Few enduring and respected commentaries on classical texts contain concerted theoretical statements concerning method. Where such statements exist, they are confined to linguistic and pedagogic aims. For example, Fraenkel’s commentary on Agamemnon explicitly focuses on “grammar, syntax, semasiology, word
order...[and] prosody” (1950:vol.1: IX). Similar may be said of NH (1970). Both authors eschew extensive introductions, asserting that the commentary speaks for itself. Likewise, the “Oxford-Red” commentaries (so termed by Henderson (2006)) give small account of a concerted theoretical approach; in all volumes method is dominated by philology. The same could have been said of the Cambridge Greek and Latin texts until recently. The covers of the so-called “Green and Yellows” denoted their address to an academic/pedagogic readership but little was said about underlying methodological choices. More recent additions to the series have begun to acknowledge specific approaches. Ash (2007) claims to merely “elucidate the
text” but does much more; Steiner (2010), in her preface, accepts the validity of narratology; and Newlands (2011) undertakes to explore her text’s “sophisticated engagement with Domitianic culture”. To date, few commentaries have been
informed by a named and elucidated theoretical stance which is then carried through the text consistently. A notable exception is de Jong’s (2001) commentary on the Odyssey. Her narratological approach is ideal for the structure and character of epic and the oral/formulaic nature of the language. Other such “theoretical” approaches to texts could be easily imagined. Barthes’ S/Z (1974) provides a model of how to add “critical theory” into the exegesis of a text. The application of such theoretical perspectives would not replace the traditional philological and textual comments; rather the theory would reinforce these primary methodologies and open the text to further levels of interpretation. Goldhill, in Most (1999:381-425), demonstrates that it is possible to produce a wider-ranging commentary underpinned with theoretical principles without losing philological precision.
Despite the intrusion of the “theory revolution” into classical studies, a survey of the above series and volumes of standard Anglophone commentaries suggests that commentaries are largely deemed to be self-explanatory. This modus operandi implies that no statements about methodology are required since the “truth” of a text is there to be excavated by philological enquiry and by diligent comparison between texts.
Where discussion about the nature of commentary is found, as in two recent volumes explicitly examining the “classical commentary”, Most (1999), and Gibson and Kraus (2002), a mixed range of concerns and proposed methods is proffered.
Particular attention is given to matching of types of text to styles of commentary, and to classifying commentaries as either literary or historical. Roy Gibson in Gibson and Kraus (2002:331-57) establishes a “typology of parallels”, arguing that such a typology establishes register, contextualizes the text and identifies topoi. All of these approaches are adopted here in this commentary.
In the Anglophone and canonical series mentioned above, the only commentator to explain his method is Roy Gibson, in discussing Ovid Ars Amatoria 3 (2003:83-4). His introductory “Method of the Commentary” details how his material will be displayed. However even he supplies no explanation of the theory governing how he selects this material and no account of his innovatory lemmatization, which is organized at the level of the elegiac couplet.
This commentary on Statius aims to match philology with hermeneutics, thereby demonstrating that the former is necessarily the foundation of the latter. In this sense, it follows the lead of Lloyd-Jones (1982). Basing his idea on Od.11.34-7, he uses the analogy of “blood for ghosts” to explain the relationship between text, philology and hermeneutics. He argues that philology (the “blood” element) is the basis for the overall hermeneutic interpretation of the text (which is, until “fed” in this way, a mere “ghost”).
It is the contention of this commentary that philology and hermeneutics are mutually reinforcing and cannot be separated. Philology provides the material for a close reading of the text. Richards (1929) and Northrop Frye (1957) have made this approach standard in the field of English literature. In these works every phrase, or
even word, of a text is treated as one of the semantic blocks that build up into the overall meaning. The language, the cultural “strangeness” and historic context are all given exegesis. Once this essential “ground-work” has been done the
hermeneutic approaches supply the material means by which they can proceed. Examples from English literature, such as Helen Vendler on Keats (1995),
Shakespeare’s Sonnets (1998) and Dickinson (2010) provide illumination as to what can be achieved by such techniques. They, too, deal with a language which is not familiar and with cultures differing from the experience of most readers. The commentary, then, both implicitly and explicitly argues that philology and hermeneutics are elements of a single process. Once separated, hermeneutics becomes part of another agenda.
