Florida State University Libraries

Honors Theses The Division of Undergraduate Studies

2011 The Language of Tragedy: A Study of Inherent Performativity in the Dialogue of Seneca's Thyestes Michael Hoffman

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] Hoffman 1

Abstract

Keywords: Performativity, iambic trimeter, Seneca.

No good stylistic analysis of the dialogue of Senecan tragedy has been produced for any of

Seneca‘s plays. This paper begins by providing a metrical breakdown of the iambic trimeter used in Senecan tragedy and, specifically, in the Thyestes and continues in later chapters to discuss conclusions drawn from this analysis. The general conclusion is that Seneca‘s iambic trimeter revolves around a matriculated pattern of metrical feet but often branches off from this pattern to create a multitude of variations. These variations are examined to see whether their presence corresponds with especial moments of performativity within the text, and the result is that they generally do. Other stylistic features are then discussed, such as line-breaks between speakers during stichomythic sections of the Thyestes. In general this paper demonstrates how

Seneca‘s Thyestes is well-suited to oral performance, due to the interplay between its aurally significant stylistic features and the subject matter they express. Hoffman 2

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES

THE LANGUAGE OF TRAGEDY:

A STUDY OF INHERENT PERFORMATIVITY

IN THE DIALOGUE OF SENECA‘S THYESTES

By

MICHAEL J. HOFFMAN

A Thesis submitted to the Department of Classics in partial fulfillment of the requirements for graduation with Honors in the Major

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2011 Hoffman 3

The members of the Defense Committee approve the thesis of Michael J. Hoffman defended on April 15, 2011.

______Dr. Timothy Stover Thesis Director

______Dr. Natalya Baldyga Outside Committee Member

______Dr. Laurel Fulkerson Committee Member

Hoffman 4

Table of Contents

Introduction...... 5

Chapter One: Seneca‘s Iambic Trimeter...... 10

Chapter Two: Two-Substitution Lines...... 22

Chapter Three: Three- and Four-Substitution Lines...... 38

Chapter Four: Extended Periods of Resolved Syllables...... 47

Chapter Five: Speaker-Change Ratios...... 57

Conclusion...... 69

Appendix...... 71

Bibliography...... 73

Hoffman 5

Introduction

The subject of Senecan tragedy immediately raises the question of whether or not the plays were written to be performed. Many scholars have considered this question and argued convincingly for both sides, though recently most have begun to write more and more in support of performance.1 Despite this movement, no true consensus has ever been reached, and the debate rages on without a solution or much headway in either direction. The truth probably rests somewhere between the two sides, as Fitch suggests,2 and I have taken this particular view with me to the texts. I would not say that the issue of whether the plays were performed in their time is entirely irrelevant, but I have come to believe that this issue will likely never be resolved because there is simply not enough evidence. As such, I will attempt to engage with the argument of performance as little as possible in my discussion.

However, what I do not believe anyone can argue against is that the plays were written to be spoken, as were all ancient texts. In the case of Senecan tragedy, perhaps this declamation occurred in theatres, or maybe it was conducted in recital halls. The fact remains that the plays are highly rhetorical works of auditory art whose language, poetry, and style were not scribbled in the course of an afternoon by a wealthy statesman, grown bored with political life.3 Their elements reveal a craft and precision that bespeaks a careful, systematic poet for whom strict poetic structures and baroque rhetorical games constituted high art. Indeed, the most important and overarching discovery of my research has been that Seneca crafted his plays with remarkable

1 Boyle, Tragic Seneca; Harrison, ed., Seneca in Performance 2 Fitch, ―Playing Seneca?‖ 3 Boyle, Tragic Seneca, 9 Hoffman 6 care. By this I mean that everything, from the metrical patterns to the vocabulary to the flow of dialogue between characters, has been wrought carefully, with a great eye to detail and a strong understanding of how various stylistic features contribute to the play as a whole.

From this discovery I developed the idea of looking at Seneca‘s Thyestes as a performative text. I do not mean to suggest that the Thyestes was a staged text but merely that written into the structure of the play are moments in which the stylistic elements of the work combine with the action occurring to create a strong effect in performance. Of course all Roman writing—and particularly poetry—contains attributes that lend extra meaning to their subject matter in oral performance and was likely spoken aloud even in private readings. Thus, my argument is not that other texts lack noteworthy aural stylistic traits indicative of orality but rather that Seneca‘s plays also contain such attributes, which I have labeled markers of performativity.

For the purpose of this project, I have defined aspects of the Thyestes as performative when they suggest some immediate action, convey emotion, or mark the location of a rhetorical ornament. Any combination of these traits may exist within a line or passage that I deem performative, and it is common to find that all three may occur to varying degrees at once. I have chosen to use the term performative for various reasons, not the least of which is the paucity of a vocabulary for such concepts. Indeed, although the orality of Classical texts is often discussed, no good term for aurally significant stylistic features has been coined, and I thus decided to bring into focus their role as aids of performance. Again, remember that I have stepped away from the debate on Senecan staging; I am merely discussing its performance. This performance could be a fully realized stage production, a recitatio, or anything in between these two extremes. Any of these scenarios would involve at least one person reciting the text in meter Hoffman 7 in front of a collection of other people, and in truth that is all that is needed for a performance.

The features of the Thyestes that I will be highlighting are purely auditory selections and require nothing more than recitation to bring them to life. I hope to show that the metrical and stylistic elements of the Thyestes enrich the play as a whole and create a living backdrop to the words used in the text, providing commentary and adding potency to particularly important moments.

I discovered almost immediately as I began my research that very little work had been done on the particular metrical and stylistic features of Seneca‘s tragedies,4 and so I decided that

I would produce the lacking research by working through the 767 lines of iambic trimeter that comprise the non-choral portions of the Thyestes. During this process, I marked various metrical and stylistic features which could add to an argument for performativity. I did not make any attempt to expand this survey to the choral odes or to Thyestes‘ monody in act five because these sections have been much more extensively and effectively researched by other scholars and are less in need of scrutiny.5 In addition, I feel that although performativity may well have been written into the odic sections of the play, these sections imply a very different type of performance. Fitch suggests as much and claims that each of these different styles of writing is

―appropriate to its own dramatic context,‖ as surely can be expected. 6 It seems logical that any attempt at mapping, defining, and considering the style of either of these portions of the play must be specific and idiosyncratic to that portion, and thus I have included only the lines of iambic trimeter in this study.

I chose the Thyestes for a variety of reasons. First of all, it seemed wise to begin an examination of Seneca‘s intentionally performative language with one of the texts that previous

4 Tarrant, Thyestes, 25 5 Davis, Shifting Songs; Fitch, Seneca’s Anapaests 6 Fitch, Seneca’s Anapaests, 69 Hoffman 8 scholars have found to be particularly fitted to the stage.7 Secondly, I was attracted by the

Thyestes’ higher frequency of speaker-changes and sense pauses because such aspects seemed to imply a greater diversity of stylistic structures in the play.8 Furthermore, there seemed to be a good deal of research already addressing a large number of aspects of the Thyestes, and I believed that such research would no doubt be useful in crafting my ideas. Finally, I quite simply enjoy the play. Its themes of man as hunger/beast, insatiability, ira, childlessness, silence/speech, kingship, and revenge9 resonate with me as very interesting and powerful, and I thought it would be best to work with a text that I found fulfilling and exciting.

On the note of secondary research, I fear that my citations may seem rather scarce in the following pages, but this largely stems from the fact that the majority of my research has never been done before. I have read a large selection of books and articles, whose ideas have certainly influenced my understanding of Senecan tragedy, Seneca himself, and imperial Roman society.

However, so many of the direct arguments that I make have been developed solely by me and solely from my research that I have found it difficult to bring the words and ideas of others into this project. The largest exception to this is found in the writings of John G. Fitch, whose work on Senecan tragedy‘s metrical and stylistic features has heavily influenced my own. Yet, even with Fitch, the majority of his work has been conducted on the choral odes, and thus much of his research is not strictly relevant to this project. I have, at any rate, attempted to use the research of others as a tool to better understand the Thyestes, and where this was possible, I have given credit to my forebears.

7 Fitch gives a list of others who have argued for the Thyestes‘ intentional theatricality before giving his own arguments in his article ―Playing Seneca?‖. 8 Fitch, ―Sense Pauses and Relative Dating in Seneca, Sophocles, and Shakespeare,‖ 289-91 9 Boyle, Tragic Seneca, 43ff; Scheisaro 1ff. Hoffman 9

What follows will largely take the form of a metrical analysis of the iambic trimeter used in the dialogical portions of Seneca‘s Thyestes. I begin by defining Seneca‘s iambic trimeter and providing useful data about it before moving on to discuss the implications of this meter and its particular anomalies. Throughout these discussions, I have endeavored to examine metrical issues from as many different points of view as possible, taking into consideration the vocabulary, verbal structure, meaning, context, and stylistic features of the lines in question, as well as the ways in which meter informs and affects these other components. Following the metrical examination of chapters two, three, and four, I will finish out this project by spending a chapter to look at the ways that speaker-changes are handled in Senecan dialogue.

All of these stylistic features, although highly varied and even at times unrelated, will come together to provide the reader with a sense of Seneca‘s style. By examining these particular facets of Seneca‘s Thyestes, we will be able to see the whole of play much more clearly, and we will find that whole to be highly fitted for oral performance. Indeed, I have chosen all of these particular aspects of Seneca‘s writing because they reveal most clearly the often denigrated performativity10 that was so carefully folded into the very foundation of the

Thyestes. Remember that I am not attempting to make any sort of argument about the dramaturgical history of the text as a play, but I merely aim to show how the language of the plays was crafted with a keen eye to its nature as a performed text, whether that performance were on stage or in a recital hall.

10 August Wilhelm von Schlegel is credited with originating the negative criticism surrounding Seneca‘s tragedies in 1809, although many others have explored this theory, the most recent and notable of which is Otto Zwierlein. For discussions of this, see Fitch, ―Playing Seneca?‖ and A.J. Boyle Tragic Seneca. Hoffman 10

Chapter One Seneca’s Iambic Trimeter

To begin with, it is important simply to define the meter used by Seneca throughout the dialogue of his plays.11 This meter, which was used in all extant ancient tragedy, has generally been called iambic trimeter, although the lines themselves are senarii. Each senarius can be divided into three metra, each containing two metrical feet, which, at least in Senecan tragedy, tend to resolve quite differently from each other. The first, third, and fifth feet in a line of

Senecan iambic trimeter generally exhibit far greater flexibility in how they can resolve than the even feet of the line. The even feet are the true markers of the iambic nature of the poetry, and appear only as either iambs or tribrachs in Seneca‘s Thyestes.

In this way Seneca differs from his Roman predecessors who were entirely willing to allow the second and fourth feet to lengthen into spondees, creating entirely spondaic lines with only one iamb tagged on as the sixth foot.12 Here, Seneca actually writes in a meter closer to that of his Greek predecessors, but he differs from them in his treatment of the fifth foot.13 Although the first half of this foot in Greek tragedy was able to resolve into a single short syllable, Seneca breaks away from the fifth century dramatists by generally disallowing this in his tragedies.

Some exceptions to this rule may exist within the Senecan corpus but not in the Thyestes, which contains no line of iambic trimeter in which the fifth foot resolves into anything other than a

11 See Appendix for a more in-depth illustration of iambic trimeter‘s possible metrical feet and examples of combinations of those feet. 12 Tarrant 29 13 Hine 38 Hoffman 11 spondee or an anapaest. Such cannot be said for any of the extant Greek tragedians, and thus we see how Seneca stands apart from both of his literary traditions, taking parts from each but subscribing fully to neither.

Here we see an important facet of Senecan tragedy. At its deepest level this tragedy resembles nothing else we have, and while Seneca certainly had influences and inspirations for his writing, we must note that nothing extant was a strong enough influence for him to fully utilize its metrical style. It is possible that his meter mimics the one used by Ovid in his Medea14 or by some other lost dramatist, but as we can never know this and do not have those texts anyway, I feel that this is a moot point. What is important is the fact that Seneca remains removed from his extant predecessors in both style and time, and thus I propose that we not attempt to understand his tragedies solely through the lens of these earlier plays. Such a view seems reductive, futile, and outdated to me, so I have conducted this study by looking only at

Seneca‘s texts themselves.

As I have already stated, I believe the most basic element of these texts to be their metrical and stylistic construction, since these are the building blocks that structure the poem as a whole. Believing this, I scanned the 767 lines of iambic dialogue in the Thyestes and mapped out the patterns that I found there, hoping that such a process would produce results which spoke to the performativity of Seneca‘s writing. I did indeed discover certain trends and patterns, which I shall now express through discussion and numerical data. First of all, it is useful to simply see a breakdown of the lines by foot, so that we can understand how this meter is simultaneously one of the most changeable and one of the most structured of any ancient meter.

14 Indeed, the only definite line of Ovid‘s Medea that seems to be in iambic trimeter fits Seneca‘s metrical pattern quite nicely. It reads, ―Servare potui: pondere an possim, rogas?‖ which is scanned as spondee tribrach, spondee iamb, spondee iamb. As it is only one line, we cannot make any sort of blanket statement about Ovid‘s meter in general, but the similarity between this line and Seneca‘s meter remains interesting. Hoffman 12

1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Metrical Foot 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th 464 0 549 0 608 0 Spondees 60.5 0 71.58 0 79.3 0 117 684 96 726 0 767 Iambs 15.25 89.18 12.52 94.7 0 100 58 0 110 0 0 0 Dactyls 7.56 0 14.34 0 0 0 124 0 3 0 159 0 Anapaests 16.17 0 0.39 0 20.7 0 3 83 9 41 0 0 Tribrachs 0.39 10.82 1.17 5.35 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Tetrabrachs 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 1.1 – Overall numbers and percentages for different feet in different positions.

The left side of this chart gives the number of times that each possible metrical pattern occurs in each foot, and the right side shows this number as a percentage of the total 767 lines of iambic trimeter in the play. We may infer several important details about Seneca‘s meter from these data, such as the restrictions and preferences within certain feet. Probably the most striking and immediate observation from Figure 1.1 is how strongly each foot leans towards either spondaic or iambic rhythms, depending on whether it is an odd or even foot, respectively.

Moreover, I have noticed a general tendency for the likelihood of this phenomenon to increase as each line progresses, which can be seen most clearly in the percentage portion of the chart. The astronomical difference in percentages within feet has led me to classify a particular metrical pattern as a general line, namely the pattern of three repeated metra consisting of a spondee followed by an iamb, or spondee iamb, spondee iamb, spondee iamb.

It would be incorrect to claim that small variations from this pattern constitute anything truly irregular or even that general lines constitute the majority of the play‘s dialogue. In fact a pure general line without any substitutions occurs in only 202 of the 767 trimetric lines in the

Thyestes, or roughly 26.3%. This figure does not sound especially impressive or large, and it could make us question whether these lines truly deserve the nomenclature that I have assigned to them. There are, however, several reasons why I have classified these lines as I have. First of all, the next most frequent metrical structure in the Thyestes, which is the same but for an anapaest in the fifth foot instead of a spondee, occurs only 69 times, or 9% of the time. This Hoffman 13 means that a general line is almost three times as likely to appear as its closest competitor, and this gives strong support to the belief that this pattern is the basis of Seneca‘s meter. Secondly, I have found that the most common type of line is actually one that has the overall shape of a general line but contains one foot that has been changed to some other metrical pattern, rather than retaining the spondee or iamb. In total, these one-substitution lines, as I will call them, account for 359 of the 767 dialogue lines in the play, or roughly 46.7%.

Foot Substituted 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th The frequency of these one- Iamb 53 45 Dactyl 21 48 substitution lines clearly indicates that Anapaest 64 3 69 Senecan meter prefers this sort of malleable Tribrach 1 30 4 20 Tetrabrach 1 line structure, while retaining its strong, Figure 1.2 – The frequency and distribution of different variations in one-substitution lines. structured beat. Moreover, the fact that nearly three fourths of the play‘s dialogue consists of lines that are either entirely or almost entirely made up of a single rhythm argues very strongly for the idea that general lines are Seneca‘s building blocks. This may seem unlikely because pure general lines do not constitute a very high percentage of the play‘s dialogue, but this merely indicates Seneca‘s skill as a poet. He developed or inherited an understanding of iambic trimeter that had these general lines as its basic building block, but if there were no variation upon this pattern, the dialogue would soon grow more than monotonous. As such, Seneca varied the majority of the lines with some combination of substitutions to this general pattern, and thus he created a firm, structured system that nevertheless reads dynamically.

Figure 1.1 also contains interesting data about other feet. The tribrach, for example, is possibly the most interesting foot used by Seneca because of its various qualities. This foot, which is rather uncommon in other metrical systems, consists of three short syllables and proves Hoffman 14 incredibly effective at creating runs of resolved syllables throughout the Thyestes.15 These extended periods of short syllables grant a varied texture to the iambic trimeter and allow for characters to break from the general pattern of the lines. Furthermore, the tribrach strikes me as important because it can take the place of an iamb in the second and fourth feet of a line and also appears occasionally in the first and third feet. Despite this, however, it is the second least frequent foot in the Thyestes, followed only by its cousin, the tetrabrach, which occurs once in the play. It is fascinating that although the tribrach is a highly important and variable aspect of

Senecan verse, it is still a relatively uncommon occurrence. This seems to suggest that the tribrach should be viewed as a tool which Seneca used to build his plays and craft them to his liking, and thus we must regard them as possible markers of performativity.

Moving on to other feet, the different treatments of dactyls and anapaests in the Thyestes strike me as quite interesting. As Figure 1.2 shows us, the anapaest is the most common variation in the first and fifth feet of one-substitution lines, but it is the least common variation in the third foot of these lines, falling below even the tribrach. The dactyl, on the other hand, just beats out the iamb as the most common variation that one-substitution lines can have in the third foot, and yet it is much less common in the first foot. This relationship between the anapaest and dactyl interests me because the feet are inverses of each other, and their usage is in many ways reversed. No doubt the explanation for this lies in the nature of the feet themselves and of the feet around them, as Fitch discovers is also the case in Seneca‘s anapaestic choral odes.16

Fitch provides a chart that depicts the various combinations of metrical patterns in

Seneca‘s most common choral meter, which revolves around the anapaestic foot. This dimetric choral meter contains four anapaestic feet as its basic structure but very rarely exhibits this pure

15 See chapter four. 16 Fitch, Seneca’s Anapaests, 10-11. Hoffman 15 form. Any or all of these anapaests can be changed into a spondee or dactyl, meaning that the lines have many possible variations. The most common ending for a line of anapaests is the metron dactyl spondee,17 which is interesting because of Seneca‘s refusal to place dactyls in the penultimate position of iambic trimeter. Similarly, the metron anapaest spondee very rarely occurs in the second half of a line of choral anapaests,18 although anapaest iamb seems a perfectly normal ending to a line of iambic trimeter. This no doubt reflects the sound which is expected from the closing of a line in Latin poetry. Dactyl spondee is notable as the almost ubiquitous closure of dactylic hexameter, and from this we may understand that the ancients considered it a strong ending for a line. On the other side, the only two possible final metra for iambic trimeter, namely spondee iamb and anapaest iamb, both have in common a long syllable preceding the iamb‘s first short syllable. This is directly opposite of the metron dactyl spondee, in which two short syllables precede the weighty final spondee. From this, we might be able to draw out a general rule about preferences within Latin meter.

We must be careful, however, not to generalize these issues. The dactyl, although restricted from the fifth foot of iambic trimeter, is commonly followed by iambs in the other feet of the meter. In fact, it is substantially more likely for a dactyl to precede an iamb in Seneca‘s trimeter than a tribrach,19 and the metron anapaest spondee is actually the third most common beginning to a line of choral anapaests.20 It is only in the final position of a line that we see any true preference for either of these metra, and this speaks strongly for the distinctiveness of the final metron, as well. Clearly, Seneca viewed the ends of his lines as different from the other parts of the lines, and I would argue that this is the reason why the fifth foot of his iambic

17 Fitch, Seneca’s Anapaests, 10. 18 Ibid. 19 1st Metron: DI, 48 times (84.2%); DT, 9 times (15.8%). 2nd Metron: DI, 104 times (94.5%); DT, 6 times (5.5%). 20 Fitch, Seneca’s Anapaests, 10. Hoffman 16 trimeter is so invariable. Since the last foot of the line must be an iamb, Seneca seems to have preferred that the penultimate foot end with a long syllable so as to avoid extended resolved syllables at the end of the line. This preference creates a strong rhythm and lends a weighty gravitas to each line‘s closure.

In general, however, I can provide no good explanation for Seneca‘s preference of specific feet in specific locations. For instance I do not know why anapaests are preferred in the beginnings of lines and yet shunned in the third feet of lines, just as I can give no explanation for dactyl‘s high frequency in the third foot. These things merely occur and must be accepted as a part of the meter. On the other hand, the iamb is of course fascinating because it is actually the most frequently used foot in the meter and the second most frequent in both the first and third feet, but no line entirely comprised of iambs is permitted. Such lines are certainly not uncommon in Greek tragedy, but Seneca does not permit fifth foot iambs, which I again cannot explain. Furthermore, lines comprised entirely of iambs but for a fifth foot spondee occur only

13 times in the dialogical lines of the Thyestes, and the same pattern with an anapaest in the fifth foot never occurs. This means that only 13 times out of the 109 times that a first metron consisting of two iambs occurs is it followed by another metron of two iambs, or roughly 11.9% of those 109 times. Figures 1.3 and 1.4 will shed further light on this.

Metron Breakdown SI II DI AI TI ST IT DT AT TT 1st 411 109 48 112 3 53 8 10 12 0 2nd 520 89 104 3 9 28 7 6 0 0 3rd 608 0 0 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percentage SI II DI AI TI ST IT DT AT TT 1st 53.59 14.21 6.26 14.6 0.39 7.04 1.04 1.17 1.56 0 2nd 67.8 11.73 13.6 0.39 1.17 3.65 0.91 0.78 0 0 3rd 79.27 0 0 20.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Figure 1.3 – A breakdown of the trimetric lines by metron, giving the ten possible metra and the number of times that they occur in each of the three loci of the lines. Hoffman 17

2nd Metron SI II DI AI TI ST IT DT 1 st SI 271 48 57 3 4 20 3 5 Metron II 69 13 22 0 3 2 0 0 DI 32 5 9 0 0 1 1 0 AI 84 16 5 0 1 3 3 0 TI 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ST 38 5 8 0 1 1 0 0 IT 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 DT 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 AT 8 1 2 0 0 0 0 1

Percentage 2nd Metron SI II DI AI TI ST IT DT 1 st SI 35.33 6.26 7.43 0.39 0.52 2.61 0.39 0.65 Metron II 8.99 1.69 2.86 0 0.39 0.26 0 0 DI 4.17 0.65 1.17 0 0 0.13 0.13 0 AI 10.95 2.08 0.65 0 0.13 0.39 0.39 0 TI 0.39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ST 4.95 0.65 1.04 0 0.13 0.13 0 0 IT 0.78 0.13 0.13 0 0 0 0 0 DT 1.17 0 0 0 0 0.13 0 0 AT 1.04 0.13 0.26 0 0 0 0 0.13 Figure 1.4 – The first table provides the number of times that metra are followed by the other metra, and the second table provides this number as a percentage.

Figure 1.321 charts the placement of different metra in different possible positions in the lines of iambic trimeter. From this we can tell that spondee iamb is the most common metron, followed by anapaest iamb in the first and third positions of the line, which we certainly would have assumed from the previous data. This chart, however, provides a more holistic view of the meter, since it does not split the metra in half and look solely at the feet that comprise them, thus

21 For the sake of convenience, I have used abbreviations here for the different feet. They are S for spondee, I for iamb, D for dactyl, A for anapaest, T for tribrach, and 4 for tetrabrach, which has also not been included for convenience, as this foot appears only once in the Thyestes. See below for a discussion of this appearance. These abbreviations will reappear later in this work. Hoffman 18 allowing us to see the meter as it truly is. Figure 1.422 takes this principle of viewing the line as a whole and expands upon it by providing the number of times that specific metra are followed by other metra. For instance although Figure 1.3 shows that the metron spondee iamb begins

411 lines and comes second in 520 lines, Figure 1.4 reports that only 271 lines of the 767 trimetric lines of the Thyestes contain a spondee iamb in both the first and second metron. In other words, only 271 lines out of the 411 lines begun by this metron continues with this same pattern in the second position, while 48 continue with iamb iamb, 57 with dactyl iamb, and so on. These two figures work together to expand our view of the meter and help us understand that the further away from the individual feet we move, the more diverse Seneca‘s iambic trimeter becomes.

One feature of Figure 1.4 may seem odd and should probably be commented on. These tables provide data related only to the first two metra, which may seem to be a misrepresentation of the lines as a whole since there is further complexity beyond what the chart expresses. This was, however, a conscious decision on my part. The third metron of course can only resolve as either spondee iamb or anapaest iamb, with the former being far more common. This fact lies at the heart of my decision to exclude it from these results because I felt that the overall sound and structure of the line was not substantially affected by the presence or absence of an anapaest in the fifth foot. This may be regarded as a general rule, but there are a few notable exceptions which rarely occur and which I will examine below. On a general note, however, both possible metra seem more notable for their uniformity with each other than for their occasional disparity, and I feel that any exceptions or noteworthy events are suited to individual examination and do not merit the crowding of other data simply because of their sometime existence.

22 As particular metra never occur in certain positions, these metra have been excluded from those positions on this chart. That is to say that since TT never occurs in either the first or second metron, and AT never occurs in the second metron, these combinations do not appear as possibilities in those positions in Figure 1.4. Hoffman 19

There are two general exceptions to this rule, both of which contain a fifth foot anapaest as essential part of the line‘s shape and both of which are rare. Moreover, both of these exceptions are representative of features that I have regarded as potentially noteworthy in all metrical feet, including, but not limited to, fifth foot anapaests. The first of them occurs anytime the same foot appears twice as a substitution in the same line. This refers to anything that breaks from the matriculated pattern of spondee iamb and does so twice in the same line, meaning that a line with iambs in both the first and third feet would fit this stipulation, as would a line with first and fifth foot anapaests. The other exception occurs only once in the Thyestes with fifth foot anapaests, and it is a combination of two substituted feet to produce an extended period of resolved syllables. This is most commonly caused by a tribrach followed by an anapaest or preceded by a dactyl, thus producing five short syllables in a row, although less than five syllables may also be important at times. This structure is notable partially because it requires two substitutions back to back, which by its very nature puts it in the minority of Seneca‘s dialogue, and partially because such a run of unresolved syllables would undoubtedly be audibly striking after the repetitive pattern of iambic trimeter.

Nevertheless, other than these rare exceptions, I have found the third metron‘s function as a tag far more important than its actual type, and I have thus decided to exclude from Figure 1.4 the distinction between anapaestic and spondaic third metra. I am also uncertain about this metron‘s importance when considering issues of multiple-substitution lines. I have defined a multiple-substitution line as one in which more than one foot is substituted from the pattern of a general line. These lines comprise a total of 206 lines or roughly 26.9% of the play and can be further divided into three categories, based on the number of substitutions in them. The Hoffman 20

Total Number of Percentage frequency of these lines drops Number Percentage Non-A23 for Non-A 2-S ub 174 22.68 105 13.7 rapidly as the number of 3-Sub 31 4.04 10 1.3 4-Sub 1 0.13 1 0.13 substitutions increases, with two- Figure 1.5 – The frequency and distribution of various types of multiple-substitution lines. substitution lines having the most and four-substitution lines almost nonexistent in the play. As we can see, neither two- substitution nor three-substitution lines are truly common, especially when we remember that these general categories are merely umbrella terms for a number of vastly different line structures. Indeed, even the most common type of two-substitution line, AISIAI, only accounts for 20 lines in total, or 2.6%.24 Clearly, although two-substitution lines make up a sizeable portion of the text, this term describes a large number of incredibly diverse metrical structures.

These multiple-substitution lines, however, are the key to understanding Senecan trimeter. As we have already seen, this meter is highly regularized but also highly varied in its most common type of structure, the one-substitution line. Yet, the remaining fourth of the lines that are not either general lines or one-substitution lines consist of these multiple-substitution lines, and the extreme diversity and variability of these lines is the aspect of Senecan verse that creates the magic. These lines, indeed, shine forth as the most performative portions of the play.

They allow the characters to more dramatically convey their dialogue while still remaining within the strictures of Senecan trimeter because they provide extremely diverse rhythmic patterns which stand out from the surrounding text. They do not occur so often as to become common place, but they are not so rare as to be ineffective. Their place as roughly one-fourth of

23 Non-A here refers to multiple-substitution lines that do not contain a fifth foot anapaest. 24 The most frequent two-substitution line without a fifth foot anapaest is IIDISI, with 17 occurrences, or roughly 2.2% of the total lines. For further discussion of the third metron‘s importance when considering the overall structure of the line, see pages 40 and 41. Hoffman 21 the dialogue seems perfect for providing Seneca with a tool to highlight portions of his text without bludgeoning his audience with metrically complex lines.

In conclusion, there can be little doubt that Seneca viewed iambic trimeter as a system based upon general lines, consisting of only spondees and iambs, but preferred to cut the heaviness of this pattern by providing various substitutions within his lines. The most common line structure contains one substitution, followed by general lines, and then lines with two, three, and four variations, respectively. Indeed, Seneca did not construct his meter haphazardly. The proportion of different patterns is far too exact and far too carefully structured, as are the placement of the metra and the feet within them. This play was crafted carefully and purposefully, with an extreme eye to detail, which we can see in the very exact matrix of metrical architectures that have been built as its foundation. Upon this substructure has been set a rather delicate work of art, which we may now begin to explore because we understand the base upon which it was erected. Hoffman 22

Chapter Two Two-Substitution Lines

Two-substitution lines are by far the most frequent of the noteworthy lines that I have set aside for scrutiny, and they are thus probably the least likely to contain truly stand-out features within them. For the most part the greatest power in a two-substitution line lies in the fact that its very presence forces the deferment of a general line or one-substitution line. This view arises from my finding that the general architecture of the play has been built primarily from these highly regularized general lines and one-substitution lines, and thus any moment when these structures are deferred creates a hiccup in the otherwise largely unbroken fabric of the dialogue.

However, to say that every two-substitution lines suggests inherent performativity would be both illogical and, quite frankly, false, with regards to the actual exempla within the play. This certainly does not entirely preclude two-substitution lines from containing performative markers, but rather informs us that we must examine the 175 two-substitution lines on a case-by-case basis.

First, it would be good to understand exactly what is meant by two-substitution lines since this larger category contains many different types of lines within it. I mentioned the two most frequent of these types in my last chapter, but there are twenty-seven different types of two- substitution lines in the Thyestes. This number, however, represents only a little more than half of the fifty different possible combinations of feet that could exist within the category of two- substitution lines. Seneca intentionally selected the metrical forms that he wished to use within this category, and he probably chose these forms for a reason, whether that reason was of his Hoffman 23 own devising or because these were the acceptable structures handed down to him by the tradition of iambic trimeter. The exact reason is neither entirely clear nor entirely pertinent; what matters is that these are the only surviving forms within this play, and they represent just a portion of the possible lines. Interestingly enough, this is in many ways the opposite of Fitch‘s findings with regards to Seneca‘s anapaestic choral meter, in which almost every possible combination occurs at one point or another.25 This disparity informs us on Seneca‘s artistry and care for his different metrical forms, since we see how different forms are actually crafted distinctly according to what is fitting for them.

Percent Percent We see here a depiction of the vast number of Type Number of 2-Sub of Total SIITSI 3 1.71 0.39 disparate types of two-substitution lines in the Thyestes, SIDTSI 5 2.86 0.65 STSTSI 1 0.57 0.13 arranged according to type with lines containing a fifth STIISI 5 2.86 0.65 foot anapaest set apart slightly at the bottom of the chart. STDISI 6 3.43 0.78 STTISI 1 0.57 0.13 One of the most interesting trends that stands out to me is IISTSI 2 1.14 0.26 IIIISI 13 7.43 1.69 the scarcity of metrical structures that occur only once in IIDISI 17 9.71 2.22 IITISI 3 1.71 0.39 the Thyestes. Indeed, out of 175 two-substitution lines, ITSISI 5 2.86 0.65 only four stand alone as the only line of their type in the DISTSI 1 0.57 0.13 DIIISI 3 1.71 0.39 play, and even more interesting is the fact that all four of DIDISI 7 4 0.91 DTSISI 6 3.43 0.78 these contain at least one tribrach. These patterns are AISTSI 2 1.14 0.26 AIIISI 13 7.43 1.69 certainly not the only two-substitution lines that contain AIDISI 5 2.86 0.65 AITISI 1 0.57 0.13 tribrachs, although all four do in fact contain a tribrach ATSISI 7 4 0.91 and two of them are notable as the only two-substitution SIIIAI 3 1.71 0.39 SIDIAI 9 5.14 1.17 lines containing two tribrachs. I am interested by these STSIAI 8 4.57 1.04 IISIAI 16 9.14 2.09

25 Fitch, Seneca’s Anapaests, 71. Hoffman 24

DISIAI 11 6.29 1.43 trends because they speak to the way that Seneca AISIAI 20 11.43 2.61 TISIAI 2 1.14 0.26 constructed these different lines. He clearly did not Figure 2.1 – The distribution of different types of 2-Sub lines with throw these patterns together haphazardly; the their percentage out of 2-Sub lines and their percentage out of all the distributions are too even for that. Indeed, it would not trimetric lines in the play. be difficult to construct roughly equal categories of lines, based on the number of occurrences of each line.26 What we see here is not the haphazard work of a poetaster who is merely throwing different feet and metra together but the work of a skilled poet who operated according to particular rules in order to produce the desired effect within his poetry.

To return to the issue of the tribrach in two-substitution lines, I find it quite interesting how rarely the tribrach appears and how rarely it appears twice. There are two other occasions in which a line contains two tribrachs, and I will examine both in later chapters. Yet, now I believe it is time to consider these two highly tribrachial two-substitution lines themselves and look at their meanings. The first line is line 193 and the second is 226. Line 226 reads ―arcanus aries, ductor opulenti gregis‖ ‗a mysterious ram, the leader of the rich flock,‘ and refers to the golden ram that lay at the heart of Thyestes‘ usurpation of Atreus‘ throne years before. The fascinating thing about this line is its sharp alienation from the lines around it, which read,

est Pelopis altis nobile in stabulis pecus, arcanus aries, ductor opulenti gregis,27 cuius per omne corpus effuso coma dependet auro, cuius e tergo noui aurata reges sceptra Tantalici gerunt; (Thyestes, 225-229)

26 The easiest categories would be 1-3 occurrences, 4-12 occurrences, and 13-20 occurrences. Such division would yield 11 types in the first category, 10 in the second, and 6 in the last. These numbers are not perfectly equal, but they serve to demonstrate how evenly dispersed 2-Sub lines are among the number of times that each type occurs. 27 The line or portion of a line upon which I intend to focus my discussion will be bolded when it is quoted in the Latin. Hoffman 25

There is a celebrated sheep in the high stables of Pelops, a mysterious ram, the leader of the rich flock, whose fleece hangs down, pouring out gold over his whole body, from whose back the new Tantalid kings take their golden scepter.

Line 226 hardly seems vital to the passage as a whole, as it is simply a poetic gloss on the word pecus and serves little narrative function. This certainly mirrors the function of the tribrachial rhythms in this line; they serve to set this highly poetized line apart from its surrounding text by heightening it even further with unfamiliar resolved rhythmic patterns.

This feature, while it may seem antithetical to modern tendencies in playwrighting, actually fits perfectly into the baroque rhetorical period in which Seneca was composing his plays.28 Furthermore, regardless of theatrical trends, the line‘s stand-out metrical structure, along with its appositional placement, represents a clear rhetorical ornament that depicts Senecan artistry. Such rhetorical ornaments have been denigrated in the past as inherently untheatrical,29 but this comment seems curiously irrelevant to me. This line is intended to be heard and to stand out from the surrounding text. Whether it was heard during recitatio or theatrical performance cannot in fact ever be proved, but we can say without a shadow of a doubt that this line was not written so that a reader could appreciate its beauty. It thus has a hint of performativity about it, even if it is a type of performativity that we do not necessarily recognize at first.

The other two-substitution line with two tribrachs reads, ―sed nulla taceat. Aliquod audendum est nefas‖ ‗but none will be silent about. I must dare something unspeakable‘ (Sen.

Thy. 193). This line is actually one the most noteworthy lines of the play for a variety of reasons, not least among which is that it constitutes the longest expanse of resolved syllables of any trimetric line in the Thyestes and is the only place where two tribrachs are placed next to each

28 Boyle, Tragic Seneca, 18ff. 29 Boyle, Tragic Seneca, 15. Hoffman 26 other. It also comes at an interesting time within the play and, more specifically, within Atreus‘ opening monologue of act two. Its surrounding text reads,

Age, anime, fac quod nulla posteritas probet, sed nulla taceat. Aliquod audendum est nefas atrox, cruentum, tale quod frater meus suum esse mallet. Scelera non ulcisceris, nisi uincis . . . (Thyestes, 192-196) Come, mind, do that which no posterity will sanction but none will be silent about. I must dare something unspeakable, something terrible, bloody, such that my brother will wish it were his instead. You do not avenge crimes unless you outdo them . . .

The reason that this passage interests me so much is its placement in the middle of Atreus‘ first monologue and the metrical patterns within it. This monologue begins with Atreus criticizing his own actions and continues with his desire for the land to shake and the palace to crumble so long as it kills his brother. These lines have set the scene, but line 192 begins the act in truth.

First of all, we should note that Lines 192-196 are of the metrical structures TISIAI,

STTISI, SISISI, IIDISI, and AIIISI, respectively, which means that all but 194 are two- substitution lines and 194 is a general line. Atreus‘ first word age leaps out at the audience and draws them in with its elision into anime, an effect which the sudden tribrach that begins this line certainly helps. This is the first tribrach of act two and one of only three first foot tribrachs in the play, and its placement here before line 193 cannot be a coincidence. We are prepared by this quick beginning rhythm for the upcoming explosion of resolved syllables in the next line. The word immediately following anime, fac, marks the first long syllable of the line and creates a sharp break from the first four quick syllables. Furthermore, the fact that fac is only one syllable Hoffman 27 long and is such a strong, colloquial imperative grants the line even greater force. The line finishes out rather regularly with a fifth foot anapaest.

Line 193 follows directly after this fairly general line ending and begins with a spondee as Atreus finishes his villainous thought. Before he can complete this sentence, however, his speech is seized by a sudden run of short syllables, beginning with four resolved syllables that finish out his sentence. The next sentence begins with three more shorts, and the line then ends quite regularly, leaving us with an incredible, bizarre island of swift syllables in the middle of an otherwise normal line. This line structure in itself certainly merits comment, but perhaps even more strange is the strong caesura that breaks up this run of seven resolved syllables. At first glance it may seem that allowing this section of the line to run its course without a caesura would create a more magnificent, impressive dramatic effect, but this view probably misrepresents and misunderstands the performative nature of line 193.

First of all, such a view ignores the fact that, although the caesura in the third foot of the line breaks up the flow of resolved syllables, it does not do so in the same way as a long syllable would if it were inserted in the first position of this foot. A long syllable would slow down the line and drag out the end of the word taceat, stopping the momentum of the short syllables with its lyrical, voiced quality. This caesura, however, simply and cleanly puts the momentum on hold for a moment and creates anticipation for what will come next, like an eighth rest placed in a pinnacle moment of a scherzo. The fact that the line continues afterward with another three short syllables quite aptly fulfills the built-up anticipation from the first half of the line. I would thus say that this strategically placed caesura not only fails to injure this unique metrical Hoffman 28 structure but actually strengthens it. Line 193 goes on to end entirely normally and is followed, interestingly enough, by the only general line in the second half of the monologue.30

The words during which this run of short syllables takes place are also important. It begins on the second half of the word nulla and continues into taceat, which strikes me as especially evocative because of taceat‘s meaning. Indeed, the juxtaposition of this extremely accelerated text with the word for ―to be silent‖ simply cannot be a coincidence. This sort of an expanse of resolved syllables can imply that the character in question has so great a need to speak that it forces him to break from free from the regular rhythm of the meter.31 Here, the use of such a feature with the word taceat suggests that we are looking at one of Seneca‘s metatheatrical games in which what is being said and how it is being said contrast each other.

We cannot ignore, however, that the word taceat is actually being negated by nulla, and thus Atreus is following his own advice with this line. This could seem to make my earlier arguments irrelevant, but in truth it only increases the sense of play. We see here how Atreus tells others not to be silent by using a metrical tool that suggests a lack of silence and a need to speak and yet occurs as he says the word for ―to be silent.‖ Furthermore, the fact that Atreus finishes his line with the word nefas, literally ―unspeakable thing,‖ also cannot be coincidental.

The swiftness of the beginning of the line and Atreus‘ fervent need to speak is contrasted with the more regular ending and its emphasis on that which is unspeakable. All of this produces a four-level rhetorical game that adds to the play‘s thematic discourse on silence and speech.32

30 There are certainly other general lines throughout the monologue, but they are concentrated near the beginning. On an interesting note, this speech, Atreus‘ first monologue from 176-204, actually functions as a microcosm of the play itself as far as ratios of metrical structures are concerned, with G-lines occurring 7 times, 1-Sub lines occurring 14 times, and multiple-Sub lines occurring 7 times, although all of the multiple-Sub lines are 2-Sub lines here. 31 See chapter four. 32 Schiesaro 1ff. Hoffman 29

Finally, this string of seven short syllables has one more important effect on the line, namely it connects the three words that it encompasses. This connection forges a bridge between the two sentences in line 193 by juxtaposing their beginning and end in such a way that they seem almost to be one. In running these two sentences together, Seneca emphasizes the verbal echoes between quod in line 192 and aliquod in line 193, and these words and their dependant texts are thus equated rhetorically. Furthermore, quod is the first syllable of the third foot in line

192 and is long, whereas the quod in aliquod is the first syllable of the fourth foot in line 193 but is short. This verbal repetition and variation is very reminiscent of Seneca‘s other patterns of echo and response.33 Upon reading these two lines, we are given the impression more of one thought than of two, as if the second thought followed so closely upon the first‘s heels that they are almost indistinguishable from each other, and the repeated use of the word quod links the ideas in the lines.

Of course, I admit that lines 192 and 193 were already rather intrinsically linked merely by what they were saying, but the rhetorical connection here provides us with a greater link than we would otherwise see. It literally equates the thing that no posterity will sanction with the unspeakable thing in the following line. Furthermore, Seneca‘s use of an extended period of resolved syllables in such a highly dramatic place is incredibly striking. We get the measure of

Atreus merely by hearing the eagerness with which he speaks of his revenge, and much of this effect is created by the flow of meter here. Overall, I find this fantastic marriage of metrical anomaly, rhetorical virtuosity, and character development incredibly performative. Seneca has taken the language of his plays and bent it to his will in order to produce a section of lines that stand out as one of the most powerfully dramatic moments of the play.

33 Tarrant 120-1. Hoffman 30

The first two examples given in this chapter have provided an in-depth view of some of the ways that performativity can be revealed within the metrical and stylistic patterns of the lines.

Many other two-substitution lines, including those that entirely lack any tribrachial rhythms, also reveal such characteristics. For instance pure iambic lines generally coincide with highly performative moments of the play, such as line 282, which contains one of the most vivid images of the play: ―. . . tota iam ante oculos meos / imago caedis errat, ingesta orbitas / in ora patris .

. .‖ ‗Even now, before my eyes / the whole image of the slaughter wanders, childlessness swallowed / into the mouth of the father‘ (Sen. Thy. 281-283). Ingesta orbitas is a very fascinating phrase here for several reasons. First of all, this instance constitutes the only usage of either of these words in the entire text of the Thyestes, even though both describe subjects discussed many times. Secondly, the usage of an elision to join these words underscores the concept of devouring one‘s children because orbitas is essentially beginning to devour ingesta.

Finally, the phrase is set apart by the very structure of the line.

Because of the strictures of Senecan verse, every foot in line 282 is iambic except for the fifth, which is spondaic. This creates a very particular rhythm throughout the beginning of the line which is broken by the fifth foot, and Seneca has used this particular sound structure to emphasize the phrase ingesta orbitas. A strong caesura occurs after errat, whose second syllable is short, thus making the entirety of the phrase ingesta orbitas long, with the exception of the penultimate syllable. This aural effect differentiates ingesta orbitas from the rest of the sentence and places further emphasis on these words. Nevertheless, the content of the line stands out as exceptionally performative, and I do not believe that this performativity is a coincidence.

Furthermore, its presence in a highly iambic, and thus highly metrically uncommon, line cannot be unintentional. Hoffman 31

Other purely iambic lines contain markers of performativity, such as line 918: ―mixtum suorum sanguinem genitor bibat: / meum bibisset. Ecce, iam cantus ciet / festasque uoces, nec satis menti imperat.‖ ‗Let the father drink his son‘s mixed blood: / he would have drunk mine.

Look, now he‘s raising his merry voice / in song, and is not ruling his mind sufficiently‘ (Sen.

Thy. 917-919). These lines directly precede Thyestes‘ anapaestic monody and serve to introduce what the other man is doing, but line 918 is also quite performative in its content and form. Like the last example, the line has been structured so that its two metrical portions are mirrored by the sense of the sentences within them. A new thought begins during the second portion of the line, but unlike the last example this portion is the less performative. Line 917 sounds very much like many of Atreus‘ lines throughout the Thyestes, but the break between the end of that thought and the beginning of his statement meum bibisset is quite striking and less usual. The rhythm sets this thought apart and gives it extra energy, lending just that much more strength to Atreus‘ paranoid exclamation. This energy carries through into the word ecce but then changes to a slower pace as he turns his focus back to explaining Thyestes‘ actions.

Many other two-substitution lines can also be seen as moments of performativity within the Thyestes. Line 324 and the lines that precede it are a good example of this:

quid enim necesse est liberos sceleri meo inserere? per nos odia se nostra explicent. male agis, recedis, anime! Si parcis tuis, parces et illis. . . (Thyestes, 322-325). For why is it necessary to incorporate my children in my crime? Let my hatred unfold itself through me. You do wrong, soul, you draw back! If you spare your own, you should also spare his. . . Hoffman 32

These lines‘ metrical structures are AISIAI, DIDISI, AITISI, and SISTSI, respectively, although for the sake of brevity I have removed everything but the first two and a half feet of line 325.

The first three of these lines are two-substitution lines, and all three are highly important, dramatic lines. This section marks one of the few moments in the entire play in which Atreus seems to begin to doubt his actions, and it is interesting that three two-substitution lines should be placed here. The first and second of these lines are both notable as lines in which the same metrical substitution occurs in multiple feet in the same line. Line 324, on the other hand, marks the only attestation of this metrical structure in the Thyestes.

Atreus‘ short four lines of doubt stand out because the rest of the play is so unrelenting in tone, especially when we see Atreus. I have found that many of the performative effects that happen during Atreus‘ lines seem to fall at moments of extreme insatiability,34 and I wonder if these lines are meant to mimic the opposite of that overriding characteristic. The beginning of line 324 shows us Atreus speaking to himself, coming to understand that what he is planning to do is evil and that his animus recognizes this. Perhaps the otherwise unattested rhythms in this section of the line mirror the strangeness of Atreus‘ doubt, and the return in the next line to a more normal metrical scheme depicts Atreus returning to his desire for revenge. In that case the meter of line 324 would be an essential moment within the play, an audible representation of what is happening within the narrative at this point. Yet, regardless of whether or not the meter functions in that way, the fact that Atreus‘ brief moment of doubt is expressed by a section of purely two-substitution lines cannot be without significance.

Furthermore, the type of line is important. As I stated earlier, the first two lines fit into a very specific category of multiple-substitution lines, which also includes the pure iambic lines that I examined above. There are many more examples of such lines that express degrees of

34 See chapter four. Hoffman 33 performativity within the text, but I would like to move on and discuss other types of lines. No doubt, the question has arisen about what a non-performative line would look like and whether these lines I have selected are truly so different from other parts of the Thyestes. As an example of performative and non-performative lines, we will examine lines 685 and 686 and the passage that encompasses them. Both lines contain a fifth foot anapaest, and I point to these instances in particular because of the way that they function within the surrounding text.

. . . Quo postquam furens intrauit Atreus liberos fratris trahens, ornantur arae - quis queat digne eloqui? post terga iuuenum nobiles reuocat manus et maesta uitta capita purpurea ligat; non tura desunt, non sacer Bacchi liquor tangensque salsa uictimam culter mola. (Thyestes, 682-688) . . . When, after Atreus entered in a rage, dragging his brother‘s children, the altars were adorned – who is able to speak properly? He pulls the noble hands of the youths behind their backs and binds their mournful brows with a purple band; they do not lack incense, nor the sacred liquor of Bacchus, nor a knife, touching the victim with salted meal.

All five of the non-bolded lines in the above passage are general lines, whereas the two bolded lines are both two-substitution lines, specifically STSIAI and SIDIAI.

The reason that I have highlighted this passage in particular is manifold. First of all, this expanse of general lines, broken only by two other lines, strikes me as curious, although it quickly becomes clear as we consider these lines that this split is not random. The action being described in lines 685 and 686 has a markedly different character than the actions described in the other lines, in that it is decidedly more active. This section is essentially one long thought that gets interrupted a number of times. It begins with a preamble, first telling us what has just Hoffman 34 occurred and next providing a rhetorical question, before finally, exploding out into a two line description of the action that is taking place and ending by qualifying and explaining the circumstances more. Within this thought, the most important part is very clearly the description of Atreus‘ actions in lines 685 and 686.

We can understand this fact by merely looking at the sense of the passage, but it is also clear from the grammatical construction of the section. Lines 685 and 686 contain the only present active verbs that actually describe what Atreus is doing in the moment; all the other verbs reference either past actions or set the scene by using a third person plural. Clearly, all seven lines hinge upon these two central lines, and this brings us back to the fact that these lines are two-substitution lines while everything else in the passage is a general line. Here we may observe Seneca‘s careful construction at work: he has metrically highlighted the area of the text that is most vivid and active. It is also important to note that the surrounding lines are all general lines and are less vivid and in many ways less performative, since they do not suggest any action, convey much specific emotion, or mark the location of a rhetorical ornament. I believe that this instance lends quite a bit of credence to my theory that specifically performative moments have been pulled out from the text by means of metrical and stylistic underscoring.

The other important note to make about these lines is that the two-substitution lines contain a fifth foot anapaest. I have already expressed my concerns about the fifth foot anapaest‘s uniformity of sound with fifth foot spondees, but as these lines show, this feature does not necessarily keep lines that contain it from being placed in performative context. However, I must again mention that two-substitution lines are not inherently performative on their own merit. Indeed, no metrical or stylistic device used by Seneca is performative in its own right; even the most dramatic of features must have performativity overlaid onto it by the context, Hoffman 35 meaning, and construction of its line or lines. In order to more clearly show this, I would like to now briefly turn to several examples of two-substitution lines that lack any measurable degree of performativity despite their type‘s tendency toward this.

Line 658 is a good example of a line that lacks much in the way of performativity: ―hinc auspicari regna Tantalidae solent, / hinc petere lapsis rebus ac dubiis opem.‖ ‗Here the descendents of Tantalus are accustomed to begin their reign, / here they are accustomed to seek help amid matters gone wrong and doubts‘ (Sen. Thy. 657-658). This line contains the metrical configuration SIDIAI, like 686, but I do not believe that the highly descriptive passage in question could really be described as dramatic. The anaphoric repetition of hinc in the beginning of the lines grants a pleasant rhetorical air to the lines, but the content, especially amid many of the powerfully performative lines that the nuntius speaks, cannot stand up to scrutiny. The presence of a fifth foot anapaest here may or may not be coincidental, but it should probably be noted nonetheless.

We can see a similar trend in line 915 and line 225, which was translated earlier.35 225 precedes the highly tribrachial line 226 and is also a two-substitution line but contains none of

226‘s rhetorical eloquence. Instead it merely sets up the subsequent description, which, besides

225 and 226, is comprised entirely of one-substitution lines and general lines. Thus this passage contains an example of Seneca‘s willingness to use multiple-substitution lines in various capacities within the same section of text. Line 915 comes in a very dramatic moment when

Atreus is watching Thyestes eat the feast, but the line itself is not overly performative: ―. . . restat etiamnunc cruor / tot hostiarum; ueteris hunc Bacchi color / abscondet. Hoc, hoc mensa cludatur scypho.‖ ‗Even now remains the blood / of so many sacrifices; the color of the aged wine / will hide it. With this cup, with this let the meal be finished‘ (Sen. Thy. 914-916). This

35 See pages 24-25. Hoffman 36 line is interesting because its context is fairly performative but the sense and structure of the line itself is rather bland. Through this example, we see that all the features of the lines must come together to demonstrate performativity if the line is to be labeled as such.

In this chapter, I have designated several aspects of Senecan meter and style that must be examined when considering a passage‘s inherent performativity. Such considerations must encompass all facets of the text in question, taking into account not only its grammatical, stylistic, and metrical construction but also its meaning, significance, and context. In this search, meter may be used as a tool, but it is not foolproof. In general, I have provided in this chapter some of the most and least performative lines within the category of two-substitution lines in the

Thyestes, but I have tended to stay away from the majority of two-substitution lines whose performativity falls somewhere in between these two extremes. These lines will be placed at critical moments within the play or will contain striking emotional outbursts but will lack any true stylistic intricacies, or vice versa. Such lines, I would contend, fall into a third category of lines which add a metrical and emotional vividness to the play but upon which the play does not truly hinge. They, nevertheless, speak greatly for Seneca‘s construction of the Thyestes as a work of performed art because they provide texture and color as a backdrop for other lines, allowing them room to shape the text as a whole and create moments of crescendo and accent.

Still, I feel that the most striking find I have made during this chapter is the degree to which two-substitution lines encompass important moments within the Thyestes. I did not expect to find so many performative two-substitution lines or to have as much difficulty as I did providing examples of non-performative areas. Now, we should also keep in mind that moments of performativity occur also outside of these categories; there are, in fact, a relative abundance of general and one-substitution lines that contain very important, dramatic moments. There are, Hoffman 37 however, certainly more examples of non-performative general and one-substitution lines surrounding exceptionally performative moments that are expressed through two-substitution lines. To me, this indicates quite clearly that meter is not only an accurate first tool when examining Seneca‘s plays, but it is a crucial one. Of course, meter cannot single-handedly decode Seneca‘s tragedy, but combined with other investigative methods, it can add a layer to our research and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the plays. Hoffman 38

Chapter Three Three- and Four-Substitution Lines

Like two-substitution lines, three- and four-substitution lines are defined by the number of times that they vary from the general matriculated SISISI structure of Senecan iambic trimeter. The frequency of these lines decreases dramatically from that of two- and one- substitution lines, while the degree of audible difference between these lines and so-called general lines increases proportionally since the pattern becomes more and more disrupted. In other words I would posit that the greater the number of substitutions within a line, the more likely a listener is to notice this line as rhythmically abnormal and thus perhaps significant. I will thus continue in the same vein that I began working with two-substitution lines in the previous chapter and consider a number of noteworthy examples. From this, we will gain a better understanding of how the particular rhythms of these lines affect and convey the performative nature of the Thyestes as a whole.

I would like to begin with the only attestation of a four-substitution line in the Thyestes, line 33.

. . . semper oriatur nouum, nec unum in uno, dumque punitur scelus, crescat. Superbis fratribus regna excidant repetantque profugos; dubia uiolentae domus fortuna reges inter incertos labet; miser ex potente fiat, ex misero potens, fluctuque regnum casus assiduo ferat. (Thyestes, 30-36) . . . let a new [crime] always arise, Hoffman 39

and not one for one, and while crime is punished, let it increase. Let the kingdom fall from the hands of the proud brothers and let them return fugitives; let the doubtful fortune of the violent house tumble among inconstant kings; let it become mean from power, powerful from wretchedness, and let misfortune bear the kingdom on its incessant wave.

The four-substitution line, which has been bolded in the above Latin, has the structure ATDTSI and can be divided into feet as follows: repetant / que profu / gos dubi / a vio / lentae / domus.

One thing becomes immediately apparent about line 33 when we look at its actual metrical breakdown, namely that the majority of the feet in this line are comprised of three syllables rather than two. This strikes me as significant because it is the only place in the play‘s iambic lines that such occurs, since the normal structure of Senecan verse, with its tendency towards spondaic and iambic rhythms, is entirely comprised of two-syllable feet. Indeed, because only three feet are varied from the general pattern, even a three-substitution line cannot contain more than an equal number of three-syllable feet compared to its two-syllable feet, and only twelve out of the thirty-one three-substitution lines in the play can boast such numbers.

Thus, in this way, too, line 33 exists as a sole example. The line appears early in the

Fury‘s virtuosic list of evils that she intends for Tantalus to perpetrate on his descendants and may mark a high point in the speech. Tarrant labels lines 32-36 as ―four successive statements of the same idea‖ and goes on to suggest that they could be seen as ―a verbal equivalent to their

[Atreus‘ and Thyestes‘] restless alternations of position.‖36 He is almost certainly correct with these comments, but they do little to explain why this exceptional line should be placed so early in the play and should appear in this passage in particular. The metrical structures of the surrounding lines are unremarkable, consisting largely of one-substitution lines, which make line

36 Tarrant 92. Hoffman 40

33 just that much more emphasized but do little to explain it. I believe, however, that we will find the answer by considering this line in the greater context of the play as a whole.

The concepts within the line could be seen as a mirror for one of the central focuses of the play and of Atreus. The Fury is cursing the Tantalid house here, but she is also stating a central plot point for the upcoming play and thus is functioning very much as a prologue should.

Line 33 marks the division between the first and second of the four phrases that Tarrant referenced as being essentially the same thought repeated four times, and I wonder if it is not the pinnacle of these. The usage of words like profugos and violentae creates a vividness that the other lines in the description do not equal. Furthermore, both words begin during a tribrach and are at least half consumed by this foot. Since much of the rest of the play will revolve around the ideas of exile and violence, it seems fitting to emphasize these words with such devices.

Moreover, depending on how much effect the Fury‘s curse has on the story to come, line

33 might actually be the cause of practically all the action that follows it. We cannot know how much the Fury‘s curse affects Atreus‘ plans for his brother, but the curse here mirrors exactly what is about to occur. This makes me wonder whether line 33 and its surrounding curse is meant to be the catalyst that sends Atreus into a vengeful fury and drives him to commit the horrific crime at the end of the play. Furthermore, line 33‘s unique metrical upheaval mimics this imminent crime and the upheaval that it will bring to both heaven and earth. It provides a brief prologue for the upcoming events and mirrors them both in content and in form. This could explain the line‘s placement and purpose, as could the simple fact that Seneca probably wished to place a virtuoso display of his poetic proficiency within the first forty lines. The rhythms used here manage to skillfully evoke the mood of the play, and the line, spoken in the midst of a Hoffman 41 thrilling, exceptional list of evils, goes a long way towards creating a highly interesting performative persona for the Fury.

Many of the three-substitution lines in the Thyestes also occur at moments of high performativity. There are thirty-one attestations of this particular line structure in the play,

Type Number Lines Numbers representing sixteen different unique combinations IIDIAI 5 285, 301, 435, 662, 1051 DIIIAI 3 39, 213, 1087 of metrical feet. As Figure 1.3 shows, each DTSIAI 3 267, 625, 1049 combination is attested between one and five AIIIAI 3 242, 490, 731 AIITSI 3 94, 214, 893 times, with half of the combinations appearing ATDISI 2 261, 409 STDIAI 2 533, 1040 only once in the text, and here we see one way in DIDIAI 2 523, 887 ITSIAI 1 989 which three-substitution lines vary from two- ITIISI 1 419 substitution lines. The latter type has only eleven ITDISI 1 511 DIITSI 1 768 more unique variations attested in the Thyestes but DTSTSI 1 544 AISTAI 1 1052 includes near to six times the number of lines as ATSIAI 1 897 ATIISI 1 786 the former. The greater degree of diversity found Figure 3.1 – The distribution of different types of 3-sub lines along with their within three-substitution lines is very interesting locations in the text. Lines without a fifth foot anapaest have been bolded. and certainly demonstrates a difference in how

Seneca viewed these two types of lines. Both types, however, are similar in one way, namely that neither exhibits all of the possible metrical combinations available to it.37

Yet, with three substitutions from the steady pattern of the general line, all thirty-one of these lines exhibits an audible difference from their surrounding lines. To begin our examination of these lines, I would like to look at line 544 since it is the last of the four lines which contain more than one tribrach. Line 544 appears at the very end of act three in an incredibly powerful spot:

37 2-Sub: 27 extant out of 50 possible combinations; 3-Sub: 16 extant out of 88 possible combinations. Hoffman 42

THY: Accipio: regni nomen impositi feram, sed iura et arma seruient mecum tibi. ATR: Imposita capiti uincla uenerando gere; ego destinatas uictimas superis dabo. (Thyestes, 542-545) THY: I accept: I will bear the name of the kingship which you have placed on me, but let law and arms serve you with me. ATR: Yes, wear the crown placed on your venerable head; I will give the designated victims to the gods.

Atreus‘ dialogue in act three is generally marked by an extreme degree of double entendre, but few selections are as heavily dipped in it as this final couplet. The word order of line 544 is extremely important, beginning with a run of five short syllables that encompasses the majority of the words imposita and capiti, which could, on their own, be translated, ―inflicted upon your head.‖ A caesura follows this word, but the object of imposita, which comes next, scarcely helps, since vincla is a word more commonly used to refer to chains and imprisonment than a crown. The last syllable of vincla and the first two of venerando are taken up by another tribrach, again speeding up the rhythm of Atreus‘ speech and granting a negative context to a word that should be complimentary. The specific placement of the rhythmic substitutions within this line mimics Atreus‘ hunger to have his revenge and creates a playfulness within the line that mirrors Atreus‘ puckish double-speak. The rhythms here very clearly express and highlight the performative qualities of the language itself, since it conveys both actions and emotion.

Other three-substitution lines also contain markers of performativity. I would like to turn next to the most common type of three-substitution line and examine line 1051: ―. . . genitor en natos premo / premorque natis - sceleris est aliquis modus?‖ ‗. . . Behold I, a father, press upon my sons / and am pressed on by my sons – is there any limit to crime?‘ (Sen. Thy. 1050-

1051). Here we see another example of a multiple-substitution line being used to express an Hoffman 43 especially rhetorical comment. The dual usage of premo in lines 1050 and 1051 produces a rather disturbing image and comments upon the relationship between a father and his children.

Moreover, the line is split into an iambic half, in which Thyestes completes this sententious, rhetorical statement, and a more resolved half in which dactylic and anapaestic rhythms create a sense of speed.

The function of these two halves is quite different, and the feet used to express them are well-suited to the purpose. Indeed, the iambs in the first half aptly express a feeling that the world is not functioning as it should, while the swift rhythms in the second half fit the idea of a plea to the gods quite well. Furthermore, this line depicts a general trend that I have noticed but, due to the limited scope of this project, have been unable to examine or illustrate fully. A high percentage of the so-called sententiae sprinkled throughout the Thyestes occur within multiple- substitution lines, as we see here. I cannot make any further expression of this issue and thus will not endeavor to use it as true evidence, but I would like to suggest that sententious sections of Seneca‘s tragedies, like highly-rhetorical passages, could be viewed as a type of performative expression. We observe this suggestion in action here, as Thyestes, in the midst of his sorrowful outburst, resorts to a highly rhetorical, paronomastic sententia that would otherwise seem deeply out of place. I would argue that to Seneca‘s audience such sententiae were performative devices that cleverly expressed a character‘s inner monologue through rhetorical ornament. At any rate, whether this point is valid or not, I believe the dramatic power behind the rhythmic structure of line 1051 is quite apparent.

Another good example of Seneca using the full force of a three-substitution line to accent a moment in the text comes with the shocking desire expressed by Atreus at line 893: ―utinam quidem tenere fugientes deos / possem, et coactos trahere, ut ultricem dapem / omnes uiderent! Hoffman 44 quod sat est, uideat pater.‖ ‗If only I could hold back the gods even as they flee / and drag them here against their will so that all might see / this vengeful feast! But it is enough that the father will see it‘ (Sen. Thy. 893-895). Needless to say, line 893 is one of the most shocking things that

Atreus says in the entire play. Its metrical scheme is AIITSI, and the sentence is highly periodic, holding off the word possem until the next line and the word deos until the end of line 893. This produces a sense of anticipation as the listener is forced to wait to hear a number of essential words, and this effect is aided by the disturbed meter of the words tenere fugientes.

Indeed, the fact that the middle syllable of tenere and the last two syllables of fugientes are the only long syllables in these two words provides an audible representation of someone attempting to stop another‘s flight. The words fly by, despite Atreus‘ attempts to halt them in the middle of tenere, and the dramatic slowing of the end of this phrase prepares us to find out who it is that Atreus wants to halt. The periodic construction of the line also establishes a sense of power about Atreus because of his control of language and his ability to create anxiety and expectation in the audience. His literary mastery and potency transcends the realm of language and produces a true, almost visceral potestas within Atreus. The strength of this line is such that we actually feel that he could take hold of the gods and drag them down to watch his horrific revenge. In this way, Atreus exceeds his ancestor Tantalus who was caught and punished by the gods, and we cannot ignore that line 893, which is undoubtedly one of the most powerful lines in the play, is a three-substitution line. The meter emphasizes the importance of this line and helps it to reach its full, explosive potential.

Yet, like other possible performative markers three-substitution lines do not always indicate performativity. We may observe an example of such a line near the end of the nuntius‘ speech at line 768: Hoffman 45

. . . Impositas dapes transiluit ignis inque trepidantes focos bis ter regestus et pati iussus moram inuitus ardet . . . (Thyestes, 767-770) . . . Over top of the laid out feast the flame has leapt and twice, thrice into the trembling hearth it has returned and, forced to suffer the delay, burns there unwilling . . .

This passage describing the natural world‘s unwillingness to serve as an accomplice in Atreus‘ actions does not necessarily lack a performative air on its own, but line 768 itself does little to add to the passage. The idea of the trepidantes focos is an interesting concept and creates a beautiful mental image, but I would argue that this is more a testament to Seneca‘s skill as a writer that even his less compelling lines contain moments of beauty. This line simply does not measure up to the other examples we have seen of three-substitution lines, and while it may express some emotional content, I believe we can safely label this as a more common type of line. The metrical pattern here seems more effective for its unique aural texture than for its exceptional importance in the grand scheme of this work as a performative text.

I would now like to give a quick note about multiple-substitution lines of all types that contain a fifth foot anapaest as one of their substitutions. I have expressed my uncertainty about this type of line on a number of different occasions, but unfortunately, I have not had the time or resources to fully explore the issue. All I can say for the time being is that I have encountered both performative and non-performative examples of such lines and that I have not determined whether any true system governs these occurrences. I would like to briefly point out that, although the fifth foot anapaest is the most common substitution across all types of lines, the only attestation of a four-substitution line does not have a fifth foot anapaest. This certainly Hoffman 46 proves nothing on its own, but it is merely an interesting detail to bring to the debate. At any rate, further research should be performed on this topic to test the importance of the anapaest in the fifth foot of Seneca‘s iambic trimeter.

The three- and four-substitution lines in Seneca‘s Thyestes exhibit similar qualities to those of two-substitution lines. They often seem to fall at moments of particular dramatic importance, within strong rhetorical declamations, and at times when characters speak especially performative lines. Many of the most memorable moments of the play are highlighted and reinforced by the presence of three-substitution lines, and line 33 clearly bears great importance in the grand scheme of the play‘s structure. I do not believe it is possible to emphasize enough the importance of studying these lines with an eye to their metrical anomalies. Many of the lines

I have referenced would already stand out as strong examples of Seneca‘s power as a writer, but the fact that they are connected by commonalities in metrical structure only adds to the strength of the play as a whole. Meter in the Thyestes clearly functions as both a diagnostic tool to uncover inherent performativity and a way to better understand and enjoy the text that is uncovered. Hoffman 47

Chapter Four Extended Periods of Resolved Syllables

One of the most significant and noteworthy results of substitutions in Senecan verse is the ability of various feet to combine to form long strings of resolved syllables. Iambic trimeter is, in fact, rather unique in this respect as it is one of the only widely used ancient meters in which groups of four or more uninterrupted short syllables can be found with any true frequency. Not all of these sections of short syllables are necessarily markers of performativity, but in cases where two consecutive feet had to be substituted to create this effect, performativity can often be observed. There are several ways that strings of four or more resolved syllables can be created, almost all of which involve the tribrach. The most common way for this to happen is for a dactyl to precede a tribrach, which occurs in both the first and second metra of Senecan iambic trimeter.

This combination produces a stretch of five short syllables and is even more striking than expanses of four short syllables, as well as being more common. Strings of five short syllables can also be created by joining a tribrach to a following anapaest, which only occurs once in the

Thyestes, and by placing a tetrabrach before an iamb, which is also only attested once. Groups of four short syllables are commonly caused by tribrachs being followed by iambs,38 and combinations of six or more can occur when a tribrach is followed by another tribrach, although this also only occurs once.

38 For the purpose of this project, I will only be considering instances of tribrach iamb in which both are true substitutions from the pattern of the general line, which is to say only when the iamb occurs in the first, third, or fifth foot. However, since the first foot cannot be the second half of any pattern and the fifth foot physically cannot become an iamb in Senecan verse, this structure only occurs between the second and third feet. Hoffman 48

In a general line of Senecan verse, short syllables are allowed to occur only one at a time and are vastly outnumbered by the long syllables in a line. This feature creates Senecan tragedy‘s characteristic slow, measured rhythms, and it is only broken by the presence of substitutions in various feet. However, single substitutions within lines only produce a marginal number of further resolved syllables within their lines, granting only two or, at most, three extra

Placement Quantity Line Numbers short syllables at a time. The combination 38, 83, 267, 275, 544, 625, D1T239 10 634, 719, 1049, 1107 of these shorts produces a great variety of D3T4 6 20, 33, 246, 311, 750, 1029 237, 278, 419, 520, 786, texture and tempo within the verse, but T2I3 7 974, 1069 T4A5 1 1052 Seneca rarely places these substitutions Tetrabrach 1 289 together in such a way as to create a truly T2T3I4 1 193 Figure 4.1 – This chart provides the number of lengthy section of resolved syllables. times that each type of expanse of short syllables occurs and also gives the line numbers of these Indeed, in the 767 lines of iambic trimeter occurrences. in the Thyestes, there are only 26 occurrences of what could be considered intentional groups of short syllables, or only 3.4% of the total number of lines. These lines provide a drastically distinct aural rhythm as well as an increased number of syllables and, thus, words. Furthermore, the lines, as well as the particular sections of shorts themselves, tend to come at moments of emotional climax and character realization.

Of the 26 sections of four or more short syllables, three of these sections contain a word for crime and five contain the word animus. Many of them also seem to express themes of insatiability when seen in the greater context of their lines, a fitting theme considering the play‘s

39 This is a shorthand intended to indicate only limited information about a particular line‘s structure. The letter abbreviations provide what kind of foot is being discussed and the number gives its location. D1T2, in other words, tells us that the line has a dactyl in its first foot and tribrach in its second, whereas T4A5 indicates a tetrabrach in the fourth foot and an anapaest in the fifth. The rest of the line‘s architecture has been intentionally left blank. Hoffman 49 focus on this idea in general.40 Moreover, many of these lines appear in highly rhetorical or sententious portions of the play, which I would argue adds to their performativity since Senecan performativity is marked by this rhetorical mode. There is a rather distinct, although unsurprising, break-down in speaker-ratios in regards to what characters are allowed large numbers of these exclamations. Atreus has the most with nine, followed by Thyestes with six, the nuntius with four, Tantali Umbra and the Fury with 2 each, and the chorus and the satelles with one each. This break-down is unsurprising both because the characters with the most lines feature as highest on the list and also because the characters with the most emotional moments also rank higher.

This first criterion, namely the amount a character speaks cannot be ignored as an important factor here, but we also should not disregard the way in which these characters speak.

For instance Atreus‘ sections of successive shorts are particularly notable for their insatiability, just as the nuntius‘ four exclamations tend to revolve around moments of particular emotional crisis. First, we will take a brief look at Atreus‘ different exclamations, one of which, line 193, has already been explored heavily in the chapter on two-substitution lines. The next interesting line is 246: ―De fine poenae loqueris; ego poenam uolo‖ ‗You are talking about the end of revenge; I wish for revenge itself‘ (Sen. Thy. 246). 41 The five shorts encompass the words loqueris and ego entirely and thus form a bridge between the two thoughts of the sentence. I would posit that this line is the very embodiment of insatiability and that the placement of this effect strengthens this impression greatly because it illustrates how the end of revenge is not enough for Atreus. He cannot stop speaking there but is drawn on inexorably by the fast rhythms

40 Boyle, ―Hic Epulis Locus,‖ 209ff. 41 Throughout this chapter, bolded words in quotes will indicate the particular syllables which are encompassed by a run of shorts. In this case, the syllables were whole words, but where they are only parts of words, only those parts will be bolded in the future. Hoffman 50 of loqueris and ego, and we thus see how his desire for more is expressed in the meter as well as in his dialogue.

Later in the same scene two sections of resolved syllables occur in close proximity to each other during Atreus‘ formulation of his plan. These sections appear only three lines from each other, and they both come at integral moments of Atreus‘ plotting. The passage in which they appear reads,

. . . Vidit infandas domus Odrysia mensas - fateor, immane est scelus, sed occupatum; maius hoc aliquid dolor inueniat. Animum Daulis inspira parens sororque; causa est similis; assiste et manum impelle nostram. Liberos auidus pater gaudensque laceret et suos artus edat. bene est, abunde est: hic placet poenae modus tantisper. . . (Thyestes, 272-280) . . . The Odrysian house has already seen abominable tables – I admit, the crime is vast, but it has been done; let my resentment find something greater. Daulian parent and sister, inflame my mind; the case is similar; help and urge on my hand. Let the father, eager and rejoicing, mangle his children and eat their limbs. Yes, good, very good: this form of revenge is pleasing for now. . .

The first half of this monologue, which begins a few lines earlier, is devoted to Atreus‘ formulation of his plan to kill Thyestes‘ children and feed them to him, and these lines feature as the climax of that formulation. Throughout the first few lines, Atreus considers the crime and is uncertain because it is not necessarily new, and he thus asks Procne and Philomela to guide him.

The first section of five shorts in line 275 highlights this exchange and functions much like the Hoffman 51 section at 246 in that it underscores Atreus‘ insatiability by forcing him to continue through a punctuation mark as he searches for a better way to find vengeance. It binds the monologue together and rhythmically expresses Atreus‘ constant need for more revenge.

The second group of short syllables is also quite interesting. The way that the sentence in which it occurs is structured provides a dramatic periodic build-up to the word laceret and thus also to the run of short syllables which encompasses it. Up until we get to laceret we are uncertain about the meaning of the sentence, although the prior subject matter of the monologue provides a reader with a strong feeling of foreboding that turns out to be correct. However, the placement of this at the very end of a thought at the end of his decision-making process is inherently dramatic. I feel Atreus‘ excitement in the word laceret, which is of course notable as a word choice, as well, since this is the only attestation of the verb lacero in Seneca‘s Thyestes.

Moreover, this moment marks Atreus‘ decision to commit to this plan; his next line, which I have included for the sake of continuity, tells us that he is pleased with this decision, that it is enough. Throughout this passage we can observe Atreus coming upon a plan, doubting it, and finally committing to it, and I believe that the dramatic placement of short syllables in two separate locations during this section of the monologue depicts these changes. Without these runs of resolved syllables, the monologue would not carry the same dramatic weight and would not impart its meaning as effectively.

For the other characters in the play, sections of short syllables generally occur at moments of heightened emotion, either as they exclaim something or are forced to do something against their will. Tantalus‘ second run of shorts, which occurs at line 83, demonstrates the second of these possibilities quite nicely: ―. . . Quando continget mihi / effugere superos? . . . ―

‗When will it happen that I / escape the gods?‘ (Sen. Thy. 82-83). Immediately following this Hoffman 52 outburst, the Fury cuts him off and gives him orders to instill evil in his descendants. We feel

Tantalus‘ desire to escape and avoid the things that the Fury is forcing him to do, partially because this well-placed stretch of resolved syllables expresses this desire physically in a way that words alone would be unable to do. The character‘s desperation is mirrored and, indeed, expressed by the desperation of the five successive short syllables that dominate his half-line of dialogue.

Thyestes and the nuntius both utter repeated emotional exclamations through use of extended resolved syllables. For instance, Thyestes‘ three sections of short syllables in the last act could all be seen as emotional outbursts. The first revolves around the concept of him as a father: ―. . . Redde quod cernas statim /uri; nihil te genitor habiturus rogo, / sed perditurus . . .‖

‗. . . Return that which you would immediately see / burned; as a father, I ask nothing of you so that I may hold it, / but rather so that I may lose it. . .‘ (Sen. Thy. 1028-1030). The placement of habiturus directly after genitor grants an appositional air to the participle, as if Seneca is providing a definition of genitor as one who holds something. This definition, however, is summarily undercut and supplanted in the following line, producing a concept of a character,

Thyestes Genitor, that does not ever hold his children but only loses them. This redefined image is incredibly striking and emotional, and perhaps the most emotional part is encompassed by the series of short syllables. I do not believe we must look far to see the dramatic possibilities of emphasizing the word genitor at this particular moment in the play, especially at the end of this passage where Thyestes is coming to terms with his own childlessness.

Thyestes‘ second and third sections of resolved syllables in act five also occur at moments of emotional outburst. The first of these two falls near the end of the monologue that

Thyestes delivers directly after Atreus has revealed the truth behind the crime: ―. . . Tale quis Hoffman 53 uidit nefas? / quis inhospitalis Caucasi rupem asperam / Heniochus habitans quisue Cecropiis metus / terris Procrustes? . . .‖ ‗. . . Who has seen so great a crime? / What Heniochan living on the harsh crag / of inhospitable Caucasus or what Procrustes, the fear / of the Cecropian lands? . .

.‘ (Sen. Thy. 1047-1050). In the third instance of act three, Atreus has just finished explaining the crime and taunting Thyestes when he cries out, ―. . . Clausa litoribus uagis /audite maria, uos quoque audite hoc scelus, / quocumque, di, fugistis; audite inferi,‖ ‗Listen, O seas, / closed in by the wandering shores, and you also listen to this crime, / O gods, wherever you have fled; listen,

O spirits of the dead,‖ (Sen. Thy. 1068-1070). Both of these exclamations are common types of emotional outbursts in Latin poetry, and they both reveal Thyestes‘ inability to cope with the circumstances presented to him. These two sections of short syllables strike me as moments in which Thyestes turns his dialogue into a prayer and looks towards the gods, or anyone else that will listen, and both seem inherently performative to me because of the rhetorical power of the language and the content of that language.

All of the nuntius‘ four stretches of resolved syllables come at especially emotional moments in his speech. The first appears in the third line of the act and contains a plea to forget what he has seen:

Quis me per auras turbo praecipitem uehet atraque nube inuoluet, ut tantum nefas eripiat oculis? O domus Pelopi quoque et Tantalo pudenda! . . . (Thyestes, 623-626) What whirlwind will bear me headlong through the breezes and envelope me in its dark cloud so that this great crime may be snatched from my eyes? O house shameful to Pelops and also to Tantalus! . . . Hoffman 54

This section of short syllables is the conclusion to the first sentence of the act and completes the nuntius‘ cry for help. The verbs in the first two lines of the sentence, although technically future indicative in form, seem to carry an almost subjunctive force as the nuntius asks for something to take away his memories, while believing that, in all likelihood, no such thing will be granted to him. The use of the future indicative here allows the sentence to retain the indicative‘s vividness but still, because of the future‘s uncertainty and tendency towards concepts of purpose, convey the jussive concept that Seneca wishes to get across. The inclusion of the section of shorts as the last moment of the sentence grants an explosive rhetorical force to the sentence as a whole and helps to make these three lines an incredibly strong, dramatic opening to an act.

Finally, I would like to examine one more instance of an extended group of short syllables. This final example occurs only a few lines after the previous one and is spoken by the nuntius in response to the chorus‘ questions:

CHOR: Effare, et istud pande, quodcumque est, malum. NUN: Si steterit animus, si metu corpus rigens remittet artus. Haeret in uultu trucis imago facti. (Thyestes, 633-636) CHOR: Speak and reveal this crime, whatever it is. NUN: If my mind stands still, if my body, stiff with fear, relaxes its limbs. The memory of the bloody deed hangs before my face.

We see here a great example of Seneca‘s use of stretches of short syllables in highly rhetorical moments of the play. The repetition of si in this first sentence and the use of these two protases lacking their apodoses conveys a sense of verbal confusion. We can assume the ellipsis would contain a clause telling the chorus that the nuntius would tell them what they want to know if these conditions were true, but the fact remains that this half of the sentence is not physically Hoffman 55 present. Instead of completing his conditional sentence, the nuntius bursts out with a comment about how the image of the crime is still haunting him, which strikes me as quite a strong ellipsis, reaching almost to the point of an aposiopesis. This is a rhetorical way of expressing his confusion and emotional upheaval, and the extended period of resolved syllables in the first line of the passage sets up this highly performative text quite well.

I have given here only a mere handful of examples from the twenty-six sections of extended resolved syllables, but this trend continues rather consistently throughout the other occurrences of this phenomenon. There are, naturally, a few lines that contain a stretch of short syllables and are not as clearly indicative of performative characteristics as the lines that I have described above, but these lines are in the minority and are never truly devoid of performativity, besides. Regardless, we can see that a general trend begins to emerge when the lines are examined closely, as I have done in this chapter. In many instances Seneca has very clearly and precisely placed these moments of extended resolved syllables in order to highlight moments of particular dramatic importance or rhetorical strength. These areas in the text disrupt the general flow of the meter and produce a rhythm that stands out from the line audibly.

Fitch writes that in Seneca‘s anapaestic choral odes, various rhythmic structures provide different expressive effects for a listener.42 In particular, he claims that repeated swift rhythms, which in the anapaestic choral meter generally result from sections of multiple anapaests, tend to suggest to him an air of anxiety.43 I would like to go further and say that in Seneca‘s iambic trimeter these swift sections of shorts function as marker flags for an audience to tell anyone listening that the lines being spoken currently are important. The actual sections of shorts seem to signify many different things, depending on what character is talking and the subject of his

42 Fitch, Seneca’s Anapaests, 77 43 Fitch, Seneca’s Anapaests, 81 Hoffman 56 dialogue. They often carry themes of insatiability and emotional upheaval, of sorrow and revulsion, of declamatory power and a need to speak. It often seems that the phrase encompassed by these resolved syllables is so powerful to its speaker that it must be said. These stretches of short syllables allow the speaker to vary his rhythm and thus produce a more effective, conversational performance that still contains the explosive strength of poetry. The stretches of extended resolved syllables in Seneca‘s Thyestes provide an avenue for especially expressive, performative moments in the text to occur while simultaneously standing out from their surrounding passages in such a way as to indicate to an audience where these crucial moments can be found. Hoffman 57

Chapter Five Speaker-Change Ratios

Until now, I have been working with the Thyestes almost entirely through the lens of metrical analysis. I have only taken the stylistic decisions made by Seneca into consideration on a secondary or tertiary level, as evidence to support and clarify various metrical anomalies, but now I would like to turn more fully to Seneca‘s poetic style and search it for signs of performativity. In other words if the rhythmic architecture of the dialogical portions of the

Thyestes can suggest a performative characteristic to the work as a whole, then it goes without saying that the same should be true about the very way in which that work was written. One of the clearest examples of this fact is his handling of speaker-changes between characters throughout the different acts of the play. In this example we see a clearly delineated politics of power by which characters may be ranked by importance within their scenes. Seneca provided different methods of speaking for primary characters, i.e. those who move the scene along, compared to secondary characters, i.e. those who serve as a counter-point for the others. This feature, while not necessarily probative of performance, does seem to be a mark of a performative text.

While researching the various plays written by Seneca, I saw interesting possibilities in the Thyestes’ higher frequency of speaker-changes and sense pauses.44 I have worked with

Shakespearean text a fair amount as an actor and have grown accustomed to the ways in which these sense pauses and speaker-changes function in performance. A monologue such as Titus

44 Fitch, ―Sense Pauses and Relative Dating in Seneca, Sophocles, and Shakespeare,‖ 289-91. Hoffman 58

Andronicus‘ majestic plea for his sons‘ lives (Tit. 3.1.1ff.) must be spoken differently than

Macbeth‘s uncertain ravings at the prospect of murdering the king (Mac. 1.7.1ff.). In the former, every sense pause occurs at a line break, whereas in the latter, they almost all occur within the line. Moreover, Macbeth is not even allowed to end his monologue at the end of a line but is instead interrupted by his wife‘s arrival. I adduce all of this to suggest that these sense pauses and speaker-changes which Fitch has noted, while certainly useful for dating, may very well be signs of performativity as well.

In an attempt to prove this, I have counted and labeled the various speaker changes that occur throughout the Thyestes, and here we find more proof of the intricate nature of Seneca‘s language. Indeed, we notice immediately that characters do not always speak to each other in the same fashion, that a certain politics of power may be inferred from the patterns of the repartee between different characters. The breakdown of speaker changes by act, character, and type is as follows:

Hoffman 59

After 1st After 2nd Act 1 New Line45 Total Split 3rd Foot 4th Foot 2nd Foot Foot Foot Tantali Umbra 2 1 1 Furia 146 2 2 Act 2 Atreus 12 8 4 2 2 Satelles 9 11 8 2 1 Act 3 Thyestes 15 3 2 1 Tantalus 8 4 2 2 Atreus 5 2 2 Act 4 Nuntius 10 1 1 Chorus 3 7 1 2 1 2 Act 5 Atreus 9 6 5 1 Thyestes 9 5 4 1 Figure 5.1 – A look at the places that the different characters in the Thyestes begin speaking

Here we have a breakdown of the ways that characters begin to speak in the various acts of the play. The first two columns give the totals for beginning on a new line and beginning in the middle of a line, while the other five columns elaborate on the second column and provide further information about where in the line each character begins to speak. The first three of these columns denote breaks within feet, which always occur after the first syllable of the foot, and the last two columns denote breaks that occur after metrical feet.

The data that are returned from this simple count are quite striking. I must preface this discussion with the admission that this data set is too small to make any objective, incontrovertible claims, but even with so small a data set, a pattern begins to emerge. What is exceptionally clear is that the three middle acts permit one character to begin a majority of his

45 It should be noted that I have included within this category speaker changes that occur at the beginning of an act directly after the chorus is done speaking because I saw no reason why these should be excluded. As such, my count will differ slightly from the number produced by Fitch. 46 I have labeled this as occurring at the start of a new line, although some manuscripts incorrectly read this as occurring after the first foot of line 100 and read this as an extra long line. Hoffman 60 speeches at the beginning of lines. This same character tends to begin in the middle of lines less, and each character is also notable as the character that gives the opening monologue for his prospective act. By separating act three into three beats of roughly equal length, we can glean even more information about the specifics of this trend.

Act 3.147 New Line Total Split 3rd Foot 4th Foot I have broken act three down Thyestes 3 3 2 1 in this way so that we can see the Tantalus 6

Act 3.2 intricacy with which Seneca has Thyestes 6 Tantalus 2 4 2 2 written the dialogue of this scene. Act 3.3 Notice how Tantalus tends to speak at Atreus 5 2 1 1 Thyestes 6 line beginnings during the first forty Figure 5.2 – A deeper look at act three, which has been divided into three roughly equal sense units. lines but tends to start in the middle throughout the second forty lines. From this point on Thyestes takes over and never begins a speech in the middle of a line again for the rest of the act. Atreus enters at the beginning of the last beat and has a conversation with Thyestes that is, at least with respect to speaker changes, really quite well-balanced. What‘s more, the exchange between Atreus and Thyestes during lines 535-545 at the end of this act provides us with a stichomythic style that is otherwise entirely absent from the play.

Yet, the question still remains: what do these numbers and facts actually indicate? To answer this question it becomes necessary to turn to the Latin itself and the way that Seneca has written these exchanges. First of all, the subject matters of the three stichomythic portions of act three may prove useful in attempting to understand why characters speak when they do. The first reads,

47 I have defined 3.1 as reaching from 404 until just before Thyestes‘ long monologue at 446. 3.2 runs from the monologue at 446 to Atreus‘ entrance at 491. 3.3 goes from 491 until the act ends at 545. Hoffman 61

TAN: Euince quidquid obstat et mentem impedit reducemque quanta praemia expectent uide. pater, potes regnare. THY: Cum possim mori. TAN: Summa est potestas - THY: Nulla, si cupias nihil. TAN: Natis relinques. THY: Non capit regnum duos. TAN: Miser esse mauult esse qui felix potest? (Thyestes, 440-445) TAN: Overcome whatever opposes you and hinders your mind, and see what great rewards await you once you return. Father, you are able to rule. THY: Since I am able to die. TAN: The highest power is – THY: Nothing if you desire nothing. TAN: You will leave it to your sons. THY: The kingship does not hold two. TAN: Who that is able to be happy prefers to be wretched?48

Tarrant writes of this scene, ―Thyestes‘ opening soliloquy leads . . . only to a bemused conflict of mind and body . . .; the intervention of young Tantalus is needed to get the scene moving again.‖49 I propose that in these lines we can see Tantalus literally getting the scene moving again if we look at the part of the line in which he speaks. Thyestes‘ lines in this section read as little more than gnomic, rhetorical complaints lobbed haphazardly at his son, whereas Tantalus‘ lines seem more pointed and necessary. Take for example his encouragement in 440-442 or his sharp reminder of the inheritance that Thyestes would take from his children in 444, compared to

Thyestes‘ stolid but generalized refusals. From this we discern that this section of act three revolves around Tantalus and his desires more than Thyestes and his counterarguments.

This pattern changes slightly in the second stichomythic conversation between father and son.

THY: Amat Thyesten frater? . . . cum mari uentus fidem foedusque iungent. TAN: Quam tamen fraudem times? THY: Omnem: timori quem meo statuam modum?

48 Unless otherwise noted, all translations are my own. 49 Tarrant 149. Hoffman 62

tantum potest quantum odit. TAN: In te quid potest? THY: Pro me nihil iam metuo: uos facitis mihi Atrea timendum. TAN: Decipi cautus times? THY: Serum est cauendi tempus in mediis malis. eatur. Vnum genitor hoc testor tamen: ego uos sequor, non duco. TAN: Respiciet deus bene cogitata. Perge non dubio gradu. (Thyestes, 476-90) THY: My brother loves Thyestes? . . . Sooner the wind will join faith and contract with the sea. TAN: Yet, what deceit do you fear? THY: Everything: what bound should I set for my fear? He is able to do anything so great as his hate. TAN: What can he do against you? THY: I now fear nothing for myself: you make Atreus fearful for me. TAN: Cautious, do you fear to be deceived? THY: The time for taking precautions is too late in the middle of evils. Let‘s go. Yet, I, your father, swear this one thing: I follow you; I do not lead. TAN: God will care for things considered well. Proceed with undoubting step.

The positions in this argument remain the same, but the delivery of the lines has changed and thus so has the focus of the scene and the importance of the characters. While before we had

Tantalus providing the majority of the content and Thyestes giving short rebuttals and refusals, now we find Thyestes with more to say and Tantalus full of rhetorical complaints. Of course,

Senecan dialogue is universally marked by highly rhetorical and unspecific language, so noting that a character‘s dialogue seems more related to beautiful rhetoric than the plot of the play is not truly surprising.

Yet, there is a marked change between Thyestes‘ lines in the first beat and the second.

Note the difference between nulla, si cupias nihil and uos facitis mihi Atrea timendum. First of all, the use of a proper name in the latter statement marks it out immediately as much more specific. More importantly, however, the former statement seems like a stoic comment on life, Hoffman 63 whereas the latter is a line of dialogue in a play. This same pattern can be observed in Tantalus‘ lines, although in reverse; notice how pater, potes regnare is more dramatic and respiciet deus bene cogitata is more philosophical. This trend lends an air of performativity to these sections of dialogue by providing the audience with an intentionally wrought structure by which the strength and importance of a character may be understood by the strength and relevance of his lines. This may, in turn, be understood by the character‘s placement within the metrical line. A listener would quickly pick up this convention and would be able to use it to augment his or her understanding of the play.

However, the third stichomythic portion of act three, namely the one that takes place between Atreus and Thyestes, differs quite noticeably and importantly from these two previous exchanges.

. . . ATR: Recipit hoc regnum duos. THY: Meum esse credo quidquid est, frater, tuum. ATR: Quis influentis dona fortunae abnuit? THY: Expertus est quicumque quam facile effluant. ATR: Fratrem potiri gloria ingenti uetas? THY: Tua iam peracta gloria est, restat mea; respuere certum est regna consilium mihi. ATR: Meam relinquam, nisi tuam partem accipis. THY: Accipio: regni nomen impositi feram, sed iura et arma seruient mecum tibi. ATR: Imposita capiti uincla uenerando gere; ego destinatas uictimas superis dabo. (Thyestes, 534-545) . . . ATR: This kingdom receives two. THY: I believe to be mine whatever is yours, brother. ATR: Who refuses the gifts of inflowing fortune? THY: Whoever has experienced how easily they may flow out. ATR: Do you prevent your brother from obtaining vast fame? THY: Your fame has already been won, mine remains; I have a fixed intent to refuse the kingship. Hoffman 64

ATR: I will abandon my fame if you do not accept your share. THY: I accept: I will bear the name of the kingship which you have place on me, but let law and arms serve you with me. ATR: Yes, wear the crown placed on your venerable head; I will give the designated victims to the gods.

Boyle writes that in this scene Thyestes ―demonstrates the naivety [sic] and impotence . . . [of his argument by] succumbing to a world he has castigated as deluding,‖ and this is no doubt true. 50

Yet, what can we say to explain the strange style of dialogue that we find in these ten lines? This style of short, one-line exchanges is not uncommon in other ancient tragedy; Euripides, in fact, seems to prefer this form to fractured patterns of antilabe.51 Seneca, however, generally avoids these one-line exchanges, instead using the more fractured form in which characters give only partial lines, as we have seen.52 We have also noted that in these unsymmetrical exchanges, the characters tend to be given specific places, so that one character begins to speak more at the beginnings of lines and the other more in the middle.

In this section of dialogue, however, Thyestes and Atreus have been given equal opportunity to speak first. I have already connected position within the dialogue with position within the scene during the earlier two conversations of this act, and we can continue to draw this connection here. Schiesaro writes of Atreus and Thyestes, ―The roles of the brothers could have been interchangeable,‖ and goes on to say that the play clearly tells us of Thyestes‘ prior crimes against Atreus and suggests that he may be planning more, using this as proof that either is capable of the crime Atreus commits.53 With this concept of interchangeability in mind, the exchange that takes place between Atreus and Thyestes at the end of act three becomes suddenly very interesting. The style of dialogue used here seems to express a certain equality between the

50 Boyle, Tragic Seneca, 49. 51 Eur. Iphig. in Tau., 492ff.; Med. 324ff.; Bach. 462ff. 52 Tarrant 120 53 Schiesaro 140-141. Hoffman 65 brothers, almost as if their lines were being held up to a mirror, just as they are mirror images of each other. It suggests that either brother could speak either set of lines during this exchange, regardless of the fact that one brother has clearly ensnared the other and seems far wilier and more dangerous throughout the course of the play. They could each be the victim and each the villain, and circumstances are the only reason for their current roles.

I must now mention that although the length of the lines and the number of times that characters are permitted to speak first may mirror each other, the internal verbal echoes that

Senecan tragedy is so famous for are less frequent in these lines than in many other parts of the play. 54 There are of course echoes, such as Meum . . . tuum and Meam . . . tuam in 435 and 441 or the consonantal echoes of lines 438-439, namely em-p-t-r-glori-ingenti and am-p-r-t-glori-est or the obvious repetition of impositus in 542 and 544. Yet, the verbal one-upmanship that other portions of Senecan stichomythia exhibit is much less evident here. Still, perhaps this, too, has a purpose. Thyestes scarcely puts up a fight against his brother‘s demands, no matter what he claims his intentions are, and Atreus‘ persuasive arguments are conspicuously unpersuasive. The scarcity of echoing verbal battles between these two is a stylistic representation of Thyestes‘ preemptive surrender to his brother. The rhetorical battle does not need to be fought here because Atreus has already won.

We find further support of this theory in the way in which characters generally disagree with each other in Senecan verse, namely by speaking in the middle of a line and turning their opponent‘s words back on him. Thyestes does not use this method of speech in the end of act three even when he attempts to turn down his brother‘s offers, and thus his counter-arguments ring false in our ears. The discussion lacks the urgency that quick bouts of antilabe grant to even heavily gnomic sections of dialogue, such as Atreus‘ dialogue with the satelles, and the

54 Tarrant 120-1. Hoffman 66 ponderousness of this exchange sounds odd after so many quicker ones earlier in the play. We end up feeling that Thyestes‘ arguments in his first discussion with his son were much more honest because he speaks like a man who wishes to win a point and brandishes rhetorical phrases, whereas his arguments in the last beat fall flat because he does not do so.

Recall, however, that the last beat of act three is not the only part of the play where two characters end up speaking at the beginnings of lines equally or almost equally. As Figure 1 demonstrates, both act one and act five have an overall pattern that differs from acts two, three, and four in that these two are more even in their speaker-change ratios. Neither of these acts would benefit greatly from a further break-down of beats within them, as act three did, because they do not exhibit a similar pattern of localized speaker-dominance. In act five the stichomythic portions universally allow both characters to speak first and second equally, and act one has no stichomythia. Act five is interesting because it contains only Atreus and Thyestes, just as 3.3 did, and it also has no clear character who dominates the speaking patterns. Both brothers alternate in speaking first and speaking in the middle of lines, and the same reasons as before can no doubt be given for this phenomenon. The brothers are mirror images of each other, each capable of playing either role but consigned by present circumstances into the parts that they have been given.

Yet, what reason underpins act one‘s distribution of speaker-changes? The Fury and

Tantalus do not mirror each other as Thyestes and Atreus do, but neither do they have much dialogue. Of all of the acts, act one has less than a third of the speaker-changes of the closest act and a little more than an eighth of the speaker-changes of the furthest, despite the fact that it is only twenty to forty lines shorter than these other acts.55 Seneca seems to be employing a

55 The numbers go as follows: Act 1, 6 changes in 121 lines (4.96% of lines in act); Act 2, 40 changes in 159 lines (25.16%); Act 3, 37 changes in 141 lines (26.24%); Act 4, 21 changes in 165 lines (12.73%); Act 5, 29 changes in Hoffman 67 different type of dialogue here, one in which stichomythia is largely set aside to allow for longer monologues, as one traditionally finds in prologues.56 As such, no doubt the number and distribution of speaker-changes in this act reflect Seneca‘s adherence to this tradition and should not affect the overall theory of the politics of speaker-changes in Senecan dialogue, since this act is intended to function differently than the other four acts.

Act four comes the closest to act one in its scarcity of speaker-changes, but one should not expect much dialogue in an act entirely comprised of the nuntius‘ speech. Moreover, this act shows the trend of uneven speaker-changes exceptionally well, with the nuntius speaking at the beginning of the line more than three times as much as the chorus. This further corroborates the claim that the character who is meant to draw the focus of the audience is given primary placement in the dialogue and is allowed to speak first. On the other hand, the numbers for act two are not so compelling, even though the act is largely dedicated to Atreus, the play‘s most powerful character. Granted, Atreus still speaks first more than the satelles, but the numbers are not as high as one might expect.

Note, however, that large portions of this scene ―consist entirely of general statements,‖ 57 which was the exact trait I found for characters who speak in the middle of lines in act three.

Furthermore, it is interesting that six of the nine times that Atreus gives a monologue of five lines or more, he starts it at the beginning of a line.58 These monologues dominate the act and are the most apparent way that the action of the scene is moved forward. Interestingly enough,

227 lines (12.78%). Note that act five is considerably longer than act one, largely due to Thyestes‘ monody in the beginning, but this does not change the fact that the percentage of speaker-changes per line is still vastly greater in act five than in act one. 56 Seneca himself is notable for this trend throughout his plays, but it is a trend that can be traced back to the Athenian tragedians of the fifth century BCE. 57 Tarrant 120. 58 Arguably, the monologues at 295 and 321 could be included in the category because their subject matter actually begins at the start of the next line. Thus, the first lines in these monologues could be considered merely rhetorical responses to the satelles‘ previous statements. This would bring the number up to eight. Hoffman 68 they also account for half of the times that Atreus speaks at line-beginning rather than the middle and thus still seem to adhere to the trend set down elsewhere in the play. As for the rest of the scene, its highly gnomic nature allows for both characters to speak in the middle of the lines since the driving force of the scene comes through in Atreus‘ monologues. As such, this scene, too, corroborates my initial theory and adds weight to the belief that Seneca crafted this play carefully and consciously. Its stylistic features are not haphazard or marked by the excess and sloppiness of a poetaster but show considerable skill and design.

Seneca‘s skill as a writer is obvious when we consider the small details of his plays, such as the distribution of speaker-changes in relation to the roles that characters play within acts. We see quite clearly that Seneca did not simply allow his characters to speak haphazardly but that their interactions have been wrought very intentionally. The flow of the dialogue has been put to good use; it aids the audience in understanding the roles that the characters play and provides a framework in which powerful, rhetorical debates may take place easily and comfortably. The striking language couched in this dialogue gives Senecan drama its unique strength, and the explosive characters explained by the dialogue grant the tragedies their memorable color.

Furthermore, the political power struggles revealed by the dialogue provide one of the greatest examples of performativity inherent within the text of the Thyestes. Hoffman 69

Conclusion

Seneca‘s plays have been unjustly denigrated throughout the centuries, and no doubt, the lack of any comprehensive stylistic analysis for the works is a result of this fact. Indeed, many scholars of the past would have scoffed at any such attempt, thinking that Seneca‘s style was too threadbare and amateur to deserve any sort of analysis or consideration. This project has endeavored to reverse this opinion by exploring the smallest elements of Seneca‘s style and expanding out from them to show their effect on the entire play. Indeed, I have attempted to work from the ground up when looking at Seneca‘s Thyestes, beginning with merely defining the meter and moving on to discuss conclusions that can be drawn from this meter and the style in which it was written. My conclusions include Seneca‘s intentional use of the metrical and stylistic features of his play to add vividness and depth to his writing, as can be seen in his pairing of metrically differentiated lines with particularly active, emotional, or rhetorical moments in the play.

Moreover, the attention to detail that can be observed in the mere numerical data of the play is compelling. There cannot be any question that Seneca developed a purposeful matrix for his play‘s basic building blocks and then intentionally broke away from that matrix in the majority of his lines, a system which proved quite effectual. Indeed, the effectiveness of mirroring or commenting on important content with stylistic and rhetorical tools cannot be stressed enough, especially considering the aesthetics of Seneca‘s literary era. In the end, through taking this slow, close approach to understanding the tragedies, we become able to Hoffman 70 define Seneca‘s writing style. I have found it to be highly regulated, yet highly expressive, deeply rhetorical, yet deeply character-driven, absolutely unparalleled and inarguably performative. It is a stylistic and metrical architecture through which powerful and performative moments may be expressed clearly and effectively, and it was only able to be unearthed through a careful, analytical approach. This sort of line-by-line analysis could certainly aid our understanding of the orality of other texts and its effects on the ways in which they should be read, as it has with Seneca‘s Thyestes. Indeed, although the debate about Senecan staging rages on, there is no longer any doubt about the power and effectiveness of Senecan tragedy in oral performance. While we cannot know whether the plays were written with theatrical performance in mind, we have discovered that they were undeniably intended to be performed. Hoffman 71

Appendix

Overview of Metrical Feet59

Spondee – –

Iamb u –

Dactyl – u u

Anapaest u u –

Tribrach u u u

Tetrabrach u u u u

Examples of lines

1 2 3 4 5 6 Feet General line60 – – u – / – // – u – / – – u – 1st 2nd 3rd Metra

One-substitution lines

– – u – / – – u – / u u – u – SISIAI

– – u u u / – – u – / – – u – STSISI

– – u – / – u u u – / – – u – SIDISI

59 Bear in mind that unlike English, Latin metrical feet depend upon the lengths of syllables rather than inherent word stress. Thus, feet are written as collections of shorts and longs, represented by u and – respectively. One long syllable should be voiced as approximately twice the length of one short syllable, meaning that in most cases two shorts can be substituted for one long. This principle lies at the heart of ancient meter‘s variability. 60 I have marked the most common place for a caesura in iambic trimeter with the symbol for caesura, //. Not all lines contain caesurae here, and many contain them elsewhere. However, this is the meter‘s preferred location for a strong caesura, as can be observed by the number of split lines in which the change of speaker occurs here rather than elsewhere (30 in the middle of the 3rd foot, compared to only 19 in every other possible location in the line— see Figure 5.1). I have also marked the feet and metra above and below this line, but for the sake of clarity, none of these demarcations will persist into my other examples. Hoffman 72

Two-substitution lines

u u – u – / – – u – / u u – u – AISIAI (ln. 322, 436, 1031)61

– u u u u u / – – u – / – – u – DTSISI (ln. 83, 275, 634)

u – u – / u – u – / – – u – IIIISI (ln. 282, 918)

Three-substitution lines

u – u – / – u u u – / u u – u – IIDIAI (ln. 285, 301, 435, 662, 1051)

– u u u u u / – – u u u / – – u – DTSTSI (ln. 544)

– u u u – / u – u u u / – – u – DIITSI (ln. 768)

Four-substitution line

u u – u u u / – u u u u u / – – u– ATDTSI (ln. 33)

Runs of Short Syllables

– – u u u / u // u u u – / – – u – STTISI (ln. 193)

See DTSISI and DTSTSI above.

61 I have provided some examples of these line configurations from the text, taking special care to include any lines of that type which I discuss. Other examples may be included as well. Hoffman 73

Bibliography

Bartsch, Shadi. Actors in the Audience: Theatricality and Doublespeak from Nero to Hadrian.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994. Print.

Boyle, A.J. ―Hic Epulis Locus: The Tragic Worlds of Seneca‘s Agamemnon and Thyestes.‖

Seneca Tragicus: Ramus Essays on Senecan Drama. Ed. A.J. Boyle. Victoria: Aureal

Publications, 1983. Print.

---. Roman Tragedy. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.

---, ed. Seneca Tragicus: Ramus Essays on Senecan Drama. Victoria: Aureal Publications, 1983.

Print.

---. Tragic Seneca: An Essay in the Theatrical Tradition. New York: Routledge, 1997. Print.

Costa C.D.N., Ed. Medea. By Lucius Annaeus Seneca. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. Print.

Cunningham, Maurice P. ―The Novelty of Ovid‘s Heroides.‖ Classical Philology 44.2 (1949):

100-106. JSTOR. Web. 16 Feb. 2010.

Davis, Peter J. Shifting Song: The Chorus in Seneca’s Tragedies. New York: Olms-Weidmann,

1993. Print.

Erasmo, Mario. Roman Tragedy: Theatre to Theatricality. Austin: University of Texas Press,

2004. Print.

Fitch, John G. ―Playing Seneca?‖ Seneca in Performance. Ed. George Harrison. London: Gerald

Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 2000. Print.

---. Seneca’s Anapaests: Metre, Colometry, Text, and Artistry in the Anapaests of Seneca’s

Tragedies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987. Print.

---. ―Sense-Pauses and Relative Dating in Seneca, Sophocles and Shakespeare.‖ The American

Journal of Philology 102.3 (1981): 289-307. JSTOR. Web. 29 Oct. 2010. Hoffman 74

Grant, M. D. ―Plautus and Seneca: Acting in Nero‘s Rome.‖ Greece & Rome 46.1 (1999): 27-33.

JSTOR. Web. 9 Feb. 2010.

Habinek, Thomas. ―Seneca‘s Renown: ‗Gloria, Claritudo,‘ and the Replication of the Roman

Elite.‖ Classical Antiquity 19.2 (2000): 264-303. JSTOR. Web. 9 Feb. 2010.

Harrison, George W.M., ed. Seneca in Performance. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd.,

2000. Print.

Markus, Donka. ―Performing the Book: The Recital of Epic in First-Century C.E. Rome‖

Classical Antiquity 19.1 (2000): 138-179. JSTOR. Web. 20 Nov. 2010.

Pratt, Norman T. Dramatic Suspense in Seneca and in His Greek Predecessors. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 1939. Print.

---. Seneca’s Drama. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983. Print.

Schiesaro, Alessandro. The Passions in Play: Thyestes and the Dynamics of Senecan Drama.

New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print.

Sutton, Dana Ferrin. Seneca on the Stage. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1986. Print.

Tarrant, R.J., Ed. Thyestes. By Lucius Annaeus Seneca. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Print.