Please feel free to download and share these beautiful Marcus Aurelius HD wallpapers, created by our graphic designer, Rocio de Torres.
Please feel free to download and share these beautiful Marcus Aurelius HD wallpapers, created by our graphic designer, Rocio de Torres.
Some notes on passages in the Stoic literature that appear to question, or possibly even condemn as vicious, the practice of slave-owning.
Massimo Pigliucci recently wrote an excellent article on Stoicism and slavery. He was responding to a message, which said “I know that Epictetus was a slave and embraced Stoicism, but I find it difficult as an African-American to embrace this philosophy which is quite silent about slavery.” Massimo mentioned in passing that “no Stoic questioned the very institution of slavery”. This article looks at what the Stoics said about slave-owning. There are some passages which suggest that Stoics may actually have questioned the institution of slavery or even stated that slave-owning was wrong but they’re not very well-known and there’s a bit of interpretation and reconstruction required.
First of all, it’s worth noting that many people feel that the ancient Stoics should have viewed slavery negatively. Why? Well, consideration for others as our equals or fellow-citizens in the cosmos, ethical cosmopolitanism, is central to Stoic Ethics. The Stoics were also firm believers in the concept of natural law and they agreed that no man is a slave by nature. Some ancients believed, by contrast, that slavery was the natural state of certain races. The view that some men are “natural slaves” is usually attributed to Aristotle and the Stoics are taken to be opposing him by rejecting this notion. For instance, Chrysippus defined a slave as a “hired-hand for life”, a man-made condition not a natural one.
However, there are only a few passages where the question of slave-ownership is addressed explicitly. There are also a handful of historical details and a few pieces of textual evidence, which can potentially be viewed as revealing Stoic attitudes toward slavery. Nevertheless, I noticed recently that Diogenes Laertius, one of our main sources for early Stoic fragments, does appear to state that the founders of Stoicism condemned slave-owning as morally wrong. Massimo extended his article above to acknowledge this passage in Diogenes “where he seems to suggest (second part) that the Stoics actually directly condemned slavery”. In his summary of early Stoic Ethical doctrines, Diogenes writes of the Stoic wise man:
They declare that he alone is free and bad men are slaves, freedom being power of independent action, whereas slavery is privation of the same; though indeed there is also a second form of slavery consisting in subordination [subjugation], and a third which implies possession of the slave as well as his subordination; the correlative of such servitude being lordship [slave-ownership]; and this too is evil. (7.121-122)
I also checked my interpretation of this passage with John Sellars and Christopher Gill, two of my colleagues on the Modern Stoicism team. Chris is emeritus professor of Ancient Thought at Exeter university and an authority on Stoicism, having published several academic books on the subject, including an analysis and commentary on the first half of The Meditations. He agreed that “the passage does appear to say that slave-ownership is bad (not just the extended [metaphorical] forms of slavery normally discussed by Stoics)”, although it’s surprising to see an ancient author expressing this view. On the other hand, John Sellars, an academic philosopher and author of Stoicism and The Art of Living, pointed out that we might potentially expect the Stoics to “attack slavery in general as something unjust, especially given their cosmopolitan ambitions”.
Diogenes is mainly quoting sayings from Zeno and Chrysippus in this section, although he also refers to Apollodorus of Seleucia, a student of Diogenes of Babylon who wrote an important handbook on Stoic Ethics, around 150 BC. He’s almost certainly referring to Zeno and Chrysippus here as “they”, probably based on summaries of their core teachings in Apollodorus and later authors, such as Arius Didymus.
Here are a couple of interesting references to that passage… In his Histoire des théories et des idées morales dans l’antiquité (1879), Jacques François Denis cites the passage above from Diogenes Laertius and interprets it as follows:
There is, says Zeno, such slavery that comes from conquest, and another that comes from a purchase: to one and to the other corresponds the right of the master, and this right is bad. (p. 346)
The American author Robert G. Ingersoll, famous for being an early proponent of agnosticism, cites Denis’ comment on the same passage, remarking:
I read Zeno, the man who said, centuries before our Christ was born, that man could not own his fellow-man. “No matter whether you claim a slave by purchase or capture, the title is bad. They who claim to own their fellow-men, look down into the pit and forget the justice that should rule the world.” (Why I am an Agnostic)
The first sentence is a paraphrase of the passage in Diogenes Laertius, although the second appears to be derived from the Epictetus passage quoted below (Discourses, 1.13).
As Denis and Ingersoll observed, the passage in Diogenes Laertius is most likely derived from a saying of Zeno, or possibly Chrysippus. Crucially, as they both note, it identifies two ordinary meanings of “slavery”: capture and purchase. In addition, though, it also distinguishes these from the special technical sense in which the word is used in the Stoic paradoxes, to refer to inner freedom. So actually the passage in Diogenes distinguishes three senses of the word “slavery”:
The passage above goes on to say that the correlate of such enslavement (items 2 and 3) is despoteia (δεσποτεία) which most definitely means slave-ownership in the Greek original, although translated into English here more vaguely as “lordship”. He then adds in “and this too is evil” (phaule, φαύλη), which means wretched, base, immoral, etc., a term used as a synonym for vice in Stoic Ethics. Indeed, throughout the chapter, Diogenes employs this same term very frequently (about eighteen times) as a synonym for vice. I don’t think there can be any question that he means slave-ownership is morally wrong.
As we’ll see below, when comparing this passage with the discussion of slavery in another Stoic text, by Dio Chrysostom, Zeno (or possibly Chrysippus) appears to have argued that slaves are either purchased or captured; capturing slaves is theft, and unjust, because no man is born a natural slave; but purchased slaves must either have been captured in the past or are descendants of those who have been captured; therefore all enslavement is unjust, because it’s a form of robbery, or the theft of a man from his natural state. Ingersoll and Denis both read this passage in the same way.
Some people boldly claim that it was totally unheard of to question the institution or practice of slavery in the ancient world. They’re demonstrably mistaken about this, though. The Sophist Alcidamas of Elaea, a student of the Sophist Gorgias who flourished in the fourth century BC, was probably the first thinker in Athens to do so. He wrote “God has left all men free; Nature has made nobody a slave”. Around the same time, Socrates is also portrayed by Xenophon as stating that the capture and enslavement of free men (andrapodizo) is a form of injustice (adikia), a vice, and his student Euthydemus even says it would be “monstrous” to consider calling it a form of justice (Memorabilia, 4.2.14). However, he goes on to qualify this by saying that if an elected general enslaves a city that could be considered just if it was behaving in an unjust and hostile manner. So he believed that enslavement of conquered aggressors was acceptable. Plato portrays Socrates’ exhibiting a slightly different attitude toward slavery in Book Five of The Republic, where he says that the ideal state would never enslave other Greeks, but only barbarian races. Although these accounts of Socrates’ attitude toward slavery conflict, and both show him endorsing enslavement under certain circumstances. However, what they do have in common is the suggestion that the circumstances in which many slaves were captured are fundamentally unjust. Albeit in their own limited way, these comments may have raised quite penetration questions about the institution of slavery itself.
By contrast, others, such as Aristotle, argued that some people are slaves by nature. He wrote that:
[…] those who are as different [from other men] as the soul from the body or man from beast—and they are in this state if their work is the use of the body, and if this is the best that can come from them—are slaves by nature. For them it is better to be ruled in accordance with this sort of rule, if such is the case for the other things mentioned. (Politics, 1)
The Stoics, probably adopting arguments forwarded by much earlier authors, categorically rejected the notion that any human being is naturally born to be a slave. (With the possible exception of the Middle Stoic, Posidonius, who embraced elements of Aristotelianism and appears to have reintroduced the notion of natural slavery.) Zeno argued that all men should ideally live together as though in a common herd. Chrysippus’ definition of a slave as a “hired-hand for life”, a social contract based solely on their purchase, is usually interpreted as an explicit rejection of the Aristotelian theory that some people are slaves by nature.
However, the injustice of capturing and enslaving someone who is naturally free-born is perceived as infecting and undermining the whole institution of slavery, as we’ll see. (Some authors believe that Antisthenes’ book Of Freedom and Slavery may have contained similar arguments, which potentially influenced the Cynic-Stoic tradition.)
Zeno’s Republic, arguably the founding text of Stoicism, was a scathing critique of Plato’s book of the same name. In it Zeno argued in favour of an ideal political state in which all men and women would be equal, living like brothers and sisters in a single community. This is very clearly a rejection of Aristotle’s notion of natural slavery.
Moreover, the much-admired Republic of Zeno, the founder of the Stoic sect, may be summed up in this one main principle: that all the inhabitants of this world of ours should not live differentiated by their respective rules of justice into separate cities and communities, but that we should consider all men to be of one community and one polity, and that we should have a common life and an order common to us all, even as a herd that feeds together and shares the pasturage of a common field. (Plutarch, On the Fortune or Virtue of Alexander)
This very clearly states that the political goal or ideal of Stoicism was a republic in which all men and women are equal and live as though members of a single community or family, by implication therefore slavery must have been abolished. It seems self-evident that the institution of slavery would directly contradict this ideal of social equality.
Some people have taken the following anecdote from Diogenes Laertius to imply that Zeno owned a slave:
We are told that he was once chastising a slave for stealing, and when the latter pleaded that it was his fate to steal, “Yes, and to be beaten too,” said Zeno. (7.23)
However, this passage makes a point of saying “a slave” not “his slave” – there’s nothing in it to suggest that Zeno was the owner of the slave in question, they were probably someone else’s slave. At least according to one account, Zeno lost his fortune at sea and subsequently lived like a beggar, as follower of the Cynic Crates, and he continued in a similar austere lifestyle after founding the Stoic school. If he had no property, he’s unlikely to have owned slaves. The Cynic way of life is generally taken to involve renunciation of wealth, and by implication slaves. According to tradition, the true Cynic only owns what he can fit in his satchel – which would presumably have insufficient room for a slave!
Moreover, Zeno was a metic or foreign resident of Athens, not an Athenian citizen. As such he had few rights, and his status was somewhat between that of a slave and a citizen. Technically, Foreign residents could own slaves, by law, but they could not own property. So unable to own his own home, Zeno appears later in life to have lived as the household guest of his student Persaeus. Without property at Athens, though, it seems unlikely that Zeno would have owned slaves. Indeed, Seneca says that it was well-known in his time that Zeno had no slaves:
It is well known that Homer had one slave, that Plato had three, and that Zeno, who first taught the stern and masculine doctrine of the Stoics, had none: yet could anyone say that they lived wretchedly without himself being thought a most pitiable wretch by all men? (Consolation to Helvia, 12)
There is another interesting anecdote in Diogenes Laertius, incidentally, in which Zeno appears to rebuke another man for beating his slave:
Once when he saw the slave of one of his acquaintance marked with weals, “I see,” said he, “the imprints of your anger.” (7.23)
As we’ve seen, Zeno introduced the convention that all those who are not virtuous are called “slaves”, in a technical sense. The Stoics believed that only the ideal Sage is truly virtuous and neither Zeno nor the other founders of the school claimed to be perfect. So this effectively means that all men are “slaves” to their passions, through attachment to externals. In the Discourses of Epictetus, for this reason, we can see him repeatedly addressing his students, collectively, as slaves.
Elsewhere, Diogenes Laertius says the early Stoics distinguished between evils insofar as they were means or ends. Among evils ends, things that are inherently evil, he clearly lists “slavery” and “every vicious action”. Thus slavery is an intrinsically bad activity which participates in a vicious attitude of mind. However, in this instance, he does appear to be referring to “slavery” in the sense of the Stoic paradoxes, i.e., the inner state of enslavement to our passions.
Zeno’s most famous book, The Republic, articulated his Utopian vision of the ideal Stoic Republic, “as though in a dream”, as Plutarch put it. It’s sometimes seen as the founding text of Stoicism. It’s also reputedly his most Cynic-influenced text. He describes the Stoic ideal as being a republic in which all citizens are equal, both men and women. There are no law courts, and all property is held in common. According to Plutarch, Zeno had taught the Stoics that “we should look upon all people in general to be our fellow-countryfolk and citizens, observing one manner of living and one kind of order, like a flock feeding together with equal right in one common pasture.”
Now in the few fragments that survive there’s nothing explicitly referring to the role of slaves in relation to Zeno’s Republic. However, it seems to stand to reason that if everyone is equal, like brothers and sisters (one flock or herd), and each has equal rights then there can be no slaves. Also, as slaves are property, if all property is held in common then there could arguably be no slaves. (And without law courts, it would also be impossible to administer laws governing slave-ownership.) So it does seem impossible that slaves could have been envisaged as forming part of the ideal Stoic Republic. Of course, that’s an ideal and not advice for real world politics. Nevertheless, it is supposed to denote what Zeno considered to be a good society, and the social goal of Stoicism.
In Letter 31, Seneca makes it clear that the human soul is equally divine whether it exists in a Roman knight or a slave:
What else could you call such a soul than a god dwelling as a guest in a human body? A soul like this may descend into a Roman knight just as well as into a freedman’s son or a slave. For what is a Roman knight, or a freedmen’s son, or a slave? They are mere titles, born of ambition or of wrong.
So, once again, you’d think that, in principle, would lead him to conclude that slavery is immoral. Seneca wrote a Letter to Lucilius entitled On Master and Slave (Letter 47). In it he emphasised that for Stoics slaves are first and foremost our fellow-humans.
“They are slaves,” people declare. Nay, rather they are men. “Slaves!” No, comrades. “Slaves!” No, they are unpretentious friends. “Slaves!” No, they are our fellow-slaves, if one reflects that Fortune has equal rights over slaves and free men alike.
Seneca owned slaves himself. However, his writings were arguably aligned more with the Middle Stoa. As we’ve seen, some Middle Stoics, influenced by Aristotelianism, may have reintroduced the notion of natural slavery. Stoics who were more aligned with Cynicism, like Musonius, Epictetus, or Marcus Aurelius, though, are likely to have questioned the concept of natural slavery, or rejected it outright, and to have been more influenced by the early Stoicism of Zeno’s Republic.
Even Seneca condemns cruelty toward slaves in this letter but doesn’t go so far as to condemn the institution of slavery. He does, however, repeatedly emphasis that slaves should be treated with respect, as fellow-human beings, and not as inferiors.
Kindly remember that he whom you call your slave sprang from the same stock, is smiled upon by the same skies, and on equal terms with yourself breathes, lives, and dies. It is just as possible for you to see in him a free-born man as for him to see in you a slave.
At one point he even seems to acknowledge that he’s skirting around the more fundamental ethical and political questions about slavery.
I do not wish to involve myself in too large a question, and to discuss the treatment of slaves, towards whom we Romans are excessively haughty, cruel, and insulting. But this is the kernel of my advice: Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your betters.
It’s tempting to read this as expressing Seneca’s awareness of a tension between Stoic ethics and the prevailing norms of Roman society. He realizes that Stoic ethics teaches us to treat all humans, even slaves, as our equals, as fellow-citizens of the cosmos. However, he doesn’t want to rock the boat too much by questioning the whole institution of slavery. At least, that’s one way of reading his comments on the subject.
Epictetus, of course, was originally a slave himself, but gained his freedom later in life. In fact his name just means “acquired” and seems to have been a nickname of sorts, denoting the fact he was the property of another man. In one of the shorter Discourses, Epictetus directly addresses slave-ownership. In response to a question about acting acceptably to the gods, Epictetus refers to a slave-owner becoming furious because his slave brought him water that was tepid and not warm enough.
Slave yourself, will you not bear with your own brother, who has Zeus for his progenitor, and is like a son from the same seeds and of the same descent from above? But if you have been put in any such higher place, will you immediately make yourself a tyrant? Will you not remember who you are, and whom you rule? that they are kinsmen, that they are brethren by nature, that they are the offspring of Zeus?—But I have purchased them, and they have not purchased me. Do you see in what direction you are looking, that it is towards the earth, towards the pit, that it is towards these wretched laws of dead men? but towards the laws of the gods you are not looking. (1.13)
Here Epictetus reminds his wealthy students that even their slaves should be viewed as brothers as they are all children of Zeus. The role of Zeus as father of mankind is a common theme in Stoicism, and the wise man is directed to emulate Zeus by viewing the rest of mankind as his brothers and sisters, without discrimination. If you have been put in the position of ownership over another man you must nevertheless remember that he is your kinsman, in the eyes of Zeus. In response to a student objecting “but I have purchased them”, quite astoundingly, Epictetus refers to the Roman laws governing slave ownership as “these wretched laws of dead men”, i.e., mortals, and scolds his students for appealing to them rather than giving precedence to the eternal laws of Nature or Zeus. Calling the laws governing slave-ownership “wretched”, clearly implies a criticism of the legal institution of slavery, although Epictetus doesn’t really elaborate further on this point.
Incidentally, Epictetus’ teacher, Musonius Rufus, had said that slaves are entitled to disobey masters who instruct them to engage in immoral actions (Lecture 16). He also said that like Diogenes the Cynic, who was enslaved, a slave may not only be the equal of but actually more virtuous than his master (Lecture 9).
Perhaps our clearest articulation of the Stoic position actually comes from Dio Chrysostom. Dio wasn’t a fully-fledged Stoic but rather an eclectic philosopher and orator, influenced both by Stoicism and Cynicism. He was student of the great Stoic teacher Musonius Rufus, friends with the Stoic Euphrates of Tyre, and probably also an acquaintance of Epictetus. Marcus Aurelius appears to mention both Dio and Euphrates favourably in The Meditations.
Dio provides one of our most explicit Stoic-influenced condemnations of slavery in his fourteenth and fifteenth orations On Slavery and Freedom: Discourses I and II. He starts off his initial Discourse by forwarding typical arguments in favour of the Stoic paradox that only the wise man is truly free and the majority of us are slaves because of our ignorance. This is the special Stoic technical use of the word “slavery”, and refers to our inner state. As Dio notes, this paradox means that even the great king of Persia, Xerxes, may have been a slave inwardly, to his ignorance and passions, despite his external power; and even someone who appears outwardly enslaved, such as Diogenes the Cynic, might nevertheless be inwardly regal and free, if he possesses virtue and wisdom. (These arguments and the terminology used by Dio are clearly Stoic in nature and acknowledged as such by modern commentators.)
However, in the second Discourse, Dio proceeds to discuss the ordinary sense of the word “slavery”, i.e., the forced subjugation or legal possession of one person by another. He argues that all slaves are either captured or are the descendants of those who have been captured. In the same way that a person can possess land, property, or livestock for a long time but nevertheless unjustly, says Dio, to capture men in war or by brigandage is “to have gained possession also of human beings unjustly”. Slaves can also be purchased, inherited, or born into the household as the children of other slaves but all these depend on this earliest method of acquiring slaves by capture, which Dio says “has no validity at all” and constitutes “unjust servitude”.
Those individuals who were initially compelled by force into a life of servitude should not even be termed “slaves”. Therefore all slavery is “unjust” insofar as it depends, ultimately, on the capture of individuals who were born free.
If, then, this original mode of acquiring slaves, from which all other modes derive their existence, be destitute of justice, none of them can consequently be deemed just; nor can a single individual either be a slave in reality, or be truly and substantially discriminated by such an appellation. (15.26)
Dio repeatedly denies that being captured can legitimately make someone who is free-born into a slave and asserts that this means their descendants cannot be slaves either. Note that the distinction he employs in this oration between inner slavery, slavery by capture, and slavery by purchase, appears to reflect the distinction made by the Stoics, according to Diogenes Laertius, in the passage cited above, which Denis and Ingersoll plausibly attributed to Zeno. It seems certain that Dio Chrysostom and Diogenes Laertius are both ultimately drawing upon the same Stoic source in making this distinction and the two texts shed some light on each other.
The presence of the passage in Diogenes also appears to confirm the conclusion of modern scholars that these orations of Dio are thoroughly Stoic in nature. Likewise, Dio’s discourses confirm that the Stoics meant phaulos (bad or wretched) to mean unjust or morally wrong. They also clarify that the Stoics are talking about the distinction between slaves who are captured and subjugated by force, usually during warfare but also by bandits or pirates, and slaves who are legally purchased. Their point is that both practices are unjust, and immoral, because the purchase of a slave depends on the fact that they or their ancestors were at some point captured by force, or stolen from their natural state.
As we’ve seen, the Stoics believed in the ideal of ethical cosmopolitanism. All humans, in fact all beings that possess reason, are equally citizens of the same cosmos. This doctrine is arguably incompatible with slavery, as for cosmopolitans everyone is a citizen, and citizens are not slaves. Moreover, no man is naturally born to be enslaved. This theme is particularly prominent in The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, where it’s closely associated with his pantheistic view of Nature.
Marcus’ therefore expressed his political vision as a state with a mixed constitution for which the freedom of its subjects is its highest priority:
[…] the idea of a balanced constitution, and of government founded on equity and freedom of speech, and of a monarchy which values above all things the freedom of the subject (1.14)
Sometimes people object that although Marcus was emperor he didn’t abolish slavery. That seems very obviously to be an unrealistic expectation, though. The position of Roman emperor was far too precarious for that sort of radical social upheaval. The Roman economy completely depended on slave labour. Moreover, when foreign enemies were defeated, tens of thousands were normally captured. Often the only realistic option was to keep them as slaves. If they were returned to their lands, they would simply regroup and attack again. So the Romans could plausibly argue that enslavement was a more ethical option than mass executions, or genocide, of enemy tribes.
However, Marcus did try to resettle thousands of Germanic tribesman within Italy. This wasn’t entirely successful as some were involved later in uprisings. The Historia Augusta actually tells us that Marcus observed the principles of justice even in dealing with captive enemies, choosing to resettle them. This could be read as implying that Marcus believed enslaving them would have been an injustice.
He scrupulously observed justice, moreover, even in his dealings with captive enemies. He settled innumerable foreigners on Roman soil. (Historia Augusta)
He also caused widespread unrest at Rome by granting thousands of slaves their freedom in exchange for joining the legions during the crisis of the initial Marcomannic invasion, when the armies were severely depleted by the Antonine Plague.
Moreover, as his biographers have observed, Marcus consistently appears to have taken legal steps to improve the rights of slaves in relation to manumission, or obtaining their freedom. It’s true that these were very gradual changes but Marcus himself states that he has to be satisfied with small steps in the right direction politically. In case there’s any doubt about the delicate balance of power during his reign, it’s worth noting that Marcus actually faced a full-scale civil war in 175 AD, reputedly triggered in part because of unrest over the leniency of his attitudes. The uprising was put down very quickly but it proves that Marcus couldn’t just do what he liked politically, he faced an opposition faction in the senate and potential usurpers waiting in the wings.
Marcus wrote that he was inspired by learning about Stoic Republicans like Cato of Utica and Thrasea and that he aspired to the political ideal of “a balanced constitution, and of government founded on equity and freedom of speech, and of a monarchy which values above all things the freedom of the subject” (1.14). This is a remarkable passage. It sounds reminiscent in some ways of Zeno’s Republic, which was written almost 500 years earlier. It also seems difficult, obviously, to reconcile the institution of slavery with the ideal of a state that makes its highest priority the freedom of its subjects.
Moreover, in The Meditations, Marcus also wrote:
A spider is proud when it has caught a fly, and one man when he has caught a little hare, another a little fish in his net, another boars, another bears, and another some Sarmatians. Now if you look into their judgements, are these not simply brigands? (10.10)
This is a remarkable passage. Marcus is referring to the capture and subjugation of enemy Sarmatian soldiers during the Marcomannic Wars, mainly by his own Roman officers. These captives would have been ransomed or sold into slavery. The eminent French scholar Pierre Hadot comments on this passage:
The war in which Marcus defended the borders of the empire was, for him, like a hunt for Sarmatian slaves, not unlike a spider’s hunt for flies. (Philosophy as a Way of Life, p. 185)
Marcus compares the capture of barbarian slaves to catching fish in a net, hunting boar, and so on, but then astoundingly he concludes that the character of a person who takes pride in doing this is no better than that of a brigand or robber. In other words, perhaps in an allusion to the Stoic doctrine mentioned in Diogenes Laertius and Dio Chrysostom, he appears to be saying that capturing enemy soldiers is a form of theft, robbing them from their natural state of freedom. He doesn’t go on to say, as the early Stoics did, that this vitiates the institution of slavery insofar as all legally purchased slaves must have been at one time captured, or are the descendants of those who have been.
This passage is also strikingly similar to the Stoic argument against slavery forwarded by Dio Chrysostom. Some philosophers believed certain individuals, even certain races, were naturally born to be slaves. The Stoics categorically rejected this notion. Marcus here clearly rejects the idea that the Sarmatians are natural slaves. As they’re freeborn, capturing them is simply unjust, or akin to robbery. In other words, this passage is clearly a rejection of the assumption that so-called barbarian races are “fair game” for enslavement.
Moreover, Marcus appears to have caused some unrest at Rome by offering many slaves, including gladiators, their freedom in exchange for joining the legions.
And since the pestilence [the Antonine Plague] was still raging at this time, he […] trained slaves for military service — just as had been done in the Punic war — whom he called Volunteers, after the example of the Volones. He armed gladiators [likewise slaves] also, calling them the Compliant, and turned even the bandits of Dalmatia and Dardania into soldiers. (Historia Augusta)
Paul Barron Watson’s excellent biography of Marcus Aurelius contains a very detailed account of the specific legislative changes that Marcus enacted in order to improve the rights of slaves. It’s about twelve pages long. I’ll quote some key passages at length below but you’ll have to consult the original for the numerous examples he cites regarding specific pieces of legislation. He opens with the conclusion:
The broad and charitable attitude which men were beginning to take with reference to the rights and duties of the various portions of society can be due only to the principles of Stoicism, which were forcing themselves upon the minds of men […] In no way was this breadth of purpose more marked than in the laws which Marcus passed in aid of slaves. […]
In addition, therefore, to the feelings of benevolence which actuated Marcus Aurelius in relieving this down-trodden class of society, he was induced by political reasons to enact measures to avert the impending danger [of slave revolts]. How to augment the relatively small free population and how to alleviate the distress of the slaves and freedmen, were problems which Marcus kept continually before him. He strove to make real that idea which he speaks of in his Thoughts [i.e., The Meditations] — the idea of a “polity in which there is the same law for all, a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed.”
It was a difficult task that lay before the Emperor. Revolutions sometimes take place in politics — in law, never. The boast of law is that it is founded on justice; and the principles of justice remain eternally the same. The principles of political parties may be overthrown by the weight of numbers or the power of wealth; in law, whatever alterations are accomplished are effected by force of argument alone. To convince the Roman people that a person taken in war is not the property of the captor was more than any one emperor could accomplish. Marcus Aurelius did a noble work-in promulgating this doctrine; but its final adoption could only be effected by the reasoning of ages. As a first step towards the abolition of slavery Marcus introduced a practice which was, in fact, almost a logical consequence of his immediate predecessors’ beneficent laws. [Hadrian had introduced basic rights for slaves by declaring that a master could not kill their slave without just cause.]
Marcus Aurelius was quick to perceive the advantage which had thus been gained; and he at once followed it up by an enactment, framed as a privilege to the master, but in reality a decided benefit to the slave. By this new law the master was empowered to bring an action in the courts for every injury suffered at the hands of his slave.1 Thus the masters were encouraged to lay all their grievances before the tribunals instead of taking the punishment of their slaves into their own hands, as they had done hitherto. It was one step more towards placing both upon the same footing. If the masters could be induced to rely on the courts to award them justice for all injuries from their slaves, it would follow almost as a corollary that the slaves might look to the courts for protection from the injustice of their masters. It is always the oppressed that gain when law is substituted in the place of despotism. A secondary purpose which Marcus had in encouraging masters to lay their grievances before the courts was to do away with a brutal custom known as the quaestio, or torture. This had long been the ordinary way of inducing a slave to confess any crime which he had committed, and also of compelling him to furnish evidence against his fellows. It was a method which failed chiefly in the uncertainty of its result. […]
Even Marcus Aurelius seems to have aimed rather at substituting a more just method of obtaining evidence than at abolishing entirely the older form of procedure. To his cred it, however, it should be said that he urged strongly the propriety of resorting to this method only as a last resource, and even then of using as little violence as possible. Indeed, the compilers of the Digest have preserved a letter in which Marcus recommends that a slave who, under torture, had confessed a crime of which he turned out afterwards to be innocent, should be set at liberty, in recompense for the indignity he had suffered.’
Another humane law, by which Marcus re-strained the cruelty of masters, provided that if a slave should be sold, otherwise than after judgment in the courts, for the purpose of being pitted against beasts in the arena, both the seller and the buyer should be punished.’ As long, however, as the masters were just and kind towards their slaves, the Emperor felt that the slaves were, in return, bound to obey their masters. He therefore published an open letter, in which he proclaimed it to be the duty of all governors, magistrates, and police soldiers to aid masters in their search for fugitive slaves. When found, the runaways were to be returned to their masters, and whoever aided in concealing them was to be punished.’ Indeed, Marcus went further ; and made it lawful for the search to be conducted upon the estates of the emperor as well as upon those of senator or peasant.’
It was not only, however, with a view towards relieving the condition of those in actual slavery that Marcus worked, he sought, also, to render enfranchisement more easy. [Watson recounts several specific legislative changes made by Marcus to increase the rights of slaves to manumission; for example:] In cases where a slave was sold or given away, to be manumitted at the death of the recipient, Marcus insisted, with the utmost imperativeness, that the manumission must be performed. Nothing was allowed to stand in the way.’
The condition, too, of slaves who had already received their liberty, Marcus attempted to alleviate. [Again, several legal examples are provided.] In all doubtful cases with regard to slaves and freedmen Marcus preferred to fail on the side of charity rather than to encourage cruelty; and we hear of some in stances where he even went so far as to allow a freedman to be chosen as tutor to his infant patron. One law more we must notice before leaving the subject of slavery. It is set forth in a rescript of Marcus Aurelius, and reflects clearly the benevolent principles which actuated the Emperor in all his public life. The aim of the law was to prevent masters who had stipulated with their slaves that they should be freed if they performed such and such services before a certain time, from evading their contract.
Marcus adds to this final rescript: “for principles of humanity demand that a money consideration shall never stand in the way of a person’s freedom”. (86-97)
Are you looking for a Crash Course in Stoicism?
Stoic Week 2017 has just finished. With 7,000 people from around the world taking part this, the fifth event, has been the largest Stoic Week to date.
If you missed Stoic Week or even if you were one of the lucky ones who took part and are now looking for something else to do why not try my free Crash Course in Stoicism? It only takes about ten minutes to complete. I’ve tried to compress as much useful information as possible into a lightning course so that complete newcomers to the subject will feel they’ve been brought up to speed on some key ideas and resources for studying Stoicism.
New Stoic t-shirt design based on a quote from The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius.
To celebrate Stoic Week 2017 and the Stoicon conference on modern Stoicism in Toronto, we have created this new t-shirt.
The design consists of the Owl of Athena perched on a skull, symbolizing philosophy and mortality – a memento mori. The quote from The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius underneath reads: “The cosmos, change; life, opinion”. The material universe is constantly changing, and impermanent. The quality of our lives is determined by our beliefs, particularly our value judgements.
You can pre-order yours now and we’ll ship it out to you after Stoic Week finishes on 23rd October. Currently only available in black but sizes between small and x-large can be selected.
Announcing Stoic Week 2017.
You can now enrol in advance for Stoic Week 2017. Stoic Week is an international, online event, open to everyone. It has been run every year since 2013 by Modern Stoicism Ltd., a non-profit organization consisting of a volunteer multi-disciplinary team of academics and psychologists. Stoic Week is for everyone. Last year we had over 3,400 participants from countries all around the world. The course entails following a handbook and audio exercises for seven days, helping you to “live like a Stoic” for a week. You should enrol now if you want to take part and begin reading the preliminary materials online. The rest of the course will become available before October 16th, the official start date. Click the enrol button below to find out more…
How much did Epictetus influence Marcus Aurelius?
Epictetus was the most influential Stoic philosopher of the Roman Imperial period and we can see that he had considerable influence over Marcus Aurelius but the relationship between them probably requires some explanation. Stoicism could take different forms. The rhetorician Athenaeus, who lived around the same time as Marcus, claimed that the Stoic school had divided into three branches. These followed the three last scholarchs, or heads of the school: Diogenes of Babylon, Antipater of Tarsus, and Panaetius of Rhodes. Epictetus never mentions the Middle Stoics, who followed Panaetius in assimilating more aspects of Platonism and Aristotelianism. He seems instead to hark back to an older form of Stoicism, more aligned with Cynicism. The only one of these three scholarchs he mentions is Antipater, so it’s possible he saw himself as following the “Antipatrist” branch of Stoicism. Marcus aligned himself mainly with Epictetus, and perhaps assumed he was part of the same branch of Stoicism.
It is fair to say that the essential substance of Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations comes from Epictetus. (Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life, 195)
Marcus was only about fourteen years old when Epictetus died. He’d probably never left Rome so it’s unlikely the two ever met. Epictetus had previously lived and taught philosophy in Rome but left around 93 AD when the Emperor Domitian banished philosophers, nearly three decades before Marcus Aurelius was born. He set up a Stoic school in Nicopolis in Greece, where he remained for the rest of his life. However, Marcus surrounded himself with philosophers and it’s quite likely that some of the older men he knew had studied with Epictetus in person.
The Emperor Hadrian was a hellenophile and associated with many philosophers. Though far from a Stoic himself, he was reputedly a personal friends of Epictetus. Marcus was close to Hadrian, who chose him to succeed Antoninus, his immediate heir. So it’s quite possible Marcus first heard of Epictetus from Hadrian and others members of his court. However, Marcus’ natural mother was another hellenophile and there’s a hint she was friends with Junius Rusticus, whom we’ll return to below. So it’s vaguely possible she also had some familiarity with Epictetus or his students. Marcus mentions that Rusticus wrote an admirable letter consoling his mother. Rusticus was closer in age to Domitia Lucilla than to Marcus. It’s therefore possible that he was already a family friend prior to becoming Marcus’ tutor in philosophy, and was possibly a follower of Epictetus.
The Discourses and Handbook of Epictetus were not actually written by him but are edited notes made at his school by a student called Arrian of Nicomedia. However, Arrian was himself an exceptional man. He was reputedly, like Epictetus, a personal friend of Hadrian. Hadrian appointed him to the Senate and then made him suffect consul around 132 AD. He was later made governor of Cappadocia, for six years, where he became an accomplished military commander. Late in life, around 145 AD, he retired to Athens to serve as archon there, now under the emperor Antoninus. He was a prolific writer, highly esteemed as an intellectual, as well as a statesman and soldier. His relationship to Epictetus was therefore compared to that of Xenophon to Socrates.
Arrian probably died not long after Marcus was acclaimed emperor in 161 AD, but it’s quite possible Marcus could have met him if Arrian ever visited Rome. He must certainly have known of him as Arrian held important roles during the reign of Antoninus, in the administration of which Marcus was effectively second-in-command to the emperor. Arrian almost certainly knew Antoninus personally and probably also knew many other men in Marcus’ acquaintance.
Marcus’ main Stoic tutor was Junius Rusticus. In The Meditations, he said that Rusticus gave him a copy of notes (hypomnemata) of Epictetus’ lectures. This could be taken to refer to personal notes taken down by Rusticus. However, Marcus quotes from Arrian’s edition of The Discourses several times so it’s generally assumed those were the “notes” of Epictetus’ lectures to which he referred. Of course, it’s also possible that Marcus possessed both The Discourses noted down by Arrian and also notes taken by Epictetus’ other students. Rusticus could easily have attended Epictetus’ school himself if he had travelled to Greece, and provided Marcus with notes on his lectures. He certainly seems to have encouraged Marcus to study Epictetus’ branch of Stoicism. It’s also quite possible that Rusticus may at some point have met Arrian, who transcribed and edited The Discourses.
To make the acquaintance of the Memoirs of Epictetus, which he supplied me with out of his own library. (Meditations, 1.7)
What’s the significance of saying that it came from his own library? Perhaps copies of this text were rare at the time and Rusticus lent (or gave) him his only copy, something precious, rather than having him wait for a duplicate to be made by scribes.
It seems almost certain these notes were what we now call The Discourses, the notes of Epictetus’ discussions written and edited by Arrian. Indeed, Marcus quotes several passages, which are found in The Discourses. However, whereas four volumes of Epictetus’ Discourses survive today, there were originally eight – half of them are now lost. In addition to the quotations from the surviving Discourses, however, Marcus attributes another passage to Epictetus in The Meditations. It seems likely that this comes from one of the lost Discourses.
Marcus doesn’t always cite the name of the author he’s quoting, or even indicate when something is a direct quote or paraphrase from another text. So it’s quite possible that there are other passages in The Meditations which actually quote or paraphrase Epictetus’ lost Discourses. Indeed, some of the sayings popularly attributed to Marcus, for all we know, could be quotations from other authors, including Epictetus.
Marcus mentions Epictetus by name in the illustrious company of Chrysippus and Socrates, which seems to confirm the exceptionally high regard in which he held him.
How many a Chrysippus, how many a Socrates, how many an Epictetus has eternity already engulfed. (7.19)
Elsewhere, Marcus quotes from Discourses (1.28 and 2.22) where Epictetus paraphrases Plato’s Sophist.
‘No soul’, he said, ‘is willingly deprived of the truth’; and the same applies to justice too, and temperance, and benevolence, and everything of the kind. It is most necessary that you should constantly keep this in mind, for you will then be gentler towards everyone. (7.63)
The word “he” probably refers either to Socrates or Epictetus.
In another passage, he attributes a saying to Epictetus not found in The Discourses, which is numbered Fragment 26.
You are a little soul carrying a corpse around, as Epictetus used to say. (4.41)
Marcus repeats this phrase again later, suggesting that it was particularly significant to him, although the meaning is somewhat obscure to us now:
Children’s fits of temper, and ‘little souls carrying their corpses around’, so that the journey to the land of the dead appears the more vividly before one’s eyes. (9.24)
Marcus appears to have a well-known saying of Epictetus in mind when he writes:
You can live here on earth as you intend to live once you have departed. If others do not allow that, however, then depart from life even now, but do so in the conviction that you are suffering no evil. “Smoke fills the room, and I leave it”: why think it any great matter? (5.29)
Elsewhere he appears to be quoting the Stoic slogan of Epictetus “bear and forbear” (or “endure and renounce”):
Wait with a good grace, either to be extinguished or to depart to another place; and until that moment arrives what should suffice? What else than to worship and praise the gods, and do good to your fellows, and “bear” with them and “forbear”; but as to all that lies within the limits of mere flesh and breath, to remember that this is neither your own nor within your own control. (5.33)
In addition to these, Book 11 of The Meditations concludes with a flurry of quotations or paraphrases from The Discourses. The first is clearly from Discourses 3.24.86-7.
It takes a madman to seek a fig in winter; and such is one who seeks for his child when he is no longer granted to him. (11.33)
Epictetus is named by Marcus in the next one, which is from Discourses 3.24.28.
Epictetus used to say that when you kiss your child you should say silently ‘Tomorrow, perhaps, you will meet your death.’—But those are words of ill omen.—‘Not at all,’ he replied, ‘nothing can be ill-omened that points to a natural process; or else it would be ill-omened to talk of the grain being harvested.’ (11.34)
Then he quotes from Discourses 3.24.91-2.
The green grape, the ripe cluster, the dried raisin; at every point a change, not into non-existence, but into what is yet to be. (11.35)
Then from Discourses 3.22.105, a phrase which Epictetus repeated several times elsewhere.
No one can rob us of our free will, said Epictetus. (11.36)
This is followed by Epictetus Fragment 27, which appears to be from a lost book of the Discourses or perhaps from notes taken down by another student:
He said too that we ‘must find an art of assent, and in the sphere of our impulses, take good care that they are exercised subject to reservation, and that they take account of the common interest, and that they are proportionate to the worth of their object; and we should abstain wholly from immoderate desire, and not try to avoid anything that is not subject to our control’. (11.37)
Epictetus Fragment 2 also apparently from a lost book of the Discourses, but related to Discourses 1.22.17-21.
‘So the dispute’, he said, ‘is over no slight matter, but whether we are to be mad or sane.’ (11.38)
That appears to be linked to the last passage, which is probably also from one of the lost Discourses.
Socrates used to say, ‘What do you want? To have the souls of rational or irrational beings?’ ‘Of rational beings.’ And of what kind of rational beings, those that are sound or depraved?’ ‘Those that are sound.’ ‘Then why are you not seeking for them?’ ‘Because we have them.’ ‘Then why all this fighting and quarrelling?’ (11.39)
As Marcus clearly groups quotations together, it’s possible that some of the other passages surrounding those mentioned above, or elsewhere in The Meditations, could be quotes or paraphrases from The Discourses, or in some cases quotes from other authors cited in The Discourses.
Last chance to enrol on my new How to Think Like a Roman Emperor online course.
Utere non reditura.
Use the hour, it will not come again.
Today is your last chance to enrol on How to Think Like a Roman Emperor!
Remember, if you enrol on this pilot version of the course, you’ll be receiving $50 discount off the standard price, including e-learning and live webinars. You’ll also have access to any future updates or improvements, via lifetime access. I’m also providing a bonus live webinar to people taking part in the first course.
If you’re interested but have questions, please feel free to get in touch. (I get loads of emails from people about courses and answer all of them personally.)
Thanks once again for your support and feedback, and I look forward to seeing you in person on the course!
Announcing some webinars to chat about the new How to Think Like a Roman Emperor online course.
Enrolment has now opened for my new How to Think Like a Roman Emperor online course and you can find out more by clicking the button below:
I’ll be hosting a YouTube Live webinar on Tuesday 15th August at 2pm Eastern Time, to chat about the course and hopefully answer some of your questions.
To make sure nobody misses out because the time, I’ll also be doing a Facebook Live broadcast on the same day at the later time of 7pm Eastern Time. If you’re interested in attending either, go there now and set up a reminder notification for yourself.
Some quotes from the Stoics about not wasting time on frivolous discussions or abstract philosophical debates.
One of the recurring themes in the Stoic literature is the notion that doing philosophy exposes us to the risk of becoming preoccupied with trivial digressions and being distracted from the true goal of life.
For example, one of the most frequently quoted passages in The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius says:
Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one. (10.16)
Be not a man of superfluous words or superfluous deeds. (3.5)
Elsewhere he even says:
Away with your books! Be no longer drawn aside by them: it is not allowed. (2.2)
And again, “But away with your thirst for books, that you may die not murmuring but with good grace” (2.3).
Do the external things which befall you distract you? Give yourself leisure to learn something new and good, and cease to be whirled around. But then you must also avoid being carried about the other way. For those too are triflers who have wearied themselves in life by their activity, and yet have no object to which to direct every movement, and, in a word, all their thoughts. (2.7)
The Stoics believed that philosophy should aspire to be clear and simple, where possible, and focused on the most important practical questions in relation to ethics.
In the ancient world a sharp contrast was often made between Diogenes the Cynic and Plato, to illustrate two very different attitudes toward philosophy after the death of Socrates. Diogenes sneered at Plato for being too “Academic”, in the modern sense – too concerned with abstract or long-winded arguments and not enough with practical training in virtue. In return, Plato called Diogenes “Socrates gone mad”. Cynics apparently rejected the study of Physics and Logic, and bookishness in general, as intellectual vanity, not unlike Sophistry, and as diversions from practical philosophy.
Zeno of Citium, who was originally a Cynic and later studied in the Platonic Academy, appears to have adopted a middle ground. He did encourage his Stoic followers to study Physics and Logic but the Stoics also appear to warn us that we should not become lost in these subjects but should be careful to keep the goal of virtue in mind. Philosophical debate of the kind practised at Plato’s Academy, in other words, is good if it actually enhances our practical wisdom and virtue but can also be bad, a vice, if it doesn’t, and just indulges our vanity or wastes our time with trivialities. We shouldn’t indulge in arguments like the proverbial “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin” or become so engrossed in philosophical wordplay that we “disappear up our own backsides”, as it’s crudely put today.
Marcus Aurelius was apparently introduced to philosophy by his painting master, Diognetus, aged around twelve, who seems to have been influenced by Cynicism. He says that one of the first things he learned was “not to busy myself about trifling things”. He repeatedly counts his blessings that he’s been lucky in his education to avoid getting sidetracked by scholastic trivialities.
[I’m grateful to the gods…] that when I had my heart set on philosophy, I did not fall into the hands of a sophist nor sat alone writing, nor untangled syllogisms nor preoccupied myself with celestial phenomena. (Meditations, 1.17)
Epictetus taught that we should constantly remind ourselves that reading books is a means to an end, for attaining eudaimonia, and avoid getting sidetracked by frivolous subjects.
