This book, as its title indicates, is centrally concerned with establishing and exploring Hannibal's Romanitas or ‘Roman-ness’ in Silius Italicus' Punica and, as such, challenges the view that Hannibal is, straightforwardly, a Carthaginian ‘other’ in the poem. Stocks' study, as indicated in the introduction and ch. 1, takes its point of departure from pre-Silian literary traditions regarding Hannibal; as these are almost exclusively Roman or, when not, are shaped by Roman conceptions of the Carthaginian, it follows that Silius himself, drawing on them, produces a Hannibal who is likewise defined, even in his ‘otherness’, in Roman terms. And yet, as S. observes, Hannibal had not only been ‘Romanized’ long before Silius, but had become a locus or point of reference for the Romans' exploration of their own Romanitas and not simply of his ‘Punic-ness’. S. supports these claims in ch. 2, which gives an overview of select, mostly prose treatments of Hannibal down to Seneca the Younger, and in ch. 3, which is devoted to Livy. In ch. 4, where she considers Hannibal's relation to heroic epic antecedents, S. strays somewhat from the foregoing discussion, but in its final section helpfully connects the dots between the ‘Roman Hannibal’ as a construct of the pre-Silian Roman literary imagination and Silius' Hannibal as a specific instance thereof. Here S. shows how Jupiter's speech to Venus in Book 3 and Virtus' to Scipio in Book 15 define a standard for ‘idealised Romanitas’ (78), a standard that is not only applicable to Hannibal, but is set by him through his early successes in the war. Hence, Hannibal ‘is a hero whose dynamism and epic credentials will set a benchmark for Silius' Roman uiri on how to wage war, showing them how to be real men; showing them how to be Roman’ (75).

Chs 5–10 cover the Punica mostly in chronological sequence. Throughout, S.'s principal concern is Hannibal, and even when attention shifts to, say, Marcellus (ch. 8) and Scipio (ch. 10), S. is mindful of how they inform and are informed by Silius' ‘Roman Hannibal’. But the guiding thread of this part of the book is another trend: Hannibal's evolution from man into myth. Early in the epic, S. argues, Hannibal the man is in full view as he builds (or builds on) the myth of himself as a larger-than-life, superhuman figure, and even though there are signs of his declining effectiveness as early as Book 4, he maintains a fearsome presence through his victory at Cannae in Book 10 (chs 5–6). But after Cannae, Hannibal's effectiveness as a general wanes, and his physical presence in the narrative diminishes, as Roman generals such as Marcellus and Scipio emerge and lead Rome toward final victory in the war; Hannibal the man thus becomes detached from Hannibal the myth, which, nevertheless, abides in the form of his reputation (nomen) and continues to instill fear and awe in the Romans (chs 7–10). S.'s reading accounts well for Hannibal's absent ‘presence’ late in the epic and, further, shows how influential on Silius the Roman mythologization of Hannibal was; after all, over the course of the epic, he morphs into his most recognizable form in the Roman literary tradition, not as a flesh-and-blood historical figure, but as a powerful, threatening idea, as Rome's ultimate bogeyman. S. concludes her study (ch. 11) with analyses of four episodes in which Hannibal addresses and defines his own legacy. Especially compelling is the discussion of his final speech in the epic (17.605–15), which, for S., is a moment of intense metapoetic self-reflection. This is evident not only in Hannibal's awareness of the Roman literary traditions that have constructed him, but in the way in which his fortunes and the poet's are linked: ‘In his final speech Hannibal states his identity as a Silian hero and with the verb sileant (17.610) — a possible silent play on Silius and a sphragis — reiterates that it is the Silian conceived myth, a myth now sanctioned by the Carthaginian himself, that will survive to define Rome's Hannibals hereafter’ (130). In my own work, I have read Scipio's triumph at the end of the epic as testifying to his Jovian paternity and proto-imperial status. But as S. has taught me, that is only part of the picture; in the end, Silius, Hannibal and Scipio are all in it together.

S. is a congenial, helpful and reliable guide: her prose is clear, unaffected and often delightfully conversational; chapters are of a reasonable length and are further divided into digestible subsections. S. eases us into her study in the introduction and ch. 1, and eases us out of it with a clear restatement of her principal arguments in the Conclusion. S. does a good job of staying on topic throughout; and Latin and Greek passages are translated into English for a wider audience. Classicists and Silianists, furthermore, will appreciate S.'s solid grasp of the ancient texts and extensive knowledge of secondary materials. In the final analysis, S.'s contribution is significant: this is not simply a character-study of Hannibal in the Punica, but a reading of the epic as a whole and of the literary traditions that shape the work.