Fatum and Fortuna in Lucan's Bellum Civile

8/9/2019 Fatum and Fortuna in Lucan's Bellum Civile

1/9

Fatum and Fortuna in Lucan's Bellum CivileAuthor(s): Bernard F. DickSource: Classical Philology, Vol. 62, No. 4 (Oct., 1967), pp. 235-242Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/268532.

Accessed: 01/01/2015 18:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The University of Chicago Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Classical Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 1 Jan 201518:03:35 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpresshttp://www.jstor.org/stable/268532?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/268532?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress


2/9

CL SSIC L

PHILOLOGY

VOLUME LXII, NUMBER 4

October1967

FATUM AND

FORTUNA

IN

LUCAN'S

BELLUM CIVILE

BERNARD

F. DICK

UCH

of

Lucanian

scholarship

from

the

mid-nineteenth

century

to the present has been devoted

to

the

problem of

fatum and

fortuna

in

the

Bellum civile.1

Nisard,

whose

disdainful

attitude toward

the

Silver

Age has

per-

sisted

to

our

own

time,

was the

first

of

the

modern

critics

to

suggest

Fortuna

as

Lucan's

substitution for

the

traditional

epic

deities: "Mais

qu'est-ce

que Lucain

a

mis a

leur place?-La

Fortune.-Belle

decouverte

"2

A

little

more than

fifty

years later (Nisard's work

was

first pub-

lished

in

1834) two

important

studies ap-

peared,

each

of

which

stressed

Lucan's

philosophy as

the

decisive

factor

in

evalu-

ating

his

epic.

Souriau,

observing

that

Epicurean and

Stoic

doctrines

mingled

with

popular

superstition

appear

succes-

sively

in

the work

without

the

poet's tak-

ing

due

care to

reconcile

them, also

noted

the predominant role of Fortune: "La

Fortune

elle-meme,

qui

joue

un

role

important

dans

la

Pharsale,

est

une

d6esse

bizarre,

ou

mieux,

un

mot

obscur.

Est-elle

le

hasard,

ou

le destin?

On

ne

sait,

car elle

a

des

caprices,

meme

a

l'egard

de

ses

amis."3

Girard,

who

took

Souriau to

task

for

emphasizing

Lucan's

philosophy and

minimizing

his

poetic

invention,

con-

tinued

nonetheless

in

a

similar

vein,

find-

ing a blend of Stoic, Epicurean, and skep-

tic

elements

in

the

epic.4

Fortune

was

"la

divinite

de ces

temps,"

and

in

substituting

her

for the

Olympian

machinery, the

poet was only conforming to contempo-

rary

taste.

The major

nineteenth-century French

critics of

Lucan were well

aware

of

Fortune's

role

in

the

epic-Nisard

and

Girard

calling it

the poet's

substitute

for

the

divine

epic

machinery,

and

Souriau

taking

no

definite stand.

Our

own

century

has

witnessed

several

important

studies

that are

worthy

of

more

than

passing

notice. Pichon

cursorily

in-

vestigated the

problem

and

concluded

that whenever

Lucan

speaks

of

fate,

fortune,

or

the

gods,

he means

the un-

alterable decree of

destiny

to

which he

simply gives different

names.'

There is the

invaluable

paper

of

Friedrich,

who

main-

tained

that the critical issue in

Lucan

is

not

whether

fatum

and

fortuna

are one

and the same force or even cause and ef-

fect;

rather,

one

should

remember

that

the

Bellum

civile

partakes

of

the

nature of

a

confession,

and

the

apparent

difficulties

and

inconsistencies

can

easily be

resolved

if

the

reader will

bear

in

mind that

one's

attitude toward

fate

is

the standard

by

which Lucan

measures his

actors:

"Die

Stellung

des

Menschen

zum

Fatum

ist

der

Kanon, mit

dem Lucan

seine

Gestalten

und ihre Handlungen misst."I E. Malco-

vati

also

found

philosophical

inconsist-

[CLASSICAL

PHILOLOGY,

LXII,

October,

19671

235

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/9

236

BERNARD

F.

DICK

encies

in Lucan, but would

attribute

them

to the anxieties

of the

time and the

poet's

youth.7

There

is

often

a

vagueness

in

discussing

fatum and fortuna in Lucan. Pohlenz

speaks of

"die

schrille Dissonanz"

that

permeates

the

epic;8 Schonberger

speaks

of fate as "die Resultante

im Kraftespiel

des Wirkens von

Fortuna

und Gdttern."^9

There

are three

reasons for

this under-

standable

vagueness:

first, Lucan

is him-

self

at

odds with the

cosmos, wondering

whether fate

or fortune governs

human

affairs:

sive

parens

rerum,

cum

primum

informia regna

materiamque

rudem

flamma cedente recepit,

fixit

in

aeternum

causas,

qua cuncta

coercet

se quoque

lege tenens,

et saecula

iussa ferentem

fatorum

inmoto

divisit limite

mundum,

sive

nihil

positum est,

sed fors

incerta vagatur

fertque

refertque vices

et habet mortalia

casus

[2.

7-131.

Secondly,

fatum

and

fortuna

are

used

more

widely

in

Lucan than

in

any other

epic

poet, and with a variety of meanings.'0

We must

remember

that we are

dealing

with

a

poet

for whom

fortuna

can often be

a metrical convenience.

Hence,

such pas-

sages

in

which

fortuna

clearly

means

"power"

(e.g.,

1.

111;

8.

31,

558; 9.

202)

or

"'reputation"

(3.

169;

4.

342),

and such

commonplaces

as

fortuna

belli

(4.

402,

712;

6.

593)

need

not

detain

us.

Likewise,

fatum

can

be

used

in its

original

meaning

of "prophecy" (1. 599; 6. 820), and very

frequently

as a

synonym

for

mors

or

letum,

sometimes

appearing

in

the

same

context

with these

words

and

serving

only

to

amplify

their

meaning."

Thirdly,

fortuna

can

be

a

synonym

for

fatum.12

Thus

one

cannot

be

entirely

certain

that

in

every

context

fortuna

will mean

the

absence

of

any

known cause

for an

event,

or fatum, a fixed and determined order of

the world.

One

cannot

expect

a

poet

to

conform

to

a fixed

terminology.

Wherein

lies

the solution?

Poets

are

notoriously

inconsistent

philosophers;

the

truths

they expound

may be

cosmic,

but

lie far beyond

the boundaries

of definition.

If

Lucan

had expounded

a fully developed

theory on the government of the universe

with the

provinces

of

fate and

chance

clearly

defined,

the Bellum civile

would

be another

Paradise

Lost-a

hypothesis

that

no

critic

would

venture

to accept.

On

the

other

hand,

an

undue

emphasis

on

the youth

of the poet

and the

immaturity

of his

work

precludes

the possibility

of

criticism.

The crucial text

is

the Book

2 proem

in

which Lucan clearly shows that he is

aware

of a difference

between

fate

(fa-

torum

inmoto ...

limite) and

fortune

(fors

incerta vagatur).

Lucan

may

be uncertain

whether

chance

or

destiny

presides

over

the

government

of

the

universe, but

he

still

knows

the

difference

between them.

Fate

is inexorable,

fortune uncertain

and

erratic.

Furthermore,

Lucan

will

occasion-

ally use both words in the same context in

such

a

way

as to indicate

a basic

difference

between

the

two

ideas: Marius,

who

ex-

perienced

both

good

and

bad

fortune,

measured

the

full extent

of human ex-

perience

or fate

(2.

131-33);

Pompey's

fortune changed

with

his

marriage

to

Cornelia,

who

was fated

to

bring

destruc-

tion

to

her

husbands

(3.

21-23);

Fortune

hastens

to confer upon

Caesar

world

dominion, thereby hindering fate (3.

392-94);

the

fortune

of the

men at

Pharsalus

was

learned

throughout

the

world,

and all

heaven

lent

an

ear

to their

fate (7.

205-6);

Fortune

wreaks

havoc

at

Pharsalus

while

the

course

of

fate

moves

on

(7.

504-5);

the

fortune

of Caesar

and

the

fate

of

guilty

Egypt

debated

the

de-

struction

of the

realm

of

Ptolemy

(10.

3-6);

fate

gave

Egypt

a

great

capacity

for

crime,

and fortune

brings great

men

within

its

reach

(10.

384-85);

fate

opposes

the

attacking Egyptians,

and

Fortune



4/9

"FATUM"

AND

"FORTUNA"

IN

LUCAN'S

"BELLUM CIVILE"

237

acts as

a

protecting

wall for Caesar

(10.

485).

It is

clear,

then, that

Lucan can dis-

tinguish between

fatum

and

fortuna,

al-

though he is unable to decide which con-

trols

world

afftairs.

Knowledge

does

not al-

ways

preclude acceptance.

Still,

the

poet's

awarenesss

of

a

distinction

should

provide

the

key

to this

knotty

problem,

despite

the

fact that

the

words

will

not

have

the

same

meaning

in

every context

(and

this

sermantic

phenomenon

is not

peculiar

to

Latin).

