Seneca´s Apocolocyntosis - Interpretation der Kapitel 8 und 9 (German Edition)

He was a tutor and later advisor to emperor Nero. He was forced to take his own life for alleged complicity in the Pisonian conspiracy to assassinate Nero, in which he was likely to have been innocent. His stoic and calm suicide has become the subject of numerous paintings. As a writer Seneca is known for his philosophical works, and for his plays, which are all tragedies.

Seneca in the Court of Nero: The Politics of Philosophy | Be Obscure Clearly

His philosophical writings include a dozen philosophical essays, and one hundred and twenty-four letters dealing with moral issues. As a tragedian, he is best known for his Medea and Thyestes. Seneca tells us that he was taken to Rome in the "arms" of his aunt his mother's stepsister at a young age, probably when he was about five years old.

Seneca's early career as a senator seems to have been successful and he was praised for his oratory. It is noted for its flattery of Claudius, and Seneca expresses his hope that the emperor will recall him from exile. One byproduct of his new position was that Seneca was appointed suffect consul in However, the ancient sources suggest, over time, Seneca and Burrus lost their influence over the emperor. In 59 they had reluctantly agreed to Agrippina's murder, and afterward Tacitus reports that Seneca had to write a letter justifying the murder to the Senate.

After Burrus's death in 62, Seneca's influence declined rapidly. It was during these final few years that he composed two of his greatest works: Naturales quaestiones —an encyclopedia of the natural world; and his Letters to Lucilius —which document his philosophical thoughts. Although it is unlikely that Seneca was part of the conspiracy, Nero ordered him to kill himself. Cassius Dio, who wished to emphasize the relentlessness of Nero, focused on how Seneca had attended to his last-minute letters, and how his death was hastened by soldiers. Her wounds were bound up and she made no further attempt to kill herself.

As for Seneca himself, his age and diet were blamed for slow loss of blood and extended pain rather than a quick death; he also took poison, which was also not fatal.

After dictating his last words to a scribe, and with a circle of friends attending him in his home, he immersed himself in a warm bath, which was expected to speed blood flow and ease his pain. Tacitus wrote, "He was then carried into a bath, with the steam of which he was suffocated, and he was burnt without any of the usual funeral rites. Seneca's writings were well known in the later Roman period, and Quintilian , writing thirty years after Seneca's death, remarked on the popularity of his works amongst the youth.

The early Christian Church was very favorably disposed towards Seneca and his writings, and the church leader Tertullian possessively referred to him as "our Seneca. Medieval writers and works continued to link him to Christianity because of his alleged association with Paul. Seneca remains one of the few popular Roman philosophers from the period. He appears not only in Dante, but also in Chaucer and to a large degree in Petrarch , who adopted his style in his own essays and who quotes him more than any other authority except Virgil.

In the Renaissance, printed editions and translations of his works became common, including an edition by Erasmus and a commentary by John Calvin. French essayist Montaigne , who gave a spirited defense of Seneca and Plutarch in his Essays , was himself considered by Pasquier a "French Seneca. Even with the admiration of an earlier group of intellectual stalwarts, Seneca has never been without his detractors. In his own time, he was accused of hypocrisy or, at least, a less than "Stoic" lifestyle.

While banished to Corsica, he wrote a plea for restoration rather incompatible with his advocacy of a simple life and the acceptance of fate. In his Apocolocyntosis he ridiculed the behaviors and policies of Claudius, and flattered Nero—such as proclaiming that Nero would live longer and be wiser than the legendary Nestor. The claims of Publius Suillius Rufus that Seneca acquired some "three hundred million sesterces " through Nero's favor, are highly partisan, but they reflect the reality that Seneca was both powerful and wealthy.

Cardano stated that Seneca well deserved death. Among the historians who have sought to reappraise Seneca is the scholar Anna Lydia Motto who in argued that the negative image has been based almost entirely on Suillius's account, while many others who might have lauded him have been lost. Think of the barren image we should have of Socrates , had the works of Plato and Xenophon not come down to us and were we wholly dependent upon Aristophanes ' description of this Athenian philosopher.

