It was the precepts of this school which rendered the supreme power in the hands of Marcus Aurelius a blessing to the human race… — Dugald Stewart
Robert Burns (1759–1796), the national bard of Scotland, was good friends with Dugald Stewart (1753–1828), a professor of philosophy at Edinburgh University, and an expert on Stoicism.
According to Stewart’s own account, he was first introduced to Burns in 1786. Burns died in 1796, aged only thirty seven, so he appears to have remained friends with the philosopher throughout the last decade of his life. Stewart clearly knew Burns well, and provides a detailed sketch of his friend’s character. He says that Burns gave him handwritten copies of several of his favorite poems, namely On turning up a Mouse with his Plough, On the Mountain Daisy, and The Lament.
Why did Burns specifically choose these three poems to share with Stewart? Although he never mentioned Stoic philosophy in his writings, these poems contain themes of transience, acceptance, and resilience, which seem to resonate with aspects of Stoicism. Burns surely discussed these poems, and others like them, with his friend, Stewart, who, being an expert on Stoicism, would have realized, and perhaps noted, their relevance to the philosophy.
In this article, I’ll examine To a Mouse, the most famous of the three. It was written in 1785, the year before Burns was introduced to Stewart. Burns wrote mainly in the Broad Scots dialect but, for our purposes, I’ll be explaining what his words mean when translated into modern English.
First, to give you a flavour of the poem, and set the stage, I’ll quote the opening stanza in its original form:
Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie, O, what a pannic's in thy breastie! Thou need na start awa sae hasty, Wi' bickering brattle! I wad be laith to rin an' chase thee, Wi' murd'ring pattle!
Burns was a farmer and his poetry typically contains rustic, agrarian imagery. To a Mouse opens with Burns accidentally disturbing the nest of a field mouse while plowing. The tiny animal is startled and darts away in fear, even though Burns means it no harm.
Burns evokes this simple but powerful image in order to reflect on the analogy with his own life, referring to himself in the following lines as the mouse’s “poor earth-born companion and fellow mortal”. He is the mouse. In fact, we are all, in a sense, living lives as fragile as that of this tiny creature.
Thy wee bit housie, too, in ruin!
One moment the mouse was feeling safe and secure, content in his cozy little nest, the next it was suddenly upended by the plow, without warning, and scattered to the winds, forcing him to flee in terror. After having spent so long building his home, one tiny piece at a time, it was gone in a moment, destroyed by forces beyond his control.
But, says Burns to the mouse, you are not alone in discovering that our attempts at foresight may turn out to be completely in vain. I’ll quote the best-known lines of the poem in Scots:
The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men Gang aft agley, An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, For promis'd joy!
In other words, mice and men are alike in that even their most careful plans may be thwarted. We hope for pleasure, but despite everything, we may be confronted instead with anxiety and suffering. External events are never entirely under our control.
Having opened with a simple rural image, Burns emphasizes the analogy between the mouse’s life and his own in the following lines. In the concluding stanza, however, Burns arrives at a more explicitly philosophical conclusion. Humans suffer in ways, which mice do not.
Still thou art blest, compar'd wi' me The present only toucheth thee: But, Och! I backward cast my e'e. On prospects drear! An' forward, tho' I canna see, I guess an' fear!
In these lines, Burns echoes an observation also made famous by the Stoic philosopher Seneca. Animals dwell in the present moment, where they may suffer due to misfortune. Humans go beyond this both by worrying about the future, and ruminating on past misfortunes.
Two elements must therefore be rooted out once for all—the fear of future suffering, and the recollection of past suffering; since the latter no longer concerns me, and the former concerns me not yet. — Seneca, Moral Letters, 78
The end of the poem can seem bleak, and may reflect Burns’ worries about his own precarious situation in life. We are, indeed, even worse off than the mouse. And, conversely, the mouse is better off than us. It is possible, therefore, find a glimmer of optimism in the conclusion: perhaps if we can learn to live more in the present, like the mouse, we may at least alleviate some of our suffering.
It is indeed foolish to be unhappy now because you may be unhappy at some future time. — Seneca, Moral Letters, 24
After Stewart received a handwritten copy of To a Mouse from the poem’s author, it’s tempting to speculate that he and Burns may have discussed well-known passages such as these, found in the writings of Seneca and other ancient Stoic philosophers. We can only imagine the conversations about poetry and philosophy that these two friends had as they strolled together through the Scottish countryside.
My Scottish grandmother emigrated from Scotland at 13 in 1911 and I remember her quoting Burns to me in full lilt. Memories of the pleasure of the sound and the wisdom in the words. Thank you Donald
My favourite poem and has been for as long as I can remember. I will not kill a fieldmouse whenever I come across one in my home because of it. I've caught and released three fieldmice who came into my home over the last few years. They didn't return.
The poem shines with humanity and concern for other animals who share the world with us.
Given that Burns had this friendship with Dugald Stewart I think it's fair to think that he may have been influenced by the central tenets of Stoicism.
And why did he show this poem to Dugald Stewart? To show Dugald how he had integrated aspects of Stoic philosophy into his work? Looking for some kind of approval from Dugald?
Ultimately who knows.
BUT:
Burns has always been all things to all people in many respects. Freemason, pro Jacobite, pro government being a customs officer, pro French Revolution etc.
Perhaps Stoics can claim him for their own as well?!