Francesco Filelfo, Letter to Lorenzo Medici (Part 5)
“I wish that you would apply the argument to yourselves, since you are a renowned colony of the Romans. What about when you need to say something accurately and splendidly in the senate, or among the decemvirs or other magistrates, or in that most turbulent assembly of all the citizens? Do you take refuge in grammar, or do you rather use your mother tongue and Tuscan speech?
For of that Latin, which received its name from Latium, if the entire memory of Festus Pompeius had been overturned so that hardly a scrap of it remained unharmed, what mention would I make of it?
Especially given that long before the times of Festus Pompeius, Latin speech had begun to be depraved, as one can see laid out in these words in Cicero’s The Orator, to Brutus: ‘But go on, Pomponius, about Caesar, and give up what remains. You see that the ground, he said, and as it were the foundation of the orator is an emended and Latin mode of speech, and anyone who has received praise for it up until this point received it not for their reasoning or their knowledge, but for their good usage.’ Therefore, correct and Latin speaking was not a matter of literature, but of common usage.
He adds immediately, ‘I omit Gaius Lellius [Laelius] and Publius Scipio: the praise of their age was almost their innocence of speaking Latin thus – though this does not apply to everyone, for we see their contemporaries Caecilius and Pacuvius speaking like shit.’
Velim de vobisipsis, qui Romanorum colonia estis inclyta, argumentum capiatis. Cum quid vobis vel in senatu, vel apud decenviros, vel apud alios magistratus, aut in ipsa etiam totius populi turbulentissima concione de re magna accuratius est splendidiusque dicendum, ad grammaticamne confugitis, an materna potius utimini ac ethrusca oratione?
Nam latina illa, quae a Latio nomen accepit, si Festi Pompeii memoria tota iam adeo versa erat, ut vix ulla pars eius maneret innoxia, quam de illa fecero mentionem?
Praesertim cum multo ante Festi Pompeii tempora sermo latinus coeperat depravari, quod eius rei ex Oratore Ciceronis ad Brutum hisce verbis licet intelligi: “Sed perge, Pomponii, de Caesare, et redde quae restant. Solum quoddam, inquit ille, et quasi fundamentum oratoris vides locutionem emendatam et latinam, cuius penes quos laus adhuc fuit, non fuit rationis aut scientiae, sed quasi bonae consuetudinis”. Locutio igitur emendata latinaque non erat litteraturae, sed consuetudinis vulgaris.
Subditque continuo: “Mitto G. Lellium P. Scipionem: aetatis illius ista fuit laus tanquam innocentiae sic latine loquendi – nec omnium tamen, nam illorum aequales Caecilium et Pacuvium male locutos videmus”.
“Whoever understands the limits of life knows that it is extremely easy to take away the pain of want and to make all of life fulfilled. Then he lacks nothing which is acquired through conflicts.”
“Some of our desires are natural and necessary. Others are natural and not necessary. Some more are neither natural nor necessary, but they develop thanks to meaningless beliefs.”
“I have sometimes wondered that our teachers then, and so many teachers since, could never interest young people in study. There is one element in the human soul which is common to all mankind, — curiosity. Why was this motive never appealed to? No attempt was made to interest us in our studies. We were expected to wade through Homer as though the Iliad were a bog, and it was our duty to get along at such a rate per diem. Nothing was said of the glory and grandeur, the tenderness and charm of this immortal epic. The melody of the hexameters was never suggested to us. Dr. Popkin, our Greek professor, would look over his spectacles at us, and, with pencil in hand, mark our recitation as good or bad, but never a word to help us over a difficulty, or to explain anything obscure, still less to excite our enthusiasm for the greatest poem of antiquity. But this was not peculiar to Dr. Popkin, It was the universal custom, with but one exception.”
The following is a spurious letter from the wild Historia Augusta. This is filled with religious confusion, some hate, and an odd detail about cups.
Historia Augusta, 29.7
“Hadrianus Augustus greets Servianus the Consul.
Dearest Servianus, that Egypt you were praising to me is completely light of learning, volatile, and swinging toward every little rumor. The people there who follow Serapis are Christians and those who claim to be followers of Christ are actually worshipers of Serapis. There’s no one in charge of the synagogue of the Jews, there’s no Samaritans, no Christian presbyter who is not also an astrologer, a psychic or some baptist. Even the Patriarch, when he has come to Egypt, is made to worship Serapis by some and Christ by others.
These people are the most traitorous, the most vain, most likely to injure while their state is wealthy, showy, fertile and a place where no one is without work. Some people blow glass; paper is made by others; everyone weaves some kind of linen or are part of some kind of craft. The lame have things they do; eunuchs have things they do as do the blind and even those with crippled hands are not without work among them.
Money is their only god—Christians, Jews, every people and race worship him. I wish that this place had a better nature, for it is truly worthy because of its size and richness to be the chief place of all Egypt. I conceded everything to it; I returned its ancient rights and added new ones so that the people thanked me while I was there. But, then, the moment I left, they said many things against my son Verus and I believe that you have learned what they said about Antinoos.
I wish nothing for them except that they live on their own chickens which they raise in a way that is shameful to speak. I am sending you some cups which are decorated with changing colors and were given to me by the priest of a temple but are now dedicated to you and my sister. I want you to use them on feast days. Be careful that our companion Africanus does not use them as he wants.”
VIII. “Hadrianus Augustus Serviano consuli salutem. Aegyptum, quam mihi laudabas, Serviane carissime, totam didici levem, pendulam et ad omnia famae momenta volitantem. illic3 qui Serapem colunt Christiani sunt, et devoti sunt Serapi qui se Christi episcopos dicunt. nemo illic archisynagogus Iudaeorum, nemo Samarites, nemo Christianorum presbyter non mathematicus, non haruspex, non aliptes. ipse ille patriarcha cum Aegyptum venerit, ab aliis Serapidem adorare, ab aliis cogitur Christum. genus hominum seditiosissimum, vanissimum, iniuriosissimum; civitas opulenta, dives, fecunda, in qua nemo vivat otiosus. alii vitrum conflant, aliis charta conficitur, omnes certe linyphiones aut cuiuscumque artis esse videntur; et habent podagrosi quod agant, habent praecisi quod agant, habent caeci quod faciant, ne chiragrici quidem apud eos otiosi vivunt. unus illis deus nummus est. hunc Christiani, hunc Iudaei, hunc omnes venerantur et gentes. et utinam melius esset morata civitas, digna profecto quae pro sui fecunditate, quae pro sui magnitudine totius Aegypti teneat principatum. huic ego cuncta concessi, vetera privilegia reddidi, nova sic addidi ut praesenti gratias agerent. denique ut primum inde discessi, et in filium meum Verum multa dixerunt, et de Antinoo quae dixerint comperisse te credo. nihil illis opto, nisi ut suis pullis alantur, quos quemadmodum fecundant, pudet dicere. calices tibi allassontes versicolores transmisi, quos mihi sacerdos templi obtulit, tibi et sorori meae specialiter dedicatos; quos tu velim festis diebus conviviis adhibeas. caveas tamen ne his Africanus noster indulgenter utatur.”
Francesco Filelfo, Letter to Lorenzo Medici (Part 4)
“Nor was there that much need of literature in pure and undiluted Latinity, since plebiscites and decrees of the senate and laws and the responses of legal experts and the praetorian exceptions and all of the laws, institutes, pacts, and agreements of the city were written in Latin, not grammatically.
Should we suppose that orators in the senate or the forum or among the people used any language other than Latin (that is, their daily and common language), when a speech was to be composed (and Quintilian is the witness here) for the judgment of others, and when one needed to speak among those who were altogether uneducated and certainly did not at any rate know literature?
Even Cicero himself teaches that the greatest fault in speaking is to break from the common mode of speech and the custom of agreed sense.
Livy, a man of singular eloquence, sometimes neglected this maxim, and Asinius Pollio did not hesitate to joke that there was a certain Patavinity in his speech.
A speech, as Cicero said, should be accommodated to the ears of the multitude.”
Nec erat admodum opus litteratura in mera ac pura latinitate, cum et plebiscita et senatusconsulta et decreta et leges ac iurisconsultorum responsa et praetoriae exceptiones, et omnia civitatis iura, instituta, pacta conventaque latine, non grammatice, scriberentur.
Num putemus oratores vel in senatu, vel in foro, vel apud populum alia usos oratione quam latina, hoc est quottidiana vulgarique, cum esset componenda oratio, vel Quintiliano teste, ad aliorum iudicia, saepiusque apud eos loquendum, qui imperiti omnino forent atque alias certe litteras ignorarent?
Quin ipse etiam Cicero praecipit in dicendo vitium vel maximum esse a vulgari genere orationis atque a consuetudine communis sensus abhorrere.
Quod eum T. Livius, singulari facundia vir, aliquando neglexerit, non dubitavit Pollio Asinius cavillari patavinitatem quandam in eius inesse oratione.
Est enim ipsa oratio, ut ait idem Cicero, auribus multitudinis accomodanda.
C. Julius Caesar (?), Bellum Incivile. Edited by Dani Bostick
Almost one hundred Democrats who were seeking the consulship gathered to fight among themselves until only one person was left standing. The young candidates kept begging the old man, who was holding power for too long, to pass the torch of power to them and that his time was up; but the old man said that the torch could not be wrested from his grip because it was stuck to his hands like pearls to a shell.
While some of the young candidates were trying to take the torch from the old man’s clutches, two other men spoke Spanish words badly and a certain woman was purifying the republic with the torch’s smoke while saying over and over again that love, not plans, will save us.
While this was going on, Manicula warned Puppet Master not to interfere with the matters of the republic, but he said these things with a hatred for dignity in such a way as to embolden Puppet Master. For Manicula even said Puppet Master was an ally and very close friend, although everyone else had considered him an enemy of the people for a long time.
Fere centum Democratici consulatum petentes convenerunt ut secum depugnarent dum una reliqua esset. Iuvenes senem, qui potestatem diutius habebat, orabant ut facem potestatis sibi traderet eique tempus non esset, sed senex locutus facem de manibus extorqui non posse, quoniam in manibus velut margaritae in conchis inhaereret. Dum plures facem a manibus senis eripere conabantur, duo viri verba Hispana male loquebantur quaedamque femina, dictitans non consilia, sed amorem nos servaturum, rem publicam fumo facis purgabat.
Dum haec gerebantur, Manicula Pupuli Erum monuit ne rei publicae intercederet. Quae odio dignitatis ita dixit ut Pupuli Erum confirmaret. Nam ipse dixit etiam se illi esse socium atque amicissimum cum omnes eum pro hoste diu habuissent.
Cornelius Felton, A Lecture on Classical Learning:
“It would be useless for me to attempt a full and just exposition of the claims of Grecian genius upon our studious attention. As I have before remarked, a detailed and philosophical history would alone unfold all the relations, in which a familiar acquaintance with its masterly excellences would benefit the mind, and prepare it for future usefulness in the actual world around it.
But I cannot help adverting to the high moral effects of a classical course of study, upon the heart and character. I am aware that wise and good men have objected to ancient literature, on the ground, that the deities of Greece and Rome are represented as indulging in human vices and passions. But it does not seem to me possible that a poetical description of the pagan gods — understood to be merely poetical — can have any bad tendency. At least, the mind capable of being injured by an influence so indirect and distant, would be injured in a tenfold greater degree by the most ordinary temptations of daily life.
