Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:04:00.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

MORS INDIVIDVA AND AEQVA (SENECA, TROADES 401 AND 434)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2024

Diane Coomans
Diane Coomans*
Affiliation:
University of Basel
*
diane.coomans@unibas.ch
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This note highlights an original echo between two passages of Seneca's Troades that draws attention to one of Andromache's personality traits.

Keywords

SenecaTroadesAndromachetragic ironydeathghost
Type
Shorter Notes
Information
The Classical Quarterly , First View , pp. 1 - 2
Check for updates
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Classical Association

In Seneca's Troades, before relating the dream in which her husband, Hector, appeared to her, Andromache claims that enemies are coming back from the afterlife (430–2). This detail reminds the reader/spectator of Talthybius’ monologue in which he asserts that the ghost of Achilles has appeared to him (167–99). Andromache continues her speech with these sentences: solisne retro peruium est Danais iter? certe aequa mors est! (433–4), ‘Is the way back open only to the Greeks? Surely death is impartial.’Footnote 1 The philosophical topos, that death is the same for everyone, has been well commented upon,Footnote 2 but the parallel with the chorus’ statement mors indiuidua est, noxia corpori | nec parcens animae (401–2), ‘Death is not separable, it is destructive of the body, without sparing the soul’,Footnote 3 which is still fresh in the reader/spectator's memory, seems to have gone unnoticed. In Andromache's mind, death is fair (aequa mors est) and, since dead enemies are reappearing to the living, Hector might even return and help her. But the reader/spectator who has just heard the chorus declare that death is final and that no one can actually come back from the afterlife knows that it will never happen, and that Hector will remain dead, just like Achilles.Footnote 4 Andromache is thus right when she says that death is the same for everyone; however, she does not yet understand the full implications of this, though she will eventually. Indeed, in lines 684–5, even sheFootnote 5 understands that Hector has not been freed from Death (… cernitis, Danai, Hectorem? | an sola uideo?). aequa mors est is thus in line with mors indiuidua est. The echo between the two sentences adds tragic irony to Andromache's speech: since Death is implacable and the same for all, neither Achilles nor Hector can return, contrary to what Andromache believes and hopes for.

Footnotes

This paper was written while being a recipient of a scholarship from the Belgian American Educational Foundation (2021–2022) and was revised with the assistance of a SNSF Swiss Postdoctoral Fellowship (TMPFP1_209892, 2022–2024). I would like to thank Sarah Tew for reviewing the English of this paper and the two anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions. I am deeply grateful to Philippe Desy for his advice.

References

1 Fantham, Transl. E., Seneca's Troades. A Literary Introduction with Text, Translation, and Commentary (Princeton, 1982), 154Google Scholar.

2 Caviglia, F., Le Troiane. Introduzione, testo, traduzione e note (Rome, 1981), 257Google Scholar; Fantham (n. 1), 91 and 278–9; Boyle, A.J., Seneca's Troades. Introduction, Text, Translation and Commentary (Leeds, 1994), 179Google Scholar; AKeulen, .J., L. Annaeus Seneca Troades. Introduction, Text and Commentary (Leiden / Boston / Köln, 2001), 302Google Scholar.

3 Transl. Fantham (n. 1), 152. For commentaries on this passage, see Caviglia (n. 2), 253–4; Fantham (n. 1), 270; Boyle (n. 2), 175; Keulen (n. 2), 284.

4 For commentaries on ‘Death is final’ as one of the themes of the play, see Caviglia (n. 2), 43–8; Fantham (n. 1), 78–92 and 268–9. See also Boyle (n. 2), 172–3: ‘“Death-as-annihilation” kills Ach. once and for all … The ode is appropriately situated between two alleged resurrections (of Achilles in Act Two and Hector in Act Three) …’. On the conception of afterlife in Seneca's philosophy, see e.g. Hoven, R., Stoïcisme et stoïciens face au problème de l'au-delà (Paris, 1971), 116–18Google Scholar; Setaioli, A., ‘Seneca e l'oltretomba’, in Facundus Seneca. Aspetti della lingua e dell'ideologia senecana (Bologna, 2000), 275–323Google Scholar; Smith, R. Scott, ‘Physics I: body and soul’, in G. Damschen and A. Heil (edd.), Brill's Companion to Seneca, Philosopher and Dramatist (Leiden and Boston, 2014), 343–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 357–60; Williams, G., ‘Eschatology in Seneca. The senses of an ending’, in H. Marlow, K. Pollmann and H. Van Noorden (edd.), Eschatology in Antiquity: Forms and Functions (London and New York, 2021), 320–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Within the play, not every character believes in Achilles’ return. The few characters of the Troades who believe (or pretend to believe) that a hero can come back from the dead are all in shock from the recent events: these are Talthybius, Andromache, Hecuba and the Messenger. Pyrrhus, Agamemnon and Ulixes are more pragmatic and do not mention any apparitions. Helen is enigmatic. As for Calchas, he thinks that the death of Astyanax, which can be justified by political reasons, is more important than the ritual sacrifice of Polyxena on Achilles’ tomb (365–7).