Tacitus' claim that history should inspire good deeds and deter bad ones should be taken seriously: his exempla are supposed to help his readers think through their own moral difficulties. This approach to history is found in historians with clear connections to Stoicism, and in Stoic philosophers like Seneca. It is no coincidence that Tacitus is particularly interested in the behavior of Stoics like Thrasea Paetus, Barea Soranus, and Seneca himself. They, and even non-Stoic characters like Epicharis and Petronius, exemplify (...) the behavior necessary if Roman freedom was to survive the monarchy. (shrink)

This article argues that the end of Tacitus's Dialogus de Oratoribus is inconclusive in ways that draw attention to the difficulty of interpretation not only of the dialogue, as by modern scholars, but also in the dialogue, as by its leading characters. The inconclusiveness is especially marked by a commonly noted, but little discussed, feature of the end: when the rest of the characters laugh at the point of departure, Tacitus himself does not. Arguing that this difference of affective response (...) on the part of the characters prefigures differences in interpretive response on the part of readers, the article identifies different strains in recent scholarship: pessimistic and optimistic. Both forms of response entail an attribution of a “poetics of conspiracy” (Hinds) to the ultimate speaker of the dialogue, the author Tacitus, and a “hermeneutics of suspicion” (Ricoeur) to its reader. At the same time, the author's double-position, as character and author, between narrated event and narration of the event to the reader, suggests that the other characters in the dialogue may, like the author and reader, also exercise such poetics and hermeneutics on one another and themselves. The article ends with the comparandum of the first satire of Tacitus's near contemporary, Juvenal, suggesting that, in the case of these works that can look with hindsight on the social and political past of the Early Empire, their modes of transmission and reception may be politically determined (e.g., as conspiratorial, suspicious) but may also demonstrate, within the restrictions of social and political determinations, a high degree of contingency, reflexivity, and autonomy. Such possibilities suggest that the text itself is part of a pragmatic and performative tradition of the kind enacted by its characters, in addition to a tradition of the production of (comparatively static and unfree) “literary” works. (shrink)

This thesis aims to illuminate Seneca’s criticisms of Neronian Rome through a novel exploration of the philosopher’s collection of moral letters – the so-called Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium. Noting the glaring absence of court politics in these letters the thesis identifies themes of dissimulation and veiled criticism, penned by Seneca in a concealed manner to ensure his safety during a time of dire political unrest. The first chapter establishes the cultural context of this collection by examining how they fit in (...) with the practice of elite Roman letter writing. This line of inquiry stems from a longstanding question in the scholarship as to whether the Epistulae Morales are letters in the earnest sense, or merely a literary-philosophical exercise contrived by Seneca. The chapter concludes that the letters can be seen as genuine, exchanged with their addressee. They were, however, also written for the wider senatorial class who are clearly the subject of Seneca’s moral discussions. The second chapter examines the circumstances which preceded the writing of these letters in order to identify points of political tension under Nero’s reign. Drawing on the Neronian books of Tacitus’ Annals and earlier Senecan treatises, this chapter identifies themes of political ideology which shaped the ongoing altercations between senate and emperor during Nero’s rule. With the political tensions identified, the third chapter unearths the underhanded ways in which Seneca criticises Nero’s reign throughout the letters. Additionally, this chapter showcases a range of techniques employed by Seneca to disguise his criticisms in order to maintain deniability and avoid persecution. The fourth and final chapter examines Letters 14 and 18 in detail, illustrating the techniques discussed in the preceding chapter and bringing to light Seneca’s veiled criticisms of Nero’s regime. The pair of case studies demonstrates that Senecan criticisms are present throughout the collection, and are apparent in both letters with overt political themes and those which are, at first glance, seemingly mundane and commonplace. (shrink)

In a post Cold-War world riven with ‘minor’ conflicts, and a West anxious about the intermittent threat of terrorist attack, human equality and sodality require urgent review. Among interesting proposals for a theoretical foundation to human equality is Martha Nussbaum’s call for a revived, modern version of Stoicism to teach indifference to race and a neighbourly goodwill. Yet in her concern to avoid ‘teleologies’ Nussbaum denatures Stoicism by disconnecting it from its transcendent foundations. A problem for the modern world is (...) to maintain the authority of states, with their capacity to produce relief for the poor and oppressed along with their capacity to dominate, while having them absorb the ideals of cosmopolitanism into their own policyformation. It is incumbent on the democratic state, the progenitor of the cosmopolitanism of both Cynicism and Stoicism, to promote the ideals of human dignity and equality. Nussbaum’s Stoicism scarcely helps, but there are globalizing organizations, such as the United Nations and its agencies, and globalized religious organizations, as advanced by Hans Küng, which may supply the institutional foundation. (shrink)