Stoics do have a severe attitude toward emotion; at least Seneca does. For example, I read this earlier today (in Letters From a Stoic):
"The question has often been raised whether it is better to have moderate emotions or none at all. Philosophers of our school reject the emotions; the Peripatetics keep them in check. I, however do not understand how any half-way disease can be either wholesome or helpful. [....]" He goes on to explain the link between emotions and vice, and how it is better to cut off the emotion at the beginning, when it is weak, rather than indulge it and let it grow.
All in all, the book is very good, and most of the time, I find myself nodding in agreement. The few times I've disagreed have been on the subject of handling emotion.
Otherwise, though, this is one of the best books I've read in a while. His overriding concern, I would say, is character development or "greatness of soul," in his language. He talks a lot about virtue and how to live a good life. There is an idealism to it and also a quality of elitism, if that's the right word -- not the elitism of power, money, fame, etc, but an elitism of character.
Here's a relevant quote, also from something I read earlier today:
"If we had the privilege of looking into a good man's soul, oh what a fair, holy, magnificent, gracious, and shining face should we behold -- radiant on the one side with justice and temperence, on another with bravery and wisdom! And besides these, thriftiness, moderation, endurance, refinement, affability and -- though hard to believe -- love of one's fellow-man, that Good which is so rare in man, all these would be shedding their own glory over that soul. ...If one might might behold such a face, more exalted and more radiant than the mortal eye is wont to behold, would not one pause as if struck dumb by a visitation from above and offer a silent prayer saying, 'May it be lawful to have looked upon it.'"
I've got about half the book underlined. It's really something you have to spend time with, though. I don't think one reading allows it to sink in. It's definitely a lot more nuanced and interesting than the typical sound-bite versions of stoicism make it sound. He addresses all sorts of issues.
On a sidenote, I found interesting the little glimpses he gives you into what Roman life was like back then. The Colosseum, what city life was like (there's a memorable passage in which he describes the city sounds around him), the Senate, slaves, palaces, houses, etc. It's not a Hollywood version; it's an eyewitness report.
One thing that confused me was a seeming contradiction between, on the one hand, his extolling the virtue of courage and bravery and, on the other, his emphasis on not causing offense to people, not stirring enmity. He repeatedly emphasizes courage and bravery as a signal virtue. He gives some very stark illustrations of bravery. For instance, he talks about how Cato was wounded in battle but not mortally so. In order to avoid some ignominy, Cato tore open his own healing wounds with his bare hands, to kill himself.
Yet, he also says be careful not to offend people with your words. That seemed contradictory to me, until I realized that, in our day, when you say something offensive to someone, it's typically on social media, and the only repercussion is an insult and a thumbs down. Back in his time, if you "stirred rancor," you could end up with your throat cut or poisoned.
Anyhow, it's a very good book. I found it on a list of books with the most wisdom per page. It definitely earned its place. There are over a hundred letters, each one on a different topic, and all except a few are worth reading. The exceptions are the abstract discourses on the nature of the Good; that gets a little too hair-splitting and academic for my tastes. I just skipped over those bits.
