No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
Chaucer is only the most prominent follower of Statius among his countrymen, yet for English literature, as D. W. T. Vessey observes, 'the afterlife of the Thebaid has never been fully explored'. In the Renaissance, Vessey adds, 'there are few major writers in whom a Statian influence has not been traced', and as late a figure as Pope considers Statius 'of the old Latin poets . . . next in merit to those of the Augustan age', but no general account of his significance for English writers is available.2 In part this is a reflection of his low critical standing in the century now drawing to a close, a period in which 'few scholars . . . have attempted to redress the balance, bringing to the notice of a limited audience some of the qualities that made Statius more than a second-rate or maladroit plagiarist of Virgil'.3 On the other hand, and characteristically of Statius' reputation through many periods, some notable dissenting voices have been heard. Whereas in twentieth-century Classics departments Lucan has easily outranked him in the second division of epic poets, Tillyard held that 'however closely he imitated Virgil, [Statius] is a poet in his own right, and a better one than Lucan'. C. S. Lewis urges more serious attention to both: 'The fatal words silver and rhetoric have done harm and modern ears are deaf ... I think Lucan, Statius, and the tragedies of Seneca are to be taken as if they really had something to say.'4 It is at any rate clear that Statius' importance in the English literary tradition is not negligible. The following notes aim to provide a portion of the general account we lack of English writers' dealings with Statius by considering translations of Statius (especially the Thebaid) made in the hundred years or so from the first published English version in 1648, and their literary-historical context. It may be,
Loading…
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.