Quod hrutis et insendbilibus quidam appetunt
The Dignity of the Human Soul
Humanity is created for angelic perfection and should not degrade itself by imitating the base behaviors of unreasoning creatures.
to be conformed; and with what humanity one lives among servants while one is in that position; and concerning the pleasure of the three remaining senses. Those who have placed the highest good of life in the pleasure—not to say the debauchery—of tasting and touching are more rightly conformed to the class of unreasoning animals. However, this does not excuse the debauchery of the other senses, since it is a manifest degradation of human dignity if one strives to be made equal not to a goat or a pig, but to a lion or a leopard, or to a panther or a satyr, or to a peacock, a nightingale, or a parrot, or to any brute or unfeeling creature whatsoever. For the person who was created with the dignity of such an origin will more rightly aspire to angelic purity, so that in the fullness of true and eternal beatitude, he may be conformed to angelic perfection. For the unshakable authority of the Fathers has decreed that God alone is more worthy than the nature of the human mind, and that all these things which human error admires were made by Him who created man so that he might make him a participant in His own eternity and beatitude. Who, therefore, wouldn't despise the judgment of the presiding Lord if they seek a base and abject condition of servitude? I'm not saying that servants should be held in contempt, unless they live in similar vices. For just as true and unique liberty is to serve virtue and perform its duties, so the unique and singular servitude is to be enslaved by vices.
The Illusion of Social Status
True status is not determined by fortune or servitude, but by the moral quality of one's life and loyalty.
Anyone who thinks that a person's status comes from somewhere else is clearly mistaken; all of humanity rises from the same beginning on earth, is made of and sustained by the same elements, draws the same spirit from the same source, ends under the same sky, and lives and dies just the same. That’s why Praetextatus, in his Saturnalia, uses these arguments to challenge the Gospel: "They are servants," he says, "but they are human beings." They are servants—or rather, fellow-servants—if you consider that Fortune has the same power over both; you can just as easily see him as a free man as he can see you as a servant. Don't you know at what age Exjuba began to serve, or Croesus, or the mother of Darius, or Diogenes, or Plato himself? Finally, why are we so horrified by the name of servitude? One person is a servant by necessity, but another might be a servant with a free spirit. It will only hurt him if you point out who he is not. One person serves lust, another greed, another ambition; all serve hope, and all serve fear. And certainly, no slavery is more shameful than voluntary slavery. Yet we allow those who are subject to a yoke imposed by fortune to be spoken of as miserable and vile. Every murmur is quieted by the rod, and not even accidental things are exempt from the lash. A cough, a stammer, or a hiccup—these are paid for with great suffering. So it happens that those people talk about the master, even though they aren't allowed to speak in his presence. But those who were able to speak not only in the presence of their masters but even with them—whose mouths were not sewn shut—were ready to offer their necks for their master and turn away the danger threatening their own heads. At dinner parties they would talk, but under torture they remained silent. Praetextatus said this; and he adds many excellent things about the loyalty of servants—things that would be glorious in any noble bloodline and worthy of imitation by anyone.
The Vanity of Spectacles and Sensual Pleasures
Chasing after theatrical displays and frivolous entertainments is a sign of moral decay and a loss of personal dignity.
Nothing is truly decent unless it flows from virtue, and vice and shame hem each other in with a disastrous reach. Yet it's only under the pressure of such vices that people slip, throwing themselves away and pledging their service to things they were born to command. Those who flock to shows, or who invite shameful spectacles, or who want to be a spectacle for fools by chasing after trifles—since these lures of vanity can't rightly please a wise person—are caught by the enticements of the eyes. And though they may be struck down more gently, they still fall away from the dignity of their own condition and slide back into the servile state they claim to despise. What else, then, are mimes, actors, parasites, and such monsters of men doing, except proving the foolish slavery of the fortunate? But even those who are caught by mere sounds—though their sense of hearing may be most pure and refined—are still serving, even if they are pressed by a lighter yoke, provided other vices don't prevail. For hardly anyone is ever caught by their sense of smell, unless perhaps they live like a Lotus-eater. I'm not building a case against singers or musicians, since—as Quintilian, Valerius, Flavian, and many others testify—Socrates even learned music in his old age, believing that if music were missing, a heap of wisdom would be lacking to him. Yet to be overly occupied with it, apart from philosophical gravity, is another matter. For would it really become a wise man, especially when it doesn't even escape the mark of shame in the female sex? For Sallust also criticizes Sempronia, not indeed because she knew how to dance and sing, but because she knew how to do so too well; he says: "She sang and danced more elegantly than is necessary for a respectable woman." Singing very well is clearly desirable, provided it can be done without frivolity. In all things that are inherently desirable, the more intense their quality of goodness, the more desirable they become. However, depending on the circumstances, some things can be suspect. Lucius Sulla, a man of such great reputation, was said to have sung very well; but the mark of his lust and cruelty tarnished that gift. Cato also felt that singing well was not the mark of a serious man. Consequently, he naturally calls Marcus, a senator of no small standing, a "Caecilius the wanderer" and a "Fescennine," and says in these words that he gives performances: "He gets off his horse; then he gives performances, pouring out ridiculous things"; and elsewhere: "Furthermore, he sings where it pleases him, sometimes performs Greek verses, tells jokes, changes his voice, and gives performances." Furthermore, that pleasure of the ears is pleasing to a sense of honor that is a friend to virtue, or at least is not conscious of any indecency. The pleasure of the eyes brought about actors and mimes; Scipio Africanus Aemilianus criticized this quite severely in his speech against the judicial law of Tiberius Gracchus. They are taught dishonest tricks, and with castanets, lutes, and psalteries, they go to the theater; they learn to sing things that our ancestors wanted to be considered a disgrace for freeborn children; they go, I say, into the dance school, boys and girls of good birth alike. When someone told me these things, I couldn't bring myself to believe that noble men would teach them to their children. But when I was led into the dance school, by heaven, I saw more boys and girls dancing there. Among them—and this is what I felt most deeply for the sake of the republic—I saw the son of a candidate, a boy of good standing, no younger than twelve, dancing with castanets. (Croton in Greek means 'beaten,' and that is how cymbals get their name; or it denotes a musical instrument that mimics the voice of a stork in its sound. The instrument itself is called a crotalus among the Egyptians; castanets are also called sonorous little spheres which, with certain grains placed inside, produce various sounds depending on their size and the type of metal.) A shameless little slave could not dance such a dance with any decency. It is clear, therefore, with what emotion Africanus groaned when he saw the son of a candidate—that is, an office-seeker—dancing with castanets, whom not even the hope and ambition of gaining office, at a time when he should have protected himself and his own from every disgrace, could restrain from doing what was, in fact, not even considered shameful. In fact, even during the time when the city held to the highest moral standards—specifically between the two Punic Wars—the noble sons of senators attended dance school, where they learned to dance while playing castanets. It reached the point where dance schools were by no means excluded from noble banquets. The Socratic symposium is famous for the authority of the philosophers who gathered there, yet there was no lack of those who, right under their noses, asked for a female dancer to be brought in so that a girl, more supple than nature allows, might entice the philosophers with her melodic sweetness and the slippery grace of her dancing. Furthermore, Cicero is the authority who says that actors were not considered disgraced. As Furius Albinus reports, he was on familiar terms with Roscius and Aesopus, to the point that he defended their interests with his own cleverness—a fact made clear not only by many other things but also by his letters. That speech became famous for its brilliance, in which he rebuked the Roman people for rioting while Roscius was performing. It is certainly agreed that he was accustomed to compete with the actor himself, to see whether the actor could express the same sentiment more often with various gestures, or whether he himself could express it through the abundance of his eloquence in a different way. This reality gave Roscius such confidence in his art that he wrote a book comparing eloquence with acting. This is the same Roscius who was very dear to Sulla and was gifted a gold ring by that dictator. His grace and glory were so great that he would receive a daily fee of a thousand denarii from the public treasury, alone and without his fellow actors.
The Virtue of Moderation in Leisure
While recreation is necessary for the human spirit, it must be practiced with moderation and discernment to avoid falling into vice.
It's well-established that Aesop, through this same art, left behind a fortune of twenty million sesterces. But if actors are to be admitted into the company of wise men because of the authority of Cicero and the great heroes of the past, I wish they would be like Roscius and Aesop—men who, even if they didn't practice what they knew, at least knew how to understand books and were lovers of literature rather than its enemies, which no wise or good person has ever hated. Valerius reports that Cicero despised literature and was himself a man of great abundance in that very contempt, perhaps because he put his studies after his business affairs. For he persisted in it while he despised it; and by that very contempt of Cicero, he is more studious than the study of many others. Still, I wouldn't easily believe that anyone casts off honesty for this; it's sordid and should be held in contempt. Yet what necessity introduces isn't criticized, because not everyone can do everything, and there are cases where nature demands what another finds burdensome or what one simply cannot bear at all. Philosophy, however, teaches us to observe this: everyone should avoid notoriety in all things, bringing rectitude to their actions so they aren't reprehensible, caution to their speech so it isn't contemptible, and modesty to their appearance so it isn't remarkable; for notoriety convicts one of intemperance. To this day, the intemperance of Hortensius is criticized—the man from whom those painted dandies are still called 'Hortensians,' not because he was the first, but because he was the most prominent of such men, to the point that he was enough to become the mark of his age; he was a man whose speech was openly soft and who cast aside all his dignity. He was, in fact, fastidious about the untidiness of his clothing, and so that he might go out well-dressed, he would check his appearance in a mirror. When he looked at himself, he would arrange his toga on his body so that the folds were not there by chance, but were placed by the deliberate work of a craftsman's knot, and so that the fabric, falling just right, would drape perfectly along his side. Once, while walking about dressed this way, he sued a colleague for damages because the man had bumped into him in a tight space, accidentally ruining the arrangement of his toga; he even considered it a capital offense that a fold on his shoulder had been shifted. Nothing of the sort becomes a wise or honorable man; in fact, even respectable matrons and young women about to be married would more easily and happily blush at such anxiety over their appearance, given the natural gift of their beauty. It is therefore astonishing with what shamelessness the men of our age have all but snatched away from young women the right to wear such elegant finery. What, then, of the soldiers? What of the clergy? Indeed, all these things imitate the deceptive makeup and malice of a prostitute. So what business does a man have with a mirror, unless it's in the case where Flavian testifies that Plato used one—to see how much his travels, his intense study, the sharpness of his time, and the progression of his age had changed his natural state, as evidenced by his face, which most faithfully testifies to both good and evil? He did this, of course, to preserve or restore his nature, so it wouldn't be corrupted by labor and an unusual diet. But to move on to other things: who among those people who crave the gifts of beasts would deign to be a beast? Or to whom would it not seem that they outweigh them, if they were to compare their own reason against them? Would a lion, that lover of strength, want to be a leopard? Physiologists say that other animals follow the scent of the lynx or the panther; yet I don't believe that people who soothe their sense of smell with musk and exotic spices, and provoke their desires, are actually being transformed into a panther or a lynx. I certainly wouldn't believe that someone who puts on a satyr's costume wants to be a satyr; nor will those who polish themselves be able to transform the colors of a peacock into themselves. Let them sing together and perform the best music they can; none of them will ever equal the nightingale or the parrot. Isn't it, therefore, indecent and shameful for human dignity if, having set aside its own gift in which it excels, it aspires to alien things in which it is surpassed? Truly, if moderation is applied, I don't think it's improper for a wise person to occasionally engage in these pleasures of the senses; as has been said many times, nothing is proper without moderation. For it's common for a wise person to be idle at times, not so that the exercise of virtue vanishes, but so that it may flourish more and be refreshed in a certain way. Indeed, Laelius and Scipio—that famous pair of friends—used to read together, and as Scaevola, a most reliable witness to their downtime, confirms, they would play ball when they were worn out from public business. It’s also said that Scaevola would occasionally take time for dice and board games once he had carefully and thoroughly settled the laws of the citizens and the rituals of the gods. He acted like Scaevola in serious matters, and like a human being in his pastimes, for human nature doesn't allow anyone to endure constant labor. Socrates saw this, and he is said to have known every part of wisdom; therefore, he was not ashamed when, having placed a reed between his legs, he was caught by Alcibiades playing with his young children. Homer, too, that heavenly poet of genius, meant nothing else by having Achilles play the lyre with his mighty hands than to relax the military strength of those hands through a light pursuit of peace. In short, to engage in acting, dancing, and similar forms of seduction is a sign of frivolity or depravity. But taking pleasure in them leans sometimes toward idle leisure, and sometimes toward vice. If it’s done modestly for the sake of recreation, it’s excused under the license of leisure; but if it’s done for the pleasure of a wanton soul, it falls into sin.
The Responsibility of Discernment
We must exercise careful discernment in our actions and refuse to support the vices of others, lest we become complicit in their sin.
This is easily distinguished by the previously mentioned discernment of place, time, manner, person, and cause—a discernment that someone too talkative might perhaps dwell on too much, but which a cautious mind can neither dwell on too much nor ignore. For this is the fountain and origin of all modesty, without which nothing is rightly performed in one's duties. It's certain that because of this, some things are becoming or unbecoming for different people. For what is shameful for good men like Seius and Titius will be acceptable for Crispinus. It's therefore a clear error to spend your life building a foundation of fame and glory on things that are either idle occupations or shameful business. Indeed, anyone who exhibits the wantonness of such offenders participates in their sin, and anyone who prefers to support their vice with money or favor rather than oppose it with rebuke and the withholding of funds appears to be the author of another's luxury. Ambrose is the authority who says that whoever grants indulgence to such people commits a great sin; for this fosters in them the very thing in which they are most wicked.
Read the original Latin
conformari; et quanta humanitate cum seruis uiuenb dum sit; et de trium rdiquorum sensuum uoluptate. f NuUi utique animantium generi rectius conformantur qui summum bonum uitae in gustandi et tangendi uoluptate, ne dicam luxuria, posuerunt. Ceterum hoc aliorum sensuum luxuriam non excusat, cum manif esta sit humanae dignitatis abiectio si non hirco aut sui, sed leoni aut pardo, sed panterae aut satiro, sed pauoni philomenae aut psitaco, sed cuicumque brutorum aut insensibilium studeat coaequari. Siquidem ad angelicam puritatem rectius aspirabit qui in ea creatus est dignitate originis, ut in cumulo uerae et etemae beatitudinis perfectioni angelicae possit esse conformis. Nam et patrum inconcussa sanxit auc ctoritas quia natura humanae mentis solus Deus dignior est, et quod omnia haec, quae humanus miratur error, ut homini seruiant ab eo facta sunt qui hominem fecit ut etemitatis et beatitudinis suae participem faceret. Quis ergo praesidentis Domini non uilipendat arbitrium si serui uilem et abiectam affectat conditionem? Non tamen quod semos dicam habendos esse contemptui, nisi semilibus uitiis uiuant. Sicut enim uera et unica libertas est semire uirtuti et ipsius exercere officia, ita unica et singularis semitus est uitiis subiugari.
Errat plane quisquis aliunde conditionem altemtram opinatur accidere; siquidem omne hominum genus in terris simili ab ortu surgit, eisdem constat et alitur elementis, eundemque spiritum ab eodem principio carpit, eodemque fmitur celo, aeque moritur, aeque uiuit. Vnde et Praetextatus in Satumalibus Euuangelum reprimens his utitur argumentis: Serui, inquit, sunt, immo homines. Semi sunt, immo consemi, si cogitaueris tantundem in utrosque licere Fortunae; tam tu illum uidere libemm potes quam ille te seraum. Nescis qua etate Exjuba semire coeperit, qua Cresus, qua Darii mater, qua Diogenfis, qua Plato ipse? Postremo quid ita nomen semitutis horremus? Semus est quidem,sed necessitate; sed fortasse libero animo semus est. Hoc illi nocebit, si ostenderis quis non sit. Alius Hbidini seruit, alius auaritiae, alius ambitioni, omnes spei, omnes timori.
Et certe nulla a Beruitus turpior quam uoluntaria. At nos lugo a fortuna imposito subiacentem tamquam miserum uilemque calloquantur pennittunt. Virga murmur omne compescitur, et ne fortuita quidem uerberibus exeepta sunt. Tussis, Btemutamentum, singultus magno malo luitur. Sic fit ut isti de domino loquantur quibus coram domino loqui non licet. At illi, quibus non tantum praesentibus dominis sed cum ipsis erat sermo, quorum os non consuebatur, parati erant pro domino porrigere ceruicem et periculum imd minens in caput suum uertere. In conuiuiis loquebantur Bed in tormentis tacebant. Haec Praetextatus; et de fide seruorum multa et praeclara subiungit et quae essent in quantauis nobilitate sanguinis gloriosa et cuiuis imitanda.
Nichil enim decorum est quod non a uirtute profluxerit, et se inuicem turpitudo et uitium infausto ambitu circumscribunt. In hoc autem solo uitiorum impulsu quisque prolabitur, ut eorum se deiciat et deuoueat seruituti quibus natus est imperare. Qui ad spectacula confluunt aut euocant ad se spectacula inhonesta aut se ipsos affectatis nugis uolunt esse spectaculo insipientium, quoniam haec lenocinia uanitatis recte sapienti placere non possunt, a oculorum capiuntur illecebris et, licet mitius elidantur, comiunt tamen a dignitate conditionis suae et ad eam quam diflfitentur seruilem relabuntur. Qnid ergo aliud faciunt mimi, histriones, parasiti, et huiusmodi monstra hominum, nisi quod ineptam conuincunt felicium seruituas tem Sed et illi qui uoculis capiuntur (licet aurium sensus purissimus et defecatissimus sit) seruiunt quidem, iugo tamen premuntur mitiori, si alias non praeualeant uitia. Nam ab olfactu uix aliquis omnino capitur, nisi forte Lotofagum uiuat. Non aliquid aduersus cantores aut musicos struo, cum (teste Quintiliano, Valerio, Flauiano, et aliis multis) Socrates etiam in senectute didicerit musicam credens, si musica deforet, sibi cumulum sapientiae defub turum. In ea tamen nimium occupari citra philosophicam grauitatem est. Numquid enim uirum decebit sapientem, praesertim quod etiam in sexu muliebri turpitudinis non effugit notam?
Nam et Salustius Semproniam reprehendit non quidem quod saltare et psallere sed quod optime scierit, Ait enim: Psallere saltare elegantius quam necesse est probae. Optime tamen cantare, si citra leuitatem posset haberi, plane desiderabile est. In omnibus enim quae simpliciter expetibilia sunt, quo intensiora sunt in qualitate boni, eo expetibiliora sunt. Sed ex adiunctis possunt nonnuUa esse suspecta. Lucius Silla uir tanti nominis optime cantasse traditur; sed dotem libidinis et crudelitatis nota perstrinxit. Catoni quoque uisum est bene cantare non serii hominis esse. Vnde nimirum Marcum senatorem non ignobilem Cecilium spaciatorem et Fescenninum uocat, eumque staticulos dare his uerbis ait: Descendit de canterio; inde staticulos dare, ridicularia fundere; et alibi: Praeterea cantat ubi collibuit, interdum Grecos uersus agit, iocos dicit, uoces demictat, staticulos dat. Porro illa uoluptas aurium grata est honestati quae uirtutis est amica aut non est conscia turpitudinis.
Oculorum uero uoluptas histriones introduxit et mimos; quod et Scipio Affricanus Emilianus in oratione contra legem iudiciariam Tiberii Gracci non mediocriter reprehendit. Docentur praestigias inhonestas, cum cinedulis et sambuca psalterioque eunt in ludum histrionum, discunt cantare qoae maiores nostri ingenuis probro ducier uoluerunt; eunt, inquam, in ludum saltatorium inter einedos uirginea puerique ingenui. Haec cum quisquam michi narrabit, non poteram animum inducere ea liberos suos homines nobiles docere. Sed cum ductus sum in ludum saltatorium plus mediusfidius in eo ludo uidi pueris uirginibusque ducentis. In his, quod me rei publicae maxime misertum est, uidi xmum filium petitoris, puerum buUatum, non minorem annis duodecim, cum crotalis saltare. (Croton Grece pulsus dicitur et inde cimbala sic dicuntur; uel musicum notat instrumentum quod in sono uocem ciconiae imitatur; nam ipsa apud Egiptios crotalus appellatur; crotala quoque a dicuntur sonorae sperulae quae quibusdam granis interpositis pro quantitate sui et specie metalli uarios sonos edunt.) Quam saltationem impudicus seruulus honeste saltare non posset. Patet ergo quanto afiectu ingemuerit Affncanus quod uidisset cum crotalis saltare filium petitoris, id est candidati, quem ne cimi quidem spes et ratio adipiscendi magistratus, quo tempore se suosque ab omni probro debuit uendicare, potuerit cohercere quo minus faceret quod scilicet turpe non habebatur.
Nam et ab eo tempore quo optimis moribus in urbe uiuebatur, scilicet inter duo bella Punica, ingenui filii senatorum in ludum saltatorium commeabant et illic crotala gestantes saltare discebant. Adeo quidem ut ab heroycis conuiuiis nequaquam arceretur ludus saltatorius; nam et Socraticum simposium ab auctoritate philosophorum, qui illic conuenerant, celebre est; et tamen non defuit qui sub illorum supercilio peteret saltriam intromitti ut puella supra naturam mollior canora dulcedine et saltationis lubrico exorceret illecebris philoRophantes. Cetenim hiHtrionoa non inter turpcR habitos Cicero auctor est qui, Bicut Furius Albinus refert, RoHcio et Esopo familiariter usus est, adeo quidem ut res rationesfiuo eorum sua Bollertia tueretur; quod cum ex aliis multis, tum ex epistolis eius doclaratur. Nam illa oratio cclebritate sui innotuit in (jua popuhim Romanum obiur at quod Roscio agente tumultuarit. Et quidem constat cum ipso histrione contendero solitum utnim ille sacpiuH oandom sentontiam uariis goHtilms efficorot an ipse per eloquontiae copiam i sermono diuerso pronuntiaret. Quae rea ad hanc artis Buao fiduciam Roscium abstraxit ut liV)nim conscriboret quo eloquontiam cum histrionia compararet. Is est Roscius qui etiam Sillae cariHHimuH fuit ot anulo aureo ab eodom dictatore donatus est. Tanta autom fuit gratia et gloria ut morccdem diurnam de puV lico millo donarios sine gregalibus solus acciporot.
Esopum quoquo ex pari arte ducenties sextortium roliquisse constat. Sed utinam, si histrioncs uidentur ob auctoritatom Ciceronis et praodid ctorum heroum in cetum sapientium admittondi, oligantur Roscio similes et Esopo qui, otsi non facere (quod tamen illi nouorant), uol intelligore libros sciant ot amatoros sint potius quam impugnatoros littorarum, (juas nemo umquam sapiens aut bonus odio habuit. Ciceronom rofort Valorius littoras contompsisse et in contomptu ipso fuisse fontera habundantissimum littoranim, ob hoc forte quod studium negotiis postponebat. Nam institit ois dum contompsit; ipsoque contemptus Ciceronis multorum studio studiosior est. Non facile tamen credidorim ad hoc quomquam expellit honestatem, sordidum est et habendum in sordibus. Non tamen arguitur quod necessitas introducit, quia non omnes omnia possunt, et est cuius natura exigit unde alius honeratur aut quod omnino ferre non potest. Hoc autem philosophia praecipit obseruari, ut quisque in omnibus fugiat notam, indicens actioni rectitudinem ne sit reprehensibilis, sermoni cautelam ne sit contemptibilis, habitui modestiam ne sit notabilis; intemperantiam namque nota conuincit. In hodiernum diem arguitur intemperies Hortensii, a quo isti dealbati adhuc dicuntur Hortensiani, non quod primus sed quod praecipuus talium fuerit, adeo ut suffecerit ad notam seculi sui; uir utique alloquio ex professo mollis et in praecinctu ponens omnem decorem suum.
Fuit enim uestitu ad immunditiem curioso et, ut bene amictus iret, faciem quaerebat in speculo. Vbi se intuens, togam corpori sic applicabat ut rugas ne forte sed industria locatas artifex nodus astringeret et sinus ex composito defluens modum lateris ambiret. Is quondam, cum incederet elaboratus ad speciem, coUegae de iniuriis diem dixit quod sibi in angustiis obuius offensu fortuito structuram togae destruxerat; et capitale putauit quod in humero suo locum ruga mutasset. Nichil tale sapientem decet aut uirum probum; immo et matronae honestae et uirgines nupturae facilius et felicius ob dotem formae tantam cultus sui soUicitudinem erubescunt. Mirum itaque est qua impudentia etatis nostrae cultus gestare decoros uix nuribus rapuere mares. a Quid ergo quod milites? Quid quod clerici "? Siquidem haec omnia fallacem meretricis fucum et malitiam imitantur.
Quid ergo uiro cum speculo, nisi in eo casu quo illud Platonem gestasse testis est Flauianus, ut uideret in eo quantum peregrinatio, studii fenior, acumen temporis, procesdus etatis de naturali statu mutasset faciei indicio, quae bona et mala fidelissime protestatur? Hoc quidem egit ut seruaret aut releuaret naturam, ne labore et dieta insueta corrumperetur. Vt autem ad alia transeamus, quis istorum, qui dotes brutonim affectat, brutus esse dignetur Aut cui non praeponderare uidebitur, si coUatam sibi prae illis conferat rationeml Numquid uirium amator leo uellet esse aut pardus? Dicunt phisiologi quia lincis aut panterae odorem animalia cetera sequuntur; istos tamen qui musco et speciebus exoteris placant olfaetum et prouocant uelle (si possent) non arbitror in panteram aut lincem transformari. Non utique credam quod qui satirum induit satinis esse uelit; sed nec illi qui seipsos poliunt pauonis in se poterunt transformare colores. Concinant hi et totius musicae melos pro uiribus expleant, nemo eorum philomenam aequabit aut psitacum. Nonne ergo indecens et probrosum est humanae celsitudini si, postposita dote Bua, in qua praeualet, ad alienas, in quibus superatur, aspirat Verum, si moderatio adhibeatur, in his interdimi sensuum uoluptate uersari sapienti non arbitror indecorum; ut saepenumero dictum est, nichil decorum est sine modo. Nam et otiari interdum sapienti familiare est, non tamen ut uirtutis exercitium euanescat, sed quo magis uigeat et quodammodo recreetur.
Siquidem Lelius et Scipio, illud par amoris insigne, simul lectitabant et, sicut remissionis eorum certissimus testis Sceuola auctor est, ciuilibus fatigati negotiis pila ludebant. Idem quoque Sceuola aleae et calculis interdum uacasse traditur, cura bene ac diu iura ciuium cerimoniasque deorum ordinasset. Vt enim in rebus seriis Sceuolam, ita in lusibus hominem agebat, quem rerum natura continui laboris patientem esse non sinit. Idque uidit Socrates, qui nullam sapientiae partem dicitur habuisse ignotam; ideoque non erubuit tunc cum, interposita arundine cruribus suis, cum paruulis filiolis ludens ab Alcipiade risus est. Homerus quoque, celestis uates ingenii, non aliud sentit uehem ntissimis Achillis manibus canoras fides oltando nisi ut earum militare robur leui pacis studio relaxaret. In summa histrioniam saltatoriam et huiusmodi lenocinia exercere leuitatis aut turpitudinis est. Sed delectari in eis nunc ad otia, nunc ad flagitia accedit. Si enim modeste fiat ad recreationem, sub otiandi licentia excusatur; si ad la ciuientis animi uoluptatem, cadit in crimen.
Haec a tem facillime distinguit loci temporis modi personae et causae superius memorata discretio, quam forte nimis reuoluere posset a lingua uerbosior, sed eam mens cauta reuoluere nimis aut continere non potest. Haec est enim fons et origo totius modestiae, sine qua nichil recte in officiis exercetur. Ab hac alios alia decere uel dedecere certum est. Nam quod turpe bonis Seio Titioque decebit Crispinum. Perspicui ergo erroris est ad fundamentum famae et gloriae consumere uitam in talibus quae aut otiosae occupationes sunt aut flagitiosa negotia. Profecto sic delinquentium particeps est qui eorum lasciuiam exhibet, et auctor uidetur esse luxuriae alienae qui eam mauult sumptibus prosequi uel fauore quam persequi increpatione adhibita et sumptibus denegatis. Siquidem Ambrosius auctor est quia qui taUbus donat peccatum grande committit; hoc enim fouet in eis, in quo nequissimi sunt.
Policraticus companion
Study the argument weekly; pray the tradition daily
Pair the outline with the Chosen Portion app, which serves short daily portions from the same royal devotional tradition — free on iOS.
John of Salisbury argued that rulers must keep the law of God before their eyes daily; Chosen Portion gives modern readers that same daily discipline in five minutes a morning.
- 8 weeks, one book per week, with the 3-4 key chapters flagged in each
- Discussion questions usable for a reading group from week one
- A daily 5-minute companion portion in the app alongside your weekly study