Posidonius and the Golden Age :

a Note on Seneca, Epistulae morales 90

Introduction. – Much is disputed about the views of the Late hellenistic stoic
philosopher Posidonius ca. 135-55 B.C.) (1), given the fragmentary state of his
oeuvre and of hellenistic philosophy in general. Many of his views have to be
pieced together by carefully sifting through fragments and elucidating testimo-
nies of later authors. This note is concerned with the interpretation of seneca’s
Letter to Lucilius 90, the witness to Posidonius’ views about early mankind and
the development of the arts. The letter has received regular attention in the
past (2), and this paper starts out from the most important and wide-ranging
recent interpretation of the letter.
in his study of Post-hellenistic philosophy, G. Boys-stones has argued that
philosophy from the first century B.C. onwards is characterised by an increased

(1) M. Laffranque, Poseidonios d’Apamée. Essai de mise au point, Paris, 1965 ;

W. TheiLer, Poseidonios. Die Fragmente, 2 Vols., Berlin, 1982 ; L. edeLsTein / i. G. Kidd,
Posidonius. The Fragments, Cambridge, 1972 ; i. G. Kidd, Posidonius. Commentary on
the Fragments, 2 Vols., Cambridge, 1988-1999 ; W. TheiLer, Poseidonios. Die
Fragmente, 2 Vols, Berlin, 1982. see also O. GiGOn, Poseidonios und die Geschichte der
stoischen Philosophie in Archaiognosia 1, 1980, p. 261-299 ; a. a. LOnG / d. sedLey, The
Hellenistic Philosophers, 2 Vols., Cambridge, 1988.
(2) On Poseidonius’ theory of culture, see G. rudBerG, Forschungen zu Poseidonios,
uppsala / Leipzig, 1918, 51-87 ; K. reinhardT, Poseidonios über Ursprung und Entar-
tung. Interpretation zweier kulturgeschichtlicher Fragmente, heidelberg, 1928 ; s. BLan-
KerT, Seneca (Epist. 90) over natuur en cultuur en Posidonius als zijn bron, amsterdam,
1940 ; Laffranque, Poseidonios d’Apamée [n. 1], p. 494-514 ; B. GaTz, Weltalter, golde-
ne Zeit und sinnverwandte Vorstellungen, hildesheim, 1967 ; L. edelstein, The Idea of
Progress in Classical Antiquity, Baltimore, 1967 ; G. PfLiGersdOrffer, Studien zu
Poseidonios, Vienna, 1959, p. 89-99 ; K. KuBusCh, Aurea Saecula : Mythos und
Geschichte. Untersuchung eines Motivs in der antiken Literatur bis Ovid, frankfurt am
Main, 1986, p. 75-84 ; r. MüLLer, Theorie der Kulturentstehung und Anthropologie bei
Cicero in Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis 31, 1995, p. 189-201,
190-3 ; e. BerTOLi, L’età dell’oro in Posidonio e Seneca in Quaderni di Lingue e
Letterature (Verona) 7, 1982, p. 151-179. recent contributions are r. Bees, Die Kultu-
rentstehungslehre des Posidonios. Wege zu ihrer Rekonstruktion in Antike und Abendland
51, 2005, p. 13-29 ; G. zaGO, Posidionio e le origini dell’ architettura : contributi al testo
e all’ esegesi di Sen. ep. 90, 7 e Isid. orig. 15, 2, 6 in Hermes 137, 2009, p. 45-59. We
were unable to access T. niKOLaidis, ∫Epistolä 90. Senékav e¬nantíon Poseidwníou,
athens, 2002.

