Des bienfaits Chapitre 21

Illud magis venire in aliquam disputationem potest, quid faciendum sit captivo, cui redemptionis pretium homo prostituti corporis et infamis ore promittit. Patiar me ab impuro servari ? Servatus deinde quam illi gratiam referam ? Vivam cum obsceno ? Non vivam cum redemptore ? Quid ergo placeat, dicam. Etiam a tali accipiam pecuniam, quam pro capite dependam, accipiam autem tamquam creditum, non tamquam beneficium ; solvam illi pecuniam et, si occasio fuerit servandi periclitantem, servabo ; in amicitiam, quae similes iungit, non descendam, nec servatoris illum loco numerabo sed feneratoris, cui sciam reddendum, quod accepi. Est aliquis dignus, a quo beneficium accipiam, sed danti nociturum est ; ideo non accipiam, quia ille paratus est mihi cum incommodo aut etiam periculo suo prodesse. Defensurus est me reum, sed illo patrocinio regem sibi facturus inimicum ; inimicus sum, si, cum ille pro me periclitari velit, ego, quod facilius est, non facio, ut sine illo pericliter. Ineptum et frivolum hoc Hecaton ponit exemplum Arcesilai, quem ait a filio familiae adlatam pecuniam non accepisse, ne ille patrem sordidum offenderet. Quid fecit laude dignum, quod furtum non recepit, quod maluit non accipere quam reddere ? Quae est enim alienam rem non accipere moderatio ? Si exemplo magni animi opus est, utamur Graecini Iulii, viri egregii, quem C. Caesar occidit ob hoc unum, quod melior vir erat, quam esse quemquam tyranno expedit. Is cum ab amicis conferentibus ad impensam ludorum pecunias acciperet, magnam pecuniam a Fabio Persico missam non accepit et obiurgantibus iis, qui non aestimant mittentes, sed missa, quod repudiasset : " Ego," inquit, " ab eo beneficium accipiam, a quo propinationem accepturus non sum ? " Cum illi Rebilus consularis, homo eiusdem infamiae, maiorem summam misisset instaretque, ut accipi iuberet : " Rogo," inquit, " ignoscas ; et a Persico non accepi." Utrum hoc munera accipere est an senatum legere ?

It seems to offer more opportunity for debate to consider what a captive ought to do, if a man of abominable vices offers him the price of his ransom? Shall I permit myself to be saved by a wretch? When safe, what recompense can I make to him? Am I to live with an infamous person? Yet, am I not to live with my preserver? I will tell you my opinion. I would accept money, even from such a person, if it were to save my life; yet I would only accept it as a loan, not as a benefit. I would repay him the money, and if I were ever able to preserve him from danger I would do so. As for friendship, which can only exist between equals, I would not condescend to be such a man's friend; nor would I regard him as my preserver, but merely as a money-lender, to whom I am only bound to repay what I borrowed from him. A man may be a worthy person for me to receive a benefit from, but it will hurt him to give it. For this reason I will not receive it, because he is ready to help me to his own prejudice, or even danger. Suppose that he is willing to plead for me in court, but by so doing will make the king his enemy. I should be his enemy, if, when he is willing to risk himself for me, if I were not to risk myself without him, which moreover is easier for me to do. As an instance of this, Hecaton calls the case of Arcesilaus silly, and not to the purpose. Arcesilaus, he says, refused to receive a large sum of money which was offered to him by a son, lest the son should offend his penurious father. What did he do deserving of praise, in not receiving stolen goods, in choosing not to receive them, instead of returning them? What proof of self-restraint is there in refusing to receive another man's property. If you want an instance of magnanimity, take the case of Julius Graecinus, whom Caius Caesar put to death merely on the ground that he was a better man than it suited a tyrant for anyone to be. This man, when he was receiving subscriptions from many of his friends to cover his expenses in exhibiting public games, would not receive a large sum which was sent him by Fabius Persicus; and when he was blamed for rejecting it by those who think more of what is given than of who gives it, he answered, "Am I to accept a present from a man when I would not accept his offer to drink a glass of wine with him?" When a consular named Rebilius, a man of equally bad character, sent a yet larger sum to Graecinus, and pressed him to receive it. "I must beg," answered he, "that you will excuse me. I did not take money from Persicus either." Ought we to call this receiving presents, or rather taking one's pick of the senate?

On pourrait plutôt discuter jusqu’à un certain point ce que doit faire un captif, quand le prix de sa rançon lui est offert par un homme qui a prostitué son corps et sa bouche aux plus sales complaisances. Souffrirai-je que cet impur devienne mon sauveur ? Et s’il me sauve, de quelle reconnaissance le payerai-je ? Vivrai-je avec un monstre de débauche ? Refuserai-je de vivre avec qui m’a racheté ? Voici quel est mon sentiment. Je recevrai, même d’un homme de cette sorte, la somme que je dois livrer pour ma tête ; mais je la recevrai comme prêt, non comme bienfait. Je lui rembourserai sa somme ; et si l’occasion s’offre à moi de le tirer d’un danger, je l’en tirerai ; quant à l’amitié, ce lien des âmes qui se ressemblent, je ne descendrai pas jusque-là : je ne verrai pas en lui un libérateur, mais un placeur de fonds à qui je sais qu’il faut rendre ce qu’on reçoit. Il y a tel homme qui mérite que je reçoive ses bienfaits, mais qui va se nuire pour m’obliger : je n’accepterai point, par cela même qu’il est prêt à me servir à son détriment ou au prix d’un péril quelconque. Il veut me défendre en justice ; mais cette démarche lui ferait d’un homme puissant un ennemi. Son premier ennemi ce serait moi si, quand il veut s’exposer pour ma cause, à mon tour je ne prenais le parti plus simple de rester exposé tout seul. Je ne vois rien que d’insignifiant et de fort ordinaire dans ce trait cité par Hécaton : Arcésilas, dit-il, refusa d’un fils de famille une offre d’argent, pour ne pas offenser le père, qui était avare. Qu’y avait-il de si louable à ne pas recéler un vol, à aimer mieux ne pas recevoir que d’avoir à restituer ? La belle modération, de ne pas accepter le bien d’autrui ! S’il nous faut un exemple de noble désintéressement, prenons celui de Gracinus Julius, du grand citoyen que Caligula fit tuer, par cela seul qu’il ne convenait pas au tyran de trouver chez personne une pareille vertu . Græcinus, un jour qu’il recevait l’argent que lui envoyaient ses amis pour contribuer aux frais des jeux publics, refusa de Fabius Persicus une somme considérable, et répondit à ceux qui, s’arrêtant plus à l’offrande qu’au personnage qui offrait, lui reprochaient ce refus : « Moi, recevoir un service d’un homme dont je n’accepterais pas à table une santé ! » Et comme le consulaire Rebilus, non moins décrié que Persicus, lui envoyait une somme encore plus forte et insistait pour qu’il en ordonnât l’acceptation : « De grâce, lui dit-il excusez-moi ; j’ai déjà refusé Persicus. » Est-ce là recevoir de toute main ? N’est-ce pas plutôt choisir, comme on choisit pour faire un sénateur ?