Seneca's Concept of a Supreme Being in His Philosophical Essays and Letters

7/27/2019 Seneca's Concept of a Supreme Being in His Philosophical Essays and Letters

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/senecas-concept-of-a-supreme-being-in-his-philosophical-essays-and-letters 1/127

Loyola University ChicagoLoyola eCommons

Master's Teses Teses and Dissertations

1947

Seneca's Concept of a Supreme Being in HisPhilosophical Essays and Le ersRobert James Koehn Loyola University Chicago

Tis Tesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Teses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion inMaster's Teses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please [email protected].

Tis work is licensed under aCreative Commons A ribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.Copyright © 1947 Robert James Koehn

Recommended CitationKoehn, Robert James, "Seneca's Concept of a Supreme Being in His Philosophical Essays and Le ers" (1947). Master's Teses.Paper641.h p://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/641

http://ecommons.luc.edu/

http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses

http://ecommons.luc.edu/td

mailto:[email protected]

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/





mailto:[email protected]

http://ecommons.luc.edu/td

http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses

http://ecommons.luc.edu/



SENECA'S CONCEPT OF A SUPRE.'ME BEING

IN HIS PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAYS

AND LETTERS

BY

ROBERT J . KOEHN, S . J .

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF ~ q E REQUIREMENTS FOR A MASTER OF

ARTS DEGREE IN THE CLASSICS

AUGUST

1947



VITA AUCTORIS

Robert James Koehn was born in Toledo,

Ohio, on September 2 , 1917. Afte r a t t end ing

S t . James parochia l schoo l , he ente red s t .

John ' s High School in September 1931. Upon

h i s graduat ion in 1935 he a t tended S t . John 'sand DeSales Colleges before en te r ing the So

c i e t y of Jesus on September 1 , 1937.

He matr icu la ted a t Xavier Univers i ty,

C i n c i n n a t i , and rece ived a Bachelor of L i

t e r a tu r e degree in June 1941. Following h ist r ans fe r to West Baden Col lege , West Baden

Spr ings , Ind iana , in the summer of 1941, he

ente red the graduate school of Loyola Uni

v e r s i t y, Chicago, in the Class i c s .

During th ree years of phi losophica l

s tud ies a t West Baden(l941-44) and th ree

years of t each ing a t S t . Igna t ius High

School, Chicago( l944-47) , he f u l f i l l e d the

requirements fo r the Master of Arts degree

in the c l a s s i c a l language course .



PREFACE

The presen t t h e s i s i s concerned p r imar i l y with th e

words Seneca uses to specifly h i s Supreme Being. With t h i s pur-

pose in view i t was n ~ c e s s a r yto use a t very f r equen t i n t e rv a l s ,

e spe c ia l ly in Chapter Four, quo ta t ions from Seneca ' s works . To

r e t a i n t h e La t i n f ee l i n g and shades of mefu'1.L"g contained in th e

La t in wording Seneca ' s d i r e c t words were i n s e r t ed as much as

poss ib l e . This was done even wi th in th e course of an Engl ish

sentence when i t was f e l t th e La t in f l a v o r would be l o s t i n th e

t r a n s f e r t o t h e E ng l i sh . Also, s ince Seneca ' s works were used

very f r e e l y, abbrev ia t ions of t he va r ious t i t l e s were used in

th e many fo o tn o t e s . To a s s i s t the r eader who might n o t be we l l

acquain ted with Seneca ' s works we h.ereby i n s e r t a key to th e

essays and l e t t e r s employed in t h i s t h e s i s .

Ad Helviam de Consola t ioneAd Marciam de Consola t ioneAd Polybium de Consola t ioneDe Be ne f i c i i sDe Br e v i t a t e VitaeDe Clement iaDe Constan t i a Sap ien t i sDe I r aDe Otio Sap ien t i sDe Providen t i aDe Vi t a BeataEpis tu lae MoralesQuaest iones Natu ra les

Ad Helv.Ad Marc.Ad Polyb .De Ben.De Brev. V.De Clem.De Cons tan t .De I r aDe OtioDe Prov.De V. B .Ep. Mor.Quaest . Nat .



TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I . THE CASE PRESENTED • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1

Importance of Seneca-- -Ethics his ph i losophy---Sto ic ism---Lack of sys tem---Incoherency-- - Inconsis tency-- -Caut ion needed---Worth of invest iga t ion-- -Method tobe used . ·

I I . WHAT OTHERS SAY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 13Three explanat ions of God's essence- -Varia t ions proposed b y ce r t a in men---William Davidson---Hubert Poteat -- -Ed-ward Caird---George Simcox---Ralph Stob---Eduard Zel ler-- -Wil l iam Capes---Fred-e r i c Farra r- - -Rober t Wenley---samuel D i l l---A ce r t a in dependence on Sto i c i sm-- -Wide range of opinions.

I I I . INF'LUEUCES ON SENECA • • • • • • • • • • • • o 30

Seneca's indebtedness to " l e sse r " ph i losophies---Quintus Sex t ius - - -At ta lus - -Epicurus---Certa in eclec t ic ism---Conceptsof God proposed-- -Cynics- - -Epicureans--Sext ians- - -Sto ics .

IV. SENECA SPEAKS • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • 61Four powers in the un iverse?- - -Fa te - - -Nat u re - - -For tune- - -God- - -F i r s t Cause and thechain of causes i n Fate - - -Phys i ca l and hu-man view of Nature---Change involved i n Fort une- - -Mate r i a l i t y an d S p i r i t u a l i t y of God- - -Four terms in themselves---Four terms inthe l i g h t of phi losophical background.

V• DEC IS I ON RENDERED • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 96

Supreme Being i s m a t e r i a l i s t i c and panthei s t i c - - - E t h i c a l v s . Metaphysical p ic tu reof G o d - - - F a t e ~ N a t u r e ~Fortune are manif es ta t ions of the universe- - -Mater ia l i ty ofa l l th ings-- -Cynics el iminated---Differencefrom Epicureans - - -S imi la r i ty to S to i c s - -Corporea l i ty of r a t i o - - - I d en t i tY of God andthe world---Pantheism---Conclus ion .

BIBLIOGRAPHY • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 109

APPENDIX • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •• • •

111



CHAPTER ITHE CASE PRESENTED

The l i f e and -writ ings of Lucj_us Annaeus Seneca have

i n t e r e s t e d , puzzled, and i n t r i g u ed mankind a l l dur ing h i s l i f e

and ever s ince ~ i s dea th . There ce r t a in ly was no phi losopher

of h i s per iod who could equal him in se r iousness of thought andno s ta tesman who had run the gamut of success and f a i l u r e in

pub l ic off i ce and imper ia l favor more complete ly than h e .

As a ph i lo sopher Seneca launched out in to no unplumbed

depths of metaphysics o r e t h i c s . His was th e des i re to u t i l i z e

pr inc ip les a l ready recognized an d to i n s t i l i n men a love of

philosophy and the wisdom fo r which i t t augh t men to s t r i v e .

For him Philosophy was s imply an a t tempt to reach wisdom,l

which he c a l l e d th e Sumnru.m Bonum of th e human mind. And th e

Summum Bonum viewed p r a c t i c a l l y fo r him was quod honestum ~ . 2

This thought recurs aga in and aga in as th e theme around which

a l l h is l e t t e r s and phi losophica l essays are cen te red . I t must

be admit ted t h a t i t was a theme wel l worthy of any man's pen .

And to say t h a t Seneca ably f u l f i l l e d th e t a s k he s e t fo r him

s e l f would be to be labor the obvious .

1

2

Richard Gummere, ed . and t r a n s l . , Seneca: E ~ i s t u l a e

Morales , London, William Heinemann, 1934, 8 .4 . ·Ep. Mor. 71 . 4



2

However, as Taci tus was to remark some years l a t e r , in

those days o f the Empire i t was b e t t e r to be without a b i l i t y

than to come to the a t t e n t i o n of th e r u l e r . And Seneca was one

who by th e grace of h is t a l e n t s and the en tang l ing web of c i r

cumstances only too of ten and fo rc ib ly came under the scheming

eye o f a Cal igu la o r a Nero. I t i s no t our i n t en t ion to v i n -

d ica t e Seneca 's c ha r a c t e r as Taci tus appears to do or to drop

s ly h i n t s of ad u l t e ry or usury as Dio Cassius 3 and Juvenal4 i n

t end . Seneca 's l i f e may have s tood in open co n t r ad i c t i o n t o

h is elevated doc t r ine . S t i l l , J . Wight Duff fo r one, while

giving us a r a th e r exhaust ive l i s t of Seneca 's supposed weak

nesses and i mp ro p r i e t i e s , seems to th ink t h a t he i s innocen t .

The s t o r y o f improper r e l a t i o n s with J u l i a so obviously servedMessa l ina ' s machinations t h a t i t cannot be accepted as incont r o v e r t i b l e f a c t , while the suggest ion of an amour with Agr ip

pina i s even more i n c r e d i b l e . That Seneca was pr ivy t o deathsof Claudius , of Bri tannicus and o f Agrippina was whispered andrepea ted , bu t th e r u ~ o u r scan be n e i t h e r proved or disproved.His weak condonation o f such deeds very n a t u r a l l y sub je c t s himto susp ic ion . That he advocated the contempt o f weal th and y e taccumulated i t , i s no t to be ga insa id ; even so , and gran tedt h a t he l e n t money on i n t e r e s t , we a re not bound to b e l i ev eDio 's s ta tement t h a t Seneca caused an i n su r rec t i on i n B r i t a i nby suddenly c a l l i n g i n the huge sum o f f o r t y mil l ion ses t e r ces .5

However, a l l these t h ings , even though they were t r u e , would

not l es sen th e importance o r va lue o f h is thoughts and t each

i n g s . For the "power of Seneca as a moral t e a c he r has , with

some r ese rva t ions , been recognized by a l l th e ages s i n ce h is

3 Edward Cary, ed . and t r a n s l . , Dio Cassius : Roman His to ry,London, William Heinemann, 1 9 2 ~ 6 1 . 1 0

4 Charles Anthon, e d . , Th e Sa t i r e s of Juvenal and Pers ius ,New York, Harper Bros : ; -1879 , 8 . 2 ~ - - -

5 J . Wight Duff , A L i t e r a r t His to r y o f Rome in the Si lve r Age,New York, Chas .-Scribner s Sons, 1 ~ 5 ~ 4 - - - - -



3

t ime.n6 And "Seneca, l i k e Ta c i tu s , has a remarkable power of

moral d ia gnos i s . " ? I t i s Seneca th e t eacher of moral doc t r ine

t h a t we seek . I t matters not whether t h i s b e l i e f coinc ides

wi th h is deeds . Bes ides , many Chr i s t i a ns under more favorable

circumstances and with f a r grea te r graces have f a i l e d to main

t a i n the s tandard of l i f e t h a t they by t h e i r very name profess

to fo l low.

One h i s t o r i a n abs t rac t s fo r a moment from th e ac tua l

content of Seneca 's doc t r ine and th e conduct of h i s l i f e j u s t

to cons ide r r1im as the completes t specimen of the professed

phi losopher of an t iqu i ty.

He was n e i t h e r a s ta tesman who indulged in moral spe c u la t ion ,l i k e Cicero , nor a pr iva te c i t i z e n who detached h imse l f , l i k eEpicurus o r Zeno, from th e ord inary dut ies of l i f e , to devoteh imse l f t o t h e p u r s u i t of a b s t ~ a c tt r u t h . To teach and preach

phi losophy i n w r i t i n g , i n t a l k i n g , i n h is da i ly l i f e and conv e r s a t i o n , was, i ndeed , the main ob jec t he professed ; bu t heregarded a l l pub l ic ca reers as p r a c t i c a l developments of moralsc ience , and plumed himse l f on showing t h a t thought may inevery case be combined with ac t i o n .8

Seneca, t h e re fo re , as t h i s man wel l s t a t e s , aims " to teach and

preach phi losophy." Throughout th e course of h is essays and

l e t t e r s he does not l e t himsel f o r h is reader f o rge t the end he

has in mind. This i s one p o in t in which Seneca does mainta in

the g r e a t e s t coherency and cons i s tency. I t mattered no t

whether he spoke De Prov iden t ia or Ad Helviam de Conso la t ione .

6 Samuel D i l l , Roman Society From Nero to Marcus Aur e l iu s ,London, Macmillan and Co. , 'mL>, . . . ,-- -

7 D i l l , 9

8 Char les Merivale , His to ry of th e Romans under th e Empire,New York, Longmans Green ana TIC:, 1904, 8.269



4

The genera l aim o f th e essay and th e t en o r of t he doc t r ine r e -

mained th e same. His "secundum naturam v i vere" and "ad i l l i u s

legem exemplumque fo rmar i s a p i e n t i a es t "9 sum up h is e n t i r e

phi losophy. And to t h i s one idea he has he ld f i rm i n each

succeeding essay.

Philosophy fo r Seneca was no t an organized d i v i s i o n o f

i n v es t i g a t i o n i n to cosmology, l og i c , and othe r ph i losophica l

branches . His phi losophy was only e t h i c s , the s tudy of mor-

a l i t y , quod honestum ~ · But y e t , Seneca went f a r above th e

l e v e l o f honestum and t u rpe to ascend to th e he igh t of p e r-

f ec t i o n and a sc e t i c i sm. I t might sound s t range to speak o f an

anc ien t and pagan a s c e t i c , b u t some have l abe l l ed Seneca j u s t

t h a t . "Whatever may be thought o f h is excel lenc ies . o r d e fec t s

as a w r i t e r , or of the car i ca tu re and pr igg i shness of th e Sto ics e c t , he was in h i s wr i t ings an e a r n e s t , a h igh ly pre tend ing ,

and apparen t ly a s i n ce re advocate of asce t i c severi ty. t t lO And

in t h i s s p e c i a l f i e l d of phi losophy, i n which he preordained

h imse l f to l ab o r under the aeg is o f Zeno, Seneca "was th e p r i n -

c i p a l ornament o f Stoic ism in h is day, and a va luab le i n s t r u c t o r

of mankind." 11

Mention has been made on s ev e ra l occas ions , sometimes

9 John W. Basore , ed . and t r a n s l . , Seneca: Moral Essays ,LON-DON, Will iam Heinemann, 1928, De Vita Beata 3 .2

10 Benjamin H. Malkin, C l a s s i c a l D i s ~ i t i o n s ,London, Long-man, Hu rs t , Rees, Orme, Brown,· an Green, 1825, 295

11 Malkin , 296



5

d i r e c t l y, sometimes i m p l i c i t l y, t h a t Seneca followed th e Sto ic

d o c t r i n es . Stoic ism, i t i s sure ly p la in , was the genera l " sys

t e m ' ~fo l lowed by Seneca, b u t whether he was cons i s t en t with t h i s

plan as proposed by Zeno, and advanced by Cleanthes and Chry

s ippus in h i s concept of a Supreme Being, i s j u s t th e poin t

under discuss ion in t h i s t h e s i s . I t i s wel l known t h a t many

w r i t e r s , judging s u p e r f i c i a l l y from Seneca ' s gene ra l aim of

~ l f o < . f h : . . : C X .and the supremacy of Reason over Fa t e , which are de -

cidedly Sto ic proposa l s , wish to c l a s s i f y him immediately and

in a l l th ings as a S t o i c . Others , however, see ing such beau

t i f u l express ions as "cogi ta s quanta nobis t r i b u e r i t parens

nos te r" l2 and "patr ium deus habe t adversus bonos v i ro s animum

e t i l l o s f o r t i t e r amatttl3 contend t h a t Seneca has de se r t e d th e

camp of Stoicism fo r th e Ch r i s t i an concept of God.

The so lu t ion , however, i s not qui te t h i s s imple . F i r s t

of a l l , Seneca i s n o t expounding or e labora t ing a Sto i c "system"

of ph i losophy. This would be imposs ib le , fo r th e S to ic s

r ea l ly had no "system" o f subjec ts o r doc t r ines as we know them

today. Systems were a sub je c t ive arrangement of l a t e r d a t e .

Zeno gave l e c t u re s and wr i t ings on a phys ica l theory of th e

unive rse . His Greek fo l lowers , Cleanthes and Chrysippus , took

var ious phases of these doc t r ine s and e labora ted them. Cleanthes

took physics and Chrysippus, because of h is many c on t r ove r s i e s ,

12 De Ben. 1.29 .3

13 De Prov. 2 .6



6

turned to the s tudy o f l o g i c . Seneca, in t u r n , never proposed

to c l a s s i f y or analyze th e works of these men. His spec i a l

fo r te was to be e t h i c s . And, s ince e th i cs presupposes meta-

phys ics , he a l so includes pass ing phases of t h i s branch of

philosophy i n essays and l e t t e r s . No S t o i c , n ot even Epic te tus

and Marcus Aurel ius a t l a t e r da tes , gave us complete expos i t ions

of a "system," bu t only l ec tu res on genera l top ics or j o t t i n g s

of random i deas . This l ack of system i s extremely unfor tuna te ;

s t i l l , says one man "as i t was the aim o f the St o i c s to form

men and not merely to t r a i n reasoners or to produce ora to r s ,

t h a t determined t h e i r mode of procedure . t t l4

Another poin t t h a t must be considered i s Seneca ' s i n

coherency. George A. Simcox in h is His tory of Lat in L i t e r a t u r e

says : "He never succeeds i n having a plan in any o f h i s l a rg e rworks; he i s a t th e mercy o f th e as s o c i a t i o n of ideas and o f

the way in which one top ic suggests another. t t l5 This i s ev i -

dent in th e De Benef i c i i s and th e De I r a . Afte r speaking of

th e i ng ra t i t ude manifested by those who f o rge t p as t benef i t s in

the ear ly p a r t of Book Three of th e De Ben ef i c i i s Seneca. ge ts

the thought t h a t t h i s i s an odious vice and so perhaps should

not go unpunished. This leads him to ex p a t i a t e on var ious

charges brought aga ins t c i t i e s and on the procedure o f a law

14

15

W ~ l l i a mL. Davidson, The Sto ic Creed, Edinburgh, T. Clark ,1907, 32 - - -George A. Simcox, A H i s t o r ~o f Lat in L i t e r a t u r e , New York,

Harper and Bros . , 1906, 2.



7

c o u r t . At th e ou t se t of Book Two of th e De I r a Seneca says

t h a t in t h i s ear ly sec t ion "quaerimus enim i r a utrum j ud ic io an

impetu inc ip ia t , t • 16 b u t in r e a l i t y he t e l l s how v i r t u e considers

anger rep rehens ib le and how unworthy of th e wise man i t i s t o

s ink to t h i s l e v e l . This same f a u l t a lso makes fo r grea t e r con-

fus ion in the presen t d i sc uss ion , s ince Seneca nowhere i n h i s

wri t ings t akes t ime to exp la in in d e t a i l to what he has r e f e r -

ence when, fo r i n s t an ce , i n th e ~ .2!!£ he asks "qui s i t deus;

deses opussuum

s p ec t e t an t r a c t e t . n l 7From

t h i s impor tan tidea , which he views q u i t e contemptuously, as th e con tex t shows,

Seneca then passes on withou t any f u r t h e r e la bo r a t ion of what

might have been a top ic sen tence .

A t h i r d d i f f i c u l t y has rendered i t almost imposs ib le

fo r ce r t a in scho la rs to make any dec is ion on such t echn ica lp o in t s as Seneca 's concept of God. For, as Cru t twel l puts i t ,

l i k e a l l the o ther th inkers of th e t ime he ca red noth ing fo rc o n s ~ e n c yof opinion, everything fo r impress iveness of a p p l ic a t i o n . He was S t o i c , P l a t o n i s t , Epicurean , as of ten as i tsu i t ed him to employ t h e i r p r i n c i p l e s t o enforce a morall e s s o n . l 8

And, as ano ther author remarks, "Seneca made a s o r t o f amal-

gamation of th e mora l i t i e s of Zeno and Epicurus ; i t was t rue

t h a t one proceeded from idea l i sm and th e o the r from mater ia l i sm,

b u t what d id i t m a t t e r ~ t t l 9A t h i r d s t a t e s t h a t he "c on t r a -

161718

19

De I r a 2 . 1 . 1De Otio 4 .2Char les T. Cru t t w e l l , A H i s t o r ' of Roman L i t e r a t u r e , London, Chas. Gr i ff in and-Co. IS '7, 38'7Alber t Grenie r, The Roman S p i r i t , New York, Alfred A. Knopf,

926 398 - . .



d i e t ed himsel f with in the range o f th e same t r e a t i s e . t t 20

Probably th e most pa ten t example of t h i s f a u l t i s Seneca ' s

8

vigorous a t t a c k aga ins t the S t o i c a l doc t r ine t h a t the wise man

w i l l take p a r t in the government of the s t a t e . Seneca ind ica tes

t h a t Zeno, to mention only one, remained a pr iva t e t eacher a l l

h is l i f e . There fore , i f Zeno was c o n s i s t e n t , he had in tended

h is teaching o f par t i c ipa t ion in c i v i l l i f e in some o ther sense ,

or a t tached some cond i t ion t o i t . But a l l t h i s , of course ,

Seneca d id not even mention u n t i l he himse l f , beginn;ng to f e a r

fo r h is l i f e , d es i r ed to withdraw from pub l ic l i f e .

Therefore , th e l ack of system, incoherency, and incon-

s i s t en cy i n Seneca should prevent one from f a l l i n g i n t o th e

mistake of ce r t a in i nves t i ga to r s who be l i e ve th e problem ex

tremely s imple or j u s t n o n -ex i s t en t . For them a c e r t a i n s e t o f

quotab le express ions sound exac t ly l i k e S t . Paul o r , ~ co n t r a ,

s imi la r to th e most complete S t o i c . Thus, they are eas i ly l ed

to be l i e ve t h a t t h i s or t h a t was Seneca 's idea of God. The

very same d i f f i c u l t i e s , however, have kept most men from g iv ing

any op in ion on t h i s s u b j ec t a t a l l . This i s , a t l e a s t , a sa f e~

procedure . One w r i t e r , Samuel D i l l , as s h a l l be seen i n a

l a t e r chapte r, dec la res th e god of Seneca possesses a s p i r i t u a l

na tu re in one place and a p an t h e i s t i c ex is tence on th e very

fo l lowing page. But he i s unique i n t h a t . Most men, i n r e -

20 Duff , 207



9

f e r r i n g t o t he god of Seneca hard ly go beyond expressing ce r t a i n

resemblances t o Ch r i s t i an and t o S to i c concepts . They have don

much i n car ry ing t h e i r i n v es t i g a t i o n s as f a r as they have and

" the jungle of l i t e r a t u r e which has grown up around Seneca t e s -

t i f i e s to th e manifold i n q u i r i e s s t imula ted by h i s p e r s o n a l i t y

and works.n21 S t i l l , even though "h i s in f luence makes him one

of th e most prominent f igu r e s in th e h i s to ry o f l e t t e r s " 2 2 we

are y e t seeking tn e c l a r i f i c a t i o n of many s ta tements in h i s

works. Seneca 's idea of God i s one of these problems.

The presen t s tudy i s an at tempt to reach a s a t i s f a c t o r y

answer to th e ques t ion , "'i'lhat d id Seneca mean by the many terms

he used to s i g n i f y a Supreme Being?" In o the r words, "What i s

God fo r Seneca?"

This quest ion i s one exceedingly worthy of research on

var ious scores . Seneca has been termed a grea t t e ach e r, p h i l o -

sopher, and w r i t e r. Because of h i s re_puta t ion 'and pos i t ion i t

i s good to see h is b e l i e f s on the b a s i s of e ru d i t i o n a lone .

But an even more important reason was Seneca 's in f luence dur ing

h i sown

l i f e t i m e and h i s repu ta t ion throughout th e c e n t u r i e s .Being a man who was in t imate ly connected with the emperors and

on th e p o l i t i c a l scene fo r many years , he very n a t u r a l l y spread

h i s ideas to a l a rg e number of th e ru l i ng c lass and through

them t o t he p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s . Jus t how much Seneca 's teachings

21 Duff , 196-722 Duff , 197



10

coun te rac ted o r ass i s t ed the r i s i n g C h r i s t i a n i t y i s ano the r

ques t ion , b u t t he r e can be no doubt t h a t th e two doc t r ines of

Stoicism and C h r i s t i a n i t y met one ano the r with in the boundar ies

of Rome. S t . Pau l ' s E p i s t l e ! £ ~Romans was s e n t in approx i -

mately 57 A.D. and t ~ i s f a c t alone i n d i ca t e s t h a t a goodly

number of Ch r i s t i an s were then abid ing in the c a p i t a l of the

world.

Be t h a t as i t may, Seneca 's p o s i t i o n , persona l con-

t a c t s , and wri t ings made him and h i s ut te rances of wide impor-

tance bo th in h is day and o u r s . Tac i tus , Dio Cassius , Juvenal ,

Mart ia l a l l vo ice d i f f e r e n t reac t ions of th e anc ien t s while J .

Wight Duff ' s comments on the weal th o f Senecan commentaries23

po in t out th e impress ion Seneca has made upon medieval and

modern scho la rs a l i k e . I t i s obviously worthwhile then toconsider and weigh th e most impor tan t concept any man could

have i n th e works o f t : l i s most important man.

Was Seneca 's concept o f a Supreme Ruler of the un iverse

the convent ional pantheism o r m a t e r i a l i s t i c pr inc ip l e of the

preceding Sto ics? Or was i t an i de a t h a t was a l t e r ed by theinf luence o f C h r i s t i a n i t y i n to a s p i r i t u a l , persona l , loving

c rea t o r and guardian of men? Or d id Seneca so in te rwine and

mix h i s manner o f speaking as to i nd i ca t e t h a t he h imse l f had

no c l e a r concept o f God?

23 Duff , 197



11

I t i s c l ea r from Seneca ' s many re fe rences to t he Ep i -

cureans, Pythagoreans , Cynics , and Sto ics t h a t h i s l i f e and

l ea rn ing had come under the in f luence of· t hese va r ious schools

of phi losophy. To a s s i s t in di scover ing Seneca 'sowfi

conceptof God i t becomes necessa ry to consider th e men from whom he

imbibed h i s d o c t r i n e and even those whom he claims he r e j e c t s

and ana themat izes . I t w i l l be e a s i e r then t o c l a s s i f y him with

a e e r t a i n group o r to f ind i n what he di sagrees with them. Or

we can see how he co n s t ru c t s an amalgam of var:i_ous i deas to

s a t i s f y h is purpose of th e moment.

Secondly, i t i s important to f ind what deduct ions

var ious s e l ec t ed c l a s s i c a l scho la r s have a r r ive d a t a f t e r t h e i r

reading of Seneca ' s own words. As has been expressed e a r l i e r ,

these i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , i n most cases , c o n s i s t merely of a few

words of exp lana t ion fo r a few s e l e c t phrases from Seneca .

But even t h i s i s o f some worth s ince i t shows very p la in ly

e i t h e r how l i t t l e research has been done on t h i s top ic or how

d i f f i c u l t men have found i t s s o l u t i o n to b e . I f l i t t l e r e -

sea rch has been done, t he r e i s no reason why t h a t s i t u a t i o n

should con t inue . I f th e so lu t ion i s d i f f i c u l t , i t i s u s e f u lto see why, and, i f p o s s i b l e , to provide a s u i t a b l e answer. I

any case the work w i l l be p r o f i t a b l e , f o r i t w i l l c l a r i f y th e

ex t en t of the s tud ies a l ready made and show th e need o f fu r t h e i

evidence and examinat ion befo re any conc lus ive s ta temen t can

be i s sue d .



