Newmyer, 'Mythic Voice of Statius: Power and Politics in the Thebaid', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9504
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9504-newmyer-mythic
@@@@95.4.6, Dominik, The Mythic Voice of Statius
William J. Dominik, The Mythic Voice of Statius: Power and
Politics in the Thebaid. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994. Pp.
xiv, 198. ISBN 90-04-09972-7.
Reviewed by Stephen T. Newmyer -- Duquesne University
It is a sad commentary on the reputation of Statius' epic
masterpiece that Dominik feels obliged to inform us in his
Preface that his book seeks to demonstrate that the
Thebaid is a poem about something, and not about
nothing, a comment directed specifically against the harsh
strictures of R. M. Ogilvie,[[1]] but not uncharacteristic of the
censures leveled against the epic by many nineteenth and some
twentieth century scholars. It is Dominik's contention that the
Thebaid, far from being an empty exercise in obsolete
mythological epic as its critics have maintained for decades, is
a powerful poetic depiction of the horrific consequences of the
negative exercise of power by rulers both human and
supernatural. As Dominik notes in his Preface, this emphasis on
the use and abuse of power in the Thebaid makes his work
the first thematic study of the epic to appear in English since
David Vessey's seminal work Statius and the Thebaid,[[2]]
and it is the only study that deals specifically with that theme
in the epic. Yet what strikes the reader as particularly
innovative in Dominik's approach is his thesis, developed
extensively in the last chapter, "Political Relevance to
Contemporary Rome" (130-180), that the Thebaid harbors a
distinct political undercurrent that reveals itself only upon
careful analysis of the poet's superficially flattering language,
an undercurrent that hints at a situation as oppressive and
desperate under Domitian as anything we read of in Tacitus,
Suetonius or Juvenal. The startling assertion that Statius, a
poet usually considered an abject flatterer and opportunistic
toady,[[3]] had a serious political agenda to advance under the
fictionalized guise of mythological epic, is bound to make
Dominik's book controversial, a circumstance at which the author
hints in the Preface and which is revealed in the large number of
footnotes in the opening pages of the book which are directed
against the positions of earlier scholars. It is Dominik's aim,
in short, to prove that the Thebaid, like the
Aeneid and the Pharsalia, is an epic of ideas that
deserves to be taken more seriously than the weight of previous
critical opinion has allowed. In the course of developing this
thesis, Dominik makes an effort to dispel another of the
long-standing criticisms of the epic, namely that it is
hopelessly episodic and lacking overall unity, by relating
several of the ostensibly irrelevant episodes of the epic,
notably the Hypsipyle narrative (5. 49-498) and all of the
Theseus episode of the twelfth book, to the main narrative
structure of the epic. These, too, are shown to be illustrations
of the negative consequences of abuse of power by human and
divine rulers.
Dominik's book is divided into four chapters, of which the
first, "Use and Abuse of Supernatural Power," encompasses almost
half of the entire volume (1-75). Here, employing a close
analysis of the poet's often allusive and difficult language,
Dominik develops the idea, central to his vision of the
Thebaid, that the human actors in Statius' epic world are
doomed to suffer because the gods act with cruelty and injustice
toward man. Dominik sees this as the predominant motif of the
epic (1). In consequence of this, the irrational behavior of
Statius' protagonists, one of the striking aspects of the poem,
is seen to be most often caused by malevolent deities and beyond
the control of the characters themselves. This construction of
Statius' use of divine machinery places Dominik's interpretation
in strong opposition to the more optimistic construction of
Vessey, who interprets the Statian Jupiter as a kindly and indeed
Stoical ruler, in the manner of Vergil's deity. Vessey's
interpretation is in keeping with his somewhat allegorical
understanding of the epic's gods, while Dominik is at pains to
argue that Statius' gods possess substantial corporeality and
physical being. Attempts on the part of various gods, in
particular Jupiter, to justify the impending annihilation of
Argos and Thebes are seen as mere pretexts intended to cover the
vicious intentions of the gods.
