Fatum and Fortuna in Lucan's Bellum Civile

Fatum and Fortuna in Lucan's Bellum Civile
Author(s): Bernard F. Dick

Source: Classical Philology, Vol. 62, No. 4 (Oct., 1967), pp. 235-242
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable 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 Press is 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 2015 18:03:35 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CLASSICALPHILOLOGY
VOLUME LXII, NUMBER
October1967
FATUM AND FORTUNA IN LUCAN'S BELLUM CIVILE

BERNARD F. DICK
M
UCH
of Lucanian scholarship divinite de ces temps," and in substituting
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 persisted 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 published in 1834) two important studies appeared, each of which stressed Lucan's
philosophy as the decisive factor in evaluating his epic. Souriau, observing that
Epicurean and Stoic doctrines mingled
with popular superstition appear successively in the work without the poet's taking 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, continued nonetheless in a similar vein, finding a blend of Stoic, Epicurean, and skeptic elements in the epic.4 Fortune was "la
[CLASSICAL
PHILOLOGY,
LXII, October, 19671
her for the Olympian machinery, the

poet was only conforming to contemporary 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 investigated the problem and concluded
that whenever Lucan speaks of fate,
fortune, or the gods, he means the unalterable decree of destiny to which he
simply gives different names.' There is the
invaluable paper of Friedrich, who maintained that the critical issue in Lucan is
not whether fatum and fortuna are one
and the same force or even cause and effect; 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. Malcovati also found philosophical inconsist-
235

236
BERNARD
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 understandable vagueness: first, Lucan is himself at odds with the cosmos, wondering
whether fate or fortune governs human
affairs:
sive parens rerum, cum primum informiaregna
materiamquerudem 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 passages 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
F.
DICK
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 (fatorum 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 occasionally use both words in the same context in
such a way as to indicate a basic difference
between the two ideas: Marius, who experienced both good and bad fortune,
measured the full extent of human experience or fate (2. 131-33); Pompey's
fortune changed with his marriage to
Cornelia, who was fated to bring destruction 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 destruction 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

"FATUM" AND "FORTUNA" IN LUCAN'S "BELLUM CIVILE"
237
warfare. In the imperial exempla literature, 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.14In 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 concept of felicitas, anyone who is felix is earmarked for disaster since the felices are
under the vacillating tutelage of a capricious 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 verTHE MARIUS AND ALEXANDER
tiginous deity? Thus, the destinies of uncle
DIGRESSIONS
and nephew, of past and present, become
Early in the epic, a historical digression inextricably linked in an excursus that is
on the Marian reign of terror appears (2. by no means a mere remembrance of
67-232), flowing logically from what has things past.
preceded. Caesar has crossed the RubiAs the climax nears in Book 10,
con, and Rome is in a critical state. Caesar's being in Egypt provokes a diMatrons supplicate the gods, and old men gression on Alexander (10. 20-52), whom
complain of their lot. One aged citizen, Lucan also terms felix (10. 21), and who,
quaerens exempla timori (2. 67), launches like Marius, was a famous exemplum of
into a digressive speech on Marius.
Fortune's favorite, his rise to power and
One is almost tempted to dismiss this death both being attributed to her.'6 The
speech as a Nestorian harangue, but antimonarchical poet has now linked
actually it is vital to the structure of the Caesar with his Greek counterpart; the
epic. The citizenry is praeteritiquememor consummate irony would have occurred
... metuensquefuturi (2. 233). Since the in some later book when Fortuna would
populace is "mindful of the past," what have at length deserted Caesar just as she
would be more apropos than an em- did Alexander and Marius.17
bittered reminiscence of the Marian horThe Marius and Alexander excursuses
rors? The citizens are also "fearful of the are carefully constructed to blend in with
future," that is, of Caesar and incipient the ethical function of the epic. Caesar's
acts as a protecting wall for Caesar (10.

485).
It is clear, then, that Lucan can distinguish between fatum and fortuna, although he is unable to decide which controls world afftairs.Knowledge does not always 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 provided by the characters. The Bellum civile
is not mere chronicle; it is epic, and without dramatic representation of the characters, 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 characters of this epic.

238
BERNARDF. 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.
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 sacrilege. The episode builds up climactically
to the pregnant epigram, "servat multos
CAESAR
fortuna nocentis/et tantum miseris irasci
After Caesar had received the senate's numina possunt" (3. 448-49), and tapers
injunction forbidding him to cross the off with a poignant description of the
Rubicon, he boldly defied it. If we can plight of the farmers whose oxen were
trust the anecdotal biographers, the his- forcibly taken to carry the wood from
torical Caesar let the die be cast and pro- the plundered grove.
ceeded across the stream (Suet. lul. 32;
The digression is well plotted, for it
Plut. Caes. 32). Lucan, however, is not allows the poet to introduce the Druids,
delineating the historical Caesar. Thus, for whom he had great sympathy in addiimmediately after the general has crossed tion to being adequately informed of their
the Rubicon and reached the Italian side, practices.2' The Druids in turn suggest a
the poet has him exclaim: "'hic' . . . 'hic cult place, the destruction of which enpacem temerataque iura relinquo ;/te, ables Lucan to associate Caesar with
Fortuna, sequor. procul hinc iam foedera nefas, a charge that will remain with him
sunto;/credidimus satis his, utendum est throughout the epic. Fortune, whom
iudice bello'" (1. 225-27).
Caesar had deigned to follow, "guards
Caesar was a well-known imperial the guilty." Hence, his sacrilege will go
exemplum of Fortune's favorite,18 al- unpunished, but only for the present.
though it is doubtful if the historical
Fortune is a fickle power. She has
Caesar had any such personal belief in his exalted Caesar at Pompey's expense, and
own good luck.19 But to Lucan anyone in the seventh book the poet will make
who swears allegiance to this wilful and her the causative agent in Pompey's decapricious power will triumph for a time feat at Pharsalus.
but will eventually be deserted by her.
POMPEY
Thus, almost at the outset of the epic,
Throughout the epic, Lucan refers to
Caesar is paired with Fortuna. She deals
kindly with him (1. 309-11) and strives to Pompey for the most part as Magnus,22
set him above the whole world ;20 he the title with which Sulla greeted the
chooses her as his sole companion (5. young general after he had exterminated
510), and it is she who saves him from the remnants of the Marian faction in
drowning in the Adriatic (5. 696-97). One Africa in 79 B.c. A few years earlier, in
can only imagine how Lucan would have 82, Sulla had taken the title felix,23 and
depicted Caesar's death when Fortuna now the young Pompey had adopted the
would have been powerless to avert the equally imperious Magnus, henceforth his
surname.24
blows of the conspirators.
Pompey's emulation of Sulla's fortune
In Book 3, the hard pressed Caesar
his growing identification with the
and
decides to construct an agger, using wood
soon made him a living legend
dictator2'
The
from a Druid grove (3. 399-453).
rise to the popular belief that,
in
and
gave
fell
the
trees
the
to
ordered
soldiers are

like Sulla, the young general was also

blessed with unexpected good luck (felicitas). In a famous passage (De imp. Gn.
Pomp. 47), Cicero spoke in precise and
guarded language about Pompey's felicitas, inferring that such success was ultimately 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 Republic, 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. Suddenly, fortuna, a word rarely used in relation 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 payment for her largess (8. 21-22); summoning him to death (8. 701-4), she overthrows 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 conceived 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 (fortuna, felicitas) and expressed it in epic
terms. It is not fortuna as simply "good
luck" but the deity Fortune who had
239
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 accountable for Pompey's defeat, the poet's
purpose would be accomplished. Lucan's
unswerving republicanism could not allow 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. Furthermore, Lucan is neither a scientific historian like Polybius nor a pragmatic
Sallust. He is a writer of epic, treating historical fact and popular tradition in poetic
terms.
CATO
Of all the characters in Lucan's epic,

only Cato, whose Stoic rigidity was recognized in his own lifetime29 and whose
repudiation of Fortune was a commonplace 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: "omnibus expulsae terris olimque fugatae/
virtutis iam sola fides, quam turbine
nullo/excutiet fortuna tibi.. ." (2. 24244).
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 instead with an exposition of the Stoic
pantheism: Fortune has no power to op-

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 foreshadowing, 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 immediately asks one of the inhabitants about the
realm of Antaeus. Libya suggests the
regna Antaei which in turn evoke a narrative 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,32the poet would not miss so inviting 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 encamped; 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 foolhardiness.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. Hercules, 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 Fortuna for a double purpose: the same
mobile and erratic power can champion
Caesar and overthrow Pompey. Both
have enjoyed her ephemeral favors, and

241
both in turn were deserted by herPompey 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 unfortunately unavailable for this paper and are known
to me only through reviews in Bursian's Jahresbericht:
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
M. Souriau,
1885) and
H.
De deorum ministeriis
in Pharsalia
F. Oettl,
Lucans
philosophische
(Paris,
Weltan-
schauung (Brixen, 1888), both of whom found Epicurean elements in the poet's use of fortuna; J. E. Millard,
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

Revue de 1'histoire
des religions,
XIV
dans Lucain,"
(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
nichtchristliche 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 (Washington, D.C., 1940), lists fatum 258 times, owing to variants 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.
Erkell,
Fortuna
Felicitas,
Augustus,
(G6teborg,
1952), pp. 43-45, who reviewed the problem and concluded 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 religious 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 beginning with Sulla in 82 B.C. could be taken as a cognomen bestowed by the senate upon a victorious general, 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.
where
7,
Alexander's death is ascribed to Fortune, or
he may have been influenced by the Peripatetic-Stoic
tradition which attributed Alexander's success to Fortune; for the ancient sources, cf. E. Schwartz, "Curtius 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 (Oxford, 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 Religion
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 cognomen,
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-

242
BERNARD
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
F.
DICK
nasci et flniri, mentesque nostras iam tunc ita formatas 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.
Ben. 1. 13. 3.
Idem De const. sap.;
34. Caesar (BC 2. 38-42) relates the incidents

leading up to Curio's defeat, and in his usual detached 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 Lucano,"
in
Studi
in
onore
di
Gino
Funaioli
(Rome,
1955), p. 181, maintains that the poet showed "profound sympathy" for Curio and also that there is
"pathos" In the tragic ending of the episode. E. Fraenkel, "Lucan als Mittler des antiken Pathos," Vortrdge der Bibliothek
Warburg
(1924-25),
242-43,
has
shown that there is indeed pathos in the HerculesAntaeus description, but hardly in Lucan's depiction
of Curio's vainglory.


Fatum and Fortuna in Lucan's Bellum Civile

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fatum and Fortuna in Lucan's Bellum Civile

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fatum and Fortuna in Lucan's Bellum Civile

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fatum and Fortuna in Lucan's Bellum Civile

Author(s): Bernard F. Dick

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 1 Jan 2015 18:03:35 PM