English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

For years scholars have plunged headlong into looking for inconsistencies in Statius’ Thebaid and, obviously, they have found them profusely. Specifically, there is a degree of critical consensus that the inconsistent image of the Statian Jupiter are due to the poets’ negligence or carelessness. And, in fact, there is no denying that Jupiter contradicts himself in the Thebaid on those occasions when he alludes to his relationship to Fate. Nontheless, the Flavian poet will not be the sole object of my attention in this paper. Contemporary scholarship has a tendency to bring up Seneca’s theories (Dial. 1.5.8) whenever the post-Homeric Jupiter (even the Virgilian one) touches on what has come to be seen as an «incoherence». However, except for the Hesiodic epics, Zeus/Jupiter’s theological status is as unstable throughout the Greek literary tradition as in Statius. Hence, we should accept that, during centuries, the classical scholarship has forgotten the narrative authority and its power to manipulate pre-existing material in order to create new meanings and worldviews. Perhaps we, interpreters of ancient literature, have a tendency to interpret as inconsistences all those facts which do not meet our own expectations or prejudices.Durante años la investigación literaria ha encontrado fruición en buscar y encontrar inconsistencias narrativas en la Tebaida de Estacio. Concretamente, hay cierto grado de consenso respecto a que las incongruencias en que incurre Júpiter son debidas a negligencia o incuria por parte del poeta. De hecho, no se puede negar que el soberano del cielo se contradice en las ocasiones en que alude a su relación con el Destino. No obstante, no será únicamente el poeta flavio el objeto de mi atención en este artículo. Hoy día se continúa acudiendo a la autoridad filosófica de Séneca (fundamentalmente a Dial. 1.5.8) siempre que el Zeus/Júpiter poshomérico (también el virgiliano) incurre en lo que hemos dado en considerar «incoherencias». Sin embargo, excepción hecha de las composiciones hesiódicas, el estatuto teológico de Zeus/Júpiter es altamente inestable en toda la tradición literaria griega y romana. Quizá deberíamos aceptar, entonces, que durante siglos los que estudiamos literatura antigua hemos tendido a prescindir de la voz autorial y de su autoridad omnímoda para manipular el material literario preexistente con el objeto de generar nuevos significados y nuevas cosmovisiones. En definitiva, nos hemos mostrado proclives a calificar de inconsistencias todo aquello que no se adecua a nuestras expectativas o prejuicios

La inevitable inconsistencia del Zeus/Júpiter épico