A Crisis of Interpretation: Contradiction, Ambiguity, and the Reader of Lucan’s Bellum Civile Christopher Louis Caterine Wellesley, Massachusetts M.A., University of Virginia, 2009 A.B., Georgetown University, 2007 A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Classics University of Virginia August, 2014 © Copyright by Christopher Louis Caterine All Rights Reserved August 2014 iii Abstract This dissertation has two goals: to demonstrate how Lucan weaves ambiguity and contradiction into his Bellum Civile and to explore the effect these devices may have on his reader. I argue that their chief purpose is to provoke a state of anxiety and frustration about the events and protagonists of the civil war. Whereas other epics offer a coherent picture of the cosmos and man’s place within it, the Bellum Civile thus undermines our expectations of the genre. My introduction shows that criticism of the Bellum Civile has been marked by unresolved debate, discusses a recent theory of lesser emotions as a means of explaining Lucan’s dominant poetic tone, and surveys how Lucan’s diction and syntax undermine the reader’s ability to make sense of the poem at a verbal level. In the first chapter, I argue that Lucan’s introduction consists of five movements that are self- contained and internally coherent, but that present contradictory approaches to the poem’s theme of civil war. This prevents the audience from determining what sort of poem the Bellum Civile will be and anticipates the narrator’s “fractured voice.” My second chapter explores the operation of Lucan’s universe. I posit that his physical world is more stable than his narrator would have us believe, that his metaphysical world is highly ambiguous, and that certain humans hold great power within this confusing cosmos. The third and fourth chapters use Cato to show how contradictions between narrative events and editorial judgments of them frustrate our ability to interpret Lucan’s characters. My conclusion views Julius Caesar as a figure offering some hope of permanence; ultimately, however, contradictions and ambiguities in Lucan’s portrait of him ensure that we are left in a state of frustration and anxiety when the Bellum Civile breaks off with a final glimpse of Caesar escaping from danger one last time. genitoribus meis, sine quibus studium antiquitatis numquam suscepissem. vii Acknowledgements The ideas underlying this dissertation originated in a seminar on Lucan’s Bellum Civile that was taught by Greg Hays in the spring of 2010. Although I entered that course with an interest in Lucan, our readings and discussions showed me that his poem is far more complex than I had previously imagined. The space afforded by a term paper proved insufficient to make sense of Lucan’s mad and chaotic world, and I soon found myself devising a dissertation proposal that would allow me to confront it head-on. Writing began in earnest in May of 2012, and two years later I am happy to have brought this study of Lucan’s Bellum Civile to an end. Although there were many times I worried my interpretations would fail to hold together, and many times I doubted my own ability to see this project through to the end, the help and support of friends, family, and colleagues allowed me to persevere. At the risk of enlarging what is already a lengthy volume, I would like to acknowledge those who have contributed most to the success of this project. Over the past seven years, my studies have been supported by departmental and university grants. A Gildersleeve Fellowship from the faculty of the Department of Classics funded my first six years in Charlottesville and allowed me to focus exclusively on professional development. From 2008 to 2013, I was awarded annual teaching fellowships that gave me valuable classroom experience. I am especially grateful for the advice and feedback I received from the faculty mentors who oversaw me: Jane Crawford, Tony Woodman, John Dillery, Greg Hays, Sara Myers, and John Miller. The Department of Classics also supported my summer work with three Lazenby grants in 2008, 2011, and 2012, and with teaching fellowships in July of 2009 and August of 2010. viii The final chapters of this dissertation were written at Tulane University. I would like to thank their Department of Classical Studies for welcoming me as a visiting scholar in the fall of 2013 and for inviting me to teach a course on the history of the Roman Republic in the spring of 2014. It has been a delight to spend time in this thriving community, and I hope my presence has contributed to it in some small way. I am also grateful to Betsy Gleckler of Tulane’s Department of Public Health for allowing me to use her faculty carrel during the past academic year. I cannot begin to express my gratitude to the members of the Department of Classics at the University of Virginia, whose faculty, students, and staff have provided me with years of support and guidance. This dissertation is truly the culmination of my time in Charlottesville, and it has undoubtedly been influenced and improved by everybody I met there. Any of its strengths are a testament to the rigors of Virginia’s program and the unparalleled caliber of its faculty; its weaknesses should be judged the result of my own failings. Special thanks must be given to the members of my dissertation committee. I can never repay the debts I owe them, but hope my conscious attempts to imitate them in my own encounters with students and colleagues will serve both as a lasting testament to the respect I have for them and as a small recompense for what they have given me. To my advisor Greg Hays: Your timely advice has helped me move past countless roadblocks as my work has progressed from seminar paper to proposal to completed project. Your unparalleled knowledge of art and literature, both ancient and modern, has always stood as an awesome and intimidating model. Under your guidance, I have developed from an over-excitable student into a disciplined scholar. To Elizabeth Meyer: Thank you for ix allowing me to serve as a grader in your course on the Fall of the Roman Republic. Without this experience, my knowledge of the historical period about which Lucan wrote would be markedly poorer, and my interpretations of his narrative would have suffered greatly. Your comments on my writing were always perceptive, and more than once clued me in to a subtle detail whose great significance I had overlooked. To John Miller: Your unparalleled knowledge of Latin poetry and sensitivity to the connections that can be drawn between disparate sources have been an inspiration throughout this project. Over the past seven years I have been privileged to witness your dedication to scholarship, your commitment to the department, and your generosity with you time. More than anybody else, you have shown me what it means to be a professional and a good colleague. To Tony Woodman: The repeated insistence that you know “absolutely nothing” about Lucan never prevented your near-instantaneous feedback from being immensely helpful. You have shrewdly identified weaknesses in my argument that required further attention and have always been able to direct me to scholarship that is eminently useful. I am assuredly a better editor of my own work today because of your fastidiousness in correcting even my smallest mistakes. The University of Virginia’s seminar for dissertation writers on the ancient world twice provided me with a forum in which to discuss my work while it was still in its nascent stages. This dissertation is far better for the inclusion of the comments I received there. Thanks are owed especially to Sarah Miller, our fearless leader, as well as to Ben Jasnow, Courtney Evans, Gwen Nally, David Hewett, Sarah Herbert, and Hilary Bouxsein. I am also grateful for the insights of the group’s faculty representative, Coulter George, who has been an admirable mentor, colleague, and friend since 2007. x Many thanks are owed to Glenda Notman, the department’s indefatigable administrative supervisor, whose aid in navigating the waters of university politics, financial reimbursements, and procedures has been every bit as important to the completion of this project as the intellectual guidance I received in writing it. I would also like to express my gratitude to Eric and Joyce Geilker: my fondest memories of graduate school without a doubt come from their cottage on Jefferson Park Avenue, which afforded me a blissful and quiet sanctuary during my last year in Charlottesville. My fascination with Lucan began at Georgetown University, where Charlie McNelis first introduced me to the Bellum Civile. Were it not for that experience, and for the formative impact Charlie had on my development as a young scholar, this dissertation would be a very different—if not wholly inferior—piece of literary criticism. I was able to present early findings from my research on three occasions: at a Tuesday Luncheon at the University of Virginia in the fall of 2011; at the Ohio State University’s graduate student conference “Chosen Chains” in the spring of 2012; and at the 2013 annual meeting of the American Philological Association in Seattle, WA. The feedback I received from the participants and audiences on each of these occasions improved my arguments in countless ways and encouraged me to forge ahead at times when the project’s remaining hurdles seemed insurmountable. Over the years, my uncle Darryl Caterine has been an immense source of guidance in matters personal and professional.