OTTAVIA is a fabula prae-texta, and the ONLY EXTANT Roman historical drama.
The Roman historical drama had an IMPORTANT plac among the earliest products of Roman literature, and sems to have enjoyed a degree of POPULARITY through all succeeding periods.
That Roman literary genius did not find a much fuller expression through this channel was not due to a lack of national pride and patriotism, not yet to a dearth of interesting and inspiring subjects in Roman history.
The reason was other.
It may be argued that the first historical Italian melodramma
is Monteverdi's Poppea.
Oddly, the only historical old Roman play extant, apparently, deals with the same subject matter!
Comments on "Nothing worth celebrating: the "Ottavia" and "fabulae prae-textae", by S. McElduff.
The standard Rome's "fabulae praetextae" as written to celebrate great families and great moments in Rome's history.
A standard 'fabula prae-texta' records Roma's triumphal moments and glorious victories, not its disasters and defeats.
However, the Senecan fabula prae-texta, "L'Ottavia", faces an impossible literary task.
The very family "Ottavia" "commemorates", the imperial domus, buckles and collapses under the burden of its own shameful past, and its history becomes a bloody record of crime after crime.
McElduff discusses how Seneca deals with this paradox by reversing the "norms" or conventions of the genre or various genres, including so-called "Roman tragedy", and asks its audience whether it is possible to stage a "fabula prae-texta" that celebrates a noble family in contemporary Rome.
Keywords: Classics, Neronian Literature, Roman Drama, Latin Language and Literature, Roman Tragedy, Nero, Fabula Praetexta, and Octavia
To say that the "OTTAVIA" is a problematic 'melodramma' (I'm using the term loosely) is somewhat like saying that the emperor NERONE, its deliciously horrible hero, was not on good terms with his family.
The implicature is: try finding "OTTAVIA" UNproblematic!
Despite a number of recent works devoted to the "OTTAVIA" by Seneca, it stubbornly remains a highly controversial play from a controversial genre.
There is almost no statement that one can make about "OTTAVIA" that is not laden with potential controversy.
Its Senecan authorship has been dismissed by some -- not all (Speranza still think Seneca wrote it! "Before he died," he otiosely adds. For an excellent defense of the Senecan authorship see Whitman).
But no secure attribution has replaced it and scholars are as divided as ever about under which Roman emperor "Ottavia" was written.
A suggestion of a cut-off date of 90 a.C. for "Ottavia"’s composition, based on Seneca’s fashionability as a literary model, has been widely accepted.
Was "Ottavia" written under Galba,Vespasiano, or another Flavian emperor?
Was "Ottavia" ever performed at all?
Well, the melodramma by Alfieri was!
Is it a protest play written by a disaffected author disgruntled with the imperial administration (like Curiatio Materno’s "CATONE IN UTICA") or was it composed to be part of triumphal games? Ha!
Indeed, Galba’s games have been suggested, and an evocative re-imagining of that possible present, though describing it as “make –believe".
Is it even a "fabula prae-texta" in a traditional sense (as opposed to a 'fabula graeca')?
It has been argued that the "Octavia" represents a total break with the archaic tradition of the "fabula praetexta", albeit a break that had been coming for some time.
Indeed, the question was raised about divorcing the "Octavia" from its genre and creating a genre of one play.
Or should "Ottavia" instead be classified as a new hybrid of the "praetexta" and vernacular Roman "tragedy"?
Even the traditional assumption that the action of "OTTAVIA" takes place over three days has recently been disputed.
McElduff does not attempt to deal with or lay to rest all these issues.
Rather, McElduff aims at a much more limited task: an examination of the "Ottavia" as a reflection not only on the fall of its titular heroine and the Julio-Claudian dynasty but also on the IMPOSSBILITY of writing a "fabula prae-texta" on contemporary members of the "nobilitas"
McElduff argues that one of the key questions that the "Octavia" presents toits audience is whether it is possible to write a "praetexta" celebrating the ‘great’figures of contemporary Rome in an age when the great and powerful are matricidal, homicidal, and uxoricidal tyrants, and that ultimately it answers that question with a resounding ‘no.’
For how can one celebrate the history of a noble family when that history is littered with the bodies of their dead Roman victims?
But cfr. "Il ratto di Lucrezia".
It is, of course, not a problem for a "fabula prae-texta" when the victims are NOT Roman (i.e. 'foreign', as Massimo would put it) or are perhaps WICKED Romans.
It is hard to imagine many tears being shed over the fate of the Tarquins in Accio’s "Bruto".
The "Ottavia" works both within and against the genre of "fabula prae-texta" to which it belongs and presents a series of generic reversals that deliberately upset the norms associated with the "fabulae praetextae."
This last statement, of course, begs the questions of what are the norms of this genre and whether we can even piece them together given the fragmentary nature of the remaining plays and the late definitions we possess.
By the time of the fourth-century grammarians, the genre (miscalled genre, if you wish) of "fabula prae-texta" was classified as dealing with the deeds of famous Romans, such as contemporary generals, figures drawn from Roman history and mythology, as opposed to a drama that used 'foreign' (as Massimo would put it) myth for their sources, the "fabula palliata".
Nam prima species est togatarum quae prae-textatae in quibus imperatorum negotia agebantur et publica reges Romani vel duces inducuntur personarum dignitate et personarum sublimitate tragoediissimiles.
Prae-textatae fabulae autem dicuntur quia fere regum vel magistratuum qui
praetexta utuntur in eiusmodi fabulis acta comprehenduntur.
Diomedes.
For the first type of "fabula togata" are the "fabulae prae-textae" in which the affairs of generals and the state are shown and Roman kings or leaders are shown on stage.
Because of the status of the characters and their lofty style these are like tragedies.
"But they are said to be prae-textae because for the most part this sort of drama involves the acts of kings or magistrates who wear the praetexta.
Togata prae-textata a tragoedia differt quod in tragoedia heroes inducuntur ut Pacuvius tragoedias nominibus heroicis scripsit, Orestem.
Chrysen et his similia, item Accius.
In prae-textata autem quae inscribitur Brutus vel Decius, item Marcellus.
--- Diomedes, Gr. Lat.
"A "fabula togata praetextata" is different from a tragedy," Diomede writes, "because in a tragedy heroes are shown on stage, so Pacuvius wrote tragedies with the names of heroes: Orestes, Chryses and others like these and Accius did the same."
But in "fabulae praetextata" there are Roman leaders such as the plays called "Bruto" or "Decio", and also the "Marcello."
Leaving aside the association of the plays with the genre of "tragedy", which is problematic (but then also cfr. opera "tragedia per musica").
How "tragic" the early "fabula togata praetextae" were is debatable.
Clearly a drama like "Claustidium" was NOT tragic at all -- unless you were unfortunate enough to be an Insubrian Gaul.
We would rather say that "Claustidium" deals with a historical subject-matter, but then so did many items of the genre of "opera seria", or 'tragedia per musica' in Italy.
Zorzetti indeed argues for a gradual shift towards a more "tragic" model starting with Accio’s "Aeneade; ossia, Decio".
The problem, however, with a description of later "fabulae togata praetextata", as ‘tragic’ is, the existence of things like the "Nonae Caprotinae", which were NOT tragic.
Still, the base definition of a "fabula prae-texta" as play dealing with high Roman personages and heroes seems fairly clear and simple.
Whether the first century a.C. had the same definition is another question, of course.
But it is not unreasonable to assume that they too put plays dealing with Roman history into one category and plays on 'foreign' themes in another even if, like Materno in Tacito’s "Dialogo",they clearly went from writing one to another.
In the "Dialogo" (3.2-3) he says he will go from his "Catone in Utica" to writing a "Tieste" and that both have the similar aim of attacking tyranny
The "Octavia" itself frequently uses 'foreign' tragic and mythic examples such as Antigona as well as Roman ones to parallel the unhappy situation of its heroine.
Maturno is praised for adding Roman historias (i.e. his "Domizio" and his "Catone in Utica") to 'foreign' fabulae ("Dialogo" 3.4) in terms which suggest that Tacito clearly sees distinctions between a "Roman history-play" and one based on a 'foreign' myth.
As for how different in style they both were from OTHER TYPES of tragedy, insofar as we know they overlapped in manner of performance (the same actors could appear in both) and in the styles in which they were written.
As those who wrote "fabula togata praetextata" ALSO wrote dramas based on 'foreign' models, it would seem likely that there was some overlap in grand style, something which certainly seems to have been true in Materno’s case, as he was using both types of plays to get across his anti-tyrannical message -- to whom one wonders!
However, it may be argued that the difference of subject-matter is STILL important, between 'foreign' and 'native' or "ROMAN".
Even if a "Tieste" MAY be staged as an attack on despotic power, it is still distinct from a play like the "Catone in Utica", or Seneca's "Ottavia", which deal with the even more touchy subjects of disastrous moments in Roman history.
While the plays did not feature solely Roman generals and heroes as their central characters -- there were presumably some actual Sabine women in Ennio's "Sabinae" as sympathetic characters
Our single fragment from the play is normally ascribed to Ersilia, the Sabine wife of Romolo.
A review of the known "fabulae togatae praetextatae" shows that it was a heavily masculine genre, often dealing with noble Roman men performing virtus.
This can be seen by the following conservative list of the dramas by author.
Manuwald collects the source material for the various "fabulae prae-textae" and also provides excellent commentary.
Flower provides a very useful chart of all the plays with possible patrons, subjects, and dates.
Nevio --
"Claustidium"
The Plot of Nevio's "CLAUSIDIUM" dealt with Marcus Claudius Marcellus’ victory over the Insubrian Gauls at Claustidium in 222 a.C.
"Claustidium" was staged at either Marcello’s triumph, funeral, or the dedication of the temple to Honos and Virtus in 205 a.C. which Marcello had vowed to the gods at Claustidium.
NEVIO:
The plot of Nevio's "Romolo; ossia Lupo", deals with the early years of Romolo.
For present purposes it does not make a great deal of difference if there were two plays or only one on Lupo or Romulo.
Nevio clearly wrote one at least on some part of Romulus’ life.
The plot of Ennio's "Ambracia" deals with Marco Fulvio Nobilior’s victory over the Ambracians in 189 a.C.
"Ambracia" was performed at Nobilior's triumphal games in 187 or possibly for the dedication of the temple of Ercole and the Muses.
It has also been suggested a staging may have occurred in 188 as part of his campaign for a triumph.
The plot of Accio's "Bruto" deals with the expeller of the kings and founder of the Republic.
"Bruto" was performed at Decimo Bruto Callaico’s triumphal celebrations or his dedication of his temple to Marte in 138 a.C..
The plot of Accio's "Decio; ossia Aeneadae" deals with the "devotio" of Decio Mus at the battle of Sentinum in 295 a.C.
The recipient is unknown, but it has been argued for Q. Fabio Massimo as an ancestor of his was co-consul with Decio
If this is the case, it may have been staged after his victory over the Gauls in 120 a.C..
The plot of Pacuvio's "Paolo" deals with the victory of L. Emilio Paolo over the Macedonians at Pydna in 168 a.C.
The plot of L. Cornelio Balbo's "Iter" deals with his journey to Gades to bring over the proconsul Lentulus to Caesar’s side (performed in 43 BC in Gades).
It is mentioned by Cicerone in his Ep. Ad Fam. 10.32.1
However, Kragelund suggests Erennio Gallo as a possible author of "ITER" and also questions the traditional reconstruction of the plot.
In the Imperial period, we have Persio, unknown subject matter, title is an impossible vescio (Vita Persi, 8).
Pomponius Secundus's "Enea".
On Pomponio Secundo as a tragic poet, see Plinio il Giovane, Ep. 7.17.11 and Quintiliano, Institutio Oratoria (10.1.98).
The source for the title is Charisius, Gr. Lat..
The plot of Curiatio Materno's "Catone in Utica" deals with Catone il giovane. The thing is cited in Tacito's "DIALOGO" (2.1).
The plot of Materno's "Domizio" is an uncertain subject matter, perhaps about an ancestor of Nerone.
A less conservative list of Roman tragedies would also include:
Cassio Parmense's "Bruto".
The thing is cited by Varrone, De Lingua Latina 6.7, and 7.72.
The anonymous "Nonae Caprotinae", which tell or, more properly, teaches ("docuit"), the aetiology behind a ritual performed by Roman women for Giunone Caprotina.
The thing is cited by Varrone, De Lingua Latina (6.18) describing a performance during the late republic at the Ludi Apollinares, probably an aetiological, didactic play like the "Claudia".
