On the Benefits of Lucius Annei Seneca. E-book: “About good deeds. Seven Books to Ebutius Liberal

Bearing structures 21.12.2020

Bearing structures

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

Chapter 1

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. Beneficences 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 severely exacting 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 pay us. Thus, we poison all gratitude, not only after we have rendered a benefit, 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 abandoned a beneficence, threw it out 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 hunting is highly valued in any business. 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 doing a good deed, inflicts an insult? 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, by the way, 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 to provide beneficences 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

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 aspects. 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 precisely 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 beloved, 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.

Philosophical Ideas in Seneca's Treatise On Benefits

1. Life and work of Seneca

Lucius Annaeus Seneca (the Younger) lived during the reign of the first five Roman emperors; Augustus (31 BC-14 AD), Tiberius (14-37), Caligula (37-41), Claudius (41-54), Nero (54-68). His father - Lucius Annei Seneca (the Elder) - belonged to the estate of horsemen, was a famous rhetorician and historian. At the beginning of the reign of Tiberius, the father moved from Cordoba (Spain) to Rome to educate his three sons (Gallion, Lucius, Mela) and help them in their public career. Lucius is fond of philosophy. In those years, philosophical schools were widespread in Rome: Stoicism, Epicureanism, skepticism. The Stoics Attalus, Sotion, Sextius Niger have a strong influence on Lucius. Under their influence, he began to live almost like an ascetic. He observed a number of strict rules all his life: he did not use incense, did not take hot baths, slept on very hard mattresses, did not eat oysters and mushrooms, did not drink wine, believing that "drunkenness both kindles and exposes every vice, destroying shame."

Thanks to his maternal aunt, whose husband was the governor of Egypt for many years, Lucius receives from Tiberius the position of quaestor (overseer of finances), and soon becomes a senator. Under the influence of his father and with the help of the best teachers, Lucius mastered the art of oratory. His speeches in the Senate are a success. At the same time, the writer's talent was manifested. Practices in poetry, tragedies, philosophical treatises. Becomes a frequent interlocutor of Tiberius.

In 37, after the violent death of Tiberius, his nephew, Caligula, was proclaimed emperor. It was, according to the description of Seneca, a mentally ill monster. He enjoyed bullying everyone around him, reduced the Senate to servile obedience, cohabited with his amazingly beautiful sisters - Drusilla, Agrippina and Livilla. Drusilla was in fact his wife, she was honored as an empress. Caligula considered himself the best orator. He did not tolerate rivals in this matter. After a brilliant performance by Seneca in the Senate, Caligula orders his death. Rescued by the concubine of the emperor.

Suetonius reports that Seneca under Caligula reached the zenith of glory. If this is true, then we must assume that by the forties he was known as the author of numerous treatises and tragedies. However, only one treatise by Seneca from the reign of Caligula has come down to us. This treatise is known under the title "Consolation to Marcia".

The main philosophical problem of "Consolation to Marcia" is the problem of man. What is a person? What is the state of the physical and spiritual in man? What is the sense of life? What is the nature of death and its meaning? What is the role of fate? What is the essence of immortality? Is there a punishment after death or is it an invention of people?

In 41, Caligula was killed. The fifty-year-old Claudius becomes emperor (quite by accident). Senators reacted differently to Claudius' proclamation. The supporters of the republic wanted assurances from Claudius about the restoration of the role of the Senate and benefits for senators. Seneca, delighted with the change in the situation, was kindled with the hope that now he could become an confidant of the emperor, or even his first adviser. In this situation, he decided to write a treatise "On Anger", hoping in this way to win over Claudius.

The seventeen-year-old empress held her old husband in her hands. Claudius loved her passionately, and Messalina put horns on him almost daily. She was beautiful, cunning, vindictive, power-hungry. But her main vice is unbridled sexual depravity. She turned the palace into a real brothel. Claudius did not notice this, confirming the age-old truth that husbands are the last to know (if they even know!) about the betrayal of their wife. Claudius believed his wife, trusted her with secrets, was convinced that she was taking care of his honor and well-being. Messalina vigilantly watched everyone who could somehow influence Claudius. She immediately took action, eliminating the opponent and rival. Noticing that Claudius favorably treats Livilla and Seneca, Messalina was at first wary, and then decided to remove them. Apparently, her decision was also influenced by the fact that Livilla's husband participated in a conspiracy against Caligula and was one of the contenders for the throne. Why does the good Livilla dream of becoming an empress, and the cunning Seneca helps her in this matter, thought Messalina.

Messalina invited Suillius to her place. He was a famous accuser. On her instructions, he fabricated an accusation of indecent behavior by Seneca and Livilla. According to Roman law, it was forbidden for a representative of the equestrian class to enter into love affairs with a representative of the royal house. The case was considered in the Senate. The Senate passed a resolution death penalty Seneca and Livilla for adultery. However, Claudius replaced the sentence with exile. Seneca was exiled to Corsica, and Livilla to a small island, where she was soon starved to death.

Claudius executed his wife for rampant adultery. The fourth wife of the sixty-year-old Claudius was his niece, the sister of Caligula, Agrippina, who was 32 years old. Becoming the empress, she first of all decided to find a smart and authoritative educator for her son. Remembering Seneca, she returns him from exile (49). Returning to Rome, Seneca married Paulina and together with her wanted to leave forever for Athens in order to fully engage in creativity. However, Agrippina entrusts him with the upbringing of her son Nero - I had to agree with the empress. For five years he brings up Nero. The insidious Agrippina decided to make her son an emperor. She married Nero to the daughter of Claudius Octavia, then poisoned her husband and, with the help of the Praetorian Guard, proclaimed Nero emperor (54). Seneca becomes an adviser to the young emperor. He writes for him all the speeches that Nero made before the Senate and soldiers. In the early days of Nero's reign, Seneca writes a satire on Claudius, in which he denigrates his name in every possible way and extols the young Nero. Then he writes a treatise "On Mercy", in which, following the example of Plato, he formulates the principles of ideal government in the hope that Nero will follow these tips. The ideal ruler, according to Seneca, is merciful, beneficent, generous, powerful in goodness, patronizing innocence, truthful, not vindictive, enduring resentment, wise, behaving in accordance with nature, realizing himself the greatest and at the same time being all-good. If the ruler has such moral qualities, then good morals will be established in society:

moral purity, justice, chastity, security, dignity. This will contribute to the prosperity of society, the emergence of an abundance of goods in society. The mercy of the ruler will cement society. Guilty people will be

judge not by the letter of the law, but "on the basis of right and good." A relationship of trust will be established between the subjects and the ruler. The love of citizens will become the basis of the security of the ruler himself. Trying to please Nero, Seneca settles the emperor's love affair with the young heterosexual Acte. Covering the affair with a fictitious marriage of a hetaera with his young friend Seren, Seneca skillfully uses Acte in palace intrigues.

In 62, Seneca writes a treatise "On the constancy of the sage." Wisdom, in the understanding of Seneca, is knowledge about the foundations of the universe, about the essence of the world and man. Wisdom is an understanding of the meaning of life on the basis of unraveling the mystery of a person, the mystery of one's destiny. And in this sense, wisdom is the highest intellect. Wisdom is a kind of art. Wisdom is the art of a correct, righteous, moral life. This is the art of such behavior, when all actions, fastened by philanthropy, are under the control of the mind. Wisdom, therefore, is morality, is goodness, is beneficence. All these and other properties of wisdom Seneca unites in the concept of good.

A struggle for influence over Nero began between Seneca and Agrippina. Seneca was supported by the head of the Praetorian guard Aphranius Burr. After the assassination of Agrippina (59). Seneca, in alliance with Burr, actually control the internal and foreign policy empires, carry out a number of reforms, strengthen the position of the senate, improve the financial affairs of the state, not forgetting to acquire a huge personal fortune through bribes, royal rewards and usurious transactions. Seneca, on behalf of the emperor, organizes mass spectacles, creative competitions, in which Nero himself actively performs with his poetic and musical works. Nero attracts the outstanding young poet Lucan, Seneca's nephew, to the competition. Seneca writes in these years the treatise "On a happy life."

In understanding happiness, Seneca, of course, stands on the positions of cosmic rigorism.

Duty to nature, to the Logos, to the Cosmos is the starting point of Stoicism. And since the human mind is a particle of the Logos, a particular manifestation of the Logos, it follows from this that the human mind must wage a constant struggle with affects. The struggle with affects is a particular manifestation of the struggle of the Logos with Chaos. The source of virtue is the rational soul. The source of vice is passions, affects. Otherwise: the source of virtue is the soul, the source of vice is the body. Indulging bodily needs leads to a violation of the inner harmony of a person.

In the early sixties, Nero falls madly in love with the noble and prudent married beauty Poppea Sabina, who demanded that Nero divorce Octavia. Burr protested and died suddenly. Zephanius Tigellinus was appointed in his place. Seneca also speaks out against divorce, angering Poppaea. In 62, Nero divorces Octavia and marries Poppea, falling completely under her influence. Once in a situation of a hostile environment, Seneca asks for his resignation. Nero grants the request, saving Seneca a huge fortune.

Seneca took the resignation calmly. The transition from a turbulent political life to private life even pleased him. Now you can really get creative. And, indeed, in his declining years (he was sixty-six years old), inspiration raged with unprecedented force, far from the noise of the restless capital. Behind short period he writes four treatises - "On Leisure", "On Providence", "On Good Deeds", "Questions of Nature", a huge epistolary work that has become a classic - "Moral Letters to Lucilius" and the historical drama "Octavia".

Leisure, in the understanding of Seneca, is not an idle rest, not an escape from civil affairs. Leisure is the most rational use free time for science, philosophy, poetry, dramaturgy. Leisure is creative activity combined with good rest. "Leisure without science is death and burial alive."

Leisure, like all life, is measured by what a person has created in the years following the departure from public service. Again, as in the treatise "On the brevity of life", Seneca develops ideas about the density of time, about the value of time for a person.

"Moral Letters to Lucilius" is the final work in which the entire philosophy of Seneca is concentrated. In its external composition, this is a story about the upbringing of Seneca's young friend Lucilius in the spirit of the philosophy of Stoicism. Lucilius adhered to Epicureanism. Seneca sets the task: to re-educate the Epicurean into a Stoic. To this end, he conducts a confidential conversation with Lucilius, proving to him the advantage of Stoic philosophy. In the end, Lucilius becomes a Stoic in his worldview. The goal has been reached. Seneca is satisfied and Lucilius is grateful.

Behind the outer composition of the "Letters" lies a multi-layered ideological concept. It should be borne in mind that the "Letters" were written by a man who was a wise philosopher, a sophisticated politician, a flexible diplomat, an experienced mentor, a fine connoisseur of the human soul, the author of numerous works in the field of philosophy and drama.

As a philosopher, Seneca gives a deep interpretation of the ethical philosophy of Stoicism. As a teacher, he develops a whole program of education and self-education of the individual. As a citizen and politician, he contrasts cruelty and apathy with the ideas of philanthropy, the ideas of humanism. As a sage, he forms a new vision of human beauty - beauty not as bodily harmony, but as spiritual harmony, expressed in the greatness of the goal and deed in the name of the world community and God.

In 64, a fire broke out in Rome. The flame destroyed over two thirds of the city, a huge number of ancient manuscripts, works of art. Many people died. A persistent rumor spread that Rome was set on fire by order of Nero. Then the authorities blamed the tragedy on the Christians, whose teachings quickly won supporters throughout the empire. Massive brutal executions began. This increased the growth of dissatisfaction with Nero and his entourage. With gratitude they remembered Seneca and Burra, their clever rule of the empire. In this situation, the conspiracy of Piso (65) matured, the participants of which were mainly supporters of Stoicism. Some conspirators dreamed of seeing Seneca on the throne, who, moving away from politics, was in a state of creative inspiration. With the disclosure of the conspiracy, a round dance of death began. The writer Petronius (the author of the Satyricon), the poet Lucan, the Seneca brothers Gallio and Mela, and many supporters of the Stoic philosophy were sentenced to death. Nero decided

get rid of your teacher. He ordered him to die. Seneca calmly opened his veins.
2. The time of the creation of the treatise "On Good Deeds"

As already noted, Seneca worked on the treatise "On Benefits" approximately in 63-64, i.e. in the last period of his work, when he was in disgrace. Seneca retires from political life. Now the time has come for a deep understanding of the moral problems of human existence. Seneca tries to understand and formulate the moral principles of life. He acts not just as a theoretician, but rather as a teacher of life, as a mentor of mankind. “I don’t lose a single day in idleness, I even give part of the night to my studies. I don’t go to sleep, freed: no, sleep overcomes me, and I sit, staring at my work, tired from wakefulness, eyes glued together. I retired not only from people , but also from deeds, first of all - my own, and took up the affairs of descendants. For them, I write down what can help them ... I point out to others the moral path that I myself found so late, tired of wandering "(Letter 8, 12). Many circumstances influenced the content, character, and philosophical basis of the treatise. Let's note some of them.

First, it was a period of rapid spread of the Christian faith. Seneca was certainly familiar with the basic principles of this morality. We emphasize once again that the great moral philosopher, the brilliant propagandist of his teaching and the outstanding propagandist of Christianity in the person of the Apostle Paul, could not but influence each other. Many provisions of the treatise "On Good Deeds" have something in common with the provisions formulated in the epistles of the Apostle Paul. From the treatise of Seneca breathes the spirit of Christianity. On the other hand, it should be emphasized that Christian morality picked up the baton of Seneca morality. And if Stoicism, as a philosophical movement, was forgotten, then many of its ethical provisions, the doctrine of the inner world of man, of the desire of man to rise in his spiritual development to the level of God, acquired their immortality thanks to Christianity.

Secondly, one should not forget the specific situation in which Seneca was. The first grandee of the empire, the omnipotent politician, before whom everyone bowed (except the emperor Nero), the great sage whom Rome idolized, the caring mentor of Nero, who publicly showed gratitude to his teacher, was now in disgrace. Seneca closed. Many turned away from him, fearing contact with the disgraced politician-philosopher. Only close friends remained, occasionally visiting him. Nero from a grateful patron turned into a man who wanted to get rid of Seneca as soon as possible. Nero made attempts to poison Seneca. Sepeka, having studied the insidious tricks of the reigning house, foresaw a similar move by the tyrant. He protected his body from poison. by accustoming it by taking certain doses for a long time. Like a psychologist. Seneca knew that ungrateful people often hatched the idea of destroying the one who had done him a favor in his time. Later in the "Letters" he will speak very sharply: "good deed gives rise to evil deed, and instead of love, hatred grows ... There is no hatred ... more pernicious than that which is born of shame for an unrequited good deed" (4. 81, 5 ... 32). This turn of Nero once again made the thinker think about the nature of good and evil, about the essence of good deeds and vices, about the reasons for the manifestation of ingratitude towards the benefactor. The analysis of factual material and philosophical generalization were influenced by Seneca's personal experiences.

Thirdly, it was required to summarize previous studies. The whole course of creativity led Seneca to draw up a kind of code of charity, arising from the moral law formulated by him, which is based on the principle of philanthropy. In a number of previous treatises, Seneca developed the doctrine of the sage, of the paths of ascent to wisdom as the highest level of moral self-perfection. In the new treatise, he speaks not of wise men, but of people in general. He tries to substantiate the very simple and practically necessary rules of everyday behavior for every person through the prism of the law of beneficence. again and

again, Seneca convinces the reader that without observing the laws of beneficence, society will not be able to get out of the abyss of immorality, where countless insidious vices have dragged people into. Exact date the writing of the treatise is unknown. There are various assumptions. The Polish scholar Leon Joachimowicz, who deeply studied the work of Seneca, believes that the treatise was completed in 64, during the period of the cruel tyranny of Nero (42, p. 78). In the treatise, the author points out, Seneca develops the philosophy of kindness and responsiveness, continuing the line begun in Greece. “Greek thought,” he continues, “created in this matter, gradually developing over the course of centuries. Its elements can already be found in Homer, Hesiod and the lyric poets, in the philosophical systems of Pythagoras, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, the poets of the classical era, in Epicurus Chrysippus in the schools of rhetoricians In addition to those named, the main source for Seneca in developing the theme was the Stoic Hekaton from Rhodes, the author of a treatise on duties, and to a lesser extent, as analysis shows, his teacher Panetius from Rhodes, also the author of the treatise about duties. From the content of the letters to Lucilius, we can conclude that Seneca read Hekaton, making extracts from him. His principles, quoted by Seneca in letters, are a golden thread with which they are connected into a single whole. Some thoughts are borrowed from Chrysippus, Cleanthes, philosophers Cynics - mainly Demetrius, Bion, Boristhenitus. Much of this we find in the works of Cicero on friendship and duties. Seneca was, however, not a slavish imitator, but remained I am an individual and independent thinker" (42, p. 80-81).

The treatise consists of seven books. In each book, the author, considering some aspects of the law of beneficence, formulates a whole series of rules, accompanying them with examples. Often Seneca is distracted from the instructions, and begins to talk with the reader (referring, of course, to his friend Ebutius Liberalis) in a different way. The logic of the main idea sometimes drowns in these branches, causing certain difficulties for the reader. We have to go back to what we read in order to restore this logic. However, when

If you master all the work, then you will experience true pleasure from the moral beauty of this philosophical labyrinth. Moreover, the long and difficult journey through the labyrinths of Seneca's reasoning produces moral purifications in this, perhaps, the main advantage of the treatise, which makes it valuable even today.

In the first book, Seneca sets out his view on the essence of beneficence and reveals its various manifestations. In the second book, Seneca gives advice to the reader on how to do good deeds to people. In the third book, the philosopher discusses the question: "How should good deeds be returned?" Here Seneca speaks of ingratitude as a vice. In the fourth book, based on vivid examples, Seneca argues with Epicureanism. In the fifth book, Seneca again returns to the problem of ingratitude, analyzing it on historical facts. In the sixth book, Seneca dwells on the question of whether it is worth accepting a boon and, if so, how to receive it. In the final book, Seneca, analyzing the ethics of his teacher Demetrius, convinces the reader that beneficence is a subtle art and this art must be learned.
3. Beneficence as a moral law
How does Seneca formulate the law of beneficence? "The law of a beneficence connecting two persons is as follows: one must immediately forget about what has been rendered, the other must never forget about what has been received (beneficence)" (II, 10). From this formulation it follows that the law of beneficence is moral prescriptions, moral obligations imposed on both sides: the benefactor and the recipient of the beneficence.

The law obliges each side of interpersonal relationships to behave accordingly. Violation of the obligations of one of the parties leads to a deviation from the law of beneficence, destroys the moral foundations of society, which inevitably leads to an increase in evil in society. Good and evil are irreconcilable. There is a struggle between good and evil in man. To suppress evil, one must adhere to the law of beneficence; in order to adhere to the law of beneficence, one must know it. Many keep the law of beneficence, not knowing it, an inner voice prompts them. In fact, this is the Socratic principle: "Know thyself!" How many troubles humanity would be saved from if people would know themselves, if they would know the law of beneficence. Ignorance is the source of delusion and evil deeds. “Among the many and varied delusions of people living recklessly and thoughtlessly, it seems to me, the venerable Liberal,” Seneca turns to a friend, “there is almost nothing more dangerous than the fact that we do not know how to give or receive good deeds. Good deeds, badly rendered, usually badly and are accepted, and if they are not returned to us, then it is too late to complain: we lost them at the very moment when they gave them. ). In an effort to more intelligibly reveal the essence of moral obligations under the action of the law of beneficence. Seneca reproduces the images of the three graces, drawing their moral obligations. The use of mythological images by Seneca is very successful here. “Now,” writes Seneca, “I will turn to a consideration of the essence and properties of beneficences, if you allow me. to first, briefly mention that which is not directly related to the matter. Why are there three Graces. Why are they sisters to each other, why are they intertwined hands, why are they smiling, why are they (depicted) virgins and dressed in spacious and transparent clothes?

Some argue that one of them depicts giving a beneficence, the other - receiving, the third returning back. Others see in them the personification of three kinds of blessings: giving, returning, giving return together. But do you admit that this or that explanation is true - what good will this knowledge do us? What does the circle of graces mean, entwined with their hands and facing one another? That. that blessings, passing in succession from hand to hand, nevertheless, in the end, again return to the giver of them. This order is completely destroyed, as many times it is violated, and, on the contrary, 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 and receive good deeds are usually joyful. They are young, for the memory of a good deed must not grow old. They are virgins, for they (good deeds) are blameless, pure and holy to all. There should be nothing involuntarily, bound or forced in beneficences - that is why the graces are dressed in spacious tunics, and moreover transparent, for benefactions require that they be seen ”(I, 3).

What moral obligations does Seneca impose on the first side, that is, on the benefactor?

Among the many, the following can be distinguished:

one). Beneficence is done willingly, willingly, according to one's own will;

2). In beneficence, the main thing is not how much he gave, but how he gave, with what disposition of the spirit. Give with a desire to help, not with the hope of getting something in return. Benevolence is for the sake of beneficence;

3. A good person never thinks to record benefits in a debt book, otherwise the benefit takes the form of a loan "to record benefits as an expense - shameful usury" (I. 2). "beneficence cannot be touched by the hand: it lies in the soul" (I, 5);

4). It is necessary to give what the receiver does not have, what he needs:

five). Beneficence should be rendered in the way that the recipients themselves would like: willingly, quickly and without hesitation.

It seems to me that I am able to point out the most convenient way. Let us render beneficence as we ourselves would like to receive it: first of all, willingly, quickly and without any hesitation. But when, while giving some gift, they hold it in their hands for a long time and, apparently, part with it with difficulty, and give it as if they were taking it away from themselves, the beneficence is unpleasant. Therefore, even in the event that we had to slow down for some reason, we will in every possible way avoid a look that might make us think that we are hesitating. To hesitate is almost the same as to refuse, and he who gives with hesitation does not deserve any thanks. For as soon as the desire of the giver is most pleasant in beneficence, then he who, by the very slowness, declared his unwillingness to give, actually did not give, but only showed weak resistance to the opposite attraction. And there are many who are made generous by weakness of character. The most pleasant of all are such good deeds that are rendered with readiness, willingness, courtesy and without any delay, except for the one who receives it due to modesty. The best thing is to anticipate the desire of everyone, but it is almost as good to follow it, although it is still better to anticipate the request, and this is why: an honest person closes his mouth and flushes his face when he has to ask; therefore, he who delivers him from this torture thereby multiplies his gift. It is not for nothing that the one who received it after a request receives a blessing, for, according to the most worthy men, our ancestors, there is no object more expensive than that which is bought at the price of requests. People would send petitions less often if they had to be sent publicly, therefore even to the gods whom we worship with the greatest honors, we prefer to offer prayers in silence and within ourselves. "To hesitate is almost the same as to refuse, and he who gives with indecision does not deserve any gratitude (II. I);

6). The best thing is when they do not be late with a good deed. A person asking for help experiences an oppressive state of humiliation. "We must hurry: the one who gave it to those who asked for it was too late" (II, 2):

7). It is better to add kind words to good deeds and accompany the good deed with a kind, blessed conversation with the petitioner;

8) You should not be reminded of your good deed. Frequent reminders of services torment and depress the soul. In such cases, one would like to exclaim what a man exclaimed, saved by one of Caesar's friends from the proscription of the triumvirs, when he was not able to endure the arrogant treatment of his deliverer. “Give me to Caesar. How long will you say: "I saved you, I took you from death"? If I myself remember this deliverance, then it seems to me life, but if you call this memory in me, it seems death! I don't owe you anything if you saved me for the purpose of having someone to point to. How long will you put me on display, how long will you not let me forget about my fate? After all, since I was already led in a triumphal procession! We should not talk about what we gave: whoever reminds, he demands back. You should not repeat the same thing, you should not evoke memories, except in the case when, by giving a new gift, you thereby remind of the former. We shouldn't even tell outsiders. Whoever rendered a beneficence, let him be silent, and whoever received it, let him speak (about it). (II, 11);

nine). It is necessary to avoid any kind of arrogance when rendering a good deed to the one who asks. If you want to be treated with gratitude by those to whom you do a favor, then you must not only do good deeds, but also love. Mainly, as I said, let's spare the ear. Reminder causes grief, and reproach - hatred.

There is nothing more to be avoided in favors than haughty treatment. Why this haughty look, why these pompous speeches? The work itself exalts you. It is necessary to eliminate empty boasting: let deeds speak, and we will become silent. Beneficence rendered with arrogance is not only unpleasant, but also hateful. (II. 11);

10) It is necessary to pay attention not only to the beginning, but also to the outcome of one's good deeds and to give what gives pleasure not only at the very moment of receiving, but also after it. "Give in to the entreaties of those who ask for their own destruction - pernicious kindness" (II. 14):

11) It is impossible to do what can turn to our dishonor;

12). You don't have to be reckless. It is necessary to foresee the consequences for the asker and for himself. "I will give to the needy, but in such a way that I myself do not need; I will resort to the help of a person) in danger, but in such a way that I myself will not perish - except when the desire comes to me to sacrifice myself for a great man, or great deed" (II, 15);
13). You need to pay attention to your abilities and strengths;

14) One should take into account the person to whom we give, the time when we give, the environment in which we render the benefit.

Of course, all these tips echo those that are scattered in the works of Hekaton, Chrysippus. Cicero. They also echo the commandments of Christianity, which will be discussed below.

The law of beneficence imposes, Seneca argues, certain moral requirements on the person who receives beneficence. Interpreting this part of the law. Seneca is even more severe. He believes that the greatest vice lies in ingratitude. If the one who has rendered a beneficence should rather forget about his charity, then the one who has received the beneficence is obliged to remember the benefactor. This is his moral duty. In all nations, Seneca emphasizes, ingratitude is condemned. Obliged to provide good deeds and show sincere gratitude in return - this is that. what holds people together in a healthy community.

However, many people suffer from the vice of ingratitude. “There are many categories of people from the ungrateful, as well as thieves and murderers; their (ungrateful) guilt is generally the same, however, in particular there is a great variety. the one who hides, the one who does not return is ungrateful, but the one who forgets is the most ungrateful" (6. III. 1). It is possible to divide all people, according to Seneca, into two types. The first type are those who show ingratitude, but have not yet completely lost their shame and conscience. Someday they will have this mechanism working. The second type is those in whom all the accepted good deeds have completely disappeared from their memory. They do not remember them, and their conscience does not gnaw at them. And it flew out of their memory not due to forgetfulness, not due to the peculiarities of memory, but due to the absence of the very feeling of reciprocal gratitude, lack of conscience.

Ingratitude is a moral and psychological property of a person. Ingratitude is the greatest human vice. Ingratitude divides people, destroys the foundation of society, leads the community of people to death. Society is cemented with gratitude. Our security lies in the exchange of blessings (III, 18). Man cannot live alone. Loneliness is the death of man and society. The strength of society lies in its unity, and unity is based on mutual respect, beneficence, and the exchange of beneficence. Not evil, but good is the basis of society. It is not vice, but virtue that adorns and strengthens society. The strength of society lies not in disunity, but in unity. Separate us, what then shall we be? Prey and sacrifice of animals, blood, worthless and very easily shed. While other animals have sufficient strength to protect themselves, and all those that are born to wander and live in isolation are armed, weakness surrounds man: neither the strength of claws, nor the strength of teeth makes him terrible for others; unarmed and powerless, he is protected by society. (Nature) gave two forces that made a weak man very strong - reason and society; thanks to them, he who, taken individually, cannot even equal anyone else, possesses the world. Society gave him power over all animals, he, who was born on earth, society introduced into the possession of another nature and gave him the power to rule over all nature. It restrains attacks of illnesses, prepares the support of old age, gives consolation in sorrows; it makes us courageous, because it allows us to call (for help) against fate. Destroy society and you will destroy the unity of the human race - the unity that sustains life; and it will be destroyed if you maintain that a person should avoid ingratitude, not for its own sake, but because he needs to be afraid of something else. For (really) how many are there who can safely be ungrateful? Finally, I call ungrateful anyone who is grateful out of fear (III, 18).

How to deal with people who show ingratitude? Should people be punished for the vice that everyone condemns? Seneca's answer again brings him closer to Christian morality. Great is the man who does good deeds, says Seneca. He deserves all respect. who in his heart remembers the favor rendered to him. However, the first person is taller than the second. The first is equal to the gods. But if the benefactor begins to demand back his beneficence or demand to somehow compensate for it, then he instantly loses this divine quality and turns from a benefactor into a contemptible usurer. “Whoever does good deeds,” we read from Seneca, “he imitates the gods, and whoever demands them back, usurers. Why, trying to protect the first (i.e., benefactors), we place them (in this way) among the most contemptible people ( i.e. usurers)?" (6.111.15).

It is necessary to be consistent in beneficence. Do not return evil for evil. Evil can only be overcome with good. Good has an all-conquering power. Any vice can be overcome with good. We must learn to endure the ungrateful. Your patience, your consistency in beneficence will re-educate an ungrateful person and put him on the path of good. And this is the greatest task and the greatest feat of a noble person, noble not in origin, but in deeds. And a slave can rise to the height of a noble man. For all one criterion - philanthropy and beneficence. “The task of a worthy and generous husband is to endure the ungrateful until you make him grateful. And this calculation will not deceive you. Vices obey virtue, if you do not hurry soon, treat them with hatred” (6. V. 1).

Speaking about beneficence, about its role in the life of man and society, Seneca in the final book, referring to the statements of Demetrius, emphasizes that beneficence must be learned. Charity is the art of the soul and deed. It is necessary to love a person, to help to provide a beneficence in such a way as not to offend, not to humiliate the one to whom you are doing a beneficence. Beneficence should exclude the desire to subjugate a person. It is necessary to provide assistance in such a way that a person accepts it with joy and without obligations. However, in turn, the one who received the beneficence must learn gratitude. First, he must imbibe this moral feeling towards others in order to help when needed. Secondly, never show ingratitude for a good deed.
4. The echo of the ideas of the treatise with the "Moral Letters to Lucilius"

Simultaneously with the treatise On Benefits, Seneca wrote Moral Letters to Lucilius, in which he analyzes the problem of beneficence from various positions. The unifying idea is the assertion that good deeds will certainly give positive results. If you want to destroy evil, this is good. Don't complain if you meet an ungrateful person. Subdue him with love, kindness. “You complain,” Seneca turns to Lucilius, “that you attacked an ungrateful person. If this is the first time, thank fate or your own prudence. However, prudence here, if anything can, is to make you unkind: after all, wanting to avoid such a danger , you will refuse good deeds to everyone, and they will be lost through your fault, because of your fear, lest they be lost to others. But it is better not to see good deeds in return than to refuse everyone. often what perishes from the constant barrenness of bad soil is compensated by the abundance of one year. To find a grateful one, it is worth trying your luck with the ungrateful ones. A benefactor cannot have such a sure hand that he never misses: but let the arrows fly past - if only sometimes they hit the target. And after a shipwreck they go out to sea: a usurer is not driven from the market by a deceiver. Life will soon become numb in idle rest if we have to retreat from everything that we don’t like. And those For failures, let them make them even more responsive: after all, for the case, the outcome of which is unclear, one should take on more often, so that someday it will come out "(4. 81, 1-2).

