In De civitate Dei 6.10 Augustine describes the tension between Seneca’s status as a man of philosophy and his role as an eminent senator; the latter, Augustine asserts, caused Seneca to do what he censured and to reverence what he condemned. The issues that Augustine raises – philosophical freedom versus political compulsion; inconsistency between words and actions – find resonance in key strands running through R.’s monograph on flattery in Seneca the Younger.
R. explores the ‘discourse of flattery’ across Seneca’s philosophical works, examining both what Seneca does in his texts and what he says on the subject. R. uses the dichotomy of Seneca’s philosophical and political roles to reveal how contemporary contexts shaped Seneca’s presentation and enactment of flattery. An important part of R.’s method builds on the concept of doublespeak, and S. Bartsch’s earlier work (Actors in the Audience: Theatricality and Doublespeak from Nero to Hadrian [1994]) provides a key precedent for R.’s analysis of layers of meaning within Seneca’s texts: the surface level may present praise or flattery, but with veiled criticism lurking below; the role of theatricality and one’s persona is important throughout the book. Additionally, much of R.’s investigation concentrates on exempla, where she observes a disjunct between Seneca’s ethical and political assessments; in this endeavour she adds valuable observations to scholarship on Roman exemplarity such as M. Roller (Models from the Past in Roman Culture: A World of Exempla [2018]) and R. Langlands (Exemplary Ethics in Ancient Rome [2018]).
The book is well organised, with clear sections and signposting, and follows a logical order: R. first examines texts where Seneca flatters and presents examples of flatterers, before tracing Seneca’s theorising of flattery; the major texts under discussion are therefore treated in a roughly chronological order. The introduction presents R.’s aims and establishes Seneca not only as a practitioner of flattery, but also as an eyewitness and recipient of flattery (pp. 1–3). A useful overview of the term adulatio and synonyms, along with discussion of the historical context, highlights the heightened importance of flattery under the principate (pp. 2–6) before R. explains her theoretical framework (pp. 6–10). A summary of individual chapters (pp. 10–13) allows for easy orientation in the book.
The first three chapters focus on Seneca’s Consolatio ad Polybium. In Chapter 1 R. offers a new way of reading the consolation, viewing it in the tradition of exile literature as well as the consolatory tradition. Seneca praises Polybius in a number of ways designed to highlight similarities between himself and the freedman – both as flattery and as a way of connection, in the hope that Polybius might mediate with Claudius for Seneca’s return from exile. Meanwhile, the praise of Claudius puts Seneca’s own flattery on display; R. convincingly argues that the exaggerated praise of Claudius may seem insincere, but false praise is itself a demonstration of the ruler’s power (cf. Thy. 205–7).
Chapter 2 focuses on Polybius as the recipient of the consolation. As part of praising Polybius, Seneca emphasises his literary credentials. R. detects subversive messages here: despite encouraging Polybius to write about Claudius’ achievements, Ovidian allusions hint that Polybius should conceal Claudius’ less admirable deeds. Moreover, Seneca flatters Polybius, but offers hidden criticism of the freedman and the power of freedmen more generally under Claudius (an unsurprising sentiment from a senator – cf. Ep. 86.7 –, but notable given the text’s addressee). In Chapter 3 R. examines a series of exempla from the imperial family, presented in Claudius’ voice. These exempla flatter Claudius, but similarly are not without ambiguity; Seneca’s praise of Claudius at the end of the text is loaded, with reference again to Ovid’s exile poetry, hinting at a more ambivalent portrayal of the emperor.
R. continues to focus on exempla in Chapter 4, moving on to De ira. She examines a number of exempla, describing them as ‘apologetic’ when it comes to Seneca’s own circumstances (p. 118), and shows that they illustrate the need for flattery and (dis)simulation in the relationship between the courtier and the ruler. (This need is on both sides – rulers require flattery as an indicator of their power.) Chapter 5 extends this discussion by considering the figure of Iulius Canus in De tranquillitate animi as someone who subverts expectations by not flattering the emperor. In order to provide context for this passage, R. first discusses simplicitas and the change in this concept from Republic to Empire. Canus emerges as one of the rare few who can live simpliciter; for most others flattery is now an essential tool for survival.
Chapter 6 concentrates on De clementia – perhaps the most obvious text to feature in a discussion of Senecan flattery – and on Seneca’s multiple strategies to address and flatter the princeps. This is a wide-ranging chapter, covering a wealth of material. We see how Seneca’s praise is put into Nero’s voice so that Nero flatters himself, but there is also a hidden warning about the risk of absolute power; R. emphasises how flattery and admonition go hand in hand in this text. Nero’s clementia and the political context of the quinquennium Neronis are also considered, with the role of the senate in Nero’s accession speech (as reported by Tacitus) versus its absence in De clementia: R. suggests that this might be a way of Seneca flattering Nero while also elevating his own status.
The final two chapters look at what Seneca says about flattery – his theory, rather than his practice. Chapter 7 draws together passages from across Seneca’s Epistulae, exploring the dichotomy of amicitia and adulatio as well as the dangerous nature of adulatio as a vice. R. brings together Epp. 73 and 14 as important statements on the role of otium for the philosopher in withdrawing completely from political life (and therefore from the need for flattery). De otio could be a helpful addition to the discussion, with the sapiens forced to reject all types of res publica. Chapter 8 focuses on the preface to Quaestiones naturales 4a, where the adulator is caricatured through comparison with other figures, such as the gladiator. Reference to other texts helps develop R.’s analysis of Seneca’s theories of flattery, such as the opposing approaches in De ira and De beneficiis, where giving the emperor good advice is seen as impossible and advisable respectively. R. emphasises the shift in perspective, from political to philosophical – a valuable demonstration of how to reconcile seemingly contradictory statements in Seneca’s works. In Quaestiones naturales being flattered is philosophically more dangerous than giving flattery, as receiving flattery is an obstacle to virtue and can lead to self-flattery. R.’s discussion of how the adulator becomes comparable to the sapiens, as both represent a type of artifex, is particularly thought-provoking, within the overall context of flattery ‘as a necessary political skill and yet as a philosophical vice’ (pp. 225–6).
There are many excellent things to enjoy in this highly stimulating and wide-ranging book. R.’s overall conclusions are compelling, and her analyses of significant passages are detailed and nuanced. The ideas she explores will benefit anyone interested in the relationship between the princeps and his subjects, while the strong emphasis on historical context (with Suetonius, Tacitus and Cassius Dio all brought into play) makes this a useful book for consideration of the early imperial period more generally. Most significantly, R.’s approach allows a varied selection of Senecan texts to be brought together into dialogue with each other; not only does this produce a rich picture of the role of flattery across Seneca’s corpus, but it also goes a long way to demonstrating how we can deal with inconsistencies and perspective shifts across these works, especially where Seneca’s political and philosophical stances collide and contradict. R.’s findings bring us closer to understanding the Seneca that Augustine criticises and condemns; whether we sympathise with him, or not, remains a question for the individual reader.
