Eleni
MANOLARAKI Tacitus' Carmen Solutum: The
Histories and Lucan's Bellum Civile
In this
paper, I focus on resilient similarities between Lucan's
Bellum Civile and Tacitus' Histories, to
show that the historian uses this epic to support his
interpretation of historical events and explore the
socio-historical similarities between the civil wars of
49 BC and AD 69. Building on a handful of studies
discussing the influence of Lucan on Tacitus [e.g.
Borgo 1977, O' Gorman 1995], I argue that Tacitus'
echoes of Lucan correspond to three narrative goals.
First, Tacitus' uncommonly sympathetic view of the Roman
plebs during the civil war echoes the stylistic
means by which Lucan presents the devastating impact of
Caesar's war on Italian civilians. Second, the
orationes rectae that various imperial contenders
deliver in the Histories resemble Pompey's and
Caesar's exhortations, suggesting Tacitus' awareness that
deceitful rhetoric is a diachronic staple of civil war
politics. Third, Tacitus' asides on his task of recording
and interpreting history correctly, evoke Lucan's
authorial anxieties about his double role as a poet and a
historian of civil war. This intertextual discussion of
Lucan and Tacitus contributes to the discussion begun in
antiquity regarding the interaction between history and
epic [Historia etenim proxima poetis et quodammodo
carmen solutum, Quint. Inst. 10.27-36],
and Lucan's role in this debateLucanus videtur
historiam composuisse, non poema, Servius on
Aen. 1.382].
Tacitus'
portrayal of the urban poor in Rome [Hist.
1.50, 1.89, 2.55, 3.68] is uncommonly sympathetic,
especially when compared to his aristocratic bias in the
Annals. In the scene of Galba's assassination at
the Roman forum [Hist. 1.40-1], the crowds
become speechless: neque populi aut plebis ulla
vox [Hist. 1.40.1]. This appears as a
critique of their cowardly acquiescence during the coup,
but can be qualified differently upon comparison with
Lucan. In a similar instance, the poet explains the
silence of civilians at Ariminium not as political
apathy, but as fearful anguish at the sight of Caesar's
army: non ausus timuisse palam; vox nulla dolori/
credita [BC 1.258-9]. Since Galba's
murder and Caesar's invasion of Ariminium are the first
openly violent acts of the respective civil wars, these
two passages are also structural equivalents. Similarly,
Tacitus' portrayal of the crowds as spectators of the
civil war [e.g. spectator populus,
Hist. 3.83.1] implies a condemnation of their
mores. However, a closer look indicates that Tacitus is
using the motif of spectacle much like Lucan, who often
stresses spectatorship as a sign of helplessness
[neque enim tibi turba verenda est/ spectatrix
scelerum, BC 3.128-9; see also Leigh 1997,
234-91]. Furthermore, various speeches in the two
works exhibit interesting parallels. While exhorting his
praetorians to battle, emperor Otho calls them Romana
vere iuventus [Hist. 1.84.3] as
opposed to Vitellius' enemy legions whom he dismisses as
barbarian [Germani, ibid]. Pompey extends
a similar address to his soldiers [vere Romana
manus, BC 2.532], and claims political
correctness for the "Roman" side, as if waging a foreign
war [patriae vindicis, BC 2.540].
By identifying the continuity in the rhetorical trappings
of civil war leaders, Tacitus prepares his reader against
such fallacious communication in the future. Finally, the
grand opening of the Histories and Tacitus' query
into the causes of the war [opus adgredior opimum
casibus, Hist. 1.2.1; ratio causaeque
1.4.1], recalls Lucan's proemium [causas rerum
/immensumque aperitur opus, BC 1.67-8] and
thus colors Tacitus' introduction with Lucan's perception
of the war as punishment for Rome's hybristic greatness.
Similarly, Tacitus' understanding of divine agency in AD
69 [non esse curae deis securitatem nostram, esse
ultionem, Hist. 1.3.2] echoes one
of Lucan's rare theological reflections [si
libertatis superis tam cura placeret/ quam
vindicta placet, BC 4.808-9] aligning
the two authors in a common perception of civil war as an
inveterate fatality in Roman history.
The
exploration of Tacitus' verbal and thematic loans from
Lucan enables us to appreciate simultaneously Tacitus as
a dramatic story teller and Lucan as a bona fide
historian of civil wars [Lintott 1971, Fantham
1985]. That Tacitus would use Lucan to fuel his
historical imagination suggests the conceptual,
historical, and moral stability of the civil war
discourse in Roman literature, a continuity that
transcends modern genre definitions and expectations
about the ìscientificî integrity of history
writing.