Author: admin

  • Is the “poet” born or does he make himself? is poetry a godsend or an emery board, “limae labor”?

    The weighted response to the question if whether the poet is born or he is made claim that the poet must come into this world endowed with special qualities that constant daily exercise will develop and consolidate. Probably that’s the way but the matter admits some thought.

    First, the etymology itself of the word "poet" can help us to elucidate the dilemma. "Poeta" from the Greek ποιητής, "poietes" is the creator, writer, producer, maker, poet (maker of verses); and, of course, not everyone has creative ability for that. So poetry, from its origins, is connected with the gods. Poetry is "a gift of the gods." The poet is a "insanus" or crazy be taken by the "furor poeticus", by the "divine inspiration."

    Remember yourself that the word "carmen" means "poem, verse," but also "spell, song, singing and enchantment, prophecy, prediction,  magic filter, religious formula, moral judgment …".

    The poet is also called "vates” in Latín, bard,  seer, prophet, poet inspired by the gods (curiously,  the Vatican is the hill of the "predictions" (vaticinia) or prophecies according to an etymology that not all admit, we are accurate, but that seems plausible).

    So the poet is a person touched by divinity, which originally aired "carmina", poems, verses, judgments which are prophecies and messages from the gods. The poet sings and produces spells. I mentioned all this some time ago in another article; see: https://www.antiquitatem.com/en/aut-insanit-homo-aut-versus-facit-horace

    This belief has been extended over time until today. We can remember  Cervantes and his reference to poetry as "the grace that the heaven  would not give me".

    I work and I am always sleepless
    to appear that I have as  poet
    the grace that the heaven would not give me

    Yo, que siempre trabajo y me desvelo
    por parecer que tengo de poeta
    la gracia que no quiso darme el cielo […]

    (Viaje del Parnaso, Journey to Parnassus, vv. 25-27)

    From this perspective it is fair to say that "the poet is born."

    But not everyone thinks the same since antiquity. So Horace disagrees in his literary  and prescriptive theory in letter form, Epistula ad Pisones, The Art of Poetry: To the Pisos
    289-97
    , with Democritus, who required poets some madness; Horace relies more on the exacting work  of polishing and correction,  in the "labor limae et mora",  in the work and perseverance of the emery board:

    Nor would Italy be raised higher by valor and feats of arms, than by its language, did not the fatigue and tediousness of using the file disgust every one of our poets. Do you, the descendants of Pompilius, reject that poem, which many days and many a blot have not ten times subdued to the most perfect accuracy. Because Democritus believes that genius is more successful than wretched art, and excludes from Helicon all poets who are in their senses, a great number do not care to part with their nails or beard, frequent places of solitude, shun the baths. For he will acquire, [he thinks,] the esteem and title of a poet, if he neither submits his head, which is not to be cured by even three Anticyras, to Licinius the barber. (Horace. The Works of Horace. C. Smart. Theodore Alois Buckley. New York. Harper & Brothers. 1863.)

    Nec virtute foret clarisve potentius armis,
    quam lingua Latium, si non offenderet unum
    quemque poetarum limae labor et mora. Vos, o
    Pompilius sanguis, Carmen reprehendite, quod non
    multa diez et multa litura coercuit atque
    praesectum decies non castigavit ad unguem.
    Ingenium misera quia fortunatius arte
    credit et excludit sanos Helicone poetas
    Democritus, bona pars non ungues ponere curat,
    non barbam, secreta petit loca, balnea vitat.
    Nanciscetur enim pretium nomenque poetae,
    si tribus Anticyris caput insanabile numquam
    tonsori Licinio commiserit.

    Note: The Helicon is a mountain near Parnassus dedicated to the god Apollo and the Muses. The three Anticiras are three Greek cities with this name in which it is supposed to be raised hellebore, medicinal plant that is believed appropriate  to cure madness.

    Some episodes and moments of Roman poets, who were for the inner strength of his decision, confirm the reality of this statement.

    In general in past time and today the task of poetry enjoyed considerable prestige but little compensation money. They are numerous, as now, the examples of extraordinary poets misunderstood by their parents, who would have liked for them more lucrative jobs. This is the case of Ovid, Martial, etc.

    An anecdote on Ovid in this respect, apocryphal by the way but interesting, is counted. Son of a traditional landowning family, he was sent to Rome with his brother to study rhetoric and become a good lawyer. Ovid was more interested in poetry than on the right. His father reproached him to devote himself to a task that already from Homer, who died in poverty, did not produce any profit.

    Ovid himself tells us all this in his Tristia, IV, 10, 21 to 26 in which gives us a few autobiographical details. I play some verses and encourage the reader to do a complete reading.

    Often my father said, " Why do you try a profitless pursuit ?
    Even the Maeonian left no wealth." I was influenced
    by what he said and wholly forsaking Helicon I tried
    to write words freed from rhythm, yet all unbidden
    song would come upon befitting numbers and what-
    ever I tried to write was verse.

    (The Loeb Classical Library, Translation by Arthur Leslie Wheeler)

    Saepe pater dixit: “Studium quid inutile temptas?
    Maeonides nullas ipse reliquit opes”
    Motus eram dictis, totoque Helicone relicto
    Scribere conabar verba soluta modis.
    Sponte sua Carmen números veniebat ad aptos,
    Et quod temptabam dicere, versus erat.

    Well, probably the verse "quidquid temptabam dicere versus erat" (everything that was trying to say was verse) is the one that gave rise to the apocryphal story, but endlessly repeated undemanding way, that I refer below.

    It is an appointment undoubtedly apocryphal (hidden, unsigned, which is what it means the Greek word ἀπόκρυφος, ἀπό, apó, away from, private, and κρυπτός, kryptos hidden) which  says that Ovid answered to his father's counterclaim:

    Forgive me, I will never again write verse, my father

    Parce mihi, nunquam versificabo, pater!

    But this answer itself was the denial of what he claimed, because it itself is a verse.

    It confirms its apocryphal character of the story some other parallel version, with some variation, provided precisely because the aforementioned verse is not among these of Ovid. So

    I swear you, I swear you, father, I will never again write verse.

    Iuro, iuro, pater numquam componere versus

    Iuro tibi pater numquam componere carmen

    Nunc tibi promitto nunquam componere uersus

    Horace is also a good example of the internal force with which the gods touch  the poets. It is true that his father, a freedman who made a fortune, insisted on his son to study with the best teachers in Rome and then in Greece. Theirs, of course, were the letters, although being in Greece he participated in the Battle of Filippos on the losing army of the Republican Brutus,  one of the murderers of Caesar. He lived as he could until he entered the circle of the great Maecenas and Augustus himself, but never he left the poetry that opened the door of immortality.

    The aforementioned text of the Epistula ad Pisones is a clear expression of the work that must accompany all inspiration.

    Another similar example is this one of the witty, sometimes acid, sometimes tender Martial, who was born in Bilbilis next to the current Calatayud, in Spain. He went to Rome, the Eternal City, to succeed as a poet. Tired of bad life in the shadow of the powerful, he returned to his native Bilbilis, hosted by a wealthy widow. As peculiar thing, I will say that Pliny the Younger gave him the necessary support for the trip; aid so called Viaticum, from “via”,  way, road. Well, during his stay in Rome his friends advised him again and again to devote himself to the "forum", to the litigation, which is what then and now give money.

    The epigram I reproduce draws perfectly the hard Roman atmosphere in which poets must survive.

    Epigrams III, 38 a

    What cause or what presumption, Sextus, brings you to Rome? what do you expect or seek here? Tell me. "I will plead causes," you say, "more eloquently than Cicero himself, and in the three forums  there shall be no one to equal me." Atestinus pleaded causes, and Civis; you knew both of them; but neither made enough to pay for his lodging. "If nothing is to be gained from this pursuit, I will write verses: when you have heard them, you will say they are Virgil's own." You are mad; all that you see here shivering in threadbare cloaks are Ovids and Virgils. "I will push my way among the great." That trick has found support for but two or three that have attempted it, while all the rest are pale with hunger. "What shall I do? advise me: for I am determined to live at Rome." If you are a good man, Sextus, you will have to live by chance. (Bohn's Classical Library (1897) edition)

    Quae te causa trahit vel quae fiducia Romam,
    Sexte? quid aut speras aut petis inde? refer.
    'Causas' inquis 'agam Cicerone disertior ipso
    Atque erit in triplici par mihi nemo foro.'
    Egit Atestinus causas et Civis—utrumque
    Noras—; sed neutri pensio tota fuit.
    'Si nihil hinc veniet, pangentur carmina nobis:
    Audieris, dices esse Maronis opus.'
    Insanis: omnes gelidis quicumque lacernis
    Sunt ibi, Nasones Vergiliosque vides.
    'Atria magna colam.' Vix tres aut quattuor ista
    Res aluit, pallet cetera turba fame.
    'Quid faciam? suade: nam certum est vivere Romae.'
    Si bonus es, casu vivere, Sexte, potes.

    These poets and many others are examples of people who succumbed to the inner passion that consumed them, the poetry, and confirm the view whose claims to be born poet to be it, but it is also necessary to work hard with the emery board (labor limae et mora) .

    The life of the great Virgil confirms us this need for constant improvement of the work of poetic. He spent the last years of his life to composing the Aeneid, the great epic song dedicated to the history and grandeur of Roman people and of the Emperor Augustus, who lived at the same time and  protected him.

    His method is to dictate to his amanuensis and freedman Eros, morning dozens of verses that on the afternoon he  reduced to a few units. It seems he had a prose script more or less defined than it  would be the  work and he completed the various books according the  inspiration came to him. Even he left incomplete verses  to finish later if the hemistich (half verse) expressed the whole idea.

    Suetonius tells us in the Life of Virgil, one of the lives of his De poetis, which in turn is part of the De viris illustribus:

    When he was writing the "Georgics," it is said to have been his custom to dictate each day a large number of verses which he had composed in the morning, and then to spend the rest of the day in reducing them to a very small number, wittily p473remarking that he fashioned his poem after the manner of a she-bear, and gradually licked it into shape. 23 In the case of the "Aeneid," after writing a first draft in prose and dividing it into twelve books, he proceeded to turn into verse one part after another, taking them up just as he fancied, in no particular order. 24 And that he might not check the flow of his thought, he left some things unfinished, and, so to speak, bolstered others up with very slight words, which, as he jocosely used to say, were put in like props, to support the structure until the solid columns should arrive. (Published in the Loeb Classical Library, 1914)

    Cum "Georgica" scriberet, traditur cotidie meditatos mane plurimos versus dictare solitus ac per totum diem retractando ad paucissimos redigere, non absurde carmen se more ursae parere dicens et lambendo demum effingere. "Aeneida" prosa prius oratione formatam digestamque in XII libros particulatim componere instituit, prout liberet quidque, et nihil in ordinem arripiens. Ac ne quid impetum moraretur, quaedam inperfecta transmisit, alia levissimis verbis veluti fulsit, quae per iocum pro tibicinibus interponi aiebat ad sustinendum opus, donec solidae columnae advenirent.

    Aulus Gellius in XVII, 10 also remembers how he  produces his verses:

    I remember  that the philosopher Favorinus, when he had gone during the hot season to the villa of a friend of his at Antium, and I had come from Rome to see him, discoursed in about the following manner about the poets Pindar and Virgil. “The friends and intimates of Publius Vergilius,” said he, “in the accounts which they have left us of his talents and his character, say that he used to declare that he produced verses after the manner and fashion of a  bear. For he said that as that beast brought forth her young formless and misshapen, and afterwards by licking the young cub gave it form and shape, just so the fresh products of his mind were rude in form and imperfect, but afterwards by working over them and polishing them he gave them a definite form and expression. (English Translation by John C. Rolfe.  Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1927.)

    Favorinum philosophum, cum in hospitis sui Antiatem villam aestu anni concessisset nosque ad eum videndum Roma venissemus, memini super Pindaro poeta et Vergilio in hunc ferme modum disserere:  “Amici,” inquit, “familiaresque P. Vergilii, in his quae de ingenio moribusque eius memoriae tradiderunt, dicere eum solitum ferunt parere se versus more atque ritu ursino.  Namque ”  ut illa bestia fetum ederet ineffigiatum informemque lambendoque id postea quod ita edidisset conformaret et fingeret, proinde ingenii quoque sui partus recentes rudi esse facie et inperfecta, sed deinceps tractando colendoque reddere iis se oris et vultus liniamenta.

    Note: This comparison with to lick the wolf had remarkable success and is naturally used in our Renaissance and Baroque.

    In 19 B.C. when he already had finished the Aeneid but definitely not corrected, he went to Athens to review it. There he met with Augustus, who convinced him to return with him to Rome. He visited Megara under the scorching sun and fell ill. Just landed in Brindisi, he died on September 21, at age 51. Before dying, he asked the boxes containing the manuscripts of the Aeneid to burn it; previously he had already ordered it so in his will and asked his executors Varius and Tucca. No doubt this desire was due to his passion for perfection. It is said  it was the intervention of Augustus which prevented the poet's desire was fulfilled and the poem was saved for posterity that has always been a model of epic poetry. To Virgil it did not seem still presentable; It lacked the last hand.

    The first tells us or the first and main source is Pliny in his Naturalis Historia VII 114 (alii 29, 30 or 31):

    The Emperor Augustus, now deified, forbade the works of Virgil to be burnt, in opposition to the modest directions to that effect, which the poet had left in his vill: a prohibition which was a greater compliment paid to his merit, than if he himself had recommended his works. (Translated by John Bostock and H.T. Riley)

    Divus Augustus carmina Vergili cremari contra testamenti eius verecundiam vetuit maiusque ita vati testimonium contigit quam si ipse sua probavisset..

    Donatus also in his Life of Virgil, XIV, 52 reflects the fact

    When he sensed that his illness was getting worse, he asked  often and with great urgency for his cases (with writing roll), intending to burn the Aeneid . When no one complied, he ordered in his will that it should be burned, as a work uncorrected and unfinished.

    Tiberius Claudius Donatus, Vita Publii Virgilii Maronis, XIV, 52

    Quo ut gravari morbo se sentiret scrinia saepe et magna instantia petivit
    crematurus Aeneida. Quibus negatis testamento comburi iussit ut rem inemendatam imperfectamque.

    It should be added Gellius XVII 10.7, after commenting that the poet himself said that he perfected his verses as the bears shape their puppies, informs us:

    That this was honestly and truly said by that man of fine taste,” said he, "is shown by the result. For the parts that he left perfected and polished, to which his judgment and approval had applied the final hand, enjoy the highest praise for poetical beauty; but those parts which he postponed, with the intention of revising them later, but was unable to finish because he was overtaken by death, are in no way worthy of the fame and taste of the most elegant of poets. It was for that reason, when he was laid low by disease and saw that death was near, that he begged and earnestly besought his best friends to burn the Aeneid, which he had not yet sufficiently revised. (English Translation by John C. Rolfe.  Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann, Ltd. 1927.)

    Hoc virum iudicii subtilissimi ingenue atque vere dixisse, res,” inquit, "indicium facit. [5] Nam quae reliquit perfecta expolitaque quibusque inposuit census atque dilectus sui supremam manum, [6] omni poeticae venustatis laude florent; sed quae procrastinata sunt ab eo, ut post recenserentur, et absolvi, quoniam mors praeverterat, nequiverunt, nequaquam poetarum elegantissimi nomine atque iudicio digna sunt. [7] Itaque cum morbo obpressus adventare mortem viderat, petivit oravitque a suis amicissimis inpense, ut Aeneida, quam nondum satis elimavisset, adolerent.

    Macrobius also  in his Saturnalia, I,24,6

    Who at the time of death did  bequeathed his poem, because I wanted subtract the shortcomings of its reputation to posterity?

    Qui enim  moriens poema suum legavit igni, quid nisí famae suae vulnera posteritati subtrahenda curavit?

    Also Suetonius in his Life of Virgil. Although redundant, I offer the text of Suetonius at the end of the article , which includes all of the above and quotes a certain Sulpicius  the Carthaginian, of whom we know nothing and who  also is quoted in Anthologia Latina 653.

    Otherwise the story is also on the lives of Virgil, in the called Vita Serviana, 26-28 B

    Aeneidem…scripsit…,sed nec emendavit nec edidit: unde eam moriens praeccpit
    incendí.

    and in Probiana it is also repeated as in Donatus and Servius

    The Aeneid was preserved by Augustus, though he (Virgil) in his will had decreed that it should be retained nothing he had not edited:

    Aeneis servata ab Augusto, quamvis ipse testamento damnaverit, ne quid eorum quod non edidisset extaret

    This situation confirms the need to work tirelessly to it appear as fluid verses which are but the result of a huge effort and emotional stress.

    So I will sign also the definition with which I begin the article: the poet is born and becomes poet with permanent effort, with a constant "labor limae" So I follow the wise counsel of Horace on his  treaty of literary composition  "Epistula ad Pisones" v. 408-411:

    It has been made a question, whether good poetry be derived from nature or from art. For my part, I can neither conceive what study can do without a rich [natural] vein, nor what rude genius can avail of itself: so much does the one require the assistance of the other, and so amicably do they conspire [to produce the same effect].( Translated by C. Smart. Theodore Alois Buckley. New York. Harper & Brothers. 1863.)

    Natura fieret laudabile Carmen an arte,
    quaesitum est: ego nec studium sine divite vena,
    nec rude quid prosit video ingenium; alterius sic
    altera poscit opem res et coniurat amice.

    And if it is so, how is it possible that modern poets publish a book of poems every  year or even every  semester? Probably because neither they were touched by divinity or apply the daily needed emery board ; they only are cluttering up lines with empty sounds meaningless, vacuous, the ancients said “flatus vocis”. And to them it is necessary also to apply the advice of so much quoted Horace  in Epistula ad Pisones, 445-450:

    A good and sensible man will censure spiritless verses, he will condemn the rugged, on the incorrect he will draw across a black stroke with his pen; he will lop off ambitious [and redundant] ornaments; he will make him throw light on the parts that are not perspicuous; he will arraign what is expressed ambiguously; he will mark what should be altered; [in short,] he will be an Aristarchus: he will not say, "Why should I give my friend offense about mere trifles?" These trifles will lead into mischiefs of serious consequence, when once made an object of ridicule, and used in a sinister manner. ( Translated by C. Smart. Theodore Alois Buckley. New York. Harper & Brothers. 1863.)

    vir bonus et prudens versus reprehendet inertis,
    culpabit duros, incomptis adlinet atrum
    transverso calamo signum, ambitiosa recidet
    ornamenta, parum claris lucem dare coget,
    arguet ambigue dictum, mutanda notabit:
    fiet Aristarchus; non dicet 'cur ego amicum
    offendam in nugis?' hae nugae seria ducent
    in mala derisum semel exceptumque sinistre
    .

    I now offer the previously announced text of Suetonius

    Suetonius, Life of Virgil, 35 and ss.

    In the fifty-second year of his age, wishing to give the final touch to the "Aeneid," he determined to go away to Greece and Asia, and after devoting three entire years to the sole work of improving the poem, to give up the rest of his life wholly to philosophy. But having begun his journey, and at Athens meeting Augustus, who was on his way back to Rome from the Orient, he resolved not to part from the emperor and even to return with him; but in the course of a visit to the neighbouring town of Megara in a very hot sun, he was taken with a fever, and added to his disorder by continuing his journey; hence on his arrival at Brundisium he was considerably worse, and died there on the eleventh day before the Kalends of October, in the consulship of Gnaeus Sentius and Quintus Lucretius. His ashes were taken to Naples and laid to rest on the via Puteolana less than two miles from the city, in a tomb for which he himself composed this couplet:

    "Mantua gave me the light, Calabria slew me; now holds me
    Parthenope. I have sung shepherds, the country, and wars.

    He named as his heirs Valerius Proculus, his half-brother, to one-half of his estate, Augustus to one-fourth, Maecenas to one-twelfth; the rest he left to Lucius Varius and Plotius Tucca, who revised the "Aeneid" after his death by order of Augustus. With regard to this matter we have the following verses of Sulpicius of Carthage:

    "Vergil had bidden these songs by swift flame be turned into ashes,
    Songs which sang of thy fates, Phrygia's leader renowned.
    Varius and Tucca forbade, and thou, too, greatest of Caesars,
    Adding your veto to theirs, Latium's story preserved.
    All but twice in the flames unhappy Pergamum perished,
    Troy on a second pyre narrowly failed of her doom."

    He had arranged with Varius, before leaving Italy, that if anything befell him his friend should burn the "Aeneid"; but Varius had emphatically declared that he would do no such thing. Therefore in his mortal illness Vergil constantly called for his book-boxes, intending to burn the poem himself; but when no one brought them to him, he made no special request about the matter, 40 but left his writings jointly to the above mentioned Varius and to Tucca, with the stipulation that they should publish nothing which he himself would not have given to the world. 41 However, Varius published the "Aeneid" at Augustus' request, making only a few slight corruptions, and even leaving the incomplete lines just as they were. These last many afterwards tried to finish, but failed owing to the difficulty that nearly all the half-lines in Vergil are complete in sense and meaning, the sole exception being "Quem tibi iam Troia." (published in the Loeb Classical Library, 1914)

    Anno aetatis quinquagesimo secundo inpositurus "Aeneidi" summam manum statuit in Graeciam et in Asiam secedere triennioque continuo nihil amplius quam emendare, ut reliqua vita tantum philosophiae vacaret. Sed cum ingressus iter Athenis occurrisset Augusto ab Oriente Romam revertenti destinaretque non absistere atque etiam una redire, dum Megara vicinum oppidum ferventissimo sole cognoscit, languorem nactus est eumque non intermissa navigatione auxit ita ut gravior aliquanto Brundisium appelleret, ubi diebus paucis obiit XI Kal. Octobr. Cn. Sentio Q. Lucretio conss. Ossa eius Neapolim translata sunt tumuloque condita qui est via Puteolana intra lapidem secundum, in quo distichon fecit tale:

    "Mantua me genuit, Calabri rapuere, tenet nunc
    Parthenope; cecini pascua rura duces. "

    Heredes fecit ex dimidia parte Valerium Proculum fratrem alio patre, ex quarta Augustum, ex duodecima Maecenatem, ex reliqua L. Varium et Plotium Tuccam, qui eius "Aeneida" post obitum iussu Caesaris emendaverunt. De qua re Sulpicii Carthaginiensis exstant huiusmodi versus:

    "Iusserat haec rapidis aboleri carmina flammis
    Vergilius, Phrygium quae cecinere ducem.
    Tucca vetat Variusque; simul tu, maxime Caesar,
    Non sinis et Latiae consulis historiae.
    Infelix gemino cecidit prope Pergamon igni,
    Et paene est alio Troia cremata rogo."

    Egerat cum Vario, priusquam Italia decederet, ut siquid sibi accidisset, "Aeneida" combureret; at is ita facturum se pernegarat; igitur in extrema valetudine assidue scrinia desideravit, crematurus ipse; verum nemine offerente nihil quidem nominatim de ea cavit. Ceterum eidem Vario ac simul Tuccae scripta sua sub ea condicione legavit, ne quid ederent, quod non a se editum esset. Edidit autem auctore Augusto Varius, sed summatim emendata, ut qui versus etiam inperfectos sicut erant reliquerit; quos multi mox supplere conati non perinde valuerunt ob difficultatem, quod omnia fere apud eum hemistichia absoluto perfectoque sunt sensu, praeter illud: "quem tibi iam Troia."

  • Homo homini lupus (el hombre es un lobo para el hombre) / Homo homini deus (el hombre es un dios para el hombre)

    Generalmente la frase “homo homini lupus” se atribuye al pensador inglés Thomas Hobbes ( 1588 – 1679), autor entre otras muchas obras del Leviatán, obra esencial en el desarrollo de la filosofía política en la Edad Moderna y del pensamiento liberal, pero él nunca se adjudicó la autoría.

    Según Hobbes el hombre avanza, desde el “estado de naturaleza”  de “guerra de todos contra todos” (bellum ómnium contra omnes),  hacia una sociedad organizada; primero a un estado de “ley natural” que impide al hombre atentar contra la vida y luego a un estado de derecho positivo, fruto del pacto social.  Así pues, con Locke y su “Dos tratados sobre el gobierno civil” y Rousseau y su “Contrato Social”  aborda en época moderna el origen de la sociedad. También pensadores antiguos, como Platón en  su República o Aristóteles, se plantearon esta cuestión, pero eso merece un extenso artículo que en alguna ocasión haré.

    No es Hobbes el autor de la célebre frase homo homini lupus

    Pues bien, es cierto que Hobbes utilizó la expresión “Homo homini lupus” en determinado contexto, pero nunca reivindicó su paternidad, que no le corresponde, aunque probablemente ha sido quien más ha contribuido en época moderna a su extensión y conocimiento.

    Pero, si Hobbes no creó la citada frase, ¿quién lo hizo?

    Hace unos pocos días unos buenos amigos de reconocido prestigio intelectual lo planteaban en una de las más extendidas redes sociales. Me sugirieron la posibilidad de indagar un poco más en el origen y significado de la citada frase.

    En primer lugar es conveniente conocer con un poco más de detalle la frase de Hobbes en su contexto o al menos en el párrafo en el que queda inmersa.

    Hobbes emplea la frase al principio de la obra “De cive”, “Sobre el ciudadano” en la dedicatoria al conde de Devonshire. En realidad el título inicial y completo era “Elementa Philosophica de Cive”, “Elementos filosóficos acerca del ciudadano”.

    Como quiera que la obra comienza con una valoración general sobre la antigua Roma y su imperio,  y este blog trata precisamente sobre la Antigüedad, me permito reproducir una parte más extensa que la mera reproducción de la frase en cuestión. De paso el lector comprobará cómo hasta bien entrado el siglo XX todo intelectual y pensador era un buen conocedor de la Antigüedad clásica; es ahora cuando avanzamos hacia un desconocimiento cuasi absoluto que privará a los jóvenes del conocimiento de buena parte de su propia identidad.

    La obra la escribió Hobbes en latín, lengua internacional de la ciencia y del pensamiento todavía entonces, y se publicó en 1642 en París y en 1651 apareció la traducción al inglés con el título ‘Philosophicall rudiments concerning government and society‘. Así que ofreceré los textos en  las tres versiones, incluida la española:

    Elementos filosóficos sobre el ciudadano (De cive)

    Al muy honorable Guillermo, Conde de Devonshire

    Excelentísimo señor:

    Era un dicho del pueblo romano, enemigo de los reyes por el recuerdo de los Tarquinios y por las instituciones de la ciudad, pronunciado por la boca de Marco Catón el Censor, que todos los reyes eran del género de las bestias rapaces. Pero ¿acaso el mismo pueblo romano que había expoliado casi todo el orbe de la tierra, a los africanos, los asiáticos, los macedonios, los aqueos, y a todos los demás para ser llamados ciudadanos por gentes a su vez expoliadas, acaso no era también como una bestia? 

    No con menos acierto que Catón lo dijo también Poncio Telesino. Se encontró este en la guerra contra Sila junto a la Puerta Colina pasando revista a los escuadrones de su ejército y dijo con grandes voces que la misma Roma debía ser destruida y arrasada, porque añadía que nunca faltarían lobos que robaran la libertad itálica si no era arrasado el bosque en el que suelen refugiarse.

    Ciertamente, estas dos cosas se han dicho con toda verdad: el hombre es un dios para el hombre, y el hombre es un lobo para el hombre. La primera si comparamos los ciudadanos entre sí; la segunda si comparamos las ciudades. En el primer caso se llega a la semejanza con Dios por la justicia y también por la caridad y las virtudes de la paz; en el segundo, por la depravación de los malos, los buenos también tienen que recurrir, si quieren protegerse, a las virtudes de la guerra, la violencia y el engaño, esto es, la rapacidad de los animales. Y aunque los hombres la consideran recíprocamente como un vicio unos a otros, de manera natural, porque colocan sus hechos en las otras personas, como en un espejo en el que la izquierda es la derecha; y piensan que la derecha es la izquierda;  así el derecho natural que surge de la necesidad de la propia conservación no permite que sea un vicio. Quizás algunos han podido admirarse sin embargo de que en Catón, hombre de sabiduría muy celebrada, haya podido imponerse hasta tal punto el odio sobre el juicio, la pasión sobre la razón,  que piensa que lo que es justo si lo hace el pueblo, lo mismo es injusto si lo hacen los reyes; pero yo hace ya mucho tiempo que soy de la opinión de que nunca fue extraordinaria la opinión que agrada al pueblo, ni una  sabiduría superior a la vulgar puede ser conocida por el pueblo, bien porque no la comprenden o comprendiéndola la igualan (a la vulgar).

    Populi Romani,memoria Tarquiniorum, et civitatis instituto, Regibus iniqui, vox erat (Excellentiss.Domine) prolata ore Marci Catonis Censoris, Reges omnes de genere esse bestiarum rapacium. Ipse autem Populus Romanus, qui per Africanos, Asiaticos,Macedonicos, Achaicos, caeterosque a spoliatis gentibus cognominatos cives, totum fere orbem terrarum diripuerat, qualis bellua erat? Non minus ergo quam Cato, sapienter dixit Pontius Telesinus.Is praelio ad Portam Collinam contra Syllam circumvolans ordines exercitus fui; vociferatusque, eruendam delendamque ipsam Romam, adiiciebat, numquam defuturos Raptores Italicae libertatis Lupos, nisi sylva, in quam refugere solerent, esset excisa.

    Profecto utrumque vere dictum est, Homo homini Deus, et Homo homini Lupus. Illud, si concives inter se; Hoc, si civitates comparemus. Illic iustitia et charitate, virtutibus pacis, ad similittudinem Dei acceditur; Hic propter malorum pravitatem, recurrendum etiam bonis est, si se tueri volunt, ad virtutes Bellicas,vim et dolum, id est, ad ferinam rapacitatem. Quam etsi hominess pro convitio invicem obiiciant, more innato, facta sua in personis alioru, tanquam in speculo,sinistra dextra; dextra sinistra existimantes; vitium tamen esse non sinit profectum a necessitate conservationis propriae ius naturale. Quod autem Catoni,viro spientiae celebratissimae, odium pro iudicio, affectus pro ratione imponere in tantum potuit, ut quod aequum in populo suo, idem reges facere iniquum censeret, mirari fortasse alii poterunt, ego sane in ea opinione iam diu sum,neque egregiam sententiam unquam fuisse quae placuit populo, neque sapientiam vulgari maiorem vulgo agnosci posse; quipped quam vel non intelligent, vel intelligentes aequant.

    To the Right Honourable, William, Earle of Devonshire,
    My most honoured Lord
    May it please your Lordship,
    It was the speech of the Roman people (to whom the name of King had been render’d odious, as well by the tyrannie of the Tarquins, as by the Genius and Decretals of that City) ‘Twas the speech I say of the publick, however pronounced from a private mouth, (if yet Cato the Censor were no more than such) That all Kings are to be reckon’d amongst ravenous Beasts.  But what a Beast of prey was the Roman people, whilst with its conquering Eagles it erected its proud Trophees so far and wide over the world, bringing the Africans, the Asiaticks, the Macedonians, and the Achaeans, with many other despoyled Nations, into a specious bondage, with the pretence of preferring them to be Denizens of Rome? So that if Cato’s saying were a wise one, ’twas every whit as wise that of Pontius Telesinus; who flying about with open mouth through all the Companies of his Army, (in that famous encounter which he had with Sylla) cryed out, That Rome her selfe, as well as Sylla, was to be raz’d; for that there would alwayes be Wolves and Depraedatours of their Liberty, unlesse the Forrest that lodg’d them were grubb’d up by the roots. To speak impartially, both sayings are very true; That Man to Man is a kind of God; and that Man to Man is an arrant Wolfe. The first is true, if we compare Citizens amongst themselves; and the second, if we compare Cities. In the one, there’s some analogie of similitude with the Deity, to wit, Justice and Charity, the twin-sisters of peace: But in the other, Good men must defend themselves by taking to them for a Sanctuary the two daughters of War, Deceipt and Violence: that is in plaine termes a meer brutall Rapacity: which although men object to one another as a reproach, by an inbred custome which they have of beholding their own actions in the persons of other men, wherein, as in a Mirroir, all things on the left side appeare to be on the right, & all things on the right side to be as plainly on the left; yet the naturall right of preservation which we all receive from the uncontroulable Dictates of Necessity, will not admit it to be a Vice, though it confesse it to be an Unhappinesse. Now that with Cato himselfe, (a person of so great a renowne for wisdome) Animosity should so prevaile instead of Judgement, and partiality instead of Reason, that the very same thing which he thought equall in his popular State, he should censure as unjust in a Monarchical, other men perhaps may have leisure to admire. But I have been long since of this opinion, That there was never yet any more than vulgar prudence that had the luck of being acceptable to the Giddy people; but either it hath not been understood, or else having been so, hath been levell’d and cryed downe.

    Nótese cómo la frase latina “profecto utrumque vere dictum est…” “con verdad se ha dicho…” implica que no es Hobbes el creador, sino que la frase ya existía, ya existía cuando él la dijo.

    La frase ha de ser considerada un proverbio

    Es más, la frase ha de ser considerada como un proverbio, si aplicamos la doctrina que el gramático Servio hace en su comentario a la Eneida. En ese pasaje explica la expresión “pectore toto”, con todo su pecho, es decir, con todo su corazón, como equivalente a “con todo el afecto” y cita una frase de Cicerón en su De Legibus: Nisi toto pectore amantur, ut dicitur. El gramático dice, que cuando se utiliza la expresión, ut dicitur (como se dice, como dicen, como la gente suele decir, como cuentan, etc.), se trata de un proverbio:

    Servius: Enedia, IX, 276.

    Con todo el corazón. Con todo afecto. Es un proverbio. Cicerón en el “Sobre las leyes”: a no ser que se amen con todo afecto. Así pues, cuando dice “ut dicitur” (como se dice )manifiesta que es proverbial.

    “Pectore toto. Omni affectu. Et est de proverbio. Cicero De Legibus: Nisi toto pectore amantur, ut dicitur. Cum enim dicit, ut dicitur, ostendit proverbiale.

    ¿Cuál es el origen de la frase homo homini lupus?

    Ya desde la Antigüedad se cita como probable origen, y frase latina más cercana a la citada de Hobbes, un pasaje de la comedia de Plauto (254-184 a.C.) Asinaria (La comedia de los asnos).

    Es una típica comedia en la que se desarrolla un complicado enredo entre un padre, su autoritaria y rica esposa, un hijo enamorado y los esclavos intrigando a favor de sus amos.

    El argumento se nos resume al comienzo de la propia obra:

    Argumento

    Un viejo que vive bajo la férula de su mujer, quiere ayudar económicamente a su hijo, que está enamorado, y da orden de que se le entregue al esclavo Leónidas el precio de unos asnos que debía recibir Sáurea. El hijo entrega el dinero a su amiga y se la cede por una noche al padre. Un rival, desesperado de ver que le han quitado a la muchacha, se lo hace saber todo por medio de un parásito a la mujer del viejo, que se presenta y se lleva al marido del burdel. (Traducción de Mercedes González-Haba. Edit. Gredos)

    Argumentum

    Amanti argento filio auxiliarier
    Sub imperio vivens volt senex uxorio.
    Itaque ob asinos relatum pretium Saureae
    Numerari iussit servolo Leonidae.
    Ad amicam id fertur. cedit noctem filius.
    Rivalis amens ob praereptam mulierem,
    Is rem omnem uxori per parasitum nuntiat.
    Accurrit uxor ac virum e lustris rapit.

    ¿Fue Plauto el creador de la frase homo homini lupus?

    La frase en cuestión aparece en un pasaje en el que el esclavo Leónidas pretende hacerse pasar por el administrador de la casa para que un mercader le entregue  el dinero de la venta de unos asnos y dárselo al muchacho para que a su vez pueda dárselo a la muchacha y a su celestina, sólo ávidas de dinero. Pero el mercader no se deja engañar.

    Plauto, Asinaria Acto II, escena IV, v. 484 y ss.

    LEONIDAS: ¿Qué, bribón? ¡Con que patibulario! ¿Es que te piensas que rehuimos a nuestro amo? ¡Venga, vete ya al amo, delante del que nos cita, detrás del que andas ya todo el rato!

    MERCADER: ¡Ajajá! ¿Ahora al fin? Desde luego que no sacarás ni una perra de aquí (señalándose a sí mismo) , a no ser que Deméneto en persona me dé orden de que lo entregue.

    LEONIDAS: Haz lo que te dé la gana, hale, andando pues. Tú puedes hacer ultrajes a los demás y a ti no se te puede decir una mala palabra, ¿no? Tanto soy yo una persona como lo eres tú.

    MERCADER: Desde luego, así es.

    LEONIDAS: Anda, ven entonces conmigo. Aunque me esté mal el decirlo, nadie me ha hecho a mí hasta ahora nunca jamás un reproche merecido, ni hay hoy por hoy otra persona en toda Atenas que goce de una más reconocida fama de solvencia que yo.

    MERCADER: Todo puede ser, pero así y todo, no te saldrás con la tuya de hacerme entregar el dinero a una persona que no conozco. Cuando una persona te es desconocida, pues es para ti, como un lobo, no un hombre.

    LEONIDAS: Ya te vas poniendo un poco más manso. Ya sabía yo que te disculparías ante mi humilde persona por tus injurias; aunque me ves así con unos atavíos de nada, pero soy un hombre como Dios manda, y mis riquezas personales no se pueden contar.

    MERCADER: Todo puede ser.

    LEONIDAS: También Perífanes, un rico comerciante de Rodas me entregó, en ausencia del amo, nada más que él y yo presentes, un talento de plata; hizo confianza en mí y no ha tenido motivo alguno de queja.

    MERCADER: Todo puede ser.

    LEONIDAS: Y también tú mismo, si te hubieras informado por otros sobre mí, estoy bien seguro, qué caray, de que me hubieras confiado lo que traes.

    MERCADER. No digo que no. (Se van)
    (Traducción de Mercedes González-Haba. Editorial Gredos.)

    LEONIDA. Quid, verbero? ain tu, furcifer? erum nos fugitare censes?
    ei nunciam ad erum, quo vocas, iam dudum quo volebas.

    MERCATOR. Nunc demum? tamen numquam hinc feres argenti nummum, nisi me
    dare iusserit Demaenetus.

    LEONIDA. Ita facito, age ambula ergo.
    tu contumeliam alteri facias, tibi non dicatur?
    tam ego homo sum quam tu.

    MERCATOR. Scilicet. ita res est.

    LEONIDA. Sequere hac ergo.
    praefiscini hoc nunc dixerim: nemo etiam me accusavit
    merito meo, neque me alter est Athenis hodie quisquam,
    cui credi recte aeque putent.

    MERCATOR. Fortassis. sed tamen me
    numquam hodie induces, ut tibi credam hoc argentum ignoto.
    lupus est homo homini, non homo, quom qualis sit non novit.

    LEONIDA. Iam nunc secunda mihi facis. scibam huic te capitulo hodie
    facturum satis pro iniuria; quamquam ego sum sordidatus,
    frugi tamen sum, nec potest peculium enumerari.

    MERCATOR. Fortasse.

    LEONIDA. Etiam ~ nunc dico Periphanes Rhodo mercator dives
    absente ero solus mihi talentum argenti soli
    adnumeravit et mihi credidit, nequest deceptus in eo.

    MERCATOR. Fortasse.

    LEONIDA. Atque etiam tu quoque ipse, si esses percontatus
    me ex aliis, scio pol crederes nunc quod fers.

    MERCATOR. Haud negassim.—

    Exactamente en el verso 495 se dice: «Lupus est homo homini, non homo, quom qualis sit non novit», que podemos traducir literalmente como:

    «Lobo es el hombre para el hombre, y no hombre, cuando desconoce quién es el otro»

    y con una traducción menos literal como:

    Cuando una persona te es desconocida, pues es para ti como un lobo, no un hombre.

    Así que la frase no aparece en Plauto con la transcendencia que se utiliza después, cuando adquiere la categoría de sentencia, máxima, proverbio, etc.; antes bien, se usa en un contexto de relaciones personales y en una escena cómica de asunto intranscendente. Es esta una diferencia muy importante con Hobbes, donde se refiere nada menos que al estado previo de naturaleza de los hombres, anterior a la constitución de la sociedad humana.

    Dicho todo esto,  podemos preguntarnos también, ¿fue Plauto el creador de la frase?

    Plauto, es el autor más importante de comedias en latín. Como casi toda la literatura y cultura latina, el teatro también es deudor de los griegos. Plauto no sólo se inspira en comedias griegas sino que a veces prácticamente las traduce y las adapta al nuevo escenario romano. Es más, a veces, se sirve de varias griegas para componer una latina; a esa mezcla se le llamó “contaminación” y esta práctica generó un notable debate en lo que podríamos llamar “crítica literaria” del momento.

    Pues bien, la comedia “Asinaria” es una traducción de una griega llamada “El arriero”, Onagos, ᾿οναγός, como se nos dice en el prólogo de la misma obra que suele acompañar a la edición:

    PROLOGO V. 6  y ss.

    Ahora os diré el motivo por el que he salido aquí a escena y qué es lo que pretendo: se trata simplemente de deciros el título de la comedia, porque por lo que toca al argumento, bien breve que es. Ahora os voy a decir lo que dije que quería deciros: esta comedia se llama en griego “El arriero” y su autor es Demófilo; Maco (Plauto) la ha traducido al latín, y con vuestro permiso, la quiere titular “Asinaria”; la pieza tiene gracia y chiste, es una comedia de risa. Ahora tened la amabilidad de prestarnos vuestra atención, y que el dios Marte os siga protegiendo como ya lo ha hecho en otras ocasiones.
    (Traducción de Mercedes González-Haba. Editorial Gredos.)

    nunc quid processerim huc et quid mihi voluerim
    dicam: ut sciretis nomen huius fabulae;
    nam quod ad argumentum attinet, sane brevest.
    nunc quod me dixi velle vobis dicere,
    dicam: huic nomen graece Onagos fabulae;
    Demophilus scripsit, Maccus vortit barbare;
    Asinariam volt esse, si per vos licet.
    inest lepos ludusque in hac comoedia,
    ridicula res est. date benigne operam mihi,
    ut vos, ut alias, pariter nunc Mars adiuvet.   

    ¿Extrajo Plauto, pues, de la obra griega la frase que luego, con una pequeña modificación, se ha hecho tan famosa?  Muy probablemente así ocurrió; es muy probable que la frase estuviera ya en la comedia de Demófilo,  pero no tenemos un conocimiento incontestable de ello. Empleada por Demófilo o por otros griegos, la frase sonaría más o menos como consta muchos años después en Erasmo: Ἄνθρωπος ἀνθρώπου λύκος (ánthroposs ánthropou lýkos).

    Homo homini deus, el hombre es un dios para el hombre

    En todo caso, en el mundo griego es bien conocida y frecuente una frase  que es precisamente la antítesis de la anterior: ἄνθρωπος ἀνθρώπου δαιμόνιον (anthropos anthropou daimonion),   que en latín ha dado “homo homini deus”, y en español “el hombre es un dios para el hombre”. Esta frase precisamente es la que aparece en Hobbes en contraposición a “el hombre es un lobo para el hombre”, aunque sea precisamente esta la que ha obtenido más fortuna.

    ἄνθρωπος ἀνθρώπου δαιμόνιον (anthropos anthropou daimonion) es una sentencia o frase hecha frecuente en griego y atestiguada en numerosas ocasiones y por supuesto también su correspondiente en latín  “Homo homini deus”,.

    En griego, por ejemplo aparece en el “Corpus paroemiographorum graecorum” al menos cuatro veces:  en el caso de Zenobios, I,91; en Diogenianus o pseudo Diogenianus, I, 80  y I, 46; Miguel Apostolios, III,10 y en Gregorio de Chipre I,50.

    En latín,  el poeta cómico Cecilio (ca 280-ca.168 a.C.) utilizó un verso que se conserva gracias a la cita de Símaco, autor del siglo IV, que  lo utiliza en una carta de agradecimiento:

    Símaco, Epistolas IX,114:

    “Correctamente el cómico Cecilio dijo: el hombre es un dios para el hombre, si conoce su obligación.”

    Recte Caecilius comicus inquit
    Homo homini deus est, si suum officium sciat.

    Cecilio parece imbuido de la filosofía estoica y del Círculo proheleno de los Escipiones. Recordemos que Terencio había escrito  en su Heautontimorumenos, v. 77:

    «homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto»,

    Soy hombre y nada humano lo considero ajeno a mí.

    Pero conviene reproducir la carta entera, muy breve por lo demás, porque nos ayuda a entender la extensión en el uso de esta frase y la razón de su uso.

    Con razón dijo el cómico Cecilio que “un hombre es un dios para otro hombre si conoce su obligación”. Yo puedo decir que esta máxima se aviene contigo, que desinteresadamente has aplicado una atención vigilante a nuestros asuntos. Desde entonces vive el recuerdo en nuestro corazón, la alabanza en nuestra boca, y la gloria de tu acción y de tu interés no sólo florece momentáneamente sino que estará viva una eternidad, según me augura mi razón. Ahora incluso sería apropiado un discurso más prolijo para agradecértelo si no temiera dar la sensación de haber pagado de una vez todo lo que debo. No soporta haber recibido un beneficio quien se apresura a liberarse del vínculo y no parece aceptar la ayuda mutua como cun amigo si se ruboriza ante una demora en la demostración de gratitud.  Pero la naturaleza de mi carácter es otra: me apresuro a pagar el interés pecuniario y deseo adeudar durante mucho tiempo la devolución de pruebas de consideración. Que te vaya bien. (Traducción de Juan Antonio Valdés Gallego. Editorial Gredos)

    Symmachus . . . . . Recte Caecilius comicus: Homo, inquit, homini deus est, si suum officium sciat. Hanc ego in te dixerim sententiam convenire, qui nostris negotiis curam vigilem praestitisti. Hinc in pectore memoria, laus in ore versatur. Nec in praesentia modo floret facti et studii tui gloria, sed, ut mens augurat, aevum vigebit. Prolixior agendis gratiis sermo etiam nunc competeret, ni vererer, ne simul totum videar expunxisse, quod debeo. Impatiens est accepti beneficii, qui nexu properat liberari: nec videtur mutuam operam quasi amicus accipere, si erubescit ad moram gratiae. Alia mei ingenii ratio est. Pecuniae fenus accelero persolvere: officiorum vices diu opto debere. Vale.

    Se trata de una carta de agradecimiento por un bien recibido y en el mundo antiguo está muy extendida la idea de que quien hace un bien, un beneficio a alguien, el benefactor, es un dios.  Esto ayuda a entender la extensión de la deificación de los gobernantes, porque son benefactores (algunos de ellos se llaman precisamente así, evergetes, benefactor, como por ejemplo, Ptolomeo III Evergetes,( en griego: Πτολεμαίος Ευεργέτης),, que vivió  c. 282 – 222 a. C., tercer faraón de la Dinastía Ptolemaica) y también la extensión, y banalización si se prefiere, a cualquier persona que favorezca a un semejante. Es, pues, una frase muy utilizada para reconocer un favor a alguien.

    Curiosamente en la misma comedia “Asinaria se usa esta idea, aunque en un contexto burlesco, como corresponde a la comedia, cuando el esclavo exige un tratamiento divino por el favor de dar el dinero, en el verso 712:

    ARGIRIPO: Y ahora, ¿qué?; por favor, después de que nos habéis tomado el pelo como os ha dado la gana, ¿nos dais el dinero?

    LIBANO: Con la condición de que me dediques una estatua y un altar y de que me hagas la ofrenda de un toro, como si fuera un dios, que yo soy para ti la divinidad de la Salud en persona.

    LEONIDA: Amo, no le hagas caso a éste y ocúpae conmigo y dame a mí los honores que él te ha pedido  y hazme una súplica.

    ARGIRIPO: Y a ti, ¿qué divinidad te voy a llamar?

    LEONIDA: Yo soy la Fortuna y la Foruna a tus pies.
    (Traducción de Mercedes González-Haba. Editorial Gredos.)

    ARGIRIPUS. Quid nunc, amabo? quoniam, ut est libitum, nos delusistis,
    datisne argentum?
    LIBANUS. Si quidem mihi statuam et aram statuis
    atque ut deo mi hic immolas bovem: nam ego tibi Salus sum.
    LEONIDA: Etiam, tu, ere, istunc amoves abs te atque –ipse me adgredere atque illa, sibi quae hic iusserat,mihi statuis supplicasque?
    ARGIRIPUS: Quem te autem divom nominem?
    LEONIDA: Fortunam, atque Obsequentem

    Los textos latinos en los que aparece esta idea de la divinidad del hombre benefactor son infinitos. Pondré tan sólo dos  ejemplos bien significativos.

    Virgilio en la primera de sus famosas Églogas agradece a Augusto que no le sean confiscadas sus tierras para dárselas a un soldado. Virgilio le considera un “dios”:

    Virigilio, Egloga I, v.6-8:

    Títiro:   A un dios, ¡oh Melibeo! Debo estos solaces, porque para mí siempre será un dios.
    ¡Frecuentemente empapará su altar la sangre de un recental de mis majadas! A él
    debo que mis novillas vaguen libremente, como ves, y también poder yo entonar            los cantos que me placen, al son de la rústica avena.

    O Meliboee, deus nobis haec otia fecit.
    Namque erit ille mihi semper deus: illius aram
    Saepe tener nostris ab ovilibus imbuet agnus.
    Ille meas errare boves, ut cernis, et ipsum
    Ludere quae vellem calamo permisit agresti.

    Dice Plinio en su Naturalis Historia,2,7.18-19:

    Dios significa para un mortal ayudar a otro mortal y éste es el camino para la gloria eterna. Por él marcharon los romanos más ilustres y por él caminará ahora con paso celestial junto a sus hijos el gobernante más grande de todos los tiempos, Vespasiano Augusto, prestando su ayuda en las malas circunstancias.

    De ahí viene la costumbre antiquísima de conceder a quienes más lo merecen la gracia de figurar entre los dioses como les corresponde (y por supuesto que los nombres de los demás dioses y astros, que antes referí, proceden de los méritos de los hombres). Traducción de Ana María Moure Casas. Editorial Gredos

    deus est mortali iuvare mortalem, et haec ad aeternam gloriam via. hac proceres iere Romani, hac nunc caelesti passu cum liberis suis vadit maximus omnis aevi rector Vespasianus Augustus fessis rebus subveniens.

    hic est vetustissimus referendi bene merentibus gratiam mos, ut tales numinibus adscribant. quippe et aliorum nomina deorum et quae supra retuli siderum ex hominum nata sunt meritis. Iovem quidem aut Mercurium aliterve alios inter se vocari et esse caelestem nomenclaturam,

    El pensamiento de Plinio respecto de los dioses quedá también aquí claramente insinuado: próximo al ateísmo: Dios es para un mortal ayudar a los mortales.

    La segunda, homo homini lupus, muy probablemente existió en contraposición a la primera, dando lugar a la doble frase, que es posible que estuviera ya en Demófilo, o en otros autores..

    La imagen del lobo como animal especialmente cruel para el hombre está sin duda en la relación del lobo con el perro, que curiosamente resulta ser “el amigo más fiel del hombre” y probablemente el animal primeramente domesticado tal vez hace 40.000 años. Los nombres científicos de ambas subespecies son “canis lupus” para el lobo y canis lupus familiaris” para el perro, en virtud de su proximidad genética.

    Son infinitos los pasajes en los que el perro es el fiel amigo del hombre (hominis canis amicus optimus); recordemos por ejemplo al perro que reconoce a Ulises, Argos,  cuando regresa a Ítaca; o  ¿qué decir del perro como guardián de la casa del amo si por todo el Imperio aparece la famosa frase “cave canem”, “cuidado con el perro” en la puerta de la finca?.  Si el canis doméstico es el mejor, el canis salvaje será el peor en la imaginación y experiencia popular.
    Dejaré para otra ocasión alguna referencia  al mito de la “licantropía” o conversión del hombre en lobo y al hecho de que fuera precisamente Licaón (hombre al que Zeus convirtió en lobo) el que diera las leyes a los humanos e hiciera posible el abandono de la vida salvaje y la aparición de la sociedad humana sometida a normas de derecho.

    Entre otros textos latinos próximos a la frase “homo homini lupus” tenemos el verso de Ovidio (43ª.C.-8 d.C)  en Tristia V, elegia VII, vv. 45-46:

    “Vix sunt homines hoc nomine digni. Quamquam lupi, saevae plus feritatis habent”.

    Recordemos cómo Ovidio, obligado al exilio en el Ponto Euxino, en los límites del Imperio, junto al Mar Negro, pasa sus días sumido en la tristeza y la nostalgia. Castigado por alguna falta que nunca se ha conocido con exactitud, fue impedido de volver más a la Roma que tanta gloria le dio. Allí escribió estos “poemas tristes”, “Tristia”.

    Aunque el artículo se está tal vez alargando demasiado con demasiados textos, no me resisto a reproducir unos pocos versos en los que encuadrar el citado y de paso nos informen sobre lo duro que resultaba el exilio para una mundano poeta de éxito en la capital del mundo, Roma.

    Preguntado por sus amigos cómo pasa los días, les escribe entre otras cosas:

    Tristia, V,VII , versos 37 y ss:

    Y sin embargo ni estoy pendiente de ser alabado ni preocupado por un nombre futuro, que más útil mi hubiera sido si lo hubiera ocultado. Entretengo mi alma en los estudios y huyo de mis dolores y procuro dar buenas palabras a mis afanes. ¿Qué más puedo hacer solo en estas playas desiertas o qué otra ayuda puedo intentar buscar a mis males?

    Si miro al lugar, el lugar no es nada amable (inamable) y nada puede haber más triste en todo el orbe. Si miro a los hombres, apenas son hombres dignos de este nombre, pues tienen más de animal fiereza que los lobos. No temen a las leyes, sino que  lo justo cede a sus fuerzas y los derechos vencidos yacen bajo la violenta espada. Rechazan los malos fríos con pieles y anchas bragas; sus horribles rostros los cubren con largo pelo; en pocos queda algún vestigio de la lengua griega, que ya suena extranjera pronunciada con sonido Gético.  Ni uno solo hay en este pueblo que pueda medio traducir del latín alguna palabra. Yo mismo, aquel famoso poeta romano, -perdonadme Musas-  me veo obligado a hablar casi todo en lengua sármata. Me avergüenzo de ello y confieso que por la larga falta de uso, apenas si me vienen a la mente las palabras latinas. Y no dudo de que también en este pequeño librito hay no pocas palabras bárbaras. Estas no son culpa del hombre sino del lugar. Y sin embargo para no perder el uso y relación con la  lengua y mi voz se haga muda al sonido patrio, yo mismo hablo conmigo y repaso las palabras que no uso y repito las señales funestas de mi deseo.

    nec  tamen, ut lauder, vigilo curamque futuri
    nominis, utilius quod latuisset, ago.
    detineo studiis animum falloque dolores,
    experior curis et dare verba meis.
    quid potius faciam desertis solus in oris,
    quamve malis aliam quaerere coner  opem?
    sive locum specto, locus est inamabilis, et quo
    esse nihil toto tristius orbe potest,
    sive homines, vix sunt homines hoc nomine digni,
    quamque lupi, saevae plus feritatis habent.
    non metuunt leges, sed cedit viribus aequum,
    victaque pugnaci iura sub ense iacent.
    pellibus et laxis arcent mala frigora bracis,
    oraque sunt longis horrida tecta comis,
    in paucis remanent Graecae vestigia linguae,
    haec quoque iam Getico barbara facta sono.
    unus in hoc nemo est populo,
    qui forte Latine quaelibet e medio reddere verba queat.
    ille ego Romanus vates—ignoscite, Musae!—
    Sarmatico cogor plurima more loqui.
    en pudet et fateor, iam desuetudine longa
    vix subeunt ipsi verba Latina mihi.
    nec dubito quin sint et in hoc non pauca libello
    barbara . non hominis culpa, sed ista loci.
    ne tamen Ausoniae perdam commercia linguae,
    et fiat patrio vox mea muta sono,
    ipse loquor mecum desuetaque verba retracto,
    et studii repeto signa sinistra mei.

    Séneca había expresado la maldad del hombre sin recurrir a la comparación con el lobo en su Epistola a Lucilio número103, en la que advierte que es necesario desconfiar de los hombres.

    Como no es excesivamente larga la transcribiré íntegra para facilitar así al lector el conocimiento de una de las 124 cartas con consejos morales que Séneca escribió a su amigo Lucilio, aunque la frase concreta que hace referencia al asunto que nos ocupa es :

    … pero el peligro del hombre para el hombre es de cada día.

    Ab homine homini quotidianum periculum”.

    Séneca, Cartas a Lucilio, 103:

    Es necesario desconfiar de los hombres

    ¿Por qué te preocupas de aquellas cosas que tal vez puedan suceder, pero que también pueden no suceder? Quiero decir el incendio, el hundimiento de la casa y otros accidentes que nos ocurren por azar,  pero no por insidia alguna; antes bien, procura prever y evitar aquellas cosas que nos acechan y pueden asaltarnos por sorpresa. Son accidentes más raros,  aunque graves, naufragar, volcar en un vehículo, pero el peligro del hombre para el hombre es de cada día. Contra éste debes prepararte, a éste tienes que dirigir siempre unos ojos atentos; no existe ningún mal más frecuente, ninguno más pertinaz ni más traidor. La tempestad amenaza antes de estallar, los edificios crujen antes de hundirse, el humo anuncia anticipadamente el fuego, pero los perjuicios que nos vienen del hombre llegan de súbito, y se encubren con tanta mayor diligencia cuanto más cerca los tenemos.

    Te equivocas si te fías del rostro de los que se te presentan: tienen cara de hombre, pero alma de fiera, pero en las fieras sólo el primer ataque es peligroso: no persiguen a los que pasan de largo; cuando atacan es siempre obligadas por el hambre o por el miedo, pues sólo la necesidad les impulsa a ser crueles. El hombre, al contrario, mata por gusto. Con todo, piensa tanto en los peligros que vienen del hombre, que llegues a pensar en los deberes que incumben al hombre. Considera los primeros  para no ser herido, y los segundos para no herir. Alégrate de la felicidad de todos, conmuévete con sus desdichas, y acuérdate de lo que tienes que hacer y de lo que debes evitar. ¿Qué conseguirás viviendo así? No que no te hagan daño, sino que no te engañen. Pero refúgiate tanto como puedas en la filosofía: en su seno hallarás protección y en ese santuario estarás seguro, por lo menos más seguro. No tropiezan unos con otros sino cuando siguen la misma vía. Pero no uses la filosofía con jactancia: para muchos fue causa de peligro el hecho de haberla conducido por caminos de altanería y arrogancia: es menester que te cures de los vicios sin retar a los demás hombres. No menosprecies las costumbres públicas, ni procedas de tal modo que parezcas condenar todo lo que no sea ella misma. La sabiduría puede andar sin pompa y sin malevolencia. Consérvate bueno. (Traducción de Jaime Bofill y Ferro. Edit. Iberia. Barcelona 1965)

    Quid ista circumspicis, quae tibi possunt fortasse evenire, sed possunt et non evenire ? Incendium dico, ruinam, alia, quae 1 nobis incidunt, non insidiantur; illa potius vide, illa devita, quae  nos observant, quae captant. Rariores sunt 3 casus, etiam si graves, naufragium facere, vehiculo everti; ab homine homini cotidianum periculum. Adversus hoc te expedi, hoc intentis oculis intuere. Nullum est malum frequentius, nullum pertinacius, nullum blandius.

    Ac tempestas minatur antequam surgat, crepant aedificia antequam corruant, praenuntiat fumus incendium; subita est ex homine pernicies et eo diligentius tegitur, quo propius accedit.
    Erras, si istorum tibi qui occurrunt vultibus credis; hominum effigies habent, animos ferarum, nisi quod illarum perniciosus est primus incursus; quos transiere, non quaerunt. Numquam enim illas ad nocendum nisi necessitas incitat; aut  fame aut timore coguntur ad pugnam; homini perdere hominem libet.

    Tu tamen ita cogita, quod ex homine periculum sit, ut cogites, quod sit hominis officium. Alterum intuere, ne laedaris, alterum ne laedas. Commodis omnium laeteris, movearis incommodis et memineris, quae praestare debeas, quae cavere.

    Sic vivendo quid consequaris ? Non te ne noceant, sed ne fallant. Quantum potes autem, in philosophiam recede: illa te sinu suo proteget, in huius sacrario eris aut tutus aut tutior. Non arietant inter se nisi in eadem ambulantes via. Ipsam autem philosophiam non debebis iactare; multis fuit periculi causa insolenter tractata et contumaciter.

    Tibi vitia detrahat, non aliis exprobret. Non abhorreat a publicis moribus nec hoc agat, ut quicquid non facit, damnare videatur. Licet sapere sine pompa, sine invidia. Vale.

    Así que la idea del potencial maligno del hombre para con sus semejantes es una idea bien extendida.

    Pero también escribió  “el hombre es una cosa sagrada para el hombre”, «Homo, sacra res homini», en la carta 95,33.  La carta es muy larga y en ella arremete Séneca contra la gula y el despilfarro, origen de muchas enfermedades del cuerpo y del alma. En este caso me limitaré a transcribir el párrafo en el que aparece la frase, aconsejando al lector la lectura completa de esta “epistula”.

    Cartas a Lucilio, XCV, 33:

    …El placer se anda buscando por todos los caminos; ningún vicio permanece dentro de su esfera; el lujo impele hacia la avaricia. Se va extendiendo un gran olvido de la honestidad: nada es deshonroso cuando el afán de lucro nos lo aconseja. El hombre, cosa sagrada para el hombre, es muerto ya por el juego o pasatiempo; antes era un crimen enseñarle a infligir y recibir heridas, hoy ya se le expone desnudo y sin armas, y el único espectáculo que podemos sacar del hombre es ya la muerte. (Traducción de Jaime Bofill y Ferro. Edit. Iberia. Barcelona 1965)

    [33] …voluptas ex omni quaeritur. Nullum intra se manet vitium; in avaritiam luxuria praeceps est. Honesti oblivio invasit. Nihil turpest, cuius placet pretium. Homo, sacra res homini, iam per lusum ac iocum occiditur et quem erudiri ad inferenda accipiendaque vulnera nefas erat, is iam nudus inermisque producitur satisque spectaculi ex homine mors est.

    Muchos años después el dominico español Francisco De Vitoria (1483-1546), que hizo una notable contribución al derecho internacional  y cuyo nombre lleva hoy una universidad privada española de orientación conservadora, se refiere a estos versos de Ovidio  cuando escribe:

    Es contra el derecho natural que el hombre rechace al hombre sin causa alguna, pues no es el hombre un lobo para el hombre, como dijo Ovidio, sino un hombre.

    “Contra ius naturale est, ut homo hominem sine aliqua causa aversetur. “non enim homini homo lupus est, ut ait Ovidius, sed homo”. (Relección primera. De los Indios,III,3ª ed. a cura de T.Urdanoz. Madrid 1960,p.709).

    En la misma época de Vitoria, un humanista famoso, Erasmo de Rotterdam (1466-1536) utiliza la misma frase, contraponiendo los dos términos y lo hace precisamente en una de sus más famosas obras, en los Adagia, Adagios, que se imprimió no menos de veinte veces antes del De Cive de Hobbes; se publicaron la primera vez en 1508.

    En realidad Erasmo parte del proverbio griego de Zósimo, aunque no lo dice y dedica al asunto dos de sus adagios, los números 69 y 70 de la Primera Quliada. El primero lo dedica a comentar la frase “Homo homini deus” y el segundo a “Homo  homini lupus”.

    Nota: Quiliada es una palabra derivada de la griega kilioi (mil) y por tanto significa “millar

    El primero, el 69, el que dedica a  Ἄνθρωπος ἀνθρώπου δαιμόνιον,  “Homo homini deus”, es muy largo.  Comienza con una larga referencia a la “divinización” entre los antiguos.

    No se diferencia mucho de este aquel dicho Ἄνθρωπος ἀνθρώπου δαιμόνιον, esto es: Homo homini deus, que se suele decir de aquel que nos aporta un repentina e inesperada salvación o de aquel que de algún modo nos hace un gran favor. Los Antiguos creían que ser dios no era otra cosa que ser útil a los mortales.

    Non admodum hinc abludit et illud:Ἄνθρωπος ἀνθρώπου δαιμόνιον, id est
    Homo homini deus, quod dici solet de eo, qui subitam atque insperatam attulit
    salutem aut qui magno quopiam beneficio juvit. Antiquitas, enim nihil aliud
    existimabat esse deum quam prodesse mortalibus…

    Así que “homo homini deus” es un dicho que se suele decir. La Antigüedad creía que ser dios no es otra cosa sino ser beneficioso para los mortales.

    Se fundamenta luego Erasmo en la autoridad de Homero y de Hesiodo y de Estrabón, y de Horacio y Juvenal y Virgilio y de Plinio y de Ovidio y de Plutarco y de San Pablo y de Gregorio Nacianceno, para poner ejemplos de benefactores que son dioses o considerados como tales. Termina matizando en qué condiciones un cristiano puede utilizar la expresión sin ofender a Dios.

    Por cierto que Plinio, con su frase  “Deus est mortali juvare mortalem”, comentada anteriormente, muestra su inclinación hacia el ateísmo y poca reverencia para con los dioses, como el propia Erasmo se encarga de resaltar en este adagio. Plinio no admite una divinidad suprema que se cuide de los hombres, sino que cree que es el propio o mundo o una cierta Naturaleza quien lo dirige todo:

    Plinio Segundo, en su Historia Natural, libro II, se refiere más claramente al proverbio (παροιμίαν) griego,  pero habla tan irreverentemente acerca de los dioses como lo hace un poco después sobre la inmortalidad de las almas y tan locamente sobre la resurrección de los cuerpos.

    Riéndose de la multitud de dioses y rehusando atribuir el cuidado de los mortales a una sumprema divinidad, que el considera el mundo o una naturaleza no sé de qué tipo, dice: “Ser dios consiste en que un mortal proporcione ayuda a otro mortal”. Y este es el camino para la gloria eterna.

    Plinius Secundus libro Naturalis historiae secundo manifestius Graecam παροιμίαν
    indicavit, sed tam impie sentiens de diis quam paulo post de animarum
    immortalitate deque corporum resurrectione desipienter. Nam cum et multitudinem
    deorum irrisisset et uni illi summo, quem aut mundum hunc aut naturam nescio
    quam esse putat, prorsus ademisset curam mortalium, Deus est, inquit, mortali
    iuvare mortalem. Et haec ad aeternam gloriam via.

    El Segundo, el 70,  es mucho más breve

    I,I,70  Homo homini lupus

    Ἄνθρωπος ἀνθρώπου λύκος, es decir, el hombre es un lobo para el hombre Es una frase casi inversa a la anterior, y que parece que ha sido hecha a partir de esta, que utilizó  Plauto en su Asinaria, “El hombre es un lobo para el hombre”. Con esta frase nos advierte de que no nos fiemos de una persona desconocida, sino que por el contrario seamos precavidos como un lobo.

    Un lobo, dice,  es el hombre para el hombre, y no un hombre, cuando no sabe de quien se trata.

    Ἄνθρωπος ἀνθρώπου λύκος, id est Homo homini lupus. Superiori quasi
    diversum est ac velut hinc effictum videtur, quod usurpavit Plautus in Asinaria, Homo homini lupus. Quo monemur, ne quid fidamus homini ignoto, sed perinde atque a lupo caveamus:

         Lupus est (inquit) homo homini, non homo, qui qualis sit non novit.

    Y también en Francis Bacon (1561-1616), que se desenvuelve en una temática sobre la Justicia y el Estado, como hace Hobbes, dice en su Instauratio Magna, en el De dignitate et augmentis Scientiarum, en el Liber VI, c.III. Exempla antithetorum XX,:

    La justicia debe hacer que el hombre sea un Dios para el hombre, no un lobo.

    “Iustitia debetur, quod homo homini sit Deus, non lupus

    Nota: François Tricaud, en su artículo: “Homo homini Deus”, “Homo homini Lupus”: Recherches de Sources de deux Formules de Hobbes”, no conoce esta cita; es más afirma de Bacon que no utiliza la doble fórmula  …deus…lupus. Es un error.

    Y también el mismo Bacon, en un contexto similar, en el Liber VIII, caput II, en la parábola XXV, que titula “Fons turbatus pede, et vena corrupta, est iustus cadens coram impío” y en la que advierte que hay que evitar los juicios injustos, porque la injusticia del juez corrompe las fuentes mismas del derecho:

    25. Fons turbatus pede, et vena corrupta, est justus cadens coram impio.
    EXPLICATIO. Praecipit Parabola, rebuspublicis ante omnia cavendum esse de iniquo et infami judicio, in caussa aliqua celebri et gravi; praesertim ubi non absolvitur noxius, sed condemnatur insons. Etenim injuriae inter privatos grassantes turbant quidem et polluunt latices justitiae, sed tanquam in rivulis; verum judicia iniqua qualia diximus, a quibus exempla petuntur, fontes ipsos justitiae inficiunt et inquinant. Postquam enim tribunal cesserit in partes injustitiae, status rerum vertitur tanquam in latrocinium publicum: fitque plane, ut homo homini sit lupus
    .

    Luego también en J.Owen (muerto en 1793):

    “Homo homini lupus, homo homini deus” ((Epigrammata,1606,III,23),

    Existen obras como el Dictionary of the Proverbs in England in the 16th and 17th Centuries, de M.P. Tilley en el que se dan numerosas referencias anteriores a Hobbes.

    Baruch de Spinoza (1632-1677) en su Ethica, IV, escolio del segundo corolario de la proposición XXXV, dice, pensando en Hobbes, que la frase “Homo homini Deus” “estaba casi en todas las bocas” (ómnibus fere in ore), señalando así la frecuencia y conocimiento de la frase en cuestión.

    Montaigne (1533-1592) en Francia, que refiriéndose al matrimonio dice en Essais, III,ch.IV:

    “C’est une convention à laquelle se raporte bien à point ce qu’on dict, homo homini o Deus o lupus”

    “Es una convención a la que bien a punto se refiere lo que se dice, que homo homini o Deus o lupus”.

    También Montaigne, pues,  presenta la frase como algo que frecuentemente se dice.

    Y en España Baltasar Gracián (1601-1658) en su Criticón,I, IV, pág, 32 de la edición de la Colección Austral de Espasa-Calpe, al referirse a los hombres también la emplea: “cada uno es un lobo para el otro”

    En este punto, después de todas estas citas que a algún lector pueden parecer demasiadas, podemos preguntarnos de nuevo: ¿Leyó Hobbes la comedia de Plauto?

    Pudo leerla, pero si la frase de Plauto se había convertido en una sentencia y su difusión era tan extensa que estaba casi en todas las bocas, como decía Spinoza y figuraba en las recopilaciones de sentencias, Hobbes no necesitó del conocimiento completo de la comedia de Plauto.  En realidad lo más probable es que lo conociera de Erasmo, dada la fama de sus Adagia, o más probablemente de Bacon, con el que Hobbes vivió incluso algunos meses; por ello en ningún momento se adjudica la autoría.

    Con esta larga exposición habría intentado profundizar en el origen de la frase en cuestión. Nos quedaría ahora profundizar en el significado de las frases en cada autor y contexto, su uso proverbial en griego, en los autores ¿Demófilo?, Plauto, Cecilio, Virgilio, Plinio y los restantes autores latinos, Erasmo, Hobbes, etc.

    No haré ahora la reflexión sobre el contenido de las frases; dejo la tarea al lector; pero en cambio sí quiero dejar unas cuantas cuestiones abiertas a la consideración del lector.

    La primera sería la idea extendida en el mundo antiguo según la cual los dioses son benefactores de los hombres y en consecuencia el hombre que favorece a sus semejantes también es un dios o se asemeja a los dioses.

    El hombre que favorece a sus semejantes también es un dios

    Esto está en relación también con el “evergetismo” (del griego εύεργετέω y  ευεργετισμός, que significa «hacer el bien»,  «obrar bien, hacercer buenas obras») o función benefactora de los gobernantes, ricos y poderosos, y con la divinización de los reyes y dirigentes.

    ¿Plauto nos dice que debemos desconfiar de todo desconocido (este parece el sentido banal del pasaje de “Asinaria”)?  o ¿tal vez insinúe que el hombre es un lobo para el hombre si no reconoce al otro como su semejante?

    ¿Nos está diciendo Plinio, despectivo con los dioses tradicionales, que el único dios que existe para el hombre es otro hombre cuando hace el bien a sus semejantes?

    Si en la traducción inglesa de Hobbes “Homo homini lupus” se traduce por Man to Man is a kind of God”, ¿se está diciendo que el hombre es Dios, un dios o algo similar a Dios, algo divino?
    ¿O estará diciendo Hobbes algo parecido a lo que decía Plinio, cuando une en una misma frase el “homo homini lupus” y el “homo homini deus? Es decir, ¿nos estará diciendo Hobbes que el hombre deja de ser un lobo para convertirse en dios cuando crea el Estado y las instituciones sociales que garantizan su pervivencia y el ideal burgués de supervivencia y reciprocidad? Es decir, ¿será Hobbes más revolucionario en el fondo con su frase homo homini deus de lo que podría hacernos creer su frase más exitosa homo homini lupus?

    En el autor en el que no cabe duda alguna del sentido de la frase Homo homini deus est es en  el materialista Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872), para quien la idea de Dios no es sino la del hombre alienado proyectado hacia un ser ficitio y lejano a la propia humanidad.

    Creo que son ya muchas preguntas, quedan varias más,  para finalizar un artículo ya demasiado largo. Así que dejaré las respuestas a la voluntad del sabio lector.

    En cualquier caso, el proverbio o los proverbios si separamos las dos partes de la frase o consideramos algunos muy similares, se sigue utilizando con toda frecuencia y también en todo tipo de contextos, con lo que su significado concreto es enormemente variado.

    Expondré a título de ejemplo un proverbio similar con el que Miguel de Unamuno, cambiando ligeramente la forma (existe también homo homini canis) y también el sentido (el hombre, algunos hombres, son como perros falderos al servicio de otro hombre) publicó en la revista española “La Esfera” número 106, en  un artículo titulado “Homo hominis canis”, en el que decía textualmente:

    “Homo homini lupus, el hombre es un lobo para el hombre, dijo Hobbes, pero podría muy bien cambiarse el aforismo y decir: Homo hominis canis, el hombre es un perro del hombre.Y hay más hombres caninos o perrunos que no lupinos o lobunos”.

  • Nero inaugurates a great gym and Demetrius will ruin the opening ceremony. (Intellectuals against the power III)

    One of the greatest contributions of Roma to Western civilization was the urbanization of the territory that was conquered with its legions. Rome built cities (urbs) and implemented a modern system of citizen life (civitas).

    In this culture the water, which was profusely used, was fundamental. So as necessary was than  sometimes the Romans transported it from springs at tens of kilometers through aqueducts and pipelines that continue to cause us a deep impression.

    In the built city there are several essential elements: the square or forum, temples, civil administration buildings as the Basilica, and of course, the baht, spa or  “thermae”, sportive  and cultural complex where added to several pools to satisfy the desire of citizen pleasure there is also a gymnasium where the citizens train and keep the body fit.

    Note: “thermae” meants “warm baths”, from Greek θερμός , thermos = warm, name that also we apply to the cooking vessel that keeps hot the food, especially the drinks.

    In all of this, the Greek experience, which took several centuries ahead to initially rough Roman,  was fundamental. The Roman architect Vitruvius widely discussed in his De Architectura the conditions of urban buildings of the city in his book V especially.

    Curious note: "gym-nasium," is originally a Greek word gymnasion, assigned to the Latin as "gymnasium”. It comes from gymnos (γυμνός), gymnos, meaning "naked" and refers to the practice of physical training and performing the various sports training naked. Who trains or practice gym exercise is the "gymnast".

    Incidentally I would say that this nudity allows  anoint or smear the body with toning oil. That oil, mixed with natural sweat and sticky powder after training must  to be removed with a scraper which in Latin is called "strigilis". Recall the famous Greek statue of Lysippos The Apoxyomenos”,  in which an athlete is being used that instrument. See https://www.antiquitatem.com/en/hadrian-thermae-roman-bads-strigilis

    As I said, the relaxed Greek and eastern customs  soon were settled in the mighty Rome and were creating spas and gyms increasingly grandiose. Vitruvius spends  all Chapter 9 of Book V of his De architectura to the construction of these buildings:
    Vitruvius 5.9.9 

    As it appears that we have given an adequate account of them, next will follow descriptions of the arrangements of baths.  (Translate by Morris Hicky Morgan. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. London: Humphrey Milford. Oxford University Press. 1914.)

    Quoniam haec nobis satis videntur esse exposita, nunc insequentur balinearum dispositionum demonstrationes.

    And he continues  specifying the conditions on chapter 10.

    The first sports-cultural complex with  these large-scale characteristics  built in Rome was the one commanded by the Emperor Nero and which was opened the year 61.

    The construction of these baths and gym  is told by the all the historians of the period, reflecting its grandeur, which also impressed the whole society. Martial,  the poet, who was born in Bilbilis, the current Calatayud in Spain, in the year 40 and went to Rome around the year 64, for return to his hometown 34 years later, where he died six years later,  uses  the reference as a synonym topic of great, as we will see below

    We read texts that give us account of the event belonging to Tacitus, Suetonius and Dio Cassius.

    Tacitus, XIV, 47

    Nero, the same year, established a gymnasium, where oil was furnished to knights and senators after the lax fashion of the Greeks. (Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb.Maxmillan and Co. London.1869)

    gymnasium eo anno dedicatum a Nerone praebitumque oleum equiti ac senatui Graeca facilitate.

    Suetonius, Nero, XII,3

    He was the first who instituted, in imitation of the Greeks, a trial of skill in the three several exercises of music, wrestling, and horse-racing, to be performed at Rome every five years, and which he called Neronia. Upon the aedication of his bath and gymnasium, he furnished the senate and the equestrian order with oil. He appointed as judges of the trial men of consular rank, chosen by lot, who sat with the praetors. At this time he went down into the orchestra among the senators, and received the crown for the best performance in Latin prose and verse, for which several persons of the greatest merit contended, but they unanimously yielded to him. The crown for the best performer an the harp, being likewise awarded to him by the judges, he devoutly saluted it, and ordered it to be carried to the statue of Augustus. ( Translation by J. Eugene Reed. Alexander Thomson. Philadelphia. Gebbie & Co. 1889.)

    Instituit et quinquennale certamen primus omnium Romae more Graeco triplex, musicum gymnicum equestre, quod appellauit Neronia; dedicatisque thermis atque gymnasio senatui quoque et equiti oleum praebuit. magistros toto certamini praeposuit consulares sorte, sede praetorum. deinde in orchestram senatumque descendit et orationis quidem carminisque Latini coronam, de qua honestissimus quisque contenderat, ipsorum consensu concessam sibi recepit, citharae autem a iudicibus ad se delatam adorauit ferrique ad Augusti statuam iussit.

    Dio Cassius, LXI, 21

    These things, then, he did to celebrate the shaving of his beard; and in behalf of his preservation and the continuance of his power, he instituted some quadriennial games, which he called Neronia. In honour of this event he also erected the gymnasium,6 and at its dedication made a free distribution of olive oil to the senators and knights. 2 The crown for lyre-playing he took without a contest; for all others were debarred, on the assumption that they were unworthy of being victors. And immediately, wearing the garb of this guild, he entered the gymnasium itself to be enrolled as victor. Thereafter all other crowns awarded as prizes for lyre-playing in all the contests were sent to him as the only artist worthy of victory. (Loeb Classical Library, 9 volumes, Greek texts and facing English translation: Harvard University Press, 1914 thru 1927. Translation by Earnest Cary.)

    Martial, VII, 34

    How does it possibly come, Severus, that Charinus, the worst rascal in the world, did one thing well ? Do you ask ? I will tell you, and briefly. What was worse than Nero ? What is better than Nero's warm baths ? See, at once some one of the malicious crowd is ready to say in sour tones : " What do you set above the many structures erected by our Master and God?" I set Nero's warm baths above the baths of a pathic. (Translation by Walter C. A. Ker, M.A. The Loeb Classical Library)

    Quo possit fieri modo, Severe,
    Ut vir pessimus omnium Charinus
    Unam rem bene fecerit, requiris?
    Dicam, sed cito. Quid Nerone peius?
    Quid thermis melius Neronianis?
    Non deest protinus, ecce, de malignis,
    Qui sic rancidulo loquatur ore:
    'Quid tu tot domini deique nostri
    Praefers muneribus?' Neronianas
    Thermas praefero balneis cinaedi.

    Well, there is a curious anecdote of interest in connection with the inauguration of this complex. It is the appearance on the scene of the inauguration of a famous contemporary cynic philosopher, well respected by the intelligentsia of the moment by his moral integrity, Demetrius. This critical philosopher to the power, without mincing words and unwisely  ruined the opening ceremony thought for the greater glory of the emperor. The text, although living and descriptive, it is still cold and almost of attorney. It is necessary that the reader make a small stretch of the imagination, whom  can help to compare with picturesque and grotesque, contemporary current events, also needed of a "cynical" voice to reduce the "ego" of the governor.

    Note: Although it is well known by the generality, let me informed reader, to comment that the word "ego" is  the  Latin person pronoun of first person, which we translate as "I". From it quite clear terms derived meaning, according to this etymology, as egoism" and "egotism",  egocentrism,…  So well known is the term than often we say about someone full of himself that he has "a highly developed ego".

    Well Demetrius criticized the famous Baths of Nero inaugurated in 61 because unhygienic and very expensive in the same opening ceremony. At that time escaped the wrath of the Emperor, but when one year later the baths collapsed as a result of lightning, the words of Demetrius were considered the cause of the collapse and Demetrius was sent into exile by Tigellinus, the praetorian prefect (chief top police and executive arm) of Nero.

    But it is better tell us all the ancient texts themselves:

    About the  lightning,Tacitus tells us in Tacitus. Annales XV.22:

    In the same consulate, the Gymnasium was struck by lightning and burned to the ground, a statue of Nero, which it contained, being melted into a shapeless piece of bronze.

    Isdem consulibus gymnasium ictu fulminis conflagravit effigiesque in eo Neronis ad informe aes liquefacta.

    And Philostratus, Life of Apollonius IV 42 (it is necessary that we will put in  a little imagination on our part to color the story):

    Now Demetrius being attracted to Apollonius, as I have said above in my account of the events at Corinth, betook himself subsequently to Rome, and proceeded to court Apollonius, at the same time that he launched out against Nero. In consequence our sage's profession was looked at askance, and he was thought to have set Demetrius on to proceed thus, and the suspicion was increased on the occasion of Nero's completion of the most magnificent gymnasium in Rome:[1] for the auspicious day was being celebrated therein by Nero himself and the great Senate and all the knights of Rome, when Demetrius made his way into the gymnasium itself and delivered himself of a philippic against people who bathed, declaring that they enfeebled and polluted themselves; and he showed that such institutions were a useless expense.
    He was only saved from immediate death as the penalty of such language by the fact that Nero was in extra good voice when he sang on that day, and he sang in the tavern which adjoined the gymnasium, naked except for a girdle round his waste, like any low tapster.
    Demetrius, however, did not wholly escape the risk which he had courted by his language; for [the praetorian prefect] Tigellinus, to whom Nero had committed the power of life and death, proceeded to banish him from Rome, on the plea that he had ruined and overthrown the bath by the words he used; and he began to dog the steps of Apollonius secretly, in the hope that he would catch him out too in some compromising utterance
    .  (Translated by F.C. Conybeare)

    It is easy to imagine the face that they would put the entire Roman high society, with Emperor Nero to his head, listening to the cynical gadfly Demetrius (Socrates, from whom he learned many things his pupil Antisthenes, founder of the Cynic school,  is considered by himself  in Plato's Apology of Socrates  a “gadfly”;  we would say today in more explicit language “pain in the neck” or more colloquial pain in the ass)  ruin the event with two heavy motivated reviews:  that is a waste of resource  and also in public bathrooms all you can catch is a disease …

    Started our imaginative process, we can assume that at the opening ceremony not just "they cut the ribbon" but that senators and the other guests were bathed and smeared with oil.  Therefore gives us rise  the explicit reference of  the cited authors that Nero gave them the oil, at the Greek way.

    It is also a cause for reflection the attitude of "policeman" Tigellinus regarding Apollonius secretly spy to catch him in the act and then, punch …

    Without any doubt, it would have been very appropriate  in our time the presence of some cynical philosopher as Demetrius in the ghostly opening of an airport without airplanes, a freeway without cars or a bridge without river.
              …….
    Postscript Note: First the word "posdata”, “postscript" means or refers to the "already offered, and given, and exposed," especially to the date or dating that closes the document and therefore I want to adjectival this note, because it comes to below the  text and date of the article.

    Secondly with the note I want to explain the term "inaugurate", with them I headlined the article. The Romans, like many other  people, did not perform any action of public nor private importance unconnected with the feel of the gods. The augurs were the priests, from Etruscan origin,  who "predicted" or scrutinized the will of the gods or the future; the "omen" , augurium, figured in various ways, such as observing the flight of birds, operation called  “auspicium”, “auspices” from “avis”, bird,  and spicere, to see,  meant the agreement of the gods. The favorable omen,  augurium,  was especially necessary when engaging in battle;  do not forget that Rome is a great empire founded on the strength of their legions. Who had a "omens", a particularly favorable “augurium” was the emperor Octavian Caesar and because it he is called "Augustus", that means  something like "favored, loved by the gods."; "ausugustus" is translated into Greek as ἱερὸν, hieron, sacred.

  • Demetrius the Cynic and his relationship with Emperors Caligula, Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Titus and …., Domitian? (Intellectuals against the power)

    One of the many intellectuals, who suffered the wrath of power, was Demetrius of Corinth (ca.7 / 10 AD -ca.90), Greek prestigious intellectual and cynic philosopher, who lived a long life of 80 years in Roman imperial era, full of disappointments. There are many ideas from him, cited by many authors, and he had a significant influence on many Roman authors, like Seneca.

    He lived in the manner of cynics, no frills, no attachment to wealth or power. Like other Greeks, he went to Rome, center of power,  as a young man in time of Emperor Caligula. He was a friend of Seneca and he won the respect of  the Roman  intellectuals, whose cliques he ran with remarkable success pronouncing his lectures.

    Part of his life, reflected in a few texts allows us to recreate the atmosphere of tyranny and oppression to which they are subjected thinkers, philosophers, intellectuals when they dare to express their views freely and to criticize the actions of the powerful. This atmosphere of terror was especially oppressive under Domitian.

    I reproduce a letter of Seneca to his friend Lucilius in which he records the affection and respect that he has to Demetrius:

    Seneca, Letters to Lucilius LXII

    We are deceived by those who would have us believe that a multitude of affairs blocks their pursuit of liberal studies; they make a pretence of their engagements, and multiply them, when their engagements are merely with themselves. As for me, Lucilius, my time is free; it is indeed free, and wherever I am, I am master of myself. For I do not surrender myself to my affairs, but loan myself to them, and I do not hunt out excuses for wasting my time. And wherever I am situated, I carry on my own meditations and ponder in my mind some wholesome thought.  When I give myself to my friends, I do not withdraw from my own company, nor do I linger with those who are associated with me through some special occasion or some case which arises from my official position. But I spend my time in the company of all the best; no matter in what lands they may have lived, or in what age, I let my thoughts fly to them.  Demetrius, for instance, the best of men, I take about with me, and, leaving the wearers of purple and fine linen, I talk with him, half-naked as he is, and hold him in high esteem. Why should I not hold him in high esteem? I have found that he lacks nothing. It is in the power of any man to despise all things, but of no man to possess all things. The shortest cut to riches is to despise riches. Our friend Demetrius, however, lives not merely as if he has learned to despise all things, but as if he has handed them over for others to possess. Farewell. (Translated by Richard Mott Gummere. A Loeb Classical Library edition; volume 1 published 1917)

    Mentiuntur, qui sibi obstare ad studia liberali turbam negotiorum videri volunt; simulant occupationes et augent et ipsi se occupant. Vaco, Lucili, vaco et ubicumque sum, ibi meus sum. Rebus enim me non trado, sed commodo, nec consector perdendi temporis causas. Et quocumque constiti loco, ibi cogitationes meas tracto et aliquid in animo salutare converso.

    Cum me amicis dedi non tamen mihi abduco, nec cum illis moror, quibus me tempus aliquod congregavit aut causa ex officio nata civili,  sed cum optimo quoque sum; ad illos, in quocumque loco, in quocumque saeculo fuerunt, animum meum mitto.

    Demetrium, virorum optimum, mecum circumfero et relictis conchyliatis cum illo seminudo loquor, illum admiror. Quidni admirer? Vidi nihil ei deesse. Contemnere aliquis omnia potest, omnia habere nemo potest. Brevissima ad divitias per contemptum divitiarum via est. Demetrius autem noster sic vivit, non tamquam contempserit omnia, sed tamquam aliis habenda permiserit. Vale.

    Philostratus  presents him in Corinth (circa 61) and as friend of Apollonius of Tiana, but this is not very reliable source for some, although Lucian attest their stay in Corinth in "Against ignorance, 19":

    Philostratus, Life of Apollonius, IV, 25

    Now there was in Corinth at that time a man named Demetrius, who studied philosophy and had embraced in his system all the masculine vigor of the Cynics. Of him Favorinus in several of his works subsequently made the most generous mention, and his attitude towards Apollonius was exactly that which they say Antisthenes took up towards the system of Socrates: for he followed him and was anxious to be his disciple, and was devoted to his doctrines, and converted to the side of Apollonius the more esteemed of his own pupils. (Translation by F.C. Conybeare,  1912, in the Loeb Classical Library).

    He was banished at the first time by Tigellinus, the praetorian prefect of Nero in the year 62 because  his ironic comments critical to the monarchy, on the inauguration of a great gym for the emperor. See https://www.antiquitatem.com/en/nero-inaugurates-a-gym-demetrius

    At the same time he was also banished another cynical called Isidore, whom also I will comment.
    On a occasion  the emperor Caligula (governed from 37 to 41) wanted to make him a gift with a small amount of money that the proud philosopher rejected. Seneca tells us, On Duties VII, 11.1-2:

    When, therefore, Gaius Caesar offered him two hundred thousand sesterces, he laughingly refused it, thinking it unworthy of himself to boast of having refused so small a sum. Ye gods and goddesses, what a mean mind must the emperor have had, if he hoped either to honour or to corrupt him. I must here repeat a proof of his magnanimity. I have heard that when he was expressing his wonder at the folly of Gaius at supposing that he could be influenced by such a bribe, he said, "If he meant to tempt me, he ought to have tried to do so by offering his entire kingdom."(Translated by Aubrey StewartTranslated 1887)

    De beneficiis VII,11,1-2

    Itaque cum C.1 Caesar illi ducenta donaret, ridens reiecit ne dignam quidem summam iudicans, qua non accepta gloriaretur. Di deaeque, quam pusillo animo illum aut honorare voluit aut corrumpere ! Reddendum egregio viro testimonium est ; ingentem rem ab illo dici audivi, cum miraretur Gai dementiam, quod se putasset tanti posse mutari. " Si temptare," inquit, " me constituerat, toto illi fui experiendus imperio."

    Demetrius criticized the famous Baths of Nero inaugurated in 61 because unhygienic and excessively costly. When a year later collapsed as a result of lightning, the words of Demetrius were considered  the cause of the collapse  and Demetrius was sent into exile by Tigellinus, the praetorian prefect (the chief of police and executive arm) of Nero.

    Philostratus tells us in Life of Apollonius IV 42.

    Now Demetrius being attracted to Apollonius, as I have said above in my account of the events at Corinth, betook himself subsequently to Rome, and proceeded to court Apollonius, at the same time that he launched out against Nero. In consequence our sage's profession was looked at askance, and he was thought to have set Demetrius on to proceed thus, and the suspicion was increased on the occasion of Nero's completion of the most magnificent gymnasium in Rome: for the auspicious day was being celebrated therein by Nero himself and the great Senate and all the knights of Rome, when Demetrius made his way into the gymnasium itself and delivered himself of a philippic against people who bathed, declaring that they enfeebled and polluted themselves; and he showed that such institutions were a useless expense.

    He was only saved from immediate death as the penalty of such language by the fact that Nero was in extra good voice when he sang on that day, and he sang in the tavern which adjoined the gymnasium, naked except for a girdle round his waste, like any low tapster.
    Demetrius, however, did not wholly escape the risk which he had courted by his language; for [the praetorian prefect] Tigellinus, to whom Nero had committed the power of life and death, proceeded to banish him from Rome, on the plea that he had ruined and overthrown the bath by the words he used; and he began to dog the steps of Apollonius secretly, in the hope that he would catch him out too in some compromising utterance.
    (Translation by F.C. Conybeare,  1912, in the Loeb Classical Library

    Philostratus again gives us some reason why the Emperor Nero didn’t sentenced to death Demetrius and other sophists. He says it in Life of Apollonius VII 16:

    "My sovereign, sophists ar all prattle and flippancy; and their art is all show, and they are so eager to die because they get no good out of life; and therefore they don't wait for death to come of itself, but try to anticipate and draw it on themselves by provoking those who hold the sword.

    This I think was the reason which weighed with Nero and prevented his being drawn on by Demetrius into slaying him. For as he saw that he was anxious for death, he let him off not because he wished to pardon him, but because he disdained to put him to death. Moreover in the case of Musonius the Tyrrhenian, who opposed his rule in many ways, he only kept him in the island called Gyara. (Translation by F.C. Conybeare,  1912, in the Loeb Classical Library)

    There is also a story  of Philostratus that relates  Demetrius to Musonius Rufus, master of Epictetus. On the occasion of the conspiracy of Piso against Nero on 65-66 year, Seneca was forced to suicide opening veins with his wife Pompeia Paulina and his  nephew Lucanus. For the same reason they were expelled from Rome philosophers, especially the Stoics, among them Musonius Rufus, master of Epictetus.

    Phiostratus, an  unreliable source, as I said, according to some authors, makes the two men coincide in Greece: Musonius was there condemned to dig the Isthmus of Corinth, as a thousand times it has happened with prisoners and dissidents sentenced to hard labor for building  great and dangerous public works.

    The story, despite its curious interest does not seem very credible to the historians, although they are no serious grounds to doubt; in any case we will read the text of Philostratus, Life of Apollonius V, 19:

    At Athens he was initiated by the same hierophant of whom he had delivered a prophecy to his predecessor; here he met Demetrius the philosopher, for after the episode of Nero's bath and of his speech about it, Demetrius continued to live at Athens, with such noble courage that he did not quit Athens even during the period when Nero was outraging Greece over the games.

    Demetrius said that he had fallen in with Musonius at the Isthmus, where he was fettered and under orders to dig; and that he addressed to him such consolations as he could, but Musonius took his spade and stoutly dug it into the earth, and then looking up, said: "You are distressed, Demetrius, to see me digging through the Isthmus for Greece; but if you saw me playing the harp like Nero, what would you feel then?"

    But I must pass over the sayings of Musonius, though they were many and remarkable, else I shall seem to take liberties with the man, who uttered them carelessly. (Translation by F.C. Conybeare,  1912, in the Loeb Classical Library)

    This conspiracy also led the condemnation of  Barea Soranus and Thrasea Petus, patrician, stoic, who was master of Demetrius, who comforted him at the time and day when the sentence came.
    Thrasea is who uttered the phrase, according to Epictetus:

    "I would rather be killed to-day than banished to-morrow."

    Epictetus recommends accept things as they come with wise stoicism. Discourses I, 1, 21

    …..What then should a man have in readiness in such circumstances? What else than "What is mine, and what is not mine; and permitted to me, and what is not permitted to me." I must die. Must I then die lamenting? I must be put in chains. Must I then also lament? I must go into exile. Does any man then hinder me from going with smiles and cheerfulness and contentment? "Tell me the secret which you possess." I will not, for this is in my power. "But I will put you in chains." Man, what are you talking about? Me in chains? You may fetter my leg, but my will not even Zeus himself can overpower. "I will throw you into prison." My poor body, you mean. "I will cut your head off." When, then, have I told you that my head alone cannot be cut off? These are the things which philosophers should meditate on, which they should write daily, in which they should exercise themselves.

    Thrasea used to say, "I would rather be killed to-day than banished to-morrow." What, then, did Rufus say to him? "If you choose death as the heavier misfortune, how great is the folly of your choice? But if, as the lighter, who has given you the choice? Will you not study to be content with that which has been given to you?"  (Translation by George Long)

    I will transcribe the information that Tacitus gives us in his Annals about  the decision  and death of Thraseas, an episode that still moves us today.
     
    Tacitus, Annals, XVI, 21

    Nero after having butchered so many illustrious men, at last aspired to extirpate virtue itself by murdering Thrasea Pætus and Barea Soranus. Both men he had hated of old, Thrasea on additional grounds, because he had walked out of the Senate when Agrippina's case was under discussion, as I have already related, and had not given the Juvenile games any conspicuous encouragement. Nero's displeasure at this was the deeper, since this same Thrasea had sung in a tragedian's dress at Patavium, his birth-place, in some games instituted by the Trojan Antenor. On the day, too, on which the prætor Antistius was being sentenced to death for libels on Nero, Thrasea proposed and carried a more merciful decision. Again, when divine honours were decreed to Poppæa, he was purposely absent and did not attend her funeral. All this Capito Cossutianus would not allow to be forgotten. He had a heart eager for the worst wickedness, and he also bore ill-will to Thrasea, the weight of whose influence had crushed him, while envoys from Cilicia supported by Thrasea's advocacy, were accusing him of extortion.

    34
    Then, as evening approached, the consul's quæstor was sent to Thrasea, who was passing his time in his garden. He had had a crowded gathering of distinguished men and women, giving special attention to Demetrius, a professor of the Cynic philosophy. With him, as might be inferred from his earnest expression of face and from words heard when they raised their voices, he was speculating on the nature of the soul and on the separation of the spirit from the body, till Domitius Cæcilianus, one of his intimate friends, came to him and told him in detail what the Senate had decided. When all who were present, wept and bitterly complained, Thrasea urged them to hasten their departure and not mingle their own perils with the fate of a doomed man. Arria, too, who aspired to follow her husband's end and the example of Arria, her mother, he counselled to preserve her life, and not rob the daughter of their love of her only stay.

    35
    Then he went out into a colonnade, where he was found by the quæstor, joyful rather than otherwise, as he had learnt that Helvidius, his son-in-law, was merely excluded from Italy. When he heard the Senate's decision, he led Helvidius and Demetrius into a chamber, and having laid bare the arteries of each arm, he let the blood flow freely, and, as he sprinkled it on the ground, he called the quæstor to his side and said, "We pour out a libation to Jupiter the Deliverer. Behold, young man, and may the gods avert the omen, but you have been born into times in which it is well to fortify the spirit with examples of courage." Then as the slowness of his end brought with it grievous anguish, turning his eyes on Demetrius. . . . (Complete Works of Tacitus. Tacitus. Alfred John Church. William Jackson Brodribb. Sara Bryant.)

    Annales, XVI,21

    Trucidatis tot insignibus viris ad postremum Nero virtutem ipsam excindere concupivit interfecto Thrasea Paeto et Barea Sorano, olim utrisque infensus et accedentibus causis in Thraseam, quod senatu egressus est cum de Agrippina referretur, ut memoravi, quodque Iuvenalium ludicro parum spectabilem operam praebuerat; eaque offensio altius penetrabat, quia idem Thrasea Patavi, unde ortus erat, ludis †cetastis† a Troiano Antenore institutis habitu tragico cecinerat. die quoque quo praetor Antistius ob probra in Neronem composita ad mortem damnabatur, mitiora censuit obtinuitque; et cum deum honores Poppaeae decernuntur sponte absens, funeri non interfuerat. quae oblitterari non sinebat Capito Cossutianus, praeter animum ad flagitia praecipitem iniquus Thraseae quod auctoritate eius concidisset, iuvantis Cilicum legatos dum Capitonem repetundarum interrogant.

    XVI, 34
    Tum ad Thraseam in hortis agentem quaestor consulis missus vesperascente iam die. inlustrium virorum feminarumque coetus frequentis egerat, maxime intentus Demetrio Cynicae institutionis doctori, cum quo, ut coniectare erat intentione vultus et auditis, si qua clarius proloquebantur, de natura animae et dissociatione spiritus corporisque inquirebat, donec advenit Domitius Caecilianus ex intimis amicis et ei quid senatus censuisset exposuit. igitur flentis queritantisque qui aderant facessere propere Thrasea neu pericula sua miscere cum sorte damnati hortatur, Arriamque temptantem mariti suprema et exemplum Arriae matris sequi monet retinere vitam filiaeque communi subsidium unicum non adimere.

    XVI, 35
    Tum progressus in porticum illic a quaestore reperitur, laetitiae propior, quia Helvidium generum suum Italia tantum arceri cognoverat. accepto dehinc senatus consulto Helvidium et Demetrium in cubiculum inducit; porrectisque utriusque brachii venis, postquam cruorem effudit, humum super spargens, propius vocato quaestore 'libamus' inquit 'Iovi liberatori. specta, iuvenis; et omen quidem dii prohibeant, ceterum in ea tempora natus es quibus firmare animum expediat constantibus exemplis.' post lentitudine exitus gravis cruciatus adferente, obversis in Demetrium …

    At this point the Annals are broken off because surely the death of its author prevented him from continuing.  The missing lines in the codex  free us to attend the end of  so dramatic episode.

    But I do not will deprive interested readers of another fragment of the work of Suetonius, that shows the cruelty with which Nero ordered suicides. Suetonius tells us, ( his work, in which mainly anecdotes are collected, must be read critically, knowing that, as secretary of Hadrian, he  had before official archives).

    Suetonius, Nero 37

    The only charge objected against Paetus Thrasea was, that he had a melancholy cast of features, and looked like a school-master. He allowed but one hour to those whom he obliged to kill themselves; and, to prevent delay, he sent them physicians " to cure them immediately, if they lingered beyond that time ;" for so he called bleeding them to death. There was at that time an Egyptian of a most voracious appetite, who would digest raw flesh, or any thing else that was given him. It was credibly reported, that the emperor was extremely desirous of furnishing him with living men to tear and devour. Being elated with his great success in the perpetration of crimes, he declared. " that no prince before himself ever knew the extent of his power." (Suetonius: The Lives of the Twelve Caesars; An English Translation,  Publishing Editor. J. Eugene Reed. Alexander Thomson. Philadelphia. Gebbie & Co. 1889.)

    (37.1)…Paeto Thraseae tristior et paedagogi uultus.
    (37.2) mori iussis non amplius quam horarum spatium dabat; ac ne quid morae interueniret, medicos admouebat qui cunctantes continuo curarent: ita enim uocabatur uenas mortis gratia incidere. creditur etiam polyphago cuidam Aegypti generis crudam carnem et quidquid daretur mandere assueto, concupisse uiuos homines laniandos absumendosque obicere.
    (37.3)elatus inflatusque tantis uelut successibus negauit “quemquam principum scisse quid sibi liceret”,

    But against these powerful dictators, free men, as  Demetrius, can tell them, as Arrian tells in Epictetus, Discourses I , 25.21 to 23:

    I will live in Gyarus, but it seems like a great smoke to live in Gyarus; and I depart to the place where no man will hinder me from living, for that dwelling place is open to all; and as to the last garment, that is the poor body, no one has any power over me beyond this. This was the reason why Demetrius said to Nero, “You threaten me with death, but nature threatens you.” (George Long. translator. London. George Bell and Sons. 1890.)

    In the year 75, under the emperor Vespasian, he was expelled for the second time, together with other philosophers, to the Cyclades islands. Some think that the expulsion was in the year 71 according to Dio Cassius 65 (66) 13 and Suetonius, Vespasian 13.

    We read the text of Dio Cassius, Roman History 65 (66) 12 et seq.

    Helvidius Priscus, the son-in law of Thrasea, had been brought up in the doctrines of the Stoics and imitated Thrasea's frankness of speech, sometimes unseasonably. He was at this time praetor, but instead of doing aught to increase the honour due to the emperor he would not cease reviling him. Therefore the tribunes once arrested him and gave him in charge of their assistants, a procedure at which Vespasian was overcome by emotion went out of the senate-chamber in tears, saying merely: "My successor shall be my son or no one at all."

    Inasmuch as many others, too, including Demetrius the Cynic, actuated by the Stoic principles, were taking advantage of the name of philosophy to teach publicly many doctrines inappropriate to the times, and in this way were subtly corrupting some of their hearers, Mucianus, prompted rather by anger than by any passion for philosophy, inveighed at length against them and persuaded Vespasian to expel all such persons from the city.
    …..
    Mucianus made a great number of remarkable statements to Vespasian against the Stoics, asserting, for instance, that they are full of empty boasting, and that if one of them lets his beard grow long, elevates his eyebrows, wears his coarse brown mantle thrown back over his shoulder and goes barefooted, he straightway lays claim to wisdom, bravery and righteousness, and gives himself great airs, even though he may not know either his letters or how to swim, as the saying goes. They look down upon everybody and call a man of good family a mollycoddle, the low-born slender-witted, a handsome person licentious, an ugly person a simpleton, the rich man greedy, and the poor man servile.

    And Vespasian immediately expelled from Rome all the philosophers except Musonius; Demetrius and Hostilianus he even deported to islands. Hostilianus, though he decidedly would not desist when he was told about the sentence of exile (he happened to be conversing with somebody), but merely inveighed all the more strongly against monarchy, nevertheless straightway withdrew.  Demetrius, on the contrary, would not yield even then, and Vespasian commanded that this message should be given to him: "You are doing everything to force me to kill you, but I do not slay a barking dog."

    It became strikingly clear that Vespasian hated Helvidius Priscus, not so much on his own account or that of his friends whom the man had abused, as because he was a turbulent fellow who cultivated the favour of the rabble and was for ever denouncing royalty and praising democracy. Helvidius' behaviour, moreover, was consistent with this opinion of him; for he banded various men together, as if it were the function of philosophy to insult those in power, to stir up the multitudes, to overthrow the established order of things, and to bring about a revolution.  He was Thrasea's son-in law and affected to emulate his conduct, but he fell far short of doing so. For whereas Thrasea, though living in Nero's time and displeased with him, nevertheless had neither said nor done anything that was insulting to him, save merely that he refused to share in his practices, Helvidius, on the other hand, bore a grudge against Vespasian and would not let him alone either in private or in public. Thus by his conduct he was courting death and by his meddlesome interference he was destined eventually to pay the penalty. (Loeb Classical Library, 9 volumes, Greek texts and facing English translation: Harvard University Press, 1914 thru 1927. Translation by Earnest Cary.)

    It's funny how similar  I find this fearful attitude of power against anyone  movement and social behavior at the time, with which personally I experienced ( I am old few years) in the aftermath of  Franco dictatorship in Spain: long beard, different clothing to conventional, They meddle with everyone, pick on everyone, persuade people with their talk ,  etc.)

    But Suetonius paints us Vespasian as caring and benevolent, against the use of excessive punishment. About Demetrius and Vespasian he says:

    Suetonius, Vespasian 13:

    Demetrius, the Cynic philosopher,1 who had been sentenced to banishment, meeting him on the road, and refusing to rise up or salute him, nay, snarling at him in scurrilous language, he only called him a cur. (English Translation, Publishing Editor. J. Eugene Reed. Alexander Thomson. Philadelphia. Gebbie & Co. 1889.)

    Demetrium Cynicum in itinere obuium sibi post damnationem ac neque assurgere neque salutare se dignantem, oblatrantem etiam nescio quid, satis habuit canem appellare.

    His relationship with Titus seems to have been better. Philostratus tells us how Apollonius recommended  Titus that he should serve of the teachings of the master Demetrius. He tells us in his Life of Apollonius, VI, 31

    "And for myself, O man of Tyana," answered Titus, "can you give me any precepts as to how to rule and exercise the authority of a sovereign?"

    "Only such rules," replied the other, "as you have laid upon yourself; for in so submitting yourself to your father's will, it is, I think, certain that you will grow like him. And I should like to repeat to you on this occasion a saying of Archytas, which is a noble one and worth committing to memory. Archytas was a man of Tarentum who was learned in the lore of Pythagoras, and he wrote a treatise on the education of children, in which he says:

    Let the father be an example of virtue to his children, for fathers also will the more resolutely walk in the path of virtue because their children are coming to resemble them.
    But for myself, I propose to associate with you my own companion Demetrius, who will attend you as much as you like and instruct you in the whole duty of a good ruler."

    "And what sort of wisdom, O Apollonius, does this person possess?"

    "Courage," he replied, "to speak the truth unabashed by anyone, for he possesses the constancy and strength of character of a cynic."

    And as Titus did not seem very pleased to hear the name of dog,[1] he continued: "And yet in Homer, Telemachus, when he was young, required, it appears, two dogs, and the poet sends these to accompany the youth to the market place of Ithaca, in spite of their being irrational animals; but you will have a dog to accompany you who will bark in your behalf not only at other people, but at yourself in case you go wrong, and he will bark withal wisely, and never irrationally."

    "Well," said the other, "give me your dog to accompany me, and I will even let him bite me, in case he feels I am committing injustice."

    "I will write him a letter, for he teaches philosophy in Rome."

    "Pray do so," said Titus, "and I wish I could get someone to write to you in my behalf, and induce you to share with me my journey to Rome."

    "I will come there," said the other, "whenever it is best for both of us." (Translation by F.C. Conybeare,  1912, in the Loeb Classical Library).

    And little later, in Life of Apollonius VI 33, he gives us the letter:

    But the letter to Demetrius ran as follows:

    "Apollonius, the Philosopher, sends greeting to Demetrius the cynic.
         I have made a present of you to the Emperor Titus, that you may instruct him how to behave as a sovereign, and take care that you confirm the truth of my words to him, and make yourself, anger apart, everything to him. Farewell."
    (Translation by F.C. Conybeare,  1912, in the Loeb Classical Library).

    In the year 75 Titus wants to marry Jewish princess Berenice, a relationship that the people do not look kindly; Diogenes the Sophist and a certain Heras criticized in the theater the vices of the emperors and that fed the royal anger and they were punished for it, as Cassius Dio tells us, Roman History LXV 15, 3-5:

    Berenice was at the very height of her power and consequently came to Rome along with her brother Agrippa. 4 The latter was given the rank of praetor, while she dwelt in the palace, cohabiting with Titus. She expected to marry him and was already behaving in every respect as if she were his wife; but when he perceived that the Romans were displeased with the situation, he sent her away. 5 For, in addition to all the other talk that there was, certain sophists of the Cynic school managed somehow to slip into the city at this time, too; and first Diogenes, entering the theatre when it was full, denounced the pair in a long, abusive speech, for which he was flogged; and after him Heras, expecting no harsher punishment, gave vent to many senseless yelpings in true Cynic fashion, and for this was beheaded. (Loeb Classical Library, 9 volumes, Greek texts and facing English translation: Harvard University Press, 1914 thru 1927. Translation by Earnest Cary.)

    Demetrius perhaps lived until the time of Domitian, who created a great  atmosphere of terror. To  Domitian  they were  awarded two ejections of philosophers (philosophy proved to be a high risk activity) and also astrologers and "mathematical",  term that may relate to teachers in general. The first took place in the year 89 and the second, more violent, in 93/95. Let's see what Dio Cassius says in History of Rome LXVII 13.2:

    As censor, likewise, his behaviour was noteworthy. He expelled Caecilius Rufinus from the senate because he acted pantomimes, and rest Claudius Pacatus, though an ex-centurion, to his master, because he was proved to be a slave.  But the deeds now to be related — deeds which he performed as emperor — cannot be described in similar terms. I refer to his killing of Arulenus Rusticus because he was a philosopher and because he called Thrasea holy, and to his slaying of Herennius Senecio because in his long career he had stood for no office after his quaestorship and because he had written the biography of Helvidius Priscus.  Many others also perished as a result of this same charge of philosophizing, and all the philosophers that were left in Rome were banished once more. One Juventius Celsus, however, who had taken a leading part in conspiring with certain others against Domitian and had been accused of this, saved his life in a remarkable way.  When he was on the point of being condemned, he begged that he might speak to the emperor in private, and thereupon did obeisance before him and after repeatedly calling him "master" and "god" (terms that were already being applied to him by others), he said: "I have done not of this sort, but if I obtain a respite, I will pry into everything and will not only bring information against many persons for you but also secure their conviction." He was released on this condition, but did not report any one; instead, by adding different excuses at different times, he lived until the death of Domitian. (Loeb Classical Library, 9 volumes, Greek texts and facing English translation: Harvard University Press, 1914 thru 1927. Translation by Earnest Cary.)

    The following text of Philostratus perfectly describes the atmosphere of concern and fear in which many times they they have been numerous intellectuals, awaiting the decision of the tyrant and doubting whether to run away to be spared.

    Philostratus, Life of Apollonius VII 10-12

    … and having landed at Corinth and worshipped the Sun about midday, with his usual rites, embarked in the evening for Sicily and Italy. And falling in with a favorable wind and a good current that ran in his direction, he reached Dicaearchia [Puteoli] on the fifth day.
    There he met Demetrius who passed for being the boldest of the philosophers, simply because he did not live far away from Rome, and knowing that he had moved to get out of the way of the tyrant, yet said by way of amusing himself: "I have caught you in your luxury, dwelling here in the most blessed part of happy Italy, if indeed she be happy, here where Odysseus is said to have forgotten in the company of Calypso the smoke of his Ithacan home."

    Thereupon Demetrius embraced him and after sundry pious ejaculations said: "O ye gods, what will come upon philosophy, if she risks the loss of such a man as yourself?"

    "And what risks does she run?" asked he.

    "Those, surely, a foreknowledge of which brought you here," said the other; "for if I do not know what is in your mind, then I do not know what is in my own. But let us not conduct our conversation here, but let us retire where we can talk together alone, and let only Damis be present whom, by Heracles, I am inclined to consider an Iolaus  of your labors."

    With these words, Demetrius led them to the villa in which [the Roman orator] Cicero lived of old, and it is close by the city. There they sat down under a plane tree where the grasshoppers were chirping to the soft music of the summer's breeze, when Demetrius glancing up at them, remarked: "O ye blessed insects and unfeignedly wise, it would seem then that the Muses have taught you a song which is neither actionable, nor likely to be informed against; and they made you superior to all wants of the belly, and settled you far above all human envy to live in these trees, in which you sit and sing in your blessedness about your own and the Muses' prerogative of happiness." 

    Now Apollonius understood the drift of this apostrophe, but it jarred upon him as inconsistent with the strenuous professions of his friend. "It seems then," he said, "that, though you only wanted to sing the praises of grasshoppers, you could not do it openly, but came cowering hither, as if there were a public law against anyone praising the grasshoppers."

    "I said what I did," he replied, "not by way of praising them, but of signifying that while they are left unmolested in their concert halls, we are not allowed even to mutter; for wisdom has been rendered a penal offense. And whereas the indictment of Anytus and Meletus ran: Socrates commits wrong in corrupting youth and introducing a new religion, we are indicted in such terms as these: So and so commits wrong by being wise and just and gifted with understanding of the gods no less than of men, and with a wide knowledge of the laws.

    And as for yourself, so far forth as you are cleverer and wiser than the rest of us, so much the more cleverly is the indictment against you drawn up; for Domitian intends to implicate you in the charges for which Nerva and his associates were banished."

    "But for what crime," said Apollonius, "are they banished?"

    "For what is reckoned by the persecutor to be the greatest of latter-day crimes. He says that he has caught these persons in the act of trying to usurp his throne, and accuses you of instigating their attempt by mutilating, I think, a boy."

    "What, as if it were by an eunuch, that I want his empire overthrown?"

    "It is not that," he replied, "of which we are falsely accused; but they declare that you sacrificed a boy to divine the secrets of futurity which are to be learned from an inspection of youthful entrails; and in the indictment your dress and manner of life are also impugned, and the fact of your being an object of worship to some. This then is what I have heard from our Telesinus, no less your intimate than mine."

    "What luck," exclaimed Apollonius, "if we could meet Telesinus: for I suppose you mean the philosopher who held consular rank in the reign of Nero."

    "The same," he said, "but how are we to come across him? For despots are doubly suspicious of any man of rank, should they find him holding communication with people who lie under such an accusation as you do. And Telesinus, moreover, gave way quietly before the edict which has lately been issued against philosophers of every kind, because he preferred to be in exile as a philosopher, to remain in Rome as a consul."

    "I would not have him run any risks on my account anyhow," said Apollonius, "for the risks he runs in behalf of philosophy are serious enough.

    But tell me this, Demetrius, what do you think I had better say or do in order to allay my own fears?"

    "You had better not trifle," said the other, "nor pretend to be afraid when you foresee danger; for if you really thought these accusations terrifying, you would have been away by now and evaded the necessity of defending yourself from them."

    "And would you run away," said Apollonius, "if you were placed in the same danger as myself?"

    "I would not," he replied, "I swear by Athena, if there were someone to judge me; but in fact there is no fair trial, and if I did offer a defense, no one would even listen to me; or if I were listened to, I should be slain all the more certainly because I was known to be innocent. You would not, I suppose, care to see me choose so cold-blooded and lavish a death as that, rather than one which befits a philosopher.

    And I imagine that it behoves a philosopher to die in the attempt to liberate his city or to protect his parents and children and brothers and other kinsfolk, or to die struggling for his friends, who in the eyes of the wise are more precious than mere kinsfolk, or for favorites that have been purchased by love. But to be put to death not for true reasons, but for fancy ones, and to furnish the tyrant with a pretext for being considered wise, is much worse and more grievous than to be bowed and bent high in the sky on a wheel, as they say Ixion was.
    But it seems to me the very fact of your coming here will be the beginning of your trial; for though you may attribute your journey hither to your quiet conscience, and to the fact that you would have never ventured upon it if you were guilty, Domitian will credit you with nothing of the kind; but will merely believe that you ventured on so hardy a course because you possess some mysterious power. For think, ten days, they say, have not elapsed since you were cited to appear, and you turn up at the court, without even having heard as yet that you were to undergo a trial.

    Will not that be tantamount to justifying the accusation, for everyone will think that you foreknew the event, and the story of the boy will gain credit therefrom? And take care that the discourse which the say you delivered about the Fates and Necessity in Ionia does not come true of yourself; and that, in case destiny has some cruelty in store, you are not marching straight to meet it with your hands tied, just because you won't see that discretion is the better part of valor.

    And if you have not forgotten the affairs of Nero's reign, you will remember my own case, and that I showed no coward's dread of death. But then one gained some respite: for although Nero's harp was ill attuned to the dignity that befits a king, and clashed therewith, yet in other ways its music harmonized not unpleasantly with ours, for he was induced thereby to grant a truce to his victims, and stay his murderous hand. At any rate he did not slay me, although I attracted his sword to myself as much by your discourses as by my own, which were delivered against the bath; and the reason why he did not slay me was that just then his voice improved, and he achieved, as he thought, a brilliant melody.

    But where's the royal nightingale, and where the harp to which we can today make our peace-offerings? For the outlook of today is unredeemed by music, and full of spleen, and this tyrant is as little likely to be charmed by himself, as by other people. It is true that Pindar says in praise of the lyre that it charms the savage beast of [the war god] Ares and stays his hand from war; but this ruler, although he has established a musical contest in Rome, and offers a civic crown for those who win therein, nevertheless slew some of them, for whom it was the proverbial swan-sung that they piped or sang.

    And you should also consider our friends and their safety, for you will certainly ruin them as well as yourself, if you make a show of being brave, or use arguments which will not be listened to.

    But your life lies within your reach; for here are ships -you see how many there are- some about to sail for Libya, others for Egypt, others for Phoenicia and Cyprus, others direct to Sardinia, other still for places beyond Sardinia. It were best for you to embark on one of these provinces; for the hand of tyranny is less heavy upon these distinguished men, if it perceives that they only desire to live quietly and not put themselves forward."

    Damis was so impressed by the arguments of Demetrius that he exclaimed:
    (Translation by F.C. Conybeare,  1912, in the Loeb Classical Library).

    The following text describes the anguish of those who, feeling persecuted, feared engage others with their mere contact and relationship. How many times they should have produced similar situations, given the inaction of the remaining citizens.

    Let us read Philostratus, VII, 14-15:
    I know, Demetrius, how clever you are at chopping logic, and this, I believe, is why you will tender me some further advice, such as this: But you must not resort to those you have named, but to men with whom you have never had anything to do, and then your flight will be secure; for you will find it easier to lie hidden among people who do not know you.
    Well, let me examine this argument too, and see whether there is anything in it. For this is how I regard it: I consider that a wise man does nothing in private nor by himself alone; I hold that not even his inmost thoughts can be so devoid of witness, that he himself at least is not present with himself; and whether the Pythian inscription was suggested by Apollo himself, or by some man who had a healthy conscience, and was therefore minded to publish it as an aphorism for all, I hold that the sage who 'knows himself, and has his own conscience as his perpetual companion, will never cower before things that scare the many, nor venture upon courses which others would engage upon without shame. For being the slaves of despots, they have been ready at times to betray to them even their dearest; because just as they trembled at imaginary terrors, so they felt no fear where they should have trembled.

    But Wisdom allows of none these things.
    ……..
    I think then that I have clearly shown you, and that truth itself will convince you, that my conscience will convict me wherever I go, whether to people that know me, or to people that do not, supposing I were to betray my friends; but I will not betray even myself, but I will boldly wrestle with the tyrant, hailing him with the words of the noble Homer: Ares is as much my friend as thine."

    Damis was so impressed by this address, he tells us, that he took fresh resolution and courage, and Demetrius no longer despaired of Apollonius, but rather praising and agreeing with his appeal, wished godspeed to him in his perilous enterprise and to his mistress Philosophy for whose sake he braved so much.

    And he led them, Damis says, to where he was lodging; but Apollonius declined and said: "It is now eventide, and about the time of the lighting up of the lamps and I must set out for the port of Rome, for this is the usual hour at which these ships sail. However we will dine together another time, when my affairs are on a better footing; for just now some charge would be trumped up against yourself of having dined with an enemy of the Emperor. Nor must you come down to the harbor with us, lest you should be accused, merely for having conversed with me, of harboring criminal designs."

    Demetrius accordingly consented, and after embracing them he quitted them, though he often turned back to look towards them and wiped tears from his eyes. (Translation by F.C. Conybeare,  1912, in the Loeb Classical Library).

    Demetrius died around AD 90. He had a long life; certainly he could overcome the pitfalls with skill and the help of the goddess Fortuna.

  • Intellectuals and power (I): Diogenes the Cynic (versus) against Alexander the Great

    When the Greeks, applying reason, they began to wonder what is there ?, why they are?, to what do serve the real things, they gave beginning to Philosophy.

    They came then all sorts of ideas and theories about the nature and the man himself and various schools, which are often identified by the place where they met and  their teachers taught their doctrines : Academics because Plato taught in the land that was property of certain  Academos (see  https://www.antiquitatem.com/en/platonic-academy-lyceum-tusculanea ), Peripatetics (περιπατητικοί) from περι, peri, around, and πατειν, patein, to walk, because Aristotle taught walking in a garden near the temple of ,Apollo Licius, ie the Lyceum; Stoics from Στωϊκός, Stoikos because Zeno preached his own disciples in the "Poikile stoa" Ποικίλη Στοά, or Painted Porch.

    There are some philosophers, the Cynics, the dogs, from κύων kyon 'dog', who may also receive the name from the place where he taught the first founder, Antisthenes, in the gym called Cinosargos, Kyon-Argos, agile dog, although certainly the name also came given by the peculiarities of their  anti ideas, which  failed to be translated into an elaborate theory, but consisted  of simple maxims that define life in society freely and without prejudice. Like dogs, the cynics live in society, but on their own, without participating in social conventions, with their life according to the animal nature, reluctant to join the group, etc.  resenting  barking, grateful to whom gives anything, etc.

    When Alexander asked Diogenes of Sinope, the most famous of the cynics, whom I dedicate this article, why he was called "dog" "cynic",  another Diognes, now Laertius tells us  in his "Lives and opinions of the philosophers, VI, 60:

    Alexander once came and stood opposite him and said, " I am Alexander the great king." " And I," said he, " am Diogenes the Cynic." Being asked what he had done to be called a hound, he said, " I fawn on those who give me anything, I yelp at those who refuse, and I set my teeth in rascals." (Translation by R.D. Hicks, M.A.  London: William Heinemann, New York:Putnam’s son)

    Then the king sent a bowl full of bones, and as it is told in the Gnomologium Vaticanum (E Codice Vatican Graeco 743), n.96 (it also is told in the Florilegium  Monacense, 155 and in Eustathius to Homer, Odyssey VI 148)

    King Alexander at once fill a tray of bones and sent to Diogenes the Cynic. And this, receiving it,  said: "The food is cynic, but the gift is not royal."

    The Cynics have been mistreated by history, since ancient times, no doubt because they are anti-system and represent the anarchist thinking, the libertarian thought of antiquity: no gods, no rulers, no laws, no society, no conventions. The study about them in some detail deserves to be dealt further.

    Now at this time I want to comment on the special relationship that  Diogenes had with  the most powerful person in the moment, Alexander, called the Great, Μέγας Αλέξανδρος on Greek. That long and strange relationship produced some of the most famous anecdotes in antiquity and since then repeated infinitely.

    Diogenes was a kind of anarchist, because he does not admit another power than his own on himself and was also a libertarian because the freedom was for him the greatest value. According to Diogenes Laertius in his "Life and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers" in Book VI, 69:

    Being asked what was the most beautiful thing in the world, he replied: “Freedom of speech• (Translation by R.D. Hicks, M.A)

    He stress  his yearning for freedom in VI,71;

    and asserting that the manner of life he lived was the same as that of Heracles when he preferred liberty to everything. (Translation by R.D. Hicks, M.A.) 

    Diogenes,  like jesters who have often accompanied and served as a counterpoint to absolutist and tyrannical character, is allowed to tell the great Alexander what no mortal would dare say; and Alexander permits him all that he  would not allow anyone  who should contradict him, (Callisthenes,nephew of Aristotle,  Macedonian expedition partner, had worse treatment).

    And he let him so much  that according with that  Diogenes Laertius recounts in Book VI, 32

    Alexander is reported to have said, “Had I not been Alexander, I should have liked to be Diogenes” (Translation by R.D. Hicks, M.A)

    Diogenes represents irreverence, rebelliousness, impertinence, insolence to power. Alexander  is the power that comes from the gods, according to many theorists (actually all power is or claims to be divine); further, Alexander himself is a god or at least a demigod before whom his subjects have to kneel waiting for his kiss of recognition. See  https://www.antiquitatem.com/en/proskynesis-bow-monarchy-persians

    I will relate some anecdotes that marked his free spirit and self-possessed.

    Diogene Laertius, book VI, 45

    When  some one was extolling the good fortune of Callisthenes san saying what splendour he shared in the suite of Alexander, “Not so,” said Diogenes, “but rather ill fortune; for he breakfasts and dines when Alexander think fit.”  (Translation by R.D. Hicks, M.A)

    Interestingly this intimate of Alexander, Callisthenes, nephew of his teacher Aristotle, was then caged to death accused of attempted of one of the several sedition  that the powerful Alexander  suffered.

    Epictetus tells us in his Discourses III, 22,92 how Alexander, taking advantage Diogenes was half asleep, cited the verse 24 of song II of the Iliad, and Diogenes, really half asleep, he dared to complete it to Alexander.

    Epictetus, Discourses, III, 22,92:

    On another occasion in reply to Alexander, who stood by him when he was sleeping, and quoted Homer's line (Iliad, II. 24)
    A man a councillor should not sleep all night,
    he answered, when he was half asleep,
    The people's guardian and so full of cares
    .
    (Translated by George Long. 1877)

    And another quote full of irony of the same Diogenes Laertius, Book VI, 68:

    When Alexander stood opposite him and asked.”Are you not afraid of me?” “Whay, what are you?” said he, “a good thing or a bad?” Upon Alexander replying “A good thing”. “Who the”, said Diogenes, “is afraid of the good?”  (Translation by R.D. Hicks, M.A)

    The most famous anecdote, that also served to underline the importance of Diogenes, is the encounter between Diogenes and Alexander, who is once again the topic of the meeting between the king and the wise, between the intellectual and the ruler.

    Diogenes Laertius tells us it and Cicero and Plutarch too, whose texts I will reproduce; and Arrianus in his Anabasis of Alexander VII, 2,1-2 and Valerius Maximus in Memorabile Deeds and Sayings, IV.3. ext.4 and St. John Chrysostom in Babilas against Julian and Gentiles, 8 and Pseudo-Eudocia (wife of Emperor Theodosius II in the V century), Violarium,332.24 to 241.3). The story was actually commonplace in antiquity.

    Diogenes Laertius, Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers: VI, 38:

    When he was sunning himself in the Craneum, Alexander came and stood over him and said, Ask of me any boon you like.” To which he replied, “Stand out of my light.”. (Translation by R.D. Hicks, M.A)

    Note : The “Craneum” l was a gym in Corinth,where Diogenes taught their teachings.

    Cicero, Tusculans Disputations, V,32 (92):

    But Diogenes took a greater liberty, like a Cynic, when Alexander asked him if he wanted anything: “Jus at present.” Said he, “I wish that you would stand a Little aout of the line between me and the sun,” for Alexander was hindering him from sunning himself. And indeed this very man used to maintain how much he surpassed the Persian king,in his manner of life and fortune; for that he himself  was in want of nothing, while the other never had enough; aqnd that he had no inclination for those pleasures of which the other could never get enough to satisfy himself: and that the other could never obtain his. (Translations by C.D. Yonge, B.A. London 1872)

    At vero Diogenes liberius, ut Cynicus, Alexandro roganti ut diceret, si quid opus esset: ‘Nunc quidem paullulum, inquit, a sole. Officerat videlicet apricanti. Et hic quidem disputare solebat quanto regem Persarum vita fortunaque superaret: sibi nihil deesse, illi nihil satis umquam fore: se eius voluptates non desiderare, quibus numquam stiari ille posset, suas eum conseui nullo modo posse.

    Plutarch, in an interesting text in which he highlights the servile attitude of many philosophers, that is, the intellectuals of the time, compared to that of Diogenes, the insolent, the libertarian, the master of his own life, tells us in Life of Alexander , XIV:

    And now a general assembly of the Greeks was held at the Isthmus,  where a vote was passed to make an expedition against Persia with Alexander, and he was proclaimed their leader. Thereupon many statesmen and philosophers came to him with their congratulations, and he expected that Diogenes of Sinope also, who was tarrying in Corinth, would do likewise.

    But since that philosopher took not the slightest notice of Alexander, and continued to enjoy his leisure in the suburb Craneion, Alexander went in person to see him; and he found him lying in the sun. Diogenes raised himself up a little when he saw so many persons coming towards him, and fixed his eyes upon Alexander. And when that monarch addressed him with greetings, and asked if he wanted anything, ‘Yes,’ said Diogenes, ‘stand a little out of my sun.’ It is said that Alexander was so struck by this, and admired so much the haughtiness and grandeur of the man who had nothing but scorn for him, that he said to his followers, who were laughing and jesting about the philosopher as they went away, ‘But verily, if I were not Alexander, I would be Diogenes.’ (Translation by Bernadotte Perrin. Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press. London. William Heinemann Ltd. 1919)

    We may ask  if the story was real. Probably, like many others that have been told from  Diogenes, they are not real but invented. It is rather unlikely that the meeting, if there was, there is no historical basis for affirming, it occurs according these terms, but it does not diminish its ability to settle fame and define proposals for social life that  the philosopher made.

    This story became a topos, a commonplace in ancient literature, often cited. As I said above, it is an example of the classic theme of the meeting of the king and the wise, the intellectual and the powerful. In fact in the life of Alexander,  a similar meeting with the gymnosophists of Hindus (the word means “naked sophists”) occurs;  such as Plutarch says in Alexander LXIV they are asked about a number of issues because they  are reputed to be very sharp in their responses. Certainly they respond with wit and skill and we can  say in current slang that they don’t want to know anything from the mighty Alexander because they need nothing from him.

    Alexander became a myth in antiquity and he continued well into the Middle Ages and even today his name and his deeds have great success.

    We have the proof of how some anecdotes were awarded to him in his relationship with Diogenes analyzing another example that many books and hundreds of articles now repeated in the network (www). They say that also the told  meeting, there was another little later:

    On another occasion, Alexander surprised Diogenes seeing a lot of stacked bones. Alexander asked: What are you looking for?  Diogenes replied: "I seek the bones of your father, but I can not find them because I do not see the difference between the bones of your father and they of my slave."

    In most cases the appointment appears without any source, even the most daring ascribe it to Plutarch, but this story does not appear, as far as I can ascertain, in the ancient world; it is a much more recently invented quote and awarded to the famous Diogenes  because this appointment does not detract from others that are  counted about him.

    Only it appears something similar in Lucian of Samosata, in his Menippus dialogue, although the action  is situated in the underworld.

    Although it may make a long digression, I offer the text of Lucian, always interesting and current,  as all works of satirical Lucian of Samosata; in this case he uses the analogy of  the “the Great Theater of the World”; ; we can remember the end of August, when he asked if he has played well the farce of life ? See https://www.antiquitatem.com/en/death-of-augustus-the-stage-of-the-life.

    Lucian, Menippus or the descent into Hade, 15 et ff.

    After making our way past these people also, we entered the Acherusian Plain, where we found the demigods and the fair women and the whole crowd of the dead, living by nations and by clans, some of them ancient and mouldy, and, as Homer says, "impalpable," while others were still well preserved and substantial, particularly the Egyptians, thanks to the durability of their embalming process. It was not at all easy, though, to tell them apart, for all, without exception, become precisely alike when their bones are bare. However, with some difficulty and by dint of long study we made them out. But they were lying one atop of another, ill-defined, unidentified, retaining no longer any trace of earthly beauty. So, with many skeletons lying together, all alike staring horridly and vacuously and baring
    their teeth, I questioned myself how I could distinguish Thersites from handsome Nireus, or the mendicant Irus from the King of the Phaeacians, or the cook Pyrrhias from Agamemnon ; for none of their former means of identification abode with them, but their bones were all alike, undefined, unlabelled, and unable ever again to be distinguished by anyone.

    So as I looked at them it seemed to me that human life is like a long pageant, and that all its trappings are supplied and distributed by Fortune, who arrays the participants in various costumes of many colours. Taking one person, it may be, she attires him royally, placing a tiara upon his head, giving him body-guards, and encircling his brow with the diadem ; but upon another she puts the costume of a slave. Again, she makes up one person so that he is handsome, but causes another to be ugly and ridiculous. I suppose that the show must
    needs be diversified. And often, in the very middle of the pageant, she exchanges the costumes of several players ; instead of allowing them to finish the pageant in the parts that had been assigned to them, she re-apparels them, forcing Croesus to assume the dress of a slave and a captive, and shifting Maeandrius, who formerly paraded among the servants, into the imperial habit of Polycrates. For a brief space she lets them use their costumes, but when the time of the pageant is over, each gives back the properties and lays off the costume along with his body, becoming what he was before his birth, no different from his neighbour. Some, however, are so ungrateful that when Fortune appears to them and asks her trappings back, they are vexed and indignant, as if they were being robbed of their own property, instead of giving back what they had borrowed for a little time.

    I suppose you have often seen these stage-folk who act in tragedies, and according to the demands of the plays become at one moment Creons, and again Priams or Agamemnons ; the very one, it may be, who a short time ago assumed with great dignity the part of Cecrops or of Erectheus soon appears as a servant at the bidding of the poet. And when at length the play comes to an end, each of them strips off his gold-bespangled robe, lays aside his mask, steps out of his buskins, and goes about in poverty and humility, no longer styled Agamemnon, son of Atreus, or Creon, son of Menoeceus, but Polus, son of Charicles, of Sunium, or Satyrus, son of Theogiton, of Marathon.  That is what human affairs are like, it seemed to me as I looked. (Translation by A. M. Harmon) 

    Well, the story served later Dio Chrysostom to recreate the meeting, satirize the power and the powerful and present their ideas about the divine origin of power and legitimacy of its exercise. In a future article I will offer this interesting text.

    Well, tradition, now supported by Diogenes Laertius also wanted to note another meeting, the final encounter between Alexander and Diogenes: both died on the same day of the year 323 BC, Alexander at age 33 in Babylon, result of the excesses, living on the edge of ambitious military and probably of malaria in those lands; Diogenes died at Corinth at 86 years of life more in keeping with the animal nature of man. But that is impossible.

    Diogenes Laertius,  VI, 76-79

    Diogenes is said to have been nearly ninety years old when he died. Regarding his death there are several different accounts. One is that he was seized with colic after eating an octopus raw and so met his end. Another is that he died voluntarily by holding his breath. This account was followed by Cercidas of Megalopolis (or of Crete), who in his meliambics writes thus :

    Not so he who aforetime was a citizen of Sinope,

    That famous one who carried a staff, doubled his cloak,

         and lived in the open air.

    But he soared aloft with his lip tightly pressed against

         his teeth

    And holding his breath withal. For in truth he was rightly
         named

    Diogenes, a true-born son of Zeus, a hound of heaven.


    Another version is that, while trying to divide an octopus amongst the dogs, he was so severely bitten on the sinew of the foot that it caused his death.His friends, however, according to Antisthenes in his Successions of Philosophers, conjectured that it was due to the retention of his breath. For he happened to be living in the Craneum, the gymnasium in front of Corinth. When his friends came according to custom and found him wrapped up in his cloak, they thought that he must be asleep, although he was by no means of a drowsy or somnolent habit.
    They therefore drew aside his cloak and found that he was dead. This they supposed to have been his deliberate act in order to escape thenceforward from life.

    Hence, it is said, arose a quarrel among his disciples as to who should bury him : nay, they even came to blows ; but, when their fathers and men of influence arrived, under their direction he was buried beside the gate leading to the Isthmus. Over his grave they set up a pillar and a dog in Parian marble upon it. Subsequently his fellow-citizens honoured him with bronze statues, on which these verses were inscribed :

       Time makes even bronze grow old : but thy glory,
       Diogenes, all eternity will never destroy. Since thou alone
       didst point out to mortals the lesson of self-sufficingness       
       and the easiest path of life.

    We too have written on him in the proceleusmatic metre :

        A.Diogenes, come tell me what fate took you to the world
    below ?

        D. A dog's savage tooth.

    But some say that when dying he left instructions that they should throw him out unburied, that every wild beast might feed on him, or thrust him into a ditch and sprinkle a little dust over him. But according to others his instructions were that they should throw him into the Ilissus, in order that he might be useful to his brethren.

    Demetrius in his work “On Men of the Same Name” asserts that on the same day on which Alexander died in Babylon Diogenes died in Corinth. He was an old man in the 113th Olympiad.

    If as Laertius tells us, he died because he ate  a raw octopus that his stomach could not digest, he died of his rejection until the end of civilized life and their desire to live  naturally and animalistically as possible: what greater rejection of civilization may be than to renounce to the civilizing fire, stole by Prometheus  from the gods to men, so that they, among other things, could cook food and not must  to eat only raw as other animals?

  • Intellectuals against the power (II)

    The powerful possessors of force and violence, have generally distrusted of thinkers, but they are forced to live with them. The issue of conflicting meet of the king and the sage is a worldwide topic.https://www.antiquitatem.com/en/diogenes-alexander-intellectual-power Plato envisioned a republic in which the rulers were philosophers, scholars, intellectuals, constituted in a caste with special education. Plato’s attempt to make reality his theory in Sicily with Dionysus the Elder and then with his son was a complete failure. Probably the king can not become a philosopher, because he would ask for his own condition, his own status as king, or the philosopher cannot to be king, because in the exercise of power he would cease to be a philosopher. Consequently it seems they are condemned to coexist.

    The History teaches us how in this encounter between strength and intelligence, on intellectual debate morally always the intelligence overcomes, but in practice the force is always imposed. To the sage, the intellectual, there are  three options: to bend slavishly to power (it is done by  the most),  to critic openly  the power (it is done by a few) and to go away prudently frompower (I do not dare to venture a proportion, but they are not few).

    A quote from Stobaeus referring an anecdote of Antisthenes perfectly describes this cynical attitude. Stobaeus  tells us that when Antisthenes was asked how it is necessary to be involved in public affairs and in the affairs of the city, he responded:

    Antisthenes, asked how one should approximate to the political affairs, he said as  to the fire, nor to close for  not to burn nor too far away for not to freeze. (Stobaeus, Florilegium, XLV, 28).

    Stobaeus is a Greek author who writes in Greek, but his work was translated into Latin in Humanism. Thus in the Latin version by Conrad  Gessner  (1516-1565), edited by Christoph Froschoverus, 1544, in Switzerland, it is said in chapter XLIII, page 313 (in the edition of Thomas Gaisford it corresponds to Title XLV):

    Antisthenes interrogatus quomodo ad rempublicam accedendum sit, respondit: ut ad ignem, neque nimis prope ne uraris, neque longius ne frigeas.

    It seems, then, that the attitude against the  power belongs to the philosopher, because if they decide to live in the shadow of power, soon they will abandon their critical and free spirit. This is certainly the attitude of the "cynic philosopher".

    Antisthenes, the founder of the school and teacher of Diogenes, according to Diogenes Laertius, wrote a book about Aspasia, the wife of Pericles and another one on Alcibiades, in which certainly he criticizes them their shortcomings.

    It is confirmed by Athenaeus, in his "Deipnosophistae". Speaking about slanderous character of philosophers, Antisthenes says, criticizing the immoral life of Alcibiades, in V, 220 CDE:

    Antisthenes, V, 63:

    But Antisthnes, in the second of his treatises called Cyrus, abusing Alcibiades, says that he is a breaker of the laws, both with respect to women and with respect to every other part of his conduct in life; for he says that he had intrigued* with a mother, and daughter, and sister, after the fashion of the Persians.

    *Note: This is a translation of the time itself that prevents sexual connotation of the original Greek; it actually says "lie down" "go to bed with"

    And later, in the same appointment, referring to Pericles

    … and his Aspasia attacks Xantthippus and Paralus, the sons of Pericles. For, as for one of them,he says that he is a companion of Archestratus, who is no better than a frequenter of houses of the worst possible fame; and the other he calls an acquaintance and intimate friend of Euphemus, who abuse every one he met with vulgar and ill-mannered abuse.

    And to confirm this slanderer character of the philosophers, Athenaeus continues in the same text saying about Antisthenes:

    And nicknaming Plato Satho, in a witless and vulgar manner, he published a dialogue against him, to which he gave the same name as its title. For these men believe that there is no such thing as an honest counsellor, or a conscientious general, or a respectable sophist, or a poet worth listening to, or a reasonable people: but Socrates…(Translated by C.C. Yonge, B.A. London: Henry G.Bohn. MDCCCLIV)

    Note: To understand the vileness in the change of the name Plato it is necessary to know that the Greek name Sathon, with that  the nurse used to call to children,  derives from Sathe, one of the terms for the penis.

    So now the first of the cynics was critical of the powerful of his time, and marked the way forward for the rest of the cynics. Diogenes far surpassed the teacher in acrimony with the contempt to powerful.

    Antístenes preferred the executioner who kills the criminal than tyrant  who kills innocent, according to Stobaeus, who says in Florilegium, M.49.47 on Gaisfer edition, pag. 359:

    Antisthenes, the philosopher, preferred in mercy the executioners than tyrants; to a person who asked him why he said that, he replied: because the executioner kills unrighteous men, but the tyrant also kills innocent.

    In  Latin version, it corresponds to Title XLVII, entitled De tyrannidis uituperio, and it says on page  343 of this translation:

    Antithenes philosophus carnifices tyrannis in pietate praeferebat, cuius causam interroganti cuidam respondit: a carnifice quidem homines iniusti interimuntur; a tyranno autem etiam insontes.

    Antisthenes, harshly criticizing the insatiable craving for riches, said as it  was quoted by Stobaeus,  t. X, 12, (Edit. Thomas Gaisford., P. 294;quoted in turn by Chappuis, Antisthenes, page, 98.)

    Whoever loves money can not be a good person, not as king or in private life.

    In the cited Latin translation it is on Tit. VIII, and it says:

    Avarus nemo bonus, neque rex, neque liber esse potest

    It is the same attitude that Diogenes keeps, as Diogenes Laertius says in VI, 43

    Dyonysius the Stoic says that after Chaeronea he was seized and dragged off to Philip, and being asked who he was, replied,”A spy upon your insatiable greed”. For this he was admired and set free. (Translation by R.D. Hicks, M.A. London: William Heinemann.MCMXXV. The Loeb Classical Library)

    Antístenes despises those who impose their delirium to others and limit the freedom of individuals.

    This rebellious attitude is revealed in the story cited of the meetings between Diogenes and Alexander already mentioned.

    Incidentally, Alexander had Aristotle as master and teacher; he carried a copy of Homer's Iliad and he respected and not destroyed in Thebas the Pindar's house in recognition of his literary values;  but that did not stop him to act with great cruelty often .

    The different attitude of Diogenes and Plato to the powerful is perfectly drawn in this story that has Diogenes Laertius in VI, 58:

    Some authors affirm that the following also belongs to him: that Plato saw him washing lettuces, came up to him and quietly said to him,”Had you paid court to Dionysius, you wouldn’t  now be washing lettuces,” and that he with euqal calmness made answer, “if you had washed lettuces, you wouldn’t have paid court to Dionysius”. Translation by R.D. Hicks, M.A.)

    Another anecdote shows how unimpressed Diogenes was by Alexander and his actions, works at last, of  a "miserable" and graceless human; Laertius tells us in VI, 44:

    Alexander having on one occasion sent a letter to Antipater at Athens by a certain Athlios, Diogenes, who was present, said: “Graceless on of graceless sire to graceless wight by graceless squire.

    Note: the Greek word Athlios means “graceless”.

    Similarly Diogenes rejected the request to visit him that Craterus, general of Alexander the Great and one of his heirs at his death, did to him. Laertius tells us in VI, 57:

    When Craterus wanted him to come and visit him, “No”, he replied, “I would rather live on a few grains of salt at Athens than enjoy sumptuous fare at Craterus’s table.”

    This same Diogenes, as Laertius account  in VI, 50, when a tyrant asked him what bronze was best for a statue, replied:

    On being asked by a tyrant what bronze is best for a statue, he replied, “That of which Harmodius and Aristogiton were moulded.”

    Note: Harmodius and Aristogeiton, dead in 514 BC, were the ones who ended the tyrant Hipparchus of Athens and so they are known as the Tyrannicides. They were regarded as heroes and restorers of liberty. Therefore  a statue, built by Antenor, was erected  to them.

    Note: tyrannicide, from the Greek τύραννος / tyrannos, "tyrant" and -cido form Latin caedere,  "kill"

    Diogenes also loudly told  the tyrant Dionysius of Syracuse, dismissed and reduced to the status of ordinary citizen:

    Plutarch, Moralia,783D

    And at a later time, at Corinth, when Diogenes saw the son of Dionysius no longer a tyrant but a private citizen, he very aptly said, "How little you deserve your present fate, Dionysius! For you ought not to be living here with us in freedom and without fear, but you should pass your life to old age over yonder walled up in the royal palace, as your father did."  (Translated by Harold North Fowler. Loeb Classical Library 321. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1936.

    There is another  anecdote of Diogenes that seems to anticipate one of our current ills. The story tells that one day he saw on the streets of Athens  a thief who had stolen a vase property of treasure and was arrested by two guards. Diogenes said, according to Diogenes Laertius, Life of Diogenes, VI, 45

    Once he saw the officials of a templeleading away someone one who had stolen a bowl belonging to the treasurers, and said, “The great thieves are leading away the little thief.”

    The two guards are naturally representatives of institutionalized power. The Justice not only was not and is not the same for everyone, but the pursuit of petty criminal  seems to cover the permissiveness of major economic crimes. We are very frequently seeing  the impunity of those who sink large banking firms to be rescued or squander the public money.

    When on another occasion, Diogenes, asked what are the most ferocious animals, said, (according to Antonius and Maximus, in De  lucri cupiditate, 226.:

    "In the mountains bears and lions; officials in cities and sycophants. "

    Diogenes interrogatus, quaenam essent ferae pessimae, dixit: In montibus ursi et leones,in civitatibus vero publicani et sycophantae

    Note: the sycophants are the whistleblowers.

    Laertius  accounts it incomprehensibly because incomplete, in VI, 51. It should be know to understand some of the difficulties that the transmission of ancient texts has:
    ….
    Being asked what creature’s bite is the worst, he said,”Of those that are wild a sycophant’s; ot those that are tame a flatterer’s.”

    Also other cynics, as Crates, one of the most famous disciples of the "Dog", as Laertius  says (VI, 85), who  was  a couple with one of the few Greek women of whom we  know her name and deeds, Hipparchia, cynic philosopher also madly in love with him, also he despises the enormous power of Alexander who destroyed and built so many cities. Diogenes Laertius tells us in VI, 93:

    When Alexander inquired whether he would like his native city to be rebuilt, his answer was, Whay should it be? Perhaps another Alexander will destroy it again.”

    The task of the philosopher is the resistance, insurrection, rebellion, insubordination.

    In the previous article he commented, as I said, the disrespectful attitude and answer of the cynic philosopher Diogenes of Sinope. The philosophers "dogs", the Cynics, are in Antiquity  the prototype of thinker antisystem, anarchic and libertarian and therefore very critical to  the government.

    Diogenes is the most famous representative of this line of thought or school that fails to translate their ideas into works of systematic thought, but it is true that there are very few traces that remain of what they wrote.

    Well, in addition to Diogenes, there are many other examples of intellectuals who criticize the powerful and thus power, suffering the harsh consequences of the  punishment. Most of them were cynical but also there were stoic philosopher.

    The  attitude of cynic philosophers is direct confrontation "with loud voices" to  the powerful and citizens.

    The Stoics are more cautious. It may reflect this attitude a fragment of the Letter 103 of Seneca to Lucilius in that he are advises  to be wary of men, because they can do much harm to other men, and to take refuge in philosophy; but he does not hold  the office of philosophy arrogantly.

    Seneca, Letters to Lucilius, 103, 4:

    Make your retreat however as soon as possible into the courts of Philosophy. She will protect you in her bosom. In her sanctuary you will be safe at least much safer than at present. Men jostle one another, only when walking together and as to philosophy, pride not yourself thereon : many have suffered from their insolent and disdainful behaviour in this respect. Let it expel your own vices, and not upbraid those of other men. Nor be singularly averse to the manners and fashions of the public (d) ; nor so act as to seem to condemn every thing but what comes from yourself. A man may be wife without such pomp and shew as to raise jealousy and envy in others. (Published 1786)

    Quantum potes autem, in philosophiam recede: illa te sinu 1 suo proteget, in huius sacrario eris aut tutus aut tutior. Non arietant inter se nisi in eadem ambulantes via. 2 Ipsam autem philosophiam non debebis iactare; multis fuit periculi causa insolenter tractata et contumaciter.
    [5] Tibi vitia detrahat, non aliis exprobret. Non abhorreat a publicis moribus nec hoc agat, ut quicquid non facit, damnare videatur. Licet sapere sine pompa, sine invidia. Vale.

    Yet one of the social functions of philosophy is to be critical of the power and the powerful. Perhaps it maybe not with the passion with which Crates expressed, but not with passivity that makes philosophy today not only not a norm of life and behavior, but it  is down to pure theory and bookish study.

    Crates said in Diogenes Laertius, VI, 92:

    He used to say that we should study philosophy to the point of seeing in generals nothing but donkey-drivers. (Translated by Robert Drew Hicks)

    This suggests that we must consider the role of philosophy today …

    But, today philosophy plays a role in society? Not too long ago it was confined in school, reduced to the study of philosophy books unrelated to the life of the street? As Nietzsche said in Untimely Meditations, 3rd, 2, (Schopenhauer as Educator):

    The only method of criticising a philosophy that is possible and proves anything at all—namely to see whether one can live by it—has never been taught at the universities; only the criticism of words, and again words, is taught there. (translated by Adrian Collins)

    Nietzsche,Unzeitgemäße Betrachtungen (Schopenhauer als Erzieher)

    Die einzige Kritik einer Philosophie, die möglich ist und die auch etwas beweist, nämlich zu versuchen, ob man nach ihr leben könne, ist nie auf Universitäten gelehrt worden: sondern immer die Kritik der Worte über Worte.

    Moreover, we can even ask ourselves: Do they have a role in our society today "Cynic philosophers"? Are they not as necessary now as 2000 years ago?

  • All roads lead to Rome (Omnes viae Romam ducunt)

    Not today, but two thousand years ago certainly all roads led to Rome, which was the capital of a vast empire. More than 380 major roads or highways with more than 80,000 kms., allowed its legions, its officials, its citizens to go out and go easily to the capital, Rome. It is curious to note how the direction of all the roads marked to Rome as final destination, like rays or spokes of a huge circle. They range from the Pillars of Hercules in Hispania or from the “Hadrian’s Wall” in Scotland to the Euphrates in Mesopotamia, from northern Germany to the North African desert. Hence the saying that all roads lead to Rome.

    These 380 main roads, (some scholars cite perhaps more accurately 372, which are relating by the Itinerarium Antonini, about later I will speak, 34 of them related to Hispania), which used to be called with the name of its promoter, were converging into each other up to the capital, Rome; nineteen enter into city: Salaria and Nomentana that came together  within the Aurelian walls; Tiburtina, which joined the Collatina; the Praenestina and Labicana which joined other two; Latina; Appia; Sacra; Ardeatina which joined the Ostiensis coming from port; Septizonium; Portuensis; Aurelia which joined the Portuensis;and  Flaminia.

    maps of the ancient world in Hadrian's time
    General map in Adriano’s time (125)
    all roads lead to Rome
    All roads lead to Rome

    Note: The roads also are called on Spanish “calzadas”, with a term of Vulgar Latin *calciāta, meaning paved road; “Calciata” derives from calx, cis, meaning limestone (in Spanish there are also calima, limestone, calcáreo, cálcico, calcium, and calcification, calcify, calcining, calculus and calculation from Latin “calculus”, small stone used for counting.. (see https://www.antiquitatem.com/en/roman-calculation-number-months-calculus  )

    The tracks are also called “viae stratae “,  roads built with superimposed layers of different types of stone and gravel, which have made then eternal. Precisely  from this name “stratae” derives the Italian “strada“, English street, German Straße, Dutch straat, Galician and Portuguese estrada.

    A curiosity: the Spanish word “carretera”  is derived from  “carreta”, carriage, which perhaps is not Latin but originally a Celtic word,car“. This brings us to the consideration of the importance of the “Celtic substrate” in many of the territories controlled by Rome. Moreover, the “Celtic” is closely related to the Latin because both are Indo-European languages. Precisely the Indo-European root word could be “* kers”, which also derived or is related to currere (run), cursus, course, …

    Map of the Roman roads in Spain
    Map of the Roman roads in Spain

    Note: I will say today, as a curiosity, that one of the most famous in Spain, used or maintained even today in many places, is known as “Via de la Plata“, which goes from  Mérida (Augusta Emerita) to Astorga (Asturica Augusta ), whose name has nothing to do with the mineral so prized in the ancient world, the Latin  “Argentum“, Spanish “plata”,  English silver), a name that surely will remind the reader some derivatives (silver-plated,  argentiferous...). The name “via de la Plata” derives from the Arabic name in the Andalusian era “via al-Balat,” paved road.

    Well, in this huge network the routes were marked with landmarks or cairns marking distances and remembering the authors or promoters of the road for their  greater honor and glory. These milestones  were called “milliariums ” because they  were placed every  thousand steps (one mile equals approximately 1481 meters), as today they are placed kilometers stones every thousand meters when we  apply the metric system.

    Roman milliariums in the town of Carcaboso (Cáceres, Spain)
    Roman milliariums in the town of Carcaboso (Cáceres, Spain)

    Milliariums of city of  Carcaboso, (Cáceres, Spain)

    Because  the roads or highways depart from or arrive to Rome like the spokes of a huge circle, it was there placed the milestone “0” as a focal point, like  now it exists in the Puerta del Sol in Madrid (Spain) the famous Kilometer “0”, from where all the radial roads go to the corners of Spain.

    It is curious to note how centralized states had in antiquity, as today have, a radial arrangement and structure: to go from one city to another it is necessary  to go through the center, where all paths converge.

    That Roman milestone (milliarium) was not really named “0” (zero), because the Romans did not handle zero, but to emphasize the central importance they called it milliarium aureum, gold milestone, because it was made of gold-plated bronze, and it was placed in the Forum, together the Temple of Saturn, by Augustus in 20 BC. It should have 3.45 meters high and the column 1.15 diameter.

    Distances are measured on  reference to it. The inscription on that column is not known, perhaps there were only the emperor Augustus name or the names of the major cities of the Empire and the distances, as numerous authors assume with no sufficient basis ,influenced by current customs, or perhaps there were the names of the keepers of the road network, ther “curatores viarum”.

    Cassius Dio remembers how Augustus was named  “curator viarum” and he ordered to erect the milliarium aureum, coinciding with the celebration of his triumph over the Parthians:

    Cassius Dio, 54,8,4

    Now all this was done later in commemoration of the event; but at the time of which we are speaking he was chosen commissioner of all the highways in the neighbourhood of Rome, and in this capacity set up the golden mile-stone, as it was called, and appointed men from the number of the ex-praetors, each with two lictors, to attend to the actual construction of the roads. (translated by Earnest Cary)

    The phrase “All roads lead to Rome” perhaps was created at the time where this column, this milestone was erected.

    We have also  quotes of Plutarch, Galba 24.4; Pliny, Naturalis Historia 3.66; Tacitus, Historiae 1.27; Suetonius, Otho 6.2.

    Plutarch also makes a reference to the milestone as the end point of all Roman roads at  the time that Otto is about to be named emperor to replace Galba:

    Plutarch, Galba 24.4

    Thus Otho had even been discovered by the finger of the god; being there just behind Galba, bearing all that was said, and seeing what was pointed out to them by Umbricius. His countenance changed to every colour in his fear, and he was betraying no small discomposure, when Onomastus, his freedman, came up and acquainted him that the master builders had come, and were waiting for him at home. Now that was the signal for Otho to meet the soldiers. Pretending then that he had purchased an old house, and was going to show the defects to those that had sold it to him, he departed; and passing through what is called Tiberius’s house, he went on into the forum, near the spot where a golden pillar stands, at which all the several roads through Italy terminate. (Translated by John Dryden)

    Tacitus on Stories 1.27 and Suetonius on live of Otto, 6,  tell us the same episode and also they refer to the golden milestone.

    Also Pliny the Elder, who offers extensive information on routes and cities, makes an interesting reference on a text which increases the size and importance of Rome city unparalleled in the world.

    Pliny, Naturalis Historia, III, 66-67

    Romulus left the city of Rome, if we are to believe those who state the very greatest number, having three gates and no more. When the Vespasians were emperors and censors, in the year from its building 826, the circumference of the walls which surrounded it was thirteen miles and two-fifths. Surrounding as it does the Seven Hills, the city is divided into fourteen districts, with 265 cross-roads under the guardianship of the Lares. If a straight line is drawn from the mile-column placed at the entrance of the Forum, to each of the gates, which are at present thirty-seven in number (taking care to count only once the twelve double gates, and to omit the seven old ones, which no longer exist), the result will be [taking them altogether], a straight line of twenty miles and 765 paces. But if we draw a straight line from the same mile-column to the very last of the houses, including therein the Prætorian encampment, and follow throughout the line of all the streets, the result will then be something more than seventy miles. Add to these calculations the height of the houses, and then a person may form a fair idea of this city, and will certainly be obliged to admit that there is not a place throughout the whole world that for size can be compared to it.  (John Bostock, M.D., F.R.S., H.T. Riley, Esq., B.A., Ed)

    Plin. Nat. 3.30  (o 3.66-67)

    Urbem tris portas habentem Romulus reliquit aut, ut plurimas tradentibus credamus, IIII. moenia eius collegere ambitu imperatoribus censoribusque Vespasianis anno conditae DCCCXXVI m. p. XIII:CC, conplexa montes septem. ipsa dividitur in regiones XIIII, compita Larum CCLXV, eiusdem spatium mensura currente a miliario in capite Romani fori statuto ad singulas portas, quae sunt hodie numero XXXVII, ita ut XII portae semel numerentur praetereantur ex veteribus VII, quae esse desierunt, efficit passuum per directum XX:M:DCCLXV. ad extrema vero tectorum cum castris praetoriis ab eodem miliario per vicos omnium viarum mensura colligit paulo amplius LX p. quod si quis altitudinem tectorum addat, dignam profecto aestimationem concipiat fateaturque nullius urbis magnitudinem in toto orbe potuisse ei comparari.

    We have lots of information on the Roman roads and its design, not only in texts but also as the result of archaeological studies. There are two documents which I will try another time, which are particularly important: the Itinerarium Antonini, Itinerary of Antoninus and Tabula Peuntingeriana.

    The Itinerarium Provinciarum Antonini Augusti is a book or road guide  made in the early third century of Christ (217) in which the military roads of the time of Caracalla were related, giving account of the cities and mansions , similar to our service areas, and distances between them. The current document is based on a copy of the fourth century and modern first published in 1521.

    The second document, the Tabula Peutingeriana, is a kind of map or schema  or plan picture that includes the main roads, indicating the cities and stops each from India to Britain. Unfortunately it is missed the part referring to Spain, which must be supplemented with the Itinerarium Antonini. A copy of the twelfth century of a document from IV or V century is conserved, although it could be made earlier. The current document is kept in Vienna Nationalbibliotek,  and  covers an area of 6.8 meters long by 33 cm. wide divided into 12 sheets. It is named from Konrad Peutinger,  the German humanist who discovered it.

    image of the Tabula Peutingeriana
    Segments V and VI of the Tabula Peutingeriana where Italy is represented, with the capital Rome, between the Adriatic Sea and the Mediterranean.

    The photograph shows the V and VI segments where of the Tabula Peutingeriana, where it  is represented Italy with the capital Rome, between the Adriatic and the Mediterranean Sea.

    Other authors, Pliny the Elder and Strabo, give us lots of information about roads and cities through which they pass.

    So the sentence “all roads lead to Rome” would have at that time a real and geographical sense. We can assume, then, that the inhabitants of the Empire, from Mesopotamia to Britain, from Germany to the African desert, would pronounce often in Latin the phrase “omnes viae ducunt Romam” as today is still done in all Western languages since its appearance.

    I said that “we can assume” because it is not witnessed the Latin phrase quoted in any document of ancient times. But the assumption is reasonable if Roma appealed to citizens around the world and the “maps” of the time have Rome as a point of departure and to arrival and it is  noted the central focus whit all Roman greatness  with the famous golden milestone (milliarium aureum).

    According to our knowledge today, the sentence is written  first time in the Middle Ages, about  the year 1175, on a text by Alain de Lille, (Alanus ab Insulis in Latin), (c 1128 -. 1202/1203). Alain de Lille wrote numerous works, the most famous of moral content. He wrote the entitled Liber  Parabolarum, Book of parables. On Chapter V is where the aforementioned phrase is,  not exactly as I have presented it, but as Mille viae ducunt homines per saecula Romam (A thousand roads lead men forever to Rome).

    Note: Note the acuity of Alain de Lille for translate his name into Latin: it is evident that Alanus comes from Alain, but in the case of the name “de Lille”  he makes a curious phonetic play: as “Lille“, the name of the French town in north Frances, sounds in French  like “de l’île, “the island, he translated it into Latin as” ab Insulis “,” from the Islands “.

    Alain de Lille (Alanus ab insulis) entitled one of his “moralizing fables” in  chapter V:

    Mille viae ducunt hominem per saecula Romam

    A thousand roads lead men forever to Rome.

    The title appears in the print edition of Leipzig 1499 whose photograph I offer; so it was not done in previous editions as one of Cologne 1497. I do not know how it appears in the oldest manuscripts. But in any case, he uses the above expression and a similar comment or explanation in his parable multae viae ducunt hominem romam (Many roads lead man to Rome) and also mille viae ducunt rhomines romam  per saecula (a thousand roads lead men forever  to Rome). (Mille viae ducunt homines Romam per saecula: qui volunt quaerere toto corde  dominum: via est directa quae …)

    I present the complete parable, in which the sentence has a figurative sense, of the thousands it may have and which is still used in any current context.

    A thousand roads lead men forever  to Rome
    For those who want to seek the Lord with all your heart
    There is a path that leads directly over to the top of the mountains
    with its slopes full of brambles and thorns.
    And also a footpath that rough stone makes rough
    and scrapes every day the soles of the feet.
    There is also a path across  the sea, a path across the wilderness,
    across  deep valleys, between rocks, across hard places for  feet.
    Across forests and hidden places, across places which fearsome beasts walk,
    among thorns and thistles,  across muddy places.

