Episode Transcript
[00:00:10] Josh Bowman: Welcome to the podcast called On Duties. We're reading through Cicero's De Officiis seminal work, and as the Cicerone Society members, as Christians, as scholars, and as from all different walks of life, if you will.
And we are really glad you're joining us on this little journey. We're in book two in chapter 57. We literally were just talking about this and I forgot. So back to chapter 57.
We're reading through the Cambridge text in the history of political thought, Cicero on Duties. You can find free versions of Cicero on Duties online, but we recommend this particular edition that we're reading through. I'm joined here by Catherine Bradshaw of the Ancient Language Institute and Chris Anadale of Mount St. Mary's University. I'm Josh Bowman, executive director of the Ciceronean Society. Got a lot going on here. We have another podcast, the Sower. We have our spring conference March 11th through the 13th in Virginia Beach. Registration for that is open. So is registration for the Fall Symposium, October 22nd through the 24th in Holland, Michigan. Check out the website for that. Deadline to register is October 5th as of right now. Also, I forgot to mention past episode, but we're coming up on the deadline for the Logres Institute of Classical Liberal Studies to apply and to enroll in our first slate of courses beginning next month in October. This is a great opportunity to get some content knowledge, if you're a classical educator or really just someone who loves this kind of stuff. We don't really have any course on Cicero yet, but if you like these kinds of conversations and like the seminar style, essentially in the way that we are mimicking, if you will, at this moment, that is a great opportunity.
Courses begin soon. We'll have another slate of courses begin, I believe in January. So take a look at that. It's our most ambitious project yet. We're really, really excited about it. So without further ado, I want to get us started here. Catherine's going to read our first passage, starting in book two, chapter 57 of De Offici.
[00:02:13] Katherine Bradshaw: And yet I do realize that even in the good old days, it had become a tradition in our city to demand splendid splendor from the best men in their idealships.
Consequently, Publius Crassus dives in both surname and substance, fulfilled his functions as ideal with extravagance. A little later, Lucius Crassus, together with that most moderate of all men, Quintus Mucius, discharged his idealship with utmost magnificence. And then Gaius Claudius, the son of Appius, and many after him, the Luculli Hortensius Silanus.
But in my consulship, Publius Lentulus surpassed all his predecessors. Scaurus imitated him. And the events provided by my friend Pompey in his second consulship were extremely magnificent. You can see what I myself would approve in all this.
On the other hand, any suspicion of avarice must be avoided.
There is the case of Mamercus, an extremely rich man whose bypassing of the idealship brought him rejection when he was a consular candidate. Therefore, if something is demanded by the people, and if good men, though they do not actually ask for it, do not, however, disapprove, it should be done, but only in proportion to one's resources, as I myself did. And similarly, when some greater and more useful thing may be achieved through gifts to the populace. The dinners which Orestes recently gave in the streets were nominally tithe offerings, but won him great honor.
Nor indeed was accounted a vice for Marcus Sayus, that when the price of corn was high, he gave it to the people at only one as a measure.
For he freed himself from a great and long standing unpopularity by a sacrifice that was neither dishonorable as he was ideal, nor very great.
But the highest honor fell recently to my dear Milo, who bought gladiators for the sake of the Republic, which depended on my safety, and. And suppressed all the insane ventures of Publius Clodius.
[00:04:17] Josh Bowman: Man. This is.
There's a lot here because.
And it's a little overwhelming because if you don't know the history this is, you're going to struggle with these examples.
Just to give you an example, I don't know all this history. I'm an example of someone who's struggling here. So what do you do with passages like this? Right?
You get some clues here.
So the aediles. There's an interesting footnote. The edile. So I'm saying aediles. She's saying aediles.
Okay?
[00:04:53] Katherine Bradshaw: That would be the Latin pronunciation, ideles.
Aedile is fine.
[00:04:57] Josh Bowman: I'm going to say aedile because that's how I've always read it.
Now I think about it, it has to be wrong. The Aediles were in charge of the amenities of the city, streets, markets, shrines and fire control. Of course that's important, right?
