[157] ‘quod tam cito fit, timetis diu?’ Sen. Dial. i 6, 9; ‘puto fortiorem eum esse, qui in ipsa morte est quam qui circa mortem. mors enim admota etiam imperitis animum dedit non vitandi inevitabilia; sic gladiator tota pugna timidissimus iugulum adversario praestat et errantem gladium sibi adtemperat’ Ep. 30, 8; ‘the ship is sinking! what then have I to do? I do the only thing that I can, not to be drowned full of fear, nor screaming nor blaming God, but knowing that what has been produced must also perish; for I am not an immortal being’ Epict. Disc. ii 5, 11 to 13.
CHAPTER XVI.
STOICISM IN ROMAN HISTORY AND LITERATURE.
Spread of Stoicism.
422. Although up to this point it has been our main purpose to set forth the doctrines of Stoicism, we have seen incidentally that these came to exercise a wide influence in Roman society, and that the later teachers are far less occupied in the attainment of truth than in the right guidance of disciples who lean upon them. In the present chapter we propose to describe more particularly the practical influence of Stoicism. Our information, whether drawn from history or from poetry, refers generally to the upper classes of Roman society; as to the influence of the sect amongst the poor we have no sufficient record. But although it is very generally held that the Stoics made no effort to reach the working classes of Rome, or met with no success in that direction[1], the evidence points rather to an opposite conclusion, at any rate as regards all that development of the system which was coloured by Cynism, the philosophy of the poor[2]. Our actual records are therefore rather of the nature of side-lights upon the system; the main stream of Stoic influence may well have flowed in courses with which we are imperfectly acquainted, and its workings may perhaps come to light first in a period of history which lies beyond our immediate scope.
Conversion direct and indirect.
423. Individual Romans who professed themselves disciples of the Porch owed their allegiance to the sect to two causes, in varying proportion. On the one hand they had attended lectures or private instruction given by eminent Stoic teachers, or had immersed themselves in Stoic literature. This influence was in almost all cases the influence of Greek upon Roman, and the friendship between the Stoic Panaetius and Scipio Aemilianus was the type of all subsequent discipleship. Scipio himself did not perhaps formally become a Stoic, but he introduced into Roman society the atmosphere of Stoicism, known to the Romans as humanitas; this included an aversion to war and civil strife, an eagerness to appreciate the art and literature of Greece, and an admiration for the ideals depicted by Xenophon, of the ruler in Cyrus, and of the citizen in Socrates[3]. All the Stoic nobles of the time of the republic are dominated by these feelings. On the other hand individuals were often attracted by the existence of a society which proclaimed itself independent of the will of rulers, and offered its members mutual support and consolation. Such men were often drawn into Stoicism by the persuasion of friends, without being necessarily well-grounded in philosophical principle; and in this way small groups or cliques might easily be formed in which social prejudice or political bias outweighed the formal doctrine of the school. Such a group was that of the ‘old Romans’ of the first century of the principate; and with the spread of Stoicism this indirect and imperfect method of attachment constantly grows in importance as compared with direct discipleship.
The Scipionic circle.