セネカの悲劇における説得場面

DOI Web Site

書誌事項

タイトル別名
  • The Persuasion Scene of Seneca's Tragedy
  • セネカ ノ ヒゲキ ニ オケル セットク バメン

この論文をさがす

抄録

<p>Seneca's tragedies, written after the model of Greek ones, show, as a matter of course, many originalities and peculiarities. One of the most important of them is certainly the Stoic elements which permeate his drama. But the problem of 'the extent to which Seneca projected philosophical belief into his tragic writing' still remains and 'will remain', as Coffey-Mayer say, 'an area' to be explored 'for fruitful discussion'. In this paper we take up and examine Senecan persuasion scenes and some peculiarities noted in them to find a clue to this crucial problem of whether Seneca's drama is Stoic or non-Stoic or anti-Stoic. One may safely say that the prime feature or peculiarity of Senecan persuasion scenes is their declamatory character which is typically exhibited in the rhesis of Phaedra's nurse(129-77). We first trace the influence of declamatio upon not only Senecan persuasion scenes, but other components of Seneca's drama(especially its rhetoric), and try to show that such peculiarities of Senecan persuasion scenes as a 'character's sudden change of attitude without motivation'(AG. 307, Pa. 250ff., Thy. 542, etc.), 'stereotyped expository monologues in the so-called affect-drama', and especially the 'agonistic or purely argumentative character of the scene' are also derived from and can be, therefore, explained by the declamatio of those days which was, in a sense, a dramatic activity itself. We then consider the meaning of this last peculiarity, namely the reason why Senecan persuasion scenes are rather dycove? than πειθου&b.sigmav;. We must take other features into consideration to answer this question. The persuasion scene of Seneca has two common features which seem to us very important to understand the intention or attitude of Seneca as a dramatist ; (1) First, no persuasions in a true sense convince the personae dramatis persuaded(Even when they obey, their obedience is not only sudden and abrupt, but also reluctant and unwilling. Their consent, therefore, seems to be a mere device to forward the plot). Seneca's personae indeed never change their real intentions as a result of persuasions, or indeed as a result of anything, that is, by tragic events. Even Phaedra, who appears to oscillate between amor-furor (the anti-Stoic) and ratio (the Stoic) , remains in essense the same throughout the drama(cf, 111 and 1180). There is no persuasion scene in Senecan drama that performs the same kind of dramatic function as those in Sophocle's Antigone or Philoctetes. That is why no persona in Senecan drama says 'οιμοι, εχω μαθων δειλαιο&b.sigmav;' (Ant. 1270) This immutability of personae and the function which Seneca assigned to persuasion scenes suggest that the prime intention or purpose of these scenes is not to depict ηθη nor to dramatize the plot, but to present the antagonism of the two attitudes or Siavotat debated(we can call them the Stoic and the anti-Stoic)and the power and reality of the attitude or Siavoia chosen or held to, the very themes, it seems to us, of Senecan tragedy as drama a theme. This intention of Seneca is closely related to the feature, 'absolutely typical of Seneca', of the concluding scenes, almost all of which also are agonistic, that is, without redemption or λυσι&b.sigmav;. (2) Second, the anti-Stoic wins and dominates over the Stoic. Many critiques take this as indicative of Seneca's intention to present negative exempla. But the greatest obstacle to allowing this view is the case of Oedipus and Hercules in Oed., Phoe., and H. F., both of whom, curiously in the same manner, wish for death, obstinately refusing the protrepticon to the Stoic(virtus...malis ingentibus obstare nee se vertere. Phoe. 190ff) , and even after their acceptance (which is unwilling and negative) of persuasions still indulge</p><p>(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)</p>

収録刊行物

詳細情報 詳細情報について

問題の指摘

ページトップへ