Latomus 72, 2013

 POSIDONIUS AND THE GOLDEN AGE 187

emphasis on the authority of the past. he locates the origins of this development
in Posidonius, who, according to him, caused a fundamental shift in the way the
stoics thought about the first age of man, generally seen as an age of felicity :
whereas the early stoics considered that it was ‘a pre-technical, pre-philosophi-
cal age in which man ‘automatically’ did what was right without the need for
reflection on the nature on virtue’ (3), Posidonius contended that the earliest
human beings lived in communities directed by philosopher-sages and thus led
a virtuous life. earliest men, or at least their leaders, were philosophers. Vice,
however, brought about corruption and led to our world, where virtue and wis-
dom are reserved for the few. This apparently useless speculation about first man
had profound implications and led to a re-appraisal of the relationship between
philosophy and tradition : the ancients were thought to have been aware of the
basic philosophical truths about the cosmos and about man, and to have deposi-
ted this knowledge in customs and poetry, albeit in a veiled and allegorical form.
Whereas for the earlier stoics this knowledge was, in a sense, accidentally pre-
served in tradition and in fragmentary form, Posidonius appears to have thought
that the ancients had hidden their wisdom on purpose in customs and poetry.
it has been argued that until the late first century a.d. this theory was adopt-
ed by stoics only. in particular, it underlines the Introduction to Greek Theology
by Cornutus, the stoic teacher of nero (4). shortly afterwards the idea passed
into Platonism, where it led to the view that the leading philosophers of the past,
such as Pythagoras and Plato, were seen as having rediscovered primitive wis-
dom and expressed it in rational discourse. On such an understanding, these phi-
losophers become important precisely because they allow us to reconnect with
that primitive wisdom. The disagreement among philosophers that was so pre-
valent in the hellenistic and roman Period is then explained as expressing the
loss of primitive wisdom after the Golden age. Vice, quarrelsomeness, and lack
of understanding all contributed to the misunderstanding of Plato and lead to the
creation of different philosophical schools that claim the same parentage.
This reconstruction of how the focus on the authority of the past came about
is very stimulating and has provided the starting point for a re-assessment of the
relationship between religion and philosophy in the Post-hellenistic Period by
one of the authors of this article (5). One of its conclusions is that some revisions

(3) G. r. BOys-sTOnes, Post-Hellenistic Philosophy. A Study of its Development from

the Stoics to Origen, Oxford, 2001, p. 42.
(4) BOys-sTOnes, Post-Hellenistic Philosophy [n. 3], p. 49-59. M. frede, Celsus
philosophus Platonicus in ANRW 2.36.7, 1994, p. 5183-5213 situates the transfer of the
idea into Platonism even later, at the end of the second century a. d. On Cornutus, see
now h.-G. nesseLraTh (ed.), Cornutus. Die griechischen Götter, Tübingen, 2009
(saPere XiV).
(5) P. Van nuffeLen, Rethinking the Gods. Philosophical Readings of Religion in the
Post-Hellenistic Period (1st c. B.C. - 2nd c. A.D.), Cambridge, 2011.
188 P. VAN NUFFELEN AND L. VAN HOOF

are needed to the genealogy of the idea of primitive wisdom : it can be detected
earlier in Platonism than suggested by Boys-stones, namely in Varro’s Divine
Antiquities (albeit that the latter’s philosophy was also influenced by
stoicism) (6). This article has a more limited aim : it wishes to subject Boys-
stones’ interpretation of Posidonius as represented by seneca to closer scrutiny.
seneca’s Letter to Lucilius 90 is the only source for the idea that Posidonius
changed the early stoic view about the primitive age of man (7). in that letter,
often hard to interpret, seneca engages at length with Posidonius’ theory about
the original state of mankind and its later degeneration. after an introduction
praising the benefits of philosophy (1-3), seneca reports Posidonius’ two stages
in human development (4-6) (8). in what seneca calls the Golden age, natural
order reigned in human communities : sages ruled and the other people submit-
ted to them without trouble. everybody lived virtuous lives. The Golden age
ended when vice crept in. Laws became necessary and were dutifully decreed by
sages such as solon and Lycurgus. up to this point seneca is able to agree with
Posidonius (hactenus Posidonio adsentior, 7). he does not, however, assent to
the latter’s claim that philosophers invented the various arts (tilling, weaving,
house-building, etc.). a long argument against this idea ensues, in which seneca
stresses that technological progress is a continuous process due to human reason.
But philosophy entails living according to nature, not inventing objects and tech-
niques (7-35). Towards the end of the letter, seneca seems to retract his earlier

(6) P. Van nuffeLen, Varro’s Divine Antiquities : Roman Religion as an Image of Truth
in CPh 105, 2010, p. 162-188.
(7) seneca used Posidonius often : see, e.g., K. W. rinGshausen, Poseidonios, Askle-
piodot-Seneca, und ihre Anschauungen über Erdbeben und Vulkane, diss. Munich, 1929 ;
K. aBeL, Poseidonios und Senecas Trostschrift an Marcia in RhM 107, 1964, p. 221-260 ;
a. d. LeeMan, Seneca and Posidonius. A Philosophical Commentary on Sen. Ep. CII, 3-
19 in Mnemosyne 5, 1952, p. 57-79 ; a. d. LeeMan, Posidonius the Dialectician in
Seneca’s Letters in Mnemosyne 7, 1954, p. 233-240 ; a. dihLe, Posidonius’ System of
Moral Philosophy in JHS 93, 1973, p. 50-57 ; M. isnardi ParenTe, Posidonio in Seneca,
Epist. 88, 20 ss. in PP 48, 1993, p. 280-287 ; e. sTärK, Seneca und Kolumbus. Zu Sen.,
nat. 1 pr 13 in WS 114, 2001, p. 361-371 ; a. seTaiOLi, Seneca and the Divine : Stoic
Tradition and Personal Developments in IJCT 13, 2006-2007, p. 333-368 ; G. zaGO,
Posidonio, Seneca e un passo di Melezio sull’analogia tra panificazione e digestione in
MH 65, 2008, p. 61-64 ; r. Bees, Die Einheit von Redekunst und Philosophie. Poseido-
nios bei Cicero, De oratore 3.19-24 in Hermes 138, 2010, p. 196-215. On seneca’s let-
ters, see now the selection with commentary by B. inWOOd, Seneca. Selected
Philosophical Letters, Oxford, 2007. On seneca, see B. inWOOd, Reading Seneca : Stoic
Philosophy at Rome, Oxford, 2005 and the classic M. Griffin, Seneca. A Philosopher in
Politics, Oxford, 1976. Bees, Die Kulturentstehungslehre [n. 2], p. 15 has made the
important methodological point that we can only reconstruct Posidonius’ theory of culture
on the basis of seneca, Letter 90, against earlier ‘Panposidoneismus’.
(8) On the fact that Posidonius only distinguishes two stages, as BOys-sTOnes, Post-
Hellenistic Philosophy [n. 3], p. 19-20 rightly observes, see below (b).
 POSIDONIUS AND THE GOLDEN AGE 189

assent to Posidonius’ interpretation of the Golden age : he now argues that there
were no real sages in the earliest period, only people who acted like sages (36-
46). it has been argued that seneca defends the early stoic view of the Golden
age as a pre-philosophical and pre-technological age against Posidonius’ new
thesis that it was actually a time when people possessed philosophical knowled-
ge and invented arts and technology (9).
This article suggests that such an assignment of seneca and Posidonius to two
neatly separated camps cannot be maintained and that we thus have to re-assess
Posidonius’ thought. it proposes the following four arguments. first, the opposi-
tion between a Golden age with sages and a subsequent period without does not
find support in the text. second, the clear distinction between Posidonius’ view
and that of the early stoics is not warranted : for Posidonius, the Golden age is
also pre-technological, just as it was for his stoic predecessors. Third, it is pos-
sible, but not certain, that Posidonius saw early mankind as being governed by
philosophers in a technical sense. finally, it is unlikely that seneca is simply
defending early stoicism against Posidonius as in the letter he espouses positions
that conflict with early stoic ideas.
a) Sages during and after the Golden Age. – in Boys-stones’ view, Posidonius
draws a clear distinction between the Golden age, when mankind is governed by
philosophical sages, and the subsequent time when that knowledge is lost becau-
se of vice (10). seneca’s text does not support such a limitation of wisdom and
philosophy to the Golden age. When degeneration had set in, there were still
wise men around to set laws (opus esse legibus coepit, quas et ipsas inter initia
tulere sapientes, 6). drawing on Posidonius, seneca lists solon, Lycurgus,
zaleucus and Charondas as examples of these. Later in the letter, Posidonius is
alleged to have attributed inventions to various wise men and philosophers such
as anacharsis and democritus (31-32). it is rather implausible that Posidonius’
Golden age stretched to the sixth and fifth century B.C. to include solon and
democritus. rather, he clearly thought that sages were still around to create laws
and arts in order to help mankind after the end of the Golden age. Only much
later did philosophers abandon their interest in the arts (11). There is an additio-

(9) This was also suggested by M. frede, Chaeremon der Stoiker in ANRW 2.36.3,
1989, p. 2067-2103, 2091, and more recently by C. Van sijL, Stoic Philosophy and the
Exegesis of Myth, utrecht, 2010, p. 85.
(10) BOys-sTOnes, Post-Hellenistic Philosophy [n. 3], p. 48-49. Laffranque, Poseido-
nios d’Apamée [n. 1], p. 496 has argued that Posidonius only makes a normative point
about what sages ought to do and does not offer a theory of the decline of humanity. This
contradicts the explicit meaning of Ep. 90, and has not been followed up by later scho-
larship.
(11) Posidonius thought the sage abandoned his interest in the arts at some point :
seneCa, Ep. 90.30 : non abduxit, inquam, se, ut Posidonio uidetur, ab istis artis sapiens
190 P. VAN NUFFELEN AND L. VAN HOOF

nal indication for this interpretation : seneca ascribes to Posidonius the view that
agriculture was invented by sages (21), but then goes on to claim that the Golden
age knew no tilling (cum in medio iacerent beneficia naturae promiscue uten-
da, 36) and that all tools (artificia) were absent then. agriculture was thus inven-
ted by sages but not during the Golden age. sages are thus a continuous presen-
ce in the history of mankind and not restricted to the Golden age. What makes
the Golden age stand out is that wisdom and leadership fully coincided, creating
a community that fully lived in line with nature (12).
b) The Golden Age as a pre-technological period. – if one interprets
Posidonius as ascribing the invention of the arts to the wise men of the Golden
age, it is a small step to impute the moral decline that caused the end of that age
of felicity to the introduction of technology (13). such an interpretation implies
that Posidonius would make sages responsible for the decadence of mankind by
having them create the arts. This is a priori unlikely : not foreseeing the conse-
quences of his acts is not what one expects of a stoic sage. a closer look at Letter
90 suggests a more plausible reading : Posidonius depicts the arts as a conse-
quence of the degeneration caused by vice, avarice and luxury. in his summary
of Posidonius’ argument, seneca explicitly states that human law was created by
sages to structure society once the Golden age had ended and vice had taken
hold of mankind (14). The most likely interpretation is that arts fulfilled a similar
function : they were created by sages so as to make life amenable in the face of
the disruption of the ideal, natural life by vice (15). This ties in very well with the
fact, set out above under (a), that Posidonius sees sages at work at least up to the
fifth century : sages continued to use their wisdom to improve the life of their
contemporaries. Thus, for Posidonius the Golden age is a pre-technological
period : arts and technology are created by sages once life in harmony with natu-
re is destroyed and the Golden age has ended (16).

(…). Bees, Die Kulturentstehungslehre [n. 2], p. 16 suggests that the sages withdraw at
the end of the Golden age, but this is contradicted by the sages named by seneca.
(12) seneCa, Ep. 90.4 : Sed primi mortalium quique ex his geniti naturam incorrupti
sequebantur eundem habebant et ducem et legem, commissi melioris arbitrio ; natura est
enim potioribus deteriora summittere.
(13) BOys-sTOnes, Post-Hellenistic Philosophy [n. 3], p. 18-24. This is what seneca,
Ep. 90.8 accuses Posidonius of : Quid ais ? philosophia homines docuit habere clauem et
seram ? Quid aliud erat auaritiae signum dare ? On seneca’s probably unfair criticism of
Posidonius, see Kidd, Posidonius. Commentary [n. 1], i, p. 936.
(14) Cf. seneCa, Ep. 90.6 : postquam subrepentibus uitiis in tyrannidem regna conuer-
sa sunt, opus esse legibus coepit, quas et ipsas inter initia tulere sapientes. see 90.36 for
a statement that attributes the end of the Golden age to auaritia and luxuria.
(15) see also seneCa, Ep. 88.20.
(16) few discussions of seneca’s letter notice this point : seneca disagrees with
Posidonius on the fact that technology is a matter for philosophers, but this does not mean
 POSIDONIUS AND THE GOLDEN AGE 191

at this point we can discuss a recurring issue in the interpretation of the let-
ter. does Posidonius identify two or three stages in mankind’s development ? We
have, so far, implicitly accepted Boys-stones’ argument and that of r. Bees that
only two stages are to be distinguished, that of the Golden age and a phase of
degeneration (17). The three stage interpretation holds that Posidonius identified
a stage of primitive living conditions, then the Golden age, and finally the phase
of degeneration. The latter is mainly based on paragraph 7 of the letter, where
philosophy is said to have helped people who lived in caves to build houses (18).
On the understanding that philosophy was restricted to the Golden age, this is
then taken to imply that there was a primitive stage preceding the Golden age.
in fact, Boys-stones must be right here : the Golden age is characterised by a
life in accordance with nature when the amenities of culture were not needed.
These were only created by sages, as we have argued, when the decline of the
Golden age set in.
c) The Golden Age as a pre-philosophical period? – at the end of the letter
(36-46) seneca argues at length that the earliest people were no sages in the tech-
nical, stoic sense (19), although they acted like them (non erant illi sapientes uiri,
etiamsi faciebant facienda sapientibus, 36). for him, mankind in the Golden age
was sage in an unreflective, pre-philosophical sense. however, this position
seems to conflict with his earlier assent to Posidonius’ description of the leaders
of the Golden age precisely as sages (7). G. Boys-stones proposes to solve this
problem by arguing that seneca is here distancing himself from Posidonius’
position that earliest men were sages and philosophers in the technical sense of

that for Posidonius all the arts were created in the Golden age, as is usually thought : see
Kidd, Posidonius. Commentary [n.1], i, p. 968-969 ; PfLiGersdOrffer, Studien zu
Poseidonios [n. 2], p. 306-307 ; KuBusCh, Aurea Saecula [n. 2], p. 84-85 ; BOys-sTOnes,
Post-Hellenistic Philosophy [n. 3], p. 38 ; d. feeney, Caesar’s Calendar. Ancient Time
and the Beginnings of History, Berkeley, 2007, p. 129-130. rather, the arts are a creation
of the sages when the Golden age declines to help humanity : BLanKerT, Seneca (Epist.
90) [n. 2], p. 125-129 seems to go in that direction. The point is explicitly made by f.-r.
ChauMarTin, Sénèque, lecteur de Posidonius (à propos des lettres 88 et 90) in RÉL 66,
1988, p. 21-28, 26-7.
(17) BOys-sTOnes, Post-Hellenistic Philosophy [n. 3], p. 19-20 ; Bees, Die Kulturent-
stehungslehre [n. 2], p. 25. see also Kidd, Posidonius. Commentary [n. 1], p. 961-965.
(18) seneCa, Ep. 90.7 : ‘Illa’ inquit ‘sparsos et aut casis tectos aut aliqua rupe suffos-
sa aut exesae arboris trunco docuit tecta moliri.’ zaGO, Posidionio e le origini [n. 2],
p. 47-50 is the most recent expositor of the view, which goes back to PfLiGersdOrffer,
Studien zu Poseidonios [n. 2], p. 90. Van sijL, Stoic Philosophy [n. 9], p. 77 ascribes the
three stage interpretation to BLanKerT, Seneca (Epist. 90) [n. 2], p. 98, but he rather iden-
tifies two stages. Van sijL herself does not discuss the issue.
(19) seneCa, Ep. 90.44 : non fuere sapientes, quando hoc iam in opera maximo nomen
est.
192 P. VAN NUFFELEN AND L. VAN HOOF

