This book “systematically explores, for the first time, the darker aspects of Statius’ Achilleid, bringing to light the poem’s tragic and epic dimensions.” This monograph adds to those of Heslin (2005), Fantuzzi (2012), Bitto (2016) and more recently Sigurjónsson (2023),[1] but it is the first to undertake an extensive examination of the relationships Statius establishes with the more tragic elements of the tradition.[2]
The introduction (“Charting a New Interpretation of Statius’ Achilleid”), which is divided into several subchapters, sets out the working definitions, describes the examination of poetic techniques, such as self-reflexive plotting and intertextual repetitions, and clarifies the research perspective, content and objectives. This study aims to trace a fil rouge leading to the darker and more tragic aspects of the Achilleid, often modelled on the Thebaid, a poem that already moved between epic and tragedy, in order to offer new insights into the gender dynamics and tensions employed by Statius (2–3). In this analysis, the generic hybridization of the Achilleid is no longer interpreted as an essentially comic tale disguised as martial epic, but rather as a war epic that, while incorporating erotic, comic, and lighter elements, is inevitably flanked by darker themes. In this way, Abad Del Vecchio seeks to encapsulate and interrogate fundamental themes of the literary canon, such as motherhood, sexual desire, excess, masculinity and succession, morality, and divinity (42). This exegetical approach is supported by a close intertextual reading of the Achilleid alongside Homer, Sophocles, Virgil, Ovid, Seneca, and Lucan, which facilitates an exploration of Statius’ characterizations of Achilles, Odysseus, Calchas, and Thetis.
Chapter 2 (“Leonine Achilles”) explores Statius’ use of leonine imagery to shape Achilles’ characterization. Abad Del Vecchio argues that these lion-like elements reflect Achilles’ heroic development and rejection of cross-dressing, evoking unsettling lion figures from the literary tradition, creating intertextual echoes and a sense of literary déjà-vu. Moreover, Achilles’ affinities with the lion complicate his portrayal as the last lion of the epic (47). Abad Del Vecchio focuses on the similarities with the lion in Ach. 1.167–73, 1.858–66, as well as his unconventional diet in 2.96–110. In particular, an analysis of Achilles’ self-described consumption of lions’ entrails reveals new connections with monstrous figures characterized by transgressive appetites, such as Antaeus (Lucan 4.601–605), Polyphemus (Metamorphoses 14.207–209), and Tydeus (Thebaid 8.571–79), thereby complicating traditional notions of epic heroism. Abad Del Vecchio offers an interesting perspective on Achilles’ diet—one of the most stimulating among many more or less persuasive proposals. If Achilles is a lion, eating raw wolves and lions suggests a form of “cannibalism” with metaliterary meaning: this act challenges his Homeric image, signaling a new, more complex Achilles than his Iliadic counterpart (79–80).
In Chapter 3 (“Transgression and Excess”), Abad Del Vecchio offers a meticulous reading of all passages where Achilles’ heroic character emerges, drawing parallels with the behavior and actions of Hercules in Seneca’s Hercules Furens. This prompts reflections on themes of succession, the denial of immortality, and the looming threat of the Trojan War, which strongly evokes the specter of civil discord (95). The author identifies previously unexamined parallels between Hercules and Achilles, highlighting their shared tendencies toward excess, affinity for grandiosity, and the chaotic and dangerous qualities embedded in their youthful characterization. For instance, Chiron’s description of Achilles’ wild and rebellious nature in Ach. 1.143–58—where the Centaur admits that nothing seems capable of restraining his pupil’s unbridled strength—is compared to Seneca’s portrayal of Hercules in Hercules Furens 960–73, where the hero’s boundless energy appears too great for the world itself (110–13). The parallel between these two heroes also underscores Achilles’ gigantomachic inclinations, as he embodies an embryonic madness that holds the latent potential for cosmic devastation. Additionally, Achilles’ striking resemblance to armed deities in Achilleid 1.484–90 is analyzed through various literary echoes, particularly in Lucan, Silius Italicus, and the Thebaid. Finally, the chapter examines Achilles as an almost-son of Jupiter, a motif predicting a tragic outcome with cosmic consequences. This theme finds a counterpart in Hercules Furens (1–4), where concerns about succession and power usurpation are similarly emphasized, mirroring the tensions in the Achilleid (131–33).
In my opinion, the comparison with tragedy leads to particularly interesting results in chapter 4 (“Tradunt dolos patres”). Ulysses is compared to other Furies in literary tradition, such as Alecto (Aeneid 7.330–40) and Tisiphone (Punica 2.539–40), serving as a metapoetic force reshaping genre and poetic authority. Like Alecto, Ulysses incites war and violence, shifting the narrative tone and signaling the transition into epic warfare, as in Aeneid 7. Abad Del Vecchio draws a new intertextual parallel between Ulysses in the Achilleid and Sophocles’ Philoctetes. She argues that Statius’ engagement with Philoctetes destabilizes traditional views of Ulysses, darkening his actions in Scyros. Ulysses’ paternal role towards Neoptolemus represents a flawed heroism, as he tries to shape the young man’s legacy, similar to Achilles in Scyros (143). Abad Del Vecchio presents an insightful comparison between Ach. 1.906–907 and Sophocles’ Philoctetes 1367–69, noting the striking recurrence of the verb maneo (albeit as the only substantial linguistic parallel). This connection underscores Achilles’ and Neoptolemus’ failure to reshape their literary destinies by staying in Scyros. The thematic parallels between father and son suggest reading Ulysses in the Achilleid as modeled on his Sophoclean counterpart. In this way the Achilleid functions as a prequel to Philoctetes: Ulysses is portrayed as a ruthless and self-serving manipulator, incapable of assuming a true paternal role for the young Achilles, undecided to act as his son Neoptolemus will be in Philoctetes (and has already been, literarily speaking) in Scyros. The analysis of Achilles’ recruitment is further enriched by an examination of Ulysses’ recurring depiction as a predatory wolf, a motif echoed in Sophocles’ Ajax (1–8; cf. Ach. 1.742–49), Aeneid 2 (528–29, 761–63), and Seneca’s Troades (613–15; cf. Ach. 1.712–13), with additional references to Metamorphoses 11 (365–72; cf. Ach. 1.704–708) and Lucan 4 (437–44). These intertextual connections heighten the ominous atmosphere surrounding the Greeks’ arrival in Scyros: Achilles is now the hunted prey, ensnared in the ruthless pursuit of Ulysses and Diomedes.
In Chapter 5 (“Vatic Authority and Poetics”), the author deepens her analysis of the prophetic figures in the Achilleid, focusing on Calchas and Thetis. Abad Del Vecchio examines Calchas’ literary archetypes, drawing comparisons with Calchas in Troades, as well as with other vates in the Thebaid (Amphiaraus, Tiresias, and Thiodamas) and with prophetic female figures such as Vergil’s Sibyl, Seneca’s Cassandra, Lucan’s matron and Phemonoe. She interprets Thetis as a figure warning of the horrors of the impending war: she is both a tragic figure and an artifex of poetic composition. Notably, the phrase scit cetera mater (Ach. 2.167) marks both Achilles’ childhood account and the poem’s conclusion.[3] The author traces several intertextual resonances (Ov. Met. 13.956–57, as well as Am. 1.5.25, Aen. 1.203 and 7.645), including a possible reference to the first verses of the Thebaid, which began (1.38–40) with the very mention of Thetis. The Achilleid ends in a cyclical pattern: Thetis closes the poem, just as she marked the Thebaid’s beginning, witnessing war’s tragic toll like Atalanta and Ismenis. The verb scit holds programmatic weight—Thetis “knows” all, recalling her failure to protect Achilles. Her awareness of past and future seals her role as the archetypal mater dolorosa (212–15).
In the “Postlude”, Abad Del Vecchio summarizes her argument, emphasizing the Achilleid’s complex, paradoxical nature: Statius uses it to probe epic and tragic conventions. Furthermore, the analysis of its darker aspects prompts reflection on the socio-political context of the Flavian age, where the poem mirrors the uncertainties of imperial rule.
Notes
[1] P. J. Heslin, The Transvestite Achilles. Gender and Genre in Statius’ Achilleid, Cambridge-New York 2005; M. Fantuzzi, Achilles in Love. Intertextual Studies, Oxford 2012; G. Bitto, Vergimus in senium. Statius’ Achilleis als Alterswerk (Hypomnemata 202), Göttingen 2016; B. Sigurjónsson, Sic notus Achilles? Episches Narrativ und Intertextualität in Statius’ Achilleis. Classica Monacensia, 61. Tübingen: Narr Francke Attempto, 2023.
[2] Previous contributions on the dialogue of the Achilleid with tragedy in particular do not have a monographic focus and are dedicated to the relationship with the Troades (e.g., E. Fantham, “Statius’ Achilles and his Trojan Model,” CQ 29, 1979, 457–62; M. McAuley, Reproducing Rome: Motherhood in Virgil, Ovid, Seneca, and Statius, Oxford 2016, 354–59), with the Skyrioi of Euripides (e.g. G. Aricò, Rileggendo l’Achilleide, in F. Delarue, S. Georgacopoulou, P. Laurens, A.-M. Taisne (éds.), Epicedion. Hommage à P. Papinius Statius, Poitiers 1996, 185–99; P.J. Heslin, The Transvestite Achilles: Gender and Genre in Statius’ Achilleid, Cambridge 2005, 195–98), and with Iphigenia in Aulis (e.g., A. Barchiesi, “Masculinity in the 90’s: The Education of Achilles in Statius and Quintilian,” in M. Paschalis (ed.), Roman and Greek Imperial Epic, Heraklion 2005, 47–75). More recently on this theme, R. Parkes, “Finding the Tragic in the Epics of Statius,” in S. Papaioannou, A. Marinis (edd.), Elements of Tragedy in Flavian Epic, Berlin 2021, 107-28.
[3] Abad Del Vecchio argues that the Achilleid’s cyclicality and compression are narrative strategies that reflect the impossibility of continuing the tale (55). Achilles’ stagnation at the first turning point (Silv. 4.7.23–24) signals the poem’s deliberate interruption (29–33). Structural elements suggest that the poem aims to offer a complete account of Achilles’ life, with proleptic references to Troy underscoring its narrative closure (41). For example, Calchas’ role reveals the paradox of renewing epic tradition while leaving no room for further development (199). While I find it difficult to fully endorse this view, I completely agree with this conclusion: “Statius’ Achilleid, like its epic predecessors and the poet’s own Thebaid, continues to exhibit an ambivalent stance. However, the poem’s relationship with more serious and troubling epic themes and structures, along with its generic engagement with tragedy, indicates that the composition—despite its purported incompleteness—continues to dramatize its poet’s ambitious project of renewing, and even testing the genre of epic in new frontiers” (225).
[4] The only bibliographical reference missing is the most recent commentary on Statius’ Achilleid by C. McNelis, Statius: Achilleid. Edited with Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, Oxford Commentaries on Flavian Poetry, Oxford 2024, evidently due to the coincidental timing of the publication releases.