Pakobckuu
-
Posts
5 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Static Pages
News
Blogs
Gallery
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Pakobckuu
-
-
Book (Volume) I of Seneca's "De Ira" in Latin is here: https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/sen/sen.ira1.shtml
Book II in Latin is here: https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/sen/sen.ira2.shtml
Book III in Latin is here: https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/sen/sen.ira3.shtml(Question 1) Do you agree or disagree with Plato's maxim below?
In Book I, Section XIX, Seneca describes "he who while free from anger assigns to each man the penalty which he deserves". Seneca comments:QuoteIn all dealing with crime he will remember that the one form of punishment is meant to make bad men better, and the other to put them out of the way. In either case he will look to the future, not to the past: for, as Plato says, "no wise man punishes any one because he has sinned, but that he may sin no more: for what is past cannot be recalled, but what is to come may be checked."
Certainly there is a pragmatic aspect to Plato's idea. That is, Plato bases his maxim on the only practical use for punishment being to stop further crime.
On the other hand, doesn't such reasoning contradict the theory behind the divine Last Judgment? During the Last Judgment, God would reward or punish everyone according to their deeds, beliefs, and personal worth, even though there is no practical use in stopping the culprits' future misconduct because they are already dead. On the other hand, it could be argued that the hopes and fears of future reward and punishment, such as in the Afterlife, have practical value in influencing altruism and crime.(Question 2) How does Seneca's theory that the gods neither wish harm nor are capable of harm compare with Calvin's and Augustine's ideas of destiny, predestination and fate? Does Seneca consider the gods responsible for the natural order and uncaring about going out of their way to harm people, whereas Calvin and Augustine see God as particularly attentive to humans' fates?
In Book II, Seneca appears to not consider the gods responsible for people's destinyQuoteThere are some things which are unable to hurt us, and whose power is exclusively beneficial and salutary, as, for example, the immortal gods, who neither wish nor are able to do harm: for their temperament is naturally gentle and tranquil, and no more likely to wrong others than to wrong themselves. Foolish people who know not the truth hold them answerable for storms at sea, excessive rain, and long winters, whereas all the while these phenomena by which we suffer or profit take place without any reference whatever to us: it is not for our sake that the universe causes summer and winter to succeed one another; these have a law of their own, according to which their divine functions are performed. We think too much of ourselves, when we imagine that we are worthy to have such prodigious revolutions effected for our sake: so, then, none of these things take place in order to do us an injury, nay, on the contrary, they all tend to our benefit. (Chapter 27)
...in any case let us not be angry with ourselves..., and least of all with the gods: for whatever we suffer befalls us not by any ordinance of theirs but of the common law of all flesh. (Chapter 28)
I read that John Calvin took his fatalism and his idea of predestination in part from the Stoics. Here, Seneca does not seem to portray the gods as particularly responsible for people's fates. In contrast, I think that Calvin believed that due to His omniscience and omnipotence, God was truly and fully responsible for peoples' fates, and that therefore people did not really have free will.
(Question 3) Can you explain Seneca's idea, underlined below?
In Book II, Chapter 30, Seneca writes:
"Is it a good man who has wronged you? do not believe it: is it a bad one? do not be surprised at this; he will pay to someone else the penalty which he owes to you—indeed, by his sin he has already punished himself."(Question 4) Let me ask about Seneca's instructions for situations where assailants are stronger than their victims. If someone severely hurt someone else, like inflicting rape or another injury, shouldn't the victim choose to press charges, effectively using the courts and state for revenge?
If a stronger person keeps bullying or hurting you, what about the effectiveness of fighting back in order to get the bullying to stop, even though your opponent is stronger?
I like a lot of what Seneca says on this topic in Book III, but I am uncertain about the last scenario he refers to, where the assailant is stronger:QuoteMoreover, even if we pass over its immediate consequences, such as heavy losses, treacherous plots, and the constant anxiety produced by strife, anger pays a penalty at the same moment that it exacts one: it forswears human feelings. The latter urge us to love, anger urges us to hatred: the latter bid us do men good, anger bids us do them harm. Add to this that, although its rage arises from an excessive self-respect and appears to show high spirit, it really is contemptible and mean: for a man must be inferior to one by whom he thinks himself despised, whereas the truly great mind, which takes a true estimate of its own value, does not revenge an insult because it does not feel it. As weapons rebound from a hard surface, and solid substances hurt those who strike them, so also no insult can make a really great mind sensible of its presence, being weaker than that against which it is aimed. How far more glorious is it to throw back all wrongs and insults from oneself, like one wearing armour of proof against all weapons, for revenge is an admission that we have been hurt. That cannot be a great mind which is disturbed by injury. He who has hurt you must be either stronger or weaker than yourself. If he be weaker, spare him: if he be stronger, spare yourself.
