De frugalitatia commendatione, et Twta Quin
The Virtue of Frugality
The author defends frugality as a noble virtue against those who mistake it for greed or a cover for vice.
…in Seneca; and how the suspicion of greed can be frugally avoided. I seem to pursue luxury in the name of frugality, and foolish people who live and speak without discernment mockingly throw that saying of Publius Clodius at me: 'frugality is the misery of a good reputation.' These are the people who, while they don't want to or cannot avoid luxury, think that everything said in favor of virtue is just a cover for greed. It is, however, otherwise. No one doubts that luxury is shameful in itself, and although frugality is a praiseworthy source of virtues and good works, it doesn't please everyone; nor do they believe that greed, the tinder of malice, can be avoided unless frugality is also avoided. This is certainly the opinion of the unlearned; for as the ethicist says: 'While fools avoid vices, they run into the opposite, retreating from the middle ground of vices, which is the region of virtue.' There are, however, those for whom frugality must be restrained, such as those whose nature is more inclined toward greed. Yet there are those for whom it must be urged more strictly, such as those who squander their own resources and, having disregarded reason, pour them away, not distinguishing between use and abuse. Horace reports that Servius Oppidius of Canusium used this very temperament in his final words when he saw his sons caught up in the opposite plague. It's clear, however, that frugality should be counted among the virtues, as it was the very thing that tempered the golden age when Saturn reigned and managed all its affairs. This is what kept Astraea and Modesty on earth for so long, until, as luxury grew and Jupiter reigned, they happened to fly back to the heavens. This story concerns us, so we might know that justice and modesty cannot be preserved without frugality. For the necessity of indulging in luxury excludes justice, and the pleasure of such activity drives away modesty. For it says: Whoever is in a hurry to get rich will not be innocent. Yet that remark of Clodius doesn't blacken the honor of frugality at all; rather, it seems to commend its beauty. For it is clear that what is assumed as a defense and excuse for a bad reputation is by no means evil. A dark color makes black seem less intense, and what is bloated is honored by the name of fullness. Frugality, however, is a virtue that governs how we use things and knows nothing of abusing them. It doesn't provide anything coldly or timidly, yet it maintains a rational limit on spending. It spares things, but it spares itself even more. It takes nothing, or very little, away from what is useful, but it indulges in no luxury at all, as it is most diligent. What Zeno, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and the whole chorus of philosophers have handed down about maintaining frugality is enough to commend it. But because these are very old names, or their teachings aren't well-known, let our Seneca be heard; he praises it so highly that anyone who tries to add anything at all seems to be doing nothing rather than acting more correctly. Still, there are those who dare to despise him, relying on the authority of Quintilian, ennobling their own judgment by disparaging someone who is popular with many, so that they might appear to surpass in glory, among the unlearned, those whose virtue they cannot imitate.
Judging the Critics
A critical evaluation of Seneca's literary style and moral authority, contrasting his critics with his value as a teacher of virtue.
Still, it seems foolish to me that those who follow anyone else don't honor the man whom the Apostles clearly knew personally, and whom the most learned father Jerome included in his catalog of saints. However, so you can judge for yourself based on Quintilian's own opinion, here are the words he wrote to disparage Seneca after listing those other writers: "I deliberately put off Seneca in every genre of eloquence because of the widely held but false opinion about me, that I was believed to condemn him and even hold him in contempt." This happened to me while I was trying to restore a style of speaking that had become corrupt and broken by all sorts of vices to more rigorous standards, at a time when this style was almost the only one in the hands of young people. I certainly didn't try to get rid of him entirely, but I wouldn't let him be preferred over better writers—writers he hadn't stopped attacking, since he was conscious of his own different style and doubted he could please in the same way they did. They loved him more than they imitated him, and they fell as far short of him as he had fallen short of the ancients. For it would be desirable to become his equal, or at least his near-equal; but he was popular only for his vices, and everyone directed themselves toward imitating whatever they could of those, and then, when they boasted of speaking in the same way, they brought Seneca into disrepute. He had many other great virtues: a quick and abundant talent, great diligence, and a vast knowledge of things, though in that knowledge he was sometimes deceived by the very people he asked to investigate certain matters. He also covered almost every subject of study; for his orations, poems, letters, and dialogues are all still in circulation. He wasn't very diligent in philosophy, but he was an outstanding critic of vices. His work contains many clear insights and many types of moral instruction worth reading, but most of his writing is corrupt in style—and all the more dangerous because it abounds with such sweet vices. You would wish he had spoken from his own genius, rather than by someone else's judgment. For if he hadn't despised his peers, if he hadn't craved so little, if he hadn't loved all his own work, and if he hadn't broken the weight of his subject matter with such tiny, fragmented sentences, he would be approved by the consensus of learned men rather than by the love of children. Yet, even so, it should be read by those who are already robust and sufficiently grounded in a more serious style, if only because it can exercise one's judgment in both directions. For as I said, there is much in him to be approved, and much even to be admired; but the task of choosing is a serious one—something I wish he had done himself. His nature was indeed worthy of wanting better things; he accomplished what he willed. This is what Quintilian had to say about Seneca; but whether he was right, I leave to the judgment of the wise. However, I certainly don't think we should dismiss what he attributes to him—namely, a great elegance of character, even if his way of speaking is corrupted. Let his moral precepts be accepted, then, and let everyone speak in the style they prefer; it will be clear that the streams of virtue arise from the purest fountain of frugality. Read his Letters, his books on Benefits or Clemency, and also those he illustrated under the guise of student declamations with the opinions of the ten Orators, as well as those he published on Natural Questions and those in which Quintilian argues against people who aren't diligent enough in philosophy. Everywhere he appears as a faithful guardian of virtue and an enemy of vice—so much so that Fronto (who some say was Plutarch's nephew, mentioned by Juvenal in his first book: 'The plane trees and shattered marbles of Fronto cry out') always asserts, I say, that he wipes out all errors in such a way that he seems to be restoring a golden age and, through his works, calling back the gods who had fled from the human race to mingle with men in a shared society. I would easily agree that Quintilian was more learned and that he surpasses him in the sharpness and gravity of his speech; but the other is more diligent, and he wins as much in ethics as he is defeated in rhetoric. Quintilian himself also considers frugality to be among the great and primary goods, and he is so significant in his commendation of it that he could suffice on his own. Yet who is there who doesn't praise it? Who doesn't believe it is necessary? However, so that I'm not accused by the luxurious of being a greedy praiser of frugality, I believe and confess that it is connected to liberality.
True Generosity vs. Vain Display
True generosity is contrasted with the manipulative 'gifts' of the greedy, using the example of Job to illustrate authentic charity.
Cicero is my witness, as are Julius Caesar and others whom no one would dare accuse of stinginess. Much has been said about this above, and the duties of generosity are easily learned from the books of De Officiis. Yet, to reveal the true face of noble generosity, the most noble, praiseworthy, and indisputably best way of giving is the one that excludes any hope of repayment. Giving with the expectation of a return is foreign to generosity and is consistent with greed. After all, a moneylender sometimes gives a little something just so he can get back more. Hence Cocus says: 'Gargilianus, since you send huge gifts to the elderly and to widows, do you rightly call yourself generous?' There is nothing more sordid or filthy than you, who can call your traps 'gifts'. In the same way, a deceptive hook indulges a greedy fish, and bait deceives foolish wild beasts. If you don't know what it means to be generous or to give, I'll teach you; give, Gargilianus, if you want to be seen as a generous man. Do you want to hear what true and fruitful generosity is? Look at the man lying in the ash heap, crawling with worms, scraping the pus from his body with a piece of pottery. Listen to what a just man, one who fears God and turns away from evil, has to say. He certainly doesn't say, 'The harp and the lyre, the psaltery and the flute, and every kind of music were at my feasts.' He doesn't say, 'I feasted sumptuously every day.' He doesn't say he was searching for flavors from every element, anxiously gathering things that would only turn into waste, or that his belly was distended and easily overflowing into lust. He doesn't say, 'I was clothed in purple and fine linen, or in embroidery, desiring what the Egyptian needle covered with the complex patterns of the Seres in the false images of a vain life, and I shone in gilded garments, surrounded by variety.' He didn't say: 'Beggars, actresses, clowns, and that whole crowd were flocking to me from everywhere—noisy hunters, lying confectioners, vain actors, greedy parasites, deceitful prostitutes, rumor-mongers, liars, and those who report or sing songs of empty tales.' He didn't say: 'I was feeding lions, bears, and monkeys, or other such monsters and disgraces of nature.' What, then? Aren't these the things by which the generosity of our age is illustrated? Can generosity exist without them? He says: 'May my shoulder fall from its socket and my arm be broken at the bone if I denied what the poor wanted, if I made the widow wait for her eyes, if I ate my morsel alone and the orphan did not eat from it, if the traveler stayed outside and my door was not open to the wayfarer, if I looked down on the passerby because he had no clothing, or the poor man without a covering, if his sides did not bless me and he was not warmed by the fleeces of my sheep.' Which one seems more generous to you: this man, or Antony, who didn't believe generosity could be satisfied unless he provided for gluttony and every kind of luxurious vice? Do you see that the suspicion of greed can be frugally avoided in many ways?
The Sacred Duty of Hospitality
Hospitality is presented as a holy duty that transcends social status and even religious enmity, exemplified by the saints and the story of Gregory of Neocaesarea.
The Apostle commends the virtue of hospitality, through which guests who were so attentive to God were so pleasing to Him that they even earned the right to welcome angels into their home. Abraham went out to meet the men coming down the road and, desiring the grace of practicing hospitality, brought the angels into his home, won over by his humility and his prayers. Yet he didn't set before them any incentives for gluttony, nor did he turn the calf he took from the herd into a 'Trojan' feast through extravagant expense and the art of cooks. Lot also, urged by devotion, brought the angels—those heralds of luxury—into his house; and although he didn't serve them with gluttony or any other form of luxury, nothing was lacking in his charity, to such an extent that he would rather have exposed his virgin daughters to the fury of the Sodomites than his guests. When a feast day was being celebrated in the house of Tobias, he said, 'Go and bring some from our tribe who fear God,' for he didn't think a feast day could be properly observed unless charity had added someone to the domestic gathering. But in all these cases, the dispensation of charity is ordered in the same way. For those whom Abraham saw coming down the road are given greater authority than others, because they walk on the road of morals—that is, the law of the Lord. And those are rightly described as 'descending' whom grace has destined for a visit and for providing an opportunity to earn merit in the sight of a faithful father of a family. In the same way, he first recognizes his own people—those who specifically acknowledged the Lord—and within that group, he prefers those who aren't recommended by bloodlines or the empty allurements of the world, but by the light of divine fear. The holy man certainly didn't choose those who were empty-headed or empty-talkers, but rather those who bore the image of the God he worshipped. But did the celebration of a feast day, the gathering of brothers, or the richness of the food ever hold back this holy man from doing what was customary? In fact, even in the midst of the guests' joy, when he was rebuked by his brothers, he set out after sunset to bury the Hebrew he had heard was struck down by the wicked, because he hadn't been permitted to do so earlier. He didn't fear offending a prince while fulfilling a duty of charity; he was clearly like the one who preferred to suffer a grave injury from his wicked fellow citizens against himself and his offspring rather than against the guests he had taken in. The disciples also used persuasion to keep the Lord, who wanted to go further, as their guest; and by prescribing for us a form of hospitality, they compelled him by their example, and they seemed to have yielded to him the first place, whom they later recognized as the Lord in the breaking of the bread. For we don't read that any delicacies were set before him, except those that necessity perhaps required. Our own Britain also produced Alban, a man distinguished by his duty of hospitality, who preferred to expose himself to the threats of tyrants rather than the Christian guest he had taken in. Why do I speak of the faithful? Even those without faith are used to defending the guests they've taken in for four days, even against their own enemies and at their own risk. For anyone who denied the protection of human kindness to an enemy—that is, to a stranger—before the fifth day was considered to have incurred a mark of guilt. In fact, according to Cicero, because of the fairness owed to guests, the term 'enemy' was used in ancient times for what we now call a 'stranger'; anyone who was unkind to such a person was considered unjust under ancient law. The tables of the law and the legal title that reads 'A day appointed with an enemy' declare this. Whoever truly shows kindness to a guest and fulfills the duty of love doesn't withhold anything that reason allows them to offer. You certainly pour out your heart to guests, but if you're discreet and mindful of your duty, you don't push them toward shameful things, nor do you urge them into something you wouldn't want to be urged into yourself. Therefore, every kindness and sober generosity must be exercised toward a stranger who is a guest; and the stranger, with a tenacious memory of benefits received, ought to return a fuller gratitude to the host who is a local. Neither a title of opposing religion nor one of previous enmity cancels out this gratitude. For even the blessed Gregory, Bishop of Neocaesarea, when caught in the Alps by an urgent storm and the stress of the weather, turned aside into a temple of Apollo that was worshipped there by the locals; and though he was received with the utmost kindness by the priest of that place—a pagan—he, mindful of his duty and the hospitality he had received, used the priest's prayers to release Apollo, whom he had suspended from giving responses and mocking the souls of men. You can find these details more fully in Eusebius of Caesarea's Ecclesiastical History. His account establishes that the disgruntled priest followed Gregory, complaining of ingratitude and reproaching him for repaying kindness with such an unfair burden. He eventually brought a letter from the holy man back to his Apollo, addressed: 'Gregory to Apollo.' 'I permit you to return to your place and do what you are accustomed to do.' Once the priest delivered the letter to the idol, the released demon began mocking him with responses just as it had before. Whereupon the priest, marveling at the majesty of Him whose humble servants can even command the gods of the gentiles and, by a word, suspend and torment them, despised his own Apollo and, following Gregory, attached himself to him; and having become a disciple of Christ, he who had been a priest of Apollo progressed so far in faith and religious life that he is believed to have succeeded the blessed Gregory in the leadership of the church of Neocaesarea. And so, the host's diligence was rewarded first with kindness, and then with salvation.
