Epictetus on Nero

What the Stoic philosopher actually said about the notorious Roman emperor

Epictetus, the great teacher, played his part in changing the leadership of Rome from the swill he had known in the Nero White House to the power and decency it knew under Marcus Aurelius. — Stockdale, Thoughts of a Philosophical Fighter Pilot

The Emperor Nero was, it’s fair to say, one of the most controversial Roman emperors. Some people believe that his bad reputation is unjustified and solely due to the propaganda of a handful of biased senators from later generations. I think that’s a difficult claim to substantiate. We shouldn’t dismiss historical evidence as biased without good reason. Moreover, in this article, I’m going to focus on some direct criticism of Nero which comes from a source much closer to him. A famous contemporary of Nero’s, who was not a senator, did not write popular histories, and was neither wealthy nor a member of the political elite. I’m speaking of the Stoic philosopher Epictetus.

Epictetus was born into slavery. Indeed, his name simply means “acquired”. He was the property of an influential freedman called Epaphroditus, who served as Nero’s Greek secretary. Based on his comments in the Discourses about letter-writing, I think it’s possible that Epictetus, while enslaved, worked as a Greek scribe for his master. Epaphroditus was the one who first alleged that a plot was underway to kill Nero and replace him with a Roman senator called Piso. Nero accused Seneca of being involved in the so-called “Piso conspiracy”, and had him executed, by forced suicide. The emperor took this opportunity to execute or exile many of his political opponents.

Nero was one of only a handful of Roman emperors who were refused the honor of deification by the Senate after their death.

After the purges, Nero’s behavior became even more erratic. He allegedly kicked his pregnant wife, Poppea, to death. The emperor then had a young boy called Sporus castrated, dressed him as a bride, and took him as his wife, in a full wedding ceremony — the boy reputedly bore a remarkable resesemblance to Poppea. With a young eunuch standing in for his dead wife, and appearing beside him in public dressed as an empress, Nero became a laughing-stock among both the Senate and the legions. The following year, the governor of Gallia Lugdunensis (France) instigated a rebellion, which failed, but nevertheless stoked a looming civil war between Nero and his general Galba, governor of Hispania (Spain). Nero was declared a public enemy by the Senate, and Galba named emperor instead.

Awakening to find his praetorian guards had abandoned him, Nero fled Rome in disguise. He was one of only a handful of Roman emperors, such as Caligula and Commodus, who tried to deify themselves while living but were refused the honor of deification by the Senate after their death. Epictetus was probably aged around eighteen in 68 CE, when Nero killed himself in order to avoid capture by soldiers loyal to Galba and the Senate — Epaphroditus assisted him in committing suicide.

Vice Admiral James Stockdale, in his characteristic style, gives the following account of the drama at the imperial court, which Epictetus knew as a youth:

He was “bought cheap” by a freedman named Epaphroditus, a secretary to Emperor Nero. He was taken to live at the Nero White House at a time when the emperor was neglecting the empire while he toured Greece as actor, musician, and chariot race driver. When home in Rome in his personal quarters, Nero was busy having his half-brother killed, his wife killed, his mother killed, his second wife killed. Finally, it was Epictetus’s master Epaphroditus who cut Nero’s throat when he fumbled his own suicide as the soldiers were breaking down his door to arrest him. — Stockdale, Thoughts of a Philosophical Fighter Pilot

In fact, it’s possible that Epictetus did not arrive in Rome until shortly after Nero’s death. In any case, he would have witnessed the aftermath, and he would have been able to hear all about Nero directly from Epaphroditus and the other members of his household.

Marcus Aurelius on Nero

The Emperor Marcus Aurelius held Epictetus in very high regard. They both admired the Stoic Opposition who openly defied Nero’s rule. In the Meditations, Marcus does not mention Seneca, who sided with Nero for most of his reign, wrote his speeches, and defended him in the Senate. Instead Marcus mentions his admiration for Thrasea, the leader of the Stoic Opposition, who was executed by Nero, and Helvidius, his son-in-law, whom Nero exiled (Med., 1.14). Marcus only mentions Nero once. He compares Nero to the legendary tyrant Phalaris, when giving an example of someone, “pulled by the strings of desire”, as degenerate as a wild beast (Med., 3.16). He makes it clear, in this passage, that Nero symbolizes the opposite of a good man. Marcus therefore was not a fan of Nero but rather of the Stoic Opposition who resisted his rule in the senate.

Regarding Marcus’ personal attitude toward Nero, we also have the testimony of Roman historians. Herodian claims that when he was faced with the prospect of his son, Commodus, becoming emperor in his teens, Marcus Aurelius “was disturbed also by the memory of those who had become sole rulers in their youth”, especially Nero, who “had capped his crimes by murdering his mother and had made himself ridiculous in the eyes of the people.” The Historia Augusta likewise says that Marcus was afraid Commodus might become “another Nero”, and that in a letter Marcus said “Nero had deserved to die”, by which he meant that he inevitably faced the rebellion, which led to his suicide, because he was such a bad ruler. These histories, though frequently unreliable, are consistent with what Marcus himself writes about Nero being a wild beast, and a tyrant, in the Meditations. As we shall see, Marcus was in total agreement with Epictetus in this regard.

Epictetus’ point here is that Nero is not a morally good person, but a wretched one…

Epictetus on Nero

Epictetus, like Marcus, has nothing positive to say about Nero. Moreover, although men run around seeking to win the favor of kings and emperors, he says, it is not actually in the power of such rulers to grant them happiness or rather flourishing (eudaimonia). If it were, he says, then “Nero would be flourishing (eudaimon)” but, of course, he was not. Epictetus adds that even the great Homeric king of kings, Agamemnon, who instigated the Trojan War, did not truly live a good life, or flourish, “though he was a better man than Nero” (Discourses, 3.22). Epictetus’ point here is that Nero was not a morally good person, but a wretched one, and therefore could not even benefit himself, let alone others, despite wielding supreme power as emperor.

In another striking passage, Epictetus uses the metaphor of coinage to illustrate the stamp of a good man’s moral character:

What is the stamp of his opinions? It is gentleness, a sociable disposition, a tolerant temper, a disposition to mutual affection. Produce these qualities. I accept them: I consider this man a citizen, I accept him as a neighbor, a companion in my voyages. (Discourses, 4.5)

This is contrasted with the character of Emperor Nero, who is none of these things and not a good man.

Only see that he has not Nero's stamp. Is he passionate [lit. “quick to anger”], is he full of resentment, is he fault-finding? If the whim seizes him, does he break the heads of those who come in his way? (If so), why then did you say that he is a man? (Ibid.)

Indeed, Epictetus exclaims “It is the stamp of Nero. Throw it away: it cannot be accepted, it is counterfeit.” He seems to be using the analogy of coinage cleverly here. George Long, the translator, writes in his notes: “Perhaps Epictetus means that some people would not touch the coins of the detestable Nero.” It’s possible that coins stamped with Nero’s image were no longer classed as legal tender, after he was condemned by the Senate, and that some were melted down and recast, although many do survive today.

As far as Epictetus is concerned, just as coins stamped with Nero’s image are “counterfeit”, Nero himself was a counterfeit human being. He was not even a real man but rather a brute, an irrational beast. Marcus Aurelius, we saw earlier, says the same thing of Nero, perhaps influenced by this passage. To be more specific, Epictetus describes Nero’s character here as “quick to anger” (ὀργίλος), “bitter and complaining” (μηνιτής), and “fault-finding” or “argumentative” (μεμψίμοιρος).

Quaestor Reading the Death Sentence to Senator Thrasea Paetus, by F. Bronnikov

The Stoic Opposition to Nero

Epictetus, by contrast, admired the Stoic Opposition and others who stood up to Nero’s tyranny. At the beginning of the Discourses, Epictetus recounts an anecdote in which Thrasea Paetus, the leader of the Stoic Opposition, is boasting of his political defiance against Nero.

Thrasea used to say, I would rather be killed today [by Nero] than banished tomorrow. What then did Rufus say to him? If you choose death as the heavier misfortune, how great is the folly of your choice? But if, as the lighter, who has given you the choice? Will you not study to be content with that which has been given to you? (Discourses, 1.1.)

Musonius Rufus, Epictetus’ own Stoic teacher, was a mentor to the Stoic Opposition. He appears to be counseling Thrasea not to seek out death at Nero’s hands by deliberately provoking him, but to oppose him wisely, and accept death when it comes. Nero finally ordered his execution in 66 CE. Thrasea was revered by later generations of Romans as a famous political martyr.

Epictetus also admires the Cynic philosopher Demetrius, a friend of Thrasea, who was with him when he was executed. He says that Demetrius neither flattered nor feared tyrants, and he praises the Cynic for standing up to Nero. According to Epictetus, when Nero wanted to execute Demetrius, the philosopher simply replied, “You threaten me with death, but nature threatens you” (Discourses, 1.25).

Epictetus particularly admired Paconius Agrippinus, one of the Stoic Opposition, because he says he would not even consider debasing himself on Nero’s behalf.

For this reason, when Florus was deliberating whether he should go down to Nero's spectacles, and also perform in them himself, Agrippinus said to him, Go down: and when Florus asked Agrippinus, Why do not you go down? Agrippinus replied, Because I do not even deliberate about the matter. For he who has once brought himself to deliberate about such matters, and to calculate the value of external things, comes very near to those who have forgotten their own character. (Discourses, 1.2)

The reference is to large festivals organized by Nero where the attendees were surrounded by armed guards, and forced to applaud. Nero sometimes ordered Roman elites who had fallen out of favor with him to perform on the stage, in order to humiliate themselves before the public. If they refused, they were beheaded. Epictetus describes them worrying: “But if I do not take a part in the tragic acting, I shall have my head struck off.” This is reminiscent of a passage in Plato’s Apology, where Socrates says that a good man, when facing danger, would not even weigh-up the chances of living or dying, but would simply choose to do what he considers honorable.

Epictetus also praises a senior Roman senator called Plautius Lateranus who exhibited courage when Nero ordered him beheaded, during his purge of the Piso conspiracy.

Will you not stretch out your neck as Lateranus did at Rome when Nero ordered him to be beheaded? For when he had stretched out his neck, and received a feeble blow, which made him draw it in for a moment, he stretched it out again. (Discourses, 1.1)

The man who was ordered to execute Lateranus was reputedly one of his co-conspirators but Lateranus kept absolute silence and did not betray his involvement to Nero. Epictetus makes it clear to his Stoic students that they should do nothing to aid a tyrant like Nero, even when they are threatened with execution.

Conclusion

There are several more passages where Epictetus praises those who defied Nero’s rule, and accused him of being a tyrant. Indeed, we’re told that Thrasea, the leader of the Stoic Opposition was famous for saying, paraphrasing Socrates, “Nero may kill me but he cannot harm me.” Arrian chose to close the Enchiridion of Epictetus with the original version: “Anytus and Meletus may kill me but they cannot harm me.” Given the praise that Epictetus heaps on the Stoic Opposition, I think his readers would be likely to take this concluding quote as a subtle nod of respect to Thrasea.

It’s perhaps worth mentioning that the writer Philostratus tells us that Musonius Rufus, Epictetus’ beloved Stoic teacher, was imprisoned and later exiled by Nero. He was forced to do hard labor on the subsequently abandoned canal through the Isthmus of Corinth, in Greece. If it had worked, this canal would have been a marvel of engineering. The Cynic philosopher Demetrius, a native of Corinth, was shocked to find the Stoic in chains digging with a pickaxe. Musonius reputedly struck the earth again, then looked up and said:

‘Do I upset you, Demetrius, to be digging the isthmus for Greece? I wonder what you would have thought if you saw me playing the cithara like Nero?’

Musonius meant that at least he was doing something constructive, unlike Nero, who was vain and obsessed with his own celebrity. (The cithara is a stringed instrument, like a harp.) Nero was performing music at his own festivals, to the fake applause of a captive audience, while the Stoic, despite being in chains, was helping to build a canal, which could actually benefit the whole empire.

Epictetus was the slave of Nero’s Greek secretary, one of his most senior courtiers, so his negative account of Nero’s character is about as close as we get to first hand testimony from a critic of Nero. In stark contrast, the praise that Seneca heaps on Emperor Nero, often makes for uncomfortable reading. For example:

You, Caesar, can boldly say that everything which has come into your charge has been kept safe, and that the state has neither openly nor secretly suffered any loss at your hands. You have coveted a glory which is most rare, and which has been obtained by no emperor before you, that of innocence. Your remarkable goodness is not thrown away, nor is it ungratefully or spitefully undervalued. Men feel gratitude towards you: no one person ever was so dear to another as you are to the people of Rome, whose great and enduring benefit you are. — Seneca, On Clemency

Seneca was writing early in Nero’s rule, but shortly after the murder of the emperor’s young half-brother, and rival for the throne, Britannicus. Nevertheless, he emphatically repeats several times the claim that Nero is completely innocent of any wrongdoing and “has never shed the blood” of another Roman. It seems to me that Seneca, a famous rhetorician, would have been taken by his elite Roman audience as skirting around the fact that Britannicus’ blood was, indeed, never spilled, as he was poisoned. In any case, despite Seneca’s support, and very public defense of him, Nero would repay him, in the end, by ordering him to take his own life.

According to the historian, Cassius Dio, Thrasea, who protested against Nero by walking out of the Senate, told his friends, including many fellow-Stoics:

If I were the only one that Nero was going to put to death, I could easily pardon the rest who load him with flatteries. But since even among those who praise him to excess there are many whom he has either already disposed of or will yet destroy, why should one degrade oneself to no purpose and then perish like a slave, when one may pay the debt to nature like a freeman? As for me, men will talk of me hereafter, but of them never, except only to record the fact that they were put to death. — Thrasea, quoted in Cassius Dio

Thrasea was eventually executed for refusing to praise Nero; Seneca had already been executed, by this time, despite having publicly praised Nero to excess and “loaded him with flatteries” for many years. It often puzzles modern readers that Seneca’s name is never mentioned in any surviving Stoic text, despite the fact the we know, e.g., that Marcus Aurelius had read him. It is possible that the above passage provides the explanation, by suggesting that Thrasea may have instigated a damnatio memoriae against Seneca, among his fellow-philosophers, because of the latter’s support for Nero.

Epictetus, likewise, warns his students not to flatter tyrants, and never to become beholden to them. He was familiar with how Nero persecuted philosophers, such as his own teacher, Musonius. He may even have had a ringside seat to observe the purges following the Piso conspiracy, or at least its chaotic aftermath. In any case, I think it’s beyond dispute that Epictetus viewed Nero as a very bad emperor. Nero was a man full of pathological anger, consumed by bitterness, obsessed with finding fault and taking revenge, who had his critics beheaded on a whim, says Epictetus. The men who stood up to him are moral heroes, and Epictetus presents them to his students as Stoic exemplars, or role models to be emulated. Nero, said Epictetus, was a wild beast, not a real man, and Marcus Aurelius agreed with that verdict.