(Question 5) What do you think about Seneca's recommendation against great undertakings or those which will not give us success, when the challenges are great, daunting moral ones like the abolition of slavery or Apartheid? Living in the early 19th or mid 20th c., respectively, success in abolishing them was not attained, and was also stressful, yet was it also not a worthy task nonetheless?
In Book III, Seneca recommends against great undertakings or those which will not give us success:QuoteA man's day, if he is engaged in many various occupations, never passes so happily that no man or no thing should give rise to some offence which makes the mind ripe for anger. Just as when one hurries through the crowded parts of the city one cannot help jostling many people, and one cannot help slipping at one place, being hindered at another, and splashed at another, so when one's life is spent in disconnected pursuits and wanderings, one must meet with many troubles and many accusations. One man deceives our hopes, another delays their fulfillment, another destroys them: our projects do not proceed according to our intention. No one is so favoured by Fortune as to find her always on his side if he tempts her often: and from this it follows that he who sees several enterprises turn out contrary to his wishes becomes dissatisfied with both men and things, and on the slightest provocation flies into a rage with people, with undertakings, with places, with fortune, or with himself. In order, therefore, that the mind may be at peace, it ought not to be hurried hither and thither, nor, as I said before, wearied by labour at great matters, or matters whose attainment is beyond its strength.
Be assured that the same rule applies both to public and private life: simple and manageable undertakings proceed according to the pleasure of the person in charge of them, but enormous ones, beyond his capacity to manage, are not easily undertaken. When he has got them to administer, they hinder him, and press hard upon him, and just as he thinks that success is within his grasp, they collapse, and carry him with them: thus it comes about that a man's wishes are often disappointed if he does not apply himself to easy tasks, yet wishes that the tasks which he undertakes may be easy. Whenever you would attempt anything, first form an estimate both of your own powers, of the extent of the matter which you are undertaking, and of the means by which you are to accomplish it: for if you have to abandon your work when it is half done, the disappointment will sour your temper. In such cases, it makes a difference whether one is of an ardent or of a cold and unenterprising temperament: for failure will rouse a generous spirit to anger, and will move a sluggish and dull one to sorrow. Let our undertakings, therefore, be neither petty nor yet presumptuous and reckless: let our hopes not range far from home: let us attempt nothing which if we succeed will make us astonished at our success.
On the other hand, perhaps Seneca's comments about such real life situations hold major truths. I have experienced instances where I wanted or tried something great and it was beyond my grasp, depending on how one looks at it.
(Question 6) Do you agree with Seneca's claim, underlined below?
In Book III, Section XXVI, Seneca recommends bearing one's injuries, and compares this endurance to bearing mistreatment from a sick or insane person. He then asserts that the evil-doers will still undergo punishment:QuoteWhy do you bear with the delirium of a sick man, or the ravings of a madman, or the impudent blows of a child? Because, of course, they evidently do not know what they are doing: a man be not responsible for his actions, what does it matter by what malady he became so: the plea of ignorance holds equally good in every case. "What then?" say you, “shall he not be punished?" He will be, even supposing that you do not wish it: for the greatest punishment for having done harm is the sense of having done it, and no one is more severely punished than he who is given over to the punishment of remorse.
-
Some writers have proposed that Seneca, in his essay "On Anger"/"De Ira", alluded to Jesus when he spoke of a foreign crucified leader. It is perhaps relevant that Seneca dedicated "On Anger" to his older brother Gallio, who in the Book of Acts rejected a Jewish petition to punish Paul for contradicting the Torah.
Since it was written after January 41 AD, Seneca could have reasonably known about Jesus when he composed De Ira.
QuoteThe exact date of the writing of the work is unknown, apart from an earliest date (terminum post quem), deduced from repeated references by Seneca to the episodic anger of Caligula, who died 24 January 41 AD.[3][4] Seneca refers to his brother by his native name, Novatus, rather than his adoptive one, Gallio, which he bore by 52/53 AD, suggesting the work may date from the mid 40s AD.
Volume I of De Ira in Latin is here: https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/sen/sen.ira1.shtml
Volume II of De Ira in Latin is here: https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/sen/sen.ira2.shtmlIn his first chapter, Seneca introduces general philosophical criticisms of anger, also noting how angry people act like they are crazy. Then in chapter 2 in De Ira, in order to further criticize anger, give examples, and show the reader how it is harmful and cruel, Seneca lists manifestations of anger and then six cases of leaders who were the unfortunate victims of anger:Quote2. Next, if you choose to view its results and the mischief that it does, no plague has cost the human race more dear: you will see slaughterings and poisonings, accusations and counter-accusations, sacking of cities, ruin of whole peoples, the persons of princes sold into slavery by auction, torches applied to roofs, and fires not merely confined within city-walls but making whole tracts of country glow with hostile flame. See the foundations of the most celebrated cities hardly now to be discerned; they were ruined by anger. See deserts extending for many miles without an inhabitant: they have been desolated by anger.
See all the chiefs whom tradition mentions as instances of ill fate; anger stabbed one of them in his bed, struck down another, though he was protected by the sacred rights of hospitality, tore another to pieces in the very home of the laws and in sight of the crowded forum, bade one shed his own blood by the parricide hand of his son, another to have his royal throat cut by the hand of a slave, another to stretch out his limbs on the cross: and hitherto I am speaking merely of individual cases.
The underlined phrase says in Latin, "alium in cruce membra diffindere".
Seneca here is suggesting his own sympathy for the victims and finds that they were treated unjustly. He lists the crucified one last, which suggests that this victim was the latest in the list. By listing the crucified victim last, he also suggests that this one was dealt with most severely, since in the preceding sentences, Seneca builds up his list of manifestations of anger, going from "slaughterings" up to describing whole territories destroyed and turned into desert by anger.
(Question 1) Would you have access to Léon Herrmann's book Chrestos, read French, or consider it helpful in understanding the passage?
The reason that I ask is that I have found few scholars trying to interpret this passage.
Livio Stechini draws several conclusions about the figures in the passage based on Hermann's book, writing:
QuoteSeneca lists six great men of the past who aspired to royalty but came to an evil end, the last being condemned to have his limbs split asunder upon a cross. The context indicates that this unnamed individual was of foreign nationality, and that his death occurred later than that of Pompey [d. 48 BC]--hence within living memory. See Léon Herrmann, Chrestos (Brussels, 1970), pp. 41-43.
https://www.metrum.org/gosen/fromtraggospel.htm(Question 2) Could one of those killed really have been Pompey, as Stechini theorized above?
The Wikipedia article says that Pompey was stabbed by three assassins, the first Achillas was head of the army, Lucius Septimius had been an officer, and the third was Savius (I don't know if he was a slave).
Septimius "thrust a sword into Pompey and then Achillas and Savius stabbed him with daggers." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pompey#Civil_war_and_assassination)The Tektonics webpage comments on Stechini's theory:
QuoteI'm curious what "context" is supposed to implicate a foreigner, apart from the fact that a Roman of rank would not have been crucified. And it is not only this individual who is unnamed; all six are unnamed, a fact which clearly indicates Seneca expected them to be familiar to his audience.
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/seneca.phpIt would make sense that Seneca did not name the leaders killed if they (like Jesus) were out of favour with or killed by Rome, since Seneca reasonably might not have wanted to openly appear to be supporting them.
It also makes sense that the 6th person listed would be a foreigner, since he suffered crucifixion.
(Question 3) Did Ptolemy of Mauretania have his throat was cut by a slave?
Ben Smith of the Text Excavation project wrote:QuoteI asked for candidates for these six victims of anger on the FRDB (formerly the IIDB), and Jeffrey Gibson further submitted my inquiry to Classics-L, and the following are the suggestions for each victim:
Stabbed in bed: Candaules by Gyges.
Struck down at a banquet: Cleitus the black by Alexander of Macedon.
Killed in the forum: Lucius Appuleius Saturninus by a mob.
Parricide: The only suggestion was Oedipus as a sort of archetypal figure, but the one making the suggestion acknowledged that it seemed less apt than the suggestions for the rest of the list.
Throat slit by a slave: Ptolemy of Mauretania on orders from Caligula.
Crucified: Gavius by Verres, or Hannibal (a Carthaginian general, but not the famous Hannibal Barca) by his own men.http://www.textexcavation.com/seneca.html
I am skeptical about the proposals for these candidates. Ptolemy of Mauretania was killed in 40 AD, but I couldn't find confirmation that his throat was cut by a slave.I am also very skeptical that the 6th figure listed above could have been Gavius or the crucified general Hannibal. Gavius was a Roman citizen, but I didn't find him described as a leader or "chief". Wenhua Shi writes about Gavius and Hannibal in his book Paul's Message of the Cross as Body Language:
QuoteA good example would be Cicero's accusation of Verres, former governor of Sicily, for inflicting the cruel penalty of crucifixion on a Roman citizen, Gavius, without adequate investigation and proof to show that he was indeed a spy. This unjust action of Verres was clearly unbearable and scandalous to Cicero...
Furthermore, the Hannibal mentioned above was a general crucified in 238 BC or 257 BC, long before Pompey or Ptolemy of Mauretania, whom Seneca likely listed before the crucified, 6th "chief".
While Hannibal's killing in the form of crucifixion was severe, it would have been foreseeable (unlike a particularly unlucky surprise fate) in that he was a general waging a war during a time when captives were sometimes crucified, as when Alexander of Macedonia crucified many people in Tyre after his conquest.
There is a pattern of people in Seneca's list being killed in some treacherous circumstance, like stabbing someone in his bed or killing someone else when the rules of hospitality demanded their protection. General Hannibal's killing by his own men would fit that pattern, but the peaceful Jesus' betrayal by Judas and his accusation by the Sanhedrin and crucifixion for being a rebel "king of the Jews" despite seeking a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly one would fit that mold too.(Question 4) Was the Carthaginian general Hannibal crucified in 238 BC after defeat in Sardinia or 257 BC after defeat in Tunis?
Wikipedia has this entry for Hannibal:QuoteHannibal (died 238 BCE) was a Carthaginian general who took part in the Mercenary War between Carthage and rebel mercenaries. He should not be confused with the more renowned Hannibal Barca, son of Hamilcar Barca...
During the siege of Tunis he was captured during a night raid and crucified, along with some other high-ranking Carthaginians.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_(Mercenary_War)The Livius encyclopedia has this entry for Hannibal:
QuoteHannibal ( †257): Carthaginian general, played a role during the first years of the First Punic War. [First Punic War was in 264-241 BCE]
In 258, he was sent to Sardinia, which he had to defend against the Romans. However, he was no match for the Roman commander Gaius Sulpicius Paterculus, who defeated him. Hannibal was crucified by his own men.
http://www.livius.org/articles/person/hannibal-2(Question 5) Is it correct to say that Regulus was killed by crucifixion? Regulus was a Roman consul killed by the Carthaginians in 250 BC:
QuoteHe was a Consul captured by Carthaginians during the Punic War and held captive. The Carthaginians sent him to Rome (250 BC)to argue for an exchange between Carthage and Rome of captives and for peace. Instead he argued against the exchange and peace, because it was not in the best interests of Rome. He then kept his word and went back to Carthage where he was mercilessly tortured to death. He is considered an idealized Roman for his loyalty to Rome above all else, his honor, as well his ability to stratagize.
http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/showthread0660.html?t=64505Elsewhere Seneca does write about Regulus' crucifixion:
QuoteON PROVIDENCE, III.
. . . Let us come now to Regulus+: what injury did Fortune do to him because she made him a pattern of loyalty, a pattern of endurance? Nails pierce his skin, and wherever he rests his wearied body he lies upon a wound; his eyes are stark in eternal sleeplessness. But the greater his torture is, the greater shall be his glory. Would you like to know how little he regrets that he rated virtue at such a price? Make him whole again and send him back to the senate; he will express the same opinion.Do you, then, think Maecenas a happier man, who, distressed by love and grieving over the daily repulses of his wayward wife, courted slumber by means of harmonious music, echoing faintly from a distance? Although he drugs himself with wine, and diverts his worried mind with the sound of rippling waters, and beguiles it with a thousand pleasures, yet he, upon his bed of down, will no more close his eyes than that other upon his cross. But while the one, consoled by the thought that he is suffering hardship for the sake of right, turns his eyes from his suffering to its cause, the other, jaded with pleasures and struggling with too much good fortune, is harassed less by what he suffers than by the reason for his suffering. Surely the human race has not come so completely under the sway of vice as to cause a doubt whether, if Fate should give the choice, more men would rather be born a Regulus than a Maecenas; or if there should be one bold enough to say that he would rather have been born a Maecenas than a Regulus, the fellow, although he may not admit it, would rather have been born a Terentia/a!
Certainly Seneca reveres Regulus, and by including him in a book "On Providence" shows that Regulus was "ill-fated". Plus, he was killed in treacherous circumstances, since he was acting as a diplomat from Rome to Carthage. So he looks like a good candidate. However, Regulus was not a nation's "chief", nor did he die after Pompey or Ptolemy of Mauritania.
One thing that makes me question whether Regulus was killed by crucifixion is how Seneca writes in an Epistle about Regulus being in a chest:
QuoteEPISTLE LXVII.
......
Now a life of honour includes various kinds of conduct; it may include the chest in which Regulus was confined, or the wound of Cato which was torn open by Cato's own hand, or the exile of Rutilius, or the cup of poison which removed Socrates from gaol to heaven.Note Tetullian's passage about Regulus in On Martyrs and compare it with Seneca's description of the crucified chief in Latin ("alium in cruce membra diffindere"):
QuoteChapter 4
.....
Regulus, a Roman general, who had been taken prisoner by the Carthaginians, declined to be exchanged for a large number of Carthaginian captives, choosing rather to be given back to the enemy. He was crammed into a sort of chest; and, everywhere pierced by nails driven from the outside, he endured so many crucifixions.IN Latin
Regulus, dux Romanorum, captus a Carthaginensibus, cum se unum pro multis captivis Carthaginensibus compensari noluisset, maluit hostibus reddi et in arcae genus stipatus undique extrinsecus clavis transfixus, tot cruces sensit.
-
Maybe they were worried about trolls, spammers, and bots coming on and posting useless messages and this is a way to narrow down the possibility. Personally, I like it better when they don't do it this way, but lots of forums do.
-
I plan on using an avatar that says Packback, because it's a logo that bears similarity to the way that my username looks.
-
I rate it 5. It's a decent Roman picture, but it's too blurry.
PLINY THE ELDER'S NATURAL HISTORY (c.78 AD) 2 Questions on Nazarenes
in Romana Humanitas
Posted · Edited by Pakobckuu
(Question 1) Was Pliny the Elder in his Natural History referring to the Christian community around Apamea as the "Nazarenes"?
Pliny writes in Book V, Chapter 19 of his Natural History:
In the New Testament, Paul is accused of being a leader of the Nazarene sect (Acts 24:5), and Tertullian (late 2nd c. - early 3rd c.) says that the Christians were called Nazarenes by the Jews. And according to the 4th c. writers Eusebius and Epiphanius, the Jewish Christians fled from Jerusalem to the area of Pella in Perea (in modern Jordan) before the war of 70 AD in anticipation of the war. So about the time when Pliny wrote his Natural History (c.78 AD), the Nazarene Christians likely were inhabiting the region of Pella. Further, in this passage, Pliny says that the tetrarchy of the "Nazarenes" was living near Apamea (in Syria), which was also called Pella. Pliny also described the Essenes in detail a few chapters earlier (in Chapter 15 of Book 5), so it would fit the context for Pliny to describe the Nazarene Christians as well.
However, there are some scholarly objections to equating Pliny's Nazarenes with the Christians. Pliny is often considered to have described a pre-Christian "Nazarene" sect in Syria because his writing on the Levant commonly describes the region as it was in the time of Marcus Agrippa (63-12 BC), whose writings formed a major source of Pliny's information.
Besides that, Pliny in the first century describes the Nazarini as living near Apamea/Pella in Syria, whereas Eusebius and Epiphanes in the fourth century describe the Nazarenes as living in Pella in what is today Jordan. It could be that Pliny was mistaken about the location (Syria v Jordan) or else that the fourth century writers were mistaken, or it could be that these really were two different Pellas with two different groups of "Nazarenes".
(Question 2) What does Pliny mean when he says that the Nazarenes are ruled by a "tetrarchy"?
The term "tetrarchy" literally means that four people rule over a group. The term "tetrarchy" is common for the chapter that mentions the Nazarenes. In the same chapter, Pliny names about 20 other "tetrarchies" in the region. Perhaps it doesn't literally mean that the community was ruled by four persons, but rather that they were part of the Herodian system, wherein Herod the Great's kingdom was broken into quarters, each ruled by a king descended from Herod and subject to Rome?