165 ACf II (164-408) Scene 1 (164-202). Talthybius comes on and gives a vivid report of the ap­ parition of Achilles, demanding that Polyxena be sacrifICed upon his tomb. Talthybius' name is afforded only by the headings in the MSS. Neither is his name mentioned by the chorus, nor does he announce himself, as e.g. in Eur. Tro. 235-8 at the beginning of Act II (transl. Way): On many joumeyings, Hecuba, to and fro I have passed, thou knowest, 'twixt the host and Troy; Wherefore I come aforetime known to thee, Talthybius, with new tidings for thine ear. Since he cannot be distinguished otherwise from the anonymous nuntius in Act V, Friedrich (1933) 103, n. 1 suggests: "... um der Konsequenz willen bliebe er in den modernen Ausgaben auch hier im zweiten Akt besser anonym. Seneca hat den Boten beide Male als namenloses Instrument behandelt wie die Boten der anderen Stucke auch". But although these headings are the work of later scribes, the distinction may quite well originate from Seneca himself. This report is about such an unusual happening that it requires a most trustworthy messenger [on these headings, see Zwierlein (1984) 249-257]. Hom. II. 1.320-1 mentions Talthybios and Eurybates (the latter plays a part in Seneca's Agamem­ non) as Agamemnon's two 'heralds and nimble attendants'. Talthybios, also found in Eur. Hecuba (484 ff.), became "the herald par excellence", also for Seneca: at Apoc. 13, Mercurius is styled Talthybius deorum. Such an unheralded entry of a messenger is not uncommon in Senecan tragedy; cf. below 1056, Phoen. 320, Med. 879, Thy. 623. On the other hand, his appearance is announced by the chorus at Phae. 989, Oed. 912 ff., Ag. 388 ff. But to whom does he deliver his report? At first sight, one might expect Hecuba and the chorus of Trojan women to be his audience: such is indeed the view of e.g. Friedrich and Ahl. As for Hecuba, neither the last couplet of the chorus nor the arrival of the herald seems an appropriate moment for her to leave; but the fact that Talthybius is addressed (166-7) by the chorus and not by the queen, seems a clear proof that she is no longer on the stage (Marx, p. 5 shows that the chorus has this function when no actor is on stage to do so). The absence of any reaction from Hecuba at the painful news that her daughter has to be offered (195-6) seems a second obvious argumentum ex silentio. And later on, when Helen makes known Achilles' demand of Polyxena's sacrifice (942-4), Hecuba's reaction seems to indicate that she had not yet heard Talthybius' announcement. 166 COMMENTARY ACT II The customary interpretation is that Hecuba has left the stage and that the chorus of Trojan women (cf. E's heading: Chorus) is spoken to. This view raises the same question: why don't the women react in any way to the bitter message? Steidle's suggestion that the expected out­ burst of grief was prevented by the unexpected appearance of the two quarreling leaders does not do justice to their composed beginnings. His idea would be more convincing if they had appeared in the midst of their excited altercatio, as Zwierlein points out (p. 93). Although the headings in E, as a rule, are more precise and complete, I give preference here to A's heading Taltibius chorus grecorum, as has been done by Wilfried Stroh in his performances of the play in Munich in November 1993. I put forward four reasons for it: 1. If Greek soldiers are addressed, the absence of a reaction on Talthybius' message is not surprising; besides, they are a more logical audience for a report explaining the delay of the departure (Danais ... mora is the heading of the message, not the sacrificing of Polyxena). 2. The ode at the end of this act, contrasting sharply with the first ode, is then sung by a different chorus. In my view this second act, as an introduction to the real action in the third act, forms a counterpart to the first one: after the portrayal of the Trojan dismay, concluded by an ode sung by Hecuba and the Trojan women on the bliss of death, Seneca now pictures the victorious Greeks and their negation of life after death. 3. Andromache's address at the beginning of Act III (409-11): quid, maesta Phrygiae turba, laceratis comas / miserumque tunsae pectus effuso genas / fletu rigatis?, is more appropriate when the preceding intellectual choral ode has not been sung by the Trojan women. 4. When Helen announces Achilles' demand (942-4), its dazzling effect on Hecuba is more understandable if the Trojan women have not been informed "officially" (i.e. on stage). Amoroso utters similar objections against the presence of the Trojan women in this scene, but he suggests a different solution; thinking the heading in A too little evidence for a double chorus (there is no trace of a Greek chorus in the rest of the play), he supposes that Talthybius addresses Agamemnon, and attributes lines 166-7 to the king. In my view, his solution is a partial one and without any ground in the MSS. The only other Senecan play with two choruses is Agamemnon: in addition to the chorus of Argive women (57 ff., 310 ff.), there is a second one consisting of Iliades, carefully announced at 586-7. As for the source of the scene, elements from Euripides' Hecuba show up; from Latin literature Ov. Met. 13.439 ff. may have inspired Seneca. Calder thinks Talthybius' speech, like the prologue, Seneca's own crea­ tion, and its defects "readily explicable if we assume Senecan invention". [W.F. Friedrich (1933) 103 ff.; W. Steidle (1941) 276 ff.; O. Zwierlein (1966) 91 ff.; W. Schetter (1972) 230 ff.; W.H. Owen (1970 WS) 120 ff.; W.M. Calder (1970) 80 f.; F. Amoroso (1980) 81-84; (1984) 119 ff.l .