STOICISM IN ROMAN HISTORY AND LITERATURE.
[Sidenote: Spread of Stoicism.]
=422.= Although up to this point it has been our main purpose to set
forth the doctrines of Stoicism, we have seen incidentally that these
came to exercise a wide influence in Roman society, and that the later
teachers are far less occupied in the attainment of truth than in the
right guidance of disciples who lean upon them. In the present chapter
we propose to describe more particularly the practical influence of
Stoicism. Our information, whether drawn from history or from poetry,
refers generally to the upper classes of Roman society; as to the
influence of the sect amongst the poor we have no sufficient record.
But although it is very generally held that the Stoics made no effort
to reach the working classes of Rome, or met with no success in that
direction[1], the evidence points rather to an opposite conclusion,
at any rate as regards all that development of the system which was
coloured by Cynism, the philosophy of the poor[2]. Our actual records are
therefore rather of the nature of side-lights upon the system; the main
stream of Stoic influence may well have flowed in courses with which we
are imperfectly acquainted, and its workings may perhaps come to light
first in a period of history which lies beyond our immediate scope.
[Sidenote: Conversion direct and indirect.]
=423.= Individual Romans who professed themselves disciples of the Porch
owed their allegiance to the sect to two causes, in varying proportion.
On the one hand they had attended lectures or private instruction
given by eminent Stoic teachers, or had immersed themselves in Stoic
literature. This influence was in almost all cases the influence of Greek
upon Roman, and the friendship between the Stoic Panaetius and Scipio
Aemilianus was the type of all subsequent discipleship. Scipio himself
did not perhaps formally become a Stoic, but he introduced into Roman
society the atmosphere of Stoicism, known to the Romans as _humanitas_;
this included an aversion to war and civil strife, an eagerness to
appreciate the art and literature of Greece, and an admiration for the
ideals depicted by Xenophon, of the ruler in Cyrus, and of the citizen
in Socrates[3]. All the Stoic nobles of the time of the republic
are dominated by these feelings. On the other hand individuals were
often attracted by the existence of a society which proclaimed itself
independent of the will of rulers, and offered its members mutual
support and consolation. Such men were often drawn into Stoicism by
the persuasion of friends, without being necessarily well-grounded in
philosophical principle; and in this way small groups or cliques might
easily be formed in which social prejudice or political bias outweighed
the formal doctrine of the school. Such a group was that of the ‘old
Romans’ of the first century of the principate; and with the spread of
Stoicism this indirect and imperfect method of attachment constantly
grows in importance as compared with direct discipleship.
[Sidenote: The Scipionic circle.]
=424.= Of the first group of Roman Stoics the most notable was C.
LAELIUS, the intimate friend of Scipio, who became consul in 140 B.C.
In his youth he had listened to the teaching of Diogenes of Babylon,
in later life he was the friend of Panaetius[4]. He was in his time
a notable orator with a quiet flowing style[5]; his manners were
cheerful[6], his temper was calm[7]; and, as we have seen[8], he seemed
to many the nearest of all the Romans to the ideal of the Stoic sage. He
is brought on as the chief speaker in Cicero’s _de Amicitia_. Another
close friend of Africanus was SP. MUMMIUS, the brother of the conqueror
of Achaia; his oratory was marked by the ruggedness characteristic of the
Stoic school[9]. Passing mention may be made of L. FURIUS PHILUS, consul
in 136 B.C., and a member of the same group, though his philosophical
views are not known to us[10].
[Sidenote: The Gracchan period.]
=425.= From the ‘humane’ movement sprang the Gracchan reforms, which all
alike aimed at deposing from power the class to which the reformers by
birth belonged. To the temper of mind which made such a desire possible
Stoic doctrine had largely contributed. The Greeks had taught their
Roman pupils to see in the nascent Roman empire, bearing the watchword
of the ‘majesty of the Roman name’ (_maiestas nominis Romani_), at
least an approximation to the ideal Cosmopolis: and many Romans so far
responded to this suggestion as to be not unfriendly towards plans for
extending their citizenship and equalizing the privileges of those who
enjoyed it. C. BLOSSIUS of Cumae, a pupil of Antipater of Tarsus, went
so far as to instigate Tiberius Gracchus to the schemes which proved his
destruction[11]; whilst other Stoics, equally sincere in their aims,
disagreed with the violence shown by Tiberius in his choice of method.
Amongst the latter was Q. AELIUS TUBERO, a nephew of Africanus[12],
who became consul in 118 B.C. He devoted himself day and night to the
study of philosophy[13], and though of no mark as an orator, won himself
respect by the strictness and consistency of his life[14]. Panaetius,
Posidonius, and Hecato all addressed treatises to him[15]; and he is a
leading speaker in Cicero’s _Republic_.
[Sidenote: Laelius to Lucilius.]
=426.= After the fall of the Gracchi the Stoic nobles continued to
play distinguished and honourable parts in public life. A family
succession was maintained through two daughters of Laelius, so that
here we may perhaps recognise the beginning of the deservedly famous
‘Stoic marriages.’ Of the two ladies the elder was married to Q. MUCIUS
SCAEVOLA, known as ‘the augur,’ who was consul in 117 B.C. He was a
devoted friend of Panaetius, and famous for his knowledge of civil
law[16]. The younger daughter was married to C. FANNIUS, who obtained
some distinction as a historian[17]. In C. LUCILIUS we find the Latin
poet of Stoicism; the views which he expresses in his satires on
religion and ethics are in the closest agreement with the teaching of
Panaetius[18], and the large circulation of his poems must have diffused
them through wide circles[19]. At the same time his attacks on the
religious institutions of Numa and his ridicule of his own childish
beliefs may well have brought philosophy into ill odour as atheistic and
unpatriotic: and we find the statesmen of the next generation specially
anxious to avoid any such imputations.
[Sidenote: Scaevola ‘the pontifex.’]
=427.= A dominating figure is that of Q. MUCIUS SCAEVOLA, commonly called
‘the pontifex,’ who was a nephew of his namesake mentioned above, and
derived from him his interest in civil law; he was consul in 95 B.C. He
overcame the difficulty about the popular religion by distinguishing on
Stoic lines three classes of deities, (i) mythical deities, celebrated by
the poets with incredible and unworthy narrations[20]; (ii) philosophical
deities, better suited for the schools than for the market-place; (iii)
civic deities, whose ceremonies it is the duty of state officials to
maintain[21], interpreting them so as to agree with the philosophers
rather than with the poets[22]. In this spirit he filled the position
of chief officer of the state religion. He was however no time-server;
for being appointed after his consulship to be governor of Asia, he
joined with his former quaestor P. RUTILIUS RUFUS in the design of
repressing the extortion of the _publicani_. A decisive step taken by him
was to declare all dishonourable contracts invalid[23]; and more than
a generation later his just and sparing administration was gratefully
remembered both at Rome and in the provinces[24]. The _equites_ took
their revenge not on Scaevola but on Rutilius[25], whom they brought
to trial in 92 B.C., when Scaevola pleaded his cause in a simple and
dignified way that became a Stoic, but did not exclude some traces of
elegance[26]. He is regarded as the father of Roman law, for he was the
first to codify it, which he did in eighteen volumes[27]. He also wrote a
special work on definitions, which no doubt reflected the interest which
the Stoics took in this part of logic.
[Sidenote: The Stoic lawyers.]
=428.= It seems beyond dispute that the systematic study of law, which
developed in later centuries into the science of Roman jurisprudence,
and as such has exercised a weighty influence on the development
of Western civilisation, had its beginnings amongst a group of men
profoundly influenced by Stoic teaching. It does not therefore follow
that the fundamental ideas expressed by such terms as _ius gentium_, _lex
naturae_, are exclusively Stoic in origin. The former phrase appears
to have been in common use at this time to indicate the laws generally
in force amongst the peoples that surrounded Rome; the latter is a
philosophical term derived from the Greek, denoting an ideal law which
ought to exist amongst men everywhere[28]. The principle of obedience
to nature is not peculiar to the Stoic philosophy, but belongs to the
common substratum of all philosophical thought. It does however seem to
be the case that the Stoic theory of the ‘common law’ (κοινὸς νόμος)
was in fact the stimulus which enabled the Romans to transform their
system of ‘rights,’ gradually throwing over all that was of the nature
of mechanical routine or caste privilege, and harmonizing contradictions
by the principle of fairness. The successor of Scaevola was C. AQUILIUS
GALLUS, praetor in 66 B.C. with Cicero, of whom it is specially noted
that he guided his exposition of law by the principle of equity[29];
and after him S. SULPICIUS RUFUS, the contemporary and intimate friend
of Cicero. We do not know that he was a Stoic, but he was a student of
dialectic under L. LUCILIUS BALBUS, who as well as his brother belonged
to this school[30]; and he followed Stoic principles in studying oratory
just enough to make his exposition clear[31]. He was the acknowledged
head of his profession, and compiled 180 books on law[32]. In the civil
war he took sides with Caesar[33].
[Sidenote: Stoics of the Sullan period.]
=429.= Amongst men of high rank definitely pledged to Stoicism in the
generation preceding Cicero are further L. AELIUS STILO (circ. 145-75
B.C.)[34], who devoted himself to Roman grammar and antiquities, and
was the teacher of both Cicero and Varro; Q. LUCILIUS BALBUS, whose
knowledge of this philosophy rivalled that of his Greek teachers[35], and
who is the exponent of the Stoic view in Cicero’s _de Natura Deorum_, the
scene of which takes us back to about 76 B.C.; SEXTUS POMPEIUS, uncle
of Pompey the Great, and distinguished both as a philosopher and as a
jurist[36]; and more particularly P. RUTILIUS RUFUS, to whom we have
already referred[37]. A pupil and devoted admirer of Panaetius[38], a
trained philosopher[39], and a sound lawyer[40], he brought his career
at Rome to an abrupt end by his firm resistance to the _publicani_, as
already recounted[41]. With true cosmopolitanism he retired to Smyrna,
and accepted the citizenship of that town. His stern principles did not
prevent him from saving his life in the massacre ordered by Mithradates,
by assuming Greek dress[42]; the massacre itself was the ripe fruit
of the abuses which he had endeavoured to repress. He is one of the
characters in Cicero’s _de Republica_.
[Sidenote: Cato.]
=430.= Of the Stoics of Cicero’s time the most eminent was M. PORCIUS
CATO (95-48 B.C.). In him Stoicism received a special colouring by
association with the traditions of ancient Roman manners. In his early
years he became a pupil of Antipater of Tyre[43], and so far adopted the
Cynic ideal as to train himself for public life by freely submitting to
hunger, cold, and hardship[44]. After a period of service in the army he
made a journey to Asia to secure the companionship of Athenodorus the
elder[45]. He became a practised speaker; and though he adhered firmly to
the Stoic tradition of plain language and short sentences[46], yet could
become eloquent on the great themes of his philosophy[47], and could win
the approval of the people even for its paradoxes[48]. He was resolutely
opposed to bribery and extortion. As quaestor in B.C. 66 he introduced
reform into the public finances, and put an end to embezzlements by
officials. His popularity became very great, and he was elected tribune
of the plebs towards the end of the year 63 B.C., when his voice decided
the senators to decree the death of the associates of Catiline. With his
subsequent policy Cicero finds fault, because Cato refused to connive
at the extortions of the _publicani_: and from Cicero’s criticisms has
arisen the accepted view that Cato was an unpractical statesman. On
the other hand it may well be held that if the Roman aristocracy had
included more men like Cato, the republic might have been saved: and
towards the end of his life Cicero bitterly lamented that he had not
sufficiently valued the sincere friendship which Cato offered him[49].
In the year 54 B.C. the candidates for the office of tribune paid him a
singular compliment; each deposited with him a large sum of money, which
he was to forfeit if in Cato’s opinion he was guilty of bribery[50]. His
whole political life was guided by the strictest moral principle[51];
even in so unimportant a matter as Cicero’s request for a triumph he
would do nothing to oblige a friend[52]. In private life he attempted
to put into practice the principle of the community of women taught in
Zeno’s _Republic_. He had married Marcia, daughter of Philippus, and
had three children by her: in 56 B.C. he gave her up to his friend C.
Hortensius, whose family was in danger of becoming extinct: finally on
the threatening of the civil war in B.C. 50 he took her back to his own
home. At a time when the marriage bond was lightly treated by many of
his contemporaries he at least rose above petty motives. In the civil
war he took sides strongly against Caesar, his old political opponent.
His self-sought death after Pharsalia won him a distinction which he had
earned better by his life: and the unmeasured praise bestowed upon him a
century later is perhaps due more to political bias than to philosophical
respect[53]. The few words with which Virgil honours his memory are more
effective, when he pictures Cato as chosen to be a judge in the world of
the blest[54]. Cato represents the Stoic view as to the _summum bonum_ in
Cicero’s _de Finibus_.
[Sidenote: Varro, Brutus and Porcia.]
=431.= Contemporary with Cicero and Cato was M. TERENTIUS VARRO (B.C.
116-28). In his public career and political principles he was not unlike
Cato; in his literary activity he more resembled Cicero. Both Varro
and Cicero were deeply influenced by Stoic teaching, but as they were
by no means professed adherents of this philosophy[55], they may be
here passed by. In the next generation M. JUNIUS BRUTUS (85-42 B.C.)
concerns us more: for by his marriage with PORCIA, Cato’s daughter
and an ardent Stoic, he came into a family connexion with the sect,
with which his personal views, as we have seen, were not entirely in
agreement[56]. Still Brutus was not altogether unfitted to play the part
of Cato’s successor; he was no mean orator[57], and wrote more than
one philosophical treatise[58]; whilst Cicero dedicated several of his
philosophical works to him[59]. But the practical Stoicism of Porcia, who
stabbed herself in the thigh to show that she was fit to be trusted with
a political secret, shines out more brightly than the speculations of
her husband. In her honour Martial has written one of the few epigrams
in which he allows himself to be caught in a mood of admiration: yet his
story of Porcia’s death must be rejected as unhistorical[60].
[Sidenote: Horace.]
=432.= After the death of Brutus Stoicism ceases for a while to play
a prominent part in Roman history; but its indirect influence is very
marked in the two great poets of the Augustan epoch, Horace and Virgil.
Of these HORACE is in the main an Epicurean, and as such is quite
entitled to use the Stoic paradoxes as matter for ridicule, and even to
anticipate dangerous consequences from their practical application[61].
But in fact his works show a constantly increasing appreciation of the
ethics of Stoicism. He recognises the high ideals and civic activity
of its professors[62], and he draws a noble picture of the Stoic sage,
confident in his convictions, and bidding defiance to the crowd and the
tyrant alike[63]. Of that practical wisdom and genial criticism which has
made Horace the favourite poet of so many men eminent in public life, no
small part consists of Stoic principles deftly freed from the paradoxical
form in which they were conveyed to professed adherents.
[Sidenote: Virgil.]
