The intertextual tradition of ancient war epic and the concept of epic heroism are topics that have been extensively studied in the past decades. They might, therefore, seem like fields where breaking new ground is relatively difficult, but Francesco Cannizzaro succeeds in making a valuable contribution to the field. This is partly because of the clearly defined subject matter of the book: Cannizzaro limits himself to examining four Homeric episodes that are relevant to the development of heroic characterisation (Leichenkampf, mache parapotamios, Doloneia, and Dios apate) and analysing how, through various stylistic and narrative choices, these are reworked in Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica, Statius’ Thebaid, and Silius Italicus’ Punica. The focused approach allows the author to delve deep in his comparative close readings of specific passages. This is where Cannizzaro excels, and it demonstrates his philological expertise and profound familiarity with the source material.
In addition to war epic, the author is well-versed in other genres of Graeco-Roman literature and recurrently considers comparative material, especially from Ovid and Seneca. Surprisingly, relatively little room is given to Lucan in these intertextual discussions. A more profound look at the Pharsalia would certainly have been relevant, as Lucan is considered a significant reformer of the tradition, particularly in regard to the “mental landscape” of Roman war epic. Another work that could have been more extensively explored is Statius’ Achilleid. Although the fragmentary poem does not directly present variations of the Homeric episodes under scrutiny, it could have offered significant points of comparison and insight into the discussion concerning the development of epic heroism.
My most serious criticism pertains to the analysis of the socio-cultural background of the Flavian epics, a feature which is almost entirely lacking in the book. Cannizzaro’s purely philological approach is a conscious choice; in the introduction, he explains it as an attempt to avoid broadening the field of inquiry too much, in a manner that might be confusing. However, as many recent studies of Roman war epic have demonstrated, integrating philological analysis with cultural-historical considerations is likely to provide valuable context and depth to the analysis.[1] Roman war epic is a political genre, intimately intertwined with the development of society and the cultural atmosphere in the early imperial period. Taking this background into account might have enriched the discussion, especially in the case of Statius’ Thebaid, which is consistently discussed as an “epic of nefas”.
In the introduction, the author presents the book’s theoretical and methodological underpinnings. He acknowledges scholars whose theoretical thinking has influenced his work the most (Richard Thomas, Gian Biagio Conte, Stephen Hinds, Alessandro Barchiesi), but he does not align himself with any particular theoretical framework. The intertextual method is chosen as the primary analytical lens; this choice appears natural and well-argued, and Cannizzaro’s expertise in applying it is evident throughout the book. Additionally, the author mentions narratology, although he does not extensively engage with its theoretical terminology or research tradition. Nevertheless, subsequent chapters contain insightful narratological observations regarding, for example, internal/external narrators (Chapters 2 and 3). It is unclear why other analytical approaches mentioned in the introduction, such as “eclectic” gender-based methodologies, are mentioned, since their role in the analysis is negligible.
Chapters 1–4 correspond to the four Homeric episodes under scrutiny and offer a comparative reading of their variations in the relevant Flavian epics. Each chapter follows a similar structure: it begins by introducing the Homeric episode and explaining its significance for the expressions of heroism. Subsequently, the author discusses its variations in the Aeneid and other relevant pre-Flavian sources. Following this, each Flavian epic in which the theme appears receives its own sub-section. To conclude each chapter, there is a brief analysis of the relationship between the Flavian episodes analysed, along with some considerations regarding their potential chronology. The structure is clear and makes reading the book a coherent experience.
Chapter 1 discusses the motif of Leichenkampf. In the Iliad, this theme recurs in Books 16 and 17, which feature the fights over the bodies of Cebriones, Sarpedon, and Patroclus. Cannizzaro convincingly analyses the significance of these scenes to the narrative symmetry of the Iliad and points out the differences in Homer’s and Virgil’s use of Leichenkampf as a narrative element. He then moves on to discuss two scenes from Flavian epic: the fight over Canthus’ body in Argonautica 6 and Hippomedon’s defense of Tydeus’ body in Thebaid 9. The author examines Valerius and Statius’ characteristic approaches to employing the Homeric subtext: whereas Valerius is able to condense the spirit of several Homeric episodes into a few significant lines, Statius tends to amplify the Homeric episode, increasing its pathos. Cannizzaro offers some interesting observations regarding Valerius’ use of the future reflexive in characterising his “proto-Iliadic” heroes; additionally, the discussion concerning the ways in which Statius reworks the Homeric theme of divine intervention to “negate” the Iliad is insightful.
Chapter 2 discusses the motif of mache parapotamios: the battle between a hero and a river god. The starting point for this topos is the encounter between Achilles and Scamandros in Iliad 21, which, as the author notes, is crucial to the development of Achilles’ heroic characterisation. After discussing Virgil’s decision to omit this type of episode in the Aeneid, Cannizzaro moves on to analyse its variations in Thebaid 9 (Hippomedon versus Ismenus) and in Punica 4 (Scipio versus Trebia). In both of these scenes, the reader encounters a hero who, despite being a mere mortal, is able to stand up to a deity and exceed Achilles in valor. However, the models of heroism that the two protagonists represent are very different: Statius’ Hippomedon is a “hyper-Iliadic” warrior whose “primitive” heroism—filtered through Virgil’s Mezentius and Turnus—makes him unmindful of the divine element. Silius’ Scipio, on the other hand, presents a new, more civil, and more Roman model of heroism, based on the combination of virtus and pietas. While this observation is not new, Cannizzaro’s comparative analysis between the episodes offers novel insights.
The most commendable part of Chapter 2 is the section where the author examines the moral characterisation and motivation of the river gods. I particularly enjoyed the nuanced discussion of the cultural identity of Trebia and the shifting ideas concerning human intervention in nature during the early imperial period. This is one of the few sections in the book where the socio-cultural background is analysed in detail, and it truly enriches the discussion. Cannizzaro is able to demonstrate the flexibility of the Homeric topoi and how they could serve different ideological purposes under changing historical circumstances.
Chapter 3 examines the later variations of the Homeric Doloneia: the nocturnal mission of Odysseus and Diomedes in Iliad 10. The most important of these is, of course, the Nisus and Euryalus episode in Aeneid 9. Cannizzaro demonstrates how Virgil reworks the Homeric subtext by questioning the heroic quality of a night mission and by giving it an inauspicious end. The Virgilian model had a great impact on the variations of the Doloneia in Flavian epic. The author discusses four separate episodes in the Thebaid—Tydeus’ monomachy (Book 2), the Argive night raid, and the mission of Dymas and Hopleus (Book 10), and the aristeia of Argia and Antigone (Book 12—arguing that Statius uses them to develop the concept of virtus towards a less martial and a more private dimension. This section is a rather heavy read, both because of its length and because of the repetitive motifs in the four episodes. Its most interesting aspect is the insightful analysis of the role of the Moon in Statius’ narrative. Paying particular attention to the Virgilian influence, Cannizzaro demonstrates how the Moon’s gradual transformation from a natural phenomenon into an anthropomorphic deity goes hand in hand with the development of virtus, while at the same time, the role of divine agents in general diminishes and becomes more abstract.
The following section on the Punica discusses three episodes: the Carthaginians’ escape from the Callicula defile (Book 7), Satricus’ accidental parricide (Book 9), and Marcellus’ death (Book 15). Among these discussions, I find the first one most convincing: Cannizzaro uses Livy and Polybius as comparative material to examine the ways in which Silius reinterprets not only Roman history but also epic heroism. He demonstrates how, diverging from the Homeric model, the Punica views “Odysseian” cunning as a negative quality primarily associated with the treacherous Carthaginians and incompatible with the Roman model of virtus. On this occasion, providing background on the development of the concept of virtus toward a more “civic” direction during the early Principate, as well as on the influence of Stoic ideals on Roman conceptions of heroism, would have been valuable. Additionally, a more detailed discussion on multiple models of masculinity and leadership in Homer would, in my view, have strengthened the chapter as a whole.
Chapter 4 discusses Hera’s seduction and deception of Zeus in Iliad 14 (the Dios apate). At first glance, this episode’s connection to the theme of epic heroism is not obvious. However, Cannizzaro convincingly ties the episode’s subversive narrative potential to discussions of virtus in the Flavian epics. Once again, the role of the Aeneid in the development of the topos is crucial: Cannizzaro analyses how Virgil makes use of the Homeric subtext in the crucial turning points of his narrative, where both the course of Fate and the epic-heroic nature of the poem are called into question. The next section examines how the same process is at play in the Flavian epics. The motif is most important to Valerius Flaccus: in the Argonautica, Juno is the agent opposed to Fate, who uses Hylas (Book 3) and Medea (Book 6) to turn the poem from a heroic epic into an “epica elegizzata”. While Silius and Statius give the Dios apate a smaller role, its memory is still evoked in the mind of the reader, especially in the Punica, where it ultimately ends up serving Fate and Jupiter’s plan. Cannizzaro’s analysis of the possible Valerian influence on Statius and Silius’ ways of working on the theme is interesting, and in my view the most convincing of the book’s discussions of the Flavian epics’ chronology.
The concluding chapter is brief and anecdotal, and it does not offer a comprehensive summary of the book’s findings. For readers who want to quickly skim through the work for its key arguments, I recommend visiting the summary section at the end of each chapter.
All in all, this book is a welcome contribution to the field and will be of interest to both scholars of Homer and those of the Roman epic tradition. The author’s sensitivity to finer linguistic nuances allows him to detect unexpected affinities between episodes and to demonstrate the profound Homeric debt that runs through the Flavian epics.
Notes
[1] Even though most of the important earlier works in this regard are mentioned in the broad and versatile bibliography, the author does not thoroughly engage in discussion with them. A few, potentially useful publications that are lacking include D. MacGuire, Civil War, Tyranny and Suicide in Flavian Epics (Olms-Weidmann 1997); M. Masterson, “Statius’ Thebaid and the Realisation of Roman Manhood”, Phoenix 59 (2005): 288–315; and my own article: E. Pyy, “Homeric Ideals Versus Roman Realities? Civil War, Autocracy, and the Reception of Homer in Silius Italicus’ Punica”, in Klooster & van den Berg (eds.), Homer and the Good Ruler in Antiquity and Beyond (Brill 2018): 199–218; as well as my monograph, E. Pyy, Women and War in Roman Epic (Brill 2020).