Ganiban, 'Statius: Thebaid VII, Commentary', Bryn Mawr Classical Review 9505
URL = http://hegel.lib.ncsu.edu/stacks/serials/bmcr/bmcr-9505-ganiban-statius
@@@@95.5.6, Smolenaars, Statius' Thebaid VII (Commentary)
J.J.L. Smolenaars, Statius: Thebaid VII, Commentary.
Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994. Pp. xlii + 462. $114.50. ISBN
90-04-10029-6.
Reviewed by Randall Ganiban -- Princeton University
rganiban@princeton.edu
Thebaid 7 opens with an impatient Jupiter, angered
that his plans for fraternal war have been stalled, and closes
with the earth-shaking descent of the priest Amphiaraus (still
living) into the depths of Hell. It is a book full of fury,
pathos and horror, and has important implications for the
narrative movement of the poem. Like its counterpart in the
Aeneid, Thebaid 7 sets the second half of the epic
in motion. Despite its importance, book 7 has been poorly served
by scholars over the centuries. There has not been a commentary
on 7 since Amar & Lamaire's edition (1825-30), and before that
readers had to turn to Barth (1664) (ix).
S.'s new commentary therefore fills a great need. Revising
and expanding his doctoral dissertation (Amsterdam, 1983), S. has
produced a massive volume which includes a thirty-page
introduction, almost 400 pages of commentary, eight lengthy
appendices detailing the various sources imitated by Statius, a
full bibliography and several indices. The commentary follows the
Klotz-Klinnert Teubner edition (though the text of 7 is not
reprinted), and is aimed at an advanced audience; those who
already have some familiarity with the Thebaid and the
classical epic tradition will benefit most. Despite a fair number
of misprints, the book is nicely produced overall.
S. brings remarkable erudition to bear on Thebaid 7.
For S., Statius is an extremely learned and allusive poet.
Consequently, study of the Thebaid requires a wide-ranging
knowledge of the Greek and Latin literary traditions. This, of
course, is not news for students of Statius and other poets of
the early Empire, and S. cites and develops the work of scholars
who have engaged in Statian Quellenforschung and poetic
imitation (e.g. Legras, Juhnke and G. Williams). What
distinguishes S.'s study of the Thebaid from others is the
broad, thorough and methodical nature of his examination of
Statius' sources.
Central to an appreciation of the Thebaid, S. argues
in his introduction, is an understanding of Statian allusiveness.
S.'s book thus reflects the current interest in Latin
intertextuality articulated by critics such as Conte, Thomas and
Farrell (though S. does not fully explore its interpretive
implications, see below). S. proposes the concept of 'multiple
imitation' as a foundation of Statian poetic technique:
Each episode, section and many scenes in Statius have (a) a
primary source, which provides (part of) its content and
narrative structure and is often signalled by a Leitzitat,
and (b) one or more secondary sources which supply specific
conceptual and stylistic elements adding to, or replacing, those
of its primary source. (xxviii)
S. does not limit himself to strictly verbal imitations in
determining "parallels":
Once a specific source is established it frequently appears that
Statius borrowed elements from that same context which he
transformed to such extent that these 'parallels' will not show
in any Concordance or Pandora-program. Consequently
a 'parallel' may also be taken as significant if it occurs in a
context which has been established as a source for this
particular passage for other reasons, or has demonstrably been
exploited by Statius in a different passage. The furnishing of
proof in these cases will inevitably be of a cumulative nature.
(xxviii)
Thus, only by taking into account all possible sources and
examining their relationship to Statius' text will readers of the
Thebaid be "equipped to interpret the poem's words and
'meaning'". With this approach, S. aims "to avoid any impression
of being an ardent adherent of excessive Quellenforschung
for its own sake" (xxvii). Drawing on examples from
Thebaid 7, S. goes on to show quite methodically and
compellingly how multiple imitation can function (xxixff.).
I have dwelt on S.'s introduction because it enunciates the
unifying principle of the commentary. Multiple imitation
influences every page of S.'s book. In fact, the commentary might
be read, at one level, as a full-scale examination of Statius'
skill in imitation; its overall structure seems to suggest this.
S. divides Thebaid 7 into eight episodes and organizes his
commentary around them. For each section, S. provides an
introduction conforming to a general formula: summary of episode
followed by a paragraph on its dramatic or structural function
and a discussion of its primary and secondary sources. The
line-by-line commentary then focuses largely (but by no means
exclusively) on the relationship between Statius and his sources,
and the eight appendices at the end of the book present in
convenient chart-form the authors and works imitated by Statius
in a given line or episode.
