Reviews

Dying Every Day: Seneca at the Court of Nero by Lucius Annaeus Seneca, James Romm

sleepyboi2988's review against another edition

5.0

Absolutely excellent book on Seneca and his writings compared to his actions in the court of Nero. I loved Ghost on the Throne and loved this book. James Romm has become one of my favorite authors. His work is quality.

dolynok's review against another edition

challenging informative slow-paced

3.25

jquin75's review against another edition

5.0

I really enjoyed this book as we see the historical side of what Seneca experienced along side his Emperor Nero. This book does an excellent job bringing in family backgrounds and gives you a good perspective on how Seneca lived his life to the end.

rpmiller's review against another edition

3.0

Interesting times always include interesting people. Seneca clearly is one of those interesting people. However, both in the past and ever since, he remains an enigma, and so is his relationship with Nero. This volume seems to find Tacitus' account the most reasonable, even though no conclusion is drawn, then or now. Lots of history, biography episodes of many prominent people of the times. The oddest example, Octavia, who lived through her father killing her mother, her stepmother killing her father, her husband killing her brother, and in the end, her husband killing herself. Of course all of these murders were related through incestuous interbreeding and marriages, mostly illegal even at the time. This incest and murder appears to be the problem of hereditary succession, regardless of the title of the leader or the population being governed, if even it was governing.

grimamethyst's review against another edition

challenging dark informative medium-paced

4.0

Very much changed my opinion of Seneca

sophronisba's review against another edition

4.0

This is an interesting and well-written book, but it can be somewhat tough going if your Roman history is rusty. I learned a lot about Nero over the last couple of days, but I probably would have gotten more out of it if I remembered more of my high school Western Civ class.

It did make me want to reread Colleen McCullough's Rome series (even though I realize that McCullough's books are set a good 150 years before this book). And when I finished Dying Every Day (that is, I remind you, the title of the book, not a description of my week), I fired up Caesar III for the first time in a decade.

Having said all that, my big quibble with the book is that Seneca remains elusive even though he is the ostensible subject of the book; I found that I understood Nero a lot better than I understood Seneca when I finished. I can't blame this entirely on the author; I'm sure part of it is that I came to the book with virtually zero knowledge of Seneca, and part of it is that there are almost certainly more sources for Nero's life than for Seneca's. But the central figure in this history remains nebulous throughout, and when you're already operating without a lot of knowledge, that's a pretty big handicap for a book to overcome.

Still, if you're interested in this period of Roman history, you'll probably enjoy this book. It just probably shouldn't be the first book you pick up.

taylormcneil's review

challenging dark informative reflective medium-paced

4.25

Can you attain power, and not sell your soul in the process? That’s a question that James Romm asks in Dying Every Day: Seneca at the Court of Nero, and one he never really answers satisfactorily. It’s not his fault, though. He’s telling the life of Roman philosopher and statesman Seneca, and it’s still not clear, even with the hindsight of two millennia, if Seneca truly learned the lessons he preached. Famous as a Stoic philosopher—the Greek school of philosophy that prided itself on a rational approach to life, facing all its vicissitudes with equanimity—Seneca also was Roman senator and power player in the 50s and 60s AD. Called back from exile in Corsica in 49 AD, he was first the young Nero’s tutor. When Claudius died (likely poisoned by Agrippina, his wife and Nero’s mother), Nero became the princeps—essentially the emperor—and Seneca became one of his highest advisors. 

All the while, Seneca penned Stoic tracts, often in the form of public letters to family, friends and acquaintances, that extolled the imperative of the carefully examined life. He seemed to be trying to make sense of the world he was living in, or at least justifying his place in it. 

With Seneca at his side, Nero began his deadly march to absolute power. He first had his half-brother and rival for power Brittanicus poisoned during a family meal, insisting, after Brittanicus keeled over, that everyone continue eating. He had other, more distant potential rivals killed, ordered his scheming mother murdered, and disposed of his devout young wife, so he could marry an alluring and wily widow. All the while, Seneca was in some sense his chief of staff, and must have been privy to the plans, at least in part. And of course, that was only how Nero dealt with his close relatives: at the same time, he was bleeding the Roman Empire dry through profligate spending, building memorials to himself and lavishly paying his Praetorian Guard to keep them loyal. 

Seneca was soon enough on the outs thanks to more palace intrigue—politics as a blood sport. He longed to get away, but could not. He had amassed a fortune—properties as far and wide as Britain, where he was a notorious moneylender—all thanks to his powerful position close to Nero, but it did him no good. Nero would not let him retire, even though he was in his 60s by then; it would make Nero lose face. Seneca was prolific in this period, writing Stoic tracts and plays that highlighted the struggles between human rationality and deluded evil. But he never wrote directly (or indirectly) about Nero, except in praise; to do otherwise was to court a death sentence. 

Not just a megalomaniac, Nero, of course, had his artistic side: he thought himself a poet, musician, and singer, not to mention chariot racer. When Rome burned in a devastating fire in 64 AD, Nero wouldn’t have been playing a fiddle, as the legend has it: he was strictly a lyre man. Seneca and others found it degrading for the princeps to perform in public, but Nero did, to frightened and rapturous audiences as far away as Greece. 

By 65 AD, Seneca was next in line, falling victim to intrigues in Nero’s court. He was ordered to commit suicide—as opposed to being killed outright: that way in theory at least half his vast estate could go to his relatives. He had known it would come to this for many years, and had written about the Stoic approach to one’s end: better to do it oneself, as opposed to having someone do it to you. Having seen so many people die in the quest for power, he acceded, too, bleeding to death from his own wounds. Nero’s disastrous rule came to an end shortly after, in 68 AD, hunted down as he had hunted others. 

Romm recounts the history with flair and generous brevity—unlike many writers, he doesn’t burden his readers with extraneous facts and asides. Throughout, it’s hard not to think of Seneca’s dilemma as it recurs, with less bloodshed, in our own times. How many sycophants linger around those in power, from Capitol Hill to every office, justifying their ways by thinking themselves righteous or somehow above the fray? Seneca thought deeply about what were the right things to do in life, but he just couldn’t quite resist the lure of power and lucre. His unintended lesson—that all that power and wealth could not save him—was one he never learned until, perhaps, the end. 

traveller1's review

4.0

Ambiguity. I was hoping for a definite answer as to Seneca's life, was he a good man forced to play a role, or a weak even bad man, who attempted to use his literary ability to write his way into a good reputation? I feel that Romm lends more towards the former, but he does not make a definite claim, merely echoing the two millenia old motif of Seneca's life 'ambiguity', which he mentions frequently.

Romm does make several interesting points, his analysis of Seneca's writing, placing it into a historical context provided a new insight into the works. The close melding of Seneca and Nero, however, I also believe he missed several conclusions. Did Seneca actively lobby Agrippina for his return? Overall, sadly, a little disappointed. Perhaps Griffin is still the greatest Senecan scholar?

willande123's review

5.0

A wonderful biography and survey of Seneca and his works and philosophy. Reading Romm's work after having just completed Marcus Aurelius' Meditations gave me some perspective on Stoic thought and the intersection between public governance and the moral high-ground. Romm has no bias, no opinion on how Seneca should be viewed, only saying that there was both bad and good. Was Seneca implicit in Nero's matricide or fratricide? Did Seneca achieve his life goals of a Stoic end and a simple life? Did Seneca sacrifice his principles too much to try to improve an evil regime and a mad princeps? All I know is that he definitely wasn't perfect. Bravo once again to Romm.

hilaritas's review

4.0

This was good but I was surprised that I did not like it as much as Romm's earlier book, "Ghost on the Throne." The topic here is fascinating and Romm writes with great vividness. It's very easy to become immersed in the Neronian milieu through his writing and the human motives of most of the major players shine through. However, and surprisingly, I found that the personality of Seneca himself was somewhat lost in the telling. It could be due to lacunae in the primary sources, but I often felt like Romm was stretching to interpret Seneca's thoughts and emotions. This unfortunately sometimes gave the impression of padding the narrative, a defect mirrored in the overuse of ticklers and teasers of events to come. I stopped counting the number of times Romm said something like "as we will soon see." He needs to have more faith in his own storytelling. I don't need every portentous event foreshadowed; tell me when you get there. In this regard, the writing is poorer than in Romm's earlier book.

That said, these are nits I'm picking in regard to a great read. Romm deftly describes the relationships that led to the succession of Nero and steers away from some of the more salacious gossip about the emperor, while still giving enough shocking detail that his ultimate downfall seems almost inevitable. The agonizing position of Seneca as court philosopher in a time of apocalyptic frivolity is mesmerizing and tragic. The ending of the book does a neat job of summing up the relationship of power to Stoic philosophy in Rome over the century following Seneca's death, and Romm writes history in a vibrant and engaging way that lesser authors must truly envy. Definitely recommended.