The basic techniques of philological explication trace their origins back to the Hellenistic scholia and editions. Pfeiffer (1968) and Lloyd-Jones (1982) supply accounts of this period and scholarship. Philology is the necessary foundation because of the difficulty in understanding the language and culture for the reader. Such material, then, is essential “blood” for the ghosts of the ancients, as
Lloyd–Jones would call them. Here, detailed philological discussion provides the “blood” which drives the hermeneutics and the hermeneutics of texts can be
observed in action at all levels down to the resonance of a single word or even within that word.
This commentary starts at the smallest possible division, namely the word, seeking to explain that word within its immediate context and then work outward to larger themes, intertexts and cultural connections. Translations are taken from a wide range
of modern English editions and supplemented by personal
translations/interpretations. Whichever translation best reflects the meaning,
resonance and significance in the original Latin text has been used. Each section of the commentary is provided with an appropriate local introduction and scene-setting details. Use of the OLD has been privileged but, because it is in itself a “translation”, its wisdom does not go unchallenged. Each lemma opens up from the specific word to wider themes, and connotations.
Broader themes are dealt with in introductions to sections. Anthropologist Geertz (1973:3-30) argues that the real meaning in a text can only be recovered by a combination of philological and historical investigation. This is close to the
philological and historical scholarship of conservative classical studies. He calls this approach “thick description”; that is, he posits that much can be discovered by looking at “man [as] an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun”. In other words, he argues for research into not only human behaviour (through study of literary production) but also the material context.46 However, in this commentary, it will be argued that “thick description” alone cannot provide a holistic approach to the text either. Other theoretical perspectives are required.
The only previous commentary on this section of the Thebaid is Fortgens (1934). Its aim is purely philological. There is little comment above the level of the word or phrase. However, this is unsurprising as his work predates the rise of contemporary literary and cultural theory and its application to written texts. Moreover, Fortgens
makes no attempt to link the text to a cultural and epic tradition. This fresh
commentary on Thebaid 6 applies current techniques and concerns without losing the tradition of philological exactitude to which Fortgens belonged. The approach here is, therefore, embedded in the literary-critical milieu of today. Skoie (2002) in her review of commentaries on [Sulpicia] from 1475 to 1990 well illustrates how commentaries reflect the worlds in which they are created. In particular, the
transition from pure philology to a broader range of approaches is illustrated by her analysis of the first and second editions of Tranke, in 1980 and 1990 respectively. It was necessary for Skoie to add an appendix to the second edition in order to
accommodate that transition. The first edition eschews any hermeneutics and the second emphatically leads towards such a hermeneutics. The transition in approach was necessitated by, and responded to, the change over that decade. This
commentary on Statius argues by means of its methodology that the combination of the two approaches is not only legitimate but essential.
Pavan (2008) is the most recent commentary on any part of Thebaid 6 but deals only with the chariot race. Nevertheless it has much to say about Statius’ poetics. Von Stosch (1968) covers the games as a whole but in the context of the epic tradition. Both Pavan and von Stosch comment on the games of previous and later epic, up to Nonnus. Fortgens, for this section of the Thebaid, discusses the meaning of the text, and surveys the basic intertexts. Inevitably there is a tralatitious element in these aspects of any new commentary that covers the same textual material as a
predecessor.47 This commentary, though, expands upon Fortgens’ philological,
47 Kraus in Gibson and Kraus (2002) discusses the inevitability of later commentaries sharing some detail with earlier
descriptive and textual comparanda. His name has not been mentioned when
obvious connections in the text occur though naturally he is given full credit where this is due. He represents the starting point; his process for discovering the
inter-/intra-texts is built upon and a whole range of critical tools not envisaged in 1934 are deployed. Yet many of the close-reading techniques are similar. Likewise, extensive reference will be made to Lovatt’s monograph Statius and Epic Games: Sport, Politics and Poetics in the Thebaid (2005). Lovatt does not discuss the Opheltes incident in detail but her work on Statius’ poetic technique and her contextualization of Thebaid 6 within the epic has supplied valuable perspectives.
This commentary aims to move from minute examination of the text towards the themes and concerns which are treated at greater length in monographs or articles. The commentary is therefore part of a dialogue. It is a distillation of such extended analysis to date and a “point de répart” for such future academic endeavours.