Dominik's interpretation has important ramifications for the
understanding of key scenes and personalities in the epic. He
demonstrates that Polynices and Eteocles do not harbor the
thoughts of mutual slaughter that will form the climactic scene
of the Thebaid until they are prompted by the Furies (40),
and he shows that some of the bloodiest acts of the conflict are
inspired by female divinities like Juno and Venus. Indeed, in
this hostile world even Virtus functions more as martial
inspiration than "virtue." In this context, Dominik relates the
long Hypsipyle episode to the overall structure of the epic,
proving that it is not the irrelevant digression that it is
usually considered to be, but a grisly illustration of excessive
divine punishment for human culpability (54-63).
The second chapter of Dominik's study, "Pursuit and Abuse of
Monarchal Power" (76-98) helps to set the stage for the
discussion of Statius' anti-Flavian political program that forms
the subject of the final chapter of the book, for here Dominik
emphasizes Statius' hostile attitude toward the institution of
monarchy. Once again the author sees negative supernatural
intervention as the cause of the irrational and injurious
behavior of the epic's monarchs, even of those who have
traditionally been considered to act benevolently, in particular
Adrastus and Theseus. Dominik demonstrates, through careful
analysis of the scenes of the twelfth book, that even Theseus,
whom Vessey had seen as a mirror-image of Jupiter, is actually at
best morally ambiguous in the Thebaid, a monarch eager for
war and bloodshed and merciless in victory. In Dominik's reading
of the epic, comparisons of Theseus to Jupiter are intended not
as compliments but as indications of the sinister side of
Theseus' personality. Dominik likewise dispels the frequently
expressed notion of the moral superiority of Polynices to
Eteocles by arguing that Polynices possesses the potential
to be as wicked a tyrant as his brother has the opportunity to be
(80).
The horrifying results of the imprudent exercise of power in
the context of the epic are analyzed in the third chapter,
"Consequences of the Abuse of Power" (99-129), an examination of
the terrors of war, not only of civil war but of war in general.
Statius seeks to demonstrate in his epic that little is achieved
after all by the war that forms the subject of the poem, and that
the loss of human life in war is tragic and wasteful. Even those
mortals whose conduct in war seems the most splendid and
praiseworthy, achieve nothing, as is the case with Tydeus, for he
sacrifices the immortality that the gods plan for him by savagely
gnawing on the head of the warrior who dealt him his fatal blow.
Yet what matters in Dominik's reading of the text is Statius'
notion that human suffering results not from divine retribution
for human failings, but from the purposeless harm that the gods
delight in inflicting on mortals. This gloomy
Weltanschauung prompts Dominik to draw the intriguing
conclusion (118) that in the final analysis one can sympathize
even with Eteocles and Polynices since their ghastly deeds are
ultimately prompted by hostile divinities.
In the final chapter of his book, "Political Relevance to
Contemporary Rome" (130-180), Dominik seeks to show that the
hopeless vision of the universe that Statius presents in the
Thebaid is in fact a reflection of his view of Roman life
under Domitian. He asks that question which, as he had noted
already in the Preface to his book, remains hotly debated: is the
Thebaid after all about anything? Dominik's answer is a
resounding yes, for he considers the epic to be Statius'
political manifesto, and not the mere working out of a rhetorical
topos, no mere versified treatise on the theme of tyranny,
as some modern critics see in the poem. Having built a careful
case to this point for the position that the Thebaid is a
serious meditation on power and its abuse, Dominik now declares
the epic to embody its poet's "perception of the deepest and
darkest truths about the nature of Roman society" (132), an epic
that "speaks directly to the most important issues of the first
century" (134). The oppressive and sinister atmosphere of the
world of the Thebaid under Jupiter's governance is a
poetic mirror of the Roman world under Domitian's governance.
To divine an ancient poet's message, to see through to the
truth under layers of flattery and ostensibly neutral
mythological storytelling, enmeshes the critic in a myriad of
thorny problems of intentionality and "real" meaning. In the
case of Statius, these problems are rendered even more difficult
by recent critical attempts, observable as well in the cases of
Tiberius, Nero and even Caligula, to rehabilitate the personality
and policies of Domitian, that is, to judge Domitian to be more
like what Statius "seems" to say he was like than the manner in
which he is portrayed in writers like Pliny, Tacitus and Juvenal.
Dominik rejects such rehabilitations and opts to trust the
negative portraits of the ancient authorities (136-137). A more
difficult problem is posed by Statius' other work, the
Silvae, which "seems" to present a somewhat rosy picture
of Rome under Domitian. Dominik must convince us that this is
not what the poet really intended. To do so he must argue that
the poet's apparent cordiality toward Domitian in the
Silvae was insincere, and that Statius' occasional poems
embody a picture of Rome as negative as that offered in the
Thebaid. While the reader may well concur that the bleak
and hopeless landscape of the epic might harbor unflattering
allusions to contemporary tyrants, this reading of the
Silvae is a harder sell.
To portray Domitian in any manner that he might take as
unflattering involved obvious dangers to any poet in his service,
as generations of critics have stressed, and Dominik argues that
Statius avoided such dangers by employing an encoded language of
metaphor, irony, and cryptic circumlocution (130). Generations
of critics, in Dominik's view, have missed his message because
they have been misled by the poet's apparent praise of Domitian
(133), in both the Thebaid and the Silvae. Even
Domitian himself was apparently misled into overlooking the
potential implications of fratricidal warfare by soothing
flattery offered by the poet. The use of traditional mythic
material, in Dominik's view, "sufficiently distanced" (137)
Statius from contemporary politics, but "the key was to evoke
sufficient resemblance to the contemporary political situation
without being too obvious" (137). A difficult task
indeed! Only a subtle poet using encoded language could succeed.
Dominik asserts (133) that a politically astute audience of
refined sensibilities would have caught the poet's message, while
Domitian was lulled by the poet's flattery.
As ultimately happens in all considerations of imperial
literature written under tyrannical emperors, Dominik's case
rests on a judgment of sincerity, and here Statius proves a
particularly difficult case. Dominik's vision of Statius'
politically charged epic world will succeed only if all apparent
positive references to Domitian and his rule are seen as
insincere, and Dominik spends much time in the final chapter
arguing that Statius' flattery is always at best superficial.
Although Dominik admits that expressions of flattery cannot be
dismissed out of hand, he is willing to assert that "the
expressions of admiration and support for Domitian are so
adulatory as to suggest their insincerity to a modern observer"
(141). Clearly not every modern observer has this reaction and
Dominik's vision will work only if every positive reference to
Domitian, in the Thebaid and the Silvae, is read as
a veiled negative. It will work only if much of the evidence for
happiness and prosperity under Domitian presented in the
Silvae is ignored or taken as cynical and insincere. Not
all readers will join Dominik in this reading of Statius'
Weltanschauung.
While readers may not agree with all of Dominik's
conclusions and approaches, they cannot fail to be stimulated by
his sensitivity to Statius' language and style and by his desire
to show that Statius is a poet who deserves to be taken seriously
as a thinker and an artist. Students of Statius will be grateful
to Dominik for the extensive and up-to-date bibliography he
provides, and by the chronology of Statius' life (181-183) that
reflects the current state of thought on the subject. The volume
is remarkably free of misprints although the reference to
Helvidius' execution for his allusion to "the divorce of Jupiter
from his wife" (144) surely should read "the divorce of Domitian
from his wife."
NOTES
[[1]] R. M. Ogilvie, Roman Literature and Society (London
1980) 234, " . . . The Thebaid cannot be said to be
about anything. The poem is not in any sense the author's
testament about the world. . . . "
[[2]] D. W. T. Vessey, Statius and the Thebaid.
(Cambridge 1973).
[[3]] Perhaps the classic expression of disgust at Statius'
fawning treatment of Domitian is that of H. E. Butler,
Post-Augustan Poetry from Seneca to Juvenal (Oxford 1909)
229, "The emperor who can accept flattery of such a kind has
certainly qualified for assassination."