the word. seneca’s earlier agreement with Posidonius then regarded the more
general outlook of the theory of the Golden age. although this interpretation
cannot be proven wrong, it is far from the only possible one : the positions of
both seneca and Posidonius are far less clear than one would wish for.
first, it is not clear that seneca is actually opposing his own view to that of
Posidonius. When seneca starts to argue that early man was not wise in a tech-
nical sense, he stops his polemic against Posidonius and never refers to him
again (36-46). This not only makes it hard to see how he differs precisely from
his predecessor, but it may also suggest that seneca did not see a major diffe-
rence between himself and his predecessor in this respect. Moreover, there is a
distinct difference in perspective between chapters 36-46 and seneca’s earlier
positive assessment of Posidonius’ theory in chapters 4-6. in the last part of his
letter, seneca focuses on the condition of all men living in the Golden age and
does not say anything about their leaders, whereas chapters 4-6 identify the lead-
ers of mankind during the Golden age as wise men, implying that because of
their wise rule, ordinary man was able to lead a virtuous life. in Posidonius’
theory as summarised by seneca in chapters 4-6, only the leaders were wise, not
every single individual (20). There is thus a distinct difference in emphasis in the
arguments found in the beginning and conclusion of the letter, which leaves open
the possibility that they can be reconciled (21) : rather than refuting Posidonius,
seneca may have the intention to make clear that one should not mistake
Posidonius and himself to have ascribed philosophical wisdom to all of mankind
during the Golden age, whereas both only mean the leaders.
second, it not certain that for Posidonius the sages of the Golden age were
sages in the technical, philosophical sense the term had in stoicism. The list of
sages taken by seneca from Posidonius includes non-technical philosophers
such as solon, Lycurgus, zaleucus, Charondas and anacharsis, as well as
democritus. This suggests that for Posidonius the term ‘sage’ (22) could cover at
once technical philosophers and men traditionally regarded as wise (23). There is
otherwise very little in seneca’s letter to suggest that for Posidonius the leaders
of the Golden age were sages in a strictly philosophical sense. in his description
of Posidonius’ Golden age, seneca consistently talks about sapientes, not philos-
ophers (4-6), and he uses the term philosophia only when arguing against

(20) There is a tendency to think that Posidonius attributed wisdom to all men living
during the Golden age : BOys-sTOnes, Post-Hellenistic Philosophy [n. 3], p. 22 (but see
a slightly different view on p. 45) ; Bees, Die Kulturentstehungslehre [n. 2], p. 18.
(21) note, for example, that in Ep. 90.44 seneca writes that prudentia was absent in
the earliest stage ; in 5 Posidonius is said to ascribe prudentia to the wise rulers of that
period but not to everybody.
(22) On the assumption that seneca’s sapiens translates the Greek sofóv.
(23) see the lexical analysis of BLanKerT, Seneca (Epist. 90) [n. 2], p. 100.
 POSIDONIUS AND THE GOLDEN AGE 193

Posidonius’ thesis that philosophy invented the arts (7). as Blankert argued, phi-
losophia seems to refer in the letter always to the discipline as it has developed
over time and is not a synonym for wisdom (24). This can be taken to imply that
for Posidonius philosophy in the technical sense is only the fruit of the second
stage of mankind and did not exist as such before (25).
There thus exist at least two alternative explanations to the one proposed by
G. Boys-stones : seneca and Posidonius can be in agreement about the fact that
the leaders were philosophers during the Golden age but not every single indi-
vidual ; and Posidonius’ concept of ‘sage’ may be rather diffuse and imprecise,
covering at once philosophical knowledge and non-technical wisdom, which
would place him less in contrast with seneca’s own ideas.
d) Seneca and the early Stoics. – it has been argued that seneca is defending
the early stoic view against Posidonian innovation (26). in fact, we know very
little about either the early stoics or Posidonius in this respect except for what
seneca offers us (27). yet there is at least one point where seneca is taking a view
that is different from earlier stoics. in identifying sages as inventors of arts,
Posidonius is in line with earlier stoics. as is well-known, the stoic sage is often
depicted as the perfect individual who is capable of everything. diogenes of
Babylon (ca. 250-140 B.C.), for example, called the wise man accomplished in
all arts (28). Posidonius also shares with the early stoics the idea that inventions
happened by taking nature as a guide (29). seneca, on the contrary, argues at
length against any involvement of philosophers in the creation of arts. The pre-
cise reasons for this remain unclear. he may have thought it below the dignity of
the philosopher to occupy himself with menial tasks. Moreover, Letter 90 esta-
blishes a strong contrast between philosophical otium and material negotium,
between mind and body, and between the contemplation of nature and the hustle
and bustle of ordinary life (cf. 19, 27-29, 34). This view makes it hard for him to

(24) BLanKerT, Seneca (Epist. 90) [n. 2], p. 100. see also zaGO, Posidionio e le origi-
ni [n. 2], p. 46 n. 7.
(25) see r. hirzeL, Untersuchungen zu Ciceros philosophischen Schriften, 3 Vols.,
Leipzig, 1877-1883, ii, p. 286 ; BLanKerT, Seneca (Epist. 90) [n. 2], p. 89-91, 96-101.
(26) frede, Chaeremon [n. 9], p. 2091 ; BOys-sTOnes, Post-Hellenistic Philosophy
[n. 3], p. 18 ; Van sijL, Stoic Philosophy [n. 9 ], p. 85.
(27) There is a passage in sextus empiricus, Against the Mathematicians 9.28, where
later stoics are said to believe that the first men surpassed us in intelligence and were
capable of apprehending the divine nature.
(28) diOGenes Of BaByLOn, SVF iii.117 : Teléwv mejodikòv o™ kalòv e¬pì pásaiv
gégonen taîv técnaiv. see also horace, Sat. 1.3 l. 124-5 ; Cicero, Fin. 3.75. using these
passages, Bees, Die Kulturentstehungslehre [n.2], p. 18-23 argues that Posidonius is the
orthodox stoic, not seneca. see also K. M. VOGT, Law, Reason, and the Cosmic City.
Political Philosophy in the Early Stoa, Oxford, 2008, p. 111-130.
(29) Cf. CiCerO, De nat. D. 2.57 ; CLeanThes, SVF i.490.
194 P. VAN NUFFELEN AND L. VAN HOOF

accept that philosophers would descend to busying themselves with how to

weave or till the soil (30) : philosophers should focus on the contemplation of the
world. Whatever the precise reason, the result is that he refuses to accept that the
sage would want to have anything to do with technology and arts. This example
shows that one cannot take seneca as merely espousing the view of the early
stoics.
Conclusions. – seneca’s letter does not support a stark contrast between, on
the one hand, an early stoic concept of the Golden age as pre-technological and
pre-philosophical, and, on the other, the Posidonian view of it as a technological
and philosophical age (31). for Posidonius, the Golden age is pre-technological
as well : arts are invented by sages to make life amenable once vice has disrupt-
ed the harmony with nature. sages thus did not only live in the Golden age but
played a crucial role after the end of that period of felicity as well. also, the
Golden age was definitely not philosophical in a general sense. Posidonius does
not think that all individuals living during that period were sages : they were able
to live virtuous lives because of the wise leadership of the sages. it is possible
that these ruler-sages were philosophers in the technical sense of the word, but
this issue cannot be decided. Posidonius’ conception of the sage in the Golden
age as summarised by seneca is too diffuse to allow certain conclusions.
a crucial element in Posidonius’ ideas is that the Golden age is essentially a
pre-cultural period, without laws, political structures and arts – all of which are
created by sages at the moment when this period of blissful life in accordance
with nature is destroyed by vice (32). Culture comes into being when ‘natural’ life
comes to an end and as such marks the distance between man and nature. Culture
thus has an ambivalent status. On the one hand, it is created by sages in line with
their (pre-)philosophical wisdom and as such it is possible to detect traces of
truth in it. On the other hand, culture is linked to vice : it fixes a lamentable dis-
tance between human society and nature, but is needed to avoid that human
society fully disintegrates because of the rise of vice. Culture thus stems the tide
of vice but is also the clearest sign that mankind is not living a life in line with
nature anymore. Posidonius seems to see culture as a whole as the product of the
reaction by the sages to the degeneration they witness. as a consequence, tradi-

