Die relative Datierung der Tragödien Senecas (review)

In this brief but significant monograph, Dingel proposes a new and comprehensive relative dating sequence for the tragedies attributed to Lucius Annaeus Seneca. Through comparative analysis of parallel diction in the tragedies, Dingel argues for the following order of composition: Hercules, Oedipus, Phaedra, Medea, Troades, Agamemnon, Thyestes, Phoenissae. He adds that the Apocolocyntosis followed both Hercules and Troades. Dingel's findings present a substantial challenge to the relative dating scheme proposed by Fitch (1981), which relies upon the statistical comparison of stylistic elements, in two important respects: Dingel places Hercules first, and Agamemnon sixth, while Fitch (1981: 303) ranks Agamemnon first, Hercules sixth. The placement of Hercules is critical, because the consensus holds that it provides a terminus ante quem of 54 C.E.

Dingel's book comprises an introduction, seven chapters pertaining to the tragedies, one on the Apocolocyntosis, and a conclusion. The seven core chapters structure an intricate chain of reasoning built around almost seventy comparisons. Each chapter presents evidence to establish the precedence of a given play in respect to the others. The chapters follow Dingel's proposed chronology, beginning with the Hercules and concluding with Thyestes and Phoenissae. The bases of comparison are verbal parallels. Dingel compares the language of the passages in question, considers the context of each, and evaluates how well or ill suited a phrase or motif is to the work in which it occurs. He then draws conclusions about which came first.

Chapter 1, which is likely to prove the most controversial, makes a case that Hercules is Seneca's earliest tragedy. The first evidence Dingel presents is a comparison of Herc. 274 with Oed. 748-750 (12-13). Both passages call Thebes "Herculean." The epithet fits the context in Hercules, but, as Dingel argues, is out of place in Oedipus. This is a provocative point, but Dingel's argument for the precedence of the underworld description in Hercules to that in Oedipus (24-27) is less compelling. Through a series of such readings, Dingel builds his case.

The only direct comparison Dingel makes between Hercules and Agamemnon—clearly a crucial point of his argument—reads Herc. 215-48 and 527-68 against Ag. 812-66. Both passages recount the labors of Hercules. Dingel argues that the short version in Agamemnon is likely to come from the extended treatment in Hercules (38-42). He cites a supposedly inconcinnous syntactical transition in Ag. 833 (gemuitque), which he presumes references the use of gemuit in a similar, less complex construction in Hercules (40). Given that the Agamemnon excerpt occurs in a polymetric choral ode, it would seem natural to me if the syntax were less straightforward than in the Hercules passage, which is a speech in iambic senarius. Similarly, the more compressed description of Hercules' Stymphalian bird hunt in Agamemnon should be expected in a choral passage, and need not be an allusive reference to the "clearer" version in Hercules, as Dingel conjectures (41).

Dingel makes a sustained and often convincing argument that Agamemnon is a late play (38-42; 57; 83-86; 92-95; 100-101). The most apt support he provides is a comparison of Tro. 204-206 with Ag. 919-921 (101), which develops an argument made by Fantham (1981-82: 123). In the Troades passage, according to Dingel, the speech of Pyrrhus privileges Achilles' role in winning the Trojan War. The diction makes sense in the context of the passage: when Troy fell, it succumbed to the mortal blow suffered at Achilles' hand. Similar diction in Agamemnon makes less sense when Strophius applies it to Agamemnon (101).

Although this work does not convince me that Hercules was Seneca's first tragedy, it does lend support to previous arguments that Agamemnon might have been a comparatively late work (Fantham 1981-82; Calder 1976). Dingel's arguments are worthy of careful consideration, and call Fitch's chronology into question. Regardless of whether or not Dingel's placement of Hercules...