For what purpose do you choose to read? Tell me. For if you only direct your purpose to being amused or learning something, you are a silly fellow and incapable of enduring labour. But if you refer reading to the proper end, what else is this than a tranquil and happy life? But if reading does not secure for you a happy and tranquil life, what is the use of it? (Discourses, 4.4)
Although the Stoic curriculum covered Logic and Physics, the Stoics consistently attach the caveat that these subjects should be approached with caution by students. They should serve Stoic Ethics, and not become a diversion from it. We shouldn’t get caught in hairsplitting arguments about logic or become absorbed in idle speculation about metaphysics or theology. To do so would be the opposite of Stoicism.
What does it matter to me, says Epictetus, whether the universe is composed of atoms or uncompounded substances, or of fire and earth? Is it not sufficient to know the true nature of good and evil, and the proper bounds of our desires and aversions, and also of our impulses to act and not to act; and by making use of these as rules to order the affairs of our life, to bid those things that are beyond us farewell? It may very well be that these latter things are not to be comprehended by the human mind, and even if one assumes that they are perfectly comprehensible, well what profit comes from comprehending them? And ought we not to say that those men trouble in vain who assign all this as necessary to the philosopher’s system of thought? […] What Nature is, and how she administers the universe, and whether she really exists or not, these are questions about which there is no need to go on to bother ourselves. (Epictetus, Fragment)
Marcus Aurelius likewise warns himself to remember, with humility, that many philosophical subjects remained obscure even to the greatest Stoic thinkers.
Things are in a sense so wrapped up in mystery that quite a few philosophers, even the exceptional ones, have concluded that they are wholly beyond our comprehension. Even to the Stoics themselves they seem difficult to understand. Indeed, every assent we give to the impressions of our senses is liable to error, for where is the man who never errs? (5.10)
Marcus even describes those as “wretched” or “struggling” in life, who preoccupy themselves with things that cannot be known with any certainty.
Nothing is more wretched than a man who goes all around and “pries into the things beneath the earth”, as the poet [Pindar] says, and speculates about what is in the minds of his neighbours… (2.13)
Elsewhere Marcus says that not only Stoicism and Epicureanism, but indeed all other schools of philosophy, were in agreement that nothing should divert us from the pursuit of wisdom, especially “not chatter with the ignorant and those who have no understanding of nature” (9.41). We should not cast our pearls before swine, if you like.
Moreover, in addition to avoiding pointless hairsplitting debates and idle chit-chat, Epictetus advised his students to speak less in general:
Be mostly silent; or speak merely what is needful, and in few words. (Enchiridion, 33)
Today, Epictetus’ warnings about associating with uneducated people in a way that leads us to become swept along with their habits and conversation could be applied to social media networks such as Facebook.
If a man frequently interacts with others for talk, or drinking together, or generally for social purposes, he must either become like them, or change them to his own fashion. For if a man places a piece of quenched charcoal close to a piece that is burning, either the quenched charcoal will put out the other, or the burning charcoal will light that which is quenched. Since the danger is therefore so great, we must cautiously enter into such intimacies with people of the common sort, and remember that it is impossible that a man can keep company with one who is covered with soot without getting soot upon himself. For what will you do if a man speaks about gladiators, about horses, about athletes, or what is worse about men? “This person is bad, this person is good; this was done well, this was done badly.” Further, what if he scoff, or ridicule, or show an ill-natured disposition? (Discourses, 3.16)
This is reminiscent of the old saying: “If you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas.” I don’t think Epictetus means to be dismissive of all common people. He also thinks Stoics should debate in public, and should marry, have children, and engage with public life, if nothing prevents them. However, he’s warning his students to avoid bad company, and being drawn into time-wasting activities, particularly joining in with badmouthing other people, etc.
The Stoics in general were wary of gambling and spectator sports, which became an obsession for many in the ancient world. For example, Lucius Verus, the co-emperor and adoptive brother of Marcus Aurelius, was obsessed with supporting his favourite chariot racing team and criticized for neglecting his duties as emperor. Marcus says he’s thankful he was taught early in life not to get too into supporting one team or another, or to waste his time in pursuits like gambling. He also repeatedly warns himself not to be overly concerned with what other people say or think unless it actually contributes to the common good.
Fritter not away what is left of your life in thoughts about others, unless you can bring these thoughts into relation with some common good. (3.4)
Many of these aspects of Stoicism seem to be ignored by modern readers. Inevitably, we make excuses for our vices. For instance, if someone posts an article about Stoicism on Facebook, they’ll probably get a mixture of helpful comments and unhelpful ones, such as lame jokes, or pedantic arguments, etc. We all know these things can waste our time. They also tend, in many cases, to derail conversations and actually inhibit or sidetrack more constructive debates. It would be like the difference between having a serious debate about Stoicism in a philosophy seminar versus trying to talk to a room full of drunk people about it. It might be good to speak to a wider audience but not if the conversation is effectively spoiled by too many interruptions and digressions from people who don’t understand or don’t really care about the philosophy. We can reach a far wider audience using social media but it’s somewhere in-between in terms of the type of responses we get to articles on Stoicism. Sometimes we have to be careful to prevent the background noise from drowning out the philosophy. I think one way of doing that is by gently reminding people who are just becoming acquainted with Stoicism why teachers like Epictetus warned their students to be wary of wasting their own and other people’s time with trivial, unproductive, conversations. It’s not the Stoic way to derail a philosophical debate by making lame jokes, for instance, although even the Stoics could enjoy humour when used appropriately.
Announcing the forthcoming How to Think Like a Roman Emperor online course.
“The mind, unconquered by violent passions, is a citadel, for a man has no fortress more impregnable in which to find refuge and remain safe forever.” – Marcus Aurelius
Thanks for following my blog. I just wanted to let you know that I’ve got a big announcement coming up. For the last six months I’ve been busy doing research for a new online course, which I will be making public in a few days. It’s been a real labour of love for me.
It’s a new sort of training in applying Stoic philosophy to daily life, for a more meaningful existence, using Stoic psychology to build emotional resilience. There are a lot of resources in it that I wouldn’t be able to put into a book, like audio and video recordings, discussions, quizzes, graphics, and even some of the written content. It’s based around the example of the Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius, the most famous Stoic of all. It’s called How to Think Like a Roman Emperor. The course is four weeks long, and each week includes reading, videos, quizzes, discussion, and also live webinars you can choose to attend. You can view the main page already. However, enrolment won’t open for another couple of days…
I’m looking for people who want to join the first group to take the course and to provide feedback on ways it could possibly be made even better. So stay tuned for more information over the next few days. And thanks for being a part of this…