By depriving Eteocles of any possibility to defend himself, Jocasta reveals once more Euripides’ intention to present Polynices as the moral victor of the debate. Her speech is generally advisory, with strong gnomic col- oring. She stresses the wisdom traditionally connected to old age (528- 530), in an attempt to validate her argumentation in advance. In this context, the praise of equity and justice (538-545) cannot be doubted, not only because it is expressed within the authoritative framework of maxims, but also because it is voiced by a person of age. Gnomic state- ments have formed an indispensable and crucial part in Jocasta’s idiolect since the beginning of the play. In this case though, gnomai occur mainly in the first part of her speech, namely the one devoted to Eteo- cles (528-568), and work as a ‘silent’ narrative marker towards the posi- tive characterization of Polynices.
Jocasta embarks on a sustained accusation of Eteocles by highlighting his lust for distinction, namely his φιλοτιμία280 (531-532), with which
her address to Eteocles also ends (566-567). The pair of opposites con- sisting of φιλοτιμία on the one hand and ἰσότης (‘equity’) on the other is the backbone of Jocasta’s argument, as well as the basis for the devel- opment of the antithetical pair of the opposing πλέον (‘greater’) and ἔλασσον (‘lesser’). These two pairs, built on standard terms concerning views about citizen behavior,281 deepen Jocasta’s accusation by endow-
ing it with a theoretical armature on a par with Eteocles’ gnomic jargon. The identifying characteristics of both ‘ambition’ and ‘equity’ are narratively depicted by an analepsis of a remarkably long reach, which
279 The condemnation of eloquence when it is used for a bad cause was a com- mon argument against the rhetoric of the sophists. See Dodds (1960) 129-130. Possibly Euripides believed in a similar reaction coming from the spectators, who in that case would have been satisfied by the Chorus’ disapproval. Be- sides, it is common for the narrative of the Chorus to reflect knowledge or be- liefs shared by the whole community [Fantuzzi (2010) 2-3, with additional bibliography].
280 For Mastronarde [(1994) 299], φιλοτιμία is a synonym of Tyrannis ‘as is clear
from the equivalence of 561 τυραννεῖν and 567 φιλότιμος’. The word ac- quired a pejorative meaning towards the end of the fifth century.
2.3. The clash of the Labdacids 67 credits them with an almost mythical dimension, especially striking within the present-oriented framework of the debate. As put by Jocasta:
πολλοὺς δ’ ἐς οἴκους καὶ πόλεις εὐδαίμονας εἰσῆλθε κἀξῆλθ’ ἐπ’ ὀλέθρωι τῶν χρωμένων· ἐφ’ ἧι σὺ μαίνηι. ...282 (533-535)
‘Often she goes in and out of prosperous cities and houses and ruins those who have dealings with her! Yet for her you have lost your senses.’
Ambition is personified as an unjust deity that brings destruction to any- one that surrenders to her. The indefinite description, lacking temporal restrictions, leaves the narrative temporally open and gives it mythical dimensions. Such a narrative choice, highlighting the change from hap- piness to destruction, increases the tragic pathos and makes a concealed metatheatrical allusion to the typical characteristics of the tragic hero as well as the doomed fate of the Labdacids. Similarly, Jocasta presents ana- leptically the virtues of personified Equality, qualifying it with cosmo- logical activity, such as the setting of units of weight and numbers (541- 542, ‘In fact, it is Equality that has established measures and weights for mankind and given them number’).283
Jocasta’s argument against φιλοτιμία and in favor of ἰσότης would have been endorsed by an honest, democratic citizen. Her failure to convince Eteocles284 thus becomes even more striking and again projects
his negative characterization. Furthermore, since the majority of the spectators would have agreed with Jocasta’s claims, Eteocles is presented as belonging to a minority. This part of Jocasta’s speech gives special importance to her addressees. While at some points she addresses solely Eteocles, when her tone becomes general, she implicitly expands the range of her recipients to both internal (Eteocles, Polynices, Chorus) as well as external (spectators) narratees. When Jocasta exercises her mater- nal authority and openly criticizes her son,285 Eteocles is the only ad-
282 Irrational lust for power that destructs families and cities is a traditional motif. See for example Sol. fr. 4 IEG; Pi. fr. 210 S-M.
283 By means of the opposition between Ambition and Equality, Euripides re- sumes the opposition between Δυσνομίη and Εὐνομίη, as developed in Sol. fr. 4 IEG.
284 In my view, the first part of Jocasta’s rhesis (528-568) is undoubtedly addressed to Eteocles. Rademaker [(2005) 149] believes that these lines refer to Polynices: ‘in Jocasta’s speech the appeal is to arguments that are truisms for a private citizen of modest means in a democratic πόλις, but that are conspicu- ously unlikely to appeal to a dethroned prince of Polynices’ status’. I do not see why his observations cannot fit Eteocles just as well.
285 Cf. the direct questions in second person singular: 547-548; 549-550; 559- 567.
dressee, but when she uses maxims, any possible narratee could be ad- dressed.
Negative prolepses and the impasse of the divided self
Apart from a brief analepsis referring to the recent past that denounces both the expedition against Thebes and Adrastus’ support for it (569- 570), the rest of Jocasta’s speech, consisting of a sequence of negative anachronies, refers to Polynices and directs the temporal narrative gaze to the future.
In a manner similar to her narrative in the prologue,286 Jocasta em-
barks on a series of negative prolepses. Although she wishes that they are avoided, she still expresses them to reveal two possible scenarios of simi- lar narrative structure.287 Through this narrative policy, she tries to con-
vince Polynices that regardless of its outcome, the expedition will have devastating repercussions. The first scenario examines the possibility of Polynices’ victory over the Thebans and begins with Jocasta’s analogous wish (571, ‘Come, if you conquer this land –and heaven forbid you should-’). Her wish generates a conditional about the victory’s ambigu- ous consequences: Polynices would be unable to ‘set up trophies to Zeus’ (572), perform sacrifices (573), or ‘inscribe on the spoils by the streams of Inachus’ (574).288 Via the negative form of her prolepsis, Jo-
casta projects a narrative possibility that will not be realized and presents as unacceptable Polynices’ supposed inscriptions on spoils dedicated after his assumed victory (575-576).
In a similar manner, Jocasta examines the opposite possibility, that of Polynices’ defeat. The negative effect of such a scenario is expressed through the assumed comments of an anonymous Argive who connects his misfortunes with the husband Adrastus selected for his own daughter (580-583, ‘Someone will say: O Adrastus, inflictor on us of ruinous marriages, because of the marriage of one bride we have been ruined’).
286 Cf. Jocasta’s negative analepses in the prologue, regarding the nuptial customs she did not perform. See above, n. 66, 237 and ch. 2.3.2.
287 The narrative of both possible scenarios starts with a wish against their realiza- tion (through the use of ποτέ and optative), it continues with negative prolep- sis expressed through direct questions, and in the second case it concludes with a typical ‘tis-speech’.
288 The martial celebration that will not be performed by the waters of Inachus, for it is part of a negative prolepsis, inevitably brings to mind the nuptial cele- bration (of the wedding of Polynices) by the waters of Inachus that was not performed either, since it was part of a negative analepsis (346-347).
2.3. The clash of the Labdacids 69 Such an imaginary, epic colored tis-speech289 recalls the comments lev-
eled against Helen by the elders of Troy at the Scaean Gates290 and re-
flects the justified anger of the soldiers who put themselves at risk of death for the sake of a single person.
Both possibilities are equally harmful for Polynices, whose ‘adven- ture’ is highly unlikely to have a happy ending. He is doomed to suffer even if he wins, mainly because of his divided identity. Every time a ‘part’ of his divided self is victorious, the other will be defeated and Polynices will always be trapped in a suffocating rivalry between his Theban and his Argive selves. Throughout the play, the coexistence of the Theban and the Argive past of Polynices constructs an emotional tug of war which carries him along towards one direction or the other. The striking juxtaposition of a Theban’s (Jocasta’s) and an Argive’s (τις) reac- tion to this war projects Polynices’ conflicting sides for the first time, as it mirrors the two opposing forces that will lead to his destruction.