To talk of the renewed interest in Statius’ Achilleid as a sort of Renaissance is to minimise the scope of its revival: in addition to S.’s monograph, another two book-length treatments, and the first complete commentary in English by C. McNelis (2024) since O.A.W. Dilke’s 1954 edition, reprinted with a new introduction by R. Cowan in 2005, have been published in recent years (G. Bitto [2016], J. Abad Del Vecchio [2024]). The Achilleid is now firmly fastened onto the scholarly map, despite (or indeed because of) its teasing brevity.

S.’s book takes a linear approach to the episodes of the poem, and presents itself as a sequential reading of most of the scenes in the Achilleid conducted primarily intertextually. S.’s main thesis is that the Achilleid can be read as a prequel to the Iliad and that the characterisations of Achilles and others appear to respond closely to his fully fleshed, martial counterpart in Homer, as well as to other characters in the literary tradition. Achilles is first and foremost an epic hero (in the making), and the Scyros episode is a parenthesis, an epic mora, which does not constitute a chink in the hero’s literary armour.

S.’s monograph goes beyond the status quo of positions held by H. Juhnke (1972), S. Koster (1979), A.-M. Taisne (2008) and C. Klodt (2009), among others. One of the merits of this book is that the diachronic methodology allows for a useful recapitulation of modern and contemporary views, duly cited throughout. S. also offers a wealth of parallels: S. ought to be praised for the intensive handling of the text of the Achilleid. Specific discussions also include treatment of the manuscript tradition, which informs S.’s choices, though not always consistently upheld or persuasively argued. For instance, the discussion (on pp. 115–17) of verse 1.265 (has sine, quaeso, minas numenque exire malignum) prefers the reading of the consensus codicum transmitting numen … malignum to P’s text on account of Virgil, Aen. 2.622–3, though the text at p. 187 returns to the more widely printed nubem … malignam. This reader favours the latter reading because of its Homeric resonance, noted by R. Uccellini ad loc. The contextual relevance of Il. 4.275–82, where battalions of men readying themselves for war are compared to a storm-laden black cloud beheld by a goatherd (negotiated via Virg. Aen. 12.451–5) seems particularly fitting for Thetis’ anxious anticipation of the coming conflict, and looks forward both to the fervent war preparations at Aulis later in the poem and to Ulysses’ account of ominously darkened straits (Ach. 1.790: omne fretum longa velorum obtexitur umbra).

The most interesting takeaways of the book are the discussions of the importance of the Odyssey as a model for the Achilleid, in addition to that of Iliad: this is surely a rewarding approach deserving of further study. S. offers a discussion in structural terms of the storm scene in Od. 5.270–90 for the understanding of Thetis’ opening plea to Neptune, but there are other interesting parallels proposed. For example, S. reflects (pp. 120–2) on the importance of Od. 6.99–134 for the first meeting between Achilles and Deidamia (mediated via Mercury and Herse in Ovid, Met. 2.711–36) and carries out a thorough analysis of Odysseus’ wandering route to Scyros (Ach. 1.675–88, on pp. 235–52), which mirrors his ‘future’ travels and simultaneously echoes the Doloneia, and which demonstrates appropriately Statius’ tendency to present his heroes as ultra-recognisable (in the footsteps of F. Ripoll [2019]). In a study so extensive in its scope, however, S. sometimes falls into a descriptive restating of the narrative action, such as the lengthy account at 2.3.1 ‘Tellus tutissima: Thetis’ Auswahl des Verstecks’, which discusses Thetis’ choice of island to hide Achilles. The conclusions achieved are somewhat self-evident: S. rightly visualises (p. 102) Thetis’ selection of Scyros to be at the centre of her frantic travels – which surely mimic her feverish distress –, but ultimately it is transparent from context that the goddess opts for Scyros precisely because it is inbellis (p. 105).

It is perhaps inevitable, yet nevertheless regrettable, that within the abundance of intertextual resonances on view, some of the most worthwhile parallels are left underdeveloped. For intertextuality to realise fully its interpretative potential, as D. O’Rourke and A. Pelttari (2024) remind us, intertextual echoes need room to be examined for the mutually defining relationships they act out, an aspect not to be overlooked. Often, I was left wanting for a more dynamically argued intertextual pay-off. For instance, on pp. 76–8 S. discusses Thetis’ request to Chiron that Achilles be handed over to her, contriving some sort of nebulous expiatory rites (Ach. 1.135–41). Pushing back against the totalising influence of the Dido parallel (Aen. 4.496–7), S. argues that the lines should be interpreted as a sort of Nekyia, harkening back to Odysseus’ in Od. 11. The parallels are structural and thematic, working cumulatively (far-flung edges of the world, Ach. 1.137ff. and Od. 11.13; the description of secreta freta that corresponds to Circe’s description at Od. 10.513–15; the sacrifices to the dead). Given the earlier mention of the Styx (Ach. 1.133–4), this is an arresting suggestion, but the parallel’s implications are left hidden: what do we gain from interpreting Thetis’ fictions to Chiron as a sort of implied katabasis? It is undoubtedly true that we are suddenly flooded with an uncanny effect (p. 78: ‘der unheimliche Effekt’), but how does this novel perspective add to our understanding of Thetis’ fears? What about its context? Is it significant that Achilles will be bemoaning the war efforts in Od. 11, or that Thetis presents herself thus as a kind of Odysseus figure, given their competing agendas in the Achilleid? The reader should be steered with a more assertive hand.

In tracing a more or less direct route between Statius and Homer, and in referencing the ‘epische Tradition’, S. also provokes questions about the role of epic at the time of Statius’ composition of the Achilleid (surprisingly called a fragment, e.g., pp. 11; 12: ‘Das uns erhaltene Fragment’, ‘Der fragmentarische Zustand’), especially in the light of its problematisation by some of his predecessors. Moreover, one runs the risk of flattening and disregarding the evolution of epic as a site for generic mediation, tendering an ‘essentialising’, monolithic vision of the genre and the spectacle of heroism. The question, for this reader, is not so much whether Achilles is an epic hero, whether touched or untouched by this detour: few would object to that. Rather, the poem’s constant ebb and flow prompt an interrogation of the nature, roles, and generic hybridity of epic and its characters at the end of the first century ce.

Overall, it can only be a good thing that S.’s book offers such food for thought. The monograph reflects the depth of research characteristic of a doctoral dissertation, but the density of the materials and the sweeping range preclude at times further considerations of the interpretative gains of specific analyses. S.’s book advances many examples that will serve as valuable starting points for future discussion and research (aided by a useful index locorum). The work is poised to offer material to anyone interested in exploring the intertextual connections put on view in Statius’ Achilleid.