Neostoicism was aphilosophical movement that arose in the late16th century from the works ofJustus Lipsius, and sought to combine the beliefs ofStoicism andChristianity. Lipsius wasFlemish and aRenaissance humanist. The movement took on the nature ofreligious syncretism, although modern scholarship does not consider that it resulted in a successful synthesis.[1] The name "neostoicism" is attributed to twoRoman Catholic authors,Léontine Zanta and Julien-Eymard d'Angers.[2]
John Calvin made reference to "new stoic" ideas earlier in the 16th century, but the denotation is not relevant to neostoicism.[1]Antonio de Guevara in 1528 published a flattering biography ofMarcus Aurelius, then considered a paragon of Stoic virtues.[3]
Neostoicism is usually said to have been founded by Flemish humanist Justus Lipsius (1547–1606). It was in some aspects anticipated by Giphanius (Hubert van Giffen), who had in common with Lipsius the publisherChristophe Plantin. Plantin published theLucretius edition (1565) by Giphanius, and his circle entertained related ideas with some influence of Lucretius.[4][5]
Plantin is considered to have hadFamilist connections. More definitely, Nicolette Mout takes it to be likely that Lipsius was involved with aHiëlist group. The relevance to neostoicism lies in theNicodemism of this Familist fraction.[6]
Lucretius was an author from the Epicurean school, andEpicureanism has traditionally been considered as antipodal to Stoicism. In fact, however, the Epicurean and Stoic schools had in common a material and deterministic view ofnatural philosophy. They differed on ethics. It was the discrimination made by Lipsius, that the materialism and determinism of the Stoics should be largely rejected, that opened up the possibility to present a neostoicism more compatible with Christian beliefs.[1][7] The laterFundamenta juris gentium et naturae ofChristian Thomasius was a comparable project with an Epicurean basis.[8]
During his time in theNorthern Netherlands (Leiden, 1578–1591), Lipsius published his two most significant works:De Constantia ("On Constancy", 1583, full titleDe constantia libri duo qui alloquium praecipue continent in publicis malis) andPoliticorum sive Civilis doctrinae libri sex (1589), short namePolitica.De constantia sets out the foundation for neostoic thought. It is adialogue between the characters Lipsius and Langius (based on his friend, Charles de Langhe).[9] They explore aspects of contemporary political predicaments by reference to the classical Greek and pagan Stoicism, in particular, that found in the writings ofSeneca the Younger.
At this period Stoic teachings were known mainly through the Latin authorsCicero and Seneca, who had concentrated onStoic ethics.[10] Both Lipsius andMichel de Montaigne found interesting in Seneca the treatment of the concepts ofapatheia andataraxia, largely to the exclusion of Cicero's handling of Stoic ethical concepts, and innovated with an emphasis onself-preservation and management of thepassions.[11] Montaigne, however, became more of an opponent of Stoicism, a development towardsscepticism thatCharles Larmore regards as gradual and linked to his writing of theEssays.[12]
Lipsius was introduced to Seneca byMuretus, a celebrated stylist of humanist Latin, who wrote that some of Stoic doctrine was foolishness. Lipsius, on the other hand, took an interest in reconciling Christian and Stoic morality, bringing in the writings ofEpictetus. He did so during the early years of theEighty Years' War, and in response to the troubled times in theLow Countries it caused.[13] His systematised version had standing for some two centuries. Both Lipsius and his reading of Seneca provoked criticisms of Stoicism in general, which later scholarship has countered by the recovery of original Stoic texts.[14]
As Sellars puts it, "a Neostoic is a Christian who draws on Stoic ethics, but rejects those aspects of Stoic materialism and determinism that contradict Christian teaching."[7] Lipsius further developed neostoicism in his treatisesManuductionis ad stoicam philosophiam (Introduction to Stoic Philosophy) andPhysiologia stoicorum (Stoic Physics), both published in 1604.Jonathan Israel considers these works to be appeals to Netherlanders to rejectpatriotism andconfessional zealotry, instead working within a moral and political framework around peaceful actions and preservation of good order.[15] The setting has led to neostoicism, which became fashionable, being labelled a "crisis philosophy".[16]
The work ofGuillaume du Vair,Traité de la Constance (1594), was another important influence in the neo-stoic movement. Where Lipsius had mainly based his work on the writings of Seneca, du Vair emphasized Epictetus.[1]
Pierre Charron came to a neo-stoic position through the impact of theFrench Wars of Religion. He made a complete separation of morality and religion.[17]
The project of neostoicism has been described as an attempt by Lipsius to construct "a secular ethics based on Roman Stoic philosophy." He did not endorsereligious toleration in an unqualified way: hence the importance of a morality not tied to religion.[18] Bement wrote:
No rigidly consistent doctrine emerges from the neostoic revival, but two important strains develop, one confirming the contemporary predilection for the active life, the other finding expression in retreat and isolation from the world.[19]
According to Hiller,
Lipsius utilized both Seneca andTacitus to create a coherent system for the management of public and private life in war-torn northern Europe.[20]
In the introduction to hisPolitica, Lipsius defined its aim as addressing rulers, whereDe constantia was for those who should obey and endure.[21] Neostoicism allowed for authoritarian enforcement of order, and the use of force.[22] Papy writes in theStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Lipsius's lifelong project was to transform contemporary moral philosophy through a new reading of the Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca, while also revitalizing contemporary political practice by drawing on the insights provided by the Roman historian Tacitus.[23]
This statement leaves open the question of the relationship of Tacitus to neostoicism. A conventional answer given by Waszink is that Tacitus serves as a source of "examples and guidelines for the modern prince and subject."[24] Waszink also considers, however, that the argument of thePolitica, and its practical philosophy, can be understood without the Stoic connections.[25]
Neostoicism held that the basic rule of good life is that a person should not yield to thepassions, but submit toGod. A way to this teaching was an equation made inPhysiologia Stoicorum betweenfate (fortuna) anddivine providence.[26] The intended sense of "constancy" in Lipsius is "calm acceptance of the inevitable."[27] But in fact inDe Constantia Lipsius followsBoethius (Consolations of Philosophy Book IV) and later Christian teachings to distinguish between divine providence and fate, theprima causa in nature.[28] Lipsius there argued for fate as a by-product of divine providence, and forfree will.[29]
The Stoic view was that acting on passions amounted to faulty reasoning. Consequently the control of the passions came down to reasoning more correctly, avoiding mistakes they could cause.[30] Calm can be achieved because materialpleasures andsufferings are irrelevant.
Lipsius was a humanist leader of international reputation, and numerous identifiable followers. He corresponded with hundreds of other humanists.[31]
Scholarship recognises a "Lipsius circle". The terms "Lipsian" and "Lipsianism" are used, the latter in reference in particular to his influence in Central and Eastern Europe. Waszink notes that "Lipsian" at times is used as if it were a synonym for "neostoic" while covering all the thought of Lipsius.[25]
Maurice De Wulf writing in hisHistoire de la philosophie médiévale (1900) took the view that Lipsius was an erudite rather than a philosopher, founded no school, and had few disciples, mentioning onlyCaspar Schoppe.[32] In contrastRichard Tuck described (1993) the effort ofBenito Arias Montano, a Familist collaborator of Plantin and long-term friend and correspondent of Lipsius, as influencing in SpainPedro de Valencia and engaged in theoretical work to go beyond the "Stoicism and scepticism of the Lipsian circle".[33]
Aside from neostoicism, Lipsius impressed others also with his Latin style, scholarly editions and political thinking. Charles Nauert casts doubt on whether there was a broad-based movement attached to neostoicism, commenting on "revived forms of ancient philosophy", including voguish neostoicism as the essence of Roman "moral earnestness", that none "gained a profound hold on the conscience of more than a few scattered individuals."[34] In the first chapter of his bookPhilosophic Pride: Stoicism and Political Thought from Lipsius to Rousseau, Brooke questions whether as much of the political thought of Lipsius should be attributed definitely to neostoicism as had been asserted by Gerhard Oestreich.[35]
Neostoicism had a direct influence on later writers, particularly in Spain and England.[36] Among Spanish writers there wereFrancisco de Quevedo, and Juan de Vera y Figueroa, among English writersFrancis Bacon andJoseph Hall. Later in France there wereMontesquieu andBossuet.[37] According to Saarinen, neo-stoic ideas are relevant to manyCalvinist authors, of whom he mentionsTheodor Zwinger.[38]
Francisco Sánchez de las Brozas promoted neostoicism in Spain, as an editor of an Epictetus edition published in 1600. Later Quevedo published hisDoctrina Estoica (1635), continuing efforts to bridge the gap between Stoicism and Christian beliefs.[36]Virgilio Malvezzi, called "the Seneca of the Italian language" byBenedetto Croce, was a member of the Italian coterie atPhilip IV's court during this same period.
During the lifetime of Lipsius, theHabsburg monarchy, which included the Spanish Netherlands, had capitals atMadrid andPrague. Lipsius was widely read inBohemia and Hungary.Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor did not approve of the warlike Spanish policy in the Netherlands, thought of as within the Empire, ofPhilip II of Spain.[39] Zdeněk Vojtěch Popel z Lobkovic (1568–1628) read much in Lipsius.[40]Nicolaus Vernulaeus who became historiographer toFerdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor drew in hisInstitutiones politicae on neostoicism and its revised version byAdam Contzen, aJesuit follower of Lipsius.[41]János Rimay was a Hungarian neo-stoic poet interested in a national revival in Hungary.[42]
Translations into English of basic neostoic works by Lipsius and Du Vair appeared in the 1590s, andThomas Lodge translated Seneca's moral works (1614).[36] The translation of theDe constantia bySir John Stradling, 1st Baronet was well received in aristocratic circles.[43]
Joseph Hall's 1606 bookHeaven upon Earth (1606) adopted "the fashionable vogue for neo-Stoicism". It was published the year after a visit to the Netherlands Hall made as chaplain toSir Edmund Bacon.[44] Hall's biographer Huntley comments that his neostoicism "is more Christian than Senecan", and that he also usesRamism.[45]
Kevin Sharpe, in his study of the reading ofSir William Drake, 1st Baronet, noted that both reading and a stay in the Netherlands "appear to have led him to be influenced by the fashionable neostoicist humanist writings of Justus Lipsius and his disciples."[46] Sharpe mentions also thatSir Roger Townshend, 1st Baronet had a work by Lipsius in his library.[47]John Eliot in theTower of London, and frustrated with politics, around 1630 acquired theDe constantia.[48]
Edward Herbert of Cherbury built on neostoicism an early system ofdeism.[36]Thomas Gataker published in 1652 an edition of theMeditations of Marcus Aurelius with a large Biblical apparatus intended for Christian readers.[7]
The ground for neostoicism's emphasis on moderation and self-control had been prepared byErasmus. It has been regarded as a joint effect of Calvinism and Renaissance humanism. Post-Lipsius and the requirements of public life in a time of crises ruled by fate, there were the basic ideas of living by virtue and values, disabused of worldly wisdom and superficials. Related themes were found inJacob Cats,Dirck Coornhert andPieter Corneliszoon Hooft.[49]
Neo-stoic attitudes could be illustrated inhistory painting, by choice ofexemplars, for instance taken from theRoman Republic.[50] It was also seen in portraiture of royalty and nobility: "the full-length or three-quarter-length lifesize format, the static pose, and the impassive facial expression associated with the characterological ideal of neo-Stoicism."[51] In the Dutch Republic of the 17th-century these were current techniques to showvirtù.[50]
The painterPeter Paul Rubens was a disciple and friend of Lipsius. In his paintingThe Four Philosophers, there is a self-portrait as Lipsius teaches two seated students,Joannes Woverius and his brotherPhilip. Philip was a pupil whom Lipsius "loved like a son", and who had presented Lipsius' book on Seneca to Pope Paul V. Lipsius chose Wolverius to be his executor.[52][53] In the background is a bust belonging to Rubens, at the time thought to be of Seneca: it is now believed to represent the Greek poetHesiod.
Rubens andAnthony van Dyck were certainly familiar with the neo-stoic principles, but the only North Netherlands painter of the time known to have taken them more seriously wasGerrit van Honthorst.Joseph Justus Scaliger influenced literary figures such asSamuel Coster.[50] Scaliger was the major rival of Lipsius, and his successor at theUniversity of Leiden.[54] The original thinking became attenuated by the later 17th-century.[50]
The "grand manner" employed in the 1640s paintings ofNicolas Poussin was influenced by the basic neo-stoic ideas of Lipsius.[55]
Neostoicism had an impact ongarden design: the dialogue in theDe constantia by Lipsius was set in his own garden, and he moralised it.[3] Studies have connected Dutch 17th-century gardens andJohn Maurice, Prince of Nassau-Siegen with neo-stoic ideas;[56] Allan has written on the effect of Lipsius's view, that Stoicprudentia is to be achieved from a garden in which to contemplate, on Scottish gardens of the same period.[57]
According to Israel, the 1590s were a decade of preoccupation in theDutch Republic with order and discipline in its armed forces.William Louis, Count of Nassau-Dillenburg proposed in 1594 thevolley fire technique with alternating infantry ranks. The humanist ideas around neostoicism reinforced the trend to greater discipline.[58]Peter Burke writes "The self-discipline recommended by Seneca and Lipsius was transformed into military discipline in the age ofdrill."[3]
Lipsius published a study of theRoman army,De Militia Romana (1595–96), which was influential in a number of European countries. It appeared in theSouth Netherlands, dedicated toPrince Philip, heir to the Spanish throne. But Lipsius was familiar also with leaders of the Dutch Revolt, and both sides in the struggle at this time were tightening up their military.[58] Burke comments that "It is no accident that Lipsius should have been attracted to the study of both stoicism and the Roman army.[3]
There are parallels between the political thought of Lipsius and that ofGiovanni Botero, author ofThe Reason of State.[59] Lipsius himself did not contribute to an ongoing debate over "reason of state" andnational interest, but it took natural steps from his concept ofprudentia mixta (mixed prudence). It grew in the same climate of development based on scepticism, Tacitus and the thought ofMachiavelli from which his political ideas and military doctrines arose.[60][61]
The new attitude to military discipline seen withWilliam the Silent, as an aspect of neostoicism, has been extrapolated byCharles Taylor. He argues that it applied in civil government also, as an aspect ofabsolutism, and is seen in theself-mastery ofDescartes.[62]
The beginnings of Enlightenmenthistory of philosophy were bound up with reactions to the ideas ofBaruch Spinoza, questions about the extent to which they were repackaged Stoicism, and serious criticism of the Christianising approach of Renaissance humanists to ancient Greek thought.Jakob Thomasius,Jean Le Clerc andPierre Bayle found the neostoicism of Lipsius a serious distortion of the Greek Stoics, with imposedspirituality andneoplatonism. It was deemed a selective use of sources.[63][64]
{{cite book}}:|journal= ignored (help)