To be sure, we should have a highly distorted, misconstrued view. Such is the view left to us of Seneca, if we were to rely upon Suillius alone. More recent work is changing the dominant perception of Seneca as a mere conduit for pre-existing ideas showing originality in Seneca's contribution to the history of ideas. Examination of Seneca's life and thought in relation to contemporary education and to the psychology of emotions is revealing the relevance of his thought. For example, Martha Nussbaum in her discussion of desire and emotion includes Seneca among the Stoics who offered important insights and perspectives on emotions and their role in our lives.

Nussbaum later extended her examination to Seneca's contribution to political philosophy [52] showing considerable subtlety and richness in his thoughts about politics, education and notions of global citizenship and finding a basis for reform-minded education in Seneca's ideas that allows her to propose a mode of modern education which steers clear of both narrow traditionalism and total rejection of tradition. Elsewhere Seneca has been noted as the first great Western thinker on the complex nature and role of gratitude in human relationships. Seneca was a prolific writer of philosophical works on Stoicism , mostly on ethics, with one work Naturales Quaestiones on the physical world.

Seneca generally employs a pointed rhetorical style in his prose. To put it in another way: Most troubling are the assessments, beginning with Quintillion, [47] that dichotomize his political and philosophical impacts. This legacy thrives in contemporary times.

Veyne is among the few who see Seneca as a philosopher rather than a statesman dabbling in philosophy, but his division is equally arbitrary and imprecise. He wrote as a philosopher, never as a senator. This assessment, with the implication that it is possible to be only a philosopher when divorced from all other competing descriptions, is one that certainly needs to be examined further.

Robespierre, Boethius, Hobbes, Sartre, and even Socrates were all active in the politics of their day and yet are not considered to have disqualified themselves from the ranks of philosophers. He refers with fond remembrance to Papirius Fabianus [54] and Sotion and Attalus [55] and their acute influence upon him. Seneca marked a progression away from the ancient Stoa. His view on ethics was at the time original and progressive. To say, of course, that Seneca was a Stoic does not necessarily reveal much about him, as Stoicism varied a great deal amongst its individual adherents.

Towards the end of his life, his ideal of the sage changed from the Stoic standards Hercules, Socrates and Cato to his own contemporary Demetrius the Cynic, who receives high praise. Stoicism has been compared to and contrasted with Epicureanism, [61] Cynicism, Existentialism, Buddhism, and Taoism, to name a few. Stoicism exists as much in the attempt to address the un-definable as the definable.

Any attempt to address Stoicism without this concern may be somewhat remiss. For Seneca, philosophy was a simple matter. As he wrote in Epistle I owe my life to philosophy. His complete earnestness aside, he was not above mocking Stoicism either. Early Stoicism had roots in Aristotle, Plato, and even pre-Socratic influences—particularly Heraclitus. Stoicism is often described as pragmatic, and it has been claimed the equally pragmatic nature of Romans is what made Stoicism so popular. Constant training and practice— askesis —could involve logical exercises, Socratic dialogue, meditation, reflection, positive affirmations, [66] and ultimately everyday application.

This is true of Stoicism in general, and Seneca seems to have personally agreed upon the importance of meditation. In Epistle 16, he states his belief that:. Yet this conviction, clear as it is, needs to be strengthened and given deeper roots through daily reflection. The Tao of Stoicism was nature, the totality of all. At its simplest, Stoicism was simply living in accordance with nature. Seneca would list his role-models as Socrates, Cato the Younger, and of course the ever-popular Hercules, but in general no one could ever reach this ideal. For the most part, the idea of the sage existed primarily as a construct of the mind.

He detailed more obvious examples of such constructs for example centaurs and giants, [68] but this idea of abstract concepts can be linked to other theoretical ideas—such as the clemency he stressed to Nero. The relationship between Nero and Seneca was intricately complex. A useful metaphor is provided by the philosopher himself: Seneca was fond of painting both his actions and those of other Stoics as akin to those of doctors. The analogy has traversed the ages, and many historians today echo that sentiment.

Marcus Wilson [71] discusses the limitations of the medical analogy—it is not so much the case of doctors healing patients but more patients treating other patients. Stoics believed that human reason, coming directly from Nature, was ultimately both practical and necessary. Humans were the only thing on earth that Nature allowed the autonomous use of rational capacity.

Mercy or clemency would therefore be a natural byproduct from proper use of reason, from making correct decisions. There is some indication that Seneca felt that the morality of Nero was analogous to the morality of the state, or at least that the same advice that was good for Nero the individual was also good for the Empire.

Seneca was sentenced to death in 37 CE by Gaius and, after surviving that, sentenced again to death in 41 CE by Claudius. Did he support the attempted coup planned by Gaetulicus and Lepidus? Was Seneca part of an opposition Stoic or otherwise to the principate? Or was he simply unlucky enough to live under men who killed many innocent people? Based on the facts that we have, however, his return to Rome in 49 CE seems to have been primarily motivated by an impetus that was philosophic in origin and nature.

His thorough dislike of Corsica seems surprising for one who needed time alone for meditation and declared that god and Nature are interchangeable. As an aristocratic nobleman, he must have longed for the finer things in life, his friends, and his family. However, agreeing to tutor young Domitius was not a desperate, ends-justify-the-means attempt at freedom. He probably saw the opportunity to teach Nero as a real chance to put his theories into action, to see how far along the path of the Sage he had travelled.

He was constantly testing himself and this would for him be a true indicator of his own progress.

Seneca in the Court of Nero: The Politics of Philosophy

Philosophy cannot be developed apart from the socio-political context in which the philosopher lived, and Seneca was affected profoundly by the events of his time. He first rose to prominence during the reign of Gaius. This is consistent with the account in Suetonius Caligula 34, where the Emperor is portrayed as jealous of others, including Livy, Virgil, and Homer.

On the other hand, Lucius Annaeus Seneca, who was superior in wisdom to all the Romans of his day and to many others as well, came near being destroyed, though he had neither done any wrong nor had the appearance of doing so, but merely because he pleaded a case well in the senate while the emperor was present. Gaius ordered him to be put to death, but afterwards let him off because he believed the statement of one of his female associates, to the effect that Seneca had a consumption in an advanced stage and would die before a great while.

Inferring from our sources, however, seems to imply that his works were more literary in nature than philosophical.

• Сведения о продавце;
• Navigation menu.
• Does Russian Democracy Have a Future?.
• Animals in English (English Language Book 2).

On the other hand, Seneca had shown a philosophical bent from an early age. One thing is certain: The legacy of Gaius Caligula as a tyrant and monster outlived the man and provided Seneca with another archetypal disaster with which to dissuade Nero from abusing his power. Any opposition towards Caligula from Seneca would seem to have been from personal reasons rather than a general Stoic opposition to the principate.

His writings show him to be a staunch supporter of the principate and fairly explicitly pro-royalty, thus the question of whether he belonged to the Stoic opposition seems moot. At the same time, had Seneca actively participated in the conspiracy against Gaius, his fate would not have been different from that of Gaetulicus or Lepidus. The latter became enraged at her niece Julia because she neither paid her honour nor flattered her; and she was also jealous because the girl was extremely beautiful and was often alone with Claudius.

Accordingly, she secured her banishment by trumping up various charges against her, including that of adultery for which Annaeus Seneca was also exiled , and not long afterward even compassed her death. It was common, however, for the wives of Claudius to receive blame they may not have truly warranted. Along those lines, Tacitus professes that Seneca owed a personal grudge to Claudius and believed that that was part of the reason why Seneca agreed to tutor Nero:. Agrippina, that she might not be conspicuous only by her evil deeds, procured for Annaeus Seneca a remission of his exile, and with it the praetorship.

She thought this would be universally welcome, from the celebrity of his attainments, and it was her wish too for the boyhood of Domitius to be trained under so excellent an instructor, and for them to have the benefit of his counsels in their designs on the throne. For Seneca, it was believed, was devoted to Agrippina from a remembrance of her kindness, and an enemy to Claudius from a bitter sense of wrong.

It is usually supposed that the charges were trumped-up, but if he did have a relationship with the younger Julia it would provide an interesting parallel with his second wife, Pompeia Paulina. She was also an aristocrat who was much younger than Seneca, though this was hardly an uncommon arrangement.

His nephew Lucan may very well have belonged to Stoic opposition, which incriminates Seneca at least by proxy. Both of his brothers died as a result of the Pisonian conspiracy. And Seneca did write some potentially inflammatory statements, after all. In De Otio he was at his most explicit: Perhaps the question as of 65 CE is not whether Seneca opposed the idea of the Princeps in general, but whether he opposed Nero specifically. The answer is indecipherable, but there is evidence to suggest that Seneca, for all his disagreements with Nero, continued to endorse both the officer and the office.

Indeed, even his death was a lesson, for Nero and others, and one that Nero and his famous last words Qualis artifex pereo [92] may even have learned well. Nonetheless, Seneca attempted to return the court to Augustan ideals, in essence trying to erase—or at least ignore other than as an example of what not to do—the reigns of Gaius and Claudius. Nero attested to these Augustan leanings when he declined the perpetual consulship in It seems definite that many of the elite were originally highly optimistic. To suppose this was a result of chance or coincidence is to ignore the role the Princeps had in encouraging or suppressing literature and art.

Freedmen, not quite as important as they had been under Claudius, were still vastly influential, holding positions that under Vitellius would begin to go to equites. Though there were uprisings in Britain and Parthian troubles in Armenia, Nero had until his final year in power a relatively peaceful time. He did have some unique challenges as well. The three factors leading to uncertainty over the succession: Considering that no senator lost his life until 62 CE, [97] it seems valid to state that Nero indeed practised the clemency his instructor so fervently recommended.

A more positive picture than the traditional, Quo Vadis -like reign of atrocities seems possible. It is succinctly put by Elsner and Masters: Suetonius was particularly scandalized by this. There are, luckily, many indications that defy this shroud of misinformation. Numismatic evidence, for instance, shows that Nero closed the temple of Janus in 64 or 66 CE for the first time in 75 years.

For the first time, coins began to proclaim Ex Senatus Consulto, [] showing the extent to which Nero went in order to gain the approval of the Senate. Tthough no one would deny that after the Pisonian conspiracy in 65 things got much worse, especially for senators, the evidence is enough to reserve judgment at least about the reign of terror that Tacitus and others have portrayed.

Though Seneca had a somewhat unprecedented role in the Roman Empire, his status was not unique. There were many influential men who had had philosophers as advisors. Rome itself had more recent instances as well: Tiberius Gracchus had the advice of Blossius, [] Scipio Aemilianus was instructed by Panaetius [] and Cicero was counselled by Diodotus.

That it failed as notably as the city of Heliopolis [] does not mean its potential was any less for its lack of achieved potential. Though he could not have made the comparison, it is not unreasonable to think that Seneca hoped that Nero would become the sort of Emperor that Marcus Aurelius became one hundred years later. Tacitus [] says that philosophers were a common sight. The Suidas mentions the Peripatetic Alexander of Aegae and the Stoic Chaeremon as being familiar to Nero; and of course, there were other Senators, such as Thrasea Paetus, who practised philosophy. It remains clear, however, that Seneca was by far the most influential of these men, both for Nero and for the Empire itself.

Lepper claims that Nero learned just enough about philosophy from Seneca and others that he came to believe they would oppose his position once his tyranny became evident. For Nero, the same problem, only inverted, would continue to plague him. Seneca would receive much of the credit for the buildings Nero erected, laws he passed, and appointments he made. Ultimately, the ambiguity of their relationship seems to have caused much confusion, both in ancient times and modern. It was far simpler than many have made it out to be: Seneca was training Nero with Stoic ideals, teaching him to uphold Senecan principles.

This has been interpreted in varying ways. Moreford believes Agrippina had a specific task for the exiled Spaniard. He was, more precisely, preparing Nero to be acceptable to the senate. Seneca did not practise philosophy solely in the abstract; his many epistles and consolations would have been less effective had he not been in the position to enact his beliefs. His high status under Nero was one way he could affect change in Neronian Rome; his multitude of allies and supporters were another.

Fabius Rusticus, a fellow Spaniard, was grateful enough to record a positive account of his patron in his history, [] Annaeus Serenus became Prefect of the Watch. Miriam Griffin has assembled a most comprehensive list, revealing just how much power Seneca had. A man who thrived between Sejanus and Tigellinus was himself one of the more influential clients Seneca had.

Seneca had not nominated Burrus to the post; of course, Agrippina had already done that under Claudius. In his ascendancy, however, Seneca seems to have pulled the Prefect into his orbit. Griffin suggests Burrus and Seneca became good friends because both were provincials, and had a common background between them. If he had truly been a partner with Seneca, it is odd that Burrus has emerged relatively unscathed from the judgment of his peers. There is some support for this theory in Tacitus: Fabius Rusticus was hardly a disinterested party, as Tacitus acknowledges, but neither is it completely unreasonable to suppose Seneca could and would have done such a thing.

Also worth considering, as Warmington does, is the notion that Burrus as an eques could not have been responsible for initial harmony between the Senate and Nero. The existence of a large body of men, whose importance varied from slave to the Praetorian Prefect, is vital for two reasons.

Secondly, his clients, particularly Lucan and Annaeus Cornutus, were usually influenced by his Stoic ideals, showing that he was indeed effective at disbursing his message. This is at least the way it has been portrayed in the sources. Suetonius does not mention much about Burrus, but Tacitus describes their roles thus:. They had both alike to struggle against the domineering spirit of Agrippina, who inflamed with all the passions of an evil ascendancy….

This construction seems to neglect the background of the characters involved. If one disregards the idea that Agrippina was power-hungry, it is difficult to accept the picture as it has been painted. Agrippina, who suffered at least as badly as Nero from source-bias, knew Seneca well and it seems odd that she would have been surprised at the actions he took upon his return.

Burrus was himself her client as well, at least originally when he was nominated as Prefect in 51 CE. This begs the question: Why would she choose an exiled court figure when other candidates abounded? Her insistence that Seneca not teach philosophy to Nero may have been a large part of the rift between them—that is, of course, if we can believe Suetonius, always a tenuous affair.

It seems clear that Seneca and Agrippina had different views on the ideal government—Agrippina wished to continue in the vein of Claudius, [] while Seneca seems to have been pushing for a return to Augustan ideals. Most importantly, both saw themselves as the primary decision-maker in the Empire.

Покупки по категориям

This would have led to some of the strife that manifested itself in a few notable episodes. Both Seneca and Burrus had achieved high positions and reached goals that would have been impossible with Agrippina. Seneca had a preeminent position, replete with vast amounts of prestige and auctoritas.

Burrus was a relative non-entity before she raised him to Prefect and he owed her his career. Agrippina, for her part, had also seen her most longed-for goal achieved as well. Her son was now the Emperor, something she allegedly stated she would die to see happen. Indeed, Burrus, who by all accounts worked in tandem with Seneca, saved Agrippina on at least one occasion [] and refused to kill her on a second.

Once she was gone, the full scope of his power would become clear to him, nor would there ever lack people to remind him of it. Griffin does not assume that Seneca and Burrus wanted Agrippina dead, but she does envisage a competition for Nero between the two factions. Rawson, however, points out the great number of inconsistencies in Tacitus and Suetonius, [] which casts significant doubt upon the validity of the tradition. The picture is complex; particularly because if Tacitus and Suetonius are to be dismissed, [] little else can arise to fill that void.

Without dismissing the sources too much, however, I believe that they are confused enough in their account to allow a withdrawal of judgment concerning the details. The overall picture is vague, and there are too many issues that cannot be satisfactorily explained. That is debatable, but far more certain is the impression that his minions of Stoicism were cast throughout the Empire in various functions, each of the tacit reminders of his pro-Stoic policy concerning Nero and the State.

Though he certainly made a concerted effort at teaching Nero, it would not be accurate to say the Princeps was his only student. This chapter will further this theme, with the emphasis now changing to his written works—three in particular, along with the occasional Epistle , will be focused upon. After the above has been addressed, I will attend to the final conflict between teacher and student that, eventually, led to each of their suicides.

The year 54 CE, when Nero began his reign as Princeps and Seneca had in his pupil a tabula rasa on which to work his beliefs, was the first of a few critical years which show Seneca seeking to forge his student in the fires of Stoicism. That this is not more widely understood is a result partially of source hostility, but even amidst the haze of partiality, a clear picture can be glanced. Two important questions can at this point be considered. Firstly, to what degree can we assume that what Seneca wrote matched what he did—i. Secondly, to what extent, if any, did Nero receive these messages—either the wholesome, written one or the selfish, misleading one?

As with any contentious historical topic, the question of source authenticity becomes compelling. Tamsyn Barton [] argues that most of the negative views held about Nero are merely literary topoi that should not be taken too seriously. This is probably largely true as Nero shares with others, particularly Gaius and Domitian, the characteristics of a tyrant. How much should be believed is at the crux of the historiographical issue. Rubies describes the potential difficulties of relying on Tacitus as the major source for the time period:. If this is true of Tacitus it would be even more accurate in describing Suetonius and the epitomized Dio Cassius.

It creates a problem if the historians had an agenda that could have led them to distort their portrayal of Seneca, particularly because the latter would have had just as good of motivation to misrepresent his affairs. The fact that Seneca often seems to have ignored his own advice, however, may be explained because the advice was not meant for him—it was meant for the Emperor. Seneca left behind a large body of work, too sizeable to examine fully everything he wrote in the space available here.

Leaving out his dramatic works, which do seem to have been meant in a different context, there are a many comments scattered throughout his writing that help to contribute to the overall depiction of Seneca as a practitioner of Stoicism. Epistle 14 is interesting in that it focuses on the question of whether a Stoic should be involved in politics. Seneca recommends a course which can only be described as disingenuous: A common thread is noticeable in most of his works.

The tone is often that of a tutor, of an advisor, almost, one might say, of a sage. The nouns iudex and iudicium abound, and not in trivial or trivially metaphorical senses…. The three works that predominantly illuminate his plan for educating Nero vary in scope and purpose, but all provide clear moral guidance for the young Princeps. It is not surprising that eventually his pupil learned to despise philosophers and to humiliate many of them mockingly in public. In the introduction to his translation, P.

It is thus neither a political nor a philosophical treatise—it was a treatise exemplifying philosophy applied through politics. It may have been more vicious than later works, though it certainly is not excessively hostile as far as satires go. The reign of Claudius had not been an utter disaster, but Seneca was presented with a fertile field replete with his pick of several fruits of failure to present to Nero. In a thorough examination of the promises Nero made to the Senate and how many of them were kept, Griffin concludes that Nero actually did keep most of them.

The Apocolocyntosis , then, had multiple purposes perhaps not the least of which may have been pure entertainment value. The lessons for Nero it contained, however, were distinctly lucid. Claudius in this case served the function of the anti-ideal—Seneca would later choose more extreme examples including Caligula, [] Gaius Julius Caesar, [] Alexander the Great, [] Cyrus, [] and Cambyses. This may have been a very deliberate attempt at manipulation. Seneca had played on just these qualities when he urged Nero to practise clemency in order to win the love of his subjects….

Seneca continued this theme a year or two later in the De Clementia, [] where he demonstrates to Nero that a good example set by the Princeps would be reflected throughout the Empire. The sense of reproach that would later emerge in De Beneficiis is absent, and the tone is one of optimistic instruction, though a large amount of it is missing. Looking at the extant writing, however, it is still clear that Seneca intended this as part of his collection of instruction manuals on how to rule.

This may seem an obvious assertion, but at the time Seneca was writing this was a daring stance. The ancient and powerful families of Rome certainly expected at least an acknowledgement of Republican ideals, and there were fellow Stoics opposed to the Principate for its very nature. He did seem to honour the position—if not always the man—as well, as indicated by his statement to Nero:.

Other Stoics may indeed have opposed the principate, but it seems that Seneca truly felt it was the best system of government available. He was not the only Stoic to believe this, but was probably the most prominent: It seems heavy-handed and transparent—as indeed it is, but it is the profuse praise of an instructor for his favorite pupil, rather than the babblings of a toady currying favor with his more powerful master.

The positive reinforcement was a balance to the negative—such as the illustration of bad rulers looked at above. That Seneca considered mercy to be an inherently important quality in his instruction of the Emperor is stressed again and again. He praises it with strong language: The idea of the ruler existing as part of an organic whole is stressed as well. Seneca seemingly strives to impress upon Nero how important his actions are in relation to the rest of the realm. It is clear that some, if not all, of the lessons in De Clementia were lost on Nero.

The example of Augustus and Cinna [] seems to have been completely disregarded by Nero after the Pisonian conspiracy, but there are a couple of factors that help to explain this. It should not be discounted, either, that Nero may have considered how Augustus came to power—ruthlessly and bloodily—of more importance than how he remained. Seneca even trotted out one of his favorite analogies, albeit in a new context: Unlike the Apocolocyntosis or especially De Clementia , the De Beneficiis is not always clear in purpose. It meanders and appears to be largely subtext; it seems to have been written almost as stream-of-consciousness.

Seneca stated his plan of organization but quickly departed from it. It was written a bit later then the others, sometime between CE, which provides some indication of a continuous attempt at education rather than one that died early on. The intended recipient of De Beneficiis is somewhat puzzling. Seneca addresses Aebutius Liberalis as though he were a vastly important person, though the little that is known about him implies that he was a non-important provincial equestrian. It may be reading too much into the words to assume that they were meant for Nero in addition to or instead of Aebutius Liberalis—on the other hand it has been speculated that: Seneca argues that benefits given equal love returned.

This would be important for any Roman aristocrat of course, as all had clients and amici to whom this could relate. If it was true for an eques or Senator, however, it was that much more relevant for the Princeps, whose clientele was the entire Empire and more.

Seneca had seen Gaius and Claudius each lose the goodwill they had established early in their reigns, and this was a pro-active attempt to steer Nero away from that course. He elaborates on this definition shortly after.

Spec Fic is the Best Fic

The passage takes on additional resonance when read as advice to the Emperor. What then is a benefit? It is the act of a well-wisher who bestows joy and derives joy from the bestowal of it, and is inclined to do what he does from the prompting of his own will. And so what counts is…the spirit of the action, because a benefit consists…in the intention of the giver or doer. Throughout the work there are many sections that seem to have Nero in mind; Seneca begins the work with basic, general advice. Many men we find ungrateful, but more we make so, because at one time we are harsh in our reproaches and demands, at another, are fickle and repent of our gift as soon as we have made it, at another are fault-finding…Thus we destroy all sense of gratitude, not only after we have given our benefits, but even while we are in the act of giving them.

Seneca uses Tiberius as an example of one who gave benefits only grudgingly and thus ensured they were not benefits at all. Seneca continues to spell out in great detail factors that would help train a young man. He stresses that a benefit given too late may as well not be given at all. The warning to Nero is implicit. In short, this is a guidebook to ruling, in which Seneca advocates a proactive system of reward.

Though the general advice is relevant to any Roman with clients or amici , several sections in the work appear actually to address the young Princeps.

His address to Liberalis [] again seems aimed at Nero rather than Liberalis. Book Three uses several examples of how it is possible for a master to receive benefits from his slaves. The parallels between Nero and Empire are hard to miss. This works inversely as well, for Seneca had elsewhere argued that the Princeps could be considered the servant rather than the master. The Spanish Stoic followed this with many demonstrations of how a father can receive benefits from his children.

Nero as father of the Empire had much to gain from the goodwill of the populace, Seneca seems to have argued. Some believe, however, that there was a disastrous side-effect to this lesson. Seneca had already addressed how the Emperor should treat, if not Senators, at least important men: There were other examples of parallel relationships. For Nero, the last of his line and with no male heir yet, this would have been a telling point. It may be reading too much into the work to assume that everything that could possibly be meant for Nero truly was.