Octavia: Attributed to Seneca

by Seneca (L. Annaei Senecae), A. J. Boyle (Editor)

Octavia is a work of exceptional historical and dramatic interest. It is the only surviving complete example of the Roman historical drama known as the fabula praetexta . Written shortly after Nero's death by an unknown author, the play deals with events at the court of Nero in the decisive year 62 CE, for which it is the earliest extant (almost contemporary) literary source; its main themes are sex, murder, politics, power and the perceptions and constructions of history. It is a powerful, lyrical and spectacular play. This is the first critical edition of Octavia, with verse translation and commentary, which aims to elucidate the text dramatically as well as philologically, and to locate it firmly in its historical and theatrical context. The verse translation is designed for both performance and serious study.

Genres: Plays, Classics

432 pages, Hardcover

First published August 15, 2008

Reviews

[Illiterate · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nero makes a surprisingly good case for himself.

[Mirjam · Rating 3 out of 5]

kinda boring, the greeks were better at tragedies xx

[jillie · Rating 4 out of 5]

this edition is highly useful for academics; the octavia as a whole is fascinating little pastiche of senecan style.

[Ulrike · Rating 4 out of 5]

i liked how much of a patchwork of senecan plays this was. the line by line word by word poetry of it didn't feel as compelling to me as seneca - unsure if this was due to translater or original author. lean perhaps on original author, because i read the watling and like his phaedra and oedipus well enough.

this is the last ever set text i read for my classics undergrad.

[mr. darcy’s left pinky toe · Rating 3 out of 5]

man, nero really did not like octavia, huh.

[Kamyar Jumabhoy · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a literary work, it's generally unexceptional. Some interesting allusions are mentioned, but other than that, it's incredibly short and lacks depth. It is a somewhat useful entry-level source to understand the dynamics between Nero, Octavia, Agrippina, Poppaea, and Seneca. Still, an enjoyable read overall.

But, this should not be attributed to Seneca: it foreshadows Nero and Poppaea's deaths, which both happened after Seneca died in 65 (Poppaea dies in the same year , Nero in 68). Also, the author mentions how Crispinus dies —he only dies in 66; clearly, it could not have been written by Seneca. It's been attributed to Seneca because it shows insight into the intricacies of relations within the Imperial family, and Seneca seemed like a likely candidate because of his knowledge/proximity to the family, and because the style resembled his. But this is mere coincidence: an impersonator who had insight — or, simply, someone who recorded from afar the very public events mentioned in the play.

6/10

[Brandon Sitch · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is easier to understand a genre through one of its mediocrities instead of through a masterpiece. The perfect is always particular; whereas lesser works are 'generic' (both senses). So there is a lot to learn here about tragedy as a whole, and Octavia's "luce non grata fruor" ('I loathe the daylight') is almost as good a brief summary of tragedy imaginable (only outdone in brevity and perspicacity by Aeschylus' pathei mathos). The problem with Octavia's tragic sentiments, however, is that they occur far too early and far too often. There is no change in tension, no escalation, and the change in tension is often from where the weight of tragedy derives. Without this, Octavia veers into melodrama, and feels too hollow.

[Jim · Rating 3 out of 5]

This play was originally attributed to Seneca and sounded a whole lot like Seneca. But by the time the events of the play occurred, Seneca was dead. Octavia is interesting primarily because it is the only Roman tragedy that has come down to us dealing with Roman historical figures such as Nero, Agrippina, and Seneca himself. For that reason, and because it was written by someone "in the school of Seneca," it is an interesting read. But it is mnot quite up to Seneca's standard.

[Jonathon McKenney · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not the edition I read, but overall enjoyable. Would be interesting for a one-act play competition in a high school

[Aaron · Rating 5 out of 5]

The play itself is not particularly interesting to me except historically. A few lines are memorable, but the characters do not impress, nor does the general dramatic technique. The choral lyrics are mostly recycled, and the diction unsurprising. Boyle has done a terrific job on the context of the "fabula praetexta" and his commentary is of great interest and help.