Senecan Tragedy and Virgil's Aeneid

260 Pages·2016·1.25 MB·English

CCiittyy UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff NNeeww YYoorrkk ((CCUUNNYY))
CCUUNNYY AAccaaddeemmiicc WWoorrkkss
Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects CUNY Graduate Center
10-2014
SSeenneeccaann TTrraaggeeddyy aanndd VViirrggiill''ss AAeenneeiidd:: RReeppeettiittiioonn aanndd RReevveerrssaall
Timothy Hanford
Graduate Center, City University of New York
How does access to this work benefit you? Let us know!
More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/427
Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu
This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY).
Contact: [email protected]
SENECAN TRAGEDY AND VIRGIL’S AENEID: REPETITION AND REVERSAL

by

TIMOTHY HANFORD

A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Classics in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York

2014
©2014
TIMOTHY HANFORD
All Rights Reserved

  ii
This dissertation has been read and accepted by
the Graduate Faculty in Classics in satisfaction
of the dissertation requirement for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.

Ronnie Ancona

________________ _______________________________
Date Chair of Examining Committee

Dee L. Clayman

________________ _______________________________
Date Executive Officer

James Ker

Joel Lidov

Craig Williams

Supervisory Committee

THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

  iii
Abstract
SENECAN TRAGEDY AND VIRGIL’S AENEID: REPETITION AND REVERSAL
by
Timothy Hanford

Advisor: Professor Ronnie Ancona

This dissertation explores the relationship between Senecan tragedy and Virgil’s Aeneid, both on
close linguistic as well as larger thematic levels. Senecan tragic characters and choruses often
echo the language of Virgil’s epic in provocative ways; these constitute a contrastive reworking
of the original Virgilian contents and context, one that has not to date been fully considered by
scholars. This study is organized according to three main themes that are argued to have strong
intertextual aspects: repetition of the past, victor and vanquished, and maius nefas, or greater
crime. In each case Seneca tragicus is seen to take a theme present in the Aeneid and give it new
life, in the process questioning or undermining some of the assumptions, political, philosophical,
and otherwise, that underlie Virgil’s epic program. This project focuses on the two Trojan War
plays of Seneca, the Troades and Agamemnon, as well as on his Medea. Consideration of the
intertextual dialogue between Senecan tragedy and Virgil’s Aeneid helps enlighten the nature of
Senecan tragedy, Virgilian epic, and the process of aemulatio in Latin poetry in general.

  iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people helped me write this dissertation. I first thank my advisor, Ronnie Ancona,
who provided support and encouragement throughout, and who read, with great patience, the
multiple drafts that preceded the final product. I also thank the other members of my dissertation
committee, James Ker, Joel Lidov, and Craig Williams, who generously gave their time, advice,
and support.
Besides my committee, I wish to thank Christine Bonnell, Dee Clayman, Michael
Goyette, George “Pete” Hanford, Patricia Hanford, Marilyn Mercado, Cameron Pearson,
Michael Peffall, Carlos Sousa, Christopher Trinacty, and James Wagman.
This dissertation is dedicated to my grandmother, Janette Elizabeth Hanford (1915-1989),
who taught me about literature, music, and life.

  v
Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Introduction. 1
Chapter 2. Three Intertextual Themes in Virgil’s Aeneid. 22
Chapter 3. Repetition of the Past in Senecan Tragedy. 49
Chapter 4. Victor and Vanquished in Senecan Tragedy. 114
Chapter 5. Maius Nefas in Senecan Tragedy. 166
Conclusion. 233
Bibliography. 240

  vi
Chapter 1 – Introduction.
1.1 Senecan Tragedy and Intertextuality.
The tragedies of Lucius Annaeus Seneca, composed in the first century C.E., are highly
allusive texts; they often contain clear echoes of earlier poetry, especially that of Virgil and
Ovid. A consideration of this Senecan engagement with earlier poetry can shed new light on the
plays, including the issues of Seneca’s tragic program, themes, and the struggles and motivations
of his characters. In this thesis, I explore in detail connections between Senecan tragedy and
Virgil’s Aeneid.1 I argue that Senecan tragedy has a dynamic interface with Virgil’s epic, and
that exploration of this interface enhances one’s perspective on both poets’ works.
My study is thus intertextual; it seeks connections between different texts. In the last
thirty years, scholars such as Barchiesi, Conte, Edmunds, Hinds, and Wills have taken
intertextual approaches to Latin literature with groundbreaking results. Their work points out the
highly allusive nature of much ancient Latin poetry; poets such as Virgil and Ovid appear very
aware of the Greek and Latin poetic tradition, and concerned with their contribution to and place
within this tradition. This literary awareness and self-awareness is taken by these scholars to be
part of the essential fabric of the poetry in question. In other words, if a poet alludes to an earlier
poet’s work, this need not be dismissed as flattery, display of erudition, or simply “background
noise”2 nonessential to interpreting the text in question. Instead, the alluding poet can
manipulate and reformulate earlier poetry in many different ways, creating both continuity and

1 Throughout this dissertation, for Seneca’s tragedies, I employ the text of Zwierlein (1986), and
for Virgil’s Aeneid, that of Mynors (1969). All translations are my own. In translating, I have
tended toward a literal rendering in English of passages discussed, but have been freer in my
approach at times in order to make the meaning clear.
2 I borrow the term from Hinds (1998, 19).

  1
contrast in the process. It is certainly possible for a reader/audience to overlook this process of
allusion and nonetheless derive meaning and enjoyment from a text such as Virgil’s Aeneid or
Seneca’s Troades; however, a close investigation of such allusions can help one appreciate the
complexity of a given work and its place in the literary tradition.
Intertextuality is not an exact science; as a study, it allows for constant reinterpretation as
opposed to clear boundaries and conclusions. For example, one might ask “What constitutes a
poetic allusion?” or “How does one decide if an allusion is meaningful enough to warrant
discussion?” or “How do we know if a given author intended a given allusion?” Any answers to
these questions are bound to be unstable, as they involve different vantage points –alluding poet,
earlier source poet, audience – each of which is itself an unstable category. We cannot fully
grasp a poet’s intention,3 nor fully evaluate the poet’s knowledge of earlier poetry at any given
point in time; likewise an allusion cannot be firmly defined as, say, being made up of a certain
minimum number of words – part of an allusion depends on if and how it is perceived by a given
audience. Poets such as Virgil and Seneca do not footnote their works, saying, for example “I
am here alluding to Lucretius;” instead, a reader must decide if s/he hears a specific allusion, and
whether that allusion is interesting or meaningful. On similar issues in Latin intertextuality,
Barchiesi (2001, 142) argues:
Intertextuality is an event, not an object. It is not a thing, a fixed given to be analyzed, but
a relation in motion, even a dynamic destabilization…. Given a text that refers to another
text, no critical authority exists that can establish a priori (a) how much of the text
alluded to is present in the alluding text, and how much instead must be “left behind;”(b)
whether the prevailing sense must be one of similarity or of difference; (c) whether one
should view intertextuality as a process or a result, as an operation ever in progress or as
a final product.

3 Hinds (1998, 47-8).

  2
These ideas of indeterminacy and destabilization actually enhance intertextual studies, in that
they explore complex interactions between texts and do not offer simple answers. Thus, Senecan
intertextuality is not just a matter of Quellenforschung, i.e., searching for Seneca’s “sources” in
order to determine from where exactly Senecan poetry derives, end of story. Instead,
intertextuality creates a dialogue of sorts between texts, one that is by its nature open-ended, one
suggesting both similarity and difference, repetition and reinvention. Seneca’s tragedies, given
their allusive nature, are very receptive to this kind of investigation.4

1.2 Senecan Tragedy and Earlier Literature.
The eight tragedies attributed to Seneca (Hercules Furens, Troades, Phoenissae, Medea,
Phaedra, Oedipus, Agamemnon, and Thyestes) are the last surviving corpus of tragedies from
antiquity.5 This allows for comparison with many earlier poetic works, tragic and otherwise,
Greek and Roman. While this thesis will mostly be concerned with close allusions to Virgil
within the Senecan tragic corpus, it will first be helpful to first consider Senecan tragedy in the
larger context of the earlier Greek and Roman poetic tradition, particularly of a tragic nature.

4 In this thesis I use the terms “allusion,” “reference,” “intertext,” and “echo” more or less
interchangeably. While the first two terms suggest more active intention on the part of the poet
(i.e. the poet is intentionally alluding or referring to something), I agree with Edmunds (2001,
164) that distinctions between such terms as “allusion” and “intertext” are likely to be unstable,
given, again, the fundamental unknowability of a poet’s intention. “Allusion” and “reference”
are nonetheless valid terms, as the text itself, regardless of the poet’s intention, can “play off of”
or “refer back” to earlier poetry.
5 Partial exceptions to this statement are the tragedies Hercules Oetaeus and Octavia, included
under Seneca’s name in the manuscripts, but now believed by most scholars to be written by a
follower or followers of Seneca, presumably after Seneca’s death. I follow Fitch’s argument
(2004a, 332-4 and 510-14) that the two plays should not be attributed to Seneca. Besides stylistic
differences, as noted by Fitch, both plays end with words spoken by the chorus, something that
never happens in the other eight plays. The Octavia, a fabula praetexta, also shows an awareness
of events after Seneca’s death (Tarrant 1998, 224 n.35), and includes Seneca himself as a
character.

  3