I wish to thank the anonymous referee of Antichthon and my colleagues John Barsby, Doug Little and Chris Ehrhardt for their assistance in the preparation of this article.

The following works will be cited by author’s name only: Coleman, K.M., Statius, Silvae IV (Oxford 1988);Google Scholarvan Dam, H.-J., P. Papinius Statius: Silvae Book II, A Commentary (Leiden 1984);Google ScholarHardie, A., Statius and the Silvae (Liverpool 1983);Google ScholarSauter, F., Der römische Kaiserkult bei Martial und Statius (Stuttgart/Berlin 1934);Google ScholarScott, K., The Imperial Cult under the Flavians (Stuttgart/Berlin 1936);Google ScholarVessey, D., ‘Statius to his Wife: Silvae 3.5’, CJ 12 (1977) 134–140;Google ScholarVollmer, F.P. Papinii Statii Silvarum Libri (Leipzig 1898).Google Scholar All quotations of Statius are given according to the text of Marastoni, A., P. Papini Stati Silvae (Leipzig 1970).Google Scholar

¹ For the dating of Silv 3.5, and of the Silvae in general, see Vollmer, 3–13; Legras, L., ‘Les dernieres années de Stace’ REA 9 (1907) 338–349 and REA 10 (1908) 34–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Vessey, 134–135.

³ E.g. Vessey, 134 and 139, who notes Statius’ comparison between his return to Naples and the nostos of Odysseus (3.5.6–8); Vessey points out that the nautical metaphor implicitly equates the journey home with the end of poetic labours. It is worth noting that at Silv. 4.4.87–100, Statius compares attempting an epic in honour of Domitian with the undertaking of yet another voyage. Cf. also Hardie, 64, 182 for Statius’ retirement.

⁴ For Statius’ Neapolitan patrons see Hardie, 67, who notes, ‘It is remarkable that the list is so short.’

⁵ White, P., ‘Amicitia and the Profession of Poetry in Early Imperial Rome’, JRS 68 (1978) 85 ff.Google Scholar

⁶ Cf. Hardie, 43 ff. Martial’s frequent boast that his epigrams are read by the emperor suggests that imperial approval was of considerable help to a poet’s general popularity (Ep. 4.27; 6.64; 7.99.3 ff.).

⁷ It is worth emphasising that the preeminence of the emperor was an accepted fact in the world of literary patronage; hence neither Pollius nor any other of Statius’ patrons would have taken offence at now being implicitly designated as second best. For example, Statius dedicates Silvae 1 to Arruntius Stella but still acknowledges the priority of Domitian (Silv. 1 pref.) and addresses the first poem to him, clearly without fear of offending Stella.

⁸ Silv. 3. praef. 21 ff.: summa est ecloga qua mecum secedere Neapolim Claudiammeam exhortor. hic, si verum dicimus, sermo est, et quidem securus ut cum uxore et qui persuadere malit quam placere.

⁹ For the poem as a suasoria cf. Vessey, 134–140.

¹⁰ Cf. White, P., ‘The Presentation and Dedication of the Silvae and the Epigrams’, JRS 64 (1974) 48–49Google Scholar for the financial considerations involved in choosing poems for publication. Admittedly, Silv. 1.4 in honour of Rutilius Gallicus was published after the death of its addressee; but Rutilius was survived by wife and children (Vollmer, 282–283), and cf. also Hardie, 68 and 187 ff. for the strong element of imperial propaganda in that poem, which might bring further reward from publication. The fact that only book 5, published after the poet’s death (cf. Vollmer, 3 and n.7; D. Bright, , Elaborate Disarray: The Nature of Statius’ Silvae [Meisenheim am Glan 1980] 52–53),Google Scholar contains personal poems not connected with the world of patronage, suggests that further financial reward had been a major criterion in Statius’ own choice of poems for publication.

¹¹ Hardie, 3 8 and 13 8 ff. notes Statius’ frequent use of supposedly private poems to make public announcements.

¹² Vollmer, 18 and n.10; van Dam, 2.

¹³ E.g. Vessey, 134: ‘The poet is now old (13) and only recently illness had almost extinguished his life (37–42)’.

¹⁴ See van Dam, 1 and n.3.

¹⁵ Verg. Aen. 7.773 (Stygias detrusit ad undas) is the source for both Martial Ep. 6.58.3 (Stygias ego raptus ad undas) and Statius Silv. 3.5.37 (Stygias prope raptus ad umbras). Statius possibly picks up comminus (Silv. 3.5.38) from Martial (6.58.2) and adapts the idea of having been almost in the world of the dead (Silv. 3.5.38; cf. Ep. 6.58.4) and of looking with dying eyes at a loved one (Silv. 3.5.39; cf. Ep. 6.58.5–6). Martial prays that the Fates will not cut off his life and the gods will not be deaf to his plea, so that he can see the safe return to Rome of his dear friend Aulus (6.58.7–10), which Statius changes to the notion that his own life was spared because Fate took pity on his wife, and the gods feared to incur her anger (Silv. 3.5.40–42).

¹⁶ Cf. Legras, , REA 9 (1907) 346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid. 343–344.

¹⁸ The Games were founded in 86 and celebrated every four years (Suet. Dom. 4.4). Statius speaks of having suffered only one defeat (Silv. 3.5.28–33; Silv. 5.3.227–233), and 86 is ruled out since, in both cases, he mentions his loss only after noting his Alban victory, which occurred in March 90 (Vollmer, 19; van Dam, 14n.l5). Thus, the only possible dates for his Capitoline loss are 90 or 94. For dating to 90, see e.g. Vollmer (loc. cit); Kytzler, B., ‘Beobachtungen zum Prooemium der Thebais, Hermes 88 (1960) 350–353;Google Scholar Hardie, 13–14, 62–63; van Dam, 14 n.16; H. Cancik, ‘Statius’ Silvae. Forschungsbericht (seit 1898)’, ANRW 2.32.5 (Berlin/New York 1986) 2685. For Coleman’s argument in favour of 90, based on the reference in Silv. 5.3.231–233, see discussion below, and n.25. Recently a case for dating the failure to 94 has been made by Benker, M., Achill und Domitian: Herrscherkrtik in der Achilleis des Statius (Diss. Erlangen — Nürnberg 1987) 54–55,Google Scholar though with great uncertainty (‘eine eindeutige Lösung des Problems of fenbar nicht möglich ist’) and on the shaky argument that Domitian would not have granted Statius victory in the Alban Games in March 90, only to deny him the Capitoline crown a few months later. The claim has understandably been rejected by her reviewer Dewar, M., ‘A Subversive Achilleid?’, CR n.s. 38 (1988) 253,Google Scholar in favour of Hardie’s reconstruction of the chronology.

¹⁹ Statius refers to his late father at Silv. 2.1.34, which was written before December 90 (cf. Hardie, 13).

²⁰ Hardie, 13–14, 62–63.

²¹ At the time of his death, the father was planning a poem on the eruption of Vesuvius, which occurred in August 79 (Silv. 5.3.205–208).

²² This may gain some confirmation from Statius’ remark at Silv. 3.5.35–36 that it was his wife alone who had shared in the long labour of the epic (longi tu sola laboris / conscia); cf. Coleman, xviii.

²³ Legras, , REA 9 (1907) 338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁴ See n.10 above.

²⁵ Vollmer, 9 n. 10; Vessey, D., Statius and the Thebaid (Cambridge 1973) 49 ff.Google Scholar See also Coleman, xviii–xix, who draws the ‘inescapable conclusion’ that the mention of the Alban victory and the Capitoline defeat at Silv. 5.3.225–233 is chronologically irreconcilable with the professed date of composition of the rest of the poem, and argues that, since Book 5 is a posthumous edition, 5.3 is most likely a later amalgamation of at least two poems or segments. This, of course, defeats her earlier suggestion (xvii) that, on the basis of the references in 5.3.231–238, we may exclude 94 as a possible date for the Capitoline defeat.

²⁶ For a full discussion of the date see van Dam, 197; also Vollmer, 6–7.

²⁷ RE 3.1528 (Wissowa) dates the games to late June or early July; the only chronological reference we have for fixing the month in which the Capitoline contest was held is the fact that the emperors Pupienus and Balbinus were assassinated during the games of A.D. 238 (Herodian 8.8.3); it is important to note that the murders (and therefore the games) took place certainly before 29th August when coins celebrating the accession of Gordian III were issued in Alexandria; the most likely date for the contest remains early July; see Herodian II (Books V–VIII), ed. CR. Whittaker (London 1970) 8.8.3 andnn.2–3 (p.303) and 8.8.8 n.3 (p.309). For the precise date of Gordian’s accession see also Vogt, J., Die alexandrinischen Münzen (Stuttgart 1924) 191–192.Google Scholar

²⁸ Florus, Vergilius Orator an Poeta 1.9, in Florus, , Oeuvres 2, ed. Jal, P. (Paris 1967).Google Scholar

²⁹ Cf. vanDam, 198. Statius certainly had not just won at the Augustalia since he refers to only one such victory and that occurred in his father’s lifetime (Silv. 5.3.225–227).

