세네카와 원수정체제 : 일인지배의 현실수용과 폭정에의 저항성 문제를 중심으로

Abstract

Officially, Seneca was punished as one of the participants in the conspiracy against Nero's life, though he was allowed to take his own life. But the question of his guilt or innocence is one which cannot be answered conclusively. The Tacitean quotation of rumor about the Pisonian Conspiracy shows that even as early as his age it was not easy to trace Senecan involvement. Whether Seneca became a party to the scheme has always been disputed. Even though there is plenty of room for debating the degree of Seneca's complicity, an inspection of his works confirms that it is not because he dreamed of restoring Republican libertas that he got involved in the conspiracy. Seneca entertained no serious hope of restoring the Republic and accepted the necessity of the Principate. Especially in De Clementia Seneca gave a philosophical justification of monarchy, hoping it would be tempered with mercy and moderation. But at the same time, it cannot be denied that his treaties and tragedies are significantly redolent with political gloom. There is much talk of hatefulness of tyrants, of suicide as a refuge from tyranny, and even of tyrannicide as an ultimate solution. Especially his tragedies are filled with characters who wield arbitrary and tyrannical power. And given the abundance of Roman elements in Senecan drama, it is natural to ask whether the plays contain a specifically Roman significance or level of meaning directed to contemporary Rome. In the light of his tragedies, whereas he regarded the change to the Principate as irrevocable and approved of the Principate as a form of government, Seneca had a fear of the personal and political harm which could spread from a corrupt and cruel man in power. In considering his sense of fear, it must be kept in mind that for Seneca, the autocrat of evil will was not a theoretical construct from academic philosophy. He had known and experienced more than one such ruler even before his close association with Nero. In spite of his latent fear of tyrannical governance, in the early years of Nero's reign Seneca seemed to harbor expectations of advising the young emperor in a very correct way and on very lofty matters. But the death of Burrus and the consequent loss of influence by Seneca marked the turning point of Nero's reign. Even before that time, the death of Agrippina dealt a minatory blow to any remaining hopes. The increasing bitterness and anxiety that Seneca was feeling about Nero's wayward personal and public behavior may have driven him ultimately to some form of involvement in the Pisonian Conspiracy of 65. It is not impossible to assume that Seneca's professed idea that it is justified to kill a man vicious beyond redemption in Seneca's works permits such direct action.