Kenney_and_Clausen B.M.W.(eds.) - Get a Free Blog

STATIUS
ing mania spreads to Argos through Polynices' marriage to Argia; what was
once a happy and blessed land becomes wretched and abased. Jupiter, in Book i,
decrees that both cities should suffer retribution for past misdeeds (224—7) ar >d
from that harsh mandate there can be no escape. It is notable that when Polynices
and Tydeus — both agents of violence — arrive at Argos, the people have
been celebrating a festival of Apollo, sun-god and lord of oracles; Book 1 ends
with a sublime hymn to him by Adrastus. In direct contrast, Book 2 opens with
the ascent of Laius from the Underworld at Jupiter's behest. He appears to
Eteocles in a dream, redoubling the tyrant's loathing for his brother (94fF.). At
the time of this grim visitation, the Thebans are in the midst of Bacchic orgia
(83—8), rites redolent of blood and barbarism. In the end, it is only through the
intervention of a third city, Athens, that peace is regained. At Athens stands
the Altar of Mercy (12.48iff.): dementia is the only antidote to ira. Athens is
the polar opposite to Thebes, but it is also Argos perfected. In the same way,
its king, Theseus, is not only the diametric analogue of Eteocles (and his
despotic successor Creon); he is also Adrastus shorn of weakness and failure.
The three cities have, therefore, the force of archetypes. In his characterization,
Statius uses a figural technique. Its origin may again be traced to Seneca
and Lucan, and to the Stoic psychology that they espoused. In Senecan drama,
the principal characters are figurae, monochromatically represented. Caesar,
Pompey, Cato are, for Lucan, largely exemplifications of specific types: tyrant,
victim, sage. Though there are opportunities within this approach for a certain
latitude, it can also be inhibiting. Statius defines in his proem the essential
nature of several participants (i.33ff.). Eteocles and Polynices are tyranni.
Tydeus is 'unrestrained in ira'. Amphiaraus is the pious minister of Apollo.
Hippomedon is the turbulent warrior. Parthenopaeus is a pathetically gallant
youth, Capaneus a blasphemer. These fundamental traits are sustained. They
predicate the behaviour of personae in different situations. Sometimes this
ploy is pressed too far. Neither Hippomedon nor Capaneus is sufficiently
individualized: brute strength and sacrilege are their respective properties with
almost nothing added. Eteocles is type-cast as a tyrant. Less prominent characters
are similarly treated. In the House of Cadmus, we find Menoeceus, a sublime
figuration of uirtus and pietasy Creon, indistinguishable from Eteocles in
exhibiting the unlovely vices of absolutism. A degree of ambiguity may be
detected in one or two portraits. Tydeus is a martial hero who, despite his
better attributes, finally succumbs to the most bestial manifestation of furor at
the moment of his death in Book 8; he is deprived of the apotheosis •which
Pallas wishes to grant him. Polynices is a potential but unfledged despot;
though he cannot shed genetic predispositions, he is not completely devoid of
moral sensibility. Adrastus is a wise and benevolent sovereign but he lacks
fibre and foresight. More satisfying are Statius' womenfolk: the noble Hypsipyle,
577
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008