³⁰ Kytzler (above, n.18) 350. See also van Dam, 14 n.16.

³¹ RE 1.1213–5.

³² See above, n.27.

³³ Vollmer, 431.

³⁴ Cf. Sauter, 54–78; Scott, 133–140.

³⁵ For the title see Suet. Dom. 13; also Scott, 102 ff. and Brunt, P.A., ‘Divine Elements in the Imperial Office’, JRS 69 (1979) 173.Google Scholar

³⁶ E.g. Gossage, A.D., ‘Statius’, in Neronians and Flavians, ed. Dudley, D.R. (London 1972) 208–211;Google ScholarVerstraete, B.C., ‘Originality and Mannerism in Statius’ Use of Myth in the Silvae’, L’Antiquitè Classique 52 (1983) 200–201;Google ScholarVessey, D., ‘Mediis Discumbere in Astris: Statius, Silvae 4.2’, L’Antiquitè Classique 52 (1983) 211.Google Scholar For an opposing view, see Ahl, F.M., Lucan (Ithaca and London 1976) 29–35.Google Scholar Also, id., ‘The Rider and the Horse: Politics and Power in Roman Poetry from Horace to Statius’, ANRW 2.32.1 (Berlin/New York 1984) 40–110. For my analysis of Silvae 3.4, see ‘Statius, Silvae 3.4; On the Fate of Earinus’, ibid. 111–124.

³⁷ Arico, A. Traglia-G. (ed.), Opere di Publio Papinio Stazio (Turin 1980) 126;Benker (above, n.18) 53–54.Google Scholar

³⁸ Suet. Dom. 4.4 for the Alban venue; Statius says that his winning entry in the Alban Games was a panegyric on Domitian’s German and Dacian Wars (Silv. 4.2.66–67).

³⁹ For the Alban crown as Minerva’s, cf. Silv. 4.2.67; as Caesar’s, Silv. 4.4.24.

⁴⁰ Quint. 3.7.4: laudes Capitolini Iovis, perpetua sacri certaminis materia.

⁴¹ Vollmer, 143; Frère, H.-Izaac, H.J., Stace, Silves (Paris 1944) [Budé repr. 1961] 126 n.4.Google Scholar

⁴² Scott, 135–136, and Sauter, 64–66, differ needlessly as to whether Martial is referring to Domitian or Jupiter; the point is that he wants us to see them as one and the same.

⁴³ See the list in Scott, 133–136.

⁴⁴ The difference in tone and intention between the two passages may reflect a slight reconciliation between Statius and Domitian in the months following the publication of Silv. 3.5: see discussion below.

⁴⁵ Suet. Dom. 4.4.

⁴⁶ Cf. Coleman, K.M., ‘The Emperor Domitian and Literature’, ANRW 2.32.5 (Berlin/New York 1986) 3099–3100.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Florus 1.3–4: Tune (sc. Florus) es… ex Africa, quern summo consensu poposcimus? Invito quidem Caesare et resistente, non quod sibi puero invideret, sed ne Africa coronam magni Iovis attingeret. Coleman (above, n.46) 3099 incorrectly assigns Florus’ defeat to the Alban Games rather than to the Capitoline: n.b. coronam magni Iovis.

⁴⁸ Statius’ animosity toward Domitian in Silv. 3.5 is, of course, carefully veiled. It might be claimed, however, that any form of criticism in this poem is hard to reconcile with the apparent eulogy of the emperor in Silv. 3.4, written shortly before. But I have also argued elsewhere (cf. n.36 above) that the portrayal of Domitian in Silv. 3.4 is itself highly ambiguous and ironic.

⁴⁹ Van Dam, 1 and 14 n.18; Coleman, xxii.

⁵⁰ Longo post tempore venit recalls specifically Verg. Ecl. 1.29, in which Tityrus celebrates the gift of freedom granted to him by Octavian, when he had long since given up hope of it. Thus Statius hints even more strongly at the emperor’s long disregard for him.