Seneca considers the moral law as a regulator of moral relations between people. The law requires a person to respect the dignity of the person in the face of another person. Man is a sacred being! Everyone is obliged to cultivate in himself a great feeling of philanthropy. “Humanity,” Seneca insisted, “forbids being stingy, it is both in words and

in deeds and in feelings he shows gentleness and tenderness to everyone, he does not consider anyone else's misfortune, he loves his own good most of all when it serves the good of another "(4. 88, 30).

People are equal in dignity. But they are unequal in social status. This is where polarities come in. At one extreme, the rich, at the other, the poor. Benevolence, philanthropy is not closed to anyone. In order for humanity to manifest itself, it is necessary to be merciful. People are bound together by a sense of moral responsibility to each other. If people love each other, then the feeling of responsibility of a person to people will increase: for love in itself is, first of all, care for each other. This concern is selfless. Respect the human in man. Love the person for who they are and take care to make them better. Give him your warmth, your kind heart, without demanding any reward from him. Your love will make you happy. Humanity will constantly force you to do good deeds. Your soul realizes that this is your sacred duty to people and God.

But the human being is at the same time weak. He succumbs to the temptation that comes from the passions. Passions can push a person into the bosom of pleasures and sometimes even perverted ones. It is necessary to keep passions in check with the help of reason. But the mind can be weakened under the influence of the philosophy of pleasure, that is, the philosophy of Epicureanism. That is why one must be critical of this contagious philosophy. And Seneca shows us how to read the works of Epicurus and his followers wisely. He devoted quite a few pages to this problem in his treatise.

Why does a person develop vices? Much, according to Seneca, is inherent in us from birth. But education, and especially self-education, plays a decisive role. For each person, the sage should serve as an ideal. The path to wisdom is winding and thorny. Rising to the heights of wisdom, a person simultaneously rises to moral perfection. Since the sage rarely appears in life (once every five centuries), the gods serve as a guide in moral perfection for us.

The word "god" Seneca uses in the singular and in plural. This is not surprising. It should be noted that in the first century New Era Rome was dominated by religious pluralism. The international city was flooded with people who, in their own way, preferred one or another deity or a whole host of gods: Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Germanic and the like.

Without going into details now, what meaning Seneca put in “god”, we note that the philosopher often understood by God the World Mind, the Logos, Providence, and the Demiurge, and Fate, and Nature itself. In the treatise "On Good Deeds" another important semantic load of the concept of "God" emerges: God is moral perfection, that invisible standard of morality to which a person should strive. Showing concern for one's moral self-improvement, striving to rise to the highest level, i.e. to God, man still does not become God. The gods are immortal, man is mortal. God is multifunctional in his perfection. A person can become like a god in his love for people, in his kindness, in his virtue. After all, the gods created everything, including humans. They divided everything they created into categories. The gods placed humans above all. “How much better it would be if we turn to the contemplation of such numerous and great blessings and thank the gods for deigning to place us in this beautiful dwelling in second place after themselves and exalted us above all earthly things (6. II, 29). For us , people, God is the main teacher of morality (6. 4, 6) Do not we find similar ideas in the New Testament?

Considering God in the spirit of a moral ideal, convincing people that they should make efforts for moral self-education, focusing on the ideal of the Heavenly Sovereign, Seneca reminded readers of man's obligations to God. The translator of the treatise under consideration, the Russian philosopher P. Krasnov, drew attention to this side: "The books" On Benefits "and arouse mainly interest later)", that after letters to Lucilius, they contain most of all such thoughts that bring the teachings of Seneca closer to Christianity. In this regard, special attention should be paid to those places of the translated work, which speak of the V duties of man to the Divine, which should consist in reverence, love, gratitude and a virtuous life, the desire to approach His infinite perfections: where it is advised to overcome evil with good, disinterestedly help others; where the doctrine of the infinite love of the Deity for the human race is revealed "- (6, p. 417).

As a father to a son, as a teacher to a student, Seneca teaches the reader about charity. In the treatise, philosophical and moral ideas are illustrated with vivid examples. Seneca really wants to be believed, that his ideas become the reader's worldview, that the reader firmly embarks on the noble path of charity. Increasing the number of people who will accept his teaching will have a beneficial effect on human society, mired in immorality. If everyone purifies his soul, if everyone strives to help others, then society will become cleaner, kinder, more comfortable. Seneca believes in this. But sometimes he slips other notes. As a philosopher and politician, as a thinking artist, he sees the growth of lack of spirituality. His prognosis becomes disappointing and sometimes pessimistic. Seneca begins to talk about the fact that evil is ineradicable. Both contemporaries and previous generations of people are guilty of this. In each new time, the vices of people, remaining essentially the same, take only new forms. It seems that the forces of good are increasing. But at the same time, the forces of evil are growing. The clash of the forces of good and evil is becoming more and more titanic. So it seems that the gods left people to the mercy of fate. Here is how Seneca depicts this trend in society: “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, but all these vices remain, and will remain, undergoing only a slight change, as the sea overflows far at high tide, and at low tide again returns to the shores. other vices, and break the bonds of chastity, at times mad feasts and culinary arts will flourish - the most shameful bane of (father's) wealth. into impudence and audacity. From time to time, cruelty in private and public relations and violent internecine wars will spread, during whom everything great and holy is desecrated. 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, inciting and chasing each other. However, we must always declare the same thing about ourselves: we are evil, we were evil, and, I reluctantly add, we will be evil. There will be murderers, tyrants, thieves, fornicators. robbers, blasphemers and traitors; below all of them, the ungrateful, unless we admit that all the vices that were discussed come from an ungrateful soul, without which any major crime would hardly have increased" (I, 10).

All his life, Seneca is painfully looking for a way out. He believes that they will better times. But when? How to achieve this? One thing is clear to him: it is impossible to create a humane society in any one state. It is necessary to renew all of humanity as a whole. It is necessary to carry out a moral cleansing of the soul of every person and of the entire universe.

5. Conclusion

All researchers agree that the treatise "On Good Deeds", written in the last years of his life, differs from all previous ones in that in it one can find the similarity of many of the author's ideas with the spirit of Christian ethics. Back in the 30s of the last century, the German researcher Ferdinand Christian Baer wrote about Seneca: “There is not a single writer of antiquity, from whose writings one could present so many places similar in thought to some places in Holy Scripture, not a single one that would be in character showed so much Christian in his way of thinking." What do these coincidences say? There are two points of view on this. First: Seneca in the last years of his life was influenced by Christianity. Not the last role - the apostle played here. Paul, whom he may have known. Second: the figures of early Christianity, the Apostle Paul and the authors of the Gospels, having experienced the influence of Seneca's ideas, borrowed some provisions from the works of Seneca, quoting them almost verbatim. Of course, these are extremes. Most likely, there was a mutual influence, as is generally the case in the development of spiritual culture.

Countless works have been written on the history of Christianity. All the details of the formation of Christianity are analyzed from a wide variety of methodological positions. It is not our task to review this literature critically.

Here it is only appropriate to emphasize the new that Christianity has introduced into the understanding of man and his relationship with various projections of the world.

Firstly, Greco-Roman thought considered the world, the cosmos as the likeness of a person. The cosmos has both a body and a soul. The soul of the cosmos was called differently, but it still looked like the human soul with all its diverse functions. Christianity began to consider man as the creation of God, as the likeness of God, as the highest being in relation to all living things. For Christianity, the world is the creation of God. But this is a world that is ruled by God. God is not just a demiurge. He is the steward.

Secondly, among ancient philosophers, the relationship between man and the world is based on the principles of the logical coincidence of the human mind and the mind of the world (Logos), on the idea of human knowledge of the world, knowledge of the essence of the world in a rational way. In Christianity, the principle of the imperative, the principle of prescribing the divine will, comes to the fore. Moreover, a person perceives the prescription as a voluntary desire to do what God commands. For a true believer there should be no discrepancy between the will of God and the will of man. Through faith, a person must, is obliged, is able to turn the moral prescriptions of God into his own moral principles of life. And this is the duty of man. In this way, the nature of the relationship between man and the Logos changes. In the ancient worldview, a person could rise to the heights of knowledge, to the level of a sage, and in the Christian worldview, to the level of a moral ideal embodied in Christ and his moral commandments.

Third, Christianity has redefined the meaning of human life. It is expressed in a short formula: "Faith, Hope, Love". From now on, love for God is in the foreground. Through this love man can hope for salvation. Without faith in God, in salvation, without faith in the second coming of Christ, without faith in the resurrection, the meaning of life is lost. The formula "Faith, Hope, Love" is clothed in Christianity in the moral postulates of the Sermon on the Mount:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied. Blessed are the merciful, for they will receive mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they God will be seen. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. Blessed are you when they reproach you and persecute you and slander you in every way unrighteously for me. Rejoice and be glad, for great is your reward in heaven so they persecuted the prophets who were before you."

Literature
1. L.A. Seneca. About blessings. // Roman Stoics. M.: Republic -1995.

2. L.A. Seneca Moral Letters to Lucilius. Kemerovo, 1977.

3. Dialogue with Seneca. Taganrog, TRTU, 1995.

4. Philosophical heritage of antiquity. Taganrog, TRTU, 1999.

5. V.A. Ivliev. Small treatises of Seneca. Taganrog, TRTU, 1997.

"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."

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

"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.”

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 ...

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!

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?

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.

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 very depths of truth itself, 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 (of the very) method of rendering , 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 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.

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 living, 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. One should teach (people) - to receive willingly, to return willingly and set an important task for oneself - not only to equal in 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 same inventions, which were mentioned 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).

As much as it is necessary to circumvent everything superfluous, it is equally necessary to prove that we must first of all examine what our duty consists in receiving a benefit. For one says that his debt is 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 snatched away by illness or some accidental misfortune: and with their loss, what was rendered through them continues to abide. 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.

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 it is in this disposition of the person who gives or does the good deed itself, 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 (disposition) 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.

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 it back, as if he did not give, who found and sought 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 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 own 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 recognize myself as 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 major 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 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 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 the necessary, then the useful, then the pleasant, and, mainly, those that can be preserved for 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.

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 by virtue of connection, blood, use and long-term habit, such as: children, spouses, penates, and so on, 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 that gift, which 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.

If the choice of a gift is in our power, then let us choose primarily 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 deed itself awaken a fading memory. I will be more willing to give silver 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 fool who needs to be persuaded not to send gladiators or hunts to anyone, 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, and simple apples, which a few days later may be scorned, are pleasurable 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 congratulated Alexander the Great through ambassadors - 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. In fact, 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 the 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 way of life, 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 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 beneficence, and even with outstretched arms, when it, under the guidance of the mind, 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.

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.