BMCR 2009.07.13: Chaudhuri on Smolenaars, The Poetry of Statius. Mnemosyne, Supplementa 306

Johannes J. L. Smolenaars, Harm-Jan van Dam, Ruurd R. Nauta (ed.), The
Poetry of Statius. Mnemosyne, Supplementa 306.  Leiden/Boston:  Brill,
2008.  Pp. x, 269.  ISBN 9789004171343.  $152.00.

Reviewed by Pramit Chaudhuri, Dartmouth College
([email protected])
Word count:  2053 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-07-13.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/07/20090713.html
-------------------------------

Table of Contents (http://lccn.loc.gov/2008033581)

[Authors and titles are listed at the end of the review.]

After their 2006 conference volume Flavian Poetry, Smolenaars, Van Dam,
and Nauta have now produced a follow-up devoted "to the most brilliant
and versatile of the Flavian poets, P. Papinius Statius" (vii). The
papers originate in a symposium marking the retirement of Hans
Smolenaars, whose interest in Statian intertextuality is reflected in
many of the contributions. With imperial poetry firmly established in
most Latin curricula, and given Statius' high stock in particular, this
collection will be consulted by specialists on Latin literature and
Flavian culture alike, who will find much of value here. Eleven
well-known authors represent a broad range of nationalities, and this
cosmopolitan scholarship can be sampled by undergraduates too since all
papers are in English, including translations of all Latin passages.
Accessibility in language is not, however, matched by accessibility in
price, a now traditional gripe with Brill.

The preface contains one-paragraph summaries of each of the papers and
no more by way of introduction. Nor does the organisation of the volume
suggest a whole greater than its parts; the editors have arranged the
collection alphabetically by author in order to "leave readers more
room to construe links between papers" (vii). The volume thus opens
with Vale/ry Berlincourt's piece on Statius' early modern commentary
tradition, in particular the work of Gronovius and Barth. Deploying
contemporary epistolary sources and the comments of subsequent critics,
Berlincourt conveys the catty and competitive world of
seventeenth-century humanist scholarship. While somewhat distant from
Statius' poetry itself, the argument does offer a convincing account of
how commentators' choices and vagaries of style led to the relative
obscurity of Barth's monumental work in the wake of Gronovius' great
success. The finer points of northern European intellectual history
aside, most readers will nevertheless benefit from the reminder to
consult Barth's copious and often fascinating commentary.[[1]]

Kathleen Coleman discusses the superficial absence of inscriptions in
the Silvae ("stones in the forest", as she nicely puns). She argues
that Statius' poetry of praise and commemoration avoids using something
so typical and ubiquitous as the inscription. So, at 5.1.238-41, the
tomb of Priscilla obtains its identity not through any written marker
but through the guesswork of an imagined viewer. The lack of an
inscription forces the viewer into an act of interpretation, whether
one is identifying a tomb or, as in 4.6, attributing an art object (a
poem addressed to the connoisseur Novius Vindex). Coleman concludes
that Statius "replaces the functions of epigraphy with a far more
oblique and sophisticated game of words" (43). The deliberateness of
Statius' play with inscriptions emerges through contrast with earlier
authors from Horace to Petronius, whose epigraphic habits Coleman
briefly reviews in the first half of the paper.

Harm-Jan van Dam offers a study of Statius' early modern reception in
the Netherlands, in particular the poetry and criticism of the prolific
polymath Hugo Grotius. Van Dam argues that Grotius' scholarly and
creative work concerned with the Silvae compares in importance to the
achievements of Angelo Poliziano in the fifteenth  century. As with
Berlincourt's piece, the research into contemporary sources is
impressive and provides a vivid picture of the tradition from which
Grotius emerged. Van Dam identifies some excellent examples of Grotius'
use or transformation of Statius' text, but he occasionally buries this
material in the footnotes, a choice that sits oddly with the paper's
initial claim to focus on literary rather than purely philological
concerns. However, van Dam clearly demonstrates the kind of
interpretive work which Grotius deserves--an important contribution in
itself, especially as it brings an understudied area of reception (at
least outside continental Europe) into focus.

Michael Dewar sets Silvae 1.1, on the equestrian statue of Domitian, in
the context of a Flavian ideological program centred on peace and
manifested in many of the monuments and buildings erected by the
dynasty. The paper makes good use of topographical context to
illustrate how spatial organisation and interaction with other
buildings can create significance, especially in the relationship the
Flavians constructed with the Julio-Claudians. Building on and
modifying recent work by Geyssen and Thomas, Dewar argues convincingly
for the statue's domination (or intended domination) of its
Julio-Claudian surrounds in the Forum Romanum.[[2]]

Bruce Gibson argues that Statius' handling of battle narrative in the
Thebaid forms part of his competition with his epic predecessors, and
identifies several features in which Statius' poetic practice is
strikingly original. Thorough comparison with the earlier tradition
reveals the poet's novel approach to individual fighting (unexpectedly
compressed) and division of night and day (irregular). Gibson also
identifies a type of Statian simile that compares an aspect of battle
not to the natural or non-martial world, as so often in epic, but
rather to a heightened or intensified vision of what is already going
on in the narrative. Though both points compellingly advance the case
for Statian originality, Gibson might have pressed them further. For
instance, the minimisation of epic's typical confrontations between
leading heroes may also be attributable to the absence of any genuine
challenge posed by the Theban side, signaled by the narrative attention
to the implosion of the Argive heroes. Likewise, Statius' inward
looking similes point to the inescapability of the Thebaid, where the
language of comparison, far from offering a different view, traps the
reader in the author's relentless and repetitive universe.

Building on recent work by Helen Lovatt and Karla Pollmann, Peter
Heslin argues that allusion to tragedy at the end of the Thebaid,
especially the competing versions of the Theban story by Sophocles and
Euripides, renders Athens simultaneously a positive and negative
exemplar for Rome.[[3]] Close readings show Argia playing the role of
the Sophoclean Antigone, leading to the Statian Antigone's resentment
at her stolen scene. This witty manipulation of the literary tradition,
as so often with Statius, points to paths not followed, especially
where Euripides' Suppliant Women seems to have been the preferred
model. Where Heslin really comes into his own is in the identification
of Greek oratorical tropes behind the entire Altar of Mercy passage,
thereby assimilating Athens as refuge with Rome's asylum tradition
together with the plot of the Oedipus at Colonus. Against this Greek
literary background, Rome inherits Athens' mantle as cosmopolis but
also stands to learn the hard lessons of Athenian history during the
period of late Sophocles and Euripides.

Donald Hill here continues his near twenty-year campaign against the
Statian Jupiter, in his view "no more than a blustering buffoon"
(129).[[4]] As in the earlier forays, Hill focuses on Thebaid 1; this
time he highlights the ways in which the text first builds a sense of
expectation that Jupiter will resolve the tension generated by Oedipus'
curse, and then explodes that expectation through the portrayal of an
incompetent and uncomprehending Jupiter. Hill's analysis of Jupiter's
poor reasoning and justification is mostly convincing, but he sees
perhaps a little more incoherence in Statius' god than is strictly
warranted. For instance, Hill claims that Jupiter misrepresents (or
misunderstands) his role in the Phaethon episode as dealing out
punishment rather than saving the world (133). But Jupiter may well be
rereading, rather than misreading, his earlier role--in linking the
punishment of over-reaching mortals to the integrity of the universe
the god unifies two of the central themes of the Thebaid.[[5]]

Ruurd Nauta discusses Statius' self-presentation in the Silvae. The
essay takes the form of a poem-by-poem analysis of how Statius engages
his addressee: as a member of a community, as an epic poet, as a
beneficiary of a favour, as a participant in a (fictive) ceremony, etc.
The parameters of Statius' self-presentation are determined by his role
as praise poet and by the relationship with his addressee. Nauta well
observes, for instance, that Statius knows when to downplay formal ties
of amicitia, where that relationship might suggest that a poem was
commissioned or artificial rather than spontaneous and heartfelt--the
effect for which he typically strives (159-61).

Recent interpretations of the epilogue of the Thebaid have seen in
Statius' praise of Vergil a more complex attitude than mere deference.
To these views Gianpiero Rosati adds another argument for Statius'
attempted self-canonisation, beginning with the deification of his
poetic predecessor, which, as in Roman imperial practice, sets up
Statius' own future entry into the poetic pantheon. Rosati identifies
several other strategies for identification of the Thebaid with the
Aeneid, among them Statius' claims of imperial favour and the poem's
supposed use in schools. But at the same time the Thebaid's epilogue
disengages its success from imperial power-- the poem, at least
explicitly, neither depends on nor is co-extensive with emperor or
empire.[[6]]

Where other scholars have mostly concerned themselves with the Flavian
fondness for gender-bending, Lorenzo Sanna takes a slightly different
approach to the ephebic hero of Statian poetry.[[7]] Sanna shows how
the puer's interaction with specific materials--dust, sweat, water--can
position him with respect to martial heroism and sexual attractiveness.
The analysis of the Statian figures is convincing in its own right, and
Sanna goes on to trace these intertwined threads back to their likely
source in the androgynous youths of Ovidian poetry.

The volume closes with a piece by the editor and conference honorand,
Hans Smolenaars. The paper complements Heslin's by reading Jocasta's
suicide in the Thebaid against the background of Attic tragedy. A
thorough rehearsal of the Greek evidence and a keen eye for Statius'
multiple allusions support the argument that, contrary to the opinion
of certain scholars, Jocasta is very much alive at Theb. 1.72 and that
the poet has here combined strands from all of the major dramatic
treatments of the queen's suicide. From this concluding paper, perhaps
more than any other, emerges a picture of a deeply learned poet whose
work rewards close and repeated reading in the light of the classical
literary tradition. The remaining pages include an index locorum, a
full general index, and an extensive bibliography.

It may be that the self-evident unity of the volume left the editors
feeling no need for preamble or justification or last word. I have no
doubt that these editors in particular would have made an especially
fine job of an extended introduction or conclusion, so I note here that
the absence of their overall reflections is an unfortunate omission,
especially in the case of a poet whose reputation is burgeoning but not
yet recanonised.

A final quibble: cross-referencing is usually limited to the plainest
overlap between papers and is generally uneven. Nauta's paper is fully
cross-referenced, for instance, but several other opportunities were
missed. To pick just two pieces, Gibson's and Heslin's, the editors
might have linked Heslin's discussion of Olynthus' anachronistic
presence at 12.510 (122) to Gibson's pages on anachronism in Statian
battle narrative, especially given the Macedonian connection (106). And
where Gibson points to Statius' avoidance of scenes of combat at the
Theban gates, common in tragedy, (86) a note might have looked ahead to
Heslin's discussion of how Statius' confrontation between Creon and
Theseus responds to Euripides' Suppliant Women (126).[[8]]

For Flavianists and Latin literary scholars there is much of value in
this collection ranging from understudied points in Statius' reception
through the interaction between poetry and material context to the most
rewarding Greek and Latin intertextual relationships. The volume indeed
leaves the impression of a 'brilliant and versatile' poet, and the
eleven papers set an example of the varied and interesting scholarly
work which Statius can offer.

Contents:

In pondere non magno satis ponderosae: Gronovius and the printed
tradition of the Thebaid / Vale/ry Berlincourt

Stones in the forest: epigraphic allusion in the Silvae / Kathleen M.
Coleman

Wandering woods again: from Poliziano to Grotius / Harm-Jan van Dam

The equine cuckoo: Statius' Ecus Maximus Domitiani Imperatoris and the
Flavian Forum / Michael Dewar

Battle narrative in Statius, Thebaid / Bruce Gibson

Statius and the Greek tragedians on Athens, Thebes and Rome / P. J.
Heslin

Jupiter in Thebaid 1 again / D. E. Hill

Statius in the Silvae / Ruurd R. Nauta

Statius, Domitian and acknowledging paternity: rituals of succession in
the Thebaid / Gianpiero Rosati

Dust, water and sweat: the Statian puer between charm and weakness,
play and war / Lorenzo Sanna

Statius Thebaid 1.72: is Jocasta dead or alive? the tradition of
Jocasta's suicide in Greek and Roman drama and in Statius' Thebaid /
Johannes J. L. Smolenaars.


------------------
Notes:


1.   Barth has recently been put to intriguing literary critical use by
M. Leigh 2006, "The Sublimity of Statius' Capaneus", in Clarke et. al.,
Epic Interactions: Perspectives on Homer, Virgil, and the Epic
Tradition.

2.   J. W. Geyssen 1996, Imperial Panegyric in Statius: A Literary
Commentary on Silvae 1.1; M. L. Thomas 2004, "(Re)Locating Domitian's
Horse of Glory: The Equus Domitiani and Flavian Urban Design", Memoirs
of the American Academy in Rome 49: 21-46.

3.   H. Lovatt 1999, "Competing Endings: Re-reading the end of Statius'
Thebaid through Lucan", Ramus 28.2: 126-51; K. Pollmann 2004, Statius,
Thebaid 12. Introduction, Text, and Commentary. The paper also
complements Braund's recent piece on Thebes as a model for Rome
(perhaps too recent to be used by Heslin). Attention to cities in
Flavian poetry is on the rise generally, cf. Cowan's forthcoming
monograph on cities in Silius' Punica.

4.   D. E. Hill 1989, "Statius' Thebaid: A Glimmer of Light in a Sea of
Darkness", Ramus 18: 98-118; D. E. Hill 1996, "Thebaid I revisited", in
Delarue et al. (ed.), Epicedion: Hommage a P. Papinius Statius 96 -
1996, 35-54.

5.   The killing of Phaethon and the Flood are thus linked in Jupiter's
speech not only as elemental apocalypses, nor merely as two intertexts
drawn from Ovid Met. 1 and 2, but also as responses to the
over-reaching of Phaethon and Lycaon. In this light it makes perfect
sense that Jupiter would end with the example of the similarly
over-reaching Tantalus. In the Thebaid, impiety is over-reaching and
over-reaching is impiety, a theme partly inspired by Ovid and subjected
to even greater scrutiny by Statius.

6.   Rosati's excellent paper would have been enriched by closer
engagement with the recent work by Helen Lovatt and Matthew Leigh on
divinity and literary succession. Lovatt 2005, Statius and Epic Games:
Sport, Politics and Poetics in the Thebaid; Leigh, op. cit. n. 1.
Rosati shows familiarity with other parts of Lovatt's first-rate
monograph.

7.   E.g., S. E. Hinds 2000, "Essential Epic: Genre and Gender from
Macer to Statius", in Depew and Obbink (edd.), Matrices of Genre.
Authors, Canons, and Society; D. C. Feeney 2004. "Tenui ... latens
discrimine: spotting the differences in Statius' Achilleid", MD 52:
85-105; P. J. Heslin 2005, The Transvestite Achilles: Gender and Genre
in Statius' Achilleid.

8.   There are few grave typographical errors, but I note here all that
I found: 12 n. 37 'Gronovius'' should not have an apostrophe; 13 n. 41
'others' should be 'other'; Reeve 1997, cited by Van Dam at 45 n. 2, is
missing from the bibliography; 46 n. 7 Godman 1991 is actually from
1993, as correctly listed in the bibliography; the punctuation of
'before-,' (47) is wrong (likewise 'books-,' on p. 57); 'puerile' (47)
strikes the wrong note (especially since Poliziano, however competent a
Latinist, was only fourteen); 'Politians'' (49) should be 'Politian's';
Groenland's doctoral dissertation is from 2006, not 2007 as in 49 n.
18, and not 2005 as listed in the bibliography; to 50 n. 21 could be
added Heath's 2004 book on Menander; 'key-figure' (51) ought not to be
hyphenated; 52 n. 26 'numbers' should be singular; Clivus Capitolinus
should probably be Via Sacra (67); Transitor[i]um (71); interesting[ly]
(99); incorrect italicisation of footnote number 3 in the text (112);
149 n. 21 'is any case' should be 'is in any case'; 151 n. 25 'Ipse'
should not be capitalised; 'Pollius son-in-law' lacks an apostrophe
(164); 'representing themselves a[s] spoken' (165); 'Book 4 continuous'
should read 'continues' (171); 204 n. 29 'life lives' should simply be
'lives'; 'espressive' should be 'expressive' (205); the attribution to
Shackleton-Bailey is missing from the Achilleid translation (208); 220
n. 10 the reference to Richardson is missing from the bibliography; 223
n. 17 Mastronarde-Bremer 1982 is also missing from the bibliography;
'posses[s]ions' (227); 'Jocasta in Phoen.' should be 'Jocasta in
Oedipus' (230); under Culler 1985, a little Dutch has slipped in
between 'Hosek en Parker' (241); under Galand-Hallyn 2007 the
italicisation of 'posteriores' has missed the first letter (243);
Geyssen 1994 should read 1996 (243, but correctly cited in Dewar's
paper); inconsistency in citation of papers from edited collections,
e.g., Micozzi 1999 and 2004 (246).