Motherhood and the Other - Historia Antigua

This page intentionally left blank

ContentsList of IllustrationsPrefaceTexts and Translations UsedList of AbbreviationsixxxiiixivIntroduction: Other and Same: Female Presence inFlavian Epic 1(Fe)Male perspectives on cosmopolitanism and identity 1Motherhood and the Other defined: Julia Kristeva in thechôra of Strangers 14Epic within epic: Lemnos and Theban civil war in Statius’Thebaid 21Patrio-tic epic? Same and other in Silius’ Punica 231 Mourning Endless: Female Otherness in Statius’ Thebaid 30Defining the periphery: Thebes and Lemnos 34Between Lemnos and Argos: Hypsipyle’s transgressedboundaries 37Eumenidum antiquissima: Jocasta the warmonger orhelpless bystander? 62In the chôra of sisterhood: Antigone and Ismene—publicgaze and private lament 68Lament and the poet: Boundaries (re)transgressed 752 Defining the Other: From altera patria to tellus mater inSilius Italicus’ Punica 92Fathers, sons, and the poetics of patria 97Capua: Another Rome? A city in the periphery 109Saguntum as same and other: Breaking the bond withpatria Rome 113Germana Elissae: A Carthaginian reborn 136The renewal of tellus 144

List of Illustrations1. Rome, Cancelleria Relief B, Vespasian’s Aduentus(Neg. D-DAI-Rom 2007.0010). 2432. Rome, Cancelleria Relief B, Vespasian’s Aduentus,detail of Roma (Neg. D-DAI-Rom 2007.0011). 2433. Rome, Cancelleria Relief A, Domitian’s Profectio(Neg. D-DAI-Rom 2007.0013). 2444. Rome, Domus Augustana, lower peristyle, author’sown picture. 2505. Rome, Domus Augustana, lower level, fromW. L. MacDonald, The Architecture of the Roman Empire,vol. I: An Introductory Study (New Haven, CT, and London:Yale University Press, 1982), fig. 58. 251

xiiPrefacebeen present in good or bad moments with their constant supportand encouragement: Lucia Athanassaki, Costas Busch, Carol J. King,Kostas Kourtikakis, Eleni Manolaraki, Vassiliki Panoussi, JohnThorburn, and Angeliki Tzanetou.First and foremost, however, this magnum opus is dedicated to myparents, Georgia and Charidemos Augoustakis, who have incessantlyinspired me with their love and encouragement, rightly and withoutexaggeration deserving the titulus to this volume, parentibus optimis.Antony Augoustakis—Heraklion, GreeceAugust 2009

Texts and Translations UsedThe consonantal ‘v’ and ‘j’ in the Latin texts has been printed as ‘u’ and ‘i’and ‘V’ and ‘I’ in capitals. The following standard editions have been usedfor quotations from the original Greek and Latin texts (BT ¼ BibliothecaTeubneriana; OCT ¼ Oxford Classical Texts):Livy 21–25 Walters, C. F., and Conway, R. S. OCT 1967.Livy 26–30 Conway, R. S., and Johnson, S. K. OCT 1968.LucanShackleton Bailey BT 1997, 2nd edn.Ovid’s Metamorphoses Tarrant, R. J. OCT 2004.Pliny the Younger Mynors, R. A. B. OCT 1963.Silius Italicus’ Punica Delz, J. BT 1987.Statius’ Thebaid Hill, D. E., ed. (1996) P. Papini Stati ‘Thebaidos’Libri XII, 2nd edn, Leiden.Suetonius’ Lives Ihm, M. BT 1908.Valerius Flaccus Ehlers, W. W. BT 1980.Virgil Mynors, R. A. B. OCT 1969.Translations of major authors used throughout this book have beenadapted with many changes from the following sources:Lucan Braund, S. Oxford World Classics 1992.Silius Italicus Duff, J. D. Loeb 1934.Statius Shackleton Bailey, D. R. Loeb 2003.Valerius Flaccus Mozley, J. H. Loeb 1934.

List of AbbreviationsGreek authors and works are abbreviated according to the system of the LSJ,while Latin authors and works follow the system of the OLD. Any gaps aresupplemented from the abbreviations of the OCD, 3rd edn. The abbreviationPun. is used instead of Sil. Periodicals have been abbreviated on thebasis of L’Année Philologique.LSJOCDOLDLiddell, H. G., Scott. R., and Jones, H. S., eds (1940) A Greek-English Lexicon, 9th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Hornblower, S., and Spawforth, A., eds (1996) The Oxford ClassicalDictionary, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Souter, A., Wyllie, J. M., and Glare, P. G. W., eds (1968–82) OxfordLatin Dictionary (Oxford: Oxford University Press).MODERN WORKSANRW Vogt, J., Temporini, H., and Haase, W., eds (1972– )Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt (Berlin andNew York: Walter de Gruyter).BMCErnout-MeilletMattingly, H., ed. (1930), Coins of the Roman Empire inthe British Museum 2: Vespasian to Domitian (London).Ernout, A., and Meillet, A. (1932) Dictionnaire étymologiquede la langue latine (Paris: Klincksieck).LIMC Lexicon Iconographicum Mythologiae Classicae (1981– )Zurich.Suppl. Hell. Lloyd-Jones, H., and Parsons, P., eds (1983) SupplementumHellenisticum (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter).TLLThesaurus Linguae Latinae (1900– ) Leipzig.

Introduction: Other and Same: FemalePresence in Flavian Epic(FE)MALE PERSPECTIVES ON COSMOPOLITANISMAND IDENTITYomnibus hunc potius communem animantibus orbemcommunes et crede deos. patriam inde uocatoqua redit itque dies; nec nos, o nata, malignuscluserit hoc uno semper sub frigore mensis.(V. Fl. Argon. 7.227–30)Rather deem that this world is shared by all living souls, and shared too arethe gods. Thence call this your country, where the sun goes forth and backagain; nor should, my daughter, the inclement climate imprison us always inthis eternal cold alone.In the seventh book of the Argonautica, Valerius Flaccus expands onmaterial he draws from Apollonius Rhodius’ third book, where Medeafamously falls in love with Jason. In the passage quoted above, Venus,disguised as Circe, Medea’s aunt, advises the young girl to pursue herdream and love, following Jason to Greece, far from her patria,Colchis. 1 When we compare Valerius Flaccus’ adaptation of Chalciope’ssimilar pronouncement from Apollonius’ own Argonautica,it becomes apparent that the Flavian poet transforms the Greek1 See Mozley (1934), 377 n.1: ‘There is a touch of Stoic cosmopolitanism.’ See alsoStadler (1993), 92; Perutelli (1997a), 278; and Liberman (2002), 300 n.125.

2 Motherhood and the Otherepic into a Roman saga of the imperial age—by acclimatising in thiscase Chalciope’s words to fit the poet’s Roman standpoint: 2ZçåººÝ ìå ìÞôå ôïŒÞøíäHìÆ ôüäš åNóïæÜÆí ìÅäb ðôüºØí, Iººš Kðd ªÆßÅòðåßæÆóØ íÆØåôÜåØí, ¥ íÆ ìÅäÝ ðåæ ïhíïìÆ ˚üºåøí.(Ap. Rhod. Argon. 3.678–80)How I wish that I did not look upon this palace of our parents or city, butthat I lived at the edge of the world, where no one had ever heard the nameof the Colchians.Apollonius’ version underscores Chalciope’s escapist tendencies, aninfluence on the Hellenistic poet from the Euripidean tragedies,where characters in distress commonly express the wish to takewing and fly away to the far ends of the cosmos, an escape fromthe unpleasant realities on the stage. 3 Chalciope envies Medea’spotential, bright future away from what she considers to be thebarbaric northern lands of the Colchians. In Valerius’ version, however,Venus’ exhortation to Medea is expressed emphatically asa piece of advice from a mother (not an aunt) to her daughter(o nata, ‘oh, child’, V. Fl. Argon. 7.229) and constitutes a paradigmunique in imperial epic, a feature that marks the difference betweenFlavian epic narratives and the foundational poems of the Augustanage, in particular those of Virgil and Ovid. In this case, the dichotomybetween Roman vs Barbarian, Greek vs non-Greek, same vsother is negotiated from the perspective of an idealised cosmopolitanism.4 In Virgil and Ovid the epic, ktistic narrative hastens towardsthe foundation of a centre in Rome, in the heart of Italy, with amixture of positive and negative effects, analeptically and prolepticallyattached to the future of the empire: consider for instance thewords of Jupiter to Juno in Aeneid 12, where the supreme ruler ofgods and humans elucidates how the two races will merge into one(faciamque omnes uno ore Latinos, ‘I shall make them all Latins,2 See Hunter (1989), 172: ‘These verses help to plant the seed of flight in Medea’smind.’3 See e.g. the second stasimon in the Hippolytus (732–51) and Barrett (1964),297–306. Cf. Euripides’ Hel. 1478–86 and Ion 796–99.4 Invaluable is Hall’s (1989) study of the construction of ‘Greekness’ and ‘Athenianness’in tragedy.

Introduction: Other and Same 3speaking one tongue’, Aen. 12.837). 5 Conversely, the post-Augustanepic narrative becomes increasingly centrifugal, as it hastens awayfrom the centre to the periphery of the epic landscape: in Valerius, forinstance, the Argonauts set out to seek the golden fleece, but the epicnarrative shifts from Magnesia to Colchis, where the heroes evenparticipate in a civil war (Argonautica 6), before they embark on thereturn trip (a journey that incidentally is never completed, because ofthe epic’s breaking off in mediis rebus, in the eighth book). 6Likewise, as we shall see in the subsequent analysis of the Thebaidand the Punica, on the one hand Statius indulges in rebalancing the‘middle’ 7 of the poem from Thebes itself to ‘the trip towards Thebes’,namely the details of the Argive expedition on its way to the centre ofthe action: this reconfiguration ultimately leads to a destabilisationof the epic genre that struggles to find its own expression, waveringbetween different genres at the very end, just before the authorialvoice intervenes to put an end to such ‘dangerous’ enterprises; andon the other hand, Silius opts for a theme that showcases the longstruggle of Africa to impose itself on the centre—Italy—from whichstruggle Rome emerges victorious, yet not unscathed. My discussioncentres on two of the four epic poems of the Flavian period, as theyreflect best a crystallisation of the socio-political and cultural mechanismsof the Domitianic regime with respect to the reception offoreign otherness and the periphery by the centre, as well as the5 Cf. readings of Roman identity in the Aeneid, such as Toll (1997), who delvesinto the long process that constitutes the making of Romanness in Virgil, as anenterprise of the many, not just one man’s show (namely Augustus). Most recently,Reed (2007) offers a perceptive discussion of the creation of a multiple and multivalentRoman identity out of other nationalities in the Aeneid. As Reed points out,the Aeneid becomes endlessly rereadable, ‘every angle from which we read it offers adifferent way to be Roman in the world’ (12–13).6 The question here is whether Valerius intends to bring this journey to an end orleave the poem open-ended, in the tradition of Lucanian epic; cf. Hershkowitz(1998b), 32:In a sense the Argonautica does not need an end. The conclusion of this most familiarof tales has already been written and rewritten. Every reader knows how the storyends, and so every reader can ‘write’ his or her own ending, guided by externalintertextual knowledge and by internal prolepses.7 On ‘middles’ in Statius and Silius, see McNelis (2004) and Tipping (2004)respectively.

4 Motherhood and the Otheramalgamation of ideas of universal cosmopolitanism. Though Valerius’Argonautica and Statius’ Achilleid can be used as insightful comparandafor drawing similar conclusions, their unfinished state and the earliercomposition of Valerius’ poem during the transitional period of theVespasianic regime 8 have led me to focus solely for the purposes of thisstudy on the Thebaid and the Punica, a mythological and a historicalpoem respectively, as representative trends in Flavian, imperial epic.The passage from Valerius Flaccus, however, with which this chapteropens, offers an unrivalled glimpse into the ideas concerning universalisedcosmopolitanism, later fully developed by Valerius’ epic successors.When Valerius reconfigures Chalciope’s secret wish, voiced toMedea in hypothetical terms, the poet transforms it into a piece ofadvice given to Medea by Circe, a person already experienced in theKóåÆôØÆß, at the other side of the known world, in the extrema mundi:Circe has found a new dwelling in Ausonia as the royal wife of Picus(nunc Ausonii coniunx ego regia Pici, ‘now I am the royal wife of ItalianPicus’, V. Fl. Argon. 7.232). In other words, Circe is already Romanised(meque vides Tusci dominam maris, ‘you see me being the mistress ofthe Tuscan sea’, 7.234), 9 and her language precisely reflects this metamorphosis,since she stresses her flight from the uncivilised Colchiansuniquely as an act of fas, a strong term borrowed from Roman ritualand religious activity (fas mihi non habiles, fas et tibi linquere Colchos,‘it was right for me to abandon the uncouth Colchians; it is permittedto you too’, 7.231). That is why, when she urges Medea to follow Jasonto Greece, the location seems of secondary significance—the journey isstressed instead, while the disasters of the future are never revealed bythe skilled and unscrupulous goddess Venus, in disguise. In this play ofidealised cosmopolitanism, the centrifugal mechanism at work is attimes adjusted into a centripetal force, since from the extrema mundi8 For the dating of Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica, in the early years of the Flavianregime, see now Stover (2008) with further bibliographical references; see also n.20.9 Cf. Virg. Aen. 7.189–91:Picus, equum domitor, quem capta cupidine coniunxaurea percussum uirga uersumque uenenisfecit auem Circe sparsitque coloribus alas.Picus, the tamer of horses, whose wife, Circe, possessed by lust, having struck himwith her golden stick, changed him with her potions into a bird and sprinkled colourson his wings.

6 Motherhood and the OtherSeneca’s hyperbolic articulation terminos ciuitatis nostrae cum solemetimur is nuanced in Valerius’ adaptation, qua redit itque dies: thenatural world fulfils the role of an infinite, visible, and yet almostinvisible, boundary, which nevertheless is incapable of enfolding theuniversality of a cosmopolitan human being. Valerius sets the limitsof the cosmos both in the far east and the far west, measuring theextrema mundi by the course of the Sun’s chariot from sunrise tosunset, just as the Neronian philosopher does with the phrase cumsole metimur. In addition, it is perhaps not coincidental that Senecachooses to illustrate the example of the minor res publica by areference to Athens and Carthage, two of Rome’s greatest opponents,after whose conquest Rome emerges as the sole power in theMediterranean; this subjugation therefore facilitates Rome’s transformationinto an all-encompassing empire. 12 The sophisticatednuance evokes the long-standing association of Athens with theGreek institution of the polis, into the confines of which she returnsafter losing an empire; Carthage, similarly, features as the formerpower, which in addition exemplifies the other, because as a Phoeniciancity it is marked by a well-defined foreignness in the Graeco-Roman literary imagination. After all Greece is never conquered inRoman thought in the same terms as the enemy par excellence,Hannibal, must be conquered, a moment in history that epitomisesthe apogee of glorious success for the empire (and the beginningof the end, at the same time). But most importantly, in Seneca’sWeltanschauung, Rome constitutes a successful model on the map ofcosmopolitanism, acculturating, but at the same time capable ofabsorbing the qualities of the peripheral peoples she conquers.In this complex panorama of ideas exchanged concerning universalcitizenship, which by implication necessarily becomes a discourseon empire, it is important to remember, as Konstan maintains, thatcosmopolitanism according to Cynic thought is an elite status andtakes the form of membership in the international community of thewise and good, an idea adopted by the Stoics of the early empire in12 Williams (2003), 80, observes: ‘not chosen at random, as S. already identifiestwo major centres of political opposition to free philosophical speculation ...Bothalso have turbulent histories ...with their prime long past.’

Introduction: Other and Same 7Rome. 13 This is important for our consideration of imperial epic as acase study of ongoing negotiation between same vs other. And byelite status, one must understand the idealised position such autopian urbs occupies in the mind both of the philosopher and theFlavian epicists. According to Konstan, cosmopolitanism is dividedinto two categories, ‘a negative, that is, the rejection of allegiance toany polis, which we associate with the Cyrenaic philosopher Aristippus,and a positive, which presupposes some kind of commitment tosociety beyond the confines of the city-state’. 14 This second categorythat is akin to the ideas recurring in Valerius Flaccus and in Flavianepic in general, is further distinguished into two groups: the first,where foreign customs are acknowledged and differences are respected;and the second, where an inborn sameness in all humanbeings is presupposed, resulting in the collapse of the polarity betweensame and other. 15 Though Seneca subscribes to the firstcategory, that is, to a universal citizenship that rejects the narrowboundaries of the urbs, he also treads on the territory of the second,as he is not interested in ‘a supportive blueprint for or an ideal inconflict with Roman imperial government’. 16 In other words, thisphilosophical debate is by default uninterested in the historical13 Konstan (2009), 476.14 Konstan (2009), 477.15 As Reydams-Schils (2005), 100, observes: ‘the idea that what would be goodfor Rome could be at odds with the well-being of other peoples or with universalhumanity was not unfamiliar to the Romans.’ She also cites the example ofCarneades who talks about the ‘advantages of the fatherland’ being the ‘disadvantagesof another state’:quae sunt enim patriae commoda nisi alterius ciuitatis aut gentis incommoda, id estfines propagare aliis uiolenter ereptos, augere imperium, uectigalia facere maiora?(Lactant. Div. inst. 6.6.19)For what are then the advantages of the fatherland, if not the disadvantages ofanother city or people, that is to extend borders by stealing them from othersviolently, to augment the empire, and to impose greater taxes?Reydams-Schills concludes that ‘according to this scenario, Romans and non-Romansare locked into a zero-sum game’. Carneades is famous for his advocacy of a philosophicaltruth that is free of fixed and stable binarisms, applicable of course to thedichotomies discussed here (see Janan [2001], 73 and nn.18–19).16 Williams (2003) 80; cf. also Williams’s introduction on how this view isreconciled with Seneca’s thought of practical ethics as a way of life in the ‘real world’.

8 Motherhood and the Otherrealities encountered throughout the empire in the hic et nunc of thelate first century CE and rather constitutes a ‘romanticised’ discourseon the possibilities created by large empires, in this case Romanhegemony, and the effects of cosmopolitanism on the shaping ofRoman identity. 17 This idealised cosmopolitanism, then, is intertwinedwith the perception of Romanness, pervasive in the empireof the late first century, namely what it means to be a ciuis Romanus,within or without the ever changing boundaries of a geographicallyvast terrain. 18In the extensive analysis of the Thebaid and the Punica thatfollows, as we shall see, from the perspective of the epic poets ofthe period there seems to be a fluidity in concepts as to whatconstitutes Romanness as opposed to non-Roman otherness, with ashift of focus from the centre of the empire to the periphery and itsinhabitants. This study specifically addresses the split representationof women along two axes, the intersection of gender and ethnicity, ormore particular Roman vs other, 19 and aims at uncovering the insightswe can glean from female action in the long, male dominated,narrative of two diverse poems. 20 The larger purpose of this book17 One may contrast Kristeva’s ideas on cosmopolitanism in modern nations, aswe shall see below. As Sjöholm (2005), 62, affirms: ‘Cosmopolitanism offers a way ofdisinvesting the nation: no longer primary objects of identification, but transitoryspaces, preparing the entrance into other, larger communities.’18 In light of various discussions on what constitutes Romanness, the all but nonexistentRomanitas (used first in Tert. De pallio 4) is used in this study as the allencompassingterm for the individual concepts of uirtus, fides, and pietas; see, forinstance, the use of the term by Galinsky (1981), Burck (1981a), Janan (2001), Adams(2003), Dewar (2003), Dominik (2003a), 474 n.8. On Roman ‘nationalism’, Bonjour’s(1975) study remains extremely useful.19 This study follows a similar approach to Janan’s interpretation of the splitrepresentation of the erotic and the political in Propertius’ fourth book, thoughJanan applies the Lacanian model of subjectivity; naturally, Janan’s analysis and myinterpretation are applied to two very different genres, epic and elegy. As Janan iskeen in observing throughout her insightful study, binary polarities are all the moreemphasised by the poet as he strives to present a surface of uniformity and sameness,when in truth what breaks forth is a divided subjectivity of variation and otherness.In Flavian epic, the Lacanian use of the symbol of the phallus has been explored byHeslin (2005), 277–300, on Achilles’ rape of Deidamia in Statius’ Achilleid.20 Although we cannot be certain about dating the poetry of this period, we canroughly place Martial’s first book of the Epigrams in 85–6 CE (Howell [1980], 5), thecompletion of Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica before 92 CE (the year of his death and ofthe publication of the Thebaid, according to its author), and Silius’ composition of

Introduction: Other and Same 9then is to explore the dynamics of Romanness and otherness in thelight of female representation and the manipulation of women’sactions in the poems in order to highlight the fluidity and mobilityof gender and cultural hierarchies. Ultimately, as we shall encounterin the individual chapters and in the conclusion, the poets of theFlavian period adopt a rather Senecan point of view, since theiridealised discourse on gender and ethnicity aims at destabilisingboundaries, in a reconstruction according to which sameness andotherness seemingly converge, while at the same time, surprisingly,these same boundaries are reshaped from the male perspective of theepic diction, a narrative destined and often hastening to celebrate theŒºÝÆ IíäæHí, thus satisfying the generic expectations for a marginal,abject female voice.More specifically, this study is concerned with the tensions betweensame and other in the epic poetry of the Flavian age, andespecially with the development of the role of those women,mothers-daughters-wives, who are portrayed as other, while theyalso exemplify the traditional moral values and ethics expectedfrom Roman matronae. From the analysis of various, often diverse,characters, the conclusion can be drawn that the construction ofRoman identity ultimately rests upon the absorption of elementsfrom outside, which bear the marks both of the radically different—the monstrous—and of Rome’s truest self, that is, its idealised virtuesand merits. 21 My discussion of the Thebaid and the Punica isPunica 15 around 94 CE or shortly thereafter, with the epic’s (hurried?) conclusionaround the time of the death of the emperor, Domitian, in 96 CE (see Marks [2005a],288). For the chronology of Silius’ work see Wistrand (1956), whose opinion thatSilius starts the composition of the Punica around 80 CE I espouse (cf. the Introductionin Augoustakis [2010a]) and also Smolenaars [1994], xvi–xviii).Smolenaars’s study (1996) underscores the need for more comparative work onFlavian epic. Cf. Hutchinson (1993), 121–3, on Statius and Silius. I think that Steele(1930) is right to conclude that there is clearly interaction among the three Flavianepicists; such method is adopted by Lovatt (2010) as she looks for possible readingsback and forth between Statius and Silius, regardless of the issue of priority ofcomposition.21 David Konstan correctly reminds me of the truth that we inevitably ground identityand values in a confrontation with the other that in the end proves unstable. In heranalysis of the fourth book of Propertius’ poems, Janan (2001) points to the inherentfragility and tenuousness of polarities such as Man/Woman, Roman/non-Roman that

10 Motherhood and the Othergrounded in recent reflections on ethnicity and geographics in theRoman world. As interest in non-Roman otherness and identity hasincreased in the past few years, scholars have sought to re-examinethe Roman perspective concerning the people the Romans conquerin the process of the formation of the empire. For example, in aperceptive study on ethnicity and power in the Roman empire,Konstan has commented on how geographics impinges upon theconstruction or (I dare say) deconstruction, of gender roles. 22 Byexamining the portrayal of foreign queens in Strabo’s Geography,Konstan shows that in the global, multinational world of theRoman empire, the polarities between barbarians and civilised peopleon the one hand and between male rulers and capable femaleleaders on the other seem often to be destabilised during the earlyempire; thus the emergence of powerful female figures outside theRoman centre is poignantly underscored. 23Though based on the literary portrayal of the foreign/other, asnourished in the literary imagination of Graeco-Roman authors andtheir perception of historical realities, this assessment is also alignedwith the results of anthropological studies on the complex mechanismsof Romanisation throughout the Roman Empire. Wells, forinstance, seeks to restore the voice of the subjugated nations and totrace the influence wrought on the structure of Roman Europe, byemphasising those methods that work counter to the forces ofRomanisation and mobilise an intermingling of cultural systemsthat ultimately result in the amalgamation of a vast, dynamic empire.24 Likewise, in a recent study on unity and diversity in theRoman Empire, Hingley offers a subtle evaluation of the empire’selasticity in adopting and adapting foreign elements; as he rightlyobserves:lead to their own instability and ultimately collapse: ‘Rome’s identity, founded on herprimordial virtues, contains within itself its own inversion’ (61).22 Konstan (2000).23 In an earlier study, Konstan (1993) has persuasively pointed out the contrastbetween centre and periphery in Juvenal’s Satire 2, where corrupted Rome is shownalso as infecting the periphery. One could also mention Satire 3, where Umbriciusexplains his decision to abandon the metropolis (esp. 58–125: ‘true’ Romans oustedby foreigners). See Freudenburg (2001), 264–77, and Keane (2006), 31–3.24 Wells (1999).

Introduction: Other and Same 11Roman culture did not directly replace other more localised forms of eliteidentity. Part of its strength lay in its malleability, which allowed it to be usedto incorporate and manipulate other cultures and identities in order todefine flexible joint identities that communicated on both the local andthe global level. 25Whether reflecting historical realities or not, Roman identity as aliterary construct invites similar responses from various authors andtexts in the Flavian and post-Flavian periods, as much so as it does inVirgil’s Aeneid. In two studies of the Germania and the Agricolarespectively, O’Gorman (1993) and Rutledge (2000) have exploredthe dynamics of Tacitus’ negotiation of Romanitas and otherness.More specifically, both authors investigate the historian’s textualstrategy of transforming Germany and Britain into a Roman space,where one finds Roman values and ideology. At the same time,however, Tacitus’ narrative reveals certain tensions, since there is adisplacement of ideal morality from the Roman into the Germanterritory. As the city itself has become alien to its inhabitants, theRomans now seek recourse to the periphery in order to find trueRomanitas there. 26 Similarly, in a recent study on Saguntum in thefirst two books of the Punica, Dominik (2003a) persuasively arguesthat it is not the Romans themselves, but non-Romans, who becomethe true exemplars of fides and pietas in Silius’ poem. Thus, Dominikcontinues, the defining bearers of Romanitas are situated at theempire’s periphery, and not in the centre itself.It comes as no surprise that among such indispensable componentsof Romanitas, like fides and pietas, female morality plays asignificant role. 27 For Tacitus, for instance, as mentioned above, thewives of the Germans become paragons of what Roman matronaeshould exemplify (but unfortunately, the historian complains, do25 Hingley (2005), 71. Hingley is rightly careful in avoiding espousing the notion ofRomanisation as a simple progression of barbarism toward civilisation. Roth’s (2007)study of Italian pottery is an excellent example of how evidence from material culturemirrors the complexities of Romanisation in central Italy during the Hannibalic warsand beyond.26 Likewise in Shumate (2006), 81–127.27 See Langlands’s (2006) study of women’s sexual morality in the Roman world,especially the section on imperial narratives (319–63). On women and uirtus, seeMcDonnell (2006), 161–8.

12 Motherhood and the Othernot). 28 To be sure, women can hardly be ignored in this negotiationof universal citizenship, as they by default represent the other, theforeign, the marginal, in a word the social group most prone toacculturation and assimilation into a patriarchal society, such asthe Roman. As early as in the second century BCE in Rome, forinstance, women of upper-class Roman families are being educatedat the elementary and sometimes intermediate level, 29 a traditionaiming precisely at propagating the Roman ideals of motherhoodand matronhood. 30 Thus, we learn from our sources that an educatedmatrona would embody the exemplary virtues of chastity,prudence, modesty, unselfishness, veracity, and dedication to herhusband and children. 31 Several illustrious women appear in thesources as paragons of success and prosperity in a Roman family:besides taking care of their household affairs, Roman mothers supervisethe moral and intellectual education of their children. Apartfrom securing generational continuity, the task of a mother consistsin nurturing her children, especially the young men of the house,according to the mos maiorum (disciplina ac seueritas). 32 Such historicalrealities are often included in literary representations of thefemale sex, especially in genres, outwardly traditional, such as epic.As expected in a genre valorising the elite male identity through thedidactics of manliness (uirtus), fertile ground for such portrayals ofwomen is found in epic narratives, the examples of women who mayexemplify but also at times may not fulfil social expectations. 33 Inpromoting the ideals of the glorious Roman past, such as the victoryover the Carthaginians, or underscoring the failure of mythologicalheroines as mothers and wives, as they become participants in thevicious and ethically corrupting Theban civil war, the Flavian poetsrepresent ideals that conform to the world-view of the male audience28 Cf. Joshel (1997).29 See Hemelrijk (1999), 17–58.30 Ibid., 59–96.31 See Dixon (1990), 71–98. For instance Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi,daughter of Scipio Africanus, and therefore granddaughter of Pomponia, Scipio’smother, whom we shall examine in the course of our discussion of the Punica. ForCornelia, see Hemelrijk (1999), 64–7.32 Dixon (1990), 61–5.33 Keith (2000), 35. Keith (2000), 8–35 offers a stimulating discussion of thecorrelation between epic and the construction of Roman masculinity.

Introduction: Other and Same 13and foster the alignment of female behaviour in accordance with themos maiorum. To educated female readers and audience members inthe recitationes, 34 epic heroines from the periphery are shown asespousing Roman ideals of motherhood and matronhood and propagatingthe male ideology of the empire. And yet, this old, maleideology is simultaneously destabilized, as mothers assume a key rolein securing and promoting their sons’ prosperous future. Thus, notonly do women promote Roman ideals of the glorious past but also,and most importantly, they question the decisions taken by the maleprotagonists: without the intervention and presence of the MagnaMater, that is personified Motherhood herself, at the end of thePunica, an end to the war is unfeasible.Though these epics may reflect on the socio-political environmentin which they are created, 35 nevertheless we should bear in mind thatwe can only glance at the ‘anxiety’ and idealism of their respectivecomposers: therefore, our interpretation of female action is based onthe reconstruction of the materials gleaned from the narrative but byno means can it aim at the recovery of historical realities; one canhope for a partial reflection of such realities, from the subjectiveperspective, perception, and political orientation of the author. 36 Ultimately,these female figures under consideration represent literaryconstructs, remaining enclosed and mapped onto the geography of34 See Markus (2000).35 For a socio-cultural, as well as historiographical, study of foreigners in Romeand their integration in Roman society, politically and religiously, see Noy (2000), aswell two important contributions to the subject by Ricci (2005), especially 3–24 (ondemographics), and (2006), especially 35–52 (on immigration from Africa). Ricci’sstudies focus on the situation in the metropolis of the empire, the centre, not theperiphery, where materials are often irrecoverable. One should note the differentterminology used in everyday life material evidence, such as peregrinus or aduena(even transmarinus or prouincialis), and the sharp dichotomies cultivated in (epic)poetry, such as barbarus. On terminology, see Noy (2000), 1–3.36 For instance, Noy’s conclusion (2000), 287, converges with the ideal representationof homogeneity and diversity concurrently preserved in the epic tradition: ‘Oncethey were settled at Rome, foreigners could try to integrate or to retain at least someaspects of their “foreign” identity; they might also try to pass this on to theirchildren.’ Similarly, Ricci (2006), 106: ‘La storia della vita degli stranieri a Roma siidentifica, come in ogni grande città, con la sua stessa storia, ...constituendo ...ilsegno e la garanzia di soppravvivenza e scambio vitale proprio di una grandemetropoli.’

14 Motherhood and the OtherRoman epic as ideally successful or blatantly failing wives and mothers,from the centre or the periphery.MOTHERHOOD AND THE OTHER DEFINED: JULIAKRISTEVA IN THE CHÔRA OF STRANGERSMy theoretical apparatus in reading women and motherhood inFlavian epic is indebted to Julia Kristeva’s theory of the role ofmotherhood and foreigners in literature, culture, and society, apoint of departure in my analysis of the two epic poems underconsideration. Julia Kristeva’s contribution of several intriguing analysesof motherhood in Western culture is undeniably of great significance.She draws a distinction between the symbolic and thesemiotic: the symbolic enables language to refer (conventions suchas grammar and linguistic structures), 37 whereas the semiotic is expressedin body language (the movement, or the babbling of aninfant, for instance). 38 By means of this distinction, Kristeva understandspoetry as the necessary process in which the semiotic isdischarged into the symbolic. This is a shared and mutual process,inasmuch as, without the symbolic (male, paternal), significationwould not make sense—therefore signification requires the rupture(coupure) of the semiotic continuum—while, without the semiotic(feminine, maternal) all signification would be devoid of creativityand effectiveness. 3937 See Miller (2004), 5: ‘The Symbolic ...is the world of rules and codes. Itincludes language and all other shared semiotic systems ...Poetry as a linguisticpractice takes place in the Symbolic ...’38 Moi (1986), 12: ‘The semiotic is linked to pre-Oedipal primary processes, thebasic pulsions of which Kristeva sees as predominantly anal and oral, and as simultaneouslydichotomous (life/death, expulsion/introjection) and heterogeneous.’Whereas the semiotic may be expressed verbally, it is not subject to regular rules ofsyntax, as McAfee (2004), 17, points out.39 See Oliver (2005):Kristeva describes the relation between the semiotic and the symbolic as a dialecticaloscillation. Without the symbolic we have only delirium, while without the semiotic,language would be completely empty, if not impossible. We would have no reason to

Introduction: Other and Same 15In effect, Kristeva calls this semiotic domain, chôra, borrowing theterm from the Platonic åþæÆ, the third ontological kind, a spacebetween the archetypical paradigm (ðÆæÆäåߪìÆôïò åräïò) and itsreplicas (ìØìÞìÆôÆ):ôæßôïí äš Æs ªÝíïò kí ôe ôBò åþæÆò Iåß, çŁïæaí ïP ðæïóäååüìåíïí, ŒäæÆí äbðÆæÝåïí ‹óÆ ŠååØ ªÝíåóØí ðAóØí ...(Tim. 52a–b)There is then a third kind, that of the eternal space, that is not subject todestruction but provides a seat to everything that comes to life ...Kristeva defines this space as ‘rupture and articulations (rhythm),[that] precedes evidence, verisimilitude, spatiality, and temporality’.40 In other words, in this scheme, the semiotic is preverbal,since it ‘precedes the establishment of the sign, it is not ...cognitive’.41 Being pre-Oedipal, the semiotic chôra is linked to the mother,whereas the symbolic is dominated by the Law of the Father; 42 yetthis concept of motherhood is not confined to biological gender, butis rather transformed into what we can call (m)otherhood. 43 Thereceptacle womb, therefore, adopted as maternal space (chôra), isclosely related to what Kristeva conceived as genotext, the powers thatbring a text into being. The energies, pulses that take place in thisreceptacle, are captured only through the splitting of the semioticchôra into the signifying symbolic, which in turn is associated withspeak if it were not for the semiotic drive force. The oscillation between the semioticand the symbolic is both productive and necessary.40 Kristeva (1984), 26. As Moi (1986), 13, points out, Kristeva is aware of theparadox of trying to theorise ‘the untheorisable chôra’. See also Moi (2002), 169–72,for possible criticism levelled against Kristeva’s theories. Kristeva’s re-evaluation ofpoetic language, in terms different from Lacan’s male-oriented Imaginary and SymbolicOrder, was the starting point for her further studies in psychoanalysis, such as, forinstance, in the Powers of Horror (1982), Tales of Love (1986), and Black Sun (1989).41 Kristeva (1984), 27.42 Moi (2002), 164.43 My use of the neologism (m)otherhood here is based on the use of m/other byJensen (2002) in her analysis of Walt Whitman’s Leaves of Grass. Jensen examinesWhitman’s struggle with the polarity feminine/masculine through the lens of Kristeva’stheory of the semiotic and the symbolic. Whereas at the end the symbolic takes overhaving repudiated the abject semiotic (m/other), nevertheless, the abject cannot befully repressed and resurfaces creating a subject who is ‘forever in process/trial’ (111).

16 Motherhood and the Otherthe phenotext, the grammatical or linguistic structures that resultfrom the genotext. 44The Kristevan semiotic is marginal to language, just as the feminineis marginal under patriarchy. 45 Kristeva points to the paradoxicalstatus of women as both central but at the same timemarginalised, a condition that, as we shall see, is key to our understandingof the role of women in Flavian epic. Spentzou has recentlyemployed profitably the Kristevan chôra in her interpretation ofOvid’s Heroides, where she defines the chôra as the place where theheroines’ suppressed monologue takes place, ‘a discourse that disruptsthe Symbolic accounts of the forefathers of classical narratives,marking their absences, contradicting their complacent certainties,and occasionally keeping a silence that can muffle the clamour ofboisterous epic and tragedy’. 46 The Ovidian, if we can call it so, chôraof female prolific writing, however, a marginal topos of creativemelancholy, curbed by the restrictions of gender and genre, canaccount for several female characters in Flavian epic, as we shallsee, since I submit that the poetry of Statius and Silius displays asupple grafting of the epic (Virgil) and elegiac (Ovid’s Heroides)traditions. But for our analysis of female action in epic poetry, theKristevan chôra becomes only partly an informative tool; another44 Konstan (2005), 2: ‘Kristeva understands good poetry to be an irruption ofunconscious or semiotic processes into the logical order of language (the twodomains, while analytically distinct, are always to some degree mixed).’ Konstanapplies Kristeva’s theory to explain Plato’s vision of the mental state of divinelyinspired, possessed poets in Plato’s Ion (533e–534a). Davis (1995) applies Kristeva’stheory of the abject on Sophocles’ Antigone.45 As Moi (2002), 166, aptly observes:If patriarchy sees women as occupying a marginal position within the symbolic order,then it can construe them as the limit or borderline of that order ...[W]omen will thencome to represent the necessary frontier between man and chaos; but because of theirvery marginality they will also always seem to recede into and merge with the chaos ofthe outside ...they will be neither inside nor outside, neither known nor unknown.46 Spentzou (2003), 103; on Kristeva, see 99–104. Spentzou uses the Platonic/Kristevan chôra as the space, where Penelope finds refuge in the isolation of herbedroom, for instance. Spentzou calls attention to studies on gendered time, such asSegal (1977). In her most recent study of feminine discourse in Roman comedy,Dutsch (2008), 220–22 (see 214–16 on the Platonic åþÆ), examines the Kristevanmodel of interpretation, though she goes on to adopt Irigaray’s theories in order toelucidate Roman comedy patterns.

Introduction: Other and Same 17aspect of Kristeva’s work will speak well for the interpretation offoreign otherness, with which this study is occupied.The implications of the semiotic chôra as a maternal space, however,are salient in all of Kristeva’s writings, especially those related topolitics and feminism. As a foreigner in Paris, where she came in1966 from her native Bulgaria (where she was born in 1941), Kristevahas eloquently been emphasising her otherness from her very firstessays: ‘To work on language, to labour in the materiality of thatwhich society regards as a means of contact and understanding, isn’tthat at one stroke to declare oneself a stranger/foreign (étranger) tolanguage?’ 47 As Moi points out, Kristeva’s writings are influenced byher ‘own exiled and marginalised position as an intellectual womanin Paris’ 48 —in other words in her place as a peripheral outsider in thecentre. As Kristeva maintains in ‘Women’s Time,’ motherhood isintimately and inextricably associated with the sujet-en-procès, thatis with alienation and otherness:Pregnancy seems to be experienced as the radical ordeal of the splitting ofthe subject: redoubling up of the body, separation and coexistence of the selfand of an other, of nature and consciousness, of physiology and speech. Thisfundamental challenge to identity is then accompanied by a fantasy oftotality—narcissistic completeness—a sort of instituted, socialised, naturalpsychosis. The arrival of the child, on the other hand, leads the mother intothe labyrinths of an experience that, without the child, she would rarelyencounter: love for an other. Not for herself, nor for an identical being, andstill less for another person with whom ‘I’ fuse (love or sexual passion). Butthe slow, difficult and delightful apprenticeship in attentiveness, gentleness,forgetting oneself. The ability to succeed in this path without masochismand without annihilating one’s affective, intellectual and professional personality—suchwould seem to be the stakes to be won through guiltlessmaternity. 4947 Moi (1986), 3, quoting from Kristeva’s first book, the ÓÅìåØøôØåÞ (1969).48 Moi (1986), 3. Roland Barthes (1970) famously reviewed Kristeva’s first book(see above n.47) in an article called ‘L’étrangère’, which pointedly alluded to Kristeva’sBulgarian nationality but also to her ‘unsettling impact’ as someone who ‘subvertsauthority, the authority of monologic science’. See Barthes (1970), 19; Moi (2002),149; Lechte and Zournazi (2003), 11–14. For a brief and concise account of Kristeva’slife, see McAfee (2004), 4–9. Kristeva’s relation to feminism has been ambivalent; seeMoi (1986), 9; Oliver (1993), 176–80; and Leitch (2001), 2168.49 Kristeva (1981), 31; first published in French (1979).

18 Motherhood and the OtherKristeva implicitly correlates the semiotic chôra with the womb of thepregnant woman, 50 where the separation and coexistence of the selfand other occur, like the rupture of the semiotic into the symbolic. Inother words, motherhood becomes the locus for the expansion ofotherhood. At the same time, however, mother and child bond, as themother experiences love. Kristeva defines this ‘love’ as the processwhereby one forgets oneself in a continuous effort to discover theother. The phrase ‘mother’s species’, which Kristeva borrows fromJames Joyce’s phrase ‘father’s time, mother’s species’, points to thefemale chôra, the space where time is enacted through the constantrepetition of the regeneration of the human species by means ofmotherhood; it also, inevitably, avails itself of a ‘sense of the eternityof the species’, 51 that is to say, the inescapability of lending itself tobecoming ‘man’s time’. This is an important element in Kristeva’sdiscourse of the chôra, when we consider woman- and motherhoodin Flavian epic poetry: mothers become marginalised either asabsorbed into the symbolic of male ideology or as subversive voicesof the distorted landscape of civil war, a locus with no future ‘man’stime’.In one of her political works, 52 Strangers to Ourselves, Kristevadiscusses the role of foreigners as others, with special emphasis onwomen as the ‘first foreigners’ or the ‘strangers within us’. 53 In theintroductory chapter, Kristeva engages in a multiple dialogue of boththe internal and external manifestations of otherness. The displacedforeigner emerges as someone who has lost the mother figure: ‘misunderstoodby a loved and yet absent-minded mother, discreet, orworried mother, the exile is a stranger to his mother’. 54 Symbolisingthe first foreigners, the Danaids illustrate Kristeva’s discussion of ‘an50 See Payne (1993), 170.51 McAfee (2004), 94.52 The book is obviously preoccupied with the contemporary issue of foreignworkers in France.53 In 1977, Kristeva establishes the link between exile and women (text quotedfrom Moi [1986], 296): ‘A woman is trapped within the frontiers of her body and evenof her species, and consequently always feels exiled both by the general clichés thatmake up a common consensus and by the very powers of generalisation intrinsic tolanguage.’ As Lechte (1990), 79, points out, a woman provides ‘a unique insight ...with alienation also comes an insight unavailable to men.’54 Kristeva (1991), 5.

Introduction: Other and Same 19age-old time when an endogamous society became exogamous’. 55Since the Danaids are virgins, what is preserved is ‘the symbolicpower of the sole father, to the exclusion of any other man’. 56 AsSchultz observes, ‘and yet it is precisely the acceptance of the foreignerinto the community that insures increasing degrees of civilisation,that is, of a civilisation that recalls in the figure of the strangerits own unconscious resources, its own radical otherness’. 57Female figures embody the otherness in patriarchal societies, especiallywhere the factor of alien otherness intrudes. Kristeva expandsher idea of revolution in poetic language by extending the semioticchôra into what becomes foreign otherness on a social map. 58 In herPowers of Horror, for example, the foreigner is viewed as abject. Inparticular, Kristeva identifies abjection as ‘an operation of the psychethrough which subjective and group identity are constituted byexcluding anything that threatens one’s own (or one’s group’s) borders’.59 And more specifically, this abjection is linked to the maternalbody. As Kristeva has also pointed out in Tales of Love, in patriarchalcultures, women have been condensed to the maternal function ofreproduction and to abjection, oppression, and marginalisation.While Kristeva correctly identifies the abject status of women,especially applicable to the Greek and Roman societies, she offers awindow of interpretation for many of the female figures underdiscussion in the Thebaid and the Punica. InStrangers to Ourselves,Kristeva maintains that the foreigners are within us, as we are allforeigners with an uncanny strangeness and disturbing otherness.Though Kristeva, however, ‘documents how people are both fascinatedand repelled by the foreignness in their midst’, she also discerns,as McAfee states, ‘this attitude towards “foreignness” as anecessary and constitutive feature of our self-identity’. 60 The statusof exile and foreignness become necessary components of what55 Ibid., 45.56 Ibid., 44, and in 46: ‘[T]he bride was thought of as a foreigner, a suppliant ...neither as a prey nor as a slave.’57 Schultz (1994), 318.58 Oliver (1993), 5, observes that ‘just as she sees the pattern and logic of languagewithin the body, she sees the pattern and logic of alterity within the subject ...shemakes the social relation interior to the psyche’.59 Oliver (1998).60 McAfee (2004) 3. For the voicing of criticism concerning the implications ofKristeva’s theory on the political and nationalism, as well as a defence, see Ziarek(2003) and McAfee (2004), 122–5.

20 Motherhood and the Otherconstitutes female otherness in Roman epic of the Flavian period, outof which self-identity, that is Romanness, clearly a component ofmale identity and manliness, emerges. Women are seemingly excludedfrom the genre traditionally preoccupied with the ŒºÝÆIíäHí, and yet they figure in the margin of our narratives with adistinct, either subversive or complicit, voice. What will becomeimportant terms in the ensuing discussion are also the following: asKristeva maintains, the status of a foreigner in a given culture givesone the autonomy (my emphasis) to ‘confront everyone with theasymbolia (my emphasis), that rejects civility and returns to a violencelaid bare’. 61 As Smith comments on Kristeva’s theory of abjectionand otherness, ‘all women are female voyagers in perpetualtransit over foreign lands in which they never quite feel at home.Kristeva represents women as foreigners unable to extricate themselvesfrom abjection ...estranged from language, women are visionaries,“dancers who suffer as they speak”’. 62 Hence, Schultz correctlyidentifies the interconnections in the corpus of Kristeva’s writings:‘does not “the stranger within/without” compel us to negotiate ouridentity and difference from the tenuous position of being “subjectsin-process,”a position that well might enable us, as Kristeva urges,“to live with the others, to live as others”?’ 63In examining the Flavian poems, I particularly focus on the exclusionof women from heroic, male action, which results in theirmarginalisation, the status of asymbolia, according to Kristeva.This asymbolia is directly related to the status of women in thesemiotic chôra: women who have only recourse to Bacchic, frenziedbehaviour as a manifestation of their marginalised otherness. Thesewomen activate a powerful presence in the male world of Romanepic. At the same time, I trace the process whereby female figures,especially other, Roman or non-Roman women, intervene, in theirstatus of autonomy, to voice their opposition to decisions taken bythe male leaders, especially when the latter work to the detriment ofthe populace in both the private and public spheres. This portrayal of61 Kristeva (1991), 7. The term ‘asymbolia’ is understood here as applied to themarginal status of foreigners and to their shadowy, abject presence.62 A. Smith (1996), 29.63 Schultz (1994), 319. On the subject-in-process, see Oliver (1993), 91–113.

Introduction: Other and Same 21female figures allows us to examine the change of attitudes towardotherness, especially when the notions of otherness and motherhoodare fused in the narrative to suggest a change in the concept of whatconstitutes sameness, or in other words Romanness, through depictionsof otherness, of women from the (either literal or figurative)periphery.EPIC WITHIN EPIC: LEMNOS AND THEBAN CIVILWAR IN STATIUS’ THEBAIDIn our examination of the two poems, one with a mythological andone with a historical theme, as representative, coeval movements inFlavian literature, foreign otherness acquires a broader implication:women figure as the other, the foreign in our narratives. Though thefield of female figures in Roman epic of the Augustan age has beenwell explored by classicists in the past, attention has only recentlybeen paid to their ‘successors’ in imperial epic. Poets such as Lucan,Valerius Flaccus, Statius, and Silius Italicus, though relegated for along time to the margin of classical studies, have in the past twodecades begun to win their way back to the literary canon. 64 Forinstance, Keith’s study of women in Roman epic constitutes a landmarkfor subsequent studies on the role of female figures in the maleworld of epic poetry, as characters who open to further scrutiny themasculine world-view. 65In the first chapter, I turn my attention to the manifestations offoreign otherness in Statius’ Thebaid. The central part of the epic isoccupied with a long digression from the main narrative, an error,in64 Negative criticism of the Flavian epicists (e.g. Butler [1909], 179–250) will notbe replicated here, as I find that in recent studies authors such as Silius Italicus andStatius are commendably redeemed (cf. on Silius: Ariemma [2000b] and Marks[2005a], 7; on Statius: Heslin [2005], Ganiban [2007], and McNelis [2007]). Bassett(1953) and Muecke (2010) offer a magisterial overview of different, positive attitudesconcerning imperial epic (and more precisely Silius) in previous centuries.65 As Keith (2000), 133, recognises: ‘the genre’s negotiation of modes of masculinity...requires further scrutiny’, a scrutiny to which the present work hopes tocontribute.

22 Motherhood and the Otherwhich Hypsipyle, an exiled former queen of Lemnos, entertains theArgive warriors with stories from her homeland and her personaltravails in search of a new home, in the court of the Nemean kingLycurgus as a nurse to the royal offspring, Opheltes. In Kristevanterms, Hypsipyle is the exiled foreigner, a displaced mother withmisplaced affections: in her eagerness to quench the thirst of theArgive army, she entertains the warriors with a didactic story fromher past, the bloody civil war and slaughter of the Lemnian males. Inher Kristevan asymbolic status in the outskirts of the Theban landscape,Hypsipyle remains a Lemnias, marked from the outset as theother, who nevertheless voices her autonomy by recounting theLemnian labours and entertaining the Argive troops with her belligerentnarrative: how she saves her father in the midst of Bacchicfrenzy but ultimately loses her children. The semiotic chôra of theLemnian women’s frenzy breaks into the symbolic chôra of Hypsipyle’snarrative. Hypsipyle’s digression lends itself to a Kristevanreading, not just because of her status as a foreigner but preciselybecause as a mother she lulls the Argives into listening to her story, ina seemingly safe place, that is her own chôra of weaving and rewritingher (Euripidean and Ovidian) past, a landscape that neverthelesshighlights the horrors that they will soon encounter in Thebes, inStatius’ own Thebaid, the centre of their murderous actions.Motherhood turns into an indispensable aspect of the Theban civilwar, as the accursed mother, Jocasta, prominently figures as themediator between the two brothers. But both Jocasta and her daughterAntigone are eventually transformed into Maenads in their finalattempts to appease the brothers in book 11 and forestall the inevitablefratricide. Both are transformed into the abject other, whileIsmene finds consolation by regressing into her private chambers, apersonal space/chôra, which however is not safe at all either. Thefrenzy of the Theban civil war penetrates deep into the Theban oikos,with no hope for a better future, as the threat of the next generationof hostilities, launched by the Epigonoi, looms large over the Thebanterritory. Even Hippolyte who comes to Athens accompanying Theseus’victorious chariot, is still portrayed as a barbara: the future instore is uncertain. Within the civilised space of Greece, the Amazonremains monstrous, therefore asymbolic, and yet paradoxicallyautonomous.

Introduction: Other and Same 23In both the middle and the last book, consolation proves impossible,inasmuch as the persistent lamentation comes full circle at theend of the Thebaid. What begins in the semiotic chôra of Lemnos,with the frenzied slaughter of the Lemnian husbands, is repeated bythe Theban women, now assimilated to Bacchants about to commitnefas. The semiotic chôra, however, to use Kristeva’s term, once againfinds space in the symbolic chôra of the Thebaid, as the poet rehearsesthe female lament that takes place at the very end of book 12, only todismiss it and confess powerlessness in front of such great task. 66Thus, the semiotic remains a genotext, left to the reader’s imagination,since female lament as ululation lies outside the territory of themale world of epic poetry, trespasses the limitations of the genre, andis therefore discarded. In the world of the Thebaid, in Kristevanterms, ‘Woman can never feel at home in the symbolic as can man.She becomes the female exile.’ 67PATRIO-TIC EPIC? SAME AND OTHERIN SILIUS’ PUNICASilius’ preference to compose an epic with a historical theme followsin Lucan’s footsteps but at the same time announces the Punica as theliterary precursor of and antagonist to the De bello ciuili. The choiceof subject provokes a closer reading of representations of foreignnessin the poem, as Rome is struggling against its chief rival, the other parexcellence, Carthage. The Punica offers a way out of the stalemates ofthe Thebaid, especially with regard to the role of the periphery and itsinfluence on the centre. In Silius’ reconstructed version of the past,and in his idealistic vision of, and hope for, a prosperous future, theconflation of Romanness and otherness does not constitute a dangerbut rather a condition for Rome’s success and stability as a cosmopolis.Absorbing otherness, however, is experienced throughout the66 What Janan (2001), 30, aptly observes for the fourth book of Propertius is truefor Statius’ conclusion to the Thebaid: distinctions such as Roman/non-Roman,male/female collapse under ‘the weight of their own instability’.67 A. Smith (1996), 28.

24 Motherhood and the Othercourse of events as a prolonged process, reaching its climax in thefinal book of the epic, after the stumbling blocks of an ineffectiveRoman male leadership have been overcome by the rise to power ofScipio Africanus.In the second chapter, attention is paid to the construction ofwhat constitutes same and other in the early books of the poem, bylooking at the role of patria, Italy and Africa respectively: the wordpatria is closely associated with the male protagonists of the poemwho try to protect their respective fatherlands, quite unsuccessfully.By studying several pairs of fathers and sons, not only is theground prepared for our examination of mothers and sons insubsequent chapters, but what comes to the surface from thesepairs of male heroes in the Punica is the close relationship fosteredbetween the warriors and their respective patriae or the lackthereof. This close association reveals the problematics of a peripheryrecalcitrant to Roman rule and civilisation, while at thesame time it often discloses the lack of care for the Roman patriaon the Roman side. In the process of discovering and organisingthe semantic register of true Romanness, the Romans fail miserably:paradoxically, Hannibal is the ‘hero’ who embodies the veryelements of ‘Roman’ identity, namely care for his patria, pietastowards his ancestors, uirtus in battle operations. And yet untilthe very end of the poem, Hannibal is portrayed as utterly confused,displaying uncharacteristic attachment to the Italian tellus,which nevertheless endeavours to expel and reject him from herbody. Hannibal becomes asymbolic, in Kristevan terms, the foreignerthat cannot be absorbed by the centre, the other that cannotbecome same.Alienation from one’s patria is also evident in Rome’s allied cities,especially Saguntum. A closer look at the construction of the secondbook, however, elucidates Silius’ organisational strategy of this miniepicaround transgressive women. On the one hand, the poet introducesAsbyte, an African Amazon, whose telling silence, IØóôåßÆ,and decapitation in the first half of the book locates her in theasymbolic, semiotic chôra, in Kristeva’s terms. Her death unleashesHannibal’s rage against what he perceives to be a Romanised city,Saguntum, a hybrid existence like Rome, whereas in reality theSpanish city embodies the other, having been transformed into the

Introduction: Other and Same 25foreign, with its women metamorphosed into ‘Amazons’. The bookcomes to a close with the suicide of the Saguntine people, instigatedby the Fury Tisiphone, Juno’s docile instrument, in order to wreakhavoc on the Romans. We witness the Saguntines striving to erase allvestiges of their identity, either Greek or Roman, by burning theirheirlooms. Saguntum expunges her ties with the Roman state, a stateabsent from the allied city’s tribulations. The women, urged on byTiburna’s Bacchic voice, constitute a salient case of asymbolia andautonomy: like Asbyte, the Saguntine women are in truth silent; theirvoice is not their own but instead borrowed, as they submissivelyreproduce the commands of the Fury.Another symptom of a misplaced patrio-tic affection occurs inbook 8, where Anna Perenna emerges from the waters of the RiverNumicius to help the Carthaginian general. Anna’s status as bothRoman and non-Roman at the same time constitutes a key in theinterpretation of her presence in the middle of the poem. Anna’sexiled, foreign, position gives her a subversive autonomy to act asboth a Roman and a Carthaginian, a role fully fleshed at the endof the poem with the importation of the cult of the Magna Materin Rome.Nevertheless, contrary to the trend we observed in the Thebaid,where mothers like Hypsipyle and Jocasta are portrayed as displacedothers, in the Punica it becomes apparent from a look atthe appearance of Tellus in book 15 that the reorganisation of theRoman army under Scipio Africanus is not a process that takesplace without the implicit transformation at the level of patria aswell: Tellus transforms our expectation of what ‘fatherland’ really is,from a concept closely linked to fathers and sons into a femalepresence that counters the models of Dido–Hannibal and (Italian?)Anna–Hannibal. Tellus here is metamorphosed into the ultimateincarnation of the female space, the chôra, the same and other at thesame time, into which the male warrior can recede and from whichhe can recover the powers necessary for success. This imagery ofmother-earth empowering the male warriors to initiate war constitutesthe first step in what, as we shall see, becomes the process ofdiscovering a new identity, a new Romanness, where same andother, male and female, are merged, a condition for the futuresuccess of the Roman state.

26 Motherhood and the OtherFrom the imagery of same and other with regard to patria andtellus, especially as mother-earth, the third chapter moves on to anexamination of Roman motherhood, and in particular a distinctRoman mother in book 6, Marcia, the wife of M. Atilius Regulus.Within the time frame of the poem’s narrative, Marcia represents thenear past, as Silius offers a long digression on Regulus’ adventures inLibya and his death in Carthage; in this sense, the analeptic narrativeon the hero’s exploits during the First Punic War is prolepticallyexploited by the poet to reflect on Roman affairs in the Second PunicWar. Marcia’s appearance is centred on the figure of her husbandand son. Her offspring, Serranus, wounded after the battle at LakeTrasimene, finds refuge at the house of Marus, his father’s faithfulcompanion during his capture in Carthage. Marus offers an authorial,androcentric narration of Regulus’ heroic and Stoic resistanceduring the First Punic War and thus through inspiration educates theyoung man. Yet the figure of his mother, Marcia, and her reaction tothe presence of the uncompromising Regulus at Rome, present uswith the narrative of a distraught woman, who attempts to dissuadeher husband and son from taking part in enterprises that under othercircumstances would betoken a heroic attitude. In Regulus’ representationin the Punica as the Stoic hero par excellence, there aresome dark traits, as attested in book 6, underscored by Silius, inparticular the killing of the serpent at the Bagrada river. An importantaspect, on which I place particular emphasis in this episode, isMarcia’s presence at the threshold of her house, an aspect that underlinesher liminality as an outsider to her own culture, as her autonomousvoice distinctly differentiates her from the behaviour expectedfrom a Roman matrona. Marcia undermines Regulus’ heroic statureby emphasising his status as a self-exile, a foreigner in his own patria,painting a portrait contrary to the Roman philosophical tradition ofRegulus, inherited by Silius, as the hero par excellence. In thisepisode, the poet again stresses the weaknesses of the Roman politicalleadership at the time of the First Punic War. Even during the firstyears of the Second Punic War, Rome has not yet found any flawlessgeneral who might extol her glory in heaven. And Silius choosesMarcia as the primary author of her husband’s subversive portrait, awoman who deconstructs and suspends the androcentric narrative ofMarus, before being relegated to her marginal space in the periphery

Introduction: Other and Same 27of the narrative, as her voice is silenced by the oars of the boat thattakes Regulus back to Carthage. As I have noted before, in thisinstance also, Marcia’s motherhood becomes the locus for the expansionof her otherhood and alienation from the patria, the fatherlandas traditionally represented by the men in her household. Infact, Marcia’s autonomous and subversive voice cancels this mechanismof transition that would allow her presence to be absorbed intothe symbolic of the male ideology and signifies that in the search forRomanness there may be no future ‘man’s time’, until Scipio’s emergencein Roman politics.Finally, the fourth chapter shifts the focus on two classes of womenjuxtaposed to Roman matronae, like Marcia. By contrast to Marcia’snon-Roman presence in the centre of action—Rome—Imilce, Hannibal’swife, is portrayed as a Roman matrona but is neverthelessmarginalised in the narrative by being assimilated to a frenziedBacchant. The second category comprises those women who proveto be catalysts, as wives and mothers, for the Roman victory overCarthage. The disparity between the two pairs of female figuresreveals an ideological orientation of the poem with regard to Romannessand Otherness.More specifically, at the end of book 4, Imilce, Hannibal’s wife,tries to stop the sacrifice of her child, thus refusing to comply withthe ancestral customs of the Carthaginians. Imilce defies the poet’sportrait of her transformation into a Bacchant by delivering apowerful speech in which she condemns the nefas of the impendingsacrifice. To borrow from Kristeva’s language, Imilce’s Bacchicbehaviour is contained within a semiotic chôra at first, that ofthe woeful lamentation of a mother, nearly bereaved of children.However, Imilce forthwith delivers a persuasive speech, denouncingthe barbaric custom of sacrifice, thus implementing a successfulevolution from the semiotic to the symbolic. Imilce’sautonomous voice encompasses the reasonable thoughts of a civilisedRoman philosopher denouncing nefas, while at the same timeher voice is marginalised and becomes asymbolic. She becomes,what I call a hybridic, unclassified, other. Her presence constitutes atelling paradox, as she is a non-Roman, who nevertheless espousesRoman ideals, unavailingly, as her husband leads Carthage to utterdestruction.

28 Motherhood and the OtherConversely, in the last pentad of the Punica (books 13–17), animportant phase in the development of Scipio’s ‘career’ is his encounterwith significant members of his family in the Nekyia. Themeeting with his mother constitutes the missing link without whichScipio may not become a true Roman. During his descent to theUnderworld in book 13, Scipio first meets his mother, Pomponia,who unlike Imilce or Marcia, urges her son to pursue war and to fightintrepidly for his country’s common weal. Scipio’s ‘educational’encounter takes place symbolically in a neutral—and by definitionmarginal—place, the chôra of the dead; by reconnecting with hismother, Scipio acquires the missing link that equips him with theessential valour to defeat the Carthaginians. At the same time,Masinissa’s mother displays the characteristics of a woman-uateswho urges her son to pursue alliance with the Romans. Both Pomponiaand the anonymous aged mother in book 16 possess propheticpower. However, unlike the prophetic power of Imilce’s forebodingin book 3 and Marcia’s warnings in book 6, Pomponia and Masinissa’smother conform to the Roman ideals of a matrona. While Imilceand Marcia give in to grief and sorrow and thus appear frantic anddistraught, Pomponia and the aged woman in book 16 totally reversethis negative image of motherhood by turning it into a picture of theideal (Roman) mother.As the poem comes to a close, Silius opts for a positive portrayal offemale action which reflects the successful shift of power in theRoman political scene, that is, Scipio’s emergence as supreme commander.This change is sanctioned by a woman (Masinissa’s mother)and culminates in the image of Claudia Quinta: here, Romannessand otherness are joined, while Roman values are reshaped in such away as to enable both to become an ideology of empire.What takes place at the end of the Punica conforms with a wellknownpattern throughout the history of humanity, according toKristeva’s analysis of foreign otherness and the semiotic chôra:We cannot gain access to the temporal scene, i.e., to political affairs, exceptby identifying with the values considered to be masculine (dominance,superego, the endorsed communicative word that institutes stable socialexchange) ...Others, more bound to the mothers, more tuned in as wellto their unconscious impulses, refuse this role and hold themselves back,

Introduction: Other and Same 29sullen, neither speaking nor writing, in a permanent state of expectationpunctuated now and then by some kind of outburst: a cry, a refusal, an‘hysterical symptom’. 68As Oliver points out, ‘Kristeva argues that Western culture putswomen into a double-bind. Either women can enter the symbolic—language,politics, time, culture—only by identifying asmen, or they can withdraw into their silent bodies as hysterics.’ 69Silius does portray such a transition, whereas Statius professes theinability to carry on female lamentation within the boundaries of hisepic poem. Silius’ idealised vision translates into the mutual interdependenceof ethnicity and motherhood and into the gradual collapseof polarities such as same and other, male and female.In the epilogue to this book, we return to the coda of those twopoems and to the poets’ complex negotiation of gender boundaries,to glean an insight into possible political and literary strategies asreflected in Domitian’s Flavian and cosmopolitan Rome. The feminineending of the Thebaid, 70 a poem about to compete with thedivine status of its predecessor, the Aeneid, confronts us withthe impossibility of female lament, as we witness a return into thesemiotic chôra—the boat returns to a safe haven, the port wherefemale (literary) voice is silenced. On the other hand, in the Punica,Silius jubilantly celebrates the apotheosis of Scipio (and Domitian),who is hailed as a parens patriae and son of Jupiter in the very last lineof the poem (prolem ...Tonantis, Pun. 17.654), a strong reminder ofthe hero’s descent, not only from the king of gods but also fromPomponia, his Roman mother, who is ultimately responsible forrevealing to the Roman general his genealogy.68 Quoted from Moi (1986), 155, from Kristeva’s essay ‘About Chinese Women’(published in 1974).69 Oliver (1993), 108.70 See Dietrich (1999).

1Mourning Endless: Female Othernessin Statius’ ThebaidNot belonging to any place, any time, any love. A lost origin, theimpossibility to take root, a rummaging memory, the present inabeyance. The space of the foreigner is a moving train, a planein flight, the very transition that precludes stopping. As tolandmarks, there are none. His time? The time of a resurrectionthat remembers death and what happened before, but missesthe glory of being beyond: merely the feeling of a reprieve, ofhaving gotten away.(Julia Kristeva, Strangers to Ourselves, 7–8)Many critics have suggested that the ending of Statius’ Thebaid isnoteworthy and unique in Roman epic, especially because the poetfuses female lamentation together with the impossibility of poeticexpression. 1 The poet’s sphragis has also attracted the attention ofscholars examining Statius’ relationship with Virgil and his own insertionin the line of a long epic tradition. 2 In what follows, I shall try toexamine some of the same well-studied passages from a differentperspective; my focus will be on the role of foreign otherness in terms1 See e.g. Dietrich (1999); Lovatt (1999); Pagán (2000a). An overview of femalefigures in the poem is given by Lesueur (1986) and (1992) but with an emphasis onthe typology of the characters rather than an interpretation of their action. Dominik(1994b), 120–23, offers an outline of the stylistic features (topoi) of lament in theThebaid. Braund (1996), 17–18, surveys the three predominant trends in the interpretationof the Thebaid: the optimistic, the pessimistic, and the pluralistic.2 See e.g. Pollmann (2000), Dominik (2003b), and Markus (2003).

Mourning Endless 31of gender differentiation. By studying the ending of the poem inconjunction with the Lemnian digression of books 4–6, with particularattention to manifestations of otherness through female lamentation, 3I shall touch on several related questions: What is the distinctionbetween Theban and Argive women? How does the Lemnian digressioncontribute to the framework of the Thebaid? Does the epilogue constitutea step towards the dissolution of boundaries that separate thetwo sides of the war? And finally, how does the connection betweenlament and poetics contribute to our understanding of the poem’sclosure?In Hypsipyle’s narrative, as we shall see, the poet exploits theLemnian woman’s otherness as a foreigner (Lemnias), the epitomeof the Kristevan autonomous, yet asymbolic other, who fails inher tasks both domestically and publicly. First and foremost, theLemnian queen is a dislodged mother, without time and place. Aswe saw in the preceding pages of the introduction, Kristeva insistson the formation of motherhood as otherhood from pregnancy:the arrival of the child escorts the mother into an experience that,without the child, she would rarely encounter, namely love for another, what Kristeva calls, ‘the slow, difficult and delightful apprenticeshipin attentiveness, gentleness, forgetting oneself’. This is preciselythe problematic locus for Hypsipyle’s misplaced affections:separation from her children and by extension her country, thoughshe is still identified as Lemnias and mater. Hypsipyle’s task is to tendto Opheltes, to lull him into sleep, to nurse him as a mother does inthe Platonic/Kristevan semiotic chôra of a symbolic womb/lap, toprotect him against the dangers hidden in the Nemean landscape.Her forgetfulness, however, turns Hypsipyle into a ‘lost’ (m)other,who chooses an unreliable proxy, tellus, for the completion of a taskthat should have been her own, and thus perpetuates the horrorof death and destruction. The heroine orchestrates the role of a(m)other with supplanted attentiveness to another gender (genre?),the men who arrive in Nemea, and especially their prime ‘leader’Polynices, himself an exile also. Her asymbolic status of a foreigner3 On the long tradition of lament, see Alexiou (2002) and on its oppositionalpower, see Holst-Wahrhaft (1992). Indispensable for this study has been Loraux(1998).

32 Motherhood and the Otherand exile gives Hypsipyle the autonomy to recount her toils andweave a story that lulls the Argives into a metaphorical sleep, duringwhich they forget the purpose of their expedition: it is the genre itselfultimately that fights the war with elegy, as the middle of the Thebaidis transformed into an extensive Herois, 4 borrowing a well-knownscript from Ovid upon which Hypsipyle embroiders her personal,post-Ovidian story: how she saves her father in the midst of Bacchicfrenzy but ultimately loses her children. The semiotic chôra of theLemnian women’s frenzy breaks into the symbolic chôra of Hypsipyle’snarrative. This space may seem maternal and therefore safe, butsoon enough, with its manifestations into the symbolic, it infests themale (battle)ground with death, despair, and lament, a rehearsal andrepetition of the end of the poem, even though Hypsipyle herself isreunited with her two sons, who serve as supporters of their mother’slamentation.The baby’s death underscores Hypsipyle’s narrative’s disastrouseffects; she disrupts generational continuity for Lycurgus’ Nemeanhouse, the place where the Argive army finds temporary relief fromthirst. Furthermore, Hypsipyle’s narrative is transformed into thenarrative of civil conflict, foreshadowing the forthcoming war againstThebes: Hypsipyle’s failure as a queen on the public level, and as adaughter (her saving of Thoas is marked as fraus) and mother inthe private arena, 5 forebodingly anticipates a mingling of warlikeviolence and endless lamentation, with which the last book bothopens and closes (just as does its counterpart, book 6). Immenseloss and destruction, now on Theban territory, are laid before thereader. Not only then is Hypsipyle’s digression both incorporatedand abject in the poem, but the heroine herself by embodying a‘disfigured’ mother puts an end to what Kristeva calls ‘man’s time’,since the heroine’s neglected task as a nurse aborts the act of the4 See Parkes (2008), 382, on the Achilleid:The tension between amor and arma is at the poem’s core, in terms of both content(the protagonist is torn between desire for battle and desire for Deidamia) and style(the narrative veers between high epic manner, as exemplified by the catalogue, andlanguage of a more elegiac hue drawn from the Heroides and Ars Amatoria).5 Newlands (2006) perceptively points to the lack of ideal mothers in Statius’poetry and the abundance of ‘dangerous mothers’ instead; cf. Jamset (2005), 100–65.

Mourning Endless 33repetition of the generation of the human species. In other words, theThebaid becomes a landscape replete with death but no regeneration,with the story of the Epigonoi marginalised in the background ofthe narrative but never proleptically becoming part of the Statianepic cycle. 6 And most importantly, the didactic story narrated byHypsipyle translates into the unsuccessful mingling of same and other,as Theban or Argive identity cannot be clearly defined in the nefariousworld of the poem: 7 Hypsipyle remains an exile and the Argives’ firststop in Nemea becomes just a first test and taste for the war at Thebesthat will result in the permanent alienation of the two peoples. In thissense, Nemea may be construed as alterae Thebae,whereasArgosattheend remains alienum Argos.The dichotomy established by the poet’s digression on Hypsipyleand the Nemean adventures is further exploited by Statius in hisportrayal of Jocasta and her two daughters. The accursed motherstrives for a peaceful resolution to the conflict, accompanied by Antigoneand Ismene: in book 7 she digresses from—and transgresses—theseemingly safe boundaries of the Theban house; and yet the developmentof the plot deprives her of the fruition of an unfeasibly happyending to the poem. Jocasta enters the world of male uirtus but herproblematic (m)otherhood as mother/wife of her own child (andtherefore mother/grandmother of Oedipus’ offspring) prohibits theresolution of the crisis and is doomed to utter failure. As Antigone andJocasta are both transformed into Maenads in their final attempt toappease the brothers in book 11, Ismene finds consolation by regressinginto her chambers, the safe chôra of the Theban oikos, an act thatnevertheless now proves equally perilous because of the death of Atys,her foreign fiancé, and Jocasta’s suicide. Atys exemplifies the uneasyrelationship between Thebans and others, an association that can onlybe realised in the surreal chôra of dreams.Nothing remains impervious to the frenzy of the Theban civil war. Atthe end of the epic, there appears a clear dichotomy between Antigoneand Argia in their attempt to bury Polynices, and by extension between6 Compare Parkes’s (2005) comments on Arcadia as a land famously associatedwith ‘primitivism’ that is now infected by the fraternal quarrel.7 I borrow the term ‘nefarious world’ from Ganiban’s recent discussion of thepoetics of nefas in the Thebaid (2007).

34 Motherhood and the Otherthe Theban and Argive women, just as there is one between the bruteAmazons and the Athenian population upon Theseus’ return from hiscampaign. Both Theban and Argive women share losses and unbearablepain, both are assimilated to Bacchants, and we are faced with theimpossibility of a solution to the civil war that has shattered the lives ofso many, a conflict that results in endless lamentation and poeticpowerlessness. In an effort to bring the two peoples together and tocelebrate the collapse of binarisms, such as same/other, male/female,Theban (Roman)/Argive (non-Roman), 8 and by extension epic/elegy,Statius professes the breakdown of the authorial voice and bringsthe poem to an end. Boundaries are reset, as same and other cannotconverge at this junction, while there is utter refusal to provide anyfuture hope for a possible resolution. With lament, we return to thesemiotic chôra, where the Kristevan genotext results in asymbolia, notin the expected phenotext: the cries of the women, unutterable bythe poet, ultimately signify the collapse of the traditional epic genre,as the ground of celebration for the ŒºÝÆ IíäæHí, now subsumed into alandscape of the ŒºÆß-Æ ªıíÆØŒHí. 9DEFINING THE PERIPHERY: THEBES AND LEMNOSThe poet noticeably states at the beginning of the Thebaid that thecentre of his poem and its action will be Thebes: 108 On Thebes as Rome, see Hardie (1990), McGuire (1990), 28, and most recentlyKeith (2004–5) and Braund (2006). Braund replaces the prevalent Iliocentric view witha Thebano-centric perspective concerning the role of Thebes in the ancient literaryimagination, especially in Statius. Braund also argues for the role of the poem as a‘lesson about the Romans’ fear of lapsing into the ancient pattern of self-destruction’(271); constrast Ganiban (2007), 43: ‘Statius’ Thebes represents an anti-Rome, a placewhere the imperial ideology of the Augustan Aeneid has gone terribly wrong.’9 The two verbs Œºýø (> ŒºÝïò) and ŒºÆßø are not of course etymologicallyrelated in Greek, but the pun is intended here merely to illustrate the departure fromthe traditional arma uirumque theme of martial epic.10 For Statius’ choice of mythological, as opposed to a historical, epic see Ahl(1986), 2812–16. For an extensive consideration of the opening of the Thebaid, seeKytzler (1960); Schetter (1962); Vessey (1973), 60–67; Criado (1998); Mauri (1998);A. Barchiesi (2001a), 321–32; Keith (2002), 382–5 (on Ovidian influence on theprologue); as well as the relevant commentary in Heuvel (1932) and Caviglia (1973).

Mourning Endless 35Fraternas acies alternaque regna profanisdecertata odiis sontesque euoluere ThebasPierius menti calor incidit. (1.1–3)The Pierian fire falls upon my mind to unfold the strife of brothers andalternate reigns fought for in unnatural hatred and the guilty city of Thebes.For a moment, Statius sets clear boundaries (limes) byconfininghistopic to the distraught house of Oedipus and by omitting any mentionof Argos, a city that consequently becomes peripheral to the poet’ssong: 11 limes mihi carminis esto / Oedipodae confusa domus, ...(‘Thetroubled house of Oedipus shall be the limit to my song ...’, 1.16–17).Ahl has rightly contended, however, that Statius acknowledges ‘thearbitrary nature of his focus on the house of Oedipus and admits hisdefined boundaries are indistinct’. 12 I submit that the poet makes clearthat the bulk of his composition will revolve around the cursed houseof the Labdacids: the narrative of the first six books ‘progresses’towards Thebes. Compare, for instance, the beginning of the Thebanepic cycle in the Greek tradition: @æªïò ¼åØäå, ŁåÜ, ðïºıäßłØïí, ŠíŁåí¼íÆŒôåò ...(‘Muse, sing of thirsty Argos, whence the kings ...’, Theb.fr. 1 W). Conversely, Statius excludes Argos from the prologue 13 andthus demarcates the two places that will constitute the centre and theperiphery of the poem. Reference to Argos as the semina belli is saveduntil later, when in his first appearance in the poem 14 Jupiter uses thesame phrase as Statius in the prologue to locate the seed of the strife11 Cf. Heuvel (1932), 64, for limes as initium. Aptly and poignantly, Henderson(1991) ends his exploration of the Thebaid as the ‘antipolitics of Thebes’ with aquestion: ‘ ...And Argos?’ (61).12 See Ahl (1986), 2821. Cf. also Hershkowitz (1995), 63: ‘Statius endeavours to seta limit for his subject ...but like the widespread destruction caused by the avalanche,his epic spreads in all directions, limite non uno.’ Consider the two brothers in Theb.1.135–6: in diuersa trahunt atque aequis uincula laxant / uiribus et uario confunduntlimite sulcos (‘they pull in different directions, with equal strength they relax theharness, and they mix up the furrows with their separate course’). Georgacopoulou(2005), 188, calls attention to the generic struggle between carmen (epic song) andconfusa domus (tragedy).13 See Georgacopoulou (1996b),184 and n.56, who, pace Carrara (1986), points tothe absence of the Muse and the focalisation on heroes.14 On the role of gods, and Jupiter among them, in Statius, see Legras (1905),157–205; Schetter (1960), 21–9; Vessey (1973), 82–91 and 230–69; Schubert (1984);Feeney (1991), 337–91; Criado (2000); and most recently Hill (2008). On divinemadness, see Hershkowitz (1998a), 260–68.

36 Motherhood and the Otherprecisely in Adrastus’ court, the marriage of Argia to Polynices, a fatedwedlock that will wreak havoc on both houses, of Oedipus and ofTantalus: 15 belli mihi semina sunto / Adrastus socer et superis adiunctasinistris / conubia. (‘Let Adrastus’ gift of his daughter in a marriageunblessed of heaven be my seed of battle’, 1.243–5). From the limesesto, we now progress to the belli semina sunto. 16 As the epic progressesfrom the initial hostilities to the marching of the Argive army againstThebes in the fourth book, various oppositions between sameness andotherness operate simultaneously on different levels in the Thebaid.AsThebes constitutes the desired centre of the action, where the fratricidewill take place, Argos is perceived as the hostile periphery, driven inhaste to attack the city of Cadmus. The same pair of oppositions,however, can be reversed: the Argives venture an expedition into theunknown territory of Theban otherness. Polynices returns to a differentcity, as his patria has now become hostile ground; what used to befamiliar has changed colours. In books 2 and 3, the action moves backand forth, from Argos to Thebes, until the beginning of book 4, whenStatius proceeds to catalogue the Argive army (4.38–344). 17 As Lovatthas recently suggested, it is no easy task to establish fixed identities oridentifications in the Thebaid. 18 The Thebans resemble the Trojansand the Carthaginians, whereas the Argives represent the Greekworld at large. While Thebes as another Rome destroys itself, Argosis unable to achieve any victory, engaging instead in ‘an expedition toforeign parts that ends in chaotic retreat’. And of course, Argos itselfcan be conceived as another doublet for the Romans, since theirPeloponnesian expedition maps onto Roman imperialism. 19 As wewill see, the problematics of transgressing boundaries becomes a15 Consider, however, that Polynices identifies himself to Adrastus as a son ofJocasta, not of Oedipus, in 1.681: est genetrix Iocasta mihi (‘my mother is Jocasta’).16 See Cowan (2002), 144–244 on foundation myths in the poem: from the fratricideof the Spartoi, to the sons of Oedipus, and finally Romulus vs Remus in Rome.17 On the structure of the catalogue, see Kytzler (1969), 219–26; Georgacopoulou(1996a), 103–7; McNelis (2007), 81–8; and the relevant sections in the recent commentariesby Parkes (2002), Steiniger (2005), and Micozzi (2007). Lovatt (2005), 181–8,identifies the regional voices in the catalogue that ‘splinter any idea of a united Greece’.18 See Lovatt’s discussion (2005), 146–91 on national identity in the poem.19 Though see Lovatt (2007) for the impossibility of defining an Argive identityeither; in a sense, Argos and Thebes share a lot in common. Lovatt investigates howArgos and Thebes are assimilated in the parade at Opheltes’ funeral (6.268–95).

Mourning Endless 37salient topos inside the Theban house, but also on the battleground,because the poet exploits the polarity of same vs other to reveal theprominence of female figures as indispensably momentous both forthe progress of the Thebaid and for its desired ending (or lackthereof).BETWEEN LEMNOS AND ARGOS: HYPSIPYLE’STRANSGRESSED BOUNDARIESRight in the middle, as the Argive army advances from the peripherytowards the centre of the epic’s theme (beginning at 4.646), comes adigression that occupies a large section of the Thebaid. By definition,the digression itself constitutes a displacement of the action from thecentre to the margin, into the unknown, nefarious, and deadlyNemean landscape. Needing an invocation to Phoebus, 20 when thepoet is about to digress from his subject matter, Statius makes clearthat what follows is an error, a wandering from the main narrative: 21quis irasflexerit, unde morae, medius quis euntibus error,Phoebe, doce: nos rara manent exordia famae. (4.649–51)Who turned their wrath aside, whence their long wait, how, halfway there, theywent astray, great Phoebus tell; we have only scattered beginnings of the story.Desirous of a halt to the Argive army’s advancement, Bacchus causesthe streams to dry up (4.652–715), with the exception of the streamLangia, 22 who will become famous (manet ingens gloria nympham,20 On invocations in Statius, see Steiniger (1998).21 See Feeney (1991), 339, on Statius’ Virgilian motif of ‘divagation’. The death ofOpheltes, according to Feeney, is not only the beginning of ìüæïò (‘death’), but also ofmora (‘delay’): an epic of ‘stasis’ (Henderson [1998], 250).22 Appropriately alluding to languidus (‘indolent’), the toponymic defines the longtime the Argives will spend in Nemea. Lesueur (2003a), 1.150 n.59, observes that themotif of thirst could have been drawn from Antimachus or Euripides’ Hypsipyle;ontheproblems of establishing the exact relationship with Antimachus, see Vessey (1970c),Venini (1972), and Matthews (1996) for a thorough introduction to the poet and hisfragments. The discovery of the Lille Papyri of Callimachus’ Victoria Berenices has alsorevealed that Statius owes much to Callimachus’ description of Nemea; cf. Parsons

38 Motherhood and the Other‘a great fame awaits the nymph’, 4.727) precisely on account of theArgive ‘digression’ and its aftermath. 23Finally the Argives find fair Hypsipyle nearby. 24 Hypsipyle is fromthe outset marked as different, not just because of her gender but alsoon account of her pulcher maeror: 25tandem inter siluas (sic Euhius ipse pararat)errantes subitam pulchro in maerore tuenturHypsipylen; illi quamuis et ab ubere 26 Opheltesnon suus, Inachii proles infausta Lycurgi,dependet (neglecta comam nec diues amictu),regales tamen ore notae, nec mersus acerbisextat honos. (4.746–52)At last as they wander in the forest (so Bacchus himself had planned it),suddenly they see Hypsipyle, fair in her sadness. Opheltes, not hers but the(1977). As McNelis (2004), 275, has argued, ‘the interest in the foundation of theNemean games retards the Argive march towards battle ...[t]heArgivearmyisstoppedby Callimachean geography ...by Statius’ interest in Callimachean poetry’; cf. McNelis’srecent study (2007) on the poetics of civil war and Callimachean aesthetics.23 See Vessey’s apt comment (1986), 2993:The narrative of Hypsipyle may be read as a domain inscribed in a domain, adigression, a detour in absolute textual terms. In it a past is re(-)presented in apresent that is always already both past and future. The Argives wish to ‘know,’ andwe, knowing already, to read ...it is a diversion, which is both within and outside theTheban story. Our expectation that a diversion should lead us continuously to thesame destination as a straight road should not blind us to the fact that it may be asmuch a divertissement as a déviation: that the mora may have no moral.24 The similarities and differences between this scene and Virgil’s Aeneid 1–4(Aeneas, Venus, Dido) have been well discussed: Götting (1969), 60–61; Gruzelier(1994); Nugent (1996); Frings (1996); Casali (2003); and Gibson (2004).25 Although dismissed as a frivolous digression in early Statian criticism (see e.g.Legras [1905], 152 and 277: ‘parfaitement inutiles’), the Hypsipyle episode has receiveddeserved notice in the past few decades: Götting (1969); Vessey (1970a) and (1973),170–87; Brown (1994); Taisne (1994a), 238–44; Dominik (1994a), 54–63; Delarue(2000), 333–7; Rosati (2005); Ganiban (2007), 71–95; Lösch (2008). For its relationshipwith Valerius Flaccus’ version of the slaughter in Lemnos in Argon. 2.77–427 (andApollonius’ Argon. 1.601–909), see Helm (1892), 153–6; Bahrenfuss (1951); Krumbholz(1955), 125–39; Vessey (1985); Aricò (1991); and most recently Augoustakis (2010b), aswell as the relevant commentary in Poortvliet (1991). On the role of Valerius’ Hypsipylewithin the Argonautica, see Hershkowitz (1998b), 136–46; Schenk (1999), 341–87; andmost recently Clare (2004).26 I prefer the reading ab ubere (in Hall’s new edition of the Thebaid) to Hill’sad ubera.

