STATIUS, THEB. 1 .72: IS JOCASTA DEAD OR ALIVE? 229
account of Oedipus’ blinding himself, with his own fingers, as told by
the messenger who had witnessed the terrible scene. At the end of his
eyewitness account (978–9), the bold metaphor of the ‘shower’, not of
tears as in profusus imber et rigat fletu genas (953), but now of blood,
deliberately recalls the ‘shower of blood’ in the messenger’s report in
OT 1278–9:^19
rigat ora foedus imber et lacerum caput
la rgum reuulsis sanguinem uenis uomit.
(Oed. 978–9)
A hideous shower wetted his face, and his mutilated head spewed copi-
ous blood from his torn veins (tr. Fitch 2004; adapted)
ἀλλ’ ὁμοῦ μέλας
ὄμβρος χαλάζης αἵματός τ’ ἐτέγγετο.
(OT 1278–9)
but all at once a dark shower of blood came down like hail. (tr. Lloyd-
Jones).Seneca’s reference here firmly establishes his blinding-scene in the
tradition of Sophocles’ OT, but not for long. After the short chorus
(980–97), not only Oedipus enters in his terrible state, as he does in
OT, but also Jocasta (1003ff.), who is still alive. Here it becomes ap-
parent that Seneca has reversed Sophocles’ order of suicide and blind-
ing. For the first time in the history of the Oedipodeia, we listen to the
tragic couple briefly discussing matters of guilt and fate, after which
Jocasta decides to kill herself. This confrontation between mother and
bloodstained blind son is an effective, frightening and highly original
scene, but nothing compared to the breathtaking sequel: Jocasta’s
suicide, here for the first time on stage. Jocasta first urges her son to
kill her (1032–4), then she abruptly incites herself to grab her son’s
sword (1034 rapiatur):
Agedum, commoda matri manum,
si parricida es: restat hoc operi ultimum.
rapiatur ensis; hoc iacet ferro meus
coniunx—quid illum nomine haud uero uocas?
socer est.
(Oed. 1032–6 )19 So Töchterle 1994 ad loc., who refers to Braun 1867. For more numerical corre-
spondences, see Statius’ reworking of Verg. A. 4.641ff. in Theb. 11.635ff. (below)
and my (1994) xxxi, note 16.