On an alternative Political Economy (Seneca, Letter 1)

Omnia, Lucili, aliena sunt, tempus tantum nostrum est.--Seneca, Letter 1.

At 280 words -- shorter than most frivolous blog posts -- Seneca's first letter to Lucilius takes full advantage of the economy of Latin prose. Its brevity may, thus, be thought to be an exemplar of what it seems to preach (in the first sentence): not to lose time.* Economy is a major theme of the letter as it explores the nature of possession, scarcity, value, profit, and other familiar economic concepts. In fact, in the brief span of the letter Seneca introduces two conceptions of economy (or axiological frameworks): in one we exchange commodities governed by the values established in the market, that is, uncertain popular opinion; in the second necessary loss reigns.+ Given that Seneca devalues the "foolish" attachments formed in the former (and seems to embrace the latter), we ought to reconsider the idea that losing time is a problem.

In order to teach a political economy that is an alternative to the usual one, Seneca turns to a bit of metaphysics: time is our only intrinsic property--our other properties are alienable. Seneca suggests that time's supreme value is due both to this peculiar fact and the necessity of our mortality. In this first letter, Seneca does not fully explain why the time(s) of our lives is the only such intrinsic property. (One may wonder why not the space of our lives?) If we substitute dying (for time(s) of our lives), the thought presents itself that the reason why the time of our life is our only intrinsic property may be that one's death(s) is the only necessity in a life. (We can, after all, not pay our taxes.) 

Clearly, for Seneca to think or have a name is not necessary.

If time is of the essence, why write 280 words?

The common answer has long been that Seneca wishes to be a tutor/guide, in the first instance to the letters' recipient (if they were intended to be sent at all), who is admonished with precepts to protect [vindica] himself, and, indirectly, to us, the readers. Given that at the time of writing (as presented by Seneca and in reality) the "major part" of his dying, that is his life, has already passed, Seneca is at least in part writing for posterity. In addition, by writing Seneca is marking his true self-knowledge: "I can at least tell you what I lost, and the why and the how; I can give a reckoning of the causes of my poverty." [quid perdam et quare et quemadmodum dicam; causas paupertatis meae reddam.]** 

These three, not necessarily-conflicting purported answers (mentoring, seeking posthumous fame, and marking self-knowledge) have in common that Seneca's words (a) are despite the necessary loss of lived-time sources of value and (b) they do not fit easily, if at all, in the ordinary exchange-economy. Of course, if the student pays a fee for Seneca's mentoring and if posthumous fame relies on (imagined) approbation, then we may not entirely escape the ordinary economy, but there is no evidence that Seneca expects or Lucilius wishes to pay tuition. (In fact, even if leave aside sociological or historical evidence, the letter itself emphasizes the positive valence of gift-giving ) If  we take seriously that (as Seneca asserts) he practices what he preaches then some loss is clearly permitted and may be constitutive of some (enduring) value. Not all words -- even Seneca's -- have this character, of course; the trader and the rhetorician are part of the ordinary economy.

Of course, in the letter Seneca also occupies the ordinary economy. He asks his recipient to persuade himself [Persuade tibi]; Seneca describes himself as a spendthrift [luxuriosum] (although this may also be a play on his intellectual generosity); and he encourages Lucilius to respect ordinary, traditional wisdom and preserve his patrimony.

That is to say, Seneca's alternative political economy is not meant to efface the ordinary exchange economy; despite his evident disdain for it--he is not offering a revolutionary alternative. Even so, his alternative political economy is not Utopian; in its economic, linguistic manifestation and in its embrace of necessity it's resolutely this-worldly.  These characteristics make Seneca timely, now.

 

*In commenting on this very passage, a brilliant reader of Seneca, Brad Inwood, treats Seneca as a "philosopher in a hurry." (xxi) In a similar vein, Gummere titles the first letter "On Saving Time." While these readings have textual support, I believe they do not adopt Seneca's framework.

+If Seneca had been describing a single economy he could have been understood as anticipating an instance of the diamond–water paradox, or the paradox of value.

**We should be cautious about Christianizing Seneca.