Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica, over the course of the past several decades, has received a notable increase in critical scrutiny and appreciation. Tim Stover’s timely new book, Valerius Flaccus and Imperial Latin Epic, examines the intertextual interaction between Valerius’ text and four epic successors: Silius’ Punica, Statius’ Thebaid and Achilleid, and Claudian’s De Raptu Proserpinae. Stover, the author of a previous monograph on Valerius (Epic and Empire in Vespasianic Rome, OUP 2012), aims in his new project to demonstrate that Valerius’ fellow Flavian epicists as well as the later Claudian used the Argonautica as a critical model for their own texts. In my opinion, the book entirely succeeds on this front.
Stover frames his analyses in terms of reception. His position on the notorious question of the dating of Valerius’ text, as he lays out in Epic and Empire in Vespasianic Rome, is that the text was written during the principate of Vespasian, and he retains this position in Valerius Flaccus and Imperial Latin Epic. Stover thus characterizes Silius, Statius, and Claudian as successors to Valerius. While obviously a correct framing with respect to Claudian and almost certainly the Achilleid, not all readers will agree with Stover’s positioning of the Argonautica as substantially “complete” prior to the Punica and Thebaid.[1]
Valerius Flaccus and Imperial Latin Epic consists of an introduction, five chapters, and a brief conclusion. The book is organized by text, with each epic’s intertextual interaction with Valerius’ Argonautica being the subject of a single chapter, except for Statius’ Thebaid, whose relatively more substantial engagement merits two chapters. Each chapter is structured along a passage-by-passage basis. For some cases, which he places at the beginning of the chapter, Stover offers thematic interpretations, while he sees others as operating in a stylistic register. These are grouped at the end of the chapter and categorized as either providing intertextual enrichment or as a contrastive allusion. (The exception to this organizational scheme is the chapter on the Achilleid, which features thematic interpretations only). This method of organization will particularly benefit those interested in specific passages, and thus the listing of each comparison in the Table of Contents is especially welcome. In the introduction, Stover clearly lays out the terms for his literary analyses, which proceed on the basis of close verbal and occasional metrical correspondence. While, as Stover acknowledges, the degree of resemblance necessary to qualify as a convincing allusion will vary according to the reader, I generally found Stover’s identifications to be compelling. Stover also states that he limits his analyses to each text’s engagement with Valerius on an individual basis and thus does not much consider the layering of allusions from multiple texts (“combinatorial imitation”). While some readers may find themselves lamenting the absence in the literary analyses of important models from earlier texts, the narrow focus on Valerius does have the two-fold advantage of achieving clarity and of demonstrating the stylistic resemblances between the Argonautica and the Punica, Thebaid, Achilleid, and De Raptu Proserpinae, studies of which have often prioritized the intertextual relationship with Vergil and Ovid while neglecting Valerius. It is an important achievement of Stover’s project that one comes away from it completely convinced of the significance of the relationship between Valerius’ poem and the other four epics under discussion. Moreover, this book, in its indexing of verbal correspondences between Valerius’ poem and the other four epics, will be a highly useful resource for those working on intertextuality in the Roman epic tradition more broadly, as a means of bringing Valerius into the conversation.
The first chapter examines the Punica’s reception of Valerius’ Argonautica. Stover argues that Silius’ poem adopts a respectful rather than adversarial stance towards the Argonautica. He concludes the chapter with the identification of a number of passages that employ Valerian models for stylistic purposes, whether to provide enrichment or to suggest contrast. I particularly enjoyed Stover’s discussion of the rare phrase labor arduus, as used by both Jason upon being tricked by Aeetes to participate in the civil war with Perses (Arg. 5.541–546) and by Fabius, as he argues for delaying battle against Hannibal (Pun. 7.236–237). Jason refers to the “arduous labor” of battle; Fabius, to that of delay. Stover thus argues that Fabius corrects the view presented by Jason, and that this correction can be interpreted as a critique of the Argonauts’ involvement in the Colchian civil war. Valerius’ Argonauts, Stover suggests, might have heeded Fabius’ advice to their benefit, as their participation in the civil war does not further their epic quest to retrieve the Golden Fleece.
