2. Toohey, P., Reading Epic: An Introduction to the Ancient Narratives (London 1992), 203 and 204CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3. Such an approach may be seen when Sander Goldberg, in an otherwise very sensible study, argues from experience against Ramsay MacMullen’s remarks on ‘the lowly status of poets in the century beginning with Livius Andronicus (240–140 BC)’ in ‘Hellenizing the Romans (2nd century BC)’, Historia 40 (1991), 419–31, at 423Google Scholar. UCLA professors are also lowly creatures, ‘yet we do not necessarily feel or act lowly. Neither, I suspect, did Livius Andronicus’ (Epic in Republican Rome [Oxford 1995], 30 n.6Google Scholar). The difference in social and political systems between Republican Rome and the United States of the present, however, suggests that the analogy cannot be easily upheld.

4. Scaliger, J.C., Poetices Libri Septem (1561), 324Google Scholar, reproduced in von Albrecht, M., Silius Italic us (Amsterdam 1964), 10Google Scholar.

5. Scaliger notoriously preferred Vergil to Homer and so was later co-opted in the Battle of the Books as a champion of the ‘moderns’ to smite the ‘classicists’ (Levine, J.M., The Battle of the Books [Ithaca NY 1993], 122fGoogle Scholar.).

6. See Bassett, E.L., ‘Silius Italicus in England’, CP 54 (1953), 153–68Google Scholar.

7. Karl Galinsky, G. (ed.), The Interpretation of Roman Poetry: Empiricism or Hermeneutics (Frankfurt am Main 1992), 23f., 31Google Scholar (welcoming a renewed interdisciplinary orientation in Classics). Cf. 19f. on the results of the fear of recovering the social ‘horizon’ of the author: ‘The creative ahistorical interpreter simply winds up practising a more sophisticated kind of bowdlerization.’

8. Cf. the remarks of Hinds, Stephen, Allusion and Intertext (Cambridge 1998), 84f.Google Scholar, noting the arbitrariness of Williams, Gordon’s analysis in Change and Decline (Berkeley/Los Angeles 1978)Google Scholar, but also emphasising the need to take Roman theories of decline into account when considering their literary output.

9. Kristeva, J., Théorie d’ensemble (Paris 1968), 299Google Scholar.

10. Edmunds, L., Intertextuality and the Reading of Roman Poetry (Baltimore 2001), 146Google Scholar; cf. 88: ‘The reader needs to know more about ancient literature, not about ancient persons and occasions.’

11. Said, E., The World, the Text, and the Critic (Cambridge 1983), 4Google Scholar (cited by Galinsky [n.5 above], 32).

12. For a sympathetic treatment of these ‘Stoic’ themes, see Bassett, E.L., ‘Hercules and the Hero of the Punica’, in Wallach, L. (ed.), The Classical Tradition (Ithaca NY 1966), 258–73Google Scholar.

13. Cic. Fam. 13.1.5 (Atticus the Epicurean—Cicero’s mockery of the sect [‘He’s really too educated to be one of them’] should be taken as indicative of the orator’s own attitude to a philosophical viewpoint that he rejected rather than as evidence that Atticus was not really a supporter of the school); Nepos, Alt. 21f.

14. Plin. Ep. 3.7.9: in hac tranquillitate annum quintum et septuagensimum excessit, delicato magis corpore quam infirmo (‘amid this peacefulness he lived into his seventy-sixth year, delicate in his constitution rather than decrepit’).

15. The letter is addressed to the Coman landowner, Caninius Rufus, the recipient of the famous letter on the Hippo dolphin (9.33) with the disingenuous suggestion that the poet might heighten the emotional details in a recasting of the story. Caninius is also depicted as having proposed an epic treatment of the Dacian War (8.4). Yet although the death of a fellow poet would be of interest to Caninius, it is clear that Pliny’s letters are aimed at an audience of his peers and that Caninius mainly serves as a (non-)fictive recipient for the composition.

16. Sallust is himself refining Cato the Elder’s statement in the preface to his Origines that the great and famous should devote not only their public service but also their leisure time to the good of the state (clarorum hominum atque magnorum non minus otii quam negotii rationem exstare oportere, ‘great and famous men should offer an account of their leisure time as much as their official activities’, Cic. Plane. 66).

