Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-4ws75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T10:24:53.950Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Chorus in Seneca's Thyestes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

P. J. Davis
P. J. Davis
Affiliation:
University of Tasmania
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The relationship between the choruses of Seneca's tragedies and the action of the plays in which they occur is one of the least understood and most controversial aspects of the Roman dramatist's work. It is often asserted that Seneca's choral odes are mere act-dividers, that their relationship with the play's action is loose and unconvincing. I would not care to assert that the handling of the chorus is flawless in all instances in Seneca's tragedies (or indeed in the works of any ancient tragedian), but in his best works it is, I believe, masterly. In this paper I propose to illustrate the close and complex interconnection between ode and action in Senecan tragedy through an analysis of the choruses of Thyestes.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , December 1989 , pp. 421 - 435
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 The classic statement of the case against the possibility of staging is to be found in Zwierlein, O., Die Rezitationsdramen Senecas (Meisenheim am Glan, 1966)Google Scholar. This view is adopted by Tarrant, R. J., Seneca's Thyestes (Atlanta, 1985), p. 15Google Scholar but he accepts the possibility of actual performance in Seneca's lifetime, p. 15. n. 77. For arguments in favour of the possibility of staging see Boyle, A. J., ‘Senecan Tragedy: Twelve Propositions’, Ramus 16 (1987), 78–101Google Scholar, Calder, W. III, ‘The Size of the Chorus in Seneca's Agamemnon’, CP 70 (1975), 32–5Google Scholar, Sutton, D. F., Seneca on the Stage (Leiden, 1986)Google Scholar and Walker's, B. review of Zwierlein, CP 64 (1969), 183–7Google Scholar.

2 Just as we can infer the identity of the chorus of Med. from the content of their song. Most Senecan choruses either identify themselves or are identified by others (Tro. 67ff., Oed. 124ff. Ag. 310ff., 586ff., HF827ff.). Pha. is an exception. However, on the basis of manuscript evidence it is arguable that they are Cretan women. See Boyle, A. J., Seneca's Phaedra (Liverpool, 1987), p. 154Google Scholar. In Thy. the phrase ‘nobiles Argi’119 might be taken as foreshadowing the chorus's identity. It should be noted that an audience would have less difficulty in recognising the identify of a chorus than do readers precisely because they can see them. See D. F. Sutton, op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 35ff. For an opposed view see Zwierlein, O., op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 74ffGoogle Scholar.

3 In Hercules, Medea, Oedipus, Agamemnon and Phaedra, but perhaps not in Troades.

4 It is of course quite normal in a classical Greek tragedy for a chorus to prove ignorant of the events of the prologue. The first chorus of Sophocles' Antigone is a familiar example. That chorus celebrates the release of Thebes from all anxiety at precisely the moment when a fresh crisis has arisen.

5 Zwierlein, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 78Google Scholar.

6 Calder, W. M., art. cit. (n. 1), 32–5Google Scholar.

7 Sutton, op. cit. (n. 1).

8 Sutton, , op. cit. (n. 1), p. 40Google Scholar.

9 Sutton, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 37fGoogle Scholar.

10 Not all cases are persuasive. Some, for example, are merely entrance cues at the end of an ode, e.g. HF 202R., Phaed. 358f., Oed. 205 after which a chorus might well leave the stage. Others contain no suggestion of the chorus's presence, e.g. Phaed. 909ff., 1256ff., Ag. 408ff. There are nine indisputable cases.

11 See also Eur, . Phoen. 196fGoogle Scholar.

12 Tarrant, R. J., ‘Senecan Drama and its Antecedents’, HSCP 82 (1978), 213–63Google Scholar. Tarrant, p. 223, notes the following instances: Aesch, . Eum. 232–43Google Scholar, Soph, . Ajax 815–65Google Scholar, Eur, . Ale. 747–860Google Scholar, Helen 386–514, Rhesus 565–674.

