©2.VI0A A...; -./a
y?-: :.- :•.:::5 2^,8 DEPOSITED 3 Y THE COMMITTEE ON (Bra&uate Stufcies. |
~~ ~~ ~--~*
No. liiiarg of JUcGill University
MONTREAL
Received
COM M ITTEE ON GRADUATE STUDIES McGill University, Montreal, April 21st, 1911
Professor John MacNaughton, Faculty of Arts . Dear Professor MacNaughton:- The Committee on Graduate Studies re quest you to act as one of the examiners of the enclosed Thesis submitted by H. P. Cockfield, a candidate for the II.A- degree in the Department of Classics. When you have read the Thesis,will you please return it to me, together with a brief statement of your opinio^ concerning it* The Committee will be grateful if you can make your report as soon as possible, as the Thesis must be judged by another examiner before May 1st. I am, Yours very truly,
v Secretary of the Committee on Graduate Studies. SENECA AND HIS GREEK MODELS.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, son of Marcus A.Seneca the rhetoric ian, was born at Cordova in Spain probabl3r a few years before Christ. Without going into details , it may be said that his early training was very much like that of the youth of his time After having mastered the rudiments, he was sent to a rhetoric ian, where he spent considerable time and attention on the suasoriae and controversiae, so necessary for the education of a Koiaan youth in the time of the Empire;. Abandoning rhetoric, he pursued the more congenial study, as he thought, of philoso phy, accepting the Stoic principles. He subsequently became ITero's teacherand advisor, and it was during this period of his life that he devoted part of his time to literature. Besides other treatises for the most part philosophical which do not fall within the scope of the present article , he wrote nine tragedies( the tenth, Octavia, cannot be considered as part of the philosopher's work as in it ITero's death, which Look place after that of Seneca, is described) choosing such subjects as would give full play to a mind fashioned and mould- edein the schools by rhetorical practice. There are some scholars who maintain that these tragedies were not written by Seneca. This, however, is a question which does not come at all within the scope of the present discussion It matters not whether the a.u«hor in Seneca or Augustus , for 2 the object of this essay is to compare the tragedies that are commonly ascribed to Seneca with those of the three renowned Greek tragedians. Seneca's drama is but a counterpart of Greek tragedywhose story it follows and recasts. The names of his nine dramas are v/ith one exception derived from Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripid #es, whiotf. this one exception, viz., the Thyestes, is one with which the three Greeks might have.dealt sooner or later.They are moreover,modeled more or less closely after the tragedies of Aeschyles, Sophocles and Euripides: and the Greek and Roman pro duct in literature along parallel lines cannot be better studied than by a comparison of these Senecan plays and their Greek pro totypes. The following is a list of Seneca's plays and the Greek plays from which they are derived:- Seneca Greek Oedipus Oedipus Rex Sophocles Phoenissae 1 Septem contra Thebas Aeschylus 2 Phoenissae Euripides 3 Oedipus at Colon©us Sophocles f Jledea Medea Euripides Hercules Purens Hercules Purens Euripides Phaedra Kippolytus Euripides Hercules Oetaeus Trachiniae Sophocles Troades ^roades,Hecuba, Euripides Agamemnon Agamemnon Aeschylus Thyestes None Octavia None I shall now offer a comparative analysis of the Oedipus of Seneca and that of Sophocles so that we can easily see at a glance , et least so far as the subject matter and dra matic •situations are concerned , to what extent the Roman has followed the Greek . The same treatment could be given to each play , but to save space the Oedipus will suffice. Tor the other. see I.IillerwTragedies of Seneca" ad fin. Oedipus of Sophocles . Oedipus of Seneca . Prol.Oedipus appears as the Oedipus laments the plague on great princes/horn the Thebans his people . He tells how he flei rank second only to the gods, from Corinth to avoid the dread- Fle pledges himself to relieve ful oracle. He dreads the same fatehis afflictedeven here. people He tells by seek-of the terrorsthe murderer of pestilence of Laius and prays for death.Jocasta remonstrates with him. Parodos The chorus bewail the pestJ-The chorus appeals to Bacchus and Lences & invoke the gods. tells the <^stresses of the city 4 and the sufferings of the people in detail. Pirst Episode, Creon returns from Delphi and Oedipus publicly invokes a bids the murder of Laius be solemn curse upon the unknown avenged. Oedipus promises to murderer of Laius.At Creon's make diligent search and pro- suggest ion,he sends for Teir- nounces a dreadful curse upon esias, the seer, v/ho refuses to him. Teiresias with Hanto enters speak, but finally , stung by He tries by the art of divina - taunts , denounces Oedipus tion to find the murderer, but himself as the slayer. says that the dead have to be raised in order to find him. Pirst Stasmion, The Chorus forebodes that theThe Chorussingsia dithyrambic unknown murder is doomed and strain in praise of the wonder- refuses to believe the unprovedjful works of Bacchus. No refer- 3harge against Oedipusbrought ence is made to the tragedy forward by the seer. which is in progress. Second Episode
Creon protests against the Creon returns from the rites of suspicion that he has suborned necromancyin which he has Teiresias to accuse Oedipus accompanied Teiresias and strives
/ho is unconvinced. Jocasta to avoid the disclosure to the stops quarrel and Creon departs, king# But wherl forced | he ledipus then tells her that he tells vividly how the dead were Las been charged with the mur- summoned and Laius among them 5 ier of Laius. He replies that who says that Oedipus is the le need feel no disquietude murderer of his father and mar- Laius was fated to be killed by ried to his mother. Oedipus lis ovm son who was exposed on thbelieving Polybus and Merope to the hills when a babe and Laius be his parents denies the f/as slain by robbers at the charge and after an acrimonious meeting of the three roads. dispute orders Creon to be jailed on suspicion of Conspira cy ?:ith Teiresias. V.716 strikes first note of alarm. He questions her and his fearu fear is confirmed. Thereupon he bells her his whole story , but le still has one hope left,i.e. the attendant of Laius spoke of robbers.Let him be summo ned. Second Stasmion, The chorus utters a prayer The chorus refuses to believe igainst arrogance--such as the the charge of Oedipus,but lays Ting's tov/ards Creon and impiety the blame of all these ills upon is in Jocasta's mistrust of the the evil state of Thebes which )racle. has pursued the Thebans from the first. Third Episode,
A messenger from Corinth an- Oedipus who had slain a man, nounces that Polybus is dead 6 and that Oedipus is king.Jocasta questions Jocasta more closelyk and Oedipus exult in the refuta- is convinced that he is the tion of the oracle, but Oedipus slayer. Now a messenger from still dreadsthe union with his Corinth announces the death of mother.The messenger hearing Polybusand that Oedipus is king this, declares that Polybus and But by questioning , Oedipus Eerope are not his parents.But finds out that he is not the the messenger himself when a heruchildjof Merepe and Polybus but herdsman in the service of Poly had been given to them by the bus had found the infant Oedipus messenger , who in turn had him on Cithaeron, or rather got him from a herdsman of Laius. from one of the people of Laius. Oedipus determines to find out Jocasta implores Oedipus to the-fatal truth, and the herds- search no further .He answers man is summoned and forced to that he cares not how lowly his answer. The son of Jocasta it birth may be, he will search to v/as .Oedipus goes off the stage the end.Jocasta rushes away in a fit of raving madness. with a cry of despair. Third Stasmion,
The chorus joyfully fore- Tiie chorus reflects upon the tell that Oedipus will-prove to dangerous position of the man be a native of the land-perchance who is unduly exalted , and of seed divine. illustrates this principle by Pourth Episode, the case of Icarus. The herdsman declares all. Oedipus knows all and v/ith a shriek rushes away. Eourth Stasmion , Chorus bewail the Great King's falland the utter nothingness of human life. Exode, A messenger from the house There is a short chorus (lines announces that jocasta has 980-997) but the rest of the hanged herself, and that Oedipus play is really the exode. A has put out his eyes.Presently messenger describes v/ith hor- Oedipus is led forth. With rible minuteness how Oedipus passionate lamentation he in his raving has dug out his beseeches the Chorus of Theban eyes. At this point Oedipus Elders to banish or slay him. himself comes upon the stage rejoicing in his blindness. Jocasta appears and on learning the whole truth, she slays her self on the stage with Oedipus' sword. The play ends as the blind old king gropes his way into darkness and exile. The story of Oedipus was one of the few" subjects which the Greek dramatists v/ere never tired of handling. The self-blinded Oedipus,as v/e are told , was a part which Nero loved to act. Of all the Greek versions not one remains whereby we can test the excellence of Sophocles. The literatures of other languages,how ever , helpjl to make some amends.The Oedipus of Seneca,when com pared v/ith that of Sophocles, shows the advantages of the latter 8 to good effect. Seneca has followed and sometimes paraphrased Sophocles with sufficient fidelity to heighten the contrast between the original and the rhetorical transcript. This does not mean that v the Roman has no interest for us: on the contrary for the compar ative student of drama, the Roman piece is by no means devoisd of interest. Seneca's plot , as we can easily see from the above comparative analysis , diverges from that of Sophocles in three places. In the first, Teiresias does not intuitively know of the murder of Laius. Secondly, Jocasta kills herself upon the stage, wliile in Sophocles, Jocasta rushes from the stage not to re appear, at the moment she finds Oedipus resolved to find the lru truthand probe his birth. In the truth and power of this touch Sophocles is alone. Neither Seneca nor any later tragedian has managed a situation so skilfully as to express v/ith a similar union of delicacy and strength , the desperate anguish of a woman whom fate has condemned to an unconscious crime. Thirdly, Seneca had no Oedipus Coloneus in view. The closeness with which the Roman has studied the Greek may be judged from the following passages:- Seneca 678-708 cf. Sophocles 532-630 Seneca 773-783 cf. Sophocles 740-755 Seneca 783-881 cf. Sophocles 955-1185 It is instructive to notice that, while Seneca has invented rhetoric-.1 ornament ( as in the opening dialogue\L-105: and the 9 rVellUjUv. 530-568)he has not known how to vary the natural development of the action. He has compressed the incidents of Sophocles into the smallest possible compass; and hence notwith standing the rhetorical episodes of his own invention , the whlie play consists of only 1060 lines, and would not have occupied more than one and one half-hours in representation. Thus we see that Seneca is a negative witness to the mastery shown by the artist who could construct such a drama as the Oedipus Tyrannus with such materials to v/ork with. The following is Walter Scott's estimate of the Oedipus of Seneca, just in the main as far as it goes: "Though devoid of
fancy and of genius, it displaysth thee masculine eloquence and high moral sentiment of its author: and'i5 14 t does not interest us in the scene of fiction, it often compels us to turn our thoughts inward and study our own hearts". Seneca's fault, however, says Jebbis not that he fails to interest us, but rather, by intro- i ducing the necromantic machinery, and by obliterating the finer moral traits of his Greek original, he has rendered the interest rather sensational than properly dramatic. A small trait may be noticed as amusingly characteristic of the Roman poet of the Empire. Laius in Sophocles' play ^iary goes to consult the oracle; at Delphiwith only four attendants, l while Seneca sends his Laius with a king's retinue."Plures ?i i fefellit error ancipitis' viae ,Paucos fidelis curribus junxit lab r is the amusing explanation he adopts to reduce the number of attendants when Oedipus met him. 10 In the discussion of the two 0®6,lp^n plays, we must re member that we are comparing the Oedipus of Seneca, which is by no means his best, with the Oedipus Rex of Sophocles, recognized from the time of Aristotle orv down the ages as the masterpiece of Greek tragedy. Prom tne above comparative analysis we can easily see that in so far as the subject matter , the dramatic situations, and characters are concerned, Seneca did not hesitate to employ to the fullest degree the old Greek models for his purpose. Now before passing on to discuss the differences betv/een the Roman and Greek products, I shall endeavour briefly to point out what resemblances there are between them. Seneca in many places in his tragedies has taken whole has lines bodily from the Greek poets. The lines which he adopted are not maxims and general statements which can be made to fit in almost at any place but they are connected more or less closely %6 the plot of the story. Consequently we can see how much Seneca depended on his Greek prototypes; and we may further observe that by the very fact of his following the models so closely , he shows his inability to improve on them, or else he signifies the esteem in which he held the ancient Greeks. The following examples of this characteristic have been picked out at rajadoMJfrom the plays at large :- Seneca Hercules Oetaeus > Vicit at superos amor Sophocles Trachiniae ',-
OUT0$ y*^ JL^£l xco/ bl&yf OTTce$ btXti 11 Seneca Hercules Oetaeus 1177, 0 turpe factum-f emina Herculeae necis auctor feretur.' Sophocles Thachiniae 1062 , , „ , y u^v\ Si & Sophocles Trachiniae 1071 i«t -rob* oii' wV gf^ irdT£ Seneca Hercules Oetaeus 1278 Unde nunc fulmen mihi \ Sophocles Trachiniae 1057, €yiUT0iflr«i\vfo/ f&U$ Hercules Oetaeus 1473 Habet, peractum est, fata se nostra explicant lux ista summa est. Sophocles Trachiniae 1143 oAo>\.- aXft>X* ( ^tyyo5 oown' eWi yuc*$ Seneca Hercules Purens 422 Animosque aesus inferis coniux facit? Euripides Hercules Purens^ L45 / Seneca Hercules Purens 500 TtCTtviff1 tf &m/ Dest jina ,numero Danais : explelgp nefas. W$ dp' €*Ci^ A«"«rf ftu^ ^ «£d *i*V Euripides Phoenissae 167 5 ' Seneca Troades 682 Llolire terras, Hector , ut Ulixem domes 12 Euripides Troades 752, _ 4 ©UK eiV»V EKTfi»p KAA\VoV «l*To> the lesson thus : 5f *A^TI ^Tot &£iV iroibd piVZ\S Sophocles , living in a more peaceful time, was of a differ. ent temperament. He was the peaceful loving man who looked upon the gods with all due reverence. He by the tranquillity of his characterland by his teachings showed men that all things in the universe are under the gdids, and that moral order exists. Men showed him a kind of passive respect as distinct from actual enthusiasm. Sophocles v/as firmly convinced that misery on the earth came from the disobedience of the gods' laws,and he comes very near to the Christian doetrine that "God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third or fourth generation" His Oedipus is an example of this doctrine. Euripides, although we may say truly that he was a contem porary of Sophocles, represents rather the state of Athens tov/ards the end of the Peloponesian War. He begins at Athens what may be called a new era of rationalism. His writings are a protest against the implicit and unquestioning belief in the old Olympic theogony. This tradition had been handed down from father to son and outside stories grev/ into this tale.Euripides questions it, findsits v/eaknesses and failures, and condemns it -ihere it fails. His final appeal is to the reason, and what 15 what reason approves of must be good. How Seneca may be in a small way compared to these great teachers and exponents of the thought of the age.He was as we have mentioned before a Stoic, and through^ his plays we can see Stoical thoughts and doctrines predominating. He never loses an opportunity to cram in these maxims. In one passage , in Octavia ( lines 385-396) he gives us an allusion to one of tfyjb cardinal principles of Stoicism, vix. the magnum annus. if qui si senes^it ,tar.tus in caecum chaos 0 causurum iterum est-nuhc^ades.:rmundo ,dies- supremus ille- qui premas genus impium % } * /} caeli ruina,rursus ut st«*£Jtem novam '^ w' VJ^-"*7''-><£sfrl% generfit r^nascens melior ut qu^H^am tulit **^<^ u^f* juvenis, teJftejjjpiT regna Saturnflr poll. The age of Nero was the age of rhetoric in Rome and Seneca abounds in rhetoric. He takes delight in high-flown sentiments, and one common-place thought generates a hundred epigrams. Aeschylus , with his earnest faith in the reality of divine government, made Nemesis, or the law of divine retribution the predominant motive of his tragedies. So absorbed was he in th.is one great religious idea that he concentrates his whole attention upon its working, and introduces his heroes less as individual characters than as living illustrations of the law. Sophocles, while he upholds the law in all its rigour,bids us s&etfee the characters of those under its influence ;we are shown the "men" or.Oedipus,Ajax,and the rest: and their sins and 16 consequent suffering are viewed as a discipline or "school of affliction? The ancestral curse of the legend is there ;but in the back-ground the moral law reigns supreme. With Euripides, all this is so greatly changed that Some have denied his belief in tragic destiny,or in any moral order of things whatever. This is not true: Euripides takes humanity just as he finds it; only he does not dogmatize upon the causes of human misfortune, ascribing it either to the anger of an avenging deity or to breaches of the unwritten law divine. He was a thinker and he lived as we have said in a thinking age, which was subjecting the old foundations of belief to a vigor ous scrutiny. Hence he varies his assertions, at one time the conduct of human affairs to Chance(ru^ ) , at another to Necessity («K,*V /;> Another jald Greek custom is referred to in Seneca which is & i° »>'• \ "• *'J • .» *^J^>£ibea^ in Aristophanes' Clouds:- w Sic te regentem frena nocturni aetheris detrahere nunquam Thessali cantus queant" Phaedra 420. The witches of Thessalia were supposed to be able to draw down the moon by means of''"their spells. There is one peculiarity noticeable in Euripides and not in the other two dramatists of ancient Greece, that is the use of the deus ex machina. Sophocles uses this device once however that is in the Philoctetes when Hercles appears. l* This deus ex machina appeared at the end of a number of plays of Euripides to solve the action which had become too com — pi ex to solve in any other waylas his critics say, or , and to this view Verral and several others lend the weight of their authority-for the purpose of throwing ridicule.quite after the manner of Euripides fon the Theophony. Now a', the end of the Hercules Oetaeus we have a curious instance which may be analo gous to the deus ex machina , I refer to the Vox Herculis.Unless the deus ex machina be used it is something entirely new. After having endeavoured to examine the few parallels between Seneca and his Greek prototypes #let us now pass on to what we may call the differences between them. Smith in his book entitled wDe Arte Rhetorica in Senecae Tragediis" observes that f~!ini flrnnaii rrfprrinr +^1 the tragedies of Seneca have 'been written by the art of rhetoric. He is not far wrong,for in Deneca and the rhetoricians there is a likeness^ both in the method of handling the matter and in the sentiments. As we all know, Aeschylus and Sophocles were singularly free from all rhetorical showiness. Towards the latter part of the Peloponesian War the contentious spirit of Athens as shown in 1 imi i inn 1 11 iiii] iiiuiihiliiin JI 1 ml Imti/In L in to appear in\Literature. Consequently Airipides , a man whof submitted all things to his reason, in his writings showed this rhetorical leavening. His works however are not based on rhetoricjnor was rhetoric the raison d'etre of his tragedies* Seneca however was by birth the son of a rhetorician «af*3 20 and was trained in rhetoric from his very early days, as was the the custom in Rome in the time of the Empire. Therefore when he began to write these stories, he chose such plots as would be congenial to a mind fashioned in the schools by long rhetori cal practice. The themes were the same as those which were much discussed in the schools, "Magi et pestilentia et responsa et saev&ores tragicis novercae,tyranni quoque et tyrannicidae et parraqldici et beneficia et incest a mat rum" Quint il ian \\y&5\5 These tragedies are simply rhetorical scenes worked out in the same manner as a boy in the schools would writ elan exhorta tion to Sulla to retire from public life and live in retirement Fhe*^ scenes are joined together by choral odes. The scenes and choral odes together go to make up the tragedy. We shall now pass on to some of the rhetorical devices of Seneca. Only the more important points will be touched on; for a fuller account see Smith's book of rhetoric in Seneca's tragedies. In rhetoric, sense is often subservient to sound, and eveyW opportunity for good declamation is eagerly sought after. There fore we find all kinds of mediocre sen/imer£ts couch^ft-in high- flown language whcih admits of good pronunciation: sudden transitions where the voice and look of the declaimer quickly change:the changing feelings of one v/ho deliberates and hesitattS so that often it is said that the look and voice of the speaker interpret the obscurity of the words. 21 "Quonam ista tendit turba Puriarcm impotens ? 0 (/ Quyfoi quaerit aut quo f 1 amine os #ctus par at, •rffut cui cruentas agmen infernum faces intent at? ^--i---.;-.;..^^---^.^^ __„>_ Quemtrabe infesta petit Megaera? Hedea 95 8 sqq. Becoming modulation of the voice ; and gesticulations which were elegant and suitable to the words were held in high esteem by the Romans. Cicero agrees with Demosthenes when he c ' says that " virt HP\(T\$ "was necessary for the orator. The vehemence of an orator seems to have been wonderful and even to have caused laughter.Cf/cicero-Tusculans ^t:24 "Toto corpore atque omnibus ungulis,ut diciturtcontentioni vocis adserviunt. Genu mehercule M.Antonium vidi, cum contente pro se ipse lege Varia diceret, terrain, tangere etc." Also see Quintilian 23:6,1£ Prom these passages we can readily understand that in Seneca, when v/e are silently readinglto ourselves a seemingly mediocre passage we can easily miss the point. This is not the case with the Greek authors. "Quo nunc vertam?Quod iter incipiam ingredi? Donum pate mum? anne ad Peliae filias?" Cf. also Hercules Purens 82-3; Oedipus 668;Thyestes 95; Medea 988-9; Hercules Oetaeus 308 et sqq. Est ,T^st Herculeus sonus. Another common thing in the rhetoricians ,and especially true in all the tragedies of Seneca with the exception of the Medea and Phoenissae,is the prevalence of long descriptions. Tbese descriptions are for the most part more than one hundred 22 verses in length.Hercules Purens 661-827: Troades 106 8-1194: Phaedra 1000-1108: Agamemnon 421-578: Thyestes 641-775. Seneca revels in these long descriptions and never loses an opportunity for inserting them ; sometimes indeed in his eageyi nessjhe inserts them at an inconvenient time. An example of this can be had from the Thyestes: after Atreus had slain the child ren of of his brother , a messenger v/ent forth from the royal palace , and as is the custom in Seneca asked :- "Quaettam regie sit. Utrum Argos et Sparta et Corinthusjetc. "putting the rhetorical question •'Quis ventus se per a*««as sit avecturus?" Another peculiarity which one notices on reading over the tragedies of Seneca even more than in his prose works , is the frequency of epithets which lead to tautology. Qnceps forma, bonum mortalibus exigui donum breve temporis ut velox celeri pede laberisl Phaedra 763. Other examples are Hercules Purens 2 84; Thyestes 621-2. The frequency of epithets and the fondness for description in Seneca are probably derived from his father /ind if you take the trouble to resolve the metre in several places the likeness will become very striking:- Oedipus 41-50 and Suasoriae 3:1. Compare also the beautiful description of a storm in Agamemnon 465 sqq. with Controversial Ylll-l; Controversiae Vlll-6 Akin to this frequency of epithets there is noticeable the astronomical, geographical and mythological pedantry.The contrast betv/een Seneca and the Greeks in this respect is very marked. 23 Especially however in describing affections does Seneca show himself an imitator of the schools because of his dryness and want of variety . Everywhere we find:-"Miserorum ossa quassat horridus tremor per artus totos,sanguine frigido,gelu torpente,cadit sudor:cum interim animus pavens membra reliquit et horror cor in pectore trementi pepulit"HerculesPurens414 & 621.Troades 168. Phaedra 1034. Phoenissae 528-530. Medea 926-7 Oedipus 206-7, Octavia 735. Agamemnon 5,508,883. Hercules Oejaeus 706. Without doubt there is in all these instances brought forward one and the same method of description which smacks of the lecture room. A careful reading of these tragedies will establish beyond a doubt the large part taken by stock epithets . We must not consider that tyrants and kings are often called "saevi" for this title had stuck to them from long ^ac. Hercules Purensll23 Hercules Oetaeus 1783 etc. etc. Then too4frder the same class come the geographical epithets :- Hector ante oculos stetit non qualis ultro b^^la in Argivos fercr.s Graias petebat facibus Idaeis raj^rus. Troades 444-5. Solitumque densis hispidum Erymantni iugis Arcadia quatire memora Ivlaenalium suem. Hercules Purens 22 8-9. Also Phaedra 59-61 & Oedipus 919. Seneca then differs widely from the Greek rhetoricians by this usage which was designed to decorate geographical names. V/ithout doubt ,too(the rhetoricians used to take similes ex. Scylla furenti et Scythia crudelitate,ex saevis Aetnae flammis. In th« time cf the Roman Umpire "Sententiae"were considered to be the highest ornament of an oration, and to this tendency Senecajgives full rein. Quintilian in his book on the instruction of an orator Vlll:4:29 & Vlll:5:2 says that these sententiae are the especial and almost the only ornament of z speech, and that declaimers wish every maxim to strike the earlat the end of a speech^and consider it bad taste,yes almost a crime ,to take a breath in any part of a speech that does not seek after applause -. "Gravia quisquis vulnera patiente et aequo mutus animo pertulit referre potuit : ira quae tegitur nocet professa perdunt odia vindictae locum. (KedjLevis est dolor qui capere consilium potest et clepere sese : magna non latitant mala libet ire contra .(Hut.) siste furialem impetum, alumna: vix te tacita defendit quies (Med.