by Thomas; Kohn
16. See also Boyle (1994) 134.
17. See Keulen (2001) ad 42.
18. This, of course, is not really an entrance song; but Seneca often employs anapests for the initial choral song, whether it actually enters then or not.
19. Compare with the second choral song of the Oedipus. An absent Bacchus is called upon to lead the Chorus' revels, which are performed under the shadow of the Theban plague, and so no more a joyous celebration than the present Trojan lamentations.
20. Balsley (2006) discusses the symbolic use Seneca makes of women changing their hairstyles onstage. If the Chorus members are wearing masks or wigs, or even if their natural hair is visible, it is not hard to imagine them reaching up and undoing whatever pins or ribbons were holding the hair in place. Alternatively, the audience would accept that a change of hairstyle occurs if it is told about it.
21. See Keulen (2001) 165 and Boyle (1994) 152. Fantham (1982) does not address the issue. See also Kohn (2007) 52–53.
22. Davis (1993) 25, Boyle (1994) 132, and Fantham (1982) 38 all would have the setting change following Talthybius' exit. But, as long as we are allowing a change of scene, there is no reason why the entire act should not take place in the Argive camp. Even though the precise setting is different, Agamemnon later confirms that the general location is still Troy (stamus hoc Danai loco, 265).
23. Davis (1993) 25–26 would have the Chorus exit for the second half of this act. Cf. Keulen (2001) 165–66, who follows manuscript family A in having the Chorus of Trojan women exit with Hecuba, and a Chorus of Greek soldiers enter with Talthybius.
24. Many scholars, among them Fantham (1982) 262–64, have objected to this song. The Chorus questions the existence of an afterlife, which contradicts a number of elements of the play, including the existence of the ghosts of Hector and Achilles, as well as the laments of the Chorus itself. This objection, at least in part, motivated Keulen (2001) 165–66 to adopt a second Chorus of Greek soldiers. But if we accept, as I have so far been arguing, that the Chorus is deep in shock and mourning, it is clear that in this song it is grasping at straws. “If only death were truly oblivion,” it imagines with longing, “offering an escape from the horrors of life.” The Chorus is not expressing its belief, but rather positing one of the few possibilities of relief. See also Davis (1993) 47–48, who sees this song as “a normal human reaction,” and Boyle (1994) 172–73.
25. Davis (1993) 26–27 would have the Chorus exit after line 426.
26. Boyle (1994) 177 suggests that Hectoreo (415) provides identification, but that does not seem definite enough.
27. The mute actor could be carrying himself like a warrior in imitation of the boy's father. It is even conceivable that he is wearing a mask that the audience would recognize as belonging to Hector. Cf. Phaedra 646–62, where Phaedra similarly says that Hippolytus resembles his father, Theseus. In that play, however, the lines are ironic and metatheatrical, since the same actor would have portrayed both men. Here there is no corresponding irony; Hector does not appear as a character in the Troades, nor in any other plays in the Senecan corpus. It would be interesting, however, if Astyanax had been played by a well-known actor who had previously portrayed Hector in some otherwise unknown and not extant tragedy.
28. Cf. the Creon in act 2 of the Oedipus, Theseus in acts 4 and 5 of the Hercules Furens, and the Nurse in act 2 of the Agamemnon.
29. Compare with Jocasta in the Oedipus (hunc, dextra, hunc pete uterum capacem, 1038–39), and Phaedra in the Phaedra (mucrone pectus impium iusto patet cruorque sancto soluit inferias viro, 1197–98).
30. See above discussion concerning the dramatis personae.
31. He has no business in the next act, and indeed the actor will be needed, so he cannot stay. He would not go into the tomb, nor would he go to the harbor. Thus, he must use the wing leading to the ruins of Troy, and so must go off with the others. Presumably, now that Andromache has been broken and stripped of both husband and child, she also has no need for servant or confidant.
32. Davis (1993) 27 agrees that the Chorus remains for act 4.
33. Fantham (1982) ad 999 finds the silent action “unparalleled in stage drama and theatrically gratuitous,” and “the violence is equally unnecessary”; she admits, however, “it contributes to the structure of the play.” Keulen (2001) ad 999–1008 contrasts the scene to the entrance of Ulixes in this play and to the similar scene in Euripides' Troades. Boyle (1994) ad 999 finds it “bold and innovative.” Compare to the silent entrance and exit of Clytemnestra in Seneca's Agamemnon (780–81). Tarrant (1976) ad 780ff. refers to the “‘dumbshow’ quality” of that incident. But see Kohn (2004–5) 167–68 for the argument that Clytemnestra does not actually come onstage. In contrast, Pyrrhus' silent entrance and quick exit here serve a dramatic purpose.