17. Cf. Tac. Ann. 2.33 for Asinius Gallus’ defence of senatorial perquisites.

18. Suet. Vit. Horav. scriptum quaestorium comparauit (‘he purchased a position as a quaestor’s clerk’); cf. Hor. Sat. 2.6.36 where the ordo of scribae appeal to Horace for assistance as patron.

19. The reference to the arrival of the new emperor in Ep. 3.7.6 indicates that the letter is written after Trajan’s arrival in Rome after 99; other events in Book 3 suggest that Silius’ death should not be placed later than 103 CE. For the dating of the Punica see Wistrand, E., Die Chronologic der Punica des Silius Italicus (Göteborg 1956)Google Scholar, who views the period 81–98 as the most probable time of composition.

20. Plin. Ep. 3.7.4: multum in lectulo iacens cubiculo semper, non ex fortuna frequenti, doctissimis sermonibus dies transigebat, cum a scribendo uacaret (‘often, when he was not engaged in writing, he would pass the day in the most educated of discussions, reclining on his couch in his lounge, which was always crowded, filled with people from all status groups’); Martial 7.63. Cornutus: Charisius (ed. Barwick), p. 159, s.v. ciuitatium.

21. Pilgrimage to Vergil’s tomb at Naples: Plin. Ep. 3.7.8 (ubi monimentum eius adire ut templum solebat, ‘where he used to go to his tomb as if it were a temple’); respect for Cicero: Martial 11.48. Cf. Pomeroy, A., ‘Silius Italicus as Doctus Poeta’, Ramus 18 (1989), 119–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22. Sen. Ep. 27.5–8.

23. Suet. Tiberius 56; Gaius 34.2.

24. The use of these terms (and variants) is problematic: the first suggests a relationship to the activities of the first princeps which extended for another three decades after Vergil’s death, approval of these activities, and also that the emperor was in almost total control of artistic production in Rome during his reign; the second, while rightly emphasising the pre-Augustan nature of much of Vergil’s work, exaggerates the poet’s separation from trends of his age. For a brief, but perceptive overview of the difficulties of such terminology, see Thomas, R., Virgil and the Augustan Reception (Cambridge 2001), 20–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25. Cf. Statius, Theb. 12.816f.

26. If arma, quibus caelo se gloria tollit/Aeneadum (‘the warfare, through which the glory of the descendants of Aeneas rose to the heavens’, Pun. 1.If.) is a deliberate contrast to the Ennian divinisation of Romulus (unus erit quern tu tolles in caerula caeli, ‘one will come whom you will elevate to the blue heavens’, Ann. 54f. Sk., itself already a sufficiently standard quotation to be cited by Ovid, Met. 14.814), it also recalls Cicero’s correction of the belief that Ennius was simply a praise-poet for Scipio (at eis laudibus certe non solum ipse qui laudatur sed etiam populi Romani nomen ornatur. in caelum huius proauus Cato tollitur; magnus honos populi Romani rebus adiungitur. omnes denique illi Maximi, Marcelli, Fuluii non sine communi omnium nostrum laude decorantur, ‘but it is not only the person who is being lauded but also the reputation of the Roman people which is enhanced by these praises. The great-grandfather of Cato here is raised to heaven—at the same time a great distinction is added to the accomplishments of the Roman race. In sum: all those Fabiuses, Marcelluses and Fulviuses gain celebration along with a shared glory for all of us’, Arch. 22; cf. Pun. 12.410f.: hie…attollet…duces caelo). In the Punica, Scipio is encouraged by the ghost of his mother to aspire to divine honours (nec in caelum dubites te attollere factis, ‘do not hesitate to raise yourself to heaven by your deeds’, 13.635), but such glory has already been gained by Regulus (6.546f.) and Fabius Maximus (7.737: sancte…o genitor; cf. Ennius’ praise of Romulus [Ann. 108 Sk.]). Ennius himself even takes a cameo role in the poem, appearing as a warrior under Apollo’s protection: hic canet illustri primus bella ltala uersu/ attolletque duces caelo (‘this man will be the first to sing of the wars of Italy in noble metre and to lift their leaders to the heavens’, 12.410f.). The reinsertion of the epic tradition within itself here is notable.

27. Hardie, P., The Epic Successors of Virgil (Cambridge 1993), 96fGoogle Scholar.

28. Hinds (n.8 above), ch.l; Silius, unfortunately, rarely figures in Hinds’s discussion, but much of what he says could easily be applied to the Punica.

29. Pliny Ep. 3.7.5: scribebat carmina maiore cura quam ingenio, non numquam iudicia hominum recitationibus experiebatur (‘he wrote his poetry with more reflection than inspiration, regularly assessing popular criticism by offering readings’). This is no wild genius, but a carefully crafted intellect (cf. Ovid’s similar judgement on Callimachus: quamuis ingenio non ualet, arte ualet [‘he isn’t strong on inspiration, but is on skilfulness’, Am. 1.15.14] and the curiosa felicitas of Horace described at Petronius Sat. 118.5).

30. Other, briefer parallels will be mentioned in passing. For instance, the metaphor of trembling light to portray Aeneas’ bewilderment (Aen. 8.18–25) is used for Hannibal’s concern to outwit Fabius (Pun. 7.141–45) and, after the Cunctator’s successes, Hannibal is to be assured of the return of divine favour to the Carthaginian side by a message from Anna (8.30–38), parallelling the appearance of Tiber in Aeneid 8. The actual address of the river goddess is probably lost (but see Ariemma, E.M., Alia Vigilia di Canne [Naples 2000]Google Scholar for a defence of the Additamentum Aldinum of Pun. 8.144–223 and full references to the debate). However, Hannibal’s pledge to dedicate a statue of Anna together with Dido in a new temple at Carthage after his victory (compos pugnae, Pun. 8.229) suggests that the Carthaginian leader is making a response to an address such as made by Tiber to Aeneas (Aen. 8.36–65, especially 8.61f.: mihi uictor honorem/ persolues, ‘when victorious you will repay me with due honour’).

31. Cf. Sallust Cat. 10.1 (the rot sets in when Carthago aemula imperi Romani ab stirpe interiit, ‘Carthage, Rome’s imperial rival, was razed to the ground’); Häussler, R., Tacitus und das historische Bewusstsein (Heidelberg 1965), 258Google Scholar (with extensive references to other Roman sources for this theory of decline).

32. McGuire, D., Acts of Silence (Hildesheim 1997), 56Google Scholar, describes these lines as an ‘odd epilogue’. Silius, in typical upper class Roman fashion, regularly expresses nostalgia for simpler times (e.g. 1.609–16, 14.684–88; Pomeroy [n.21 above], 130–32), but the most important intertext is in fact the opinion of a later Scipio (Nasica), opposing Cato the Elder: Carthaginem seruandam, ne metu ablato aemulae luxuriari felicitas urbis inciperet (‘Carthage should be preserved, in case when it was freed from fear of a rival, Rome in its good fortune would begin to show extravagance’, Florus Epit. 1.31). The implications of maneres, with its echo of Aen. 8.643 (at tu, dictis, Albane, maneres, ‘Alban, you should have kept to your word!’) and Aen. 2.56, reflecting the instability of power in the face of destiny, are suggestively discussed by Fowler, D., Roman Constructions (Oxford 2000), 123–27Google Scholar; the theme of morality running through all these passages (cf. Aen. 2.54 [si mens non laeua fuisset, ‘if our mind had not been perverse’] and Mettius’ oathbreaking, parallelling the actions of the Carthaginians) might also be usefully explored.

33. This turns Syphax into a forerunner of Juba of Mauretania, whose interest in geographical and historical material was renowned in the first century CE.

34. See Thomas (n.24 above), 206f., for such an effect from the parallels between Aen. 8.195–97 (Cacus’ cave) and 8.720–22 (Augustus’ triumph).

35. Pun. 16.798f.: talibus accensi patres fatoque uocante/consulis annuerunt dictis (‘the senators were roused by such words and, as destiny called them, expressed their agreement with the consul’s speech’), lines which recall Aen 9.788f., where by patriotic appeal Mnestheus rallies the Trojans from shameful retreat in the face of Turnus (talibus accensi firmantur et agmine denso/consistunt: ‘roused by such words, they stiffened their resolve and stood firm in close formation’). The depiction of the Senate as a war-zone, where the senators close ranks against the threat of Fabius Maximus, shows clearly that in this version of the debate between Scipio and Fabius, Scipio is adjudged the clear winner. The historical account which follows Livy’s version of the suasoria (‘Should Scipio invade Africa or fight Hannibal in Italy?’, 28.40–44) shows that there was in reality considerable suspicion of Scipio’s handling of the matter and a split decision on future strategy (28.45).

