The Authorship of the Hercules Oetaeus

Walter C. Summers

doi:10.1017/S0009840X00991261

The Authorship of the Hercules Oetaeus

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 October 2009

Walter C. Summers

Article contents

Abstract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Type: Original Contributions
Information: The Classical Review , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , February 1905 , pp. 40 - 54

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X00991261 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Classical Association 1905

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 40 note 1} De Sen. tragoediarum auetore, Bonn, 1862.

^{page 40 note 2} The Senecan origin of the seven playa which precede H.O. in the Florentine MS. (H.F., Tro., Phoen., Phaed., Oed., Ag., Thy.) is assumed throughout this paper. To these seven the expression ‘ the other plays’ applies throughout.

^{page 40 note 3} Philol. 1888, pp. 378 sqq.

^{page 41 note 1} Birt indeed (Rhein. Mus. 1879, pp. 516 sqq.) maintains against Leo the spuriousneas of the whole play. Some of his arguments will be mentioned further on: as a rule he does not examine the passages with sufficient minuteness to be able to prove his case. Emendation of the existing text is his main consideration.

^{page 41 note 2} De Hercule Oetaeo Annaeano, Chemnitz, 1890.

^{page 41 note 3} Pp. 50 sqq.

^{page 41 note 4} How completely Leo's judgment is blinded by his faith in the theory is best seen by his extraordinary contention that the Deianira of part 1, as distinct from the D. of part 2, sends the garment with the intention of killing her husband. Birt and Molzer have answered him at some length, but the most cursory reading of the play will be enough to settle, the question.

^{page 41 note 5} l.e. p. 516.

^{page 42 note 1} See what he says on p. 22. If it is more frequent in H.O. than elsewhere, he thinks it will be because that play is ceteris multo minus elimata.

^{page 42 note 2} Repetition of pet phrases, often part of the common rhetorical stock in trade (such as derat hoc solum, pars quota, hoc non est nouum), is a different thing, and the consideration of it does not belong here.

^{page 43 note 1} The parallelisms have not, so far as I know, been noted before. Birt is the only scholar who has examined the speech; his view of its spuriousness is based simply on the verbal repetitions which it contains (l.e. p. 535).

^{page 43 note 2} Both passages refer to the burial of the remains of men torn or smashed to pieces.

^{page 44 note 1} He might have mentioned that fere does occur in the plays (Tro. 438, 1143).

^{page 44 note 2} Neither Richter nor Leo seems aware that quam-quam does not occur at all in the other plays.

^{page 44 note 3} See his remarks on pp. 33, 35.

^{page 44 note 4} Necdum I have only noted in Pha. 1109: if this is the only place, we have a close parallel to the isolated use of hauddum mentioned above.

^{page 44 note 5} There is therefore nothing suspicious, in itsalf, in the use of interim in H.O. with the meaning ‘sometimes.’ It is a common Silver (and Senecan) use. It is curious it does not occur in the other plays, hut so is it that the equally Silver and Senecan tanti est is found only in the Phoenissae (where, like interim in H.O., it occurs twice). But the fact that in both places (481, 930) interim, is in bad company makes a difference.

^{page 44 note 6} Melzer will not allow 1172 and 1205 to count as instances, because in the former A reads male, in the latter E (not A, as he says) mihi. I think there can be no question that ei mihi must be read in both places. In Leo's sixth instance (1181) I admit that the reading is too uncertain for us to reckon it.

^{page 44 note 7} For instance nunc ueram tuam | agnosce prolem, A's reading at 954, is only a shade better than E's.

^{page 44 note 8} Contr. 2. 2. 9, 3. 7 (excerpt).

^{page 45 note 1} Curiously enough Leo and Birt have objected to the use of fors as contrary to the custom of the other plays, Melzer has defended it, and put an emendation at the disposal of anyone whom his defence fails to satisfy, but no one has attacked iecur in either this or any other of the passages.

^{page 45 note 2} Udus aleator in Mart. 5. 84. 5 is no doubt meant to denote the opposite tendency. No one will believe it means that he begs for mercy in tears. Sicca (uda) puella in Martial is no doubt a piece of the argot of the day.

^{page 45 note 3} I might say the first of the pair, but for H.F. 1147 nescio quod mihi | nescio quod animus grande praesagit malum.

^{page 45 note 4} Birt has criticised this part of the play (pp. 532 sqq.). So far as his objections apply they may be taken as supplementary to those pointed out above. Taehau (l.c. p. 381) states that he intends to prove the spuriousness of the prologue, but I cannot find that he has ever done so.

^{page 46 note 1} On pp. 51, 52, where he notes parallels much less complete.

^{page 46 note 2} The writer seems pleased with this: it recurs at 850 sqq., 1143, 1912.

^{page 46 note 3} H.F. 83 sublimis alias Luna concipiat feras might be compared with 1. 34. But Leo rightly regards the line as an interpolation there—possibly it came hence.

^{page 46 note 4} Anyhow this one blemish (if blemish it he), like the one oasis in the desert of 47–71, can easily be reconciled with the explanation I offer for the whole problem.

^{page 46 note 5} So at 763 luctvm occupasti receives the feeble addition: prima, non sola, Herculem maeres.

^{page 46 note 6} In H.F. 821 the earth above is called orbis in contradistinction to the realm below.

^{page 46 note 7} It is worth noting that ualet, which never takes an inf. in the other plays, does so here and elsewhere in the play.

^{page 47 note 1} Surely ipse, which Gronorius under a misapprehension attributed to E (it being probably his own conjecture), is necessary in any case.

^{page 47 note 2} Of course if we had iube in place of puta the case would be different. The fact that iubes stands at the end of the previous line will doubtless check the enthusiasm of any one who wishes to emend accordingly.

^{page 47 note 3} The rest of the prologue is, I believe, spurious. The plural triumphos (of a single victory) seems suspicious. I must take the opportunity of protesting against Rutgers' acta which Richter admits to the text of 1. 102. I believe we ought to read ora for the ara of the MSS. For templa tollens ora…spectat mare cp. V.F. 2. 9. attollit tondentes pabula Magnes | campus equos, and Pha. 285 quaeque nascentem uidet ora solem.

^{page 48 note 1} That A here gives us a single line tumensque tacita sequilur et quassat caput is a thing to be remembered against it.

^{page 48 note 2} This ut would be very awkward after the temporal ut of 237, but possible enough in a draft.

^{page 48 note 3} The tigress simile of 241 sqq. may be due to this passage, which continues hue fert pedes et illuc, ut tigris orba natis, etc.

^{page 49 note 1} In 1. 314 Richter's uel is quite an unnecessary change. Deianira says, ‘Juno will be here to guide my hands nec inuocata,’ ‘and (or ‘even’) without heing summoned.’ This force of nee is common in the plays, and inuocata is p. p., as in Pha. 423, 944.

^{page 49 note 2} In 1. 344 the anaphora of the infinitive (ire, ire) seems objectionable and occurs nowhere else in the plays. I would read LIBET ire ad umbras Herculis nuptam, libet, comparing H. F. 1156 libet meum uidere uictorem, libet. In 1. 364 I think concessa FAMULO eat of ψ is necessary: concessa distinctly wants a dative. The application of the word to Telamon is an example of rhetorical exaggeration not unlike Pha. 94, where Theseus is called Pirithous’ miles: cp. too Ou. M. 7. 483, where Telamon is pars militiae in reference to Hercules.

^{page 49 note 3} Leo has rightly pointed out that the repetition of rumpe in this passage is natural enough. But the nempe of 1. 874 is peculiar and quite different from those in 11. 353, 363, 366, 369, which introduce the nurse's answer to D.'s fears. As Heinsius' conjecture Nemeaeus hardly commends ilself, and the year's stay with Omphale is not a very good example with which to console D., I must admit the possibility of interpolation here: there is, moreover, distinct reminiscence of H.F. 471, and marcidus myrrha comam seems an extraordinary expression.

^{page 49 note 4} L. 399 is presumably corrupt.

^{page 49 note 5} For brevity's sake I say nothing in this paragraph of shorter passages such as 428–432^a, 569–574^a.

^{page 49 note 6} LI. 299–303 may be part of such a passage; they certainly give an opportunity for a transition to a more lenient view of Hercules' offence. But I do not believe the lines are Senecan.

^{page 50 note 1} I find at least nine examples of this contraction.

^{page 50 note 2} p. 44⁵.

^{page 50 note 3} P. 42.

^{page 50 note 4} Of the long narrative 485 sqq. little, if any, is likely to come from Seneca. Ou. M. 12 has been freely used: e.g. the witch Mycale (525) comes thence. The prayer to Cupid (541 sqq.) may contain some genuine material (e.g. 552–555): as a whole, it is hardly consistent with D.'s departure at]. 580 to pray to Venus.

^{page 50 note 5} Can anything else be meant by 1. 565 congeralur uirus et uestis bibat|Hereulea pestem: precibus augebo malum?

^{page 50 note 6} L. 574. See on p. 44.

^{page 51 note 1} P. 41.

^{page 51 note 2} The polymetric chorus beginning 0. 403, which reaches a total of 111. The passage Tr. 67–163 (104 lines) is dialogue between Hecuba and the chorus. The longer odes generally vary between 80 and 90 lines.

^{page 51 note 3} I agree with Eichter and others that 673, 4 seem out of place here.

^{page 51 note 4} The thought is rather striking. This man loves wealth—not because it enables him to give employment to a number of deserving peple, but solas optat opes. But one might add to the linguistic objection the material one that there is no difference between this man and that of 621 (cupit hic gazis implere famem).

^{page 51 note 5} In O. I.e. the Etruscan actually reads lues.

^{page 51 note 6} P. 48.

^{page 52 note 1} And elsewhere, so that it is hardly a case of ‘reminiscence’ such as we are investigating. In the same way the fact that in 784 uotiuum pecus = A. 806 pecore uotiuo seems to me of no importance.

^{page 52 note 2} In the Trachiniae 767 sqq. fulfil this office. In H.O. the dress has not been mentioned since 788 (and then only quite casually).

^{page 52 note 3} Fond as Seneca is of violent contrasts I can hardly believe he wrote 1. 840 Atisterque lenis pondus Herculeum rapit.

^{page 52 note 4} For the asyndeton cp. Tr. 967 laetare, gaude, M. 449 discedo exeo, O. 1053 fngio exeo.

^{page 52 note 5} Leo's objections to the allusion to Hercules' sword (p. 52) seem to mo answered by Melzer, p. 29. It is true we do not hear much of that weapon, but the MSS. give it in H.F. 1229, and Seneca was thinking of Dido and Aeneas more than of Hercules and Deianira.

^{page 52 note 6} LI. 859–60, with the objectionable deinde, may be the editor's addition, to give the transition from 858 to 861 (rendered necessary when once 866 had got displaced). There may be other work of his in the neighbourhood: 11. 885–888 are weak.

^{page 53 note 1} Especially 891, 894, 896, 897.

^{page 53 note 2} This may be due to confused recollection of H. F. 221 sqq. guttura elidens (of the snakes at his cradle)| prolusit hydrae or to Ovid's elisos hydros (H. 9. 85), which of course refers to the cradle-snakes. We have seen the editor using Ovid's work above.

^{page 53 note 3} In 1. 919 obrutus artus ueneno read oblitus.

^{page 53 note 4} For which cp. H.F. 964; Tr. 642, 686; Pho. 220, 450, 497.

^{page 53 note 5} P. 44.

^{page 53 note 6} LI. 984–6 then may be quite genuine.

^{page 53 note 7} I cannot refrain from calling attention to some points hitherto ignored: the miserable line quod nulla fera est, mullusque gigans (1215), the use of elidere in 1270 (tot elisit mala) in the general sense of domare, the imitation of H.F. in 11. 1294, 1308, 1313–4, 1351, the use of quamquam in 1506 (quin ipse, quamquam Iuppiter, credi metis | pater esse gaudet. In general, one need only refer to Leo's criticisms and the points noted in the earlier part of this paper.

^{page 53 note 8} Possibly the Senecan work begins at 1092. But the text of the passage there is too uncertain to build upon.

^{page 53 note 9} Leo, p. 60.

^{page 54 note 1} The only passage where no novelty is introduced is Pho. 84 sqq., which however is very brief.

^{page 54 note 2} I thiuk II. 1849 sqq. quite Senecan. Leo himself (p. 66) notes, in answer to Kichter's criticisms (p. 25), that aliqua is ‘ualde ex Senccae more’ (Melzer well compares Pho. 249): so is grex in 1850 (cp. H.F. 507, 1149, Tr. 32, 959, A. 701), and 1852 sqq. matribus miseris adhuc| exemplar ingens derat seems to me to have a thoroughly Senecan ring.

^{page 54 note 3} 1905. 1. p. 81.

^{page 54 note 4} Which he never uses elsewhere in chorus.

^{page 54 note 5} This feature is, in fact, much less noticeable in the latter half of the play.

Article contents

The Authorship of the Hercules Oetaeus

Abstract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests