Seneca

by Emily Wilson

This book traces the eventful life of Seneca, the Roman philosopher, dramatist, essayist and rhetorician of the first century CE, who came from Spain to Rome, spent his youth in Egypt, was exiled to Corsica under Claudius but recalled after eight years, and rose to dizzying heights of wealth, power and social influence under Nero, before falling from favour and being forced to kill himself. The book analyzes the relationship of Seneca's life story to his literary self-fashioning, and the tensions between the external worlds of politics, consumerism, and social success, with the Stoic ideals of asceticism, virtue and self-control.

Genres: History, Biography, Philosophy, Nonfiction, Classics, Ancient History, Historical

272 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2014

About the author

Emily R. Wilson (b. 1971) is a Professor in the Department of Classical Studies and Chair of the Program in Comparative Literature and Literary Theory. She has a BA from Oxford in Classics, an M. Phil., also from Oxford, in English Literature (1500-1660), and a Ph.D. from Yale in Classics and Comparative Literature. Her first book was Mocked with Death: Tragic overliving from Sophocles to Milton (Johns Hopkins, 2004). Her second book was The Death of Socrates: Hero, Villain, Chatterbox, Saint (Harvard UP 2007). Her third was "Seneca: A Life" (also published in the US as "The Greatest Empire": Penguin/ OUP USA, 2015). She has published verse translations of Seneca's tragedies (Oxford World's Classics), Euripides ("The Greek Plays", Modern Library Random House), and The Odyssey (Norton, fall 2017). Other publications include various chapters and articles on the reception of classical literature in English literature, and reviews in the TLS and LRB. She is the classics editor for the revised Norton Anthology of World Literature, and Western Literature.

Reviews

[Valeriu Gherghel · Rating 4 out of 5]

O biografie excelentă. Din păcate, Alexandru Suter, traducătorul cărții, nu este la înălțimea biografiei pe care a tradus-o (destul de anapoda). Vezi PS-ul... Citatele din Seneca au fost tălmăcite de Ioana Costa, firește, dar nicăieri nu ni se spune lucrul ăsta, ca și cum ar fi ceva cunoscut de întreaga umanitate. Și alți clasiciști români l-au tradus pe Seneca (printre ei Paula Bălașa, Eugen Cizek, Gheorghe Guțu etc.)

Am cules cîteva informații despre filosof:

- Suferea de astm sau de tuberculoză pulmonară (p.88).
- Avea crize cumplite de anxietate, „manifestări patologice de anxietate”, citim la p.90; Emily Wilson deduce asta din tragediile lui Seneca, ceea ce mi se pare o greșeală. E ca și cum ai reconstitui viața lui Shakespeare urmărind cu atenție monologul lui Hamlet. Sau replicile lui Falstaff.
- Împărăteasa Valeria Messalina l-a urît de moarte pe Seneca, dar Claudius s-a mulțumit să-l exileze în Corsica, în anul 42 (p.120, p.144 etc.).
- Deși a predicat sărăcia, Seneca a strîns o avere de 350 de milioane de sesterți (p.168, p.177 etc.). Un ostaș roman (un legionar) primea 900 de sesterți pe an. Filosoful a fost proprietar de pămînturi (darurile otrăvite ale lui Nero), s-a ocupat cu cămătăria, a fost vînzător de moșteniri (p.192). Urît!
- Ca să-și mențină sănătatea, alerga zilnic (un sclav îi ținea companie), făcea gimnastică, ridica greutăți (p.253).
- Mulți l-au acuzat de ipocrizie (p.299). Și au avut dreptate. Între ceea ce a spus Seneca și ceea ce a făcut se cască un abis. În opinia mea, un filosof nu are ce căuta în politică. Intră deștept și iese întotdeauna prost. Așa s-a întîmplat și cu Seneca. A fost o vreme principalul consilier al împăratului Nero.

Prin cărțile pe care le scoate în ultima vreme, Editura Seneca Lucius Annaeus l-a transformat pe bietul filosof stoic într-un produs de larg consum, un soi de Seneca en miettes. Mă refer la micile antologii Alt timp nu am (2014), Asta a spus Seneca. Tu ce spui? Carte de citate (2018).

Ce spun eu? Mă feresc să mai spun ceva. Nu mai am de mult curajul ăsta...

P. S. În fine, nu ai voie să formulezi în românește enunțuri / sintagme precum:
- Crezul lui Seneca nu era „asimilabil dezinenței politice” (p.223). Dezinență nu e totuna cu disidență.
- Seneca spune că înțeleptul trebuie să trăiască o „perfectă stare de tranchilitate” (p.297).
- Stoicismul a fost „un instrument de sedare” (p.301).
- „confesie” (p.185).
În consecință, traducerea merită doar o steluță...

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

The more biographies I read, the more I realise that Great men are remembered not for the truth, but for the image that they created. From Michelangelo, with his embellished autobiography, to Napoleon with the falsified battle reports and propaganda paintings, Seneca is no different.

All of his works are carefully constructed, acting as public performance to display his Roman morals. For example, his letter to his mother, which he wrote during his exile to Corsica, outlines the traditional modes of overcoming grief and emotional disturbance, something which Seneca succeeded in when discussing the death of his son, who died in infancy.

When juxtaposed with how Seneca actually lived, it is not surprising that he falls short when compared to Rufus, Epictetus, or Aurelius. Seneca moulded the Stoic doctrine to align to his circumstance: being rich becomes a prefered indifference.

However, Seneca was stuck between the political pressures of the early Roman Empire and the stoic ideals that he lamented over. Only through his letters and plays could he express these, however concealed they were. As the pressure of Nero increased, this need for freedom increased. Eventually, Nero outgrew Seneca, and denied him life. Seneca killed himself, not as a Stoic sage, but as a man who tried his best to live the stoic principles during a time where speaking, or not speaking, would get you killed.

"One can also admire the ways that he kept trying, despite his failures- just as he had done in life, in his constant attempts to continue along the path of philosophical virtue." (p.231).

[Elizabeth · Rating 4 out of 5]

I almost never read biographies; they're just not a genre I care for all that much. I decided to read this one because I've enjoyed reading some of Seneca's own writings; I read Dying Every Day: Seneca at the Court of Nero in 2014 and wanted to read another writer's take on Seneca; and I'm doing a book challenge that calls for a biography. So I was pleasantly surprised that I really liked this book.