=433.= With this picture of Stoicism seen from without we must contrast
that given us by VIRGIL, who inherited the Stoic tradition from
Aratus[64], his model for the _Georgics_. Virgil’s mind is penetrated by
Stoic feeling, and his works are an interpretation of the universe in
the Stoic sense; but like so many of his contemporaries he holds aloof
from formal adherence to the sect, and carefully avoids its technical
language. Quite possibly too he incorporated in his system elements
drawn from other philosophies. In physics he accepts the principle
that the fiery aether is the source of all life[65]; it is identical
with the divine spirit[66] and the all-informing mind[67]. From this
standpoint he is led on to the doctrine of purgatory[68], and from that
he looks forward to the time of the conflagration, when all creation
will be reconciled by returning to its primitive unity in the primal
fire-spirit[69]. Still Virgil’s picture must be regarded rather as an
adaptation than as an exposition of Stoicism; it lacks the sharp outlines
and the didactic tone of the poetry of Cleanthes or Lucretius, and other
interpretations are by no means excluded.
[Sidenote: Virgil’s theology.]
=434.= With the problem of the government of the universe Virgil’s mind
is occupied throughout the _Aeneid_. He is constantly weighing the
relative importance of the three forces, fate, the gods, and fortune,
precisely as the philosophers do. To each of the three he assigns a
part in the affairs of men; but that taken by fate is unmistakably
predominant. The individual gods have very little importance in the
poem; they are to a large extent allegorical figures, representing human
instincts and passions; they cannot divert destiny from its path, though
with their utmost effort they may slightly delay its work or change
its incidence. Above all these little gods Jove towers aloft, a power
magnificent and munificent; at his voice the gods shudder and the worlds
obey. But the power of Jove rests upon his complete acceptance of the
irrevocable decrees of fate[70]. The critic may even describe him as a
puppet-king, who wears an outward semblance of royalty, but is really
obedient to an incessant interference from a higher authority. Virgil
however appears truly to hold the Stoic principle that Fate and Jove
are one; he thus takes us at once to the final problem of philosophy,
the reconciliation of the conceptions of Law formed on the one hand by
observing facts (the modern ‘Laws of Nature’) and on the other hand by
recognising the moral instinct (the modern ‘Moral Law’). As we have seen,
a reconciliation of these two by logic is intrinsically impossible.
Virgil however shows us how they may be in practice reconciled by a
certain attitude of mind; and because that attitude is one of resignation
to and cooperation with the supreme power, it would seem right to place
Virgil by the side of Cleanthes as one of the religious poets of Stoicism.
[Sidenote: Virgil’s ethics.]
=435.= Virgil’s conception of ethics is displayed in the character of
Aeneas. Much modern criticism revolts against the character of Aeneas
exactly as it does against that of Cato, and for the same reason, that it
is without sympathy for Stoic ethics. To understand Aeneas we must first
picture a man whose whole soul is filled by a reverent regard for destiny
and submission to Jove, who represents destiny on its personal side. He
can therefore never play the part of the hero in revolt; but at the same
time he is human, and liable to those petty weaknesses and aberrations
from which even the sage is not exempt. He can hesitate or be hasty, can
love or weep; but the sovereignty of his mind is never upset. In a happy
phrase Virgil sums up the whole ethics of Stoicism:
‘Calm in his soul he abides, and the tears roll down, but in vain[71].’
In contrast to Aeneas stands Dido, intensely human and passionate, and
in full rebellion against her destiny. She is to him Eve the temptress,
Cleopatra the seducer; but she is not destined to win a final triumph. A
modern romance would doubtless have a different ending.
[Sidenote: Ovid.]
=436.= Amongst writers who adopted much of the formal teaching of
Stoicism without imbibing its spirit we may reckon OVID (43 B.C.-18
A.D.). Not only does he accept the central idea of Stoicism, that it is
the divine fire by virtue of which every man lives and moves[72], but
he opens his greatest work by a description of the creation[73] which
appears to follow Stoic lines, and in which the erect figure of man is
specially recognised as the proof of the preeminence which Providence
has assigned to him over all the other works of the Creator[74]. But
the tales related in the _Metamorphoses_ show no trace of the serious
religious purpose of Virgil; and the society pictured in Ovid’s love
poems gives only a caricature of the Stoic doctrines of the community of
women, the absence of jealousy, and outspokenness of speech. Finally the
plaintive tone of the _Tristia_ shows how little Ovid was in touch with
Stoic self-control amidst the buffetings of fortune.
[Sidenote: Cremutius Cordus.]
=437.= In the time of the next _princeps_ we first find Stoicism
associated with an unsympathetic attitude towards the imperial
government. There was nothing in Stoic principles to suggest this
opposition. Tiberius himself had listened to the teaching of the Stoic
Nestor, and the simplicity of his personal life and the gravity of his
manners might well have won him the support of sincere philosophers.
But if Stoicism did not create the spirit of opposition, it confirmed
it where it already existed. The memory of Cato associated Stoic
doctrines with republican views: vague idealisations of Brutus and
Cassius suggested the glorification of tyrannicide. CREMUTIUS CORDUS (ob.
A.D. 25) had offended Seianus by a sarcastic remark: for when Tiberius
repaired the theatre of Pompey, and the senate voted that a statue of
Seianus should be erected there, Cordus said that this meant really
spoiling the theatre[75]. Seianus then dropped a hint to his client
Satrius, who accused Cordus before the senate of writing a history in
which he highly praised Brutus, and declared Cassius to have been ‘the
last of the Romans.’ A word of apology would have saved the life of
Cordus; he resolved to die by his own act[76], to the great annoyance
of his prosecutors[77]. From this time on suicide became an object of
political ambition. The Stoic tradition continued in the family of
Cordus, and to his daughter Marcia, as a fellow-member of the sect,
Seneca addressed the well-known _Consolatio_[78]; but the title of ‘old
Romans’ describes far better the true leanings of the men of whom Cordus
was the forerunner.
[Sidenote: Kanus Iulius.]
=438.= In the reign of Gaius (Caligula) we first find philosophers as
such exposed to persecution; and we may infer that, like the Jews, they
resisted tacitly or openly the claim of the emperor to be worshipped as
a god. IULIUS GRAECINUS, according to Seneca, was put to death for no
other reason than that he was a better man than a tyrant liked to see
alive[79]. KANUS IULIUS reproved the emperor to his face, and heard with
calmness his own doom pronounced. During the ten days still left to him
he went quietly on with his daily occupations; he was engaged in a game
of chess when the centurion summoned him. ‘After my death,’ he said to
his opponent, ‘do not boast that you won the game.’ His philosopher
accompanied him, and inquired how his thoughts were occupied. ‘I
propose,’ said Kanus, ‘to observe whether at the last moment the soul is
conscious of its departure. Afterwards, if I discover what the condition
of departed souls is, I will come back and inform my friends[80].’
[Sidenote: Arria the elder.]
=439.= In the reign of Claudius we find Stoics engaged in actual
conspiracy against the emperor. The name of PAETUS CAECINA introduces us
to a famous Stoic family, for his wife was ARRIA the elder. Pliny tells
us, on the authority of her granddaughter Fannia, how when her husband
and son both fell sick together, and the latter died, she carried out the
whole funeral without her husband’s knowledge; and each time that she
entered his sick chamber, assumed a cheerful smile and assured him that
the boy was much better. Whenever her grief became too strong, she would
leave the room for a few minutes to weep, and return once more calm. When
Scribonianus in Illyria rebelled against Claudius, Paetus took his side;
upon his fall he was brought a prisoner to Rome. Arria was not allowed to
accompany him, but she followed him in a fishing boat. She encouraged him
to face death by piercing her own breast with a dagger, declaring ‘it
doesn’t hurt[81],’ and upon his death she determined not to survive him.
Thrasea, her son-in-law, tried to dissuade her. ‘If I were condemned,
would you,’ said he, ‘wish your daughter to die with me?’ ‘Yes,’ said
Arria, ‘if she had lived with you as long and as happily as I with
Paetus.’ Here we have a deliberate justification of the Hindu practice of
the Satī.
[Sidenote: Seneca.]
=440.= In the reign of Nero the Stoics are still more prominent, and
almost always in opposition. SENECA, of course, the emperor’s tutor and
minister, is on the government side; and from his life we can draw the
truest picture of the imperial civil servant in high office. We shall
certainly not expect to find that Seneca illustrated in his own life all
the virtues that he preached; on the other hand we shall not readily
believe that the ardent disciple of Attalus[82] and affectionate husband
of Paulina was a man of dissolute life or of avaricious passions. Simple
tastes, an endless capacity for hard work, and scrupulous honesty were
the ordinary marks of the Roman official in those days, as they are of
members of the Civil Service of India to-day[83]. Seneca is often accused
of having been too supple as a minister; but he was carrying out the
principles of his sect better by taking an active part in politics than
if he had, like many others, held sullenly aloof[84]. He did not indeed
imitate Cato or Rutilius Rufus, who had carried firmness of principle
to an extent that laid them open to the charge of obstinacy; but in
submitting frankly to power greater than his own he still saw to it that
his own influence should count towards the better side. For the story of
his political career we cannot do better than to refer to the latest
historian of his times[85]; of his work as a philosopher, to which he
himself attributed the greater importance, a general account has been
given above[86] and more particular discussions form the central theme of
this book.
[Sidenote: Persius and Lucan.]
=441.= From Seneca we pass naturally to some mention of the poets Persius
and Lucan. A. PERSIUS FLACCUS (34-62 A.D.) became at 16 years of age
the pupil and companion of the Stoic philosopher Cornutus: he was also
a relative of the Arriae already mentioned. He gives us a charming
picture of his teacher’s ways of life, which were doubtless typical[87]:
and his summary view of the scope of philosophy well indicates how its
proportions had shrunk at this period. Dialectic is not mentioned, and
physics has interest only in its bearing upon the position and duty of
the individual.
‘Go, study, hapless folk, and learn to know
The end and object of our life—what are we;
The purpose of our being here; the rank
Assigned us at the start, and where and when
The turn is smoothest round the perilous post;
The bounds of wealth; life’s lawful aims; the use
Of hoards of coin new-minted; what the claims
Of fatherland and kinsfolk near and dear;
The will of God concerning thee, and where
Thou standest in the commonwealth of man[88].’
His contemporary M. ANNAEUS LUCANUS (39-65 A.D.), a nephew of Seneca,
plunged more deeply both into philosophy and into politics. In both he
displayed ardour insufficiently tempered with discretion; he had a far
keener sense of his personal grievances than became a Stoic, and was much
more of a critic than of a reformer. Yet hardly any writer expresses more
forcibly the characteristic doctrines of Stoicism, as they seized the
imagination of young Romans of the upper classes. Amongst such doctrines
that of the conflagration was clearly prominent.
‘So when this frame of things has been dissolved,
And the world’s many ages have received
Their consummation in one final hour,
Chaos recalled shall gain his utmost seat,
The constellations in confusion dire
Hurled each on each together clash; the stars
Flaming shall fall into the deep; the earth
No longer shall extend her barrier shores,
And fling the waters from her; and the Moon
Shall meet the Sun in fratricidal war[89].’
‘One pyre awaits the Universe; in ruin
’Twill mix with bones of men the heavenly spheres[90].’
Lucan emphasizes the pantheistic interpretation of the divine nature;
‘God is all eye can see or heart can feel[91].’
‘The powers of heaven are round about us all;
And though from out the temple come no voice,
Nought can we do without the will of God[92].’
To the idealized Cato he addresses the noblest praises;
‘For sure a consecrated life is thine,
The laws of heaven thy pattern, God thy guide[93].’
‘See the true Father of his country, worth
The homage of thine altars, Rome; for they
Who swear by him shall never be ashamed.
If e’er the yoke is lifted from thy neck,
Now or hereafter he shall be thy God[94].’
[Sidenote: Civil service and ‘old Romans.’]
=442.= The careers of Seneca and Musonius, and the early years of Lucan
himself, indicate sufficiently that there was no essential opposition
between Stoic principles and the Roman principate; in other words, that
Stoics as such were not ‘republicans.’ Rather the contrary; for nearly
all the Greek philosophers had been inclined to favour monarchy, and the
Stoics had been conspicuous in the desire to abolish the distinctions of
birth and class upon which the Roman aristocracy laid so much stress,
and which the principate was disposed to ignore. But in fact Stoicism
was the common mould in which the educated youth of Rome were shaped at
this period; it produced honest, diligent, and simple-minded men, exactly
suited to be instruments of the great imperial bureaucracy. Large numbers
entered the service of the state, and were heard of no more; such an
one (except for Seneca’s incidental account of him) was C. LUCILIUS,
Seneca’s correspondent. The great work of Roman government was carried on
in silence, just as that of India in the present day. This silence was
probably on the whole beneficial to society, though it was often felt as
a constraint by the individual. For this reason and many others there
were at Rome (as everywhere and at all times) many able but disappointed
men; they became the critics of the government, and from being critics
they might at any time become conspirators; but at no period did they
seriously aim at restoring the republican system. Their political
creed was limited, and did not look beyond the interests of the class
from which they sprang. They claimed for members of the senate at Rome
their ancient personal privileges, and especially that of _libertas_,
that is, freedom to criticize and even to insult the members of the
government; they sang the praises of Cato, celebrated the birthdays of
Brutus and Cassius[95], and practised a kind of ‘passive resistance’
based on Oriental methods, by quitting life without hesitation when
they were baulked in their immediate wishes by the government. When the
administration was carried on decently these men were ridiculous; when
from time to time it became a scandal they were heroes.
[Sidenote: Republican prejudices.]
=443.= The early years of Nero’s reign show us plainly that true spirit
of Stoicism was far more developed on the side of the government than on
that of the aristocracy. Nothing distinguishes Seneca more honourably
than his humane attitude towards the slave population; and he was chief
minister of the princeps when in the year A.D. 61 a ‘notable case[96]’
arose, in which the human rights of slaves were involved. The city
prefect, Pedanius Secundus, was killed by one of his slaves. It was
contended in the senate that by ancient custom the whole household, old
and young, guilty and innocent, must be put to death alike; and this
view prevailed and was carried into effect. Public opinion, according
to Tacitus[97], was unanimous against such severity; it looked, not
unreasonably, to the emperor and his minister to prevent it[97a]. They on
the contrary left the decision to the free judgment of the senate. Where
now were the men of philosophic principle, of world-wide sympathies, of
outspoken utterance? The historian tells us that not one was found in the
senate. The honourable men who could defy an emperor’s death-sentence
still lacked the courage to speak out against the prejudices of their own
class; many indeed uttered exclamations, expressing pity for the women,
the young, and the indubitably innocent, and even voted against the
executions; but even in so simple a matter there was not a man to follow
the lead of Catiline in Cicero’s days, and take up as his own the cause
of the oppressed. The leader of the merciless majority was C. Cassius
Longinus, a celebrated jurist, and one who regularly celebrated the
honours of Cassius the conspirator.
[Sidenote: Nero and the Stoics.]
=444.= But although the administration of which Nero was the head was
largely manned by professed Stoics, and stood as a whole for the better
sympathies of the Roman people, the course of court intrigue brought
about a fierce conflict between the government and a growing force of
public opinion of which the ‘old Roman’ group of Stoics were sometimes
the spokesmen, and at other times the silent representatives. To Nero the
consideration of his own safety was predominant over every consideration
of justice to individuals, and herein he stood condemned (and knew that
it was so) by the judgment of all men of philosophic temper. The first
of his victims, and perhaps the most deserving of our admiration, was
RUBELLIUS PLAUTUS, accused by Tigellinus because he maintained the
irritating cult of the ‘tyrannicides,’ and had joined the disloyal sect
of the Stoics[98]. The charge of disloyalty against himself and his
companions he disproved; for, advised by his Stoic teachers Coeranus and
Musonius, he declined to take part in a rising which might have been
successful, and calmly awaited his fate (60 A.D.). In the conspiracy of
Piso, which broke out a few years later, PLAUTUS LATERANUS is named by
the historian as one of the few whose motives were honourable and whose
conduct was consistently courageous[99]. The later years of Nero’s reign
are illuminated in the pages of Tacitus by the firmness of men like
THRASEA PAETUS, PACONIUS AGRIPPINUS, and BAREA SORANUS, and the heroic
devotion of women like the younger ARRIA, Thrasea’s wife, and SERVILIA,
the daughter of Soranus[100]. In the persecution of this group the modern
historian finds extenuating circumstances, but at Rome itself it appeared
as though the emperor were engaged in the attempt to extirpate virtue
itself[101].
[Sidenote: Helvidius Priscus.]
=445.= Upon the fall of Nero the ‘old Romans’ came for a short time
into power under the principate of Galba, and amongst others HELVIDIUS
PRISCUS, Thrasea’s son-in-law, returned from exile. From the account of
Tacitus he appears to have been a very sincere adherent of the Stoic
school.
‘He was not like others who adopt the name of philosopher in
order to cloak an idle disposition. He followed those teachers
who maintain that only the honourable is good, and only the base
is evil; power, nobility, and other things external to the soul
being neither good nor evil. He designed so to fortify himself
thereby against the blows of fortune that he could play his part
in public affairs without flinching[102].’
His first act on returning to Rome was to commence a prosecution of the
accuser of Thrasea. The senate was divided in opinion as to the wisdom
of this step, and when Helvidius abandoned the suit some praised his
charity, whilst others lamented his indecision[103]. He resumed his
attempt, as we shall see, at a later time.
[Sidenote: His fall.]
=446.= Vespasian was undoubtedly tolerant in his views: his reign
began with the restitution of honours to the deceased Galba, and the
much-respected Musonius[104] seized the opportunity to attack in the
senate P. Egnatius Celer, whose treachery had brought about the fall of
Soranus[105], for false evidence. The trial was postponed, but resulted a
little later in the condemnation of Celer[106]. Public opinion took the
side of Musonius: but the accused found a champion in Demetrius the Cynic
philosopher, and at least defended himself with the ability and courage
of his sect. Thereupon Helvidius resumed his prosecution of the accuser
of Thrasea; but the emperor, now anxious to let bygones be bygones,
refused to approve[107]. This second failure appears to have embittered
Helvidius: his opposition to Vespasian became open and insulting, and
brought about his death[108]. The life of his wife FANNIA was worthy
of the two Arriae, her grandmother and her mother. Twice she followed
her husband into exile; a third time she brought this punishment upon
herself, by encouraging his friend Senecio to publish his biography,
supplying him with the materials, and openly justifying her action. In
her private life she had singular charm and affability; and her death
appeared to Pliny to close an era of noble women[109].
[Sidenote: Renewal of the Stoic opposition.]
=447.= It seems probable that the Stoic nobles found the low birth
of Vespasian as intolerable as the tyranny of Nero; at any rate they
soon resumed their attitude of opposition to the government, and the
punishment of Helvidius, if intended as a warning, proved rather a
provocation. It appears that he and the ‘old Romans’ began a systematic
propaganda in favour of what they called ‘democracy[110],’ that is,
the government of the Roman empire by the senatorial class; and they
probably involved many professed philosophers in this impracticable
and reactionary movement. Vespasian resolved on expelling all the
philosophers from Rome. From this general sentence the best known of all,
Musonius, was excepted[111], and we must infer that he had shown the
good sense to keep himself free from political entanglements. In spite
of this act of Vespasian, Stoicism continued to gain ground, and during
the greater part of the period of the Flavian dynasty met with little
interference.
[Sidenote: Persecution by Domitian.]
=448.= But towards the end of the reign of Domitian a more violent
persecution broke out. ARULENUS RUSTICUS had been tribune of the plebs
in 66 A.D., and had then proposed to use his veto in an attempt to save
the life of Thrasea Paetus[112]. In 69 A.D. he was praetor, and as such
headed an embassy sent by the senate to the soldiers under Petilius
Cerealis. On this occasion he was roughly handled and wounded, and barely
escaped with his life[113]. After many years of quiet, he was accused
in 93 A.D., when Pliny was praetor, of having written and spoken in
honour of Thrasea Paetus, Herennius Senecio, and Helvidius Priscus; he
was condemned to death and his books were destroyed[114]. SENECIO was
condemned at the same time for having written the biography of Helvidius
Priscus, and for the further offence that since holding the quaestorship
he had not become a candidate for any higher office[115]. About the same
time were banished Artemidorus, the most single-minded and laborious of
philosophers, whom Musonius had selected out of a crowd of competitors
as the fittest to claim his daughter in marriage[116]; Junius Mauricus,
brother of Arulenus Rusticus, who had joined Musonius in the attempt to
secure the punishment of the _delatores_ of Nero’s time[117]; Demetrius,
and Epictetus[118]; and further many distinguished ladies, including
Arria and her daughter Fannia[119]. But from the time of the death of
Domitian in A.D. 96 the imperial government became finally reconciled
with Stoicism, which was now the recognised creed of the great majority
of the educated classes at Rome, of all ages and ranks. As such it
appears in the writings of JUVENAL, who not only introduces into serious
literature the Stoic principle of ‘straight speaking,’ but actually
expounds much of the ethical teaching of Stoicism with more directness
and force than any professed adherent of the system.
[Sidenote: Stoic reform of law.]
=449.= Stoicism, received into favour in the second century A.D., won new
opportunities and was exposed to new dangers. Its greatest achievement
lay in the development of Roman law. As we have just seen[120], the
‘old Romans’ of Nero’s day, in spite of their profession of Stoicism,
were unbending upholders of the old law, with all its harshness and
narrowness; and we have to go back a hundred years to the great lawyers
of the times of Sulla and Cicero[121] to meet with men prepared to
throw aside old traditions and build anew on the foundations of natural
justice. But the larger view had not been lost sight of. It remained
as the ideal of the more generous-minded members of the imperial civil
service; and in the times of the emperors Antoninus Pius (138-161 A.D.)
and Marcus Aurelius (161-180 A.D.) it became the starting-point for a
new development of Roman law, which is one of the great achievements of
Roman history. The most eloquent of the historians of the origins of
Christianity thus describes this movement.
‘Le stoïcisme avait [déjà] pénétré le droit romain de ses
larges maximes, et en avait fait le droit naturel, le droit
philosophique, tel que la raison peut le concevoir pour tous les
hommes. Le droit strict cède à l’équité; la douceur l’emporte sur
la sévérité; la justice paraît inséparable de la bienfaisance.
Les grands jurisconsultes d’Antonin continuèrent la même œuvre.
Le dernier [Volusius Moecianus] fut le maître de Marc-Aurèle en
fait de jurisprudence, et, à vrai dire, l’œuvre des deux saints
empereurs ne saurait être séparée. C’est d’eux que datent la
plupart de ces lois humaines et sensées qui fléchirent la rigueur
du droit antique et firent, d’une législation primitivement
étroite et implacable, un code susceptible d’être adopté par tous
les peuples civilisés[122].’
In the legislation of Antoninus and Aurelius the humane and cosmopolitan
principles of Stoic politics at last triumph over Roman conservatism.
The poor, the sick, the infant, and the famine-stricken are protected.
The slave is treated as a human being; to kill him becomes a crime, to
injure him a misdemeanour; his family and his property are protected by
the tribunals. Slavery in fact is treated as a violation of the rights of
nature; manumission is in every way encouraged. The time is within sight
when Ulpian will declare that ‘all men, according to natural right, are
born free and equal[123].’ This legislation is not entirely the work of
professed Stoics; it is nevertheless the offspring of Stoicism.
[Sidenote: Repression of zeal.]
=450.= There was in the second century, as there is still, a sharp
antagonism between the manners of cultivated society and the ardent
profession of intellectual convictions. An anecdote related by Gellius
well illustrates the social forces which were now constantly at work to
check superfluous enthusiasm.
‘There was with us at table a young student of philosophy who
called himself a Stoic, but chiefly distinguished himself by an
unwelcome loquacity. He was always bringing up in season and
out of season recondite philosophical doctrines, and he looked
upon all his neighbours as boors because they were unacquainted
with them. His whole talk was strown with mention of syllogisms,
fallacies, and the like, such as the “master-argument,” the
“quiescent,” and the “heap”; and he thought that he was the only
man in the world who could solve them. Further he maintained that
he had thoroughly studied the nature of the soul, the growth
of virtue, the science of daily duties, and the cure of the
weaknesses and diseases of the mind. Finally he considered he
had attained to that state of perfect happiness which could be
clouded by no disappointment, shaken by no pains of death[124].’
Such a man, we may think, might soon have become an apostle of sincere
Stoicism, and might have left us a clear and systematic exposition of
Stoic doctrine as refined by five centuries of experience. It was not
to be. The polished Herodes Atticus crushed him with a quotation from
the discourses of Epictetus. Not many offended in the same way. Even
Seneca had been severe on useless study in the regions of history
and antiquity[125]; the new philosophers despised the study even of
philosophy.
[Sidenote: State establishment of philosophy.]
=451.= The Stoicism of the second century is therefore much less sharply
defined than that of earlier times. Its doctrines, acquired in childhood,
are accepted with ready acquiescence; but they are not accompanied by
any firm repudiation of the opposing views of other schools. Once more,
as in the time of Augustus, the ‘philosopher’ comes to the front; the
particular colour of his philosophy seems of less importance[126]. It
is philosophy in general which wins the patronage of the emperors.
Nerva allowed the schools of the philosophers to be re-opened; Trajan
interested himself in them as providing a useful training for the young.
Hadrian went further, and endowed the teachers of philosophy at Rome;
Antoninus Pius did the same throughout the provinces. Marcus Aurelius
established representatives of each of the philosophic schools at Athens;
and amongst later emperors Septimius Severus, aided by his wife Julia
Domna, was conspicuous in the same direction. The philosophers, who had
firmly resisted persecution, gradually sacrificed their independence
under the influence of imperial favour. They still recited the dogmas of
their respective founders, but unconsciously they became the partisans
of the established forms of government and religion. Yet so gentle was
the decay of philosophy that it might be regarded as progress if its true
position were not illuminated by the attitude of Marcus Aurelius towards
the Christians. For Marcus Aurelius was universally accepted as the most
admirable practical representative of philosophy in its full ripeness,
and no word of criticism of his policy was uttered by any teacher of
Stoicism.
[Sidenote: The pagan revival.]
=452.= The decay of precise philosophic thought was accompanied by
a strong revival of pagan religious sentiment. The atmosphere in
which Marcus Aurelius grew up, and by which his political actions
were determined far more than by his philosophic profession, is thus
sympathetically described by the latest editor of his Reflections.
‘In house and town, the ancestral Penates of the hearth and the
Lares of the streets guarded the intercourse of life; in the
individual breast, a ministering Genius shaped his destinies and
responded to each mood of melancholy or of mirth. Thus all life
lay under the regimen of spiritual powers, to be propitiated or
appeased by appointed observances and ritual and forms of prayer.
To this punctilious and devout form of Paganism Marcus was inured
from childhood; at the vintage festival he took his part in
chant and sacrifice; at eight years old he was admitted to the
Salian priesthood; “he was observed to perform all his sacerdotal
functions with a constancy and exactness unusual at that age;
was soon a master of the sacred music; and had all the forms and
liturgies by heart.” Our earliest statue depicts him as a youth
offering incense; and in his triumphal bas-reliefs he stands
before the altar, a robed and sacrificing priest. To him “prayer
and sacrifice, and all observances by which we own the presence
and nearness of the gods,” are “covenants and sacred ministries”
admitting to “intimate communion with the divine[127].”’
The cult thus summarized is not that of the Greek mythology, much less
that of the rationalized Stoic theology. It is the primitive ritualism of
Italy, still dear to the hearts of the common people, and regaining its
hold on the educated in proportion as they spared themselves the effort
of individual criticism.
[Sidenote: State persecution.]
=453.= It was by no mere accident that Marcus Aurelius became the
persecutor of the Christians. He was at heart no successor of the Zeno
who held as essential the doctrine of a supreme deity, and absolutely
rejected the use of temples and images. In the interval, official
Stoicism had learnt first to tolerate superstition with a smile, next
to become its advocate; now it was to become a persecutor in its name.
Pontius Pilatus is said to have recognised the innocence of the founder
of Christianity, and might have protected him had his instructions
from Rome allowed him to stretch his authority so far; Gallio[128] was
uninterested in the preaching of Paul; but Aurelius was acquainted with
the Christian profession and its adherents[129], and opposed it as an
obstinate resistance to authority[130]. The popular antipathy to the new
religion, and the official distaste for all disturbing novelties, found
in him a willing supporter[131]. Thus began a new struggle between the
power of the sword and that of inward conviction. Because reason could
not support the worship of the pagan deities, violence must do so[132].
It became a triumph of the civil authority and the popular will to extort
a word of weakness by two years of persistent torture[133]. No endowed
professor or enlightened magistrate raised his voice in protest; and in
this feeble acquiescence Stoicism perished.
[Sidenote: Revolt of the young Stoics.]
=454.= For the consciences of the young revolted. Trained at home and in
school to believe in providence, in duty, and in patient endurance of
evil, they instinctively recognised the Socratic force and example not
in the magistrate seated in his curule chair, nor in the rustic priest
occupied in his obsolete ritual, but in the teacher on the cross and the
martyr on the rack[134]. In ever increasing numbers men, who had from
their Stoic education imbibed the principles of the unity of the Deity
and the freedom of the will, came over to the new society which professed
the one without reservation, and displayed the other without flinching.
With them they brought in large measure their philosophic habits of
thought, and (in far more particulars than is generally recognised) the
definite tenets which the Porch had always inculcated. Stoicism began a
new history, which is not yet ended, within the Christian church; and
we must now attempt to give some account of this aftergrowth of the
philosophy.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Lightfoot, _Philippians_, p. 319; Dill, _Roman Society_, p. 334;
Warde Fowler, _Social Life at Rome_, p. 27.
[2] The practice of street-preaching, as described by Horace and
Epictetus, points this way; and the world-wide diffusion of Stoicism, in
more or less diluted forms, is hardly reconcileable with its restriction
to a single class of society.
[3] ‘semper Africanus Socraticum Xenophontem in manibus habebat’ Cic.
_Tusc. disp._ ii 26, 62; ‘Cyrus ille a Xenophonte ad effigiem iusti
imperi scriptus ... quos quidem libros Africanus de manibus ponere non
solebat’ _ad Quint._ I i 8, 23.
[4] ‘ille [Laelius] qui Diogenem Stoicum adulescens, post autem Panaetium
audierat’ _Fin._ ii 8, 24.
[5] ‘lenitatem Laelius habuit’ Cic. _de Or._ iii 7, 28; ‘C. Laelius et P.
Africanus imprimis eloquentes’ _Brut._ 21, 82.
[6] ‘in C. Laelio multa hilaritas’ _Off._ i 30, 108.
[7] ‘praeclara est aequabilitas in omni vita et idem semper vultus
eademque frons, ut de Socrate itemque de C. Laelio accepimus’ _ib._ 26,
90.
[8] See above, § 326.
[9] ‘Sp. [Mummius] nihilo ornatior, sed tamen astrictior; fuit enim
doctus ex disciplina Stoicorum’ Cic. _Brut._ 25, 94.
[10] ‘non tulit ullos haec civitas humanitate politiores P. Africano, C.
Laelio, L. Furio, qui secum eruditissimos homines ex Graecia palam semper
habuerunt’ _de Or._ ii 37, 154.
[11] Cic. _Amic._ 11, 37.
[12] ‘Ti. Gracchum a Q. Tuberone aequalibusque amicis derelictum
videbamus’ _ib._
[13] _de Or._ iii 23, 87.
[14] ‘quoniam Stoicorum est facta mentio, Q. Aelius Tubero fuit illo
tempore, nullo in oratorum numero, sed vita severus et congruens cum ea
disciplina quam colebat’ _Brut._ 31, 117.
[15] _Fin._ iv 9, 23; _Off._ iii 15, 63.
[16] ‘Panaetii illius tui’ Cic. _de Or._ i 11, 45; ‘[Mucius augur]
oratorum in numero non fuit: iuris civilis intellegentia atque omni
prudentiae genere praestitit’ _Brut._ 26, 102.
[17] ‘C. Fannius, C. Laeli gener, ... instituto Laelii Panaetium
audiverat. eius omnis in dicendo facultas ex historia ipsius non
ineleganter scripta perspici potest’ _ib._ 101.
[18] Schmekel, _Mittlere Stoa_, pp. 444, 445.
[19] See especially his praise of virtue, beginning ‘virtus, Albine,
est pretium persolvere verum | queis in versamur, queis vivimu’ rebu’
potesse’ fr. 1.
[20] ‘primum genus [poëticum] nugatorium dicit [Scaevola] esse, quod
multa de dis fingantur indigna’ Aug. _Civ. De._ iv 27, on the authority
of Varro.
[21] ‘tertium genus’ inquit Varro ‘quod in urbibus cives, maxime
sacerdotes, nosse atque administrare debent’ Aug. _Civ. De._ vi 5.
[22] ‘maior societas nobis debet esse cum philosophis quam cum poetis’
_ib._ 6.
[23] ‘ego habeo [exceptionem] tectiorem ex Q. Mucii P. F. edicto
Asiatico; _extra quam si ita negotium gestum est, ut eo stari non
oporteat ex fide bona_; multaque sum secutus Scaevolae’ Cic. _Att._ vi 1,
15.
[24] ‘hanc gloriam iustitiae et abstinentiae fore inlustriorem spero.
quod Scaevolae contigit’ _ib._ v 17, 5.
[25] See above, § 326.
[26] ‘dixit causam illam quadam ex parte Q. Mucius, more suo, nullo
adparatu, pure et dilucide’ Cic. _de Or._ i 53, 229; ‘Scaevola parcorum
elegantissimus’ _Brut._ 40, 148.
[27] ‘Q. Mucius pontifex maximus ius civile primus constituit, generatim
in libros xviii redigendo’ Pompon. _Dig._ i 2, 2, 41.
[28] H. Nettleship, _Ius Gentium_ (_Journal of Philology_ xiii 26, pp.
169 sqq.).
[29] ‘qui iuris civilis rationem nunquam ab aequitate seiunxerit’ Cic.
_Caec._ 27, 78.
[30] ‘cum discendi causa duobus peritissimis operam dedisset, L. Lucilio
Balbo et C. Aquilio Gallo’ _Brut._ 42, 154; cf. _de Orat._ iii 21, 78.
[31] ‘Servius [mihi videtur] eloquentiae tantum assumpsisse, ut ius
civile facile possit tueri’ _Brut._ 40, 150.
[32] ‘[Servius] longe omnium in iure civili princeps’ _ib._ 41, 151:
Pomp. _Dig._ i 2, 2, 43.
[33] For an interesting account of his career and death see Warde Fowler,
_Social Life at Rome_, pp. 118-121.
[34] ‘idem Aelius Stoicus esse voluit’ Cic. _Brutus_ 56, 206.
[35] ‘Q. Lucilius Balbus tantos progressus habebat in Stoicis, ut cum
excellentibus in eo genere Graecis compararetur’ _N. D._ i 6, 15.
[36] ‘Sextus frater praestantissimum ingenium contulerat ad summam iuris
civilis et rerum Stoicarum scientiam’ _Brutus_ 47, 175.
[37] See § 427.
[38] ‘Posidonius scribit P. Rutilium dicere solere, quae Panaetius
praetermisisset, propter eorum quae fecisset praestantiam neminem esse
persecutum’ Cic. _Off._ iii 2, 10.
[39] ‘[P. Rutilius], doctus vir et Graecis litteris eruditus, prope
perfectus in Stoicis’ _Brutus_ 30, 114.
[40] ‘multa praeclara de iure’ _ib._
[41] See above, § 326.
[42] Cic. _pro Rabir._ 10, 27.
[43] Plut. _Cato minor_ 4, 1.
[44] _ib._ 5, 3.
[45] _ib._ 10, 1.
[46] ‘Cato perfectus, mea sententia, Stoicus, ... in ea est haeresi, quae
nullum sequitur florem orationis neque dilatat argumentum; sed minutis
interrogatiunculis, quasi punctis, quod proposuit efficit’ Cic. _Par._
Pro. 2.
[47] ‘Cato dumtaxat de magnitudine animi, de morte, de omni laude
virtutis, Stoice solet, oratoriis ornamentis adhibitis, dicere’ Cic.
_Par._ Pro. 3.
[48] ‘animadverti Catonem ... dicendo consequi ut illa [= loci graves ex
philosophia] populo probabilia viderentur’ _ib._ 1.
[49] ‘[doleo] plus apud me simulationem aliorum quam [Catonis] fidem
valuisse’ _ad Att._ iii 15, 2 (in B.C. 48).
[50] _ib._ iv 15, 7.
[51] ‘Catoni vitam ad certam rationis normam dirigenti et diligentissime
perpendenti momenta officiorum omnium’ _Mur._ 2, 3.
[52] Cato apud Cic. _ad Fam._ xv 5, 2.
[53] See for instance below, § 441, note 94.
[54] ‘his [sc. piis] dantem iura Catonem’ Verg. _Aen._ viii 670.
[55] ‘illam Ἀκαδημικήν ... ad Varronem transferamus: etenim sunt
Ἀντιόχεια, quae iste valde probat’ Cic. _Att._ xiii 12, 3; ‘in iis quae
erant contra ἀκαταληψίαν praeclare collecta ab Antiocho, Varroni dedi;
... aptius esse nihil potuit ad id philosophiae genus, quo ille maxime
mihi delectari videtur’ _ib._ 19, 3 and 5.
[56] See above, § 123.
[57] ‘tu, [Brute,] qui non linguam modo acuisses exercitatione dicendi,
sed et ipsam eloquentiam locupletavisses graviorum artium instrumento’
Cic. _Brutus_ 97, 331.
[58] ‘Brutus in eo libro quem de virtute composuit’ Sen. _Dial._ xii
9, 4; ‘Brutus in eo libro quem περὶ καθήκοντος inscripsit, dat multa
praecepta’ _Ep._ 95, 45. There was also a treatise _de patientia_.
[59] The _de Finibus_, _de Natura Deorum_, and _Tusculanae disputationes_.
[60] Mart. _Ep._ i 42.
[61] See above, § 374, note 66.
[62] ‘nunc agilis fio et mersor civilibus undis, | virtutis verae custos
rigidusque satelles’ _Ep._ i 1, 16 and 17.
[63] See above, § 316, note 96.
[64] See above, § 90.
[65] ‘igneus est ollis vigor et caelestis origo | seminibus’ _Aen._ vi
730, 731.
[66] ‘caelum et terras | spiritus intus alit’ _ib._ 724, 726.
[67] ‘totamque infusa per artus | mens agitat molem’ _ib._ 726, 727.
[68] See above, §§ 295 to 297.
[69] ‘donec longa dies, perfecto temporis orbe, | concretam exemit labem,
purumque reliquit | aetherium sensum atque aurai simplicis ignem’ _Aen._
vi 745 to 747.
[70] ‘desine fata deum flecti sperare precando’ _ib._ 376.
[71] ‘mens immota manet; lacrimae volvuntur inanes’ _Aen._ iv 449;
the ‘lacrimae inanes’ indicate the ruffling of the soul, in which the
intelligence and will take no part.
[72] ‘est deus in nobis: agitante calescimus illo’ Ov. _F._ vi 5.
[73] ‘ante mare et terras, et quod tegit omnia caelum, | unus erat toto
Naturae vultus in orbe, | quem dixere Chaos, etc.’ _Met._ i 5 to 88.
[74] ‘os homini sublime dedit, caelumque tueri | iussit, et erectos ad
sidera tollere vultus’ _ib._ 85 and 86.
[75] ‘exclamavit Cordus tunc vere theatrum perire’ Sen. _Dial._ vi 22, 4.
[76] Tac. _Ann._ iv 34. Tacitus entirely ignores the personal motives
underlying the story, and quite unnecessarily suggests that Tiberius was
adopting the policy of repressing freedom of historical narration.
[77] ‘accusatores queruntur mori Cordum’ Sen. _Dial._ vi 22, 7.
[78] That Cremutius Cordus was a professed Stoic seems a fair inference
from the story as a whole, and yet, as in several similar cases, is not
expressly stated.
[79] ‘quem [Graecinum Iulium] C. Caesar occidit ob hoc unum, quod melior
vir erat quam esse quemquam tyranno expedit’ Sen. _Ben._ ii 21, 5.
[80] _Dial._ ix 14, 4-10.
[81] ‘casta suo gladium cum traderet Arria Paeto, | quem de visceribus
traxerat ipsa suis, | “si qua fides, vulnus quod feci non dolet,” inquit,
| “sed quod tu facies, hoc mihi, Paete, dolet”’ Martial _Ep._ i 14;
‘praeclarum illud eiusdem, ferrum stringere, perfodere pectus, extrahere
pugionem, porrigere marito, addere vocem immortalem et paene divinam
“Paete, non dolet”’ Pliny _Ep._ iii 16, 6.
[82] See above, § 126.
[83] ‘non derunt et frugalitatis exactae homines et laboriosae operae’
Sen. _Dial._ x 18, 4. For the British official the authority of the
author of _Tales from the Hills_ will suffice.
[84] See below, § 448, note 115.
[85] Henderson’s _Nero_, pp. 31-38, 50-142, 257-288.
[86] See above, §§ 127-129.
[87] See above, § 125.
[88] Persius _Sat._ iii 66-72. The translations in this section are by Mr
W. H. Porter.
[89] _Phars._ i 72 to 80.
[90] _ib._ vii 814 and 815.
[91] See above, § 242, note 9.
[92] _Phars._ ix 573 and 574.
[93] _ib._ 556 and 557.
[94] _ib._ 601 to 604. The force of this tribute is impaired by the
similar praise given to Pompey (_Phars._ vii 682-689) and to Brutus
(_ib._ 588 and 589).
[95] ‘quale coronati Thrasea Helvidiusque bibebant | Brutorum et Cassi
natalibus’ Juv. _Sat._ v 36 and 37. See also G. Boissier, _L’Opposition
sous les Césars_.
[96] Henderson’s _Nero_, pp. 90 sqq.
[97] _Annals_ xiv 42, 2.
[97a] The government had in fact appointed an officer for the prevention
of cruelty to slaves: ‘de iniuriis dominorum in servos qui audiat positus
est, qui et saevitiam et libidinem et in praebendis ad victum necessariis
avaritiam compescat’ Sen. _Ben._ iii 22, 3.
[98] Tac. _Ann._ xiv 57.
[99] See Henderson’s _Nero_, pp. 257-283.
[100] Tac. _Ann._ xvi 21-35.
[101] ‘Nero virtutem ipsam exscindere concupivit’ _ib._ 21.
[102] _Hist._ iv 5.
[103] Tac. _Hist._ iv 6.
[104] See above, §§ 130, 131.
[105] See above, § 444.
[106] Tac. _Hist._ iv 40.
[107] _ib._ 43 and 44.
[108] Dill, _Roman Society_, p. 152.
[109] Pliny _Ep._ vii 19, 7.
[110] τῷ ὄχλῳ προσέκειτο, βασιλείας τε ἀεὶ κατηγόρει, καὶ δημοκρατίαν
ἐπῄνει Dion Cassius lxvi 12.
[111] Dion Cassius lxvi 13.
[112] See above, § 444.
[113] Tac. _Hist._ iii 80.
[114] _Agr._ 2; Suetonius, _Dom._ 10.
[115] Dion C. lxvii 13, Tac. _Agr._ 45.
[116] Pliny _Ep._ iii 11, 7.
[117] Tac. _Hist._ iv 40.
[118] A. Gellius _N. A._ xv 11, 5 (for Epictetus).
[119] Pliny _Ep._ iii 11, 3; ‘tot nobilissimarum feminarum exilia et
fugas’ Tac. _Agr._ 45.
[120] See above, § 443.
[121] See above, §§ 428, 429.
[122] Renan, _Marc-Aurèle_, pp. 22, 23; cf. Maine, _Ancient Law_, pp. 55,
56.
[123] Renan, _Marc-Aurèle_, p. 30.
[124] Aulus Gellius _N. A._ i 2, 3 to 5.
[125] ‘nam de illis nemo dubitabit, quin operose nihil agant, qui
litterarum inutilium studiis detinentur, quae iam apud Romanos quoque
magna manus est ... ecce Romanos quoque invasit inane studium supervacua
discendi,’ etc. Sen. _Dial._ x 13, 1 and 3. The condemnation extends to
the whole study of history, _N. Q._ iii Pr.
[126] ‘In the purely moral sphere to which philosophy was now confined,
the natural tendency of the different schools, not even excluding the
Epicurean, was to assimilation and eclecticism’ Dill, _Roman Society_, p.
343.
[127] Rendall, _M. Aurelius to himself_, Introd. pp. cxxvii, cxxviii.
[128] The connexion (if any) of Gallio the proconsul of Achaia (Acts
xviii 12) with the Junius Gallio who adopted Seneca’s elder brother is
uncertain.
[129] Renan, _Marc-Aurèle_, p. 55, note 2.
[130] M. Aurel. _To himself_ xi 3.
[131] Renan, _M.-A._ p. 329.
[132] ‘quia ratione congredi non queunt, violentia premunt; incognita
causa tanquam nocentissimos damnant’ Lact. _Inst. Epit._ 47 (52), 4.
[133] ‘vidi ego in Bithynia praesidem gaudio mirabiliter elatum tanquam
barbarorum gentem aliquam subegisset, quod unus qui per biennium magna
virtute restiterat, postremo cedere visus esset’ _Div. inst._ v 11, 15.
[134] ‘nam cum videat vulgus dilacerari homines et invictam tenere
patientiam, existimant nec perseverantiam morientium vanam esse nec ipsam
patientiam sine deo cruciatus tantos posse superare ... dicit Horatius:
“iustum ac tenacem ...” quo nihil verius dici potest, si ad eos referatur
qui nullos cruciatus nullam mortem recusant’ _ib._ 13, 11 to 17.