{ Portuna fortes metuit , ignuvds premit (Hut.)Tunc est probanda, si locum virtus habet. (Med) Hunquam potest non esse virtute locus. (Hut.) Spcs nulla rebus monstrat adflictis viam. (Lied.) Qui nil potest superare , desperet nihil. Hercules ^urens 340-5 & 422-37; Oedipus 699-706; Phoenissae 654-9; Agamemnon 144-154. The above examples will serve to show to what extent Seneca crowds in epigrams; this frequency is very displeasing and grates harshly on the ear. Euripides uses epigrams in many places , but does not crowd them in promiscuously ;the aa»e- 25 the same is true of Sophocles and Aeschylus . Most of his maxims are about riches, poverty and the turns of fortune. Thus we have many the same:- Pectora pauper secura gerit, Hercules Oedipus 652 Servat placidos obscura quies , Phaedra 112 8 Humilique loco sed certa sedet sordida parvae fortuna domus, Hercules Purens 198 Rarum est felix idemque senex, Hercules Oetaeus 643. 0 nulla longi temporis felicitas, Agamemnon 928. Among his best epigrams are the following:- Semperque magno constetit nasci deum, Hercules Purens 462. Stupet omne vulgus-et fere cuncti magis peritura laudant, Troades 1143. Qui statuit aliquid parte inaudita altera, Aequum licet statuerit, haud aequus fuit,Medea 199-200- Port em facit vicina libertas senem, Phaedra 139. and many- others : Thyestes 319 & 416 ; Oedipus 684. In Seneca also figures of speech such as rhetorical ques tions , are more frequent than in the Greek models. The treatment of the Chorus in Latin and Greek The functions of the Greek Chorusfas everyone knows are entirely different from the Chorus of the present day drama. The Chorus in Greek Tragedy took a very prominent part in the action and general make-up of the drama. Its primary duty was to separate the episodes ,or acting parts and thus to afford the actors time to change their costumes and otherwise to adapt them- selvesto their changed roles. 26 In addition to this 4the Chorus in Greek tragedy took a vital interest in the action of the play, both asking and answering questions through the medium of the coryphaeus or chorus, leader The part the chorus took in the action varied considerably according to the play and the author. Aeschylus tended to magni- fy the role of the cUrama, while in Euripides it lost something of its former importance. If we take the Eumenides of Aeschylusf we find that this play of all the extant remains of Greek tragedy is the example par excellence of the important part assumed b£ the chorus in the drama. How when the chorus sang an ode or lyric song in order to separate the pieces of dialogue , the subject of the said ode naturally would have a direct bearing on the subject of the play at large, and would set forth the opinion and views of the chorus with regard to the events passing before its eyes. When it took part in the discussion, it represented the part of an $3f3Te spectator. A certain view of the part played by the chorus in the tragedies of Euripides prevails widely; it is already venerable and seems likely to persist. Thie view whicnhas its source in three words of a doubtful passage in Aristotle's PoeticsXVlll^ may be stated as follows:-"The Chorus , intimately connected by Aeschylus and Sophocles with the plot of the Tragedy, is detached *from it in Euripides ; its song ,which in Aeschylus and Sopho cles are integral parts of the drama v/hose emotions they express are generally only intercalated passages in Euripides , bits of fceneer, musical interludes." 27 Among the Greek dramatists the chorus commonly remained present during the entire action: sometimes it was even brought upon the stage . However there are some exceptions as 7/hen for instance for serious reasons the chorus had to leave the orches tra. Aeschylus (in his Eumenides_and Sophocles (in his Ajax,had both made use of this temporary withdrawal of the Chorus and of the epiparftdos in order to provide for a change of scene which otherwise would have been impossible. Euripides,tootmade use of the same means not to remove the action to another place, but to prepare for dramatic results which the presence of the chorus s would have rendered difficult. He appears to distrust the bother some .vitness ,and that the chorus may not be led to commit indiscretions he removes it when this becomes necessary or when it is to be kept in ignorance. In the Alacstis the members of the chorusJfeave the orchestra to follow the funeral procession of Admetus' wif e ,and do not return until after the end of the cere mony. Thus they fulfil,it is true,a duty that is natural enough but the poet has other reasons ac; well for sending them to the funera.1; for in the interval he introduces the scene between Hote "Poetics" The Chorus too should be regarded as one of the actors; it should be an intimate part of the whole and share in the action in the manner not of T,uripides but of Sophocles. 28 Hercules and the attendant in which the hero announces that he vrill gc and fight with Thanatos for his victim. This extraordin ary resolution may be made known to the audience with perfect propriety4but it must remain unknown to Admetus and this can only be accomplished by the withdrawal of the chorus or by its keeping silent. The poet despaired of inducing it to keep Herenles ' secret tand removed it from the orchestra that nothing might prevent the final surprise at the theatrical effect which terminates the drama. Euripides then%we must smpposetlike other tragic poets,made use of the epiparodos several times : but he employed this devifgg. not from\urgent necessity but simply because he found it con venient in the economy of his plays. The departure of the chorus in the course of the 'action occurs only exceptionally in Greek plays. But the interest they take in the drama sometimes(especially in Euripides impels them to draw so near to action that some scholars now maintain that the chorus was on the same level as the actors. The chorus of the ©restes came up to the bed of Orestes just after he hacd* v fallen asleep to talk to Elect«a. t who fearing lest they should wake her brother tentreat^er them to go away, Where are they then if not at the very edge of the stagejhaving left their usual place ? Aristotle denies that the chorus should have a role?and perhaps he reproaches Euripides for not having observed this law sufficiently. Certainly none cf our poet's choruses recalls that of the Eumenides which is unique in its kind in the whole range 29 of the Greek drama. But we have the chorus of the Suppliants which must be one of the characters of the play. Decharme in his "Euripide et 1'esprit de son theatre " analyses all Euripides' tragedies to find the role of the chorusf and comes to the conclusion that to condemn the choruses of Euripides with a single stroke of the pen as has often been done and to declare that they are hardly ever connected with the action is as unjust to the poet as it is contrary to the facts. In fact among all the plays there are but three the Andromache, Phoeni&sian maidens and Iphigenia at Aulis in whiEh the chdrus takes only a moderate interest in the dramajwhose actors it conceives as strangers. Koreover do not those stasimatfew in number .owing to the fact that they are irrelevant to the action have net with so much criticism and are so distasteful to usfadmit of an explana tion? was it an absolute rule of Greek tragedy that the chorus must always express its successive emotions in its ensemble songs: that it must necessarily prolong through the entr'actes the tragic effects of the acts,and never grant respite to the spectator's feelings? It may be admitted that at certain points or pauses the poet ma.y have wished the songs of the chorus to serve as a respite and relaxation for the audience. As a characteristic example of the treatment of a. chorus by Euripides ,we may takfeH&de to Pytho towards the end of Iphi- geneia in Tauris. Here Euripides treats of the same thing as Aeschylus does in the Eum.enid.es ^12,. the history of the Delphic succession. Aeschylus tells his story in such a way as to make 30 Apollo supreme dnder Zeus and he carefully leaves out all partic ulars that would be out of harmony. Euripides on the other hand brings in jarring particulars in his own critical way which we shall deal with afterwards. He tells of/'old established ho#e at Delphi with magnificent connexion? the immense profits brought' to the god; the strife with Bacchus etc. All of which Aeschylus would not have touched on for worlds. This treatment of the ode is quite in keeping with the sceptical attitude of the body of the play. Therefore we can safely say that the choric odes of a Greek drama cannot in anyycase be regarded purely and strictly as speeches by the chorus in their capacity as acting personages* This would be absurd. We must therefore consider whether the ode if so produced is in agreement with the regular spirit of the drama. We have just now shown this to be the case. All this discussion about the Greek Chorus has been admit ted in order to show How Seneca compares in this respect with th*. Greek Tragedians. As Seneca has been compared with Euripides in the matter of the chorus,I have taken considerable space to prove that muripides does not differ materially from Sophocles and Aeschylus. The first feature that strikes us in reading the tragedies of our author is the dedramatization of the Chorus. The Choral odes are very little^with the subject. In the Episoeies the Boman Chorus appears to have lost its position as a minor personage in the play. Towards the close of Greek drama the Choral function in the scenes becomes mechanical. But mechanical 31 business such as the summoning of messengeBS