12

Seneca ' s tes t imony i t s e l f , however, i s th e impor tan t

e lement . His phi losophica l essays and l e t t e r s give many r e -

fe rences to god, Nature , F a t e , and For tune . In some in s tances

t he se terms w i l l s ign i fy t'.1e same t h ing . At othe r t imes n o t .Frequent ly the language of Seneca equals t h a t of any Ch r i s t i an ,

as when he says : "p lur ima b en e f i c i a nos deus d e f e r t s ine ape

r e c i p i e n d i , quoniam nee i l l e conla to eget nee nos e i quidquam

confer re possumus.»24 But apparen t ly he grove l s j u s t as low

in mater ia l i sm i n h i s s ta temen t : "mundua h i e , qu.o n i h i l neque

majus neque or na t iu s rerum na tura genui t . tt25 How then to

account fo r t h i s and many o th e r apparent cont rad ic t ions? That

quest ion cons t i t u t es th e h e a r t of any s tudy on the God of

Seneca . Before any answer can be o ffe red one must understand

Seneca ' s r e fe ren ces to god and Fate i n t h e i r co n t ex tu a l back

ground, and then as weighed a ga ins t Seneca 's genera l p h i l osophica l "system" and the in f luence exer ted on him. A ll t h i s

must urecede th e fir1.al d ec i s i o n .

In each of th e fo l lowing chapte r s , t h en , we w i l l de -

te rmine:(1) What o thers have sa id about Seneca 's idea

of God;(2) vVhat in f luences were exer ted upon Seneca;:(3) What Seneca h ims e l f had to say;(4) What we can conclude from th e evidence p r e -

sen ted .

24 De Ben. 4 . 9 . 125 Ad Helv. 8 .4



~ - - - - - - - - - - - -

CHAPTER I I

WHAT O ~ B E R SSAY

In the a c t u a l s tudy o f Seneca much t ime and a t t en t ion

have been devoted to breaking through th e mere s h e l l . o f words

in to the h e a r t and mind of th e au tho r h imse l f . There a re so

many p o in t s which puzzle one who i s read ing Seneca fo r th e

f i r s t , or the tundred th , t ime t h a t he i s inc l ined to medi ta te on

the a c t u a l meaning var ious passages he ld f o r t h e i r au th o r.

Then, a f t e r fu r the r i n v es t i g a t i o n one must e i t h e r confess t h a t

he has found no answer or he w i l l endeavor to l i s t what he b e -

l i ev es i s th e t rue i n t e rp re ta t ion of Seneca ' s words. For, t h e

are so many p r a c t i c a l appl ica t ions in Seneca t h a t each one

th inks h imse l f pr iv i l eged to give th e t ru e meaning concealed in

h i s words.

I t i s no wonder, t h e re fo re , t h a t c l a s s i c a l scho la rs i n

each age f ind in Seneca something t h a t demands t h e i r i n t e r e s t .

For some i t i s Seneca 's l i f e i t s e l f i n r e l a t i o n to the p o l i t i -

ca l movements of th e t imes . Others wish to eva lua te h i s mor-

a l i t y according to the s tandards of h i s own d o c t r i n es . Many

are a t t r a c t e d to th e p e c u l i a r i t i e s of h is l i t e r a r y s t y l e . And

a hos t a re h a l t e d by th e more than passing s i m i l a r i t y to th e

Chr i s t i a n p r i n c i p l e s of l i f e . Whatever i t i s t h a t draws men to



.-r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Seneca, he has become one of th e more,widely d iscussed and d e

ba ted about authors of th e S i l v e r Age.

A ll types of ana lys ts a re t o be found in Senecan l i t -

e r a t u r e . Numerous w r i t e r s '1ave been drawn to give t h e i r opin-

ions of what Seneca 's ideas on God r e a l l y were. The conc lus-

ions they reached a re many and v a r i ed , depending i n l a rg e p a r t

on th e ex ten t of t h e i r s tudy. To a l e s s e r degree t h e i r answers

must hinge on t h e i r own c u l t u r a l , ph i lo soph ic a l , and r e l i g ious

background, al though an i n v es t i g a t i o n of these w i l l sca rce ly

en te r i n to the scope of the presen t t o p i c . I t i s s u f f i c i e n t to

no te t h a t var ious answers have been given and c o n f l i c t i n g con-

e lus ions reached by many who have touched on Seneca ' s concept

of the Supreme Being of th e un ive r se .

In s tudying th e opin ions off e r e d by a dozen or more

c l a s s i c i s t s one f inds th ree answers given on th e essence of th e

d e i t y. The f i r s t pos i t ion he ld i s one of i n i t i a l and f i n a l

doubt; th e second i s th e doc t r ine of Stoic ism and mater ia l i sm;

the l a s t i s t h a t of C h r i s t i a n i t y and s p i r i t u a l i t y .

In h i s book, The Sto ic Creed, William Davidson t r e a t s

the e n t i r e Sto ic school from Zeno to Marcus Aure l ius , wi th

g rea t e r s t r e s s placed on Seneca, Ep i c t e t u s , and Marcus Aure

l i u s . F i r s t , he assumes t h a t Seneca mainta ined a l l the Sto ic

d o c t r i n es , and, secondly, he f a i l s t o s t a t e which one or what)

group of the o the r w r i t e r s he ld a ce r t a in op in ion a t t r i b u t e d to



~ ~ - - - - - - - - -5

the S t o i c s . Never the less , in two passages in which s p e c i a l r e -

fe rence i s made to Seneca, Davidson admits h e can come to no de

f i n i t e d ec i s i o n , fo r "whether the supreme providence i s a l iv ing

personal God, o r merely an impersonal p r i n c i p l e , the course of

n a t u re , or the universe i t s e l f , i s very d o u b t f u l . " l Fur the r on

r e l y i n g , no doubt , in par t on Seneca ' s own admission t h a t "nemo

nov i t deum,"2 he s a y s ~

Right w el l , fo r i n s t an ce , does Seneca r e a l i z e t h a t i t i s no tposs ib l e fo r us to comprehend f u l l y the power t h a t made a l lt h i n g s , al though we may discover him in p a r t on every hand. Ontwo poj_nts alone i s he per f ec t ly assured - namely, THAT THEREIS A GOD, AND THAT WE ARE rro ASCRIDE TO HIM ALL NlAJESTY ANDGOODNESS •3

Faced with the a l l too many incons i s t enc ies t h a t appear on the

su r face of Seneca ' s works, Davidson re fuses to b e l i ev e t h a t

Seneca h imse l f knew the ul t ima essen t i a of God.

J u s t a s t ep beyond th e s t a t e of doubt r e g i s t e r e d by

Davidson i s th e c e r t a i n t y of ano the r schola r t h a t on e God does

e x i s t .

I t i s o f i n t e r e s t to no te t h a t Seneca makes h is con t r ibu t ion tothe search f o r a s a t i s f y i n g monotheism; t h a t h e keeps a l i g h tthe to rch k ind led by Panaet ius and tended by Pos idon ius , Varro ,and Cicero • •• Indeed, i t may be sa id th e most impor tan t advancein theory made by Roman Sto ics i s to be found i n the g radua lsubs t i tu t ion o f one god fo r the pan the i s t i c mater ia l i sm of Zenoand h is e a r l i e r Greek f o l l o w e r s . ~

This man c a l l s i t an impor tan t advance to come to th e con-

1 Davidson, 2142 Ep. Mor. 31.103 Davidson, 2214 Hubert McNeill Po t ea t , "Some Ref lec t ions on Roman Ph i l o

sophy," C l a s s i c a l Jou r na l , 33.520



~ - - - - - - - - -6

e lus ion t h a t one God e x i s t s . His s ta tement i s t r u e . However,

the na tu re o f t h i s one God i s fo rg o t t en . And, i n r e a l i t y , i t

seems d i f f i c u l t to see how one could ar r ive a t the conclusion

t i ta t there must be one God without unders tanding something more

of h is n a t u r e .

In h i s mention o f Seneca th e Greek sc ho la r, Cai rd , con-

curs i n the g e n e r a l i t i e s a l ready o ffe red . His idea seems to be

t h a t Seneca d id no t a t tempt to reach any u l t i ma t e answer, b u t

was s a t i s f i e d to take fo r gran ted b as i c e t h i c a l pr inc ip l es and

th e u l t ima te na tu r e of r e a l i t y .

The crude t h eo r i e s of Epicurus and Zeno as to the c r i t e r i o n o ft r u t h , and as to the u l t i ma t e na ture of r e a l i t y , a re i n a d i st i n c t l y lower key o f specula t ion than the P la ton ic and A r i st o t e l i a n metaphysic and d i a l e c t i c . S t i l l lower from a s c i ent i f i c , i f no t from a l i t e r a r y poin t of view, a re th e epigrammatic mora l i s ings o f Seneca, the aphor i s t i c medi ta t ions of Marcus Au re l i u s , and p r a c t i c a l sermons o f Ep i c t e t u s , i n a l l ofwhich the t h e o r e t i c b a s i s of e t h i c s i s r a t h e r presupposed thanexpla ined.5

Most authors , however, i nc l i ne in varying degrees

toward the opin ion t h a t Seneca was possessed of S t o i c a l t e n

denc ies . Probably the weakest a ff i r ma t ion in t h a t r e ga r d , a l -

though q u i t e symptomatic, i s one t h a t says noth ing o f th e de i ty

in Seneca, but l i s t s Seneca ' s dependence on the Sto ic sys tem.

Although Seneca f e e l s very s t r ong ly t h a t phi losophy i s to bep r a c t i c a l , and no t a mere compendium of a b s t r a c t t r u t h s , he i salways en tang l ing h imse l f i n casu i s t ry, fo r sc rup les grow upf a s t when people i n s i s t on suppress ing the s t ro n g es t o f t h e i rn a t u r a l impulses , and th e a r t i f i c i a l es t imate of l i f e on which

5 Edward Cai rd , The Evolu t ion of T h e o l o g ~i n the Greek Ph i l o

sophers , Glasgow, James MacLehese ando n s , ~ 0 4 ,

2.39-40



·~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

. ' 17

the S to ic s l a i d so much s t r e s s as a guide to r i g h t conduct r equired to be guarded by an immense appara tus of d i s t i n c t i o n s .seneca d i s t r u s t s h is own wealmess too much to be independent ;though he i s always f r e t t i n g a t th e bondage of system, he neveremancipates h is f a v o r i t e concept ion of bona mens from the pa r a -dox ica l trammels of Zeno and Chrys ippus :o - - - - - - .

This quo ta t ion a l so i nd i ca t es th e problem exper ienced by othe r

s tuden ts i n determinj_ng any f i n a l judgment o f Seneca 's words

when i t mentions Seneca as "always en tang l ing h imse l f in casu i s -

t r y. "

How much Seneca leans upon Sto ic arguments i s b e t t e r

descr ibed by Ralph Stob . He comes to c e r t a i n conclus ions , which,

though more r ev ea l i n g , a re not very d e t a i l ed . "The primary sub-

s tance i s the f i e r y Logos. This res ides in God and man. The

two a re i d e n t i c a l . Man i s God, and God i s man. Since the Sto ic

has only an immanent God, i t n a t u r a l l y fo l lows t h a t God and man

are one. The t each ing runs a l l through the S to ic wri t ings .n7

J u s t what th e na ture of God and then of th e " f i e r y Logos"is i s

mentioned l a t e r on in the c l au s e , " in view o f th e God-concept of

Stoic ism which presen ts God only as immanent and then , t o o , im

persona l and m a t e r i a l . n8 Seneca, t he re fo re , i s presumed to be

a Sto ic and to be fo l lowing th e genera l Sto ic concept t h a tGod

i s immanent, impersonal , and m a t e r i a l . Jus t what evidence t h e re

was in Seneca to l ead Stob to t h i s opin ion i s no t revea led .

Another w r i t e r a l so takes fo r granted t h a t Seneca i s a

6 Simcox, 2.157 Ralph Stob , "Stoic ism and C h r i s t i a n i t y, " C l a s s i c a l Jou r na l ,

30.2198 Stob, 220





~ ~ - - - - - - - - -9

takes pa ins to show Seneca 's tendency to borrow what p leased him

from phi losophers o f any school whatsoever.

Some o f th e most s t r i k i n g p a r a l l e l s to our r e l i g ious thought b elong , no t to Seneca h ims e l f or to th e system of philosophy whichhe professed bu t to e a r l i e r schools and d i f f e r e n t th inkers fromwhom he f r e e l y borrowed. We have a l ready c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n tot h i s tendency, which was n a t u r a l enough i n t h a t l a t e age whenr i g i d exclusiveness was out of da te and ec lec t i c i sm had becomea ru l i n g fa sh ion . Thus th e b e a u t i f u l expressions to be foundin him about our Heavenly F a t h e r, from whom come a l l good andue r f e c t g i f t s , whom we should t r y to i m i t a t e , t h a t we may beper fec t l i k e our Fa the r • • • these and many o thers may be found i nPla to cen t u r i e s befo re they gained a p l ace , b u t n ot always aharmonious s e t t i n g , in th e l e t t e r s and dia logues of Seneca. Inth e school o f Pythagoras , which he followed i n h i s youth , hemay have l e a r n t to examine h i ms e l f , as was h i s l a t e r p r a c t i c e ,to l i s t e n to the v o ice o f consc ience , and to confess the wrongwhich he had done. From Epicurus , as we have seen , he borrowedmuch, and among othe r sen t iments t h a t one, " the consciousnessof s in i s th e f i r s t s t ep towards s a l v a t i o n , " (Ep . Mor. 28) onwhich so much s t r e s s has been l a i d as an evidence o f S c r i p t u r a ld o c t r i n e . l l

S t i l l , fo r a l l h i s borrowing, Seneca was always a Sto ic a t

h e a r t , says Capes. "But t he r e can be no doubt t h a t Seneca adhered withou t h e s i t a t i o n to th e Sto ic creed , and h i s rese rves

and compromises belong more to h i s h e a r t than t o h i s head . 11 12

This s ta tement i s a t r i f l e d i f f i c u l t to understand i n view o f

a f u r t h e r admiss ion. "We se e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t i n s p i t e of a l l

h is borrowed phrases of the schoo l , t he r e i s l i t t l e in Seneca 's

own t each ing o f the hardness and coldness o f the S t o i c a l

school . ttl3 I f Capes by t h i s passage means to i n f e r t h a t Sen-

eca ' s t each ing was n o t S t o i c a l i n essence as wel l as express ion ,

then he apparen t ly i s no t c l e a r i n h i s own mind as to what s y s -

11

1213

Will iam W. Capes, Chief Ancient Phi losoph ies , Sto ic i sm,New

York, P e t t , YoungruLd Co. ,

1880, l 68-9Capes, 150Capes, 156



~ r - - - - - - -tem and doc t r ine s Seneca was t r y i n g to fo l low. I t i s more

l i k e l y, however, t h a t Capes saw more in Seneca than h i s Chr i s -

t i a n manner o f speaking , fo r he says : "Devot ional language t h e re

may b e , indeed , to express the fe rvour of emotion, k ind led by

th e e f f o r t to pursue i n thought th e Absolute Being i n a l l i t s

endless changes through th e immensit ies o f t i m ~and space . ttl4

He wishes to s t r e s s th e f a c t t h a t an emot ional element flowed

through Seneca,

y et wemust

admit t h a t resemblances o f tone ands t y l e do

nottouch the e s s e n t i a l s of th e moral system, and f a i l to br idgeover the g u l f between the S to ic and th e Ch r i s t i an sys tem. Theformer was Pan t h e i s t i c s t i l l ; i t s God i s d i ffu s ed through a l lthe s tages o f c r e a t i o n ; i t s providence i s an i nexorab le f a t e ;i t s Holy S p i r i t ebbs and f lows l i k e t i d a l waves through a l l th emult i tudinous realms of Nature . l5

He cont inues h i s d iscourse on Seneca ' s Stoic ism by i n d i ca t i n g

t h a t the d e i t y i s no t th e persona we might conclude he i s from

h is a t t r i b u t e s . nThe Fatherhood of God i s an unmeaning phrase

in such a sys tem. Ins tead of f i l i a l devot ion to a persona l

w i l l , we have submission t o an abso lu te law.ttl6 I n y e t another

place he says : uNo persona l Maker had brought man in to be ing ;

the re was no one to c a l l him to account fo r h is s tewardship

of powers e n t r u s t e d to h is keeping. I n s t e a d o f , 'The Lordg ive th , the Lord ha th taken away 1

• • • we read i n Seneca, ' For tune

has taken away my f r i e n d , b u t he was h e r g i f t . ' n l7

14 Capes, 17315 Capes, 17216 Capes, 17317 Capes, 175



--....--------------. 1

In a l l t h i s Capes t r e a t s Seneca ' s wri t i n g s in ge ne r a l ,

as can be seen from th e quota t ions o f f e r e d , and b r i e f l y mentions

some r e f l e c t i o n s of h is own. Without e x p l i c i t l y l i s t i n g p as s -

ages in Seneca or g iv ing a f a i r sampling o f q u o t a t i o n s , he f a -

vors th e opinion t h a t Seneca ' s d e i t y fol lowed th e Sto i c concept

in a l l e s s e n t i a l s , but t h a t Seneca adopted a more devot iona l

tone , such as P la to would employ, whenever h i s purpose demanded

such a t ouch . J u s t what Capes cons idered the e s s e n t i a l s of

Stoic ism we a re unable to de te rmine . He i s more outspoken in

dec id ing t h a t the d e i t y i s not a persona l ized c r e a t o r and bene-

f a c t o r, de sp i t e th e a l lu s ions to c h a r i t y, kindness , and bene-

vo lence , a l t ~ o u g hhe does s top sho r t o f t e l l i n g us what God i s ,

and how he reached t h i s de c i s ion . Thus i s proved aga in the

d i f f i c u l t y o f e x t r a c t ing nny co n s i s t en t views from Seneca . With

r eason , t hen , d id Capes pre face h i s remarks with th e convic t ion

tha t " i t has been sa id with t r u t h t h a t , as an au th o r, Seneca

should be regarded r a t h e r as a s p i r i t u a l d i r e c t o r than as a

sys temat ic m o r a l i s t . " l 8

More w i l l i n g than any o f t he p rev ious ly mentioned

c r i t i c s to accept the Ch r i s t i an express ion o f Seneca as wel l as

the p o s s i b i l i t y of a Ch r i s t i an meaning i s the au thor, F reder ic

W. F a r r a r, i n h is Seekers After ~ · He w i l l no t accept an en-

t i r e l y Ch r i s t i an view of God because " h i s (Sen eca ' s ) e loquent

18 Capes , 143



22

u t t e r a nc e s about God of ten degenera te i n to a vague Pantheism."l9

He does admit , on the o t h e r hand, t h a t there i s about as much

to be sa id fo r one s ide as fo r ano ther when he wri te s t h a t th e

"d ive rgenc ies of Seneca from th e s p i r i t of C h r i s t i a n i t y are a t

l e a s t as remarkable as t he c loses t o f h is resemblances ."20

To prove the resemblances t o Ch r i s t i an pr inc ip l es Far

f a r spends much o f one chapter(Ch. 15) giving passages in

Seneca t h a t a re p a r a l l e l to those of Scr ip tu re and poin t ing out

t h a t "he(Seneca) was no a p a t h e t i c , s e l f - con ta ined , impassible

S t o i c , b u t a pass iona te , warm-hearted man.tt21 We must wonder

a t Seneca 's express ion , i f we follow F a r r a r, because he denies

any i n t e r co u r s e between S t . Paul and Seneca, and a ff i rms , on

the c on t r a r y, t h a t Seneca, as wel l as Epic te tus and Marcus•

Aure l ius , ignored and despised a l l C h r i s t i a n s . Whence, t h e r e -fo re , does Far ra r der ive th e mat e r i a l t o make the fo l lowing

remark? "God was t h e i r God as we l l as ours - t h e i r Cr e a to r,

t h e i r preserver, who l e f t no t Himself without wi tness among

them • • • And His s p i r i t was with them, dwel l ing with in them,

though unseen and unkno.,m, pur i fy ing and s an c t i fy i n g the

temple of t h e i r h e a r t s . 112 2 This s ta tement i s t r u e enough, b u t

the connotat ion t h a t these th ree Romans recognized and under-

19 Freder ic W. F a r r a r, Seekers A f t e r ~ ~New York, A.L. BurtCo. , n . d . , 183

20 F a r r a r, 18121 F a r r a r, 18422 F a r r a r, 321



23

s tood God in th e same way a s . t h e Chr i s t i a ns d id i s something

without any proof whatsoever. Also , i t seems less l i k e l y, by

F a r r a r ' s own admiss ion , when we read : 11 Though the re may be a

vague sense i n which these(Seneca ' s ) words may be admit ted and

explained by C h r i s t i a n s , y e t , in th e mind of Seneca, t hey l e d to

conclus ions d i r e c t l y opposed to those of Chr i s t i an i ty. "23

F a r r a r approaches ne a r e s t to an examination of the de i ty

on whom a l l h i s o ther d i scuss ions hinge in a sho r t paragraph

which leaves the ques t ion no t e n t i r e l y so lved .

He(Seneca) diverges from C h r i s t i a n i t y in many of h is modes ofregarding l i f e , and in many of h is most impor tan t b e l i e f s .What, fo r i n s t an ce , i s h is main concept ion of the Deity?Seneca i s genera l ly a Pan t h e i s t . No doubt he speaks of God'slove and goodness, b u t with him God i s no persona l l i v i n gFa th e r, bu t t he sou l o f the un iverse - th e f iePy, pr imeval ,e t e rn a l pr inc ip l e which t r a ns f use s an i n e r t , and no l e s se t e r n a l , ma t te r, and o f which our souls a r e , as i t were, b u t

divine p a r t i c l e s or pass ing sparks .24We f i n d t h a t Seneca i s only "genera l ly a Pan t h e i s t . " Does

t h i s mean t h a t F a r r a r ' s next few l i n e s on th e dei ty a re to be

understood in t h i s l i g h t or in t h e i r l i t e r a l meaning? Suppos-

ing t h a t God " i s no persona l l i v i n g Fa t h e r, " we have a g rea t e r

problem in determining what he i s . True , he i s th e 11 sou l of

the un ive r se , " which, i n t u r n , i s a p r i n c i p l e t r a ns f us ing

ma t t e r. When F a r r a r speaks of a " f i e r y " pr inc ip le , i s he to

be taken to mean something mater ia l? And, because t h i s p r i n -

c i p l e 11 t nansfuses" mat te r must i t a lso be comprised of th ings

mater ia l?

23 F a r r a r, 32724 F a r r a r, 326



24

The quest ion i s l e f t unanswered, though i t can be more

eas i l y deduced t h a t th e de i ty was the f i e r y matter present i n

every ex i s t i ng t h i n g . Yet, even i f t h i s deduct ion i s allowed,

i t i s weakened by the force of F a r r a r ' s concluding words on

Seneca.

I cannot consent to leave him with th e language of d ep rec i a t i o n ,and t h e re fo re here I w i l l once more endorse what an anonymouswri t e r ahs sa id of him: 'An unconscious C h r i s t i a n i t y coversa l l h is sen t iments . I f the f a i r fame of th e man i s s u l l i e d ,the a s p i r a t i o n to a higher l i f e cannot be denied to th e ph i losopher; i f tqe t i n k l i n g cymbal· o f a s t i l t e d Stoic ism sometimessounds through the nobler music , i t s t i l l leaves the t r u e rmelody v ib ra t ing on the ea r. t 2 5

Therefore , i s the t r u e theme coursing through Seneca a Ch r i s -

t i a n ~ w o f God? For t h a t ques t ion again no h i n t o f an answer

has been given and no answer can be l eg i t ima te ly assumed.

A very i n t e r e s t i n g s tudy of the conf l i c t i ng sent iments

t ha t Seneca causes to r i s e i n h i s examiners i s to be found in

Semuel D i l l ' s book, Roman S o c i e t y ~Nero.:!?.£ Marcus Aure l ius .

According to one man " i t i s not too much to say t h a t t h i s ad

mirable work i s ~ guide to the complex period with which i t

deals .n26 D i l l ' s opin ion , t he re fo re , can be expected to be the

r e s u l t o f de ta i l ed i n v e s t i g a t i o n .

Oddly enough, of a l l c r i t i c s D i l l t akes th e longes t

s tep towards Ch r i s t i an i z i n g the words o f Seneca. He begins

25 F a r r a r, 33126 Robert M. Wenley, Stoic ism and I t s Inf luence , New York,

Longmans, Green and Co. , l9Wl'; '178, note 14



25

with th e f e e l i n g t h a t " the cold m a t e r i a l i s t i c conception of

God i s i r r econc i l ab l e with many passages i n h i s (Sen eca ' s )

wri t ings .n27 S t i l l , D i l l i s forced t o admit:

In h i s views of the na ture o f God and His r e l a t i o n to the ext e r n a l world and th e human sou l , Seneca of ten seems to followthe old S to ic t r a d i t i o n . ~ 1 e r eare othe r passages where heseems to waver between d i f f e r e n t conceptions o f God, theCrea to r of th e unive rse , th e incorporea l Reason, the div ineb rea t h d i ffused througn a l l th ings , g rea t and smal l , Fate , o rthe immutable chain of i n t e r l inked causa t ion .28 .

As i f t h i s chain o f thought brought new conclus ions , D i l l con-

t i nues :

He tends towards a more e t h i c a l concept ion of the Dei ty, asthe Being , who loves and cares fo r ~ e n• • • Yet Seneca, in s t r i c ttheory, PROBABLY never became a d i s s e n t e r from the phys ica l oronto log ica l creed of h is schoo l . He adhered , i n the l a s t r e -s o r t , to the Sto ic Pantheism, which represen ted God and th eun ive r se , fo rce and formless mat t e r, as u l t ima te ly i s su ing fromthe on e substratum of th e e the rea l f i r e of Heracl i tusA and inthe grea t cataclysm, r e t u rn i n g again t o t h e i r s o u r c e . ~ 9

He concedes Seneca 's " e t h i c a l concept ion of the Dei ty,u but he

has to allow a l so t h a t Seneca "probably" remained S t o i c , ma-

t e r i a l i s t , and Pan the i s t .

There i s another v i s t a opened, however, i n D i l l ' s r e -

jo inder t h a t Seneca "had abso lu te ly broken with paganism.tt30

Nor d id he say t h i s in a h e s i t a t i n g and doub t fu l manner. "Sen-

eca i s f a r more modern and advanced than even th e grea t es t of

the Neo-Platonic schoo l , j u s t because he saw t h a t th e o ld

27 D i l l , 38928 D i l l , 30629 D i l l , 30630 D i l l , 331



26

theology was hope less ly e f f e t e . He could never have jo ined in

the l a s t s t ru g g l e o f phi losophic paganism with th e Church. u31

c a r r i e d on by the enthusiasm o f t h i s l a s t remark, D i l l goes

even f a r t h e r from h i s o r i g i n a l S to ic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s .

He(Seneca) adheres formal ly to the l i n e s o f the o ld S to ic s y stem i n h i s moments o f calm l o g i c a l cons i s tency. But when th eenthusiasm o f humanity, th e passion to win souls to goodnessand moral t r u t h i s upon him, a l l th e o ld phi losophica l d i f f e r -ences fade , the new wine burs t s th e o ld b o t t l e s ; the P la ton icdual ism, the e t e r n a l c o n f l i c t o f f l e s h and s p i r i t , th e Pla ton icvis ion o f God, nay, a h ig h e r v i s i o n o f th e Crea tor, the p i t i f u land l ov ing Guardian, th e Giver o f a l l good, th e Power whichdraws us to Himsel f , who r ece iv es us a t d ea th , and in whom i sour e t e r n a l b e a t i t u d e , these i d eas , so a l i e n to the olde rStoic ism, t r ans f igu re i t s hardness and i t s co ld , r e p e l l e n t moraideal ism becomes a r e l i g ion .32

I t i s easy to d e t ec t i n t h i s passage D i l l ' s a t t r a c t i o n to the

i d e a l i s t i c concept ion of God i n Seneca. He t h inks he sees

Seneca adopt a d u a l i s t i c philosophy and abandon th e an c i en t

m a t e r i a l i s t i c monism of th e S t o i c s . His eagerness to envis ion

a s p i r i t u a l exp lana t ion to Seneca 's words i s very evident in

th e preceding passage. He becomes even more d e f i n i t e a f t e r

f u r t h e r c ons ide r a t ion . " In Seneca he(God) develops in to a

moral and SPIRITUAL BEING, th e source o f a l l s p i r i t u a l i n -

t u i t i o n and vi r tuous emotion, th e s ec re t power wi th in us making

fo r r igh teousness , as he i s th e sec re t force in a l l na tu r e

making fo r orde r.n33 Nor i s t h i s j u s t one i s o l a t e d sen tence .

