On the Benefits of Lucius Annei Seneca. About blessings. About the book "On Good Deeds" by Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Numbering of paragraphs according to the Latin original is given in square brackets.

The Greek script is used.

BOOK ONE

Chapter 1

After all, everyone is obliged only to himself for what he received from another (as it were) without his knowledge. One should not be slow either, for whoever did it slowly, obviously, had no desire to do it for a long time, and in any business hunting is highly valued. In particular, beneficence must not be offensive. Indeed, if nature has so arranged that insults leave a deeper trace than good deeds, and the latter soon disappear from memory, while the former remain in it for a long time, then what can one expect who, by providing a beneficence, inflicts an offense? To such a person worthy gratitude is rendered by the one who forgets his beneficence. The mass of ungrateful people should not cool our zeal for charity. For, firstly, we ourselves, as I said, increase it. Secondly, the immortal gods themselves do not get disgusted with their generous charity, despite the existence of blasphemers and people who treat them with disdain. They continue to act in accordance with their nature and give their help to everything, among other things, and to those people who do not understand well their good deeds. Let us follow their example, as far as human weakness will allow; let us give good deeds, and not give at interest. He is quite worthy to be deceived who, while giving, thinks of repaying.

"Charity is ill received." But after all, both children and spouses deceived our hopes, nevertheless we educate and marry, and go against experience to such an extent that, once we have experienced defeat, we again wage wars, once we have been shipwrecked, we again launch into the sea. How much more noble it is to be constant in beneficence! Whoever does not render favors for the reason that he does not receive them back, he obviously renders them with the aim of returning them; in this he gives a plausible excuse for the ungrateful. However, it is shameful even for these last people to refuse good deeds, although they deserve it. How many unworthy of the world - however, the day is coming, how many complain that they were born, but nature produces new generations and tolerates the existence of those who themselves would rather wish not to live at all! It is natural for an exalted and kind soul to look not for the fruits of good deeds, but for the good deeds themselves, and to look for good ones among bad people. What greatness would there be in benefiting many if no one deceived? Virtue in this case is the provision of benefits without any expectation of their return. The fruits of good deeds are reaped by the noble person immediately. Ingratitude should not embarrass us and settle apathy for such a wonderful cause, so that even if I were completely deprived of the hope of finding a grateful person, then even in that case I would rather not receive benefits back than not give them. For whoever does not do good deeds anticipates the transgression of the ungrateful. I will express my opinion: whoever does not return good deeds, he sins more, whoever does not give, he rather 1
"Qui beneficium non redelit, magis peccat, qui non datcitius"- The first sins because, already being indebted, he does not return, and the last - because he does not lend. Thus, the former commits an offense - more serious, and the latter - earlier in time and, as it is said: "precedes the offense of the ungrateful."

Chapter 2

“When you begin to lavish good deeds on the crowd, then you have to lose a lot of them in order to one day (do) put it well” 2
Some commentators attribute this verse to Actius, the famous Roman tragedian, others to a certain Cyrus, a writer of comedies.

In the first verse one cannot agree with anything, firstly, because good deeds should not be squandered on the crowd, and secondly, because extravagance is generally not worthy of praise, especially in good deeds. If you do good deeds without being guided by reason, then they cease to be such and receive some other name. Noteworthy is the second verse, where one well-provided good deed is considered as compensation for the loss caused by the loss of many. But look, I ask you, whether it would not be closer to the truth, and more consistent with the dignity of a virtuous person, to advise him to do good deeds even when there is no hope of doing one well. The fact is that the assumption that “many (good deeds) must be lost” is unfounded ...

And does not remind of them every day and hour like a greedy lender. A good person never thinks about them, unless he reminds the person who returns (debt). Otherwise, the beneficence takes the form of a loan. Recording good deeds as an expense is shameful usury. Whatever happens to your first gifts, keep on giving them out; it is better if they are in the hands of ungrateful people, whom, in time, shame, or some accident, or imitation can make grateful. Do not retreat: continue your work and strive for the lot of a virtuous man. Give help: to whom with means, to whom by credit, to whom by disposition, to whom by advice, to whom by useful instructions. Beasts and those are aware of their duties. There is not a single wild animal that cannot be tamed and tied to itself through caring care. So tamers touch the mouths of lions with impunity; wild elephants, with the help of food, are tamed to such an extent that they obediently send work 4
Captured elephants were usually tamed by hunger and attached to those who gave them food after that. (Pliny).

Thus, constant benefactions subdue even beings who are devoid of reason and the ability to appreciate them. Was your first good deed treated with ingratitude? The second one won't be treated that way. Forgot about both? The third will bring to mind and forgotten!

Chapter 3

Good deeds are lost by those who soon come to the conclusion that they have lost them. 5
Cf.: Plin. epp. III, 4: “Nature has arranged it so that former blessings are forgotten if they are not reminded of by new ones. People who owe us a lot, if once they are denied something, they remember only what was denied them.

But whoever preserves constancy and multiplies the former good deeds with new ones, he vomits gratitude even from a hard and ungrateful heart. An ungrateful person will not dare to raise his eyes to much. Wherever he turns, running away from his conscience, let him see you everywhere. Bind him with the bonds of your good deeds!

I will now turn to a consideration of the essence and properties of benefits, if you will allow me, in advance, to briefly mention that which is not directly related to the case. Why are there three Graces, why are they sisters to each other, why are they intertwined with their hands, why are they smiling, why are they (depicted) virgins and dressed in spacious and transparent clothes? 6
In this form, painters usually painted graces and depicted sculptors.

Some argue that one of them depicts giving a boon, the other receiving, the third returning back. Others see in them the personification of three kinds of blessings: giving, returning, giving and returning together. But do you admit that this or that explanation is true - what use will we have from this knowledge? What does the circle of graces mean, entwined with their hands and facing one another? That good deeds, passing in succession from hand to hand, nevertheless in the end return again to the one who gives them. This order is completely destroyed, as soon as it is violated, and, on the contrary, it takes on an extremely beautiful appearance, as soon as reciprocity (consistency) is preserved and retained in it. The Graces smile: this is because the faces of those who give or receive good deeds are usually joyful. They are young, for the memory of good deeds must not grow old. They are virgins, for (good deeds) are blameless, pure and holy for all. There must be nothing involuntarily, bound or forced in beneficences - that is why the graces are dressed in spacious tunics, and moreover in transparent ones, for benefactions require that they be seen.

