At the risk of talking out of my depth, to me it seems very nearly a cliche in criticism to hone in on a person's inconsistencies in order to unveil him or her as a hypocrite.<p>It ought to be well understood that human beings are not perfectly consistent animals. We struggle to maintain an unchanging public image through the course of a continuously and inevitably changing experience. If we had to live up always to our highest ideals in order to advise others on the best course of life, none of us would ever be situated to recommend a framework for living. In Seneca's case, a school of philosophy would today be without many of its best-known works.<p>Incidentally, I think the fact of our inconsistency is a strong argument in favor of protecting privacy. Most of us have unrealistic and irrational expectations of consistency for others. The only way to maintain a sense of peace under these circumstances is to maintain the freedom to say one thing and do another, at least some of the time. A world without privacy might well be one in which we are all subject to the sort of treatment Seneca has received from this article's writer.
> Stoics in general were supposed to be indifferent to riches, and Seneca often opted for an especially hard line in praising poverty as a philosophical good; for Stoics virtue itself (and certainly not cash) was the only real aim.<p>Huh, most of what I've gotten out of him is that he thought it important not to be anxious over or fearful of the idea of losing one's riches and being poor, and not to be afraid of the state of poverty, rather than that one should not care <i>at all</i> for gaining wealth. He suggests occasionally playing at poverty by living on what amounts to a beggar's earnings for a few days every now and then, to reassure oneself that it's a tolerable way of living.<p>If anyone's looking for a good copy of his works, the (ongoing) series "The Complete Works of Lucius Annaeus Seneca" from the University of Chicago[1] is really good. They've published all his major philosophical work as of November last year. I'd guess we're getting his drama in the next volume, whenever that comes out. One of the books Mary Beard links at the top of her article is from that series.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/series/CWLAS.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/series/CWLAS.html</a>
For those interested in exploring stoicism in the Eastern tradition, consider delving into the unswayable ethos of Chinese philosopher Master Zhuang. Pre-dating Senaca by 4 centuries, Zhaungzi was perhaps not as inclined to view the passions so negatively. Arising as Univ. of Toronto Prof. David Machek argues, from differing world views: "rational versus non-rational in the Greco-Roman tradition, and artificial versus natural in the Chinese"<p>“Emotions that Do Not Move”: Zhuangzi and Stoics on Self-Emerging Feelings<p><a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11712-015-9463-9" rel="nofollow">http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11712-015-9463-9</a><p>The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's excellent article on Zhuangzi:<p><a href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zhuangzi/" rel="nofollow">http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zhuangzi/</a><p>And Thomas Merton's poetic interpretations: "The Way of Chaung Tzu"<p><a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Way_of_Chuang_Tzu.html?id=Od_h47AxzR4C" rel="nofollow">https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Way_of_Chuang_Tzu.h...</a>
This question is about as old as Seneca himself.
In page 10-11 (the introduction) of 'Seneca' Letters from a Stoic:<p>"In A.D. 58 Seneca was being attacked by people like Publius Suillius Rufus... But the campaign against him generally centered on the apparent contrast - it has been a stock criticism of Seneca right down the centuries - between his philosophical teachings and his practice."<p>I'm willing to go with Robin Campell's opinion on this as I'm by no means an expert. I think the circumstances of life itself lend itself to failing in your principles, reflecting and improving where possible.
I like to read about the period, and appreciate the scholarship and fact digging (if any), but sometimes the articles have a musk of smugness that I find distasteful.<p>Or, as the Romans afraid of a shade's retribution put it, "de mortuis nil nisi bonum", hesitating in scoring points off the dead.
Dying Every Day was one of my favorite books I've read in 2015. I'm interested in this period, and have always tried to read about it -- but I've had a hard time finding a book that really holds my attention throughout. And this book did just that. I highly recommend it for anyone even slightly interested in Roman history.
Good read, that.<p>I like some ancient Roman writing. I tried to read the writings of Julius Caesar but only got part way through - too much ego.<p>I very much enjoyed and recommend the writings of Marcus Aurelius who was a stoic and one of the last "good" emperors. I am listening right now to a historical fiction audio book "Dictator" about the Roman Cicero. Mostly, all good stuff.
I'm not sure I understand the first portion of this article... apparently Seneca's death wasn't artistic or cool enough for the author and this somehow reflects poorly on Seneca?