<SPAN name="startofbook"></SPAN>
<p><br/><br/></p>
<h1> TREATISES ON <br/> FRIENDSHIP AND OLD AGE </h1>
<p><br/><br/></p>
<h2> By Marcus Tullius Cicero </h2>
<p><br/><br/></p>
<h3> Translated by E. S. Shuckburgh </h3>
<p><br/></p>
<hr />
<p><br/></p>
<h3> Contents </h3>
<table summary="" style="margin-right: auto; margin-left: auto">
<tr>
<td>
<p><SPAN href="#link2H_4_0001"> INTRODUCTORY NOTE </SPAN></p>
<p><SPAN href="#link2H_4_0002"> ON FRIENDSHIP </SPAN></p>
<p><SPAN href="#link2H_4_0003"> ON OLD AGE </SPAN></p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><br/></p>
<hr />
<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0001" id="link2H_4_0001"></SPAN></p>
<h2> INTRODUCTORY NOTE </h2>
<p>MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO, the greatest of Roman orators and the chief master
of Latin prose style, was born at Arpinum, Jan. 3, 106 B.C. His father,
who was a man of property and belonged to the class of the "Knights,"
moved to Rome when Cicero was a child; and the future statesman received
an elaborate education in rhetoric, law, and philosophy, studying and
practising under some of the most noted teachers of the time. He began his
career as an advocate at the age of twenty-five, and almost immediately
came to be recognized not only as a man of brilliant talents but also as a
courageous upholder of justice in the face of grave political danger.
After two years of practice he left Rome to travel in Greece and Asia,
taking all the opportunities that offered to study his art under
distinguished masters. He returned to Rome greatly improved in health and
in professional skill, and in 76 B. C. was elected to the office of
quaestor. He was assigned to the province of Lilybaeum in Sicily, and the
vigor and justice of his administration earned him the gratitude of the
inhabitants. It was at their request that he undertook in 70 B. C. the
Prosecution of Verres, who as Praetor had subjected the Sicilians to
incredible extortion and oppression; and his successful conduct of this
case, which ended in the conviction and banishment of Verres, may be said
to have launched him on his political career. He became aedile in the same
year, in 67 B.C. praetor, and in 64 B. C. was elected consul by a large
majority. The most important event of the year of his consulship was the
conspiracy of Catiline. This notorious criminal of patrician rank had
conspired with a number of others, many of them young men of high birth
but dissipated character, to seize the chief offices of the state, and to
extricate themselves from the pecuniary and other difficulties that had
resulted from their excesses, by the wholesale plunder of the city. The
plot was unmasked by the vigilance of Cicero, five of the traitors were
summarily executed, and in the overthrow of the army that had been
gathered in their support Catiline himself perished. Cicero regarded
himself as the savior of his country, and his country for the moment
seemed to give grateful assent.</p>
<p>But reverses were at hand. During the existence of the political
combination of Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus, known as the first
triumvirate, P. Clodius, an enemy of Cicero's, proposed a law banishing
"any one who had put Roman citizens to death without trial." This was
aimed at Cicero on account of his share in the Catiline affair, and in
March, 58 B. C., he left Rome. The same day a law was passed by which he
was banished by name, and his property was plundered and destroyed, a
temple to Liberty being erected on the site of his house in the city.
During his exile Cicero's manliness to some extent deserted him. He
drifted from place to place, seeking the protection of officials against
assassination, writing letters urging his supporters to agitate for his
recall, sometimes accusing them of lukewarmness and even treachery,
bemoaning the ingratitude of his country or regretting the course of
action that had led to his outlawry, and suffering from extreme depression
over his separation from his wife and children and the wreck of his
political ambitions. Finally in August, 57 B. C., the decree for his
restoration was passed, and he returned to Rome the next month, being
received with immense popular enthusiasm. During the next few years the
renewal of the understanding among the triumvirs shut Cicero out from any
leading part in politics, and he resumed his activity in the law-courts,
his most important case being, perhaps, the defence of Milo for the murder
of Clodius, Cicero's most troublesome enemy. This oration, in the revised
form in which it has come down to us, is ranked as among the finest
specimens of the art of the orator, though in its original form it failed
to secure Milo's acquittal. Meantime, Cicero was also devoting much time
to literary composition, and his letters show great dejection over the
political situation, and a somewhat wavering attitude towards the various
parties in the state. In 55 B. C. he went to Cilicia in Asia Minor as
proconsul, an office which he administered with efficiency and integrity
in civil affairs and with success in military. He returned to Italy in the
end of the following year, and he was publicly thanked by the senate for
his services, but disappointed in his hopes for a triumph. The war for
supremacy between Caesar and Pompey which had for some time been gradually
growing more certain, broke out in 49 B.C., when Caesar led his army
across the Rubicon, and Cicero after much irresolution threw in his lot
with Pompey, who was overthrown the next year in the battle of Pharsalus
and later murdered in Egypt. Cicero returned to Italy, where Caesar
treated him magnanimously, and for some time he devoted himself to
philosophical and rhetorical writing. In 46 B.C. he divorced his wife
Terentia, to whom he had been married for thirty years and married the
young and wealthy Publilia in order to relieve himself from financial
difficulties; but her also he shortly divorced. Caesar, who had now become
supreme in Rome, was assassinated in 44 B.C., and though Cicero was not a
sharer in the conspiracy, he seems to have approved the deed. In the
confusion which followed he supported the cause of the conspirators
against Antony; and when finally the triumvirate of Antony, Octavius, and
Lepidus was established, Cicero was included among the proscribed, and on
December 7, 43 B.C., he was killed by agents of Antony. His head and hand
were cut off and exhibited at Rome.</p>
<p>The most important orations of the last months of his life were the
fourteen "Philippics" delivered against Antony, and the price of this
enmity he paid with his life.</p>
<p>To his contemporaries Cicero was primarily the great forensic and
political orator of his time, and the fifty-eight speeches which have come
down to us bear testimony to the skill, wit, eloquence, and passion which
gave him his pre-eminence. But these speeches of necessity deal with the
minute details of the occasions which called them forth, and so require
for their appreciation a full knowledge of the history, political and
personal, of the time. The letters, on the other hand, are less elaborate
both in style and in the handling of current events, while they serve to
reveal his personality, and to throw light upon Roman life in the last
days of the Republic in an extremely vivid fashion. Cicero as a man, in
spite of his self-importance, the vacillation of his political conduct in
desperate crises, and the whining despondency of his times of adversity,
stands out as at bottom a patriotic Roman of substantial honesty, who gave
his life to check the inevitable fall of the commonwealth to which he was
devoted. The evils which were undermining the Republic bear so many
striking resemblances to those which threaten the civic and national life
of America to-day that the interest of the period is by no means merely
historical.</p>
<p>As a philosopher, Cicero's most important function was to make his
countrymen familiar with the main schools of Greek thought. Much of this
writing is thus of secondary interest to us in comparison with his
originals, but in the fields of religious theory and of the application of
philosophy to life he made important first-hand contributions. From these
works have been selected the two treatises, on Old Age and on Friendship,
which have proved of most permanent and widespread interest to posterity,
and which give a clear impression of the way in which a high-minded Roman
thought about some of the main problems of human life.</p>
<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0002" id="link2H_4_0002"></SPAN></p>
<br/>
<h2> ON FRIENDSHIP </h2>
<p>THE augur Quintus Mucius Scaevola used to recount a number of stories
about his father-in-law Galus Laelius, accurately remembered and
charmingly told; and whenever he talked about him always gave him the
title of "the wise" without any hesitation. I had been introduced by my
father to Scaevola as soon as I had assumed the <i>toga virilis</i>, and I
took advantage of the introduction never to quit the venerable man's side
as long as I was able to stay and he was spared to us. The consequence was
that I committed to memory many disquisitions of his, as well as many
short pointed apophthegms, and, in short, took as much advantage of his
wisdom as I could. When he died, I attached myself to Scaevola the
Pontifex, whom I may venture to call quite the most distinguished of our
countrymen for ability and uprightness. But of this latter I shall take
other occasions to speak. To return to Scaevola the augur. Among many
other occasions I particularly remember one. He was sitting on a
semicircular garden-bench, as was his custom, when I and a very few
intimate friends were there, and he chanced to turn the conversation upon
a subject which about that time was in many people's mouths. You must
remember, Atticus, for you were very intimate with Publius Sulpicius, what
expressions of astonishment, or even indignation, were called forth by his
mortal quarrel, as tribune, with the consul Quintus Pompeius, with whom he
had formerly lived on terms of the closest intimacy and affection. Well,
on this occasion, happening to mention this particular circumstance,
Scaevola detailed to us a discourse of Laelius on friendship delivered to
himself and Laelius's other son-in-law Galus Fannius, son of Marcus
Fannius, a few days after the death of Africanus. The points of that
discussion I committed to memory, and have arranged them in this book at
my own discretion. For I have brought the speakers, as it were, personally
on to my stage to prevent the constant "said I" and "said he" of a
narrative, and to give the discourse the air of being orally delivered in
our hearing.</p>
<p>You have often urged me to write something on Friendship, and I quite
acknowledged that the subject seemed one worth everybody's investigation,
and specially suited to the close intimacy that has existed between you
and me. Accordingly I was quite ready to benefit the public at your
request.</p>
<p>As to the <i>dramatis personae</i>. In the treatise on Old Age, which I
dedicated to you, I introduced Cato as chief speaker. No one, I thought,
could with greater propriety speak on old age than one who had been an old
man longer than any one else, and had been exceptionally vigorous in his
old age. Similarly, having learnt from tradition that of all friendships
that between Gaius Laelius and Publius Scipio was the most remarkable, I
thought Laelius was just the person to support the chief part in a
discussion on friendship which Scaevola remembered him to have actually
taken. Moreover, a discussion of this sort gains somehow in weight from
the authority of men of ancient days, especially if they happen to have
been distinguished. So it comes about that in reading over what I have
myself written I have a feeling at times that it is actually Cato that is
speaking, not I.</p>
<p>Finally, as I sent the former essay to you as a gift from one old man to
another, so I have dedicated this <i>On Friendship</i> as a most
affectionate friend to his friend. In the former Cato spoke, who was the
oldest and wisest man of his day; in this Laelius speaks on friendship—Laelius,
who was at once a wise man (that was the title given him) and eminent for
his famous friendship. Please forget me for a while; imagine Laelius to be
speaking.</p>
<p>Gaius Fannius and Quintus Mucius come to call on their father-in-law after
the death of Africanus. They start the subject; Laelius answers them. And
the whole essay on friendship is his. In reading it you will recognise a
picture of yourself.</p>
<p>2. <i>Fannius</i>. You are quite right, Laelius! there never was a better
or more illustrious character than Africanus. But you should consider that
at the present moment all eyes are on you. Everybody calls you "the wise"
<i>par excellence</i>, and thinks you so. The same mark of respect was
lately paid Cato, and we know that in the last generation Lucius Atilius
was called "the wise." But in both cases the word was applied with a
certain difference. Atilius was so called from his reputation as a jurist;
Cato got the name as a kind of honorary title and in extreme old age
because of his varied experience of affairs, and his reputation for
foresight and firmness, and the sagacity of the opinions which he
delivered in senate and forum. You, however, are regarded as wise in a
somewhat different sense not alone on account of natural ability and
character, but also from your industry and learning; and not in the sense
in which the vulgar, but that in which scholars, give that title. In this
sense we do not read of any one being called wise in Greece except one man
at Athens; and he, to be sure, had been declared by the oracle of Apollo
also to be "the supremely wise man." For those who commonly go by the name
of the Seven Sages are not admitted into the category of the wise by
fastidious critics. Your wisdom people believe to consist in this, that
you look upon yourself as self-sufficing and regard the changes and
chances of mortal life as powerless to affect your virtue. Accordingly
they are always asking me, and doubtless also our Scaevola here, how you
bear the death of Africanus. This curiosity has been the more excited from
the fact that on the Nones of this month, when we augurs met as usual in
the suburban villa of Decimus Brutus for consultation, you were not
present, though it had always been your habit to keep that appointment and
perform that duty with the utmost punctuality.</p>
<p><i>Scaevola</i>. Yes, indeed, Laelius, I am often asked the question
mentioned by Fannius. But I answer in accordance with what I have
observed: I say that you bear in a reasonable manner the grief which you
have sustained in the death of one who was at once a man of the most
illustrious character and a very dear friend. That of course you could not
but be affected—anything else would have been wholly unnatural in a
man of your gentle nature—but that the cause of your non-attendance
at our college meeting was illness, not melancholy.</p>
<p><i>Laelius</i>. Thanks, Scaevola! You are quite right; you spoke the exact
truth. For in fact I had no right to allow myself to be withdrawn from a
duty which I had regularly performed, as long as I was well, by any
personal misfortune; nor do I think that anything that can happen will
cause a man of principle to intermit a duty. As for your telling me,
Fannius, of the honourable appellation given me (an appellation to which I
do not recognise my title, and to which I make no claim), you doubtless
act from feelings of affection; but I must say that you seem to me to do
less than justice to Cato. If any one was ever "wise,"—of which I
have my doubts,—he was. Putting aside everything else, consider how
he bore his son's death! I had not forgotten Paulus; I had seen with my
own eyes Gallus. But they lost their sons when mere children; Cato his
when he was a full-grown man with an assured reputation. Do not therefore
be in a hurry to reckon as Cato's superior even that same famous personage
whom Apollo, as you say, declared to be "the wisest." Remember the
former's reputation rests on deeds, the latter's on words.</p>
<p>3. Now, as far as I am concerned (I speak to both of you now), believe me
the case stands thus. If I were to say that I am not affected by regret
for Scipio, I must leave the philosophers to justify my conduct, but in
point of fact I should be telling a lie. Affected of course I am by the
loss of a friend as I think there will never be again, such as I can
fearlessly say there never was before. But I stand in no need of medicine.
I can find my own consolation, and it consists chiefly in my being free
from the mistaken notion which generally causes pain at the departure of
friends. To Scipio I am convinced no evil has befallen: mine is the
disaster, if disaster there be; and to be severely distressed at one's own
misfortunes does not show that you love your friend, but that you love
yourself.</p>
<p>As for him, who can say that all is not more than well? For, unless he had
taken the fancy to wish for immortality, the last thing of which he ever
thought, what is there for which mortal man may wish that he did not
attain? In his early manhood he more than justified by extraordinary
personal courage the hopes which his fellow-citizens had conceived of him
as a child. He never was a candidate for the consulship, yet was elected
consul twice: the first time before the legal age; the second at a time
which, as far as he was concerned, was soon enough, but was near being too
late for the interests of the State. By the overthrow of two cities which
were the most bitter enemies of our Empire, he put an end not only to the
wars then raging, but also to the possibility of others in the future.
What need to mention the exquisite grace of his manners, his dutiful
devotion to his mother, his generosity to his sisters, his liberality to
his relations, the integrity of his conduct to every one? You know all
this already. Finally, the estimation in which his fellow-citizens held
him has been shown by the signs of mourning which accompanied his
obsequies. What could such a man have gained by the addition of a few
years? Though age need not be a burden,—as I remember Cato arguing
in the presence of myself and Scipio two years before he died,—yet
it cannot but take away the vigour and freshness which Scipio was still
enjoying. We may conclude therefore that his life, from the good fortune
which had attended him and the glory he had obtained, was so circumstanced
that it could not be bettered, while the suddenness of his death saved him
the sensation of dying. As to the manner of his death it is difficult to
speak; you see what people suspect. Thus much, however, I may say: Scipio
in his lifetime saw many days of supreme triumph and exultation, but none
more magnificent than his last, on which, upon the rising of the Senate,
he was escorted by the senators and the people of Rome, by the allies, and
by the Latins, to his own door. From such an elevation of popular esteem
the next step seems naturally to be an ascent to the gods above, rather
than a descent to Hades.</p>
<p>4. For I am not one of these modern philosophers who maintain that our
souls perish with our bodies, and that death ends all. With me ancient
opinion has more weight: whether it be that of our own ancestors, who
attributed such solemn observances to the dead, as they plainly would not
have done if they had believed them to be wholly annihilated; or that of
the philosophers who once visited this country, and who by their maxims
and doctrines educated Magna Graecia, which at that time was in a
flourishing condition, though it has now been ruined; or that of the man
who was declared by Apollo's oracle to be "most wise," and who used to
teach without the variation which is to be found in most philosophers that
"the souls of men are divine, and that when they have quitted the body a
return to heaven is open to them, least difficult to those who have been
most virtuous and just." This opinion was shared by Scipio. Only a few
days before his death—as though he had a presentiment of what was
coming—he discoursed for three days on the state of the republic.
The company consisted of Philus and Manlius and several others, and I had
brought you, Scaevola, along with me. The last part of his discourse
referred principally to the immortality of the soul; for he told us what
he had heard from the elder Africanus in a dream. Now if it be true that
in proportion to a man's goodness the escape from what may be called the
prison and bonds of the flesh is easiest, whom can we imagine to have had
an easier voyage to the gods than Scipio? I am disposed to think,
therefore, that in his case mourning would be a sign of envy rather than
of friendship. If, however, the truth rather is that the body and soul
perish together, and that no sensation remains, then though there is
nothing good in death, at least there is nothing bad. Remove sensation,
and a man is exactly as though he had never been born; and yet that this
man was born is a joy to me, and will be a subject of rejoicing to this
State to its last hour.</p>
<p>Wherefore, as I said before, all is as well as possible with him. Not so
with me; for as I entered life before him, it would have been fairer for
me to leave it also before him. Yet such is the pleasure I take in
recalling our friendship, that I look upon my life as having been a happy
one because I have spent it with Scipio. With him I was associated in
public and private business; with him I lived in Rome and served abroad;
and between us there was the most complete harmony in our tastes, our
pursuits, and our sentiments, which is the true secret of friendship. It
is not therefore in that reputation for wisdom mentioned just now by
Fannius—especially as it happens to be groundless—that I find
my happiness so much, as in the hope that the memory of our friendship
will be lasting. What makes me care the more about this is the fact that
in all history there are scarcely three or four pairs of friends on
record; and it is classed with them that I cherish a hope of the
friendship of Scipio and Laelius being known to posterity.</p>
<p><i>Fannius</i>. Of course that must be so, Laelius. But since you have
mentioned the word friendship, and we are at leisure, you would be doing
me a great kindness, and I expect Scaevola also, if you would do as it is
your habit to do when asked questions on other subjects, and tell us your
sentiments about friendship, its nature, and the rules to be observed in
regard to it.</p>
<p><i>Scaevola</i>. I shall of course be delighted. Fannius has anticipated
the very request I was about to make. So you will be doing us both a great
favour.</p>
<p>5. <i>Laelius</i>. I should certainly have no objection if I felt
confidence in myself. For the theme is a noble one, and we are (as Fannius
has said) at leisure. But who am I? and what ability have I? What you
propose is all very well for professional philosophers, who are used,
particularly if Greeks, to have the subject for discussion proposed to
them on the spur of the moment. It is a task of considerable difficulty,
and requires no little practice. Therefore for a set discourse on
friendship you must go, I think, to professional lecturers. All I can do
is to urge on you to regard friendship as the greatest thing in the world;
for there is nothing which so fits in with our nature, or is so exactly
what we want in prosperity or adversity.</p>
<p>But I must at the very beginning lay down this principle—<i>friendship
can only exist between good men</i>. I do not, however, press this too
closely, like the philosophers who push their definitions to a superfluous
accuracy. They have truth on their side, perhaps, but it is of no
practical advantage. Those, I mean, who say that no one but the "wise" is
"good." Granted, by all means. But the "wisdom" they mean is one to which
no mortal ever yet attained. We must concern ourselves with the facts of
everyday life as we find it—not imaginary and ideal perfections.
Even Gaius Fannius, Manius Curius, and Tiberius Coruncanius, whom our
ancestors decided to be "wise," I could never declare to be so according
to their standard. Let them, then, keep this word "wisdom" to themselves.
Everybody is irritated by it; no one understands what it means. Let them
but grant that the men I mentioned were "good." No, they won't do that
either. No one but the "wise" can be allowed that title, say they. Well,
then, let us dismiss them and manage as best we may with our own poor
mother wit, as the phrase is.</p>
<p>We mean then by the "good" <i>those whose actions and lives leave no
question as to their honour, purity, equity, and liberality; who are free
from greed, lust, and violence; and who have the courage of their
convictions</i>. The men I have just named may serve as examples. Such men
as these being generally accounted "good," let us agree to call them so,
on the ground that to the best of human ability they follow nature as the
most perfect guide to a good life.</p>
<p>Now this truth seems clear to me, that nature has so formed us that a
certain tie unites us all, but that this tie becomes stronger from
proximity. So it is that fellow-citizens are preferred in our affections
to foreigners, relations to strangers; for in their case Nature herself
has caused a kind of friendship to exist, though it is one which lacks
some of the elements of permanence. Friendship excels relationship in
this, that whereas you may eliminate affection from relationship, you
cannot do so from friendship. Without it relationship still exists in
name, friendship does not. You may best understand this friendship by
considering that, whereas the merely natural ties uniting the human race
are indefinite, this one is so concentrated, and confined to so narrow a
sphere, that affection is ever shared by two persons only or at most by a
few.</p>
<p>6. Now friendship may be thus defined: a complete accord on all subjects
human and divine, joined with mutual goodwill and affection. And with the
exception of wisdom, I am inclined to think nothing better than this has
been given to man by the immortal gods. There are people who give the palm
to riches or to good health, or to power and office, many even to sensual
pleasures. This last is the ideal of brute beasts; and of the others we
may say that they are frail and uncertain, and depend less on our own
prudence than on the caprice of fortune. Then there are those who find the
"chief good" in virtue. Well, that is a noble doctrine. But the very
virtue they talk of is the parent and preserver of friendship, and without
it friendship cannot possibly exist.</p>
<p>Let us, I repeat, use the word virtue in the ordinary acceptation and
meaning of the term, and do not let us define it in high-flown language.
Let us account as good the persons usually considered so, such as Paulus,
Cato, Gallus, Scipio, and Philus. Such men as these are good enough for
everyday life; and we need not trouble ourselves about those ideal
characters which are nowhere to be met with.</p>
<p>Well, between men like these the advantages of friendship are almost more
than I can say. To begin with, how can life be worth living, to use the
words of Ennius, which lacks that repose which is to be found in the
mutual good-will of a friend? What can be more delightful than to have
some one to whom you can say everything with the same absolute confidence
as to yourself? Is not prosperity robbed of half its value if you have no
one to share your joy? On the other hand, misfortunes would be hard to
bear if there were not some one to feel them even more acutely than
yourself. In a word, other objects of ambition serve for particular ends—riches
for use, power for securing homage, office for reputation, pleasure for
enjoyment, health for freedom from pain and the full use of the functions
of the body. But friendship embraces innumerable advantages. Turn which
way you please, you will find it at hand. It is everywhere; and yet never
out of place, never unwelcome. Fire and water themselves, to use a common
expression, are not of more universal use than friendship. I am not now
speaking of the common or modified form of it, though even that is a
source of pleasure and profit, but of that true and complete friendship
which existed between the select few who are known to fame. Such
friendship enhances prosperity, and relieves adversity of its burden by
halving and sharing it.</p>
<p>7. And great and numerous as are the blessings of friendship, this
certainly is the sovereign one, that it gives us bright hopes for the
future and forbids weakness and despair. In the face of a true friend a
man sees as it were a second self. So that where his friend is he is; if
his friend be rich, he is not poor; though he be weak, his friend's
strength is his; and in his friend's life he enjoys a second life after
his own is finished. This last is perhaps the most difficult to conceive.
But such is the effect of the respect, the loving remembrance, and the
regret of friends which follow us to the grave. While they take the sting
out of death, they add a glory to the life of the survivors. Nay, if you
eliminate from nature the tie of affection, there will be an end of house
and city, nor will so much as the cultivation of the soil be left. If you
don't see the virtue of friendship and harmony, you may learn it by
observing the effects of quarrels and feuds. Was any family ever so well
established, any State so firmly settled, as to be beyond the reach of
utter destruction from animosities and factions? This may teach you the
immense advantage of friendship.</p>
<p>They say that a certain philosopher of Agrigentum, in a Greek poem,
pronounced with the authority of an oracle the doctrine that whatever in
nature and the universe was unchangeable was so in virtue of the binding
force of friendship; whatever was changeable was so by the solvent power
of discord. And indeed this is a truth which everybody understands and
practically attests by experience. For if any marked instance of loyal
friendship in confronting or sharing danger comes to light, every one
applauds it to the echo. What cheers there were, for instance, all over
the theatre at a passage in the new play of my friend and guest Pacuvius;
where the king, not knowing which of the two was Orestes, Pylades declared
himself to be Orestes, that he might die in his stead, while the real
Orestes kept on asserting that it was he. The audience rose <i>en masse</i>
and clapped their hands. And this was at an incident in fiction: what
would they have done, must we suppose, if it had been in real life? You
can easily see what a natural feeling it is, when men who would not have
had the resolution to act thus themselves, shewed how right they thought
it in another.</p>
<p>I don't think I have any more to say about friendship. If there is any
more, and I have no doubt there is much, you must, if you care to do so,
consult those who profess to discuss such matters.</p>
<p><i>Fannius</i>. We would rather apply to you. Yet I have often consulted
such persons, and have heard what they had to say with a certain
satisfaction. But in your discourse one somehow feels that there is a
different strain.</p>
<p><i>Scaevola</i>. You would have said that still more, Fannius, if you had
been present the other day in Scipio's pleasure-grounds when we had the
discussion about the State. How splendidly he stood up for justice against
Philus's elaborate speech.</p>
<p><i>Fannius</i>. Ah! it was naturally easy for the justest of men to stand
up for justice.</p>
<p><i>Scaevola</i>. Well, then, what about friendship? Who could discourse on
it more easily than the man whose chief glory is a friendship maintained
with the most absolute fidelity, constancy, and integrity?</p>
<p>8. <i>Laclius</i>. Now you are really using force. It makes no difference
what kind of force you use: force it is. For it is neither easy nor right
to refuse a wish of my sons-in-law, particularly when the wish is a
creditable one in itself.</p>
<p>Well, then, it has very often occurred to me when thinking about
friendship, that the chief point to be considered was this: is it weakness
and want of means that make friendship desired? I mean, is its object an
interchange of good offices, so that each may give that in which he is
strong, and receive that in which he is weak? Or is it not rather true
that, although this is an advantage naturally belonging to friendship, yet
its original cause is quite other, prior in time, more noble in character,
and springing more directly from our nature itself? The Latin word for
friendship—<i>amicitia</i>—is derived from that for love—<i>amor</i>;
and love is certainly the prime mover in contracting mutual affection. For
as to material advantages, it often happens that those are obtained even
by men who are courted by a mere show of friendship and treated with
respect from interested motives. But friendship by its nature admits of no
feigning, no pretence: as far as it goes it is both genuine and
spontaneous. Therefore I gather that friendship springs from a natural
impulse rather than a wish for help: from an inclination of the heart,
combined with a certain instinctive feeling of love, rather than from a
deliberate calculation of the material advantage it was likely to confer.
The strength of this feeling you may notice in certain animals. They show
such love to their offspring for a certain period, and are so beloved by
them, that they clearly have a share in this natural, instinctive
affection. But of course it is more evident in the case of man: first, in
the natural affection between children and their parents, an affection
which only shocking wickedness can sunder; and next, when the passion of
love has attained to a like strength—on our finding, that is, some
one person with whose character and nature we are in full sympathy,
because we think that we perceive in him what I may call the beacon-light
of virtue. For nothing inspires love, nothing conciliates affection, like
virtue. Why, in a certain sense we may be said to feel affection even for
men we have never seen, owing to their honesty and virtue. Who, for
instance, fails to dwell on the memory of Gaius Fabricius and Manius
Curius with some affection and warmth of feeling, though he has never seen
them? Or who but loathes Tarquinius Superbus, Spurius Cassius, Spurius
Maelius? We have fought for empire in Italy with two great generals,
Pyrrhus and Hannibal. For the former, owing to his probity, we entertain
no great feelings of enmity: the latter, owing to his cruelty, our country
has detested and always will detest.</p>
<p>9. Now, if the attraction of probity is so great that we can love it not
only in those whom we have never seen, but, what is more, actually in an
enemy, we need not be surprised if men's affections are roused when they
fancy that they have seen virtue and goodness in those with whom a close
intimacy is possible. I do not deny that affection is strengthened by the
actual receipt of benefits, as well as by the perception of a wish to
render service, combined with a closer intercourse. When these are added
to the original impulse of the heart, to which I have alluded, a quite
surprising warmth of feeling springs up. And if any one thinks that this
comes from a sense of weakness, that each may have some one to help him to
his particular need, all I can say is that, when he maintains it to be
born of want and poverty, he allows to friendship an origin very base, and
a pedigree, if I may be allowed the expression, far from noble. If this
had been the case, a man's inclination to friendship would be exactly in
proportion to his low opinion of his own resources. Whereas the truth is
quite the other way. For when a man's confidence in himself is greatest,
when he is so fortified by virtue and wisdom as to want nothing and to
feel absolutely self-dependent, it is then that he is most conspicuous for
seeking out and keeping up friendships. Did Africanus, for example, want
anything of me? Not the least in the world! Neither did I of him. In my
case it was an admiration of his virtue, in his an opinion, may be, which
he entertained of my character, that caused our affection. Closer intimacy
added to the warmth of our feelings. But though many great material
advantages did ensue, they were not the source from which our affection
proceeded. For as we are not beneficent and liberal with any view of
extorting gratitude, and do not regard an act of kindness as an
investment, but follow a natural inclination to liberality; so we look on
friendship as worth trying for, not because we are attracted to it by the
expectation of ulterior gain, but in the conviction that what it has to
give us is from first to last included in the feeling itself.</p>
<p>Far different is the view of those who, like brute beasts, refer
everything to sensual pleasure. And no wonder. Men who have degraded all
their powers of thought to an object so mean and contemptible can of
course raise their eyes to nothing lofty, to nothing grand and divine.
Such persons indeed let us leave out of the present question. And let us
accept the doctrine that the sensation of love and the warmth of
inclination have their origin in a spontaneous feeling which arises
directly the presence of probity is indicated. When once men have
conceived the inclination, they of course try to attach themselves to the
object of it, and move themselves nearer and nearer to him. Their aim is
that they may be on the same footing and the same level in regard to
affection, and be more inclined to do a good service than to ask a return,
and that there should be this noble rivalry between them. Thus both truths
will be established. We shall get the most important material advantages
from friendship; and its origin from a natural impulse rather than from a
sense of need will be at once more dignified and more in accordance with
fact. For if it were true that its material advantages cemented
friendship, it would be equally true that any change in them would
dissolve it. But nature being incapable of change, it follows that genuine
friendships are eternal.</p>
<p>So much for the origin of friendship. But perhaps you would not care to
hear any more.</p>
<p><i>Fannius</i>. Nay, pray go on; let us have the rest, Laelius. I take on
myself to speak for my friend here as his senior.</p>
<p><i>Scaevola</i>. Quite right! Therefore, pray let us hear.</p>
<p>10. <i>Loelius</i>. Well, then, my good friends, listen to some
conversations about friendship which very frequently passed between Scipio
and myself. I must begin by telling you, however, that he used to say that
the most difficult thing in the world was for a friendship to remain
unimpaired to the end of life. So many things might intervene: conflicting
interests; differences of opinion in politics; frequent changes in
character, owing sometimes to misfortunes, sometimes to advancing years.
He used to illustrate these facts from the analogy of boyhood, since the
warmest affections between boys are often laid aside with the boyish toga;
and even if they did manage to keep them up to adolescence, they were
sometimes broken by a rivalry in courtship, or for some other advantage to
which their mutual claims were not compatible. Even if the friendship was
prolonged beyond that time, yet it frequently received a rude shock should
the two happen to be competitors for office. For while the most fatal blow
to friendship in the majority of cases was the lust of gold, in the case
of the best men it was a rivalry for office and reputation, by which it
had often happened that the most violent enmity had arisen between the
closest friends.</p>
<p>Again, wide breaches and, for the most part, justifiable ones were caused
by an immoral request being made of friends, to pander to a man's unholy
desires or to assist him in inflicting a wrong. A refusal, though
perfectly right, is attacked by those to whom they refuse compliance as a
violation of the laws of friendship. Now the people who have no scruples
as to the requests they make to their friends, thereby allow that they are
ready to have no scruples as to what they will do for their friends; and
it is the recriminations of such people which commonly not only quench
friendships, but give rise to lasting enmities. "In fact," he used to say,
"these fatalities overhang friendship in such numbers that it requires not
only wisdom but good luck also to escape them all."</p>
<p>11. With these premises, then, let us first, if you please, examine the
question—how far ought personal feeling to go in friendship? For
instance: suppose Coriolanus to have had friends, ought they to have
joined him in invading his country? Again, in the case of Vecellinus or
Spurius Maelius, ought their friends to have assisted them in their
attempt to establish a tyranny? Take two instances of either line of
conduct. When Tiberius Gracchus attempted his revolutionary measures he
was deserted, as we saw, by Quintus Tubero and the friends of his own
standing. On the other hand, a friend of your own family, Scaevola, Gaius
Blossius of Cumae, took a different course. I was acting as assessor to
the consuls Laenas and Rupilius to try the conspirators, and Blossius
pleaded for my pardon on the ground that his regard for Tiberius Gracchus
had been so high that he looked upon his wishes as law. "Even if he had
wished you to set fire to the Capitol?" said I. "That is a thing," he
replied, "that he never would have wished." "Ah, but if he had wished it?"
said I. "I would have obeyed." The wickedness of such a speech needs no
comment. And in point of fact he was as good and better than his word for
he did not wait for orders in the audacious proceedings of Tiberius
Gracchus, but was the head and front of them, and was a leader rather than
an abettor of his madness. The result of his infatuation was that he fled
to Asia, terrified by the special commission appointed to try him, joined
the enemies of his country, and paid a penalty to the republic as heavy as
it was deserved. I conclude, then, that the plea of having acted in the
interests of a friend is not a valid excuse for a wrong action. For,
seeing that a belief in a man's virtue is the original cause of
friendship, friendship can hardly remain if virtue he abandoned. But if we
decide it to be right to grant our friends whatever they wish, and to ask
them for whatever we wish, perfect wisdom must be assumed on both sides if
no mischief is to happen. But we cannot assume this perfect wisdom; for we
are speaking only of such friends as are ordinarily to be met with,
whether we have actually seen them or have been told about them—men,
that is to say, of everyday life. I must quote some examples of such
persons, taking care to select such as approach nearest to our standard of
wisdom. We read, for instance, that Papus Aemilius was a close friend of
Gaius Luscinus. History tells us that they were twice consuls together,
and colleagues in the censorship. Again, it is on record that Manius
Curius and Tiberius Coruncanius were on the most intimate terms with them
and with each other. Now, we cannot even suspect that any one of these men
ever asked of his friend anything that militated against his honour or his
oath or the interests of the republic. In the case of such men as these
there is no point in saying that one of them would not have obtained such
a request if he had made it; for they were men of the most scrupulous
piety, and the making of such a request would involve a breach of
religious obligation no less than the granting it. However, it is quite
true that Gaius Carbo and Gaius Cato did follow Tiberius Gracchus; and
though his brother Caius Gracchus did not do so at the time, he is now the
most eager of them all.</p>
<p>12. We may then lay down this rule of friendship—neither ask nor
consent to do what is wrong. For the plea "for friendship's sake" is a
discreditable one, and not to be admitted for a moment. This rule holds
good for all wrong-doing, but more especially in such as involves
disloyalty to the republic. For things have come to such a point with us,
my dear Fannius and Scaevola, that we are bound to look somewhat far ahead
to what is likely to happen to the republic. The constitution, as known to
our ancestors, has already swerved somewhat from the regular course and
the lines marked out for it. Tiberius Gracchus made an attempt to obtain
the power of a king, or, I might rather say, enjoyed that power for a few
months. Had the Roman people ever heard or seen the like before? What the
friends and connexions that followed him, even after his death, have
succeeded in doing in the case of Publius Scipio I cannot describe without
tears. As for Carbo, thanks to the punishment recently inflicted on
Tiberius Gracchus, we have by hook or by crook managed to hold out against
his attacks. But what to expect of the tribuneship of Caius Gracchus I do
not like to forecast. One thing leads to another; and once set going, the
downward course proceeds with ever-increasing velocity. There is the case
of the ballot: what a blow was inflicted first by the lex Gabinia, and two
years afterwards by the lex Cassia! I seem already to see the people
estranged from the Senate, and the most important affairs at the mercy of
the multitude. For you may be sure that more people will learn how to set
such things in motion than how to stop them. What is the point of these
remarks? This: no one ever makes any attempt of this sort without friends
to help him. We must therefore impress upon good men that, should they
become inevitably involved in friendships with men of this kind, they
ought not to consider themselves under any obligation to stand by friends
who are disloyal to the republic. Bad men must have the fear of punishment
before their eyes: a punishment not less severe for those who follow than
for those who lead others to crime. Who was more famous and powerful in
Greece than Themistocles? At the head of the army in the Persian war he
had freed Greece; he owed his exile to personal envy: but he did not
submit to the wrong done him by his ungrateful country as he ought to have
done. He acted as Coriolanus had acted among us twenty years before. But
no one was found to help them in their attacks upon their fatherland. Both
of them accordingly committed suicide.</p>
<p>We conclude, then, not only that no such confederation of evilly disposed
men must be allowed to shelter itself under the plea of friendship, but
that, on the contrary, it must be visited with the severest punishment,
lest the idea should prevail that fidelity to a friend justifies even
making war upon one's country. And this is a case which I am inclined to
think, considering how things are beginning to go, will sooner or later
arise. And I care quite as much what the state of the constitution will be
after my death as what it is now.</p>
<p>13. Let this, then, be laid down as the first law of friendship, that <i>we
should ask from friends, and do for friends', only what is good</i>. But
do not let us wait to be asked either: let there be ever an eager
readiness, and an absence of hesitation. Let us have the courage to give
advice with candour. In friendship, let the influence of friends who give
good advice be paramount; and let this influence be used to enforce advice
not only in plain-spoken terms, but sometimes, if the case demands it,
with sharpness; and when so used, let it be obeyed.</p>
<p>I give you these rules because I believe that some wonderful opinions are
entertained by certain persons who have, I am told, a reputation for
wisdom in Greece. There is nothing in the world, by the way, beyond the
reach of their sophistry. Well, some of them teach that we should avoid
very close friendships, for fear that one man should have to endure the
anxieties of several. Each man, say they, has enough and to spare on his
own hands; it is too bad to be involved in the cares of other people. The
wisest course is to hold the reins of friendship as loose as possible; you
can then tighten or slacken them at your will. For the first condition of
a happy life is freedom from care, which no one's mind can enjoy if it has
to travail, so to speak, for others besides itself. Another sect, I am
told, gives vent to opinions still less generous. I briefly touched on
this subject just now. They affirm that friendships should be sought
solely for the sake of the assistance they give, and not at all from
motives of feeling and affection; and that therefore just in proportion as
a man's power and means of support are lowest, he is most eager to gain
friendships: thence it comes that weak women seek the support of
friendship more than men, the poor more than the rich, the unfortunate
rather than those esteemed prosperous. What noble philosophy! You might
just as well take the sun out of the sky as friendship from life; for the
immortal gods have given us nothing better or more delightful.</p>
<p>But let us examine the two doctrines. What is the value of this "freedom
from care"? It is very tempting at first sight, but in practice it has in
many cases to be put on one side. For there is no business and no course
of action demanded from us by our honour which you can consistently
decline, or lay aside when begun, from a mere wish to escape from anxiety.
Nay, if we wish to avoid anxiety we must avoid virtue itself, which
necessarily involves some anxious thoughts in showing its loathing and
abhorrence for the qualities which are opposite to itself—as
kindness for ill-nature, self-control for licentiousness, courage for
cowardice. Thus you may notice that it is the just who are most pained at
injustice, the brave at cowardly actions, the temperate at depravity. It
is then characteristic of a rightly ordered mind to be pleased at what is
good and grieved at the reverse. Seeing then that the wise are not exempt
from the heart-ache (which must be the case unless we suppose all human
nature rooted out of their hearts), why should we banish friendship from
our lives, for fear of being involved by it in some amount of distress? If
you take away emotion, what difference remains I don't say between a man
and a beast, but between a man and a stone or a log of wood, or anything
else of that kind?</p>
<p>Neither should we give any weight to the doctrine that virtue is something
rigid and unyielding as iron. In point of fact it is in regard to
friendship, as in so many other things, so supple and sensitive that it
expands, so to speak, at a friend's good fortune, contracts at his
misfortunes. We conclude then that mental pain which we must often
encounter on a friend's account is not of sufficient consequence to banish
friendship from our life, any more than it is true that the cardinal
virtues are to be dispensed with because they involve certain anxieties
and distresses.</p>
<p>14. Let me repeat then, "the clear indication of virtue, to which a mind
of like character is naturally attracted, is the beginning of friendship."
When that is the case the rise of affection is a necessity. For what can
be more irrational than to take delight in many objects incapable of
response, such as office, fame, splendid buildings, and personal
decoration, and yet to take little or none in a sentient being endowed
with virtue, which has the faculty of loving or, if I may use the
expression, loving back? For nothing is really more delightful than a
return of affection, and the mutual interchange of kind feeling and good
offices. And if we add, as we may fairly do, that nothing so powerfully
attracts and draws one thing to itself as likeness does to friendship, it
will at once be admitted to be true that the good love the good and attach
them to themselves as though they were united by blood and nature. For
nothing can be more eager, or rather greedy, for what is like itself than
nature. So, my dear Fannius and Scaevola, we may look upon this as an
established fact, that between good men there is, as it were of necessity,
a kindly feeling, which is the source of friendship ordained by nature.
But this same kindliness affects the many also. For that is no
unsympathetic or selfish or exclusive virtue, which protects even whole
nations and consults their best interests. And that certainly it would not
have done had it disdained all affection for the common herd.</p>
<p>Again, the believers in the "interest" theory appear to me to destroy the
most attractive link in the chain of friendship. For it is not so much
what one gets by a friend that gives one pleasure, as the warmth of his
feeling; and we only care for a friend's service if it has been prompted
by affection. And so far from its being true that lack of means is a
motive for seeking friendship, it is usually those who being most richly
endowed with wealth and means, and above all with virtue (which, after
all, is a man's best support), are least in need of another, that are most
openhanded and beneficent. Indeed I am inclined to think that friends
ought at times to be in want of something. For instance, what scope would
my affections have had if Scipio had never wanted my advice or
co-operation at home or abroad? It is not friendship, then, that follows
material advantage, but material advantage friendship.</p>
<p>15. We must not therefore listen to these superfine gentlemen when they
talk of friendship, which they know neither in theory nor in practice. For
who, in heaven's name, would choose a life of the greatest wealth and
abundance on condition of neither loving or being beloved by any creature?
That is the sort of life tyrants endure. They, of course, can count on no
fidelity, no affection, no security for the goodwill of any one. For them
all is suspicion and anxiety; for them there is no possibility of
friendship. Who can love one whom he fears, or by whom he knows that he is
feared? Yet such men have a show of friendship offered them, but it is
only a fair-weather show. If it ever happen that they fall, as it
generally does, they will at once understand how friendless they are. So
they say Tarquin observed in his exile that he never knew which of his
friends were real and which sham, until he had ceased to be able to repay
either. Though what surprises me is that a man of his proud and
overbearing character should have a friend at all. And as it was his
character that prevented his having genuine friends, so it often happens
in the case of men of unusually great means—their very wealth
forbids faithful friendships. For not only is Fortune blind herself; but
she generally makes those blind also who enjoy her favours. They are
carried, so to speak, beyond themselves with self-conceit and self-will;
nor can anything be more perfectly intolerable than a successful fool. You
may often see it. Men who before had pleasant manners enough undergo a
complete change on attaining power of office. They despise their old
friends: devote themselves to new.</p>
<p>Now, can anything be more foolish than that men who have all the
opportunities which prosperity, wealth, and great means can bestow, should
secure all else which money can buy—horses, servants, splendid
upholstering, and costly plate—but do not secure friends, who are,
if I may use the expression, the most valuable and beautiful furniture of
life? And yet, when they acquire the former, they know not who will enjoy
them, nor for whom they may be taking all this trouble; for they will one
and all eventually belong to the strongest: while each man has a stable
and inalienable ownership in his friendships. And even if those
possessions, which are, in a manner, the gifts of fortune, do prove
permanent, life can never be anything but joyless which is without the
consolations and companionship of friends.</p>
<p>16. To turn to another branch of our subject. We must now endeavour to
ascertain what limits are to be observed in friendship—what is the
boundary-line, so to speak, beyond which our affection is not to go. On
this point I notice three opinions, with none of which I agree. One is <i>that
we should love our friend just as much as we love ourselves, and no more;
another, that our affection to them should exactly correspond and equal
theirs to us; a third, that a man should be valued at exactly the same
rate as he values himself</i>. To not one of these opinions do I assent.
The first, which holds that our regard for ourselves is to be the measure
of our regard for our friend, is not true; for how many things there are
which we would never have done for our own sakes, but do for the sake of a
friend! We submit to make requests from unworthy people, to descend even
to supplication; to be sharper in invective, more violent in attack. Such
actions are not creditable in our own interests, but highly so in those of
our friends. There are many advantages too which men of upright character
voluntarily forego, or of which they are content to be deprived, that
their friends may enjoy them rather than themselves.</p>
<p>The second doctrine is that which limits friendship to an exact equality
in mutual good offices and good feelings. But such a view reduces
friendship to a question of figures in a spirit far too narrow and
illiberal, as though the object were to have an exact balance in a debtor
and creditor account. True friendship appears to me to be something richer
and more generous than that comes to; and not to be so narrowly on its
guard against giving more than it receives. In such a matter we must not
be always afraid of something being wasted or running over in our measure,
or of more than is justly due being devoted to our friendship.</p>
<p>But the last limit proposed is the worst, namely, that a friend's estimate
of himself is to be the measure of our estimate of him. It often happens
that a man has too humble an idea of himself, or takes too despairing a
view of his chance of bettering his fortune. In such a case a friend ought
not to take the view of him which he takes of himself. Rather he should do
all he can to raise his drooping spirits, and lead him to more cheerful
hopes and thoughts.</p>
<p>We must then find some other limit. But I must first mention the sentiment
which used to call forth Scipio's severest criticism. He often said that
no one ever gave utterance to anything more diametrically opposed to the
spirit of friendship than the author of the dictum, "You should love your
friend with the consciousness that you may one day hate him." He could not
be induced to believe that it was rightfully attributed to Bias, who was
counted as one of the Seven Sages. It was the sentiment of some person
with sinister motives or selfish ambition, or who regarded everything as
it affected his own supremacy. How can a man be friends with another, if
he thinks it possible that he may be his enemy? Why, it will follow that
he must wish and desire his friend to commit as many mistakes as possible,
that he may have all the more handles against him; and, conversely, that
he must be annoyed, irritated, and jealous at the right actions or good
fortune of his friends. This maxim, then, let it be whose it will, is the
utter destruction of friendship. The true rule is to take such care in the
selection of our friends as never to enter upon a friendship with a man
whom we could under any circumstances come to hate. And even if we are
unlucky in our choice, we must put up with it—according to Scipio—in
preference to making calculations as to a future breach.</p>
<p>17. The real limit to be observed in friendship is this: the characters of
two friends must be stainless. There must be complete harmony of
interests, purpose, and aims, without exception. Then if the case arises
of a friend's wish (not strictly right in itself) calling for support in a
matter involving his life or reputation, we must make some concession from
the straight path—on condition, that is to say, that extreme
disgrace is not the consequence. Something must be conceded to friendship.
And yet we must not be entirely careless of our reputation, nor regard the
good opinion of our fellow-citizens as a weapon which we can afford to
despise in conducting the business of our life, however lowering it may be
to tout for it by flattery and smooth words. We must by no means abjure
virtue, which secures us affection.</p>
<p>But to return again to Scipio, the sole author of the discourse on
friendship. He used to complain that there was nothing on which men
bestowed so little pains: that every one could tell exactly how many goats
or sheep he had, but not how many friends; and while they took pains in
procuring the former, they were utterly careless in selecting friends, and
possessed no particular marks, so to speak, or tokens by which they might
judge of their suitability for friendship. Now the qualities we ought to
look out for in making our selection are firmness, stability, constancy.
There is a plentiful lack of men so endowed, and it is difficult to form a
judgment without testing. Now this testing can only be made during the
actual existence of the friendship; for friendship so often precedes the
formation of a judgment, and makes a previous test impossible. If we are
prudent then, we shall rein in our impulse to affection as we do chariot
horses. We make a preliminary trial of horses. So we should of friendship;
and should test our friends' characters by a kind of tentative friendship.
It may often happen that the untrustworthiness of certain men is
completely displayed in a small money matter; others who are proof against
a small sum are detected if it be large. But even if some are found who
think it mean to prefer money to friendship, where shall we look for those
who put friendship before office, civil or military promotions, and
political power, and who, when the choice lies between these things on the
one side and the claims of friendship on the other, do not give a strong
preference to the former? It is not in human nature to be indifferent to
political power; and if the price men have to pay for it is the sacrifice
of friendship, they think their treason will be thrown into the shade by
the magnitude of the reward. This is why true friendship is very difficult
to find among those who engage in politics and the contest for office.
Where can you find the man to prefer his friend's advancement to his own?
And to say nothing of that, think how grievous and almost intolerable it
is to most men to share political disaster. You will scarcely find anyone
who can bring himself to do that. And though what Ennius says is quite
true,—" the hour of need shews the friend indeed,"—yet it is
in these two ways that most people betray their untrustworthiness and
inconstancy, by looking down on friends when they are themselves
prosperous, or deserting them in their distress. A man, then, who has
shewn a firm, unshaken, and unvarying friendship in both these
contingencies we must reckon as one of a class the rarest in the world,
and all but superhuman.</p>
<p>18. Now, what is the quality to look out for as a warrant for the
stability and permanence of friendship? It is loyalty. Nothing that lacks
this can be stable. We should also in making our selection look out for
simplicity, a social disposition, and a sympathetic nature, moved by what
moves us. These all contribute to maintain loyalty. You can never trust a
character which is intricate and tortuous. Nor, indeed, is it possible for
one to be trustworthy and firm who is unsympathetic by nature and unmoved
by what affects ourselves. We may add, that he must neither take pleasure
in bringing accusations against us himself, nor believe them when they are
brought. All these contribute to form that constancy which I have been
endeavouring to describe. And the result is, what I started by saying,
that friendship is only possible between good men.</p>
<p>Now there are two characteristic features in his treatment of his friends
that a good (which may be regarded as equivalent to a wise) man will
always display. First, he will be entirely without any make-believe or
pretence of feeling; for the open display even of dislike is more becoming
to an ingenuous character than a studied concealment of sentiment.
Secondly, he will not only reject all accusations brought against his
friend by another, but he will not be suspicious himself either, nor be
always thinking that his friend has acted improperly. Besides this, there
should be a certain pleasantness in word and manner which adds no little
flavour to friendship. A gloomy temper and unvarying gravity may be very
impressive; but friendship should be a little less unbending, more
indulgent and gracious, and more inclined to all kinds of good-fellowship
and good-nature.</p>
<p>19. But here arises a question of some little difficulty. Are there any
occasions on which, assuming their worthiness, we should prefer new to old
friends, just as we prefer young to aged horses? The answer admits of no
doubt whatever. For there should be no satiety in friendship, as there is
in other things. The older the sweeter, as in wines that keep well. And
the proverb is a true one, "You must eat many a peck of salt with a man to
be thorough friends with him." Novelty, indeed, has its advantage, which
we must not despise. There is always hope of fruit, as there is in healthy
blades of corn. But age too must have its proper position; and, in fact,
the influence of time and habit is very great. To recur to the
illustration of the horse which I have just now used. Every one likes <i>ceteris
paribus</i> to use the horse to which he has been accustomed, rather than
one that is untried and new. And it is not only in the case of a living
thing that this rule holds good, but in inanimate things also; for we like
places where we have lived the longest, even though they are mountainous
and covered with forest. But here is another golden rule in friendship: <i>put
yourself on a level with your friend</i>. For it often happens that there
are certain superiorities, as for example Scipio's in what I may call our
set. Now he never assumed any airs of superiority over Philus, or
Rupilius, or Mummius, or over friends of a lower rank still. For instance,
he always shewed a deference to his brother Quintus Maximus because he was
his senior, who, though a man no doubt of eminent character, was by no
means his equal. He used also to wish that all his friends should be the
better for his support. This is an example we should all follow. If any of
us have any advantage in personal character, intellect, or fortune, we
should be ready to make our friends sharers and partners in it with
ourselves. For instance, if their parents are in humble circumstances, if
their relations are powerful neither in intellect nor means, we should
supply their deficiencies and promote their rank and dignity. You know the
legends of children brought up as servants in ignorance of their parentage
and family. When they are recognized and discovered to be the sons of gods
or kings, they still retain their affection for the shepherds whom they
have for many years looked upon as their parents. Much more ought this to
be so in the case of real and undoubted parents. For the advantages of
genius and virtue, and in short, of every kind of superiority, are never
realized to their fullest extent until they are bestowed upon our nearest
and dearest.</p>
<p>20. But the converse must also be observed. For in friendship and
relationship, just as those who possess any superiority must put
themselves on an equal footing with those who are less fortunate, so these
latter must not be annoyed at being surpassed in genius, fortune, or rank.
But most people of that sort are forever either grumbling at something, or
harping on their claims; and especially if they consider that they have
services of their own to allege involving zeal and friendship and some
trouble to themselves. People who are always bringing up their services
are a nuisance. The recipient ought to remember them; the performer should
never mention them. In the case of friends, then, as the superior are
bound to descend, so are they bound in a certain sense to raise those
below them. For there are people who make their friendship disagreeable by
imagining themselves undervalued. This generally happens only to those who
think that they deserve to be so; and they ought to be shewn by deeds as
well as by words the groundlessness of their opinion. Now the measure of
your benefits should be in the first place your own power to bestow, and
in the second place the capacity to bear them on the part of him on whom
you are bestowing affection and help. For, however great your personal
prestige may be, you cannot raise all your friends to the highest offices
of the State. For instance, Scipio was able to make Publius Rupilius
consul, but not his brother Lucius. But granting that you can give anyone
anything you choose, you must have a care that it does not prove to be
beyond his powers. As a general rule, we must wait to make up our mind
about friendships till men's characters and years have arrived at their
full strength and development. People must not, for instance, regard as
fast friends all whom in their youthful enthusiasm for hunting or football
they liked for having the same tastes. By that rule, if it were a mere
question of time, no one would have such claims on our affections as
nurses and slave-tutors. Not that they are to be neglected, but they stand
on a different ground. It is only these mature friendships that can be
permanent. For difference of character leads to difference of aims, and
the result of such diversity is to estrange friends. The sole reason, for
instance, which prevents good men from making friends with bad, or bad
with good, is that the divergence of their characters and aims is the
greatest possible.</p>
<p>Another good rule in friendship is this: do not let an excessive affection
hinder the highest interests of your friends. This very often happens. I
will go again to the region of fable for an instance. Neoptolemus could
never have taken Troy if he had been willing to listen to Lycomedes, who
had brought him up, and with many tears tried to prevent his going there.
Again, it often happens that important business makes it necessary to part
from friends: the man who tries to baulk it, because he thinks that he
cannot endure the separation, is of a weak and effeminate nature, and on
that very account makes but a poor friend. There are, of course, limits to
what you ought to expect from a friend and to what you should allow him to
demand of you. And these you must take into calculation in every case.</p>
<p>21. Again, there is such a disaster, so to speak, as having to break off
friendship. And sometimes it is one we cannot avoid. For at this point the
stream of our discourse is leaving the intimacies of the wise and touching
on the friendship of ordinary people. It will happen at times that an
outbreak of vicious conduct affects either a man's friends themselves or
strangers, yet the discredit falls on the friends. In such cases
friendships should be allowed to die out gradually by an intermission of
intercourse. They should, as I have been told that Cato used to say,
rather be unstitched than torn in twain; unless, indeed, the injurious
conduct be of so violent and outrageous a nature as to make an instant
breach and separation the only possible course consistent with honour and
rectitude. Again, if a change in character and aim takes place, as often
happens, or if party politics produces an alienation of feeling (I am now
speaking, as I said a short time ago, of ordinary friendships, not of
those of the wise), we shall have to be on our guard against appearing to
embark upon active enmity while we only mean to resign a friendship. For
there can be nothing more discreditable than to be at open war with a man
with whom you have been intimate. Scipio, as you are aware, had abandoned
his friendship for Quintus Pompeius on my account; and again, from
differences of opinion in politics, he became estranged from my colleague
Metellus. In both cases he acted with dignity and moderation, shewing that
he was offended indeed, but without rancour.</p>
<p>Our first object, then, should be to prevent a breach; our second, to
secure that, if it does occur, our friendship should seem to have died a
natural rather than a violent death. Next, we should take care that
friendship is not converted into active hostility, from which flow
personal quarrels, abusive language, and angry recriminations. These last,
however, provided that they do not pass all reasonable limits of
forbearance, we ought to put up with, and, in compliment to an old
friendship, allow the party that inflicts the injury, not the one that
submits to it, to be in the wrong. Generally speaking, there is but one
way of securing and providing oneself against faults and inconveniences of
this sort—not to be too hasty in bestowing our affection, and not to
bestow it at all on unworthy objects.</p>
<p>Now, by "worthy of friendship" I mean those who have in themselves the
qualities which attract affection. This sort of man is rare; and indeed
all excellent things are rare; and nothing in the world is so hard to find
as a thing entirely and completely perfect of its kind. But most people
not only recognize nothing as good in our life unless it is profitable,
but look upon friends as so much stock, caring most for those by whom they
hope to make most profit. Accordingly they never possess that most
beautiful and most spontaneous friendship which must be sought solely for
itself without any ulterior object. They fail also to learn from their own
feelings the nature and the strength of friendship. For every one loves
himself, not for any reward which such love may bring, but because he is
dear to himself independently of anything else. But unless this feeling is
transferred to another, what a real friend is will never be revealed; for
he is, as it were, a second self. But if we find these two instincts
shewing themselves in animals,—whether of the air or the sea or the
land, whether wild or tame,—first, a love of self, which in fact is
born in everything that lives alike; and, secondly, an eagerness to find
and attach themselves to other creatures of their own kind; and if this
natural action is accompanied by desire and by something resembling human
love, how much more must this be the case in man by the law of his nature?
For man not only loves himself, but seeks another whose spirit he may so
blend with his own as almost to make one being of two.</p>
<p>22. But most people unreasonably, not to speak of modesty, want such a
friend as they are unable to be themselves, and expect from their friends
what they do not themselves give. The fair course is first to be good
yourself, and then to look out for another of like character. It is
between such that the stability in friendship of which we have been
talking can be secured; when, that is to say, men who are united by
affection learn, first of all, to rule those passions which enslave
others, and in the next place to take delight in fair and equitable
conduct, to bear each other's burdens, never to ask each other for
anything inconsistent with virtue and rectitude, and not only to serve and
love but also to respect each other. I say "respect"; for if respect is
gone, friendship has lost its brightest jewel. And this shows the mistake
of those who imagine that friendship gives a privilege to licentiousness
and sin. Nature has given us friendship as the handmaid of virtue, not as
a partner in guilt: to the end that virtue, being powerless when isolated
to reach the highest objects, might succeed in doing so in union and
partnership with another. Those who enjoy in the present, or have enjoyed
in the past, or are destined to enjoy in the future such a partnership as
this, must be considered to have secured the most excellent and auspicious
combination for reaching nature's highest good. This is the partnership, I
say, which combines moral rectitude, fame, peace of mind, serenity: all
that men think desirable because with them life is happy, but without them
cannot be so. This being our best and highest object, we must, if we
desire to attain it, devote ourselves to virtue; for without virtue we can
obtain neither friendship nor anything else desirable. In fact, if virtue
be neglected, those who imagine themselves to possess friends will find
out their error as soon as some grave disaster forces them to make trial
of them. Wherefore, I must again and again repeat, you must satisfy your
judgment before engaging your affections: not love first and judge
afterwards. We suffer from carelessness in many of our undertakings: in
none more than in selecting and cultivating our friends. We put the cart
before the horse, and shut the stable door when the steed is stolen, in
defiance of the old proverb. For, having mutually involved ourselves in a
long-standing intimacy or by actual obligations, all on a sudden some
cause of offence arises and we break off our friendships in full career.</p>
<p>23. It is this that makes such carelessness in a matter of supreme
importance all the more worthy of blame. I say "supreme importance,"
because friendship is the one thing about the utility of which everybody
with one accord is agreed. That is not the case in regard even to virtue
itself; for many people speak slightingly of virtue as though it were mere
puffing and self-glorification. Nor is it the case with riches. Many look
down on riches, being content with a little and taking pleasure in poor
fare and dress, And as to the political offices for which some have a
burning desire—how many entertain such a contempt for them as to
think nothing in the world more empty and trivial!</p>
<p>And so on with the rest; things desirable in the eyes of some are regarded
by very many as worthless. But of friendship all think alike to a man,
whether those have devoted themselves to politics, or those who delight in
science and philosophy, or those who follow a private way of life and care
for nothing but their own business, or those lastly who have given
themselves body and soul to sensuality—they all think, I say, that
without friendship life is no life, if they want some part of it, at any
rate, to be noble. For friendship, in one way or another, penetrates into
the lives of us all, and suffers no career to be entirely free from its
influence. Though a man be of so churlish and unsociable a nature as to
loathe and shun the company of mankind, as we are told was the case with a
certain Timon at Athens, yet even he cannot refrain from seeking some one
in whose hearing he may disgorge the venom of his bitter temper. We should
see this most clearly, if it were possible that some god should carry us
away from these haunts of men, and place us somewhere in perfect solitude,
and then should supply us in abundance with everything necessary to our
nature, and yet take from us entirely the opportunity of looking upon a
human being. Who could steel himself to endure such a life? Who would not
lose in his loneliness the zest for all pleasures? And indeed this is the
point of the observation of, I think, Archytas of Tarentum. I have it
third hand; men who were my seniors told me that their seniors had told
them. It was this: "If a man could ascend to heaven and get a clear view
of the natural order of the universe, and the beauty of the heavenly
bodies, that wonderful spectacle would give him small pleasure, though
nothing could be conceived more delightful if he had but had some one to
whom to tell what he had seen." So true it is that nature abhors
isolation, and ever leans upon something as a stay and support; and this
is found in its most pleasing form in our closest friend.</p>
<p>24. But though Nature also declares by so many indications what her wish
and object and desire is, we yet in a manner turn a deaf ear and will not
hear her warnings. The intercourse between friends is varied and complex,
and it must often happen that causes of suspicion and offence arise, which
a wise man will sometimes avoid, at other times remove, at others treat
with indulgence. The one possible cause of offence that must be faced is
when the interests of your friend and your own sincerity are at stake. For
instance, it often happens that friends need remonstrance and even
reproof. When these are administered in a kindly spirit they ought to be
taken in good part. But somehow or other there is truth in what my friend
Terence says in his <i>Andria</i>:</p>
<p>Compliance gets us friends, plain speaking hate.</p>
<p>Plain speaking is a cause of trouble, if the result of it is resentment,
which is poison of friendship; but compliance is really the cause of much
more trouble, because by indulging his faults it lets a friend plunge into
headlong ruin. But the man who is most to blame is he who resents plain
speaking and allows flattery to egg him on to his ruin. On this point,
then, from first to last there is need of deliberation and care. If we
remonstrate, it should be without bitterness; if we reprove, there should
be no word of insult. In the matter of compliance (for I am glad to adopt
Terence's word), though there should be every courtesy, yet that base kind
which assists a man in vice should be far from us, for it is unworthy of a
free-born man, to say nothing of a friend. It is one thing to live with a
tyrant, another with a friend. But if a man's ears are so closed to plain
speaking that he cannot bear to hear the truth from a friend, we may give
him up in despair. This remark of Cato's, as so many of his did, shews
great acuteness: "There are people who owe more to bitter enemies than to
apparently pleasant friends: the former often speak the truth, the latter
never." Besides, it is a strange paradox that the recipients of advice
should feel no annoyance where they ought to feel it, and yet feel so much
where they ought not. They are not at all vexed at having committed a
fault, but very angry at being reproved for it. On the contrary, they
ought to be grieved at the crime and glad of the correction.</p>
<p>25. Well, then, if it is true that to give and receive advice—the
former with freedom and yet without bitterness, the latter with patience
and without irritation—is peculiarly appropriate to genuine
friendship, it is no less true that there can be nothing more utterly
subversive of friendship than flattery, adulation, and base compliance. I
use as many terms as possible to brand this vice of light-minded,
untrustworthy men, whose sole object in speaking is to please without any
regard to truth. In everything false pretence is bad, for it suspends and
vitiates our power of discerning the truth. But to nothing it is so
hostile as to friendship; for it destroys that frankness without which
friendship is an empty name. For the essence of friendship being that two
minds become as one, how can that ever take place if the mind of each of
the separate parties to it is not single and uniform, but variable,
changeable, and complex? Can anything be so pliable, so wavering, as the
mind of a man whose attitude depends not only on another's feeling and
wish, but on his very looks and nods?</p>
<p><br/>
If one says "No," I answer "No";<br/>
If "Yes," I answer "Yes."<br/>
In fine, I've laid this task upon myself<br/>
To echo all that's said—<br/></p>
<p>to quote my old friend Terence again. But he puts these words into the mouth of a Gnatho.
To admit such a man into one's intimacy at all is a sign of folly. But
there are many people like Gnatho, and it is when they are superior either
in position or fortune or reputation that their flatteries become
mischievous, the weight of their position making up for the lightness of
their character. But if we only take reasonable care, it is as easy to
separate and distinguish a genuine from a specious friend as anything else
that is coloured and artificial from what is sincere and genuine. A public
assembly, though composed of men of the smallest possible culture,
nevertheless will see clearly the difference between a mere demagogue
(that is, a flatterer and untrustworthy citizen) and a man of principle,
standing, and solidity. It was by this kind of flattering language that
Gaius Papirius the other day endeavoured to tickle the ears of the
assembled people, when proposing his law to make the tribunes re-eligible.
I spoke against it. But I will leave the personal question. I prefer
speaking of Scipio. Good heavens! how impressive his speech was, what a
majesty there was in it! You would have pronounced him, without
hesitation, to be no mere henchman of the Roman people, but their leader.
However, you were there, and moreover have the speech in your hands. The
result was that a law meant to please the people was by the people's votes
rejected. Once more to refer to myself, you remember how apparently
popular was the law proposed by Gaius Licinius Crassus "about the election
to the College of Priests" in the consulship of Quintus Maximus, Scipio's
brother, and Lucius Mancinus. For the power of filling up their own
vacancies on the part of the colleges was by this proposal to be
transferred to the people. It was this man, by the way, who began the
practice of turning towards the forum when addressing the people. In spite
of this, however, upon my speaking on the conservative side, religion
gained an easy victory over his plausible speech. This took place in my
praetorship, five years before I was elected consul, which shows that the
cause was successfully maintained more by the merits of the case than by
the prestige of the highest office.</p>
<p>26. Now, if on a stage, such as a public assembly essentially is, where
there is the amplest room for fiction and half-truths, truth nevertheless
prevails if it be but fairly laid open and brought into the light of day,
what ought to happen in the case of friendship, which rests entirely on
truthfulness? Friendship, in which, unless you both see and show an open
breast, to use a common expression, you can neither trust nor be certain
of anything—no, not even of mutual affection, since you cannot be
sure of its sincerity. However, this flattery, injurious as it is, can
hurt no one but the man who takes it in and likes it. And it follows that
the man to open his ears widest to flatterers is he who first flatters
himself and is fondest of himself. I grant you that Virtue naturally loves
herself; for she knows herself and perceives how worthy of love she is.
But I am not now speaking of absolute virtue, but of the belief men have
that they possess virtue. The fact is that fewer people are endowed with
virtue than wish to be thought to be so. It is such people that take
delight in flattery. When they are addressed in language expressly adapted
to flatter their vanity, they look upon such empty persiflage as a
testimony to the truth of their own praises. It is not then properly
friendship at all when the one will not listen to the truth, and the other
is prepared to lie. Nor would the servility of parasites in comedy have
seemed humorous to us had there been no such things as braggart captains.
"Is Thais really much obliged to me?" It would have been quite enough to
answer "Much," but he must needs say "Immensely." Your servile flatterer
always exaggerates what his victim wishes to be put strongly. Wherefore,
though it is with those who catch at and invite it that this flattering
falsehood is especially powerful, yet men even of soldier and steadier
character must be warned to be on the watch against being taken in by
cunningly disguised flattery. An open flatterer any one can detect, unless
he is an absolute fool the covert insinuation of the cunning and the sly
is what we have to be studiously on our guard against. His detection is
not by any means the easiest thing in the world, for he often covers his
servility under the guise of contradiction, and flatters by pretending to
dispute, and then at last giving in and allowing himself to be beaten,
that the person hoodwinked may think himself to have been the
clearer-sighted. Now what can be more degrading than to be thus
hoodwinked? You must be on your guard against this happening to you, like
the man in the <i>Heiress</i>:</p>
<p>How have I been befooled! no drivelling dotards<br/>
On any stage were e'er so p1ayed upon.<br/></p>
<p>For even on the stage we have no grosser representation of folly than that
of short-sighted and credulous old men. But somehow or other I have
strayed away from the friendship of the perfect, that is of the "wise"
(meaning, of course, such "wisdom" as human nature is capable of), to the
subject of vulgar, unsubstantial friendships. Let us then return to our
original theme, and at length bring that, too, to a conclusion.</p>
<p>27. Well, then, Fannius and Mucius, I repeat what I said before. It is
virtue, virtue, which both creates and preserves friendship. On it depends
harmony of interest, permanence, fidelity. When Virtue has reared her head
and shewn the light of her countenance, and seen and recognised the same
light in another, she gravitates towards it, and in her turn welcomes that
which the other has to shew; and from it springs up a flame which you may
call love or friendship as you please. Both words are from the same root
in Latin; and love is just the cleaving to him whom you love without the
prompting of need or any view to advantage—though this latter
blossoms spontaneously on friendship, little as you may have looked for
it. It is with such warmth of feeling that I cherished Lucius Paulus,
Marcus Cato, Galus Gallus, Publius Nasica, Tiberius Gracchus, my dear
Scipio's father-in-law. It shines with even greater warmth when men are of
the same age, as in the case of Scipio and Lucius Furius, Publius
Rupilius, Spurius Mummius, and myself. <i>En revanche</i>, in my old age I
find comfort in the affection of young men, as in the case of yourselves
and Quintus Tubero: nay more, I delight in the intimacy of such a very
young man as Publius Rutilius and Aulus Verginius. And since the law of
our nature and of our life is that a new generation is for ever springing
up, the most desirable thing is that along with your contemporaries, with
whom you started in the race, you may also teach what is to us the goal.
But in view of the instability and perishableness of mortal things, we
should be continually on the look-out for some to love and by whom to be
loved; for if we lose affection and kindliness from our life, we lose all
that gives it charm. For me, indeed, though torn away by a sudden stroke,
Scipio still lives and ever wilt live. For it was the virtue of the man
that I loved, and that has not suffered death. And it is not my eyes only,
because I had all my life a personal experience of it, that never lose
sight of it: it will shine to posterity also with undimmed glory. No one
will ever cherish a nobler ambition or a loftier hope without thinking his
memory and his image the best to put before his eyes. I declare that of
all the blessings which either fortune or nature has bestowed upon me I
know none to compare with Scipio's friendship. In it I found sympathy in
public, counsel in private business; in it too a means of spending my
leisure with unalloyed delight. Never, to the best of my knowledge, did I
offend him even in the most trivial point; never did I hear a word from
him I could have wished unsaid. We had one house, one table, one style of
living; and not only were we together on foreign service, but in our tours
also and country sojourns. Why speak of our eagerness to be ever gaining
some knowledge, to be ever learning something, on which we spent all our
leisure hours far from the gaze of the world? If the recollection and
memory of these things had perished with the man, I could not possibly
have endured the regret for one so closely united with me in life and
affection. But these things have not perished; they are rather fed and
strengthened by reflexion and memory. Even supposing me to have been
entirely bereft of them, still my time of life of itself brings me no
small consolation: for I cannot have much longer now to bear this regret;
and everything that is brief ought to be endurable, however severe.</p>
<p>This is all I had to say on friendship. One piece of advice on parting.
Make up your minds to this. Virtue (without which friendship is
impossible) is first; but next to it, and to it alone, the greatest of all
things is Friendship.</p>
<p><SPAN name="link2H_4_0003" id="link2H_4_0003"></SPAN></p>
<br/>
<h2> ON OLD AGE </h2>
<p>1. And should my service, Titus, ease the weight<br/>
Of care that wrings your heart, and draw the sting<br/>
Which rankles there, what guerdon shall there be?<br/></p>
<p>FOR I may address you, Atticus, in the lines in which Flamininus was
addressed by the man,</p>
<p>who, poor in wealth, was rich in honour's gold,<br/></p>
<p>though I am well assured that you are not, as Flamininus was,</p>
<p>kept on the rack of care by night and day.<br/></p>
<p>For I know how well ordered and equable your mind is, and am fully aware
that it was not a surname alone which you brought home with you from
Athens, but its culture and good sense. And yet I have an idea that you
are at times stirred to the heart by the same circumstances as myself. To
console you for these is a more serious matter, and must be put off to
another time. For the present I have resolved to dedicate to you an essay
on Old Age. For from the burden of impending or at least advancing age,
common to us both, I would do something to relieve us both though as to
yourself I am fully aware that you support and will support it, as you do
everything else, with calmness and philosophy. But directly I resolved to
write on old age, you at once occurred to me as deserving a gift of which
both of us might take advantage. To myself, indeed, the composition of
this book has been so delightful, that it has not only wiped away all the
disagreeables of old age, but has even made it luxurious and delightful
too. Never, therefore, can philosophy be praised as highly as it deserves
considering that its faithful disciple is able to spend every period of
his life with unruffled feelings. However, on other subjects I have spoken
at large, and shall often speak again: this book which I herewith send you
is on Old Age. I have put the whole discourse not, as Alisto of Cos did,
in the mouth of Tithonus—for a mere fable would have lacked
conviction—but in that of Marcus Cato when he was an old man, to
give my essay greater weight. I represent Laelius and Scipio at his house
expressing surprise at his carrying his years so lightly, and Cato
answering them. If he shall seem to shew somewhat more learning in this
discourse than he generally did in his own books, put it down to the Greek
literature of which it is known that he became an eager student in his old
age. But what need of more? Cato's own words will at once explain all I
feel about old age.</p>
<p>M. Cato. Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus (the younger). Gaius Laelius.</p>
<p>2. <i>Scipio</i>. Many a time have I in conversation with my friend Gaius
Laelius here expressed my admiration, Marcus Cato, of the eminent, nay
perfect, wisdom displayed by you indeed at all points, but above
everything because I have noticed that old age never seemed a burden to
you, while to most old men it is so hateful that they declare themselves
under a weight heavier than Aetna.</p>
<p><i>Cato</i>. Your admiration is easily excited, it seems, my dear Scipio
and Laelius. Men, of course, who have no resources in themselves for
securing a good and happy life find every age burdensome. But those who
look for all happiness from within can never think anything bad which
nature makes inevitable. In that category before anything else comes old
age, to which all wish to attain, and at which all grumble when attained.
Such is Folly's inconsistency and unreasonableness! They say that it is
stealing upon them faster than they expected. In the first place, who
compelled them to hug an illusion? For in what respect did old age steal
upon manhood faster than manhood upon childhood? In the next place, in
what way would old age have been less disagreeable to them if they were in
their eight-hundredth year than in their eightieth? For their past,
however long, when once it was past, would have no consolation for a
stupid old age. Wherefore, if it is your wont to admire my wisdom—and
I would that it were worthy of your good opinion and of my own surname of
Sapiens—it really consists in the fact that I follow Nature, the
best of guides, as I would a god, and am loyal to her commands. It is not
likely, if she has written the rest of the play well, that she has been
careless about the last act like some idle poet. But after all some "last"
was inevitable, just as to the berries of a tree and the fruits of the
earth there comes in the fulness of time a period of decay and fall. A
wise man will not make a grievance of this. To rebel against nature—is
not that to fight like the giants with the gods?</p>
<p><i>Laelius</i>. And yet, Cato, you will do us a very great favour (I
venture to speak for Scipio as for myself) if—since we all hope, or
at least wish, to become old men—you would allow us to learn from
you in good time before it arrives, by what methods we may most easily
acquire the strength to support the burden of advancing age.</p>
<p><i>Cato</i>. I will do so without doubt, Laelius, especially if, as you
say, it will be agreeable to you both.</p>
<p><i>Laelius</i> We do wish very much, Cato, if it is no trouble to you, to
be allowed to see the nature of the bourne which you have reached after
completing a long journey, as it were, upon which we too are bound to
embark.</p>
<p>3. <i>Cato</i>. I will do the best I can, Laelius. It has often been my
fortune to bear the complaints of my contemporaries—like will to
like, you know, according to the old proverb—complaints to which men
like C. Salinator and Sp. Albinus, who were of consular rank and about my
time, used to give vent. They were, first, that they had lost the
pleasures of the senses, without which they did not regard life as life at
all; and, secondly, that they were neglected by those from whom they had
been used to receive attentions. Such men appear to me to lay the blame on
the wrong thing. For if it had been the fault of old age, then these same
misfortunes would have befallen me and all other men of advanced years.
But I have known many of them who never said a word of complaint against
old age; for they were only too glad to be freed from the bondage of
passion, and were not at all looked down upon by their friends. The fact
is that the blame for all complaints of that kind is to be charged to
character, not to a particular time of life. For old men who are
reasonable and neither cross-grained nor churlish find old age tolerable
enough: whereas unreason and churlishness cause uneasiness at every time
of life.</p>
<p><i>Laelius</i> It is as you say, Cato. But perhaps some one may suggest
that it is your large means, wealth, and high position that make you think
old age tolerable: whereas such good fortune only falls to few.</p>
<p><i>Cato</i>. There is something in that, Laelius, but by no means all. For
instance, the story is told of the answer of Themistocles in a wrangle
with a certain Seriphian, who asserted that he owed his brilliant position
to the reputation of his country, not to his own. "If I had been a
Seriphian," said he, "even I should never have been famous, nor would you
if you had been an Athenian." Something like this may be said of old age.
For the philosopher himself could not find old age easy to bear in the
depths of poverty, nor the fool feel it anything but a burden though he
were a millionaire. You may be sure, my dear Scipio and Laelius, that the
arms best adapted to old age are culture and the active exercise of the
virtues. For if they have been maintained at every period—if one has
lived much as well as long—the harvest they produce is wonderful,
not only because they never fail us even in our last days (though that in
itself is supremely important), but also because the consciousness of a
well-spent life and the recollection of many virtuous actions are
exceedingly delightful.</p>
<p>4. Take the case of Q. Fabius Maximus, the man, I mean, who recovered
Tarentum. When I was a young man and he an old one, I was as much attached
to him as if he had been my contemporary. For that great man's serious
dignity was tempered by courteous manners, nor had old age made any change
in his character. True, he was not exactly an old man when my devotion to
him began, yet he was nevertheless well on in life; for his first
consulship fell in the year after my birth. When quite a stripling I went
with him in his fourth consulship as a soldier in the ranks, on the
expedition against Capua, and in the fifth year after that against
Tarentum. Four years after that I was elected Quaestor, holding office in
the consulship of Tuditanus and Cethegus, in which year, indeed, he as a
very old man spoke in favour of the Cincian law "on gifts and fees."</p>
<p>Now this man conducted wars with all the spirit of youth when he was far
advanced in life, and by his persistence gradually wearied out Hannibal,
when rioting in all the confidence of youth. How brilliant are those lines
of my friend Ennius on him!</p>
<p>For us, down beaten by the storms of fate,<br/>
One man by wise delays restored the State.<br/>
Praise or dispraise moved not his constant mood,<br/>
True to his purpose, to his country's good!<br/>
Down ever-lengthening avenues of fame<br/>
Thus shines and shall shine still his glorious name.<br/></p>
<p>Again what vigilance, what profound skill did he show in the capture of
Tarentum! It was indeed in my hearing that he made the famous retort to
Salinator, who had retreated into the citadel after losing the town: "It
was owing to me, Quintus Fabius, that you retook Tarentum." "Quite so," he
replied with a laugh; "for had you not lost it, I should never have
recovered it." Nor was he less eminent in civil life than in war. In his
second consulship, though his colleague would not move in the matter, he
resisted as long as he could the proposal of the tribune C. Flaminius to
divide the territory of the Picenians and Gauls in free allotments in
defiance of a resolution of the Senate. Again, though he was an augur, he
ventured to say that whatever was done in the interests of the State was
done with the best possible auspices, that any laws proposed against its
interest were proposed against the auspices. I was cognisant of much that
was admirable in that great man, but nothing struck me with greater
astonishment than the way in which he bore the death of his son—a
man of brilliant character and who had been consul. His funeral speech
over him is in wide circulation, and when we read it, is there any
philosopher of whom we do not think meanly? Nor in truth was he only great
in the light of day and in the sight of his fellow-citizens; he was still
more eminent in private and at home. What a wealth of conversation! What
weighty maxims! What a wide acquaintance with ancient history! What an
accurate knowledge of the science of augury! For a Roman, too, he had a
great tincture of letters. He had a tenacious memory for military history
of every sort, whether of Roman or foreign wars. And I used at that time
to enjoy his conversation with a passionate eagerness, as though I already
divined, what actually turned out to be the case, that when he died there
would be no one to teach me anything.</p>
<p>5. What then is the purpose of such a long disquisition on Maximus? It is
because you now see that an old age like his cannot conscientiously be
called unhappy. Yet it is after all true that everybody cannot be a Scipio
or a Maximus, with stormings of cities, with battles by land and sea, with
wars in which they themselves commanded, and with triumphs to recall.
Besides this there is a quiet, pure, and cultivated life which produces a
calm and gentle old age, such as we have been told Plato's was, who died
at his writing-desk in his eighty-first year; or like that of Isocrates,
who says that he wrote the book called The Panegyric in his ninety-fourth
year, and who lived for five years afterwards; while his master Gorgias of
Leontini completed a hundred and seven years without ever relaxing his
diligence or giving up work. When some one asked him why he consented to
remain so long alive—"I have no fault," said he, "to find with old
age." That was a noble answer, and worthy of a scholar. For fools impute
their own frailties and guilt to old age, contrary to the practice of
Ennui, whom I mentioned just now. In the lines—</p>
<p>Like some brave steed that oft before<br/>
The Olympic wreath of victory bore,<br/>
Now by the weight of years oppressed,<br/>
Forgets the race, and takes his rest—<br/></p>
<p>he compares his own old age to that of a high-spirited and successful
race-horse. And him indeed you may very well remember. For the present
consuls Titus Flamininus and Manius Acilius were elected in the nineteenth
year after his death; and his death occurred in the consulship of Caepio
and Philippus, the latter consul for the second time: in which year I,
then sixty-six years old, spoke in favour of the Voconian law in a voice
that was still strong and with lungs still sound; while be, though seventy
years old, supported two burdens considered the heaviest of all—poverty
and old age—in such a way as to be all but fond of them.</p>
<p>The fact is that when I come to think it over, I find that there are four
reasons for old age being thought unhappy: First, that it withdraws us
from active employments; second, that it enfeebles the body; third, that
it deprives us of nearly all physical pleasures; fourth, that it is the
next step to death. Of each of these reasons, if you will allow me, let us
examine the force and justice separately.</p>
<p>6. OLD AGE WITHDRAWS US FROM ACTIVE EMPLOYMENTS. From which of them? Do
you mean from those carried on by youth and bodily strength? Are there
then no old men's employments to be after all conducted by the intellect,
even when bodies are weak? So then Q. Maximus did nothing; nor L. Aemilius—our
father, Scipio, and my excellent son's father-in-law! So with other old
men—the Fabricii, the Guru and Coruncanii—when they were
supporting the State by their advice and influence, they were doing
nothing! To old age Appius Claudius had the additional disadvantage of
being blind; yet it was he who, when the Senate was inclining towards a
peace with Pyrrhus and was for making a treaty, did not hesitate to say
what Ennius has embalmed in the verses:</p>
<p>Whither have swerved the souls so firm of yore?<br/>
Is sense grown senseless? Can feet stand no more?<br/></p>
<p>And so on in a tone of the most passionate vehemence. You know the poem,
and the speech of Appius himself is extant. Now, he delivered it seventeen
years after his second consulship, there having been an interval of ten
years between the two consulships, and he having been censor before his
previous consulship. This will show you that at the time of the war with
Pyrrhus he was a very old man. Yet this is the story handed down to us.</p>
<p>There is therefore nothing in the arguments of those who say that old age
takes no part in public business. They are like men who would say that a
steersman does nothing in sailing a ship, because, while some of the crew
are climbing the masts, others hurrying up and down the gangways, others
pumping out the bilge water, he sits quietly in the stern holding the
tiller. He does not do what young men do; nevertheless he does what is
much more important and better. The great affairs of life are not
performed by physical strength, or activity, or nimbleness of body, but by
deliberation, character, expression of opinion. Of these old age is not
only not deprived, but, as a rule, has them in a greater degree. Unless by
any chance I, who as a soldier in the ranks, as military tribune, as
legate, and as consul have been employed in various kinds of war, now
appear to you to be idle because not actively engaged in war. But I enjoin
upon the Senate what is to be done, and how. Carthage has long been
harbouring evil designs, and I accordingly proclaim war against her in
good time. I shall never cease to entertain fears about her till I hear of
her having been levelled with the ground. The glory of doing that I pray
that the immortal gods may reserve for you, Scipio, so that you may
complete the task begun by your grand-father, now dead more than
thirty-two years ago; though all years to come will keep that great man's
memory green. He died in the year before my censorship, nine years after
my consulship, having been returned consul for the second time in my own
consulship. If then he had lived to his hundredth year, would he have
regretted having lived to be old? For he would of course not have been
practising rapid marches, nor dashing on a foe, nor hurling spears from a
distance, nor using swords at close quarters—but only counsel,
reason, and senatorial eloquence. And if those qualities had not resided
in us <i>seniors</i>, our ancestors would never have called their supreme
council a Senate. At Sparta, indeed, those who hold the highest
magistracies are in accordance with the fact actually called "elders." But
if you will take the trouble to read or listen to foreign history, you
will find that the mightiest States have been brought into peril by young
men, have been supported and restored by old. The question occurs in the
poet Naevius's <i>Sport</i>:</p>
<p>Pray, who are those who brought your State<br/>
With such despatch to meet its fate?<br/></p>
<p>There is a long answer, but this is the chief point:</p>
<p>A crop of brand-new orators we grew,<br/>
And foolish, paltry lads who thought they knew.<br/></p>
<p>For of course rashness is the note of youth, prudence of old age.</p>
<p>7. But, it is said, memory dwindles. No doubt, unless you keep it in
practice, or if you happen to be somewhat dull by nature. Themistocles had
the names of all his fellow-citizens by heart. Do you imagine that in his
old age he used to address Aristides as Lysimachus? For my part, I know
not only the present generation, but their fathers also, and their
grandfathers. Nor have I any fear of losing my memory by reading
tombstones, according to the vulgar superstition. On the contrary, by
reading them I renew my memory of those who are dead and gone. Nor, in
point of fact, have I ever heard of any old man forgetting where he had
hidden his money. They remember everything that interests them: when to
answer to their bail, business appointments, who owes them money, and to
whom they owe it. What about lawyers, pontiffs, augurs, philosophers, when
old? What a multitude of things they remember! Old men retain their
intellects well enough, if only they keep their minds active and fully
employed. Nor is that the case only with men of high position and great
office: it applies equally to private life and peaceful pursuits.
Sophocles composed tragedies to extreme old age; and being believed to
neglect the care of his property owing to his devotion to his art, his
sons brought him into court to get a judicial decision depriving him of
the management of his property on the ground of weak intellect—just
as in our law it is customary to deprive a paterfamilias of the management
of his property if he is squandering it. There—upon the old poet is
said to have read to the judges the play he had on hand and had just
composed—the <i>Oedipus Coloneus</i>—and to have asked them
whether they thought that the work of a man of weak intellect. After the
reading he was acquitted by the jury. Did old age then compel this man to
become silent in his particular art, or Homer, Hesiod, Simonides, or
Isocrates and Gorgias whom I mentioned before, or the founders of schools
of philosophy, Pythagoras, Democritus, Plato, Xenocrates, or later Zeno
and Cleanthus, or Diogenes the Stoic, whom you too saw at Rome? Is it not
rather the case with all these that the active pursuit of study only ended
with life?</p>
<p>But, to pass over these sublime studies, I can name some rustic Romans
from the Sabine district, neighbours and friends of my own, without whose
presence farm work of importance is scarcely ever performed—whether
sowing, or harvesting or storing crops. And yet in other things this is
less surprising; for no one is so old as to think that he may not live a
year. But they bestow their labour on what they know does not affect them
in any case:</p>
<p>He plants his trees to serve a race to come,<br/></p>
<p>as our poet Statius says in his Comrades. Nor indeed would a farmer,
however old, hesitate to answer any one who asked him for whom he was
planting: "For the immortal gods, whose will it was that I should not
merely receive these things from my ancestors, but should also hand them
on to the next generation."</p>
<p>8. That remark about the old man is better than the following:</p>
<p>If age brought nothing worse than this,<br/>
It were enough to mar our bliss,<br/>
That he who bides for many years<br/>
Sees much to shun and much for tears.<br/></p>
<p>Yes, and perhaps much that gives him pleasure too. Besides, as to subjects
for tears, he often comes upon them in youth as well.</p>
<p>A still more questionable sentiment in the same Caecilius is:</p>
<p>No greater misery can of age be told<br/>
Than this: be sure, the young dislike the old.<br/></p>
<p>Delight in them is nearer the mark than dislike. For just as old men, if
they are wise, take pleasure in the society of young men of good parts,
and as old age is rendered less dreary for those who are courted and liked
by the youth, so also do young men find pleasure in the maxims of the old,
by which they are drawn to the pursuit of excellence. Nor do I perceive
that you find my society less pleasant than I do yours. But this is enough
to show you how, so far from being listless and sluggish, old age is even
a busy time, always doing and attempting something, of course of the same
nature as each man's taste had been in the previous part of his life. Nay,
do not some even add to their stock of learning? We see Solon, for
instance, boasting in his poems that he grows old "daily learning
something new." Or again in my own case, it was only when an old man that
I became acquainted with Greek literature, which in fact I absorbed with
such avidity—in my yearning to quench, as it were, a long-continued
thirst—that I became acquainted with the very facts which you see me
now using as precedents. When I heard what Socrates had done about the
lyre I should have liked for my part to have done that too, for the
ancients used to learn the lyre but, at any rate, I worked hard at
literature.</p>
<p>9. Nor, again, do I now MISS THE BODILY STRENGTH OF A YOUNG MAN (for that
was the second point as to the disadvantages of old age) any more than as
a young man I missed the strength of a bull or an elephant. You should use
what you have, and whatever you may chance to be doing, do it with all
your might. What could be weaker than Milo of Croton's exclamation? When
in his old age he was watching some athletes practising in the course, he
is said to have looked at his arms and to have exclaimed with tears in his
eyes: "Ah well! these are now as good as dead." Not a bit more so than
yourself, you trifler! For at no time were you made famous by your real
self, but by chest and biceps. Sext. Aelius never gave vent to such a
remark, nor, many years before him, Titus Coruncanius, nor, more recently,
P. Crassus—all of them learned juris-consults in active practice,
whose knowledge of their profession was maintained to their last breath. I
am afraid an orator does lose vigour by old age, for his art is not a
matter of the intellect alone, but of lungs and bodily strength. Though as
a rule that musical ring in the voice even gains in brilliance in a
certain way as one grows old—certainly I have not yet lost it, and
you see my years. Yet after all the style of speech suitable to an old man
is the quiet and unemotional, and it often happens that the chastened and
calm delivery of an old man eloquent secures a hearing. If you cannot
attain to that yourself, you might still instruct a Scipio and a Laelius.
For what is more charming than old age surrounded by the enthusiasm of
youth? Shall we not allow old age even the strength to teach the young, to
train and equip them for all the duties of life? And what can be a nobler
employment? For my part, I used to think Publius and Gnaeus Scipio and
your two grandfathers, L. Aemilius and P. Africanus, fortunate men when I
saw them with a company of young nobles about them. Nor should we think
any teachers of the fine arts otherwise than happy, however much their
bodily forces may have decayed and failed. And yet that same failure of
the bodily forces is more often brought about by the vices of youth than
of old age; for a dissolute and intemperate youth hands down the body to
old age in a worn-out state. Xenophon's Cyrus, for instance, in his
discourse delivered on his death-bed and at a very advanced age, says that
he never perceived his old age to have become weaker than his youth had
been. I remember as a boy Lucius Metellus, who having been created
Pontifex Maximus four years after his second consulship, held that office
twenty-two years, enjoying such excellent strength of body in the very
last hours of his life as not to miss his youth. I need not speak of
myself; though that indeed is an old man's way and is generally allowed to
my time of life. Don't you see in Homer how frequently Nestor talks of his
own good qualities? For he was living through a third generation; nor had
he any reason to fear that upon saying what was true about himself he
should appear either over vain or talkative. For, as Homer says, "from his
lips flowed discourse sweeter than honey," for which sweet breath he
wanted no bodily strength. And yet, after all, the famous leader of the
Greeks nowhere wishes to have ten men like Ajax, but like Nestor: if he
could get them, he feels no doubt of Troy shortly falling.</p>
<p>10. But to return to my own case: I am in my eighty-fourth year. I could
wish that I had been able to make the same boast as Cyrus; but, after all,
I can say this: I am not indeed as vigorous as I was as a private soldier
in the Punic war, or as quaestor in the same war, or as consul in Spain,
and four years later when as a military tribune I took part in the
engagement at Thermopylae under the consul Manius Acilius Glabrio; but
yet, as you see, old age has not entirely destroyed my muscles, has not
quite brought me to the ground. The Senate-house does not find all my
vigour gone, nor the rostra, nor my friends, nor my clients, nor my
foreign guests. For I have never given in to that ancient and much-praised
proverb:</p>
<p>Old when young<br/>
Is old for long.<br/></p>
<p>For myself, I had rather be an old man a somewhat shorter time than an old
man <i>before</i> my time. Accordingly, no one up to the present has
wished to see me, to whom I have been denied as engaged. But, it may be
said, I have less strength than either of you. Neither have you the
strength of the centurion T. Pontius: is he the more eminent man on that
account? Let there be only a proper husbanding of strength, and let each
man proportion his efforts to his powers. Such an one will assuredly not
be possessed with any great regret for his loss of strength. At Olympia
Milo is said to have stepped into the course carrying a live ox on his
shoulders. Which then of the two would you prefer to have given to you—bodily
strength like that, or intellectual strength like that of Pythagoras? In
fine, enjoy that blessing when you have it; when it is gone, don't wish it
back—unless we are to think that young men should wish their
childhood back, and those somewhat older their youth! The course of life
is fixed, and nature admits of its being run but in one way, and only
once; and to each part of our life there is something specially
seasonable; so that the feebleness of children, as well as the high spirit
of youth, the soberness of maturer years, and the ripe wisdom of old age—all
have a certain natural advantage which should be secured in its proper
season. I think you are informed, Scipio, what your grandfather's foreign
friend Masinissa does to this day, though ninety years old. When he has
once begun a journey on foot he does not mount his horse at all; when on
horseback he never gets off his horse. By no rain or cold can he be
induced to cover his head. His body is absolutely free from unhealthy
humours, and so he still performs all the duties and functions of a king.
Active exercise, therefore, and temperance can preserve some part of one's
former strength even in old age.</p>
<p>11. Bodily strength is wanting to old age; but neither is bodily strength
demanded from old men. Therefore, both by law and custom, men of my time
of life are exempt from those duties which cannot be supported without
bodily strength. Accordingly not only are we not forced to do what we
cannot do; we are not even obliged to do as much as we can. But, it will
be said, many old men are so feeble that they cannot perform any duty in
life of any sort or kind. That is not a weakness to be set down as
peculiar to old age: it is one shared by ill health. How feeble was the
son of P. Africanus, who adopted you! What weak health he had, or rather
no health at all! If that had not been the case, we should have had in him
a second brilliant light in the political horizon; for he had added a
wider cultivation to his father's greatness of spirit. What wonder, then,
that old men are eventually feeble, when even young men cannot escape it?
My dear Laelius and Scipio, we must stand up against old age and make up
for its drawbacks by taking pains. We must fight it as we should an
illness. We must look after our health, use moderate exercise, take just
enough food and drink to recruit, but not to overload, our strength. Nor
is it the body alone that must be supported, but the intellect and soul
much more. For they are like lamps: unless you feed them with oil, they
too go out from old age. Again, the body is apt to get gross from
exercise; but the intellect becomes nimbler by exercising itself. For what
Caecilius means by "old dotards of the comic stage" are the credulous, the
forgetful, and the slipshod. These are faults that do not attach to old
age as such, but to a sluggish, spiritless, and sleepy old age. Young men
are more frequently wanton and dissolute than old men; but yet, as it is
not all young men that are so, but the bad set among them, even so senile
folly—usually called imbecility—applies to old men of unsound
character, not to all. Appius governed four sturdy sons, five daughters,
that great establishment, and all those clients, though he was both old
and blind. For he kept his mind at full stretch like a bow, and never gave
in to old age by growing slack. He maintained not merely an influence, but
an absolute command over his family: his slaves feared him, his sons were
in awe of him, all loved him. In that family, indeed, ancestral custom and
discipline were in full vigour. The fact is that old age is respectable
just as long as it asserts itself, maintains its proper rights, and is not
enslaved to any one. For as I admire a young man who has something of the
old man in him, so do I an old one who has something of a young man. The
man who aims at this may possibly become old in body—in mind he
never will. I am now engaged in composing the seventh book of my <i>Origins</i>.
I collect all the records of antiquity. The speeches delivered in all the
celebrated cases which I have defended I am at this particular time
getting into shape for publication. I am writing treatises on augural,
pontifical, and civil law. I am, besides, studying hard at Greek, and
after the manner of the Pythagoreans—to keep my memory in working
order—I repeat in the evening whatever I have said, heard, or done
in the course of each day. These are the exercises of the intellect, these
the training grounds of the mind: while I sweat and labour on these I
don't much feel the loss of bodily strength. I appear in court for my
friends; I frequently attend the Senate and bring motions before it on my
own responsibility, prepared after deep and long reflection. And these I
support by my intellectual, not my bodily forces. And if I were not strong
enough to do these things, yet I should enjoy my sofa—imagining the
very operations which I was now unable to perform. But what makes me
capable of doing this is my past life. For a man who is always living in
the midst of these studies and labours does not perceive when old age
creeps upon him. Thus, by slow and imperceptible degrees life draws to its
end. There is no sudden breakage; it just slowly goes out.</p>
<p>12. The third charge against old age is that it LACKS SENSUAL PLEASURES.
What a splendid service does old age render, if it takes from us the
greatest blot of youth! Listen, my dear young friends, to a speech of
Archytas of Tarentum, among the greatest and most illustrious of men,
which was put into my hands when as a young man I was at Tarentum with Q.
Maximus. "No more deadly curse than sensual pleasure has been inflicted on
mankind by nature, to gratify which our wanton appetites are roused beyond
all prudence or restraint. It is a fruitful source of treasons,
revolutions, secret communications with the enemy. In fact, there is no
crime, no evil deed, to which the appetite for sensual pleasures does not
impel us. Fornications and adulteries, and every abomination of that kind,
are brought about by the enticements of pleasure and by them alone.
Intellect is the best gift of nature or God: to this divine gift and
endowment there is nothing so inimical as pleasure. For when appetite is
our master, there is no place for self-control; nor where pleasure reigns
supreme can virtue hold its ground. To see this more vividly, imagine a
man excited to the highest conceivable pitch of sensual pleasure. It can
be doubtful to no one that such a person, so long as he is under the
influence of such excitation of the senses, will be unable to use to any
purpose either intellect, reason, or thought. Therefore nothing can be so
execrable and so fatal as pleasure; since, when more than ordinarily
violent and lasting, it darkens all the light of the soul."</p>
<p>These were the words addressed by Archytas to the Samnite Caius Pontius,
father of the man by whom the consuls Spurius Postumius and Titus Veturius
were beaten in the battle of Caudium. My friend Nearchus of Tarentum, who
had remained loyal to Rome, told me that he had heard them repeated by
some old men; and that Plato the Athenian was present, who visited
Tarentum, I find, in the consulship of L. Camillus and Appius Claudius.</p>
<p>What is the point of all this? It is to show you that, if we were unable
to scorn pleasure by the aid of reason and philosophy, we ought to have
been very grateful to old age for depriving us of all inclination for that
which it was wrong to do. For pleasure hinders thought, is a foe to
reason, and, so to speak, blinds the eyes of the mind. It is, moreover,
entirely alien to virtue. I was sorry to have to expel Lucius, brother of
the gallant Titus Flamininus, from the Senate seven years after his
consulship; but I thought it imperative to affix a stigma on an act of
gross sensuality. For when he was in Gaul as consul, he had yielded to the
entreaties of his paramour at a dinner-party to behead a man who happened
to be in prison condemned on a capital charge. When his brother Titus was
Censor, who preceded me, he escaped; but I and Flaccus could not
countenance an act of such criminal and abandoned lust, especially as,
besides the personal dishonour, it brought disgrace on the Government.</p>
<p>13. I have often been told by men older than myself, who said that they
had heard it as boys from old men, that Gaius Fabricius was in the habit
of expressing astonishment at having heard, when envoy at the headquarters
of king Pyrrhus, from the Thessalian Cineas, that there was a man of
Athens who professed to be a "philosopher," and affirmed that everything
we did was to be referred to pleasure. When he told this to Manius Curius
and Publius Decius, they used to remark that they wished that the Samnites
and Pyrrhus himself would hold the same opinion. It would be much easier
to conquer them, if they had once given themselves over to sensual
indulgences. Manius Curius had been intimate with P. Decius, who four
years before the former's consulship had devoted himself to death for the
Republic. Both Fabricius and Coruncanius knew him also, and from the
experience of their own lives, as well as from the action of P. Decius,
they were of opinion that there did exist something intrinsically noble
and great, which was sought for its own sake, and at which all the best
men aimed, to the contempt and neglect of pleasure. Why then do I spend so
many words on the subject of pleasure? Why, because, far from being a
charge against old age, that it does not much feel the want of any
pleasures, it is its highest praise.</p>
<p>But, you will say, it is deprived of the pleasures of the table, the
heaped up board, the rapid passing of the wine-cup. Well, then, it is also
free from headache, disordered digestion, broken sleep. But if we must
grant pleasure something, since we do not find it easy to resist its
charms,—for Plato, with happy inspiration, calls pleasure "vice's
bait," because of course men are caught by it as fish by a hook,—yet,
although old age has to abstain from extravagant banquets, it is still
capable of enjoying modest festivities. As a boy I often used to see Gaius
Duilius the son of Marcus, then an old man, returning from a
dinner-party. He thoroughly enjoyed the frequent use of torch and
flute-player, distinctions which he had assumed though unprecedented in
the case of a private person. It was the privilege of his glory. But why
mention others? I will come back to my own case. To begin with, I have
always remained a member of a "club"—clubs, you know, were
established in my quaestorship on the reception of the Magna Mater from
Ida. So I used to dine at their feast with the members of my club—on
the whole with moderation, though there was a certain warmth of
temperament natural to my time of life; but as that advances there is a
daily decrease of all excitement. Nor was I, in fact, ever wont to measure
my enjoyment even of these banquets by the physical pleasures they gave
more than by the gathering and conversation of friends. For it was a good
idea of our ancestors to style the presence of guests at a dinner-table—seeing
that it implied a community of enjoyment—a <i>convivium</i>, "a
living together." It is a better term than the Greek words which mean "a
drinking together," or, "an eating together." For they would seem to give
the preference to what is really the least important part of it.</p>
<p>14. For myself, owing to the pleasure I take in conversation, I enjoy even
banquets that begin early in the afternoon, and not only in company with
my contemporaries—of whom very few survive—but also with men
of your age and with yourselves. I am thankful to old age, which has
increased my avidity for conversation, while it has removed that for
eating and drinking. But if anyone does enjoy these—not to seem to
have proclaimed war against all pleasure without exception, which is
perhaps a feeling inspired by nature—I fail to perceive even in
these very pleasures that old age is entirely without the power of
appreciation. For myself, I take delight even in the old-fashioned
appointment of master of the feast; and in the arrangement of the
conversation, which according to ancestral custom is begun from the last
place on the left-hand couch when the wine is brought in; as also in the
cups which, as in Xenophon's banquet, are small and filled by driblets;
and in the contrivance for cooling in summer, and for warming by the
winter sun or winter fire. These things I keep up even among my Sabine
countrymen, and every day have a full dinner-party of neighbours, which we
prolong as far into the night as we can with varied conversation.</p>
<p>But you may urge—there is not the same tingling sensation of
pleasure in old men. No doubt; but neither do they miss it so much. For
nothing gives you uneasiness which you do not miss. That was a fine answer
of Sophocles to a man who asked him, when in extreme old age, whether he
was still a lover. "Heaven forbid!" he replied; "I was only too glad to
escape from that, as though from a boorish and insane master." To men
indeed who are keen after such things it may possibly appear disagreeable
and uncomfortable to be without them; but to jaded appetites it is
pleasanter to lack than to enjoy. However, he cannot be said to lack who
does not want: my contention is that not to want is the pleasanter thing.</p>
<p>But even granting that youth enjoys these pleasures with more zest; in the
first place, they are insignificant things to enjoy, as I have said; and
in the second place, such as age is not entirely without, if it does not
possess them in profusion. Just as a man gets greater pleasure from
Ambivius Turpio if seated in the front row at the theatre than if he was
in the last, yet, after all, the man in the last row does get pleasure; so
youth, because it looks at pleasures at closer quarters, perhaps enjoys
itself more, yet even old age, looking at them from a distance, does enjoy
itself well enough. Why, what blessings are these—that the soul,
having served its time, so to speak, in the campaigns of desire and
ambition, rivalry and hatred, and all the passions, should live in its own
thoughts, and, as the expression goes, should dwell apart! Indeed, if it
has in store any of what I may call the food of study and philosophy,
nothing can be pleasanter than an old age of leisure. We were witnesses to
C. Gallus—a friend of your father's, Scipio—intent to the day
of his death on mapping out the sky and land. How often did the light
surprise him while still working out a problem begun during the night! How
often did night find him busy on what he had begun at dawn! How he
delighted in predicting for us solar and lunar eclipses long before they
occurred! Or again in studies of a lighter nature, though still requiring
keenness of intellect, what pleasure Naevius took in his <i>Punic War</i>!
Plautus in his <i>Truculentus</i> and <i>Pseudolus</i>! I even saw Livius
Andronicus, who, having produced a play six years before I was born—in
the consulship of Cento and Tuditanus—lived till I had become a
young man. Why speak of Publius Licinius Crassus's devotion to pontifical
and civil law, or of the Publius Scipio of the present time, who within
these last few days has been created Pontifex Maximus? And yet I have seen
all whom I have mentioned ardent in these pursuits when old men. Then
there is Marcus Cethegus, whom Ennius justly called "Persuasion's Marrow"—with
what enthusiasm did we see him exert himself in oratory even when quite
old! What pleasures are there in feasts, games, or mistresses comparable
to pleasures such as these? And they are all tastes, too, connected with
learning, which in men of sense and good education grow with their growth.
It is indeed an honourable sentiment which Solon expresses in a verse
which I have quoted before—that he grew old learning many a fresh
lesson every day. Than that intellectual pleasure none certainly can be
greater.</p>
<p>15. I come now to the pleasures of the farmer, in which I take amazing
delight. These are not hindered by any extent of old age, and seem to me
to approach nearest to the ideal wise man's life. For he has to deal with
the earth, which never refuses its obedience, nor ever returns what it has
received without usury; sometimes, indeed, with less, but generally with
greater interest. For my part, however, it is not merely the thing
produced, but the earth's own force and natural productiveness that
delight me. For received in its bosom the seed scattered broadcast upon
it, softened and broken up, she first keeps it concealed therein (hence
the harrowing which accomplishes this gets its name from a word meaning
"to hide"); next, when it has been warmed by her heat and close pressure,
she splits it open and draws from it the greenery of the blade. This,
supported by the fibres of the root, little by little grows up, and held
upright by its jointed stalk is enclosed in sheaths, as being still
immature. When it has emerged from them it produces an ear of corn
arranged in order, and is defended against the pecking of the smaller
birds by a regular palisade of spikes.</p>
<p>Need I mention the starting, planting, and growth of vines? I can never
have too much of this pleasure—to let you into the secret of what
gives my old age repose and amusement. For I say nothing here of the
natural force which all things propagated from the earth possess—the
earth which from that tiny grain in a fig, or the grape-stone in a grape,
or the most minute seeds of the other cereals and plants, produces such
huge trunks and boughs. Mallet-shoots, slips, cuttings, quicksets, layers—are
they not enough to fill anyone with delight and astonishment? The vine by
nature is apt to fall, and unless supported drops down to the earth; yet
in order to keep itself upright it embraces whatever it reaches with its
tendrils as though they were hands. Then as it creeps on, spreading itself
in intricate and wild profusion, the dresser's art prunes it with the
knife and prevents it growing a forest of shoots and expanding to excess
in every direction. Accordingly at the beginning of spring in the shoots
which have been left there protrudes at each of the joints what is termed
an eye. From this the grape emerges and shows itself; which, swollen by the
juice of the earth and the heat of the sun, is at first very bitter to the
taste, but afterwards grows sweet as it matures; and being covered with
tendrils is never without a moderate warmth, and yet is able to ward off
the fiery heat of the sun. Can anything be richer in product or more
beautiful to contemplate? It is not its utility only, as I said before,
that charms me, but the method of its cultivation and the natural process
of its growth: the rows of uprights, the cross-pieces for the tops of the
plants, the tying up of the vines and their propagation by layers, the
pruning, to which I have already referred, of some shoots, the setting of
others. I need hardly mention irrigation, or trenching and digging the
soil, which much increase its fertility. As to the advantages of manuring
I have spoken in my book on agriculture. The learned Hesiod did not say a
single word on this subject, though he was writing on the cultivation of
the soil; yet Homer, who in my opinion was many generations earlier,
represents Laertes as softening his regret for his son by cultivating and
manuring his farm. Nor is it only in cornfields and meadows and vineyards
and plantations that a farmer's life is made cheerful. There are the
garden and the orchard, the feeding of sheep, the swarms of bees, endless
varieties of flowers. Nor is it only planting out that charms: there is
also grafting—surely the most ingenious invention ever made by
husbandmen.</p>
<p>16. I might continue my list of the delights of country life; but even
what I have said I think is somewhat over long. However, you must pardon
me; for farming is a very favourite hobby of mine, and old age is
naturally rather garrulous—for I would not be thought to acquit it
of all faults.</p>
<p>Well, it was in a life of this sort that Manius Curius, after celebrating
triumphs over the Samnites, the Sabines, and Pyrrhus, spent his last days.
When I look at his villa—for it is not far from my own—I never
can enough admire the man's own frugality or the spirit of the age. As
Curius was sitting at his hearth the Samnites, who brought him a large sum
of gold, were repulsed by him; for it was not, he said, a fine thing in
his eyes to possess gold, but to rule those who possessed it. Could such a
high spirit fail to make old age pleasant?</p>
<p>But to return to farmers—not to wander from my own metier. In those
days there were senators, <i>i. e</i>. old men, on their farms. For L.
Quinctius Cincinnatus was actually at the plough when word was brought him
that he had been named Dictator. It was by his order as Dictator, by the
way, that C. Servilius Ahala, the Master of the Horse, seized and put to
death Spurius Maelius when attempting to obtain royal power. Curius as
well as other old men used to receive their summonses to attend the Senate
in their farm-houses, from which circumstance the summoners were called <i>viatores</i>
or "travellers." Was these men's old age an object of pity who found their
pleasure in the cultivation of the land? In my opinion, scarcely any life
can be more blessed, not alone from its utility (for agriculture is
beneficial to the whole human race), but also as much from the mere
pleasure of the thing, to which I have already alluded, and from the rich
abundance and supply of all things necessary for the food of man and for
the worship of the gods above. So, as these are objects of desire to
certain people, let us make our peace with pleasure. For the good and
hard-working farmer's wine-cellar and oil-store, as well as his larder,
are always well filled, and his whole farm-house is richly furnished. It
abounds in pigs, goats, lambs, fowls, milk, cheese, and honey. Then there
is the garden, which the farmers themselves call their "second flitch." A
zest and flavour is added to all these by hunting and fowling in spare
hours. Need I mention the greenery of meadows, the rows of trees, the
beauty of vineyard and olive-grove? I will put it briefly: nothing can
either furnish necessaries more richly, or present a fairer spectacle,
than well-cultivated land. And to the enjoyment of that, old age does not
merely present no hindrance—it actually invites and allures to it.
For where else can it better warm itself, either by basking in the sun or
by sitting by the fire, or at the proper time cool itself more wholesomely
by the help of shade or water? Let the young keep their arms then to
themselves, their horses, spears, their foils and ball, their swimming
baths and running path. To us old men let them, out of the many forms of
sport, leave dice and counters; but even that as they choose, since old
age can be quite happy without them.</p>
<p>17. Xenophon's books are very useful for many purposes. Pray go on reading
them with attention, as you have ever done. In what ample terms is
agriculture lauded by him in the book about husbanding one's property,
which is called <i>Oceonomicus</i>! But to show you that he thought
nothing so worthy of a prince as the taste for cultivating the soil, I
will translate what Socrates says to Critobulus in that book:</p>
<p>"When that most gallant Lacedaemonian Lysander came to visit the Persian
prince Cyrus at Sardis, so eminent for his character and the glory of his
rule, bringing him presents from his allies, he treated Lysander in all
ways with courteous familiarity and kindness, and, among other things,
took him to see a certain park carefully planted. Lysander expressed
admiration of the height of the trees and the exact arrangement of their
rows in the quincunx, the careful cultivation of the soil, its freedom
from weeds, and the sweetness of the odours exhaled from the flowers, and
went on to say that what he admired was not the industry only, but also
the skill of the man by whom this had been planned and laid out. Cyrus
replied: 'Well, it was I who planned the whole thing these rows are my
doing, the laying out is all mine; many of the trees were even planted by
own hand.' Then Lysander, looking at his purple robe, the brilliance of
his person, and his adornment Persian fashion with gold and many jewels,
said: 'People are quite right, Cyrus, to call you happy, since the
advantages of high fortune have been joined to an excellence like yours.'"</p>
<p>This kind of good fortune, then, it is in the power of old men to enjoy;
nor is age any bar to our maintaining pursuits of every other kind, and
especially of agriculture, to the very extreme verge of old age. For
instance, we have it on record that M. Valerius Corvus kept it up to his
hundredth year, living on his land and cultivating it after his active
career was over, though between his first and sixth consulships there was
an interval of six and forty years. So that he had an official career
lasting the number of years which our ancestors defined as coming between
birth and the beginning of old age. Moreover, that last period of his old
age was more blessed than that of his middle life, inasmuch as he had
greater influence and less labour. For the crowning grace of old age is
influence.</p>
<p>How great was that of L. Caecilius Metellus! How great that of Atilius
Calatinus, over whom the famous epitaph was placed, "Very many classes
agree in deeming this to have been the very first man of the nation"! The
line cut on his tomb is well known. It is natural, then, that a man should
have had influence, in whose praise the verdict of history is unanimous.
Again, in recent times, what a great man was Publius Crassus, Pontifex
Maximus, and his successor in the same office, M. Lepidus! I need scarcely
mention Paulus or Africanus, or, as I did before, Maximus. It was not only
their senatorial utterances that had weight: their least gesture had it
also. In fact, old age, especially when it has enjoyed honours, has an
influence worth all the pleasures of youth put together.</p>
<p>18. But throughout my discourse remember that my panegyric applies to an
old age that has been established on foundations laid by youth. From which
may be deduced what I once said with universal applause, that it was a
wretched old age that had to defend itself by speech. Neither white hairs
nor wrinkles can at once claim influence in themselves: it is the
honourable conduct of earlier days that is rewarded by possessing
influence at the last. Even things generally regarded as trifling and
matters of course—being saluted, being courted, having way made for
one, people rising when one approaches, being escorted to and from the
forum, being referred to for advice—all these are marks of respect,
observed among us and in other States—always most sedulously where
the moral tone is highest. They say that Lysander the Spartan, whom I have
mentioned before, used to remark that Sparta was the most dignified home
for old age; for that nowhere was more respect paid to years, no-where was
old age held in higher honour. Nay, the story is told of how when a man of
advanced years came into the theatre at Athens when the games were going
on, no place was given him anywhere in that large assembly by his own
countrymen; but when he came near the Lacedaemonians, who as ambassadors
had a fixed place assigned to them, they rose as one man out of respect
for him, and gave the veteran a seat. When they were greeted with rounds
of applause from the whole audience, one of them remarked:</p>
<p>"The Athenians know what is right, but will not do it." There are many
excellent rules in our augural college, but among the best is one which
affects our subject—that precedence in speech goes by seniority; and
augurs who are older are preferred only to those who have held higher
office, but even to those who are actually in possession of imperium. What
then are the physical pleasures to be compared with the reward of
influence? Those who have employed it with distinction appear to me to
have played the drama of life to its end, and not to have broken down in
the last act like unpractised players.</p>
<p>But, it will be said, old men are fretful, fidgety, ill-tempered, and
disagreeable. If you come to that, they are also avaricious. But these are
faults of character, not of the time of life. And, after all, fretfulness
and the other faults I mentioned admit of some excuse—not, indeed, a
complete one, but one that may possibly pass muster: they think themselves
neglected, looked down upon, mocked, Besides with bodily weakness every
rub is a source of pain. Yet all these faults are softened both by good
character and good education. Illustrations of this may be found in real
life, as also on the stage in the case of the brothers in the <i>Adeiphi</i>.
What harshness in the one, what gracious manners in the other The fact is
that, just as it is not every wine, so it is not every life, that turns
sour from keeping, Serious gravity I approve of in old age, but, as in
other things, it must be within due limits: bitterness I can in no case
approve. What the object of senile avarice may be I cannot conceive. For
can there be anything more absurd than to seek more journey money, the
less there remains of the journey?</p>
<p>19. There remains the fourth reason, which more than anything else appears
to torment men of my age and keep them in a flutter—THE NEARNESS OF
DEATH, which, it must be allowed, cannot be far from an old man. But what
a poor dotard must he be who has not learnt in the course of so long a
life that death is not a thing to be feared? Death, that is either to be
totally disregarded, if it entirely extinguishes the soul, or is even to
be desired, if it brings him where he is to exist forever. A third
alternative, at any rate, cannot possibly be discovered. Why then should I
be afraid if I am destined either not to be miserable after death or even
to be happy? After all, who is such a fool as to feel certain—however
young he may be—that he will be alive in the evening? Nay, that time
of life has many more chances of death than ours, Young men more easily
contract diseases; their illnesses are more serious; their treatment has
to be more severe. Accordingly, only a few arrive at old age. If that were
not so, life would be conducted better and more wisely; for it is in old
men that thought, reason, and prudence are to be found; and if there had
been no old men, States would never have existed at all. But I return to
the subject of the imminence of death. What sort of charge is this against
old age, when you see that it is shared by youth? I had reason in the case
of my excellent son—as you had, Scipio, in that of your brothers,
who were expected to attain the highest honours—to realise that
death is common to every time of life. Yes, you will say; but a young man
expects to live long; an old man cannot expect to do so. Well, he is a
fool to expect it. For what can be more foolish than to regard the
uncertain as certain, the false as true? "An old man has nothing even to
hope." Ah, but it is just there that he is in a better position than a
young man, since what the latter only hopes he has obtained. The one
wishes to live long; the other has lived long.</p>
<p>And yet, good heaven! what is "long" in a man's life? For grant the utmost
limit: let us expect an age like that of the King of the Tartessi. For
there was, as I find recorded, a certain Agathonius at Gades who reigned
eighty years and lived a hundred and twenty. But to my mind nothing seems
even long in which there is any "last," for when that arrives, then all
the past has slipped away—only that remains to which you have
attained by virtue and righteous actions. Hours indeed, and days and
months and years depart, nor does past time ever return, nor can the
future be known. Whatever time each is granted for life, with that he is
bound to be content. An actor, in order to earn approval, is not bound to
perform the play from beginning to end; let him only satisfy the audience
in whatever act he appears. Nor need a wise man go on to the concluding
"plaudite." For a short term of life is long enough for living well and
honourably. But if you go farther, you have no more right to grumble than
farmers do because the charm of the spring season is past and the summer
and autumn have come. For the word "spring" in a way suggests youth, and
points to the harvest to be: the other seasons are suited for the reaping
and storing of the crops. Now the harvest of old age is, as I have often
said, the memory and rich store of blessings laid up in easier life.
Again, all things that accord with nature are to be counted as good. But
what can be more in accordance with nature than for old men to die? A
thing, indeed, which also befalls young men, though nature revolts and
fights against it. Accordingly, the death of young men seems to me like
putting out a great fire with a deluge of water; but old men die like a
fire going out because it has burnt down of its own nature without
artificial means. Again, just as apples when unripe are torn from trees,
but when ripe and mellow drop down, so it is violence that takes life from
young men, ripeness from old. This ripeness is so delightful to me, that,
as I approach nearer to death, I seem as it were to be sighting land, and
to be coming to port at last after a long voyage.</p>
<p>20. Again, there is no fixed borderline for old age, and you are making a
good and proper use of it as long as you can satisfy the call of duty and
disregard death. The result of this is, that old age is even more
confident and courageous than youth. That is the meaning of Solon's answer
to the tyrant Pisistratus. When the latter asked him what he relied upon
in opposing him with such boldness, he is said to have replied, "On my old
age." But that end of life is the best, when, without the intellect or
senses being impaired, Nature herself takes to pieces her own handiwork
which she also put together. Just as the builder of a ship or a house can
break them up more easily than any one else, so the nature that knit
together the human frame can also best unfasten it. Moreover, a thing
freshly glued together is always difficult to pull asunder; if old, this
is easily done.</p>
<p>The result is that the short time of life left to them is not to be
grasped at by old men with greedy eagerness, or abandoned without cause.
Pythagoras forbids us, without an order from our commander, that is God,
to desert life's fortress and outpost. Solon's epitaph, indeed, is that of
a wise man, in which he says that he does not wish his death to be
unaccompanied by the sorrow and lamentations of his friends. He wants, I
suppose, to be beloved by them. But I rather think Ennius says better:</p>
<p>None grace me with their tears, nor weeping loud Make sad my funeral
rites!</p>
<p>He holds that a death is not a subject for mourning when it is followed by
immortality.</p>
<p>Again, there may possibly be some sensation of dying and that only for a
short time, especially in the case of an old man: after death, indeed,
sensation is either what one would desire, or it disappears altogether.
But to disregard death is a lesson which must be studied from our youth
up; for unless that is learnt, no one can have a quiet mind. For die we
certainly must, and that too without being certain whether it may not be
this very day. As death, therefore, is hanging over our head every hour,
how can a man ever be unshaken in soul if he fears it?</p>
<p>But on this theme I don't think I need much enlarge: when I remember what
Lucius Brutus did, who was killed while defending his country; or the two
Decii, who spurred their horses to a gallop and met a voluntary death; or
M. Atilius Regulus, who left his home to confront a death of torture,
rather than break the word which he had pledged to the enemy; or the two
Scipios, who determined to block the Carthaginian advance even with their
own bodies; or your grandfather Lucius Paulus, who paid with his life for
the rashness of his colleague in the disgrace at Cannae; or M. Marcellus,
whose death not even the most bloodthirsty of enemies would allow to go
without the honour of burial. It is enough to recall that our legions (as
I have recorded in my <i>Origins</i>) have often marched with cheerful and
lofty spirit to ground from which they believed that they would never
return. That, therefore, which young men—not only uninstructed, but
absolutely ignorant—treat as of no account, shall men who are
neither young nor ignorant shrink from in terror? As a general truth, as
it seems to me, it is weariness of all pursuits that creates weariness of
life. There are certain pursuits adapted to childhood: do young men miss
them? There are others suited to early manhood: does that settled time of
life called "middle age" ask for them? There are others, again, suited to
that age, but not looked for in old age. There are, finally, some which
belong to Old age. Therefore, as the pursuits of the earlier ages have
their time for disappearing, so also have those of old age. And when that
takes place, a satiety of life brings on the ripe time for death.</p>
<p>21. For I do not see why I should not venture to tell you my personal
opinion as to death, of which I seem to myself to have a clearer vision in
proportion as I am nearer to it. I believe, Scipio and Laelius, that your
fathers—those illustrious men and my dearest friends—are still
alive, and that too with a life which alone deserves the name. For as long
as we are imprisoned in this framework of the body, we perform a certain
function and laborious work assigned us by fate. The soul, in fact, is of
heavenly origin, forced down from its home in the highest, and, so to
speak, buried in earth, a place quite opposed to its divine nature and its
immortality. But I suppose the immortal gods to have sown souls broadcast
in human bodies, that there might be some to survey the world, and while
contemplating the order of the heavenly bodies to imitate it in the
unvarying regularity of their life. Nor is it only reason and arguments
that have brought me to this belief, but the great fame and authority of
the most distinguished philosophers. I used to be told that Pythagoras and
the Pythagoreans—almost natives of our country, who in old times had
been called the Italian school of philosophers—never doubted that we
had souls drafted from the universal Divine intelligence. I used besides
to have pointed out to me the discourse delivered by Socrates on the last
day of his life upon the immortality of the soul—Socrates who was
pronounced by the oracle at Delphi to be the wisest of men. I need say no
more. I have convinced myself, and I hold—in view of the rapid
movement of the soul, its vivid memory of the past and its prophetic
knowledge of the future, its many accomplishments, its vast range of
knowledge, its numerous discoveries —that a nature embracing such
varied gifts cannot itself be mortal. And since the soul is always in
motion and yet has no external source of motion, for it is self-moved, I
conclude that it will also have no end to its motion, because it is not
likely ever to abandon itself. Again, since the nature of the soul is not
composite, nor has in it any admixture that is not homogeneous and
similar, I conclude that it is indivisible, and, if indivisible, that it
cannot perish. It is again a strong proof of men knowing most things
before birth, that when mere children they grasp innumerable facts with
such speed as to show that they are not then taking them in for the first
time, but remembering and recalling them. This is roughly Plato's
argument.</p>
<p>22. Once more in Xenophon we have the elder Cyrus on his deathbed speaking
as follows:—</p>
<p>"Do not suppose, my dearest sons, that when I have left you I shall be
nowhere and no one. Even when I was with you, you did not see my soul, but
knew that it was in this body of mine from what I did. Believe then that
it is still the same, even though you see it not. The honours paid to
illustrious men had not continued to exist after their death, had the
souls of these very men not done something to make us retain our
recollection of them beyond the ordinary time. For myself, I never could
be persuaded that souls while in mortal bodies were alive, and died
directly they left them; nor, in fact, that the soul only lost all
intelligence when it left the unintelligent body. I believe rather that
when, by being liberated from all corporeal admixture, it has begun to be
pure and undefiled, it is then that it becomes wise. And again, when man's
natural frame is resolved into its elements by death, it is clearly seen
whither each of the other elements departs: for they all go to the place
from which they came: but the soul alone is invisible alike when present
and when departing. Once more, you see that nothing is so like death as
sleep. And yet it is in sleepers that souls most clearly reveal their
divine nature; for they foresee many events when they are allowed to
escape and are left free. This shows what they are likely to be when they
have completely freed themselves from the fetters of the body. Wherefore,
if these things are so, obey me as a god. But if my soul is to perish with
my body, nevertheless do you from awe of the gods, who guard and govern
this fair universe, preserve my memory by the loyalty and piety of your
lives."</p>
<p>23. Such are the words of the dying Cyrus. I will now, with your good
leave, look at home. No one, my dear Scipio, shall ever persuade me that
your father Paulus and your two grandfathers Paulus and Africanus, or the
father of Africanus, or his uncle, or many other illustrious men not
necessary to mention, would have attempted such lofty deeds as to be
remaindered by posterity, had they not seen in their minds that future
ages concerned them. Do you suppose—to take an old man's privilege
of a little self-praise—that I should have been likely to undertake
such heavy labours by day and night, at home and abroad, if I had been
destined to have the same limit to my glory as to my life? Had it not been
much better to pass an age of ease and repose without any labour or
exertion? But my soul, I know not how, refusing to be kept down, ever
fixed its eyes upon future ages, as though from a conviction that it would
begin to live only when it had left the body. But had it not been the case
that souls were immortal, it would not have been the souls of all the best
men that made the greatest efforts after an immortality of fame.</p>
<p>Again, is there not the fact that the wisest man ever dies with the
greatest cheerfulness, the most unwise with the least? Don't you think
that the soul which has the clearer and longer sight sees that it is
starting for better things, while the soul whose vision is dimmer does not
see it? For my part, I am transported with the desire to see your fathers,
who were the object of my reverence and affection. Nor is it only those
whom I knew that I long to see; it is those also of whom I have been told
and have read, whom I have myself recorded in my history. When I am
setting out for that, there is certainly no one who will find it easy to
draw me back, or boil me up again like second Pelios. Nay, if some god
should grant me to renew my childhood from my present age and once more to
be crying in my cradle, I would firmly refuse; nor should I in truth be
willing, after having, as it were, run the full course, to be recalled
from the winning—crease to the barriers. For what blessing has life
to offer? Should we not rather say what labour? But granting that it has,
at any rate it has after all a limit either to enjoyment or to existence.
I don't wish to depreciate life, as many men and good philosophers have
often done; nor do I regret having lived, for I have done so in a way that
lets me think that I was not born in vain. But I quit life as I would an
inn, not as I would a home. For nature has given us a place of
entertainment, not of residence.</p>
<p>Oh glorious day when I shall set out to join that heavenly conclave and
company of souls, and depart from the turmoil and impurities of this
world! For I shall not go to join only those whom I have before mentioned,
but also my son Cato, than whom no better man was ever born, nor one more
conspicuous for piety. His body was burnt by me, though mine ought, on the
contrary, to have been burnt by him; but his spirit, not abandoning, but
ever looking back upon me, has certainly gone whither he saw that I too
must come. I was thought to bear that loss heroically, not that I really
bore it without distress, but I found my own consolation in the thought
that the parting and separation between us was not to be for long.</p>
<p>It is by these means, my dear Scipio,—for you said that you and
Laelius were wont to express surprise on this point,—that my old age
sits lightly on me, and is not only not oppressive but even delightful.
But if I am wrong in thinking the human soul immortal, I am glad to be
wrong; nor will I allow the mistake which gives me so much pleasure to be
wrested from me as long as I live. But if when dead, as some insignificant
philosophers think, I am to be without sensation, I am not afraid of dead
philosophers deriding my errors. Again, if we are not to be immortal, it
is nevertheless what a man must wish—to have his life end at its
proper time. For nature puts a limit to living as to everything else. Now,
old age is as it were the playing out of the drama, the full fatigue of
which we should shun, especially when we also feel that we have had more
than enough of it.</p>
<p>This is all I had to say on old age. I pray that you may arrive at it,
that you may put my words to a practical test.</p>
<p><br/><br/><br/><br/></p>
<SPAN name="endofbook"></SPAN>
<div style="break-after:column;"></div><br />