Patrick J. Burns
Associate Research Scholar, Digital Projects @ Institute for the Study of the Ancient World / NYU | Formerly Culture Cognition, and Coevolution Lab (Harvard) & Quantitative Criticism Lab (UT-Austin) | Fordham PhD, Classics | LatinCy developer
Erotic Distraction in Lucan’s Bellum civile
Annual Meeting for the Society of Classical Studies Session: Gender Trouble in Latin Narrative Poetry January 9, 2016
Abstract
In the Bellum Civile proem, Lucan criticizes the citizens of Rome for their excessive love of war (tantus amor belli, 1.21) arguing that they have become distracted from their imperial potential by neglecting foreign enemies and turning against themselves. This programmatic appeal to amorsets in motion a theme of destructive love in the poem: the word appears 32 times in the Bellum Civile *(Tucker 1990), almost entirely with a negative connotation and directed towards an inappropriate goal (e.g., *amor belli civilis, 2.325, 9.228; amor ferri, 1.355; amor auri, 3.119; amor mortis, 6.246). I argue in this paper that Latin love elegy is an important influence on amoras a destructive and distracting force in Lucan’s poem. While the scholarship on Lucan has tended to read the Bellum Civile *primarily as an anti-Aeneid (Casali 2011; Narducci 1979), the poem also shows an antagonistic relationship with other literature of the period, namely Latin love elegy (McCune 2014; Caston 2011). Lucan uses elegiac themes throughout his epic to offer a critique of the theme of *militia amoris and the commitment to a “life of love” which allows it to exist (Lyne 1980). Lucan’s transvaluation of elegiac amor adopts the generic conceit while applying it to the actual circumstances of the characters. Characters in the Bellum Civile are motivated by amor, but it is not the “virtual pacificism” (Lyne 1980, 75) that the Augustan settlement of the civil wars permitted. I will focus on the distracting nature of elegiac amor on display in two scenes: Pompey’s attachment to Cornelia before Pharsalia in book 5 and Caesar’s affair with Cleopatra in book 10. Both scenes demonstrate the subversive nature of the elegiac pose in which military service and civic duty are subordinated to erotic distraction (Volk 2010, 192). The elegists however spoke through the metaphor of war; Pompey and Caesar both literally put themselves and their military objectives in jeopardy. In Pompey’s case, amor makes the general “hesitant and frightened for battle” (5.728-9); Caesar under its spell becomes “captive” in Cleopatra’s court (10.65). By way of conclusion, I connect the influence of Latin love elegy on the Bellum Civile, and erotic distraction in particular, to Lucan’s narrative style. As one critic comments, Lucan’s greatest deviation from the epic tradition is “his tendency to abandon narrative for an editorial reflection upon events” (Mayer 1981, 148). A striking feature these narrative interpolations is Lucan’s apparent unwillingness to recount his chosen narrative (Masters 1992, 3-10). Yet while Lucan writes that he will remain silent about the horrors of civil war (7.566), he in fact does the opposite. Where the elegists programmatically demur from writing the res gestae of the Caesars (Lyne 1995, 31-39), Lucan despite fits and starts of narrative delay and avoidance succeeds in writing precisely this material. Accordingly, Lucan’s narration in the end avoids the erotic distraction which plagues his characters and, in a compelling example of Lucan’s antiphrastic use of an elegiac theme, delivers the definitive anti-recusatio.
Select Bibliography
- Ahl, F. 1976. Lucan: An Introduction. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP.
- Ahl, F. 1984. “The Rider and the Horse.” ANRW II.32.1: 40-124.
- Asso, P. ed. 2011. Brill’s Companion to Lucan. Leiden: Brill.
- Barratt, P. ed. 1979. M. Annaei Lucani Belli Civilis Liber V: A Commentary. Amsterdam: Hakkert.
