Between Marius, Cinna and Sulla. The role of the Valerii Flacci in the Roman Republic in the eighties of the 1st century BC

Valerii Flacci was one of the most influential families in Rome in the first two decades of the 1st century BC. Cicero called them a nobilissima familia, while they themselves were the apple of the Roman aristocracy and were perceived as the best citizens (optimi cives). During the First Civil War, they were initially associated with the Marian camp. L. Valerius Flaccus (consul of 100 BC) acted as princeps senatus since 86 BC, and his cousin, also L. Valerius Flaccus was consul suffectus in 86 BC, after the death of C. Marius. The brother of L. Valerius Flaccus, Caius, consul of 93 BC, during the reign of Cinna in Rome was the governor of Spain for many years, and later of Transalpine Gaul too. It is known that Valerii Flacci wanted to reach a compromise between Sulla and the Marian camp, and when their efforts failed, they opted for Sulla.Despite the significant role Valerii Flacci played in the Republic, their activities remain overshadowed by other figures of that period. Also, their switch to the Sulla camp in the memory of the ancients was quite poorly recorded, especially when compared with the publicity of the transition of figures such as Metellus Pius, Pompeius or Crassus to Sulla’s side. The author of the presented paper will attempt to coax Valerii Flacci out of the shadows of history, examine the genesis of their defection to the Sulla camp and determine the role they played in this camp in the initial period of Sulla’s dictatorship. Abstrakt: Valerii Flacci byli jednym z bardziej wpływowych rodów w Rzymie w pierwszych dwóch dekadach I wieku przed Chr. Cicero określał ich mianem nobilissima familia, sami zaś stanowili kwiat arystokracji rzymskiej i postrzegani byli jako najlepsi obywatele (optimi cives). W okresie pierwszej wojny domowej początkowo związani byli z obozem mariańskim. L. Valerius Flaccus (konsul 100 roku przed Chr.) od 86 roku przed Chr. występował jako princeps senatus, zaś jego kuzyn, również L. Valerius Flaccus, po śmierci C. Mariusa zastąpił go na stanowisku konsula (jako consul suffectus w 86 roku przed Chr.). Rodzony brat tego ostatniego, C. Valerius Flaccus, konsul 93 roku przed Chr., w okresie rządów Cynny w Rzymie był wieloletnim namiestnikiem Hiszpanii, a później także Galii Zaalpejskiej. Wiadomo, że Valerii Flacci chcieli doprowadzić do kompromisu między Sullą a obozem mariańskim, a gdy ich starania zakończyły się fiaskiem, opowiedzieli się za Sullą.Mimo znaczącej roli, jaką Valerii Flacci odgrywali w Republice, ich działalność pozostaje w cieniu innych postaci owego okresu. Także ich akces do obozu sullańskiego w pamięci starożytnych został odnotowany dość słabo, zwłaszcza jeśli zestawi się go z nagłośnieniem przejścia na stronę Sulli takich postaci jak Metellus Pius, Pompeius czy Crassus. Autor prezentowanego artykułu wydobywa Valerii Flacci z cienia historii, bada genezę ich dołączenia do obozu sullańskiego oraz określa ich znaczenie w tym obozie w początkowym okresie dyktatury Sulli.

The Poetic Structure of Silius Italicus' Punica (Books I-V)

The Poetic Structure of Silius Italicus' Punica (Books I-V) As concerns their poetic structure, the first five books of Silius’ Punica are very differentiated and complicated. However, all the events of the represented world concentrate around Hannibal and his improba virtus. Historical and mythological ekphrases are connected with Hannibal’s deeds. Aetiological stories seem to be invented by Silius himself. The panegyrical elements refer mainly to Domitian. Prolepses especially deserve to be noticed. Silius is influenced by learned Hellenistic poets, as well as Roman authors, mainly Ennius, Vergil, Lucan, Valerius Flaccus. In fact the author of the Punica can be described as poeta doctus.

THE CAUSE OF IDMON'S DEATH AT SENECA, MEDEA 652–3 AND AT VALERIUS FLACCUS 5.2–3

‘The tale of the Argonauts was among the most popular myths in Greek and Roman literature of all periods.’ There was, however, not inconsiderable variation in certain aspects of the narrative: in the inclusion or exclusion of entire episodes; in (un)expected divergences from more authoritative versions of the story; and in the details of minutiae. In the Argonautic choral odes of Seneca's Medea (301–79 and 579–669), and in Valerius Flaccus’ incomplete epic, there is a conspicuous, learned engagement with much of the earlier tradition that hints at versions of the myth which are divergent from those that the two poets privilege in their respective narratives. Such moments serve to assert the playwright's and the epicist's status as docti poetae, and to engage the learned reader in a (re)negotiation of the tradition; at times, an awareness of a literary past seems to be given to particular characters too so as to heighten the reader's experience of the narrative—by a sort of prolepsis—as it unfolds.