The results are impressive. S. displays again and again an
enviable command of the literary traditions and sources behind
the Thebaid. His treatment of Jocasta's attempt to halt
the war (470-563), for example, includes a good introductory
discussion of the main sources for this scene (Euripides, Vergil,
Seneca) as well as line-by-line commentary examining Statius' use
of them and other writers. S.'s comments on the Argive crossing
of the river Asopos (424-440) are also worthy of note. As S.
points out, this is the one passage in book 7 for which Statius
lacked a Vergilian model and consequently relied primarily on
Lucan. S. suggests in several places how recognition of Statius'
imitation of Lucan here can help us understand better some of the
details Statius includes (fragmine 430 and deiecit
equum 431). Equally instructive is S.'s treatment of the
literary sources influencing Statius' depiction of Pavor
(105-130). S. shows how Statius drew on Homer, Vergil, Ovid,
Lucan and others to create his terrifying portrait of
Pavor in action.
As a result of his examination of the Thebaid's
sources, S. also proposes a relationship between the
Thebaid and Valerius Flaccus' Argonautica that is
closer than usually recognized. S. argues for the chronological
priority of the Argonautica (xvii) and Statius' use of it
as a major poetic resource (passim). In a number of places
(e.g. xxixff., and comments on 1-89 and 690-711), he illustrates
how Statius can simultaneously imitate both a Vergilian passage
and Valerius' reworking of it.
Besides his central concern with multiple imitation, S.
offers notes on other aspects of Statian poetry. On diction, S.
will often cite the frequency with which certain words appear in
Statius and/or other poets (furit 320, nempe and
commercia 544, inpete 585), albeit sometimes
unnecessarily (queo 695, negative participial adjectives
703). Though he does not include a text, S. explains where his
readings differ from other editions (177, 307, 457f., 624, 714).
He provides useful notes on Statius' compact mythological
allusions (Nycteidos 190, Lycaonis 414, and
Oenemaum... Acheoloon 415-6) and often cites other
classical sources--especially in the Latin poetic tradition--in
which these myths are retold. S. is also good at highlighting
epic conventions (243-373, 718-722, 760f.) and at pointing to
aspects of Silver Latin style (117f., 427-429, 430, 475f., 700f.,
809-816) and Statian composition (86-9, 139-144).
Despite S.'s erudition and skill at identifying the
Thebaid's many intertextual connections, the commentary
can at times be frustrating because of S.'s commitment to
multiple imitation. In this regard, the programmatic statement in
the introduction is illuminating: "The fact that in some cases in
Thebaid VII I have failed to trace these sources does not,
I think, falsify this theory [i.e. multiple imitation]; the
source may have been lost... or others may recognize a source I
have overlooked" (xxviii). This almost ideological zeal leads S.
to suggest parallels which sometimes seem questionable--such as
Livy in 700, Vergil in 727, and Sophocles in 778-788. Since S.
includes not only verbal imitation but also structural and
thematic, it is difficult to determine where coincidence ends and
active imitation begins. Moreover, S.'s vision of how a line is
created can be extremely mechanical. For example, S. explains
"Statius' poetic procedure" in composing lines 658-9 and
identifies 5 sources which contribute to an 8-word phrase. One
must wonder at what level of consciousness such a combination of
sources could have been made--a question which S. does not
adequately address.
In addition, S.'s introduction (xiii-lxii) does not offer a
wide-ranging discussion of the Thebaid or of general
characteristics of Statian style, etc. With headings such as
"Sources and models', "Structural relations between
Thebaid VII and Aeneid I and VII", "Statius and his
literary predecessors: the nature of intertextuality", and
"The Aeneid and Argonautica as sources of Thebaid VII",
this section functions more as an introduction to the concept of
multiple imitation and to the related picture of Statius as a
learned poet, than as an introduction to the world of the
Thebaid. By concentrating so much on imitation, perhaps S.
has provided too narrow a perspective on Statius' art.
Finally, S. is often unclear on how the countless instances
of imitation might affect our view of Statian poetry. S. argues
that imitation in the Thebaid represents a 'challenge' to
Statius' predecessors (xxxii, 1-89, and 43f.) and claims that
full analysis of Statius' sources is necessary before
interpretation of the poem can begin. But S. does not always
discuss what Statius' challenge to his predecessors achieves or
how multiple imitation can aid or influence our interpretation of
the epic as a whole. Is Statius a slavish imitator? A shrewd
innovator? How does imitation affect the 'meaning' of the poem?
In the absence of an interpretive vision of book 7, it is
difficult to develop S.'s detailed source analyses into a broader
understanding of the Thebaid.
Despite these criticisms, S.'s commentary remains an
impressive piece of scholarship. It will prove a tremendously
valuable resource for students of Statius and of post-Vergilian
epic. All of us who take pleasure in reading Statius owe S. a
great debt of gratitude.