It’s not that I didn’t like it, maybe I was just a little disappointed (not that I had any right to be). I love Seneca’s Roman sensibilities mixed with his stoic philosophy, a constant in his plays, although perhaps here it felt somewhat misdirected at Phaedra. I have criticised works trying to remove any fault or blame from her, as I firmly believe she is morally grey and ultimately acted out of spite, but in this she is too much of a villain. Lingering on the evil stepmother trope didn’t help in that. The notion that Phaedra was destined to act against the laws of nature like her mother, plus the role of the nurse, who kept pushing her towards being more evil just make her feel too cartoonish.

That is not to say that the writing isn’t beautiful, or that it doesn’t have its moments. I really enjoyed the depiction of Theseus, not a flawless hero, back after having sinned of hubris by going into the underworld, tired and betrayed by the people around him, tricked into killing his son. He’s tragic but there’s no justification for his wrongdoings, which are named and shamed. 

Hippolytus is not the gay icon he was in Euripides, he just mostly hates women. At least he’s kind enough to remove himself from the situations he dislikes, but the nurse of all people just taunting him and pushing him under the bus is just unfortunate. He’s tragic because he’s tainted by somebody else’s sin. 

The removal of the prevalent role of the gods makes for interesting dynamics, but it also makes everyone suck more. Phaedra lacks the power of Medea (the play), the deeper meanings, the modern sensibilities. It’s good but it’s not perfect.

Reflected on it. Wrote the below:

Hippolytus rejects the wealth and luster of his birthright, and thinks instead it is a “joy to taste fresh water from naked hands”, to sleep rough and live off the land. But at the core of his condemnation of society, wealth, property, and militarism, is a condemnation of women as “the root of all evil.” Men, he implies, are naturally innocent creatures, manipulated into evil by womens’ scheming. He doesn’t make any specific reference, but that perspective, in my view, harkens images of Eve and the Snake.
If you consider when Seneca wrote “Phaedra”, it makes sense for this character, specifically, to have a potentially Christian viewpoint. Seneca was mentor to Nero, the emperor who organized a persectution of Christians in Rome. And in this text, written some fifteen years prior, Seneca gives us a Christianized character, and literally tears him apart. It’s a wise use of theatre’s intrinsic symbolism. A christian, an Incel, any American man really, might read or watch “Phaedra” and see in Hippolytus an innocent man, manipulated by his stepmother, falsely accused of rape, and essentially murdered. But I think Seneca was using the character to demonstrate a fallacy of Christian thought; I think it was intentional to have Hippolytus condemn women before interacting with Phaedra. The nurse urges him to enjoy life by drinking, playing, and having sex. He denies it all, and when his stepmother entreats him to her bed, he runs away to nature, hoping it will purify him.
Seneca chose to make Hippolytus’ beauty immediate, physical, and arresting. He chose to give him Christian values. And he chose to mangle Hippolytus to badly that all the pieces of him could not be recovered. I think he meant to tie Christianity to beauty as a theatrical choice, to best engage audiences with Christian thought, before destroying it. Hippolytus’ shunning of status and women  compels me in that thought. And I think that our culture today contains groups of people, maybe not Christian specifically, but idolators of what what they might call beautiful men, who could stand to be reminded once in awhile that they are like Hippolytus. You may have some spark of Beauty, but chase too far and you will die for it.
“Seldom has beauty come to men unpunished.”