REFRACTIONS OF ROME: THE DESTRUCTION OF ROME IN LUCAN’S PHARSALIA A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Tobias Peter Torgerson May 2011 ©2011 Tobias Peter Torgerson REFRACTIONS OF ROME: THE DESTRUCTION OF ROME IN LUCAN’S PHARSALIA Tobias Peter Torgerson, Ph.D. Cornell University 2011 Lucan repeatedly uses images, metaphors, rhetoric, and historical, mythological, literary, and geographical allusions that evoke the physical destruction of cities. He even implies at the beginning of the Pharsalia that Caesar’s armies may annihilate the city of Rome itself. Nevertheless, Caesar enters the city in Book 3 without spilling blood and no conflicts occur at Rome during the remainder of the epic’s narrative. It is tempting but simplistic to interpret Lucan’s portrayal of the civil war as the destruction of Rome as mere metaphor, pathos-imbued hyperbole, or development of the traditional epic topos of the urbs capta (captured city). In this dissertation, I argue that the theme of Rome’s self-destruction must be understood in light of the progressive separation of the Roman civitas (polity) as embodied in Pompey’s republican army from the Urbs (physical city of Rome) over the course of the poem. Pompey leads his army away from Rome in order to save the city from Caesarian violence, but this choice tragically results in the destruction of the republic at Pharsalus. First, I establish that Lucan characterizes the Caesarians as ready and willing to destroy the Urbs . They do not do so because the republicans abandon Rome, a choice Pompey later justifies as an attempt to protect the city from Caesarian violence. Pompey’s identification of his army as the armata urbs (“Rome under arms,” 2.574) foregrounds the deep rift in Roman identity Pompey’s retreat occasions; the republicans have permitted Caesar to occupy the city they claim to represent. The republicans’ desire to return to Rome ultimately leads to their defeat at Pharsalus, which Lucan blames for the physical decline of the Urbs at the same time he compares the battle itself to the destruction of Troy. After Pharsalus, the imagery of the physical destruction and reconstruction of cities pervades Lucan’s description of both Cato and Caesar’s attempts to rebuild the Roman state. Particularly striking are Lucan’s allusions to Caesar and his successors’ physical reconstruction of the Urbs in accordance with decadent imperial mores; albeit indirectly, the civil war finally does destroy the republican city Pompey had tried to protect. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Tobias Peter Torgerson, Ph.D., the son of George Peter and Margaret Ann (née Stussy) Torgerson, was born in 1982 and was raised in Chadwick, Illinois. He was educated in the Chadwick and then the consolidated Chadwick-Milledgeville public schools. Named both an Illinois State Scholar and a National Merit Scholar, he was one of the valedictorians of Milledgeville High School’s class of 2000. Dr. Torgerson subsequently majored in classical languages and classical studies and minored in theology at Marquette University in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. There he graduated summa cum laude from the Honors Program in 2004, having been inducted into Phi Beta Kappa and Alpha Sigma Nu and having been awarded the Ignatius Scholarship, the History Scholarship, the Gold Medal Award, and first place in the 2004 President’s Latin Contest. Additionally, Dr. Torgerson attended the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s intensive course “Cultural Diversity of Ancient Campania” at the Villa Vergiliana in Cuma, Italy, in 2002 and the University of Chicago’s intensive course in intermediate Greek during the summer of 2004. Also in 2004, he was a finalist for the Andrew W. Mellon Fellowship in Humanistic Studies. From 2004 to 2010, Dr. Torgerson pursued his doctorate in classical philology at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, where he was awarded the Lane Cooper Fellowship for excellence in teaching for the 2007-2008 academic year. In the summer of 2007, it was his great honor to attend Fr. Reginald Foster’s “Aestiva Romae Latinitas” course in spoken Latin in Rome. iii Memoriae patris carissimi, qui diligenter me docuit viris moribusque temporis acti studere, et matri optimae, quae patientia infinita favit mihi succurritque omnibus in tribulationibus. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation could not have been written without the assistance of numerous mentors, colleagues, friends, and relatives who have advised and supported me over the years. All remaining flaws in the dissertation are, of course, my own. My committee consisted of Michael Fontaine, Pietro Pucci and Frederick Ahl. I cannot do justice to them in this paragraph, but I hope the following few words will suffice as a token of my deep gratitude and respect. Prof. Fontaine, my thesis adviser, was remarkably generous with his time, attention, encouragement, and constructive criticism at all stages of the research and writing processes. Prof. Pucci’s astute observations and his critique of a number of my arguments and inferences were immensely helpful. I especially thank Prof. Ahl for his boundless enthusiasm expressed in numerous conversations about Lucan. He is the greatest influence upon my understanding of epic literature. Indeed, the origins of this dissertation can be traced to our first conversation in March (I believe it was the Ides . .) of 2004. Additionally, a number of other faculty members at Cornell generously provided comments, critiques, and suggestions throughout the composition of this thesis. I especially wish to thank Kimberley Bowes, Charles Brittain, David Mankin, Hayden Pelliccia, Eric Rebillard, Antonia Ruppel, and Jeffrey Rusten. Prof. Bowes in particular wielded a decisive influence upon this work by means of her comments at my two colloquia. I thank the Cornell Classics Department for employing me over the past six years and the selection committee for the Lane Cooper Fellowship for funding my research during the 2007-2008 academic year. v Several scholars from other universities were kind enough to lend me their assistance, not least of all by permitting me to read their own unpublished manuscripts on Lucan and other topics relevant to my research: Annemarie Ambühl, Sean Easton, Elaine Fantham, Alison Keith, Martha Malamud, Daniel Turkeltaub, and Richard Westall. I apologize if I have forgotten anyone who helped or encouraged me. I have been blessed with a strong support system in Ithaca. The heroines of the Cornell Classics Department are Katrina Neff and Linda Brown, whose kindness, patience, and interest in graduate students’ wellbeing has made my life much, much easier. The staffs of Olin and Uris Libraries, the Chadwick Public Library, and the Lanark Public Library were immensely helpful. All of my fellow graduate students and their families have been true friends, confidants, and colleagues. Erica Bexley merits special mention as a fellow Lucanist whose writings on the Pharsalia have shaped my own understanding of the poem. Eilis Monahan was also a stalwart ally, especially during our late-night writing sessions in Olin 605. Special thanks also go to the staff of State Street Diner for their warm hospitality. Lastly, I am grateful for the teachers who have inspired and encouraged me over the years: Sarah Bates, Jan Knight, David Hefty, Richard White, Gary and Arlene Johnson, Robert Yontz, Joel Miller, Diane Bracken, Patricia Marquardt, H. James Shey, Stephen and Judith Beall, Richard and Nancy Monti, Margaret Reid, Amelia Zurcher, and Fr. John Tokaz, O.F.M.Cap. I heartily thank my cousins Chad Marti and Gary Quackenbush and my Uncle Paul Stussy for moving me back and forth between Illinois and Ithaca. Lastly, my greatest supports have been God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and my dear mother, Margaret Torgerson. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Biographical Sketch p. iii Dedication p. iv Acknowledgments p. v Introduction p. 1 I. Establishing the problem p. 1 II. The background to Lucan’s treatment of the destruction of cities p. 10 A. Lucan, the Urbs , and the Great Fire of 64 A.D. p. 10 B. Amplificatio and pathos p. 12 C. All-pervasive violence p. 16 D. The characterization of Caesar p. 20 E. The Aeneid refracted p. 23 F. “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold” p. 26 III. Chapter Outline p. 29 Ch. 1: The Urbs Imperiled p. 38 I. Ariminum and Rome p. 40 II. The speeches of Curio, Caesar, and Laelius p. 45 A. Curio and the theme of exile from the Urbs p. 46 B. Caesar, Pompey, and the Urbs p. 50 C. The destruction of Rome in Laelius’ speech p. 56 vii III. Caesar and the Gauls p. 61 IV. The desertion of Rome p. 65 V. Religious portents and ceremonies p. 70 VI. Past precedents: Marius and Sulla in the speech of the senex p. 72 VII. Caesar’s campaign in Italy in Book 2 p. 83 VIII. Caesar’s arrival at Rome p. 85 IX. Metellus, the Temple of Saturn, and the Gallic Sack p. 91 X. The mutiny in Book 5 p. 102 XI. Conclusion p. 104 Ch. 2: The Civitas in Exile p. 106 I. Brutus, Cato, and the republican civitas p. 108 II. The armata urbs p. 112 III. The Senate in Epirus p. 115 IV. The precedents of Camillus, Themistocles, and Massilia p. 119 V. Problems with the precedent of Veii p. 126 VI. The threatened recapitulation and reversal of republican history p. 129 A. Capua p. 131 B. Corfinium p. 133 C. Epirus p. 137 D. Dyrrachium p. 139 VII. Caesarian reconstruction projects at Dyrrachium and Corinth p. 142 VIII. Scaeva, pro Caesare murus p. 150 viii IX. Pompey’s choice p. 160 X. Conclusion p. 165 Ch. 3: Hic Roma perit : The Battle of Pharsalus and Rome’s Destruction p.