Roman Stoicism being lectures on the history of the Stoic...

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.

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.

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].

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.

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].

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.