is the sole activity, of the nhorus in Seneca. In Hercules Had the Chorus does not speak once outside the Odes yet in their mechanicals-functions they cannot be ignored^.g. in the final act of the Oedipus and Hippolytus. They do ntft appear in some sceneftand are at times positively ignorant of what has happened^.g. Thyestes, Conclusion of Actll. The Odes of the Chorus are at times introduced by speakers in the scenes. Medea for example hears with anguish the Epithal mium which closes the first act in the play bearing her name. Then too although the chorus regularly retains a characteriza - tion consistent with the plot yet there is a certain unreality in their attitude to the story. To take an example from the Herculae.Oetaeus,the Chorus there addresses an ode of loyalty to Deianira who only enters at the conclusion of the song. All this I equivocat-a-«*i position of the Chorus as between recognition and ignoring would be possible only in a drama not designed for actiM In fact we have in the Chorus of Seneca a transition stage of development. In regard to the chorus there is also noticeable an increa$dl dramatic activity seen in the secondary chorus. The process of change is not that the regular chorus has passed into actors 'but that a bfcdy of actors has gradually absorbed choral functions. The secondary chorus of the Greek stage ,e.g. those performing the ritual hymn at the close of Aeschylus' trilogy,or the hunting song in the Hippolytus (differ from an actor only in their num - bers; but in Latin they always serve a further purpose . The 32 Hercules Oetaeus^furnishes another example of this . In this play, in addition to the regular chorus which is maoe up of Deianira's subjects ,a band of Oechalian Captives is introduced. They are "protactic personages" but in that part take the place of a secondary chorus. Also compare the third act of Agamemndn. Prom this addition of a secondary chorus there arises a blemish in the (-atin tragedies. I refer to the unity of stand point. This unity is seriously impaired by the innovation, "ven as an artist in painting a picture must select one point which is called his point of view so as to get the right perspective ao a tragedian in employing the machinery of Greek drama must have only one chorusN^r his story could be looked at from two different standpoints and the unity of action would be broken. Poman tragedy evaded the limitations implied in the unity of action, and r^pr^s^t ;d the encroachments which the Greek tragedy made upon the unities. A Greek drama could withdraw particular scenes from the cognizance of the chorus by means of the prologue : but in the Daughters of Troy of Seneca we see that the chorus is absent for a while and not accounted for. This omission is possible only ina drama not intended for acting and suggests how v/ith the loss of a visible chorus the unity of place has ceased to be binding. A glaring instance of the impaired unity in a drama is again furnished by the Hercules Oetaeus . Hercules is received. in giortpy in neaven although believed to be dead by those who were around his funeral pyre. This is called a aa IUT i n at 10 n., The few following choruses taken at random from the plays of 33 Seneca will serve to show how laj Seneca is in this matter . The Chorus in Thyestes (lines 536 foll.)is practically irrelevant to the rest of the play. It afforded Seneca an opportunity to work in countless epigrams and his views on life in general . It is simply a studied and laborious philosophical article. Thyestes (lines 920-96 8) ^ives us a chorus which is too artificial ang^#T>o pointed in its allusions to coming evils- how much n^cer and more artistic is Sophocles' way of rendering imminent grief more striking gamely by having the chorus strike a note of joy in the Hyporcheme ( Sophocles Oedipus Rex 1068- 1109) just before the cl^amity falls. Seneca in Hercules Oetaeus ( lines 604 foil.) gives us another example of an irrelevant chorus. The description of the desire of seme for wealth contained in it can be compared to a satire of Juvenal or Horace or to one of the latter's epistles rather than to a Greek chorus. The Chorus of Hercules Oetaeus (lines 1025-1130) is filled with a vague account of the destruction ,-pf it he world and a problematic forecast of what will follow-, nothing v/hatever to do with the story. Compare v/ith this hov/ever Hercules Oetaeus 1150-1160 which unlike most of the choruses of Seneca is entire ly to the point.The Chorus|too The raison d'etre of the greek drama was the religious element that was associated so closely with it . As has been mentioned before, the tragedies were acted in the theatre of Dionys/us from whose worship Greek tragedy took its rise. Then too the themes of the different dramas were taken from the various religious mythical legends in which Greece abounded. The tales of life in the heroic ages of the glorious past had to do with a hero's Jor heroine's as the case may be ) struggles in his way through life. Thewe tales were thoroughly permeated with a religious atmosphere. If any accident occurred some god must have sent it £.nd in order to avert the impending catastrophe, recourse v/as had to the shrine of Apollo at Delphi.A god receivCC( the dying in Hades : whi,,l&M^*&od translated the living^aetherial realms of Olympus. Every river had its god: Poseidon the atother of Zeus was lord of the sea; while another brother of Zeus the god of Olympus ruled over the nether regions or Lethe's stream and Cocytus' wailings. Greece however was rich in folk-lore. Old aristrocratic families had legends about the glorious deeds of their illus trious dead.Tales were handed down from father to sonabout demi godssuch as U§r&§l§§ , and about heroes such as Agamemnon and 36 Ulysses, it was to such mythical personages that powerful famil ies even in historic times in Greece sought to have their origin traced. It was £*aem this source of mythical and religious legends that the Attic tragedians Aeschylus» Sophocles.and Euripides drew when composing their dramas. The House of Tantalus and the House of Oedipus gave material to all three dramatists for many ^we plays. Euripides however only treated these legends as^shallsee hereafter to ridicule them and to prove that it was absurd to suppose that the gods appeared to men in human form. To compare sacred literature to profane we may say that the gods of early Greece are represented as playing as important a part in the tragedies of Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides as God does in the first three chapters of Genesis. To quote from the latter a few verses :- "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"; " And God said let there be light"; ii.nd. "And God saw the light that it was good "; " And God called the light Day;" " And God said let there be a firmament etc. etc." This is the Hebrew account of the creation of the world in which "God" figures so prominently. There is alsoan old Babylon ian story about the creation which is in effect the same as that of the Hebrew with the significant difference however that the tale is told impersonally without "Grod". Seneca however did not compose his tragedies for any relig ious f es'tival as the Greek dramatists have been shown to have done . No nor were they written in honour of any god like Dion- ys>us to be produced in his temple or theatre. 37 The gods of Olympus were not real to him as they were to Aeschylus and Sophocles . He did not see or feel them moving in shadowy vistas of the past. He did not conceive of all nature as permeated by their kind aM sympathetic influence . Nor on the other hand aid he compose his poems for the purpose of ridiculing the theogony as Euripides did; for his writings are not ration alistic . When Seneca took over the Greek dramatists for his models he took over directly their world of ideas. He adopted without change the gods of Olympus and those of the nether regions and revelled* in Greek mythological lore. The Romans to be sure had legends of the past,e.g. Romulus and Remus; but their folk-lore was not as rich as that of the Greeks,nor was it connected v/ith various houses as that of the Greeks. We can then say quite truly that Seneca tin dealing with the Greek gods and * legends which he did not for one moment believe in but which he adopted solely for the sake of his story is wholly artificial. ^fhis artificiality is especially apparent in the Octav>ia-supposed to be a Roman play in the time of Nero, yet the chorui in its songs addresses Bacchus who sits iv: Olympus and Ale ides v/ho loved Leda and Juno , in fact the whole tone of the chorus is the same a£ that of any Greek play. The Greek tragedies may be compared to the Hebrew account of the creation mentioned above v/hile the Roman plays resemble the old Babylonian story with this slight difference however— that the Roman tragedies do mention the gods but in an altogether* artificial way. This is one of the fundamental differences IXJUKJUV 38 ISeneca and his Greek models. It is now my purpose to take a play of Ejiripides #viz. The AlSbstis. to show the method, purpose and procedure of the author% to give a brief insight into Euripidean criticism'; and then briefly to show how Seneca differs from him. Euripides has been blamed in modern times because although perhaps ; all his scenes are wrought with astonishing power,yet the play as a whole, is a botch, that is the component parts do not fit v/ell together. Modern criticism of the Alcestis|is that in this play Euripides has shown himselfAand tiro: master in the execution of detail; tiro in the lack of taste and judgment by v which the elements are so incongruously and inharmoniously combined. Scenes four and five come in for an especial share of | censure • in the former occurs the strife between Admetas and^ Pheres while in the latter the servant and Heracles hold a conversation. Euripides we must grant tmust have written the play for some purpose . What can this motive be ? Was is to glorify some hero or not ?Browning starting with the assumption that the drama was in honour of some mythological personage ,took Heracles although he is certainly very grotesque in places to be that one.Euripides has drawn from the type well-known in the age of the poet. I refer to the athletic soldier and adventurerffor example Dorieyls Eleracles as drawnin the Alcestis is a portrait without carrica- ture or flattery.He is warm-hearted and quick-witted fbut he Q\ev* scends to the vulgar and coarse at times.He is unscrupulous in 39 his methods but will be sorry for it afterwards. Such is the character of the semi-divine deliverer. There is a second view of this play which is td take Admetus as a moderate hero. This however involves not seeing v/hat we don't want to see. "What a host he is.'" someone urges. ""5£es, but he deceived his guest most basely." Verrall and otheiS hold out most strongly against this view. The last opinion is that of Verrall who rightly observes that the striking haste with which the corpse is borne to burial is remarkable. Alcestis was borne out to burial almost before her voice was stilled. We are impressed time and* time again by the extreme precipitancy of events. Admetus evidently wished to get the corpse buried anyone knew that she was dead- she who died for him the coward. In the meantime let us consider the charge of a "botcher'.' The first part of the play is at all events coherent with itself.The scene between Pheres and Admetus was not dragged in to please a contentious and law-loming audience. The reception of Heracles does not stand on the hollow plea of redeem ing Admetus by exhibiting his sublime hospitality. All three scenes however are proper exponents of the main action which is the death and burial of the heroine. There are two intervals between the scenes as is shown by the emptiness of;the stage.The first fits in well with Heracles' feast; while the second tallies with the rescue of Alcestis by Heracles. The finale however is considered the most unsatisfactory part of the play. All positive qualities are lacking fand its 40 frost noticeable feature is the negative. There is notsolemnity, no piety, and no surprise.We expect a story from Heracles on his Irestoral of fllcestis4 but none is iortncjmmg.The scene ends with this observation by the chorus:- "HOW often things end |otherwise than expected.1 So does this story." Now this is the meaning of this seemingly strange drama. The resurrection of A;cestis is represented by Euripides as it srould be only by a man who did not believe that- it was a resurrection and wished to convey this to others.The woman was lexpected to die , and wearied out by the importunities of her friends , she swooned away , and Heracles- restored, her after- she had recovered in the quiet of her tomb. The meaning of the drama lies in innuendo . Its purpose is neither to solemnize the legend as would have been the purpose of Aeschylus nor to embellish it as might have been the purpose of Sophocles, but to criticise it , to expose it as fundamental Ly untrue and immoral before an audience who were well acquaint ed with the general opinions of the author^/ell aware from the circumstances of the case that innuendo v/as the only way in which those opinions could be dramatically expressed , well accustomed to apprehend them in this form(and predisposed by mental and moral temper not merely to be content with such a mode of expression rbut to regard it as the best possible con dition for intellectual art and individual pleasure. The difference between English and Athenian drama is that the latter tolerated religious performancesfwhile from the for mer thay are barred. Drama was essentially the vehicle of .41 instruction not of pleasure. It was well known in Athens that Euripjdes brought a critical spirit to the old legends . It would be known that Euripides whenever he v/rote & play would attack, but the manner of the attack woul As he speaks His face is v/atered by a hideous shower 44 As the blood flov/s streaming from his ruptured veins." I shall just give two examples both from the Medea of Euripidesto show how great was the artistic skill and delicate sense of perception of the Greek poets. I have not been able to find any such lines in Seneca:- Line 376. ^*^4* Line 476. Hot ice the frequency of the letter S in these tv/o lines which serves to show the anger of the speaker. Another characteristic trait of the Greeks^s the intuitive repugnance which they have for unholy or terrible deeds. Thus they paraphrase to avoid uttering anything that might pollute them. Euripides in his Medea line 1294 makes Jason say,;- A To* Otttf €ipytf«y* £%/*| meaning Medea, but he shrinks from describing the murder in plain words and calls it "the horrible deed."Would that Seneca had been as careful.' Seneca had a few stock characters whom he used in most of his plays. The most important of these is the nurse who figures largely in a number of plays, v/hile in the Octavia we have a nurse of Poppaea and a nurse of Octavia. The nurse was a kind of confidant who served to draw, the heroine out. In the Hercules Oetaeus Deianira has a nurse who to some extent takes the place of the cttorus in the Trachiniae. The great trouble with these nurses however is that they are too loquacious. If it were not for Deianira's nurse this drama would not have been drawn-out to 45 nineteen hundred lines. The satelles or attendant, is seen in the Thyestis: his sphere of action is very much that of the nurse - the only differ ence being that the former is attached to a man while the la*tor is the confidant cf a woman. In the plays of Seneca occur quite frequently the personae tacitae e.g. Lichas in the Hercules Oetaeus ,and Pleisthenes in the Thyestis. We have no instance of this in the Greek dramatists The nearest parallel I can adduce is that mentioned in Aristoph anes' Progs lines 911 following. Euripides says"At the beginning he (Aeschylus) used to introduce one figure seated and muffled u up, an AcMlles or Hiobe, not showing their faces a mere dumb- show of tragedy . Yes, and the chorus used to howl forth four strings of lyric verse one after another, while the characters kept silence.Meanwhile the play would be getting to an end.Then when the play was now half-finished , he would utter a dozen phrases as big as an ox etc. "This serves to show that the char- actersrdf Aeschylus did speak and therefore the persona tacita cannot be traced to this source. Seneca's fondness for the double chorus has been mentioned above . He also in common with the Greek tragedians had the nuntius, but in Seneca he played a larger part than in the Greek tragedies because our author put into his mouth frequent tedious plescriptions cf.Thyestis 625 foil. "Tragedy is" says Aristotle, "an imitation of an action, Berious, complete , and possessing magnitude and the effecting by means of terror and pity the purgation of such 46 feelings" ( iftttaptf-i 5 ), Euripides is by common consent the most tragic of poets — He was a past master in the art of raising our pity. The pov/er of calling up tears even from the more obdurate seemed to be innate in him. We shall take as examples two parallel speeches one from the Medea of Euripides , the other from the Medea of Seneca. It is a decided disadvantage however for a speech of the latter to be compared to what is beyond a doubt one of the masterpieces of Euripides. Euripides Medea 1021, It is just full of tragic irony. "Forlorn of you A bitter life and woeful shall I waste. Your mother never more with loving eyes Shall ye behold*-passed to another life." And again:- "Give,/0 my b ab e s, Give to your mother the right hand to kiss. 0 dearest hand, 0 lips most dear to me, 0 form and noble features of my children, Blessingbe on you-there.f for all things here Your sire hath ^eft." 47 This is superb, and even more than that v/hen compared to Senecak speech. (tedea of Seneca line 895 foil. "You who were once called my sons Must pa^rythe penalty of these your father's crimes My heart with horror melts , a numbing chill pervades My limbs, and all my soul is filled with sinking fear Now wratii gives place etc." And again:- "And even now My children must be torn away with tears and cries Then let them die to Jason since they're lost to me . Once more hate has resumed her sway, a passion's fire Is lost within my soul." Why need we go on? He does not compare at all well with Euripides. He does not like Euripides , in this passage use tragic iron^which contributes so largely to the general effect of his model. He tells while Euripides only hints. Verrall says that the popularity of the Medea of Euripides is nit due to the charm of the characters (for they are all displeasing although true to nature ) nor is there any delight of the imagination-!