STATIUS, DOMITIAN AND ACKNOWLEDGING PATERNITY 179
in the canon was that the texts chosen should be useful, that they
should carry out a function of civil and moral education:^16 and it is
implied that this requisite is met in the reference to the Itala iuuentus,
who read and memorise the poet’s work. In a word, we find clear con-
firmation that what is enacted here is, to all intents and purposes, a
ceremony of poetic succession, in which Statius assigns a role of
model not only to the figure of Virgil, but also to his relationship with
the Augustan principate, thus suggesting an analogous civil and politi-
cal function for himself and his own work (as well as, obviously, an
analogous protection and support on the part of the emperor). In other
words, the Augustan principate appears as the ideal model both for the
poet and for the emperor, the cultural and political paradigm that is
capable of providing legitimacy to both of them.
The double act of homage, to “Caesar” and to Virgil, to the politi-
cal authority and the literary one, thus identifies the fixed reference
points for the epic poet; but as well as the hyperbolic homage to Virgil
proves to be double-edged (a mixture of respectful veneration and
proud challenge), in the homage rendered to the political authority we
may also detect a less deferential, more complex attitude than is ap-
parent at first sight.^17
As we have seen, at the end of his epic poem, Statius expresses his
confident expectation that the Thebaid will live on beyond his domi-
nus, and will be read even after his death. Who is this dominus that the
Thebaid will outlive? Primarily, of course, it indicates its author; and
thus Statius’ affirmation appears, at first sight, to echo the thought of
Horace’s line, “I shall not wholly die” (non omnis moriar, Carm.
3.30), and Ovid’s “I’ll be borne, the finer part of me, above the stars,
immortal” (parte ... meliore mei super alta perennis / astra ferar, Met.
15.875f.), that is to say, the literary work survives the death of its au-
thor. But we also know that, especially under Domitian, this term is
closely associated with the figure of the emperor (who claims for him-
self the title of dominus et deus), and on the basis of this Latin tradi-
tion of claiming poetic glory – in particular Ovid (Met. 15.871), who
states that he is conscious of his own fame, in spite of “the wrath of
Jupiter” (a common metonym to indicate the earthly Jupiter, i.e. the
emperor) – we may be tempted to see in the words of Statius also a
16 See also Most 1990, 51.
17 Cf. also Pollmann 2004, 285, with bibliography.