American Philological Association

Lucan's De Incendio Urbis, Epistulae ex Campania and Nero's Ban

Author(s): Frederick M. Ahl
Source: Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 102 (1971),
pp. 1-27
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2935934 .
Accessed: 29/12/2014 22:38
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 support@jstor.org.

American Philological Association and The Johns Hopkins University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological
Association.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

DE INCENDIO
LUCAN'S
URBIS,
EX CAMPANIA AND NERO'S
EPISTULAE
FREDERICK

BAN

M. AHL

CornellUniversity

The De Incendio
Urbisand theEpistulae
ex Campaniawould probably
tellus a greatdeal aboutLucan,iftheysurvived. Unfortunately,
we
oftheformer,
haveonlythetitleanda brieftwo-linesynopsis
andonly
thetitleof thelatter. This is veryscantinformation,
yetimportant
whichmay be of
enoughto offersome helpin drawingconclusions
in establishing
greatsignificance
detailsofLucan'sbiography.
The information
abouttheDe IncendioUrbisisto be foundinVacca's
Lucani(Silvae2.7.60-6I).
Lifeof Lucan,and in Statius'Genethliacon
For theEpistulae
Vacca is our onlytestimony.Here is thesumtotal
of evidencefortheDe IncendioUrbisand theEpistulaeex Campania.
Firstly,
Vacca: Prosaoratione
in Octavium
etproeo,de incendio
Sagittam
ex Campania.I These threeitems,the Octavius
urbis,epistolarum
Sagittaorations,theDe Incendio
Urbisand theEpistulaeex Campania
aretheverylastworksof Lucan mentioned
by Vacca in hisaccount.
I This and all other references
to Vacca and the Suetonian Life of Lucan are taken
fromCarl Hosius' editionof Lucan, Leipzig, I9I3, 332-36, and theline numbersreferred
to are thosein Hosius' pagination. Henceforththeywill be citedas Vaccaand Suetonius.
The date of Vacca is uncertain. A. Rostagni argued in Suetonius:De Poetise Biografi
Minori(Turin I944) I76-78 thatthe Vacca Life preceded a firstcenturyA.D. edition of
Lucan. But no firstcenturywriter would talk about the gladiatorial games Lucan
gave as quaestor as moretuncusitatomunusgladiatorium
(Vacca 335.I4-I5).
It would be
saferto inferthatVacca was writingafterthe abolition of gladiatorialgames duringthe
sixth consulate of Honorius, in A.D. 404 (Prudentius,Contra Symmachum
2.II24,
cf.
Samuel Dill, RomanSocietyin theLast Centuryofthe Western
Empire,2nd revisededition
[New York I960] 56). Further,Vacca does notlisttheAdlocutio
adPollamamong Lucan's
works extantin his own day. It is clear fromStatiusSilvae 2.7 (writtenbetween A.D.
89 and 94 at the outermostlimits)that the Adlocutiowas extantat the end of the first
centuryand thatLucan's wife Polla was stillalive then. A writerwell disposedtowards
Lucan, as Vacca is, would scarcelyhave omitted this item from his list if he was a
contemporary.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FREDERICK

M.

AHL

[I97I

No further
commentis added. The passagefromStatiusrunsas
follows:
dicesculminibus
Remivagantis
infandos
nocentis
ignes.
domini
Vacca poses a problemimmediately.His definitive
prosaoratione
obviouslyrefersto the OctaviusSagittaorations. But does it also
includetheDe Incendio
Urbisand theEpistulae
ex Campania? Rose
and McGannthoughtSo.2 Theybeganwiththeassumption
thatthe
were in prose. Since,then,thefirstand lastitemswere in
epistulae
prose,it was naturalthattheyslhouldconcludethatthemiddleitem
was also prose. Thislineof argument
is tenuous,sinceit is basedon
theassumption
in
thattheepistles
were prose. Rose evengoesso far
as to suggestthattheywerewritten
inimitation
ofSeneca'sEpistulae
ad
Lucilium.3Thereis,however,no compelling
reasonto makeanysuch
sinceverseepistles
hadbeenwritten
assumption,
by Horaceand Ovid.
We mightadd thatthetitleof Lucan'scollectionshowslesssimilarity
ex Ponto. Sincetheassumpto thatof Senecathanto Ovid'sEpistulae
werein proseis thelynch-pin
ofbothRose's and
tionthattheepistles
we mustobviouslyretraceour steps.
McGann'sarguments,
One important
pointof logic thatRose and McGann establish,
Urbisor theEpistulae
can be
however,is this:ifeithertheDe Incendio
shownto be proseor poetry,theotherwillbe thesame.4 But Vacca
to answerthequestion
simplydoes not provideenoughinformation
mustbe
one way or theother. The crucialand conclusiveargument
madefromStatius,and it is focussedon theDe Incendio
Ur-bis.
I. The GenethliaconLucani
structured.The
Statius'poem in Lucan'shonoris verycarefully
linesprovidethepraisesof Lucan'spoeticgenius,
openingthirty-five
and the honorwhichhe has bestowedupon his nativeSpain. The
of thepoet,and
linesarea kindof apotheosis
concluding
twenty-nine
2 K. F. C. Rose, "Problems in the chronologyof Lucan's career," TAPA 97 (I966)
For
379-96 (hereaftercited as Rose); cf. M. J. McGann, CQ 7 (n.s.) (I957) 126-28.
Rose's discussionof the Epistulaesee Rose 386.
3 Rose 39I.
4 Rose 386, note 20 and McGann, o0). cit.,126 f.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol. I02]

LUCAN

DE INCENDIO

URBIS

a consolatio
to his soul. The central,and, for our purposes,most
important
segmentof thepoem-lines 36-I06-gives an accountof
Lucan's achievements.His praisesare sung throughthe mouthof
above theinfant
theMuse Calliope,whom Statiusdepictsas standing
Lucan and prophesying
thepoeticheightshe willattain. She isjoyfuluponseeingthechild-so muchso thatsheabandonshergrieffor
Orpheus.
Calliope'sopeningwords(4I-42) tellus thereasonforher ecstasy:
puero dicateMusis

longaevostransiture
vates...

He is a childdedicatedto themuses,destined
to surpassthelong-lived
willbearcomparison
poetsofthepast. His genius,shecontinues,
with
thatofHomerandApollonius,
and surpassthatof herown Orpheus:
nontuflumina
necgreges
ferarum
necplectro
Geticas
movebis
ornos,
sedseptem
iugaMartiumque
Thybrim
et doctosequiteset eloquente

cantupurpureum
trahes
senatum.
(43-47)
Thisis extravagant
praiseindeed. She thenproceedsto listtheworks
with which Lucan will achieve this Orphean tour-de-force:
the
theLaudesNeronianae,
Iliacon,theCatachthonion,
theDe Incendio
Urbis,
theAdlocutio
ad Pollamn
and thePharsalia.5At line73, Callioperefers
backto Lucan'sachievement:
5 Here and elsewhereI referto Lucan's epic as Pharsalia,ratherthanBellumCivile for
reasons I have argued in detail elsewhere (" Pharsalus and the Pharsalia," Classica et
Mediaevalia,publicationpending). Although De Bello Civili is the titlein most MSS,
Statius, our earliestauthorityfor Lucan's work, refersto the epic as PharsalicaBella
(Silvae 2.7.66) and Lucan's own words in 9.985 if. seem to be referringto the epic by
the titlePharsalia. Postgate,in his edition of book 7 (Cambridge I9I7) xc, arguesthat
vivetPharsalianostradoes not mean "my tale of Pharsalia shall live," it means "the
memory of Pharsalia in which you and I, Caesar, have a share,shall never die." Of
course Postgate is rightin sayingthatthe nostrameans "our" ratherthan " my." Yet
it is vital to rememberthat9.980-86 (Lucan's dedicationto Caesar and reminderof the
importanceof the role of the poet in recordingmen and citieswhich would otherwise
be forgottento the world) takes place as Caesar walks among the ruins of Troy-the
descendantof Aeneas who has just, in Lucan's opinion, annihilatedthe republicat the
battle of Pharsalus. The destroyerof the New Troy standsin the ruins of the Old.
The Old Troy needed Homer to keep its memory alive, the New Troy needs Lucan.
The descendantof Aeneas has become a new Achilles,who destroyedthe republic,as
surely as Achilles destroyedTroy. At 9.9go-99, Caesar, ironically,vows to rebuild

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FREDERICK

M.

AHL

[1I97I

haccprimoiuvcniscancssub aevo.

thattheworksshe
suggests
Canesis thekeywordhere. It definitely
thisimpression:
areallpoetry.Line 8i confirms
hasmentioned
nitorem.
necsolumdabocarminum
If, as Rose and McGann-not to mentionMozley-maintain,the
it is
probablyunpublished,
Urbiswas a prosedeclamation,
De Incendio
strangethatCalliopeshouldmentionit at all in thiscontext,as she
theheightsof poesy he
standsover theinfantLucan and prophesies
Urbisstandsin theprecise
willattain.6 Whatis more,theDe Incendio
extendingfrom
centerof her account:at lines6o-6i of a narrative
for
declamations
enthusiasm
prose
noted
for
her
is
not
Calliope
40-8I.
and would hardlyadduceone-much lessan unpublished
elsewhere,
of a poet who was to surpass
to the credentials
one-as testimony
not mentionall of Lucan's
Statius
does
since
Orpheus. Further,
knownworksof poetry,we can scarcelyargue thatCalliope was
tryingto bolsterslimcredentials.7Oddly enough,Rose also mainadPollamwasinprose. SincePollawasLucan's
tainsthattheAdlocutio
as a lover,and
sayslittleforLucan'simagination
wife,thissuggestion
herhusband's
from
to
stir
some
for
Polla's
response
less
ability
even
Muse.8
prolific
ad Pollamand theDe Incendio
In conclusion,then,if theAdlocutio
is
no
there
logicalreasonfortheirinclusion
Urbiswere not poetry,
it is evenlesslikelythat
hereby Statius. If theywere unpublished,
the Old Troy, if its ghostswill help him complete his presentundertaking.. . Eleven
lines afterthisprayer,Caesar is presentedwith the head of Pompey. Given the consciousjuxtapositionof Troy and Pharsalus,the head of Pompey,likethehead of Priam,
becomes the symbol of the end of an era. And Pompey is the representativeof the
last of the New Troy as surelyas Priam is of the last of the Old. In such a context,
Pharsalia is more than a mere battle-as Housman sees it in his note on 985-86 (M.
It is the tale of the fall of
Annaei Lucani Belli Civilis Libri Septem[Oxford 1927]).
Rome as surelyas the Iliad is the tale of the fall of Troy. To returnto Postgate fora
moment: we mightwell argue thatwhat Lucan means is "Pharsalia, your achievements
and my account of them,will live."
(London I928) note on Silvae 2.7.60-6I.
6 Cf. Mozley, in volume I of theLoeb Statiuis
7 Vacca 336 lines 17-22 liststhe remainder:the Saturnalia,the ten books of Silvae,
(or according to
the unfinishedtragedyMedea, fourteenSalticaeFabulae,Epigrammata
the Octavius
alia poemata,hypomnemata),
aragmata,
acroamata,
dramata,
othershippasmata,
Sagitta orations,and the Epistulaeex Campania. Suetonius(p. 333, line 5) adds to this
Urbis.
which may or mnaynot be the same as the De Incentdio
faiiiostimn,
list a carmitein
8 Rose 391.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol.

102]

LUCAN

S 'DE

INCENDIO

URBIS

Statiuswould have mentionedthemin his tributeto thedead poet.

is in conflict
Further,
sucha suggestion
that
withVacca's statement
theDe Incendio
Urbiswas extantin hisown day. In short,thereis no
reasonto assumethatthe itemsmentionedby Calliope are not all
one can only wonderwhy the idea was
poetry. On the contrary,
eversuggested.
fora momentto Vacca; itshouldbe clearnow that
We mustreturn
whenVacca definestheOctaviusSagittaorationsas proseworks,he
is singlingthemout as theonlysurviving
proseworksofLucan. For
if theDe Incendio
Urbisis poetry,thereis no possibility
of extending
Vacca's definitive
to includetheEpistulaeex Campania.
prosaoratione
Thus Rose's desireto see these"letters"as imitationsof Seneca's
epistlesto Luciliusis withoutfoundation.If Lucan was imitating
anyone,Ovid would be a morelikelycandidate. For theEpistulae
ex Campaniamusthave been verse. The possibility
thatLucan had
in
Ovid mindis further
suggested
by thefactthattheletters
arefrom
a certainplaceratherthantoa certainpersonor groupofpeople. But
Ovid's epistleswerewritten
frombanishment,
in an attemptto compensateforhismysterious
carmen
et error.Thereis no suggestion
that
Lucan was ever banishedfromRome, even thoughVacca, Tacitus
and Dio tellus of a ban imposeduponrecitations
of hispoetryandthoughonly in Vacca-appearancesin the law-courts.We will
returnto thisproblemlater.9
II. The Contentof the De Incendio Urbis
Our onlyevidenceas to whatLucansaidin theDe Incendio
Urbisis
thetwo-linesynopsis
in Statius'Genethliacon
6o-6i:
dicesculminibus
Remivagantis
infandos
domininocentis
ignes.
Culminibus
Remiclearlyrefers
to Rome, andleavesus inno doubtthat
Statiusis referring
to a poem on thefireof Rome, theDe Incendio
9 The evidencefortheban is to be foundin Tacitus,AnnalesI 5.49:famam carminumque
eius premebatNero prohibueratque
vanus aemulatione. Cf. Vacca, 335-36 lines
ostentare,
24 ff.: ediderat
... et tres librosquales videmus. Quare inimicumsibi fecit imperatorem.
Quo ambitiosavanitate,non hominumtantum,sed et artiumsibi principatum
vindicante,
interdictum
est ei poetica,interdictum
est etiamcausarumactionibus. Cf. Dio 62.29.4 and
Suetonius332 lines IO ff. Suetonius does not specificallymention a ban, but rathera
time when friendlyrelationsbetween poet and emperorbroke down.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FREDERICK

M. AHL

[I97I

Urbis. Precisely
whyStatiusrefers
to Rome as thecityof Remus is

unclear.Perhaps
it is merelymetricausa.IO This is theonlypassage

in eitherStatiusor LucanwhereRome is so called. The factthatthe

ignesare nefandos
strongly
suggeststhatthefirewas causedby some
criminal
action,and thegenitivedoniini
nocentis
makesno senseunless
we takeit as an indication
of thesourceof thefire. Domnini
niocentis
alsoimpliesthatthefirewascausedbya guiltymaster,
a guiltyemperor
-Nero. The importof the linesis clear: eitherLucan or Statius
forthe burningof Rome, the great
thoughtNero was responsible
ofJuly64.",
conflagration
Ifitis Statiusrather
thanLucanwho issuggesting
Nero'sculpability,
thecoupletin some suchway: "You will tellof
we mustinterpret
the fireof Rome-a fireactuallycausedby the criminalactionsof
ifsomewhat
Nero." The senseisjustaboutplausible,
forced. There
in Calliope'scatalogwhereStatiusinterpolates
hisis anotherinstance
Calliope's,ifyou like-comment:
theatris
Nerodulcibus
ingratus
etnoster
tibiproferetur
Orpheus.(58-59)
This couplet refersto the LatidesNeronianaeand the Orpheus. If the

Laudescan be datedto A.D. 6o it is mostunlikelythatLucan would

at thispointin his career.I2 It is clearly
have called Nero ingratus
10 Several writers,lnotablyPropertius,Catullus alndJuvenal,referto Rome as the
city of Remus. The usual explanationis that it is merelyinetricatisa,and this may,
of course, be right. It is interestingto note, however, thatJuvenal'sexpressionazirba
Renii is particularlyapt in Satire 10.73, and possibly more than a mere substitutefor
Romulus in the context. Juvenalis talkingabout the constantlychanging affections
popuilocapnt'(62)-but when
of the Roman populace: they adore Sejanus-adoratumll
Tiberius orders him put to death, they quickly adjust to the new situation(66-72).
If fortunehad smiled
et oditdamiiiiatos
ut semtiper
The crowd sequitur
(74-7S).
fortunain
on Sejanus ratherthanTiberius,theywould have acted in much the same way (74-77).
There is thepossiblehinitthatRomulus and Remus are one aindthesame to the ordinary
Other passageswhere the names of
people. It's who feedsthemithatcounts(78-8I).
Cf.Catullus58.5.
2.I.23 ;4.I.9;4.6.80.
RomulusandRemiiusareconfusedarePropertius
For a recentassessmentof the evidence oIn the fire see J. Beaujeu, L'incendiede
I
Collection Latomus 49 (Brussels I960) and the reviews of
Romiie
eii 64 et les chretietns,
I5 [I962]
thisstudyby Piganiol(REL 38 [I960] 449-50) and van Son (Mne;nosyne
Cf. Marrou, REA 67 (I965) 58o; Townend,JRS 5I (I96I) 244-45; Balsdon,
2II-I2).
In generalit seemsun68 (I961) 479-8I.
CR II (I961) 30I and Heubner, Gymnnasitumi
likelythatNero set fireto the city.
where
I2 Rose 386 ff. Cf. Statius' later remarksat Silvae 2.7.100, 104 anid II6-I9,
Statius'owI1 attitudeto Nero is clearlyexpressed.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol.

