The Religious Nature of Stoicism An Introduction with Scholarly Quotes and References by Christopher Fisher “From the first, Stoicism was a religious philosophy…” ~ Edward Caird “Stoicism has, in short, the inward and outward characteristics of the other great movements we have described, and may claim without presumption to be reckoned amongst the world- religions.” ~ Edward Vernon Arnold The quotes above may surprise many who were introduced to Stoicism by twenty-first century popularizers of the philosophy. The deafening silence regarding the religious nature of Stoicism, which was traditionally understood as a central theme of the philosophy, is largely due to the fact that most modern popularizers are agnostics or atheists. Therefore, they tend to ignore the deeply religious sentiment woven into Stoicism by its founders. They accomplish it by disregarding Stoic physics and theology or by dismissing them as anachronisms from a less enlightened age. This fragmentation of Stoic philosophy is precisely what the founders of Stoicism warned against, and for good reason. Stoicism was designed as a philosophical system. As such, it is comprised of three interdependent and mutually supporting areas of theory and practice—logic, physics, and ethics. As John Sellars wrote, “…each of the three parts of Stoic philosophy depends upon the others and cannot be understood fully without them” (Stoicism, 2006, pp. 43-4). It is understandable that agnostics and atheists who discover an affinity for Stoic ethics may simultaneously object to the providential cosmos of Stoic physics and the religious attitude it inspired in its founders. Moreover, it is a first principle of philosophy that individuals have the right and responsibility to discern truth for themselves. History is replete with examples of thinkers like Spinoza, Descartes, Rousseau, Kant, James, who borrowed from Stoicism those doctrines and practices which they found compelling or useful while ignoring the rest. As Seneca asserted, “Truth lies open to everyone” and new “shorter and easier” roads may yet be discovered by “future generations” (Let. 33). Nevertheless, intellectual honesty suggests new roads require new names and new street signs. Moving the old street signs to a new road, to convince others the new road is the same old one is misleading and creates confusion. 1 Those who rely on Seneca’s Letter 33 to justify departures from the road of traditional Stoicism would be wise to keep the following in mind. Near the end of this letter, while encouraging Lucilius to digest what he has learned and make it his own rather than simply regurgitating the thoughts of others, Seneca wrote, I shall use the old road, but if I find a shorter and easier one I shall open it up. Seneca was an eclectic thinker and it is reasonable to assume he explored and possibly opened up some roads which he considered “shorter and easier” than the old ones. Nonetheless, those new roads did not lead Seneca away from traditional Stoicism. At no time did Seneca disavowed or contradicted any core Stoic doctrines. He remained devoted to Stoicism and fondly referred to it as “our own school” (Let. 8, 9 & 88; Robin Campbell Trans.). Finally, Seneca was so loyal to Stoicism he even saw fit to defend his frequent appropriation of Epicurean aphorisms. He wrote, I actually make a practice of going over to the enemy’s camp – by way of reconnaissance, not as a deserter! (Let. 2). Seneca borrowed wisdom from other schools; yet, he understood the distinction between learning from those schools and abandoning his own school. He remained a Stoic to the end. In the past, those who created a new synthesis using an established philosophical tradition acknowledged their divergence from the old path and named it accordingly. Significant divergence usually resulted in an appropriately distinct new name. Lesser departures only called for a modification of the original name. We see examples of the later in third century Neo-Platonism and sixteenth century Neo-Stoicism. Unfortunately, some twenty-first century popularizers are not as candid about their divergence from traditional Stoicism. Some are endeavoring to reformulate Stoicism to make it more palatable to their profession (psychology and academia), conformable to their personal metaphysical views (atheism), or easily digestible for the book-buying public. Such endeavors to modernize and popularize Stoicism would draw less criticism if they simply made their departure from the old road clear and marked their new road accordingly. However, some popularizers are reluctant to do so. Instead, they promote a reformulated version of Stoicism as essentially the same as the traditional version. Ethics was the primary focus of Stoicism they argue; therefore, Stoic physics and theology is unnecessary. Those familiar with traditional Stoicism know better. While it is true that the goal of Stoicism is virtue that does not imply every path to the same goal is equivalent. Different paths to the same goal 2 are just that—different paths. They should be marked appropriately at the trailhead. Moreover, in the case of Stoicism, where virtue serves as an ideal toward which one progresses rather than a likely achievable destination, the path travelled is what makes the difference in a practitioner’s life. Stoicism was built on a specific worldview which included a divine and providential cosmos. That worldview evoked the type of reverence so clearly evident in the writings of the ancient Stoics. It is a fallacy to suggest the reverential core can be extracted without changing the essence of Stoicism. The references below shine a light on that reverential attitude which the Stoics maintained toward the divine cosmos. Many may find this aspect of Stoicism distasteful, but the evidence is clear; the Stoics considered a providential cosmos essential to their philosophy. So much so that Epictetus considered it the first thing a philosopher must learn: The philosophers say that the first thing that needs to be learned is the following, that there is a God, and a God who exercises providential care for the universe, and that it is impossible to conceal from him not only our actions, but even our thoughts and intentions. The next thing to be considered is what the gods are like; for whatever they’re discovered to be, one who wishes to please and obey them must try to resemble them as far as possible. (Discourses 2.14.11) The religious nature of Stoicism is overwhelmingly evident to any open-minded person who reads the extant texts. Between Epictetus’ Discourses and Handbook, and Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, one will find nearly four hundred mentions of God. Additionally, even within condensed single volume versions of Seneca’s writings more than one hundred mentions of God can be found. Finally, as the quotes from scholars below demonstrate, the religious core of Stoicism has been consistently recognized by scholars of philosophy and Hellenistic religion. This compilation of quotes and references is offered with two purposes in mind. First, it highlights a variety of scholars who have recognized the religious nature of Stoic philosophy. While the list is certainly not exhaustive, it is extensive enough to make the point—Stoicism has an essential religious nature. The second purpose for this compilation is to give students and practitioners of Stoicism a place to begin their own research into the religious nature of Stoicism. Those who assent to the traditional Stoic concepts of a conscious and providential cosmos, and feel a sense of reverence for the same, will find they are supported by a huge body of scholarly work which confirms they travel the same philosophical path as the ancient Stoics trod. 3 Likewise, those who are compelled to blaze a new path can do so with a better understanding of the traditional one. Without understanding why traditional Stoicism traverses a precipitous and often challenging path, one might mistakenly assume the lush valley is a safer and shorter way to the same goal. This compilation provides some insights about the traditional path of Stoicism which many may not be aware of. Ignorance is never an asset. All travelers who claim to follow the path of the Stoa should be aware of the truth about Stoicism, whether they choose to follow the traditional path or blaze a new one. 4 Quotes ‘From the first, Stoicism was a religious philosophy, as is shown by the great hymn of Cleanthes, the successor of Zeno as head of the school—a hymn which is inspired by the consciousness that it is one spiritual power which penetrates and controls the universe and is the source of every work done under the sun, “except what evil men endeavour in their folly.”’ (Caird, pp. 76-7) “Stoicism may be called either a philosophy or a religion. It was a religion in its exalted passion; it was a philosophy inasmuch as it made no pretence to magical powers or supernatural knowledge… I believe that it represents a way of looking at the world and the practical problems of life which possesses still a permanent interest for the human race, and a permanent power of inspiration.” (Murray, p. 14-5) “It would be impossible to give a full account of the philosophy of the Stoics without, at the same time, treating of their theology; for no early system is so closely connected with religion as that of the Stoics. Founded, as the whole view of the world is, upon the theory of one Divine Being… There is hardly a single prominent feature in the Stoic system which is not, more or less, connected with theology.” (Zeller, p. 322) “Stoicism has, in short, the inward and outward characteristics of the other great movements we have described, and may claim without presumption to be reckoned amongst the world-religions.” (Arnold, p.