💾 Archived View for runjimmyrunrunyoufuckerrun.com › schol › thesis › 2.6_DIVINE_MACHINERY captured on 2021-12-17 at 13:26:06.

View Raw

More Information

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

.bp
It is in his inclusion of \f8divine machinery\f6
that Eumolpus most emphatically fulfills his programme.
Most of the actors in his poem are deities—\c
Caesar, the main exception, would himself eventually be deified.
Eumolpus crafts a plot which is neatly divided
between the mortal and the divine realms,
emphasizing that the acts of men mirror the will of the gods.
Indeed, if the omens before and after Caesar's speech count as the acts of gods,
the number of verses devoted to divine actions
comes nearly equal to that of those devoted to human actions.\c
.f "Roughly, 151 verses of episodes in the mortal sphere, \
122 of episodes in the divine sphere, and 22 verses devoted to omens."
The transitions between these two theatres of action run thus:
the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 opens in the world of men,
with a description of all-too-human decadence and luxury at Rome (vv.\ 1–60);
the cause of this state of affairs is then reflected upon
by Dis and Fortuna, who decide upon war (vv. 61–125);
this divine compact is immediately followed by a catalogue of omens (vv. 126–141);
Caesar is then introduced, and he makes his speech on the Alps (vv. 142–176);
the speech is attended by omens favourable for war (vv. 177–182);
Caesar and his army descend from the Alps to march on Rome (vv. 183–208);
in a brief switch to divine action, Fama spreads the news of Caesar's approach
(vv. 209–214);
at Rome there is general panic and flight (vv. 215–244);
the remainder of the action takes place in the realm of the gods,
as several supernatural creatures also flee Rome,
others arrive there, the Olympians choose sides in the conflict,
and Discordia takes up the position
from which she will oversee the proceedings of the war proper (vv. 245–295).
.p
It will be noticed that where the narrative begins in one sphere it finishes in the other.
Further, the transitions between the two spheres are managed and smooth.
The first transition, from a description of Rome to the conference of Dis and Fortuna,
is mediated by six verses where divine and mortal actors mingle
(\f7tres tulerat Fortuna duces…\f6, vv. 61–6).
The transition back to the realm of men and the acts of Caesar
takes place through an intermediary account of the præternatural.
Further omens break up the central Caesar episode,
and the introduction of Fama provides a transition between Caesar's action
and that at Rome.
Finally, the scene at Rome is, like the opening scene,
mirrored in the actions of the gods.\c
.f "Compare \f7pectora perque duas scinduntur territa causas\f6, v. 217, and \
\f7omnis regia caeli / in partes diducta ruit\f6, vv. 265–6."
It is apparent that Eumolpus has put some care and thought into
working his \f7deorum ministeria\f6 into the flow of the narrative.
.p
But Eumolpus' is not a Vergilian divine machinery.
Through his citation of Homer and Vergil as models for good poetry (118.5),
together with his insistence on the inclusion of the gods in historical epic (118.6),
Eumolpus implies that those two authors between them provide the best model for
interactions between human characters and divine.
Vergil and Homer both made use of a raft of lesser deities,
but in their works it is the Olympians who are the prime movers.
Eumolpus reverses this, making prominent use of allegorical deities
while shifting the Olympian gods into the background.
Jupiter is referred to obliquely at v. 125,
and at vv. 264–270 several of the Olympians choose sides in the war;
but none of these divine characters is described either in action or in speech:
compare Dis and Fortuna, who converse, and Discordia,
who overlooks the battlefield and urges on the fight.
Furthermore, though in Vergil and Homer gods do touch the earth,\c
.f "cf. \f7sentit terra deos\f6, v. 264."
the real decision- and fate-making actions take place
during divine councils set in heaven or on Olympus;
in the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6, all the action, mortal and divine, takes place on earth
(the ``divine council'' of Dis and Fortuna takes place in the Phlegraean fields).
Eumolpus does not retain the most cosmos-defining aspects
of the Homeric/Vergilian divine machinery.
.p
In this respect it is important to note the main difference between
Eumolpus' attempt at epic and the epic works of his literary models.
Homer and Vergil could perhaps get away with elaborate divine machinery,
for their subjects were shrouded in the mythical past;
Eumolpus enjoyed a distance of only some one hundred years
from his subject matter.
It is easy to suspect that part of Eumolpus' reason
for restricting his divine cast of characters to a more minor set
(and part of Lucan's reason for excluding the gods altogether)
was the proximity of the events of the Civil War
to the time of the poem's composition.
A contemporary reader, so the reasoning goes, would be less inclined
to suspend their belief and entertain the possibility
that the gods took part in the events of recent history.
But this is not borne out by the epic tradition on the whole:
most Roman epic poetry was historical epic,\c
.f "Feeney (1991) 107–8."
and, though there is little evidence to go on, it seems likely
``that divine participation in Roman historical epic …
was the norm rather than the exception.''\|\c
.f "Feeney (1991) 269."
Indeed, the two earliest examples of the Roman version of the genre
treated events which had happened within the lifetimes of their authors:
Naevius fought in the very war which was the subject of his \f7Bellum Punica\f6,
the first epic poem in Latin;
Ennius covered history from the Trojan War down to and including his own time
in his \f7Annales\f6, the first Roman epic to be written in hexameters.
And yet the proximity of the events which were the subject matter
of these two poems to their authors did not stop either
from employing divine machinery in their works.
.p
If one compares the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 against the norm of historical epic,
rather than taking Eumolpus' bait and compare his poem to Vergil and Homer,
it becomes clear that it is possible to include the gods
even in the telling of events only recently past.
It may also be the case that the set of gods appropriate to such an epic
was slightly different to that employed by Vergil.
It is true that Naevius and Ennius make use of Olympian deities,
but it is not impossible that in the historical tradition more space and influence
was given to lesser gods such as those in Eumolpus' poem:
Ennius, for example, also gives a vivd description of Discordia (\f7Ann.\f6 fr. 258–9).
The generally attested innovation of Vergil in respect of divine machinery
only strengthens this possibility.
Vergil's gods are chiefly the most supreme and most fate-determining
of the pantheon precisely because Vergil is very concerned with outlining
the cosmic fate of Rome.
While there is a precedent for this long view of Roman destiny in Naevius,
the \f7Aeneid\f6 is exceptional in its ambitious scope.
It seems likely that historical epic was less concerned with the cosmic significance
of the events it described and more interested in the events themselves.
If this were the case then it would not be surprising to see a greater predominance
of the allegorical deities,
since they are tied more closely to the aspects and events of the physical world.
Nor would it be surprising if, for the same reason, less of the divine machinery
of historical epic took place in heaven and more on earth,
as in the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6.
If at first Eumolpus seems to have produced a less than traditional divine machinery
it is because he misdirects the reader by mentioning Homer and Vergil in his preface.
In reality Eumolpus' gods may in fact be quite close to those of historical epic.
.p
Although the allegorical deities are more prominently active,
the Olympians are not completely absent from the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6.
Several of them (namely, Venus, Mars, Apollo, Diana, and Mercury)
appear in the scene where the gods split into factions
(\f7omnis regia caeli in partes diducta ruit\f6, vv. 265 ff.),
and after Dis and Fortuna come to their agreement
there is a sign from the most powerful of their number:
.bl

.nf
\f7uixdum finierat cum fulgure rupta corusco
intremuit nubes elisosque abscidit ignes.
subsedit pater umbrarum, gremioque reducto,
.fi
telluris\ pauitans\ fraternos\ palluit\ ictus.\f6 (vv.\ 122–5)\p

.ck
The \f7fraternos ictus\f6 are of course the bolts of Jupiter.
In keeping with the poet's general avoidance such gods
it is a passing and indirect reference, but a reference nonetheless.
The adjective \f7fraternos\f6 foreshadows the impending fraternal strife
of civil war, but what is the significance of Jupiter's thunder?
Dis and Fortuna have concluded their discussion and are resolved on war:
the fact that the thunder comes immediately upon the making of this pact
(\f7uixdum finierat\f6) could indicate that it is a sign of approval.
The Civil War was after all part of the divine plan for Rome in Anchises' account
according to Vergil, however regrettable,\c
.f "\f7Aen.\f6 828–31."
and so by implication, it is the will of Jupiter.
But Dis' rapid and frightened retreat could equally indicate his brother's
displeasure at the agreement reached with Fortuna.
The story of the Civil War is the opposite of that of the \f7Aeneid\f6:
it tells not of Rome's rise but of its fall.\c
.f "Zeitlin (1971a) 76."
The ambiguity with which Eumolpus laces Jupiter's reaction to the plan for war
is in fact similar to Lucan's ambiguous attitude to the need for war.
Lucan refers to both randomness and divine providence as causes of the war,
but he does not answer definitively which he thinks really was the cause,
nor does he describe what he thinks
the nature of any divine providence might have been.\c
.f "Feeney (1991) 277–283."
Eumolpus by contrast does describe the providence of the gods,
but the motives of Dis and Fortuna are petty
(Dis—or rather Tisiphone—craves more souls;
and Fortuna is disgruntled with the Romans' lack of appreciation
for the benefits she has granted them):
when it comes to the ultimate authority (Jupiter) Eumolpus too casts doubt
on whether war was sanctioned by the highest of powers.
.p
The ultimate authority in the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 is not so much Jupiter as it is Dis.
Of the three main deities in the poem,\c
.f "That is, of the three deities who are given speeches; on this see below."
he is the one who signals the need for war;
Fortuna simply agrees to it, and Discordia oversees it as it is acted out in the world.
The god of the underworld, though by definition not an Olympian,
was not of any little account:
Dis was a powerful god and included by some reckonings among the δωδεκάθεον.
Indeed, his position in the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 as the judge of Rome's fate
threatens the traditional role of Jupiter.
The \f7fraternos ictus\f6 which attend the end of Fortuna's speech
recall the uneasy agreement whereby the world was divided
between the realms of Jupiter, Neptune, and Dis,
and act as a warning not to overstep the boundaries
appropriate to the god of the underworld.
This idea of Dis outstripping his prerogative is reinforced
by the setting of his conference with Fortuna.
The lonely swamps of lake Avernus are a half-way point
between each of the spheres of the divine interolocuters.
Fortuna acts in the world of men, Dis in the underworld:
the gloomy Phlegraean Fields are both intermediary between
and estranged from these two worlds.
The birdless, otherworldly nature of the \f7locus\f6
makes it a fearful and ominous place for mortals to tread,
but Dis also shows his discomfort:
in an awkward gesture at the end of his speech, he fails to embrace Fortuna
and instead causes a great chasm in the earth to open between them (100–101).
Yet this uncomfortable setting is as close as the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 gets
to a physical separation of the divine plane from the mortal.
Its remove from scenes both at Rome and with Caesar on the Alps
set it apart, like the divine council at Olympus, but it is nevertheless still on earth.
Moreover, instead of being set in heaven and presided over by Jupiter,
this divine council takes place on the doorstep of the underworld
and is presided over by Dis.
By choosing to represent divine providence through the gods of darkness
rather than the gods of light, Eumolpus emphasizes the sinister nature of civil war.
The inversion of divine influence mirrors the inversion of the implications:
Jupiter oversaw Rome's rise in the \f7Aeneid\f6;
in the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 Dis oversees its fall.
.p
Dis is presented as the prime motivator of the war,
but it is Fortuna's influence which pervades the work.
The goddess of chance first appears briefly in her usual abstract guise:
.bl

tres tulerat Fortuna duces quos obruit omnes
.br
armorum strue diuersa feralis Enyo.
.br
Crassum Parthus habet, Libyco iacet aequore Magnus,
.br
Iulius ingratam perfudit sanguine Romam,
.bp
et quasi non posset tot tellus ferre sepulcra,
.br
diuisit\ cineres.\ \ hos\ gloria\ reddit\ honores.\f6 (vv.\ 61–6)\p

.ck
At this point `Fortuna' could as well be rendered `fortuna',
for here she represents the various turns
by which Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey came to power,
and is in that respect no different to Lucan's concept of fortune or chance.
Enyo is more personified, for she receives the adjective \f7feralis\f6,
but \f7Fortuna\f6 as the subject of \f7tulerat\f6 is a personification as much as
\f7tellus\f6, the subject of \f7ferre\f6,
or \f7gloria\f6, the subject of \f7reddit\f6.
She is not presented as a goddess until she meets with Dis in the Phlegraean fields,
and it is only through the course of their discussion that the reader comes to
realize that it was perhaps by Fortuna's own conscious efforts that
Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey rose to power.
The ironic \f7sententia\f6, \f7hos gloria reddit honores\f6 (v. 66)
then reveals its extra force, and the five and one half lines preceding it
become a summary of the whole poem, complete with the divine machinery.
The Fortuna/Enyo partnership prefigures the Fortuna/Dis partnership:
just as Fortuna raised the three generals to power only for Enyo to claim their lives,
so Fortuna raised Rome to power only for Dis to submit her to Civil War.
.p
Fortuna's portrayal as a character who participates personally
in the events of the poem carries through even after her speech.
Eumolpus perverts the comment Caesar reportedly made on crossing the Rubicon:\c
.f "The fact that Eumolpus has Caesar utter this comment as he crosses \
the Alps and not the Rubicon is dealt with below."
where Suetonius records \f7iacta alea est\f6 (\f7Jul.\f6 32),
and Plutarch ανερριφθω κυβος (\f7Pomp.\f6 60.2.9),
the author of the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 has Caesar say
\f7iudice Fortuna cadat alea\f6 (v. 174).
And in the end it is indeed Fortuna who witnesses Pompey's defeat
(\f7pro pudor! … ut Fortuna leuis Magni quoque terga uideret\f6, vv. 243–4).
Eumolpus makes the goddess responsible for both the act which
began the war and that which ended it.
She governs the fates of the war's two main characters,
and, caught between, that of the ordinary Roman
(\f7hic dat uela fugae Fortunaeque omnia credit\f6, v. 237).
Set against Lucan's \f7fortuna\f6, a pervading but abstract force,
Eumolpus' \f7Fortuna\f6 is a pervading and personal force.
According to the poet's literary precepts,
it is the inclusion of the gods \f7as characters\f6
which makes poems such as the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 poetry and not history.
.p
Feeney points out the difference between the ancient and modern notions of history,
which allows for the participation of the gods in the former but not in the latter:
.bl

We must remember that, by the grammarians' categories at least,
the historicity of an event (whether it happened or not) was not at issue:
``the difference between \f7fabula\f6 and \f7historia\f6,'' according to Servius,
``is that \f7fabula\f6 is the \f7narration\f6 of something against nature,
\f7whether it happened or not\f6 (e.g. Pasiphae),
while \f7historia\f6 is whatever is \f7narrated\f6 in accordance with nature,
\f7whether it happened or not\f6 (e.g. Phaedra)''
(\f7historia est quicquid secundum naturam dicitur, siue factum siue non factum,
Aen.\f6 1.235).\c
.f "Feeney (1991) 255, his emphasis."

.ck
It is in this sense that Lucan is accused of being an historian
(or an orator) rather than a poet.\c
.f "Serv. \f7A.\f6 1.382; Quint. \f7Inst.\f6 10.1.90; Mart. 14.194."
His work, though it may include human perceptions of divine or oracular events,
delivers only what is ``narrated in accordance with nature'':
it is all \f7historia\f6 and no \f7fabula\f6.
If \f7fabulosum\f6 is the correct reading for the corrupt
\f7fabulosum sententiarum †tormentum†\f6 (118.6),
then it is this distinction especially to which Eumolpus draws attention.
The reference to the testimony of witnesses
(\f7religiosae orationis sub testibus fides\f6, 118.6)
recalls Cicero, who also belittles those
\f7qui … non ut a poeta sed ut a teste ueritatem exigant\f6 (\f7Leg.\f6 1.4).
It is this poetic truth, this \f7ueritas ut a poeta\f6 which Eumolpus hopes to impart
by weaving \f7fabulae\f6 into his account of the Civil War.
In the ancient world historians and poets alike could report divine interventions,
but only the poet could describe such an intervention from the deity's
point of view:
.bl

An ancient historian will describe a report of a deity appearing in a battle,
for example, but he will not narrate the decision of the deity to appear,
or transcribe the conversation before he sets off for the battle-site.
The more identity one sees between historical epic and history proper,
the more clearly it emerges that the characterful narration of divine action
is the irreducible line of demarcation between epic and history.\c
.f "Feeney (1991) 261."

.ck
The difference between Eumolpus' treatment of the Civil War and Lucan's, then,
is not that one includes the gods and the other does not,
but that in one the gods speak and act and in the other they are silent.
It has been seen that this is especially so in the case of Fortuna:
Eumolpus emphasizes the point of difference
by taking Lucan's favourite abstract force
and converting her into a fully-fledged character.\c
.f "Connors (1989) 92."
.p
Indeed, if the speech and action of gods is the most defining aspect of epic poetry,
then there is only one more deity in the \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6
who merits significant attention: Discordia.
The other supernatural figures either herald the coming of war (Fama, vv. 211–214),
flee Rome at its arrival (Pax, Fides, Iustitia, and Concordia, vv. 249–253),
attend its arrival
(Erinys, Bellona, Megaera, Letum, Insidia, Mors, and Furor, vv. 254–263),
or take sides in it (Venus, Pallas, and Mars on Caesar's side;
Apollo, Diana, Mercury, and Hercules on Pompey's, vv. 264–270),
all in an evocative but straightforward description of panic in the divine sphere,
mirroring that in the mortal sphere (vv. 215–244).
But it is Discordia who receives the final speech, Discordia
who gives the signal for the fighting to begin (\f7sumite nunc … arma\f6, v. 283).
Indeed, it is the goddess of discord who provides the final link
in the formulation of Eumolpus' divine machinery.
.p
Although Dis and Fortuna were responsible for conceiving the plan for war,
it was not made clear at the conclusion of their meeting
how this plan was to be enacted.
Dis bade Fortuna set her face for war and beset the Romans
(\f7quare age, Fors, muta pacatum in proelia uultum /
Romanosque cie ac nostris da funera regnis\f6, vv. 94–5).
In response Fortuna prophesied the carnage to come
(\f7cerno equidem gemina iam stratos morte Philippos…\f6, vv. 111 ff.)
and bade Dis open up his realm to receive the dead
(\f7pande, age, terrarum sitientia regna tuarum /
atque animas accerse nouas\f6, vv. 116–117).
But Fortuna does not participate in the fighting herself;
she operates on a more cosmic scale.
True, she presides over the casting of Caesar's \f7alea\f6 (v. 174),
and she is present when Pompey is defeated (v. 244),
but she does not have any direct contact with the physical world.
Fortuna cannot be the link between divine providence and human action.
.p
It could be that the omens which occur in the transition between the divine sphere
and Caesar's actions atop the Alps are intended to be understood as the glue
between the will of the gods and the results as played out in the realm of men.
After all, as soon as the portents appear,
Caesar puts off any further delay and begins his march on Rome (vv. 141 ff.).
But if the omens really were the means by which Caesar was moved to war,
which god employed them?
It seems that it cannot be Dis,
since he went to Fortuna rather than instigate war himself.
Nor can it be Fortuna: she has \f7rerum humanarum diuinarumque potestas\f6
(v. 79), not power over nature.
It is possible that the omens are a continuation of Jupiter's thunder (vv.\ 122–3),
but it has already been noted
that Eumolpus is ambiguous about Jupiter's attitude to the war.
Indeed, the omens seem to be a strictly elemental reaction,
to both the concordance of Dis and Fortuna, and to the incipient action of Caesar.
The vague reference to a god at the conclusion of the catalogue
(\f7haec ostenta breui soluit deus\f6, v. 141) confirms this,
suggesting the Stoic concept of divinity as a unified force in nature
(in which Fortuna was also an important figure).
Moreover, though Caesar's resolve is attended by portents,
there is nothing to say that those portents resolved him.
Rather, Caesar is depicted as having already been contemplating war:
\f7moras\f6 (v. 142) imply that there is something to be put off.
In the end, Caesar was free to interpret the omens as he saw fit,
for all Eumolpus' pains to precede them with a scene of divine machinations.
.p
But when Discordia appears, so too does a point of connection
between the divine and human spheres.
For Discordia scales the Appennine, and in doing so presents herself
in a physical locality overlooking the site of war.
She is at hand, not in a location removed from the unfolding events,
such as the Phlegraean fields where Dis and Fortuna met.
Moreover, Discordia does not confer with other gods
but communicates directly with the combatants.
It is Discordia who bids Caesar throw off his final delay and attack the city,
and Discordia who goads his foe Pompey for not fighting back:
.bl

.nf
\f7quid porro tu, diue, tuis cunctaris in armis,
non frangis portas, non muris oppida soluis
thesaurosque rapis?  nescis tu, Magne, tueri
Romanas arces?  Epidamni moenia quaere
.fi
Thessalicosque\ sinus\ humano\ sanguine\ tingue.\f6 (vv.\ 290–4)\p

.ck
.bp
The climax of the poem as Eumolpus presents it is this moment of contact
between the divine and human desires for Civil War.
The disjunction which persisted between the concordance of Dis and Fortuna 
and Caesar's decision to march is resolved by Discordia's call to arms.
She is the final and the crucial link in Eumolpus' divine machinery.
She presides over the height of dramatic tension in the poem,
in both the divine sphere and the mortal,
and when in her both the decree of the gods and the will of Caesar meet,
Civil War breaks out.
This confluence of effect is testament to what can be achieved
by including divine machinery in historical epic.
Of all the guidelines for good poetry he sets out in section 118,
the exhortation to make use of the gods is the one to which Eumolpus
devotes the most energy:
consequently, it is also the one by which his \f7Bellum Ciuile\f6 most benefits.