Silvae 3.5 is an encomiastic and decidedly self-reflexive poem by Statius, addressed to his wife Claudia to persuade her to move from Rome to Naples, whose wonders the poet eulogises in the poem’s Laudes Campaniae. This edition by Valentino D’Urso represents a valuable addition to the growing body of commentaries on Statius’ Silvae. The last on Book 3 specifically was G. Laguna-Mariscal’s 1992 Spanish edition. A. Pittà has recently (2021) published a commentary on the praefatio and Silv. 1.1, and his forthcoming volume will focus on poems of Book 1, with commentaries for the Fondazione Valla in the pipeline. This edition by D’U. is learned and technical, if extensive: 236 pages of commentary on the poem’s 112 verses might at first sight appear disproportionate, especially considering that on the five compositions that make up Silvae 5, B. Gibson’s Oxford commentary in its exegetical section devotes ‘just’ 362 pages. But Edizioni ETS has perhaps a less restrictive word-count, and this allows D’U. to make his points articulately on this programmatic and self-referential sphragis, where Statius’ ‘ethos partenopeo’ glistens. In her magisterial introduction to Editing and Commenting Statius’ Silvae (2023), A. Lóio explains that the poems’ defining characteristic that influences any subsequent analysis is their problematic transmission. It becomes crucial, even more than with most other Latin texts, for scholars to approach textual criticism and interpretation as integrated tasks: D’U. succeeds in his endeavour.
The introduction is divided into six sections: ‘Eidos e telos di silv. 3,5’, ‘Temi’, ‘Struttura’ (where each verse of the poem is made to fit into the slightly too systematised rhetorical framework of a suasoria), ‘Modelli’, ‘Datazione’ (where Silv. 3.5 is placed between 92 and 94 c.e.), ‘Il locus desperatus di v. 104a’, and a separate ‘Nota al Testo’, where the reader learns that D’U. uses Courtney’s text as a point of comparison, from which his edition diverges in nine places (including the use of the titulus). The section (34–45) on the vexed v. 104 (†denarum†que lacus medicos Stabiasque renatas), to be read against its lengthy entry in the apparatus, is particularly rewarding. The apparatus, in its amplitude, is conceived above all with a view to critical use of the commentary. D’U. shows prudence, but also interpretative judgement: he summarises well the scholarly rationale for the several readings advanced through the centuries against the nonsensical denarumque (which had already been considered by the author in an earlier publication, 2022), re-evaluating Imhof’s conjecture of Dimidiae in the light of the territorial relevance of Stabiae’s hydrothermal springs and offering a topographically driven correction to Hall’s conjecture of Aequanae(ve) into Aequanosque (lacus medicos), understood as ‘the healthy springs of Equano’. Albeit both are plausible, D’U. cautions his readers, arguing there are no elements that would make one of the emendations preferable to the other. This kind of sensible analysis, rooted in literary echoes (Ov., Met. 15.709–18) and in the close examination of the possible topography of the Surrentine peninsula, is desirable for its breadth, and accomplished.
The translation is vibrant, with archaising touches that capture Statius’ at times melodramatic torment in his attempt to sweet-talk Claudia, such as the rendering of the sentimental outpouring at vv. 24–6: ‘Ricevetti volentieri e docile le briglie tue, di te che con la prima ferita d’amore trafiggesti me, inesperto del talamo …’. Only occasionally does the translation fail to capture the Latin fully: for instance, in the translation of ‘[le gare] del Circo scalmanato’, to render rabidi … Circi at v. 15 (over the lectio of rapidi transmitted in M), with the adjective to be understood as ‘rowdy’. The comments ad loc (92–3) contextualise well the specular opposition between ear-splitting Rome and the promised Neapolitan quies, but the translation appears weak for what seems to this reader a much more violent image.
The commentary itself is scholarly, encompassing predominantly matters of textual tradition, style, syntactic trends and diction and metrical matters, but without neglecting the recurrent use of e.g. elegiac topoi and mythological conventions (see, for instance, the notes on Alcyone and Philomela at v. 58). To single out particularly revealing instances, I would like to spotlight the lemmata at vv. 33b–36 and vv. 72–73a. In the former, the reader is assertively led from considerations on Claudia’s editorial role in the composition of the Thebaid to a discussion of the import of Statius’ imagery of the arduous creative process for later poets, such as Luis Carrillo y Sotomayor in his Libro de la erudición poética, tantalisingly drawing attention to Statius’ key standing in the literature of Spain’s Siglo de Oro, a fertile avenue for more discussions. In the latter, examination of the nexus Vesuvinus apex and the oxymoronic flammea diri/montis hiems give rise to an interesting discussion of Statius’ metaphorical choices, and para-etymologies in Ve-s(a)evus, illuminating the poet’s predilection for paradox in his ‘rhetoric of wonder and aesthetics of surprise’ (Bessone, 2024).
This reader’s only significant reservation is that words and quotations in Greek, Latin and modern languages are left untranslated: the edition is thus not as accessible as one would have hoped, but this should not deter readers. D’U.’s commentary can be productively flanked by A. Bonadeo’s recent monograph (Stazio alla moglie Claudia: riflessioni in margine a Silv. 3,5, 2021). This edition will serve as a robust textual foundation on which future scholars can construe more interpretative analyses of the strands Statius puts on view in Silv. 3.5, from its cultural fusion and generic hybridity to its vivid landscapes.
