Rusticus also persuaded Marcus that he shouldn’t be led astray by his initial enthusiasm for formal rhetoric; neither should he waste his time writing theoretical essays or trying to win praise by merely playing the role of the virtuous man. Indeed, Marcus says Rusticus convinced him to abstain from oratory, poetry, and fine language in general and to adopt the more down-to-earth and unaffected manner of speaking associated with Stoicism. In other words, Marcus went through a sort of conversion from rhetoric to philosophy, and this appears to have been a pivotal event in his life. Why was it such an upheaval, though? Whereas Sophistry is all about creating an appearance, philosophy is about grasping reality. Marcus’s transformation into a fully-fledged Stoic therefore entailed a change in his fundamental values. It turns out that Stoic “plain speaking” isn’t quite as easy as it sounds. It requires courage, self-discipline, and a sincere commitment to philosophical truth. As we’ll see, this change in orientation and worldview went hand in hand not only with a more Stoic way of speaking but also with a whole new way of thinking about events. HOW TO SPEAK WISELY
We’ve seen that Marcus grew up at time when rhetoric was highly fashionable, particularly at the imperial court of Hadrian. He underwent a thorough training in speechwriting and oratory from a group of tutors, including Herodes Atticus and Fronto, the leading Greek and Latin rhetoricians of his day, respectively. However, from his early youth, Marcus had earned a reputation for speaking plainly and honestly. In stark contrast to Hadrian, who loved to make a show of his learning, Marcus tells himself that true philosophy is both simple and modest, and we should never be seduced into vanity or ostentation in this regard. Always take the shortest route, he says.22 The short way is the way of Nature, which leads to the soundest words and actions. Simplicity frees us from affectation and the trouble it brings. For Stoics, this honesty and simplicity of language requires two main things: conciseness and objectivity. It would be an oversimplification to say that this just means to stop complaining, but in many cases the Stoics did advise along those lines. The point at which our language starts evoking strong emotions is precisely when we start saying things that involve strong value judgments, whether to others or ourselves. According to Stoic philosophy, when we assign intrinsic values like “good” or “bad” to external events, we’re behaving irrationally and even exhibiting a form of self-deception. When we call something a “catastrophe,” for instance, we go beyond the bare facts and start distorting events and deceiving ourselves. Moreover, the Stoics consider lying a form of impiety—when a man lies, he alienates himself from Nature.23
So how did the Stoics recommend we use language? Zeno, who wrote a Handbook of Rhetoric, didn’t consider verbal eloquence an end in itself but rather a means for sharing wisdom by articulating the truth clearly and concisely in a manner adapted to the needs of the hearer. According to Diogenes Laertius, Stoic rhetoric identified five “virtues” of speech:
1. Correct grammar and good vocabulary
2. Clarity of expression, making the ideas easily understood
3. Conciseness, employing no more words than necessary
4. Appropriateness of style, suited to the subject matter and apparently also to the audience
5. Distinction, or artistic excellence, and the avoidance of vulgarity
Traditional rhetoric shared most of these values, with the notable exception of conciseness. However, the Stoic use of language was normally seen as being completely at odds with established forms of rhetoric.
The Sophists, as we’ve seen, sought to persuade others by appealing to their emotions, typically in order to win praise. The Stoics, by contrast, placed supreme value on grasping and communicating the truth by appealing to reason. This meant avoiding the use of emotive rhetoric or strong value judgments. We usually think of rhetoric as something used to manipulate other people. We tend to forget we’re doing it to ourselves as well, not only when we speak but also when we use language to think. The Stoics were certainly interested in how our words affect others. However, their priority was to change the way we affect ourselves, our own thoughts and feelings, through our choice of language. We exaggerate, overgeneralize, omit information, and use strong language and colorful metaphors: “She’s always being a bitch!” “That bastard shot me down in flames!” “This job is complete bullshit!” People tend to think that exclamations like these are a natural consequence of strong emotions like anger. But what if they’re also causing or perpetuating our emotions? If you think about it, rhetoric like this is designed to evoke strong feelings. By contrast, undoing the effects of emotional rhetoric by describing the same events more objectively forms the basis of the ancient Stoic therapy of the passions.
Indeed, one way of understanding the contrast between Stoic philosophy and Sophistic rhetoric is to view Stoicism as the practice of a kind of antirhetoric or counterrhetoric. Whereas orators traditionally sought to exploit the emotions of their audience, the Stoics made a point of consciously describing events in plain and simple terms. Cutting through misleading language and value judgments and stripping away any embellishments or emotive language, they tried to articulate the facts more calmly and soberly. Marcus likewise told himself to speak plainly rather than dressing up his thoughts in fancy language. Indeed, nothing is so conducive to greatness of mind, he said, as the ability to examine events rationally and view them realistically by stripping them down to their essential characteristics in this way.24 In the Discourses we’re told that a philosopher, presumably not a Stoic, once grew so frustrated with his friends questioning his character that he screamed, “I can’t bear it, you’re killing me—you’ll turn me into him!,”25 pointing at Epictetus. That was a sudden display of histrionics: a blast of emotional rhetoric. Ironically, though, if he’d been more like Epictetus, he would have just stuck to the facts without getting worked up and said something like, “You criticized me; so be it.” In truth, nobody was killing this man and he could bear it.
The way we talk and think about events involves making value judgments, which shape our feelings. Shakespeare’s Hamlet exclaims, “There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.” The Stoics would agree that there’s nothing good or bad in the external world. Only what is up to us can be truly “good” or “bad,” which makes these terms synonymous with virtue and vice. Wisdom therefore consists in grasping external things objectively, as indifferent in this regard. Sometimes the Stoics describe this as staying with our initial impression of things before we impose value judgments. Epictetus gives many examples, such as when someone’s ship is lost at sea, we should say only “the ship is lost” and not add value judgments or complaints like “Why me? This is awful!”26 When someone bathes rather hastily, we should not react with disgust or even imply that he washed himself badly, but say only that he bathed quickly. When someone drinks a lot of wine, we should not say that he has done something terrible, only that he drank a lot of wine.27 Marcus follows Epictetus’s guidance when he says, for instance, that he should tell himself someone has insulted him in a matter-of-fact way, but not add the value judgment that it has done him any harm.28 If you stick with the facts and don’t unnecessarily extrapolate from them, you will put paid to many anxieties in life.