R. has written an important book that makes two major arguments about Statius’ Thebaid. First, he attempts to bridge the interpretative divide about the poem's relationship to Flavian Rome and in particular to Domitian; second, he offers that the poem is much more deeply engaged with and reactive to Neronian Rome than has been recognised.

In regard to Domitian, R. rightly argues that the Thebaid offers no alternative to the rule of a single individual. Against that backdrop, he notes that the principate established, among other things, political and social order, kept the plebs in line (see p. 29) and eliminated the anxiety of civil war. In this light, fear, force and even terror that emanates from the imperial position amount to pragmatic steps towards resolution. But R. also adds that this kind of power works in an idealised situation, and that the poem leaves us with the impossibility of benevolent governance. Nonetheless, R. concludes that the poem's point is that power concentrated in the hands of one is better than the chaotic alternative. He examines political power by considering many characters (e.g. Menoeceus, Eteocles and even Hercules, who is referred to in the poem though he is not an actual character), but, as many other scholars have noted, Statius’ Theseus, the character who arrives at Thebes after the fratricide and who brings about the controversial resolution for the poem, is the model for the imperial figure. R. sees Theseus’ efforts as a successful restoration of order, yet one that is simultaneously fragile (hence the title of the monograph). Indeed, R. is insistent that the poem offers a ‘generally pessimistic and disillusioned outlook on human and divine matters’ (p. 28).

Ambivalent readings of the Thebaid are not new, but R. marshals useful and original support for his views. For example, his attempt to thread the hermeneutic needle is enhanced by the argument that the poem presents models of kingship, represented most of all by Theseus, from which Domitian could learn. In that regard, R. sees the Thebaid as didactic. Overall, that interesting interpretation allows for both positive and negative treatments of power to coexist within a coherent framework. It is somewhat surprising in this regard that more was not made out of the epilogue, in which it is imagined that Caesar already knows the poem and that the youth of Italy will learn from the poem (Theb. 12.814–15 iam te magnanimus dignatur noscere Caesar, | Itala iam studio discit memoratque iuuentus). The epilogue explicitly presents the Thebaid as didactic, and the learning process (noscere; discit) already seems underway. Further, R. takes Seneca's De clementia as a major model in this didactic framework. His strategy is sensible in that, within the parameters of the argument, both works are didactic treatises directed towards the ruler. R. argues that while there are positive examples of behaviour in Statius’ epic, characters such as Capaneus and Tydeus are specifically seen as falling short of ideals of positive leadership as articulated in De clementia.

R. further delves into Neronian Rome. Close discussions of, for example, Calpurnius Siculus, Lucan and the Bucolica Einsidlensia are all usefully employed to generate a sense of the literary representation of Neronian ideology and panegyric (particularly in regard to civil war). Overall, R. consistently situates Statius’ epic within an intellectual framework of imperial Rome that draws upon, among others, Seneca, Pliny, Lucan, Suetonius, Calpurnius Siculus and a host of other authors (Ovid, perhaps surprisingly, does not play a large role). For R., the literary landscape of imperial Rome has a direct impact upon the treatment of power in the Thebaid. But R. detects a sharp distinction between Statius and his Neronian predecessors by bringing about a ‘limited and disillusioned solution, one that surpasses naïve Golden Age visions’ (p. 175). Moreover, R. sees a consistent appropriation of Neronian ideology that serves rhetorical aims in the Flavian period, but with the important disclaimer that the appropriation does not entail the equation of Domitian with his predecessor. In this regard, R.'s argument comes close to political theory at moments, as abstract concepts such as clementia and libertas (e.g. pp. 54–5) merit discussion from a cultural perspective that are then used to inform the poem as a whole. Here R. often argues that Statius reflects the cultural dynamics that underscore these other works, and in that sense he assumes consistency among a wide range of works. R. is generally convincing in creating that kind of harmonious reading, but he seems to limit the possibility that Statius – or any other author – engages with cultural values in a unique and compelling way even within his own oeuvre.

R.'s method is consistently intertextual, and in addition to drawing upon the Neronian backdrop, the Aeneid is also of paramount importance to this study. Interestingly, R. sees the Aeneid from the lens of a ‘pessimistic’ view of power (e.g. p. 276). On this point, it may have been beneficial to consider the Aeneid not from a singular perspective, but rather to tease out ways in which the depiction of the rule of a single individual provides various paths in Virgil's foundational epic. It is also notable that, while R.'s argument does address verbal similarities or parallels between the two epic poems, R. tends to pursue larger aspects of interpretation of the Thebaid in light of big questions found in the Aeneid (e.g. p. 260) and other texts. Indeed, his work raises questions that extend beyond Rome. For example, his treatment of Coroebus in Thebaid 1 examines the way in which Callimachus’ treatment of the myth relates to Ptolemaic culture. R. then assesses the use of myth within the larger Ptolemaic context, and then he posits that similar dynamics are at play in the Thebaid. That argument assumes a good deal of knowledge on the part of Statius – or others in Rome – about foreign political contexts, but it is a provocative take. Readers will continue to come to differing interpretations about Statius’ use of the Aeneid, the De clementia or any other antecedent text, but the arguments put forth by R. will stimulate and provoke much thought about the Thebaid.