|
In Book 6 of Lucan's Bellum Civile the witch Erictho, at the request of Pompey's son Sextus, creates a necromantic prophet. She selects the corpse of a soldier slain on the battlefield as suitable for her purpose, and brings it back to life by pouring noxious potions into the body. Once this process is completed, the witch compels the reanimated corpse to prophesy the future for Sextus Pompey. The corpse's prophecy (6.778-820) fortells, among other things, the defeat of Pompey and the subsequent assassination of Caesar. Without question, this is a far more informative disclosure than the one received by Appius from the Delphic oracle in the previous book (5.65-236). Erictho's sneering words at 6.770-1 (tripodas vatesque deorum / sors obscura decet) underline the point. Nonetheless, though certainly full of specific data, the corpse's prophecy remains a riddling one on a number of scores. This is perhaps surprising: given the earlier enumeration of Erictho's vast powers (6.507ff.), mere prophecy should be a trivial enough feat. Moreover, as Masters has convincingly demonstrated, Lucan's energetic build-up to the prophecy creates the expectation of a clear and full disclosure of the future. [1] Time and again the poet underscores the promise of a complete and satisfying prophecy. First in Sextus Pompey' request at 6.592 (te precor ut certum liceat mihi noscere finem); then in Erictho's numerous utterances (facilesque aditus multique patebunt / ad verum, 6.616-7; nec ... / incertum ... strideat umbra, 6.622-3; omnia ... / .... canat ... umbra, 6.716-7; certus discedat, ab umbris / quisquis vera petit, 6.771-2); and finally even in the narrative itself (addidit et carmen, quo, quidquid consulit, umbram / scire dedit, 6.775-6). Hence, when the corpse's opening statement is a denial of precise knowledge (tristia non equidem Parcarum stamina, dixit, / aspexi tacitae revocatus ab aggere ripae, 6.777-8), the effect is a stunning anti-climax. Yet again, the petitioner must be content with only partial knowledge. The Repeated PromiseIt is certainly true that Sextus Pompey is given an accurate picture of the general outcome of the war. He is clearly informed that his father's cause is doomed, though the cadaver consoles him with the prospect of a familial abode in Elysium (6.802-5). More importantly, it is implied at 6.810-11 that Caesar's death will follow hard upon that of Pompey. Even the deification of the Caesars, an unnecessary item of information, is scathingly prophesied. Thus, in broad strokes, the corpse has faithfully foretold the outcome of the civil war. As to Sextus' own fate, the corpse is considerably less forthcoming. Pompey's son is specifically told not to ask about his own future: tu fatum ne quaere tuum (6.812). It is clear that this imperative is an echo of Anchises' pathos-laden remark to Aeneas: o gnate, ingentem luctum ne quaere tuorum (Aen. 6.868). But, as Masters has noted, Lucan has completely transformed the sense of his model. Instead of Anchises' rhetorical command ("do not ask, it is too terrible"), which is of course followed by an elaboration, the corpse delivers a literal injunction ("do not ask, because I am not going to tell you"). [2] The cadaver bluntly declines to give precise information as to the circumstances of Sextus' downfall, merely offering the vague promise of a future oracle that will offer more specific details:
This is clearly an evasion, a deferral, and far from the certitude which Erictho had promised: in fact the adjective incertus provides a pointed rebuttal of Erictho's very words (771-2): certus discedat, ab umbris / quisquis vera petit. The phraseology of the deferral provides a clear echo of Erictho's earlier request:
This echo (which is overlooked in Masters' excellent analysis of the passage) underscores the lack of progress that has been made in ascertaining the future. Erictho's promise (request is hardly a strong enough word, and the reader should at this point be wary of the witch's "polite" moments) at 6.716-7 is not fulfilled by the cadaver - it is merely repeated. What is the purpose behind this repetition? The Promise Fulfilled?To answer this question, it is necessary first to consider whether Lucan ever intended to fulfill the cadaver's promise. That is, did he plan to include a subsequent prophetic encounter between Sextus and his dead father, Siculis in arvis, in a later chapter of his unfinished epic? The obvious answer is that given by Wiese: "no doubt this refers to some episode which Lucan intended to introduce into a later book." [3] But a careful consideration of the larger context suggests the improbability of such a conclusion. To begin with, in the epic as it now stands, Lucan has carefully arranged a graduated sequence of oracular scenes that reaches a logical and moral climax with Cato's dismissal of the oracle of Zeus Ammon at 9.566ff. To add an elaborated prophetic passage after that climax would be virtually inconceivable. Moreover, the Erictho scene is clearly intended as the final word on the power of oracular foresight (facilesque aditus multique patebunt / ad verum: tellus nobis aetherque chaosque / aequoraque et campi Rhodopaeaque saxa loquentur, 6.616ff.). Lucan's narrative had already explored licit means to precognition (quid tacitum sed fas erat, 6.430) - which is surely what Pompey's oracle would have been - and with the Erictho passage has moved onto the realm of the illicit. If, then, there was to be no further prophetic sequence in a completed Bellum Civile, it remains to seek the meaning of the cadaver's repeated promise. The repetition (as opposed to fulfillment) of the promise serves to underline the fact that, in spite of Erictho's efforts, no significant gain in foreknowledge has been made. Erictho's avowed goal at 6.771-2, certus discedat, ab umbris / quisquis vera petit, proves to be as elusive for her as it was for Appius. In Virgilian terms, the poet has to this point been modelling the dead soldier's prophecy on the underworld prophecy in Aeneid 6. With the repeated promise, however, Lucan moves to a new Virgilian model: namely, the partial prophecy of Helenus (Aen. 3.374-463). [4] The cadaver's prophecy of a subsequent and more complete prophecy by Sextus' father clearly echoes Helenus' mention of a subsequent and more complete prophecy by the Sybil at Cumae (Aen. 3.441-460). It is a neat reversal. While Virgil's narrative movement is towards greater prophetic clarity, Lucan's prophecy emphatically promises the clarity of Aeneid 6, only to lapse into the obscurity of Aeneid 3. As Masters notes, there are some quite precise verbal reminiscences of the Virgilian prophecy of Helenus. Lucan's Siculis ... arvis (6.814) recalls Virgil's Siculo ... arvaque (Aen. 3.418). Pompey is to be Sextus' vates (6.813), just as the Sibyl is described as Aeneas' vatem (Aen. 3.456). The roles of both vates are described in like fashion: ipse canet (814); ipsa canat (Aen. 3.456). Finally, each passage mentions the controlling power of the Fates: cognoscere Parcae / ... dabunt, 6.812-3; prohibent ... Parcae / scire (Aen. 3.379-80). Nonetheless, Lucan has, as always, turned Virgil on his head. As the foregoing juxtaposition of 6.812-3 and Aen. 3.379-80 shows, Virgil's Helenus wishes to say more, but is forbidden by the Parcae. Lucan's cadaver, by contrast, seems unwilling to say more (me reticente, 6.813), in spite of the apparent licence granted by the Parcae. Lucan provides a further inversion, cleverly based on Sextus' (historical) campaign of piracy after the death of his father. Helenus, Virgil's earlier and lesser prophet, mentions that Aeneas' path will take him to Sicily (ubi digressum Siculae te admoverit orae, Aen. 3.410). He then proceeds to give the Trojan leader precise directions as to which route to follow: laeva tibi tellus et longo laeva petantur / aequora circuitu; dextram fuge litus et undas (ib. 412-3). By contrast, Pompey, Lucan's second and greater prophet, will prove unable to supply directions once Sextus has reached Sicily: ille quoque incertus, quo te vocet, unde repellat, quas iubeat vitare plagas, quae sidera mundi (6.815-6). By combining the two principal Virgilian prophecies into one, and by reversing their order of appearance, Lucan has created a kind of intertextual inversion. The cadaver, in the role of the Virgilian Helenus, promises a further prophecy; but, speaking in Virgilian terms, that "future" prophecy (i.e. the equivalent of the prophecy of Anchises in Aeneid 6) has already been delivered. For Lucan's equivalent of Anchises' prophecy is, of course, the underworld vision that immediately precedes the repeated promise (i.e. 6.780-811). Thus, the logical flow of causation found in the Aeneid is reversed, and, speaking intertextually, the prophecy is self-confounding. The Prophetic LureThe promise of 813-816 is itself rather paradoxical: Sextus is promised that he will be given a prophet who is certior (6.813) and yet at the same time incertus (6.815). This, I think, is more than merely "a glimpse of the impasse into which Sextus falls after his defeat by Agrippa in Sicily". [5] It appears to be an outright deception, a willful contrivance to lure Sextus to the site of his ultimate ruin, to his Pharsalia. As Masters notes: "the equivocal nature of the prophecy seems deliberately to lure Sextus to the scenes of his defeat, just as Phemonoe's oracle lures Appius to his death in Euboea as if it were the place to which he would escape from the dangers of civil war." [6] Not only is there little doubt that Lucan did not intend to narrate this Sicilian prophecy, there should be considerable doubt as to whether the cadaver itself actually believed that the prophecy would be delivered. One additional argument is needed to complete Masters' analysis, which fails to support the suggestion of a deliberate prophetic deception. The deception can, I think, be demonstrated by broadening the intertextual link with Virgilian prophetic scenes. For the corpse's prophecy, it would appear, is not merely an amalgam of the Anchises and Helenus prophecies; there is a further evocation of the brief prophecy delivered on the island of Delos (Aen. 3.84-120) in the conclusion to the cadaver's prophecy (6.814-20). There are significant parallels between the two passages. First, the series of (indirect) questions asked by the cadaver recalls those asked by Virgil's Trojans:
Secondly, Lucan's mention of the fall of Pompey nicely reverses the mention of the rise of the house of Aeneas in Virgil:
Finally, there is the pointed reference to Pompey as genitor (an epic word rarely used by Lucan), echoing the same word used for Anchises at Aen. 3.102. In the Virgilian passage, Aeneas and his men receive a riddling oracle telling them to seek the land which was their "ancient mother" (antiquam matrem). The point is that this oracle is misinterpreted by Anchises, who as a result directs Aeneas to the wrong island (Crete). The intertextual links between the two passages, then, point to a thematic correspondence - the common element being a perplexed father unwittingly misleading his son. Lucan is drawing on the precedent of Anchises mistakenly leading his son to the wrong island to hint that Sextus is here being lured to the wrong island by his father - or at least, by the suggestion to seek a consultation with his father. Like Anchises, Pompey will be unable to provide useful guidance for his son. The Willfulness of FateIn other words, and in spite of Erictho's best efforts, Fate is ultimately seen to have its own agenda. In the final analysis, Lucan remains committed to the paradox of specific and personal foreknowledge: like all other petitioners, Sextus is not told enough to be able to change Fate's grand design. And this is, after all, precisely what Erictho admitted in the first place (si quicquam mutare velis ... / ... tum - Thessala turba fatemur - / plus Fortuna potest, 6.613-5). The quest for certain knowledge of the future, Lucan implies, is constrained in some manner. How? The witch herself tells Sextus obliquely in a passage that has been almost universally dismissed as off-topic:
The greater power of Fata/Fortuna, then, exerts itself when global fate hangs in the balance. And this is surely what is at play in 6.813-4; Sextus Pompey is lured to Sicily, the site of his ultimate defeat, with the false promise of a further oracle because this is what Fate requires. Thus, after deliberately raising expectations, Lucan ends his third and final prophetic sequence with deception and anticlimax. Footnotes[1] Here the analysis of Masters (1992: 196-200) is being followed. His assessment of the disclosure is worth quoting in full (1992: 200): "... not only is the necromancy shown to be ineffectual because the corpse ... has not learned enough in the underworld to say anything precise, but further the corpse falls into the same 'silence' which characterized other, legal forms of prophecy ... Indeed, it is hard to distinguish the obfuscations of the corpse's prophecy from the ambiguities of Phemonoe's oracle. We readers, with hindsight, think we can understand exactly what the corpse is predicting: the defeat and death of Pompey, Caesar's victory and eventual assassination, ... But how much of this is explicit? None: the corpse provides his consultee with nothing but signs ..." [3] Cited by Haskins 1887 ad loc. [4] Again following Masters 1992: 199-200. Heitland's (1887: cxxi) equation of the passage with Aen. 5.731ff. is, in my opinion, less significant. Related Articles: Poem Summary | Poetic Style | Versification | Characters | Bibliography |