Seneca. Edited by JOHN FITCH. Oxford Readings in Classical Studies. Oxford 
and New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Pp. vi + 438. Cloth, $60.00. 
ISBN 978–0–19–928209–8.

Previously published CJ Online reviews are at 
http://classicaljournal.org/reviews.php


A CJ Online Exclusive: 2008.08.04

In this collection of critical essays, Fitch (F.) has brought together some 
of the most important and influential articles about Seneca’s life, 
tragedies, philosophical ideas and reception. The strength of this volume 
is the variety of theoretical viewpoints utilized in an attempt to come to 
terms with Seneca’s own wide-ranging literary and philosophical output. 
[n. 1] Critical theories such as New Historicism, Reader-Response and 
Gender studies are applied to Seneca’s prose and poetry with, for the 
most part, rousing success. While these essays have all appeared elsewhere 
(two are translated into English for the first time here), their 
juxtaposition provides an enriching view of the depth and importance of 
Senecan thought. [n. 2] And by giving a judicious sampling of the 
scholarship on Seneca of the last 40 years, F. inspires the reader to delve 
deeper into Seneca’s works and hints at the possibilities still available 
in Senecan scholarship.

F.’s introduction begins with an interpretation of Rubens’ “The Death 
of Seneca,” through which he illustrates major themes in Seneca’s work 
(Stoicism, suicide, theatricality). He helpfully provides the criteria for 
his selection of essays and groups them according to “aspects of the 
self,” “the tragic self,” “varied approaches” and “reading in 
context.” F. gives a thumbnail sketch of the major points of each essay 
and, where necessary, the underlying critical theory.

Griffin’s “Imago Vitae Suae” begins the volume and provides the 
necessary background to Seneca’s family, biography, political career and 
death. Despite the discrepancies between Seneca’s Stoic teachings and 
historical activities, Griffin stresses that the portrait of him as moral 
instructor found in his letters and dialogues “is rightly judged a more 
precious legacy than the historical imago vitae suae” (p. 58). In the 
following essays, Edwards and Wilson both investigate the persona of Seneca 
in the letters, admirably elucidating the power of their literary, 
rhetorical and Stoic exploration of self. Wilson’s explication of certain 
epistles (46, 82) shows how literary motifs and philosophical tenets can be 
blended together to illustrate Seneca’s maxim talis hominibus fuit oratio 
qualis vita (Ep. 114.1). Edwards demonstrates that the Senecan self is a 
construction, prone to shifting moods and beliefs, and must therefore be 
constantly scrutinized and tested. This important essay proceeds to 
delineate the theatricality of this process and to discuss such 
role-playing in its historical context. Armisen-Marchetti and Inwood follow 
with investigations of specific Stoic concepts in Seneca’s work 
(praemeditatio, and the will, respectively). Inwood fruitfully explores the 
concept of the will, and his findings reveal that Seneca’s interest in 
self-shaping and self-knowledge, his focus on self-control and his ability 
to “zoom in” on moments of decision-making contribute to his idea of 
the will. [n. 3] As a whole, these five essays function well together to 
give a view of Seneca’s philosophical thought and, in particular, his 
personal perspective on Stoicism, self-improvement and personal ethics.

F.’s grouping of “the tragic self” includes an essay he co-wrote with 
McElduff and Segal’s psychoanalytical gem, “Boundary Violation in 
Senecan Tragedy.” Segal recognizes that Seneca’s characters often 
engage in the same sort of soul-searching he recommends in his letters, but 
with decidedly darker ramifications. Seneca identifies psychological 
aspects of the characters’ neuroses, rampant emotions and psychotic 
impulses. He analyzes primary boundary anxiety (“the concern with the 
autonomy of our physical being,” 149) in the tragedies to show how it 
increases the dramatic horror, and to comment on the violence and sadism of 
the Neronian age. F. and McElduff’s work observes that the construction 
of self is imperative for Seneca’s tragic characters, and shows how 
various figures create personae in the tragedies. For some characters, the 
tragedy revolves around a split persona (Phaedra) or the development of a 
disastrously ambivalent identity (Hercules’ conquering persona cannot 
distinguish between Lycus and his family), but the authors point out how 
Atreus and Medea are emblematic of realized selves that are decidedly 
monstrous. This offers the tragic flip-side to the Stoic self-conception of 
the letters. There, philosophical principles and exempla guide one in the 
construction of a persona, while in the tragedies the persona may be guided 
by the Furies, a taste for revenge, or the mythological and literary 
tradition. F. and McElduff point out the tragic overtones in the 
construction of the Senecan self, arguing that it is “always a 
mis-construction” (p. 180). [n. 4]

Under the “varied approaches” rubric are essays discussing the 
performance of Seneca’s tragedies (Kragelund, Stroh), interpretations of 
the Oedipus (Mastronarde) and the Thyestes (Littlewood), and a discussion 
of the role of the reader in Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis and De Clementia 
(Leach). These essays are a mixed bag, both in quality and subject-matter. 
Kragelund and Stroh both argue that Seneca’s plays can be performed, and 
persuasively discuss how performance can help emphasize thematic aspects of 
the tragedies (Phaedra and Octavia for Kragelund, Troades for Stroh). A 
single essay on performance would perhaps have sufficed. Mastronarde’s 
piece proves that the poetic language of the Oedipus repeats and gradually 
takes on different meanings as the play progress. His concept of Seneca’s 
tragedies as “verbal paintings of almost static situations” (p. 223) 
encourages him to explore the depth of the imagery, and in doing so, he 
shows how Oedipus’ guilt infects not only the world of the play, but also 
its words. Littlewood applies features of gender theory to his reading of 
the Thyestes, attempting to show that in their bestial desires, weakness 
for power and pseudo-pregnancy (Thyestes), both Thyestes and Atreus take on 
feminine characteristics. I was not entirely convinced by this article, but 
I am persuaded that the application of gender theory to Seneca’s 
tragedies is a promising direction. Leach investigates the make-up of 
Seneca’s readership in order to understand the political ramifications of 
Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis and De Clementia. Her essay identifies the 
“ideal reader” that Seneca creates in these two works, a reader who 
understands that behind the criticism of Claudius and the praise of Nero, 
it is Seneca who possesses important political influence.

This political and historical background is important for the final 
collection of papers (“reading in context”), which focuses on how 
Seneca’s readership may have received his works, and how the works 
reflect the culture and views of the Early Empire. Bradley shows how 
Seneca’s view of slavery, while philosophically liberal and humane, 
actually speaks to the slave-owners who read his treatises, and is 
“deeply rooted in the conservatism of the Roman ruling class to which he 
belonged” (p. 345). Mayer examines the use of historical exempla in 
Seneca’s prose works and finds that exempla, much more than praecepta, 
represent true virtus for the reader and can help form the moral life of 
individuals. If one acts consistent with Stoic teaching and gains a 
reputation for such activity, one may attain gloria, the topic of 
Newman’s essay. Seneca does not stress the political aspect of gloria, 
but focuses instead on the philosophical claritas that results from the 
proper expression of virtus. Nisbet tackles the vexed issue of dating 
Seneca’s tragedies by looking at internal evidence (descriptions of 
peoples, places and customs anachronistic to mythological time) and themes 
from the plays (incest, political assassination, exile). His careful 
weighing of the historical and political context (e.g. would you really 
want to write an Agamemnon in the early years of Nero’s reign?) 
culminates in a persuasive argument for dating the Thyestes to AD 62. 
Fantham and Boyle close out the collection, offering essays that deal with 
the issue of reception. For Fantham, Seneca’s heroines derive much of 
their power from Seneca’s close reading of Virgil’s Dido episode, and 
she examines how Seneca utilized Virgil’s work, especially in his 
depiction of Phaedra. As opposed to Seneca’s reception of Virgil, Boyle 
looks forward to the reception of Seneca’s tragedies in the Renaissance. 
His sweeping account of Seneca’s influence on authors such as Shakespeare 
and Corneille reveals how Seneca’s view of tyranny, furor, revenge and 
fate informs the characters, plot structure and motifs of Renaissance 
drama. This is a fitting conclusion to the collection, inspiring this 
reader to reflect on how Seneca’s tragic outlook continues to be reshaped 
in contemporary works such as those by Sarah Kane, Caryl Churchill and 
Julie Taymor.

My quibbles are few. Citing constraints of space, F. regrets having omitted 
essays by Herington (“Senecan Tragedy”) and Tarrant (“Senecan Drama 
and its Antecedents”), but these are foundational for the study of 
Senecan tragedy, and perhaps some sacrifice should have been made to 
include at least one. Likewise, no essays are devoted to the Naturales 
Quaestiones, and it is a shame that this fascinating work on Stoic physics 
is overlooked. But these are small objections indeed. This revealing 
compilation of essays, admirably treating so many facets of Seneca’s 
philosophical and tragic thought, and offering such a wide array of 
critical perspectives, is certain to be of great use to students and 
scholars alike.

CHRISTOPHER TRINACTY
Amherst College
[log in to unmask]

[n. 1] A fact that Quintilian noted (10.1.128–9): tractavit etiam omnem 
fere studiorum materiam; nam et orationes eius et poemata et epistulae et 
dialogi feruntur.

[n. 2] The question of the usefulness of this series (Oxford Readings in 
Classical Studies), which collects articles and book chapters already 
published elsewhere, has been an issue of some debate by scholars such as 
Farrell (BMCR 2002.02.11) and Lacki (BMCR 2007.09.19).

[n. 3] Inwood discusses the similarity between Seneca’s summary 
“will” and the work of Frankfurt on second-order desires. Bartsch has 
recently explored this parallel in her discussion of Seneca’s Medea in 
The Mirror of the Self (Chicago, 2006), and this type of scholarship, which 
analyzes the cross-pollination of Seneca’s philosophy and tragedies in a 
sophisticated way, is a fruitful development.

[n. 4] Seneca’s concept of self is clearly an important topic for this 
generation of scholars. It is also the subject of a collection of essays 
forthcoming from the University of Chicago Press (Seneca and the Self).


You may remove yourself from the CJ-Online list-serv by sending an email 
to: [log in to unmask] Leave the subject line blank, and in the first 
line of the message write: UNSUBSCRIBE