While no t e n t i r e l y neglec t ing c e r t a i n Sto ic tendencies i n

31 D i l l , 33032 D i l l , 304-533 D i l l , 307



27

seneca , D i l l comes out d i r e c t l y to c a l l God again a s p i r i t u a l

power, i f no t a person . "However l o y a l he may be in form to

Sto ic mater ia l i sm, Seneca in th e end regards God as no mere

ma te r i a l fo rce , however r e f i n ed and e the rea l i zed , b u t a SPIRITUAL POVVER: n o t perhaps l imi t e d by the . bounds of persona l i t y,

i n s t i n c t with moral t en d en c i e s , nay, a moral impetus, which no

mere phys ica l fo rce could ever develop . tt34 Here D i l l seems to

recognize th e p e c u l i a r i t y of h i s pos i t i on , i n s o fa r as he a s

s e r t s Seneca formal ly adheres to Sto ic i sm, bu t ac tua l ly b e

l i eves i n dualism and th e s p i r i t u a l i t y o f God's n a t u r e . How-

eve r, he does not see h i s way c l e a r to accept any othe r ex-

p la na t ion . Bes ides , · for him i t i s qu i t e s u p e r f i c i a l to con

t r a s t m a t e r i a l i s t and i d e a l i s t conceptions of God s ince he b e -

l i e ve s human thought and speech a re i ncapab le o f escaping con

t r ad i c t i ons in any cons idera t ion o f God. "What human con-

cept ion of Him i s f r e e from s imi l a r cont rad ic t ions? How can

any concept ion of Him, expressed i n human l a n g u a ~ e ,avoid

them?" 35

This i s D i l l ' s f i n a l answer. God i s mat e r i a l fo rce ;

He i s s p i r i t u a l power. He says t h a t t h e re i s a co n t r ad i c t i o n

i n t he way Seneca presen ts these aspec t s of God, b u t t h a t i t i s

impossible to speak of God without these con t rad i c t i ons . With

t h i s s ta tement D i l l th inks he exonerates both h imse l f and

34 D i l l , 307

35D i l l , 307



28

seneca from th e charge o f being incomprehens ib le , o r , a t th e

very l e a s t , i n d ec i s i v e .

I t i s q u i t e remarkable to note how so many scho la rs

have at tempted to give t h e i r r e a c t ions to Seneca ' s words, and

with a c e r t a i n amount o f cons i s tency. Some, i t i s t r u e , do not

lmow what conclus ions can be drawn from what they r ead , o thers

do not be l i e ve Seneca had anything d e f i n i t e i n mind, and s t i l l

o thers thought he took t h e s e b as i c poin t s f o r gran ted . There

i s a un i ty o f b e l i e f amongst them, though, because a go·od s e -l ec t i on o f quota t ions prove t h a t most ho ld to t he gene ra l tone

of Stoic ism in Seneca 's w r i t i n g s . The quest ion seems to be

how much Seneca depended on Stoic ism when he spoke of God. On

t h i s p o i n t , as we have noted , d ivergen t opin ions a r ose . There

a re shades o f var i ance ranging from pure mate r i a l i sm up the

sc a l e to almost pure s p i r i t u a l i t y . And no two c r i t i c s give

qu i t e the s ~ ~ e answer.

Because of th e wide range of opinions exh ib i ted on t h i s

p o i n t , and because , with a l l due r e spe c t to th e men who have

formulated these views, a complete ana lys is of t h i s ques t ion

has been s ide t racked fo r l e s s confusing i s s u e s , the re i s s t i l l

room fo r ye t another examinat ion of Seneca 's p h i lo s o p h i ca l

.essays and l e t t e r s . The fo l lowing chap te r s w i l l endeavor to

a r r i v e a t s o ~ ed e f i n i t i v e answer t o t h e quest ion o f t h e n a tu re

of Seneca ' s Supreme Being . This w i l l be done by cons ider ing

th e var ious ph i losoph ica l in f luences exerc i sed on Seneca and



29

by s tudying the words o f Seneca h ims e l f . Hence, by taking the

l a t t e r i n t h e i r l i t e r a l meaning t o g e th e r with t h e i r r e l a t i o n to

the former i t w i l l be p o s s ib l e to reach a so lu t ion fo r no t the

l e a s t of th e problems to be found in Seneca ' s w r i t i n g s .



CHAPTER I I I

INFLUENCES ON SENECA

Every g r e a t t h i n k e r, no mat te r how o r i g i n a l h is i de a s ,

procedure , o r conc lus ions , has in h i s l i f e t i m e been i n f luenced

by h is t e a c he r s , r ead in g s , and a s s o c i a t e s . Some thought p ro

voking sen tence o r word coming from Democritus caused Epicurus

to pause and cons ide r th e va lue of h i s atomic theory of th e

u n iv e r s e . He r a c l i t u s 1 f i e r y TTIIVi'.P-0(. a s s i s t e d th e Sto ics in form

ing a s t ro n g e r l i n k between ea r t h and heaven , between man and

the u l t i ma t e p r i n c i p l e o f Being . Pla to and A r i s t o t l e had t h e i r

So c ra t e s . As h i s predecesso r s Socra tes possessed the Pytha

goreans, E l e a t i c s , and Miles ians . In t u rn these men had in the

preceding ages o f h i s t o r y t h e i r wise men, t h e i r t e a c he r s , t h e i r

exemplars.

Seneca was no except ion to t h i s r u l e . Rather, he goes

fa r beyond i t s simple p ro o f . He l i v e d i n an age t h a t had sus

t a ined th e weieht o f many dive rgen t ph i losophies fo r c e n t u r i e s .

For one as i n t e r e s t e d in philosophy as he , t h i s meant con tac t

not merely with Academic or P e r i p a t e t i c teachin .ss , b u t a lso

with those o th e r four c u r r e n t schools a t Rome: th e S e x t i i ,

Cynics, Epicu reans , and S t o i c s . And i t i s from the l a t t e r

group t h a t Seneca es p ec i a l l y rece ived h is e a r ly ideas and de-





32

Seneca himself we w i l l f ind was no except ion to t h i s ru l e when

we s tudy a t c lose hand the na ture o f h is w r i t i n g and th e con

t en t o f h is t each ings . But more immediately we must see t h a t

each of these cur ren t ly popular ph i losoph ies had come i n to con

t a c t with Seneca. This po in t requ i res l i t t l e proof . In f a c t ,

i t demands nothing more than a b r i e f mention o f a number o f

passages from Seneca 's w r i t i n g s .

F i r s t of a l l Seneca t e l l s o f h is admira t ion fo r Quintus

Sext ius , th e founder of the school which took h is name. Sex-

t i u s had l i ved in th e age of Augustus and had r e j ec t ed a po

l i t i c a l ca ree r t o give himsel f over completely to phi losophy.

One o f h i s fo l lowers , Sot ion of Alexandr ia , was an ear ly pr o

fessor of Seneca and i t was because of him t h a t Seneca came to

express h is esteem fo r Sex t ius h imse l f . This Seneca d id i n no

uncer ta in terms and on f requent occas ions . Two of th e most

l av i s h encomia a re spoken in h i s Epis tu lae Morales. He says::

"Sextium ecce cum maxime l ego , virum acrem, Graecis v e r b i s ,

Romania moribus philosophantem."4 The expression "cum maxime

lego" i n d i ca t e s the z e a l and r e l i s h with which he went through

t h i s man's works. In another p lace Seneca f e rven t ly s t a t e s :

l e c t u s e s t deinde l i b e r Quint i S e x t i i p a t r i s , magni, s i quidmihi c r e d i s , v i r i •• • Quantus in i l l o , d i boni , v igor e s t , quantum animil Hoc non in omnibus ph i losoph is invenies ; quorundams c r i p t a clarum habentium nomen exanguia s u n t . I n s t i t u u n t , d isp u t an t , c a v i l l a n t u r, non f a c i u n t animum, quia non haben t : cuml e g e r i s Sextium, d ices : ' Vi v i t , v i g e t , l i b e r e s t , supra homine

4 Ep. Mor. 59.7



33

e s t , d i m i t t i t me plenum i n g en t i s f i duc i ae .5

Besides these words of pra i se fo r S e x t iu s , Seneca has i n co r-

pora ted many of h i s i d eas , through h is professor Sot ion , i n t o

hiS own t each ing . He approves o f Sex t i u s ' abs t inence ,6 of h i s

advice concerning anger,7 and of h is examination of consciencefo

Quite obviously Sex t ius and Sot ion made a deep impress ion upon

Seneca and must be reckoned as guid ing h i s development.

Another ea r l y t eacher of Seneca i s mentioned of ten and

with f ee l i ng in th e l e t t e r s to Luci l i u s . I t i s no t of ten t h a t

a s tuden t t r i e s to be th e f i r s t to school and the l a s t to de-

p a r t . S t i l l , t h a t was the e ff e c t of At ta lu s on th e young Se n

eca . He r e c a l l s t h i s in r a t h e r e ff us ive f a sh ion . "Haec nob.ls

praec ipere Attalum memini, cum scholam ejus opsideremus e t

primi veniremus e t novi ss imi exiremus, ambulantem quoque i1lum

ad a l iquas disputa t iones evocaremus, non ~ a n t u mparatum d i s -

c e n t ibus , sed obvium." 9 La te r he reminisces: . "Attalum memini

cum magna admirat ione omnium haec dicere . t t lO Undoubtedly i t

was through h i s e f f o r t s t h a t Seneca became an eager admirer and

panegyr i s t of Sto ic p r i n c i p l e s . For Atta lus was very d e f i n i t e l

a S to ic and a f o r c e f u l one a t t h a t . He spoke with such con-

v ic t i on o f the va lue o f pover ty, fo r i n s t an ce , t h a t Seneca s a i d

5 Ep. Mor. 64.2-36 Ep. Mor. 108.177 De I r a 2.36 .18 De I r a 3 .36 .19 Ep. Mor. 108.3

10 Ep. Mor. 110.14



34

he wished to l eave the l e c t u r e room a poor man. "Saepe ex i r e

e schola pauper i l i b u i t . n l l In a fo l lowing l e t t e r l 2 Seneca de-

votes gr e a t space to presen t ing A t t a l u s ' opin ion of thewor th

l e ssness of r i c h e s . Seneca gives fu l l -v o i ced approval to a l l

t ha t At ta lu s says when he remarks t ~ a t by i m i t a t i n g A t t a l u s '

advice you w i l l be s t r i v i n g fo r ac t u a l happiness and not fo r i t s

mere appearance. "Haec nobis Atta lus d i x i t : quae s i voles f r e -

quenter c o g i t a r e , i d ages , u t s i s f e l i x , non u t v i d e a r i s , e t u t

t i b i v i d e a r i s , non a l i i s . " 13 Thus do we f ind the Sto ic element

moving and forming to a c e r t a i n degree th e thoughts t ha t were

to flow from th e pen of Seneca.

Epicureanism, l ikewise , r ece ives f requen t mention in

Seneca 's works, bu t nowhere as in h i s D e ~ Beata does he

pra i se i t s p o s i t i o n q u i t e so v igorous ly.

In ea quidem ip se s e n t e n t i a sum • • • sanc ta Epicurum e t v i t a pr a ec ipere e t , s i propius a r c e s s e r i s , t r i s t i a ; vo lup tas enim i l l aad parvum e t ex i l e revoca tu r e t quam nos v i r t u t i legem dicimus,eam i l l e d i c i t v o l u p t a t i ~j ube t i l l am parere na tu rae . l 4

Later he con t inues : " I taque non dicam • • • sectam Epicur i f l a g i -

t iorum magistram esse , sed i l l u d dico : male a u d i t , in famis e s t ,

e t innner i to .n l5 But these s e l ec t i o n s a re n o t a l l . I n many o f

h is ea r l y Epis tu lae Morales Seneca c loses with a shor t saying

of Epicurus by which he presses some p r a c t i c a l p o in t fo r Lu-

11121314

15

Ep. Mor.Ep. Mor.Ep. Mor.De V .B .De

V B.

108.1411 0 .1 4 -2 011 0 .2 0

1 3 . 1

1 3 . 2



35

c i l i u s to ponder and to ca r ry i n t o execu t ion . "Honesta re s e s t

l a e t a pauper tas" i s th e b i t o f advice with which he concludes

Le t t e r Two. "Magnae d i v i t i a e sun t l ege na tu rae composita pau

per tas" ends L e t t e r Four; and i n L e t t e r Eigh t Seneca has i t

t ha t "ph i losophiae se rv ias opor te t u t t i b i co n t in g a t vera l i -

b e r t a s . " Le t t e r s Twelve, T'nir teen, Four teen , S ix te e n , Seyen

t e e n , Eighteen, and Twenty One, to cons ide r j u s t a few of th e

e a r l i e r l e t t e r s , a l l quote with complete approbat ion some se

l e c t b i t of Epicurean advice . In t h i s wise Seneca p l a i n l y

shows a thorough knowledge of Epicurus and h is agreement with a t

l e a s t c e r t a i n Epicurean t each ings . This means a l so t ha t i t was

poss ib le fo r Seneca t o have chosen p a r t o f the Epicurean

physics , metaphysics , and theolog-y fo r h imse l f .

The l a s t group t h a t played an impor tan t par t i n forming

Seneca 's phi l : )sophica l doc t r ine s were the Cynics . These men

must be mentioned, however, not because o f any s p e c i a l favor

they rece ived i n Seneca 's eyes , bu t r a t h e r because they con

s t i t u t e d a nega t ive norm o f h is b e l i e f s . Seneca d id not take

i s sue with t he c ha r a c t e r o f every i nd iv idua l Cynic because , o f

Demetrius , he must admit "egreg ie enim hoc dice re Demetrius Cyn

i c us , v i r meo j u d i c i o magnus, etiam s i maximis compare tur ;" l6

but of t h e i r doc t r ine s and mode of l i f e he apparen t ly can f ind

noth ing worthy of approva l . Speaking to a Cynic who asks fo r

money a f t e r expressing a ha t r e d of i t , Seneca says : " I n d i x i s t i

16 De Ben. 7 . 1 . 3



36

pecuniae odium ; hoc professus es , hanc personam i n d u i s t i :

agenda e s t . n l 7 Then in th e De Brev i t a t e Vi tae he s t a t e s what

seems to him a d i s t i n c t i v e f ea t u re of va r ious schools i n the

words: "Dispu ta re cum Socra te l i c e t , dubi t a r e cum Carneade, cum

Epicuro qu iescere , hominis naturam cum S t o i c i s v i n c e r e , cum

Cynicis excedere .n l8 There i s no odious a t tachment to any of

these ep i t h e t s except t h a t app l ied to th e Cynics . Discussion,

doubt , peace, and v i r t u e a r e a l l in accord with human n a t u r e .

I t i s l e f t to th e Cynics alone "excedere hominis naturam.tt In

looking a t t h e i r concept o f God, t he n , we must remember t h a t

seneca s tood in oppos i t ion to t h e i r manner o f seeking happiness

and f o r . t h e i r exp lana t ion , or l ack of exp lana t ion , of th e u l

t imate p r i n c i p l e s of· th e un ive r se . For t t the Cynic i s opposed

to the whole world; he need.s f o r v i r t u e no s c i e n t i f i c knowledge

of th e world and i t s laws; he r egards no th ing e x te r na l to him

s e l f ; he al lows nothing to in f luence h i s conduc t , and .a t t aches

value t o n o th in g . t t l9

These were the four groups , t hen , t h a t played an impor-

t an t par t i n developing and advancing th e t h eo r i e s and a p p l i -

cat ions of mora l i ty t h a t Seneca was to propound in h is w r i t i n g s .

All scho la rs agree t h a t Seneca fo l lowed t he S to i c schoo l o f

thought in genera l o u t l i n e . I t would be p r a c t i c a l l y imposs ib le

17 De Ben. 2 .1 6 .218 De Brev. v. 14.219 Eduard Z e l l e r , S t o i c s , Epicureans , ~ Scep t i c s , t r a n s l . by

Oswald J . Reiche l , London, Longmans Green and Co. , 1892,389



37

to prove anyth ing e l se when Seneca uses the words nos and nos-

t ro s in speaking of the Sto ics in many passages . Bes ides , the-igh pra i se which he renders to t h e i r t e ach e r s , p ro p o s i t i o n s ,

and to t h e i r way of l i f e a l l poin t to h is approval of t h e i r po

s i t i o n . S t i l l , i t must be remembered t ha t

in Seneca, th e f r e e r p o s i t i o n in regard to the doc t r ine of h isschool which he claimed fo r h imse l f , i s shown in h is views concerning the end and problem in phi losophy. I f in th e o r i g i n a ltendencies of Stoic ism t h e re a l ready la y a preponderance o f th ep r a c t i c a l i n t e r e s t over the t h e o r e t i c a l , with Seneca t h i s wasso grea t ly inc reased t h a t he regarded many th ings considered bythe o lder t eachers of the school to be e s s e n t i a l co n s t i t u en t sof philosophy as unnecessary and super f luous .20

Seneca a l so i n d i ca t e s h is f r ee use o f othe r than Sto ic ideas in

admit t ing "quicquid bene dictum e s t ab u l l o , meum es t ,n21 and

again in asking o f L u e i l i u s , "quid enim noce t a l i en i s u t i ex

par te qua n o s t r a sunt?"22 And he proceeds in the f i r s t i n -

s tance to quote Epicurus and in the second P l a t o .

Since Seneca has manifested a c e r t a i n t rend toward ec -

lec t i c i sm in h is doc t r ines , i t makes the i nves t i ga t ion of th e

schools in f luenc ing him a l l the more important . We w i l l con

s i d e r in succession the concept of God as proposed by th e Cyn-

i c s , the S e x t i i , th e Epicureans, and the Sto ics before ad

vancing to th e s tudy o f Seneca in h is essays and l e t t e r s . More

over, s ince the physics of the S to ics and Epicureans i s in

r e a l i t y the b as i s of t h e i r exp lana t ion of God, i t i s a lso

20 Z e l l e r , H i s t . of Ec lec t . , 204-521 Ep. Mor. 16.722 De I r a 1 .6 .5





. 39

h is independence of ch a rac t e r ; on t ~ 1 i saccount he a t tached no

va lue to s c i e n t i f i c i n v es t i g a t i o n i n so f a r as i t had no d i r e c t

bear ing on a c t i v e l i f e . n 2 3

From t h a t moment the d ie was c a s t . "Cynicism remained

to th e end a mode of l i f e r a t h e r than a system of t hought . n2 4

Art , l e a rn i n g , mathematics , sc ience were a l l considered wor th -

l e s s . Only v i r t u e was good and v i ce alone was e v i l .

Since the only good fo r man i s what i s a p p r o p r i a t e ( o ~ K t) tohim and t h i s i s nothing more than h i s menta l and s p i r i t u a l poss e s s i o n s , eve ry th ing e l s e , f o r tune , honour, freedom, h e a l t h ,l i f e i t s e l f , a re in themselves n o t goods, nor a re pover ty,shame, s l a ve r y, i ~ l n e s sand death in themselves e v i l s ; l e a s t o fa l l should p leasu re be regarded as a good and t o i l and l abouras an e v i l ; s ince th e former, when i t becomes a man's maste r,corrup ts him, whi le th e l a t t e r nay t each him vl i r tue .25

Thus the p recep ts of a p r a c t i c a l mo ra l i t y co n s t i t u t ed th e whole.o f philosophy fo r the Cynics .

But even t h a t i s no t worthy of condemnation. I t was

the manner i n which they be l ieved t h a t v i r t u e was to be a c

qui red and the exp lana t ion of v i r t u e t h a t mer i t ed fo r them the

t i t l e , "dog- l ike" ph i losophers .

As was s a i d , Antis thenes admired th e independence of

S oc r a t e s . · r n h i s own phi losophy then he wished " to i s o l a t e th e

i nd iv idua l and mainta in h is independence, h i s n a t u r a l f'reedom

23 Z e l l e r , Outl ines of th e His to r y o f Greek Phi losophy, 108-924 Paul E. More, H el l en i S t i c Phi losoph ies , P r ince ton , Pr ince

ton Univers i ty P r e s s , 1923, 7225 Z e l l e r , Out l ines o f th e His to r y of Greek Philosophy, 109



40

and s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y. Indeed, to Ant i s thenes , the autonomy of

the i n d i v i d u a l , h i s independence of every th ing bu t h ims e l f ,

seemed o f i t s e l f to c o n s t i t u t e t h a t supreme good which Socra tes

had taught him to seek.n26 In o th e r words, t h i s i s a negat ion

of any bondage. S e l f i s as s e r t ed a ga ins t everything t h a t b e

longs to th e n o t - s e l f ; the i nd iv idua l demands to be h is own law

and end.

In t h i s way th e Cynics were occupied with the nega t ive

s ide o f phi losophy. The1r " a c t i v i t y was taken up in the mani

f e s t a t i o n o f ha t r e d f o r i n s t i t u t i o n s and p r i n c i p l e s of a s o c

which seemed to h inder the express ion of one ' s i n d i v i d u a l i t y. ' e

Natu ra l l y they were r e v o l u t i o n i s t s , ready t o d i s so lve th e

family and s o c i e t y, j u s t to b r in g men back to n a t u re . The

Cynics, however,

i n t e rp re t ed th e precep t 1Fol low Natu re ' n eg a t i v e ly and d es t ru ct i v e l y by r i d i c u l i n g the i n s t i t u t i o n s of h i s country and th every idea of pat r io t i sm and by making a v i o l e n t p r o t e s t in h i sd a i l y l i f e and behaviour ag a in s t th e t r a d i t i o n a l code and thee s t a b l i she d o r de r. This n a tu re became almost ano ther name f o ranarchism and unpa r a l l e l e d l i c en s e was permi t t ed t o i nd iv idua lcapr ice .28

With t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of l i f e i t was imposs ib le f o r

the Cynics to main ta in any s e r i o ~ sform of r e l i g i o n . For in

arming man aga ins t man they a lso armed him a ga ins t heaven. We

would even suppose t h a t th e Cynic would n eg l ec t r e l i g i o n and

26 Cai rd , 6227 Cai rd , 7228 Robert D. Hicks , Sto i c and Epicurean, London, Longmans

Green and Co. , 1911, 10---



41

God complete ly. William L. Davidson in The Sto i c Creed offe rs

a poss ib le answer to t h i s paradox.

~ h e nwe remember h i s ( Cyn ic ' s ) acceptance of the pr imi t ive manas h i s model fo r l i f e and conduct , we can r ead i l y see t h a t he

could not co n s i s t en t l y have done i t . For, to pr imi t ive menwere due the gods and t he a c c r e d i t e d mythologies ; and so thesemythologies must somehow be accepted, i f we a r e to r e t u rn to al i f e conformable with n a t u r e . Obviously, however, they couldno t be accepted by phi losophers i n t h e i r bare l i t e r a l i t y , andso they must be a l l e go r i z e d . 29

Were the re ac tua l ly any gods then? Ze l l e r says the Cynics he ld

t h a t "only convent ion c r e a t e d the mult i tude of godstt30 and t h a t

" they t r ea t ed the r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s and c u l t s of t h e i r people

in a s p i r i t of en l igh tenment . tt31 The Cynics , '::owever, would

no t even give l i p se r v ic e to th e accred i ted for.m of worship .

And the r eason stemmed from Ant i s thenes ' de n ia l of th e s p i r i t u a

s ide o f S oc r a t i c teach1ng. Ant is thenes was a m a t e r i a l i s t and

accepted Nature as he saw i t . "Ant i s thenes , apparen t ly, was

what Pla to would c a l l a s emi -a t h e i s t : some kind of God he a c -

cepted as a power more o r l e s s i d e n t i c a l with Natu re ; b u t i t

was a God re r 'o te from mankind, while the popular worship • • • was

to the Cynic a mat te r of j e s t and contempt."32

Thus t he r e was some s o r t of God f o r t he Cynic , but th e

popular gods he termed a l l e g o r i c a l . And th e God he d id admit

was m a t e r i a l and, perhaps , i d e n t i f i e d w1th Natu re . As to the

29 Davidson, 13630 Z e l l e r , Out l ines o f the His to ry of Greek Phi losophy, 11031 Z e l l e r , Out l ines o f t h e H i s to ry 01 Greek Phi losophy, 11032 More, 66



42

a c tua l essence of God, h is a t t r i b u t e s , h i s re la . t ions to nen and

the world th e Cynic t e l l s noth ing . Man a lone and h is conduct

a re o f i n t e r e s t to Ant is thenes and the r e s t of h is f o l lowe r s .

SECTION B

THE SEXTII

This l i t t l e -known and s h o r t - l i v e d school of philosophy

played more than a pass ing p a r t i n Seneca ' s l i f e . I t had been

founded by Quintus S e x t ~ _ u s ,a Roman, somewhere around 40 B.c .

Af te r h i s death i t s t each ings were handed down f i r s t by h is son

and then by So t ion o f A lexandr ia , Corne l iu s Celsus , Lucius Cras

s i t i u s of Tarentum, and Fabianus P a p i r i u s . But the school was

l i t t l e -known and s h o r t - l i v e d p rec i s e l y because i t s mark was l e f t

only by th e i nd iv idua l named.

S·eneca, however, we have seen , in h i s ea r l y youth had

been a n admirer o f t h i s school and f r e que n t ly p r a i se d i t s foun

in h i s E p i s t l e s . The reason fo r t h i s p ra i s e l i e s , no doubt , in

h i s con tac t with above named So t ion o f A lexandr ia . In one

l e t t e r 3 3 Seneca says he was a puer and in another34 he c a l l s

himsel f a juvenis a t th e t ime he eager ly l i s t e n e d to the words

of So t io n .

But what in f luence might t hese men have had on Seneca 's

p h i l o s o p h y ~"The wri t i n g s of t}·lis school , too , have a l l been

33 Ep. Mor. 49.234 Ep. Mor. 108.17



43

l o s t , with except ion of some sca t t e red u t t e r an ces of th e

e lde r Sex t i u s , of So t io n , and Fabianus.n35 The impor tan t th ing

to note i s t h a t in th e wri t ings t h a t d id remain t h e re was

noth ing d i f f e r en t from th e teachings of Stoicism. True, thes e x t i i were more exc lus ive ly i n t e n t upon e t h i c s than th e S t o i c s ,

but in what they both t r ea t ed t h e i r doc t r ines were th e same.

They, t o o , he ld t h a t a l l s y l l o g i s t i c t r i c e r y i s a waste o f e f

fo r t un less some moral p r i n c i p l e i s thereby to be i n cu l ca t ed .

We must a l so always be i n read iness to s t r i k e down t h a t g rea t

enemy o f man, f o l l y.

The c l o s e s t t h ing , however, t o any mention of t h e i r

view o f God i s repor ted to us by Seneca and t h a t s ta tement i s in\

en t i r e accord with the S to ic t each ing . "Solebat Sext ius d i ce re

Jovem plus non posse quam bonum virum.n36 The Sto ics say the

same th ing when they mention t h a t "bonus tempore tantum a deo

d i f f e r t . " 3 7 What th e S to ic view of God was in i t s completeness

w i l l be seen l a t e r on; th e opinions o f the S e x t i i , fo r a l l prac -

t i c a l purposes , may be dec la red th e same.

Z e l l e r sums up th e work o f the S e x t i i very wel l by s t a t -

ing t h a t

we t h e re fo re f i n d nothing in t h e i r school t h a t i s new and sc i ent i f i c a l l y n o t i ceab l e ; i t i s a branch of S to ic i sm, which doubtl e ss i s indebted to t h e p e r s o n a l i t y o f i t s founder t h a t i t had

35 Z e l l e r , H i s t . o f E c l e c t . , 18236 Ep. Mor. 7 3 . 1 2 - -37 De Prov. 1 .6



44

an independent ex i s t ence f o r a t ime . 38

I f the S e x t i i d id in f luence Seneca to any ex t en t , they

merely augmented and s t r e ~ h e n e dthe Sto ic i deas t h a t he was a l -

ready rece iv ing i n abundance from A t t a l u s , another of h is ea r l y

t e a c he r s .

SECTION C

THE EPICUREAN"S

Epicurus and h is d i s c i p l e s were no d i f f e r e n t from th e

Cynics, S e x t i i , and Sto ics in giving t h e i r a t t e n t i o n predomin-

ant ly to th e s tudy o f e t h i c s . Their p o s i t i o n , however, i s some-

what unique in t h a t they t r i e d to weave a phys ica l p a t t e rn i n t o

the univ·erse in order to j u s t i f y the ques t of p le a su r e , th e ob-

j e c t of t h e i r ph i lo sophy. And he r e in l i e s the ex t rao rd inary

paradox of Epicurean l o g i c . I t "begins with regarding p leasu re

as the on ly p o s i t i v e good and ends by emptying p leasu re o f a l l

pos i t ive conten t . t t39 Epicurus admit ted t h i s v i s i b l e world o f

bodies as the only r e a l i t y, and be l ieved t h a t the only t h ing

which has any c e r t a i n va lue to man i s h is own immediate p h y s i ca l

sensatio.::Ls. But, s ince i t was harder to keep pa in from the body

a t the very t ime o f seeking p le a su r e s , Epicurus was dr iven in to

a pure ly defensive a t t i t u d e of l i f e . Vfuile avowedly looking fo r

pos i t i ve pleasure he ac t u a l l y spent h is t ime warding o f f the

38 Z e l l e r, H i s t . of E c l e c t . , 18839 More, 20



4 5

more di sagreeab le elements of l i f e . And one of th e g r e a t e s t of

these was th e s o -ca l l ed f e a r of the gods. This accounts f o r

h is exp lana t ion of th e gods, as we s h a l l soon s e e .

I t must be sa id to Epicurus ' pr a i se t h a t he was ab le to

see "t':1at you cannot have e t h i c a l d o c t r i n e without a b a s i s of

phys ica l and metaphys ica l doc t r ine ; you can have no ru l e of

conduct without some view of t he un ive rse wherein th e a c t ion i s

to take place. t t40 S t i l l , he looked a t t h i s p r i n c i p l e from such

an angle as to make i t exp la in th e preconceived no t ions he had

formula ted on p leasu re and the g rea t e s t enemy of p le a su r e , th e

fear of th e gods. Epicurus be l ieved t h a t any s u p e r n a t ~ r a li n -

f luence in the world depr ived man of h i s peace of mind and kept

him in cons tan t f e a r . Hence he a t tempted to develop a system

of phys ics and metaphysics to exp la in away any and a l l s u p e r

n a t u r a l power th e gods might exer t over the d e s t i n i e s of men.

Since Epicurus was no t i n t e r e s t e d i n n a t u r a l sc ience

fo r i t s own sake , he was con ten t to o ff e r merely a genera l ex-

p lan a t i o n of the world . He wished to say only as much as

necessa ry to renove the f e a r of th e gods and to i n d i ca t e t h a t

a l l n a t u r a l phenomena can be explained by n a t u r a l causes . And

even i n d es i r i n g to do t h i s he was unwi l l ing t o , or incapab le

o f , making new s tu d i e s b e fo re p re s en t i n g h i s ow n c a se . There-

f o r e ,

40 Edwyn Bevan, Sto i c s and Scep t i c s , Oxford, Clarendon P r e s s ,1913, 31





47

fo r t u i t o u s a s soc ia t ion of atoms, fo r on t h i s poin t Epicureanism

i s s t rang iy s i l e n t .

However, d id a l l t h i s a f f e c t th e popular b e l i e f in th e

gods? Epicurus was sure i t d i d . W"ith the atomic system as th e

u l t ima te cause o f a l l t h ings , we would t h in k t h a t Epicurus had

abol ished th e gpds completely and t ha t he had l apsed in to com-

p l e t e a the ism.

But h e re , f o r one r eason or another, he drew back . Though thethought of Providence was u t t e r l y repugnant to him, and thoughhe swept away, with one grand ges tu re of d isda in the whole f a br i c of s igns and p o r t en t s and prophecy, he s t i l l in a fa sh ionclung t o t h e ex i s t ence of the gods.42

This i s j u s t another Epicurean paradox. Freedom from f e a r i s

the primary aim of h is phi losophy. And Epicurus assoc ia ted r e -

l i g i o n and th e gods with t h i s f e a r. Never the le ss , he did no t

abo l i sh th e gods as h is phys ics seemed to p o s t u l a t e . Why?

He d id n o t , however, make any a t t ack on b e l i e f i n th e gods,par t l y because the u n i v e r s a l i t y o f t h i s b e l i e f seemed to provet h a t i t r e s t e d on r e a l ex i s t en ce , and t h a t the images from th eappeara::1ce of which alone he can explain i t a r i s e a t l e a s t p a r t -ly from r e a l th ings and a re t h e re fo re percep t ions and no t merelyi m a ~ i n e dimages; p a r t l y, because he h imse l f f e l t th e need o f b ehold ing h i s i dea of happiness r ea l i zed in th e gods.43

Of t hese t h r e e reasons fo r r e t a i n i n g th e gods th e l a s t opens th e

way to th e Epicurean concept of th e gods.

Since human beings alone appear in any concepts t h a t

a r i s e i n our waking mind and in any dreams to r ep re s en t th e

42 More, 41-4243 Z e l l e r , Out l ines o f th e His to ry of Greek Philosophy, 237





4 9

In b r i e f , these gods possess every th ing they could p o s s ib ly

d e s i r e . Why should they be i n t e res t ed i n , or angry a t , the

deeds o f men?

A s - d i f f i c u l t to unders tand as i t may seem, Epicurus

b u i l t up an e n t i r e se c t ion of physics in h is philosophy to d i s

prove the popular b e l i e f s in r e l i g i o n and the gods only to use

t h i s same system to exp la in ano ther s e t of d e i t i e s more in

accord wi th th e fundamental aim o f h i s e t h i c a l d o c t r i n es .

Logica l ly he should have been an a t h e i s t , proposing as he d id

h i s m a t e r i a l i s t i c and monis t ic casual i sm. But a f t e r a l l h i s

s c i e n t i f i c meanderings he f i n a l l y al lowed a v a s t system of

ca re f r ee , b l i s s f u l , and d i s i n t e r e s t e d gods anyway.

SECTION D

THE STOICS

Like the Epicureans th e Sto i c s gave an exp lana t ion of

the phys ica l un iverse as th e ba s i s of t h e i r concept o f God.

However, unl ike the Epicureans they made an ea rn es t e f f o r t to

delve i n t o the s ec re t s o f na tu re and God's b e in g . The ·Epi-

cu reans , we r e c a l l , cared no th ing fo r sc ience . T-hey used i t

only to give an apparent l og ic to t h e i r p r i n c i p l e s of p leasu re

and exc lus ion o f any superna tu ra l fo rce on th e l i v e s of men.

Though the Sto ics were i n t e r e s t e d pr imar i ly i n e t h i c s ,

s ince t h e i r philosophy was concerned with r i g h t ac t ion and v i r

t u e , they s t i l l saw t h a t r i g h t a c t ion was r a t i o n a l a c t i o n . And,



50

in t u r n , r a t i o n a l a c t ion i s ac t ion t h a t i s in harmony with hu-

man na ture and phys ica l n a t u r e . Hence the S to ic pr inc ip l e

vive re secundum naturam expressed a twofold purpose. Conduct

and v i r t u e f lowed from the i n d i v i d u a l , b u t fo r such ac t ion to

be good was impossible unless the i n d i v i d u a l was in harmony

wi th the laws of the un ive r se . In t h i s way th e S to ic phys ica l

phi losophy rece ived more a t t e n t i o n than would have been o ther-

wise devoted to i t . S t i l l , even in t h e p h y s i ca l examination of

the un iverse t h e i r

phys ica l philosophy came to be t ha t which should r a t h e r beca l l ed metaphysica o r theology, the p a r t which has to do, no twith th e r e l a t i o n s of phys ica l phenomena to each o t h e r, b u tonly wi th r e l a t i o n s of the m a t e r i a l un iverse to God.46

In searching through the phys ica l world fo r the u l t i -

mate pr inc ip l e of Being, Zeno came to the conclus ion t h a t any-

th ing i s r e a l t h a t can a c t or be ac ted upon, ' T ~rro tf .L 'I / r , Kclt ·I

f f ~ ~ E ~ ~ .Following the guidance of h is senses Zeno a t once

l imi t e d r e a l i t y to corporea l or mat e r i a l o b j ec t s . There were

innumerable d i f f i c u l t i e s brought forward aga ins t t h i s bo ld

s ta temen t . For, how could v i r t u e , p as s io n , emotion, day,

month f a l l under t h i s d e f i n i t i o n ? Were these bodies? The

Sto ic answered t h a t the th ings comn1only considered i n co rp o rea l

were in a c t u a l i t y only ma te r i a l when yo u i n v es t i g a t ed them

c l o s e l y enough. " I t must be remarked t h a t th e Sto ics d i s

t i n g u i s h between a f i n e r and a coarse r mater ia ln47 and t h a t

46 Cai rd , 9347 William Turner, His tory of Phi losophy, New York, Ginn and

Co. , 1 9 2 9 , 167



51

" the common d i s t i n c t i o n between corporea l and i n co rp o rea l i s

merely a d i s t i n c t i o n between co a r s e r and f i n e r mat te r. "48 Not

much of an exp lana t ion to be su r e , b u t they offe red i t anyway

as being co n s i s t en t with th e pr inc ip l es t h a t were o r i g i n a l l yp o s t u l a t ed .

Once th e S to ic s committed themselves to t - ~ 1 i sfundamenta

explanat ion of phys ica l na ture i t was easy to fo re s ee , a t l e a s t

in g en e ra l , the course t h a t t h e i r e n t i r e physics would fo l low.

The whole world was e i t h e r a v a s t m a t e r i a l i s t i c machine o r apowerful dynamic m a t e r i a l f o r c e . God in e i t h e r case fo r the

S to ic was to be something m a t e r i a l , whether i t be gross mat t e r

or ac t i v e fo rce . The complete answer, however, l i e s much m o r

beneath the s u r f ace .

Matter alone was the only r e a l i t y f o r the S t o i c s , b u t

t h i s they i n t e rp re t ed d i f f e r e n t l y than th e Epicureans. The

l a t t e r a lso be l ieved in mater ia l i sm, bu t they mainta ined th e

un iverse was a machine made up of f ine atoms. Thus th e Epicur-

eans placed the idea of mat te r as foremost in t h e i r exp lana t ion

The S t o i c s , however, placed fo rce above m a t t e r. Matter was

s t i l l the b a s i s of a l l t h i n g s , b u t i t was mat te r in a c t i o n .

There r e a l l y was only one element in n a t u r e , bu t i t was viewed' ' l /

under two as p ec t s . The f i r s t was v ~ ~ n r w • ~, pr imord ia l

ma t te r ; th e pass ive element from which a l l th ings were formed.

48 Turner, 168



52

The second was th e ac t i v e e lement , wl1ich forms th ings out o f

ma t te r. This ac t i v e element they fu r the r ca l l ed the e f f i c i e n t

cause o f a l l t h i n g s . And, as there i s j u s t on e mat t e r, t h e re

can be b u t one cause , s ince ma t t e r an d fo rce , or cause , a rei d e n t i c a l . I t fo l lows , t h en , t h a t everything t h a t ex i s t s or

happens i s due to t h i s one e f f i c i e n t cause .

Rever t ing to a fundamental p r i n c i p l e of Sto ic physics

t h a t everything t h a t ac ts i s mater i a l , they sa id t h a t the e f -

f i c i e n t cause was l ikewise mater i a l . But what was th e na tu re

of t h i s e f f i c i e n t cause?

F a l l i n g back upon t h e an c i en t h y l o z o i s t i c philosophy whichfound the source o f na ture in some one pr imord ia l s t u f f possessing the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of l i f e , and more p a r t i c u l a r l y uponH erac l i t u s , he(Zeno) dec la red t h a t the u n i v e r s a l subst ra tum oft h ings was f i r e , o r an element l i k e f i r e i n i t s f ineness andf l u i d i t y. 49

Everywhere he a t i s seen as th e germinat ive power o f l i f e and

growth. A ll t h i n g s , a l s o , have t h e i r own h e a t , and a re p r e ~

served in l i f e by t he he a t o f th e sun . N at u ra l l y, they s a i d ,

what appl ie s to parts · of the world must be appli_ed to the

whole. Since h e a t or f i r e has t h i s a c tua t ing and prese rv ing

force , t h i s t t is the power to .which the l i f e and ex is tence of

o f th e world must be r e f e r r e d . n50 Or, as Cicero quotes the

Sto ics in h is De Natura Deorum, 11Ex quo c onc lud i tu r, cum omnes

mundi pa r t e s s u s t i n ean t u r ca l o re , mundum etiam ipsum s i m i l i

49 More, 7850 Z e l l e r , S t o i c s , Epicureans , and Scep t i c s , 144



53

par ique na tu r a i n t a n t a d i u t u r n i t a t e s e r v a r i : eQque magis quod

i n t e l l i g i debe t , calidum i l lum atque igneum i t a in omni fusum

esse n a t u ra , u t in eo i n s i t procreandi v i s . n 5 l

From t h i s po in t the S to ic conclus ions a re drawn without

h e s i t a t i o n . This same world, which i s the off sp r ing of th e one

f i e r y element, mani fes t s such gr e a t beau ty, comple teness , and

order t h a t there must be design or a plan behind i t . Then, t o o ,

man possesses reason . How could he , a p a r t o f the world , have

t h i s power, un less t ~ : 1 ewhole world he ld i t f i r s t of a l l Z Cicero

adds another reason t aken from Zeno as he remarks: "Zeno enim

i t a conc lud i t : quod r a t i o n e u t i t u r , mellus e s t , quam i d , quod

r a t i o n e non u t i t u r . N i h i l autem mundo mel ius . Rat ione i g i t u r

mundus u t i t u r. t t 52 Moreover, there a re c r e a tu r e s on th e ea r t h

endowed with consciousness and a s o u l . ' J .herefore, the world

i t s e l f i s consc ious, has a sou l . In b r i e f , t h en , the un iverseN

i s b a s i c a l l y a ma te r i a l fo rce which co n s i s t s o f th e Tr't 'Eufoc.,

or a r t i f i c i a l f i r e , possess ing consc iousness , a sou l , and even"'

eason . T h i s i T V E U ~ ~with i t s q u a l i t i e s animates a l l t h ings andI

conta ins th e a"lTEf ~ Q ( - r o t J, or seeds , of a l l forms of be ing with in

i t s e l f .

One could ques t ion fu r the r i n to the na ture of the Soul

of th e un ive rse and the meaning of Reason, s ince t h i s t e rmin-

51 De Nat . D. 2.9 .2352 De Nat . D. 3 .9 .22





55

which i d e n t i f i e s Reason with a m a t e r i a l subs tance . 5 5

Very probably the S to ics d id no t in tend any s p i r i t u a l i n t e r p r e -

t a t i o n to be a t t ach ed to Soul , Reason, or Providence. Sedgwick

in a remarkable ana lys is exp la ins everything accord ing to them a t e r i a l i s t i c pr inc ip l es pos tu l a t e d by th e an c i en t S t o i c s .

I f we f i x our a t t e n t i o n on th e orde r ly course o f n a t u re , on thes teady sequence of phenomena, and es p ec i a l l y upon th e inexorable c o n s t r a i n t i n the l i v e s of men, t h i s cosmic energy assumesthe aspec t t h a t we c a l l FATE. But i f we s h i f t our a t t e n t i o n toth e r e l a t i o n of cause and ~ f f r c t ,and ponder upon th e cause ofcauses , th e power becomes ~ l t ' l c ( , which corresponds a f t e r afa sh ion to the modern term FIRST CAUSE. Or, aga in , i f we look

a t th e unive rse from a b i o l o g i c a l p o in t of view and concernourse lves mainly with the processes of l i f e in animate c rea t ion ,then , under t h a t a spe c t , t h i s power f inds a more appropr ia tename as NATURE, th e p r i n c i p l e , o f growth and organic changes,fo r which the Greek word i s p u ~I ~ . And, f i n a l l y, i f we r e f l e c ton th e marvel lous adap ta t ion o f p a r t to p a r t , how a l l th ingssubserve othe r i n t e r e s t s , how plan and purpose seem to runthrough the whole system, more es p ec i a l l y i f we f e e l gra t i t udeand are ab le to pronounce t he un ive rse good, in t h a t case thepower assunes a s o r t of p e r s o n a l i t y and becomes lTjovoLOII ,

PROVIDENCE. 56

But what o f Reason? I t a l so f i t s i n to th e same p la n . When

t h i s primary mat e r i a l element works accord1.ng to se t laws,

then i t i s ca l l ed Reason. Thus, Reason, in r e a l i t y , i s not

th e s p i r i t u a l o r i n t e l l e c t u a l f acu l ty t h a t we know. I t i s

merely the ba s i c F i r e of th e world considered as u n i v e r s a l Law,

as th e systemat ic course of the wor ld ' s movements and changes!i7

As confusing and c on t r a d ic to r y as th e language o f the

S to ic s i s a t f i r s t glance i t a l l becomes c l e a r when we fo l low

55 Bevan, 5156 Sedgwick, 26457 Z e l l e r , Outl ines o f the His tory of Greek Phi losophy, 216



56

l o g i c a l l y from th e f i r s t p r i n c i p l e s o f t h e i r phys ics . Those

p r i n c i p l e s a re pure ly m a t e r i a l i s t i c and with no admixture o f

s p i r i t u a l i t y . The St o i c concept ion of the d e i t y, l i ke wise , i s

unders tandable enough when examined in th e same l o g i c a l manner.

The foregoing i n v es t i g a t i o n i n t o the phys ica l makeup of

the un iverse has r e a l l y presen ted th e n a t u re of the Sto ic d i -

v i n i t y. For, when th e S to ic s speak of God as F i r e , Ether,V"oU's ,

"V /

JTVEvfot.,, T r f o v o t . ~ ,Universa l Law, Natu re , F a t e , or Providence,

they mean one, and only one, t h i n g . The terms s imply s ign i fy

var ious aspec t s o f th e one prj_mary fo rce - l ad en ma t t e r p e n e t r a t -

ing th e un ive r se . I t i s unimportant whether th e o r i g i n a l e l e -

ment i s c a l l e d Heat , Air-Curren t , F i r e , o r Ether, fo r a l l a re

l ikewise of a ma te r i a l essence.

Somewhat confused by the widely v a r i a n t phraseology o f

the Sto ics ce r t a in phi losophers th ink t h a t "S to ic theology i s

an at tempt to compromise between theism and pantheism.n58 They

obviously f i nd themselves , wi thout r e a l i z i n g i t , consider ing

c e r t a i n Ch r i s t i an aspec t s o f such terms as heason and Soul . But

n e i t h e r, on th e one hand, can they they avoid th e very m a t e r i a l

s ign i f i c a nc e of E ff i c i e n t Cause, Nature , F i r e , and Mat t e r. In

a word, they a re confronted with the same d i f f i c u l t y t h a t was

presen ted i n th e S to ic system o f phys ics . ~ i n c et he u l t ima te

58 Alfred Weber, H i s t o rz of R h i l o s o p h ~ ,t r a n s l . by Frank Thi l l yNew York, Chas. Scr ibner ' s Sons, I 03, 143; a lso Turner, 168



57

pr inc ip l e of Being i s th e same in each cas e , the re can only be

one conc lus ion . I f th e F i r s t Gause and primary source of th ings

i s mat e r i a l F i r e f o r th e Sto ic p h y s i c i s t , i t must be fo r th e

s t o i c theo log ian as w e l l , u n l e s s , o f course , t he r e i s ob je c t ive

evidence t o the co n t r a ry. And t h e re i s none.

The co n s i s t en t view has been c r y s t a l l i z e d by Ralph Stob

in h is a r t i c l e , "Stoic ism and G h r i s t i an i t y , t fo r th e C l a s s i c a l

Journa l . He says: "Stoic ism has n e i t h e r an u l t i ma t e s p i r i t , nor

an u l t i ma t e p e r s o n a l i t y. For t h i s same f i e r y substance i s

everywhere, in man, the m a t e r i a l u n i v e r s e , th e heavenly b o d i e s .

This i s th e a l l pervading d i v i n i t y.n 5 9 Thus, God i s no t a

s p i r i t , and he i s no t a person . Is God any kind of being d i s -

t i n c t from the unive rse? No. The un iverse and God are th e

same r e a l i t y . The v a r i ed te rminology expresses only d i f f e r e n t

mani fes ta t ions o f the same be ing . Sedgwick 's ap p l i ca t i o n and

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f F a te , Nature , Providence, and F i r s t Gause in

the St o i c physics holds t r u e here a l so because th e ~ indepen

dens must be the same no mat te r what sc ience we a re c ons ide r-

ing .

I f we c a l l to mind once more the o r i g i n a l premise of

the S to ic s t h a t t h a t alone i s r e a l which has a mat e r i a l form

and i s o f a m a t e r i a l n a t u r e , the problem of un i t i ng th e ma te r

i a l and the s p i r i t u a l in God disappears , j u s t as i t d id in the

59 Stob , C l a s s i c a l Journa l , 30.219



58

ana lys is o f the S to ic u l t i ma t e p r i n c i p l e in phys ics . Although

God i s ca l l ed th e Soul , v a ~ 51 o r Reason, th e words mean nothing

s p i r i t u a l , bu t presuppose t h a t these conceptions have bodies ,

j u s t as anything e l se t h a t i s r e a l . Hence, we must agree with

Ze l l e r t h a t

those who charge the Sto ics with incons i s tency fo r c a l l i n g Goda t one t ime Reason, a t another Soul of th e Universe , a t ano the rDest iny, a t another F i r e , Ether, o r even th e Universe , fo rg e tt h a t they a re a t t ach i n g to these terms a meaning e n t i r e l y d i ff e ren t from t h a t in which they were used.60

And how were they used? To s i g n i f y var ious aspects of the one

f i e r y substance in te rming l ing wi th and pe ne t r a t ing a l l t h ings .

God, then , i s the u l t i ma t e and bas ic mat te r of th e un iverse

cons tan t ly express ing i t s e l f in var ious forms. In othe r words,

God i s prime mat te r i n ac t i on . However, t h i s prime mat te r i s

not th e same u n i n f o r m e d ~quo of A r i s t o t l e , bu t i t i s mat t e r,

a n ~ quod, as be ing r ep l e t e with fo rce and complete in i t s e l f .

From t h i s Sto ic l og i c i t must follow t h a t the system

was completely p a n t h e i s t i c . The only r e a l i t y was conta ined i n

mat te r and the produc t ive power which formed the mat te r i n to

the ind iv idua l ob jec t s . But t h i s r e a l i t y was ca l l ed th e d e i t y.

God, t he re fo re , was the world, and the world was God. Or, as

Cicero says : "hunc nmndum •• • animantem esse e t Deum.tt61

Every th ing t h a t e x i s t s , t he re fo re , i s par t of the d e i t y.

Even in speaking of "gods" th e S to ic s do n o t co n t r ad i c t t h e i r

basic explanat ion of d e i t y. The term "gods" merely i n d i ca t e s

6061

Z e l l e r , S t o i c s , E ~ i c u r e a n s ,and Scep t i c s , 155De Nat . D. 2.!7.4 - - -



59

s p e c i a l phases or mani fes ta t ions o f the monist ic ma te r i a l p r i n -

c ip l e of Being which i s " revea led e i t h e r i n th e s t a r s or in th e

fo rces of na tu re .n62

In conc lus ion , the S to ic phys ics was mo n i s t i c , mate r-

i a l i s t i c , and p a n t h e i s t i c . God fo r the Sto ics was th e b as i c

ma t e r i a l element, F i r e , changing i t s e l f i n to th e var ious forms

of m a t e r i a l substances t h a t e x i s t in th e world about u s , a l -

though he i s never d i s t i n c t or separa te from these subs tances .

_ ... ____ _

The foregoing pr e se n ta t ion has given th e b as i c con-

cepts he ld by var ious schools of thought concerning the na tu re

of the d e i t y. I t has s t u d i ed , a l s o , the sources of these con-

cepts in th e sc ience of phys ics . I t was these same schools

t h a t exerc i sed t h e i r power over Seneca, and , i t i s to be sup-

posed, molded h is ideas of phi losophy. An i n v es t i g a t i o n o f

Seneca 's own phi losophica l essays and l e t t e r s w i l l now prove

whether h is concept o f the d e i t y was pa t te rned a f t e r any o f th e

systems a l ready exp la ined , o r whether he chose s e l e c t b i t s of

each system to a s s i s t him in expounding whatever e t h i c a l p o in t

he was discuss ing a t the moment.

Fu r t h e r, these ideas w i l l be weighed aga ins t Seneca 's

thoughts on the b as i c organ iza t ion of th e un ive r se . Both of

62 Weber, 143



60

t h e s e , i n t u r n , w i l l be measured aga ins t the phi losophies ex-

p la ined in t h i s c ha p te r. By comparing th e r e l a t i o n o f Seneca ' s

theology and phys ics with one ano the r, and, then, with th e

ideas complied in t h i s chap te r, we should be able to decide the

na tu re o f the Senecan Supreme Being without f e a r of c on t r a -

d i c t i o n .



CHAPTER IV

SENECA SPEAKS

In Seneca ' s many essays and l e t t e r s t he r e a re c e r t a i n

points t h a t are immediately c l e a r , b u t a good number a r e a l -

most imposs ib le to ca ta logue even a f t e r many read ings . Seneca

was d e f i n i t e l y a Roman phi losopher. As "Roman" s tood fo r p rac -

t i c a l i t y and "Roman phi losopherr t fo r e t h i c i an or mo ra l i s t , we

know what broad p a t t e r n Seneca i s to fo l low in h i s works. He

t r e a t s o f Physics , i t i s t r u e , bu t he ca res l i t t l e fo r t h a t

sub jec t i n i t s e l f . And i n Logic he has no i n t e r e s t whatsoever.

Per ~ he i s i n t e r e s t e d only i n happ iness and how man can be s t

achieve i t .

Any s tudy of Seneca t h a t l i e s beyond t h i s f oc a l poin t

meets with immediate d i f f i c u l t i e s . As was mentioned e a r l i e r ,

problems a r i s e because of Seneca 's l ack o f system, incoherency,

and i n co n s i s t en cy. We need only r e c a l l t h a t these th ree are

not insurmountable b a r r i e r s . The f i r s t and the second can be

el tminated by exhaus t ive research and by compilation o f the

matter pe r t a in ing to the t h e s i s t o p i c ; th e t h i r d i s overcome by

an a l y s i s . This presen t chap te r i s concerned p r imar i l y with

t h i s t h i r d problem. The complete l i s t of passages found h e l p -

f u l i n a r r i v i n g a t th e so lu t ion o f th e problem can be found in



62

the appendix of t h i s t h e s i s . Here we w i l l analyze th e t e rmin-

ology t h a t gives r i s e to Seneca ' s incons i s tency and reso lve the

o b s cu r i t y by c e r t a i n deduc t ions .

The beginning of a l l confus ion occurs when Seneca seems

to pos tu l a t e four gr e a t powers in the world: F a t e , Nature , For-

tune , and God. In no one place does he pause to t e l l us in

what o r of what the essence of these 11 beingst t c o n s i s t s . For

Seneca always addressed h is essays to a p a r t i c u l a r i nd iv idua l

who, we presume, lmew what Seneca implied in each i n s t a nc e .

With u s , however, i t i s d i f f e r e n t . When Seneca speaks of F or

tune as a fo rce a ga ins t which t he r e i s no defence , 11 Nullus au

tem con t ra fortunam inexpugnabi l i s murus e s t ; t t l of Nature as th

power t h a t gives us our l i f e , "Non tam benignum ac l i b e r a l e

tempus na tu r a nobis d e d i t , u t a l i q u i d ex i l l o vace t perde re ; 112

of Fate as th e r u l e r of l i f e ' s span , "Alium a l i o tempore f a t a

comprehendunt, neminem pr a e te r ibun t ; 113 of God as t h e most powep

f u l of b e in g s , "deus i l l e maxinms poten t iss imusque ip se veh i t

omnia,n4 we have apparen t ly four d i s t i n c t supreme fo rces in th e

un ive r se . By merely fo l lowing the i nd iv idua l usage of the

s i x t y to one hundred re fe rences to t hese terms in Seneca ' s

works we could poss ib ly draw t h a t conc lus ion . However, in th e

Four th Book of th e De Be ne f i c i i s Seneca i n d i ca t e s th e i d e n t i t y

1 Ep. Mor. 74.192 Ep. Mor. 117.323 Ad Polyb. 11.4

4 Ep.Mor.

31.10





64

nomen ejus s ive nomen dix i s ses s ive cognomen idem tamen i l l e

e s t . n l l As Seneca i s j u s t one and the same person whether you

c a l l him Lucius , Annaeus, or 3eneca, so God i s the same whether

you c a l l him Fa t e , For tune , Natu re , or God.

Before we can unders tand th e f u l l meaning of God f o r

Seneca, t h e re fo re , we must consider the many i nd iv idua l r e f e r -

ences to F a t e , Nature , and For tune , as wel l as to God, in h i s

l e t t e r s and essays . This p lan i s n eces s i t a t ed by the f a c t t h a t

Seneca nowhere gives a d i r e c t d e f i n i t i o n fo r any of these im-

por t a n t words. From t h e i r var ious a pp l i c a t ions we must a t tempt

to deduce th e one b as i c meaning a t tached to these words. This

idea w i l l e i t h e r give or l ead to the na tu re or essence of God,

the "maximus potent issimusquet t Being of the un iverse . In the

fo l lowing se c t ions of t h i s chap te r the terms F a te , Natu re ,

Fortune , and God w i l l be examined i n an e f f o r t to cap ture the

one s i g n i f i c a n t note a t tached to each b y t"1eir au th o r.

SECTION A

FATE

Seneca gives fewer re fe rences to Fate in h is wri t i n g s

than to the o ther terms to be s tud ie d , bu t he comes c lose r t o

g iv ing an exac t d e f i n i t i o n fo r t h i s word than he does fo r the

o t h e r s . There a r e th r e e notes t h a t seem to be the outs tanding

c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of F a te . I t spr ings from a c e n t r a l cause , i s

11 De Ben. 4 .8 .3



65

inexorab le , and dea l s with man's span of l i f e . Fate more

fundamental ly i s i n t e rp re t ed as an inexorabl.e course of events

in a ~ u m a nb e i n g ' s l i f e ; these events flow from a c e n t r a l cause

and t e rmina te only with dea th .

In th e Quaestiones Natura les Seneca says t h a t on e i s

no t wrong i n c a l l i n g God by th e name of F a te . "Vis i l lum fa tum

voca re , non errabj_s • 11 He then con t inues : 11Hic e s t , ex quo sus-

pensa sun t omnia, causa causarum. 1112 Here obviously God viewed

as Fa te i s looked upon as woven from the success ion o f causes

f lowing from t h i s f i r s t cause . "Dicimus ser iem esse causarum

ex quibus n e c t i t u r fa tum.ul3 Then, once the course of events

i s s e t i n to motion t he r e i s no drawing back .

Cursum inrevocabilem ingressa ex des t ina t e f l u u n t . Quemad-modum rapidorum aqua torrent ium in se non r e c u r r i t nee moraturquidem quia priorern superveniens p r a e c i p i t a t ; s i c ordinem f a t irerum a e te r na se r i e s r o t a t , cujus haec prima lex e s t ; s t a r edecre to • 14

As i f t h i s d es c r i p t i o n would no t s a t i s f y h i s r e a de r, Seneca

repea ts the ques t ion and th e answer. "Q.uid enim i n t e l l i g i s

fatum? Exist imo necess i t a tem rerum omnium actionumque, quam

n u l l a v is rumpat. t t l5 But Seneca rese rves h is s t ronges t language

to impress Polybius with the immutabi l i ty of F a t e . "Diu t ius

12 Freder icus Haase, e d . , Annaei ~ e n e c a eOpera, Leipz ig , B.G.~ e u b n e r ,1887, Quaest . Na t . 2.45 .2

13 Ep. Mor. 19.614 Quaest . Nat . 2.3515 Quaes t . Nat . 2.36



66

accusare f a t a possumus, mutare non possumus. S ta n t dura e t i n -

ex o rab i l i a ; nemo i l l a convic io , nemo f l e t u , nemo causa movet;

n i h i l umquam u l l i parcun t nee remi t t u n t . "16

In a l l these quota t ions Seneca has i nd ic a t e d t h a t Fate

s i g n i f i e s th e o r i g i n a l cause , as wel l as the succession o f

causes , of a s e r i e s of u n c h a n r ~ e a b l eeven ts . These no t ions ,

however, are incomplete u n t i l we under s tand over what events

Fate exerc i ses i t s power. Does Seneca be l i e ve t h a t eve ry th ing ,

inc luding man's w i l l , has been determined ad unum ever s incethe succession of causes was s e t in motion? D ef i n i t e l y n o t .

In very s t r i k i n g fash ion p r a c t i c a l l y a l l Seneca 's remaining

references to Fate dea l with the i n e v i t a b i l i t y of dea th . This

i s our f a t e . This i s th e inexorable end to every man's e x i s t -

ence . A success ion of causes leads us to th e complet ion of

l i f e ' s span whether we wish to d ie o r n o t . "Alium a l io tempore

f a t a comprehendent, neminem p rae t e r i b u n t . n l 7

Nothing can be added to l i f e ' s span or sub t r a c t e d from

i t . "Eunt v ia sua f a t a nee a d ic iun t quicquam nee ex promisso

semel demunt.n18 Thus, i t makes no d i f f e r e nc e who th e person

mlght happen to b e . Seneca was su r p r i s e d when Annaeus Serenus ,

a young f r i e n d , d ie d . He muses t h a t "hoc unum mihi occurreba t ,

minorem esse e t multo minorem, tamquam ordinem f a t a s e r v a r e n

16 Ad Polyb. 4 .117 Ad Polyb. 11.318 Ad Marc. 21.619 Ep. Mor. 63.14



67

In l i k e manner o ld men t h ink t h a t they a re younger than they

r e a l l y a r e , and be l i e ve t h a t dea th i s thus s t aved o f f , but

Seneca says : "Mendacio s i b i b lan d iu n tu r e t tam l i b e n te r se

f a l l u n t quam s i una f a t a d ec i p i an t . "20

nlus ·young and o lda l i k e a re taken from t h i s world when t h e i r f ixe d and unchange-

able date of death a r r i v e s . We might as wel l be reconc i led to

t h i s l t fa te" because " s t a t quidem terminus nob is , ub i i l lum i n -

e xor a b i l i s fatorum necess i t as f i x i t . n 2 1

Fate and God, t h e re fo re , a re the same b e in g , but Fatei s , in t h i s i n s t a n c e , merely one phase or mani fes ta t ion of

God's essence . ~ ~ i smani fes ta t ion cen te rs i t s e l f on th e

ne c e ss i ty of death fo r every human b e in g . This idea i s ex

pressed in var ious ways and in d i f f e r e n t r e l a t i o n s to God, bu t

the meaning never changes. Our l i f e spr ings from God, th e

f i r s t cause . Then through a succession of causes we l ead our

l i f e and a re f i n a l l y brought to a dea th t h a t i s ca l l ed n r e -

morseless" or "inexorable" because no one can avoid i t . Fate

merely expresses the i n e v i t a b i l i t y of dea th t h a t flows from

the very essence of human n a t u re . F a te , t h e re fo re , i s no t

something d i s t i n c t from God, and does not have any separa te

e x i s t e nc e . I t i s f i r s t of a l l used b y Seneca to descr ibe the

d e f i n i t e l i m i t a t i o n p laced upon a c r e a t u r e ' s ex ts tence by

r eason o f h i s human essence or n a t u re . Then, when considered

20 De Brev. v. 11.121 Ep. Mor. 101.8



68

in i t s e l f , i t s i g n i f i e s th e f i r s t cause of a l l men and events

of l i f e . And t hese events l ead inescapably to man's depar tu re

from. l i f e .

SECTION B

:NATURE

:Nature i s a term found in Seneca 's wri t ings more than

s i x t y t imes with a v a r i e t y of poss ib le i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s . Seneca

says t h a t we would commit no f a u l t in ca l l ing God by t h i s name.

"Vis i l lum naturam voca re ; non peccab is . n22 The reason innned-

i a t e l y fo l lows . "Hie e s t ex quo n a t a sun t omnia, cujus s p i r i t u

vivimus.n23 :Nature, t he re fo re , i s God considered as th e source

of l i f e and th e p r i n c i p l e of i t s cont inua t ion . This seems a

s imple concept u n t i l one analyzes th e many func t ions and char-

a c t e r i s t i c s of Nature . I t i s then t h a t a l l ideas of a p e r -

sona l c rea t o r and d iv ine providence are rep laced by the vague-

ness and confusion of a m a t e r i a l i s t i c world . I t i s then t h a t

one begins to fo resee what th e Supreme Being w i l l u l t i ma t e l y be

discovered t o b e .

Nature i s the l i f e - g i v i n g pr inc ip l e in th e world . "Na

t u r a subolem novam gign i tn24 and took thought o f us before

br ing ing us in to ex is tence .25 Each one when brought i n to th e

22 Quaest . Nat . 2 .45 .223 Quaest . Nat . 2.45 .224 De Ben. 1 . 11 . 125 De Ben. 6 .23 .6





70

however, he w i l l merely say: "Non vides qualem nobis vitam

rerum. na tu ra pr omise r i t , quae primum nascentium hominum f le tum

esse vo lu i t ?" 36 Af te r a l l , when death or c a p t i v i t y o r d i s a s t e r

comes, none of them i s unexpected , f o r we always knew in what37d i s o rd e r l y company Nature had conf ined u s . A man n a t u r a l l y

expects some d i f f i c u l t i e s and he recognizes t h a t every hardsh ip

t h a t t ime br ings comes by a law o f Nature . 38

Misfor tune , moreover, s t r i k e s h a rd e r a t some men t han

a t o t h e r s . When t h a t happens, people should understand t h a tthose who a re t r e a t e d most k ind ly by Nature a re those whom she

removes ea r l y t o a p lace of s a fe t y.3 9 I t might b e b e s t t h a t

such a man d ie a t once , bu t Nature d id give us th e means to

cope with whatever problem be se t s u s . "Ad quaecumque nos coge-

b a t i n s t r u x i t . n 40 And no t the l e a s t of our equipment i s f o r -

t i t u d e o f s p i r i t . 41

L i f e , b es i d es , w i l l n o t l a s t fo rev e r. Nor does Nature

t e s t i f y t h a t she exempts any man from t h i s law of dea th , fo r

"na tura n u l l i se n e c e s s i t a t i s suae gra t iam facturam esse t e s -

t a t a es t .u42 For th e man who has been crushed by mat e r i a l

l o s se s Natura has given a g rea t b l e s s i n g in h e r law of de a th .

36 Ad Polyb. 4 .337 De Tranq. An. 11.638 De V. B. 15 .539 Ad Marc. 22.340 Ep. Mor. 90.1641 Ep. Mor. 104.2342 Ad Polyb. 11 .1



71

He should r e j o i c e i n t h i s discovery of Nature and look forward

to the day of h is r e l e a se from h i s sor rows. "O ignaros malorum

suorum quibus non mors u t optimum inventum n a tu rae l au d a tu r ex

pec ta tu rque .n43 I f one b e l i ev es death1

s r e l ea s e i s s t i l l too

f a r d i s t a n t , he may use any p o r t i o n of Nature to provide h imse l f

with a means of e a r l y depar tu re from l i f e .

Nemo t e t e n e t ; evade quo visum e s t . El ig e quamlibet rerumna turae par tem, quam t i b i praebere exitum jubeas . Haec nempesunt e lementa, quibus h ie mundus a dmin i s t r a tu r, aqua, t e r r a ,s p i r i t u s . Omnia i s t a tam causae vivend i sun t quam v iae mor t i s .44

One very obvious f a c t s tands out i n a l l th e foregoing

examples. Natu re , indeed , as was f i r s t s t a t e d , i s th e source o f

l i f e and the p r i n c i p l e of i t s co n t in u a t i o n , b u t t h i s power i s

not d i s t i n c t from God. Moreover, we have seen t h a t , over and

above t h i s , Nature i s n o t d i s t i n c t from man. I t i s h i s own phy

s i c a l , human makeup. Nature only means man as viewed from the

standpoint of a c r e a tu r e possessing a l l the p rocesses o f o r

ganic l i f e and the p r i n c i p l e o f growth and change. Also , by

reason o f t h i s type of l i f e man's ex is tence must t e rmina te wi th-

in a s h o r t span of y e a r s . Thus, when Seneca says t h a t Nature

forms man, o r gives .h im c e r t a i n t r a i t s , o r h e a l t h , o r s i c kne ss ,

or dea th , he j u s t means t h a t man i s born , l i v e s , and d ies a c -

cording to the laws of h i s phys ica l b e in g .

That , however, i s j u s t h a l f th e p i c t u r e . Man i s only

p a r t of the u n iv e r s e . B i r t h , growth, change, an d dea th a l l

43 Ad Marc. 20 .144 Ep. Mor. 117 .23





73

mat t e r. "Uta tu r u t v u l t s u i s na tura corpor ibus.«48 We should

r e c a l l a l so t h a t when Nature i s about to r e tu rn to f ' i r e ( " r e

cessura in ignem") nothing of ours i s destroyed( 11 n i h i l p e r i r e

de nost rot t49) . Nature , i n t h i s sense , i s · d i s t i n c t f'rom, a l -

though in an e a r l i e r exp lana t ion the term s tood f'or man i n h is

organic composit ion. Here i t s tands f 'or the world viewed as

th e pr inc ip l e of' opera t ion . Nature i s th e e a r t h , a i r , p l a n e t s ,

and water cont inuing t o a c t sy s t e ma t i c a l ly accord ing to t h e i r

own essence u n t i l the moment a r r i v es fo r them t o r ev e r t by t h e i

very "na tu re 11 o r essence to th e one o r i g i n a l subs tance , pr imal

f i r e . 11 Quicquid composit , r eso lv i t . n50

With t h i s exp lana t ion of' Nature i t i s a s imple ma t te r

to show th e r e l a t i o n between Fate and Nature . In f ' ac t , Seneca

i n d i r e c t l y mentions t h e i r i d e n t i t y by s t a t i n g t h a t people r a i l

un jus t l y a t Fate when a young person i s c a r r i e d away in d ea th ,

fo r i t i s more f a i r t h a t we obey Nature than t h a t Nature obey

u s . "Objurgamus c o t i d i e f'atum: 'quare i l l e in medic cursu r ap -

tus es t ? Quare i l l e non r ap i t u r? Quare senectutem e t s i b i e t

a l i i s gravem ex t en d i t ? ' Utrum, obsecro t e , aequius i u d i ca s t e

na tu rae an t i b i parere naturam.n51 Very obviously Seneca uses

these terms i n th e senses we have a l ready off 'ered . Fa te and

Nature a r e the same concept u l t ima te ly. For, in r e a l i t y , by

48 De Prov. 5 .849 De Ben. 4 . 8 . 150 Ep. Mor. 30.1251 Ep. Mor. 93.1-2





75

Fortune seems to forbode e v i l , m a t e r i a l l o s s , uneas iness , and

d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with l i f e . Even Fa te was never p i c t u red as

s t e r n as For tune . And Nature appeared in a favorab le l i g h t , o r

was a t l e a s t viewed i n d i f f e r e n t l y as the ex i s t i ng orde r o ft h i n g s . Not For tune , however. I t i s something t h a t man must

beware and guard a g a i n s t . This i s a tone c rea ted by var ious

s t r i k i n g passages . Is i t r e a l l y the p ic tu re t h a t Seneca wished

t o l e a ve , o r w i l l an i n v es t i g a t i o n l ead one to a d i f f e r e n t con-

elusion?

There can be no doubt t h a t For tune p lays an important

pa r t i n man's l i f e . Seneca l i k e s to p ic tu re i t as a powerful

fo rce which leaves nothing f r e e from a s s a u l t . In f a e t , th e

more prosperous or b r i l l i a n t a t h i n g , man, o r the s t a t e happens

to be , the more sub je c t i t i s to dec l ine and des t ruc t ion . "Quid

enim e s t quod non f o r tuna , cum v o l u i t , ex f lo r e n t i s s imo d e t r a -

hat? Quod non eo magis adgred ia tu r e t q u a t i a t quo speciosus

fu lge t .n53 But everyone who put s t r u s t in ma te r i a l t h ings i s

bound by t h i s power in some way or o t h e r. "Alium honores , alium

opes v i n e i u n t ; quosdam n o b i l i t a s , quosdam humi l i t a s premi t ; q u i

busdam a l i e n a supra caput i ~ m p e r i asun t , quibusdam sua; quosdam

ex i l1a uno loco t en an t , quosdam sacerdo t ia .n54 For a l l of these

people l i f e i s a complete s l av e ry. 55

53 Ep. Mor. 91.454 De Tranq. An . 10 .355 De Tranq. An. 10.4



76

This l a s t s ta temen t o f Seneca, however, i s condi t ioned

by circumstances and a man's frame of mind. For m a t e r i a l r i c he

and p ro s p e r i t y are t tadvent ic ia e t nutum fo r tunae sequen t i a .n56

Fortune a l s o ex e rc i s e s he r power only over t hose who d es i r e tor e l y on h e r. "Non ha be t , u t putamus, fo r tuna longas manus;

neminem occupat n i s i haerentem s i b i . t 5 7 Even though Fortune

might appear to have a s s i s t e d a c e r t a i n ind iv idua l by providing

gr e a t world ly possess ions ,58 she s t i l l t h r e a t e ns him as much as

she had prev ious ly a s s i s t e d him.59 Actua l ly i t i s j u s t a t th e

t ime of success t h a t a man should f e a r t he v io lence of Fortune

and prepare himse l f ag a in s t i t . 6 0

I t i s t r u e t h a t Fortune f requent ly bestows e x te r na l

g i f t s , b u t i t i s p rec i s e l y a t t h i s moment t h a t one places him

s e l f in F or tune ' s g r a sp , fo r th e i nd iv idua l has pu t h i s t r u s t

in something othe r than v i r t u e which alone i s the objec t o f

man's e x i s t e nc e .

Nam qu i a l i q u i d v i r t u t e melius pu ta t au t ullum p r a e t e r i l l ambonum, ad haec quae a fo r t u n a spa rguntur, sinum expandi t e ts o l l i c i t u s m i s s i l i a ejus e xpe c ta t . Hanc enim imaginem animotuo propane , ludos f ace re fortunam e t in hunc mortal ium coetumhonores , d i v i t i a s , grat iam excu te re , quorum a l i a i n t e r d i r ipentium !i1anus s c i s s a sun t , a l i a i n f i d a s o c i e t a t e d i e i s a , a l i amagno detr imento eorum, in quos devenerant , prensa .

This i s a sad p i c t u re of enslavement to " ' 'ortune. I t was i n -

56 De Cons tan t . 5 .757 Ep. Mor. 82.658 Ad Polyb. 18.359 Ep. Mor. 4.760 Ep. Mar. 18.661 Ep. Mar. 74.6-7



77

e v i t a b l e ; man had made an a l l i ance w ~ t hp leasu re and re fused to

follow v i r t u e a lone .

Qui vero v i r t u t i s volupta t i sque socie ta tem f a c i t e t ne ex aequoquidem, f r a g i l i t a t e a l t e r i u s ooni qu icquid in a l t e ro v i g o r i s

e s t he be ta t l i be r t a t emque i l l a m, i t a demum, s i n i h i l se pre -t i o s i u s n o v i t , invic tam, su b iujum m i t t i t . Nam, quae maximas e rv i t u s e s t , i n c i p i t i l l i opus esse fo r tuna .62

I t i s good to accept whatever Por tune o f f e r s , as Seneca himse l f

d i d , as long as we remember t h a t these th ings a re t r a n s i t o r y

and i n se c u r e . nQ.uicquid a fo r tuna datum e s t , tamquam exempto

auctore possideas .n63 Never the less , th e b e s t po l icy i s no t to

t r u s t For tune a t a l l . "Numquam ego fo r tunae c r e d i d i , etiam cum

v i d e r e t u r pacem agere .n64 Seneca says t h i s because no man i s

crushed by h o s t i l e Fortune who i s n ot f i r s t deceived by h e r

smi le s .65 But , i f favorab le For tune , which a lso quick ly s h i f t s

i t s favor,66 ge ts one in h e r power, she u l t i ma t e l y br ings him

to r u i n . " I l l i qui munera ejus v e l u t sua e t perpetua amaverunt

qui se s u s p i c i prop te r i l l a vo lue r un t , i a cen t e t maerent , cu:m

vanos e t p u e r i l e s animos omnis so l ida e v o l u p t a t i s i g n a ro s ,

f a l s a e t mobi l ia oblectamenta de s t i t uun t . n67

However, no one needs to place h imse l f in For tune ' s

grasp . We a re so cons t i t u t ed t h a t we can and ought to seek

r i c he s with in ourse lves r a t h e r than from fo r tune .68 In t h i s

62 De V. B. 15.363 Ad Marc. 10.364 Ad Helv. 5 .465 Ad Helv. 5 .466 Ad Polyb. 9.467 Ad Helv. 5 .568 De Tranq. An. 9 .2



78

i nd i f f e r e nc e to t h ings of Fortune l i e s t r u e freedom. "Ergo

exeundum ad l iber t a tem e s t . Hanc non a l i a re s t r i b u i t quam fo r

tunae neg legen t ia .n69 Th e b e s t poss ib l e way to r e f use these

temptings of F'ortune i s th e remembrance t h a t Fortune has no

power over one ' s charac te r.70 Af te r a l l , what Fortune d id not

give she cannot t ake away.71 And, as ueneca has sa id , t rue

r i ch es of charac te r and peace of sou l a re found without th e

as s i s t an ce of ex t e rn a l r i c he s and worldly advancement. In f a c t ,

v i r t u e i s th e t r ea s u re of l i f e , whereas F or tune ' s " g i f t s " can

be sources of di scomfor t , sorrow, and d i s c o t ~ a g e m e n t ,i n s o fa r

as Fortune modif ies the i s sues of even th e b e s t p lans .72 Thus

the person with fewer possessions i s l e s s sub je c t to F or tune ' s

blows.73 On th e o th e r hand, th e man who engages in bus iness on

a g iga n t i c s c a l e i s th e more subjec t to For tune.74

Since the re i s no place where For tune cannot assau l t

anyone[5 the only safe harbor i s scorn of the f u t u r e , a f i rm

s tand , a read iness to r ece ive For tune ' s mi s s i l e s f u l l in th e

b r e a s t , n e i t h e r skulking nor tu rn ing one ' s back . 76 And t h i s

man i s sa fe because he has abandoned ma te r i a l t h ings ~ d pro-

t ec t ed himse l f with in the impregnable wal l o f phi losophy.

69 De V. B. 4 .570 Ep. Mor. 36.671 Ep. Mor. 59.1872 De Ben. 5 .2 .273 De Tranq. An. 8 .974 De Tranq. An. 13.275 De Tranq. An. 4 .276 Ep. Mor. 104.22



79

11 Phi l a sophia circurndanda e s t , i nexpugnab i l i s munus, quem . for-

tuna mul t i s machinis l acess i tum non t r a n s i t . In i n s u p e r a b i l i

loco s t a t animus, qui ex te rna dese ru i t . t t 77 However, i.f For tune

has a t tempted to do b a t t l e with such an i n d i v i d u a l , she hasalways been ignominiously de.feated. 7 8 This wise man never had

to . fear .from Fortune79 nor does he have to r e t r e a t .from Fortune

He has noth ing to l o se .from h e r . 80 He w i l l parry he r blows w it

ease 81 and with a se rene mind 82 and an u n r u . f f ~ e ds p i r i t 8 3 o ve r

come Fortune by h is v i r t u e . 8 4 Since he has defea ted For tune ,

t h e re can be no one above th e wise man.85 For now th e v i c i s -

s i tude s o.f l i f e have been subord inated to a higher p r i n c i p l e ,

t h a t o.f cons ide r ing a l l honors , wea l th , and ma te r i a l possessicns

as a hindrance r a t h e r than an a id to th e acquirement o.f t r u e

happ iness . Seneca . f e l t t h a t he h ims e l f had achieved a c e r t a i n

amount o.f success over For tune s ince he desp i sed r i ch es whenhe had them and a l so when he l o s t them. 86 Over and above t h i s ,

h i s contempt .for h e r power extended i n to th e entj_re realm o.f

For tune . 11 Totum . for tunae regnum despic iam. 11 87. In t h i s way he

in t imates t h a t he has a r r ive d a t th e s t a t e o.f b l i s s he i s

preaching in h is many t r e a t i s e s , a l though he e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e s ,

77 Ep. Mor. 82.578 De Constant . 8 .379 De Prov. 6 .680 De Tranq. An. 13.281 De Clem. 2.6 .382 De I r a 3 .25 .483 Ad Marc. 5 .684 Ep. Mor. 91.3085 De Brev. v. 5 .386 De V. B. 20.3De V. B. 25.5





81

l o s s of ma te r i a l t h ings or to p o in t out oecurrences which are

without apparent meaning and explanat ion? 90 This l a s t seems to

be most l o g i c a l from a l l th e foregoing passages , bu t i t i s a l so

th e most d i f f i c u l t to f i t in to any p a t t e rn with the conclus ions

a r r ive d a t i n the an a ly s i s of Fa te and Nature . Seneca , as

s t a t e d be f o r e , nowhere answers t h i s ques t ion h ims e l f . What

Fortune means to him i s b es t s t a t e d in the o f t repeated quo-

t a t i o n : "Sic nunc naturam voca fatum, fortunam; omnia ejusdem

d e i nomina sun t v a r i e u t e n t i s sua potes ta te .n91 And t h i s r e -

fe rence cannot be f u l l y unders tood u n t i l a l l four terms are

examined, e spe c ia l ly in the l i g h t of Seneca 's words on the im-

p o r t ~ tword deus . Fo r tune , in p a r t i c u l a r , has a r e a l meaning

and ex is tence only when i d e n t i f i e d with deus.92 I t i s impos-

s i b l e , t h e re fo re , t o reach any f u r t h e r conclus ion u n t i l th e

l a s t word under cons idera t ion i s s tud ied in comple tes t d e t a i l .

SECTION D

GOD

When cata loguing a l l th e re fe rences Seneca gives to

the d e i t y, one i s immediately conscious o f two t h ings , h is

p r a c t i c a l i t y and apparen t l ack o f exactness and cons i s tency.

Seneca i s p r a c t i c a l because he was a mo ra l i s t above a l l e l s e .

But a l s o , as i s the case wi th many men who do no t have c l e a r

90 E. Vernon Arnold, Roman Stoic ism, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ e r s i t y P r e s s , 1911, 210

91 De Ben. 4 • 8 • 392 Arnold , 209



82

concepts of ve ry fundamental p r i n c i p l e s , Seneca ' s exp lana t ions

were d i r ec t ed to th e so lu t ion o f an immediate case without

a t tempt ing to r e c onc i l e h i s presen t answer to a prev ious ly elab-

ora ted exp lana t ion on somewhat th e same m a t t e r.

Seneca speaks a t t imes almost as i f he had been a d i s

c i p l e and b e l i e v e r in C h r i s t i a n i t y, perhaps through th e t e a c h -

ing of th e a pos t l e S t . Pau l . He says , fo r i n s t a nc e , t h a t God,

who i s th e Fa the r o f us a l l , has placed ready to our hands thos

t h ings which he in tended f o r our own good; he d i d no t wai t fo r

any sea rch on our p a r t , and he gave them to us v o l u n t a r i l y. 93

As a be ne f a c to r, t h en , he would be g rea t e r than th e r e c i p i e n t

o f h i s g i f t s , bu t Seneca elsewhere s t a t e s t h a t man i s on a94l e v e l with God i f he only possesses p e r f e c t reason . Accord-

ing to Ch r i s t i an thought i t i s imposs ib le to r e c onc i l e any

e qua l i ty between God and man. 1hus , Seneca adds to h i s and our

confus ion by speaking on th e one hand of the Patherhood o f God,

and then on the o the r of th e e qua l i ty o f man and God in a l l b u t

immorta l i ty.95 Having i n mind th e so lu t ion o f p eo p l e ' s prob-

lems, Seneca very l i k e l y gave no thought to the incons i s tency

t h a t a rose i n h i s d o c t r i n e s . Or, i f he d id cons ide r such d i s -

crepanc ies , he knew o f no way to solve the d i f f i c r t l t i e s wh.ich

he himse l f unknowingly proposed. We f ind a t y p i c a l example in

th e case of th e same God who prev ious ly, unasked, l av i shed h i s

93 Ep. Mor. 110.10

94Ep. Mor. 124.21

95 De Constan t . 8 .2



83

g i f t s on u s , f a i l i n g to heed our e a r ne s t p ray e r s . 96 La te r on

Seneca changes t h i s a t t i t u d e when he argues t h a t people would

no t supp l i c a t e God i f he were deaf and i n e f f e c t u a l , or i f h is

b e n e f i t s were not bestowed on those who sought them.97 God inone ins tance hears our praye rs and even gran t s our d es i r e s b e -

fore we ask fo r any th ing . With equal d e f i n i t en es s in ano ther se t

of c i rcumstances we h ea r him say ing i t i s a waste of t ime to pra-y

to God, fo r he w i l l not hear o r answer our p e t i t i o n s .

The only poss ib le way to a r r i v e a t a wel l -def ined p i ct u r e of the d e i t y in th e midst of these cont rad ic t ions i s to

l i s t whatever a t t r i b u t e s Seneca ass igns to h i s Supreme Being

and determine th e s p i r i t u a l o r mat e r i a l essence whence these

powers f low. The i n v es t i g a t i o n w i l l r evea l , in othe r words,

what God does and what God i s .

The d e i t y of Seneca resembles in many ways th e God of

the Ch r i s t i an s i n th e manifes ta t ion o f h is q u a l i t i e s . F i r s t

of a l l , God i s th e master b u i l d e r of th e un iverse who prese rves

a l l th ings by h is power and "conserva t a r t i f ex f r a g i l i t a t em

mater iae v i sua vincens.n98 S t i l l , he does n o t v i o l a t e th e

course of F a te , or th e s e r i e s of cause and e f f e c t , once he has

ordained th e d e f i n i t e na tu re o f a ce r t a in c r e a t u r e . 99 "Deo

96 De I r a 2.30 .297 De Ben. 4 .4 .298 Ep. Mor. 58.2899 De Prov. 5 .9



84

agenteulOO th e unive rse moves on i t s prear ranged schedule and

nmanent cunc ta , non quia ae te rna sun t , sed quia defenduntur

cu ra r e g e n t i s . n l O l In t h i s func t ion God ev id en t l y i s "omnia

habentem, o:rnnia t r ibuen tem, beneficum g r a t i s . nl02 Manifes t ing

t h i s care f o r h is c r e a t u r e s , "Deus qnoque quaedam munera u n i

verso humano gener i d e d i t , a quibus e xc lud l tu r nemo.nl03 For

a moment, t oo , Seneca wishes us to ponder how much God, our

l ov ing pa r e n t , has given to u s . l 04 For in t ~ e world about us

th e a r t i f e x has cared t h a t each ob jec t has i t s om1 d i s t i n c t i v e

f ea t u re s ( t t n u l l i non e t co lor p ropr lus e s t e t f l g u ra sua e t

ma,-snitudoul05). And c e r t a i n l y i t must be a t t r i b u t e d to th e

remarkable genius o:f th e d iv ine c r e a t o r t h a t amid a l l t h i s

106abundance t he r e i s no r e p e t i t i o n .

Upon man in p a r t i c u l a r th e d e i t y wished to pour h i s

f a vo r s . To him he gave the wonderful f acu l ty o f r a t i o by

which man partoolc of th e na tu r e of God himse l f and became th e

l o r d of th e wor ld . ttDuas deus re s d e d i t , quae i l lum obnoxium

val id iss imum f a c e r e n t , ra t ionem e t soc ie t a t em; i t aque qui par

esse n u l l i posse t , s i seducere tu r, rerum p o t i t u r. n l 0 7 Having

given t h i s fe l lowship with h imse l f , God has g r e a t e r watch over

100 Ep. Mor. 71.12101 Ep. Mor. 58.28102 Ep. Mor. 95.48103 De Ben. 4 .28 .3104 De Ben. 2 .29 .4105 Ep. Mor. 113.15106 Ep. Mor. 113.16

107 De Ben. 4 .18 .3



85

r a t i o n a l c r e a t u r e s . "Nih i l deo clusum e s t . I n t e r e s t animis

n o s t r i s e t c o ~ i t a t i o n i b u smediis i n t e r v e n i t . n l 0 8 And t he r e

God i s tb.e "malorum bonorumque nostrorum obse rva to r e t cus-

t o s . n l 0 9 Moreover, to show h i s i n t e r e s t in mankind he d i s c i -

pl ines those whom he loves 1 10 when t hey have need of' a s t imu lus

to p r a c t i c e v i r t u e .

Af'ter l i s t e n i n g to Seneca speak of the d e i t y in t h i s

f a sh ion , one f 'eels t h a t God i s t r u l y parens n o s t e r, guid ing us

wl th a l ov ing hand in th e whole span of our l i f ' e . We have

v i s ions of a p e r s o n a l , kind , lov ing f 'ather p ro v i d en t i a l l y con-

t r o l l i n g tn e events of' our l i f ' e and we seek to know y e t more

about him. Seneca gives one reason to wonder and then to doubt

about the t r u t h of t h i s p i c t u r e , however, because he h e s i t a t e s

to say what God ac tua l ly i s , and then even desc r ibes him in a

very m a t e r i a l i s t i c t one . Seneca s t a t e s openly t h a t our i n -

t e l l e c t u a l f acu l t y w i l l t e l l us what the gods a r e . "Quid s i n t

d i qualesque d e c l a r a t ( r a t i o ) . u l l l S t i l l , he does not exp la in

what h i s reason has poin ted o u t . Ce r ta in ly i t i s th e p a r t of'

a wise Y'l.an, which Seneca was s t r i v i n g to become, to s tudy th e

un ive r se , i t s beg inn ings , and i t s a r t i f e x . Thus he asks wi th

amazement: "Non quaeram quis s i t i s t i u s a r t i f ' ex mundi?11112

108 Ep. Mor. 83.1109 Ep. Mor. 41.2110 De Prov. 4.7111 Ep. Mor. 90.28112 Ep. Mor. 65.19



86

But he passes on without s tudying th e a r t i f e x mundi. In

ano ther place he expresses asa in th e importance of knowing

God's es s en ce , l l 3 b u t f a i l s to say more on th e s u b j e c t . The

same ques t ion i s in t roduced in o t he r passages1

14 with th e same

r e s u l t .

Ce r ta in ly even wi th Seneca ' s l ack of d i r e c tne s s a l l

t h a t has j u s t been mentioned leads to one conclus ion thus f a r .

Vfuen God possesses , a l l o t s , bes tows , c o n t r o l s , views , c o r r e c t s

eve ry th ing in th e un ive r se , we have a t t r i b u t e s t h a t uni:t;e p e r -

f e c t l y to form a s p i r i t u a l t t rectorem custodemque u n i v e r s i , an i -

mum ac sp i r i tum mundi, oper i s hu jus dominum e t a r t i f i c e m . u l l 5

Moreover, when ask ing what th e one t r u e cause was, Seneca r e -

sponds " r a t i o s c i l i c e t f ac i ens , i d e s t de us . u l l6 Besides " s a -

cer i n t r a nos s p i r i t u s s e d e t , 11117 who again i s God, s ince Seneca

has j u s t f i n i s h ed say ing t h a t 11 prope a t e deus , tecum e s t , i n t u s

e s t . n l l 8

This language , taken in i t s e l f , t e l l s c l e a r l y enough

t h a t Seneca b e l i ev ed in th e s p i r i t u a l essence of God. I f God

i s th e causa or animus or r a t i o f a c i e ns or sa c e r s p i r i t u s , then

Seneca seems to be fo l lowing the C h r i s t i a n concept of God. The

113 De Brev. V. 19 .1114 De Otio 4 . 2 ; Ad Helv. 8 .3115 Quaes t . Nat. 2 .45 .2116 Ep. Mor. 65.12117 Ep. Mor. 41.2118 Ep. Mor. 41 .1



87

cas u a l observer w·ould im..rneqiately concur i n t h i s opin ion s ince

Seneca says in se ve r a l l e t t e r s t h a t t h e re a re c o r po r e a l and i n -

corporea l b e i n s s , 119 and t h a t our i n t e l l e c t i s capable of f i x -

in g i t s a t t e n t i o n on th e i nc o r po r e a l .120

Seneca mainta ins a l sot h a t nduo esse in rerum n a tu ra ex quibus omnia f i a n t , causam e t '

mater iam.n l 2 1 Matter l i e s i n e r t , ready fo r any use , bu t su r e ly

to s t ay as i t i s i f n o t ac t ed upon th e E f f i c i e n t Cause. For

"causa au t em, i d e s t r a t i o , mater iam format e t quocumque v u l t

v e r s a t , ex i l l a v a r i a opera pr oduc i t . n l22 This causa or r a t i o ,

as we have seen , i s God. Late r on i n t h i s same l e t t e r Seneca

repea ts t h i s . 11Universa ex mater ia e t ex Deo cons tan t • • . Poten-

t i u s autem e s t ac pre t io s ius quod f a c i t , quod e s t deus , quam

mate r i a p a t i en s de i . u l23 God, t h e r e f o r e , i s d i s t i n c t from

mat t e r and i s th e Cause forming mat t e r. Since ano ther name f o r

causa i s r a t i o and deus , one s t i l l r e t a i n s the concept o f the

s p i r i t u a l i t y o f God's essence . The answer would be reached and

the i n v es t i g a t i o n completed i f Seneca had s topped h e r e . But he

d id n o t . For again we a re confronted with a s e r i e s of c on t r a -

dictionS"' t h a t demand f u r t h e r s tudy.

Whereas up to t h i s p o in t God has been covered wi th th e

robe of s p i r i t u a l i t y , we now di scover t ~ e shadow of mater ia l i sm

changing th e o r i g i n a l hues of t h i s robe . Seneca had admi t ted

119 Ep. Mor. 58.11120 Ep. Mor. 90.29121 Ep. Mor. 65.2122 Ep. Mor. 65.2123 Ep. ·Mor. 65.23



88

th e d i s t i n c t i o n between corporea l and i n co rp o rea l subs t a n c e s ,

l ead ing one to th ink t h a t he acknowledga:i the ex i s t en ce of a

s p i r i t u a l essence or n a tu re in th e d e i t y. However, fo l lowing

h i s u s u a l l i n e of incons i s tency, Seneca den ies h i s previouss ta temen ts by r ecogn iz ing th e ex i s t en ce o f m a t e r i a l o r c o r -

po r e a l subs tances on ly. He does no t d i r e c t l y pos tu l a t e t h i s

in a·'l.y one p la c e , bPt th e numerous sugeestj. .ons to and a p p l i -

ca t i o n s o f such a p r i n c i p l e leaves no doubt ~ u t t h a t he b e -

l i e ve d i t to be t r u e . The genera l p r i n c i p l e w' l ich Seneca

fo l lows assumes t h a t whatever i s capable of a c t ing or be ing

ac ted upon alone i s possessed of any r e a l i t y . The con ten t ion

t h a t only corporea l o b jec t s e x i s t i s reached by r e s t r i c t i n g th e

power of a c t ing o r be ing ac ted upon to pure ly m a t e r i a l t h i n g s .

God, as the r u l e r , guard ian , sou l , b r e a t h , l o r d , and

maste r-bu i lder of th e world , possesses fo rce and power a t h i s

command. The very names used to d es c r ib e God s i g n i fy h i s po

s i t i o n and h i s a c t i v i t y. But fo r Seneca "c u i t an t a v i s e s t u t

imp e l l a t e t coga t e t r e t i n e a t e t i n h i b e a t , corpus e s t . n l 2 4

T h i s , indeed , i s n o t th e on ly passage which shows t h a t th e d e i

j_s no th ing more than m a t t e r. For Seneca r ea ff i rms h is con-

vic . t ion t h a t whatever possesses th e p r i n c i p l e of a c t i v i t y i s

pure ly m a t e r i a l and does n o t r i s e above anything e l se in th e

u n iv e r s e . He says in L e t t e r 106: "Quod f a c i t , corpus e s t . 11 125

124 Ep. Mor. 106.9125 Ep. Mor. 106.4



89

This s e t s th e s tage f o r a very s i m i l a r s ta temen t in a subse

q - ~ J e n tl e t t e r , in which he wr i t e s : "Quidquid f a c i t , corpus

e s t . n 126 Since God under h is many t i t l e s i s u l t i ma t e l y the

causa e f f i c i e n s , t 11.en, he too j_s m a t e r i a l in essence because ,

aga in , eve ry th ing which ac t s i s m a t e r i a l .

Seneca comes y e t c l o s e r to t h i s pos i t i on when he a f f i r

i n L e t t e r 95: "Omne hoc quod v i d e s , quo d iv in a atque humana

conclusa s u n t , unum e s t ; membra sumus corpor i s magni . 11 12 7

Whatever e x i s t s , t h e r e f o r e , whether i t be God or man i s o f th e

same na tu r e as anything e l s e t h a t e x i s t s . More than t h i s .

They a r e no t only of the same n a t u r e . They are a l so extens ions

of th e same body, not even possess ing th e q u a l i t y of s t r i c t

i n d i v i d u a l i t y. Seneca has to admit t h i s because in answer to

h i s own ques t ion as to whether m a t t e r i s cont inuous , f u l l , and

a l l - pe r va d ing , or separa ted and mixed i n with Void he says t h a t

" n i h i l usque inane es t . n l 2 8 "Body" thus spreads cont inuously

throughout th e un i ve r se withou t r i p o r gap. The u n iv e r s e , in

r e a l i t y , i s th e so le e x i s t i n g r e a l i t y , co n s i s t i n g of m a t t e r ,

which i s div ided i n t o d iv in a and humana according to t h e v a r y -

ing aspec t s under which we are viewing th e u n iv e r s e .

We f i n d th e same i dea con ta ined i n y e t ano ther passage .

Seneca ho lds again t h a t "totum hoc, quo cont inemur, e t unum e s t

12 6 Ep. Mor. 117 .212 7 Ep. Mor. 95.52128

Quaes t . Nat . 3 .16 .5





91

w r i t e s : "Unus omnium pa rens mundus. e s t . " 134 I f t h e s e q u o t a t i o n

a r e t a k e n as Seneca gave them t o u s , t h e r e can b e no q u e s t i o n

t h a t deus and mundus a r e one and t h e same c o n c e p t . D i f f e r e n t

names a r e used me r e l y t o p o i n t o u t t h e v a r i o u s f u n c t i o n s o f t h e

one g r e a t wo r l d b o d y. God i s d i v e s t e d o f a l l p e r s o n a l p a t e r n i t

and woven i n t o a name le s s mass f o r which "nomina p r o p r i e a p t a -

b i s vim a l i q u a m effec turnque c a e l e s t i u m re rum c o n t i n e n t i a . n l 3 5

G od ' s names , t h e r e f o r e , a r e as e n d l e s s as t h e o p e r a t i o n s o f t h e

u n i v e r s e .

S e v e r a l fu r th . e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s , w h i l e n o t as concl1.1sive

a s t h o s e a l r e a d y o f f e r e d , can be c o n s t r u e d t o s i g n i f y t h e ma

t e r i a l i s t i c t o n e b e n e a t h S e n e c a ' s w ords . I n u r g i n g L u c i l i u s

t o a c c e n t w-"latever span o f l i f e i s a s s i g n e d t o him S en eca would

h a v e h i s "mae;nus animus deo p a r e a t e t q u i c q u i d l e x u n i v e r s i

j u b e t , s i n e c u n c t a t i o n e p a t i a t u r . n l 3 6 Un l e s s we wish t o t w i s t

S e n e c a ' s words i n t o meaning t h a t t h e r e a r e two supreme p o we r s ,

d eu s and l e x u n i v e r s i , we must c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e two a r e a g a i n

j u s t S e n e c a ' s way o f s a y i n g t h e same t h i n g i n s l i g h t l y a l t e r e d

l a n g u a g e t o s u i t t h e s i t u a t i o n . The l e x u n i v e r s i means , acco rd

i n g t o t h e c o n t e x t , t h e o r d e r and re1c;u_larity o f th e u n i v e r s e

i t s e l f , which o r d a i n s a l l c r e a t u r e s t o comple t e t h e i r e a r t h l y

span a t some d e s t i n e d t i m e . I t i s t h e u n i v e r s e , i n r e a l i t y ,

134 De Ben . 3 . 2 8 . 2135 De Ben . 4 . 7 . 2136 Ep. Mor. 7 1 .1 6



92

ttquodannnodo s e h a b e n s . " vVh.en we obey God, t h e r e f o r e , ·vve a r e

a l s o e n d u r l n g w h a t s o e v e r th e u n l v e r s e i s o r d e r i n g . Again God

i s t ak en as t h e u n i v e r s e .

~ . t r i v i n gt o e l e v a t e t h e n a t u r e o f man S eneca h as u n -

c o n s c i o u s l y d e s t r o y e d t h e l o f t y p o s i t l o n o f h i s d e i t y . I n

many p a s s a g e s S eneca s t r e s s e s t h e d i g n i t y o f man t o such an ex

t e n t h e makes him an e q u a l t o God i n a l l save i m m o r t a l l t y • 137

I n one o u t s t a n d i n g passage we f i n d : "Haec d u o ( d e u s , homo) quae

r a t i o n a l i a s u n t , eandem n a t u r a m h a b e n t , i l l o d i v e r s a s u n t , quod

a l t e r u m i r rm·orta le , a l t e r u m m o r t a l e e s t . u l 3 8 An d even t h i s

q u a l i t y does n o t a f f e c t a man ' s p r e s e n t s e c u r i t y , f o r " s c i t non

multum e s s e ab homine t imendum, a deo n i h i l . t t 139 I t s t a n d s t o

r e a s o n t h a t , h a v i n g n o t h i n g t o f e a r from God and h a v i n g t h e

same n a t u r e , ma n i s n o t o n l y e q u a l t o God, b u t h e i s a c t u a l l y

p a r t of t h e d e i t y . How t h i s can b e p o s s i b l e , s i n c e many i n -

d i v i d u a l p e r s o n s walk t h e e a r t h , r e ma i n s f o r t h e p a n t h e i s t i c

p h i l o s o p h e r s t o e x p l a i n . S eneca does n o t t ouch upon t h i s p o i n t

S t i l l , w i t h t h e words found i n t l1 is s e l e c t i o n , ma n m u s t a t t h e

v e r y l e a s t be a m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f t h e d e i t y o r a membra d e i .

Wnatever p e r t a i n s , t h e r e f o r e , t o t h e n a t u r e o f man w i l l a u t o -

r n a t i c a l l y b e p r e d i c a t e d o f God as w e l l . L i k e w i s e , t o be l o p ; i -

c a l , we must bes tow g o d - l i k e a t t r i b u t e s on man, i m m o r t a l i t y e x -

137 De P r o v. 1 . 6 ; De C o n s t a n t . 8 . 2 ; Ep. Mor. 5 3 .11138 E p . Mor. 1 2 4 .1 4139 De B en . 7 . 1 . 7





94

l i s t i n g God as d i s t i n c t from m a t t e r, and speak ing of co r p o r ea l

and i n c o r po r e a l s u b s t an ces , would form a s p i r i t u a l b a s i s f o r

th e Chr i s t i a n a t t r i b u t e s pred ica ted of God. For Seneca c a l l s

God th e :Master B u i l d e r, and then a l a v i s h b en e fac to r. Man, inp a r t i c u l a r , has r ece iv ed th e h i g h e s t g i f t p o s s i b l e , h i s i n t e l -

l e c t , from God, who then ta1ces up h i s home in man's s o u l , mark-

in g th e good deeds and co r rec t i n g those sou ls t h a t he l o v es .

To o f f s e t these s p i r i t u a l and C h r i s t i a n fundaments o f God comes

th e as tounding r e v e l a t i o n t h a t God j_s t:e1e f i r s t cause and so i s

p u r e ly co r p o r ea l s i nc e Cause f o r Seneca i s a c t ive and so i s mrle

up of m a t t e r. Going hand i n hand vii t h t h i s exp lana t ion i s the

b e l i e f t h a t God i s parens n o s t e r when we understru1d t h a t parens

n o s t e r i s l i k ew i s e th e world i t s e l f . In f a c t , we too a re deus

and m a t e r i a because the wor ld i s an ~ quid , o f w'-,_ich we a re

a l l members, though broue;ht f o r th i n var ious forms . . t! ' inally,

God r e s i d e s in man as h i s s o u l . This s o u l , however, c a l l e d th e

s p i r i t u s hominis, i s s t i l l nothing more than mat t e r, even :Lf i t

i s in a r a r i f i e d s t a t e .

These a re th e two p i c t u r e s p laced b e f o r e u s . I t would

be d i f f i c u l t to form any conclus ion on th e b a s i s of t h i s t r e a t -

ment of deus a l one , b u t , when these exp lana t ions are weighed in

view of Seneca ' s t each ings on F a t e , Nature , and Por tune , and in

the l i g h t of h i s whole p h i l o soph i c a l background, a d e f i n i t e

answer i s made p o s s i b l e . n1e fo l lowing ch ap te r w i l l determine

whether the s p i r i t u a l or th e m a t e r i a l i s th e c o r r e c t concept ion



95

o f t h e d e i t y by s e e i n g which i s t 'ne more c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e

o t h e r t h r e e t e r n s Se n e c a u s e d as synomyms f o r d e u s , and by

d e c i d i n g which i s t h e more c o n s i s t e n t w i t h 0eneca 1 s p h i l o s o p h i -

c a l b a c k g r o u n d and h i s o t h e r p h i l o s o p h i c a l b e l i e f s .



CHAPTER V

DECISION RENDERED

After the cons idera t ion of Seneca 's use o f deus in th e

preceding chapter one can unders tand why i t i s poss ib le to con-

fuse the na tu re of the d i v i n i t y. However, because of th e i n -

v es t i g a t i o n made prev ious ly i n to Seneca ' s ph i losoph ica l back-

ground and i n t o the terms used synonymously with ~ ~ we can

be c e r t a i n t h a t we have discovered th e meaning Seneca in tended

fo r God when we say ~ i s no th ing more than the ma te r i a l u n i -

verse i t s e l f . Seneca ' s phi losophy, t h e re fo re , must be c a l l e d

m a t e r i a l i s t i c and p a n t h e i s t i c . In r e a l i t y , t h en , Seneca, d i f -

f e r s i n no way from the Sto ics t h a t preceded him. By giving ab r i e f r d s u m ~of th e ba s i c e t h i c a l and metaphysical concepts a t

s t ak e , and by recons ider ing the terms Fa te , Natu re , Fortune ,

and God in t h e i r connection with Seneca ' s ph i losoph ica l back-

ground, the correc tness of t h i s dec i s ion w i l l become apparen t .

As th e l a s t chapter s t a t e d , the bas ic meaning o f the

word deus cannot be reached by knowing th e usage of t h a t s o l i -

t a ry word. However, from t h a t word alone one can s t a r t the

an a ly s i s i n to the m a t e r i a l i t y or s p i r i t u a l i t y of God's n a t u re .

Fo r, i n s p i t e o f th e i nc ons i s t e n t wording in applying th e term

deus, Seneca d id leave a c lu e to th e ul t ima te n a tu re of God.



97

I f one w i l l o n l y r ev i ew t h e a n a l y s i s o f d e u s , ':le w i l l f i n d t h a t

when God i s pe r fo rming some a c t i o n t h e s p i r i t u a l s i d e o f h i s

n a t u r e i s more i n f o c u s . God c r e a t e s , p r e s e r v e s , a s s i s t s , c o r -

r e c t s , and l o v e s a l l h i s c r e a t u r e s . By t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s t h e

p i c t u r e o f a p e r s o n a l i z e d and r a t i o n a l i z e d God i s g i v e n t o u s .

On t h e o t h e r h a n d , when Se n e c a u s e s more b a s i c c o n c e p t s we h ave

s t r o n g e r a rgumen ts f o r t h e m a t e r i a l i t y o f God. F o r on ly ma-

t e r i a l t h i n g s e x i s t , t h e wo r l d i s our F a t h e r and i s God, and

t h e u n i v e r s e i s t h e whole o f which e v e r y t h i n g e l s e i s o u t a

p a r t .

Even. i f we h a d n o t s a i d d e f i n i t e l y as y e t what God i s ,

we c o u l d t e n t a t i v e l y draw c e r t a i n c o n c l u s i o n s f rom t h e f o r e g o i n g

p a r a g r a n h . F o r t h e s p i r i t u a l a s p e c t o f God r e s u l t s f rom t h e

o p e r a t i o n s o f God. The q u o t a t i o n s t ' a emse lves show t h a t i n t h i s

a c t i v i t y God j_s c o n s i d e r e d f rom an e t h i c a l s t a n d p o i n t . However,

i n t h e f i e l d o f m e t a p h y s i c s we n o t i c e t h e m a t e r i a l i t y o f G o d ' s

e s s e n c e . F o r we remember t h a t on ly c o r p o r e a l thinR:s e x i s t and

t h a t God i s t h e u n i v e r s e which d i f f u s e s i t s e l f i n t o many d i f -

f e r e n t s h a p e s and a c t i v i t i e s . I t i s a t j u s t t h i s v e r y p o i n t

t h a t th e i n c o n s i s t e n c y o f Seneca r e g a r d i n g th e d e i t y showsi t -

s e l f i n b o l d e s t o u t l i n e . H is e t h i c a l t r e a t m e n t o f God c o n t r a -

d i c t s t ~ 1 e p h y s i c a l and m e t a p h y s i c a l c o n c e p t o f t h e same d e i t y .

S i n c e t h e f i e l d o f e t h i c s p r e s u p p o s e s t h e s t u d y o f m e t a p h y s i c s ,

we c a n presume , on t h i s c o u n t , t h a t S eneca h e l d t h e m a t e r i a l i t y

o f a l l t h i n g s , i n c l u d i n g God.



98

By r e c o n s i d e r i n g F a t e , N a t u r e , and ~ o r t u n ewe d i s c o v e r

t h a t t h e r e i s n o t h i n g which i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s m a t e r i a l

v iew o f God's e s s e n c e , b u t t h a t t h e r e i s n o t h i n g t o f a v o r any

C h r i s t i a n i z e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s e w ords . We~ > . a v e

s e e n t h a t

F a t e i s c a l l e d t h e f i r s t c a u s e and t h e c h a i n o f c a u s e s t h a t

f l o w s f rom i t i n a s e r i e s o f unchangeab le e v e n t s . S i n c e t h e

f i r s t c a u s e f o r Se n e c a i s t-r1e c a u s a e f f i c i e n s , a n d , s i n c e w h a t

e v e r a c t s i s m a t e r i a l , t h i s f i r s t c a u s e i s a l s o m a t e r i a l . Na

t u r e , a g a i n , i s t a k e n u n d e r a doub le a s p e c t o f m a t e r i a l i t y . I t

i s meant t o s i g n i f y , f i r s t o f a l l , t:ne p h y s i c a l u n i v e r s e as a

l i f e - g i v i : r 1 g p r i n c i p l e and t h e n as t h e u n i v e r s e i t s e l f i n i t s

p h y s i c a l makeup. S e c o n d l y, N atu re s t a n d s f o r an i n d i v i d u a l

man ' s human n a t u r e as i t e x i s t s a f t e r j_ t s f o r m a t i o n by t h i s

l i f e - g i v i n g p r i n c i p l e . S t n c e , i n t h i s l i g h t , man ' s n a t u r e i s

j u s t an e f f l u x o r a m a n i f e s t a t i o n o f N a t u r e i n i t s b r o a d e r a s

p e c t , i t to o i s j u s t as m a t e r i a l as t h e s o u r c e o f i t s e x i s t e n c e

B e s i d e s , t h e u n i v e r s e can o n l y b e c o r p o r e a l b e c a u s e i t i s t h e

u l t i m a t e p r i n c i p l e o f e x i s t e n c e , endowed wl.th a c t i v i t y . As

su ch t h e u n i v e r s e must f o l l o w S e n e c a ' s p remise t h a t " q u i d q u i d

f a c i t , co rpus e s t . n l

The prob lem o f g i v i n g i n t r i n s i c meanings t o F o r t u n e a l

most d e f i e s s o l u t i o n . However, s i n c e t h e r e f e r e n c e s t o ~ o r t u

o c c u r mos t freq;_J_ently i n p a s s a g e s compla in ing o f t h e l o s s o f

m a t e r i a l p o s s e s s i o n s , t h e most common concep t f o r l t ,ortune i s

1 Ep. Mar. 117 .2



99

noth ing more than the ebb and flow o f weal th and world ly goods.

Whether Seneca meant anyth ing e l se wr1en speaking of Fortune no

one apparen t ly has ventured to say. Few w i l l go even as f a r as

Arnold does when he says Fortune "has no ex is tence in the absol u t e sense o f . t h e term. But i n p r a c t i c a l l i f e , and from th e

l i m i t ed po in t o f view o f th e i nd iv idua l concerned, fo r tune i s

everywhere met with ." 2 Moreover, j u s t how t h i s term a s s i s t s in

the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of th e d e i t y i s no t a t a l l as c e r t a i n as the

o ther terms app l ied by Seneca to th e Supreme Being . Yet ,

Seneca obviously saw some connect ion between For tune and God,

f o r , othe rwise , how could he make t he s t a t ement : t tsic nunc n a -

turam voca fatum fortunam; omnia ejusdem d e l nomina sunt v a r i e

u t e n t i s sua po te s t a t e "? 3 In some sense t h i s quo ta t ion mj_ght

be const rued to s ign i fy the mat e r i a l un iverse i n s o fa r as the

th ings acqui red and l o s t a re a l l mat e r i a l possess ions and p a r tof the un ive r se . I f the un iverse i s ano the r name fo r God, then

the inc rease or l o s s of o n e ' s possessions could more p o e t i c a l l y

be ca l l ed the favor o r onslaught o f For tune . Moreover, t h i s

argument i s in l i n e with the genera l usage of For tune , which

impl ies harshness , l ack of f e e l i n g , uneas iness , i n s e c u r i t y, and

e v i l . These i deas c e r t a i n l y c on t r a d ic t the e t h i c a l concept of

God proposed by Seneca, f o r t h a t de i ty i s to be l o v in g , guid ing ,

and prov iden t . Nor can he harm anyone s ince he i s a l l -good .4

2 Arnold , 2093 De Ben. 4 • 8 • 34 Ep. Mor. 75.17



100

These no tes o f fo reboding ascr ibed by Seneca to For tune , how

ewer, would st.J.i t an un th ink ing and u n r e e l i ng un iver se tr1at ~ i v e

no c a r e to th e i n d iv id u a l creatv.res in i t s domain. I t was t h i s

l ack o fi n d i v i ~ . a l

a t t e n t i o n t h a t l e d Arnold to c a l l For tune" t h e absence of' both tendency and purpose , which r e s u l t s j_n a

co n s t an t sh i f ' t l n s and f r o 11 5 of' one ' s m a t e r i a l p o s s e s s io n s .

In anothe-e sense Seneca looks upon For tune as th e u n

p red i c t ab l e f o r ce g iv in g , o r , more e spe c ia l ly, . t ak ing away one 's

world ly posse s s i ons . We h e a r no th ing more about t h i s f o r ce tol e a r n i t s n a t u r e , b u t s i nc e f 'or ;::>eneca any name implying f 'orce

i n d i c a t e s God, and s ince F'ortune i s a fo rce , then on t h i s sco re

a l so Por tune can be c a l l e d God. Then we must r e s o r t to the

prime p r i n c i p l e of a l l Seneca ' s phys ics t h a t whatever a c t s , or

e xe r t s fo rce , i s comprised of' m a t t e r. This again would show

Seneca ' s idea of For tune was i n t ima te ly l i n k ed with th e not ion

of' m a t e r i a l i t y.

~ o r e l i k e l y than no t Seneca had a conf 'used i dea of' bo th

t h e s e views i n h is mind when he spoke of For tune . At one t ime

th e idea of' f o r ce was more p rev a l en t ; a t another th e sh i f ' t of'

m a t e r i a l t h i n g s , as a ff e c t e d by f 'orce, r ece iv ed g r e a t e r s t r e s s .

\Vhatever view i s adopted , e i t h e r one i s consonant wi th th e ma

t e r i a l i s t i c and p a n t h e i s t i c s t r u c t u r e of th e u n iv e r s e . In no

way, however, i s i t poss i b l e t o a d j u s t Por tune to th e s p i r i t u a l

5 Arnold , 199





102

which p l a c e d many gods f a r f rom rnen i n t h e i n t e r m u n d i a and

wnich t r i e d t o e x p l a i n away a l l n e c e s s i t y o f g o d s , Se n e c a

b r o u g h t h i s Go d c l o s e t o men and a t t e m p t e d t o make him a power-

f u l f o r c e i n men ' s l i v e s .

I t i s t o t b e S e x t i a n and S t o i c d o c t r i n e s t h a t a marked

p a r a l l e l can b e seen i n S e n e c a ' s t e a c h i n g s . In f a c t , t h e ana ly

s i s o f C h a p t e r F our r e s o l v e s i t s e l f i n t o t h e S t o i c d o c t r i n e s,,,

l i s t e d i n C h a p t e r ~ w o . In t h e e a r l i e r c h a p t e r S t o i c i s m was

found t o b e m a t e r i a l i s m an d panthe ism combined i n t o o n e . S e n e

l i k e w i s e , must f a l l i n t o t ~ i s c a t e g o r y b e c a u s e h e t o o e x p r e s s e s

t h e s&>me s e n t i m e n t s an d o p i n i o n s o f th e e a r l y S t o i c s .

The S t o i c s r e f u s e d t o d i v o r c e , o r even t o d i s t i n e ; u i s h , mindand m a t t e r , o r t o e x a l t t h e s o u l by oppos in r ; i t t o t h e b o d y.Hence t h e y a s s e r t e d t h a t n o t h i n g e x i s t s which i s n o t c o r n o r e a lo r m a t e r i a l , t h o u g h t ' ' ley immed ia t e ly q u a l i f i e d t h i s s t a t e m e n tb y m a i n t a i n i n g t h a t t h e r e i s n o t h i n g c o r p o r e a l ~ 1 i c hi s p a s s i v e

o r i n e r t and t h a t a l l a c t i v i t y i m n l i e s a LOGOS o r s p i r i t u a lp r i n c i p l e . The a : J s o l u t e an tagon i sm o f a p u r e l y a c t i v e form anda p u r e l y p a s s i v e , which i s t·ne crux o f t h e A r i s t o t e l i a n p h i l o -s o p h y, i s t h u s s e t a s i d e ; and i n i t s p l a c e we h a v e t h e r e l a t i v eo p p o s i t i o n o f two e l e m e n t s , b o t h o f which a?.>e r e g a r d e d ashav:lng u l t i m a t e l y t h e same n a t u r e and o r i g l n and b o t h o f wh:lcha r e v ie w e d as i n one a s p e c t , m a t e r i a l and i n a n o t h e r s p i r i t u a

T h is i s a compendium o f t h e e a r l y S t o i c s and i s a l s o a

c o n d e n s e d e d i t i o n o f t'-le d o c t r i n e s o f 0 e n e c a . Fo r b o t h Zeno

and Se n e c a admi t t h a t t 1J.e o n l y r e a l i t y i s c o r p o r e a l i t y , which

i s e v e r y t h i n g t h a t a c t s o r i s a c t e d upon s i n c e t h i s i s t h e

p r i m a r y n o t e o f r e a l i t y . An d t h i s c o r p o r e a l i t y o r m a t t e r i s

a l s o p o s s e s s e d o f r a t i o t o e x p l a i n t h e o r d e r i n t h e u n i v e r s e .

7 C a i r d , 86



103

Nei the r the e a r ly S to i c s nor Seneca saw, or ca red to see , th e

p a t en t c on t r a d ic t ion between r a t i o , a s p i r i t u a l f a c u l t y, and

mat te r as th e so le ex i s t i n g r e a l i t y . That i s why Seneca can in

an emotional moment c a l l God a "sace r i n t r a nos s p i r i t u s " 8 and

l a t e r in calm r eason ing wri te "unus omnium narens mundus e s t . ' ' 9

"This f a c t t h a t th e p r imi t i v e mat te r i s c ha r a c t e r i z e d by reason

an d a c t i v i t y depr ives the S to ic mater ia l i sm of what would o t h e r-

wise be a banefu l i n f lue nc e , and expla ins how the Sto i c e th i c s

and a l so th e S t o i c a l theology should be so h igh ly s p i r i t · u a l i s t i c

as they unquest ionably are . t t lO Ye t , t h i s p r i n c i p l e does not

f r ee Stoic ism and Seneca from an i d e n t i c a l cont rad ic tory note

in t h e i r t each ing , al though i t does e s t a b l i s h th e ex is tence of

a c lose ly k n i t a l l i a n c e between th e author and t he school .

F i n a l l y, i t has been poin ted out t h a t both th e Sto i c s

and Seneca hold the ul t ima te i d e n t i t y o f God with the world,

and say t h a t any name denot ing God i s merely ano ther aspec t of

th e power-laden mat te r which comprises the un ive r se . For, Se

neca and before him "Zeno t augh t t h a t God i s Body, but i t was

no t a dead s t u f f which co n s t i t u t ed the world . The th ing which

Zeno was concerned above o thers to aff i rm was t h a t t h i s s t u f f was

ac t u a l l y Reason. The universe i s a l i v i n g b e i n g . n l l These two

no tes p o in t out a t once th e dynamist ic m a t e r i a l i t y of th e d e i t y.

8 Ep. M o r ~41.29 De Ben. 3 .28 .210 Davidson, 9311 Bevan, 42



104

Thus upon a c lo s e r a na l y s i s t h e c o n f l i c t between th e

m a t e r i a l i s t i c and i d e a l i s t i c concept ion of God d i sa p pe a r s . G o

acco rd ing to Seneca, i s only r e a l when he has a m a t e r i a l fo rm.

There fo re , even when he i s c a l l e d animus or r a t i o , these names

do n o t exc lude bu t rat i . ler uresuppose t h a t these concepts have

bo d i e s . Seneca , i n o th e r words, i s only fo l lowing th e t en e t s

of Sto ic ism 'llfhen he pronounces i t i n d i f f e r e n t whether God i s

regarded as fatum or divinus s p i r i t u s . 12 Nor i s i t a s u r p r i s e

a f t e r t h i s to unders tand t h a t ::::eneca i s c a l l e d a S t o i c . F o r,

al though he uses Pythagoras and Ep:i.curus as a u t h o r i t i e s to pres

home s i n g l e t r u t h s , y e t he boas t s i n over twenty passap;es t h a t

he h im s e l f should be l a be l l e d a St o i c • 13 l''rom t h i s evidence i t

could be presumed qu i t e l o g i c a l l y t h a t Seneca, who p r i z e d t h e

na._rne of St o i c to t h a t e x t e n t , would be a d i s c i p l e of t"1is

schoo l in such a b a s i c m at t e r as th e u l t i m a t e na ture of th e

u n iv e r s e and of God.

In fo l lowing t h i s St o i c school Seneca has made i t c l e a r

t h a t u l t i m a t e l y t h e r e i s no d i ff e ren ce between God and pr imary

m a t t e r ; bo th a re one and th e same s u b s t an ce . )Vhen regarded as

th e u n i v e r s a l subs t ra tum, i t i s known as j u s t m a t t e r, bu t when

cons ide red as ac t i n g fo rce , i s c a l l e ~s p i r i t u s , n a tu ra , animus,

r a t i o , f a tum, and deus . Nor are :matter and fo rce d i s t i n c t

essences . Ac tua l ly fo rce i s i n h e r en t i n ma t t e r. The f o r c e i s

12 Ad H e l v. 8 .313 Confer the appendix fo r an e l a bo r a t i on of t i l l s po in t



105

something mater i a l , i s i d e n t i c a l with m a t t e r. Thus, the d i f -

fe rence mentioned in Chapter Four between e f f i c i e n t cause and

ma te r i a l cause(God and mat te r ) i s no more than th e d i ff e r en ce

between s p i r i t u s and i t s elements , which i s no d i ff e r en ce a t

a l l . For, both S to ic s and s.eneca mainta in t h a t every p a r t i c u l a r

element has in process of t ime developed from primary f i r e , or

God, and to God i t w i l l r e t u rn a t th e end o f every per iod of

th e world . I t i s in t h i s sense t ha t Seneca a sc r ibe s the name

of Hercules to God "quia v i s ejus i n v i c t a s i t quandoque l a s s a t a

f u e r i t oper ibus e d i t i s , in ignem recessura . t t l4 But, t ak ing the

d e i t y in i t s f u l l meaning, we have primary mat t e r, as wel l as

primary f o r c e . The sum t o t a l of a l l t h a t i s r e a l i s the d iv ine

Brea th , moving f o r t h from i t s e l f and r e tu r n ing to i t s e l f ag a in .

ttDeus i n e x t e r i o r a quidem t e n d i t , sed tamen in t rorsum undique

in se r e o i t .11

15 There fore , th e de i ty i tsel . t ' i s the primary

f i r e , th e pr imal substance changing i n to v a r io u s i nd iv idua l

eler11ents, and then back i n to i t s e l f . 'vVhen viewed in i t s e l f ,

th e primary m a t e r i a l fo rce i s th e whole of th e d e i t y. However,

the th ings in to which t h i s primary substance has changed a re

only i n d i r e c t l y d iv ine and possessed of d e i t y. S t i l l , in a very

t rue sense any p a r t of the world may have d i v i n i t y pred ica ted

of i t . What i s n o t immediately div ine i s a manifes ta t ion of

the o r i g i n a l mat t e r. Then, when everything r ever t s to the d i

v ine ma te r i a l u n i t y, t h e re i s no longer any d i s t i n c t i o n between

what was o r i g i n a l l y d iv ine and what was a p a r t o r a manifes-

14 De ~ e n . 4.8.115 De v. B. 8 .4





107

g iv en a s p i r i t u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; h o w e v e r, rtyou canno t h ave

e t h i c a l d o c t r i n e w i t h o u t a b a s i s o f D h y s i c a l and m e t a p h y s i c a l

d o c t r i n e . Yo u can have no r u l e o f conduc t wi tholJ. t some v iew o f

t h e u n i v e r s e w here in t h e a c t i o n i s t o t a k e p l a c e . n17

Thus , God

u s e d as a :mo t iva t ion f o r a good m o r a l l i f e and c o n s i d e r e d i n

h i s r e l a t i o n s t o men r e semb le s th e God t h e C h r i s t i a n s a d o r e d .

Ye t , :more b a s i c a l l y i n th e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e p h y s i c a l u n i v e r s e

Seneca s t a t e s h i s b e l i e f i n t h e e x i s t e n c e o f m a t t e r a l o n e .

N o t h i n g , n o t even God, i s e x c l u d e d f rom t h i s p o s t u l a t e .

(2) l ' ' a t e , N a t u r e , and F o r t u n e , t h e synomyms f o r God,

can a l l b e c o n s t r u e d as p a r t s o r a s p e c t s o r s p e c i a l phase s o f

t· ' le m a t e r i a l u n i v e r s e , b u t canno t make s e n s e i f t::1ey a r e t o b e

endowed w l t h a s p i r i t u a l m e a n in g .

(3) Al thouc;h S e n e c a ' s p h i l o s o p h i c a l bacl<:ground was

v a r i e d , t h e r e i s a d i s t i n c t r e semb lance b e tw e e n ~ i s words on

t h e d e i t y and t h o s e spoken by · the members o f t h e S t o i c s c h o o l .

And, s i n c e t h e S t o i c s ar>e commonly known t o b e m a t e r i a l l s t s

and p a n t h e i s t s , thoup-,h i n ~ e n e c a ' st ime t h e pan the i sm o f t h e

S t o i c s d i d a d o p t a more p e r s o n a l i z e d c o n c e p t o f t h e u n i v e r s e

and spoke o f Go d as C r e a t o r , F a t h e r , and G uard ian , so ~ e n e c a

words c a n b e g i v e n a no more e l e v a t e d mean ing t h a n t h e p a n -

t he i sm t h e y copy.

(4 ) The append ix l i s t s more t h a n tw en ty r e f e r e n c e s t o

S e n e c a ' s p r o f e s s i o n o f S t o i c i s m . From t h i s a d m i s s i o n we m ig h t

17 Bevan , 3 1



108

presume t h a t on such a l a r g e j_ssue as t h e meaning o f God h e

would a g r e e w i t ~ t h e s c h o o l w i t h ~ h i c hhe i n d i c a t e s h e i s a f -

f i l i a t e d . Of c o u r s e , t h i s argument t a k e n by i t s e l f cou ld p ro v e

n o t h i n g , b u t i t h e l p s t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e c o n c l u s i o n s a l r e a d y

r e a c h e d i n t h e f i r s t t h r e e a rg u me n t s .

S i n c e a l l t h e e v i d e n c e p roposed i n d i c a t e s t"nat Seneca

c a l l e d h i m s e l f a S t o i c , t h a t h i s t e a c h i n g s h a v e a m a t e r i a l i s t i c

c o r e , and t h a t h i s words i n a l l e s s e n t i a l s ru n p a r a l l e l w i t h

t h e S t o i c concep t o f God, we c a n , t h e r e f o r e , c l a s s i f y Seneca

as a t r u e S t o i c and d i s c r e d i t any s p i r i t u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f

h i s w ords . No m a t t e r how C h r i s t i a n h i s words may sound upon

o c c a s i o n , t h e y s t i l l r e t a i n t h e u l t i m a t e mate r j_a l i sm and p a n -

t he i sm o f t h e S t o i c p h i l o s o p h e r s . F o r t h e b a s i c e x p l a n a t i o n

o f t h e wo r l d f o r Seneca n e v e r t r a n s c e n d s s h e e r m a t e r i a l i t y .

B e a u t i f u l and s t i r r i n g though t h e y may b e , t h e words o f Seneca

i n t h e l a s t a n a l y s i s mean no more t h a n t h e more d i r e c t a r g u -

ments g i v e n 6eno t o h i s f o l l o w e r s c e n t u r i e s b e f o r e . Seneca

may h a v e t h e e n t h u s i a s m o f S t . P a u l and h e may p a r a l l e l t h e

words o f S c r i p t u r e , b u t h e s t i l l r ema ins S eneca t h e m a t e r i a l i s t

and p a n t h e i s t . . An d h i s d e i t y w i l l n e v e r b e a n y t h i n g more t h a n

t h e wide sweep o f t h e m a t e r i a l u n i v e r s e . Even though c l a s s i c a l

s t u d e n t s o f e v e r y c e n t u r y c e a s e n o t t o wonder how such e l e v a t e d

l a n g u a g e cou ld f low f rom a mind s t e e p e d i n S t o i c i s m and a r e

drawn t o f i n d t h e s o l u t i o n t o a p p a r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n s and i n -

c o n s i s t e n c y, t h e answer w i l l always b e f o u n d t o b e t h e same.

God i s t h e Un i v e r s e and t h e Un i v e r s e i s God.



109

B ffiLIOGRAJ;"rlY

Anthon , C h a r l e s , The S a t i r e s o f J u v e n a l and P e r s i u s , New York ,Harpe r a n Q B r o s . , 1 8 7 9 .

Ar n o l d , E . Vernon,Roman S t o i c i s m ,

Cambr idge , Cambridge U n i v e r-s i t y P r e s s , 1911.

B a s o r e , John W., ed . and t r a n s l . , Seneca , Moral E s s a y s , London,Wil l i am Heinemann, 1928 , 3 v o 1 s .

Bevan , Edwyn, S t o i c s and S c e p t i c s , O xfo rd , Cl a r e n d o n P r e s s ,1913 . -

C a i r d , · Edward, 'l'he h'volu t i o n of Theology i n t h e Greek P h i l o -s o p h e r s , Glasgow, James MacLehose and S o n s , l 9 0 4 , 2 vals

Ca p e s , Wil l ia ra W ., C h i e f An c i e n t P h i l o s o p h i e s , Sto i .c i sm, NewYork , P o t t , Young and C o . , 1880 .

C a r y, E . , e d . and t r a n s l . , Dio C a s s i u s : Roman H i s t o r y , London,Wil l i am Heinemann, n . d . , 9 v o l s .

C r u t t w e l l , C h a r l e s T . , A FLis to r t o f B.oman L i t e r a t u r e , London,Chas . G r i f f i n and C o . , 8 7 7 .

D av idson , Vifilliam L . , The S t o i c Creed , Edinb"llrgh, T. C l a r k ,

1907 . -

D: t l l , Samue l , Roman Soc·i e t y From Nero to Marcus A u r e l i u s , Lon-don , :t-.·lacmillan and co:-;-1"'9"m'J.'

Duff , J . Wight , A L i t e r a r y H is o r ~ y _o f l - ~ o m ei n t h e S i l v e r Age,New York , Chas S c r i b n e r ' s : : : > o n s ~ 3 5 .

F a r r a r , F r e d e r i c W ., S e e k e r s A f t e r God, New York , A.L . B u r t Co.n . d .

F o w l e r, W. Vv'arde, The Helip : ious Expe r i ence o f t h e Homan P e o p l eLondon, :Macmillan and C o . , 1933 . - - -G r e n i e r , A l b e r t , The Roman S p i r i t , New York , A l f r e d A. Knopf ,

1 9 2 6 . -

Gummere, h i c h a r d M . , e d . and t r a n s l . , .Seneca: E p i s t u l a e Mor-a l e s , London, \ , i l l i a m Heinemann , 1 9 3 4 , 3 v o l s . - -

Haase , F r i d e r i c u s , e d . , Annae i S e n e c a e Opera , L e i p z i g , B.G.Teubne r, 1887 , 2 v o l s . ·





111

APPENDIX

SECTION A

FATE

DE PROVIDENTIA5 .6 F a t e i s t h e s e t law o f t ~ l i n g s .

5 .8 We a r e swep t a long by F a t e5 .8 F a t e i s i n e x o r a b l e ; even God i s r u l e d by F a t e .

21.6

11 . 1

1 .4

4 .111 . 1

11 .3

15 .3

4 . 7 . 2

1 9 .66 3 .1 47 6 .2 377 .12

93.1

91 .15

101.7107.12

AD MARCIAtvr DE C01\ISOLATIONE

The I<,ates go t h e i r w a y and do n o t add o r s u b t r a c tfrom t ~ 1 e promised span o f l i f e .

DE BREVITAr.rE VITAE

Old men t h L ~ : . kt h a t t ~ 1 e yd e c e i v e F a t e j u s t as t h e yd e c e ~ _ v et hemse lves when t h e y b e l i e v e t h e y h ave morey e a r s y e t t o l i v e .

AD POLYBIUM DE CONSOLATIOi\fE

.All m e n h a v e an end- . - Tlns u n i v e r s a l i t y d u l l s t h ec r u e l t y o f F a t e .We c a n n o t change F a t e .I t i s n o t due t o an u n j u s t F a t e t h a t we d i e . We wereo n ly p e r m i t t e d t o l i v e i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e .The ~ a t e st a k e a l l i n d e a t h soone r o r l a t e r .

AD hELVIAM DE CONSOLATIONE

F a t e c o n t r i v e d t h a ~ H e l v i awould n o t be wi th Senecai n e x i l e .

DE BENEPICIISP a t e i s a connec t ed c h a i n o f c a u s e s .

EPISTULAE N10RALES

F a t e i s woven f rom a s u c c e s s i o n o f c a u s e s .F a t e c a r e s n o t h i n g f o r a g e . I t j u s t t a k e s men o f f .A good ma n p a t i e n t l y a c c e p t s F a t e .F a t e a r r a n g e d t h e span o f l i f e . Do n o t pray f o rmore d a y s .We r a i l a t F a t e f o r c u t t i n g o f f a ma n ' s l i f e , b u t i t

i s b e t t e r f o r u s t o obey N a t u r e .Be r e c o n c i l e d t o B'ate by which a l l t h i n g s a r e r u l e dand d i s s o l v e d .Our d e a t h i s s e t by r e m o r s e l e s s P a t e .The g r e a t s o u l e d man i s one wh o g ives h i m s e l f ove rt o P a t e .





- 1 .1

12 .4

1 . 11 .4

4 .3

10 .4 -611 .115 .3

5 .16 .810 .11

1 . 1 . 112 . 2 9 . 3

4 . 1 2 . 5

6 . 2 3 . 6

16 .822.15

30 .1141 .8

45 .9

55 .166 .1

6 6 .3 97 8 .7

90.1690.4493.2

93 .8

1 13

DE BnEVITATE VITAESome say Nature i s s p i t e f u l i n g i v i ng a s h o r t spanof l i f e .They waste t ime and t w i s t Nature who s ing or hum t h e i rwor th less t u n es .

ADPOLYBIUM DE CONSOLA'l'IONENature b r i ngs a l l t h ings by h e r laws t o d e s t r u c t i o n .

Death or th e end comes to a l l by th e law of Natu re .This u n i v e r s a l i t y d u l l s th e c r u e l t y of t h i s F a t e .Nature has decreed a l i f e of sor row; man ' s f i r s t a c ta t b i r t h i s to c r y.Nature gives l o an s , n o t possess i .ons( for a l l must d ie )No one i s exempt from Natu re ' s law of d ea th .Nature de s t i ne d Augustus f o r heaven , out n o t even heescaped sorrow.

AD HELVIAIVIDE CO]SOLA'l'IONENature in tended t h a t we need l i t t l e f o r h a p p i n e s s .

'I'he law of Nature governs raovement of th e p l a n e t s .Nothing s a t i s f i e s greed ; very l i t t l e s a t i s f i e s N a t u

DE BENEFICIISNature b e g e t s p r o g e n y.Nature does n o t s u f f e r c e r t a i n q u a l i t i e s in sameperson ; so people compla ln .The heavens f u l f i l l t h e i r o f f i c e i n t h e f i x ed ordero f Natu re .

Nature c rea t ed man and gave him g r e a t p r i v i l e g e s .

EPISTULAE ~ : W H A L E S

Natu re ' s wants a re s l i g h t ; so fol low Natu re .I t i s n o t Natu re ' s f a u l t t h a t we a re worse when wed ie than when we were b o r n .Nature wishes h e r laws to be o u rs .Man's h i g h e s t good i s achieved by l i v i n g to h is own

N a t u r e ( r a t i o n a l ) .He i s happy who conforms h i m se l f to th e laws o fN atu r e .

Nature gave us Ollr l egs and ey es .Nature ac ted u n f a i r l y i n g iv ing Claranus such a poorbody fo r such a g i f t e d s o u l .Heason i s copying N atu r e .Nature c ons t r uc t e d us so t h a t pain i s endurab le o r is h o r t .Nature equ'Lpped us fo r vi'r1.'atever she enforced on u s .Nature does no t g ive v i r t u e ; i t i s an a r t to be go.odI t i s f a i r e r fo r us to obey Nature than i t i s whenth e Fates t ake o f f a young man in dea th .We a r e Na t u r e ' s c r e d i t o r s f o r having l i v e d .



93 . 9

94 .56

98 .141 0 4 . 22

1 0 7 . 8

11 0 .1 0

11 6 . 311 7 .2 3

11 7 .3 2

119. '3

1 2 0 . 4122 . 51 2 2 . 1 9

6 .6

114

EPISTULAE TvtORALESWe k2:1ow N a t n r e l s b e g i n r n n g s : how she o r d e r s th e courseo f t h e h e a v e n s , c h a n g e s , and b r i n g s t o an en d . Shei s t h e end o f h e r own e x i s t e n c e .N a t u r e n roduced u s i n h e a l t h and f reedom; sh e e l e v a t eou r gaze t o t h e s k i e s , n o t t o o b j e c t s o f g r e e d .

VI/hen one s t r a y s f rom N a t u r e , h e i s a s l a v e t o c h a n c e .N a t u r e h a s g i v e n ·us a brave sp i_ r i t t o combat a l lt h i n g s .Natu re mo d e r a t e s th e w o r l d b y changi .ng t h e s e a s o n sand t h e w e a t h e r .We b r i n g f o r t h gOld and s i l v e r o u t o f t h e e a r t h c o nt r a r y t o N a t u r e and t hus g e t t h e m a t e r i a l f o r o u rd e s t r u c t - t o n .1 ~ a t u r egave u s an i n t e r e s t i n o u r w e l l - b e i n g .S e l e c t any p a r t o f N a t u r e a s a means o f d e a t h . Thesemeans a r e t o be f o u n d i n t h e e l e m e n t s .

Na t u r e h a s n o t p;iven u s so much t l me t h a t we canw as te i t .

Natu re wants on ly h e r d u e , n o t h i n g m o r e ; b r e a d canb e c o a r s e o r f i n e , e t c .N a t u r e g i v e s u s n o t knowledge , b u t s e e d s o f knowledgeA l l v i c e s a r e a r e b e l l i o n a g a i n s t N a t u r e .I f we f o l l o w N a t u r e , a l l i s e a s y ; i f n o t , we rowap ;a ins t t h e c u r r e n t .

SECTION C

FORTUNE

DE PHOVIDENTIA

S co rn P o r t u n e T i t c a n n o t harm y o u .

DE C Oi.!STAN'l'IA

5 . 4 For tune t a J c e s o n l y what sh e !1as g i v e n .5 . 7 P r o p e r t y , e t c . a r e t : d n g s a t J:! 'ortune' s c a l l .8 . 3 F'or tune a lways ou tma tched by v i r t u e .8 . 3 Man can b e a r i n j u r i e s o f men, i f h e can b e a r t h o s e

o f F o r t u n e .1 5 . 315 . 5

3 . 6 . 5

3 . 2 5 . 4

F o r t u n e conque r s u s , u n l e s s we conque r h e r .F o r t u n e ha s no p l a c e i n a p o o r ( w i s e ) man ' s h o u s e .

DE IRA

For tune i s n o t s o - s u b m i s s i v e t o anyone t ~ a t sh e a lways r e s p o n d s .F o r t u n e c a n n o t harm h im wh o i s s e r e n e i n m in d .



1 . 1 . 22 . 6 . 3

1 . 1

5 .610 .315 .1

16 .820.2

26 .6

4 .515 .3

20 .3

25.5

5 .7

4 .2

4 .68 .3

8 . 9

9 .210 .310 .6

11 . 1

1 3 . 2

5 .39 .1

DE CLEMEHT IAFor tune procla ims gif t t s f o r human be i ngs .The w:tse man w i l l par ry F o r t u n e ' s s t r o k e s .

AD MARC IAM DE C N S D L A T I O i ' ~ E

115

We cannot a c qu i t Por tune o f Marc ia ' s compla in t o f

tak ing away h e r p o s s e s s i o n s ( c h i l d r e n ) .An u n ru ff l ed s p l r i t corrquers For t une .Take what .B'ortune g ives remembering i t i s i n s ecu re .l '1 or tune outrages· th e Caesars a t t im es , showing theyhave l e s s c o n t r o l over themselves than over o t h e r s .For tune i s m er c i f u l to Il/larcia even when i t i s angry.For tune sometimes appor t ions goods u n j u s t l y, b u tdea th l e v e l s a l l t h i n g s .!v1en a re a smal l p a r t of Por tune 1 s domain.

DE VITA BEA'J'A

I nd i f f e r e nc e · to For tune i s th e escape to fre•3dom.'Nhoever fo l lows v i r t u e and p l e a su r e begins t o dependon For tune .Seneca heeds n o t For tune s ince he desp ises r i ch esa l i k e when he has them and vvhen he l acks them.Seneca desp lses the whole domain of For tune .

DE OTIOF'ortune wrecks naught o f what Nature has appo5_nted.

DE TRANQ! IJ.LI'l 1ATE ANIMILe t not man ac t as i f t h e r e i s no p lace w:1ere mancan escape from P o r tu n e .Por tune might remove one from h igh p o s i t i o n .Those wlwm For tune never regarded a re more c h e e r f u lthan those she has f o r s ak en .Reduce your posses s ions so as to be l e s s exposed toth e i n j u r i e s of J: 'ortune.Seek r i c he s w i t h i n y o u r s e l f , n o t from F o r tu n e .A ll a re chained to For tune .Llmi t your advancement in m a t e r i a l r i ch es b e f o r eFor tune can dec ide th e end of t h i s advancement .The wise man never r e t r e a t s from For tune because hehas no th ing t o l o s e .A man of many a f f a i r s puts h im s e l f in For tune 1 s power.

DE BREVITATE VITAENothing i s above him who l S above Por tune .By de1)end:tng on th e morrow and wastinr:r today· onea t tempts to d ispose o f what For tune governs and n o twhat he h imse l f governs .



9 .414 .216 .5

1 8 . 3

5 .4

5 .4

1 7 . 5

2 . 1 6 . 2

2 . 2 8 . 23 . 2 0 . 25 . 2 . 25 . 4 . 2

4 .7

1 5 . 9

1 8 .6

1 8 .73 6 .642 .4

44 .5

5 9 .1 8

63 .771.:30

72.77 4 . 6

7 4 . 1 9

81 . 318 2 .5

8 5 .2 6

AD POLYBIUM D:2 CONSOLATIONEF o r t u n e - r s f i c k l e and s h i f t s i t s f a v o r s .F o r t u n e a f f l i c t s a l l w i t h d e a t h .

116

Nothine; i s s a c r e d t o F o r t u n e . She t ouches a l l w i t hth e hand o f d e a t h .F o r t u n e p r o v i d e s many e;ood t h i n g s .

AD Hb""LVIAlY1 Dn CONSOLATI01'ESeneca n e v e r t r u s t e d F o r t u n e even when i t o f f e r e dpeace : b less inr : r s , ~ n o n e y ,i n f l u e n c e .No one i s c ru sh ed by P o r t u n e who i s n o t f i r s t d ec e i v e d by h e r s m i l e s .Ph i lo sophy a l o n e can save : ; : :elvia f rom th e o n s l a u g h to f } ' o r t u n e .

DE BENEFIC I ISF'ortune r0.ay e;ive y m c i t i e s , b u t do n o t be proud .

F o r t u n e i s v e r y r a r e l y j u d i c i o u s .:F'ortune can buy and s e l l t h e body, b u t n o t ma n ' s m1ndF o r t u n e m o d i f i e s t ~ e i s s u e o f even t h e b e s t p l a n s .F o r t u n e p l a c e s k ings i n t -ne i r h l g h p o s i t i o L s .

EPISTULAE MORALE;:,No man i s so f a r advanced by F o r t u n e t h a t h e i s n o tt h r e a t e n e d a s g r e a t l y as h e has been a i d e d .I t i s n o b l e t o b e c o n t e n t e d and n o t deoenden t onF o r t u n e .When :Fortune i s k i n d , we must f o r t i f y o u r s e l v e sa g a i n s t h e r v i o l e n c e .f:;ecuri t y does n o t depend on F o r t u n e .F o r t u n e h as no j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r c h a r a c t e r .P o r t u n e a l o n e o f t e n keeps c r u e l and ambi t i ous ':1enfrom- a t t e m n t i n s t h e v e r y w o r s t d e e d s .S:he. s o u l alor1e r e n d e r us nob le and r i s e s aboveF o r t u n e .V,'hat l ' 'o r tune h as n o t g i v e n ( p e a c e o f m i n d ) , sh e cann o t t a k e away.F o r t u n e t a k e s away f r i e n d s , b u t sh e a l s o g i v e s t h em.!J.'he wise man overcomes For tune by h i s v i r t u e s .l<1 o r t u n e g i v e s us n o t h i n g we can own.Anyone who deems t"'1ings o t h e r t ~ 1 a nv i r t u e t o b e goodp u t s ~ 1 . i m s e l fi n t h e : 9 0 ! ~ e ro f P o r t u n e . .Th e r e i s no w a l l t h a t 1' o r t u n e can:aot ta1.::e 'J y s to rm; 'so s t . rene; then t h e i n n e r d e f e n c e s o f t h e s o u l .He i s t h e r i c h e s t t o whom } 'o r t u n e gave not-,li.ng.Por tune canno t h u r t one p r o t e c t e d by p h i l o s o p h y • .Shecan o n ly s e i z e one who c l i n g s t o h e r .T:'l.e b r a v e man(wise man) f e a r s n o t d e a t h , b u r n i n g , imp r i s o n m e n t , and o t h e r m i s s i l e s o f F 'o r t u n e . He j u s tt a k e s them as n a r t o f e x i s t e n c e .

...



91 .2

91 .4

92.298 .2

99 .22104.22

110 . 2

1 .6

4 •. 5

4 .75 .9

6 .6

8 .2

1 . 1 . 4

1 . 7 . 2

2 . 1 6 . 32 . 2 6 . 2

2 . 3 0 . 2

1 2 . 4

117

EPISTULAE LORALESF o r t u n e g e n e r a l l y al lovvs men when a s s a i l i n g t 11.em c o ll e c t i v e l y t o have a f o r e b o d ~ _ n go f t ~ 1 . es u f f e r i n g t ocome.

1,'J1lat i s t h e r e t h a t F o r t u n e does n o t d r a g down f romp r o s p e r i t y , t h e more v i o l e n t l y t h e more b r i l l i a n t j_ t

happens t o b e .P e r f e c t r e a s o n a l o n e can s t a n d f i r m a g a i n s t P o r t u n e .F o r tu n e g iv es us n e i t ~ e rgood n o r e v i l , b u t on ly t h eraw m a t e r i a l f o r t h e s e .F o r tu n e l e t s man g o ( t o deatc l ) 'iiVhen she s e e s f i t .

The o n l y s a f e h a r b o r i s a r e a d i n e s s t o r e c e i v e P e rt u n e ' s m i s s i l e s , n e i t h e r s k u l k i n g n o r t u r n i n g bacl{.Are we u n d e r g u a r d i a n s h i p o f t··1e ?,ods or cons ignedt o .Por tune?

SECTION D

GOD

DE PROVIDENTIAA t i e o f l i k e n e s s e x i s t s be tween God and man. Theon ly d i f f e r e n c e l s one o f t i m e . \';ian i s g o d ' s o f fs p r i n g ; God t e s t s a good man.God f a v o r s t h o s e w'wm h e g i v e s a chance t o do t h ecourageous and t h e b r a v e d e e d s .God d i s c i p l i n e s t h o s e whom he l o v e s .v ~ 1 1 . a t e v e ro r d a i n s u s t o l i v e and d i e a l s o bin.ds t h eg o d s . C r e a t o r o f t h e wo r l d made F a t e , y e t h e f o l l o w si t s d e c r e e s .IVlan o u t s t r i p s God i n t h a t he i s s u p e r i o r t o e v i l .God i s j u s t exempt f rom i t .

DE C O:::JSTANTIAThe wi s e man IS llle t n e gods i n a l l s a v e i r rnnorta l i t y .

DE CLB]v;ENTIAI f t h e i m m o r t a l g o d s r e q u i r e a rec lconing from me, I

am r e a d y.Nero i s t o b e ju . s t · and m e r c i f u l as t '1e gods a r e .

DE IHA .Man a l o n e comprehends J-od and i m i t a t e s h i m.The d i v l n e Dlan o p e r a t e s i n t h e l aws o f N a t u r e . Theimmor ta l gods n e i t h e r wish t o n o r a r e a b l e t o h u r t u sYou w a s t e t ime i n p r a y i n g God f o r s o me t h i n g .

AD MARC IAM DE C ONSOLi\TIOHEEven d i v i n i t i e s c a n - p e r i s h i n d e a t h . So s t o r i e s t e l l



19 . 52.5 .1-32 6 .6

1 7 . 1

AD IvlARC I A ~ 2 :DE CONSOLATIONEFortuneca.._rmot holdviThat Nature has l e t go.

118

The sou l appears to be immor ta l . So God i s immorta l .God des t roys t h e e a r t h i n c y c l e s .

AD POLY'Bimii DE CONSOLA'l'IONE

Former g r e a t mena r e

e n r o l l e d as gods . Let us imi t a tthem i n a d v e r s i t y.

AD HEINIAlV1 DE C J ~ S O L A T I O h E

6 . 8 The p l a ne t s w h i r l about by th e i nv io l a b le law ofN a t u re . God's n a t u r e f i nds d e l i g h t i n speedy motion .

8 . 3 Vvbat j_s th e grea t c rea to r? God? Reason, S p i r i t , orPa te?

4 . 2

1 9 . 1

8 . 41 6 . 1 - 2

2 0 .5

1 . 1 . 92 . 2 9 . 2

2 . 2 9 . 42 . 3 0 . 13 . 6 . 2

3 . 1 7 . 33 . 2 8 . 24 . 3 . 2

4 . 5 . 14 . 6 . 1 - 5

4 . 7 . 1 - 2

4 . 8 . 1 - 3

DE OTIODid God c rea t e many systems? v'v'l"lat i s th e n a tu re of

God? Does he encompass h i s works wit . l in or without?DE 5REVITA1'E VITAE

I t i s more impor t an t to know 'i'f'::lat shape and subs tanceJod has and what Natv.re has i n s t o r e f o r th e sou lf r e e d from th e body than to be concerned with wor ld lyt h i n g s .

DS Vri'A BEATAGod i s ca l led - rhe-wDr ld .You assume l i k en es s t o God i n beinr.; v i r t u o u s .

The gods a re the r u l e r s of tn e world . They a r e t hecensors o f deeds and words.

DE BENEPICIISThe immortal gods a re b e ne f i c e n t even to e v i l men.We a r e below th e gods. People say th e gods ne g l e c tus when Nature does n o t l e t c e r t a i n q u a l i t i e s e x i s tin th e same person .Our F a th e r has bestowed b e n e f i t s and b l e s s i n g s on u s .We r e c e i ve o ur e x i s t e nc e from the gods .The gods give judgment.

F'ear th e gods who witnes s a l l i n g r a t i t u d e .' lne world i s th e p a r en t of us a l l .I f g iv ing i s only t o seek fo r a r e t u r n , then th e eodswould n o t give any th ing .The gods do h e a r o ur prayer s and a re generous .God has been ex t ravagan t i n forming th e un iver se f o ru s .God and na t u r e and d i v i ne reason a re th e same. Godi s th e f i r s t o f a chain of cat;.ses. Any na.'."'le cans t and fo r God i f i t connotes f o r c e .N a t u re , F a t e , J:i'ortune, and God a re th e same. A llpowers w i l l r e t u r n i n t o pr ima l f i r e .



4 . 1 8 . 34 . 2 3 . 44 . 2 5 . 1 - 3

4 . 2 8 . 3

4 .3 1 -3 25 . 1 7 . 75 . 2 5 . 4

6 . 2 2 . 1

6 . 2 3 . 6

7 . 3 . 27 . 7 . 4

7 . 1 . 7

9 .16

1 2 . 1 01 2 .1 016 .5 -6

1 7 .6

1 8 .1 33 1 .8

3 1 .1 03 1 .1 0

41 .1

41 .34 4 .15 3 .11

58 . 28

65.12

6 5 .1 9

119

DE Br.N ID ' IC I ISGod g i v e s m a n r e a s o n and f e l l o w s h i p w i t h h i m s e l f .The s t a r s a r e c a l l e d g o d s .Good i s done t o u s b y t h e gods w i t h o u t t h e i r s e e k i n gf o r any a d v a n t a g e .C e r t a i n g i f t s God b e s t o w s on a l l human b e i n g s .

Gods show i ndu lgence t o some b e c a u s e o f t h e i r ancest ry.God t h o u g h t me wor thy o f t h i s s e t o f b e n e f i t s .We a s k f o r · h e l p f rom t h e gods b y p r a y e r s ; b u t t h e y don o t h e a r u s .The gods a c t u n d e r no e x t e r n a l c o n s t r a i n t . They a r eh e a v e n l y b o d i e s .Our i n t e r e s t s a r e t h e c o n c e r n o f t h e g o d s . N a t u r ec r e a t e d u s . Tnere was d e s i g n i n t h e c r e a t i o n o f man.Men a l o n e h a v e i n t e l l e c t s .1fhe i rmnorta l gods r u l e w i t h o u t arms f rom on h i g h .God s u f f e r s no harm b e c a u s e o f h i s d i v i n e n a t u r e .

' r h a t p e r s o n h a s p e r f e c t knowledge o f t h e u s e f u l ande s s e n t i a l who knovvs h e h a s n o t h i n g t o f e a r f rom Godo r :':lan.,

EPISTULAE l v : O M L E ~

J u p p i t e r r e t u r n s w i t h i n h i m s e l f w!wn N a t u r e and t h eh e a v e n s a r e i n t h e p r o c e s s o f d i _ s s o l u t i o n .God b e s t o w s t h e number o f days o f l i f e .We s h o u l d t h a n k Go d f o r f reedom t o end l i f e .I f Go d i s t h e a r b i t e r o f t11e u n i v e r s e , obey h im; i fc h a n c e , endu re i t .

T here i s t r u e l i b e r t y i n s t u d y n g p h i l o s o p h y. Nol o n g e r w i l l God o r man b e f e a r e d .He a l o n e i s wor thy o f God who s c o r n s r i c h e s .Have a p l a n o f l i f e w a h a knowlede;e o f t h i n g s humanand d i v i n e . ' rh i s makes one an a s s o c i a t e o f th e godsand n o t t h e i r s u p p l i a n t .No one h a s knowledge o f God.God i s t1 e h i g h e s t and :rrJ.ost p o w e r f u l . 'l']le s o u l i s agod d w e l l i n g w i t h i n u s .God dwe l l s w i t h i n u s . God i s a s p i r i t marki11g o u rgood and e v i l d e e d s .The b e a u t y o f n a t u r e i n d i c a t e s God ' s e x i s t e n c e .A l l me n s p r i n g f rom t h e g o d s .S t u d y ph i lo sophy and you w i l l d i f f e r f rom t h e godso n l y i n t ~ a t t h e y l i v e l o n g e r .We a r e weak , so l e t u s t u r n o u r minds t o wha t i se t e r n a l , namely God, who p r o t e c t s and ~ o v e r n sa l l .The f i r s t c a u s e i s s imp le b e c a u s e n a t t e r i s s i m p l e .The f i r s t c a u s e i s c r e a t i v e r e a s o n o r God.S eneca a s k s r ' n e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n s as t o wh e t h e r h eshou ld i n q u i r e i n t o t h e n a t u r e o f t h e 11 a r t i f e x mundi .



6 5 .2 3 .7 1 .1 3

7 1 .1 6

73 .67 3 .1 37 4 .1 474 . 1674 . 2075.17

7 6 .2 3

7 7 .1 2

8 2 . 18 3 . 187 . 19

90.29

90.29

92 .1

92.792.27

92.30

93.3

95 .36

95 .48

95 .52

96.21 0 7 . 9

110 .1

120

EPISTULAE JviORALES

God and m a t t e r e x i s t . God c o n t r o l s m a t t e r .A ll t h i n 3 s a r e s u b j e c t t o change , althoug.."l Go d c o nt r o l s t h e m .G r e a t s o u l s shou ld comply w i t h G od ' s w ishes and s u f f e rwhat t h e law o f t '1e u n i v e r s e o r d a i n s .A

god c o n t r o l s t h e s e a s o n s .A w ise man i s most h a p p y, even as t h e g o d s .L u s t , b a n q u e t s , e t c . do n o t p e r t a i n t o God.I s a n y t h i n g good i n which man s u r p a s s e s God'l

L e t ma n b e p l e a s e d a t wh a t e v e r p l e a s e s God.Gods a r e n o t powers o f e v i l s i n c e t h e y a r e a l l - g o o dand t h u s c a n n o t harm anyone .The good ma n h as t h e h i g h e s t s e n s e o f du ty t o t 'l.eg o d s . Good men know t h a t a l l happens by t h e d i v i n el a w.The d i v i n e d e c r e e s a r e u n a l t e r a b l e .

A god w i l l be L u c i l i u s ' s p o n s o r . T h i s god i s a s o u lt h a t l o v e s r i g h t and g o o d n e s s .N oth ing i s h idden f rom t h e s i g h t o f god .T ha t p r o d u c e s a wi.s e rr1an which p roduces a god , i . e . ,a p e r f e c t r e a s o n and confo rmi ty t o N a t u r e .Wisdom d i s c l o s e s , what t h e t emple o f t h e gods i s ; i ta l s o t e l l s what t h e gods a r e .Viisdom t a k e s u s b a c k t o e t e r n a l R e a s o n , t h e b e g i n n i n go f a l l t h i n g s . , and t h e f o r c e i n h e r i n g i n s e e d s o fa l l t h i n g s .The d l v i n e Reason i s i n command o f a l l t h i n g s ; o u r

r e a s o n i s t h e same b e c a l1

Se i t i s d e r i v e d f rom t h ed i v i n e r e a s o n .Human be inr ; s a r e .3econd o n l y t o t h e g o d s .Reason i s p e r f e c t i n t h e g o d s . I n u s i t i s " p e r f e c t -i b l e . uMan i s from Go d and w i l l r e t u r n t o p a r t i c i p a t e i nd i v i n i t y . The u n i v e r s e i s Go d and we a r e h i s membersand a s s o c i a t e s .None d e a l f a i r l y w i t h t h e g o d s . We r a i l a t F a t e , ~ u

i s i t n o t f a i r e r t h a t we obey N a t u r e r a t [ l e r t h a n i tobey u s?

The immor ta l gods were b o r n w i t h goodness a s p a r t o ft h e i r n a t u r e .~ I a n n e v e r makes p r o g r e s s u n t i l h e h a s t h e r i g h t i d e ao f God. B e l i e v e Go d e x i s t s , i s s u p r e m e , and p u n i s h e sWe a r e a l l p a r t s o f one b o d y ( i n c l u d e s god and man) .N a t u r e c r e a t e d u s f rom t h e same s o u r c e and f o r t h esame e n d .S eneca n o t o n l y obeys God, b u t a g r e e s w i t h h i m .Do n o t c a r p a t Na t u r e f o r wha t ha-cpens, b u t accompanyt h e god u n d e r whose g u i d a n c e a l l p r o g r e s s e s .Are we c o n s i g n e d t o guard: tans o r l e f t t o F o r t u n e ?



110.10

113 .16117.6

117 .24119 .15

120 . 14

124 .14

124.14

124.23

121

EPI:ST:TLAE Iv,ORA.LESGod, our :F'ath.er, has given us a l l t::1ings fo r our owngood.God th e c r e a t o r g ives i n f i n i t e v a r i e t y.A ll i n f e r th e gods e x i s t because everyone has an ideaof th e d e i t y.

I f you wish to l i v e , pray to th e gods f o r h e a l t h . I fyou wish to d i e , ignore th e gods and end your l i f e .The b u i l d e r o f t h e -u n iv e r s e provided t h a t we shouldl i v e i n wel l be i ng , bu.t no t in l ux u r y.A v i r tuous man has developed h i s s o u l ' s c a p a b i l i t i e su n t i l he i s i n f e r i o r only to God from whom a p a r tf lows i n t o man.There ar>e f ou r n a tu re s : t r e e , animal , man, God. Manand God a re of the same· n a t u r e . God i s imrn.ortal, hutno t so man.That i s p e r f e c t which i s accordinp; t o n a tu re as a

whole. Nature has reason .!'.-Ian i s on a l e ve l with God when he possesses p e r f e c tr eason .

SECTION E

SENECA CALLS HIMSELF A s ro iC

De Otio 1 .4

De Otio 2 .1De Otio 6 .4De Otio 8 . 1De I r a 2 . 1 9 . 3De Be ne f i c i i s 2 . 3 1 . 1De Be ne f i c i i s 2 . 3 5 . 2De Be ne f i c i i s 4 . 2 . 1De Be ne f i c i i s 4 . 8 . 1De B e n e f i c i i s 5 . 1 2 . 5Ep i s tu l ae Morales 13.4Ep i s tu l ae Morales 3 3 . 3 - 4

Ep i s tu l ae Morales 59 .1Ep i s tu l ae Morales 65 .2Ep i s tu l ae Morales 68.2Epis tu lae Morales 71.6Ep i s tu l ae Morales 7 4 .2 3Ep i s tu l ae Morales 82 . 19Epis tu lae Morales 87.26Ep i s tu l ae Morales 89 .8Ep i s tu l ae Morales 99 .26-27Ep i s tu l ae Morales 116.1Ep i s tu l ae Morales 117.2

Epis tu lae Morales 124.2



Documents

Seneca's Concept of a Supreme Being in His Philosophical Essays and Letters