 |
| dipinto di Pompei |
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 non 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[1], 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 "[2], lives who
makes himself useful to many persons, lives who engages himself.
But now let us come back to
Terenzio.
I want 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.CONTINUA
[1]
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).
[2] Epist. 60, 4.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento