Classically Inclined

March 16, 2015

Why calling Seneca a hypocrite isn’t very helpful

Filed under: Research — lizgloyn @ 8:52 am
Tags: ,

“There’s a review of Emily Wilson in today’s paper,” said G, waving a copy of the Observer.

“There’s a what?” I said, groggily, looking up from my yoghurt and about to rush off to church choir practice.

He passed the paper over, and lo and behold, it was a review of Emily Wilson’s Seneca: A Life, which in its online incarnation appears to have gained a new title – in the print edition of the Observer, the title is “A great Stoic and a serious hypocrite”, which sums up the attitude of the review rather better.

Reading the review had the effect of waking me up, mainly by making me rather cross. For several reasons. But the one G picked up on when he asked “so, is Seneca a hypocrite?” is the one on which I’m going to base this post. Seneca has had a long history of being accused of hypocrisy, starting in antiquity – Dio Cassius regales us with some particularly scandalous tales, including that bit about Seneca nearly bankrupting Britain by calling his loans in, and the usual ‘pandering to freedmen’ stuff that the Claudian period generates because Claudius actually set up a system of governmental officials who (shock horror!) weren’t senators. But Cassius Dio is writing at least a hundred years after Seneca’s death, and appears to assume that working the imperial system then was like working it in his period, when the political and moral ground had undergone some really big shifts. So that’s problem number one – the juicy evidence for Seneca’s hypocrisy comes from someone writing much later, with a bit of an axe to grind.

But the fair question remains of whether Seneca compromised his philosophical beliefs by working with Nero, and by retaining his status as a member of the senatorial elite. There are two good reasons grounded in Stoic doctrine that show attacking him on these grounds rather misses the point.

One. The Stoics had a doctrine of indifferents. That is, they said the only important thing was virtue. Everything else – good and ill health, good looks, wealth and poverty, marriage and bachelorhood, and, well, everything else – was an indifferent. Having or not having a particular indifferent did not make the slightest bit of difference to your ability to achieve virtue (and thus happiness). They complicated this a bit by then saying that some indifferents were preferred; that is, if everything was equal and your pursuit of virtue was not harmed by either choice, then it made sense to select one of the pair rather than the other. So if you had the choice between health and being poorly, for instance, you’d take health. Similarly, if you had the choice between wealth and poverty, you’d take wealth, providing the way of getting the money didn’t involve you doing something morally dubious (betraying a friend, for instance, or killing an innocent person). Stoicism doesn’t support a push towards compulsory poverty, like the later Franciscans or the earlier Cynics. The only ethically problematic thing about having money is becoming too dependent on it, forgetting that it’s an indifferent like any other, and starting to pursue it for its own sake.

But what, for instance, if your money came from, oooh, supporting a tyrant? And being part of that tyrant’s inner circle? Let us for a moment put aside the fact that Nero’s first few years of rule are generally credited with being not too bad, which sort of undermines the view that Seneca knew he was supporting a corrupt regime from the get-go. OK, there’s an ethical problem here – Seneca’s wealth and influence derives from his support of an emperor of dubious habits. Yet on what grounds would we call him a hypocrite? Hypocrisy is claiming to hold certain character traits and standards but not living up to them; hypocrisy is criticising other people for behaving in the way one happily does oneself. So we need to find evidence of Seneca presenting himself as morally superior to other people in his presentation of Stoic philosophy, and boom, there’s our evidence for hypocrisy.

But this is emphatically not what Seneca says anywhere in his extant work. The yardstick for moral achievement within Stoicism is the wise man or sage, who has got perfect grasp of reason, thus only makes rational decisions, and so is perfectly happy. The sage is famously rarer than a phoenix. Seneca never claims to be a wise man – in the On the Blessed Life, he explicitly says “I am not a wise man” (non sum sapiens). He never claims to have reached moral perfection. When he writes to his addressee Lucilius in the Moral Letters, he’s very careful never to claim ethical superiority – he has been doing this Stoicism thing for longer, which gives him a bit of an edge on knowing the material, but he’s still fallible and capable of making mistakes and irrational choices. When somebody is so open about his own moral faults and failings, even if not specifically the ones which revolve around his relationship with Nero, it’s a bit difficult to find the leverage to justify the charge of hypocrisy.

Basically, going back to this old chestnut as people have a depressing tendency to do demonstrates the importance of reading Seneca’s philosophical convictions against the historical background to get a better understanding of what’s going on in his actions and the decisions he makes. It’s not a neat answer, and it’s not a comfortably judgemental answer (because we all feel better when we can castigate someone else’s failings – well-known sayings about eyes, planks and motes come to mind). But it is one that recognises the complexity of the man and does him justice.

Advertisements

2 Comments »

  1. Lovely post. Hypocrite is such a tiresomely overused epithet. Who is not guilty to some degree of the vice that pays homage to virtue. Seneca was obviously consumed with what the Italians would call his figura. His works are performances, just as his death was. His coruscating prose screams look at me. He cared what his world thought of him. Vain? Certainly. But also conscious of his duty as consigliere to a problematic princeps and, more importantly, to a Roman pax which he believed, as a provincial whose home town had been ripped apart in the civil war, was worth preserving. So it meant having to spin the odd murder. Better a little domestic blood on the carpet than the slaughter that would follow in 69. In the end, he couldn’t ride the tiger. But then, who could? I speak, by the way, as someone who has just spent 12 years lipsticking the pig for Thabo Mbeki and Jacob Zuma.

    Comment by Simon Barber — April 2, 2015 @ 11:50 pm | Reply

  2. While “hypocrite” may be tiresomely overused, the outline you sketch would imply exactly that – why mince words? You can use your own criteria to judge whether he was a bad or good man, but he certainly was not a good example of a practicing Stoic, the philosophy for which he is widely acclaimed in modern times.

    “He cared what his world thought of him. Vain? Certainly.” – This is directly opposed to the Stoic school of thought and can be seen by reading any Stoic literature. For an extreme example, consider that the Stoics came from the Cynics and shared much of their philosophy. It is impossible to claim that the example and legacy of Diogenes (“The Dog”) could ever lead to something vain.

    “So it meant having to spin the odd murder. Better a little domestic blood on the carpet than the slaughter that would follow in 69.” – Again, this would be far from the Stoic analysis of the situation. The Stoics believed that life/death was indifferent, only virtue was good, and a man was only responsible for his own actions and reactions, also that the results of our efforts are out of our control and not our responsibility. People are only responsible for “doing the right thing”, regardless of consequence. Using an ends to justify a means would be directly against their teachings.

    In his own time, Seneca was not widely known as a philosopher, more-so a politician, and by many, a hypocrite. His writing can’t be dismissed however, while it is not necessarily original in thought, it echo’s the important ideas of others who’s work has been lost.

    Comment by breenmachine — February 28, 2017 @ 2:30 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.