The Importance of Stoic Ideas of Cosmopolitanism in the Greco-Roman World

It is indisputable that Stoic ideas of Cosmopolitanism were of substantial importance in the Greco-Rome world, but the limits of this importance and thus the relevance and longevity of its associating propositions attract debate. The discussions concerning Cosmopolitanism’s importance stem largely from the multi-faceted, complex nature of this era, with notions such as citizenship and legal rights developing alongside the abstract concepts put forth by Epictetus and Aristotle. Consequently, the period of classical antiquity gave rise to a new lease of thought, albeit sometimes paradoxical and competing, in many societal sectors which yielded great influence throughout Europe, North Africa and Western Asia by way of Roman imperialism. On account of the era’s diverse nature, this essay will propose that Stoic ideas of Cosmopolitanism were of sizeable importance in the context of greater society, and were fundamental in the philosophical sector in providing an alternative to Aristotle’s ideas of human fulfilment evolving from community contribution. This conclusion will be reached through evaluating Cosmopolitan’s contributions to society, alongside those of Aristotle’s and developments in the socio-political and legal arena.

Due to the extensive nature of Cosmopolitanism, its influence can be split into two categories; individual importance and societal importance. When assessing the importance these notions pertained to the individual in the Greco-Roman era, it is evident propositions of human beings existing as ‘citizens of the world’ (kosmopolitês) and as members of a divine household held religious significance. Greek Stoic philosopher, Epictetus, proposed individuals were to be perceived as equal parts working in the overarching system of a divine common wealth as children of God. As a result, the divine in another person could be honoured by treating them as a rational human being, even if the person was perceived as being subordinate. Stoic propositions of logos were carried through as the preincarnate Jesus in John 1, which saw Jesus depicted as being the Divine Reason through which the universe was created. The all-encompassing nature of Cosmopolitanism also came to be reiterated by New Testament writers who stated that, regardless of ethnic and class distinctions, all of humanity could be part of the believers in Jesus.This concept of equality was summarised in Galatians 3.28 “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” and Ephesians 2.19 “so then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God.” It is thus clear Stoic thought held great importance in the Greco-Roman era as its propositions provided religious guidance for the individual, and played an integral role in the early development of Christianity.

In terms of importance to the individual, arguments were also put forth suggesting isolating oneself to solely community deprived humans of reaching their full potential, and that an individual’s primary allegiance lies towards the global world of human beings; human beings that innately possessed equal rights and general value. Stoic philosophers, such as Hierocles, provided models for individual fulfilment as it was advised that humans perceived themselves as the centre of a series of concentric circles, with the closest circle consisting of immediate family and the furthest away posing as humanity and, only in drawing these circles closer to oneself and universally using the phrase ‘family’, can potential be reached. Cosmopolitanism was thus important to the individual during the Greco-Roman era as it served as the basis for identity and moral guidance, providing guidance for oneself and answers to philosophical questions concerning purpose and reason.

Similarly, the influence of Cosmopolitanism was also strong in communities as Stoic thought reflected the increasing independence of provinces and, in turn, a broader sense of local community instead of empirical belonging. Developing alongside this shift, Stoic thought proposed that one’s state of mind (Oikeiôsis) could be found in the appropriate level of community and, only in discovering a fitting level of belonging, can one live a full life through cultivating courteous relationships with their surroundings. The issue of community was address by Seneca the Younger: “There are two communities-the one, which is great and truly common embracing gods and human beings, in which we look neither to this corner nor to that, but measure the boundaries of our state by the sun; the other, the one to which we have been assigned by the accident of our birth.” Consequently, it again appears that Cosmopolitanism was important in the Greco-Roman era for not only advising on how the individual can personally be fulfilled through virtue and faith, but also the extent in which oneself must integrate with the greater community to possess a shared morality.

However, without considering Aristotle’s opposing school it proves harder to contextualise Stoic thought as no alternative is provided, thus making an understanding of opposing notions crucial in appreciating Cosmopolitanism’s importance. In doing so, it must also be acknowledged that Aristotle’s school of thought was highly influential external of a Stoic context. Differences in thought stemmed from the fact Aristotle maintained that the city-state was the most complete community, as it attained the limit of self-sufficiency so that it could exist for the sake of the good life. Individuals who excluded themselves from the city-state were not self-sufficient, as they depended on the community for material necessities and moral and educational habituation, as alluded to in the quote “just as, when perfected, a human is the best of animals, so also when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all.” This proposition would have been of importance in ancient Greece as it outlined the concepts of thought which Cosmopolitanism would come to disagree with. It’s contrasting principles of human fulfilment stemming from contribution to a city-state and subjection to authority were highlighted with the emergence of Stoic thought, thus making both schools important throughout Classic Antiquity in providing multiple forms of moral guidance. Aristotle’s insistence of the necessity of a ruling presence, which he explained in the statement “whenever a thing is established out of a number of things and becomes a single common thing, there always appears in it a ruler and ruled …. This [relation] is present in living things, but it derives from all of nature” also contrasted with Cosmopolitanism’s religious core, as Stoic thought proposed the Cosmo polis were answerable to God as opposed to a community authority, and were allied with humanity, not the city-state. When evaluating the importance of Cosmopolitanism in the Greco-Roman world, it is thus evident Stoic thought is important, but only as important as preceding notions of a city-state as without the contributions of Aristotle, Cosmopolitanism might not have had such a strong base to develop alternative thought from. Therefore, Cosmopolitanism was one of a series of important philosophical developments that emerged in the period of classic antiquity. The importance of these competing notions was reflected as early as 441BC, as the boundaries between individual self-assertion and collective authority were explored in the Greek play, Antigone by Sophocles. Such performances enabled the community to reflect on prominent issues of the present-day state as they provided an original, thought-provoking perspective on perennial, endemic dilemmas, thus further indicating Cosmopolitanism’s influence on Greco-Roman society.

Furthermore, it is crucial the socio-political and legal aspects of the classical era are assessed in further understanding the significance of Cosmopolitanism, as factors of a non-philosophical nature would have also shaped key Greco-Roman developments, thus potentially lessening the relative importance of Stoic thought. Socio-politically, concepts of the polis and citizenship came to be defining features of the era, with advancements made throughout the Greek and Roman period establishing the foundations of key institutions. In classical Greece, the polis was perceived as a place where citizens could meet, market, debate and vote, alongside it being at the core of a culture (paideia) which would be circulated through education. Gymnasiums provided citizens with the opportunity to cultivate themselves both physically and intellectually as rhetoric, letters and morals were learned through the imitation of living and textual exemplars. Consequently, common cultural values were shared within a polis and the organisation of religion by its members provided citizens with a sense of individual and communal identity; “one was not Greek so much as one was Athenian or Spartan.” This could imply Stoic ideas of Cosmopolitanism were not as important as previously indicated, as perhaps it was the polis that lay at the forefront of moral and religious guidance, and that philosophical thought may have merely reflected the role of political institutions.

Moreover, citizenship was indicative of growing Roman imperialist ambition and hierarchical structures. Initially, it was believed that citizenship was defined by external social markers, not human nature, and citizens were bound together by community. Whilst only those with a stake in the state, typically through property ownership, were involved with decision making, citizens possessed the right to vote, judge, elect and participate in civil roles, which meant it was common for ill qualified people to hold authority in certain sectors (arguably one of the reasons Athens lost the Peloponnesian Wars). Whilst Metics did not possess full citizenship, a concession package was provided. However, as the Roman Empire expanded rapidly, geographical boundaries prompted debates as to whether the entirety of the empire would be Romanised, or whether common ground should be established that identified an overarching Roman citizenship whilst maintaining local traditions. Although, similar to Greece, citizenship was perceived as a privileged political and legal status which was afforded to free individuals and dictated law, property and governance.

Those excluded from this category were slaves and women; both of whom could not vote, or stand for public/civil office. In terms of slavery, justification was of a deterministic nature and stemmed from Aristotle’s propositions of natural slavery in which he defined slaves as, “anyone who, while being human, is by nature not his own but of someone else…”. This could indicate Cosmopolitanism was not of great importance as it was Aristotle’s, not Stoic, thought that rationalised the institution of slavery as the core elements of Cosmopolitanism fundamentally objected to this hierarchy. Likewise, it does not appear that Cosmopolitanism was significant in the status of women in the Greco-Roman world as rights were heavily gendered, as women could not own property, engage in commerce, partake in leadership positions in religion or represent themselves in court. This suggests the all-encompassing nature present in Stoic thought, that regarded humans as ‘brothers’ and held as its core equality, freedom and independence, failed to transcend throughout society as the distinctions between citizens, slaves and women superseded notions of egalitarianism and was instead better maintained by Aristotle’s natural slavery argument.

It is also worth considering the role of legal institutions in understanding why Cosmopolitanism was perhaps of lesser importance in the Greco-Roman world. According to prominent Roman jurist, Ulpian, “justice is the will to give each person what they are due” and “law is the art of the good and the fair” which, in his opinion, made jurists the priests of the temple of law. This was as Roman law; a highly complex and specified system, protected individual and legal rights, which flourished across the Roman world and came to be perceived as a code upon which moral dilemmas could be solved through the application of the edictum perpetuum. This code was dictated by common sense and the natural reason shared by all men, allowing ius gentium to be identified by natural law. The fact the legal code provided moral guidance could further imply Cosmopolitanism was not of great significance in the Greco-Roman world, as it can be argued Stoic thought might not have monopolised individual autonomy and the way in which people lived their lives to the extent legal institutions did. This is as the code of law advised on topics such as fairness and conduct, potentially making Cosmopolitanism’s purpose redundant.

However, upon reviewing Ulpian’s writings there is evidence of his propositions being highly influenced by Stoicism, which could conversely imply the moral guidance quality of Cosmopolitanism shaped legal developments. It can therefore be argued that when assessing Cosmopolitanism’s importance as merely a theory its significance is not immediately clear, but when examining the ways in which Stoic thought was incorporated into legal, and socio-political framework, the school appears considerably more poignant.

To conclude, it is evident Stoic ideas of Cosmopolitanism were important in philosophical, socio-political and legal contexts during the Greco-Roman world. When considered in isolation, the school’s importance is less apparent as without the contrasting ideological arguments put forth by Aristotle, Stoic notions lack a substructure off which alternative arguments can flourish. This delayed relevance also applies when socio-political and legal institutions in classical antiquity are assessed, as the moral guidance these societal sectors would have provided potentially made Cosmopolitanism’s recommendations for living a fulfilled life less favourable to what non-philosophical establishments advised. However, it appears these two areas were not mutually exclusive, as evidenced by Ulpian’s incorporation of Stoicism into his own legal principles. It can thus be determined that the importance of a faction unrelated to Cosmopolitanism did not annul the belief’s importance, as the exhaustive nature of Stoic thought meant it transcended the philosophical arena and came to immerse itself into the core of society. Fundamentally, whilst Cosmopolitanism was not superior to juxtaposing philosophical arguments, the school was of immense importance nonetheless and, although Stoic notions were not as explicitly significant in the socio-political and legal arena, the theory was somewhat engulfed in developments in these realms thus indicating it was important to the general Greco-Roman population.