The second and third chapters are devoted to Statius’ Thebaid. The first of these, which Stover situates as a thematic prelude to the second, longer chapter, focuses upon Valerius’ presence in two passages of programmatic significance in the Thebaid, namely the description of Harmonia’s necklace in Book 2 and the two prophecies of Melampus and Amphiaraus in Book 3. Broadly speaking, a thematic point that continues into the analyses contained in the following chapter, Stover sees Statius’ engagement with Valerius as the removal of any optimistic or triumphant tempering of the tragic in the latter as a means of emphasizing the omnipresence of nefas in the former. Stover argues that the “oscillation between epic triumph and tragic disaster that characterizes Valerius’ epic is effaced by Statius, who offers instead a poem utterly pervaded by nefas (“unspeakable crime”), thus replacing Valerian ambivalence with unmitigated horror” (47). Stover draws out many fascinating points of connection between the Argonautica and the Thebaid, although some may find Stover’s readings, particularly of Statius, to be rather too black-and-white for their liking (e.g., is Statius’ portrayal of Polynices really “overwhelmingly condemnatory” (p. 103)? Does Capaneus have an “utterly criminal nature?” (p. 60)?).
A particular highlight for me was the discussion of the Clashing Rocks (pp. 86–90). Stover convincingly demonstrates that Statius alludes to Valerius in two highly significant similes that describe Polynices and Eteocles, namely as the Clashing Rocks at Theb. 11.435–438, when the two brothers finally encounter each other on the battlefield, and as a pair of young bulls unwillingly yoked to a single plow in the first simile of the poem, at Theb. 1.131–138. In the first case, Stover illustrates how Statius’ quam Scytha curuatis erectus fluctibus umquam | Pontus Cyaneos vetuit concurrere montes (11.437-8) alludes to Pelias’ reference to the Clashing Rocks in Argonautica 1: …certus Scythico concurrere ponto | Cyaneas (1.59-60). Valerius will then, at Arg. 4.682-5, compare Juno and Minerva’s holding the Clashing Rocks apart in order to allow the Argo to sail through to the yoking of unwilling bulls to a single plow—an image which, as Stover convincingly argues, Statius picks up in the bull simile at Theb. 1.131–138. Stover thus elucidates how across the span of his poem Statius divides Valerius’ comparison of the Clashing Rocks to the yoked bulls to describe the interaction between Polynices and Eteocles. As is consistently the case throughout his reading of Statius’ allusive program with respect to Valerius, Stover sees contrast between Valerian optimism/success and Statian pessimism/failure as the point: where Juno and Minerva successfully yoke the Rocks, Adrastus fails to keep the brothers from clashing. While I would not disagree, I would be interested to pursue at greater length the agricultural imagery underlying the similes, and whether or not Statius picks up upon a moment of genuine Valerian uncertainty regarding Jupiter’s civilizing program for the world. How exactly do we read the comparison of Juno and Minerva to farmers yoking unwilling bulls with brute strength (ut valido qui robore tauros sub iuga et invito detorquet in ilia cornu, Arg. 4.864-5), the negative consequences of which are emphasized in Statius’ more elaborate version? In other words, do we see Statius as tendentiously “misreading” Valerius, replacing a point of triumph with one of failure, or does Statius see something more nuanced in Valerius’ imagery, which he then emphasizes?[2]
The fourth chapter turns to Statius’ Achilleid, the text that perhaps most explicitly advertises its status as “sequel” to the Argonautica. Stover begins by arguing that the Achilleid pays metapoetic homage to Valerius before examining how the former draws upon the latter in its treatment of belatedness and the dynamics between gender and genre, both important and much-discussed topics in the scholarship on the Achilleid. I found Stover’s discussion of the correspondences between Valerius’ Medea and Statius’ Achilles to be especially compelling (pp.156–160). Venus’ soothing of the frightened Medea at Arg. 7.373–374 (dat dextram vocemque Venus blandisque paventem) provides a model for Thetis’ comforting of Achilles when he first awakens on Scyros and, startled, realizes that he is no longer in Thessaly (occupat illa manu blandeque affata paventem, Ach. 1.251). Additionally, Ulysses’ first encounter with the disguised Achilles reworks, in its use of the phrase virginei servantem signa pudoris (Ach. 1.765), both the first meeting between Jason and Medea (audit virginei custos grandaeva pudoris | Henioche, Arg. 5.356) as well as Idas’ complaint about the need for Medea’s “maidenly incantations” in yoking the bulls (qui modo virgineis servari cantibus Idas | flerat, Arg. 7.573–574). Achilles thus replays the role of Medea, the “maiden” whose “abduction” by Ulysses serves as the pretext for intercontinental war. Statius and Valerius both cast war between Europe and Asia as part of Jupiter’s plan for world history, and the connection between Valerius’ Medea and Statius’ Achilles, as elucidated by Stover’s discussion, would be very relevant when it comes to the interpretation of how both texts grapple with Jupiter’s plan.
The fifth chapter examines Claudian’s De Raptu Proserpinae, which, like the Achilleid, is a welcome inclusion in this study. Stover argues that, in a similar fashion as Valerius’ fellow Flavian epicists, the preface to Book 1 of the De Raptu Proserpinae acknowledges Valerius’ Argonautica as a model text. He then draws out a number of intertextual connections between the two epics, categorized as either a contrastive allusion or as providing enrichment. Of particular interest to me was Stover’s demonstration of Valerius’ Jason and Medea as a model for the marriage between Pluto and Proserpina (pp.171–175) as well as how Ceres’ departure from Sicily references both Boreas’ journey towards Sicily (Arg. 1.574–580) and Jason’s qualms about what will happen in Thessaly, now that the crew has set sail (Arg. 1.693–694). Stover concludes with an interesting observation on the autocratic nature of Claudian’s Jupiter, and the unanimous consent with which his plan is received among the gods; it reminds me somewhat of Neptune’s capitulation in the Achilleid, and how Thetis stands out among all of the other characters in that poem as the only one who attempts to resist Jupiter’s plan, if ultimately unsuccessfully. Stover’s discussion will hopefully stimulate further research on the complex and fascinating relationship between Claudian and the Flavian epicists.
A brief conclusion summarizes the main arguments of the book and notes a few commonalities in how Silius, Statius, and Claudian interact with Valerius. Stover observes these poets’ particular attraction to episodes in which Valerius departs from Apollonius, including the Hesione episode, the battle in Cyzicus, and the civil war in Colchis, as well as Valerius’ portrayal of Medea. He also notes the shared interest in themes of cultural relevance to the Romans, namely civil war, familial dysfunction, the Gigantomachy, and Troy.
Valerius Flaccus and imperial Latin epic will be most useful to those who work on Roman epic and intertextuality, and it is a book that they will certainly need to consult. Scholars of Apollonius will likely also find much of interest here. All Latin is translated into English. I noticed no significant omissions from the bibliography or typographic errors.
Notes
[1] Valerius’ text breaks off at about halfway through Book 8, and its unfinished nature is attributed to the author’s death. Stover suggests that this happened in 79 or 80 CE, and so that when Statius and Silius began work on their respective epics around 80 CE, they would have interacted with the Argonautica as an essentially finished product, rather than as a work-in-progress.
[2] In this case especially, one is tempted to integrate Vergil’s description of Actium on the Shield of Aeneas, surely the model behind both texts (montis concurrere montibus altos, Aen. 8.692). Stover makes note of the connection in n. 60 on p. 90, but, as per his practice in this book, does not consider it in his discussion.