CHAPTER SEVENTEEN STATIUS’ SELF-CONSCIOUS POETICS: HEXAMETER ON HEXAMETER Carole E. Newlands Ironically literary criticism of Statius’ poetry has generated its own kind of civil war, so vigorously have critics been divided over whether the Thebaid has any meaningful relationship to imperial politics. 1 One approach to this controversy lies in Statius’ Silvae, which provide a signifi cant interpretive guide to the epic. The fi rst published collection of Silvae (books 1–3) were written as composition of the Thebaid was drawing to a close (Silv. 1 praef. 6–7).2 Several of these poems offer self-conscious refl ections on both the Thebaid and the Achilleid.3 Indeed, as I shall argue in this essay, in the Silvae literary criticism and socio-political criticism are intertwined. Of course, the Silvae have often been dismissed as overblown praise poems without political or indeed literary substance; Statius was in the pocket of the emperor and the wealthy elite.4 To the contrary, Ahl and 1 Critics have taken the apolitical position that the epic concerns universal ideas: e.g., Schetter (1960) 125; Franchet D’Éspérey (1999). Vessey (1982) 578 claims that the Thebaid “was given an additional level of universality. It was also a surrender to dogma.” For the contrary view that the poem is intimately concerned with imperial politics: Ahl (1986) 2803–912; Dominik (1990) 74–97; Dominik (1994a) 130–80; Dominik (2005) 522–4; Henderson (1991) 30–80; Henderson (1993) 162–91; McGuire (1997) passim. Ganiban (2007) has now argued that, since historical opinion on Domitian’s reign is itself divided, we can more fruitfully understand the Thebaid as engaging in a fundamental dialogue with Virgil’s Aeneid and its ideas of kingship. But this excludes the important role of Ovid and Lucan in the development of political and literary ideology about the principate. For a survey of criticism on the Thebaid since the 1950s, see Dominik (1996c) 129–42; also Coleman (2003c) 9–37. 2 Silvae 1–3 were probably published after January 93, the Thebaid shortly before. See Coleman (1988) xvi–xvii; Hardie (1983) 64–5. 3 Taisne (1996) 226 nn. 38–9 lists all the passages in the Silvae in which direct ref- erence is made to the Thebaid and Achilleid. Taisne (1996) 226–31 notes that Statius also alludes frequently to the themes and heroes from these epics. See also Vessey (1973) 41–4. Malamud (1995) 1–30 reads Silv. 2.7, Statius’ poem on Lucan, as an indirect but sustained allusion to the Thebaid. McNelis (2007) 21 argues that the Silvae are fundamental for understanding the epic: “The Silvae regularly comment upon the production of the epic, and they do so in a manner that characterizes the epic in Callimachean terms.” 4 Thus Vessey (1982) 563: “Domitian showed marks of favour to one who so deftly expressed offi cial propaganda under a dazzling veil of verbal conceits.” See also 388 carole e. newlands Garthwaite argued that Statius’ poems praising Domitian, Silvae 1.1 and 3.4, are not fl attering panegyrics but rather skilful attacks on the emperor through the subtle medium of “fi gured speech,” the rhetoric of survival in court society. Yet their views have not met with general acceptance.5 Rather, the Silvae are often seen as escapist praise poetry, the very title evoking the luxury parks of the rich and the sheltered enclave of the Muses.6 Praise, however, is often wrongly equated with fl attery. In Roman society praise had traditionally an exemplary and protreptic function (Cic. De Or. 333; 347–9; Quint. Inst. 3.7.33–5).7 When the younger Pliny wrote his Panegyricus, praise of the emperor refl ected an ideal of imperial virtue designed to guide and inspire Trajan in proper leadership. Similarly, the Silvae use praise as a vehicle for anxiety as well as hope, criticism as well as glorifi cation. As praise poetry, the Silvae are grounded in Roman society, in Roman values, and in Roman anxieties. Moreover, to think of Statius as a court fl atterer does not accurately refl ect the breadth of his social circle and the nuances of his relation- ship with the emperor.8 In the Silvae Statius walked a fi ne line between celebration and critique, seeking fame amidst a wide social circle ranging from the urban prefect Rutilius Gallicus to the reclusive Neapolitan, Pollius Felix. None of the books of the Silvae is dedicated to Domitian. Moreover, only one of the three dedicatees for the fi rst three books of the Silvae was invested in the ladder of career politics in Rome; the other two had rejected public life.9 Only two poems of the eighteen in the fi rst collection of Silvae are directly addressed to the emperor (1.1 and 1.6), and these poems reveal Statius’ experimentation with new forms Shackleton Bailey (2003) 3: “With a property at Alba and the support of the emperor and wealthy patrons, Statius was assuredly no pauper.” 5 Ahl (1984b) 40–111; see also Ahl (1984a) 174–208; Garthwaite (1984) 111–24; contra Geyssen (1996). 6 Delarue (1996) 283–96; Vessey (1982) 562 argues that in many ways the Silvae portray “an unreal, exotic world.” 7 Cf. Braund (1998) 66–8. 8 Hardie (1983) 68. 9 Book 1 is dedicated to Arruntius Stella, an upcoming senator: see White (1975) 267–72; Hardie (1983) 68; Nauta (2002) 211–12. Book 2 is dedicated to Atedius Melior, a wealthy retiree whose withdrawal from public life may have been politically motivated: see White (1975) 272–5; Nauta (2002) 226–7. Book 3 is dedicated to Pollius Felix, a wealthy businessman living in retirement in his villa outside Surrentum; Statius stresses his Hellenism: see Hardie (1983) 67–8; Nauta (2002) 222–3, 238–9..