Most philosophers get it wrong about revenge, and Seneca (4 BC-65 AD) was no exception. In his dialogues titled “On Anger” and “On Clemency,” he recommended to forget injury and insult, and abandon the idea of revenge.

Seneca gave convoluted arguments against revenge. He said that, if we seek revenge, we’ll become “slaves to our passions.” He also categorized revengeful individuals as irrational, short-sighted, and self-destructive.

His dialogue “On Anger” goes as far as calling the revenge “an emotional plague” that has inflicted vast damage in history. He calls for abandoning all revengeful attempts and thoughts.

Was Seneca right in his admonitions? His condemnation of revenge is similar to the Christian doctrine. We can regard him as a precursor or fellow traveller of Christianity in this respect.

I must however dissent on this matter. I don’t share Seneca’s recommendations in this area because his arguments are weak. In his argumentation, he tells us many stories, but those remain unconvincing.

For instance, in his dialogue “On Clemency,” Seneca praises Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) for pardoning his enemies instead of taking revenge. Caesar did indeed pardon many opponents, including Brutus and Cassius. However, those two later plotted against him and ended up assassinating him.

Seneca’s praise for Caesar and Augustus

Seneca’s praise for Caesar magnanimity does not match the course of events. It seems obvious that Caesar should have taken revenge, however mild, to prevent his opponents from plotting against him in the future. His magnanimity did him in, one could argue.

I find Seneca’s story about Licinius even less convincing. If we trust the traditional version of the story, the poet Licinius had insulted Emperor Augustus (63 BC- 14 AD) and feared to be punished with exile or worse.

Seneca praised Augustus because, instead of punishing the poet, he invited him for dinner and made him change his mind. As of that day, Licinius would only speak positive words about Augustus.

I fail to see any logic in Seneca’s argument about Licinius. I regard Augustus’ dinner invitation as the perfect revenge. He didn’t need to exercise violence to get his point across.

Augustus just called Licinius for a private conversation and made some veiled threats; those proved more than sufficient to solve the problem and intimidate others who, like Licinius, might feel discontented about Augustus.

The soft exercise of power proved the perfect revenge. It is counterproductive to engage in vendettas that will compound the problem, but why not seek a clever revenge that prevents the problem from recurring?

Seneca about Alexander the Great and Themistocles

Seneca wrote in his dialogue “On Anger” that he considered revenge “a sign of emotional weakness” and “lack of wisdom.” To prove his point, he gives examples of individuals behaving stupidly, such as Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) getting drunk and then killing his friend Cleitus during a discussion.

The example only shows that drunkards do all sort of stupid things because they are unable to think clearly. I would not call Alexander’s reaction as “revenge” because he didn’t know what he was doing.

If Alexander had been sober, it is obvious that he would not have killed his friend for making a comment. Chances are that Alexander would have given careful thought to Cleitus’ words and looked for a clever solution.

Seneca seems to have forgotten that Aristotle (384-322 BC) had been the teacher of Alexander the Great, instilling in him a sound logic and curiosity. It’s regrettable that Alexander would get drunk at times, but drunkenness does not constitute a valid argument against revenge.

What about Themistocles (524-459 BC) and his decision to forget the mistreatment he had suffered in Athens? His actions had protected Athens against the Persian invasion, but then his compatriots had turned against him and harmed his reputation.

I think that the example of Themistocles proves exactly the opposite. Confronted with the tortious attitude of the Athenians and the attack against his reputation, he wisely opted for going away and offering his services to the Persian king Artaxerxes I.

Seneca’s doctrine applied to Scipio Africanus

Themistocles exercised his revenge by simply sailing away, and seeking someone who would appreciate his skills. Without his skills, Athens grew weaker, and was defeated and enslaved.

His revenge was clever enough. By leaving his offenders to their own devices, they ended up digging their own graves. Let us learn the correct lesson from the story recounted by Seneca.

Seneca also drew the wrong conclusions from the story of Scipio Africanus (236-183 BC). He praised Scipio for leaving Carthage standing after the war, instead of destroying it totally.

However, he overlooks that Scipio’s magnanimity enabled Carthage to resurge and engage new hostilities. I wonder what would have happened if Scipio had acted more determinedly. If he had assessed the future risk, he might have made a different decision.

Seneca should have advocated a thoughtful response in each case, which doesn’t necessarily mean a renunciation of revenge and recovery of damages; reason should determine the optimal response in each situation.

Emperor Nero (37-68 AD) proved a cruel psychopath who was to blame for many abuses. I will just mention the unjust deaths of his stepbrother Britannicus (41-55 AD), of general Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo (7-67 AD), and of Seneca himself.

If someone had found a peaceful, clever way to stop Nero, I cannot imagine that Seneca would have condemned him. Many innocent lives would have been saved and history might have taken a better course.

Let us work for tolerance and peacefulness, but in this area, we should take Seneca’s advice with a grain of salt. I am afraid that his historical examples lead to conclusions that oppose or undermine his own arguments.

If you are interested in putting rational ideas into practice in all sorts of situations, I recommend my book “Undisrupted: How highly effective people deal with disruptions.”