Mourning Endless 39ill-starred child of Inachian Lycurgus, hangs from her breast (her hair isdishevelled, her clothing poor); yet on her face are marks of royalty, and herdignity, not sunk in her misfortune, is evident.Notice how the poet alienates the child from Hypsipyle in 749, nonsuus, and then unites the two by means of the enjambment dependet,in750. Also from the outset, the dual nature of Hypsipyle in terms ofbinarismsisestablishedbyaseriesofnec ...nec ...tamen: she maintainsa royal appearance, though obviously in a servant’s attire. Statiusalerts the reader that Hypsipyle may be hiding more under the surfaceafter all. And indeed by losing her own children, Hypsipyle’s motherlyfeelings have already undergone a psychological change. Ophelteshangs from her breast, the very source of motherhood, ab ubere, whilethe nurse readily forsakes him on the grounds of pursuing another task:simul haerentem, ne tarda Pelasgisdux foret, a! miserum uicino caespite alumnum(sic Parcae uoluere) locat ponique negantisfloribus aggestis et amico murmure dulcessolatur lacrimas. (4.785–9)The poor baby, alas!, clings to her; and lest she be too slow a guide for theArgives, she places him on the ground nearby (so the Parcae wished), andwhen he refuses to be put aside, she consoles his tears with bunches offlowers and loving murmurs.The heroine’s bosom becomes a receptive chôra, where as we expect thebaby boy is nursed, the safe receptacle before the male’s emancipationand entrance into the heroic, martial world. And yet, the grouping ofsimul haerentem with alumnum betokens the close bond betweennurse and child, which if examined in depth is unnatural, because itfunctions merely as a substitute: Hypsipyle is not the real mother andtherefore is ready to replace Opheltes (uicino caespite ...locat). But thebaby boy is not ready for the transition (ponique negantem) fromthegenotext to the phenotext, from the semiotic to the symbolic, whereasHypsipyle hastens and forces the transition of status, as she feels theurge of entering the male landscape of epic and of ‘quenching’ theArgives’ thirst with her tale. In fact, she tries this first on Opheltes:she sets the boy on the ground and lulls him with soothing words(solatur), with a lullaby, (amico murmure), a genotext itself, not withwords/speech, as she does later with the men of Argos. Opheltes is

40 Motherhood and the Otherfinally memorialised as the first victim of the war and becomes foreverinscribed in the Nemean landscape as the ‘sacrificed’ male, an ‘exile’without a mother. 27As Hypsipyle helps the Argives discover Langia, she becomesnegligent of her own maternal duty by dropping Opheltes. ThusHypsipyle betrays the trust of Eurydice, the mother of Opheltes,who claims to have relied on the Lemnian woman and to haveentrusted the baby to Hypsipyle’s motherhood, a safe and rich sourcefor Opheltes’ health and security:primitias egomet lacrimarum et caedis acerbae,ante tubas ferrumque, tuli, dum deside curacredo sinus fidos altricis et ubera mando.quidni ego? narrabat seruatum fraude parenteminsontesque manus. (6.146–50)I bore the first fruit of tears and untimely death before trumpet and sword,while in indolent neglect I believed in a nurse’s trusty bosom and handedover my baby to her breasts. 28 But why not? She was telling me how shesaved her father by cunning and kept her hands innocent.In reality, Eurydice herself has fallen prey to Hypsipyle’s mesmerisingnarrative of saving Thoas as well, a story able to halt an army from itsdecided (fated) destination, as if the bereft mother attended Hypsipyle’s‘lecture’ of the Lemnian massacre once upon a time. To be sure,Hypsipyle has rehearsed the script many a time in the past! In hertirade, Eurydice blurs the boundaries between filial piety and motherhood,by underscoring Hypsipyle’s asymbolia in both. The emphasison the verb narrabat undercuts Hypsipyle’s voice as a narrator andreduces her narrative into a collection of fictions. Eurydice constructsthe Lemnian nurse into the other, who intrudes in the narrative properto delay, digress, and deviate from the prescribed course of the epictelos, by leading astray the army into a feminine discourse akin to elegyand by rewriting her story and its aftermath.27 See Jamset’s (2005) study of Parthenopaeus in the Thebaid as a warrior unableto break free from his mother Atalanta: his ambition and claim to be an epic hero istherefore challenged by the narrator. Cf. also Sanna (2008).28 See Håkanson (1973), 39–40, for the expression fidos altricis et ubera mando,asan inversion of mando uberibus (sc. infantem).

Mourning Endless 41Hypsipyle’s yearning to avoid being a tarda dux (4.785–6) resultsin a ‘bankruptcy’ towards her alumnus:at puer in gremio uernae telluris et altogramine nunc faciles sternit procursibus herbasin uultum nitens, caram modo lactis egenonutricem clangore ciens iterumque renidenset teneris meditans uerba inluctantia labris ... (4.793–7)But the boy in the bosom of the vernal earth, the lush herbage, now buttsand levels the soft grasses with his forward plunges, now calling for his dearnurse, crying thirsty of milk; and again he smiles and endeavours for wordsthat struggle with his tender lips ...The baby cannot survive in isolation; even the idyllic surroundingscannot suffice to console him. He finds a substitute nurse in gremiouernae telluris. The negligent nurse easily forsakes her role to anothernurse, the mother-earth, who manifests herself as other, as a differentand new environment that will lure the baby to his death. Ophelteslongs for his cara nutrix by crying loud, in need for milk (modo ...egeno, 795), in other words in need of staying within the maternalspace, a space however provided by a (m)other. 29 Hypsipyle’s negligenceand casual display of trustworthiness towards tellus, speaks forthe Lemnian woman’s effort to take off her garment as a nurse andput on the garment of the narrator. The innocent clangor of the babyin book 4 will be transformed into the lament of Hypsipyle in book 5and of Eurydice in book 6, in this ongoing fluctuation back andforth between the semiotic and the symbolic, and eventually into thelament of the Argive widows at the end of the poem, which the poetwill all too readily silence.The female receptacle exemplified by the presence of the tellus/earthin this significant juncture in the narrative, when Hypsipyle laysOpheltes on the grass, works as a signifier for the complete perversionof the mother-earth as a symbol for an all-encompassing Motherhood.Tellus becomes a proxy, but unbeknownst to Hypsipyle, tellus andpatria are terrains of death and utter destruction, in the Peloponnese,29 Jamset (2005), 145–64, examines the figure of Chiron in the Achilleid as asubstitute ‘mother’ to Achilles, just as Hypsipyle is to Opheltes. See also Heslin(2005), 157–91.

42 Motherhood and the OtherThebes, and Lemnos. Consider the role of humus, for instance, inthe swallowing up of Amphiaraus in book 7 (humus .../ dissilit, ‘theground is split’, 7.816–17). When the Argives elect Thiodamas as theseer’s successor, one of his first acts is to placate the earth (Telluremplacare parat, ‘he prepares to placate Tellus’, 8.297), by praying to thegoddess and begging for conciliation. In his invocation, Thiodamascaptures the essence of the role of mother-earth as generator ofthe animate and inanimate world, 30 but also as the ground uponwhich he expounds Stoic theories on universal citizenship, whichnevertheless cannot function properly within the disordered cosmosof the Thebaid:o hominum diuumque aeterna creatrix, ...nos tantum portare negas, nos, diua, grauaris? ......an quia plebesexterna Inacchiis huc aduentamus ab oris?omne homini natale solum, nec te, optima, saeuotamque humili populos deceat distinguere fineundique ubique tuos; maneas communis ... (8.303, 317, 318–22)O eternal creatress of gods and humans ...why do you, goddess, refuse tobear us alone, why do you find us too heavy? ...Or is it that we have comehere from the foreign shores of Inachus? Every soil is common to man bybirthright, nor would it befit you, noble one, to differentiate by means ofsuch a cruel and base boundary between peoples, who are yours fromeverywhere and anywhere. May that you stay common (to us all) ...Thiodamas here rehearses the topoi of a universal citizenship that wehave seen in Valerius’ Argonautica in the Introduction. With thephrase omne homini natale solum, the seer tries to elicit an alliancebetween Tellus and the Argives. A state without boundaries (distinguerefine), however, contradicts the imperialistic aims of the Argiveexpedition: the army has trespassed into hostile territory to claimback the throne, a prize that should have been communis between thetwo brothers but is not. Thiodamas’ futile prayer is undercut by hisclaim that any Theban, Nemean, or Argive territory can open up to30 Though Legras (1905), 165–8, sees an irreconcilable contradiction in the invocationto Tellus as creatrix with the role of Jupiter as creator of the cosmos in thepoem, Vessey (1973), 267, calls the prayer ‘one of the most exalted and noblepassages’. See also briefly Gesztelyi (1981), 439–40, on the ritual.

Mourning Endless 43receive the other: conversely what has just opened up is a chasm thatleads to the netherworld and has swallowed up Amphiaraus, the firstof the seven heroes to die at the end of the first Iliadic book of thepoem (book 7). 31 Thiodamas trusts that the Argives can enjoy suchcooperation with Tellus, since he points exactly to the reason why shehas become hostile: an quia plebes / externa Inacchiis huc aduentamusab oris. The word ora defines the boundary between the land ofInachus and the land of the Aonians: Thiodamas subconsciouslyreplaces boundaries, while he thinks he is able to bring about theircollapse.Such is then in the Thebaid the nature of mother-earth, Tellus,to whom Hypsipyle entrusts the baby: she will soon swallow upAmphiaraus in book 7, as the Argives have all too quickly forgottenthat tellus, Nemean or Theban, personifies hostility, a (m)other,much like Hypsipyle, who ‘kills’ her own offspring. 32 But Hypsipyle’sfailure is not only located in her choice of a perilous proxy forOpheltes, but also in her eagerness to replace the narrator andenter the male-centred, heroic world of ŒºÝÆ IíäæHí.At Adrastus’ request to revive the Argives’ lost strength (tu refugasuires et pectora bellis / exanimata reple, ‘you, replenish our tumblingstrength and our hearts exhausted by wars’, 4.766–7), 33 Hypsipyleassumes the difficult task of filling time with her story. In fact, thebeginning of the fifth book promises the resumption of the march ofthe Argives, as they have now quenched their physical thirst andyearn for war (monentur / instaurare uias, ‘they are advised to take upthe expedition again’, 5.8–9), when Adrastus, consciously or subcon-31 Cf. Vessey (1973), 268: ‘As soon as he has ended [the prayer], war beginsagain and in the following day Tydeus, Hippomedon and Parthenopaeus are allslain.’32 Compare the role of Tellus in Silius’ Punica, who, as we shall see in the nextchapter (144–55), supplies the Romans with the required energy to beat the Carthaginiansat Metaurus, and most importantly reorganises the semantics of patria notjust as fatherland but as a beneficial female mother-earth.33 The well-chosen adjective refugas provides a parallelism with Hypsipyle’s statusas an exile, fugitive Lemnias. Cf. also Euripides’ etymological play in fr.64.72 Bond:çıªaò ...Lò Šçıªïí (‘the flight I fled’). What Statius underlines is the impasse towhich Hypsipyle’s aid leads the Argives: the replenishment of power will be absolutelytemporary.

44 Motherhood and the Othersciously, because he has repeatedly tried to halt the Argive expeditionthus far, 34 inquires into Hypsipyle’s own patria:dic age, quando tuis alacres absistimus undis,quae domus aut tellus, animam quibus hauseris astris.dic quis et ille pater. neque enim tibi numina longe,transierit fortuna licet, maiorque per orasanguis, et adflicto spirat reuerentia uultu. (5.23–7)Come tell us, as we briskly leave your waters, what is your home and country,under what stars you drew your breath. And say, who is that famous father ofyours? For the gods are not far, though fortune may have deserted you, nobleblood is in your aspect, awe breathes in your afflicted face.Adrastus strikes a tender chord in Hypsipyle’s heart by discerning allthose traits that make her otherness manifest. He uses the demonstrativeille (et ille pater), having no idea that Thoas is indeed a famousfather of a celebrated daughter. His language reflects the Argive army’ssubconscious desire to stray, as he resumes the authorial voice of thenarrator of the poem and refers to Hypsipyle’s dual nature, the obviousand the hidden, based on her appearance (neque enim ...licet;cf. nec ...tamen ...nec, 4.750–1). Adrastus’ technique of holding thearmy is exploited at the end of the book, when Amphiaraus prays toPhoebus for even more causes of delays, which will come in the formof the funeral games for Archemorus:... atque utinam plures innectere pergas,Phoebe, moras, semperque nouis bellare uetemurcasibus, et semper, Thebe funesta, recedas. 35 (5.743–5)... and, Phoebus, may you go on to weave more delays, and we be barred fromwar by ever new chances, and may you, deadly Thebes, ever further recede.34 See Vessey (1973), 165–7. Cf. for instance, his instruction to Argia in 3.718–19:neu sint dispendia iustae / dura morae: magnos cunctamus, nata, paratus (‘and let therenot be any cruel waste of time, even if it is just: we postpone, daughter, a greatenterprise’); see Snijder (1968), 267, for the poet’s pun and allusion to Fabius’delaying tactic. On the scene in book 3, see Hershkowitz (1997) for its intertextualrelationship with Jupiter’s speech to Venus in Aen. 1.35 I follow Hall in reading recedas with the vocative Thebe as opposed to Hill’srecedat with the nominative.

Mourning Endless 45Amphiaraus gives voice to his hitherto secret wish for the prolongationand ultimate cancellation of the coming (yet inexorable) war.Phoebus could weave, via the poet, another digression. The seer’swish to delete Thebes from the landscape of this war begins withhis diminution of the noun from plural to singular, in an exorcism ofsorts: 36 Thebe funesta, recedas. The centre of the poem has to bereached, however, and the prayer for the opposite will only temporarilycome to effect: the Nemean games will prove an ultimate rehearsal ofthe final battle on Theban ground.With the embedded story that Hypsipyle obliges to be narrated atlength, the poet shifts the focus of his attention to a different oppositionof sameness and otherness, centre and periphery: the action shiftsto the island of Lemnos and its hostile encounters with neighbouringThrace and the alien forces of the Argonauts. The reader should notforget, however, that Hypsipyle’s narrative takes place in Nemea. In herlong flashback, the former queen associates Lemnos with destructivefury: 37ingemit, et paulum fletu cunctata modestoLemnias orsa refert: ‘inmania uulnera, rector,integrare iubes, Furias et Lemnon et artisarma inserta toris debellatosque pudendoense mares; ...’ (5.28–32)The Lemnian woman sighs, pauses awhile in modest tears, and then answers:‘Ruler, you bid me revive terrible wounds, the tale of Lemnos and its Furies,blades thrust home in narrow beds and manhood overwhelmed by wickedswords ...’The infinitive integrare signals a new beginning, as well as a newauthorial voice in the narrative: 38 Hypsipyle will resume where shehas stopped in one of her previous literary appearances, namelyOvid’s Heroides 6. This promises to be a story that will soothe thehearts and minds of Argives, but instead of pacifying the baby,Hypsipyle will enter the terrain of epic poetry, just to transgress it36 Cf. 1.680, 4.610, 4.676, 5.681, 5.745, 6.515, 9.255, 9.294, 10.594. Perhapsthe singular after all equates the two cities, Thebe and Argos.37 Cf. Franchet d’Espèrey (1999), 212–15.38 OLD, s.v. integro 2 (on resuming a story), but also cf. 6.42 (on resuminglamentation).

46 Motherhood and the Otherby trespassing into elegy by picking up her Ovidian story: themassacre in Lemnos and the extended stay of the Argonauts.It is notable that Ovid’s Hypsipyle displays an obsession withher competitor for the heart of Jason, Medea; she writes her letter inthe immediate aftermath of Jason’s return to Greece accompaniedby Medea, but she writes from Lemnos (me mea Lemnos habet,‘my Lemnos holds me’, Her. 6.136); her exile has not yet takenplace. Ovid’s heroine is also conspicuously villainous, even thoughshe is known for her pietas. She unleashes a furious attack againstMedea for her barbarousness (barbara, Her. 6.19), and as Fulkersoncorrectly observes on Hypsipyle’s sympathy towards her fellowLemnians’ abominable act of androphony, the heroine’s kinshipwith the ‘murderous Lemnians perhaps provides a genealogicaldisposition for her own “barbarousness”’. 39 Since the OvidianHypsipyle avoids the dangerous territory of the Lemnian murders,40 she does not spare the details in the Thebaid, butratherexpands her elegiac narrative with epic overtones, oscillatingbetween the two genres, in the outwardly idyllic landscape of theNemean countryside. Hypsipyle nevertheless chooses this chôra ofmotherhood to reproduce the continuation of her Ovidian story.As Spentzou has observed on individual letters in the collectionof the Heroides, the heroines are often relegated to the isolation oftheir room (Penelope, for instance, in Her. 1), where they find an‘unpredictable resourcefulness [in] the feminine åþæÆ’. 41 Likewise,Hypsipyle indulges in this chôra of rewriting by fashioning her storyin epic and elegiac terms, but is inevitably confronted by the perilsof having entered the world of heroic poetry, where her (m)otherhoodis threatened by obliteration.39 Fulkerson (2005), 54, and especially pp. 40–66, on Hypsipyle and Medea withfurther bibliography.40 Oblique allusions to the massacre are made through her association with Thoasin Her. 6.114 and especially 135 (rapui de caede Thoanta, ‘I seized Thoas from theslaughter’). See Knox (1995), 198, on the interpolation of lines, such as Her. 6.139–40:Lemniadum facinus culpo, non miror Iason; / quamlibet ignauis iste dat arma dolor(‘I condemn the crime of the Lemnian women, Jason, I do not admire it; that pain,however, gives weapons to the powerless’).41 Spentzou (2003), 104.

Mourning Endless 47What is emphasised then in Hypsipyle’s recomposition of her story,a Euripidean palimpsest with Ovidian overtones, is that both theisland and the place of Archemorus’ death are signalled as other,alien places where fury and bloodshed abound. While we listen toHypsipyle’s adventures and the Lemnian slaughter, another abominabledeed takes place in Nemea, thus connecting the two narratives ofnefas: 42 ac dulce nefas in sanguine uiuo / coniurant ...(‘In living blood,they swear the delicious crime ...’, 5.162–3); huc magno cursum rapiteffera luctu / agnoscitque nefas ...(‘She rushes hither to look in agonyof grief and recognises the ghastly crime ...’, 5.591–2). This digression,partly as the narrative of Hypsipyle and partly as the events in thewake of Opheltes’ murder by the monstrous snake, 43 on the surfacedraws the focus away from the two civil war sites of the poem, Thebesand Argos. This digression, however, also marks a turning point in theThebaid. Many similarities exist between the island of Lemnos and theArgive and Theban parties, inasmuch as Lemnos constitutes a peripheralplace that reflects the madness prevailing in both camps of thecivil war and foreshadows the impending nefas of the fratricide. 44Within the embedded narrative, in which the former queen exposesthe horror of the Lemnian slaughter, the reader comes across furthermanifestations of otherness, as in a set of Russian dolls. To our pair ofcentral and peripheral constituents, namely the Argive expeditionagainst Thebes and the army’s encounter with Hypsipyle, another isadded: Lemnos and Thrace. In the minds of the Lemnian women,Thrace represents the other, a place of orgiastic activity, the landscapeof their husbands’ adulteries. Lemnos, for a moment, represents whatis fas, as opposed to the nefas of the Thracian land. The Lemnianhusbands are being slaughtered precisely because they have spent along period of time in Thrace. In fact, the Lemnian women seemobsessed with the shores across from their native soil:42 The role of furor as a result of divine and human acts has been well explored inSchetter (1960), 5–21; Venini (1964); Taisne (1994a), 86–92 (and passim); cf. Rosati(2005) on Lucretian echoes of furor/amor in the Hypsipyle episode. On Hypsipyle asembodying this nefas and defying our expectations of a Virgilian understanding ofpietas, see Ganiban (2007), 71–95.43 Taisne (1972) discusses the role of the snake in the episode.44 Götting (1969), passim.

48 Motherhood and the Otherillae autem tristes (nam me tunc libera curisuirginitas annique tegunt) sub nocte diequeadsiduis aegrae in lacrimis solantia miscentconloquia, aut saeuam spectant trans aequora Thracen. (5.81–4)Their wives in sadness—for I was sheltered then by youth and carefreemaidenhood—by day and night in endless tears, sick at heart, seek solacein conversation or gaze across the sea at savage Thrace.The dichotomy between the Lemnian women and the coast acrosstheir island comes to the foreground of Hypsipyle’s narrative as aregression into the semiotic chôra, where endless lament is permissibleand mute silence is replaced now by conversation, now bymeaningful gaze that arms the female hands with weapons. Othernesscannot be easily fathomed or comprehended, it appears. Theneed of self-definition is recurrent, but at times impossible.Furthermore, Hypsipyle defines her island with respect to the positionof the Thracian shore: Thraces arant contra, Thracum fatalia nobis/ litora, et inde nefas. (‘Opposite the Thracians plough, the Thracianshore fatal to us, the source of crime’, 5.53–4). One of the frenziedwomen, Polyxo, claims that the threat of foreign invasion is imminent(Bistonides ueniunt fortasse maritae, ‘perhaps Thracian wives are comingwith them’, 5.142). Thracian women may well accompany theLemnian men back from war. And yet, the day following the Lemnianslaughter reveals that the island has suffered not because of externalenemies but because of civil conflict: 45insula diues agris opibusque armis uirisque,nota situ et Getico nuper ditata triumpho,non maris incursu, non hoste, nec aethere laeuoperdidit una omnes orbata excisaque mundoindigenas: ... (5.305–9)The island with its dower of lands and wealth, of arms and men, famous inits site and enriched by recent victory in Thrace, had lost, not to the sea’sonslaught or to the enemy or to heaven’s curse, its whole community,orphaned and cut out from the world ...45 Micozzi (1999), 384, traces this motif back to Lucan.

Mourning Endless 49As Keith has observed, gender differentiation materialises prominentlyin the Lemnian episode, because the massacre thematicallypairs conflict between the sexes with civil war. 46 What is strikingin this passage is that the dichotomy of same vs other collapsesunder the weight of the inherent differentiation found in theconcept of sameness itself: clearly, the Lemnian identity is splitbetween male and female, and when one of the two components iserased, there is the need for regression and self-obliteration of thewhole population in general: perdidit una omnes orbata excisaquemundo / indigenas. By default, Lemnos loses its male citizens and istherefore cut out from the world altogether. Notice the emphasison the enjambment of indigenas, for instance. The territory ofLemnos becomes the other, the place where devastation is proliferated,where unspeakable actions result in an asymbolia, where thefemale can exist marginally without the male, until the arrival ofthe next group of men, who will define stability in the island,temporarily at least.The arrival of the second group of males invading the islandmobilises primeval fears on the part of the Lemnian women, whonow suspect that this Thracian fleet is preparing an attack:nos, Thracia uisubella ratae, uario tecta incursare tumultu,densarum pecudum aut fugientum more uolucrum. (5.347–9)But at the sight we thought them foes from Thrace and fled in wild confusionto our homes, like flocks of jostling sheep or fleeing birds.As the barbarian land of Thrace is closely connected with the cult ofDionysus, Bacchic behavioural elements are expected across the islandof Lemnos. The Lemnian women, however, are the ones likened toBacchants. More specifically, when Polyxo urges her companionsto take action, she assumes the character of a Thyad from Temeusosin Boeotia: 4746 Keith (2000), 97. It is important to remember, however, as Dominik (1997), 33,stresses, that the massacre is divinely inspired by Venus’ anger against the Lemnianwomen (pace Vessey [1970a] and [1973], 172, who attributes the action to merefuror). Cf. also Delarue (2000), 315–17.47 As Mozley (1933), 34, observes, Statius borrows from the Aeneid most closely:

50 Motherhood and the Otherinsano ueluti Teumesia Thyiasrapta deo, cum sacra uocant Idaeaque suadetbuxus et a summis auditus montibus Euhan: ... (5.92–4)Like a Teumesian Bacchant seized by god-sent madness, when the sacredrites summon her, and Ida’s boxwood urges, and from the peaks of mountainsthe Bacchic cry is heard ...Moreover, Hypsipyle herself is a descendant of Bacchus. 48 As theLemnian women give way to their fury and frenzy, a transformationtakes place: from the civilised centre of their world, they become theuncivilised other, even though otherness was heretofore relegatedand confined in the Thracian coast across the sea. And even ifBacchus’ own intervention to save his son Thoas could constitute asuccessful step towards the integration of the two places and theimposing of peace on the island, his intervention instead ultimatelyleads to the expulsion of the female figure, Hypsipyle, as soon as hercitizens discover the truth about her contrivance of saving her father.Hypsipyle’s action, inspired by pietas toward the pater familias,remains nevertheless a fraus. 49 To be sure, Hypsipyle paradoxicallybecomes an alien to her native environment by transgressing the(transgressive) rules set by the other Lemnian women. The poetcreates a version of Hypsipyle that defies any norm or categorisation.At the outset of the digression in book 4, Statius associates Hypsipyle,as she tends the baby Opheltes, with a foreign goddess, the mother ofthe gods, who gives orders to the Curetes for the nursing of Jove:qualis commotis excita sacrisThyias, ubi audito stimulant trieterica Bacchoorgia nocturnusque uocat clamore Cithaeron.(Aen. 4.301–3)Like a Bacchant stirred by the shaking of the sacred objects, when having heard the name ofBacchus she is roused by the biennial orgies and is called by the shouting on MountCithaeron at night.But Statius may also have in mind the Euripidean ˆïæªÜäåò (Hyps. fr. 64.77 Bond).48 Bacchus plays a larger role in the Thebaid than in Valerius’ Argonautica; seeDominik (1997), 39.49 Pace Vessey (1973), 176, who reads it as a prefiguration of the pietas displayed byArgia and Antigone; followed by Kytzler (1996), Ripoll (1998), 295, and Scaffai (2002).Nugent (1996) explores the role of the absent father Thoas in Hypsipyle’s narrative andlinks it to the ever present, poetic father figure in Statius’ poetry, Virgil: ‘She would haveno narrative without him; but she would have no narrative with him’ (71).

Mourning Endless 51...qualis Berecyntia mater,dum paruum circa iubet exultare TonantemCuretas trepidos; illi certantia plauduntorgia, sed magnis resonat uagitibus Ide. (4.789–92)...like Cybele, while she bids the trembling Curetes dance around the infantThunderer; they sound their mystic cymbals in competition, yet still thebaby’s mighty wails resound around Ide.In addition, just as in Thrace, Lemnos, and Thebes, so Statius alsocasts a Maenadic shadow over the Nemean landscape from the outset,this time as the place of the baby’s death, an event to be rememberedby a festival not coincidentally called trieteris, a nounappropriate for the cult of Bacchus (4.729).The first invasion of Lemnos from the uncivilised periphery ofThrace is followed by a second, the arrival of the Minyans. Theirinfluence on the women seems favourable in the beginning, asthe advent of the male Argonauts coincides with the return ofthe collapsed gender boundaries and hierarchies in the island. Thefemale figures, once out of their sexus, are now reconstructed: rediitin pectora sexus (‘our sex returned to our hearts’, 5.397). The threat ofmatriarchy is safely closeted for the time being. And yet, even wheneverything seems to tag on life’s natural order, Hypsipyle fashionsherself as a dislocated person. Although previously a virgin, when theslaughter began, she now loses her innocence to Jason and by himbecomes impregnated:cineres furiasque meorumtestor ut externas non sponte aut crimine taedasattigerim (scit cura deum), etsi blandus Iasonuirginibus dare uincla nouis ...iam noua progenies partusque in uota soluti,et non speratis clamatur Lemnos alumnis.nec non ipsa tamen, thalami monimenta coacti,enitor geminos, duroque sub hospite maternomen aui renouo; ... (5.454–7, 461–5)By the ashes and the avenging ghosts of my own kin, I swear—the gods careand know—that by no will of mine and guiltless I became a stranger’s wife,though Jason used his charm to ensnare young virgins ...Now comes newprogeny and births to answer prayer. Lemnos is loud with unhoped-forchildren. I too with the rest bring forth twins, memorials of a forced bed

52 Motherhood and the Otherthough they be, and made a mother by my rough guest I revive theirgrandfather’s name ...Words such alumnus, applied to Hypsipyle’s offspring, remind us ofsimilar use in the case of Opheltes, who is now placed in thedangerous lap of Tellus (4.786–7). Hypsipyle describes her reluctance,well apprised that it is not unmotivated. 50 The Argonautssoon leave, while she is forced into exile. Repetition proves unstable,such as the naming of Jason’s child after Thoas, a stark reminder ofHypsipyle’s hidden truth about her father. Substitution betokens anaborted renewal and a fresh start doomed to failure. And indeed, anew beginning for the island, a renovation of gender hierarchies hasfailed anew. Moreover, Hypsipyle’s unwilling impregnation by Jasonis underscored in her narrative. While Hypsipyle strives to hide herattachment to the best of the Argonauts, we may infer from Eurydice’sclaims that Opheltes has served as a substitute for Hypsipyle’slost children and her love for Jason:{ atquin et blandus ad 51 illamnate magis solam nosse atque audire uocantem50 Hypsipyle’s actual infatuation with Jason is evident in her reunion with her sons(Thoas and Euneos, 6.342–3). Her first reaction is cold, but when she recognises themas the true offspring of Jason, she completely changes her attitude towards them:illa uelut rupes inmoto saxea uisuhaeret et expertis non audet credere diuis.ut uero et uultus et signa Argoa relictisensibus atque umeris amborum intextus Iason,cesserunt luctus, turbataque munere tantocorruit, atque alio maduerunt lumina fletu. (5.723–8)She like a stony rock, with a gaze unmoved, does not react nor does she dare tobelieve the gods she knows well. But when she recognised their faces and the signs ofArgo on the swords left behind and Jason's name interwoven on their shoulders, hergrief departed and collapsed disturbed by such great gift; her eyes became wet byother tears.Contra Dominik (1997), 46, who claims that Hypsipyle’s refusal to submit to erotic,baser passions inspired by Venus demonstrates ‘the nobility of her character and showsthat she is morally superior to the other Lemnian women’, Micozzi (2002), 65–70,examines extensively the elegiac motifs in Jason’s departure.51 Cf. Fortgens (1934), 98, and Lesueur (2003a), 2.146 n.15, for the unusualconstruction of blandus with ad.

Mourning Endless 53ignarusque mei { nulla ex te gaudia matri.illa tuos questus lacrimososque impia risusaudiit et uocis decerpsit murmura primae.illa tibi genetrix semper dum uita manebat,nunc ego. (6.161–7)And yet, my child, you were fonder of her: her only you knew and heardwhen you called, me you ignored, your mother had no joy of you. She, theundutiful, heard your complaints and tearful laughter: she culled the murmursof your earliest speech. She was your mother always, while you lived;Inow.The adjective blandus applies to Opheltes, as it was previously usedfor Jason by Hypsipyle herself, thus undercutting her argument thatshe was forced to marry the Argonaut. Opheltes serves as substitutefor Hypsipyle’s lost children, but he equally functions as a livingreminder of Jason himself. 52The Lemnian woman’s disentanglement from her temporary husband,Jason, comes to a climax in her alienation from her country.She becomes a foreigner in the eyes of her fellow citizens becauseof her piety towards Thoas, her father. This distancing is followed byher alienation from her own offspring and her exile: uaga litorafurtim / incomitata sequor funestaque moenia linquo, ...(‘AloneI follow the winding shore in secret and leave the accursed city ...’,5.494–5). While her piety may seem a successful act of selfless love,it points at the same time to her failure as a mother. At the time ofOpheltes’ death, Hypsipyle is called an exiled Lemnian, a name thatcorroborates her alienation from every maternal environment,Lemnian or Nemean: talia Lernaeis iterat dum regibus exul / Lemniaset longa solatur damna querela ...(‘While Lemnos’ exiledqueen tells her tale anew to Lerna’s princes and in lengthy plaintfinds consolation for her losses ...’, 5.499–500). Statius uses thesubstantive adjective Lemnias time and again (in the beginning ofthe hexameter: 5.29, 5.500; as the fifth foot’s dactyl: 4.775, 5.588), 53to underscore both Hypsipyle’s foreign country, from which at this52 See Gruzelier (1994), 161 n.10, and Gibson (2004), 164, who observes thatHypsipyle’s claim to the opposite goes against Ovid’s Her. 6.53 An epithet otherwise used in the poem for Vulcan (2.269; and for the Ovidianreminiscence, see Keith [2004–5], 192) and Hypsipyle’s offspring, Euneos (6.509).

54 Motherhood and the Otherverymomentsheisobviouslyabsent,aswellasheralienationfrom,and asymbolia in, the other sites of the poem, namely the two citiesof the civil crisis. Moreover, Hypsipyle’s status of exul aligns herwith another famous exul of the poem, Polynices, who fromthe outset is marked as the other in the brotherly conflict(uagus exul .../ pererrat, ‘a wandering exile he roams’, 1.312–13).Hypsipyle’s identity as a Lemnian woman, never invoked by herself,is problematic in the larger framework of her narrative. As we haveseen, while she is a slave nurse in the court of King Lycurgus inNemea, Hypsipyle finds in the baby Opheltes a substitute for hermissing children:o mihi desertae natorum dulcis imago,Archemore, o rerum et patriae solamen ademptaeseruitiique decus, ... (5.608–10)My child, sweet reminder of my own sons who have forsaken me, Archemorus,comfort for my long-lost estate and country, pride of my slavery ... 54The verb solor, nevertheless, only further manifests the lack ofconsolation which in reality takes place in Nemea. During thelarge digression on Hypsipyle’s misfortunes, Opheltes tries to replacehis nurse by finding comfort in the idyllic, yet dangerous,environment procured by his new nurse, the mother-earth. Hypsipyletries to lure the baby with flowers and lullabies to keep himquiet (floribus aggestis et amico murmure dulces / solatur lacrimas,4.788–9), as she is too hasty to abandon him in her concern for thewell-being of the Argive army. Here, as we saw above, Statius optsfor an unexpected simile: the Mother of the Gods, who is not herselfnursing Jove, but who bids the Curetes to keep the future king ofgods and men entertained.When the baby is mortally bitten by a snake, Hypsipyle’s ownfailure to secure generational continuity for Lycurgus is laid bare. 55Like Polynices in the court of King Adrastus, a foreigner among54 Cf. Euripides’ äïıºïóýíÆò (‘slavery’, fr. 85.6 Bond).55 For the connection with the myth of Psamathe and the baby, Linus, in1.571–95, see Vessey (1973), 101–7. On the myth of Psamathe, see Aricò (1960);Vessey (1970b); Kytzler (1986); Taisne (1994a), 244–7; Dominik (1994a), 63–70;McNelis (2007), 37–40.

Mourning Endless 55strangers, who will only bring about disasters for the Argive ruler,disrupting generational continuity in the Peloponnese—by transmittingthe cursed stigma of his house to the next generation of theEpigonoi 56 —likewise Hypsipyle’s displaced and frustrated maternalinstincts do not succeed in promoting safety in Nemea.Opheltes’ death underscores how misplaced and destructive thenurse’s feelings are towards her fatherland. When Hypsipyle callsArchemorus the solamen patriae and seruitii decus, we are invitedto ponder the deadly consequences that Hypsipyle’s role in her owncountry have brought about in her present, foreign abode. Keithhas correctly observed that Hypsipyle’s failure confirms her positionas alien to the landscape of Nemea and ultimately denies herintegration into that setting. 57 As the episode ends, it yet remainsunclear how much her otherness has benefited the Argive army onits way to initiate civil war: Hypsipyle’s failure, with its ramificationson the public level and in the private sphere as a daughterand as a mother, forebodes a catastrophe. For a moment, she mayseem to have quenched the thirst of the Argive army by leadingthem to Langia, but the ensuing digression on her adventures andthe death of Opheltes conclude with lament and funeral games thatprefigure part of the last book of the poem, the aftermath of theTheban civil war.In her lament, Hypsipyle reiterates the well-known fact that sheused to narrate the hapless story of her fatherland to baby Opheltes,as a bedtime story: 58quotiens tibi Lemnon et Argosueta loqui et longa somnum suadere querela! 59sic equidem luctus solabar et ubera paruoiam materna dabam ... (5.615–18)56 As Bernstein (2003), 355, has rightly observed concerning Polynices, ‘sonsreproduce only their fathers’ crimes, and violence within the kingroup poses aconstant threat to generational continuity’.57 Keith (2000), 60.58 See Casali (2003) on the unreliability of Hypsipyle as a narrator, like Aeneas inAen. 2. Gibson (2004), 161, points to the repetitions in the Hypsipyle story asevidence for her role as epic narrator qua poet.59 Mozley (1963–4), 25: ‘beautiful effect of combined assonance and alliteration’.

56 Motherhood and the OtherHow often would I talk to you of Lemnos and the Argo and lull you to sleepwith my long tale of woe! So I would console my sorrow and give the littleone a breast now belonging to a mother ...This is the moment, too little too late, when Hypsipyle reconnectswith her motherly task to guard Opheltes against the dangers of theoutside world, with the adjective materna (modifying ubera in thepreceding verse) placed in the beginning of the hexameter in 618with the temporal iam. Having emphasised her pietas towards herfather, Hypsipyle has at the same time forsaken her duties asmother—a repetition of her abandonment of Lemnos, without hersons. Hypsipyle’s motherly affections bear only disasters: to put thebaby to sleep with tales of Lemnos and the Argonauts, after we havewitnessed the terrible slaughter of the Lemnian men and sons (pueri,5.260)! As her ‘dangerous’ narrative used to constitute in the past aproleptic rehearsal of Opheltes’ death, the same story now recountedbefore the Argive army heralds the coming events in the Iliadic booksof the poem (7–12). What does such practice portend for the Argivearmy? Hypsipyle’s lulling story works to the detriment of the Argivearmy, as it reviews the sad ending of the expedition. Fittingly perhaps,Lycurgus calls mendacia (5.659) the story that Hypsipyle hasmemorised and repeated so many times. Hypsipyle’s dual nature, asmother and a Lemnian exile with a loaded past as part of a murderous,monstrous female population, comes to the surface repeatedlyduring the digression in the middle of the Thebaid. To recall theKristevan quote in the epigraph in this chapter then, what is Hypsipylebut ‘a rummaging memory, the present in abeyance’? She is theasymbolic, foreign other that symbolises the impossibility of incorporation,the role of motherhood as forgetting oneself: Hypsipylecannot forget; she is able to repeat endlessly the story of her past andproject it onto the future of the heroes themselves.Another manifestation of Hypsipyle’s attachment to the pastoccurs when in the recognition/reunion scene the two boys rush totheir mother, as soon as they are identified in the court of Lycurgus.Hypsipyle’s feelings of shock and disbelief, however, dominate:per tela manusqueinruerant, matremque auidis complexibus ambodiripiunt flentes alternaque pectora mutant.

Mourning Endless 57illa uelut rupes inmoto saxea uisuhaeret et expertis non audet credere diuis. (5.720–4)They rush through weapons and hands and both weeping tear their motherapart with greedy embraces, taking her to their bosoms in turn. She staysfixed like a stony rock, her eyes unmoving, and does not dare to believethe gods.Only when she recognises the name of Jason tatooed on theirshoulders, does Hypsipyle display any signs of emotion, but yetagain the emphasis is laid on the cries, this time of joy:turbataque munere tantocorruit, atque alio maduerunt lumina fletu.addita signa polo, laetoque ululante tumultutergaque et aera dei motas crepuere per auras. (5.727–30)And disturbed by such a gift, she collapsed; her eyes were bedewed withanother kind of tears. Signs too were manifest in the sky. The air was stirredresounding with a happy uproar of cries and drums and cymbals of the god.A Bacchic reunion, befitting the descendants of the god! The wordpairing of ululante tumultu, however, anticipates Eurydice’s lamentin 6.137, longis ...ululatibus, as the cries of joy and of grief set offone another in the context of Opheltes’ unfortunate death and ofHypsipyle’s reunion with her sons. Moreover, Hypsipyle’s sons willreappear supporting their mother and yielding to her lamentation atthe funeral of her baby-substitute:nec Hypsipyle raro subit agmine: uallantInachidae memores, sustentant liuida natibracchia et inuentae concedunt plangere matri. (6.132–4)Nor is Hypsipyle present without accompaniment: the mindful sons ofInachus surround her, while her sons hold up her bruised arms and allowtheir newly found mother to lament.Statius emphasises the role of the sons as supporters of their mother’sgrief and lament, while the Argive men form a protective wall,manifesting their presence as a reminder of the events in the previousbook but also as a group that has not forgotten (memores) theirfemale saviour’s story. In what follows in the remainder of the sixthbook, we rarely see the two sons of Hypsipyle again, but just aglimpse of their participation in the games honouring Archemorus

58 Motherhood and the Other(6.342–3, 464, 466, 476). Their momentary appearance, therefore, assupporters of their mother’s lamentation underscores the inconclusivenature of this reunion: Hypsipyle’s motherhood cannot be fullyrestored to its former, Lemnian status.By recalling the Lemnian story, Statius through Hypsipyle reviewsthe future tragedy and female lament in Thebes. The sixth book ofthe poem starts with the lamentation for Opheltes’ death that occurswithin the imperial house of Nemea, where Eurydice is unable tofathom the disaster that has struck her house (orba parens, lacerasquesuper procumbere nati / reliquias ardet totiensque auulsa refertur, ‘thebereaved mother burns with desire to lie upon the mangled remainsof her son and though they remove her away so many times, shereturns’, 6.35–6). In addition, Adrastus now unavailingly assumes therole of the consolator:ipse, datum quotiens intercisoque tumultuconticuit stupefacta domus, solatur Adrastusadloquiis genitorem ultro, nunc fata recensensresque hominum duras et inexorabile pensum,nunc aliam prolem mansuraque numine dextropignora. nondum orsis modus, et lamenta redibant. (6.45–50)Adrastus himself, whenever he has the chance, and the noise is suspended,and the stunned house falls silent, unprompted consoles the father withwords of comfort. Now he rehearses destinies and the cruelty of man’scondition and the inexorable thread of Fate, now speaks of other progeny,pledges, with heaven’s blessing, long to last. But before he ended, back thewailing came.Consolation proves impossible, despite Adrastus’ efforts to comfortLycurgus. 60 Like Hypsipyle, Adrastus prepares for the final battle, thefratricide, and its aftermath, when, however, there will be no poeticpower adequate to express lamentation. Indeed, in book 11, Adrastusand Polynices weep together (ibant in lacrimas, ‘they fell to weeping’,11.193), but Tisiphone has other plans.60 Statius’ Adrastus replays the Euripidean Amphiaraus’ consolation to Eurydice(Hyps. fr.60.90–96 Bond); the Flavian poet, however, transfers the pair lamentation–consolation to men.

Mourning Endless 59Added to the male wailing, Eurydice produces a lamentation,matching Hypsipyle’s in book 5, an endless lament similar to the onethat will seal the end of the epic. 61 Eurydice stresses how Hypsipyle hassaved her father but in her effort to avoid nefas has now committedone. Eurydice expresses her wish to unleash violence against Hypsipyle,an act that will come to fruition at the end of the poem, whenArgia and Antigone fight in their efforts to bury Polynices:‘illam (nil poscunt amplius umbrae),illam, oro, cineri simul excisaeque parentireddite, quaeso, duces, per ego haec primordia bellicui peperi; sic aequa gemant mihi funera matresOgygiae.’ ...‘reddite, nec uero crudelem auidamque uocatesanguinis: occumbam pariter, dum uulnere iustoexaturata oculos unum impellamur in ignem.’talia uociferans alia de parte gementemHypsipylen (neque enim illa comas nec pectora seruat)agnouit longe et socium indignata dolorem:‘hoc saltem, o proceres, tuque o, cui pignora nostriproturbata tori: prohibete, auferte supremisinuisam exequiis. quid se funesta parentimiscet et in nostris spectatur et ipsa ruinis?’ (6.169–73, 174–83)‘Her (the shades demand no more), her I beg, give back, captains, to theashes and the parent she has destroyed. I ask you by these beginnings of war,the war for which I gave birth; so may Theban mothers mourn deathsmatching mine ...Give her back, nor call me cruel and bloodthirsty.I shall die with her, as long as having satisfied my eyes with the just strokewe may be thrown on the same pyre.’ Thus crying, she recognised Hypsipylefrom afar lamenting in another place (for she was not sparing hair or breast)and she was indignant that her grief should be shared: ‘At last, you noblesand you, for whose sake the pledge of our marriage bed has been thrustforth, this alone I ask: take that hateful woman away from the funeral rites.61 Dominik (1994b), 129: ‘her overwhelming grief and resentment of Hypsipyletransmute into anger and jealousy ...in much the same way that Creon is consumedby indignation and bitterness in response to the death of Menoeceus.’ The Menoeceusepisode poses the same problematisation as the death of Opheltes; see Heinrich’s(1999) perceptive analysis of Menoeceus’ deuotio as self-destruction, and contraVessey (1971b) and Ripoll (1998), 361–6, for a positive evaluation of the sacrifice.

60 Motherhood and the OtherWhy does she mingle her accursed self with his mother? Why is she too onview in our tragedy?’Eurydice hints at the lament of the Ogygian mothers, who will losetheir kin in the war. At the same time, however, she would like tosee Hypsipyle die by diving into the flames of Opheltes’ pyre, an actreserved for Evadne alone at the end of the poem. 62 In Nemea, as inThebes, there is no place for socium ...dolorem (179): this moment isclaimed by Eurydice alone. 63 As we shall see in book 12, Antigonelikewise claims for herself alone the task of burying Polynices, callingthe night her own night exclusively (nocte mea, 12.367). In this scenein book 6, the endless and physically exhausting lament, begun byHypsipyle in book 5, is placed now in the margin of the narrative,since the nurse falls silent, weeping in the background. The poet hasreclaimed his own narrative from Hypsipyle’s hands and will notallow for two lamentations, side by side. Hypsipyle remains the other,the foreign, unsuccessful nurse. Neither will there be space for sharedgrief in Thebes, because the two groups of women, Theban andArgive, will be distinctly separated by the poet.The persistence of lamentation comes full circle at the end of theThebaid, where the poet decides that it is time to berth his opus in asafe haven at the very moment when his poetic ability falls short ofexpressing the grief of the Argive women. 64 The lamentation of book62 Fantham (1999), 228, calls Eurydice’s demand ‘unwomanly’.63 Hypsipyle’s silence in book 6 plays off against her dialogue with Eurydice inEuripides’ play (Aricò [1961] does not point out the divergence; see Vessey’s caution[1970a], 51), where she calls upon her love for Opheltes while begging for her life:ôïPìeí ôØŁÞíÅìš ní Kðš KìÆEóØí IªŒÜºÆØòðºcí ïP ôåŒïFóÆ ô¼ººÆ ªš ‰ò Kìeí ôÝŒíïíóôÝæªïıóš Šçåæâïí, TçݺÅìš Kìïd ìݪÆ.(Hyps. fr. 60.10–12 Bond)My nursling, whom in my embrace I nourished and fed in every way except that I didnot give birth to him, a great benefit for me.64 Pace Holland (1976), 212, who sees positive result from the immense grief, suchas the new notion of uirtus, supplemented by pietas and clementia.

Mourning Endless 616 and the funeral of Opheltes provide only a rehearsal, a preparationfor what follows. The long digression serves as a post in the narrative,as the meta preparing the rider for the final course. After all, Hypsipyleis memorialised not only in the dactylic hexameters of her narrativebut also in the ekphrasis on Opheltes’ tomb: 65stat saxea moles,templum ingens cineri, rerumque effictus in illaordo docet casus: fessis hic flumina monstratHypsipyle Danais, hic reptat flebilis infans,hic iacet ... (6.242–6)There stands a mass of stone, a great temple for the ashes, and therein asculptured series tells the story: here is Hypsipyle showing the stream to theweary Danai, here crawls the poor babe, here he lies dead ...At the end, Hypsipyle is transformed from mobile to static, fromnarrator to the object of the narrative, from woman to marble, fromanimate to inanimate. In the end of book 5, as we saw above, onlymomentarily, she was assimilated to a rock, as she becomes petrifiedin front of her newly found sons, Thoas and Euneos. Now Statiuscompletes her portrait as part of a stone: the poet transfers theheroine’s former mobility to the eternal flowing of the flumina, asif Hypsipyle had merged into the landscape of Nemea forever. In aword, Hypsipyle is now inscribed into the symbolic world in terms ofekphrasis by means of semiotic terms that exclude language: throughthe anaphora of hic, we are left only with some pointers of Hypsipyle’sformer presence in the poem, as the phenotext is retreatinginto a genotext that generates meaning through silence, a mutestillness that nevertheless speaks volumes. 6665 See Gibson (2004), 171:Whereas Valerius reported that the cloak made by Hypsipyle for Jason (V.Fl. 2.408–17)contained her account of her rescue of Thoas ...in Statius, Hypsipyle’s account ofevents on Lemnos is contained in her epic narrative ...[T]he poet also monumentalisesher ...as she appeared in his own composition, the story of Archemorus.66 On the silence of women in Statius, see Anzinger (2007), 287–306.

62 Motherhood and the OtherEUMENIDUM ANTIQUISSIMA:JOCASTATHE WARMONGER OR HELPLESS BYSTANDER? 67As expected in a poem associated with the city of Thebes, imagery offemale figures assimilated to Bacchants is exploited as a salient andrecurrent theme in the Thebaid. Jocasta makes her entrance in book 7as an arbitrator between her two sons. 68 Though in book 11 Jocasta isportrayed as Agave (318–20), 69 a vivid reminder of the Lemnianwomen in book 5, in book 7, Jocasta is cast as a Fury (Eumenidumuelut antiquissima, ‘as if the most ancient of the Eumenides’, 477),and more specifically Allecto 70 —an ironic assimilation since Furiescan bear no children, and furthermore, it is the Fury herself, Tisi-67 I borrow the term ‘helpless bystander’ from Dewar (1991), 126, who applies it toIsmenis in book 9 (351–403) and by extension to Ide (3.133–68), Atalanta (9.570–636),the anonymous mother of Menoeceus (10.792–826), and Eurydice—all the bereavedmothers who as helpless viewers can do nothing to stop this pitiless war but just lamentfor their lost offspring. See Dominik (1994a), 124–5, and Micozzi (1998) for lament asan expression of the general sense of loss and sorrow.68 Cf. the Stesichorus Lille Papyrus (P. Lille 76, PMGF fr.222(b)), Euripides’ Phoen.452–585 (with Mastronarde’s [1994] commentary on the scene), and Seneca’s homonymousplay 443–664 (with Frank’s [1995] commentary on the scene, that abruptly endsthe tragedy). On Jocasta’s portrayal in Statius, see Vessey (1973), 270–82; Frings (1991),106–35; Taisne (1994a), 320–21; Smolenaars (1994), 213–18 and appendix VIb; andBernstein (2008), 85–94. For the influence of Euripides, see Reussner (1921), 16–18,and Venini (1961); of Seneca’s Theban tragedies, see Helm (1892), 35–58, Legras (1905),96–8, Venini (1965a and b) and (1967), and most eloquently, Fantham (1997), Bessone(2006), and Ganiban (2007), 159–65; of Livy’s portrait in book 2 of Veturia and Volumnia,see Soubiran (1969). Hershkowitz (1998a), 280–82, explores the sexual innuendo inJocasta’s embassies to her sons, by examining the pervasive sexual drive that forcesPolynices to return to Thebes for a reunion with his mother’s womb (especially 271–82).69 For the simile in book 11, see Venini (1970), 91; Vessey (1971a); Frings (1991),124–5; Jamset (2005) 113; Ganiban (2007) 163–5.70 See Smolenaars (1994), 223, on antiquus as grauis; as Smolenaars shows (220–21),the description of Jocastaecce truces oculos sordentibus obsita canisexangues Iocasta genas et bracchia planctunigra ferens ramumque oleae cum uelleris atrinexibus ... (7.474–7)behold, Jocasta, wild-eyed, with her hoary unkempt hair falling about her worn-outface, comes bearing her arms bruised by beating and a branch of olive entwined withdark coloured wool ...

Mourning Endless 63phone, who thwarts Jocasta’s efforts for reconciliation. 71 Jocasta’spresence as Allecto, however, also plays off against the provocationto war by Tisiphone, who has just stirred up hostilities between theThebans and the Argives (7.452–69):...portisegreditur magna cum maiestate malorum.hinc atque hinc natae, melior iam sexus, anilespraecipitantem artus et plus quam possit euntemsustentant. (7.477–81)... she goes out of the gates in all the majesty of her sorrows. On either sideher daughters, now the better sex, support her as she hastens her aged limbsand moves faster than she can.Jocasta is on the one hand a Fury-like figure, incapable of maternity,and on the other hand accompanied by her daughters, who paradoxicallyare also her grandchildren. As the accursed mother strivesfor a peaceful resolution to the conflict, accompanied by Antigoneand Ismene, in book 7 she lapses from the ostensibly safe boundariesof the Theban house (portis / egreditur, 477–8). Jocasta is able toprevail in Polynices’ heart for a moment, although the mother’s pleaultimately has to fail: 72...et raptam lacrimis gaudentibus impletsolaturque tenens, atque inter singula, ‘matrem,matrem’ iterat, nunc ipsam urguens, nunc cara sororumpectora, cum mixta fletus anus asperat ira:‘quid molles lacrimas uenerandaque nomina fingis,rex Argiue, mihi? ...a miserae matres! hunc te noctesque diesqueclosely matches Allecto’s disguise as Calybe in Aen. 7.415–18 (a scene already imitatedin Lucan’s portrait of the witch Erichtho in Luc. 6.654–6; Statius appropriates theintertextual reference to represent Jocasta as both a Fury and a witch). Cf. Laius’similarly ominous disguise as Teiresias in 2.95–100; see Mulder (1954), 89–93.71 Cf. Hershkowitz (1998a), 58: ‘Jocasta functions as an ever-present Fury in theTheban house’; and Ganiban (2007), 165: ‘She may also seem more Fury-like thanmaternal.’72 Cf. Vessey (1973), 274: ‘Jocasta attains to a greater moral stature than in thetragedians—she is the helpless victim of fate; her love, her grief, her dignity are all ofno effect.’

64 Motherhood and the Otherdeflebam? ......ad uestrum gemitus nunc uerto pudorem,Inachidae, liquistis enim paruosque senesqueet lacrimas has quisque domi ...’...tumidas frangebant dicta cohortes,nutantesque uirum galeas et sparsa uideresfletibus arma piis ...ipse etiam ante oculos nunc matris ad oscula uersus,nunc rudis Ismenes, nunc flebiliora precantisAntigones ... (7.493–8, 503–4, 519–21, 527–9, 534–6)...and seizing her, he fills her with tears of joy, comforting her as he holdsher and repeating between this and that ‘mother, mother’, now pressingher to his breast, now his dear sisters, when the aged mother embitters thegrief with anger: ‘Argive king, why do you feign tender tears and reverendnames for me? ...Ah, unhappy mothers! Is this you that I wept for day andnight? ...Now sons of Inachus, I turn my sorrows to your sense of shame;for each one of you has left little ones and elders and tears like mine athome ...’ Her words soften the proud troops. You might see warrior’shelmets nodding and arms scattered with pious tears ...He himself beforetheir eyes turns to kiss his mother, now young Ismene, 73 now Antigone asshe entreats with more copious tears ...Jocasta’s strategy of reaching the desired reconciliation of the twobrothers centres on her role as mother (she calls herself impia belli /mater, 7.483–4). 74 By exploiting the potential afforded by her status,Jocasta makes a bold innovation: she rejects lamentation, as aneffective means of winning Polynices over. The son extends hisembrace to his mother and sisters (an inversion of the usual epicscene of a son in vain aiming to embrace his dead parents, as do, forinstance, Odysseus or Aeneas), to be immediately reprimanded by anirate Jocasta and to be addressed as a foreign king (rex Argive).Polynices weeps and invokes his mother’s name twice (matrem,73 Shackleton Bailey (2003) translates rudis as ‘innocent’ (after Lesueur’s pure).74 Keith (2000), 96: ‘a formulation that hardly inspires confidence in her ability topromote a peaceful settlement at this juncture ...as she recognises ...her marriageand motherhood align her with the Furies in promoting the conflict (nupsi equidempeperique nefas, 7.514).’

Mourning Endless 65matrem); 75 Jocasta utilises male lamentation as an inventive methodto realise her ultimate plan. As she appeals to the Argives’ longing fortheir families, Jocasta directly addresses female lament, the oneperformed by Argive women in Argos: liquistis enim paruosque senesque/ et lacrimas has quisque domi. The anti-epic image of sparsafletibus arma ensues, while the poet ekphrastically apostrophises hisreader (uideres), 76 alerting us that this unheroic moment requires anintervention for the restoration of the proper order in the Thebaid,that is to say, the (re)sumption of hostilities. The illusion that thiswar can be prevented on account of motherhood gains ground, untilTydeus opposes the mother’s proposal.Success does not crown Jocasta’s effort to cross the boundary set bythe walls into the hostile, male Argive camp. 77 Both her daughters, aswe shall see, retreat within the safety of their private bedrooms. Inbook 11, Jocasta transgresses once again (non sexus decorisue memor,‘unmindful of her femininity and dignity’, 318), 78 this time withinthe limits of the walls, trying, to no avail, to stop Eteocles fromleaving the gates for the murderous, final duel with his brother:non comites, non ferre piae uestigia nataeaequa ualent: tantum miserae dolor ultimus additrobur, et exangues crudescunt luctibus anni. (11.321–3)Her companions cannot keep pace with her, nor can her pious daughters.Such strength does ultimate grief give the unhappy woman; her exhaustedyears grow young with her sorrows.The two daughters are unable to compete with the maddened woman’sspeed. In her final public appearance, the mother of the two brothers75 Polynices is transformed by Statius into a figure close to many females in thepoem; cf. his lament for Tydeus in 9.49–85 (see Dominik [1994b], 133–4). For hispositive characterisation here, see Frings (1992), 41.76 Georgacopoulou (2005) offers an exhaustive study of poetic apostrophes in thepoem (on this one in particular, see 109).77 Bernstein (2008), 85, rightly observes: ‘As Jocasta and Oedipus dramatise theconflict between maternal and paternal imperatives, they invert epic’s typical praiseof virtuous paternal emulation and marginalisation of women who attempt toprevent their sons from fighting.’78 Cf. the Lemnian women: pellite sexum (‘drive away your femininity’, 5.105),rediit in pectora sexus (‘our sex returned to our hearts’, 5.397); and Argia: sexu relicto(‘with her femininity forsaken’, 12.178).

66 Motherhood and the Otherdoes not emphasise lament: she stresses her physical opposition betweenEteocles and Polynices 79 —she has become the boundary itself:prius haec tamen arma necesse estexperiare domi: stabo ipso in limine portaeauspicium infelix scelerumque inmanis imago.haec tibi canities, haec sunt calcanda, nefande,ubera, perque uterum sonipes hic matris agendus....tu limina auita deosquelinquis et a nostris in fratrem amplexibus exis? (11.338–42, 352–3)But first you must try out your weapons at home. I shall stand in the verythreshold of the gate, a grim omen and a frightful image of crimes. This mywhite hair, these breasts, wicked one, must be trampled by you, and this horsemust be driven through your mother’s womb ...You leave your ancestralthreshold and gods and you go forth from our embrace against your brother?Motherhood is now cast as the final stumbling block, the final barricadethat could prevent the fratricide. 80 And yet Jocasta’s assimilation tofigures like Tisiphone emphasises the other side in this unfortunatemother, the side of an alienated, asymbolic self. As Jocasta exits the tragicstage of her previous literary appearances and enters the male ground ofwarlike operations, the landscape of epic that is, she becomes the other,the Amazon-like persona, traditionally condemned to be marginal andineffective, therefore silenced and eventually even dead. In book 11,Jocasta regresses into a defensive approach, different from her firstattempt to change Polynices’ mind. She sacrifices the mother’s vitalorgans, ubera and uterum, to save her children. 81 Thus Jocasta sacrificesmotherhood, in this final attempt at reconciliation. By contrast, in herplea to Polynices, immediately following this scene, Antigone highlightslament as a likely powerful tool to attract her brother’s attention, again invain, at the eleventh hour:79 See Coffee (2006) for an interpretation of the two brothers’ motivations in termsof economic language, Eteocles as a merchant and Polynices as a young prodigal.80 Pace Bernstein (2008), 91, who sees the failure of the mother as a step towardsthe completion of the epic’s telos.81 This imagery of motherhood is in line with the idea of the earth being a mother toall human beings, therefore underscoring the impiety of attacking one’s ‘motherland’;cf. Ogilvie (1965), 334, on Liv. 2.40.3–5 (Veturia’s speech): ‘The impiety of ravagingone’s motherland is denounced by Amphiaraus in Aeschylus’ Septem 580–3, Euripides’Hecuba 550–3 and 342–78, and Seneca’s Phoenissae 446–58.’

Mourning Endless 67at parte ex alia tacitos obstante tumultuAntigone furata gradus (nec casta retardatuirginitas) uolat Ogygii fastigia muriexuperare furens; ......magno prius omnia planctuimplet et ex muris ceu descensura profatur:‘comprime tela manu paulumque hanc respice turrem,frater ......saltem ora trucesquesolue genas; liceat uultus fortasse supremumnoscere dilectos et ad haec lamenta uidereanne fleas. illum gemitu iam supplice materfrangit et exertum dimittere dicitur ensem:tu mihi fortis adhuc, mihi, quae tua nocte diequeexilia erroresque fleo ...’ (11.354–7, 361–4, 372–8)From another quarter Antigone steals rapidly her silent steps through theopposing tumult (nor does her chaste virginity retard her), mad to surmountthe summit of the Theban wall; ...First she fills all around with loudlament and speaks as though about to throw herself from the walls: ‘Brother,hold your weapons and look for a moment back towards this tower ...Atleast relax your frowning look. Let me recognise, it may be for the last time,the face I love and see whether you weep at my lament. Him our motheralready softens with her suppliant tears and he is said to be letting go hisdrawn sword. Are you still strong of purpose to me, to me, who bewail yourexile and wanderings night and day ...’With its emphasis on tears and the power of a lamenting female voice,Antigone’s suasoria fails but only temporarily. Like her mother’s,Antigone’s speedy transgression (nec casta retardat uirginitas) 82 is againlimited by the walls (ex muris ceu descensura) 83 and the potentiality of the82 As Venini (1970), 100, correctly points out, this comes as a contrast to Antigone’sconversation with Jocasta in Euripides’ Phoen. 1274–6:Éï...Iººš Œðïı.`í. ðïE, ðÆæŁåíHíÆò KŒºØðïFóš ; Éï. Iía óôæÆôüí.`í. ÆNäïýìåŁš Zåºïí. Éï. ïPŒ Kí ÆNóåýífi ÅôaóÜ.JO. ...but follow me. AN. Where, having left my maiden chamber? JO. To the army.AN. We feel shame before the crowd. JO. Your own are not for shame.83 See Franchet d’ Espèrey (1999), 255–9, for Antigone and Jocasta in book 11: ‘lefuror les a dénaturés.’

68 Motherhood and the Otherparticle ceu that indicates a comparative conditional rather than actuality.As Ganiban says, ‘we cannot tell whether she is pia or whether shehasalwaysbeeninfectedbythenefas of her family’. 84 While her publicperformance fails, it prepares us for the events in book 12 and herencounter with Argia.IN THE CHÔRA OF SISTERHOOD: ANTIGONEAND ISMENE—PUBLIC GAZE AND PRIVATE LAMENTWhat we see in the above passage is not Antigone’s first encounterwith the public, male gaze. Whereas Hypsipyle becomes directlyacquainted with the Argive army, Antigone acquires indirect knowledgeof the Theban allies who will fight defending her city. In theteichoscopia of book 7, Antigone keeps all the traits of her uirginitas,when the aged Phorbas introduces to the maiden each of the Thebanwarriors. 85 Viewed on the map of the epic’s geography, Antigone’sown gaze is enabled towards the fighters, at the same time as shegains direct knowledge of the male other who will inhabit the Thebanplain for the following four books of the poem. Antigone’s innocencebecomes exposed to the dangers of the otherness that threatens toruin the royal palace, a foreignness that is defined by ‘the pricklypassions aroused by the intrusion of the other in the homogeneityof ...a group’, 86 as we have seen in Lemnos’ various encounters withthe other. The failure and death of many of the Theban allies willcause the fall of the already tottering Theban oikos, as it lays bare thelack of homogeneity, especially between the two brothers, as well as84 Ganiban (2007), 167.85 On the Homeric influence on the scene, see Kytzler (1969); Juhnke (1972),116–18; Vessey (1973), 205–9; Smolenaars (1994), 119–23; Georgacopoulou (1996a),112–17. For the relationship between this scene and Medea’s teichoscopia in ValeriusFlaccus’ Arg. 6, see Frings (1991), 74–84; and Lovatt (2006), as well as the relevantcommentary in Fucecchi (1997), Wijsman (2000), and Baier (2001). Lovatt (2006),64–5, correctly points out Phorbas’ role as the poet in his narrative—a fallible poet,however, who professes poetic inability to continue, as Eteocles takes over the battleand the narrative.86 Kristeva (1991), 41.

Mourning Endless 69among the members of the incestuous house of Oedipus. Thisteichoscopia prepares Antigone for the mission to which Jocastaputs both girls, in book 7, as we have just examined:turre procul sola nondum concessa uideriAntigone populis teneras defenditur atraueste genas ...‘spesne obstatura Pelasgishaec uexilla, pater? Pelopis descendere totasaudimus gentes: dic, o precor, extera regumagmina ...’ (7.243–5, 247–50)Distant on a lonely tower Antigone, whom the people are not yet allowed tosee, covers her tender cheeks with a black cloth ...‘Father, is there hope thatthese banners will withstand the Pelasgians? We hear that all the races ofPelops are coming against us: tell me, I pray, of the foreign kings and theirtroops ...’Antigone longs to become familiar with the extera regum / agmina,because she is already aware of the resources that the Theban cityherself has to offer. Beyond its first and foremost aim, namely toafford the poet the opportunity for another catalogue, 87 thus drawingextensively from the Euripidean tragedy, 88 the teichoscopia putsen relief Antigone’s curiosity, a curiosity similar to Hypsipyle’s, toacquaint herself with the other, to enter the manly world of epicuirtus, from the androcentric perspective of Phorbas. As Antigonetakes a first step beyond the boundaries of the girl’s inner chamber,we can gaze at her black veil of mourning. While hiding under hercover, 89 within the appropriate confines set by her gender and age(nondum concessa uideri), Antigone is nevertheless gazing directly atthe male outsiders, the soldiers who have come to fight againstPolynices, her beloved brother. This is the tower from which wehave already seen Antigone in book 11 trying to persuade her brotherto change his mind. In book 11, Antigone has crossed the boundariesset for her in book 7, in an effort to take the plot into her own hands,as Hypsipyle does at the helm of the narrative in the digression of87 See McNelis (2004) and (2007), 97–123, on Statius’ delaying technique in thiscatalogue.88 Cf. Euripides’ Phoen. 88–201.89 See Lovatt (2006), 62–3.

70 Motherhood and the Otherbooks 4 and 5. Despite her portrayal in books 7 and 11, as a sisterwho just like her mother strives for the restoration of order in theTheban house, we have the opportunity in book 8 to catch a glimpseof both sisters, in their personal space, as well.Towards the conclusion of the eighth book, Menoeceus reproachesthe Thebans for fleeing from the rage of Tydeus who has just killedAtys, 90 a foreign fighter, a hospes (notice the anaphora in 603). Atysdies defending Thebes, his future wife’s patria:‘pudeat, Cadmea iuuentus,terrigenas mentita patres! quo tenditis,’ inquit,‘degeneres? meliusne iacet pro sanguine nostrohospes Atys? tantum hospes adhuc et coniugis ultorinfelix nondum iste suae; nos pignora tantaprodimus?’ (8.600–5)‘For shame’, he says, ‘youth of Cadmus, belying your earthborn fathers!Where are you making for, degenerates? Should Atys, a stranger, rather liedead defending our blood, still but a stranger, poor youth, avenging a wifenot yet his? Do we betray such pledges?’The paradox in Atys’ behaviour is emphasised by his foreignnessand consequently his unsuitability to defend an urbs aliena, as wellas the fact that Ismene is not yet his (emphasised by the delay ofthis piece of information until the beginning of the second line; afterthe forceful coniugis ultor, follows the paradoxical, if not surprising,phrase nondum iste suae).This is the perfect moment for Statius to showcase the sharp contrastbetween the outside world of arma uirique and the inside of theTheban oikos. Antigone and Ismene, an ‘unusually pacific pair’, 91spend their time secluded from the war action that rages around thewalls of Thebes. They are wavering between the two sides of the war.Frustrated by the failed efforts of Jocasta to stop hostilities in book 7and therefore unwilling and reluctant to admit the harsh reality of theexternal world, the two sisters now confine themselves in their private90 On Atys, an episode greatly elaborated in the Romain de Thèbes, 6173–508, seeLegras (1905), 102–4; Schetter (1960), 50–51; Juhnke (1972), 130; Vessey (1973),288–92; La Penna (2000), 155–6. On the similarity between Parthenopaeus and Atys,see Jamset (2005) briefly at 135.91 Keith (2000), 98; cf. also Franchet d’Espèrey (1999), 315–16.

Mourning Endless 71rooms. 92 The isolation of their chamber proves safe for the two youngwomen, while at the same time it confirms their seclusion and detachmentfrom the reality of the impeding fratricide:interea thalami secreta in parte sorores,par aliud morum miserique innoxia prolesOedipodae, uarias miscent sermone querelas.nec mala quae iuxta, sed longa ab origine fati,haec matris taedas, oculos ast illa paternos,altera regnantem, profugum gemit altera fratrem,bella ambae. (8.607–13)Meanwhile in a secret inner chamber, the sisters, a pair of another character,innocent offspring of unhappy Oedipus, mingle various complaints in theirtalk—not of present ills but from Fate’s origin far back. One laments theirmother’s wedding torches, the other their father’s eyes; one the reigningbrother, the other the exiled, both the wars.The poet lays emphasis on the manner in which the two sistersmingle their conversation in complaint, by fusing the voices of thetwo girls into an indistinguishable exchange, just as he does in book12 with Argia and Antigone, as we shall see. The two sisters are ofanother kind, par aliud morum (608), different from their furyinspiredbrothers. 93 Their stories go far back, longa ab origine fati,as they weave their querelae, their complaints, into a lament on themany ills that torture their oikos. Antigone and Ismene enact asuperficial calmness of the semiotic chôra, where they may affordthe luxury to reflect on the evils that befall them but also draw on anunusual resourcefulness available in this feminine space, namely toconsider counterfactual scenarios that can only come true in dreams.92 The episode has received relatively little attention among Statian critics. SeeVessey (1986), 2993–3000, who focuses on aspects of pathos; Taisne (1994a), 182–3;Lesueur (1996), 78, who considers Atys ‘un personnage épisodique’. Micozzi (2001–2)offers an excellent intertextual reading of the episode, tracing the models as far back asMimnermus (fr. 21W), in epic poetry (Apollonius’ Medea, Virgil, Ovid), and in elegy(Propertius and Ovid).93 Cf. melior iam sexus (‘the better sex now’, 7.479), as the two daughters supporttheir mother. As a metapoetic comment, Statius points to Ismene’s usurping the roleof the Sophoclean Antigone, betrothed to Haemon.

72 Motherhood and the OtherThe narration of Ismene’s dream further supports her otherworldliness,since she dreams of a desired union that can never take place. 94Ismene’s insistence that she is not afraid of the omen, as long as thereis still a chance for reconciliation between their brothers, heraldsthe disaster of the unfolding events immediately after the dreamnarrative: 95ecce ego, quae thalamos, nec si pax alta maneret,tractarem sensu, (pudet heu!) conubia uidinocte, soror; sponsum unde mihi sopor attulit amensuix notum uisu? semel his in sedibus illum,dum mea nescio quo spondentur foedera pacto,respexi non sponte, soror. turbata repenteomnia cernebam, subitusque intercidit ignis,meque sequebatur rabido clamore reposcensmater Atyn. quaenam haec dubiae praesagia cladis?nec timeo, dum tuta domus milesque recedatDoricus et tumidos liceat componere fratres. (8.625–35)See, I, who would have nothing to do with wedding chambers knowingly, evenif peace were still abiding, for shame alas, I saw nuptials, sister, in the night.Whence did mindless slumber bring me my betrothed, scarce known to me bysight? Once I looked at him in this dwelling, not of my will, sister, while insome fashion or other my pledges were contracted. Suddenly I saw everythingin turmoil, a sudden fire came between us, his mother was following me withfrantic cries, demanding Atys back. What sign is this of doubtful calamity?Not that I am afraid, as long as our house is safe, the Dorian army stays here,and we may make peace between our angry brothers.Ismene’s dream of coming disasters is interpreted as a fantastichallucination of future happiness: the maid still hopes for a joyfulunion with her fiancé Atys. 96 Ismene carefully weaves a veil of secrecyaround her unintentional gaze directed to her beloved one (mea ...respexi non sponte), while she openly rejects the possibility of a94 Cf. Ilia’s dream in Ennius’ Ann. (34–50 Skutsch).95 For a typological examination of such dream manifestations in Statius(Atalanta’s series of dreams in 9.570–601 and Ismene’s dream), see Bouquet (2001),123–6; Taisne (1994a), 182–3, examines the two dreams as praesagia.96 Vessey (1973), 292: ‘Statius usually treats his female characters with intensepropriety. In them, we see models of virtue, perfect specimens of womankind on amodel which the Romans traditionally cherished as their own.’

Mourning Endless 73wedding to Atys at the present moment. At any rate, how could shethink of marriage during the time of war? And yet, by referring tothalamos (nuptials) within her own thalami (bedroom), Ismenereveals her secret hopes: to see Atys anew, to fulfil her wish ofmarrying and therefore the possibility of becoming a mother. Butthe dream is clear: the other intrudes, in the form not only of Atysbut also of his mother, who asks for her son back (notice the iuncturaof mater Atyn), as expressed in the repetitive reposcens. Instead,Ismene feeds her hope by wishing the retreat of another foreign‘body’ from Thebes, the Dorians/Argives (milesque recedat / Doricus),thus stressing the threatening role of the enemy in the beginning ofthe hexameter by enjambment, while also underscoring the ambiguousoutcome of the brothers’ quarrel, in terms of pregnancy: tumidos...componere fratres. 97 Ismene’s uirginitas circumscribes herwithin the area of the semiotic, the coupure of the semiotic into thesymbolic through dreaming her potential, yet counterfactual future.Her wish to see Atys is fulfilled, since she is indeed going to lookat him for the last time in the same place as the first time (duringher betrothal, his sedibus), and her gaze will be counterbalanced byher later closing of Atys’ eyes (ibi demum teste remoto / fassa piosgemitus lacrimasque in lumina fudit, ‘finally, with no one to witnessit, she confessed her devoted sorrow and poured her tears upon hiswounds’, 8.653–4):quater iam morte sub ipsaad nomen uisus defectaque fortiter orasustulit; illam unam neglecto lumine caeliaspicit et uultu non exatiatur amato. (8.647–50)Four times at the very point of death he bravely raises his eyes and failinghead at her name. Only at her does he gaze, neglecting the light of heaven,and cannot get enough of her beloved face.As Vessey rightly observes, ‘the peace of the palace is disturbed asAtys, moribund but still conscious, is borne within’. 98 I submit thatAtys’ otherness, male and foreign, upsets the seeming peace of97 For tumidus denoting pregnancy elsewhere in the poem (cf. 2.204) see Mulder(1954), 156–7.98 Vessey (1973), 291.

74 Motherhood and the Otherthe inner palace, a place still immune to the wild war raging outsidethe walls of Thebes. The inner chamber of innocent Ismene (whosesaeuus pudor is underscored by the poet as the paradoxical aspect of hercharacter) 99 serves as the place where her union with Atys will takeplace. Ismene is confined in her bedroom to lament the death of herforeign fiancé, Atys, to suffer the bereavement of a private loss as aresult of a public, nonsensical disaster, the quarrel between the twobrothers. 100 Ismene is deflowered by Atys’ gaze, 101 an act reciprocatedby Atys in Ismene’s dream. The foreigner has intruded in the chamber;the virginity of the house is lost, the girls are no longer protected. Thetwo sisters are exposed to a question that is never directly addressedin the narrative but essentially underlies the irrationality of the Thebanwar: do female figures take sides, and if so whose? Although Atys fightsfor the Thebans, and Antigone’s allegiance rather lies with Polynices,nevertheless the two sisters remain united. This rehearsal of a lament, asin the case of Hypsipyle and Eurydice in book 6, now in book 8, puts inrelief the impossibilities of lament in book 12, when the two peoples,the Thebans and the Argives, are clearly distinguished into winners andlosers, despite the apparent union concealed under lament.Furthermore, it is not coincidental that the poet alters the Euripideanscene of Jocasta’s suicide. 102 Jocasta dies within the boundaries of thepalace, only in the presence of Ismene (et prono uix pectore ferrum /intrauit tandem, ‘and with her breast scarcely leaning forward, she finally“entered” the sword’, 11.639–40). 103 As Hershkowitz has aptly observedin the Thebaid, virginity ‘does not prove an adequate defense againstthe sexually charged force of madness’. 104 Once again, we see Ismene99 Vessey (1986), 2996: ‘Ismene is not merely chaste; she is an in(de)scription ofcastitas and pudor (within the lexicon of the Thebaid).’100 Dominik (1994b), 126–7, points out the weakness and helplessness of womenin war, and especially of Antigone and Ismene in this case.101 Vessey (1986), 2998–9, and Hershkowitz (1998a), 290.102 In Euripides’ Phoen. 1427–59, Jocasta commits suicide on the spot of thefratricide and is then carried inside by Antigone, not Ismene; cf. Fiehn (1917), 76–7:‘Fortasse animi legentium defatigati essent, si regina post Oedipum, qui ad corporafiliorum querebatur, prodisset, ut dolorem suum aperiret.’103 Jamset (2005), 113, correctly notices the implicit contrast between Jocasta’spronum pectus here and her nudum pectus in 7.281. On the different versions ofJocasta’s suicide in the Graeco-Roman tradition, see now Smolenaars (2008).104 Hershkowitz (1998a), 282.

Mourning Endless 75experiencing the disastrous effects of the outside world that intrudes towreak permanent havoc on her, now orphaned of family:illius exili stridentem in pectore plagamIsmene conlapsa super lacrimisque comisquesiccabat plangens: qualis Marathonide siluaflebilis Erigone caesi prope funera patrisquestibus absumptis tristem iam soluere nodumcoeperat et fortes ramos moritura legebat. (11.642–7)Ismene collapsed upon the blow that shrieked in the meagre bosom and driedit with tears and hair as she lamented: just so sorrowful Erigone weeping in theMarathonian wood beside the body of her slain father, her plaints exhausted,began to untie the sad knot and choose sturdy branches, intent on death.The Erigone–Icarius simile proves ominous. Ismene’s departure fromthe narrative is accompanied by the allusion to possible suicide: arewe to think that as she repeats the scene of Atys’ death, she is going torepeat her mother’s final act? As Erigone unties the knot that led herfather to death, she loosens it to fit her own head in it and commitsuicide on the spot. 105 There is no safe place for Ismene, insideor outside the cursed Theban house, but only death, possibly byhanging, the definitive act of silencing the other’s voice. Furthermore,the contrast between public gaze and private lament is going to playout in the last book of the poem, where the female Argives undertakea foray to voice their private, house-confined ŁæBíïò, in the publicsphere and terrain of an otherwise masculine genre.LAMENT AND THE POET: BOUNDARIES(RE)TRANSGRESSEDHer ioyous presence and sweet companyIn full content he there did long enioy,Ne wicked enuie, ne vile gealosyHis deare delights were able to annoy:Yet swimming in that sea of blisfull ioy,105 See Venini (1970), 162, on soluere as laxare and Lesueur (2003a), 3.175 n.49.

76 Motherhood and the OtherHe nought forgot, how he whilome had sworne,In case he could that monstrous beast destroy,Vnto his Farie Queene backe to returne:The which he shortly did, and Vna left to mourne.Now strike your sailes ye iolly Mariners,For we be come vnto a quiet rode,Where we must land some of our passengers,And light this wearie vessell of her lode.Here she a while may make her safe abode,Till she repaired haue her tackles spent,And wants supplide. And then againe abroadOn the long voyage whereto she is bent:Well may she speede and fairely finish her intent.(E. Spenser, The Faerie Queen, 1, Canto 12, 41–2)The Thebaid ends with lamentation for the dead, notwith paeans of Theseus’ victory.(F. Ahl, ‘Statius’ Thebaid: A Reconsideration’, 2897)The opening of the last book recalls the beginning of the sixth: beforethe reader’s eyes immense loss and destruction are laid (aegra ...pax,‘uneasy peace’, 12.7–8), only now on Theban territory:amant miseri lamenta malisque fruuntur.nec subiere domos, sed circum funera pernoxturba sedet, uicibusque datis alterna gementesigne feras planctuque fugant; ... (12.45–8)In their misery, they love weeping and delight in sorrows. No one wenthome, but all night long they sit around their dead and, voicing grief in turn,by tears and wailing drive the beasts away with fire and breast-beating ...The Thebans, afflicted by loss and destruction, have developed apathological connection with lament and grief (ruunt planctu pendenteet ubique parato, ‘they rush with hands everywhere ready forlament’, 33). 106 This joining serves as a counterpart to the ending of106 Just as Antigone prevents Oedipus’ suicide attempt in book 11 and lets himmourn for his sons’ fratricide (saeuum gaudens planxisse parentem, ‘rejoicing in herharsh father’s lament’, 11.633). Helzle (1996), 146–59, observes that the twelfth bookcan be read independently from the rest of the poem as a Greek tragedy.

Mourning Endless 77the poem itself, which will close with the lament of the Argive women,a lament ethnically distinct from that of any Theban mothers.Even after the death of the brothers, the cursed city of Thebes canfind no peace. Creon, Oedipus’ brother-in-law and self-proclaimedmonarch of the city, forbids burial of the Argive dead, 107 especially ofPolynices, denounced as an outsider: ...Argiuus haberi / frater iussusadhuc atque exule pellitur umbra (‘ ...his brother by command is stillheld an Argive and is driven away, his shade banished into exile’,12.58–9). 108By mobilising the group of Argive women travelling to Athens(12.105–72) to seek aid from Theseus, at the Altar of Mercy(481–518), 109 for the burial of their husbands, Statius directs thepoem to its (destined?) end. 110 Simultaneously, however, the emphasislies in the women’s status not only as suppliants but also, aboveall, as desolate mourners: flebilis ...comitatus (‘sorrowful band’, 105),orbae uiduaeque (‘bereaved and widowed’, 106), planctu (‘by wailing’,110), deflenda (‘rousing tears’, 122), digno plangore (‘with due grief’,122), gementum / agmina (‘groups of mourners’, 124–5), lacrimans(‘weeping’, 128).This is a group of female foreigners who venture a penetration intothe centre of the action. As the Argive women travel to Athens tocomplete their mission, and as Argia strays off to Thebes to buryPolynices against Creon’s edict, another group of women is forced to107 Creon’s dictatorial character extends into the territory of lament, when hehubristically claims the prerogative to mourn for his son Menoeceus:mihi flebile sempernumen eris; ponant aras excelsaque Thebaetempla dicent: uni fas sit lugere parenti. (12.77–9)I will always mourn you as a deity; let Thebes place an altar and dedicate a lofty temple: tothe parent alone let it be allowed to mourn.Cf. Fantham (1999), 231: ‘Such is the king’s angry fury of grief that servants haveto drag him away, as if he were some woman out of control.’108 Cf. Pollmann (2004), 104.109 On the description and ekphrasis of Clementia, see Burgess (1972); Vessey (1973),309–12; Ahl (1986), 2890–94; Ripoll (1998), 440–46; Ganiban (2007), 214–17; McNelis(2007), 163–5.110 As Pollmann (2004), 115–17, correctly observes, the scene comes as a contrastto book 4, the march of the Argive army: this is a crowd of women truly concerned fortheir dead and the fulfilment of funeral rites.

78 Motherhood and the Otherfollow the world-conqueror towards Athens, the centre of civilisation.Just before Theseus’ victory over Creon, the poet presents us with agroup of outsiders, barbarian women, in the heart of Athens. Theseushas just returned from his campaign against the Amazons, who nowfollow behind his chariot in a display of a ‘Roman’ triumph: 111ante ducem spolia et, duri Mauortis imago,uirginei currus cumulataque fercula cristiset tristes ducuntur equi truncaeque bipennes,quis nemora et solidam Maeotida caedere suetae,gorytique leues portantur et ignea gemmiscingula et informes dominarum sanguine peltae.ipsae autem nondum trepidae sexumue fatentur,nec uulgare gemunt, aspernanturque precariet tantum innuptae quaerunt delubra Mineruae.primus amor niueis uictorem cernere uectumquadriiugis; nec non populos in semet agebatHippolyte, iam blanda genas patiensque maritifoederis. hanc patriae ritus fregisse seuerosAtthides oblique secum mirantur opertomurmure, quod nitidi crines, quod pectora pallatota latent, magnis quod barbara semet Athenismisceat atque hosti ueniat paritura marito. (12.523–39)Before the chief spoils are led and, image of hard Mavors, virgin chariots,wagons piled with crests, sad horses, broken axes with which the women wereaccustomed to cleaving forests and frozen Maeotis; light quivers are carried andbelts blazing with gems and bucklers marred by the blood of their mistresses.They themselves have no fear as yet nor confess their sex; they do not lament inthe common fashion and scorn to plead, they seek only the shrine of virginMinerva.Firstdesireistoseethevictor,bornebyfoursnowyhorses.Hippolytetoo draws the people to herself, now charming in look and patient of themarriage bond. Aside among themselves the women of Athens mutter, wonderingthat she has broken the austere usages of her country in that her hair is sleekand her bosom all covered by her mantle, that she blends herself, a barbarian,with great Athens and comes to bear children to her foeman husband.111 See Vessey (1973), 312. On Theseus as a person who imposes civilisation on thebarbarian Amazons, see Ripoll (1998), 426–51; Laird (1999), 287–91 (Theseus linkedto Jupiter); Keith (2000), 99; Pollmann (2004), 212–13; contra Dominik (1994a),92–8. As Helzle (1996), 156, correctly points out, we are also reminded of the sinistercase of Aeschylean Agamemnon.

