JUPITER IN THEBAID 1 AGAIN∗
D. E. HillI have argued elsewhere^1 that, for whatever reason, Statius offered his
readers a Jupiter who had little or no influence on the plot of the The-
baid, but was no more than a blustering buffoon. My arguments hith-
erto have been fairly broad brush; now, I should like to explore what a
close and detailed analysis of Jupiter’s opening speech and the build
up towards it can teach us about Statius’ Jupiter. Also, hitherto, my
discussions on Thebaid 1 have concentrated on his debt to Virgil and
paid less attention to detail, and to his debt to other authors, especially
Ovid, than is warranted.
There are two sections to this paper. The first (1.56–87) is Oedipus’
speech to Tisiphone designed to persuade her to wreak vengeance on
his sons for their cruelty towards their father. The speech is bitter and
intemperate, but it makes no claims to anything cosmic and is inter-
nally consistent. The second is on Jupiter’s speech, also designed to
bring vengeance upon Eteocles and Polynices but, as I shall hope to
show, very different indeed.
Oedipus to Tisiphone: (1.56–9): The speech begins with Oedipus
acknowledging his relationship with Tisiphone from birth, and his
own warped character (1.60–72): he goes into detail on the way Tisi-
phone has guided his life from birth and crippling, through his desire
to find his parents, his murder of his father, his solving of the riddle of
the Sphinx, his incest with his mother, his self-blinding and the gro-
tesque picture of his eyes on her. He fully admits to his sinfulness
throughout his life. (1.73–87): now he calls upon Tisiphone to exact
condign punishment on his sons because they have ill-treated him and
because Jupiter has seen their sin and done nothing. Oedipus does not
seek justice but revenge. Everything he says is logically if not morally
defensible, even his complaint about Jupiter’s indolence. It is, after
all, another 110 lines before, finally, Jupiter notices anything.
∗ This piece owes much to the helpful advice of Harm-Jan van Dam, Ruurd Nauta
and Hans Smolenaars; its remaining faults are evidence of my obstinacy.
1 Hill 1990, 98–118 and 1996b, 35–54.