Cicero was an essential precursor to Seneca in a literary sense, since he was the most important earlier writer who had attempted to convey the ideas of Greek philosophy in the Latin language. But Cicero’s philosophical affiliations were very different from those of Seneca. He had eclectic interests in a number of different schools, and he combed through all branches of Greek philosophy in search of consolation in hard times (for instance, in his desperate grief after the death of his daughter Tullia). But he sometimes expressed disappointment that no philosophy seemed able to solve the most important problems he faced. His primary sympathies throughout his life lay with the Academy, the school originally founded by Plato, which had evolved, by Cicero’s time, into a form of Skepticism. Cicero also had an interest in Epicureanism and Stoicism. The influential Tusculanian Disputations is a vivid Latin summary of Stoic-influenced arguments in favor of peace of mind, designed to help the reader (and the author) overcome grief, pain, and fear of death. In On Duties, Cicero draws on the version of Stoicism mixed with Platonism that had been developed by the second-century philosopher Panaetius. His most extensive discussion of Stoicism and Epicureanism comes in On Ends, in which he summarizes and criticizes the thought of the Epicureans and the Stoics before offering an account of his own position.
Cicero’s central disagreement with what he perceived to be standard Stoic ethical belief was that he saw it as entirely unrealistic. He suggested (in the Pro Murena and elsewhere) that the ideal of the Stoic wise person had no relationship with lived reality. Moreover, the Stoic ideal is not even ideal, since the Stoic wise person is far too cut off from emotional engagement with the world around him. Cicero strongly disagreed with the Stoic goal of apatheia, or “being without passion.” He argues at length in the Tusculanian Disputations (Books 3 and 4) that it is neither possible nor desirable for a person to be rid of all feelings of grief, rage, or fear.
Seneca, unlike Cicero, saw Stoicism as an absolutely useful model for a pragmatic political person in the center of Roman political power, and this difference is, again, a mark of how fundamentally times had changed. It was more important than ever to hang on to an ideal of tranquility in a world where it was so terribly difficult to achieve.
STOICISM
Stoicism, the intellectual movement with which Seneca most closely associated, was designed to create a possibility of individual happiness in times of vast social unrest. The ideal person in Stoic theory is the Wise Man (the sapiens), who is able fully to realize the truth that nothing except virtue really matters. He thus becomes fully aligned with the real nature of the universe.
Stoicism was an intellectual movement that had been in existence for over three hundred years before Seneca’s birth and had undergone many important changes and developments in that time. Like most philosophical histories, the tale begins with Socrates—in particular, with the Socrates who wore the same cloak both summer and winter, who was guided by a divine sign, and who taught that it is better to suffer wrong than to do it, and that nobody willingly does wrong. The combination of asceticism (or “voluntary simplicity”), providentialism (being guided by a mysterious but entirely reliable divine force), and some kind of intellectualism (all wrongdoing is due to mistaken thinking), along with an insistence that being good is the primary, or indeed only, component of human happiness—all of these are ideas articulated by Socrates and developed by the Stoics.
The next element in the story is the Cynics, whose name means “dog-like.” This movement was initiated by a man called Diogenes in the fourth century CE, who notoriously spent most of his life like a homeless person on the streets of Athens, living in a barrel with no possessions. One story goes that after he saw a poor boy drinking water from his hands, he threw away his single wooden bowl, realizing that it, too, was unnecessary. The Cynics presented themselves as followers of Socrates and were notorious for their eagerness to endure and celebrate poverty, on the grounds that material possessions distract one from life in accordance with virtue. True happiness and peace of mind could be achieved only by self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency itself is possible only through indifference to the material world and to the false norms of human culture. The ideal Cynic philosopher—like the founder of the school, Diogenes—would spend his life in rags or naked, defecating and fornicating in the street without shame, like a dog. There is an ancient story that Alexander the Great once came to visit Diogenes and asked him if there was anything he would like from him. “Get out of my light,” the sage replied. Alexander was not offended: he recognized a kindred spirit, somebody with as much ability to ignore human convention as he had himself. The world-conqueror remarked, “If I were not Alexander, I would like to be Diogenes.”
Cynicism was a philosophical movement that only a fairly limited number of the population were willing to embrace wholeheartedly, for obvious reasons: most people do not want to defecate in the street. But the central impulse of Cynicism—its recognition that material wealth and social status do not always bring happiness—was appealing to a huge number of people, and increasingly so. In the third and second centuries BCE, with the fall of the great Greek city-states and the rise of great empires (first Macedon, then Rome), in a time of enormous, and terrifying, alterations of the cultural, military, and political landscape of the Mediterranean area, more and more educated people were searching for peace of mind. People sought comfort not in large-scale social change but in their own individual spiritual healing. All the great philosophical movements of the period—including Cynicism but also Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Skepticism—promised to provide the state of “untroubled-ness,” ataraxia, to their practitioners. Happiness (in Greek, eudaimonia, “blessedness”) was associated not with the extremes of joy or exhilaration, nor with external achievements or events, but with an individual’s capacity to maintain a calm disposition no matter what.
Stoicism can be seen as a more socially acceptable version of Cynicism, one that had deeper intellectual credentials and was more compatible with the normal behaviors of not only slaves and working people but also elite inhabitants of Hellenistic or Roman cities—those who did not want to live half-naked in a barrel but still hoped for spiritual calm and a sense of self-worth, virility, and autonomy in a vast and bewildering world. It is not surprising that Stoicism proved extremely popular.
Stoicism was founded around 301 BCE by a Greek called Zeno, living in Athens. Zeno acknowledged his debt to Cynicism: he was taught by a Cynic named Crates in his youth. It is difficult to reconstruct exactly what Zeno’s version of Stoicism was like, since none of his work, or indeed that of any of the original Greek Stoics, survives. But Zeno is the person who gave Stoicism its name, by teaching in the location of the Stoa Poikile—the Painted Porch, an area of the Athenian marketplace.
Stoicism was developed in a systematic way by a slightly later leader of the Stoic school, Chrysippus.11 Chrysippus’ philosophy is recognizably a development of Cynicism. The Stoics, like the Cynics, believed that nothing was truly valuable except virtue; that virtue was both necessary and sufficient for human happiness; and that such happiness involves living a life in accordance with Nature. But Stoicism was different from Cynicism in two crucial ways. The Stoics, unlike the Cynics, placed enormous value on human reason. They also, again unlike the Cynics, placed a high value on action in the world, including political engagement. Whereas Diogenes the Cynic dismissed Alexander, Chrysippus the Stoic would have engaged with him and tried to advise him on his public policy.