Seneca’s Phoenician Women — Genre, Structure, Thematic Unity

  • Tomasz Sapota University of Silesia in Katowice, Faculty of Humanities, pl. Sejmu Śląskiego 1, 40-032 Katowice, Poland
  • Iwona Słomak University of Silesia in Katowice, Faculty of Humanities, pl. Sejmu Śląskiego 1, 40-032 Katowice, Poland


This article revises current perspectives on the generic status, composition, and subject matter of Phoenician Women by Seneca. It adopts a new approach, focusing on selected elements of text organisation. In particular, emphasis is given to the construction of characters and the analogies and contrasts between them which were already of interest to ancient poetics and rhetoric. Moreover, the article refers to observations, accurate but isolated and largely ignored, made by scholars who recognised Seneca’s originality and suggested that his plays might have been inspired by the declamatory tradition and should be read in the context of evolving postclassical literature. By adopting this perspective, it becomes possible to bring together a large number of partial conclusions that are related to Phoenician Women as well as other plays by Seneca. What is more important, the work brings to light the purposeful composition of the drama and its thematic unity, allowing us to return to the MS versions that until now have been replaced by conjectures, which often distort the meaning of the text. After dismissing the emendations and adopting a new method of reading, Seneca’s Phoenician Women can be regarded as complete and well-organised. The play has certain characteristic features of a tragedy, of all Seneca’s dramas, it is the one most inspired by the genre of declamation and the poetics of Seneca the Elder’s anthology, and it is an example of the use of plot material typical of tragedy for presenting the problem of pietas in all its complexity.

Ключевые слова:

Seneca the Younger, Phoenician Women, declamatory tradition in drama, Roman tragedy


Данные скачивания пока недоступны.


Aricò G. Date arma patri (Sen. Phoen. 358). Paideia 1997, 52, 25–29.

Boyle A. J. An Introduction to Roman Tragedy. London — New York, Routledge, 2006.

Canter H. V. Rhetorical Elements in the Tragedies of Seneca, Univ. of Illinois Studies in Language and Literature 1925, 10, 1–186.

Chaumartin F.-R. (ed., trans.) Sénèque. Tragédies. T. 1. Paris, Les Belles Lettres, 1996.

Fantham E. (ed., trans., comm.) Seneca’s Troades. Princeton, UP, 1982.

Fantham E. Nihil iam iura naturae valent: Incest and Fratricide in Seneca’s Phoenissae, in: A. J. Boyle (ed.) Seneca Tragicus. Ramus Essays on Senecan Drama. Berwick, Aureal Publications, 1983, 61–76.

Fitch J. G. (introd., ed., trans.) Seneca. Hercules. Trojan Women. Phoenician Women. Medea. Phaedra. Cambridge, Ma. — London, HUP, 2002.

Frank M. (ed., comm.) Seneca’s Phoenissae. Leiden — New York — Köln, Brill, 1995.

Giardina G. (ed.) L. Anneo Seneca. Tragedie. T. 1. Pisa — Roma, Fabrizio Serra Editore, 2007.

Goldberg S. M. The Fall and Rise of Roman Tragedy. TAPA 1996, 126, 265–286.

Gronovius J. (ed., comm.) L. Annaei Senecae Tragoediae. Amsterdam, Hendrik Boom en de Weduwe van Dirk Boom, 1682.

Gummere R. M. (trans.) Seneca. Ad Lucilium epistulae morales. London — New York, Heinemann, Putnam’s Sons, 1918.

Heinsius D. (comm.) L. Annaei Senecae et aliorum Tragoediae serio emendatae. Leiden, Hendrik van Haestens, 1611.

Keil H. (ed.) M. Valerii Probi in Vergilii Bucolica et Georgica commentarius. Halle, Eduard Anton, 1848.

Keulen A. J. (ed., trans., comm.) L. Annaeus Seneca. Troades. Leiden — Boston — Köln, Brill, 2001.

Leo F. De Senecae tragoediis observationes criticae. Berlin, Weidmann, 1878.

MacGregor A. P. The Manuscripts of Seneca’s Tragedies: A Handlist, in: W. Haase (Hg.) ANRW, 2, 32, 2. Berlin — New York, de Gruyter, 1985, 1135–1241.

Mascoli P. (ed.) Nicola Trevet. Commento alle Phoenissae di Seneca. Bari, Edipuglia, 2007.

Mesk J. Senecas Phönissen. Wien. Stud. 1915, 37, 289–322.

Morrica U. Le Fenicie di Seneca (Continuazione e fine). RFIC 1918, 46 (1), 1–40.

Opelt I. Senecas Conzeption des Tragischen, in: E. Lefèvre (ed.) Senecas Tragödien. Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1972, 92–128.

Owen W. H. Commonplace and Dramatic Symbol in Seneca’s Tragedies. TAPA 1968, 99, 291–313.

Owen W. H. Time and Event in Seneca’s Troades. Wien. Stud. 1970, 83, 118–137.

Peiper R., Richter G. (ed.) L. Annaei Senecae Tragoediae. Leipzig, Teubner, 1867.

Philp R. H. The Manuscript Tradition of Seneca’s Tragedies. CQ 1968, 18 (1), 150–179.

Pratt N. T. Seneca’s Drama. Chapel Hill — London, University of North Carolina Press, 1983.

Sapota T., Słomak I. ‘Phoenissae’, ‘Phoenissa’, ‘Thebais’: The Title of Seneca’s Phoenician Women. Philologia Classica 2020, 15 (1), 88–95.

Schmidt B. De emendandarum Senecae tragoediarum rationibus prosodiacis et metricis. Berlin, Gustav Lange, 1860.

Schmidt E. A. Space and Time in Senecan Drama, in: G. Damschen, A. Heil, M. Waida (ed.) Brill’s Companion to Seneca Philosopher and Dramatist. Leiden — Boston, Brill, 2014, 531–546.

Shelton J.-A. Problems of Time in Seneca’s Hercules Furens and Thyestes. California Studies in Classical Antiquity 1975, 8, 257–269.

Sussman L. A. Sons and Fathers in the Major Declamations Ascribed to Quintilian. Rhetorica 1995, 13 (2), 179–192.

Tarrant R. J. (ed., comm.) Seneca. Agamemnon. Cambridge, CUP, 1976.

Tarrant R. T. Senecan Drama and Its Antecedents. Harv. Stud. 1978, 82, 213–263.

Zwierlein O. Prolegomena zu einer kritischen Ausgabe der Tragödien Senecas. Wiesbaden, Franz Steiner Verlag GMBH, 1984.

Zwierlein O. (rec.) L. Annaei Senecae Tragoediae. Oxford, OUP, 1986.

Как цитировать
Sapota, T., & Słomak, I. (2021). Seneca’s Phoenician Women — Genre, Structure, Thematic Unity. Philologia Classica, 16(1), 77-89.
Orbis Romanus