I02]

LUCAN

S 'DE

INCENDIO

URBIS

Statius'(Calliope's)epithetforNero and eitherrefers

to theemperor's
latertreatment
ofNero,or to thefactthatNero was notpopularwith
thecrowdsin thetheater.
unlikethereferences
Yet thereference
to theLaudesand Orpheus,
to
all theotherpoemsin Calliope'scatalog,makesno pretenceof being
a synopsisof content. Calliope's noster.. . Orpheus(s9) will be
broughtforth
(proferetur
tibi). He, likeNero,is thesubjectofthepoem.
But in no way does Calliopehintat whatis actually
saidin thepoem.
Contrasttheobliqueand impersonally
tibiwiththe
phrasedproferetur
dicesintroducing
the description
of the De IncendioUrbisat 6o. A
glanceat othersecondpersonfutureformsgivesfairlyconvincing
proofthattheyareusedby Calliopewhenshewishesto introduce
the
generaloutlineofwhatLucansaidina poem. Comparethesummary
of the Pharsaliaat 64-72:

moxcoeptagenerosior
iuventa
albosossibus
ItalisPhilippos
etPharsalica
belladetonabis
convulsum
ducisinterarmadivi,
libertate
gravem
pia Catonem
etgratum
popularitate
Magnum.
tuPelusiaci
scelusCanopi
deflebis
piusetPharocruenta
Pompeiodabisaltiussepulchrum.
This is a succinctsummaryof thehighpointsof thePharsalia. Calliope'sonlypersonalintervention
comesin thewordpius,which,one
shouldnote,is herattitudeto Lucan,not to thecontent
of thepoem.
Similarly
thedescription
of theIliaconand theCatachthonion:
ludes
HectoraThessalosque
currus
etsupplex
Priamipotentis
aurum
etsedesreserabis
inferorum.
(55-57)
Also theAdlocutio
ad Pollam:
hinccastaetitulum
decusque
Pollae
iocundadabisadlocutione.(62-63)
In otherwords,everyotherpoemofLucan'sthatis mentioned
here
issummarized,
apartfromtheLaudesandtheOrpheus,
andisintroduced
by a secondpersonverb whichpurportsto give a synopsisof the

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FREDERICK

M.

AHL

[I97I

subjectofthework. The outlineofalltheseseemstobe a fairapproxiand thereis no reasonto

content,
mationto theknownor suspected
Urbis.
De
the
of
Incendio
doubtthatthesameholdstrue
Urbiswas a poem aboutthefire
If thisis thecase,theDe Incendio
Such a
of thecityin whichLucan accusedNero of responsibility.
notonly
to theemperor,
offensive
workwouldhavebeenintolerably
rumorthathe was guiltyofcausingthefire,
becauseofthewidespread
his friendand protege.3 Such
but becauseLucan was, supposedly,
a damningaccusationfromone so close would have givengreater
musthave been
to therumor;thepoliticalconsequences
plausibility
very damagingto Nero. Preciselywhat stepsNero took against
Urbis
we do notknow. Sometimetowards
LucanaftertheDe Incendio
of
or
the
of
end
beginning
64
the
65, however,Nero placeda ban on
of
recitations
and uponfurther
in thelaw-courts
Lucan'sappearances
thisban is associatedwiththeappearhispoetry.I4 Conventionally,
whicheitherexcitedNero'sjealousyor angered
anceof thePharsalia,
him by its content. While both of thesefactorsmay have been
Urbis,for
Nero couldhardlyhave ignoredtheDe Incendio
operative,
to
would surelyhavefoundit necessary
eventhemildestof emperors
are
takestepsagainsttheauthorofsucha work. Ifa modernscholars
Urbis
De
Incendio
the
the
for
fire,
not
was
and
Nero
responsible
right,
motivationforNero to silence
in itselfwould have been sufficient
Lucan.
Urbiscan hardlyhavebeenpublishedmuchbefore
The De Incendio
theendofJuly64,and thecloseritis datedto theactualfire,themore
during
wouldhavebeen. Ifitwaspublished
savageNero'sretaliation
middle
itmightbe bestto dateitto somepointin the
Lucan'slifetime,
notmuchlaterthanSeptember.Ifit was
ofAugust64, andcertainly
not publishedduringLucan's lifetime,thenwe mustassumethat
I5
ofLucan'sworksisinaccurate.
listing
chronological
Statius'apparently
I3 See note ii above, especiallyBeaujeu, where the evidence is discussedin detail.
where Lucan is said to have been
For Lucan as Nero's friend,see Suetonius332.9-II,
Cf. Vacca335.I9-2I.
attachedto Nero's cohorsamicorumn.
I4 See note 9 above.
of Lucan's works in the Genethliacon
I5 For a discussionof the chronologicallistinlg
Lticani,see Rose 386 ff. Rose's argumentsare convincing onl all counts except one.
thatStatiusthinksof thePharsalia
He argueson thebasisof Silvae 2.7.62-66 and I02-I04
"as beinlgcomllposed,or of parts being published in the last mionthsof Lucan's life."

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol. I02]

LUCAN

S 'DE

INCENDIO

URBIS

evidenceforLucan
SinceStatiusis our earliestsourceof biographical
sinceStatiusknew
we shouldbe cautiousabout such a suggestion,
Lucan'swife,Polla, and is unlikelyto have madean errorin a poem
writtento her.
III. Lucan the politician
If mythesisis correct,
whydo noneof our ancientsourcesconnect
theDe IncendioUrbiswiththeban? The answeris nothardto find,
andwe mustnow cometo termswithit. First,letus look at Tacitus.
of Lucan,thereis a distinct
atmosThroughoutTacitus'treatment
towardsthe poet. He mentionsnone of Lucan's
phereof hostility
works at all. When he describesLucan's entryinto the Pisonian
hisnamesideby sidewiththatoftheconsulhe mentions
conspiracy,
the
and usestheopportunity
to contrast
PlautiusLateranus,
designate
causaeofpersonalanigenuine
idealismof Lateranuswiththepropriae
mositywhichmotivatedLucan.'6 In otherwords,Tacitusis very
thatgenuinerepublican
sympathies
eagerto playdownanypossibility
movedLucanto do whathe did. It was no doubtthedebaclefollowthatencouragedTacitusto think
ing thedetectionof theconspiracy
his own mother,
thisway. The rumorthatLucanhad incriminated
save
his
own
life
to
would have made any
Acilia,in a vain effort
pretenseof highprincipleon hispartshabbyand hypocritical.And
TacitusclearlybelievedthatLucandidaccusehismother.I7Whether
the rumoris trueor not is, at thisstage,irrelevant.The factthat
Tacitusbelieveditmadeithardforhimto takeLucan'spoliticalideals
seriously.
His reason for so doing is the factthat the Pharsaliais mentionedby Statiusafterthe
Adlocttioand the De IncendioUrbis. In the next sentenceRose concludes: "Thus the
De Bello Civili startedto appear afterJuly 64." This is going too far. All we may
safelyinferfrom these lines of Statiusis that Lucan was working on the Pharsaliaat
the time of his death. Since the Pharsaliawas the high point of Lucan's career,and
sincehe was, presumably,working on it at the time of his death,Statiusis quitejustified
in mentioningit last evenifpartsof it were writtenand publishedprior to July64. It
is also worth noting that,in his precis of the Pharsalia,Statius refersto events of the
lastfourbooks only. The referencemade to Cato is the only elementin Statius'account
which mightconceivablyreferto a point earlierthanbook 6.
I 6 AninalesI 5.49.
'7 Ibid.,56. Cf. Suetonif,s
333-II-I5.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FREDERICK

IO

M.

AHL

[I97I

toLucan. For
attitude
Suetonius
shareswithTacitusan unfavorable
both writers,while theyhave littlegood to say about Nero, are
scarcelygenerousto Lucan either. Both Tacitusand Suetoniustend
to regardthe quarrelbetweenLucan and Nero as a literaryfeud.
Suetoniusis, of course,rathermore extremein thisinstancethan
of Nero in hisLife ofNero is foundedon
Tacitus. His wholeportrait
hisvisionoftheemperor
as theinsaneandjealousartist. In hisaccount
forinstance,Suetoniusinsiststhat
of Nero's murderof Britannicus,
Nero killedtheyoungprinceno less becauseof envyof his superior
fearofhispopularappeal(Nero 33). WhileNero
voicethanthrough
musicalabilities,we
enviousof Britannicus'
have
been
may indeed
shouldsurelyhesitatebeforebelievingthatthisfact-whichmay or
may not be a fact-motivatedNero as muchas thepotentialthreat
as emperor.
posedto hisown security
thatBritannicus
suggeststhat
Suetoniusin his Life of Lucan sarcastically
Similarly,
in the Pisonianplot in orderto
Lucan accusedAciliaof complicity
principem
sibiapudparracidam
imlpietatem
speratns
Nero'saffections:
regain
While it is quitepossiblethatLucan did, in factaccuse
profutuiram.
was "4You'rea parricide;look,
hismother,
theidea thathisreasoning
too" is absurd. Yet again,Suetoniustells
to be a parricide
I'm trying
hostilitytowardsNero in words and in
us thatLucan manifested
of Nero's
actionsto suchati extentthat(adeo ut) he quoteda half-line
relievinghimselfin a public latrine.'8
poetrywhile thunderously
Writerswho, like Suetonius,or Tacitusfor thatmatter,were illthe most
disposedtowardsLucan, had a fondnessfor attributing
absurdpossiblemotivesto boththepoet and his emperor. If there
existedonlyTacitus'and Suetonius'accountsof Lucan,and no extant
work,we wouldnothavea reasonin theworldto suspectthatLucan
but whichregarded
wrotean epic whichis not only anti-imperial,
of giganticdimensions-an
the fall of the republicas a catastrophe
thoseof Cannae.'9
whoseconsequences
disaster
surpassed
unmitigated
to Tacitusand SuetoThe apoliticalLucan,however,is notconfined
nius. If criticshostileto thepoethavegone to somepainsto belittle
18 Suetonius332-33.

