We hold that there is a succession of causes, which weave our fate [Qualem dicimus seriem esse causarum ex quibus nectitur fatum]—Seneca, Letter 19.
It’s easy to read Seneca’s letter as simply advocating the solid, enduring pleasures of a private life where one finds true friends. On this interpretation Seneca is an anti-political philosopher renouncing worldly riches and power. After all, he encourages his protégé, Lucilius, to give up his further ambitions and withdraw from his rather successful political life as a colonial administrator in the empire. This fits the enduring charge of hypocrisy against Seneca (who became immensely wealthy in politics) [recall Mandeville].
The charge against Seneca is a bit puzzling for if a seasoned heroin addict tells you to give up your addiction, even though he is incapable of doing so himself, we do not think of the seasoned addict as hypocritical unless, perhaps, we are already addicted to heroin, too, and wish to continue in our addiction. My example is not special pleading: in the letter, Seneca describes financial and political ambitions as generating open-ended, unsatisfying pleasures that generate further such desires that have a very powerful hold on us; according to Seneca it requires a (daring) rupture, if necessary, to break this cycle of addiction. Throughout the letter Seneca treats not just ambitious activities as stormy, but also their consequences (i.e., celebrity, riches and power). It is true that when our actions are at odds with our words something may amiss and, indeed, this reveals a certain lack of integrity. But not all kinds of integrity are alike, and the problem need not be the soundness or the sincerity of the advice given.[1]
Having said that, I doubt that Seneca’s position is best understood as an anti-political theory renouncing worldly riches and power. Recall, first, that true friendship is not anti-political in Seneca (and here). Second, in this letter, his proposal is age-specific: it is apt for those who have spent their lived in the public eye on the turbulent seas, but ought to die in port [in freto viximus, moriamur in portu]. So, in Seneca otium (leisure/ease) does sound like contemporary age-specific ‘retirement’ (as suggested by Gummere’s translation.)
Third, Seneca hints at a more subtle issue. In all regimes, ambitions for success-goods (e.g., relative power, riches, fame, etc.) are insatiable and competitive as well as zero-sum. But in a polity with an emperor they are also very dangerous both to ambitious and able social climbers (such as Lucilius [his humble origins and hard work are stressed]), who are constantly exposed to needs and ambitions of (jealous) others as well as those at the pinnacle(s), including, ultimately, the emperor, which cannot tolerate genuine competitors.
In particular, he uses Emperor Augustus’s friend and confidante, Maecenas, as a negative exemplar who understands his own fate (as revealed by his poetic treatment of Prometheus).[2] Seneca suggests that Maecenas could have gone down in history as one of the great exemplars of Roman oratory [magnum exemplum Romanae eloquentiae], but instead on his way to the political top he became known for sacrificing his manhood for effeminate pleasures [enervasset felicitas]. Seneca is not merely re-activating Roman Republican suspicion of luxury and anti-homosexual bigotry; he is claiming that Maecenas allowed himself to be corrupted by the demands of his environment (recall the treatment by John Williams, the novelist). In Seneca's hands Maecenas recognizes all of this by the time it's too late.
While Seneca, perhaps, would not want the reader to wholly identify him with the portrait of Maecenas, Seneca is artfully warning against getting too close to power (recall also Seneca on Socrates and Cato). Once you are fully aware of the price to be paid, you recognize, if you are capable of thought that is one's own, you will have buyer's regret even if -- to those looking up -- you seem like a star. While two examples (Maecenas, Seneca) is, perhaps, limited sample-size to generalize from, they are representative of the option-space within a given institutional framework.
Seen from this perspective, Seneca's advice is just prudence. But while I have exhibited how Seneca takes political circumstances into account, I have not offered evidence that in this letter Seneca offers reflections on alternatives. That's true. But I have shown that there are good reasons to think that the details of Seneca's position are responsive to particular political circumstances and causes; he thereby encourages his more reflective reader to contemplate the course of action available in alternative circumstances without introducing the question how these are brought about.
Comments