Demonax | Hellenic Library Beta

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
Nicolaus of Damascus. Life of Augustus. Dissertation submitted to the Board of University Studies of the Johns Hopkins University in conformity with requirements for a degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Translated by Clayton M. Hall. 1922.

====== Nicolaus of Damascus: Autobiography of Nicolaus of Damascus ======

Fragment 131

[F131] ( Antipater, the father of Nicolaus, gives his son a careful education ): see Suda, A'2705.

Fragment 132

[F132] ( Nicolaus is proficient in many different fields of scholarship and literature ): see Suda, N'393.

Fragment 133

[F133] . . . and commending him as a philosopher who harboured no grudges, he treated him with much greater honour and goodwill.

Fragment 134

[F134] Nicolaus performed an act of great kindness. When Julia, the daughter of Augustus and wife of Agrippa, arrived by night at Ilium, the river Scamander was in full spate with torrents of flood-water, and she was in danger of being swept away while crossing it, along with the servants who were escorting her. The inhabitants of Ilium did not notice this, and Agrippa was so angry because they did not help her, that he fined them 100,000 pieces of silver. They were in a quandary, because they had not expected the storm and they had not been informed that the girl was travelling, but they did not dare to make any reply to Agrippa. When Nicolaus came there, they begged him to persuade Herodes to be their helper and their champion. Nicolaus very readily agreed, because of the good reputation of the city. He took their plea to the king, and explained the situation, how Agrippa had been wrong to be angry with them, when he had not warned them that he was sending his wife there, and she travelled during the night, which made it impossible to see her approaching. In the end, the king agreed to take up their case, and through his efforts the fine was removed. The envoys from Ilium had already left, because they had given up hope of avoiding the fine, so Herodes gave a letter to Nicolaus, who was sailing to Chios and Rhodes, where his children were staying. Herodes himself went on to Paphlagonia with Agrippa. Nicolaus sailed from Amisus to Byzantium, and from there to the Troad. He proceeded to Ilium and delivered to the inhabitants the letter announcing their release from the fine. As a result they held him, and even more the king, in great honour.

Fragment 135

[F135] Herodes again put aside his love of philosophy - as tends to happens to those in authority, because their great good fortune distracts them - and again was keen on rhetoric. He forced Nicolaus to study rhetoric with him, and together they practised oratory. And then Herodes was seized by {love} of history, when Nicolaus praised this as most statesman-like, and useful to a king, so that he could examine the deeds and achievements of former men. The king was enthusiastic about it, and encouraged Nicolaus to take up the task of history-writing. Nicolaus set about the task in grand style. He gathered together the whole of history, and expended greater effort on it than anyone else. After a long time he completed this labour of love, saying that if Eurystheus had given it to Heracles as one of his tasks, it would have exhausted Heracles. After this, Herodes sailed to Rome to meet Caesar [Augustus]; he took Nicolaus with him in the same boat, and they philosophised together.

Fragment 136

[F136] Herodes attacked Arabia without the agreement of Caesar [Augustus], who voiced his disapproval and became deeply angry with Herodes. Caesar sent him a very harsh letter, and abruptly dismissed the envoys who arrived on his behalf. But when Nicolaus arrived and met Caesar, he not only freed Herodes from all guilt, but he also turned his anger against the enemies of Herodes. The Arabian [king] had already died, but Caesar was persuaded by Nicolaus' accusations to condemn his chief minister, who was later found to be thoroughly wicked and was put to death.

2 In the meantime, the household of Herodes was in turmoil. His eldest son had accused two of his other sons of plotting against their father. These other two were younger than the first son, but had greater prestige because they were the children of the queen, whereas his mother was a commoner. 3 While Nicolaus was sailing back from Rome, the youths were found guilty by the sanhedrin, and their father was so provoked that he fully intended to kill them. When Nicolaus arrived, the king informed him of what had happened, and asked for his advice. Nicolaus suggested that he should confine the youths to one of his fortresses, until he had had time to consider their fate more thoroughly, rather than being led by anger to make an irrevocable decision about his close family. 4 When Antipater heard about this, he looked askance at Nicolaus, and sent more and more [of his friends] to frighten the king, saying that if he did not quickly put the youths out of the way, he would immediately be killed by them, because they had corrupted his whole army and his retinue. Herodes was afraid for his own safety, and made a decision that was hasty rather than wise. Without consulting Nicolaus any more, he sent some men to kill the youths by night. And so the youths died, which was the beginning of great evils for Herodes, although previously he had enjoyed good fortune.

5 After he had brought about the death of his brothers, Antipater treated Nicolaus as his enemy. But Antipater was deeply hated, not only within the kingdom [of Judaea], but by the people of Syria and those living further abroad. The news even reached Rome and there was no-one, great or small, who did not hate Antipater for two reasons, because he had killed his brothers who were nobler than him, and because he had persuaded his father to carry out this dreadful deed and thereby sully his former good reputation. 6 Antipater carried on behaving in the same way, and started to plot against his father. In his eagerness to become king, he bought some poison from Egypt, but he was betrayed by one of his accomplices. His servants were interrogated under torture by his father, and they revealed the whole plot, how he also intended to kill his step-mother and his other brothers and the children of the dead youths, so that no other heir to the throne would be left. He had even set in motion some crimes against the household of Caesar, far greater than his offences against his own family.

After Varus, the governor of Syria, and the other Roman officials had arrived, Herodes summoned the sanhedrin to judge his son. As evidence, he provided the poison and the confession of the tortured servants and some letters from Rome. The king appointed Nicolaus to manage the trial. 7 So Nicolaus spoke in prosecution, Antipater spoke in his own defence, and the case was judged by Varus and his colleagues. Antipater was found guilty and was condemned to death. Even then, Nicolaus advised the king to send Antipater to Caesar, because he also had been wronged, and then to act in accordance with Caesar's decision. But before this could be done, a letter arrived from Caesar, permitting Herodes to punish his son. Then Antipater was executed, and Caesar put to death the freedwoman who had conspired with him. Everyone {praised} Nicolaus for the excellent way in which he had prosecuted a man who was both a parricide and the murderer of his own brothers.

8 Soon afterwards the king died, and [control of] the nation was disputed between his sons and the Greeks, who numbered more than ten thousand. They met in battle, and the Greeks were victorious. Archelaus, the heir [of Herodes], sailed to Rome with his (?) other brothers, to claim his whole kingdom, and he urged Nicolaus to sail with him. Nicolaus had already decided to retire to private life, because he was about 60 years old. 9 Nevertheless, he joined in the voyage, but he found that everywhere was full of Archelaus' critics. On the one hand, his younger brother was making a rival bid for the throne, and on the other hand all his other relatives were critical of Archelaus, without supporting the younger brother. The Greek cities, which had been subject to Herodes, sent envoys to ask Caesar to restore their freedom; and the whole Jewish nation, blaming [Archelaus] for the death of the three thousand men who had been killed in the battle, preferred instead to be ruled by Caesar or otherwise by the younger brother. 10 When all these claims had been made, Nicolaus came forward in defence of Archelaus. He was successful first in the argument against the relatives of Archelaus, and then against his Jewish subjects. However he did not think it right to argue against the Greek cities, and he advised Archelaus not to oppose their bid for freedom, but to be content with the rest of his kingdom. Similarly, he did not think it right to argue with the brother, because of his affection for the father of both of them. 11 Caesar announced his decision on the whole matter, giving part of the kingdom to each of the brothers, and half of it to Archelaus. Caesar treated Nicolaus with honour. He gave Archelaus the title of ethnarch, and promised that if he proved himself worthy, he would soon make him king. He appointed the other brothers, Philippus and Antipas, to be tetrarchs.

Fragment 137

[F137] He spent all [the money] that he had requested on the works themselves, showing that he was not swayed by [love of] money; and soon he won a brilliant reputation, because he had not done anything improper to gain more money. 2 He despised pleasure, to a quite surprising degree, even though he was often in the company of kings and commanders. He was austere by nature and opposed to pleasure; he considered those who were devoted to such enjoyments to be little better than slaves, and he was always praising self-sufficiency and a simple life. However, in situations where it was right to be munificent, he was very generous and far from niggardly, so that he could never be accused of being illiberal. Whenever there was need of hard work and perseverance, he toiled as tirelessly as anyone, not only in his youth but even in his old age. Whenever danger threatened from enemies or bandits or disease or storms at sea or any other cause, he was so stoutly courageous, that he always instilled confidence in the others who were sharing the danger with him. He was so attached to justice and immune to blandishments, that when he was acting as judge he sometimes endured the threats of commanders rather than decide unjustly. 3 He was often chosen as a judge or an arbitrator, because it was obvious to everyone that he acted justly. In his contracts and arrangements with other individuals, he was never reproached, even by those who were known to be disreputable, because of his reasonableness; there was no need of witnesses or written covenants with him, but whatever he agreed could be relied on. 4 No-one could claim greater propriety and moderation than he showed by his disposition in the forum and in the street . . .

5 The philosopher earns good repute and honour through his studies, and receives other favours and benefits from those in power, but this cannot be achieved (?) without effort. 6 For who is more fitting to receive these benefits that arise from the best and most worthwhile [pursuits] than such a man? Certainly a base and worthless man does not deserve such things. The philosopher will use such benefits simply and appropriately, just as Nicolaus used his wealth and good renown for nothing irregular, but in moderation and for acts of public philanthropy. Nicolaus never wanted to pretend that he came from a different city, but was always content to be called by the name of his home city [Damascus]. He laughed at the sophists of his time, who with large payments bought the right to be called citizens of Athens or Rhodes, as if they had grown weary of the insignificance of their original homes (some even stated in writing that they came from one of the famous Greek cities, disowning their real homes). Nicolaus said that this was almost the same as disowning their own parents.

Fragment 138

[F138] Some men blamed Nicolaus because although he received much money from his friends he did not keep it, and when he was abroad he spent most of his time with private citizens, avoiding the most powerful and wealthy men in Rome . . . he never went there, although many influential men urged him to do so, but spent the whole day in the study of philosophy. In reply to the accusations about the money, Nicolaus said that a possession by itself - such as owning a lyre or a flute - was worthless; knowing how to use it was the most important thing. If someone used [their money] for a dissolute and selfish, or completely foolish and petty life, they could rightly be blamed; but to use it for a sober, decent, public-spirited and generous life, receiving just what was fitting from the appropriate people, and then giving it away or leaving it to their children - that would be much better. He said that one objective of a good man was to share his life with righteous companions, and he had found that more such men existed amongst the ordinary people than amongst the super-rich. It is a sign of great good fortune, if wealth is accompanied by righteousness; more often, it leads to arrogance and a love of pleasure.

Fragment 139

[F139] By educating his servants, and constantly instilling a similar character in them through their life together, he treated them as no less than friends.