What do you think?
Rate this book
Dying Every Day: Seneca at the Court of Nero
From acclaimed classical historian, author of Ghost on the Throne (“Gripping . . . the narrative verve of a born writer and the erudition of a scholar” —Daniel Mendelsohn) and editor of The Landmark Arrian:The Campaign of Alexander (“Thrilling” — The New York Times Book Review ), a high-stakes drama full of murder, madness, tyranny, perversion, with the sweep of history on the grand scale.
At the center, the tumultuous life of Seneca, ancient Rome’s preeminent writer and philosopher, beginning with banishment in his fifties and subsequent appointment as tutor to twelve-year-old Nero, future emperor of Rome. Controlling them both, Nero’s mother, Julia Agrippina the Younger, Roman empress, great-granddaughter of the Emperor Augustus, sister of the Emperor Caligula, niece and fourth wife of Emperor Claudius.
James Romm seamlessly weaves together the life and written words, the moral struggles, political intrigue, and bloody vengeance that enmeshed Seneca the Younger in the twisted imperial family and the perverse, paranoid regime of Emperor Nero, despot and madman.
Romm writes that Seneca watched over Nero as teacher, moral guide, and surrogate father, and, at seventeen, when Nero abruptly ascended to become emperor of Rome, Seneca, a man never avid for political power became, with Nero, the ruler of the Roman Empire. We see how Seneca was able to control his young student, how, under Seneca’s influence, Nero ruled with intelligence and moderation, banned capital punishment, reduced taxes, gave slaves the right to file complaints against their owners, pardoned prisoners arrested for sedition. But with time, as Nero grew vain and disillusioned, Seneca was unable to hold sway over the emperor, and between Nero’s mother, Agrippina—thought to have poisoned her second husband, and her third, who was her uncle (Claudius), and rumored to have entered into an incestuous relationship with her son—and Nero’s father, described by Suetonius as a murderer and cheat charged with treason, adultery, and incest, how long could the young Nero have been contained?
Dying Every Day is a portrait of Seneca’s moral struggle in the midst of madness and excess. In his treatises, Seneca preached a rigorous ethical creed, exalting heroes who defied danger to do what was right or embrace a noble death. As Nero’s adviser, Seneca was presented with a more complex set of choices, as the only man capable of summoning the better aspect of Nero’s nature, yet, remaining at Nero’s side and colluding in the evil regime he created.
Dying Every Day is the first book to tell the compelling and nightmarish story of the philosopher-poet who was almost a king, tied to a tyrant—as Seneca, the paragon of reason, watched his student spiral into madness and whose descent saw five family murders, the Fire of Rome, and a savage purge that destroyed the supreme minds of the Senate’s golden age.
At the center, the tumultuous life of Seneca, ancient Rome’s preeminent writer and philosopher, beginning with banishment in his fifties and subsequent appointment as tutor to twelve-year-old Nero, future emperor of Rome. Controlling them both, Nero’s mother, Julia Agrippina the Younger, Roman empress, great-granddaughter of the Emperor Augustus, sister of the Emperor Caligula, niece and fourth wife of Emperor Claudius.
James Romm seamlessly weaves together the life and written words, the moral struggles, political intrigue, and bloody vengeance that enmeshed Seneca the Younger in the twisted imperial family and the perverse, paranoid regime of Emperor Nero, despot and madman.
Romm writes that Seneca watched over Nero as teacher, moral guide, and surrogate father, and, at seventeen, when Nero abruptly ascended to become emperor of Rome, Seneca, a man never avid for political power became, with Nero, the ruler of the Roman Empire. We see how Seneca was able to control his young student, how, under Seneca’s influence, Nero ruled with intelligence and moderation, banned capital punishment, reduced taxes, gave slaves the right to file complaints against their owners, pardoned prisoners arrested for sedition. But with time, as Nero grew vain and disillusioned, Seneca was unable to hold sway over the emperor, and between Nero’s mother, Agrippina—thought to have poisoned her second husband, and her third, who was her uncle (Claudius), and rumored to have entered into an incestuous relationship with her son—and Nero’s father, described by Suetonius as a murderer and cheat charged with treason, adultery, and incest, how long could the young Nero have been contained?
Dying Every Day is a portrait of Seneca’s moral struggle in the midst of madness and excess. In his treatises, Seneca preached a rigorous ethical creed, exalting heroes who defied danger to do what was right or embrace a noble death. As Nero’s adviser, Seneca was presented with a more complex set of choices, as the only man capable of summoning the better aspect of Nero’s nature, yet, remaining at Nero’s side and colluding in the evil regime he created.
Dying Every Day is the first book to tell the compelling and nightmarish story of the philosopher-poet who was almost a king, tied to a tyrant—as Seneca, the paragon of reason, watched his student spiral into madness and whose descent saw five family murders, the Fire of Rome, and a savage purge that destroyed the supreme minds of the Senate’s golden age.
290 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2014
240 people are currently reading
5695 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 206 reviews
September 24, 2021
What’s fascinating here is the political context that we get for each of Seneca’s major essays. That said, it must be remembered that the author here provides essentially a consensus view of many matters. The notes are filled with the clashing views of scholars.
For instance, “On the Shortness of Life“ is generally believed to have been written so Seneca‘s father-in-law might save face on being turned our of office—he managed grain supplies—by the emperor Claudius’s wife Agrippina. It was important that Seneca make it appear that his father-in-law was retiring for philosophical reasons, not, as was the truth, being turned out cruelly by Seneca’s enemy.
The story of Nero’s brutal murder of Brittanicus—deified Claudius’s natural son—simply for purposes of undermining his mother, Agrippina, takes the breath away. He had him poisoned at dinner with Agrippina there to witness. She had been threatening Nero, her blood son, with Brittanicus’s right to the throne, since he (Nero) was getting out of her control. It’s quite a scene. “On Mercy” is Seneca’s attempt, on one level, to absolve Nero for the murder and lead him to a new acceptance of virtue.
——
“Seneca had been the recipient of many such gifts [from Nero] over the years. Gardens, villas, and estates, including some of which had perhaps belonged to Brittanicus, made him vastly wealthy. But accepting them had made him an accomplice in the rough methods by which they were obtained. That Seneca was struggling with the problem is clear from the treatise he published in the late 50s or early 60s [AD], De Beneficiis, a long meditation on the topic of giving and receiving.” (p. 127)
After reading this book I will never again be able to read Seneca’s essays with a straight face as, say, Montaigne once read them.
For instance, “On the Shortness of Life“ is generally believed to have been written so Seneca‘s father-in-law might save face on being turned our of office—he managed grain supplies—by the emperor Claudius’s wife Agrippina. It was important that Seneca make it appear that his father-in-law was retiring for philosophical reasons, not, as was the truth, being turned out cruelly by Seneca’s enemy.
The story of Nero’s brutal murder of Brittanicus—deified Claudius’s natural son—simply for purposes of undermining his mother, Agrippina, takes the breath away. He had him poisoned at dinner with Agrippina there to witness. She had been threatening Nero, her blood son, with Brittanicus’s right to the throne, since he (Nero) was getting out of her control. It’s quite a scene. “On Mercy” is Seneca’s attempt, on one level, to absolve Nero for the murder and lead him to a new acceptance of virtue.
——
“Seneca had been the recipient of many such gifts [from Nero] over the years. Gardens, villas, and estates, including some of which had perhaps belonged to Brittanicus, made him vastly wealthy. But accepting them had made him an accomplice in the rough methods by which they were obtained. That Seneca was struggling with the problem is clear from the treatise he published in the late 50s or early 60s [AD], De Beneficiis, a long meditation on the topic of giving and receiving.” (p. 127)
After reading this book I will never again be able to read Seneca’s essays with a straight face as, say, Montaigne once read them.
June 29, 2023
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.
March 21, 2015
A caustic reader of this darkly-entertaining biography might call it Lying Every Day. To call Seneca a "man of contradictions" is kind. He is the preeminent example in antiquity of someone who wanted to have his philosophical cake and eat it too – preaching the ascetic virtues of Stoicism and abnegation while living a luxurious life as a Roman multimillionaire. His essays harp on the dignity of death and the heroic freedom of suicide, while his day job as Nero's court philosopher required him to connive at political murder, including Nero's assassination of his own murderous mother. One ancient historian blames Seneca's usurious greed for triggering the rebellion of Boudicca, warrior-queen of ancient Britain, resulting in the deaths of 80,000 Roman soldiers and just as many British. Buckets of blood. Yet at the end he couldn't bleed himself. He tried hemlock (in a stagey imitation of Socrates), and finally suffocated himself in a steam bath. He seems to have died convinced that he was what he pretended to be.
October 3, 2019
The basic thesis is this: Seneca’s philosophical convictions were sincere but he believed them to be ideals to be aimed at over an entire life rather than achieved. His relationship with Nero was, similar to Aristotle’s with Alexander the Great, designed to moderate the young prince and teach him virtues. Or so Seneca justified it to himself. Once in power he found his position a trap. Since Nero made much political capital out of Seneca’s moral stature, it meant that Seneca could never resign his role or it would be seen as a repudiation; confirmation of the tyrant’s vices. More ominously, Seneca’s elevation also saw the elevation of family members, all of whom could expect to pay the price should the philosopher take the moral path.
Basically, the book is a study of the corrosive effect autocracy has on even the most decent of people. Not that Seneca necessarily fit into that category. Even accepting this thesis, Seneca fails to meet his own high standards quite a lot. Lending money at high rates of interest and then using his knowledge of court politics to recall it from men he knew could not afford it? Amassing a fortune of half a billion sesterces, largely off benefices taken from Nero’s victims? And he was certainly willing to use his moral authority to advance his own career. Several of his moral treatises were designed to win over an emperor or prove his political worth. And since his writings never make mention of his political career, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that he’s being rather hypocritical.
Indeed, the whole book is filled with an awareness of Seneca’s ambiguity. The man, while ostensibly baring his very soul through his letters (including some charmingly embarrassing anecdotes), was a master at concealing his thoughts; at compartmentalizing his life. What he said and what he did often doesn’t line up. Indeed, if you’re looking for a single example of moral behavior in his political career you’ve got a lot of special pleading to do. The best historians can come up with are the things he didn’t do. Or rather, the things Nero didn’t do until after his fall from grace and eventual death. No performing in Rome, no divorcing his popular wife... And how much are we to praise Seneca for enacting this restraint (if indeed he did) when the list of things he did do (with Seneca’s help or at least knowledge) includes the murder of his brother and mother. Seneca’s life seems entirely devoid of moral stands, which makes his efforts to be both philosopher and councilor rather pointless. Even at the end, when he has literally nothing left to lose, Seneca chose the path of submission.
I do find some of the observations on Nero’s autocracy somewhat facile. Doesn’t it seem a little suspicious that every death in Nero’s circle (and beyond) is attributed to poison? Romm admits upfront that this is unprovable slander that even the authors themselves could not have known for certain, yet he’s willing to have his cake and eat it too when it pleases him. When you record the accusations of poison and comment on how much it would benefit Nero (ignoring the ill health and old age of those concerned) it’s hard to say that certain games aren’t being played. It seems that the easiest way to rescue Seneca is to damn Nero. Nero’s every excess is condemned in the highest possible terms to give Seneca a chance to wring his hands nervously in despair. It all seems a bit much.
Still, as an explanation of character motivations it’s very good. Indeed, it almost feels a shame that this wasn’t a novel. The scenes we do not see sound so much more compelling than the few scraps we’re given by Tacitus and Dio. The whole story seems like a tragedy of epic proportions. The story of a good man with personal ambitions but many good intentions who finds himself making too many compromises and unable to escape the moral quagmire his life has become.
Basically, the book is a study of the corrosive effect autocracy has on even the most decent of people. Not that Seneca necessarily fit into that category. Even accepting this thesis, Seneca fails to meet his own high standards quite a lot. Lending money at high rates of interest and then using his knowledge of court politics to recall it from men he knew could not afford it? Amassing a fortune of half a billion sesterces, largely off benefices taken from Nero’s victims? And he was certainly willing to use his moral authority to advance his own career. Several of his moral treatises were designed to win over an emperor or prove his political worth. And since his writings never make mention of his political career, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that he’s being rather hypocritical.
Indeed, the whole book is filled with an awareness of Seneca’s ambiguity. The man, while ostensibly baring his very soul through his letters (including some charmingly embarrassing anecdotes), was a master at concealing his thoughts; at compartmentalizing his life. What he said and what he did often doesn’t line up. Indeed, if you’re looking for a single example of moral behavior in his political career you’ve got a lot of special pleading to do. The best historians can come up with are the things he didn’t do. Or rather, the things Nero didn’t do until after his fall from grace and eventual death. No performing in Rome, no divorcing his popular wife... And how much are we to praise Seneca for enacting this restraint (if indeed he did) when the list of things he did do (with Seneca’s help or at least knowledge) includes the murder of his brother and mother. Seneca’s life seems entirely devoid of moral stands, which makes his efforts to be both philosopher and councilor rather pointless. Even at the end, when he has literally nothing left to lose, Seneca chose the path of submission.
I do find some of the observations on Nero’s autocracy somewhat facile. Doesn’t it seem a little suspicious that every death in Nero’s circle (and beyond) is attributed to poison? Romm admits upfront that this is unprovable slander that even the authors themselves could not have known for certain, yet he’s willing to have his cake and eat it too when it pleases him. When you record the accusations of poison and comment on how much it would benefit Nero (ignoring the ill health and old age of those concerned) it’s hard to say that certain games aren’t being played. It seems that the easiest way to rescue Seneca is to damn Nero. Nero’s every excess is condemned in the highest possible terms to give Seneca a chance to wring his hands nervously in despair. It all seems a bit much.
Still, as an explanation of character motivations it’s very good. Indeed, it almost feels a shame that this wasn’t a novel. The scenes we do not see sound so much more compelling than the few scraps we’re given by Tacitus and Dio. The whole story seems like a tragedy of epic proportions. The story of a good man with personal ambitions but many good intentions who finds himself making too many compromises and unable to escape the moral quagmire his life has become.
March 17, 2014
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.
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.
July 12, 2025
Another Roman history banger, this time going over Nero, his mentor Seneca, and his evil mother Agrippina.
Agrippina and Nero are basically the real life version of Cersei and Joffrey Lannister. Agrippina made a cuckhold of her husband, got him to adopt an illegitimate son, killed anyone who stood in the way of her son’s path to the throne, and used her regency for her own selfish desires.
Nero was every bit as evil as Joffrey and had little regard for human life, except for his own mistress who even she fell to his wrath.
A must read for any Greko/Roman history fan
Agrippina and Nero are basically the real life version of Cersei and Joffrey Lannister. Agrippina made a cuckhold of her husband, got him to adopt an illegitimate son, killed anyone who stood in the way of her son’s path to the throne, and used her regency for her own selfish desires.
Nero was every bit as evil as Joffrey and had little regard for human life, except for his own mistress who even she fell to his wrath.
A must read for any Greko/Roman history fan
December 29, 2014
Dying Every Day (a wonderful title) by James Romm is a compact, well-researched and well-written study of the Emperor Nero and his relationship to the philosopher Seneca, who served as Nero's tutor and counselor. The book focuses more on Nero than on Seneca for various reasons, chief among them that more is known about Nero, despite the fact that Seneca wrote a half million words of literary philosophy that reflected his personal Stoic values.
The crises of this history, then, move from Nero's accession to his decision to kill his step-brother, his mother, and others in the Julio-Claudian clan who might try to take his throne from him. Nero's use of his throne is better termed an abuse of his throne. He was 17 when he assumed power and 32 when he lost it--to a suicide that was as complicated and botched as the suicide he pressed upon Seneca a few years earlier.
The issue Romm emphasizes with respect to Seneca is whether he was a hypocritical wealth-and- power-seeker or a virtuous man caught in the toils of power, forced to try to ameliorate Nero's excesses by virtue of his ever-waning influence over him.
The facts are that Seneca produced a great deal of lucid, compelling Stoic writing while amassing fabulous wealth and enormous influence, not something the normal Stoic would aspire to. This has always been the criticism of Seneca, even in his day. Knowing what was said of him and that Nero mistrusted and resented him, Seneca offered Nero all his riches if he could be permitted to leave his court and end his days in solitary peace. Nero declined the offer.
Ultimately Nero associated Seneca with a conspiracy against him, however, and commanded that Seneca do away with himself. As in so many other instances, Seneca's role in the conspiracy (Piso's Conspiracy) is not quite clear. He was a cautious, wary, experienced man who may have wanted to stay clear of taking Nero on or who may have conceived of himself as the ultimate beneficiary of the conspiracy . . . thereby becoming the next Roman princeps, or emperor.
Romm relies heavily on the Annals of Tacitus, which I'm reading concurrently in English fifty years after I translated Tacitus from the Latin. Going straight to Tacitus is in some ways more engaging than reading his work filtered through (but amplified by) Romm.
Those who are fascinated with Rome and its emperors will find this a worthwhile book. It doesn't have the panache of its title from front to back, but it does put us in touch with the barbarism of one of the world's first great "civilizations."
The question the classics often pose to us is how we compare with ancient manners and morals. This is particularly true in the case of Stoicism, which is an ascetic, self-denying philosophy that requires an individual to live modestly but nobly at the same time. Seneca's gift was phrasing the moral dimensions of Stoicism in tight, epigrammatic style. What he points to constantly are issues of self-restraint, detachment, and what might be called integrity, or honor. Coupling this kind of philosopher with Nero generated conflicts. Nero was a vapid Narcissist who didn't hesitate to poison, torture, or simply intimidate someone into committing suicide. As he grew older (I won't say matured) he found Seneca's presence less useful and more irritating. Seneca understood the dynamic. He had outlived his usefulness to the emperor, worn out his welcome.
Having been party to some of Nero's excesses, one might have expected some kind of remorse on Seneca's part, some expression of guilt. But he wouldn't do it, and perhaps he couldn't, for if he did, Nero would have seen him dead sooner rather than later. This leads me to a basic question: who among recent and historical figures has really confronted his mistakes and taken himself to task for them? Robert McNamara comes to mind; he ended his life unable to find justification for the policies he advocated in Vietnam. But there aren't many other rulers, or advisors or philosophers who have summed things up negatively. Today George Bush, Dick Cheney and others maintain that their interrogation policies didn't include torture. Nixon didn't repudiate Vietnam as McNamara did. A few of Nixon's Watergate henchmen accepted their punishment without crying foul, but not many. I don't know whether Neville Chamberlain ever publicly addressed his misjudgment of Hitler (this would be worth looking into). It's not an easy thing to do--say you were wrong--but it's not an easy thing to rule and always be right or philosophize and always be right. From Socrates we receive the word "apology," as in "Socrates's Apology." In fact, this just means "explanation" or "personal account of the facts." And in fact, Socrates's apologized by going on the offensive. But at least he set a standard for not expecting much of men who judge other men. He went to his trial expecting to be condemned, perhaps even wanting to be condemned, and he wasn't disappointed.
The crises of this history, then, move from Nero's accession to his decision to kill his step-brother, his mother, and others in the Julio-Claudian clan who might try to take his throne from him. Nero's use of his throne is better termed an abuse of his throne. He was 17 when he assumed power and 32 when he lost it--to a suicide that was as complicated and botched as the suicide he pressed upon Seneca a few years earlier.
The issue Romm emphasizes with respect to Seneca is whether he was a hypocritical wealth-and- power-seeker or a virtuous man caught in the toils of power, forced to try to ameliorate Nero's excesses by virtue of his ever-waning influence over him.
The facts are that Seneca produced a great deal of lucid, compelling Stoic writing while amassing fabulous wealth and enormous influence, not something the normal Stoic would aspire to. This has always been the criticism of Seneca, even in his day. Knowing what was said of him and that Nero mistrusted and resented him, Seneca offered Nero all his riches if he could be permitted to leave his court and end his days in solitary peace. Nero declined the offer.
Ultimately Nero associated Seneca with a conspiracy against him, however, and commanded that Seneca do away with himself. As in so many other instances, Seneca's role in the conspiracy (Piso's Conspiracy) is not quite clear. He was a cautious, wary, experienced man who may have wanted to stay clear of taking Nero on or who may have conceived of himself as the ultimate beneficiary of the conspiracy . . . thereby becoming the next Roman princeps, or emperor.
Romm relies heavily on the Annals of Tacitus, which I'm reading concurrently in English fifty years after I translated Tacitus from the Latin. Going straight to Tacitus is in some ways more engaging than reading his work filtered through (but amplified by) Romm.
Those who are fascinated with Rome and its emperors will find this a worthwhile book. It doesn't have the panache of its title from front to back, but it does put us in touch with the barbarism of one of the world's first great "civilizations."
The question the classics often pose to us is how we compare with ancient manners and morals. This is particularly true in the case of Stoicism, which is an ascetic, self-denying philosophy that requires an individual to live modestly but nobly at the same time. Seneca's gift was phrasing the moral dimensions of Stoicism in tight, epigrammatic style. What he points to constantly are issues of self-restraint, detachment, and what might be called integrity, or honor. Coupling this kind of philosopher with Nero generated conflicts. Nero was a vapid Narcissist who didn't hesitate to poison, torture, or simply intimidate someone into committing suicide. As he grew older (I won't say matured) he found Seneca's presence less useful and more irritating. Seneca understood the dynamic. He had outlived his usefulness to the emperor, worn out his welcome.
Having been party to some of Nero's excesses, one might have expected some kind of remorse on Seneca's part, some expression of guilt. But he wouldn't do it, and perhaps he couldn't, for if he did, Nero would have seen him dead sooner rather than later. This leads me to a basic question: who among recent and historical figures has really confronted his mistakes and taken himself to task for them? Robert McNamara comes to mind; he ended his life unable to find justification for the policies he advocated in Vietnam. But there aren't many other rulers, or advisors or philosophers who have summed things up negatively. Today George Bush, Dick Cheney and others maintain that their interrogation policies didn't include torture. Nixon didn't repudiate Vietnam as McNamara did. A few of Nixon's Watergate henchmen accepted their punishment without crying foul, but not many. I don't know whether Neville Chamberlain ever publicly addressed his misjudgment of Hitler (this would be worth looking into). It's not an easy thing to do--say you were wrong--but it's not an easy thing to rule and always be right or philosophize and always be right. From Socrates we receive the word "apology," as in "Socrates's Apology." In fact, this just means "explanation" or "personal account of the facts." And in fact, Socrates's apologized by going on the offensive. But at least he set a standard for not expecting much of men who judge other men. He went to his trial expecting to be condemned, perhaps even wanting to be condemned, and he wasn't disappointed.
June 7, 2017
A terrific dual biography of Seneca and Nero. Seneca, the Stoic and the statesman. Nero: the child-minded monster. Romm’s book is well-researched and well-written. It’s a popular history, but a smart one. Seneca is the main attraction here and the complexities of his personality and his position are skillfully explored. How is philosophy reconciled with political power, or can it be? How do we judge ourselves when we fail our best ideals in stupendous fashion? When must we set hope aside and accept a terrible reality for what it is - and what is our duty at that moment? Good stuff, all of it. I’ve put Romm’s other book, Ghost on the Throne, on my to-read list.
November 15, 2015
This kind of history usually isn't my thing as a reader, but I'd met the author and as a courtesy he sent it to me. I was absolutely astonished! If you think we have leaders who are out-of-control spoiled brats floated by a compliant senate, it is nothing--nothing--compared with Rome with Nero at the helm. Murder, matricide, siblicide, infanticide, and more induced suicides than you can count; it's a wonder Rome could both have been great and then could have allowed this havoc spree that lasted as long as it did. The hubris, cruelty, delusion, and collusion combine to a truly incredible page-turner. Even though it's history (actually, because it is history), I found it oddly potent as escapist reading. And it put today's politics and violent horrors in some perspective; our species has always been scheming and violent, and politics has always been, well, scheming and violent. Actually, we've made some progress. My only reservation about the book is that I would have liked more narrative detail as some of these events unfolded. Add half a star because I appreciated the author sticking close enough to sources to tell us when the sources conflict over certain details, letting it be OK that when we simply don't know, rather than overstating the historical record.
January 25, 2024
Astounding read! Gripping non-fiction. Very strong recommendation 👍
As strong and enlightening as Ghost on the Throne: The Death of Alexander the Great and the War for Crown and Empire.
Following it up with Lives of the Stoics: The Art of Living from Zeno to Marcus Aurelius.
Essential companion:
- Letters from a Stoic
As strong and enlightening as Ghost on the Throne: The Death of Alexander the Great and the War for Crown and Empire.
Following it up with Lives of the Stoics: The Art of Living from Zeno to Marcus Aurelius.
Essential companion:
- Letters from a Stoic
January 7, 2015
I will start by agreeing with other reviews that found that they were surprised that they enjoyed this slightly less than Romm's last book "Ghost on the Throne." It's certainly just as well written, and the topic is just as well visualized, but the author's own struggle to come to a conclusion on the nature of Seneca infects the impact of the book as a whole.
Which, really, is ultimately everything I can say about it in microcosm.
Romm does such an excellent job of introducing the players in this grand and epic farce, that the lack of closure and conclusion really robs the reader of a clear emotional resolution.
Deftly describing Seneca's rise to power along with his student Nero; and deftly describing the challenges and hypocrisies of guiding and managing Nero during his rise and early rule; and then deftly painting a portrait of the possible thought processes that guided Seneca to his eventual suicide. Deft is the name of the game here, but not depth.
Many topics are touched on, but there simply isn't enough digging to fully illustrate the various conflicts and contentions that are debated. Granted, the primary sources are either lacking in detail or lacking in objectivity, but there are a host of materials from Seneca's own pen that could have been more fully explored.
But this is not a philosophy primer, nor is it a performance review of Seneca's adherence to his own philosophical treatise; this is an indictment of who Seneca might have been, and an apologetic for who Seneca might have been. Sometimes, it tries to be both simultaneously, and this is where it stumbles.
Criticisms aside, this is an absolutely brilliant book. Romm remains one of the best historical writers of our generation. Capturing this level of nuance without overloading the reader is a near-magical feat. While I might have wanted more conclusion to match with the presentation of possibilities, the writing and the work that is on display here is absolutely stunning.
Well worth a read, and well worth the lingering questions that will plague you when you've finished.
Which, really, is ultimately everything I can say about it in microcosm.
Romm does such an excellent job of introducing the players in this grand and epic farce, that the lack of closure and conclusion really robs the reader of a clear emotional resolution.
Deftly describing Seneca's rise to power along with his student Nero; and deftly describing the challenges and hypocrisies of guiding and managing Nero during his rise and early rule; and then deftly painting a portrait of the possible thought processes that guided Seneca to his eventual suicide. Deft is the name of the game here, but not depth.
Many topics are touched on, but there simply isn't enough digging to fully illustrate the various conflicts and contentions that are debated. Granted, the primary sources are either lacking in detail or lacking in objectivity, but there are a host of materials from Seneca's own pen that could have been more fully explored.
But this is not a philosophy primer, nor is it a performance review of Seneca's adherence to his own philosophical treatise; this is an indictment of who Seneca might have been, and an apologetic for who Seneca might have been. Sometimes, it tries to be both simultaneously, and this is where it stumbles.
Criticisms aside, this is an absolutely brilliant book. Romm remains one of the best historical writers of our generation. Capturing this level of nuance without overloading the reader is a near-magical feat. While I might have wanted more conclusion to match with the presentation of possibilities, the writing and the work that is on display here is absolutely stunning.
Well worth a read, and well worth the lingering questions that will plague you when you've finished.
July 8, 2023
I'm a fan of James Romm, professor of classical studies at Bard College. I loved his book "The Ghost on the Throne," which tells the story of the minutes, hours, days and years following Alexander the Great's death. I also loved his book on Herodotus. But this one was a struggle. Romm says as much himself in interviews about the book. What does one make of the fact that the philosopher, playwright, ethicist, scholar and stoic Seneca served the emperor Nero? Romm would like there to be some mitigating reason, that Seneca served in order to exercise some restraint on the emperor, but (a) Seneca was not very successful, certainly not once Nero began to really spin out of control, but more than that, (b) he was Nero's strategist, speech writer, apologist (in the modern vernacular, Nero's spin doctor and political fixer) and then there's (c) the wealth Seneca amassed and his expensive lifestyle. Maybe it's Seneca I'm giving the three stars to rather than the book. It's all rather squinchy.
July 9, 2024
This is a book that should be read by every young person going into politics, regardless of his or her ideological bent. James Romm's Dying Every Day: Seneca at the Court of Nero tells what happens when a Stoic philosopher is hired to baby-sit the Emperor Nero. Even if, at first, Nero did not give any signs of turning into a murderous tyrant, nonetheless, that is exactly what he became.
Today, someone who quits working for a dominant politician is said to be "thrown under the bus." Back then, it was a death sentence. Either commit suicide or you will be visited by armed Praetorian Guards.
As a result of years of stress, the talented Seneca split in two. He dared not write anything about Nero lest it be misconstrued, though he wrote a series of interesting plays that he dared not see enacted. Fortunately, they survive. His published writings are almost entirely bits of Stoic philosophy, even his famous letters to Lucilius, which were never sent.
I cannot help but think that, by the time Seneca was invited to slash his wrists, it was almost a relief.
Today, someone who quits working for a dominant politician is said to be "thrown under the bus." Back then, it was a death sentence. Either commit suicide or you will be visited by armed Praetorian Guards.
As a result of years of stress, the talented Seneca split in two. He dared not write anything about Nero lest it be misconstrued, though he wrote a series of interesting plays that he dared not see enacted. Fortunately, they survive. His published writings are almost entirely bits of Stoic philosophy, even his famous letters to Lucilius, which were never sent.
I cannot help but think that, by the time Seneca was invited to slash his wrists, it was almost a relief.
August 26, 2025
I knew next to nothing about Seneca before I read this, but thought I knew a lot about Nero and his court. Not only did I learn a lot about Seneca while reading this book, but I also learned a lot more about Nero, and the individuals who moved in and out of his court over time. Towards the end we also get insights into Lucan, Seneca's nephew. The book was easy to read, and moved quickly for me. I will definitely check out more books by the author.
August 6, 2021
This book is more of an incomplete biography of Nero and less of a philosophical investigation into Senecas role at the court of Nero. Seneca played a role in this book, obviously, but I didn't learn much new about him and his influence on Nero or the political landscape.
I'd like to emphasise that I have read enough texts about the ancient Romans under Nero that I was able to connect the dots between the different events James Romm writes about. Readers, who are more interested in Seneca and his philosophy without having much background about the Roman history, will most certainly have less fun with this work.
So, I liked it, but in particular because I like the ancient Romans. However, I was somewhat disappointed since I expected more of a focused view on Seneca and less of an undetailed Nero biography. You definitely need to have at least some background knowledge about the Romans to enjoy this book, otherwise you'll most certainly feel lost here and there.
I'd like to emphasise that I have read enough texts about the ancient Romans under Nero that I was able to connect the dots between the different events James Romm writes about. Readers, who are more interested in Seneca and his philosophy without having much background about the Roman history, will most certainly have less fun with this work.
So, I liked it, but in particular because I like the ancient Romans. However, I was somewhat disappointed since I expected more of a focused view on Seneca and less of an undetailed Nero biography. You definitely need to have at least some background knowledge about the Romans to enjoy this book, otherwise you'll most certainly feel lost here and there.
January 14, 2025
What a shit show that Roman Empire was.
February 12, 2016
What makes someone a great teacher?
A great student.
That's the reason why Annie Sullivan is among the first great teachers who come to mind--not because of the remarkable teaching methods immortalized in The Miracle Worker, but because of the remarkable public intellectual that Helen Keller became.
That's the reason why Socrates is immortal--not only because he was such a brilliant thinker, but also because his student, Plato, turned out to be a pretty renowned philosopher in his own right.
There are other great teacher-student duos: Ambrose and St. Augustine, Aristotle and Alexander the Great, to name a few more.
Of course, this coin has an opposite side--and it was the primary reason why I read James Romm's Dying Every Day this month.
It is a wicked student that makes one a wicked teacher.
In the annals of history, there are few characters more notoriously wicked than Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, who ruled Rome from 54 to 68 AD. His reign of terror is remembered for the burning of Rome, the first persecutions of Christian, and the violent termination of his incestuous relationship with his mother, Agrippina.
Almost as bad--considering that this is a critique of Nero's teacher--was the fact that the young emperor was a poor poet, despite his desire to perform in public and earn the adulation of Roman audiences (with his hooligans milling through the crowd to ensure enthusiasm).
Nero's teacher was Seneca, probably better-known today as one of Rome's most famous playwrights and Stoic philosophers. Seneca had been rescued from exile in Corsica by Agrippina, hand-picked to tutor the young Nero while the boy's mother plotted the murder of his adopted father, the Emperor Claudius. (Somehow we can't blame Nero's misdeeds on his mother's brother, the heinously evil Uncle Caligula, who was long gone from the scene.)
Seneca followed Nero upon his accession to the imperial throne following Claudius's death, writing the teenaged emperor's first speeches and acting--along with Agrippina--as a chief adviser.
Romm follows the ethical dilemmas that dogged one of Rome's most prominent ethical thinkers through a progression of teacher, adviser, advocate and target of the mad Roman princeps (a term that Romm uses instead of emperor throughout the book). His chapter titles reflect Nero's crimes: Suicide (I and II), Regicide, Fratricide, Matricide, Maritocide and Holocaust. In many of these these crimes Seneca was an accomplice. From each of them Seneca benefitted.
Romm is sympathetic to Seneca to a point:
But Romm brings to light many of Seneca's weaknesses--which might not be evident to readers of Seneca's works which place Reason preeminent above wealth, power and love.
Seneca, the son of a Roman knight, a few rungs down the social ladder from most senators, amassed a huge fortune to go along with his political power in Nero's court. Romm finds allegations that Boudicaa's Rebellion in faraway Britain may have been caused, in part, by Seneca's insistence on calling in loans in the colony, raising the ire of Britons.
How ironic is it that the poet who wrote, "all the world's gold mines, heaped up into a single pile, would not be worth the frown on the face of a good man," possessed quite a few gold mines in his own rite (112).
By the end of Seneca's life, his fortune is too much. He tries to give most of it back to Nero in exchange for a peaceful retirement. His request is refused. The paranoid Nero keeps his enemies close. His allies closer.
Romm intersperses his history with examples from Seneca's works, showing how the moralist tried to represent ideals in his works that he fell far short of in real life.
The final contradiction of Seneca's life was his title as a teacher. Plyny the Elder, who wrote a generation later, called him pinceps eruditorum or 'educator of emperors.' His critics, among which was the writer, Cassius Dio, who left a detailed account of his role in Nero's court, preferred the term, tyrrannodidaskalos or "tyrant teacher" (217).
A great student.
That's the reason why Annie Sullivan is among the first great teachers who come to mind--not because of the remarkable teaching methods immortalized in The Miracle Worker, but because of the remarkable public intellectual that Helen Keller became.
That's the reason why Socrates is immortal--not only because he was such a brilliant thinker, but also because his student, Plato, turned out to be a pretty renowned philosopher in his own right.
There are other great teacher-student duos: Ambrose and St. Augustine, Aristotle and Alexander the Great, to name a few more.
Of course, this coin has an opposite side--and it was the primary reason why I read James Romm's Dying Every Day this month.
It is a wicked student that makes one a wicked teacher.
In the annals of history, there are few characters more notoriously wicked than Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, who ruled Rome from 54 to 68 AD. His reign of terror is remembered for the burning of Rome, the first persecutions of Christian, and the violent termination of his incestuous relationship with his mother, Agrippina.
Almost as bad--considering that this is a critique of Nero's teacher--was the fact that the young emperor was a poor poet, despite his desire to perform in public and earn the adulation of Roman audiences (with his hooligans milling through the crowd to ensure enthusiasm).
Nero's teacher was Seneca, probably better-known today as one of Rome's most famous playwrights and Stoic philosophers. Seneca had been rescued from exile in Corsica by Agrippina, hand-picked to tutor the young Nero while the boy's mother plotted the murder of his adopted father, the Emperor Claudius. (Somehow we can't blame Nero's misdeeds on his mother's brother, the heinously evil Uncle Caligula, who was long gone from the scene.)
Seneca followed Nero upon his accession to the imperial throne following Claudius's death, writing the teenaged emperor's first speeches and acting--along with Agrippina--as a chief adviser.
Romm follows the ethical dilemmas that dogged one of Rome's most prominent ethical thinkers through a progression of teacher, adviser, advocate and target of the mad Roman princeps (a term that Romm uses instead of emperor throughout the book). His chapter titles reflect Nero's crimes: Suicide (I and II), Regicide, Fratricide, Matricide, Maritocide and Holocaust. In many of these these crimes Seneca was an accomplice. From each of them Seneca benefitted.
Romm is sympathetic to Seneca to a point:
Seneca had made the bargain that many good men have made when agreeing to aid bad regimes. On the one hand, their presence strengthens the regime and helps it endure. But their moral influence may also improve the regime's behavior or save the lives of its enemies. For many, this has been a bargain worth making, even if it has cost them--as it may have cost Seneca--their immortal soul (133).
But Romm brings to light many of Seneca's weaknesses--which might not be evident to readers of Seneca's works which place Reason preeminent above wealth, power and love.
Seneca, the son of a Roman knight, a few rungs down the social ladder from most senators, amassed a huge fortune to go along with his political power in Nero's court. Romm finds allegations that Boudicaa's Rebellion in faraway Britain may have been caused, in part, by Seneca's insistence on calling in loans in the colony, raising the ire of Britons.
How ironic is it that the poet who wrote, "all the world's gold mines, heaped up into a single pile, would not be worth the frown on the face of a good man," possessed quite a few gold mines in his own rite (112).
By the end of Seneca's life, his fortune is too much. He tries to give most of it back to Nero in exchange for a peaceful retirement. His request is refused. The paranoid Nero keeps his enemies close. His allies closer.
Romm intersperses his history with examples from Seneca's works, showing how the moralist tried to represent ideals in his works that he fell far short of in real life.
The final contradiction of Seneca's life was his title as a teacher. Plyny the Elder, who wrote a generation later, called him pinceps eruditorum or 'educator of emperors.' His critics, among which was the writer, Cassius Dio, who left a detailed account of his role in Nero's court, preferred the term, tyrrannodidaskalos or "tyrant teacher" (217).
May 17, 2018
Erudite but absolutely accessible, Dying Every Day reads like a thriller at some points. Romm is both a great historian and a terrific storyteller.
We will never know, as this book points out, whether the Stoic philosopher Seneca, also the tutor and adviser of the psychopathic Emperor Nero, was a good man trying to keep Nero's worst impulses at bay, or an opportunist, in league with the princeps as long as it brought him wealth, power and security. Personally, I think the case for Seneca's hypocrisy is pretty well made, although working for Nero was probably not unlike being General McMaster in the Trump Administration. Under different, better circumstances, he could have been a truly virtuous man. Of course, one's virtue is tested and proved during the worst of times, and Seneca seemed to lack the moral courage to respond heroically to that challenge.
For those who are open to seeing the parallels, there are definitely similarities between Nero and Trump (I'm hardly the first person to notice this). When you read this book from that perspective, comparing the days of Seneca with our own, you realize how little has changed, especially the failure of good people to speak up, act out, and put an end to the madness.
We will never know, as this book points out, whether the Stoic philosopher Seneca, also the tutor and adviser of the psychopathic Emperor Nero, was a good man trying to keep Nero's worst impulses at bay, or an opportunist, in league with the princeps as long as it brought him wealth, power and security. Personally, I think the case for Seneca's hypocrisy is pretty well made, although working for Nero was probably not unlike being General McMaster in the Trump Administration. Under different, better circumstances, he could have been a truly virtuous man. Of course, one's virtue is tested and proved during the worst of times, and Seneca seemed to lack the moral courage to respond heroically to that challenge.
For those who are open to seeing the parallels, there are definitely similarities between Nero and Trump (I'm hardly the first person to notice this). When you read this book from that perspective, comparing the days of Seneca with our own, you realize how little has changed, especially the failure of good people to speak up, act out, and put an end to the madness.
November 9, 2017
Very readable, reasonably sized biography of Seneca.
June 6, 2025
3,5 stars; excellent history writing, but I don't know whether putting the emphasis on all the gruesome death and dying around the black hole of a human that was Nero should really comprise the subject of a book; the writing is neat, vivid; which helps visualize the sordid scenes, but it would have helped to provide a bit more background information on the Roman Empire and its place in history at the time.
December 8, 2024
I’ve always been interested in Seneca and Stocism in general, but Seneca’s own writings have just never engaged me. He’s not an orthodox philosophical writer (although others in that class, such as Nietzsche, can be tremendously engaging). So I thought this would be a good way to learn something about him. As the subtitle implies, this is not a philosophical examination of Seneca’s thought, it’s an account of his life in Nero’s court, and, in particular, of how his political life did or didn’t square with his philosophical Stocism.
Seneca was an insider in the midst of a political and personal environment that is hard to believe was even real. The reigns of Caligula, Claudius, and Nero featured full on madness, abuses of power, intrafamilial plotting and killing, politically purposeful but loveless marriages, petty vengeance, and on and on — everything you could expect from a shelf full of classic tragedies. And Seneca, as Nero's tutor and closest advisor, was himself involved on the sides of both victims and perpetrators. Anything but the calm, high-minded thinker that the term “Stoic philosopher” conjures.
Romm writes of Seneca, “He had attained both the wisdom of a sage and the power of a palace insider — but could the two selves coexist?” You could easily take a sympathetic view and think of Seneca as someone bravely trying to walk his moral talk. But he seems much more positively drawn to the temptations of power and wealth than that.
In the end, I’m not convinced there is any need to say that Seneca didn’t mean what he said, in his Stoic moral philosophy, regardless of its not squaring all that well with the life that he led.
Seneca’s own response comes in De Vita Beata (On the Happy Life), where he writes, “I am not a sapiens, nor — let me give you food for your malice! — will I ever be.” “Demand from me not that I be equal to the best, but better than the bad.” That’s a bit weak, as if not being the best person he can be were justification for not being the best person he can be. If it were an unalterable fact, rather than a condition to be improved upon, fine. But Stoicism itself, including Seneca’s own Stoic philosophy, teaches improvement through struggle. Seneca seems simply to have been unable to live up to his own ideals and even to have given up trying.
It can certainly be argued that the circumstances of Seneca’s life worked against his moral character. He was, as Stoicism actually urges, a participant in the politics of his time, that is, in “politics” as the governing of a state. But the politics of his time was as corrupt and treacherous as it could possibly have been, and it was bound to tar anyone who came near it. Seneca could conceivably have not entered politics — he seems to have lived a fairly idyllic life while in exile in Corsica before Nero’s rule. He couldn’t have been naive about what he was getting into, and, once in, he couldn’t get out. Nero even refused to allow Seneca, late in life, to retire from politics, no matter how estranged the two became.
Senec's fellow Stoic, Thrasea Paetus, certainly appears to have taken braver positions of dissent against Nero’s, and others’, abuses of power. But he did so as a Senator, not from a position so close to Nero as Seneca's. Thrasea, like Seneca, was forced in the end to take his own life, but it appears he was able to do so with a cleaner, if not spotless, conscience.
Romm’s book is very detailed with almost 50 pages of footnotes, but he is also a good story teller. This is a readable book for a non-specialist like me. The plots become complex and nested, so, for someone not all that familiar with the history, it is sometimes difficult to follow and requires some backtracking to gain and regain clarity. But that’s a matter of how tangled and knotted the story actually is. Romm doesn’t assume a lot of background knowledge — the story is all there in black and white prose. It’s a historical book, not a page-turner, but I really lost myself in it, a little sorry to see the story end.
Seneca was an insider in the midst of a political and personal environment that is hard to believe was even real. The reigns of Caligula, Claudius, and Nero featured full on madness, abuses of power, intrafamilial plotting and killing, politically purposeful but loveless marriages, petty vengeance, and on and on — everything you could expect from a shelf full of classic tragedies. And Seneca, as Nero's tutor and closest advisor, was himself involved on the sides of both victims and perpetrators. Anything but the calm, high-minded thinker that the term “Stoic philosopher” conjures.
Romm writes of Seneca, “He had attained both the wisdom of a sage and the power of a palace insider — but could the two selves coexist?” You could easily take a sympathetic view and think of Seneca as someone bravely trying to walk his moral talk. But he seems much more positively drawn to the temptations of power and wealth than that.
In the end, I’m not convinced there is any need to say that Seneca didn’t mean what he said, in his Stoic moral philosophy, regardless of its not squaring all that well with the life that he led.
Seneca’s own response comes in De Vita Beata (On the Happy Life), where he writes, “I am not a sapiens, nor — let me give you food for your malice! — will I ever be.” “Demand from me not that I be equal to the best, but better than the bad.” That’s a bit weak, as if not being the best person he can be were justification for not being the best person he can be. If it were an unalterable fact, rather than a condition to be improved upon, fine. But Stoicism itself, including Seneca’s own Stoic philosophy, teaches improvement through struggle. Seneca seems simply to have been unable to live up to his own ideals and even to have given up trying.
It can certainly be argued that the circumstances of Seneca’s life worked against his moral character. He was, as Stoicism actually urges, a participant in the politics of his time, that is, in “politics” as the governing of a state. But the politics of his time was as corrupt and treacherous as it could possibly have been, and it was bound to tar anyone who came near it. Seneca could conceivably have not entered politics — he seems to have lived a fairly idyllic life while in exile in Corsica before Nero’s rule. He couldn’t have been naive about what he was getting into, and, once in, he couldn’t get out. Nero even refused to allow Seneca, late in life, to retire from politics, no matter how estranged the two became.
Senec's fellow Stoic, Thrasea Paetus, certainly appears to have taken braver positions of dissent against Nero’s, and others’, abuses of power. But he did so as a Senator, not from a position so close to Nero as Seneca's. Thrasea, like Seneca, was forced in the end to take his own life, but it appears he was able to do so with a cleaner, if not spotless, conscience.
Romm’s book is very detailed with almost 50 pages of footnotes, but he is also a good story teller. This is a readable book for a non-specialist like me. The plots become complex and nested, so, for someone not all that familiar with the history, it is sometimes difficult to follow and requires some backtracking to gain and regain clarity. But that’s a matter of how tangled and knotted the story actually is. Romm doesn’t assume a lot of background knowledge — the story is all there in black and white prose. It’s a historical book, not a page-turner, but I really lost myself in it, a little sorry to see the story end.
September 5, 2024
While Nero and his mother Agrippina fight for power, Seneca, Nero’s tutor, provides a bulwark of moral authority to the emperor - as well as a façade of righteousness. Seneca was known as “Princeps eruditorum.”But on scrutiny he comes across as a very modern human being: trapped between philosophy and power, simplicity and privilege. Nero will command that he commit suicide.
June 2, 2015
I think that Romm did a good job of examining the complex figure of Seneca, a person who was deeply attached to Stoic philosophy, but was also very much drawn to material wealth (he was, outside of the imperial family, the richest man in Rome -- something tough to reconcile with being a Stoic), and he was equally drawn to the being part of the in-crowd in Rome, as tutor to Nero, who became emperor at 17, and who, early on, depended quite a bit on Seneca himself. Of course, Seneca was maybe too drawn to wealth and power and did not find them easily dispensed with, as a Stoic should. There were Stoic politicians in Nero's Rome, men like Thrasea Paetus, who remained independent thinkers in Nero's Rome. Seneca's failure to stand up to Nero when it might have mattered is something of a blot on Seneca's reputation, and Romm does not shy away from discussing the incongruities. Some Senecan scholars are so smitten with his language (he was a very clever Latin stylist) that they assume he must have been a good man playing up to Nero so as to have some good influence on him, but they often ignore the fact that Seneca made a devil's bargain, in part, because it meant he was in the inner circle of power, and that bargain came back to haunt him.
February 5, 2016
Romm explores the contradictory nature of Seneca's role during Nero's reign. As an acknowledged and extensively published Stoic philosopher, Seneca played a pre-eminent role in Nero's court; not only did he serve as teacher, to an extent, he also provided various layers of legitimacy for the young ruler. Surely if a wizened philosopher sanctioned Nero's actions, there was nothing to be concerned about? Romm relies heavily on the historian Tacitus to draw her conclusions and provide context for this investigation into Seneca's motivations and contradictions. Acknowledging that utilizing Seneca's own work as source material is somewhat spurious given the tricky position of needing to continually placate Nero, Romm does not attempt so much as to give a ready answer or draw a solid conclusion as to why Seneca chose to seemingly betray his moral beliefs and continue to inhabit his political position, but to provide enough context to the debate so as readers can intelligently form their own hypotheses. That being said...on the whole, I was under-whelmed.
August 19, 2015
Do as I write, not as I do. This apparent hypocrisy has tarnished Seneca's legacy throughout the ages. Seneca's treatises on stoicism and the epigrammatic style of his letters have been greatly admired by the likes of Marcus Aurelius and Montaigne. But Seneca's participation in the tyrannical, paranoid court of Nero, his accumulation of massive wealth, and his efforts to defend the petulant boy-emperor's heinous crimes seem to contradict much of his philosophy. Romm does an excellent job culling the histories of Tacitus, Suetonius and other Roman historians to dramatize Seneca's life and to present the many contradictions. You could read the originals and draw your own conclusions. Or you can get Romm's crisp digest of events. In a lively, modern, well-researched narrative Romm presents the good and the bad without pre-judging the man.
July 10, 2014
What would summer be without a brief visit to the most salacious and sensational years of the Roman Empire? See Nero! Hear Seneca! Reel as your read about an era you are grateful not to live in. Serious scholarship written for anyone to enjoy and ponder.
May 29, 2025
James Romm’s Dying Every Day is a tightly woven, narratively elegant account of the Roman philosopher Seneca during his years at the court of Nero—a chapter of history as ethically fraught as it is politically brutal.
Reading this book left me not with certainty, but with questions. Was Seneca a coward or a survivor? A compromised philosopher or a reluctant statesman caught in the coils of empire? Romm doesn’t offer us moral clarity—and that may be his greatest strength. Instead, he builds a portrait of a man under pressure, who wrote with philosophical brilliance while serving a tyrant capable of casual executions. Romm doesn’t demand our judgment. He simply holds us in the tension of what we know: that living under the whims of a Roman emperor meant exile—or death—was often one breath away. It’s not hard to imagine that Seneca, at times, looked back on his banishment to Corsica with a sense of lost peace.
Romm’s prose walks a fine line between storytelling and scholarship. I practiced immersion reading—following the text while listening to the audiobook—and the result was a historical work that sounded like a novel. The book flows quickly and deliberately. Romm is not trying to deliver a comprehensive biography. He sets out to explore one specific terrain: Seneca’s presence in the eye of Nero’s storm. And on that mission, he absolutely hits his mark. The narrative is lean, the pace brisk, and the scope focused. You get the sense that every word was chosen to serve the core tension between Stoic thought and imperial service.
The book doesn’t try to resolve the contradiction between Seneca’s lofty moral writings and his service to a despot. That’s not Romm’s job—it’s ours. And if we’re honest, that tension may reflect something deeply human. Years ago, I might’ve dismissed Seneca as a hypocrite or opportunist. But time—and reading—softens judgment. There’s a line of thinking that says, “We’d all be the ones to hide Anne Frank.” But in truth, statistically, most of us would not. Most of us would survive. And perhaps that’s what Seneca did. He did not die in protest like some of his Stoic peers. He died an old man, by his own hand, at Nero’s request. Was it poetic? Yes. Heroic? Not quite. Human? Absolutely.
I no longer need Seneca to be clean. I need him to be useful. Dying Every Day doesn’t sanitize or sanctify. It simply places Seneca where he lived: in the middle of a moral minefield, writing philosophy by candlelight while Rome burned.
This book is for the reader who doesn’t need heroes—just humans trying to live by principles in impossible situations. It’s for those who understand that wisdom doesn’t require perfection, and that surviving tyranny sometimes makes philosophers more relevant, not less.
Reading this book left me not with certainty, but with questions. Was Seneca a coward or a survivor? A compromised philosopher or a reluctant statesman caught in the coils of empire? Romm doesn’t offer us moral clarity—and that may be his greatest strength. Instead, he builds a portrait of a man under pressure, who wrote with philosophical brilliance while serving a tyrant capable of casual executions. Romm doesn’t demand our judgment. He simply holds us in the tension of what we know: that living under the whims of a Roman emperor meant exile—or death—was often one breath away. It’s not hard to imagine that Seneca, at times, looked back on his banishment to Corsica with a sense of lost peace.
Romm’s prose walks a fine line between storytelling and scholarship. I practiced immersion reading—following the text while listening to the audiobook—and the result was a historical work that sounded like a novel. The book flows quickly and deliberately. Romm is not trying to deliver a comprehensive biography. He sets out to explore one specific terrain: Seneca’s presence in the eye of Nero’s storm. And on that mission, he absolutely hits his mark. The narrative is lean, the pace brisk, and the scope focused. You get the sense that every word was chosen to serve the core tension between Stoic thought and imperial service.
The book doesn’t try to resolve the contradiction between Seneca’s lofty moral writings and his service to a despot. That’s not Romm’s job—it’s ours. And if we’re honest, that tension may reflect something deeply human. Years ago, I might’ve dismissed Seneca as a hypocrite or opportunist. But time—and reading—softens judgment. There’s a line of thinking that says, “We’d all be the ones to hide Anne Frank.” But in truth, statistically, most of us would not. Most of us would survive. And perhaps that’s what Seneca did. He did not die in protest like some of his Stoic peers. He died an old man, by his own hand, at Nero’s request. Was it poetic? Yes. Heroic? Not quite. Human? Absolutely.
I no longer need Seneca to be clean. I need him to be useful. Dying Every Day doesn’t sanitize or sanctify. It simply places Seneca where he lived: in the middle of a moral minefield, writing philosophy by candlelight while Rome burned.
This book is for the reader who doesn’t need heroes—just humans trying to live by principles in impossible situations. It’s for those who understand that wisdom doesn’t require perfection, and that surviving tyranny sometimes makes philosophers more relevant, not less.
June 14, 2025
Dying Every Day is a masterful blend of historical scholarship and narrative storytelling. James Romm takes us deep into the life and inner world of Seneca—philosopher, playwright, and political advisor—during one of the most turbulent periods of the Roman Empire. This book doesn’t just recount events; it brings them to life with vivid detail and insightful commentary. This is not a biography of Seneca and does not flame to be. It is a volume that catalogs the limitations of a tutors power to shape a diabolical demigod.
What makes this work truly stand out is Romm’s ability to portray the complexity and contradictions within Seneca himself. The duality of Seneca—the Stoic philosopher preaching virtue while serving the notoriously cruel emperor Nero—is presented with nuance and depth. Seneca’s own struggle to reconcile his ideals with his political realities is a central theme, and Romm captures this beautifully. You can feel the tension between philosophy and power, between public duty and personal conscience.
As someone deeply interested in Stoicism, I found this book to be more than just a biography—it’s also a fascinating reflection on the practical limits and enduring influence of Stoic thought. It demonstrates how Stoicism shaped, and at times was shaped by, the volatile dynamics of Roman leadership. Romm shows how Stoicism was not just an abstract philosophy but a living force in the corridors of power.
What a wonderful book. It’s both intellectually satisfying and genuinely engaging—a rare combination. Romm has done something remarkable here: made ancient history feel immediate and deeply human. Highly recommended for readers of philosophy, Roman history, or anyone curious about how ideas and individuals intersect in moments of great consequence.
4.5 stars kindle/audible immersive
What makes this work truly stand out is Romm’s ability to portray the complexity and contradictions within Seneca himself. The duality of Seneca—the Stoic philosopher preaching virtue while serving the notoriously cruel emperor Nero—is presented with nuance and depth. Seneca’s own struggle to reconcile his ideals with his political realities is a central theme, and Romm captures this beautifully. You can feel the tension between philosophy and power, between public duty and personal conscience.
As someone deeply interested in Stoicism, I found this book to be more than just a biography—it’s also a fascinating reflection on the practical limits and enduring influence of Stoic thought. It demonstrates how Stoicism shaped, and at times was shaped by, the volatile dynamics of Roman leadership. Romm shows how Stoicism was not just an abstract philosophy but a living force in the corridors of power.
What a wonderful book. It’s both intellectually satisfying and genuinely engaging—a rare combination. Romm has done something remarkable here: made ancient history feel immediate and deeply human. Highly recommended for readers of philosophy, Roman history, or anyone curious about how ideas and individuals intersect in moments of great consequence.
4.5 stars kindle/audible immersive
July 29, 2017
I found Dying Every Day very readable for a general audience, despite its author being an academic historian. Seneca and Nero are both fascinating figures and Romm draws on a variety of sources to paint vivid pictures of them both. He quotes extensively from Seneca's work, offering a good introduction for those readers like me who have never read any. Romm gives a balanced interpretation of this controversial ethicist and poses questions that remain relevant in today's social and political scenes: is it possible for humans to remain true to our morals while in the seat of power?
Read
July 4, 2024Despite the author's attempts to paint Seneca's life with an unbiased brush it still comes across like Seneca was obsessed with virtue for the same reason a hungry man is obsessed with food. We has a swamp creature at every phase of Nero's rule. The story of him triggering a British rebellion by recalling personal loans is particularly poignant if true. If it wasn't for selective mentions of Cato and Thrasea this book would be enough for anyone to discredit stoicism.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 206 reviews