Latin culture class, complete course

DOWNLOAD GREEK FONT HELLENIKA

Please ask me for the PDF at g.ghiselli@tin.it

I Lezione pp. 1-5

The origins of literature and of the laws. Odusīa and the XII tables

The first latin literature was born as translation of greek literature: Livio Andronico (born 272) in III century before Christ translates jOduvvsseia in Odusīa:

[Andra moi e[nnepe, Mou'sa, poluvtropon, o}ς mavla pollav (I, 1).

The first line translated in latin is: Virum mihi Camēna, insĕce versutum.

the man sing to me, o Muse, versatīle, who very much- (was forced to wander and suffer and so on)

Latin literature continues to translate and imitāte the greeks models in following centuries.

A latin writer, author of I cent. a. C., Quintiliano (35-95) writes: satira quidem tota nostra est”[1], the satīre is certainly all ours.

Lucilio (180-102) was the first author of satires, the second was Orazio (65- 8) who Lucilium fluere lutulentum et esse aliquid quod tollere possis putat, thinks that Lucilio flow muddy and in his work there is something that you can take away. So Orazio refined the genre that went on with Persio (34-62) and Giovenale (60-130). The metre of satire is hexameter.

Quintiliano, a pedagogist, claims the satiric genre as autochthonous roman. The second genre in the classification of autochtonia, according to Quintiliano, is elegy, poetry whose theme, subject predominant among latin writers is love: elegīa quoque Graecos provocamus (Institutio oratoria, X, 93), also in elegy we can challenge the greeks authors. The most important elegiac poets are Cornelio Gallo (69-26 a. C.), Tibullo (54-19), Properzio (49-15), Ovidio (43- 17 a. C.), defined lascivus, dissolute,

by Quintiliano. For instance he writes that to know girls the men must go to theater, where the women spectatum veniunt, veniunt spectentur ut ipsae"[2], come in order to see and come to be seen themselves.

Infact the christian authors as Tertulliano (150-220) and Agostino (354-430) condemned the theatrical performances. Saint Agostino in his book Confessiones[3] (Co nfessions) calls his youthful passion for theater miserabilis insania, deplorable madness, insanity, (III, 2).

The metre is elegiac couplet. Maybe we’ll deal later with these genre more autochtonous.

Well, apart from satire and elegy epic poetry, dramatic genre, tragedy and comedy, lyric poetry are all imitations, even if with variations, of Greek models. On the other hand, much part of English and generally European literature depends on Greek patterns: one can think of connection among Plutarco (through Amyot and T. North who translated the greek author, the first into french, the second form french to english) and Shakespeare, or to remember the mythical method of T. S. Eliot who, in a famous review[4] of Ulixes[5] by Joyce, defined the mythical method in opposition to narrative method as the way to give a form, one shape, and a meaning, a significance, to this huge panorama of vulgarity and anarchy that is the contemporaneous world.

"Instead of narrative method, we may now use the mythical method ". Mythical means comparative.

His poems The waste land (1922) is full of quotations from classical writers.

I mean that through the mediation of latin language, the greek culture and literatur has strongly influenced all the European culture. As regards language, 75 words on hundred of English language have an etymological relationship with latin words. English is a Germanic language “neo latin ad honorem”.

Translation of greek masterpieces was in origin a training to reach a certain originality.

Nevertheless, there are also assertions of superiority of some part of the latine culture, especially of juridical culture. With regard to laws, Cicero (106-43 b. C.) boasts the Code of Twelve Tables of half V century b.C.: duodecim tabularum leges collected by decemviri legibus scribundis. He writes: bibliothecas me hercule omnium philosophorum unus mihi videtur XII tabularum libellus […] et auctoritatis pondere et utilitatis ubertate superare » (De oratore, I, 44, 195)

 I think that the small book of XII tables surpasses in weight, importance of authority and richness of utility the libraries of all philosophers.

In the word utilitas we can recognize the pragmatism of latin culture.

Cicero thinks that XII Tables are the kind of good law, as the roman Constitution, is the best

In the first book of Res publica of Cicero (I, 45) the character of Scipio junior says that the best form of government is genus moderatum et permixtum tribus, the constitution moderate and mixed with three kinds: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, id est, that’s to say: consules, senatus, populus.

This idea comes from Polibio (200-118) and his mikth; politeiva, mixed constitution.

Tito Livio (59 b. C. -17 a. C.) in age of Augustus calls these ancient roman Code fons omnis publici privatique iuris (III, 34, 6), the source of all public and private law.

One of these laws contains the crādle, birthplace of Mafia and of Italian bad use, rotten custom, of recommendation, introduction: it says: “Patronus si clienti fraudem fecerit, sacer esto " VIII, 2, if the patron, the godfather, will defraud, cheat, the client, follower, he must be damned, cursed.

See also the first Ecloga of Bucolica (carmina) pastoral poetry, of augustan poet Virgilio (70-19): it is the history of a reccomandation: the shepherd Meliboeus has lost his expropriated lands given to veteran soldiers of triumvirs after the battle of Filippi (42 b. C.). Well, the second shepherd, Tityrus, alter ego of Virgilio, went to Rome where he knew Ottaviano, and for intercession of him had again his fields.

The laws of XII tables are very hard: they provide death penalty for the thief who steals in the night: Si nox furtum faxit, si im occisit, iure caeso esto (VIII, 12) Is archaic latin. If one steals in the night, if the man robbed kills him, it is legal.

 It is’nt quite outdated: Salvini, leader of Lega party, requests the same in these days.

Another article (V, 1) order: “Feminas, etsi perfectae aetatis sint, in tutela esse, exceptis virginibus Vestalibus, women, also when they become grown up, adult, must be under guardianship, except (save, but) virgin vestals (priestesses of Vesta, the goddess of hearth, of home)

This subordinate condition of the women begins to change only from the second century b. C.

 Cato senior, the censor (in 184 b. C.) who speaks in senate against women who, in 195 b. C. manifest against a sumptuary law (lex Oppia) that after the battle of Canne (216) had ordered restrictions to the luxury of women. But Cato speaks against every emancipation of women. He is afraid of it.

"Maiores nostri nullam, ne privatam quidem rem agere feminas sine tutore auctore voluerunt, in anu esse parentium, fratrum, virorum (…) date frenos impotenti naturae et indomito animali et sperate ipsas modum licentiae facturas (…) omnium rerum libertatem, immo licentiam, si vere dicere volumus, desiderant" (Tito Livio 59 b. C. -17 a. C. , Ab urbe condita libri 142, XXXIV, 2, 11-14), our ancestors did non want that women could handle any business not even private without a curator, guardian; they had to remain under the check of fathers, brothers, husbands (…) relax the brakes, the reins, to a nature so intemperate, to a unruly, riotous creature and after you can hope (ironically) that they will give alone, spontaneously, a limit to the liberty (…) they want, they miss freedom, rather, liberty in all fields, if we want to call it with the right name.

In this beginning of II century the women began to free themselves, but in the V cent. b. C. all the family was still subject to the power of father in family: patria potestas, was very strong: almost a slavery of the sons.

The article IV, 2 orders: Si pater filium ter venumdit, filius a patre liber esto, if the father sells thrice the son, the son must be free from father.

The ten legislators of biennium 451-450 b. C. , decemviri, were removed with accusations of tyranny because their laws constituted anyway a limit to patrician’s power, but several centuries later Cicero writes that the greek legilslators Licurgo, Dracone, Solone, were inferiors and “ tum facillime intelligetis quantum praestiterint nostri maiores prudentiā ceteris gentibus si cum illorum Lycurgo et Dracone et Solone nostras leges conferre volueritis” (De oratore I, 197) then you can very easily understand how much our ancestors were superior to all people in wisdom if you want to confront our laws with Licurgo (Spartan), Dracone (Athenian), Solone (Athenian) of those (greeks).

Incredibile est enim, quam sit omne ius civile prater hoc nostrum inconditum ac paene ridiculum, infact is unbelievable how much is every civil right but this ours, confused and almost ridiculous.

Anyway those three greek legislators were glorified and almost deified, while Appio Claudio, leader of decemviri was accused of violence against the girl Virginia and he had to go into exile and, committed for trial, killed himself. (cfr. Livio, III, 33 ss.).

All the same the juridic culture is one of the prides of Latin writers.

The relative value of the laws

Tacito (50-120) supports in polemic that law is less strong than the custom: “Nemo illic vitia ridet, plusque ibi boni mores valent quam alibi bonae leges (Germania[6], 19), nobody there (in Germany) mocks vices and good customs are worth there more than good laws somewhere else.

 The polemic of Tacito is against the new laws: he thinks that the XII Tables duodecim tabulae were finis aequi iuris (Annales, III, 27) the last fair laws, afterwards they became too many, untill, in his time corruptissima re publica, plurimae leges, more corrupt is the State, more numerous are the laws.

In the IV book of Annales (36) Tacito writes: leves ignobiles poenis adficiebantur, only not important not famous persons were struck by the law. This happened under Tiberio (14-37) and continued later. The Annales were written after 105 a. C.

See Plutarco (46-125), Life of Solone (5, 2, 4) where Scytian Anacarsi says to athenian legislator (was elected and nominated a[rcwn, -archon- nomoqevth"- legislator- kai; diallakthv" –reconciling-in 594 b. C.) that his laws are similar to spider’s webs: they retains only little and weak animals.

II lezione pp. 6-9

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit Greece conquered by Romans conquered the rude conqueror

Several authors recognized the supremacy of greek arts.

Orazio (65-8 b. C.) writes in Epistula II, 1: “Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit et artes/intulit agresti Latio: sic horridus ille/defluxit numerus Saturnius et grave virus/munditiae pepulere; sed in longum tamen aevum/manserunt hodieque manent vestigia ruris” ", (156-160), Greece was before conquered and after conquered the rude conqueror, and brought the arts in rural, rustic, Latio. So disappeared that rude metre saturnio[7] and elegance expelled the heavy taste; but in a long time remained and today remains trails, rustic imprints.

The historic task and the origin of roman empire. Virgilio and Orazio

Virgilio (70-19 b. C.), a poet augusteus, as Orazio, indicates the arts congenials with romans: “tu regere imperio populos romane, memento. / haec tibi erunt artes, pacisque imponere morem, /parcere subiectis et debellare superbos” (Eneide, VI, 851-853), you, Roman remember to lead peoples with your command. These will be your arts: to establish the custom of peace, to spare subject people and to defeat prouds.

In a similar way, in the first book of his opus maximum, Virgilio introduces Iuppiter, Jupiter, who speaks to Venus and says with regard to descendants of Enea, the Romans: “imperium sine fine dedi. Quin aspera Iuno (…) mecum fovebit Romanos rerum dominos gentemque togatam” (Eneide, vv 279ss.), I gave an empyre without end. Rather, later Iuno, Juno, now hard, will favour with me the Romans masters of the world and people togated. The toga, garment of white wool, is the uniform of roman citizenship.

On the other hand Enea, son of Venus, is an exile fugitive from Ilio, Troy, his burning town, as points out Seneca (4 b. C. -65 a. C.) in Consolatio ad Helviam matrem (VII. 7) written from banishment in Corsica (about 42 a. C.). “Romanum imperium nempe auctorem exsulem respicit, quem profugum capta patria, exiguas reliquias trahentem, necessitas et victoris metus longiqua quaerentem in Italiam detulit”, roman empire clearly regards as its author, maker, an exile, refugee, a man run away far from the native country occupied, a man bringing only scant, little relics, a man whom the necessity and the fear of the winner, dragged to Italy while he was looking for far earths.

 Orazio, as Virgilio, is a poet augusteus “orthodox”: they recognize the debt of latin literature to greek culture and in the same time, they celebrate the emperor and the roman imperialism: Orazio writes that Augustus is clarus Anchisae Venerisque sanguis (Carmen saeculare, in sapphic strophes, 17 b. C., line 50), eminent blood of Anchise and Venus, bellante prior, iacentem lenis in hostem (51-52), winning on the enemy in war, clement to the enemy dejected. Such man, of cours emperor Augustus, is also a winner cultural and moral: he re-establish the golden age: “iam Fides et Pax et Honor Pudorque/priscus et neglecta redire Virtus/audet, apparetque beata pleno/Copia cornu” (57-60), the ancient values dare already to come back: Faithfulness and Peace and Honour and the old Decency and Virtue before neglected, and appears also Plenty with cornucopia (horn of plenty).

The function and the defects of autocracy Tacito.

Tacito (55-120 a. C.) is a harsh critic against some emperors (especially Tiberio 14-37, Claudio 41-54, Nerone 54-68, Domiziano 81-96) but anyway he thinks that after 100 years of civil wars omnem potentiam ad unum conferri pacis interfuit (Hist. I, 1), suited peace that all the power was gathered, assembled, in the hands of one man.

The peace was furthered, favoured, by this autocracy, but culture, truth, art and freedom became disadvantaged: “posqtuam bellatum apud Actium atque ad unum conferre pacis interfuit, magna illa ingenia cessere; simul veritas pluribus modis infracta, primum inscitia rei publicae ut alienae, mox libidine adsentandi aut rursus odio adversus dominantis” (Hist. I, 1) after the war in Azio (31 b. C.) and the victory of Ottaviano, suited peace that all the power was assembled, in the hands of one man, (but) the famous great genius disappeared: in the same time, the truth in many ways adulterated, before by the ignorance of politic life that became extraneous, outside, then by the lust for flattery, adulation, or on the contrary by the hate against the commanders.

Also in the Annales his last work, his opus maximum, Tacito denounces the total subjection of society “At Romae ruere in servitium consules, patres, eques. Quanto quis inlustrior, tanto magis falsi et festinantes” (Ann. I, 7), but in Rome ran to submit, to become slave, the consuls, the senators, the businessman. As more a man was high-ranking, important, as more false and zealous, prompt

This first emperor, differently from dictator Caesar, succeded anyhow in getting an almost general consent: “ubi militem donis, populum annona, cunctos dulcedine otii pellexit, insurgere paulatim, munia senatus magistratuum legum in se trahere, nullo adversante” (Annales, I, 2), when he had seduced the soldiers with presents, the crowd with a low price of corn, all the romans with the sweetness of peace, little by little became more powerful, and centralized in his hands the prerogatives, privileges of senate, of offices, of laws.

Caesar was killed (44 b. C.) by a plot of high class, but he had already seduced the crowd with the low prices or the gifts of provisions. Lucano (39-65), nephew of Seneca, writes that Caesar was “gnarus et irarum causas et summa favoris-annona momenta trahi” (Pharsalia, III, 55-56) conscious that the causes of rages and the strongest impulses of favour are drawn by prices.

 Annales begin with the death of Augustus (14 a. C.) and the succession of Tiberio who ordered to kill the nephew of Augustus, Agrippa Postumus. After the execution, when Agrippa was murdered by the hired killer, a centurion, this soldier went to the new emperor ut mos militiae (Annales, I, 7) as is in military use, to announce factum esse quod imperasset, that the order received had been executed, but the new emperor neque imperasse sese et rationem facti reddendam apud senatum respondit, replied that he did not give the order and that was necessary to account to senate for the deed.

Arcana imperii

In this occasion one fiduciary of Tiberio, Sallustio Crispo, warned Livia, the mother of emperor ne arcana domus vulgarentur, not to reveal the secrets of the palace (royal palace) to anybody: eam condicionem esse imperandi ut non aliter ratio constet quam si uni reddatur (I, 6), the condition of absolute command is that the account is correct if it is gave back to only one person, just the emperor himself.

Another arcanum, secret, is discovered when in summer of 68 a. C. the sixth legion in Spain proclaimed emperor Galba: evulgato imperii arcano posse principem alibi quam Romae fieri (Hist. I, 4), was disclosed a secret of empire: the emperator may be created far from Rome.

III lezione pp. 10-14

Condemnations of roman imperialism

On the other hand there are some character in historiographic books who condemn roman imperialism and sometimes give voice to the author of the book. I can give some examples.

In the Historiae of Sallustio (80-35 b. C.) we may read a letter of Mithridates king of Ponto (132– 63 b. C. ) irreducible enemy of Rome, to Arsace king of Partia, another likely antagonist, at least intermittent. Mitridate fought against many roman leaders: Silla, Lucullo and Pompeo. He died suicīde.

The letter must be written in 68 a. C.

So this deadly enemy of Romans, writes to Arsace: “Romanis cum nationibus populis regibus cunctis una et ea causa bellandi est: cupido profunda imperi et divitiarum”, the Romans have only one and well known reason for fighting against States, people, kings: i. e. the deep craving, longing, of rule and wealth.

And continues: callidi et repertores perfidiae, they (i. e. Romans) are astuts, cunnings, and inventors of perfidies, treacheries.

And, recalling the famous rape of Sabinas the first wives of roman men, stolen, kidnapped a little time after the foundation of Roma: “neque quicquam a principio nisi raptum habuere, domum coniuges, agros, imperium ", from the very beginning nothing they had but stolen; house, wives, fields, empire.

They are pestis terrarum, the plague of lands, they waste the lands.

Lucano (39-65), in neronian age, writes a poem (approximately 62-65 a. C.) Pharsalia that tells about bella plus quam civilia (I, 1) wars more than civils, between Caesar and Pompeo, socer generque[8], father in law and son in law, war that finished with the defeat of Pompeo in Pharsalo (48 b. C.).

 Well, Lucano condemn not only this war between Romans and Romans, and relatives in addition, but he throws also an anathema, curses against all the politic of Rome after the death of Cato minor (46 b. C.) and the end of res publica (44 b. C.):

Bella per Emathios plus quam civilia campos, / iusque datum sceleri canimus, populumque potentem/ in sua victrici conversum viscera, dextrā/cognatasque acies… (Pharsalia, I, 1-4) we are singing wars more than civils in fields of Tessaglia and the right given to the crime and the powerful, mighty, people turned against his viscera, guts, with his conquering right hand, and the war among soldier relatives. Et ducibus tantum de funere pugna (VI, 811) and the leaders fight only for a grave that is the end for both, Pompeo killed in Aegypt (48), Caesar in Rome (44 b. C.).

Another book probably of neronian age is Satyricon ascribed to Petronio.

It includes a poem of 295 hexameters always about civil wars between Caesar and Pompeo. These are the first lines: orbem iam totum victor Romanus habebat, /qua mare, qua terrae, qua sidus currit utrumque. /nec satiatus erat" (119, vv. 1-3), the Roman conquering had already in his hand all the world, how far runs the sea, arrive the lands, and both the directions of sun, but was not satiate.

And a little ahead: “…si quis sinus ultra, /si qua foret tellus, quae fulvum mitteret aurum, hostis erat, fatisque in tristia bella paratis/querebantur opes… (4-7) if there was a farther gulf, if a some land that could send yellow gold, it was enemy, and the fates were ready, prepared, for sad wars, they look for richness.

Seneca who was tutor, preceptor, of Nero emperor, followed the Stoic philosophy and died suicide in 65 a. C. He thinks that power is a nucleus of evil. He writes: “reges saeviunt rapiuntque et civitates longo saeculorum labore constructas evertunt ut aurum argentumque in cinere urbium scrutentur " (De ira, III, 33, 1), the kings committ cruelties, sack, and destroy nations built with long hard work of centuries, to look for gold and silver in the ashes of the ruins of towns. The causes of crimes are always ambition and avidity.

According to Seneca, in particular Seneca author of tragedies, the quintessence of power is the evil: the kingdom coincides with fraud, crime and furor madness, and the only escape is obscura quies (Fedra, 1127), obscure quiet, to keep apart in the serenity of one’s own corner.

As in the tragedies by Shakespeare (f. e. Macbeth) in those by Seneca, the mechanism of power is a staircaise whose steps to trample on are lives of men and women. Arrived on the top, the killer king is killed by next king. Always so ends the macabre climb to the power. After the last step always the jump into the void.

The kingdom, regnum, is a fallax bonum, a deceptive good that under a seductive façade, front, hides many evils. Nobody can be glad of kingdom: “Quisquamne regno gaudet? O fallax bonum/quantum malorum fronte quam blanda tegis” (Seneca, Oedipus, 7-8). These are words of king of Thebe Oedipus who describes the plague of the town. He will discover that the mivasma, the contamination derives from himself.

In the tragedy Phoenissae (The Phoenicians), Giocasta asks the son Polinice to give up the war, because the prize of the winner is the kingdom, id est a punishment: “poenas, et quidem solvet graves: regnabit” (v, 645), he will pay a punishment, and certainly heavy: he will reign.

The real royalty is the control of passions, fears and turbulences of soul: “rex est qui posuit metus-et diri mala pectoris”, king is who put down the fears and evils of cruel soul, heart (Thyestes, 348)

And a bit further (380 ff.): “mens regnum bona possidet” a balanced mind has a reign (…) nihil est opus urbes sternere, there is no need to raze to the ground towns (. .) rex est qui metuet nihil, - rex est cupiet nihil. -Hoc regnum sibi quisque dat, king is who will fear nothing, king is who will long for nothing. Everyone can give this reign to himself.

In Epistula 24 Seneca writes: “non hominibus tantum sed rebus persona demenda est et reddenda facies sua”, not only from the men but also from things we must take away the mask and to give back their real substance. Cfr. Lucrezio (96-45) who wrote: “eripitur persona, manet res" (De rerum natura III, 58), the mask is tore, remains the substance.

Nerone followed Seneca only along the first time of his reign. In that period he was full of goodness and humanity: Svetonio (70-125) writes that when the laws obliged him to sign a death sentence, the young emperor cried: how I would like not to know to write “quam vellem, inquit, nescire litteras!” (Neronis vita, 10). Svetonio writes the biographies of 12 Caesars, from Julius Caesar to Domiziano, presenting them before in summary, then in details “neque per tempora sed per species” (Augusti Vita, 9), et not in chronological order but through topics, arguments.

But already in 55 Nero made kill Britannico, in 59 his mother Agrippina; in 62 his wife Octavia.

Then married Poppea, the wife of senator Otone.

 In this same year 62 Seneca retired from politic life and he took refuge in his cosmopolis stoic; in 65 killed himself.

 Sallustio, in 40 b. C., had written: "primo pecuniae, deinde imperi cupido crevit: ea quasi materies omnium malorum fuere " (De coniuratione Catilinae, 10), before grew up the craving of money, then of empire, and those longings were, one can say, the bait of all evils. Sallustio thinks that social and politic evils begin with the disappearence of metus hostilis, the fear of enemies with the end of danger from Carhago destroyed in 146 b. C by Scipione Emiliano (185-129).

Ante Carthaginem deletam…metus hostilis in bonis artibus civitatem retinebat. Sed ubi illa formido mentibus decessit, scilicet ea quae res secundae amant, lascivia atque superbia, incessere " (Bellum Iugurthinum, 41), before the destruction of Carthago, the fear of enemies kept good qualities in the town. But when that fear disappeared, the things that the success loves (loved by success), licentiousness, debauchery and arrogance, pride, came foreward.

Untill Romans became latrones gentium (Sallustio, Historiae, 4, 69, 22) robbers of people, as wrote Mitridate to Arsace (supra).

 A topic recurring: it comes back in Agricola (98 a. C) by Tacito): “raptores orbis, postquam, cuncta vastantibus, defuere terrae, mare scrutantur: si locuples hostis est, avari, si pauper, ambitiosi, quos non Oriens, non Occidens satiaverit: soli omnium opes atque inopiam pari adfectu concupiscunt. Auferre, trucidare, rapere falsis nominibus imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. "(30), robbers of the world, since the earths are missing to there global devastations, they search the sea: if the enemy is rich, avid, if poor insistent, they don’t get full either with East or West: only they between all people desire with the same passion wealth and poverty. To steal, to massacre, to rob, with false names they call empire and where they make desert, they call it peace.

Is the speech of Calgaco the leader of Caledonian rebels, before the battle of mount Graupio (84 a. C.) won by romanian army led by Agricola, the faher in law of Tacito. This leader with his victory caused the envy of emperor Domiziano (81-96) according to Tacito.

Ugo Foscolo (1778-1827) refers these words in epistolary novel Ultime lettere di Jacopo Ortis (The last letters of Jacopo Ortis, 1798): “vi furon de’ popoli che per non obbedire a’ Romani ladroni del mondo, diedero all’incendio le loro case” (28 ottobre 1797), there were some people that, willing disobey to Romans, robbers of the world, set their house on fire.

IV lezione 15-28

“Epic objectivity” (is a callida iunctura, perspicacious matching of words by Mazzarino, Il pensiero storico classico, Laterza)

The historiographers profess, declare their impartiality. The model of latin writers of history was, above all athenian, Tucidide (460-400 b. C) who gets rid of myth (I, 22, 4) and the fabulous, because he wants that is History of peloponnesian war might be useful to whom wishes to learn how works the history whose deeds recur with cyclicity. He asserts to be realistic and impartial.

Luciano (120-185) in Pw'" dei' iJstorivan suggravfein As you have to write the history, asserts: “ JO d j ou\n Qoukudivdh". . . ejnomoqevthse" (42), Thucidides legislated. On the other side, already Omero (VIII b. C.) was objective recognizing valour to Troians and also Erodoto (norn 484-dead after 430) who in the prologue of his history of persian wars writes: I want to tell the deeds great and wonderful showed by greeks and barbarians (e[rga megavla te kai; qwmastav, ta; me; n {Ellhsi, ta; de; barbavroisi ajpodecqevnta)

Well, Tucidide really legislated and latin Tacito (55-120) often follows this model: in incipit of his Historiae proclaims his impartiality and objectivity. He does not deny that his career was made easier by Vespasiano (69-79), Tito (79-81) and even the bad emperor Domiziano (91-96). The last of these three flavii imperatores (Vespasiano and his sons) is handed on as very bad, neverheless Tacito writes: "sed incorruptam fidem professis, neque amore quisquam et sine odio dicendus est "(Hist. I, 1), but by the writers who profess unshaken faith everybody must be related without love and hate. This is the first chapter of Historiae that narrated years 69-96 (but we have only the years 69-70). Historiae were written about 110 a. C.

Annales are the last work. Tacito died about 117-120

In incipit of Annales Tacito announces that he will write pauca de Augusto et extrema, few and the last acts of Augustus, mox Tiberii principatum, after the reign of Tiberius, et cetera sine ira et studio quorum causas procul habeo" (I, 1) and the rest (till the death of Nero, 68 a. C, but we have only years from 14 to 66 a. C, wihout years 29-31 and 37-47) without anger and partisanship whose cause are far from me.

Anyway the history is not a list of past things, but a connection of deeds in a picture and the historiographer is a painter who must give soul and body to the ghosts of history, otherwise he is a guardian of a cemetry who keeps scrupulously the catalogue of battles and corpses.

However the objectivity is often only a programmatic introduction, as we can read also in Sallustio’s monograph on the plot of Catilina (40 b. C.): “Igitur de Catilinae coniuratione, quam verissume potero paucis absolvam” (Bellum Catilinae I, 4) I shall write about the plot of Catilina few pages with the maximum historical truth I can. But the author is objective with Mitridate, not with Catilina.

The fear of tyrant (he fears and frightens). Metus tyranni is genitive subjective and objective.

Becomes difficult to write verissume, with all truth, when the dictatorship is entire and hard. The tyrant fears to lose his power and to be killed, so he eliminates first of all parrhsiva parresia, the freedom of world the cell most significant of the body of democracy

In Oedipus by Seneca, Creonte says: “Qui sceptra duro saevus imperio regit, /timet timentes; metus in auctorem redit " (vv. 703-704), the cruel king who keeps the sceptre, the crown, with hard power, fears those who are afraid of him: the fear turns back to the author of terror, as boomerang.

Un paio di pagine tratte dal percorso sulla letteratura latina che sto preparando per il Pontificio Ateneo Salesiano

An excursus, a digression in modern literature.

Here you can see how many english words have an etymological relationship with latin words.

There is a king of Shakespeare who gives the reasons of the fear that kings and tyrants have: he is Richard II and speaks when has lost his power.

Richard II[9] was deposed in 1399 by Bolingbroke the following Henry IV.

The king deprived of power and a little after of life, exposes the sad history of the life and death of many kings:

“For God’sake let us sit (lat. sedeo, gr. e[zomai) upon the ground

And tell sad (–lat. satur, full) stories (historia, iJstoriva) of the death of kings: /

How some have been deposed (de-pono), some slain in war,

Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed,

Some poisoned (potio-onis, drink,) by their wives, some sleeping kill’d,

All murdered (lat. mors). For within the hollow

 Crown (lat. corona, wreath, korwniv") /

That rounds-rotundus- the mortal temples (lat. mortalia tempora) of a king/

Keeps death his court (cohors, courtyard); and there the antic (antiquus) sits, /

Scoffing his state and grinning at his pomp-(–lat. pompa, pomphv solemn procession), /

Allowing-late latin. allocare (to allot, lat. al – for ad, to, and locare, to place, from locus, a place). him a breath, a little scene- lat. scena-skhnhv,

To monarchize, be fear’d-(lat. periculum, danger), and kill with looks,

Infusing(lat. infusus p. p. of infundo in e fundo to pour), him with self and vain(vanus) conceit, /

As if this flesh which walls-(vallum and vallus palisade, vallare, to entrench)- about our life/

Were brass impregnable (lat. in negative prefix, not, +prehendere, to take); and humour’d (-lat. umor-, moisture, lat. umēre, to be moist)- thus,

Comes at the last, and with a little pin (lat- pinna, a wing, fin, pen)

bores(-lat. forare)- through his castle (castellum, dimin. of castrum, a fortified place) wall, and farewell king! /

Cover (lat. cooperio, to cover) your heads, and mock not late (l. muccare, to blow the nose mucus –mucus from the nose) flesh and blood/

With solemn (lat sol(l)emnis da sollus, entire, complet)+ annus, year) reverence (reverentia), throw (Idg. base*trē, as in Gk. trh'ma, a hole The grade*ter appears in L. terere, to bore, to consume, GK, teivrein, to bore, to wear out). away respect (lat. respectus, pp. of respicio, a looking at)

Tradition (traditus pp of tradere=trā for trans, across, +dere for dare, to give) form-(lat. forma, shape), and ceremonious-lat caerimonia, a caeremony, rite) duty; /

For you have but mistook me all this while.

I live with bread, like you; feel want,

Taste-(lat. taxo an intensive form of tango, I touch) grief (lat. gravis, heav)-, need friends. Subjected-(subiectus pp. of subicio, tu put under, sub under, iacere, to cast, to put) thus, /

How can you say to me I am a king? (Riccardo II, III, ii, 155-177)

The royalty is unmasked and shown naked also in The tempest (1613) when the boatswain says: “what cares these roarers for the name of King? ”

And after, the same sailor says to the king Alonso and to nobleman Gonzalo: “To cabin: silence trouble-lat. turba- us not!” (I, 1).

Tyrant against authors and books

The consciousness of precariousness of high position whence is easy to fall down (in the rugged, steep necessity where one cannot

avail himself of valid foot, writes Sofocle in Edipo re - e[nq j ouj podi; crhsivmw/-crh'tai vv. 873-879), well, such consciousness pushes the king, or worse the tyrant, to be suspicious and repressive.

Let us read again Tacito who reveals the methods and arcana imperii, the secrets of powers: “Neque in ipsos modo auctores, sed in libros quoque saevītum” (Agricola, 2), not only against the authors of books but also against books they (several emperors) committed cruelties.

Several historical works were burnt publicly in the forum.

Historiographers martyrs

Began Augusto with Titus Labienus nicknamed, called, Rabienus (full of rabies, angry against the regime). This author of Historiae killed himself because he did not want to survive his work (burnt in 12 a. C.) in which he had praised freedom.

The second historiographer martyr was Cremuzio Cordo.

Cornelio Cosso Asinio Agrippa consulibus Cremutius Cordus postulatur novo ac tunc primum audito crimine, quod editis annalibus laudatoque M. Bruto C. Cassium Romanorum ultimum dixisset", Tacito, Annales, IV, 34,

under the consuls Cornelio Cosso and Asinio Agrippa (25 a. C.) is called, convened before a court, Cremuzio Cordo for a new and never before heard crime: he had published Annales where he had praised M. Bruto and he had called C. Cassio the last of Romans. The order came by Seiano the notorious, ill famed, prefect of praetorian guard of Tiberio, and Cremuzio defended his work exalting freedom. Then he left himself to die for hunger.

Cremuzio defended himself saying that Tito Livio had celebrated Pompeo, Catullo had shamed Caesar, Asinio Pollione praised Bruto, while Greeks leave unpunished not only freedom but also liberty, licence. For example see the first comedies by Aristophanes (Acarnesi, Cavaleri-Riders, 424-425)

In Giulio Cesare by Shakespeare Bruto says to Cassius dead suicide: “The last of all the Romans, fare the well! (V, 3, 99).

The History as palimpsest

But the history is a palimpsest (a codex where you can write a second time after a scraping of preceding, prior writing) as notices G. Orwell in 1984: “All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and re-inscribed exactly as often as was necessary”[10].

Infact Caligola (37-41) rehabilitated Cremuzio Cordo and placed in favourable light his Annales.

Seneca (4 b. C. -65 a. C.) testifies it in Consolatio ad Marciam, a daughter of Cremuzio Cordo: magna illorum pars arserat (I, 3) a great part of those books had been burnt. But now (37 a. C.) legitur, floret; in manus hominum, in pectora receptus, vetustatem nullam timet” (I, 4), he, Cremutius, is read and blooms, the book is in the hands of men, is received in the breasts, does not fear any ageing.

Caligola (37-41) said: is in my interest ut facta quaeque posteris tradantur: Svetonio-70-140 a. C. - Life of Caligola 16, 1) that all the deeds are hand down to the posterity. In his first time as emperor he was looking for popularity inside a trend anti Tiberian.

But later, under Nerone (54-68) Trasea Peto accused of lese majesty killed himself. He had written a monography about Cato Uticense. Tacito santifies him writing: “Nero virtutem ipsam excindere concupivit interfecto Thrasea Paeto" (Annales, XVI, 21) Nero wanted to kill the personification of virtue killing Trasea Peto, his work debated, questioned, the autocratical government.

Let us read the comment of Tacito: “Scilicet illo igne vocem populi Romani et libertatem senatus et conscientiam generis humani aboleri arbitrabatur, expulsis insuper sapientiae professoribus atque omni bona arte in exilium acta, ne quid usquam honestum occurreret” (Agricola, 2), evidently with that fire they think to cancel, suppress, the freedom of senate and the conscience of human kind, expelled what’s more the teachers of philosophy and exiled every good culture, in order that nothing of beautiful or moral could be met in any place. The extreme of slavery is when become impossible to speak and to listen: “adempto per inquisitiones etiam loquendi audiendique commercio" (Agricola, 2), through spies was taken off the right to listen and to speak.

Euripide in the tragedy Ione[11] writes that without parrhsiva, freedom in speaking, the man has the mouth slave (tov ge stovma-dou'lon vv. 674-675).

In another tragedy, Fenicie[12], Polinice speaks with his mother Giocasta about the most hateful condition for the men in exile: “e{n me; n mevgiston, oujk e[cei parrhsivan" (v. 391), one, over all, he has not freedom of speech.

But the tyrant is not able to abolish, cut out, also the memory: “Memoriam quoque ipsam cum voce perdidissemus, si tam in nostra potestate esset oblivisci quam tacere” (Agricola, 2), we could have lost also the memory with the voice, if we might as forget as to be silent.

P. P. Pasolini in his Scritti corsari (Pirate writings, 1975) wrote that the power has excluded the free intellectuals (p. 113)

Bad and good emperors

Tacito in the third chapter of Agricola (98 a. C) writes “nunc demum redit animus”, now at last comes back the heart, the soul. He says that the emperor Nerva began (96-98) and Traiano continues (98-117) res olim dissociabilis miscere: principatum ac libertatem, to link things one time dissociated, empire and freedom. Traiano auget cotidie felicitatem temporum (Agricola, 3) increase every day the happiness of this new time.

 But the Historiae that narrate past time (years 69-96) is presented as “opus opimum casibus, atrox proeliis, discors seditionibus, ipsa etiam pace saevom, quattuor principes ferro interempi, trina bella civilia” (Historiae I, 2) a work rich of collapses, misfortunes, terrible for battles, torn by seditions, even in peace cruel, four emperors killed with iron (Galba, Otone, Vitellio 69, Domiziano 96) trhee civil wars (Galba-Otone; Otone-Vitellio; Vitellio-Vespasiano)

On the whole: “Pollutae caerimoniae, magna adulteria, plenum exiliis mare, infecti caedibus scopuli (…) nobilitas pro crimine (…) et ob virtutes certissimum exitium" (Historiae, 2), ceremonies polluted, profaned, great adulteries, the sea full of exiles, the rocks spotted, stained, with măssăcres, nobility taken for crime, and for virtues absolutely sure the death

What must do a free man under the tyrant?

Tacito disapproves the suicide and the sterīle opposition. He finds noble the attitude of his father in law, Agricola who: “non contumacia neque inani iactatione libertatis, famam fatumque provocabat"(Agricola, 42) did not provoke repute and fate with obstinacy in opposition, nor with empty, vain ostentation of freedom.

Therefore the man must know: posse etiam sub malis principibus magnos viros esse, that also under bad emperors can be, can live, great man and that obedience and moderation (obsequium ac modestiam) if there are also industry and energy (si industria ac vigor adsint) can surpass in the glory the men who inclaruerunt ambitiosa morte became famous with a spectacular death, got trhough ruins and precĭpĭces, per abrupta, sed in nullum rei publica usum, without any profit, advantage for the State (Agricola, 42).

The honest and clever man must follow a middle way between ruinous opposition and degrading servility, a way lacking in flattery and risks, inter abruptam contumaciam et deforme obsequium pergere iter ambitione ac periculis vacuum (Annales, IV, 20).

Seneca supported a kind of diarchy of emperor and Senate: Nero wen became emperor in 54 a. C was 16 years and ten months old and had Seneca as teacher in whom this teen ager believed, and in his first speech from the throne, said: teneret antiqua munia senatus (Tacito, Annales, XIII, 4), the senate must keep his ancient, traditional prerogatives.

Seneca did not make abruptam contumaciam, ruinous opposition to the emperor his pupil. Only at the point of death (65), taking leave of his friends, urged them non to cry and not to be amazed by the cruelty of Nero: “neque aliud superesse post matrem fratremque interfectos quam ut educatoris praeceptorisque necem adiceret” (Annales XV, 62), nothing was missing after the murders of mother (59) and brother (55) but to add the murder of his educator and teacher.

The teacher educator tried to teach the imperial pupil the mercy (see De Clementia, 55) and urged him to manage the power in favour of subjects because to reign is an honourable service, e[ndoxo" douleiva, as said Antigono Gonata king of Macedonia (276-239) educated by stoic teachers.

Seneca, after repudation by Nerone (in 62) remebers that along the Golden age: “officium erat imperare, non regnum” (Ep. 90, 5), to command was a duty, not a kingdom.

On the other hand, neither saint Paul proclaimed the revolt against the emperor: in 57 or 58 (therefore under Nero) in Epistula ad Romanos, Epistle To Romans, the Apostle writes: “οὐ γὰρ ἔστιν ἐξουσία εἰ μὴ ὑπὸ Θεοῦ” (non est enim potestas nisi a deo, 13, 1), every power comes from God, is no power but of God.

 So: “quae autem sunt, a Deo ordinatae sunt (13, 1). Itaque, qui resistit potestati, Dei ordinationi resistit; qui autem resistunt ipsi, sibi damnationem acquirent” (! 3, 2), the powers currents are ordained by God. Whoever therefore sets himself against the power, sets himself against ordinance of God; and they who set themselves against, shall receive damnation.

The Apostle, in the same Epistula ad Romanos, prescribes also to pay taxes: “reddite omnibus debita: cui tributum tributum, cui vectigal vectigal, cui timorem timorem, cui honorem honorem” (13, 7) give back to everybody what you must: to whom tributum tributum (tributum is the direct tax, in greek fovro"-ou, oJ); to whom vectigal vectigal (vectīgal is the indirect tax, in greek tevlo"- ou". tov);;; to whom the fear, the fear; to whom the honour, the honour. Saint Paul wanted to avoid that the christian preaching might give push to those uproars that led the emperor Claudio to expel from Rome the rising jewish-christian community: Roma expulit Iudaeos impulsore Chresto tumultuantes (Svetonio, Claudii Vita, 25, 4), expelled from Rome the Jewishes who were riotting in the spur of “Chresto”. There is confusion between Jewishes and Christians, that Romans mixed up.

Also Tacito after all approves the imperial government if the emperor is not an extremist, or mad, or criminal as Caligola (37-41), Nerone (54-68), Domiziano (81-96), nor false as Tiberio (14-37), nor weak and stupid as Claudio (41-54).

Claudio dead was ridiculed by Seneca in Apocolokyntōsis (54 a. C.) an apotheosis upset: instead of transformatin in God, as for other imperators, trasformation in pumpkin (kolovkunqa).

Anyway Tacito refuses res novas and molitores rerum novarum, revolutions and makers of revolutions. Is necessary to remember here that the impartiality of greek and latin historiographer is applied when the enemy is stranger (as Mitridate and Calgaco), but is forgotten with the inner enemy (the emperors hostiles to senatorial class whence Tacito comes).

In addition there is a prejudice against every movement coming from low, and even from high, if is in favour of poors: for example Tiberio and Caio Gracco who, aristocratic and yet tribunes of people, try to make an agricultural reform and were killed by senators large landowner (133-121 b. C.).

In Dialogus de oratoribus (Dialogue about eloquence, about 100 a. C.) Tacito reminds that the great eloquence was flourishing, prospering, with freedom and even licence: magna illa et notabilis eloquentia alumna licentiae, quam stulti libertatem vocabant (40) the great and famous eloquence, pupil of licence that stupid persons called freedom. Many, a lot of orators there were in Athen where omnia populus, omnia imperiti, omnia, ut sic dixerim, omnes poterant”, all the power was of the people, of ignorants, everything was of everybody. Also in Rome eloquence bloomed in disorder “sicut indomitus ager habet quasdam herbas laetiores”, such as a field uncultivated has some grasses more blooming.

“Sed nec tanti rei publicae Gracchorum eloquentia fuit ut pateretur et leges” (40), but the eloquence of Gracchi was not so precious for the State that could be tolerated their laws.

These brothers are remembered with a mixture of praise and blame.

They were killed by the violent reaction of the senators larg landowner. Their mother Cornelia, daughter of Scipio Africanus: “numquam, inquit non felicem me dicam, quae Gracchos peperi” (Seneca, Ad Marciam de consolatione, 16, 3), never she said I shall call not happy myself, a woman who gave birth to Gracchi.

The danger from northern barbarians

The Cimbri already in 113 and 105 had defeated Romans. Nevertheless Romans have boasted several victories against them: “tam diu Germania vincitur” (Germania, 37), its is from long time that Germania is won, writes with irony Tacito in 98 a. C. No people has been so hard and dangerous for us, he continues: “quippe regno Arsacis acrior est Germanorum libertas, infact the freedom of Germans is stronger than the kingdom, of Arsace (who founded the eastern reign of Parti in 256 b. C.)

Tacito remembers that the danger of Germani impends over Italy since more than 200 years: in 113 b. C. Cimbri defeated Romans and their consul Papirio Carbone at Norēia (in Carinzia); after, Arminio leader of Cherusci, defeated Varo in 9 d. C. in the forest of Teutoburgo; and when Romans won Germans with Marius against Cimbri in Italia (101), Caesar against Ariovisto in Gallia (58 b. C.), and Germanico, who defeated Arminio in Weser in 16 a. C, these were not easy nor overwhelming victories and there was loss of roman blood (nec impune).

 Tacito makes sarcastic remarks about the pompous triumphes celebrated by Domiziano: “Nam proximis temporibus triumphati magis quam victi sunt " (Germania, 37), infact in these recent years we celebrated triumphes more than gain victories over this enemy.

In the years 83-85 Domiziano led campaigns agains Chatti, on the right bank of river Rhine. This campagnais had strengthened the border of Rhine with agri decumates subjected to tenth tax. The triumph celebrated in 83 a. C. is mentioned also by Svetonio (Vita di Domiziano, 6).

The danger of northern people is already pointed out, indicated, by Sallustio who, however, mistake Celti for Germani, may be with the intention to enlarge the meaning of the victories of Caesar in Gallia that was conquered in the years 58-50.

 In the last chapter (114) of Bellum Iugurthinum (composed about 40 b. C.) he writes: “per idem tempus[13] advorsum Gallos ab ducibus nostris Q. Caepione et Cn. Manlio male pugnatum: quo metu Italia omnis contremuit. Illimque usque ad nostram memoriam Romani sic habuere: alia omnia virtuti suae prona esse; cum Gallis pro salute, non pro gloria certari ", in the same time our consuls Q. Caepione et Cn. Manlio fought badly against Gallics: because of this defeat all Italy trembled with fear. From that time till now the Romans thought that other people were prone to their value: with Gallics they had to fight for salvation, not for glory.

Germania by Tacito in chapter 37 makes topical, brings up to date this last chapter (114) of Bellum Iugurthinum

This is the phase of “remissive, renunciatory imperialism”

 Germania is a book of 98 a. C.

 In Annales, the last work of Tacito written when Traiano had conquered Dacia (after 107), we find the unrealistic, fanciful imperialism. When emperor Traiano won the wars against Decebalo and the Dacians (101-102 and 105-107) Tacito claims the full conquest of Germania and reproaches to Tiberio with the recall of Germanico.

 He could to subdue Germans, " sed crebris epistulis Tiberius monebat rediret ad decretum triumphum: satis iam eventuum, satis casuum, but Tiberio with frequent letters urged the nephew to come back to receive the decreed triumph: there had been successes and falls enough

 Therefore: Posse et Cheruscos ceterasque rebellium gentis, quoniam Romanae ultioni consultum esset, internis discordiis relinqui " (Annales, II, 26), Cherusci and other rebels could be left to their inner conflicts, since the defeat of Varo had been avenged.

We find a rational theory of imperialism in some words of consul Petilio Ceriale who speaks in 70 a. C. to the Trevĭri and Lingŏni people gallic and germanic in revolt. In his speech we find the reasons and justifications of roman imperialism. The empire wants to stop the advance of new Ariovisto or a second Arminio. The Romans have imposed iure victoriae, with the right of victory, only what is necessary to keep the peace. The victory and the peace demand some conditions:

 “Nam neque quies gentium sine armis, neque arma sine stipendiis, neque stipendia sine tributis haberi queunt” (Hist. IV, 74), infact is impossible to have peace without arms, neither armament without pays, salaries, neither salaries without taxes.

 If Romans will be expelled, there will be a global war and chaos, quod di prohibeant, God forbid! If we want to repel Germani or Britanni we cannot lighten taxes

“Octingentorum annorum fortunā disciplināque compages haec coaluit: quae convelli sine exitio convellentium non potest”, with the Fortune and the discipline during eight hundred years became consolidated, strengthened, this structure that now cannot be destroyed without the collapse of the destroyers themselves.

These are the words of every imperialism.

One can add to the means and the reasons of the success of Romans, what said Muzio Scevola to the Etrurian king Porsenna who whanted to restore the king Tarquinio banished from Roma in 509 b. C.: “et facere et pati fortia romanum est” (Tito Livio, Ab urbe condita, II, 9), to do and to suffer strong deeds is roman thing. He had burnt his hand because had failed in his object of killing of the king.

Tacito undertands that the german people more young and less corrupt than roman is a danger for the empire and feels that the fates are pressing: “maneat, quaeso, duretque gentibus, si non amor nostri, at certe odium sui, quando, urgentibus imperii fatis, nihil iam praestare fortuna maior potest quam hostium discordiam" (Germania, 33), I hope that remains ad continues a long time in these people, if not love of us, at least the hate among them, since, while the fates of empire are pressing, the fortune nothing more can give us than conflicts among themselves.

And in Agricola, about Celts, Tacito writes “nec aliud adversus validissimas gentes pro nobis utilius, quam quod in comune non consulunt” (12) nothing against very strong people is more useful for us than that they do not decide together. It means: divide et impera, divide and command, the motto of every imperialism

Another hope comes to Romans from weakening of barbarians when these rude men come in contact with roman civilisation: the Britanni fell into the blandishments proposed by Romans: frequens toga to wear often the toga, uniform of roman citizenship, porticus, porches, balinea, baths, conviviorum elegantia, smartness of banquets, were delenimenta vitiorum, attraction to vices: “idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset (Agr. XXI), all that was called civilisation by those inexpert, while was part of their slavery.

Il destino. The Fate

In Historiae (II, 82) Tacito writes: nihil arduum fatis, nothing is difficult for the fates. Gli occulta fati (II, 10) the hidden fate sometime looks but quae fato manent quamvis significata non vitantur (Hist. I, 18), what is due to fate even if it is shown, is not possible to avoid. The death of emperor Galba was in some way announcede by tonitrua et fulgura et caelestes minae, thunders and lightning and other threats from the sky, all phenomena because of once upon a time the electoral meetings were suspended. But it did not frighten Galba who went, in a hurry, hastily, in castra to the barracks where was killed. Or because he felt contempt for such phenomena as casual (non terruit Galbam quo minus in castra pergeret, contemptorem talium ut fortuitorum), or since is not possible avoid the fate even if it looks

Epicurean philosophy believes in chance, Stoic philosophy in destiny and necessity. According to Epicuro and Lucrezio the atoms constitute life and death and they go at random. All the events proceed at random

Seneca in De beneficiis writes Juppiter may be called also fatum "cum fatum nihil aliud sit quam series implexa causarum" (IV, 7), because fatum, fate, destiny, is nothing else but sequence linked, tied, of causes.

Tacito waves between these positions. In Annales III, 18, with regard to Claudio mocked and nevertheless become emperor (41 a. C.), the historiographer writes that the more he remembers the ancient and new facts, deeds, the more he sees the mockery in all mortal matters “mihi quanto plura recentium seu veterum revolvo, tanto magis ludibria rerum mortalium in cunctis negotiis observantur”.

Is the trick that rules the life. The man regally ridiculous became the emperor of the world.

Vespasiano is seen as the man supported by the gods. Alexandriae (69 a. C.) multa miracula evenere, quis caelestis favor et quaedam in Vespasianum inclinatio numinum ostenderetur (Hist, IV, 81), in Alexandria happened many miracles trhrough which appeared, that showed the favour of the sky and a certain predilection, fondness of gods for Vespasiano. He went as far as to health a blind. Under Claudio (in 43 a. C.) Vespasiano had served in army in Britannia where domitae gentes, capti reges et monstratus fatis (Agricola, XIII), people were tamed, kings taken prisoners and (Vespasiano) was revealed by fates.

Under Nero he fell asleep while the emperor was performing and Vespasiano was hardly saved maiore fato (Ann. XVI, 5) by a higher fate. Tacito does not give a sure reply if prevails the Necessity (anavgkh) or the free will.

The fashions

The historiographer points out that luxus mensae "(Annales, III, 55), the pomp, magnificence, of banquets began after the battle of Azio (31 b. C.) and finished with Nerone (68 a. C.). Vespasiano was one of homines novi, self made men: he came from Sabina and brought to Rome the frugality of that land. So the fashion of luxury and waste ended. But, may be, there is a cycle in all things: “Nisi forte rebus cunctis inest quidam velut orbis, ut quem ad modum temporum vices ita morum vertantur, unless in all things it is a kind of cycle, so that as the seasons, in the same way turn the altern events, vicissitude of customs, uses.

Il latifondo. The problem of latifundium

Tacito is worried about the problem of latifundium (large estate)

In a famous passage of Annales (XII, 43), he writes "at hercule olim Italia legionibus longiquas in provincias commeatus portabat, nec nunc infecunditate laboratur, sed Africam potius et Aegyptum exercemus, navibusque et casibus vita populi Romani permissa est ", and yet for Hercules, once upon a time, Italy sent provisions to the legions in far provĭnces, neither today the earth suffers from infertility, but we prefer to overwork Africa and Egypt and now the life of Roman people is committed to the ships an the risks of the sea. Tacito applies these words to the last part of empire of Claudio (41-54) but already Augusto feared that italian country could remain uncultivated owing to the idleness of plebs and so the emperor decided to suppress the distributions of corn: “quod earum fiduciā cultură agrorum cessaret " [14], because trusting in those was ending the cultivation of fields.

Plinio the Old (23-79 a. C.) in his monumental, encyclpopedical work of 37 books, Naturalis Historia, writes: latifundia perdidere Italiam, large handed estate has ruined, spoilt Italy.

V lezione pp. 29-41

Methodology

Now we say some words with regard to the method.

 You know, to proceed with method means, etymologicly, proceed in a street (oJdov" - ou', hJ). My method is comparative or mithical, as called it T. S. Eliot (1888-1965). It consists in finding connection between books, authors, literatures, topics. Greek and Latin are the running blood, sanguineous running of european literature (T. S. Eliot).

You must read and write "with a feeling that the whole of the literature of Europe from Homer and, within it, the whole of the literature of is own country has a simultaneous existence and composes a simultaneous order"[15].

In the fifth century Eschilo[16] said that his tragedies were just slices of the great homeric banquet[17], and Callimaco[18] declares: all that I sing is already testified. ("ajmavrturon oujde; n ajeivdw"[19])

This confession of depedence on models, mostly greek, goes on in latin literature and further: the comedy writer Terenzio (190-159) in the prologue of Eunuchus [20] declares: “Denique/nullum est iam dictum quod non dictum sit prius" (vv. 40-41), after all, nothing by this time is said that is not said before. Orazio in his Ars poetica (13 b. C.) prescribes: “vos exemplaria Graeca/nocturna versate manu, versate diurna” (vv. 268-269), you must read and read the greek models, turning the pages, the roll, with nocturnal and diurnal hand.

Quintiliano (35-95) supports that orator Demostene is “longe perfectissimus Graecorum”, by far the most perfect among greeks, sed non qui maxime imitandus, et solus imitandus est” (Institutio oratoria, X, 2, 24), but the orator who must be imitated more than others, must not be exclusive, must not exclude other models.

 So, among latins, is not enough Cicero as model: “Plurium bona ponamus ante oculos, ut aliud ex alio haereat, et quod cuique loco conveniat aptemus”[21], let us put before eyes the good works of many models, so that remain something from one and another, and we can apply and adapt what is fitting, what fits our works.

In short, Leopardi (1798-1837) writes: “Tutto si è perfezionato da Omero in poi, ma non la poesia"[22], all improved itself after Omero, but not poetry. To choose some models, better many models, is not a plagiarism: Leopardi declares that he is arrived at originality “a forza di moltiplicare i modelli” [23] by persisting in multiplying models.

You can think to jOdusseuv"-Ulixes who is the protagonist or anyway a very important character of several epic poems (by Homer, Vergil, Dante), tragedies (f. e. Aiace, Filottete by Sofocle; Ecuba by Euripide), elegies (Heroides1 and Metamorfosi XIII by Ovidio), novels (Joyce, Ulixes). All the european literature has a simultaneous existence. In this great organic body there are many tovpoi, loci comunes, common places “argumenta quae transferri in multas causas possunt” (Cicerone, De inventione [24], 2, 48), topics, subjects that you can transfer, use, in many causes, situations. They are means, instruments of writing, speaking, persuading. Argumentum implies also explanation and revelation (cfr. ajrgov", shining); arguo, I reveal, disclose, denounce; argutus, significant, expressive, and english “to argue”, discutere, provare). So this tovpoi, loci are sedes argumentorum.

Precisely Quintiliano (35-95) defines loci with this words "locos appello argumentorum sedes, in quibus latent, ex quibus sunt petenda " (Institutio oratoria, V, 10, 20), I call the loci seats of topics, seats where they are placed, sometimes hidden, and whence one must deduce, extract

So the study of classic books, ancient and modern, gives topics for speaking, writing, working. It develops the talents: aesthetic and also moral, ethical sense, critical (cf. - compare- krivnw, I judge[25]) ability. Communes loci of literatur and philosophy constitute an antidote against the poison of common places of publicity and every vulgarity and cunning, astute propaganda that wants to force people to think in conformity with the “orthodoxy” of advertising agents, propagandists. See the ethymology of orthodoxy that is composed of ojrqov"-(hv), right and dovxa, opinion, i. e, the opinion of salesmen.

In several authors one can find dissoi; lovgoi, contrasting speeches, and these writers, non dogmatic, drive the reader to think, and even if they are inclined to believe that one horn of a dilemma is better, they leave their readers free to choose. What every propaganda and publicity tries to prevent.

 The high literature was born from deep feelings, high thinkings, hard brainwork.

The philosophy was born from wonder

In the dialogue Teeteto by Platone (428-347), the character of Socrate argues, deduces, the tendency, the bent of Teeteto for philosophy from the fact that this man is disposed to wonder and to be amazed (155d).

Aristotele (384-322) asserts that man have began to make philosophy in origin and now because of wonder: "dia; ga; r to; qaumavzein oiJ a[nqrwpoi kai; nu'n kai; to; prw'ton h[rxanto filosofei'n"[26].

The study of classic author, if is put in touch with the life, can develop the same life. Culture strenghten the nature. The studious, the teacher must be an educator able to excite moral and aesthetic energies.

Petronio elegantiae arbiter[27], teacher of elegance, of emperor Nerone, introduces the protagonist of the novel Satyricon, Encolpio who says: “nondum umbraticus doctor ingenia deleverat, (2, 3-5), not yet an erudite grown up in the shadow had destroyed the talents, when the great poetry was connected with life.

Sapientia (sofiva, wisdom) asserts Seneca "res tradit, non verba"[28],

teaches to act, not only to speak. And in another Letter: "Sic ista ediscamus ut quae fuerint verba sint opera" (Epistula, 108, 35), let us try to learn philosophy so that the words may become actions.

The persons can feel their energies, intellectual, moral and even physical increased by learning and wisdom

In Ep. 37 Seneca writes: “sapientia quae sola libertas est”, the wisdom is the only freedom. And: “unum studium vere liberale est quod liberum facit, hoc est sapientiae, sublime, forte, magnanimum: cetera pusilla et puerilia sunt " (Ep. 88), the only study really liberating, freeing, is that who makes free, i. e. the study of wisdom, sublime, strong, magnanimous, the rest is small and childish stuff.

“Sapientia est mens perfecta (…) ars enim vitae est (117) the wisdom is the pefect mind (…) infact is the art of the life.

“Sapere sapientiae usus est” (Ep. 117, 17) to be wise is the use of wisdom. Wisdom investigates what is the good. “Quod bonum est utĭque prodest (…) Si non prodest, bonum non est; si prodest iam est” (117, 27), what is good however does good, is beneficial (…) if it is not beneficial it is not good; if it is beneficial it is already, it is at once.

“Unde adcognoscitur bonum? Si perfecte secundum naturam est” (Ep. 118), where the good is recognized from? If it is completely in accordance with nature.

Infact the nature is good since is the creation of a good God: “quaeris quod sit propositum deo? Bonitas. Ita certe Plato ait: “quae deo faciendi mundum fuit causa? Bonus est: bono nulla cuiusquam boni invidia est; fecit itaque quam optimum potuit” (Ep. 65, 10), you ask which is the purpose of God? The goodness. At least Plato says: which reason had God to make the world? He is good; who is good has no refusal of making any good. And so he made the best possible world. Plato in

Timeo writes: if this universe is beautiful, (eij me; n dh; kalovς ejstin o{de oJ kovsmoς) the creator is good (o Jdhmiourgo; ς ajgaqovς).

 He is the best of authors (a[ristoς tw'n aijtivwn), and he has looked at the eternal model (pro; ς to; ajivdion e[blepen). So the cosmos is the most beautiful between the things born (kavllistoς tw'n gegonovtwn 29a).

The author is good and turned the disorder into order (29d).

We can see through these words an example of the dramatic style of philosopher Seneca: he often writes sentences, that are the stylistic cells of his writing. Often his sententiae “adfectus ipsos tangunt” (Ep. 94, 28), they touch the emotional part of our mind, not only the rational, and have a moral effect: “erigitur virtus cum tacta est et impulsa” (94, 29), the virtue rises when is touched and stimulated

Euripide in his last tragedy (Baccanti, 405 b. C.) writes: “to sofo; n d j ouj sofiva”, the knowledge, erudition, is not wisdom. To; sofo; n is neuter, hJ sofiva is female and creates life.

‘cleverness is not wisdom’, ‘the world’s Wise are not wise’ (Murray). Here again the Chorus take up a thought expressed in the preceding scene: to; sofovn has the same implication as in 203 [29]; it is the false wisdom of men like Pentheus, who fronw'n oujde; n fronei' (332, cf. 266 ff., 311 ff.), in contrast with the true wisdom of devout acceptance (179, 186)…”[30],

Marziale (40-104), author of epigrams writes: “Non hic Centauros, non Gorgonas Harpyasque/invenies: hominem pagina nostra sapit "(X, 4, 9-10), here you will not find mythological, hybrid, imaginary creatures: our page tastes of man

The simplicity

The classic literatur teaches to solve the complexity in simplicity that is just solved complexity. The character of Pericle in the work of Tucidide (455-404) says: “filokalou'mevn te ga; r met j eujteleiva"[31] kai; filosofou'men a[neu malakiva"" (Storie, II, 40, 1), we love the beauty with simplicity and the culture without weakness. It means that the culture of the mind must not neglect the body, and who observes the sky must turn the eyes also to the earth. "orandum est ut sit mens sana in corpore sano"(Satire, X, 356,) we must pray to have a healthy mind in a healthy body exhorts the poet Giovenale (60-140 a. C.), another italic traditionalist, in one of his 16 satires in which he condemns with anger and indignation the decline of the morality in the Rome of the end of I century and the first part of II century a. C.

He writes: facit indignatio versum (I, 79), it is indignation that makes lines.

And “difficile est saturam non scribere” (I, 30), it is difficult not to write a satire.

As regards simplicity, Seneca writes: “veritatis simplex oratio est” Ep. 50), the language of truth is simple by nature.

Cf. Euripide, Fenicie, where Polinice says: “ajplou'ς oJ mu'qoς th'ς ajlhqeivaς e[fu” (v. 469), the speech of truth is simple.

As regards the link between the health of soul and body, Seneca in Epistula 77 connect them with the studies: “quidquid animum erexit etiam corpori prodest. Studia mihi nostra saluti fuerunt; philosophiae acceptum fero quod surrexi, quod convalui; illi vitam debeo”, all that elevated the soul it is good also for the body. My studies saved me. I drew myself up, I am feeling better, thanks to philosophy, I owe my life to philosophy

Neglegentia. The sovereign nonchalance

The simplicity may be radicalized in neglegentia (ajmevleia in greek), sovereign nonchalance, apparent carelessness of himself, of the clothing and so on.

It is a kind of elegant gentlemanly confidence that is adopted by many characters of aristocracy in literature latin, italian, english, german, russian and so on. I could present several exemples from this literature but we have no space today. May be the next time.

 Petronio elegantiae arbiter, teacher of taste in Nerone’s court, is described with these words by Tacito “habebaturque non ganeo et profligator, ut plerique sua haurientium, sed erudito luxu. Ac dicta factaque eius quanto solutiora et quandam sui neglegentiam praeferentia, tanto gratius in speciem simplicitatis accipiebantur" (Annales, XVI, 18), he was considered not a dissolute or a squanderer as most wasters, but a man of refined dissoluteness. His words and acts the more were free and revealed some carelessness of himself, the more agreeably were consĭdered as marks, signs of simplicity, naturalness.

Affectatio. The snobbishness, the pose, the bad manners. Trimalchio

The opposite of neglegentia-nonchalance is affectatio, snobbishness.

This kind of bad manners is shown by Trimalchio the vulgar new rich of Satyricon. He had been a slave who inherited the wealth of his master and also increased it. He continually shows off, with words and gestures, the symbols of his great richness.

Let us read some words of Satyricon that regard this vulgar ostentation.

Trimalchio enters his banqueting room where other ex slaves (liberti) his guests, wait for him. He is decorated with pallio coccineo (32, 2) a cloak, mantle scarlet and shows off several rings: habebat etiam in minimo digito sinistrae manus anulum grandem subauratum (32, 3), he had in the smallest finger of left hand a great ring gilded, and in the last phalanx of middle finger another ring totum aureum, sed plane ferreis veluti stellis ferruminatum, all of gold but all covered with little pieces of iron in the form of stars.

The golden rings were symbol of belonging to the class of Equites (Riders, i. e. businessman), while Trimalchio was a libertus, a slave set free. These rings were not enough for his exhibition, so dextrum nudavit lacertum armilla aurea cultum et eboreo circulo lamina splendente conexo (32, 4), then stripped the right arm adorned with a golden bracelet interlaced with a shining thin sheet of metal, and at last pinna argentea dentes perfōdit (33) picked his teeth with a silver toothpick.

Then he boasts his enormous properties, his latifundia: “deorum beneficio non emo, sed nunc quicquid ad salivam facit, in suburbano nascitur eo, quod ego adhuc non novi. dicitur confine esse Tarraciniensibus et Tarentinis. nunc coniungere agellis Siciliam volo, ut cum Africam libuerit ire, per meos fines navigem" (48, 2), thank God, I don't buy, but all that now makes our mouth water was born in a suburban farm that I still don't know. They say that forms the border between the territory of Terracina (in Lazio) and that of Taranto (in Puglia). Now I want to unite Sicily with some little fields, so that, when maybe I like go to Africa, I can sail along my lands.

His speech is full of vulgarities and nonsense. He orders to put on the table a wine very precious and old one hundred years, then he says: Falernum Opimianum[32] annorum centum", wine falernum more than one hundred years old.

Aftewords Trimalchio clapped and cried: “eheu…ergo diutius vivit vinum quam homuncio. quare tangomenas faciamus. vita vinum est. verum Opimianum praesto. heri non tam bonum posui, et multo honestiores cenabant" (34), alas, so lives more years a wine than a poor man. Therefore let us drink as sponges. Wine is life. What’s more, I offer you Opinianum. Yesterday I put on the table a wine less good, and yet I had guests of dinner more eminent by far.

A character of a book of satyric writer Luciano (120-185), the philosopher Nigrino eponymous of this work, reveals the vulgarity of romans grew richer: they make themselves ridiculous showing off wealth and disclosing their bad taste: “pw'" ga; r ouj geloi'oi me; n oiJ ploutou'nte" aujtoi; ta; " porfurivda" profaivnonte" kai; tou; " daktuvlou" proteivnonte" kai; pollh; n kathgorou'nte" ajpeirokalivan; (Nigrino, 21), how the rich men can be not ridiculous person they who show off clothes of purple and stretch out the fingers of the hands revealing their bad taste?

 Trimalchio shows off also his false learning with his absurd quotations of fictitious literature: “ego autem si causas non ago, in domusionem tamen litteras didici. et ne me putes studia fastiditum, tres bybliothecas habeo, unam Graecam, alteram Latinam. dic ergo, si me amas, peristasim declamationis tuae". Cum dixisset Agamemnon: “pauper et dives inimici erant", ait Trimalchio: “quid est pauper? " "Urbane" inquit Agamemnon, et nescio quam controversiam exposuit. Statim Trimalchio: “hoc" inquit "si factum est, controversia non est; si factum non est, nihil est". Haec aliaque cum effusissimis prosequeremur laudationibus: “rogo" inquit "Agamemnon mihi carissime, numquid duodecim aerumnas Herculis tenes, aut de Ulixe fabulam, quemadmodum illi Cyclops pollicem poricino extorsit? solebam haec puer apud Homerum legere. nam Sybillam quidem Cumis ego ipse oculis meis vidi in ampulla pendere, et cum illi pueri dicerent: "Sivbulla tiv qevlei"; " respondebat illa: " jApoqanei'n qevlw" (48, 8), also if I do not handle criminal cases, I am not a lawyer, nevertheless I have studied letters for domestic use. And in order that you do not think that I am disgusted by studies, I have three libraries, one greek and the other latin. So tell me, please, the topic of your rhetorical speech. Agamennon (the rhetorician guess in the dinner) said « a poor man and a rich were enemies », and Trimalchio: «what is a poor?» Agamennon said: «fine!», and immediately Trimalchio said: « if this is a fact, a deed, is not a controversy, a dispute, if is non a deed, it is nothing. While we[33] were following these and other nonsense with excessive praises, Trimalchio said: «please, dearest Agamennon, do you remember the twelve labours of Hercules or the tale of Ulixes, how the Cyclops wrung his thumb with tongs? When I was a boy I was used to read this and other tales in Homer. Infact I myself with my eyes have seen Sibilla in Cuma hanging in a small bottle, ampulla, and when the boys asked: Sibilla, what do you want? , she replied « to die I wan ».

These last words have been put as epigraph of The waste land (1922) by T. S. Eliot

Liberti Freedmen

It is worth to use some words for the explanation of the condition of these liberti (freedmen).

Tacito writes that in 68, after the reigns of Claudio and Nerone: “Venalia cuncta, praepotentes liberti, servorum manus subitis avidae " (Historiae, I, 7), all was for sale, very mighty the freedmen, crowds of slaves avid, greedy, for sudden changes. Their “ideology”, their vision of life and world can be synthetically expressed by this sentence of Trimalchio: “credite mihi: assem habeas, assem valeas; habes, habeberis" (Petronio, Satyricon, 77), you must believe in me: if you have one as, you are worth one as: you will be reputed on the grounds of your money.

The money is the only, the sole standard, criterion of judgement.

During the dinner of Trimalchio some of these enriched liberti speek in their sermo plebeius, a plebeian language, probabily that one spoken by the common people in some graeca urbs greek town in the south of Italy, as is possible understand from graffiti of Pompei.

The cena - dinner - of Trimalchio

In the meantime on the table of guests of Trimalchio arrive over and over again new dishes, prepared and arranged in order to amaze. Apicio (I century a. C.) wrote a book, De re coquinaria, about the cooking, where he suggests: " Ad mensam nemo agnoscet quid manducet” (IV, 2), at table nobody must recognize what he eats.

Infact at this table are brought many trays with food much sophisticated, affected (while also in food the simplicity is the best), dozens of courses until is presented un fericulum longe monstrosius (Sat. 69, 7), a course much more perverted than the previous: it seemed a goose made fat (anser altĭlis) with a side dish of fishes and birds of every sort, but Trimalchio amazed the guests saying de uno corpore est factum(…) ista cocus meus de porco fecit " (Satyricon, 70), this is made from only one body (…) my cook made all with a pig.

This food and all this banquet has something of unnatural and irrational.

But what is ratio? According to Seneca, the mivmhsi" imitation of the nature: “sequitur autem ratio naturam. “quid est ergo ratio?” Naturae imitatio”. Quod est summum hominis bonum?” Ex naturae voluntate se gerere” (Ep. 66, 39), well, the reason folllows the nature. What is then reason? Imitation of nature. Which is the highest good of men? To behave according to the will of nature.

“Cum rerum natura delibera: illa dicet tibi et diem fecisse et noctem” (Ep. 3), consult nature: she will say that she made the day and the night.

“In homine quid est optimum? Ratio: hac antecedit animalia, deos sequitur. Ratio ergo perfecta proprium bonum est, cetera illi cum animalibus satisque communia sunt. Valet: et leones. Formonsus est: et pavones. Velox est: et equi (…) Corpus habet: et arbores” (Ep. 76), Which is in the man, the best? The reason: with reason precedes the animals, follows the gods. The perfect reason is the good distinctive of man, other things are common with animals. He is strong: also the lions. He is beautiful: also the peacocks. He is fast: also the horses (…) he has a body: also the trees.

“Quid excolis formam? Cum omnia feceris, a mutis animalibus decore vinceris” (Ep. 123, 22) Why do you take care of your look? Even though you did everything you will be won by dumb beasts, the brutes. Rationale animal es. Quid ergo in te bonum est? perfecta ratio, you are a rational animal and the good in you is a perfect reason. Such man is aemulator dei, an emulator of God

Platone advises to become similar to God (oJmoivwsiς qew', Teeteto 176b).

Ratio (the reason) is also magna pars, great part of virtus (the value of vir, man). “Nihil enim aliud est virtus quam recta ratio” (Ep. 66, 32) the value of man is nothing else but right reason.

Often the natural is equivalent to a happy medium: “non splendeat toga, ne sordeat quidem” (Ep. 5, 3), the toga, the clothing must neither shine nor be dirty.

And Cicero: “in plerisque rebus, mediocritas optima est” (De officiis, I, 130), in the most of things the middle way, condition, is the best.

Cfr. Also Orazio: “est modus in rebus, sunt certi denique fines, /quos ultra citraque nequit consistere rectum " (Satire, I, 1, vv. 106-107).

 there is a measure, a proportion in the things, there are limits defined over and under that may not subsist the right.

 According to Seneca modus (measure) and virtus (value) live toghether: "cum sit ubique virtus modus " (De Beneficiis, II, 16, 2). In greek this middle course is called mesovth" by Peripatetics, metriovth" by Academics and by stoic Panezio who had a great influence upon the cultured class of Romans

In the Pharsalia by Lucano the wise stoic is Catone who died suicide in Utica (46 b. C.): he had the virtus of servare modum (II, 381) to keep the measure.

Seneca blames the sumptuous, huge banquets as apparatuses against the nature: “ambitiosa non est fames, contenta desinere est” (Ep. 119, 14), the hunger is not pretentious: it is glad to stop.

The philosopher shoots arrows of criticism against the vulgar enriched as Trimalchio: “pecunia in quosdam homines quomodo denarius in cloacam cadit” (Ep. 87, 16), the money falls in some men as a silver coin into a drain.

“Ergo in homine quoque nihil ad rem pertinet quantum aret (…) quam perlucido poculo bibat, sed quam bonus sit” (Ep. 76, 15), So in the men too doesn’t count how much he ploughs (…) how much shines the cup where he drinks, but how much he is good.

“Neminem pecunia divitem fecit (Ep. 119, 9), the money never did rich anybody.

The chat of Seleuco, one of the freedmen

But let us arrive to the chat of freedmen. We follow one of them, Seleuco. He begins with a statement opposed to the minimum of cultus-the care of one’s own person: “ego-inquit-non cotidie lavor; baliscus enim fullo est, aqua dentes habet, et cor nostrum cotidie liquescit" (42), I said, do not wash myself every day; infact the bath is a laundryman, the water has the teeth and our heart every day melts. It could be a pose cinycal-socratic because this libertus has some foolish ambitions philosophic, or it is the refined author Petronio who flirts with the reader who knows the comedy Clouds by Aristofane (422 b. C.) where the old Strepsiade says that nobody between the men of the school of Socrates went to the bath for washing himself (oujd j eijς balanei'on h[lqe lousovmenoς, v. 837)

The Chorus of another comedy by Aristophanes, the Birds (414 b. C.), qualifies Socrates as a[louto" (v. 1553), not washed.

So, let us come to the “philosophy” of Seleuco. He speaks about the vanity (vanitas) of human life inspired by a funeral from where he is just returned: “Heu, eheu. utres inflati ambulamus. minoris quam muscae sumus, muscae tamen aliquam virtutem habent, nos non pluris sumus quam bullae" (42, 4), alas, we walk as leather bag inflated. We are less than flies. Flies at least have some talents, we are not more than bubbles.

Follows a tirade against doctors. His friend fell ill a short time before and after soon died: "medici illum perdiderunt, immo magis malus fatus; medicus enim nihil aliud est quam animi consolatio" (42, 5), the doctors killed him, or better still a bad fate, the doctor is only solace of depressed mind. It is remarkable fatus, masculine instead of regular neuter fatum

Finally Seleuco speaks against the women, since the wife of the dead was reluctant to cry: “sed mulier quae mulier milvinum genus" (42, 7), but a women who is a women is a predatory race (milvus means kite). So follows a catastrophic diagnosis of love: “sed antiquus amor cancer est ", an ancient love is a cancer.

Another libertus Phileros continues the funeral speech making use even of a quotation from Oedipus king by Sofocle: “Plane fortunae filius. In manu illius aurum plumbum fiebat (Satyricon, 43), indeed a son of the fortune In his hand the lead becamo gold. Oedipus of Sophocles says: "ejgw; d' jejmauto; n pai'da th'" Tuvch" nevmwn-th'" eu\ didouvsh" oujk ajtimasqhvsomai" (Oedipus king, 1080-1081), I, considering myself son of the Fortune, that who gives the good, shall not dishonoured (he means as abandoned child). Then Phileros goes on making unmasked use of sermo plebeius, popular speech: " Et quot putas illum annos secum tulisse? Septuaginta et supra. sed corneolus fuit, aetatem bene ferebat, niger tamquam corvus", and how many years you think he had on himself? Seventy and more. But he was hard as the horn, he did not show his age, as black as a raven. An example of the ingenious linguistic pastiche of this work.

