give pause for reflection. Should it be laid to the charge of the youths that they drove their father to extremities[1] and by long and persistent recalcitrance paved the way for their own ruin? Or was the father himself the culprit—without feelings and so extravagant in his lust for dominion and fame that he was prepared to sacrifice any one[2] to ensure unquestioning obedience to his every whim? Or, again, was it Fortune—Fortune whose power is mightier than any considerate thought,[3] so that we believe that human actions are foreordained by her by an inevitable necessity, and we call her Destiny, because we think that nothing happens of which she is not the ultimate cause?
It will suffice, I think,[4] merely to propound this last view as an alternative to the other.[5] We do not thereby deprive ourselves[6] of all free-will nor disclaim responsibility for acting in this way or that in matters which long before our time have been elsewhere philosophically treated in the Law.
As between the two other alternatives, one might censure the lads, in that, with youthful impetuosity and princely insolence, they tolerated calumnies upon their father, and were no fair critics of the actions of his life.[7] Malicious in their suspicions, and intemperate in speech, they were on both grounds an easy prey to the flattering informers who lay in wait for them.
As for the father, his impious treatment of his sons, "thought that none should be left (alive)." MSS [Greek: paralêpteon], which Whiston renders "would take no one into partnership with him."]for [Greek: hôs meizô]. The text and meaning of this difficult passage are uncertain.]
- ↑ Text doubtful.
- ↑ Reading, with Niese, [Greek: paraleipteon
- ↑ Or perhaps "is superior to all wise calculation."
- ↑ Adopting the conjecture [Greek: hôs nomizô
- ↑ The doctrine of Free-will.
- ↑ Or perhaps ". . . to the other, (under which) we do not deprive ourselves."
- ↑ Or "of the actions which he took to protect his life."
