidit quod est uerissimum, et nasci animas et non occidere, quia cur id fieret aut quae ratio esset hominis nescierunt. multi ergo ex iis qui aeternas esse animas suspicabantur, tamquam in caelum migraturi essent, sibi ipsi manus intulerunt, ut Cleanthes, ut Chrysippus, ut Zenon, ut Empedocles, qui se in ardentis Aetnae specus intempesta nocte deiecit, ut cum repente non apparuisset, abisse ad deos crederetur, et ex Romanis Cato, qui fuit in omni sua uita Stoicae uanitatis imitator. nam Democritus in alia fuit persuasione, sed tamen sponte sua leto caput obuius optulit ipse, quo nihil sceleratius fieri potest. nam si homicida nefarius est, quia hominis extinctor est, eidem sceleri obstrictus est qui se necat, quia hominem necat. immo uero maius esse id facinus existimandum est, cuius ultio soli deo subiacet. nam sicut in hanc uitam non nostra sponte uenimus, ita rursus ex hoc domicilio corporis, quod tuendum nobis adsignatum est, eiusdem iussu recedendum est, qui nos in hoc corpus induxit tamdiu habitaturos, donec iubeat emitti. et si uis aliqua inferatur, aequa mente patiendum, cum extincta innocentis anima inulta esse non possit habeamusque iudicem magnum, cui soli uindicta in integro semper est. homicidae igitur illi omnes philosophi et ipse Romanae sapientiae princeps Cato, qui antequam se occideret, perlegisse Platonis librum dicitur qui est scriptus de aeternitate animarum, et ad summum nefas philosophi auctoritate conpulsus est. et hic tamen aliquam moriendi causam uidetur habuisse, odium seruitutis. quid Ambraciotes ille, qui cum eundem librum perlegisset, praecipitem se dedit nullam aliam ob causam nisi quod Platoni credidit? execrabilis prorsus ac fugienda doctrina, si abigit homines a uita. quodsi scisset Plato atque docuisset a quo et quomodo et quibus et quae ob facta et quo tempore inmortalitas tribuatur, nec Theombrotum inpegisset in mortem uoluntariam nec Catonem, sed eos ad uitam et iustitiam potius erudisset. nam mihi Cato uidetur causam quaesisse moriendi non tam ut Caesarem fugeret, quam ut Stoicorum decretis obtemperaret, quos sectabatur, suumque nomen grandi aliquo facinore clarificaret: cui quid mali potuerit accidere, si uiueret, non inuenio. Gaius enim Caesar ut erat clemens, nihil aliut efficere uolebat etiam in ipso belli ciuilis ardore, quam ut bene mereri de re publica uideretur duobus optimis ciuibus Cicerone et Catone seruatis. sed redeamus ad eos qui mortem pro bono laudant. de uita quereris, quasi uixeris aut umquam tibi ratio constiterit, cur omnino sis natus. nonne igitur tibi uerus ille et communis omnium pater Terentianum illut iure increpauerit: prius disce quid sit uiuere, si displicebit uita, tum istoc utitor. indignaris te malis esse subiectum, quasi quicquam merearis boni qui patrem, qui dominum, qui regem tuum nescis, qui quamuis clarissimam lucem intuearis oculis, mens tamen caeca est et in profundis ignorantiae tenebris iacet. quae ignorantia effecit ut quosdam dicere non puderet idcirco nos esse natos, ut scelerum poenas lueremus: quo quid delirius dici possit non uideo. ubi enim uel quae scelera potuimus admittere qui omnino non fuimus? nisi forte credemus inepto illi seni, qui se in priore uita Euphorbum fuisse mentitus est. hic credo quod erat ignobili genere natus, familiam sibi ex Homeri carminibus adoptauit. o miram et singularem Pythagorae memoriam et o miseram obliuionem nostrum omnium, qui nesciamus qui ante fuerimus! sed fortasse uel errore aliquo uel gratia sit effectum, ut ille solus Lethaeum gurgitem non adtigerit nec obliuionis aquam gustauerit. uidelicet senex uanus, sicut otiosae aniculae solent, fabulas tamquam infantibus credulis finxit. quodsi bene sensisset de iis quibus haec locutus est, si homines eos existimasset, numquam sibi tam petulanter mentiendi licentiam uindicasset. sed deridenda hominis leuissimi uanitas. quid Cicerone faciemus? qui cum in principio Consolationis suae dixisset luendorum scelerum causa nasci homines, iterauit id ipsum postea quasi obiurgans eum qui uitam non esse poenam putet. recte ergo praefatus est errore ac miserabili ueritatis ignorantia se teneri.