13 Zwierlein, , op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 77fGoogle Scholar.

14 Tarrant, R. J., op. cit. (n. 1), pp. 126–9Google Scholar.

15 Unlike Zwierlein, , L. Annaei Senecae Tragoediae (Oxford, 1986)Google Scholar and Tarrant (1985) I am inclined to treat 136f. as the conclusion of the prayer rather than the introduction to what follows.

16 Tarrant, op. cit. (n. 1), notes that ‘arceat’ recalls ‘arcebo’ in 95.

17 The description of the manner in which Thyestes devours his children at 778ff. suggests bestiality for ‘lancinat’ and ‘mandit’ are not words one associates with human eating. O. Skutsch observes that ‘mandere’ ‘stresses the visual aspect of eating and therefore tends to be used in scenes of horror, such as the Cyclops eating Odysseus’ companions, Livius 32 Mo.; Virg, . Aen. 3.627' (The Annals of Q. Ennius [Oxford, 1985], p. 278)Google Scholar. Note too that Seneca quotes Epicurus with approval on the subject of solitary ‘uisceratio’ (‘eating of sacrificial meats’). It is, he says, characteristic of lions and wolves (Ep. 19.10).

18 In fact in the case of Atreus ‘commune nefas’ is not a deterrent but an incentive to crime. It is his belief that his brother is precisely like himself that leads him to plot against Thyestes. The chorus does not understand the psychology of crime.

19 For this interpretation of‘commune nefas’ see Tarrant, op. cit. (n. 1), ad loc. Zwierlein, O., Kritischer Kommentar zu den Tragoedien Senecas (Stuttgart, 1986)Google Scholar concurs (139).

20 Note that Thyestes' children are also slain at an altar/hearth (‘focus’ 61, 768, 1058).

21 25, 31, 37, 38, 62.

22 31, 178, 196, 203, 222, 234, 273, 285, 311, 312, 322.

23 cf. the Stoic notion that only the wise man is truly king, e.g. Zeno, (Cic. Pro Mur. 61)Google Scholar; Chrysippus, (SVF 3.332, 617)Google Scholar.

24 G. 2.490–2

25 cf. Const. 9.2.

26 Tarrant, op. cit. (n. 1), ad loc.

27 The gold is not any gold but gold mined in Rome's Spanish provinces (the Tagus being in Lusitania); the harvests are specifically from Libya, source of much of Rome's grain supply; the storms are on the Adriatic, a sea of interest to Romans wishing to cross from Italy to Greece but of little concern to Argives of remote antiquity; the weapons he does not fear are specifically foreign, non-Roman: ‘chalybs’ 364 being associated with the Chalybes, a people from the Black Sea, ‘lancea’ 363, a word of Celtic or Spanish origin (OLD s.v.), and usually associated with non-Roman forces, e.g. Hirtius, BG 8.48.5; Livy 10.26.11; 22.6.4; 25.34.11; 27.27.7; 31.34.4; Luc. 3.465; Sen, . Nat. 1.1.14Google Scholar; Tac. Germ. 6.1.

28 Another reason (and perhaps the most important one for the interpretation of the play as a whole) is that by this means Seneca stresses the pertinence of what the chorus says, indeed of the play itself, to his own times; Thyestes may be about ancient Argos but its subject is contemporary Rome.

29 For self-sufficiency see Ep. 9.3–5, 12–19; for looking down on human affairs see Ep. 73.14 (where the ‘sapiens’ is compared to Jupiter); cf. Cic, . Tusc. 3.15Google Scholar.

30 This seems to be the implication of ‘conueniant’, especially given the use of ‘certet’ at 376. ‘Conuenire’ itself is a fairly colourless verb.

31 Tarrant, op. cit. (n. 1), like most modern editors, rejects 388 and 389. Zwierlein retains them in his OCT, op. cit. (n. 15). For a defence of these lines see Seidensticker, B., Die Gespraechsverdichtung in den Tragoedien Senecas (Heidelberg, 1969), p. 106Google Scholar and Zwierlein, , op. cit (n. 19), p. 304Google Scholar. Both treat the futures as gnomic.

32 e.g. Long, A. A. & Sedley, D. N., The Hellenistic Philosophers (Cambridge, 1987)Google Scholar, 67 M (D.L. 7.121–2).

33 For this reason the futures seem to me to be not only gnomic but also genuine futures. The words they offer as philosophic generalisations turn out to be factually true, but in a manner they would find appalling.

34 This interpretation of Thyestes' character coincides with that of Boyle, A. J., ‘Hic epulis locus: The Tragic Worlds of Seneca's Agamemnon and Thyestes’, Ramus 12 (1983), 199–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Tarrant, , op. cit. (n. 1), 148fGoogle Scholar.

35 cf. Tarrant's, op. cit. (n. 1), note on 404: ‘Thyestes consciously means only “wealthy Argos” (opes Argolicae = Argos opulentum…), but the audience comes gradually to see that the literal sense “longed-for wealth of Argos” (with optatas supplied from optata) more accurately represents Thyestes' feelings.’

36 The chorus employs language (especially ‘dulcis’ and ‘otium’) characteristic of Virgil's handling of pastoral themes whether in the Eclogues or Georgics. Note especially Virgil's description of himself qua author of the Eclogues at G. 4.563–6.

37 Tarrant's, op. cit. (n. 1) arrangement of these lines seems to me superior to that of Zwierlein's OCT, op. cit (n. 15), including his exclusion of 572. For a brief defence of the usual view see Zwierlein, , op. cit. (n. 19), p. 305Google Scholar.

38 Tarrant, op. cit. (n. 1) compares Tityrus' statement at Virg. Eel. 1.6: ‘deus nobis haec otia fecit’. (Tarrant talks of ‘Vergil's confident assertion’. The speaker is Tityrus, not Virgil.)

39 Tarrant, op. cit. (n. 1) compares the words Seneca put into the mouth of Nero at the beginning of De dementia 1.1.2.

40 cf. Call, . Hymn 1.70–85Google Scholar; Hor, . Carm. 3.1.5–6Google Scholar.

41 Parens is the reading of all manuscripts and (even if a little unusual) is particularly suitable in its context. Therefore I do not follow Zwierlein's OCT, op. cit. (n. 15), in adopting Heinsius” conjecture potens. It is ironic that the chorus addresses the sun as ‘father’ since the crimes committed by one father against another's sons and the crime committed by a father against his own sons (776–9) are the precise causes of Phoebus' flight.

42 For this interpretation see Tarrant, op. cit. (n. 1) ad loc.

43 Zwierlein prints 812 and 813 as questions. I prefer the usual practice (followed by Leo, F., L. Annaei Senecae Tragoediae [Berlin, 1879]Google Scholar,Giardina, I. C., L. Annaei Senecae Tragoediae [Bologna, 1966]Google Scholar and Tarrant, op. cit [n. 1]) of printing these lines as statements. For reasons see Tarrant ad loc.

44 If the play were performed indoors then presumably the stage could be in virtual darkness. If outdoors then the audience would need to take their cue from references by the chorus and the messenger and imagine that the action now takes place in darkness.

45 e.g. Hor, . Carm. 1.1.36Google Scholar ‘sublimi feriam sidera uertice’; Virg, . Aen. 1.259fGoogle Scholar. ‘sublimemque feres ad sidera caeli/ magnanimum Aenean’, cf. 12.794f. ‘indigetem Aenean scis ipsa et scire fateris/ deberi caelo fatisque ad sidera tolli’; Ov, . Met. 7.60fGoogle Scholar. ‘quo coniuge felix/ et dis cara ferar et uertice sidera tangam’, Pont. 2.5.57 ‘huic tu cum placeas et uertice sidera tangas’.

46 For the humour of this line see Connor, P., Horace's Lyric Poetry: the Force of Humour (Melbourne, 1987), p. 45Google Scholar.

47 Tarrant, op. cit. (n. 1), ad loc.