Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emotions are an important part of Lucius Annaeus Seneca's (4 BCE -65 CE) oeuvre, since for him the aim of philosophy is to free the proficiens from fear (metus, timor) and hope (spes, cupiditas).In this study I analyze how fear and hope can be read in Senecan Epistles and selected tragedies (e.g.Ep. 5; Tro.399) within the frame of the Stoic theory of emotions.I examine both genres in their own specificities, i.e. as philosophical epistolography and Roman tragedy, highlighting as the tie between both the themes of fear and hope.After an Introduction displaying the state of the art, the first Chapter of the study takes into consideration the Stoic theory of emotions and how in this aspect Seneca is consistent with the Ancient Stoa.Seneca uncovers in his Epistles several precise descriptions of emotional states and instantiates the difference between emotion (adfectus) and illnesses of the mind (morbus, uitium).In the second Chapter, devoted to the Senecan plays Troades, Oedipus and Medea, I centralize Senecan tragic characters and their internal struggles: for this reason, there I examine their emotions and demonstrate how the text can guide the audience into a journey through the self-construction and self-transformation of the tragic protagonists.In the third Chapter, through an attentive analysis of Senecan rhetorical and sententious technique in the Epistles, I illustrate how his dramatic style is strictly connected to his pedagogical plan for his addressee.Consequently, the study of the emotions of fear and hope showcases the limits and possibilities of a dialogue between tragedies and Epistles, revealing a Senecan understanding of the self and his techniques of self-construction and self-transformation as distinctive features of both his poetry and prose.I conclude on one side that Seneca's Epistles are a dramatized journey of a proficiens with a writing technique poetically informed.On the other side, I argue that his view on language and poetry reveals how tragedy and philosophy can be linked in different ways from what is commonly understood -and that the roles of hope and fear in his work are an example of this.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.071 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".