Roman Letters: A Digital Corpus of Late Antique Correspondence

Vander Galien, Craig

doi:10.5281/zenodo.19142059

Letter 88

You have been wishing to know my views with regard to liberal studies. My answer is this: I respect no study, and deem no study good, which results in money-making. Such studies are profit-bringing occupations, useful only in so far as they give the mind a preparation and do not engage it permanently. One should linger upon them only so long as the mind can occupy itself with nothing greater; they are our apprenticeship, not our real work. Hence you see why "liberal studies" are so called; it is because they are studies worthy of a free-born gentleman. But there is only one really liberal study, - that which gives a man his liberty. It is the study of wisdom, and that is lofty, brave, and great-souled. All other studies are puny and puerile. You surely do not believe that there is good in any of the subjects whose teachers are, as you see, men of the most ignoble and base stamp? We ought not to be learning such things; we should have done with learning them. Certain persons have made up their minds that the point at issue with regard to the liberal studies is whether they make men good; but they do not even profess or aim at a knowledge of this particular -------- a The regular round of education, xyzxyz pqrpqr, including grammar, music, geometry, arithmetic, astrology, and certain phases of rhetoric and dialectic, are in this letter contrasted with liberal studies - those which have for their object the pursuit of virtue. Seneca is thus interpreting studia liberalia in a higher sense than his contemporaries would expect. Compare J. R. Lowell's definition of a university, "a place where noting useful is taught." <Ep2-349> subject. The scholarl busies himself with investigations into language, and if it be his desire to go farther afield, he works on history, or, if he would extend his range to the farthest limits, on poetry. But which of these paves the way to virtue? Pronouncing syllables, investigating words, memorizing plays, or making rules for the scansion of poetry, what is there in all this that rids one of fear, roots out desire, or bridles the passions? The question is: do such men teach virtue, or not? If they do not teach it, then neither do they transmit it. If they do teach it, they are philosophers. Would you like to know how it happens that they have not taken the chair for the purpose of teaching virtue? See how unlike their subjects are; and yet their subjects would resemble each other if they taught the same thing. It may be, perhaps, that they make you believe that Homer was a philosopher, although they disprove this by the very arguments through which they seek to prove it. For sometimes they make of him a Stoic, who approves nothing but virtue, avoids pleasures, and refuses to relinquish honour even at the price of immortality; sometimes they make him an Epicurean, praising the condition of a state in repose, which passes its days in feasting and song; sometimes a Peripatetic, classifying goodness in three ways; sometimes an Academic, holding that all things are uncertain. It is clear, however, that no one of these doctrines is to be fathered upon Homer, just because they are all there; for they are -------- d The tria qenera bonorum of Cicero's De Fin v. 84. Cf. ib. 18, where the three proper objects of man's search are given as the desire for pleasure, the avoidance of pain, and the attainment of such natural goods as health, strength, and soundnesss of mind. The Stoics held that the good was absolute. <Ep2-351> irreconcilable with one another. We may admit to these men, indeed, that Homer was a philosopher; yet surely he became a wise man before he had any knowledge of poetry. So let us learn the particular things that made Homer wise. It is no more to the point, of course, for me to investigate whether Homer or Hesiod was the older poet, than to know why Hecuba, although younger than Helen, showed her years so lamentably. What, in your opinion, I say, would be the point in trying to determine the respective ages of Achilles and Patroclus? Do you raise the question, "Through what regions did Ulysses stray?" instead of trying to prevent ourselves from going astray at all times? We have no leisure to hear lectures on the question whether he was sea-tost between Italy and Sicily, or outside our known world (indeed, so long a wandering could not possibly have taken place within its narrow bounds); we ourselves encounter storms of the spirit, which toss us daily, and our depravity drives us into all the ills which troubled Ulysses. For us there is never lacking the beauty to tempt our eyes, or the enemy to assail us; on this side are savage monsters that delight in human blood, on that side the treacherous allurements of the ear, and yonder is shipwreck and all the varied category of misfortunes. Show me rather, by the example of Ulysses, how I am to love my country, my wife, my father, and how, even after suffering shipwreck, I am to sail toward these ends, honourable as they are. Why try to discover whether Penelope was a pattern of purity, or whether she had the laugh on her contemporaries? Or whether she suspected that the man in her presence was Ulysses, before she knew it was he? Teach me <Ep2-353> rather what purity is, and how great a good we have in it, and whether it is situated in the body or in the soul. Now I will transfer my attention to the musician. You, sir, are teaching me how the treble and the bass are in accord with one another, and how, though the strings produce different notes, the result is a harmony; rather bring my soul into harmony with itself, and let not my purposes be out of tune. You are showing me what the doleful keys are; show me rather how, in the midst of adversity, I may keep from uttering a doleful note. The mathematician teaches me how to lay out the dimensions of my estates; but I should rather be taught how to lay out what is enough for a man to own. He teaches me to count, and adapts my fingers to avarice; but I should prefer him to teach me that there is no point in such calculations, and that one is none the happier for tiring out the book-keepers with his possessions - or rather, how useless property is to any man who would find it the greatest misfortune if he should be required to reckon out, by his own wits, the amount of his holdings. What good is there for me in knowing how to parcel out a piece of land, if I know not how to share it with my brother? What good is there in working out to a nicety the dimensions of an acre, and in detecting the error if a piece has so much as escaped my measuring-rod, if I am embittered when an ill-tempered neighbour merely scrapes off a bit of my land? The mathematician teaches me how I may lose none of my boundaries; I, however, seek to learn how to lose them all with a light heart. "But," comes the reply, "I am being driven from the farm which my father and grandfather owned!" Well? Who owned the land before your grand- <Ep2-355> father? Can you explain what people (I will not say what person) held it originally? You did not enter upon it as a master, but merely as a tenant. And whose tenant are you? If your claim is successful, you are tenant of the heir. The lawyers say that public property cannot be acquired privately by possession; what you hold and call your own is public property - indeed, it belongs to mankind at large. O what marvellous skill! You know how to measure the circle; you find the square of any shape which is set before you; you compute the distances between the stars; there is nothing which does not come within the scope of your calculations. But if you are a real master of your profession, measure me the mind of man! Tell me how great it is, or how puny! You know what a straight line is; but how does it benefit you if you do not know what is straight in this life of ours? I come next to the person who boasts his knowledge of the heavenly bodies, who knows Whither the chilling star of Saturn hides, And through what orbit Mercury doth stray. 1Of what benefit will it be to know this? That I shall be disturbed because Saturn and Mars are in opposition, or when Mercury sets at eventide in plain view of Saturn, rather than learn that those stars, wherever they are, are propitious, and that they are not subject to change? They are driven along by an unending round of destiny, on a course from which they cannot swerve. They return at stated seasons; they either set in motion, or mark the <Ep2-357> intervals of the whole world's work. But if they are responsible for whatever happens, how will it help you to know the secrets of the immutable? Or if they merely give indications, what good is there in foreseeing what you cannot escape? Whether you know these things or not, they will take place. Behold the fleeting sun, The stars that follow in his train, and thou Shalt never find the morrow play thee false, Or be misled by nights without a cloud. It has, however, been sufficiently and fully ordained that I shall be safe from anything that may mislead me. "What," you say, "does the 'morrow never play me false'? Whatever happens without my knowledge plays me false." I, for my part, do not know what is to be, but I do know what may come to be. I shall have no misgivings in this matter; I await the future in its entirety; and if there is any abatement in its severity, I make the most of it. If the morrow treats me kindly, it is a sort of deception; but it does not deceive me even at that. For just as I know that all things can happen, so I know, too, that they will not happen in every case. I am ready for favourable events in every case, but I am prepared for evil. In this discussion you must bear with me if I do not follow the regular course. For I do not consent to admit painting into the list of liberal arts, any more than sculpture, marble-working, and other helps toward luxury. I also debar from the liberal studies wrestling and all knowledge that is compounded of oil and mud; otherwise, I should be compelled to admit perfumers also, and cooks, and all others who lend their wits to the service of our <Ep2-359> pleasures. For what "liberal" element is there in these ravenous takers of emetics, whose bodies are fed to fatness while their minds are thin and dull? Or do we really believe that the training which they give is "liberal" for the young men of Rome, who used, to be taught by our ancestors to stand straight and hurl a spear, to wield a pike, to guide a horse, and to handle weapons? Our ancestors used to teach their children nothing that could be learned while lying down.. But neither the new system nor the old teaches or nourishes virtue. For what good does it do us to guide a horse and control his speed with the curb, and then find that our own passions, utterly uncurbed, bolt with us? Or to beat many opponents in wrestling or boxing, and then to find that we ourselves are beaten by anger? "What then," you say, "do the liberal studies contribute nothing to our welfare?" Very much in other respects, but nothing at all as regards virtue. For even these arts of which I have spoken, though admittedly of a low grade -depending as they do upon handiwork - contribute greatly toward the equipment of life, but nevertheless have nothing to do with virtue. And if you inquire, "Why, then, do we educate our children in the liberal studies?" it is not because they can bestow virtue, but because they prepare the soul for the reception of virtue. Just as that "primary course," as the ancients called it, in grammar, which gave boys their elementary training, does not teach them the liberal arts, but prepares the ground for their early acquisition of these arts, so the liberal arts do not conduct the soul all the way to virtue, but merely set it going in that direction. <Ep2-361> Posidonius divides the arts into four classes: first we have those which are common and low, then those which serve for amusement, then those which refer to the education of boys, and, finally, the liberal arts. The common sort belong to workmen and are mere hand-work; they are concerned with equipping life; there is in them no pretence to beauty or honour. The arts of amusement are those which aim to please the eye and the ear. To this class you may assign the stage-machinists, who invent scaffolding that goes aloft of its own accord, or floors that rise silently into the air, and many other surprising devices, as when objects that fit together then fall apart, or objects which are separate then join together automatically, or objects which stand erect then gradually collapse. The eye of the inexperienced is struck with amazement by these things; for such persons marvel at everything that takes place without warning, because they do not know the causes. The arts which belong to the education of boys, and are somewhat similar to the liberal arts, are those which the Greeks call the "cycle of studies," but which we Romans call the,'liberal." However, those alone are really liberal - or rather, to give them a truer name, "free" - whose concern is virtue. " "But," one will say, "just as there is a part of philosopliy which has to do with nature, and a part which has to do with ethics, and a part which has to do with reasoning, so this group of liberal arts also claims for itself a place in philosophy. When one approaches questions that deal with nature, a decision is reached by means of a word from the mathematician. Therefore mathematics is a department of that branch which it aids." But many things <Ep2-363> aid us and yet are not parts of ourselves. Nay, if they were, they would not aid us. Food is an aid to the body, but is not a part of it. We get some help from the service which mathematies renders; and mathematics is as indispensable to philosophy as the carpenter is to the mathematician. But carpentering is not a part of mathematics, nor is mathematics a part of philosophy. Moreover, each has its own limits; for the wise man investigates and learns the causes of natural phenomena, while the mathematician follows up and computes their numbers and their measurements. The wise man knows the laws by which the heavenly bodies persist, what powers belong to them, and what attributes; the astronomer merely notes their comings and goings, the rules which govern their settings and their risings, and the occasional periods during which they seem to stand still, although as a matter of fact no heavenly body can stand still, The wise man will know what causes the reflection in a mirror; but, the mathematician can merely tell you how far the body should be from the reflection, and what shape of mirror will produce a given reflection. The philosopher will demonstrate that the sun is a large body, while the astronomer will compute just how large, progressing in knowledge by his method of trial and experiment; but in order to progress, he must summon to his aid certain principles. No art, however, is sufficient unto itself, if the foundation upon which it rests depends upon mere favour. Now philosophy asks no favours from any other source; it builds everything on its own soil; but the science of numbers is, so to speak, a structure built on another man's land - it builds on everything on alien soil; It accepts first principles, and by their <Ep2-365> favour arrives at further conclusions. If it could march unassisted to the truth, if it were able to understand the nature of the universe, I should say that it would offer much assistance to our minds; for the mind grows by contact with things heavenly and draws into itself something from on high. There is but one thing that brings the soul to perfection - the unalterable knowledge of good and evil. But there is no other art a which investigates good and evil. I should like to pass in review the several virtues . Bravery is the holiest good in the human heart; it is forced into betrayal by no constraint, and it is bribed by no rewards. Loyalty cries: "Burn me, slay me, kill me! I shall not betray my trust; and the more urgently torture shall seek to find my secret, the deeper in my heart will I bury it!" Can the "liberal arts" produce such a spirit within us? Temperance controls our desires; some it hates and routs, others it regulates and restores to a healtby measure, nor does it ever approach our desires for their own sake. Temperance knows that the best measure of the appetites is not what you want to take, but what you ought to take. Kindliness forbids you to be over-bearing towards your associates, and it forbids you to be grasping. In words and in deeds and in feelings it shows itself gentle and courteous to all men. It counts no evil as another's solely. And the reason why it loves its own good is chiefly because it will some day be the good of another. Do "liberal studies" teach a man <Ep2-367> such character as this? No; no more than they teach simplicity , moderation and self_restraint , thrift and economy , and that kindliness which spares a neighbour's life as if it were one's own and knows that it is not for man to make wasteful use of his fellow-man. " "But," one says, "since you declare that virtue cannot be attained without the 'liberal studies,' how is it that you deny that they offer any assistance to virtue?" Because you cannot attain virtue without food, either; and yet food has nothing to do with virtue. Wood does not offer assistance to a ship, although a ship cannot be built except of wood. There is no reason, I say, why you should think that anything is made by the assistance of that without which it cannot be made. We might even make the statement that it is possible to attain wisdom without the "liberal studies"; for although virtue is a thing that must be learned, yet it is not learned by means of these studies. What reason have I, however, for supposing that one who is ignorant of letters will never be a wise man, since wisdom is not to be found in letters? Wisdom communicates facts and not words; and it may be true that the memory is more to be depended upon when it has no support outside itself. Wisdom is a large and spacious thing. It needs plenty of free room. One must learn about things divine and human, the past and the future, the epbemeral and the eternal; and one must learn about Time. See how many questions arise concerning time alone: in the first place, whether it is anything in and by itself; in the second place, whether anything exists prior to time and without time; and again, did time <Ep2-369> begin along with the universe, or, because there was something even before the universe began, did time also exist then? There are countless questions concerning the soul alone: whence it comes, what is its nature, when it begins to exist, and how long it exists; whether it passes from one place to another and changes its habitation, being transferred successively from one animal shape to another, or whether it is a slave but once, roaming the universe after it is set free; whether it is corporeal or not; what will become of it when it ceases to use us as its medium; how it will employ its freedom when it has escaped from this present prison; whether it will forget all its past, and at that moment begin to know itself when, released from the body, it has withdrawn to the skies. Thus, whatever phase of things human and divine you have apprehended, you will be wearied by the vast number of things to be answered and things to be learned. And in order that these manifold and mighty subjects may have free entertainment in your soul, you must remove therefrom all superfluous things. Virtue will not surrender herself to these narrow bounds of ours; a great subject needs wide space in which to move. Let all other things be driven out, and let the breast be emptied to receive virtue. " "But it is a pleasure to be acquainted with many arts." Therefore let us keep only as much of them as is essential. Do you regard that man as blameworthy who puts superfluous things on the same footing with useful things, and in his house makes a lavish display of costly objects, but do not deem him blameworthy who has allowed himself to become engrossed with the useless furniture of learning? This desire to know more than is sufficient is a sort <Ep2-371> EPISTLE LXXXVIII, of intemperance. Why? Because this unseemly pursuit of the liberal arts makes men troublesome, wordy, tactless, self- satisfied bores, who fail to learn the essentials just because they have learned the non-essentials. Didymus the scholar wrote four thousand books. I should feel pity for him if he had only read the same number of superfluous volumes. In these books he investigates Homer's birthplace, who was really the mother of Aeneas, whether Anacreon was more of a rake or more of a drunkard, whether Sappho was a bad lot and other problems the answers to which, if found, were forthwith to be forgotten. Come now, do not tell me that life is long! Nay, when you come to consider our own countrymen also, I can show you many works which ought to be cut down with the axe. It is at the cost of a vast outlay of time and of vast discomfort to the ears of others that we win such praise as this: "What a learned man you are!" Let us be content with this recommendation, less citified though it be: "What a good man you are!" Do I mean this? Well, would you have me unroll the annals of the world's history and try to find out who first wrote poetry? Or, in the absence of written records, shall I make an estimate of the number of years which lie between Orpheus and Homer? Or shall I make a study of the absurd writings of Aristarchus, wherein he branded the text of other men's verses, and wear my life away upon syllables? Shall I then wallow in the geometrician's dust? Have I so far forgotten that useful saw "Save your time"? Must I know these things? And what may I choose not to know? -------- d The geometricians drew their figures in the dust or sand. <Ep2-373> Apion, the scholar, who drew crowds to his lectures all over Greece in the days of Gaius Caesar and was acclaimed a Homerid by every state, used to maintain that Homer, when he had finished his two poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey, added a preliminary poem to his work, wherein he embraced the whole Trojan war. The argument which Apion adduced to prove this statement was that Homer had purposely inserted in the opening line two letters which contained a key to the number of his books. A man who wishes to know many things must know such things as these, and must take no thought of all the time which one loses by ill- health, public duties, private duties, daily duties, and sleep. Apply the measure to the years of your life; they have no room for all these things. I have been speaking so far of liberal studies; but think how much superfluous and unpractical matter the philosophers contain! Of their own accord they also have descended to establishing nice divisions of syllables, to determining the true meaning of conjunctions and prepositions; they have been envious of the scholars, envious of the mathematicians. They have taken over into their own art all the superfluities of these other arts; the result is that they know more about careful speaking than about careful living. Let me tell you what evils are due to over-nice exactness, and what an enemy it is of truth! Protagoras declares that one can take either side on any question and debate it with equal success - even on this very question, whether every subject can be debated from either point of view. Nausiphanes holds that in things which seem to exist, there is no difference between existence and non-existence. Parmenides maintains that nothing <Ep2-375>

[1] De liberalibus studiis quid sentiam scire desideras: nullum suspicio, nullum in bonis numero quod ad aes exit. Meritoria artificia sunt, hactenus utilia si praeparant ingenium, non detinent. Tamdiu enim istis inmorandum est quamdiu nihil animus agere maius potest; rudimenta sunt nostra, non opera. [2] Quare liberalia studia dicta sint vides: quia homine libero digna sunt. Ceterum unum studium vere liberale est quod liberum facit, hoc est sapientiae, sublime, forte, magnanimum: cetera pusilla et puerilia sunt. An tu quicquam in istis esse credis boni quorum professores turpissimos omnium ac flagitiosissimos cernis? Non discere debemus ista, sed didicisse. Quidam illud de liberalibus studiis quaerendum iudicaverunt, an virum bonum facerent: ne promittunt quidem nec huius rei scientiam adfectant. [3] Grammatice circa curam sermonis versatur et, si latius evagari vult, circa historias, iam ut longissime fines suos proferat, circa carmina. Quid horum ad virtutem viam sternit? Syllabarum enarratio et verborum diligentia et fabularum memoria et versuum lex ac modificatio -- quid ex his metum demit, cupiditatem eximit, libidinem frenat? [4] Ad geometriam transeamus et ad musicen: nihil apud illas invenies quod vetet timere, vetet cupere. Quae quisquis ignorat, alia frustra scit. * * * utrum doceant isti virtutem an non: si non docent, ne tradunt quidem; si docent, philosophi sunt. Vis scire quam non ad docendam virtutem consederint? aspice quam dissimilia inter se omnium studia sint: atqui similitudo esset idem docentium. [5] Nisi forte tibi Homerum philosophum fuisse persuadent, cum his ipsis quibus colligunt negent; nam modo Stoicum illum faciunt, virtutem solam probantem et voluptates refugientem et ab honesto ne inmortalitatis quidem pretio recedentem, modo Epicureum, laudantem statum quietae civitatis et inter convivia cantusque vitam exigentis, modo Peripateticum, tria bonorum genera inducentem, modo Academicum, omnia incerta dicentem. Apparet nihil horum esse in illo, quia omnia sunt; ista enim inter se dissident. Demus illis Homerum philosophum fuisse: nempe sapiens factus est antequam carmina ulla cognosceret; ergo illa discamus quae Homerum fecere sapientem. [6] Hoc quidem me quaerere, uter maioraetate fuerit, Homerus an Hesiodus, non magis ad rem pertinet quam scire, cum minor Hecuba fuerit quam Helena, quare tam male tulerit aetatem. Quid, inquam, annos Patrocli et Achillis inquirere ad rem existimas pertinere? [7] Quaeris Ulixes ubi erraverit potius quam efficias ne nos semper erremus? Non vacat audire utrum inter Italiam et Siciliam iactatus sit an extra notum nobis orbem (neque enim potuit in tam angusto error esse tam longus): tempestates nos animi cotidie iactant et nequitia in omnia Ulixis mala inpellit. Non deest forma quae sollicitet oculos, non hostis; hinc monstra effera et humano cruore gaudentia, hinc insidiosa blandimenta aurium, hinc naufragia et tot varietates malorum. Hoc me doce, quomodo patriam amem, quomodo uxorem, quomodo patrem, quomodo ad haec tam honesta vel naufragus navigem. [8] Quid inquiris an Penelopa inpudica fuerit, an verba saeculo suo dederit? an Ulixem illum esse quem videbat, antequam sciret, suspicata sit? Doce me quid sit pudicitia et quantum in ea bonum, in corpore an in animo posita sit. [9] Ad musicum transeo. Doces me quomodo inter se acutae ac graves consonent, quomodo nervorum disparem reddentium sonum fiat concordia: fac potius quomodo animus secum meus consonet nec consilia mea discrepent. Monstras mihi qui sint modi flebiles: monstra potius quomodo inter adversa non emittam flebilem vocem. [10] Metiri me geometres docet latifundia potius quam doceat quomodo metiar quantum homini satis sit; numerare docet me et avaritiae commodat digitos potius quam doceat nihil ad rem pertinere istas conputationes, non esse feliciorem cuius patrimonium tabularios lassat, immo quam supervacua possideat qui infelicissimus futurus est si quantum habeat per se conputare cogetur. [11] Quid mihi prodest scire agellum in partes dividere, si nescio cum fratre dividere? Quid prodest colligere subtiliter pedes iugeri et conprendere etiam si quid decempedam effugit, si tristem me facit vicinus inpotens et aliquid ex meo abradens? Docet quomodo nihil perdam ex finibus meis: at ego discere volo quomodo totos hilaris amittam. 'Paterno agro et avito' inquit 'expellor.' [12] Quid? ante avum tuum quis istum agrum tenuit? cuius, non dico hominis, sed populi fuerit potes expedire? Non dominus isto, sed colonus intrasti. Cuius colonus es? si bene tecum agitur, heredis. Negant iurisconsulti quicquam usu capi publicum: hoc quod tenes, quod tuum dicis, publicum est et quidem generis humani. [13] O egregiam artem! scis rotunda metiri, in quadratum redigis quamcumque acceperis formam, intervalla siderum dicis, nihil est quod in mensuram tuam non cadat: si artifex es, metire hominis animum, dic quam magnus sit, dic quam pusillus sit. Scis quae recta sit linea: quid tibi prodest, si quid in vita rectum sit ignoras? [14] Venio nunc ad illum qui caelestium notitia gloriatur: Hoc scire quid proderit? ut sollicitus sim cum Saturnus et Mars ex contrario stabunt aut cum Mercurius vespertinum faciet occasum vidente Saturno, potius quam hoc discam, ubicumque sunt ista, propitia esse nec posse mutari? [15] Agit illa continuus ordo fatorum et inevitabilis cursus; per statas vices remeant et effectus rerum omnium aut movent aut notant. Sed sive quidquid evenit faciunt, quid inmutabilis rei notitia proficiet? sive significant, quid refert providere quod effugere non possis? Scias ista, nescias: fient. Satis abundeque provisum est ut ab insidiis tutus essem. [17] 'Numquid me crastina non fallit hora? fallit enim quod nescienti evenit.' Ego quid futurum sit nescio: quid fieri possit scio. Ex hoc nihil deprecabor, totum expecto: si quid remittitur, boni consulo. Fallit me hora si parcit, sed ne sic quidem fallit. Nam quemadmodum scio omnia accidere posse, sic scio et non utique casura; itaque secunda expecto, malis paratus sum. [18] In illo feras me necesse est non per praescriptum euntem; non enim adducor ut in numerum liberalium artium pictores recipiam, non magis quam statuarios aut marmorarios aut ceteros luxuriae ministros. Aeque luctatores et totam oleo ac luto constantem scientiam expello ex his studiis liberalibus; aut et unguentarios recipiam et cocos et ceteros voluptatibus nostris ingenia accommodantes sua. [19] Quid enim, oro te, liberale habent isti ieiuni vomitores, quorum corpora in sagina, animi in macie et veterno sunt? An liberale studium istuc esse iuventuti nostrae credimus, quam maiores nostri rectam exercuerunt hastilia iacere, sudem torquere, equum agitare, arma tractare? Nihil liberos suos docebant quod discendum esset iacentibus. Sed nec hae nec illae docent aluntve virtutem; quid enim prodest equum regere et cursum eius freno temperare, adfectibus effrenatissimis abstrahi? quid prodest multos vincere luctatione vel caestu, ab iracundia vinci? [20] 'Quid ergo? nihil nobis liberalia conferunt studia?' Ad alia multum, ad virtutem nihil; nam et hae viles ex professo artes quae manu constant ad instrumenta vitae plurimum conferunt, tamen ad virtutem non pertinent. 'Quare ergo liberalibus studiis filios erudimus?' Non quia virtutem dare possunt, sed quia animum ad accipiendam virtutem praeparant. Quemadmodum prima illa, ut antiqui vocabant, litteratura, per quam pueris elementa traduntur, non docet liberales artes sed mox percipiendis locum parat, sic liberales artes non perducunt animum ad virtutem sed expediunt. [21] Quattuor ait esse artium Posidonius genera: sunt vulgares et sordidae, sunt ludicrae, sunt pueriles, sunt liberales. Vulgares opificum, quae manu constant et ad instruendam vitam occupatae sunt, in quibus nulla decoris, nulla honesti simulatio est. [22] Ludicrae sunt quae ad voluptatem oculorum atque aurium tendunt; his adnumeres licet machinatores qui pegmata per se surgentia excogitant et tabulata tacite in sublime crescentia et alias ex inopinato varietates, aut dehiscentibus quae cohaerebant aut his quae distabant sua sponte coeuntibus aut his quae eminebant paulatim in se residentibus. His inperitorum feriuntur oculi, omnia subita quia causas non novere mirantium. [23] Pueriles sunt et aliquid habentes liberalibus simile hae artes quas egkuklious Graeci, nostri autem liberales vocant. Solae autem liberales sunt, immo, ut dicam verius, liberae, quibus curae virtus est. [24] 'Quemadmodum' inquit 'est aliqua pars philosophiae naturalis, est aliqua moralis, est aliqua rationalis, sic et haec quoque liberalium artium turba locum sibi in philosophia vindicat. Cum ventum est ad naturales quaestiones, geometriae testimonio statur; ergo eius quam adiuvat pars est.' [25] Multa adiuvant nos nec ideo partes nostri sunt; immo si partes essent, non adiuvarent. Cibus adiutorium corporis nec tamen pars est. Aliquod nobis praestat geometria ministerium: sic philosophiae necessaria est quomodo ipsi faber, sed nec hic geometriae pars est nec illa philosophiae. [26] Praeterea utraque fines suos habet; sapiens enim causas naturalium et quaerit et novit, quorum numeros mensurasque geometres persequitur et supputat. Qua ratione constent caelestia, quae illis sit vis quaeve natura sapiens scit: cursus et recursus et quasdam obversationes per quas descendunt et adlevantur ac speciem interdum stantium praebent, cum caelestibus stare non liceat, colligit mathematicus. [27] Quae causa in speculo imagines exprimat sciet sapiens: illud tibi geometres potest dicere, quantum abesse debeat corpus ab imagine et qualis forma speculi quales imagines reddat. Magnum esse solem philosophus probabit, quantus sit mathematicus, qui usu quodam et exercitatione procedit. Sed ut procedat, inpetranda illi quaedam principia sunt; non est autem ars sui iuris cui precarium fundamentum est. [28] Philosophia nil ab alio petit, totum opus a solo excitat: mathematice, ut ita dicam, superficiaria est, in alieno aedificat; accipit prima, quorum beneficio ad ulteriora perveniat. Si per se iret ad verum, si totius mundi naturam posset conprendere, dicerem multum conlaturam mentibus nostris, quae tractatu caelestium crescunt trahuntque aliquid ex alto. Una re consummatur animus, scientia bonorum ac malorum inmutabili; nihil autem ulla ars alia de bonis ac malis quaerit. Singulas lubet circumire virtutes. [29] Fortitudo contemptrix timendorum est; terribilia et sub iugum libertatem nostram mittentia despicit, provocat, frangit: numquid ergo hanc liberalia studia corroborant? Fides sanctissimum humani pectoris bonum est, nulla necessitate ad fallendum cogitur, nullo corrumpitur praemio: 'ure', inquit 'caede, occide: non prodam, sed quo magis secreta quaeret dolor, hoc illa altius condam'. Numquid liberalia studia hos animos facere possunt? Temperantia voluptatibus imperat, alias odit atque abigit, alias dispensat et ad sanum modum redigit nec umquam ad illas propter ipsas venit; scit optimum esse modum cupitorum non quantum velis, sed quantum debeas sumere. [30] Humanitas vetat superbum esse adversus socios, vetat amarum; verbis, rebus, adfectibus comem se facilemque omnibus praestat; nullum alienum malum putat, bonum autem suum ideo maxime quod alicui bono futurum est amat. Numquid liberalia studia hos mores praecipiunt? non magis quam simplicitatem, quam modestiam ac moderationem, non magis quam frugalitatem ac parsimoniam, non magis quam clementiam, quae alieno sanguini tamquam suo parcit et scit homini non esse homine prodige utendum. [31] 'Cum dicatis' inquit 'sine liberalibus studiis ad virtutem non perveniri, quemadmodum negatis illa nihil conferre virtuti?' Quia nec sine cibo ad virtutem pervenitur, cibus tamen ad virtutem non pertinet; ligna navi nihil conferunt, quamvis non fiat navis nisi ex lignis: non est, inquam, cur aliquid putes eius adiutorio fieri sine quo non potest fieri. [32] Potest quidem etiam illud dici, sine liberalibus studiis veniri ad sapientiam posse; quamvis enim virtus discenda sit, tamen non per haec discitur. Quid est autem quare existimem non futurum sapientem eum qui litteras nescit, cum sapientia non sit in litteris? Res tradit, non verba, et nescio an certior memoria sit quae nullum extra se subsidium habet. [33] Magna et spatiosa res est sapientia; vacuo illi loco opus est; de divinis humanisque discendum est, de praeteritis de futuris, de caducis de aeternis, de tempore. De quo uno vide quam multa quaerantur: primum an per se sit aliquid; deinde an aliquid ante tempus sit sine tempore; cum mundo coeperit an etiam ante mundum quia fuerit aliquid, fuerit et tempus. [34] Innumerabiles quaestiones sunt de animo tantum: unde sit, qualis sit, quando esse incipiat, quamdiu sit, aliunde alio transeat et domicilia mutet in alias animalium formas aliasque coniectus, an non amplius quam semel serviat et emissus vagetur in toto; utrum corpus sit an non sit; quid sit facturus cum per nos aliquid facere desierit, quomodo libertate sua usurus cum ex hac effugerit cavea; an obliviscatur priorum et illinc nosse se incipiat unde corpori abductus in sublime secessit. [35] Quamcumque partem rerum humanarum divinarumque conprenderis, ingenti copia quaerendorum ac discendorum fatigaberis. Haec tam multa, tam magna ut habere possint liberum hospitium, supervacua ex animo tollenda sunt. Non dabit se in has angustias virtus; laxum spatium res magna desiderat. Expellantur omnia, totum pectus illi vacet. [36] 'At enim delectat artium notitia multarum.' Tantum itaque ex illis retineamus quantum necessarium est. An tu existimas reprendendum qui supervacua usibus comparat et pretiosarum rerum pompam in domo explicat, non putas eum qui occupatus est in supervacua litterarum supellectile? Plus scire velle quam sit satis intemperantiae genus est. [37] Quid quod ista liberalium artium consectatio molestos, verbosos, intempestivos, sibi placentes facit et ideo non discentes necessaria quia supervacua didicerunt? Quattuor milia librorum Didymus grammaticus scripsit: misererer si tam multa supervacua legisset. In his libris de patria Homeri quaeritur, in his de Aeneae matre vera, in his libidinosior Anacreon an ebriosior vixerit, in his an Sappho publica fuerit, et alia quae erant dediscenda si scires. I nunc et longam esse vitam nega! [38] Sed ad nostros quoque cum perveneris, ostendam multa securibus recidenda. Magno inpendio temporum, magna alienarum aurium molestia laudatio haec constat: 'o hominem litteratum!' Simus hoc titulo rusticiore contenti: 'o virum bonum!' [39] Itane est? annales evolvam omnium gentium et quis primus carmina scripserit quaeram? quantum temporis inter Orphea intersit et Homerum, cum fastos non habeam, conputabo? et Aristarchi notas quibus aliena carmina conpunxit recognoscam, et aetatem in syllabis conteram? Itane in geometriae pulvere haerebo? adeo mihi praeceptum illud salutare excidit: 'tempori parce'? Haec sciam? et quid ignorem? [40] Apion grammaticus, qui sub C. Caesare tota circulatus est Graecia et in nomen Homeri ab omnibus civitatibus adoptatus, aiebat Homerum utraque materia consummata, et Odyssia et Iliade, principium adiecisse operi suo quo bellum Troianum conplexus est. Huius rei argumentum adferebat quod duas litteras in primo versu posuisset ex industria librorum suorum numerum continentes. [41] Talia sciat oportet qui multa vult scire. Non vis cogitare quantum temporis tibi auferat mala valetudo, quantum occupatio publica, quantum occupatio privata, quantum occupatio cotidiana, quantum somnus? Metire aetatem tuam: tam multa non capit. [42] De liberalibus studiis loquor: philosophi quantum habent supervacui, quantum ab usu recedentis! Ipsi quoque ad syllabarum distinctiones et coniunctionum ac praepositionum proprietates descenderunt et invidere grammaticis, invidere geometris; quidquid in illorum artibus supervacuum erat transtulere in suam. Sic effectum est ut diligentius loqui scirent quam vivere. [43] Audi quantum mali faciat nimia subtilitas et quam infesta veritati sit. Protagoras ait de omni re in utramque partem disputari posse ex aequo et de hac ipsa, an omnis res in utramque partem disputabilis sit. Nausiphanes ait ex his quae videntur esse nihil magis esse quam non esse. [44] Parmenides ait ex his quae videntur nihil esse ~universo~. Zenon Eleates omnia negotia de negotio deiecit: ait nihil esse. Circa eadem fere Pyrrhonei versantur et Megarici et Eretrici et Academici, qui novam induxerunt scientiam, nihil scire. [45] Haec omnia in illum supervacuum studiorum liberalium gregem coice; illi mihi non profuturam scientiam tradunt, hi spem omnis scientiae eripiunt. Satius est supervacua scire quam nihil. Illi non praeferunt lumen per quod acies derigatur ad verum, hi oculos mihi effodiunt. Si Protagorae credo, nihil in rerum natura est nisi dubium; si Nausiphani, hoc unum certum est, nihil esse certi; si Parmenidi, nihil est praeter unum; si Zenoni, ne unum quidem. [46] Quid ergo nos sumus? quid ista quae nos circumstant, alunt, sustinent? Tota rerum natura umbra est aut inanis aut fallax. Non facile dixerim utris magis irascar, illis qui nos nihil scire voluerunt, an illis qui ne hoc quidem nobis reliquerunt, nihil scire. Vale. Seneca the YoungerThe Latin Library The Classics Page

◆

You have been wishing to know my views
with regard to liberal studies. My answer is this: I respect no
study, and deem no study good, which results in money-making. Such
studies are profit-bringing occupations, useful only in so far as they
give the mind a preparation and do not engage it permanently. One
should linger upon them only so long as the mind can occupy itself with
nothing greater; they are our apprenticeship, not our real work.
Hence you see why "liberal studies" are so called; it is because they are
studies worthy of a free-born gentleman. But there is only one really liberal
study, - that which gives a man his liberty. It is the study of wisdom,
and that is lofty, brave, and great-souled. All other studies are puny
and puerile. You surely do not believe that there is good in any
of the subjects whose teachers are, as you see, men of the most ignoble
and base stamp? We ought not to be learning such things; we should
have done with learning them.
Certain persons have made up their minds
that the point at issue with regard to the liberal studies is whether they
make men good; but they do not even profess or aim at a knowledge of this
particular
--------
a The regular round of education, xyzxyz pqrpqr, including grammar,
music, geometry, arithmetic, astrology, and certain phases of rhetoric
and dialectic, are in this letter contrasted with liberal studies - those
which have for their object the pursuit of virtue. Seneca is thus
interpreting studia liberalia in a higher sense than his contemporaries
would expect. Compare J. R. Lowell's definition of a university,
"a place where noting useful is taught."
<Ep2-349>

subject. The scholarl busies himself with investigations into
language, and if it be his desire to go farther afield, he works on history,
or, if he would extend his range to the farthest limits, on poetry.
But which of these paves the way to virtue? Pronouncing syllables,
investigating words, memorizing plays, or making rules for the scansion
of poetry, what is there in all this that rids one of fear, roots out desire,
or bridles the passions? The question is: do such men teach virtue,
or not? If they do not teach it, then neither do they transmit it.
If they do teach it, they are philosophers. Would you like to know
how it happens that they have not taken the chair for the purpose of teaching
virtue? See how unlike their subjects are; and yet their subjects
would resemble each other if they taught the same thing.
It may be, perhaps, that they make you
believe that Homer was a philosopher, although they disprove this by
the very arguments through which they seek to prove it. For sometimes
they make of him a Stoic, who approves nothing but virtue, avoids pleasures,
and refuses to relinquish honour even at the price of immortality; sometimes
they make him an Epicurean, praising the condition of a state in repose,
which passes its days in feasting and song; sometimes a Peripatetic, classifying
goodness in three ways; sometimes an Academic, holding that all things
are uncertain. It is clear, however, that no one of these doctrines
is to be fathered upon Homer, just because they are all there; for they
are
--------
d The tria qenera bonorum of Cicero's
De Fin v. 84. Cf. ib. 18, where the three proper objects of man's
search are given as the desire for pleasure, the avoidance of pain, and
the attainment of such natural goods as health, strength, and soundnesss
of mind. The Stoics held that the good was absolute.
<Ep2-351>

irreconcilable with one another. We may admit to these men, indeed,
that Homer was a philosopher; yet surely he became a wise man before he
had any knowledge of poetry. So let us learn the particular things
that made Homer wise.
It is no more to the point, of course,
for me to investigate whether Homer or Hesiod was the older poet, than
to know why Hecuba, although younger than Helen, showed her years so
lamentably. What, in your opinion, I say, would be the point in trying
to determine the respective ages of Achilles and Patroclus? Do you
raise the question, "Through what regions did Ulysses stray?" instead of
trying to prevent ourselves from going astray at all times? We have
no leisure to hear lectures on the question whether he was sea-tost between
Italy and Sicily, or outside our known world (indeed, so long a wandering
could not possibly have taken place within its narrow bounds); we ourselves
encounter storms of the spirit, which toss us daily, and our depravity
drives us into all the ills which troubled Ulysses. For us there
is never lacking the beauty to tempt our eyes, or the enemy to assail us;
on this side are savage monsters that delight in human blood, on that side
the treacherous allurements of the ear, and yonder is shipwreck and all
the varied category of misfortunes. Show me rather, by the example of
Ulysses, how I am to love my country, my wife, my father, and how, even
after suffering shipwreck, I am to sail toward these ends, honourable as
they are. Why try to discover whether Penelope was a pattern of purity,
or whether she had the laugh on her contemporaries? Or whether she
suspected that the man in her presence was Ulysses, before she knew it
was he? Teach me
<Ep2-353>

rather what purity is, and how great a good we have in it, and whether
it is situated in the body or in the soul.
Now I will transfer my attention to
the musician. You, sir, are teaching me how the treble and the bass
are in accord with one another, and how, though the strings produce different
notes, the result is a harmony; rather bring my soul into harmony with
itself, and let not my purposes be out of tune. You are showing me
what the doleful keys are; show me rather how, in the midst of adversity,
I may keep from uttering a doleful note. The mathematician teaches
me how to lay out the dimensions of my estates; but I should rather be
taught how to lay out what is enough for a man to own. He teaches
me to count, and adapts my fingers to avarice; but I should prefer him
to teach me that there is no point in such calculations, and that one is
none the happier for tiring out the book-keepers with his possessions -
or rather, how useless property is to any man who would find it the greatest
misfortune if he should be required to reckon out, by his own wits, the
amount of his holdings. What good is there for me in knowing how to parcel
out a piece of land, if I know not how to share it with my brother?
What good is there in working out to a nicety the dimensions of an acre,
and in detecting the error if a piece has so much as escaped my measuring-rod,
if I am embittered when an ill-tempered neighbour merely scrapes off a
bit of my land? The mathematician teaches me how I may lose none
of my boundaries; I, however, seek to learn how to lose them all with a
light heart. "But," comes the reply, "I am being driven from the
farm which my father and grandfather owned!" Well? Who owned the
land before your grand-
<Ep2-355>

father? Can you explain what people (I will not say what person)
held it originally? You did not enter upon it as a master, but merely
as a tenant. And whose tenant are you? If your claim is successful,
you are tenant of the heir. The lawyers say that public property
cannot be acquired privately by possession; what you hold and call your
own is public property - indeed, it belongs
to mankind at large. O what marvellous skill! You know how
to measure the circle; you find the square of any shape which is set before
you; you compute the distances between the stars; there is nothing which
does not come within the scope of your calculations. But if you are
a real master of your profession, measure me the mind of man! Tell
me how great it is, or how puny! You know what a straight line is;
but how does it benefit you if you do not know what is straight in this
life of ours? I come next to the person who boasts his knowledge of the
heavenly bodies, who knows
Whither the chilling star of Saturn hides,
And through what orbit Mercury doth stray.
1Of what benefit will it be to know this? That I shall be disturbed
because Saturn and Mars are in opposition, or when Mercury sets at eventide
in plain view of Saturn, rather than learn that those stars, wherever they
are, are propitious, and that they are not subject to change? They
are driven along by an unending round of destiny, on a course from which
they cannot swerve. They return
at stated seasons; they either set in motion, or mark the
<Ep2-357>

intervals of the whole world's work. But if they are responsible
for whatever happens, how will it help you to know the secrets of the immutable?
Or if they merely give indications, what good is there in foreseeing what
you cannot escape? Whether you know these things or not, they will
take place. Behold the fleeting sun,
The stars that follow in his train, and thou
Shalt never find the morrow play thee false,
Or be misled by nights without a cloud.
It has, however, been sufficiently and fully ordained that I shall be safe
from anything that may mislead me. "What," you say, "does the 'morrow
never play me false'? Whatever happens without my knowledge plays
me false." I, for my part, do not know what is to be, but I do know what
may come to be. I shall have no misgivings in this matter; I await
the future in its entirety; and if there is any abatement in its severity,
I make the most of it. If the morrow treats me kindly, it is a sort
of deception; but it does not deceive me even at that. For just as
I know that all things can happen, so I know, too, that they will not happen
in every case.
I am ready for favourable events in every case, but I am prepared for evil.
In this discussion you must bear with me if I do not follow the regular
course. For I do not consent to admit painting into the list of liberal
arts, any more than sculpture, marble-working, and other helps toward luxury.
I also debar from the liberal studies wrestling and all knowledge that
is compounded of oil and mud; otherwise, I should be compelled to admit
perfumers also, and cooks, and all others who lend their wits to the service
of our
<Ep2-359>

pleasures. For what "liberal" element is there in these ravenous
takers of emetics, whose bodies are fed to fatness while their minds are
thin and dull? Or do we really believe that the training which they give
is "liberal" for the young men of Rome, who used, to be taught by our ancestors
to stand straight and hurl a spear, to wield a pike, to guide a horse,
and to handle weapons? Our ancestors used to teach their children
nothing that could be learned while lying down.. But neither the
new system nor the old teaches or nourishes virtue. For what good
does it do us to guide a horse and control his speed with the curb, and
then find that our own passions, utterly uncurbed, bolt with us?
Or to beat many opponents in wrestling or boxing, and then to find that
we ourselves are beaten by anger? "What then," you say, "do the liberal
studies contribute nothing to our welfare?" Very much in other respects,
but nothing at all as regards virtue. For even these arts of which I have
spoken, though admittedly of a low grade -depending as they do upon handiwork
- contribute greatly toward the equipment of life, but nevertheless have
nothing to do with virtue. And if you inquire, "Why, then, do we educate
our children in the liberal studies?" it is not because they can bestow
virtue, but because they prepare the soul for the reception of virtue.
Just as that "primary course," as the ancients called it, in grammar,
which gave boys their elementary training, does not teach them the liberal
arts, but prepares the ground for their early acquisition of these arts,
so the liberal arts do not conduct the soul all the way to virtue, but
merely set it going in that direction.
<Ep2-361>

Posidonius divides the arts into four
classes: first we have those which are common and low, then those which
serve for amusement, then those which refer to the education of boys, and,
finally, the liberal arts. The common sort belong to workmen and
are mere hand-work; they are concerned with equipping life; there is in
them no pretence to beauty or honour. The arts of amusement are those
which aim to please the eye and the ear. To this class you may assign
the stage-machinists, who invent scaffolding that goes aloft of its own
accord, or floors that rise silently into the air, and many other surprising
devices, as when objects that fit together then fall apart, or objects
which are separate then join together automatically, or objects which stand
erect then gradually collapse. The eye of the inexperienced is struck
with amazement by these things; for such persons marvel at everything that
takes place without warning, because they do not know the causes.
The arts which belong to the education of boys, and are somewhat similar
to the liberal arts, are those which the Greeks call the "cycle of studies,"
but which we Romans call the,'liberal." However, those alone are really
liberal - or rather, to give them a truer name, "free" - whose concern
is virtue.
" "But," one will say, "just as there is a
part of philosopliy which has to do with nature, and a part which has to
do with ethics, and a part which has to do with reasoning, so this group
of liberal arts also claims for itself a place in philosophy. When
one approaches questions that deal with nature, a decision is reached by
means of a word from the mathematician. Therefore mathematics is
a department of that branch which it aids." But many things
<Ep2-363>

aid us and yet are not parts of ourselves. Nay, if they were,
they would not aid us. Food is an aid to the body, but is not a part
of it. We get some help from the service which mathematies renders;
and mathematics is as indispensable to philosophy as the carpenter is to
the mathematician. But carpentering is not a part of mathematics, nor is
mathematics a part of philosophy. Moreover, each has its own limits;
for the wise man investigates and learns the causes of natural phenomena,
while the mathematician follows up and computes their numbers and their
measurements. The wise man knows the laws by which the heavenly bodies
persist, what powers belong to them, and what attributes; the astronomer
merely notes their comings and goings, the rules which govern their settings
and their risings, and the occasional periods during which they seem to
stand still, although as a matter of fact no heavenly body can stand still,
The wise man will know what causes the reflection in a mirror; but, the
mathematician can merely tell you how far the body should be from the reflection,
and what shape of mirror will produce a given reflection. The philosopher
will demonstrate that the sun is a large body, while the astronomer will
compute just how large, progressing in knowledge by his method of trial
and experiment; but in order to progress, he must summon to his aid certain
principles. No art, however, is sufficient unto itself, if the foundation
upon which it rests depends upon mere favour. Now philosophy asks
no favours from any other source; it builds everything on its own soil;
but the science of numbers is, so to speak, a structure built on another
man's land - it builds on everything on alien soil; It accepts first
principles, and by their
<Ep2-365>

favour arrives at further conclusions. If it could march unassisted
to the truth, if it were able to understand the nature of the universe,
I should say that it would offer much assistance to our minds; for the
mind grows by contact with things heavenly and draws into itself something
from on high. There is but one thing that brings the soul to perfection
- the unalterable knowledge of good and evil. But there is no other
art a which investigates good and evil.
I should like to pass in review the
several virtues .
Bravery
is the holiest good in the human heart; it is forced into betrayal by no
constraint, and it is bribed by no rewards. Loyalty cries:
"Burn me, slay me, kill me! I shall not betray my trust; and the
more urgently torture shall seek to find my secret, the deeper in my heart
will I bury it!" Can the "liberal arts" produce such a spirit within us?
Temperance controls our
desires; some it hates and routs, others it regulates and restores to a
healtby measure, nor does it ever approach our desires for their own sake.
Temperance knows that the best measure of the appetites is not what you
want to take, but what you ought to take.
Kindliness forbids you to be
over-bearing towards your associates, and it forbids you to be grasping.
In words and in deeds and in feelings it shows itself gentle and courteous
to all men. It counts no evil as another's solely.
And the reason why it loves its own good is chiefly because it will some
day be the good of another. Do "liberal studies" teach a man
<Ep2-367>

such character as this? No; no more than they teach
simplicity , moderation
and self_restraint ,
thrift and economy , and that kindliness
which spares a neighbour's life as if it were one's own and knows that
it is not for man to make wasteful use of his fellow-man.
" "But," one says, "since you declare that
virtue cannot be attained without the 'liberal studies,' how is it that
you deny that they offer any assistance to virtue?" Because you cannot
attain virtue without food, either; and yet food has nothing to do with
virtue. Wood does not offer assistance to a ship, although a ship cannot
be built except of wood. There is no reason, I say, why you should
think that anything is made by the assistance of that without which it
cannot be made. We might even make the statement that it is possible
to attain wisdom without the "liberal studies"; for although virtue is
a thing that must be learned, yet it is not learned by means of these studies.
What reason have I, however, for supposing
that one who is ignorant of letters will never be a wise man, since wisdom
is not to be found in letters? Wisdom communicates facts and not
words; and it may be true that the memory is more to be depended upon when
it has no support outside itself. Wisdom is a large and spacious
thing. It needs plenty of free room. One must learn about things
divine and human, the past and the future, the epbemeral and the eternal;
and one must learn about Time. See how many questions arise concerning
time alone: in the first place, whether it is anything in and by itself;
in the second place, whether anything exists prior to time and without
time; and again, did time
<Ep2-369>

begin along with the universe, or, because there was something even
before the universe began, did time also exist then? There are countless
questions concerning the soul alone: whence it comes, what is its nature,
when it begins to exist, and how long it exists; whether it passes from
one place to another and changes its habitation, being transferred successively
from one animal shape to another, or whether it is a slave but once, roaming
the universe after it is set free; whether it is corporeal or not; what
will become of it when it ceases to use us as its medium; how it will employ
its freedom when it has escaped from this present prison; whether it will
forget all its past, and at that moment begin to know itself when, released
from the body, it has withdrawn to the skies.
Thus, whatever phase of things human
and divine you have apprehended, you will be wearied by the vast number
of things to be answered and things to be learned. And in order that
these manifold and mighty subjects may have free entertainment in your
soul, you must remove therefrom all superfluous things. Virtue will
not surrender herself to these narrow bounds of ours; a great subject needs
wide space in which to move. Let all other things be driven out,
and let the breast be emptied to receive virtue.
" "But it is a pleasure to be acquainted with
many arts." Therefore let us keep only as much of them as is essential.
Do you regard that man as blameworthy who puts superfluous things on the
same footing with useful things, and in his house makes a lavish display
of costly objects, but do not deem him blameworthy who has allowed himself
to become engrossed with the useless furniture of learning? This
desire to know more than is sufficient is a sort
<Ep2-371>

EPISTLE LXXXVIII,
of intemperance.
Why? Because this unseemly
pursuit of the liberal arts makes men troublesome, wordy, tactless, self-
satisfied bores, who fail to learn the essentials just because they have
learned the non-essentials. Didymus the scholar wrote four thousand books.
I should feel pity for him if he had only read the same number of superfluous
volumes. In these books he investigates Homer's birthplace, who
was really the mother of Aeneas, whether Anacreon was more of a rake or
more of a drunkard, whether Sappho was a bad lot and other problems the
answers to which, if found, were forthwith to be forgotten. Come
now, do not tell me that life is long! Nay, when you come to consider our
own countrymen also, I can show you many works which ought to be cut down
with the axe.
It is at the cost of a vast outlay of
time and of vast discomfort to the ears of others that we win such praise
as this: "What a learned man you are!" Let us be content with this
recommendation, less citified though it be: "What a good man you
are!" Do I mean this? Well, would you have me unroll the annals of the
world's history and try to find out who first wrote poetry? Or, in
the absence of written records, shall I make an estimate of the number
of years which lie between Orpheus and Homer? Or shall I make a study
of the absurd writings of Aristarchus, wherein he branded the text of
other men's verses, and wear my life away upon syllables? Shall I
then wallow in the geometrician's dust? Have I so far forgotten
that useful saw "Save your time"? Must I know these things?
And what may I choose not to know?
--------
d The geometricians drew their figures
in the dust or sand.
<Ep2-373>

Apion, the scholar, who drew crowds to his
lectures all over Greece in the days of Gaius Caesar and was acclaimed
a Homerid by every state, used to maintain that Homer, when he had finished
his two poems, the Iliad and the Odyssey, added a preliminary poem to his
work, wherein he embraced the whole Trojan war. The argument which
Apion adduced to prove this statement was that Homer had purposely inserted
in the opening line two letters which contained a key to the number of
his books. A man who wishes to know many things must know such things
as these, and must take no thought of all the time which one loses by ill-
health, public duties, private duties, daily duties, and sleep. Apply
the measure to the years of your life; they have no room for all these
things. I have been speaking so far of liberal studies; but think
how much superfluous and unpractical matter the philosophers contain!
Of their own accord they also have descended to establishing nice divisions
of syllables, to determining the true meaning of conjunctions and prepositions;
they have been envious of the scholars, envious of the mathematicians.
They have taken over into their own art all the superfluities of these
other arts; the result is that they know more about careful speaking than
about careful living. Let me tell you what evils are due to over-nice
exactness, and what
an enemy it is of truth! Protagoras declares that one can take either
side on any question and debate it with equal success - even on this very
question, whether every subject can be debated from either point of view.
Nausiphanes holds that in things which seem to exist, there is no difference
between existence and non-existence. Parmenides maintains that nothing
<Ep2-375>

Latin / Greek Original

[1] De liberalibus studiis quid sentiam scire desideras: nullum suspicio, nullum in bonis numero quod ad aes exit. Meritoria artificia sunt, hactenus utilia si praeparant ingenium, non detinent. Tamdiu enim istis inmorandum est quamdiu nihil animus agere maius potest; rudimenta sunt nostra, non opera. [2] Quare liberalia studia dicta sint vides: quia homine libero digna sunt. Ceterum unum studium vere liberale est quod liberum facit, hoc est sapientiae, sublime, forte, magnanimum: cetera pusilla et puerilia sunt. An tu quicquam in istis esse credis boni quorum professores turpissimos omnium ac flagitiosissimos cernis? Non discere debemus ista, sed didicisse.

Quidam illud de liberalibus studiis quaerendum iudicaverunt, an virum bonum facerent: ne promittunt quidem nec huius rei scientiam adfectant. [3] Grammatice circa curam sermonis versatur et, si latius evagari vult, circa historias, iam ut longissime fines suos proferat, circa carmina. Quid horum ad virtutem viam sternit? Syllabarum enarratio et verborum diligentia et fabularum memoria et versuum lex ac modificatio -- quid ex his metum demit, cupiditatem eximit, libidinem frenat? [4] Ad geometriam transeamus et ad musicen: nihil apud illas invenies quod vetet timere, vetet cupere. Quae quisquis ignorat, alia frustra scit.

* * * utrum doceant isti virtutem an non: si non docent, ne tradunt quidem; si docent, philosophi sunt. Vis scire quam non ad docendam virtutem consederint? aspice quam dissimilia inter se omnium studia sint: atqui similitudo esset idem docentium. [5] Nisi forte tibi Homerum philosophum fuisse persuadent, cum his ipsis quibus colligunt negent; nam modo Stoicum illum faciunt, virtutem solam probantem et voluptates refugientem et ab honesto ne inmortalitatis quidem pretio recedentem, modo Epicureum, laudantem statum quietae civitatis et inter convivia cantusque vitam exigentis, modo Peripateticum, tria bonorum genera inducentem, modo Academicum, omnia incerta dicentem. Apparet nihil horum esse in illo, quia omnia sunt; ista enim inter se dissident. Demus illis Homerum philosophum fuisse: nempe sapiens factus est antequam carmina ulla cognosceret; ergo illa discamus quae Homerum fecere sapientem. [6] Hoc quidem me quaerere, uter maioraetate fuerit, Homerus an Hesiodus, non magis ad rem pertinet quam scire, cum minor Hecuba fuerit quam Helena, quare tam male tulerit aetatem. Quid, inquam, annos Patrocli et Achillis inquirere ad rem existimas pertinere? [7] Quaeris Ulixes ubi erraverit potius quam efficias ne nos semper erremus? Non vacat audire utrum inter Italiam et Siciliam iactatus sit an extra notum nobis orbem (neque enim potuit in tam angusto error esse tam longus): tempestates nos animi cotidie iactant et nequitia in omnia Ulixis mala inpellit. Non deest forma quae sollicitet oculos, non hostis; hinc monstra effera et humano cruore gaudentia, hinc insidiosa blandimenta aurium, hinc naufragia et tot varietates malorum. Hoc me doce, quomodo patriam amem, quomodo uxorem, quomodo patrem, quomodo ad haec tam honesta vel naufragus navigem. [8] Quid inquiris an Penelopa inpudica fuerit, an verba saeculo suo dederit? an Ulixem illum esse quem videbat, antequam sciret, suspicata sit? Doce me quid sit pudicitia et quantum in ea bonum, in corpore an in animo posita sit.

[9] Ad musicum transeo. Doces me quomodo inter se acutae ac graves consonent, quomodo nervorum disparem reddentium sonum fiat concordia: fac potius quomodo animus secum meus consonet nec consilia mea discrepent. Monstras mihi qui sint modi flebiles: monstra potius quomodo inter adversa non emittam flebilem vocem.

[10] Metiri me geometres docet latifundia potius quam doceat quomodo metiar quantum homini satis sit; numerare docet me et avaritiae commodat digitos potius quam doceat nihil ad rem pertinere istas conputationes, non esse feliciorem cuius patrimonium tabularios lassat, immo quam supervacua possideat qui infelicissimus futurus est si quantum habeat per se conputare cogetur. [11] Quid mihi prodest scire agellum in partes dividere, si nescio cum fratre dividere? Quid prodest colligere subtiliter pedes iugeri et conprendere etiam si quid decempedam effugit, si tristem me facit vicinus inpotens et aliquid ex meo abradens? Docet quomodo nihil perdam ex finibus meis: at ego discere volo quomodo totos hilaris amittam. 'Paterno agro et avito' inquit 'expellor.' [12] Quid? ante avum tuum quis istum agrum tenuit? cuius, non dico hominis, sed populi fuerit potes expedire? Non dominus isto, sed colonus intrasti. Cuius colonus es? si bene tecum agitur, heredis. Negant iurisconsulti quicquam usu capi publicum: hoc quod tenes, quod tuum dicis, publicum est et quidem generis humani. [13] O egregiam artem! scis rotunda metiri, in quadratum redigis quamcumque acceperis formam, intervalla siderum dicis, nihil est quod in mensuram tuam non cadat: si artifex es, metire hominis animum, dic quam magnus sit, dic quam pusillus sit. Scis quae recta sit linea: quid tibi prodest, si quid in vita rectum sit ignoras?

[14] Venio nunc ad illum qui caelestium notitia gloriatur:

Hoc scire quid proderit? ut sollicitus sim cum Saturnus et Mars ex contrario stabunt aut cum Mercurius vespertinum faciet occasum vidente Saturno, potius quam hoc discam, ubicumque sunt ista, propitia esse nec posse mutari? [15] Agit illa continuus ordo fatorum et inevitabilis cursus; per statas vices remeant et effectus rerum omnium aut movent aut notant. Sed sive quidquid evenit faciunt, quid inmutabilis rei notitia proficiet? sive significant, quid refert providere quod effugere non possis? Scias ista, nescias: fient.

Satis abundeque provisum est ut ab insidiis tutus essem. [17] 'Numquid me crastina non fallit hora? fallit enim quod nescienti evenit.' Ego quid futurum sit nescio: quid fieri possit scio. Ex hoc nihil deprecabor, totum expecto: si quid remittitur, boni consulo. Fallit me hora si parcit, sed ne sic quidem fallit. Nam quemadmodum scio omnia accidere posse, sic scio et non utique casura; itaque secunda expecto, malis paratus sum.

[18] In illo feras me necesse est non per praescriptum euntem; non enim adducor ut in numerum liberalium artium pictores recipiam, non magis quam statuarios aut marmorarios aut ceteros luxuriae ministros. Aeque luctatores et totam oleo ac luto constantem scientiam expello ex his studiis liberalibus; aut et unguentarios recipiam et cocos et ceteros voluptatibus nostris ingenia accommodantes sua. [19] Quid enim, oro te, liberale habent isti ieiuni vomitores, quorum corpora in sagina, animi in macie et veterno sunt? An liberale studium istuc esse iuventuti nostrae credimus, quam maiores nostri rectam exercuerunt hastilia iacere, sudem torquere, equum agitare, arma tractare? Nihil liberos suos docebant quod discendum esset iacentibus. Sed nec hae nec illae docent aluntve virtutem; quid enim prodest equum regere et cursum eius freno temperare, adfectibus effrenatissimis abstrahi? quid prodest multos vincere luctatione vel caestu, ab iracundia vinci?

[20] 'Quid ergo? nihil nobis liberalia conferunt studia?' Ad alia multum, ad virtutem nihil; nam et hae viles ex professo artes quae manu constant ad instrumenta vitae plurimum conferunt, tamen ad virtutem non pertinent. 'Quare ergo liberalibus studiis filios erudimus?' Non quia virtutem dare possunt, sed quia animum ad accipiendam virtutem praeparant. Quemadmodum prima illa, ut antiqui vocabant, litteratura, per quam pueris elementa traduntur, non docet liberales artes sed mox percipiendis locum parat, sic liberales artes non perducunt animum ad virtutem sed expediunt.

[21] Quattuor ait esse artium Posidonius genera: sunt vulgares et sordidae, sunt ludicrae, sunt pueriles, sunt liberales. Vulgares opificum, quae manu constant et ad instruendam vitam occupatae sunt, in quibus nulla decoris, nulla honesti simulatio est. [22] Ludicrae sunt quae ad voluptatem oculorum atque aurium tendunt; his adnumeres licet machinatores qui pegmata per se surgentia excogitant et tabulata tacite in sublime crescentia et alias ex inopinato varietates, aut dehiscentibus quae cohaerebant aut his quae distabant sua sponte coeuntibus aut his quae eminebant paulatim in se residentibus. His inperitorum feriuntur oculi, omnia subita quia causas non novere mirantium. [23] Pueriles sunt et aliquid habentes liberalibus simile hae artes quas egkuklious Graeci, nostri autem liberales vocant. Solae autem liberales sunt, immo, ut dicam verius, liberae, quibus curae virtus est.

