208 THE ROMAN EMPIRE
Rome
The obsession of the early emperors with their personal safety and the
security of their regimes set new limits on freedom in the realm of ideas. We
saw that magic and astrology became fashionable ways of foretelling the
future, but could be treated with suspicion by emperors because of their
potential links with conspiracy. Harassment of philosophers was not
unknown under the Republic. But the problems that some emperors had
with philosophers, particularly Stoics, require a special explanation.
Stoicism dominated the world of ideas for much of our period.^1 It was the
ethical system, not the theoretical speculations, of Stoicism that appealed to
Romans, including many of aristocratic lineage, and eventually an emperor,
Marcus Aurelius. Stoic ethics had lost their earlier rigidities, having passed
through a period of doctrinal compromise and simplifi cation, and were now
available to ordinary mortals. Seneca, Epictetus, and others saw it as their
task to help anyone earnestly seeking moral improvement. The goal was
progress, not perfection. The condition of the sage was now acknowledged
as an ideal. Late Stoicism accepted sound moral teaching from any source;
Seneca’s Letters are liberally sprinkled with the sayings of Epicurus, while
Epictetus went as far as to applaud the Cynics, especially their doctrine
of freedom. It was freedom of the spirit that they celebrated, not free birth,
which was viewed as an external, of little account. Epictetus, himself an
ex- slave, wrote: ‘Zeus has set me free: do you think he intended his own son
to be enslaved? But you are master of my carcass; take it’ (Arrian, Epict.
Diss. 1.19.9). A philosophy for which the salvation of the soul was everything
generated solidly conservative social attitudes among its adherents. In
political terms, too, Stoicism supported the status quo, and had in fact taken
the lead in transposing Hellenistic kingship theory into a Roman setting. In
general, Stoicism played an important role in the articulation and
consolidation of traditional beliefs and practices.
Stoicism should have been acceptable to the monarchy. But there were
ambiguities in the Stoic position. The doctrines of ‘the appropriate’ ( to
kathêkon, offi cium ) and ‘constancy’ ( constantia ), which in combination
involve holding steadfastly to one’s predetermined station in life and the
conduct it requires, could lead to martyrdom. The suicide of Cato in
the cause of Republicanism was an embarrassment to Caesar. The attack on
Stoicism under Domitian, which produced a martyr in Helvidius Priscus
and conferred a Stoic halo on Nero’s victim Thrasea Paetus, is to be seen
as an aspect of the political confrontation between emperor and senate.
A Stoic might phrase his opposition to the political and ethical conduct
of a particular emperor (or even to the Principate itself) in Stoic terms.
But the mere possession of Stoic beliefs in a public fi gure might be enough
to infl ame a suspicious emperor who was on the look- out for hints of
disloyalty, especially among members of senatorial families who had already
fallen foul of emperors.