1 A Commentary on the De Constantia Sapientis of Seneca the Younger Nigel Royden Hope Royal Holloway, University of London Submitted for the degree of PhD 1 2 Declaration of Authorship I, Nigel Royden Hope, hereby declare that this thesis and the work presented in it is entirely my own. Where I have consulted the work of others, this is always clearly stated. Signed: ______________________ Date: ________________________ 2 3 Abstract The present thesis is a commentary on Seneca the Younger’s De constantia sapientis, one of his so-called dialogi. The text on which I comment forms part of the Oxford Classical Texts edition of the dialogi by L. D. Reynolds. The thesis is in two main parts: an Introduction and the Commentary proper. Before the Introduction, there is a justificatory Preface, in which I explain why this thesis is a necessary addition to the scholarship on De constantia sapientis, on which the last detailed commentary was published in 1950. The Introduction covers the following topics: Date; Genre (involving discussion of what is meant by the term dialogus and the place of De constantia sapientis in the collection of Seneca’s Dialogi as a whole); Argumentation: Techniques and Strategies (including a discussion of S.’s views on the role of logic in philosophy); Language and Style; Imagery; Moral Psychology (an analysis of Seneca’s account of the passions); The Nature of Insult (including types of insult, appropriate responses to insults, and interpretation of the meanings of two of the verbal insults presented by Seneca); and Legal Aspects (the question of the distinction between iniuria and contumelia in legal terms and what sorts of actions were pursued by an actio iniuriarum in Seneca’s day). The commentary itself discusses individual passages in detail. The entries cover the following aspects: literary, philosophical (including an analysis of the syllogisms in the first half of the work), and historical (e.g. 3 4 an examination of Seneca’s portrayals of Cato the Younger and Caligula). There is also discussion of textual questions (e.g. the crux at 18.18-19); disagreements with the text of Reynolds are aired at the relevant points. 4 5 CONTENTS Preface 7 Abbreviations 9 Introduction 13 I. Date 13 II. Genre 19 III. Argumentation: Techniques and Strategies 25 IV. Language and Style 42 V. Imagery 48 VI. Moral Psychology 70 VII. The Nature of Insult 90 VIII. Legal Aspects 109 Commentary 123 Bibliography 257 5 6 6 7 PREFACE This thesis is a commentary on Seneca’s De constantia sapientis. I think that such a work is very necessary given that existing commentaries are in one way or another inadequate. Although Viansino produced a commentary (part of his two-volume set of commentaries on the dialogi, following an earlier, shorter work in 1968) in 1988, this is a relatively short work and leaves much unsaid. A more recent commentary (with translation) by Lana (1999) is also brief and not particularly interesting. The most thorough of the published commentaries is that by Wichem Klei, written in Dutch and published in 1950, which also provides an edition of the text. It is very good on the line-by-line commentary and particularly concerning language and style, but does not discuss much that needs discussing more generally, and of course, given its date, cannot take account of recent work on Seneca. I list published commentaries in the Bibliography. Although CS is not one of Seneca’s better-known works, there is much in it that is of interest. Its addressee, Annaeus Serenus, possibly a relative of S. and younger than him (according to Epistle 63), is also the addressee of De tranquillitate animi, and possibly of De otio. It is a justification of the Stoic paradox that the sage does not accept injury or insult (Nec iniuriam nec contumeliam accipere sapientem). Among the argumentational techniques S. deploys there is, in the first half of the work, 7 8 a series of syllogistic arguments designed to show the invulnerability of the sage to iniuria. This extensive use of syllogisms is, despite the well-known fondness of Stoics for logic, very rare in S. It provides a good example of the actual use to which syllogisms were put in a Stoic work. My analysis of the form of the syllogisms is something which has never been done before in previous commentaries on this work. I mentioned legal imagery, but law, primarily as concerns the actio iniuriarum, has central relevance to an interpretation of CS. At CS 10.1, S. says that Est minor iniuria, quam queri magis quam exequi possumus, quam leges quoque nulla dignam uindicta putauerunt. It seems that we may have here in CS a snapshot of a particular stage in the development of the actio iniuriarum, at which it has moved beyond the purely physical iniuria dealt with in the Twelve Tables, via the extension of the remit in the actio by the Praetorian Edict, whereby the loss of property and also some forms of diminution of social standing could be prosecuted under an actio iniuriarum, but not contumelia. I devote an excursus to discussing the legal implications of this. As far as I know, no earlier scholar has given much attention if any to the legal aspects of this work. To conclude, I hope I have shown the main points of interest in the thesis I am writing. CS has been neglected work and deserves much more attention. This thesis is intended to redress that imbalance. 