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

Soberness.

343. The fourth cardinal virtue is Soberness (σωφροσύνη, temperantia). Of this there are various definitions, and amongst them that it is the principle which regulates our natural appetites so that they are neither in excess nor in defect[74]. From Cicero’s point of view Soberness embraces all the virtues, for it is in the due regulation of the impulses that virtue consists. The standard to be attained is a healthy state of the soul; and this is to be judged, upon the analogy of the body, by the canon of that which is beautiful, symmetrical, and becoming (πρέπον, decorum)[75]. ‘Just as bodily beauty is symmetry established between the limbs mutually, and also between each and the whole body, so beauty of the soul is symmetry between the reasoning power and its parts, and mutually between each of those parts[76].’ Although this is in principle a doctrine accepted by the whole Stoic school, yet in its application we may easily find an entirely new departure, that is, if the appeal is made to an artistic standard which depends upon the taste of the individual. The door is then thrown open to an abandonment of the Cynico-Stoic theory of life according to reason, and to the acceptance of the standard of good feeling, which may easily be so stretched as to include existing prejudices and conventions. This danger is realized in Cicero’s treatment of the virtue of ‘decorum,’ which in its distinctive sense is defined as having the element of ‘gentlemanliness’ in itself[77]. It begins with respect for the feelings and opinions of others[78]; it avoids all rough games and obscene jests[79]; it makes choice of a profession adapted to the natural character of the individual[80]; it observes, as the actor does, the proprieties of youth and age, rich and poor, citizen and foreigner[81]; it prescribes dignity as fitting for men, gracefulness for women[82]. In particular decorum is displayed in modesty (verecundia). This is shown by keeping out of sight those parts of the body which nature, though she could not dispense with them, has concealed and covered; in attending to their functions with the utmost secrecy; and in referring both to these parts of the body and to their uses by words that do not properly describe them[83].

Cynism or ‘decorum’?

344. Cicero’s treatment of ‘decorum’ is so full of good sense that his de Officiis was the most widely-known textbook of Greco-Roman ethics in medieval schools, and has retained its importance in the classical public schools of the present day. But its logical justification on Stoic principles is far from easy. We are therefore not surprised to find that, just as Zeno and the main body of his followers had proclaimed in advance that such doctrine was false in principle and ridiculous in detail, so conversely the followers of Panaetius found it necessary expressly to repudiate the teaching of a large number of Stoics[84]. We have in fact here a sharp conflict between the cultured and Platonizing Stoics on the one side, and the general feeling of the school on the other. Cicero elsewhere treats it as an accepted Stoic doctrine that ‘the wise man will blurt things straight out[85]’; and the theory of ‘gentlemanly professions’ can never have appealed to any large social circle. In the period of the principate we find the theory of ‘decorum,’ as a whole, abandoned. Seneca, personally as sensitive as Cicero himself, recognises the absurdity of wasting time in hinting at a plain meaning[86], nor does he limit his choice of illustration even when addressing a lady of high social position[87]. We must look then in some other direction than the de Officiis for a duly proportioned exposition of the Stoic virtue of Soberness.

The appetites.

345. Reverting to the definitions of this virtue, we find, amongst those that are generally accepted, first, that it is ‘the science of things that are to be sought or avoided or neither[88]’; secondly, that it is ‘concerned with the human appetites[89].’ Now the term ‘appetite’ or ‘impulse’ (ὁρμή, appetitus) includes in the Stoic philosophy all those first movements of the soul which draw us on towards some object, and which are adumbrations of right conduct requiring revision and control by reason. But it seems clear that Soberness has little to do with those higher impulses that are characteristic of man, such as the love of knowledge or of society, since other virtues are concerned with these. It remains that Soberness is the virtue which is concerned with the appetites common to men and the lower animals, which we may shortly call the ‘lower appetites’; they are, as we have already stated, the desires of eating, drinking, and sexual union. It is just in this sphere that Pleasure arises, in the sense in which it is condemned by the Cynics and popular moralists[90]. We may therefore shortly define Soberness as a right disposition of soul in relation to Pleasure. Its peculiar characteristic is that it is in the main a negative virtue, displaying itself in abstinence from indulgence[91].

Two views of Pleasure.

346. In order then rightly to understand the virtue of Soberness, we need a clear idea of the attitude of the Stoics towards Pleasure. Zeno, as we have seen, whilst definitely placing Pleasure in the category of things indifferent, had nevertheless allowed it to be understood that it might be an advantage (προηγμένον), and the seeking after it natural (κατὰ φύσιν)[92]; and this is stated to have been the express teaching of Hecato, Apollodorus, and Chrysippus[93]. To other Stoics this appeared to be a disastrous concession to Epicurean views. Cleanthes, who had scornfully described the ideal of Epicurus by the picture of Pleasure enthroned as queen, with the Virtues submissively attending as her handmaidens[94], interpreted the word ‘indifferent’ more strictly; he refused to admit that pleasure was ‘natural’ or possessed any worth[95]. In this view he was supported by a great many Stoics, and practically by Archedemus, when he said that pleasure was natural but valueless, like the hairs under the armpit[96]. Hence followed the acceptable conclusion that no sensible man would pay much attention to so trivial a matter[97]. Thus the one word ‘indifferent’ came to include two views which were substantially opposed, the one inclining to the Academic standpoint, and the other to Cynism.