34. See Fantham (1982) 366–67 and Keulen (2001) 491.
35. Davis (1993) 20 agrees the Chorus remains.
36. As at Medea 740–51, Phaedra 1201–12, and Oedipus 223–32.
37. And even there, the comparison falls flat, as Euripides starts his play with a prologue delivered by the gods Poseidon and Athena, while Seneca starts immediately with the bemoaning mortals.
38. Fantham (1982) 71–75.
39. Fantham (1982) 57–60 and Keulen (2001) 11.
40. Fantham (1982) 50–57.
41. Fantham (1982) 61–71.
42. For example, “Any stage director would find some difficulty in plotting the moves of Senecan characters,” Fantham (1982) 35.
43. Fantham (1982) 39–40.
Chapter 8
1. Sutton (1986) 31.
2. Tarrant (1985) 45.
3. Davis (1993) 58–63 argues that “in this play above all others,…Seneca takes pains to provide the chorus-members with a consistent persona. They are presented as decent citizens of Argos, as upholders of moral and philosophical ideals who do not understand the realities of power.”
4. On possible objections for this setting, see Sutton (1986) 13–14, who points out the difficulties and then dismisses them. See Sutton (1986) 20, and the discussion of the set for the Agamemnon in chapter 3.
5. This is confirmed at the end of the act: iam tuum maestae pedem terrae gravantur, 106–7. Both the Ghost of Thyestes in the Agamemnon and Juno in the Hercules Furens similarly deliver the prologues of their respective tragedies on the stage floor; but those other supernatural entities are alone.
6. Compare with Jocasta in act 1 of the Oedipus. Sutton (1986) 55 agrees that the Fury enters with the Ghost.
7. Consider also 249–54, where Atreus invites a band of Furies into his home.
8. Sutton (1986) 55 has the Ghost remain until the Fury's exit at line 121, apparently ignoring line 105.
9. Sutton (1986) 55 thinks the Ghost enters the palace with her, disregarding line 105, where she orders him back to the caves of the dead.
10. Davis (1993) 32 would also have the Chorus absent for the prologue, and so must enter here.
11. Davis (1993) 17–18 argues that the Chorus' ignorance about Atreus' plot in the next ode means that it must exit after this one. There is, however, no good dramatic reason for the Chorus to leave, nor to enter again later. Further, throughout the play, Atreus speaks without being overheard by others onstage: in act 3, as Thyestes and his sons approach; in act 5 when he gloats over Thyestes' feast; and conceivably also here, where the Henchman might not hear his initial soliloquy. Thus, Atreus is accustomed to speak without being detected, and so it would not be unreasonable for the Chorus similarly to miss his plotting against his brother.
12. The wordplay between the king and his servant is reminiscent of that in the Oedipus, between Oedipus and Creon (678–708), and between Tiresias and Manto (303–6).
13. Sutton (1986) 24 and 55 posits a stage effect here similar to the earthquake in Euripides' Bacchae (on this type of effect in Greek tragedy, see Dingel [1971] 354). Instead, however, this scene is more in keeping with the hallucinations of Juno and Hercules in the
Hercules Furens, which are merely depicted with words, but not acted out. Yet.
14. Cf. HF 875–94, Medea 75–92, Phaedra 783, 1130, and Oedipus 882–914 for other instances of this meter in Senecan tragedy.
15. Davis (1993) 32 similarly has the Chorus remain for act 3.
16. Manuscript family E labels him TACITUS. Tantalus' name is provided at 718 (Tantalus prima hostia est), and that of Plisthenes at 726 (tunc ille ad aras Plisthenem saevus trahit).
17. See Sutton (1986) 55.
18. Davis (1993) 23 and 33 concurs that the Chorus remains onstage for this act.
19. The Chorus speaks at lines 626, 633, 638–40, 690, 716, 719, 730–31, 743, 745–46, 747–48.
20. This is similar to the uncertainty surrounding the purpose and final destination of the Messenger in the Oedipus.
21. Davis (1993) 36 would also have the Chorus remain for this final act.
22. See Sutton (1986) 18. Cf. Fortey and Glucker (1975) 705, who deny that anything indoors happens on the Roman stage.
23. His appearance was partly described previously by the Messenger, and is partly discussed by Atreus, both before and after the emergence of the exostra.
24. Manuscript family A gives the whole song to Thyestes, while family E divides it between him and the Chorus. But it makes little sense for the Chorus to join in; family A must be correct.
25. Given the intimate nature of the noises, it is more probable that simply stating that they occurred would be enough for the audience to accept than that these be cues for sound effects.
26. Compare to end of the Phaedra, where Theseus first embraces the torn-apart limbs of Hippolytus, and then attempts to put them into their proper order (1256–68).
27. Cf. Phoenissae 105–8 and Phaedra 704–14.
28. Compare with similar expressions of lament in the HF and the Troades.
29. For a much more comprehensive discussion, see Tarrant (1985) 40–43 and Gantz (1993) 545–50.
30. There is a tradition that Thyestes had three sons, found in the Byzantine scholia on Euripides' Orestes 812 and picked up by Apollodorus (ApE 2.13), although Seneca uses different names. See Gantz (1993) 549.
Chapter 9
1. On the other hand, since Polynices has more lines than Eteocles, it is tempting to give his part to actor C, just for the sake of fairness and in the interest of giving actor B a break. But since it is almost impossible to know what Seneca was planning for the brothers as the play progressed, the more symbolic arrangement is desirable.
2. For more, see Frank (1995) 1.
3. Sifakis (1967) 134–35 argues that changes of setting are facilitated by the development of the raised stage.
4. Frank (1995) 2 makes a further act break at line 320, in part because of the entrance of the Messenger, and in part because manuscript family A lists the characters before line 320 as is the usual practice at the beginning of a new act. Family E, however, does not. For further discussion, see Frank (1995) ad 320–62.
5. The name “Oedipus” does come up subsequently. In fact, it occurs four times in this play: lines 89, 178, 313, and 553. Cf. the four times it appears in the Oedipus, and once in the HF. But none of the names of any of the other characters are spoken. See Frank (1995) ad 2.
6. Later on, Oedipus confirms his infirmity: quid segnis traho, 47. Literally, in this line he questions why he drags out his life instead of committing suicide. But it could also indicate that he drags himself slowly, i.e., that he is moving slowly.
7. Compare with Andromache and the Ghost of Hector at Troades, 684–85.
8. But not just any sword will do. He wants the one with which he killed his father (106–7). Unfortunately, that one is back in Thebes. Cf. Thyestes 1043–45, where Thyestes similarly asks his brother, Atreus, for a sword so he can recover the remains of his children, but is denied. Consider also Phaedra 706–14, where Hippolytus draws his sword, but refuses to kill Phaedra, because she is too eager.
9. But cf. Frank (1995) ad 319.
10. Some manuscripts give lines 347–49 instead to Antigone. But this seems incorrect; see Frank (1995) ad 320–62 and 349.
11. Frank (1995) 8.
12. Compare with Oedipus' self-identification as senex at line 32.
13. Cf. Medea 973ff. and Phaedra 384ff.
14. Cf. Jocasta at Oedipus 1038–39. On the arguments for deleting line 447, see Frank (1995) ad 447. But regardless of the status of this line, Jocasta still points to her stomach in line 448, showing her sons where to attack her body.
15. Frank (1995) ad 467–70; she further believes there is some sort of sexual imagery going on here.
16. Fitch (2002) 317; lines 480–82, where Jocasta tells his to rearm himself, as well as 498–99, would confirm this.
17. For discussion, see Frank (1995) ad 651–53.
18. See above on the alternate titles provided by the manuscripts.
19. For more on Seneca's possible influences, see Frank (1995) 16–29.
20. See Frank (1995) 1–16. There are no lacunae or missing pages in the manuscripts; and for no other plays did a scribe or other editor omit whole sections. So we must assume that we have as much of the play as ever existed.
21. Sutton (1986) only considers this play twice: in the sections on “Use of Dramatic Space and the Scaenae Frons” (15–16), and “Implicit Stage Directions” (56–57). But for such issues as role distributions, Sutton is silent.
22. Consider, for example, the judgment of Frank (1995) 165 on the Messenger scene, as “extremely powerful for all its brevity.”
Conclusion
1. Including Halleran (1985), Marshall (2006), Revermann (2006), Seale (1982), Sutton (1986), and Taplin (1977).
2. The plays of Seneca also have all of the parts of tragedy as identified by Aristotle: plot, character, diction, reasoning, spectacle, and lyric poetry (Poetica 1449b36–1450a10).
3. In addition Martial (Epigrams 1.61.7–8 and 4.40.2) and Sidonius Apollinaris (Carmina 9.232–38) both refer to Seneca tragicus in their poetry.
4. See Smethurst (1989) 17–21. Her main argument is that the plays of Aeschylus also are closer to Noh than they are to the tragedies of Sophocles and Euripides; but her general discussion of Noh in connection with Greek tragedy is most helpful to the present investigation.
5. Keene (1970) 11.
6. Keene (1970) 12–13.
7. Aristotle, Poetica 1450a12–39.
Works Cited
Ahl, Frederick. 2008. Two Faces of Oedipus. Ithaca.
Aldrete, Gregory S. 1999. Gestures and Acclamations in Ancient Rome. Baltimore.
Allen, W. Sidney. 1978. Vox Latina. 2nd ed. Cambridge.
Baca, A. R. 1969. “Ovid's Claim to Originality and Heroides 1.” TAPA 100, 1–10.
Balsley, Kathryn. 2006. “Styling Hair, Styling Character: Female Habitus in Seneca's Tragedies.” Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Classical Association of the Middle West and South, Gainesville, FL, April 6, 2006.
Barrett, W. S. 1964. Euripides: Hippolytus. Oxford.
Bartsch, Shadi. 1994. Actors in the Audience. Cambridge, MA.
Bate, W. Jackson. 1970. The Burden of the Past and the English Poet. Cambridge, MA.
Beacham, Richard. 1991. The Roman Theatre and its Audience. Cambridge, MA.
Beare, W. 1964. The Roman Stage. 3rd ed. London.
Bieber, Margarete. 1961. The History of the Greek and Roman Theater. Princeton.
Billerbeck, Margarethe. 1999. Seneca: Hercules Furens. Leiden.
Bishop, J. David. 1968. “The Meaning of the Choral Meters in Senecan Tragedy.” Rheinisches Museum für Philologie 111, 197–219.
Blondell, Ruby. 1999. “Medea.” In Ruby Blondell, Mary-Kay Gamel, Nancy Sorkin Rabinowitz, and Bella Zweig, eds., Women on the Edge. New York. 149–69.
Boyle, A. J. 1987. Seneca's Phaedra. Liverpool.
Boyle, A. J. 1994. Seneca's Troades. Leeds.
Boyle, A. J. 1997. Tragic Seneca: An Essay in the Theatrical Tradition. London.
Boyle, A. J. 2008. Octavia Attributed to Seneca. Oxford.
Boyle, A. J. 2011. Seneca: Oedipus. Oxford.
Brink, C. O. 1971. Horace on Poetry. Cambridge.
Calder, William M., III. 1975. “The Size of the Chorus in Seneca's Agamemnon.” CP 70, 32–35.
Canter, Howard Vernon. 1925. “Rhetorical Elements in the Tragedies of Seneca.” University of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 10, 7–185.
Capps, Edward. 1895. “The Chorus in the Later Greek Drama with Reference to the Stage Question.” AJA 10.3, 287–325.
Cardullo, Bert, ed. 1985. What is Dramaturgy? New York.
Carney, T. F. 1963. P. Terenti Afri Hecyra. Pretoria, Transvaal.
Chancellor, Gary. 1979. “Implicit Stage Directions in Ancient Greek Drama: Critical Assumptions and the Reading Public.” Arethusa 12, 133–51.
Christenson, David. 2000. Plautus: Amphitruo. Cambridge, MA.
Coffey, Michael, and Roland Mayer. 1990. Seneca: Phaedra. Cambridge, MA.
Cohen, Robert, and John Harrop. 1984. Creative Play Direction. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Conte, Gian Biagio. 1994. Latin Literature: A History. Trans. Joseph B. Solodow. Baltimore.
Costa, C. D. N. 1973. Seneca: Medea. Oxford.
Cruciani, Fabrizio. 1983. Teatro nel rinascimento Roma 1450–1550. Rome.
Csapo, Eric, and William J. Slater. 1995. The Context of Ancient Drama. Ann Arbor.
Cunningham, M. 1949. “The Novelty of Ovid's Heroides.” CP 44, 100–106.
Curley, Thomas F., III. 1986. The Nature of Senecan Drama. Rome.
Dale, A. M. 1954. Euripides: Alcestis. Oxford.
Davis, P. J. 1993. Shifting Song The Chorus in Seneca's Tragedies. New York.
Davis, P. J. 2003. Seneca: Thyestes. London.
DeForest, Mary. 1989. “Gods in Livery.” CB 65, 71–77.
Dingel, Joachim. 1971. “Requisit und Szenisches Bild in der Griechischen Tragödie.” In Walter Jens ed., Die Bauformen de Griechischen Tragödie. Munich. 347–67.