8 9 ABBREVIATIONS Prose Works by Seneca [S.] Breu. De breuitate vitae BV De beata vita CS De constantia sapientis Ep. Epistle Epp. Epistles Helv. Ad Helviam Ira De ira Marc. Ad Marciam NQ Naturales quaestiones 9 10 Ot. De otio Pol. Ad Polybium Tranq. De tranquillitate vitae In the Introduction and Commentary, Seneca the Younger will be referred to as ‘S.’ and De constantia sapientis as ‘CS’. Modern Works and Editions ANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt Busa–Zampolli R. Busa and A. Zampolli, Concordantiae Senecanae. Hildesheim: Olms. D–K . H. Diels and W. Kranz (eds.), Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. 6th edn. Berlin. 1952 E–M A. Ernout and A. Meillet, Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue latine, 4th edn. Paris 1979 H–S J. B. Hofmann and A. Szantyr, 10 11 Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik. Munich: Beck. 1972 K–S Kühner, R. and Stegmann, C., Ausführliche Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache: Satzlehre. 2 vols. 2nd edn. Hanover. 1912-14 Kirk, Raven and Schofield G. S. Kirk, J. E. Raven and M. Schofield (eds.), The Presocratic Philosophers. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. L–S C. T. Lewis and C. Short, A Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 1879 Long–Sedley A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley (eds.), The Hellenistic Philosophers. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987 OCD Sander Goldberg (ed.), The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Online edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press OCT Oxford Classical Texts OLD P. G. W. Glare (ed.), Oxford Latin Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford 11 12 University Press. 1968-82 PIR2 Prosopographia Imperii Romani, saec. I, II, III. 2nd edn. Berlin: de Gruyter. 1933— SVF Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, ed. Ioannes von Arnim. Leipzig, 1903- 24; reprinted Stuttgart, 1964 TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae W–H A. Walde, rev. J. B. Hofmann, Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. I (A–L). Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1938; II (M–Z). Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1956 TRANSLATIONS Unless otherwise stated, all translations are my own. 12 13 INTRODUCTION I. DATE The date of CS is not certain. However, the text does provide some pointers.1 First, the extensive description of Caligula’s insults at 18 shows that it was written after the death of that emperor, which took place in AD 41. Second, according to Miriam Griffin (1992: 316 n. 2), it is unlikely that the account of Valerius Asiaticus’ outward tolerance of Caligula’s boasting of his adultery with Valerius’ wife can have been written before the death of Valerius in 47. Griffin does not give reasons for her belief that it is unlikely, but possibly the character of Valerius as described by S. (ferocem uirum et uix aequo animo alienas contumelias laturum) makes it unlikely that S. would dare to write anything about his wife’s adultery while he lived. Third, the addressee, Annaeus Serenus, died in the reign of Nero, probably in the early 60s. Epistle 63.14-15, dating to 63 or 64, mentions the death of Serenus.2 Assuming the death to be recent, Serenus may be 1 For an exhaustive examination of the arguments put forward for different dates for the work, see Klei 5-24. 2 [14] Haec tibi scribo, is qui Annaeum Serenum carissimum mihi tam immodice flevi ut, quod minime velim, inter exempla sim eorum quos dolor vicit. Hodie tamen factum meum damno et intellego maximam mihi causam sic lugendi fuisse quod numquam cogitaveram mori eum ante me posse. Hoc unum mihi occurrebat, minorem esse et multo minorem - tamquam ordinem fata servarent! [15] Itaque 13 14 considered to have died in 62 or 63. According to Pliny the Elder (NH 22.96), Serenus died of eating poisoned mushrooms, along with ten other officers of the vigiles, of which Serenus was praefectus. If Serenus succeeded Tigellinus as praefectus vigilum in 62, his death is likely to have been in 63, very close to the composition of Ep. 63. Griffin (1992: 447-8), however, thinks it more likely that Serenus actually became praefectus vigilum in 54, succeeding Laelianus in that post, and that Tigellinus was praefectus vigilum by 62, because otherwise he would not have enjoyed the influence with Nero to cause the restoration to the Senate of Cossutianus Capito, who had been condemned for extortion in 57.