|
Valerius Flaccus is one of the most elusive literary figures of the imperial Roman period: virtually nothing certain is known about him. Uncertainty extends even so far as to his full name and place of origin. That Gaius Valerius Flaccus was at least the initial part of his name is clear enough. To this the Vatican manuscript has appended Setinus Balbus (and in some places Balbus Setinus), though it is not certain that these cognomina really belong to the author. If Setinus is a cognomen of the author, it might suggest that he was a native of Setia in Campania, or less probably a native of one of the two Spanish towns of that name (there is nothing in his writing that would indicate a Spanish origin; if he was indeed a quindecimvir, a question addressed below, then he was probably not Spanish). For the life and career of Valerius, there is no external evidence beyond a brief obituary notice by the rhetorician Quintilian: multum in Valerius Flacco nuper amisimus - "We have lost a good deal recently in [the death of] Valerius Flaccus" (Inst. Orat. 10.1.90). This has enabled scholars to fix the death of Valerius at some point before 96 CE (the year of Domitian's death and hence the terminus ante quem for publication of Quintilian). Because of the extreme paucity of external evidence, scholars have sought autobiographical clues from the Argonautica itself. Of such internal clues, most compelling is a reference in the proem to the "Cymaean prophetess" and the mention of the Sibyl's tripod residing in the poet's own house (1.5-7). These lines have led to the conjecture that Valerius was one of the priests in charge of the Sibylline books, the quindecimviri sacris faciundis. This hypothesis gains some marginal support from the allusion to the Bath of Cybele at 8.239-41, a rite that was supervised by the quindecimviri. If Valerius was a quindecimvir, then he was a Roman citizen of considerable means and social standing, perhaps of the senatorial order. Numerous scholars, however, have pointed out the danger of taking these lines as autobiographical: Valerius may merely be adopting the persona of a Roman priest for artistic effect (cf. the use of the vates-figure in Augustan poetry). Valerius was probably an important member of a flourishing literary community at Rome, a group which included fellow poets Martial, Statius, and Silius Italicus. Although none of these mention him explicitly in their extant work, his influence upon them is clear (see below). It is likely that, rather than waiting for completion of the whole opus, Valerius published some of the early books of the Argonautica soon after they were composed, this being the simplest explanation for the verbal reminiscences found in both Statius and Silius. The practice of publishing individual books was common enough: earlier in the century, Lucan had done the same with his epic Bellum Civile, and Valerius' (presumably younger) contemporary Silius would do likewise with the Punica. It is also probable that individual books of the poem were performed in recitation as they were written. Juvenal (Satire 1) mentions the adventures of the Argonauts among the recitations doing the rounds in Rome: this is thought by some to be a specific allusion to Valerius' poem. [1] If Valerius was a quindecimvir he was probably a man of considerable means - possibly a senator-poet like Silius - and thus not dependent upon a literary patron. Nevertheless he may have enjoyed the political patronage of the Flavians and perhaps Domitian in particular, whose literary aspirations are mentioned in the proem to the Argonautica. There Valerius makes reference to an epic poem by Domitian on the conquest of Jerusalem by his older brother Titus. Whether Valerius is referring to an intended literary project or one already undertaken by Domitian is not clear: no such poem has survived. In his praise of Domitian's literary talents, Valerius is very much in line with Martial, Statius, Silius Italicus and Quintilian (though he exercises considerably more restraint). Valerius' poem has been transmitted to our time unfinished. It breaks off abruptly in the eighth book, as the Argonauts, after acquiring the Golden Fleece, are fleeing their Colchian pursuers. The broad consensus of modern scholars is that Valerius died before finishing the Argonautica. Another possibility (most recently advocated by Ehlers) is that that the poem was completed by Valerius, but subsequently lost its ending when the manuscript was damaged in transmission. This hypothesis has been consistently rejected by the majority of scholars since it was first proposed in the late nineteenth century. Internal evidence seems to point to an unfinished work. In particular, Valerius' narrative is at times inconsistent or disconnected, and there are numerous passages that seem lacunose or incomplete. Perhaps most notoriously, in 7.398 Iris is said to disappear, although she was never described as being present. Against this it must be remembered that Valerius almost certainly wrote his poem over several years, and might never have addressed such inconsistencies. Whether the poem was never finished or damaged in transmission, an issue of some importance is the intended length of the poem. On this matter scholarly opinion is divided. It is not impossible that the work would have been continued to ten or twelve books, the latter matching the book total of the Aeneid, which exerted a strong influence on Valerius' epic. It seems more likely, however, in the light of recent scholarship, that Valerius intended the poem to comprise eight books. [2] Since Book 8 breaks off at line 467 and none of the other books exceeds 850 odd lines, it follows that less than 400 lines of text would have been added by the poet to complete the opus. The precise dates of composition of the Argonautica is yet another unresolved issue. The poem was unquestionably written under the Flavian dynasty (69-96 CE), and quite possibly under more than one emperor: arguments for composition under all three emperors have been advanced. The most plausible hypothesis is that Valerius was writing during the reigns of the last two Flavian emperors, Titus and Domitian. A period of composition from 80 or 81 to 92 CE, with the poem left unfinished by untimely death seems to tally best with the evidence. This would mean that Valerius was writing his epic at roughly the same time that Statius was writing the Thebaid, probably slightly before in view of Valerius' influence on the latter. The argument for a starting date of 80 or 81 is based largely on the evidence of the proem (1.1-21), which for various reasons appears to have been written early in the period of composition. In the proem, Valerius addresses Vespasian and mentions both his sons; the close textual proximity and coordinated purposes of the three figures is meant to stress familial solidarity, an important point of Flavian propaganda in the wake of the civil wars of 68-9. The poet places considerable emphasis on the martial exploits of Titus in the Jewish war (at 1.13-14 Jerusalem is clearly described as fallen, offering a terminus post quem of 70 CE for the start of composition). Treated with somewhat less prominence is Domitian, whose role will be to write poetry in celebration of his older brother's exploits. The address to Vespasian is crucial for pinpointing the time of composition, and dating hinges on whether the address is made to a living or dead emperor. Some scholars (most recently Taylor) have argued that the proem is addressed to a still living Vespasian, but significant objections to this theory persist. The mention of "a shrine in honor of [Vespasian's] gens" (delubra gentis, 1.15), suggests that Vespasian is already dead. Syme, for example, takes the phrase as a reference to the Templum Flaviae Gentis. Getty and other scholars have suggested that delubra gentis refers to the Temple of the Divine Vespasian, whose construction Titus began in 80 CE, and which was ultimately dedicated by Domitian as the Templum Vespasiani et Titi. Either interpretation of the phrase delubra gentis would suggest a recently deceased addressee. Likewise the application to Vespasian of the phrase "divine rites" (cultus deum, 1.15) would appear to refer to the rites of the college of Sodales Flaviales, a priesthood set up by Titus after the death of Vespasian. Philological arguments lend further support to the theory of a recently deceased imperial addressee. In particular, the language of the address seems more appropriate to a dead emperor about to be undergo deification. The adjective serenus would be fitting for an addressee whose apotheosis is already underway. Likewise the poet's plea eripe me (1.10) appears in the context more like an entreaty to a god than to a mortal (cf. Jason's plea to the goddess Minerva at 1.88, a rather pointed repetition). These and other phrases would seem to lend credibility to the theory that the proem was composed shortly after Vespasian's death. Since that death occurred in 79, a start of composition in 80 or 81 is plausible. This hypothesis is further supported by the mention at 3.208-11 of the eruption of Vesuvius (August 24, 79 CE), which again suggests that a good deal, if not all, of the poem was written after 79. As for the concluding year of composition, it has already been noted that this probably coincides with the poet's own death. As mentioned above, the poet's death can be fixed by Quintilian's obituary notice as occurring "recently" (nuper) with respect to Quintilian's own date of composition. But since Quintilian also uses "recently" of the death of Caesius Bassus in 79, Valerius' death may have occurred some years before. How much earlier, then, is the poet's death likely to have occurred? Again, scholars have turned to internal evidence. In a complex argument, Syme has suggested that the detailed descriptions of Sarmatian warriors at 6.161-2 and 6.231-8 are likely to have been prompted by Domitian's Danube campaigns, which took place in 89 and 92. Assuming the earlier date still has Valerius working on Book 6 no earlier than 89 or 90, and then proceeding to the final two books of the poem in the next few years - hence making 92 a reasonable estimate for his death. Footnotes[1] In particular, Juv. Sat. 1.11 is thought to allude specifically to 1.146. [2] Arguments for eight books are based for the most part on a "Vergilian" division of the poem into two halves, with a second invocation of the book close to the beginning of the second half of the poem. Cf. Hardie (1989, 5): "Like the twelve books of the Aeneid, the eight books of the Argonautica fall into two halves, with a reinvocation of the Muse at 5.217ff. which corresponds to the reinvocation at Aeneid 7.37ff. that introduces Vergils' maius opus, following on the narration of the final stages of the journey to (respectively) the mouth of the Tiber and the mouth of the Phasis." On a possible relationship between the actual line numbers of the Vergilian and Valerian reinvocations, see Lewis 1987, 420-1. And for a convenient summary of the whole debate, see now Hershkowitz 1998b, 6-13. Related Articles: Poem Summary | Poetic Style | Versification | Glossary | Bibliography |