36. Bassett (n.12 above), 258–73.

37. There are several very useful comparisons of Aeneas’ and Hannibal’s shield, which also note their Homeric antecedent, the shield of Achilles (Il. 18.483–608): von Albrecht, M., Silius Italicus (Amsterdam 1964), 173–75Google Scholar; Vessey, D.W.T., ‘Silius Italicus: The Shield of Hannibal’, AJP 96 (1975), 391–405Google Scholar; Küppers, J., Tantarum Causas Irarum (Berlin 1986), 154–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who offers a useful reconstruction of the shield with its matching scenes at 161; Venini, P., ‘Lo scudo di Annibale in Silio Italico’, in Buttitta, A. et al. (eds.), Studi di Filologia Classica in Onore di Giusto Monaco (Palermo 1991), iii.1191–200Google Scholar. An indication of how the scenes may be conceived as individual tableaux may be gained from a recently discovered mosaic from Ammaedara, Tunisia: initially regarded as a travel map of the eastern Mediterranean, it is probably a mythological guide to the nauigium Veneris (Brodersen, K., ‘Neue Entdeckungen zu antiken Karten’, Gymnasium 108 [2001], 137–48, at 141–45Google Scholar).

38. A detail borrowed from Homer’s description of rural scenes on his shield (Il. 18.573–89).

39. Here Silius reverts to the Homeric description of Oceanus ringing the world (Il. 18.607f.; cf. Juhnke, H., Homerisches in römischer Epik flavischer Zeit [Munich 1972], 192Google Scholar), but the ethical importance of the description of the Ebro reflects the significance of Vergil’s account of Actium. In crossing the Ebro, Hannibal can be seen to be transgressing the natural boundaries which Ocean defines in Silius’ models.

40. But, significantly, not as a Turnus, the description of whose shield (Aen. 7.785–92) is nowhere echoed in Hannibal’s armour.

41. Including Syphax on a stretcher (Syphax feretro resedens, 17.629), a deliberate choice of an alternative version of events, rather than using Livy’s account that Syphax had died in captivity prior to the triumph (morte subtractus spectaculo magis hominum quam triumphantis gloria Syphax est, ‘by his death Syphax was removed from display to the people, but not from the fame of the triumphator’, 30.45.4). It appears that Silius has picked up on Livy’s following remark (conspecta tamen mors eius fuit quia publico funere est elatus, ‘his death was notable because he was accorded a public funeral’) for his depiction (so already Klotz, A., ‘Die Stellung des Silius Italicus unter den Quellen zur Geschichte des zweiten punischen Krieges’, RhM 82 [1933], 1–34, at 30Google Scholar; contra Burck, E., Historische una epische Tradition bei Silius Italicus [Munich 1984], 170Google Scholar, who would ascribe Silius’ change to Valerius Antias—but see Nesselrath, H.G., ‘Zu den Quellen des Silius Italicus’, Hermes 114 [1986], 203–30Google Scholar, for a more subtle interpretation of Silius’ methods of invention).

42. Cf. the inscription on Vergil’s tomb (owned by Silius): Mantua me genuit, Calabri rapuere, tenet nunc/Parthenope (‘Mantua gave me birth, while Calabria snatched me from the living; now Parthenope has my bones’, Suet. Vit. Verg. 36).

43. Pun. 11.424–26: altera iam patria atque aequo sub honore uocatur/altera Carthago Capua, intactumque secundae/fortunae ingenium uitia allicientia quassant (‘Now Capua is called a second homeland and, enjoying equal honour, a second Carthage, and her enticing vices are undermining the spirit impermeable to Fortune’s favours’; cf. Aen. 4.259–76, where Mercury finds an over-dressed Aeneas assisting in the construction of Carthage, when he should be following his destiny to Italy). In a reminiscence of the song of Iopas in the Aeneid (1.740–47), Silius has Teuthras sing of the power of the lyre (Pun. 11.432–80): the effect is not to uphold the power of poetry as much as to tame the savage breasts of the Carthaginian guests (bellis durata uirorum/pectora Castalio frangebat carmine Teuthras, ‘Teuthras with his inspired song broke down the hearts of the heroes hardened by war’, 11.481f.; Schenk, P., ‘Die Gesänge des Teuthras’, RhM 132 [1989], 350–68Google Scholar).

44. Pun. 12.110–12: dumque tenet socios dura atque obsaepta uiarum/rumpere nitentes lentus labor, ipse propinqua/stagnorum terraeque simul miracula lustrat (‘while slow effort occupies his allies trying to break through the difficult, obstructed routes, he himself inspects the nearby lagoons and the geothermal wonders at the same time’).

45. Cf. Pun. 12.113–15 (docet Me, tepentes/unde ferant nomen Baiae, comitemque dedisse/ Dulichiae puppis stagno sua nomina monstrat, ‘he explained where Baiae had obtained its name, pointing out that a companion on Ulysses’ ship had given his name to the lagoon’ [i.e. from Baios]) with Aen. 8.345f. (nee non et sacri monstrat nemus Argileti/testaturque locum et letum docet hospitis Argi, ‘he also pointed out the accursed grove of the Argiletum and calls on the place as his witness as he explains the death of his guest, Argus’). The subject matter and line placement of docet confirm the Vergilian allusion (not noted by Spaltenstein, F., Commentaire des Punica de Silius Italicus [2 vols., Geneva 1986–90]Google Scholar or in Ernesti’s commentary [2 vols., Leipzig 1791–92]).

46. Serv. ad Aen. 7.662 explains Bauli as derived from ‘bo-aula’; cf. Stat. Silu. 2.2.109. The descriptions do not directly imitate any section of the Aeneid, but there is a preponderance of reminiscences of Aen. 6. For instance, at Cumae Virrius tells the tale of Daedalus’ flight and his building of the Temple of Apollo there in gratitude for his escape (Pun. 12.85–103; cf. Aen. 6.14–33); the description of Avernus is based on Aen. 6.238–41. But it is not Hannibal, who has already had a mini-nekyia in his visit to the Temple of Dido in Pun. 1, but Scipio who will imitate Aeneas in Pun. 13.

47. Hannibal’s arrival on horse at Rome (inde leuis frenis circum pauitantia fertur/quadrupedante sono perculsae moenia Romae, ‘then he rides with reins let loose around the shivering walls of a Rome dumbfounded by the sound of horses galloping’, Pun. 12.563f.) with its galloping rhythm is clearly designed to recall the departure of Aeneas and his new Arcadian allies from the site of Rome (if clamor, et agmine facto/quadrupedante putrem sonitu quatit ungula campum: ‘they give a shout and, now that they had formed a column, the horses’ hooves shake the plain which crumbles beneath them’, Aen. 8.595f.).

48. Thus Livy 26.11, a patriotic version of events where the Romans offer a deciding battle, but miraculous rainstorms prevent such a conclusion to the war. Livy lacks any report of a third attempt by Hannibal; given that this attack is prevented by divine intervention alone, it should be considered a Silian invention and not attributed to some annalistic tradition not reported by Livy.

49. Pun. 12.718 (hinc Ianus mouet arma manu, mouet inde Quirinus, ‘on one side Janus, on the other Quirinus, are brandishing weapons in their hands’); Aen. 8.357 (hanc Ianus pater, hanc Saturnus condidit arcem (‘Ianus founded this citadel, Saturnus this other’)—note the pairing of divinities in both passages. Pun. 12.719–21 (sed enim adspice, quantus/aegida commoueat nimbos flammasque uomentem/luppiter (‘Look here: Jupiter at full strength shakes his aegis which spews forth clouds and lightning’); Aen. 8.352–54 (Arcades ipsum/credunt se uidisse Iouem, cum saepe nigrantem/aegida concuteret, ‘the Arcadians believe that they have often seen Jupiter himself when he shakes his darkening aegis’). Neither parallel is noted in Spaltenstein (n.45 above); Ernesti’s (n.45 above) comment on line 706 indicates how recognition of one parallel may blind the commentator to others: omnis hie locus reflctus est ex Virgil. Aen ii, 604ss (‘this entire passage is based on Vergil, Aen. 2.604ff.’); M. Martin notes the imitation of the description of Jupiter in the third volume of the Budé translation (Paris 1984), complementary note 1 to p.123.

50. The depiction of Jupiter’s aegis flammas…uomentem (‘spewing flames’, Pun. 12.720) is particularly alarming—especially as it echoes the image of Cacus at Rome atro/ore uomens ignis (‘spewing fire from his blackened throat’, Aen. 8.198f.). Hannibal is no Hercules and wisely avoids the challenge.

51. Contrast the very little evidence we have of the relationship between Vergil and Augustus (Thomas [n.24 above], 34–40).

52. Hinds (n.8 above), 10–16.

53. Benario, H.W., ‘Priam and Galba’, CW65 (1972), 146fGoogle Scholar.

54. Toohey (n.2 above), 204: ‘The Vergilian posture of the Punica acts as a kind of antidote to the heresies of Lucan’s epic’; Hardie (n.27 above), 118: ‘Silius’ Punica has been described as an anti-Pharsalia, restoring the positive Roman values savaged by Lucan rather as Virgil restores the traditional values that had been inverted by Lucretius.’

55. Hardie (n.27 above), 38f., emphasises the paradox of the potential clash between Hannibal and Scipio in Pun. 17.385–405: if the two had exchanged birthplaces, the result of Zama would be reversed. But Scipio is also melior because of his Romanness (9.437)—Hannibal would need to become plus and Scipio perfidus, representing their national traits, for this reversal to come about. In fact, while Hannibal offers a synecdochal depiction of all Carthaginians (as Aeneas stands for the Roman character in Vergil), he is opposed not by one type of hero, but a variety of opponents, indicating the strength in diversity of Rome.

56. Toohey (n.2 above), 210: ‘If we can read the emperor Domitian into the portrait of Scipio, we can read the triumphant conclusion of the Punica as a vindication of his bloodthirsty regime.’ Scipio’s triumph (17.625–54) does indeed earn him eternal fame, since he has forced the Carthaginians to open their gates, while Hannibal’s attack on Rome has failed, but the theme of the poem is stated as the gloria…Aeneadum (1.1f.), the renown of all the descendants of Aeneas.

57. Pun. 3.588–90: hi tantum parient Latio per uulnera regnum,/quod luxu et multum mutata mente nepotes/non tamen euertisse queant (‘this will create such an empire for Rome by their wounds that their descendants, though greatly changed in inclination, will not be able to overturn if).

58. 3.592: hinc, Cytherea, tuis longo regnabitur aeuo (‘afterwards, your family, Venus, will reign for many years’). Note that this appears tacitly to exclude Claudius and Nero, since the rise of Vespasian sees him in de facto control long before he is actually emperor (597: hinc pater ignotam donabit uincere Thylen, ‘the father [of the Flavian family] will make a gift of the conquest of Thyle’, sc. to Claudius [Delz’s emendation denabit is hapax, makes poor sense since where the swimming is occurring is unspecified, and is unnecessary as well]).

59. 3.596; bellatrix gens bacifero nutrita Sabino (‘a warlike race, raised on Sabine olives’), echoing Vergil’s description of the Etruscans (gens bello praeclara, ‘a race famed in war’, Aen. 8.480).

60. As Don McGuire has shown (History as Epic: Silius Italicus and the Second Punic War, Diss. Cornell 1985, 77–147Google Scholar), many of the Roman warriors in the Punica prefigure other, more prominent historical personages. But there are almost no links with individuals from the imperial period, with the exception of a Galba (8.468–73, tracing a link back to Pasiphae; 10.201, immoriens magnis non prosperus ausis, ‘dying, having failed in his great attempt’). But the emperor of that name was already in his lifetime regarded as a throwback to an earlier time (Tac. Hist. 1.49.2–4).

61. On which see Fowler (n.32 above), 94–106, who notes the immediate intertext with Aen. 1.453–93, and the anti-Aenean reaction of Hannibal amid a complex system of focalisation of the First Punic War.

62. Appian, of course, began his account of Roman wars with the Gracchi, and while Octavian may have celebrated the return of peace to Rome with his victory over Sextus Pompey, it was the final defeat of Antony which ushered in a period of comparative stability during which the Aeneid was mainly composed.

63. Most famously in Maternus’ speech in Tacitus’ Dialogus (41.3): sic minor oratorum honor obscurior gloria est inter bonos mores et in obsequium regentis paratos (‘there is less respect for orators and their fame is less when people act well and are ready to follow the leader’).

64. Cf. Wilson, M., ‘Flavian Variant: History. Silius’ Punica’, in Boyle, A.J. (ed.), Roman Epic (London 1993), 218–36, at 234Google Scholar: ‘The Flavian emperors themselves are transformed, mythologised, depoliticised.’