1. There have been important exceptions to the generally accepted view that Statius’ poems of consolation are dully conventional examples of their genre. Zablocki, S., ‘De Antiquorum Epicediis’ Eos 56 (1966), 292–310Google Scholar, is virtually alone in regarding Statius’ consolationes as an aesthetic triumph of the genre. Recently Markus, D., ‘Grim Pleasures: Statius’s Poetic Consolationes’, Arethusa 37 (2004), 105–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar, has argued that these poems are worth a fresh look in that they represent a pointed resistance to philosophical prescriptions against excessive grieving and, as such, offer a new perspective upon Roman social mores. For a discussion of Statius’ poems of consolation within the consolatory tradition see now Gibson, B., Statius Silvae 5 (Oxford 2006), xxxi-1Google ScholarPubMed.

2. See Newlands, C.E., Statius’ Silvae and the Poetics of Empire (Cambridge 2002), 32–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Nisbet, R. and Hubbard, M., A Commentary on Horace, Odes, Book 2 (Oxford 1978), 136Google Scholar.

4. On Atedius Melior see White, P., ‘The Friends of Martial, Statius, Pliny and the Dispersal of Patronage’, HSCP 79 (1975), 265–300Google Scholar, at 272–75.

5. Text and translation (with some of my own alterations) from the Loeb edition of Shackleton Bailey, D.R., Statius Silvae (Cambridge MA & London 2003Google Scholar).

6. Text and translation from the Loeb edition of Shackleton Bailey, D.R., Martial Epigrams (Cambridge MA & London 1993Google Scholar).

7. Mozley, J.H., Statius Silvae, Thebaid I-IV (Cambridge MA & London 1928), 82Google Scholarn.b.

8. Bernstein, N.W., ‘Mourning the Puer Delicatus: Status Inconsistency and the Ethical Value of Fostering in Statius, Silvae 2.1’, AJP 126 (2005), 257–80Google Scholar; Nielsen, H.S., ‘Alumnus: A Term of Relation Denoting Quasi-Adoption’. C&M 38 (1987), 141–88Google Scholar, and ‘Quasi-Kin, Quasi-Adoption and the Roman Family’, in M. Corbier (ed.), Adoption and Fosterage (Paris 1999), 249–62Google Scholar (hereafter Nielsen a and Nielsen b).

9. Van Dam, H.-J., P. Papinius Statius, Silvae Book II: A Commentary (Leiden 1984Google Scholar).

10. Rawson, B., Children and Childhood in Roman Italy (Oxford 2003), 252Google Scholar, notes that ‘even in Rome, only about one percent of the surviving inscriptions attest alumni’

11. For a definition of the term alumnus see Nielsen a (n.8 above), 143–46, and Nielsen b (n.8 above), 250–54. The term was believed to be etymologically connected with alere (‘to nourish’), and hence the concept of the alumnus was closely tied to nurture and education; see Corbier, M., ‘Usages publics du vocabulaire de la parené: patronus et alumnus de la cité dans l’Afrique romaine’. L’Africa Romana 7 (1989), 815–54Google Scholar, at 817–19. Zeiner, N., Nothing Ordinary Here: Statius as Creator of Distinction in the Siluae (New York & London 2005), 161–69Google Scholar, draws attention to the poem’s emphasis upon the quasi paternal-filial relationship.

12. Corbier, M., ‘Divorce and Adoption as Familial Strategies’; in B. Rawson (ed.), Marriage, Divorce and Children in Ancient Rome (Canberra and Oxford 1991), 74–78Google Scholar.

13. Watson, P., ‘Erotion: puella delicata?’ CQ 42 (1992), 253–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 260, citing Van Dam (n.9 above, 73), though Van Dam slightly hedges. See also Vessey, D.W.T.C., ‘Transience Preserved: Style and Theme in Statius’ Siluae’, ANRW 2.32.5: 2754–2802Google Scholar, at 2765–85; La Penna, A., ‘Modelli efebici nella poesia di Stazio’ in F. Delarue, S. Georgacopoulou, P. Laurens & A.-M. Taisne (eds), Epicedion: Hommage à P. Papinius Statius 96–1996 (Poitiers 1996), 161–84Google Scholar, at 180–84.

14. See Pollini, J., ‘Slave-boys for Sexual and Religious Service’ in A.J. Boyle and W.J. Do-minik (eds), Flavian Rome: Culture, Image, Text (Leiden 2003), 149–66Google Scholar, at 150.

