Letters from a Stoic

Robin Campbell provides a summary of Seneca’s life. Born “about the same time as Christ” in Cordoba, Spain, he first became interested in Stoicism while living in Egypt (7). He entered politics as a lawyer, becoming one of the main speakers in the Roman Senate by 37 CE. From here he fell afoul of imperial authorities, culminating in his 41 CE exile to Corsica. In 49 CE he returned to Rome and was installed as Nero’s tutor. When Claudius (the emperor) died in 54 CE, Seneca and an army officer named Burrus acted as the main administrators of the Roman Empire. The first five years of Nero’s reign are sometimes described as a high point in effective Roman governance because of this.

By 58 CE, Seneca’s influence began to wane as Publius Suillis Rufus emerged as a vocal critic, particularly highlighting the disparity between Seneca’s philosophical teachings and his affluent lifestyle. Campbell describes this criticism as “a stock criticism of Seneca right down the centuries” (11). While Seneca amassed considerable wealth, he defended himself by arguing that his attitude toward wealth mattered more than his possession of it.

In 59 CE, Nero killed his mother under the belief that she was plotting against him. Seneca penned a letter to the Senate explaining Nero’s actions and may have intervened to prevent further bloodshed. However, Burrus’s death in 62 CE, possibly by foul play, weakened Seneca’s grip on power, and Nero’s growing estrangement prompted Seneca to retire from public life. During his final years, he penned Letters from a Stoic while residing in various locations in southern Italy until he was implicated in a failed assassination plot against Nero. As a result, he was compelled to take his own life in 65 CE.

Campbell notes that there has been debate around whether Seneca should have stayed in politics to keep Nero’s excesses in check, but he leaves it to the reader to make a judgment on this. Regardless of his end, Seneca was the outstanding figure of his age.

Campbell goes on to provide a history of Stoicism, tracing its roots from Zeno in the fourth century BCE and covering the Stoic worldview. Though popular among upper-class Romans, Stoicism never achieved similar popularity among the poorer citizens; the ideal of the “wise man” seemed too forbidding a goal for many to aspire to. While Seneca wrote mostly for a circle of wealthy friends, Campbell argues that his interpretation of Stoicism attempted to reconcile the philosophy with the facts of human nature and the difficulties in acting as the wise man. However, Campbell notes that Stoicism still never gained the popularity among the lower classes that religion did.

Turning to modern philosophy, Campbell remarks that Seneca would condemn the contemporary focus on language and “logical hair-splitting.” Seneca’s focus when approaching philosophy was always the improvement of people. His thoughts were ahead of his time: His writings on slavery show an implicit belief in natural human rights, a centrally important issue in the American and French Revolutions.

Campbell moves on to Seneca’s other writings, of which there were once poems, letters, dialogues, and plays; however, most of these are now lost. Still remaining are two poems of uncertain validity, the philosophical essays and letters, and his tragedies. No replies to his letters have survived. The tone of the letters is generally informal, involving a variety of maxims, imagined dialogue with the correspondent, and personal anecdotes.

Campbell notes that Seneca’s writing style is nearly as significant as his work’s content. During the “Silver Age of Latin literature” (22), characterized by terseness and originality, writers aimed to impress, resulting in texts that are not always easily digestible. The advent of the Empire led to a narrowing of acceptable topics and diminished practical value in rhetoric, prompting elites to showcase their literary prowess. Seneca in particular sought “brevity and sparkle” (23), resulting in works that, according to Campbell, may not always flow naturally in English, often repeating points in varied forms. Quintilian, a later Latin tutor, critiqued Seneca’s style as attractive yet flawed.

Campbell then covers the later influence of Seneca. He describes his popularity among Christian writers, continuing celebration during the Middle Ages, and the “high-water mark” of the Elizabethan Age. Following this, Seneca declined in public popularity until his modern revival.

Finally, Campbell moves on to the editorial choices he made as translator. He stresses that he tried to show the conversational tone of Seneca but did not allow the letters to feel too contrived or informal. It is impossible for a translation to preserve all the qualities of the original, so Campbell chose to focus on the text’s readability.

Campbell has omitted the greetings and salutations from each letter, incorporating colloquialisms when Seneca’s language demands it and occasionally retaining certain phrases from previous translations. In selecting which letters to include and which to exclude, Campbell prioritized those with the greatest philosophical significance while eliminating redundant themes. He omitted certain sentences for similar reasons. Campbell acknowledges that his decision-making process is ultimately subjective, asserting that “the choice has been a personal one” (28).