A curious thing about Seneca's story

is that, in order to conclude, as Seneca does, that Piso
acted with monstrous injustice, it is necessary to accept
as true several things that Seneca would say are quite
untrue. To understand this it is important to know that
soldiers were sent on leave in pairs when they were posted
in places where it was too dangerous for a soldier to be on
his own. Syria was such a place, and it could be that the
events Seneca recalled took place when Piso was governor
there in 17 C.E.

To believe that Piso's action was monstrously unjust it is
necessary to accept the innocence of the two soldiers, who
were given leave together, but each of whom returned on his
own. The story of Piso in Seneca's book is preceded by some
chapters with Seneca's statement that a useful soldier is one
who knows how to obey orders. A soldier who deserted his
fellow soldier, even if the separation was mutually agreeable
and convenient, cannot be a useful soldier. Each of the two
soldiers was guilty of having put his comrade in two dangerous
situations. The first has already been mentioned. The second
is even more dangerous. By not returning with his comrade,
each bore witness to the other's disregard for obeying orders,
which disregard must meet with consquences of a severity
equal to the harm done.

Seneca tells us that Fortune saved the soldier who was
taken out of the camp to be executed, when his missing
comrade appeared. In many places in Seneca's writings
he tells us that Fortune is very unreliable and should be
entrusted with nothing of any value. Only an imprudent
man would think that Fortune is on his side. Fortune,
Seneca says, cannot take away that which it is not able
to give. Fortune might have been credited with having saved
the lives of the comrades who failed to look out for one
another, but only very temporarily. The requirement that
soldiers obey orders, and in this case that meant remaining
close to one another, is something that far more reliably
preserved soldiers' lives.

After relating the story, Seneca says that Piso was out of
his mind. Yet, a careful application of Seneca's own teaching
regarding virtue reveals that Piso was the only person in the
story who had not gone out of his mind. None of the ideas
are difficult to grasp. Not only had important orders been
disobeyed, but the idea that consequences for disobedience
could be brushed aside with a sweep of Fortune was suddenly
everywhere.

Seneca suggests that Piso was not reasonably accommodating,
yet the story shows that he was and to the proper degree.
Piso would have accepted proof of innocence. He allowed
that the soldier would not be condemned if he could produce
his comrade, which the soldier could not do. What the soldier
could produce was a search for proof of his comrade's safety
and soundness (a search for his innocence, rather than proof
of it). By asking for time to conduct a search, the soldier was
in fact saying that he did not know whether or not he was at
that moment innocent. That is, he did not know whether or not
his neglect of duty to keep an eye out for the safety of his
companion had resulted in the fellow's death. The soldier
hoped that he was innocent, but Piso knew, as he denied the
request for time, that each of the soldiers had caused the death
of his comrade the moment the request for time was made.
The second soldier to arrive in camp had recklessly caused
the death of the first. The grant of leave to the comrades
had carried with it the order that they preserve life. They had
foolishly abandoned the simplest measure necessary to that
end. Neither one knew where the other was, let alone whether
or not the other was dead, alive, or in danger.

Seneca says that Piso was out of his mind. Yet, when the
throng of soldiers appeared before Piso, rejoicing in Fortune's
having saved an innocent man, the only sane point of view was
Piso's. Having determined that disregarding the order to
preserve life ought to be punished by a sentence of death to
be carried out immediately, he was in effect being told by
every subordinate in sight that his order to preserve life could
be taken lightly. If half the soldiers to whom he granted leave
returned, he could wait on Fortune to see if Fortune might
return the other half. That is the extent of the furor that
Piso saw before him. Perhaps there is some other way to
quickly dispell the kind of craziness that had come over
so many soldiers.

Seneca would have us believe that Piso had three men killed
because he was angry. Yet, in his book On Benefits, Seneca
admits that he would have reason to be angry if he found he
had been deceived by one to whom he had given some
benefit. As we can understand in the story we are examining,
that the benefit granted by Piso was a leave, we ought
also to understand that Piso would not have granted leave to
either of the soldiers, had he known that they would be so
unconcerned each with the other's safety. He gave a benefit
and found that he had been deceived by those who received
the benefit. The anger of Piso was not his own, but was the
anger of one who has been deceived about something that
is vital to the safety of many.

To see what the others saw (those who did not indicate that
they saw Piso as something of a monster) [click here]
By using this link, which provides exactly the same material
on a separate page, you help to prevent unnecessary inflation
of the number of times the other choice was made.

To  see Tom's remedy [click here]
[return to Piso story] [kitchen door menu] [top of page]
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso was

appointed governor of Syria

in 17 C.E.

for the purpose of assisting Germanicus Caesar who was touring
the East. Trouble arose between Gnaeus and Germanicus and the
latter broke off friendly relations. Afterward, when Germanicus took
ill and died, Gnaeus was accused of having poisoned or of having
used magic to cause the death of Germanicus. Gnaeus Piso took
his own life, after having been brought to trial before the Senate, but
before the conclusion of the trial. Piso proclaimed his innocence and
loyalty to Emperor Tiberius to the end.

The episode Seneca recalls is likely to have taken place during the
period in which Piso was governor of Syria. The fact that soldiers
were sent on leave in pairs is an indication of this. Due to the dangers
in that part of the empire, it was advisable to take such precautions.
Note that when Jesus sent his disciples to proclaim the gospel, he
sent them in pairs, which Christian teachers often point out was done
to afford them some safety. Also note that Jesus identifies a Roman
who expects his orders to be obeyed, as he himself obeys orders, as
a man of a greater faith than any he has seen among his own people.
Indeed, pairing men to provide safety to each other as well as the
state was something fundamentally Roman. Consuls served in pairs.
The trouble that developed between Germanicus and Gnaeus is likely
to have upset the planned pairing of the two. Germanicus seems to
have taken a turn away from the Roman way, when he went to the
East. That is, his going there was entirely his own decision, rather
than being the choice of the senate or the Emperor. Being the likely
successor to Tiberius, it may have seemed a good thing to do, yet the
show he made of himself on the tour was upsetting in that it suggested
that he was too good for the Roman way. Had he not gone and lived,
history would undoubtedly read very differently. There would have
been no Emperor Gaius (Caligula) and no demand that the Jews
worship an image of an emperor of Rome. There might not have
been two wars between Israel and Rome. Seneca wrote the story
of Piso after the embarrassment of all nations of the emipre at having
worshipped Gaius Caesar and before the first Jewish revolt.
[back to Seneca's story and questions] [kitchen door menu]

In De Ira [book I ch ix] Seneca argues that reason does not employ
anger, as anger is as bad a servant as it is a master. This is preceded
by  Seneca's likening of  passions controlled by reason with a soldier
who knows how to obey orders.
          Hic erit utilis miles qui scit parere consilio; adfectus
          quidem tam mali ministri quam duces sunt.
So why don't the soldiers in Seneca's story know how to obey orders?
And how could they be considered useful?

In his book On the Firmness of the Wise Man, Seneca declares
that Fortune can't reposess what it has not provided in the first place.
Fortune had not spared the soldier in the Piso episode. When the
comrades separated, they ceased providing each other with the mutual
protection that was required of them. Instead of looking out for one
another, they let fortune look out for them separately. Each is guilty of
desertion. However uncertain we may be that  the episode took place
while Piso was the governor of Syria, a dangerous part of the empire,
we have to understand that soldiers surrendering to each other to the
care of Fortune was not something that Piso or any other Roman
commander could not allow to be copied. When the entire company
of soldiers brought the two deserters to Piso, as if Fortune had saved
them, that was evidence that the dangerous contagion had infected all
under his command.

One of the faults that Seneca finds with anger is that it is variable and
so produces unequitable results. The offender who is dealt with while
anger is dominating receives greater punishment, though his offense may
be less. By the time the worst offender is punished, anger may have
lost its initial force, giving way to pity or some other emotion. This does
not seem to be the case with the judgment of  Piso, even if we think that
the penalties were all too severe. We must also understand that failing to
correct the manner in which orders were being regarded would mean
Piso's surrendering to Fortune that with which he had been entrusted.

The purpose of punishment is future benefit, reduced likelihood that an
injurious course will be taken. Seneca cites Plato in this regard, saying
that consideration of the potential for repetition of the offense must figure
in the punishment. Since it appears that everyone under Piso's command
had become susceptible to the dangerous notion that fortune could be an
ally or a replacement for the performance of one soldier's duty to his
commander and fellow soldiers, the severity of example seems to follow
what Seneca prescribes.

In his essay on allegiance to virtue, Seneca says that such is an easy kind
of soldiering. Those carried along (without reason) later ask how did I
come to be in this condition?

In On Benefits  Seneca says that he would have reason to be angry with
a man who got him to promise some benefit but deceived him in doing so.

In his essay On our Blindness and its Cure, Seneca writes of a woman
in his household who does not know that she is blind and keeps asking to
be moved to a lighter room. In relating the story of Piso, it appears that
Seneca is not aware that he does not agree with much of what he has
written about reason, doing one's duty, anger, Fortune, and more.

Piso appears to be a monster in Seneca's story. Yet, if Seneca were in a
situation in which all under his command became "useless" (that is how
he describes soldiers who don't know how to obey orders), and told
that story, wouldn't we see the mob of irrational soldiers as a dangerous
monster?

[return to Piso story] [kitchen door menu] [top of page]
                  [beginning of what the others saw]