Jacqueline Lagrée analyzes the revival of Stoicism in the classical age, showing what transformations the heirs imposed on their ancestors, stripping physics of metaphysics, and branching materialism into a rational theology. We can therefore wonder where this eclectic philosophy begins and ends.
Neostoicism illustrates in a particularly coherent way the revival of ancient letters in the classical age. The fragments of the Greek founders Zeno and Chrysippus, the texts of Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus were published, explained, then imitated from the beginning of the XVIe century (Erasmus published Seneca in 1515) in the middle of the XVIIe century. From this neostoicism, Jacqueline Lagrée produces an intelligent book, rigorously constructed and very pleasant to read. The overall plan follows the order that is traditionally that of the Stoic system: logic, physics, ethics and politics. The first chapter raises questions of method to which we will return. The last gives three examples of criticism of Stoicism: Pascal attacking the pride of Epictetus ; Malebranche denouncing the ridiculous madness of the wise man ; Leibniz condemning Cartesian stoicism which he makes appear as a kind of indolence without hope.
Physics without metaphysics
A great Flemish humanist, Juste Lipsius is certainly the one who has done the most to revive Stoicism, through the edition of ancient texts, through commentaries and remarkable syntheses, through his From constantia (1584) immediately translated into French. The great merit of Lipsius is to “ not having separated, following the ancient model of the Portico, practical philosophy (moral and political) from its physical roots » (p. 45). One of the great merits of Jacqueline Lagrée is to demonstrate that “ there is no neostoic metaphysics and that physics fulfills the functions elsewhere assigned to metaphysics » (p. 47). There is no more ontology, at least in the Aristotelian sense: to be is to be body. It is precisely this absence of foundation and beyond that makes possible the coupling of an entirely human wisdom and a revealed theology which itself knows the origins and ultimate ends. This analysis proves to be as convincing as it is ingenious. The image is this particular body which is the fire artist and creator of Stoic physics, which Lipsius can compare to the burning bush, which is the face of Yahweh before Moses, or to the tongues of fire of Pentecost, which manifests the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Consequently, the physics of the Stoics integrates theology. God is not separated from the world but mixed with it. Lipsius, he is not the only one, sees the risk of such a position. But the fact remains that neostoicism is part of the much broader trend of a naturalist and rational philosophy which supports and promotes it. I would have liked Jacqueline Lagrée to clarify the place of neostoicism in the naturalist movement of the Renaissance, ranging from Nicolas of Cusa to Giordano Bruno.
This is one of the principles of neostoicism: the non-existence of metaphysics and natural theology are consistent, one serves as an argument for the other. Modern rationalism recovers and gives new meaning to the world order of ancient Stoicism. Once again, it is one of the great successes of Jacqueline Lagrée to define neostoicism based on criteria which do not relate to Christianity, but to Stoic philosophy itself, as understood by the men of the XVIe–XVIIe centuries.
Rationality and legality therefore become the hallmark of the divine nature. The book of nature becomes a holy book which duplicates the Scriptures. Neostoicism postulates “ rationality and the integral intelligibility of reality » (p. 60), which appear nowhere better than in divine Providence, which must be distinguished from fortune and destiny. Fortune is born from illusion, it attributes to chance what concerns order and justice. Destiny is a connection of causes that man always looks at from a partial point of view, which he may not understand or accept, but which expresses the particular will of God. Finally, providence designates the cause of causes. As for natureit is the learned name of universal necessity or, it is the same thing, of the organizing power of the Creator: “ Between providence and the laws of nature, there is a reciprocal relationship which is of foundation (providence establishes the legality of nature) and of attestation (knowledge of the laws of nature attests to divine providence » (p. 67).
The physics of the Stoics has its limits and its adversaries. Grotius regards natural theology, corrected by Neoplatonism, as only the first stage of a consensus which must be surpassed by revealed theology. Thomasius claims that Stoic physics leads to materialism. The fiercest opponents of neostoicism, Antoine Arnauld, Jean-François Senault, see in rational naturalism a form of Pelagianism: providence without grace is an impious defense of corrupt nature.
The assembly of the new sages
Jacqueline Lagrée gives Juste Lipse and Guillaume du Vair great importance: “ two absolutely indisputable authors both by the massive recourse they make to the philosophy of the Portico and by their influence » (p. 20). No one would dream of contesting this choice. We would rather be concerned about the disproportionate space, perhaps, that they take up. Pierre Charron, Simon Goulart, Hugo Grotius, Jean-François Senault and a few others join the two founding figures to form the narrow circle of those who fully deserve to belong to neostoicism.
Now, in a certain way, it is Lipse, Du Vair and the few chosen ones forming the assembly of new sages, endowed with a more acute historical awareness than their contemporaries and having a fairer, less anachronistic idea of what was really the philosophy of Seneca or Epictetus, they are the ones who are least affected by the deformation that Stoicism undergoes by becoming neo-stoicism. If Lipsius gives its true place to Stoic physics, it is because he masters Greek and Latin, because he is familiar with the philological methods of the humanists, because he clearly sees how Zeno’s world is different from his own. . In other words, he is faithful to Stoicism as, by definition, few Neostoics will be.
It is not up to me to decide on the criteria which would serve to establish the corpus of neostoicism. But the fact that we cannot fit all the “stoics” of the classical age into the same mold » (p. 19) certainly does not constitute an obstacle. No more than the disintegration of the Stoic system into a dangerous eclecticism would be, because it would ruin any effort at rigorous definition. The diversity of models and the inconsistency with which ancient Stoicism is often interpreted only indicates the interest, however impertinent, that readers of the XVIe–XVIIe centuries.
However, instead of opening the corpus to all these tendencies, Jacqueline Lagrée restricts it to pure and hardline neostoics. Montaigne has no right to appear there, “ if only because of his distrust of the figure of the wise » (p. 15). Montaigne is however cited a dozen times. But in what capacity, if not as a neo-stoic ? Likewise, Jacqueline Lagrée chooses the death of Descartes (1650) as a limit (terminus ad quem) of the chronological framework that it sets for neostoicism. But this hardly allows Descartes to appear in the short list of neostoics: because we would only find in Descartes “ occasional influences » and “ reminiscences » (p. 184).
In the last pages, Jacqueline Lagrée considers “ the influence of neostoicism in the arts » (p. 177). She mentions the “ multiplication of paintings on the theme of the death of Seneca », the numerous allegories of constancy, the representations of Hercules, the Stoic hero par excellence. She makes some remarks on a magnificent painting by Peter Paul Rubens, The four philosophers (1612), which illustrates the cover page of his book: we see Justus Lipsius, his hand sentiently raised. But “ the influence of stoicism is clearer in literature » (p. 178). However, even after this affirmation, Jacqueline Lagrée only sparingly attributes the title of Stoic. Christophe Plantin is entitled to it, for a famous sonnet: The happiness of this world. But that’s about all that Christophe Plantin, much better known as a printer, did in poetry. Abbot d’Aubignac, much better known as the author of The practice of theater (1657), is entitled to it for a novel: Macarise, or the queen of the fortunate islands (1664), which is explicitly an allegory of Stoic philosophy. But Corneille has no right to it. Because “ the Stoic reminiscences in Corneille’s work relate more to the commonplaces of the genre than to a precise philosophical affiliation » (p. 180 ff.). Such a position seems difficult to defend. Corneille was one of those who contributed most to making the wise man a hero, and heroism an ideal for the decadent nobility. The influence of Stoicism on the theater in particular, on the literature of XVIIe century in general seems enormous to me. Tragedies and novels spread a morality of self-control which no longer concerned only philosophers, but all honest people who accessed modernity with it. Deserve to be included in the corpus of neostoicism, to make a short list, the theater of Corneille, that of Robert Garnier (and particularly Porcie1568), The death of Seneca (1645) by Tristan l’Hermite, but also the work of Jacques Du Perron, that of Malherbe, Les Moral epistles (1608) by Honoré d’Urfé.
Very erudite without being esoteric, Jacqueline Lagrée’s book is a pleasure to read, it is well composed and well written. In all candor, I would like to say that I am very happy (and more knowledgeable) to have read it. He defines, which is ultimately very rare, neostoicism by emphasizing the prefix neorather than on ancient heritage. It is first of all the particular character of Stoic physics, deprived of any metaphysics, which makes possible the emergence of neostoicism: that is to say the encounter with a pagan conception of the world, of morality, of the city, with a revealed theology which claims to discover their true meaning.