As its title says, Dying Every Day focuses only on one period in Seneca's life. Wilson writes about the entirety of Seneca's life. And since there are lots of gaps in what we know about his life, even the best-documented bits, she writes about other things, giving a context for Seneca's life. So I learned a bit about childhood in a wealthy Roman family, about Seneca's family members, about the role of rhetoric in Roman life, etc. Wilson analyzes Seneca's writings, pairing a philosophical work with a tragedy, and trying to correlate them with what was going on in his life at the time (dating most of his writings is a challenge). The epilogue connects Seneca to the present day, tracing the influence of his writings through the centuries after his death, both in drama and philosophy. (I admit being most interested in the connection with The Hunger Games!) Wilson is tackling a complicated subject—there's philosophy, literary criticism, and history in all this—but I thought her writing style was readable, not dull and academic. Recommended, assuming you'd be interested in this topic in the first place.

[Robert · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Greatest Empire is an excellent biographical account of Seneca, the Roman philosopher and advisor to Nero. It draws on known facts and makes good use of Seneca's writings to flesh out the gaps, notably his essays and his plays.

I've reviewed other books about Seneca and Roman stoics recently, so I want to spend a little time here focusing on a few issues rather than taking on Wilson's book as a whole. If you are interested in Rome, the emperor's, or stoicism, by all means read it yourself. The best chapter is the epilogue, which traces Seneca's influence over the subsequent 2,000 years.

The Greatest Empire refers to Seneca's contention to that the inner life was much more important than external affairs. His life problems, of course, were that he ran afoul of the emperor Claudius and after compromising himself as Nero's apologist, he received Nero's order to commit suicide, an order he obeyed. Nonetheless he lived into his 60s, wrote widely and extensively, and became fabulously wealthy, all of which represents his quick wits, pliability, and intellectual energy.

The major question about Seneca is whether he was a hypocrite, dismissing worldly affairs in his writings while submerging himself in them in his personal comings and goings. At least, he was a compromised individual. More generously, one might say he was overwhelmed by imperial power and didn't always have much choice about his fate, except in what he wrote. But something occurs to me when I compare the stoic emperor Marcus Aurelius with Seneca. Seneca's writing is polished, clever, virtually a new style of writing Latin (he was a key figure in what is known as the Silver Age of Latin literature). Marcus Aurelius didn't conceive of himself as a major literary or philosophical figure,but he wrote much more directly and honestly about his struggles.

This leads one to the question not so much of Seneca's hypocrisy as his staginess, his coyness, his loftiness. There is a great, great deal of wisdom in his writing and it includes spectacular self-awareness and depth perception in terms of human nature in general. But as a reader, does one trust him, does one take him to heart, does one feel on some kind of a level with him?

In a way, all pronounced exercises in literary style must meet two tests: One test is transient and the results rise and fall with time. By that I mean tastes change. Going in and out of fashion is an unreliable measure of an author's worth. More important is the issue of whether an author's style emerges out of a desire to take a reader into his depths or is designed to delight and intrigue the reader at a distance. In a sense, this makes us judge a writer's honesty, whether he is writing for show and admiration or in search of connection and communication. The Greatest Empire as a phrase conveys something of what I mean. It's a ludicrous phrase, grand, pretentious, and somewhat empty.

One more point, however: it has to be conceded that as the ancient Greeks felt less in control of their fate, they became more inward-looking and, to use Seneca's favorite word, indifferent to what was going on in the world around them. The same thing happened in Rome under the Caesars. There was a still a Senate,but it had no power. This rendered the nobility much less influential and certainly encouraged a philosophy of indifference such as Stoicism. So Seneca was compromised, twisted, and tormented by enormous political forces that no one--in fact, not even emperors--could bring to heel. In this context, what we have is not so much an issue of the validity of Seneca's writing but a connection to his mortal personality, one we may not like. He was just a man, and no matter how showy he could be, he seems to have realized that.

[Grady · Rating 3 out of 5]

This literary biography of the Stoic Roman philosopher Seneca would probably be of greatest value to someone who has read (or even better, has read and is familiar with) one or more of Seneca's works. Even without that, I found the book a helpful introduction to Seneca's life, though the close readings of his works, always placed in the context of his life, were sometimes slow going. Wilson balances an appreciation for Seneca's abilities and intelligence with an acknowledgment of his less pleasant qualities - egoism, constant image-crafting, and bland acceptance of the gross inequities of the Roman Empire. The epilogue is immensely useful, briefly charting Seneca's cultural and intellectual impact since his death, down to his place in the current Stoic revival.

I belong to a current political tradition that holds one cannot think seriously about ethics without contemplating its relationship to privilege and the social distribution of power and opportunity. Seneca doesn't measure up well against that highly anachronistic standard: he served as tutor and advisor to Nero, was implicated in some of his crimes, and accumulated grotesque wealth from his high office held at the emperor's pleasure. And yet, Wilson points out, at the moments when Seneca depicted himself practicing restraint and moderation, he was living an immensely privileged existence, dependent on dozens of slaves to prepare and serve him 'simple food' while he contemplated his virtue. Wilson presents Seneca as constantly critiquing himself; it is less clear whether this was sincere on the Roman's part, or just another way of buffing his literary persona. The combination of obliviousness to modern concerns about social justice, and obsessive concern about personal freedom and image crafting, make Seneca much less appealling as a model for how to live than his near-contemporaries Musonius Rufus and Epictetus.

[Larry (LPosse1) · Rating 5 out of 5]

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
A Stunning, Complex Portrait of Seneca

This amazing book blew me away. I first attempted to read The Greatest Empire more than a year ago, right at the beginning of my deep dive into Stoic philosophy. At the time, I found myself lost in the seriousness and abstraction that often pervades modern Stoic study and the Broicism that is seeded in popular culture. I’m so glad I gave it another try last month—what a rewarding experience.

My re-entry point into Seneca’s world came through James Romm’s Dying Every Day, a fascinating account of Seneca’s time in Nero’s court. That book served as a powerful appetizer. Emily Wilson’s The Greatest Empire is the full feast: a brilliant, deeply researched biography that covers the full span of Seneca’s life with nuance, style, and insight.

