When reading a work of Flavian literature in Latin, a scholar can be forgiven for thinking in places that one is actually reading an Augustan literary work, so pervasive and striking are the intertextual allusions. Marks and Mogetta make precisely this point in their introduction, going so far as to assert that the Flavians’ usage of the Augustan past constitutes a ‘veritable Augustan renaissance’ (p. 1). The editors argue (pp. 2–4) that the reign of Domitian (81–96 ce), as evident in his building and cultural programmes, was marked by a remarkable expansion of the legacy of Augustus in comparison with his predecessors Vespasian (reigned 69–79) and Titus (ruled 69–71). The focus of Domitian upon the Augustan legacy, in turn, was rivalled by poets and prose writers of his reign in their use of Augustan literary models (pp. 4–7).
The scholarly recognition of the Flavian use of Augustan literary works is a reflection of the development in recent decades of the use of intertextuality to explore the Graeco-Roman literary tradition. This edited volume differs in two important aspects from other recent collections on the topic of Flavian intertextuality. First, it is the first to set out specifically to explore the reception of the Augustan age in its various facets during the Domitianic era; secondly, though curiously the word ‘intertext’ or its variants are not mentioned in the introduction, the collection as a whole extends the concept of intertextuality from the mere literary to include a host of other ‘intertextualities’ such as artistic, archaeological, architectural, iconographical, historical, linguistic and rhetorical. The innovative and sophisticated discussions in the volume are successful in evincing the complex, sometimes ambivalent, legacy of the Augustan age in a broad range of material, cultural and literary areas (sometimes discussed together).
The theme of Parts 1 and 4 is space, in the former in a topographical sense and in the latter from a poetic perspective. Part 1, ‘Urban Narratives’, explores the Domitianic building and restoration programme that incorporated Augustan features and became an enduring part of the urban landscape of Rome. The three contributors to the treatment of ‘urban narratives’ draw attention to the ambivalent aspect of Domitian's use of the Augustan legacy. In the opening chapter D. Conlin explains how Domitian's building programmes in the Campus Martius and the Forum Romanum reflect Domitian's desire not only to emulate Augustus but also to control and surpass the legacy of his predecessor. Domitian's alignment and concomitant rivalry with Augustus and his age is further suggested in M. Goldman-Petri's discussion of Domitian's construction of templa reminiscent of Augustan arae. D. Noceras contends that Statius’ attitude in Silvae 1.1 towards the monumental equestrian statue of Domitian in the Roman Forum confirms the lack of a positive correspondence between the statue and any proximate Augustan monument; this reading potentially lends credence to an anti-Domitianic interpretation of Silvae 1.1 (e.g. F. Ahl, ANRW II 32.1 [1984]).
The three chapters in Part 4, ‘Poetic Journeys’, that deal with the theme of space in poetry each examine the reception of an Augustan text by a Domitianic poet. E. Scioli compares Statius’ house of Sleep in Thebaid 10 with Ovid's in Metamorphoses 11 and argues that the former's description creates both a feeling of familiarity in a new poetic context and a sense of ‘belatedness’ in regard to its Augustan source. C. Schroer maintains that Silius Italicus inverts Virgil's model of Aeneas’ ‘victorious exile’ in the Aeneid and through the use of ‘antiphrastic’ allusion reframes and challenges his Augustan predecessor's optimistic reading of his hero's exile. The final chapter dealing with space is by J.-M. Hulls, who probes the utilisation of the ‘journey’ trope by Statius in Silvae 4 via various intertextual allusions to the works of his Augustan poetic predecessors in order to establish a connection between his own poetic Augustanism and the political Augustanism of Domitian. The close identification or association of Domitian with various Olympian and semi-divine figures formed part of the Roman imperial cult.
In Part 2, ‘Gods and Models’, E. Moormann and C. Stocks explore the nature of the literary relationship between Domitian and Hercules, in which the emperor is portrayed as being superior to the demigod, a representation similar to the Augustan depiction. In an especially rich intertextual discussion crossing the boundaries between the literary and iconographical, E. Buckley explores Domitian's relationship to Minerva as shown on the surviving frieze of the Forum Transitorium in comparison with Ovid's representation of Arachne's punishment in Metamophoses 6 and Martial's depiction of the female in Epigrams 1. Such a comparison, according to Buckley, has the potential for what she calls a ‘subversive’ reading identifying Domitian as an Arachne figure, which would be better explained in terms of the destabilisation or undermining of the poetic text.
In their introductory discussion of Part 3, ‘From Nero to Augustus’, which examines the Flavian literary strategy of associating Domitian with Augustus by distinguishing him from Nero, the editors (p. 10) point out how Nero's appropriation of the Augustan legacy created a delicate situation for the Flavian poets when they associate Domitian with Augustus. L. Cordes explores how Statius, in his panegyric of Domitian in Silvae 4.3, works his way around Calpurnius Siculus’ panegyric of Nero in Eclogue 1 not only by distinguishing Domitian from Nero in various ways but also by identifying him with Augustus more authoritatively than Calpurnius does in respect of Nero. Similarly, V. Closs distinguishes Domitian from Nero by showing how Martial in Epigrams 5.7 images Domitian as the new Augustus though his rebuilding of Rome after the fire of 80 ce, which compares favourably with the reaction of Nero after the fire of 64. According to L. Pontiggia, Silius Italicus presents an optimistic vision of Domitian's rule in Punica 3 in contrast to a negative depiction of the Neronian past through Silius’ avoidance of providential divine machinery in Punica 1 and 2, which corresponds to the adiamorphic Weltanschauung of Lucan in the Bellum Civile; this shift from a Lucanian to a Virgilian perspective places Domitian in a positive light since, like Augustus, he restored Rome in the aftermath of civil war. In the programmatic first two books of the Punica, however, the Virgilian allusions serve to reflect poorly upon Silius’ depiction of the Romans, since they abandon the loyal ally of Saguntum to its fate, and there is not the same degree of pretence in the Punica as there is in the Aeneid that the present and future are founded on a glorious sense of Rome's divine mission. Whereas Pontiggia's discussion and the other chapters in Part 3 present optimistic views of Domitian's reign, it is possible to detect ambiguity and even criticism, as scholars have shown in their readings of the texts discussed, namely Silvae 4.3 (e.g. C. Newlands, Statius’ Silvae [2002], pp. 284–325), Epigram 5.7 (e.g. J. Garthwaite, in: F. Grewing, Toto Notus in Orbe [1998]) and Punica 3 (e.g. J. Penwill, in: A. Turner et al., Private and Public Lies [2010] and in: G. Manuwald and A. Voigt, Flavian Epic Interactions [2013]). Such readings align nicely with Buckley's ambiguous treatment of Martial and Ovid in Part 2.
Part 5, ‘History and Reception’, draws attention to some major historical features in Domitianic Rome derived from the Augustan past. E. Incelli argues that Domitian instigated the legislative act of 88 ce, which prohibited senators from adopting freedmen and claiming freeborn status for them, in order to stop adoptions that could hinder his promotion of men to senatorial rank who would remain loyal to him. In the concluding chapter N. Elkins discusses how Nerva, Domitian's successor, evoked through coins and other means the Augustan legacy, especially the ideas of restoration and rebirth, in order to distinguish himself from Domitian and his rule. Elkins's emphasis upon Nerva's preoccupation to set himself off from Domitian, along with the comments of Marks and Mogetta, leads to some important historical questions regarding Domitian's legacy. The editors (cf. the jacket cover) maintain that the rich cultural environment of the Domitianic age bears testimony to Domitian as a culturally engaged emperor who helped to mould an era that not only was inspired by the Augustan age but also rivalled it. Furthermore, the jacket cover asserts that Domitian is ‘far from being the cruel tyrant history has made him out to be’. This latter perspective is consistent with the views of modern scholars who from the 1960s have attempted to resurrect Domitian from the graveyard of historical infamy that emerges from the ancient accounts of his reign. The editors argue (p. 12) that Domitian's cultivation of the Augustan legacy endured despite his damnatio memoriae; even so, there seems little doubt that Domitian was held in contempt by the Senate since after his assassination it decreed that his statues be demolished, including the equestrian statue of Domitian; that the inscriptions on his monuments be erased; and that all other traces of his memory be destroyed (Suet. Dom. 23.1; Plin. Pan. 52.4–5; cf. Conlin, pp. 15, 28, 30; Nocera, p. 65; Moorman and Stocks, p. 92). These statues, inscriptions and monuments reflect the status of the imperial cult under Domitian more than they attest to him ‘as a studious, thoughtful cultivator of the Augustan past’ (jacket cover). Indeed, the various chapters in the volume are replete not just with suggestions of the ambivalence of Domitian's attitude towards the Augustan legacy but also of Flavian writers’ ambiguous attitudes towards the emperor.
Marks and Mogetta have produced a volume whose groundbreaking and nuanced contributions manifestly attest to the pervasive and multifaceted engagement of Domitian and his age with the rich literary and material cultural legacy of the Augustan past. The 31 photographs and drawings add much to the discussion of various chapters. Commendably the contributions include the original Greek or Latin text along with English translations (instead of just the latter). The bibliography at the back of the volume helps to provide a collective (rather than disparate) sense to the individual contributions, as do the useful general index and index locorum. Stylistic infelicities (e.g. unnecessary or palaverous expression, the excessive use of the first person, and paragraphs that end with an indented block quotation) intrude in some of the chapters, but generally not to such a degree that the overall quality of the volume is affected. Hopefully, other similar volumes will appear that deal specifically with the influence of other periods, for example, the Republican and Neronian ages, upon the literary and material cultural dynamics of the Flavian era.
