But these matters, when they are more loosely discussed, appear somewhat obscure; but those things which seemed to be discussed with more subtlety than is necessary in words, may be illustrated by the lives and actions of the greatest of men.
I ask then of you, whether the men who left to us this empire, founded upon so noble a system, seem ever to have thought of gratifying avarice by money; delight by delicacy; luxury by magnificence; or pleasure by feasting?
Set before your eyes any one of our monarchs. Shall I begin with Romulus? Or, after the state was free, with those who liberated it? By what steps then did Romulus ascend to heaven? By those which these people term good things? Or by his exploits and his virtues?
What! Are we to imagine, that the wooden or earthen dishes of Numa Pompilius were less acceptable to the immortal gods, than the embossed plate of others? I pass over our other kings, for all of them, excepting Tarquin the Proud, were equally excellent.
Should anyone ask, what did Brutus perform when he delivered his country? Or, as to those who were the participators of that design, what was their aim, and the object of their pursuit? Lives there the man who can regard as their object, riches, pleasure, or anything else than acting the part of a great and gallant man?
What motive impelled Gaius Mucius, without the least hope of preservation, to attempt the death of Porsenna? What impulse kept Cocles to the bridge, singly opposed to the whole force of the enemy? What power devoted the elder and the younger Decius, and impelled them against armed battalions of enemies?
What was the object of the continence of Gaius Fabricius, or of the frugality of life of Manius Curius? What were the motives of those two thunderbolts of the Punic war, Publius and Gnaeus Scipio, when they proposed with their own bodies to intercept the progress of the Carthaginians? What did the elder, what did the younger Africanus propose? What were the views of Cato, who lived between the times of both?
What shall I say of innumerable other instances; for we abound in examples drawn from our own history; can we think that they proposed any other object in life but what seemed glorious and noble?
I ask then of you, whether the men who left to us this empire, founded upon so noble a system, seem ever to have thought of gratifying avarice by money; delight by delicacy; luxury by magnificence; or pleasure by feasting?
Set before your eyes any one of our monarchs. Shall I begin with Romulus? Or, after the state was free, with those who liberated it? By what steps then did Romulus ascend to heaven? By those which these people term good things? Or by his exploits and his virtues?
What! Are we to imagine, that the wooden or earthen dishes of Numa Pompilius were less acceptable to the immortal gods, than the embossed plate of others? I pass over our other kings, for all of them, excepting Tarquin the Proud, were equally excellent.
Should anyone ask, what did Brutus perform when he delivered his country? Or, as to those who were the participators of that design, what was their aim, and the object of their pursuit? Lives there the man who can regard as their object, riches, pleasure, or anything else than acting the part of a great and gallant man?
What motive impelled Gaius Mucius, without the least hope of preservation, to attempt the death of Porsenna? What impulse kept Cocles to the bridge, singly opposed to the whole force of the enemy? What power devoted the elder and the younger Decius, and impelled them against armed battalions of enemies?
What was the object of the continence of Gaius Fabricius, or of the frugality of life of Manius Curius? What were the motives of those two thunderbolts of the Punic war, Publius and Gnaeus Scipio, when they proposed with their own bodies to intercept the progress of the Carthaginians? What did the elder, what did the younger Africanus propose? What were the views of Cato, who lived between the times of both?
What shall I say of innumerable other instances; for we abound in examples drawn from our own history; can we think that they proposed any other object in life but what seemed glorious and noble?
—from Cicero, Stoic Paradoxes 1
While the theory will set the terms, only the practice will seal the deal. Like so many who have aspired to an intellectual life, I have spent too much of my time talking the talk, and therefore I have often failed when it comes to walking the walk.
The best inspiration is not an idea of a good man, but rather the works of a good man. I understand completely why we try to present heroes for our children to follow, though I sometimes wonder if we might be pointing to the right people for all of the wrong reasons.
In grade school for example, I was taught to revere Washington and Lincoln, and when I pushed for an explanation that went beyond a colorful poster with an uplifting quote, I was hastily told it was because they had both won wars.
Hadn’t Napoleon and Stalin also won wars? “Yes, but they weren’t the good guys.”
Which leads me straight back to my original question: so what makes the good guy a good guy? It is much the same when we venerate those who are incredibly rich or popular: does their greatness came from their fortune and fame, or perhaps from something far more important, to which the fortune and fame are merely accidental?
