The Death of Marcus Aurelius

The Death of Marcus Aurelius

Monday, May 6, 2019

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 10.7


The parts of the whole, everything, I mean, that is naturally comprehended in the Universe, must of necessity perish; but let this be understood in this sense, that they must undergo change.

But if this is naturally both an evil and a necessity for the parts, the whole would not continue to exist in a good condition, the parts being subject to change and constituted so as to perish in various ways.

For whether Nature herself did design to do evil to the things which are parts of herself, and to make them subject to evil and of necessity fall into evil, or have such results happened without her knowing it? Both these suppositions, indeed, are incredible.

But if a man should even drop the term Nature as an efficient power, and should speak of these things as natural, even then it would be ridiculous to affirm at the same time that the parts of the whole are in their nature subject to change, and at the same time to be surprised or vexed as if something were happening contrary to Nature, particularly as the dissolution of things is into those things of which each thing is composed.

For there is either a dispersion of the elements out of which everything has been compounded, or a change from the solid to the earthy and from the airy to the aerial, so that these parts are taken back into the Universal Reason, whether this at certain periods is consumed by fire or renewed by eternal changes.

And do not imagine that the solid and the airy part belong to you from the time of generation. For all this received its accretion only yesterday and the day before, as one may say, from the food and the air which is inspired.

This, then, which has received the accretion, changes, not that which your mother brought forth. But suppose that this, which your mother brought forth, implicates you very much with that other part, which has the peculiar quality of change, this is nothing in fact in the way of objection to what is said.

—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 10.7 (tr Long)

The fact that things must come to be and must pass way is a necessary aspect of Nature, for wherever there is change in those things that are particular and incomplete expressions of the whole, there will be the process of generation and destruction.

Yet we somehow remain convinced that this is a bad thing, some sort of evil that pervades our world, that it is like something slowly but surely eating away at all of us. It is hardly that. Nature is herself the whole of creation, and she does not admit of any corruption from outside of herself, and she does not suffer any ignorance of her workings. Providence knows what it is about.

If you wish to remove Divine Mind from the equation, it would still not change the way it works. One may decide to question the mover behind what is moved, but one cannot ignore the order within the motion.

Whatever comes into being does not arise from nothing, and whatever falls out of being does not decay into nothing. Any change is always from what was, and into what becomes. The underlying substance remains one and the same, only altering its qualities, its appearances, and its location in time and in space. As the change is constant, what underlies the change has always been there, and always will be. There is the coming and going of many beings, all of them joined and divided in various ways, beings as modifications of Being.

When I was born into this world from my mother, I was not created as something completely new, but as a different combination of the elements that already were. When I die to this world, I will not blink out of existence, but merely become a different combination of the elements that already were.

There is no spontaneous beginning to any of it, and there is no spontaneous end to any of it. It admits only of a transformation, for what is still remains what it is. My own life and death are a reflection of the deeper life and death, and then once again new life, of what has always been. This is not an evil, but rather a good, the fulfillment of rebirth.

A newborn child is not a complete beginning, and a dying man is not a complete end. I must look more broadly at the world to understand this.

As I have grown older, it is easy to assume, as they say, that things fall apart, that the center cannot hold. Still, I should look not just to the falling apart, but also to the rebuilding that follows that falling apart. The center is precisely what holds the entirety of it together.

As I have grown older, I have seen more and more people I love turn away, move away, or pass away.

As I have grown older, I have seen more and more things I care for rust away, crumble away, or fade away.

And as I have grown older, I have also seen more and more people and things come to be, grow to fullness, and prosper with a great glory.

There is no beginning without an ending, and no ending without a beginning. Earth, and water, and air, and fire shift from one to the other, in a constant dance. 

Written in 1/2009

 

Epictetus, Golden Sayings 90


Asked what Common Sense was, Epictetus replied:
 
As that may be called a Common Ear that distinguishes only sounds, while that which distinguishes musical notes is not common but produced by training; so there are certain things that men not entirely perverted see by the natural principles common to all. Such a constitution of the Mind is called Common Sense. 


Sunday, May 5, 2019

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 10.6


Whether the Universe is a concourse of atoms, or Nature is a system, let this first be established, that I am a part of the whole that is governed by Nature.

Next, I am in a manner intimately related to the parts that are of the same kind with myself. For remembering this, inasmuch as I am a part, I shall be discontented with none of the things that are assigned to me out of the whole.

For nothing is injurious to the part if it is for the advantage of the whole.

For the whole contains nothing which is not for its advantage; and all natures indeed have this common principle, but the Nature of the Universe has this principle besides, that it cannot be compelled even by any external cause to generate anything harmful to itself.

By remembering, then, that I am a part of such a whole, I shall be content with everything that happens. And inasmuch as I am in a manner intimately related to the parts which are of the same kind with myself, I shall do nothing unsocial, but I shall rather direct myself to the things that are of the same kind with myself, and I shall turn all my efforts to the common interest, and divert them from the contrary.

Now, if these things are done so, life must flow on happily, just as you may observe that the life of a citizen is happy, who continues a course of action that is advantageous to his fellow citizens, and is content with whatever the state may assign to him.

