Roman Stoicism / being lectures on the history of the Stoic philosophy with special reference to its development within the Roman Empire

by Edward Vernon Arnold

291. We are thus brought to the critically important question of the existence of the soul after death. On this point we shall not expect to find that all Stoic teachers agree in their language. In Zeno himself we shall be sure to find that variety of suggestion which is accounted for by his eagerness to learn from all sources; and later writers will also differ according to their respective inclinations either to draw strictly logical conclusions from the Stoic physics, or to respect the common opinion of mankind and to draw from it conclusions which may be a support to morality[131]. These variations need not discourage us from the attempt to trace in general outline the common teaching of the school. We have already seen that the various parts of the Stoic system are not bound together by strictly logical processes; where two conclusions appear contradictory, and yet both recommend themselves to the judgment, the Stoics are not prepared to sacrifice either the one or the other, but always seek to lessen, if they cannot altogether remove, the difficulties which stand in the way of accepting both. On the other hand, we need not too readily admit the charge of insincerity, whether it is found in the candid admission of its temptations by Stoic teachers[132], or in the less sympathetic criticisms of ancient or modern exponents of the system[133].

The Stoic standpoint.

292. On certain points all Stoic teachers seem to be agreed; first that the soul is, as regards its substance, imperishable; secondly, that the individual soul cannot survive the general conflagration[134]; lastly, that it does not of necessity perish with the body[135]. The first two dogmas follow immediately from the fundamental principles of the Stoic physics, and point out that every soul will find its last home by being absorbed in the divine being. The third dogma leaves play for ethical principles; subject to the monistic principle of an ultimate reconciliation, there is room for some sharp distinction between the destiny of good and bad souls, such as stands out in the Persian doctrine of rewards and punishments after death. And so we find it generally held that the souls of the good survive till the conflagration, whilst those of the wicked have but a short separate existence, and those of the lower and non-rational animals perish with their bodies[136]. If this difference in duration will satisfy the moral sense, the nature of the further existence of the soul may be determined on physical principles.

The released soul.

293. In the living man the soul, as we have already seen reason to suppose, derives its cohesion (ἕξις) and shape from its association with the body. Separated from the body, it must assume a new shape, and what should that be but the perfect shape of a sphere[137]? Again, the soul being compounded of the elements of air and fire must by its own nature, when freed from the body, pierce through this murky atmosphere, and rise to a brighter region above, let us say to that sphere which is just below the moon[138]. Here then souls dwell like the stars, finding like them their food in exhalations from the earth[139]. Here they take rank as daemons or heroes (of such the air is full), and as such are joined in the fulfilment of the purposes of divine providence[140]. Yet it must be admitted that this bright destiny, if substantiated by the laws of physics, is also subject to physical difficulties. Suppose for instance that a man is crushed by the fall of a heavy rock; his soul will not be able to escape in any direction, but will be at once squeezed out of existence[141]. To fancies of this kind, whether attractive or grotesque, we shall not be inclined to pay serious attention.

Tartarus.

294. In this general theory hope is perhaps held out before the eyes of good souls, but there is little to terrify the wicked, even if it be supposed that their souls neither survive so long, nor soar so high, as those of the good[142]. As against it we are told by a Church Father that Zeno accepted the Persian doctrine of future rewards and punishments, and with it the primitive belief in an Inferno in its crudest form[143]. We must agree with the first English editor of the fragments of Zeno that ‘it is hardly credible that Zeno can have attached any philosophical importance to a theory stated in these terms[144]’; they can at the best only have occurred in some narration in the style of the Platonic myths, intended to illustrate a principle but not to convey a literal truth[145]. For just as the whole Hellenistic world, including the Stoics, stood aloof from the Persian doctrine of a spirit of evil, so it firmly rejected the dogma of a hell. Lucretius makes it a principal argument in favour of the philosophy of Epicurus that it drives out of men’s hearts the fear of Tartarus[146]; but writers partly or wholly Stoic are not less emphatic. ‘Ignorance of philosophy,’ says Cicero, ‘has produced the belief in hell and its terrors[147].’ In the mouth of the representative of Stoicism he places the words ‘Where can we find any old woman so silly as to believe the old stories of the horrors of the world below?[148]’ ‘Those tales’ says Seneca ‘which make the world below terrible to us, are poetic fictions. There is no black darkness awaiting the dead, no prison-house, no lake of fire or river of forgetfulness, no judgment-seat, no renewal of the rule of tyrants[149].’

Purgatory of Virgil.

295. Of far more importance to us is the theory of purgatory familiar through the description in Virgil’s Aeneid: