Stoicism in Rome (for The Oxford Handbook of Stoicism) John Sellars ABSTRACT: This chapter will outline the reception of Stoicism in Rome from c. 150 BC through to c. AD 200. It will begin with the famous embassy of Athenian philosophers to Rome that included the Stoic Diogenes of Babylon, then moving on to Panaetius and Posidonius, stressing their connections with Rome and Romans. Then Cicero and the literal ‘Latinization’ of Stoic ideas in his philosophical works. This, combined with the demise of the Athenian Stoa as an ongoing tradition, paved the way for home-grown Roman Stoicism, and in this context it will consider the school of Sextius and its most famous pupil, Seneca. The circle around Seneca included a number of notable Stoics – Lucan, Cornutus, Persius – all of whom will be mentioned. Contemporary with this was Musonius Rufus and his pupils – Epictetus, Dio Chrysostom, and Euphrates of Tyre – along with the Stoic opposition that contributed to the banishment of both Musonius and Epictetus. In contrast to this very practical and politically engaged brand of Stoicism, the more scholarly efforts of Hierocles and Cleomedes will also be mentioned. Indeed, the scholarly discussion of Stoicism in the second century and the focus in particular on the works of Chrysippus by thinkers such as Plutarch and Galen will be stressed, and it will be against this background that the chapter will conclude by turning to Marcus Aurelius, a studious reader of the early Stoics as well as being engaged in a practical project of ethical self-cultivation. 1. First Encounter According to a well-established tradition, the Romans first encountered Greek philosophy when, in 155 BC, the Athenians sent an embassy of three philosophers to negotiate a debt owed to the Roman state. 1 The three thinkers sent were the Academic Carneades, the Peripatetic Critolaus, and the Stoic Diogenes of Babylon. The visit was not without controversy. Carneades the Academic sceptic argued both for and against justice on two consecutive days, to the consternation of his audience, while Diogenes of Babylon questioned the very legitimacy of Rome as a city. If, Diogenes suggested, a city (polis) is a community of virtuous people united by a common law, then no such community exists anywhere. As he put it, ‘among the non-wise there exists no city nor any law’. 2 Therefore, on his account, Rome was not a real city. One can only imagine the reaction of the Roman citizens who heard this Stoic argue in such a manner. It was, of course, an example of what came to be known as a Stoic paradox, a number of which were discussed in the following century by Cicero in his Paradoxa Stoicorum, such as the claims that only a sage is rich and free, while the non-wise are all mad and slaves. From the outset, the Stoics probably appeared to Romans as a decidedly odd bunch, arguing against commonly held 1 Reported in Cic. De or. 2.155; Gell. NA 6.14.8; Plut. Cat. Mai. 22; Lact. Div. inst. 5.14.3-5. 2 Philod. Rhet. 2.211 (SVF 3 Diog. 117); see also Cic. Acad. 2.137 (SVF 3 Diog. 9).