The Path of Virtue
The author concludes by contrasting the disciplined life of the virtuous with the debauchery of the gluttonous, urging the reader to pursue true glory.
Finally, even if there were no rule among pagans for how to treat guests, the blessed Benedict, in his chapter on guests, seems to express a frugal hospitality that is not only religious but also courteous and refined. However, what is read and held by many in the Cistercian book of customs regarding the two points of establishing hospitality is foreign to all civility, not to mention humanity—if it is even true that such things are found in customs of such perfection, namely that meat is not served to guests and nothing is bought for them, when perfection itself relaxes fasts for the sake of a guest and, in many ways, indulges charity at the expense of its own rigor. Even a pagan seems to show more faithfulness and familiarity regarding virtue in this area; he decreed that whatever is available in the house should be served to guests with cheerful modesty, and that whatever isn't at home but can be found at a neighbor's should be bought. I would believe it better and more perfect for virtue to relax itself a little and be modestly foolish; for as the pagan says, it is sometimes sweet to be foolish in the right place, and this is as consistent with virtue as it is with humanity. Augustine and Jerome also propose many things pertinent to this matter. Blessed Gregory also criticizes a certain man as if he were a miser, because he heard the man never invited anyone to practice charity in his own home. Still, I don't believe such a great father would want a luxurious banquet prepared for guests. Who doubts that you can avoid greed while still being frugal? And who would dare to label Abraham, Lot, Tobit, and Job as greedy? You've already heard the description of blessed Job. Now, if you like, hear how Marcus Caelius describes Antony: He says that those entering found him overcome by a drunken sleep, snoring deeply and belching, while his illustrious companions lay across all the couches and the rest were scattered about. Terrified by the news of the enemy's arrival, they tried to wake Antony by calling his name and lifting his head in vain; some called gently in his ear, others more loudly, and some even struck him. As he recognized the voice and touch of each of them, he would reach out to embrace the neck of whoever was closest; once roused, he could neither sleep nor, in his drunkenness, stay awake, but was tossed about in a half-drunken stupor between the hands of his centurions and concubines. These things were either true or at least plausible. For nothing could be imagined more credible, more vehemently denounced, or more clearly demonstrated than these things. In short, then, one must either pursue virtue or despair of glory; for glory comes from nowhere else.
Read the original Latin
tiliani in Senecam; et quomodo frugcditer possit auaritiae svspicio deuitari. Luxuriam persequi uideoradlaudemfrugalitatis,michique ab insulsis inepte uiuentibus et indiscrete loquentibus illud Publii Clodii subsannando ingeritur quia frugalitas boni rumoris miseria est. Hi sunt qui, dum luxuriam uitare nolunt uel nequeunt, quicquid pro uirtute dicitur auaritiae patrocinium putant. Secus quidem est. Luxuriam per se turpem nemo ambigit et, licet frugalitas sit tamquam uiriiutum bonorumque operum origo laudabilis, non tamen omnibus placet; nec credunt auaritiam malitiae fomitem posse uitari nisi et frugalitas fugiatur. Nempe indoctorum haec opinio est; ut enim ait ethicus: Dum uitant stulti uitia, in contraria currunt, recedentes a medio uitiorum, quae regio uirtutis est. Sunt tamen quibus frugalitas est inhibenda, ut quorum natura procliuior est ad auaritiam. Sunt tamen quibus est indicenda calcatius, ut qui sua prodigimt et ratione contempta effundunt, non discementes quid usus sit uel abusus.
Quo quidem temperamento usum esse Seruium Opidium Canusinum in ultimo elogio, cum filios peste contraria uideret occupatos, refert Oratius. Simpliciter tamen constat frugalitatem in bonis numerandam, utpote illam quae Satumo regnante regna aurea temperauit et eorundem omnia dispensauit officia. Haec est quae Astream et Pudicitiam in terris diutius tenuit, donec eas, inualescente luxu, regnante loue, ad superos contingit euolasse. Nos haec fabula respicit, ut sciamus sine frugalitate non posse iustitiam aut pudicitiam conseruari. Siquidem necessitas exercendi luxus excludit iustitiam, et exercitii uoluptas pudicitiam propellit. Ait enim: Qui festinat ditari, non erit innocens. Illud tamen Clodii nequaquam denigrat frugalitatis honorem, sed uidetur potius commendare decorem. Constat enim nequaquam malum esse quod in patrocinium et exa cusationem sinistri rumoris assumitur.
Sic fuscus color nigrum extenuat; et quod turgidum est nomine plenitudinis honoratur. Est autem frugalitas uirtus moderatrix utendi et abutendi ignara. Nichil gelide ministrat aut timide; sed ei tamen ratio constat impensae. Rebus quidem, sed sibi magis parcit. Nichil aut minimum subtrahit usui, sed luxuriae nichil omnino indulget, siquidem diligentissima est. Possunt ad commendationem eius sufficere quae Zeno, quae Socrates, quae Plato, quae Aristotiles, quae omnium philosophorum chorus de frugalitate seruanda tradiderunt. Sed quia haec peruetusta sunt nomina aut eorum non sunt praecepta celebria, uel Seneca noster audiatur, qui eam tantis laudibus efFert ut quisquis aliquid omnino adicere temptauerit, otiari quam aliquid agere rectius uideatur. Sunt tamen qui eum contempnere audeant, Quintiliani auctoritate freti, suum ex eo nobilitantes iudicium si ei detrahant qui plurimis placet, ut apud indoctos eorum gloriam uideantur praecedere quorum uirtutem nequeunt imitari.
Michi tamen desipere uidentur qui quemcumque secuti non uenerantur eum quem et Apostoli familiaritatem memisse constat et a doctissimo patre leronimo in sanetorum catalogo positum. Vt tamen de Quintiliani possis iudicare iudicio, uerba ipsius, quae scriptoribus enumeratis in suggillationem Senecae posuit, haec sunt: Ex industria Senecam in omni genere eloquentiae distuli propter uulgatam falso de me opinionem qua dampnare eum et inuisum quoque habere creditus sum. Quod accidit michi, dum corruptum et omnibus uitiis fractum dicendi genus reuocare ad seueriora iudicia contendo, cum iam solus hic fere in manibus adolescentium fuerit. Quem non equidem conabar omnino excutere, sed potioribus praeferri non sinebam, quos ille non destiterat incessere, cum, diuersi sibi conscius generis, placere se in dicendo posse in quibus illi placerent diffideret. Amabant eum magis quam imitabantur, tantumque ab illo defluebant quantimi ille ab antiquis descenderat. Foret enim optandum pares ac saltem proximos illi uiro fieri; sed placebat propter sola uitia, et ad ea se quisque dirigebat effingenda quae poterat, deinde, cum se iactaret eodem modo dicere, Senecam infamabat. Cuius et multae alioquin et magnae uirtutes fuerunt, ingenium facile et copiosum, plurimum studii, multa rerum cognitio, in qua tamen aliquando ab hiis, in quibus inquirenda quaedam mandabat, deceptus est. Tractauit etiam omnem fere studiorum materiam; nam et orationes eius et poemata et epistolae et dialogi feruntur.
In philosophia parum diligens egregius insectator uitiorum fuit. Multae in eo claraeque sententiae, multa etiam morum genera legenda, sed in eloquendo corrupta pleraque, atque eo pemiciosissima quod habundabant dulcibus uitiis. Velles enim eum suo ingenio dixisse, alieno iudicio. Nam si nil aequalium contempsisset, si parum non concupisset, si non omnia sua amasset, si rerum pondera minutissimis sententiis non a fregisset, consensu potius eruditorum quam puerorum amore comprobaretur. Verum sic quoque iam robustis et seueriore genere satis firmatis legendum uel ideo quod exercere potest utrumque iudicium. Multa enim, ut dixi, probanda in eo, multa etiam admiranda sunt; eligere uero curae sit, quod utinam ipse fecisset. Digna enim fuit illa natura quae meliora uellet; quod uoluit eifecit. Haec in Senecam Quintilianus; sed an recte senserit sapientiorum iudicio derelinquo.
Hoc tamen quod ei adscribit, multam morum scilicet elegantiam, etsi in eloquendo corruptam, nequaquam arbitror detrahendum. Moralia ergo eius praecepta admittantur, et eo genere loquatur quisque quod ceteris praefert, et planum erit uirtutum riuulos de purissimo fonte frugalitatis oriri. Legantur Epistolae eius, libri de Beneficiis aut Clementia, illi quoque quos decem Oratorum sententiis sub imagine declamationum scolarium illustrauit, et hii quos de Naturalibus Quaestionibus edidit et quos de philosophia parum diligentes arguit Quintilianus; ubique fidelis custos uirtutis, ubique uitiorum hostis occurrit, tantus utique ut eum Fronto, secundum quosdam nepos Plutarchi, cuius meminit in primo luuenalis sic: Frontonis platani conuulsaque marmora clamant; semper eum, inquam, sic asserit uniuersos exterminare errores ut aurea uideatur secula reformare, et deos ab humano genere exulantes eius opera reuocatos hominibus contracta societate miscere. Consentiam facile litteratiorem extitisse Quintilianum et acumine et grauitate dicendi praecedere; at ille diligentior est, et quantum in rethoricis uincitur tantum uincit in ethica. Ipse quoque Quintilianus in magnis et praecipuis bonis frugalitatem ducit et in commendatione eius tantus est ut uel solus possit sufficere. Quis tamen est qui non laudet? Quis non eam necessariam credit? Ne tamen a luxuriosis arguar auarus frugalitatis laudator, eam liberalitati credo et fateor coherere.
Cicero michi testis est et lulius Cesar et alii quos nemo tenacitatis insimulare praesumet. Aduersus hanc multa superius dicta sunt, et liberalitatis officia ex libris Officiorum facile innotescent. Vt tamen liberalid tatis ingenuae facies denudetur, modus ille largiendi nobilior et laudabilior est et absque omni contradictione optimus qui spem remunerationis excludit. Siquidem ad retributionem dare, a liberalitate alienum est et consentaneum auaritiae. Nam fenerator, ut plus recipiat, interdum aliquid praelargitur. Vnde Cocus: Munera quod senibus uiduisque ingentia mittis, iuste munificum, Gargiliane, uocem? Sordidius nichil est, nichil est te spurcius uno, qui potes insidias dona uocare tuas. Sic auidis fallax indulget piscibus hamus, eallida sic stultas decipit esca feras.
Quid sit largiri, quid sit donare docebo, si nescis; dona, Gargiliane, michL a Vis hominem uidere liberalem? Vis ueram et fructuosam largitatem audire? Deflecte oculos ad eum qui uermibus scatens iacet in sterquilinio et testa fluentem de corpore saniem radit. Audi quid loquatur uir iustus et timens Deum et recedens a malo. Non utique dicit: Cythara et lira, psalterium et sambucca et omne genus musicorum in eonuiuiis meis. Non dicit: Epulabar cotidie splendide. gustus per omnia elementa quaerens; sollicitudine multa contrahens, unde conficerentur stercora aut uenter distentus facile in libidines dispumaret. Non dicit: Induebar purpura et bisso opereue plumario, affectans quod Nilotis acus complexum pectine Serum falsis inanis uitae obduxit imaginibus, et uestibus fulgebam deauratis, circumdatus uarietate.
