What do you think?
Rate this book
Phaedra and Other Plays
Living in Rome under Caligula and later a tutor to Nero, Seneca witnessed the extremes of human behaviour. His shocking and bloodthirsty plays not only reflect a brutal period of history but also show how guilt, sorrow, anger and desire lead individuals to violence. The hero of Hercules Insane saves his own family from slaughter, only to commit further atrocities when he goes mad. The horrifying death of Astyanax is recounted in Trojan Women, and Phaedra deals with forbidden love. In Oedipus a nervous man discovers himself, while Thyestes recounts the bitter family struggle for a crown. Of uncertain authorship, Octavia dramatizes Nero's divorce from his wife and her deportation. The only Latin tragedies to have survived complete, these plays are masterpieces of vibrant, muscular language and psychological insight.
326 pages, Paperback
First published August 25, 2011
About the author
Seneca
2,187 books3,309 followersLucius Annaeus Seneca (often known simply as Seneca or Seneca the Younger); ca. 4 BC – 65 AD) was a Roman Stoic philosopher, statesman, and dramatist of the Silver Age of Latin literature. He was tutor and later advisor to emperor Nero, who later forced him to commit suicide for alleged complicity in the Pisonian conspiracy to have him assassinated.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
April 3, 2016
I only actually read the introductory material and Phaedra, but I really liked Seneca's rendition of the play. I am reading a whole bunch of Hippolytus/Phaedra adaptations for my dissertation, and this was the first on my list, being chronologically the oldest after Euripides' version.
The introduction to this collection talks about a long standing perception that Seneca was a poor copier of Greek drama, rather than a legitimate dramatist in his own right, and the perception that he sacrificed action for rhetoric. But I find that the rhetoric and the increased graphic violence work really well for Seneca--they take a Greek myth and Romanize it. I mean, the early Empire was not the same place as 5th century BCE Athens, and to expect their aesthetics and dramaturgy to be the same is ridiculous. Seneca wrote for a Roman audience, who would have been more accustomed to rhetoric and the style of politico-philosophical debate that we see from characters like Seneca's nurse. The Romans also enjoyed more bloody entertainment than their Greek counterparts--as the Colosseum suggests--and so it is only natural that this violence would make its way into tragedy. I mean, there is nothing inherently inviolate about Aristotle's principle that violence should happen off stage and be described. I think he makes that a suggestion, arguing that the horror of violence is increased when unseen and merely related. Well the Romans loved a bit of gore, and tragedy is an excellent medium for providing it. Essentially, I think Seneca does with this story exactly what he should have as a Roman, not Attic, dramatist.
The introduction to this collection talks about a long standing perception that Seneca was a poor copier of Greek drama, rather than a legitimate dramatist in his own right, and the perception that he sacrificed action for rhetoric. But I find that the rhetoric and the increased graphic violence work really well for Seneca--they take a Greek myth and Romanize it. I mean, the early Empire was not the same place as 5th century BCE Athens, and to expect their aesthetics and dramaturgy to be the same is ridiculous. Seneca wrote for a Roman audience, who would have been more accustomed to rhetoric and the style of politico-philosophical debate that we see from characters like Seneca's nurse. The Romans also enjoyed more bloody entertainment than their Greek counterparts--as the Colosseum suggests--and so it is only natural that this violence would make its way into tragedy. I mean, there is nothing inherently inviolate about Aristotle's principle that violence should happen off stage and be described. I think he makes that a suggestion, arguing that the horror of violence is increased when unseen and merely related. Well the Romans loved a bit of gore, and tragedy is an excellent medium for providing it. Essentially, I think Seneca does with this story exactly what he should have as a Roman, not Attic, dramatist.
January 23, 2019
I enjoy the translator's work for this collection of plays. The reading is clear, accessible, and entertaining, and the translator includes numerous notes. The introductions to each reading, too, offer some great insights into the works' relationship to other classical plays that deal with similar topics. Well done.
October 31, 2022
Didn't love the translation, but the plays! Oh , the plays! You can taste Milton and Shakespeare and just wonder and marvel on the exquisite "stoic" depictions of the most gruesome and atrocious acts.
September 6, 2020
Note to self : don't read about Oedipus when learning about Vision in psychology 🥴🥴
August 20, 2021
Interesting but not as powerful as the Greek tragedies.
August 28, 2022
A great collection of brutal, often bloody plays. Personal standouts were Hercules Insane, Trojan Women, and definitely Octavia.
February 11, 2023
I enjoyed reading Seneca's version of 'Phedra' ahead of seeing the National Theatre production next week. It was interesting to compare the Euripides version (Hipploytus) and Racine's with Seneca.
March 5, 2017
I've never heard great things about Seneca, but Phaedra is actually so good! Much more vulgar than Euripides' Hippolytus, but his amazing violent imagery suits his Roman context. Really interesting version of the myth, with the gods more separate from the drama than in Euripides. Really good play!
August 13, 2022
Seneca owns a unique style when rewriting these well known tragedies from Euripides and Sophocles, not for a moment could I deny his ability as a writer, but even so, they still are far away to be wonderful, to be special. The first time I read his work was maybe two years ago, I read Medea and totally hated both the poetry and her portrait. His words are, as with all writers, a reflection of a community way of thinking and feeling, of Roman society and significant values, which means is far away of Greek heart, religion, and culture. Is precisely that what makes Seneca sometimes flat, sometimes raw, and almost always too human, too bloody and too vain. In my opinion, his work is totally disconnected from sacred notions, from any kind of respect to gods and human capacity to feel love, pity, or admiration. His long speeches feel forced and more than anything as a way of glorifies himself as a writer, but never as a tool to talk about anything besides himself. For example, Euripides's Hipolito is one of the most beautiful and complex plays, with so many notions connected with cult hero, religion, and the fragility of the human being. What Seneca offers us with his Fedra is the most bloody and terrible retelling of this story, totally devoid of any religious or sacred sense. Something similar happens with his Medea and is the same for his versions of Hercules. At the end, while reading his words I feel I'm indeed reading something so well written but so empty of any deep sense that is a waste of time.
But this is not Seneca's fault, I can't blame him. As I say first, his words are a mirror to his society, and nothing can be done there except a comparative reading and as partial as possible, although I must admit that it is difficult for me
But this is not Seneca's fault, I can't blame him. As I say first, his words are a mirror to his society, and nothing can be done there except a comparative reading and as partial as possible, although I must admit that it is difficult for me
February 18, 2020
You either like/Approve of Seneca or you don't. I enjoyed this collection.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews