Melissande Tomcik, University of Toronto
Just like the rumors she personifies, Vergil’s Fama in Aeneid 4 is a pervasive figure that has many ramifications in art and literature (Hardie 2012; Guastella 2017). In Statius’ Thebaid, scholars have identified many re-creations of the Vergilian monster. Besides the two main appearances of the goddess in books 2 and 3 (Snijder 1968, 179‑181; Hardie 2012, 201‑207; Gervais 2017, 140‑145), the figure of Pavor in book 7 has also been convincingly interpreted as an avatar of Fama (Smolenaars 1994, 55‑66; Hardie 2012, 207‑214; Clément-Tarantino 2015).
In this paper, I argue that there is one more incarnation of Vergil’s Fama in the Thebaid: Virtus, the personification of moral virtue and courage, as she appears in the episode of Menoeceus’ sacrifice (Stat. Theb. 10.610-679). Although scholars record the Vergilian intertext among a list of parallels for the scene, they do not elaborate on this particular connection and emphasize only Virtus’ similarities with Eris, Allecto or the Dirae (Williams 1972, 106‑113; Feeney 1991, 382‑385; Fantham 1995). In this paper, I offer a close reading of the passage in order to highlight the inter- and intratextual hints indicating that Statius is casting Virtus in Fama’s role. In addition to the already noted Vergilian line, I identify several other points of contact between Statius’ Virtus and Vergil’s Fama (e.g. Verg. Aen. 4.177 – Stat. Theb. 10.679), etymological puns on names (e.g. Theb. 10.639: Manto) and self-reflexive comments in Virtus’ speech (e.g. 10.669: Fama canit monitus). Moreover, Virtus’ role in forwarding and distorting information in this scene aligns her with other instances of Fama.
Finally, adducing the metapoetic interpretation of Fama as a figuration of the literary tradition (Clément-Tarantino 2006), I suggest that the substitution of Fama by Virtus reads as a metaphor for Statius’ reworking of Menoeceus’ sacrifice. Indeed, this episode is traditionally considered as an exemplary act of virtue, but Statius turns it into a failed devotio (Vessey 1971; Heinrich 1999; Ganiban 2007, 137‑144; Agri 2020). By replacing Fama with a perverted Virtus, Statius signals that he is not following the traditional story of Menoeceus’ virtuous sacrifice, but instead introducing a new and corrupted version of the myth.
Thus, reading Virtus as a substitute for Fama not only connects the former’s fury-like aspects (Eris, Allecto, Dirae) but also allows for an interpretation of the passage as a metapoetic comment on Statius’ relation to the previous tradition.