Body and Soul in Ancient Philosophy

438
Martha C. Nussbaum
tions of these events, taking an Aristotelian, rather than Senecan, line on
anger: it would be slavish not to be angry, when someone does hideous
wrongs to one’s own family.
Third, there is no mercy in the work, and mercy is actively repudiated.
The work postdates de Ira, with its eloquent defense of a gentle understanding
of human failings. And it is written more or less simultaneously
with the de Clementia, addressed to Nero, which contains Seneca’s
fullest account of his Stoic doctrine of mercy. Mercy is a very important
part of Roman Stoicism, in keeping with the traditionally high Roman
valuation of clementia. The Apoc., by contrast, is angry and unrepentant:
it shows no mercy at all to the villainies of Claudius. There is no attempt
to show them as arising from the difficult circumstances of human life or
the follies of a corrupt culture.
Fourth, there is too much concern for a type of happiness that depends
on chance events. We have seen this already in the opening,
where the happiness of the speaker and the people play an important
role. But the portrait of Claudius’ funeral shows it even more clearly.
“Everyone was cheerful and happy. The Roman people were strolling
about like free people” (Apoc. 12). 10 A Stoic text could of course contain
such a narrative, but it would surely have to be followed up by a reflection
on the vanity of all such worldly hopes, and a denial that what these
people were experiencing was or true happiness.
Finally, right at the heart of the work is a staggering expression of
hope. The poetic praise of Nero (Apoc. 4) is not frivolous or facetious.
Its account of wool turning to gold echoes Vergil’s Fourth Eclogue, with
its prophecy of the coming of a golden age. Who can say what the mental
state of the real-life author must have been in composing these lines,
in which Apollo declares Nero his equal in talent and beauty? Whatever
the real state of the new regent was, addressing his pupil, the text itself
boldly expresses hope for an era of happiness, and confidence in the man
who has it in his power to bring that about. The poetry is lyrical and
attractive, in no way absurd. At the same time, the hope it expresses
would have to be seen by its intended audience as fragile. When such
a man takes the reins of political power, showing no signs of intellectual
or moral distinction, there is no reason for confidence. An orthodox
Stoic would have represented the hope as itself a part of what satire sat-
10 Here I change Eden’s “men” to “people”, for surely both men and women
were walking around!