We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 July 2014
Chthonic scenes have often been considered in terms of their metapoetic potential. The very nature of such episodes, in which protagonists typically encounter characters from the literary-mythological past, arguably encourages a kind of artistic self-consciousness. In Currie's words,
A nekyia may be an especially fitting place for a poem to explore self-reflectively its relationship to earlier poetry: to confront its own literary ghosts.
This article examines whether the portrayal of ghosts in the necromancy of Statius Thebaid Book 4 can be read as a meditation on the poem's place in the literary tradition. It views the scene as a commentary on the epic's artistic practices, wherein Statius both acknowledges his predecessors, especially Ovid and Seneca, and asserts his own literary contribution through the appearance of the ambushers depicted earlier in the poem. It then argues that Statius validates his place in the canon by enacting the integration of the ambush scene into literary and Theban history.
1. See Most, G., ‘Il poeta nell’Ade: catabasi epica e teoria dell'epos tra Omero e Virgilio’, SIFC 10 (1992), 1014–26Google Scholar; Deremetz, A., ‘L’histoire du genre épique dans les catabases de Virgile, d’Ovide et de Silius Italicus’, in J.P. Schwindt (ed.), La représentation du temps dans la poésie augustéenne (Heidelberg 2005), 111–21Google Scholar, at 120f.; Hardie, P.R., ‘In the Steps of the Sibyl: Tradition and Desire in the Epic Underworld’, MD 52 (2004), 143–56Google Scholar, at 152f.
2. Currie, B.G.F., ‘Homer and the Early Epic Tradition’, in M.J. Clarke, B.G.F. Currie and R.O.A.M. Lyne (eds.), Epic Interactions: Perspectives on Homer, Virgil, and the Epic Tradition Presented to Jasper Griffin by Former Pupils (Oxford 2006), 1–45Google Scholar, at 21f.
3. For a recent discussion of Statian metapoetics in terms of paternity, see Parkes, R., ‘Who’s the Father? Biological and Literary Inheritance in Statius’ Thebaid’, Phoenix 63 (2009), 24–37Google Scholar.
4. Juhnke, H., Homerisches in römischer Epik flavischer Zeit: Untersuchungen zu Szennenachbildungen und Strukturentsprechungen in Statius’ Thebais und Achilleis und in Silius’ Punica (Zetemata 53: Munich 1972), 274Google Scholar.
5. Keith, A., ‘Ovidian Personae in Statius’ Thebaid’, Arethusa 35 (2002), 381–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 399–401; ead., ‘Ovid’s Theban Narrative and Statius’ Thebaid’, Hermathena 177–8 (2004–5Google Scholar), at 200.
6. The text used is Hill, D.E., P. Papini Stati Thebaidos libri XII 2 (Mnemosyne Suppl. 79: Leiden 1996Google Scholar).
7. See Keith (n.5 above 2002), 400f.
8. Cf. Cadmus at Theb. 4.553–55 and Met. 3.3–137 and Met. 4.563–605; Harmonia at Theb. 4.554f and Met. 4.568–605; Autonoí at Theb. 4.562 and Met. 3.719f (also cf. Met. 3.198 Autonoeius heros); Ino, Palaemon, Athamas and Learchus at Theb. 4.562–64 and 570f. and Met. 4.467–542; Semele at Theb. 4.564 and Met. 3.256–312; Echion at Theb. 4.569 and Met. 3.126–28 (the only named Earthborn); Actaeon at Theb. 4.572–74 and Met. 3.138–252; Proetus at Theb. 4.589 and Met. 5.238–41; Pelops at Theb. 4.590 and Met. 6.403–11.
9. See Keith (n.5 above 2004–5), 200.
10. See Mulder, H.M., Publii Papinii Statii Thebaidos liber secundus: commentario exegetico aestheticoque instructus (Groningen 1954Google Scholar) on Theb. 2.527–613, 2.558, 2.563f. and 2.638f., comparing Theb. 2.557f. (Tydeus’ protective use of cliffs) with Met. 5.160f. (Perseus’ protective use of column), Theb. 2.563f. (Tydeus’ hurling of the crater-like rock) with Met. 5.80–83 (Perseus’ hurling of a mixing-bowl) and the descriptions of eyes ‘swimming’ in death at Theb. 2.638 and Met. 5.70–72.
11. Parkes, R., ‘Hercules and the Centaurs: Reading Statius with Vergil and Ovid’, CPh 104 (2009), 476–94Google Scholar, at 489. The fact that Statius seems to echo some details which these two scenes have in common, such as the bowl hurling of Perseus (Met. 5.80–83) and Theseus (Met. 12.235–37) and the names Chromis (Met. 5.103; 12.333) and Dorylas (Met. 5.129; 12.380), arguably recognises the way Ovid makes these two disrupted wedding feasts mirror each other.
12. Keith (n.5 above 2002), 389–92.
13. Tydeus wears a boar-skin, comes from the boar-infested region of monstriferae (‘monster-bearing’, Theb. 1.453) Calydon, and is the brother of the legendary boar-killer Meleager. Furthermore, he is twice characterised through boar imagery (Theb. 2.469–75; 6.868). Statius thereby suggests the hero’s bestial, savage side. See further Ahl, F.M., ‘Statius’ Thebaid: A Reconsideration’, ANRW II.32.5 (1986), 2803–91Google Scholar, at 2876; Hardie, P.R., The Epic Successors of Virgil (Cambridge 1993), 69Google Scholar; Georgacopoulou, S., Aux frontières du récit épique: l’emploi de l’apostrophe du narrateur dans la Thébaïde de Stace (Bruxelles 2005Google Scholar), 78f.
14. Keith (n.5 above 2002), 391.
15. The parallel is noted at Smolenaars, J.J.L., ‘La Sfinge in Stat. Theb. 2.496–523: un’ analisi intertestuale’, in P. Esposito and E.M. Ariemma (eds.), Lucano e la tradizione dell’ epica latina: atti del Convegno Internazionale di Studi, Fisciano-Salerno, 19–20 ottobre 2001 (Naples 2004), 70–84Google Scholar, at 80.
16. fixa sub aure feri summum destrinxit harundolcorpus et exiguo rubefecit sanguine saetas (‘the arrow grazed the top of the boar’s back and stuck beneath his ear, turning the bristles red with a trickle of blood’, Met. 8.382f.).
17. ictus ab illo est,/sed sine uulnere, aper: ferrum Diana uolanti/abstulerat iaculo, lignum sine acumine uenit (‘the boar was struck by him but suffered no injury: for Diana had removed the iron point from the javelin as it sped, and the wooden shaft came lacking a point’, Met. 8.352–54).
18. Cf. Theb. 2.590–93 with Met. 8.389f.
19. The choice of the mountainous name Ide may look to Niobe’s transformation into stone (for which see Ov. Met. 6.301–12). This association does not preclude a link with Ide, the mother of Nisus, Verg. Aen. 9.177 (Hardie, P.R. ‘Tales of Unity and Division in Imperial Latin Epic’, in J.H. Molyneux [ed.], Literary Responses to Civil Discord [Nottingham 1992], 57–71Google Scholar, at 70 n. 13).
20. It is surely no coincidence that the ambusher Phaedimus (Theb. 2.575), mourned by his sons at Theb. 3.171f., shares the name of a son of Niobe mentioned at Met. 6.239. Cf. Cowan, R.W., In my Beginning is my End: Origins, Cities and Foundations in Flavian Epic (Diss. Oxford 2003), 219Google Scholar, who also sees significance in the fact that the name Astyoche alloted to a mourner at Theb. 3.171 occurs at Apollod. Bibl. 3.5.6 as the name of one of Niobe’s daughters.
21. Cf. cum multa gementi/pone grauis curuas perfringit lancea costas/exit et in fratrem cognataque pectora telo/conserit (‘when as he groans deeply, a heavy spear from behind shatters his curved ribs and enters his brother, joining the kindred breasts with a weapon’, Theb. 2.635–38) and peruia uulneribus media trabe pectora nexi (‘their wound-pierced breasts are connected by a shaft through the middle’, Theb. 3.149) with Met. 6.242–44 iam contulerant arto luctantia nexu/pectora pectoribus, cum tento concita neruo,/sicut erant iuncti, traiecit utrumque sagitta (‘now they had brought together their breasts straining in close embrace, when an arrow, sped from the drawn bow, pierced them both as they were joined’).
22. So Cowan (n.20 above), 218; Keith (n.5 above 2004–5), 202 (examining the speech as a summary of Ovid’s Theban narrative). For another important intertext, Luc. 2.67–233, see Vessey, D.W.T.C., Statius and The Thebaid (Cambridge 1973), 127Google Scholar n. 1.
23. See Jakobi, R., Der Einfluss Ovids auf den Tragiker Seneca (Berlin 1988), 111–25Google Scholar; Hinds, S., ‘Seneca’s Ovidian Loci’, in Michael Paschalis (ed.), Dramatic and Performance Space in Greek Tragedy and Seneca (forthcoming), http://faculty.washington.edu/shinds/Seneca.pdf., 5–7Google Scholar.
24. Cf. Sen. Oed. 712f. Castalium nemus/umbram Sidonio praebuit hospiti (‘the Castalian grove offered shade to the Sidonian stranger’) and Oed. 724f. tempore ex illo noua monstra semper/protulit tellus (‘from that time the land has always produced strange monsters’). The tag ‘Sidonian stranger’, which ocurrs at Sen. Oed. 713 and Theb. 3.180f., looks back to Ov. Met. 3.129 (Jakobi [n.23 above], 112).
25. Following Davis’, P.J. observations (‘The Fabric of History in Statius’ Thebaid’, in C. Deroux [ed.], Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VII [Coll. Latomus 227: Bruxelles 1994], 464–83Google Scholar, at 465f.) on how Aletes’ words echo in content and diction Statius’ own proem, Cowan (n.20 above, 218f.) has suggested reading Aletes as a poet figure. If we accept such an interpretation, we might fruitfully see the speech as a nod towards the Thebaid’s reworking of Ovidian and Senecan material.
26. Compare Odysseus’ encounter with the recently deceased Elpenor at Horn. Od. 11.51–83 and Aeneas’ meeting with Palinurus (whose death is narrated at Verg. Aen. 5.833–71) at Aen. 6.337–83 (Frings, I., Gespräch und Handlung in der Thebais des Statius [Stuttgart 1991], 70Google Scholar n.143).
27. Note, for example, the suggestion of Wyss, B. (Antimachi Colophonii Reliquiae [Berlin 1936]Google Scholar) on fr. 14 that Book 3 of Antimachus’ Thebaid narrated Tydeus’ embassy to Thebes on Polynices’ behalf.
28. For similarities of location see Smolenaars (n.15 above), 72f. Note also the comparable detection through the gleam of armour at Aen. 9.373–75 with Theb. 2.530–32 and the ignored questioning of Volcens and Tydeus (Aen. 9.375–77; Theb. 2.535–37) and see further Mulder (n.10 above) on Theb. 2.527–613.
29. See Vessey (n.22 above), 146; Smolenaars (n.15 above), 72f.
30. See Williams, G., Change and Decline: Roman Literature in the Early Empire (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1978Google Scholar), 202f. (who also places the scene in a wider literary tradition: 199–205); Hardie, P.R. (ed.), Virgil Aeneid IX (Cambridge 1994Google Scholar), on Aen. 9.806–14.
31. Statius may also be evoking the the Iliadic Phegeus who is killed by Tydeus’ son Diomedes during his first aristeia (Il. 5.11–19; note that the detail of the spear passing over Diomedes’ left shoulder is picked up at Theb. 2.542, of Tydeus).
32. rotal…/Deilochum, comitemque illi iubet ire sub umbras/Phegea (‘he whirls…Deilochus and bids Phegeus go join him as a companion in the underworld’, Theb. 2.607–09). Hardie (n.30 above) on Aen. 9.765 notes the imitation and suggests Statius may have punctuated the Vergilian line after Halyn.
33. See Mulder (n.10 above) ad loc.
34. Cf. dum clamat, subit ore cauo Teumesia cornus,/nec prohibent fauces (‘while he was shouting a Teumesian spear enters his open mouth nor does his throat stop it’, Theb. 2.624f. with Mulder [n.10 above]) with ecce Pharo, uoces dum iactat inertis,/intorquens iaculum clamanti sistit in ore (‘see he hurls his javelin and plants it in Pharus’ shouting mouth as he utters useless boasts’, Aen. 10.322f.). Note also the overlap between the names of the victims of Aeneas and Tydeus: Theron (Aen. 10.312 and Theb. 2.582), Gyas (Aen. 10.318 and Theb. 2.610), Cydon (Aen. 10.325 and Theb. 2.623, though with a difference in syllable length), and Maeon (Aen. 10.337 and Theb. 2.693; Horn. Il. 4.398 is presumably the primary source for this name). See Mulder (n.10 above) on Theb. 2.630f. for other possible allusions to the Vergilian scene.
35. See e.g. Davis (n.25 above); Heinrich, A., ‘Longa retro series: Sacrifice and Repetition in Statius’ Menoeceus Episode’, Arethusa 32 (1999), 165–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
36. According to the necromancy (Theb. 4.567), she still mourns him in ghostly form. Cowan (n.20 above, 219) notes the teasing way in which the reader is led to expect Agave before the enjambed name of Astyoche is revealed.
37. For the myth, see Apollod. Bibl. 3.4.1 with Frazer, J.G., Apollodorus: The Library (2 vols.: Cambridge MA and London 1921Google Scholar) ad loc.
38. Cowan (n. 20 above), 219. For Chthonius as one of the Spartoi, see RE III, 2524: no. 2.
39. Chromis, however, is descended from Cadmus (2.613). There are also differences between the situations: Tydeus is an enemy of the Thebans, not their founder, and the ambushers are intent on attacking a foreigner, although the scene does contain a kin-killing element (at Theb. 2.591f. the Thebans wound each other in their confusion; note that there is at least one pair of brothers in the party, the Thespiadae, Theb. 2.629).
40. Vessey (n.22 above), 287 and 292; Hershkowitz, D., The Madness of Epic: Reading Insanity from Homer to Statius (Oxford 1998), 257–59Google Scholar.
41. nec reddita contra/uox…/…autem uasto Cthonii contorta lacerto,/quo duce freta cohors…interuolat auras/hasta (‘no words were given in reply…but a spear, discharged by the mighty arm of Chthonius, the leader the band relied upon, …flew through the air’, Theb. 2.536–40). In both cases, the throw fails to meet its target: cf. Theb. 2.540–43 and 8.681f.
42. Cf. Theb. 2.668–81 with Theb. 10.286–92 and Theb. 2.715–42 with Theb. 10.337–45.
43. See Zwierlein, O., ‘Statius, Lucan, Curtius Rufus und das hellenistische Epos’, RhM 131 (1988), 67–84Google Scholar.
44. With gaudia testantur socii clamore secundo (‘companions testify to their joy with encouraging shouts’, Ov. Met. 8.420), cf. iam gaudia magnae/testantur uoces (‘loud cries testify to their joy’, Theb. 9.177f.). Both sides take gory souvenirs of their kill. The Thebans, like the hunters, stain their weapons with their conquest’s blood (Theb. 9.187f.; cf. Met. 8.424) and are then likened to hunters who proudly display spoils after having tracked down a lion (Theb. 9.189–95).
45. Theb. 10.400f. (fixo transuerberat Hoplea tergo/pendentisque etiam perstrinxit Tydeos armos, ‘he transfixed and pierced Hopleus’ back and even grazed the shoulder of Tydeus as he hung’) calls to mind the description of the spear which grazed (destrinxit, Met. 8.382) the boar’s back before becoming settled (fixa, Met. 8.382) behind the ear. Such an echo may help explain the unusual choice of armus for Tydeus’ shoulder: the word is more typically applied to beasts, including Ovid’s boar finally speared in the armos by Meleager (Met. 8.419).