Many readers may know Wilson for her acclaimed translations of The Odyssey and The Iliad—the latter is one of my personal favorites. In The Greatest Empire, she brings the same sharp intellect and literary elegance to bear on a very different kind of figure. The book is intellectually challenging, yet imminently accessible. It feels culturally relevant in surprising ways—Wilson’s comparisons to modern works like The Hunger Games are not just clever but thought-provoking.

To be honest, I still have mixed feelings about Seneca the man. Philosophically speaking, I find myself more drawn to Epictetus and Musonius Rufus. But Wilson doesn’t shy away from Seneca’s contradictions. In fact, she leans into them, offering a portrait of a man who was at once deeply philosophical and politically entangled, morally ambitious and morally compromised. As she powerfully argues, Seneca’s complexity is precisely what makes him worth studying today.

Emily Wilson has written not just a biography, but a meditation on power, compromise, and the messy business of trying to live ethically in an unethical world. Highly recommended for readers of philosophy, history, and literature alike.

[Andrew Carr · Rating 3 out of 5]

Seneca is one of those beguiling figures of history, whose words went one way, and deeds often another. That's one thing for a famous politician, quite another for a famous philosopher! "A Life of Seneca" is a wise and humane account of this Roman stoic. Both of his writing, and of his notable career as tutor to the emperor Nero.

I'd been meaning to read this book for a few years as part of my general interest in the Stoics, though having recently read Wilson's brilliant translation of Homer's The Odyssey, this became a must read. Wilson is a fantastic guide to Seneca. Her writing is both steeped enough in the history and archaeology to tell us about the real man. Yet she is sage and compassionate in exploring who Seneca was trying to be and become through his writing.

Many famous people have a vast gap between reality and reputation, but Seneca is fascinating because he was aware of it - even if often approaching the subject obliquely. This is part of why his works have come down to us and remain so treasured by millions. In a classical world often remembered for its god-like figures, Seneca is genuinely human. And he will have few more thoughtful interpreters than Wilson.

[Vincent Li · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the better biographies of an ancient roman I've read. The book feels more substantial and scholarly than more popular biographies such as Everitt's Cicero. I prefered Wilson's strategy of filling in gaps through hints in Seneca's literary work than general historical approach that Everitt takes. For example, Everitt discusses Cicero's childhood by drawing inferences from the typical Roman childhood, Wilson focuses on Seneca's writing on his own childhood (he portrays himself as self-made, even though he came from a wealthy provincial equestrian background) as well as the surviving works by Seneca's father on rhetoric to draw conclusions. I particularly enjoyed the extended discussion by Wilson on the practice of declamation, where young Romans would argue various hypotheticals in public to practice their rhetoric. Even during the height of the declamation craze (where youngest often argued in public, and it was treated as a competitive sport), declamation was criticized as overly focused on inane hypotheticals. I particularly enjoyed this detour as a law student, declamation and its criticisms are highly applicable to the "hypos" professors subject law students to.

The book can properly be summarized as a literary biography, and I feel like I would have benefited if I had more exposure to the primary materials (though this biography has made me want to pick up Anger, Mercy, and Revenge again). In fact, the book reads like an extended thesis on Seneca's psyche through his literary work, but this is a positive not a negative. Wilson is generally nuanced when it comes to historical description (for example, she does not take a stance on if Seneca actually committed the adultery he was exiled for, laying out evidence on both sides without weighing in herself) and discusses the various sources for general historical claims. Wilson places Seneca's major works in the context of the phase of life he was in and the historical context. For example, Wilson sees On Benefits, as Seneca's attempt to understand and explain his reaction to Nero's murder of Agrippina, who recalled Seneca from exile (Seneca argues how certain benefits are not really benefits because he is indifferent to them, and the subtle obligations that benefits create). Wilson interprets On Anger, and On Mercy as Seneca's attempts to guide a young Nero (On Mercy cleverly praising and guiding at the same time by praising qualities that Seneca claimed already existed in Nero). Seneca's works on nature are interpreted as an attempt to get away from courtly matters by zooming out into the universe, and his tragedies are treated as semi-autobiographical. However, Wilson does not entirely read Seneca literally. A prevailing theme throughout the book is the "theatricality" of Seneca's writing, Seneca writes in a sort of doublespeak (which Wilson argues is result of courtly life at this time, where the Emperor still paid homage to traditional Roman power structures while everyone knew that the emperor had all the power) and in ways the writing is contrived. For example, while in exile, Seneca wrote his mother a letter, which was really meant to be read by the general public. In it, he effusively praises his mother's chastity (Wilson argues this is an echo of the adultery charge that was leveled against Seneca), and complains about his exile in a horrible rocky island without civilization (incidentally earning the ire of Corsicans forever). Wilson notes that even at Seneca's time, there would have been a thriving civilization on the island, and Seneca was allowed to bring a retinue. Wilson notes that several times Seneca ratherly dramatically claims to have desired to want to kill himself, but was only stopped by his selfless thoughts of leaving his loved ones behind (first his father, than his wife).

Another prevailing theme of the biography are the charges of hypocrisy against Seneca. Wilson does not try to rationalize or justify the various times that the wise Seneca seems particularly pathetic. For example, Wilson criticizes how Seneca groves before Claudius's freedman in an attempt to be recalled from exile, only to lambast Claudius in Pumpkinification when Claudius passes away. Wilson attempts to explain the charge that Seneca claimed to not have cared about wealth while actually amassing a huge personal fortune under Nero. Wilson argues that to the stoics, wealth was an indifference, that the stoics believed that wealth was morally neutral, and all things equal it was better to have it than not have it. Nevertheless, Wilson is critical of Seneca's lack of perspective when it came to slavery or vast wealth inequality (while recognizing that few others cared either at the time). Ultimately, Wilson paints a sympathetic portrayal of Seneca, as a man of many contradictions (trying to assert control over his own life, and enjoying solitude but also constantly gravitating towards the center of power in the grandest stage of the time) but striving to do better (the stoics believed that perfect sagehood was achievable, though Seneca always considered himself on the path to this sagehood and not at the destination). Wilson starts with a telling of Seneca's death. Forced to commit suicide by Nero, Seneca first slits his wrists, but does not die. Seneca then drinks hemlock (following his hero Socrates) but this does not work either. Seneca finally steps into a hot bath, where the steam suffocates him. While Seneca claims to have spent his entire life preparing to die, his death does not go according to plan. However, that is what makes his life so interesting, the gap between the reality and the idealism, and what makes Wilson's biography worth reading. In an epilogue, Wilson discusses Seneca's posthumous influence, including on early christian thought (to the point where someone forged letters between Seneca and Paul and claimed his death was a disguised baptism) to thinkers such as Montaigne.

[Domhnall · Rating 5 out of 5]

"So I don't live one way and talk another," says the wise man; "I talk one way and you hear another. You don't even ask what my words mean."

Seneca was tutor to the young Nero and, when Nero became emperor, wrote his speeches for many years. His famous philosophical writings are seen as a great source of wisdom in the Stoic tradition, but they have a jarring quality which his contemporaries summed up in one word that remains valid: "hypocrite." The reality is that much of his supposedly disinterested "philosophy" turns out to be carefully constructed propaganda to turn aside opponents of either Nero or the Empire or Seneca himself. Nero was of course a psychopath, Seneca his close adviser and propagandist.

As a result, we see for example an extended discussion about the unimportance of material wealth, which has no effect on the integrity of the true sage, produced at a moment when Seneca himself was being criticised for amassing one of the greatest personal fortunes in the entire empire.

You may feel that we can nevertheless take Seneca's philosophical writings on their own merits and apply them to our own lives today. Well, that's true, but we will find in the process that his philosophy has important gaps and internal contradictions which undermine their value. If we fail to appreciate this then we will be led down the garden path and it is best understood by looking at the historical context of their writing.

To be fair, Wilson gives full credit to the ingenuity – even genius - of Seneca’s writing; sufficiently so for me to download an inexpensive collection of his writing and read some of his essays in full, which I found entertaining and rewarding. [Delphi Complete Works of Seneca the Younger (Illustrated)] However, Wilson makes critical comments on the work which are always helpful and can be very scathing. It is evident that she is not a supporter of his philosophical thinking and it is more than helpful to have her remarks in mind when at risk of being seduced by Seneca’s clever writing.

A final chapter describes some of the later influences through to modern times of both the prose and the plays of Seneca. His plays provided models for drama from medieval times; they provided templates at a time when theatre was just emerging from the old morality plays and they remain a living part of our theatrical heritage. His essays have also left lasting legacies, as much in style as in content, for example in those by Montaigne, while the incipient hypocrisy of his arguments is echoed in the following interesting remark, more pointed for being casual:

"It has been claimed that Thomas Jefferson was, perhaps unknowingly, using "the language of Stoic philosophy" when he drafted the Declaration of Independence, with its claim that "all men were created equal"; the masculine language ("men" ) is very much in tune with the Stoic emphasis on manly virtue (virtus) and on a model of social equality that has few implications for material or institutional change.”

That is the final message about Seneca. He wrote beautiful and thoughtful material which is worth reading, but it is tricky, selective and myopic, with a poisonous core that is only really apparent after standing back to place the writing in its proper context.

[Jonathon Day · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent overview of a fascinating character within philosophy.

I started this book as an ardent admirer of Seneca and his stoicism. This book does an excellent job of outlining the life of the man behind the words. A man who compromised, lied and usurped his principles in the service of the emperor Nero. This, and his vast wealth, has lead many later writers to dismiss him as a hypocrite who's words bear no relation to his actions.

Wilson acknowledges these views and is unsentimental in her depictions of Seneca and his actions (especially his complicity in the murder of Agripina). However, the fact Seneca tried to adhere to these values he preached, the fact he often seemed aware of his failings and ultimately died by them acts as a somewhat redemptive arc.

The life and writings of Seneca are still very valuable and deserve to be more widely known and with this excellent book Wilson has hopefully contributed more to this legacy.

[The American Conservative]

"The Greatest Empire is one of the most engaging, thoughtful intellectual biographies I have read in some time, and Wilson is at her best when discussing Seneca’s ability to navigate the Roman court while preserving a degree of philosophical autonomy from the very real barbarism of politics. Much of her analysis relies on a critical exegesis of Seneca’s writing, which appears deceptively simple on its face but often turns out to be subtle and playful. If scholars have not suspected the link between persecution and the art of writing in Seneca’s craft before, Wilson’s book will go some way in making the claim that Seneca—and by implication other Roman writers—deserves a second, more careful reading."

David Bahr's review: http://www.theamericanconservative.co...

[Derk · Rating 5 out of 5]

'Seneca, A life' by Emily Wilson is a fascinating and curiously timely biography about the influential philosopher, playwright and teacher, advisor and ultimately victim of Nero.

Emily Wilson vividly describes aspects of Seneca's life through well-chosen quotes from his work and contemporaries. In this way she creates a convincing portrait, which is relevant for our time of excessive capitalism and emptiness.
It is a huge achievement to write a biography in this way, about someone who lived 2000 years ago, with so little information.

The book concludes with a short chapter on the influence of Seneca on Christianity, the humanists, and on the development of stage writing. With Hunger Games, this is carried forward to the present time.

[Rafael Dapuzzo · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great read

A somewhat small book with a lot packed into it,

It seems to me that the author refrained from adding fluff from Seneca’s life since historical evidences on ancient history are so scant and produced a rich intellectual biography touching on key moments of his life but with a big emphasis on his philosophy and other literary work.

I particularly enjoyed the epilogue, they are often just a final chapter to end the book but here it provided us with a lot of information on Seneca’s influence throughout our culture in different periods of history.

Loved the book.

[Emmy9394 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Really loved the epilogue about Seneca’s relevance in today’s world, and especially loved the mini dissection of his life’s influence on The Hunger Games - I would love to read more books and essays on young adult (and all literature) taking tales from history and turning it into dystopia or science fiction, if anyone has good recommendations!

[Italo Italophiles · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Greatest Empire is a biography of the philosopher, writer, politician Lucius Annaeus Seneca, who was born in Cordoba, Spain circa 4 B.C. and who died, by his own hand under political pressure, in 66 A.D.

