Abstract

The dissertation studies Seneca's views on the reading of philosophical and literary texts as a means of ethical therapy. The therapeutic efficacy of reading was not uncontroversial in the period: a strong preference for orality in philosophic instruction goes back to issues raised in Plato's Phaedrus and is still to be found in the discourses of Epictetus. Seneca recognizes the force of the Socratic objections to philosophic writing, but claims that written texts can be efficacious when properly used; in particular, he insists on the value of brief units of argumentation, vivid exempla, and a carefully controlled, "masculine" style. Not coincidentally, these features are prominent in the Epistulae Morales themselves, although Seneca's defense of reading is not restricted to works in epistolary form. ;An analysis of the Stoic doctrines of action and assent shows that reading may have a role to play in building up that system of coherent beliefs which guides decision-making in the sage. In addition, the discussion of moral precepts in Epistles 94 and 95 suggests that the specifically literary features of some texts work to focus the progressor's attention on his correct beliefs, thus combatting pernicious emotions and helping to correct action. ;An unusual number of citations from Epicurus in Books 1-3 of the Epistulae Morales can be seen as an attempt to take over a technique of Epicurean therapy, which relied heavily on regular "meditation" , that is, on the recogitation and explication of brief authoritative pronouncements. As a Stoic, however, Seneca also demands that all judgments be assimilated into a coherent system; this means that meditative methods must eventually be replaced by the study of whole works and the development of intellectual independence in the pupil. This critique of meditation is voiced especially in Epistle 33. Also treated at length is Epistle 84, which encourages eclectic reading in apparent contradiction to other Senecan injunctions on reading. Here a close reading shows the underlying consistency of Seneca's views, and also provides an argument for omitting an editorial $\langle non\rangle$ in the first paragraph of the letter