Pharsalia1.30-32; 7.305-14; 7.385-459 and 632-46, and especially7.799 ff.where

the implicationis made that Caesar is worse than Hannibal, just as Pharsalusis worse
Canniae. Cf. my article"Pharsalus and the Ph-arsalia"(above, niote5).
thanll
I9

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol.

I02]

LUCAN

DE INCENDIO

URBIS

II

hispolitical
ideasandsignificance,
so havehisfriends.WhileSuetoniusrevelsin theinterchange
ofhostilities
between
NeroandLucan,
Vaccaverycarefully
omitsorglosses
whichLucanmayhave
anything
saidordonewhichsmacks
ofpolitical
action. AndVaccaisfavorably
disposed
towards
Lucan. Thereis no suggestion
in Vacca'sLifethat
Lucandidanything
tooffend
Neroandbring
abouttheban. Inother
Vaccagoestoconsiderable
words,
Lucanastheinjured
painstopresent
innocent.It was Nero'sjealousyofLucan'sacclaimwhichbrought
abouttheban,ajealousy
whichgrewovera period
ofyears. Although
Vaccatellsus thatLucanjoinedthePisonian
he describes
conspiracy,
himas a victim
ofyouthful
ardorandthetrickery
ofPiso-deceptius
a
Pisone.0 Thereis no mention
of theincrimination
of Aciliaat all.
As faras Vaccaisconcerned,
itwasLucan'sbrilliance
as a poetwhich
antagonized
Nero,andnothing
else.
Bothfriend
andfoeshareonepointofviewincommon:
therivalry
of Neroand Lucanwas purelyliterary.Amongmodernscholars,
Rose echoesa similar
judgment.Nero'sban,he tellsus,shouldbe
viewed"in thecontext
of theincreasing
in thesecondhalf
tension,
ofNero'sreign,
between
theStoiccircles,
ledbySeneca,andtheless
earnestliterary
groupled by Petronius."2I

But was Lucansucha purelyliterary

threatto Nero'svanity?
on theDe Incendio
Certainly
not,ifmythesis
Urbis
is correct.This
poemstoodontheveryborderline
ofpoetry
andpolitical
pamphleteering,and constituted
a tangible
political
offense
whichtheemperor
couldscarcely
ignore. Moreimportant
still,
itaccounts
fortherather
unusualnatureof theban,whichcoverednot onlyLucan'spoetic
buthispleading
in thelaw-courts.IfNerohadwishedto
activities,
Lucanfromreceiving
prevent
applause
andcredit
forhispoetictalent,
thissecondpartof theban wouldhavebeenutterly
unnecessary.
20 hocfactuin
(i.e., theban) Caesarisiuveniliaestimansanzimiii
caloresperansque
ultionenm
a
coniuratisin caedemNeronissocitusadsutmptus
est, sed paru1ni
fauste. Deceptusest enim a
Pisone et consularibus
aliisquepraeturaperfunctis
inlustribus
viris: dumn
vindictam
expetitin
mortem
inruit(Vacca 336.2-7). Cf. Tacitus,AnnialesI5.49.
21 Rose 384. It seems odd to see the tensionbetween Stoic and Epicurean
literary
cliques as motivationfor the ban. No doubt such tensionsmay have existed,in an
academic sense. But (a) the ban covered activitiesin the law-courts,(b) Petroniusfared
no betterthan Seneca-or Lucan for that matter-in the aftermathof the conspiracy,
althoughthereis nothingto suggestthathe was involved in the plot.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

12

FREDERICK

M. AHL

[197I

was,in Rome,a markoftheup-andForactivity

in thelaw-courts
of Nero'sban suggests
comingpolitician.The severity
thatNero
hostility
on thepartofLucanwhich
detected
somedegree
ofpolitical
madeit necessary
to silencehimcompletely.For thisbanwould
andpolitical
career.
haveannihilated
bothLucan'spoetical
Lucan'scredentials
as a growingpoliticalforceat Rome should
In addition
to holdingan influential
priesthood,
notbe underrated.
at an unusually
early
he hadalsobeenhonored
witha quaestorship
thefirst
honorum
beforetheage of
age,reaching
stepon thecursus
Giventhe wealthof theAnnaei,the influence
of
twenty-five.22
thefavorofNero,Lucanhada highly
promising
Seneca,and,atfirst,
him. Thereis no reasonto assumethat
careerin publiclifebefore
thisyoungsenatorplannedthe lifeof a poetpureand simple,
Lucanseemsto have
any morethandid SiliusItalicus.Further,
if Statius'
of esteemamonghisfellowsenators,
enjoyeda position
him
is
Statius
Genethliacon
hyperbolically
compares to an
anyguide.
thewholeof Rome underhisspell(Silvae
Orpheuswho brought
2.7.43-47).

of the
amongthemembers
Thisis notall. The moredesperate
Lucanto their
Nero.
admitted
senatorial
plottoassassinate
opposition
TheywouldnothavedonesohadtheynotfeltthatLucanwasreliable
musttakesomecarewhen
A conspirator
as a potential
conspirator.
he runsthe
approaching
others;lhemustbe sureof hismanbefore
and
the
factthat
Lucan's
Given
lim.
background,
riskofadmitting
as
indeedbe somequestion
ofNero,there
hehadbeena friend
might
evenifhe wasnot
theban. Yetclearly,
evenafter
to hisdisposition
as Suetonius
ofthePisonian
declares,
conspiracy,
exactly
paelesigniifer
have
in theaccounts
whiclhi
he enjoysa remarkable
prominence
survived.23

22 For Lucain'squaestorshipaindaugurate,see Vacca335.14-I6

and Suetonius 332.9-II.
Rose argues (394 note 35) that no-one other than members of the imperial family
was advanced to public officemore than a year before the legal age of 25. This
would mean thatDecember 5th,62 is the earliestprobable date forLucan to have taken
office-if we allow for the possibilitythat,under normal circumstances,a man might
year ratherthan on achieving the age of 25.
take the quaestorshipin his twenty-fifth
576.
1.572-74,
Cf. T. Mommsen Staatsrecht3
extitit. Cf.
Pisonianaeconiurationis
23Suetonius333.5-6: ad extremuim
paene signifer
Tacitus, Annales 15.49. Vacca (above, note 20) studiouslyplays down Lucan's role
in the plot.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol. I02]

LUCAN

S 'DE

INCENDIO

URBIS

I3

as lightlyas did
Nero clearlydidnottakeLucan'spoliticalactivities
Tacitusand Suetonius. Nor shouldwe. His only survivingwork
is brimming
withpoliticalfervor,and is focussedupon thebattleof
Pharsalus,where,in Lucan'sopinion,Rome lostherfreedom.24It
isallverywellto argue,as Brueredoes,thatLucan'sexplosivedenuncia25
tionsof hisown day in book 7 are a "strivingforbravuraeffect."
This is beggingthe question. They would scarcelyhave pleased
Nero ifhe eversaw them. It maybe rhetoric,
butit is verydangerous
rhetoric.If Lucanis tryingto pleaseNero he is settingaboutit in a
mostunorthodox
manner. To arguethattheportrayal
of Domitius
Ahenobarbus
is a sop to Nero is also a mootpoint. Historyrecords
thenameofonlyone senatoron thePompeiansidewho diedat Pharsalus,DomitiusAhenobarbus,
andDomitiusis theonlygenuinecorpse
thatLucan suppliesus in book 7, despitehisprotests
abouttheheaps
of Metellistrewnacrosstheplain.26 It maywell be thathe had no
further
information
on theindividualdead at Pharsalusthanwe do.
To putitanotherway,iftherewas to be a senatordyingin thatcrucial
battle,it had to be Domitius
Ahenobarbus.
We mightalso note that
Lucan makesno attemptto associatethe republicanhero with his
descendant.
24

See above,noteI9.

R. T. Bruere, "The Scope of Lucan's HistoricalEpic," CP 45 (I950) 230. This

deprecationof Lucan's techniquedoes nothingto prove thatLucan did not mean what
he said. It argues,rather,thatBruerewill not accept Lucan's conclusionsas reasonable;
forhe furtherdescribesthesepassagesfrom7 as lacking "logic, precisionand restraint."
In thisrespect,however, Bruere is amazingly eclectic: when, in 5.479, Lucan describes
Antony as contemplatingActium as he crossesfromBrindisito join Caesar in Greece,
Bruere argues that this is "confirmatoryevidence" (227) of Lucan's intentto extend
his epic to Actium. Surely thistoo lacks logic, precisionand restraint.
26 7.581-85.
Caesar,BellumCivile 3.99 mentionsonlyDomitius among thePompeian
dead. None of our othersourcescontributeany further
names. It is also worthnoting
thatwhile Domitius is suspiciously" clean" in Lucan, his portraitin Caesar is suspiciously
black. Caesar never loses a chance to cut at him (B.C. i.6.I5-23,
25, 34-36, 56-58;
2.3.I8,
22, 28, 32; 3.83 and 99 give an overall sketchof Caesar's attitudeto Domitius).
Similarly Caesar's treatmentof Labienus in I.15; 2.13, I9, 7I and 87 and generally
throughout the AfricanWars. Caesar had personal reasons for dislikingboth men.
We should note, however, thatDomitius who was, according to Caesar, commanderin-chiefat Massilia (B.C. 1.34-36, 56-58; 2.3.18, 22, 28, 32) is not mentionedin this
capacityin the Pharsalia. In otherwords,if Lucan had reallywanted to make a tribute
to Nero, he could have made Doinitius the grand hero of the stubbornresistanceat
Massilia where historywould, to some extent,have borne him out. Lucan is using
Domitius forhis own purposes-and verylimitedpurposesat that.
25

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FREDERICK

I4

M.

AHL

[I971

The writerof book 7 of the Pharsaliais clearlya mianof strong

idealsoftlhesenateveryseriously.
wh1otooktlhe
conviction-s,
republican
IV. The Pharsalia and the Ban
Vacca, as we hiavenoted,was verykeento exculpateLucan from
about the ban. Yet he is probably
forbringinlg
any responsibility
sincehe seemsto have
informationi,
suppressing
doingso by wilfully
about Lucan's lifetlhanany of our othersources.
moreinformation
Most scholars,sensingthis,have rcad betweenthe linesof Vacca's
rivalrywas
more thanliterary
thatsomethling
accountand suspected
involvedin thequarrelbetweenpoet and emperor. While thisis, I
am sure,true,to base such an argumenton Vacca is extremely
to suggestanysuclhthing. When
sinceVacca is niottrying
dangerous,
thatit came
he talksof Nero'sgrowingjealousyofLucan,he inmplies
oftreslibrosqualesvideuius.27 Thesethrec
toa headwiththepublication
withPharsaliaI-3. Sincethesebooksare
booksareusuallyidentified
that
thelastitemsmentionedbeforethe ban, scholarshave inferred
relatedto jt.28 Given
theappearanceof theepicis somehowdirectly
it would
Vacca's desireto shrugoffLucan'spoliticalinvolvements,
to tellus is thattheappearbe naturalto assumethatwhathe is trying
epicwas too muchfortheenviousemperor.
anceof a full-blown
Nero into such drastic
That PharsaliaI-3 would hiavetriggered
tracesof
is hardto imagine. Althoughthereare definite
retaliation
books,thereis nothingwhicl
feelingin the openinlg
anti-Caesarian
of Nero in
includesNero.29 Evcn iftheso-calledapotheosis
obviotusly
Vacca 3 3 5.24-25.
So much so, in fact,thatsome, such as R. Pichon,Les SoiircesdeLuicaiti(Paris I9I2)
find that the treslibrosimustbe other than
and V. Ussani, RFIC 29 (I9OI)
270-7I
PharsaliaI-3. J. Brisset,Les Id6esPolitiqiiesde Li:cain(Paris I964) 181-82 and Rose 384
rightlyreject this notion. Rose's argumentthat "no-one would publish individual
books of a historicalepic out of chronologicalsequence" is farfromconclusive,however.
outline,it is possible,though admittedlyunlikely. But Rose
Given a well-structured
is quite wrong in seeing 4-6 as less anti-Caesariaiithan I-3 (Rose 387). In fact,as I
forthcoming),book 4 contains
have argued elsewhere("Curio and Hercules," Latomunls,
slash at the Caesars in generalwhich must include Nero (82I-24).
the firstunequiivocal
pax
(especially 67o-cu1lm domllino
29 Even Nigidius Figulus' comments at I.669-72
include Nero. Lucan, no doubt, had in mind the famous
ista venit)do not necessarily
94) which Nigidius made when Augustus
remark (recorded by Suetonius,Aiuguisttus
terrarw
was born, to the effectthat the ruler of the world was lnow born: domihii,ii
orbiitatiimn.
27
28

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol. I02]

LUCAN

DE INCENDIO

URBIS

15

as I believeit is, the satireis carefully

couched
1.33-65 is satirical,

beneatha veil of flattery

and double-entendre.
Besides,suchsatireas
thereis has a morehumorousthanpoliticalbent-a wickedtouchof
theamusingly
grotesqueratherthanviciousinvective. It is notfully
apparentuntillaterbooksthatto be takenas thesole museof an epic
is an honorofa dubious
thedestruction
describing
ofRomanfreedom
sort.30 It is not untilbook 4 thatwe findthefirstremarkwhichis
unquestionably
detrimental
to Nero:
iuslicetiniugulosnostros
sibifecerit
ense
Sullapotens,
feroxetCinnacruentus,
Mariusque
Caesareaeque
domusseries... (821-23)
The epithets,
potens,
feroxand cruentus,
come in ascendingorderof
horror,onlyto be cappedby theCaesars;notjust the first,but the
wholelineof Caesars.
Sensingthisproblem,thattheymustfindsomething
ratherstronger
than 1-3 to provokeNero's drasticretaliation,
some scholarshave
suggestedthatVacca's treslibrosare not 1-3 but others. In other
words,theyinsiston lookingforsomething
thatwould give Nero
adequateoffense,
ignoringthefactthatVacca is not tryingto suggest
any such thing.31They are stretching
a pointforno good reason
andwreakinghavocwiththechronology
of thePharsalia.
In thefirst
place,ifthebanwas imposedshortly
afterthepublication
of the treslibros,thesebooks cannothave been publishedbefore
December5th,62, whichis theearliest
probabledateforLucanto have
30 I.63-66, where Nero is taken as sole muse of
the epic, ratherthan Apollo. Much
of theepic is setin abackgroundof desolation:e.g., theruinsof Scipio's camp in 4.658-60
(so also Carthage,ibid.584-86). SimilarlyDelphi is defunctto all intentsand purposes,
revived only brieflyby the religious expert Appius Claudius Pulcher (see especially
5.111-27).
The Troy which Caesar arrivesat in 9.950 is virtuallynon-existent. Finally
the Rome and Italy of Lucan's own day are desolate(73 85-408). Cf. 1.24 if. and my
article "Curio and Hercules" (above, note 28) and L. Thompson and R. T. Bruere's
usefularticlein CP 63 (I968) I-2I (particularly6 ff.). It is also worth noting that the
scholiastin the Adnotationes
SuperLucanumtellsus in his comment on 5.II3 thatwhen
Nero consultedthe oracle at Delphi it repliedparricidis
nonrespolndeo
whereupon Nero
ordered its closure. Cf. the same scholiast'scomments on 5.139 and 178; also the
CommentaBernensiaon 5.II3.
Plutarch, De DefectuOraculorumn,
especially 41IA if.,
discussesthe obsolesenceof oraclesin his own day,but gives no hintthatDelphi had been
closed down. Cf. H. W. Parke, The DelphicOracle2(Oxford I956) vol. I, 283-84 and
vol. 2, 243 and 597.
3I See note 28 above,

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

i6

FREDERICK

M.

AHL

[I97I

uponhisquaestorship.32
Nerowouldhardlyhavebanned
entered
onlyto
causesin thelaw-courts
andpleading
Lucanfromrccitations
the
assigns
himself
Besides,Vacca
raisehim to the quaestorship.
tothe"happydays"ofhisrelationship
periodofLucan'squaestorship
ifourprevious
abouttheDe Incendio
argument
withNero.33Further,
Urbisis correct,
we wouldhaveto movethebanup to theendof
to accept
in whichcaseit wouldbe necessary
July64 at theearliest,
thatpublication
of Pharsalia
1-3 did notoccuruntil
Rose'stheory
July64 or evenlater.
thanDeSince Rose seemsto findDecember63 moreattractive
theyears64-65
of Lucan'squaestorship,
cember62 forthebeginning
would be verybusyindeedfortheyoungLucan. For duringthese
months,accordingto Rose, Lucanwould have writtentenbooksof
ad
the Medea,theEpistulaeex Campania,theAdlocutio
the Pharsalia,
in additionto holdinga quaestorship
Urbis,
Pollamand theDe Incendio
games)andjoininga conspiracy.34This
(completewithgladiatorial
is lessthansatisfactory,
and lessthan
of Lucan'sactivities
compression
probable.
withhispractice
thatVacca,in accordance
If,however,we postulate
omits the De
the "innocent" Lucan, deliberately
of maintaining
Urbisfromhissequenceofeventsleadingto theban,we need
Incendio
not assumethat the ban was an immediateconsequenceof the
appearanceof thePharsalia.
V. The De Incendio Urbis and the "carmen famosum"
of Suetonius
Curiously,theSuetonianLife makesno specificmentionof a ban,
doestellus
despitethefactthatourothersourcesdo. WhatSuetonius
ofone of
in
the
middle
a
of
the
senate
is thatNero summoned meeting
32See note 22 above.

habuitsecunda(Vacca 335.I6-I7).
tempora
equidemhactenus
See Rose 38I ff. It is crucialto Rose's theorythatthePharsaliawas publishedafter
the De IncendioUrbisand the Adlocutioad Pollam. As faras theAdlocutiois concerned,
thereis no reason to assume that this was a very long work. It may thereforehave
been publishedaround the timeof theDe IncendioUrbis,even slightlyafterit. Though
Statius' descriptionof it makes one inclined to feel that it may have occurredshortly
after(or before) Lucan's marriage. Since we do not kniow when Lucan married
Polla, we reach a dead end once we have said that.
33

34

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol.

102]

LUCAN

S 'DE

INCENDIO

URBIS

17

Lucan'srecitations,
whichwould, no doubt,have obligedLucan to
For not onlywould Nero have
terminate
the readingforthwith.35
sincehe
left,but Lucan would also have had to leave,presumably,
was a memberof thesenate. Afterthis,Suetoniustellsus,therewas
andbymeans
Nerobothverbally
a periodwhenLucanopenlyattacked
?
ofprovocative
actions.36WhatworkcouldLucanhavebeenreciting
Hardly the Medea, which was incomplete,or the Catachthonion,
orLaudesNeronianae,
whichseemto havebeenearlycomposiOrpheus
tions. He wroteten books of Silvae,but thereis no evidencethat
Silvae were recitedpublicly. CertainlyStatiusimplies that his
Silvae were given to thosein whose honortheywere writtenand
afterwards
published. But thereis no hintofrecitation.37Much the
same is trueof theEpigrammata
(if thatis what theywere).38 The
Epistulaeex Campaniawould not be a likelychoice,sincewe would
inferthattheywerewrittento a personor personswhileLucanwas
in Campania. If Rose is right,theSaturnalia
and theSalticaeFabulae
were probablyratherearlyworks.39 That leaves us with the De
Incendio
adPollamandthePharsalia,
Urbis,theAdlocutio
unlessthework
concernedis among thoseof which we have now no record. If
Suetoniusis rightthatNero's onlyreasonforwalkingout on Lucan
was a desireto freezetherecitation,
theDe Incendio
Urbisis hardlya
likelycandidate. The chancesthatthe Adlocutio
was read publicly
are slim. Its very titlesuggestssomethinginformaland personal.
Thus, unlessLucan was recitinga work now lost to memory,the
chancesareit was thePharsalia.
Since thePharsaliawas, doubtless,
regardedby Lucan as his most
important
work,hisfuryat Nero's departure
is quiteunderstandable.
But, sinceNero himself
mighthave detected
somesarcasmin Lucan's
tonein theepic,he mighthavehad a realpretextforwalkingouton
Lucan. Afterall, Nero was himselfa poet, and would have been
35 si quidemaegre
ferensquodNero se recitante
subitoac nulla nisi refrigerandi
sui causa
senatusrecessisset
(Suetonius332.11-13).
36 neque verbisadversum
principemnequefactis excitantibus
post haec temporavit
(ibid.

332-33).
37 Statius,preface to Silvae 4, in the letteraddressed to Marcellus, tells Marcellus

that he had given many of his poems to Domitian prior to publication: multaex illis
iam dominoCaesari dederam,
et quantohocplus estquamedere?
38 The text in Vacca is hopelesslycorrupt. See note 7 above.
39Rose 393.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I8

FREDERICK

M.

AIIL

[1971

considerably
moresensitive
to innuendothan,say,somconclike
Suetonius,
whoseattitude
to Lucan'spoetry
is somewhat
cavalier,
to
saytheleast.40In otherwords,therccitation
ofthePharsalia(whateverbooksmayhavebeeninvolved)couldhavebeentheturningpointintherelationship
ofLucanandNero,themoment
ofrupture.
Afterthis,Lucanturned
againstNero. Then,saysSuetonius,
he

wrotea

in
carnten faniosum,l?

whichhc broughtveryseriouscharges

against
theemperor
andhismostpowerful
friends.4'Thisis thelast
workwhichSuetonius
mentions
beforeLucan'sjoiningof thecon-

spiracy. Thereisno wordabouta ban,andno suggcstion

thatNero's
reactionto therecitation
was theequivalentof a ban. In Suetonius'
Life, only threeworks arc mentioncd:the LauidesNeronianae,the
Pharsalia and the carmenJfauosutii.Further,Suetoniusis our only
on tlislastwork-unlesswe identify
sourceforinformation
itwiththe
Dc IncendioUrbiswhichis theonlyworkwe knowofwhosecontents
and personalattackon Nero.
suggestan outright
What could the carmen
have been about? If thecharges
famosumit
wereofa veryseriousnature-asSuetonius'
gravissime
proscidit
implies
chances
an
attack
are
that
content
was
either
on
-the
the
Nero's
sexualprofligacy
or some kindof politicalslander. The possibility
forseveral
of a lampoonon the emperor'ssex-lifeis less attractive
is thatNero, as Suctonius
reasons. The firstand mostimportant
to mostordinary
tellsus inhisNero(39), scemsto havebeenlindifferent
thathe was responsible
libellousverse. Even references
suggesting
werepassedoff
motherand half-brother
forthedeathsof hisfather,
lightly. If Nero was goingto be hurt,he had to be hitreallyhard.
And, as we have seen,therewas n1osubjectabout which he was
thanthefireof Rome. For,ifa Suetonianphrasemay
moresensitive
be pardoned,he mightwell findit harderto forgivea falseaccusation
than a trueone.
Secondly, Suetoniusin his lifeof Lucan seems to be attributingthe
to the laterstagesof the deteriorating
carmcii
famosumtti
relationship
the
to
and
between poet
emperor, probably
year 64. Since that
40

ac veno proponi,lion tantuinoperoseet

Poemata eitusetiainpraelegimemini,con-fici

333.I8-20).
sedinepte
quoque(Suetonius
diligenter,
41

(ibid.
proscidit
gravissime
arnicoriin
potentissimnos
Sed etfamosocarminecumipsum,turn1

5-6).

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol.

I02]

LUCAN

S 'DE

INCENDIO

URBIS

I9

notableforthefireof Rome,andsinceLucan
yearwasparticularly

looms largethat
wrotea poem on thatverysubject,thepossibility
theDe Incendio
Urbisand thecarmen
wereone and thesame.
famosum
For whatmoreseverechargecouldLucanbringagainstNero and his
mostpowerfulfriends
thanthattheywilfully
burnedthecity?
Againstthisthesiswe can throwone majorproblem:thefactthat
Suetoniusdoes not give the slightest
hintas to the contentof the
carmen
famosum.IfLucanhadaccusedNero ofburning
thecityin this
poem,whydoes Suetoniusnottellus so? Thereis onlyone possible
replyto thisquestion. We have seen thatSuetonius,like Tacitus,
goesoutofhiswayto diminish
Lucan'spoliticalsignificance.Indeed,
Suetonius'Lucan cuts an altogethersorryfigure-an arrogantand
petulantfool whose poetryis poor and whose behavioris infantile.
Grantedthis,may we not arguethatSuetoniuswishesto glossover
therealnatureof thecarmen
to leavetheimpression
famosumn,
thatthe
work was merelysome undefined
attackupon theemperor? Since
he omitsall mentionof theban,it is scarcely
thathe glosses
surprising
over the work which probablycaused it. We shouldnot forget
thatSuetonius'extremeexampleof Lucan's hostileactionstowards
Nero is the notorioustale of the quotationin the latrine. Lucan's
part in the conspiracyis reducedto an idioticscampering
around,
promising
Nero's head to all and sundry. To creditLucan withan
opendenunciation
ofNero andthefire,or to admitthatNero thought
him dangerousenoughto suppresswould be inconsistent
with the
pictureSuetoniuswishesto give us. Suetonius,like Vacca, has his
own reasonsforwithholding
information.
Thus, althoughwe cannotprove beyonddoubt thatthe carmen
famostum
of Suetoniuswas the De IncendioUrbis,we shouldhesitate
beforedismissing
the possibility
of theiridentity.For afterall, it
is worthremembering
thattheDe Incendio
Urbiswas a carmenfamosum
in themostextremesense.
If we piece togetherour information,
perhapsthepictureof what
happenedbecomesa littleclearer. Lucan gave a recitatio
of some
book(s)of thePharsalia
earlyin 64-certainlynotmuchlaterthanthe
beginningof July. Nero, takingoffenceat something,called a
meetingofthesenate,forcing
Lucanto abandonhisrecitation.Lucan
retaliated
withoutright
hostility,
culminating
afterthefireof Rome

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

20

FREDERICK

M. AHL

[I971

Urbis. Neroreplied-probably
oftheDe Incendio
withthepublication
withsomespeed-by banningLucanfromfurther
andfrom
recitations
takingan activepartin thelaw-courts.If thisis true,thenwe may
aroundAugust64.42
thattheban tookeffect
feelsomeconfidence
VI. Lucan between ban and conspiracy
Thereis a vexed questionas to how muchtimeelapsedbetween
Nero's ban and Lucan'sentryintotheconspiracy.By and largethe
tendencyhas been to push them ever closerin time. Rose, for
instance,
placesthe ban as late as thebeginningof 65. Tacitushas
Lucan as bringing
providedthebasicpretextforthis. He describes
whichis takento implythatLucan
vividaodia into the conspiracy,
enteredtheplot as soon as theban took effect.Sinceit is not clear
thatthe plot had any formalshapebeforethe beginningof 65, it
to move theban to theendof 64 or thebeginning
seemedreasonable
of 6withit. Since
thishasusuallydraggedthePharsalia
Unfortunately,
Rose has arguedthatthePharsaliawas thecauseof theban,as have
almostall scholars,thenit is quite naturalthathe shoulddate the
publicationof I-3 no earlierthanJuly64 and probablylater. The
greatflawin thistheoryis thefactthatit seemsto giveLucanfartoo
muchto do in thelastyearor so ofhislife,as we havealreadypointed
out.
If, however,the De IncendioUrbiswas the cause of the ban, the
intothelastbusymonths
doesnothaveto be thuscompressed
Pharsalia
to supposethatthe
it would be reasonlable
of Lucan'slife. Further,
to Augustor September
Urbisand theban belong,rather,
De Incendio
42 G. K. Gresseth(CP 52 [I957]
infersthat Vacca would have us believe that
22-27)
the ban followed the Neronia: "for, inttoto,the passage (sc. referringto the ban) can
only be takento mean thatNero took pique at Lucan's successat the Neronia" (p. 26).
Gressethargues that Vacca may mean the Neroiiia of 65. This is not to inferthat
Gressethactuallybelieved thatthiswas the case, but ratherthathe is questioningVacca's
Suetoniusthatthe
reliabilityas an authority. One mightalso get the impressionfromn
Pharsaliawas writtenbefore Lucan's recall from Greece and before his quaestorship
NeitherVacca nor Suetoniusseem much concernedabout precisechronol(332.I-II).
ogy.
43 Annales I5.48-49, where Tacitus is clearly implyingthat the plot did not begin
untilthe beginningof 65 and thatLucan enteredit then. Dio 62.29.4 datesthe ban to
65, but this could well be the resultof the lack of any precise dating in his sources.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol. I02]

LUCAN

DE INCENDIO

URBIS

2I

64, thusleavinga periodof somethreemonthsor so beforetheactual

of course,theplotbeganbefore
of theconspiracy-unless,
beginning
thenew year.
to Brutusin
In thisconnectionit is worthnotingtwo references
books7 and io of thePharsalia. The firstdescribes
Brutus'attempt
and underlines
thefutility
to killCaesarat Pharsalus,
ofhiseffort:
nilproficis
istic
Caesaris
intentus
iugulo;nondum
attigit
arcem,
iurisethumani
columen,
quo cunctapremuntur,
meruit
fatistamnobileletum.
egressus
vivat,etutBrutiprocumbat
victima
regnet.
(7.593-5)
Lucan is here expressing
the desirethatCaesar may live untilthe
appropriate
momentforhisassassination,
so thathecanbe thesacrificial
victimofBrutus. Thereis no hint,however,thatthisactof tyrannicideis to becomea precedent
forothers. Thisnoteis notintroduced
untilbook io:
proculhocavertite,
fata,
uthaecBrutocervixabsente
crimen,
secetur.
inscelusitPharium
Romanipoenatyranni,
exemplumque
perit. (IO.34I-44)

Here Lucan praysthatCaesar may not be killedin Egypt. If that

happened,not only would thejust punishment
for tyrannicide
be
but
thwarted, theexample,theprecedent,
would be lost. In thesetwo
passages,Lucan clearlyrelishesthe thoughtof tyrannicide,
but it is
notuntilio thattheactis seenas a precedent.
Book 7 is the mostgloomyand wrathful
in theepic. The utter
hopelessness
of in totummundiprosternimur
aevom(640), the angry
postproelianatis/ Si dominum,
fortuna,
dabas,et belladedisses
(645-46)
have no equal elsewherein the Pharsalia. The extendedoutbursts
of angerat theRome of hisown day bespeaka furyand frustration
moreacutethanthatfoundin earlieror laterbooks. It mightindeed
be attractive
to dateitscomposition
to theperiodshortly
aftertheban.
In book 9, Lucanhas recoveredhispoisesomewhat. As he speaks
ofhisepic,he exclaimsthathe andCaesarwilllivein men'smemories:
Pharsalia
nostra

vivet,et a nullotenebris
damnabimur
aevo. (9.985-86).

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FREDERICK

22

M. AHL

[I97I

from
a poetwhohasjustbeenbanned
wordsfrom
Theseareconfident
ofhisworks. And,as we havenoted,in bookio
rccitation
further
By io, Lucanmustbe in the
is an exemplurn.
Lucan'styrannicide
conspiracy.44
of 7 to an
to assignthecomposition
then,be attractive
It might,

periodbetweenbanand conspiracy-aperiodofanger,frustrainterim
tionand powerlessness.
period,whatcouldLucanhave
If therewas indeedsuchan interim
been doingat the time? The mostwe can do is speculate,though
therearesomeclues,and theyareall in Tacitus,Annalesi5.5I-52.
VII. The beginningof the Pisonian Conspiracy

underwayagainst
hintNerohadthattherewasa conspiracy
The first
him came when the commanderof the fleetat Misenum,Volusius
Epicharisto the emperor. She
Proculus,broughtthe freedwoman
had suggestedthatProculusmightfindit advantageousto join the
Tacitusdoes
plot. Exactlyhow Epichariscame by thisinformation
not know-incertiim quonani iniodosciscitata. He tellsus thatshe happened to be in Campania-itnCanipaniaageuis-and approachedthe
VolusiusProculus. Once
leadersofthefleetat Misenum,in particular
metProculus-is
or
how
Epicharis
know
where
does
not
againTacitus
oli/tcognitus,seu recensorta amicitia. If, however, Epicharis
nmiulieri

had knownProculusforsome time,or spentsome timecultivating

withhim,shehadprobablyresidedin Campaniaforsome
a friendship
withNeroin
hisdissatisfaction
time. The factthatProculusdiscussed
her company,and the absenceof witnesseswhen he accusedher
was closeenoughfor
beforeNero surelyimplythattheirrelationship
inprivate.
theexchangeof confidences
have
chosento approachthecommanderof
should
ThatEpicharis
indicationthatshewas residing
thefleetat Misenummaybe further
thepraetorians
in Campaniaat thattime,sincethearmy-particularly
ifshehadbeen
her
efforts
for
a
more
been
target
have
logical
-would
fromRome. The fleetwouldhave beenof littlepractical
operating
are that
fora coIupd'etatat Rome. All in all theclhances
assistance
but
for
some
in
time,
resident
Campania
been
not
only
had
Epicharis
44

Cf. note 5 above.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol.

I02]

LUCAN

S 'DE

INCENDIO

URBIS'

23

thatshehadheardof theplottheretoo. Shemayevenhavebeen

connected
withthe householdof one of the conspirators.
Her
toNero'sinterrogators
reticence
aboutgivinginformation
evenunder
torture
thatshewasmorethana casualeavesdropper.
suggests
Had
Epicharis
talked,we wouldknowa lot moreabouttheconspiracy
thanwe knownow,foralltheprotests
oftheancient
authorities
about
how badlythesecretwas kept.45

We knowthatPisohada villaat BaiaewhichNerowasfondof

and to whichhe camewithout
visiting,
anyformal
guard-balneas
et epulasinibat
et
omissis
suaemole.46 Some of the
excubiis fortunae
wereobviously
conspirators
theideathatPiso'svillawould
favoring
be an idealsitefortheassassination.
Not onlyweretheyattracted
bythefactthatNerocamethere
without
formal
buttheywere
guard,
afraid
ofbetrayal.Itwasbecauseofmetu
as muchas anyproditionis
thingelsethattheywishedmaturare
caedem
apudBaiasinvillaPisonis.
Theirfearof betrayal-though
Tacitusdoesnotsuggest
this-might
wellhavebeentheresult
ofEpicharis'
arrest.It is therefore
possible
thattheconspirators
themselves
wereatBaiaeatthetime,
knewofher
andwereafraidof returning
arrest,
to Rome. Further
theycould
havehastened
scarcely
theassassination
at Piso'svillaunless(a) they
wereatBaiaeand(b)theyexpected
Nerotocomethere
intherelatively
nearfuture.Thisfurther
increases
thepossibility
thatEpicharis
was
connected
withthehousehold
of one of theconspirators,
and had
beensentto Misenum,
justa fewmilesaway,to winoverVolusius
Proculus.
ThusPisoandtheconspirators
maywellhavebeenatBaiaetowards
theendof 64 or thebeginning
of 65. SinceLucanseemsto have
beeninvolved
in theconspiracy
after
itsinception,
shortly
it is quite
possiblethathe was at Baiaearoundthebeginning
of65 whenthe
propertimeandplacefortheassassination
wasbeingdiscussed.But
Tacitus,AninalesI5.5I and Suetonius333.6-9.
Baiae had been a favoriteresortwith Nero and his family. We learnfromAnnales
I4.4 that Nero regularlyattendedthe feastof Minerva at Baiae. Ironically,it was at
Baiae thatNero attemptedto have Agrippina drowned, when he invited her to come
to stay with him at Bauli, just a few miles away (cf. Suetonius,Nero 34). In Annales
13.2I,
Agrippina findsfaultwith Nero's aunt Domitia for spendingtoo much time at
Baiae, and in II.I Decimus Valerius Asiaticus was apparentlytaking life easy there
at the time of his arrest. Cf. J. H. D'Arms, Romanson theBay of Naples (Cambridge,
Mass. I970) 94-99, 205-6.
45
46

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

24

FREDERICK

M.

AHL

[I971

ifwe canacceptthe
he enteredtheplot? Possibly,
was he therebefore
followinghypothesis.Aftertheban Piso mayhaveinvitedLucanto
cometo visithimat Baiae, or Lucanmayhavegonethereof hisown
volition. He must,no doubt,havewonderedwhatto do. He either
ifyou like,
had to patchthingsup withNero,to makecompensation,
et error,
or enjoya lifeof luxuryuntilNero's death,
forhis carmen
hopingthathe would outlivehisemperor. Of course,he could also
entera plotto killhim.
of65,andLucanarrived
But iftherewas no plotuntilthebeginning
at Baiae in Augustor September64, he may at firsthave triedto
persuadeNero to relent. He may,afterthe fashionof Ovid, have
chosento writesome apologeticepistlesin thestyleof theEpistulae
Epistulaeex Campania.
ex Pontoto bringabout a reconciliation-the
touchof writingOvidianepistlesfromtheluxury
The melodramatic
out of keepingwiththespiritof the
of a Baian villais notaltogether
rejectedbyNero,
werecategorically
age. Ifandwhentheseovertures
he
Piso,who would have beencloseat hand,had theviablematerial
needed. Lucan'svividaodiawouldhavebeencomplete. Theremay,
thatLucan was deceptus
in Vacca's suggestion
afterall, be something
have had
a Pisone. And what greatercatchcould the conspirators
thana poet who could writeof themto theworldas thesuccessors
ofBrutus?
yet,given
vagueand insubstantial;
is,of necessity,
Thishypothesis,
Camfrom
written
in
verse
and
were
(b)
(a)
thefactthattheEpistulae
to connecttheirappearancewith
pania,it doesnotseemunreasonable
a periodof timewhenLucanwas in Campania,in all likelihood.
VIII. Lucan's motivation: a finalnote
and will,
At thisjuncture,many questionsremainunanswered,
presumably,remain so indefinitely.So far, however,we have
erraticbeno generalexplanationof Lucan's apparently
attempted
a
to
havior. IfLucancould,as I haveargued,look forward successful
politicaland poeticalcareer,whydid he becomesucha fierceenemy
of the emperoras to attackhim in an open and dangerousway?
to writetheLaudesNeropresumably,
Afterall, he had nothesitated,
he
tlhat
Nero'sfriendship
nianaein 6o, and it musthavebeenthrough

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol. 102]

LUCAN

S 'DE

INCENDIO

URBIS

25

was elevated
rankbefore
thelegal
to thequaestorship
andsenatorial
age. He owedhisentire
to Nero-with,posadvancement
political
sibly,somehelpfromSeneca. Hiscautious
unclewouldhardly
have
himagainst
turned
Neroinsuchan obviousway.
Perhaps
thefatalstep,so faras Nerowasconcerned,
waselevating
Lucanto senatorial
rankat sucha youngage. All oursourceson
Lucanagreethatthepoetwasmercurial
intemperament,
andPharsalia
theworkofsomeonebothardens
7 is clearly
andconcitatus.47
Nero,
no lessthanhispredecessors,
underrated
thatthesenate
theeffect
and
itstraditions
couldhaveuponevenhisownnominees.Thebackbone
ofsenatorial
resistance
camefromthenewaristocracy
the
throughout
firstcentury
A.D.-men likePaetusThrasea,
HelvidiusPriscusand
Herennius
Senecio. PaetusThraseaseemsto havequiteconsciously
emulated
Cato,andwe shouldnotforget
thathe was in thesenate
whenLucanentered
thecuriaforthefirst
time,somewhere
around
A.D. 62-63. Thecareer
ofCiceroshouldhavebeena warning
to the
principes
thatthechiefspokesmen
of senatorial
conservatism
may
indeedbe novihomines.
Duringthefirst
century,
thesenate
a symbol
remained
oftherepublicanpast,andwithit remained
all thehollowtrappings
ofthehigh
politicaloffices
of quaestor,
praetorand consul. It is nothardto
imaginethata youngman,suchas Lucan,couldbe movedby the
awesome
starkness
ofwhathadoncebeenthehubofRomanpower.
thecontrast
Surely
between
present
andpastmusthavebecomedeeply
impressed
uponhimas he tookhisplacealongwithPiso,Lateranus
andThrasea
whereScipio,CatoandBrutus
hadoncesat.
It was,no doubt,hiselevation
to thesenatethatmovedhimto
writethePharsalia,
thedesire
toportray
thatcrucial
moment
inhistory
whentherepublic
finally
disintegrated.
Hisexperience
in thesenate
slowlydrewhimawayfromNero. ForLucan,asa manofliterature,
was steeped
in therepublican
traditions
of history
andpoetry;as a
helivedintheshelloftheRomanpast. Thefirst
politician,
recitations
of hisepicmusthavedisturbed
Neroprofoundly.
He walkedout
on one of them,notnecessarily
through
jealousy,butin angerand
shockattheeffects
ofsenatorial
influences
on hiserstwhile
friend.
47

I5.49

iuvenili... animi calore(Vacca 336.3). Cf. Suetonius,passinmand Tacitus, Annales

and 70 and Quintilian,
Inst.Or. IO.I.90.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

26

FREDERICK

M.

AHL

[1971

This rejectionby hisemperorwas all thatLucanneededto plunge

camp. Whentherumor
intothesenatorial
himfinally
anddecisively
mensettingfireto
Nero's
seen
had
ex-consuls
some
got aroundthat
Lucan took up hispen and wrotetheDe Ince,dio Urbis.48
buildings,
ban,
This was all Nero could take. He reactedwitha devastating
whichputan endtoLucan'scareer. Witllthatcametherudeawakening to therealityof Nero'spower; then,perhaps,Lucan's attemptto
compromise,the Epistulacex Camnpania.But it was too late, and
Nero refused. Piso was waitingwithopen arms. Finally,thelast,
sad chapter:in writingtheEpistulaeex Cainpania,thepoethad placed
his desireto writepoetryabove his dedicationto principle. When
in theplothe statedthathisownl mother,
he was accusedofcomplicity
butthere
Acilia,was alsoinvolved. He mayhavesaiditsarcastically,
seemsto be no reasonto doubtthathe saidit. Lucanappearedtohave
again. Henlcethe venom of Suetoniustowardshim
compromised
of Tacitus.
and thecontempt
But Suetoniusand Tacitus,unfairas theyare inljudgingtheactions
else abouthim whichwas
of Lucan,had probablynotedsomething
important.49Afterthe discoveryof the Pisonianconspiracy,the
enragedNero turnedto a purgeof everyonewho mighthaveshown
with voice or pen. Petronius,who championedRose's
disloyalty
" lessearnest
" literary
clique,faredno betterthanhis" rival" Seneca
criticis a
in theaftermath.Lucanhad taughtNero thatthedissident
well
as
and
Suetonius
Tacitus
knew,
lesson
assassin-a
which,
potential
neverforgot.
Nero'ssuccessors
APPENDIX
TentativeChronologyforLucan'sActivities
from6I-65

toimplythat
rank(???). Vaccaseemns
to senatorial
Lucanelevated
standing
priorto his quaestorship.
Lucanwas givensenatorial
veryconfused.
Vacca'saccount
is,however,

6I

For theex-consulsand thefire,see Suetonius,Nero38. Cf. Beaujeu (above, note i i).

Tacitus does finallygive Lucan somethingapproachinga complimentin Annales
I6.17, where he describesLucan's fatherMela enjoying added fame from his son's
clarittudinis.
grantde
adiieniei-tuml
geniucrat,
Lucaniiiiii
reputation:identAnnaetum148

49

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Vol.

102]

LUCAN

S 'DE

INCENDIO

URBIS

27

62-63 December5th,62 or 63. Lucantakesoffice

as quaestor. If63,then
the ban takes effectduring Lucan's quaestorship.Since Vacca
attributes
the quaestorshipto the "happy days" December62 is
preferable.AroundthesametimeLucanbecomesan augur. Also,
workprobablybeginson thePharsaliain either62 or 63.
64
Recitationsof PharsaliaI-3 and theirpublication. Possiblyalso
recitations
of 4-6, with publicationpendingjust beforethe ban.
During one of theserecitations
(no later than the end of June,
probablyearlier)Nero walks out, summoninga meetingof the
senate. Open hostility
betweeLucan and Nero.
July-August:
Fireof Rome. The De Incendio
Urbis,theAdlocutio
ad Pollam. The ban.
August-December:completionof Pharsalia7 and 8. Lucan
withdrawsto Baiae. The Epistulaeex Campania.
64-65 December-February:
Nero rejectsconciliatory
moves. Lucanjoins
Piso.
February-April.Lucan continueswork on Pharsalia9 and iO.
65
Detectionof Pisonianconspiracy. Arrestand deathof Lucan.
No attemptis made in theabove chartto accountforLucan'sotherworks.
The chancesare thattheyall belongto before64. The OctaviusSagitta
orationsare probablysuasoriaconnectedwith the trialof Octaviusin 58.
The Laudes Neronianae,Orpheus,Iliaconand Catachthonion
are probably
assignableto 6o-6i, if not earlier(exceptthe Orpheusand Laudeswhich
clearlybelongto 6o). The Silvae,the Medea,the SalticaeFabulaeand the
Epigrammata
(or whatevertheywere) are veryhard to date. They could
possiblybe assignedto 6i-63.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:38:13 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions