Plutarh i Seneka: dva pristupa tešenju ožalošćenih
Plutarch and Seneca: two approaches to comforting the bereaved

Summary/Abstract: A long tradition of literary consolation in Greece goes back to a scene of Achilles consoling Priamus in the Iliad (24.507‐551), providing a model that would eventually grow out of a single topos and become a genre of its own (λόγος παραμυθητικός, consolatio). Under the influence of rhetoric and philosophy, it gradually took on some elements of poetry and funerary speech, as well as the available philosophical arguments regarding death, soul, fate, necessity etc. Being addressed to a particular person, it often assumed an epistolary form, like in Cicero, Plutarch and Seneca. Crantor from Soli in Cilicia (4‐3rd century BC) was the first to shape it as a specific genre of philosophical essay in his praised treatise On Grief. Equally famous was Cicero’s Consolation, written after his daughter’s death and dedicated to himself. Parts of his Tusculan Disputations are of consolatory nature as well. Seneca and Plutarch are also known to have written several consolatory letters/essays, but only three from each of them have survived: Seneca’s to Polybius, to mother Helivia, and to Marcia, and Plutarch’s to his wife, to Apollonius, and to a friend in exile. In this text parts of Seneca’s Ad Marciam de consolatione and of Plutrach’s Consolatio ad Apollonium are briefly analyzed and compared in an attempt to discern those crucial elements of two consolatory strategies which reveal their differences and similarities. Numerous commonplaces and similarities in approach and style arise from the simple fact that both authors used common models such as Crantor and, possibly, Cicero. It is also tempting to ascribe some of those similarities to a possibility that Plutarch read Seneca’s works on consolation. On the other hand, differences in consolatory strategies do not spring form the arguments presented to the addressee, which are basically the same, but from the general tone and the mood they are presented in. In fact, sometimes the very same arguments and commonplaces reveal very different frames of mind. It is thus shown that Seneca tends to express himself more directly and personally, whereas Plutarch keeps his voice low and restrained. Seneca speaks ad hominem, Plutarch quotes. The former is prone to rhetorical artificiality, the latter is more of an argument‐ treasurer. While Seneca advocates a thorough and uncompromising eradication of all passions, Plutarch is much more compassionate towards human nature and suggests a gradual advancement through constant attention and introspection. Apart from their obvious differences in character and temper, it is interesting to consider the way their different philosophical backgrounds influenced their reasoning in the specific field of consolation.

• Details
• Contents