Tacitus and Seneca

Author(s): Denis Henry and B. Walker

Source: Greece & Rome, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Oct., 1963), pp. 98-110
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/642804
Accessed: 12-06-2020 21:05 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Classical Association, Cambridge University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Greece & Rome

This content downloaded from 200.24.17.12 on Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:05:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TACITUS' AND SENECA

By DENIS HENRY and B. WALKER

SENECA has long been regarded as one of the supreme

say notorious-examples of the way in which the human
can be divided and compartmentalized. To live in two entire
worlds at the same time can never be easy: to combine th
present in Seneca without outward sign of strain is almost
Seneca took a leading part in Nero's education and training
and after he became Emperor; he lived for eleven years dur
and then committed suicide at his behest; he played a cen
chief counsellor in his administration. At the same time he wrote
treatises on the perfectibility of the human race under the flag of liberty,
equality, and fraternity, not as a vision of the future, but associating its
realization with Nero himself; he discussed the moral duty of th
philosopher in terms which were completely inconsistent with his own
mode of life, and composed ten (or is it nine?) tragedies which have as
one of their main themes the rule of moral chaos in human affairs, often
under a tyrant. In these plays there is a vision much less pleasant, tha
of the coming disintegration of the world, expressed in terms like'In nos
ultima aetas uenit ?'2
Of course it is conventional in writing Roman history to stress the gap
that existed in Roman life between public and private morality and to
talk of the failure of many Romans (Cicero being a very obvious example)
to carry into public life the principles and moral attitudes which
characterized them as individuals. If this is true, few more startling
examples exist than Seneca. St. Augustine in the City of God says of
Seneca, 'The freedom which manifested itself in his writings was totally
absent from his life' ;3 in another passage he accused him of being 'more
hypocritical than any actor'.4 Even Petrarch, who had more than an
admiration for Seneca as a moralist, thought that his attitude to Nero
was shamefully inconsistent with his moral principles. Our first aim is
to examine the account of Seneca in the Annals of Tacitus and to make
some observations which arise from this examination.

I Quotations from Tacitus have been taken mainly from the translation by
Michael Grant (Penguin Books).
2 Thyestes, 879.
Siv. 32.
4 Vi. 10.

This content downloaded from 200.24.17.12 on Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:05:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TACITUS AND SENECA 99
At the outset it may be helpful to give the b
life and career. A son of a wealthy Spanish eq
Marcus Annaeus, Lucius Annaeus Seneca was b
the first century B.C. at Corduba in Spain. H
a child, and during his youth devoted himself
the study of philosophy and rhetoric. He incu
his work as a pleader, and as Dio says in a vivi
by an eyelash'.' In A.D. 4I, the year of his fath
Claudius' reign, he was exiled to Corsica for c
the Emperor's niece Julia. He spent his tim
reflection and writing, which is about all you
A.D. 49 Agrippina, Claudius' wife, secured his r
to the praetorship. It is at this point that
Tacitus as we have them today. The reasons g
recall and promotionz are interesting and des
felt that she would be doing something for cu
known intellectual, and that this would gai
wanted to have Seneca as tutor to her son by C
the future Emperor Nero, then aged I2; (3) she
brains to steer her and her party to power.
No account of Seneca is given in this passage,
he would act as Agrippina directed. When Ne
years later Seneca reappears in the narrative a
of the praetorian guard, as his main adviser; but
seem, a henchman of Agrippina. The roles of
plementary, Burrus providing the sound co
using his good breeding, comitas honesta, to
tactful courtesy towards the prince.3 Nero ap
and gave him, as we shall see, enormous rewar
By A.D. 6o Agrippina had become so repugnan
to murder her, and did so. Very soon after t
mission to withdraw from public life, with an ur
by his offer to surrender all his possessions
Nero, playing the tyrannical cat to the philoso
protestations of his affection and debt to
began to rely on Seneca's help and advice less
conspiracy of Piso was revealed and there were
or falsehood we need not at present examine, t
He received from Nero a command to die whil

lix. 19. 7 f. 2 Ann. xii. 8.3. Ibid. xiii. 2. 2.

This content downloaded from 200.24.17.12 on Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:05:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Ioo00 TACITUS AND SENECA
of his friends, spoke of the lessons that philosoph
philosopher on the verge of death, opened his vein
wife, and died a painful but courageous death.
It is clear that from A.D. 49 to 65 Seneca was one of t
importance in Rome. Pliny the Elder refers to him
no doubt suggesting by this phrase that in the cons
and Burrus he was the senior partner. This is in fa
the narrative of Tacitus,' in which Burrus becomes
Nero's murder plans. One would have expected t
point in Books xii-xvi would have given detailed and
Seneca's role, both as educator, guide, and administ
state and as counsellor on a more intimate level. One would also have
expected Tacitus to give the vignette, so to speak, of Seneca the man
such as he likes to provide for others of similar or lesser stature. On
would have thought that Tacitus would want to exploit the curiously
ambiguous position of the philosopher-exile turned educationist and
cabinet minister, the wealthy man of influence and power, preaching
austerity of life and himself brought to an ignominious death. S
ambivalent a position would seem to provide an admirable field for the
devastating kind of epigram Tacitus makes on the theme of Mr. Facing
both-ways. If Tacitus felt that the personality of Petronius deserved
special treatment and comment by him, how much more should he hav
been drawn to the figure of the elder statesman endeavouring to live in
two worlds at once-and failing?
In fact Tacitus shows remarkably little interest in Seneca at all, and
many of the references he makes to him are irritatingly superficial an
uncommitted. This has struck most of the readers of the Annals who
have a particular interest in Seneca. Waltz, the French scholar wh
wrote the standard biography of Seneca, noting this treatment says:
'Tacitus shows an embarras. His genius, so penetrating and so passion-
ate, failed to make up its mind.' It is important, before one accepts
such a version, to examine the text of the Annals thoroughly and see
whether it offers any indication of Tacitus' attitude towards Seneca and
any reason for such an attitude.
The labour of such an examination is considerably lightened by the
fact that it has already been done by W. H. Alexander, the American
scholar, in a monograph.2 Alexander is writing, however, from a con-
fessedly partisan point of view and with the intention of vindicating
Seneca from Tacitean reproach. Our task is to pay rather closer
Ann. xiv. 51. 1-3.
2 The Tacitean 'Non liquet' on Seneca (Berkeley, 1952).

This content downloaded from 200.24.17.12 on Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:05:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TACITUS AND SENECA 1oI
attention to the role of Seneca without reference
are dividing our examination into three chronol

I. A.D. 54-59: the so-called quinquennium Neron

If Seneca was one of the most important adm
Rome during this period there is no recognition
His work, which must have been considerable
ministration of the Empire, is entirely ignored.
attributed to Tacitus' lack of concern for the no
ment, which made it easier for him to produce
now regarded by historians as extremely one-si
as proof of anti-Senecan feelings.
In the account of these years Seneca appears in
ridiculous figure, carrying about him the must of t
occasional, random, and often unexplained appe
In essence he is the pedantic tutor, whose influen
good-in Annals xiii. 2 he is described as chec
Burrus Nero's murderous tendencies and doin
Emperor's lubricam aetatem free from vice a
possesses talent as a hack; he is described as com
Nero, the first at Claudius' funeral,' which, desp
cultus, caused gales of laughter in the audience,
meeting of the Senate, where Nero proclaimed
policy of lenitas.2 The 'frequent' speeches that
were according to Tacitusz all composed by Sene
his own high talents, or to demonstrate how hig
was that he was giving Nero'. This is contem
attributes unctuous qualities to Seneca, but it is
common in Tacitus that we may attribute it he
minded malice. It is an instance of the stock pro
those who are not professors attribute qualities
who are, without a syllable of justification.
Seneca is tactful; he engineers the transition
Agrippina to Nero-or himself-with skill. He n
wardness of the situation when Agrippina tries t
for Armenian legates.3 He thoughtfully supplie
Serenus as a go-between for Nero's love affair w
Acte4 and incidentally by doing so wins greater
himself. It is not, one feels, a very elevated role
Ann. xiii. 3. I f. 3 Ibid. II1. 2.
Ibid. 5- 3. 4 Ibid. i3. I.

This content downloaded from 200.24.17.12 on Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:05:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
102 TACITUS AND SENECA

chief counsellor of state to be conv

between, but it argues tact and a g
Nero rewarded him for it in a princ
to the rewards Nero gave for servic
episode relating Britannicus' mur
Tacitus to Nero and no mention is
implicated or indeed having know
seem to us, on reflection, almost im
had prior knowledge. Tacitus desc
lurid colours as a brutal and sensational murder:' 'Britannicus was
handed a harmless drink. The taster tasted it; Britannicus, however,
found it too hot and refused it. The cold water containing the poiso
was added. Speechless, his whole body convulsed, he instantly ceased
to breathe.' It is significant that in this passage Tacitus avoids impli-
cating Seneca in any way, even by suggesting in his familiar manner
that some people said that Seneca had something to do with it. This
strong evidence for thinking that Tacitus had no desire to portray Seneca
in an evil light, but had as yet no very defined or clear attitude towar
him. After the murder had taken place there was hush-money to pa
'exim largitione potissimos amicorum auxit, nec defuere qui argueren
uiros seueritatem adseuerantis, quod domos uillas id temporis qua
praedam diuisissent.'z Seneca is not alluded to by name but the phras
'uiros seueritatem adseuerantis' might well allude to Seneca; note tha
as so often in Tacitus the discreditable interpretation is attributed t
a third, unnamed party.
The set piece of the first period, where Seneca appears prominently
is in the account of the trial of Suillius, an old man who had been an
informer in service to Messalina in Claudius' reign. Tacitus records i
his description of the proceedings the savage attack which he says wa
made by Suillius on Seneca.3 The attack itself is given in indirect speec
and it is not clear why so much attention should be given by Tacitus
just this one part of his speech and why no room is given for an
apologia by Seneca. It is true that Suillius is not exactly given credit fo
being a popular figure, but the accusations are described as damaging t
Seneca. We might be inclined to agree.
Suillius calls Seneca's exile under Claudius well deserved. After
describing him with the opprobrium usually reserved for school teach
('studiis inertibus et iuuenum imperitiae suetum') he attributes to h
an envy of those whose oratory was employed in real contests. He attacks

' Ann. xiii. 6 f. 2 Ibid. 18. I. Ibid. 42 f.

This content downloaded from 200.24.17.12 on Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:05:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TACITUS AND SENECA 103
his hole-in-the-corner morals-an allusion to
'What branch of philosophy gained Seneca 300
years of imperial friendship?' He refers to h
preying on the childless, his activities as a m
rates, and he exposes with considerable gusto
and conflicts in Seneca's life to which we hav
hears through the services of his friends wha
but is allowed by Tacitus no space for repl
made against Seneca by Suillius are written i
style marked by vividly concrete phrasing.'
It is tempting to think that the unusual vividn
is in part due to Tacitus' fundamental sympa
the charges made and that the damaging im
passage and by Seneca's failure to meet t
Tacitus intended to give. But it must be s
Tacitus did not feel sufficiently involved to
objective form, and was content to put thes
another.

2. A.D. 59-62: from Agrzippina's murder to S

retire

In this section Seneca's personality is if anything more elusive than

before. He calls in Acte tactfully to protect Nero from his mother's
enticements.2 When Agrippina is murdered Seneca is not referred to by
Tacitus as having any part in the first plot, or indeed knowing anything
of the attempt to kill Agrippina by means of the collapsing roof on board
her ship. Tacitus does insert a small and unintentionally comic detail
of a Nero panic-stricken by the failure of his first attempt, and rousing
Seneca and Burrus from their beds to ask them what he should do. This
is more in the Ustinov tradition than that of authentic historical writing.
Tacitus inserts of Burrus and Seneca the words 'incertum an ante
gnaros'. Both were silent, as well they might have been-few woul
react with ready speech when woken in the middle of the night and tol
by an ex-pupil that he has failed to murder his mother and wants to have
another try. Tacitus attributes their silence to their not wishing to
dissuade Nero from his purpose if there was no chance of succeeding
the choice before them being between Nero and Agrippina, of whom on

' 'Studiis inertibus' contrasted with 'uiuida eloquentia'; 'liuere' meaning

'envy'; 'corrumpere cubicula principum feminarum'; 'orbos uelut indagin
eius capi'; 'prouincias immenso faenore hauriri'.
2 Ann. xiv. 2. I f.

This content downloaded from 200.24.17.12 on Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:05:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 104 TACITUS AND SENECA
must go. The suggested reason might wel
Seneca's well-known habit of moral justifica
Seneca, who seems in this incident at least to
role, asked Burrus if they could call on the p
the job. Burrus said 'No', and gave cogent an
Nero at once left the city for Naples, and le
explaining what had happened and cataloguin
which Agrippina had committed, and for whic
Tacitus suggests that the letter did more dam
known to have written it, than to Nero him
omnium questus antibat'. The sentence stand
account of Tacitus' own historical method. T
of the human person beggar all description a
more easily made of vanities, petty pride, ins
The murder of Agrippina is in the Annal
descent to absolute vice, the first signs of wh
to drive in four-horsed chariot races and to s
fessional.z Seneca and Burrus did their best to
human decency by trying to restrict Nero t
monstrous vices but not to allow both. In thi
they retained a semblance of their earlier pow
lived. Burrus died or was murdered in A.D. 62 and Tacitus comments:
'Mors Burri infregit Senecae potentiam quia nec bonis artibus idem
uirium erat altero uelut duce remoto et Nero ad deteriores inclinabat.'3
This as it stands is complimentary to Seneca in giving him credit for
being one of two advocates of decent standards, but it is followed by an
account of the allegations which at this time began to be made against
him in Rome; and these bear a close resemblance to those already put
into the mouth of Suillius. He is too rich for a private citizen; he is
trying to win the support of the people; he is surpassing the Emperor in
the magnificence of his mansions and the beauty of his gardens. His
eloquence makes him vain, he is copying Nero by writing poetry, and
he superciliously disparages Nero's achievements as a charioteer and
a singer.4 As Tacitus says, this talk had its effect, and Nero began to
avoid Seneca.

There follows what is one of the two great mises en scene of Seneca in
the Annals, this being the interview between Seneca and Nero, with
Seneca pleading for his retirement. The detail of this scene need not
detain us long. It is impersonal, putting into the mouths of both teache
I Ann. xiv. Io f. 2 Ibid. 14. I. 3 Ibid. 52. I.
4 Ibid. 52. 2-4.

This content downloaded from 200.24.17.12 on Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:05:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TACITUS AND SENECA 105

and pupil smoothly Ciceronian speeches abou

in language which for Tacitus is unusually d
this to be one of the two key scenes devoted
complete artistic and historical failure. It is
Alexander calls it 'an exceedingly able piece of
characters of both Nero and Seneca', after first
lation of the scene in an English which aboun
some of which one feels are due to the prese
in the Latin original.

3. The death of Seneca

Events moved rapidly to their climax. In A.D
retire, but was again refused. He withdrew t
quotes a report that Nero tried to have him
so, either because the culprit confessed or be
stricted to fresh fruit and running water, so th
ing him was acute.2 A suggestion of comedy
last period of life.
During the Pisonian conspiracy of A.D. 65
implicated Seneca.3 This story Tacitus makes
confirm. It led inevitably to the downfall
proof of Seneca's complicity; so an ambig
referring to Piso served instead. Seneca receiv

x Ann. xiv. 53-56. Apart from the generally con

speeches-their careful balance and effective series
surprised to find them reported at such great length
Seneca declaims in the style of the stock philosop
opum in me cumulasti ut nihil felicitati meae de
Nero replies with sentiments proper to a pupil: 'qu
occurram, id primum tui muneris habeo.' Both scatter platitudes: 'et tu,
quantum amicus tribuere amico posset, et ego, quantum amicus a principe
accipere . . .'; 'non tamen sapienti uiro decorum fuerit unde amico infamiam
paret, inde gloriam sibi recipere.' The amplitude and the rhetorical embellish-
ment of these speeches might be thought to show Tacitus as enthusiastically
taking an opportunity for rich and showy writing, but the flatness of the
vocabulary prevents us from feeling this: 'at tu gratiam immensam, innumeram
pecuniam circumdedisti adeo ut plerumque intra me ipse uoluam . . . sed
uterque mensuram impleuimus . . . quae quidem, ut omnia mortalia, infra
tuam magnitudinem iacet, sed mihi incumbit . ..', &c.
This reads as though Tacitus, feeling compelled to allow Seneca a proper
appearance, had in the event been defeated by boredom. Stale similes, stale and
conventional phrasing make Seneca's last attempt to escape the mesh a matter of
indifference to writer and reader alike.
2 Ann. xv. 45. 6.
3 Ibid. 56. I f.

This content downloaded from 200.24.17.12 on Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:05:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
io6 TACITUS AND SENECA

prepared to die among his friends.' T

death make up roughly one-fifth of t
Annals, and is presumably intended t
might think, composed to win sympat
to death by his master. In the event th
death is so priggish and his commonplace
reader may feel that Seneca almost des
dullness. He urges his wife to live 'in
per uirtutem actae'. He says to his fri
ing possession, and that my best: the p
was on the point of death he could no
'suppeditante eloquentia aduocatis sc
dictated a treatise. Nero gave orders
and her veins were bound up again.

The portrait of Seneca by Tacitus is

because there is no other figure in the
us in his own writing such abundant m
of the one Tacitus draws. When on
treatises, and the plays, one realizes w
presented by Tacitus is. It is clear th
depth the strange ambivalences and i
tortured personality. We have already
accepted by scholars, that Tacitus doe
of Seneca's political and administrativ
are now suggesting that he fails to
figure at all.
In her book on the Annals2 B. Walk
Tacitus' version of history by the typ
such characters-the tyrant, the oppo
seems, on reflection, that one reason
historical figures in such roles was tha
failed to penetrate beyond the public fac
ment to hear Tacitus described as a
description of motives is tortuous; bu
and penetration. In almost every ca
individual's behaviour into conformity w
type of person.

x Ann. xv. 60-63.

2 The Annals of Tacitus: A Study in the
chester, I960), 204-34.

This content downloaded from 200.24.17.12 on Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:05:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TACITUS AND SENECA 107
The fact that Seneca in the Annals remains so colourless and in-
determinate a character is largely due, it would seem, to Tacitus' failure
to fit him into any predetermined type-character group. At times he
seems to class him as an ineffective philosopher-pedant. Such phrases
used of Seneca as 'exul professoria lingua',' the references we have
already made to the words 'uiros grauitate adseuerantis', Seneca's
reliance on 'praeceptis eloquentiae', Suillius' scornful description of him
as 'studiis inertibus suetum', and Seneca's own reference in his inter-
view with Nero to his 'studia in umbra educata' all point this way. The
phrase 'testificando quam honesta praeciperet'2 has a reminiscent ring
of that used by Thrasea Paetus, 'sueta firmitudine animi et ne gloria
intercideret'.3 The many references to Seneca's wealth, the 'amoenitas
hortorum' and the 'uillarum magnificentia', and the cutting attack of
Suillius--'quibus philosophorum praeceptis intra quadrennium regiae
amicitiae ter milies sestertium parauisset ?'-all suggest the hypocritical
entrepreneur.
But none of these suggested attributes builds up into a role. They
remain comments on Seneca's behaviour on particular occasions, and
they are not at any time brought together into a consistent whole. Tacitus
has to record many instances of conduct inconsistent with this pedantic
personality. He does not discuss the difficulty of reconciling the different
aspects of Seneca which they reveal.
There are perhaps two main conclusions to be drawn from Tacitus'
treatment of Seneca. The first is this: Tacitus was concerned in his
presentation of character with the 'public face' of the figures of history.
Their 'private face' was not a matter of concern to him. In many cases
the gap between the two must have been very great, if we accept the
conventional view of Roman history; and for that reason the personalities
presented by Tacitus must be gravely distorted. In Seneca's case the
distortion is great, because the public acts of the philosopher cannot be
understood without reference to his writings and to the philosophical
ideas which he held. Tacitus gives no indication that he knew anything
of the Moral Epistles, the treatises, or the tragedies, though he refers
with vagueness to Seneca's philosophical and rhetorical writings.
The second conclusion concerns the views held by Tacitus about
freedom. In the Agricola Tacitus writes a famous sentence about
Nerva; he united 'res olim dissociabiles, principatum ac libertatem'.
As a result scholars writing of Tacitus often suppose he was an apostle
of liberty, and they call him into existence in the type character of a

I Ann. xiii. 14. 5. 2 Ibid. Ii. 2. Ibid. xiv. 49. 5.

This content downloaded from 200.24.17.12 on Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:05:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 io8 TACITUS AND SENECA

nineteenth-century Whig reformer. I

Tacitus, that this legend should be dis
principate is fundamentally equivocal
Emperor as almost inevitably evil, wh
attempt made to resist or thwart his
emerges with great clarity in his accou
resisters of the day. Thrasea Paetus,
periculi fecit, ceteris libertatis initium
ficant is the remark in Agricola, 'ple
reipublicae usum nisi ambitiosa morte
that Tacitus genuinely believed that p
compatible at the same time as he beli
sity if the Roman Empire was to be a
eternally desirable as a political dream
Stoics resulted from feeling that the
realize their liberty were petty. Senec
dom: 'What is Liberty? It is to be a sla
to no necessity, to deprive fortune of he
to face problems of liberty which th
appreciate.

Qui tuto insultauerat agmini tyrannorum

non tulit.4

These problems placed Seneca in a dilemma which he did not find

it possible to solve. If his life as portrayed by Tacitus in the Annals was
ignominious by reason both of his general subjection to the Emperor and
of the particular forms which that subjection took, for example his
acting as go-between to Acte, we have to remember that the whole of
his administrative activity is unmentioned and that there is in many ways
a strange resemblance between the ways in which Seneca and Tacitus
tried to solve their highly similar dilemmas. Tacitus as a public servant
during the reign of Domitian must have experienced many times the
same kind of difficulties of conscience that beset Seneca, and on the
whole he seems to have faced them in a similar way. 'Moderatio
prudentiaque' and 'obsequium ac modestia', after all, were the qualities
chosen by Tacitus' ideal public servant, his father-in-law Agricola, as
the virtues to be exercised 'sub malis principibus'.s
No doubt it was principally these moral problems which led Seneca
to write of moral issues in so vapid and generalized a style-a style, be
I Ann. xiii. 12. 2. 2 42. 4. Ep. li. 9.
4 Tranq. 5. 3. I Agr. 42.

This content downloaded from 200.24.17.12 on Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:05:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 TACITUS AND SENECA o09
it said, which makes it impossible to read the
fatigue. The platitudes are so wan, so deficie
astonishing that anyone should have kept on wr
It is equally astonishing that they could have bee
of the tragedies.
The conflicts and strains which Seneca experi
clearly were not allowed to appear in the prose w
to imagine anyone thinking that this sentence
contains inner tensions: 'Circumcidenda ergo du
et ueteris incommodi memoria.' Where tension
in a remarkable fashion, is in the tragedies. Sene
of his plays the most sensational and bloody legend
and he presented them with a continual emphas
as for example Medea's slaughter of her children
eating his own family, and the madness of
breathe the same atmosphere of unnatural v
some of the lurid episodes in the Annals. Senec
of the chorus to reiterate the theme of horror-

Nihil iam iura naturae ualent. (Phoen. 478.)

The note that Seneca strikes here is sounded again and again throughout
the plays, and is used to reinforce an apparent conviction of universal
moral chaos leading to final catastrophe:
Mutatus ordo est, sede nil propria iacet
sed acta retro cuncta ....
natura uersa est. (Oed. 370 ff.)
It is not suggested that this represents a belief that Seneca himself held.
It is rather an imaginative theme, presented in language much more
alive than anything in the Moral Epistles. In those Seneca is concerned
often to assert the Stoic view of the universe as an ordered whole; the
plays reject entirely the Stoic view and proclaim disorder. In other
words the Seneca of the tragedies is, so to say, disloyal to Stoicism.
It is not the purpose of this paper to deal with the tragedies in any
detail, though they deserve and, it is to be hoped, will get more attention
than they have had in this century. They indicate the deep divisions,
what at the beginning of this paper was called the compartmentalization
of Seneca's personality. The philosophical works are Stoic in an ortho-
dox way, and rarely reveal any spontaneity of idea or personal feeling.
As statesman and administrator, Seneca acted like a pragmatist, and that
is the side of him inconsequentially portrayed by Tacitus; and however
unsatisfactory the portrait, it is clear that in his practical life Seneca was

This content downloaded from 200.24.17.12 on Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:05:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Io TACITUS AND SENECA

not really affected by the reflect

library. The tragedies belong to a
and profoundly disturbed side, an
suggests that Seneca found in the
which perhaps was essential to hi
have in the tragedies the discharg
of an insoluble dilemma. Tacitu
seems unlikely that he had never
that he despised dramatic literatu
particularly vulgar and un-Roman
picture of Seneca and to understa
plays are as important as the essa

THE BEE-KEEPER

NTIYdtES& Kc ai puvpx poccv'ia, T-roc~rj 1a8ecacrcls

olPov iTr' Ekapivrlv ?.ECTrE VI9cropivais,
&bs 6 yipcov AncKiTr oS i rr' apoTrbTo'SEUo xcrywoOi
E(p1ero XEIIEPpiI VUKTi XoqoaaXLEVos,
OapVEa 8' " o?'KT1 O KOPlEEv (piov" at lU Qi6v KppTS
yEirova -TroIlaJIvM t "rroa "'woeooo-t vdarra.
Anth. Pal. vii. 7I7

Go, spirits of the mountain spring

Where in the cool the cattle lie
And tell the honey-bees that wing
Their pathways through the sunny sky

Leucippus is no more; he died

As he was setting of his snares-
Old as he was, in wintertide,
At night-to catch the scampering hares.

Yes, now he's gone; he loved his hive;

The upland meadows and the sheep
All miss the friend that used to live
Away up on the mountain-steep.
0

This content downloaded from 200.24.17.12 on Fri, 12 Jun 2020 21:05:33 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms