This thesis explores the theme of evil in Senecan tragedy through the prism of his Stoic principles, as they are illustrated in his philosophic treatises, with special reference to de ira, de clementia, and naturales quaestiones. The introduction defines evil and situates this study in the historical context of Julio-Claudian rule at Rome. In addition, I sketch the relative chronology of Seneca’s works and chart Seneca’s interest in the myths on display in Greek and Roman tragedy. Chapter One, “The Beast Within,” investigates the contrast of the civilized and uncivilized behaviour of Seneca’s characters in the Phaedra, Thyestes and Hercules Furens. I argue that although Seneca’s characters represent themselves as creatures of civilization and the city in their rejection of wild nature and their embrace of the values of civilization, in their words and actions they repeatedly revert to the wild landscape and bestial appetites that lurk outside the safety of the city walls. In Chapter Two, “Anger,” I examine the emotion of anger as represented in the Medea and compare that tragic exploration with Seneca’s discussion of the emotion in the de ira, where it is called the greatest vice. I conduct an extensive comparative investigation of the language of Seneca’s treatise de ira and his tragedy Medea. Fitch contends that “the dramas do not read like ii negative exemplars designed to warn of the dangers of passion,”1 but I argue that here and elsewhere they do indeed. In Chapter Three on “Cruelty,” I discuss the theme of cruelty in the Troades with reference to the de clementia where Seneca develops the theme of cruelty as the opposite of mercy, in an effort to guide the eighteen-year-old emperor Nero to compassionate rule. However, Seneca takes up the question of cruelty not only in the treatise, but also in his moral epistles and in his tragedies, especially the Troades. There I show that Seneca employs tragedy to hold up a mirror to his audience so that they can see their own behaviour reflected in it. Chapter Four, on “Ghosts and Curses,” takes its starting point from Seneca’s well-known use of ghosts in his tragedies, a feature which had a great influence on Tudor and Jacobean drama. In Senecan tragedy, the presence of ghosts often threatens the safety of the living. I contend that there are four types of ghost in Senecan drama. In the conclusion, I show that Seneca’s tragedies can be read as a criticism of the powerful, and that his Stoic interpretation of human behaviour can be seen throughout his tragedies.

This thesis explores the theme of evil in Senecan tragedy through the prism of his Stoic principles, as they are illustrated in his philosophic treatises, with special reference to de ira, de clementia, and naturales quaestiones. The introduction defines evil and situates this study in the historical context of Julio-Claudian rule at Rome. In addition, I sketch the relative chronology of Seneca’s works and chart Seneca’s interest in the myths on display in Greek and Roman tragedy. Chapter One, “The Beast Within,” investigates the contrast of the civilized and uncivilized behaviour of Seneca’s characters in the Phaedra, Thyestes and Hercules Furens. I argue that although Seneca’s characters represent themselves as creatures of civilization and the city in their rejection of wild nature and their embrace of the values of civilization, in their words and actions they repeatedly revert to the wild landscape and bestial appetites that lurk outside the safety of the city walls. In Chapter Two, “Anger,” I examine the emotion of anger as represented in the Medea and compare that tragic exploration with Seneca’s discussion of the emotion in the de ira, where it is called the greatest vice. I conduct an extensive comparative investigation of the language of Seneca’s treatise de ira and his tragedy Medea. Fitch contends that “the dramas do not read like ii negative exemplars designed to warn of the dangers of passion,”1 but I argue that here and elsewhere they do indeed. In Chapter Three on “Cruelty,” I discuss the theme of cruelty in the Troades with reference to the de clementia where Seneca develops the theme of cruelty as the opposite of mercy, in an effort to guide the eighteen-year-old emperor Nero to compassionate rule. However, Seneca takes up the question of cruelty not only in the treatise, but also in his moral epistles and in his tragedies, especially the Troades. There I show that Seneca employs tragedy to hold up a mirror to his audience so that they can see their own behaviour reflected in it. Chapter Four, on “Ghosts and Curses,” takes its starting point from Seneca’s well-known use of ghosts in his tragedies, a feature which had a great influence on Tudor and Jacobean drama. In Senecan tragedy, the presence of ghosts often threatens the safety of the living. I contend that there are four types of ghost in Senecan drama. In the conclusion, I show that Seneca’s tragedies can be read as a criticism of the powerful, and that his Stoic interpretation of human behaviour can be seen throughout his tragedies.

