Avoiding Tyranny Through Education: Plutarch’s, Dio Chrysostom’s, and Seneca’s Drugs for the Illness of the Roman Principatus

From the political and institutional perspectives, the long transition from the Roman Republic to the principatus cannot be conceived as being totally completed in the first century AD. Although it is clear enough that political power had become absolute and the one – the princeps – had achieved the strongest position of power, whereas both the few – the aristocrats – and the many – the mass – had been gradually marginalised from ruling, this absolutism was not still completely shaped from an institutional perspective, particularly with regard to the issue of the choice of the ruler. What is shared among some political authors in this period is a focus on the lack of opportunity – both for the few and the many – in playing a significant role in the appointment process of the princeps. The designation of the ruler is more frequently out of control of the ruled people – both in its aristocratic and popular components – and the spaces of manoeuvre within the political institutions appear drastically smaller. In such a particular context, part of the political literature aims to fix this problem through the specula principis: if there is little space – or not at all – for being involved in the choice of the princeps, it becomes essential to influence the ruler and/or the possible successors with a view to allowing them to be good governors and not cruel tyrants. Starting from this point, this essay analyses, in a comparative perspective, the prince’s educational plots in the Plutarchean political Moralia, the Discourses on Kingship by Dio Chrysostom, and the De Clementia by Seneca, in order to stress the elements of continuity and discontinuity among these works with particular regard to their respective educational solutions to the twofold crucial problem of having a good princeps and avoiding tyranny.