This important book analyzes the (under-studied) Ovidian intertexts in Statius’ Thebaid.[1] The author explores how Statius’ references to Ovid interact with the prominent (and well-studied) intertexts with Vergil’s Aeneid. Spinelli argues that, on the purely literary level, these Ovidian-Vergilian intertexts are crucial for our understanding of Statius’ readings of both Augustan classics. Perhaps more interestingly, Spinelli argues throughout the book that the Thebaid’s Ovidian-Vergilian intertexts have a political dimension that both stems from and helps our understanding of the concerns and policies of the Flavian regime. This political argument is based on the relationship between Statius’ literary intertexts and their intermedial analogues in Flavian material culture. The argument is innovative and convincing. The book is, however, dense and uncompromising in that it assumes an intimate familiarity with specific (and often obscure) passages in the Thebaid, Metamorphoses, and Aeneid. In spite of this, Spinelli’s book is an important advance in our (already detailed) understanding of Statian intertextuality. The book contains a methodological introduction, three chapters that address aspects of Statius’ Vergilian-Ovidian intertextuality (landscapes, heroes, and gods) and its politics, and a brief conclusion that mostly focuses on a reassessment of Statius’ epilogue to the Thebaid. The three main chapters focus predominantly on Statius’ intertexts with the Theban portions of the Metamorphoses (Books 3 and 4) and how they modify the Vergilian “patina” of the Thebaid.
The introduction lays out Spinelli’s two main objectives: to provide a detailed analysis of the Ovidian intertexts in Statius’ Thebaid and to demonstrate the political significance of this intertext. Spinelli offers a capacious (though relatively uncontroversial) definition of intertextuality.[2] In addition to seeing connections between texts that go beyond specific (and deliberate) verbal allusions, Spinelli includes in his definition of intertextuality forms of discourse derived from material culture. Spinelli applies the now commonly accepted term “intermediality” to describe these relationships.[3] The intermedial relationships, Spinelli argues, will prove crucial to our understanding of the politics of Statius’ Vergilian-Ovidian intertexts. In pairing politics with intertextual analysis, Spinelli seeks to balance emphasis on “purely literary” concerns with historicist forms of investigation. Spinelli is also aware of the risks of essentialization. In general, the temptation is to see Statius as contrasting an “optimistic” Vergilian outlook with a “pessimistic” Ovidian one, where the optimistic and pessimistic outlooks extend to contemporary politics. Spinelli allows for the fact that already in Vergil both types of “voice” may be heard and received by Statius (and Ovid). Spinelli offers no specific method to mitigate the essentializing risk other than the care taken in each particular analysis. Throughout the book, Spinelli also cautions us against using 2nd century CE retrospective evaluations of the Flavians (such as those of Pliny the Younger, Juvenal, Tacitus and Suetonius) as a lens for understanding the politics of the Thebaid.
Chapter One examines how Statius puts Vergilian and Ovidian landscapes in dialogue in the Thebaid. Spinelli (pp. 99–103) sums up Statius’ technique as teasing with a Vergilian intertext at first, then inverting the force of the allusion through Ovidian “intrusions” into the intertext. So, for example (pp. 68–75), the storm in Thebaid 1 that forces Polynices to take shelter in Argos starts out with Vergilian gestures (it occurs at the beginning of the poem much like the storm in the Aeneid). As the descriptions proceeds, however, Statius turns the storm into an Ovidian deluge (which also occurs at the beginning of the Metamorphoses) that results (almost) in a return to primordial chaos with which the Metamorphoses begin. This Ovidian intertext contrasts with the Aeneid’s restoration of cosmic order through the efforts of the Vergilian Neptune. In this chapter Spinelli examines Ovidian intrusions in the journeys of Polynices to Argos and of Tisiphone to Thebes (both Theb. 1), the storm (as noted above), the Opheltes episode (Theb. 5), and the necromancy at Thebes (Theb. 4). In his landscapes, Statius repeatedly invokes Ovidian stories of Cadmus, Actaeon, Pentheus, and Perseus (whose exploits are related immediately after the Theban section of the Metamorphoses) as a way to contest the inherited Vergilian epic cosmos. The evocation of Cadmus (pp. 59–60), for example, contrasts the efforts of Vergilian heroes (such as Hercules with Cacus in Aeneid 8) to tame the landscape with the similar but failed attempts of Cadmus to do the same. Cadmus’ reversion to snake form reverses his “civilizing” act of killing the snake that had itself slain his companions. According to Spinelli, Statius contrasts these two modes of “epic” thinking both as a metaliterary gesture and as a reflection of the politics both of his own time and of the Augustan age of which Vergil and Ovid were a part. The relationship between the discourses of landscape and imperial power has long been analyzed by scholars of literature and material culture (pp. 35–42). Spinelli’s argument is that Statius’ Vergilian-Ovidian landscape offers an innovative rewriting of this relationship for the Flavian Age. Accordingly, the Augustan narrative of stability (symbolized in landscapes) is both deployed and questioned under the new regime.
In Chapter Two, Spinelli examines the Ovidian background of Statius’ conception of heroism. Spinelli argues that Statius contrasts the Vergilian foundational heroes of Rome (Aeneas and Hercules) with Cadmus, the Ovidian founder of Thebes. In this reading, the Statian heroes Capaneus, Hippomedon, Coroebus, Adrastus, Eteocles, and Polynices are found to be subject to an Ovidian modification (via allusions to Cadmus) to the basic Vergilian heroic pattern: the progressive and teleological nature of Vergilian heroism is contrasted with the regressive and chaotic nature of the Ovidian type. So, for example (pp. 131–35), Capaneus’ killing of the serpent at Nemea in Theb. 4 is both a Herculean exploit (the destruction of a monster in the service of civilization) and a Cadmean one (the destruction of a feature of the landscape that has ominous implications). Ovid’s Cadmus is already a re-writing of the Vergilian Hercules in Aeneid 8: insofar as he founds Thebes by slaying a monster, Cadmus is like the Vergilian Hercules. Cadmus’ reversion to serpent form at the end of his story in Ovid, however, questions the sustainability of the Herculean foundational act. Statius’ heroes constantly engage with this intertextual duality in ways that make contact with imperial politics. The Aeneid may be understood as canonical imperial narrative.[4] By questioning this narrative, the Metamorphoses engages with the underpinnings of the imperial project. The Thebaid, by contrast, seems to exhibit a kind of anxiety about the durability of the new Flavian regime. Adrastus (pp. 150–64) becomes a hallmark of this anxiety as his kingship evokes that of Aeneas but hints at the regressive possibilities of his rule. Statius’ Theseus (pp. 173–78), the subject of much debate among scholars, exhibits for Spinelli a mixture of Vergilian qualities (especially clementia) and Ovidian ones: Statius’ references to Hippolyte hint at Theseus’ Oedipal qualities in the conflict with his son; Spinelli also argues that Statius’ hints at Theseus deliberately causing Aegeus’ death by hoisting the wrong sail on his return from Crete! For Spinelli, the very uncertainty that scholars feel about Theseus as a closural epic figure evinces the uncertainty that underlies the Flavian politics of the Thebaid.
