[DoctorZeus]

I generally agree - we do want to give people space to privately struggle to reach their professed ideals without risk of public humiliation. But surely that must be balanced with some expectation that a person's actions not be in blatant, large-scale contradiction with those ideals. And if you're at the point where you're preaching asceticism while causing political revolts with your financial excesses, perhaps you've crossed that line.

[rtl49]

I think much of the dissonance we experience when evaluating Seneca's life comes from our separation from his time period. Concerning the particular issue you mention, possibly contributing to rebellion in Britannia by calling for debts to be paid, I can't say I think it reflects a blatant divergence from his professed ideals in itself. (Truthfully, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the rebellion to take a strong stance.) It could be that he called in the debts not expecting the outcome, but once the rebellion started, it was important that it be opposed forcefully in order to avoid establishing precedent. It isn't as though Seneca was living as Caligula did.

In any case, my point is primarily about the focus of the article. It's fine to examine contradictions in a notable person's life, but too few acknowledge that we all have them, and this seems especially true among literary critics. In general, I think people take charges of "hypocrisy" too seriously.