In all other respects, the moral influence of classical learning, is certainly excellent; and this excellence appears most conspicuous on comparing it with the miscellaneous reading so common among students of the present day. The severe intellectual discipline of former times, has, I fear, become too nearly obsolete. The great passion of our age, is to acquire knowledge without labor. This I think is to be deprecated. Labor is the unavoidable condition of all excellence whatever. He who attempts to reverse this first law of our being, attempts the greatest of impossibilities. We read the periodicals and other popular works, and dream that we are winning knowledge with infinitely greater rapidity than our predecessors; and congratulate ourselves, that the studious days and watchful vigils of the gigantic scholars of old, are now no more. Besides that portion of our popular reading, which is merely light, there is much positively pernicious. The dangerous and seducing sentiment of many works which the press in its abundance pours out upon us, weakens the character and corrupts the heart.”
Yesterday, I was editing a manuscript and thinking about Odysseus’ so-called “lying tales” in books 13-20 of the Odyssey. In one of them, he talks casually about murdering the son of Idomeneus. A song burst fully formed into my head. I made a poll. Over 3500 people voted.
(And, yes, as twitter let me know, it should be “shot” not killed”). To be honest, I thought the answer was clear and tried to direct it a bit:
Personally, I think it is Odysseus. He is soulless, dead-eyed killer who does something just to see what happens. Achilles has big feelings. And his big feelings lead to murder sprees. But he feels remorse sometimes.
Also, now that people are taking this way to seriously. Johnny Cash just sang about shooting a man in Reno just to watch him die. He told this as part of a performative persona.
Let's guess whether Achilles or Odysseus is more likely to do the same….
I suspect that the issue here for most voters was really: who’s your favorite hero and who seems violent to you. Everyone knows Achilles is a cross between the Hulk and Superman and he just kills everything. Most people forget that Odysseus leaves a trail of slaughter in his wake too.
Earlier polls I have run seem to indicate that while the Iliad and Odyssey are pretty close in popularity people have a more positive view of Odysseus. I have spent several years working on a book on Odysseus (after working on the Iliad for over a decade). I think these evaluations of the characters are from an overall feeling and not an actual engagement with the texts.
I continued this conversation on and off line with Justin Arft:
Achilles is intense, like super intense, like there is extra and then there is Achilles extra. He gets his feelings hurt and then asks for Zeus to make his own people die. Patroklos dies because Achilles is so damn sensitive. Achilles’ rage is the point of the whole poem. But he is not calculating. He feels. He reacts. He regrets.
But behind all the arguments is a basic misunderstanding of what it means to be a hero in ancient Greece. They are not simple figures. They are not heroic in the modern sense. The word heros: can mean a man in the prime of his youth; or, a member of a race of superpeople before our current race of mortals; or, a person who follows a particular narrative/paradigmatic arc. It is value neutral when it comes to “good” and “evil”.
Erwin Cook writes well about this, noting that what marks heroes out in Greek myth and poetry is their ability to suffer or cause suffering to others.
Fortunately for the next 24 hours I found like-minded people to suffer with:
— Joanna L. Cresswell 🌞 (@JoannaCresswell) June 28, 2019
Despite Achilles’ constant lead, there was a chorus of objection:
This seems so obviously Odysseus that I didn't even understand the point of the question…and then he's losing! This is a guy who lied to his father and said he was dead for literally no reason. This is a guy who threatened his nurse with a cruel death.
Outside of the epics: he frames Palamedes and has him stoned to death; he tricks Achilles into coming to war; he strands Philoktetes for being wounded and then gets him to come back to Troy; he tries to stab Diomedes in the back; he is known for arranging for the killing of Astyanax. He probably killed Hecuba too.
Achilles’ rage is big and easy to conceptualize, easier to blame; Odysseus’ calculation is harder to understand and frame. We want to be like Achilles, I think, because we can blame our faults on emotions. That’s nature, right? We can’t control nature! It is harder to admit where we are like Odysseus because then we need to take responsibility for our faults. People who love Odysseus too often explain away his faults. (Which is why so much of Homeric scholarship refuses to acknowledge that Odysseus is crossing a line in killing the enslaved women, the suitors, blinding Polyphemos and more).
Not everything was about bashing Odysseus:
Achilles' wrath is to me petulant, vengeful; the disinterested curious turn to violence that that Cash line (remorsefully??) recalls seems to me closer to Odysseus's characteristic empathetic seeing-from-another's-eyes. Only twisted in a as-boys-are-to-flies moment, of course.
Given that the Cash lyric is very much done in a persona, I think that Odysseus – the more mercurial of the two – is more likely to adopt a similar persona.
All this "Achilles is an Extra Boi overflowing with Feels" makes me want to read the Iliad for the first time since high school. https://t.co/ugG5vR5n4l
Thanks for this great summary. I went for Achilles (despite his later, clear remorse, the dragging of Hector’s body has always bothered me) but do truly understand the arguments for Odysseus. The back-and-forth was stimulating and, at least for me, educational.
— James (Randy) Fromm supports 🏳️🌈🇺🇦 (@randy_fromm) June 28, 2019
Thank you to Carly Maris (@carmarky) for making this so I didn’t have to
thanks to everyone who played along and took what was a lark seriously. Apologies to all the wits and wiseacres I didn’t include in this post. The thread on twitter is pretty cool. But, as with everything, Plato did it first and better.
Plato, Hippias Minor
364c
“Homer made Achilles the best man of those who went to Troy, Nestor the wisest, and Odysseus the most shifty.”
“This is, therefore, our story of Plotinus’ life. When he assigned to me the arrangement and editing of his publications, I promised him when he was still alive and I also guaranteed our other friends to do that. So, first, I did not think it just to allow his books to be out of order from the time they were published but have imitated Apollodoros the Athenian and the peripatetic Andronicus. They first gathered the works of Epikharmos the comedic poet into ten collections and the second ordered the works of Aristotle and Theophrastos by subject matter, collecting into the same place similar theoretical discussions.
In a similar way, in fact, since I had 54 works of Plotinus, I separated the books into six groups of nine volumes each, chancing upon the final number six along with nines quite happily. Once I assembled similar topics into each Ennead, I gave the first place to the more tractable problems.”
Francesco Filelfo, Letter to Lorenzo Medici (Part 3)
“But literary speech was rarer among the Romans, and though it was familiar to learned people, it was less known to the uneducated.
This is clear from Cicero’s Cato on Old Age. For he says, speaking of Quintus Fabius Maximus, ‘He was not great just in the light and eyes of his citizens, but was remarkable even inside at home; what speech, what advice, what attention to antiquity and knowledge of law and augury! He even possessed a fair stock of literature, a rare thing in a Roman.
If anyone wants to know more about that, they should consult the third book of de Oratore which that same Cicero wrote to his brother Quintus, in which Lucius Crassus is depicted saying, ‘Our people study literature less than Latinity; yet from those city people, whom you know, and in whom there is only the smallest amount of literature, there is no one in a toga who could easily conquer Quintus Valerius Soranus in softness of voice, expression of the mouth, and sound.’ From this it is clearly shown that the Romans were not that literate.”
At litteralis sermo rarior erat apud Romanos, et doctis familiaris hominibus, indoctis autem minus notus.
Id quod apud Ciceronem patet, in Catone quem scripsit de senectute. Hic enim, de Quinto Fabio Maximo loquens, ita ait: “Nec vero ille in luce modo atque in oculis civium magnus, sed intus domique praestantior; qui sermo, quae praecepta, quanta noticia antiquitatis, scientia iuris et augurii! Multae etiam, ut in homine romano, litterae”.
Quod si quis ea de re quaerat apertius nosse, audiat ex tertio libro de Oratore ad Quintum fratrem, apud eundem Ciceronem, L. Crassum talia disserentem: “Nostri minus student litteris quam latinitati; tamen ex istis, quos nosti, urbanis, in quibus minimum est litterarum, nemo est qui litteratissimum togatorum omnium, Q. Valerium Soranum, lenitate vocis atque ipso oris pressu et sono facile vincat”. Ex quibus verbis non obscure ostenditur fuisse Romanos non admodum litteratos.