I will find another poet, whose graces are girded and dressed in Phrygian 8
Woven from Phrygian wool and embellished with embroidery, which was first introduced by the Phrygians, according to Pliny.

clothes. In a similar way they are depicted with Mercury, not because good deeds are praised by reason or eloquence, but because it pleased the artist. Likewise, Chrysippus, who has a wit that is subtle and penetrating into the depths of the very truth, who speaks only for the sake of action and uses words no more than necessary, filled his entire book with such nonsense, so that he discusses very little (about the very) method of showing , the acceptance and return of good deeds, and so that he does not place fables as an appendix to these reasonings, but the reasoning itself as an appendix to fables. So Chrysippus, in addition to what Hekaton wrote about, reports that the three graces are brought by daughters to Jupiter and Juno, that they are years younger than Horus, but prettier than their face, and for this reason are given as companions to Venus. He likewise regards as relevant the name of their mother: Eurynome 9
From Greek. ????? - wide And???????? - distribute.

In his opinion, it is so named because the distribution of good deeds is characteristic of people with a rich fortune - as if there was a custom to give a mother a name after daughters, or as if poets convey real names. Just as a nomenclator, instead of memory, is guided by courage and gives names to all whom he does not know, so poets do not consider it necessary to speak the truth, but, being forced by necessity or tempted by beauty, they force everyone to be called by such a name that would be pleasant for the verse. And for them there is no deception when they add something to their record: since the nearest (in time) poet makes them (that is, the Graces) bear their (invented) name. Here is proof of this for you: Thalia, when she is mainly spoken of, is called Charita by Hesiod, and Muse by Homer.

Chapter 4

In order not to do what I blame myself, I will omit everything that is irrelevant and has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of speech. Only you defend us, as soon as someone begins to reproach us for having forced Chrysippus, a truly great man, but nevertheless a Greek, whose wit is too subtle and often turns against himself, to stand along with the others. Even when he appears to be doing something (seriously), he stabs, not impales.

What kind of eloquence is required in this case? Benefits should be spoken of here, and that act which is the chief link in human society should be systematically discussed. It is necessary to give a standard of life, so that, under the guise of generosity, rash frivolity will not captivate us, and so that (on the other hand) this very discussion, moderating, does not stop charity, which should neither be completely absent, nor fall into excess. It is necessary to teach (people) - to receive willingly, to return willingly and set an important task for yourself - not only to equal deeds and spiritual disposition with those to whom they owe, but also to surpass them, because the one who has the duty to give thanks, never gets even (with his benefactor), unless he surpasses him. Some should be taught that they should be alien to any calculations, others that they consider themselves more debts.

Chrysippus calls us to this most noble competition, which consists in winning good deeds with good deeds, with the help of such reasonings. According to him, one should be careful not to offend the shrines with a small retribution of gratitude, for Charitas are the daughters of Jupiter, and not offend such beautiful virgins. You give me some of these instructions, thanks to which I would become more beneficent and more grateful in relation to those who do me good deeds - thanks to which the benefactors and the beneficiaries would enter into spiritual competition among themselves - so that those who have (good deeds ) were forgotten, and the debtors kept a vivid memory. All the fictions of which we have spoken above, let them remain the lot of poets, whose purpose is to delight the ear and weave interesting fables. On the contrary, those who wish to heal minds, maintain trust in people's relations and establish in their souls their consciousness of duty, let them speak in a serious language and take up the matter with great strength, unless they consider it possible to stop such the most dangerous evil, like the complete forgetfulness of good deeds (beneficiorum novas tabulas).

Chapter 5

As much as it is necessary to avoid everything superfluous, it is equally necessary to show that we must first of all examine what our duty is in receiving a benefit. For one says that his debt consists in the money he has received, another that (his debt) is in the council, the third in office, the fourth in the administration of the province. But all these are only signs of good deeds, and not the good deeds themselves. Good deeds cannot be touched with the hand: it lies in the soul. There is a great difference between the matter of beneficence and beneficence itself. Therefore, the benefit does not lie in gold, not in silver, or in any other of the objects that are said to be very valuable, but in the very disposition of the giver. Inexperienced people pay attention only to what catches the eye, what is given and becomes the object of possession, and, on the contrary, little appreciate what is really expensive and valuable. Everything that we own, that we see, and to which our lust clings, is (unstable) transient; Fate or unrighteousness can take this away from us, but the good deed continues to exist even after the loss of the object through which it was provided. And what no power can abolish is properly done. I redeemed my friend from the pirates - he is seized by another enemy and imprisoned: he (in this case) destroys not the good deed, but the benefit resulting from my good deed. I returned to someone the children saved during a shipwreck or a fire, but they were stolen by illness or some accidental misfortune: and with their loss, what was rendered through them continues to be. Thus, everything that falsely assumes the name of beneficence serves only as an auxiliary means by which friendly disposition is manifested. The same happens in other cases, where the appearance and the very essence of the case differ. The emperor favors someone with necklaces and wreaths, which are given for entering the wall of an enemy city (corona murali) or for saving the life of a citizen (corona civica). What is so valuable: a wreath, an embroidered toga (praetexta), bundles of lictors, a tribunal or a chariot? In them is not the honor itself, but only the external signs of honors. Similarly, what appears to our eyes is not the benefit itself, but only the trace and sign of the benefit.

Chapter 6

So, what is a beneficence (in itself)? A beneficent action that gives joy (to others) and, in giving, receives it, an action performed willingly, willingly and of one's own free will.

For this reason, it is not what they do or what they give that matters, but the disposition of the spirit with which they do it, for in this disposition of the person giving or doing, the very good deed consists, and not in what they give or do. A great difference between the one and the other can already be seen from the fact that a good deed always remains a blessing, while what is done or given is neither good nor evil. The Spirit exalts the small, purifies the impure, and devalues the great and thought to be valuable; in itself, what one strives for has no nature: neither good nor evil; what is important is the direction that the originator of the action gives him, on which the purpose of the objects depends. The good deed itself does not consist in what constitutes the subject of calculation and distribution, just as the veneration of the gods does not consist in the sacrifices themselves, even if they were fat and shone with gold, but in the pious and immaculate mood of the worshipers. Thus, virtuous people are pious even when their offering consists only of grains and stew, while evil ones, on the contrary, do not leave wickedness, even if they abundantly watered the altars with blood.

Chapter 7

If good deeds were contained in objects, and not in the very disposition of the soul of the person who gives them, then they would become (for us) the more important, the more important what we receive. But this is false: we are always the most borrowed by the one who gave a little in a magnificent way, who equaled the wealth of kings in soul, who gave a little, but willingly, who, seeing my poverty, forgot about his own, who had not only a hunt, but (even) and an ardent desire to help me, who considered himself blessed when he did a good deed, who gave as if he did not think about returning and, having received back, as if he did not give, who found and strove to find a convenient opportunity for help.

On the contrary, they treat with ingratitude what, as I said, is forcibly extorted or accidentally falls from the giver, even though it seemed in content and in appearance great. With much more gratitude they accept what is served affectionately than what is served with a full hand. One gave me a little, but he could not do more! And the other gave a lot, but hesitated, hesitated, giving, sighed, gave proudly, put it on display and wanted to please (at all) not the one to whom he gave: he gave for (his) ambition, and not for me.

"On Good Deeds" is a work of the Roman Stoic philosopher, poet and statesman Lucius Annaeus Seneca (4 BC - 65).*** This is a philosophical treatise of seven books. In the act of voluntary beneficence, the author sees the only reliable basis for relationships between people. For a person, every good deed is a virtuous deed, the reward for which is in himself, even if the good deed is not repaid with gratitude. New generations recognized Seneca as "one of the most popular Roman writers in his and subsequent times." His teaching contains elements of morality that cannot be found in any of the ancient writers and which bring him closer to the teachings of Christianity. The treatise "On Good Deeds", according to the just remark of Diderot, "is a most beautiful work, compiled for the benefit not only of Nero and Liberal, but of all people."

On our website you can download the book "On Benefits" by Lucius Anneus Seneca for free and without registration in fb2, rtf, epub, pdf, txt format, read the book online or buy the book in the online store.

About good deeds Lucius Annaeus Seneca

(No ratings yet)

Title: About blessings

About the book "On Good Deeds" by Lucius Annaeus Seneca

Lucius Annaeus Seneca is an outstanding ancient Roman philosopher and enlightener who had a huge influence in the political circles of that time. He was a mentor and adviser to the emperor Nero, but on the orders of the same emperor he was forced to commit suicide. His work had a huge impact on the development of philosophical thought in subsequent centuries.

The book “On Good Deeds” is a real encyclopedia of morality. Here the author analyzed in detail the various manifestations of spirituality, the influence of emotions on people's relationships. Lucius Anneus Seneca, more deeply than other ancient thinkers, explored such an area of manifestation of morality as charity. This work should be read by anyone who wants to comprehend the nature of spirituality, to know all its laws and rules.

Central to the book is an explanation of the concept of beneficence. The philosopher emphasizes that the meaning of this act lies not in the amount of assistance provided, but in the very desire to give it to others, in the emotional outburst of the soul.

The sensual component of the human character is a whole kaleidoscope of internal energy and a vector that sets the direction for each of our actions. The ancient thinker explains the role of emotions in our life, their positive and negative sides. The anatomy of the human soul has not changed - today we live according to the same internal principles as many centuries ago.

Lucius Annaeus Seneca compiled a whole scale of blessings. On the first step, they put those actions without which we physically cannot live - they relate to saving lives. Then follow the deeds, without which we must not live, for life without them turns into a martyr's existence.

The third place is occupied by good deeds, which we feel as our duty - a person gets used to them so much that he makes them his habit, need, and not just a one-time desire to help (it is from such desires that constantly arise that a persistent need arises to follow your heart, helping surroundings).

The philosophical treatise "On Good Deeds" covers many areas of human relationships. How should you treat your children and parents? What moral principles should be observed in relation to your lovers, friends, strangers? The author does not leave these and many other questions without attention, however, he attracts the reader to the reflection and does not always give unambiguous answers. After you finish reading this book, you will think more than once about the role of moral deeds in the life of an individual and society.

Seven Books to Ebutius Liberal

Numbering of paragraphs according to the Latin original is given in square brackets.

The Greek script is used.

BOOK ONE

Among the many and varied delusions of people who live recklessly and thoughtlessly, it seems to me, venerable Liberal, there is almost nothing more dangerous than the fact that we do not know how to give or receive benefits. Good deeds, badly rendered, are usually badly received, and if they are not returned to us, then it is too late to complain: we lost them at the very moment when we gave them. And it is not surprising if among the most common and most grievous vices, ingratitude is most often found. This obviously depends on many reasons, and, firstly, on the fact that we do not choose people who would be worthy of beneficence, but, having in mind to win over debtors, we carefully collect information about their family estates and movable property. We do not scatter seeds on depleted and barren soil, but rather scatter benefactions indiscriminately than give. And it is not easy to say what is worse: not to recognize the benefit or to demand it back, for the benefit is a duty of such a kind that only that which is willingly returned should be returned from it; it is very shameful to be burdened by it, for the reason that to justify trust (in this case) not material means are needed, but the soul. Beneficence returns the one who willingly recognizes it. But if the fault lies with those who, even in their consciousness, do not give thanks, then we are not innocent either. Many we meet with the ungrateful, but still more do we ourselves become so. In one case we are sternly demanding and pretentious, in another we are frivolous and very soon repent of our good deed, in the third we are quarrelsome and complain when they miss the slightest opportunity to repay us. Thus we poison all gratitude, not only after we have rendered a beneficence, but also at the very moment when we render it. Indeed, who among us has ever been satisfied when he was asked not hard enough or only once? Who, noticing that they want to turn to him with a request, did not frown his eyebrows, did not turn away his face, did not pretend to be busy and long speeches, deliberately endless, did not reject an opportunity convenient for the request, did not avoid, with the help of various tricks, people who resorted to him with your needs? Being caught in a hopeless situation, who did not try to delay the time, giving this cautious refusal, or although he promised, but through force, frowning his brows, angrily and barely pronouncing the words? But after all, no one willingly recognizes himself as a debtor in the case when he did not receive, but forced. Can anyone be grateful to that person who proudly gave up a beneficence, threw it away with anger, or gave it after he was tired, in order to avoid dokuki? Whoever cherishes the hope of gratitude on the part of the one whom he has exhausted with delays, tormented with expectation is mistaken ... A beneficence is accepted with the same feeling with which it turns out; therefore, it should not be treated with disdain. After all, everyone is obliged only to himself for what he received from another (as it were) without his knowledge. One should not be slow either, for whoever did it slowly, obviously, had no desire to do it for a long time, and in any business hunting is highly valued. In particular, beneficence must not be offensive. Indeed, if nature has so arranged that insults leave a deeper trace than good deeds, and the latter soon disappear from memory, while the former remain in it for a long time, then what can one expect who, by providing a beneficence, inflicts an offense? To such a person worthy gratitude is rendered by the one who forgets his beneficence. The mass of ungrateful people should not cool our zeal for charity. For, firstly, we ourselves, as I said, increase it. Secondly, the immortal gods themselves do not get disgusted with their generous charity, despite the existence of blasphemers and people who treat them with disdain. They continue to act in accordance with their nature and give their help to everything, among other things, and to those people who do not understand well their good deeds. Let us follow their example, as far as human weakness will allow; let us give good deeds, and not give at interest. He is quite worthy to be deceived who, while giving, thinks of repaying.

"Charity is ill received." But after all, both children and spouses deceived our hopes, nevertheless we educate and marry, and go against experience to such an extent that, once we have experienced defeat, we again wage wars, once we have been shipwrecked, we again launch into the sea. How much more noble it is to be constant in beneficence! Whoever does not render favors for the reason that he does not receive them back, he obviously renders them with the aim of returning them; in this he gives a plausible excuse for the ungrateful. However, it is shameful even for these last people to refuse good deeds, although they deserve it. How many unworthy of the world - however, the day is coming, how many complain that they were born, but nature produces new generations and tolerates the existence of those who themselves would rather wish not to live at all! It is natural for an exalted and kind soul to look not for the fruits of good deeds, but for the good deeds themselves, and to look for good ones among bad people. What greatness would there be in benefiting many if no one deceived? Virtue in this case is the provision of benefits without any expectation of their return. The fruits of good deeds are reaped by the noble person immediately. Ingratitude should not embarrass us and settle apathy for such a wonderful cause, so that even if I were completely deprived of the hope of finding a grateful person, then even in that case I would rather not receive benefits back than not give them. For whoever does not do good deeds anticipates the transgression of the ungrateful. I will express my opinion: whoever does not return the blessing, he sins more, whoever does not, he sooner.

“When you begin to lavish good deeds on the crowd, then you have to lose a lot of them in order to one day (do) put them well.”

Not a single (good deed) is lost, since whoever loses it obviously counted in advance (for profit). The meaning of good deeds is simple: they are only given; if something is returned, then it is already profit; if it is not returned, there is no loss. A blessing is given for the sake of a blessing. No one writes good deeds in a debt book and reminds of them every day and hour like a greedy lender. A good person never thinks about them, unless he reminds the person who returns (debt). Otherwise, the beneficence takes the form of a loan. Recording good deeds as an expense is shameful usury. Whatever happens to your first gifts, keep on giving them out; it is better if they are in the hands of ungrateful people, whom, in time, shame, or some accident, or imitation can make grateful. Do not retreat: continue your work and strive for the lot of a virtuous man. Give help: to whom with means, to whom by credit, to whom by disposition, to whom by advice, to whom by useful instructions. Beasts and those are aware of their duties. There is not a single wild animal that cannot be tamed and tied to itself through caring care. So tamers touch the mouths of lions with impunity; wild elephants, with the help of food, are tamed to such an extent that they obediently send work. Thus, constant benefactions subdue even beings who are devoid of reason and the ability to appreciate them. Was your first good deed treated with ingratitude? The second one won't be treated that way. Forgot about both? The third will bring to mind and forgotten!

Good deeds are lost by those who soon come to the conclusion that they have lost them. But whoever preserves constancy and multiplies the former good deeds with new ones, he vomits gratitude even from a hard and ungrateful heart. An ungrateful person will not dare to raise his eyes to much. Wherever he turns, running away from his conscience, let him see you everywhere. Bind him with the bonds of your good deeds!

Let us suppose that someone is carried away by the Greeks to such an extent that he considers it necessary to talk about this, but there will be no one who would consider it relevant to talk about those names that Hesiod gave to the Graces. He named the older one Aglaya, the middle one Euphrosyne, and the younger one Thalia. Each, at his own discretion, changes these names and tries to find some explanation for them, while in fact Hesiod gave the names to his virgins at his own discretion. In the same way, Homer changed the name of one of the graces, calling her Pasithea, and gave her in marriage, so that they would know that they were not vestals. I will also find another poet whose graces are girded and dressed in Phrygian robes. In a similar way they are depicted with Mercury, not because good deeds are praised by reason or eloquence, but because it pleased the artist. Likewise, Chrysippus, who has a wit that is subtle and penetrating into the depths of the very truth, who speaks only for the sake of action and uses words no more than necessary, filled his entire book with such nonsense, so that he discusses very little (about the very) method of showing , the acceptance and return of good deeds, and so that he does not place fables as an appendix to these reasonings, but the reasoning itself as an appendix to fables. So Chrysippus, in addition to what Hekaton wrote about, reports that the three graces are brought by daughters to Jupiter and Juno, that they are years younger than Horus, but prettier than their face, and for this reason are given as companions to Venus. In the same way he considers the name of their mother relevant: Eurynome, in his opinion, is so named because the distribution of benefits is characteristic of people with a wealth of wealth - as if there was a custom to give the mother a name after daughters, or as if poets convey real names. Just as a nomenclator, instead of memory, is guided by courage and gives names to all whom he does not know, so poets do not consider it necessary to speak the truth, but, being forced by necessity or tempted by beauty, they force everyone to be called by such a name that would be pleasant for the verse. And for them there is no deception when they add something to their record: since the nearest (in time) poet makes them (that is, the Graces) bear their (invented) name. Here is proof of this for you: Thalia, when she is mainly spoken of, is called Charita by Hesiod, and Muse by Homer.

So, what is a beneficence (in itself)? A beneficent action that gives joy (to others) and, in giving, receives it, an action performed willingly, willingly and of one's own free will.

On the contrary, they treat with ingratitude what, as I said, is forcibly extorted or accidentally falls from the giver, even if it seems great in content and outward appearance. With much more gratitude they accept what is served affectionately than what is served with a full hand. One gave me a little, but he could not do more! And the other gave a lot, but hesitated, hesitated, giving, sighed, gave proudly, put it on display and wanted to please (at all) not the one to whom he gave: he gave for (his) ambition, and not for me.

When many brought Socrates a large reward, each according to his means, Aeschines, his poor student, said: “I do not find anything worthy of you that I could give you, and in this one respect I consider myself a poor man. Therefore, I entrust to you the one thing that I have: myself. I ask you to favorably accept this gift, whatever it may be, and to think that although others gave you much, they kept even more for themselves. Socrates answered this: “Have you not given me an expensive gift, unless you value yourself low? Therefore, I will take care to return you to you better than you took. With this offering, Aeschines surpassed Alcibiades himself, whose spiritual wealth was equal to his material (wealth), and all the generosity of rich young men.

Do you see how the spirit finds funds for charity, even in the midst of difficult circumstances? In my opinion, Aeschines expressed the following thought in his own words: “You did not achieve anything, fate, wishing me to be poor: despite the fact that I have a gift worthy of this husband at the ready, and, not being able to bring him something any of yours, I'll give mine." Do not think that he valued himself cheaply: he made himself a payment for himself. A talented young man found a way to get hold of Socrates. It is necessary to pay attention not to what exactly and what value is given, but to that - by whom. A cunning person easily opens access to himself to people with immoderate desires and in words encourages bold hopes, having no intention of helping in deeds ... But even worse, in my opinion, is the one who, with a rude speech, a stern face and evil intentions, shows his wealth. The lucky one is honored and cursed, while they themselves, harboring hatred for a person who acts in this way, think to do the same as soon as they get the opportunity ......

