Statius and Virgil: The Thebaid and the Reinterpretation of the Aeneid (review)

In this fascinating and complex book, Ganiban develops two main lines of investigation. First, he argues that autocracy is fundamentally inseparable from nefasand that the pietaswhich is central to the Aeneidis irrelevant in the Thebaid: “There is no longer a kindly fate or objective Jupiter; nor is there anyone on the human level to employ the moral virtue of pietasto maintain control and order” (116). Second, he argues that Statius creates a pleasurable literary experience out of representing a world that would be dreadful to live in. This is not so surprising, perhaps, in a society that valued gladiatorial games as entertainment. Ganiban, however, is most interested in the literary pleasures of intertextuality, such as the way “a Statian figure initially seems like a Virgilian character, only to be ‘transformed’ into that Virgilian character’s foil” (71). There is also a ghoulish desire for horrors, which is modeled for us in the text by Oedipus, who, like us, must rely on words because he cannot see the fratricidal conflict he wants (38–41). “The simultaneous repulsion at and fascination with spectacular crime are all part of the domination of Dis and his desire for subversive nefas” (185).

As Ganiban says, we are used to horror in post-Virgilian epic: “What, I believe, sets the Thebaidapart from these other poems is the degree to which the ethical and moral dimensions of crime receive virtually no discussion or opposition” (37). Ganiban begins with Adrastus’ story of Coroebus and Apollo from Book 1 to illustrate the chaotic and terrifying world of tyranny (9–23). He argues convincingly that Statius draws most on the ambivalent, anti-Augustan possibilities in the Aeneid. The Thebaidis unnerving because it evokes the Aeneidand then plays out the scenarios far differently from what we expect. Jupiter is not the dignified and authoritative ruler of the cosmos and people are not rewarded for their pietas. Apollo does spare Coroebus in the end, not for his pietas, but in a “tyrannical exercise of power through clementia” (21; see also Chapter 9).

Ganiban shows that the real power in the world of the Thebaidis with the human characters; Oedipus’ curse has much more to do with what happens than any plan of Jupiter (29). Statius’ Oedipus is partly modeled on Virgil’s Juno, but he is more successful than the goddess in the fulfillment of his desires. For all that Coroebus and Hypsipyle suffer for their courageous acts—Coroebus when he kills Apollo’s monster and Hypsipyle when she saves her father contrary to Venus’ plan—it is noteworthy that they make their own choices, in effect challenging the will of the gods. The irrelevance of pietasis a consequence of the irrelevance of the gods who traditionally care about pietas, such as Jupiter.

Ganiban pays most attention to the characters who commit criminal actions, and indeed there are lots of them in the Thebaid. Even characters who are often treated sympathetically in the literary tradition reveal their dark side here. Statius’ Hypsipyle compares well with Valerius Flaccus’ version (91), but Ganiban argues that although she initially seems like pius Aeneas, she becomes in the end more like Dido, overwhelmed by furor(87). The parallel lends support to reading Aeneas himself as over-whelmed by furorat the very end of the Aeneid. Other female characters who are darker here than elsewhere include Jocasta (110–112, 159–165), Antigone (166–167, 208–212), and Argia (208–212). Male characters are also part of this pattern. Every change Statius makes to the tradition increases Tydeus’ wickedness (123–127): “the ultimate revelation of his criminality to the horrified gods only underscores heaven’s lack of control in human affairs” (123). It is noteworthy, however, that some characters are better than their traditional versions, such as Amphiaraus (124). Yet even he commits a crime; his descent into the underworld is nefasbecause...