???

[quinara]

Why on earth would you decide to write a book on Senecan tragedy when you're going to close your second chapter with this -

The greatest need in the criticism of this drama is to understand its legitimacy as drama of a new kind in the ancient tradition. It cannot be explained as an inferior imitation of Greek tragedy because, though inferior, it is not imitative in the strict sense of the word and has its own nature and motivation.

I'm talking to you, Norman T. Pratt (author of Seneca's Drama in 1982). How bored were you that you didn't write about a subject you thought actually had merit? Seriously. You twerp.

Comments

Re: well...

[quinara]

he thinks it's different

I think that's where I am too. If you gave me a choice I'd probably see a production of Aeschylus' Agamemnon over Seneca's, but it wouldn't be because I think Seneca's is "worse". I mean, I'm working on his Medea the moment and in some ways it's much more interesting to study than Euripides', but does that make it better? I'm not sure.

I suppose his tone could be apologetic, but it seems a rather obtuse way for him to give himself an out. Why apologise to those people who are going to rubbish you for even bothering to write a book on a subject? There was definitely another audience to be had; I've read several pieces published around the same time on Neronian literature.