426 T H E C L A S S I CA L R E V I E W

after notarat (quos . . . [quis] . . . quos . . .), despite it being a relative clause dependant
on 316 quos excedens hilares; a construction not reflected in translation. The whole recon-
figuration could only work with rēgis iniqui as a substitute for the short ducis (amply jus-
tified with similar occurrences at 3.206, 4.361). In the context of Tydeus’ embassy, whose
rash exit from Eteocles’ palace lends itself to the Calydonian boar simile wreaking havoc
among its hunters (here Statius seemingly follows Ovid’s Met. 8), G. takes issues with stra-
tum Ixiona at 473 and proposes natum Ixiona, unattested elsewhere. The emendation does
make sense a priori, since Ixion’s son, Pirithous, rather than Ixion himself, took part in the
hunt and clarifies an oddity that has otherwise been tacitly endorsed (Ovid has proles
Ixionis at Met. 8.843 for instance). However, for further discussion, one must revert to a
previously published article by the author (‘Statius, Thebaid 2.473: iam Telamona solo,
iam stratum Ixiona linquens’, Mnemosyne 66 [2013], 312–13). On 590, inpediunt numero
seque ipsa uicissim, G.’s inclination for Alton’s inpediunt over the accepted in/impeditant
is morphologically more sensible than its alternative.
This commentary is an extremely valuable tool to teach textual criticism as it delves
into deep metrical, grammatical, stylistic and literary analysis. It also offers many insights
to any Statius reader, however specialised, by covering every single inch of the text, and
thus offering information on places that were previously left bare. The importance of this
volume cannot be stressed enough. Its breadth of material and stimulating content will
certainly make it an essential resource for students and critics alike.

University of Manchester DALIDA AGRI

dalida.agri@manchester.ac.uk

A NEW COMMENTARY ON SILIUS ITALICUS

B E R N S T E I N ( N . W . ) (ed., trans.) Silius Italicus, Punica 2. Pp. liv +
318. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Cased, £80, US$125.
ISBN: 978-0-19-874786-4.
doi:10.1017/S0009840X18000859

Until F. Spaltenstein’s two-volume commentary on Silius Italicus’ Punica (1986; 1990),

readers had to make do with very old commentaries on the epic, such as those of J.C.G.
Ernesti (1791), G.A. Ruperti (1795) and N.E. Lemaire (1823), and the only commentary
on an individual book was D.C. Feeney’s 1982 dissertation (Book 1). The landscape of
Silian studies has changed significantly since then, particularly over the last two decades,
with book-length studies, articles and chapters coming out in greater numbers than ever
before. Commentaries on individual books have proliferated too; P.P.K. Roosjen’s on
Book 14 (1996) led the way and was followed by U. Fröhlich (2000) on Book 6, E.M.
Ariemma (2000) on 8, R.J. Littlewood (2011) on 7, M. van der Keur (2015) on 13 and,
just last year (2017), Littlewood on 10 and, the subject of this review, B. on 2. B.’s
new commentary is a welcome contribution in that it fills a gap in the scholarship,
being the only commentary exclusively devoted to Punica 2, and reflects the considerable
advances Silianists, including B. himself, have made in recent decades; in this latter
respect, it helpfully updates J. Küppers’s 1986 study, heretofore the closest we have to a
detailed, yet comprehensive treatment of the entire book.

The Classical Review 68.2 426–428 © The Classical Association (2018)

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Univ of Louisiana at Lafayette, on 08 Nov 2018 at 05:09:58, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X18000859
 T H E C L A S S I CA L R E V I E W 427
B.’s introduction covers much of the ground one expects and requires, including Silius’
biography, historical sources, literary models, major themes, reception, language, poetic
technique, metrics, and notes on the text and translation. Among high points here are
B.’s thorough treatment of Silius’ correspondences with and deviations from Livy
(‘Epicizing History’) and his overview of the book’s contents (‘Episodes and Themes of
Punica 2’), where, in addition to setting forth its major themes and ideas, he discusses
each episode’s principal models (Virgil, most of all, but Homer, Lucan and Ovid,
among others, as well). B.’s fine presentation of this material renders his discussion of
Silius’ poetic predecessors as something of an afterthought in the subsequent section
(‘Punica 2 and the Poetic Tradition’), but his analysis of the epic’s relation to Statius’
Thebaid is a pleasant surprise, as not much attention is usually given to this topic. The
only topic to which B. might have given fuller attention is the historical and political con-
text of the Punica’s composition, which he touches on briefly in his treatment of the poet’s
biography (‘Silius Italicus, Consular and Poet’) and his analysis of Saguntum’s fall in
‘Episodes and Themes’. Granted, the pertinence of that context to our appreciation of
the epic may not be so self-evident in Book 2 as it is in other books, such as 3, where
the reigns of the Flavian emperors are prophesied, or the Cannae books (8–10), where
references and allusions to civil war repeatedly evoke the events of 68–69 CE. Even so,
as Saguntum’s story in Books 1 and 2 prefigures Rome’s in the epic in many crucial
ways and as the city’s fall, which forms the climactic finale of its story, itself evokes
civil war in the suicides and internecine slaughter of its people, I expected B. to foreground
more than he does the connection between Saguntum and Rome’s civil wars, whether as
foreshadowed at Cannae later in the epic or as experienced by Silius and his readers in the
first century CE.
B. next gives the Latin text of Punica 2 and an English translation on facing pages. His
text is J. Delz’s Teubner (1987), from which he occasionally departs (seven times in all).
B.’s is a straightforward and readable prose translation, ‘workmanlike’ in the best possible
sense. He opts for clean, contemporary, idiomatic English, routinely breaks up long sen-
tences into smaller, more digestible ones, sticks closely to the Latin syntax whenever pos-
sible, and glosses epithets so as to make them less alienating for and more easily
intelligible to the general reader. As for the glosses, most of them are well chosen and effi-
ciently convey a point; see, for example, Fabius, Tirynthia proles (2.3: ‘Fabius, descendant
of Tirynthian Hercules’) or Hesperidum . . . dono (2.78: ‘the Hesperides’ golden gift’). In
some cases, particularly ethnonyms, however, B. goes too far in my opinion. Silius uses a
wide range of epithets for the Romans (e.g. Rhoeteius, Oenotrius, Ausonius), all of which
one might translate as ‘Roman’ and many of which, in fact, B. translates as such. But in
doing so B. detracts somewhat from the richness of Silius’ use of these epithets. Moreover,
there is a lack of consistency at times; for example, Dardana (2.1), referring to a Roman
ship, and Phrygiam (2.352), referring to the Roman people, are translated as ‘Dardanian’
and ‘Trojan’, respectively, but the epithet Rhoeteius (2.51), referring to the Romans, is
translated as ‘Roman’. These quibbles aside, B.’s translation is accurate, reliable and, I
should add, very much appreciated. J.D. Duff’s 1934 Loeb translation of the Punica served
Anglophone readers well for many years, but it is now antiquated, and modern translations
into English are needed. A new English translation of the epic as a whole is a real
desideratum.
The commentary includes introductions to the major episodes in the book and brief
summaries of the scenes that subdivide them. B.’s ‘line-by-line’ analyses address the
many and varied topics one expects from a learned commentary, including diction, morph-
ology, syntax, metre, rhetorical figures, textual matters, geographical, mythological and
historical references, issues of translation, and parallels (verbal, thematic, motival) with lit-

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Univ of Louisiana at Lafayette, on 08 Nov 2018 at 05:09:58, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X18000859
 428 T H E C L A S S I CA L R E V I E W

erary predecessors, contemporaries and successors, and with moments elsewhere in the
Punica. B.’s coverage of parallels is especially thorough, and I, for one, am grateful that
he foregoes lists of citations in favour of quotation of relevant intertexts, which saves
the trouble of having to look them up. When it comes to literary interpretation, B. is spar-
ing; he elucidates most points on which commentary is needed but, once he does, prefers to
get out of the reader’s way, perhaps so as not to ply one reading at the expense of others.
This is a perfectly legitimate way of approaching a commentary, but I would have liked it if
he lingered a bit longer on interpretative possibilities, say, as A. Augoustakis does in his
recent commentary on Thebaid 8 (2016) or as Littlewood tends to do in her Silian com-
mentaries (see above). Even so, between the commentary and the ‘Episodes and
Themes’ section of the introduction, B. never fails to present the reader with a thorough
accounting of pertinent interpretative issues and trends, and his judicious treatment of
the notoriously ambiguous conclusion of the book (Saguntum’s self-destruction following
Fides’ and Tisiphone’s interventions) shows the virtues of his restraint. Finally, B.’s
engagement with scholarship deserves note: on the whole, he does well to extract from
it what is most essential and useful for his readers – a good example is his commentary
on the ekphrasis of Hannibal’s shield (2.395–456), a much studied passage –, exhibits a
thorough grasp of the entire scholarly tradition and is up-to-date, citing the most recent,
relevant scholarship throughout. The book closes with a bibliography, an index verborum,
an index locorum and a general index.
B.’s commentary is a much appreciated contribution to the study of Silius’ Punica and a
great resource for scholars and students, specialists and generalists, alike. It is hoped that
B. will consider producing other commentaries on books of this epic, which, while gaining
readers of late, is still quite under appreciated.

University of Missouri RAYMOND MARKS

marksr@missouri.edu

CANNAE IN POETRY AND COMMENTARY

L I T T L E W O O D ( R . J . ) (ed., trans.) A Commentary on Silius Italicus’
Punica 10. Pp. lxxx + 265, ills. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
Cased, £75, US$120. ISBN: 978-0-19-871381-4.
doi:10.1017/S0009840X18000860

Book 10 of Silius Italicus’ Punica deals with a historical moment that forged a great part of
the Roman ethnic identity − not a glorious victory, but the crushing defeat at Cannae. The
Romans boasted that they had recovered from a disaster that would have been the end of
any other nation. This is one of the most fascinating books of a work that has lately been
attracting the attention it deserves from Latinists. L.’s commentary on Punica 10 is part of
this reappraisal of Flavian epic and provides an essential tool for studying, appreciating and
enjoying Silius’ Punica. The book will serve scholars and postgraduate students well. I
would use it as a textbook in an MA Latin Text Seminar, had its price not put it beyond
what a student can reasonably spend on textbooks.
A thorough and excellent introduction prepares the reader for a fascinating commen-
tary. One of the highlights of the introduction is the section on Silius’ adaptation of

The Classical Review 68.2 428–430 © The Classical Association (2018)

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Univ of Louisiana at Lafayette, on 08 Nov 2018 at 05:09:58, subject to the Cambridge Core
terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0009840X18000859