The Rhetorical Use of Family Terms in Seneca's "Oedipus" and "Phoenissae

Bibliographic Data

ID3938327
AuthorsMarica Frank (corresponding author)
Year1995
Volume49
Issue2
Pages121
Publication date1995-01-01
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenuePhoenix (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0031-8299 • E-ISSN: 1929-4883
PublisherJSTOR (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/1192629
OpenAlexW2312573535
LanguageEN
Citations received8

THE DELIBERATE AVOIDANCE of a proper name is well attested in classical literature, where it may arise from a variety of motives: for example, ignorance of the name (Ter. Ad. 891, Vergil Aen. 1.327-328), the desire to suppress a name potentially offensive to the listener or addressee (Juv. 13.248-249), the need for discretion (Soph. Phil. 852-853, Cic. Att. 6.4.3, 6.5.1-3), guilt, hatred, or other strong feelings associated with the bearer of the name (Eur. Hipp. 350-352, Cat. 8.4, 7, 12). Sometimes only the fact of the avoidance of the name is striking; in other cases the name substitute itself is rhetorically pointed.1 It is normal in Greek tragedy (as in epic) for characters to address and refer to one another for the most part by periphrases once they have been introduced to the audience.2 In Senecan tragedy too, the proper names of dramatis personae occur relatively infrequently, considering that in declaimed drama3 one might expect more proper names as an aid to identification, since the audience cannot see the characters. Although Seneca uses periphrases freely, there are instances in Senecan (as in Greek) tragedy of a character's deliberate avoidance of a proper name. In Agamemnon, for example, Clytemnestra appears deliberately to avoid using Agamemnon's name as being painful or abhorrent to her, referring to him rather as vir (156, 201, 265, 579),4 ille (164, 178), pater (166), victor (262), coniunx

Art · Literature · Rhetorical question · Classical Antiquity Studies · Classical Philosophy and Thought · Historical and Linguistic Studies · History · Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub