Philosophy & Politics. Seneca, Epistles 2.14.11-13

Seneca wonders whether active involvement in politics is really compatible with philosophy. His approach here suggests that it is not, finding fault with the Roman statesman Cato, whom he praises elsewhere—in passages like this one, or this one.

Ceterum philosophia ipsa tranquille modesteque tractanda est.

Quid ergo? inquis videtur tibi M. Cato modeste philosophari, qui bellum civile sententia reprimit? qui furentium principum armis medius intervenit? qui aliis Pompeium offendentibus, aliis Caesarem, simul lacessit duos? Potest aliquis disputare an illo tempore capessenda fuerit sapienti res publica. Quid tibi vis, Marce Cato? iam non agitur de libertate: olim pessum data est. Quaeritur utrum Caesar an Pompeius possideat rem publicam: quid tibi cum ista contentione? nullae partes tuae sunt. Dominus eligitur: quid tua, uter (ℇ) vincat? potest melior vincere, non potest non peior esse qui vicerit. Ultimas partes attigi Catonis; sed ne priores quidem anni fuerunt qui sapientem in illam rapinam rei publicae admitterent. Quid aliud quam vociferatus est Cato et misit irritas voces, cum modo per populi levatus manus et obrutus sputis exportandus (⁑) extra forum traheretur, modo e senatu in carcerem duceretur?

Philosophy must be approached calmly, and with humility.

"What is this?" you say. "Does Marcus Cato (†) strike you as a humble philosopher, as he holds civil war off with just the power of his judgement? Was it calm humility that put him in the midst of raging princes armed for battle, that allowed him to strike simultaneously against both sides, the Caesarians and the Pompeians?" A person could respond here by wondering whether the republic then was something a wise man should be concerned with. "What are you looking for, Marcus Cato? Liberty is not on the agenda: she was cast away long ago. At issue is whether Caesar or Pompey should possess the republic. What business is that of yours? You have no position in their fight. A master is being chosen. What does it matter to your affairs, if one man or the other is victorious? Maybe the better man conquers, but he cannot help being worse than he was, before the victory." With this I dismiss the last moments of Cato's life, but now it is time to deal with the earlier years, which put this allegedly wise man in the middle of the pillage and ruin of the republic. What did Cato ever accomplish there, besides ranting and raving as armed men carried him away from the forum (*), covered in the spittle of the mob, or led him away from the senate into prison (‡)?

---

(ℇ) I accept tua, uter from Lipsius, emending tu, alter in the MSS.

(⁑) I accept exportandus from Pincianus, emending et portandus in the MSS.

(†) Cato the Younger (95-46 BCE) was committed to maintaining the Roman constitution handed down to the late republic by Sulla. He thus opposed the progressive policies of the First Triumvirate, an alliance between Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus, which dissolved into civil war between the first two a little after Crassus was killed by Parthians in the disastrous battle of Carrhae (53 BCE). While Cato and his allies worked in vain to keep both progressive factions in check, the Caesarians defeated Pompey at Pharsalus (48 BCE), and then Cato's ally Metellus Scipio at the battle of Thapsus (46 BCE). Cato committed suicide rather than surrender. Sallust describes him as stern and unyielding in life as in death, respected for his unswerving determination to punish wrongdoers (Bellum Catilinae 54). 

(*) Plutarch (circa 46-119 CE) remembers an episode during Cato's time as praetor (in 54 BCE), when the unpopularity of his proposal to make candidates for office appear in person in the city to declare their candidacy led to him being assaulted by a mob in the forum. After being carried away (cf. Seneca's word levatus), he managed to catch the rostra, get to his feet, and talk down the crowd (Vita Catonis Minoris 44).

(‡) Cassius Dio (circa 155-235 CE) records that Caesar almost had lictors remove Cato from the senate once (in 59 BCE), for obstructing a proposal of his to distribute public lands to families of the Roman plebs with three children or more (Historia Romana 38.1-3). Plutarch says that Caesar actually had him thrown out and imprisoned (Vita Catonis Minoris 33).