According to Ovidio, our only source for this play (at "Fasti" 4.326), "Claudia" recounted the legend of Quinta Claudia who towed the barge carrying the Magna Mater to Rome in 205 a.C.
Both the "Nonae Caprotinae" and the "Claudia" have been argued to have been closer to "fabulae togatae" than "prae-textae".
In any case, the existence of the "Claudia" has been questioned -- as that of Cassio's "Bruto".
It can be argued strongly for "Cassio", in the text, as an error for "Accio".
Many more titles have been suggested than have been listed above.
In his "Roman Drama and Roman History", Wideman provides an overview of those suggestions and adds a few possible titles of his own, including one which covers the misdeeds of Tullia.
Recent notes of caution about inflating the number of "fabulae praetextae" have been sounded.
Erasmo, in particular, points to the limited number of occasions where "fabulae prae-textae" could be performed as ensuring a small number.
Though if you could have "fabulae prae-textae" performed at triumphs, funeral games, or dedications of temples, this is not such as mall number of occasions.
Textual losses may have occurred because some "praetextae" remained linked to a particular "gens", rather than being re-utilised like Accio’s "Bruto" for multiple audiences.
More recently Kragelund has argued for the
There is the possibility that Materno also wrote a "prae-texta" on Nerone as well as those listed above.
Though it can be argued that this may be the same as his "Domizio" which would make that drama a
"prae-texta" on Nerone
As can be seen from this list of 'Roman tragedies', we have only a handful of securely attributed plays and even less securely testified occasions for performance.
In fact, the ODDEST play of the bunch, Balbo's "Iter", has the most definite information about its staging, and the reaction of one member of its audience.
Its hero and author, Balbo, was apparently so moved that he wept.
And we know more about revivals, and attempted revivals, of one "fabula prae-texta" than we do its actual initial performance.
This "praetexta" is Accio's "Bruto".
Accio's "BRUTO" was re-staged at the Ludi Apollinares of 57 a.C. (Pro Sest. 120-4), where, according to Cicerone, the audience took advantage of the performance to voice its support for him.
Later Bruto il giovane tried to have the same play performed in 44 a.C., shortly after the death of Giulio Cesare.
The thing is told by Cicerone in his Ep. Ad Att. 15.12, 16.2, and 16.5.
In this case, as Bruto was away from Rome, MARCANTONIO’s brother substituted Accio’s "Tereo"
at the last minute.
Such re-stagings show that "Roman tragedies" could have an impact beyond their first performance and their messages could be re-interpreted by later audiences.
Indeed, some "praetextae" might have influenced the very historical record, as with Livio’s accounts of early Rome.
The 'fabulae praetextae' could maintain a powerful influence even after their initial performance.
It is hard to see a distinct gap between the "res gestae" of the "nobilitas" and that of the Roman people and that a play like Accio's "Bruto" could well have the double function of presenting a well-known and well loved theme which could, at the same time, be used by a contemporary be used by a presiding magistrate to support a contemporary political stance.
However, despite our lack of precise knowledge about many 'fabulae praetexta' and their continued impact (or lack thereof), there are several assertions one can make about the genre which would have also been apparent in the period Seneca's Ottavia (or "La decoronazione d'Ottavia," as I prefer, to relate this to the history of Italian melodramma at large) was written.
"Fabula praetexta" was a heavily male genre. KEYWORD: MASCULINITY.
Looking at the list of "fabulae prae-textae" above, one can easily see that 'fabulae prae-textae' were mainly figured around ROMAN alpha males if only for the obvious reason that if you were trying to find women on a Roman general’s staff you would spend a long time looking.
It is not that females could not at times play arole, particularly as the spark for action.
If Livy’s account of the expulsion of the kings is inspired in part by presentations on stage, we can surmise that inversions of the "Bruto" Lucrezia had some pretty important role to play!
But there though Lucrezia's rape is the cause of the expulsion of the Tarquinio Superbo, she is still a passive figure, there to start the real action rather than have any part in the actual demise of the kings.
Even if one does not believe Livio’s account to have been inspired by "fabulae praetextae", presumably Bruto il giovane would NOT have tried to get the "Bruto" re-staged if "Bruto" had not featured his historic predecessor heavily. Such is human vanity!
There are exceptions to this.
The "Claudia" mentioned by Ovidio in "I fasti", the "Nonae of the late Republic seen by Varrone, Ennio's "The rape of the Sabinae" and Seneca's "La decoronazione d'Ottavia" of course.
But of the "fabulae prae-textae" that we know of from roughly the same period as "La decoronazione d'Ottavia" all feature MALE characters.
Materno, after all, wrote a "Catone in Utica" and a "Domizio" and NOT a "Portia" or a "Domizia"
Secundo wrote an "Enea", not a "Didone" or a "Lavinia".
The choice of Octavia for this drama as a title rather than a male name marks the play as more Greek than Roman and “polarizes a number of Greek tragic reminiscences”.
However, some prefer to see the title, "OTTAVIA", as a response to previous and contemporary
"fabulae praetextae" rather than a break with them.
Ultimately for the Republican period at least, even when tragic themes might be explored, the plays celebrated someone or some event.
Republican "fabulae praetextae" were celebrations of imperium.
Take the "Decio" on the "devotio" of Decio Mus.
His action, while it resulted in his own death, also led to avictory over an enemy alliance of Etruscans, Gauls, Samnites, and Umbrians and it is hard to believe that a play would not dwell on this as a way to point out the value to the Roman people of Decius’ self-sacrifice.
While a move to a more tragic or critical type over time has been suggested, two of the post-Republican "fabulae prae-textae" (the "Claudia" and the "Nonae") do not seem to have been "tragic" (or, indeed, critical in any sense) and Pomponio Secundo's "Enea" presumably had some mention of its hero’s victories in Italy.
It seems hardly likely that it was a savage attack on his legend as Claudio awarded Pomponio Secondo the ornamenta triumphalia (Tacito, Annali, 12.28).
It would have been appropriate for performance at his secular games.
One can even imagine Materno's "Catone in Utica" celebrating the Stoic life and death of its hero, even as it mourned the collapse of the Republic.
In any case the one ‘classic’ "fabula praetexta" we know of, Accio's "Bruto", clearly was celebratory of the achievements of its hero – that was, after all, why Bruto il giovane wanted it restaged in 44 a.C.: to remind the Roman people of the positive historical connotations of his own actions by showing them his historical namesake and
exemplar.
Presumably this is also why the Antonians substituted Accio's "Tereo" for it. Such is human vanity.
"Fabulae Praetextae", both in their sites of performance and subject matter, often marked critical and
successful transitional moments in the life of aristocratic families and the city of Rome.
Funeral games, triumphs, and games held for dedications of temples have all been suggested as possible locales for performance of various "fabulae prae-textae".
If performed as part of funeral games, "fabulae prae-textae" could form part of the rituals that marked the transition from one generation to another, showing the old so that the new could gain reflected glory.
If part of triumphal celebrations, the 'fabulae prae-textae' show the deeds of famous men, displaying their recent achievements to the people ontheir return to Rome and inscribing their actions into the collective memory of the city and the people.
If performed at the dedication of a temple, by re-enacting his victory they likewise showed the people divine approval of the dedicator’sactions by showing his good fortune in battle (they could also, of course, incidentally show the people where the 'foreign' adornments of the new temple came from and how they had been obtained for the gods and the city).
Their aim in part was to present the glorious past or present of a family or an individual to the people of Rome, a past which could be revived or re-used, as was the case with Accio's "Bruto".
Certainly, this is not all there was to the "fabulae praetextae" and we do not want to deny a religious function for "fabulae prae-textae".
We know they could be performed at religious festivals such as ludi apollinares.
There are religious elements to these plays
And there's the possibility of classifying them as a form of court theatre (as much earlier Italian melodramma -- versus "L'incoronazione di Poppea" which was commercial) with one family controlling the message of each play tightly.
A warning against this is a valid one, especially given that audiences were clearly capable of reading their own meaning into sections of the drama, as was the case of the revival of Accio's "Bruto"
that Cicerone describe in "Pro Sestio".
It seems likely that many dramas, especially the mythological ones, besides celebrating a great noble family also staged some element of a collective Roman past and thus teaching about how some important event came to be in Rome, in effect marking a transitional moment for the city of Rome as well as a family, as was surely the case for the "Bruto" and "Claudia".
The success of the office-holding families depended on their being able to identify their families with great moments in Roman history while, at the same time, creating a larger sense of shared community and purpose.
Dramas like "Bruto" help them do this.
It is hard to believe that some of that function would not remain even in the early Roman empire.
Surely one would connect a play like "Claustidium" with its triumphal overtones with Marcello’s triumph or some key moment in his life?
Or, if that play was too obscure, it would not take a leap of imagination to see that a "Bruto"
or an "Enea" celebrate an achievement by a noble Roman and tried to reflect that glory on the titular character’s remote descendants.
Likewise, dramas such as "Bruto" or "Enea" clearly celebrate the achievement of noble Romans
and a critical moment in thepast of the Roman people.
But even though these were critical moments they were moments in which the Roman people or their aristocratic hero emerged successful and triumphant.
Notwithstanding the qualifications given above, the "fabula praetexta" was a heavily aristocratic genre.
A "fabula praetexta" presents a Roman aristocrat wearing the garb denoting his office and rank, and fulfilling hisofficial duties for the good of the state.
And the genre is aristocratic not only because the play is commissioned by aristocrats but also because on the whole the drama deals with the aristocracy's glorious acts.
The obvious exception is the "Nonae Caprotinae", which features slave girls as primary characters.
Notwithstanding this odd exception, the basic assertion still holds true.
The very title of the genre, with its evocation of the magistrates’s "toga prae-texta", gives the subject matter away, for one.
How then does "Ottavia" invert or play with these norms?
For starters, "OTTAVIA" focuses heavily on the role of women in the history of a family and Rome.
Admittedly, there are two large male roles in the "Ottavia"(Nero, Seneca, and most importantly, the most masculine of them all, the soldier).
Despite Ottavia’s titular status, Nerone and Seneca have grabbed more than their fair share of attention.
They are important characters, to be sure, but some find comments such as the following need to gloss over the focus on women elsewhere in the drama, especially in the choral odes.
Ottavia is eponymous to the play but is hardly its protagonist or antagonist.
Nerone fills the stage when he is on, and his interlocutors hog what is left of the light.
Still, the play not only gives large roles to Ottavia, Poppea, Agrippina, and their respective nurses, but also returns again and again to the role of women in the history of the Julio-Claudians and in the history of Rome.
Instead of MALES as the driving forces behind history (but cfr. Ottavia's obsession with his dead father, CLAUDIO, and his dead brother, BRITANNICO), we repeatedly have women as the key and active elements in its unfolding.
Its very title suggests a play about Roman aristocrats and their status.
In place of a foundational moment of a family, the city, or a ritual, "Ottavia" gives us the grim dissolution of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the imperial "domus."
Instead of "celebration", we have an unrelentingly grim drama.
There is really nothing to "celebrate" in the "Ottavia" despite suggestions this was performed for Galba’s victories.
The "Ottavia" does not celebrate another "gens" or discuss the arrival of Octavia’s and Rome’s avenger (Galba or Vespasian would fit nicely in those roles) in triumphal terms but bleakly records the destruction of this one.
While you cannot get much more aristocratic than members of the imperial house, the sympathetic portrayal of the urban "populus romanus" and their ability to act on their own volition in a good cause and without being prompted bysome aristocratic leader is highly unusual - and not just for a "fabula praetexta".
This portrayal of the "plebs" is almost unique in Roman imperial literature.
Whiletheir positive portrayal here may be a traditional feature of the "fabula praetexta"
genre, which surely wanted to curry favour by presenting members of their audience in asympathetic light, most previous "fabulae praetextae" would presumably (if set on the battle-field) have shown a sympathetic portrait of the bravery of the Roman soldier or (if set in the city, like "Bruto") have shown a noble people of the long distant past rather than the present.
In showing the almost contemporary urban "plebs" as willing to fight in a good, although hopeless, cause, the "Ottavia" is unique.
Let us focus on the first, second, and third ways in which "Ottavia" plays with and subverts its genre.
First is the the Role of Women, or rather the sub-version of MASCULINITY.
In the "Octavia" women are not just the victims of history – though Ottavia is that in part.
While she tries to put on a more spirited front at 174-6, most of the time she just suffers patiently and volubly.
Interestingly, OTTAVIA is aware of her own passivity.
At line 59 Ottavia suggests Elettra as her tragic peer, only to acknowledge that the 'foreign' heroine could at least weep and avengeAgamemnon’s death.
Females are what drives it forward: NOTABLY AGRIPPINA!!
"OTTAVIA" focuses on mothers (not fathers) as impelling history forward.
Throughout the play, Octavia returns again and again to the subject of her mother, Messalina, much more so than her father -- and then there's NERONE's mother, AGRIPPINA, appearing as a ghost!
Ottavia mentions Messalina first, describing her as the first source (prima causa) of her troubles (11), as mothers usually are, as daughters go.
MESSALINA's blood is in Octavia’s veins, which are polluted by that connection according to Nerone, who refers to Messalina as an "incesta genetrix", unchaste mother (536), not to say a slut,
linking back to Octavia’s first reference to her mother as "genetrix" - though, of course, Nerone is not exactly an unbiased source and he has his own set of maternal (or as I prefer, 'motherly') issues.
In line 102, Octavia mentions her mother MESSALINA (of Messala fame) before her father CLAUDIO and brother BRITANNICO (genetrice caesa, per scelus rapto patre, orbata fratre) and later it is Messalina who is described as dragging the whole family down with her.
The nurse does counter this by representing Claudio at lines 137-42 as the first cause of the family’s downfall, but in the context of stressing the pointlessness of Octavia calling upon him for aid.
She also devotes a large portion of the rest of that speech to stressing Messalina’s crimes above all.
cecidit infelix parens, heu, nostra ferro meque perpetuo obruitextincta luctu; coniugem traxit suumnatumque ad umbras, prodidit lapsam domum, 266-69.
"My unlucky mother MESSALINA fell to the sword and by my mother's death she engulfed me in everlasting grief.
She dragged down her husband CLAUDIO and son BRITANNICO to the shades, she put our fallen house into danger.
This might seem just a typical Roman example of ‘blame the woman’ but it is worth noting that this drama is much more sympathetic to Messalina than anyother source we possess, and that fathers and brothers, while not absent from this story, are presented as impotent or unwilling to aid both by Octavia and her nurse.
Octavia dreams of her brother Britannico as an impotent ghost.
He is a frightened, not frightening, and a fleeing, not persecuting fury.
Britannico's hands are feeble ("infirmas", 118) and who is forced, terrified ("trepidus", 120), to seek refuge with her when his intended victim, Nerone, attacks him in turn (121-2).
AND OF COURSE THE LEAST MASCULINE is the former suitor to Ottavia, who to avoid Agrippina's threats, commits suicide!
Then, as Octavia calls upon her father CLAUDIO to save her, the nurse says that it is pointless to call on him – he will not bother to respond.
"It is futile to invoke your father’s spirit, poor girl, futile!"
"No concern for his offspring remains with him among the shades”.
Frustra parentis invocas manes tui miseranda, frustra, nulla cui prolissuae manet inter umbras cura,
137-9).
The anaphora of "frustra" drives home the pointlessness of expecting aid from that quarter even as the use of "tui" and "suae" stresses the familial relationship of daughter and father.
Noticeably, though, Agrippina is quite capable of appearing from the underworld to plot her revenge: she is the true "victrix" (155), not Claudio, even though he held the entire world and even the ocean under his "imperium" (38-40).
Dead mothers may clearly do what dead fathers cannot: make their will become history.
The problematic nature of Claudio’s power (stupidly poisoned by AGRIPPINA) as father after his death appears in later scenes also.
When Seneca tries to claim that Octavia is a worthy spouse for Nerone as she is born from one who is now a "god" (in a rather 'stupid' sense of 'god': the god's murderer deemed him a god ("genereta divo", 534), Nerone instantaneously twists that around to point out that her mother was a
"incesta genetrix" (slut) and that Octavia may have had another father.
The repeated use of "genetrix" is evident.
The word 'generatrix' is used eleven times in the play (10, 101, 153, 188, 259, 536, 635, 697, 722, 909, 947).
The repeated use of 'generatrix' and related words may also be an ironic commentary on VENERE as
"genetrix" of the Julian clan -- indeed, Poppea’s nurse uses the title "genetrix" for Venere at 697 --
This suggests the rot goes back to the beginning of the "gens", which is Roma's first gens – an unsettling notion.
Octavia herself blames VENERE for Messalina’s folly and downfall and thus her own situation at 257-61.
One wonders if there is some sort of response to Pomponio Secondo's "Enea" here.
The usage of the word "generatrix" also points to the key role that females play in the drama as essential to the beginning and continuation of a family and as key figures for understanding their children’s fates.
But in the "Ottavia" these are not women in the mold of Lucrezia.
Instead, these females are often monstrous mothers who have corrupted and destroyed the very families they helped create.
Like many other things in this drama they come in a doublet, thed ead Messalina and Agrippina, who both destroy their children.
Octavia herself blames VENERE for Messalina’s folly and downfall and thus her own situation at 257-61.
One wonders if there is some sort of response to Pomponio Secondo's "Enea" here.
Significantly, Agrippina is presented by self and others as a creator of history.
It is AGRIPPINA (title of melodramma by HAENDEL) who gave the throne to Nerone, according to Octavia.
Agrippina a woman will always bear that posthumous claim to fame throughout the ages”
Feret hunc titulum post fata tamen femina longo semper in aevo, 96-97.
While the use of "titulum" in a metaphoric sense is common in Ovid it is also tempting to see it as suggesting the public and almost inscriptional nature of Agrippina’s achievement, an achievement which her sontries to obliterate by "damnatio memoriae".
"OTTAVIA" presents the futility of his effort.
Agrippina’s deeds, good and bad, cannot be hidden from the world and even if her son NERONE obliterates her statues, this drama remains a record of her achievements past and future.
At line 335 the chorus of Roman citizens begins to run through the history of the imperial family and imagines itself as Agrippina, fusing their identities and hers by becoming her mouthpiece in a startling act of ventriloquism.
Describing her swim to shore after her famed encounter with Nerone’s collapsible boat, they present her as the focus of sympathetic bystanders who despite their fear render aid to their domina.
Mansit tacitis in pectoribusspreta tristi iam morte fides.
Multi dominae ferre auxilium pelago fractis viribus audentbracchia quamvis lenta trahentemvoce hortantur manibusque levant, 350-55.
Still there remains in people’s hearts an unspoken allegiance that scorns grim death.
Many make bold to render help to their lady, despite being weakened by the sea.
Although she drags her leadenarms, they rally her with cries, support her with their hands.
This is certainly a remarkable way to remember this particular piece of Julio-Claudian chicanery and it is certainly not how Tacito later will present the scene at "Annali" 14.5-8 with his Agrippina silently swimming to the shore.
In the "Octavia", Agrippina's desperate swim seems rather to evoke heroic parallels, such as Orazio COCLITE after the bridge making his way across the TEVERE, than to portray a mariticidal, incestuous, and disgraced dowager empress escaping from her son’scollapsible boat.
This entire chorus, the first of the play, is startling because of the way the past is made present.
It starts out normally enough, though in a melancholy fashion, with a lament for the lost values of ancient Rome.
True Roman manliness was found in our ancestors once.
The true heredity and blood of MARTE was in those men.
Vera priorum virtus quondam romana fuit uerumque genus Martis in illissanguisque uiris.,
291-93
-- a lament which applies both to the Roman people and to previous praetextae.
The chorus’s focus on Tarquin and later Lucretia and places Octavia firmly within the Roman
praetexta tradition.
The chorus goes on with a standard list of great moments in Republican history (all of which one could imagine furnishing great plots for "fabulae praetextae", and one of which – the rape of Lucrezia – did) but with a twist.
The chorus's emphasis is on the dead women as much as or more than the men who avenge them or whom they are connected with.
Ultique tuos sunt bene manesvirgo dextra caesa parentisne servitium paterere grave etimproba ferret praemia victrixdira libido.
Te quoque bellum triste secutum est,mactata tua, miseranda, manu,nata Lucreti,stuprum saevi passa tyranni.
Dedit infandi sceleris poenascum Tarquinio Tullia coniunx,quae per caesi membra parentisegit saevos impia curruslaceroque seni violenta rogosnata negavit.
(295-307)
It was they who drove the proud kings out of this city, and later avenged your spirit well and truly, maiden slain by your father’s hand, to prevent you from suffering grievous slavery, and monstrous lust from gaining its shameless prize in triumph.
Civil war ensued from your death too, daughter of Lucretius, when you died by your own hand, pitiful woman, after suffering the brutal tyrant’s lust.
Along with Tarquin, Tullia his wife was punished for unspeakable crime: cruelly, unnaturally, she drove her chariot overher slaughtered father’s body, and refused the torn old man (savage daughter) a funeral pyre.
According to these "exempla", virtus and the great moments of Roman history need the bodies of dead women to prove themselves.
There is a decided twist by the author on his model, which is Livio.
This section relies on Livio’s narrative extensively, even using some of the same language.
Instead of heroic men avenging the honour or punishing the misdeeds of women, you only have the women.
But just as the chorus earlier described Octavia not by name but as Claudia proles (278), so "Lucrezia" is "nata Lucreti", Lucrezio's daughter), and Virginia is "virgo caesa".
The only female who is named is Tullia, hardly much of a role model.
One gets the uneasy sense that more fame attends the evil woman more than the good.
Tullia is here as Agrippina’s historical predecessor and model.
But if T.P. Wiseman is right about the existence of a "fabula praetexta" with a role for Tullia, it is possible that she is also in part her dramatic predecessor and model.
It is possible that this entire list could have been inspired by other, now lost, "praetextae".
We know that Lucretia appeared in at least one (the "Bruto").
Whycould not the rest be also have been characters with small roles in other dramas?
However, even if one cannot subscribe to this notion, at the very least it is startling that the author uses a male chorus to focus on the role of women in Roman history rather than on men, topping his list off with an active and evil female.
That is certainly fitting because the most active female in this play is not Octavia or even her rival Poppea, who is also somewhat passive.
Though Poppea is consistently blamed by Octavia as being one of the true sources of her problems and described at 125-29 as the reason for Agrippina’s death, Poppea is not actually presented as that unsympathetic a character, especially in comparison to Nerone who is actively evil.
Poppea's sceneis a doublet of Octavia’s opening one, complete with nurse and horrific dreams at 711-39) and she even gets her own sympathetic, second chorus.
The most active female in the play is the dead Agrippina.
AGRIPPINA, and not Claudio, drags herself back from hell to put in a special appearance, although it is his "manes" which are called upon by his daughter Ottavia (134-6), she is the one the chorus mentions people standing by trying to save, she is
Nerone’s maker, and going by her words, his breaker.
When the ghost of Agrippina herself appears she first complains that he rewarded her services ("meritum") with oblivion.
Obrui meritum cupitsimulacra, titulos destruit memores meitotum per orbem quem dedit poenam in meam puero regendum noster infelix amor.
(610-13)
"NERONE wants to destroy my services, throws down the statues and inscriptions that bear my memory throughout the world, the world that my unfortunate love gave him as a boy to rule, to my harm.
She later claims that by giving birth to Nerone, a child who turned into a monster, she inadvertently cut him off from his glorious male kin in the underworld (640-3).
According to AGRIPPINA, if Nerone had died in the womb she would have joined them there.
Ironically, in being a successful mother, in giving birth to the son who should represent a family’s future she has destroyed herself – and her domus.
Her love is "infelix" (613) in a double sense.
At lines 369-70, the chorus also picks up the paradoxical nature of Agrippina’s infelicity by
following their description of her as "infelix" with "utero".
Her love is unfortunate for her and ultimately unproductive, because it means the end of the dynasty and even of Nerone’s ties with his birth family.
Nerone becomes untethered to his past, without any connection to his family and his father, as in a series of paradoxes his survival brings about his own alienation from his family’s history, his birth begets her death and her death begets his destruction – as she returns a vengeful ghost, to ensure his downfall.
As with Messalina, it is the mother who destroys the family utterly.
Next comes what is almost the chorus's last act on stage.
Actually, it is their second to last chorus. The drama ends in 980 with a short final chorus.
In the their second to last intervention, the chorus recaps the history of the Julio-Claudians "gens", presented through the unfortunate lives of their women.
Manuwald uniquely gives these lines to the second chorus of the play, the one that is sympathetic to Poppea.
Tu mihi primumtot natorum memoranda parensnata Agrippae, nurus Augusti, Caesaris uxor, cuius nomen clarum toto fulsit in orbe, -utero totiens enixa gravi pignora pacis,mox exilium,verbera, saevas passa catenas,funera, luctus,tandem letum cruciata diu.
Felix thalamis Livia Drusinatisque ferum ruit in facinus poenamque suam.
Iulia matris fata secuta est: post longa tamen tempora ferrocaesa est, quamvis crimine nullo.
Quid non potuit quondam genetrixtua quae rexit principis aulamcara marito partuque potens?
Eadem famulo subiecta suocecidit diri militis ense.
Quid cui licuit regnum caelisperare, parens tanta Neronis?
Non funesta violata manu/remigis ante,mox et ferro lacerata diu saevi iacuit victima nati? 932-956.
You are the first I must mention, mother of so many children, daughter of Agrippa, Augustus’ daughter-in-law, wife of a Caesar, you whose name shone bright throughout the world, whose teeming womb so often bore pledges of peace, but who suffered exile, lashes, cruel chains, grief, bereavement, and death at long last, after long torment.
Livia, blessed in marriage to Drusus and in children, rushed into callous crime and the punishment due. Juliafollowed her mother’s fate."
Though many years later, she was put to the sword, despite being charged with nothing.
What power was in your mother’s hands earlier, when she ruled the emperor’s court through her mother’s affection and her status as a mother!
Yet even she became subject to her slave and fell to a brutal soldier’s sword.
What of her who could once aspire to the throne and heaven, Nerone’s exalted mother?
Did she not suffer at the murderous handsof sailors first, then a long mangling by the sword, dying as asacrifice to her savage son?
First on the chorus’ list is Agrippina the elder ("nata Agrippae"), the wife of Germanico– who had the dubious honor of giving the world both Caligula and Agrippina the Younger, then Livia Julia the wife of Drusus, Tiberius’ son, followed by her daughter Julia, before they finally end with Messalina and Agrippina the Younger.
This list of fallen imperial women is appropriate to the context – the play is about the fall of Octavia, after all - but it is also more than that.
There are two things worth noting.
First, good women and bad women are rolled in together, as they were in the earlier chorus on famous women of early Rome.
It can be argued that this is modeled on the Sophoclean chorus’ use of historical exempla to comfort Antigona at "Antigona" 929-987.
This explains why Ottavia’s author has positive and negative "exempla".
Without dismissing the possibility of Sophoclean influence, some are not sure it is necessary to posit a 'foreign' model behind this particular scene.
Instead, it may be meant to as a pair for the chorus’s earlier list of famous, dead Roman women.
This chorus surely acts as a doublet for that earlier one, suggesting that all of these imperial women could, like Ottavia, furnish plots for "fabulae praetextae".
Second, the chorus is also interested in these women as mothers.
Their status as mothers and their fertility, where possible, is stressed.
This makes them very unlike Octavia, divorced for barrenness.
They do what a good Roman woman does.
They help continue the lines, but in doing so they are destroyed or destroy that which they helped to create: the family.
If one looks at the long list of imperial women in the chorus described above, this almost functions as an "elogia" for the females of this family.
The whole catalogue of " exempla" seems to have a self-consciously‘epitaphic’, monumental feel.
Men vanish from this text, to be replaced by what resembles an elegy for failed motherhood and afailed family.
Lastly, as is appropriate for a "fabula praetexta", these lines invoke the past, but only as a sequence of negative examples that seem to go back to the beginning of this "gens", and they invoke a past that is all about women.
According to this chorus, bad things have happened to imperial women from the early days of the Julio-Claudians.
In an earlier scene the prefect asked Nerone of whether a woman can take the name of enemy, "hostis" (864).
Nerone and "Ottavia" answer that question with a resounding yes.
For as we see from this list and that of the women of early Rome, women can be both heroes and villains of their own dramas, even if their dramas, their "fabulae praetextae", remain un-written – with the exception of this one.
"Ottavia" is a drama on the unfounding of a family.
We may now move to a *SECOND* way in which the "Ottavia" reverses the norms of its genre, the way it deals with the unfounding and dissolution of a family and not its foundational moment.
To point out the obvious, this is a drama about the end of the imperial family.
After Nerone goes, whose fall is predicted and anticipated within the play and which has occurred by the date of the drama, there is no one else to hand off to and no more of this imperial
domus.
Ottavia's nurse opens the theme of the destroyed imperial house and family with almost her first words on stage.
“Behold the overthrow of Claudio’s house, just now supremely powerful”
modo praepotentem cernat eversam domum stirpemque Claudi -- 37-8.
While Ottavia points out her role as the end-point of this dynasty by describing herself as “the shadow of a mighty name” ("magni nominis umbra", 71).
By echoing Lucano’s description of Pompeo (BC1.135; on this and other allusions to Pompeo in the play), a description which paints him as an already dead oak which only stands until the next storm, she shows her awareness of herself as the last member of an already dead dynasty.
It may be pointed out that "nomen" here means family.
Ottavia does not so much see herself as the last survivor of Claudio’s family as much as the walking dead.
She knows that she and Julio-Claudians have no future.
Ironically, Nerone does his best to ensure that the imperial "domus" will continue even as he destroys it.
When he talks about Poppea, Nerone refers to her as someone who is suitable both for beauty and ancestry ("genere atque forma", 545) and as one who will continue the line of the Caesars as Ottavia is barren and she is pregnant.
This is line 591, his second to last line before the end of his and Seneca’s scene – and is spoken just before Agrippina’s appearance, an appearance which gives the lie to his hopes.
But the ambition to continue Nerone's line is doomed.
Agrippina wills herself from the underworld to proclaim that Nerone will NOT escape unharmed, and from the perspective of any reader of this play her will has been accomplished.
AGRIPPINA undoes NERONE, the emperor she created, much as she had undone CLAUDIO before him and the whole family vanishes crushed under the weight of its burden of guilt and sin.
"Ottavia" is, also, anti-celebratory.
The "Octavia" is a profoundly UNcelebratory play in more than one way.
"Ottavia" marks NOT a transition between generations, a victory which brings renown, or even heroic self-sacrifice, but the dissolution of a family and the destruction of not only its titular heroine but also the entire Julian-Claudian dynasty.
There is no winner presented to us in "Ottavia"
Nerone’s victory is only temporary and "Ottavia" reminds us of that by foretelling Nerone's eventual death with great detail.
The actions of the loyal "populus romanus" are pointless, as they themselves acknowledge in their penultimate chorus (924-957), and all they can find to solace Ottavia with are doomed "exempla" (929) of Roman imperial motherhood, exempla whose children also came to ill-omened ends.
Depending on one’s emendation of 967, "Ottavia" may take an even darker tone.
If one leaves the text as transmitted, Ottavia curses her own father CLAUDIO in a moment of utter despair, an action which would fit in with the nihilistic end of the play.
However, to leave the text as transmitted involves not only accepting an abrupt change of heart towards her father CLAUDIO on the part of Ottavia, but also metrical anomalies.
Even more tellingly for the UNcelebratory nature of "Ottavia" , no coming avenger is celebrated and the only hint of one is given by Agrippina, who presents him as her agent.
Even if one takes the nurse’s comment at 255 as an allusion to the rebellion of Vindex and the ultimate destruction of Nerone, it is undercut by the fact that no “laetus dies" ("happy day”, 256) will or can come for Octavia.
Nerone’s death is thus presented as coming from Agrippina's desire for vengeance (618), not as punishment for killing Ottavia.
If "Ottavia" was written for Galba in an attempt to get rid of the popular memory of Nerone by reminding them of his treatment of Ottavia, it is hard to see why the author would make this choice.
And, in all honesty, it is hard to see "Ottavia" as capable of functioning as part of any celebration.
A play performed at a celebration does not necessarily need to be celebratory, of course.
Vario Rufo’s "Tieste" was performed at the celebrations for Actium (There is also a TIESTE by Seneca).
Although in that case it can be argued that Vario Rufo (unlike SENECA) did not dramatize the cannibalistic feast but the more suitable story of Tieste’s restoration to the throne of Argos and the murder of Atreo, a slightly happier story, if you are not Atreo.
However, regardless of whether one accepts this reconstruction or not, it is notable that no one decided to celebrate Actium with a tale of Roman woe reminding the Roman people of losses in the Civil Wars, though subject matter was not lacking and one could certainly also rouse the people there to greater hatred of MARCANTONIO by staging some of his misdeeds -- cfr. the film with Elizabeth Taylor).
Its final line is: “Rome delights in its citizens’ blood”.
Civis gaudet Roma cruore", 982.
This last line reeks of despair and leaves little space for optimism.
There is no sense of triumph or even of hope that if the emperor does fall that the result is going to be good for anyone– what you get if Nerone goes is more chaos and bloodshed, not less.
Nerone himself has already reminded the audience of the blood that was shed in the civil wars at the end of the Republic, also personifying Rome as a spectator watching its own bloodshed ("quantum cruoris Roma tum vidit sui", 503), a personification that the final line echoes.
It also reminds us both of the tainted blood of the Julio-Claudians and the real blood that is shed in civil wars, in the transition of power from one dynasty to another.
While the audience may be watching stage blood flow, it is not allowed to forget the real blood spilt in Rome’s past.
In addition, it also gets in a parting shot at the pleasure to be gained from watching both real and dramatic re-enactments of historical tragedies.
Surely "civis gaudet Roma cruore" is meant to be a comment on spectators who enjoy reading and watching things like "fabula praetextae", a reminder that the audience has been enjoying this reenactment of the end of the Julio-Claudians -- Octavia herself ironically calls the day of Nerone’s wedding to Poppaea ‘festal’ ("festo", 646), the very sort of day which would be traditionally attended by theatrical performances --, as other audiences probably enjoyed watching Bruto put an end to the kings and Lucrezia killing herself.
But while a Republican "fabula prae-texta" may have had blood, it was the blood of Rome’s enemies or Roman blood shed to protect Rome.
In "OTTAVIA", on the other hand, we are spectators of noble Romans destroying and killing other noble Romans purely for our macabre entertainment.
In its last line, the "Octavia" finally turns upon us and questions the enjoyment it itself provides.
With its bleak ending, the "Octavia" refuses to complete the function for which the "fabula prae-texta" was originally designed.
"Ottavia" will not celebrate that which it is impossible to celebrate.
It defies you to stage it, let alone re-stage it.
And that is that.
**********************
REFERENCES
Boyle, A. "An Introduction to Roman Tragedy."
London: Routledge.
Octavia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Erasmo, M.
"Roman Tragedy: Theatre to Theatricality".
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Ferri, R.
"Octavia: a play attributed to Seneca."
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
“Octavia and the Roman Dramatic Tradition”
in Wilson.
Fitch, J.
"Seneca: Tragedies."
Cambridge, MA.
"Annaeana Tragica: Notes on the Text of Seneca’s Tragedies", Leiden: Brill.
Flower, H. "Fabulae Praetextae in Context: when were plays on Contemporary Subjects Performed in Republican Rome?", Classical Quarterly 45.
FLOWER, H. "Response to Kragelund" Symbolae Osloenses 77.
Goldberg, Sander. M. “Authorising Octavia" in Wilson.
GOLDBERG, S. "Reading Roman tragedy." International Journal of the Classical Tradition
13:
Harrison, G. "Forms of Inter-textuality in the "Ottavia". in Wilson.
Herington, C. "Ottavia pretesta: a survey."
Classical Quarterly 11:18-30.
Kragelund, P.
"Prophecy, Populism, and Propaganda in the 'Ottavia'. Copenhagen.
"Historical Drama in Ancient Rome:
Republican Flourishing and Imperial Decline?".
Symbolae Osloenses 77.
Lefèvre, E.
"Der Thyestes des Lucio Varo Rufo". Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner
Marshall, C. "Response to Kragelund". Symbolae Osloenses 77.
MILLER, Frank Justus, LLD. Seneca's Tragedies. Introduction to OTTAVIA.
Park Poe, J. "Octavia Praetexta and Its Senecan Model."
American Journalof Philology 110.
Smith, J. “Flavian Drama: Looking Back with Octavia”
in Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text, ed. A. Boyle and W. Dominik, Leiden:Brill.
Whitman, L. "Octavia", introduction, Text, and Commentary. Bern: P.Haupt.
Wilson, M. Ed. "The Tragedy of Nerone's Wife." "Studies on the Octavia Praetexta".
Polygraphia: Auckland. -- “The Importance of Being Octavia” in Wilson.
Wiseman, T. P.
"Historiography and Imagination: eight essays on Roman Culture".
Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
Oddly, the only historical old Roman play extant, apparently, deals with the same subject matter!
Comments on "Nothing worth celebrating: the "Ottavia" and "fabulae prae-textae", by S. McElduff.
The standard Rome's "fabulae praetextae" as written to celebrate great families and great moments in Rome's history.
A standard 'fabula prae-texta' records Roma's triumphal moments and glorious victories, not its disasters and defeats.
However, the Senecan fabula prae-texta, "L'Ottavia", faces an impossible literary task.
The very family "Ottavia" "commemorates", the imperial domus, buckles and collapses under the burden of its own shameful past, and its history becomes a bloody record of crime after crime.
McElduff discusses how Seneca deals with this paradox by reversing the "norms" or conventions of the genre or various genres, including so-called "Roman tragedy", and asks its audience whether it is possible to stage a "fabula prae-texta" that celebrates a noble family in contemporary Rome.
Keywords: Classics, Neronian Literature, Roman Drama, Latin Language and Literature, Roman Tragedy, Nero, Fabula Praetexta, and Octavia
To say that the "OTTAVIA" is a problematic 'melodramma' (I'm using the term loosely) is somewhat like saying that the emperor NERONE, its deliciously horrible hero, was not on good terms with his family.
The implicature is: try finding "OTTAVIA" UNproblematic!
Despite a number of recent works devoted to the "OTTAVIA" by Seneca, it stubbornly remains a highly controversial play from a controversial genre.
There is almost no statement that one can make about "OTTAVIA" that is not laden with potential controversy.
Its Senecan authorship has been dismissed by some -- not all (Speranza still think Seneca wrote it! "Before he died," he otiosely adds. For an excellent defense of the Senecan authorship see Whitman).
But no secure attribution has replaced it and scholars are as divided as ever about under which Roman emperor "Ottavia" was written.
A suggestion of a cut-off date of 90 a.C. for "Ottavia"’s composition, based on Seneca’s fashionability as a literary model, has been widely accepted.
Was "Ottavia" written under Galba,Vespasiano, or another Flavian emperor?
Was "Ottavia" ever performed at all?
Well, the melodramma by Alfieri was!
Is it a protest play written by a disaffected author disgruntled with the imperial administration (like Curiatio Materno’s "CATONE IN UTICA") or was it composed to be part of triumphal games? Ha!
Indeed, Galba’s games have been suggested, and an evocative re-imagining of that possible present, though describing it as “make –believe".
Is it even a "fabula prae-texta" in a traditional sense (as opposed to a 'fabula graeca')?
It has been argued that the "Octavia" represents a total break with the archaic tradition of the "fabula praetexta", albeit a break that had been coming for some time.
Indeed, the question was raised about divorcing the "Octavia" from its genre and creating a genre of one play.
Or should "Ottavia" instead be classified as a new hybrid of the "praetexta" and vernacular Roman "tragedy"?
Even the traditional assumption that the action of "OTTAVIA" takes place over three days has recently been disputed.
McElduff does not attempt to deal with or lay to rest all these issues.
Rather, McElduff aims at a much more limited task: an examination of the "Ottavia" as a reflection not only on the fall of its titular heroine and the Julio-Claudian dynasty but also on the IMPOSSBILITY of writing a "fabula prae-texta" on contemporary members of the "nobilitas"
McElduff argues that one of the key questions that the "Octavia" presents toits audience is whether it is possible to write a "praetexta" celebrating the ‘great’figures of contemporary Rome in an age when the great and powerful are matricidal, homicidal, and uxoricidal tyrants, and that ultimately it answers that question with a resounding ‘no.’
For how can one celebrate the history of a noble family when that history is littered with the bodies of their dead Roman victims?
But cfr. "Il ratto di Lucrezia".
It is, of course, not a problem for a "fabula prae-texta" when the victims are NOT Roman (i.e. 'foreign', as Massimo would put it) or are perhaps WICKED Romans.
It is hard to imagine many tears being shed over the fate of the Tarquins in Accio’s "Bruto".
The "Ottavia" works both within and against the genre of "fabula prae-texta" to which it belongs and presents a series of generic reversals that deliberately upset the norms associated with the "fabulae praetextae."
This last statement, of course, begs the questions of what are the norms of this genre and whether we can even piece them together given the fragmentary nature of the remaining plays and the late definitions we possess.
By the time of the fourth-century grammarians, the genre (miscalled genre, if you wish) of "fabula prae-texta" was classified as dealing with the deeds of famous Romans, such as contemporary generals, figures drawn from Roman history and mythology, as opposed to a drama that used 'foreign' (as Massimo would put it) myth for their sources, the "fabula palliata".
Nam prima species est togatarum quae prae-textatae in quibus imperatorum negotia agebantur et publica reges Romani vel duces inducuntur personarum dignitate et personarum sublimitate tragoediissimiles.
Prae-textatae fabulae autem dicuntur quia fere regum vel magistratuum qui
praetexta utuntur in eiusmodi fabulis acta comprehenduntur.
Diomedes.
For the first type of "fabula togata" are the "fabulae prae-textae" in which the affairs of generals and the state are shown and Roman kings or leaders are shown on stage.
Because of the status of the characters and their lofty style these are like tragedies.
"But they are said to be prae-textae because for the most part this sort of drama involves the acts of kings or magistrates who wear the praetexta.
Togata prae-textata a tragoedia differt quod in tragoedia heroes inducuntur ut Pacuvius tragoedias nominibus heroicis scripsit, Orestem.
Chrysen et his similia, item Accius.
In prae-textata autem quae inscribitur Brutus vel Decius, item Marcellus.
--- Diomedes, Gr. Lat.
"A "fabula togata praetextata" is different from a tragedy," Diomede writes, "because in a tragedy heroes are shown on stage, so Pacuvius wrote tragedies with the names of heroes: Orestes, Chryses and others like these and Accius did the same."
But in "fabulae praetextata" there are Roman leaders such as the plays called "Bruto" or "Decio", and also the "Marcello."
Leaving aside the association of the plays with the genre of "tragedy", which is problematic (but then also cfr. opera "tragedia per musica").
How "tragic" the early "fabula togata praetextae" were is debatable.
Clearly a drama like "Claustidium" was NOT tragic at all -- unless you were unfortunate enough to be an Insubrian Gaul.
We would rather say that "Claustidium" deals with a historical subject-matter, but then so did many items of the genre of "opera seria", or 'tragedia per musica' in Italy.
Zorzetti indeed argues for a gradual shift towards a more "tragic" model starting with Accio’s "Aeneade; ossia, Decio".
The problem, however, with a description of later "fabulae togata praetextata", as ‘tragic’ is, the existence of things like the "Nonae Caprotinae", which were NOT tragic.
Still, the base definition of a "fabula prae-texta" as play dealing with high Roman personages and heroes seems fairly clear and simple.
Whether the first century a.C. had the same definition is another question, of course.
But it is not unreasonable to assume that they too put plays dealing with Roman history into one category and plays on 'foreign' themes in another even if, like Materno in Tacito’s "Dialogo",they clearly went from writing one to another.
In the "Dialogo" (3.2-3) he says he will go from his "Catone in Utica" to writing a "Tieste" and that both have the similar aim of attacking tyranny
The "Octavia" itself frequently uses 'foreign' tragic and mythic examples such as Antigona as well as Roman ones to parallel the unhappy situation of its heroine.
Maturno is praised for adding Roman historias (i.e. his "Domizio" and his "Catone in Utica") to 'foreign' fabulae ("Dialogo" 3.4) in terms which suggest that Tacito clearly sees distinctions between a "Roman history-play" and one based on a 'foreign' myth.
As for how different in style they both were from OTHER TYPES of tragedy, insofar as we know they overlapped in manner of performance (the same actors could appear in both) and in the styles in which they were written.
As those who wrote "fabula togata praetextata" ALSO wrote dramas based on 'foreign' models, it would seem likely that there was some overlap in grand style, something which certainly seems to have been true in Materno’s case, as he was using both types of plays to get across his anti-tyrannical message -- to whom one wonders!
However, it may be argued that the difference of subject-matter is STILL important, between 'foreign' and 'native' or "ROMAN".
Even if a "Tieste" MAY be staged as an attack on despotic power, it is still distinct from a play like the "Catone in Utica", or Seneca's "Ottavia", which deal with the even more touchy subjects of disastrous moments in Roman history.
While the plays did not feature solely Roman generals and heroes as their central characters -- there were presumably some actual Sabine women in Ennio's "Sabinae" as sympathetic characters
Our single fragment from the play is normally ascribed to Ersilia, the Sabine wife of Romolo.
A review of the known "fabulae togatae praetextatae" shows that it was a heavily masculine genre, often dealing with noble Roman men performing virtus.
This can be seen by the following conservative list of the dramas by author.
Manuwald collects the source material for the various "fabulae prae-textae" and also provides excellent commentary.
Flower provides a very useful chart of all the plays with possible patrons, subjects, and dates.
Nevio --
"Claustidium"
The Plot of Nevio's "CLAUSIDIUM" dealt with Marcus Claudius Marcellus’ victory over the Insubrian Gauls at Claustidium in 222 a.C.
"Claustidium" was staged at either Marcello’s triumph, funeral, or the dedication of the temple to Honos and Virtus in 205 a.C. which Marcello had vowed to the gods at Claustidium.
NEVIO:
The plot of Nevio's "Romolo; ossia Lupo", deals with the early years of Romolo.
For present purposes it does not make a great deal of difference if there were two plays or only one on Lupo or Romulo.
Nevio clearly wrote one at least on some part of Romulus’ life.
The plot of Ennio's "Ambracia" deals with Marco Fulvio Nobilior’s victory over the Ambracians in 189 a.C.
"Ambracia" was performed at Nobilior's triumphal games in 187 or possibly for the dedication of the temple of Ercole and the Muses.
It has also been suggested a staging may have occurred in 188 as part of his campaign for a triumph.
The plot of Accio's "Bruto" deals with the expeller of the kings and founder of the Republic.
"Bruto" was performed at Decimo Bruto Callaico’s triumphal celebrations or his dedication of his temple to Marte in 138 a.C..
The plot of Accio's "Decio; ossia Aeneadae" deals with the "devotio" of Decio Mus at the battle of Sentinum in 295 a.C.
The recipient is unknown, but it has been argued for Q. Fabio Massimo as an ancestor of his was co-consul with Decio
If this is the case, it may have been staged after his victory over the Gauls in 120 a.C..
The plot of Pacuvio's "Paolo" deals with the victory of L. Emilio Paolo over the Macedonians at Pydna in 168 a.C.
The plot of L. Cornelio Balbo's "Iter" deals with his journey to Gades to bring over the proconsul Lentulus to Caesar’s side (performed in 43 BC in Gades).
It is mentioned by Cicerone in his Ep. Ad Fam. 10.32.1
However, Kragelund suggests Erennio Gallo as a possible author of "ITER" and also questions the traditional reconstruction of the plot.
In the Imperial period, we have Persio, unknown subject matter, title is an impossible vescio (Vita Persi, 8).
Pomponius Secundus's "Enea".
On Pomponio Secundo as a tragic poet, see Plinio il Giovane, Ep. 7.17.11 and Quintiliano, Institutio Oratoria (10.1.98).
The source for the title is Charisius, Gr. Lat..
The plot of Curiatio Materno's "Catone in Utica" deals with Catone il giovane. The thing is cited in Tacito's "DIALOGO" (2.1).
The plot of Materno's "Domizio" is an uncertain subject matter, perhaps about an ancestor of Nerone.
A less conservative list of Roman tragedies would also include:
Cassio Parmense's "Bruto".
The thing is cited by Varrone, De Lingua Latina 6.7, and 7.72.
The anonymous "Nonae Caprotinae", which tell or, more properly, teaches ("docuit"), the aetiology behind a ritual performed by Roman women for Giunone Caprotina.
The thing is cited by Varrone, De Lingua Latina (6.18) describing a performance during the late republic at the Ludi Apollinares, probably an aetiological, didactic play like the "Claudia".
According to Ovidio, our only source for this play (at "Fasti" 4.326), "Claudia" recounted the legend of Quinta Claudia who towed the barge carrying the Magna Mater to Rome in 205 a.C.
Both the "Nonae Caprotinae" and the "Claudia" have been argued to have been closer to "fabulae togatae" than "prae-textae".
In any case, the existence of the "Claudia" has been questioned -- as that of Cassio's "Bruto".
It can be argued strongly for "Cassio", in the text, as an error for "Accio".
Many more titles have been suggested than have been listed above.
In his "Roman Drama and Roman History", Wideman provides an overview of those suggestions and adds a few possible titles of his own, including one which covers the misdeeds of Tullia.
Recent notes of caution about inflating the number of "fabulae praetextae" have been sounded.
Erasmo, in particular, points to the limited number of occasions where "fabulae prae-textae" could be performed as ensuring a small number.
Though if you could have "fabulae prae-textae" performed at triumphs, funeral games, or dedications of temples, this is not such as mall number of occasions.
Textual losses may have occurred because some "praetextae" remained linked to a particular "gens", rather than being re-utilised like Accio’s "Bruto" for multiple audiences.
More recently Kragelund has argued for the
There is the possibility that Materno also wrote a "prae-texta" on Nerone as well as those listed above.
Though it can be argued that this may be the same as his "Domizio" which would make that drama a
"prae-texta" on Nerone
As can be seen from this list of 'Roman tragedies', we have only a handful of securely attributed plays and even less securely testified occasions for performance.
In fact, the ODDEST play of the bunch, Balbo's "Iter", has the most definite information about its staging, and the reaction of one member of its audience.
Its hero and author, Balbo, was apparently so moved that he wept.
And we know more about revivals, and attempted revivals, of one "fabula prae-texta" than we do its actual initial performance.
This "praetexta" is Accio's "Bruto".
Accio's "BRUTO" was re-staged at the Ludi Apollinares of 57 a.C. (Pro Sest. 120-4), where, according to Cicerone, the audience took advantage of the performance to voice its support for him.
Later Bruto il giovane tried to have the same play performed in 44 a.C., shortly after the death of Giulio Cesare.
The thing is told by Cicerone in his Ep. Ad Att. 15.12, 16.2, and 16.5.
In this case, as Bruto was away from Rome, MARCANTONIO’s brother substituted Accio’s "Tereo"
at the last minute.
Such re-stagings show that "Roman tragedies" could have an impact beyond their first performance and their messages could be re-interpreted by later audiences.
Indeed, some "praetextae" might have influenced the very historical record, as with Livio’s accounts of early Rome.
The 'fabulae praetextae' could maintain a powerful influence even after their initial performance.
It is hard to see a distinct gap between the "res gestae" of the "nobilitas" and that of the Roman people and that a play like Accio's "Bruto" could well have the double function of presenting a well-known and well loved theme which could, at the same time, be used by a contemporary be used by a presiding magistrate to support a contemporary political stance.
However, despite our lack of precise knowledge about many 'fabulae praetexta' and their continued impact (or lack thereof), there are several assertions one can make about the genre which would have also been apparent in the period Seneca's Ottavia (or "La decoronazione d'Ottavia," as I prefer, to relate this to the history of Italian melodramma at large) was written.
"Fabula praetexta" was a heavily male genre. KEYWORD: MASCULINITY.
Looking at the list of "fabulae prae-textae" above, one can easily see that 'fabulae prae-textae' were mainly figured around ROMAN alpha males if only for the obvious reason that if you were trying to find women on a Roman general’s staff you would spend a long time looking.
It is not that females could not at times play arole, particularly as the spark for action.
If Livy’s account of the expulsion of the kings is inspired in part by presentations on stage, we can surmise that inversions of the "Bruto" Lucrezia had some pretty important role to play!
But there though Lucrezia's rape is the cause of the expulsion of the Tarquinio Superbo, she is still a passive figure, there to start the real action rather than have any part in the actual demise of the kings.
Even if one does not believe Livio’s account to have been inspired by "fabulae praetextae", presumably Bruto il giovane would NOT have tried to get the "Bruto" re-staged if "Bruto" had not featured his historic predecessor heavily. Such is human vanity!
There are exceptions to this.
The "Claudia" mentioned by Ovidio in "I fasti", the "Nonae of the late Republic seen by Varrone, Ennio's "The rape of the Sabinae" and Seneca's "La decoronazione d'Ottavia" of course.
But of the "fabulae prae-textae" that we know of from roughly the same period as "La decoronazione d'Ottavia" all feature MALE characters.
Materno, after all, wrote a "Catone in Utica" and a "Domizio" and NOT a "Portia" or a "Domizia"
Secundo wrote an "Enea", not a "Didone" or a "Lavinia".
The choice of Octavia for this drama as a title rather than a male name marks the play as more Greek than Roman and “polarizes a number of Greek tragic reminiscences”.
However, some prefer to see the title, "OTTAVIA", as a response to previous and contemporary
"fabulae praetextae" rather than a break with them.
Ultimately for the Republican period at least, even when tragic themes might be explored, the plays celebrated someone or some event.
Republican "fabulae praetextae" were celebrations of imperium.
Take the "Decio" on the "devotio" of Decio Mus.
His action, while it resulted in his own death, also led to avictory over an enemy alliance of Etruscans, Gauls, Samnites, and Umbrians and it is hard to believe that a play would not dwell on this as a way to point out the value to the Roman people of Decius’ self-sacrifice.
While a move to a more tragic or critical type over time has been suggested, two of the post-Republican "fabulae prae-textae" (the "Claudia" and the "Nonae") do not seem to have been "tragic" (or, indeed, critical in any sense) and Pomponio Secundo's "Enea" presumably had some mention of its hero’s victories in Italy.
It seems hardly likely that it was a savage attack on his legend as Claudio awarded Pomponio Secondo the ornamenta triumphalia (Tacito, Annali, 12.28).
It would have been appropriate for performance at his secular games.
One can even imagine Materno's "Catone in Utica" celebrating the Stoic life and death of its hero, even as it mourned the collapse of the Republic.
In any case the one ‘classic’ "fabula praetexta" we know of, Accio's "Bruto", clearly was celebratory of the achievements of its hero – that was, after all, why Bruto il giovane wanted it restaged in 44 a.C.: to remind the Roman people of the positive historical connotations of his own actions by showing them his historical namesake and
exemplar.
Presumably this is also why the Antonians substituted Accio's "Tereo" for it. Such is human vanity.
"Fabulae Praetextae", both in their sites of performance and subject matter, often marked critical and
successful transitional moments in the life of aristocratic families and the city of Rome.
Funeral games, triumphs, and games held for dedications of temples have all been suggested as possible locales for performance of various "fabulae prae-textae".
If performed as part of funeral games, "fabulae prae-textae" could form part of the rituals that marked the transition from one generation to another, showing the old so that the new could gain reflected glory.
If part of triumphal celebrations, the 'fabulae prae-textae' show the deeds of famous men, displaying their recent achievements to the people ontheir return to Rome and inscribing their actions into the collective memory of the city and the people.
If performed at the dedication of a temple, by re-enacting his victory they likewise showed the people divine approval of the dedicator’sactions by showing his good fortune in battle (they could also, of course, incidentally show the people where the 'foreign' adornments of the new temple came from and how they had been obtained for the gods and the city).
Their aim in part was to present the glorious past or present of a family or an individual to the people of Rome, a past which could be revived or re-used, as was the case with Accio's "Bruto".
Certainly, this is not all there was to the "fabulae praetextae" and we do not want to deny a religious function for "fabulae prae-textae".
We know they could be performed at religious festivals such as ludi apollinares.
There are religious elements to these plays
And there's the possibility of classifying them as a form of court theatre (as much earlier Italian melodramma -- versus "L'incoronazione di Poppea" which was commercial) with one family controlling the message of each play tightly.
A warning against this is a valid one, especially given that audiences were clearly capable of reading their own meaning into sections of the drama, as was the case of the revival of Accio's "Bruto"
that Cicerone describe in "Pro Sestio".
It seems likely that many dramas, especially the mythological ones, besides celebrating a great noble family also staged some element of a collective Roman past and thus teaching about how some important event came to be in Rome, in effect marking a transitional moment for the city of Rome as well as a family, as was surely the case for the "Bruto" and "Claudia".
The success of the office-holding families depended on their being able to identify their families with great moments in Roman history while, at the same time, creating a larger sense of shared community and purpose.
Dramas like "Bruto" help them do this.
It is hard to believe that some of that function would not remain even in the early Roman empire.
Surely one would connect a play like "Claustidium" with its triumphal overtones with Marcello’s triumph or some key moment in his life?
Or, if that play was too obscure, it would not take a leap of imagination to see that a "Bruto"
or an "Enea" celebrate an achievement by a noble Roman and tried to reflect that glory on the titular character’s remote descendants.
Likewise, dramas such as "Bruto" or "Enea" clearly celebrate the achievement of noble Romans
and a critical moment in thepast of the Roman people.
But even though these were critical moments they were moments in which the Roman people or their aristocratic hero emerged successful and triumphant.
Notwithstanding the qualifications given above, the "fabula praetexta" was a heavily aristocratic genre.
A "fabula praetexta" presents a Roman aristocrat wearing the garb denoting his office and rank, and fulfilling hisofficial duties for the good of the state.
And the genre is aristocratic not only because the play is commissioned by aristocrats but also because on the whole the drama deals with the aristocracy's glorious acts.
The obvious exception is the "Nonae Caprotinae", which features slave girls as primary characters.
Notwithstanding this odd exception, the basic assertion still holds true.
The very title of the genre, with its evocation of the magistrates’s "toga prae-texta", gives the subject matter away, for one.
How then does "Ottavia" invert or play with these norms?
For starters, "OTTAVIA" focuses heavily on the role of women in the history of a family and Rome.
Admittedly, there are two large male roles in the "Ottavia"(Nero, Seneca, and most importantly, the most masculine of them all, the soldier).
Despite Ottavia’s titular status, Nerone and Seneca have grabbed more than their fair share of attention.
They are important characters, to be sure, but some find comments such as the following need to gloss over the focus on women elsewhere in the drama, especially in the choral odes.
Ottavia is eponymous to the play but is hardly its protagonist or antagonist.
Nerone fills the stage when he is on, and his interlocutors hog what is left of the light.
Still, the play not only gives large roles to Ottavia, Poppea, Agrippina, and their respective nurses, but also returns again and again to the role of women in the history of the Julio-Claudians and in the history of Rome.
Instead of MALES as the driving forces behind history (but cfr. Ottavia's obsession with his dead father, CLAUDIO, and his dead brother, BRITANNICO), we repeatedly have women as the key and active elements in its unfolding.
Its very title suggests a play about Roman aristocrats and their status.
In place of a foundational moment of a family, the city, or a ritual, "Ottavia" gives us the grim dissolution of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the imperial "domus."
Instead of "celebration", we have an unrelentingly grim drama.
There is really nothing to "celebrate" in the "Ottavia" despite suggestions this was performed for Galba’s victories.
The "Ottavia" does not celebrate another "gens" or discuss the arrival of Octavia’s and Rome’s avenger (Galba or Vespasian would fit nicely in those roles) in triumphal terms but bleakly records the destruction of this one.
While you cannot get much more aristocratic than members of the imperial house, the sympathetic portrayal of the urban "populus romanus" and their ability to act on their own volition in a good cause and without being prompted bysome aristocratic leader is highly unusual - and not just for a "fabula praetexta".
This portrayal of the "plebs" is almost unique in Roman imperial literature.
Whiletheir positive portrayal here may be a traditional feature of the "fabula praetexta"
genre, which surely wanted to curry favour by presenting members of their audience in asympathetic light, most previous "fabulae praetextae" would presumably (if set on the battle-field) have shown a sympathetic portrait of the bravery of the Roman soldier or (if set in the city, like "Bruto") have shown a noble people of the long distant past rather than the present.
In showing the almost contemporary urban "plebs" as willing to fight in a good, although hopeless, cause, the "Ottavia" is unique.
Let us focus on the first, second, and third ways in which "Ottavia" plays with and subverts its genre.
First is the the Role of Women, or rather the sub-version of MASCULINITY.
In the "Octavia" women are not just the victims of history – though Ottavia is that in part.
While she tries to put on a more spirited front at 174-6, most of the time she just suffers patiently and volubly.
Interestingly, OTTAVIA is aware of her own passivity.
At line 59 Ottavia suggests Elettra as her tragic peer, only to acknowledge that the 'foreign' heroine could at least weep and avengeAgamemnon’s death.
Females are what drives it forward: NOTABLY AGRIPPINA!!
"OTTAVIA" focuses on mothers (not fathers) as impelling history forward.
Throughout the play, Octavia returns again and again to the subject of her mother, Messalina, much more so than her father -- and then there's NERONE's mother, AGRIPPINA, appearing as a ghost!
Ottavia mentions Messalina first, describing her as the first source (prima causa) of her troubles (11), as mothers usually are, as daughters go.
MESSALINA's blood is in Octavia’s veins, which are polluted by that connection according to Nerone, who refers to Messalina as an "incesta genetrix", unchaste mother (536), not to say a slut,
linking back to Octavia’s first reference to her mother as "genetrix" - though, of course, Nerone is not exactly an unbiased source and he has his own set of maternal (or as I prefer, 'motherly') issues.
In line 102, Octavia mentions her mother MESSALINA (of Messala fame) before her father CLAUDIO and brother BRITANNICO (genetrice caesa, per scelus rapto patre, orbata fratre) and later it is Messalina who is described as dragging the whole family down with her.
The nurse does counter this by representing Claudio at lines 137-42 as the first cause of the family’s downfall, but in the context of stressing the pointlessness of Octavia calling upon him for aid.
She also devotes a large portion of the rest of that speech to stressing Messalina’s crimes above all.
cecidit infelix parens, heu, nostra ferro meque perpetuo obruitextincta luctu; coniugem traxit suumnatumque ad umbras, prodidit lapsam domum, 266-69.
"My unlucky mother MESSALINA fell to the sword and by my mother's death she engulfed me in everlasting grief.
She dragged down her husband CLAUDIO and son BRITANNICO to the shades, she put our fallen house into danger.
This might seem just a typical Roman example of ‘blame the woman’ but it is worth noting that this drama is much more sympathetic to Messalina than anyother source we possess, and that fathers and brothers, while not absent from this story, are presented as impotent or unwilling to aid both by Octavia and her nurse.
Octavia dreams of her brother Britannico as an impotent ghost.
He is a frightened, not frightening, and a fleeing, not persecuting fury.
Britannico's hands are feeble ("infirmas", 118) and who is forced, terrified ("trepidus", 120), to seek refuge with her when his intended victim, Nerone, attacks him in turn (121-2).
AND OF COURSE THE LEAST MASCULINE is the former suitor to Ottavia, who to avoid Agrippina's threats, commits suicide!
Then, as Octavia calls upon her father CLAUDIO to save her, the nurse says that it is pointless to call on him – he will not bother to respond.
"It is futile to invoke your father’s spirit, poor girl, futile!"
"No concern for his offspring remains with him among the shades”.
Frustra parentis invocas manes tui miseranda, frustra, nulla cui prolissuae manet inter umbras cura,
137-9).
The anaphora of "frustra" drives home the pointlessness of expecting aid from that quarter even as the use of "tui" and "suae" stresses the familial relationship of daughter and father.
Noticeably, though, Agrippina is quite capable of appearing from the underworld to plot her revenge: she is the true "victrix" (155), not Claudio, even though he held the entire world and even the ocean under his "imperium" (38-40).
Dead mothers may clearly do what dead fathers cannot: make their will become history.
The problematic nature of Claudio’s power (stupidly poisoned by AGRIPPINA) as father after his death appears in later scenes also.
When Seneca tries to claim that Octavia is a worthy spouse for Nerone as she is born from one who is now a "god" (in a rather 'stupid' sense of 'god': the god's murderer deemed him a god ("genereta divo", 534), Nerone instantaneously twists that around to point out that her mother was a
"incesta genetrix" (slut) and that Octavia may have had another father.
The repeated use of "genetrix" is evident.
The word 'generatrix' is used eleven times in the play (10, 101, 153, 188, 259, 536, 635, 697, 722, 909, 947).
The repeated use of 'generatrix' and related words may also be an ironic commentary on VENERE as
"genetrix" of the Julian clan -- indeed, Poppea’s nurse uses the title "genetrix" for Venere at 697 --
This suggests the rot goes back to the beginning of the "gens", which is Roma's first gens – an unsettling notion.
Octavia herself blames VENERE for Messalina’s folly and downfall and thus her own situation at 257-61.
One wonders if there is some sort of response to Pomponio Secondo's "Enea" here.
The usage of the word "generatrix" also points to the key role that females play in the drama as essential to the beginning and continuation of a family and as key figures for understanding their children’s fates.
But in the "Ottavia" these are not women in the mold of Lucrezia.
Instead, these females are often monstrous mothers who have corrupted and destroyed the very families they helped create.
Like many other things in this drama they come in a doublet, thed ead Messalina and Agrippina, who both destroy their children.
Octavia herself blames VENERE for Messalina’s folly and downfall and thus her own situation at 257-61.
One wonders if there is some sort of response to Pomponio Secondo's "Enea" here.
Significantly, Agrippina is presented by self and others as a creator of history.
It is AGRIPPINA (title of melodramma by HAENDEL) who gave the throne to Nerone, according to Octavia.
Agrippina a woman will always bear that posthumous claim to fame throughout the ages”
Feret hunc titulum post fata tamen femina longo semper in aevo, 96-97.
While the use of "titulum" in a metaphoric sense is common in Ovid it is also tempting to see it as suggesting the public and almost inscriptional nature of Agrippina’s achievement, an achievement which her sontries to obliterate by "damnatio memoriae".
"OTTAVIA" presents the futility of his effort.
Agrippina’s deeds, good and bad, cannot be hidden from the world and even if her son NERONE obliterates her statues, this drama remains a record of her achievements past and future.
At line 335 the chorus of Roman citizens begins to run through the history of the imperial family and imagines itself as Agrippina, fusing their identities and hers by becoming her mouthpiece in a startling act of ventriloquism.
Describing her swim to shore after her famed encounter with Nerone’s collapsible boat, they present her as the focus of sympathetic bystanders who despite their fear render aid to their domina.
Mansit tacitis in pectoribusspreta tristi iam morte fides.
Multi dominae ferre auxilium pelago fractis viribus audentbracchia quamvis lenta trahentemvoce hortantur manibusque levant, 350-55.
Still there remains in people’s hearts an unspoken allegiance that scorns grim death.
Many make bold to render help to their lady, despite being weakened by the sea.
Although she drags her leadenarms, they rally her with cries, support her with their hands.
This is certainly a remarkable way to remember this particular piece of Julio-Claudian chicanery and it is certainly not how Tacito later will present the scene at "Annali" 14.5-8 with his Agrippina silently swimming to the shore.
In the "Octavia", Agrippina's desperate swim seems rather to evoke heroic parallels, such as Orazio COCLITE after the bridge making his way across the TEVERE, than to portray a mariticidal, incestuous, and disgraced dowager empress escaping from her son’scollapsible boat.
This entire chorus, the first of the play, is startling because of the way the past is made present.
It starts out normally enough, though in a melancholy fashion, with a lament for the lost values of ancient Rome.
True Roman manliness was found in our ancestors once.
The true heredity and blood of MARTE was in those men.
Vera priorum virtus quondam romana fuit uerumque genus Martis in illissanguisque uiris.,
291-93
-- a lament which applies both to the Roman people and to previous praetextae.
The chorus’s focus on Tarquin and later Lucretia and places Octavia firmly within the Roman
praetexta tradition.
The chorus goes on with a standard list of great moments in Republican history (all of which one could imagine furnishing great plots for "fabulae praetextae", and one of which – the rape of Lucrezia – did) but with a twist.
The chorus's emphasis is on the dead women as much as or more than the men who avenge them or whom they are connected with.
Ultique tuos sunt bene manesvirgo dextra caesa parentisne servitium paterere grave etimproba ferret praemia victrixdira libido.
Te quoque bellum triste secutum est,mactata tua, miseranda, manu,nata Lucreti,stuprum saevi passa tyranni.
Dedit infandi sceleris poenascum Tarquinio Tullia coniunx,quae per caesi membra parentisegit saevos impia curruslaceroque seni violenta rogosnata negavit.
(295-307)
It was they who drove the proud kings out of this city, and later avenged your spirit well and truly, maiden slain by your father’s hand, to prevent you from suffering grievous slavery, and monstrous lust from gaining its shameless prize in triumph.
Civil war ensued from your death too, daughter of Lucretius, when you died by your own hand, pitiful woman, after suffering the brutal tyrant’s lust.
Along with Tarquin, Tullia his wife was punished for unspeakable crime: cruelly, unnaturally, she drove her chariot overher slaughtered father’s body, and refused the torn old man (savage daughter) a funeral pyre.
According to these "exempla", virtus and the great moments of Roman history need the bodies of dead women to prove themselves.
There is a decided twist by the author on his model, which is Livio.
This section relies on Livio’s narrative extensively, even using some of the same language.
Instead of heroic men avenging the honour or punishing the misdeeds of women, you only have the women.
But just as the chorus earlier described Octavia not by name but as Claudia proles (278), so "Lucrezia" is "nata Lucreti", Lucrezio's daughter), and Virginia is "virgo caesa".
The only female who is named is Tullia, hardly much of a role model.
One gets the uneasy sense that more fame attends the evil woman more than the good.
Tullia is here as Agrippina’s historical predecessor and model.
But if T.P. Wiseman is right about the existence of a "fabula praetexta" with a role for Tullia, it is possible that she is also in part her dramatic predecessor and model.
It is possible that this entire list could have been inspired by other, now lost, "praetextae".
We know that Lucretia appeared in at least one (the "Bruto").
Whycould not the rest be also have been characters with small roles in other dramas?
However, even if one cannot subscribe to this notion, at the very least it is startling that the author uses a male chorus to focus on the role of women in Roman history rather than on men, topping his list off with an active and evil female.
That is certainly fitting because the most active female in this play is not Octavia or even her rival Poppea, who is also somewhat passive.
Though Poppea is consistently blamed by Octavia as being one of the true sources of her problems and described at 125-29 as the reason for Agrippina’s death, Poppea is not actually presented as that unsympathetic a character, especially in comparison to Nerone who is actively evil.
Poppea's sceneis a doublet of Octavia’s opening one, complete with nurse and horrific dreams at 711-39) and she even gets her own sympathetic, second chorus.
The most active female in the play is the dead Agrippina.
AGRIPPINA, and not Claudio, drags herself back from hell to put in a special appearance, although it is his "manes" which are called upon by his daughter Ottavia (134-6), she is the one the chorus mentions people standing by trying to save, she is
Nerone’s maker, and going by her words, his breaker.
When the ghost of Agrippina herself appears she first complains that he rewarded her services ("meritum") with oblivion.
Obrui meritum cupitsimulacra, titulos destruit memores meitotum per orbem quem dedit poenam in meam puero regendum noster infelix amor.
(610-13)
"NERONE wants to destroy my services, throws down the statues and inscriptions that bear my memory throughout the world, the world that my unfortunate love gave him as a boy to rule, to my harm.
She later claims that by giving birth to Nerone, a child who turned into a monster, she inadvertently cut him off from his glorious male kin in the underworld (640-3).
According to AGRIPPINA, if Nerone had died in the womb she would have joined them there.
Ironically, in being a successful mother, in giving birth to the son who should represent a family’s future she has destroyed herself – and her domus.
Her love is "infelix" (613) in a double sense.
At lines 369-70, the chorus also picks up the paradoxical nature of Agrippina’s infelicity by
following their description of her as "infelix" with "utero".
Her love is unfortunate for her and ultimately unproductive, because it means the end of the dynasty and even of Nerone’s ties with his birth family.
Nerone becomes untethered to his past, without any connection to his family and his father, as in a series of paradoxes his survival brings about his own alienation from his family’s history, his birth begets her death and her death begets his destruction – as she returns a vengeful ghost, to ensure his downfall.
As with Messalina, it is the mother who destroys the family utterly.
Next comes what is almost the chorus's last act on stage.
Actually, it is their second to last chorus. The drama ends in 980 with a short final chorus.
In the their second to last intervention, the chorus recaps the history of the Julio-Claudians "gens", presented through the unfortunate lives of their women.
Manuwald uniquely gives these lines to the second chorus of the play, the one that is sympathetic to Poppea.
Tu mihi primumtot natorum memoranda parensnata Agrippae, nurus Augusti, Caesaris uxor, cuius nomen clarum toto fulsit in orbe, -utero totiens enixa gravi pignora pacis,mox exilium,verbera, saevas passa catenas,funera, luctus,tandem letum cruciata diu.
Felix thalamis Livia Drusinatisque ferum ruit in facinus poenamque suam.
Iulia matris fata secuta est: post longa tamen tempora ferrocaesa est, quamvis crimine nullo.
Quid non potuit quondam genetrixtua quae rexit principis aulamcara marito partuque potens?
Eadem famulo subiecta suocecidit diri militis ense.
Quid cui licuit regnum caelisperare, parens tanta Neronis?
Non funesta violata manu/remigis ante,mox et ferro lacerata diu saevi iacuit victima nati? 932-956.
You are the first I must mention, mother of so many children, daughter of Agrippa, Augustus’ daughter-in-law, wife of a Caesar, you whose name shone bright throughout the world, whose teeming womb so often bore pledges of peace, but who suffered exile, lashes, cruel chains, grief, bereavement, and death at long last, after long torment.
Livia, blessed in marriage to Drusus and in children, rushed into callous crime and the punishment due. Juliafollowed her mother’s fate."
Though many years later, she was put to the sword, despite being charged with nothing.
What power was in your mother’s hands earlier, when she ruled the emperor’s court through her mother’s affection and her status as a mother!
Yet even she became subject to her slave and fell to a brutal soldier’s sword.
What of her who could once aspire to the throne and heaven, Nerone’s exalted mother?
Did she not suffer at the murderous handsof sailors first, then a long mangling by the sword, dying as asacrifice to her savage son?
First on the chorus’ list is Agrippina the elder ("nata Agrippae"), the wife of Germanico– who had the dubious honor of giving the world both Caligula and Agrippina the Younger, then Livia Julia the wife of Drusus, Tiberius’ son, followed by her daughter Julia, before they finally end with Messalina and Agrippina the Younger.
This list of fallen imperial women is appropriate to the context – the play is about the fall of Octavia, after all - but it is also more than that.
There are two things worth noting.
First, good women and bad women are rolled in together, as they were in the earlier chorus on famous women of early Rome.
It can be argued that this is modeled on the Sophoclean chorus’ use of historical exempla to comfort Antigona at "Antigona" 929-987.
This explains why Ottavia’s author has positive and negative "exempla".
Without dismissing the possibility of Sophoclean influence, some are not sure it is necessary to posit a 'foreign' model behind this particular scene.
Instead, it may be meant to as a pair for the chorus’s earlier list of famous, dead Roman women.
This chorus surely acts as a doublet for that earlier one, suggesting that all of these imperial women could, like Ottavia, furnish plots for "fabulae praetextae".
Second, the chorus is also interested in these women as mothers.
Their status as mothers and their fertility, where possible, is stressed.
This makes them very unlike Octavia, divorced for barrenness.
They do what a good Roman woman does.
They help continue the lines, but in doing so they are destroyed or destroy that which they helped to create: the family.
If one looks at the long list of imperial women in the chorus described above, this almost functions as an "elogia" for the females of this family.
The whole catalogue of " exempla" seems to have a self-consciously‘epitaphic’, monumental feel.
Men vanish from this text, to be replaced by what resembles an elegy for failed motherhood and afailed family.
Lastly, as is appropriate for a "fabula praetexta", these lines invoke the past, but only as a sequence of negative examples that seem to go back to the beginning of this "gens", and they invoke a past that is all about women.
According to this chorus, bad things have happened to imperial women from the early days of the Julio-Claudians.
In an earlier scene the prefect asked Nerone of whether a woman can take the name of enemy, "hostis" (864).
Nerone and "Ottavia" answer that question with a resounding yes.
For as we see from this list and that of the women of early Rome, women can be both heroes and villains of their own dramas, even if their dramas, their "fabulae praetextae", remain un-written – with the exception of this one.
"Ottavia" is a drama on the unfounding of a family.
We may now move to a *SECOND* way in which the "Ottavia" reverses the norms of its genre, the way it deals with the unfounding and dissolution of a family and not its foundational moment.
To point out the obvious, this is a drama about the end of the imperial family.
After Nerone goes, whose fall is predicted and anticipated within the play and which has occurred by the date of the drama, there is no one else to hand off to and no more of this imperial
domus.
Ottavia's nurse opens the theme of the destroyed imperial house and family with almost her first words on stage.
“Behold the overthrow of Claudio’s house, just now supremely powerful”
modo praepotentem cernat eversam domum stirpemque Claudi -- 37-8.
While Ottavia points out her role as the end-point of this dynasty by describing herself as “the shadow of a mighty name” ("magni nominis umbra", 71).
By echoing Lucano’s description of Pompeo (BC1.135; on this and other allusions to Pompeo in the play), a description which paints him as an already dead oak which only stands until the next storm, she shows her awareness of herself as the last member of an already dead dynasty.
It may be pointed out that "nomen" here means family.
Ottavia does not so much see herself as the last survivor of Claudio’s family as much as the walking dead.
She knows that she and Julio-Claudians have no future.
Ironically, Nerone does his best to ensure that the imperial "domus" will continue even as he destroys it.
When he talks about Poppea, Nerone refers to her as someone who is suitable both for beauty and ancestry ("genere atque forma", 545) and as one who will continue the line of the Caesars as Ottavia is barren and she is pregnant.
This is line 591, his second to last line before the end of his and Seneca’s scene – and is spoken just before Agrippina’s appearance, an appearance which gives the lie to his hopes.
But the ambition to continue Nerone's line is doomed.
Agrippina wills herself from the underworld to proclaim that Nerone will NOT escape unharmed, and from the perspective of any reader of this play her will has been accomplished.
AGRIPPINA undoes NERONE, the emperor she created, much as she had undone CLAUDIO before him and the whole family vanishes crushed under the weight of its burden of guilt and sin.
"Ottavia" is, also, anti-celebratory.
The "Octavia" is a profoundly UNcelebratory play in more than one way.
"Ottavia" marks NOT a transition between generations, a victory which brings renown, or even heroic self-sacrifice, but the dissolution of a family and the destruction of not only its titular heroine but also the entire Julian-Claudian dynasty.
There is no winner presented to us in "Ottavia"
Nerone’s victory is only temporary and "Ottavia" reminds us of that by foretelling Nerone's eventual death with great detail.
The actions of the loyal "populus romanus" are pointless, as they themselves acknowledge in their penultimate chorus (924-957), and all they can find to solace Ottavia with are doomed "exempla" (929) of Roman imperial motherhood, exempla whose children also came to ill-omened ends.
Depending on one’s emendation of 967, "Ottavia" may take an even darker tone.
If one leaves the text as transmitted, Ottavia curses her own father CLAUDIO in a moment of utter despair, an action which would fit in with the nihilistic end of the play.
However, to leave the text as transmitted involves not only accepting an abrupt change of heart towards her father CLAUDIO on the part of Ottavia, but also metrical anomalies.
Even more tellingly for the UNcelebratory nature of "Ottavia" , no coming avenger is celebrated and the only hint of one is given by Agrippina, who presents him as her agent.
Even if one takes the nurse’s comment at 255 as an allusion to the rebellion of Vindex and the ultimate destruction of Nerone, it is undercut by the fact that no “laetus dies" ("happy day”, 256) will or can come for Octavia.
Nerone’s death is thus presented as coming from Agrippina's desire for vengeance (618), not as punishment for killing Ottavia.
If "Ottavia" was written for Galba in an attempt to get rid of the popular memory of Nerone by reminding them of his treatment of Ottavia, it is hard to see why the author would make this choice.
And, in all honesty, it is hard to see "Ottavia" as capable of functioning as part of any celebration.
A play performed at a celebration does not necessarily need to be celebratory, of course.
Vario Rufo’s "Tieste" was performed at the celebrations for Actium (There is also a TIESTE by Seneca).
Although in that case it can be argued that Vario Rufo (unlike SENECA) did not dramatize the cannibalistic feast but the more suitable story of Tieste’s restoration to the throne of Argos and the murder of Atreo, a slightly happier story, if you are not Atreo.
However, regardless of whether one accepts this reconstruction or not, it is notable that no one decided to celebrate Actium with a tale of Roman woe reminding the Roman people of losses in the Civil Wars, though subject matter was not lacking and one could certainly also rouse the people there to greater hatred of MARCANTONIO by staging some of his misdeeds -- cfr. the film with Elizabeth Taylor).
Its final line is: “Rome delights in its citizens’ blood”.
Civis gaudet Roma cruore", 982.
This last line reeks of despair and leaves little space for optimism.
There is no sense of triumph or even of hope that if the emperor does fall that the result is going to be good for anyone– what you get if Nerone goes is more chaos and bloodshed, not less.
Nerone himself has already reminded the audience of the blood that was shed in the civil wars at the end of the Republic, also personifying Rome as a spectator watching its own bloodshed ("quantum cruoris Roma tum vidit sui", 503), a personification that the final line echoes.
It also reminds us both of the tainted blood of the Julio-Claudians and the real blood that is shed in civil wars, in the transition of power from one dynasty to another.
While the audience may be watching stage blood flow, it is not allowed to forget the real blood spilt in Rome’s past.
In addition, it also gets in a parting shot at the pleasure to be gained from watching both real and dramatic re-enactments of historical tragedies.
Surely "civis gaudet Roma cruore" is meant to be a comment on spectators who enjoy reading and watching things like "fabula praetextae", a reminder that the audience has been enjoying this reenactment of the end of the Julio-Claudians -- Octavia herself ironically calls the day of Nerone’s wedding to Poppaea ‘festal’ ("festo", 646), the very sort of day which would be traditionally attended by theatrical performances --, as other audiences probably enjoyed watching Bruto put an end to the kings and Lucrezia killing herself.
But while a Republican "fabula prae-texta" may have had blood, it was the blood of Rome’s enemies or Roman blood shed to protect Rome.
In "OTTAVIA", on the other hand, we are spectators of noble Romans destroying and killing other noble Romans purely for our macabre entertainment.
In its last line, the "Octavia" finally turns upon us and questions the enjoyment it itself provides.
With its bleak ending, the "Octavia" refuses to complete the function for which the "fabula prae-texta" was originally designed.
"Ottavia" will not celebrate that which it is impossible to celebrate.
It defies you to stage it, let alone re-stage it.
And that is that.
**********************
REFERENCES
Boyle, A. "An Introduction to Roman Tragedy."
London: Routledge.
Octavia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Erasmo, M.
"Roman Tragedy: Theatre to Theatricality".
Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
Ferri, R.
"Octavia: a play attributed to Seneca."
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
“Octavia and the Roman Dramatic Tradition”
in Wilson.
Fitch, J.
"Seneca: Tragedies."
Cambridge, MA.
"Annaeana Tragica: Notes on the Text of Seneca’s Tragedies", Leiden: Brill.
Flower, H. "Fabulae Praetextae in Context: when were plays on Contemporary Subjects Performed in Republican Rome?", Classical Quarterly 45.
FLOWER, H. "Response to Kragelund" Symbolae Osloenses 77.
Goldberg, Sander. M. “Authorising Octavia" in Wilson.
GOLDBERG, S. "Reading Roman tragedy." International Journal of the Classical Tradition
13:
Harrison, G. "Forms of Inter-textuality in the "Ottavia". in Wilson.
Herington, C. "Ottavia pretesta: a survey."
Classical Quarterly 11:18-30.
Kragelund, P.
"Prophecy, Populism, and Propaganda in the 'Ottavia'. Copenhagen.
"Historical Drama in Ancient Rome:
Republican Flourishing and Imperial Decline?".
Symbolae Osloenses 77.
Lefèvre, E.
"Der Thyestes des Lucio Varo Rufo". Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner
Marshall, C. "Response to Kragelund". Symbolae Osloenses 77.
MILLER, Frank Justus, LLD. Seneca's Tragedies. Introduction to OTTAVIA.
Park Poe, J. "Octavia Praetexta and Its Senecan Model."
American Journalof Philology 110.
Smith, J. “Flavian Drama: Looking Back with Octavia”
in Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text, ed. A. Boyle and W. Dominik, Leiden:Brill.
Whitman, L. "Octavia", introduction, Text, and Commentary. Bern: P.Haupt.
Wilson, M. Ed. "The Tragedy of Nerone's Wife." "Studies on the Octavia Praetexta".
Polygraphia: Auckland. -- “The Importance of Being Octavia” in Wilson.
Wiseman, T. P.
"Historiography and Imagination: eight essays on Roman Culture".
Exeter: University of Exeter Press.
"Roman Drama and Roman History", University of Exeter
Press.
-- Response to Kragelund. Symbolae Osloenses 77.
-- Response to Kragelund. Symbolae Osloenses 77.
Zorzetti, Nevio, "Le pretesta e il teatro latino arcaico". Napoli:
Liguori.
No comments:
Post a Comment