Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations: III. On Grief of Mind

Cicero

Cicero, bust in the Capituline Museums, Rome (photo by the Author)

Cicero wrote five Disputations while in his villa at Tusculum in 45 BCE. He had retired from politics after the death of his daughter, and spent the time in conversation with his students, explaining Stoic philosophy, even though he considered himself an Academic Skeptic. We have looked at the first two Disputations, on contempt of death and on bearing pain. The third one is devoted to the topic of grief.

As with the other essays, this one too begins as a letter to Brutus, Cato the Younger‘s nephew and husband of Porcia Catonis, to whom Cicero explains that “the seeds of virtues are natural to our constitutions, and, were they suffered to come to maturity, would naturally conduct us to a happy life; but now, as soon as we are born and received into the world, we are instantly familiarized with all kinds of depravity and perversity of opinions; so that we may be said almost to suck in error with our nurse’s milk.” (I) It’s interesting that Cicero (and the Stoics) here thinks that virtue comes natural to social beings capable of reasoning such as ourselves, but that it is corrupted immediately by the culture of incorrect opinions into which we are born.

The quest for fame (then as now, I suppose) is a chief culprit for this corruption, as it “is hasty and inconsiderate, and generally commends wicked and immoral actions, and throws discredit upon the appearance and beauty of honesty by assuming a resemblance of it.” But that isn’t the only corrupting influence: “What? Is no cure to be attempted to be applied to those who are carried away by the love of money, or the lust of pleasures, by which they are rendered little short of madmen, which is the case of all weak people?” (II)

After this preliminary, the conversation between Cicero (M.) and his student (A.) begins: “(A.) My opinion is, that a wise man is subject to grief. (M.) What, and to the other perturbations of mind, as fears, lusts, anger?” (IV)

Cicero then explains that to let strong negative emotions to overcome us is to give up on the use of reason, something that clearly is the intention of the wise person to avoid, because: “they who are run away with by their lust or anger have quitted the command over themselves.” (V)

When they get back to grief, Cicero says “I shall treat it in the manner of the Stoics” (VI) but that he will then reserve himself the opportunity to go beyond the Stoic position.

His first attack goes like this: “whoever is subject to grief is subject to fear; for whatever things we grieve at when present we dread when hanging over us and approaching. Thus it comes about that grief is inconsistent with courage … Whoever admits these feelings, must admit timidity and cowardice. But these cannot enter into the mind of a man of courage; neither, therefore, can grief: but the man of courage is the only wise man; therefore grief cannot befall the wise man.” (VII) The argument, as we can see, takes the explicit form of a syllogism, with premises and a conclusion from which it is derived. Moreover, the main trust is that grief is antithetical to one of the four cardinal virtues, that of courage.

A bit later Cicero builds a similar argument concerning anger: “A wise man, therefore, is never angry; for when he is angry, he lusts after something.” This is connected to the main topic by suggesting that “should a wise man be subject to grief, he may likewise be subject to anger; for as he is free from anger, he must likewise be free from grief.” (IX)

Immediately after (X) Cicero links envy to pity: “And as pity is an uneasiness which arises from the misfortunes of another, so envy is an uneasiness that proceeds from the good success of another: therefore whoever is capable of pity is capable of envy. But a wise man is incapable of envy, and consequently incapable of pity.”

The whole thing is a matter of (bad) opinion, just like any perturbation of the mind. “Fear is an opinion of some great evil impending over us, and grief is an opinion of some great evil present.” (XI)

It turns out that, according to Cicero, grief is particularly problematic: “as all perturbation is misery, grief is the rack itself. Lust is attended with heat, exulting joy with levity, fear with meanness, but grief with something greater than these; it consumes, torments, afflicts, and disgraces a man; it tears him, preys upon his mind, and utterly destroys him: if we do not so divest ourselves of it as to throw it completely off, we cannot be free from misery.” (XIII)

Cicero reminds his student that Anaxagoras, upon hearing of the death of his son, replied “I knew that my son was mortal.” This — and a number of similar passages in Epictetus — strikes the modern reader as callous and even monstrous, but it is the application of a philosophy of realism: “certainly the excellence and divine nature of wisdom consists in taking a near view of, and gaining a thorough acquaintance with, all human affairs, in not being surprised when anything happens, and in thinking, before the event, that there is nothing but what may come to pass.” (XIV) There is, however, no contradiction in loving one’s son and accepting his passing with equanimity, as something that the universe has decreed, with no possibility of appeal.

At XV Cicero warns his student not to dwell on the possibility of future evils either: “it is folly to ruminate on evils to come, or such as, perhaps, never may come: every evil is disagreeable enough when it does come; but he who is constantly considering that some evil may befall him is loading himself with a perpetual evil.”

A common approach to the alleviation of grief is to distract the afflicted, but Cicero doesn’t buy it: “And should you observe any one of your friends under affliction, would you rather prescribe him a sturgeon than a treatise of Socrates? or advise him to listen to the music of a water organ rather than to Plato?” (XVIII)

This is followed by a rather lengthy and interesting refutation of Epicurus. Cicero first says that he agrees with the rival philosopher that the best counter to grief is the contemplation of good things. But, he adds, we disagree on what such things consist of.

“He says that taste, and embraces, and sports, and music, and those forms which affect the eyes with pleasure, are the chief good. Have I invented this? Have I misrepresented him? I should be glad to be confuted; for what am I endeavoring at but to clear up truth in every question?” (XX) (Notice that apparently the Epicurean standard defense, then as today, was that their critics misrepresented them. Which, of course, sometimes was true.)

I’m going to quote the rest of XX at length:

“Here are three very great mistakes in a very few words. One is, that he contradicts himself; for, but just now, he could not imagine anything good unless the senses were in a manner tickled with some pleasure; but now he says that to be free from pain is the highest pleasure. Can any one contradict himself more? The next mistake is, that where there is naturally a threefold division — the first, to be pleased; next, to be in pain; the last, to be affected neither by pleasure nor pain — he imagines the first and the last to be the same, and makes no difference between pleasure and a cessation of pain. The last mistake he falls into in common with some others, which is this: that as virtue is the most desirable thing, and as philosophy has been investigated with a view to the attainment of it, he has separated the chief good from virtue. But he commends virtue, and that frequently [thus, again, contradicting himself].”

“Epicurus denies that any one can live pleasantly who does not lead a life of virtue; he denies that fortune has any power over a wise man; he prefers a spare diet to great plenty, and maintains that a wise man is always happy. All these things become a philosopher to say, but they are not consistent with pleasure. … I place the chief good in the mind, he in the body; I in virtue, he in pleasure. (XX-XXI)

Cicero goes on to disagree also with Chrysippus, who maintained that people are particularly affected when something bad befalls them unexpectedly, i.e., when they are not mentally prepared. He counters that it is the fact that the new event is recent, not that it is unexpected, that is difficult for people to handle. I myself think that both Chrysippus and Cicero have a point, but at any rate agree with Cicero’s conclusion that “all things are tolerable which others have borne and are bearing.” (XXIII)

At XXVII Cicero repeats that evil is in opinion, not in the nature of things (a very Stoic position, of course), and that “therefore it is in our own power to lay aside grief upon occasion.”

He then returns to the charge that the ideas he has been defending are cold and inhuman by way of an interesting twist: “most men appear to be unaware what contradictions these things are full of. They commend those who die calmly, but they blame those who can bear the loss of another with the same calmness, as if it were possible that it should be true, as is occasionally said in love speeches, that any one can love another more than himself.” (XXIX)

In practical terms, “it is from daily reflecting that there is no real evil in the circumstance for which you grieve, and not from the length of time, that you procure a remedy for your grief.” (XXX)

Another fascinating bit comes at XXXI, when Cicero presents his student with a quick comparative chart of what different Hellenistic schools of philosophy have to say about grief (notice the appearance of two Stoics in the list): “There are some who think, with Cleanthes, that the only duty of a comforter is to prove that what one is lamenting is by no means an evil. Others, as the Peripatetics, prefer urging that the evil is not great. Others, with Epicurus, seek to divert your attention from the evil to good: some think it sufficient to show that nothing has happened but what you had reason to expect; and this is the practice of the Cyrenaics. But Chrysippus thinks that the main thing in comforting is, to remove the opinion from the person who is grieving, that to grieve is his bounden duty.”

And here is Cicero’s own considered opinion: “the principal medicine to be applied in consolation is, to maintain either that it is no evil at all, or a very inconsiderable one. The next best to that is, to speak of the common condition of life, having a view, if possible, to the state of the person whom you comfort particularly. The third is, that it is folly to wear one’s self out with grief which can avail nothing.” (XXXII)

Moreover, the “cure” needs to be tailored to the grieving individual, as there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all philosophical remedy: “Certainly, then, as in pleadings we do not state all cases alike (if I may adopt the language of lawyers for a moment), but adapt what we have to say to the time, to the nature of the subject under debate, and to the person; so, too, in alleviating grief, regard should be had to what kind of cure the party to be comforted can admit of.” (XXXIII)

Advertisements


Categories: Cicero

9 replies

  1. Thank you for this. Grief is the topic I needed to read about today. A few notes I made : grief is a matter of bad opinion; grief is a lack of courage; I know my children are mortal; it is in our power to lay grief aside on occasion; grief is not our bounden duty; it is golly to wear one’s self out with grief which can avail nothing. The advice seems to be written with death as the source of grief. But I read it with my daughter’s addiction in mind and the loss of a relationship with her. I miss her, worry about her, dwell obsessively at times on what I did and didn’t do in the past. I think what you wrote here applies perfectly to my source of grief. It has given me a huge boost in how to be a stoic. I’ve got lots to work on and now I can see a way to work on it.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Yes we are no different today than people were 2000 years ago or will be in the future, grief is a natural reaction but it must not consume or overwhelm us. The words of Cicero or Seneca or others remind us that we are human and that if we prepare for what can afflict us mortals, and remind us that we can bear it and find strength and support for ourselves and for others in making reasoned and wise decisions.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Why should we wish to ease the pain of grief? I do not understand this perspective. I have grieved for my father: I have cried bitter tears when I hear the strains of songs that he loved, and been sorrowful at the thought of mountains we would not climb together. Should I rather have said at his death, “Whatever.”? To suppress grief at the death of a loved one seems to me the most artificial, unnatural, and frankly insane emotion possible. True that eventually we should emerge from the dark night of grief back into the light of ordinary life, but to preach equanimity in the face of all possible scenarios seems to me a death-in-life, a life-in-death, an emotionless vacuity where any eventuality is considered to be precisely equal. Yes, I understand the appeal of emotionless vacuity in the face of a world immersed in tragedy, but I think King Lear nobler than Buddha. To throw oneself higgledy-piggledy into the world, to immerse oneself in that same volcanic terror in which the beasts of the field and the birds of the air are submerged, that foreknowledge that one always risks all that is wonderful, but that those things one risks really, really, really are wonderful, is a far better thing than to nuAmb oneself entirely to any negative emotion. If one is to feel joy at the sight of a field of wildflowers, one must also feel stricken when they are burnt to cinders by a passing wildflower; if one is to love anyone, anything at all, one must genuinely feel its loss, and not hide it behind a screen of self-deceitful bon mots and antiquated syllogisms.

    Like

  4. I don’t think the point so much is to feel nothing as to not get carried away by one’s feelings. Yes, we lose people (and things) in our lives. Yes, it’s going to hurt, especially if it was a person you’re close to, given our social nature. But if we let the pain paralyze us, if we think it so tragic and unbearable that people have to do what they and other animals have always done, will that lead to good decisions in the future? What if you were too lost in grief for one person to be able to help another person? When your own number is up, would you want your family members to be so bummed out that they neglect to focus on and enjoy the people they still have, any more than you would want them to fight over who gets to inherit your assets or not inherit your debts? I think if most of us were dying, we would not want to see our loved ones so distraught; we’d like to reassure them that we enjoyed our time with them, that “it’s better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all,” and that they’re still capable of doing good things and enjoying other good times with other good people in their lives. So I think not grieving too much can actually be considered highly respectful toward our dying and dead loved ones: carrying the torch, demonstrating that their good work has been done through their positive influence on us, that we cared about them but could also be independent of them when necessary.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. Mark,

    First off, what Julie wrote above. Second, the Stoic idea was to redirect the negative emotions into positive ones, because they did not see the necessary connection you draw between joy and sorrow. One can increase joy while decreasing sorrow, resulting in an attitude of equanimity that takes the good in life for what it is, and accepts the bad because it is unavoidable.

    Let me give you a specific example, since I think concretes are often more effective than generalities (the Stoics agreed, hence the large number of specific examples and situations they used to teach their doctrines).

    Several years ago the father of a dear friend of mine died. His family was, obviously sad — it would be inhuman not to be. But they had been with him until the last minute, had said goodbye, and had cared for him. A few days later they got together to celebrate his life. I hardly saw a tear on anyone’s face, and it was beautiful. It was an occasion to come together and fondly remember the man, the father, the husband, the friend. I surely would want to be remembered as that man, not to cause unbearable pain on any of my loved ones.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Cool stuff Massimo. Hits home for me.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. One place where I think Cicero has not thought it through: ” “whoever is subject to grief is subject to fear; for whatever things we grieve at when present we dread when hanging over us and approaching. Thus it comes about that grief is inconsistent with courage” But I think that courage means acting virtuously despite fear, and that the absence of fear is not courage but follhardiness.

    Moreover, grief at loss is natural, even if excessive grief is to be avoided. One might say the same of anger at injustice, which can in turn be a motive to virtuous action.

    Like

  8. Paul,

    Yes, there is ambiguity in the word “fear.” The natural, instinctive emotion is unavoidable. But I think Cicero, in the stoic tradition, is talking about the cognitive aspect of it, when we “assent” to the idea that we should be afraid of something.

    As for anger, no, the Stoics, unlike the Aristotelians, reject any positive use of anger at all, as explained here: https://howtobeastoic.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/seneca-on-anger-part-iii/

    Like

  9. I have now read Part IV. It seems I am taking a position close to the Peripatetics. As to whether anger kept under control can be beneficial, we clearly disagree, and I am not sure how to resolve this.

    If we define anger as powerful enough to paralyse reason, then of course it is bad. But we do not need a sage to tell us that. And (again, looking ahead to the next part) I feel that Cicero is playing a shabby trick by saying that to accept controlled anger is to accept a small amount of evil as permissible.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: