This commentary is an unpretentious piece of work, demonstrating an impressive degree of scholarship, good sense and – given that this is the book version of S.'s 2018 Ph.D. thesis – maturity. S. aims to be useful to her readers and succeeds admirably, but also presents original research and an interpretative agenda of her own. She explains her selection of letters to comment on with a desire to address Seneca's artful composition at the level of the book unit and of single letters in sequential order (p. xxxvii). The immersive bottom-up commentary format is well suited to this task. S. provides a summary of her observations in the introduction (pp. xxi–xxiii), but the organisation of the book, the interplay between the single letters and recurring motives comes to life as an organic and meaningful whole in the running commentary.
Commenting on Seneca's letters is a daunting task. Abundant intra- and intertextual references need to be addressed, but also philological matters, a complex idiom, an ocean of secondary literature, and the commentator needs expertise in literary criticism, ancient history and culture as well as Hellenistic philosophy. S. meets this challenge. Coming from a Latinist background, she is also widely read in French, Italian and German, always alert to the socio-political context and tackles the philosophy of the letters competently and economically.
The wealth of things to say creates problems with organising the material, of avoiding both ‘fragmentation and repetition’ (p. xxxviii), and here again she has found a good balance. She does not presuppose that readers will have seen all introductory material when turning to a lemma, but repetition is controlled. It also helps that S.'s writing is brief, clear and never self-indulgent. Introductory material is organised into an overall section about matters relevant to the whole work and Book 2, effective introductions to each letter, and introductions to each section preceded by a subtitle that captures the gist of the passage. Ample cross-references and indexes further facilitate access to information. As a convenience for readers, relevant passages are quoted generously, with key passages highlighted in bold print if the quote is longer. These quotes are in the original language, but in such a way that the text remains readable for those who do not understand Latin or Greek. The volume is tidily edited. I found only a few typographical errors, which did not impair comprehension – apart from a mysterious mention of PIR2 L 388 as a ‘source’ for Lucilius’ life ‘that is not Seneca’ (p. xiv). A random probe of citations did not yield any misquotation.
The English translation is meant as a comprehension aid without literary ambition. Overall, it is reliable, but sometimes the expression is a bit awkward (e.g. the last sentence of 21.9). S.'s choice to keep terminological consistency, for example translating animus as ‘mind’ as often as this is possible, can be slightly confusing if the word fields do not match. Sometimes an even more literal translation might have been possible and instructive (e.g. 13.1 in alienum uenturus arbitrium: ‘depend on someone else's opinion’; 15.10 recordare: ‘think about’; 20.7 turbae familiarium: ‘crowd of family members’). The facing Latin text has a well-chosen selective apparatus, a digest of L.D. Reynolds's 1965 OCT edition, with corresponding discussion in the commentary. S. suggests some conjectures of her own to solve long-standing cruces. Particularly worth considering are id est latus and mediocritatem habeat nec in 15.8 (instead of usurpa faciles in 15.4, I would prefer usu rudes faciles – ‘simple and easy to use’ – to enhance the artlessness of the exercises as well as their functionality, on which see p. 125).
The commentary is extensive but to the point and always helpful in flagging something interesting or providing help where users may look for an explanation. Factual information is comprehensive with sources for further research given (see, e.g., p. 131 on how and why a Roman would learn ‘how to walk the right way’). Still, some speculation about Fortune's challenge for Lucilius in Ep. 13 might have been in order, given that Nat. 4a praef. 15 provides a suggestion. There are many fine observations about language and style. Even more might be said about word choice, especially when Seneca contrasts synonyms (e.g. 13.5 admonitio, on which see Ep. 94.24; 14.1 indulgendum evoking parental care in combination with tutelam gerere), but S. does address such nuances, for example in the note on promittunt vs spondent at 19.1 (p. 227) and their bearing on the agenda of the letter as a whole. On Ep. 19.6 demissus es, for example, S. notes: ‘Lucilius has sunk into a life in politics’, flagging both the meaning of the verb and its passive form. The explanation of modeste tractare (14.11, p. 101: ‘the philosopher does not attract attention to himself or, unlike forensis eloquentia …, offend anyone’) deftly takes into account the parallel of Ep. 5.2, where even the modest philosopher is unpopular, and the ambivalent nature of philosophy as both rhetoric and way of life. Concerning 15.5 Id bonum, S. notices and explains the non-technical use of the term ‘good’. The introduction to 16.1 (p. 147) draws attention to the subtle transition from talk about the Stoic sage to the more abstract concept of wisdom, in line with the more theoretical nature of the letter. Ep. 16.1 firmandum is read as an allusion to the previous letter (15.2 latera firmandi): ‘While Ep. 15 demonstrates what does not need strengthening, Ep. 16 shows the opposite, namely what is worth strengthening’.
Finally, some examples of the effectiveness with which the introductions to single letters clarify the agenda and highlight unusual features. In three terse but information-rich paragraphs (pp. 82–3) S. outlines the politics of Ep. 14: the remarkable absence of Nero in this letter and the Epistulae morales overall, Stoic theory and practice about political involvement, and the unusually negative portrait of Cato, which S. interprets as a device to enhance the need of complete withdrawal from politics. Another paragraph, in the introduction to Ep. 19, addresses Seneca's opinion on the matter and how the apparent incompatibility between the Stoic view and his advice to retreat from politics is flagged repeatedly in the letters (p. 225). The introduction to Ep. 17 underscores how much of a ‘provocation’ (p. 169) the attitude to wealth taken in that letter was and how this is brought out by Lucilius’ paradoxical complaint that wealth ‘delays his study of philosophy’ at the beginning of the letter (p. 170). Another gem is the paragraph about the various forms of Saturnalian reversal in Ep. 18 (p. 195), including the fact that Lucilius here appears as the teacher for the first time (even though in this case, one might also say that he has learned the lesson of Ep. 5 – see S.'s note on 18.4 non excerpere se, p. 206 – and thus becomes capable to judge a controversial question for himself). Evidence is presented that Ep. 19, in which Seneca rejoices about Lucilius’ growing determination to retreat, has characteristics of a ‘second proem’ after Ep. 1 (pp. 226–7, and in the introduction) and that Ep. 21 includes features of a sphragis (pp. 270–1). Interesting is also S.'s observation (pp. 249–50) that Ep. 20 echoes the joy of Ep. 19, but in a subdued tone in line with the cautionary warning to be consistent in one's actions and choices.
S. has provided students of Seneca, both scholars and beginners, with a valuable study tool that will enhance our understanding and appreciation of Book 2 and Seneca's art of composition significantly.
