Based on a 2019 PhD dissertation (University of St Andrews), this is an impressive case study in careful analysis of multiple intertextual connections, set into wider contexts of usage, and taking into account many extratextual elements (building programmes, inscriptions, coinage, statuary, historiography, contemporary texts, earlier epic traditions). The depth of background material is characteristic of a PhD thesis, but also makes this book an excellent introduction to the aspects discussed, although students may find the style dense (lists of ancient references abound). The downside of this depth of reference is that Spinelli covers only a relatively small number of issues, but these are intelligently chosen to focus on areas with wide importance in analysis of Statius, Flavian epic and Roman literature: landscape, heroism and the gods. All come together to offer a subtle and persuasive political interpretation, which goes beyond ‘pro-’ and ‘anti-’ Domitianic reading of Statius, as well as overly literal allegorical interpretations. Instead, S. takes into account the positionality of the reader and the multiple levels of meaning and interpretation offered for readers in different situations or with different beliefs. In the conclusion, S. suggests that the complexity of the intertextual games can underwrite a degree of intentionality, which positions Statius as more sceptical and darker than Valerius Flaccus or Silius Italicus, but less so than Lucan.
Some important points well established: Ovid is as important as Virgil in later Flavian poetry; multiple texts work together in polyhedral intertextuality; Statius’ poetry plays Ovidian narrative games with the tension between episodic and unitarian narrative, often denying teleological development; Statius’ oeuvre has more political continuity than is superficially apparent; epic multiple causation draws on the complexity of interpreting divine figures as characters, cult focuses, natural and psychological phenomena, complicating understanding of gods as representations of political power.
It is hard to distil this nuanced and detailed work, but broadly S. argues that Statius constructs contrasts between Ovidian and Virgilian reference points, to bring out the order of Virgil and the chaos of Ovid. He uses Ovidian references to ironise Virgilian references, and both to complicate the politics of the other. In this, Statius’ poetics appear overall much more Ovidian than Virgilian.
S.’s political approach takes into account the problem of praise and the difficulty of regime change: the contemporary Flavian praise of the dynasty is always open to readings of insincerity or subversion; later post-Flavian material is always open to readings of exaggerated condemnation to ingratiate authors with the next dynasty, against the background of archaeological evidence which can tell a different story. However, S. does not allow the political readings to descend into undifferentiated uncertainty, but instead outlines the areas of Flavian imperial self-presentation which cause particular anxiety: the claiming of the Augustan past; the sacralisation of power (equating emperor to god, especially Jupiter); the ironisation of heroic succession (many heroes try and fail to be Hercules, including imperial figures; instead Ovid’s Cadmus as complex foundation figure and Ovid’s Perseus as un-epic epic hero take centre stage).
S. devised his own software to assess the significance of Statius’ Ovidian intertextuality, and uses digital methods effectively to pin-point areas worth analysing in detail. The emphasis on extratextuality, or interdiscursivity, draws on the work of König, Langlands and Uden (Literature and culture in the Roman Empire, 96–235 (2020)) and provides a useful counterbalance to the tendency of text-searching software to focus on verbal allusion. S.’s emphasis on ‘semantic’ or ‘thematic’ intertextuality provides a thoughtful framework for counterbalancing Classical literature scholarship’s tendency to revert to the philological.
Comparison with Marks’s book Off the Beaten Path (2024) on Ovid in Valerius Flaccus brings this out: Marks focuses primarily on the literary and textual, but draws on the whole oeuvre of Ovid, showing the importance of the exile poetry in Valerius’ Argonautic poetics. S. sometimes takes the exile poetry too much at face value: imperial clemency, for instance, is inevitably ironised by Ovid’s harsh punishment. Clemency itself is inextricable from autocratic power: no need for clemency where process, fairness and law determine judicial outcomes.
Another quibble is that ‘first use in Latin poetry’ should always add the caveat ‘extant’: quantitative analysis needs to recognise the limitations of our data. Sometimes voice and framing need more thought: what does it mean when an allusion is in an ekphrasis? The metatextuality of intermediality is part of a poetics of distancing, which interacts interestingly with theories of monstrosity: the monster is never really dead, but also never really here, and perhaps the same can be said of the emperor. The material on rape and foundation myth needs to acknowledge the centrality of power to any understanding of rape.
S. suggests going beyond his study to broader analysis of Latin literature and imperial power using similar methods. But there is also more to be done, too, with Statius’ use of Ovid, on transformation, tragedy, monstrosity, gender and genre. More, too, on the complex relationship between elements of Statius’ oeuvre, although a forthcoming volume on Reading Statius’ Oeuvre (Bitto and Walter, eds) will address this. A project on natural disasters in Flavian and Antonine culture is also under way, while Cruz’s forthcoming volume (based on a 2020 Princeton dissertation) on horror in Lucan and Statius will provide a deeper analysis of environmental horror as an aspect of Statius’ geo-poetics.
In short this is an excellent contribution to Statian studies, which shows the flourishing of scholarship on Flavian Rome and the richness of Latin epic poetry for explorations of power.
