Prof A. Poliseno
Stoicism in Ancient Rome

(1)
Did the Romans modify Stoicism? If so, how?
by Gn Equitius Marinus

The teaching of Stoical doctrine did not have a stiff organization, even because Stoics did not meet in a public place; since the beginning Stoicism opened to the influence of various thinker, even of the cynic school. It was not a thinking of a sole philosopher: many gave their contribute to this discipline, and the result was an evolutive dynamism with many changes and adaptations.
Roman Stoicism is called "New Stoà". Seneca, Epitteto, Marcus Aurelius were among his followers; they studied ethical behaviour, moral meditations and gave it an important religious background.
It is intuitive how this "open" doctrine could not be deaf to the influences of Roman Culture.
Stoic philosophy had a similar structure to the aristotelic one, with only modest speculative characteristics, and was articulated in logic, phisic and ethic. The first two were propedeutical to the doctrine of morality.
After the battles of Cheronaea (338 b.C.) and the following victories of Alexander on Grece, the Greek world was conquered by Macedons; it was the beginning of the Ellenistic age. With Alexandros' ideas of an universal monarchy, the social and political importance of the Poleis collapsed. The new greek world was without frontiers, with new races and populations. The new political and cultural dimension was impregnated with cosmopolitism, and the greek citizen felt solitary and alone, in a state that he did not feel as own, so he started to be more individualistic, more egoistic. And all his believes felt down. The citizen became a king's subject, and started feeling alone.

The ellenistic man had the need of a daily guide, as for reaching his personal luck. So philosophy, that had lost his speculative interests and self-limiting theory, seemed to be the best way to get this purpose. Philosopher became a master for life, renouncing to speculative theories, and getting wiser for the daily life. Epicuro said wisdom better than knowledge. Seneca said that the real philosophy is the one that incarnate our way of being, nec philosophia sine virtute est, nec sine philosophia virtus.
So both Epicureism and Stoicism could give happiness and thoughtlessness to the ellenistic man that felt lost and alone.
In a different way from Epicureism, for Stoics, as man is a rational animal, he can wait for his body exigencies. Virtue is the only good for men, and vice is the real evil of life. Many actions are indifferent, but if are done in the right way, they are called "convenient actions" or "duties".
The so called "Media Stoà" (II-I C. b.C.) attenuated the severity of the Ancient Stoà with eclectics ideas; Panetius and Posidonius were among his most famous philosopher.
Panetius gave value to the concept of "duty", and Cicero reproduced his thoughts in his "De Officiis" and in other writings. This concept of officium becomes then from Panetius: he called guide of ethical behaviour the human nature and not only his rationality. The individual nature is not perfect, but aspires to perfection and does not exclude the pleasure, on condition that it is not in contradiction to the universal right. So, his idea of duty is more pragmatic, and becomes a fundamental cornerstone of meral conception in Roman world.
Posidonius (d. 51 b.C.) said that passions are a natural element and give their contribution to the universal balance. He captured the polibian trust of the Roman domination as a need imposed by the political and social events. This idea of stoical cosmopolitism became the theorical basis of the universalistic conception of Roman Empire.

It is not simple answering to this question, as every communion among different cultures is complex, and each one becames richer and poorer at the same time.

Stoical doctrine found a good growing ground in Roman culture, that used to subordinate theory to practice. It was the welcome because in Rome the citizen had to participate to social and political life, and did not isolate himself; and because, in the name of the universal rationality, gave justification to a monarchic government, and with his cosmopolitism legitimated an unlimited Empire.

As it came to Rome, at the end of the Republican age, Stoicism suffered of many limitations, mostly from Panetius and Posidonius; this process continued with Seneca, but had an involution with Epittetus and Marcus Aurelius, when came back the civil servitude. Roman pragmatism acted for the transformation of the wise man from an abstract shape to a strong and noble personality.

Stoicism strictly thrived in the mind of most of the Romans of the ruling classes. Learned Romans understood that rational aspects of Stoà could give a theoretical justification to their perfect idea of life. It gave importance to the belief that "the only real virtue is the imperfect one". But there were even exempla of heroic suicides, as the one of Cato Uticensis and Trasea Peto.

Stoicism contributed to regulate juridical relations with strangers. With the many conquests, to ius civile was added ius universale, and Stoicism guaranteed the maturation of the exigence of a new ius naturale.
The declaration that all men are able to reach Virtue raised difficulties to the mith of a blue blood and the superiority of the race; with the idea that servitude and freedom depend upon wisdom and ignorance, the practice of slavery itself had a crisis. The native land of Ius could not ignore the overcoming of the aristothelic conception that condemned to slavery who slave was born.
It contributed to the growth of various aspects of science.

About religion, Stoicism offered to the traditional worship a justification for the many divinities, considering them an expression of the only universal divinity. Seneca's thoughts are soacked in a rich religious spirit, that some historians have attributed to an intuition of the christian religion.

Roman Stoicism could not solve another antinomy: the wise man, giving importance to his own logos, cannot admit any affection or passion that could disturb his apatia, but man cannot not love his sons and his relatives. It is not simple to conciliate apatia with the necessary sympathy in a cosmopolitan world.