Abstract
This paper aims to revise previous findings concerning lines 406–430 of Seneca’s Phaedra. Referring to the manuscript tradition, it demonstrates that the heading before 406 and the marginal notation used to identify speaking characters may have been misinterpreted as a result of this notation having been erased from codex Etruscus, the main representative of one of the two branches of the manuscript tradition of Seneca’s plays. Next, it argues that because of the formal consistency of this codex reading (E) – as contrasted with the inconsistencies in A – and the fact that E makes satisfactory sense here, the reconstructed reading of Etruscus should be taken into consideration in future editions of Seneca’s drama.
Publisher
Adam Mickiewicz University Poznan
Reference26 articles.
1. Armstrong 2006: Armstrong, Rebecca. Cretan Women. Pasiphae, Ariadne, and Phaedra in Latin Poetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
2. Boyle 1987: Boyle, Anthony James. Seneca’s Phaedra. Introduction, Text, Translation and Notes. Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1987.
3. Chaumartin 1996: Chaumartin, François-Régis. Sénèque: Tragedies. Vol. 1. Introduction, édition et traduction. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1996.
4. Coffey, Mayer 1990: Coffey, Michael, Mayer Roland. Seneca: Phaedra. Introduction, Text, Commentary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
5. Davis 1983: Davis, Peter J. “Vindicat Omnes Natura sibi: A Reading of Seneca’s Phaedra,” In Seneca Tragicus. Ramus Essays on Senecan Drama, edited by Anthony James Boyle, Victoria: Aureal Publications, 1983: 114–127.