← Seneca the Younger

Moral Letters to Lucilius

§113.11-113.21

Contradictions in the View That Virtues Are Animals

Seneca criticizes the Stoic claim that virtues are animals by pointing out contradictions regarding the individuality of the soul and the characteristics of animals (such as rational assent and physical needs), humorously exposing the absurdity of this debate.

View ▾
View
Translation
Typeface
AI ↗
← PrevNext →
§113.11

​Omne animal, donec moriatur, id est, quod coepit; homo, donec moriatur, homo est, equus equus, canis canis. Transire in aliud non potest. Iustitia, id est1 animus quodammodo se habens, animal est. Credamus; deinde animal est fortitudo, id est animus quodammodo se habens. Quis animus? Ille, qui modo iustitia erat? Tenetur in priore animali, in aliud animal transire ei non licet; in eo illi, in quo primum esse coepit, perseverandum est.

​Every animal, until it dies, is what it began to be; a man, until he dies, is a man, a horse a horse, a dog a dog. It cannot pass into something else. Justice, that is, the mind disposed in a certain way, is an animal. Let us believe it; next, courage, that is, the mind disposed in a certain way, is an animal. Which mind? That which just now was justice? It is held in the former animal, and it is not permitted for it to pass into another animal; it must persevere in that in which it first began to be.

§113.12

​Praeterea unus animus duorum esse animalium non potest, multo minus plurium. Si iustitia, fortitudo, temperantia ceteraeque virtutes animalia sunt, quo modo unum animum habebunt? Singulos habeant oportet, aut non sunt animalia.

​Moreover, one mind cannot belong to two animals, much less to more. If justice, courage, temperance, and the other virtues are animals, how will they have one mind? They ought to have individual minds, or they are not animals.

§113.13

​Non potest unum corpus plurium animalium esse. Hoc et ipsi fatentur. Iustitiae quod est corpus? "Animus." Quid? Fortitudinis quod est corpus? "Idem animus." Atqui unum corpus esse duorum animalium non potest.

​One body cannot belong to several animals. This they themselves also admit. What is the body of justice? ‘The mind.’ What? What is the body of courage? ‘The same mind.’ And yet, one body cannot belong to two animals.

§113.14

" Sed idem animus," inquit, "iustitiae habitum induit et fortitudinis et temperantiae." Hoc fieri posset, si quo tempore iustitia esset, fortitudo non esset, quo tempore fortitudo esset, temperantia non esset; nunc vero omnes virtutes simul sunt. Ita quomodo singulae erunt animalia, cum unus animus sit, qui plus quam unum animal non potest facere?

’But the same mind,’ he says, ‘assumes the disposition of justice, of courage, and of temperance.’ This could happen if, at the time when justice existed, courage did not exist, and at the time when courage existed, temperance did not exist; but in fact, all virtues exist together. Thus, how will they be individual animals, when there is only one mind, which cannot make more than one animal?

§113.15

​Denique nullum animal pars est alterius animalis. Iustitia autem pars est animi; non est ergo animal, videor mihi in re confessa perdere operam; magis enim indignandum de isto quam disputandum est. Nullum animal alteri par est. Circumspice omnium corpora: nulli non et color proprius est et figura sua et magnitudo.

​Finally, no animal is a part of another animal. But justice is a part of the mind; therefore it is not an animal. I seem to myself to be wasting my effort on an admitted matter; for one ought to be indignant about this rather than argue about it. No animal is equal to another. Look around at the bodies of all: there is none that does not have both its own color, its own shape, and its own magnitude.

§113.16

​Inter cetera, propter quae mirabile divini artificis ingenium est, hoc quoque existimo, et quod in tanta copia rerum numquam in idem incidit; etiam quae similia videntur, cum contuleris, diversa sunt. Tot fecit genera foliorum: nullum non sua proprietate signatum. Tot animalia: nullius magnitudo cum altero convenit, utique aliquid interest. Exegit a se, ut quae alia erant, et dissimilia essent et inparia;2 virtutes omnes, ut dicitis, pares sunt. Ergo non sunt animalia.

​Among other things on account of which the intellect of the divine craftsman is wonderful, I think this is also one: that in such an abundance of things he never stumbled upon the same; even things which seem similar, when you compare them, are different. He made so many kinds of leaves: none is not marked with its own characteristic. So many animals: the magnitude of none agrees with another, at any rate there is some difference. He demanded of himself that those things which were different should also be dissimilar and unequal; but all virtues, as you say, are equal. Therefore they are not animals.

§113.17

​Nullum non animal per se agit. virtus autem per se nihil agit, sed cum homine. Omnia animalia aut rationalia sunt, ut homines, ut di, aut inrationalia, ut ferae, ut pecora. virtutes utique rationales sunt; atqui nec homines sunt nec di; ergo non sunt animalia.

​There is no animal that does not act of itself. But virtue does nothing of itself, but only with man. All animals are either rational, as men and gods, or irrational, as wild beasts and cattle. Virtues are indeed rational; and yet they are neither men nor gods; therefore they are not animals.

§113.18

​Omne rationale animal nihil agit, nisi primum specie alicuius rei inritatum est, deinde impetum cepit, deinde adsensio confirmavit hunc impetum. Quid sit adsensio, dicam. Oportet me ambulare: tunc demum ambulo, cum hoc mihi dixi et adprobavi hanc opinionem meam. Oportet me sedere: tunc demum sedeo. Haec adsensio in virtute non est.

​Every rational animal does nothing unless it has first been stimulated by the appearance of some thing, then has conceived an impulse, and then assent has confirmed this impulse. I will tell you what assent is. ‘I ought to walk’: then at last I walk, when I have said this to myself and approved this opinion of mine. ‘I ought to sit’: then at last I sit. This assent is not in virtue.

§113.19

​Puta enim prudentiam esse; quomodo adsentietur "oportet me ambulare"? Hoc natura non recipit. Prudentia enim ei, cuius est, prospicit, non sibi. Nam nec ambulare potest nec sedere. Ergo adsensionem non habet, rationale animal non est. virtus si animal est, rationale est.

​For suppose that prudence exists; how will it assent to ‘I ought to walk’? This nature does not admit. For prudence provides for him to whom it belongs, not for itself. For it can neither walk nor sit. Therefore, it does not have assent, and is not a rational animal. If virtue is an animal, it is rational.

§113.20

​Rationale autem non est; ergo nec animal. Si virtus animal est, virtus autem bonum, non est omne bonum animal? Est. Hoc nostri fatentur. Patrem servare bonum est, et sententiam prudenter in senatu dicere bonum est, et iuste decernere bonum est; ergo et patrem servare animal est et prudenter sententiam dicere animal est. Eo usque res exegit, ut risum tenere non possis: prudenter tacere bonum est, frugaliter cenare bonum est; ita et tacere et cenare animal est.

​But it is not rational; therefore it is not an animal either. If virtue is an animal, and virtue is a good, is not every good an animal? It is. This our school admits. To save one’s father is a good, and to express an opinion prudently in the senate is a good, and to judge justly is a good; therefore, both saving one’s father is an animal and expressing an opinion prudently is an animal. The matter is pushed so far that you cannot hold your laughter: to be silent prudently is a good, to dine frugally is a good; thus both being silent and dining are animals.

§113.21

​Ego mehercules titillare non desinam et ludos mihi ex istis subtilibus ineptus facere. Iustitia et fortitudo, si animalia sunt, certe terrestria sunt. Omne animal terrestre alget, esurit, sitit; ergo iustitia alget, fortitudo esurit, clementia sitit.

​I, by Hercules, will not cease to tickle them and to make sport for myself out of those subtle absurdities. Justice and courage, if they are animals, are certainly terrestrial. Every terrestrial animal gets cold, hungers, thirsts; therefore justice gets cold, courage hungers, and clemency thirsts.

Syntax notes2 items
  1. 113.11in eo illi, in quo primum esse coepit, perseverandum est

    illi is the dative singular masculine of the demonstrative pronoun ille, acting as the "dative of agent" with the impersonal passive gerundive perseverandum est. Its referent is animus (mind) or the personified subject in the preceding context. in eo... in quo is understood as "in that in which it first began to be".

  2. 113.16Exegit a se, ut quae alia erant, et dissimilia essent et inparia

    The subject of exegit is the third-person singular (Deus), supplied from divini artificis (divine craftsman) in the preceding sentence. The ut clause is a noun clause serving as the object of exigere (to demand), taking the imperfect subjunctive essent in accordance with the sequence of tenses after the historical perfect exegit. The relative clause quae alia erant inserted within it uses the indicative (erant) to state a fact, meaning "things that were different (i.e., distinct individuals)".

Translated by Gemini 3.5 Flash (published 2026-05-25)urn:cts:latinLit:phi1017.phi015.humanitext-lat2:113.11-113.21