What good, you ask, did Priscus do, being but one? What good does the purple do to the garment?
Just this, that being purple it gives distinction and stands out as a fine example to the rest.
Another man, had Caesar in such circumstances told him not to come into the Senate, would have said, “Thank you for sparing me.” Such a one he would never have forbidden to come in; he would know that he would either sit silent like a pipkin or if he spoke would say what he knew Caesar wished and pile on more besides.
This spirit too was shown by a certain athlete, who was threatened with death if he did not sacrifice his virility. When his brother, who was a philosopher, came to him and said, “Brother, what will you do? Are we to let the knife do its work and still go into the gymnasium?” he would not consent, but endured to meet his death.
Here someone asked, “How did he do so, as an athlete or as a philosopher?”
He did so as a man, and a man who had wrestled at Olympia and been proclaimed victor, one who had passed his days in such a place as that, not one who anoints himself at Bato's. Another man would have consented to have even his head cut off, if he could have lived without it.
A common objection will be that someone like Helvidius Priscus is just being pigheaded instead of noble, that he cannot possibly get anything done on his own, that he should compromise his principles for the sake of expediency. This is politics, after all, and we all know that you need to give something if you want to get something. Can’t he be a bit more practical?
How I take this will all depend on my estimation of where the human good lies, and the objection will only stand if I believe that the things in life worth having are on the outside, and beyond my power, not on the inside, and within my power.
Which aspects of my life am I willing to compromise for the sake of which other aspects? It is, after all, only practical and expedient when it gets the job done, and so it all hinges on the goal I consider the worthiest.
Going it alone? It would be nice to share the burden with others, but if they decline to do so, it is all the more important that I take on the work. If I stand by my convictions, whatever else the external circumstances may be, I will be successful; I will have thought, spoken, and acted with integrity. If nothing else, it can also serve as a proper inspiration to others.
There’s a reason they say that all a man really has is the power to keep his word.
Perhaps many people will accept being one of the bland threads, and only a few will wish to be the purple threads, but this does not change the difference between wrong and right, between groveling in conformity and rising to the occasion. By all means, I could bow before the emperor, and submit my will for the sake of his approval, but I would now no longer be myself.
If a man is forced to decide between living the longer life or living the better life, which will he choose? If I had to surrender my very identity as a person for the sake of my survival, where would my priorities lie? Whether the stakes are big or little, that sort of question is inescapable.
I would suggest that the story shared here about the wrestler is not, as it may seem at first glance, about some sort of masculine vanity. Without the amputation of his manhood he will die, but without his manhood he will no longer be able to compete. The very thing that defined his very purpose in this life was not worth sacrificing in order to merely extend his life.
It would be no different with a poet denied the power to write, or a priest denied the power to pray, or an honest man being told that he would no longer be permitted to speak the truth.
Just this, that being purple it gives distinction and stands out as a fine example to the rest.
Another man, had Caesar in such circumstances told him not to come into the Senate, would have said, “Thank you for sparing me.” Such a one he would never have forbidden to come in; he would know that he would either sit silent like a pipkin or if he spoke would say what he knew Caesar wished and pile on more besides.
This spirit too was shown by a certain athlete, who was threatened with death if he did not sacrifice his virility. When his brother, who was a philosopher, came to him and said, “Brother, what will you do? Are we to let the knife do its work and still go into the gymnasium?” he would not consent, but endured to meet his death.
Here someone asked, “How did he do so, as an athlete or as a philosopher?”
He did so as a man, and a man who had wrestled at Olympia and been proclaimed victor, one who had passed his days in such a place as that, not one who anoints himself at Bato's. Another man would have consented to have even his head cut off, if he could have lived without it.
A common objection will be that someone like Helvidius Priscus is just being pigheaded instead of noble, that he cannot possibly get anything done on his own, that he should compromise his principles for the sake of expediency. This is politics, after all, and we all know that you need to give something if you want to get something. Can’t he be a bit more practical?
How I take this will all depend on my estimation of where the human good lies, and the objection will only stand if I believe that the things in life worth having are on the outside, and beyond my power, not on the inside, and within my power.
Which aspects of my life am I willing to compromise for the sake of which other aspects? It is, after all, only practical and expedient when it gets the job done, and so it all hinges on the goal I consider the worthiest.
Going it alone? It would be nice to share the burden with others, but if they decline to do so, it is all the more important that I take on the work. If I stand by my convictions, whatever else the external circumstances may be, I will be successful; I will have thought, spoken, and acted with integrity. If nothing else, it can also serve as a proper inspiration to others.
There’s a reason they say that all a man really has is the power to keep his word.
Perhaps many people will accept being one of the bland threads, and only a few will wish to be the purple threads, but this does not change the difference between wrong and right, between groveling in conformity and rising to the occasion. By all means, I could bow before the emperor, and submit my will for the sake of his approval, but I would now no longer be myself.
If a man is forced to decide between living the longer life or living the better life, which will he choose? If I had to surrender my very identity as a person for the sake of my survival, where would my priorities lie? Whether the stakes are big or little, that sort of question is inescapable.
I would suggest that the story shared here about the wrestler is not, as it may seem at first glance, about some sort of masculine vanity. Without the amputation of his manhood he will die, but without his manhood he will no longer be able to compete. The very thing that defined his very purpose in this life was not worth sacrificing in order to merely extend his life.
It would be no different with a poet denied the power to write, or a priest denied the power to pray, or an honest man being told that he would no longer be permitted to speak the truth.
Written in 8/2000
No comments:
Post a Comment