Curio, Juba and the Limits of Myth in Lucan's <i>Bellum Civile</i>

Abstract

In his comments on Lucan’s treatment of Curio at B.C. 4.581-824, Fred Ahl writes that the narrative is “key to the entire epic” (1972, p. 1000, cf. Saylor 1982). Curio’s defeat is certainly a marked moment in the text – not only does it further demonstrate the decay of Roman power and mores, but, in including a description of the wrestling match between Hercules and the African giant Antaeus, the narrative also contains one of only two extended mythological excurses in Bellum Civile (the other is the description of Medusa at 9.619ff.). The story of Hercules’ victory over Antaeus is juxtaposed with Curio’s defeat in a way that suggests we are to read them in light of one another. Accordingly, correspondences between the two scenes and the characters themselves have been proposed and discussed with varying conclusions as to who represents whom (e.g., Saylor 1982, Thompson and Bruere 1970, Grimal 1949). In contrast to this approach, I argue that Lucan deliberately confuses the correlations between the mythic narrative and Curio’s defeat, and in doing so, he denies us the satisfaction of interpreting Curio’s struggle in light of the myth. Lucan even uses Curio, who hears the story from a Libyan local and then subsequently misinterprets it, as an example of the “misreading” of the mythic tale within the context of civil war (B.C. 4.661-5). In the end, both Curio and Juba fail to measure up fully to either Hercules or Antaeus, who belong to a remote and unattainable mythic tradition. Lucan’s depiction of Hercules and Antaeus in itself emphasizes this distance. Not only does the wrestling match contain many comic elements and quickly devolves into a paradox (B.C. 4.646-9), but Lucan explicitly models the match on Ovid’s Hercules and Achelous (Met. 9.1-88, esp. 9.32-61). Lucan’s gestures toward the Ovidian model imbue the narrative with hints of parody that further complicate any attempts to take the description seriously. Curio and Juba fare even worse. Both vacillate between representing either Hercules or Antaeus at different points in the narrative (B.C. 4.723, 748, 754-58), and their battle concludes with a paradoxical outcome of its own: Curio’s men, surrounded and packed the enemy into a tight circle, wound and kill themselves with their own weapons (B.C. 4.779-7). Unlike their mythic counterparts, neither Curio nor Juba are victores: Curio’s army is the instrument of its own defeat and a re-enactment of Rome’s act of turning the sword inward upon her own viscera through civil war (in sua victrici conversum viscera dextra B.C. 1.3). Lucan’s treatment of myth in this episode certainly gives new meaning to the commonplace idea that one of Lucan’s stylistic goals is to “out-Ovid Ovid.” Insofar as Ovid’s own often flippant adaptations of myth, especially in the Metamorphoses, are a reaction to the serious historicizing treatment of Vergil, Lucan takes the process one step further by even more explicitly severing the bonds between myth and history. In the Bellum Civile, myth itself is ridiculous, but even more so is the historical truth that has been defined by and arisen from civil war and Caesar’s ascent to power. Select Bibliography Ahl, F. 1972. “Hercules and Curio: Some Comments on Pharsalia IV, 581-824. Latomus 31: 997-1009. ______. 1976. Lucan: An Introduction. Cornell University Press. Ithaca, NY. Grimal, P. 1949. “L’Episode d’Antee dans la Pharsale.” Latomus 8: 55-61. Martindale, C. 1981. “Lucan’s Hercules: Padding or Paradigm? A Note on De Bello Civili 4.589-660” Symbolae Osloenses 56: 71-80. Phillips, O.C. 1962. The Influence of Ovid on Lucan’s Bellum Civile. Diss. University of Chicago. Saylor, C. 1982. “Curio and Antaeus: The African Episode of Lucan Pharsalia IV.” TAPA 112: 169-77. Thompson, L. and R.T. Bruere. 1970. “The Vergilian Background to Lucan’s Fourth Book.” CP 65: 152-72.