Philip II and Alexander the Great: Father and Son ... - Historia Antigua

178 RECEPTION OF FATHER AND SON
Romans also “grew up” with Alexander—as a schoolroom staple he
was a key fi gure in hortatory texts. One facet of this shines through—
his signifi cance in late Republican prosopopoeia: a practice whereby
Romans “met” their (dead) heroes ( maiores—ancestors) by imagining
and playing out encounters with them. Valerius’ Alexander, very
much in the tradition of the Elder Seneca’s, illuminates the whole
project of recording facta simul ac dicta memoratu digna as set out in
his Preface. 10 Valerius’ opening move is in the clichéd tradition of
authorial self-abnegation ( mea paruitas, my inconsequentiality, 1,
Praef.). This happens to open the door to his (and we might speculate
Rome’s) alter ego: Valerius is minor ( paruus) where Alexander is
Magnus (Great), and this tag Magnus emphasizes the Roman quality
of his legend both semiotically and conceptually. 11 Alexander the
Great is at least as much a child of Rome as he is a son of Philip’s, and
he is also one of Rome’s most problematic maiores.
nam si prisci oratores ab Ioue Optimo Maximo bene orsi sunt, . . .
mea paruitas eo iustius ad fauorem tuum decucurrerit, quo cetera
diuinitas opinione colligitur, tua praesenti fi de paterno auitoque
sideri par uideatur, . . . (1, Praef.)
for if orators in times gone by rightly made Jupiter Optimus
Maximus their touchstone, . . . my inconsequentiality shall
proceed directly to your goodwill all the more appropriately,
since other divinity is amassed by opinion, whereas yours
[Tiberius’] through present certainty is perceptible as equal to
the star of your father and grandfather . . . .
Valerius’ address to Tiberius prioritizes dunasteia as an interpretive
model. He positions himself within a compositional tradition—the way
that orators (and poets) of old gained their inspiration and authority was
through taking Jupiter Optimus Maximus as their starting point. In this
scheme, all texts and all performances of Roman identity always operate
relationally to a father fi gure (Jupiter), and to a god (historically, Jupiter
again). Yet Valerius’ comments clearly intimate that Jupiter at least is no
longer readily available for everyday assistance.
Into this tradition of pietas (respect and reverence) to one’s
maiores and gods alike, laid down in ancient practice, Valerius
inserts himself, and then gives the topos an explicitly genealogical
twist by using it to muse on Tiberius as a manifestation of hereditary
divinity. Valerius’ direct address to Tiberius instantiates a relationship
between author and emperor that invokes the paternal qualities
of imperial power and its translation into divinity, while at the
same time, perhaps, nodding to traditional tensions in paternity and