Therefore,

a study of

isolated

passages would

be

futile;

one must view

fatum and fortuna within a wider frame of

reference. The context can

only be

pro-

vided

by

the

characters. The Bellum civile

is

not

mere

chronicle;

it

is

epic,

and with-

out

dramatic

representation

of

the

char-

acters,

epic

is

merely verse

history

or

romance. Therefore,

to understand

what

fatum and

fortuna

mean

to Lucan,

one

must

view them

in

relation to

the char-

acters

of

this epic.

THE

MARIUS

AND

ALEXANDER

DIGRESSIONS

Early

in

the

epic,

a

historical

digression

on

the

Marian

reign of

terror

appears

(2.

67-232), flowing

logically

from

what

has

preceded.

Caesar has

crossed

the Rubi-

con,

and

Rome

is

in

a

critical

state.

Matrons

supplicate

the gods,

and

old men

complain of their lot. One aged citizen,

quaerens

exempla

timori

(2. 67),

launches

into

a

digressive

speech on

Marius.

One

is

almost

tempted

to

dismiss

this

speech

as a

Nestorian

harangue,

but

actually

it

is

vital to

the

structure of the

epic.

The

citizenry

is

praeteritique

memor

...

metuensque

uturi

(2. 233).

Since the

populace is

"mindful of the

past,"

what

would

be more

apropos

than

an

em-

bittered

reminiscence of

the

Marian hor-

rors?

The

citizens are also

"fearful of the

future," that

is,

of

Caesar

and

incipient

warfare.

In

the imperial

exempla

litera-

ture,

Marius was a well-known

prototype

of one who had

enjoyed

bountiful luck

while

his

star was

in

the

ascendant, only

to suffer a reversal of fortune when at the

height of

his power;'3 he was at first

blessed with strokes of good luck

(felicitas)

that

raised

him

above the level

of

a

mere

general

and

gave

him

almost

superhuman

stature.14

In

fact,

in

the digression

Lucan

specifically calls Marius

felix (2. 74), but

by this epithet the poet does not mean

"lucky."

It has been shown

that Lucan

drew upon exempla that were

current

in

the early Empire;15according to this con-

cept

of

felicitas, anyone

who is

felix

is ear-

marked for disaster since the

felices are

under the

vacillating tutelage

of

a

capri-

cious

power,

Fortuna.

Marius

trusted

in

Fortune, won her

favor for a

time,

and

was

finally

abandoned

in

his critical hour

by this

fickle

agent. Is it

not

ironic that

prior

to

this digression-in a

passage

shortly to be discussed (1. 226)-Lucan

has Caesar swear allegiance to

this ver-

tiginous deity?

Thus,

the destinies

of

uncle

and

nephew,

of

past

and

present,

become

inextricably linked

in

an excursus that is

by

no

means

a

mere

remembrance

of

things past.

As

the climax nears

in

Book

10,

Caesar's

being

in

Egypt

provokes

a di-

gression

on

Alexander (10.

20-52), whom

Lucan also terms felix (10. 21), and who,

like

Marius,

was a

famous exemplum

of

Fortune's

favorite,

his rise to

power

and

death

both

being

attributed

to

her.'6

The

antimonarchical poet has

now linked

Caesar with

his

Greek

counterpart; the

consummate irony

would

have occurred

in

some later book

when

Fortuna

would

have at

length deserted Caesar just as she

did

Alexander

and

Marius.17

The Marius and

Alexander

excursuses

are

carefully constructed to blend

in

with

the ethical

function

of

the

epic.

Caesar's



5/9

238

BERNARD

F.

DICK

growing

dictatorial power suggests

a

digression on the rise

and fall of his uncle,

Marius; his occupation

of Alexandria

evokes

the Alexander digression.

Marius

and Alexander were Fortune's favorites of

the past,

Caesar, a felix of the present.

CAESAR

After

Caesar had received the

senate's

injunction forbidding

him to cross

the

Rubicon, he boldly

defied it.

If we can

trust the anecdotal

biographers,

the his-

torical Caesar let the

die be cast and pro-

ceeded across the stream

(Suet. lul. 32;

Plut. Caes. 32). Lucan, however, is not

delineating the

historical Caesar. Thus,

immediately

after the general has

crossed

the

Rubicon

and

reached the

Italian

side,

the poet

has

him

exclaim:

"'hic' . .

.

'hic

pacem

temerataque

iura

relinquo

;/te,

Fortuna,

sequor. procul

hinc

iam foedera

sunto;/credidimus

satis

his,

utendum

est

iudice

bello'" (1. 225-27).

Caesar was

a

well-known imperial

exemplum

of

Fortune's

favorite,18

al-

though

it

is doubtful

if

the

historical

Caesar

had

any

such

personal

belief

in

his

own good

luck.19 But

to

Lucan

anyone

who

swears allegiance

to

this

wilful and

capricious power

will

triumph

for a

time

but

will eventually be deserted

by

her.

Thus, almost

at

the

outset

of

the epic,

Caesar

is

paired

with Fortuna. She

deals

kindly with him (1. 309-11) and strives to

set

him

above

the whole

world

;20

he

chooses

her as

his

sole

companion

(5.

510),

and

it is

she

who saves

him from

drowning

in

the

Adriatic

(5.

696-97).

One

can

only imagine

how Lucan would have

depicted

Caesar's

death

when Fortuna

would

have

been

powerless

to

avert the

blows

of

the conspirators.

In

Book

3,

the hard

pressed

Caesar

decides

to

construct

an

agger,

using

wood

from

a

Druid

grove

(3.

399-453).

The

soldiers

are

ordered

to

fell the trees

in

the

grove,

but are overcome

with fear at the

solemnity

of the place.

Caesar thereupon

seizes

an axe, crying

that he will

assume

the

guilt for the profanation.

In despoiling

the sacred grove Caesar commits a sacri-

lege. The episode

builds up

climactically

to the pregnant

epigram,

"servat multos

fortuna nocentis/et

tantum

miseris irasci

numina possunt" (3.

448-49), and

tapers

off with a

poignant description

of the

plight

of

the

farmers

whose oxen were

forcibly

taken

to

carry

the wood

from

the plundered

grove.

The digression

is well

plotted, for it

allows the poet to introduce the Druids,

for whom he

had

great

sympathy

in addi-

tion

to

being adequately

informed of their

practices.2'

The Druids in

turn suggest a

cult place, the

destruction

of

which en-

ables

Lucan to

associate

Caesar

with

nefas,

a charge that

will remain with

him

throughout

the

epic. Fortune,

whom

Caesar

had

deigned

to

follow, "guards

the guilty." Hence, his sacrilege will go

unpunished,

but

only

for

the present.

Fortune

is

a

fickle power.

She

has

exalted

Caesar at

Pompey's

expense,

and

in

the seventh

book

the

poet

will

make

her the

causative

agent

in Pompey's

de-

feat

at

Pharsalus.

POMPEY

Throughout

the

epic,

Lucan

refers

to

Pompey for the most part as Magnus,22

the

title with which

Sulla

greeted

the

young general

after he

had

exterminated

the

remnants

of

the

Marian

faction

in

Africa

in

79

B.c.

A

few

years

earlier,

in

82,

Sulla

had taken

the

title

felix,23

and

now the young

Pompey

had

adopted

the

equally

imperious

Magnus,

henceforth

his

surname.24

Pompey's

emulation

of Sulla's

fortune

and his growing identification with the

dictator2'

soon

made

him a

living

legend

and

gave

rise

to

the

popular

belief

that,



6/9

"FATUM" AND "FORTUNA" IN LUCAN'S "BELLUM CIVILE"

239

like

Sulla, the

young

general

was

also

blessed

with

unexpected

good

luck

(felici-

tas).

In a

famous

passage

(De

imp.

Gn.

Pomp.

47),

Cicero

spoke in

precise and

guarded language about Pompey's felici-

tas,

inferring

that such

success

was

ulti-

mately

attributable to

the

gods and

should

not

be

the

object

of

boast

lest their

displeasure

be

incurred.26

Bearing

in

mind,

then,

that

even

in

the

Late

Repub-

lic,

Pompey

was

renowned

for

his

luck

(whether

divinely

bestowed

or

simply

unexpected

is

problematical),

and

that to

Lucan

anyone

who

is felix is

earmarked

for transitory glory and ultimate defeat,

let

us see

how the

poet

will

link

Pompey

with

Fortuna,

a

frequent

synonym

for

felicitas,27

beginning

in

the

seventh

book.

Book

7 is

the pivotal

point of

the

epic.

The

die

is

indeed

cast,

and

Lucan knows

that

Pompey's defeat is

inevitable.

Sud-

denly,

fortuna,

a word

rarely

used

in

rela-

tion

to

Pompey

in

the

first six

books,28

now

appears

with

alarming

frequency. It

is

perhaps

Fortuna

who

causes

Pompey's

dream

on

the

eve

of

battle (7.

23-24).

It

was

Fortuna

who

gave

Pompey

charge

of

Rome,

and it is

to

her that

he hands

back

the

city (7.

110).

Fortune, who

had

given him

boons in

the

past

(7.

68-69),

now

wrecks

his plans

(7.

665-66).

She

who had

long favored

him

demands

pay-

ment for

her

largess (8.

21-22);

summon-

ing him to death (8. 701-4), she over-

throws

him

(8.

707-8);

and

upon his

murder

by

Septimius,

it

is she

who

devises

a

makeshift

burial for

her

favorite

(8.

713). As a

fitting

climax,

Fortune is

con-

ceived

as

lying

in

the tomb

with

her

chosen

one,

Pompey (8.

860-61).

Lucan

has

simply

taken

over

the

popular

tradition

that

Pompey's

success

was

due to

unexpected

good luck

(for-

tuna, felicitas) and expressed it in epic

terms. It

is

not

fortuna

as

simply

"good

luck"

but

the

deity

Fortune

who

had

favored

Pompey

in

the

past

and

now,

in

his critical

hour, will abandon

him

to

Caesar.

Such

a concept would serve

Lucan

well. If Fortuna rapax were ultimately ac-

countable

for

Pompey's

defeat,

the

poet's

purpose

would be

accomplished.

Lucan's

unswerving

republicanism could

not

al-

low

him

to

admit that

Pompey

was

simply

inferior to

Caesar as a

commander,

and

that the latter's

advanced

strategy

and

planning were

the decisive factors

in

Pompey's defeat

at

Pharsalus.

Further-

more,

Lucan is neither

a

scientific his-

torian like Polybius nor a pragmatic

Sallust.

He

is

a writer of

epic, treating

his-

torical

fact and

popular

tradition

in

poetic

terms.

CATO

Of

all

the characters

in

Lucan's

epic,

only

Cato, whose Stoic

rigidity was

recog-

nized in his

own

lifetime29 and whose

repudiation of

Fortune was a common-

place of the Porch,30 frees himself from

her mangling

hold. We are first

introduced

to

Cato

briefly

in

Book

2

when

the

idealistic Brutus

calls on the

Stoic saint

on

the

eve

of

the war.

In

his

flattering

address to

Cato,

Brutus states

that virtue

will

never

be

shaken from

the

Stoic's

breast

by any

reversal

of

fortune: "omni-

bus

expulsae terris

olimque

fugatae/

virtutis iam sola fides,

quam

turbine

nullo/excutiet fortuna tibi..

."

(2. 242-

44).

The

Brutus-Cato scene

is an admirable

prelude

to the ninth book,

in which

Cato

appears

as a

fully

delineated character.

The

Pompeians

are in Africa

where they

are

suffering untold

hardships from

the

elements and

deadly serpents.

In an

effort

to seek

an end to

the

fruitless warfare,

Labienus asks

Cato to

consult the oracle

at

Ammon.

Cato

refuses, and

replies

in-

stead

with

an

exposition of the Stoic

pantheism:

Fortune has no

power

to op-



7/9

240 BERNARDF. DICK

pose

Virtue since

men are fragments

of

the divine,

and

the sapiens-knowing

that

whatever he sees,

whatever

movement

he

makes,

is God-has

no need

to consult

an

oracle:

quid quaeri,

Labiene, iubes? an

liber in armis

occubuisse

velim potius

quam regna videre?

an sit vita nihil sed

longa an differat

aetas?

an noceat

vis nulla bono

fortunaque

perdat

opposita virtute minas, laudandaque

velle

sit satis et

numquam successu

crescat honestum?

... .... ...

...

...

.. .. .. .. ..

.. .. .. .. . .... ... .

................

superos

quid quaerimus

ultra?

Iuppiter

est quodcumque

vides,

quodcumque

moveris [9. 566-80].

Cato's rejectioll of fortune and his

elucidation

of the Stoic fatum3'

are

of

great importance

in

understanding

the

epic.

At last there

is one

person whom

Fortune

cannot touch.

One can

only

imagine the wealth

of Stoic

commonplaces

that

would

have issued forth

from Cato's

mouth had the poet

lived to

include the

suicide at

Utica

in

his

epic.

By a subtle use of dramatic fore-

shadowing,

Lucan

has

prepared

the

reader

for Book 9 through the

Curio episode

of

the

fourth book. Curio,

intent

on

winning

Africa from the

Pompeians,

arrives

in

Libya;

in his quest

for glory he

immediate-

ly

asks one of

the inhabitants

about

the

realm

of Antaeus.

Libya

suggests

the

regna

Antaei

which

in

turn evoke

a narra-

tive

that is

strongly

reminiscent

of

the

Cacus-Hercules episode in Aeneid 8 where

Aeneas

and his companions

arrive

at the

Palatine

and discover

rites

in

honor

of

Hercules being

celebrated

by

Evander,

who

proceeds

to relate

the

story

of

Cacus

and

how it

was that

Hercules

was then

worshiped

in

Italy.

So,

too,

does

Curio,

upon

his arrival

in

a

strange

land,

seek

to

familiarize

himself

with the eleventh

labor

of Hercules

which

took

place

in

Libya.

There

are

perhaps

deeper

overtones

in

Lucan's

tale. Trained

in

the

school

of

Cornutus

who

taught

the

allegorization

of

myths,32

the poet would

not miss

so

invit-

ing an

opportunity

to draw

a moral

from

the tale.

Hercules

was

the exemplar

in

myth of

the Stoic

sapiens,33

and of

all the

characters in Lucan's epic, it is Cato who

represents

the

true Stoic

saint.

Curio

on

the other

hand,

is not a

sage.

He believes

in the

good

luck attached

to the

spot

where

he resolves

to pitch

camp-a

spot

where

the victorious

Scipio

had

also

en-

camped;

he is convinced

that

the

lucky

spot

will win wars

for

him

and

repeat the

successes

of

former

heroes:

Curio laetatus,

tamquam

fortuna

locorum

bella gerat servetque ducum sibi fata priorum,

felici

non fausta

loco tentoria

ponens

indulsit

castris

et collibus

abstulit

omen

sollicitatque

feros

non

aequis

viribus hostis [4.

661-65].

Defeated

by Juba,

Curio

will perish

on

the selfsame

ground

because

of

his fool-

hardiness.34

Cato,

the

true sapiens,

will

reach North

Africa

in

the

ninth

book,

and

suffer

the

scorching

rays

of

the sun

and

the perils of serpent-infested sands. Her-

cules,

the

sapiens

in

myth,

struggled

with

the

giant

Antaeus

in

Libya,

where

Curio

sought

in

vain

to win

renown;

Cato,

the

sapiens

in

actuality,

will struggle

with the

forces

of nature

in

this

primitive

land,

but

being

a saint

will

triumph

over

them.

If we must have a substitute for the

absent

deities

of the

Bellum

civile,

then

it

would

be

more correct

to

say

Fortuna

and

fatum

fill

the

void

left by

the

discarded

divine

machinery.

When

we see

how

they

function

in

regard

to

the

characters,

then

the

"shrill

dissonance"

that

ostensibly

permeates

the

epic

can

be

resolved.

Lucan

employs

the

ambivalence

of

For-

tuna

for

a double purpose:

the

same

mobile

and

erratic

power

can champion

Caesar

and

overthrow Pompey.

Both

have

enjoyed

her ephemeral

favors,

and



8/9

"FATUM" AND "FORTUNA" IN LUCAN'S "BELLUM CIVILE"

241

both

in

turn were deserted by

her-

Pompey at

Pharsalus, Caesar, ultimately

on the avenging Ides of March. Lucan's

poem is a warning to

all

who

would choose

Fortuna as their patron; she had showered

Alexander, Marius, Sulla, Curio, Caesar,

and Pompey with

fleeting success, only to

demand recompense

when the felices

most

required

her

protection. Cato,

on

the

other

hand, has

only contempt

for

Fortuna and those who follow her; his

obedience is to the Logos that is immanent

in the universe.

IONA COLLEGE

NOTES

1.

Three late

nineteenth-century

works were

un-

fortunately unavailable

for

this

paper

and are

known

to

me

only

through

reviews

in

Bursian's

Jahresbericht:

M.

Souriau, De deorum ministeriis

in Pharsalia

(Paris,

1885) and

F.

Oettl, Lucans

philosophische Weltan-

schauung

(Brixen, 1888),

both

of

whom

found

Epicu-

rean

elements

in

the poet's use

of

fortuna;

J. E.

Mil-

lard, Lucani sententia de deis et de fato (Utrecht, 1891),

who claimed

that

Lucan was

sympathetic

to

Stoicism,

and

that Fortuna

in

almost all cases means

fate

itself,

a

personal

deity,

or

an

agent

executing

the

bidding

of

fate. L.

Jeep reviewed

all

three works-Souriau and

Oettl

in

Jahresbericht ii. d. Fortschritte d.

class. Alter-

tumswissenschaft,

LXII

(1890),

177-78,

and

Millard,

ibid.,

LXXXIV

(1895), 112-13.

2. D.

Nisard, Etudes

de moeurs

et de

critique sur

les

pogtes latins de

la

decadence,

112

(Paris,

1849),

76.

3. M.

Souriau,

"Du

merveilleux dans

Lucain,"

Revue

de 1'histoire des

religions,

XIV

(1886),

210.

4. J.

Girard, "Du

r6le

des

dieux dans

la

Pharsale,"

Journal des

savants,

April, 1888, p. 194.

5. R.

Pichon,

Les

sources de Lucain (Paris, 1912),

p.

175.

6. W. H.

Friedrich, "Cato,

Caesar und

Fortuna

bei

Lucan,"

Hermes,

LXXIII

(1938),

420.

7. M.

Anneo Lucano

(Milan, 1940), p.

59. Her

treatment

of

fate,

however,

has

been

aptly

termed

"unclear"

by

R.

Helm,

"Nachaugusteische

nicht-

christliche

Dichter,"

Lustrum,

I

(1956),

222.

8.

M.

Pohlenz,

Die

Stoa,

12

(Gottingen,

1949),

283-84.

9. 0.

Sch6nberger, "Zu

Lucan. Ein

Nachtrag,"

Hermes,

LXXXVI

(1958),

235.

10. Fortuna is

used

144

times, and

fatum, 254,

both

in

sing.

and

pl. forms,

according

to

Housman's

text,

the

one

used for

this

paper.

A

Concordance to

Lucan, ed. Deferrari, Fanning, Sullivan (Washing-

ton,

D.C., 1940),

lists

fatum 258

times,

owing

to

vari-

ants

in

1.

227;

5.

137,

695;

7. 354.

11. Cf. 3. 196

(with

mors), 242,

604, 634; 4.

474,

480

(with letum), 557

(with

mors);

5.

283, 683; 6.

244,

299; 9. 615

(with

mors), 733

(with letum),

786,

825,

833

(with

mors), 849;

10.

21,

515.

12. Cf.

the

observations of C.

Bailey,

Religion in

Virgil

(Oxford,

1935), pp. 235-37.

13.

Val.

Max. 6. 9. 14

(Kempf);

Sen. Contr. 1.

1.

3, 5; 7.

2. 6; Juv.

10.276-82. On the

rhetorical

exempla

(Marius,

Cicero,

Pompey, etc.) in

Juvenal

and

their

relationship to

the elder

Seneca, cf. J. de

Decker,

Juvenalis

declamans

(diss., Ghent,

1912), pp.

42-43.

14. This seems to have been the general notion of

the

ancient

concept

of

felicitas

before

the

Empire; cf.

R.

M.

Haywood, Studies on

Scipio

Africanus

("The

Johns

Hopkins

University

Studies in

Historical

and

Political

Sciences," LI:

1

[Baltimore, 19331),

p. 13.

A. Passerini, "II

concetto antico

di

Fortuna," Philol.,

XC

(1935), 97 on

the contrary

considered that

felicitas

was a

power

immanent

in

man-a

view

refuted

by

H. Erkell,

Augustus,

Felicitas,

Fortuna

(G6teborg,

1952), pp.

43-45, who

reviewed the problem

and con-

cluded

that the word

initially

indicated

"gottlicher

Segen,"

the

blessing

of

the

gods

which

a

great

man

earns through his pietas, his dutiful affection (hence,

the

highly formulaic and

exact

taking

of

the

auspices

by

a

general

before

battle

in order

to obtain

felicitas).

Whether

the

word continued

to possess so

heavily

re-

ligious a connotation is

doubtful,

and I.

Kajanto,

God

and

Fate in

Livy

(Turku, 1957), p.

74 has

observed

that

felicitas

as

"gottlicher

Segen"

is

hardly applicable

to

every

usage

of

the

word,

and

like

fortuna, felicitas

often means

good

luck.

The

adjective

felix, then,

can

denote either success due

to the

gods

through

a

man's

dutiful

affection to

them,

or

merely

"lucky,"

and

be-

ginning with

Sulla

in

82

B.C. could

be taken as a

cogno-

men

bestowed

by

the senate

upon

a

victorious

gen-

eral,

although later writers considered

such a

surname

a bold move; cf. Plin. NH 22. 6. 12, who terms it a

superbum cognomen.

15. C.

Bosch,

Die

Quellen

des

Valerius

Maximus

(Stuttgart, 1929),

pp.

33-34.

16. Val. Max.

1.

7

ext.

2

(Kempf).

17.

Lucan may

have

had in mind

either

Livy 8. 3.

7,

where

Alexander's

death

is

ascribed

to

Fortune,

or

he

may

have been influenced

by

the

Peripatetic-Stoic

tradition which

attributed Alexander's

success to For-

tune;

for

the ancient

sources,

cf. E.

Schwartz,

"Cur-

tius

Rufus,"

RE,

IV

(1901),

1880-82.

18.

Val. Max. 6.

9.

15

(Kempf); Plut.

De fort.

Rom.

11

(Mor.

324).

19.

T. R.

Holmes, Caesar's

Conquest

of Gaul2

(Ox-

ford,

1911), p. 41, claimed

that

Caesar

had a

personal

belief in Fortune, a view since discountenanced; cf.

W.

W.

Fowler,

"Caesar's

Conception

of

Fortuna,"

CR,

XVII

(1903),

153-56;

E.

Tappan,

"Julius

Caesar

and

Fortuna,"

TA

PA,

LVIII

(1927),

xxvii;

H.

Ericsson,

"Caesar

und

sein

Gliick," Eranos, XLII

(1944), 69;

I.

Kajanto,

op.

cit.

(above,

n.

14), p. 16.

20.

Cf. also 4.

256; 5. 582,

593,

668, 677; 6.

141;

7.

734,

796.

21. Cf. 1.

450-65 and

J. A.

MacCulloch,

The Re-

ligion

of

the

Ancient Celts

(Edinburgh,

1911), passim;

P.

Duval,

"Teutates,

Esus,

Taranis,"

EC, VIII

(1958), 41-58.

22. Lucan

calls

him

Magnus 193

times,

Pompeius

81

times.

23. On the monarchical overtones of Sulla's cogno-

men, cf. J.

Carcopino, Sylla

ou la

monarchie

manquge2

(Paris, 1931),

pp.

94-95; J. P.

V. D.

Balsdon,

"Sulla

Felix,"

JRS,

XLI

(1951),

1-10.

24. When

the

surname became

offlcial is uncer-



9/9

242

BERNARD

F.

DICK

tain; cf. J. van Ooteghem,

Pompee le Grand

(Brussels,

1954), p. 66, n. 2.

25. Cf.

ibid., p. 69. Cic. ad

Att. 9. 7. 3 realized

Pompey's

Sullanism too late:

"mirandum enim in

modum

Gnaeus noster Sullani regni

similitudinem

occupavit."

26. Cf. also

Vell. Pat. 2.

53.

3

and

Florus 2.

13

(Rossbach).

27. Cf.

I.

Kajanto, op. cit.

(above, n.

14), p. 75.

28.

Fortuna occurs only

flve

times In

relation to

Pompey in the flrst six

books: 1. 135 (fortuna as

"power"); 2.

568 (perhaps equivalent to

"fate");

3. 21, 169; 5.

755.

29. Cic. Mur. 64;

Att.

1.

18. 7; 3. 8. Cf. further,

H.

Nelson,

"Cato the

Younger

as

a Stoic

Orator,"

CW,

XLIV

(1950), 65-69.

30. Sen. Epist. Mor.

24.

7-8;

98.

12.

31.

Commenta Bernensia 9. 573 is

especially sound

on

this

passage:

"his versibus locum

stringit

de

fato;

hoc

omnia

esse

constricta et

ex

aeternitate

quadam

catenatione

causarum

implicata

destinatis diebus

et

nasci et flniri, mentesque nostras iam tunc ita forma-

tas secundum voluntatem

deorum

(id est Fatorum)

cuncta facere, et debere nos aequo animo necessitati

publicae parere

tamquam domino subiectos."

32. Sen. Epist. Mor. 88. 5; Gell. NA 2. 6. 1; 9.

10. 5.

33. Idem De

const. sap.; Ben.

1.

13. 3.

34. Caesar (BC 2. 38-42) relates the incidents

leading up to Curio's defeat, and in his usual de-

tached style indicates

that

the

tribune's

rashness was

the decisive factor.

Lucan also

perceived this fault

in

Curio, but E. Longi,

"Tre

episodi

del

poema

di

Lu-

cano,"

in

Studi

in onore

di

Gino

Funaioli

(Rome,

1955), p. 181,

maintains that the poet showed "pro-

found sympathy"

for Curio and also that there is

"pathos"

In

the tragic

ending

of

the

episode.

E.

Fraen-

kel, "Lucan als Mittler

des

antiken Pathos," Vor-

trdge

der Bibliothek

Warburg

(1924-25), 242-43,

has

shown

that

there

is indeed

pathos

in

the

Hercules-

Antaeus description,

but

hardly

in

Lucan's

depiction

of Curio's vainglory.

This content downloaded from 132 248 9 8 on Thu 1 Jan 2015 18:03:35 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

Fatum and Fortuna in Lucan's Bellum Civile

Documents

Transcript of Fatum and Fortuna in Lucan's Bellum Civile