LatinLanguage.us

I certainly wouldn’t say I’ve cut myself off from pop culture–my wife and I are avid movie fans, read two or more newspapers a day, and when you have small children you spend a lot of nights in front of the TV–but I can say I had never heard of the now-ubiquitous Jon and Kate Gosselin before about three months ago, when rumors of an extramarital affair led to their recent separation. I’m pretty much left cold by that corner of “Reality TV” where the only talent on display is shameless self-promotion. As these so-called celebrities expose the detailed minutiae of their lives for a few moments of network fame, I’m reminded of a passage from Seneca’s Epistulae Morales:

[More:]

Quidam quae tantum amicis committenda sunt obviis narrant, et in quaslibet aures quidquid illos urit exonerant…Sic…reprehendas…eos qui semper inquieti sunt…nam illa tumultu gaudens non est industria sed exagitatae mentis concursatio. (Ep. I.III.4-5)

As you can see I’ve edited the passage above. Reprehendas eos qui semper inquieti sunt represents only half the philosopher’s advice; being a good stoic he also recommends avoiding the other extreme: eos qui semper quiescunt. Disengagement then isn’t an option, easy for a man who never had to wade thru much of what passes for modern pop culture.

The comparison between reality TV and the games of the Roman Coliseum has become something of a cliche in modern media criticism. The obvious rebuttal is that at least reality show characters aren’t getting butchered on TV; for the most part they’re more than happy to participate. This is where I think it’s worthwhile to review Seneca’s famous letter describing his own experience at the spectacula (Ep. I.VII) and understand more precisely his objections to the games. Seneca’s letter opens, as usual, with a summary piece of advice for his correspondent Lucilius, advice he intends the letter to explain in full:

Quid tibi vitandum praecipue existimes quaeris? Turbam. (I.VII.1)

Case in point: Seneca attended the games one day lusus exspectans et sales et aliquid laxamenti (sales - “salts” is better translated as “wit"). However:

Contra est: Quidquid ante pugnatum est misericordia fuit; nunc omissis nugis mera homicidia sunt.

I’d like to focus on the contrast Seneca makes between misericordia and homicidia. In his essay De clementia, Seneca makes a distinction between clementia and misericordia, defining the latter as an overindulgence that should be avoided:

Ad rem pertinet quaerere hoc loco, quid sit misericordia; plerique enim ut virtutem eam laudant et bonum hominem vocant misericordem. Et haec vitium animi est. Utraque circa severitatem circaque clementiam posita sunt, quae vitare debemus; per speciem enim severitatis in crudelitatem incidimus, per speciem clementiae in misericordiam. (De. Clem. II.IV.4)

It’s not fair to read too much into this cherry-picked passage, but I think it’s safe to say Seneca didn’t consider the misericordia - “pity” aroused by the games he’d seen ante in a moral sense. IMO he’s using the word more abstractly–like the Greek pathos–as the audience’s emotional commitment to a performance. This idea is supported both by the inclusion of omissis nugis and by the contrast with homicidia, a legal word that lacks the emotional and moral fireworks of synonyms like nex or caedes.

If Seneca were merely making a point about the abject horror of the games, IMO he would have used more explosive language. What I think he’s getting at is the perfunctory nature of the killing in the arena and the effect it has on the audience. Take a look at this follow-on passage to see what I mean. Seneca complains that many of the combatants are terribly mismatched–with one side often lacking armor, helmet, or shield–and that the crowd seems to prefer this:

Quo artes? Omnia ista mortis morae sunt. Mane leonibus et ursis homines, meridie spectatoribus suis obiciuntur. Interfectores interfecturis iubent obici et victorem in aliam detinent caedem; exitus pugnantium mors est. Ferro et igne res geritur. (Ep. I.VII.4)

Seneca’s bleak description makes the games sound like an assembly line–the victor in one match meets his end later in aliam caedem.

As terrible as the slaughter is–and he concedes that the criminals put to death in the arena deserve their fate–Seneca’s main complaint is the effect it all has on the crowd:

“Sed latrocinium fecit aliquis, occidit hominem.” Quid ergo? quia occidit, ille meruit ut hoc pateretur: tu quid meruisti miser ut hoc spectes? (ibid.)

When modern critics compare some of the more heinous examples of Reality TV to the spectacles of the Coliseum, I think Seneca would agree: Age, ne hoc quidem intellegitis, mala exempla in eos redundare qui faciunt? (ibid.)