I should state right away that the "Greatest Empire" referred to in the title is not the Roman Empire, under which Seneca lived. Seneca, a master of wordplay, believed that if one could conquer oneself, control one's own impulses, then one had conquered the greatest empire possible. To be Emperor of oneself was Seneca's goal in life, but one that he could not always live up to, because he was, after all, human.

This scholarly work, which I received as a review-copy, includes a timeline, maps, notes, further reading suggestions, a bibliography, art credits and a full Index. The writing style is convoluted, stilted, and dryly academic at times. But the author's female perspective on a paternalistic and misogynistic society is refreshing to read. And she provides parenthetical explanations for those readers who are not up to speed on Roman and Mediterranean history.

In Seneca's case, there is the risk that the era was more interesting than the man, which was a thought I had at times while reading this book. Seneca was a Socratic and Stoic philosopher, a writer of literature, plays and popular aphorisms, and a speechwriter for his former pupil, the Emperor Nero. Seneca is 18 years old when Rome's first permanent Emperor dies, Augustus. Then Seneca lives through the reigns of Tiberius, Caligula, and Claudius. The Emperor Nero pressures Seneca to take his own life.

I found the sections of the book that discuss the philosophies of the era the most interesting: Cynicism, Hedonism, Platonism, Epicureanism, Stoicism, Skepticism, and the Peripatetics, the Pythagorians, and the Sextians! Everybody wanted to find solace in life and to "overcome grief, pain and fear of death". Judaism was the annoying old-timer of philosophies because the followers of the monotheistic Judaism refused to worship Roman Emperors. And the relatively new Catholicism was just as troublesome.

What was Seneca like, based on what the author tells us? Well, he was pretty typical for his class, time, and place. He was a macho jerk, self-righteous, self-important, ambitious, self-pitying, pompous, falsely modest, a narcissist, a slave owner, and a hypocrite.

Seneca's insights into human nature still apply to us today, since human nature is the one true constant over time. The author states Seneca's ever-true observation: "...psychological truth of his central insight that watching acts of pain and cruelty does real harm to our souls."

That harm is a fact. Our moral compass is destroyed by watching real and simulated acts of pain and cruelty. Children can be exposed to that harm without choice, but most people damage themselves by their choices of cultural consumption. Perhaps that insight alone is reason for people to continue to read Seneca's philosophical works?

Please read my full and illustrated review at Italophile Book Reviews.
http://italophilebookreviews.blogspot...

[B. Rule · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a strikingly perceptive literary biography of Seneca. Wilson does great work giving close readings of Seneca to show the internal tensions between his philosophical program and his role as advisor to Nero, as well as his efforts to maintain a philosophical poise despite his clearly passionate and ambitious nature, which often finds him seeking the approbation of others, the comforts of wealth, and experiencing deep grief upon the loss of his friends. What really elevates this work is the brief but dense epilogue which traces the Senecan legacy through the history of Western thought, showing how Christians first appropriated his Stoic views through Paul (and apocryphal letters between Seneca and Paul), later disclaimed his position as arrogance antithetical to grace, and then going on to trace how his prose and plays were received by the humanists, later moderns, and up to the present day (including a surprisingly fair treatment of The Hunger Games!). This book ended up surprising me with the depth of analysis, and while Wilson is no Seneca partisan, she approaches him with sympathy and dark humor, and manages to paint a vivid picture of his philosophical project and his foibles as a person. Highly recommended.

[Karen Carlson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This little reading adventure was highly productive. By way Seneca’s biography, I found out a lot more about Stoicism, and I have a somewhat better understanding of early Imperial Rome.
The primary conflict is between Seneca’s words and the life he leads – as Wilson puts it, “paradoxes of being an ascetic philosopher who achieved vast wealth in the imperial court.” In some places, Wilson uses what I interpret as sly wit to hold his feet to the fire a little bit. But she’s also got a good point: it is the very conflict between words and deeds that elevates his work, and gives him unique access to the dangers of wealth.
I’m quite taken with the writing style, which combines so many layers. It was truly an enjoyable read

FMI see my blog post at A Just Recompense.

[Colin · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent and comprehensive biography of Lucius Annaeus Seneca, the Roman Stoic philosopher who was tutor and eventually advisor to the the emperor Nero, and was later required to commit suicide by that emperor in 65 C.E. Unfortunately, this edition of this biography (from Oxford University Press, no less!) is full of editing errors (like Cynicism dated to the 4th century C.E. rather than B.C.E., or the Letters to Lucilus being referred to as "the Letters to Epistles"), including some errors in Latin quotations (e.g. p.61, "Nusbquam" given for "Nusquam," or p. 153, "theatric" for "theatrico"). These editing issues detract from what is otherwise a quite excellent biography.

[Debora · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wilson does a fantastic job at placing Seneca in his own time while making him relatable as if I could follow him online

[John Matthew IV · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great biography of Seneca. Very different from the James Romm book. Nero plays much less a role and this is more comprehensive. Stoicism is covered. All of Seneca's writings are analyzed. This is very deeply researched as the notes and bibliography show. Romm's book is more of a fun read since Nero was such a character but reading them in a pair really reveals Seneca. Great epilogue on how Seneca has evolved over the last 2,000 years.

p. 2: "Seneca followed Socrates in claiming that a wise man spends his whole life learning how to die (tota vita discendum est more)."

p. 4: "He presented himself as one who is only setting out on the philosophical journey (proficiens), not as one who has achieved it."

p. 7: "The Stoic ideal of constancy (constantia, on which Seneca wrote a highly influential essay) is the wise man's ability to be firm, always the same, always stable, even as the world changes all around him."

p. 7: "Seneca insists that those who attempt to conquer the world and attain political, military, and economic power are far inferior to those who manage to achieve the empire of control over themselves: imperare sibi maximum imperium est ('The greatest empire is to be emperor of oneself' -- or, 'The greatest kind of power is self-control')."

p. 10: "For Seneca, philosophy was an end in itself. His rhetoric aims to achieve a change in the reader's individual psyche, not in the institutions of government."

p. 11: "Cicero strongly disagreed with the Stoic goal of apatheia, or 'being without passion.'"

p. 12: "The ideal person in Stoic theory is the Wise Man (the sapiens), who is able to realize the truth that nothing expect virtue really matters."

p. 12: "All of these are ideas articulated by Socrates and developed by the Stoics."

p. 13: "All the great philosophical movements of the period--including Cynicism but also Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Skepticism--promised to provide the state of 'untroubled-ness,' ataraxia, to their practitioners." (See almost page 93.)

p. 12: "Happins (in Greek, eudiamonia, 'blessedness') was associated not with the extremes of joy or exhilaration, nor with external achievements or events, but with an individual's capacity to maintain a calm disposition no matter what."

p. 14: "According to Stoic physics, the cosmos has a cyclical pattern: at regular intervals everything is destroyed by fire (elpyrosis) and then remade again (palingenesis)."

p. 15: "there is a correlation between virtue (in Latin. virtus, "manliness"--from vir, 'man') and masculinity"

p. 16: "But the Stoics allowed a great deal of room in their system for improvement and education in the path toward virtue. Crucially, they distinguished between performing a 'correct function,' kathekon, and performing a 'fully correct action,' katorthoma.

p. 17: Epictetus: "Of things that exist, some are good, some are bad, others are indifferent. Good things are virtues and everything that shares in virtues; bad things are opposite; and indifferent things are wealth, health, reputation" (Discourses 2.15)."

p. 35: "We learn not for school, but for life (Non vitae sed scholae discimus) - Epistle 106.12

p. 42: "The passage uses the stereotypical Roman trope of the exemplum: the 'example' of some earlier historical (or, sometimes, mythical) person is invoked to point to a moral lesson in the present."

p. 50: Ara Pacis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ara_Pacis

p. 52: "Don't absorb all you want, but all you can hold. If your mind is good, you'll be able to take as much as you want. The more the mind takes in, the more it opens." - Epistle 108.2

p. 74: "Epicurious says that the wise man rarely gets married, because marriage is accompanied by many inconveniences."

p. 83: "I count as 'indifferent,' that is neither good nor bad, these things: disease, pain, poverty, exile, death." - Epistle 82.10

p. 85: "It is the mind that makes a person rich."

p. 86: Seneca Tower on Corsica: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torra_d...

p. 87: Zeno had no slaves while Plato had three.

p. 93: "The Stoics categorized the bad kinds of emotion into four general types: pleasure, pain, desire, and fear. Excessive emotions of these types are, they thought, the most important reason why people may fail to achieve appropriate spiritual tranquility."

p. 93-4: "Anger does not care about itself, as long as it harms somebody else" (1.1).

p. 95: "Let them hate, as long as they fear": oderint, dum timeant.

p. 132: "We are born under a king's rule; to obey god is freedom" (15.7)

p. 155: "Seneca was entangled in a world of cruelty and theatricality, but he was also willing to acknowledge that we can do ourselves real harm by our habits of cultural consumption."

p. 185-6: "The Letters give a vivid picture of his daily life in this period. In response to the shakiness of all human careers and attempts to establish oneself in security and prosperity. Seneca suggests that the only solution is the lifestyle of ascetic philosophy: 'Let your food relive hunger, your drink quench your thirst, your clothes keep out the cold, and let your home be just a protection against the enemies of your body.'"

p. 187: "He insists that the two activities must be alternated: 'we should not confine ourselves to either reading or writing: continuous writing makes one depressed and exhausted, while continuous reading makes one lax and weak" (84.1)."

p. 191: "The things you run from are inside of you." (104.20)

p. 193: "Wisdom does not come all at once, as if through a single moment of insight or inspiration; it is a product of practice, of daily, repeated, developed habit."

p. 194: "What we all do, every day, is begin to die--Cotidie morimur (24.20)"

p. 196: "The living voice and the intimacy of a common life will help you more than the written word" (6.5)

p. 198: Nomentum (Mentana today): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mentana

p. 199: "Natural desires are limited; but those that spring from false opinion can have no place to stop" (16.9)

p. 217: St. Paul's and Stoicism

p. 218: postlapsarian: "occurring or existing after the Fall of Man." - m-w.com

p. 218: Eight sins from Evagrius > Seven Deadly Sins from Pop Gregory the Great https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_d...

p. 223-224: "A performance of Seneca's Phaedra in Rome in 1485 can be seen as the starting point of early modern drama."

[Blair · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating, nuanced account of Seneca's life that never tries to claim too much from the limitations of the sources and what Seneca wrote about his own life. Let down slightly by some poor editing that allows some errors and infelicitous repetitions through.

[ouijacine · Rating 4 out of 5]

For some reason goodreads won’t let you have multiple versions of the Iliad as separate books so having this as the Emily wilson translation of the odyssey. The other translation was fagles.

[Matt McCormick · Rating 4 out of 5]

I entered into this book very ambivalent and actually often hostile to Seneca. He seemed the ur-political appointee foreshadowing all those who want you to believe that they are only immersed in a corrupt government to make it a bit less corrupt and to provide a bulwark against the emperor's worst tendencies while profiteering everyday. As Emily Wilson does so well, the reader is given a more nuanced view of the subject presented objectively and well supported by her deep classical knowledge. Wilson displays a wide-ranging understanding of literature, philosophy, and history.

This was my first meaningful exposure to Seneca the playwrite and to Seneca as a genuine friend of others. Wilson provides a great interpretation of his prose and his philosophy. The reader is also given a fine overview of Roman society.

When the book was finished I found myself even more to the side of "Seneca the phony" - him saying one thing that looks so good while doing another. However, I hope my judgement is a bit more nuanced. I hope I have a bit more respect for what made him unique in his time and important to the development of western culture. After all, what would any of us really do if we were blessed with a keen intelligent and opportunity in a culture built on violence, fear and the cult of the emperor? We might just grab whatever estates and gold we could with a faint hope of one day escaping to read our books, write our letters and think about our day.

[Jalen Sowell · Rating 2 out of 5]

Seneca is an interesting person to read about. No regrets picking this book up. The only issue I had was the snarky tone the author took up in describing his hypocrisy. She really wanted you to know that he wasn’t as good of a man as he claimed to want to be.