Some, having dishonored other people's wives, and, moreover, not secretly, but openly, handed over their own to others. Whoever forbade his wife to be paraded in a palanquin and be carried in front of the audience, being open on all sides, he is considered rude, inhuman and malevolent, and among the ladies he is reputed to be a bad party. Whoever has not declared himself to be any mistress and is not in connection with someone else's wife, women call him a vulgar person, a person with low inclinations and a lover of servants. As a result of this, adultery is considered the most decent kind of marital cohabitation, and no one entered into marital cohabitation without taking away the wife of another, after mutual consent to divorce. Before each other, they try to squander the loot and again collect the squandered with great greed, they have nothing sacred, they mock at other people's poverty, and they are more afraid of their own than any other evil; they violate the peaceful course of life with grievances and oppress the weakest with violence and fear. It is not surprising that provinces are plundered and venal justice sold at auction: after all, even barbarians consider it lawful to sell what they have bought.

But we strive further, because the content of the speech encourages us to go forward. Therefore, let us say in conclusion that the blame should not fall on our age. And our ancestors complained, and we complain, and our descendants will complain that morals are corrupted, that evil reigns, that people are becoming worse and more lawless. But all these vices remain the same and will remain, subject to only a slight change, just as the sea overflows far at high tide, and at low tide returns to the shores. At times adulteries will be more indulged than other vices, and the bonds of chastity will be broken; At times, excessive care of the body and care for appearance will be widespread, covering up spiritual disgrace. There will be a time when ill-managed freedom will turn into impudence and insolence. From time to time, cruelty in private and public relations and violent internecine wars will spread, during which everything great and holy will be profaned. There will be a time when drunkenness will enter into honor and it will be considered a virtue to drink wine in the largest amount. Vices do not wait in one place: mobile and diverse, they are in turmoil, incite and drive each other away. However, we should always declare the same thing about ourselves: we are evil, we were evil and, I will add with reluctance, we will be evil. There will be murderers, tyrants, thieves, fornicators, robbers, blasphemers and traitors; below them all, the ungrateful, if it is not admitted that all the vices that have been discussed come from an ungrateful soul, without which any great crime would hardly have increased. Beware of allowing yourself to ingratitude as the most serious offense and forget it as the easiest, if it is allowed (in relation to you).

The whole offense lies in the fact that you have lost a good deed. But the best of him remains for you: (precisely) you gave alms. And just as much care should be taken to give favors primarily to those persons on whose part one can hope for gratitude, it is also necessary to do and give some (benefits) even to those people on whom there will be a bad hope, and not only if when we only assume that they will be ungrateful, but also when we know that they were. So, for example, if I have the opportunity to return to someone the sons saved from great danger without any risk from the outside, then I will not hesitate (over this). I will defend a worthy person even with the loss of my own blood and will endanger myself, and if I have the opportunity to save an unworthy person from robbers by raising a cry, I will not be too lazy to utter a voice that saves this person.

It should be said what kind of good deeds should be rendered and how. First of all, let us provide what is necessary, then what is useful, then what is pleasant, and especially those that can last a long time. You have to start with what you need. For that which sustains life, and that which beautifies or regulates it, reach the soul in different ways. Another may treat with disdain what he can easily manage without and about which he can say: “Take it back: I don’t want this; I'm happy with mine." Sometimes there is a desire not only to return back, but also to give up what you get.

Of the (good deeds) necessary, others occupy the first place, these are precisely those without which we cannot live; others - the second, these are those without which we should not (live); others - the third, these are those without whom we do not want to live. Benefits of the following kind belong to the first category: to save from the hands of enemies, from the wrath of a tyrant, from proscription, and from other various and varied dangers that threaten human life. The greater and more formidable the danger that we prevent (by our good deeds), the more we deserve gratitude. For there is an idea of what evils have been delivered, and the fear that precedes gives the value of the good deed. Nevertheless, in order to give, by means of fear, more weight to our beneficence, we should not, however, save with less energy than we have the opportunity to do. The closest to the benefits of this kind are those benefits, without which, although we can live, but live in such a way that it would be better to die. Such, for example, are freedom, chastity, common sense. This will be followed by what is dear to us due to connection, blood, use and long-term habit, such as: children, spouses, penates, etc., to which our soul is attached to such an extent that it seems harder for her to part with them, than with life. Beneficial deeds follow, the content of which is varied and extensive. This will include monetary (assistance), not very plentiful, but properly proportioned, honors and assistance to persons striving for higher positions, for there is nothing more useful than to be useful to oneself. Other gifts already come from excess and serve the purposes of luxury. In relation to them, it should be observed that they are timely, non-vulgar, and, moreover, such that they serve as the object of the possession of a few, or a few at a certain time, or even if they are inexpensive in themselves, then they are expensive in time or place. We should keep in mind the gift that would give the most pleasure, which would be more often in the eyes of its owner, so that this latter would be with us (mentally) as often as he would be with him. Most of all, one should be careful not to send a gift that is completely unnecessary, such as, for example, hunting weapons to a woman or an old man, books to a peasant, or (fishing) nets to a person devoted to learning and literature. And vice versa, one should be careful not to offer everyone something that will expose his shortcomings, as, for example, wine to a drunkard, medicine to a healthy one. For that which exposes the vice of the recipient begins to be a reproach, and not a gift.

If the choice of a gift is in our power, then let us choose for the most part what can be preserved, so that our beneficence may be as less transient as possible. For few feel grateful enough to remember what they have received when they do not see it. For ungrateful people, the memory (of a beneficence) comes to mind along with the beneficence itself, when this latter is before their eyes and does not allow themselves to be forgotten, but brings to mind and imprints in it its culprit. And even more so, we should choose something that can last for a long time, for the reason that we ourselves should never remind: let the very thing awaken a fading memory. I will be more willing to give silver that has been turned into a thing than money, I will be more willing to give statues than clothes and such that is destroyed after a short time of use. A few retain gratitude when there is no (obvious) object (good deed); there are more such people in whom the presented objects are stored in memory no longer than in use. Therefore, if it is possible, then I do not want my gift to be wasted. Let him stay, let him stay near my friend and live with him. There is no such fool who should be persuaded not to send gladiators or hunts to someone after the spectacle has already been given, so that he does not send summer clothes in winter, and winter clothes in summer. When doing good, let them be guided by common sense and take into account time, place and persons, since other objects are sometimes pleasant, sometimes unpleasant. How much more pleasant it will be to receive if we give what someone does not have than what he has in abundance; what he searches for a long time and does not find than what he can see everywhere. Let the gifts be not so much valuable as rare, exquisite and, moreover, such that they would find a place for themselves even with a rich man. So, for example, even simple apples, which a few days later may be scorned, give pleasure if they appeared earlier. And that which no one else (except us) has given them, or which we have not given to anyone else, will not be left without attention (on the part of those who receive good deeds).

Once the Corinthians, through ambassadors, congratulated Alexander the Great - when the conqueror of the East imagined himself superior to people - and offered him their city as a gift. After Alexander ridiculed this kind of gift, one of the ambassadors told him: "We have never given our city to anyone else, except you and Hercules." He (Alexander) willingly accepted the honor offered to him, treating and treating the ambassadors in other ways, and thinking not about those who brought him the city as a gift, but about the one to whom they had previously presented it. And a man who was carried away by glory, the essence and measure of which he himself did not understand - a man who followed in the footsteps of Hercules and Bacchus and did not stop even where these traces were not, transferred his gaze from those who brought him a gift to the one who was awarded a similar honor. , as if by being compared to Hercules, he had already reached the sky, which he embraced with his very empty thoughts. Indeed, what a resemblance to this one, i.e. Hercules, had an extravagant young man, who instead of virtue (virtus) had a happy recklessness. Hercules won nothing for himself: he went through the universe for her deliverance, and not for the sake of his own passion. What did the enemy of the evil, the protector of the good, and the pacifier of land and sea win over? And this (Alexander) was a robber from childhood, a destroyer of peoples, a destroyer of both enemies and friends, who considered it to be the highest good to terrify all people, forgetting that not only the most courageous animals inspire fear, but also the most motionless, thanks to their harmful poison.

Let us now return to our subject. A beneficence given to all indiscriminately is not pleasant to anyone. No one considers himself receiving a treat from the owner of an inn or tavern and as a guest of the person offering a treat in the case where it can be said: “What did he do me with this? Is it not the same as that person, hardly well known to him, and even that comedian and the most contemptible person? Did he recognize me as worthy of his treat? Not at all! He (only) satisfied his passion. If you want to make something pleasant, then make it rare, for who will agree to take to himself what is available to everyone (vulgaria)? Let no one understand this in the sense that I hinder charity and impose the tightest reins on it; let it expand as much as it pleases, but let it go (straight) and not wander. It is possible to do good in such a way that everyone, even though he received along with many, nevertheless will not consider himself among the crowd. Let each one receive (to his share) some declaration of courtesy, by which he would gain the hope that he is closer than others. Let him say: “I received the same as so-and-so, but received thanks to the goodwill (of the giver); received the same as the other, but in a shorter time, while the latter deserved it for a long time. Suppose there are people who received the same thing, but they were given not with such words and not with such courtesy of the giver. So-and-so received, but after the request, and I - at the time when I asked. So-and-so received, but he can easily return; his advanced years and loneliness, combined with an intemperate lifestyle, showed great promise, more was given to me - although the same thing was given - more because it was given without the hope of receiving back. Just as a woman of easy virtue divides herself among many in such a way that everyone has some sign of spiritual disposition from her, so let him who wants to make his good deeds pleasant, let him think about how to do a favor to many, but in such a way, however, that each had something that would elevate him above the others.

For my part, I do not put obstacles to good deeds: the more numerous and greater they are, the more they will bring praise. Nevertheless, however, this should be guided by consideration, for no one can be to the heart of what is given randomly and thoughtlessly. Therefore, whoever thinks that we, by giving such advice, narrow the limits of charity and open less wide borders to it, let him not take our advice in the wrong sense. For what virtue do we revere more, in favor of what virtue do we more argue? And to whom is such an exhortation so fitting as not to us, who declare sacred (union) the commonwealth (societatem) of the human race? So what? Since there is not a single noble ability of the soul, even if it received its beginning from a good desire, if the mind does not give it the dignity of virtue, then I forbid squandering good deeds. Then it is pleasant to receive a blessing, and even with outstretched arms, when, under the guidance of the mind, it is directed to worthy people, and not where chance and reckless attraction will lead it. It is desirable to boast of such a good deed and to attribute it to oneself as the culprit. Do you call good deeds those of them, the originator of which you are ashamed to recognize? But how much more pleasant, how much deeper sink into the soul, and in such a way as to never leave it, those benefits that give more pleasure when thinking about who from whom than about what you received. Crispus Passien used to say that from some he would rather (receive) a judgment than a good deed, and from others it would be better to do good than a judgment, and gave the following examples: “from the divine Augustus,” he said, “I would rather receive a judgment , and from Claudius - a beneficence. For my part, I believe that one should not seek the favor of one whose judgment has no value. So what? Was it not necessary to take from Claudius what he offered? It was necessary, but as if you were taking from Fortune, which, as you know, can immediately become unfriendly towards you. Therefore, why should we separate what is mixed together? He lacks the best part - namely, what is given without reflection is no longer a beneficence. Otherwise, sometimes a lot of money, if only given thoughtlessly and not out of goodwill, will be no more good deed than a treasure found by chance. There are many things to be accepted, but not to be obliged to.

In the first verse one cannot agree with anything, firstly, because good deeds should not be squandered on the crowd, and secondly, because extravagance is generally not worthy of praise, especially in good deeds. If you do good deeds without being guided by reason, then they cease to be such and receive some other name. (2) Noteworthy is the second verse, where one well-done good deed is considered as compensation for the loss caused by the loss of many. But look, I ask you, whether it would not be closer to the truth, and more consistent with the dignity of a virtuous person, to advise him to do good deeds even when there is no hope of doing one well. The fact is that the assumption that “a lot (of good deeds) must be lost” is unfounded ...

Not a single (good deed) is lost, since whoever loses it obviously counted in advance (for profit). (3) The meaning of good deeds is simple: they are only given; if something is returned, then it is already profit, if it is not returned - there is no loss. A blessing is given for the sake of a blessing. No one writes good deeds in a debt book and reminds of them every day and hour like a greedy lender. A good person never thinks about them, unless he reminds the person who returns (debt). Otherwise, the beneficence takes the form of a loan. Recording good deeds as an expense is shameful usury. (4) Whatever happens to your first gifts, keep on giving them out; it is better if they are in the hands of ungrateful people, whom, in time, shame, or some accident, or imitation can make grateful. Do not retreat: continue your work and strive for the lot of a virtuous man. Give help: to whom with means, to whom by credit, to whom by disposition, to whom by advice, to whom by useful instructions. (5) Beasts and those are aware of their duties. There is not a single wild animal that cannot be tamed and tied to itself through caring care. So tamers touch the mouths of lions with impunity; wild elephants, with the help of food, are tamed to such an extent that they obediently send work. Thus, constant benefactions subdue even beings who are devoid of reason and the ability to appreciate them. Was your first good deed treated with ingratitude? The second one won't be treated that way. Forgot about both? The third will bring to mind and forgotten!

(3) Some, having dishonored other people's wives, and, moreover, not secretly, but openly, handed over their own to others. Whoever forbade his wife to be paraded in a palanquin and be carried in front of the audience, being open on all sides, he is considered rude, inhuman and malevolent, and among the ladies he is reputed to be a bad party. (4) Whoever has not declared himself to be any mistress and is not in connection with someone else's wife, women call him a vulgar person, a person with low inclinations and a lover of servants. As a result of this, adultery is considered the most decent kind of marital cohabitation, and no one entered into marital cohabitation without taking away the wife of another, after mutual consent to divorce. (5) Before each other, they try to squander the loot and again collect the squandered with great greed, they have nothing sacred, they scoff at other people's poverty, but they are more afraid of their own than any other evil; they violate the peaceful course of life with grievances and oppress the weakest with violence and fear. It is not surprising that provinces are plundered and venal justice sold at auction: after all, even barbarians consider it lawful to sell what they have bought.

Chapter 10

(1) But we strive further, as the content of the speech encourages us to go forward. Therefore, let us say in conclusion that the blame should not fall on our age. And our ancestors complained, and we complain, and our descendants will complain that morals are corrupted, that evil reigns, that people are becoming worse and more lawless. But all these vices remain the same and will remain, subject to only a slight change, just as the sea overflows far at high tide, and at low tide returns to the shores. (2) At times adulteries will be more indulged than other vices, and the bonds of chastity will be broken, at times frantic feasts and culinary arts will flourish - the most shameful destruction of (father's) wealth. At times, excessive care of the body and care for appearance will be widespread, covering up spiritual disgrace. There will be a time when ill-managed freedom will turn into impudence and insolence. From time to time, cruelty in private and public relations and violent internecine wars will spread, during which everything great and holy will be profaned. There will be a time when drunkenness will enter into honor and it will be considered a virtue to drink wine in the largest amount. (3) Vices do not wait in one place: mobile and varied, they are in turmoil, inciting and driving away one another. However, we should always declare the same thing about ourselves: we are evil, we were evil and, I will add with reluctance, we will be evil. (4) There will be murderers, tyrants, thieves, fornicators, robbers, blasphemers and traitors; below them all, the ungrateful, if it is not admitted that all the vices that have been discussed come from an ungrateful soul, without which any great crime would hardly have increased. Beware of allowing yourself to ingratitude as the most serious offense and forget it as the easiest, if it is allowed (in relation to you).

The whole insult, after all, lies in the fact that you have lost a good deed. But the best of him remains for you: (precisely) you gave alms. (5) And just as much care should be taken to give benefits primarily to those persons on whose part one can hope for gratitude, so it is necessary to do and give some (benefits) even to those people on whom there will be a bad hope, and not only in when we only assume that they will be ungrateful, but also when we know that they were. So, for example, if I have the opportunity to return to someone the sons saved from great danger without any risk from the outside, then I will not hesitate (over this). I will defend a worthy person even with the loss of my own blood and will endanger myself, and if I have the opportunity to save an unworthy person from robbers by raising a cry, I will not be too lazy to utter a voice that saves this person.

Chapter 11

(1) It should be said what kind of good deeds should be given and how. First of all, let us provide the necessary, then the useful, then the pleasant, and, mainly, those that can last a long time. You have to start with what you need. For that which sustains life, and that which beautifies or regulates it, reach the soul in different ways. Another may treat with disdain what he can easily do without and about which he can say: “Take it back: I don’t want this; I'm happy with mine." Sometimes there is a desire not only to return back, but also to give up what you get.

(2) Of the (good deeds) necessary, others take the first place, these are precisely those without which we cannot live; others - the second, these are those without which we should not (live); others - the third, these are those without whom we do not want to live. (3) The first category includes the following kind of benefits: to save from the hands of enemies, from the wrath of a tyrant, from proscription and from other various and varied dangers that threaten human life. The greater and more formidable the danger that we prevent (by our good deeds), the more we deserve gratitude. For there is an idea of what evils have been delivered, and the fear that precedes gives the value of the good deed. Nevertheless, in order to give, by means of fear, more weight to our beneficence, we should not, however, save with less energy than we have the opportunity to do. (4) The closest to the benefits of this kind are those benefits, without which, although we can live, but live in such a way that it would be better to die. Such, for example, are freedom, chastity, common sense. (5) This will be followed by what is dear to us by virtue of connection, blood, use and long habit, such as: children, spouses, penates, etc., to which our soul is attached to such an extent that to part with them for her seems harder than life. Beneficial deeds follow, the content of which is varied and extensive. This will include monetary (assistance), not very plentiful, but properly proportioned, honors and assistance to persons striving for higher positions, for there is nothing more useful than to be useful to oneself. Other gifts already come from excess and serve the purposes of luxury. In relation to them, it should be observed that they are timely, non-vulgar, and, moreover, such that they serve as the object of the possession of a few, or a few at a certain time, or even if they are inexpensive in themselves, then they are expensive in time or place. (6) We should keep in mind the gift that would give the most pleasure, which would be more often in the eyes of its owner, so that this latter would be with us (mentally) as often as he would be with him. Most of all, one should be careful not to send a gift that is completely unnecessary, such as, for example, hunting weapons to a woman or an old man, books to a peasant, or (fishing) nets to a person devoted to learning and literature. And vice versa, you should be careful not to offer everyone something that will expose his shortcomings, as, for example, wine to a drunkard, medicine to a healthy one. For that which exposes the vice of the receiver begins to be a reproach, and not a gift.

Chapter 12

(1) If the choice of a gift is in our power, then let us choose for the most part what can be preserved, so that our benefit may be as less transient as possible. For few feel grateful enough to remember what they have received when they do not see it. For ungrateful people, the memory (of a beneficence) comes to mind along with the beneficence itself, when this latter is before their eyes and does not allow themselves to be forgotten, but brings to mind and imprints in it its culprit. And even more so, we should choose something that can last for a long time, for the reason that we ourselves should never remind: let the very thing awaken a fading memory. (2) I will be more willing to give silver turned into a thing than into a coin, I will be more willing to give statues than clothes and such that is destroyed after a short time of use. A few retain gratitude when there is no (obvious) object (good deed); there are more such people in whom the presented objects are stored in memory no longer than in use. Therefore, if it is possible, then I do not want my gift to be wasted. Let him stay, let him stay near my friend and live with him. (3) There is no such fool who should be persuaded not to send gladiators or hunts to someone, after the spectacle has already been given, so that he does not send summer clothes in winter, and winter clothes in summer. When doing good, let them be guided by common sense and take into account time, place and persons, since other objects are sometimes pleasant, sometimes unpleasant. How much more pleasant it will be to receive if we give what someone does not have than what he has in abundance; what he searches for a long time and does not find than what he can see everywhere. (4) Let the gifts be not so much valuable as rare, exquisite, and, moreover, such that they would find a place for themselves even with a rich man. So, for example, even simple apples, which a few days later may be scorned, give pleasure if they appeared earlier. And that which no one else (except us) has given them, or which we have not given to anyone else, will not be left without attention (on the part of those who receive good deeds).

Chapter 13

(1) Once the Corinthians, through ambassadors, congratulated Alexander the Great - when the conqueror of the East imagined himself superior to people - and offered him their city as a gift. After Alexander ridiculed this kind of gift, one of the ambassadors told him: “We have never given our city to anyone else, except you and Hercules.” (2) That (Alexander) then willingly accepted the honor offered to him, treating and treating the ambassadors in other ways, and thinking not about those who brought him the city as a gift, but about the one to whom they had previously presented it. And a man who was carried away by glory, the essence and measure of which he himself did not understand - a man who followed in the footsteps of Hercules and Bacchus and did not stop even where these traces were not, transferred his gaze from those who brought him a gift to the one who was awarded a similar honor. , as if by being compared to Hercules, he had already reached the sky, which he embraced with his very empty thoughts. (3) Indeed, what a resemblance to this one, i.e. Hercules, had an extravagant young man, who instead of virtue (virtus) had a happy recklessness. Hercules won nothing for himself: he went through the universe for her deliverance, and not for the sake of his own passion. What did the enemy of the evil, the protector of the good, and the pacifier of land and sea win over? And this (Alexander) was a robber from childhood, a destroyer of peoples, a destroyer of both enemies and friends, who considered it to be the highest good to terrify all people, forgetting that not only the most courageous animals inspire fear, but also the most motionless, thanks to their harmful poison.

Chapter 14

(1) Let us return now again to our subject. A beneficence given to all indiscriminately is not pleasant to anyone. No one considers himself accepting a treat from the owner of an inn or tavern and - a guest of the person offering the treat in the case where it can be said: “What did he do to me with this? Is it not the same as that person, hardly well known to him, and even that comedian and the most contemptible person? Did he recognize me as worthy of his treat? Not at all! He (only) satisfied his passion. If you want to make something pleasant, then make it rare, for who will agree to take to himself what is available to everyone (vulgaria)? (2) Let no one understand this in the sense that I hinder charity and impose the tightest reins on it; let it expand as much as it pleases, but let it go (straight) and not wander. It is possible to do good in such a way that everyone, even though he received along with many, nevertheless will not consider himself among the crowd. (3) Let each one receive (to his share) some declaration of courtesy, by which he would gain the hope that he is closer than others. Let him say: “I received the same as so-and-so, but I received it thanks to the goodwill (of the giver); received the same as the other, but in a shorter time, while the latter deserved it for a long time. Suppose there are people who received the same thing, but they were given not with such words and not with such courtesy of the giver. So-and-so received, but after the request, and I - at the time when I asked. So-and-so received, but he can easily return; his advanced years and loneliness, combined with an intemperate lifestyle, showed great promise, more was given to me - although the same thing was given - more because it was given without hope of receiving back. (4) Just as a woman of easy virtue divides herself among many in such a way that everyone has some sign of spiritual disposition from her, so let him who wants to make his good deeds pleasant, let him think about how to do a favor to many, but - so, however, that everyone should have something that would elevate him above the others.

Chapter 15

(1) For my part, I do not hinder good deeds: the more numerous and greater they are, the more they will bring praise. Nevertheless, however, this should be guided by consideration, for no one can be to the heart of what is given randomly and thoughtlessly. (2) Therefore, if anyone thinks that we, by giving such advice, narrow the limits of charity and open less wide borders to it, let him not take our advice in the wrong sense. For what virtue do we revere more, in favor of what virtue do we more argue? And to whom is such an admonition so befitting, if not to us, who declare sacred (union) the commonwealth (societatem) of the human race? (3) So what? Since there is not a single noble faculty of the soul, even if it received its beginning from a good desire, if the mind does not give it the dignity of virtue, then I forbid squandering good deeds. Then it is pleasant to receive a blessing, and even with outstretched arms, when, under the guidance of reason, it is directed to worthy people, and not where chance and reckless attraction will lead it. It is desirable to boast of such a good deed and to attribute it to oneself as the culprit. (4) Do you call good deeds those of which you are ashamed to admit the originator? But how much more pleasant, how much deeper sink into the soul, and in such a way as to never leave it, those benefits that give more pleasure when thinking about who from whom than about what you received. (5) Crispus Passien used to say that from some he would rather (receive) a judgment than a beneficence, and from others - better beneficence than a judgment, and gave the following examples: “from the divine Augustus,” he said, “I am better I wish to receive a judgment, and from Claudius - a blessing. For my part, I believe that one should not seek the favor of one whose judgment has no value. (6) So what? Was it not necessary to take from Claudius what he offered? It was necessary, but as if you were taking from Fortune, which, as you know, can immediately become unfriendly towards you. Therefore, why should we separate what is mixed together? He lacks the best part - namely, what is given without reflection is no longer a beneficence. Otherwise, sometimes a lot of money, if only it is given thoughtlessly and not out of goodwill, will not be more ́ νεμεσναι That is, the most useful is such a good deed, with the help of which we have the opportunity to benefit ourselves and enlist the help of strong people.

Venationem, that is, the animals themselves, taken on the hunt and adapted for hunting. Like: lions, elephants, etc., which in ancient Roman circuses were released to fight with each other or with special gladiators, the so-called bestiaries, in those days when spectacles intended for popular entertainment were given.

A similar narrative is found in Plutarch (Lib. de Monarchia, Democratia et Oligarchia, c. 2). But he is not talking about the Corinthians, but about the Megarians. In general, Seneca was prejudiced against Alexander the Great.

Philosophers and rhetoricians of antiquity, especially the Stoics, were inclined to praise Hercules and set him as a model of courage, justice and prudence. Cf.: Xenophont. memory. socr. II, 1, 21.

That is, the Stoics.

Since, according to the teaching of the Stoics, virtue is a property of the soul, consistent with nature and reason, it follows that no noble power of the soul could be such, except for that which was consistent with reason and, thus, became virtue.

Stepfather of Nero, first husband of Agrippina.

Augustus was more thrifty, but he gave prudently.

Claudius, according to Seneca, was a man of a narrow mind, and although he complained a lot, he also took away a lot.