Jessica Blum-Sorensen’s book delineates an interpretive triangle through which she aims to interpret Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica. One side of the triangle represents the Roman ideology of social-model following, most commonly referred to by the term mos maiorum. The exempla of ancestors (or, in modern terms, their memory) serve as both an inspiring model and a constraint on action for subsequent generations. The second side of the triangle is primarily formed by the history of Rome during the lifetime of Valerius Flaccus, with the key turning point in B.-S.’s interpretations being the year 69, which brought the fall of Nero and political upheaval as well as the rise of the Flavians. The third side consists of the continuous reflection of Roman poetic works on the texts, achievements and thoughts of their predecessors, which contemporary scholarly works often refer to as allusion and intertextuality. B.-S. supposes a close interrelationship, and sometimes even equivalence, between the three components (sides) and mostly refrains from discussing allusion or intertextuality, preferring instead terms like imitatio and aemulatio, which open the text to social/political interpretation and liberate it from a narrowly defined poetic discourse. According to B.-S., the very choice of theme in the Argonautica — that is, the fact that a first-century c.e. Roman poet undertakes to narrate a story already well known as a song according to Homer — represents emulative model following as the manifestation of a simultaneously social and poetic endeavour. She thus suggests a close relationship between poetic text and social-historical experience: ‘As he seeks to write a new Aeneid for the Flavian age …, Valerius mirrors one of the greatest challenges facing Vespasian and his heirs as they constructed their imperial image in relation to the Julio-Claudians’ (148). In establishing such a close connection between political life experience and poetic world, B.-S. primarily follows the example of Tim Stover (Epic and Empire in Vespasianic Rome. 2012), while she arrives at much more nuanced conclusions than her predecessor.
What emerges within the interpretive triangle is termed by B.-S. a discourse of exemplarity. The first chapter is dedicated to establishing this mode of reading in its methodology. Exemplarity is interpreted on three levels: the heroes of the plot follow the heroic example of their ancestors and role models while also seeking to rectify the failures of their heroic careers; the poet follows and refines the poetic tradition related to the Argonautica; and thirdly, the Flavians follow the guiding example of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, especially Augustus, and strive to avoid the mistakes of their predecessors. Using the interpretive apparatus constructed in the first chapter, B.-S. turns in the following chapters (chs 2–4) towards the figure of Hercules, who successfully connects the interpretive threads, particularly the historical and the poetic, as the importance and symbolic power of Hercules’ figure is evident in the Roman imperial era. B.-S. rejects the characteristic interpretation of previous scholarly literature that compares the heroic potential of Jason and Hercules and establishes a hierarchy between them, following the example of the Apollonian Argonautica. Instead, she argues that the essence lies not in whether Jason’s heroism can measure up to Hercules’, but that he chooses Hercules as an example to emulate, from which position he cannot see Hercules’ tragic fate and thus fails to recognise the tragic outcome of his own heroism. In this interpretation, Jason’s fate is largely influenced by the role model he chooses, which ultimately leads to his tragedy. The focus on Hercules’ figure works well as part of a political interpretive series: the mythological hero’s figure is so important in the cult of Roman emperor worship that it opens the way to rich associations. Although Hercules only appears in the first three books of the Argonautica, identifying his person with the discourse of exemplarity allows the author to continue her interpretation in the subsequent chapters (chs 5–7, and Conclusion) according to the given perspective and to express her opinion on the Colchian episode as well.
Most interpretations are based on comparison, which indeed follows from the text itself: before the cento literature that appears at the end of antiquity, there is no other epic poet who would connect his text with the Aeneid through such continuous and unmistakable links as Valerius does. B.-S.’s interpretations richly and nuancedly reflect on this relationship, although the nuance primarily pertains to the Argonautica. The author, while visibly aware of the complexities of Aeneid interpretation and its resulting contradictions, does not wish to delve into these debates. However, the result is still perhaps an over-clear and distinct opposition between the two epics. ‘Through Aeneas and his legendary pietas, the Aeneid celebrates a quintessentially Roman ideal of the subordination of the self to the collective mission in which the individual’s desires and glory are subsumed in service to the greater good. … Hercules represents a very different kind of heroism’ (150).
This is a clear, logically structured book that offers numerous subtle, convincing and illuminating analyses (especially in terms of intertextuality) even for those readers who do not share the author’s methodology of directly linking literary texts to their political and social contexts.