-- but the sustained effect of the dramatic situations and the unsurpassed finish of tfye language.Terseness of point and elegance prevail throughout, and there is scarcely a rough verse or a slovenly phrase from beginning to end.However as long as men find interest in speech so long will the master pieces of Euripides continue to be, as they have been among the 4d :'irst commended zo the attention of the student. Por unity of general effect no plays in the world excel the Hippolytus and the Medea,It may be wall to note in passing that Aeschylus, L Sophocles (and Euripides v/rote their plays in the prime of Atticism while Seneca composed his Tragedies Silver Age. Ho advantage however js to be gained by a mere detailed discussion of the matter. Perhaps it wll be of interest to admit some criticism by contemporaries on the three Greek tragedians and Seneca. The first great critic whose works have come do^n to us is Aris tophanes who was a writer of comedy, and in the Progs he wrote for the express purpose of disparaging Euripides and exalting Aeschylus: but nevertheless-his book contains some truthful observations. He disapproves of the sceptical purpose , the insidious sophistic, and the morbid passionof his victim: but he disapproves quite as strOngly of the tedious preliminary explanations and interpolated narratives , the "precious" sentiment and style , the tricks and trivialities. But Aristophanes fanatic though he is on the Aeschylean side is far too good a critic and far too shrewd a man not to allow a pretty full viev/ of Aeschylean defects ,viz. the bombast" 'r~~ phrases as large as an oxv/ith horse-hair crests, the lumbering phraseology, as well as to put in Euripides' own mouth a very strong defence of his own merits. Aristotle in his poetics after giving a definition of tragedy says that the "deus ex machina" must be used with extreme caution as probability is an important part in action. 49 Tne magnificence of Aeschylus struck the scrupulous Greek taste as too often approaching bombast, and we look with surprised disappointment for so much as a single appreciation of his unexcel led choruses. With the Greek public Euripides seems on the whole, and putting different times together, to have been the favourite of the three, and if the critics were less favourable to him, it was rather for jfctflT extra-literary than for literary reasons. Public and critics together seem to have felt for Sophocles that especial esteem as distinguished from actual enthusiasm, which has descended to us moderns as a sort of venerable convention - to be acquiesced in even when we do not share it actively, and to be transformed occasionally into venement championship. Only from IJonginus do we learn that Sophocles was considered to be far from impeccable, but to atone for his faults by his beauties , Longiniss does not tellus what his faults were, Seneca had I shall not say a good,but a distinctand by no means a commonplace style. Petronius probaly had him in mind when he taked of "ventosa et enormis loquacitas." Seneca however was by profession a Stoic and those Classie cal Pharisees although their sect was not exactly unliterary , pushed to an extreme the partly superfine, .partly puritanic contempt with wmcn tne pnnosopny or antiquity generally chose s bo regard the minutiae of literary criticism and literary craft. The wise man of the Stoics might be a perfect man of letters as le was perfect in eoerycning exse , put it was entirely beneath aim-to take seriously such things as metre,style,or the pleasure of literary art* 50 Prom a man of this frame of mind came no good critical thing, though we should certainly like to have heard from Seneca what suggested to him that remarkable compromise between Classic and Romantic Tragedy which gave us the Latin Hippolytus and the Octavia. Quintilian's criticism of the three Greek tragedians is as follows :-Aeschylus was the first to produce tragedies; he was sublime,serious and majestic to a fault, but unskilled in the najority of cases and faulty in construction. Wherefore the Athenians in later times permitted for contests his poems in^a corrected form , and in this way many were crowned. In this branch of literature Sophocles and Euripides were far more illustrious. It is an open question which of these two was the better poet in their diffenent styles of eloquence. I leave that question undeci ied, since in no way pertains to the matter in hand. Of necessity however there is no one v/ho does not confess that Euripides is aore useful for the orator. Por in his style , which those to //horn the solemnity, dignified step , and sound of Sophocles seem riore sublime blame, he more nearly approaches oratory: he uses spigrams very frequently; and in the rules of the wise men he is irery like them. In pleaaing and and replying he can be favourably compared to any eloquent lawyer at the barbie is also unexcelled in moving our passions. This criticism of the three tragedians is scarcely worthy of Quintilian. He speaks of Aeschylus very much as a Frenchman used to speak of Shakespeare . He is half silent, half enigmatic on Sophocles, but he gives Euripides obviously heartfelt praise, 51 and thinks him the most serviceable of all for the orator. Quintilian's criticism of Seneca is 6ne of his masterpieces as a literary critic in the division of decided but not illib eral censure,qualified by a just and not grudging allowance for merits. Most interesting still both because it is the first and by far the best thing of the kind v/e have, and because it bearslespecially on our subject,is the passage v/hich follows on the oratorical and literary qualities of the Latin language as compared with the Greek. There are it is true phonetic diffi culties here, and probably no wise man will pretend to under stand Quintilian's praise of the sv/eetness of the Greek b as compared with the repulsiveness of the Latin f or v. His observation on the ugliness of the termination "m" like the lowing of an ox , altogether different to the clear-ringing Greek " "is very interesting. He considers the intonation of Latin and still more the vocabulary to be inferior to that of the Greek."Wherefore if any demand of the Latins the grace of the Attic speed , let him give to us the same sv/eetness of utterance^nd an equal abundancU of words. If this be denied v/e must match our meaning to the words v/e have, nor mix a too great subtlety of matter with words too strong, not to say too stout for it, lest the combination Lose either excellence. The less the mere language helpd us the more we must reinforce ourselves by invention of matter. Let us extract sublime and varied meanings. Let us stir all the pass ions and illuminate our addresses with gleaming metaphor. We 52 cannot be so graceful;let us be more vigorous. V/e are conquered in subtlety ;^et us prevail in weight. They are surer of pro priety ; let us overcome by numbers. The genius of the Greeks, even in their lesser men^has its own ports; let us spread more ample sail, and fill it with a mightier breeze. Nor let us alv/ays seek the deep: v/e must sometimes follow the windings of the shore. They may slip over many shallows: let me find a deeper sea in which my bark may not sink." This is a true and exact account of the differences between the tv/o languages and v/e are hereby shown //hat disadvantages Seneca had to work under if he wished to excel or even equal the Greek drama. Seneca writing for no stage but Jlrf£t for the study or lecture room may have drunk more or less deeply of the springs of Alexandrian rhetoric. The plays themselves are such as we may well conceive to have been v/ritten by a philosopher. There is the same sparkle and point with the same deficiency of feeling and reality, the same ambition of display straining after exaggerate-. effects and delighting after high-flown sentiments - the same combination of tedious prolixity and concoi-'ou-s passing into obscurity, one common-place thought giving birth to countless epigrams , which cannot help but force itself on even a casual observer. Caligula fitly describes Seneca's style a^ "sa^d -with out lime;" and Aulus Gellius happily hits it off as "inaptus inanisque impetus" a violent effort without object or propietyV Bernhardy, supposing them to be not the v/ork of one man,but of a rhetorical school of writers#makes a marked distinction betv/een play and play, praising the Troades for its powerful though luxuriant rhetoric, and admitting that uhe Hippolytus , Thyestis and Hercules Purens contain many excellent things , v/hich he finds mere empty prate in the Oedipus and Agamemnon, and resolves tne Hercules Oetaeus into wind and vapour. The same characteristics however, favourable and unfavour able .ma^r oe iound in all. All are written alike in that elaborate antithetical style, terse in individual expressions, yet diffuse in its general effect, which is the common property of the post- Augustan school in poetry and prose. In all alike the sentiments are exaggerated , the passions swelled to bursting , the horror v/hich is involved is the catastrophe drawn out in sickening^etail, in all alike dialogue is declamatory and didactic , the chorus made up of commonplaces, moral or mythological - a carricature of the Greek drama in v/hich uniformity of structure becomes shapeless monotony ,and simplicity of evolution passes into the absence of all movement. These works,though not wanting in a certain Kind of ability, are chiefly remarkable for the gross and glaring faults which they exhibit, insomuch that they might almost seem to have been v/ritten in express contravention of every rule laid down by Horace in his art of poetry as essential to the composition of tragedy . Yet it is historically curious to observe the rhetori- \JU$* kauvv cal spirit as Mr. Grote remarks% pe4**ted the Athenian drama almost" from the first thus attaining its final triumph in the destruction of dramatic poetry , all tragic path>s : it is 54 historically curious also.though in a different way,to see the life and feeling of the Rome of Claudius and Hero clothing itself in the forms of Grecian legend^and to associate Locusta v/ith Medea as we already have learned to associate Augustus with Aeneas. And perhaps if we look deeper these tragedies may be found to have an interest for us which is not merely historical. Ho learned man among us is likely to maintain with the elder Scaliger that Seneca is equal to any of the Greeks in majesty and in polish and elegancesuperior to Euripides : no popular dramatist is likely to produce imitations of Seneca on the modern stage, as was done by Corneille and Racine. Still if there be any tendency in any of the schools of poetry now to sacrifice propriety to effect , the consistency of the whole to the brilliancy of the parts - to aim at producing lines to be quoted rather than works to be read - to dazzle the eyes with gaut-.y colouring , and fill the ears v/ith the language of an ostentatious philosophy , to count applause by exaggerated sentiments , and to seek the ele ments of grandeur in colossal wickedness and Titanic impiety we may remember that such is to be found in Seneca. I shall now endeavour to sum up and conclude this essay. Seneca holds as a poet a unique place in Roman literature , as his nine plays are all that are left of tragic drama. Although there has been considerable controversy as regards the authorship of these plays the testimony of ancients and internal evidence would beyond a doubt assig n them to our author. The date of their composition is entirely unknown. It is possible that they were 55 written in Corsica during Seneca's absence from Rome, for Taci tus perhaps gives us a hint when he says that Seneca wrote poems nore frequently after a passion for them had come upon Hero: and therefore he had been reproached. The subjects of these dramas are the same stories of the Epmc Cycle of (xreecefrnd their treatment of the myth formed the basis or Seneca's work. The Greek plays which Seneca used have survived with one oxctwoieaceptdions. His method of work was as follows: Fie did not hesitate to alter the plays to suit his own conveni ence nor on the other hand did he hesitate to indulge in contaminatio. Contamination means , combining two or more plays in the same way as an artist gets a composite photograph. At times however the closeness of his imitation is remarkable. The strange features are perhaps rhetorical and stoical tendencies. The same striving after effect which marked his prose is seen here. It is shown in the accumulated horrors e.g. the long description of the sacrifice of.Teiresias .dCharacter- istic example^ of the difference of temperament is- shown in the different manner in which Oedipus discovered who he was . Seneca says "He is son of her who is thy wife." Sophocles works differently . In Seneca all is hidden until the crisis comes , while Sophocles gives inklings of truth fyrom time to time . The The moderns make use of Seneca's method. In contradiction to the ffreat tragic three, Jocasta falls on her sword in the theatre: but the climax of this overstrained 56 repulsive realism of descriptive horror comes when Oedipus tear.s his eyes out. The Greek drama had been permeated by a religious element-: there was a divine plan, for the world and the working out of the divine plan was irresistible, and whosoever came in contact was doomed to suffer. This was supplanted in Roman tragedy by Stoic principles and by the change the situation became mechanical. We are driven by the fates '; all things marcii along fixed pathsfand the first day has determined the last: God cannot alter the cause and effect. The tragedies were'not intended for public performance and that fact led to serious defects. The drama is one of the highest forms of literature, but drama interpreting life by action is stultified if not meant for the stage. It was an evil hour when Asinius Pollio introduced private recital. To the corrupting tendencies of this habit we owe our long declama tions , description, didacticism, and mythological erudition. There is scarcely any attempt of characterization and interest. The style recalls Ovid whom Seneca frequently quotes. He alludes to him as ille poetarum ingeniosissimus. They had both facility of expression and both allow this gift to lapse into verbosity, and lead them into situations where Seneca's own criticism of ineptitudes well fits. Both were the children of their age in their exaltation of style above matter, and both prided themselves on their modernity. To give Seneca his due however we must admit that it was no 5asy task to outdo those dramas of the Greeks, Those ancient Greek masterpieces even in the Athens of the latter end of the 57 fifth century and adov/n the ages have been studied and admired, and the appreciation of their v/orth will last as long as time. They are marvellous productions both from the point of language and literature. The exquisite finish of the language and the polish of the metre attracts attention. The metre , both the ordinary iambic trimiter of the dialogue , and the lyric metres of the choral odes, runs freely and is not cramped.The Greeks had brought the metric art.to a high standard of perfection, al4ihjaugh*-tfeey- ll-v-edr-~s-©-many:-y-ears...before Christ.'TEe"~plot and artistic touch are excellent , and in the latter quality the Greeks excelled. The stories told, in the dramas too were Grecian taken out of the Heroic past of Hellas as mentioned before. Therefore the Greek dramatists could put more spirit into their tales'when telling of their own country , its gods , and the glorious achievements of their ancestors. Seneca's wocks too v/ere v/ritten in rhet rical manner or for a rhetorical purpose . We must therefore to take delight in these writings go back to the times of Seneca and try to under stand the ornaments of rhetoric. Therefore it is right that Seneca should be praised for writing dramas in the rhetorical style if that was his purpose. One may deny Seneca any poetic feeling. His plays may be quite devoid of any imaginative quality but it cannot be denied that he counts far beyond any other author of the Silver age in the development of poetry.His influence on the drama of Europe in the time of the Renascence was tremendous. He supplied the 58 only link between that modern tragedy and the ancient drama of the Greeks. Comparatively few at this period had any knowledge'-df Greek , so that the then dominant prestige of Classical Tragedy meant the elevation of Seneca as a model upon which the theory and practice of Tragic Art was based. Several of the English drama tists before Shakespeare were men who had been trained at the Universities and taught to believe in the Senecan ideals of description, striking situations , and sententiousness. We see therefore that-such elements of Greek d&aaaa as were preserved consisted in tendencies riotmanifestedsi n the best days classical writers but only beginning to creep in , in the disintegration of that art by Euripides. In Prance he excited the admiration of Racine and Corneille i and it was from him that they drew their theory of horror and fear with which they thought- the tragic art should be infested. The false tradition thus established which lent to the Roman copy the authority of the great Greek originals was a blight upon literary criticism for more than two centuriesknd has bequeathed us some of the most prominent characteristics of the tragedy of this period. The melodramatic nature of Elizabethan drama is di**e reetly due to the desire to create striking situations and the consequent need of villains. The long speeches have their origin not in the sixteenth' century love of talk,, but in the example of Seneca, The division of a play into five acts is also due to the example of Seneca. To him also is in a measure due the unha&P& ending with which tragedy is now associated. The Greek however 59 aad no such rule either in theory or practice. "But this influ ence has departed, and Seneca together with all the other poets of the Silver age is not unduly depreciated.