This study stems from a re-elaboration of S.'s Ph.D. dissertation and constitutes a compelling reading of Statius’ Thebaid, which relies on an interesting application of psycho- and neurolinguistic as well as narratological theories.
At the outset S. poses the following question: how to reconcile Statius’ ambition to realise ‘“novel” or even “original”’ work (p. 6; see Theb. 12.813) and its success among the contemporary audience with the latter's undoubted familiarity with the Theban myth? Which are the strategies that Statius chose to apply to create a narrative that would go beyond a mere repetition of the numerous poetic works already existing in Greece and Rome? There are three factors, S. states, that contribute to ‘creat[ing] a compelling narrative’ (p. 8): suspense, anticipation and surprise. Anticipation, ‘understood as a heightened sense of expectation for familiar and likely outcomes … is a state dependent on a level of familiarity and certainty’; in contrast, surprise ‘occurs completely contrary to expectation’ (ibid.). The more problematic factor to analyse is suspense. S. applies the definition by A. Ortony, G. Clore and A. Collins, The Cognitive Structure of Emotions (1988), combined with selected elements from R. Gerrig, Experiencing Narrative Worlds: on the Psychological Activities of Reading (1993), in particular, with regard to the so-called ‘suspense paradox’. In fact, as is the case for other ‘prospect emotions’, suspense ‘is contingent on a future condition and depends on the confirmation or disconfirmation of an event or outcome regardless of whether or not that outcome will be pleasing’ (ibid.). The application of such an exegetic grid in the critical reading of Statius’ epic leads to results that are interesting as well as generally acceptable.
The analysis starts with an extensive introduction in which the programmatic lines of the book are presented; this introductory part is followed by eight chapters, which reflect the narrative articulation of the poem. The first chapter, ‘Beginning with the End’, provides a stimulating reading of the proem, which, as S. notes (p. 24), ‘is more concerned with ending than beginning’. Chapter 2, ‘Portentous Beginnings’, takes us to the heart of the problem and demonstrates how Statius relies on portentousness and the supernatural in the forms of prophecy and omens (all of these concentrated in the first four books: 1.395–400; 2.1–124; 249–67; 332–52; 3.499–565; 4.377–645) in order to anticipate the mournful end of the story. S. also rightly stresses the tension created by the different degrees of knowledge of the reader (omniscient) and of the characters. Chapter 3, ‘Hypsipyle and the Army at Nemea’, contains an analysis of the Nemean mora and of Hypsipyle's Lemnian narrative. This episode has often been judged as a long-winded and unjustified excursus; S. re-assesses it, coherently with other recent investigations, by stressing its relationship with the themes of the poem and analysing in detail its inner articulations. Hypsipyle's narrative presents a tale that falls between the epic theme of reges et proelia and the tragic theme of ‘private grief and suffering’ (p. 52). Statius’ willingness to re-elaborate explains both differences vis-à-vis Euripides’ Hypsipyle and the complex narrative technique, which utilises wisely anticipation and chronological gaps in the various parts of the narrative. Similarly, in the following chapters (4: ‘Jocasta’; 5: ‘iam pater est’; 6: ‘Portentous Ends’; 7: ‘hic imperat, ille minatur’) some important innovations by Statius are presented in comparison with previous versions of the myth, namely: the elimination of the canonical scene of intermediation by Jocasta between Eteocles and Polynices and the subsequent surprise effect due to the fraternal duel and to a new way of describing the suicide of the woman; the relevance of the function attributed to the interventions of Oedipus (the curse, 1.46–87; the participation in the banquet, 8.240–58; the recovery of the paternal function, 11.105–8), which ‘provide an internal trajectory that manipulates audience expectations for grief at the end’ (p. 83); the ‘deaths of the primary heroes’ (p. 99) and their enhanced anticipation in earlier phases of the story, in particular, as to their participation in the games. Finally, in Chapter 8, ‘Theseus and Concluding the Thebaid’, S. does not tackle directly – apart from a few references – the debated question of the coherence of Statius’ last book with the rest of the poem, but offers an important contribution in this regard. Specifically, S. remarks that the conclusion of the poem, which comes unexpectedly, is anticipated by proleptic cues and also characterised by learned parallels with episodes and situations to be found in previous books.
It is self-evident that such a complex study may raise some reservations. On Adrastus, for instance, S. writes a few pages (pp. 114–20 and passim) that, albeit generally balanced, contain an overly severe judgement of his supposed incapacity to fill a role that the poet – and the tradition before him – attribute to the hero. The shortcomings and doubts of this character, as well as his lack of authority, are difficult to question; however, these are part of a complex psychological profile, which is closely linked with the gloomy and fatalistic vision that dominates the poem. Moreover, while it is correct to state (p. 65) that Statius’ Hypsipyle is less tragic a figure than that of Euripides, less acceptable is the affirmation that it is difficult to look at her as ‘a strongly pathetic figure’ because the ‘unhappy outcome’ anticipated by the previous events does not take place in reality. In fact, not only is the conclusion of Euripides’ drama equally positive, but a careful reading of Statius’ episode shows that the poet has on purpose increased the pathos and dramatic tone of the epic in its last part. With regard to Seneca's Phoenissae, I do not concur that ‘Oedipus does not curse his sons’ (p. 4; cf. vv. 352–62); it is equally difficult to accept that ‘what we have as the Phoenissae is actually two fragments of two separate plays’, similarly that Seneca decided not to have the two brothers kill one another (ibid.). Some of the connections made by S. are not fully convincing: it is excessive to interpret the fight between Polynices and Tydeus as a prefiguration of the duel between the former and Eteocles (p. 33); equally, it is artificial to link the dialogue between Polynices and Argia in 2.332–62 with the encounter between Hector and Andromache in Homer (p. 41).
On p. 150, Antigone and Argia are called ‘sisters’ instead of sisters-in-law. In some cases, the Latin text presents some errors: p. 37 (Theb. 2.214); p. 42 (3.344–5); pp. 71–2 (11.341–2); p. 129 (1.312–13).
The bibliography is reasonably comprehensive and up to date but shows some gaps: the commentaries of M. Hoffmann on Theb. 12.312–463 (1999), J. Steiniger and L. Micozzi on 4.1–344 (2005 and 2007 respectively) and A. Pavan on 6.238–549 (2009), as well as the fundamental studies by W. Bahrenfuss, Das Abenteuer der Argonauten auf Lemnos bei Apollonios Rhodios (Arg. 1.601 bis 909), Valerius Flaccus (Arg. 2.72 bis 403), Papinius Statius (Theb. 4.746 bis 5.498), Diss. (1951); B. Kytzler, Statius-Studien. Beiträge zum Verständnis der Thebais, Diss. (1955); Id., ‘Beobachtungen zu den Wettspielen in der Thebais des Statius’, Traditio 24 (1968), 1–15; V. Tandoi, ‘Il ricordo di Stazio “dolce poeta” nella Sat. VII di Giovenale’, Maia 21 (1969), 103–22; S.A. Georgacopoulou, ‘Argia e il monile di Armonia secondo Stazio’, PP 51 (1996), 345–50, all of which are relevant to the themes and issues discussed by S.
These observations, however, do not impact the validity of the book, which constitutes a remarkable step forward in the context of the studies on Statius’ Thebaid.
