Pastor's Impassivity: A Parodic Exemplum
at De Ira 2.33
Amanda Wilcox
University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
At De Ira 2.33, Seneca writes, "Often
it is so far from advantageous to repay an injury that it is not even useful
to acknowledge it (Saepe adeo iniuriam vindicare non expedit
ut ne fateri quidem expediat)." He
illustrates this truism with an exemplum of
a father, a Roman knight named Pastor, who impassively endured the execution
of his son by the emperor Gaius Caligula. In this paper, I show that this
anecdote presents a parodic version of a standard historical exemplum virtutis of
the nobly bereaved father. I argue that Seneca's account of Pastor calls
attention to a distortion of traditional Roman virtue (virtus), and further, that this anecdote implies criticism
of the principate, because Seneca suggests that the distortion of aristocratic
virtue is a result of autocratic rule.
I closely compare Seneca's account of Pastor at De Ira 2.33 with a traditional example of a father whose
behavior under duress reveals his virtue. The father who displays virtue
by remaining unmoved at the death of his son is a stock figure in the catalog
of Roman exempla. Book five, chapter ten of Valerius Maximus' Notable
Deeds and Sayings, entitled "On parents who bore the loss of their
children bravely (forti animo)," includes
the stories of three Roman exemplars. Any of these would serve as a striking
comparandum for Seneca's account of Pastor in De Ira, but for convenience, I limit my comparison of Pastor
to Horatius Pulvillus, an early Republican pontifex who received word of his son's death while he was
dedicating Jupiter's temple on the Capitoline.
Pulvillus removed his garland, but then continued with his task, his expression
revealing nothing. Likewise Pastor remains impassive at the event of his
son's death, and this impassivity makes him worthy of inclusion in De
Ira as an exemplar. However, the setting,
the audience, and Pastor's motivation for behaving in an exemplary
manner differ crucially from those elements in Pulvillus' tale. Pulvillus
is engaged in a momentous public, civic, and religious occasion at the moment
of his misfortune; Pastor is at a dinner party given by his son's executioner,
Caligula. The Roman people sees and approves Pulvillus' impassivity; the
emperor and his claque scrutinize Pastor for tell-tale signs of emotion.
Pulvillus demonstrates virtue for its own sake; Pastor does so for the sake
of prudence.
Seneca's De Ira, which was composed
by 52 AD, precedes the "theatrical paradigm" (Bartsch 1994) that
characterized Nero's court. Nevertheless, it fits in squarely with a longstanding
emphasis on spectacle in Roman culture, manifested in the moral sphere
by concern for externally evaluated and publicly celebrated virtus (Habinek
1998). I contend that Seneca's use of a traditional moral, didactic device,
the exemplum virtutis, shows
how the replacement of the public eye as arbiter of virtue by the private
gaze of the emperor results not only in a parodic skewing of the generic
form of the exemplum, but also warps the moral values that exempla were
intended to illustrate, celebrate, and teach.
Topic code: LN