Silius Italicus' Punica organises its narrative of the Second Punic War around three major events: the siege of Saguntum (books 1–2), the Battle of Cannae (books 8–10) and the Battle of Zama (book[s?] 17[–18?]), with Cannae serving as the turning point. In his previous work, Neil Bernstein offered an authoritative and stimulating reading of Silius’ narrative of the fall of Saguntum in book 2. In the title under review, B. returns with an equally magisterial and nuanced reading of the initial phases of the Battle of Cannae in book 9. The volume joins three other recent editions (all PhD dissertations) of the same book, by García Amutxastegi (2015), Zaia (2016) and Fabbri (2020), as well as a host of recently published and forthcoming editions of other books.
In an efficient, but still quite effective, introduction, B. opens with a succinct biography of ‘Silius Italicus, Consular and Poet’ (3–4). Responding to Pliny's remark (Ep. 3.7.5) that Silius scribebat carmina maiore cura quam ingenio, B. unapologetically acknowledges that ‘this commentary [likewise] focuses primarily on Silius’ cura’ (3). B. reviews ‘The Historiographical and Rhetorical Tradition of Cannae’ (5–9) which lies behind this cura and concludes that Silius offers a narrative of the battle which is, at one and the same time, both firmly rooted in tradition and strikingly original. Thereafter, B. provides an overview of ‘The Episodes of Punica 9’ (9–21), as well as a complementary analysis of the ‘Epic Tradition: The Inter- and Intratextuality of Cannae’ (21–7), before selected remarks on ‘Language and Style’ (27–31). B. closes with a note on the ‘Text and Translation’ (31–2): the text and apparatus criticus are reprinted from Delz's 1987 Teubner (except at 193, 228, 429 and 649), while the ‘translation aims to provide a preliminary interpretation of the text and also to capture some of its linguistic diversity’ (32).
In reprinting the text and app. crit. from Delz, B. likewise adopts his ‘Sigla’ (34–7), with the addition of more recent scholarship. The corresponding texts appear on facing pages (38–90), with the English prose on the right to render the Latin poetry on the left. B. drastically simplifies the clause structure in the transition from Latin to English (e.g. the one sentence in the original of 9.1–7 becomes no fewer than six sentences in the translation): while this certainly makes the prose easier to read and comprehend, it also inevitably loses the rhythm and flow of the poetry.
The commentary (91–262), which makes up the heart of the volume, pays close attention to text, intertexts and intratexts (ad 3–4) and clausulae (ad 1), as well as to the nuances of proper names (ad 2), poetical and rhetorical figures of speech (ad 8) and meter (ad 6–7). B. makes excellent use of the existing commentary tradition on the Punica, as well as those on other epics.
Remarks on specific lemmata in the commentary: 44: cf. concutere + urbs in Lucr. 5.1237, etc., as well as concutere + Italia in Sil. 8.353; Livy 31.7.10. 66–177: for the story of Satricus and Solymus, cf. Pacuvius and Perolla in Sil. 11.267–368, as well as Asilus and Beryas in 14.148–77. 67–8: cf. Plaut., Rud. 918–19 meam seruitutem/tolerarem. 132: for ‘the one son left to me’, cf. the fate of the gens Fabia at the battle of the Cremera River (see ICS 39 (2014), 139–69). 139: cf. Sil. 5.53 propelli signa. 212–16: for Maharbal's comment to Hannibal after Cannae, cf. Caesar's comment about Pompey after Dyrrachium as reported in Plut., Caes. 39.8; App., B Civ. 2.9.62; Suet., Iul. 36; Eutr. 6.16. 249–50: cf. Livy 22.61.14, where Varro is described in the aftermath of Cannae as consuli ex tanta clade, cuius ipse causa maxima fuisset, redeunti, as well as Livy 2.36.4, etc.; Sall., Cat. initium cladis; and principium + pugnae in Verg., Aen. 9.53 (with Servius ad loc. and ad 10.14), etc. 284: add Venantius Fortunatus, Carm. 3.10.24. 305–6: the traditional site of the Gigantomachy was Phlegra on(?) Pallene, the westernmost of the three ‘fingers’ of Chalcidice in Thrace; later, this Phlegra was confused, if not conflated, with the campi Phlegraei in Campania (see Diod. Sic. 5.71.4–6). 348: cf. Livy 1.23.1 Troianam … prolem. 362–3: add Curt. 7.9.10 perfregere … aciem. 382: add Sil. 2.615, 17.455. 472: add Valerius Flaccus 4.249, 740. 481: add Sil. 7.394 pugna absistite, as well as Livy 23.15.13, etc. 633–4: add Livy 27.26.10, 40.7.5. 634–5: add Sil. 7.72, 17.630, as well as Prop. 2.1.33, etc. 653: for the weakness of the interrogative uiuamne, cf. Hannibal's uiuam in Sil. 17.612, 615. 653–4: cf. Sil. 5.152, 11.223, 17.646, as well as 2.204, 6.368, 12.401.
In addition to an admirably complete ‘Bibliography’ (263–78), the back matter also includes three indices: ‘Index Locorum’ (279–300), ‘General Index’ (301–4) and ‘Latin Words’ (305). I noticed the usual smattering of minor errors, including discrepancies between citations and references (e.g. Rutledge 2009 versus Rutledge 2002 and CIL 6 1984.9 versus CIL XV 7302 on p. 3; Wilson 2013 cited on p. 4 but missing from the bibliography), but nothing major. That said, B. might have dwelt more on the theme of Varro redemptus, given how consistently the tradition emphasises that he was welcomed back to Rome for ‘not having lost hope’ at the darkest hour.
