Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:34:46.841Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seneca's Epistles to Lucilius: A Revaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Marcus Wilson
Marcus Wilson*
Affiliation:
University of Auckland
Get access

Extract

Invenio tamen translationes verborum ut non temerarias ita quae periculum sui fecerint; invenio imagines, quibus si quis nos uti vetat et poetis illas solis iudicat esse concessas, neminem mihi videtur ex antiquis legisse, apud quos nondum captabatur plausibilis oratio: illi, qui simpliciter et demonstrandae rei causa eloquebantur, parabolis referti sunt, quas existimo necessarias, non ex eadem causa qua poetis, sed ut inbecillitatis nostrae adminicula sint, ut et dicentem et audientem in rem praesentem adducant.

(Ep. 59.6)

I find metaphors in your writing, but not uncontrolled and so self-defeating. I find there the use of images. If anyone denies us the right to employ images in our prose by decreeing that they are allowed only in poetry, then he seems to me unfamiliar with our early prose authors whose language was not yet governed by the need to please good opinion. In expressing themselves naturally with a direct view to proving their point, they are full of these forms of comparison. I consider such devices indispensable, but not for the same reasons as do the poets. They work as a buttress for human weakness and they are effective in engaging both author and audience with the central issue at hand.

Type
Research Article
Information
Ramus , Volume 16 , Issue 1-2 , 1987 , pp. 102 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © Aureal Publications 1987 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The complete collection does not survive. Aulus Gellius quotes from a twenty second Book giving examples of Seneca’s criticisms of Ennius, Cicero and Virgil (Noct. Att. 12.2).

2. There is, of course, no neat division between the two sorts of letters, public and private: private letters may become public; a letter may be written as both a personal and a public communication. Seneca is familiar with the letters of Epicurus (see e.g. Ep. 18.9). The question whether Plato’s epistles are authentic is not an issue here since it was believed in Roman times that they were written by Plato (see Cic. Tusc. Disp. 5.35.100; De Fin. 2.14.45; Plut. Dio 8; 21; 52). The writings of the Apostolic Fathers are regularly epistolary in form. On the use of the epistle for literary and philosophical purposes, see Cancik, H., Untersuchungen zu Senecas Epistulae Morales (Meisenheim-am-Glan 1967) 46–61Google Scholar.

3. This is not to imply that the correspondence is wholly fictional. Many scholars have come to the conclusion that it is fictional: Peter, H., Der Brief in der römischen Literatur (Leipzig 1901) 225ff Google Scholar.; Bourgery, A., ‘Les Lettres à Lucilius sont-elles de vraies lettres?’, RPh 35 (1911) 40–55Google Scholar; Cancik (n.l above) 4ff.; Maurach, G., Der Bau von Senecas Epistulae Morales (Heidelberg 1970) 21 Google Scholar; Griffin, M. T., Seneca, A Philosopher in Politics (Oxford 1976) 350, 416’19Google Scholar. Others have taken the contrary viewpoint, e.g. Albertini, E., La composition dans les ouvrages philosophiques de Sénèque (Paris 1923 Google Scholar). The question is still hotly disputed: see Grimal, P., Sénèque ou la conscience de I’empire (Paris 1979) 219ff.Google Scholar; Cugusi, P., Evoluzione e forme dell’epistolgrafla latina nella tarda repubblica e neiprimi due secoli dell’impero (Rome 1983) 196–199Google Scholar; Abel, K., ‘Das Problem des Faktizitat der senecanischen Korrespondenz’, Hermes 109 (1981) 472–499 Google Scholar; id., ‘Seneca. Lebenund Leistung’, ANRW II.32.2 (1985) 745ff Google Scholar. It is unprofitable to think in terms of a sharp distinction between a) ‘genuine’ and b) ‘fictional’ correspondence. There are, in this context, degrees of ‘genuineness’. Letters intended from the outset for publication may nevertheless have been sent to the addressee; letters sent in the course of a regular correspondence may later be revised, expanded, supplemented with other material prior to publication. Whether the Epistles to Lucilius were actually sent to him or not is a question more important for the biographer than the critic; for in either case it is apparent that Seneca had eventual publication in mind; in either case the letters present a programmed introduction to Stoic ethical thought — whether designed initially for Lucilius or for the wider public. See the comments of Russell, D. A., ‘Letters to Lucilius’ in Costa, C. D. N., Seneca (London and Boston 1974) 76 Google Scholar.

4. Cancik (n.2 above) 46ff.; Maurach (n.3 above) 20ff.; Coleman, R., ‘The Artful Moralist: A Study of Seneca’s Epistolary Style’, CQ 24 (1974) 288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n.l; Griffin (n.3 above) 350. See also Russell (n.3 above) 78f.

5. Russell (n.3 above), 71, is wholly convincing in his argument that Seneca is referring in 8.2 to the Epistles themselves, not to another work in progress. The remainder of Epistle 8 is full of the salutares admonitiones (‘beneficial advice’) that Seneca says here he is writing down for posterity.

6. This seems a deliberate recollection of 20.7: o quando ille veniet dies, quo nemo in honorem mum mentiatur (‘Oh when will the day come when no-one will compliment you with lies!’).

7. Note that in the previous epistle, Seneca is fully alert to the difficulty of returning an impartial judgement on the literary work of a friend. In this case, it is Lucilius who is to give an opinion on Seneca’s books: ceterum quod libros meos tibi mitti desideras, non magis ideo me disertumputo quam formosum putarem, si imaginem meam peteres. indulgentiae scio istud esse, non iudicii. et si modo iudicii est, indulgentia tibi imposuit (“The fact that you want my books sent to you doesn’t make me think I’m eloquent any more than it would make me think I’m good looking if you asked to see my picture. I know this shows not your judgement but your indulgence. Even if it is the result of judgement, indulgence imposed it on you’, 45.3).

8. On the close connection between style and moral qualities, see also Ep. 40. Style should be controlled, not brazen (oratio pressa, non audax, 14); it should preserve a sense of nobility of character (salva dignitate morum, 8); some effects of style are a brand of shamelessness: non potest tibi ista res contingere aliter quam si te pudere desierit; perfrices frontem oportet et te ipse non audias … non potest, inquam, tibi contingere res ista salva verecundia (‘It’s impossible for you to do that without losing your sense of shame. You’d have to rub your face to avoid showing blushes and try not to hear your own words … It’s impossible, I repeat, for you to do that and keep your modesty intact,’ 13).

9. These analogies come from Caligula, Jortin, Balzac, Abraham Cowley and Macaulay. Cowley is quoted by Motto, A. L. and Clark, J. R., ‘ Ingenium facile et copiosum: Point and Counterpoint in Senecan Style’, CB 52 (1975) 1 Google Scholar, from the Ode on Wit line 52; Jortin and Balzac are quoted by Williamson, G., The Senecan Amble (London 1951) 131, 146Google Scholar. For Caligula see Suet. Cal. 53; for Macaulay, his letter to T. F. Ellis, 30 May 1836.

10. References are to pages in the edition of Van den Hout, M. R J., M. Cornelii Frontonis Epistulae (Leiden 1954 Google Scholar).

11. It’s most unfortunate that Williamson (n.9 above) chose this misleading title for his confused but influential book.

12. Quoted by Williamson (n.9 above). 111.

13. E.g. Williamson (n.9 above), who uses the epithets ‘Ciceronian’ and ‘Senecan’ in this way: ‘In our period the Ciceronian and the Senecan again define the extremes of style between which other styles must in turn be defined’ (57).

14. For accounts of Seneca’s style see Summers, W. C., Select Letters of Seneca (London 1910 Google Scholar; repr. 1962) xlii’xcv; Macl. Currie, H., ‘The Younger Seneca’s Style: Some Observations’, BICS 13 (1966) 76–87Google Scholar; Motto and Clark (n.9 above); Coleman (n.4 above); Traina, A., Lo stile ‘drammatico’ delfilosofo Seneca (Bologna 1974 Google Scholar); Herington, C. J., ‘The Younger Seneca’, in Kenney, E. J. and Clausen, W. (edd.) The Cambridge History of Classical Literature, vol. ii (Cambridge, UK 1982) 15–36Google Scholar; Setaioli, A., ‘Seneca e lo stile’, ANRW 11.32.2 (1985) 776–858Google Scholar.

15. See Summers (n.14 above) xlii-liv.

16. On the philosophical significance given to autobiography, consider Ep. 108. Seneca’s recounting of his own early philosophical education illustrates a general point about the openness of the young to philosophy: haec rettuli ut probarem tibi, quam vehementes haberent tirunculi impetus primos ad optima quaeque, si quis exhortaretur illos, si quis incenderet (‘I’ve been telling you these things to demonstrate how enthusiastically young beginners charge towards the highest type of studies if only someone encourages them, if only someone ignites their interest’, 23).

17. Duff, J. W., A Literary History of Rome in the Silver Age (London 1964) 184 Google Scholar; Williamson (n.9 above) 194; Coleman (n.4 above) 288; Quinn, K., Texts and Contexts: The Roman Writers and their Audience (London 1979), 213 Google Scholar; Campbell, R., Seneca, Letters from a Stoic (Harmondsworth 1969) 21 Google Scholar. See also Griffin (n.3 above) 419 and Motto and Clark (n.9 above) 3f.

18. Summers (n.14 above). Summers includes, for instance, Epistles 44 and 47 but not 45 or 46. Of some epistles he includes part (e.g. 82). His selection gives a very distorted picture of the Epistles to Lucilius.

19. Campbell (n.17 above) anthologises; Gummere, R. M., Seneca: Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales (London and New York 1917 Google Scholar) adds (usually inappropriate) essay-type headings.

20. The work of Cancik (n.2 above) and Maurach (n.3 above), ‘Uber ein Kapitel aus Senecas Epistelcorpus’, in Seneca als Philosoph (Darmstadt 1975) 339–60Google Scholar, has now established beyond question the need to consider the relations between epistles and also the movement of the collection as a whole.

21. On the ‘dramatic’ element in Seneca’s prose writings see Hijmans, B. L., ‘Drama in Seneca’s Stoicism’, TAPA 97 (1966) 237–51Google Scholar and Traina (n.14 above).

22. Sørensen, V., Seneca, The Humanist at the Court of Nero (Edinburgh and Chicago 1984) 191 Google Scholar. In 22.3 Seneca advises Lucilius to withdraw gradually from his public activities: leni eundem via, ut quod male implicuisti, solvas potius quam abmmpas (‘take a gentle path so as to untie rather than tear what you’ve knotted together so badly’). There are hints in 69 that Lucilius has begun this process; but in 72.3 Seneca is still urging Lucilius to free himself completely from occupationes (‘business commitments’). He reiterates the point at the close of the epistle: non debemus occupationibus indulgere. excludendae sunt (‘we shouldn’t indulge these business distractions. They should be shut out’, 11). Lucilius, clearly, is not yet settled firmly into a life of otium. Epistle 82 indicates that at long last he is. The problem Seneca is concerned with has changed: it’s no longer the need to avoid occupationes but how to live now you have attained otium. After 82 Seneca does not press Lucilius to retire as he did in earlier epistles. We are meant to understand that he has retired. For a slightly different interpretation, see Griffin (n.3 above) 348–350.

23. On the role of Lucilius as adversarius, see Motto and Clark (n.9 above) 3.

24. On Seneca’s use of humour in the Epistles, see Motto, A. L., Seneca Sourcebook: Guide to the Thought of Lucius Annaeus Seneca (Amsterdam 1970) xv–xviGoogle Scholar. The influence of Horace’s verse epistles is likely.

25. Cancik (n.2 above), 35–39, points out the thematic links between 82 and some other epistles, especially 85 and 87. But he overemphasises book divisions and underestimates the extent of the thematic connections.

26. Seneca’s attacks on syllogistic logic are part of a wider campaign against useless research and erudition more generally. See, for instance, his remarks in 88 about the trivial questions which occupy some literary scholars (6f.) and other specialists. In 108 Seneca contrasts the ways the philosopher and philologist approach the same text. He rejects the approach of the philologist (35) in a way that resembles closely his rejection of the methods of the logician.

27. In addition to the letters concerned to discourage interest in trifling logical puzzles, see also Epistles 89, 94 and 95.

28. Other prominent images include hardness (dure, aspere, laboriose … obrigescere) and softness (molliter … molliter … molliter vivit … mollis est … effeminatur … delicati) in 2; and the siege analogy and personification of fortuna in 5.