(30) in fact, Posidonius apparently did not think that philosophers created the arts
directly themselves : he attributed the invention to the sage but the actual execution to les-
ser individuals (seneCa, Ep. 90.25 : sed minora quam ut ipse tractaret, sordidioribus
ministris dedit).
(31) see C. GiLL, The Structured Self in Hellenistic and Roman Thought, Oxford, 2006,
p. xvi, xix-xx for general comments on the difficulties in distinguishing hellenistic and
Post-hellenistic philosophical concepts.
(32) see the suggestion by Bees, Die Kulturentstehungslehre [n. 2], p. 25.
 POSIDONIUS AND THE GOLDEN AGE 195

tion, as the transmitter of the knowledge of the sages, must contain at least nug-
gets of philosophical knowledge. such sages remain active as benefactors of
mankind for a long time after the end of the Golden age – the last one mentioned
by Posidonius (as summarised by seneca) is democritus (32). This suggests that
there may always be sages and philosophers who can adjust culture so as to bring
mankind more in line with nature again.
similar ideas surface when one looks at the political ideas that seneca
ascribes to Posidonius. in the Golden age, society is ordered according to natu-
ral law, where the inferior are said to submit to the best and most virtuous.
indeed, this submission is declared fully in line with nature : ‘for it is natural for
the lesser to submit to the better’ (Naturae est enim potioribus deteriora sum-
mittere, 4) (33). reference to animals such as bulls and elephants justifies this
subjection, although in that case, it is physical strength that prevails rather than
moral superiority, as with human beings. The wise leaders embodied the law for
their subjects and had unlimited power (quantum uult potest, 4). But contrary to
later examples of monarchy, this power was not abused, precisely because it was
exercised by sages who only did what was morally right. seneca sums this up in
a maxim that is hard to translate : ‘reigning was a service, not a kingdom (or a
rule)’ (officium erat imperare, non regnum, 5). The distinction is clearly meant
to convey a difference between just and unjust rule (34). Thus, in the Golden age,
moral perfection, wisdom, law, and political leadership were combined in one
person in a political construction in line with natural order and law. during the
degeneration of the original period of bliss, however, these identifications start
to unravel. Monarchy becomes tyranny, implying that domination is now based
on violence. as the wise stop ruling the people, positive law, i.e. laws decreed by
human law-givers, becomes necessary and the natural identification of the lead-
er with law is disrupted. just as culture is ambiguous, so is positive law. it is this
ambiguity of culture, we would argue, that underpins the Post-hellenistic ten-
dency to start sifting through tradition to identify the kernel of primitive
wisdom hidden there and to identify the leading philosophers of the past as
having recovered the truths of the Golden age, a tendency admirably charted by
G. Boys-stones.

Ghent University and Peter Van nuffeLen

Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. and Lieve Van hOOf.

(33) echoed by seneca in another letter : Ep. 65.24 : seruiant ergo deteriora meliori-
bus.
(34) Besides the difficulties in distinguishing regnum from imperare, seneca is, more-
over, not consistent in his vocabulary : in the next paragraph (6) he asserts that there were
regna in Golden age.