Mourning Endless 79Although the Amazons still remain fierce and do not show any signsof weakness (such as lament, nec uulgare gemunt), nondum trepidaesexumue fatentur, their queen seems subdued, iam blanda genas.What a sinister description! As we have already examined, the adjectiveapplies to Jason’s alluring methods of courting Hypsipyle inLemnos and impregnating her, while the same adjective is attributedby Eurydice to the dead Opheltes, for his loving attachment to histreacherous nurse. But this time, the adjective acquires a more precisenegative connotation, since in book 9 the exact periphrasis is used todescribe Tisiphone, who disguises her true self to cheat Hippomedonof Tydeus’ body (9.155): blanda genas. Are we looking at one ofHippolyte’s own metamorphoses too? When Theseus urges her notto participate in the forthcoming war because of her pregnancy, wewitness a twist in the portrayal of the Amazon, the domesticatedwoman-warrior: 112isset et Arctoas Cadmea ad moenia ducensHippolyte turmas: retinet iam certa tumentisspes uteri, coniunxque rogat dimittere curasMartis et emeritas thalamo sacrare pharetras. (12.635–8)Hippolyte too would have gone, leading Arctic squadrons against Cadmus’walls, but hope of her swelling womb, now assured, keeps her back and herhusband asks her to dismiss thoughts of war and dedicate her quiver, itsservice done, in the marriage chamber.Hippolyte will still bear offspring for the king. And yet she remains abarbara, at whom the Athenians gaze with wonder since she is subjectto being acculturated, 113 to becoming an Athenian. The Atheniansare amazed at the transformation of the Amazons, since it is beyondexpectation that they may be portrayed with their body covered(quod pectora palla / tota latent). Hippolyte is assimilated to hernew environment, but not without a price paid on Theseus’ part.She will be a mother who does not lose her identity as a barbarianbut who will give birth for a husband explicitly called an enemy112 On Camilla and Hippolyte, see Fucecchi (2007).113 Aptly called ‘voyeuristic’ by Pollmann (2004), 213. Ahl (1986), 2894: ‘Statiushighlights the irony by endowing the barbarians with civilised calm and nobility, andthe Greeks with barbaric chattering.’

80 Motherhood and the Other(hosti ...paritura marito). 114 Moreover, a salient feature in the descriptionof the Amazons in the previous two passages is the lengthydescription of their weapons, fittingly exposed in detail by the poet,only to emphasise, however, their marginal role: the Amazons havebeen defeated and are therefore virtually disarmed, despite the extensivereferences to their accoutrements—these weapons are now part ofthe ritual, as they will be consecrated and confined to the maritalchamber (thalamo sacrare pharetras). Although in Athens there is adynamic relationship between the autochthonous Athenians and thenewly arrived Amazons, with a glimpse of a possible (not necessarilyrealised) future amalgamation between the two peoples, 115 I shouldlike to emphasise the utter failure of reconciliation between the Thebansand the Argives, memorialised in the epilogue of the poem.Just before the end of the poem, there occurs an effort for reconciliationbetween the Thebans and the Argives, when Argia comes tobury Polynices in Thebes, where she finds the body in the battlefieldand addresses her dead husband. As she separates from the group ofthe Argive women who head for Athens instead, Argia keeps highhopes of her ability to intrude into the hostile city, not as an outsiderbut as a hospes and a daughter-in-law of Oedipus:hic non femineae subitum uirtutis amoremcolligit Argia, sexuque inmane relictotractat opus: ...contemptrix animae et magno temeraria luctu...hortantur pietas ignesque pudici.ipse etiam ante oculos omni manifestus in actu,nunc hospes miserae, primas nunc sponsus ad aras,nunc mitis coniunx, nunc iam sub casside toruamaestus in amplexu multumque a limine summorespiciens: 116 ...114 See Dominik (1994a), 94: ‘Theseus, like Oedipus, will adjudge he has beenwronged, will curse his offspring who will endure a tragic death and will sufferbanishment ...’115 See Keith (2000), 99, following DuBois (1982), 66: ‘Theseus’ victory over theAmazons restores the order of the cosmos by reinstating the “natural” hierarchy ofgender.’116 Pagán (2000a), 441–6, on respexit and the end of the poem in terms of Orphicgaze.

Mourning Endless 81‘ ...me sinite Ogygias, tantae quae sola ruinaecausa fui, 117 penetrare domos et fulmina regniprima pati; nec surda ferae pulsabimus urbislimina: sunt illic soceri mihi suntque sororesconiugis, et Thebas haud ignoranda subibo ...’‘urbs optata prius, nunc tecta hostilia, Thebae,...iuxta tua limina primumOedipodis magni uenio nurus? improba non suntuota: rogos hospes planctumque et funera posco ...’(12.177–9, 185–91, 198–202, 256, 259–61)Here Argia conceives a sudden passion for unwomanly courage and engages inmonstrous work, abandoning her sex ...despising her life, rash with mightymourning. Piety and chaste fires of love urge her on. He himself is plain beforeher eyes in his every act: now, alas, as guest, now her betrothed before the firstaltars, now a gentle husband, now under his grim helmet sad in her embraceand often looking back from the outermost threshold ...‘Let me, who wassole cause of the disaster, penetrate the Ogygian halls and suffer the firstthunderbolts of the reign. And the gates of the fierce city will not be deaf to myknocking. My husband’s parents are there, and his sisters and I shall not cometo Thebes as a stranger ...City of Thebes, once my desire, now enemy abode,...I come near your gates, I, daughter-in-law of great Oedipus? My prayer isnot inordinate. A stranger, I ask a pyre, a lament, a corpse ...’Virtus is juxtaposed to sexu relicto, 118 the hope of transgressing genderboundaries is renewed, with the authorial caveat concerning the immense(immane) act Argia is about to undertake. In an ongoing processof looking back to the beginning of the poem but also of rehearsing itsend, as we have often seen in the preceding analysis, Argia’s effortsconcentrate on surpassing the limitations set by the walls of Thebes, bythe familial curse, and by gender hierarchies (which are reinforced byCreon’s appropriation of lament as a male privilege). Upon the discoveryof the corpse, through her lament, Argia reveals her intentions to‘penetrate’ with her gaze the city of Thebes, clearly as an outsider:117 For the inversion of Aen. 6.458 (funeris heu tibi causa fui, ‘alas, I was the causeof your death’, of Aeneas to Dido), see Helzle (1996), 151–3, and Pollmann (2004),137–8. On Argia as Dido, see Dietrich (2004), 9–12.118 Cf. Pollmann (2008), 365: ‘Successful uirtus seems only possible in the privatesphere, performed by women, in the context of burial, as a manifestation of religionand humanity.’

82 Motherhood and the Otherhuc attolle genas defectaque lumina: uenitad Thebas Argia tuas; age, moenibus inducet patrios ostende lares et mutua reddehospitia ... (12.325–8)Lift your eyes to me, eyes that see no more. Argia has come to your Thebes.Up now, lead me into the city, show me your father’s house, return ourhospitality ...This set of requests comes as response to Polynices’ own promise toArgia in 2.361–2: fors aderit lux illa tibi, qua moenia cernes / coniugiset geminas ibis regina per urbes (‘perhaps the day will come for you,on which you will see the city walls of your husband and you will goas a queen through two cities’). 119 Argia’s futile request to the corpseof Polynices, as she urges him on to raise and direct her gaze into thecity of Thebes, is sharply contrasted to the last look of Polynices at hiswife in book 4: 120iam regnum matrisque sinus fidasque sororesspe uotisque tenet, tamen et de turre supremaattonitam totoque extantem corpore longerespicit Argian; haec mentem oculosque reducitconiugis et dulces auertit pectore Thebas. (4.88–92)Already in hope and prayer he possesses his realm and his mother’s bosomand his faithful sisters, yet looks far back to Argia as she stands out with allher body from a turret-edge distraught. She calls back her husband’s mindand eyes and turns sweet Thebes away from his heart.Argia prefigures Antigone’s reaction in book 11, who inspired by theFury almost jumps off the wall to keep her brother from the fratricide.Also in book 11, Polynices dreams of Argia, just when Megaerais ready to lead him up to his final moment in the fratricide (coniugisArgiae laceram cum lampade maesta / effigiem, ‘[he had seen] thedistorted figure of his wife Argia holding a sad torch’, 11.142–3). 121119 Hoffmann (1999), 31.120 See Ahl (1986), 2880, and Micozzi (2002), 62–5 (who refers to the episode aspart of the ‘memoria interna’). Cf. also Bessone’s (2002) exhaustive discussion ofelegiac motifs in the scene and in Argia’s appearance in books 2 and 3.121 Ahl (1986), 2883: ‘significantly, the vision is of his Argive wife not of hisTheban family.’ See Vessey (1973), 163 n.4, for the prefiguration of effigies in thegames in book 6 (treated by Lovatt (2005), passim) and Venini (1970), 48.

Mourning Endless 83That same night Antigone and Argia will unite their efforts tobury their beloved, a union that nevertheless takes place in a mannerof lament (ecce 122 alios gemitus aliamque ad busta ferebat / Antigonemiseranda facem, ‘behold, wretched Antigone was bringing other woesand another torch to the place where the corpses lay’, 12.349–50), byremembering the dead person’s deeds and by re-enacting the poem: 123‘cuius’ ait ‘manes, aut quae temeraria quaerisnocte mea?’ ...‘mene igitur sociam (pro fors ignara!) malorum,mene times? mea membra tenes, mea funera plangis ...’...hic pariter lapsae iunctoque per ipsumamplexu miscent auidae lacrimasque comasque,partitaeque artus redeunt alterna gementesad uultum et cara uicibus ceruice fruunturdumque modo haec fratrem memorat, nunc illa maritum,mutuaque exorsae Thebas Argosque renarrant,longius Argia miseros reminiscitur actus ... (12.366–7, 382–3, 385–91)‘Whose body do you seek?’ she says. ‘And who are you that dare do it in mynight?’ ...‘Do you fear me then (ah ignorant coincidence!), me the partnerin your woes? It’s my limbs you hold, my corpse you mourn ...’ Here bothcollapse and with joint embrace eagerly mingle tears and hair over the body,dividing the limbs between them; then they go back to his face, lamenting byturns, and enjoy his beloved neck in alternation. As one recalls her brother,the other her husband, and each in dialogue tells again of Thebes and Argos,Argia remembers at length the sad story ...What begins as a hostile reaction on behalf of Antigone (Cadmeiauirgo, ‘Theban maiden’, 12.380), progresses into the recognition of122 The exclamatory particle ecce is used five times in the last book and is coupledwith sinister images: Ornytus’ squalid appearance in 141; the grim image of thebrothers fighting as their corpses are consumed by fire in 429; Theseus’ last apostrophetotheArgivesouls,ashekillsCreonin773;andthelastsimilein789(examinedbelow).123 On the burial scene with Argia and Antigone, see Schetter (1960), 11–12; Vessey(1973), 131–3 and (1986), 3003–7; Frings (1991), 139–54; Henderson (1991), 55–6;Taisne (1994a), 76–7; Dominik (1994b), 130–33; Helzle (1996), 166–74; Hershkowitz(1998a), 293–6; Franchet d’Espèrey (1999), 317–19; Lovatt (1999), 136–40; Delarue(2000), 358–9; Bernstein (2008), 94–101; Heslin (2008), 114–20. Pollmann (2004),46–7, interprets Argia as a counter-figure to Theseus, a woman who acts out of wifelydevotion.

84 Motherhood and the Otherthe two women and Antigone’s change of attitude, now asking forArgia’s sharing in the grief and labour. What is not possible betweenEurydice and Hypsipyle takes place for a moment within the boundariesof the poem’s centre, Thebes. Argia and Antigone share theirrespective stories in alternation (just like the Thebans in the beginningof the book, uicibusque datis, 12.47): 124 they divide Polynices’membra, just as they unite their lamenting voices.This apparent reconciliation will not last for long, since Argia andAntigone eventually fight over the body of Polynices. The pyre, splitin two, foreshadows the eternal rift between the brothers and the twonations. Argia and Antigone threaten to jump into the fire if thediscord continues:sedate minas; tuque exul ubique,semper inops aequi, iam cede (hoc nupta precatur,hoc soror), aut saeuos mediae ueniemus in ignes. (12.444–6)Calm your threats. And you, everywhere an exile, always denied justice, yieldnow. This your wife begs, this your sister; or we shall come into the fierceflames to part you.Antigone’s words are fashioned to represent the unanimity of the twosisters, who would even jump into the flames to part the everquarrelling brothers. 125 When the two women are caught performingthe prohibited act of burying the dead, a sudden furor recalls them totheir former behaviour, 126 inasmuch as each woman appropriates thehonour for herself individually:haec fratris rapuisse, haec coniugis artuscontendunt uicibusque probant: ‘ego corpus’, ‘ego ignes’,‘me pietas’, ‘me duxit amor’. deposcere saeuasupplicia et dextras iuuat insertare catenis.nusquam illa alternis modo quae reuerentia uerbis,iram odiumque putes; ... (12.457–62)124 Hoffmann (1999), 61 and n.168.125 An unparalleled threat, see Hoffmann (1999), 86 and n.241.126 Hoffmann (1999), 90–91, claims that both women preserve their inner freedombecause of their amor mortis, a motif traced back to Lucan. See Hershkowitz(1998a), 294 (also Frings [1991], 143), on the women’s appropriation of Polynices’furor; ‘Argia fits right in with the family’ (296).

Mourning Endless 85Against each other they claim to have stolen the body, she her brother’s, sheher husband’s, and by turns they prove their guilt. ‘I took the body’; ‘I lit thefire.’ ‘Affection drove me’; ‘Love drove me.’ They demand cruel punishmentand rejoice to put their hands in chains. Gone the mutual respect in theirexchanges, you might think it anger and hate ...What begins as a distinct voice, of Antigone and Argia separately takingpride in their deed in 457, is then merged into an indistinguishableuttering: ego corpus, ego ignes, me pietas, me amor.Thevoiceofthetwowomen becomes thus identical, as it is impossible to differentiate whoutters what. The two women’s demeanour, however, yields an imagedistinct from their previous demearour, as they quarrel once again.Argia, as her name reminds us of the peripheral city that launches theattack on Thebes, and Antigone, the famous sister of the Thebanhouse, 127 donotprovideaclosurefortheepic,wherethetwocitiesareultimately unified, and peace is imposed. The madness of war has nowpenetrated into the hearts of women, who compete as their male counterpartshave done in the previous books. This madness is sealed by thenarrator’s address to the reader with the apostrophe putes—inviting us tolook back to the beginning of the poem and the causes of the war. 128When the hostilities end with the intervention of an Athenianother, 129 the Argive women’s lament brings the poem to a127 As Hershkowitz (1998a), 296, observes, Antigone’s behaviour sharply contraststhat of Ismene, who is a weak figure and ‘stagnates into oblivion’. Antigone’s powerultimately lies in her appropriation of madness.128 Cf. Hardie (1993a), 45–6: ‘The effect of the pious labour of Argia and Antigoneis more akin to the criminal interference of Lucan’s Erichtho ...as the two women areseparated by their pious discord, they also dismember the identity of Polynices ...’129 Theseus’ intervention (from Soph. OC and Eur. Supp.; cf. Mills [1997]) hasbeen interpreted by some critics, e.g. Braund (1996), as a human deus ex machina,asthe good king (see also Vessey [1973], 307–16; Ripoll [1998], 446–51). Other criticspoint to the ambiguities in his portrayal; e.g. Feeney (1991), 362: ‘Theseus’ interventionhas a rushed, even perfunctory air ...the resolution generates a barren sense ofanticlimax: the human agents appear to be operating in a vacuum rather thanstanding proudly alone’; see also Ahl (1986), 2895–8; Dominik (1994a), 92–8;Hershkowitz (1998a), 268–71 and 296–301; Dietrich (1999), 43–5; Pollmann(2004), 37–43; Ganiban (2007), 207–32; McNelis (2007), 160–77; Bessone (2008)on a combination of exemplarity and pessimism in Theseus’ portrait. Most recently,Heslin (2008), 128, aptly observes that ‘Athens is not only a cosmopolitan model forRome to emulate, but also an imperial fate to beware.’

86 Motherhood and the Otherclose. 130 The poet again ponders the problematics of reconciliationbetween the two peoples, Thebans and Argives. A resolution, however,seems impossible. At the end of the epic, there is a clear dichotomybetween Theban and Argive women. Though both share losses andpain and both are assimilated to Bacchants, there exists a degree ofdifference between the two groups in terms of their otherness:gaudent matresque nurusqueOgygiae, qualis thyrso bellante subactusmollia laudabat iam marcidus orgia Ganges.ecce per aduersas Dircaei uerticis umbrasfemineus quatit astra fragor, matresque Pelasgaedecurrunt: quales Bacchea ad bella uocataeThyiades amentes, magnum quas poscere credasaut fecisse nefas; gaudent lamenta nouaequeexultant lacrimae; rapit huc, rapit impetus illuc,Thesea magnanimum quaerant prius, anne Creonta,anne suos: uidui ducunt ad corpora luctus. (12.786–96)The womenfolk of Thebes rejoiced, as once Ganges, subdued by Bacchicwands, praised unwarlike revels, already in liquor. See, over in the shades ofDirce’s height, a cry of women shakes the stars and the Pelasgian matrons arerunning down like mad Thyiads summoned to Bacchic wars; you mightthink they were demanding some great crime, or had committed one.Lamentations rejoice, new tears exult. Impulse sweeps them hither andthither—should they first seek great-hearted Theseus or Creon or theirloved ones? Widows’ mourning leads them to the corpses.The Ogygian-Theban mothers celebrate their liberation from Creon,the tyrant, as the river Ganges performs ritual celebration in honourof Dionysus’ conquest of India. 131 The Pelasgian-Argive wives, how-130 And I agree with Hardie (1997), 153, that Thebaid 12 offers many signs ofclosure. Cf. Pollmann (2004), 26–7, on the unendingness that nevertheless has aclosural effect.131 Keith (response to the panel ‘Cultural Constructions in Flavian Poetics,’Annual Meeting, APA 2004) sees an imagery of integration in the language ofcohesion between Theban and Athenian forces, as they stream onto the battlefieldand mingle with one another:accedunt utrimque pio uexilla tumultupermiscentque manus; medio iam foedera bello,iamque hospes Theseus; orant succedere murisdignarique domos. nec tecta hostilia uictoraspernatus init; ... (12.782–6)

Mourning Endless 87ever, mourn (amentes ...gaudent lamenta, novaeque exultant lacrimae,ducunt ...luctus), as Thyads who have committed or are aboutto commit nefas. 132 The Argive wives are assimilated to Bacchants,like the Lemnian women or the women of the Theban royal family,and their lament becomes almost unbearable for the poet to pronounce.133As the Argive other, the male threat, has been driven from the wallsof the city, and the miasma of the Theban tyrant is eclipsed, whatremains is to relegate the mothers and wives to the margins of thepoem, as the poet himself is ready to bring the boat of the Thebaid toharbour. Statius’ list of lamenting wives only encompasses the other,that is to say, the Argive women mourning their losses:non ego, centena si quis mea pectora laxet,uoce deus, tot busta simul uulgique ducumque,tot pariter gemitus dignis conatibus aequem:turbine quo sese caris instrauerit audaxignibus Euadne fulmenque in pectore magnoquaesierit; quo more iacens super oscula saeuicorporis infelix excuset Tydea coniunx;ut saeuos narret uigiles Argia sorori;Arcada, quo planctu genetrix Erymanthia clamet,Arcada, consumpto seruantem sanguine uultus,Arcada, quem geminae pariter fleuere cohortes.From both sides the banners meet in a pious tumult and they join hands; now in themidst of the battlefield, there are treaties, now Theseus is a guest. They beg him toenter the walls and deem their homes worth visiting. Not refusing the invitation, thevictor comes to the dwellings of his enemies.132 Pace Braund (1996), 5, who sees the collapse of boundaries as a specialemphasis on Theseus’ conciliatory power (‘the categories of friend and enemy havebeen erased’). Also a similar view in Hershkowitz (1994), 146 n.49; Franchet d’Espèrey (1999), 310–12; Delarue (2000), 240. This is the view already noticeable inLactantius (793 GAVDENT [LAMENTA] luctus mutantur in gaudia, a reading notsupported by the text, but followed by Pollmann [2004], 279; Statius emphasises thenovae lacrimae). Contra Newman (1975), 86: ‘cum iam non de pace audiamus, sedbella Bacchea sola nobis repraesententur.’133 Von Moisy (1971), 91, confesses inability to reconcile the use of nefas with thepietas of the Argive women which, he observes, Statius dismisses with the use ofcredas; therefore, the critic relegates the incongruity to the poet’s Kunst, by which noteverything can be interpreted logically.

88 Motherhood and the Otheruix nouus ista furor ueniensque implesset Apollo,et mea iam longo meruit ratis aequore portum. (12.797–809)Were some god to loose my breast in a hundred voices I could not inworthy effort do justice to so many pyres of captains and common folkalike, such a chorus of groaning: telling how Evadne boldly strewed herselfon beloved flames, seeking the thunderbolt in the mighty breast; in whatfashion Tydeus’ hapless wife excuses him as she lies over the savagecorpse’s kisses; how Argia tells her sister of the cruel sentinels; with whatlamentation the Erymanthian mother bewails the Arcadian, who keeps hisbeauty though his blood is spent, the Arcadian, for whom both armieswept alike. Hardly would a new frenzy and Apollo’s coming have dischargedthe task; and my bark in the wide ocean has already earned herharbour.Evadne at the end of the poem leaps into the flames and dies, thusachieving what Hypsipyle has not dared to do at the funeral pyre ofOpheltes, although Eurydice demands it (6.174–6). 134 Atalanta’splangent voice is meant to reverberate, as the toponymic Arcas clearlypoints to the diverse ethnicity of the Argives and their allies; theycome from outside the centre, from the Peloponnese. The two armiesjoin their laments for the boy, Parthenopaeus, the son of a motherwho is distinguished from the group by means of her echoingvoice. 135 Motherhood, not widowhood, is meant to reverberate inthe ears and lips of the reader in this last scene. At the end of thepoem, we face the impossibility of a solution to the civil war that hasshattered the lives of so many, resulting in endless lamentation and134 As in Euripides’ Suppliants 1034–71. See Feeney (1991), 363: ‘Evadnepersuades Theseus to bring about the dénouement, and her speech is the clearestexpression of the justice of humanity’s claim to vindication, yet she commitssuttee on the pyre of Capaneus, and has no part in the resolution which she helpedto instigate.’135 As Hardie (1993a), 48, eloquently puts it:Grief for the Arcadian (temporarily) monopolises the theatre of epic warfare. Thespending of his blood immobilises the boundary between boyhood and manhood(806) ...Paradoxically this most unstable of epic characters, the ‘girl-boy’, whose‘maiden-face’ ( ...Partheno-pai-os, Parthen-op-aios) is the sign of that waveringidentity, is ...privileged to remain true to that identity ...[D]efloration ...fixes forever the transient liminal state rather than affording a passage from virginity toadulthood.

Mourning Endless 89poetic powerlessness. 136 As Lovatt has pointed out in the Thebaid,lament is doubly unsatisfying as a means of closure, both because it isnot completed and because it has been shown to be ineffective. 137Similarly, McNelis concludes that ‘the poem offers an end to conflict,but not its consequences, and thus points out a gap between the grandnarratives of martial valour and heroism and more mundane storiesabout those who live non-heroic lives’. 138 As Argive women bewailtheir dead, and as Statius bids farewell to his book, the Thebaid, thepoem about Thebes, it becomes clear how the boundaries between thetwo cities have not been destabilised at all: Thebes remains the centre,whereas Argos is relegated to the periphery, where women can safelymourn for their dead, outside the male world of the poem. Theboundaries of epic are defined, as the poet will trespass into theterritory of elegy, should he pursue their woes further. 139The ‘mo(u)rning after’, 140 as it has been called, occurs in Thebes byArgive women. And yet these are women assimilated to frenziedBacchants. Bacchus the liberator and Bacchus the binder appears inboth guises in the above passage, Bacchus who conquers for theTheban women and Bacchus who defeats for the Argive mothers.The limits between the two groups are clearly marked, as there is no136 On the topos of hundred tongues, see Hinds (1998), 91–8, with a focus onStatius and ‘secondary epic’. Also Georgacopoulou (2005), 229–31. See Feeney(1991), 363, on Statius’ refusal to follow the resolution at the end of the Iliad butalso the divine oversight at the end of the Odyssey. On Statius’ confession of poeticpowerlessness at the end of the Siluae (5.3), see Augoustakis (2008b).137 Lovatt (1999), 146. Similarly, Dietrich (1999), 49, sees the marginalisation ofStatius’ voice at the end, inasmuch as it becomes aligned with the female voice oflament. Lesueur (2003b) interprets the ending of the Thebaid as feminine in the sensethat it is meant as a tribute to Statius’ wife Claudia (cf. longi sola laboris / conscia,cumque tuis creuit mea Thebais annis, ‘you alone know my long toil, and my Thebaidgrew with your years’, Silu. 3.5.35–6).138 McNelis (2007), 171.139 Fantham (1999), 232: ‘Lament has triumphed over heroics and put them toshame.’ By contrast, Bernstein (2008), 101–4, in what he calls ‘poetics of bereavement’,sees in lament the possibility of ‘constructing the relationships between parents,children, and spouses through reference to principles that contrast with earlier epic’(88), which is an alternative approach to intrafamilial dynamics. Cf. also Pollmann(2004), 47: ‘[Statius] envisages here a new type of epic concerned with the descriptionof the painful consequences of war and the part women could play therein.’140 Pagán (2000a).

90 Motherhood and the Otherinteraction between them. The Theban women will bury their dead,beseech Theseus, and rejoice with the final imposition of a superficialpeace. For the Argive women, lament and the impossibilitiesof poetry remain. 141 Limitations are renewed, since the poet willaddress his poem the Thebais, which is both grammatically feminineand ends with a feminine finale, by marking the centre once again asThebes, not as Argos (o mihi bissenos multum uigilata per annos /Thebai?, 12.811–12). 142 Thebes or Rome should rejoice with thepoetic activity. But what about Argos? What about non-Theban(non-Roman?) otherness? Whether pessimistic or optimistic, theending of the Thebaid, I submit, secures the crystallisation of spatialand sexual boundaries that inevitably shape identity. 143In this chapter, I have examined motherhood as the locus ofexpansion of otherhood. In a male world of heroic action, wherethe ŒºÝÆ IíäæHí has infected with nefas the terrain of Thebes, Nemea,and Argos, the presence of women is exploited by the poet to stressthe impasse faced at the end of the poem, where hierarchies arerebuilt: a new presence in Thebes can only temporarily guaranteepeace between the two peoples, whereas the Bacchic end of the poemprovides an image of alienation and retreat towards the semioticfrom the symbolic, and climaxes in professing poetic powerlessness.On the map of heroic verse narrative, same and other converge inthe last book, only to be sharply distinguished in the epilogue, whereforeignness becomes ‘the present in abeyance’. The retreat into thesemiotic, namely the utterance of Bacchic cries (Ismene in book 11,the Argive women in book 12) or complete silence (Hypsipyle’sekphrastic stillness in book 6) speak volumes for the relegation of141 For a more positive approach, see Masterson (2005), 313: ‘in this particularmoment of grief ...Statius figures the unavoidable presence of contingency, life, andlove in the company of the eternal, death, and hateful strife.’142 Henderson (1993), 188: ‘Not the Warrior display of arma virumque, but itsdisfiguration and displacement before the pain of Woman’s Bereavement.’ On thesphragis, see the Epilogue.143 Markus (2003), 467: ‘Statius refashions the traditional ideology of epic ...andturns it into a locus not of memory, but of lament.’ Hartmann (2004), 147, points tothe same practice used by Statius in both the proemium and the epilogue but viewsthe epilogue as ‘keineswegs depressiv und resignativ’.

Mourning Endless 91the female to the fringes of the epic landscape and the reinforcementof gender and generic boundaries. By contrast, as we shall see inthe Punica next, a progress from this deadlock is achieved throughthe idealisation of motherhood and its promotion to reflect and tosway authority over the masculine arma uirique and the shaping ofRomanness to encompass Otherness.

2Defining the Other: Fromaltera patriato tellus mater in Silius Italicus’ Punicaaltrix bellorum bellatorumque uirorumtellus nec fidens nudo sine fraudibus ensi.(Pun. 1.218–19)An earth nurse of wars and of warlike men, loyalto the naked sword and guile as well.From the outset of the Punica, as expected in a poem on the SecondPunic War, Silius meticulously distinguishes between the two partiesand their native qualities. The subject matter of the poem revolves,as the poet announces in the proemium, around the struggle betweenthe Romans and the Carthaginians for world domination (1.7–8and 14); while the Romans will come out of the conflict victorious,the Carthaginians are destined to be subdued and forced to endureRoman rule (Oenotria iura, 1.2). The Carthaginians, in particular,are defined by their trickery and perfidia, a topos exploited widelyin Latin literature: 1 the continent of Africa and its native people ingeneral share these same (inherent) qualities. 2 Thus the theatre ofthe war operations in the periphery, outside Rome, is defined as abelligerent and hostile ground, fiercely opposing the Roman forces.1 For instance, as early as in Plautus’ Poen. 112–13: dissimulat ...Poenus (‘the Carthaginianis lying’). See Thomas’s (2001) discussion of the stereotypical Punic perfidiaand Danesi Marioni (1989) on the episode of Tagus’ death in Pun. 1.144–81.2 Cf. Ripoll (2000b), 12: ‘Hannibal est une émanation de la terre africaine et uneexpression accomplie de sa nature profonde ...C’est bien cette Afrique mystérieuseet inquiétante, menaçante et fascinante ...qui est l’ennemie héreditaire et l’antagonisteprivilégiée delauirtus Romana.’

Defining the Other 93Indeed the geographical digressions, a well-established feature inGreek and Roman epic poetry, work to this effect. Silius does nothesitate to go into lengthy detail concerning the peculiaritiesof various cultures in everyday life and thereby underscores theirotherness. At the same time, however, the poet creates an image ofthe periphery as an idiosyncratic ‘body’, very different from Romansociety and culture, which is nevertheless going to be imposed on it. 3Many a time, the periphery of the future Roman Empire creates strife,while at the same time it proves contemptuous of any attempt atcivilisation. 4 In a word, outside the centre of Rome, there is a diverse,barbarian (from the Roman perspective) world, which Rome mustreform and civilise.The close relationship, therefore, that ties the protagonists of thispoem to their land, patria, comes as no surprise; this association alsoexplains the passion with which they fight so long for the safety of theirrespective patriae, whether Carthage or Rome. The development of apaternal connection with fatherland is corroborated by an elaborationon the relationship between fathers and sons, 5 as we shall see, since theformer recurrently impart to their offspring the required instructionon how to love, fight, and ultimately even sacrifice one’s life for thepatria: loaded with masculine connotations, the word patria is especiallyexploited in a ‘masculine’ genre, such as epic. The concept of3 For instance, see the list of Carthaginian allies in 3.222–414 (cf. Auverlot [1992]),the aetiological myths related to the crossing of the Pyrenees and the Alps, such as therape of Pyrene in 3.415–41 (cf. Bona [1995] and [1996], Asso [2001], Augoustakis[2003a] for further bibliographical references, and Ripoll [2006b]), or the catalogueof the Roman allies in 8.356–621 (cf. the discussion in Venini [1978], Spaltenstein[1991], McGuire [1995], and Marks (2005a), 123–5). On Silius’ geographic andethnographic interests, Nicol’s study (1936) remains invaluable (cf. also Bona[1998]); on the Flavian poet’s amalgamation of poetry and historiography, seeGibson (2010) and Pomeroy (2010).4 See, for example, the ìÜåÅ ðÆæÆðïôÜìØïò at the River Trebia in book 4, wherenature’s elements show determination to fight against the Romans, until Venus’capricious plea to Vulcan to intervene on Scipio’s behalf against the enraged rivercauses the destruction of nature and the reaction of the Nymphs (4.682–97); seeRipoll (2006a). For a study of natural phenomena in Silius, see Burck (1978) andMorzadec (2003); see Santini’s (1991), 43–113, treatment of rivers in the Punica andManolaraki (2010) on seascapes.5 For a discussion of the role of fathers and sons in Virgil’s Aeneid, see Hardie(1993a), 88–119 and Farrell (1999).

94 Motherhood and the Other‘fatherland’, however, also incorporates a complex nexus of implicationsconcerning categories, such as same vs other, male vs female.By establishing a generational link between fathers and sons, the poetstresses the resulting passionate attachment of the younger generationto their patria, even though many times such an association proves astumbling block towards the fulfilment of the epic telos.As we shall see in this chapter, the masculine rapport with one’spatria often discloses, on the Roman side, the lack of care for theRoman fatherland, since irrationality of battle decisions and the canvassingpractices of the Roman Forum lead to utter negligence forRome’s future, especially conspicuous in the early books of the Punica.Such failure on the Romans’ part reflects intimately a fissure in theconstruction of the semantic register for true Romanitas: infrontofthe other, the same loses its identity, an identity that must be rebuilt ina slow process, especially in the years before and immediately after thedestructive battle at Cannae. 6 Paradoxically, then, Hannibal embodiesthe very elements of what could make up ‘Romanness’: he is portrayedas the warrior who expands his empire by displaying characteristic lovefor his patria, respect and pietas towards his ancestors, unbridled uirtusin war; 7 in other words he is the incarnation of the future leader ofthe orbis and the urbs, an aspiration that becomes his ultimate goaland obsession. The Carthaginian general’s attachment to his patria,however, reveals a problematic relationship with the creatrix of theLibyan city, Dido, who appears in the poem as the proto-source ofthis war, the Urmutter, 8 not only as the first ancestor, but also as theCarthaginian mother figure par excellence, even though, again as inthe case of mothers in the Thebaid, Dido is presented as a displacedmother, an other, someone who longs to play the role of a mother but6 On the Roman defeats at the Ticinus, the Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae, early inthe Punica, see Niemann’s (1975) study.7 Cf. Bernstein (2008), 135: ‘Silius’ representation of the effects of Hannibal’sdevotion towards his ancestors on his leadership demonstrates the limitation of anotherwise laudable virtue.’8 The queen represents the city of Carthage, Hannibal’s native soil, and by extensionthe mother-earth, the primordial earth of Libya. I use the term Urmutter here topoint out the distance between Hannibal and his ancestress, as well as to underscorethe lack of a maternal presence in Hannibal’s formative years, a gap filled by Dido, aswe see throughout Punica 1.

Defining the Other 95actually never becomes one. 9 In Kristevan terms, Hannibal showsan extreme attachment to Dido, to the absent mother figure, whorepresents the chôra, the feminine space, where the same meets theother. But in the process, Hannibal becomes lost in an asymbolia, as hefinds himself in a new country and makes the ultimate mistake ofsubstituting his own patria, Carthage, with another patria, Italy(whether in Rome or in Capua). While Hannibal’s patria dependson him alone, he is portrayed as bemused until the end, while he tieshimself to the Italian tellus, a hostile ground, a hostile mother-earth,that eventually discharges him as an abject: Hannibal in the end is themisplaced foreigner, the other, pre-emptively doomed to wanderaround the globe, until he dies in Asia Minor.At the same time, however, we observe a complex process wherebythe other strives to find its identity by becoming assimilated, while thesame, the centre of action, displays a remarkable scarcity of potentialleaders: the Roman generals are mere protagonists in this or the otherdefeat, Flaminius in Trasimene or Varro at Cannae, for instance. Evenpotent men, such as Fabius, Paulus, or Marcellus, do not rise to thestature of the man who will save Roman affairs from defeat and disaster.Such collapse of Roman identity is situated also outside the centre, incities that reflect the same, the Roman, like Capua or Saguntum. Bothhybrid cities sever their ties with the ‘metropolis’, the urbs, and createan ambience of alienation that is pervasive throughout, until Scipio’semergence in Roman politics.As we shall see in the second part of this chapter, Saguntumbecomes a case study in our examination of Romanness and non-Roman otherness. From fathers/sons and the problematisation of theirrelationship to patria, we shall move on to examine the mini-epic onSaguntum, which is centred around transgressive women and thedissolving of the bonding ties with Rome, the fatherland. Asbyte, anAfrican Amazon, with a vociferous silence emerges as an example ofKristeva’s asymbolic semiotic chôra. Marginalised and abject, Asbyte isdecapitated by Theron and thus is converted into the hunted victim,9 See Dido’s expressed wish in Aen. 4.327–30, replayed by Ovid in Her. 7.133–8.Dietrich (2004) correctly points out that the Flavian poets exploit the question ofAeneas’ ‘marriage’ to Dido in the Aeneid as an actual wedding, by calling Aeneas hermaritus.

96 Motherhood and the Otherwhose masculine otherness is beheaded and burned: though excisedfrom the text, Asbyte sets in motion the action of a series of Amazonianwomen in the second book, culminating in the mass suicide ofthe Saguntine population. The episode, I submit, is built around twofires, the funeral pyre of silenced Asbyte and the big fire lit by theSaguntines in order to burn their heirlooms and thus silence their tieswith Rome.As Silius stresses, Saguntum, the Graeco-Roman city in the periphery,traces its foundations back to the Greeks (Zacynthians) andRomans (Rutulians). What we witness, however, is the Saguntines’effort to delete their identity by burning every reminder of theirformer self. Saguntum expunges her association with the Romanstate, while Rome herself is conspicuously absent from Saguntum’sordeal. The women’s Bacchic voice of horror, lamentation, and crimereminds us of Hypsipyle and the Lemnian women, or the lamentingArgive women at the end of the Thebaid, as the cosmos of the Punicais threatened by the same chaotic powers that pervade the nefariousworld of Statius’ epic landscape. Here the women’s asymbolic, andyet autonomous, status acutely interrogates what true Romannessbetokens: while it is found lacking in the centre, Romanness may besituated in the margins. Tiburna and her Saguntine companions arein truth silent; their voice is not their own but instead on loan fromthe Fury, Tisiphone. Just as Saguntum becomes a monument of fidesfor future generations, so does the act of her people obliterate anytraces of what is tantamount to their former identity. The Romansought to search for the signification of Romanitas 10 and abandontheir inertia: the need for a new spin in the Roman centre, a new‘political subject’ based on the asymbolia and autonomy of ‘the otherin ourselves’, according to Kristeva, 11 conspicuously emerges as a veryimportant issue in the first decade of the poem.But in book 8, we shall come across another instance of a misplacedsearch for the antiqua patria, since Anna Perenna’s status as10 On the notion that Romans have to learn through suffering, see Marks (2005b)and (2006). Marks (2005b) sees, for instance, the deaths of leaders, such as Flaminiusand Paulus, as acts of deuotio, a position that I do not espouse, since I do not see howthe actions of demagogues, like Flaminius, correspond to the models of legendarydeuotio, such as the Decii. Contra see also Cowan (2007b), 25–7.11 See Sjöholm (2005), 59–86.

Defining the Other 97simultaneously Roman and non-Roman underlies her presence inthe middle of the poem. While Anna is fully acculturated to theRoman landscape, Juno abuses her as a pro-Carthaginian instrument,exploiting the Italian goddess’s longing for her old country.The exiled Anna, a foreigner with a subversive autonomy, irresolutelyvacillates between both identities.Nevertheless, as we shall see at the end of this chapter, the appearanceof Tellus in book 15 reflects a tremendous transformation of themasculine role of patria in the poem, from the often failed relationshipbetween fathers and sons, to an integrated link between motherearthand the male warrior, who now draws from the very masculinepower of his motherland to face the enemy and return victorious.As the personified image of Tellus urges Claudius Nero to challengeHasdrubal at the Metaurus, the mother-earth Italian goddess reincarnatesand resurrects the female space, the chôra, the safe receptacle wheresame and other merge. The female goddess inspires the male warrior toconquer Hannibal’s brother and thus overturn the course of the war, tothe detriment of the Carthaginians. The imagery of a wounded motherearth,however, mirrors the everlasting effects that the Carthaginianother has left on Italian soil. Even at Hannibal’s departure, as we shallsee at the end of this chapter, a clear dichotomy between effeminateCarthaginians and masculine Romans is eschewed in favour of an imageof patria absorbed and influenced by Tellus, as the latter displays anovert androcentrism and commitment to the masculine goals of herprotégés.FATHERS, SONS, AND THE POETICS OF PATRIALet us begin by looking at the following pairs of fathers and sons as anillustration of the dynamic, triangular relationship among parents,their children, and patria. In the very beginning of the Punica, thereader comes across young Hannibal’s training by his father in Carthage(1.70–139). 12 In Dido’s temple, filled with the imagines of his Tyrian12 Cf. Liv. 21.1 and V. Max. 9.3.ext.3.

98 Motherhood and the Otherancestors, the future Carthaginian general is exposed both to his pastand to his future by learning how to cultivate an eternal hatred towardsthe Romans:ut fari primamque datum distinguere linguaHannibali uocem, sollers nutrire furores,Romanum seuit puerili in pectore bellum. (1.78–80)As soon as Hannibal could speak and utter his first comprehensible words,knowing how to feed angry passions, [the father] sowed war with Rome inthe child’s heart.Here the father assumes a role normally ascribed to one’s mother.Hannibal’s separation, however, from the semiotic chôra of the wombgives rise to a symbolic genotext that reproduces the father’s slynature, from the formative moment when Hannibal moves fromthe semiotic to the symbolic, in a transition from the genotext tothe phenotext, which however is marked as failed: the genotext of thebaby boy’s first utterances does not result in a phenotext of grammaticaland syntactical structures but is rather relegated to the bewilderingdomain of furor and bellum, madness and war cries. The sacredtemple with the effigies of Hannibal’s ancestors, tracing their genealogyback to Phoenix, constitutes the very place where the boyacquires the first hints of his future identity and destiny. 13 Thissame legacy, as we shall see in chapter 4, Hannibal will try to leave13 On the proleptic and analeptic function of this ekphrasis, see Harrison (2010).On this episode, see Küppers (1986), 73–92; Bernstein (2008), 136–9; Ganiban(2010); and Keith (2010). When the sacerdos in the Carthaginian temple of Didoprophesies Hannibal’s future, Juno stops the priestess from telling the whole story(1.137–9). Kissel (1979), 36–7, sees in Juno’s reaction the need to thicken the plot andconsiders Hannibal himself responsible: ‘Hannibal ist der Tat von Anfang an zumScheitern verurteilt, doch liegt keine Tragik im engeren Sinn beschlossen, wohl abereine Schuld: Schuld is Hannibals Wesen, das ihn zum Opfer Junos werden läßt.’ Forthe gods as subjects to fate see Kissel (1979), 78–85. Von Albrecht (1964), 48, correctlynotices that Juno is aware of Hannibal’s failure from the beginning onwards: ‘Es isvon Anfang an gesagt, daß er scheitern wird.’ See also Laudizi (1989), 82 and 84, andGaniban (2010), who argues for Hannibal’s tragic heroism.Consider also the following episodes in which the revelation of the whole truth isprevented: in 3.204–13 Mercury does not foreclose to Hannibal future events beyondthe crossing of the Alps; in 3.700–712, Hammon does not prophesy the Carthaginiandefeat; and in 4.122–30, Bogus’ interpretation of the omen of the hawk and the eagleis false ceu suadente deo (‘as though a god were urging him on’, 4.135).

Defining the Other 99behind for his baby son to carry out, to no avail, however, since thereis no continuity in store for the family of the Carthaginian general.What strikes the reader in this scene, however, is Hannibal’s attachmentto Dido, the Carthaginian Urmutter, whom in a staggeringmanner, Silius calls genetrix, emphasising at the same time herCarthaginian name as Elissa, not Dido (1.81). 14 Dido takes up therole of a substitute mother for young Hannibal: she sets this poem inmotion by means of her curse in Aeneid 4, in the footsteps of whichSilius follows, by establishing his narrative as the continuation of theVirgilian epic. The queen of Carthage, however, constitutes a perplexingexample, a mother who never experiences motherhood. Sucha displaced relationship between Hannibal and his genetrix situatesthe Carthaginian hero in the middle of a chaotic whirlpool: in hisquest for the lost female, motherly space, he will strive to replace hiscountry with another, in an eternal, vicious circle. In fact, the positionof the young boy in the temple is open to a reading of theeffeminisation of Hannibal from the very outset: the poet frames thisepisode in the parameter of Jupiter’s speech to Venus in Aeneid1 (223–96), the talk of a father to his daughter. By introducing thefather’s talk by the phrase olli permulcens genitor caput oscula libat(‘by caressing the boy’s head, the father kisses him’, Pun. 1.104), Siliusinvokes the intertext of Aen. 1.254 and 256 (olli surbridens ...osculalibauit), as well as the context of the first simile in Aen. 1.153, wherethe verb mulcet is used. 15In this context of a false mother figure, represented by Dido,Hamilcar instructs his son how to defend his patria (Pun. 1.108)and how to remove the stain of the First Punic War, by annihilatingthe very process of motherhood for the Romans: partusque recusent /te surgente, puer, Latiae producere matres (‘and at your rise, letthe Roman mothers refuse to produce offspring’, 1.111–12). This14 On the names Elissa and Dido, see Pease (1935), 300. As Spaltenstein (1986), 17,observes, Silius uses the noun genetrix instead of conditor urbis (cf. Ov. Met. 15.862–3,genitor Quirine / urbis).15 Keith (2009), 362 observes:By emphasising the Eastern origins of Dido and her Carthaginians in his ekphrasis ofthe temple, Silius assimilates the historical figure of Hannibal to the plane of classical(Virgilian) myth and marks him from the start as the feminised loser in a renewedstruggle between Phoenician East and Roman West.

100 Motherhood and the Othercancellation of motherhood underscores sharply the existent dichotomyin the figure of Hannibal, who is the protector of his patria butalso the person who eradicates motherhood at its inception. In thissense, Hannibal embodies the other, the foreign, alien, effeminateEast, which Hesperia, the West, will try to absorb and reject at thesame time. As Bernstein perceptively observes ‘in his [Hannibal’s]mind, his personal obligation to avenge his ancestors supersedes hiscivic responsibilities. Interest in the welfare of Carthage never providesan equal stimulus for his leadership.’ 16 Too quickly Hannibalforgets his patria, as if he were an alien to his own land, an alien in a‘foreign’ narrative.As the poem progresses, Hannibal finds solace for his confusedand misplaced feelings towards his patria by adopting other cities ashis home. The Capuans’ desidia makes their city another Rome, onthe fringes of Rome, where vices only showcase the city’s decadenceand inevitable doom, an accurate portrait of Rome herself in the firstyears of the war as well. When Hannibal enters Capua and looksaround, we are in fact reminded of Rome (11.262–6). Capua thenbecomes a substitute for the urbs, where Hannibal gives in and enjoysthe allurements the city has to offer. As reported by Proteus inbook 7, Venus intervenes to soften the Carthaginians’ hearts for thefirst time, an indication of their upcoming and final defeat inbook 17. Hannibal succumbs to the magnetism of the city, as hisvision becomes blurred, in a Bacchic manner, resembling Pentheus.He thinks that this is altera ...patria .../ altera Carthago (‘anotherfatherland, another Carthage’, 11.424–5). 17 This disorientation, however,is crucial, because this is not another Carthage, but anotherRome, conquering Hannibal for the first time. Hannibal is absorbedby that very desidia, which for so long has been destroying theRomans themselves. The mistake of the Carthaginians lies in theirtransplantation into the wrong fatherland, as their military prowessbecomes loose, sluggish, and therefore more vulnerable (cf. torpentiamembra fluebant, ‘their sluggish limbs were loosening up’, 12.19). 1816 Bernstein (2008), 138.17 On Hannibal in Capua, see Bettenworth (2004), 338–9418 It is not coincidental that Teuthras, from Euboean Cyme, entertains the Carthaginianguests with a cosmogony song (11.288–97), tracing the Capuan ancestry back

Defining the Other 101When Hannibal exhorts his soldiers to active battle in the beginningof book 13, by summoning the personified image of Carthago, thesoldiers’ own patria, his words sound futile, since the soldiers havenow come upon another patria:si nunc exsisteret almaCarthago ante oculos turrita celsa figura,quas abitus, miles, causas illaese dedisses?‘imbres, o patria, et mixtos cum grandine nimboset tonitrus fugio.’ procul hanc expellite gentisfemineam Tyriae labem ... (13.12–17)If now our mother Carthage rose up before our eyes, her high head crownedwith towers, what excuse would you give, soldier, for your retreat? ‘Ofatherland, I flee the rain, the storms mixed with hail, and the thunders.’Drive away from the Tyrian race this effeminate weakness ...By summoning the turrita figura patriae, 19 the feminine personificationof his fatherland, Carthage, Hannibal deludes himself intothinking that he has delivered the best rhetorical battle harangueever. And yet he unconsciously undercuts its effect by alluding to thefeminea labes, that is, flight from the battle, which they have justcommitted: they fled away from Rome’s walls at the end of book 12,nor will they ever come near the city again. This failure on Hannibal’spart mirrors his limitations in connecting with the motherly space ofhis own patria, the lack of the appropriate mother figure: mothersinstruct their sons and secure generational continuity by fosteringin time, in the family of Capys, whose descent goes back to Jupiter himself and directlylinks him to the Trojans (Dardanus, Tros, and Ilus). Also, Teuthras’ second song isagain concerned with Rome (11.440–80): he sings of those uates who are celebrated inRoman, Flavian epic poems, such as Amphion and Arion, the ancestors of Thebes;Chiron and Achilles; Orpheus and the Argonauts. Therefore, Hannibal is conqueredby Roman civilisation, by Roman (imperial epic) poetry, as Teuthras’ song bends hisuncivilised heart (pectora Castalio frangebat carmine Teuthras, ‘Teuthras was breakingtheir hearts with his Castalian song’, 11.482). Teuthras’ Orphic song has a magical,alluring tone, enticing Hannibal through Venus’ help and Bacchus’ potion. OnTeuthras’ songs see Schenk (1989); Bettenworth (2004), 361–71; and Manolaraki(2010).19 For the image of fatherland summoned as a rhetorical device, cf. Cicero’s Catil.1.24 and Luc. 1.188 turrigero uertice (Rome appearing to Julius Caesar); see Spaltenstein(1990), 205.

102 Motherhood and the Otherthe bond between male and female, same and other, whereas Hannibalis doomed to remain the other, attached to the wrong tellus,asweshall see at the end of this chapter.The Carthaginian’s ultimate failure to protect his patria effectivelyis stressed throughout the poem. Consider, for instance, Hannon’scritique of the Hannibalic War in book 2, when he questions theoutcome of Hannibal’s enterprises: quo ruis et patriae exitio tibinomina quaeris? (‘Where are you heading? Why do you seek a famefor yourself to the detriment of your fatherland?’ 2.311). In hismisguided judgment, Hannibal remains the only hope for his patriauntil the very end, as he claims in book 17: ‘nunc patriae decus etpatriae nunc Hannibal unus / subsidium, nunc in nostra spes ultimadextra’ (‘Hannibal is now the glory and only refuge of his country,now in our right hand lies the last hope ...’, 17.197–8). In his prebattleharangue at Zama, the Carthaginian comes to the realisationthat there is no more room for substitutions, that his patria iscollapsing:diuum ipse fauoreuincendoque senex patriam post trina labantemlustra et non uisos tam longa aetate penatesac natum et fidae iam pridem coniugis oraconfisus uobis repeto. non altera restatiam Libyae nec Dardaniis pugna altera restat. (17.331–6)I myself, favoured by the gods and by conquering, an old man now, afterfifteen years return to my collapsing country and my household gods, whom Ihave not seen for such a long time, and to my son and my ever loyal wife,relying upon you. No other fight is left now for Libya or the sons of Dardanus.Hannibal knows this is the last battle: the litotes non altera ...pugnaand the juxtaposition of the two countries, Libya and Italy, accentuatethe cancellation of the Carthaginian’s futile efforts to find anothercountry, another home, another land in Carthage’s stead. His ownpatria is on the verge of breaking up (labantem), and Hannibal is calledto her aid.Hannibal’s substitution of his patria, however, is not limited inthe Carthaginians’ imperialistic plans to extend their empire andtherefore absorb other patriae into their own. It extends to theRoman camp also. Varro, for example, represents the Roman military

Defining the Other 103leadership at its nadir. 20 As Silius stresses in the speech given byPaulus (Varro’s colleague in the consulship) before the battle atCannae, in Varro’s case boundaries and identities are completelyblurred; Varro could have been a consul in Carthage, without anydifference! So much does his policy help the enemy: consul datusalter, opinor, / Ausoniae est, alter Poenis (‘of the two consuls, one hasbeen given to Italy, I believe, the other to the Carthaginians’, 8.332–3).After the complete destruction of the Roman army at Cannae, whilethe threatening Hannibal is looming ad portas, at Canusium Metellussuggests that the Romans should leave Italy, in search of anothercountry, where no Carthaginians can penetrate: 21is mala bellopectora degeneremque manum ad deformia agebatconsulta atque alio positas spectabat in orbe,quis sese occulerent, terras, quo nomina nullaPoenorum aut patriae penetraret fama relictae. (10.421–5)He was leading a band of degenerate men, their spirits bent because of thewar, toward shameful plans, as he was contemplating lands in another partof the world, in which they could hide themselves, where neither the namesof the Carthaginians nor the rumour of their abandoned fatherland couldpenetrate.Scipio puts a stop to Metellus’ disastrous solution of creating anotherpatria, a cheap imitation of Rome, a hiding place that could possiblysecure their everlasting safety. In his prayer, Scipio invokes theCapitoline Triad (even hostile Juno, nondum / Iliacis mutata malis,‘not yet softened by the Trojans’ sufferings’, 10.433–4); he bids theRomans to swear never to forsake their country and therefore theiridentity. The Romans respond by remaining steadfast to their resolutionto protect their patria (obstringunt animas patriae, ‘they pledgetheir lives to their country’, 10.447).The Romans’ reconnection to their patria, however, and consequentlytheir reclaiming of a hurt identity proves a lengthy process,subject to a faltering relationship between fathers, sons, and their20 On demagogues like Varro and Flaminius, see Ariemma (2010).21 Cf. Liv. 22.53.4–13. The episode is discussed extensively in Cowan (2007b).

104 Motherhood and the Otherfatherland. Consider, for instance, Marcellus’ death in Apulia, inbook 15, a demise closely associated with Marcellus’ son and theattempttoinstructthelatteraboutwar. 22 Marcellus’ son is tooyoung during the siege of Syracuse, when his father is at the peakof his military career (as immortalised in book 14 of the Punica):Marcellus, ut armaaptantem natum adspexit laetumque tumultu‘uincis’ ait ‘nostros mirando ardore uigores.sit praematurus felix labor. urbe Sicanaqualem te uidi, nondum permitteret aetascum tibi bella, meo tractantem proelia uultu!huc, decus, huc, nostrum, lateri te iunge paternoet me disce nouum Martem temptare magistro.’ (15.353–60)When he saw his son fitting on his armour and enjoying the preparations forbattle, Marcellus said: ‘By your amazing zeal, you conquer our own strength.May your youthful toil be successful! How I admired you in the Sicilian city,when, since your age would not yet allow you to fight, you tried the armsobserving my own countenance! Here, this way, pride of my heart, attachyourself to your father’s side and with me as your teacher, learn how tomanage war, a situation new to you.’The phrase disce Martem alludes to Aeneas’ similar apostrophe toAscanius in Aen. 12.435, disce uirtutem. 23 Despite Marcellus’ effortsto educate his son in war, however, his own rashness accounts for thecoming destruction:...ni telum aduersos nati uenisset in artus.tum patriae tremuere manus, laxataque luctufluxerunt rigidis arma infelicia palmis.obuia nudatum tramittit lancea pectus,labensque impresso signauit gramina mento. (15.376–80)22 See Spaltenstein (1990), 365–6. Livy mentions this son as a military tribune in27.26.12, which makes Silius’ choice of rejuvenating the general’s son a uniquereconstruction of events and an exploitation of the father and son relationship. ForSilius’ reworking of the Livian account, see Burck (1984b), 60–68, and Fucecchi(2010); on Marcellus’ comparison to Fabius, in particular, see Fucecchi (2010).23 Cf. Groesst (1887), 26. See also Burck (1984b), 65–6, for similarities withMezentius and Lausus in Aen. 10.

Defining the Other 105...except that a spear had struck his son’s body in the front. Then thefather’s hands trembled, and his ill-starred weapons, loosened by his grief,fell from his stiffened hands. A lance came and pierced through his unprotectedchest, and while falling he marked the grass with the imprint of hischin. 24Marcellus’ paternal authority brings about one of the last disastersthe Romans face in the poem, because of the general’s haste to giveup life: his son is only hurt, 25 but the crestfallen father believes heis dead and therefore surrenders to the commands of the Fates.His alignment with Daedalus’ mythological example underscores,I believe, the connection between Marcellus and the exiled architect,who seeks a new home in Italy and a new identity, but alsothe mythical hero’s failure to represent his family’s disaster on theekphrastic level. Silius portrays Marcellus leaving his imprint onthe grass, a memorial of the father’s failure, by using the verbsignare (OLD, s.v.signo 6), which in turn alludes to the creationof a piece of art and therefore to ekphrastic descriptions.Let us now look at the next pair, of a son worthy of a better father,Hampsagoras and Hostus, in book 12. When Hampsagoras invitesthe Carthaginians to start afresh the campaign in Sardinia, 26 the poetgoes into detail about his Trojan descent, which the degenerateHampsagoras has besmirched:namque ortum Iliaca iactans ab origine nomenin bella Hampsagoras Tyrios renouata uocarat.proles pulchra uiro nec tali digna parenteHostus erat. cuius fretus fulgente iuuentaipse asper paci crudos sine uiribus annosbarbarici studio ritus refouebat in armis. (12.344–9)For, haughty of his name from Trojan origin, Hampsagoras had invited theCarthaginians to renew the war. He had a beautiful son, Hostus, not worthyof such a parent. Hampsagoras was relying on his son’s youthful vigour,since he was harsh to peace and with devotion to barbarous customs he wasrejuvenating his feeble and powerless old age in wars.24 See Burck (1981b), 464, on Marcellus’ burial by Hannibal.25 See Spaltenstein (1990), 367, and Liv. 27.27.7.26 Cf. Liv. 23.34.10 and 23.40.1.

106 Motherhood and the OtherThe insistence on the barbarici studio ritus (12.349) assimilates theTrojan Hampsagoras to the barbaric rituals of the Carthaginians. 27After Hostus is killed by Ennius the poet, Hampsagoras pierces hisown chest with a spear, uttering a groan barbaricum atque immane(‘barbaric and hideous’, 12.418). 28 He fails to live by the rules of hisancestors, and thus to choose the right alliance, that with Rome. Enniuskills Hostus, who becomes a hostia, a sacrifice to compensate for hisfather’s folly (ultrix ...harundo, ‘the avenging spear’, 12.414). 29 Enniusis the chosen poet to sing first of the Roman wars in verse, as Apollohimself proclaims (hic canet illustri primus bella Itala uersu, ‘he will singfirst the Italian wars, in his famous verses’, 12.410). Thus Silius crownswith the laurels of martial victory and poetic achievement his literarypredecessor and poet-father, a foil to the failing pair of father and son,as portrayed in the case of Hampsagoras and Hostus, 30 but also anaffirmation of Silius’ allegiance to his own patria.Conversely, on the Roman side, no general until Scipio is exposedto a profound experience of learning and integrating one’s past,in search of one’s true identity and mission. 31 As we shall see,27 Compare, for instance, Hannibal’s killing of Crista and his six sons in 10.134–69.Crista is compared to a she-eagle, who trains her babies to look directly to the sun, whilehis sons are like puppies, who have not yet been trained for hunting. Hannibal beheadsthe middle son, Vesulus, an act apostrophised by the poet as barbara uirtus (10.146).28 Cf. Luc. 1.450, barbaricos ritus, for the Druidae; see also in Pun. 16.19–20, totdissona lingua / agmina, barbarico tot discordantia ritu (‘army so diverse in languageand so different in terms of barbaric custom’), for Hannibal’s army.29 On the presence of Ennius as a historical figure here and his influence on thePunica in general, see Sechi (1947); Pinto (1953); Bettini (1977); Runchina (1982);Matier (1991); Deremetz (2004), 23–4; Casali (2006); Manuwald (2007), 74–82; andDorfbauer (2008).30 See Hardie (1993a), 88–119, for the father and son imagery in terms of literaryinfluence.31 We learn, for instance, about Fabius’ past in various places in the poem (2.3–6,6.627–40, 7.34–68, as Cilnius narrates the story to Hannibal). In effect, Hannibalbecomes the privileged ‘student and reader’ of the Roman historical past, as he learnsfrom several Romans, for instance, about Cloelia (10.476–502; see chapter 4, (223–5)and the Palladium (13.30–81); cf. also his tour of the Phlegraean fields in book 12(see Muecke [2007]). The story of the Palladium foreshadows the coming of theMagna Mater in book 17, as the image constitutes the token of reconciliation betweentwo people, Diomedes (Daunians) and Aeneas (Trojans). On genealogies in Flavianepic, see A. Barchiesi (2001a); on the story of the Palladium see Ripoll (2001b).Fucecchi (2005) considers these stories as a dynamic intervention of the Roman past

Defining the Other 107Scipio’s true identity is revealed to him in the Underworld, whenhe learns from his mother that he is the son of Jupiter and thechosen general to beat the Carthaginian other. 32 As early as book 4,Scipio has the opportunity to save his father from a spear wound,but he is completely overcome by emotion and is on the verge ofcommitting suicide. 33 Though this intervention is brought about byJupiter’s and Mars’ mediation, Scipio himself attempts to commitsuicide before his father twice by turning the sword against his ownbody: 34hic puer ut patrio defixum corpore telumconspexit, maduere genae, subitoque trementemcorripuit pallor, gemitumque ad sidera rupit.bis conatus erat praecurrere fata parentisconuersa in semet dextra, bis transtulit irasin Poenos Mauors. (4.454–9)When the boy saw the spear lodged in his father’s body, tears wetted hischeeks, and suddenly he trembled, becoming pale, and he let out a loudgroan to the stars. Twice he had tried to die before his parent by turning hisright hand against his own self, twice did Mars turn his fury against theCarthaginians.What begins as madness is transformed into the slaughter of theenemy, whereby Scipio presents his father with ante oculos ...optatapiacula (4.465). 35 Unlike the pair we have seen, such as Marcellus andhis son or Hampsagoras and Hostus, or, as we shall examine inCapua, Pacuvius and his son, or the tragedies of fathers dying within the narrative (through exemplarity) that puts a stop to Hannibal’s threateningadvances against the city itself.32 See chapter 4 (213–21). Regulus’ close connection with his patria provesproblematic in the digression of book 6, as we shall see in chapter 3.33 Liv. 21.46.7, Plb. 10.3.3, V. Max. 5.4.2. See Ripoll (1998), 282–5; cf. Marks’(2005a), 115–22, discussion of the episode and the intertextual allusions to Homer,Virgil, and Ovid. Marks, however, does not discuss the episode in the context offathers and sons in the poem.34 On this episode, see Marks (2005a), 115–23.35 This constitutes a reversal of Virgilian imagery: the phrase bis conatus erat alludesto Daedalus’ failure to depict Icarus’ death in Aen. 6.32–3, where a father has survivedhis son; whereas Scipio’s victories (sacrificial victims) ante oculos patris, reverses theVirgilian ante ora patrum, those who died before their fathers’ eyes, in Aen. 1.95.

108 Motherhood and the Othertheir children (in books 2 and 9), 36 Scipio succeeds in saving hisfather, prefiguring the rescue of his patria at the end of the war:tum celso e curru Mauors ‘Carthaginis arcesexscindes’ inquit ‘Tyriosque ad foedera coges.nulla tamen longo tanta exorietur in aeuolux tibi, care puer. macte, o macte indole sacra,uera Iouis proles. et adhuc maiora supersunt,sed nequeunt meliora dari.’ (4.472–7)Then from his high chariot Mars said: ‘You will sack the citadel of Carthageand will force the Tyrians to a peace treaty. But no other such great day willrise for you in your life, dear boy. Honoured, honoured you are with yoursacred talent, true son of Jove. And greater things still await you, but nobetter things can be given to you.’The poet, however, delays the discovery of Scipio’s true identity, untilthe hero meets his mother, Pomponia, in the Underworld (book 13),though Mars here hastens to recognise the general’s parentage byJove. As we will see, Scipio’s reunion with his mother precedes hismeeting with his father in the Underworld (13.663–86), a significantshift of focus from fathers to mothers. Nevertheless, from the beginningof Scipio’s involvement in battles, in book 4, a close relationshipis being established between his earthly father and their patria. Andthis pair of father and son constitutes the example par excellence inthe poem. And yet, Scipio, the saviour of this country, is also subjectto the rash decisions in store for the patria in the years after theSecond Punic War, when the Romans will exile Scipio in 187 bce.Infact, when the Sibyl foresees this development, she stresses the wordspatria and urbs: ‘pudet urbis iniquae / quod post haec decus hocpatriaque domoque carebit’ (‘I am ashamed of the unfair city, sinceafter these events, this glory [i.e. Scipio] will be deprived of hiscountry and his home’, 13.514–15). Within Silius’ idealised visionof the Second Punic War as the most successful moment in Roman36 See below on Mopsus and his sons. For Satricus’ story in book 9, see Bruère(1959), 229–32; Beaty (1960), 12, 59, 104; Niemann (1975), 174–7; Hardie (1993b),67–8; Mezzanotte (1995), 362–3, Fucecchi (1999), Dominik (2006), 124–5 (withreference to Tac. Hist. 3.25; cf. also Burck [1971]).

Defining the Other 109affairs, we get a glimpse of Rome’s eventual decline and fall, as herchildren turn against one other or as the patria becomes increasinglyungrateful and ‘kills’ her own offspring.CAPUA: ANOTHER ROME? A CITYIN THE PERIPHERYIn book 11, Perolla (who remains anonymous in Silius), the son ofthe Capuan Pacuvius, proves braver than his own father (Pacuuiogenitus patrias damnauerat artes, ‘the son of Pacuvius had spurnedhis father’s intrigues’, 11.311), as he conceives of a plan to killHannibal in Capua (11.303–68). 37 The aged father stalls this projectby offering himself to be killed instead of Hannibal and thusprotects his son from the ensuing havoc. Silius apostrophises theyouth in the beginning of the section, praising him for his initiative(11.304–6). 38 Although the father’s initial plea cannot ultimatelystop the impetuous young man from pursuing his undertaking, thefinal gesture of the aged man toward his abdomen succeeds inpersuading Perolla:per si quid superest uitae, per iura parentisperque tuam nostra potiorem, nate, salutem,absiste inceptis, oro, ne sanguine cernampolluta hospitia ac tabo repleta cruentopocula et euersas pugnae certamine mensas ...hoc iugulo dextram explora. namque haec tibi ferrum,si Poenum inuasisse paras, per uiscera ferrumnostra est ducendum. tardam ne sperne senectam. (11.332–6, 356–8)In the name of my remaining life, of the rights of a father, and of your ownsafety, son, which is more important than mine, abandon your undertaking,I beg you. Let me not see hospitality defiled by blood or see cups filled withbloody gore or tables be overturned by the contest of battle ...Try your right37 Cf. Liv. 23.8–9. For the Pacuvius episode, see Burck (1984a), 18–21; Bettenworth(2004), 375–92; Bernstein (2008), 145–50.38 The phrase magnae indolis (‘of a great character’) in 11.306 echoes Mars’ apostropheto Scipio, macte, o macte indole sacra (4.475), an allusion to Virgil’s Aen. 9.641.

110 Motherhood and the Otherhand on this neck. For, if you intend to kill the Carthaginian, you must driveyour sword through this stomach, through my stomach. Do not despise myslow old age.In this case, the son’s determination falls short of its intended target,since the Fates have commanded otherwise. Pacuvius’ feminine modeof persuasion, reminiscent of Jocasta’s futile effort in Thebaid 11, 39 aswe saw in chapter 1, accentuates the father’s liminality and his alienationfrom his own patria, as he dissuades his son from a heroic deedthat is perceived by the authorial voice as a step towards the rightdirection, that is Capua’s return to the maternal space of motherRome. Such an act, however, would have countered the epic’s scopeand telos and invites Silius’ ‘intervention’ to re-establish the boundaries:Hannibal has to be conquered by Scipio’s, a true Roman’s, ownhand, not by a Capuan, a man perceived as an externus:et magni superum cura seruatus in armaScipiadae Poenus, nec tantum fata dederuntexterna peragi dextra. pulcherrimus iraeet dignus fieri compos memorabilis ausi,amisit quantam posito conamine laudem,cui tantum est uoluisse decus! (11.361–6)And by the Providence of the gods, the Carthaginian was preserved for thearms of Great Scipio; nor did the Fates allow that such a great accomplishmentbe performed by a foreign hand. The young man was most beautifulin his anger and worthy of accomplishing his memorable daring. Howmuch fame did he, who wished such a glorious deed, lose by abandoninghis plan!The episode between the brave young man and his father invites us tolook at Capua closely, a city that becomes infamous for her perfidiatowards the Romans, since in the beginning of the eleventh book itsinhabitants defect to the Carthaginians: 40 the pretext is the Capuan39 Bernstein (2008), 148 and 150: ‘The episode resists an oversimplified reading offilial devotion. Its indication of the proper response to a negative example insteadassists in clarifying the rules of ancestral emulation and filial obedience establishedthroughout epic.’40 Decius tries to dissuade the Capuans from mixing fasque nefasque (11.185) bypointing to the barbarity of the Carthaginian army (179–84, and barbara pubes, 196),as opposed to the supremacy of the Julian and Roman clan. Decius’ punishment,

Defining the Other 111demand from the Romans to elect consuls from the Italian periphery;their request is rejected. As Silius proleptically avows, better timeswill materialise for the Capuans, since after the Social War they willhave citizen rights and will be able to partake of the benefits ofRomanitas: 41ueniet quondam felicior aetas,cum pia Campano gaudebit consule Romaet per bella diu fasces perque arma negatosultro ad magnanimos referet secura nepotes.poena superborum tamen haec durabit auorum,quod non ante suos Capua ad suffragia mittet,quam Carthago suos. (11.123–9)A happier age will come one day, when pious Rome will rejoice in a consulfrom Campania and of her own accord, free of fear, will bestow upon thegreat descendants [of Capua] the rods, which were denied in times of warand conflict. This punishment of their arrogant ancestors, however, will lastfor ever, since Capua will not send her own candidates to Rome for election,before Carthage also sends hers.The poet maintains that the felicior aetas will coincide with theRomanisation of the periphery both in the Italian peninsula and onAfrican soil. Carthage itself will be a Roman colony also, by the timethe citizenship rights are extended to include those traditionallyconsidered as non-Romans. 42 Silius endows his anachronisticwhen he is led away covered up, reminds the reader of Regulus’ own behaviour inbook 6, as we shall see in chapter 3 (Decius dies in Alexandria and not Carthage, asintended initially; cf. 11.377–84). On Decius’ insistence on the bonds of óıªªÝíåØÆwith the Romans, see Bernstein (2008), 187–90.41 For the Capua episode, see Burck (1984a); Cowan (2002), 34–143 and (2007a);Bettenworth (2004), 338–94; Bernstein (2008), 187–90. As Cowan (2007a), 1, observes:Capua in Silius Italicus’ Punica stands for Carthage and Rome in numerous ways, aslocus of luxury, Oriental colony, and rival for world hegemony. Capua also standsfor both Carthage and Rome inasmuch as she is a city to be sacked. Guiltythough she is, she is a victim of Rome. In her role as rival for supremacy sheresembles Alba Longa, Veii and all the other cities which must by necessity fall forRome to stand.42 The Capuans are elevated to their new status after the Social War in 90 bce.Carthage, on the other hand, becomes a Roman colony as early as 122 bce.See Spaltenstein (1990), 113. It remains difficult to ascertain whether Silius refersto a recently elected friend of his from Campania (Vessey 1984).

112 Motherhood and the Otherprophecy with a metapoetic quality by alluding to the fourth Eclogue(ultima Cumaei uenit iam carminis aetas, ‘the last age of the Cumaeansong has now arrived’, Virg. Ecl. 4.4), a poem itself preoccupied withthe arrival of new age (new consuls and a new treaty), 43 and also byrepeating the exact line from Lucan’s epilogue to the eighth book:ueniet felicior aetas / qua sit nulla fides saxum monstrantibus illud ...‘A happier age will come, when people may not believe those whoshow this rock ...’, Luc. 8.869–70). The rock in Lucan’s sarcasticcomment is nothing other than Pompey’s tomb, hurriedly preparedto cover the wretched, decapitated body. 44 Behind Silius’ predictionabout Capua’s future and the idealistic incorporation of diversepeoples under one government, one may detect the reality of contemporaryRoman politics: will this age be happier after all? Theunification of the system is not seamless, it seems. 45The young man’s plan to assassinate Hannibal comes at the crossroadsin the narrative of the war. As the Romans and their former (andfuture) allies are in search of an effective method to recoup theirstrength and face the enemy, Hannibal himself discovers anotherpatria, in Capua. The defection of cities to the Carthaginian side isthe result of titubante Fortuna (‘unstable Fortune’, Pun. 11.4). Since themajority of these turncoats are Greek cities, the poet underscores theinstability of the Roman rule outside Rome itself. This volatility servesas a foil to the later unification of these cities under Roman control andHannibal’s expulsion from Italy, since his presence abets the fickleness.The periphery, however, is not only inhabited by people recalcitrantto Roman rule and civilisation or altogether hostile to theTrojan race. In the first colossal event of the war early in the poem,the reader encounters a city outside the borders of Rome, Saguntum,an ally of the Romans, which has the potential of excelling in its fides,displayed towards its metropolis.43 Cf. Clausen (1994), 119–29.44 On the intertextual relationship between Silius and Lucan, see Marks (2010)with further bibliography. On this allusion to Lucan’s Pompey, see also Cowan(2007a), 40, who overemphasises, however, Silius’ pessimism concerning a happierage that never comes.45 Bernstein (2008), 189, notes: ‘The defection of Capua exposes the fragility ofthis myth of Italian unity and suggests the contingency of political relationships basedon shared descent.’

Defining the Other 113SAGUNTUM AS SAME AND OTHER: BREAKINGTHE BOND WITH PATRIA ROMEIn the eyes of their allies the Romans, the city of Saguntum and itsinhabitants exemplify loyalty, fides, which finally leads them to commitmass suicide, before Hannibal victoriously enters the besiegedcity and claims her as his own. 46 A special connection, therefore, isestablished between Rome and Saguntum from the beginning of thepoem, linking the two cities in terms of their common heritage, or inother words, in terms of Saguntum’s Romanness. 47 Von Albrechtsupports the idea that the account of Saguntum and the fight aroundits walls (1.271–end of book 2) initiates the moenia-motif in thePunica: the emphasis on Hannibal’s attack against the muri, the wallsof the beleaguered city, prefigures his attack against Rome’s own wallsby the Carthaginians later in the poem (12.479–752). 48 The contrastbetween the perfidious Carthaginians and the pious, loyal Saguntineshas also been well explored and analysed by scholars in the past. 4946 For an examination of the episode of Saguntum’s siege, see von Albrecht (1964),25–8, 55–62, 181–3; Vessey (1974); Küppers (1986); McGuire (1997), 207–19; Ripoll(1998), 406–11; Fucecchi (2003); Bernstein (2008), 179–87 (my reading differs fromBernstein in my emphasis of the Saguntines’ effort to erase any sort of óıªªÝíåØÆ withthe cities with which they were formerly associated). McGuire and Ripoll connect thisepisode with the suicide of the noble Capuans in 13.256–98 (cf. Liv. 26.13–14). Theevents of the siege are also well known from the historical record: cf. Liv. 21.7–15,App. Hisp. 12, Diod. Sic. 25.15, Plb. 3.17, Dio Cass. 13 (Zon. 8.21). On Silius’ use ofhistorical sources for the episode, see Heynacher (1877), 15–19; Klotz (1933), 12–14;Nicol (1936), 84; Nesselrath (1986), 204–10; Lucarini (2004), 106–11; Pomeroy(2010). Livy’s influential role in the Punica is beyond doubt, although the aforementionedcritics point to the possible influence of other annalistic sources, such asValerius Antias or Coelius Antipater; see Gibson (2010) on the influence of Polybiusand Graeco-Roman historiography in general. The fall of Saguntum has also beenlinked to the fall of Massada (see Rupprecht-Mallersdorf [1995]).47 See Dominik (2003a), 480: ‘The reader becomes sensitised to think of Saguntumas another Rome and to interpret the qualities attributed to her citizens in termsof traditional Roman virtues. It is non-Romans, not Romans, who are true exemplarsof fides and pietas.’ Pace Fucecchi (2003), 272.48 See von Albrecht (1964), 24–8.49 Ibid., 55–86, where von Albrecht explores the fides-motif as a Grundlinie in thepoem. On fides see also Kissel (1979), 96–100, Burck (1988), 54–8, and Hardie(1993a), 81–3. Vessey (1974), 28, correctly notices that ‘the struggle is a confrontationof fides and perfidia and an emblem of the eternal battle between order and chaos,

114 Motherhood and the OtherThe following section will centre its attention on the presence ofotherness in the siege of Saguntum, and what this differentiationbetokens for the world of the Punica. By examining the figure ofthe Amazon Asbyte, whose IæØóôåßÆ and subsequent death occupythe first part of book 2, and the mass suicide brought about by theMaenadism of the Saguntine women at the end of the same book, weshall see that Silius organises this book around women, whosebehaviour in a peripheral city is marked as other, transgressive. Andyet there is a deeper significance to these figures in this ‘female’book: 50 the contest between Theron and Asbyte brings to the surfacea latent competition between Roman and non-Roman elements,between Hercules and Hammon, between male and female. 51 Thiscompetition will reach its peak, though it remains unresolved, withthe destruction wrought by the Saguntine women on their ownfamilies, an act that bolsters their effort to eliminate any trace ofRomanness left at Saguntum. Theron’s Herculean efforts to save hiscity are thwarted by Hannibal, whereas Hercules’ own endeavours toexempt Saguntum from utter destruction are spoiled by his stepmother’sintervention on behalf of the Carthaginians. The only pathto eternal fame available to Saguntum is by occupying the middleground through an exploitation of its hybridity, being a city outsidethe boundaries and ideologies of either Rome or Carthage.Let us first look at the city’s history, as reported by the Flavian poet.Saguntum is a colony that should not—and indeed could not—beexclusively labelled Roman. Its inhabitants descend from Greek colonists,from Zacynthus, who subsequently merge with immigrantsfrom Italian Ardea. 52 The name Zacynthus represents both the islandof the Ionian sea and Hercules’ homonymous friend, who dies onsite in Spain (1.273–90). 53 Mythologically, therefore, Saguntumbetween spiritual law and anarchy.’ I disagree with Ripoll (1998), 405–16, whoconsiders this episode a mere addition of a pathetic tone in the poem.50 Consider also that the city of Saguntum is identified as casta (3.1), just like aRoman matrona, a spouse faithful to her husband (to death).51 See Fincher (1979), 36: ‘The episode of Theron and Asbyte, during the siege ofSaguntum, is thematically important because of Theron’s position as a priest of Hercules.’52 Both McGuire (1997), 210, and Dominik (2003a) emphasise the role of Saguntumas another Rome, an approach, however, that minimises the Greek origins of the city.53 See Asso (2003) and (2010).

Defining the Other 115predates the arrival of Hercules in the future site of Rome. TheGreek identity of the city is emphasised throughout the narrative.In effect, in a dream sent to Hannibal by Jove, Mercury calls it aGreek city (Graia Saguntos, 3.178). The mixture of peoples andcivilisations is indicative of the city’s past and present. 54 WhileSaguntum has established close ties with the Romans, the Greekelements of its past remain visible, resurfacing in the women’sBacchic murder of the population, a behaviour fused with theelements of Roman Stoic suicide.In particular, one of Saguntum’s greatest warriors, Murrus, epitomisesthe blending of the two cultures from the Saguntine past. Hismother is Greek and his father Rutulian:...Rutulo Murrus de sanguine (at idemmatre Saguntina Graius geminoque parenteDulichios Italis miscebat prole nepotes). (1.377–9)...Murrus was from Rutulian blood (but he also had Greek blood, descendingfrom a Saguntine mother; and with both his parents he combinedwith his Italian descent a lineage from Dulichium). 55Murrus’ defence of Saguntum is suggestive of his descent, as hefights a last battle, striving to protect the walls of his own cityand thus to procure help and salvation for the walls of the cityof Rome itself, a gesture strongly reinforced by his name (1.384–5and 389–90). 5654 During the battle, Hannibal is taunted by his combatant, Daunus (a namereminiscent of Turnus’ father), that Saguntum is not effeminate:non haec Sidonia tectafeminea fabricata manu pretioue parata ...fundamenta deum Romanaque foedera cernis. (1.444–7)This is not a Sidonian city, built by a woman’s hand or bought for money ...you seefoundations laid by the gods and Roman treaties.55 Spaltenstein (1986), 62–3, observes that Dulichios is used here for the colonistswho come from Zacynthus (an island subjected to the rule of Dulichium / Ithaca).56 The city is also called Rutulian (4.62). Murrus himself also puns with his namein his prayer to Hercules: si tua non segni defenso moenia dextra (‘if I strive to defendyour walls with no sluggish hand’, 1.507).

116 Motherhood and the OtherAnother example of the men’s attachment to their city’s heritageoccurs with the ambassador to Rome, Sicoris. 57 Sicoris claims hisdescent from the Ardeans, former inhabitants of Italy. In particular,in his address to the Roman senate, he does not hesitate to callTurnus his ancestor:uetus incola Dauni 58(testor vos, fontes et stagna arcana Numici),cum felix nimium dimitteret Ardea pubem,sacra domumque ferens et aui penetralia Turniultra Pyrenen Laurentia nomina duxi. (1.665–9)I, an old inhabitant of the kingdom of Daunus (I call upon you as mywitness, you fountains and secret pools of Numicius), when Ardea wassending out her youth, in which she was very rich, bearing the sacred thingsand the house and inner shrine of Turnus, I carried the names of Laurentumbeyond the Pyrenees.Sicoris identifies the colonists of Saguntum as links of continuitybetween Italy and its Western colony, as the Ardean refugees fleeingfrom Italy to Spain reproduce the story of Trojan Aeneas. In hisspeech, Sicoris ‘marries’ the Trojan and native elements of Italy, byreferring to both Numicius, the place of Aeneas’ final resting place, 59and of Turnus, 60 whose Ardean heritage is now imported into thenewly founded city of Spain. Sicoris’ rhetoric, however, fails topersuade the Romans to take immediate action and aid the beleagueredcity. Fabius’ subsequent trip to Saguntum for autopsy andnegotiations, with which the second book opens, also proves unsuccessful,as does his trip to Carthage (2.1–55). These fruitless delegationsare overturned by the coming of the vessel of the Magna Materin book 17, as we shall see in the final chapter of this study. Just as57 On the question of the number of Saguntine embassies to Rome, see Klotz (1933),12–13; Nesselrath (1986), 205–6; Lucarini (2004), 107–10; and briefly Gibson (2010).On the literary topos of an embassy requesting help, see Bernstein (2008), 183.58 See Spaltenstein (1986), 99, for this reading, preferred to Daunus.59 See below the discussion on Anna Perenna (136–44).60 Cf. the use of Laurentia, the capital of the Rutulians, applied to the Romansin general; see Spaltenstein (1986), 23. See Bernstein (2008), 184: ‘Sicoris concludeshis appeal by using the metaphor of the body politic, suggesting that his city’s relationshipwith Rome transcends consanguinity in order to approach consubstantiality.’

Defining the Other 117Saguntum opens the war, the arrival of the Magna Mater brings itto a close. In books 1 and 2, however, the Romans, as outsiders, fail tosuccour their allied city, 61 whereas the foreign goddess in book 17comes to the help of the Roman people, who are in desperate need toexpel the foreign other.Furthermore, during the battle against the Amazon Asbyte inbook 2, the reader comes across several Saguntines whose heritage isnot native to the Iberian land and therefore underscores their otherness.For instance, Mopsus throws himself down from the walls of thecity, because Asbyte and Hannibal kill his two sons, Dorylas andIcarus. Mopsus is an outsider (Gortynius aduena, 2.148), a newcomerfrom Crete, who arrived in the city in search of better luck in the West(uerum ut opum leuior uenatu extendere uitam / abnuit atque artae resexegere per aequor, ‘but when he, deprived of resources, refused tocontinue his life in hunting, and when his poverty led him across thesea’, 2.102–3); in a word, he is another Daedalus figure, who likeMarcellus cannot protect his offspring but remains an abject, analien, memorialised only through his tragic death.Among Hannibal’s allies, Silius prominently displays an Amazontypevirgin-warrior, 62 Asbyte, a figure whose presence is not attestedin the historical record of the Second Punic War, such as in Livy orPolybius, but rather constitutes an epic ploy, invented on the modelof Virgil’s Camilla. As we shall see, Asbyte is a significant warrior onthe Carthaginian side, the first to be defeated by the enemy, while herdeath is dramatically depicted by Silius among the most momentouscasualties for Hannibal. As scholars have recognised, like Turnus,Hannibal is also accompanied by an Amazon, female warrior. 6361 Pace Bernstein (2008), 186: ‘The Roman refusal to honour the Saguntines’ request,however, does not imply a rejection of the claim of syngeneia on its own terms. Rather,it suggests the lesser importance of the claim relative to other considerations.’62 For an appraisal of ancient sources on Amazons see DuBois (1982), Tyrrell(1984), and Hardwick (1990). For iconic representations, see LIMC, 1.586–653, s.v.Amazones. On Asbyte, in particular, see the analysis by Küppers (1986), 141–53;Vinchesi (2005), 108–22; Uccellini (2006); Keith (2010).63 See von Albrecht (1964), 172; Arrigoni (1984), 887–9; Küppers (1986), 145;Laudizi (1989), 122; Vinchesi (2005), 108–22. For Camilla in Virgil see, for instance,Rosenmeyer (1960); Hornsby (1966); G. S. West (1985); Wilhelm (1987); Boyd(1992); Anderson (1999); Nugent (1999); Reed (2007), 16–43. For the role ofvirginity in the Aeneid see Mitchell (1991).

118 Motherhood and the OtherAsbyte remains aloof from any occupation that would immediatelyclassify her as a woman: she is solely a huntress and a warrior,dedicated to Dictynna, another name for the Cretan goddess Britomartis,equal to Roman Diana. 64 For his portrait Silius draws onVirgil’s portrayal of the female leader of the Volsci: 65haec ignara uiri uacuoque adsueta cubiliuenatu et siluis primos defenderat annos;non calathis mollita manus operataue fusoDictynnam et saltus et anhelum impellere plantacornipedem ac strauisse feras immitis amabat ... (2.68–72)She had never experienced a man and she usually lay in an empty bed havingprotected her years of childhood hunting in the woods. She had not softenedher hands with wool-baskets nor had she worked with a spindle. She lovedDictynna and the woodlands, as she also loved to urge with her foot apanting steed and ruthlessly to kill wild animals ...Throughout the episode, Asbyte’s virginity is stressed with the repetitionof the word uirgo (2.84, 114, 121, 168, 176, 188, 202), arecurrence that showcases both her femininity and otherness.Asbyte is the daughter of Hiarbas, king of the Garamantes, 66 and ofa nymph from Lake Tritonis. 67 Therefore, Silius explicitly establishes64 See Spaltenstein (1986), 112.65 Cf. Aeneid 7.803–17 and 11.573–84 with Horsfall (2000), 519–30, and (2003),296–345, respectively. Arrigoni (1984), Küppers (1986), Vinchesi (2005), andUccellini (2006) [see also references in n.63 above] have correctly observed manydifferences between Camilla and Asbyte. First, since Asbyte is not introduced inthe catalogue of the Carthaginian allies (1.189–238), her entrance in the poem issomewhat abrupt. Second, her companion Amazons either ride a chariot or a horse(2.82–3), whereas Virgil’s Camilla exclusively rode on horseback. Riding a chariotinstead of a horse, however, brings Asbyte closer to Turnus’ practices (Küppers[1986], 145). Küppers, therefore, concludes that the African Amazons have absorbedthe traits of both Camilla and Homer’s Penthesilea. Uccellini (2006) too emphasisesthe fusion of sources in Asbyte’s portrait, not just from Virgil, but also from otherrepresentations of eccentric and ‘dangerous’ female figures, such as Medusa and theAfrican Amazons (see Diod. Sic. 3.52–5, 3.66.5–6). Cf. also Penthesilea in Aen. 1.493,another obvious Amazonian parallel (lunatis peltis, Aen. 1.490 Thermodontiacamunita in proelia pelta, Pun. 2.80).66 Ripoll (1998) 48 n.116, suggests that Hiarbas’ presence here alludes to Iarbas inAeneid 4. See also Uccellini (2006), 239–43, for Asbyte’s connection to both Iarbasand Athena, the warrior goddess, through the Lake Tritonis.67 Notice that the only female person called bellatrix in the poem is Pallas, who isalso the protecting goddess of the Lake Tritonis (see 3.323).

Defining the Other 119a connection between his poem and the Aeneid and a continuation ofthe story of Dido’s spurned suitor, Iarbas. Moreover, as we learn fromthis genealogy, Hiarbas is the son of Hammon: unde genus proauumqueIouem regina ferebat / et sua fatidico repetebat nomina luco ‘Thencethe queen claimed her lineage and Jupiter as her great-grandfather,deriving her name from the prophetic grove’, 2.66–7). Not only isthere an inner connection established between Asbyte and Dido viaHiarbas, but there is also a connection with Camilla through Asbyte’sname. One should note, however, that Asbyte is associated withIarbas, therefore she fosters a connection with a masculine and aggressivecharacter in Virgil; Hannibal recognises in Asbyte a worthyally, inasmuch as her lineage is aligned with his own lineage fromDido. In addition, Asbyte is called after Hammon’s name ÚóâıóôÞò.Camilla also carries her mother’s name, slightly changed (from Casmillato Camilla, Virg. Aen. 11.543). However, through the connectionto Hammon, Asbyte’s portrait gains a prophetic dimension thatCamilla’s character lacks.Asbyte’s company of women does not consist only of virgin girls: 68nec non Veneris iam foedera passae / reginam cingunt, sed uirginedensior ala est (‘And women who have already submitted to thebonds of Venus escort the queen, but the troop consists of morevirgins than married women’, 2.83–4). This observation places moreemphasis on virginity than marriage as an important element inAsbyte’s character. As I have observed, the word uirgo distinguishesAsbyte from the rest of her troop of Amazons. Thus, we can say that avery close connection with Camilla’s virginity is established.And yet Asbyte remains mute, with no chance to talk in directdiscourse, whereas in Aeneid 11 Camilla twice addresses her victims,first Ornytus (686–9) and then the Ligurian son of Aunus (715–17).By contrast, Asbyte’s silence adds weight to her presence: althoughshe is the descendant of Hammon, and her ancestry links her to thefatidicus lucus (2.67) of Hammon’s oracle, she is given no voice in thenarrative. Asbyte’s silence prepares the reader for the ensuing beheadingwhich at once deprives her of voice and life (amputat ...ora,68 I agree with Lemaire in taking foedera passae as quaedam nuptae erant. SeeLemaire (1823), 1.96. Spaltenstein (1986), 114, considers foedus as describing onlysexual intercourse.

120 Motherhood and the Other2.202). 69 Asbyte’s voicelessness agrees with her final abjection, whileit adds to her centrality in the Saguntum episode, as one of Hannibal’sclosest allies, the first significant loss in the war.Asbyte’s devotion to Dictynna and to hunting wild animalsresembles that of her first opponent, the Saguntine Mopsus. As wesaw above, Mopsus is a Cretan who left his country and pursued abetter fortune by coming to Saguntum. Mopsus himself was alsoonce devoted to a life similar to that of Asbyte—he liked huntingwhile he was in Crete:ille uagam caelo demisit saepe uolucrem,ille procul campo linquentem retia ceruumuulnere sistebat ... (2.96–8)He often brought down from the sky wandering birds; from afar, he used tostay the stag that was escaping the nets along the plain ...Crete is the birthplace of Mopsus, while Asbyte worships Dictynna,the Cretan version of Diana. In addition to a common lifestyle thatMopsus and Asbyte at first share, Mopsus’ Greek name reminds thereader of a famous literary predecessor, the seer of the Argonauts’expedition. 70 However, Mopsus preferred to forsake his previous life:uenatu extendere uitam / abnuit (2.102–3). 71 Asbyte’s loyalty tovirginity and hunting brings her in opposition to Mopsus, whomshe will kill. As Mopsus targets the virgin girl, he kills Harpe instead:69 Consider the contrast to Orpheus’ death in Pun. 11.478–80.70 Mopsus is a central figure also in Valerius Flaccus (e.g. Argon. 1.207–26; seeZissos [2008], 186–99).71 The abandonment of the lifestyle of the hunter has most of the time a negativeoutcome in this epic. Cf. 2.141: paenitet heu sero dulces liquisse penates, ‘too late, alas,he repents having left his dear household behind’. See 14.462–76 and the deteriorationof the Daphnis motif. See von Albrecht (1964), 158–61; Martin (1980); Vinchesi(1999a).Notice also Silius’ comment after the death of Mopsus: dum cadit externo Gortyniusaduena bello (‘while the Cretan foreigner falls in a foreign war’, 2.148). Mopsusremains forever a Gortynius aduena, while the war at Saguntum is for him anexternum bellum. Silius’ observation supports the idea that Mopsus is not integratedin his new Saguntine home but remains marginalised. If we consider that the wordaduena appears four times in the poem in connection with Mopsus, Dido, AnnaPerenna, and Hannibal, then I think it is safe to assume that all four times the wordhas a rather sinister connotation (cf. 4.765, 8.163, 17.1).

Defining the Other 121tum uultum intendens telumque in uirginis oradesertum non grata Iovem per uota uocabat.namque ut fatiferos conuerti prospicit arcus,opposito procul insidiis Nasamonias Harpecorpore praeripuit letum ... (2.114–18)Then, turning his face and spear against the face of Asbyte, he was praying toJupiter whom he had deserted, with vain prayers. For when Harpe, theNasamonian girl, saw the fatal bow turned around, by opposing her bodyto the distant danger, she snatched away death ...Consequently, Asbyte in tears kills with her spear Dorylas, Mopsus’elder son (2.125–31), while Hannibal kills Icarus, Mopsus’ youngerson (2.132–7). Upon the death of his two sons, Mopsus commitssuicide by falling from the tower on the body of Icarus, his dead son(2.138–47). 72This first encounter Asbyte has on the battlefield reveals the importanceof names with Greek origin for the whole episode (Harpe

122 Motherhood and the OtherHe had no spear in his hand, no helmet on his head, but trusting in his broadshoulders and the might of his youth, he was destroying the army with hisclub, in need of no sword. The spoils and skin of the lion, laid on his head,raise the terrible open mouth aloft on his tall figure. He was also carrying onhis shield a hundred serpents and the monster of Lerna, the Hydra thatmultiplied, when the serpents were cut in two.Hercules’ priest appears to be the very embodiment of the demigod.The club, the lion skin, and the depiction of the labour against theHydra clearly indicate Hercules’ presence in this episode. 76 After all,Hercules is the tutelary god of Saguntum. 77 Theron’s appearance,and more precisely the decapitation of the monstrous Hydra on hisshield, foreshadows the final outcome, Asbyte’s beheading:tum saltu Asbyten conantem linquere pugnasoccupat incussa gemina inter tempora clauaferuentesque rotas turbataque frena pauoredisiecto spargit collisa per ossa cerebroac rapta properans caedem ostentare bipenniamputat e curru reuolutae uirginis ora.necdum irae positae. celsa nam figitur hastaspectandum caput ... (2.197–204)Then, with a jump he stops Asbyte who is trying to flee from the battle andsmites her between her twin temples with his club. He spatters the hotwheels and the horses, disturbed by fear, with the brains which gushedfrom the broken skull; he snatches her axe and, eager to display the slaughter,he cuts off the head of the maiden, as she is rolling out of the chariot. Notyet is his wrath stopped. For the head is fixed on a lofty spear, to be seen byeveryone ...By cutting off Asbyte’s head, Theron fulfils the omen portrayed onhis shield, namely the Hydra’s beheading by Hercules, evoking othermythological parallels as well, such as Perseus and the head ofMedusa. 78 As we have discussed above, Asbyte is devoted to the76 See Pérez Vilatela (2002) on the portrait of the ‘club-fighter’ in pre-Roman Spain.77 Cf. Pun. 2.475–92.78 See Uccellini (2006), 243–48. Marks (2008) reads decapitation in the Punica as apolitical act, a metaphor reflecting the different trajectories and ultimate outcomesfor each side of the war; e.g. Paulus’ death becomes a symbolic decapitation of Rome,while the Romans decapitate many Carthaginians after Cannae, an act that forebodes

Defining the Other 123goddess Dictynna, to whom she vows the exuuiae she hopes to win,should she kill Theron. When the virgin warrior catches sight ofTheron, Silius refers to what Asbyte silently wishes:saeuamque bipennemperlibrans mediae fronti spolium inde superbumHerculeasque tibi exuuias, Dictynna, uouebat. (2.189–91)And aiming her harsh axe at the centre of his temple, she vowed to you,Dictynna, a glorious booty from it and the Herculean spoils.Asbyte is not the chaser but the chased person in this case. Theron,who is the chaser for the moment, is defined as such by his name. ItsGreek origin from the verb ÿÅæÜø is exploited by Silius, in order tounderline this dimension in Theron’s masculine portrait.Moreover, Asbyte reminds us of Camilla in her pursuit of Chloreus,the eunuch priest of Cybele. 79 Camilla was pursuing Chloreus, lured bythe gold armour he was wearing: 80 totumque incauta per agmen /femineo praedae et spoliorum ardebat amore ...(‘Fearless, with a femalelove for plunder and spoils, she was raging through all the army ...’,Aen. 11.781–2). Although Camilla’s femineus amor and ardor for spoilsis instigated by Chloreus’ alien appearance, at the end, she becomesa prey to Arruns, while her lust for booty remains unquenched. Likewise,Asbyte, who looks for spoils to dedicate to her tutelary goddess, istransformed into prey and subsequently victimised (Theron replacingpraeda). Asbyte’s unrestrained life in the wilderness had enabled her tobe always the hunter so far, yet she is now transformed into prey at thehands of a man whose name alludes to hunting.In addition, Theron himself aspires to despoil Asbyte when he seesher fighting. 81 Theron finds particularly appealing Asbyte’s chariot,her shield, and her outfit, decorated with gems: Asbytes currum etCarthage’s ultimate failure. On the decapitation of Hasdrubal, see also Augoustakis(2003b). On Hasdrubal and Asbyte, see Augoustakis (2001), 65–128.79 See G. S. West (1985) on the effeminacy of Chloreus as opposed to moremasculine Roman values.80 The word aurum is emphasised by Virgil, five times (Aen. 11.771, 774 twice,776, 789).81 Ripoll (1998, 242–3) discusses the role of gloria as an important motivation forSilian heroes, in particular Theron.

124 Motherhood and the Otherradiantis tegmina laenae / poscebat uotis gemmataque lumina peltae ...(‘Through his prayers he was seeking Asbyte’s chariot and the glitteringmantle that covered her and her jewelled shiny shield ...’, Pun 2.166–7).The reading laenae instead of laeuae intheaboveverseeliminatesthepointless repetition of a shield. 82 The reference to the shield, decoratedwith jewels, and to the mantle which itself is radians as well, underlinesthe picture of gold and gems, which was also explored by Virgil in hisportrayal of Camilla, yet in a different direction. Moreover, Camillaherself was partly naked and partly covered with a purple mantle:turbaque miratur matrum et prospectat euntem,attonitis inhians animis ut regius ostrouelet honos leuis umeros, ut fibula crinemauro internectat, Lyciam ut gerat ipsa pharetramet pastoralem praefixa cuspide myrtum.(Aen. 7.813–17)82 There are two possible readings for the last word of the hexameter in 2.166:laeuae O, laenae ø), of which the former would refer to Asbyte’s gleaming shield,while the latter would describe her decorated cloak. Delz prints laeuae, a readingdefended by Håkanson (1976), 8–9, followed by McGushin (1985), 126, and Spaltenstein(1986), 124, and based on 2.77–81, especially fulgentem tegmine laeuam /Thermodontiaca munita in proelia pelta (2.79–80). When Silius describes the Amazon’saccoutrement, he makes no reference to a mantle. The phrase fulgentem tegminelaeuam describes Asbyte’s shield on her left arm, while tegmine is in apposition to andexplained by pelta in the following line. Håkanson supports the idea that the phrasein 2.79 corresponds to the hypallage radiantis tegmine laeuae in 2.166; pace Lemaire(1823), 1.104, who explains radiantis as an equivalent of purpureae and draws theparallelism with Aen. 4.262: Tyrio ardebat murice laena (‘the cloak was gleaming inTyrian purple’). In reading laenae, I take into account the following: first, there is apossible reference to Asbyte’s clothes in the opening of her description as habituinsignis patrio (2.77), which might well be an allusion to a mantle; second, the readinglaeuae could easily be a corruption of laenae, since laeuum is repeated only four linesbelow, in 2.170 (laeuum per orbem, ‘by wheeling to the left’); and third, in 2.166–7,Theron craves three objects, connected with the conjunctions et and -que: the chariot,the mantle, and the shield. More specifically, by using -que the poet makes a cleardistinction between the gleaming mantle and the pelta and thus does not place thetwo in apposition to one another. I find that a reference to the shield twice in thesame sentence would be repetitious and unnecessary.Finally, it seems sensible that Theron is after Asbyte’s chariot, cloak, and shield, aparallel with Virgil’s Camilla, who wears a purple mantle (Aen. 7.814–15). In fact, we canobserve an interesting reversal of roles: whereas Camilla pursues Chloreus for hisgleaming attire (Aen. 11.775–7), in the Punica it is Theron, who, as his name suggests,hunts for the woman warrior’s apparel. Therefore, I side with Duff (1934), Miniconi andDevallet (1979), and Küppers (1986), 150, who read and print laenae in their editions.

Defining the Other 125The crowd of matrons marvels and stares at her passing by, in astonishmentat how proud royal purple veils Camilla’s smooth shoulders, how a claspof gold entwines her hair, at how she bears her Lycian quiver and hershepherd’s pike of myrtle tipped with steel.The description of Camilla’s appearance complements Asbyte’sportrayal: 83 ergo habitu insignis patrio, religata fluentemHesperidum crinem dono dextrumque ferocinuda latus Marti ac fulgentem tegmine laeuamThermodontiaca munita in proelia peltafumantem rapidis quatiebat cursibus axem.(Pun. 2.77–81)Thus, she was conspicuous in her native dress, with her long hair bound bythe gift of the Hesperides and with her right breast naked for the cruel battle,while her left side was shining covered for the battle with the Amazons’shield. She was shaking her smoking chariot with furious speed.In Asbyte’s case, her outfit and apparel, which consist of her mantle,her chariot, and her shield, become the object of Theron’s desire, aninversion of the Camilla episode, where Camilla was attracted toArruns’ spoils. Asbyte the huntress, devotee of Dictynna, becomes aprey to Theron, who, through his representation of Hercules, prefiguresAsbyte’s own beheading and dismemberment. In addition,Theron’s masculine portrayal as Hercules reincarnate is reversedthrough the similarities with Camilla. Here it is not the womanwarrior who is inspired by the amor auri but rather the chaser Theron,who tries to despoil the virgin warrior and snatch away her apparel.This observation justifies the complexity of gender roles and themanipulation of the tradition on Silius’ part: both Theron and Asbyteabsorb Camilla’s traits and behaviour, in a game where the female hasrepudiated her femininity, while the male is lured by a woman’s attire.Thus, there is a negotiation of gender roles whereby Asbyte’s ‘masculinity’suddenly is thrown into question by her feminine appearanceimmediately before her death. Asbyte’s feminine side is underscored83 Nicol (1936), 133–4, notices that ‘although the poet explicitly says that her dresswas that of her native country, it is plain that Camilla and the Amazons wereuppermost in his mind.’

126 Motherhood and the Otherbefore her beheading by Theron, hence paralleling Camilla’s femineusamor. In addition, the attribute uirgo also intensifies and reinforcesour reading of Asbyte not only as a warrior, but as a woman as well, asshe transgresses the boundaries of her sex. 84Therefore, Asbyte, an African Amazon, comes to the forefront ofthe narrative as a telling example of asymbolic autonomia, beingvociferous in her silence, as she becomes abject. In a heroic epic, suchas the Punica, the Amazon’s masculinity must be marginalised, whilethe phallic power of her head, like Medusa’s, must be annihilated. AsKristeva points out, ‘the phallic of the head increases the fear itevokes. The only possible way to represent the phallic femininityconnected with the head is through decapitation.’ 85 From warriorhunterAsbyte is transformed into the hunted victim, the displacedfemale, a foreigner in a foreign land, in an alien landscape, that ofepic poetry. As Keith observes, ‘the hierarchy of gender and westwardimpetus of translatio imperii work together to naturalise as inevitableAsbyte’s brutal death at Theron’s hands’. 86 Not only is Asbyte themost prominent Carthaginian ðæøôݺåØÆ, the first sacrifice in thewar, but also as a conspicuous female presence she is transformedinto the sacrificial victim of the African continent at large in herstruggle with Rome: the peripheral other that cannot be absorbed bythe androcentric narrative of the epic and is therefore abject.Hannibal immediately avenges his companion’s death by killingTheron. Theron becomes the prey and succumbs to the uiolentior iraof the Elissaeo ...tyranno (2.239), especially on account of the deathof the female warrior:celsa nam figitur hastaspectandum caput; id gestent ante agmina Poenumimperat et propere currus ad moenia uertant.haec caecus fati diuumque abeunte fauoreuicino Theron edebat proelia leto. (2.203–7)84 As Uccellini (2006), 253, rightly points out: ‘Un Amazzone, dunque, Asbyte, manon Amazzone sola, e un Amazzone sopratutto in quanto destinata ineluttabilmentea soccombere.’85 Kristeva (1998), 37–9, and Sjöholm (2005), 121.86 Keith (2010), 369.

Defining the Other 127For her [Asbyte’s] head is fixed on a lofty spear, to be seen by everyone; he[Theron] bids his men to bear it in front of the Carthaginian troops and todrive the chariots swiftly towards the walls [of the city]. Blind to his doomand with the favour of the gods disappearing, Theron was fighting this battlewhile death was approaching.The spectacle of Asbyte’s head causes the death of Theron, a victim ofHannibal’s wrath. 87 The wrath and resentment for Theron will becarried on by Asbyte’s troops, the Numidians, when they pay duehonour during the funeral of their queen: 88at Nomadum furibunda cohors miserabile humandideproperat munus tumulique adiungit honoremet rapto cineres ter circum corpore lustrat.hinc letale uiri robur tegimenque tremendumin flammas iaciunt ambustoque ore genisquedeforme alitibus liquere cadauer Hiberis. (2.264–9)But the cohort of the Numidians, frantic [with grief], hasten the mournfuloffice of burial and attach the honour of a pyre. In addition, having seized[Theron’s] corpse, they go three times round her ashes. Then, they cast intothe flames the deadly club of the man and his dreadful head-cover. Andwhen his face and cheeks were burnt, they left the unsightly corpse to theSpanish birds.The episode, as we shall see, is constructed around two fires, thefuneral pyre of silenced Asbyte and the big fire lit by the Saguntines in87 Just as Harpe had protected Asbyte, so Theron protects the moenia of his city(2.228–32) when he orders the doors to close: soli mihi claudite portas (‘against mealone, close the gates’, 232). When Hannibal confronts Theron, he utters words ofimmense wrath: ‘tu solue interea nobis, bone ianitor urbis, / supplicium, ut pandas ...tua moenia leto.’ (‘You, worthy keeper of the gates of your city, pay the penalty, so thatyou may throw open your walls by your death’, 240–1).88 According to Nicol (1936), 134, there is neither literary nor archaeologicalevidence to show that incineration was a custom among the Libyans. The error,Nicol claims, must be ascribed to poetic models. Consider also the discrepancybetween the custom of the Libyans as described here and the passage where Scipioexposes the diversity of burial customs to Appius Claudius in book 13 (466–87). In13.479–81, Scipio claims that the Garamantes bury their dead in the sand, while theNasamones throw the corpses in the sea. For an examination of Scipio’s discourse onfunerary rites see Bassett (1963); Reitz (1982), 35–43; Devallet (1987).

128 Motherhood and the Otherorder to burn their heirlooms and thus ‘burn’ their ties with theirally, Rome. Like Hypsipyle in the Thebaid, Asbyte becomes part of atomb, as the abjection of the female is inscribed in the narrative as amonument, part of a funeral procession, and burial/absence, which isexplained by the poet through an ethnographic reflection on theburial customs of the Nasamones, to stress one last time the distinctdifference of Asbyte and her people within the geography of his epic.In addition, the description of Asbyte’s burial brings symmetry inthis episode. Theron is punished for Asbyte’s death, thus unleashingHannibal’s furor against the city of Saguntum: both Hannibal and theNumidians are frantic in their grief and wrath. Theron’s corpse isabused (rapto, 2.266), just as Asbyte is violently beheaded. Andfinally, only Theron’s face is consumed by fire, while the remainderof the corpse is cast to the birds. The abuse of Theron’s face (oregenisque, 2.268) corresponds to Asbyte’s beheading but also points tothe death of the city of Saguntum, when the fire will consume alltraces of the city’s past.Therefore, Asbyte’s presence is crucial to the Saguntum episode,since her death initiates the revelation of Hannibal’s raging iraagainst Saguntum and the Romans in general. 89 What Asbyte’sdeath betokens for the Carthaginian general is that in her demise,Hannibal sees the elision of otherness and a reflection of his own endand Carthage’s figurative ‘decapitation’ at the end of the poem. LikeAsbyte, Hannibal will be slowly marginalised and his voice will beabsorbed as from a hero-warrior he becomes an effigy in Scipio’striumph. After all, Hannibal’s heroism proves to be of no use for thecapture of Saguntum, since it is Juno’s arrangement to send Tisiphonein order to persuade the Saguntines to commit suicide thatleads to the sack of the city, not Hannibal’s extraordinary bravery.Hannibal enters an empty city at the end of book 2 (irrumpuntuacuam Poeni tot cladibus arcem, ‘the Carthaginians rush into thecitadel, empty by so many disasters’, 2.692), while the poet-uatescloses the book with a prophecy concerning the Carthaginian’s own89 Vinchesi (2005), 119 and n.88, correctly observes that the epithet belliger appliesonly to Asbyte (2.168) and Hannibal (1.38 and 3.162) in the poem.

Defining the Other 129unheroic death and suicide (2.699–707). Theron has ultimately failedto secure his city’s salvation. 90When the city can no longer endure the long siege (and theprolonged famine), 91 a sharp contrast arises to this attachment tothe defence of Saguntum, which can be attributed to the Saguntines’close relationship with the Romans (and their gods, such as Hercules).Hercules implores the goddess Fides to come to the Saguntines’ help(2.475–525), 92 but in her speech, Fides reveals that human beingshave long forsaken her; and indeed, the Romans themselves areincluded among those who have equally desecrated her name:nemo insons; pacem servant commercia culpae. (‘No one is innocent;complicity in guilt preserves peace’ 2.506). 93 Now Hercules realisesthe futility of his plea on behalf of his people. The Saguntines’ love fortheir country transforms them completely under the spell of Juno’sagent, Tisiphone. 94 When Juno declares her own war by inspiringthe female population with bacchic frenzy, the two elements of theSaguntine people will come to the surface: they are no longer Greek orRoman, as they strive to destroy their past by the mass suicide and theburning of the city. Both Juno and Tisiphone, disguised as Tiburna,90 As Keith (2010), 368, eloquently notes: ‘Asbyte is the first significant Carthaginiancasualty, her death presaged by the fall of her Amazonian comrade Harpe(2.116–24) just as Hannibal will be the last, his death anticipated beyond the conclusionof Silius’ epic.’91 Ariemma (2004) explores the intertextual relationship of episode of the faminewith Lucan’s Vulteius episode in De bello ciuili 4, as he views the Punica as a ‘retrospectiveanticipation’ of Lucan’s poem.92 See Juhnke (1972), 192–3, for the Homeric background of the episode. For adiscussion of Hercules’ role in the Punica, see von Albrecht (1964), passim; Bassett(1966); Kissel (1979), 153–60; Liebeschuetz (1979), 170–73; Fincher (1979), 43–52;Vessey (1982); Billerbeck (1986a) and (1986b); Laudizi (1989), 112–13; Matier (1989),7–8; Mezzanotte (1995), 372–3; Helzle (1996), 265–6; Ripoll (1998), 112–32; Asso(1999), 80–81; Marks (1999), 147–93; Asso (2003); Augoustakis (2003a); Marks(2005a), 148–63; Moretti (2005). For Hannibal’s associations with Hercules, see themost recent discussion in Augoustakis (2003a) and Gibson (2005).93 For the similarity with Ovid’s Astraea in Met. 1.149–50, see Bruère (1958), 478.94 On the role of Juno in the poem (and Virgil’s Aeneid), see Ramaglia (1952–3);von Albrecht (1964), 167–8; Kissel (1979), 30–37; Lorenz (1968), 4–67; Häussler(1978), 198–206; Küppers (1986), 61–92; Laudizi (1989), 73–92; Feeney (1991),303–4. On the influence of Valerius Flaccus’ Lemnian episode on Silius, see Ripoll(1999), 512–13.

130 Motherhood and the Otheraddress the Saguntines as Rutulians (2.541 and 567), a name withominous reminiscences of Turnus’ loss at the end of Virgil’s Aeneid.Tiburna does not seem a coincidental choice for Tisiphone. She isthe wife of Murrus and also an offspring of Daunus (2.557). Tiburna’sname carries a direct relationship with Tibur, a place of worshipfor Hercules, the tutelary god of Saguntum. 95 The Fury uses her toavert the mothers from succumbing to Carthaginian rule and subjectingthemselves to possible slavery under the Sidonian mothers(2.571–4). In effect, the beginning of Tiburna’s speech is indicative ofJuno’s initiative to annihilate the identity of the Saguntine people:‘sat Fidei proauisque datum ...’ ‘Enough we have given to Loyaltyand our ancestors ...’, 2.561). The distraught and frenzied womenare kindled further by the omen of the sacred serpent’s departurefrom Zacynthus’ tomb; Zacynthus, the founder of Saguntum, representsthe city genius, whose spirit, abiding by the homonymous hero’stomb (constructed by Hercules himself), is, therefore, now abandoningthe city (2.580–91). 96 Any ties between Tiburna, Hercules, Murrus,and her native city (as a descendant of Daunus, the Rutulian/Italian) are now rescinded, unbeknownst to the woman driven byTisiphone’s goads. The Saguntines burn their heirlooms, which onceaccompanied their ancestors from faraway Zacynthus and Ardea, andthus they destroy any evidence of their present, past, and future at thesight of death:certatim structus surrectae molis ad astrain media stetit urbe rogus; portantque trahuntquelongae pacis opes quaesitaque praemia dextris,Callaico uestes distinctas matribus auroarmaque Dulichia proauis portata Zacynthoet prisca aduectos Rutulorum ex urbe penates.huc, quicquid superest captis, clipeosque simulqueinfaustos iaciunt enses et condita belloeffodiunt penitus terrae gaudentque superbiuictoris praedam flammis donare supremis. (2.599–608)95 See Miniconi and Devallet (1979), 60. Cf. Murrus’ last prayer to Hercules,before he dies (1.505–7). Pace Spaltenstein (1986), 162.96 See Asso (1999), 80, on the aetiological aspect of the episode.

Defining the Other 131A pyre, zealously built, stood in the middle of the city, whose height rose tothe stars; they drag and carry the wealth of a long peace and the prizes wonby valour, that is the clothes embroidered by the mothers with Galliciangold, the Dulichian weapons brought by their ancestors from Zacynthus,and the household gods carried across the sea from the ancient city of theRutulians. Here the conquered people throw whatever is left to them, andtheir shields too and their cursed swords. And from the bowels of the earth,they dig up what they had hidden during the war and they rejoice in givingto the last fire the booty of the arrogant victor.The burning consists of the destruction of both works of peace, suchas the clothing produced by women, and of weapons of war, carriedby men, as well as the tokens of the foreigners’ arrival and establishmentof the once new city of Saguntum, the images of their homelandgods. The burning at the instigation of the Erinys constitutesthe annulment of the Saguntines’ recognition of their identity as‘Ardeans’ or ‘Zacynthians’. 97 Their Dionysiac frenzy will result in aStoic, Roman death, which nevertheless wipes out the Saguntines’ties with their Roman patria. In their stirring of the earth’s bowels,the Saguntines reverse the act of founding a city, as we know it fromthe foundation of Carthage, for instance, with the uncovering of thehead of the horse. 98 At the same time, however, their act constitutes ajarring reversal of the ritual of burial: this is a funereal pyre withoutsubsequent burial, without hope for future rest of the souls, ensuredby the return of the dead to mother-earth. 99 This pyre then can beread also as a cenotaph, a tomb in which Roman identity is incinerated.100 In hybrid Saguntum, this becomes not a story of founding,but rather one of utter destruction.97 Pace Bernstein (2008), 182, who sees an indirect assertion of the dominance ofRutulian identity in the mass suicide.98 See Augoustakis (2003b), 124–5, for a discussion of the use of this imagery onHannibal’s shield; on Hannibal’s shield see the following studies: von Albrecht(1964), 173–7; Vessey (1975); Kissel (1979), 185–92; Küppers (1986) 154–64; Laudizi(1989), 107–12; Venini (1991); Devallet (1992); Pomeroy (2000), 157–8; Campus(2003); Ganiban (2010) and Harrison (2010).99 See Augoustakis (forthcoming) on the relationship between the Saguntine pyreand Cornelia’s ‘funeral’ of Pompey in Lucan 9.100 Hardie (2002) 84: ‘The cenotaph, which does not even contain the bones orashes of the person, is the purest, and hence most potent, case of the monument thatoffers a surrogate presence for the absence of the dead person.’

132 Motherhood and the OtherThe eradication of anything that reminds the citizens of their originsis only one step away from what occurs in the next scene. This obliterationeffort progresses to the utter devastation of family ties. 101 Thepublic and the private merge into one and the same. The ensuingslaughter is a nefas inspired by the rage of Juno through Tisiphone:princeps Tisiphone lentum indignata parentempressit ouans capulum cunctantemque impulit ensemet dirum insonuit Stygio bis terque flagello.inuitas maculant cognato sanguine dextrasmiranturque nefas auersa mente peractumet facto sceleri illacrimant. hic turbidus iraet rabie cladum perpessaeque ultima uitaeobliquos uersat materna per ubera uisus. (2.614–21)First Tisiphone, resenting a parent’s delay, in joy pushed the hilt forward anddrove the reluctant sword, while she cracked her hellish scourge twiceand thrice. They stain their unwilling hands with the blood of their relativesand they marvel at the crime, performed with loathing—and then they cryover the wickedness they have wrought. Distraught by rage and by themadness of disaster and of a life that has endured extremities, this oneturns a sidelong glance at his mother’s breasts.The various events that follow emphasise the lack of piety amongmembers of the same family, such as the wife’s towards her husband,a son’s towards his father, a brother’s towards his own brother. 102 Forinstance, Tymbrenus’ killing of his father is portrayed, in gruesomedetail, as a deformation of the body that looks like his own:At medios inter coetus pietate sinistra,infelix Tymbrene, furis, Poenoque parentis101 Compare the situation in besieged Capua: before the city’s surrender thegoddess Fides arrives (Pun. 13.281–91), an Erinys frequents a banquet of the traitors(13.291–4), while several of the ringleaders commit suicide (13.296–8, 374–80),before the final victory of the Romans and the capture of the city. On the connectionbetween the suicides at Saguntum and Capua see von Albrecht (1964), 62; Kissel(1979), 97 n.25; Burck (1984a), 45; Schenk (1989), 360; Cowan (2007a), 26–30.102 See McGuire (1997), 213–14, for the allusions to Lucan’s De bello ciuili 2.146–57. McGuire correctly points to the text’s preoccupation with Roman civil strife andthe engaging of the episode with similar passages in Lucan.

Defining the Other 133dum properas auferre necem, reddentia formamora tuam laceras temerasque simillima membra. (2.632–5)But in the midst of the crowd, you, ill-starred Tymbrenus, with a perversepiety you become enraged, and while you hasten to deprive the Carthaginianof your parent’s slaughter, you mutilate a face that resembles your own—andyou desecrate a body very close to your own image.By murdering his own father, Tymbrenus destroys a reflection of hisown self and his history. Likewise, the death of the twins, Eurymedonand Lycormas, adds to the confusion and annihilation of memoryand identity:uos etiam primo gemini cecidistis in aeuo,Eurymedon fratrem et fratrem mentite Lycorma,cuncta pares, dulcisque labor sua nomina natisreddere et in uultu genetrici stare suorum.iam fixus iugulo culpa te soluerat ensis,Eurymedon, inter miserae lamenta senectae,dumque malis turbata parens deceptaque uisis‘quo ruis? huc ferrum’ clamat ‘conuerte, Lycorma’,ecce simul iugulum perfoderat ense Lycormas.sed magno ‘quinam, Eurymedon, furor iste?’ sonabatcum planctu geminaeque notis decepta figuraefunera mutato reuocabat nomine mater,donec transacto tremebunda per ubera ferrotunc etiam ambiguos cecidit super inscia natos. (2.636–49)Also you, twin brothers, fell in your prime, Eurymedon and Lycormas, each anexact likeness of the other, alike in every point. It was a sweet toil for yourmother to recognise her sons by name and to decide who is who, by looking ateach son’s face. Now the sword that had pierced your neck, had already freedyou from the blame, Eurymedon, amidst the lament of your poor old mother;and while the parent, disturbed by the sorrow and deceived by whom shethought she had seen, exclaims: ‘Where do you rush? Turn your blade here,Lycormas,’—behold! Lycormas had already stabbed his throat with the sword.But she cried with a big groan: ‘What kind of fury is this, Eurymedon?,’ anddeceived by the likeness of the twins, the mother kept calling back the dead bytheir wrong names, until, with a sword driven through her quivering breasts,she fell over her sons, whom even then she could not distinguish.The death of the mother and her two sons brings this book to a fullcircle, recalling vividly Mopsus, who had also died over his two sons.

134 Motherhood and the OtherHis otherness distinguishes him as a foreigner within the city ofSaguntum, a Cretan among Romans and Zacynthians, in search ofa better life. In this case, the mother is unable to identify her sonsproperly and thus annuls the ancestral, Roman custom of conclamatio,the calling of the dead person’s name three times, rendering itfutile in this case. 103 Although the poet addresses such deeds ofapparent bravery as infelix gloria (‘pitiable glory’, 2.613) and laudandamonstra (‘praiseworthy monstrosities’, 2.650), the result of themass suicide remains dubious: iniustis neglecta deis (‘scorned by theunfair gods’, 2.657). As Keith rightly points out, ‘Silius both praisesthe Saguntines for their fidelity ...and abhors the carnage with itsovertones of civil discord’. 104This idea of a loss of communal and private identity is reinforced,in the final scene of the episode, by Tiburna’s death. As Tiburnaperishes on the tomb of Murrus, she re-enacts the death of Dido,whose suicide is described in the same terms of sacrifice on Hannibal’sshield earlier in book 2 (422–5). Thus Tiburna stops being a Saguntineand becomes the Other, the Bacchant who in a frenzy sacrificesherself over the weapons and the tomb of her deceased husband(arma super ruit et flammas inuadit hiatu, ‘she falls over the weaponsand enters the fire with open mouth’, 2.680). She comes closer to theCarthaginian Dido, whose death sets the poem in motion. Now,Tiburna not only defies the norms set by her gender but is portrayedwith her femininity lost, as the poet assimilates her to Allecto, theinfernal Fury, at the moment when she disturbs the dead and metesout punishment for Pluto (qualis ...Allecto, 2.671–3). 105 Tiburna’s103 See Lemaire (1823), 1.145; pace Spaltenstein (1986), 171.104 See Keith (2000), 92; cf. also 92–3:His [the poet’s] attribution of praise and blame in the episode also demonstrates anunfaltering commitment to the ‘natural’ hierarchy of gender in the structure ofRoman epic warfare, for the glorious achievement of the Saguntines is inspired byHercules, who sends Loyalty to fortify the citizens out of concern for the city hefounded ..., while their unheroic mutual slaughter is provoked by Tisiphone ...105 Dietrich (2005), 80, observes:Through his references to passages from Aeneid 4 and 7, Silius creates an associationof female lamentation with bacchic frenzy and the furies in a series of connectionsbetween Tisiphone/Tiburna, and Allecto, Amata and Dido ...In evoking Virgil’s

Defining the Other 135sacrifice over the weapons of Murrus seals the death of Saguntum; thefire finishes off what the sword has spared.Hannibal’s entrance to the empty city is marked by the lack ofdistinction (nullo discrimine, 2.681). 106 Everything looks the same:semambusta ... / infelix ...turba (‘half-burned ...tragic ...crowd’,2.681–2). His effort to conquer and assimilate the Saguntines hasproved vain, while at the same time the absence of the Romans isunderscored in the narrative as a defining element of the next phaseof the war. As McGuire has observed, ‘Silius encourages the reader tolook for traces of Romanitas in Saguntum itself’. 107 I submit, however,that the Saguntines themselves strive to erase their ties withRome. The obliteration of Roman identity becomes an absence at alllevels, absence of strategy and common policy, absence of virtue andpity. 108 As book 2 comes to a close, there is no distinction betweenthe always cunning Carthaginians and the Romans: their mutual lackof fides proves destructive for the Iberian city. Moreover, as same andother seem to converge rather than diverge, Hannibal’s fate of exileand death by poison, an anachronistic prediction on the poet’s part,is not different from the fate that awaits so many Roman generals,even Scipio himself among others, as we saw in the beginning of thischapter. At the same time, however, it serves to underscore theCarthaginian’s own alienation from his patria, which is owed to aprolonged stay in another land, Italy, as we shall see at the end of thischapter. Both Carthage’s and Rome’s encounters with othernessutterly fail in the beginning of the poem, as the transformation ofthe Roman city into a diverse empire requires a prolonged process ofassimilation of diversity. Saguntum’s silenced existence will speakvolumes in the remainder of the Punica as the city becomes exemplaryfor her hybridity and unique nature as an urbs on the peripherylamenting women through the figure of Tiburna Silius emphasises her potentialviolence, realised in the havoc wreaked upon Saguntum.106 As McGuire (1997), 186, observes: ‘Suicide, as eloquent an act as it might be, isan act of self destruction, and so, at the same time as it defines the absoluteopposition to tyranny of the person who carries it out, it also terminates thisopposition.’107 McGuire (1997), 210.108 See Ariemma (2007) on Hannibal’s repetition of the burning of Saguntinemonumenta at Liternum in book 6.

136 Motherhood and the Otherthat strives for her own identity, away from the big centres of eitherRome or Carthage. Emphasis on Asbyte and the (m)others-murdererscan only serve as a reminder of the chaotic world of theThebaid, a reflection of what we could call Silius’ ‘poetics of defeat’:it is from this chaotic and civil-war-like narrative that Rome is goingto emerge as an idealised entity, destined to lead the world’s future.From this regressive act, the journey between autonomia and asymbolia,the semiotic genotext and the symbolic phenotext, silence/Bacchic frenzy and speech, hybridity is born, the sole viable way tosuccess and revitalisation.GERMANA ELISSAE: A CARTHAGINIAN REBORNAs has been noted in the introduction of this chapter, in the Punica,Silius fashions rivers, lakes, and their inhabitants as active ‘fighters’against the Roman or the Carthaginian forces: this is nature’s revengefor the destruction wrought upon the environment and its elements.Consider, for instance, the resistance Hannibal meets in his crossingof the Alps (in the narrative of 3.463–76 and 518–56: adverseweather, winds, avalanches) or Scipio’s encounter with the personifiedTrebia, whom he accuses of having become Carthaginian: quaenamista repente / Sidonium, infelix, rabies te reddidit amnem? (‘whatsudden madness has turned you into a Carthaginian river, wretchedTrebia?’ 4.647–8). The river’s answer counters the general’s threat tochange the river’s name (amnis tibi nomina demam, ‘I shall rob you ofthe name of river’, 4.645), as the Trebia calls attention to Scipio’srashness: adde modum dextrae aut campis incumbe propinquis (‘put alimit to your deeds of arms, or else you shall fall on the nearby plains’,4.666).In another instance, before the battle at Lake Trasimene, Junoassumes the disguise of the lake’s numen, Thrasymennus, and appearsto Hannibal in a dream, revealing the lake’s Asian origins:namque ego sum, celsis quem cinctum montibus ambit / Tmolo missamanus, stagnis Thrasymennus opacis. (‘For I am Thrasymennus, thelake of shady water, whom, surrounded by high mountains, settlerssent from Tmolus inhabit’, 4.737–8). Like the River Trebia, who is

Defining the Other 137accused of being an ally of the Carthaginians, Lake Trasimene conspiresagainst the Romans. In truth, Silius’ geo-ethnographic digressioninforms us at length of the site’s origins from Asia Minor(5.7–23), from a region around the river Tmolus. 109 Silius explainsthe story of Tyrrhenus and his son’s, Thrasymennus’, abduction bythe nymph Agylle. The emphasis on the origins of rivers and theirrole in the war becomes crucial for the poet, who thus underscoresthe foreign elements within Italy. These forces work against the Romans,especially in the first phase of the war, during the terribledefeats at the Ticinus, the Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae.Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Juno once again exploitsnature’s elements before the battle at Cannae, as she aspires to helpher protégé, by summoning the help of Anna Perenna. 110 In theopening lines of book 8, Silius underlines the importance of Fabiusas the first significant obstacle that Hannibal faces in the completionof his plans for conquering Rome. The emergence of the famousCunctator as a dictator of the Roman people in book 6 (609–18),upon Jupiter’s order, has caused a major difficulty for the Carthaginiangeneral. The counter-action comes from Juno (8.25–38), whosummons the Roman nymph Anna from the bed of the River Numicius,as the most appropriate person to inspire Hannibal withwarlike action, just before the battle of Cannae. Anna follows Juno’sprecepts (8.39–43). Parenthetically, in his poetic ‘archaeology’, Siliustakes the opportunity to expand on the nymph’s fate after Dido’sdeath (8.50–201). 111 After this digression, the narrative resumes toinform us how Anna’s mission is accomplished, as she appears toHannibal and reiterates Juno’s words (8.202–25). Succumbing to the109 See a discussion of this aetiological story in Asso (1999), Vinchesi (2004),Augoustakis (2005), and Cowan (2009).110 Only in 12.705 does Juno for the first time appear to Hannibal uero ore (‘in herreal appearance’).111 For an analysis of the episode of Anna Perenna see Bruère (1959), 228–9, whodiscusses the influence of Ovid’s Fast. 3.543–656. See also Santini (1991), 5–62;Goldman (1997); Ariemma’s (2000a) commentary; and most recently Dietrich(2004), 2–7; Ganiban (2010); and Keith (2010). A. Barchiesi (2001a), 335, brieflycomments on the elegiac and epylliac tones of the episode, as a mediation betweenthe Aeneid and the Fasti.

138 Motherhood and the Otherdivine queen’s will, Hannibal prepares his soldiers for battle, while hepromises to confer due honour upon both Anna and her sister Dido(8.226–31).In this episode, the poet exploits Anna’s story to underscore bothher Romanitas and her inherent otherness. Juno first apostrophisesthe nymph by referring to her heritage from Belus, which she shareswith Hannibal: ‘sanguine cognato iuuenis tibi, diua, laborat / Hannibal,a uestro nomen memorabile Belo ...’ (‘Goddess, the youth akin toyou is in trouble, Hannibal, a well-known name, a descendant fromyour own Belus ...’, 8.30–1). Juno’s use of the deictic and possessiveuestro emphasises the forced connection between an already RomanisedAnna and the Carthaginian general. What the goddess wants tomobilise is the inherent Carthaginian in Anna’s blood and to displacethe Romanised goddess from her present status, both literary andhistorical. Anna obeys the command by wishing to help her nativepeople:...sit fas, sit tantum, quaeso, retinere fauoremantiquae patriae mandataque magna sororis,quamquam inter Latios Annae stet numen honores. (8.41–3).May it be proper, I beg, may I only keep the support of my ancient countryand the great commands of my sister, although the deity of Anna is amongthose honoured by the Romans.By attaching herself to her antiqua patria, not only does Annarenounce her new status by marginalising herself into a foreignelement in Rome/Italy, but she also wishes to attach herself to amodel of patria that is fraught with its own sinister elements ofDido’s death and curse that lead Hannibal to pursue a lost cause.As Juno’s instrument, like Hannibal, Anna is portrayed as a confusedfigure and shows the same signs as the general in misplacing herfeelings towards the wrong country, thus revealing the problematicsof full acculturation, present in the poem: could an imported goddessbe fully Romanised and acculturated in her new abode?For instance, Silius refers with wonder to Anna’s cult as a strangeoccurrence in Roman culture and highlights her foreign otherness:...cur Sarrana dicent Oenotri numina templo / regnisque Aeneadumgermana colatur Elissae (‘...why the Italians consecrate a temple to aCarthaginian goddess and why the sister of Dido is worshipped in the

Defining the Other 139kingdom of Aeneas’ descendants’, 8.46–7). 112 The patronymic Aeneadumis juxtaposed with the name of Elissa, the person who set thepoem in motion in book 1. The paradox of Anna’s presence on Italiansoil is thus highlighted from the beginning of Silius’ excursus andconstitutes the driving force behind his ‘archaeological’ tour inRoman folklore, ethnography, and literature.From 8.144 to line 224a, however, the text as it stands is notderived from the manuscript made by Poggio (and his copyist)upon the discovery of the Punica in 1417 (Codex Sangallensis), butappears for the first time in the Aldine edition of 1523, made byFr. Asulanus. 113 Much ink has been spilled in favour of the authenticityof these lines, which include the end of Anna’s narrative toAeneas concerning Dido’s death and the conclusion of Anna’s owntransformation into an Italian nymph. Heitland has maintainedthat the disputed lines are genuine because they might have beenan omission made by Poggio’s copyist. 114 In addition, Heitlandargues that on stylistic grounds the scene appears to be Silius’ owncreation. 115 By contrast, in his Teubner edition of the Punica, Delzdisputes the authenticity of the aforementioned verses; in particular,he contends that the close imitation of Virgil and Ovid in severallines is alien to Silius’ technique and style. 116 Recently, Brugnoli andSantini have suggested that the Aldine addition is not a supplementcreated by an ingenious scholar of the Renaissance, 117 but rather agenuine reworking of the Virgilian and Ovidian episodes, since manylines of the alleged ‘lacuna’ are imitated in the works of Dante,Boccaccio, Gautier de Châtillon, and Petrarch, whose poems predatePoggio’s discovery in 1417. 118112 For a discussion of the metapoetics of repetam see A. Barchiesi (2001a), 335.113 See Volpilhac-Lenthéric, Miniconi, and Devallet (1981), 125–7, and Ariemma(2000a), 67–8, for a detailed discussion.114 See Heitland (1896).115 Heitland’s view is followed by Duff (1934), xvii; Kissel (1979), 193–6 andn.100; Volpilhac-Lenthéric, Miniconi, and Devallet (1981), 125–7 (with caution).116 Delz (1987), lxiv–lxviii.117 For instance Jacobus Constantius, as Delz surmises.118 See Brugnoli and Santini (1995), in particular 55–98. However, Santini (1991),54–6, notices that the problem cannot be solved, despite his personal inclination toascribe the lines to Silius. The discussion by Brugnoli and Santini has found supportingreviews (by Devallet [1996], 376–7; Citti [1998], with reservations) but has also

140 Motherhood and the OtherThe present situation of the text makes it difficult to decidewhether or not the conclusion of the scene is genuine. Althoughone can argue for or against Silius’ authorship of the disputed lines,it remains difficult to dismiss the fact that these verses are omittedin the Codex Sangallensis. Unfortunately, the manuscript tradition isclouded with ambiguities and the text itself poses several problemsconcerning its authenticity. Ahl, Davis, and Pomeroy correctly observethat any conclusion based on these lines ‘must necessarily be subject todispute’. 119 The remaining portion of the text (8.25–143), however,which includes Juno’s call to Anna and the first part of Anna’s story,namely the events from her flight from Carthage to her arrival in Italy,her meeting with Aeneas, and the beginning of her recounting of Dido’sdemise, will be employed here in order to draw some intratextualparallels with other scenes in the Punica.In particular, Juno’s behaviour in book 8 reminds the reader of thegoddess’s treatment of Tisiphone in book 2. As we have seen, duringthe siege at Saguntum, Juno summons the Fury from the Underworldin order to compel the Saguntines to commit suicide (2.526–52).Juno’s action is motivated (in the form of a counter-action) byHercules’ plea to Fides, to intervene and help the Saguntines, whosuffer from hunger (2.475–525). Tisiphone, however, causes thetransformation of the Saguntine people from a pious and loyal raceinto a violent mass. The havoc begins with the female characters whoslaughter and destroy everything in the city (553–680), thus erasingSaguntum’s past and its ties with the Romans.How can the parallel with Tisiphone be construed within the Rahmenhandlungof the poem? Juno’s intervention in book 2 securesHannibal’s victory over the Saguntines. It is precisely the suicidebeen strongly refuted by Reeve (1998); cf. the reaction by Brugnoli-Santini (1998).Braun (1999) is correct in pointing out that the second half of the study fails topersuade, namely that Silius had been available through the fourteenth centurywithout interruption.119 Ahl, Davis, and Pomeroy (1986), 2497. Silius’ statement that Anna’s story isobscured densa caligine ironically (and coincidentally), applies to the state of manuscripttradition of the disputed lines also: multa retro rerum iacet atque ambagibusaeui / obtegitur densa caligine mersa uetustas ...‘Far back in events and submerged indense darkness, lies the ancient story [of Anna], veiled with the uncertainty oftime ...’, 8.44–5).

Defining the Other 141committed by the Spanish people at Saguntum, and not Hannibal’svictory, that merits the poet’s enthusiasm and praise at the end of thebook. Though her purpose is to abet her protégé, in fact Juno ironicallyaccomplishes the opposite: the victory over Saguntum is not a token ofHannibal’s own heroism. Likewise, in book 8, by sending Anna toinspire Hannibal with warlike frenzy, Juno becomes the means for thecompletion of the fata, inasmuch as she makes Hannibal rush into abattle that marks the beginning of the end, the beginning of his owndecline. In addition, the Olympian goddess uses once again a minordeity as the medium for the achievement of her plans. And yet, doesJuno choose the most effective person in book 8?A closer look at Anna’s presence in book 8 reveals that the Carthaginianwoman has been Romanised, by becoming a nymph of theRiver Numicius; at the same time, her otherness is salient in thenarrative, because of her indisputable Punic descent. In his apostropheto Anna, Silius addresses her as diua Indigetis castis conterminalucis (‘the goddess, who dwells near the sacred grove of Indiges,the native god’, 8.39), that is, a goddess, neighbour to the sacredgrove of Indiges-Aeneas.In the beginning of the digression where Silius recounts Anna’sstory, Anna is depicted as an alien in her own country, because of herfear of Iarbas’ plans (8.55–6); then her persecution continues, whenshe first finds refuge in Battus’ land, because of her own brother’s,Pygmalion’s, pursuit (8.57–64). Finally, she arrives on Italian soil, butthere also she is marked as a Sidonis (8.70), just as Hypsipyle, as wesaw in the Thebaid, was exemplified by her geonymic, Lemnias:ergo agitur pelago, diuis inimica sibique,quod se non dederit comitem in suprema sorori,donec iactatam laceris, miserabile, uelisfatalis turbo in Laurentes expulit oras.non caeli, non illa soli, non gnara colentumSidonis in Latia trepidabat naufraga terra. (8.65–70)Therefore, she is driven by the sea, hostile to the gods and her own self,because she did not accompany her sister to death, until a fateful stormdrove her onto the Italian shores, tossed by torn sails, a pitiable sight.Unaware of the clime and soil and its inhabitants, the Sidonian girl, shipwreckedupon the land of Latium, was in great fear.

142 Motherhood and the OtherAnna’s otherness is showcased in the beginning of the hexameter(Sidonis, 8.70) by means of her alienation from her own country inphysical and emotional terms: she feels insecure everywhere, inCarthage, Cyrene, and soon in Italy itself. Feeling guilty over Dido’sdeath, Anna does not hesitate to blame Aeneas directly (solus regnilucisque fuisti / germanae tu causa meae, ‘you alone were the reason ofmy sister’s kingdom and life’, 8.81–2). Thus Anna exonerates herselffrom the guilt and displaces her hurt feelings onto Aeneas.Even in the part of the text that belongs to the Aldine addition, thenarrator exploits the ambiguities of Anna’s origins. For instance,Dido’s appearance in the dream forces Anna to flee to the waters ofNumicius, where Anna becomes Romanised (nec iam ampliusaduena tectis / illa uidebatur, ‘nor did she seem a foreigner any longerin that palace’, 8.163–4). 120 Even though Dido harbours Anna’sperpetual hatred against the Romans by pointing out Lavinia’sschemes, at the same time she announces that Anna will become anaeternum Italis numen ...in oris (‘an everlasting deity in the Italianshores’, 8.183). 121 Anna, however, remains a Sidonis,anumen favourabletowards the Romans (Sidonis et placido Teucros affarier ore, ‘aSidonian goddess and addressed the Trojans with friendly speech’,8.199), though she initially faces the hatred of Lavinia (in both Ovid’sFasti and the Aldine addition). 122 Hannibal calls Anna a decus generis(‘glory of the nation’, 8.227) and a numen patrium (‘goddess of mycountry’, 8.239), while she reveals her presence to him as uestrigenerata e sanguine Beli (‘born from the blood of your ancestorBelus’, 8.221). Although Silius underlines her genuine sympathy forHannibal, the poet also reminds us constantly that Anna has beentransformed into an Italian goddess. It is precisely Anna’s ‘nationality’that has prompted Ahl to observe that ‘Anna is the femalecounterpart of Aeneas’ masculinity, as latently hostile to Rome asIndiges is friendly.’ 123 I would like to suggest, however, that the poetalso exploits the Roman aspects of Anna, which we are inclined to120 Cf. de Bustamante (1985).121 Another woman who mingles with a river is Ilia (12.542–4), Anio’s wife.122 Cf. Fast. 3.633–8 and Pun. 8.176–7.123 Ahl (1985), 314. Ahl, Davis, and Pomeroy (1986), 2496–8, also underline thisinherent ‘hostility’ of Anna’s figure for the Roman culture. See also Dietrich (2004),on the sinister association of Anna with the battle at Cannae.

Defining the Other 143dismiss because of her association with Dido. Keeping in mind thatthe battle at Cannae signals the beginning of decline for Hannibal,Anna’s mission acquires a twofold significance: on the one hand, as aCarthaginian and faithful to her sister (retinere fauorem / antiquaepatriae mandataque magna sororis, 8.41–2), Anna is willing to helpHannibal; and yet on the other hand, as an Italian goddess, she harmsher fellow citizen by compelling him to pursue a destiny that willprove self-destructive. 124 At the end of the scene, Hannibal vows todedicate a temple to Anna in Carthage, next to Dido, which, however,is impossible: Anna is a Roman nymph, with a twofold nature,but of one abode, the River Numicius. When he urges his soldiers topursue battle at Cannae, Hannibal invokes Anna’s intervention:en, numen patrium spondet maiora peractis.uellantur signa, ac diua ducente petamusinfaustum Phrygibus Diomedis nomine campum. (8.239–41)Behold! The goddess of our country promises a future greater than what wehave so far achieved. Let the standards be pulled up, and with the goddess asour guide, let us seek the field, which is ill-omened for the Trojans because ofthe name of Diomedes.The future promised to Hannibal, however, will become elusive andmisleadingly successful, since the battle at Cannae represents thezenith not only of the Carthaginian victories but also of Romanuirtus. After Cannae, the decline for both parties involved in thiswar is at hand, according to the poet (10.657–8). In short, Anna’sintervention in book 8 highlights the uncertainties and the ambiguityof her role as both a Carthaginian and a Roman figure. 125As we shall see in the fourth chapter of this study, the episode ofAnna’s intervention plays off against the importation of the MagnaMater in the opening of the last book of the Punica. In Claudia’s case,the audience receives a clear answer from the goddess concerning theVestal’s chastity; accusations of Anna’s chastity are never resolved but124 In the Fast. 3.675–96, we find out how tricky Anna’s metamorphosis can be,when she disguises herself as Minerva, a substitute that cheats Mars of his plan toseduce the virgin goddess.125 Santini (1992), 390–92 and Dominik (2006), 118–19, discuss this ambiguity inAnna’s figure.

144 Motherhood and the Otherrather subsumed by her transformation, as she merges in the watersof Numicius, an act that thus illustrates her future union withAeneas. Anna is left marginal, suspended between her two countries,a patria she once had, and a new one in Rome, where, however, hervoice is subject to Juno’s whimsical behest: her transformation into a‘Roman’ numen does not allow her the autonomy that ultimatelyshapes identity. Even in her metamorphosis, we can observe apalpable asymbolia: Anna finds refuge in the waters of the Numicius,a waterscape clearly marked as masculine, not in the female receptacleof the chôra, as exemplified by Tellus, as we shall see next.THE RENEWAL OF TELLUSThe close relationship with, and care for, one’s fatherland proves animportant component in the process of becoming Roman. And yet,rashness and irrationality of battle decisions, the electioneering practices,and contempt for Rome and by extension for one’s patria, inthe early books of the Punica, are but a few examples of behaviourdisplayed by the Roman generals, for whom Silius draws little or noconnection with their patria (Flaminius in book 5; Varro in books9–10). Moreover, as we have observed, Saguntum breaks its alliancewith Rome by burning its past, just as Asbyte is silenced forever andburned, and as Anna’s efforts to reconnect with her antiqua patriacome to naught, by bringing about the opposite effect for the recipientof her favour, namely the beginning of the end for Carthage.By contrast, Nature in her appearance as Tellus in book 15 (522–63)positively reverses the weakness of fathers and sons to be of assistanceto their patria. The presence of Tellus suggests a new icon of patria,where the masculine patria is fused with the feminine notion of terramater: motherly affection and the regression to the feminine chôra isthe absolutely necessary link for the defeat of the other. 126 Only afterClaudius Nero dreams of the personified Italian Tellus, is he filled126 On Tellus and her conflation with Gaia and Demeter as Mother goddess, seePhillips (2002), 100–101. The widely used formula Terra Mater (TLL, viii.443.6–16)gives birth to the coinage of Tellus Mater, occurring in the first century bce (cf. Liv.10.29.4 and Oakley [1997–2005], 4.323, with references to Var. R. 1.1.5 and Ov. Fast.

Defining the Other 145with desire for revenge and is able to inflict upon the Carthaginiansthe first significant defeat in mainland Italy, at the Metaurus in 207bce, thus preparing the ground for the final victory at Zama, inAfrica. 127 Though natural as an idea, the portrayal of Tellus in Siliusis unique in Roman epic, 128 inasmuch as Tellus replaces a similarappearance of patria in Lucan. First the Oenotria Tellus shows Junoesquetraits, complaining as Juno does in Aeneid 1.37–49, but alsoreversing the hostile goddess’s image in the Punica by counterbalancingher acts, since Juno has been the goddess so far who moves theplot towards a Carthaginian victory: 129tantone (heu superi!) spernor contempta furoreSidoniae gentis ...?decima haec iam uertitur aestas,ex quo proterimur. iuuenis ...intulit arma mihi temeratisque Alpibus ardensin nostros descendit agros. quot corpora texicaesorum stratis totiens deformis alumnis!nulla mihi floret bacis felicibus arbor;1.671, as well as Virg. Aen. 11.71, mater tellus, and Serv. ad Aen. 1.171, cum Telluremdeam dicamus, terram elementum).No difference between Tellus and mater terra is discerned in imperial literature, butat times also an association with Magna Mater. See Gesztelyi’s (1981) detailedanalysis. On the dubious etymology of tellus, see Ernout-Meillet (s.v. tellus), perhapsfrom Sanskrit talam (‘plain ground’), but also compare the curious existence of amale counterpart (Etruscan Tellumo/Tellurus). For visual representations, see LIMC,7.1.879–89. For the image of personified Italy in the Punica, see Venini (1978);Santini (1991), 80; Mezzanotte (1995), 370–72.127 See Augoustakis (2003b), 123–4.128 See Spaltenstein (1990), 377. It should be noted that Silius uses Cicero’sprosopopoeic portrait of Roma in Catil. 1.27 fused with the portrayal of the personifiedPatria in Catil. 1.18 (also called communis parens omnium nostrum, ‘commonparent of all of us’). In Cicero, Roma is looking proleptically at the possible catastropheentailed by a Catilinarian war (cum bello uastabitur Italia, uexabuntur urbes,tecta ardebunt, tum te non existimas inuidiae incendio conflagraturum? ‘When Italywill be devastated, the cities will be destroyed, the houses will be burnt, then do younot think you will burn in the “fire” of envy?’), a description echoed in Tellus’ wordsabout the utter devastation of the Italian countryside by Hannibal. Cf. Pl. Cri.50a–4d. See also Ripoll (2000a), 158–9, on Cicero’s influence on Silius in this passage.On the use of the figure of Patria in Cicero, see most recently Tzounakas (2006) withfurther bibliographical references.129 See Burck (1984a), 84–5, and Augoustakis (2003b), 124 n.38.

146 Motherhood and the Otherimmatura seges rapido succiditur ense;culmina uillarum nostrum delapsa ferunturin gremium foedantque suis mea regna ruinis ...tum me scindat uagus Afer aratro,et Libys Ausoniis commendet semina sulcis,ni cuncta, exsultant quae latis agmina campis,uno condiderim tumulo. (15.523–4, 526–7, 529–35, 538–41)Oh, gods! Am I so much despised and spurned by the madness of the Punicrace? ...This is now the tenth year we are being destroyed. The youngman ...brought arms against me and having stained the Alps, furious, hecame down upon my fields. How many bodies have I covered! How manytimes has my face been misshapen by the piles of my slain children! Now noolive-tree of mine is covered with a fair crop of berries; the corn in the fieldsis cut down unripe by a swift sword; the roofs of houses in the country falldown into my lap and tarnish my kingdom with their ruins ...Then theAfrican nomad may plough my fields, and the Libyan may commit seed tothe Ausonian furrows, unless I bury in one grave all the troops that soproudly tread on my wide plains.Tellus insists on the foreignness of the Hannibalic troops, callingthem by their geonymics (Sidonia gens, Afer, Libys) and lays specialemphasis on the Carthaginian’s act of staining the Roman territoryby his invasion (temeratis Alpibus), which results in partial to completesterility and utter destruction. The mother-earth’s face is disfigured(deformis) and stained: her primary function of reproductionis eclipsed and replaced by Tellus’ task of burying her children. 130This topos of infertility, stressed by the future-less-vivid condition ofAfricans ploughing Italian soil, sowing, and reaping fruits from theirforeign semina, becomes the source for Tellus’ quick action anddramatic appearance in a dream to Claudius Nero:hic iuuenem aggreditur Latiae telluris imago:‘ ...magnum aliquid tibi, si patriae uis addere fatis,audendum est, quod depulso quoque moenibus hosteuictores fecisse tremant ...surge, age, fer gressus. patulos regione Matauridamnaui tumulis Poenorum atque ossibus agros.’130 For this function of the proverbial tellus tumulat, see Schwartz (2002).

Defining the Other 147his dictis abit atque abscedens uisa pauentemattrahere et fractis turmas propellere portis.Rumpit flammato turbatus corde soporemac supplex geminas tendens ad sidera palmasTellurem Noctemque et caelo sparsa precaturastra ... (15.546, 549–51, 556–63)Here the image of the Italian land approaches the young man: ‘ ...If youwant to prolong the life allotted by the Fates to your fatherland, you mustdare something big, at which the conquerors may shudder to have performed,even with the enemy driven away from the walls ...Come on,wake up, march! I have condemned the open fields by the region of theMetaurus to be the grave for the bones of the Carthaginians.’ Having saidthese things, she departs and even as she leaves, she seems to drag after herthe fearing general and to push the troops out from the broken gates.Disturbed in his heart on fire, Nero wakes up and as a suppliant raisingboth hands to the stars, he prays to Tellus and Night and the Stars thatstrewed the sky ...Tellus uses strong language to underscore the certainty of success forNero in the upcoming battle, while she stresses that death for theCarthaginians is guaranteed by her power as mother-earth who hasburied her children and now emerges as an avenger of the deaths ofso many of her own. At the same time, however, Tellus acts as amedium that secures the prolongation of the life of Nero’s patria, asan ideal matrona who secures generational continuity by instructingher children to live on according to the mos maiorum. The strikingphrase si patriae uis addere fatis verifies the role of Tellus as the mostsignificant contributor to the modification of the purely masculineterm patria, whose import is utilised in the discourse between fathersand sons to inspire male heroism and to secure the continuation ofthe epic poem itself that is propelled by such deeds of courage inone’s effort to save the country, the fatherland. Tellus exercises afascinating influence on Nero: she seems to drag behind her theRoman general (attrahere), Silius says, to a symbolic chôra ofmotherhood, from which the general will assume unprecedentedenergy to annihilate the other and therefore form an identity basedon the accentuated differentiation between Roman and non-Roman.A hapax in Silius, the verb attrahere complements the forceful

148 Motherhood and the Otherpresence of the personified goddess (OLD, s.v. attraho 1), 131 who hasabandoned her previous lament and complaint and has come toNero resolved. Tellus’ appearance constitutes a centripetal forcethat aims at bringing the scattered Roman forces back to the centre,back to the female aspects, once lost from the semantic register ofpatria, by heightening the suffering of mother-earth but also bystressing her extensive power to inflict death and destruction andto exact revenge. Patria alone remains incomplete without Tellus’intervention. Consider, for instance, the fickleness that pestersRoman politics in the case of Claudius Nero’s colleague in the consulship,Livius Salinator: he goes into exile on the basis of false accusationsconcerning embezzlement (15.596–7). Having being recalled,however, to serve on the consulship at this critical juncture for hispatria, he magnanimously behaves in a similar manner, just as Tellusinstructs Nero to do: patriae donauerat iram (‘he had foregone hisresentment for the benefit of his fatherland’, 15.600). 132 Livius assistsNero in prolonging the life of the patria by forgiving the mistakescommitted by the people that constitute the body of the country. 133The use of verbs, such as addo and dono, underline the heroes’ effortfor a reconnection with their patria that often alienates its children.131 Cf. Ov. Met. 3.563 (and an interesting use in 10.143 on Orpheus’ attraction ofanimals) and Luc. 10.384.132 On Livius Salinator, see Burck (1984a), 88–90, and Marks (2005a), 49–50, onthe ‘rejuvenation’ of Roman political figures through Scipio. Cf. Liv. 27.34.14: utparentium saeuitiam, sic patriae patiendo ac ferendo leniendam esse (‘as with theharshness of parents, so one must with patience and endurance be lenient to hiscountry’).133 Livius’ forgiveness towards his patria reminds the reader of Fabius’ fatherlyinstructions (7.536–66) to his son, Quintus, not to hold any grudges against theRoman people for giving Minucius equal authority to that of Fabius (7.515–16):succensere nefas patriae (‘it is forbidden to be angry at your country’, 7.555). Quintusthinks that his father is violated by the Roman people’s treatment (uiolasse parentem,7.546), although Fabius himself strives to ingrain in the young man’s heart thatproper military strategies and the ancestral values of helping one’s country, evenwhen unfairly treated, require a certain impenetrability to anger, like that of Camillusin the fourth century (390 bce). See Kissel (1979), 118–20, and Tipping (1999) on therole of exemplarity. As will be discussed in chapter 3, Marus’ instruction to Serranusinvolves the same strategy, which, however, is undercut by Marcia’s scepticismconcerning Regulus’ own impenetrability. On Fabius, see von Albrecht (1964),68–77; Fernandelli (2006); Bernstein (2008), 139–45 (on Fabius and his son);Fucecchi (2010); and Marks (2010) on Fabius–Quintus vs Cato–Brutus in Lucan.

Defining the Other 149At the same time, one does not fail to notice that Tellus is portrayedas corrupted by the strangeness of Hannibal: Tellus is not going to bethe same, it seems, after this war. Same has changed into other, as otherhas mostly failed to become same, but unbeknownst to it (as is oftenthe case) has influenced the perspective of same. In her discussion offoreign otherness, Kristeva aptly comments on the interaction of sameand other as follows: ‘A first step was taken that removed the uncannystrangeness from the outside, where fright had anchored it, to locate itinside, not inside the familiar considered as one’s own and proper, butthe familiar potentially tainted with strangeness [emphasis my own]and referred to ...an improper past.’ 134 Silius locates the changecaused on Italy’s body in the past by alluding to a comparable appearanceof the prosopopoeic patria in Lucan and reminds the reader thaton account of Tellus’ resurrection, there will definitely be a time afterthe Punica when patria will suffer again, in the future, by her own,alienated, children: 135ut uentum est parui Rubiconis ad undas,ingens uisa duci patriae trepidantis imagoclara per obscuram uultu maestissima noctemturrigero canos effundens uertice crinescaesarie lacera nudisque adstare lacertiset gemitu permixta loqui: ‘quo tenditis ultra?quo fertis mea signa, uiri? si iure uenitis,si ciues, huc usque licet.’ tum perculit horrormembra ducis, riguere comae gressumque coercenslanguor in extrema tenuit uestigia ripa.(Luc. 1.185–94)When he came to the waters of little Rubicon, the mighty image of the patriain distress appeared to the leader, clearly, through the murky night, mostgrievous in her face, her white hair streaming from her tower-crowned head,with tresses torn and shoulders bare, she stood in front of him and spokesighing: ‘Where do you march further? Where do you take my standards,men? If you come lawfully, if you are citizens, this far only is allowed.’ Then134 Kristeva (1991), 183.135 On this episode in Lucan see Peluzzi (1999); Narducci (2002), 194–207;Moretti (2007). It is noteworthy that Caesar in other sources (Plu. Caes. 32) isportrayed as having intercourse with his mother, before crossing the Rubicon. Theimage of Patria as a turrita figura is alluded to by Hannibal himself in Pun. 13.12–14.

150 Motherhood and the Othertrembling struck the leader’s limbs, his hair stiffened, and weakness stoppedhis progress and held his feet at the river’s edge.Caesar’s fear is followed by an intrepid speech in which he asks forRoma’s support (summique o numinis instar / Roma, faue coeptis,‘O Rome, equal of the highest deity, support my undertakings’, Luc.1.199–200). As we shall see in our examination of Pomponia’s role inScipio’s education, the same phrase is used there by Scipio, to equatePomponia to the goddess Roma and patria. Here, however, Caesar isseeking support for his unlawful plans, to march against his ownpatria, against Rome, who appears in the image of an old woman,past childbearing. Silius replaces Lucan’s patriae trepidantis imago withLatiae telluris imago not only in order to underscore the resolve ofTellus in taking the war in her hands and thus in reversing the atmosphereof civil war Rome, but also in order to stress the role of Tellus asthe mother par excellence, without whom success is impossible: thusthe poet emphasises the impasse of Lucanian poetics, where the oldfigure of the patria is literally invaded/abandoned by both the Caesariansand the Pompeians; Lucan’s poignant conclusion of the secondquestion with uiri underlines the manly nefariousness of men turningagainst their patria, their fatherland. Though Caesar internalises thepatriae imago by translating his prayer into a prayer to Roma herself,thus aligning patria with the feminine city, he defies the warnings.Whereas Lucan’s patria comes to Caesar in a dream clara per obscuram...noctem, Silius transforms the details of the dream and the clarity ofthe vision: Nero prays to both Tellus and Nox, in a suppliant’s manner,an emphatic juxtaposition to Caesar’s haughtiness, while Tellus, themother-earth, drags him into a feminine space, from which masculineaction bursts out (fractis turmas propellere portis). Nero is still in aweand fear (pauentem), a stark contrast to Caesar’s horror and languor.Ina figurative fashion, Caesar’s resolve and courage is absorbed by Telluswho now propels Nero to action, as Caesar forces his troops to crossthe Rubicon. What is more, Tellus herself plays a very significant rolein the forthcoming battle, undertaking significant action by confusingthe Carthaginians into falling into a trap:implicat actascaeco errore uias umbrisque fauentibus artocircumagit spatio sua per uestigia ductos. (15.618–20)

Defining the Other 151She confuses their tracks and makes them lose their way in the dark;favoured by the darkness, she makes them go round and round withoutadvancing and retrace their steps.Thus a feminine goddess, Tellus, henceforth behaves like a uir, puttingNero in the position of the person attracted to the commands ofthe deity, much like Hannibal appears as the object of Juno’s angrypolitics of revenge.As we have seen in the beginning of this chapter, Hannibal displays amisplaced attachment to Capua, by finding in it an altera patria andthus replacing Carthage with an elusive other. It is not surprising thenthat Hannibal’s attachment to the wrong mother-model, Dido, amother that never was in the first place, is reinstated in the lastbook, by an obsession he develops towards the Italian tellus, whichagain nevertheless proves to be fleeting and temporary.As the Carthaginian is departing from Italy in book 17, the lastbook of the poem, Silius seizes the opportunity to portray theCarthaginian in the same terms as his wife, Imilce, when in book 3she parts from her husband in Spain:ductor defixos Itala tellure tenebatintentus uultus, manantesque ora rigabantper tacitum lacrimae et suspiria crebra ciebat,haud secus ac patriam pulsus dulcesque penateslinqueret et tristes exul traheretur in oras. (17.213–17)Hannibal kept his eyes steadily fixed on the Italian land, and silent tears wereflowing down his cheeks; he was sighing numerous times, not otherwisethan when as an exile, expelled, he was leaving behind his country and hissweet household gods and was being dragged into dismal shores.haerent intenti uultus et litora seruant,donec iter liquidum uolucri rapiente carinaconsumpsit uisus pontus tellusque recessit. (3.155–7) 136136 In the Loeb and the Budé translations, the focalisation centres on Imilce alone,which however does not explain adequately the plural intenti uultus, especially assince in 3.152, Silius explicitly stresses the common grief of their separation: inter sefletibus orant (‘they converse together and mingle their tears’).

152 Motherhood and the OtherTheir eyes cling to one another and watch the shore, until the sea made sightimpossible and the land fell back, as the swift ship sped on its watery way.In book 3, as Imilce is separated from Hannibal (abripitur diuulsamarito, 3.154), for a moment we are invited to visualise their parting,focalised from the perspective of both husband and wife, as their gazeremains fixed to one another, in this near cosmogonic event, wherethe pontus and the tellus are separated from each other, before we seethe parting through Imilce’s own eyes, when, from the boat, she seesthe land recede. In book 17, therefore, the use of intentus uultuscentres on Hannibal’s isolation, who is now alone and separated fromanother female presence, that of the Italian tellus, which he finds hardto abandon, just as if he were abandoning his own patria. When herefers to Hannibal’s famous attachment to Italy, Livy uses the wordspatria and terra but does not exploit the role of tellus, as Silius does:raro quemquam alium patriam exsilii causa relinquentem tam maestumabisse ferunt quam Hannibalem hostium terra excedentem; respexisse saepeItaliae litora. (Liv. 30.20.7)They say that rarely any other man leaving his country to go into exile haddeparted as sad as Hannibal was, when he was withdrawing from theenemies’ land: they say he repeatedly looked back upon the shores of Italy.In the historian, however, the distinction between patria and terra bearsa significance for Hannibal’s attachment, as one not towards his ownpatria but towards a land that never bore him (terra [mater]). Hannibal’sact of respexisse indicates the leader’s lack of firm resolution, whichultimately proves destructive, since he wavers now, unlike his courageand resolve in the earlier books, when he crosses the Alps, for instance.In Silius, there is a certain irony that resonates with the Livian quote,such as Hannibal’s paradoxical, marginal status as a foreigner in Italyand as a strange body on the Italian tellus; but on another level also, thereader knows that Hannibal’s fate is such that he will actually be exiledfrom Carthage and will end his life on dismal shores. Earth, sky, and seaconspire to transform the Carthaginian general into the other,thealienfrom every land and sea. As Tellus acquires masculine traits in her effortto take off and discharge from her body the Carthaginian stain, so isHannibal’s attachment represented in a reversal of genders, which blursthe boundaries of male vs female.

Defining the Other 153The passage in book 17 recalls vividly Pompey’s departure fromItaly, as Lucan stresses the connection between Magnus and his terra,as well as the patrios portus, and the litora: 137solus ab Hesperia non flexit lumina terraMagnus, dum patrios portus, dum litora numquamad uisus reditura suos ...(Luc. 3.4–6)Magnus alone did not bend his gaze from the Hesperian land, until [he saw]his fatherland’s harbours and the shores disappear, never again to return tohis sight ...In the Punica, we watch the same process as portrayed in Livy and inLucan on Pompey, with the weight placed on the land, the tellus,whoismodified by a different geonymic each time (Itala, Daunia, Ausonia): etsensim coepere procul subsidere montes / nullaque iam Hesperia et nusquamiam Daunia tellus, ...(‘And [when] the mountains began to growless and less in the distance slowly, and nowhere was the Hesperianland, and nowhere was the Daunian soil any longer ...’, 17.219–20).During the epic, Virgilian storm that follows and leads Hannibal backto his patria, in an Aeneas moment, the Carthaginian goes as far as tocall his brother, Hasdrubal, felix for having died on the Italian tellus: 138et cui fata dedere / Ausoniam extremo tellurem apprendere morsu (‘Andwhom Fate allowed to “bite” the Ausonian soil as you died’, 17.262–3).It is as though Tellus’ appearance effectively set in motion the curse shepromises in book 15 on Hasdrubal and the Carthaginians: tellus tumulat.A Homeric formula, 139 the act of biting the soil, brings about amysterious, eternal connection of the dead—even through a foreigner—withthe soil and the maternal space of tellus. 140137 See Currie (1958); Brouwers (1982), 83–4; Ahl, Davis, and Pomeroy (1986),2516–17; Fucecchi (1990), 159–60; and Marks (2008) and (2010) on Hannibal andPompey.138 On the Virgilian echoes in the storm of the final book, see most recentlyVillalba Álvarez (2004) with further bibliography and Manolaraki (2010).139 Spaltenstein (1986) 376; cf. Il. 2.418, Aen. 10.489 and 11.418, Pun. 5.526–7,9.383–4.140 Cf. the beginning of book 16, after Hasdrubal’s demise: Bruttia maerentemcasus patriaeque suosque / Hannibalem accepit tellus (‘the land of Bruttium receivedHannibal mourning over the disaster of his country and his own’, 16.1–2). AsBernstein (2008), 139, notes, Hannibal’s speech ‘reveals a significant contrast with

154 Motherhood and the OtherHannibal pursues a reunion with the Italian soil until the very end,in his final threatening words before he disappears from the narrative,before he becomes an ekphrasis in Scipio’s triumph, portrayedin his flight from the battlefield (sed non ulla magis mentesqueoculosque tenebat, / quam uisa Hannibalis campis fugientis imago,‘but not any other sight was attracting the minds and eyes morethan the image of Hannibal fleeing from the battlefield’, 17.643–4), amemorial of his fleeting presence in the poem, always elusive andever present to haunt the Romans for many generations to come:mihi satque superqueut me Dardaniae matres atque Itala tellus,dum uiuam, expectent nec pacem pectore norint. (17.613–15)It is enough for me and more than enough, that while I am alive, theDardanian mothers and the Italian land shall await me, and they shall notknow any peace in their heart.Silius crafts a portrait of bloodthirsty Hannibal until the very minuteof his disappearance from the poem: Hannibal vows his return andforebodes the lack of peace for the ages to come. 141 Yet again, in hislast words, the Carthaginian displays an imitation of Dido’s lastmoments and especially the curse that set in motion this poem onthe Second Punic War. Lack of peace is Hannibal’s lasting legacy tothe Romans, as Dido’s curse announces the three Punic wars tofollow. Once more, Hannibal dons a feminine mask, that of Dido,an act that shows his attachment to the false mother-model, to thewrong country, to a hostile tellus. As Keith has recently observed inan essay on the role of Orientalism in the poem, ‘Silius’ representationof Hannibal as a female-focused hero ...inscribes him, and hiscountrymen (the effeminate Tyrians), in the position of the losers inthe “battle of the sexes” and thereby renders impotent the Carthaginianchallenge to Roman hegemony of the Mediterranean’. 142Aeneas’ perception of the relationship between family and state. Whereas Aeneaspraises a group, the Trojan men who died ante ora patrum, Hannibal directs hisìÆŒÆæØóìüò to Hasdrubal alone.’141 Reminiscent of Pompey’s last speech in Luc. 8.622–35. See Narducci (2002),363 n.70, and Marks (2010).142 Keith (2010), 372.

Defining the Other 155From the preceding analysis of the role of Tellus in complementingthe masculine traits of patria and therefore supplementing the semanticregister associated with Romanness, I would like to stress thelack of clear-cut boundaries between Roman and Carthaginian dependenceon the motherly, the other element in one’s self. Both Neroand Hannibal are drawn by the same desire to attach themselves to atellus that has suffered very much and has to eject one of the two,namely the foreign and alien, after having visible stains on her bodyfrom the other’s stay on her territory for so many years. Tellusbecomes the catalyst in motivating Nero to defeat Hasdrubal, Hannibal’sbrother, a second Hannibal himself, 143 as the Magna Materwill set in motion the expulsion of Hannibal from Italian terrain inthe last book, as we shall see. Both goddesses embody two faces of thesame coin, however, the same and the other, the Roman and the non-Roman, and their ultimate conflation is the only route to success.Silius takes us on a fascinating trip of what constitutes Roman andnon-Roman, same and other, by parading a series of failed relationshipsbetween fathers and sons, metropolis and colonies, disorientedforeigners in their displaced feelings for the (m)other. During thisquest, motherhood also changes, as we shall see next, from theineffective appeal of Marcia to Regulus to Pomponia’s successfulinstruction of her son on how to become a true Roman.143 On Hasdrubal as geminus Hannibal, see Augoustakis (2003b).

3Comes ultima fati: Regulus’ Encounter withMarcia’s Otherness in Punica 6Marcia:‘Why do I think on what he was! he’s dead!He’s dead, and never knew how much I loved him...Amidst its agonies, remembered Marcia,And the last words he uttered called me cruel!Alas! He knew not, hapless youth, he knew notMarcia’s whole soul was full of love and Juba.’(J. Addison, Cato: A Tragedy, 1713,Act IV.iii.43–4, 46–9)James Addison’s play Cato, inspired by the ancient sources, such asPlutarch and Lucan, among others, celebrates the love of the king ofNumidia, Juba, for Cato’s (imaginary) daughter, Marcia, named afterCato’s wife. 1 The verses of this epigraph could have been inspired bySilius’ portrait of Marcia, wife of Regulus, in Punica 6, and for theinformed reader in fact the last word, Juba, comes as a surprise, sinceit can easily be replaced by Regulus, for the passage resonates withMarcia’s own words to her captive husband, Regulus, in the contextof the encounter between husband and wife as detailed in Silius’account, which we shall explore in this chapter.The sixth book of the Punica opens with the aftermath of the battleat Lake Trasimene: the victory of the Carthaginians has been total.1 The passage is quoted from the edition by Henderson and Yellin (2004), 77.

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 157An analeptic narrative on the adventures of Regulus in Libya duringthe First Punic War occupies a large portion of this book (6.62–551).Regulus’ son, Serranus, wounded after the battle at Trasimene, findsrefuge at the house of his father’s faithful companion, Marus. In aflashback narrative, Marus relates the killing of a serpent at the RiverBagrada (6.140–293), the capture of Regulus and his mission toRome (6.299–402), Marcia’s reaction to her husband’s uncompromisingattitude, Regulus’ speech to the Senate (6.403–520), and hisfinal return to Carthage, resulting in his death (6.521–51).The poet brings several innovations into his account in book 6 incomparison to pre-Silian tradition. He introduces three charactersaround the figure of Regulus who are otherwise unknown or remainanonymous in our historiographical or literary sources. The first isSerranus, Regulus’ son. 2 Clearly Regulus’ son must have participatedin the battle at Trasimene, but this fabricated Serranus is called iuuenis(6.101, 415) and flore nitens primo (‘in the flower of his youth’, 6.65),references that further complicate historical chronology. AnotherSilian innovation is Marus, Regulus’ faithful companion during histribulations in Africa. His presence fits into the scheme of Silius’portrayal of Serranus’ ‘education’ by Marus, who in a flashbackexpounds on the story of Regulus’ heroic adventures in Africa andRome, inasmuch as generational continuity would be guaranteedthrough the precepts of an older man. 3 But most importantly, Siliusgives Marcia herself a substantial role in the narrative.In this chapter, we shall look at how Marcia’s presence enhancesour understanding of her husband, Regulus, but also sheds light onthe situation in Rome during both Punic wars. By appropriating the2 Although we know of the consulship of one of Regulus’ sons, in 227 bce, thisperson was not called Serranus, an agnomen of the gens Atilia, made up to pun withthe etymology of the name from the verb sero (cf. Spaltenstein [1986], 395). For theetymology of Serranus and the intended pun see Virg. Aen. 6.844 (cf. Frölich [2000],150). Serranus’ youth plays off against Marus’ old age, which is several timesillustrated in the narrative (6.94, 100, 118, 299). Williams (2004), 72 n.10, points toa possible association between the name and the Carthaginian names ‘Sarra/Sarranus’(also Skutsch [1985], 632).3 Häussler (1978), 170, correctly notices that the episode of Marus and Serranusreminds the reader of Caesar’s meeting with Amyclas in Lucan De bello ciuili 5(among other scenes in literature, such as Evander and Aeneas). See also Brouwers(1982), 80.

158 Motherhood and the OtherVirgilian and Lucanian traditions, 4 through Marcia’s plea to Regulus,Silius underscores her husband’s weakness and inability to securestability in Roman political affairs during and after his consulship.I argue that this female character assumes a significant position in thepoem: as the first Roman mother to be given a voice in the authorialnarrative of Marus’ analeptic narrative of the First Punic War,Marcia’s subversive presence points to the male protagonist’s failureto safeguard his own family and thus questions the value of patriaover domus. As an outsider of this male-centred narrative, Marcia’sappearance raises important questions about the effectiveness ofthe decisions men make. In this sense, from Marcia’s point of view,close scrutiny of the portrait of ‘Regulus the Saint’ undermines hisexemplary display of Stoic fides and uirtus. 5In a web of interdependence among Marcia, Regulus, and theirson, this close relationship brings to prominence Marcia’s role asthe embodiment of motherhood on the one hand and, in theabsence of the father, as the symbol of maternal potestas on theother. The old man’s story functions both analeptically and proleptically,poised between the world of the First Punic War and thecurrent situation in the Second Punic War, looking both in the pastand in the present, the hic et nunc of Roman affairs amidst thedestruction after the defeat at Trasimene. As the following analysisdemonstrates, Marcia’s speeches counterbalance Marus’ androcentricnarrative: even though the wife of Regulus is portrayed asthe distraught woman who is separated from her husband in theFirst Punic War, by questioning her husband’s actions in her presenceoutside Marus’ narrative, Marcia assumes the same role ofsuspending generational continuity and once again of painting anauthorial, subversive portrait of her husband’s actions, in her ownbrief flashback.4 Regulus’ Marcia is modelled after Cato’s Marcia in De bello ciuili 2. See Brouwers(1982), 79; Spaltenstein (1986), 419; Frölich (2000), 279. On the relationship betweenthe two poets, see Marks (2010) with further bibliography.5 With an epigrammatic comment, Steele (1922), 325, deflates the role of thefemale in the present episode: ‘Silius tried to vary the monotony of historicalnarrative by the introduction of a hero of the First Punic War, with variety addedby the part taken by Marcia.’

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 159Just as Marcia is relegated to her marginal space in the periphery ofthe narrative and just as her symbolic voice, to use Kristeva’s terminology,becomes mute by the semiotic noise of the oars of the boatthat takes Regulus back to Carthage to die, within Marus’ narrative,so does Marcia come out of her house after several years of seclusionand utters an equally subversive speech that puts motherhood in theframe of otherhood and alienation from one’s own patria. There isnothing in Marcia’s presence that allows her to be absorbed into thesymbolic of male ideology, the Kristevan phenotext, since her appearancefrom her domus strongly suggests her isolation in the femininechôra, the phenotext, from which her Maenadic voice can be heard asa unique position of a Roman mother who nevertheless behaves in anon-Roman fashion. Her voice of dissent opposes her son’s adherenceto his father’s model and directs her offspring away from thedestructive traits of Regulus’ character. By pointing to her husband’sfailures and disagreeing with a particular course of action, Marciasignals a departure from established norms and as a result constitutesa centrifugal force from the accustomed norms of previous Romanleadership towards a new model, soon to be embodied by Scipio. Thevoice of the mother cannot at this point be aligned and mouldedaccording to the demands of the male, Roman ethical code, since thelatter has proved to be in many respects deficient. At the same time,Marcia is marked as a figure from Rome’s past and is marginalised,signalling a departure towards a new model of motherhood, whichwe shall see epitomised in Pomponia and non-Roman women fromthe periphery in the following chapter.REGULUS AND THE PUNICA:BRIDGINGTRADITIONS?Let us begin by examining the different traditions explored by Siliusin the amalgamated figure of Regulus in the Punica. According to theFlavian poet, after his unsuccessful campaign and capture in Libya bythe Carthaginians’ Spartan ally, Xanthippus (6.299–345), Regulusreturns to Rome upon the demand of the Carthaginians, to negotiate

160 Motherhood and the Otherpeace terms and an exchange of prisoners. Among Silius’ sources forRegulus’ recovery to Rome is Horace’s famous Roman Ode (Carm.3.5): the Augustan poet himself is the inheritor of a growing traditionaround the legend and figure of Regulus, whose mission to Romeseems certainly unknown to Polybius and Diodorus. 6 Critics oftendismiss the story of Regulus’ presence in Rome as fictional, created bythe Romans to atone for Regulus’ mistakes in Libya during his commandof the army there. 7 Regulus’ growing legend, commonly typifiedas Regulussage or Heldensage, moulded in the first century bce byC. Sempronius Tuditanus and enhanced by Q. Aelius Tubero, is fullyfleshed out by Cicero and Livy. 8 The former of the two early annaliststurns Regulus into the Stoic hero par excellence, while the latterexpands on the details of Regulus’ superhuman fight against themonstrous serpent of the River Bagrada, in Africa. 9 Thus, we candistinguish two different traditions in the two centuries that precedethe composition of the Punica. On the one hand, Polybius and Diodorusemphasise the mistakes, flaws, and failure of the Roman leadershipunder Regulus, while the latter also provides valuable informationabout Regulus’ punishment in Carthage and the vengeance that followedat Rome against Carthaginian prisoners and was initiated by6 For an examination of Horace and Silius, see Williams’s (2004) recent treatment.Shumate (2006), 71, briefly treats the role of Regulus’ wife in Horace. Polybius1.29–35 gives the account of the battles that took place in Africa (Ecnomus, Adys,Aspis) during the year 256–255 bce but does not provide us with the account ofRegulus’ mission to Rome. Diodorus does not give us any information concerningRegulus’ mission either, although he goes into detail about his punishment andtorture in Carthage (23.11–16).7 Lazenby (1996), 106.8 Among many references to Regulus in the Ciceronian corpus, the praise ofRegulus’ exemplary character in Fin. 2.20.65 and 5.37.82 and in Off. 3.99.26–100.27epitomises Cicero’s view (the discussion continues until 3.115.32 on Regulus’ oath).Cf. Wezel (1873), 54–6, for Silius’ combination of the tradition from Cicero andHorace and Ripoll (2000a), 159, for Cicero. Unfortunately, Livy’s full account hasbeen lost to us (Periocha 18). See n.56 below.9 For an examination of the sources on Regulus from the second century bceonwards see Mix (1970), 14–24 and 32–55; Ariemma (1999), 80 n.5; Frölich (2000),266–9 and 305–10; Gendre and Loutsch (2001), 131–72; Williams (2004), 70–71.There is an unanswerable question concerning Naevius, whether he refers to Regulus’punishment and death in Carthage: seseque ei perire mauolunt ibidem / quam cumstupro redire ad suos popularis (‘they prefer to die there than return to their countrymenstained with ill-repute’, fr. 46 Strzelecki). See M. Barchiesi (1962), 442–51.

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 161Regulus’ wife. 10 What is more, in Polybius’ and Diodorus’ accounts wewitness an unvarnished view of Regulus’ exploits, a reality that enablesus to view later accounts with scepticism. On the other hand, the rest ofour sources underscore the sanctity of Regulus’ conduct, his Stoicresistance to the ius postliminii, and his final martyrdom in Carthage.Where does Silius stand? And furthermore, how does this affectMarcia’s representation both inside and outside Marus’ heroisation ofRegulus’ exploits?Silius, an inheritor of both poetic and historiographical sources, is atthe crossroads of these two diverse traditions. 11 Though it would bedifficult to argue against the well-established theory that the poetadopts Regulus as the Stoic hero whose virtues he exemplifies in book6, 12 at the same time, the reader cannot fail to notice that Regulus’heroic qualities undergo a subtle transformation in the poem’s narrative.He is considered the legendary model for younger Roman leaders(such as Scipio), and yet his actions in Libya are reprehensible onseveral occasions. 13 In other words, the poet does not allow Regulusto emerge as the flawless general Scipio becomes later in the poem. 1410 Diodorus 24.12 relates the story of Regulus’ wife’s revenge, as she allegedlytortures Hamilcar and Bodostor, two Carthaginian prisoners íïìßóÆóÆ äØ’ IìݺåØÆíÆPôeí KŒºåºïØðÝíÆØ ôe ÇBí (‘thinking that he [Regulus] died [in Carthage] because ofnegligence’). As Williams (2004), 71, points out, the story of Regulus’ embassy backto Rome is probably a fiction, ‘perhaps designed to explain or obscure the actions ofhis wife’.11 On Silius’ exploitation of practices from both genres, see most recently Gibson(2010).12 All of Silius’ critics underscore the relationship between Hercules and Regulusor Regulus and Scipio. See Sechi (1951), 287–8; Bassett (1955), 1–20; von Albrecht(1964), 62–8; Häussler (1978), 168–77; Kissel (1979), 122–3; Burck (1979), 284–5;Billerbeck (1986a), 351–2; Ripoll (1998), 126–8, 159–60, 240–41, 247–8, 348–51;Ariemma (1999); Frölich (2000); Fucecchi (2003); Williams (2004), 72–6. Ahl, Davis,and Pomeroy (1986), 2522–3, view Regulus as an archetype for Fabius.13 Williams (2004), 84:Regulus’ policy of direct aggression and no avoidance resembles an anachronism of sorts, aform of guileless ‘uirtus’ that is no match for Xanthippus or a Hannibal, and one thatcontrasts with Fabius’ more enlightened strategy in the second Punic War ...[T]he struggle...is not just between Rome and Carthage but also between different versions—Regulan andFabian, even ‘traditional’ and ‘modern’—of Roman military virtue, strategy and heroism.14 Hardie (1993a), 70–71, insists on the notion of a transformation that Regulusundergoes, a kind of psychomachia in Stoic terms. Part of this process is his fight withthe serpent, which reflects ‘Regulus’ conquest of the serpentine passions in thehuman breast’. Ripoll (1998), 247–8, develops the same idea of Regulus’ progress

162 Motherhood and the OtherAs an illustration of Silius’ absorption of various threads of theRegulus saga, let us turn to the series of events following the general’sdefeat in Libya. Having exposed the Carthaginians’ plan to exchangehostages, Marus narrates in detail the trip from Carthage to Rome(6.350–88), concentrating on Regulus’ state of mind. He is presentedas the exemplary figure of resistance, of Stoic patientia, constantia,and fides. Regulus’ companion himself, Marus, assures Serranus thathis father surpassed all his expectations:spes tamen una mihi, quamquam bene cognita et olimatrox illa fides, urbem murosque domumquetangere si miseris licuisset, corda moueriposse uiri et uestro certe mitescere fletu. (6.377–80)Although that inflexible loyalty of his had been well known to me for a longtime, yet one hope I still cherished: that, had it been allowed to us, wretched,to reach the city and the walls and our house, the heart of the man could bemoved and could at least be softened by your tears.The old man’s flashback constitutes a great example of a suasoria, alesson from exemplary figures of the past meant as an instruction forthe younger, male generations; and it is appropriately incorporatedinto the male world of epic poetry. And yet, there are moments in hisnarrative, as seen above, where Marus expresses his wishes thatRegulus had not been so unbent! Would that he had taken advantageof his ius postliminii, according to which, once a man in captivityreturns to his city, he recovers all his rights. 15 Regulus, however,rejects this civil right, when he advises his fellow citizens to refuseany negotiations (6.467–89) and forthwith confirms his decision toreturn to Carthage and endure punishment there. Throughout thetowards achieving Stoic gloria and uirtus, and ranks the Roman consul in the samecategory with other heroes, such as Hercules and Scipio for instance. Similarly,Fucecchi (2003), 272, observes that ‘la storia di Regolo si adatta bene al tonopredominante nella prima parte dei Punica, dove si esalta la constantia del popoloromano e dei suoi alleati fedeli (come Sagunto), la sua capacità di reagire ai momentidi crisi’. Marks (2005b) explores the role of self-sacrifice (deuotio) in the poem butdoes not examine Regulus as the character who ultimately sacrifices his life forRome’s salvation.15 For a detailed examination of the ius postliminii in connection with Regulus seeKornhardt (1954), 85–123, who juxtaposes Regulus’ example to the failed efforts toretrieve the hostages after the battle at Cannae.

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 163episode, Regulus further annuls his ius postliminii by refusing to wearthe toga (6.393–4), to salute the consul (6.396–8), or to sojourn at hishouse (6.432–3), even if such conduct means that he must rebuff hiswife and two sons. In an atypical fashion, Marus wishes he couldchange the denouement of his own narrative by giving voice to acontrafactual condition he seems to have rehearsed many times as apossible scenario, as they approach Rome: his hope is that Regulus’obstinacy will be influenced by the lament of his family (uestro certemitescere fletu). 16 What is Marcia’s role then but a construct inMarus’ narrative that serves as a foil to Regulus’ behaviour?Upon Regulus’ arrival in Rome, we learn of Marcia’s appearanceand her distraught condition. The wife enters the narrative by meansof a vividly gestural ecce:Ecce trahens geminum natorum Marcia pignusinfelix nimia magni uirtute mariti,squalentem crinem et tristes lacerabat amictus ...atque ea, postquam habitu iuxta et uelamine Poenodeformem adspexit, fusis ululatibus aegralabitur, et gelidos mortis color occupat artus ...me uoce quietaaffatus iubet et uestros et coniugis unaarcere amplexus pater, 17 impenetrabilis illeluctibus et numquam summissus colla dolori. (6.403–5, 407–9, 411–14)Now Marcia showed up, dragging her two boys, the pledges of their love—Marcia, unhappy because of the lofty virtue of her great husband; in hergrief, she was tearing apart her soiled hair and her garment ...And after shesaw him near, changed in mien and humiliated by the Carthaginian dress,with an extensive cry she fell in a faint, and the colour of death covered hercold limbs ...Talking to me with a tranquil voice, your father bid me hinderthe embraces both of you two and of his wife: he was impenetrable to griefand never bowed his neck to pain.The sight of her husband’s transformation, from a Roman general toa Carthaginian prisoner, his head covered by the uelamine Poeno,triggers Marcia’s first reaction. Regulus’ habitus is different, foreign16 On contrafactuals in Silius, see Cowan (2010).17 On reading patet or manet instead of pater see Ariemma (1999), 88 n.21.

164 Motherhood and the Otherbehaviour accompanied by alien dress. These two aspects make himdeformem, a stranger to his own country. As Marcia comes preparedfor mourning, she faces for the first time a changed, African Regulus.To a certain extent, Marcia’s expected behavioural collapse, read onthe surface as grief fed by conjugal fidelity and devotion, 18 confirmsher literary ‘descent’ from other distraught women and similardescriptions of female sorrow and lament in the Roman epic tradition.It has been correctly suggested that the episode of Regulusrecalls the wife of Cato in Lucan, 19 from whom Silius borrows thename for Regulus’ wife. Marcia becomes the literary ‘descendant’ ofLucan’s Marcia, Cato’s wife, and also her potential historical ‘ancestress’.In this manner, Silius manufactures for the reader a perceptionof historical continuity. 20LITERARY CONVENTION OR SUBVERSIVE SPEECH?The description of Marcia adheres to generic representations ofwomen in grief, such as Virgil’s Andromache and Dido or Lucan’sCornelia. 21 As we saw above, for instance, Marcia cries at the sight ofher husband and temporarily faints. Again, in 6.412–13, Marusimplies that Marcia’s efforts to embrace her husband, which indirectlypoint to the recovery of her senses, fail; Marus is explicitly toldto remove both her and Regulus’ children from their father. Marcia’s18 As Dietrich (2005), 81, observes: ‘In Marcia, Silius creates a female figure whosedevotion to her husband, children and marriage, like the relationships of her counterpartsin Lucan, is emblematic of Roman values.’19 See the relevant discussion in von Albrecht (1964), 65 n.52; Ahl (1976), 268–71;Kissel (1979), 122–3; Billerbeck (1986a), 351–2; Ariemma (1999), 87 and 96–7;Dietrich (2005), 80–83. Häussler (1978), 171, points to the relationship betweenthis episode and Hercules’ fight against Antaeus in Luc. 4.593–660.20 See McGuire (1995), 110–18, on the use of historical personalities of laterRoman history in the battle of Cannae in book 8.21 Cf. the final episode in book 4, where Imilce tears her hair and scratches hercheeks on the occasion of her son’s imminent sacrifice (see chapter 4, 199–205). Onthe connection with female figures in Virgil and Lucan, see also Spaltenstein (1986),419–20; Ariemma (1999), 91–2. Certainly, Marcia is also fashioned as anotherOvidian, elegiac Dido (Her. 7). Dietrich (2005) links female expressions of grief inthe first books of the poem to the description of Scipio’s grief in book 13.

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 165portrayal as a woman who gives in to grief has attracted critics’comments on the topological, rather formulaic, description of herbehaviour. For instance, Marcia’s behaviour has been construed as atoken of conjugal fidelity, an attribute that certainly cannot bedenied, yet constitutes an oversimplification. 22 Within Marus’ narrative,Marcia may seem to reinforce Regulus’ firm decision to die forhis country, but in her appearance in the Roman present, the SecondPunic War, not the past of Marus’ story in the First Punic War,Marcia appears as an opponent to and victim of the war, when sheadvises her son not to follow in the footsteps of his father; thus sheinvalidates her position as conveyor of traditional ‘Roman’ values, asa Roman mother would do. Therefore, Marcia does not comply withthe ideal of a Roman matrona but rather denounces the war as amerely futile operation.After Marus’ description of Regulus’ arrival at Rome and hisencounter with Marcia, Serranus interrupts the old man and relateshis own recollection of the scene. What is left in his memory is asuperhuman figure (humana maior species erat, ‘his stature was morethan human’, 6.426). Serranus affirms that he has seen nothingsimilar to that image thereafter (nil posthac oculis simile incidit,‘none like him have I seen since’, 6.430). This remark confirms thatMarus’ ‘instruction’ of Serranus has been successful. Marus thencontinues his account of Regulus’ mission in Rome, as if to corroborateand inflame the young man’s passion to retrace his father’s‘journey’. The hero passes outside his house without entering it; hesojourns at the sedes Poenorum instead (6.433). From the descriptionof the outside appearance of Regulus’ house, Marus moves to Marcia’sappearance on the threshold (in limine primo, 6.436):quo fers gressus? non Punicus hic est,Regule, quem fugias, carcer. uestigia nostri22 Casale (1954), 32; La Penna (1981), 234; La Penna (2000), 67–9. As Dietrich(2005), 83, recognises, ‘her [Marcia’s] appearance in mourning indicates the uncertainfuture of Rome itself as he [Regulus] returns to Carthage’. Von Albrecht (1964),64–5, interprets Marcia’s presence as a figure that is opposed to Regulus’ personality.Regulus does not give in to misericordia, while Marcia entreats him to surrender tosentimentalism. Therefore, Marcia reminds us of Xanthippe, who was dismissed bySocrates in the Platonic Phd. 60a.

166 Motherhood and the Othercasta tori domus et patrium sine crimine seruatinuiolata larem. semel hic iterumque (quid, oro,pollutum est nobis?) prolem gratante senatuet patria sum enixa tibi ...non ego complexus et sanctae foedera taedaeconiugiumue peto. patrios damnare penatesabsiste ac natis fas duc concedere noctem. (6.437–42; 447–9)Where are you heading? Regulus, this place, from which you run away, is notthe Carthaginian prison. This house, unstained, preserves the prints of ourchaste marriage-bed and our household gods without guilt. Here, with theSenate and our country wishing us joy, once and again I bore you offspring(what, I ask, have I done to degrade you?) ...Neither do I seek yourembraces nor the union that the holy torch brings nor marriage. Stopshunning the household gods of your country and consider it proper togrant your sons one night.In her first speech, directly quoted by Marus and certainly reconstructedfrom a male perspective, Marcia dramatically emphasisesRegulus’ ius postliminii. 23 Marcia’s Roman, matronly presence inlimine primo reminds the reader of the possibility that Regulus stillhas to make use of his right, and, therefore, enter his house. 24Marcia’s repeated use of words such as gressus (437), uestigia (438),and sedes (442) underscores the importance that the limen in abroader sense plays in this scene. Regulus prefers the uilla publicain the Campus Martius, the sedes Poenorum (433), to his own house,while after Marcia’s plea he continues on his way, escorted by theCarthaginians, until they reach the limen Tyrium (451). The followingday, Regulus enters the Curia, where he delivers his speech. There,once again, he refuses the exhortations of the senators to sit on hissolita sedes or to follow uestigia nota (459). 25 Through his refusal to23 For the elegiac reminiscences of Marcia’s Anrede, see Ariemma (1999), 92–5.24 Consider also the similarity with Imilce, who bids farewell to Hannibal in litoreprimo (3.128), with emphasis laid again on the liminality of the place. The notion oflimen constitutes an important quality in imperial epic poetry, not merely in terms oftopography, but in terms of the protagonists’ efforts to transgress the limits imposedby gender or tradition. Compare, for instance, Valerius Flaccus’ insistence on the ‘firstthreshold’ in his account of both the Lemnian women—Hypsipyle and Medea inArgonautica 2.136, 237, 255, and 7.110.25 This is precisely the proof of Regulus’ achievement of ‘sanctity’ through refusalto succumb to the prescriptions of earthly pleasures (cf. Billerbeck [1986a], 352).

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 167take advantage of the ius postliminii, Regulus places himself outside theRoman populace, especially when he alienates himself from his wife andchildren. By contrast, Marcia’s adherence to the limits of the householdstrongly distinguishes her from her husband, as a wife who stays withinthe boundaries of her household and therefore of her gender. In addition,consider the emphasis placed on words such as sum enixa tibi in442 or mecum in 446, the companionship once shared between husbandand wife, now shattered by war and alienation. Furthermore, Marcia’swords reveal the use of rhetoric by the wife who appropriates masculinelanguage to persuade Regulus: her insistence on patria (or patrius theadjective) is characteristic (patrium, 439; patria, 442; patrios, 448).InMarcia’s vision, the patria becomes an extension of her household withitsgods(Lares and Penates), as it sanctions her fertility. Motherhoodand the state are aligned here to oppose Regulus’ heroic behaviour, as hehastens away to another patria. As we have seen in the previous chapter,however, displacement and dislocation from one’s patria bodes ill forthe protagonist, Hannibal, or in this case, Regulus. Marcia’s rhetoricfails, as a result of a borrowed voice that rather propagates the male,heroic code. Ultimately, although she stresses her importance withinher household, Marcia cannot function as the catalyst who would makeher husband change his mind. In this regard, Marcia follows in thefootsteps of her literary ‘ancestress’.LUCAN’S MARCIA AND THE FOREBODINGOF DOOM...ÌÆæŒßÆí, KðØåØŒB äïŒïFóÆí åríÆØ ªıíÆEŒÆ, ðåæd qò › ºüªïò ...(Plu. Cat. Mi. 25.1)[He married] Marcia, a woman who seemed to be capable andreputable, about whom there existed the most abundant talk ...Let us turn our attention now to Lucan and Cato’s Marcia. As I havealready observed, the literary predecessor of Regulus’ Marciais Lucan’s Marcia, the wife of Cato. Although Brouwers has longrecognised the literary affiliation between the two Marcias, onlyrecently have critics paid attention to some of the details of this

168 Motherhood and the Otherintertextual relationship. 26 In Lucan’s second book, after Brutus’meeting with Cato, Marcia makes her appearance at dawn and asksCato to remarry her (Luc. 2.326–49). 27 Though previously marriedto Cato, Marcia has been willingly conceded as a wife to Hortensius,and after the latter’s death she is once again reunited to her previoushusband, Cato. In this episode, just after Hortensius’ funeral, Marciaappears in black. The wedding that follows (Luc. 2.350–71) hascorrectly been identified by scholars as an ‘anti-wedding’ ritual. 28As Keith observes, Marcia’s funereal attire adds a foreboding tone toher speech and acts. 29 I would like to pursue further the similaritiesbetween Cato’s and Regulus’ Marcias and interpret them within thecontext of Punica 6.Even though Marcia arrives at Cato’s house at dawn (Luc.2.326–8), Lucan emphasises darkness rather than the approachinglight of daybreak:quondam uirgo toris melioris iuncta mariti,mox, ubi conubii pretium mercesque soluta esttertia iam suboles, alios fecunda penatesimpletura datur geminas et sanguine matrispermixtura domos ...(Luc. 2.329–33)Once, as a virgin, she was joined in marriage to a better husband; soon whenthe prize and the reward of marriage, a third child now, was paid and, as afertile woman, she is given to fill another home [with offspring] and to allythe two houses with the blood of a mother ...According to Lucan, Marcia’s two marriages were contracted forthe purpose of providing both Cato’s and Hortensius’ houses with26 Cf. n.4 above. Ariemma (1999), 90, identifies the fusion of elegiac and epicmaterials in this episode but considers Marcia’s presence as autonomous with regardto Regulus’ portrayal: ‘uno sviluppo sostanzialmente autonomo rispetto all’interatradizione relativa al personaggio di Regolo’. Marcia’s elegiac voice adds to thepolyphony of the epic, according to Ariemma (1999), 115. For Lucan’s Marcia’selegiac voice see Harich-Graz (1990), 212–23.27 See also Plutarch’s Cat. Mi. 25–6. On Lucan’s Marcia, see Quartana (1918) andmost recently Sannicandro (2007).28 See Ahl (1976), 247–52; Henderson (1987), 135; Bartsch (1997), 125; Boëls-Janssen (2002), 136–7; Esposito (2004) 41–2; Sannicandro (2007), 94–5.29 See Keith (2000), 88. D’Alessandro Behr (2007), 150, notes: ‘As Marcia welcomesCato in her embrace, the shadow of her funereal robe eclipses the shiningpurple of Cato’s senatorial toga (2.367).’

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 169children (fecunda and sanguine, Luc. 2.331–3). However, Marcia’sominous presence is marked by the force of the adjectives maerensand maesta (Luc. 2.328, 337) and by the brief description of funeraryrites over Hortensius’ ashes (Luc. 2.333–6). Marcia’s subsequentspeech consists of a plea to her husband, Cato, to take her back,not only as his wife but also as his comrade in war. The reunion of thecouple, in both private and public spheres, will then be complete: 30dum sanguis inerat, dum uis materna peregiiussa, Cato, et geminos excepi feta maritos:uisceribus lassis partuque exhausta reuertoriam nulli tradenda uiro. da foedera prisciillibata tori, da tantum nomen inaneconubii; ...non me laetorum sociam rebusque secundisaccipis: in curas uenio partemque laborum.da mihi castra sequi ...(Luc. 2.338–43; 346–8)While the blood and while maternal strength was in me, I did your bidding,Cato, and fruitfully received two husbands; with womb exhausted, tired fromchild-bearing, I return to be given to no other husband now. Renew the tiesunimpaired of our former marriage, grant me only the empty name ofspouse ...As no partner in prosperity or joy do you receive me: into anxietiesI come, to share your struggles. Allow me to accompany the camp ...In her speech, Marcia stresses her physical exhaustion; in Luc. 2.338–41,she underscores the importance of maternity for generational continuity.Marcia is also well aware of her role in the civil war and does nothave any illusions. The words in curas uenio partemque laborum(347) pun on the description of painful childbirth, earlier in her speech,which in Latin would also be expressed through the same word, labor. 31Since Marcia’s labours have been portrayed as exhausting and bloody,her plea to share Cato’s warlike labores foreshadows the fate ofher husband himself. In addition, when Marcia refers to the foedera30 Fantham (1992), 139–40, examines the political and moral dimensions inCato’s remarriage to Marcia.31 Notice also the pun with partem and partu, hidden behind Marcia’s words. Onwomen as ‘vessels’ and child-bearers, Cantarella (1995).

170 Motherhood and the Otherprisci .../tori(Luc.2.341–2)andthenomeninane/conubii(Luc.2.342–3),she prepares the reader for the unusual non-marriage that follows.As Ahl has correctly noted, Marcia’s presence constitutes an allegoricalembracing of a ghost, a dedication to death rather than life. 32What adds to the ominous tone of the episode is the poet’s manipulationof Marcia’s plea, which is repeated in book 6 by the infernal witch,Erichtho, in one of her efforts to resurrect the dead body and make itreveal the gloomy scenery of the Underworld, the Roman shadesdevoured by discordia and civil war. In her third speech addressed tothe body of the dead soldier, Erichtho’s language alludes to Marcia’sown words: ne parce precor: da nomina rebus, / da loca; da uocem quamecum fata loquantur ...(‘Please, do not hold back! Give names to theevents, give the places, give a voice through which the Fates may speakto me ...’, Luc. 6.773–4). The anaphora of the imperatives exactlyrepeats Marcia’s entreaty to be reunited to Cato and to be given anempty name (da foedera ...da nomen ...da castra). 33 Thus Marcia’sspeech is transformed into an infernal spell, which is intended to revealfurther discord and to perpetuate the chaotic circumstances of Romancivil strife. Marcia’s presence does not release the tension but ratherdiscloses the inextricable complexities of Cato’s private life, whichultimately reflects on his dedication to an ‘empty’ and lost cause.Several echoes from Lucan’s Marcia’s speech are included in herliterary ‘successor’s’ first speech, while other elements are incorporatedinto later speeches of Regulus’ Marcia. Like her ‘ancestress’,Regulus’ Marcia faces a similarly difficult situation: her husband’scaptivity has annulled their marriage, at least as long as he refuses torecognise their conjugal bonds. Marcia’s reference to the birth of hertwo children (enixa sum tibi, Pun. 6.442) confirms her power as amother and as a medium for generational continuity, just as Cato’sMarcia did in her speech. In addition, Regulus’ Marcia’s indication ofthe uestigia nostri / casta tori (6.438–9) alludes to Cato’s Marcia’sdescription of her own conjugal bed in terms of foedera prisci illibata /32 Cf. Ahl (1976), 251.33 See Armisen-Marchetti (2003), 253, who argues that Marcia simply wants a‘communauté’, and Sannicandro (2007), 92 and n.34, on the Stoic ideal of marriage asóıìâßøóØò and âßïı ŒÆd ªåíÝóåøò ðÆßäøí ŒïØíøíßÆí (‘living together, sharing of lifeand children’, Musonius Rufus 13a, 67–8 Hense). Sannicandro (2007), 92, alsocomments briefly on the allusion to Propertius’ Arethusa (4.3.45–6).

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 171tori (Luc. 2.341–2). 34 In short, both women try to defend their chastityas a means for securing their husbands’ approval of their requests.In her plea in Punica 6, Marcia explicitly states that she does notseek the bonds of marriage or a union (of whatever kind) with herhusband: the words complexus, foedera taedae, and coniugium(6.447–8) allude to Lucan’s Marcia and, in particular, to her abortiveefforts to reunite with her husband. However, the same words pointto a pattern of behaviour that Regulus’ Marcia refuses to repeat (nonego ...peto, 6.447–8), given that the same conduct was followed byCato’s Marcia to no avail. Silius’ Marcia knows well what will happento her if she asks for something she cannot obtain. It is as if she knewthat Lucan’s Marcia’s plea had resulted in an anti-wedding, and istherefore careful not to ask for a nomen inane. In particular, at theend of Lucan’s description of the ‘funereal’ wedding of Cato andMarcia, the poet notices how Cato abstains from sexual intercourse,refusing Marcia’s entreaty for a renewal of their conjugal bonds: necfoedera prisci / sunt temptata tori (‘nor were the ties of the formermarriage-bed attempted’, Luc. 2.378–9). 35 Cato’s Weltanschauungdoes not permit sexual association, except for Venerisque ...maximususus / progenies (‘and the greatest value of Venus, offspring’, Luc.2.387–8). 36 At any rate, we know that Marcia’s maternal potency hasbeen exhausted. Thus, as though Silius’ Marcia did not want to makethe same mistakes as her predecessor, at the coda of her first speechshe anticipates Regulus’ refusal: non ego complexus et sanctae foederataedae / coniugiumue peto. 37 The alert reader recognises between the34 See Spaltenstein (1986), 422; Ariemma (1999), 96–7.35 On Cato’s attachment to the Republic, as a husband and father, see Dietrich(2005), 82: ‘By remarrying Marcia, who represents a worn-out Roman Republicreturning to the values represented by her first husband, Cato becomes a “bridegroomof the state”.’ D’Alessandro Behr (2007), 148–61, discusses how Cato’s humanisationis visible in the emphasis on his luctus and fatherly attachment to theRepublic.36 See Finiello (2005), 165–9: ‘Die ganze Szene dient also nicht dazu, Catos undMarcias stoische Lebensweise rühmend hervorzuheben’ (169). See Sklenář (2003),72–9, who keenly observes that Marcia succeeds where Brutus has failed (cf. Luc.2.350); cf. Sannicandro’s (2007) discussion.37 As Ariemma (1999), 97–9, notes, Regulus’ Marcia’s words remind us of theVirgilian intertext in Aen. 4.431–3. I think that Regulus’ Marcia intends to contrasther plea to that of her predecessor, Cato’s Marcia. Since Dido’s words are spoken toAnna, there is not an exact parallelism between Dido’s and Marcia’s situation here.

172 Motherhood and the Otherlines Marcia’s own message, non ut Catonis Marcia: ‘I will change thetradition by not following my predecessor’s conduct.’ Regulus’ Marciais in agony to find other means to make Regulus ‘surrender’, byreversing the plea of Lucan’s Marcia.Some other elements from Cato’s Marcia’s speech are adopted inthe structure of Punica 6, in particular the darkness and funerealatmosphere of Lucan’s episode and the sinister tone of Cato’s Marcia’sprayer. The darkness that surrounds the episode between Marciaand Cato encompasses Silius’ whole book, from the very beginningto the last appearance of Marcia. More specifically, the sixth book ofthe Punica opens with the Sun yoking his horses at the breaking of anew day in the East: et foeda ante oculos strages propiusque patebat/insani Mauortis opus (‘And the hideous massacre and the work ofinsane warfare lay open clearer before the eyes’, 6.5–6). Not surprisingly,the dawn reveals the totality of the Roman disaster, and thegleaming daylight is clouded over by the hideous sight of the massacre.38 And this is not the only instance of darkness looming overscenes in the sixth book of the Punica. The scattered troops of Romansoldiers try to find refuge in the woods nearby, per noctem (‘at night’,6.58), while Serranus himself, wounded and exhausted, arrives atMarus’ house furto ereptus opacae / noctis (‘rescued from doom bythe connivance of dark night’, 6.70–1). What is more, the analepticnarrative on his father’s exploits will take place in the night, afterMarus has taken good care of Serranus’ wounds (6.89–95), in particularwhile dawn has not yet broken (6.98). Later, when the newsof the disaster at Trasimene breaks at Rome, there is a confusionbetween day and night, since the Roman population can find restneither during the day nor overnight (6.562–3).In addition, when Marus takes Serranus to the city to see hismother, we learn that Marcia has withdrawn from public life andshuns the light of day. Only on the occasion of the new disaster doesshe exit her house:hic inter trepidos curae uenerandus agebatSerranum Marus, atque olim post fata mariti38 See Bassett (1959), 10–34, for allusions to the aftermath of Pharsalus (Luc.7.786–95).

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 173non egressa domum uitato Marcia coetuet lucem causa natorum passa ruebatin luctum similem antiquo. (6.574–8)Here in the middle of the anxious crowd, Marus, worthy of honour for hiscare, was leading Serranus. And, although she had never left her house for along time since her husband’s death but had avoided society and enduredthe light [of life] for the sake of her children, Marcia was rushing forth inmourning similar to the old one. 39Due to Regulus’ death, Marcia’s isolation points once again to the lackof light that permeates the whole book. She is sequestered in herhouse, as the chiastic order in 6.576 points out, non egressa ...uitatoMarcia coetu, with the word domum in the centre of the hexameter.The darkness of Marcia’s life adds another perspective to our understandingof Regulus. The hero is transformed into the light and hopeof the Roman people, and when he is put to death by the Carthaginians,this beam of light seems to be extinguished, for his wife aboveall. 40 This observation is in accordance with Marus’ earlier commentthat the gods have decided to take away the Romans’ leader (6.130–1).The purpose of Marus’ narration is to secure generational continuityand literally to illustrate for young Serranus his father’s heroic exploits.41 However, the pessimistic and dark tone we discern inLucan’s interlude between Cato and Marcia is also applicable tothe sixth book of the Punica and adds ominous features to Silius’characters as well.As we have seen, Cato’s Marcia makes her appearance still dressedin funereal attire, even though the episode takes place after Horten-39 The phrase similem antiquo elliptically refers to Marcia’s mourning of Regulus.Marcia is once again prepared to mourn a member of her family, her son. SeeSpaltenstein (1986), 431.40 Marcia’s conduct parallels Cornelia’s obsession with death and her isolationafter Pompey’s death: decreuit pati tenebras ...amat pro coniuge luctum ...compositain mortem (‘resolved to suffer darkness ...loves her grief in her husband’s stead ...laycomposed for death’, Luc. 9.110, 112, 116). On Cornelia’s and Marcia’s ‘instructions’to their respective sons, see Augoustakis (forthcoming).41 See Häussler (1978), 175: ‘Das ist der Sinn des 6. Buches: Verheißung ausErinnerung’; Gendre and Loutsch (2001), 157: ‘L’originalité de Silius Italicus consisteà montrer Marus nous signaler à tout moment les réactions que Regulus aurait dûavoir, s’il avait été un homme normal, mais qu’il n’a pas eues en tant que grandhomme exceptionnel.’

174 Motherhood and the Othersius’ death, and she will ask for a remarriage to Cato. This mood ofdeath and impending disaster overshadows the second appearance ofRegulus’ Marcia, where we can see how the Lucanian tradition isfurther absorbed. 42 After Regulus’ speech in the Senate, in which headvises his fellow citizens not to yield to the demands of the enemy,the populace at Rome is sorrowful. At this point in the narrative,Marcia reappears:tollite me, Libyes, comitem poenaeque necisque.hoc unum, coniunx, uteri per pignora nostriunum oro: liceat tecum quoscumque ferentemterrarum pelagique pati caelique labores.... accipe mecumhanc prolem. forsan duras Carthaginis irasflectemus lacrimis, aut si praecluserit auresurbs inimica suas, eadem tunc hora manebitteque tuosque simul; uel si stat rumpere uitam,in patria moriamur. adest comes ultima fati. (6.500–3, 506–11)Take me on board, Libyans, a companion to his punishment and death.Husband, in the name of the offspring from my womb, I ask you this onething alone: suffer me to endure along with you whatever toils of the earth orthe sea or the sky ...Take me and your children with you. Perhaps with tearswe could bend the harsh wrath of Carthage, or if the hostile city closes offher ears, then the same final moment will await you and yours together. Or,if you are resolved to end your life, let us die in our own country. Here is thecompanion of your fate to the end.42 Cf. Argia’s request to Adrastus in Theb. 3.696: da bella, pater (‘give wars,father!’). The setting is the same as in Lucan, with the darkness of night adding agloomy tone:... iam nocte supremaante nouos ortus, ubi sola superstite PlaustroArctos ad Oceanum fugientibus inuidet astris. (3.683–5)...now at the end of the night, before dawn, when Arctos’ wagon sole-surviving envies thestars fleeing towards the Ocean.while Argia carries at her breast her baby son, Thessander (3.682–3). Also, cf. Jocasta’smission to the Argive camp to dissuade Polynices from initiating war (Theb. 7.470–563), especially 7.470–1: iam gelidam Phoeben et caligantia primus / hauserat astra dies(‘now the first daylight had swallowed up cold Phoebe and the dark stars’).

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 175Marcia’s insistence on the word comes, with which her speechopens and ends (6.500, 511), reveals her intentions to follow theparadigm of Lucan’s Marcia, who offers to accompany her husbandin the theatre of war operations. 43 As Keith has noted in a differentcontext, such declarations question the seeming occlusion of womenfrom the epic narrative and should alert us to scrutinise how thesefemale voices undermine male structures of authority. Regulus’Marcia is resolved to die together with her husband, because she isable to foresee Regulus’ death. The reference ceu in funere (6.497)discloses the extent to which Marcia is aware of her husband’sfuture. 44 Regulus’ Marcia fulfils our expectations, as seen throughthe lens of Marus’ fashioning of a dutiful wife ready to sacrificeherself and to partake of her husband’s labores. Yet Marcia knowsprecisely that labores mean death and is ready to suffer together withher husband, though she may know that her request is futile. Herhypothetical supposition that she would be able perhaps to sway the43 Cornelia is called a comes six times in Luc. 5.804, 8.100, 147, 190, 589, 649. Inbook 3, Imilce asks Hannibal to accompany him to war. She starts with the questionmene, oblite tua nostram pendere salute, / abnuis inceptis comitem? (‘Do you reject meas a partner of your undertaking, having forgotten that my life depends on yours?’3.109–10), alluding to Dido’s reproach mene fugis? (‘Do you flee me?’ Aen. 4. 314)and Cornelia’s complaint non olim casu pendemus ab uno? (‘Have we not always beensubject to the same fate?’ Luc. 5.769). As a response to Hannibal’s advisory remarks,Imilce chastises him for forsaking her and their marriage and she expresses herwillingness to follow him in his vast expedition as a comes (3.110) (a suauissimacontentio, according to Lemaire [1823], 1.165). Imilce is prepared to cross themountains with her husband and his army and to endure every labor (3.113). It isworth noticing that several women in literature, such as Marcia and Cornelia inLucan, or Agrippina, Germanicus’ wife, in Tacitus, also demand that they share a partin their husbands’ expeditions (cf. Arria in Pliny’s 3.16, whose request to follow herhusband in Rome was finally rejected; or Arethusa’s wish in Propertius’ 4.3 to followLycotas in battle). Imilce continues by assuring her husband of womanly strength(crede uigori / femineo, ‘trust female power’, 3.112–13) and of the power of love(castum haud superat labor ullus amorem, ‘no toil defeats pure love’, 3.113), declaringin her manifesto that her love and affection may overcome boundaries and transgressthe limits of traditional gender roles.Despite the powerful beginning of her speech and her ardent desire to follow herhusband, Imilce ends with what seems to be a conciliatory remark: sin solo adspicimursexu fixumque relinqui, / cedo equidem nec fata moror; deus annuat, oro. (‘However, ifwe are judged by gender alone, and it is established [for me] to be left behind, well, Ifor my part yield and will not delay fate ...’, 3.114–15).44 Pace Spaltenstein (1986), 425, who does not think that Marcia could suspect atall Regulus’ punishment.

176 Motherhood and the OtherCarthaginian authorities (forsan ...flectemus lacrimis) by means offemale lament, renders her efforts ineffective, inasmuch as lament isconfined to the female space of seclusion from the manly, publicdomain of Roman affairs, but most importantly lament has provedto be a futile means of persuasion, as we saw above in Marus’ secretwish to bend Regulus’ obstinacy at the sight of his wife and children.In her last apostrophe, Marcia again exploits a loaded word, patria,juxtaposing it to an already distanced Regulus, who is in the liminal‘body’ of water, in a boat ready to sail off to Africa. The repetitiveemphasis on ultima (ultima comes, ultima uox) relegates, in a Kristevanreading, Marcia’s voice to the margins of the narrative, as hersymbolic voice is overpowered by the semiotic noise of the oars, andher borrowed voice is silenced by Marus, who now hastens to completehis portrait of Regulus the Stoic saint.MARCIA’S DIDOESQUE FAREWELL—IMPENETRABILITY WOUNDEDWhat follows is Regulus’ Stoic resistance, his IðÜŁåØÆ, 45 which transformsMarcia into another Dido:tum uero infelix mentem furiata doloreexclamat fessas tendens ad litora palmas:‘en, qui se iactat Libyae populisque nefandisatque hosti seruare fidem! data foedera nobisac promissa fides thalamis ubi, perfide, nunc est?’ultima uox duras haec tunc penetrauit ad aures;cetera percussi uetuerunt noscere remi. (6.514–20)Then indeed, her mind frantic with grief, unhappy Marcia stretches herweary hands to the water’s edge and exclaims: ‘Behold the man who boasts45 It accords with Regulus’ earlier description as pacatus frontem (6.369) togetherwith the phrase impenetrabilis ille (6.413). The closest parallel in the poem isCamillus’ description in similar terms in 7.560–1: pacata fuissent / ni consulta uiromensque impenetrabilis irae (‘had it not been for the placid wisdom of Camillus andhis refusal to harbour wrath’).

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 177of preserving his loyalty to Libya and its nefarious people, our enemy!Faithless man, where are now the pact made with me and the faith youpromised at our marriage?’ This then was the last sound that penetrated tothose impervious ears; as for the rest, the oars, thrust in the water, prevented[him] from knowing.Marcia’s third speech abounds in Virgilian echoes, in particular theconfrontation between Dido and Aeneas. The contrasting pair of fidesand perfidia reminds the reader of Dido’s accusations to Aeneas inAeneid 4 (305, 366, 421). In three lines, Marcia questions the validity ofRegulus’ fides and condemns him as perfidus. The first use of fidesapplies to Regulus’ faithfulness towards Rome, while the second refersto his conjugal fidelity: in Marcia’s eyes, Regulus has become a Carthaginian,characterised mainly by the Punic perfidia! Regulus’ possessionof duras aures echoes the description of Aeneas in Aeneid 4.428. Whatis more, Marcia’s initial exclamation en qui se iactat corresponds toDido’s curse-speech, when she ironically says en dextra fidesque (‘beholdthe right hand and the loyalty’, Aen. 4.597). Moreover, by meansof allusion to Dido, Marcia questions Regulus’ decision to remainfaithful to his oath and die in Carthage, just as Dido questionedAeneas’ mission to found Rome. 46 In particular, the word foedera(6.517) alludes to both the private and the public responsibilities ofthe Roman general. We should keep in mind that in her first speech,Marcia reminds Regulus of their foedera taedae, their contract ofmarriage. However, the same word is used in connection with Regulus’mission to Rome (noua Elissaei foedera patres/consultant mandare,‘the Senate of Carthage resolved to send new conditions’, 6.346–7). 47Why then does Silius choose to model Marcia’s speech on Dido’sspeeches to Aeneas? Certainly, Marcia’s Didoesque guise accentuatesthe climactic pathos of the episode. At the same time, however, it alsoreflects a departure from Lucan’s Marcia, and to a certain degreefrom Cornelia. Regulus’ Marcia is furiata dolore (6.514), an attribute46 Ariemma (1999), 106–13, discusses the Virgilian allusions in the episode (toAndromache and the mother of Euryalus also). He observes the similarities betweenAeneas and Regulus but also the differences between them (114).47 Cf. Aen. 4.339 and 624. In the first passage, Aeneas uses the word foedera withregard to marriage, while in the second passage Dido curses any treaties between thetwo races (nec foedera sunto, ‘let there be no treaties’).

178 Motherhood and the Otherthat is not applied to either Cornelia or Cato’s Marcia in Lucan. Inthis respect, Marcia resembles the Bacchic aspects of Dido’s distraughtcondition in Aeneid 4. 48 What is emphasised is the bitterirony of Marcia’s words. We learn that her last words, ultima uox(6.519), were heard by Regulus, while the rest of her speech wassilenced by the noise of the oars: ironically, remus is a masculinenoun, viz. oars are plied by men. In Marus’ flashback, Marcia isrelegated to the margins of the narrative; the voice he gave her in thespace of his story is now muted, her momentary autonomy turnedinto an asymbolia. Like Dido, Marcia questions Regulus’ alienation,his search for a substitute country. She opens her speech with Libya,her husband’s newly found allegiance, and closes with a reference tothe wedding chamber, which he is now forsaking. Marcia thusdistinguishes herself as a Roman, within Rome, and her domain asdefined by her position within the Roman domus. Regulus turns all ofsudden into the Roman general who needs to situate himself in theperiphery, outside the centre, in order to define his Romanness bysuffering cruel death in the hands of the Carthaginians. At the sametime, Marcia is a Roman woman who fails to behave like a Romanmatrona, her voice is exiled in the margins of the narrative that mustrevolve around Regulus’ sacrifice. The phrase ultima uox resonateswith the ending of her second speech, namely the plea to becomeRegulus’ comes ultima (6.511).‘SECURING’ THE FUTUREAnd yet, Silius’ conclusion of an otherwise generically expected farewellepisode between husband and wife defies the norms of genre. 4948 Virgil twice uses the adjective furiatus, first for Coroebus and then for Aeneashimself (Aen. 2.407 and 588). Consider also the description of Dido in Pun. 8.95–7 asfuribunda (‘maddened’).49 Compare, for instance, Statius’ Ach. 1.960, the parting scene between Achillesand Deidamia: irrita uentosae rapiebant uerba procellae (‘the windy gusts weresnatching his vain words away’).

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 179While Regulus is described in terms of impenetrability in the wholescene, Marcia’s words function as a catalyst for the opposite outcome.The emphasis laid on the phrase ultima uox duras penetrauit ad auresencapsulates the power of Marcia’s words. Regulus’ refusal to use therights of postliminium during this episode, and his portrayal asimpenetrabilis ille (6.413), the Stoic hero par excellence, are at lastquestioned by Silius’ comment on Marcia’s ultimate speech. Thegeneral is indeed affected—but by which words? From the contextof Marcia’s last sentence (data foedera nobis / ac promissa fidesthalamis ubi, perfide, nunc est? 6.517–18), two possibilities arise:Regulus hears either the words perfide nunc est or the whole sentence.Marus’ intervention ‘saves’ the reputation of the hero, by drowningout the remainder of Marcia’s speech and by muting her voice: ceterapercussi uetuerunt noscere remi (6.520). Despite the silencing of thewoman’s voice, our perception of Regulus has slightly changed, as thepoet has put into question the magnificence of the Roman general, byusing the verb penetrare immediately after Marcia’s frantic provocation.Is he the Stoic hero par excellence, as tradition has depictedhim? I think there is space for some further questioning of Regulus’role in book 6.Why does the poet choose first to portray his heroine as anotherwife of Cato, then as another Dido raving at the abandonment ofher partner? There is a remarkable intermingling of sources—Silius’ usual practice—yet the result is unique. An explanation onthe grounds of conventionality is not sufficient. As I have shownfrom the outset of this chapter, Marcia’s voice of dissent has asubversive role. Her display of power and ‘masculinity’ competeswith Regulus’ own qualities. Therefore, we have to look into therepresentation of Regulus in this episode and ponder whetherRegulus is truly and unequivocally portrayed as the flawless generalor whether his portrait contains certain flaws that Silius deliberatelyexploits.Let us first look at Marcia’s last appearance in the poem and herspeech to her son Serranus. As we have seen, Marus takes Serranus tosee his mother, Marcia, in Rome. Marcia now emerges outsideMarus’ narrative; she is not the construct of Marus’ literary imaginationand manipulation. Silius describes the woman’s mourning and

180 Motherhood and the Otherisolated life, another token of his emphasis on the darkness and thedifficulty of the period for the Roman state. 50 In her final speech, theonly one that is not reported by Marus in his analeptic narrative, Marciaaddresses her adolescent son before she disappears from the poem:leue uulnus? an alteusque ad nostra ferus penetrauit uiscera mucro?quicquid id est, dum non uinctum Carthago catenisabripiat poenaeque instauret monstra paternae,gratum est, o superi. quotiens heu, nate, petebam,ne patrias iras animosque in proelia ferresneu te belligeri stimularet in arma parentistriste decus. nimium uiuacis dura senectaesupplicia expendi. (6.580–8)Is his wound slight? Or has the violent edge of the sword pierced deep to myvitals? Whatever it may be, I thank you, gods, as long as Carthage does notsnatch him away in fetters or resume the awful tortures of his father’spunishment. Alas, my son, how many times was I begging you not tobring into your fighting your father’s rage and ardour, and for the honourof your warlike father, which brings sorrow, not to spur you on for war.I have paid the harsh punishment of very long-lived old age.As far as we can discern, Marcia’s behaviour has not significantlychanged: she is still turbata, mostly because she is being psychologicallyprepared for the death of her son (ruebat / in luctum similemantiquo, 6.577–8). 51 From previous descriptions, she has retained thisfeature, now slightly altered. In 514, she is portrayed as furiata, whilein 578 she is turbata, an adjective otherwise reserved for Juno in thepoem (cf. 2.529, 10.337, 12.701, 17.604). In addition, Marcia emphasisesonce again her maternal power by referring to Serranus’wound as the source for her own demise: ad nostra penetrauit uisceramucro. 52 The most striking expression of Marcia’s resentment of war50 Cf. 6.552–73. After Marus’ digression, Fama flies to the city and spreads uera acficta (‘true and false tidings’, 6.554), with the result that alarm and hysteria dominatein people’s hearts.51 Compare the difference between Marcia’s reaction and that of anonymousfeminae in Liv. 22.7.13–14: several women die of joy upon seeing their sons returnsafe from the battle at Trasimene.52 Pace Rebischke (1913), 13: ‘Postea Serrranus a Maro Romam ducitur ad matrem;et matri quoque poeta, ut conclusione addita episodium apte finiretur, sermonem

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 181and her criticism of Regulus’ actions is her intention to interruptgenerational continuity, to undo what Marus has achieved in hislong narrative, from her perspective as mother. 53 Her (striking)advice to Serranus is to avoid imitating his father’s ira et animusin war, because these are the very qualities that destroyed Regulus.Marcia calls Regulus’ heroism triste decus, a qualification that Siliushimself applies to Regulus in 2.435, when he inserts Regulus’ defeatand death in Libya as a scene on Hannibal’s shield (2.433–6).Marcia’s interpretation of Regulus’ command in Libya undermineshis depiction as a Stoic hero: ira is a trait opposing the virtues of atrue Stoic. How can we explain this contradiction, especially sinceRegulus is constantly represented in the poem as IðÆŁÞò, pacatusfronte, placido ore, impenetrabilis? As Marcia becomes a non-Romanwithin Rome, Regulus’ stature as the perfect Stoic is also diminished.In this last speech, Marcia refers to Regulus’ punishment in Carthageas monstra (6.583), 54 a fair statement, as Marus’ narrative shows.The penalty consisted of Regulus’ enclosure into a frame with a seriesof iron pikes piercing his body (6.539–44). According to Marus,tribuit uu. 579–89, quo eius de filio recuperato laetitiam demonstrauit ultimumqueReguli uirtutem praedicauit.’ We do not learn anywhere in this description of Marcia’shappiness or rejoicing.53 Marcia’s efforts resemble Thetis’ in Statius’ Achilleid, namely to stop her sonfrom participating in the Trojan War by offering him seclusion in Scyros instead.54 The type of punishment varies in different authors. See Mix (1970); Spaltenstein(1986), 428; Frölich (2000), 305–10. At 2.340–44, Gestar, the Carthaginiansenator, refers to a crucifixion (343–4), thus making Marus’ narrative inconsistentwith earlier versions of Regulus’ death in the Punica. On Regulus’ death by crucifixion,see Cotta Ramosino (1999), 93–105, for a discussion of the appropriation ofChristian symbolism. Is this inconsistency due to Silius’ own mistake or is it intentionalin order to show the incredibility of Marus’ account? In my opinion, Siliusintends to portray Marus’ narrative as extravagant and exaggerating. ConsiderMarus’ own comments on the credibility of his words: uix egomet credo (‘scarcelydo I believe it myself’, 6.194) on the monstrosity of the serpent; si qua fides (‘if youbelieve me’, 6.386) on Regulus’ unbending behaviour in Rome. In addition, Marus’version of Regulus’ death does not involve crucifixion, as on Hannibal’s shield, foranother reason. When Marcia refers to Serranus’ wounds penetrating her body(6.580), she thus alludes to Regulus’ own death in the wooden frame, pierced byswords.

182 Motherhood and the OtherRegulus was deprived of sleep as he was constantly pierced by theedges of the spears (fodiunt ad uiscera corpus, ‘pierced deep into hisflesh’, 6.544). I would like to suggest, however, that behind Marcia’sdefinition of her husband’s punishment as monstra, there is a hiddenallusion. In conjunction with the type of Regulus’ torture in thewooden frame, the reference to monstra points to the relationshipbetween Regulus’ killing of a serpent in Libya, a violation of nature,and his own death—a punishment for his transgression. As we shallsee next, Regulus’ trespassing of the boundaries between nature andthe imposition of culture (or in other words, Romanisation) isscrutinised by the poet as the source of the general’s death in Carthage.Excessive display of manliness ultimately leads to death, a wellknownand exploited topos in the epic tradition, but if we read thisepisode as Regulus’ own IæØóôåßÆ, then at the same time, the textopens up for other potential readings that lay bare several ‘cracks’ inRegulus’ saintly portrait, carefully crafted to underline the hero’s ownotherness.TRANSGRESSING AGAINST NATURE: THE SERPENTAND VIRGIL’S CAMILLAA major part of Marus’ narration to Serranus is dedicated to the defeatof a serpent at the River Bagrada (6.140–293), a place close to Regulus’camp (in the year 256 bce). 55 Extending over 153 lines, Marus’ narrationfocuses on the monstrosity of the serpent, its vicious behaviour,and its defeat by the Roman general. 56 This episode is a major proof ofSilius’ tendency in book 6 to suppress the power of light and allow55 For an examination of the episode in terms of intertextual relations see Bassett(1955).56 Cf. Liv. Periocha 18: Atilius Regulus in Africa serpentem portentosae magnitudiniscum magna clade militum occidit (‘In Africa, Atilius Regulus killed a snake of supernaturalsize, while he lost many soldiers’). Livy’s lost account is briefly elaborated inV. Max. 1.8.ext.19.

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 183supremacy to the dynamics of darkness, as we have seen above. Boththe lucus and the dwelling of the serpent lack light: 57lucus iners iuxta Stygium pallentibus umbrisseruabat sine sole nemus, crassusque per aurashalitus erumpens taetrum exspirabat odorem.intus dira domus curuoque immanis in antrosub terras specus et tristes sine luce tenebrae. (6.146–50)Nearby, a motionless grove was keeping the Stygian woods without sun, withcolourless shades; and from it bursting through the air a thick vapour wasspreading a repulsive stench. Inside there was a dreadful house and a vastsubterranean cavern in a winding cave, where the dismal darkness let in nolight.In addition, we learn that the serpent’s bodily sustenance consists ofdevouring all kinds of animals: lions, birds, and cattle. In particular,because of hot weather the cattle are driven to the river (6.157–8),where they meet death. Thus, even the presence of light, just like itsabsence, proves destructive in such a disastrous location, since thesun causes death.After the serpent’s first attack, dismemberment, and devouring ofAquinus and Avens (6.166–203), Regulus is informed of the situationwhile he still wages war: magna audendi flagrabat amore (‘burningwith a passion for great achievements’, 6.209). The Roman leader’spreparations resemble the siege of a city (6.211–15). The fight follows,during which a number of soldiers and horses are devoured bythe monster (216–40). Regulus’ intervention and speech aim atencouraging the Romans to face the hostile serpent. Subsequently,the Roman general casts his spear (hasta, 247) against the serpentsuccessfully. Marus repeats the same action (263), followed by therest of the soldiers (267–9). A catapult strikes the final blow and theserpent is now severely weakened. Finally, the serpent is literallymutilated: its stomach is perforated with spears, its eyeballs aretaken out, its tail is pinned to the ground (273–8).57 The lack of light is a topos for the dwellings of such monstra. See Martin (1979),33. Bassett (1955), 13–14 n.29, correctly notices that Silius’ description followsVirgil’s accounts of Polyphemus and Cacus.

184 Motherhood and the OtherAt this moment, Silius introduces a new element in his version ofevents, namely the tragic aftermath of the serpent’s murder and itseffect on the surrounding nature: 58erupit tristi fluuio mugitus et imismurmura fusa uadis, subitoque et lucus et antrumet resonae siluis ulularunt flebile ripae.heu quantis luimus mox tristia proelia damnis,quantaque supplicia et quales exhausimus iras!nec tacuere pii uates famulumque sororumNaiadum, tepida quas Bagrada nutrit in unda,nos uiolasse manu seris monuere periclis.haec tunc hasta decus nobis pretiumque secundiuulneris a uestro, Serrane, tributa parente,princeps quae sacro bibit e serpente cruorem. (6.283–93)From the grim river burst a roaring, and from the inner depths growling ispoured forth, while suddenly both the grove and the cave and the banks ofthe river wailed re-echoing to the woods. Alas, with what great losses did wesoon pay for the grim battle, and how much punishment and wrath did wedrink up! Nor did the pious seers remain silent: they warned us of laterdangers, because we had violated with our hand the servant of the Naiadsisters, whom Bagrada nurtures with its warm stream. Then, it was thisspear, Serranus, given to me from your parent as an honour and reward forthe successful wound, the first one to have drunk the blood from the sacredserpent.Regulus’ deed is explicitly described as a violation against nature(uiolasse manu, 6.290), on which Marus blames the ensuing cata-58 It is Silius’ own invention that this serpent is hallowed, a detail absent from Livy.See Häussler (1978), 172. Bassett (1955), 9 and n.70, gives parallels in Latin literature,where we see the motif of serpentes sacri. Various passages in Ovid (the serpent ofCadmus in Met. 3 and Cadmus’ own transformation in book 4), Valerius Flaccus (theTrojan monstrum in Arg. 2), and Statius (the female monster in Theb. 1.597–626 andthe serpent in Theb. 5, in particular line 511) reconfirm the ‘sanctity’ of differentmonstra, and prove how the violation of this religiosity results in punishment andretribution. For an examination of similar landscape descriptions in Statius, seeNewlands (2004), 133–55. As John Penwill rightly points out to me, one maycompare and contrast Cato’s men’s acknowledgement that their attempt to marchthrough land nature has assigned to serpents deserves punishment (Luc. 9.854–62);Cato does not resort to violence to resolve the problem but employs the potions ofthe Psylli.

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 185strophe for the Roman army in Libya and its disastrous outcome forRegulus himself. 59 Both the uates and the poet portray the defeat ofthe serpent in terms of a transgression and ‘penetration’ of nature’smysteries, which results in retribution. As Martin has correctly remarked,the fact that the serpent is called monstrum exitiabile (6.151)reminds the reader of the etymology of the word monstrum from theverb monere. 60 Therefore, the serpent foreshadows future disasters forRegulus, since it functions as a warning sign. Moreover, the soothsayerswarned the army (monuere, 6.290) and explicitly stated theserpent’s sanctity (sacro, 6.293). Knowing the tragic end that awaitedRegulus, Marus is in a position to lament the tristia proelia against theserpent, followed by the wrath of nature and of its constituents, theNaiads to whom the serpent was a famulus (6.288). 61 What Siliusunderlines is the violation and transgression against nature and thesacredness of the place intruded upon. 62Moreover, Silius’ allusiveness establishes a connection between theserpent and Camilla, which further accentuates the pathos of theepisode but also the sexual overtones hiding behind the descriptionof the defeat of the serpent. Through the association with Camilla,the poet stresses the sacredness of the serpent as famulus and at thesame time the violation and ‘penetration’ of the serpent’s body by thespear, an act followed by retribution. More specifically, with thephrase princeps quae sacro bibit e serpente cruorem (6.293), Siliusdirectly alludes to Camilla’s death in Aeneid 11: 63 hasta sub exsertamdonec perlata papillam / haesit uirgineumque alte bibit acta cruorem(‘Until the spear, carried through under her exposed breast, held fastand driven deeply, drank the virgin blood’, Aen. 11.803–4). Theintroduction of Camilla as a literary predecessor of the serpent istelling. Both Camilla and the serpent are pierced through with spearsemployed by male agents, precisely to signify a type of sexual pene-59 Häussler (1978), 172, calls it ‘tragisch-unvermeidlicher Schuld’.60 Martin (1979), 30.61 Consider as a reverse parallel the cerua in 13.115–37, which leaves Capuawillingly and enters the Roman camp, to be slain by Fulvius in honour of Diana.The cerua is also called famula Dianae (13.124). For an examination of the motif seeFranchet d’Espèrey (1977), 157–72. On the cerua, see Bernstein (forthcoming).62 See Santini (1981), 522–34.63 Bassett (1955), 20 n.71.

186 Motherhood and the Othertration. In addition, the word famulus (6.288) reminds us of Camilla’ssacredness as famula to the Latonia uirgo (Aen. 11.558). And thisis not the only other verbal echo; Marus’ lament for the tribulationsthat resulted from their killing of the sacred serpent resonates withOpis’ lament of Camilla’s death: 64prospexit tristi mulcatam morte Camillam,ingemuitque deditque has imo pectore uoces:‘heu nimium, uirgo, nimium crudele luistisupplicium Teucros conata lacessere bello! ...’(Aen. 11.839–42)She looked into the distance at Camilla, beaten down by grim death, andcried and gave forth this speech from deep in her heart: ‘Alas, too cruel,virgin, too cruel a penalty you have paid for having tried to provoke theTrojans in battle! ...’Not only are Opis’ words luisti supplicium imitated in Marus’ speech(luimus proelia, 6.286), but also the reference to Camilla’s death astristi morte reminds us of the tristia proelia against the serpent(6.286). 65 Since the serpent’s death alludes to Camilla’s demise,Regulus here fights an Amazonomachy of sorts. By penetrating thefemale chôra of mother-nature and killing one of its constituentelements, the Roman can be viewed in the act of civilising theunknown, the barbaric, the uncanny. Both the serpent and Camillarepresent the other, the monstrous, the asymbolic, the locus wheremale and female merge into an indistinguishable hybrid. It becomesclear, however, that this area of the river, the sacred space in particular,and Africa more generally, as we have seen in the previouschapter, is especially recalcitrant to such efforts of Romanisation andassimilation. What ensues is Regulus’ own punishment as a result oftransgression. The poet exploits the common feature of retribution64 Bassett (1955), 9.65 In addition, after Regulus hurls his spear, the serpent is depicted as a passiverecipient, unfamiliar with civilisation and in particular with weapons: et chalybemlongo tum primum passus in aeuo (‘and for the first time then in his long life hesuffered the steel’, 6.255). The use of the participle passus, often ascribed to women todenote rape or invasion (cf. Adams [1982], 189–90), is demonstrative of the serpent’sinability to react. The participle is used several times with sexual connotations inconnection to female figures (2.83, 5.160, 6.577, 13.548, 13.829).

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 187as the direct result of such violation: by effacing otherness, Regulusdestroys himself in the end, in the same space where he encountersotherness in the first place.If we interpret the episode of the serpent as transgression againstnature and its native elements, as well as a violation of a sacredplace, how does this affect our perception of Regulus’ figure? It isimportant to notice that Regulus is responsible for the defeat of theserpent and thus for perpetrating the crime. Regulus’ conquest ofthe serpent is the first token of his heroic accomplishments in thebook. When he underscores the significance of Regulus’ bravery forthe outcome, Silius also puns with Regulus and his arte regendi(6.257), as he calls it. This recognition of his ars regendi amplydemonstrates Regulus’ leading position among the Roman soldiers,and correspondingly his accountability for breaching the balance inthe sacred grove.All critics of Silius consider Regulus to be the mortal reincarnationof Hercules and Cato. 66 Nevertheless, Silius is careful to depict thenegative side of Regulus’ character as well: his inadequacy as Romangeneral, just like several heroes in the Punica embody the darker sidesof Hercules, chief among them Hannibal. His fight against theserpent can be interpreted as a struggle against the power of evil,but it also presents a picture of violation. In this respect, howdifferent is Regulus from Hannibal and his transgression in crossingthe Alps? 67 In such instances, Silius deconstructs the polarities ofsame and other: the Roman and the non-Roman seem to convergerather than diverge, with Marcia in the centre, orchestrating the‘demolition’ of her husband’s portrait.66 See n.12 above.67 For Hannibal’s act as a violation of the Alps see Augoustakis (2003a), 235–57.There is also another instance of violation of nature, the arrival of the Carthaginianfleet at Caieta (7.409–93). Proteus prophesies that the unnatural and defiling ‘penetration’by the classis Phoenissa will turn against the Carthaginians in the end; on theprophecy’s retrospective references to the Trojan Paris, see Ripoll (2000c), 99–103.For an examination of the episode in book 7, see Nicol (1936), 38–9; Bruère (1958),496; Nesselrath (1986), 214–15; Stärk (1993), 132–43; Perutelli (1997b), 470–8.

188 Motherhood and the OtherFASHIONING A NEW GENERATION: MARCIA‘SOWING THE SEED’As has been noted above, Marcia asks her son Serranus not to followhis father’s iras animosque (6.585), while she calls Regulus’ death inCarthage monstra (6.583). The word monstra is used there as areminiscence of Regulus’ murder of the serpent earlier in the bookand of his erasure of ‘monstrous’ otherness. His death in Carthagebears many similarities to the death of the serpent. After he isenclosed in a wooden frame, Regulus is pierced with spears (6.544).As we have seen, the serpent is also pierced to death by the spears ofthe soldiers and is gradually mutilated. By the same token, Regulus isforced to immobility, since whenever he turns around, he is piercedwith the edges of the steel and therefore deprived of sleep until hedies. In mirroring these two death scenes, the poet reflects on thenature of otherness as well: Regulus negates his Romanness in orderto reinforce it but only by embracing an uncomfortable otherness,that is the alienation from his patria and the adoption of Carthaginiandress and behaviour; the serpent negates the forces of Romannessthat strive to assimilate the African landscape through death,destruction, and invasion.Just as Regulus emerges as the paradoxical Roman/non-Roman,Marcia further deconstructs his Stoic features. Marcia’s claim thatRegulus’ motive for war was his ira questions his stature as Stoic heroby assimilating him with the serpent. In the narrative of the dragon atBagrada, the word ira is used three times to define the serpent’sraging nature (6.234, 253, 268). 68 However, during the battle betweenthe Carthaginians and the Romans that took place in Libya whenXanthippus came, Marus notes that they were also under the influenceof ira: feruebat Mauors, nec mens erat ulla sine ira (‘The battlewas heating up, and there was no mind without rage’, 6.317). During68 Von Albrecht (1964), 66, has correctly noticed that the description of theserpent’s reactions closely matches Juno’s behaviour in the Punica. Words such asturbo, spiritus, tempestas, and procella remind us of Juno’s use of storm and the forcesof the Underworld in order to fulfil her aims.

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 189the same battle, Regulus is trapped and captured by Xanthippus. 69 Inhis account, Marus leaves some space for controversy regardingRegulus’ actions:abripuit traxitque uirum fax mentis honestaegloria et incerti fallax fiducia Martis.non socios comitumue manus, non arma sequentumrespicere; insano pugnae tendebat amoreiam solus ... (6.332–6)Glory, the stimulus of a noble heart, and false confidence in fickle Mars,snatched and carried the man away. He did not look back at his fellows orthe throng of his companions, he did not look back at the arms of thefollowers; now he was pressing on alone with an insane desire for battle.Because of his one-sided pursuit of glory, Regulus is not the sameperson we encounter later in the narrative. Despite the efforts ofcritics to explain away the phrase insano amore (6.335), there is nosufficient justification. 70 Ripoll remarks that miscalculation duringbattles is a common feature among generals such as P. Scipio (Scipio’sfather), Fabius, or Hannibal himself; 71 he also adds that thepursuit of glory is often associated with fury but does not necessarilyentail a critical judgement of the generals in question. Therefore,Ripoll concludes that Regulus is more heroised than denigratedthrough his mistakes, inasmuch as the poet blames Xanthippus’ useof fraud to trap the Roman general. 72 If we take into account,however, Polybius’ version of the battle between the two enemies,together with certain allusions in the phrase insano amore, Ripoll’sconclusions become open to further scrutiny.As I observed at the beginning of this chapter, Silius is at thecrossroads of tradition concerning the portrait of Regulus. BothPolybius’ account on the one hand, where there is no mention ofRegulus’ mission to Rome, and the heroised and exaggerated version69 Unlike Livy, who does not mention the use of trickery, Silius representsXanthippus as fraudem nectens (‘weaving treachery’, 6.326). See Häussler (1978), 173.70 Spaltenstein (1986), 414, says that the phrase ‘ne contient pas un jugement’.71 For instance, P. Scipio, Scipio’s father, and Hannibal are led to war by cupido /laudis et ad pugnas Martemque insania concors (‘thirst for glory and kinship in theirinsane passion for war and battle’, 4.99–100). See chapter 2 (106–9).72 Ripoll (1998), 240–41.

fi190 Motherhood and the Otherof Cicero or Horace on the other, seem to be intermingled in Silius’narrative. More specifically, Silius’ use of phrases such as fallaxfiducia or insano amore points to an affiliation between his versionand Polybius’ account of the events in 256–255 bce: under theinfluence of his own successes, Regulus miscalculated the opportunitiesof the situation. According to Polybius (1.31–2), after hisvictory in Africa, Regulus tried to negotiate and impose severeterms on the Carthaginians, who did not accept them and insteadinvited Xanthippus for help. The subsequent battle between Regulusand Xanthippus turns into a defeat due to fear and inexperience,according to the Greek historian (1.33–4). Polybius’ emphasis on thehubris that Regulus falls into explains Silius’ oblique criticism of thegeneral’s surrender to passion (insano amore):˚Æd ªaæ ôe äØÆðØóôåEí ôB ôýåfi Å ŒÆd ìܺØóôÆ ŒÆôa ôaò åPðæƪßÆò KíÆæªÝóôåæïíKçÜíÅ ðAóØí ôüôå äØa ôHí ÌÜæŒïı óıìðôøìÜôøí . › ªaæ ìØŒæfiH ðæüôåæïí ïPäØäïfò Šºåïí ïPäb óıªªíþìÅí ôïEò ðôÆßïıóØí ðÆæa ðüäÆò ÆPôeò XªåôïäåÅóüìåíïò ôïýôøí ðåæd ôBò ›ÆıôïF óøôÅæßÆò. (Plb. 1.35.2–3)For utterly to distrust good fortune, and especially when enjoying success,proved obvious to all at that time, because of Marcus’ misfortune. For,having shown neither mercy nor forgiveness to those who made a mistakea little before, he was being led captive himself to beg for these things inregard to salvation. 73Therefore, Regulus’ command in Africa was not free of blame. 74Silius’ knowledge of Polybius’ account could have influenced him73 Diodorus draws a similar conclusion:ïP ìcí ‹ ªå ôïýôøí ÆYôØïò KºÆåßóôÅí ìåæßäÆí ôBò óıìçïæAò IðÅíݪŒÆôï. ôBò ªaæðæïðÆæåïýóÅò ÆPôfiH äüîÅò ðﺺÆðºÆóßÆí ôcí IôØìßÆí ŒÆd ôcí ÆNóåýíÅí MººÜîÆôï, ôïEòäb NäßïØò óıìðôþìÆóØ ôïfò ¼ººïıò KäßäÆîå ìÝôæØÆ çæïíåEí Kí ôÆEò KîïıóßÆØò, ôe äbìݪØóôïí, ~‰í •ðåæÅçÜíÅóå ôcí IôıåßÆí, ôïýôøí MíƪŒÜóŁÅ ôcí oâæØí ŒÆd ôcí KîïıóßÆíçÝæåØí, ðæïÆçÅæfi ÅìÝíïò ›ÆıôïF ôcí óıªªíþìÅí ŒÆd ôeí óıªŒååøæÅìÝíïí ôïEò KðôÆØŒüóØ튺åïí. (23.15.4)Indeed this man, responsible for the situation, did not carry away the smallestportion of the disaster. In exchange for his previous fame, he received many timesgreater dishonour and disgrace, and by his personal misfortunes, he taught the rest tobe moderate in handling power; and the worst of all, having deprived himself of theforgiveness and the pity accorded to sinners, he was forced to endure the arroganceand the power of those whose misfortune he treated with haughtiness.74 See also Walbank (1957–79), 1.92–4.

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 191in carefully incorporating elements that show the deficienciesof Roman political leadership during the First Punic War that arereplicated in the early years of the Second Punic War. We should alsokeep in mind that the digression in book 6 takes place after three majorRoman defeats, in the Trebia, the Ticinus, and Trasimene. Certainly,Regulus has the potential to become a model for Scipio Africanus, whoin the course of the poem emerges as the chosen deliverer of theRoman people. Yet at the same time, the poet differentiates the twogenerals by underscoring Regulus’ shortcoming.Moreover, the phrases insano pugnae tendebat amore (6.335) togetherwith incerti fallax fiducia Martis (6.333) remind the reader ofthe opening of book 6, when daylight discloses the catastrophe thattook place in Trasimene: insani Mauortis opus (6.6). 75 Here, anothersource is echoed in Regulus’ description during the battle withXanthippus, namely Virgil’s Aeneid. After Allecto’s infernal intervention,Turnus is aroused for war: saeuit amor ferri et scelerata insaniabelli, / ira super (‘Rages the love for steel and the damnable madnessfor war, and above all wrath’, Aen. 7.461–2). In these two lines, wefind a summary of the incentives for conducting war, all attested inRegulus’ case as well: amor ferri, insania belli, ira. 76 The parallelbetween Regulus and Turnus further adumbrates Silius’ intentionsin portraying the Roman general as a particularly complex figure. Hisparadigm of bravery and Stoicism is carefully counterbalanced byhis previous actions. In addition, the allusion to Virgil’s Aeneid iscomplemented by an intratextual allusion. The phrase insano pugnaeamore (6.335) plays off against an earlier description of Regulus.The Roman general is being informed of the casualties hissoldiers have suffered by the serpent, while he magna audendi flagrabatamore (‘he was burning with desire of great achievements’,6.209). At this point in the narrative, Regulus is legitimately inspiredby amor belli, since he has not yet committed the sacrilege. After the75 In 8.310–11, Varro, the consul responsible for the disaster in Cannae, is calledinsanus, an adjective that is not used elsewhere for Roman generals.76 Cf. Aen. 7.550, where Allecto is willing to pursue her catastrophic plans furtherinsani Martis amore. Further instances of the insanus amor can be found in Virgil’sEcl. 10.44 and Aen. 2.343.

192 Motherhood and the Otherkilling of the serpent, he is transformed, and his amor belli becomesinsanus. 77What is more, Scipio’s father advises his son to control his ardourin battle, a trait that will distinguish him from Regulus’ failure: ‘ ...per nostri, fortissime, leti / obtestor causas, Martis moderare furori! ...’(‘I entreat you, my bravest son, remember the causes of our deathand control your ardour in battle!’, 13.669–70). As we shall see in thenext chapter, Scipio’s instruction by his mother in the Underworldwill safely lead the Roman general to the victory over Hannibal. Butwhat about Marcia and Serranus?LI OCCHI CASTI DI MARZIA TUA: EMBEDDINGMARCIA IN THE PUNICA‘ma son del cerchio ove son li occhi castidi Marzia tua, che ’n vista ancor ti priega,o santo petto, che per tua la tegni:per lo suo amore adunque a noi ti piega....’‘Marzïa piacque tanto alli occhi mieimentre ch’i’ fu’ di là,’ diss’elli allora‘che quante grazie volse da me, fei.Or che di là dal mal fiume dimora,più muover non mi può, per quella leggeche fatta fu quando me n’ usci’ fora ...’(Dante Purgatorio, 1.78–90) 7877 Compare the first image of the ekphrasis at Liternum, where Silius portraysRegulus as too rushing into the war. He would have chosen otherwise, had he knownthe outcome:primus bella truci suadebat Regulus ore, / bella neganda uiro, si noscere fata daretur(‘First, Regulus was persuading war, with his fierce countenance, a war that shouldhave been spoken against by the man, if he could know the future’, 6.658–9).For Hannibal’s visit to Liternum and the ekphrasis at the temple of the anonymousdeity, see Fowler (1996), A. Barchiesi (2001b), 138–9, and Marks (2003).78 ‘But I am of the circle where the chaste eyes of your Marcia are, who in her lookstill prays you, O holy breast, that you hold her for your own. For love of her, then,incline yourself to us ...’ He then said, ‘Marcia so pleased my eyes while I was yonderthat every kindness she wished of me I did. Now that she dwells beyond the evil

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 193Just as Regulus rejects Marcia’s plea to honour his domus and stay inRome, Dante’s Lucan in Purgatorio 1 is free from the bondage of theInferno and implicitly from Marcia’s persistent gaze. Dante, as acareful reader of Lucan, encapsulates in these lines Marcia’s importancein the De bello ciuili as Cato’s wife. In this chapter, I havescrutinised the role of Regulus’ Marcia in the sixth book of thePunica. Marcia strives to abolish in Serranus’ mind what Marus hasestablished with his narrative. Her efforts concentrate on prohibitingher son from following the destructive traits in Regulus’ characterthat have brought about his ruin. It is not coincidental that the poetcarefully differentiates Serranus from his father by means of therepresentation of his hasta. Although Regulus’ hasta becomes asacred object for Marus, who literally worships it (6.137–9), Serranus’hasta is described as fracta (6.69–70). Thus, we are able todiscern how the present generation of sons/soldiers, the epigonoi, isdifferent from their fathers’ generation. Marcia does not guaranteethe perpetuation of male ideals, precisely because the masculinequalities embodied by her partner are destructive and blameworthy.In her analysis of the relationship between Roman mothers andadolescent sons, Dixon concludes: ‘The Roman mother, aristocraticor otherwise, was expected to worry over her son and to urge him onto proper achievements. He was expected to defer to her wisheswithin recognised limits’. 79 In Marcia, we see a fracture of this idealrelationship. Marcia’s son, Serranus, has already failed when hereturns from Trasimene, defeated and wounded. Regulus cannotprovide exemplary behaviour for his son to follow; Serranus, especially,although he was advised not to follow the iras animosque of hisparent, has already participated in the battle at Trasimene and runaway, routed and bloodstained. 80 What is more, Marcia’s advicestream no more may she move me, by the law which was made when I came forthfrom there ...’ (trans. Singleton).79 Dixon (1990), 202.80 I do not agree with Spaltenstein’s comment ([1986], 400) on 6.138 that Siliusshould have been more careful in constructing a more believable scene, since Serranusought to have heard his father’s exploits already. It is precisely Marcia’s interrogationof Regulus’ deeds that Marus is trying to deconstruct here, with his androcentric andinstructive narrative (cf. emphatic negative with the imperative ne cessa,intu quoque,care puer, dignum te sanguine tanto / fingere ne cessa atque orientes comprime fletus,

194 Motherhood and the Otherreflects the situation at Rome during these early years of the SecondPunic War. The Roman political leadership falls short in its duties tosave the state. Though Regulus provides certain good qualities forfuture leaders to follow, no Roman leader will beneficially fulfil theStoic ideals until Scipio is fully empowered to face the enemy.In this chapter, we have seen how Marcia’s speeches deconstructMarus’ androcentric narrative. Her resentful voice attempts a correctionof her son’s admiration of his father as the Stoic model parexcellence. In a constant play of identities, Marcia in Rome plays offagainst Regulus in Africa, while the wife does not embody theexpected voice of the female aligned and subdued to her husband’swishes and commands; by and large, Marcia then demolishes themale-centred construct and semantic register surrounding patria, byshowing how, despite her own contributions to the country’s demands,Regulus alienates himself from Roman affairs by coming intoCarthaginian territory, to redefine or in effect to salvage Romanness.As Tipping has perceptively observed, there is a pervasive lack ofdefinition in the Virgilian and post-Virgilian epic hero, ‘the difficultyof determining what it meant to be epic hero or Roman or both’. 81Simultaneously, however, in this constant negotiation of representationsof Romans as non-Romans, we may conclude that boundariesare weakened: Marcia is transformed into the atypical Romanmother of the centre, who denounces the perfidia of her husband,now almost an African, a Carthaginian in dress and demeanour. AsKristeva observes, ‘by defying the polis and its jurisdiction one‘you too, dear boy, must still think of yourself as worthy of such glorious descent andcheck those starting tears’, 6.537–8). After Marus’ first reference to Marcia’s encounterwith Regulus, Serranus bewails his father’s stern behaviour:cur decus hoc, o dure, negasti,tangere sacratos uultus atque oscula ab orelibauisse tuo? dextram mihi prendere dextranon licitum? (6.419–22)‘You harsh one, why did you deny [us] to touch your sacred face and take kisses from yourlips? Was it not permitted to take your right hand in mine?’This constitutes a failed meeting between a father and a son, sharply contrasted toScipio’s encounter with his mother and father in book 13 (see chapter 4, 213–21).81 Tipping (2010), 218.

Regulus’ Encounter with Marcia’s Otherness 195implicitly challenges the founding prohibitions of established societyand perhaps of sociality itself; ...an overstepping of the prohibitionsthat guarantee sexual, individual, and familial identity’. 82 Marciaoversteps such prohibitions, while her presence problematises therole of motherhood in the Punica. In the preceding, Kristevan readingof Punica 6, we have traced how both in the past and presentrealities of Punic wars, the female always seems to recede into andmerge with the marginal chaos of the outside and how a mother willbe neither inside nor outside, neither known nor unknown. Byemphasising her husband’s failures, Marcia’s confinement into thegenotext of the female chôra mobilises a departure from establishednorms and as a result constitutes a driving force for a new model forfuture Roman leadership, which at this point in the war is muchneeded for the survival of the Roman race, as we will see in the nextchapter. Such reconfiguration, however, will not be possible withoutthe support of motherhood, a catalyst in the emergence of empire.82 Kristeva (1991), 60.

