CHAPTER 23 Following after Valerius: Argonautic Imagery in the Thebaid Helen Lovatt At the end of the Thebaid (12.817), Statius instructs his poem to follow the Aeneid: the Aeneid, however, is not the only poem they are following. When he speaks of his ship coming in to harbor at 12.809, he uses the key Valerian word ratis.1 If the Iliad is the fount of epic, the Argonautica is potentially an alter- nate current, a back-story for Homer, pre-cursor of the Odyssey, the Hellenistic epic, translated by Varro and refashioned in Valerius’ Flavian epic.2 This paper explores Statius’ Argonautic maneuvers, with a particular emphasis on his use of Valerius Flaccus. It takes two similes at the beginning of book 8 (211–14 and 254–8) which make specific references to Argonautic figures, and asks what Statius is doing with them and why. From here, I move to a broader discus- sion of his interpretation and use of the Argonautic myth, his relationship with Valerius Flaccus and its contribution to his literary self-positioning, and the articulation of the structure of the Thebaid. The relative dating of the two poems is no simple matter. In her survey of Valerian material in Statius’ Thebaid, Parkes takes the line that the first half of the Thebaid, or books 3 to 6, at least, alludes to the first half of Valerius, based on internal evidence.3 Feeney also felt that “the works have an interrelation- ship which looks like a matter of reciprocal influence over a number of years rather than a one-way dependence.”4 Valerius Flaccus was certainly dead by the time Quintilian wrote Inst. 10.1.90, probably in the mid-90s, although Stover 1 Et mea iam longo meruit ratis aequore portum (“and now my ship has deserved harbour after a long voyage,” Theb. 12.809); cf. fatidicemque ratem (“the fate-telling ship,” V. Fl. 1.2). Noted by Malamud (1995) 22; Pollmann (2004) 284; Parkes (2014a) 785. 2 See Harrison (2007). 3 Parkes (2014a) 779. See also Parkes (2009b) and (2014b) on Valerius and the Achilleid. There is a certain irony in the fact that this chapter about two epics interacting with each other (per- haps overlapping) was written at the same time as Parkes’ two contributions on the subject: apologies if I have not fully reflected these interactions. 4 Feeney (1991) 313. © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, ���5 | doi ��.��63/9789004�84708_0�4 Following after Valerius 409 has argued for an earlier, Vespasianic date.5 The assumptions behind the dat- ing of the Thebaid include a literal interpretation of his statement at 12.811–12 that the poem took twelve years to write.6 Given that the dating of poetry is far from being an exact science, we can never be completely sure, but it seems to me that Statius is more Valerian than Valerius is Statian. Their shared engage- ment with Vergil, Ovid and Lucan does nothing to clarify the situation.7 This should not prevent us, however, from reading the points of contact between the two poems, and suggesting possible ways of making meaning from them.8 There is no doubt that the two texts have a great deal in common. The most obvious point of contact between the two is Statius’ Hypsipyle narra- tive in book 5, a gratuitous diversion from the Theban way.9 Other major epi- sodes of interaction include: necromancy (V. Fl. 1.730–826; Theb. 4.406–645); Tydeus’ ambush by the Thebans (Theb. 2.482–743) and the Argonauts’ acciden- tal encounter with the Doliones (V. Fl. 3.14–272);10 prophetic interactions in Thebaid 3 (449–647) and at Argonautica 1.205–39 (Amphiaraus and Melampus recall Mopsus and Idmon; Capaneus plays a similar role to Idas);11 the boxing 5 Stover (2008) is mostly convincing, apart from his down-grading of Quintilian’s nuper and his argument that the epic must have been finished only very shortly after the eruption of Vesuvius. Fucecchi (2007) 22 implies a more fluid relationship between the two epics. See also Smolenaars (1994) xvii; Zissos (2008) xiv–xvii. 6 Orthodox opinion sets it at 80–92: see Coleman (1998) xvii–xviii. 7 For instance, Parkes (2014b) 331–3 points to the way that both Statius (Theb. 2.563–4) and Valerius (3.65–7) allude to Ovid’s battle of the Lapiths and Centaurs, along with Vergil’s Nisus and Euryalus episode (glittering armour at V. Fl. 3.76, Stat. Theb. 2.530–2, Verg. Aen. 9.373–5). See also Parkes (2009a). 8 For a similar exhortation in the case of Statius and Silius, see Lovatt (2010b). Ripoll, pp. 425–43 in this volume, is more hopeful than I am that the nature and precise dat- ing of poetic composition (and the relative chronological positioning of allusions) can be proved, and less hopeful than I am that we can find rewarding readings without that proof. He does, however, agree that the relationships between the poems deserve further consideration. 9 For this episode along with Valerius’, see Aricò (1991); Gibson (2004) paired with Clare (2004). Gibson reads Silvae 2.7.77 (qui per freta duxit Argonautas, “the one who led the Argonauts through the seas”) as deliberately ambiguous between Varro and Valerius, writ- ing both out of the commemorative process at the same time (149–53), and suggests that Hypsipyle is similarly designed to erase Valerius’ version (166): “Statius is giving Hypsipyle another commemoration, as if Statius is already writing Valerius Flaccus’ version of Hypsipyle out of literary history.” 10 Parkes (2014b). 11 See Fucecchi (2007) 25–9; Stover (2009) 445–53..