Esposito gathers ten articles, offered in memoriam of Emanuele Narducci, who renewed the reading and the reception of Lucan's Pharsalia in 1970s with La provvidenza crudele. Lucano e la distruzione dei miti augustei (1979). Although these articles are not necessarily thematically united by a heuristic method or by their way of reading the epic, the references to the main works of Narducci constitute their coherence. Some of his main works are quoted and discussed, especially the two monographs that he dedicated to Lucan. La provvidenza crudele. Lucano e la distruzione dei miti augustei (1979) was groundbreaking in establishing the intertextual relationships between Lucan and Augustan poets, such as Virgil (pp. 20; 70; 149); Narducci's main conclusions in Lucano. Un'epica contro l'impero (2002) are echoed in several articles, as the meaning of Nigidius Figulus’ prophecy in Phars. 1 compared to Jupiter's (Aen. 1) (p. 47), the links between Virgil's Sibyl and Erictho (Phars. 6) (p. 70); the portrait of Cato like ‘a spiritual guide and a moral educator’ (p. 150). Narducci's article ‘Osservazioni sui rapporti tra Lucano e le sue fonti storiche’ (in: Evento, racconto, scrittura nell'antichità classica [2003]) is also a cornerstone for the discussion of historical sources, as evoked by G.A. Ranzani's conclusions (p. 132). Confirming Narducci's pivotal position in Latin studies, this volume still proves, if need be, his long-lasting influence on contemporary scholarship on Lucan.
The ten articles offer a broad overview of the diversity of classical studies, focusing in four directions: intertextual reading, thematic and generic analysis of the epic, philological investigation and reception study.
Four articles explore Lucan's sources and models in an intertextual reading of the Pharsalia. Two of them opportunely renew the question of Caesar's literary heritage in the Pharsalia, which could be further developed by scholars (cf. esp. J. Masters, Poetry and Civil War in Lucan's BC [1992], pp. 16–19, and A. Gowing, Empire and Memory [2005], p. 83). Ranzani's contribution, ‘La fine di Curione in Lucano e il suo rapporto con De bello Gallico e De bello civili di Cesare’, focuses on Curio, described as full of temeritas and audacia by both ancient authors. However, before he unheroically dies, he finally refuses to flee the fight (Caes. BC 2.42; Lucan 4.797). Like Ranzani, who compares Curio to Barbarian leaders, such as Titurius in BG 5, M. Heinemann, in ‘Caesar and the Mutinies: BG 1, 39–42 and Lucan 5, 237–373’, likewise convincingly shows that nonetheless BC and also BG are intertextual sources for Lucan, one of the most convincing conclusions of these articles. The mutiny in Caesar's army (Lucan 5.237–373) may indeed be inspired by the mutiny at Vesontio (BG 1.39–41), when frightened Roman troops refuse to fight against the German Ariovistus. The opposition between two Caesars, a logical and rational leader in BG and a frightening war chief, convinced of Pompey's inferiority, in Lucan's epic is particularly relevant (pp. 144–5). As Heinemann says, ‘the missing appeal to reason or sense of duty is characteristic for the difference between Gallic and Civil War’ (p. 145). References to M. Rambaud's arguments (L'Art de la déformation historique dans les Commentaires de César [1977]) could have helpfully underlined Caesar's self-valuation strategy evoked (pp. 130 or 145–6) in relation to the enemies’ military inferiority.
Two articles deal with Lucan's main poetic models, i.e. Virgil's poems. M. Kersten, in ‘Lettori in Lucano, lettori di Lucano e la memoria letteraria: il caso delle Georgiche’, analyses Lucan's didactic voice in the intertextual relationship with the Georgics, mainly the end of Georg. 1, like an expression of ‘antivirgilianismo’. Lucan converts his post-Augustan perspective in an ambition to tell the ‘prequel’ of the Georgics (p. 10) and to announce the pessimistic description of civil war's consequences. Lucan undermines Virgil's enthusiasm and his ethical message, proclaiming the makarismos of Augustan times. With a new stimulating device called ‘metapoetic realism’ Kersten defines the intertextual dialogue between historic characters and literary works. References to S. Casali (‘The Bellum Civile as an Anti-Aeneid’, in: P. Asso [ed.], Brill's Companion to Lucan [2011], p. 104) could have been usefully introduced and confronted with the pessimistic ending of Georg. 1. L. Pontiggia, in ‘Struttura e ideologia nella Farsalia di Lucano (con alcune speculazioni sul finale)’, confronts the Aeneid's and the Pharsalia's epic structure and emphasises the main ideological meanings of the Pharsalia, with some hypothesis about its ending. He shows especially that, after the climax of war in Book 7 of both the epics, Book 8 is a new beginning (‘la Farsalia sembra qui ricominciare daccapo’, p. 63). The description of Pompey's grove at the end of Book 8 (Lucan 8.858–72) echoes the ekphrasis of Aeneas’ shield at the end of Aen. 8. Both embody an auctorial sphragis and a prophetic vision of Rome. A closer reading of F. Galtier's book (L'Empreinte des morts. Relation entre mort, mémoire et reconnaissance dans la Pharsale de Lucain [2018], esp. pp. 85–90 on the importance of groves in the epic) could have usefully underlined the importance of memory in Lucan's epic. The closure of Aen. 8 and Phars. 8 prepares the end of both epics with the death of Turnus (Aen. 12) and Caesar (Phars. 12) respectively: L. Pontiggia argues that the Pharsalia ends with Caesar's assassination, according to B.M. Marti's hypothesis (‘La structure de la Pharsale’, in: Lucain, Entretiens de la Fondation Hardt [1970], pp. 11–15).
Thematic and stylistic aspects are discussed by S. Poletti, in ‘Catastrofi annunciate e provvidenza crudele. Dèi, signa e profezie alle soglie della guerra civile’: following Narducci's concept of provvidenza crudele (1979), this article connects it to three main models – Cicero, De consulatu suo (fr. 10 Courtney); Virgil, with respect to the portents of Georg. 1.466–88; Ovid, as regards the end of Met. 15. It would also be interesting to confront Lucan's treatment of signa with the Stoic concept of divination (especially Chrysippus’ theory of divination). Poletti concludes that portents appearing after Caesar crosses the Rubicon (Phars. 1.522–695) announce the upcoming nefas of civil war, reveal the absence of miseratio of the gods towards the Romans and enable Lucan to challenge the poets of the Augustan period, especially in terms of the way in which they describe Jupiter (Aen. 1 or Met. 15). G. Celotto, in ‘Cato's Teachings of Virtus: Gruesome Deaths in Lucan Bellum civile 9 and in the Hercules Oetaeus’, reveals similarities between the Pharsalia, especially as regards the fight between the Catonians and snakes (9.741–889), and three scenes of Hercules Oetaeus (185–566; 1279–89; 1642–757). Celotto exposes some philological controversies about the meaning of this scene of the Pharsalia and, because of tragic intertextuality, refuses its grotesque interpretation (cf. W.R. Johnson, Momentary Monsters [1987], pp. 56–7, on ‘the comic-ugly’). The death of the Stoic hero Hercules constitutes an example of uirtus (HO 1687–8) for Catonians (Lucan 9.886–7). Lucan's gruesome style, especially in this passage, expresses an ethical issue and assumes a philosophical reading of the epic.
F. Barrière, in ‘Note critiche su Lucano’, analyses four philological difficulties in Phars. 1: he rejects G. Luck's conjecture (2009, p. 601) aquilas aquilis in the place of pares aquilas (Lucan 1.7) despite two other cases of polyptoton in the first verses of the epics. Then Barrière considers two philological variants in the praise of Nero: (1) secreta mouentem and secreta tenentem (Lucan 1.64–5) and argues against replacing the first phrase; (2) he proposes to keep the variant nec te si pectore uates | accipio (Lucan 1.63–4) against nec sit e pectore uates | accipio. So he revises the reading of one of the most famous texts of the Pharsalia.
Three articles embrace the impact of Lucan from the Middle Ages to the sixteenth century. V. D'Urso, in ‘L’imitatio lucanea nell’Alexandreis di Gualtiero di Châtillon: primi sondaggi’, first emphasises the importance of Lucan's poetry for French poets of the twelfth century, especially for the Alexandreis of Gaultier. The article picks up several loci similes (for example the convincing comparison between the first verse of each epic, pp. 170–1), some borrowings of hexametric clausulae and the ethical references to Alexander's velocity and to Caesar's (this topic is discussed by M. Leigh, ‘César coup de foudre. La signification d'un symbole chez Lucain’, in: Lucain en débat [2010], which is not cited). However stimulating, it would be relevant to underline that, nonetheless, Caesar inspires Alexander in Gaultier's Alexandreis, but Alexander inspires Caesar in Lucan 10.1–46. Then, according to B. Facchini, in ‘Lucan's Pompey between Petrarch and Boccaccio’, Lucan is quoted by humanist poets. Pompey, especially in Phars. 8, becomes a tragic and poignant character, inspiring Mago's tragic soliloquy in Petrarch, Afr. 6.888–95 (cf. Lucan 8.610–12), whereas Scipio is modelled on Lucan's Caesar. Boccaccio presents Pompey like a tragic character according to Aristotle's definition of the transition of fortune from prosperity to adversity in Filoloco IV, Amorosa Visione, the Elegia di Madonna Fiammetta or De Casibus. After Nicholas Trivet's analyses, in the fourteenth century, the Pharsalia was considered as a text in which epic and tragedy are intertwined. Finally, according to A. Mancini, in ‘Benvenuto da Imola: un turning point nella scolastica lucanea?’, Lucan is still very present at the end of the fourteenth and the beginning of the fifteenth centuries. The Recollecte of Benvenuto da Imola open a new chapter in Lucan's exegesis, standing as the main humanist reinterpretation of the Pharsalia. The article underlines the work's influence on several humanist commentators such as Domenico di Bandino, Folchino Borfoni, Pietro da Parma, Gugliermo Capello or Ludovico Carbone and explains it by an intensive circulation of exegetic traditions from Ferrara to the rest of Italy.
These ten articles confirm Emanuele Narducci's importance in studies devoted to the Pharsalia and offer a stimulating approach to Lucan's fortune through Latin literature.