Non dixit: Ad me conb fluebant undique mendici, mimae, balatrones, hoc genus omne, uenatores clamosi, dulchorarii mendaces, histriones uani et parasiti edaces, meretrices dolosae, rumigeruli, falsiloqui, et relatores aut concentores inanium fabularum. Non dicit: Leones ursos alebam et simias et huiusmodi monstra aut probra naturae. Quid ergo? Nonne haec sunt quibus nostrae etatis liberalitas illustratur? Numquid sine his largitas esse potest? Humerus, inquit, meus a iunctura sua cadat, et brachium meum cum ossibus conteratur, si negaui quod uolebant pauperibus, si oculos uiduae expectare feci, si comedi buccellam meam solus et non comedit pupillus ex ea, si foris mansit pere nus et ostium meum non patuit uiatori, si despexi praetereuntem eo quod non habuerit indumentum et absque operimento pauperem, si non benedixerunt michi latera eius et de uelleribus ouium mearum calefactus est. Vter tibi uideatur liberalior, hic an Antonius, qui liberalitati satisfieri posse non credidit nisi gulam et totius luxuriae uitia procuraret? Videsne quia multiplici uia potest auaritiae suspicio frugaliter declinari?
Hospitalitatis bonum commendat Apostolus per quod Deo adeo officiosi hospites placuerunt ut etiam angelos hospitio recipere mererentur. Abraham descendentibus in uia uiris occurrit et, exercendae liberalitatis optans gratiam, angelos in hospitium humilitate uictos et precibus introducit. Eis tamen incentiua gulae nequaquam apponit, nec uitulum, quem de armento tollit, impendiis rerum et cocorum arte fecit esse Troianum. Loth quoque luxuriae prmitores angelos deuotione urgente in domum suam egit, et licet eis ad gulam aliamue luxuriam non seruiret, nichil tamen defuit caritati; adeo quidem ut et Sodomitarum furori uirgines filias quam hospites mallet exponere. Cum in domo Tobiae dies festus ageretur, Vade, inquit, et adduc aliquos de tribu nostra timent s Deum; neque enim diem festum agi posse putabat nisi aliquem ad domesticum cetum caritas adiecisset. Sed in omnibus his eadem est ordinatae dispensatio caritatis. Quos enim per uiam descendentes a aspexit Abraham, illis potiorem praestant auctoritatem qui in uia morum, lege scilicet Domini, gradiuntur. Et recte descendentes scribuntur quos ad uisitationem et praebendam materiam promerendi ad conspectum fidelis patris familias gratia destinauit.
Sic et iste primo tribum suam agnoscit, quae Dominum specialiter agnoscebat, et in ea ipsa illos ceteris praefert, non quos sanguis aut lenocinia mundi exinaniti commendant, sed quos diuinus timor illustrat. Non utique uentriloquos et uaniloquos uir sanctus asciuit, sed eos qui Dei, quem colebat, imaginem praeferebant. Sed numquid diei festiuitas fratrum cetus aut opulentia eduliorum a gerendis pro more sanctum hominem retardauit? Vtique in ipsa letitia conuiuantium, increpatus a fratribus, Hebreum, quem ab impiis percussum audierat, post solis occubitum, quia ante non licuit, profectus est sepelire. Nec ueritus est offensam principis, dum expleret officium caritatis; illi plane consimilis qui in se et sobole quam in hospitibus recipere maluit a conciuibus hixuriosis insignem iniuriam, Discipuli quoque persuab sionibus usi sunt ut Dominum uolentem ire longius hospitio detinerent, et nobis hospitahtatis formam praescribentes exemplo coegerunt eum, uisique sunt ei locum cessisse primum quem postmodum agnouerunt Dominum in fractione panis. Alias namque delicias, nisi quas forte necessitas exigebat, ei non legimus fuisse appositas. Britannia quoque nostra produxit Albanum, ab officio hospitalitatis insignem, qui seipsum maluit tirannorum exponere tehs quam hospitem quem susceperat Christianum. Quid de fidelibus loquor"?
cum etiam infideles consueuerint etiam aduersus hostes et proprio periculo patrocinari quos infra quadriduum hospitio suscepissent. Criminis enim contrahebat notam quisquis ante quintum diem hosti, id est peregrino, humanitatis patrocinium denegabat. Auctore siquidem Cicerone ob aequitatem hospitibus exhibendam hostis dicebatur antiquitus quem modo dicimus peregrinum; cui quisque fuerit inhumanus, de iure antiquo iniquus est. Declarant hoc legum tabulae et titulus iuris qui est: Statutus dies cum hoste. Qui uero humanitatem exhibet hospiti et caritatem implet, nichil eorum subtrahit quae ratio permittit exponi. Effundit quidem in hospites uiscera sua; sed memor officii, si discretus est, ad turpia non impellit, nec urget quempiam in id in quod se nollet urgeri. Est itaque in hospitem peregrinum omnis humanitas et sobria liberalitas exercenda; et indigenae hospiti gratiam pleniorem referre debet tenaci beneficiorum memoria peregrinus. Hanc quoque gratiam nec aduersae religionis nec praecedentis inimicitiae titulus perimit.
