In recent years the Achilleid has attracted growing scholarly interest, thanks to renewed attention to Statius’ works and, more generally, Flavian poetry. Following G. Rosati’s annotated translation with a seminal introduction to the poem (Stazio. Achilleide [1994]), a series of commentaries have appeared since the early 2000s: the French commentary with translation by F. Ripoll and J. Soubiran (Stace. Achilléide [2008]), the Italian commentaries by G. Nuzzo on the whole poem with translation (Publio Papinio Stazio. Achilleide [2012]) and by R. Uccellini on part of the first book (L’arrivo di Achille a Sciro. Saggio di commento a Stazio, Achilleide 1,1–396 [2012]). The commentary of McN. has the merit of integrating structural and thematic aspects of these earlier contributions; it also offers the first full-scale commentary with English translation since O.A.W. Dilke’s slim but important annotated edition (without translation), originally published in 1954 and reprinted in 2005 by R. Cowan (Statius. Achilleid, edited with introduction, apparatus criticus and notes [1954]; repr. with a new introduction and bibliography [2005]).
McN.’s volume opens with a rich introduction that addresses various preliminary aspects in a clear and comprehensive manner: the life and career of Statius; the themes and structures of the Achilleid; the figure of Achilles and other characters such as Peleus, Thetis and Chiron; the poem’s literary and mythological background; and the main poetic models, as well as elements of language, style and metre. The section on the reception of the Achilleid is particularly intriguing and commendable: through a relatively concise yet remarkably accurate survey, McN. traces the poem’s influence in Western culture, from late antique poetry and the exegetical tradition to eighteenth-century opera and art. After outlining the conspectus siglorum, McN. presents the text with apparatus criticus, accompanied by a new facing-page translation that, as the author notes, is functional rather than aesthetic.
For the relationships between manuscripts, McN. draws on the edition of the Achilleid by J.B. Hall, A.L. Ritchie and M.J. Edwards (P. Papinius Statius. Thebaid and Achilleid, 3 vols [2007–2008]), who reiterate the overall importance of manuscript P or Puteaneus (Parisinus lat. 8051, s. ix. ex./x in.), prioritising this and seven other major codices for their assessment. McN. collated these eight manuscripts (along with nearly forty others) and regularly refers to them in the critical apparatus, using the same abbreviations as Hall, Ritchie and Edwards for consistency.
Covering the 1,127 lines of the Achilleid in detail, McN.’s commentary spans 297 pages. It is carefully structured into thematic overviews that introduce each section of the poem and into lemmata quoting the relevant lines for clarity, with an excellent balance between macro- and micro-level analysis. The volume concludes with a bibliography and a general index, guiding readers through the main thematic strands explored in both the introduction and commentary.
McN.’s work encompasses all aspects of the text: intertextual dynamics across literary genres, mythographical sources, historical and cultural references, philological issues, stylistic features and metrical peculiarities. Alongside subtle remarks on specific points (see, e.g., notes on 1.108 for the bilingual pun between Chiron, from χείρ [‘hand’] and manus [‘hand’]; 1.123 for the rhythm of the metre, possibly reminiscent of the old Chiron’s slowed-down gallop; 1.331 for the ancient association of bodily movements and modes of behaviour with identity and gender), the commentary also abounds in broader observations distinguished by their relevance, thoroughness and depth.
Particularly noteworthy is McN.’s ability to combine literary aspects with artistic, figurative and aesthetic elements that play a fundamental role in the poem. A valuable example of this comprehensive approach is the set of remarks on Neptune’s arrival with his marine cohort (1.52–61): beyond the poetic history of the scene, McN. suggests the visual model of a triumph or festival procession, alongside Scopas’ sculpture of the god surrounded by Thetis, Achilles, the Nereids and other sea creatures in the Circus Flaminius. Equally fascinating are the observations on the shield with which Ulysses reveals Achilles’ identity – both on the artefact itself (1.721–3; 1.852–4) and on its complex functional dynamics within the scene (1.864–5). In discussing the shield as a mirror that elicits Achilles’ heroic self-awareness and reminds him of his martial aspirations, McN. also recalls the adamantine mirror-shield that prompts Rinaldo to abandon his effeminate state and resume his military spirit in T. Tasso’s Gerusalemme Liberata (p. 33) – an exquisite example of reception of a key scene from the Achilleid in late Renaissance poetry.
Many entries in McN.’s commentary appropriately trace a line of conventional literary motifs that frame certain images or similes in Statius’ epic within a sustained poetic tradition. A stimulating instance is the note on 1.33–4, which explores the layered meaning of the torches associated with Bellona on the ship carrying Paris and Helen to Troy as symbols of wedding, death and war within Thetis’ soliloquy at the sight of the fleet. McN.’s suggestions may also prompt us to imagine that, in depicting the Roman goddess of war bringing Helen as a new daughter-in-law to Priam, Statius varies the traditional motif of Helen bringing war and destruction as her dowry (cf. Oenone’s words at Ov. Her. 5.91–2; cf. also Aesch. Ag. 406). Another aspect that McN. examines in depth is the rhetorical structure of speeches delivered by internal characters, considered in light of their function and purpose in relation to both internal and external audiences. Particularly insightful are the comments introducing the speech on the causes of the Trojan War – a rearrangement of material from the Epic Cycle and the Cypria – given by a skilled and tendentious narrator such as Ulysses (2.49–83). McN. perceptively notes that, while the Homeric Odysseus was particularly concerned with structuring the order of events within a narrative, the Statian Ulysses instead adopts a non-linear expository strategy, specifically designed to foreground Paris’ injustice and thereby to intensify Achilles’ desire for combat.
When discussing textual problems, McN. provides accurate analyses and useful summaries of earlier scholarship. Alongside sound choices and convincing explanations, some loci inevitably remain debated and open to further discussion: even in these cases McN. provides thought-provoking insights and interesting parallels. A notable instance in which two readings attested in the manuscripts are equally plausible is 2.61 uetitasque / ueritasque solo procumbere pinus. McN. opts for uetitasque (BCEQKR), which makes perfect sense, especially in a context of religious violation, but ueritasque (Pt pc ) may deserve reconsideration in light of another passage from Statius, quoted by McN., Silv. 2.6.27–8 nec Paris Oebalios talis uisurus amores | rusticus inuitas deiecit in aequora pinus. Although the forest sacred to Cybele is not mentioned here, inuitas conveys the trees’ resistance to being cut down (and perhaps, proleptically, to serving as the ships of the expedition to Sparta that will bring about the Trojan War), an idea that ueritas would express even more incisively. From this perspective, the humanisation of the pine trees remains a strong argument in favour of ueritas: the sense of fear that Ulysses associates with them in his speech against Paris’ impiety would be further heightened if we recall that, according to Ov. Met. 10.103–5, it was precisely into a pine tree sacred to Cybele that Attis, formerly a human being, was transformed.
Even when it comes to exegetical issues, McN.’s approach is instructive and attuned to different scholarly interpretations. A case in point is 1.297 illius et roseo flammatur purpura uultu, in the passage describing Deidamia’s first appearance. McN. prefers to interpret purpura as the purple of Deidamia’s dress, which would be set ablaze, not without an erotic tinge, by the rosy colour of her face – a reading that foregrounds the interplay between human adornment and natural beauty. Yet, McN. also persuasively illustrates the alternative option, which seems particularly well suited to the context: that purpura denotes a ‘sign of blood coursing through the face’ and, hence, the ‘passionate glow’ that ignites Deidamia’s rosy cheeks (p. 226). As McN. observes, this sudden erotic blush, with its chromatic contrasts and fire imagery, would mirror the equally striking depiction of the ‘purple fire’ (1.161–2 ignis … purpureus) swimming in Achilles’ snow-white face. McN.’s notes are attentive to the semantic density of certain key terms and to the coexistence of different nuances in light of the poem’s broader interpretative perspective. A representative case is amor, a crucial notion in the Achilleid, which is charged with programmatic significance from the proem (1.5) onwards and encapsulates Achilles’ tensions in his development from lover to warrior. In his note on the final occurrence of the term in 2.107 ferri properatus amor, where Achilles describes his ‘accelerated love of iron’ during his martial training, McN. points to the subtle dualism of the expression by citing its intertextual references: it paradoxically combines Virgil’s amor ferri (Aen. 7.461), which refers to Turnus’ eroticised desire for war, and Ovid’s properatus amor (Met. 5.396), which denotes Dis’ sudden passion for Proserpina. McN. also recalls that Achilles’ love of arms counterbalances his affection for Deidamia – a contrast that might evoke the replacement of his love for her with his desire for Troy (i.e. war) in 1.857, almost a personified female figure who, like a new lover, takes possession of Achilles’ pectus.
McN.’s bibliography is comprehensive and exhaustive, beginning with K. von Barth’s 1664 edition and covering nearly all modern secondary literature on the Achilleid. However, the timing of publication suggests that it was probably not possible to include two recent monographs on the Achilleid, which scholars can now incorporate into their reading of McN.’s commentary. The first is by B.V. Sigurjónsson (Sic notus Achilles? Episches Narrativ und Intertextualität in Statius’ Achilleis [2023]), which explores the poem’s heroic narrative and structure in relation to its epic intertextual models, from Homer onwards. The second is by J. Abad Del Vecchio (The Dark Side of Statius’ Achilleid: Epic Distorted [2024]), a study that prompts a novel reconsideration of the Achilleid through an analysis of its dark, disturbing and tragic aspects, particularly with regard to themes such as motherhood, transgression, succession and (im)mortality.
In conclusion, McN. has crafted an outstanding work of scholarship, whose richness, accuracy and finesse illuminate the Achilleid’s multi-layered engagement with the Graeco-Roman literary tradition in the cultural context of the Flavian age, as well as Statius’ sophisticated writing technique and poetic style. McN.’s commentary not only provides an exemplary and rigorous exegetical tool for reading the Achilleid in its full density, but also serves as an intellectual stimulus, encouraging scholars to delve more deeply into Statius’ epic work while simultaneously revealing the poem’s profound complexities.
