Thesis Template

Aspects of Evil in Seneca’s Tragedies by James Munroe Lynd A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Classics University of Toronto © Copyright by James Munroe Lynd 2012 Aspects of Evil in Seneca’s Tragedies James Munroe Lynd Doctor of Philosophy Department of Classics University of Toronto 2012 Abstract This thesis explores the theme of evil in Senecan tragedy through the prism of his Stoic principles, as they are illustrated in his philosophic treatises, with special reference to de ira, de clementia, and naturales quaestiones. The introduction defines evil and situates this study in the historical context of Julio-Claudian rule at Rome. In addition, I sketch the relative chronology of Seneca’s works and chart Seneca’s interest in the myths on display in Greek and Roman tragedy. Chapter One, “The Beast Within,” investigates the contrast of the civilized and uncivilized behaviour of Seneca’s characters in the Phaedra, Thyestes and Hercules Furens. I argue that although Seneca’s characters represent themselves as creatures of civilization and the city in their rejection of wild nature and their embrace of the values of civilization, in their words and actions they repeatedly revert to the wild landscape and bestial appetites that lurk outside the safety of the city walls. In Chapter Two, “Anger,” I examine the emotion of anger as represented in the Medea and compare that tragic exploration with Seneca’s discussion of the emotion in the de ira, where it is called the greatest vice. I conduct an extensive comparative investigation of the language of Seneca’s treatise de ira and his tragedy Medea. Fitch contends that “the dramas do not read like ii negative exemplars designed to warn of the dangers of passion,”1 but I argue that here and elsewhere they do indeed. In Chapter Three on “Cruelty,” I discuss the theme of cruelty in the Troades with reference to the de clementia where Seneca develops the theme of cruelty as the opposite of mercy, in an effort to guide the eighteen-year-old emperor Nero to compassionate rule. However, Seneca takes up the question of cruelty not only in the treatise, but also in his moral epistles and in his tragedies, especially the Troades. There I show that Seneca employs tragedy to hold up a mirror to his audience so that they can see their own behaviour reflected in it. Chapter Four, on “Ghosts and Curses,” takes its starting point from Seneca’s well-known use of ghosts in his tragedies, a feature which had a great influence on Tudor and Jacobean drama. In Senecan tragedy, the presence of ghosts often threatens the safety of the living. I contend that there are four types of ghost in Senecan drama. In the conclusion, I show that Seneca’s tragedies can be read as a criticism of the powerful, and that his Stoic interpretation of human behaviour can be seen throughout his tragedies. 1 Fitch (2002) 22. iii Acknowledgments I thank my adviser, Professor Alison Keith, for guiding me most patiently through the process of writing this dissertation. For their insightful comments, I also thank my committee members, Professors Elaine Fantham and Hugh Mason, the internal examiner, Professor Christer Bruun, and the external examiner, Professor Catherine Connors (University of Washington, Seattle). My thanks, too, are due to the Graduate Coordinator, Professor Victoria Wohl, and Administrator Coral Gavrilovic. Any remaining errors are my own. iv Table of Contents Introduction 1 1. The Beast Within: the Savage and the Civilized in Seneca’s Tragedies 27 2. Anger 64 2.1 The Philosophical Background 65 2.2 The First Stage of the Stoic Progression of Anger: the Perception of a Wrong and the Invocation of the Furies 72 2.3 The Second Stage in the Stoic Progression of Anger: Indignation 79 2.4 The Third Stage in the Stoic Progression of Anger: Condemnation 91 2.5 The Fourth Stage of the Stoic Progression of Anger: Revenge 95 3. Cruelty 110 3.1 The Literary and Philosophical Background 111 3.2 Seneca on cruelty 120 3.3 Cruelty in Senecan Tragedy 129 3.3.1 Regnum crudelitatis 131 3.3.2 Origo feritatis ab ira est 134 3.3.3 Pati et mori 138 v 3.3.4 Poena prorogata 143 3.3.5 non crudelitas modum novit 146 3.3.6 crudelitas infinita hominum 149 4. Ghosts and Curses 159 4.1 The Literary and Philosophic Background 160 4.2 UMBRAE ET SOMNIA: Troades 170 4.2.1 Phoenissae 179 4.2.2 Oedipus 181 4.2.3 Thyestes 187 4.2.4 Agamemnon 192 4.3 Curses 194 Conclusion 208 Bibliography 229 vi List of Tables Table 1: Chronology of Seneca’s works 22 vii 1 Introduction The problem of evil, defined as the depraved desire to harm another,2 pervades the writings of Seneca from his tragedies to the Apocolocyntosis and his philosophical treatises. “Depraved” is defined as “rendered morally bad; corrupt, wicked” (OED s.v. 2). The modern philosopher A. Vetlesen (2005, 2) argues that to do evil is to inflict pain and suffering intentionally on another human being, against his or her will, causing serious and foreseeable harm. Thus evil is a product of human agency and choice, or the assent of the mind as Seneca writes in de ira (2.3.5): adsensu mentis. A philosopher as early as Plato writes that desires are either honourable or base (πονηρῶν), and we ought to control and subdue the latter (Rep. 8.561c). To Seneca, malum, evil, is the opposite of virtue, the chief good of the Stoics, and therefore evil is synonymous with vice. He writes that we can make ourselves happy if we understand that what is blended with virtue is good, and what is joined to evil or vice is base (Fac te ipse felicem. Facies autem, si intellexeris bona esse, quibus admixta virtus est; turpia, quibus malitia coniuncta est, Ep. 31.5). Here Seneca uses malitia as the antithesis of virtus and as a Latin equivalent of κακία in Stoic thought. He goes on to say that what is evil does harm (quod malum est, nocet, Ep. 85.30). He urges us to love virtue as our only good and to avoid baseness as our only evil (virtutem unicum bonum hominis adamaverit, turpitudinem solum malum fugerit, Ep. 94.8). Evil manifests itself in various ways. Phaedra’s passion is uncontrolled due to the lack of self-control or σωφροσύνη of her mother Pasiphaë. Anger is an emotion that Seneca calls the greatest evil (de ira 2.12.6): Quantum est effugere maximum malum, iram! Cruelty is the result 2 OED s.v. A.I.3a; OLD s. malum1 5. 2 of a cold, calculated policy of the Greeks to annihilate the Trojans in Troades. Ghosts are manifestations of a person’s guilt for murder in Medea, Oedipus and Phoenissae. Seneca himself knew three Julio-Claudian emperors and witnessed at first hand their depraved desire to harm others, the very subject which Tacitus would later explore as emblematic of the dynasty’s capricious rule in his Annals, under the view that absolute power corrupts absolutely.3 In this Introduction, I shall examine Seneca’s relations with the Julio-Claudians and his recognition of his imperial masters’ repeated embrace of evil before tracing Seneca’s considerable influence as a dramatist and reviewing recent scholarship on the tragedies. Both Senecan tragedy and the posthumous Octavia may well have influenced our sources for Nero. I shall discuss the question of whether Seneca’s plays were performed and construct a chronology of his works before outlining the chapters of my dissertation. Suetonius reports that Seneca’s relations with the Julio-Claudians began with Gaius Caligula, who prided himself on his oratorical skill (Cal. 53.2): Peroraturus stricturum se lucubrationis suae telum minabatur, lenius comptiusque scribendi genus adeo contemnens, ut Senecam tum maxime placentem ‘commissiones meras’ componere et ‘harenam esse sine calce’ diceret. Gaius despised Seneca’s style of oratory for being too polished and elegant. The emperor ridiculed Seneca’s speeches as “mere exercises” and “sand without lime.” Suetonius implies that Seneca was such a popular orator in the 30s that he attracted the envy of an emperor who was already displaying psychopathic behaviour. It is an ironic comment on Gaius’ twisted judgment that his sister Agrippina the Younger later appointed Seneca tutor in rhetoric for her son Nero. 3 Lord Acton, letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 3 Apr. 1887: Creighton (1904) i.372. 3 Griffin discounts another account of Gaius’ hostility to Seneca, Dio’s story (59.19.7-8) that Gaius ordered Seneca to commit suicide for pleading well before the Senate, because she considers speaking well to be a weak reason to motivate Gaius’ order to execute Seneca and suspects Dio’s citing an unnamed mistress of Gaius who claimed that Seneca would soon die of consumption.4 Although the reason may be weak, it seems no less rational than Gaius’ reason for torturing senators and knights, which he did for the pleasure of the spectacle (de ira 3.18.3): Modo C. Caesar Sex. Papinium, cui pater erat consularis, Betilienum Bassum quaestorem suum, procuratoris sui filium, aliosque et senatores et equites Romanos uno die flagellis cecidit, torsit, non quaestionis sed animi causa. Gaius whipped and tortured leading men of Rome not to extract information but for amusement. Perhaps not surprisingly, Gaius features as Seneca’s prime example of a masochistic, cruel tyrant in the prose treatises.5 The death of Gaius did not improve Seneca’s relationship with the dynasty.

Load more