Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 January 2009
If the Phaedra is Seneca's best-known play, it has suffered more than any other from inadequate or misdirected critical attention. Most accounts have been preoccupied with its similarity or dissimilarity to the Hippolytus of Euripides, or else with its rhetorical luxuriance. The first group has spoken of it as a not very meritorious rewrite of Euripides' play (Version I, II, or mixed). Méridier, for example, in his Hippolyte d'Euripide devotes a chapter to the Phaedra, giving a résumé of the plot, listing parallels and discrepancies with the Hippolytus, and providing by way of conclusion an ‘étude littéraire’. In this he treats the play as mere adaptation, remarking ‘on voit ce que l'œuvre de Sénèque a perdu au changement’. Where Seneca has introduced originalities, ‘ces scenes nouvelles ne témoignent pas toujours … d'un art très heureux’.
page 223 note 1 Paris, n.d.
page 223 note 2 Part iii. i.
page 223 note 3 Euripides, ' Hippolytos (Oxford, 1964).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 223 note 4 p. 17.
page 223 note 5 In Kleine Schriften (Munich, 1961).
page 224 note 1 Op. cit. 431.
page 224 note 2 REL xxvii (1949), 190.
page 225 note 1 CPh lviii (1963), 1–10.
page 227 note 1 For Hippolytus the woods are a place of innocent retreat. Contrast Phaedra, 's peccare noster novit in silvis amor (114).Google Scholar
page 232 note 1 On the chorus in Hercules Furens, see Henry, /Walker, , CPh lx (1965), 21–23.Google Scholar
page 236 note 1 See p. 223, note 5.
page 239 note 1 ‘Seneca in Elizabethan Translation’ in Selected Essays (1917–1932), (London, 1932), 74.