    Mille viae ducunt hominem per saecula Romam
    Qui dominum toto quaerere corde volunt
    Est via quae ducit montes directa per altos
    Vepribus et spinis arduitate gravis
    Est quoque nonnullus callis. quem calculus asper
    Asperat. et plantas quotidianas arat
    Est via per pontum. via per deserta. per imas
    Valles. per scopulos. per loca dura pedi
    Per nemus et latebras. per lustra timenda ferarum
    Per spinas tribulos. per luculenta vaga

    scanned image by Munich Digitization Center
    scanned image by Munich Digitization Center

    Scanned by  Münchener Digitalisierungszentrum

    The figurative sense is obvious: there are many roads leading to the Lord, to Paradise, for people who seek him with all your heart, similar than there were many roads which lead to Rome. That is, you can reach a certain purpose in many ways, different paths can take one to the same goal

    On English he is Geoffrey Chaucer who uses the proverb first time in his Astrolabe of 1391, where the proverb appears as “right as diverse pathes leden diverse folk the righte way to Rome”.

    The Swiss germanist Samuel Singer includes the sentence in his Thesaurus Proverbiorum Medii Aevi: Lexikon der Sprichwörter des Romanisch-Germanischer Mittelalters in the word Rom.

    Another time day I will talk about building  and factory of roads, meanwhile I offer a curious link to a curious page that provides information about the distance from any point of empire to Rome by the Roman roads of Tabula Peutingeriana and Itinerarium Antonini: http://http://www.omnesviae.org/.

  • For a healthy and balanced diet

    Approximately 800 million people worldwide have insufficient food, that is, one in nine. A few million, mainly in Europe and North America, live in abundance and the richest of them enjoy a luxury food and waste which it is nothing but a big scandal. Here some cooks enjoy enormous fame and consideration, the restaurants are qualified and distinguished not only by the quality of their food but by the novelty of the offered dishes. Specialized guides qualified and distinguished them with the famous symbols: stars, forks, etc. Something similar happened in affluent Rome (https://www.antiquitatem.com/en/annona-apicius-panem-circenses-petronius) , in which there are thousands of hungry people with a few greedy and gourmand without limit. Of them the most famous is Marcus Gavius Apicius, who lived in the first century and was the author of a famous cookbook titled “De re coquinaria”, “Cookbook”, about I will say something another time.

    The Stoic and moralist philosopher Seneca, (4 BC -65 d C), criticizes in a letter to his friend Lucilius the scandalous spending that some citizens do in their feasts and the sophistication of a kitchen that transforms food until beyond recognition.

    This treatment seems me similar to the famous present food dishes of deconstructed cooking where things are not what they seem.

    Seneca also criticizes the combination of dishes and foods and flavors in striking conflicting jumble and complexity which can not cause but more rare and each day  more complex diseases.

    It resembles me also the continuous information and diet plans, conflicting with each other, whit which  we are daily beaten by eager of profit companies: one day the qualities of a particular food are praised and  later another day they are reviled ; some are directly demonized and banned, even though man has consumed them since his origins.

    It is striking in this respect the recent recommendation  to don’t consume or to limit the intake of meat prepared by man. Curiously, there is a movement of protest what they call the "Paleolithic diet" consisting of eating raw meat, rejecting one of the greatest inventions of man, the fire, and knowing that our Paleolithic ancestors eat the carrion or meat of dead animals for a long time,  and the don’t eat hunted meat.

    Anyway, once again I find that what seemed very modern, it is as old at least than  the Greco-Roman world.

    Otherwise it should been known that the issue of "feeding" is incidental in  the letter, which purports to show his friend the failure of theoretical philosophy. So I advise you, for those who want it, a complete reading of the letter number 95.

    Seneca, Letters to Lucilius, 95, 14 et seq.
    ….
    Undoubtedly, as you say, that ancient wisdom was in the beginning rude and Angle, no less than other arts, that in process of time grew more refined and polished. But there was no need of such choice remedies as are now presented : wickedness was not grown' to such a height, nor had it spread so wide: simple remedies were applied to simple vices. But now there is a necessity for stronger battlements, and more laboured fortifications, as the mischiefs that assault us are grown so much stronger and more powerful.

    Physic formerly was nothing more than skill in the virtues of some few herbs whereby the flowing blood might be staunched, and wounds closed by degrees ; but now it is become an extensive study, and consists in a surprising multiplicity of prescriptions. No wonder it had so little to do in those antient times, when the bodies of men were hale and robust, and their diet plain and easy, uncorrupted by art and delicacies; which in after times began to be sought for, not in order to satisfy hunger, but to provoke it;  and a thousand high-seasoned sauces, were invented to raise an appetite; so that meats which before sustained, and proved wholesome nourishment to those who wanted them, serve now only to overload the full stomach. Hence proceed paleness, and trembling of the nerves relaxed by wine; and a more miserable: leanness, caused rather by crudities than hunger; hence such a tottering gait, and perpetual {tumbling, as if men were always drunk; hence the small vessels of the cuticle are filled with water, and the belly distended, being accustomed to be crammed with more than it can well; hold, hence the black jaundice; the wan countenance of such as are in a deep consumption; the crooked fingers from the stiffness of the joints; the unfeeling apoplexy, and the evershaking palsy. What need I mention the swimming of the head; the torment both of the eyes and ears, the acute pains of the raging brain; the passages of the body afflicted with ulcers ; besides numberless forts of fevers, some high and violent, others creeping on by flow degrees ; others seizing us with horror and great saking of the limbs; with a thousand other distempers, the just plagues of luxury and intemperance?

    The antients were free from these dreadful evils ; who had not as yet debauched themselves with the most delicate viands; who were their own mailers, and their own servants : they harden’d their bodies with toil and useful labour; and when tired with running, or hunting, or
    tilling the ground, they sate down to such a repast, as would not have been relished, had they not been hungry. There was no need therefore! in those days of shops full of drugs, nor of so many instruments, gallipots and boxes. Simple was their health, from a simple cause,
    but variety of dishes introduced a variety of diseases (d). Only observe what a strange mixture of things, luxury,, having ravaged both the land and sea, hath provided for the swallow of one gormandizing throat. Things of such different qualities can never agree, in, or with the stomach : it is impossible they should digest, as one thing prevents another. No wonder then that uncertain and various diseases should arise from such discordant meats ; and that humours, collected from such opposite parts of nature, and now conjoined in one, should redound as they do; for as we live by no rule, we sicken by none.

    The greatest physician, and founder of the profession, observed, that women never shed their hair, nor were ever lame with the gout : but now are they both gouty and bald. The nature of women however is not changed, but the manner of life : for by taking the fame liberties with men, they have subjected themselves to the fame disorders; they keep as bad hours (e); they drink as deep; and challenge them as well in the use of oyl, as of strong wine ; they alike eat without an appetite; and are not ashamed of discharging an overloaded stomach by the mouth (f ) ; they likewife make their teeth chatter with ice, by way of cooling and refreshing the overheated liver ; nor in any lustful action will they suffer men to surpass them; may all the Gods and Goddesses confound them for their abominable practices! What wonder is it then that the greatest physician and most experienced naturalist, should be liable to a mistake, since we now see women afflicted both with the gout and baldness ? They have lost the privilege of their sex by their vices, and, having thrown aside the woman, subjected themselves to the diseases of debauchees.

    The antient physicians knew not to prescribe frequent eating, or to drench the flagging veins with wine; they knew not the art of cupping or scarifying or to ease a chronic disorder by bathing or sweating; they knew not, by binding the legs and arms to recall the vital heat from the central parts to the extreme. There was no need of consultations, or to hunt after various kinds of remedies, when the dangers of their patients were few, and in a narrow compass. But now, alas ! to what a degree are disorders multiplied ? Such is the interest we pay for the irrational and inordinate pleasures that we indulge ourselves in !

    But do you wonder that diseases multiply ? Count the cooks. All study is given over; the professors of the liberal arts fit in some lonely corner without an audience; the schools of rhetoric and philosophy are quite deserted; while the taverns and cook-shops are full : what a crowd of young fellows surround the hearth of some spendthrift ? I pass by the troops of poor boys, natives or foreign, distinguished by their nation, and complexions, and ranged according to their size, their age, and even their hair, those who have lank and straight locks not being admitted among the curled: I omit likewise the crew of bakers and confectioners, and other serving men whose business it is, at a sign given (g), to bring in the supper. Good gods! what a number of men does one belly employ !

    But can you think those mushrooms (a tasteful poyson) do not secretly and gradually operate, though no bad effect is immediately perceived from them ? Do you think that the summer-ice does not chill, and by degrees make the liver callous ? or that those oysters, a molt
    inert kind of flesh in itself, being fattened with mud, engender not viscous and muddy humours ? or that soy (A), or the pickle made of the gravy of unwholesome fish, does not burn up the entrails with its feline and poysonous particles ? or that those strong soups which are swallowed down hot from the fire, can without doing any prejudice, be extinguished in die bowels ? How filthy and pestilent are their belches ! How do they loth themselves, while disgorging their last surfeit ! Know, that such eatables as the luxurious are now fond of, may putrefy, but digest not.

    I remember to have heard of a famous dish (i), into which a lickerish glutton, hastening his own destruction, was wont to gather all the dainties that were used to be served up at the tables of great men ; all kinds of shell-fish, cockels, muscles, and oysters with their beards cut off, are intermixed with sea-urchins (k)„ and poulets crimped and boned; no one can now eat of a single dish (l), they muff all be mingled together, and such an hotch-potch prepared for supper, as we may suppose made in the belly after a full meal. For my part, I expect soon that the visuals will be served up already chewed: for there is but little difference in having things so mangled and ,mashed together, and having a cook perform the office of our teeth.

    It is thought tedious to indulge the taste with one thing after another ; all things must be set on together and disguised with one flavour: it would be too much trouble to reach out the hand for any particular thing; every thing must come on at once: the garnishing of many dishes must unite, and be blended together; and let those, who lay that all this is by way of grandeur and ostentation, know, that the fame excesses are committed not only in public but in private. Tho' a man sups alone, upon one mess of soup, it is compounded of various ingredients, that used to serve for so many dishes; but now there must be no difference between oysters and muscles ; and sea-crabs must be mixed, and cooked up with mullets; so that the light of it, if thrown up again, could not be more confused, (as I before observed). Now,as these viands are thus mixed and confounded, no single disorder can be supposed to arise therefrom, but several, unaccountable, different, and multiplied diseases, against which physic hath begun to arm herself, with many remedies founded on observations and experiments.

    The fame I say of philosophy-it was once of a more simple nature, among those whole fins were not so enormous, but curable with flight and easy remedies. Against such a degeneracy and corruption of manners as now reigns, every thing is to be tried; and I wish that even so,
    this dreadful malady may be overcome.

    If the criticisms were insufficient  to the waste,  shortly after he adds  another element that also reminds us  the exorbitant price currently paid for a good fish for bluefin tuna for example in Japan, or for the first salmon of an Asturian river, when the famous restaurants in the area compete for it.

    Seneca says in the same letter, paragraphs 41 et seq .:

    What can be more scandalous than to spend at one supper a knight’s yearly revenue (2000ls.Sterling!) what more worthy censorial reprehension, than for a man thus to treat, or, in the language of a debauched, joyously indulge himself ? Yet there have been men,
    otherwise of a frugal temper, who, on some extraordinary occasion, have made an entertainment which cost 30000 sesterces. Now if such a sum was expended merely by way of feasting and gluttony, nothing could be more scandalous ; but if it was in honour of some great personage, and a noble assembly, it may well escape censure ; for then it it is not extravagant luxury, but a grand and solemn treat. 

    Tiberius Caesar ordered that a mullet of an extraordinary size, (why should I not mention the weight, to make gluttons gape ? it weighed four pounds and an half,) which was sent him for a present, to be carried into the market, and sold, saying, I should be much mistaken , my friends,if either Appius or P. Octavius buy not this fish . The thing sell out beyond his expectation : these very two men bid upon one another for it: Octavius got it, and not only the fish, but great glory among his companions, for having bought a fish for 5ooo sesterces, which Caesar had sold, and Apicius could not buy : now it was shameful in Octavius to buy it at such a price; but not in the person who bought it for a present to Tiberius, whatever it cost him; though I do not think it altogether excusable; it was vanity that made him admire a thing which he thought worthy Caesar. (Published 1786. Public Domain Mark 1.0 https://archive.org/details/SenecaLetters.)

    Fuit sine dubio, ut dicitis, vetus illa sapientia cum maxime nascens rudis non minus quam ceterae artes, quarum in processu subtilitas crevit. Sed ne opus quidem adhuc erat remediis diligentibus. Nondum in tantum nequitia surrexerat nec tam late se sparserat. Poterant vi tus simplicibus obstare remedia simplicia; nunc necesse est tanto operosiora esse munimenta, quanto vehementiora sunt, quibus petimur.
    Medicina quondam paucarum fuit scientia herbarum, quibus sisteretur fluens sanguis, vulnera coirent; paulatim deinde in hanc pervenit tam multiplicem varietatem. Nec est mirum tunc illam minus negotii habuisse firmis adhuc solidisque corporibus et facili cibo nec per artem voluptatemque corrupto, qui postquam coepit non ad tollendam, sed ad inritandam famem quaeri et inventae sunt mille conditurae, quibus aviditas excitaretur, quae desiderantibus ali menta erant, onera sunt plenis.
    Inde pallor et nervorum vino madentium tremor et miserabilior ex cruditatibus quam ex fame macies. Inde incerti  labantium  pedes et semper qualis in ipsa ebrietate titubatio. Inde in totam cutem umor admissus distentusque venter, dum male adsuescit plus capere quam poterat. Inde suffusio luridae bilis et decolor vultus tabesque in se putrescentium et retorridi digiti articulis obrigescentibus nervorumque sine sensu iacentium torpor aut palpitatio  sine intermissione vibrantium.
    Quid capitis vertigines dicam ? Quid oculorum auriumque tormenta et cerebri exaestuantis verminationes et omnia, per quae exoneramur, internis ulceribus adfecta ? Innumerabilia praeterea febrium genera, aliarum impetu saevientium, aliarum tenui peste repentium, aliarum eum horrore et multa membrorum quassatione venientium ?
    Quid alios referam innumerabiles morbos, supplicia luxuriae ?
    Immunes erant ab istis malis, qui nondum se deliciis solverant, qui sibi imperabant, sibi ministrabant. Corpora opere ac vero labore durabant aut cursu defatigati aut venatu aut tellure  versanda.  excipiebat illos cibus, qui nisi esurientibus placere non posset. Itaque nihil opus erat tam magna medicorum supellectile nec tot ferramentis atque pyxidibus. Simplex erat ex causa simplici valitudo; multos morbos multa fericula fecerunt.
    Vide, quantum rerum per unam gulam transiturarum permisceat luxuria, terrarum marisque vastatrix. necesse est itaque inter se tam diversa dissideant et hausta male  male digerantur aliis alio nitentibus. Nec mirum, quod inconstans variusque ex discordi cibo morbus est et illa ex contrariis naturae partibus in eundem compulsa redundant. Inde tam multo  aegrotamus genere quam vivimus.
    Maximus ille medicorum et huius scientiae conditor feminis nec capillos defluere dixit nec pedes laborare; atqui et capillis destituuntur et pedibus aegrae sunt. Non mutata feminarum natura, sed victa est; nam cum virorum licentiam aequaverint, corporum quoque virilium incommoda aequarunt.
    Non minus pervigilant, non minus potant, et oleo et mero viros provocant; aeque invitis ingesta visceribus per os reddunt et vinum omne vomitu remetiuntur; aeque nivem rodunt, solacium stomachi aestuantis. Libidine vero ne maribus quidem cedunt, pati natae, di illas deaeque male perdant! Adeo perversum commentae genus inpudicitiae viros ineunt. Quid ergo mirandum est maximum medicorum ac naturae peritissimum in mendacio prendi, cum tot feminae podagricae calvaeque sint ? Beneficium sexus sui vitiis perdiderunt et, quia feminam exuerant, damnatae sunt morbis virilibus.
    Antiqui medici nesciebant dare cibum saepius et  vino fulcire venas cadentes, nesciebant sanguinem mittere et diutinam aegrotationem balneo sudoribusque laxare, nesciebant crurum vinculo brachiorumque latentem vim et in medio sedentem ad extrema revocare. Non erat necesse circumspicere multa auxiliorum genera, eum essent periculorum paucissima.
    Nunc vero quam longe processerunt mala valitudinis ! Has usuras voluptatium pendimus ultra modum fasque concupitarum. Innumerabiles esse morbos non miraberis: cocos numera. Cessat omne studium et liberalia professi sine ulla frequentia desertis angulis praesident. In rhetorum ac philosophorum scholis solitudo est; at quam celebres culinae sunt, quanta circa nepotum focos iuventus premitur !
    Transeo puerorum infelicium greges, quos post transacta convivia aliae cubiculi contumeliae exspectant. Transeo agmina exoletorum per nationes coloresque discripta, ut eadem omnibus levitas sit, eadem primae mensura lanuginis, eadem species capillorum, ne quis, cui rectior est coma, crispulis misceatur. Transeo pistorum turbam, transeo ministratorum, per quos signo dato ad inferendam cenam discurritur. Di boni, quantum hominum unus venter exercet! Quid ? Tu illos boletos, voluntarium venenum, nihil occulti operis iudicas facere, etiam si praesentanei non fuerunt ?
    Quid ? Tu illam aestivam nivem non putas callum iocineribus obducere ?  Quid ? Illa ostrea, inertissimam carnem caeno saginatam, nihil existimas limosae gravitatis inferre ? Quid ? Illud sociorum garum, pretiosam malorum piscium saniem, non credis urere salsa tabe praecordia ? Quid ? Illa purulenta et quae tantum non ex ipso igne in os transferuntur, iudicas sine noxa in ipsis visceribus extingui ? Quam foedi itaque pestilentesque ructus sunt, quantum fastidium sui exhalantibus crapulam veterem ! Scias putrescere sumpta, non concoqui.
    Memini fuisse quondam in sermone nobilem patinam, in quam quicquid apud lautos solet diem ducere, properans in damnum suum popina congesserat; veneriae spondylique et ostrea eatenus circumcisa, qua eduntur, intervenientibus distinguebantur echinis. Totam dissecti structique  sine ullis ossibus mulli constraverant.
    Piget esse iam singula; coguntur in unum sapores. In cena fit, quod fieri debebat  in ventre. Expecto iam, ut manducata ponantur. Quantulo autem hoc minus est, festas excerpere atque ossa et dentium opera cocum fungi ? " Gravest luxuriari per singula; omnia semel et in eundem saporem versa ponantur. Quare ego ad unam rem manum porrigam ? Plura veniant simul,  multorum ferculorum ornamenta coeant et cohaereant.
    Sciant protinus hi, qui iactationem ex istis peti et gloriam aiebant, non ostendi ista, sed conscientiae dari. Pariter sint, quae disponi solent, uno iure perfusa. Nihil intersit: ostrea, echini, spondyli, mulli perturbati concoctique ponantur." Non esset confusior vomentium cibus.
    Quomodo ista perplexa sunt, sic ex istis non singulares morbi nascuntur, sed inexplicabiles, diversi, multiformes, adversus quos et medicina armare se coepit multis generibus, multis observationibus.
    Idem tibi de philosophia dico. Fuit aliquando simplicior inter minora peccantes et levi quoque cura remediabiles; adversus tantam morum eversionem omnia conanda sunt. Et utinam sic denique lues ista vindicetur !
    ……
    Párr.. 41 y ss.
    Quid est cena sumptuosa flagitiosius et equestrem censum consumente ? Quid tam dignum censoria nota, si quis, ut isti ganeones loquuntur, sibi hoc et genio suo praestet ? Et deciens  tamen sestertio aditiales cenae frugalissimis viris constiterunt. Eadem res, si gulae datur, turpis est; si honori, reprensionem effugit. Non enim luxuria, sed inpensa sollemnis est.
    Mullum ingentis formae—quare autem non pondus adicio et aliquorum gulam inrito ? quattuor pondo et selibram fuisse aiebant—Tiberius Caesar missum sibi cum in macellum deferri et veniri iussisset: " amici," inquit, " omnia me fallunt, nisi istum mullum aut Apicius emerit aut P. Octavius." Ultra spem illi coniectura processit: liciti sunt, vicit Octavius et ingentem consecutus est inter suos gloriam, cum quinque sestertiis emisset piscem, quem Caesar vendiderat, ne Apicius quidem emerat. Numerare tantum Octavio fuit turpe, non illi,  qui emerat, ut Tiberio mitteret, quamquam illum quoque reprenderim; admiratus est rem, qua putavit Caesarem dignum.

  • Dio Chrysostom recreates the meeting between Diogenes and Alexander and sets out his ideas about the divine origin of power.

    The most famous story of the first meeting of Diogenes with Alexander served later Dio Chrysostom to recreate the meeting, to satirize the power and the powerful and to present his ideas about the divine origin of power and legitimacy of its exercise.

    The young Alexander died at thirty-three, he became a demigod in life and then a myth, whose echoes reach the world today. His life, full of wonderful facts and also of other less glorious, is adorned with all kinds of references and used for all kinds of educational, moral or simple dilettantism purposes.

    Diogenes Chrysostom is one of the authors who uses the echo of Alexander and the echo of the cynic philosopher Diogenes too to present his theories on power, whose best representative person may be Alexander.

    I have already devoted an article to the meetings of Alexander with the cynic philosopher. See: https://www.antiquitatem.com/en/diogenes-alexander-intellectual-power

    The text of Dio can be a bit long but it is worth reading it with a bit of calm and meditation: it is a more intriguing to see how the ideas, once and again instilled in our cultural unconscious, are many hundreds, several millennia old.

    Dio Chrysostom (Δίων Χρυσόστομος)  is a Greek author of Roman imperial era, mixture of rhetoric and philosopher. If the name Dio is a hypocoristic, family, affectionate way of "Dios", Δίωs, genitive of Zeus; the nickname "Chrysostom", Χρυσόστομος, from Χρυσόσ, krisosgold, and στόμα, stoma, mouth, refers to his "ability to speak”.

    He was born around the year 40 and consequently he lived in the second half of the first century and the first decades of the second century; he was born in Pursa, today Bursa, small town of modern Turkey. He had remarkable success during his lifetime  and later because, although many works of him are lost, also over eighty discourses  are preserved. He toured many places delighting the audience with his "speeches" or "lecturing" as we would say today. Pursued by the Emperor Domitian, who punished all those who opposed him in some way, then he was a friend and protected by Nerva and Trajan.

    As philosopher, Dio kept turn an intermediate position or moralizing mixture of cynicism and stoicism. His position about the power was quite different from the cynical, which is very critical, if not outright opposed, to all authority. As Homer, whom he remembers, he thinks that the king or emperor is elected  by the divinity and he rules the world in his name. He is like a shepherd who cares for his sheep. Power is not a personal privilege but a burden and obligation that the ruler must to exercise in favor of the governed. The ruler is like a father benefactor of free subjects who must love and obey him. Naturally the king, elected by divinity must to be good, just and wise to perform his function.

    It is quite clear how successfully these Stoic ideas bore fruit in ancient Antiquity of Roman emperors.  The Christian thought, that two centuries later was imposed politically throughout the Roman Empire, coincides exactly with them. This is the idea that catches force  in the Middle Ages and in some cases is come down to us: we can remember the legend that not so long ago illustrated the Spanish coins with the effigy of the chief dictator Francisco Franco "leader of Spain by the grace of God. " (Caudillo de España por la Gracia de Dios). The study of the influence of the writings and thought of  Dion in posterity is a subject of great interest.

    I will make a comprehensive summary  of his Discourse IV about royalty, on which he reproduces the encounter between Diogenes and Alexander, writen about the year 100 and perhaps read at  Trajan himself. It is interesting to read completely this speech  and several other of the larger work of Dion.

    Dion seems in this speech to demonstrate the superiority of the philosopher, or of the intellectual, against the king, but he  admitted  the existence of the monarchy or power as a political institution, in flagrant contradiction with the position of the Cynics like Diogenes. Indeed, the true king is the son of Zeus, as Homer said, but then the condition of the true king must to be ratified by the spiritual and moral qualities and not by force of military power of the arms and wide dominion. The ruler must reject the spirit of avarice, the spirit of the love of pleasure, and the spirit of ambition,

    Perhaps the Discourse was delivered in front of Trajan in celebration of his birthday, September 18th  in the A.D. 103. Trajan according to Dio was graced with a good "daemon" or genius or good spirit which led her performance effectively.

    Moreover, the reader will see in these fragments the condition of rhetoric and philosopher of the successful Dio.

    Note: the following English texts are taken from the translation by J.W.Cohoon (Loeb Classical Library. Harvard University Press, 1932)

    Dio Chrysostom begins his speech "about royalty IV " narrating the meeting of Alexander and Diogenes that we already know with less detail and rhetoric in the article cited above:

    The Fourth Discourse on Kingship:

    paragraphs 1-15:

    They tell us that once upon a time Alexander when not over busy met Diogenes, who had an abundance of time on his hands. For the one was king of Macedonia and many other countries beside, while there was an exile from Sinope; and there are many who in speaking and writing of this encounter give no less admiration and credit to Alexander than to Diogenes because, although he was ruler over so many people and had greater power than any other man of his day, he did not disdain to converse with a poor man who had intelligence and the power of endurance. For all men without exception are naturally delighted when they see wisdom honoured by the greatest power and might; hence they not only relate the facts in such cases but add extravagant embellishments of their own; nay more, they strip their wise men of all else, such as wealth, honours, and physical strength, so that the high regard in which they are held may appear to be due to their intelligence alone. And so I should like on this occasion to tell what in all likelihood was the nature of their conversation, since it happens too that I have nothing else that demands my attention.
    Now it should be explained that Alexander was by common report the most ambitious of men and the greatest lover of glory. He was anxious to leave his name the greatest among the Greeks and barbarians and longed to be honoured, not only — as one might put it — by mankind the world over, but, if it were at all possible, by the birds of the air and the beasts of the mountains. Moreover, he looked down upon all other men and thought that no one was a dangerous rival in this matter — neither the Persian king nor the Scythian nor the Indian nor any man or city among the Greeks.  For he perceived that they had all been well-nigh ruined in soul by luxury and idleness and were the slaves of money and pleasure. But as to Diogenes, when Alexander heard of the words which this man spoke and of the deeds which he did and how he bore his exile, though at times he despised the man for his poverty and shabbiness, quite naturally, as he himself was young and had been reared in royal luxury,  yet often he would admire and envy the man for his courage and endurance, and especially for his great reputation, because all the Greeks knew and admired him for what he was, and no one else could match him in point of distinction.  He himself needed his Macedonian phalanx, his Thessalian cavalry, Thracians, Paeonians, and many others if he was to go where he wished and get what he desired; but Diogenes went forth unattended in perfect safety by night as well as by day whithersoever he cared to go.  Again, he himself required huge sums of gold and silver to carry out any of his projects; and what is more, if he expected to keep the Macedonians and the other Greeks submissive, must time and again curry the favour of their rulers and the general populace by words gifts;  whereas Diogenes cajoled no men by flattery, but told everybody the truth and, even though he possessed not a single drachma, succeeded in doing as he pleased, failed in nothing he set before himself, was the only man who lived the life he considered the best and happiest, and would not have accepted Alexander's throne or the wealth of the Medes and Persians in exchange for his own poverty.

    Therefore Alexander, being nettled to think that anyone living so easy and care-free a life was going to surpass himself and in addition should be no less famous, and thinking perhaps too that he would receive some benefit from an interview with the man, had long desired to behold him and converse with him;  and when he had come to Corinth and had received the Greek embassies and regulated the affairs of the allies as well, he told his attendants that he wished to have a little leisure and went off — I will not say to the court of Diogenes, for he had no court either great or small, nor house nor hearth of his own as the well-to-do have, but he made the cities his home and used to live there in the public buildings and in the shrines, which are dedicated to the gods, and took for his hearth-stone the wide world, which after all is man's common hearth and nourisher. On that day it happened that Diogenes was all alone in the Craneion, for he had no pupils at all nor any such crowd about him as the sophists and flue-players and choral masters have. So the king came up to him as he sat there and greeted him, whereat the other looked up at him with terrible glare like that of a lion and ordered him to step aside a little, for Diogenes happened to be warming himself in the sun. Now Alexander was at once delighted with the man's boldness and composure in not being awestruck in his presence. For it is somehow natural for the courageous to love the courageous, while cowards eye them with misgiving and hate them as enemies, but welcome the base and like them. And so to the one class truth and frankness are the most agreeable things in the world, to the other, flattery and deceit. The latter lend a willing ear to those who in their intercourse seek to please, the former, to those who have regard for the truth.

    Then Diogenes is particularly insolent to the powerful, even calling him  with all irony "bastard"

    Paragraphs 16 et seq.

    Then after a brief pause Diogenes asked the king who he was and what object he had in coming to him. "Was it," he said, "to take some of my property?" "Why, have you any property?" replied the other; "do you own anything that you might share with one?" "Much indeed," he replied, "and very valuable, in which I do not at all feel sure that you will ever be able to have a share. Yet it is not glaives or cauldrons or mixing-bowls or couches and tables such as Darius is reported by some writers to possess in Persia that I happen to own."  "What," retorted the other, "do you not know Alexander the king?" "I hear many speak his name, to be sure," said he, "like so many jackdaws flitting about, but the man I know not, for I am not acquainted with his mind." "But now," came the answer, "you shall know his mind also, since I have come for the very purpose of letting you know me thoroughly and of seeing you."  "Well, it would be hard for you to see me," rejoined the other, "just as it is for men with weak eyes to see the light. But tell me this: are you the Alexander whom they call a bastard?" At this the king flushed and showed anger, but he controlled himself and regretted that he had deigned to enter into conversation with a man who was both rude and an impostor, as he thought.

    Diogenes showed him that if he was the son of a god, as he appeared, he turns out to be
    a "bastard", but divine bastard. Alexander was flattered.

    Then follows a dialogue and considerations on good governance and the proper exercise of royalty:

    Paragraphs 24  et seq.

    Hereupon he put the following question to Diogenes. "How," said he, "could one be the best king?" At this the other, eyeing him sternly, answered, "But no one can be a bad king any more than he can be a bad good man; for the king is the best one among men, since he is most brave and righteous and humane, and cannot be overcome by any toil or by any appetite.  Or do you think a man is a charioteer if he cannot drive, or that one is a pilot if he is ignorant of steering, or is a physician if he knows not how to cure? It is impossible, nay, though all the Greeks and barbarians acclaim him as such and load him with many diadems and sceptres and tiaras like so many necklaces that are put on castaway children lest they fail of recognition. Therefore, just as one cannot pilot except after the manner of pilots, so no one can be a king except in a kingly way."

    Then Alexander in alarm, lest after all he might be found ignorant of the science of kingship, said, ..

    Diogenes then explains how there are two types of education, the divine and the human; not by to read  and to know too many stories, the man is wiser and more learned; the educated are truly "noble soul" educated by the gods. They  are not true educators the ignorant and charlatans sophists, who are as poorly trained dogs or as libidinous eunuchs.

    Paragraphs 36  et seq.

    On hearing this, Alexander wondered what his reason was for likening the sophist to a eunuch and asked him. "Because," came the reply, "the most wanton eunuchs, protesting their virility and their passion for women, lie with them and annoy them, and yet nothing comes of it, not even if they stay with them night and day.  So too in the schools the sophists you will find many growing old in their ignorance, wandering about in their discussions far more helplessly than Homer says Odysseus ever did upon the deep, and any one of them might sooner find his way to Hades as that hero did than become a good man by talking and listening.

    Diogenes criticizes him whom  as Xerxes and Darius are not true shepherds of their people, but butchers who lead them to the slaughter; he warns Alexander not to play at being king like Darius.
    Alexander in his ambition to dominate the Persian and the world, asks Diogenes about who is his  enemy and Diogenes replied in a very eloquent way:

    Paragraphs 55  et seq.

    "And what enemy have I still left," said he, "if I capture those peoples I have mentioned?" "The most difficult of all to conquer," he answered, "one who does not speak Persian or Median as Darius does, I presume, but Macedonian and Greek." At this Alexander was troubled and sore distressed for fear the other knew of someone in Macedonia or Greece who was preparing to make war on him,  and asked, "Who is this enemy of mine in Greece or Macedonia?" "Why, do you not know," said he, "you who think that you know more than anyone else?" "In that case will you please tell me?" he asked; "do not conceal it." "I have been trying to tell you for a long time, but you do not hear that you are yourself your own bitterest foe and adversary as long as you are bad and foolish. And this is the man of whom you are more ignorant than of any other person.  For no foolish and evil man knows himself; else Apollo would not have given as the first commandment, 'Know thyself!' regarding it as the most difficult thing for every man. Or do you not think that folly is the greatest and most serious of all ailments and a blight to those that have it, and that a foolish man is his own greatest bane? Or do you not admit that he who is most harmful to a man and causes him the most ills is that man's greatest foe and adversary? In view of what I say rage and prance about," said he,  "and think me the greatest blackguard and slander me to the world and, if it be your pleasure, run me through with your spear; for I am the only man from whom you will get the truth, and you will learn it from no one else. For all are less honest than I and more servile."

    Diogenes follows urging Alexander to be right and to trust  on good deeds and not on weapons. He asked to prepare his spirit, his demon, his daimon, his genius, to be free and fair and with feelings worthy of a king and not a slave and evil demon. He asks  in short to learn to think for himself.
    He shows him  then, approaching the end of the speech, that they are  many vices and miseries of mortals and three dominant genres of life, (Cynics constantly whip them),  which ruin  the man and all governments must overcome them: the desire for wealth, the voluptuousness, and the lust for power.

    Paragraphs 83 et seq.

    "Now as there are, roughly speaking, three prevailing types of lives which the majority usually adopt, not after thoughtful consideration and testing, I assure you, but because they are carried away by chance and thoughtless impulse, we must affirm that there is just the same number of spirits whom the great mass of foolish humanity follows and serves — some men one spirit and some another — just as a wicked and wanton troop follows a wicked and frenzied leader. Of these types of lives which I have mentioned, the first is luxurious and self-indulgent as regards bodily pleasures, the second, in its turn, is acquisitive and avaricious, while the third is more conspicuous and more disordered than the other two — I mean the one that loves honour and glory — and it manifests a more evident and violent disorder or frenzy, deluding itself into believing that it is enamoured of some noble ideal.

    The pretension to of Diogenes denouncing  these life forms is to change, if possible, human vice, lies, the evil desires, to lead them to be friends of virtue and lovers of a better life. So he describes starkly and in detail  these three types of vicious men. Often even they coincide in the same person two or three ways of being. He concludes:

    Paragraphs 138 et seq.

    and his soul, thus torn and distracted and ever in battle and ceaseless strife with itself, cannot but end its course in utter misery.

    The reader will judge whether Alexander followed the teachings of the philosopher or he was uncontrolled victim of his own ambition and lust for power, because the truth is that along with the heroic, civilizing, conquering version, which  historical chronicles usually transmitted, there was another reality of death and destruction less glorious.

  • The Nymph Callisto

    Who enjoys reading or listening to the colorful stories of the Greco-Roman mythology he has an essential work for this: Ovid’s Metamorphoses. In this work the prolific poet tells us many cases of transformation or metamorphosis of men, women or mythological characters in other beings.

    Among these transformations  they are especially interesting the conversions to stars, called Catasterisms, not least because the force to survive. 

    We call "Catasterismi" the conversion or transformation of gods, heroic beings, mythological events, and even ethical principles later, in stars, celestial bodies in the sky, or clusters of stars.

    This is a technical or cult Greek term, composed of the preposition kata, κατά (above, below) and the noun ἀστήρ, aster, (star). The term was used as a title of a booklet attributable to the director of the Library of Alexandria, the mathematician, geographer, astronomer, physician, scholar, literary author, Eratosthenes.

    Two  constellation or group of stars (that's what the word constellation means, from latin cum, with, and stella, star) most popular and important throughout the history of our hemisphere are the "Ursa Maior", Great Bear,result of the transformation of the nymph Callisto and Boötes, the guardianb of the Ursa, transformation of her son Arcas.

    The poet Ovid tells us literally  in a long story of more than a hundred and fifty verses in Metamorphoses, Book II, v. 401-550.

    Today I let a small license that surely would not bother  Ovid; in the ancient world the same mythological subject is recovered  and modified, reduced or enlarged again and again by various authors.

    Let me make a smaller version of Ovid's story that may be easier to read than the original text for possible current readers, but I will offer at end to the interested reader  the complete Latin text of the author with its translation.

    The Nymph Callisto

    Jupiter, the powerful god, walked vigilant the broad and clear sky and reluctantly watched the land where men live. In his daily trips across the sky stopped many times in Arcadia, fertile region of the earth especially dear to him, governed by Licaón, cultured and religious king, respected by his citizens who he finally civilized, forcing them to abandon their way of  primitive and rude life.

    Licaón had numerous children and among them a daughter named Callisto. Her extraordinary beauty attracted the loving attention of Jupiter, who  too often betrayed his wife Juno.

    Lycaon’s daughter neither liked the comfortable life of the palace nor occupied the time carding  wool nor perfuming  her  body of fine forms. Tied her messy hair with a white ribbon and tied her dress with a slight brooch, armed with the curved bow and pointed arrows at her shoulder, she crossed the lush forests accompanying Diana, virgin goddess, free and accurate huntress.

    A hot summer day, when the sun was halfway through his walk , Callisto rested lonely lying in the green forest floor, laying her head on the multicolor quiver. When Jupiter saw her so beautiful and defenseless, burning with the passion like only gods can burn, he thought:

       — My wife Juno will not know about this secret love

    And taking the figure of the goddess Diana she approached to Callisto:

    – Beautiful maiden,  you have hunted today extraordinarily and in accurate way.

    Callisto got up swiftly jumping and responded with grateful words:

    – Thank you, my dear and beloved goddess. I think you're bigger and stronger than Jupiter himself, who does not hear us.

    Jupiter smiled, listening her and held her tightly against his powerful chest and filled her with lascivious kisses and inappropriate to the virgin goddess whose figure he had supplanted.

    Callisto wanted uselessly to released herself out of the divine embrace, conscious of the adulterer deception. But who can beat the mighty Jupiter?

    When insensitive Jupiter flew to the ether, Callisto picked up his bow and quiver and ran away fast from the accomplice and forever odious forest.

    A certain day, after a good hunt, Diana, happy and contented, call Callisto, who, fearing that she were Jupiter, again disguised, runs away to hide in the thick forest. But when she sees the goddess surrounded by her nymphs preventing the deception, she walked head down and approached to the group. The flush of her face would betray her injured shame to Diana  if the goddess was not inexperienced virgin.

    Fatigued by the long chase, they reached a fresh stream of clear water. Diana just dipped his virgin foot in the fresh water which ran murmuring and said friendly:

    – Rest a while. Nobody sees us here; let us undress and refresh our bodies in these crystalline waters.

    All nymphs quickly divest themselves of their hunting clothes, but Callisto, blushing again, dilated her nakedness. When she finally took off his clothes, it appeared evident in his body the guilt that she needlessly wanted to hide with her hands.

    The angry virgin goddess shouted the embarrassed nymph:

    – Get away fast from us, betrayer, and do not tarnish these sacred waters

    Museo del Prado. Rubens: Calisto y Diana

    The time is passed and the small Arcas was born, fruit  of this forced union. Juno, wife of Jupiter knew long time ago what happened. Now, at the right time, she does not delayed longer her cruel punishment. So the powerful goddess angry said:

    – It is not possible, adulteress, that you were fruitful and that your son testify before all the gods the shameful outrage of my husband Jupiter. I soon will take off  the beauty of your body with which you attracted my adulterous husband.

    She said it, and she grabs his blond hair and threw she  to the ground with all violence. Callisto tended suppliant her arms, which were covered irredeemably with  black hairs; she spread her hands which became twisted claws and sweet mouth, desired by Jupiter, was transformed into deformed animals jaws. No pleading words came out from her hoarse throat which  would move the heart, but a hoarse roar that arise in terror.

    Become into a bear, she retains her previous soul, as it is evidenced by her  constant groans of pain and her hands raised upward, perhaps protesting the unfeeling ingratitude of Jupiter, the father of the gods who intimidates everyone with his rays.

    Callisto now wanders the woods in solitude and hazardous fields. Who tirelessly hunted before, how many times now hides herself pursued by the barking of dogs and the arrows of the hunters! Even now being a bear, she is afraid to see the fierce bears on top of the rocks.

    Many years passed and Arcas, son of Callisto, whom she did not met, pursues  wild animals through the gorges and forests of Mount Erimanto in the fertile Arcadia.  At certain  day Arcas meets his mother, who seems to recognize him and fixed her black eyes to him. When the mother approaches  unsure the son, she is about to die pierced by the arrow that Arcas placed in his tensioned bow, but the powerful  Jupiter prevented the terrible sacrilege. Snatched from the hard earth, transported through the space, he placed them in heaven, forever changed in two neighboring constellation with bright stars, the "Big Dipper" and "Boötes" (the guardian ofthe  Bear) .

    ——-

    Full text of Ovidius

    CALLISTO AND JUPITER

    Now after Phaethon had suffered death
    for the vast ruin wrought by scorching flames,
    all the great walls of Heaven's circumference,
    unmeasured, views the Father of the Gods,
    with searching care, that none impaired by heat
    may fall in ruins. Well assured they stand
    in self-sustaining strength, his view, at last,
    on all the mundane works of man is turned;—
    his loving gaze long resting on his own
    Arcadia. And he starts the streams and springs
    that long have feared to flow; paints the wide earth
    with verdant fields; covers the trees with leaves,
    and clothes the injured forests in their green.
    While wandering in the world, he stopped amazed,
    when he beheld the lovely Nymph, Calisto,
    and fires of love were kindled in his breast.
    Calisto was not clothed in sumptuous robes,
    nor did she deck her hair in artful coils;
    but with a buckle she would gird her robe,
    and bind her long hair with a fillet white.
    She bore a slender javelin in her hand,
    or held the curving bow; and thus in arms
    as chaste Diana, none of Maenalus
    was loved by that fair goddess more than she.
    But everything must change. When bright the sun
    rolled down the sky, beyond his middle course,
    she pierced a secret thicket, known to her,
    and having slipped the quiver from her arm,
    she loosed the bended bow, and softly down
    upon the velvet turf reclining, pressed
    her white neck on the quiver while she slept.
    When Jupiter beheld her, negligent
    and beautiful, he argued thus, “How can
    my consort, Juno, learn of this? And yet,
    if chance should give her knowledge, what care I?
    Let gain offset the scolding of her tongue!”
    This said, the god transformed himself and took
    Diana's form—assumed Diana's dress
    and imitating her awoke the maid,
    and spoke in gentle tones, “What mountain slope,
    O virgin of my train, hath been thy chase?”
    Which, having heard, Calisto, rose and said,
    “Hail, goddess! greater than celestial Jove!
    I would declare it though he heard the words.”
    Jove heard and smiled, well pleased to be preferred
    above himself, and kissed her many times,
    and strained her in his arms, while she began
    to tell the varied fortunes of her hunt.—
    but when his ardent love was known to her,
    she struggled to escape from his embrace:
    ah, how could she, a tender maid, resist
    almighty Jove?—Be sure, Saturnia
    if thou hadst only witnessed her thy heart
    had shown more pity!—
    Jupiter on wings,
    transcendent, sought his glorious heights;
    but she, in haste departing from that grove,
    almost forgot her quiver and her bow.
    Behold, Diana, with her virgin train,
    when hunting on the slopes of Maenalus,
    amidst the pleasures of exciting sport,
    espied the Nymph and called her, who, afraid
    that Jove apparelled in disguise deceived,
    drew backward for a moment, till appeared
    to her the lovely Nymphs that followed: thus,
    assured deceit was none, she ventured near.
    Alas, how difficult to hide disgrace!
    She could not raise her vision from the ground,
    nor as the leader of the hunting Nymphs,
    as was her wont, walk by the goddess' side.
    Her silence and her blushes were the signs
    of injured honour. Ah Diana, thou,
    if thou wert not a virgin, wouldst perceive
    and pity her unfortunate distress.
    The Moon's bent horns were rising from their ninth
    sojourn, when, fainting from Apollo's flames,
    the goddess of the Chase observed a cool
    umbrageous grove, from which a murmuring stream
    ran babbling gently over golden sands.
    When she approved the spot, lightly she struck
    her foot against the ripples of the stream,
    and praising it began; “Far from the gaze
    of all the curious we may bathe our limbs,
    and sport in this clear water.” Quickly they
    undid their garments,—but Calisto hid
    behind the others, till they knew her state.—
    Diana in a rage exclaimed, “Away!
    Thou must not desecrate our sacred springs!”
    And she was driven thence.
    Ere this transpired,
    observed the consort of the Thunder-God
    her altered mien; but she for ripening time
    withheld severe resentment. Now delay
    was needless for distracted Juno heard
    Calisto of the god of Heaven had borne
    a boy called Arcas. Full of jealous rage,
    her eyes and thoughts enkindled as she cried;
    “And only this was wanting to complete
    your wickedness, that you should bear a son
    and flaunt abroad the infamy of Jove!
    Unpunished you shall not escape, for I
    will spoil the beauty that has made you proud
    and dazzled Jupiter with wanton art.”
    So saying, by her forehead's tresses seized
    the goddess on her rival; and she dragged
    her roughly to the ground. Pleading she raised
    her suppliant arms and begged for mercy.—While
    she pled, black hair spread over her white limbs;
    her hands were lengthened into feet, and claws
    long-curving tipped them; snarling jaws deformed
    the mouth that Jove had kissed. And lest her prayers
    and piteous words might move some listening God,
    and give remembrance, speech was so denied,
    that only from her throat came angry growls,
    now uttered hoarse and threatening.
    Still remains
    her understanding, though her body, thus
    transformed, makes her appear a savage bear.—
    her sorrows are expressed in many a groan,
    repeated as she lifts her hands—if we
    may call them so—repeated as she lifts
    them towards the stars and skies, ungrateful Jove
    regarding; but her voice accuses not.
    Afraid to rest in unfrequented woods,
    she wandered in the fields that once were hers,
    around her well-known dwelling. Over crags,
    in terror, she was driven by the cries
    of hounds; and many a time she fled in fear,
    a huntress from the hunters, or she hid
    from savage animals; forgetting her
    transformed condition. Changed into a bear,
    she fled affrighted from the bears that haunt
    the rugged mountains; and she feared and fled
    the wolves,—although her father was a wolf.
    When thrice five birthdays rounded out the youth
    of Arcas, offspring of Lycaon's child,
    he hunted in the forest of his choice;
    where, hanging with his platted nets the trees
    of Erymanthian forest, he espied
    his transformed mother,—but he knew her not;
    no one had told him of his parentage.
    Knowing her child, she stood with levelled gaze,
    amazed and mute as he began approach;
    but Arcas, frightened at the sight drew back
    to pierce his mother's breast with wounding spear.—
    but not permitting it the god of Heaven
    averted, and removed them from that crime.
    He, in a mighty wind—through vacant space,
    upbore them to the dome of starry heaven,
    and fixed them, Constellations, bright amid
    the starry host.
    Juno on high beheld
    Calisto crowned with glory—great with rage
    her bosom heaved. She flew across the sea,
    to hoary Tethys and to old Oceanus,
    whom all the Gods revere, and thus to them
    in answer to their words she made address;
    “And is it wondered that the Queen of Gods
    comes hither from ethereal abodes?
    My rival sits upon the Throne of Heaven:
    yea, when the wing of Night has darkened
    let my fair word be deemed of no repute,
    if you behold not in the height of Heaven
    those new made stars, now honoured to my shame,
    conspicuous; fixed in the highest dome of space
    that circles the utmost axis of the world.
    “Who, then, should hesitate to put affront
    on Juno? matchless goddess! each offense
    redounds in benefit! Who dreads her rage?
    Oh boundless powers! Oh unimagined deeds!
    My enemy assumes a goddess' form
    when my decree deprives her human shape;—
    and thus the guilty rue their chastisement!
    “Now let high Jove to human shape transform
    this hideous beast, as once before he changed
    his Io from a heifer.—Let him now
    divorce his Juno and consort with her,
    and lead Calisto to his couch, and take
    that wolf, Lycaon, for a father-in-law!
    “Oh, if an injury to me, your child,
    may move your pity! drive the Seven Stars
    from waters crystalline and azure-tint,
    and your domain debar from those that shine
    in Heaven, rewarded for Jove's wickedness.—
    bathe not a concubine in waters pure.”—

    (Ovid. Metamorphoses. Brookes More. Boston. Cornhill Publishing Co. 1922.)


    At pater omnipotens ingentia moenia caeli
    circuit et ne quid labefactum viribus ignis
    corruat explorat. Quae postquam firma suique
    roboris esse videt terras hominumque labores
    perspicit. Arcadiae tamen est impensior illi
    cura suae: fontes et nondum audentia labi
    flumina restituit dat terrae gramina, frondes
    arboribus, laesasque iubet revirescere silvas.
    Dum redit itque frequens, In virgine Nonacrina
    haesit et accepti caluere sub ossibus ignes.
    Non erat huius opus lanam mollire trahendo
    nec positu variare comas; ubi fibula vestem,
    vitta coercuerat neglectos alba capillos,
    et modo leve manu iaculum, modo sumpserat arcum,
    miles erat Phoebes: nec Maenalon attigit ulla
    gratior hac Triviae. Sed nulla potentia longa est.
    Ulterius medio spatium sol altus habebat,
    cum subit illa nemus, quod nulla ceciderat aetas.
    Exuit hic umero pharetram lentosque retendit
    arcus, inque solo, quod texerat herba, iacebat
    et pictam posita pharetram cervice premebat.
    Iuppiter ut vidit fessam et custode vacantem,
    “hoc certe furtum coniunx mea nesciet” inquit,
    “aut si rescierit sunt o sunt iurgia tanti.”
    Protinus induitur faciem cultumque Dianae
    atque ait: “O comitum, virgo, pars una mearum,
    in quibus es venata iugis?” De caespite virgo
    se levat et “salve numen, me indice”, dixit
    “audiat ipse licet maius Iove.” Ridet et audit,
    et sibi praeferri se gaudet et oscula iungit
    nec moderata satis nec sic a virgine danda.
    Qua venata foret silva, narrare parantem
    impedit amplexu, nec se sine crimine prodit.
    Illa quidem contra, quantum modo femina possit
    (adspiceres utinam, Saturnia: mitior esses !),
    illa quidem pugnat: sed quem superare puella,
    quisve Iovem poterat? — Superum petit aethera victor
    Iuppiter: huic odio nemus est et conscia silva.
    Unde pedem referens paene est oblita pharetram
    tollere cum telis et quem suspenderat arcum.
    Ecce, suo comitata choro Dictynna per altum
    Maenalon ingrediens et caede superba ferarum
    adspicit hanc visamque vocat: clamata refugit,
    et timuit primo, ne Iuppiter esset in illa.
    Sed postquam pariter nymphas incedere vidit,
    sensit abesse dolos numerumque accessit ad harum.
    Heu quam difficile est crimen non prodere vultu!
    Vix oculos attollit humo, nec, ut ante solebat,
    iuncta deae lateri, nec toto est agmine prima,
    sed silet et laesi dat signa rubore pudoris;
    et nisi quod virgo est poterat sentire Diana
    mille notis culpam; nymphae sensisse feruntur.
    Orbe resurgebant lunaria cornua nono,
    cum dea venatu, fraternis languida flammis,
    nacta nemus gelidum, de quo cum murmure labens
    ibat et attritas versabat rivus harenas.
    Ut loca laudavit, summas pede contigit undas:
    his quoque laudatis “procul est” ait “arbiter omnis;
    nuda superfusis tingamus corpora lymphis.”
    Parrhasis erubuit. Cunctae velamina ponunt:
    una moras quaerit. Dubitanti vestis adempta est;
    qua posita nudo patuit cum corpore crimen.
    Attonitae manibusque uterum celare volenti
    “i procul hinc” dixit “nec sacros pollue fontes”
    Cynthia; deque suo iussit secedere coetu.
    Senserat hoc olim magni matrona Tonantis
    distuleratque graves in idonea tempora poenas.
    Causa morae nulla est, et iam puer Arcas (id ipsum
    indoluit Iuno) fuerat de paelice natus.
    Quo simul obvertit saevam cum lumine mentem,
    “scilicet hoc etiam restabat, adultera” dixit,
    “ut fecunda fores, fieretque iniuria partu
    nota, Iovisque mei testatum dedecus esset.
    Haud impune feres: adimam tibi nempe figuram,
    qua tibi, quaque places nostro, importuna, marito.”
    Dixit et adversa prensis a fronte capillis
    stravit humi pronam. Tendebat bracchia supplex:
    bracchia coeperunt nigris horrescere villis
    curvarique manus et aduncos crescere in ungues
    officioque pedum fungi, laudataque quondam
    ora Iovi lato fieri deformia rictu.
    Neve preces animos et verba precantia flectant
    posse loqui eripitur; vox iracunda minaxque
    plenaque terroris rauco de gutture fertur.
    485Mens antiqua tamen facta quoque mansit in ursa,
    adsiduoque suos gemitu testata dolores
    qualescumque manus ad caelum et sidera tollit
    ingratumque Iovem, nequeat cum dicere, sentit.
    A quotiens, sola non ausa quiescere silva,
    ante domum quondamque suis erravit in agris!
    A quotiens per saxa canum latratibus acta est
    venatrixque metu venantum territa fugit!
    Saepe feris latuit visis, oblita quid esset,
    ursaque conspectos in montibus horruit ursos
    pertimuitque lupos, quamvis pater esset in illis.
    Ecce, Lycaoniae proles, ignara parentis,
    Arcas adest, ter quinque fere natalibus actis:
    dumque feras sequitur, dum saltus eligit aptos
    nexilibusque plagis silvas Erymanthidas ambit,
    incidit in matrem; quae restitit Arcade viso
    et cognoscenti similis fuit. Ille refugit
    inmotosque oculos in se sine fine tenentem
    nescius extimuit propiusque accedere aventi
    vulnifico fuerat fixurus pectora telo.
    Arcuit omnipotens pariterque ipsosque nefasque
    sustulit, et celeri raptos per inania vento
    imposuit caelo vicinaque sidera fecit.
    Intumuit Iuno, postquam inter sidera paelex
    fulsit et ad canam descendit in aequora Tethyn
    Oceanumque senem, quorum reverentia movit
    saepe deos, causamque viae scitantibus infit:
    “Quaeritis, aetheriis quare regina deorum
    sedibus huc adsim? pro me tenet altera caelum.
    Mentiar, obscurum nisi nox cum fecerit orbem,
    nuper honoratas summo, mea vulnera, caelo
    videritis stellas illic, ubi circulus axem
    ultimus extremum spatioque brevissimus ambit.
    Est vero, cur quis Iunonem laedere nolit
    offensamque tremat, quae prosum sola nocendo?
    O ego quantum egi! quam vasta potentia nostra est!
    Esse hominem vetui: facta est dea. Sic ego poenas
    sontibus impono, sic est mea magna potestas.
    Vindicet antiquam faciem vultusque ferinos
    detrahat, Argolica quod in ante Phoronide fecit.
    Cur non et pulsa ducit Iunone meoque
    collocat in thalamo socerumque Lycaona sumit?
    At vos si laesae tangit contemptus alumnae,
    gurgite caeruleo septem prohibete triones
    sideraque in caelo, stupri mercede, recepta
    pellite, ne puro tingatur in aequore paelex.”