Trimalchio has also some foolish ambition to be a philosopher. He seems to echo some words of Epistula 47 by Seneca about the slaves: “Servi sunt". Immo homines", they are slaves, but also men.

Well, let's listen to Trimalchio: “et servi homines sunt et aeque unum lactem biberunt, etiam si illos malus fatus oppresserit " (Satyricon, 71), also the slaves are men and they have drunk the same milk, even if a bad fate has crushed them.

We may see that to eat, to feed, is the prevailing thought also in his "philosophy". We may note again fatus, masculine, instead of regular fatum. In this work we can find also vinus (wine) for vinum and balineus (bath) for balineum: the neuter gender rarefies, rhen disappears.

These liberti, friends of very rich, "tycoon", Trimalchio are a class of unscrupulous businessman, uneducated and domineering. With emperor Claudio (41-54) three freedmen were ruling as ministers in the court: Callisto, Pallante, Narcisso.

Callisto was minister a libellis i. e. he managed the department that received the pleas.

Pallante was minister of finances a rationibus, and was lover of Agrippina. Under the last years of Claudio he had arbitrium regni, the full power on the State. Nerone removed and eliminated him (Tacito, Annales, XIV, 65).

Narcisso minister ab epistulis, manager of imperial letters, was eliminated by Agrippina without Nerone knowning, as soon as his son became emperor. Tacito writes that this libertus gave the order to kill Messalina, the wife of Claudio and mother of his sons Ottavia and Britannico, two youngs that Nerone made kill (Annales, XI, 37).

In Trimalchione, the author Petronio represents the giant of the private enterprise. He is ridiculous with his blunders and even pathetic. He wants to appear as eques (the second class in Rome from centuries) with his golden rings and has the pretension to seem a cultured man with his absurd, nonsensical quotations; so with his behaviour and his speech he reveals all his huge ignorance and vulgarity. Not without some touch of ingenious originality.

 But in the end he is only princeps libertinorum, the first of freedmen of his city, some town of southern Italy.

Seneca in Ep. 31 cancels this social classification: "Quid est enim eques Romanus aut libertinus aut servus? nomina ex ambitione aut iniuria nata", what is infact rider aut freedmen aut slave? Names born of ambition or injustice.

What really ennobles is the wisdom: "bona mens omnibus patet, omnes ad hoc sumus nobiles. Nec reicit quemquam philosophia nec eligit: omnibus lucet" (Ep. 44), a good mind is accessible to everybody, as regards this all we are nobles. The philosophy doesn’t repel nor selects anybody: it shines for all the persons.

But the society described by Petronio is rotten more than the Danmark of Hamlet: the last part of Satyricon takes place in Croton, a town whose population is divided in two parts: old men without sons and heredipĕtae (Satyricon, 124, 2) hunters of inheritance.

VI Lezione- The circle of The Scipiones and the humanism

pp. 35-51

In five lessons we have spoken about the origins and the decline of this culture that in imperial age tends more and more to a cosmopolitical mixture, losing part of her previous identity, while also the language changes and little by little come closer to neo latin italian: for example the neuter gender tends to disappear: in Satyricon we have seen fatus instead of fatum, and there are also vinus, balneus, caelus.

 In the fifth lesson I have spoken about methodology in the studies of ancient greek and latin; in this sixth lesson I shall speak about “middle age” of latin culture that may be named the age of circle of the Scipiones. It took the cultural impulse by Scipione Emiliano who defeated and destroyed Carthago in 146 b. C. and concluded the punic wars. Afterwards (133) overcame Numanzia.

His father Emilio Paolo had defeated the King of Macedonia Perseo in the battle of Pidna (168 b. C.) and brought to Italy his library not without greek hostages, included Polibio who became teacher and friend of Scipione, so called because was adopted by the son of Scipio African, the winner of Hannibal, and so entered the family more powerful and the milieu more significant in Rome.

 Polibio (205-120) wrote, in greek, an historical work in 40 books. It narrated the period between 264 and 146 b. C. We have the books 1-5 complete plus summaries and fragments of others.

 The author interprets the success of roman State as result of his excellent constitution: mikth; politevia, a mixed constitution.

 Other good istitutions, uses and traditions have contributed toward the good working, as the discipline, the spirit of sacrifice, the lack of demografic crisis, and, paradoxically, the superstition, deisidaimoniva, that had the function to put and keep together the State of Romans: “ kaiv moi dokei' to; para; toi'" a[lloi" ajnqrwvpoi" ojneidizovmenon tou'to sunevcein ta; JRwmaivwn pravgmata, levgw th; n deisidaimonivan” (The Histories of Polybius, 6, 56, 7), I believe that it is the very thing which among other peoples is an object of reproach, I mean superstition, whiche maintains the cohesion of the Roman State

 This is the theory of religio instrumentum regni, superstition (and religion) as instrument of the power. It belongs to several authors

Between latin authors I quote some words of Curzio Rufo, an author probably of the first imperial age: “Nulla res multitudinem efficacius regit quam superstitio: alioqui impotens, saeva, mutabilis, ubi vana religione capta est, melius vatibus quam ducibus suis paret "(Historiae Alexandri Magni, IV, 10), nothing better than superstition rules the crowds: otherwise wild, cruel, incostant, when is seized by a false religious fear, obeys more prophets than commanders.

Between italian authors I remember the political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527): in Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio, speeches on the first ten books by Tito Livio the Florentine writer asserts that the religion ushered in Rome by the second king Numa was between the first causes of the prosperity of the town and Rome was more obliged, grateful to Numa than to her founder Romolo. Then Machiavelli names Licurgo and Solon between the legislators “che ricorrono a Dio” (I, 11) who turn to God.

Polibio lived many years in Rome but wrote always in greek since this language was the most prestigious also in the capital of increasing empire. The Scipioni were philellenist and surrounded themselves with greek intellettuals: the philosopher Stoic Panezio (185-110) the theorist of the cultural movement. Polibio and Panezio gave a theoretical justification of roman imperialism, as bearer of peace culture, civilisation. Panezio wrote works about Providence (Provnoia) and about Duty (Kaqh'kon). These books are lost but we can find trails of them in De officiis by Cicero and in De providentia by Seneca.

The roman empire is founded, they assert, on principles of justice, mercifulness, clemency, philantropy, and must assure the peace to the world

The leaders must be a[ristoi, with a noble behaviour marked by kindness, courtesy, respect for the feelings of everybody, beginning from the self respect that means to develop one’s own nature. Already the liric greek poet Pindaro (518-438) wrote: “gevnoio oi|o~ ejssiv" (Pitica II v. 72), become what you are.

The poet of this circle may be consĭdered Terenzio. He was born in Cartagine about 190 and was brought to Rome by senator Terenzio Lucano who set him free, emancipated, and gave his name to him. So he was a libertus as Trimalchio but his nature and his works were quite different. The sentence that characterizes his humanism and philantropy may be: “Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto" (Heautontimorumenos, 77.), I am a man ad all that is human concern me.

The comedy Heautontimorumenos was performed in 163 b. C.

The title means the man who punishes himself, the self-punisher.

This man, Menedemo, punishes himself because his son went to enlist for his incomprehension and the forbidding attitude, and now such man feels the void, the gap, and he is repentant and punishes himself imposing to himself a life poor and hard. Well, Cremete, the next door neighbour criticizes this masochistic behaviour. So, Menedemo asks: Chreme, tantumne ab re tuast oti tibi-aliena ut cures ea quae nil ad te attinent? (75-76), Cremes, have you so much free time from your goods that you can attend to someone else’s matters that do not concern you?

Then Chremes replies in human way: homo sum etc.

This reply has some precedent in greek literature that Terenzio and his patrons Scipioni wanted make know to roman intelligentsia. Let’s see.

In the tragedy by Sofocle Antigone (442 b. C.) the protagonist eponym, the sister who buried the dead brother Polinice against the edict of Creonte, their uncle, explains this act of fraternal piety saying to the inhuman despot: “ou[toi sunevcqein ajlla; sumfilei'n e[fun", (523), I was born to share not hate but love.

In the last tragedy of Sofocle Oedipus in Colono (406), Teseo, the king of Athen, is the mithical paradigm of Pericles, and welcomes Edipo arrived in his town blind, poor and with a bad reputation of parricide incestuous. Oedipus is a suppliant, in need of help, and Teseo feels mercy and asks to the exile vagabond what can he do to help him and the daughter Antigone who sees and accompanies the father. Teseo knows the difficulties because also he has experienced the exile and sorrows; so he says trhee words epiphanic, full of light: "e[xoid j ajnh; r w[n"(v. 567), I know that I am a man. It means to help needy men. These expressions of humanism have made school. After Terenzio, I remember Virgilio.

In the first canto of Eneide, Didone, the queen of Carthago, says to the Trojans arrived shipwrecked in her coast that they must not be afraid: non ignara mali miseris succurrere disco " (I, 630) not ignorant of evil I learn to help the unhappies.

Seneca asserts that the mutual love is natural and necessary: “natura nos cognatos edidit, cum ex isdem et in eădem gigneret; haec nobis amorem indidit mutuum et sociabiles fecit. Illa aequum iustumque composuit; ex illius constitutione miserius est nocēre quam laedi, ex illius imperio paratae sint iuvandis manus. Ille versus et in pectore et in ore sit:

homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto.

Ita habeamus: in commune nati sumus. Societas nostra lapidum fornicationi simillima est, quae, casura nisi in vicem obstarent, hoc ipso sustinetur" (Ep. 95, 52, 53), nature made us, put us in the light, as relatives, because she created us with the same elements and for the same purposes, reasons: the nature placed in us a mutual love and made us sociable. The nature disposed, ordered, equity and justice; as a result of her disposition is more deplorable, lamentable, to damage than to be damaged[34], and according to her orders our hands must be ready to help the needy who must be assisted. That famous line must be in the heart and in the mouth: homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto. We must think that we are born for common, mutual good. Our society is very similar to a vault of stones, that would fall down if the stones did not prevent mutually from falling, but the vault is kept together by the cohesion.

Another formulation of this principle is situated in another Letter: Vivit is qui multis usui est, vivit is qui se utitur "[35], lives who makes himself useful to many persons, lives who engages himself.

But now let us comeback to Terenzio.

I want to speak of a comedy that was performed in 160 b. C., Adelphoe that deals with the subject of upbringing, education of sons and nephews.

This comedy presents a contaminatio: it is composed with employement of two greek patterns: The brothers (jAdelfoiv) by Menander and Those who die together, Sunapoqnhvskonte" (Commorientes) by Difilo (authors of new comedy, IV century b. C.).

 Plauto (250-184) had already made use of the comedy by Difilo leaving out one scene that is used by Terenzio as explains the author in lines 1-11. Terenzio in all the prologue defends himself from the accusation of furtum, stealing, plagiarism, from Plauto and to be only a dummy who signed works written by Scipione and other mighty men of letters of the circle as Lelio (188-125) a friend of Scipione, named Sapiens, the Wise. Terenzio makes a self defence soft, elusive and evasive, because this mighty men were pleased with being reputed authors of his comedies.

The two brothers of the title are Micio and Demea. Demea have had two sons, Aeschinus and Ctesipho; the father has brought up Ctesipho with an education old fashioned, strict, of the old catonian school, misoneistic and misohellenic (misevw means I hate); Micio has adopted and brought up the nephew Aeschinus giving to him the new education, with complete trust, confidence and a total freedom. So we can see the battle of these two different conceptions. Terenzio, as poet of the scipionic circle, sides with the liberal education. Let us see how, reading some lines.

Micio enters and explains the antecedent fact, what happened before, and his ideology, his educational methods. He says that he loves Aeschinus more than himself: with this boy, nephew and adoptive son, he is in the situation of a man who got quod sit carius quam ipsest sibi (39), what is dearer than himself.

Micio specifies their family ties: “atque ex me hic natus non est sed ex fratre (40), and yet this boy was born not fron me but from my brother. My brother, Demea, clarifies Micio, dissimili studio est iam inde ab adulescentia (41) is, as character unlike from mine since youth. And explains: “ego hanc clementem vitam urbanam atque otium-secutus sum, et, quod fortunatum isti putant, -uxorem, numquam habui. Ille contra haec omnia: -ruri agere vitam; semper parce et duriter-se habere; uxorem duxit; nati filii-duo; inde ego hunc maiorem adoptavi mihi” (42-47) I chose this comfortable life in the town and free time, and, what that these (pointing at spectators) consider a luck, I never had a wife.

There was a proverb: Romani caelibem quasi caelitem putant: Romans regard an unmarried almost as a god.

The hostility towards the marriage will become not much later

The licence and the demographic problem. An excursus

 Augusto enacted laws for promotion of marriages: the lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus (18 b. C.) fined the unmarrieds and gave a prize to married men. This law aimed at fighting against the sexual licence and the demografic decreasing. The same aims tried to obtain the law against adultery: lex Iulia de adulteriis coërcendis (18 b. C.) and the lex Papia Poppaea (9 a. C.). This last, rather, aggravated the penalties and granted fiscal facilities to the families with at least three sons

 (ius trium liberorum).

 But Tacito remarks that these laws did’ nt change the customs: “prevalida orbitate” (Annales III, 25) because was prevailing the single state.

Seneca in De beneficiis writes that adultery is spreading: “Numquid iam ullus adulterii pudor est, postquam eo ventum est, ut nulla virum habeat, nisi ut adulterum inrītet? Argumentum est deformitatis pudicitia [36]" (III, 16, 3), is there now some shame of adultery since we have come to the point that no women has husband if not for stimulate the lover? The modesty is sign of ugliness.

Giovenale (about 55-130) in the VI satire, maybe the most famous, that one “against women”, writes: “unus Hiberinae vir sufficit? ocius illud/extorquebis, ut haec oculo contenta sit uno " (vv. 53-54), only one man is enough for Iberina? [37] Before you will extort that she is satisfied with only one eye.

Cassio Dione (155-235) writes that Augusto spoke in 9 a. C. to married citizens, a minority, prasing them as well deserving and lucky, because to marry a good wife, temperate, house wife, and wetnurse of the sons is the best ("a[riston gunh; swvfrwn oijkouro; " oijkovnomo" paidotrovfo" "(LVI, 3, 3); besides the community receives benefits by poluplhqiva, LVI, 3, 7), the great number (of workers and soldiers).

Then the emperor spoke to unmarried with hard words of blame. He said that the single state is a treason of the native country and murder of the race.

"a[nqrwpoi gavr pou povli" ejstivn, ajll' oujk oijkivai oujde; stoai; oujd j ajgorai; ajndrw'n kenaiv" (Roman history, LVI, 4, 3), the men are the town, I think, not the houses, nor porches, nor squares empty of men.

This problem, even today current in Italy, was already present in the age of Augusto, but not yet present in Rome at time of Scipioni: Polibio remarks ("ajpaidiva kai; sullhvbdhn ojliganqrwpiva" (XXXVI 17, 5) the lack of children and men in Greece, and vice versa, and instead, the virtue of Roman matrons.

End of excursus

 But let’s come back to Terentio, s Adelphoe. Micio inform us about the character and the customs of his brother Demea: “Ille contra haec omnia-ruri agere vitam; semper parce ac duriter-se habere; uxorem duxit; nati filii-duo; inde ego hunc maiorem adoptavi mihi (44-47), he is against all this: he spends his life in the country, treats himself always with frugality and hardness; he got married; two sons were born; I have adopted the elder as mine.

 Micio gave to his nephew a modern education, almost permissive: “do, pratermitto, non necesse habeo omnia-pro meo iure agere; postremo, alii clanculum-patres quae faciunt, quae fert adulescentia, -ea ne me celet consuefeci filium” (51-54), I allow, I let things slide, I do not think necessary that he makes everything in conformity with my right (cf. patria potestas); after all what other sons do secretely, behind father’s back, deeds that youth implies, I have accustomed my son to not hide, to sincerity.

Follows the summa of his pedagogic thought: “Pudore et liberalitate liberos-retinere satius esse credo quam metu. -Haec fratri mecum non conveniunt neque placent” (57-59), I think that is better to keep sons in check with the respect, with the sense of shame and with the generosity, liberality, than with fear. My brother does not like such education and we don’t agree.

Demea rather fears that Micio may corrupt Eschino with his indulgence.

But Micio is convinced of the efficacy of his education: “Hŏc patriumst, potius consuefacere filium-sua sponte recte facere quam alieno metu: - hōc pater et dominus interest. Hŏc qui nequit –fateatur nescire imperare liberis” (74-77), this is up to father, his duty, to accustom his son to behave well, honestly, spontaneously, rather than because of external fear: in this a father is different from a master. Who does not know that, admitt, confess, that he cannot guide the sons.

The rest of the comedy shows tha Micio is right, because Eschino behave much better than his brother Ctesipho. In the epilogue even the catonian Demea will be converted to the ideology of his brother.

So the educational methods and ideas of the circle liberal and philantropical prevails against the conservatism narrow minded and suspicious of catonian party, adverse, opposed to every dangerous change and to greek cultur, even to greek people.

Cato maior, censor in 184 b. C. wrote Origines, the first historiographic work in Latin, just from the origins to 149, the last year of his life. In this book, dedicated to his son Marcus, he writes words very much hostiles to Greeks, their culture, their literture and their medicine. We have only fragments. Let’s read one: “vincam nequissimm et indocile esse genus illorum. Et puta vatem dixisse, quandoque ista gens suas litteras dabit, omnia corrumpet, tum etiam magis, si medicos suos huc mittet. Iurarunt inter se barbaros necare omnis medicina, sed hoc ipsum mercede faciunt, ut fides iis sit et facile disperdant” (fr. 1 Jordan), I shall convince you that they are an evil and unruly race. And think that a prophet has spoken: when this people will give his culture to us, will corrupt everything, and even more if they will send here their doctors. They swore each other to kill all barbarians (people who don’t speak Greek) with medicine; but they make this against payment so as to have credibility et can ruin us easily.

We said that Demea in Adelphoe represents the catonian mentality; so let’s read another fragment (128) by Catone from a self-portrait (De virtututibus suis contra L. Termum): “Ego iam a principio in parsimonia atque duritia atque industria omnem adulescentiam meam abstinui agro colendo”, I since from beginning kept all my youth in parsimony, in hardness, and in activity tilling the soil.

  

The philantropy the last excursus

Cicerone (106-43) was an admirer and often recalled the scipionic circle: in the dialogue Laelius de amicitia (44 b. C.) he writes that viri boni, good men, are the person who follow naturam optimam bene vivendi ducem (19) the nature that is the best guide of good living. And nature teaches ita natos esse nos, ut inter nos esset societas quaedam, that we were born in order that between us can be some alliance.

The idea of alliance and brotherhood between all men derives from Panezio who was teacher of Scipione Emiliano and leader of Stoà of middle period.

Cicero in the third book of De Officiis (About duties, 44 b. C.) writes that mankind is one, only body, whose limbs are the men. We must help the persons because we make part of the same body.

(Love your neighbour as yourself, because he is yourself, will write Herman Hesse).

“Etenim multo magis est secundum naturam excelsitas animi et magnitudo itemque comitas, iustitia, liberalitas quam voluptas, quam vita, quam divitiae, quae quidem contemnere et pro nihilo ducere comparantem cum utilitate communi magni animi et excelsi est. Detrahere autem de altero, sui commodi causa, magis est contra naturam quam mors, quam dolor, quam cetera generis eiusdem" (Cicero, De officiis, III, 24), infact is much more in conformity with nature the nobility and the greatness of soul, and likewise the kindness, the liberality, justice, more than even life and the richness, and to despise these things and to value nothing comparing with utility common to everyone is peculiar to a great and noble soul. Instead, to take away something from another man for one’s own profit is more against the nature, than death, than pain and other tings of the same kind.

And, further (III, 25): “ex quo efficitur hominem naturae oboedientem homini nocere non posse", from this results that man obedient to nature cannot damage man.

Marco Aurelio, roman emperor (161-180) and stoic philosopher writes (Memories, II, 1): “we were born for mutual help ("pro; " sunergivan"), as the feet, the hands, the eyelĭds, the two files ot teeth. Therefore that one acts to the detriment of another is against nature ("to; ou\n ajntipravssein ajllhvloi" para; fuvsin"). This idea, born in scipionic circle recurs in saecula seculorum in all the centuries: in Devotions upon Emergent Occasion! 624) John Donne (1572-1631) writes:

No man is an island entire of itself; every man 

is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; 

if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe 

is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as 

well as any manner of thy friends or of thine 

own were; any man's death diminishes me, 

because I am involved in mankind. 

And therefore never send to know for whom 

the bell tolls[38]; it tolls for thee. 

A basic question: what is the happiness? It is to know himself and to be faithul to one’s own nature and identity. Pindaro wrote: “gevnoio oi|o~ ejssiv” (Pitica II v. 72), become what you are. 

And Seneca: “supinata testudo inquieta est desiderio naturalis status” (Ep. 121), a tortoise turn upside down is restless for the want of her natural position. We must follow the nature in general and our nature, our bents, predispositions in particular. 

“(Naturam) si sequemur ducem numquam aberrabimus (Cicero De officiis, 1, 100), if we shal follow the Nature as leader, never we’ll deviate. 

Seneca thinks that natural is virtue and innatural vices: “omnia vitia contra naturam pugnant” (Ep. 122, 5) all the vices fight against the nature. 

And all that is innatural is immoral, vicious: “Non videntur tibi contra naturam vivere qui commutant cum feminis vestem? Non vivunt contra naturam qui spectant ut pueritia splendeat tempore alieno?” (Ep. 122, 7), don’t you think thal live against nature the men who wear women’s clothing? And those who aim at the shining of youth in unfit age? 

A lot of people acts so, but “res sordida est tritā ac vulgari viā vivere” (Ep. 122, 9) it is a thing contemptible to live in a way beate, frequented and vulgar. Cf. Callimaco (310-240) epigram (A. P. XII, 43):

“ejcqaivrw to; poivhma to; kuklikovn, oujde; keleuvqw/ -caivrw, ti" pollou; " w|de kai; w|de fevrei.” I hate the cyclic poem, nor I like any street the brings everybody here and there

Bologna, 5 luglio 

giovanni ghiselli

g.ghiselli@tin.it

---

[1] Institutio oratoria, X, 96.

[2] Ovidio, Ars amatoria, I, 99.

[3] In 13 books composed along years 397 401 a. C.

[4]Ulysse, Order and Myth, "The Dial", nov. 1923.

[5] Del 1922.

[6] 98 a. C.

[7] For instance the first line of Odusia quotated supra from Livio Andronico (III century b. C.)

[8] Catullo 29, 24. socer, father in law is Cesare. Pompeo, son in law, married the daughter of Cesare, Giulia. Therefore bella plus quam civilia, wars more than civils

[9] Richard II Plantagenet was king of England from 1377 to 1399. The tragedy by Shakespeare was written in 1595.

[10] G. Orwell, 1984, p. 42.

[11] Del 411 a. C.

[12]Acted a little time after Ione. The theme is the war of Seven against Tebe.

[13] October 105 a. C.

[14] Svetonio, Vita di Augusto, 42.

[15] T. S. Eliot Tradition and the Individual Talent, 1919.

[16] 525-455 a. C.

[17] Ateneo (II-III sec. d. C.) I Deipnosofisti, VIII, 39. Aijscuvlo" … o}" ta; " auJtou' tragw/diva" temavch ei\nai e[legen tw'n JOmhvrou megavlwn deivpnwn

[18]305 ca-240ca a. C.

[19] Fr. 612 Pfeiffer.

[20] 161 a. C.

[21] Institutio oratoria, X, 2, 26.

[22]Zibaldone, 58.

[23]Zibaldone, 2185-2186.

[24]The young orator (106-43) composed this treatise in two books in '84

b. C.

[25] In the film Seize the day, the teacher says: education is to learn to think for yourself.

[26] Metafisica, 982b.

[27] Tacito, Annales, XVI, 18.

[28]Seneca, Epist. ad Luc., 88, 32.

[29] The traditions received by fathers, our traditions

Coeval with the time, no reasoning will otherthrow

Nor if the knowledge is found by pointed minds

 (oujd j eij di j a[krwn to; sofo; n hu{rhtai frenw'n) (Baccanti, vv. 201-203), is speaking Tiresia. 

[31] eujtevleia is frugality, parsimony, is the price easy to pay (eu\, tevloς) for the necessaries things, is the beauty preferred by real gentlemen, nobles and ancient, the beauty incomprehensible by the enriched men who show off the expensive and ugly things that make their identity. Augusto gave examples of frugality eating secundarium panem et pisciculos minutos et caseum bubulum manu pressum et ficos virides (Svetonio, Augusti Vita, 76), ordinary bread, little fishes, cheese vaccine, pressed with hand, green figs. 

[32] L. Opimio was consul in 121 b. C. The age of the wine is certainly false as the literary quotations of Trimalchio

[33] Encolpio the first person narrator and his friends, Ascilto and Gitone

[34] Socrate in the platonic dialogue Gorgia indicates dikaiosuvnh and swfrosuvnh, justice and moderatio, equilibrium, as the targets to put in the sight. If we want to be happy, we must to prevent passions from becoming wild (507 d-e). And to suffer injustice is smaller evil than to do it (mei'zon mevn famen kako; n to; ajdikei'n, e[latton de; to; ajdikei'sqai, 509c).

[35] Epist. 60, 4.

[36] See: "casta est quam nemo rogavit by Ovidio (Amores, I, 8, 44), is chaste that woman to whom nobody made advances.

[37] Perhaps a woman of spanish origin. In the second century a. C. in Roma lived a mixture of peoples

[38] It is the title of a well known novel by Hemingway (1940)