A trend of bad biographies is the author assuming we’re overly interested in their interpretations of things that we’re perfectly capable of thinking through ourselves. I just found it annoying and recurring.

She even ends up drawing parallels to stoicism and it’s rising popularity with “late capitalism”. She’s clearly reading herself and her own predispositions into a 2,000 year old philosopher, then claiming that it’s Seneca who lacks self-awareness and displaying narcissism.

[Michael Baranowski · Rating 2 out of 5]

I got this book a while ago, and it took me forever to finish. This has nothing to do with Emily Wilson's writing or analysis, both of which seem first-rate to me. The problem is that Seneca is my least-favorite Stoic, and someone who I generally feel was a huge hypocrite and a fairly unscrupulous person. It's unfortunate that he's the author of some of the best Stoic writing.

[Kate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wished it had more quotes and descriptions of his work, but otherwise a very readable account of his life, critics, admirers. Covered what to take away from his work and how his philosophy influenced others, which seemed thorough and convincing.

[Arianne X · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Clash of Empires

Emily Wilson presents us with the rise and fall of the greatest empire, the empire of oneself. The Stoic empire of the self, ruled by Seneca, clashed with the worldly empire ruled by Nero resulting in one of history’s most bizarre, ironic, iconic and dramatic double (separated by four years) suicides. Seneca’s empire was beset with paradox, irony, contradiction, controversy, hypocrisy, double dealing, duality, guilt, murder, suspicion – not so radically different from Nero’s worldly empire.

First, sentenced to death by Caligula, later exiled by Claudius, subsequently recalled and elevated due to the influence of Agrippina, in whose murder he was complicit, and finally sentenced to death by Nero, a sentence made good by one of the most dramatic and iconic suicides in western history. Life at the center, where death was as much a fight as life for Seneca, was indeed precarious. There were many intricacies of virtue, reason, human relations, social interactions, culture, wealth, life and death to navigate. In this world, Seneca attempts to transform Stoic philosophy from one of abstract principles to a form of ancient pragmatism in trying to apply it to the practical specifics of Roman politics. It was in ‘De Clementia’ that Seneca attempted to reconcile the principles of Stoic philosophy to the realities of Roman politics.

The Fatal Limitations of Seneca’s Stoicism:

First:
There was a clash between the theory and practice in living the Stoic ideal. The notion of the empire of oneself, the domain of the inner self, minimizes the importance and consequences of very real external conditions such as slavery. It leads to a conservative response to injustice in that any injustices can be dismissed since each person has a ‘free’ soul and is master of their inner self, no matter what the actual external circumstances of the world. The emphasis on inner peace creates an external conservative bias that works to confirm a status quo such as slavery. This excessive focus inward leads to the absurd outcomes in the world of human action such as the belief that slavery does no real harm to the slave because the soul cannot be harmed by such external conditions. The philosophical forbearance brought on by inner peace is no compensation for external war. One can understand why Seneca’s project to influence Nero for the better was doomed from the start, but this is also the key to understanding the conflicted Seneca. The ability able to create the inner empire of the oneself, with the emphasis on inner peace, enabled Seneca to maintain his philosophical consistency and equanimity while ostensibly serving Nero. For Seneca, there was not conflict and no comprise, this further illustrates a fatal flaw in Stoicism. The ability to retreat into the subjective inner empire of the self in the face of a very real objective outer empire of evil. The ability to withdraw from the adversity of the world only enables the adversity of the world to continue.

Second:
Seneca’s Stoic philosophy may have blinded him to the dark realities of imperial Rome. Stoicism, as with all four post classical Hellenistic schools of thought (Stoicism, Epicureanism, Skepticism and Cynicism) is an intensely personal genre of philosophy in that it reduces the vicissitudes of existence to personal character. Rather than see the failings of the Julio-Claudian emperors; the paranoia of Tiberius, the perversions of Caligula, the cruelty of Claudius and the insanity of Nero as the result of the institutional instability of the imperial system, he thought of the capricious nature of the emperors in terms of personal character, lack of virtue as merely private failures that could be ameliorated through education. This was the dominant theme of his relationship with Nero. He did not see the problems as emanating from the internal conflict in the principate or the inherent instability of the imperium. Seneca thought that the best response to the world was to be found in personal virtue, vigilance, integrity and loyalty. A focus on individual behavior is very limiting as a response to dysfunctional social conditions, but this was the primary focus of the four Hellenistic schools of philosophy. Hellenistic philosophy did not develop a systemic treatment of existence rather, it focused on individual ethical responses to an uncertain and changing world (taken as a given) to achieve peace of mind and tranquility. Such an approach is characteristically pre-modern in that overlooks the institutional causes of political corruption, social failure and cultural decline. For example, in perpetuating a system where rulers possess absolute power, the source of such power is never legitimated, justified or even explained other than by the use of force and intrigue. Such personal philosophical thinking did not equip Seneca with the philosophical tools necessary to deal with institutional failures, just with personal failures. However, one can see the logic of Seneca’s appeal to virtue and personal character when the political institutions are reduced to a matter of personal rule by an emperor where it was impossible to separate the person of the emperor from the position of principate for institutional and structural reasons. Suddenly, personal character becomes institutionalized and the influence of the philosopher/advisor, indispensable. Hence the collision of empires.

Third:
For Seneca, the optimal response to the irrational terror and senseless cruelty of the age was to keep in mind the vastness of space and time and smallness of the current age in comparison. All human events are small events in the sweep of cosmic time. Well this is indeed true, it is of no help in creating a world worth living in free of cruelty, corruption, violence and terror in the time of the present, the only time-period that matters for the flourishing of human life. Without attention to the present, the present becomes the instantiation of regret for the past and dread of the future. For a Stoic like Seneca, only virtue is needed to guide one through the uncertainties of existence and the stress of social change and thus to happiness. This illustrates the paradox in Roman Stoicism, viz., to engage in the public sphere by bringing personal virtue to bare. Personal virtue is appropriate for the private life but when one engages with the public sphere, more than personal virtue is needed to impact institutional structure in a positive manner. Seneca would have us create our own happiness, regardless of institutional failures, structural anomalies or societal dysfunction. For Seneca, the private Stoic disposition of the individual is the greatest public service and the greatest empire.

Stoicism and Christianity (Epilogue):

In the Epilogue, Emily Wilson brings Seneca through history, tracing his acceptance and rejection as well as his continuing influence and relevance in literature, psychology, ethics and politics straight through to our contemporary era. I would like to use some of the material found in the Epilogue to understand how Stoicism was used to build a bridge to otherworldly Christianity. It is not a far reach from “it is the mind that makes a person rich” to beliefs that the existence of an ethereal or epiphenomenal soul is that which makes a person rich. With Stoicism, Christianity receives a philosophical boost to its enticing, entrapping and dangerous doctrine of disregarding the world of human existence and experience in favor of a non-extant world of nonexistence. In Stoicism and Christianity, a person can loss everything of value, family, spouse, children, friends and remain untroubled if they retain virtue. The building and rebuilding of the inner self is more important than building the world. From here, the fictive doctrine of personal salvation is not far behind. There was a joining of “…philosophical enthusiasm with religious superstition.” as David Hume put it Perhaps this is why the early Christians created the many forged letters between the apostle Paul and Seneca. Seneca and Stoic philosophy also emphasis reconciling oneself to the inevitability of death, the indifference of all things, the vastness of the universal cosmos and de minimis proceedings of human activity in comparison. All very consistent with later Christian understanding of reality. Paradoxical Christian notions about finding freedom in slavery was a direct result of Stoic influence.

Seneca provides a better explanation of theodicy (evil in the world) than did the Christians. According to Seneca, bad things happen to good people as a way of strengthening these people and making them better. Misfortunes provide the opportunity for personal improvement. It is not adversity that makes one miserable, this can be overcome, and one is stronger and better for the effort. It is excess of ease, wealth and luxury that makes one week and vulnerable to a sudden change in the whims of fortune. Ironically, Seneca would live this truth by becoming the richest citizen of Rome. Most interestingly, and as quoted by Emily Wilson, is Simon Goulart who realized that “If you read Seneca as a pagan, he seems to write as a Christian, but if you read him as a Christian, you feel that it is a pagan speaking.”

Error on P. 12:

Not serious, but Diogenes the Cynic is presented as having lived in”…the fourth century CE,…” CE is the modern equivalent of AD. Diogenes the Cynic lived in the fourth century BC, or BCE as it should have been expressed on p. 12.

Error? on p. 191:

In referring to Seneca’s wife Paulina, the author writes “maybe she feared not his death but his survival.’ I cast this as an error because I cannot reconcile this statement with the account provided by Tacitus that Paulina exercised her best efforts in an attempt to commit suicide with her husband when he was commanded to do so by Nero. Paulina went as far as to cut her wrists. This demonstrative action leads me to think that at least Paulina thought that she had more to lose in Seneca’s death rather than in his survival. The author’s statement looks like a simple but unfortunate non sequitur. However, in the author’s defense, Dio Cassius tells us that it was Seneca’s wish for Paulina to die with him; this to enhance his reputation for teaching wisdom to devoted followers and clients. But even Emily Wilson admits that is a hostile account.

Tacitus provides a more sympathetic account and tells us that Paulina herself was the one who wanted to die with Seneca despite his order that she not grieve for him. However, Tacitus also reports a rumor that Paulina was only motivated to commit suicide because she thought that was she too was condemned by Nero and was quite happy to avoid the suicide when she learned this was not the case. She did live for many years after Seneca’s death.

[Fábio Fortkamp · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most prominent aspect of this wonderful biography by classicist Emily Wilson is the characterization of "Seneca as a writer". Yes, he was trained as a philosopher, and entered into politics by influence of already influential (female) relatives, but the primary outcome of his life are his observations and reflections on the life as a powerful roman. Wilson presents a flawed, imperfect man who was an outstanding writer, and who wrote about these very imperfections.

Although Wilson writes with depth, the reading is fluid and engaging. The academic background of the author appears in the extensive use of bibliographical references and notes, and not on the weight of the prose. We can to follow Seneca through each of this major life stages: his birth in Spain, his transfer to Rome, his healing trip to Egypt, his ascent into politics of Claudius and Nero, his exile in Corsica, his pretense retirement (in which all he wanted to do was to write), and his very theatrical death. Emily Wilson uses her literary knowledge to analyze each piece of work written during each period, what reflects on what these writings transpire on the life context.

The book ends with the appropriate phrase "[Nero] killed them all", which includes Seneca. Yes, but we are still analyzing the life and work of this important philosopher, not because of the ideals of what he represents, but because of the much reality of it all.

[Frank · Rating 4 out of 5]

A biography of the Roman stoic philosopher and playwright, Seneca. The biographer sets Seneca into his historical context. The biographer has chosen the theme of was Seneca a hypocrite, meaning that Seneca wrote about virtue ethics he also was an advisor to cruel tyrant Roman Emperor Nero. Seneca preached that a simple life is fine, yet he achieved great wealth and power. My own conclusion on this debate is that Seneca lived in the time of cruel emperors (also Caligula) and tried in the most diplomatic way he could to provide wise advice to Nero, but after five or so years in power Nero became more wilful and paid less attention to his advisor Burrus and Seneca. An incredible life Seneca lived, writing timeless philosophy, writing drama that lasted through the ages, rising to great power in the Roman Empire and great wealth, yet being condemned by three Roman emperors (Caligula, Claudius, and Nero). What I didn't like was what appeared as excessive cynicism towards Seneca by the biographer. There is a need for new and less cynical biography of Seneca.

[Kanti · Rating 4 out of 5]

a wise man spends his whole life learning how to die...
~ Seneca

Emily Wilson's Seneca: A Life is a well written biography of the Stoic philosopher. Even though the content is more a collation of various sources and quoted from many literary references, this book does take us back to the times of the philosopher Seneca and emperor Nero.

The writings and teachings of Seneca has stood the test of the time, and today, after more than 2000 years, are still relevant and so very much applicable. Despite all the dark and unstable political times during those times, Seneca's words still touch our hearts today because, clearly, his heart was always at the right place.

Stoicism will survive for many more years to come and specifically for "in its promise of salvation in this world, not the next, and its focus on the human capacity to achieve happiness without a need for external, supernatural aid."