Chapter Three examines the gods and the divine in the Thebaid. Spinelli focuses on the concilium deorum (Theb. 1) and on Jupiter’s various other actions and speeches throughout the poem (e.g., his instructions to Mars in Theb. 3 and his interaction with Bacchus in Theb. 7). Spinelli argues that Statius problematizes the divine machinery of the Aeneid through the Ovidian intertexts yet, at the same time, rejects Lucan’s epic atheism. Given the strident anti-imperialism of Lucan’s poem, Statius’ rejection of its anti-divine model suggests a nuanced engagement with the imperial project that cannot be reduced to a simple pro- or anti-imperial binary. Statius instead puts Vergilian gods, with their (arguable) emphasis on ultimate order, in dialogue with Ovidian divinities and their (apparent) tendency toward chaos. Take, for example (pp. 221–23), how, after issuing orders to Mars to begin the war, the Statian Jupiter silences any dissent among the gods. The simile that follows compares the gods’ silence to the calming of a storm. This is clearly an inversion of the first simile of the Aeneid where the calming of a literal storm is compared to a leader calming a restless mob (Aen. 1.142–56). Here, the Statian Jupiter inverts Vergil and takes an Ovidian course toward war and destruction. Likewise (pp. 198–217), Statius’ concilium deorum resembles both Ovid’s (both because of its positioning near the beginning of the poem and because of Jupiter’s exasperation with morals) and Vergil’s (because of the conflict between Jupiter and Juno regarding the events of the narrative). Jupiter’s destructive agenda (the deluge in Ovid; the war of the Seven in Statius) seems to directly contradict the Vergilian Jupiter’s attempt to resolve the Trojan-Italian conflict and pave the way toward the Augustan Age. Indeed, Spinelli argues (pp. 206–209) that the Ovidian politics of Statius’ concilium may be discerned in its Ovidian “celestial geography.” Ovid’s cheeky comparison of the home of the gods with the Palatine in Rome (Met. 1.174–175) is echoed in Statius’ version of the divine palace and its commonalities with Statius’ own description of Domitian’s palace (Silv. 4.2) and those of Martial (Epigrams Book 8). Hence Statius’ divine machinery shows a close engagement with contemporary politics. Spinelli cautions us, however, from reading Statius’ Jupiter as straightforward praise or criticism of Domitian. Instead, Spinelli urges us to see Statius as portraying Jupiter’s rule as ambiguous and fragile, perhaps reflecting the perception of the relatively new Flavian regime.
Spinelli’s conclusion (pp. 250–57) reassesses Statius’ epilogue, which references the Thebaid’s relationship to the Aeneid in language borrowed from the epilogue to the Metamorphoses. Spinelli compares this moment with Jupiter’s earlier interaction with Bacchus (Theb. 7) which resembles Jupiter’s interaction with Venus (Aen. 1) in form but is full of Ovidian content. For Spinelli, both passages demonstrate Statius’ post-Ovidian poetics and politics. In particular, the reworking of Vergil via Ovid works at both the metapoetic level (the Thebaid references the generic concerns of both its predecessors) and the political level (the Aeneid’s concerns with the foundation of Roman order is put in dialogue with the Metamorphoses’ questioning of this kind of narrative).
In all, Spinelli’s book offers an important new way to read Statius’ Thebaid by taking seriously its Ovidian poetics and politics. The book is much more subtle and nuanced than my account has indicated. In summarizing the arguments of the three primary chapters I have not addressed all of Spinelli’s interpretations but have tried to provide a taste of what I regard as the main thrust. As noted above, the book is learned and dense and therefore not always the easiest reading. In addition to exploring a great mass of intertextual nexuses (often without long quotations and extensive contextualization), the book also examines (very effectively) a large number of “intermedial” relations between Statius and the art and architecture of imperial Rome. Many of these analyses are very compressed and require readers to do their homework in order to appreciate the full effectiveness of Spinelli’s arguments. Furthermore, Spinelli’s erudition sometimes leads to raising issues that may not have immediate bearing on the argument. For example, the problems of excessive interpretive essentializing, of authorial intent, and of the complexity of Vergil’s own politics frequently crop up in the text. Nevertheless, Spinelli’s book admirably fills a gap in Statian scholarship both by exploring Statius’ Ovidian intertexts and (thereby) by providing an innovative way of reading Statius’ politics.[5]
Notes
[1] As Spinelli acknowledges, the work of Alison Keith is an exception to this rule.
[2] See Stephen Hinds, Allusion and Intertext (Cambridge 1998), cited throughout Spinelli’s book.
[3] See, for example, Martin Dinter and Bettina Reitz-Joose (eds.), Intermediality and Roman Literature (Berlin 2019).
[4] See, e.g., David Quint, Epic and Empire (Princeton 1993).
[5] There are very few production issues: “Hyppomedon” (p. 115); “refusal…neither…nor” (p. 214); Greek font problem (p. 229, n. 124).