—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 10.6 (tr Long)

Whatever philosophy speaks to you the most, or whatever system you may subscribe to, please consider that our entire world, absolutely all of it, is completely one. It is not many realities, but one reality. There is no “yours” or “mine”, only “ours”.

We will often hear how a support for the whole sometimes requires the rejection of the part. They tell us that some must lose, so that many more may win. If the majority benefits, it is quite acceptable if the minority suffers.

This always troubled me when I was younger, but I assumed it was just because I was one of the losers. I began to just accept that state of affairs, where I needed to come to terms with the fact that I was disposable, a piece of residue, something thrown into the trash after my betters had their way.

The Roman Catholic faith I was raised with taught me that every life was worthy and dignified, but that is hardly what I saw in practice. The important priests were happy when you paid them their tithes and flattered them, but then they looked the other way when you were in need. I would come to church to find God, only to find that there was quite the entry fee.

This wasn’t what Christ taught, but then again, Jesus was a poor carpenter; they wouldn’t have given him the time of day either, if he came to them for support and comfort.

In religion, we assume that the institution matters more than the members. I once was shocked to see an old fellow removed from a Mass by ushers, who were all local cops, because there were complaints about his scraggly appearance and his body odor. Clearly, it offended the better folks.

In business, we assume that the institution matters more than the members. I once saw a CEO, worth many millions of dollars, suddenly fire the five most recent employees, on the grounds that the company could only make its optimal profits by quickly cutting some costs. Clearly, the masters ruled over the slaves.

In education, we assume that the institution matters more than the members. I once listened, in complete horror, to a Dean explaining that it was best to close a less popular academic program, leaving about a dozen students unable to complete a degree. It was, he said, about making a statement to improve the school’s status and reputation. Clearly, the image trumped the actual people.

In government, we assume that the institution matters more than the members. I once had a client who had filled out a form incorrectly, and was then told that he was ineligible for any assistance, because a certain deadline had passed. A bureaucrat at Health and Human Services told me that this was unfortunate, but that the system only worked when we excluded the slackers.

One is only comfortable with that sort of thinking if one is at the giving end, not at the receiving end.

I am not really bright, or gifted, or important, but I did start to wonder: shouldn’t it be for all of us, and not just for some of us? Perhaps I am a loser by the standards of an uncaring society, but do I have to be a loser by the standards of Nature?

How, I thought, can the whole even function at all, if some of the parts are allowed to whither? We all rise together, and we all fall together. If it is really good for the whole, it will have to be good for all the parts, each and every one.

Each of those events troubled me deeply, but I began to see that complaining about them would never make them go away. I also saw that I could choose to be a social animal, and not a selfish animal, and that any solution began with me. Do you wish to dispose of others? Do you think that the ends always justify the means? Perhaps I can’t convince you otherwise, but I know that I will never live in that way. I will not be like you.

I will gladly suffer what happens to me, if I can only employ it to make myself better. I will not, however, remain silent if you think that some people are more important than others. All of us matter, each and every one, and I have also learned that I matter, in however humble a way.

You may say I am a loser, but Nature gave all of us the gifts to win in this life. I choose to define winning very differently than you. Break one piece, and the entire machine will fall apart. Anything else is a contradiction in terms, and an affront to Nature.

Written in 1/2009

Thomas a Kempis, The Imitation of Christ 1.19


Of the exercises of a religious man

1. The life of a Christian ought to be adorned with all virtues, that he may be inwardly what he outwardly appears unto men. And verily it should be yet better within than without, for God is a discerner of our heart, whom we must reverence with all our hearts wheresoever we are, and walk pure in His presence, as do the angels. We ought daily to renew our vows, and to kindle our hearts to zeal, as if each day were the first day of our conversion, and to say, "Help me, O God, in my good resolutions, and in Your holy service, and grant that this day I may make a good beginning, for hitherto I have done nothing!"

2. According to our resolution, so is the rate of our progress, and much diligence is needful for him who would make good progress. For if he who resolves bravely oftentimes falls short, how shall it be with him who resolves rarely or feebly? But manifold causes bring about abandonment of our resolution, yet a trivial omission of holy exercises can hardly be made without some loss to us. The resolution of the righteous depends more upon the grace of God than upon their own wisdom; for in Him they always put their trust, whatsoever they take in hand. For man proposes, but God disposes; and the way of a man is not in himself.

3. If a holy exercise be sometimes omitted for the sake of some act of piety, or of some brotherly kindness, it can easily be taken up afterwards; but if it be neglected through distaste or slothfulness, then is it sinful, and the mischief will be felt. Strive as earnestly as we may, we shall still fall short in many things. Always should some distinct resolution be made by us; and, most of all, we must strive against those sins which most easily beset us. Both our outer and inner life should be narrowly examined and ruled by us, because both have to do with our progress.

4. If you cannot be always examining yourself, you can at certain seasons, and at least twice in the day, at evening and at morning. In the morning make your resolves, and in the evening inquire into your life, how you have sped today in word, deed, and thought; for in these ways you have often perchance offended God and your neighbor. Gird up your loins like a man against the assaults of the devil; bridle your appetite, and you will soon be able to bridle every inclination of the flesh. Be you never without something to do; be reading, or writing, or praying, or meditating, or doing something that is useful to the community. Bodily exercises, however, must be undertaken with discretion, nor are they to be used by all alike.