4Playing the Same: Roman andNon-Roman Mothers in the PunicaThe genre pervasive[ly] associat[es] women with the ‘public’sphere, in their cultural and metaphorical relations to Romanimperialism, militarism, and colonisation.(A. M. Keith, Engendering Rome, 132)In this chapter, the discussion will centre around two non-Romanwomen, two outsiders in the Punica, two foreigners, whose presencespeaks volumes for the construction of sameness and otherness inthis historical epic: Hannibal’s wife, Imilce, who appears at the end ofbook 4 to stop the sacrifice of their infant son, and Masinissa’s agedmother, whose prophecy in book 16 becomes the catalyst for aredefinition of the role of periphery. As we shall see, although Imilce’svoice encompasses the reasonable thoughts of a civilised Romanphilosopher denouncing nefas, at the same time her autonomous,paradoxically Roman, voice of freedom is marginalised. Imilce refusesto comply with the traditional ancestral customs of the Carthaginians:the poet addresses the difficulty of classifying Imilce as eithera Carthaginian or a Roman by transforming her into a Bacchant, whonevertheless delivers a powerful speech whereby she condemns thenefas of the impending sacrifice as a barbaric custom, alien to thecivilised empire of Silius’ contemporary Rome. Read against herforeboding speech to Hannibal in book 3, Imilce’s suasoria at theend of book 4 illuminates our understanding of Hannibal’s ascent topower and his decline and fall. Just like Marcia’s, Imilce’s hybrid voicedisplays the signs of autonomy; and yet, there is no space for Imilceto succeed in promoting a pure Roman ideological code of pietas and

Playing the Same 197fides among the Carthaginians; Imilce’s Roman deportment finallybecomes asymbolic.By contrast to Imilce, Masinissa’s mother, who remains unnamedin the poem, succeeds in promoting her son as a Roman ally, and herconfirmation of Scipio’s divine power is conducive to the Romanvictory over the Carthaginians. Through his mother’s intervention,Masinissa emerges as the upright African leader (as opposed to thehostile other, Hannibal) and espouses those components of Romannessthat are promoted by Scipio himself, such as uirtus, pietas, andfides. As the poem comes to a close, Silius’ portrayal of female actionreflects the successful shift of power in the Roman political scene, byScipio’s emergence as supreme commander. This important changeis sanctioned through female power (Masinissa’s mother) and culminateswith the image of the Roman priestess Claudia Quintapulling the vessel of the Magna Mater, a goddess from the periphery.In this passage, Romanness and otherness are joined with the purposeof redeeming Roman ethics closely associated to women. At thesame time, the boundaries of Romanitas are being redefined. To besure, by the end of the poem, the (African) other is reshaped into thesame, as non-Roman otherness and Roman sameness have becometo a degree destabilised: through Hannibal’s defeat, Scipio emergesas an Africanus; 1 and the once hostile continent now becomesRoman. Furthermore, the seeming deactivation of one polarity(other vs same) is also achieved through the collapse and amalgamationof gender hierarchies, inasmuch as female figures are portrayedembracing all traditional Roman male values. 2 And yet active femaleparticipation in the male world of the Punica proves to be animportant force in morphing Romanness, as an all-inclusive term1 See Tipping (1999), 276: ‘For an audience of the Punica familiar with Lucan’spoem, Hannibal must be a (p)refiguration of what Romanity—at least in part—willbecome’; and (2004), 370: ‘This epic points to a pivotal moment in Roman history:the emergence from Republican multiplicity of the single leader whose individualauthority recalled Rome’s kingly beginning and anticipated its Imperial end.’2 See Tipping (2004), 351: ‘Read as the belated central work of a trilogy of Romanepic that begins with the Aeneid’s proto-Romanity and ends with Rome’s collapseinto the De bello ciuili, the Punica promises to be ...the epic of Rome, glorifyingmodels of martial Romanity in victory over an external enemy at the height of theRepublic.’

198 Motherhood and the Otherfor cosmopolitan identity, as we have seen in the introductory chapter.Silius’ vision of womanhood and motherhood is satisfied andcompleted with the ‘entrance’ of the female into the male symbolic,according to Kristeva, into language, politics, time, and ultimatelyculture.EDONIS UT PANGAEA:IMILCE’SARTOF DISSUASIONAt the end of the fourth book of the Punica, after having defeated theRoman armies at the Ticinus and the Trebia, Hannibal arrives at the siteof Lake Trasimene. Here Silius inserts a fictitious episode, which illustratesthe institution of the Carthaginian custom of child-sacrifice(molk). 3 A Carthaginian embassy convenes with Hannibal in order toask his opinion concerning the vital issue of whether or not his sonshould be sacrificed for the fulfilment of ancestral Carthaginian rites: 4mos fuit in populis, quos condidit aduena Dido,poscere caede deos ueniam ac flagrantibus aris,infandum dictu, paruos imponere natos. (4.765–7)The people, whom Dido founded when she landed in Africa, were accustomedto asking the gods for mercy through sacrifices and to offer up theirchildren upon fiery altars, a custom horrible to tell.In this episode at the end of book 4, Imilce, Hannibal’s wife, makesher second appearance. After parting with her husband in book 33 Kissel (1979), 15, and Ripoll (1998), 280, comment on the portrayal of theCarthaginians as bloodthirsty. The episode has no parallel in the historical record.Silius’ knowledge of this custom must derive from Ennius’ Annales (cf. also Curt.4.3.23): Poeni suos soliti dis sacrificare puellos (‘The Carthaginians were accustomed tosacrificing their boys to the gods’, 214 Skutsch). See Wezel (1873), 20; Woodruff(1910), 383–5; Romano (1965), 88–90; Skutsch (1985), 381–3; Lucarini (2004), 112n.18. On the influence of Ennius on Silius, see chapter 2 (105–6).4 In fact, Hannon, Hannibal’s bitter opponent (discors antiquitus, ‘an old enemy’,4.771), lurks behind this proposal; he is the person who has brought the motion intothe Carthaginian Senate for discussion and vote. For Hannon as the literary successorof Virgil’s Drances, see Bruère (1971).

Playing the Same 199(61–157), 5 Imilce returns as a persona dramatis (4.779–802) andattempts to dissuade her fellow citizens from submitting this sacrilegiousoffering to the gods, an act that she describes as nefas (4.797).In her speech, Imilce directly addresses her absent husband, whomshe ironically rebukes for his futile efforts to expand the power anddominion of his fatherland. Then, Imilce offers herself for sacrifice inthe stead of her child (me, me quae genui, uestris absumite uotis, ‘slayme, me, the mother, and thus keep your vows’, 4.798). Finally,Imilce’s plea exerts significant impact on the Carthaginian patres,who prefer to have the issue solved by Hannibal himself (4.803–7).Back in Italy, when the Carthaginian hero learns about the imminentsacrifice to take place in Carthage (4.808–29), he refuses to have hisown child offered to the gods and proclaims that the donation to hiscountry will consist of a sacrificial substitute, namely the impendingslaughter of the Roman army at Trasimene.In the portrait of Imilce, Silius draws on previous female epiccharacters. Her behaviour is emblematic of the pathos of a womanin grief, a feature well established in other literary sources, as we havealready seen in the portrayal of Marcia’s reaction or in the depictionof several women in Statius’ Thebaid. More specifically, Imilce’sportrayal as a frenzied woman accords with the representation of5 In the introduction to that episode in book 3, the farewell between Hannibal andImilce, Silius informs his reader of the relationship between the Sarranian general andhis wife (cf. Vinchesi’s treatment of Imilce [2005], 98–107): uirgineis iuuenem taedisprimoque Hymenaeo / imbuerat coniunx memorique tenebat amore (‘Through thetorches of virginity and the first years of their marriage his wife had inspired love inHannibal, a young man then, and had held him with a love that remembers[endures]’, 3.64–5). Hannibal’s wife detains her husband with memor amor: Silius’words express the strong bond between the couple. However, deep inside, Hannibalfaces a troubling dilemma: Imilce on the one hand represents the amor coniugis, amorfamiliae, that is, affection for his wife and child; but on the other hand Carthage andits founder, Dido, control Hannibal with another sort of commitment, the amorpatriae. I want to thank Raymond Marks for pointing out that the last word of book 3(713–14) is amor: Bostar / impleratque uiros pugnae propioris amore (‘and Bostar hadfilled the men with desire for instant battle’). Memor amor forms a contrasting pair inconnection with Hannibal’s ira memor (cf. irarum elementa mearum, ‘the beginningsof my anger’, 3.77). This hatred is one of the pivotal themes of the narrative, ignitingthe eternal feud between the Romans and the Carthaginians (1.77–80); see Ganiban(2010).

200 Motherhood and the Otherdistraught women in Virgil, Ovid, and Lucan. 6 Dido, Amata, andJuturna in Virgil, as well as Lucan’s raving matrona in De bello ciuili 1,form the backdrop against which Silius moulds a uniquely RomanImilce, as we shall see in her appearance in the present episode.Imilce’s entrance in the narrative conforms with manifestations ofBacchic otherness in the Latin epic tradition:asperat haec foedata genas lacerataque crinesatque urbem complet maesti clamoris Imilce,Edonis ut Pangaea super trieteride motait iuga et inclusum suspirat pectore Bacchum. (4.774–7)Their fear was heightened by Imilce, who tore her cheeks and hair and filledthe city with woeful cries, as the woman of the Edoni, maddened by thetriennial festival, speeds over the ridges of Mt. Pangaeus and breathes forthBacchus who dwells in her breast.A close look at intertextual connections suggests that Silius’ primarymodel is Virgil. 7 Both Anna in Aeneid 4 (673) and Juturna in Aeneid12 (870–1), moved by sisterly love, disfigure their faces (unguibusora ...foedans, ‘disfiguring her face with her fingernails’), while thelatter also tears her hair as an act of mourning over the approachingdeath of her brother Turnus (crinis scindit ...solutos, ‘tears her dishevelledhair’). Imilce’s mourning alludes explicitly to such exemplificationsof extreme pain and suffering. Moreover, the descriptionof Imilce’s grief, which fills the city with cries, artfully intertwinesVirgilian and Ovidian models. Silius combines Amata’s lunatic reactionafter Allecto’s intervention (Aen. 7.377: immensam sine more furitlymphata per urbem, ‘in a wild frenzy, she rages through the entire city,out of her mind’) with a line from Georgics 4 (515: et maestis late locaquaestibus implet, ‘she fills the places far and wide with her lamentation’),where the nightingale mourns for the loss of her brood.Further, he borrows phraseology from Ovid’s portrayal of Althea6 One cannot fail to recognise allusions to Catul. 64.61, Prop. 1.3.5–6, Ov. Am.1.14.21, Her. 4.47 and 10.18, and Ars 1.312 and 3.710. Statius (Theb. 5.92–4)compares one of the Lemnian women, Polyxo, to a Bacchant, yet there are no verbalallusions in Silius that confirm an interdependence.7 See Bruère (1952), 223–4, for allusions to Virgilian figures. Brouwers (1982),81–2, discusses these allusions to Lucan.

Playing the Same 201losing her son, Meleager (Met. 8.447–8: maestis clamoribus urbem /implet, ‘she fills the city with woeful cries’). 8Critics have laid emphasis on Silius’ dependence on other authorsand on an alleged canonisation of representations of distraught womenby Silius’ time. For instance, Bruère has accentuated the significantinfluence of Virgil’s Amata, though he professes wonder that Silius alsoalludes to Lucan’s anonymous matrona. 9 Allusions to Virgilian figurescertainly cannot be coincidental, especially allusions to Dido or Amata.As we have seen in our preceding examination of the Thebaid and thePunica, however, it is not sufficient to identify allusions to previousliterary works without investigating the reason behind certain choicesSilius makes. For instance, if we consider that Dido is the founder ofCarthage and that special reference is made to her by tracing thesacrificial custom back in time (aduena Dido, Pun. 4.765), then webecome apprised of a connection between Imilce and Dido. Taking intoaccount Imilce’s Bacchic reaction to her child’s sacrifice, we mayassociate her situation with the frenzied aspects of Dido’s portrayal inAeneid 4. More specifically, the adjective furens is three times applied tothe predicament in which Aeneas’ presence has put the raving queen ofCarthage (Aen. 4.65, 69, 283). 10 Furthermore, two similes from thefourth book of the Aeneid establish Dido as a delirious and distraughtfemale figure: in Aeneid 4.300–3, Dido is assimilated to a Thyias, who inan ecstatic state of mind celebrates the feast of Bacchus (trietericaBaccho, Aen. 4.302), and at 4.469, Dido’s condition is compared toPentheus’ position when staring at the frantic mothers performingtheir Dionysiac rites (Eumenidum ueluti demens uidet agmina Pentheus,8 In these parallels, the compounds of pleo together with a description of soundor space are used to express distress; cf. Aen. 2.769; 3.313; 5.341; 7.502; 9.39. Bruère(1952), 226 n.24, points to all the above mentioned allusions, yet he does not identifya possible echo of Statius’ Theb. 1.592–3, where Psamathe reacts to the loss of herbaby son, Linus: ipsa ultro saeuis plangoribus amens / tecta replet (‘out of her mind,she fills spontaneously the house with wild laments’). See also chapter 1 (54 n.55).9 See Bruère (1952), 223:Imilce is upset about her son, as Amata had been about her daughter, and the queen’sBacchic seizure surely suggested to Silius the comparison of Imilce to a Bacchante ...It iscurious that after having derived the notion of comparing Imilce to a Bacchante from hisrecollections of Virgil, Silius borrows the expressions he uses in setting it forth from Lucan.10 Cf. also Aen. 4.376, when Dido herself admits that she is possessed by furiae: heufuriis incensa feror! (‘alas, I am borne burning with frenzy’).

202 Motherhood and the Other‘just as Pentheus, maddened, sees the troops of the Eumenides’, 4.469).Moreover, Imilce’s address to her absent husband and her loneliness inher confrontation with the Carthaginian elders offer yet another similarityto the abandoned queen of Carthage in Aeneid 4, as both womenare forsaken by their male partners. Dido’s presence in the backgroundof this episode establishes and confirms the continuity between Virgilianfemale figures and Silius’ Imilce.In addition, explicit references to Amata, who refuses to acceptAeneas as her future son-in-law and husband of her daughter Lavinia,disclose other correspondences to Imilce’s refusal to sacrifice her son.For instance, Amata’s behaviour, instigated by the Fury Allecto, is contextualisedwithin the frame of a Bacchic festival (Aen. 7.373–405).Amata turns into a Bacchant and addresses the rest of the women withDionysiac exclamations, such as io matres (Aen. 7.400). 11 Furthermore,Amata is determined to preserve her maternum ius (si iuris materni curaremordet, ‘if care for the maternal rights bites your hearts’, Aen. 7.402);Imilce’s decision to stop the custom of child-sacrifice, particularly ata moment when her own child’s fortune is at stake, highlights theassertion of the maternum ius over the patria potestas, asexemplifiedby the Carthaginian Senate, now acting instead of Hannibal himself.Therefore, both women seek to stop the sacrifice of their child, eitherneutral or figurative, and by extension to bring to a halt the politicaldesigns of their men, Latinus and Hannibal respectively.However, we should not ignore an important difference betweenVirgilian women and Imilce: Amata’s frantic rout originates in Allecto’sintervention and the poisonous infection that one of the latter’s serpentsinstills in Amata’s chest (penitusque in uiscera lapsum / serpentisfuriale malum totamque pererrat, ‘and having glided deep into herveins, the snake’s maddening venom courses through her wholeframe’, Aen 7.374–5). 12 By contrast, Imilce is not influenced by anyexternal source of furor. The cause of her pain is the impending sacrificeof her child. Despite her outburst against the Carthaginian custom andits practitioners, Imilce is portrayed as a figure utterly reasonable, whodenounces the futility of child-sacrifice and uses clear and concise11 Pace Spaltenstein (1986), 329, who considers io just ‘un appel au secours’.12 Cf. the similar case of Tisiphone and the Saguntine women in Pun. 2.543–680.See the discussion in chapter 2 (129–36).

Playing the Same 203arguments in order to persuade the elders of the Carthaginian Senate.What is more, Imilce’s rhetoric makes her a woman who knows verywell what is at stake and who tries to persuade the male audienceaccordingly. Such elements are absent from the representation ofAmata’s frenzy in Aeneid 7 or 12. The rationality that characterisesImilce’s portrait differentiates her from the irrationality of both Didoand Amata, who are completely out of control and give in to their grief. 13With this in mind, let us examine another source of influence onSilius’ representation of Imilce, Lucan’s raving matrona. The firstbook of the De bello ciuili comes to a close with a series of propheciesillustrating future disasters for the Romans. The last of these isarticulated by a frenzied, unidentified, matrona:nam, qualis uertice PindiEdonis Ogygio decurrit plena Lyaeo,talis et attonitam rapitur matrona per urbemuocibus his prodens urguentem pectora Phoebum:‘quo feror, o Paean? qua me super aethera raptamconstituis terra? uideo Pangaea niuosiscana iugis latosque Haemi sub rupe Philippos ...’(Luc. 1.674–80)13 Fucecchi (1992) exploits the intertextual relationship between this episode anddifferent scenes in Seneca’s Troades. Like Imilce in 4.798, Andromache tries topersuade Ulysses to kill her instead of Astyanax, after having declared that shewould do anything to protect her boy’s safety:qualis Argolicas feroxturmas Amazon strauit, aut qualis deopercussa Maenas entheo siluas graduarmata thyrso terret atque expers suiuulnus dedit nec sensit, in medios ruamtumuloque cineris socia defenso cadam.(Tro. 672–7)As the wild Amazon kills the Greek troops, or as a Maenad, struck by the god andarmed with the thyrsus, terrifies the woods with her Bacchic steps and, ignorant ofherself, has given wounds nor has she felt any, so I will rush into your midst and, acompanion of ashes, fall having defended this mound.These lines render plausible Fucecchi’s claim (1992), 54, that special emphasis isplaced on both women as seruatrices puerorum.

204 Motherhood and the OtherFor, as a woman of the Edoni rushes down from Pindus’ peak, filled withLyaeus of Ogygia, so a matron, and is swept through the astounded city, revealing with thesewords that Phoebus is motivating her heart: ‘O Paean, where am I borne? Onwhat land do you place me, swept over the air? I see the Pangaean mountainwhite with snow-clad ridges and wide Philippi under Haemus’ rock ...’As Brouwers has correctly pointed out, the Imilce simile abounds inLucanian echoes: 14 the setting for both metaphors is Thrace (Edonis,Pangaea, Pun. 4.776 Luc. 1.675, 679), a traditional locus of worshipfor Bacchants; both Edonian women in the similes are inspired byBacchus (suspirat Bacchum, Pun. 4.778 plena Lyaeo, Luc. 1.675). Inaddition, words such as urbem, pectore, iuga are used by Silius (4.775,777) as reminders of Lucan’s description (per urbem, pectora, iugis). 15And yet, despite the common setting of both descriptions, there is asubstantial difference: Lucan names as the source of inspiration forhis frenzied matrona both Bacchus and Apollo (prodens urguentempectora Phoebum, Luc. 1.677), while in Silius there is no reference toApollo himself as the source for Imilce’s inspiration. In the Punica,Bacchus sets into motion the raving Bacchant-Imilce who is ready topay due honour to the god up in the mountains of Thrace on the14 Brouwers (1982), 81–2.15 As Michler (1914), 36, notes (though without reference to Silius), Statius alsoimitates Lucan’s Bacchant simile by incorporating it into his description of a frenziedTheban woman:sparsis subito correpta canistrissiluestris regina chori decurrit in aequumuertice ab Ogygio trifidamque huc tristis et illuclumine sanguineo pinum disiectat et ardenserectam attonitis implet clamoribus urbem ...(Theb. 4.378–82)While her holy panniers are scattered, suddenly snatched up, the queen of the troopof the woods rushes to the plain from Ogygia’s peak, and in her sadness waves a threeforkedpine torch here and there with a bloody light; and ablaze she fills the excitedtown with frantic cries ...I have shown in boldface what Statius borrows from Lucan, while I have underlinedStatius’ imitation of Ovid’s Met. 8.447–8. I think it is doubtful whether Statiusimitates Ovid in the last line or echoes Silius’ comparable phrase in 4.775: atqueurbem complet maesti clamoris Imilce. On the composition of the two poems, seeIntroduction (8–9 n.20).

Playing the Same 205occasion of the trieteris. How, then, do we explain the emphasisplaced by Silius on Bacchus and the elision of Apollo’s power? 16In the different treatments of Apollo and Bacchus in Lucan andSilius lies the key point for our examination of Imilce, as the latterpoet invites us to look more carefully into the nature of Imilce’scharacter itself. In Silius’ simile, though it is deeply influenced by hispredecessors, Virgil and Lucan, Apollo’s presence is not verballyevident. Yet Imilce incorporates both elements, the Apolline andthe Bacchic, and can switch from the prophetic to the frantic. Imilceis depicted as a potential Bacchant-prophetess, who, though ravingin her grief, delivers a speech abounding in reasonable argumentsagainst human sacrifice. As I shall show, the Apolline element inImilce’s character, though verbally absent, is intertwined with theBacchic aspects of her nature to portray a powerful woman-prophetess,17 who does not hesitate to condemn the whole war and herhusband’s enterprises as nefas.In order to synthesise our conclusions from this study of allusions,let us turn to Imilce’s speech itself and the peculiarity of its content.Although she starts with an apostrophe to her husband, she continueswith a denunciation of human sacrifice that does not have anyimmediate literary predecessors. Her discourse is artistically constructedaround her arguments about the futility of human sacrifice,in particular that of her son. Imilce’s speech, however, also has levelsof irony: she opposes her husband’s imperialism and conveys asubversive message concerning the usefulness of the war in general.More specifically, Imilce’s speech is artistically constructed andrhetorically assembled: despite occasional exclamations (io, heu ...heu), Hannibal’s wife gives us the impression of a person who byusing well-prepared arguments tries to persuade the Carthaginianelders and who does not give in to grief completely. For instance,Imilce does not faint at the end of the episode, a generic ending for16 In the De bello ciuili, Lucan intertwines the power of Bacchus and the power ofApollo in more than one place. For this duality, see Masters (1992), 118–33.17 Cf. the Sibyl in Aen. 6.77–8: at Phoebi nondum patiens immanis in antro /bacchatur uates (‘but not yet bearing patiently the sway of Apollo, the prophetesscomes to a state of wild frenzy in the cave’).

206 Motherhood and the Othersuch scenes of intense sorrow and dramatic tension. 18 Her speechis divided into two symmetrical parts, consisting of twelve lineseach; she first addresses her husband (4.779–90) and then denouncesthe vanity of human sacrifice and its destructive effects on theCarthaginian male population (4.791–802). In these twenty-fourlines, Imilce manages to gain a deferral of the decision, now to betaken solely by Hannibal himself.When Imilce urges her husband to continue his operations, sheapostrophises him by saying:io coniunx, quocumque in cardine mundibella moues, huc signa refer. uiolentior hic est,hic hostis propior. tu nunc fortasse sub ipsisurbis Dardaniae muris uibrantia telaexcipis intrepidus clipeo saeuamque coruscanslampada Tarpeis infers incendia tectis.interea tibi prima domus atque unica prolesheu gremio in patriae Stygias raptatur ad aras.i nunc, Ausonios ferro populare penateset uetitas molire uias. i, pacta resignaper cunctos iurata deos. sic praemia redditCarthago et tales iam nunc tibi soluit honores. (4.779–90)O my husband, in whatever frontier of the world you are now stirring upwar, bring your army back here. Here there is a more violent, a morepressing foe. Perhaps at this moment beneath the walls of the Dardaniancity itself, you, fearless, receive the hurtling missiles with your shield;perhaps you are brandishing a dreadful torch and setting fire to the Tarpeiantemple. Meanwhile, your first-born and only son, alas, is seized in the heartof his native country, for an infernal sacrifice. Go now, ravage the householdgods of the Romans with your sword and march by ways forbidden to man.Go, break the treaty witnessed by all gods. Such is the reward you get fromCarthage, and such the honours she pays you now!Imilce’s apostrophe consists of ironic imperatives (4.787–8) addressedto Hannibal, whereby she underlines the futility of the war her husbandhas undertaken. Imilce raises serious doubts concerning the value ofHannibal’s efforts to save his country by implicitly criticising his18 Cf. Aen. 4.391–2 (Dido), 8.584 (Evander); Met. 11.460 (Alcyone); Theb. 11.643(Ismene).

Playing the Same 207exploits: the series of imperatives (i, populare, molire ...i, resigna)laysemphasis on the value of Hannibal’s war against the Romans. His wifequestions the advantage that the war will have for his own country andfamily in particular, since the Carthaginians themselves are unqualifiedto appreciate such enterprise. Through reference to the breaking oftreaties (pacta ...per cunctos iurata deos), Hannibal’s wife criticises thewar itself as a sacrilege. In their inability to define the divine, theCarthaginians uphold values that run contrary to divine law and custom.Thus Imilce delivers a speech against nefas in general. As we willsee, nefas can be defined as referring strictly to the barbaric custom ofhuman sacrifice and/ or more broadly to the war against the Romans.After having urged Hannibal to come back, Imilce turns to theCarthaginian elders. Well aware that there will be no response, sinceher husband is away, Imilce’s suasoria now concentrates on anotherform of futility, namely human sacrifice:quae porro haec pietas delubra adspergere tabo?heu primae scelerum causae mortalibus aegris,naturam nescire deum! iusta ite precatumture pio caedumque feros auertite ritus.mite et cognatum est homini deus. hactenus, oro,sit satis ante aras caesos uidisse iuuencos.aut si uelle nefas superos fixumque sedetque,me, me, quae genui, uestris absumite uotis.cur spoliare iuuat Libycas hac indole terras?an flendae magis Aegates et mersa profundoPunica regna forent, olim si sorte cruentaesset tanta mei uirtus praerepta mariti? (4.791–802)Moreover, what sort of religion is this, that sprinkles the temples with blood?Alas, their ignorance of the divine nature is the chief cause that leads wretchedmortals into crime. You ought to go and pray for things lawful with piousincense but eschew bloody and cruel rites. God is gentle and akin to humanbeings. To this extent, I beg you, let it suffice to see slain cattle before the altars.Or, if you are sure beyond all doubt that wickedness is pleasing to the gods,then slay me, me the mother, and thus keep your vows. Why rob the land ofLibya of the promise shown by this child? If my husband’s glorious career hadbeen thus nipped in the bud long ago by the fatal lot, would not that have beenas lamentable a disaster as the battle by the Aegates islands when the power ofCarthage was sunk beneath the waves?

208 Motherhood and the OtherThe final segment of Imilce’s speech portrays the speaker as a civilisedperson, in complete opposition to bloodthirsty Hannibal, herhusband. As has been noticed, Imilce’s denunciation of humansacrifice has its literary predecessors in the works of Cicero andOvid in particular. 19 Imilce’s speech, however, acquires a more generaltone, since she does not borrow from the language of theprevious authors or refer explicitly to the practice of human sacrifice.This generalisation enables Imilce to carry an important message: sheis being transformed into a civilised person, whose distinctiveness isunderscored by the content of her speech. Hannibal’s wife is metamorphosedinto a carrier of Roman philosophical ideas againsthuman sacrifice. Her denunciation of the act of child-sacrifice itselfas a nefas coincides with the poet’s own words at the introduction ofthe scene: the savage rite of the Carthaginians is infandum dictu(4.767). Imilce, a ‘foreigner’ in the Punica, as the wife of the enemy,would normally be perceived by the Roman reader as an anti-Roman,a woman whose values cannot (and/or should not) be identical to aRoman woman’s beliefs. Yet Imilce’s presence in this episode confirmsrather the opposite. She denounces the primitive sacrificialcustom observed by her fellow citizens. Thus, her speech places herin the margin of Carthaginian society by rendering her a ‘foreigner’to her own environment. To borrow from Pagán’s terminologyapplied to certain Tacitean characters, Imilce’s words constitute a‘voice of freedom’, 20 inasmuch as she delivers a potentially dangerousmessage, while her position as an outsider renders her voice morepalatable to a male, elite audience. In a sense, Imilce’s Roman voiceemerges in sharp contrast to Carthaginian standards, since for themcivilisation and religiosity have different meanings and connotations(lack of pietas, fas, and fides) that are sharply contrasted to those of19 See Spaltenstein (1986), 329–30, citing Cicero’s Rep. 3.15 and Ovid’s Fast.1.337–8. Bruère (1952), 227 n.27, also mentions the influence of Pythagoras’ speechin Metamorphoses 15.173–5. There is another unnoticed parallel in Ovid’s Met.13.461, namely Polyxena’s condemnation of the absurdity of human sacrificial offeringsto appease the gods. The similarities that this passage bears with Lucretius’beliefs against human sacrifice, as expressed in book 1 (83–101) of De rerum natura,have been observed by Steele (1922), 325, although one cannot find specific verbalallusions. The idea of scelus in connection with human sacrifice is certainly Lucretian.20 Cf. Pagán (2000b).

Playing the Same 209her Carthaginians fellow citizens. 21 Not only does she use the methodologyof Roman philosophical discourse, such as that of Ciceroand, to a certain extent, of Lucretius concerning the hideousness ofhuman slaughter, but she also acquires a voice similar to Lucan’s,inasmuch as the latter uses the word nefas to condemn the insanity ofthe civil war in general. 22 In other words, Imilce’s role in this episodeis not that of a passive female figure who ‘surrenders’ to the demandsof the male heroes and of generic expectations.As has become evident in our examination of the intertextualrelationship between Imilce and her literary predecessors, the poethas fused several models in his portrayal of the Carthaginian queen.What are Silius’ intentions, however, in depicting Imilce, the enemy’swife, as both a non-Roman woman-Bacchant and a Roman matrona?How can Imilce be presented as a woman overcome by furor and atthe same time able to deliver a powerful, reasonable speech againsthuman sacrifice? And finally, how are we to read Imilce’s presence asinscribed within the polarity between Romans and Carthaginians,same and other, male and female?In order to appreciate the blending of the Bacchic and the Apollinein Imilce’s figure, let us look back to book 3, where the poet digresseson her pedigree, from both Apollo and Bacchus:at contra Cirrhaei sanguis ImilceCastalii, cui materno de nomine dicta21 See Ripoll (1998), 275–86, for an analysis of pietas in the poem. Ripoll (1998),280, correctly distinguishes between the Roman meaning of pietas and the Carthaginianperversion of pietas (cf. Thomas [2001] on perfidia).22 Imilce’s plea to die instead of her child echoes similar requests in Virgil(Euryalus’ mother in Aen. 9.494, me primam absumite ferro (‘first kill me by thesword’); see Hardie (1993a), 51, and Seneca’s Troades (Andromache in 680, mesternite hic ferro prius, ‘first lay me low with the sword’). Most importantly, however,Silius exploits Cato’s appeal in Luc. 2.315–16 to be killed before the libertas and thestate perish: me solum inuadite ferro (‘do kill only me with the sword’, 2.315). Imilce’sposition as a mother is similar to Cato’s, since the great leader is called by Lucan urbipater est urbique maritus (‘he is a father to the city and a husband’, 2.388); on thedative urbi, see Sklenář (2003), 74 n.31. Furthermore, Imilce condemns humansacrifice as nefas, while Cato criticises the impending war between Caesar andPompey as summum nefas (Luc. 2.286). On the failure of female rhetoric in Statius’Achilleid, for instance, see Heslin (2005), 105–55.

210 Motherhood and the OtherCastulo Phoebei seruat cognomina uatis 23atque ex sacrata repetebat stirpe parentes:tempore quo Bacchus populos domitabat Iberosconcutiens thyrso atque armata Maenade Calpen,lasciuo genitus Satyro nymphaque MyriceMilichus indigenis late regnarat in oriscornigeram attolens genitoris imagine frontem.hinc patriam clarumque genus referebat Imilcebarbarica paulum uitiato nomine lingua. (3.97–107)And to him [Hannibal] replied the descendant of Castalius from Cirrha,Imilce, whose city, Castulo, named after Castalius’ mother, still preserves thename of Apollo’s priest. Thus Imilce traced her pedigree to a sacred stock. Atthe time when Bacchus was conquering the Iberian people and attackingCalpe with his thyrsus and with the spears of his Maenads, Milichus wasborn of a lustful Satyr and the nymph Myrice; Milichus had held dominionwidely in his native country, carrying horns on his forehead, looking just likehis father. From him Imilce drew her nationality and noble blood, since thename [of Milichus] had been slightly corrupted in the barbaric tongue.From Silius’ description of Imilce’s ancestors we gather that there is amingling of Apolline and Bacchic traits in her personality. 24 And Imilce’sApolline features permeate the farewell scene in book 3 by means of herprophetic ability to foreshadow Hannibal’s failure (109–27):i felix, i numinibus uotisque secundisatque acies inter flagrantiaque arma relictaeconiugis et nati curam seruare memento.quippe nec Ausonios tantum nec tela nec ignes 119nec quemquam horresco, qui se tibi conferret unus, 125quantum te metuo. ruis ipsos alacer in enses 120obiectasque caput telis. te nulla secundoeuentu satiat uirtus, tibi gloria solifine caret, credisque uiris ignobile letumbelligeris in pace mori. tremor implicat artus. (3.116–25)23 I agree with Spaltenstein (1986), 189, that the phrasing of lines 98–9 is awkward;the city of Castulo could have been named after Castalius himself, not after hismother’s name (presumably Castalia?).24 According to Picard (1968), 105, Imilce’s name would be a transcription fromthe Punic Himilké, ‘sister of the king’, while Milichus comes from MLK, ‘king’.

Playing the Same 211Go and prosper, go with favouring gods and prayers! And amid the battles andthe blazing arms, remember to keep in mind the care for your wife whom youare leaving and for your child. For I fear neither the Romans nor the spears orthe firebrands or anyone who might meet you in single combat, as much as Ifear you. You rush fiercely right upon swords and you expose your head tomissiles. No virtue satisfies you, not even on a successful occasion; you are theonly one for whom glory lacks limits, and you consider it an inglorious endfor soldiers to die in peace. Trembling takes hold of my limbs.When Imilce touches upon the nature of her husband’s character, sheis warning him of his impetuous temperament and simultaneouslyalluding to the dangers that lurk behind such behaviour, just as Marciadoes to her son Serranus, concerning his father’s character. TheCarthaginian woman seems prescient of the outcome, the final defeatof Hannibal and the non-fulfilment of his wishes, as she emphasiseswith quantum te metuo (3.120), again at the beginning of a hexameter.The series of negatives (nulla, caret, ignobile) that Imilce uses impliesthat the subsequent expedition may be ultimately ill-fated. 25Imilce’s complex temperament, replete both with Bacchic andApolline elements, resurfaces in book 4, where, as we have seen, sheis compared to a frenzied woman, and yet one wonders whetherImilce is a true Bacchant? Does Bacchus really inspire her speech? Oris her prophetic power manipulated by the poet, and to what effect?25 Kissel (1979), 106, does not discuss in detail the meaning of this episode.Certainly, Hannibal’s Weltanschauung, as expressed by Imilce here, echoes Romanmilitary values. I do not agree with Ripoll (1998), 244, that Imilce understandsHannibal’s heroic ideal. I believe that Imilce disapproves of Hannibal’s enterprise tolaunch a war against the Romans, because she is aware of its disastrous outcome (cf.Argia in Theb. 2.332–52). In addition, Imilce’s foreshadowing of future disasters isconfirmed by Hannibal himself. Immediately after Imilce’s words, Hannibal starts hissecond speech with his own interpretation of his wife’s ‘message’:ominibus parce et lacrimis, fidissima coniunx.et pace et bello cunctis stat terminus aeui,extremumque diem primus tulit. (3.133–5)Spare the bad omens and the tears, my most faithful wife. Both in peace and in war,there stands for all of us an end to our lives, and the very first day brings together thelast one.On Imilce’s powerful presence in book 3, see Vinchesi (1999b), (2001), 62–3, and(2005), 98–107; Augoustakis (2001), 10–35.

212 Motherhood and the OtherBy conferring upon Imilce the characteristics of a distraughtwoman, the poet, from the outset of the narrative, relegates Imilce,the outsider in Carthaginian society, because of her Spanish origin,to the distant realm of Thracian Bacchants, a place where nefas andorgiastic rites abound. In the reader’s mind, this association withthe Bacchic cult and direct allusions to other literary Bacchants(Amata for instance) turn Imilce’s voice into a hybrid, unclassified,other. She is both Roman and non-Roman, a civilised figure and abarbarian, a Roman matrona and a foreign Bacchant, an insider andat the same time an outsider. As soon as she delivers her message,her Apolline ‘voice of freedom’ is marginalised and eliminated fromthe narrative.From the perspective of Kristeva’s analysis, Imilce’s phenotext,produced by the genotext of the female chôra, yields to us an imageof a woman drawn to Roman philosophical ideas, a woman setagainst human sacrifice, who knows very well that her words, ifinterpreted correctly, can convey the message of danger. To be sure,Imilce’s persuasive voice achieves a deferral of the sacrifice, at leastfor the time being. Unlike Marcia’s, Imilce’s rupture from the Bacchicsemiotic into the Apolline symbolic does not take place by means of avoice borrowed within an androcentric narrative. Yet does she manageto cancel the plans of Fate? Ultimately, the symbolic is predicatedon male discourse, and the decision is made by Hannibal. Hannibalhimself seems to know that the outcome of the war is ambiguous,since he makes clear that he needs his son to continue war with theRomans in the future. The general also alludes to the sacrifice thatwill replace his son’s sacrifice, namely his victory at Trasimene. In aword, Hannibal cancels the sacrifice of his son, but he promises asubstitute human slaughter:at puer armorum et belli seruabitur heres.spes, o nate, meae Tyriarumque unica rerumHesperia minitante salus, terraque fretoquecertare Aeneadis, dum stabit uita, memento.perge (patent Alpes) nostroque incumbe labori. (4.814–18)But the boy will be spared as the heir of my career in war. You, my son, aremy hopes and the only safeguard of the Carthaginian affairs against thethreat of Italy; remember to fight against the Aeneadae both on land and sea,

Playing the Same 213as long as you live. Go forward—the Alps lie open—and apply yourself tomy task. 26In Imilce’s character, we can find the first witness of the ‘Romanisation’of women-foreigners, an image fully shaped in the figure ofMasinissa’s mother in book 16. However, although Masinissa’smother, as we will see, is successful in advising and directing herson’s activities, Imilce cannot contribute substantially to the welfareof her country. Her ominous speech foreshadows future disasters,while her role as seruatrix pueri does not permit her to undertake realaction. 27 Despite the Roman traits in her character, Imilce’s autonomouspresence retains the asymbolic Bacchant status, the recessioninto the semiotic, a (m)other who fails in her efforts to save her childfrom the destruction that the war will bring, despite her Apollineability to foresee the ultimate defeat of Carthage. 28NE BELLA PAVESCAS: MOTHERS AS ‘EDUCATORS’AND THE REGENERATION OF THE FEMALEIn an episode in Punica 16, we can see that mothers are positivelyrepresented as influential and beneficial for both the outsiders,non-Romans, and the Romans themselves. After telling of theRoman victories over Hannon and Hasdrubal at the opening ofbook 16 (38–114), Silius relates the events of the alliance between26 Yet cancellation of rites eventually entails destruction, as Hardie has pointed out(1993a), 51:Sacrificial substitution intersects with, and threatens to annihilate, generationalreplacement. Hannibal sees his son not as the one sacrificial victim but as the ‘onehope’ of his family and of Carthage ...Hannibal’s hopes that his son will take place asgreat leader of his people (4.818: nostroque incumbe labori) will come to nothing.See also Ripoll (1998), 68.27 See also Dietrich (2005), 82: ‘Imilce exemplifies the values that Rome prized inits mothers and wives, especially the preservation of family relationships.’28 Silius mentions the son twice in the rest of the poem: in 13.880, with referenceto Hannibal’s exile and death away from Carthage, and in 17.334, when Hannibalexhorts his soldiers at Zama.

214 Motherhood and the OtherMasinissa, king of Numidia, and Scipio (115–69). 29 The poet’sinventiveness is manifested in his account of a divine omen, whichostensibly makes Masinissa change sides and ally himself with theRomans:huic fesso, quos dura fuga et nox suaserat atra,carpenti somnos subitus rutilante coruscumuertice fulsit apex, crispamque 30 inuoluere uisa estmitis flamma comam atque hirta se spargere fronte. (16.118–21)Masinissa, tired out, was enjoying sleep, which the hard retreat and thedarkness of night had made welcome, when suddenly a ruddy tongue of firewas seen to burn bright on the crown of his head. The harmless flame caughthis curly hair and spread over his shaggy brow.A long tradition of similar episodes in pre-Silian literature couldexplain the presence of this scene in book 16. 31 More specifically, theVirgilian models of Ascanius’ and Lavinia’s burning heads undoubtedlystimulated Silius to create a comparable episode. 32 As Marks hasobserved, the omen justifies Masinissa’s decision to change sides asmorally right, one which enjoys the support and favour of the gods; 33according to Ripoll, Silius exploits the omen to underscore theabsence of calculating duplicity behind the Numidian prince’s diplomaticdecision. 34 I would like to focus on a particular aspect of thisepisode, namely the treatment of Masinissa’s aged mother and herrole in determining her son’s decisions. After the appearance of theomen, she is asked to construe the will of the gods:29 See Marks (1999), 258–73, and (2005a), 169–71, as well as Ripoll (2003b), foran analysis of 16.115–274.30 Notice the emphasis on Masinissa’s curly and shaggy hair, a sign of his exoticprovenance, coupled with manliness (hirta), possibly to avoid ambiguity with thewell-known (effeminate) curly hair of Dionysus/Bacchus.31 See Marks (2005a), 170 n.21, and Ripoll (2003b), 97–102, for a discussion ofother instances in Latin literature.32 See Spaltenstein (1990), 405–6. It is not coincidental, however, that Silius choseto replace the father (Anchises) with a mother figure at this point, going back to theLivian tradition of Tanaquil (Liv. 1.39.2–3). On the historical role of Masinissa seeWalsh (1965) and Decret and Fantar (1998), 103–15.33 Marks (1999), 259.34 See Ripoll (2003b), 99 and 111, who places the episode in the historical contextof Flavian policies concerning the Romanisation of Africa. For the meeting betweenMasinissa and Scipio, see Liv. 28.35.

Playing the Same 215at grandaeua deum praenoscens omina mater‘sic, sic, caelicolae, portentaque uestra secundicondite’ ait. ‘duret capiti per saecula lumen.ne uero, ne, nate, deum tam laeta pauesceprodigia aut sacras metue inter tempora flammas.hic tibi Dardaniae promittit foedera gentis,hic tibi regna dabit regnis maiora paternisignis et adiunget Latiis tua nomina fatis.’sic uates, iuuenisque animum tam clara mouebantmonstra nec a Poenis ulli uirtutis honores,Hannibal ipse etiam iam iamque modestior armis. (16.124–34)But his aged mother, foreknowing the omens of the gods, said: ‘Be it so, oinhabitants of heaven! Be propitious and ratify your portent! May the lightshine on his head for all ages! Do not, my son, do not fear such favourablesigns of the gods; do not be afraid of the sacred flame on your brow. This firepromises you an alliance with the Dardan people; this fire will provide youwith a kingdom wider than your fathers ever ruled and shall add your nameto the history of Rome.’ Thus spoke the prophetess, and the young man’sheart was moved by a miracle so unmistakable. Also his valour had receivedno recognition from Carthage; and even Hannibal himself was less valiant inthe battle day by day.The poet explicitly intertwines the prophetic power of Masinissa’smother with the prediction of prosperous events. The anonymousmother possesses the power of foreseeing the future (deum praenoscensomina, 16.124, and uates, 16.132). Yet the most significant partof her short speech is the intratextual connection it yields withPomponia’s speech to Scipio, to which I will turn for a moment.In his descent to the Underworld in book 13, 35 Scipio has thechance to gaze at the panorama of past and future Roman history.Among the highlights of his journey is the meeting with his mother,Pomponia. During Scipio’s ‘educational’ trip, the Sibyl urges him tosee his mother, who had died in labour: 36 ‘...sed te maternos tempus35 There is extensive secondary literature on the Nekyia of book 13. In particular,see De Luca (1937); Ramaglia (1954); von Albrecht (1964), 149–52; Juhnke (1972),280–97; Reitz (1982); Billerbeck (1983); Ripoll (1998), 248–51; Marks (1999), 88–146and (2005a), 133–47; Hardie (2004), 151–3; Klaassen (2010); and Tipping (2010).36 Juhnke (1972), 286, points to the similarities between Scipio’s meeting withPomponia and Odysseus’ with Anticleia in Od. 11.152–225. See also Kissel (1979), 169

216 Motherhood and the Othercognoscere uultus, / cuius prima uenit non tardis passibus umbra’(‘...But it is time for you to learn your mother’s face, whose shadecomes first, not in slow pace’, 13.613–14). The Sibyl’s announcementemphasises the importance of Pomponia’s appearance and encounterwith her son, a meeting during which the Roman mother willenlighten her adolescent son concerning the divine identity of hisfather. 37 The emphasis on the infinitive cognoscere surrounded by thephrase maternos uultus suggests that Scipio’s meeting with hismother acquires significance, not only as a revelation of true parenthoodthrough the mother, but also as a cognitive ‘trip’ back to thematernal chôra, which the hero did not have the chance to experienceduring the formative years of his childhood and adolescence. 38 Separationfrom the maternal womb at the time of birth in Scipio’s casecoincides with the death of the mother: the lack of the maternalpresence is revealed to us now, as Scipio must see his mother’s facefirst, in order to become acquainted with her features, even those of adead person, a ghost.In her address to her son, Pomponia stresses the difficulty imposedon her during the day of her impregnation by Jupiter. 39 She is carefulin explaining and insisting that Jove is Scipio’s real father. Pomponiaalso lays emphasis on the fact that she was forced to surrender(membra ligauit / amplexus, ‘an embrace clasped my limbs’, 13.638–9)and accentuates that her pregnancy has been necessary for the welfareof Rome. 40 Once she delivers Scipio, Pomponia is freed from then.21, Reitz (1982), 92, and Ripoll (2001a). One should also keep in mind that there is aconstant interaction with Aen. 6 and the meeting between father and son there.37 Venus’ role in the Punica, albeit restricted, is significant for the completion of fata;see Kissel (1979), 170. For instance, consider the scene with Jupiter in 3.557–629 (Feeney[1991], 304) or her role in corrupting the Carthaginians in 11.385–409 (see also chapter2, 109–12). For the scene in book 3, see Czypicka (1987); Taisne (1992); Ripoll (1998),509–15; see Marks (1999), 436–50, and (2005a), 211–17, for further bibliography.38 Contrast Achilles in Statius’ Ach. 1.250: dubitatque agnoscere matrem (‘and hehesitates to recognise his mother’). The verb cognosco is used seven times (out of atotal of nineteen) in book 13, a sign of the emphasis laid on Scipio’s ‘educational’experience in the Nekyia.39 On the figure of Pomponia, see the analyses of Reitz (1982), 90–92; Marks(2005a), 137–9; and briefly Tipping (2010).40 Critics have long recognised that behind the myth of Scipio’s divine parentagelies the influence of the Alexander tradition. See Laudizi (1989), 126; Rocca-Serra(1990); Ripoll (1998), 248–51; Marks (1999), 106 and 116–38, and (2005a), 142–7,

Playing the Same 217aetherium pondus (‘divine weight’, 13.629). Thus, she becomes thecarrier of divine will, without damaging her chastity and reputationas uniuira. In a word, Scipio’s mother is converted into the medium forRome’s salvation, while she retains all the grandeur and majesty of aRoman matrona.The most significant moment in Pomponia’s speech lies in herexhortation to young Scipio. The Roman is urged to pursue war,because the victory belongs to him, in particular on account of hisdivine origins:uerum age, nate, tuos ortus, ne bella pauescasulla nec in caelum dubites te attollere factis,quando aperire datur nobis, nunc denique disce. (13.634–6)But mark me, my son, and at last you shall learn what I am permitted todisclose—the secret of your birth; then you shall not fear any wars or may besecure that you shall raise yourself to heaven by your deeds.Pomponia advises her son to be fearless and brave. The subjunctives inthe negative purpose clauses used at this point in the narrative (ne ...pauescas, nec ...dubites) together with the imperatives (age, disce)formulate the basis of Pomponia’s advice and of masculine presence. 41As we have examined previously, in the Punica, we often find fatherseducating their sons and inspiring them with love for their country. 42By contrast, what we witness here is a mother, who educates her sonfor further discussion; Tipping (2010). A. Barchiesi (2001a), 340, has pointed out thatsuch a genealogy is painted by Silius in Ovidian colours (also cf. Wilson’s [2004]study), portraying a Venus ‘licenziosa, senza cui lui [sc. Scipio] non potrebbe esserel’indispensabile salvatore di Roma’. As Barchiesi stresses, Scipio oscillates betweenRepublican myth and imperial apotheosis. The reader is also invited to draw a parallelwith Plautus’ Alcmena in the Amphitruo.41 Compare the contrast with Scipio the Elder’s advice to his son, when his fatheradvises Scipio against immoderation (Martis moderare furori, 13.670), just as Marciadid her son (discussed in chapter 3). Scipio the Elder’s justification of his piece ofadvice is sat tibi sint documenta domus (‘there is enough experience of your kinsmen’,13.671), i.e. his and his brother’s death in Spain (dramatised in Silius’ narrative here,when compared to Liv. 25.36). Scipio needs such admonition, as in the siege ofCapua, in the beginning of the book, he is portrayed as insatiabalis (13.218; theadjective is applied to Scipio again when he meets the lawgivers of the Twelve Tablesin 13.755), while the verb furit is also employed (13.392).42 See chapter 2 (97–112). Contrast Marcia in chapter 3.

218 Motherhood and the Otheraccording to the interests of Roman affairs, because she is aware of thetruth about Scipio’s divine parentage and destiny. 43In particular, Scipio’s address to his mother, which precedesPomponia’s speech, confirms the uniqueness of this encounter andthe significance of the mother-figure for the development of heradolescent son’s character:ergo ubi gustatus cruor admonuitque Sibyllaet dedit alternos ambobus noscere uultus,sic iuuenis prior: ‘o magni mihi numinis instar,cara parens, quam, te ut nobis uidisse liceret,optassem Stygias uel leto intrare tenebras ...’ (13.621–5)So, when the ghost had tasted of the blood, and the Sibyl had informed herand given to both the opportunity to recognise each other’s face, thus theyoung man spoke first: ‘O dear mother, as dear to me as a mighty god, howmuch would I have liked even to die and enter the Stygian darkness, for asight of you! ...’Scipio’s address to his mother as magni mihi numinis instar demonstratesPomponia’s sanctity and prophetic ability. 44 Through her death,she is able to retain all the characteristics of a chaste Roman wife andalso to acquire a special place in the Underworld. Pomponia’s ability toforesee the prosperity of her offspring differentiates her from othermothers in the poem who may possess prophetic power but foreshadowa negative rather than a successful outcome. By contrast, Pomponiafurnishes her son with advice about the values he will need in orderto overcome the enemy. Furthermore, Scipio’s words allude to Caesar’saddress of Roma in Lucan: summique numinis instar / Roma (‘Rome,equal to the highest deity’, Luc. 1.199–200). By establishing such astrong intertextual association, Silius adopts and reverses the Lucaniancontext: Caesar’s words preface his crossing of the Rubicon, an act thatruins any link with his patria and the goddess, Roma; Scipio’s address,conversely, bonds his mother, Pomponia, with the figure of Roma, alink that betokens the alignment of the maternal figure with the City,Scipio’s (mother)land. Pomponia’s deification in the eyes of her son isnot an exaggerated rhetorical convention but most importantly an43 Marks (1999), 101, discusses the didactic purpose of the Nekyia.44 Helzle (1996), 274, points out that this phrase differentiates Scipio fromOdysseus in Odyssey 11.

Playing the Same 219elevation of motherhood to the same height as the personified Roma.By meeting his mother, Scipio comes to terms with his own ‘foreignness’:as Kristeva points out, ‘the foreigner has lost his mother’; 45therefore, by reconnecting with the lost motherly space, Scipio discoversnot only his identity, but also the sameness within his otherness,that is to say, his Romanness and what makes him stand out as Roman.If we compare the two episodes where the mothers assume aprotagonist’s role, we can immediately recognize the resemblances.Aside from the similarity of Scipio’s and Masinissa’s age (both arecalled iuuenes, 13.623 16.132), there are other points of contactalso. 46 First, both sons remain dutiful to their mothers and valuetheir opinions highly. 47 Second, both mothers advise their sons to befearless, while they predict their offspring’s future renown. In particular,when Masinissa’s mother states ne ...pauesce prodigia (16.127–8),this phrase reminds us of Pomponia’s remark to Scipio ne bellapauescas (13.634). Just as Pomponia is well aware of Scipio’s divineparentage, so Masinissa’s aged mother possesses the prophetic abilitythat enables her to know precisely the will of the gods. This is themost important connection between the two scenes: Masinissa’smother is called uates (16.132), while Scipio addresses his motheras magni mihi numinis instar (13.623).Moreover, as Marks has correctly noticed, there is a significantdifference between Silius’ and Livy’s accounts concerning Masinissa’schange of political alliance during the war. 48 In Livy (28.35), there isno divine intervention, no explanation of Masinissa’s action, and noindication of his mother’s presence. More specifically, Silius is ouronly source for Masinissa’s mother’s useful intervention to persuadeher son. 49 In addition, Masinissa himself mentions his mother in hisspeech to Scipio and thus adds weight to her presence in the episode.During his address to the Roman general (16.140–53), Masinissa45 Kristeva (1991), 5.46 On the role of age in Silius see Ripoll (2003a).47 See Marks (1999), 261 and 262 n.24.48 Marks (1999), 268–70.49 See Nicol (1936), 50–51, who considers her to be a historical person. Zonaras(9.12; Dio Cassius 17) also mentions Masinissa’s mother in a different context (howshe and some augurs were part of Hasdrubal’s plan to corrupt the Spaniards inScipio’s camp):

220 Motherhood and the Otherrefers to his mother as sacra parens (16.140), whose good advicemade him seek alliance with the Romans.It is intriguing that the role of the mother is given the first place inthe narrative. This choice is not coincidental. In the same speech toScipio, Masinissa apostrophises him as nate Tonantis (16.144), aphrase whose implications have not been suggested in the poemsince Pomponia’s revelations in book 13. 50 In other words, a foreignking is the first person to remind Scipio of his own mother’s assertionearlier in the poem, namely that he is the son of a god. By referring tohis own, ‘barbarian’, mother and at the same time appropriating thewords of Pomponia, Masinissa marks the connection between thetwo episodes and affirms the importance of mothers for both his ownand Scipio’s development. Through the divine manifestation of hisdestiny and his mother’s intervention, Masinissa finds his identity;by this time in the poem, Scipio has also been able to learn thetruth about himself through his meeting with Pomponia. And yetMasinissa himself is the first person in Silius’ narrative to make theconnection, which is to say, to acknowledge Scipio’s divine originsand to address him with due honour.This leads to another important aspect of Masinissa’s mother’scharacter that needs to be discussed. It should be surprising to seethat the Roman Pomponia and the foreign mother of Masinissacomplement each other by sharing the same ideals and values. 51Masinissa’s aged mother, though an outsider, is an atypical barbarian,inasmuch as she has been assimilated to Roman ideology andŒií KîåØæªÜóÆôü ôØ, åN ìc ï¥ ôå ìÜíôåØò •ðe Oæíߣøí KŒôÆæÆåŁÝíôåò ŒÆd ôïffÌÆóØíßóóïı ìÞôÅæ ŁåØÜóÆóÆ ÇÞôÅóØí ÆPôø~í ªåíÝóŁÆØ KðïßÅóÆí.And he would have accomplished something, had not the soothsayers, frightened bythe actions of the birds, and the mother of Masinissa, through her propheticutterances, caused them [the Spaniards] to be examined.50 See Marks (1999), 260 n.22.51 See Dräger (1995) for an examination of Jason’s mother in Valerius Flaccus’Argonautica 1, and how she is transformed into a Roman matrona; cf. Zissos (2008),379–81, and Manuwald (2000). Consider also the emphasis Tanaquil places on herforeignness, when she urges Servius Tullius to become king, after the attack onTarquinius Priscus:erige te deosque duces sequere qui clarum hoc fore caput diuino quondam circumfusoigni portenderunt. nunc te illa caelestis excitet flamma; nunc expergiscere uere.et nos peregrini regnauimus ...(Liv. 1.41.3)

Playing the Same 221civilisation as a prospective ally. 52 In spite of this acculturation, shenevertheless keeps her identity as the mother of a foreign king, and thusis viewed as an outsider who implements and enriches the centre butalso sanctions the centre’s political ideology by admitting Scipio’sdivine power. By this time, Rome has found its saviour, the true Stoichero, the man who has been chosen to impose peace and security inRoman affairs. Thus, traditional Roman values, once in danger of beingirrevocably extinguished, are now regenerated, reinforced by new elementsthat stem from the periphery. 53TEMPUS COGNOSCERE MANES FEMINEOS:THEFEMALE CHÔRA IN THE GEOGRAPHYOF THE UNDERWORLDLet us now turn to some other examples that epitomise chastity andwomanhood in this last pentad in the Punica (books 13–17). In theArouse yourself and follow the guidance of the gods, who once foretold that this headshall be famous, by the token of divine fire poured out upon it. Now this divine fireurges you on, now wake in earnest. We too ruled, even though foreigners ...Tanaquil exploits the prodigy of the flames around Servius’ head to promote him asthe future king of Rome, stressing the fact that Tarquinius Priscus was also a foreignerwho managed to climb up to the throne.52 This is the most important alliance of the war. At the end of their meeting,Masinissa and Scipio exchange gifts; in Livy, however, the exchange of gifts takes placeafter Sophonisba’s death, as a means to appease the distraught mind of Masinissa:addit uerbis honorem: neque magnificentius quicquam triumpho apud Romanosneque triumphantibus ampliorem eo ornatum esse quo unum omnium externorumdignum Masinissam populus Romanus ducat ...(Liv. 30.15.12)He added another tribute with the following words: that there was nothing higher forthe Romans than a triumph and that from those who triumphed, no one had a moremagnificent array than the one Masinissa, deemed worthy by the Roman people,alone of all foreigners ...Masinissa had already played a key role in the campaigns in Spain, which even led tothe deaths of Scipio’s father and uncle; cf. Liv. 25.34, for Masinissa’s attack thatprecipitates the Elder Scipio’s death.53 A parallel change of political alliance involving women can be found in a wellknownvignette on Trajan’s column (scene 45), which has recently been reinterpreted(R. R. R. Smith [2002], 79) as portraying local provincial women torturing Dacians(and not Roman soldiers, as was heretofore maintained). These women seem to be onthe side of Rome, just like Masinissa’s mother.

222 Motherhood and the OtherNekyia in book 13, after Scipio sees the shades of Alexander (762–76),of Homer (778–97), 54 and of other heroic figures (798–805), hesuddenly notices Lavinia (806). Then, the Sibyl seizes the opportunityto present to the young general the shades of various femalefigures of the Roman past (nam uirgo admonuit tempus cognosceremanes / femineos, ‘for the Sibyl warned him that it is time to learnthe ghosts of women’, 13.807–8). This review of female figuresamong the dead involves again a strong instructive element (cognoscere),such as the one we saw in the case of Scipio’s mother, Pomponia.This catalogue of women, modelled on Homer’s, 55 is dividedinto two parts: in the first section, the Sibyl demonstrates to Scipiothe virtuous heroines of Roman history (13.809–30), while in thesecond part, at Scipio’s request, the prophetess reveals the reasonsbehind the severe punishments of three women, well-known fortheir ill conduct (13.831–50a). 56First Scipio stares at Lavinia, Veneris nurus (13.809), 57 the originator,Urmutter, of all Roman mothers. Together with Hersilia,Romulus’ wife, Lavinia is characterised by her ability to associatetwo different races and blend them into one: Lavinia brings togetherthe Trojans and the Latins (13.810), while Hersilia’s interventionconjoins the Latins with the Sabines (13.812–15). 58 Thus, the firstpair of female figures possesses the ability to bring peace. The secondpair of women is connected through their ability to foresee thefuture: the nymph Carmentis, Evander’s mother, predicts her son’sand the Romans’ illustrious future (nostros tetigit praesaga labores,‘she “touched” with her prophecies on our toils’, 13.817), 59 while54 On Homer, see e.g., von Albrecht (1964), 151–2; Reitz (1982), 115–17; Hardie(1993a), 115; Marks (2005a), 145; and extensively Manuwald (2007), 82–90.55 Cf. Od. 11.235–330; see von Albrecht (1964), 150; Juhnke (1972), 404; Spaltenstein(1990), 273.56 Kissel (1979), 182 n.61, notices that the catalogue of women is divided in threeparts: a. 806–22, b. 824–30, c. 833–49. Thus, he separates two bigger parts ofseventeen lines each with an interlude of seven lines. This is in accordance with thePrinzip des goldenen Schnitts. See Reitz (1982) and (1993) for an analysis of thecatalogue.57 Dido also calls herself Veneris nurus in Pun. 8.143.58 The poet draws from Ovid’s Fast. 3.206–12, a detail absent from Livy’s accountin 1.13. See Spaltenstein (1990), 274.59 Cf. Aen. 8.336–41.

Playing the Same 223Tanaquil, the wife of Tarquinius the Elder, is the woman who predictsher husband’s coming reign (castae / augurio ualuit mentis uenturaquedixit / regna uiro et dextros agnouit in alite diuos, ‘possessing apure heart, she prophesied the future kingdom to her husband andrecognised the divine favour in the flight of a bird’, 13.818–20). 60Both women possess the visionary ability to influence those actionsof their relatives most conducive to success.A pair of female figures that epitomises pudicitia follows, Lucretiaand Verginia, who die for their country’s common weal: 61ecce pudicitiae Latium decus, inclita letifert frontem atque oculos terrae Lucretia fixos.non datur, heu, tibi, Roma (nec est, quod malle deceret),hanc laudem retinere diu. Verginia iuxta,cerne, cruentato uulnus sub pectore seruat,tristia defensi ferro monumenta pudoris,et patriam laudat miserando in uulnere dextram. (13.821–7)Behold! The Roman glory of chastity, Lucretia, famous for her death,comes forward, her eyes fixed upon the ground. It is not given to you,alas, Rome, to preserve this praise for too long (nor is there anything elsewhich it would behove you to prefer). Next to her, see, Verginia keeps thewound under her bloody chest, the sad record of her modesty, which wasdefended by the steel; and she praises the right hand of her father for thelamentable wound.Herself a uirgo, the Sibyl exalts the examples of Lucretia and Verginia,since they epitomise traditional Roman values of bravery, loyalty, andchastity. They prepare the reader for the last female figure of the firstsection, Cloelia, who concentrates the characteristics of all previouspairs:illa est, quae Thybrim, quae fregit Lydia bella,nondum passa marem, quales optabit haberequondam Roma uiros, contemptrix Cloelia sexus. (13.828–30)60 Cf. Liv. 1.34.8.61 See Spaltenstein (1990), 274–5, on Silius’ sources for these two stories (Lucretia:Liv. 1.57–60; Verginia: Liv. 3.44).

224 Motherhood and the OtherShe is the one who crossed the Tiber, 62 who broke the Lydian wars, 63 not yethaving experienced a man: Cloelia, a despiser of her sex. One day, Rome willpray for men like this girl.These lines bring to mind the story of Cloelia, told to Hannibal, uponhis request, in book 10 during the battle of Cannae. 64 At the death ofCloelius, a Roman soldier, his horse manages to come and find himamidst the heap of corpses, offering him its back to mount on(10.449–71). Marvelling at the horse’s behaviour, Hannibal asksCinna (a Roman turncoat) who this man is, while at the same timehe prepares to kill him. 65 Cinna says that this is Cloelius, a man of amighty stock, whose ancestor is Cloelia:bis Cloelia senosnondum complerat primaeui corporis annos,una puellarum Laurentum et, pignora pacis,inter uirgineas regi tramissa cateruas.facta uirum sileo. rege haec et foedere et anniset fluuio spretis mirantem interrita Thybrimtranauit frangens undam puerilibus ulnis.cui si mutasset sexum natura, reuertiforsan Tyrrhenas tibi non licuisset in oras,Porsena. (10.492–501)Cloelia had not yet completed twelve years of youthful life, one of theRoman girls and in the midst of the maidens’ band, and she was sent tothe king as pledge of peace. I keep silent about the deeds of men. Havingspurned the king, and the treaty, and her age, and the river, being fearless,she swam across the Tiber, breaking the wave with her childish elbows.If nature had changed her sex, perhaps it would not have been allowedyou, Porsena, to return to the Tyrrhenian shores.With the phrase facta uirum sileo, Cinna underscores Cloelia’s heroism,her chastity, and her bravery at the same time. Cloelia’s transgressionof gender roles and of the limits her sex imposed on her62 Cf. Aen. 8.651: et fluuium uinclis innaret Cloelia ruptis (‘and having broken thechains, Cloelia swims in the river’).63 In Liv. 2.13, the peace is made before Cloelia’s escape.64 On stories narrated to Hannibal, see chapter 2 (106–7 n.31).65 Ripoll (1998), 54, briefly discusses Cloelius’ figure. Nicol (1936), 13–14, quotesa similar episode in Pliny the Elder.

Playing the Same 225becomes a positive attribute for the young woman. As Keith hasshrewdly observed, ‘the heroism of the masculine Roman west constitutesa perfectly balanced counterweight to the fatal eastern effeminacyof the Carthaginian foe in the Orientalist and sexist plot ofSilius’ epic.’ 66 All three pairs of female figures in this catalogue reestablishorder in the Roman state by means of their virtues; withCloelia we reach the climax of this ascent to glory.The second part of the catalogue intensifies the integrity of womenin the first section, by elaborating on the examples of three womenwho were punished for their crimes: Tullia (13.833–8), Tarpeia(13.839–43), and the anonymous Vestal virgin (13.844–50a). Tulliaand Tarpeia betrayed their family and country, 67 while the Vestal losther virginity (exuta sibi uirginitate, ‘by “taking off” her maidenhood’,13.849). Critics have maintained that the anonymous Vestal is probablyCornelia, punished in 89–90 ce by Domitian and buried alive. 68Silius places the punishment of Cornelia last in the list, not onlybecause of its contemporaneous relevance to the Domitianic regimebut also because of the association of Cornelia with the house of theCornelii and Scipio himself, as his direct descendant. From Suetonius,we learn that Cornelia had been acquitted once before:Nam cum Oculatis sororibus, item Varronillae liberum mortis permisissetarbitrium corruptoresque earum relegasset, mox Corneliam maximam uirginem,absolutam olim, dein longo interuallo repetitam atque conuictamdefodi imperauit, stupratoresque uirgis in comitio ad necem caedi, exceptopraetorio uiro ... (Dom. 8.4)66 Keith (2010), 373.67 See Spaltenstein (1990), 276 (Tullia: Liv. 1.48 and Ovid’s Fast. 6.585–636;Tarpeia: Liv. 1.11 and Prop. 4.4).68 See Wistrand (1956), 45–6; Laudizi (1989), 30–32; Mezzanotte (1995), 367–9.On Domitian as a despot in this punishment, see Tipping (2010). The punishment ofthe Vestal Cornelia is related in Suet. Dom. 8.4, Dio Cass. 67.3.3–4, Plin. Ep. 4.11, andis alluded to in Statius’ Silu. 1.1.36 (exploratas iam laudet Vesta ministras, ‘does Vestanow praise her endorsed servants?’). For the precise date of Cornelia’s punishmentsee Courtney’s comment on Juvenal 4.9–10 (1980), 202, who places the incident in 93ce, and Jones (1996), 77–8, who dates it in 89–90 ce. We know very little aboutCornelia (see Raepsaet-Charlier [1987], 245), perhaps the same Cornelia who takesoffice in 65 ce (Tac. Ann. 15.22), daughter of Cornelius Cossus (Tac. Ann. 14.20).

226 Motherhood and the OtherFor while he allowed the Oculatae sisters and Varronilla to choose their ownform of death and relegated their seducers, soon afterwards, when the seniorVestal Cornelia, who had been acquitted some time previously, was again,much later, accused and convicted, he ordered that she be buried alive andthat her defilers should be beaten to death with rods in the Comitium, withthe exception of a man of praetorian rank ...As we shall see in the next section, the participle absolutam olim playsoff against the representation of Claudia Quinta, who manages torelease herself from the crime, alleged against her by the people,through the intervention of the goddess. 69 As becomes evident, thefirst two guilty female figures in the catalogue, Tullia and Tarpeia,play off against Hersilia, Verginia, and Cloelia, while the chief Vestalreverses the illustrious example of Lucretia’s chastity.It has been acknowledged by critics that the purpose of this list offemale figures that dwell in the Netherworld is to enlighten Scipio andSilius’ audience alike on the mos maiorum and traditional Roman valuesthathadperishedintheirtime. 70 It has also been recognised that this69 What is more, in Pliny’s account, the Vesta Maxima is portrayed in termssimilar to Claudia Quinta. By his right as pontifex maximus, but also as a sign ofhis cruelty, Pliny comments, Domitian summons the rest of the priests in the Albanpalace:Quin etiam cum in illud subterraneum demitteretur, haesissetque descendenti stola,uertit se ac recollegit, cumque ei manum carnifex daret, auersata est et resiluitfoedumque contactum quasi plane a casto puroque corpore nouissima sanctitatereiecit omnibusque numeris pudoris ðﺺcí ðæüíïØÆí Šóååí åPóåÞìøí ðåóåEí.(4.11.6–9)Moreover, when she was sent down to that underground chamber and her robe wasstuck as she descended, she turns back to catch it; and as the executioner gave her ahand, she drew away springing back in horror and as if clearly in a last act of chastity,she avoided the loathsome touch from her pure and unstained body. Then observingall the rules of shamefulness, she ‘took great care to fall in a decent manner’.As Cornelia is led to her tomb, her stola, the emblem of her chastity is stuck, she turnsback to pick it up, while she avoids touch with the impure hands of the carnifex, aman whose name denotes flesh and its passions. She is able to save her castum etpurum corpus from pollution. Pliny exploits Cornelia’s death as an example ofDomitian’s harshness (ardebat ergo Domitianus et crudelitatis et iniquitatis infamia,‘therefore, Domitian was burning with his infamous cruelty and injustice’, 4.11.11).See Vinson (1989) for her analysis of Pliny’s technique of uituperatio in 4.11.70 See Casale (1954), 33–6; Kissel (1979), 181–2; Reitz (1982), 125: ‘Die beidenFrauenkataloge geben eindrucksvolle positive und negative Beispiele der altrömischenTugenden, die nach stoischer Überzeugung das Fundament des gesunden

Playing the Same 227catalogue of illustrious women anticipates the episode with ClaudiaQuinta at the opening of book 17 (1–47). 71 I would like to take theinstructive aspect of the catalogue in book 13 a step further. The imageof Claudia Quinta’s chastity and religiosity announces the restoration ofethos and the ascent to glory for the Romans, following the path thatPomponia and Masinissa’s mother have paved in previous books.Before we turn to Claudia Quinta and the arrival of the MagnaMater, it is important to remember that Silius omits or changesimportant details of the historical record in order to ensure Claudia’sindisputably prominent position in the beginning of the last book ofthe Punica. In particular, the poet downplays the role of Sophonisbaduring the last years of the war and her heroic death as described byLivy (30.11–15) and famously expanded upon in the RenaissanceLatin epic tradition by Petrarch (Africa 5–6.73). 72 Sophonisba,daughter of Hasdrubal, son of Gisgo, was married to Syphax, theMassylian king, thus causing the latter to join the Carthaginians inalliance and to turn down Scipio’s friendship: 73fasque fidemque simul prauo mutatus amoreruperat atque toros regni mercede pararat.uirgo eximia specie claroque parente,Hasdrubalis proles. thalamis quam cepit ut altis,ceu face succensus prima taedaque iugali 74uertit opes gener ad Poenos, Latiaeque solutofoedere amicitiae dotalia transtulit arma. (17.69–75)Gemeinwesens bilden.’ Reitz (1993), 316, continues: ‘Propositum autem singulispartibus commune est Romam conditam creuisse potentemque factam esse uiribusoperaque singulorum hominum uirtute praestantium.’ Mezzanotte (1995), 366–9,discusses the movement towards the so-called correctio morum under the Flavians.71 Mezzanotte (1995), 369.72 See Burck (1984b), 110–23, for a comparison of Silius’ and Livy’s accounts.73 In 16.168–274, Syphax makes a treaty with the Romans; he is portrayed as pacatorSyphax (16.221), the model surrogate king (domesticating lions, 16.235–6), when hemeets with Scipio, another pacator (16.245). When Syphax is attacked by the Romans,however, he barely escapes his camp (set on fire), almost naked (se uelamine nullo /uix ...ereptum, ‘scarcely rescued, with no clothes on’, 17.114–15). His nudity extends to ametaphorical level too, since it plays off against his presence in book 16, where dressed upas a king, he is called nec nudus uirtute (‘not bare of manliness’, 16.171).74 Syphax was a widower when he married Sophonisba.

228 Motherhood and the OtherHaving been changed by vicious love, he [Syphax] at one and the same timehad broken the propriety and loyalty and had procured marriage at theexpense of his kingdom. There was a virgin girl of extreme beauty and of anillustrious parent, the daughter of Hasdrubal. When he received her in hislofty chambers, as though inflamed by a torch and the flame of a firstmarriage, he turned his wealth over to the Carthaginians, as a son-in-law,and having broken the Roman treaty of friendship, transferred his forces asdowry [to the Carthaginians].Sophonisba is mentioned in two other places in the narrative, toillustrate that she is the cause of Syphax’s destruction and defeat(nam surdas coniunx obstruxerat aures, ‘for the wife had blocked theears of Syphax and made them deaf’, 17.84; and ira pudorque dabantet coniunx, tertius ignis, / immanes animos, ‘anger, shame, and a wife,the third incentive, were supplying him with immeasurable passion’,17.112–13). 75However, Silius does not mention Sophonisba’s courageous attitudeto enslavement and her heroic death. When Syphax is defeatedby Laelius and Masinissa, Sophonisba asks Masinissa to make thebest decision for her, even if that entails death (Liv. 30.12.12–16).Parenthetically, Livy notes that she was of outstanding beauty and ata flourishing age (forma insignis et florentissima aetas, ‘a remarkablebeauty and very young age’, 30.12.17). Then, Masinissa marries her;when Laelius and later Scipio find out, they are clearly displeased withthe young man’s irrational behaviour (30.12.21–2 and 30.14.4–11).75 Line 84 presents an interpretative puzzle: is it Sophonisba, who obstructsSyphax from allying with the Romans, or is it the love affair of the old man thathas reduced him to an observient coniunx? Both interpretations seem possible.Cf. Liv. 30.13.12 (Syphax’s claim):illis nuptialibus facibus regiam conflagrasse suam; illam furiam pestemque omnibusdelenimentis animum suum auertisse atque alienasse, nec conquiesse donec ipsamanibus suis nefaria sibi arma aduersus hospitem atque amicum induerit.From those wedding torches his palace had been burned down, that pestilential Furywith all her allurements had enticed and deranged his mind. She had never resteduntil with her own hands she had put on him unspeakable arms against his guest andfriend.However, Livy observes that these words were said by Syphax on account of hisjealousy for Sophonisba’s marriage to Masinissa (30.14.1–2). Syphax’s change ofalliance ominously underscores his breaking of fides and fas (he is called barbarusin Pun. 17.113).

Playing the Same 229Finally, in order to save Sophonisba from becoming a captive of theRomans, Masinissa sends poison to her, which the young womanbravely takes and dies (30.15.7–8). 76What is the reason behind Silius’ omission of this episode? Signs ofhasty composition in the last books of the poem have been variouslyexplained by critics who construe certain omissions on account ofSilius’ illness and death in 101 ce. 77 In addition, Marks’s observationthat Claudia’s chastity and Scipio’s sexual continence are meant toplay off against Syphax’s lust, is correct. 78 However, this explanationdoes not account for the erasure of Sophonisba’s important role inAfrican affairs. In my opinion, an insertion of Sophonisba’s marriageto Masinissa would damage the portrait of the latter. We have alreadyexamined how important he becomes in book 16 through comparisonto Scipio. Moreover, the details of Sophonisba’s heroic deathwould considerably ‘challenge’ Claudia Quinta’s supremacy as anexemplary figure in the book, to which we now turn.CAELICOLUM PHRYGIA GENETRICEM SEDE:A FOREIGN GODDESS IN ROMEIn the last books of the Punica (13–17), the representation of Romanvalues of motherhood and womanhood reflects the complete reor-76 Contrast to Silius’ omission of the Sophonisba drama, Petrarch’s expansion onthe Livian episode, with the Didoesque descent of Sophonisba to the shades, in theopening of the sixth book of the Africa (6.1–73). Petrarch exploits the episode as adiscourse on his own unsuccessful love for Laura; see the relevant discussion inWarner (2005), 20–50. Petrarch could not have read the Punica; see von Albrecht(1964), 118–44, and more recently, Schubert (2005), pace ter Haar (1997).77 See, for instance, Mezzanotte (1995), 369:In quest’ottica non deve perciò apparire sorprendente il fatto che Silio menzioniappena un personaggio femminile, Sofonisba, a cui Livio, invece, aveva dato ben altropeso e spessore. Lo storico patavino l’aveva infatti raffigurata come un personaggio dirara belezza e di grande fascino e seduzione. Silio le dedica, al contrario, appenacinque versi: forse si può spiegare col fatto che il poeta avesse fretta di concludere ilpoema, ma non va per questo trascurato l’attaccamenti ai valori tradizionali (in auge,in epoca flavia) di Silio.78 Marks (1999), 350–53. On Scipio’s sexual continence, see the Epilogue (245–6).

230 Motherhood and the Otherganisation of Roman affairs in the last years of the war on a politicallevel and by extension reflects on the changes wrought on the semanticregister of Romanitas as well. More specifically, Scipio becomesthe catalyst for Roman political life; he incorporates youth,bravery, trustworthiness, and decisiveness, elements that lead to thefinal victory over Carthage. Yet it is not only the change in the maleprotagonist’s behaviour that can be observed in these later years ofthe war. The system of values that women exemplify has also changed.79 Silius has us take particular note of symbols of chastity andloyalty among the female figures that emerge towards the end of thepoem. 80Let us look at the opening of book 17 in detail. After the debate inthe Senate between Fabius and Scipio (16.600–700) concerning thedestruction of Carthage, 81 and before the conclusion of the war withthe battle at Zama, we learn about the advent of the Magna Mater atRome (1–47). 82 According to a Sibylline prophecy, the importation79 Consider for instance the difference in the behaviour of the female populationin books 7 and 12. In 7.74–89, a group of women (femineus ...chorus, 7.76) prays toJuno for deliverance from Hannibal’s ‘plague’. In vain, they offer a uelamen to thequeen of the gods and other gifts to Pallas, Apollo, Mars, and Dione (7.82–7).Another massive presence of women is attested in book 12, when the matrons offertheir jewellery and precious belongings for the sake of preserving the well-being ofpublic affairs (12.306–13). As Silius notes, the women’s motive for such a forfeiturehas been their willingness to partake in the laus that a victory against Hannibal wouldbring to the Roman people (laudis poscere partem, ‘demanded part of the praise’,12.307). Yet the behaviour of women has changed since book 7. Their hopes havebeen refreshed and therefore they have become more active partakers in the actionthan submissive spectators of events. It is noteworthy that Silius is not following Livyin this particular episode of the women’s contribution, for in Livy (26.36.5), it is theSenate that orders that Roman citizens submit a public toll for the needs of the war.Moreover, Livy situates the event later than Silius. By emphasising the willingness ofthe female population, Silius underlines the change that they have undergone andtheir eagerness for action.80 Mezzanotte (1995), 369.81 See Marks (1999), 311–47, and (2005a), 47–55, for an analysis of this episode.82 For an analysis see Casale (1954), 36–8; Bruère (1959), 243–4; von Albrecht(1968), 76–95, and (1999), 301–16; Marks (1999), 347–50, and (2005a), 240. Klotz(1933), 22–3, compares this episode to Livy’s account (29.10.4–11.8 and 29.14.5–14.14). See also Nesselrath (1986), 223, and Burton (1996) on the Livian account.Stehle (1989) discusses the political implications of the importation of both Cybele’sand Venus’ cults into Rome during this period, and in particular, how femalesexuality is deployed as a metaphor for Rome’s power as a state. Silius chooses toblur the chronology of the importation of the cult: it seems as though he dates it in

Playing the Same 231of the cult of Cybele to Rome would chase away the enemy. P. ScipioNasica is chosen to welcome the goddess to the city (17.5–15), until acrowd of women takes over the task of dragging the ship with ropes(quae traherent celsam religatis funibus alnum, ‘to draw the tall vesselwith secure ropes’, 17.17). When the boat stops and refuses to proceedany further (substitit adductis renuens procedere uinclis / sacra ratissubitisque uadis immobilis haesit, ‘refusing to move further by thepulling of the ropes, the sacred ship stopped and suddenly it becamestuck motionless on the river-bed’, 17.24–5), the priest of Cybeledemands that the task be finished by a pure and chaste woman:parcite pollutis contingere uincula palmiset procul hinc, moneo, procul hinc, quaecumque profanae,ferte gradus nec uos casto miscete labori,dum satis est monuisse deae. quod si qua pudicamente ualet, si qua illaesi sibi corporis adstatconscia, uel sola subeat pia munera dextra. (17.27–32)All you unchaste, refrain from touching the ropes with guilty hands! Leavefar away from here, far away, I warn you, and do not share in the sacred task;or the goddess may not be content with a mere warning. But if any womanhas strength on account of her chaste mind, if any woman who stands here isconscious of a body unstained, let her, even with her right hand alone,undergo the pious duty.Then though her reputation is darkened by false reports (non aequapopuli male credita fama, ‘discredited by a false rumour among thepeople’, 17.34), Claudia Quinta undertakes the task and prays to thegoddess (17.36–40). An important aspect is revealed in Claudia’s genealogy,as we have seen with so many other female figures so far: Hicprisca ducens Clausorum ab origine nomen / Claudia ...(‘Here wasClaudia, who derived her name from the ancient stock of the Clausi’,17.33–4). Silius exploits her genealogy to point to Claudia’s Sabineorigins, 83 as she becomes an example of the successful amalgamation202 instead of 205 bce. The poet, however, exploits the specific details from theLivian account, such as the report that Rome was lacking alliances in the East at thetime: nullasdum in Asia socias ciuitates habebat populus Romanus (‘in Asia, theRoman people had as yet no allied cities’, Liv. 29.11.1).83 See Lemaire (1823), 2.345–6, and Spaltenstein (1990), 447, who point out thatthe detail is absent in Livy but found in Ovid’s Fast. 4.305.

232 Motherhood and the Otherbetween the Latin and the Sabines into one race, the Romans. Claudiawill offer to her people the chance to stand united and conquerHannibal, by facilitating the importation of the Great Mother’s cultinto Rome. She concludes her speech in the following manner:‘si nostrum nullo uiolatum est crimine corpus, / testis, diua, ueni et facilime absolue carina’ (‘If my body has not been violated by any stain, you,goddess, come as a witness and prove my innocence through the vessel’seasy movement’, 17.39–40). Immediately after Claudia’s intervention,the ship begins to move and everyone’s hopes are restored that the endof the war is indeed approaching (17.41–7).Scholars have correctly observed the significant role that chastity,piety, and morality play in the episode of the Magna Mater. 84 It hasalso rightly been maintained that the elevation of morale fromCybele’s arrival at Rome corresponds to the military success later inthe book, at Zama. 85 I would like to suggest, pace von Albrecht, 86 thatClaudia herself takes a central place in Silius’ narrative.If we pay close attention to the description of the hesitation of theship and Claudia’s intervention, we see that references to chains andbondage are salient. The word uinclum is used to illustrate the refusalof the ship to surrender (adductis renuens ...uinclis, 17.24), while theropes are fastened together in order to drag the vessel (religatisfunibus, 17.17). Then, the priest of Cybele demands that no pollutedhands touch the uincula (17.27); the contact of the profanae with thestatue of the goddess would result in failure and corruption. Thesereferences to the chains reflect the moral ‘captivity’ of the Romanpeople, from which the goddess supposedly will set them free. However,no polluted women may touch the ropes of the boat. OnlyClaudia can serve as intermediary to Cybele; when she entreats theMagna Mater to free her from the ignobility of her crimen (17.39–40),the priestess uses the imperative absolue (17.40). The verb is alsoused in connection with the uincula of the boat, since the goddessnods positively to Claudia’s plea and surrenders to the power of the84 See von Albrecht (1968), 95, and (1999), 310; Marks (1999), 349.85 Marks (1999), 350, and (2005a), 240.86 Von Albrecht (1968) and (1999), 301–16. See also Bruère (1959), 243–4, for acomparison to Ovid’s Fast. 4.249–349. On Claudia’s pudicitia in Livy, Propertius, andOvid, see Langlands (2006), 65–9.

Playing the Same 233ropes. Tum secura capit funem is the phrase used after Claudia’sspeech (17.41) to demonstrate that Claudia is in control of theropes and does not surrender to the vessel but rather activelydrags it to the shore. What is more, the verb ab-soluere metaphoricallyre-enacts the ‘moral’ release that Claudia’s reputation willenjoy. Both Claudia and the Romans are freed from their burdens,she of the crimen, Rome of the foreign enemy.There is an additional reason why the verb used in Claudia’s case isnot unintentional. It can be contextually associated with Pomponia,Scipio’s mother. What we learn from Pomponia’s account to Scipioabout her pregnancy is striking, namely that her labour was painless: 87excipit his mater: ‘nullos, o nate, laboresmors habuit nostra; aetherio dum pondere partuexsoluor, miti dextra Cyllenia prolesimperio Iouis Elysias deduxit in orasattribuitque pares sedes, ubi magna moraturAlcidae genetrix, ubi sacro munere Leda ...’ (13.628–33)The mother replies with these words: ‘No suffering, my son, attended mydeath; when through my delivery I was freed from the divine burden, theoffspring of Cyllene, with his mild right hand, has led me to the shores ofElysium by the command of Jove and has given me the same place, where thegreat mother of Alcides, where Leda dwells with sacred honour ...’Pomponia stresses the word exsoluor, which plays off against the verbused later in her speech to portray her impregnation by Jupiter:membra ligauit (13.638). We can discern how the poet carefullyreverses the image of Pomponia’s ‘rape’ and transforms it into anepisode where only the positive result is exalted, namely Scipio’sbirth. After we have listened to Pomponia’s account, there is nospace to question her chastity as uniuira and wife of Scipio’s mortal‘father’. In other words, Scipio’s mother retains all the grandeur andmajesty of a Roman matrona. Likewise, Claudia is ‘delivered’ fromthe afflictions of ill reputation and sets in motion the beginning of anew generation of morality at Rome.87 Marks (1999), 100–01, correctly notices that Pomponia responds quite casually,even cheerfully, to Scipio’s words.

234 Motherhood and the OtherClaudia’s successful intervention reflects the reorientation of Romanitasin the poem. By placing the Vestal at the opening of the lastbook, Silius opposes her character to other female figures in thepoem. Claudia Quinta becomes the only female whose plea is answered.Not only is her name saved from ill reputation (crimen), butshe is also transformed into an effective figure who can bring prosperityand moral regeneration to Rome. Claudia Quinta is the onlywoman in the poem who succeeds in both her private and publiclives, to become the embodiment of Roman values and ideas concerningwomanhood.This Romanisation of the Magna Mater and the adoption of aforeign cult in Rome plays off against the presence of Anna Perennain book 8. As we have seen, the Carthaginian goddess remains in thefringes of the narrative, as both Roman and non-Roman, a Sidonisand a numen assimilated to the Italian landscape. The portrayal ofAnna as a displaced person who longs for the antiqua patria isjuxtaposed to the Magna Mater’s presence in Rome as the goddesswho sanctions her new country by ‘blessing’ the chastity of the chiefVestal. There is, however, another layer of meaning to explore in thescene, one that reveals the foreign elements crystallised by thearrival of the Phrygian goddess. When the vessel is on its way toits destination and just before Claudia’s interference, the poetinvites us to visualise the whole group of followers of the MagnaMater:circum arguta cauis tinnitibus aera, simulquecertabant rauco resonantia tympana pulsusemiuirique chori, gemino qui Dindyma montecasta colunt, qui Dictaeo bacchantur in antro,quique Idaea iuga et lucos nouere silentes. (17.18–22)All round the cymbals made a noise with their hollow tinklings, and at thesame time the drums vied with the cymbals resounding with their hoarsenote, and the choruses of the half-men, who worship her in the twin peaks ofchaste Dindyma, who revel in the cave of Dicte, and who have known theheights of Ida and the silent groves.On the one side, women only must drag the ship, while on the otherside we see the followers of the goddess lining up with their char-

Playing the Same 235acteristic and well-known equipment. 88 The use of the verb bacchorin this case is characteristic of the new, rather cosmopolitan orderannounced by the arrival of Cybele, the coexistence of an exotic cultwith a purifying ritual. These novelties of the imported cult, viewedfrom a Roman perspective, eradicate the differences between centreand periphery and make Romanness an ever-changing feature whichcan, and should, be reinforced from the outsider others. Simultaneously,however, behind the depiction of, and the emphasis laid on,the Eastern provenance of the cult, as a worship performed bychoruses of semiuiri in a Bacchic state, lurks Silius’ foreknowledgeand therefore problematisation of such an importation for its implicationson future Roman civic life: the Magna Mater cult will soongive rise to the Bacchanalian affair, in 186 bce, 89 an event outside theperimeter of the poem. Thus Silius intimates that the Punic War isafter all the zenith of Rome’s moral ascent, as well as a reference pointfor subsequent generations, such as his audience under the Flavians.We see that the poet introduces the figure of Claudia Quinta andjuxtaposes her indisputable chastity to the presence of the goddess,who comes from outside the centre and thus introduces new standardswithin the walls of the city (Phrygia ...sede petitam / Laomedonteaesacrandam moenibus urbis, ‘sought from her seat in Phrygia, to beworshipped within the walls of the Laomedontean city’, 17.3–4).ARomanmatrona as a priestess meets with the foreign deity and88 The orgiastic rites underscore the effeminacy of the Eastern people, includingthe Trojans/Romans themselves (cf. Numanus Remulus and Ascanius in Aen. 9.617 orParthenopaeus’ attack on Amphion in Theb. 9.800, uestri feriunt caua tympana patres,‘your fathers beat hollow cymbals’).89 On the Bacchanalian affair, see most recently Takács (2000) and Pagán (2004),50–67. Certainly, the final lines of the poem are open to interpretation, as the rise butalso the future decline of the empire seemingly coincide: cf. Silius’ apostrophe toRome exactly in the middle of the poem:nam tempore, Roma,nullo maior eris. mox sic labere secundis,ut sola cladum tuearis nomina fama. (9.351–3)Rome, you will be greater at no other time; soon you will fall by later victories so thatyou shall be looked upon only by the rumour of your defeats.

236 Motherhood and the Otherthrough a prayer makes a pact: the goddess lets the vessel be landed andapproves of the woman’s chastity and pudor. The outsider goddessbecomes the catalyst for the annihilation of the Carthaginian other,the enemy par excellence, who could not be absorbed or acculturatedand therefore had to be extinguished. 90Thus, in book 17, Silius chooses to portray Claudia as the embodimentof chastity and purity and places her at the climax of a series offemale figures that have paved her way, such as Pomponia and Masinissa’smother. Clearly, the voice of women in the last books of thepoem conveys overt male values and ideals with regard to motherhoodand matronhood. ‘Barbarian’ (m)otherhood has become assimilated tothe sameness of the Roman male ideal. Yet there is a price to be paid.Romanness itself becomes more flexible and pliable by the forces of theperiphery. This reconfiguration of female morality according to maleprinciples amply demonstrates the importance of female action for thecompletion of the war and the vital role of women in the Roman societyas mothers, educators, and—most significantly—guardians of generationalcontinuity.One feels that cosmopolitanism emerges from the core of a global movementthat makes a clean sweep of laws, differences, and prohibitions ...Achallengeto the very principle of human association is what is involved in cosmopolitanutopia: the rules governing exchanges with the other having been abolished(no more State, no more family, no sexual difference), is it possible to livewithout constraints—without limits, without borders—other than individualdemands? Two possibilities are then open: either absolute cynicism based onindividual pleasure, or the elitism of lucid, self-controlled beings, of wise menwho manage to be reconciled with the insane.(Julia Kristeva, Strangers to Ourselves, 60–61)In the above quote, Kristeva delineates the trends visible in Hellenisticcosmopolitanism and concludes that the Stoics opted for the90 Wilson (2004), 235, observes that ‘whereas Silius begins the main narrative ofthe Punica in a Virgilian mode, with his recapitulation of the myth of Dido’sfoundation of Carthage ..., he concludes the poem in an Ovidian mode, convertingLivy’s account of Scipio’s triumph ...into a mirror of Ovid’s climactic celebration ofthe paradox of human immortality.’

Playing the Same 237second possibility, namely of a utopian ideal rather than a concretereality—what I would say belongs more in the sphere of literaryimagination than serves as a reflection of historical actualities. InSilius’ reconstruction of the glorious past and of events that tookplace more than 250 years before his time, the role of otherness andof the periphery becomes a catalyst for the welfare of the empire.Female power proves to be an important factor in the shaping ofRoman identity, since women emerge as important factors in thisreflection on idealised cosmopolitanism, on what is Roman and whathas the potential to become Roman. Moral values of the past arerevived and underscored as paragons necessary for prosperity andsuccess. The system of these values (pietas and fides) is reinforcedfrom the periphery by the incorporation of outsiders, as prospectiveassociates, and by their assimilation to the ideological code dictatedby the centre. At the same time, however, the notion of Romannessundergoes a significant change as it becomes mandatory for Romansto embrace otherness and to accept the terms of this coexistence,even if this coexistence betokens the destabilisation and flexibility ofpolarities such as centre and periphery, male and female. 9191 As Tipping (1999), 277, reminds us:The final scene is a good example of the way in which, even as it constructs modelRomanity, even as, perhaps, it assumes an apparent air of nostalgia, the Punica raisesquestions about those models that it presents, and so challenges any comfortablesense that the past was a Republican paradise.also in (2007), 241:While the Punica’s apostrophe to Scipio may create the illusion of foreclosure onhistory, history had, as Silius raced to complete his epic, brought to pass not only thecivil war and Caesarism in Lucan’s poem, but also the political demise of thecontroversially individualistic Scipio Africanus.Cf. also Dietrich (2005), 85 and 87, on how Scipio as a lamenting figure problematisesthe role he will play in Roman politics after the Punic Wars and Rome’s dangers fromforces within, once the external enemy is defeated.

Epilogue: Virgins and (M)others:Appropriations of Same and Otherin Flavian RomeNam michi si, cogente Deo, patrieque cadendum est,Quid iuuat obniti contra Fatoque prementiHumanas afferre manus? Moriamur inermes!Viuat et in toto regnet ferus Hanibal orbe!(Petrarch, Africa 2.27–30)For if according to God’s plan my fatherland has to fall, what help is it tostrive with human efforts for the opposite, with Fate resisting? Let us dieunarmed! Let barbarian Hannibal live and rule over the whole world!˚Æß ôþæÆ ôß ŁÜ ªÝíïıìå åøæßò âÆæâÜæïıò.ˇƒ ¼íŁæøðïØ ÆPôïß qóÆí ìØÜ ŒÜðïØÆ ºýóØò.And now, what’s to become of us without barbarians?These people were some sort of a solution.(C. Cavafis, Waiting for the Barbarians, 1904) 1In Petrarch’s Africa, Scipio finds out that his victory over Hannibalwill not rescue the Roman state ultimately from its fated downfall.In the lines above, Scipio reviews a well-established topos in Latinliterature, Rome’s inevitable gradual decline and fall after thedestruction of Carthage, after the elimination of the barbarian enemies,who present the final stumbling block to the expansion of the1 Translation K. Friar.

Epilogue: Virgins and (M)others 239empire and the spread of (Roman) civilisation. 2 In the precedingchapters, the focus has shifted from the tension between Argive andTheban women in Statius’ Thebaid, on the one hand, through theopen-endedness of the poem and the poet’s confession of poeticpowerlessness, to the optimistic closure of the Punica, on the otherhand, with its positive integration of Roman and non-Roman femalefigures, an assimilation made possible only through the long processof the restoration of the res publica in the hands of the great patriarchScipio. 3 By contrast to the Thebaid, where the semiotic chôra offemale lament finds its rupture into the symbolic realm of Statius’poetry temporarily, only to be dismissed by the poet as a modetransgressive from the epic discourse, Silius presents us with anideal fusion, whereby the female presence activates those mechanismsconducive to the resolution of the conflict—male and female,same and other collapse into one, collaborative group, as ClaudiaQuinta hauls the vessel of the foreign goddess into the City and thusdisplaces Hannibal from the Italian tellus towards the margins of thepoem and, in a way, of history itself.Let us now turn to the epilogues of both poems for anotherglimpse at the boundaries that have preoccupied us in the course ofthis book:salue, inuicte parens, non concessure Quirinolaudibus ac meritis non concessure Camillo:nec uero, cum te memorat de stirpe deorum,prolem Tarpei mentitur Roma Tonantis.(Pun. 17.651–4)2 See e.g., Sal. Cat. 2; Liv. Pref. 9–10, probably itself an embryonic concept foundas early as the mid-first century BCE in Porcius Licinus’ fragment: Poenico bellosecundo Musa pinnato gradu / intulit se bellicosam in Romuli gentem feram, ‘In theSecond Punic War, the Muse with her winged pace brought herself to the Romanpeople in a warlike manner’, (fr. 1 Courtney), where the adjective bellicosam applieswell to both the Muse and the Roman people. On this controversial fragment, seeSkutsch (1970), 120–21; Mattingley (1993); and also Whitmarsh (2001), 9.3 Marks (2005a), 284: ‘The epic ...makes the argument that one-man rule can bea stabilising and unifying force, especially in times of extreme peril ...The epicteaches us that one man alone is not enough to achieve stability, however; he needsthe consensus of the people and senate of Rome ...’

240 Motherhood and the OtherHail to you, undefeated father, who will not yield to Quirinus in glory or toCamillus in meritorious deeds! Rome tells no lie, when she calls you anoffspring of the gods and the son of the Thunder-god of the TarpeianCapitoline.durabisne procul dominoque legere superstes,o mihi bissenos multum uigilata per annosThebai? ...iam te magnanimus dignatur noscere Caesar ...uiue, precor; nec tu diuinam Aeneida tempta,sed longe sequere et uestigia semper adora.(Theb. 12.810–12, 814, 816–17)My Thebaid, on whom I have spent twelve wakeful years, will you longendure and be read when your master is gone? ...Now the magnanimousemperor deigns to know you ...Live, I pray, and do not compete with thedivine Aeneid, but ever follow her footsteps from afar in adoration.Both epic poems end with exhortations, in the form of imperatives:Silius apostrophises Scipio, son of Jupiter, the parens of the Republic,with the assertion that the victorious Roman general is equal toRomulus, the founder of the state and of the empire in general.Statius addresses his own Thebaid, with the hope that as a poem itwill withstand successfully the comparison to the divine Aeneid, anepic with an already god-like status. 4 Behind Silius’ address to Scipio,however, lurks a literary gesture, as well, not to Virgil, but to Livy.After Romulus’ miraculous ascension to heaven, Livy claims, thepatres urge the Roman military youth to perform and thus sealwhat will become the ritual invocation for the feast of the Parentalia: 5parentemque urbis Romanae saluere universi Romulum iubent (‘Allorder that Romulus should be hailed as the god-parent of the city ofRome’, Liv. 1.16). Silius invokes the intertext of this formula (saluereiubent) as a gesture to his historian-predecessor, whose text has beeninstrumental for the composition of the Punica, just as the Aeneid hasadmittedly been the poetic antecedent for Statius. As the Thebaid isproclaimed equal to the Aeneid, with a gesture towards the divine4 Pollmann (2004), 284–9; Rosati (2008) connects the prologue of the poem toDomitian with the epilogue in terms of acknowledging political and literary ‘paternity’;cf. also Rosati (2002) on Statius’ negotiations of poetic inspiration.5 See Ogilvie (1965), 86. On Domitian as Romulus, see Cowan (2002), 170–76.

Epilogue: Virgins and (M)others 241nod of the emperor with regard to the poet’s laborious enterprise, sois Scipio elevated as identical to Quirinus, and consequently thePunica is placed as a commendable successor in a long line ofRoman epic poets and historians. 6 Scipio is by no means inferior toQuirinus: the phrase echoes Jupiter’s similar pronouncement in book3, when the divine king proclaims that Quirinus himself will yield hisplace in the future apotheosis of Domitian (solioque Quirinus/concedet,‘Quirinus will give up his throne’, Pun. 3.627–8). 7 Thus bothpoets express their debt to tradition and place themselves within thesequence of Latin literature, which they have helped to enhance intheir own right, as they engage in a figurative dialogue with theemperor, a prominent figure in both epilogues.Even though discussion of the epilogues has centred around thepicture of Domitian as a reflection of the pro- or anti-Domitianicviews of the poets and their poems, I would like to move away fromthis debate: 8 as Domitian figures in no uncertain terms in both6 On the relationship between Silius and Roman historiography, see most recentlyGibson (2010) and Pomeroy (2010).7 Jupiter’s prophecy of a tantum regnum (Pun. 3.588) rests upon the conquering ofthe world as expressed by Vespasian’s and Domitian’s own feats: the empire’s borderswill extend to the north as fas as Thyle and the Rhine and south in Africa and theNear East. Domitian himself is apostrophised as Germanicus (3.607), an appellationindicative of the empire’s close relationship with the periphery, upon which itsvitality rests. On the prophecy, see Marks (2005a), 211–17. McDermott and Orentzel(1977) examine the connection between the prophecy and the end of book 14(686–8). Marks (2005a), 209–44, offers a comprehensive study for the connectionbetween Scipio and Domitian; see also Stürner (2008) and Bernstein (2008), 156, butcontra see Tipping (2010), 218: ‘[T]he shifting figure of Scipio with which the Punicaends is also suggestive of the Virgilian and post-Virgilian epic hero’s lack of definition,of the difficulty of determining what it meant to be epic hero or Roman or both.’8 On Statius’ views on Domitian in the epilogue, see Ganiban (2007), 231–2, whointerprets the epic as a critique of kingship but not of Domitian himself; McNelis(2007), 176–7, points to the lack of satisfactory closure at the end of the poem asemblematic of Statius’ views of the Flavian regime. Cf. Augoustakis and Newlands(2007) and Augoustakis (2007) on the ‘poetics of intimacy’ that appropriately conveysStatius’ anxieties. See Marks (2005a), 245–88, on the Punica’s association withthe Domitianic principate, where the critic concludes that the poem ‘was as much anepic for Domitian’s Rome as it was an epic about the Second Punic War. So much sothat when Domitian died, it lost its ideal reader, its didactic purpose, and its raisond’ être’. See Coleman (1986) and (2000) for literary production ‘under the wings’ ofthe emperor and its status upon the emperor’s murder respectively. König (2005),205–53, interprets the games in book 16 in the light of the Domitianic regime ‘as a

242 Motherhood and the Otherepilogues, in a manner of a conclusion to this study, I would like tooffer a suggestion about the importance of polarities, such as centreand periphery, for the culture and society of Domitianic Rome. 9 Thetwo Cancelleria marble reliefs, 10 discovered in 1937 and 1939, provideample illustration of a shift in Flavian art from themes of fertilityand the imperial family in detail (as witnessed in the Ara Pacis, forinstance), to the new dynasty itself, Vespasian and Domitian inparticular, where gods (and personifications of abstract notions)mingle with humans, in the absence of mothers and children. 11The prevailing opinion is that Relief B portrays Vespasian’s aduentusto the city in 70 CE, with Domitian at his side (fig. 1). 12 On the leftside of the fragmented relief, our gaze is directed towards the personificationof Roma, in Amazonian costume, and one of the Vestals(fig. 2). Roma is seated on a throne, spear in one hand, waiting forthe new emperor to come into the city’s pomerium. 13 There is littleconsensus, however, concerning Relief A, which has generated debateamong critics (fig. 3). Domitian is the central figure of the relief,either in a profectio, setting out for war in the frontiers of the empire,or an aduentus, a victorious return from his war against the Chatti(in 83 CE). The last of the Flavians is accompanied by Minerva andMars on his left side and an Amazonian figure on his right side, whoappears to be urging him on. Because of the similarities between thetwo Amazonian figures in the two reliefs, it has been concluded thatreflection of the passivity which the Roman people have chosen, or been forced tochoose, in their viewing of the horrors of contemporary warfare’ (253).9 Most recently, Keith (2007) has contributed to our understanding of ekphraseisin Statius’ Thebaid (and Ovid’s Metamorphoses) as a reflection of imperial (Domitianic)architecture, without drawing specific analogies, however, as I shall try to doin this epilogue.10 The reliefs have attracted the attention of scholars and art historians alike.I indicate some representative studies, with often opposing views, concerning thetheme of each relief: Magi (1945); Toynbee (1957); Bonanno (1976), 52–61; Kleiner(1992), 191–2; Darwall-Smith (1996), 172–7 and 303 (bibliography); Newlands(2002), 16–17; Henderson (2003).11 Newlands (2002), 16.12 By both Magi (1945) and Toynbee (1957); while Magi supports the idea also forRelief A, Toynbee proposes that Relief A represents a profectio, a predominant viewnow (see e.g. Darwall-Smith [1996], 174 n.214).13 Cf. BMC, 2.121 no. 565 and pl. 21.9, Roma helmeted with spear in right handand round shield, with Vespasian laureate.

Epilogue: Virgins and (M)others 243Figure 1. Rome, Cancelleria Relief B, Vespasian’s Aduentus.Figure 2. Rome, Cancelleria Relief B, Vespasian’s Aduentus, detail of Roma.

244 Motherhood and the OtherFigure 3. Rome, Cancelleria Relief A, Domitian’s Profectio.the second woman is also Roma, though many support the idea of apersonified Virtus. 14 Roma in an Amazonian costume, with barebreast, is not a Flavian innovation. Roma is often portrayed in suchclothing and posture. 15 What keys into our reading of the Flavianepics under discussion is the visual depiction of Roma in Flavian artas a warrior, with her adopted Amazonian apparel, as one reinforcingthe divide between insiders and outsiders. On the widely acceptedreconstruction of the relief as a profectio, with Domitian setting outagainst the Sarmatians (in 92–3 CE), then we are gazing on Romafashioned as Hippolyte, in the same manner we have seen Statiusportraying the Amazon whom Theseus brings to Athens, an outsider,14 Keller (1967), 194–202 and 209, suggests that both female figures portray Virtusrather than Roma, and in particular, Domitian’s Virtus (also Darwall-Smith [1996],173–4). I follow Toynbee’s (1957) interpretation of Roma in both reliefs. For Domitian’seffort to redefine Virtus, see Tuck (2005). McDonnell (2006), 146–9, examiningsimilar representations of Virtus, concludes that:The ancient Romans had no conceptual difficulties in conceiving of an armedAmazon seated in the attitude of a city goddess as Roma, and of a standing Amazonas Virtus. What is significant about the relationship between the two images is thatwhen the Romans wanted to represent Virtus in cult, on coins, and in art, theyemployed the very same image used for the personified Roma. (149)15 See Calza’s (1926–7) still informative examination and appendix with all of therepresentations of Roma as an Amazon (notably, in the Temple of Augustus andRoma in Ostia), as well as Arrigoni (1984), 884–7 and especially n.41. For instance,cf. Roma on the Ara Pacis and the Gemma Augusta; see D’Ambra (1993), 89, andCastriota (1995), 142–3.

Epilogue: Virgins and (M)others 245and yet a prospective Athenian. While the female warrior covers theemperor’s hand, as she urges him on to pursue fearlessly his undertaking,another goddess, Minerva, the emperor’s own protectress,escorts him on the road. 16 Memorialised on the Cancelleria Relief B,we find Rome as an Amazon, a virgin woman-warrior, appropriatelypositioned together with the Vestal virgin, not in the central locationof the frame but in the borders of the visual narrative instead.Conceivably Rome is waiting to usher and sanction the emperorinto the city. In the visual arts, clear emphasis is laid on virginity,and the war-like imagery of both Minerva and Roma mark theconspicuous absence of motherhood, from both reliefs. It is thesame topos we have examined in the final book of the Punica, acontrast to the rampant effeminisation at the end of the Thebaid: inStatius, female lament prevails, its silencing (successful or not) by theauthorial voice notwithstanding, while Hippolyte, an Amazon whoembodies (m)otherhood, is about to bear offspring to Theseus; andyet in Silius, Claudia Quinta, the Vestal Virgin, whose pudicitia isdocumented beyond doubt, overshadows the dangerously heroicSophonisba, the other, who stays in the margins of the narrative,remaining voiceless and anonymous. As motherhood becomes idealisedin the figure of Pomponia and the mother-prophetess of Masinissa,at the same time virginity and the reformation of moral valuesby the Flavians comes to the forefront of the narrative in the Punica,as a manifestation and reflection of the trends in Flavian art. Sincethe Roman ideals of the past are exploited to reinforce genderboundaries, by reimposing the cosmic order through Scipio’s victoryover the African other, boundaries collapse: an Amazonian other isnow in the centre. Roma is portrayed as a figure from the periphery,since the periphery provides those examples that the centre has failedto project. 17 This image of purity and virginity is also emphasised bythe punishment of the Vestal Cornelia, mapped by Silius on the16 Henderson (2003), 250–51: ‘Side by side with Mars, hustling in hot pursuit ofVictory for Rome ...This myth hems the hero in with the unwomen warriors, but themassive god of war pledges that manliness (uirtus) brings Roman success.’17 Ending with Nero’s regime. See Joshel (1997) for the corrupt centre vs the idealperiphery (Messalina vs the German wives in Tacitus’ Germania, for instance).

246 Motherhood and the Othergeography of the Flavian Underworld, or by Scipio’s rescue of thevirgin Spanish princess: 18quin etiam accitus populi regnator Hiberi,cui sponsa et sponsae defixus in ossibus ardor.hanc notam formae concessit laetus ouansqueindelibata gaudenti uirgine donum.(Pun. 15.268–71)Moreover, by Scipio the ruler of a Spanish tribe was summoned, who had apromised bride and loved her passionately. And Scipio joyful and triumphantgave her back, remarkable for her beauty, freely to the bridegroomwho rejoiced in an unpolluted bride.Scipio’s continence celebrates the new order proclaimed by theFlavian gens and Domitian in particular. 19 Pudicitia and pudor arereinstated after the decadent years of the last of the Julio-Claudians.This portrayal of Rome’s Amazonian status, however, is sanctionedand approved by the periphery also, as becomes evident in theseldom recovered female voice within the androcentric milieu ofRoman or Romanised elite provincial culture: the Hymn to Rome(åNò œ PþìÅí) by the Greek poetess Melinno, epitomises the ideasexamined in our analysis of the Flavian epic poets: 20åÆEæÝ ìïØ, œ PþìÆ, ŁıªÜôÅæ @æÅïò,åæıóåïìßôæÆ äÆŽçæøí ¼íÆóóÆ,óåìíeí L íÆßåØò Kðd ªAò š …ºıìðïí18 Cf. Plb. 10.19.3–7; Liv. 26.50; V. Max. 4.31.1. The episode recalls Alexander’ssimilar gesture to Darius’ female relatives (Curt. 3.12.21). See Nicol (1936), 119;Spaltenstein (1990), 358; Ripoll (1998), 462–4; Marks (2005a), 237–8. The subject isexploited in later art also in a similar manner (see book cover), for instance, in VanDyck’s painting The Continence of Scipio, now at Christ Church Picture Gallery,Oxford; the analogy intended here is between Scipio and James I, who intervenesfor the marriage of George Villiers, first duke of Buckingham to Lady KatherineManners. It seems that ideals such as this always find fertile ground before eliteaudiences, either Flavian or Jacobean.19 For the moral restoration promoted by Domitian, see Grelle (1980) andD’Ambra (1993); in the Punica, Mezzanotte (1995) and Marks (2005a), 235–42.20 Melinno is called Lesbian in the sources, but of course both her name and theisland of origin exemplify the presupposition that all melic poets come from Lesbos;see M. L. West (1978), 104; De Martino (2006), 284–92. Of course, the verbalexploitation of the pun between the noun ÞþìÅ (‘strength’) and the city’s name isobvious.

fififiEpilogue: Virgins and (M)others 247ÆNbí ¼ŁæÆıóôïí.óïd ìüíÆ fi , ðæÝóâØóôÆ, äÝäøŒå ÌïEæÆŒFäïò IææÞŒôø âÆóغB fi ïí IæåAò,ZçæÆ ŒïØæÆíB fi ïí ŠåïØóÆ ŒÜæôïòIªåìïíåýfi Åò.ó~Æ äš Pða óäåýªºÆ ŒæÆôåæHí ºåðÜäíøíóôÝæíÆ ªÆßÆò ŒÆd ðïºØAò ŁÆºÜóóÆòóçߪªåôÆØ . óf äš IóçƺÝøò Œıâåæí~Æ fi ò¼óôåÆ ºÆHí.ðÜíôÆ äb óçܺºøí › ìݪØóôïò ÆNgíŒÆd ìåôÆðºÜóóøí âßïí ¼ººïôš ¼ººøòóïd ìüíÆ ðºÅóßóôØïí ïsæïí IæåAòïP ìåôÆâܺºåØ.q ªaæ KŒ ðÜíôøí óf ìüíÆ ŒæÆôßóôïıò¼íäæÆò ÆNåìÆôaò ìåªÜºïıò ºïååýåØòåhóôÆåıí ˜ÜìÆôæïò ‹ðøò IíåEóÆŒÆæðeí { Iðš IíäæHí.(Suppl. Hell. 541.1–20 [1983], 268–9) 21Hail Rome, daughter of Ares, warlike queen with your golden belt, you whodwell in holy Olympus, unshakably always set on the earth. To you alone,elder daughter, Fate gave the royal glory of unbroken rule, in order to be theleader, having royal power. Under the straps of your strong yoke the breastsof the earth and of the grey sea are bound tightly; you govern the cities ofpeople securely. Greatest Time, who causes all things to falter and alters thelife sometimes this way, sometimes another, for you alone does not changethe favourable wind of your rule. For you indeed alone from all the citiesgive birth to the strongest, spear-bearing, great men, as if from men[?] youbrought forth the rich crop of Demeter’s fruit. 22Even though Melinno’s poem has been dated to various differentperiods, from the Hellenistic times to the early second century CE, 2321 The text is attested in Stobaeus 3.7.12, in the section ðåæd IíäæåßÆò.22 Translation modified from Lind (1972), taking into account Bowra (1957).23 In the Suppl. Hell., Lloyd-Jones and Parsons (1983), 269, describe the style ofthe poem as turgidus iste stilus et inanium iterationum strepitus, dating it in theHadrianic period. Usener (1900), 290, proposed metrical affiliations with Statius’Silu. 4.7, also in Sapphic stanzas, and therefore dated the poem in the first century CE,between Horace and Statius; contra see Giangrande (1991). For conjectures on theHellenistic origins of the poem, see Bowra (1957); Lind (1972), especially n.84, on theworship of Rome as a goddess attested as early as 195 BCE in Asia Minor, the festival

248 Motherhood and the Otherwe can safely follow the recent consensus concerning the dating tothe end of the first and beginning of the second century CE. Melinno’sperspective of Rome’s grandeur and primacy over the world reflectsthe representation of Roma as a warrior Amazon, as we saw above,but also, and most importantly, supports the goddess’ alignmentwith the role of Tellus, Terra Mater, since the city bears the greatestmen, as seen in the final stanza. Melinno’s poetic tropes echo thepatterns of Greek epic poetry, a tradition subsumed into the long lineof Latin epic: Rome is apostrophised as the daughter of Ares in thefirst line, a clear allusion to the opening lines from the cyclic Aethiopis,@æÅïò ŁıªÜôÅæ ìåªÆºÞôïæïò IíäæïçüíïØï (‘daughter of greatheartedAres, murderer of men’, fr.1 West). Melinno repositionsPenthesilea’s description from the beginning of the hexameter tothe end, thus allowing place for the hymnic åÆEæå and the name ofRome. The hymn also ends with epic overtones in ŒæÆôßóôïıò ¼íäæÆòÆNåìÆôaò ìåªÜºïıò evoking the great tradition in which the poetesssituates her work, but also refashioning the cosmos of martial epicpoetry into a female space, where the city clearly plays the role of themother, by means of images of fertility in the last stanza, reinforcedby the maternal earth and sea in the exact middle of the poem(óôÝæíÆ ªÆßÆò ŒÆd ðïºØAò ŁÆºÜóóÆò, 10). As Mellor has pointed out,‘despite its brevity, this little poem impressively encapsulates thethemes of Roman rule found in later Latin poetry’. 24 Although thenegotiation of Greekness vs Romanness in imperial Greek literatureis by no means the subject of this book, 25 I submit that Melinno’suniquely female voice contributes to our understanding of the negotiationof gender and identity as attested in imperial Latin epicpoetry, from the male perspective, especially when considered as aparallel with the representation of Roma as a virgin Amazon inFlavian art. Where literature problematises the relationship betweencalled Romaia earliest known from Delphi in 189 BCE, among other indications ofRome’s prestige in the eastern Mediterranean in the second century BCE; Mellor(1975), 121–4. Gauger (1984) dates Melinno in the early principate, followed byRaimondi’s (1995–8) perceptive study of Melinno and the themes of the poem,dating it most probably in the early second century CE, Torres Guerra (2003), andAlekniené (2006).24 Mellor (1975), 124.25 See e.g. Whitmarsh’s (2001) perceptive and insightful study on the subject.

Epilogue: Virgins and (M)others 249virginity, pudicitia, and the dangers of motherhood on the one hand,art elides the latter, refocusing the lens solely on the former.While sexual continence in the form of virginity represents theideal correctio morum promoted by the new regime and the princepspudicus, the presence of Amazonian imagery, in the figures of Romaand Minerva, is not altogether lacking further undertones. Minerva’sadoption for the championship of the last of the Flavians underscoresher status as the virgin protectress of the arts and especially weaving.26 Unfortunately, the state of the Cancelleria Reliefs will neverallow us to know their exact placement within other Flavian monuments27 and to prove a direct correlation between Minerva thewarrior and Minerva the punisher, as clearly depicted in the friezeof the Forum Transitorium. Arachne’s execution conceals Minerva’sdouble power as civiliser and ruthless warrior. As D’Ambra hascorrectly observed, ‘[Arachne] is trapped in her virginal state withoutever being able to become a bride, to marry and have children. Herlabor is sterile and fruitless.’ 28 Virginity has its own limitations. It isonly recognised as the antecedent of marriage; weaving and woolworkare not devoid of consequences. As we have seen, Hippolyte istransposed into the Athenian culture and will contribute to thefuture of the Athenian king, however gloomy that may prove bythe birth of Hippolytus.Preoccupation with Virtus and warrior Amazons does not stop inthe Cancelleria Relief and the Forum Transitorium, however. Domitian’sbuilding programme, it has been observed, serves his ‘policy ofcultural renewal’, his vision of moral and social reform. 29 Is it merecoincidence then that the fountain in the lower level of the DomusAugustana, the private section of the imperial abode on the Palatine,is made in the shape of Amazonian peltae (fig. 4)? 30 This lower floor26 Henderson (2003), 253: ‘no one should forget for a moment that this virgin[Minerva] can be a killer ...Mind Minerva on the war-path. Worth avoiding.’ Cf. alsoDominik (1994a), 177, on Minerva in the Thebaid.27 See Darwall-Smith (1996), 176, for possible positions in the Temple of FortunaRedux or the Porticus Diuorum.28 D’Ambra (1993), 108. Also Fredrick (2003), 223–7.29 D’Ambra (1993), 5.30 For Domitian’s palace (Domus Flavia and Augustana), see Darwall-Smith(1996), 185–201, and Packer (2003).

250 Motherhood and the OtherFigure 4. Rome, Domus Augustana, lower peristyle.is one of the few places of the complex visible from below thePalatine, 31 thus exposed to the people’s gaze, while at the sametime one of the emperor’s most private rooms (room 8 in fig. 5)leads directly to the Amazonian fountain. 32 Coincidence or wellcalculatedimperial propaganda? As MacDonald observes, ‘[Domitian]claimed the rounded whole of the earth, and it was this thatRabirius’ [the architect’s] creation was intended to declare.’ 33 If wecan judge from the pervasive use of the theme of Penthesilea’s defeatin the hands of Achilles, for instance, as preserved in the newlyexcavated villa of Herodes Atticus in the Peloponnese, chronologicallyof the same time period at the beginning of the second centuryCE (copied from a Hellenistic original), then we may draw some31 Darwall-Smith (1996), 200.32 MacDonald (1982), 74, observes that ‘the domed octagonal chambers of thelower level, each generated in radial symmetry from a vertical center line, impliedseamless perfection’.33 Ibid.

Epilogue: Virgins and (M)others 251123451413128 7101169151718160 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 30 METERSFigure 5. Rome, Domus Augustana, lower level, reprinted from MacDonald.conclusions about the importation of such depictions from theperiphery, as well as the influence of similar depictions ofthe Roman centre in the art of the periphery of the empire. 34 Theconquered periphery comes into the heart of the city, in the Palatine,while Domitian fashions himself as the conqueror and pacifier of thebarbarian extrema mundi. The relationship, however, seems to be one34 See Spyropoulos (2006) for pictures of fascinating mosaics from Herodes’ villa.For other iconic representations of Penthesilea and Hippolyte, see LIMC 1.596–601and 601–603 s.v. Amazones.

252 Motherhood and the Otherof mutual influence and interaction: the periphery is Romanised, butat the same time certain elements are being adopted by the centreand find their way into the emperor’s private abode, the DomusAugustana. 35 And yet, we should beware: as Fredrick has correctlypointed out, this is an emperor who meticulously exploits his buildingprogramme to facilitate his ability to ‘invade the supposedlyimpenetrable elite male body through surveillance and violence’. 36In light of our examination of both the Punica and the Thebaid,evenunder the emperor’s penetrating gaze, the poets of the periodendorse the emperor’s strategy of acculturation and assimilation, byidealising the trends already visible in the Second Punic War or bypointing to the failures following the Theban (and consequentlyRoman) fratricide.In any act of reading, there will always be many levels at work ...[E]verytime we read something, we play the role of a reader for whom this is new,while at the same time playing other reading roles which are not. It is in boththe gap and the communication between these levels of reading thatintelligibility can occur.(A. Sharrock, Seduction and Repetition in Ovid’s ‘Ars amatoria’ 2, 292)This study does not seek to claim that the Flavian poets are prescientfeminists, of course, but rather to underscore the problematisation ofdefining polarities, such as the ones we have been used to employingin categorising Roman vs non-Roman, male and female, the civilisedvs the barbaric and monstrous. In Domitianic Rome, as the foregoinganalysis has indicated, there is a subtle renegotiation of such binarisms,both on the narrative and visual levels, with the epic poets inthe forefront of such, in a sense paradoxical, ‘dialogue’ vis-à-vis theelusive and often misinterpreted emperor, if we can claim such arelationship in historical terms.35 In the opening quotation from Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica in the Introductionto this volume, Venus urges Medea to leave the isolation of her Amazonian landand follow Jason, a Roman Jason this time, to the centre of action. She urges Medea tobecome a Roman!36 Fredrick (2003), 201, making clear that this is not a trait of the ‘bad’ emperorsalone. See Vout (2007) on how the emperors’ ‘objects of lust’ are transformed intovisual representations of Roman hegemony.

Epilogue: Virgins and (M)others 253My own Kristevan lens, even though confined in its own limitationsof modern psychoanalysis, nevertheless proves an importanttool in analysing imperial Latin literature, a period fascinating in itsown right from our modern perspective: a big empire that reaches itspeak, with a growing anxiety concerning its future, and a profoundquestioning of the Virgilian aphorism sine fine. Upon this multifacetedtableau, the poets embroider several female figures both asautonomous and as asymbolic, both monstrous and grotesque, compellingand captivating, unexpected and yet predictable.In an era when the other does not and rather often should notconstitute or be conflated with the same, in an age when breaking thenorm is not always appreciated and endorsed, despite our claims tothe opposite, the Flavian poets lure us into partaking of a multilayereddiscourse on similar issues, in this incessant process of respicere,of ana- and proleptically looking forward to the future with afirm foot placed on the preceding literary history and historicalexempla. Otherness not only as ethnic, cultural, religious, or political(with its pro-, or anti-Domitianic overtones) but also as a renewalwrought on the core of the epic tradition, a breaking away from thenorm, either by a detour towards purely mythological themes, suchas the Thebaid (perhaps to extend the analogy, the Roma-id) orbyaturn in the direction of a seemingly, wholesome national epic, whichnevertheless is called by the enemy’s name, the Punica.

BibliographySee also pp. xiii–xiv for texts and translations used and abbreviations.Adams, J. N. (1982), The Latin Sexual Vocabulary (London: Duckworth).——(2003), ‘Romanitas and the Latin Language’, CQ 53: 184–205.Ahl, F. (1976), Lucan: An Introduction (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).——(1985), Metaformations: Soundplay and Wordplay in Ovid and OtherClassical Poets (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).——(1986), ‘Statius’ Thebaid: A Reconsideration’, ANRW 2.32.5:2803–912.——, Davis, M. A., and Pomeroy, A. (1986), ‘Silius Italicus’, ANRW 2.32.4:2492–561.Albrecht, M. von (1964), Silius Italicus: Freiheit und Gebundenheit römischerEpik (Amsterdam: P. Schippers).——(1968), ‘Claudia Quinta bei Silius Italicus und bei Ovid’, AU 11: 76–95.——(1999), Roman Epic: An Interpretative Introduction (Leiden, Boston,Cologne: Brill).Alekniené, T. (2006), ‘Le poème de Mélinno dans l’Anthologie de JeanStobée: Une erreur d’interprétation?’ Philologus 150: 198–202.Alexiou, M. (1974; 2nd edn 2002), The Ritual Lament in Greek Tradition(Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield).Anderson,W.S.(1999),‘Aeneid 11: The Saddest Book’, in C. Perkell,ed., Reading Vergil’s ‘Aeneid’ (Norman: Oklahoma University Press):195–209.Anzinger, S. (2007), Schweigen im römischen Epos. Zur Dramaturgie derKommunikation bei Vergil, Lucan, Valerius Flaccus und Statius (Berlinand New York: Walter de Gruyter).Aricò, G. (1960), ‘Sul mito di Lino e Corebo in Stat. Theb. I, 557–668’, RFIC38: 277–85.——(1961), ‘Stazio e l’Ipsipile euripidea. Note sull’imitazione staziana’,Dioniso 35: 56–67.——(1991), ‘La vicenda di Lemno in Stazio e Valerio Flacco,’ in M. Kornand H. J. Tschiedel, eds, Ratis omnia vincet: Untersuchungen zu den‘Argonautica’ des Valerius Flaccus (Hildesheim, Zurich, and New York:G. Olms): 197–210.

Bibliography 255Ariemma, E. M. (1999), ‘Silio Italico e il tradimento di Regolo (tra esemplaritàepica e understatement elegiaco)’, in G. Abbamonte, A. Rescigno,A. and R. Rossi, eds, Satura: Collectanea Philologica Italo Gallo ab AmicisDiscipulisque Dicata (Naples: Arte Tipografica): 79–116.——(ed.) (2000a), Alla Vigilia di Canne. Commentario al Libro VIII dei‘Punica’ di Silio Italico (Naples: Loffredo).——(2000b), ‘Tendenze degli studi su Silio Italico. Una panoramica sugliultimi quindici anni (1984–1999),’ BStudLat 30: 577–640.——(2004), ‘Lo spettro della fame, l’arsura della sete (Sil. II 461–474)’, inP. Esposito and E. M. Ariemma, eds, Lucano e la tradizione dell’epica latina(Venice: Guida): 153–91.——(2007), ‘Visitare i templi: Ripensamenti virgiliani (e lucanei) nei Punicadi Silio Italico’, Centopagine 1: 18–29.——(2010), ‘Cuncti Varro Mali: The Demagogue Varro in Punica 8–10’, inA. Augoustakis, ed., Brill Companion to Silicus Italicus (Leiden, Boston,Cologne: Brill): 241–76.Armiseen-Marchetti, M. (2003), ‘Les liens familiaux dans le Bellum civile deLucain’, in I. Gualandri and G. Mazzoli, eds, Gli Annei: Una famiglia nellastoria e nella cultura di Roma imperiale. Atti del Convegno internazionale diMilano–Pavia, 2–6 maggio 2000 (Como: New Press): 245–58.Arrigoni, G. (1984), ‘Amazzoni alla romana’, RSI 96: 871–919.Asso, P. (1999), ‘Passione eziologica nei Punica di Silio Italico: Trasimeno,Sagunto, Ercole e i Fabii’, Vichiana 1: 75–87.——(2001), ‘Passione eziologica nei Punica di Silio Italico: La morte diPirene’, AIONfilol 23: 215–32.——(2003), ‘Human Divinity: Hercules in the Punica’, Vichiana 5: 239–48.——(2010), ‘Hercules as a Paradigm of Roman Heroism,’ in A. Augoustakis,ed., Brill Companion to Silicus Italicus (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill):179–92.Augoustakis, A. (2001), Facta virum sileo: Reconstructing Female Action inSilius Italicus’ ‘Punica’ (Diss., Brown University, Providence, RI).——(2003a), ‘Lugendam formae sine uirginitate reliquit: Reading Pyrene andthe Transformation of Landscape in Silius’ Punica 3’, AJPh 124: 235–57.——(2003b), ‘Rapit infidum victor caput: Ekphrasis and Gender Role Reversalin Silius Italicus’ Punica 15’, in P. Thibodeau and H. Haskell, eds, Being ThereTogether (Minnesota: Afton Historical Society Press): 110–27.——(2005), ‘Two Greek Names in Silius Italicus’ Punica’, RhM 148 (2005):222–4.——(2006), ‘Coniunx in limine primo: Regulus and Marcia in Punica 6’,Ramus 35.2: 144–68.

256 BibliographyAugoustakis, A. (2007), ‘Unius amissi leonis: Taming the Lion and Caesar’sTears (Siluae 2.5)’, in A. Augoustakis and C. E. Newlands, eds, Statius’s‘Siluae’ and the Poetics of Intimacy, Arethusa 40: 207–21.——(2008a), ‘The Other as Same: Non-Roman Mothers in Silius Italicus’Punica’, CPh 103: 55–76.——(2008b), ‘An Insomniac’s Lament: The End of Poetic Power in Statius’Silvae 5.4’, in C. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Literature and RomanHistory 14 (Brussels: Latomus): 339–47.——ed. (2010a), Brill Companion to Silius Italicus (Leiden, Boston, Cologne:Brill).——(2010b), ‘Per hunc utero quem linquis nostro: Mothers in Flavian Epic’,in L. H. Petersen and P. Salzman-Mitchell, eds, Mothering and Motherhoodin Ancient Greece and Rome (Austin: University of Texas Press).——(forthcoming), ‘sine funeris ullo ardet honore rogus: Burning Pyres inLucan in Silius Italicus’ Punica’, in P. Asso, ed., Brill Companion to Lucan(Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill).——and Newlands, C. E. (2007), ‘Introduction: Statius’s Siluae and thePoetics of Intimacy’, in A. Augoustakis and C. E. Newlands, eds, Statius’s‘Siluae’ and the Poetics of Intimacy, Arethusa 40: 117–25.Auverlot, D. (1992), ‘Le catalogue des armées alliées de Carthage dans lesPunica de Silius Italicus: Construction et fonction (Livre III, vers 222 à414)’, IL 44.1: 3–11.Bahrenfuss, W. (1951), Die Abentuer der Argonauten auf Lemnos bei ApolloniosRhodios, Valerius Flaccus, Papinius Statius (Diss., Christian-Albrechts-Universität, Kiel).Baier, T., ed. (2001), Valerius Flaccus ‘Argonautica’ Buch VI. Einleitung undKommentar (Munich: G. H. Beck).Barchiesi, A. (2001a), ‘Geneaologie letterarie nell’epica imperiale: Fondamentalismoe ironia’, in E. A. Schmidt, ed., L’histoire littéraire immanentedans la poésie latine (Geneva: Fondation Hardt): 315–62.——(2001b), Speaking Volumes. Narrative and Intertext in Ovid and OtherLatin Poets (London: Duckworth).Barchiesi, M. (1962), Nevio epico. Storia, interpretazione, edizione critica deiframmenti del primo epos latino (Padua: Cedam).Barrett, W. S., ed. (1964), Euripides ‘Hippolytos’ (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress).Barthes, R. (1970), ‘L’étrangère’, La Quinzaine Littéraire 94, 1–15 mai: 19–20(repr. in English in Lechte and Zournazi [2003], 11–14).

Bibliography 257Bartsch, S. (1997), Ideology in Cold Blood (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress).Bassett, E. (1953), ‘Silius Italicus in England’, CPh 48: 155–68.——(1955), ‘Regulus and the Serpent in the Punica’, CPh 50: 1–20.——(1959), ‘Silius Punica 6.1–53’, CPh 54: 10–34.——(1963), ‘Scipio and the Ghost of Appius’, CPh 58: 73–92.——(1966), ‘Hercules and the Hero of the Punica’, in L. Wallach, ed., TheClassical Tradition: Studies in Honor of Harry Caplan (Ithaca, NY: CornellUniversity Press): 258–73.Beaty, M. D. (1960), Foreshadowing and Suspense in the ‘Punica’ of SiliusItalicus (Diss., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill).Bernstein, N. (2003), ‘Ancestors, Status, and Self-Presentation in Statius’Thebaid’, TAPhA 133: 353–79.——(2008), In the Image of the Ancestors: Narratives of Kinship in FlavianEpic (Toronto: University of Toronto Press).——(forthcoming), ‘The White Doe of Capua (Silius Italicus, Punica13.115–137)’, Scholia.Bessone, F. (2002), ‘Voce femminile e tradizione elegiaca nella Tebaide diStazio’, in A. Aloni, ed., I Sette a Tebe: Dal mito alla letteratura. Atti delseminario internazionale, Torino, 21–22 febbraio 2001 (Bologna: Pàtron):185–217.——(2006), ‘Un mito da dimenticare. Tragedia e memoria epic nellaTebaide’, MD 56: 93–127.——(2008), ‘Teseo, la clementia e la punizione dei tiranni: Esemplarità epessimismo nel finale della Tebaide’, Dictynna 5: 1–54.Bettenworth, A. (2004), Gastmahlszenen in der antiken Epik von Homer bisClaudian: Diachrone Untersuchungen zur Szenentypik (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht).Bettini, M. (1977), ‘Ennio in Silio Italico’, RFIC 105: 425–47.Billerbeck, M. (1983), ‘Die Unterweltbeschreibung in den Punica des SiliusItalicus’, Hermes 111: 326–38.—— (1986a), ‘Aspects of Stoicism in Flavian Epic’, in F. Cairns, ed., Papers ofthe Liverpool Latin Seminar, Fifth Volume 1985 (Liverpool: FrancisCairns): 341–56.——(1986b), ‘Stoizismus in der römischen Epik neronischer und flavischerZeit’, ANRW 2.32.5: 3134–43.Boëls-Janssen, N. (2002), ‘De Casina aux noces de l’âne: Les rites nuptiauxdétournés’, REL 80: 129–49.Bona, I. (1995), ‘Conoscenze etno-geografiche dell’Africa nei Punica di SilioItalico (III 231–324)’, AALig 52: 487–99.

258 BibliographyBona, I. (1996), ‘Dalla Spagna all’Italia. Il passagio delle Alpi nei Punica diSilio Italico’, in A. F. Bellezza, ed., Un incontro con la storia nel centenariodella nascita di Luca de Regibus 1895–1995 (Genoa: Università degli studidi Genova): 181–94.——(1998), La visione geografica nei ‘Punica’ di Silio Italico (Genoa:Università degli studi di Genova).Bonanno, A. (1976), Portraits and Other Heads on Roman Historical Relief upto the Age of Septimius Severus (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Bond, G. W., ed. (1963), Euripides ‘Hypsipyle’ (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress).Bonjour, M. (1975), Terre natale: Études sur une composante affective dupatriotisme romain (Paris: Les Belles Lettres).Bonneford-Coudry, M. and Späth, T., eds (2001), L’invention des grandshommes de la Rome antique. Actes du colloque du Collegium Beatus Rhenanus,August 16–18 septembre 1999 (Paris: De Boccard).Bouquet, J. (2001), Le songe dans l’épopée latine d’Ennius à Claudien(Brussels: Latomus).Bowra, C. M. (1957), ‘Melinno’s Hymn to Rome’, JRS 47: 21–8.Boyd, B. W. (1992), ‘Virgil’s Camilla and the Traditions of Catalogue andEcphrasis (Aeneid 7.803–17)’, AJPh 113: 213–34.Boyle, A. J., ed. (1987), The Imperial Muse: Ramus Essays on Roman Literatureof the Empire. To Juvenal through Ovid (Berwick, Australia: Aureal).——ed. (1990), The Imperial Muse: Ramus Essays on Roman Literature of theEmpire. Flavian Epicists to Claudian (Bendigo, Australia: Aureal).——ed. (1993), Roman Epic (London and New York: Routledge).——and Dominik, W. J., eds (2003), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text(Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill).Braun, L. (1999), Review of Brugnoli and Santini (1995), Gnomon 71: 727–9.Braund, S. H. (1996), ‘Ending Epic: Statius, Theseus and a Merciful Release’,PCPhS 42: 1–23.——(2006), ‘A Tale of Two Cities: Statius, Thebes, and Rome’, Phoenix 60:259–73.Brouwers, J. H. (1982), ‘Zur Lucan-Imitation bei Silius Italicus’, in J. denBoeft and A. H. M. Kessels, eds, Actus: Studies in Honour of H. L. W. Nelson(Utrecht: Instituut voor Klassieke Talen): 73–87.Brown, J. (1994), Into the Woods: Narrative Studies in the ‘Thebaid’ of Statiuswith Special Reference to Books IV–VI (Diss., Cambridge University, UK).Bruère, R. T. (1952), ‘Silius Italicus Punica 3.62–162 and 4.763–822’, CPh 47:219–27.——(1958), ‘Color Ovidianus in Silius’ Punica 1–7’, in N. I. Herescu, ed.,Ovidiana: Recherches sur Ovide (Paris: Les Belles Lettres): 475–99.

Bibliography 259Bruère, R. T. (1959), ‘Color Ovidianus in Silius’ Punica 8–17’, CPh 54: 228–45.——(1971), ‘Some Recollections of Virgil’s Drances in Later Epic’, CPh 66:30–34.Brugnoli, E. and Santini, C. (1995), L’additamentum Aldinum di Silio Italico(Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei).——(1998), ‘Un’occasione mancata’, GIF 50: 261–4.Burck, E. (1971), ‘Die Vorbereitung des Taciteischen Menschen- undHerrscherbildes in der Dichtung der frühen römischen Kaiserzeit’, inG. Radke, ed., Politik und literarische Kunst im Werk des Tacitus (Stuttgart:Klett): 37–60.——(1978), ‘Unwetterszenen bei den flavischen Epikern’, in Abhandlungender Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, Geistes- und SozialwissenschaftlichenKlasse 8 (Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und derLiteratur).——(1979), ‘Die Punica des Silius Italicus’, in E. Burck, M. von Albrecht,and W. Rutz, eds, Das römische Epos (Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft): 254–99.——(1981a), ‘Romanitas und Humanitas in der römischen Epik der frühenKaiserzeit’, in Letterature comparate: problemi e metodo. Studi in onore di E.Paratore (Bologna: Pàtron): 631–45.——(1981b), ‘Epische Bestattungsszenen. Ein literarhistorischer Vergleich’,in E. Lefèvre, ed., Vom Menschenbild in der römischen Literatur II(Heidelberg: Carl Winter): 429–87.——(1984a), ‘Silius Italicus: Hannibal in Capua und die Rückeroberung derStadt durch die Römer’, in Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaftenund der Literatur, Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 13 (Mainz:Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur).——(1984b), Historische und epische Tradition bei Silius Italicus (Munich:G. H. Beck).——(1988), ‘Fides in den Punica des Silius Italicus’, in J. Safarewicz, ed.,Munera Philologica et Historica Mariano Plezia oblata (Wroclaw: ZakladNarodowy im. Ossolinskich): 49–60.Burgess, J. F. (1972), ‘Statius’ Altar of Mercy’, CQ 22: 339–49.Burton, P. J. (1996), ‘The Summoning of the Magna Mater to Rome (205b.c.)’, Historia 45.1: 36–63.Bustamante, J. M. D. de (1985), ‘El sueño come motivo genérico y comomotivo tradicional en Silio Itálico’, Euphrosyne 13: 27–50.Butler, H. E. (1909), Post-Augustan Poetry from Seneca to Juvenal (Oxford:Clarendon Press).Calza, G. (1926–7), ‘La figurazione di Roman nell’ arte antica’, Dedalo 7:663–87.

260 BibliographyCampus, A. (2003), ‘Silio Italico, Punica, II, 391–456: Lo scudo di Annibale’,RAL 14.1: 13–42.Cantarella, E. (1995), ‘Marzia e la locatio uentris’, in R. Raffaelli, ed., Vicendee figure femminili in Grecia e a Roma: Atti del Convegno, Pesaro 28–30aprile 1994 (Ancona: Commissione per le pari opportunità tra uomo edonna della Regione Marche): 251–8.Carrara, P. (1986), ‘Stazio e i primordia di Tebe. Poetica e polemica nelprologo della Tebaide’, Prometheus 12: 146–58.Casale, P. F. G. (1954), Silio Italico (Mercato S. Severino).Casali, S. (2003), ‘Impius Aeneas, impia Hypsipyle: Narrazioni mensogneredell’Eneide alla Tebaide di Stazio’, Scholia 12: 60–68.——(2006), ‘The Poet at War: Ennius on the Field in Silius’ Punica’,Arethusa 39: 569–93.Castriota, D. (1995), The Ara Pacis Augustae and the Imagery of Abundance inLater Greek and Early Roman Imperial Art (Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press).Caviglia, F., ed. (1973), La ‘Tebaide’ Libro I (Roma: Ateneo).Citti, F. (1998), Review of Brugnoli-Santini (1995), Eikasmos 9: 453–60.Clare, R. J. (2004), ‘Tradition and Originality: Allusion in Valerius Flaccus’Lemnian Episode’, in M. Gale, ed., Latin Epic and Didactic Poetry (Swansea:Classical Press of Wales): 125–47.Clausen, W. (1994), Virgil Eclogues (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Coffee, N. (2006), ‘Eteocles, Polynices, and the Economics of Violence inStatius’ Thebaid’, AJP 127: 415–52.Coleman, K. M. (1986), ‘The Emperor Domitian and Literature’, ANRW2.32.5: 3087–115.——(2000), ‘Latin Literature After ad 96. Change or Continuity?’ AJAH 15:19–39.Cotta Ramosino, L. (1999), ‘Il supplizio della croce in Silio Italico: Pun.I.169–181 e VI. 539–544’, Aevum 73: 93–105.Courtney, E., ed. (1980), A Commentary on the ‘Satires’ of Juvenal (London:Athlone Press).Cowan, R. (2002), In My Beginning Is My End. Origins, Cities and Foundationsin Flavian Epic (Diss., Oxford University, UK).——(2007a), ‘The Headless City: The Decline and Fall of Capua in SiliusItalicus’ Punica’, ORA 1542, at http://ora.ouls.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid%3Adceb6b5a-980c-46ca-ac9e-088615e7fbea (accessed 3 Nov. 2009).——(2007b), ‘Reading Trojan Rome: Illegitimate Epithets, Avatars, andthe Limits of Analogy in Silius Italicus’ Punica’, ORA 1559, at http://ora.ouls.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid%3A11faca95-f158-4cef-a109-48b676c15baf(accessed 3 Nov. 2009).

Bibliography 261Cowan, R. (2009), ‘Thrasymennus’ Wanton Wedding: Etymology, Genre,and Virtus in Silius Italicus, Punica’, CQ 59.1: 226–37.——(2010), ‘Virtual Epic: Counterfactuals, Sideshadowing, and the Poetics ofContingency in the Punica’, in A. Augoustakis, ed., Brill Companion to SilicusItalicus (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill): 323–51.Criado, C. (1998), ‘El proemio de la “Tebaida” estaciana: Una estructura novirgiliana’, FlorIlib 9: 111–40.——(2000), La teología de la Tebaida Estaciana: El anti-virgilianismo de unclasicista (Hildesheim, Zurich, New York: Olms-Weidmann).Currie, H. (1958), ‘Lucan 3.8 ff. and Silius Italicus 17.158 ff.’, Mnemosyne11: 49–52.Czypicka, T. (1987), ‘Funzionalità del dialogo tra Venere e Giove nel libro IIIdelle Puniche di Silio Italico’, Eos 75: 87–93.D’Alessandro Behr, F. (2007), Feeling History: Lucan, Stoicism, and the Poeticsof Passion (Columbus: Ohio State University Press).D’Ambra, E. (1993), Private Lives, Imperial Virtues. The Frieze of the ForumTransitorium in Rome (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Danesi Marioni, G. (1989), ‘Un martirio stoico: Silio Italico, Pun. 1.169 sgg.’,Prometheus 15: 245–53.Darwall-Smith, R. H. (1996), Emperors and Architecture: A Study of FlavianRome (Brussels: Latomus).Davis, C. (1995), ‘The Abject: Kristeva and the Antigone’, Paroles Gelées 13:5–23.Decret, F. and Fantar, M. (1998), L’ Afrique du Nord dans l’antiquité, 2nd edn(Paris: Payot).Delarue, F. (2000), Stace, poète épique: Originalité et cohérence (Louvain andParis: Peeters).——et al., eds (1996), Epicedion. Hommage à P. Papinius Statius 96–1996(Poitiers: La Licorne).De Luca, T. (1937), L’ oltretomba nelle ‘Puniche’ di Silio Italico (Fano).De Martino, F. (2006), Poetesse greche (Bari: Levante).Deremetz, A. (2004), ‘Tradition, vraisemblance et autorité fictionelle’,Dictynna 1: 5–26.Devallet, G. (1987), ‘Silius Italicus et les rites funéraires: Punica 13.466–87’,in A.-M. Chanet, ed., Lalies: Actes des sessions de linguistique et de littérature9 (Paris: Presses de l’École Normale Supérieure): 153–60.——(1992), ‘La description du bouclier d’Hannibal chez Silius Italicus(Punica 2.395–456): Histoire et axiologie’, in M. Woronoff, ed., L’universépique: Rencontres avec l’antiquité classique II (Paris: Les Belles Lettres):189–99.——(1996), Review of Brugnoli-Santini (1995), RPh 70: 376–7.

262 BibliographyDewar, M., ed. (1991), Statius ‘Thebaid’ IX (Oxford: Clarendon Press).——(2003), ‘Multi-Ethnic Armies in Virgil, Lucan, and Claudian: Intertextuality,War, and the Ideology of Romanitas’, SyllClass 14: 143–59.Dietrich, J. S. (1999), ‘“Thebaid”’s Feminine Ending’, Ramus 28: 40–52.——(2004), ‘Rewriting Dido: Flavian Responses to Aeneid 4’, Prudentia36.1: 1–30.——(2005), ‘The Sorrow of Scipio in Silius Italicus’ Punica’, Ramus 34:75–91.Dixon, S. (1990), The Roman Mother, 2nd edn (London and New York:Routledge).——(1992), The Roman Family (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins UniversityPress).Dominik, W. J. (1994a), The Mythic Voice of Statius. Power and Politics inthe ‘Thebaid’ (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill).——(1994b), Speech and Rhetoric in Statius’ ‘Thebaid’ (Hildesheim, Zurich,New York: Olms-Weidmann).——(1997), ‘Ratio et dei: Psychology and the Supernatural in the LemnianEpisode’, in C. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History8 (Brussels: Latomus): 29–50.——(2003a), ‘Hannibal at the Gates: Programmatising Rome and Romanitasin Silius Italicus’ Punica 1 and 2’, in A. J. Boyle and W. J. Dominik, eds,Flavian Rome (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill): 469–97.——(2003b), ‘Following in Whose Footsteps? The Epilogue to Statius’Thebaid’, in A. F. Basson and W. J. Dominik, eds, Literature, Art, History:Studies on Classical Antiquity and Tradition in Honour of W. J. Henderson(Frankfurt am Main: Lang): 91–109.——(2006), ‘Rome Then and Now: Linking the Saguntum and CannaeEpisodes in Silius Italicus’ Punica’, in R. R. Nauta, H.-J. van Dam, andJ. J. L. Smolenaars, eds, Flavian Poetry (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill):113–27.Dorfbauer, L. J. (2008), ‘Hannibal, Ennius und Silius Italicus: Beobachtungenzum 12. Buch der Punica’, RhM 151: 83–108.Dräger, P. (1995), ‘Jasons Mutter—Wandlung von einer griechischenheroine zu einer römischen Matrone’, Hermes 123: 470–89.DuBois, P. (1982), Centaurs and Amazons. Women and the Pre-History of theGreat Chain of Being (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press).Dutsch, D. M. (2008), Feminine Discourse in Roman Comedy. On Echoes andVoices (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Esposito, P. (2004), ‘Lucano e la “negazione per antitesi”’, in P. Espositoand E. M. Ariemma, eds, Lucano e la tradizione dell’epica latina (Venice:Guida): 39–67.

Bibliography 263Esposito, P. and Ariemma, E. M., eds (2004), Lucano e la tradizione dell’epicalatina (Venice: Guida).——and Nicastri, L., eds (1999), Interpretare Lucano (Naples: Arte Tipografica).Fantham, E., ed. (1982), Seneca’s ‘Troades’ (Princeton, NJ: PrincetonUniversity Press).——ed. (1992), Lucan, ‘De bello civili’ 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress).——(1997), ‘Envy and Fear the Begetter of Hate?: Statius’ Thebaid and theGenesis of Hatred’, in S. M. Braund and C. Gill, eds, The Passions inRoman Thought and Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press):185–212.——(1999), ‘The Role of Lament in the Growth and Eclipse of Roman Epic’,in M. Beissinger, J. Tylus, and S. Wofford, eds, Epic Traditions in theContemporary World: The Poetics of Community (Berkeley, Los Angeles,London: University of California Press): 221–35.Farrell, J. (1999), ‘Aeneid 5. Poetry and Parenthood’, in C. Perkell, ed.,Reading Vergil’s ‘Aeneid’ (Norman Oklahoma University Press): 96–110.Feeney, D. C. (1991), The Gods in Epic: Poets and Critics of the ClassicalTradition (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Fernandelli, M. (2006), ‘La maniera classicistica di Silio. Tre esempi dal libroVII’, in Incontri triestini di Filologia Classica 5: 73–118.Fiehn, C. (1917), Quaestiones Statianae (Diss., Friderica Guilelma University,Berlin).Fincher, H. (1979), AThematic Study of Silius Italicus’ ‘Punica’ (Diss., FloridaState University, Tallahassee).Finiello, C. (2005), ‘Der Bürgerkrieg: Reine Männersache? Keine Männersache!Erictho und die Frauengestalten im Bellum ciuile Lucans’, inC. Walde, ed., Lucan im 21. Jahrhundert. Lucan in the 21st century. Lucanonei primi del XXI secolo (Munich and Leipzig: K. G. Saur): 155–85.Fortgens, H. W., ed. (1934), P. Papinii Statii de Opheltis funere carmenepicum, ‘Thebaidos’ Liber VI 1–295, versione batava commentarioqueexegetico instructum (Zutphen: Nauta & Co).Fowler, D. (1996), ‘Even Better Than the Real Thing: A Tale of Two Cities’, inJ. Elsner, ed., Art and Text in Roman Culture (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press): 57–74 (repr. in Fowler [2000], 86–107).——(2000), Roman Constructions. Readings in Postmodern Latin (Oxfordand New York: Oxford University Press).Franchet d’Espèrey, S. (1977), ‘Variations épiques sur un thème animalier’,REL 55: 157–72.

264 BibliographyFranchet d’Espèrey, S. (1999), Conflit, violence et non-violence dans la‘Thébaïde’ de Stace (Paris: Les Belles Lettres).Frank, M., ed. (1995), Seneca’s ‘Phoenissai’. Introduction and Commentary(Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill).Fredrick, D. (2003), ‘Architecture and Surveillance in Flavian Rome’, inA. J. Boyle and W. J. Dominik, eds, Flavian Rome (Leiden, Boston,Cologne: Brill): 199–227.Freudenburg, K. (2001), Satires of Rome. Threatening Poses from Lucilius toJuvenal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Frings, I. (1991), Gespräch und Handlung in der ‘Thebais’ des Statius(Stuttgart and Leipzig: B. G. Teubner).——(1992), ‘Odia fraterna’ als manieristisches Motiv—Betrachtungen zuSenecas ‘Thyest’ und Statius’ ‘Thebais’ (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner).——(1996), ‘Hypsipyle und Aeneas—zur Vergilimitation in Thebaid V’, inF. Delarue et al., eds, Epicedion (Poitiers: La Licorne): 145–60.Frölich, U. (2000), Regulus, Archtyp römischer Fides: Das sechste Buch alsSchlüssel zu den ‘Punica’ des Silius Italicus (Tübingen: Stauffenburg).Fucecchi, M. (1990), ‘Empietà e titanismo nella rappresentazione Siliana diAnnibale’, Orpheus 11: 21–42.——(1992), ‘Irarum proles: un figlio di Annibale nei Punica di Silio Italico’,Maia 44: 45–54.——ed. (1997), La teichoscopia e l’innammoramento di Medea. Saggio dicommento a Valerio Flacco ‘Argonautiche’ 6.427–760 (Pisa: ETS).——(1999), ‘La vigilia di Canne nei Punica e un contributo allo studio deirapporti fra Silio Italico e Lucano’, in P. Esposito and L. Nicastri, eds,Interpretare Lucano (Naples: Arte Tipografica): 305–42.——(2003), ‘I Punica e altre storie di Roma nell’epos di Silio Italico’, inA. Casanova and P. Desideri, eds, Evento, racconto, scrittura nell’antichitàclassica: Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi: Firenze, 25–26 novembre2002 (Florence: Università di Firenze): 269–92.——(2005), ‘Il passato come nemico: Annibale e la velleitaria lotta controuna storia esemplare’, Dictynna 2: 1–29.——(2007), ‘Camilla e Ippolita, ovvero un paradosso e il suo rovescio’,CentoPagine 1 (2007): 8–17.——(2010), ‘The Shield and the Sword: Q. Fabius Maximus and M.Claudius Marcellus as Models of Heroism in Silius’ Punica’, in A. Augoustakis,ed., Brill Companion to Silius Italicus (Leiden, Boston, Cologne:Brill): 219–39.Fulkerson, L. (2005), The Ovidian Heroine as Author: Reading, Writing, andCommunity in the Heroides (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Bibliography 265Gale, M., ed. (2004), Latin Epic and Didactic Poetry. Genre, Tradition, andIndividuality (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales).Galinsky, K. (1981), ‘Vergil’s Romanitas and his Adaptation of Greek Heroes’,ANRW 2.31.2: 985–1010.Ganiban, R. T. (2007), Statius and Virgil: The ‘Thebaid’ and the Reinterpretationof the ‘Aeneid’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).——(2010), ‘Virgil’s Dido and the Heroism of Hannibal in Silius’ Punica’,in A. Augoustakis, ed., Brill Companion to Silius Italicus (Leiden, Boston,Cologne: Brill): 73–98.Gauger, J. D. (1984), ‘Der Rom-Hymnos der Melinno (Anth. Lyr. II 6,209 f.)und die Vorstellung von der Ewigkeit Roms’, Chiron 14: 267–99.Gendre, M. and Loutsch, C. (2001), ‘C. Duilius et M. Atilius Regulus’, inM. Bonneford-Coudry and T. Späth, eds, L’invention des grands hommesde la Rome antique (Paris: De Boccard): 131–72.Georgacopoulou, S. (1996a), ‘Catalogues et listes de personnages dans laThébaïde’, in F. Delarue et al., Epicedion (Poitiers: La Licorne): 93–129.——(1996b), ‘Clio dans la Thébaïde de Stace: À la recherche du kléos perdu’,MD 37: 167–91.——(2005), Aux frontières du récit épique: L’emploi de l’apostrophe dunarrateur dans la ‘Thébaïde’ de Stace (Brussels: Latomus).Gesztelyi, T. (1981), ‘Tellus–Terra Mater in der Zeit des Prinzipats’, ANRW2.17.1: 429–56.Giangrande, G. (1991), ‘Melinno’, in F. De Martino, ed., Rose di Pieria (Bari:Levante): 221–46.Gibson, B. J. (2004), ‘The Repetitions of Hypsipyle’, in M. Gale, ed., LatinEpic and Didactic Poetry (Swansea: Classical Press of Wales): 149–80.——(2005), ‘Hannibal at Gades: Silius Italicus 3.1–60’, Papers of the LangfordLatin Seminar 12: 177–95.——(2010), ‘Silius Italicus: A Consular Historian?’ in A. Augoustakis, ed.,Brill Companion to Silius Italicus (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill): 47–72.Goldman, M. (1997), A Commentary on Silius Italicus’ ‘Punica’ 8.25–241(Master’s thesis, University of Kansas, Lawrence).Götting, M. (1969), Hypsipyle in der ‘Thebais’ des Statius (Diss., UniversitätTübingen).Grelle, F. (1980), ‘La correctio morum nella legislazione flavia’, ANRW 2.13:340–65.Groesst, J. (1887), Quatenus Silius Italicus a Vergilio pendere videatur (Diss.,Martin-Luther-Universität, Halle-Wittenberg).Gruzelier, C. (1994), ‘The influence of Virgil’s Dido on Statius’ portrayal ofHypsipyle’, Prudentia 26: 153–65.

266 BibliographyHaar, L. G. J. ter (1997), ‘Sporen van Silius’ Punica in boek 1 en 2 vanPetrarca’s Africa’, Lampas 30.3: 154–62.Håkanson, L. (1973), Statius’ ‘Thebaid’. Critical and Exegetical Remarks(Lund: Liber-Läromedel/Gleerup).——(1976), Silius Italicus. Kritische und Exegetische Bemerkungen (Lund:Liber-Läromedel/Gleerup).Hall, E. (1989), Inventing the Barbarian: Greek Self-Definition through Tragedy(Oxford: Oxford University Press).Hardie, P. (1990), ‘Ovid’s Theban History: The First “Anti-Aeneid”?’ CQ 40:224–35.——(1993a), The Epic Successors of Virgil (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress).——(1993b), ‘Tales of Unity and Division in Imperial Latin Epic’, inJ. H. Molyneux, ed., Literary Responses to Civil Discord (Nottingham:University of Nottingham): 57–75.——(1997), ‘Closure in Latin Epic’, in D. Roberts, F. Dunn, and D. Fowler,eds, Classical Closure: Reading the End in Greek and Latin Literature(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press): 139–62.——(2002), Ovid’s Poetics of Illusion (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress).——(2004), ‘In the Steps of the Sibyl: Tradition and Desire in the EpicUnderworld’, MD 52: 143–56.Hardwick, L. (1990), ‘Ancient Amazons—Heroes, Outsiders, or Women’,Greece & Rome 37: 14–36.Harich-Graz, H. (1990), ‘Catonis Marcia: Stoisches Kolorit eines Frauenportraitsbei Lucan (II 326–350)’, Gymnasium 97: 212–23.Harrison, S. J. (2010), ‘Picturing the Future Again: Proleptic Ekphrasis inSilius’ Punica’, in A. Augoustakis ed., Brill Companion to Silius Italicus(Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill): 279–92.Hartmann, J. M. (2004), Flavische Epik im Spannungsfeld von generischerTradition und zeitgenössischer Gesellschaft (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang).Häussler, R. (1978), Das historische Epos von Lucan bis Silius und seineTheorie. Studien zum historischen Epos der Antike. II. Teil: GeschichtlicheEpik nach Virgil (Heidelberg: Carl Winter).Heinrich, A. (1999), ‘Longa retro series: Sacrifice and Repetition in Statius’Menoeceus Episode’, Arethusa 32: 165–95.Heitland, W. E. (1896), ‘The “Great Lacuna” in the Eighth Book of SiliusItalicus’, Journal of Philology 24: 188–211.Helm, R. (1892), De P. Papinii Statii ‘Thebaide’ (Berlin: Mayer & Mueller).Helzle, M. (1996), Der Stil ist der Mensch: Redner und Reden im römischenEpos (Stuttgart and Leipzig: B. G. Teubner).

Bibliography 267Hemelrijk, E. A. (1999), Matrona docta: Educated Women in the Roman Élitefrom Cornelia to Julia Domna (London and New York: Routledge).Henderson, D. and Yellin, M. E. (2004), Cato: A Tragedy and Selected Essays(Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund).Henderson, J. (1987), ‘Lucan / The Word at War’, in A. J. Boyle, ed., The ImperialMuse ...To Juvenal through Ovid (Berwick, Austral: Aureal): 122–64.——(1991), ‘Statius’ Thebaid / Form Premade’, PCPhS 37: 30–80.——(1993), ‘Form Remade / Statius’ Thebaid’, in A. J. Boyle, ed., RomanEpic (London and New York: Routledge): 162–91.——(1998), Fighting for Rome. Poets and Caesars, History and Civil War(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).——(2003), ‘Par Operi Sedes: Mrs Arthur Strong and Flavian Style, TheArch of Titus and the Cancellaria Reliefs’, in A. J. Boyle and W. J. Dominik,eds, Flavian Rome (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill): 229–54.Hershkowitz, D. (1994), ‘Sexuality and Madness in Statius’ Thebaid,’ MD 33:123–47.——(1995). ‘Patterns of Madness in Statius’ Thebaid’, JRS 85: 52–64.——(1997), ‘Parce metu, Cytherea: “Failed” Intertext Repetition in Statius’Thebaid, or, Don’t Stop Me If You’ve Heard This One Before’, MD 39: 35–52.——(1998a), The Madness of Epic: Reading Insanity from Homer to Statius(Oxford: Clarendon Press).——(1998b), Valerius Flaccus’ ‘Argonautica’: Abbreviated Voyages in SilverLatin Epic (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Heslin, P. J. (2005), The Transvestite Achilles: Gender and Genre in Statius’‘Achilleid’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).——(2008), ‘Statius and the Greek Tragedians on Athens, Thebes andRome’, in J. J. L. Smolenaars, H. J. van Dam, and R. R. Nauta, eds, ThePoetry of Statius (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill): 111–28.Heuvel, H. (1932), Publii Papinii Statii ‘Thebaidos’ Liber Primus (Zutphen:Nauta & Co).Heynacher, M. (1877), Über die Stellung des Silius Italicus unter den Quellenzum zweiten punischen Krieg (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung).Hill, D. E. (2008), ‘Jupiter in Thebaid 1 Again’, in J. J. L. Smolenaars, H. J. vanDam, and R. R. Nauta, eds, The Poetry of Statius (Leiden, Boston,Cologne: Brill): 129–41.Hinds, S. (1998), Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation inRoman Poetry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Hingley, R. (2005), Globalizing Roman Culture, (London and New York:Routledge).Hoffmann, M., ed. (1999), Statius, ‘Thebais’ 12, 312–463. Einleitung, Übersetzung,Kommentar (Göttingen: Duehrkohp & Radicke).

268 BibliographyHolland, J. E. (1976), Studies on the Heroic Tradition in the ‘Thebaid’ ofStatius (Diss., University of Missouri).Holst-Wahrhaft, G. (1992), Dangerous Voices: Women’s Laments and GreekLiterature (London and New York: Routledge).Hornsby, R. (1966), ‘The Armor of the Slain’, PQ 45: 347–59.Horsfall, N., ed. (2000), Virgil, ‘Aeneid’ 7: A Commentary (Leiden, Boston,Cologne: Brill).——ed. (2003), Virgil, ‘Aeneid’ 11: A Commentary (Leiden, Boston, Cologne:Brill).Howell, P. (1980), A Commentary on Book 1 of the Epigrams of Martial(London: Athlone Press).Hunter, R. L. (1989), Apollonius of Rhodes ‘Argonautica’ Book III (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press).Hutchinson, G. O. (1993), Latin Literature from Seneca to Juvenal (Oxford:Oxford University Press).Jamset, C. (2005), Marginal Men: Gender and Epic Identity in Statius’Parthenopaeus and Achilles (Diss., Oxford University, UK).Janan, M. (2001), The Politics of Desire. Propertius IV (Berkeley, Los Angeles,London: University of California Press).Jensen, B. (2002), Leaving the M/other. Whitman, Kristeva, and Leaves ofGrass, (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press).Jones, B. W. ed. (1996), Suetonius ‘Domitian’ (London: Bristol ClassicalPress).Joshel, S. (1997), ‘Female Desire and the Discourse of Empire: Tacitus’sMessalina’, in J. P. Hallett and M. B. Skinner, eds, Roman Sexualities(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press): 221–54.Juhnke, H. (1972), Homerisches in römischer Epik flavischer Zeit: Untersuchungenzu Szenennachbildungen und Strukturentsprechungen in Statius’‘Thebais’ und ‘Achilleis’ und in Silius’ ‘Punica’ (Munich: G. H. Beck).Keane, C. (2006), Figuring Genre in Roman Satire (New York and Oxford:Oxford University Press).Keith, A. M. (2000), Engendering Rome: Women in Latin Epic (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press).——(2002), ‘Ovidian Personae in Statius’s Thebaid’, Arethusa 35: 381–402.——(2004–5), ‘Ovid’s Theban Narrative in Statius’ Thebaid’, Hermathena177, 178: 177–202.——(2007), ‘Imperial Building Projects and Architectural Ecphrases inOvid’s Metamorphoses and Statius’ Thebaid’, Mouseion 7: 1–26.——(2010), ‘Engendering Orientalism in Silius’ Punica’, in A. Augoustakis,ed., Brill Companion to Silius Italicus (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill):355–73.

Bibliography 269Keller, E. (1967), ‘Studien zu den Cancelleria-Reliefs’, Klio 49: 193–215.Kissel, W. (1979), Das Geschichtsbild des Silius Italicus (Frankfurt am Mainand Bern: Peter Lang).Klaassen, E. K. (2010), ‘Imitation and the Hero,’ in A. Augoustakis, ed., BrillCompanion to Silius Italicus (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill): 99–126.Kleiner, D. E. E. (1992), Roman Sculpture (New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress).Kleingeld, P. and Brown, E. (2002), ‘Cosmopolitanism’, in E. N. Zalta, ed.,The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmopolitanism (accessed 3 Nov. 2009).Klotz, A. (1933), ‘Die Stellung des Silius Italicus unter den Quellen zurGeschichte des zweiten punischen Krieges’, RhM 82: 1–34.Knox, P. (1995), Ovid Heroides: Select Epistles (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press).König, J. (2005), Athletics and Literature in the Roman Empire (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press).Konstan, D. (1993), ‘Sexuality and Power in Juvenal’s Second Satire’, LCM18: 12–14.——(2000), ‘Women, Ethnicity and Power in the Roman Empire’, at http://www.stoa.org/diotima/essays/konstan1.pdf (accessed 3 Nov. 2009).——(2005), ‘Plato’s Ion and the Psycholanalytic Theory of Art’, Journalof the International Plato Society 5: 1–7, at http://www.nd.edu/~plato/plato5issue/Konstan.pdf (accessed 3 Nov. 2009).——(2009), ‘Cosmopolitan Traditions’, in R. Balot, ed., A Companion toGreek and Roman Political Thought (Oxford: Blackwell): 473–84.Kornhardt, H. (1954), ‘Regulus und die Cannaegefangenen: Studien zumrömischen Heimkehrrecht’, Hermes 52: 85–123.Kristeva, J. (1969), SmeiotiwÞ (Séméiótiké): Recherches pour une sémanalyse(Seuil: Paris).——(1979), ‘Le temps des femmes’, 33/34 Cahiers de recherche de sciences destextes et documents 5: 5–19.——(1981), ‘Women’s Time’, Signs 7: 13–35.——(1982), Powers of Horror, trans. L. S. Roudiez (New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press).——(1984), Revolution in Poetic Language, trans. M. Waller (New York:Columbia University Press).——(1986), Tales of Love,trans.L.S.Roudiez(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress).——(1989), Black Sun: Depression and Melancholy, trans. L. S. Roudiez(New York: Columbia University Press).

270 BibliographyKristeva,J.(1991),Strangers to Ourselves, trans. L. S. Roudiez (New York:Columbia University Press).——(1998), Visions capitales (Paris: Réunion des Musées Nationaux).Krumbholz, G. (1955), ‘Der Erzählungsstil in der Thebais des Statius’, Glotta3435: 93–139 and 231–60.Küppers, J. (1986), Tantarum causas irarum: Untersuchungen zur einleitendenBücherdyade der ‘Punica’ des Silius Italicus (Berlin and New York: Walter deGruyter).Kyriakidis, S. and De Martino, F., eds (2004), Middles in Latin Poetry (Bari:Levante).Kytzler, B. (1960), ‘Beobachtungen zum Prooemium der Thebais’, Hermes88: 331–54.——(1969), ‘Imitatio und Aemulatio in der Thebais des Statius’, Hermes 97:209–32.——(1986), ‘Zum Aufbau der statianischen Thebais. Pius Coroebus, Theb.I 557–692’, ANRW 2.32.5: 2913–24.——(1996), ‘Sola fida suis: Die Hypsipyle-Erzählung des Statius (Thebais,Buch 5)’, JAC 11: 43–51.Laird, A. (1999), Powers of Expression, Expressions of Power. Speech Presentationin Latin Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Langlands, R. (2006), Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press).La Penna, A. (1981), ‘Tipi e modelli femminili nella poesia dell’epoca deiFlavi’, in Atti del congresso internazionale di studi vespasianei in Rieti 1979(Rieti: Centro di studi varroniani): 223–51.——(2000), Eros dai Cento Volti: Modelli etici ed estetici nell’età dei Flavi(Venice: Marsilio).Laudizi, G. (1989), Silio Italico. Il passato tra mito e restaurazione etica(Galatina: Congredo).Lazenby, J. F. (1996), The First Punic War (Stanford, CA: Stanford UniversityPress).Lechte, J. (1990), Julia Kristeva (London and New York: Routledge).——and Zournazi, M., eds (2003), The Kristeva Critical Reader (Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press).Legras, L. (1905), Étude sur la ‘Thébaïde’ de Stace (Paris: Société nouvelle delibrairie et d’édition).Leitch, V. B., ed. (2001), The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism(New York and London: W. W. Norton & Company).Lemaire, N. E., ed. (1823), Caius Silius Italicus. Punicorum libri septendecim,2 vols (Paris).

Bibliography 271Lesueur, R. (1986), ‘Les personnages féminins dans la Thébaïde de Stace’,BSTEC 189–90: 19–32.——(1992), ‘Les femmes dans la Thébaïde de Stace’, in M. Woronoff, ed.,L’univers épique: Rencontres avec l’antiquité classique II (Paris: Les BellesLettres): 229–43.——(1996), ‘La Thébaïde et ses deux voix: Le politique et le privé’, inF. Delarue et al., eds, Epicedion (Poitiers: La Licorne): 71–81.——(ed.) (2003a), Stace Thébaïde, 3 vols, 2nd edn (Paris: Les Belles Lettres).——(2003b), ‘Claudia et la composition du livre XII de la Thébaïde’, REL 81:190–99.Liberman, G., ed. (2002), Valerius Flaccus: ‘Argonautiques’ Chants V–VIII(Paris: Les Belles Lettres).Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. (1979), Continuity and Change in Roman Religion(Oxford: Clarendon Press).Lind, L. R. (1972), ‘Concept, Action, and Character. The Reasons for Rome’sGreatness’, TAPhA 103: 235–83.Loraux, N. (1998), Mothers in Mourning (Ithaca, NY, and London: CornellUniversity Press).Lorenz, G. (1968), Vergleichende Interpretationen zu Silius Italicus und Statius(Diss., Christian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel).Lösch, S. (2008), ‘Dulce loqui miseris ueteresque reducere questus—ZurLemnos-Episode bei Statius (Theb. 5.49–498)’, in V.M. et al., eds, Vergilund das antike Epos Strocka (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Ver): 367–85.Lovatt, H. (1999), ‘Competing Endings: Re-Reading the End of the Thebaidthrough Lucan’, Ramus 28: 126–51.——(2005), Statius and Epic Games: Sport, Politics and Poetics in the‘Thebaid’ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).——(2006), ‘The Female Gaze in Flavian Epic: Looking Out from the Wallsin Valerius Flaccus and Statius’, in R. R. Nauta, H.-J. van Dam, and J. J. L.Smolenaars, eds, Flavian Poetry (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill): 59–78.——(2007), ‘Statius on Parade: Performing Argive Identity in Thebaid6.268–95’, PCPhS 53: 72–95.——(2010), ‘Interplay: Silius and Statius in the Games of Punica 16’, inA. Augoustakis, ed., Brill Companion to Silius Italicus (Leiden, Boston,Cologne: Brill): 155–76.Lucarini,C.M.(2004),‘LefontistorichediSilioItalico’,Athenaeum 92: 103–26.MacDonald, W. L. (1982), The Architecture of the Roman Empire, vol. I: AnIntroductory Study (New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press).Magi, F. (1945), I rilievi flavi del palazzo della Cancelleria (Rome: La PontificiaAccademia Romana di Archeologia).

272 BibliographyManolaraki, E. (2010), ‘Silius’ Natural History: Tides in the Punica’, inA. Augoustakis, ed., Brill Companion to Silius Italicus (Leiden, Boston,Cologne: Brill): 293–321.Manuwald, G. (2000), ‘Der Tod der Eltern Iasons. Zu Valerius Flaccus, Arg.1,693–850’, Philologus 144: 325–38.——(2007), ‘Epic Poets as Characters: On Poetics and Multiple Intertextualityin Silius Italicus’ Punica’, RFIC 135: 71–90.Marks, R. (1999), Scipio Africanus in the Punica of Silius Italicus (Diss.,Brown University, Providence, RI).——(2003), ‘Hannibal in Liternum’, in P. Thibodeau and H. Haskell, eds,Being There Together (Minnesota: Afton Historical Society Press): 128–44.——(2005a), From Republic to Empire. Scipio Africanus in the ‘Punica’ ofSilius Italicus (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang).——(2005b), ‘Per uulnera regnum: Self-Destruction, Self-Sacrifice andDeuotio in Punica 4–10’, Ramus 34: 127–51.——(2006), ‘En, reddo tua tela tibi: Crista and Sons in Silius, Pun. X,92–169’, in C. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History13 (Brussels: Latomus): 390–404.——(2008), ‘Getting Ahead: Decapitation as Political Metaphor in SiliusItalicus’ Punica’, Mnemosyne 61: 66–88.——(2010), ‘Silius and Lucan’, in A. Augoustakis, ed., Brill Companion toSilius Italicus (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill): 127–53.Markus, D. (2000), ‘Performing the Book: The Recital of Epic in First-Century c.e. Rome’, CA 19: 138–79.——(2003), ‘The Politics of Epic Performance in Statius’, in A. J. Boyleand W. J. Dominik, eds, Flavian Rome (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill):431–67.Martin, M. (1979), ‘Le monstre de Bagrada: Silius Italicus Punica 6.146–296’,Eidôlon 7: 20–42.——(1980), ‘Le carmen bucolique dans l’univers épique: Daphnis et le“pseudo-Daphnis” ou le reflet trompeur (Silius Italicus, Punica, XIV)’,in Orphea Voce: Cahiers du Groupe de recherches sur la poésie latine(Bordeaux: Université de Bordeaux III): 149–75.——and Devallet, G., eds (1992), Silius Italicus: La guerre punique. LivresXIV–XVII (Paris: Les Belles Lettres).Masters, J. (1992), Poetry and Civil War in Lucan’s ‘Bellum civile’ (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press).Masterson, M. (2005), ‘Statius’ Thebaid and the Realization of RomanManhood’, Phoenix 59: 288–315.Mastronarde, D. J., ed. (1994), Euripides ‘Phoenissai’ (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press).

Bibliography 273Matier, K. O. (1989), Silius Italicus at Bay: Pliny, Prejudice and the Punica(Durban: University of Durban-Westville).——(1991), ‘The Influence of Ennius on Silius Italicus’, Akroterion 36: 153–8.Matthews, V. J., ed. (1996), Antimachus of Colophon: Text and Commentary(Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill).Mattingley, H. (1993), ‘L. Porcius Licinus and the Beginning of Latin Poetry’,in H. D. Jocelyn and H. Hurt, eds, Tria lustra: Essays and Notes Presentedto John Pinsent (Liverpool: Liverpool Classical Monthly): 163–8.Mauri, R. (1998), ‘Ricerca di modelli ellenistici nel proemio della Tebaide diStazio’, Acme 51: 221–5.McAfee, N. (2004), Julia Kristeva, (New York and London: Routledge).McDermott, W. C. and Orentzel, A. E. (1977), ‘Silius Italicus and Domitian’,AJPh 98: 24–34.McDonnell, M. (2006), Roman Manliness. Virtus and the Roman Republic(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).McGuire, D. T., Jr (1990), ‘Textual Strategies and Political Suicide in FlavianEpic’, in A. J. Boyle, ed., The Imperial Muse ...Flavian Epicists to Claudian(Bendigo, Australia: Aureal): 21–45.——(1995), ‘History Compressed the Roman Names of Silius’ CannaeEpisode’, Latomus 54: 110–18.——(1997), Acts of Silence. Civil War, Tyranny, and Suicide in the FlavianEpics (Hildesheim, Zurich, New York: Olms-Weidmann).McGushin, P. (1985), The Transmission of the ‘Punica’ of Silius Italicus(Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert).McNelis, C. (2004), ‘Middle-March: Statius’ Thebaid 7 and the Beginning ofBattle Narrative’, in S. Kyriakidis and F. De Martino, eds, Middles in LatinPoetry (Bari: Levante): 261–309.——(2007), Statius’ ‘Thebaid’ and the Poetics of Civil War (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press).Mellor, R. (1975), ¨åÜ œÑþìÅ. The Worship of the Goddess Roma in the GreekWorld (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).Mezzanotte, A. (1995), ‘Echi del mondo contemporaneo in Silio Italico’, RIL129: 357–88.Michler, W. (1914), De Papinio Statio M. Annaei Lucani imitatore (Diss.,Schlesische Friedrich-Wilhelm Universität, Breslau).Micozzi, L. (1998), ‘Pathos e figure materne nella Tebaide di Stazio’, Maia 50:95–121.——(1999), ‘Aspetti dell’influenza di Lucano nella Tebaide’, in P. Esposito andL. Nicastri, eds, Interpretare Lacano (Naples: Arte Tipografica): 343–87.

274 BibliographyMicozzi, L. (2001–2), ‘Eros e pudor nella Tebaide di Stazio: Lettura dell’episodiodi Atys e Ismene (Theb. VIII 554–565)’, Incontri triestini di filologiaclassica 1: 259–82.——(2002), ‘Il tema dell’addio: Ripetizione, sentamentalismo, strategie dicontinuità e altri aspetti della technica poetica di Stazio’, Maia 54: 51–70.——ed. (2007), Il catalogo degli eroi: Saggio di commento a Stazio Tebaide 4,1–344 (Pisa: Edizioni della Normale).Miller, P. A. (2004), Subjecting Verses: Latin Love Elegy and the Emergence ofthe Real (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Mills, S. (1997), Theseus, Tragedy and the Athenian Empire (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press).Miniconi, P. and Devallet, G., eds (1979), Silius Italicus: La guerre punique.Livres I–IV (Paris: Les Belles Lettres).Mitchell, R. N. (1991), ‘The Violence of Virginity in the Aeneid’, Arethusa 24:219–38.Mix, E. R. (1970), Marcus Atilius Regulus: Exemplum historicum (The Hagueand Paris: Mouton).Moi, T. (1986), The Kristeva Reader (New York: Columbia University Press).——(2002), Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory, 2nd edn (Londonand New York: Routledge).Moisy, S. von (1971), Untersuchungen zur Erzählungsweise in Statius’ ‘Thebais’(Bonn: Rudolf Habelt).Moretti, G. (2005), ‘Eracle varca le Alpi: Un mito geografico in Silio Italicofra allegoria ed epos’, Studi Trentini di Scienze Storiche 84: 915–47.——(2007), ‘Patriae trepidantis imago: La personificazione di Roma nellaPharsalia fra ostentum e disseminazione allegorica’, Camenae 2: 1–18.Morzadec, F. (2003), ‘Brumes et nuages dans les épopées de Lucain, Stace etSilius Italicus: Entre mythologie et météorologie’, in C. Cusset, ed., Lamétéorologie dans l’antiquité: Entre science et croyance. Actes du ColloqueInternational Interdisciplinaire de Toulouse (2–3–4 mai 2002) (Saint-Étienne:Université de Saint-Étienne): 179–200.Mozley, J. H. (1933), ‘Statius as an Imitator of Virgil and Ovid’, CW 27: 33–38.——(1963–4), ‘Virgil and the Silver Latin Epic’, PVS 3: 12–26.Muecke, F. (2007), ‘Hannibal at the “Fields of Fire”: A “Wasteful Excursion”?’MD 58: 73–91.——(2010), ‘Silius Italicus in the Italian Renaissance’, in A. Augoustakis,ed., Brill Companion to Silius Italicus (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill):401–24.Mulder, H. M., ed. (1954), Publii Papinii Statii ‘Thebaidos’ liber secundus(Groningen: De Waal).

Bibliography 275Narducci, E. (2002), Lucano. Un’epica contro l’impero (Rome and Bari: GLFeditori Laterza).Nauta, R. R., Dam, H.-J. van, and Smolenaars, J. J. L., eds (2006), FlavianPoetry (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill).Nesselrath, H.-G. (1986), ‘Zu den Quellen des Silius Italicus’, Hermes 114:203–30.Newlands, C. (2002), Statius’ ‘Silvae’ and the Poetics of Empire (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press).——(2004), ‘Statius and Ovid: Transforming the Landscape’, TAPhA 134:133–55.——(2006), ‘Mothers in Statius’ Poetry: Sorrows and Surrogates’, Helios 33:203–26.Newman, J. K. (1975), ‘De Statio epico animadversiones’, Latomus 34:80–89.Nicol, J. (1936), The Historical and Geographical Sources Used by SiliusItalicus (Oxford: Blackwell).Niemann, K.-H. (1975), Die Darstellung der römischen Niederlagen in den‘Punica’ des Silius Italicus (Bonn: Rudolf Habelt).Noy, D. (2000), Foreigners at Rome. Citizens and Strangers (London:Duckworth and the Classical Press of Wales).Nugent, G. (1996), ‘Statius’ Hypsipyle: Following in the Footsteps of theAeneid’, Scholia 5: 46–71.——(1999), ‘The Women of the Aeneid: Vanishing Bodies, LingeringVoices’, in C. Perkell, ed., Reading Vergil’s ‘Aeneid’ (Norman: OklahomaUniversity Press): 251–70.Oakley, S. P., ed. (1997–2005), Commentary on Livy Books VI–X, 4 vols(Oxford: Clarendon Press).Ogilvie, R. M. (1965), A Commentary on Livy Books 1–5 (Oxford: ClarendonPress).O’Gorman, E. (1993), ‘No Place Like Rome: Identity and Difference in theGermania of Tacitus’, Ramus 22: 135–54.Oliver, K. (1993), Reading Kristeva. Unraveling the Double-Bind (Bloomingtonand Indianapolis: Indiana University Press).—— (1998), ‘Julia Kristeva’, at http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/Kristeva.html(accessed 3 Nov. 2009).——(2005), ‘Julia Kristeva’, in M. Groden, M. Kreiswirth, and I. Szeman,eds, The Johns Hopkins Guide to Literary Theory and Criticism, 2nd edn, athttp://litguide.press.jhu.edu (accessed 3 Nov. 2009).Packer, J. E. (2003), ‘Plurima et amplissima opera: Parsing Flavian Rome’, inA. J. Boyle and W. J. Dominik, eds, Flavian Rome (Leiden, Boston,Cologne: Brill): 167–98.

276 BibliographyPagán, V. E. (2000a), ‘The Mourning After: Statius’ Thebaid 12’, AJPh 121:423–52.——(2000b), ‘Distant Voices of Freedom in the Annales of Tacitus’, inC. Deroux, ed., Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, vol. 10(Brussels: Latomus): 358–69.——(2004), Conspiracy Narratives in Roman History (Austin: University ofTexas Press).Parkes, R., ed. (2002), A Commentary on Statius, ‘Thebaid’ 4.1–308 (Diss.,Oxford University, UK).——(2005), ‘Men from before the Moon: The Relevance of Statius Thebaid4.275–84 to Parthenopaeus and His Arcadian Contingent’, CPh 100:358–65.——(2008), ‘The Return of the Seven: Allusion to the Thebaid in Statius’Achilleid’, AJPh 129: 381–402.Parsons, P. J. (1977), ‘Callimachus. Victoria Berenicis’, ZPE 25: 1–50.Payne, M. (1993), Reading Theory. An Introduction to Lacan, Derrida, andKristeva (Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell).Pease, A. S., ed. (1935), Publi Vergili Maronis ‘Aeneidos’ liber quartus(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Peluzzi, E. (1999), ‘Turrigero ...uertice. La prosopopea della patria inLucano’, in P. Esposito and L. Nicastri, eds, Interpretare Lucano (Naples:Arte Tipografica): 127–55.Pérez Vilatela, L. (2002), ‘Un ‘club-fighter’ en la Hispania prerromana: ElSaguntino“Theron”’,inS.CrespoOrtizdeZárate and A. Alonso Ávila, eds,Scripta antiqua: In honorem Ángel Montenegro Duque et José María BlázquezMartínez (Valladolid: S. Crespo Ortiz de Zárate and A. Alonso Ávila): 255–64.Perkell, C., ed. (1999), Reading Vergil’s ‘Aeneid’: An Interpretive Guide(Norman: Oklahoma University Press).Perutelli, A., ed. (1997a), C. Valeri Flacci ‘Argonauticon’ Liber VII (Florence:Felice Le Monnier).——(1997b), ‘Sul manierismo di Silio Italico: Le nimfe interrogano Proteo(7.409–493)’, BStudLat 27: 470–78.Phillips, C. R., III (2002), ‘Tellus’, in H. Cancik and H. Schneider, eds, Derneue Pauly: Enzyklopädie der Antike, 12/1 (Stuttgart and Weimar:J. B. Metzler): 100–1.Picard, G. Ch. (1968), Annibale, il sogno di un impero (Rome: Gherardo Casini).Pinto, M. (1953), ‘Il medaglione enniano nelle Puniche di Silio Italico’, Maia6: 224–9.Pollmann, K. F. L. (2000), ‘Statius’ Thebaid and the Legacy of the Aeneid’,Mnemosyne 54: 10–30.

Bibliography 277Pollmann,K.F.L.,ed.(2004),Statius, ‘Thebaid’ 12 (Introduction, Text, andCommentary) (Paderborn, Munich, Vienna, Zurich: Ferdinand Schöningh).——(2008), ‘Ambivalence and Moral virtus in Roman Epic’, in V. M. Strockaet al., eds, Vergil und das antike Epos (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner): 355–66.Pomeroy, A. (1990), ‘Silius Italicus as doctus poeta’, in A. J. Boyle, ed.,The Imperial Muse ...Flavian Epicists to Claudian (Bendigo, Australia:Aureal): 119–39.——(2000), ‘Silius’ Rome: The Rewriting of Vergil’s Vision’, Ramus 29:149–68.——(2010), ‘To Silius Through Livy and His Predecessors’, in A. Augoustakis,ed., Brill Companion to Silius Italicus (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill):27–45.Poortvliet, H. M., ed. (1991), C. Valerius Flaccus’ ‘Argonautica’ Book II(Amsterdam: VU University Press).Quartana, M. (1918), ‘Marzia e Cornelia nel poema di Lucano’, A&R 21:189–98.Raepsaet-Charlier, M. Th. (1987), Prosopographie des femmes de l’ordresénatorial (Ier–IIème siècles) (Louvain and Paris: Peeters).Raimondi, V. (1995–8), ‘L’-‘Inno a Roma’ di Melinno’, Helikon 35–8:283–307.Ramaglia, L. (1952–3), ‘La figura di Giunone nelle Puniche di Silio Italico’,RSC 1: 35–43.——(1954), ‘L’oltretomba nelle Puniche di Silio Italico’, RSC 2: 17–24.Rebischke, R. (1913), De Silii Italici orationibus (Diss., Albertus-Universität,Königsberg).Reed, J. D. (2007), Virgil’s Gaze. Nation and Poetry in the ‘Aeneid’ (Princeton,NJ, and Oxford: Princeton University Press).Reeve, M. D. (1998), Review of Brugnoli-Santini (1995), CR 48.1: 195–6.Reitz, C. (1982), Die Nekyia in den ‘Punica’ des Silius Italicus (Frankfurt amMain and Bern: Peter Lang).——(1993), ‘Quomodo Silius Italicus clararum mulierum enumerationecarmen suum exornaverit’, Vox Latina 29: 310–19.Reussner, A. (1921), De Statio et Euripide (Diss., Martin-Luther-Universität,Halle-Wittenberg).Reydams-Schils, G. (2005), The Roman Stoics. Self, Responsibility, and Affection(Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).Ricci, C. (2005), Orbis in urbe: Fenomeni migratori nella Roma imperiale(Rome: Quasar).——(2006), Stranieri illustri e communità immigrante a Roma:Vox diversapopulorum (Rome: Quasar).

278 BibliographyRichardson, L. (1992), A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome(Baltimore, MD, and London: Johns Hopkins University Press).Ripoll, F. (1998), La morale héroïque dans les épopées latines d’époque flavienne:Tradition et innovation (Louvain and Paris: Peeters).——(1999), ‘Silius Italicus et Valérius Flaccus’, REA 101: 499–521.——(2000a), ‘Silius Italicus et Cicéron’, LEC 68: 147–73.——(2000b), ‘L’image de l’Afrique chez Lucain et Silius Italicus’, VL 159: 2–17.——(2000c), ‘Réécritures d’un mythe homérique à travers le temps: Lepersonnage de Pâris dans l’épopée latine de Virgile à Stace’, Euphrosyne28: 83–112.——(2001a), ‘Le monde homérique dans les Punica de Silius Italicus’,Latomus 60: 87–107.——(2001b), ‘La restitution du Palladium à Énée chez Silius Italicus(Punica, XIII, 30–81)’, LEC 60: 353–68.——(2003a), ‘Vieillesse et héroïsme dans les épopées flaviennes: Silius Italicuset Valérius Flaccus’, in B. Bakhouche, ed., L’ancienneté chez les anciens.Tome II. Mythologie et religion (Montpellier: Université Montpellier III):653–76.——(2003b), ‘Un héros barbare dans l’épopée latine: Masinissa dans lesPunica de Silius Italicus’, AC 72: 95–111.——(2006a), ‘Adaptations latines d’un thème homérique: La théomachie’,Phoenix 60: 236–58.——(2006b), ‘La legende de Pyréné chez Silius Italicus (Punica III, 415–440)’,in J. Champaux and M. Chassignet, eds, Aere perennius: En hommage àHubert Zehnacker (Paris: Presses de l’Université Paris-Sorbonne): 643–64.Rocca-Serra, G. (1990), ‘Imitatio Alexandri et stoïcisme: Manilius et SiliusItalicus’, in J.-M. Croisille, ed., Neronia IV: Alejandro Magno, modelo de losimperatores romanos (Brussels: Latomus): 379–87.Romano, D. (1965), Silio Italico, uomo, poeta, artista, attraverso una modernainterpretazione filologica e psicologica, inPoesia e Scienza III (Naples:Loffredo).Rosati, G. (2002), ‘Muse and Power in the Poetry of Statius’, in E. Spentzouand D. Fowler, eds, Cultivating the Muse. Struggles for Power and Inspirationin Classical Literature (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 229–51.——(2005), ‘Il “dolce delitto” di Lemno. Lucrezio e l’amore-guerra nell’Ipsipiledi Stazio’, in R. Raffaelli et al., eds, Vicende di Ipsipile. Da Erodoto a Metastasio(Urbino: Quattroventi): 141–67.——(2008), ‘Statius, Domitian and Acknowledging Paternity: Rituals ofSuccession in the Thebaid’, in J. J. L. Smolenaars, H.-J. van Dam, andR. R. Nauta, eds, The Poetry of Statius (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill):175–93.

Bibliography 279Rosenmeyer, T. G. (1960), ‘Virgil and Heroism: Aeneid XI’, CJ 55: 159–64.Roth, R. (2007), Styling Romanisation. Pottery and Society in Central Italy(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Runchina, G. (1982), ‘Da Ennio a Silio Italico’, AFMC 6: 11–43.Ruprecht-Mallersdorf, H. (1995), ‘Flavius Josephus, eine bisher nicht beachteteVorlage fürSiliusItalicus’,Gymnasium 102: 497–500.Rutledge, S. H. (2000), ‘Tacitus in Tartan: Textual Colonization and ExpansionistDiscourse in the Agricola’, Helios 27: 75–95.Sanna, L. (2008), ‘Dust, Water and Sweat: The Statian puer between Charmand Weakness, Play and War’, in J. J. L. Smolenaars, H.-J. van Dam, andR. R. Nauta, eds, The Poetry of Statius (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill):195–214.Sannicandro, L. (2007), ‘Per uno studio sulle donne della Pharsalia: MarciaCatonis’, 64: 83–99.Santini, C. (1981), ‘Presenza di motivi ecologici in Sil. It. Pun. VI 140–293’,in Atti del congresso internazionale di studi vespasianei in Rieti 1979 (Rieti:Centro di studi varroniani): 522–34.——(1991), Silius Italicus and His View of the Past (Amsterdam:J. C. Gieben).——(1992), ‘Personaggi divini (e umani) nella Tebaide di Stazio e neiPunica di Silio Italico’, in La storia, la letteratura e l’arte a Roma: DaTiberio a Domiziano. Atti del Convegno (Mantova: Accademia nazionalevirgiliana): 383–96.Scaffai, M. (2002), ‘L’Ipsipile di Stazio, ovvero le sventure della virtù’, Prometheus28: 151–70 and 233–52.Schenk, P. (1989), ‘Die Gesänge des Teuthras (Sil. It. 11.288–302 u.432–482)’, RhM 132: 350–68.——(1999), Studien zur poetischen Kunst des Valerius Flaccus. Beobachtungenzur Ausgestaltung des Kriegsthemas in den ‘Argonautica’ (Munich: G. H. Beck).Schetter, W. (1960), Untersuchungen zur epischen Kunst des Statius (Wiesbaden:O. Harrassowitz).Schetter, W. (1962), ‘Die Einheit des Prooemium zur Thebais des Statius’,MH 19: 204–17.Schubert, W. (1984), Jupiter in den Epen der Flavierzeit (Frankfurt am Mainand Bern: Peter Lang).——(2005), ‘Silius-Reminiszenzen in Petrarcas Africa?’ in U. Auhagen,S. Faller, and F. Hurka, eds, Petrarca und die römische Literatur (Tübingen:Gunter Narr): 89–102.Schultz, K. (1994), Review of Kristeva (1991), Comparative Literature 46:316–19.

280 BibliographySchwartz, M. (2002), Tumulat Italia Tellus: Gestaltung, Chronologie undBedeutung der römischen Rundgräber in Italien (Leidorf: Rahden).Sechi, M. (1947), ‘Nota ad un episodio di storia sarda nelle Puniche di SilioItalico’, Studi Sardi 7: 153–62.——(1951), ‘Silio Italico e Livio’, Maia 4: 280–97.Segal, C. (1977), ‘Sophocles’ Trachiniae: Myth, Poetry and Heroic Values’,YCS 25: 99–158.Sharrock, A. (1994), Seduction and Repetition in Ovid’s ‘Ars amatoria’ 2(Oxford: Clarendon Press).Shumate, N. (2006), Nation, Empire, Decline. Studies in Rhetorical Continuityfrom the Romans to the Modern Era (London: Duckworth).Sjöholm, C. (2005), Kristeva and the Political (London and New York:Routledge).Sklenář, R. (2003), The Taste for Nothingness (Ann Arbor: University ofMichigan Press).Skutsch, O. (1970), ‘On three fragments of Porcius Licinus and the Tutilinegate’, BICS 17: 120–23).——ed. (1985), The Annals of Q. Ennius (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Smith, A. (1996), Julia Kristeva: Readings of Exile and Estrangement(New York: St. Martin’s Press).Smith, R. R. R. (2002), ‘The Use of Images: Visual History and AncientHistory’, in T. P. Wiseman, ed., Classics in Progress: Essays on AncientGreece and Rome (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press):59–102.Smolenaars, J. J. L., ed. (1994), Statius ‘Thebaid’ VII: A Commentary (Leiden,Boston, Cologne: Brill).——(1996), “On went the steed, on went the driver”: An IntertextualAnalysis of Valerius Flaccus Argonautica 6.256–264, Statius Thebais7.632–639 and Silius Punica 7.667–679’, in R. Risselada, J. R. Jong, andA. Machtelt Bolkestein, eds, On Latin: Linguistic and Literary Studies inHonour of Harm Pinkster (Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben): 151–60.——(2008), ‘Statius Thebaid 1.72: Is Jocasta Dead or Alive? The Tradition ofJocasta’s Suicide in Greek and Roman Drama and in Statius’ Thebaid’, inJ. J. L. Smolenaars, H.-J. van Dam, and R. R. Nauta, eds, The Poetry ofStatius (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill): 215–37.———, van Dam, H.-J., and Nauta, R. R., eds (2008), The Poetry of Statius(Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill).Snijder, H., ed. (1968), P. Papinius Statius ‘Thebaid’. A Commentary on BookIII (Amsterdam: A. M. Hakkert).Soubiran, J. (1969), ‘De Coriolan à Polynice: Tite-Live modèle de Stace’, inJ. Bibauw, ed., Hommages à Marcel Renard I (Brussels: Latomus): 689–99.

Bibliography 281Spaltenstein, F. (ed.) (1986), Commentaire des ‘Punica’ de Silius Italicus(livres 1 à 8) (Geneva: Droz).——(1990), Commentaire des ‘Punica’ de Silius Italicus (livres 9 à 17)(Geneva: Droz).——(1991), ‘Silius Italicus: Le catalogue des Italiens’, AION(ling) 13:27–50.——(2006), ‘A propos des sources historiques de Silius Italicus. Une réponseà Lucarini’, Athenaeum 94: 717–18.Spentzou, E. (2003), Readers and Writers in Ovid’s ‘Heroides’. Trangressions ofGenre and Gender (Oxford University Press: Oxford).Spyropoulos, G. (2006), ˙ÝðÆıºÅ ôïı ˙æþäÅ `ôôØŒïý óôÅí ¯ýÆ /¸ïýŒïı˚ıíïıæßÆò (Athens: Olkos).Stadler, H., ed. (1993), Valerius Flaccus, ‘Argonautica’ VII. Ein Kommentar(Hildesheim, Zurich, New York: Olms-Weidmann).Stärk, E. (1993), ‘Liebhabereien des Silius Italicus: Die Grotte des Proteusauf Capri’, A&A 39: 132–43.Steele, R. B. (1922), ‘The Method of Silius Italicus’, CPh 17: 319–33.——(1930), ‘Interrelation of the Latin Poets under Domitian’, CPh 25:328–42.Stehle, E. (1989), ‘Venus, Cybele, and the Sabine Women: The RomanConstruction of Female Sexuality’, Helios 16: 143–64.Steiniger, J. (1998), ‘Saecula te quoniam penes et digesta vetustas: Die Musenanrufungenin der Thebais des Statius’, Hermes 126: 221–37.——ed. (2005), P. Papinius Statius, ‘Thebais’ (Kommentar zu Buch 4, 1–344)(Stuttgart: Franz Steiner).Stover, T. (2008), ‘The Date of Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica’, PLLS 13:211–29.Strocka, V. M. et al., eds (2008), Vergil und das antike Epos: Festschrift Hans-Jürgen Tschiedel (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner).Stürner, F. (2008), ‘Silius Italicus und die Herrschaft des Einzelnen: ZurDarstellung Hannibals und Scipios in den Punica’, in T. Baier, ed., DerLegitimation der Einzelherrschaft im Kontext der Generationenthematik(Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter): 221–41.Sweeney, R. D., ed. (1997), Lactantii Placidi in Statii ‘Thebaida’ commentumvol. I (Stuttgart and Leipzig: B. G. Teubner).Taisne, A.-M. (1972), ‘Le rôle du serpent dans la mythologie de Stace’,Caesarodunum 7: 357–80.——(1992), ‘L’éloge des Flaviens chez Silius Italicus (Punica, III, 594–629)’,Vita Latina 125: 21–8.——(1994a), L’esthétique de Stace (Paris: Les Belles Lettres).

282 BibliographyTaisne, A.-M. (1994b), ‘Stylisation épique de l’Histoire romaine de Tite-Liveaux chants III et IV de la Guerre punique de Silius Italicus’, in R. Chevallierand R Poignault, eds, Présence de Tite-Live: Hommage au Professeur P. Jal(Tours: Université de Tours): 89–99.Takács, S. A. (2000), ‘Politics and Religion in the Bacchanalian Affair of 186b.c.’, HSPh 100: 301–10.Thibodeau, P. and Haskell, H., eds (2003), Being There Together: Essays inHonor of Michael C. J. Putnam on the Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday(Minnesota: Afton Historical Society Press).Thomas, J.-F. (2001), ‘Le thème de la perfidie carthaginoise dans l’oeuvre deSilius Italicus’, Vita Latina 161: 2–14.Tipping, B. (1999), Exemplary Roman Heroism in Silius Italicus’ ‘Punica’(Diss., Oxford University, UK).——(2004), ‘Middling Epic?: Silius Italicus’ Punica’, in S. Kyriakidis andF. de Martino, eds, Middles in Latin Poetry (Bari: Levante): 345–70.——(2007), ‘Haec tum Roma fuit: Past, Present, and Closure in SiliusItalicus’ Punica’, in S. J. Heyworth, P. G. Fowler., and S. J. Harrison, eds,Classical Constructions. Papers in Memory of Don Fowler, Classicist andEpicurean (Oxford: Oxford University Press): 221–41.——(2010), ‘Virtue and Narrative in Silius Italicus’ Punica’, in A. Augoustakis,ed., Brill Companion to Silius Italicus (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill):193–218.Toll, K. (1997), ‘Making Roman-ness and the Aeneid’, ClAnt 16: 34–56.Torres Guerra, J. B. (2003), ‘Melino: Un himno a Roma (Suppl. Hell. 541)’,in C. Alonso del Real et al., eds, Vrbs aeterna: Actas y colaboraciones delcoloquio internacional, ‘Roma entre la literatura y la historia: Homenaje a laprofesora Carmen Castillo’ (Pamplona : EUNSA): 761–72.Toynbee, J. M. C. (1957), The Flavian Reliefs from the Palazzo della Cancelleriain Rome (London: Oxford University Press).Tuck, S. L. (2005), ‘The Origins of Roman Imperial Hunting Imagery:Domitian and the Redefinition of virtus under the Principate’, G&R 52:221–45.Tyrrell, W. B. (1984), Amazons: A Study in the Athenian Mythmaking(Baltimore, MD, and London: Johns Hopkins University Press).Tzounakas, S. (2006), ‘The Personified Patria in Cicero’s First Catilinarian:Significance and Inconsistencies’, Philologus 150: 222–31.Uccellini, R. (2006), ‘Soggetti eccentrici: Asbyte in Silio Italico (e altre donnepericolose del mito’, GIF 57: 229–53.Usener, H. (1900), ‘Beiläufige Bemerkungen’, RhM 55: 286–98.Venini, P. (1961), ‘Studi sulla Tebaide di Stazio. L’imitazione’, RIL 95:371–400.

Bibliography 283Venini, P. (1964), ‘Furor e psicologia nella Tebaide di Stazio’, Athenaeum 42:201–13.——(1965a), ‘Echi Lucanei nel L. XI della Tebaide’, RIL 99: 149–56.——(1965b), ‘Echi Senecani e Lucanei nella Tebaide. Tiranni e Tirannidi’,RIL 99: 157–67.——(1967), ‘Ancora sull’imitazione senecana e lucanea nella Tebaide diStazio’, RFIC 95: 418–27.——ed. (1970), P. Papini Stati ‘Thebaidos’ Liber undecimus (Florence: LaNuova Italia).——(1972), ‘Ancora su Stazio e Antimaco’, Athenaeum 50: 400–03.——(1978), ‘La visione dell’Italia nel catalogo di Silio Italico’, MIL 36:123–227.——(1991), ‘Lo scudo di Annibale in Silio Italico (Pun. 2.406–52)’, in Studidi filologia classica in honore di Giusto Monaco III (Palermo: Università diPalermo): 1191–200.Vessey, D. W. T. C. (1970a), ‘Notes on the Hypsipyle Episode in Statius:Thebaid 4–6’, BICS 17: 44–54.——(1970b), ‘The Significance of the Myth of Linus and Coroebus inStatius’ Thebaid I, 557–672’, AJPh 91: 315–31.——(1970c), ‘Statius and Antimachus: A Review of the Evidence’, Philologus114: 118–43.——(1971a), ‘Noxia Tela: Some Innovations in Statius, Thebaid 7 and 11’,CPh 66: 87–92.——(1971b), ‘Menoeceus in the Thebaid of Statius’, CPh 66: 236–43.——(1973), Statius and the ‘Thebaid’ (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress).——(1974), ‘Silius Italicus on the Fall of Saguntum’, CPh 69: 28–36.——(1975), ‘Silius Italicus: The Shield of Hannibal’, AJPh 96: 391–405.——(1982), ‘The Dupe of Destiny: Hannibal in Silius’ Punica III’, CJ 77:320–35.——(1984), ‘The Origin of Ti. Catius Asconius Silius Italicus’, CB 60: 9–10.——(1985), ‘Some Aspects of Valerius Flaccus, Argonautica II, 77–305’, CJ80: 326–39.——(1986), ‘Pierius menti calor incidit: Statius’ Epic Style’, ANRW 2.32.5:2965–3019.Villalba Álvarez, J. (2004), ‘Ecos virgilianos en una tempestad épica de SilioItálico (Punica XVII 236–90)’, Humanitas (Coimbra) 56: 365–82.Vinchesi, M. A. (1999a), ‘Alcune considerazioni sul caso di Dafni nel XIVlibro delle Guerre puniche di Silio Italico’, in F. Conca, ed., RicordandoRaffaele Cantarella: Miscellanea di studi a cura di Fabrizio Conca (Bologna:Cisalpino): 247–55.

284 BibliographyVinchesi, M. A. (1999b), ‘Imilce e Deidamia, due figure femminili dell’epicaflavia (e una probabile ripresa da Silio Italico nell’Achilleide di Stazio)’,Invigilata Lucernis 21: 445–52.——ed. (2001), Silio Italico. Le guerre puniche (Milan: Rizzoli).——(2004), ‘La vicenda di Trasimeno (Silio Italico 5, 7–23) e la fortuna delmito di Ila in età imperiale’, in M.-P. Pieri, ed., Percorsi della memoria II(Florence: Polistampa): 103–11.——(2005), ‘Tipologie femminili nei Punica di Silio Italico: La fida coniunxelavirgo belligera’, in F. Gasti and G. Mazzoli, eds, Modelli letterari eideologia nell’età Flavia: Atti della III Giornata ghisleriana di Filologiaclassica (Pavia, 30–31 ottobre 2003) (Pavia: Collegio Ghislieri): 97–126.Vinson, M. P. (1989), ‘Domitia Longina, Julia Titi, and the Literary Tradition’,Historia 38: 431–50.Volpilhac-Lenthéric, J. et al., eds (1984), Silius Italicus: La Guerre punique.Livres IX–XIII (Paris: Les Belles Lettres).Volpilhac-Lenthéric, J., Miniconi, P., and Devallet, G., eds (1981), SiliusItalicus: La Guerre punique. Livres V–VIII (Paris: Les Belles Lettres).Vout, C. (2007), Power and Eroticism in Imperial Rome (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press).Wacht, M. (1989), Concordantia in Silii Italici ‘Punica’ (Hildesheim, Zurich,New York: Olms-Weidmann).Walbank, F. W., ed. (1957–79), A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 vols(Oxford: Clarendon Press).Walsh, P. G. (1965), ‘Massinissa’, JRS 55: 149–60.Warner, J. C. (2005), The Augustinian Epic, Petrarch to Milton (Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press).Wells, P. S. (1999), The Barbarians Speak. How the Conquered Peoples ShapedRoman Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).West, G. S. (1985), ‘Chloreus and Camilla’, Vergilius 31: 22–9.West, M. L. (1978), ‘Die griechischen Dichterinnen der Kaiserzeit’, inH. G. Beck, A. Kambylis, and P. Moraux, eds, Kyklos griechisches undbyzantinisches. Rudolf Keydell zum neunzigsten Geburtstag (Berlin andNew York: Walter de Gruyter): 101–15.——ed. (2003), Greek Epic Fragments (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress).Wezel, E. (1873), De Silii Italici cum fontibus tum exemplis (Diss. Lipsiae,Universität Leipzig).Whitmarsh, T. (2001), Greek Literature and the Roman Empire. The Politics ofImitation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Wijsman, H. J. W., ed. (2000), Valerius Flaccus, ‘Argonautica’, Book VI.A Commentary (Leiden, Boston, Cologne: Brill).

Bibliography 285Wilhelm, M. P. (1987), ‘Venus, Diana, Dido, and Camilla in the Aeneid’,Vergilius 33: 43–8.Williams, G., ed. (2003), Seneca ‘De otio’, ‘De brevitate vitae’ (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press).——(2004), ‘Testing the Legend: Horace, Silius Italicus and the Case ofMarcus Atilius Regulus’, Antichthon 38: 70–98.Wilson, M. (2004), ‘Ovidian Silius’, Arethusa 37: 225–49.Wistrand, E. (1956), Die Chronologie der ‘Punica’ des Silius Italicus. Beiträgezur Interpretation der flavischen Literatur (Diss., Göteborgs universitet).Woodruff, L. B. (1910), Reminiscences of Ennius in Silius Italicus (Londonand New York: Macmillan) (repr. in University of Michigan Studies 4:355–424).Ziarek, E. (2003), ‘The Uncanny Style of Kristeva’s Critique of Nationalism’,in J. Lechte and M. Zournazi, eds, The Kristeva Critical Reader (Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press) 139–57.Zissos, A., ed. (2008), Valerius Flaccus’ ‘Argonautica’ Book 1 (Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press).

This page intentionally left blank

Index LocorumAESCHYLUSSeptem580–3 66 n.81AETHIOPISfr.1 W 248APOLLONIUS OF RHODESArgonautica3.678–80 2APPIANSpanish Wars12 113 n.46CATULLUSCarmina64.61 200 n.6CICERODe Finibus2.20.65 160 n.85.37.82 160 n.8De Officiis3.99.26–100.27 160 n.8De Republica3.15 208 n.19In Catilinam1.18 145 n.1281.27 145 n.1281.24 101 n.19CURTIUS RUFUSHistoriae Alexandri3.12.21 246 n.184.3.23 198 n.3CYCLICTHEBAISfr. 1 W 35DIO CASSIUS13 113 n.4617 219–20 n.4967.3.3–4 225 n.68DIODORUS SICULUS3.52–5 118 n.653.66.5–6 118 n.6523.11–16 160 n.623.15.4 190 n.7324.12 161 n.1025.15 113 n.46ENNIUSAnnales34–50 (Skutsch) 72 n.94214 198 n.3EURIPIDESFragments (Kannicht)777 5 n.10902 5 n.101047.2 5 n.10Hecuba342–78 66 n.81550–3 66 n.81Helen1478–86 2 n.3Hippolytus732–51 2 n.3Hypsipylefr.60.10–12 (Bond) 60 n.63fr. 60.90–96 58 n.60fr. 64.72 43 n.33fr. 64.77 50 n.47fr.85.6 54 n.54

288 Index LocorumEURIPIDES (continued)Ion796–99 2 n.3Phoenissae88–201 69 n.88452–585 62 n.681274–6 67 n.821427–59 74 n.102Suppliants1034–71 88 n.134HOMERIliad2.418 153 n.139Odyssey11.152–225 215 n.3611.235–330 222 n.55HORACECarmina3.5 160JUVENALSatires2 10 n.233.58–125 10 n.234.9–10 225 n.68LACTANTIUSDiuinae Institutiones6.6.19 7 n.15In Thebaida Commentum793 87 n.132LIVYAb Urbe ConditaPref.9–10 239 n.21.11 225 n.671.16 240–11.34.8 223 n.601.39.2–3 214 n.321.41.3 220–1 n.511.48 225 n.671.57–60 223 n.612.13 224 n.632.40.3–5 66 n.813.44 223 n.6110.29.4 144 n.126Periocha 18 160 n.8, 182 n.5621.1 97 n.1221.7–15 113 n.4621.46.7 107 n.3323.8–9 109 n.3723.34.10 105 n.2623.40.1 105 n.2625.34 221 n.5225.36 217 n.4126.13–14 113 n.4626.36.5 230 n.7926.50 246 n.1827.7.13–14 180 n.5127.26.12 104 n.2227.27.7 105 n.2527.34.14 148 n.13228.35 214 n.34, 21929.10.4–11.8 230 n.8229.11.1 231 n.8229.14.5–14.14 230 n.8230.11–15 22730.12.12–17 22830.12.21–2 22830.13.12 228 n.7530.14.1–2 228 n.7530.14.4–11 22830.15.7–8 22930.15.12 221 n.5230.20.7 152LUCANDe Bello Ciuili1.185–94 149–501.188 101 n.19

Index Locorum 289LUCAN (continued)1.199–200 150, 2181.450 106 n.281.674–80 203–42.146–57 132 n.1022.286 209 n.222.315–16 209 n.222.326–71 1682.328 1692.329–33 168–92.331–7 1692.338–43 169–712.346–8 169–702.350 171 n.362.367 168 n.292.378–9 1712.387–8 1712.388 209 n.223.4–6 1534.593–660 1645.769 175 n.435.804 175 n.436.654–6 63 n.706.773–4 1707.786–95 172 n.388.100 175 n.438.147 175 n.438.190 175 n.438.589 175 n.438.622–35 154 n.1418.649 175 n.438.869–70 1129.110 173 n.409.112 173 n.409.116 173 n.409.854–62 184 n.5810.384 148 n.131LUCRETIUSDe Rerum Natura1.83–101 208 n.19MARTIALEpigrams1 8 n.20MELINNOHymn to Rome1–20 246–8MIMNERMUSfr.21 W 71 n.92MUSONIUS RUFUSWhat is the primary goal ofmarriage?13a, 67–8 (Hense)170 n.33NAEVIUSBellum Poenicumfr.46 (Strzelecki) 160 n.9OVIDAmores1.14.21 200 n.6Ars Amatoria1.312 200 n.63.710 200 n.6Fasti1.337–8 208 n.191.671 144–5 n.1263.206–12 222 n.583.543–656 137 n.1113.633–8 142 n.1223.675–96 143 n.1244.249–349 232 n.864.305 231 n.836.585–636 225 n.67Heroides1464.47 200 n.66.19 466.114 46 n.40

290 Index LocorumOVID (continued)6.135 46 n.406.136 466.139–40 46 n.407.133–8 95 n.910.18 200 n.6Metamorphoses1.149–50 129 n.923.563 148 n.1318.447–8 201, 204 n.1510.143 148 n.13111.460 206 n.1813.461 208 n.1915.173–5 208 n.1915.862–3 99 n.14PLATOCrito50a–4d 145 n.128Ion533e–534a 16 n.44Phaedrus60a 165 n.22Timaeus52a–b 15–16PLAUTUSPoenulus112–13 92 n.1PLINY THE YOUNGEREpistulae3.16 175 n.434.11 225 n.684.11.6–9 226 n.694.11.11 226 n.69PLUTARCHCaesar32 149 n.135Cato the Younger25–6 168 n.27i25.1 167POLYBIUS1.29–35 160 n.61.31–4 1901.35.2–3 1903.17 113 n.4610.3.3 107 n.3310.19.3–7 246 n.18PORCIUS LICINIUSfr.1 (Courtney) 239 n.2PROPERTIUSElegiae1.3.5–6 200 n.64.3 175 n.434.3.45–6 170 n.334.4 225 n.67SALLUSTCatilina2 239 n.2SENECA THE YOUNGERDe Otio4.1 5–6Epistulae Morales28.4–5 5 n.11Phoenissae442–664 62 n.68446–58 66 n.81Troades672–7 203 n.13680 209 n.22SERVIUSAd Aeneida1.171 145 n.126

Index Locorum 291SILIUS ITALICUSPunica1.2 921.7–8 921.14 921.38 128 n.891.70–139 97–1001.77–80 199 n.51.78–80 981.81 991.104 991.108 991.111–12 991.137–9 98 n.131.144–81 92 n.11.189–238 118 n.651.218–19 921.273–90 1141.377–9 1151.384–5 1151.389–90 1151.444–7 115 n.541.507 115 n.561.665–9 1162.1–55 1162.3–6 106 n.312.66–7 1192.68–72 1182.77–81 124 n.82, 125–62.80 118 n.652.82–3 118 n.652.83–4 1192.83 186 n.652.84 1182.96–8 1202.102–3 117, 1202.114–18 1212.114 1182.116–24 129 n.902.121 1182.125–47 1212.141 120 n.712.148 117, 120 n.712.150 1212.153–9 121–22.166–7 124, 124 n.822.168 118, 128 n.892.170 124 n.822.176 1182.188 1182.189–91 1232.197–204 1222.202 118–202.203–7 126–72.228–32 127 n.872.239 1262.240–1 127 n.872.244 1212.264–9 127–82.311 1022.422–5 1342.433–6 1812.475–680 1402.475–525 1292.475–92 122 n.772.506 1292.529 1802.541 1302.543–680 202 n.122.557 1302.561 1302.567 1302.571–4 1302.580–91 1302.599–608 130–12.613 1342.614–21 1322.632–5 132–3

292 Index LocorumSILIUS ITALICUS (continued)2.636–49 133–42.650 1342.657 1342.671–3 1342.680 1342.681–2 1352.692 1282.699–707 1293.1 114 n.503.61–157 198–93.64–5 199 n.53.77 199 n.53.97–107 209–103.109–27 210–113.109–10 175 n.433.112–15 175 n.433.128 166 n.243.133–5 211 n.253.152 151 n.1363.154 1523.155–7 151–23.162 128 n.893.178 1153.204–13 98 n.133.222–441 93 n.33.323 118 n.653.463–76 1363.518–56 1363.557–629 216 n.373.588 241 n.73.607 241 n.73.627–8 2413.700–12 98 n.133.713–14 199 n.54.62 115 n.564.99–100 189 n.714.122–30 98 n.134.135 98 n.134.454–9 1074.465 1074.472–7 1084.475 109 n.384.645 1364.647–8 1364.666 1364.682–97 93 n.44.737–8 1364.765–7 1984.765 120 n.71, 2014.767 2084.771 198 n.44.774–7 2004.775–8 2044.775 204 n.154.779–829 1994.779–802 206–94.798 203 n.134.814–18 212–134.818 213 n.265.7–23 1375.160 186 n.655.526–7 153 n.1396.5–6 1726.6 1916.58 1726.62–551 1576.65 1576.69–70 1936.70–1 1726.89–95 1726.94 157 n.26.98 1726.100 157 n.26.101 1576.118 157 n.26.130–1 1736.137–9 193

Index Locorum 293SILIUS ITALICUS (continued)6.140–293 1826.146–50 1836.151 1856.157–8 1836.166–203 1836.194 181 n.546.209 183, 1916.211–40 1836.234 1886.247 1836.253 1886.255 186 n.656.257 1876.263 1836.267–9 1836.268 1886.273–8 1836.283–93 184–56.286 1866.288 1866.299–345 1596.299 157 n.26.317 1886.326 189 n.696.332–6 1896.333 1916.335 1916.346–7 1776.369 176 n.456.377–80 1626.386 181 n.546.393–4 1636.396–8 1636.403–5 163–46.407–9 163–46.411–14 163–46.412–13 1646.413 176 n.45, 1796.415 1576.419–22 194 n.806.426 1656.430 1656.432–3 1636.433 165–66.436 1656.437–42 165–66.438–9 1706.442 1706.447–9 165–66.447–8 1716.451 1666.459 1666.467–89 1626.497 1756.500–3 174–56.506–11 174–56.511 1786.514–20 176–86.514 1806.517–18 1796.520 1796.537–8 193–4 n.806.539–44 1816.544 182, 1886.552–73 180 n.506.562–3 1726.574–8 172–36.577–8 1806.577 186 n.656.580–8 1806.580 181 n.546.583 181, 1886.585 1886.609–18 1376.627–40 106 n.316.658–9 192 n.777.34–68 106 n.317.74–89 230 n.79

294 Index LocorumSILIUS ITALICUS (continued)7.409–93 187 n.677.515–16 148 n.1337.536–66 148 n.1337.560–1 176 n.458.25–143 1408.25–43 1378.30–1 1388.39 1418.41–3 1388.41–2 1438.44–5 140 n.1198.46–7 138–98.50–225 1378.55–70 141–28.81–2 1428.95–7 178 n.488.143 222 n.578.144–224a 1398.163–4 1428.163 120 n.718.176–7 142 n.1228.183 1428.199 1428.221 1428.226–31 1388.227 1428.239–41 1438.239 1428.310–11 191 n.758.332–3 1038.356–621 93 n.39.351–3 235 n.899.383–4 153 n.13910.134–69 106 n.2710.337 18010.421–5 10310.433–4 10310.447 10310.476–502 106 n.3110.492–501 224–510.657–8 14311.4 11211.123–9 11111.185 110 n.4011.179–84 110 n.4011.196 110 n.4011.262–6 10011.288–97 100 n.1811.303–68 109–1211.304–6 10911.306 109 n.3811.311 10911.332–6 109–1011.356–8 109–1011.361–6 11011.377–84 111 n.4011.385–409 216 n.3711.424–5 10011.440–80 101 n.1811.478–80 120 n.6911.482 101 n.1812.19 10012.306–13 230 n.7912.344–9 105–612.410 10612.414 10612.418 10612.479–752 11312.542–4 142 n.12112.701 18012.705 137 n.11013.12–17 10113.12–14 149 n.13513.30–81 106 n.3113.115–37 185 n.6113.218 217 n.4113.281–94 132 n.101

Index Locorum 295SILIUS ITALICUS (continued)13.296–8 132 n.10113.374–80 132 n.10113.392 217 n.4113.466–87 127 n.8813.514–15 10813.548 186 n.6513.613–14 21613.621–5 21813.623 21913.628–33 23313.629 216–713.634–6 21713.634 21913.638–9 21613.638 23313.663–86 10813.669–70 19213.670–1 217 n.4113.755 217 n.4113.762–76 22213.778–830 22213.818–30 223–413.829 186 n.6513.833–50a 22513.880 213 n.2814.462–76 120 n.7115.268–71 24615.353–60 10415.376–80 104–515.522–63 14415.523–4 145–615.526–7 145–615.529–35 145–615.538–41 145–615.546 146–715.549–51 146–715.556–63 146–715.596–7 14815.600 14815.618–20 150–115.672–91 121 n.7416.1–2 153 n.14016.19–20 106 n.2816.38–114 21316.115–69 21416.124–34 21512.127–8 21916.132 21916.140–53 219–2016.168–274 227 n.7316.600–700 23017.1–47 227, 23017.1 120 n.7117.3–4 23517.5–15 23117.17 231–217.18–22 233–417.24 23217.27–34 23117.27 23217.36–40 231–217.41–7 23217.41 23317.69–75 227–817.84 22817.112–13 22817.113 228 n.7517.114–15 227 n.7317.197–8 10217.213–17 151–217.219–20 15317.262–3 15317.331–6 10217.334 213 n.2817.604 18017.613–15 15417.643–4 15417.651–4 239–40

296 Index LocorumSILIUS ITALICUS (continued)17.654 29STATIUSAchilleid1.250 216 n.381.960 178 n.49Siluae1.1.36 225 n.683.5.35–6 89 n.1374.7 247 n.235.3 89 n.136Thebaid1.1–3 351.16–17 351.135–6 35 n.121.243–5 361.312–13 541.571–95 54 n.551.592–3 201 n.81.597–626 184 n.581.680 45 n.371.681 36 n.152.95–100 63 n.702.204 73 n.972.332–52 211 n.252.361–2 823.133–68 62 n.673.682–5 174 n.423.696 174 n.423.718–19 44 n.344.38–344 364.88–92 824.378–82 204 n.154.610 45 n.374.646 374.649–51 37–84.652–715 374.676 45 n.374.727 37–84.729 514.746–52 38–94.750–1 444.766–7 434.775 534.785–9 394.785–6 414.786–7 524.788–9 544.789–92 514.793–7 415.8–9 435.23–7 445.28–32 455.29 535.53–4 485.81–4 485.92–4 50, 200 n.65.105 65 n.785.142 485.162–3 475.260 565.305–9 485.347–9 495.397 51, 65 n.785.454–7 51–25.461–5 51–25.494–5 535.499–500 535.588 535.591–2 475.608–10 545.615–18 555.659 565.681 45 n.375.720–4 56–75.723–8 52 n.505.727–30 57

Index Locorum 297STATIUS (continued)5.743–5 44–55.745 45 n.376.35–6 586.42 45 n.386.45–50 586.132–4 57–86.146–50 406.161–7 52–36.169–83 59–606.174–6 886.242–6 616.268–95 36 n.196.342–3 52 n.50, 586.464 586.466 586.476 586.509 53 n.536.515 45 n.377.243–5 697.247–50 697.281 74 n.1037.452–69 637.470–563 174 n.427.474–7 62 n.707.477–81 62–37.479 71 n.937.483–4 647.493–8 63–57.503–4 63–57.514 64 n.747.519–21 63–57.527–9 63–57.534–6 63–57.816–17 428.297 428.303 428.317–22 42–38.600–5 708.607–13 718.625–35 72–38.647–50 73–48.653–4 739.49–85 659.155 799.255 45 n.379.294 45 n.379.351–403 62 n.679.570–636 62 n.679.570–601 72 n.959.800 235 n.8810.594 45 n.3710.792–826 62 n.6711.142–3 8211.193 5811.318–20 6211.318 6511.321–3 6511.338–42 6611.352–3 6611.354–7 67–811.361–4 67–811.372–8 67–811.633 76 n.10611.639–40 7411.642–7 7511.643 206 n.1812.33 7612.45–8 7612.47 8412.58–9 7712.77–9 77 n.10712.105–72 7712.141 83 n.12212.177–9 80–112.178 65 n.7812.185–91 80–112.198–202 80–112.256 80–1

298 Index LocorumSTATIUS (continued)12.259–61 80–112.325–8 8212.349–50 8312.366–7 8312.367 6012.380 8312.382–3 8312.385–91 8312.429 83 n.12212.444–6 8412.457–62 84–512.481–518 7712.523–39 78–912.635–8 79–8012.773 83 n.12212.782–6 86–7 n.13112.786–96 86–712.789 83 n.12212.797–809 87–912.810–12 24012.811–12 9012.814 24012.816–17 240STESICHORUS222(b) PMGF 62 n.68STOBAEUSFlorilegium3.7.12 247 n.21SUETONIUSDomitian8.4 225–6TACITUSAnnales14.20 225 n.6815.22 225 n.68Historiae3.25 108 n.36TERTULLIANDe Pallio4 8 n.18VALERIUS FLACCUSArgonautica1.207–26 120 n.702.77–427 38 n.252.136 166 n.242.237 166 n.242.255 166 n.242.408–17 61 n.656 3, 68 n.857.110 166 n.247.227–30 1–27.231 47.232 47.234 4VALERIUS MAXIMUSFacta et Dicta Memorabilia1.8.ext.19 182 n.564.31.1 246 n.185.4.2 107 n.339.3.ext.3 97 n.12VARRORes Rusticae1.1.5 144 n.126VIRGILAeneid1.37–49 1451.95 107 n.351.153 991.223–96 991.490 118 n.651.493 118 n.65

Index Locorum 299VIRGIL (continued)2.343 191 n.762.407 178 n.482.769 201 n.82.588 178 n.483.313 201 n.84.65 2014.69 2014.262 124 n.824.283 2014.300–3 2014.301–3 49–50 n.474.305 1774.314 175 n.434.327–30 95 n.94.339 177 n.474.366 1774.376 201 n.104.391–2 206 n.184.421 1774.428 1774.431–3 171 n.374.469 201–24.597 1774.624 177 n.474.673 2005.341 201 n.86.32–3 107 n.356.77–8 205 n.176.458 816.844 157 n.27.189–91 4 n.97.373–405 2027.377 2007.415–18 63 n.707.461–2 1917.502 201 n.87.550 191 n.767.803–17 118 n.657.813–17 124–5,124 n.828.336–41 222 n.598.584 206 n.188.651 224 n.629.39 201 n.89.494 209 n.229.617 235 n.889.641 109 n.3810.489 153 n.13911.71 145 n.12611.418 153 n.13911.543 11911.558 18611.573–84 118 n.6511.686–9 11911.715–17 11911.771 123 n.8011.774 123 n.8011.775–7 124 n.8211.776 123 n.8011.781–2 12311.789 123 n.8011.803–4 18511.839–42 18612.435 10412.837 2–312.870–1 200Eclogues4.4 11210.44 191 n.76Georgics4.515 200ZONARASEpitome8.21 113 n.469.12 219–20 n.49

General IndexThis index is selective in references to centre, gender, motherhood, otherness,and periphery, since these terms are discussed with frequency andpassim throughout the book.abject, see Asbyte; Hannibal; KristevaAchilles 101 n.18, 178 n.49Addison, J.Cato: A Tragedy 156Adrastus 36, 43, 54–5, 58Adys 160 n.6Aegates islands 207Aeneas 38 n.24, 55 n.58, 64,88 n.117, 157 n.3and Ascanius 104as Indiges 141see also Anna Perenna; RegulusAfricaas belligerent ground 92–3Romanisation of 214 n.34see also PetrarchAgamemnon 78 n.111Agylle 137Alcmena 217 n.40Alcyone 206 n.18Alexander 216–17 n.40, 222,246 n.18Allecto 62–3, 134–5, 191, 200, 202Alpscrossing by Hannibal 93 n.3,98 n.13, 136, 146, 152Althea 200–1Amata 134 n.105, 200–3Amazons 117 n.62, 242–52see also Asbyte; Camilla;Hippolyte; Penthesilea;Regulus; RomeAmphiaraus 44–5death of 42–3Amphion 101 n.18, 235 n.88Amyclas 157 n.3analepsis 98 n.13, 157–8, 172, 180Anchises 214 n.32Andromache 164, 177 n.46,203 n.13, 209 n.22Anna Perenna 136–44, 200, 234and Aeneas 141–2and autonomy 25and Dido 137–40and Hannibal 25, 96–7,137–44between two patriae 138–44Carthaginian identity of 141–4in Ovid 137 n.111Romanisation of 138, 141–4Anticleia 215 n.36Antigone 22, 60, 63, 66–8and Argia 33–4, 83–5and Ismene 68–75as Maenad 33gaze of 68–70in Sophocles 71 n.93teichoscopia of 68–70uirginitas of 68–70Aonia, see ThebesApollo 37, 44, 204–5, 209–12,230 n.79Apollonius of Rhodes, seeChalciope; Valerius Flaccus

General Index 301apostrophe 65 and n.76,83 n.122, 85, 104, 106 n.27,109, 138, 205–6, 235 n.89,237 n.91, 240, 241 n.7,248apotheosis 217 n.40, 240–1Apulia 104Aquinus 183Ara Pacis 242Arachne 249Archemorus, see OpheltesArdea 114–16, 130Ares, see MarsArgia 33, 174 n.42, 211 n.2gaze of 81–2marriage to Polynices 36trip to Thebes 77, 80–5see also AntigoneArgonauts 101 n.18in Lemnos 51–3Argosalienum 33as periphery 34–7, 90–1as doublet for Rome 36reconciliation with Thebes 86–91women of 31, 77, 86–91Arion 101 n.18Asbyte 114, 117–29and asymbolia 24, 95–6and Camilla 117–19, 123–6and Dido 119and Hannibal 126–9and Theron 122–6as abject 95as transgressive other 114decapitation of 24, 95–6, 122–3,125–6, 128–9femininity of 114, 123–5mantle of 124–5 and n.82masculinity of 125–6virginity of 114Ascanius 214see also AeneasAspis 160 n.6Astraea 129 n.93Astyanax 203 n.13Asulanus, Fr. 139asymbolia,see Asbyte; Bacchants; Hannibal;Hypsipyle; Imilce; Kristeva;Lemnos; othernessAtalanta 62 n.67, 72 n.95, 87–8Atheniansgaze of 79–80Atys 33and Parthenopaeus 70 n.90death of 33, 70–4gaze of 73–4see also IsmeneAusonia, see Italyautonomy, see Anna Perenna;Hypsipyle; Imilce; Kristeva;Marcia; othernessAvens 183Bacchanalian affair 235Bacchantsand asymbolia 20–1in Lucan 203–5in Silius 96, 129–36, 159, 196–7,201–5, 234–6in Statius 22–3, 34, 49–50, 62,87–91Bacchus 37, 201–2, 204–5, 209–13,214 n.30and Hypsipyle 50and the trieteris 51, 205conquest of India 86Bagrada River 26, 157, 160, 182,184, 188Battus 141Belus 138, 142

302 General IndexBoccaccio 139Bodostor 161 n.10Boeotia 49Bogus 98 n.13Britomartis 118Bruttium 153 n.140Brutus 148 n.133Buckingham, 1 st Duke of, see VilliersCacus 183 n.57Cadmus 36, 184 n.58Caesar, C. Julius 149–50, 157 n.3,209 n.22, 218Caieta 187 n.67CallimachusVictoria Berenices in Statius37–8 n.22Calpe 210Calybe 63 n.70Camilladeath of 185–7victims of 119, 123see also AsbyteCamillus, M. Furius 148 n133,176 n.45Campus Martius 166Cancelleria reliefs 242–5 andfigs. 1–3, 249Cannae 94–5 and n.6, 103, 122n.78, 137, 142 n.123, 224as Hannibal’s decline 143Canusium 103Capaneus 88 n.134Capitoline Triad 103Capua 109–12and decadence 100as hybrid city 95as altera Carthago 100, 151as altera Roma 100citizen rights 111–12demand to consulship 111–12siege of 132 n.101suicide at 113 n.46, 132 n.101Capys 101 n.18Carmentis 222Carneades 7 n.15Carthagefigurative ‘decapitation’ of 128foundation of 131personified 101–2see also CapuaCarthaginiansand child-sacrifice 198–9, 205–9,212–13effeminacy of 97, 154perfidia of 92 and n.1, 113, 177,209 n.21struggle for world domination 92Castalius 210Castulo 210catalogueepic 36, 93 n.3, 221–9Cato the Younger 148 n.133,167–72, 184 n.58, 209 n.22attachment to the Republic171 n.35sexual abstinence 171see also Addison; Marcia;RegulusCavafis, C. 238Chalciopein Apollonius 1–2, 4Chatti 242child-sacrifice, see CarthaginiansChiron 101 n.18Chloreus 123–4chôra, see KristevaCicero, see patriaCilnius 106 n.30Cinna 224Circe 1–2, 4 and n.9Cirrha 210

General Index 303civil war, see Lemnos; Saguntum;Thebes; Valerius FlaccusClaudia Quinta 28, 197, 226–7,229–37, 239, 245crimen of 231–3Claudia, wife of Statius 89 n.137Claudius Nero, C. 97, 144–51Clausi 231Clementiaaltar of 77Cloelia 106 n.31, 223–4, 226Cloelius 224closure, see StatiusCoelius Antipater 113 n.46Colchiansas barbarians 2, 4conclamatio 134Constantius, J. 139 n.117continuitygenerational 32, 54–5, 157–8,164, 170, 173, 181see also MarciaCornelia, mother of the Gracchi12 n.31Cornelia, Vestal virgin 225–6, 245–6Cornelia, wife of Pompey 131 n.99,164, 173 n.40, 175 n.43Coroebus 178 n.48cosmopolitanismand universal citizenship 4–5, 7,42in Cynic philosophy 6–7in Stoicism 5–8, 42, 236–7negative 7positive 7see Domitian; Kristeva;Romanness; Seneca theYoungerCreon 77–8, 87Crete 117Crista 106 n.27cunctatio, see FabiusCuretes 50–1, 54Curia 166Cybele 50–1, 54, 123, 230–7see also Magna MaterCyrene 142Daedalusand Icarus 104–5, 107 n.35see also MopsusDanaids 18–19Dante 139Purgatorio 192–3Dardanus 101 n.18Darius 246 n.18Daunus 115 n.54, 130De Châtillon, G. 139Decius 110–11 n.40Deidamia 178 n.49Delphi 247–8 n.23demagogues 96 n.10, 103 n.20see also Flaminius; VarroDemeter 144 n.126Diana 118, 120, 185 n.61Dictynna 118, 120, 123, 125Dido 38 n.24, 81 n.117, 164, 200–3,206 n.18, 222 n.57as Carthaginian Urmutter 94–5,97–100, 198, 199 n.5, 201,236 n.90as Elissa 99 n.14, 139as the chôra 95death of 137furor of 201–2see also Anna Perenna; Asbyte;Hannibal; Marcia; Tiburnadigressionerror as 37–8Diogenes the Cynic 5 n.10Dione 230 n.79Dionysus, see Bacchus

304 General IndexDirce 86Domitianand cosmopolitanism 29as Romulus 240 n.5correctio morum of 225–6, 249Domus Augustana of 249–52and figs.4–5profectio of 242–5regime of 3, 240–52see also Cancelleria reliefs; SiliusItalicus; StatiusDrances 198 n.4Druids 106 n.28Dulichium 115 and n.55Ecnomus 160 n.6ekphrasis 98 n.13, 99 n.15, 105, 154see also HypsipyleEnnius 106epic cycleAethiopis 248Thebais 35epic poetryand elegy 34and the ŒºÝÆ IíäHí 9, 34, 43recitationes of 13Epigonoi 22, 33, 55epiloguein Silius 239–41in Statius 239–41Erichtho 63 n.70, 170Erigone 75Erinys, see Furiesescapefrom reality in Euripides 2 andn.3Eteocles, see fratricide; Jocastaethnicityand gender 8–9and geographics 9–19Euneos, see HypsipyleEuripides, see escape; Hypsipyle;JocastaEuryalusmother of 177 n.46, 209 n.22Eurydice, mother of Opheltes62 n.67and Hypsipyle 40–1, 57–60, 88Eurymedon 133–4Evadne 60, 87–8Evander 157 n.3, 206 n.18, 222exile, see Hannibal; Hypsipyle;Scipio Africanusextrema mundi 4, 251–2Fabius Maximus, Q. 95and his son 148 n.133debate with Scipio 230embassy to Carthage 116trip to Saguntum 116policy of cunctatio 137see also Regulusfides 11personified 129–30, 132 n.101see also Regulus; Saguntum;Scipio AfricanusFlaminius 95, 96 n.10, 103 n.20,144foreignersin Rome 13 nn.35–6Fortuna ReduxTemple of 249 n.27Forum Transitorium 249fratricideEteocles and Polynices 36, 47, 58,66, 71, 82Romulus and Remus 36 n.16Spartoi 36 n.16Fulvius, Q. Flaccus 185 n.61funeral, see OpheltesFuries, see Allecto; Megaera;Tisiphone

General Index 305furorin Statius 47–50, 47 n.54, 84–5see also Dido; Hannibal; Marcia;Scipio AfricanusGaia 144 n.126Ganges 86gaze, see Antigone; Argia;Athenians; Atys; Ismene;Polynicesgenealogiesin epic poetry 10 n.31see also Hannibalgenotext, see Hypsipyle; KristevaGestar 181 n.54Haemon 71 n.93Hamilcar, Carthaginianprisoner 161 n.10Hamilcar, father of Hannibal 97–100Hammon 98 n.13, 119Hampsagoras 105–6Hannibaland asymbolia 24, 95and sacrificial substitutes 199,212–13 and n.26and the cancellation ofmotherhood 99–100and Dido 24–5, 94–5, 97–100,154and Romanness 24and the patria 99–102, 151–4as abject 95, 151–4as misplaced foreigner 95, 151–4as Pentheus 100attachment to ItalianTellus 151–4, 239death of 135effeminisation of 99–100exile of 135furor of 98–100, 128–9, 141genealogy of 97–9ira of 126–9pietas of 94plan to kill 109–10transition from semiotic tosymbolic 98uirtus of 94see also Alps; Anna Perenna;Asbyte; Cannae; Hamilcar;Hasdrubal; Imilce; RomeHannon, Carthaginiancommander 213Hannon, Carthaginian senator 102,198 n.4Harpe 120–1Greek name of 121Hasdrubal, brother of Hannibal 97,123 n.78, 153–5Hasdrubal, son of Gisgo 213, 219n.49, 227–8Herculesin Silius 114–15, 121–3see also Regulus; TheronHerodes Atticusvilla of 250–1 and n.34Hersilia 222, 226Hiarbas 118–19Hippolyte 244–5, 249, 251 n.34in Statius 22, 34, 78–80Hippolytus 249Hippomedon 43 n.31, 79Homershade of 222Hortensius 168–9Hostus 105–6hybridity, see Capua; Imilce;SaguntumHydra 122Hypsipyleand asymbolia 22, 31, 40, 56and autonomy 31

306 General IndexHypsipyle (continued)and her father, Thoas 32, 40, 53and Jason 51–3, 79and sons, Euneos and Thoas 52and n.50, 53 n.53, 61and the Kristevan chôra 31–2, 39,46, 48as dislodged mother 31, 39, 53as ekphrasis 61as narrator 32, 40, 43, 46–7exile of 31–3fraud of 50from phenotext to genotext 61in Lemnos 44–58in Euripides 43 n.33, 47, 50 n.47,58 n.60, 60 n.63in Ovid 45–7in Statius 21–2, 31–62in Valerius Flaccus 38 n.25,61 n.65, 166 n.24lullaby for Opheltes 39–40pietas of 50, 56see also Bacchus; Eurydice;Opheltes; PolynicesIarbas 118–19, 141Icarius 75Ide 62 n.67identity, see Anna Perenna; Lemnos;Romanness; VirgilIlia 72 n.94Ilus 101 n.18Imilce, wife of Hannibal 27, 151–2,164 n.21, 175 n.43, 196–213and asymbolia 27, 196–7and autonomy 196–7and Roman philosophicalideas 208–9and the Kristevan chôra 212–13as frenzied woman 199–205, 209as prophetess 205, 209–12as Roman matrona 209as seruatrix pueri 203 n.13, 213hybrid voice of 27, 196–7name of 210 and n.24parting with Hannibal 198–9rhetoric of 203suasoria of 196, 205–9voice of freedom 196, 208Inachus 43Irigaray, L. 16 n.46Ismene 33, 63, 90, 206 n.18and Atys 70–4and the Kristevan chôra 70–4gaze of 72uirginitas of 73Italy 4Ithaca, see DulichiumJames I 246 n.18Jason 1, 46, 57, 220 n.51, 252 n.35see also Argonauts; HypsipyleJocasta 22, 62–8, 110, 174 n.42and Eteocles 65–6and male uirtus 33and Polynices 63–5as Agave 62as Fury 62–3as Maenad 33efforts for reconciliation 62–6in Euripides 62 n.67, 67 n.82in Senecan tragedy 62 n.67in Stesichorus 62 n.67suicide of 33, 74–5Juba 156Junoin Silius 25, 97, 98 n.13, 128–30,136–44, 230 n.79in Virgil 2–3, 145Jupiterin Silius 216–17 and n.37in Statius 35–6, 42 n.30, 50–1

General Index 307Jupiter (continued)in Virgil 2–3, 99see also Scipio AfricanusJuturna 200Kristeva, J. 14–29and the genotext 15–16, 34and the phenotext 16, 34and the semiotic 14–15, 22–3and the subject-in-process17–20and the symbolic 14–15, 22–3‘man’s time’ 18, 32‘mother’s species’ 18on abjection 19–20on asymbolia 20, 96on autonomy 20, 96on female marginalisation 16–18on foreign otherness 17–19on hysterics 29on motherhood 17on phallic femininity 126on pregnancy 17, 31on Stoic cosmopolitanism236–7on the chôra 15–17, 23, 28–9on the Law of the Father 15on the rupture of signification14–15, 73Powers of Horror 19noń 17 n.47Strangers to Ourselves 18–21, 30,236–7Tales of Love 19Women’s Time 17see also Bacchants; Dido;Hypsipyle; lmilce; Ismene;lament; Marcia; otherness;Ovid; TellusLabdacids 35Lacan, J.on subjectivity 8 n.19Laelius 228Laius 63 n.70lamentas manifestation of otherness 31as return to the semiotic chôra 34female in Silius 176female in Statius 30, 34, 41,55–61, 74–91male in Statius 64–5 and n.75Langia 37, 40, 55Lausus 104 n.23Lavinia 142, 202, 214, 222Lemnosasymbolia in 49identity in 49in Statius 21–2, 42, 45–54massacre as civil war in 48–9women of 45–54, 62see also Argonauts; Bacchants;Hypsipyle; ThraceLinus 201 n.8Liternum 135 n.108, 192 n.77Livius, M. Salinator 148Livy, see MasinissaLucan, see Bacchants; Marcia;matrona; patria; Silius ItalicusLucretia 223, 226Lycormas 133–4Lycurgus 22, 54–5madness, see furorMaenads, see Antigone; Bacchants;Jocasta; MarciaMagna Materimportation in Rome 197, 230–7priests of 235see also Claudia QuintaMagnesia 3Manners, K. 246 n.18

308 General IndexMarcellus, M. Claudius 95and his son 104–5death of 104–5Marcia, wife of Cato theYounger 156, 164in Lucan 167–72remarriage to Cato 168–72Marcia, wife ofRegulus 26–7,156–95and autonomy 178andtheKristevan chôra 159, 194–5as Dido 176–8as distraught woman 162–7conjugal fidelity of 165furor of 180Maenadic voice of 158, 178rhetoric of 165–7suspending generationalcontinuity 158, 178–82, 194–5withdrawal from public life 172–3marginalisation, see KristevaMars 230 n.79, 242, 248Martial 8 n.20Marus 26–7, 156–95androcentric narrative of 158,193 n.80, 194as Regulus’ faithful companion157Masinissaalliance with Romans 213–21in Livy 219–20, 227–9mother of 28, 196–8, 213–21,227, 245Massada 113 n.46Massylians 227matronaanonymous in Lucan 201–5Medeain Ovid’s Heroides 46in Valerius Flaccus 1–5, 68 n.85,166 n.24, 252 n.35Medusa 118 n.65decapitation by Perseus 122Megaera 82Meleager 201MelinnoHymn to Rome 246–9Menoeceus 70, 76 n.107deuotio of 59 n.61mother of 62 n.67Mercury 98 n.13, 115Messalina 245 n.17Metaurus 97, 145Metellus, L. Caecilius 103Mezentius 104 n.23Milichus 210 and n.24Minerva 118 n.67, 143 n.124,230 n.79, 242, 245, 249Minucius 148 n.133Minyans, see Argonautsmoeniaas motif 113molk, see child-sacrificeMopsusand his sons, Dorylas andIcarus 117, 120–1, 133–4as Daedalus 117in Valerius Flaccus 120 n.70moralityfemale 11–12motherhoodand male ideology 12–13,241–53and matronhood 12andthemosmaiorum 12,2,241–53see also Hannibal; Kristeva; Statiusmourning, see lamentMurrus 115, 130, 134Myrice 210narrativektistic 2Nasamones 128

General Index 309naturein Silius 136, 182–7see also RegulusNekyia, see Silius ItalicusNemeaas alterae Thebae 33as dangerous landscape 47, 55Noxpersonified 147, 150Numanus Remulus 235 n.88Numicius River 116, 137,141–2Numidians 127–8Oculatae 225–6Odysseus 64, 203 n.13, 215 n.36,218 n.44Oedipus 35–6lament of 76 n.106suicide attempt of 76 n.106Opheltes 22as substitute for Hypsipyle’schildren 54–5, 57–8death of 47, 54–5funeral of 61, 88funeral games 44transition from semiotic tosymbolic 39see also Eurydice; Hypsipyle;Lycurgus; NemeaOpis 186orientalismin Silius 154, 225Ornytus 83 n.122Orpheus 101 n.18, 120 n.69,148 n.131othernessand asymbolia 20–1and autonomy 20–1and gender differentiation30–1foreign 3see also Kristeva; lament;Romanness; StatiusOvidthe Kristevan chôra in theHeroides 16–17see also Hypsipyle; MedeaPacuvius 109–10Palladium 106 n.31Pallas, see MinervaPangaeus, Mt. 200, 203–4Paris 187 n.67Parthenopaeus 40 n.27, 43 n.31,87–8, 235 n.88see also Atyspatriain Silius 24, 92–155, 194–5personified in Cicero 145 n.128personified in Lucan 149–50see also Anna Perenna; Hannibal;Scipio Africanuspatriarchy 16Paulus, L. Aemilius 95, 103Peloponnese 41, 55pelta 249–52Penthesilea 118 n.65, 248, 250–1and n.34Pentheus 202see also Hannibalperfidia, see Carthaginians; Regulusperipheryas an idiosyncratic body 93see also ArgosPerolla 109–10Perseus, see MedusaPetrarch 139Africa 227, 229 n.76, 238and Laura 229 n.76Pharsalus 172 n.38phenotext see Hypsipyle; Kristeva

310 General IndexPhlegraean field 106 n.31Phoebus, see ApolloPhoenix 98Phorbas 68–9pietas 11, 24see also Hannibal; Hypsipyle;Scipio AfricanusPlautus 92 n.1Amphitruo 217 n.40Poggio Bracciolini 139Polynices 31, 58and Hypsipyle 54gaze of 82lament for Tydeus 65 n.75see also Argia; fratricide;JocastaPolyphemus 183 n.57Polyxena 208 n.19Polyxo 48–9, 200 n.6Pompey 153, 209 n.22death of 112see also CorneliaPomponia, mother of ScipioAfricanus 28, 108, 245as uniuira 233meeting with Scipio 213–21,227Porticus Diuorum 249 n.27proemiumin Silius 92in Statius 34–5prolepsis 33, 56, 98 n.13prophecy 98 n.13, 241 n.7anachronistic 111–12prosopopoeia 145 n.128,149Proteus 187 n.67Psamathe 201 n.8Psylli 184 n.58Punic wars 157, 195First 99, 157–8, 165, 191Second 102, 154, 158, 191, 194,241 n.7see also CarthaginiansPyrene 93 n.3Pythagoras 208 n.19Quirinus 240–1see also Scipio AfricanusRegulus, M. Atilius 26–7, 156–95and Cato 187and Hercules 161 n.12, 162 n.14,164 n.19, 187and Scipio 159, 161, 191–2, 194and the ius postliminii 161–3,166–7, 179and the serpent 157, 182–7as Aeneas 177as archetype for Fabius 161 n.12as Stoic hero 158–62as Turnus 191–2constantia of 162death of 157, 181–2 and n.54fides of 158, 162, 177impenetrability of 176–8, 181in an Amazonomachy 186in pre-Silian tradition 160ira of 188–92mission to Rome 157name of 287patientia of 162perfidia of 177, 194psychomachia of 161–2 n.14speech to the Senate 157, 174transgression against nature182–7uirtus of 158see also Marcia; Marus; SerranusRhine 241 n.7Romaia 247–8 n.23Romain de Thèbes 70 n.90

General Index 311Romanisation 10–11and amalgamation 10see also Africa; Anna PerennaRomannessand cosmopolitanism 8and male identity 20, 97and non-Roman otherness 8, 28as literary construct 11boundaries of 197ciuis Romanus 8construction of 9in Silius 94–7, 155in the margins 96Romanitas 8 n.18see also Hannibal; Saguntum;Scipio Africanus; Tacitus;VirgilRomeas Amazon 242–5Hannibal’s attack of 113personified 218see also Argos; Capua; foreigners;Magna Mater; Melinno;Regulus; ThebesRomulus 222, 240–1see also fratricide; QuirinusRubicon River 218Rutulians 96, 130Sabines 222, 231Saguntum 113–36and Romanness 113, 129, 135–6as hybrid city 24, 130–1, 135–6eradication of family ties 132–4fides at 113–14pyre at 130–1siege as civil war 132–4 andn.102siege of 113 and n.46, 129suicide at 115, 132–6women of 96, 129–36Sardinia 105–6Sarmatians 244Sarranian, see CarthaginiansSatricus 108 n.36Scipio Africanus, P. Cornelius 25,28, 103and his father, Scipio theElder 106–9, 189, 192, 217 n.41as Africanus 197as patriarch 239as Quirinus 239–1as son of Jupiter 29, 107, 215–17,239–40continence of 229, 245–6divine power of 197education of 216exile of 108fides of 197furor of 107in the Underworld 107, 215–26pietas of 197rashness of 136rescue of his father 108rescue of his patria 108Romanness of 218–19suicide attempt of 107triumph of 154uirtus of 197see also Fabius; Pomponia;Regulus; Van DyckScipio, P. Nasica 231Scipio the Elder, father of ScipioAfricanusdeath of 221 n.52see also Scipio AfricanusScyros 181 n.53semiotic, see Hannibal; Kristeva;lament; OpheltesSeneca the Youngeron cosmopolitanism 5–8see also Jocasta

312 General IndexSerranus, son of Regulus 26–7,157–95name of 157 n.2Servius Tullius 220–1 n.51Sibyl 205 n.17, 215–16, 218, 222–3,230Sicoris 116Silius ItalicusAldine addition of book 8 of139–40and Lucan 23and the Domitianic regime 240–1and Valerius Flaccus 129 n.94Codex Sangallensis of 139–40composition of the Punica8–9 n.20fathers and sons in 93–5, 97–112Nekyia in 215–26poetics of defeat in 136women as symbols of chastityin 230–7see also Bacchants; epilogue;Hercules; Juno; Jupiter;lament; nature; orientalism;patria; proemium; Romanness;Tellus; VenusSocial War 111 and n.42Socrates 5 n.10, 165 n.22Sophonisba 221 n.52, 227–9Spartoi, see fratricideSpenser, E.The Faerie Queen 75–6sphragis 30Statiusand the breakdown of authorialvoice 34, 87–91and the Domitianic regime240–1closure in the Thebaid 87–91composition of the Thebaid8–9 n.20foreign otherness in 21–3motherhood in the Thebaid22–3relationship with Virgil 30see also Bacchants; Callimachus;Claudia; epilogue; furor;Hippolyte; Hypsipyle; Jupiter;lament; Lemnos; proemium;Tellus; ThraceStesichorus, see JocastaStoic(ism), see cosmopolitanism;Kristeva; RegulusStraboGeography 10subject-in-process, see Kristevasubjectivity, see Lacansymbolic, see Hannibal; Kristeva;OpheltesSyphax 227–9Syracusesiege of 104Tacitusand Romanness 11Tanaquil 214, 220–1 n.51, 223Tantalus 36Tarpeia 225–6Tarquinius Priscus 220–1 n.51,223Teiresias 63 n.70Tellumo 145 n.126Tellurus 145 n.126Tellusand the chôra 97, 147–8as creatrix 42 n.30as mother-earth 42, 97, 144–55,248as unreliable proxy in Statius 31,39–43, 54in Silius 24, 95, 97, 144–55masculine traits of 147–8, 152

General Index 313Tellus (continued)prayer to 42, 147, 150see also Hannibalterra mater, see TellusTeumesos 49–50Teuthras 100–1 n.18Thebes 42, 44–5, 90–1as Rome 34 and n.8, 90civil war in 33–4, 47, 54–5, 88see also Argos; NemeaTheron 121–8death of 126–8Greek name of 123reincarnation of Hercules 121–2see also AsbyteTheseus 77–80, 87see also HippolyteThessander 174 n.42Thetis 181 n.53Thiodamas 42–3Thoas, see HypsipyleThraceand Dionysus 49–50and Lemnos in Statius 47–50Thrasymennus 136–7Thyads, see BacchantsThyle 241 n.7Tiburna 25, 96, 129–30, 134–6as Dido 134–6Ticinus River 94 n.6, 137, 198Tisiphone 25, 58, 62–3, 66, 128–30,140–1, 202 n.12Tmolus River 136–7Trajancolumn of 221 n.53translatio imperii 126Trasimene, Lake 94 n.6, 95, 136–7,156, 198–9, 212Trebia River 93 n.4, 94 n.6, 136–7, 198Tritonis, Lake 118Tros 101 n.18Tubero, Q. Aelius 160Tuditanus, C. Sempronius 160Tullia 225–6Turnus 116, 200Tydeus, see PolynicesTymbrenus 132–3Tyrrhenus 137Ulysses, see OdysseusUmbricius 10 n.23Underworld, see Scipio AfricanusValerius Antias 113 n.46Valerius Flaccus 1–5and Apollonius 1–2civil war in the Argonautica 3composition of theArgonautica 8 n.20see also Hypsipyle; Medea;Mopsus; Silius Italicus;VenusVan Dyck, A.Continence of Scipio 246 n.18Varro, C. Terentius 95, 102–3, 144,191 n.75Varronilla 225–6Venuscult in Rome 230 n.82in Silius 216 n.37in Valerius Flaccus 1–2, 252n.35in Virgil 99Verginia 223, 226Vespasian 241 n.7, 242–6aduentus of 242–5Vestals 242–5Vesulus 106 n.27Veturia 62 n.68Villiers, G. 246 n.18

314 General IndexVirgilRoman identity in theAeneid 3 n.5seealsoJuno;Jupiter;Statius;Venusuirtus 12, 24personified 244–5, 249see also Hannibal; Jocasta;Regulus; Scipio AfricanusVolsci 118Volumnia 62 n.68Vulcan 53 n.53Vulteius 129 n.91Whitman, W.Leaves of Grass 15 n.43Xanthippe 165 n.22Xanthippus 159, 188–91Zacynthians 96Zacynthus 114–15, 130Zama 102, 145, 213, 230ZenoRepublic 5 n.10