Examining Statius’ Domitian Road Poem from a Tacitean Perspective

Bruce L. Warren (Indiana University Bloomington)

On the surface, the Domitian Road poem (Silvae 4.3), appears as merely another panegyric for the emperor Domitian.  David Vessey’s (1973) discussion of the Silvae lends credence to this perspective.  Yet, as Frederick Ahl (1984) asserts, there is an undercurrent of dissention, a criticism veiled in a tactful and safe expression of “figured speech.” Carole Newlands’ (2002) work further emphasizes Statius’ use of language to convey an underlying concern about Domitian’s reign.  It is in the tone of Ahl and Newlands that this paper examines the Domitian Road poem. 

In the opening lines of the poem, Statius favorably describes the emperor as “the one who encircles the warlike thresholds of Janus with fair laws” (4.3.9-10; qui limina bellicose Iani iustis legibus) and “he who places peace in her own home” (4.3.17; Pacem propria domo reponit).  However, this point of view is difficult to reconcile with Tacitus’ focus on the Emperor’s saevitia (Agricola 3.2.3) and how Domitian surrounded the Senate house not with just laws, but rather armed men (45.1-2; clausum armis senatum).  One way to approach decrypting the representation of Domitian is to compare the words and imagery used to describe imperial behavior in both authors.  Although Statius seems to be portraying Domitian as a benevolent ruler in 4.3, a comparison with Tacitus’ representation of imperial conduct shows Statius’ depiction of Domitian to be closer to Tacitus’ than it initially appears. 

In the opening paragraphs of the Agricola, Tacitus’ reference to Nerva as the one who united both the principate and liberty (3.1.13; principatem ac libertatem) and the claim that Trajan daily increases the happiness of the times (3.1.4; augeatque cotidie felicitatem temporum) is a complete contrast to the description of Domitian’s reign as one of slavery (3.3.2-3; memoriam prioris servitutis ac testimonium praesentium bonorum).   Interestingly, even though Statius claims that Domitian has restored peace, nowhere in the road poem does he state that the emperor has promoted libertas.  In fact, the river Volturnus’ expression of gratitude for his newly acquired servitude (4.3.81; sed grates ago servitusque tanti est) suggests just the opposite.  Since Volturnus claims that his bondage was necessary to curb his torrential nature (4.3.79-80; qui terras rapere et rotare silvas adsueram), the comment seems to underscore the depiction of Rome as a place where peace exists at the cost of individual liberty.

Furthermore, if one considers that the bondage of Volturnus could be analogous to the suppression of liberty, the narrative of the actual road building exhibits similar characteristics.  For example, the use of haustus in Statius’ description of the excavated sections of the road is significant because the verb evokes the idea of “draining”.  (4.3.42-43; alto egestu penitus cavare terras mox haustas aliter replere fossas).  In the Agricola, Tacitus capitalizes on this sense of draining when he employs a form of the same verb to depict Domitian’s final bloodletting of the Senatorial class (44.5.7; uno ictu rem publicam exhausit).  Moreover, in Statius’ description of the clearing of the forests, Domitian’s men are said to slaughter the trees (4.3.50; hi caedunt nemus), and despoil the mountains (4.3.50; exuuntque montes).   Taken in conjunction with the aforementioned references, the use of caedunt and exuunt continue to suggest a certain brutality to Domitian’s government. 

Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to offer a close examination of Statius’ road poem and how it seems to reflect a pre-Tacitean sentiment concerning the emperor Domitian.  Since Tacitus is writing for a senatorial audience, the similarity in word usage and the relative close time period in which the two works were written seems to suggest that Statius was indirectly anticipating the concerns of Tacitus’ audience.