5. The duties that are not common to all must not be done openly, but are safest carried on in secret. But take heed that you be not careless in the common duties, and more devout in the secret; but faithfully and honestly discharge the duties and commands which lie upon you, then afterwards, if you have still leisure, give yourself to yourself as your devotion leads you. All cannot have one exercise, but one suits better to this man and another to that. Even for the diversity of season different exercises are needed, some suit better for feasts, some for fasts. We need one kind in time of temptations and others in time of peace and quietness. Some are suitable to our times of sadness, and others when we are joyful in the Lord.

6. When we draw near the time of the great feasts, good exercises should be renewed, and the prayers of holy men more fervently besought. We ought to make our resolutions from one Feast to another, as if each were the period of our departure from this world, and of entering into the eternal feast. So ought we to prepare ourselves earnestly at solemn seasons, and the more solemnly to live, and to keep straightest watch upon each holy observance, as though we were soon to receive the reward of our labors at the hand of God.

7. And if this be deferred, let us believe ourselves to be as yet ill-prepared, and unworthy as yet of the glory which shall be revealed in us at the appointed season; and let us study to prepare ourselves the better for our end. Blessed is that servant, as the Evangelist Luke has it, whom, when the Lord comes He shall find watching. Verily I say unto you, He will make him ruler over all that He has.


Saturday, May 4, 2019

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 10.5


Whatever may happen to you, it was prepared for you from all eternity; and the implication of causes was from eternity spinning the thread of your being, and of that which is incidental to it.

—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 10.5 (tr Long)

I must always be careful not to put the cart before the horse. Simply because I may prefer something, will not not make it true, and simply because it may be convenient for my desires at the moment, will not make it right.

The danger is that I might begin with a conclusion, and then concoct an imaginary argument to justify it; I will start with what I want, and confuse it with what I need. I ought to remember that reasoning is quite different from rationalizing.

There have been times when I have felt more comfortable living in a world of inherent order and purpose, and there are times when I have longed for a world of aimless chance. This comes from my mood, however, and not from any sort of wisdom; it describes my passions, loosed from my understanding.

Even as my feelings will change, I struggle to maintain a sense of reason, and over many years of grappling with the way things work, I cannot bring myself to embrace the primacy of chaos and disorder.

This is because, in my mind, the very first principles of logic, of identity, of non-contradiction, and of the excluded middle, demand that something is what it is, that it cannot be its opposite, and that it either is or it isn’t. To claim otherwise is to argue for what is literally impossible. The necessity of causality, that every effect requires a cause, and that something cannot come from nothing, follows from these principles.

If it has happened, it has happened for a reason. If there is reason within the parts, there is also reason within the whole. I face these facts in the big picture, knowing that there is the ultimate rule of Providence, and I face these facts in the small picture, knowing that nothing of daily life occurs in vain.

I see things that seem random, but that is only in my limited perception, because I am not fully able to discern the causes right then and there. As the days pass on and on, and as I get closer to my own end, I am still acutely aware that there are much greater ends.

My own freedom, or that of any other rational creature, is not separate from that design, but already included within that design, for the agency of each aspect participates in the agency of all that is.

Each thread is spun as a part of the greater weave, and there is no weave without the weaver. It may not always be what I like, though it is my task to find a harmony between what I like and what must be.

Written in 1/2009


Tao Te Ching 32


The Tao, considered as unchanging, has no name.

Though in its primordial simplicity it may be small, the whole world dares not deal with one embodying it as a minister. If a feudal prince or the king could guard and hold it, all would spontaneously submit themselves to him.


Heaven and Earth, under its guidance. unite together and send down the sweet dew, which, without the directions of men, reaches equally everywhere as of its own accord.


As soon as it proceeds to action, it has a name. When it once has that name, men can know to rest in it. When they know to rest in it, they can be free from all risk of failure and error.


The relation of the Tao to all the world is like that of the great rivers and seas to the streams from the valleys.


Friday, May 3, 2019

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 10.4


If a man is mistaken, instruct him kindly, and show him his error.

But if you are not able, blame yourself, or blame not even yourself.

—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 10.4 (tr Long)

We can feel all different sorts of pain, but few things feel quite as uncomfortable as being in disagreement or conflict with someone. On the one hand, we suffer from anger when we think that someone else is wrong. On the other hand, we suffer from sadness when someone else thinks that we are wrong.

There is pride and insecurity mixed together, being confident enough to hate, but not being confident enough to let it go. We may claim that we don’t care what someone else thinks and says, but we really do care quite a bit, because otherwise it wouldn’t bother us so much.

And through it all, we will insist on the judgment that the other is always the one to blame. The finger of fault is pointed outwards, even as we feel quite uncertain on the inside.

Let us assume that another is indeed mistaken in his thoughts, words, or deeds. Why should I be angry with him, or hate him, or feel offended? What possible good can come from condemning him? I can hardly say that I will feel better by being frustrated with resentment, and I am hardly going to change his mind by treating him poorly.

Should I not instead help him to improve himself, using reason and respect? If he is in error, it is because he is confused, or misguided, or ignorant of what is truly good. Let me nudge him in the right direction, instead of pushing him into the ground. Then we will have worked together, and there will no need for all the petty bickering, or the cold shoulders, or the flinging of insults, or the fiery glares.

If there is any need for blame at all, let me find fault with only myself. Perhaps I was myself mistaken, and he is not in error at all, or I have misunderstood what he has said or done. Perhaps I did not speak to him rightly, or explain my thinking clearly, and then I have failed him. Perhaps I am still harboring an animosity toward him, and then I have only failed myself.

If I have judged rightly, acted justly, and been disposed charitably, and he is still mistaken, then there is no need for any blame at all. I have done what I believe is right, and he has done what he believes is right. I should still seek to help him, but there is no reason to hate him.

There is no need to become indignant about the truth, just as there is no need to deny the truth. If I am committed to what is right for myself, I will have done the best thing I can to share what is right with another. 

Written in 1/2009

Sayings of Socrates 5


I myself know nothing, except just a little, enough to extract an argument from another man who is wise, and to receive it fairly. 

—Plato, Theaetetus, 161b

ἐγὼ δὲ οὐδὲν ἐπίσταμαι πλέον πλὴν βραχέος, ὅσον λόγον παρ᾽ ἑτέρου σοφοῦ λαβεῖν καὶ ἀποδέξασθαι μετρίως.  

Thursday, May 2, 2019

Memories of the Café Budapest, Boston MA


I swear, I often suspect that I will not die of some horrible wasting disease, or from some sudden accident, or in a moment of passionate violence. I have this sneaking feeling, perhaps just a hope, that one day my heart will have been broken one too many times, not in body but in spirit, and Nature will tell me, in all of Her compassion: "You've had enough, you did your best. You are relieved of duty."

Fine, that's just a hope, not an expectation.

I had always been raised with a distinct sense that I was a European by birth and heritage, an Austrian more specifically, and I was told that this was something I should be proud of, to never surrender it. I wandered away, but I always came back. There is something deeply noble, and also something deeply sad, about a Central European mindset. My Irish half can inspire me to lofty principles, furious passion, deep melancholy, burning anger, or crushing despair, but it is as nothing compared to the overwhelming power of my Austrian half.

My grandmother, an Austrian of the old school, would tell me about how the Hungarians had always been our brothers and sisters, and it was only the politics of a new and toxic century that had made us lose our bonds of faith and culture. Gott und Kaiser, God and Emperor. No one in my family ever spoke poorly about creeds and races, though they often spoke poorly about trendy and vicious ideologies.

As a child, I would sometimes be treated to the Café Budapest, located in the basement of the Copley Square Hotel in Boston, for a special occasion. I once, aged about eleven or twelve, broke all etiquette by licking the end of a bottle, and to this day it is the source of a good family laugh.

It was also the last place I was out to dinner with my grandmother and step-grandfather, as well as my great-grandfather and great-grandmother, all together at the same time. They all passed away within only a few years after that, and I still associate losing them with that final meal. It broke my heart.

A few years later, I thought there could be nothing more romantic than taking a girl I was deeply in love with to the Café Budapest for a fancy date. There was always the Café Florian down on Newbury Street for an espresso or a glass of wine, with its carefully arranged racks of European magazines and newspapers, but you had to go to Café Budapest down on Exeter Street if you wanted to play it up.

I could manage the Florian regularly, but the Budapest was a very special thing if you weren't made of money. She was made of money, but I wasn't. It was something I planned for, and I saved for, and I never forgot that moment.

I swore unending love to her at the Café Budapest, and I walked on clouds, all dressed up in that double-breasted navy jacket I had wanted for so many years.  I even bought a tin of the old Balkan Sobranie cigarettes, now no longer made, for that day, and I felt like I was channeling Humphrey Bogart, even if the best I could pull off was a third-rate Jimmy Stewart.

The girl, of course, eventually found someone better. She was that sort of girl. But I never lost the sense of romance, of class, of a wonderful age that was soon to die, if not already dead, whenever I remembered that fine dinner. It cost me my entire bank account at the time, but it was priceless. Still, she broke my heart.

I dragged myself into the dark for some years after that, because it's the foolish and sensitive folks who end up in the gutter. That sort of woman, the one who loves you and then leaves you, never understands why you just can't get over it; she never understands that sincere love is something you don't move on from, but something you can only try to come to terms with.

Many years after that, I felt confident enough to try again, this time with a very different sort of woman. She didn't lie, she didn't cheat, and she didn't play games. She was a firebrand, however, more than I could hold in my hands, but love is never about holding anything at all, is it? It is about being consumed, every little bit of us.

On our honeymoon, in all a rather humble affair, I took her to the old Café Budapest. The place was, sadly, not what it had once been. The food was still perfect, the service was still impeccable, and the whole atmosphere was still as deeply romantic, but it was clear that this was no longer a "place to be" for all of the important people. I had made reservations, but half the tables were empty. The rich and classy folks in Boston had obviously moved on to other, more trendy restaurants. Now, for all it had been, it was a dying thing.

My wife and I treasured it for what it was, not for what other people may have thought it was, and we always intended to come back. By the time we tried, it was too late. The Café Budapest was gone, as I should have known it would be. In its place was a euro-trash nightclub.

I regret not having made one last visit to the Café Budapest. The memory of it kept stewing in my mind, as a reflection of where I had come from, of who I had once been, and of what I hoped I could still be. Yet that world was gone, not just that of my own experiences, but the whole way of life I had grown up with. It may sound so silly, but the loss of the Café Budapest broke my heart.

We might say that people are just people, and that places always change, and that events are never as much as we make them out to be. Still, some people don't fade away. Some places are burned in our hearts. Some events mean more now than they did back then.

A broken heart may not kill you, but it will scar you. You never forget it, and it stays with you forever, whether as an annoying ache or as a crippling burden. There are many ways to make sense of a broken heart, but no way at all to erase it. In my own mind, for whatever reason, the Café Budapest represents all of that.

Long after I had moved away from Boston, which did ultimately help me to conquer many old demons, I read a news story about the people who had run the Café Budapest, where they had come from, and how it all ended for them.

And it broke my heart all over again. This time it wasn't just about me, but about feeling compassion for others. I read this story, and I cried once more, for every loss I had ever suffered, and for every loss every one of us has ever suffered.

We are all made of the same stuff, and cut from the same cloth. No amount of class, or fame, or money is going to change that. The human condition has incredible highs, and suffocating depths. Love who you can, as fully as you can, while you still can.

From Boston Magazine, 5/15/2006:

On the stoop outside a small brick house on Longwood Avenue in Brookline sits a basket filled with a jug of milk, a carton of eggs, and a tub of cottage cheese, an unclaimed delivery just beginning to sour in the morning air. The rooms inside are a cluttered mess, papers and manila folders strewn over desks, a manual typewriter in a corner, boxes everywhere.

A frail, old woman, still wearing her pajamas, lies face up on a bed, one foot hanging off the side, faint red bruises across her wrinkled neck. Upstairs, a man lies on a bedroom floor, surrounded by chair cushions. Sheets are pulled over his face, and his limbs are tangled in the cord from a nearby phone.

Only a few years ago, this had been the couple everyone in Boston wanted to be seated with at charity dinners, or next to at the symphony and ballet. He was the meticulous medical examiner known for his dry wit. She was the elegant owner of Café Budapest—a dining institution for 37 years, the Russian Tea Room of Boston — who always greeted her guests in a swirling white dress and long white gloves, an accessory that hid the green tattoo of the number A-16540 on her wrist from the time she'd spent in a Nazi concentration camp. With their thick Hungarian accents, even their most casual conversation seemed theatrical.

In a few moments, the stillness in their home will be shattered by the deliberate footsteps of the cop and firefighter who will discover their limp bodies, and by the whimpering of the couple's dog from behind a closet door. Yellow crime-scene tape will go up, clues will be tucked inside plastic evidence bags, and in their final autopsy report, officials will call the deaths of George Kury and his wife, Hedda Rev-Kury, a murder-suicide. If not for one important twist, this would be all there is to tell.

But, you see, this is a love story.

They made a most unlikely couple. It was 1952, and Livia Hedwig Rev—her friends called her Hedda—was a striking 28-year-old blonde who eight years earlier had barely survived the concentration camp at Auschwitz by cooking with her mother and sister in the kitchen. (Of the 200 people in her extended family, only 10 survived.) One day, while she was in medical training at the University of Budapest Hospital, friends introduced her to a tall and handsome patient. George Kury was a soft-spoken Hungarian soldier studying to become a doctor, three years younger than she, and not Jewish.

Theirs was a romance without lavish gifts, blossoming at a time when the streets of Budapest were clotted with poor people standing in line for hours to claim a few slices of bread. Under the postwar communist regime, nobody did anything or went anywhere without being watched. “The border had barbed wire,” remembers Judith Balogh, who attended medical school in Budapest with George Kury and now lives in Lincoln. “Leaving the city, you needed permission. Leaving the country was impossible.”

Unless you were willing to cheat death. In 1956, with Hungary exploding in revolution, Hedda, her sister, Edith, and their mother fled to Vienna, machine-gun fire bursting at their heels. George made his way to Yugoslavia, and for a few months didn't know if he would ever see Hedda again. When he finally arrived in Boston, a scar from a battle wound across his chest, he boarded a train for Woods Hole, where he was reunited with her, and where, only a few weeks later, they were married in the ocean breeze. Within a year Hedda was pregnant, and on July 28, 1958, she gave birth to their son, Charles Andrew.

For a pair of young doctors, Boston was the ideal city in which to launch careers, and the two of them, both pathologists, eventually moved to Brookline. He focused on forensics and eventually became a medical examiner on Cape Cod; she specialized in clinical pathology, opening labs in Brookline and in Peabody. On weekends they would head to the Cape with Charles to relax at the vacation home they'd bought in Falmouth, a happy couple living a world away from the tumult of their youths.

Just as Hedda and George were following their dreams, Hedda's sister Edith followed hers, opening a restaurant near Beth Israel Hospital with her mother as her partner. “All the medical residents got a discount if they went there for lunch,” says Dr. Lajos Koncz, who started a Hungarian cultural club that George and Hedda joined. “That's how this whole collaboration, the whole family affair, got started.”

Two years later, Edith was forced to move the restaurant—but she quickly found a new landlord. Roger Saunders, who owned the Copley Square Hotel and had become one of her regulars, offered his hotel's basement, the former home of the legendary Storyville jazz club.

“She said to me four words,” Saunders recalls of Edith's first visit to the space: “Dahrlink, this is purfect.”

In her new location, Edith opened Café Budapest and created a stage for romance, where people came not just for the cold cherry soup or the velvety beef stroganoff, but for the entire experience. “It was like something out of a Bogart movie,” says John Boyajian, who supplied the restaurant with caviar, smoked salmon, and foie gras. Edith decorated with dark woods, red velvet chairs, and a handpainted espresso machine. She hired a violinist, and every night, in a sparkling white gown, she greeted her patrons as they descended the stairway. “She loved men,” Boyajian says. “She had a dignified, flirtatious way.”

The restaurant did so well that after 10 years, Edith wrangled a sweetheart lease out of Saunders. The term was for life. And her sister would take over when she died.

During each shift, Edith slipped into her office for long drags on a cigarette. At the evening's end, when the last table had been cleared and the chandeliers dimmed, a chauffeur would drive her home in her white Cadillac with a replica of the Hungarian royal seal painted on the side. Edith had lost two husbands, and her mother died in 1965. She was living with Hedda and George, whose medical careers were thriving.

“I didn't know Hedda and George very well,” says Saunders, “because they didn't come to the restaurant too often.” That changed in 1988, when lung disease brought on by her three-pack-a-day habit confined Edith to a hospital. It was there, in her last days, that Edith took her younger sister's hand and made Hedda swear that, after she died, her restaurant would live on.

Unlike Edith, a born hostess, the more reserved Hedda had to grow into the role. Overnight, she went from reading medical charts to organizing seating charts. “She was a doctor. It was a big challenge for her,” says Jose Estrompa, the general manager at the Copley Square Hotel. Reluctant to give up her labs, Hedda juggled her medical practice and the restaurant, slipping out of her white coat and into her trademark white gloves each afternoon. It kept her from George, who rarely stopped by the restaurant, but he never complained; the restaurant conventions she took him to were a welcome change from the staid medical junkets they had attended for decades.

Meantime, Café Budapest's seasoned staff helped ease Hedda's transition. Of course, she tried to do everything exactly as her sister had, right down to Edith's unorthodox practice of paying retail at her trusted seafood market.

Even the freshest fish, however, couldn't prevent a restaurant that once seemed regal and cosmopolitan from growing kitschy and stale, especially as the wave of new high-end continental eateries with their celebrity chefs swept over Boston. Couples would canoodle in its booths on Valentine's Day, but by the mid-1990s, Café Budapest was struggling.

Hedda, desperate, started balancing the books with her own cash. A former general manager estimates that she poured $400,000 of the money she and George had saved into the fading institution. And when Saunders lined up buyers, Hedda turned them all down.

“I think she felt that the Budapest could not be operated outside her family,” he says. “There was a loyalty to her sister that was beyond my comprehension. That's why she stayed in business even after the profit was not there.”

On the night of Saturday, October 14, 2000, Saunders summoned the staff to the hotel bar. “Everyone knew it was coming, but not then,” says Jawdat Hatoum, who worked at Café Budapest for 12 years. “The holidays were coming. We thought we would finish out the year.”
 
Saunders was brief. “This is the last night of Café Budapest,” he announced. The plan had been for Hedda to deliver that news, but she was too upset. She arrived late and never said a word.

For several months after Café Budapest closed, hotel employees would occasionally glimpse Hedda slipping downstairs to her shuttered restaurant. Nobody knew what she was doing, but when Saunders first showed the space to the men who would ultimately lease it and open the nightclub Saint, they were startled to find all the tables perfectly set, every knife, fork, and plate in place.

“It was haunted,” Saunders says. “Like it was ready for business that night.”

For Hedda, closing Budapest was like losing her sister a second time. Her health deteriorated, and she lost interest in socializing. Friends knew she had Parkinson's disease, but say that on the few occasions they did see her, she looked ashen and weak, as if something far worse had taken hold of her body. George told friends a stray cat had scratched her, and the resulting infection had left her bedridden.

“I didn't see the tremendous tremors,” says Steve Gallant, the couple's financial adviser for nearly 20 years. “I saw a down-and-out person. George was taking over paying the bills, and he hated doing that.”

George's job also had him depressed. His position in Pocasset had been cut, and he was being transferred to Boston, a move he was dreading because of the politics sure to come with it. “He was willing to work,” Gallant says, “but he wanted to spend time with Hedda.”

Shortly before 10:30 a.m. on Monday, March 31, Brookline police got a worried call from a friend of the Kurys who hadn't heard from them in a few days. Patrolman David Wagner drove to their house, walking beneath the towering shrubs and up the brick path to the front door. He had to step around a pile of mail along with the dairy delivery. He knocked on the door and waited. Nothing. He walked around back and knocked. Nothing. Out of options, he called for the fire department to shatter a front window.

A few minutes later Wagner was following firefighter Pat Canney through the shards.
Inside, they saw Hedda lying on a bed. There was no sign of any struggle. “Brookline Fire Department,” Canney shouted. She didn't move. As he approached her, he saw some red bruises on her neck. Paramedics arrived in a few minutes, found no pulse, and determined that rigor mortis was already setting in, meaning she'd been dead for at least several hours. Then Wagner heard a dog bark. He followed the sound upstairs, where he discovered George's body on a bedroom floor, and the dog in the closet. In a nearby sitting room, the police found a note on a piece of lined yellow paper.

