ZBORNIK - Matica srpska

nothing of them is given as a present, only as a loan, the usufruct is
ours and its term is regulated by him who adjudges the gift; our obligation
is to have ready what was given until an undetermined day as
soon as we are summoned to return it without quarrel. The worst debtor's
peculiarity is to revile the creditor. 7
Seneca expounds the same thought also in the Polybius consolation
and in his essay on the tranquillity of mind. 8
A further consolatory text where the same conception occures
is the Pseudo-Plutarchean Consolation to Apollonius. I quote again
only the most important words of the pertinent passage:
One must not feel vexed, if what was lent us for a short time is
demanded back. Nor are the bankers displeased — as we often refer
to it —, if what had been deposited with them for refunding is demanded
… We hold life as something we must necessarily return to
the gods who deposited it, the time of returning not being determined. 9
The source of this arguing is controversial (Krantor?), 10 at any rate
the conception that life is demanded back is a topos of the consolatory
literature.
The conception is carried on in a more general sense by Philo.
Nothing belongs to us, he says,
not even life. If we are aware of it that only the use is ours, we shall
take care of everything as of God's properties which we have received
in order to bring, if law wants it, to the Lord what belongs to
him. So we shall lighten the grieves of losses. 11
In another work of him Philo speaking of Abraham's sacrifice (Gen.
15) — and somewhat misinterpreting the text of the LXX — details
what Abraham received as deposit, first of all soul, then sensation,
speach, divine wisdom etc. and says that Abraham did not safeguard
these for himself, but for him who entrusted them to him. 12
7 Dial. 6, 10, 1—2.
8 Dial. 11, 10, 4—5; 9, 11, 1—3.
9 Mor. 116 a — b; cf. 106 f.
10 M. Pohlenz, De Ciceronis Tusculanis Disputationibus. Gottingae 1909; J.
van Wegeningen, De Ciceronis libro consolationis. Groningen 1916; R. Philippson,
BPhW 37, 1917, 496—504; 1282; R. Kassel, Untersuchungen zur griechischen und
römischen Konsolationsliteratur. München 1958. (Zetemata 18) with a commentary
to Cons. Ap.: 49—98, to this passage: 92.
11 De cherub. 117; cf. 119. Cf. Eur. Phoen. 556: �� ��� ���� �������
������������
12 Rer. div. her. 129. Regarding the misinterpretation cf. M. Hadot's footnote
in her edition in the Budé series (Paris 1966) ad loc.
119