It was in this spirit that Agrippinus used to say—do you know what? “I will not stand in my own way!”
News was brought him, “Your trial is on in the Senate!”
“Good luck to it, but the fifth hour is come”—this was the hour when he used to take his exercise and have a cold bath—"let us go and take exercise.”
When he had taken his exercise, they came and told him, “You are condemned.”
“Exile or death?” he asked.
“Exile.”
“And my property?”
“It is not confiscated.”
“Well then, let us go to Aricia and dine.”
Here you see the result of training as training should be, of the will to get and will to avoid, so disciplined that nothing can hinder or frustrate them.
I must die, must I? If at once, then I am dying. If soon, I dine now, as it is time for dinner, and afterwards when the time comes I will die.
And die how? As befits one who gives back what is not his own.
Epictetus mentions Agrippinus a number of times, and always with deep respect. None of his writings survive, though it is quite possible that, like Epictetus or Socrates, he himself wrote down nothing at all, recognizing that philosophy was not just about writing but about living.
Nero killed Thrasea, but he only exiled Agrippinus. Now I might think that this is the better fate, while Thrasea suggested above that it might be the worse fate, though we would be forgetting what the Stoics are telling us: accept and embrace all circumstances, however good or bad they may at first appear, knowing that only your own judgments will make them good or bad.
A colleague once commented that Agrippinus seems oblivious or dismissive in this passage, and he suggested that this was why Stoicism appealed to cynical hipsters. “He proves that he just doesn’t care, and that annoys serious and professional people.”
I do understand why Stoic “indifference” can come across as cold and thoughtless, but I believe that only looks at it from the outside, and is grounded on the usual assumption that life should somehow be measured by externals.
Yes, if I thought that money, or reputation, or length of life somehow mattered in and of themselves, it would be foolish to brush off the possibility of exile or death. But since they don’t matter for their own sake, and they are not ultimately within my power in any event, why worry about them?
I propose that Agrippinus did indeed care, quite strongly, and that the difference was in what he cared about the most. He attended first to cultivating his soul, and he viewed anything else as being subservient to that end.
Could he still be a just, decent, and happy man while others argued about throwing him out of town, or seizing his property, or even killing him? He most certainly could, and such a sense of priority did not make him oblivious or dismissive, just capable of grasping a proper sense of scale. He was willing to return what was only lent to him, while still retaining himself.
A man stands in his own way when he permits the less important things to become obstacles to the more important things, when he allows himself to be enslaved by events. The right use of the will to get and the will to avoid should be his main concern.
Ah, the plotters and the schemers are at it again! Who’s up for a nice walk, or a hearty lunch?
News was brought him, “Your trial is on in the Senate!”
“Good luck to it, but the fifth hour is come”—this was the hour when he used to take his exercise and have a cold bath—"let us go and take exercise.”
When he had taken his exercise, they came and told him, “You are condemned.”
“Exile or death?” he asked.
“Exile.”
“And my property?”
“It is not confiscated.”
“Well then, let us go to Aricia and dine.”
Here you see the result of training as training should be, of the will to get and will to avoid, so disciplined that nothing can hinder or frustrate them.
I must die, must I? If at once, then I am dying. If soon, I dine now, as it is time for dinner, and afterwards when the time comes I will die.
And die how? As befits one who gives back what is not his own.
Epictetus mentions Agrippinus a number of times, and always with deep respect. None of his writings survive, though it is quite possible that, like Epictetus or Socrates, he himself wrote down nothing at all, recognizing that philosophy was not just about writing but about living.
Nero killed Thrasea, but he only exiled Agrippinus. Now I might think that this is the better fate, while Thrasea suggested above that it might be the worse fate, though we would be forgetting what the Stoics are telling us: accept and embrace all circumstances, however good or bad they may at first appear, knowing that only your own judgments will make them good or bad.
A colleague once commented that Agrippinus seems oblivious or dismissive in this passage, and he suggested that this was why Stoicism appealed to cynical hipsters. “He proves that he just doesn’t care, and that annoys serious and professional people.”
I do understand why Stoic “indifference” can come across as cold and thoughtless, but I believe that only looks at it from the outside, and is grounded on the usual assumption that life should somehow be measured by externals.
Yes, if I thought that money, or reputation, or length of life somehow mattered in and of themselves, it would be foolish to brush off the possibility of exile or death. But since they don’t matter for their own sake, and they are not ultimately within my power in any event, why worry about them?
I propose that Agrippinus did indeed care, quite strongly, and that the difference was in what he cared about the most. He attended first to cultivating his soul, and he viewed anything else as being subservient to that end.
Could he still be a just, decent, and happy man while others argued about throwing him out of town, or seizing his property, or even killing him? He most certainly could, and such a sense of priority did not make him oblivious or dismissive, just capable of grasping a proper sense of scale. He was willing to return what was only lent to him, while still retaining himself.
A man stands in his own way when he permits the less important things to become obstacles to the more important things, when he allows himself to be enslaved by events. The right use of the will to get and the will to avoid should be his main concern.
Ah, the plotters and the schemers are at it again! Who’s up for a nice walk, or a hearty lunch?
Written in 8/2000
No comments:
Post a Comment