“There was a note with some instructions he wanted carried out,” says Brookline Police Captain Thomas Keaveney. “It made references to how he had done something.” Asked about the tone of the note, Keaveney says, “You could say he was remorseful.” The police immediately reached out to the couple's son, still living in their Falmouth house. (Charles did not respond to requests to comment about his parents for this story.)

A Connecticut medical examiner was called in to perform the autopsies—so that George's colleagues would not have to work on the case—and determined in his final report last month, details of which were obtained by Boston magazine, that Hedda died of strangulation and George of a Valium overdose.

“Maybe he was terribly depressed after so many years,” Saunders speculates. “Maybe she was terribly depressed because she hadn't been able to carry out her sister's wishes. And maybe the two of them decided between them that they would both die. Maybe it wasn't a murder-suicide.”

He pauses, choosing his words carefully. “Maybe it was two suicides. Makes more sense to me. Murder's a horrible word to associate with such a lovely, intelligent human being.”

Their will, which left the bulk of their estate to their son and Gallant, provided no clues. But Hedda left something else behind. A notorious pack rat, she'd been keeping notes of her memories and typing a memoir on a dusty old manual typewriter. She got only so far. Her last entry is for July 27, 1957. It was the date she and George had been married.

IMAGE: The staff of the Café Budapest, c. 1981

Capable of Love





Boethius, The Consolation 3.24


. . . “This then,” said she, “is a simple, single thing by Nature, only divided by the mistakes of base humanity; and while men try to gain a part of that which has no parts, they fail both to obtain a fraction, which cannot exist, and the whole too after which they do not strive.”

“Tell me how they fail thus,” I said.

“One seeks riches by fleeing from poverty, and takes no thought of power,” she answered, “and so he prefers to be base and unknown, and even deprives himself of natural pleasures lest he should part with the riches which he has gathered. Thus not even that satisfaction reaches the man who loses all power, who is stabbed by sorrow, lowered by his meanness, hidden by his lack of fame.

“Another seeks power only; he scatters his wealth, he despises pleasures and honors that have no power, and sets no value upon glory. You see how many things such a one lacks. Sometimes he goes without necessaries even, sometimes he feels the bite and torture of care; and as he cannot rid himself of these, he loses the power too which he sought above all things.

“The same argument may be applied to offices, glory, and pleasure. For since each one of these is the same as each other, any man who seeks one without the others, gains not even that one which he desires.”

“What then?” I asked.

“If any man desires to obtain all together, he will be seeking the sum of happiness. But will he ever find that in these things which we have shown cannot supply what they promise?”

“No.”

“Then happiness is not to be sought for among these things that are separately believed to supply each thing so sought.”

“Nothing could be more plainly true,” I said. . . .

—from Book 3, Prose 9

The more something is one, the more it is perfect. The more something is joined together, the more complete it becomes. The more something is good, the more it includes all lesser goods within it. If I am seeking that which leaves nothing to be desired, and to which nothing more can be added, then I must also of necessity be seeking unity, simplicity, and purity.

Instead of pursuing only what is relative, I should turn to what is absolute. Instead of focusing merely on the part, I should look at the whole. Instead of limiting myself to the effect, I should proceed to the cause.

This may sound like terribly abstract metaphysics, but it has always helped me to examine such matters as concretely as possible. If I am looking at many things in front of me, what makes them many is precisely that in some way or other they are all different from one another. If they are different, that means that each has something that the other doesn’t, and while each is good in its own way, it is hardly good in the way of another.

Consider a table filled with all sorts of different tools. Every tool is designed for its own distinct task, sometimes one that is quite specific or specialized. A screwdriver, a hammer, a wrench, or a saw will be helpful for one job, but useless for another.

And now think about how people will sometimes use only one tool at the expense of the others, and then they wonder why they aren’t getting the job done. It will be fruitless trying to mow the lawn with a kitchen knife, or frame a picture with a blowtorch. We then get quite frustrated, and even blame the tools, and say that the job is impossible to complete.

This is something like what happens when a man narrows in on one aspect of life at the expense of the others, and then he wonders why he is not yet happy. He confuses the “one” thing he needs with only one separate part of the whole, and does not see that the “one” thing he needs is what binds all the parts together in the whole. He has divided things instead of joining them.

I was talking about tools with my daughter one day when we I was tinkering in the garage, and she thought deeply for a moment. “Wait,” she said, “if each tool is really only good for a few things, what’s the one thing that can get all the things done? Is there like some kind of super-tool?”

These are the sorts of moments as a father, or as a teacher, or generally just as a human being, that I enjoy the most. She started imaging what sorts of qualities a tool would need to have in order to get everything done, but quickly realized no one physical object could ever do all those things. A jack-of-all-trades is the master of none.

“So what’s that one thing you would need,” I asked her, “that’s better than all the tools, and that can help you fix anything?”

She frowned for a bit, and then suddenly smiled, pointing with her finger at her head. “You need a person who knows how to use all the tools, and when to use them!”

No one tool on the workbench is enough; the unity of purpose within the mind of the craftsman is what provides the whole context. Look to the source.

So one man believes he will be happy by becoming rich, and he dedicates himself completely to this task, but he doesn’t pay any attention to power or pleasure. Another man believes he will be happy by becoming powerful, but he doesn’t pay any attention to pleasure, or honor, or wealth, or glory, or anything else that shares in the whole of goodness.

Whatever particular form this error may take, it involves confusing the individual pieces with the way those pieces should all fit together.

Written in 9/2015

Ecclesiastes 5:16-20


[16] This also is a grievous evil: just as he came, so shall he go; and what gain has he that he toiled for the wind,
[17] and spent all his days in darkness and grief, in much vexation and sickness and resentment?
[18] Behold, what I have seen to be good and to be fitting is to eat and drink and find enjoyment in all the toil with which one toils under the sun the few days of his life which God has given him, for this is his lot.

[19] Every man also to whom God has given wealth and possessions and power to enjoy them, and to accept his lot and find enjoyment in his toil—this is the gift of God.
[20] For he will not much remember the days of his life because God keeps him occupied with joy in his heart.

Wednesday, May 1, 2019

Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 10.3



Everything that happens either happens in such a way as you are formed by nature to bear it, or as you are not formed by nature to bear it.

If, then, it happens to you in such a way as you are formed by nature to bear it, do not complain, but bear it as you are formed by nature to bear it.

But if it happens in such a way as you are not formed by nature to bear it, do not complain, for it will perish after it has consumed you.

Remember, however, that you are formed by nature to bear everything, with respect to which it depends on your own opinion to make it endurable and tolerable, by thinking that it is either your interest or your duty to do this.

—Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 10.3 (tr Long)

Only one of two things will occur whenever I face any sort of obstacle, or threat, or danger. Either I will be able to survive it, or it will kill me. A profound beauty of Stoic thinking is that either option can be completely good, understood rightly, and that I never need to fear for anything at all in both cases.

Though I would argue that he meant it in a totally different context, one that flies directly in the face of Stoicism, it sounds familiar to that powerful line from Nietzsche: “That which does not kill us, makes us stronger.” I only impishly add that even if it does kill us, that can still make us stronger.

Can I survive it? Good. It is an opportunity given to me by Providence to be a better man, as I choose to overcome it. Will it destroy me? Good. That is also an opportunity given to me by Providence to be a better man, as I choose to face my passing with conviction. There will only be gain, and no loss at all, if accept who I am, and what I was made to be.

I often found, after years and years of discouragement, that teaching could feel like quite the thankless task. One tries to do something helpful, and one is usually told that it is a complete waste of our time at best, or brutally offensive at worst.

Yet I always enjoyed those brief moments, however few and far between, when a handful of students took a question seriously. I have fond memories of a class where we passionately argued about all sorts of moral conundrums, like the classic old “Trolley Problem”. If you could turn the switch on a rail track, would you do so if that now meant one person had to die, as opposed to doing nothing, which results in many people dying?

One of my students offered an interesting and imaginative alternative, what she called the “Steamroller Problem”. Say that you and a person you intensely dislike are having a heated argument while walking down the street, oblivious to everything about you, only to find that you have both wandered into a sticky pit of newly poured asphalt. A steamroller is quickly coming your way, and the driver has headphones on, unable to hear your cries for help.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that you have only a moment to act, and you have only enough strength to either pull yourself from the goopy mess, or throw your enemy out of the goopy mess. Make it even more confusing, and realize your nemesis has exactly the same choice. What will your choice be?

Yes, I know, life doesn’t usually happen in such cookie-cutter circumstances, but just imagine that it did. Ignore also the fact that hindsight is 20/20. What is the right thing to do?

How I choose to answer that question is not merely a question of theory, but it goes straight to revealing the very practical principles we hold the most dear.

I know my own answer, but it is hardly my place to tell you your own. Which comes first, your own good, or acting for the good of another, even for someone you despise?

And the Stoic, I would suggest, sees all that as a false dichotomy, an assumption of an either/or, when it should be a both/and. Survival is hardly the issue at all; acting with virtue for oneself, and helping other people act with virtue for themselves, is all that matters.

It doesn’t even revolve around whether one of you dies, or both of you die, because we will all end up dying. What matters is how well both of you live, while you still have the option to live. Do not let what your enemy chooses decide for you, because that is beyond your power; decide upon what is within your own power to choose.

Has your enemy now lived longer? It is of no matter, because he will also die one day. It is, as is so often the case with Stoic living, that the quantity never trumps the quality. It all ends, and it only depends on how it ends.

Where there is life, yes, there is hope. Where there is death, yes, there too is hope. What possible purpose can there be if I complain about what I am able to determine? I can fix that. Likewise, what possible purpose can there be if I complain about what I am not able to determine? It is spilt milk.

Even if my condition means that it must be the end of me, my character can always remain intact. Whatever anyone else may do, or whatever forces may act upon me, my judgments and actions remain my own.

Written in 1/2009

The Art of Peace 21


As soon as you concern yourself with the "good" and "bad" of your fellows, you create an opening in your heart for maliciousness to enter. Testing, competing with, and criticizing others weakens and defeats you.