Abstract This chapter builds upon the findings of the previous one, as it seeks to delve deeper into Statius’ subversive approach to Valerius in the Thebaid by demonstrating that Statius often rewrites Valerian passages in order to reverse what can be read as positive sequences in his model text. The chapter then examines a related practice, i.e. Statius’ use of allusion to establish contrasts between the Thebaid and the Argonautica, a strategy that seeks to create distance between the two poems. The chapter comes to a close with a section on Statius’ use of allusion to Valerius’ poem to enrich his narrative in various ways.

Abstract This chapter sees the book’s study of Valerius’ influence on the epic tradition move beyond the Flavian era (69– 96 ce) and into the world of later Latin epic by examining Claudian’s allusive interactions with Valerius’ Argonautica in the De Raptu Proserpinae. In so doing the author contributes a new chapter to the reassessment of Claudian’s poetry which has been under way for the past three decades, while also offering the first sustained analysis of Claudian’s engagement with Valerius. This chapter demonstrates that Claudian too, like Valerius’ Flavian contemporaries, programmatically presents himself as an epigone of the Argonautica, before going on to elucidate how Claudian uses allusion to Valerius’ narrative to enrich his poem in various ways.

Abstract This chapter continues the exploration of Statius’ engagement with Valerius by turning to an analysis of his allusions to the Argonautica in his unfinished Achilleid. In it the author elucidates how Statius’ allusive interaction with Valerius reveals the extent to which the Argonautica contributed to the conception, construction, and tenor of the Achilleid. The chapter demonstrates that Statius intertextually declares the Argonautica to be an important model before examining how Statius’ refashioning of Valerius’ epic enriches the Achilleid’s exploration of a range of important themes, such as literary belatedness, generic propriety, and gender dynamics. From this analysis, it emerges that a full appreciation of the aesthetic complexities of Statius’ most audacious poetic endeavor requires scrutinizing his reworking of Valerian material.

Abstract This book examines the reception of Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica in the epic poems of Silius Italicus (Punica), Statius (Thebaid, Achilleid), and Claudian (De Raptu Proserpinae). In doing so, it sheds new light on the importance of Valerius’ poem within the epic tradition while enhancing our understanding of the intertextual richness of imperial Latin epic. The readings offered in this book also provide new evidence to support the view that Valerius’ Argonautica pre-dates the epic poems composed by Valerius’ Flavian contemporaries, i.e. the Punica, Thebaid, and Achilleid, thereby helping to clarify the literary history of the Flavian period (69–96 ce). By engaging in a wide array of close readings, the author elucidates how Silius, Statius, and Claudian use programmatic allusion to the Argonautica to fashion themselves as Valerius’ epic successors and examines how these poets recycle Valerian material to enrich their texts in numerous ways. Although the author does not ignore combinatorial imitation, the readings offered in this book largely center on points of contact between the Argonautica and the Punica, Thebaid, Achilleid, and De Raptu Proserpinae individually, without widening the focus to include the use of similar language and themes in other authors. This book is intended primarily for scholars of Latin epic poetry, intertextuality, and/or comparative literature. However, because all Greek and Latin is translated it will also be accessible to people generally interested in the Humanities. This may include anyone with interests in classical literature, the poetics of imperial Latin epic, classical mythology, and the mechanics of ancient intertextuality.

Abstract This chapter focuses on Statius’ Thebaid, a poem whose use of programmatic allusivity in relation to Valerius’ Argonautica exceeds what we see in the work of the other Latin epicists studied in this book. In it the author examines two passages from the Thebaid that are rich in programmatic significance, the ekphrasis on Harmonia’s necklace in Book 2 and the consecutive prophecies of Melampus and Amphiaraus in Book 3. The author demonstrates that in these passages Statius allusively declares engagement with Valerius’ Argonautica to be an important feature of his epic technique. The chapter reveals that Statius’ interaction with Valerius’ narrative is designed to extract from his predecessor the macabre material he deemed suitable for his poem of fratricidal madness. It also suggests that Statius distinguishes his poetic enterprise from that of Valerius by replacing Valerian ambivalence with unmitigated horror.

Abstract This chapter seeks to shed new light on Silius Italicus’ epic technique by focusing on the Punica’s allusive interactions with Valerius’ Argonautica. In it the author demonstrates that Silius’ intertextual engagement with Valerius’ poem is more explicit than is often acknowledged and argues that Silius’ stance vis-à-vis Valerius is less antagonistic than other critics see it. The chapter shows that in Book 11 of the Punica Silius highlights Valerius’ Argonautica as an important and respected model. It then demonstrates that Silius frames the Punica as the culmination of the historical process inaugurated in the Argonautica before illustrating how he enriches his poem in various ways by reworking Valerian material.

Reviewed by: The Fragility of Power: Statius, Domitian and the Politics of the Thebaid by Stefano Rebeggiani Tim Stover Stefano Rebeggiani. The Fragility of Power: Statius, Domitian and the Politics of the Thebaid. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Pp. xiv, 321. $74.00. ISBN 978-0-19-025181-9. In this stimulating book, Rebeggiani pushes back against those for whom Statius’ Thebaid is critical of Domitian and/or of monarchical power. For Rebeggiani, the poem is a vehicle for instructing the princeps on how to be a successful ruler: [End Page 113] the epic’s many images of abuse of power serve as negative exempla designed to guide Domitian away from the pitfalls of Neronian tyranny and onto the path of Thesean clementia. Rebeggiani thus accords to the Thebaid a protreptic function like that of Seneca’s De Clementia. It will be a tough sell for some that Statius’ poem of mindless madness, vengeful and petty gods, and familial dys-function should be seen as a speculum principis of sorts, but this perspective enables Rebeggiani to reorient the Thebaid’s ideological investments, as well as to offer many original and persuasive readings of individual passages. This is a work that critics of Flavian literary culture will have to take seriously, and one from which they will reap many rewards. For Rebeggiani, the Thebaid reflects both the vilification of Nero that was a hallmark of Flavian ideology and the cautious optimism that attended Domitian’s accession in 81. He reads the epic’s tyrants as symbols of Nero, a ruler not to be emulated, whereas Theseus and others offer Domitian positive role models. This is an interesting strategy, but there are some chronological problems. For example, except for the consulship of Helvidius Priscus’ son, the incidents Rebeggiani cites as evidence that Domitian cultivated friendships with victims of Nero’s tyranny early in his reign, moves which Rebeggiani sees reflected in the “anti-Neronian” Thebaid, took place from 85 on (50). Even if we agree that 85 qualifies as being early in Domitian’s reign, by then Statius had been working on the Thebaid for five years, nearly half the time he would need to complete the whole poem. So how can these incidents be adduced as providing the context in which Statius first conceived of his epic’s elaborations of kingship? A similar issue arises from Rebeggiani’s reading of the proem as reflective of the beginning of Domitian’s reign (103–105). Statius refers to Domitian’s second victories over the Chatti and the Dacians (1.19), which took place in 89. Chapters 5 and 6 are generally superb, and elsewhere in the book Rebeggiani breaks new ground in his analyses of Statius’ depiction of Hercules, the function of Senecan tragedy in the Thebaid, and Statius’ dynamic engagement with Lucan. And yet I wish there was more balance in his discussions of these topics. During an excellent examination of Hercules (123–152), the hero is said to provide an avenue for criticism of the Herculean Nero, but not of the Herculean Domitian. Likewise, Rebeggiani gives us a first-rate discussion of Statius’ reception of Lucan (153–196), but not everyone will agree that the Bellum Civile is narrowly anti-Neronian, not anti-Caesarian. And if Statius adopts a stance similar to that of Seneca (92), whereby he can both praise and blame the emperor (a view I find persuasive), Rebeggiani sees blame of Domitian as only a possibility if he fails to live up to the standard offered him by the poet. The Thebaid contains no criticisms of the princeps, only the threat of criticism should Domitian falter. At times, I wish Rebeggiani had included more context for some of his readings. For example, his view on the symbolic importance of Thiodamas’ succession as the Argives’ new vates following the death of Amphiaraus is persuasive (114–116). But it is not clear that Thiodamas should be regarded as a symbol of positive succession, as Rebeggiani does. Whereas Amphiaraus warned the Argives not to participate in the impious war (3.643), Thiodamas’ savagery while slaughtering sleeping Thebans is remarkable: he urges the Argives to yield to the pleasure of limitless...

This paper seeks to build on recent historicizing readings of Valerius' Argonautica by focusing on fathers and sons in Valerius' epic and especially on those fathers and sons who can be dubbed 'history's losers'. In particular I analyze how Valerius' depiction of certain father/son pairs—Sol and Aeetes, Iapetus and Prometheus, Neptune and Amycus—reflects the tensions inherent in the rise to power of Vespasian and his sons, Titus and Domitian. The events of the recent past brought fresh anxiety about how best to determine succession, which, given the existence of Vespasian's adult sons, caused apprehension regarding the undeservedly exalted status and nepotistic promotion of the emperor's sons. My primary aim then is to show that father/son figures offer a fruitful avenue for exploring further the manner in which Valerius' poem reflects the socio-political context in which it was produced, i.e. the reign of Vespasian in the aftermath of the civil war of AD 68–69. The fathers and sons who find themselves on the wrong side of history in the Argonautica prompt Valerius' audience to ponder anew the effects of one family's rise to absolute power, a process that may have negative consequences for other, once prominent kinship groups.

Reviewed by: The War with God: Theomachy in Roman Imperial Poetry by Pramit Chaudhuri Tim Stover Pramit Chaudhuri. The War with God: Theomachy in Roman Imperial Poetry. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Pp. xiv, 386. $74.00. ISBN 978–0-19–999338–3. Whereas the deployment of gigantomachic motifs in Roman poetry has received a great deal of attention over the last thirty years, theomachy—gigantomachy’s thematic “cousin”—has until now been relatively neglected. Chaudhuri’s book has put theomachy, a battle waged by a human against the gods, squarely on the map; it will be the new starting point for this and many other aspects of Roman imperial poetry. In Chaudhuri’s capable hands, theomachy offers a unique portal through which to investigate a wide range of issues pertinent to Roman poetry of the early Empire (and beyond): philosophy, poetics, politics, and aesthetics are here refreshingly brought into contact with each other. Given the book’s wide range, anyone interested in nearly any aspect of the epic and tragic poetry of the first century ce will benefit greatly from Chaudhuri’s work. After a brief introduction outlining the book’s aims, the study is arranged into nine chapters. Chaudhuri begins in Greece, offering a helpful discussion of theomachy in Homer and Attic tragedy that enables the distinctly Roman elaborations of the theme in the early Empire to stand out in starker relief. Chapters 2 through 8 offer a diachronic examination of theomachic gestures in Lucretius, Vergil’s Aeneid, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Seneca’s Hercules Furens, Lucan’s Bellum Civile, Silius’ Punica, and Statius’ Thebaid. The ninth chapter provides a sustained discussion of the politics of theomachy, which is not to say that political issues have been neglected in earlier portions of the book. An epilogue that alerts us to the great staying power of Roman theomachic motifs by glancing at their reception in Renaissance and early modern literature rounds things out. A brief review such as this cannot hope to convey the many riches that await the reader in each chapter, but they are filled with nuanced, original, lucid, and persuasive readings of a very wide range of texts over a long and heterogeneous period of Roman history. Chaudhuri’s range, his sensitivity to each text’s [End Page 141] sociopolitical contexts, and his mastery of scholarship on a whole host of issues are truly impressive. In general, then, the book delivers much more than its title suggests. And yet there are some puzzling omissions. Although Chaudhuri examines “warring with god” in Homeric epic and Attic tragedy in order to highlight how Roman theomachy differs from these texts, there is no discussion of how—if at all—Hellenistic poetry influenced Roman authors with regard to theomachy. The blurring of distinctions between men and gods, a process that Chaudhuri brilliantly analyzes in the Roman poetry of the first century ce, also characterizes Hellenistic ruler cult. Did Roman poets look to their Hellenistic predecessors for ways of handling the pressures and anxieties that obtain when the ruler is considered a god? An even more noticeable gap, given the book’s primary focus on Silver Latin Epic, is a discussion of Valerius’ Argonautica. Chaudhuri explains the omission of Argonautic subject matter by suggesting that it “engage[s] theomachy far more infrequently and indirectly” than other kinds of material (6). Even if this is true of Apollonius, whose Idas Chaudhuri rightly recognizes as a theomach (218–20, 263), the same cannot be said of Valerius’ Argonautica, which is implicated deeply in the issues at the heart of Chaudhuri’s study. Not only does Valerius foreground poetic immortality and imperial apotheosis in his dedication to Vespasian (1.1–21), but the narrative’s primary theme, the voyage of the first ship Argo, can be read as a theomachic venture. The wind god Boreas certainly sees it this way: when he appeals to Aeolus to unleash a storm in order to wreck Argo, thereby preserving the sacrosanctity of the sea, he implores him to “suppress the threats from mankind” (hominum conpesce minas, 1.606). None of this has a parallel in Apollonius’ version. It thus seems that Chaudhuri has missed an opportunity to...

This chapter analyses Valerius' dynamic engagement with his most recent epic predecessor, the poet Lucan. It suggests that Lucan's Bellum Civile, a tale of internal division and collective suicide, influenced Valerius' poetic programme by providing him with a point of departure for his own poetic enterprise. It examines the manner in which Valerius recontextualises the wording, imagery and themes of the Lucanian text in order to reroute the epic genre away from the poetics of deconstruction that he found in his predecessor. By focusing especially on categories such as heroism, glory, exemplarity and the aristeia, I argue that Valerius engages with the Bellum Civile in order to enact a poetics of amelioration and reconstruction.

This chapter demonstrates that Valerius depicts the battle between the Doliones and Argonauts in Cyzicus as a terrestrial Gigantomachy. Gigantomachic motifs are used to distinguish the good from the evil, as the Doliones play the role of anti-Jovian Giants who are out of step with the new world order being inaugurated by Argo's voyage. Valerius also portrays the battle as a civil war, and he does so partly by drawing on a semantic code developed by Lucan for describing the horror of civil strife. However, given Valerius' strategy of employing gigantomachic image-complexes in order to disambiguate the opposing sides, what ensues is a very un-Lucanian civil war. This represents a recuperative return to the normative thrust of the Gigantomachy model, which had been undermined by Lucan. For Valerius civil war can thus be a catalyst for positive historical change.

Gaius Valerius Flaccus Setinus Balbus, usually known simply as Valerius Flaccus, is the author of the Argonautica, an unfinished epic poem in eight books composed during the Flavian era (69–96 ce). This poem recounts the famous mythical voyage of Jason and the Argonauts, who sail from Greece to Colchis to retrieve the Golden Fleece. The narrative is full of adventure, as the heroes put in at many strange places on their journey eastward. Upon arrival in Colchis, Jason meets Medea, a Colchian princess and sorceress who falls madly in love with him and helps him secure the fleece. Although the poem is unfinished, it seems that only a few hundred lines at the end of Book 8 and some relatively minor revisions were never completed, presumably because of the author’s untimely death. Direct references to him in Antiquity are virtually nonexistent, but Valerius’s poem influenced his contemporaries, the epic poets Statius and Silius Italicus. Although his work has attracted intermittent attention over the years, the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries have seen interest in Valerius’s Argonautica increase dramatically.

This paper examines how Medea's singularity affects Venus's attempt to offer her models to follow in Valerius's Argonautica . While convincing Medea to assist Jason, Venus cites exempla designed to diminish Medea's uniqueness. But they have the opposite effect. Since none of these parallels is sufficiently illustrative of the course Medea must take, Venus refashions them so that they resemble previous accounts of Medea's life. Circe, Hippodamia, and Ariadne are exemplary for Medea because Venus reinvents them as pseudo-Medeas. Medea is offered snapshots of her own (future) self: she is thus prompted to become the unparalleled figure prefigured by literary tradition.

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.