Silius Italicus’ poem has attracted increasing interest in recent years. This new introduction is a natural consequence of this development. J. first treats Silius’ life and discusses the poem's content, sources and style. He then describes its structure and presents a continuous close reading. Lastly, J. deals with various motifs such as the ‘Gigantomachy Theme’. J.'s main argument is that Silius offers a synopsis of the whole of Roman history and that he comments on contemporary history in particular, i.e. the civil war of ad 69 and the rise and fall of the Flavian dynasty. He therefore opposes purely positive readings of the Punica. In his view, there is ambiguity both in Silius’ portrait of Scipio as ‘proto-Emperor’ and in his praise of Domitian.

In general, the monograph provides a sound overview of this long poem and the research on it. J. succeeds in summarising major themes of the Punica, recapitulating essential scholarship, and adding his own perspectives. He also manages to convey his enthusiasm for the subject while keeping the reader engaged, which is no small feat considering that Silius’ poem is still often believed to be a rather mediocre achievement. Therefore, students and scholars alike will find much that is useful in this introduction. The following points of criticism are not intended to detract from J.'s achievement, but to point out some issues that struck this particular reader.

Let us start with general points of view. While the thesis that Silius represents Roman history is convincing, J. tends to go too far in his assumptions. Although it seems likely that Silius sometimes portrays Scipio in ways that may evoke the ruling emperor, it is by no means clear that such a portrayal has negative connotations or that Silius saw the imperial system as the cause for civil war and the eventual downfall of Rome. This reader is not convinced that the poem conveys a negative image of Domitian. Instead of backing up his audacious theories by in-depth discussions, J. often contents himself with repeating the same assertions and collecting vast numbers of examples with too little explanation or contextualisation. Another problem is that he often ignores the historical background and detects intent where Silius, to my mind at least, simply reproduces facts. It is a historical fact that Scipio succeeded his father and uncle in Spain: I do not see any proof that the representation of these events in the Punica displays ‘the overall transition from two to one, from the two consuls of the Republic to the one princeps of the Empire’ (p. 117).

The fact that this introduction addresses two types of readers causes the problem that it is sometimes too detailed and sometimes too brief for an informed reader. This holds true especially for the first chapters, where, for example, J. informs us where Livy and Virgil were born and what they worked on (pp. 53, 56). In view of the fact that it is rather unlikely for anyone unfamiliar with Virgil to be interested in the Punica, such information seems superfluous. The ubiquity of well-known facts in the early chapters makes for tedious reading. The same goes for the numerous repetitions: J. summarises the content of the poem on nearly a dozen occasions, at times even recycling fragments of his own text by means of verbatim self-quotation when returning to subject matter already discussed (pp. 5, 45–6). On the other hand, he keeps himself disappointingly short when discussing essential aspects such as Silius’ sources. Instead of an in-depth analysis he simply resorts to name-dropping. Also, in the fifth and sixth chapters the interpretations get shorter and shorter, while the provided text excerpts become unnecessarily long. For example, J. offers the text of Pun. 9.66–177 and Tac. Hist. 3.25.2-3 in Latin and English on eight pages, while his interpretation takes up a total of one page (pp. 153–61). Secondly, the structure seems arbitrary at points. For example, the second chapter ranges from a historical overview of the Punic Wars to the language and style of the poem. Even the individual chapters do not always follow an easily discernible train of thought. One wonders, to provide but one example, why J. describes Silius’ retirement to Campania after a summary of Roman history until Marcus Aurelius’ times (p. 21).

In the rest of my review, I am going to deal with some interpretations of J.'s that do not seem convincing to me. Regarding Silius’ life, it would have been reasonable to combine the various pieces of information given in the sources and to produce a short biography of the poet. Dealing with Martial's first epigram on Silius (4.14), J. fails to recognise the obvious re-use of central terms of Silius’ poem (pp. 26–8), while unconvincingly arguing (p. 37) for a verbal connection between the Punica and a passage on Silius in Tacitus’ Annales (4.33.4). Interpreting Pliny's famous letter on Silius’ death (3.7), J. goes too far when he refers the letter's general ending to Silius’ epic (pp. 38–9): I do not see any connections between Silius and Xerxes. While the importance of suicides in the Punica may be linked to Stoic principles, the allegation that Hannibal's suicide by poison points to the poet's own death by starving (p. 39) is not persuasive.

J. is right to emphasise Silius’ dependence on Livy. However, the alleged influence of other historians such as Polybius, (pp. 54–5), is far from certain, as H.-G. Nesselrath, Hermes 114 (1986), has argued convincingly. Most disappointing, however, is the extremely short passage on Silius’ language. J.'s focus on Silius’ learned epithets produces no results, as the poet uses Laomedonteus in very different circumstances and not only in the peculiar way J. is suggesting.

Regarding the poem's structure, J. assumes, as many do, that the poem was originally intended to have 18 books. However, this idea does not suit his twofold model very well. If the poet had planned the structure so ingeniously, it would seem rather strange that he first intended to write 15 books, then, all of a sudden, decided to add ‘three more’ (p. 67). Although both models are based on some reasonable observations, they also contain erroneous suggestions. For example, J. sees an alternation between siege and battle books. In his model Book 15 is dominated by battles, while Book 17 is characterised by sieges. But in Book 15 there are two sieges: New Carthage and Tarentum, whereas in Book 17 there is one major battle, Zama. It is too bad when the obvious facts sit uncomfortably with a theory a scholar is desperate to prove. The solution? In an attempt to save his model, J. argues that the undesired battles or sieges only appear to be such.

In the last chapters J. puts forward some intriguing interpretations, but many of them seem far-fetched: in every Roman victory depicted, J. discerns references to the Flavian emperors, civil war and Rome's doom. The proposed reading of the poem's final scene, Scipio's triumph (17.625–54), seems untenable to me. Among other things, J. argues that each use of the word imago in the entire poem points to this finale (pp. 106–8). Since there is no single battle between Scipio and Hannibal, he thinks that the poet postponed this confrontation just as much as the end of the war, thus proving himself to be a cunctator like Fabius (p. 119). J. even makes the case that the poem's characters are partaking in his own interpretation of the Punica: ‘In burying Marcellus … Hannibal believed that he was, in essence, burying the Republic’ (p. 138). Nobody would have believed that.