(p. 149)
This speech in many ways proves Phaedra to be true to the moral code she professed from the beginning. The assertion she can never look Theseus in the eye is designed to resonate due to Phaedra�s earlier statement that she loathed any woman who �can share their husbands beds and meet their eyes without shuddering� but dare the worst behind their backs� (p. 141). Therefore, while Euripides� Phaedra exhibits several moments of emotional frailty, her keen moral sense prevents her from ever fully giving in to her passion and proves the crucial motivation behind her suicide. Even at her lowest point when she abdicates control to her Nurse, her fault is a passive one, and that is largely excused by the divine and family explanations expressed before. Certainly, in addition to the other characters of the play, Euripides� helps assemble a structure whereby �the characters, like the situation, have a larger dimension of meaning than the purely dramatic� (Knox ) through his presentation. We are moved, but also encouraged to take a more objective viewpoint through a framing device that places our attention not just simply on the outcome of Phaedra�s story, but how she arrived there.
Seneca�s Phaedra, most likely written around 50 A.D., draws heavily on the legacy of Greek drama, especially Euripides� plays, but takes a radically different approach. E.F. Watling�s assertion, which is at least interesting as a starting-point when examining Seneca�s presentation of Phaedra, is that: �Seneca all but ignores the moral conflict inherent in tragic drama� what gives his plays their momentum is the ruthlessness with which a disastrous event is pursued: their descriptive power and idiosyncratic poetic style provide a strange and striking drama� . The debate as to whether Seneca�s plays were ever intended for the stage or rather the recital hall is one that rages still today . Nevertheless, his re-interpretation of the character of Phaedra is striking in both what it owes and how it diverges from Euripides� creation.
Arguably most noteworthy is Seneca�s primary use of a �monocentric� structure: the verbalisation of emotion by individual characters is at the forefront of his work. Beforehand however, it is important to note the specific changes in the narrative Seneca chose to make in relation to the character of Phaedra. Firstly, the gods so significant in Euripides are conspicuous by their absence. Secondly, Phaedra makes her confession directly to Hippolytus. Thirdly, after her rejection, Phaedra talks with Theseus and alleges rape. Finally, Phaedra�s suicide only takes place after Hippolytus� death and through the use of his own sword in the presence of Theseus. All of these changes help Seneca construct a Phaedra whose origins lie in Euripides, yet who is a distinctly new creation.
Seneca�s Phaedra, like Euripides�, cites both her lineage and the gods as responsible for her passion for Hippolytus: �Is this the unhappy spell / That bound my mother, my unhappy mother� (p. 103) directly recalls Euripides� Phaedra�s lament �O mother, my poor Mother, what a terrible passion seized you� (p. 139). Similarly, Seneca�s Phaedra identifies a divine figure behind her passion: �What is this passion for woods and fields� This comes from Venus� (p. 103) much as Euripides� Phaedra does. Yet, while she mourns the power of passion she feels, unlike her Greek predecessor, she is ultimately unwilling to fight it. The concern for s�phrosure so evident in Euripides appears almost entirely absent and extraneous to both the play�s action and Phaedra�s character. Nearly the whole of the first act involves the Nurse actively trying to placate and reverse Phaedra�s unquenchable passion (a reversal of the situation in Hippolytus), and whereas almost all of Phaedra�s speech in Euripides was concerned with attempting self-discipline, in Seneca there is a distinct sense of a figure who has already consciously surrendered to her passion:
Unreason drives me into evil.
I walk upon the brink with open eyes;
Wise counsel calls, but I cannot turn back
To hear it; when a sailor tries to drive
His laden vessel counter to the tides,
His toil is all in vain, his helpless ship
Swims at the mercy of the current. Reason?...
What good can reason do? Unreason reigns
Supreme, a potent god commands my heart,
The invincible winged god, who rules all earth,
Who strikes and scorches Jove with his fierce fire.
The God of War has felt that flame; the forger
Of triple thunderbolts himself has felt it;
The feeder of the never-sleeping furnace
In Etna�s depths can feel this tiny flame�
(p. 105)
The above speech is characteristic of Phaedra�s in the first act: the impression of active moral debate evident in Euripides (see especially Phaedra�s address to the Ladies of Trozen, p. 140) has been replaced with a highly rhetorical declamation. C.D.N. Costa�s observes that �Seneca concentrates on the formulation of arguments by which passionate individuals in conflict justify themselves� . This extract is noteworthy more for its artfulness, its justification of a perspective through systematic images that build from familiar classical similes of sea navigation (the individual attempting to steer a correct path ) to a metaphor regarding passion as destructive fire which affects even the very Gods who create it.
This isn�t to say Seneca�s Phaedra completely ignore the claims of �honour�: the Nurse�s repeated entreaties to �stop this folly� (p. 108) finally provokes a reaction: �Well, have your way. Shame and nobility / Live in me still. If love will not obey, / It must be vanquished; honour shall be kept / Unstained� (p. 108). But the sense of the concept of s�phrosure (or something resembling it) having a pivotal, central importance that lies behind all Phaedra�s words and actions in Euripides is notably absent; the fulfilment of honourable duty is looked on with almost grudging disdain, a last resort to cling to and rationalise the possible act of suicide. As Coffey observes, in this instance �formal rhetoric is briefly subordinated to dramatic action� . Euripides� Phaedra could never have said what Seneca�s proposes: �I may perhaps conceal my sin in marriage. / Success can justify some evil actions� (p. 121); evident rather is a latent, earthly pragmatism (or, as Costa puts it �a cold intellectuality� ) disassociated from any deeply held morality. One can relate to Tobin�s suggestion that �Seneca has created her vigorous, passionate to the point of lacking the dignity of the Greek counterpart� .