- Batinski, E.E. 1993. “Julia in Lucan’s Tripartite Vision of the Dead Republic.” In Woman’s Power, Man’s Game: Essays on Classical Antiquity in Honor of Joy K. King, edited by M.M. DeForest, 264-78. Wauconda, Il.: Bolchazy-Carducci.
- Berti, E. ed. 2000. M. Annaei Lucani Bellum Civile Liber X. Florence: Le Monnier.
- Bruère, R.T. 1951. “Lucan’s Cornelia.” CP 46: 221-236.
- Casali, S. 2011. “The Bellum Civile as Anti-Aeneid.” In Brill’s Comp. to Lucan, ed. P. Asso, 81-109. Leiden: Brill.
- Caston, R.R. 2011. “Lucan’s Elegiac Moments.” In Brill’s Comp. to Lucan, ed. P. Asso, 133-52. Leiden: Brill.
- Conte, G.B. 1994. Genres and Readers. Trans. by G.W. Most. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP.
- Copley, F.O. 1947. “Servitium Amoris in the Roman Elegists.” TAPA 78: 285-300.
- Corbeill, A. 2004. Nature Embodied: Gesture in Ancient Rome. Princeton: Princeton UP.
- Davis, G. 1991. Polyhymnia: The Rhetoric of Horatian Lyric Discourse. Berkeley, CA: U. of California Press. Davis, P.J. 2012. “Reception of Elegy in Augustan and Post-Augustan Poetry.” In A Comp. to Roman Love Elegy, ed. B.K. Gold, 443-58. Malden, Ma.: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Debrohun, J.B. 2003. Roman Propertius and the Reinvention of Elegy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Due, O.S. 1962. “An Essay on Lucan.” ClMed 22: 67-132.
- Fantham, E. ed. 1992. De Bello Civili II. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
- Finiello, C. 2005. “Der Bürgerkrieg: Reine Männersache? Keine Männersache! Erictho und die Frauengestalten im Bellum Civile Lucans.” In Lucan im 21. Jahrhundert, ed. C. Walde, 155-85. Munich: K.G. Saur.
- Fratantuono, L. 2012. Madness Triumphant: A Reading of Lucan’s Pharsalia. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
- Gale, M.R. 1997. “Propertius 2.7: Militia amoris and the Ironies of Elegy.” JRS 87: 77-91.
- George, D.B. 1992. “The Meaning of the Pharsalia Revisited.” In Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History VI, ed. C. Deroux, 362-89. Brussels: Latomus.
- Gowing, A.M. 2005. Empire and Memory. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
- Griffin, J. 1977. “Propertius and Antony.” JRS 67: 17-26.
- Groß, D. 2013. Plenus Litteris Lucanus: Zur Rezeption der Horazischen Oden und Epoden in Lucans Bellum Civile. Rahden/Westfalen: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
- Henderson, J. 1987. “Lucan: The Word at War.” Ramus 16: 122-164.
- Hershkowitz, D. 1998. The Madness of Epic: Reading Insanity from Homer to Statius. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
- Hinds, S. 2000. “Essential Epic: Genre and Gender from Macer to Statius.” In Matrices of Genre: Authors, Canons, and Society, ed. M. Depew and D. Obbink, 221-44. Cambridge, Ma: Harvard UP.
- Hübner, U. 1984. “Episches und Elegisches am Anfang des dritten Buches der Pharsalia.” Hermes 112: 227-239.
- Johnson, W.R. 1987. Momentary Monsters: Lucan and His Heroes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP.
- Keith, A. 2008. “Lament in Lucan’s Bellum Civile.” In Lament: Studies in the Ancient Mediterranean and Beyond, ed. A. Suter, 233-57. Oxford: Oxford UP.
- Kennedy, D. 2012. “Love’s Tropes and Figures.” In A Comp. to Roman Love Elegy, ed. B.K. Gold, 189-203. Malden, Ma.: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Kennedy, D.F. 1992. “‘Augustan’ and ‘Anti-Augustan’: Reflections on Terms of Reference.” In Roman Poetry and Propaganda in the Age of Augustus, ed. A. Powell, 57. Bristol: Bristol Classical Press. Kennedy, D.F. 1993. The Arts of Love. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
- Lyne, R.O.A.M. 1979. “Servitium Amoris.” CQ 29: 117-130.
- Lyne, R.O.A.M. 1980. The Latin Love Poets: From Catullus to Horace. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lyne, R.O.A.M. 1995. Horace: Behind the Public Poetry. New Haven: Yale UP.
- Marti, B.M. 1945. “The Meaning of the Pharsalia.” AJP 66: 352-376.
- Masters, J. 1992. Poetry and Civil War in Lucan’s Bellum Civile. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
- Matthews, M. 2008. Caesar and the Storm: Commentary on Lucan DBC, Book 5, ll. 476-721. Oxford: Peter Lang.
- McCune, B.C. 2014. “Lucan’s Militia Amoris: Elegiac Expectations in the Bellum Civile.” CJ 109: 171-198.
- Merriam, C.U. 2006. Love and Propaganda: Augustan Venus and the Latin Love Elegists. Brussels: Latomus.
- Michalopoulos, A. ed. 2006. Ovid Heroides 16 and 17: Introduction, Text and Commentary. Oxford: Francis Cairns.
- Miller, P.A. 1994. Lyric Texts and Lyric Consciousness. London: Routledge.
- Murgatroyd, P. 1975. “Militia Amoris and the Roman Elegists.” Latomus 34: 59-79.
- Murgatroyd, P. 1980. Tibullus I: A Commentary. Durban, South Africa: University of Natal Press.
- Murgatroyd, P. 1981. “Seruitium Amoris and the Roman Elegists.” Latomus 40: 589-606.
- Narducci, E. 1979. La Provvidenza Crudele: Lucano e la Distruzione dei Miti Augustei. Pisa: Giardini.
- Narducci, E. 2002. Lucano: Un’Epica contro l’Impero: Interpretazione della Pharsalia. Roma: Laterza.
- Pichon, R. 1902. De Sermone Amatorio apud Latinos Elegiarum Scriptores. Paris: Hachette.
- Radicke, J. 2004. Lucans Poetische Technik: Studien zum Historischen Epos. Leiden: Brill.
- Sannicandro, L. 2010. I Personaggi Femminili del Bellum Civile di Lucano. Rahden: Marie Leidorf.
- Saylor, C. 1967. “Querelae: Propertius’ Distinctive, Technical Name for his Elegy.” Agon 1: 142-149.
- Schmidt, M.G. 1986. Caesar und Cleopatra. Frankfurt an Main: Peter Lang.
- Spies, A. 1930. “Militat Omnis Amans: Ein Beitrag zur Bildersprache der antiken Erotik.” Diss., Uni. Tübingen.
- Thierfelder, A. 1934. “Der Dichter Lucan.” Archiv für Kulturgeschichte 25: 1-20.
- Thompson, L. 1984. “A Lucanian Contradiction of Virgilian Pietas: Pompey’s Amor.” CJ 79: 207-215.
- Thompson, L. and R.T. Bruère. 1968. “Lucan’s Use of Virgilian Reminiscence.” CP 63: 1-21.
- Thorne, M. 2011. “Memoria redux: Memory in Lucan.” In Brill’s Comp. to Lucan, ed. P. Asso, 363-81. Leiden: Brill.
- Tucker, R.A. 1990. “Love in Lucan’s Civil War.” Classical Bulletin 66
- Volk, K. 2010. “Penthesileas Kuss: Liebe und Krieg in der Literatur der Antike.” In War in Words: Transformations of War from Antiquity to Clausewitz, ed. M. Formisano and H. Böhme, 189-208. Berlin: De Gruyter.
- White, P. 1993. Promised Verse: Poets in the Society of Augustan Rome. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard UP.
- Zwierlein, O. 1974. “Cäsar und Kleopatra bei Lucan und in Späterer Dichtung.” A&A 20: 54-73.