Seneca, De Providentia. Ein Kommentar. De Providentia ist ein fiktiver Dialog, den Seneca mit dem als Adressaten seiner Epistulae Morales bekannten Freund Lucilius führt. Im Verlauf dieses "Dialogs" versucht Seneca seinem Freund und Schüler die Frage nach dem Leid, das dem vir bonus widerfährt, obwohl die Welt von der göttlichen providentia gelenkt wird, zu beantworten. Es handelt sich also um das Theodizeeproblem, das Seneca hier auf der Basis einer Frage des Lucilius zu lösen versucht, die im Verlauf des Texts 7-mal wiederkehrt, jeweils dem Gedankenfortschritt angepasst oder ihn auch manchmal bewirkend. Der Kommentar besteht aus zwei Teilen, einem fortlaufenden in Form einer interpolierenden Paraphrase, und einem Einzelkommentar, in dem die während der Arbeit angefallenen Einzelbeobachtungen gesammelt sind. Unter interpolierender Paraphrase verstehe ich dabei eine behutsame Paraphrase, in der besonders die bei Seneca oft unklar bleibenden logischen Verknüpfungen hergestellt werden sollen. Dazu ist es oft nötig, andere Senecastellen zur Erklärung zu benutzen. Ich habe in der Regel auf das Heranziehen weiterer Quellen verzichtet. Denn die Überlieferungslage, vor allem der philosophischen Quellen, ist zum großen Teil desolat, und Seneca selbst hält – in epist. 84 – ein Werk dann für besonders gelungen, wenn man die zahlreichen darin eingeflossenen Quellen nicht mehr erkennen kann, weil sie nahtlos in den eigenen Text übergegangen sind. Dies ist der erste deutschsprachige Kommentar zu De Providentia. Er unterscheidet sich von den vorhandenen Kommentaren in italienischer1 und englischer2 Sprache dadurch, dass in ihm der Verlauf des gesamten Texts in den Blick genommen wird. Insofern stellt er eher eine Strukturanalyse dar, wie sie schon von Grimal3 und Abel4 vorgelegt worden ist. Grimal hat später selbst gesagt5, dass es sich bei seiner Arbeit mehr um die Bemühung um den Aufriss handle, der sich an die Regeln der zeitgenössischen Rhetorik halte, während Abel eine Untersuchung der Tiefenstruktur vorgenommen habe. Man kann meinen Kommentar als eine auf der Untersuchung Grimals basierende Strukturanalyse verstehen, die den Gedankenverlauf des Senecatexts nachvollzieht und sich dabei mit den von Abel zu De Providentia präsentierten Thesen auseinander setzt. Anmerkungen 1 Lucio Anneo Seneca, De Providentia, de constantia sapientis (Dialoghi I-II), testo, commento, traduzione a cura di Giovanni Viansino, Roma 1968; Lucio Anneo Seneca, La Provvidenza, introduzione, testo, traduzione e note a cura di Emanuela Andreoni, Roma 1971; Seneca, I dialoghi, volume primo a cura di Giovanni Viansino, Milano 1988; Lucio Anneo Seneca, La provvidenza, introduzione, testo, traduzione e note a cura di Alfonso Traina, Milano 32000. 2 Lucius Annaeus Seneca, de providentia, a commentary by E.G.Delarue, Diss.Cornell Univ. Ithaca, New York 1974 (Mikrofilm). 3 Le Providentia, in: REA 52, 1950, 238-257. 4 Bauformen in Senecas Dialogen. Fünf Strukturanalysen: dial. 6, 11, 12, 1 u. 2, Heidelberg 1967. 5 Seneca, Macht und Ohnmacht des Geistes, Darmstadt 1978, S.299.