15. See Coleman, K.M., Statius Silvae IV (Oxford 1988), xxviii-xxxiiGoogle Scholar.

16. Nielsen, H.S., ‘Interpreting Epithets in Roman Epitaphs’ in B. Rawson and P. Weaver (eds), The Roman Family in Italy: Status, Sentiment, Space (Canberra and Oxford 1997), 169–204Google Scholar, makes the point at 189 that the language used by adults of young children is often similar to that used by lovers.

17. Van Dam (n.9 above), 73.

18. See Slater, W.J., ‘Pueri, Turba Minuta’ BICS 21 (1974), 133–40Google Scholar, at 136–38, on deliciae kept to entertain in wealthy households. He suggests there may have been some overlap between the deliciae and the delicatus. As Rawson (n.10 above, 262f.) notes, such beautiful young boys were ‘symbols of luxury and exotic display’; they were a feature of imperial households from the time of Augustus and, according to epigraphic evidence, were generally found in urban wealthy households in Roman Italy and Cisalpine Gaul. Watson (n.13 above) argues that sexual relationships between adult and child in the same family were so common that Romans would think nothing of it.

19. Laes, C., ‘Desperately Different? Delicia Children in the Roman Household’, in D.L. Balch and C. Osiek (eds.), Early Christian Families in Context (Grand Rapids 2003), 298–324Google Scholar, at 305; Nielsen a (n.8 above), 145.

20. Cic.Att. 1.5.8.4; cf. 16.6.4.11 (of Attica).

21. See n.16 above.

22. See H.S. Nielsen, ‘Interpreting Epithets in Roman Epitaphs’ in Rawson and Weaver (n.16 above), 169–204, at 188–90. Dulces…curae means ‘sweet source of (parental) care’ not ‘beloved’ in an erotic sense, as Van Dam on 2.1.69–72 suggests; to enforce a sexual interpretation he also suggests emending curae to cura since the plural form does not otherwise occur in Latin poetry with an erotic sense.

23. Cf. the brief comparison between Glaucias to Apollo’s Hyacinth and Hercules’ Hylas (112f.), a high compliment suggesting that the boy was worthy of a god’s love; he is here removed from the human realm. We need not assume a pederastic relationship with his earthly ‘father’; Melior moreover is emphatically called ‘father’ shortly before and after this comparison (103,119).

24. Bernstein (n.8 above), 267–73.

25. See n.23 above. In Silu. 2.1 myth primarily promotes the cultural heritage and value of the foster relationship: the relationship between Glaucias and Melior is compared to those between Chiron and Achilles, then Phoenix and Achilles, Acoetes and Evander’s Pallas, Dictys and Perseus, Ino and Bacchus, Acca and Romulus and Remus (88–100). Through his early death Glaucias is also compared to the tragic infants of Theban myth, Palaemon and Opheltes (179–82), thus acquiring cultural capital from contact with Statius’ epic world.

26. Cf. Gibson (n.l above, xxxix), who argues that in Silu. 2.1 ‘Statius does not take much care to obscure potentially erotic aspects’; he claims (xxviii–xlii) that Silu. 5.5, the poem on the death of Statius’ own foster-son, is to be distinguished from Silu. 2.1 on the grounds that it emphasises the paternal, not the erotic; but as he himself admits, the child of 5.5 is extremely young, unlike the twelve-year-old Glaucias (on the cusp of puberty, a stage of life generally regarded by the ancients as particularly beautiful), and the poem is fragmentary.

27. Bernstein (n.8 above), 269.

28. Rawson (n.10 above), 341.

29. Bernstein (n.8 above), 271.

30. Kenney, E.J., ‘Erotion again’, G&R 11 (1964), 77–81Google Scholar, makes a similar point about Mart. 5.37, the third poem about the death of the slave girl Erotion. At its heart stands a contrast between the superficial grief of Paetus, who has lost a wife he cared for only for her dowry, and that of Martial, who has lost a child he truly cared about. Nielsen b (n.8 above), 252, emphasises that choice of child was a key feature of the alumnus relationship. Zeiner (n.ll above) likewise draws attention to the emphasis of 2.1 upon Melior’s role as father by choice.

31. See in particular the pioneering work of B. Rawson as cited at nn.10 and 12 above and nn.32 and 34 below.

32. B. Rawson, ‘The Iconography of Roman Childhood’ in Rawson and Weaver (n.16 above), 205–32; also ‘Children as Cultural Symbols’, in S. Dixon (ed.), Childhood, Class and Kin in the Roman World (London & New York 2001), 21–42Google Scholar, at 21–24.

33. Champlin, E., Final Judgments: Duty and Emotion in Roman Wills, 200B.C.-A.D. (Berkeley & Los Angeles 1991), 107–20Google Scholar, notes that as regards making wills, a man always put his children, whether male or female, before his wife.

34. Rawson, B., ‘The Express Route to Hades’, in P. McKechnie (ed), Essays on Legal History and General History for John Crook on his eightieth birthday (Leiden, Boston, Cologne) = Mnem. Suppl. 231 (2002), 273–88Google Scholar, at 277–79; also Rawson (n.10 above), 336–63.

35. See Rawson (n.10 above), 347f.

36. See Sens, A., ‘Grief Beyond Measure: Asclepiades 33 Gow-Page (AP xiii.23) on the Troubles of Botrys’, Hermathena 173–74 (2002–03), 108–15Google Scholar, at lllf.

37. Hardie, A., Statius and the Silvae: Poets, Patrons and Epideixis in the Graeco-Roman World (Liverpool 1983), 115Google Scholar.

38. Malamud, M., ‘Happy Birthday, Dead Lucan: (P)raising the Dead in Silvae 2.7’, in A.J. Boyle (ed.), Roman Literature and Ideology: Ramus Essays for J.P. Sullivan (Bendigo 1995), 169–98Google Scholar, at 170.

39. On the Roman cult of the tomb see Lattimore, R., Themes in Greek and Latin Epitaphs (Urbana 1942), 106–41Google Scholar; Champlin (n.33 above), 169–82. Argetsinger, K., ‘Birthday Rituals: Friends and Patrons in Roman Poetry and Cult’ ClAnt 11 (1992), 174–94Google Scholar, discusses the ritual features of the birthday celebration, but her attention is on celebration of the living, not of the dead.

40. This is somewhat disputed but see Bodel, J., ‘Death on Display: Looking at Roman Funerals’ in B. Bergmann and C. Kondoleon (eds), The Art of Ancient Spectacle (New Haven 1999), 259–81Google Scholar, at 270f.; Zanker, P., Mit Mythen Leben: Die Bilderwelt der römischen Sarkophagen (Munich 2004), 33–36Google Scholar. Rawson (n.32 above), 211 and 216f., argues that starting in the early empire there was a more diverse use of commemorative practices among the elite, including a variety of funerary foundations.

41. Champlin (n.33 above), 165.

42. Lattimore (n.39 above), 137, assumes the Rosalia, and probably the Violaria too, were associated with workmen’s collegia.

43. Rawson (n.10 above), 339.

44. Champlin (n.33 above), 164–66.

45. See Dunbabin, K., The Roman Banquet (Cambridge 2003), 127–32Google Scholar.

46. On the rhetorical conventions of the funeral speech see Menander Rh. 11 = Rh. Gr. 418.5–422.4 in Russell, D.A. and Wilson, N.G., Menander Rhetor (Oxford 1981Google Scholar); Scourfield, J.H.D., Consoling Heliodorus (Oxford 1993), 26fGoogle Scholar.

47. Gowing, A., Empire and Memory: The Representation of the Roman Republic in Imperial Culture (Cambridge 2005), 82–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48. See Tac. Ann. 15.49–50.

49. See Courtney, E., A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London 1980Google Scholar), on Juv. Sat. 5.36f.

50. Suet. Dom. 10.

51. On the innovation of the Muse as prophet see Buchheit, W., ‘Statius’ Geburtstagsgedicht zu ehren Lucans (Silu. 2.7)’ Hermes 88 (1960), 231–49Google Scholar, at 242f. This new role for Calliope suggests the close connection between Lucan and the highest inspiration.

52. Thus in Silu. 2.7 Lucan’s work on the great fire of Rome, De Incendio Urbis, ascribes the blame squarely to Nero as the people’s ‘guilty slave master’ (60f.). On the role that the De Incendio Urbis played in Nero’s ban on Lucan’s public and literary activity see Ahl, F., Lucan: An Introduction (Ithaca NY 1976), 338–53Google Scholar.

53. On Lucan’s prolific output see Ahl (n.52 above), 333–36. All of Lucan’s works—Calliope lists seven, our other sources eight more—are lost, apart from the Bellum Ciuile. At the very least, as Ahl points out at 336, Statius’ poem in honour of Lucan’s birthday provides our ‘earliest and fullest biographical sketch of Lucan’s career’ as well as a valuable synopsis of some of the poet’s early works.

54. Ahl (n.52 above), 336.

55. As Malamud (n.38 above, 188f.) argues, the Muse Calliope is also a ‘doublet’ of Hyp-sipyle in the Thebaid. My point is that there is a good deal of crossover between the Siluae and the Thebaid; but the former offer structures of recuperation not available in Statius’ epic.

56. As Malamud (n.38 above) has shown, Silu. 2.7 is not without criticism of Lucan’s brash epic poetics.

57. The gesture of raising a child from the ground has been understood as ritualistic, a sign of the adult’s acceptance of the child into the family; thus for instance Nielsen b (n.8 above), 256, Zeiner (n.ll above), 164f. But Shaw, B., ‘Raising and Killing Two Children: Two Roman Myths’, Mnem. 54 (2001) 31–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 31–56, has argued forcefully against the idea that there was such a formal ritual.

58. Flower, H., Ancestor Masks and Aristocratic Power in Roman Culture (Oxford 1996), 32–59Google Scholar.

59. Cited by Lattimore (n.39 above), 136.

60. Plin. NH 35.9–12; cf. NH 35.6 and Flower (n.58 above), 38–40.

61. Cf. the following testamentary disposition for care of a memorial statue, ut statuam meam et uxoris meae tergeat et ungual et coronet (‘make sure to clean my statue and that of my wife and anoint them with perfume and place garlands on them’ CIL 8.9052.13). According to Mart. 8.38, Melior had set up an annuity fund for a collegium of scribes to honour Blaesus on his birthday (ad natalicium diem colendum, 12; see also Mart. 2.69, 4.54), but according to Statius, Melior in addition kept a commemorative bust of Blaesus within his house and maintained a sort of private cult—alluded to also at Silu. 2.3.76f.

62. A similar point is made by Bernstein (n.8 above), 272f.

63. Hardie (n.37 above, 66f.) has proposed that Melior’s friend may be Iunius Blaesus, an aristocratic legate who served under Vitellius in the civil wars of 68–69 (Tac. Hist. 1.59, 2.59, 3.9.2); he was murdered on the orders of a jealous Vitellius (Tac. Hist. 3.38–39). Though rejected by Van Dam, this proposal has received cautious support from Nauta, R.R., Poetry for Patrons: Literary Communication in the Age of Domitian (Leiden 2002), 314fGoogle Scholar. Tacitus commends Blaesus for elegantia morum (Hist. 3.92.2), a feature that accords well with Statius and his friends.

64. Hardie (n.37 above), 216 n.66. However while he accepts a reference to Melior as pro-Vitellian and anti-Flavian, he discounts as far-fetched White’s suggestion (n.4 above, 272f.) of Melior’s possible treachery. Vessey, D.W.T.C., ‘Atedius Melior’s Tree: Statius Silvae 2.3’ CP 76 (1981), 46–52Google Scholar, on the other hand takes White’s idea further and reads the mythical narrative of Silu. 2.3 (a birthday poem for Melior) as a subtle political allegory.

65. But not necessarily festive in spirit. See Malamud, M., ‘That’s Entertainment! Dining with Domitian in the Siluae’, Ramus 30 (2001), 23–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66. Sen. Ep. 99 provides an instructive parallel. Marullus, who has lost his young son, is an example of a mature man who indulges in womanish grief when he should have known better. The evidence of Statius suggests that we should not rely so heavily on the philosophical prose tradition in determining Roman attitudes towards bereavement.

67. The sentiment at the end of the Thebaid is contradicted at Silu. 4.7.25–28 where Statius claims that his Thebaid boldly challenges the Aeneid in fame: temptat audaci fide Mantuanae/ gaudia famae (‘challenges with daring strings the joys of Mantuan fame’ 27f.; cf. Theb. 12.816 tempta). Thus Hinds, S., Allusion and Intertext (Cambridge 1998), 93fGoogle Scholar., cautions that we should not read the end of the Thebaid as a definitive literary historical position; rather this statement too is ‘occasional’

68. My thanks to the organisers and participants of the 2006 Pacific Rim conference, San Diego State University, where I first had the chance to deliver an early version of this article, and also to Tony Boyle for his comments and encouragement.