The Younger Seneca, the Great Fire of Rome and the Jews
Lucius Annaeus Seneca - better known as Seneca the Younger - is one of the most recognised and read of all classical philosophers and dramatists with the likes of Marcus Aurelius, Plato and Aristotle. However unlike these great thinkers Seneca the Younger also had views that today would be viewed as repugnant and irrational by intellectuals across the philosophic and political spectra. These views - like Aristotle's views on women - tend to pass without much mention outside of those who are specially concerned with them: however Seneca's views on the jewish question do concern us precisely because he is often quoted in collections of what famous men said about the jews. (1)
We know of Seneca's comments about jews principally through the auspices of Saint Augustine who wrote about them in his work 'The City of God'. For the sake of context I have included all of Augustine's comments as well as his quotations from Seneca.
To wit:
'Seneca, among the other superstitions of civil theology, also found fault with the sacred things of the Jews, and especially the Sabbaths, affirming that they act uselessly in keeping those seventh days, whereby they lose through idleness about the seventh part of their life, and also many things which demand immediate attention are damaged. The Christians, however, who were already most hostile to the Jews, he did not dare to mention, either for praise or blame, lest, if he praised them, he should do so against the ancient custom of his country, or, perhaps, if he should blame them, he should do so against his own will. When he was speaking concerning those Jews, he said, “When, meanwhile, the customs of that most accursed nation have gained such strength that they have been now received in all lands, the conquered have given laws to the conquerors.” By these words he expresses his astonishment; and, not knowing what the providence of God was leading him to say, subjoins in plain words an opinion by which he showed what he thought about the meaning of those sacred institutions: “For,” he says, “those, however, know the cause of their rites, whilst the greater part of the people know not why they perform theirs.” But concerning the solemnities of the Jews, either why or how far they were instituted by divine authority, and afterwards, in due time, by the same authority taken away from the people of God, to whom the mystery of eternal life was revealed, we have both spoken elsewhere, especially when we were treating against the Manichaeans, and also intend to speak in this work in a more suitable place.' (2)
We know that these comments are not a likely an interpolation or a misquotation of Seneca's 'De Superstitione' per se, because Seneca also makes a caustic comment in regards to jews in his 'Epistles' when he states as follows:
'But let us forbid lamps to be lighted on the Sabbath, since the Gods do not need light, neither do men take pleasure in soot.' (3)
We can see from both Augustine's quotation of Seneca and what has come down to us of Seneca's own work that Seneca's ostensible principle target in his writing is the jewish Sabbath. Augustine tells us that Seneca fundamentally objected to the principle of what he saw as the laziness of the Sabbath rituals whereby jews can do nothing classified as work. Unless given special priestly (although later this devolved onto rabbinical authorities) dispensation through an emergency situation.
The laziness that the Sabbath engenders Seneca saw as utterly inexcusable as it was an anathema to the practices and world-view of Stoic philosophy which lionized hard labour, frugality and the maximal use of one's time in doing good works. So a day spent not in worship or work, but rather just doing nothing was; as Augustine rightly characterises Seneca's argument, a day on which many things that demanded 'immediate actions' would go to rack and ruin (and thus injure the interests of non-jews).
Seneca's argument here about the wastefulness of the Sabbath is seemingly somewhat paradoxical in that he criticises jews for letting matters requiring 'immediate action' go to the wayside, but does not note that jews were at this time - as they had done for decades before and since - putting any work to be done in the hands of selected gentiles: the origin of the infamous Shabbos goyim.
Seneca's argument however leaves this paradox only when we note what Augustine quotes him as stating next:
'When, meanwhile, the customs of that most accursed nation have gained such strength that they have been now received in all lands, the conquered have given laws to the conquerors.' (4)
This particularly caustic charge - reminiscent of Cicero's attacks against the jews years earlier in 'Pro Flacco' - is targeted at the growing jewish power in Rome through the dissemination - via the mystery cult of Yahweh - of jewish customs to Roman citizens. This in turn created what was called 'god-fearers' rather than converts per se: a 'god-fearer' - I have pointed out elsewhere - is the progenitor of the concept of the Noahide in Judaism. As such the 'god-fearer' or Noahide vows not to serve any master but the jews and to obey them in all things in the belief that through servitude to the Chosen of Hashem they will go straight to Gan Eden (heaven).
As such 'god-fearers' acted as many Christian Zionists do today - as non-jewish agents of various different jewish groups in a generalized cause - and were considered so dangerous and subversive that along with the Cult of Isis: they were periodically and often bloodily suppressed. Yet every time the cult of Yahweh was suppressed it sprang up again like a disease among the gentile populace of the Roman Empire. This subversion of Rome progressively grew to such an extent that by the time of the Emperor Domitian: it had gotten so dangerous and widespread that the Emperor had to declare war on the cult by proscribing it and executing its non-jewish followers. (5)
Seneca - as the tutor of and later sometime advisor to the infamous Emperor Nero - had every reason to be wary of the power of the mystery cult of Yahweh as his pupil's second wife Poppaea Sabina was part of the cult. (6) Indeed Poppaea may well have been killed by Nero as part of his reprisals against the jews not as commonly believed against the Christians.
The reason I say that Nero targeted the jews rather than the Christians for the Great Fire of Rome is rather simple: the earliest manuscripts of Tacitus' annals we have that relates to the response of Nero to the fire (7) says 'Chrestians' not 'Christians'. (8)
Readers who know their classics will immediately recognise the significance of this tiny change, because we have a well-known reference to the jewish cult of Chrestus in the reign of Nero's predecessor Claudius in Suetonius' work on the subject.
To wit:
'Because the Jews at Rome caused continuous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city.' (9)
In this we have a reference to Chrestus as the leader of a jewish cult several years before that had been causing 'disturbances' in Rome with his followers and of whose end we know little, but it would not unreasonable to suggest that he was - as was the common practice at the time - crucified or executed in some other way by the Roman authorities. That Chrestus is even mentioned at all in a city where disturbances were not an infrequent occurrence is a measure of how widespread, violent and/or notorious were the events he caused and/or directed.
That a jewish leader - likely inspired by the common apocalyptic jewish beliefs of the time - of the name Chrestus arose and then a few years before the first jewish revolt: the Emperor Nero executes hundreds if not thousands of Chrestians - followers of Chrestus - is unlikely to be a coincidence. It also cannot be coincidence that some time before the fire arose Nero began to prosecute the Chrestian sect who professed 'a new and mischievous belief' (10) only then to have members of the same sect confess - although many historians claim torture was used (this is possible but unprovable either way and nor does it offer evidence of Chrestian innocence in the matter) - to having started the fire. (11)
Tacitus' mention of the followers of a 'crucified jew' in the governorship of Pontius Pilate in Jerusalem during the reign of Tiberius is thus likely one of two things:
A) Tacitus - writing a few decades later - confused the Chrestiani with the now rising Christiani and assumed - as both their leaders had been crucified (I am making an educated assumption in Chrestus' case) and were both offshoots of Messianic Judaism at this point - that they were one and the same sect.
B) The somewhat textually inorganic addition about Jesus being crucified in the governorship of Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius is a later Christian interpolation given that we already know that copies of the Annals were tampered with by Christians years later. (12)
Either way substituting 'Chrestians' for 'Christians' in the historical story of the Great Fire of Rome in 64 A.D. actually makes sense of several separate problems all at once.
Firstly it answers the question of why the Chrestians were targeted by Nero; precisely because they had caused great problems in the reign of his step-father Claudius and then proceeded to cause Nero problems in his own reign: thus leading Nero to proscribe the sect.
It was thus only natural that Nero would have immediately latched onto the Chrestians as a likely culprit for the Great Fire of Rome as they had doubtless been verbally attacking him as an 'idolater' and quasi-Satanic figure in private as well - if what we know about the sect is correct - in the streets as well as warning of the fiery apocalypse to come when the jewish Messiah came to wreak Yahweh's vengeance on the gentiles.
Secondly it answers the question of why the Chrestians were so credible as the originators of the Great Fire of Rome: as we have no account to my knowledge of the populace disbelieving Nero's slaughter of the Chrestians until Nero began to use prime land destroyed by the fire to build a new palace when the suspicion of the mob was aroused by his foolish and self-serving actions. If the Chrestians were not well-known to be agitators and trouble-makers in the streets and alleyways of Rome then it is hardly likely that the populace of Rome would have stood for so large a massacre of their fellow citizens.
Thirdly it also suggests why Nero may have killed his wife Poppaea approximately a year afterwards: as if Poppaea was a Judaizer then she may very well have been associated - in a specific or general way - with the jewish followers of Chrestus (who we are led to believe by Tacitus were numerous) and as such would offer a simple explanation as why Nero may or may not have quietly got rid of her. Nero may well have viewed such a belief system as a secret betrayal of him by his wife and thus realised that - as much as he loved her - she had betrayed him and therefore Rome.
What does this have to do with Seneca?
Well lets remember the line that Augustine quoted from Seneca, which was:
'When, meanwhile, the customs of that most accursed nation have gained such strength that they have been now received in all lands, the conquered have given laws to the conquerors.' (13)
Now if we suppose that Seneca had written this before the Great Fire of Rome in 64 A.D. (as is quite likely): it could be very easily read to refer to the power that the jews were exercising in Rome at the time through their conversion of Romans of aristocratic family and influence - like Poppaea - from normal Roman patricians into 'god-fearers'. This is suggested by the fact that Seneca's power from the time of Poppaea's entrance into Nero's life was in steep decline and as such Seneca would be inclined to look deeper into the direction that Poppaea was steering Nero and who was guiding her thoughts.
Thus Seneca's phrase 'gain such strength that they have been now received in all lands' should be read with the silent addition to clarify Seneca's meaning: 'even in Rome'. So what Seneca means here is that the jews have - through their proselytising activities - gained positions of power and influence throughout the world and that power has even now been extended to the then greatest city in the known world: Rome.
This is also suggested by Seneca's next phrase 'the conquered have given laws to the conquerors', which is a direct reference to Pompey the Great's initial subjugation of the jews and then the absorption of Judea into the Roman Empire by the Emperor Augustus. Augustus then allowed the jews special rights and privileges in the empire, which then in turns allows - in Seneca's elegant turn-of-phrase - 'the conquered' to rule (give laws to) 'the conquerors' with the equally beautiful wordplay of referring to the figure of Moses as new law-giver to the 'god-fearer' who has now had their laws 'given' to them by the jews (and thus adopted jewish customs).
This meaning is then clarified by the last passage of Seneca's comments on the jews that Augustine quotes:
'Those, however, know the cause of their rites, whilst the greater part of the people know not why they perform theirs.' (14)
Now we understand the role of 'god-fearers' and jewish proselytising in the world in which Seneca found himself. Then this usually difficult comment of Seneca's to explain becomes legible in the light of this - for lack of a better term - 'ancient Israel Lobby' activity on the part of the jews to gain 'god-fearers' - as well as the occasional convert - to the mystery cult of Yahweh.
We have Seneca telling us that those (the jews) 'know the cause of their rites', while 'the greater part of the people' (the gentiles) do not know why they perform the rites of the mystery cult of Yahweh.
In effect Seneca could be reasonably read as telling us that Rome was at that moment being subverted by the jewish mystery cult of Yahweh: whose followers - including Poppaea - only saw in the cult a novel new mystery religion to follow, while the jews saw it as their key into the corridors of Roman power.
There is also a potential alternative - or a double meaning - to what Seneca has said - Augustine does not include the context Seneca said it so it is difficult to say with certainty whether both meanings or a single meaning is correct - in so far as Seneca could be saying that while the jews know the meaning of their religious rites and why they are jews: the gentiles who worship at say the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome do not know the meaning of theirs. Thus indicating that the jews are clear as to their religious purpose and missions, while the Romans are not.
Either meaning is not complementary in the slightest to the jews and explains Seneca's use of the very strong term 'accursed nation' for the jews: as such vehement and violent language is not normal for a Stoic - like Seneca - who prided themselves on self-restraint and clearly calling the jews the Roman equivalent of the 'spawn of the devil' is hardly restraint, but rather violent passion.
Bearing this violent dislike - which is bordering on outright hatred - for jews on Seneca's part in mind: we can also suggest that Seneca's comment in his 'Epistles' - which we know from citations in the text were written after the Great Fire of Rome in 64 A.D. as they are usually dated to 65 A.D. and after - that states:
'But let us forbid lamps to be lighted on the Sabbath, since the Gods do not need light, neither do men take pleasure in soot.' (15)
Be interpreted in the light of the probable involvement - or at least Seneca's belief in that involvement - of the jewish followers of Chrestus in the Great Fire of Rome of 64 A.D. That would - once again - make sense of an otherwise slightly banal passage in so far as it could be interpreted as (I paraphrase):
'Let us forbid the lighting of fires on the Sabbath because the temples of the Gods have been burnt down by the jews and non-jews do not take pleasure in their ashes.'
This interpretation is further supported by the fact that the city of Rome lost nearly all of her most important temples - and many important religious buildings and objects besides - to the fire. (16) The reference to the Sabbath may or may not be a reference to the day that the jewish followers of Chrestus potentially caused one of the greatest fires in history killing thousands in a brutal fiery holocaust. It may also be a simple literary tool used by Seneca to draw attention via wordplay to a fact that undoubtedly many people then knew: the jews set fire to Rome.
Some may object that Seneca never overtly states that the fire was caused by the hands of the jews, but I would counter that argument by pointing out that although Seneca does not state this explicitly: at the time that he wrote he wouldn't have had to. It would likely have been common knowledge that the jewish Chrestians had been implicated and such there would hardly have seemed much of a point to record the guilt of the sect.
Thus we can see from the foregoing; albeit slightly speculative, discussion that Seneca the Younger - one of the greatest and best known Stoic thinkers of his age - was not only a victim of the jews but also a strident opponent of them who sought to warn Rome of the danger it faced before it was too late.
References
(1) For example: Theodor Fritsch, 1923, 'Urteile Berühmte Männer über das Judentum von Tacitus bis Bismarck', 1st Edition, Hammer Verlag: Leipzig, pp. 11-12.
(2) Aug. Civ. Dei. 6:11
(3) Sen. Epi. 45
(4) Aug. Civ. Dei. 6:11
(5) Cassius Dio 67:14.1-2; 68:1.2
(6) Harry Leon, 1960, 'The Jews of Ancient Rome', 1st Edition, Jewish Publication Society of America: Philadelphia, p. 28
(7) Tac. Ann. 15:43
(8) Gerd Theißen, Annette Merz, 2001, 'Der Historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch', 3rd Edition, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht: Gottingen, p. 89
(9) Suet. Claud. 25
(10) Suet. Nero. 16
(11) Tac. Ann. 15:44
(12) Gerd Theißen, Annette Merz, 2011, 'Der Historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch', 4th Edition, Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht: Gottingen, pp. 88-90
(13) Aug. Civ. Dei. 6:11
(14) Ibid.
(15) Sen. Epi. 45
(16) Tac. Ann. 15:39-41