Some twenty years ago, Andrew Zissos (CJ 99.4 (2004), 405–22) noted that Valerius Flaccus’ influence upon his fellow epicists is clear enough. While research into Flavian intertextuality has since illuminated various aspects of that influence, Stover's ambitious new book provides the first comprehensive investigation of Valerius’ impact on Silius’ Punica (ch. 1), Statius’ Thebaid and Achilleid (chs 2–4) and (rarely on the radar of Flavian scholars) Claudian's De Raptu Proserpinae (ch. 5). S.'s main argument is that each of these poets fashions himself as Valerius’ epic successor and reworks his material to achieve various effects such as reversal, enrichment and contrast (8).
In the introduction, S. lays out his approach: he explains that his analysis builds on the identification of exact lexical repetitions (with the terms ideally in the same metrical position as well) from which he works his way upwards to establish thematic relations (2). However, S. is not averse to taking the opposite route either, as in his reading of Theb. 3.499–547, where it is not a verbal parallel but the theme of vatic rivalry that evokes the Valerian model (1.205–39; signalled by ‘Mopsus’ at 521). Clearly, S. works from context to intertext here; the faint echoes of Valerius’ opening verses which he acutely observes in Amphiaraus’ speech add depth, but are not essential to his reading (64–70).
S. chooses to analyse the reworking of Valerian material in isolation from allusions to other authors to keep the project from becoming ‘unwieldy and unfocused’ (3) — a fair point, but potentially concerning when considering that the poems he studies are notorious for their dense, multi-layered intertextual systems and the complex literary genealogy of virtually any passage. Indeed, there are sections that might have benefitted from a fuller appreciation of the various intertexts at play, but then S. sets out specifically to highlight the Argonautica's importance for post-Valerian epic poets. On that front, the author fully succeeds. S. firmly establishes that Valerius’ successors regarded the Argonautica as a significant part of the epic canon and engaged with it in a variety of meaningful ways: for instance, he demonstrates how Statius systematically frames the Achilleid as a sequel to the Argonautica (141–60) and how the same poet in the Thebaid deftly engages only with Valerius’ darkest material to harness his forerunner's poetic prowess for his own ends — the composition of a song of horror and nefas (e.g. 47–59).
In a book as wide-ranging and original as this, it is of course inevitable that readers will find some readings less convincing than others. To me, the parallels discussed in the Silius chapter seem to be the least striking as well as the most problematic: at Sil. 2.696–703, verbal, thematic and structural connections point to a link between Hannibal and Pelias much more than to the suggested ‘reversal of fortune’ allusion to Perses (33–5). Sil. 9.158 ‘natumque parenti’ seems to be a tad too generic specifically to conjure up the Iazygian rite of kin-killing and the Colchian civil war by allusion to Val. Fl. 6.127 ‘natusque parensque’ (26–8). Most significantly, S. insists on his controversial reading of Valerius’ Cyzicus scene (first proposed in his 2012 book and well discussed by M. Heerink, Mnemosyne 69 (2016), 511–25) in his interpretation of Silius’ description of the importation into Rome of the goddess Cybele (Sil. 17.1–47). I do not share the author's view that Valerius’ scene hinges on the theme of global competition for supremacy — like most critics, I instead prefer to read it as a civil war narrative that foregrounds the themes of trauma, kin-killing and divine hostility (and likely reflects Rome's own self-destructive tendencies). For that reason, I highly doubt that Silius’ allusion to the Cyzicus episode at the beginning of Book 17 can do what S. claims it does, namely signal the culmination of Rome's ascendancy to world domination as announced in the prophetic visions offered by Valerius’ and Silius’ Jupiter (13–24) — I believe that allusion to the complex Valerian intertext reveals a much murkier view of Roman history than that.
Those who read S.'s book cover to cover are presented with a compelling narrative of Flavian literary history in which Valerius’ Argonautica ‘occupied a position of priority within the Flavian poetic milieu’ (2) and exerted a profound, one-way influence on the epics of Statius and Silius. S. builds a strong case; it remains to be seen whether those scholars who doubt his Vespasianic date for Valerius or favour models of mutual influence (through recitations and/or circulation of individual books) will be able to challenge his narrative by producing equally persuasive readings.
Though I have signalled sporadic disagreement above, there is no doubt that even advanced readers of Flavian epic will emerge from S.'s thorough study with many fresh insights: his profound familiarity with the material and his careful attention to textual details consistently lead to original and thought-provoking observations. This book brilliantly showcases the potential of sustained, rigorous intertextual analysis, identifying many new and often fascinating links between Valerius and his epic successors. With his illuminating analysis of the Argonautica's reception in Silius, Statius and Claudian, S. lays indispensable groundwork for future research into the intertextual relationships between epicists in the Flavian period and beyond.