This is what Crassus did, right? Was he. There's no fire department to an extent. But like, can you imagine the fire department showing up to your city, to your house? I mean, it's on fire. Like, hey, if you pay up, I'll put this out for you. Maybe that's quite the.
Quite the issue.
They also exercised minor jurisdiction and organized public games and festivals.
There was a state allowance for these, but those in office could spend additional sums on them. In addition, many gave entertainments, particularly gladiatorial games, at their own expense. You know, this, we're coming into this passage of.
In the previous episode, we're talking about the different distinctions between like, liberality, waste and extravagance, all that.
And Cicero's trying to illustrate that previous point with examples here.
And you know, correct me if I'm wrong, guys, I don't know if I'm misreading this, but there's part of me that wonders this, if this is a little self serving in the sense that he's like, look, I don't.
In this one time when they were helping, you know, but in my consulship, Publius Lentulus surpassed all his predecessors Scourus imitated. And the events provided by my friend Pompey and his second consulship were extremely magnificent. You can see what I. Why what I myself would have proven. All this in the note here. It says Pompey, as consul for the second time in 55 BC, built the first permanent stone theater in Rome and gave elaborate games. Note that they were not official games as Pompey was not aedile at the time. Of course, he just had a lot of money.
I'm trying to figure out, is Cicero commending these people? Is he being sarcastic in the sense that he's criticizing some.
Are these men extravagant, are they wasteful or are they liberal?
Because I don't have the significant historical knowledge I wish I had. I don't always know. But he clearly is, you know, against avarice. Right? That's. Don't rob from the people to give them these things. Don't rob from others to provide these. The services that an aedile gives, which is typically, you know, it's part of the Curses honorum, curses sonorum.
[00:07:18] Katherine Bradshaw: Right.
[00:07:19] Josh Bowman: Going up the.
The latter to rule. But anyways, I'll just stop there and defer to Chris and Catherine.
[00:07:27] Chris Anadale: Well, I'll just observe that he opens with the description of poor Mamercus, who, though he's very rich, didn't really feel like being ideal for a time past that level of service where he would have been spending money on the public good, sought instead the power of the consulship and was passed over.
Right. If I'm reading this correctly, they didn't want him. Right. Not sufficiently civic minded, we might say. So, yeah, you got to put in your service, you got to Be the president of the Lions Club, be the treasurer of the Lions Club, which is sort of a task that has to be done, but in the service of the people and the public good.
I appreciate the way which Cicero reaches for historical examples, which for him are recent history.
When I was in power last, last year, I did these things, which for us, of course, is a little bit less contemporary. It doesn't have the contemporaneous feel to it. But he's illustrating all sorts of examples for the benefit of his son and for his immediate readers.
Plenty of occasions in which I think the lesson of this chapter, obviously any suspicion of avarice is to be avoided, and that's the problem that Mamercus faced, is that maybe this fellow doesn't value money in the right sort of way for a truly excellent statesman, and so we'll sort of let him be a private, rich person instead. Catherine, what do you say?
[00:09:01] Katherine Bradshaw: Yes, this is a chapter that lends itself to a lot of footnotes. Our translation restrained itself very nicely, I think. Josh, to get back to your question about is this an endorsement or is this a criticism?
I think Cicero is intentionally trying to straddle that. He's intentionally trying to have one foot in either camp of criticism and endorsement because the men he cites are either kind of on his side politically, or men he admires or men he considers to be generally good guys, but they don't always do the right thing, like Hortensius.
So he's saying, here's the standard up here in the chapter that we talked about last episode where he says it's not good to squander money on these lavish spectacles.
But I'm not. I'm not an idealist. I'm a realist. I know that sometimes you have to in order to get ahead, and that's what these men did. I'm not saying it was a good thing in and of itself. I'm not saying if I had all my own way that they would have done that, but they did, and I'm not criticizing them outright for doing it. And I think that's why it feels kind of difficult to interpret, because he's being intentionally ambiguous here, because then he proceeds to. Chris, what you were talking about with Mamericus seems to be miserly, and that's why he doesn't get the consulship.
The going back to a several chapters ago, when Cicero says that the common people love a. A A leader because they think that he is the sort of man who will be generous, he is. So that suspicion of his Nature is what gets Mamericus the loss of the consulship.
But Marcus Sais did the right thing where he said he. He took a hit financially and gave largess to the people, but it was food, and it was to get ahead politically. And he served the con, the res publica, well. And so it wasn't really for him, so it was okay. And so Cicero is in this odd spot with this,
[00:11:48] Josh Bowman: I think, in the next passage, which I'll read starting in chapter 59, he's. He's going to wrestle with this even more in the sense that, you know, what is the case for lavish distribution? It was my turn to read.
[00:12:01] Katherine Bradshaw: Right.
[00:12:01] Josh Bowman: I'm not making that up. Okay, So chapter 59, there is a case for lavish distribution. Then, if it is either necessary or beneficial.
However, in these very matters, the rule of the intermediate course is best.
Lucius Philippus, the son of Quintus, a man of great talent and extremely notable, was accustomed to boast that without financing any public events, he had achieved all the most highly regarded distinctions.
The same was said by Cotta and Curio.
I, too, may boast in a somewhat similar vein. For compared with the distinction of the honorable offices which I achieved, elected to them unanimously and in the earliest possible year, something which happened to none of those I had just named.
The expenditure during my aedileship was paltry indeed. Again, money is better spent on walls, docks, harbors, aqueducts, and everything else that concerns the needs of the nation. And these win greater gratitude from posterity, although what is present, what is in the hand, so to speak, is more pleasurable. On account of Pompey, I am embarrassed to criticize theaters, colonnades to new temples, but the most learned men do not approve of them, as Panaetius himself says, whom I am to a large extent following, though not expounding in these books. And also Demetrius of Phalerum, who denounces Pericles, the foremost of the Greeks, because he threw away so much money on the splendid Propylaea.
But I thoroughly discussed the whole topic in the books which I wrote on the Republic. To sum up, therefore, the whole system of lavish distribution is. Is of its nature contrary to virtue, but due to circumstances, it may be necessary. Even then, it must be adapted to one's resources and moderated by the intermediate course.
Chris.
[00:13:57] Chris Anadale: Very good. Well, here we have this kind of final judgment on lavish distributions, which is they're contrary to moderation. We can do the kind of thing which can sort of grow into lavishness in a moderate way.
But what I thought was most interesting Here was. There's a little bit of self promotion.
Cicero is never going to lose the opportunity to remind us that I was elected at the earliest possible year, unanimously. So he's very, very proud of that. It seems money is better spent on walls, docks and harbors. Money would be better spent by somebody in a position of responsibility. Not on these sor. Lavish games, on the pleasures that they bring, or even the sort of magnificent show, though that's not perhaps contemptible in every case, but on the actual sort of what we would say, infrastructure improvements, the things that will be less pleasing to the immediate population, but pleasing to posterity. You have in a sense here, that kind of sense of the philosopher's sense of valuing the long term good, of doing the virtuous thing now and taking the sort of sacrificing present pleasure for future benefit, since this is a whole book about the beneficial and how to pursue it.
So lavish distribution is by its very nature contrary to virtue. So it's not virtuous to do it, but we have to do it sometimes, because that's the kind of system that we're in, in which case do it virtuously and with moderation. So I take that to be his last word on, on that topic.
[00:15:39] Katherine Bradshaw: And he again is offering historical examples and what for him is pretty contemporary.
So I, it's. It's always funny to me when he, when we get the sort of personal Cicero of. I am embarrassed to criticize theaters, colonnades and new temples. Why? Because my friend did that.
So I can't, I can't really say too much about it.
[00:16:08] Chris Anadale: Well, one, one has to. One has to be loyal to benefactors, right? That's.
[00:16:12] Katherine Bradshaw: Yes, loyalty is a virtue.
So, so he, he sort of sideways criticizes Pompey by not, not criticizing him, quote, unquote, Cicero's favorite rhetorical device, I shall not say such and such, and then proceeds to say it.
Um, but he also offers Pericles. So this is the Pericles of Athens who builds, who is responsible for building Parthenon and that propylaea. So the propylae is a porch on a temple, and that particular one is extremely expensive. And here we get into how it gets a little confusing for, for moderns of the difference between public and private expenses. Because Pericles spends this money supposedly for a public work, but it's not his money. It's the money that's from the treasury of the Delian League, which is a body that Athens is part of and the leader of. But it's not Athens money to Spend. It's other people's money that's meant to go to building ships, not building temples.
And so this was a very controversial thing at the time. And it's interesting to me that it gets put here rather than later when Cicero starts talking about, you know, spending public funds, because up till now he's been talking about spending private funds on public matters.
[00:17:48] Josh Bowman: What do you think Cicero would think of building a ballroom? I'm just kidding.
We don't want to go down that road, do we?
Or a baseball stadium or something. Who knows, Right?
But I think it's interesting here where the ancients, politically, despite the consulship, is elected every year, right.
The term is what, it's almost exactly 12 months, I'm pretty sure.
[00:18:12] Katherine Bradshaw: Right.
[00:18:12] Josh Bowman: Essentially.
And yet they take a longer view than many modern democratic politicians do in the sense that when there's an infrastructure project or something to spend public money on, it's with often, and this is cynical of me, but I mean, am I wrong? Tell me in the comments.
It's an eye to the next election, right? Will this get built before the next election? That I don't care. Right.
But there, there, there is a sense in which I, I think Cicero. And again, I, I'd like to look into deeper, look deeper into. To what extent does Cicero live up to this himself? Right. During his consulship. What did he build?
I don't know of anything specifically.
[00:19:00] Katherine Bradshaw: Right.
[00:19:00] Josh Bowman: We, we.
There's certainly going to be emperors who we associate things with later on in particular, like Hadrian's Wall, et cetera. But these are because they were in office several years, right. They're able to build these, these public works projects that last for.
To this day in many instances.
And so I just, I think it's a, it's an interesting moment in the way they think of the projects. You know, to what extent is, is the immortality that the Greeks focus on, whether it's, you know, in battle, does it move toward physical things and laws in the Roman Republic?
[00:19:36] Katherine Bradshaw: Do.
[00:19:37] Josh Bowman: How do, how do the Romans view eternity in their actions on this earth?
[00:19:41] Chris Anadale: Right.
[00:19:41] Josh Bowman: We think of kind of the Greek notions of kind of the Spartan notion, right. That I will, my name will live on in the Homeric sense, right. Because I fought and died in battle. That's my immortality. Do the Romans carry that same idea? Maybe only if you die for your city.
And even then is it still the same thing? I don't know. But I think it's an interesting contrast in the way that Romans and the Greeks think of eternity. Are they the same Are they different? Why are they different? You know, I think it'd be an interesting conversation to have. So.
[00:20:14] Chris Anadale: Okay, I think I'll pick up the next passage. I'll read 61 and 62. Thanks. Thanks for the reminder.
Now as for the other type of giving, that which proceeds from liberality, here we should not react in the same way towards different cases.
The case of a man overwhelmed by disaster is one thing, that of a man who seeks to improve his affairs, though unaffected by misfortune is another.
Kindness ought to incline itself more to those stricken by disaster, unless perhaps they deserved their disaster.
On the other hand, if others want assistance not in avoiding suffering, but in order to climb to a higher level, we ought to be not at all close fisted, but to apply our judgment and care in selecting suitable men.
Ennius wrote splendidly. Good deeds, when badly placed, I count as badly done.
[00:21:18] Katherine Bradshaw: Well, we have, we have Ennius again and again. A very kind of virtue ethics prudence quote here. Because if, if, if it's a good deed, that's great. But was it done at the right place, in the right time, with the right motive, in the right degree to the right people?
And it's interesting the criteria that, that Cicero puts forward where you, you have indeed it can be the, the recipient can be someone overwhelmed by calamity, totally not his own fault, nobody could have seen it coming, act of God type thing.
And that should provoke our pity and our generosity.
Unless perhaps the person deserved this disaster, which I think is.
It sounds harsh, but in, in the Roman view of how the world works, in which you have a very famous little proverb in, in Latin is do ut days when you're, when you're interacting with the gods, it means I give so that you might give.
So it's very transactional. And if you do the right things, maybe, hopefully the gods will be happy with you and they will do nice things for you. Unless your ancestor offended them way back when and you can't do anything about it.
But this is, this is of course why the early church gets persecuted so much, because they're not doing what you're supposed to do for the gods to be happy.
And if one person isn't doing that, then it affects the entire city. And this is a problem for the pagan Romans.
But when you get words like this, unless perhaps they deserve their disaster, and in a world where it's transactional, then it's perfectly understandable for someone to have just brought a, what seems like an act of God upon himself, because that's how the world works.
So there is a sense of, of, well, we should be kind, but again, we're being cautious about the deserving of the person who is receiving the liberality. It's not just be liberal in order to be liberal.
There is a time when one's help is not appropriate and there's a time when one's help is appropriate.
[00:23:59] Josh Bowman: I'll reread a quick passage here that struck out to me is on the other hand, this is the other half of chapter 62. On the other hand, if others want assistance not in avoiding suffering, but in order to climb to a higher level level, we ought to be not at all close fisted, but to apply our judgment and care in selecting suitable men. What on earth does he mean by a higher level? Does he mean by increasing your economic class? Right. I don't know, you know, how much is that in the consciousness at this time? Does he mean higher up the curses Honorum. Does he mean just in the kind of vague social sense?
My initial reaction to this was, you know, is this entirely political?
Right. If you're going to donate to political campaigns, make sure you're wise. I'm thinking myself, I would never like the idea of giving money to politics, to politicians. If either party, I don't care what it is, I might as well just set my money on fire. It just, that's about as valuable as it is.
But if I, if I am going to give money in a way that is genuinely going to advance someone further along towards something good, I want to make sure that that investment, or he doesn't use that phrase, but that investment is in someone who genuinely is going to, is going to use it well. And this gets back to a theme that comes up throughout the whole thing is how else would you know that without friendship, without knowing their family, without community, without a sense of a place and things like that. So I think there is something to be said about.
It's not just about reputation either. Like, is there, how do you know you're giving in a liberal virtuous way if you don't know these people?
And I think Cicero is so good on that particular point.
[00:25:48] Chris Anadale: Yeah, I think this, this caught me a little bit by surprise when I first read it, of course, because he's saying, you know, to begin with, you know, your people have a disaster. Well, obviously you should be generous to them unless maybe they somehow had it coming.
Not further specified, but use your own judg there. And I was genuinely expecting that next sentence to end differently when he says, if we have somebody who wants not to avoid suffering, but to climb to a higher level, which I assumed was political climbing. Political ambition wants to be a dial, wants to move up in the state. Well, we should be not at all close. We should give them money, but prudently. Well, and then I remembered this is a Roman. And so obviously politics is good, and seeking political power is good, and using it for the public good is, in fact, maybe the highest form of virtue. So obviously he's going to say, you know, not, you know, direct redirect all your money to social workers, but rather, you know, help the suffering. Help people avoid suffering. And then because you have a surplus of funds as well, help the. The good, ambitious people move up and bring more good to the state through the acquisition of more power. I hadn't considered possibilities, Josh. I just kind of defaulted to political ambition.
Help the ambitious. But of course, when they are suitable, when they are virtuous, when they have promise, when they have the right attitude towards their own wealth, for example, unlike some others.
So a very short chapter here, honestly, with not a lot of detailed advice except to be generous with the unfortunate and to be generous, you know, prudently and with moderation with the ambitious. Right. I could see Cicero funding campaigns thinking, you know, if I have the money and I don't fund a good man's campaign, who's going to fund it? And if it doesn't get funded, who's left? Well, the bad men are left.
Any. Any final thoughts from you guys about this, or would you like to go on to the next chapter, or should we wrap it up for today?
[00:27:56] Josh Bowman: I think we can keep going.
[00:27:57] Chris Anadale: Okay. Why don't we go on to chapter 63? Catherine, would you like to read that one?
[00:28:03] Katherine Bradshaw: Certainly.
Furthermore, anything that is granted to a man who is good and grateful bears fruit both in him and also in others. For liberality, when free from rashness, wins great gratitude. And most men praise that the more assiduously, because the goodness of an excellent man is the common refuge of all.
Therefore, we must make an effort to effect as many as possible by kind services of such a sort that the memory of them is handed down to children and children's children, so that they too may not be without gratitude. For everyone hates a man who is unmindful of kind services and thinks that that injustice, because it discourages liberality, is inflicted also upon himself.
The man who does such a thing is considered the common enemy of the poor.
A further kindness is that which benefits the nation also, for example, buying back captives from slavery and enriching the Poor. We have plentiful evidence in that speech of Crassus that such burdens were commonly assumed by our class.
Therefore, I would value the habit of that type of kindness far above paying for public events. The former is the mark of a serious and great man, the latter of those who flatter the people, as it were. Using pleasures to tickle the fickle fancies of the masses.
[00:29:27] Josh Bowman: That's a, that's a tongue twister at the end there. The tickle, the fickle fancies of the mass.
I almost said the masses.
How, how Northern am. I don't have a ton to say here because again, I think it's, I think it's quite straightforward to a point.
You know, he's, he, he's, he's very concerned and I think this is certainly true. At the end of his life, he's like, look, what if the Republic is falling? How are we going to preserve these virtues that made the Republic what it was?
And if we fail to inspire, if liberality does not inspire liberality, we're. We're in trouble. So how are we going to live in such a way that it forms future generations? Or how do we transmit this wise and prudent liberality to future generations? He's very concerned about that.
And I think, of course, justifiably so in many ways.
And so I'm just, I'm. I'm struck by that multi generational interest and concern in him. It's very, you know, going, you know, way forward to Edmund Burke. Right. This is a kind of thinking of how we've been inspired by the liberality of others. We want to inspire liberality of future generations and in our own time. Right. This contract of the dead, the living and yet unborn. That's kind of what he's. I mean, he's not exactly getting there, but I think he's, he's getting there to a point. I'm heartened by that. Right. I think he sees that liberality, generosity, justice, love, affection, friendship, it begets more of it. Right. It's not something that the backlash towards it he doesn't seem to see as possible.
And I think that's. It's kind of a pay it forward, love your enemies, all that stuff is going to appear in Christianity as well.
[00:31:22] Chris Anadale: Yeah. I'm further struck by how, of course, the themes of books one and two are the honorable and the useful. And what we're being told repeatedly throughout book two is that the honorable is useful, virtue is the key to success in life. And we're told here Specifically about the benefits that will come to you from being generous, liberal in this way, from spending your resources in such a way by giving, you know, prudently, wisely, moderately and well as part of your overall sort of, you know, portfolio of virtues. And it is that the man who is good and grateful bears fruit in him and in others, right? So you get the sort of own private benefit of having been virtuous. And we've might think that's the sort of, you know, I have the shining soul of the virtuous person. Maybe perhaps in my devotional life, God approves of me. But where's the usefulness of this in the social sphere? Well, it's because you win the gratitude of others. They are grateful to you, and you win the admiration of others. People support you and elevate you, they assist you on your way up, they judge you to be suitable. And just the way we were just talking about when people are deciding to whom they would give their money to support, you know, in rising higher up in society. And therefore, we must make an effort to affect as many as possible by our kind services.
And we should try to inspire as much gratitude as possible. Why interesting thing here is everyone hates a man who is ungrateful, who's unmindful of having done a kind service. Just as an example, maybe in Cicero, being willing to overlook, you know, some of the. Or sort of minimize some of the things that Pompey did that he might not entirely approve of it considered in themselves, but considered as deeds of Pompey. Well, all right, that's okay.
Why one has to be mindful and grateful and repay the kindness that was done to one. I found myself wondering here, thinking that, I don't know, that Cicero here is saying that it is part of human nature to hate and despise the ungrateful person. I think maybe he's saying it's characteristic of virtuous people who are formed to a certain level of excellence in our social class to hate and despise the ungrateful, the one who is unmindful, who forgets kindnesses that were done to him. But perhaps you guys have a different perspective on that. I'd love to hear about that or from anybody in the comments who thinks that I'm wrong in that reading of Cicero.
But the reason is interesting because somebody who is not properly grateful discourages others in the future from being liberal, from being generous. And that hurts all of us most, especially the poor.
And so we dislike that person. We put him down, we exclude him from our circle of admiration. Catherine
[00:34:18] Katherine Bradshaw: yeah, that section also struck me, Chris, because it's an interesting reason that's given for the dislike of ingratitude because I think there's a, A, an impulse, but I don't think we analyze where the impulse comes from very often.
And so Cicero is not saying oh, we, we dislike the ungrateful because it's unjust to be ungrateful, even though it is, but because, and he's arguing from, from a benefit angle here where if this guy is ungrateful to his benefactor, then I may not receive benefits from my benefactor anymore, in which case it's actually to my detriment for someone else to be ungrateful. So there's almost a selfishness in the dislike of ingratitude that comes in. And so I think Cicero is here pretty clear sighted about human nature, that a lot of the times we get what we feel like is righteous indignation. Maybe it's not quite so righteous and maybe it's a little bit more self centered than we like to admit.
But there's again in the next paragraph where he, he re, he returns again to the kind of benefits that one ought to give, not just ones that benefit individuals, although he says that those are good, but also the back to the not just infrastructure like you mentioned earlier, but also the buying back captives from slavery and enriching the poor. So not just on a physical infrastructure level, but on a societal bonds level, liberality, generosity can be used to strengthen those intangible bonds by redeeming people who have been captured and restoring them to their citizenship or by elevating and I think the, the, the raising themselves is both political and other here in that previous paragraph that enriching the poor, elevating the poor is also a way of strengthening the community.
And so it's a way of benefiting the nation not just on the physical level, but on the, the intangible mental, one might even say spiritual level in terms of community bonds.
And we see this later way post Cicero where you know all the stories that are told about St Nicholas, his benefits that he gives are things like giving women who have no dowry dowries or you know, things that benefit them greatly but that also strengthen community bonds because now people are benefiting from generosity, even if it's anonymous in the case of St. Nicholas or tries to be anonymous.
[00:37:33] Chris Anadale: Anyway, do one more. Okay, I think, Josh, I think it's your turn to read chapter 64 and then we'll wrap it up A long episode.
[00:37:43] Josh Bowman: It is fitting moreover, both to be bountiful in giving, and also to avoid harshness in making demands and in all transactions, selling, buying, hiring, letting, in issues concerning neighbors and boundaries, being fair, affable, often yielding much of what is rightfully one's own, certainly shunning litigation as far as possible, and perhaps even a little further than that.
For it is not only liberal, but sometimes may even prove fruitful. Occasionally to concede a little of one's right, one must take account of one's personal wealth, for it is criminal to allow that to slip away, but in such a way that there is no suspicion of meanness or avarice. For to be able to act with liberality and yet not rob oneself of one's patrimony is without doubt the greatest fruit that money can bear.
Again, hospitality was rightly praised by Theophrastus. For it is most seemly, or so it seems, for the homes of distinguished men to be open to distinguished guests. Furthermore, it reflects splendidly on the republic that foreigners do not in our city go short of that kind of liberality. For those who wish to possess great power honorably, it is also extremely beneficial to wield influence and command gratitude among foreign peoples through the guests one has entertained. Theophrastus indeed wrote that in Athens, Cimon was hospitable even to the lads, the members of his own ward. For he established the following practice, instructing his stewards accordingly, that every one should be offered to any lasiad who called at his country home.
[00:39:24] Chris Anadale: I love this treatment of hospitality, but I think I'll leave that for the two of you to comment on. I wanted to note this idea that, one, it's not only liberal, but sometimes even fruitful to concede a little bit of one's right in this sense, not to insist on all that you are sort of legally and morally entitled to, but to let a couple of these things go by, like to actually bear with a certain amount of injustice or unfairness when really, you know, you're in the right and you could demand it. But it's actually the mark of a superior type of person, a superior type of virtue, to be liberal even with that. Like, I'll even let you, you know, cheat me on this deal a little bit, because I can bear it out of the sort of abundance of my. My virtue and my. My wealth.
So that one. And that. That's. That seems to me, since he's just brought up shunning litigation, that even in legal matters there's a certain kind of liberality one can still practice. And that's actually the mark of a virtuous person, that you should keep that in mind for cases when you might be inclined to sort of stand on the black letter of the law as far as enforcing your rights in a commercial transaction, for example.
[00:40:35] Katherine Bradshaw: Yes. And since Cicero is in an extremely litigious society, this is going against the current of his popular culture.
And there is a way in which this, these two ideas are connected here because, I mean, so much of hospitality. There's, there's that fine line between a guest receiving hospitality and I guess, taking advantage of the host.
And so, though Cicero doesn't make that connection explicit, I think there is a way that there you can see how he gets from one topic to the next where you have some liberality that is exercised in the legal courts, even go, you know, surprising place perhaps, but then also to the more understandable, almost natural way. And it's interesting that he leaves this until so late in his discussion of liberality is the liberality of one's house.
And it's again interesting because as we saw with the section on, the sections on seemliness from book one, one must not just be virtuous, one must be seen to be virtuous. So that. That encouraging of gratitude that we saw in the earlier section, but also here, having patron client relationships with foreigners is a way that the republic is ornamented through the hospitality of its great men. It's not just that the great men are hospitable, it's that they have a reputation for hospitality which then augments the reputation of the res publica itself. Look at these Romans. They are so hospitable. They have connections in other countries and receive foreigners well and hospitably.
[00:42:33] Josh Bowman: Yeah, I, I think that the aspect of hospitality is so important here. It's also interesting just to reflect on the change that Christianity is going to bring when it shows up, or at least somewhat of a change. I think Cicero is onto something here, but at the same time, it's hard for me to look past what I view as kind of a proto utilitarian view of a lot of these things. Hospitality is meant to facilitate economic, political and social relations primarily. Right. This is just what you do if you want to have friends, you know, have friends and influence people, that kind of thing.
He's not that crude. Right? I'm not, I'm not accusing him of being that obvious.
But what's, what's the why behind all this? Right? Is this, is it really worth it, right, to do all these things? And I think Christianity comes around, says, look, you need to even love your enemies and be hospitable to them. Right. And one thing that's interesting, I think it's in the book of Hebrews, in chapter maybe 13, maybe, where he says, you know, be hospitable, essentially, to angel, to anyone, because you may entertain angels without even knowing it. I love that passage, in a sense that it is, your hospitality is unto God, and so therefore treat everyone as if the Lord himself were coming into your home in need.
And, you know, it's gonna be this radical deepening of this. This ethic of hospitality, I think, compared to Cicero's. And so that's. That's what struck me in this passage, is Cicero's, he's better off than others. Right. It's not this crude. It's not as crude utilitarianism as it could be.
But he doesn't entirely escape the political social kind of.
Yeah. That. That you. The usefulness of it.
[00:44:25] Chris Anadale: Fantastic. Thank you so much, Josh.
I want to wrap up this episode by reminding you you've been listening to Cicero on Duties, which is the podcast of the Ciceronian Society. We're reading through the entirety of this work, and we're going to be coming back next week to talk about Chapter 65 and beyond.
[00:44:43] Josh Bowman: Of
[00:44:46] Chris Anadale: my co hosts today have been Josh Bowman of the Ciceronian Society and Catherine Bradshaw of the Ancient Language Institute. To learn more about the Ciceronian Society and our programming, please visit ciceroniansociety.org thanks so much for watching today. Goodbye.