Nam et beatus Gregorius Gneocesariensis episcopus, cum urgente temporis et procellae angustia in Alpibus intereeptus in fanum Apollinis, qui ibi ab indigenis colebatur, diuertisset et a sacerdote loci, licet profano, officiosissime exceptus esset hospitio, memor officii et hospitii, Apollinem, quem suspenderat a responsis et ludificationibus animarum, sacerdotis precibus relaxauit. Siquidem apud Eusebium Cesariensem in Ecclesiastica Historia poterunt haec plenius inueniri. Ek)que referente constat quod sacerdos querulus, beatum Gregorium prosecutus et agens aduersus eum ingratitudinis et exprobrans humanitati suae iniquo pondere esse repensum, hanc a sancto uiro ad Apollinem suum epistolam reportauit: Gregorius Apollini. Permitto te redire ad locum tuum et agere quae consueuisti. Cum ergo idolo sacerdos epistolam reddidisset, solutus demon responsis more solito ludificare coepit. Vnde sacerdos, admiratus illius maiestatem cuius serui humiles possunt sic etiam diis gentium imperare et uerbo suspendere et torquere, contempto Apolline suo sequensque Gregorium adhesit ei, factusque discipulus Christi qui sacerdos Apollinis fuerat ita in fide et religione profecit ut beato Gregorio eredatur in regimine Gneocesariensis ecclesiae successisse. Et sic quidem sedulitas hospitis humane prius, deinde salubriter remunerata est. Postremo, etsi urbanitatis in hospites exercendae apud ethicos regula nulla esset, beatus Benedictus in capitulo de hospitibus frugalem humanitatem non modo religiose sed etiam comiter et urbane uidetur exprimere.
Hoc tamen quod in libro consuetudinum Cisterciensium apud plerosque legitur et tenetur, quod ad duos articulos spectat hospitalitatis instituendae, ab omni ciuic litate, ne dicam humanitate, alienum est; si tamen uerum est hoc in tantae perfectionis consuetudinibus inueniri ut nec carnes apponantur hospitibus nec propter eos aliquid ematur; cum et ipsa ieiunia propter hospitem perfectio soluat et in multis de rigore suo plurimum indulgeat caritati. Ethnicus quoque in eo fidelius et familiarius uidetur insistere uirtuti, quod statuit ut ea quae intus sunt hospitibus hilari modestia apponantur, quodque domi non est et habet uicinus, ematur. Crediderim satius esse et perfectius ut se ipsam paululum uirtus soluat modesteque desipiat; nam et in loco desipere, ut ait ethnicus, interdum dulce est et tam uirtuti consentaneum quam humanitati. Augustinus quoque et leronimus ad hanc rem pertinentia multa proponunt. Sed et beatus Gregorius electionem cuiusdam quasi auari reprobat, eo quod audierat ipsum ad caritatem domi suae exercendam neminem inuitasse; nec tamen crediderim quod tantus pater luxuriosum conuiuium uellet instrui inuitatis. Quis ergo ambigit auaritiam posse frugaliter declinaril Aut quis audebit Abraham Loth Thobiam et lob auaritiae nota respergere? Beati lob descriptionem audisti. Nunc, si uis, audi quomodo Marcus Celius describit Antonium: Ingredientes, inquit, ipsum offendunt temulento sopore profligatum, totis praecordiis stertentem, ructuosos spiritus geminare, praeclarasque contubernales ab omnibus spondis transuersas incubare et reliquas circuma iacere passim; exanimatae terrore ab hostium aduentu percepto excitare Antonium conabantur; nomen inclamabant, frustra ceruicibus tollebant, blandius aliae ad aurem, aliae uehementius inuocabant, nonnuUae etiam feriebant.
Quarum cum omnium uocem tactumque nosceret, proximae cuiusque coUum amplexu petebat neque dormire excitatus neque uigilare ebrius poterat, sed semisomno sopore inter manus centurionum concubinarumque iactabatur. Haec quidem aut uera fuerunt aut uerisimilia. Nichil enim hiis neque credibilius fingi neque uehementius exprobrari neque manifestius ostendi potuit. In summa ergo aut uirtuti insistendum est aut de gloria desperandum; gloria siquidem aliunde non prouenit.
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