No one should be reduced to a caricature, and none of us are without our faults. Nevertheless, some will rise to the occasion, with no concern for any reward beyond that of a sound conscience. It took me many years to learn more about what motivated both Washington and Lincoln, which gave me a far better sense of what truly defines character.
Reading this section prompted me to brush up a little on my Roman history; I was reminded how such narratives can be full of folly and ambiguity, making me squint in order to discern the excellence.
That is, however, as it should be, since the right thing is always bound up with the wrong things. Cicero correctly observed how we must isolate what determines greatness, and it will turn out that the virtues behind the circumstances make all the difference.
I will not include my rambling notes on Romulus, Lucius Junius Brutus, Gaius Mucius, or Horatius Cocles. Each age will have its own stories, and their historical accuracy is less important than what they say about the deeper values they endorse. Look closely at the qualities in a hero, and you will learn much about the merits of a society.
For my purposes, I think about the meaning of being a “gentleman” or a “lady”, terms still in use when I was a child, though they have now been all but abandoned. Whatever your background, you can surely find your own equivalent.
Now is such a name given to someone on account of his property, or birth, or breeding? Those who speak in this way reveal their priorities. Or is such a name given to someone on account of his moral worth, regardless of his station? Those who speak in this way continue to stand with the timeless principles of a Cato and a Cicero.
I humbly suggest we have a problem when our politicians must be rich, and our artists must be sexy, and the whole lot of our celebrities must be decadent. Yet hasn’t that always been the problem? And hasn’t the solution always been to go against the grain by pursuing integrity instead of prosperity?
While the theory will set the terms, only the practice will seal the deal. Like so many who have aspired to an intellectual life, I have spent too much of my time talking the talk, and therefore I have often failed when it comes to walking the walk.
The best inspiration is not an idea of a good man, but rather the works of a good man. I understand completely why we try to present heroes for our children to follow, though I sometimes wonder if we might be pointing to the right people for all of the wrong reasons.
In grade school for example, I was taught to revere Washington and Lincoln, and when I pushed for an explanation that went beyond a colorful poster with an uplifting quote, I was hastily told it was because they had both won wars.
Hadn’t Napoleon and Stalin also won wars? “Yes, but they weren’t the good guys.”
Which leads me straight back to my original question: so what makes the good guy a good guy? It is much the same when we venerate those who are incredibly rich or popular: does their greatness came from their fortune and fame, or perhaps from something far more important, to which the fortune and fame are merely accidental?
No one should be reduced to a caricature, and none of us are without our faults. Nevertheless, some will rise to the occasion, with no concern for any reward beyond that of a sound conscience. It took me many years to learn more about what motivated both Washington and Lincoln, which gave me a far better sense of what truly defines character.
Reading this section prompted me to brush up a little on my Roman history; I was reminded how such narratives can be full of folly and ambiguity, making me squint in order to discern the excellence.
That is, however, as it should be, since the right thing is always bound up with the wrong things. Cicero correctly observed how we must isolate what determines greatness, and it will turn out that the virtues behind the circumstances make all the difference.
I will not include my rambling notes on Romulus, Lucius Junius Brutus, Gaius Mucius, or Horatius Cocles. Each age will have its own stories, and their historical accuracy is less important than what they say about the deeper values they endorse. Look closely at the qualities in a hero, and you will learn much about the merits of a society.
For my purposes, I think about the meaning of being a “gentleman” or a “lady”, terms still in use when I was a child, though they have now been all but abandoned. Whatever your background, you can surely find your own equivalent.
Now is such a name given to someone on account of his property, or birth, or breeding? Those who speak in this way reveal their priorities. Or is such a name given to someone on account of his moral worth, regardless of his station? Those who speak in this way continue to stand with the timeless principles of a Cato and a Cicero.
I humbly suggest we have a problem when our politicians must be rich, and our artists must be sexy, and the whole lot of our celebrities must be decadent. Yet hasn’t that always been the problem? And hasn’t the solution always been to go against the grain by pursuing integrity instead of prosperity?
—Reflection written in 5/1999
IMAGE: Jacques-Louis David, The Intervention of the Sabine Women (1799)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment