Hercules Furens

Transformation of Hercules in Senecas’ Hercules Furens: a conflict of his soul

Focusing on Hercules’ way of action in the play, in this paper the three stages of psychological development through which the hero passes, trying to define and conquer virtue, will be argued. The hero’s soul development constitutes an arduous process of transformation of his psyche, ethical values and philosophical vision.

At the beginning of the play, Hercules is portrayed as the archetypical hero who utilizes his physical strength and offers his divine status in the service of humankind. The secondary characters of this play -until the hero’s first entrance- praise him as an agent of justice and omnipotence, as he has even exceeded the limits of Nature. The transformation process begins, as the hero, based on the opinions of others, displays an unrealistic opinion of himself.

After his return from the Underworld, a labor that catalyzes the laws of Nature in the most impressive way, Hercules is converted to a vengeful, violent, self-centered, arrogant and mentally disturbed character and does not hesitated to claim his immortality, but also to perform a heinous crime. He cannot manage the worship of people and the magnitude of his fame, and loses his mental balance. His final madness
is not a divine punishment because he dared to overcome the physical limits or because the hubris he commits, while rivaling the gods; his furor is presented by Seneca as a result of the incorrect view that Hercules formed for virtue as a physical strength and not as the power to deal with emotions and the enforcement of passions.

In other words, it will be argued that Hercules is destroyed by his own inability to control his emotions, and only at the end of the play he realizes his madness and his guilt. For the last time he is transformed from an exemplum of external strength to an exemplum of internal strength of self-cognition, wisdom and stoic emotional restraint and combination of Reason and Passion in the human soul.

Although the article is in English, abstracts in this journal are in French:
Le rapport entre les tragédies de Sénèque et la philosophie est un sujet canonique de recherche. Ici nous abordons ce lien à travers l’étude de l’Hercules Furens, qui suscite deux questions importantes. D’abord, quelle est la nature de la santé mentale, et de quelle manière est-elle reliée aux exploits, crimes, délires, et besoins d’expiation d’Hercule? Deuxièmement, quels sont les liens entre la santé mentale et les Dieux, au regard notamment de l’hostilité de Juno? Dans la première partie de cet article une réponse sera donnée du point de vue stoïcien. Dans cette perspective, la démence du héros doit être comprise comme le résultat de jugements erronés, qui sont au cœur de son crime, sa souffrance, et son aliénation à Jupiter. Cette explication est cependant incomplète, puisqu’elle n’éclaire ni le délire d’Hercule ni la haine de la déesse. Dans la deuxième partie de cet article, une réponse sera par conséquent donnée du point de vue d’une philosophie contemporaine. Bernard Stiegler propose que les relations entre les pensées et les sentiments soient plus complexes que les stoïciens ne le croient, surtout en ce qui concerne le pouvoir de «faire attention»; il suppose que l’ «esprit» qui pense et ressent soit étendu à l’environnement; et il intègre à ce système «spirituel» des entités plus ambiguës que le Dieu stoïcien, bien qu’il ne les examine pas suffisamment en détail. Sa philosophie nous permet donc d’expliquer le délire, le crime, et le besoin d’expiation comme des éléments d’un écosystème plus large, qui incluent non seulement les pensées et les passions, mais également les relations personnelles, les mains et les armes, les idéaux et les Dieux. Ainsi nous pouvons clarifier à la fois le rapport de Juno au démence du héros et la spiritualité invoquée par Stiegler. En conclusion, le rapport entre la tragédie de Sénèque et la philosophie est dynamique et réflexif: l’Hercules Furens porte à la scène une vision qui peut s’expliquer partiellement par le stoïcisme ou la philosophie de Bernard Stiegler; en même temps, elle révèle les limites de ces systèmes doctrinaux.

The article deals with an image of the heroic self in Seneca’s Hercules as well as with maternal images
(Alcmena, Juno and Megara), using psychoanalytic methodology involving identification of complementary
self-object relationships. Hercules’ self seems to be construed mainly in an omnipotent, narcissistic fashion,
whereas the three images of mothers reflect show the interaction between love and aggression in the play. The article published in Symbolae Philologorum Posnaniensium Graecae et Latinae 23, 1 (2013), pp. 103-128. The text placed in the online repository of the AMU: https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/jspui/handle/10593/12187

The aim of the article is, firstly, to analyse the relationship between the Hercules Furens and the Hercules Oetaeus by focusing on the analogies between their dramaturgy. The study proceeds from the correspondences in the general dramatic structure to those in specific sequences of the two plays and finally to some meaningful verbal references examined within their dramatic context. Secondly, its purpose is to compare the general meaning of the two tragedies, in order to show that the Oetaeus was composed along the lines of the Furens, but according to a different ideology, and thus it is not likely to be a work by Seneca himself.

G. Aricò, Premessa
M. Rivoltella, Parodia di un paradigma comportamentale eroico in Plaut. Amph. 252, pp. 5-14
S. Stucchi, La sublime veemenza della tragedia di Accio: analisi retorica di alcuni frammenti, pp. 15-39
R. Degl'Innocenti Pierini, La tragedia nelle Tuscolane di Cicerone tra esemplarità e terapia: riflessioni in margine agli Inferi a teatro, pp. 41-64
G. Garbarino, Il teatro nelle epistole di Cicerone, pp. 65-86
M. von Albrecht, Riflessione virgiliana sul tragico, pp. 87-93
E. Malaspina, I fondali teatrali nella letteratura latina (Riflessioni sulla scaena di Aen. I 159-169), pp. 95-123
G. Aricò, La maschera e il volto. Orazio, ars 86 ss., pp. 125-143
G. A. Celano, La satura di Ennio e la satura di Livio : l’ipotesi dei carmina convivalia serio-comico-parodici, pp. 145-158
G. Petrone, Modelli drammatici per la retorica, pp. 159-170
J. Dangel, Sénèque ou la tragédie revisitée: dérivation des genres et tensions idéologiques en manifeste culturel, pp. 171-192
G. Mazzoli, La riflessione di Seneca sul teatro nello specchio dell'Hercules furens, pp. 193-207
R. Gazich, Ostendere e demonstrare: valenze metateatrali di un’intenzione precettistica in Seneca, pp. 209-227
T. Pellucchi, Il prologo della Medea come paradigma teatrale, pp. 229-251
E. Lefèvre, Petrons Kritik an dem Tragiker Seneca (Sat. 88-89), pp. 253-262
F. Caviglia, Il dialogus de oratoribus e il teatro, pp. 263-278
R. Mauri, Atellane e spettacoli paraletterari nelle Satire di Giovenale, pp. 279-285
G. Galimberti Biffino, Le citazioni del teatro in Aulo Gellio: riflessioni su finalità e metodo, pp. 287-301
G. Bocchi, An exspectas ut Quintilianus ametur? (Iuv. 6, 75) : antiesemplarità del teatro in ottica satirica, pp. 303-313
Ch. Riboldi, Quaenam ista iocandi saevitia?  Teatro e parodia nell’in Eutropium di Claudiano, pp. 315-333
Jü. Blänsdorf, Vom moralischen Laster zum Untergang des römischen Reiches: Salvian von Massilia (de gubernatione dei, L. VI) als Kritiker der heidnischen Schauspiele, pp. 335-348
L. Castagna, Sidonio e la palliata, pp. 349-356

The critics who wrote about Hercules Furens are either convinced that the main character is a persecuted, tragic hero, or a self-centered narcissist. The approach taken in this paper corroborates the latter interpretation, but does not focus entirely on Hercules, but also takes into consideration relationships between his heroic self image and other figures, namely, maternal characters of Alcmena, Juno and Megara. Hercules’ grandiosity is revealed not only in his hubristic self-glorification, but also in his fantasies about revenge and suicide, which have particular self-centered character. He is also presented by Seneca as emotionally shallow and unable to reciprocate love. Alcmena functions in the play as an ‘absent mother’, whose meaning is denied or repressed, which can be understood in relationship to Hercules’ omnipotent self that is not dependent on anyone. Juno, on the other hand, is very much present, but she is similar to ‘wicked stepmothers’of folktales. Her bond with Her...

The goal of this article is to analyze the construction of space in Seneca’s Hercules Furens. It argues that the tragedy establishes a multi-tiered structural analogy among three conceptual domains — 1) the world of supernatural myth, which cannot be ‘shown’ on stage and which, for that reason, is described in rhetorically overblown ekphrastic passages, 2) the visually perceptible world of the stage action, and 3) the abstract world of ‘human life’. These three conceptual domains form an imaginary hybrid space within which philosophically relevant thought is not so much formulated as staged, thereby producing an emotionally powerful — and potentially transformative — effect on the recipient. In addition to offering a new interpretation of Hercules Furens, this article thus sheds some important light on the vexed issue of the philosophical intent of Senecan tragedy in general.