No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
The ancients had no more difficulty than the modern commentator in distinguishing the attitude of the Stoics and the Peripatetics to men's emotions. On the one hand the Peripatetics believed that the emotions were given to man as a necessary part of his being, and though intended to be subordinate to man's reason, they were nevertheless capable of giving him help. The work of reason therefore can be compared to that of the vine-dresser, whose task it is to lop off the wild growth, but to cultivate and dispose the serviceable remainder. On the other hand the Stoics maintained that the passions were ‘συστολὴ ἄλογος’, an irrational mental contraction, and that the wise man would not be subject to any of them.
page 71 note 2 Plut. Περὶ τῆς ἠθικῆς ἀρετῆς 451C.
page 71 note 3 Diog. Laert. vii. 111–17.Google Scholar
page 71 note 4 Ad Marc. iv. 1Google Scholar; vii. 1—2. Ad Polyb. iv. 3Google Scholar; xviii. 5–6. Ep. Mor. lxiii. 1Google Scholar; xcix. 15—16.
page 71 note 5 De Ira i. 9; iii. 42. 1.Google Scholar
page 71 note 6 Ep. Mor. cxvi. 1.Google Scholar
page 72 note 1 Conventionally dated by editors to 40/41, (Favez [Paris, 1928]; Basore, following Walz, [Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1932]; Traglia [Rome, 1965]); nevertheless L.Herrmann, ‘La date de la “consolation à Marcia”’, REA xxxi (1929)Google Scholar, argues plausibly for a date as late as 62.
page 72 note 2 For examples of the Peripatetic case, see above, p. 71 n. 4; for the Stoic, Ep. Mor. xxiv. 25Google Scholar; xxxvii. 4; xlv. 9; lvi. 5–6; lix. 1–4; lxxi. 37; lxxxv. 3–13; cxvi. 2–3, 6–8.
page 72 note 3 Arnold, E. V., Roman Stoicism (London, 1911), 116.Google Scholar
page 72 note 4 As, for example, De Beata Vita iii. 2Google Scholar: ‘nostram autem cum dico non alligo me ad unum aliquem ex Stoicis proceribus; est et mihi censendi ius. itaque aliquem sequar, aliquem iubebo sententiam dividere, fortasse et post omnes citatus nihil improbabo ex iis quae priores decreverint, et dicam, Hoc amplius censeo.’ This is in any case a rather modest claim, and Grimal, P., Sénéque (Paris, 1966), 41–2Google Scholar, makes very apposite comments on Seneca's fundamental adhesion to Stoic principles.
page 72 note 5 Grollios, C. C., Seneca's Ad Marciam, Tradition and Originality (Athens, 1956), 32–3.Google Scholar For a similar treatment see also Favez, C., op. cit. intro. p. 29.Google Scholar
page 73 note 1 Ep. Mor. lxxxv. 3–6.Google Scholar For a strong statement of the Stoic case and a rebuttal of the Peripatetic position, see the whole of this letter, and also Ep. Mor. cxvi. For other statements of the Stoic case see above, p. 72 n. 2
page 73 note 2 Since I shall argue that Seneca adhered to the Stoic position on the emotions, I shall briefly comment upon it. Seneca's anxiety not to turn his sapiens into a stone was inherent in Stoicism from the beginning. The Stoics had always distinguished between an immediate bodily reaction to a disadvantage and an emotional disturbance which involved the assent of the mind to a false proposition on the nature of good and evil. Zeno had said as much: ‘In the mind of the wise man also, even when the wound has been healed, the scar remains.’ Whilst it is true that Seneca emphasized the wise man's possession of both body and mind, such an emphasis did not involve any dilution of pure Stoicism (De Ira i. 16. 7Google Scholar; Ep. Mor. lxxi. 29Google Scholar; Ixxiv. 31. Cicero Tusc. Disp. iv. 6. 11–9. 22).Google Scholar
page 73 note 3 As, for example, Ep. Mor. lvii. 7–8Google Scholar, where the extreme conclusion from the Stoic belief in the corporeal nature of the soul is ridiculed.
page 73 note 4 Ep. Mor. vi. 4.Google Scholar
page 74 note 1 For the dispute between exponents of rhetorical and philosophic education see Quint. Inst. Or. proem. 10—18 and xii. 2. 5—7.
page 74 note 2 For Seneca's concern for the proficiens rather than the sage see Guillemin, Mile A., ‘Sénéque, directeur d'âmes: II. Son activité pratique’, REL xxxi (1953), 215–34.Google Scholar
page 74 note 3 De Tranq. Anim. xi. 1.Google Scholar
page 74 note 4 Ep. Mor. cxvi. 5.Google Scholar
page 74 note 5 Ep. Mor. xciv. 28.Google Scholar
page 74 note 6 De Tranq. Anim. i. 15.Google Scholar
page 74 note 7 Ep. Mor. xxix. 3.Google Scholar
page 75 note 1 Ep. Mor. xxv. 1–3.Google Scholar
page 75 note 2 Ep. Mor. xxix. 4–8.Google Scholar
page 75 note 3 Ep. Mor. lxxi. 1–3.Google Scholar
page 75 note 4 Grimal, M. P., ‘La place des lettres á Lucilius dans l'œuvre de Sénéque’, IL x (1958), 197–204, esp. 203–4.Google Scholar Gregor Maurach has recently elaborated upon this same careful structuring of Ep. Mor. in Der Bau von Senecas Epistulae Morales (Heidelberg, 1970).Google Scholar
page 75 note 5 This comparison of sicknesses of the soul with those of the body is in itself thoroughly in the tradition of the Stoic school. Cicero comments (Tusc. Disp. iv. 23Google Scholar):‘hoc loco nimium operae consumitur a Stoicis, maxime a Chrysippo, dum morbis cor-porum comparatur morborum animi similitude.’ Kassel, Rudolf, Untersuchungen zur griechischen and römischen Konsolationsliteratur (Munich, 1938), 20Google Scholar, points out: ‘Der herkömmliche Medizinvergleich war in der alten Stoa, auf der günstigen Grundlage einer monistischen Psychologic, besonders von Chrysipp weit über die Funktion der Verdeutlichung im einzelnen und der Veranschaulichung methodischer Verfahren-weisen hinaus zu einer Parallelisierung von Leib und Seele und ihren Gesundheits- und Krankheitszuständen ausgesaltet worden.’
page 76 note 1 Ad Marc. ii. 1.Google Scholar
page 76 note 2 Ep. Mor. ii. 5.Google Scholar
page 76 note 3 Tusc. Disp. iii. 31. 75–6.Google Scholar
page 77 note 1 Tusc. Disp. iii. 31. 76.Google Scholar
page 77 note 2 For Grantor, his consolatio, and his influence, cf. Cic. Acad. ii. 135Google Scholar; Tusc. Disp. iii. 6. 12 and iii. 29. 71Google Scholar; Diog. Laert. iv. 24–7.Google Scholar
page 77 note 3 Epist. v. 16. 8–10.Google Scholar
page 77 note 4 Ad Polyb. xiv. 1.Google Scholar
page 77 note 5 The precise significance of this fact is difficult to determine. Zeller, E., A History of Eclecticism (English translation, London, 1883), 106 n. 1Google Scholar, suggested that the ‘consolatio’ attributed to Areius contained considerable fragments of his own writings. Kassel, R. (op. cit. 27)Google Scholar, although separating the consolatio preserved for us in Seneca, Ad. Marc. iv. 2–v. 6Google Scholar, from an address which Areius may have given, and acknowledging that for Seneca's purpose a complete contrast of Octavia and Livia is necessary, nevertheless seems to regard the consolatio as evidence for Areius's views. Dr. Grollios, however, (op. cit. 27) rightly emphasizes Seneca's method of presentation of this reference to Areius (‘hic, ut opinor, aditus illi fuit’ [Ad Marc. iv. 3]) and suggests that what we have is Seneca's view of what ought to have been said on such an occasion.
page 78 note 1 Ep. Mor. lxiii. 1.Google Scholar For other places where a Peripatetic position is advocated see above, p. 71 n. 4.
page 78 note 2 Ep. Mor. lxiii. 3.Google Scholar Chrysippus's argument is also found ibid. xcix. 16–17; Ad Marc. vii. 4; xix. 1.Google Scholar
page 78 note 3 Ep. Mor. lxiii. 4–7.Google Scholar Epicurean arguments are also found ibid. xcix. 3–4 (‘danda opera erat ut magis gauderes quod habueras quam maereres quod amiseras’), and also at Ad Marc. xii. 1–3Google Scholar; Ad Polyb. x. 1–4; xviii. 7.Google Scholar
page 78 note 4 Ep. Mor. lxiii. 15.Google Scholar For other examples of the Cyrenaic position see ibid. xcix. 32; Ad Marc. ix. 1–11, 5Google Scholar; Ad Polyb. xi. 1.Google Scholar
page 78 note 5 Ep. Mor. xcix. 6.Google Scholar
page 79 note 1 Tusc. Disp. iii. 31. 76.Google Scholar
page 79 note 2 As far as I can tell the distinction between the three forms of the Epicurean consolatio made in this appendix is original. Both Grollios, C. C. (op. cit. 52–4)Google Scholar, and Kassel, R. (op. cit. 29–32)Google Scholar regard the teaching of Metrodorus as part of a monolithic Epicurean doctrine.
page 79 note 3 Epicurus ΚΔ ii; cf. also Πρὸς Μενοικέα 124; Πρὸς Ἡρόδοτον 81, and Lucretius iii. 35–40; 830–46; 885–7; 898–911; 972–7.
page 79 note 4 Epicurus Sent. Vat. 55Google Scholar; cf. also Sent. Vat. 35Google Scholar and Incert. Epist. Frag. 50Google Scholar, ‘ἡδὺ ἡ φίλου μνήμη τεθνηκότος’.
page 79 note 5 Seneca Ep. Mor. xcix. 25Google Scholar (Kock fr. 34).
page 80 note 1 Seneca Ep. Mor. lii. 3Google Scholar: ‘ait Epicurus … quosdam indigere ope aliena non ituros sinemo praecesserit, sed bene secuturos. ex his Metrodorum ait esse.’
page 80 note 2 For Seneca's view of this practice, see Ep. Mor. xxxiii. 4.Google Scholar
page 80 note 3 Ad Marc. xix. 5.Google Scholar For an expression of a similar viewpoint cf. Ad Polyb. ix. 2–5.Google Scholar For excessive mourning as ingratitude towards the living cf. Ep. Mor. lxiii. 10Google Scholar; Ad Marc. ii. 5; xvi. 9.Google Scholar
page 80 note 4 De Ben. iii. 4. 1Google Scholar; cf. Ad Marc. xii. 2–3Google Scholar; Ad Polyb. x. 1–6.Google Scholar
page 80 note 5 Ep. Mor. xcix. 5.Google Scholar
page 80 note 6 Ep. Mor. xcix. 26 ff.Google Scholar
page 80 note 7 Grollios, , op. cit. 53–4.Google Scholar
page 81 note 1 Ep. Mor. xcix. 29.Google Scholar