[24] 'Quemadmodum' inquit 'est aliqua pars philosophiae naturalis, est aliqua moralis, est aliqua rationalis, sic et haec quoque liberalium artium turba locum sibi in philosophia vindicat. Cum ventum est ad naturales quaestiones, geometriae testimonio statur; ergo eius quam adiuvat pars est.' [25] Multa adiuvant nos nec ideo partes nostri sunt; immo si partes essent, non adiuvarent. Cibus adiutorium corporis nec tamen pars est. Aliquod nobis praestat geometria ministerium: sic philosophiae necessaria est quomodo ipsi faber, sed nec hic geometriae pars est nec illa philosophiae. [26] Praeterea utraque fines suos habet; sapiens enim causas naturalium et quaerit et novit, quorum numeros mensurasque geometres persequitur et supputat. Qua ratione constent caelestia, quae illis sit vis quaeve natura sapiens scit: cursus et recursus et quasdam obversationes per quas descendunt et adlevantur ac speciem interdum stantium praebent, cum caelestibus stare non liceat, colligit mathematicus. [27] Quae causa in speculo imagines exprimat sciet sapiens: illud tibi geometres potest dicere, quantum abesse debeat corpus ab imagine et qualis forma speculi quales imagines reddat. Magnum esse solem philosophus probabit, quantus sit mathematicus, qui usu quodam et exercitatione procedit. Sed ut procedat, inpetranda illi quaedam principia sunt; non est autem ars sui iuris cui precarium fundamentum est. [28] Philosophia nil ab alio petit, totum opus a solo excitat: mathematice, ut ita dicam, superficiaria est, in alieno aedificat; accipit prima, quorum beneficio ad ulteriora perveniat. Si per se iret ad verum, si totius mundi naturam posset conprendere, dicerem multum conlaturam mentibus nostris, quae tractatu caelestium crescunt trahuntque aliquid ex alto.

Una re consummatur animus, scientia bonorum ac malorum inmutabili; nihil autem ulla ars alia de bonis ac malis quaerit. Singulas lubet circumire virtutes. [29] Fortitudo contemptrix timendorum est; terribilia et sub iugum libertatem nostram mittentia despicit, provocat, frangit: numquid ergo hanc liberalia studia corroborant? Fides sanctissimum humani pectoris bonum est, nulla necessitate ad fallendum cogitur, nullo corrumpitur praemio: 'ure', inquit 'caede, occide: non prodam, sed quo magis secreta quaeret dolor, hoc illa altius condam'. Numquid liberalia studia hos animos facere possunt? Temperantia voluptatibus imperat, alias odit atque abigit, alias dispensat et ad sanum modum redigit nec umquam ad illas propter ipsas venit; scit optimum esse modum cupitorum non quantum velis, sed quantum debeas sumere. [30] Humanitas vetat superbum esse adversus socios, vetat amarum; verbis, rebus, adfectibus comem se facilemque omnibus praestat; nullum alienum malum putat, bonum autem suum ideo maxime quod alicui bono futurum est amat. Numquid liberalia studia hos mores praecipiunt? non magis quam simplicitatem, quam modestiam ac moderationem, non magis quam frugalitatem ac parsimoniam, non magis quam clementiam, quae alieno sanguini tamquam suo parcit et scit homini non esse homine prodige utendum.

[31] 'Cum dicatis' inquit 'sine liberalibus studiis ad virtutem non perveniri, quemadmodum negatis illa nihil conferre virtuti?' Quia nec sine cibo ad virtutem pervenitur, cibus tamen ad virtutem non pertinet; ligna navi nihil conferunt, quamvis non fiat navis nisi ex lignis: non est, inquam, cur aliquid putes eius adiutorio fieri sine quo non potest fieri. [32] Potest quidem etiam illud dici, sine liberalibus studiis veniri ad sapientiam posse; quamvis enim virtus discenda sit, tamen non per haec discitur. Quid est autem quare existimem non futurum sapientem eum qui litteras nescit, cum sapientia non sit in litteris? Res tradit, non verba, et nescio an certior memoria sit quae nullum extra se subsidium habet. [33] Magna et spatiosa res est sapientia; vacuo illi loco opus est; de divinis humanisque discendum est, de praeteritis de futuris, de caducis de aeternis, de tempore. De quo uno vide quam multa quaerantur: primum an per se sit aliquid; deinde an aliquid ante tempus sit sine tempore; cum mundo coeperit an etiam ante mundum quia fuerit aliquid, fuerit et tempus. [34] Innumerabiles quaestiones sunt de animo tantum: unde sit, qualis sit, quando esse incipiat, quamdiu sit, aliunde alio transeat et domicilia mutet in alias animalium formas aliasque coniectus, an non amplius quam semel serviat et emissus vagetur in toto; utrum corpus sit an non sit; quid sit facturus cum per nos aliquid facere desierit, quomodo libertate sua usurus cum ex hac effugerit cavea; an obliviscatur priorum et illinc nosse se incipiat unde corpori abductus in sublime secessit. [35] Quamcumque partem rerum humanarum divinarumque conprenderis, ingenti copia quaerendorum ac discendorum fatigaberis. Haec tam multa, tam magna ut habere possint liberum hospitium, supervacua ex animo tollenda sunt. Non dabit se in has angustias virtus; laxum spatium res magna desiderat. Expellantur omnia, totum pectus illi vacet.

[36] 'At enim delectat artium notitia multarum.' Tantum itaque ex illis retineamus quantum necessarium est. An tu existimas reprendendum qui supervacua usibus comparat et pretiosarum rerum pompam in domo explicat, non putas eum qui occupatus est in supervacua litterarum supellectile? Plus scire velle quam sit satis intemperantiae genus est. [37] Quid quod ista liberalium artium consectatio molestos, verbosos, intempestivos, sibi placentes facit et ideo non discentes necessaria quia supervacua didicerunt? Quattuor milia librorum Didymus grammaticus scripsit: misererer si tam multa supervacua legisset. In his libris de patria Homeri quaeritur, in his de Aeneae matre vera, in his libidinosior Anacreon an ebriosior vixerit, in his an Sappho publica fuerit, et alia quae erant dediscenda si scires. I nunc et longam esse vitam nega!

[38] Sed ad nostros quoque cum perveneris, ostendam multa securibus recidenda. Magno inpendio temporum, magna alienarum aurium molestia laudatio haec constat: 'o hominem litteratum!' Simus hoc titulo rusticiore contenti: 'o virum bonum!' [39] Itane est? annales evolvam omnium gentium et quis primus carmina scripserit quaeram? quantum temporis inter Orphea intersit et Homerum, cum fastos non habeam, conputabo? et Aristarchi notas quibus aliena carmina conpunxit recognoscam, et aetatem in syllabis conteram? Itane in geometriae pulvere haerebo? adeo mihi praeceptum illud salutare excidit: 'tempori parce'? Haec sciam? et quid ignorem? [40] Apion grammaticus, qui sub C. Caesare tota circulatus est Graecia et in nomen Homeri ab omnibus civitatibus adoptatus, aiebat Homerum utraque materia consummata, et Odyssia et Iliade, principium adiecisse operi suo quo bellum Troianum conplexus est. Huius rei argumentum adferebat quod duas litteras in primo versu posuisset ex industria librorum suorum numerum continentes. [41] Talia sciat oportet qui multa vult scire. Non vis cogitare quantum temporis tibi auferat mala valetudo, quantum occupatio publica, quantum occupatio privata, quantum occupatio cotidiana, quantum somnus? Metire aetatem tuam: tam multa non capit. [42] De liberalibus studiis loquor: philosophi quantum habent supervacui, quantum ab usu recedentis! Ipsi quoque ad syllabarum distinctiones et coniunctionum ac praepositionum proprietates descenderunt et invidere grammaticis, invidere geometris; quidquid in illorum artibus supervacuum erat transtulere in suam. Sic effectum est ut diligentius loqui scirent quam vivere. [43] Audi quantum mali faciat nimia subtilitas et quam infesta veritati sit. Protagoras ait de omni re in utramque partem disputari posse ex aequo et de hac ipsa, an omnis res in utramque partem disputabilis sit. Nausiphanes ait ex his quae videntur esse nihil magis esse quam non esse. [44] Parmenides ait ex his quae videntur nihil esse ~universo~. Zenon Eleates omnia negotia de negotio deiecit: ait nihil esse. Circa eadem fere Pyrrhonei versantur et Megarici et Eretrici et Academici, qui novam induxerunt scientiam, nihil scire. [45] Haec omnia in illum supervacuum studiorum liberalium gregem coice; illi mihi non profuturam scientiam tradunt, hi spem omnis scientiae eripiunt. Satius est supervacua scire quam nihil. Illi non praeferunt lumen per quod acies derigatur ad verum, hi oculos mihi effodiunt. Si Protagorae credo, nihil in rerum natura est nisi dubium; si Nausiphani, hoc unum certum est, nihil esse certi; si Parmenidi, nihil est praeter unum; si Zenoni, ne unum quidem. [46] Quid ergo nos sumus? quid ista quae nos circumstant, alunt, sustinent? Tota rerum natura umbra est aut inanis aut fallax. Non facile dixerim utris magis irascar, illis qui nos nihil scire voluerunt, an illis qui ne hoc quidem nobis reliquerunt, nihil scire. Vale.

Seneca the YoungerThe Latin Library The Classics Page

Translation source →

Lucius Annaeus Seneca→Lucilius Juniorc. 65 · seneca #124

Lucius Annaeus Seneca→Lucilius Juniorc. 64 · seneca #80

Lucius Annaeus Seneca→Lucilius Juniorc. 63 · seneca #24

Lucius Annaeus Seneca→Lucilius Juniorc. 65 · seneca #89

Related Letters