JUPITER IN THEBAID 1 AGAIN 139
ishing Oedipus’ sons (1.295–302, 2.7 etc.). Jupiter’s sense of how
rhetoric should work is further revealed as grossly incompetent. It is
not a good idea to come to a ringing climax and then say ‘not him’.
Now, perhaps, we shall be told the real Theban sin: at nati (facinus
sine more!) “But his sons (an uncivilized crime)” that sounds more
like it cadentes calcauere oculos (1.238–9 “trampled upon his fal-
ling eyes”). ‘cadentes calcauere oculos’? What is that supposed to
mean? Lactantius suggests: insultauere caecitate patris “they insulted
their father’s blindness”; but even if such an interpretation were pos-
sible, it would hardly qualify as a facinus sine more. Heuvel inter-
prets: proprie intellegenda sententia optime ad Statii saeculi inclina-
tionem horribilibus rebus laetantem quadrat “The sentence to be liter-
ally understood squares very well with the inclination in Statius’ time
to enjoy horrible things.” On this interpretation, Jupiter has invented a
grotesque picture as a sop to the taste of Statius’ contemporaries. Is
there anything in the literature to support this narrative? And suppose
that there were. To trample on Oedipus’ eyes as they fell, or shortly
after, would be tasteless in the extreme, but it would hardly qualify as
one of the great sinful acts of all time, which is what the context re-
quires. Vessey^5 constructs an elegant contrast which scarcely reflects
the text:
Oedipus, by blinding himself, had made eternal atonement for his sins,
but Eteocles and Polynices, by spurning their father [a very weak ren-
dering of cadentes calcauere oculos], had committed a ‘facinus sine
more’, a monstrous crime against pietas.It was indeed the conduct of his sons that had made Oedipus angry
enough to invoke Tisiphone to punish them; and we have just seen
Jupiter’s confused account of Oedipus’ sons’ misconduct. Contrast his
complaint with Oedipus’ own characterization of his sons and their
disloyalty:
orbum uisu regnisque carentem
non regere aut dictis maerentem flectere adorti,
quos genui quocumque toro; quin ecce superbi
—pro dolor!—et nostro iamdudum funere reges
insultant tenebris gemitusque odere paternos.5 Vessey 1973, 83.