Homeric precedents in the representation of Lucan’s Pompey

Summary: this paper examines the Homeric legacy of Pompey; it is argued that
Pompey‟s assertions of authority are reminiscent of Agamemnon‟s claim to superior
power in the Iliad. When Pompey advances against the enemy in book 6, he is
additionally directly connected with Hector and more specifically with his fighting
against the Achaean walls and ships. Lastly, Pompey‟s farewell speech to his wife shares
many characteristics with the counterpart speech of Hector and Andromache.

Critics have bypassed the intertextual similarity between Lucan‟s Pompey and
Homer‟s Agamemnon and completely ignored the role that Homer‟s Hector played in the
formation of Pompey‟s character especially in certain phases of his literary life. Instead,
emphasis has been placed on the relation between Caesar and Achilles, whereas the
Homeric precedents of Pompey remain unexplored.1 Pompey‟s situation matches with
Agamemnon‟s. He also constitutes the powerful military part in the respective quarrel
between the “kings” Pompey-Agamemnon and the “soldiers” Caesar-Achilles. When he
says that there is nothing above him except tyranny (BC. 2.562-6), Pompey presents
himself as the most powerful individual in Rome. A Homeric-like presentation of
Pompey as the king of kings is supported by his self-assertive claims and reinforces his
belief that both consuls will side with him so he will control the generals in hinc acies
statura ducum est (BC 2.566).2

The implication of this reference gives insight into the intertextuality with Homer.
Pompey is said in various later sources to have been called Agamemnon and “king of

1
The question of Lucan‟s intertextuality with Homer has focused mainly on the relation between Caesar
and Achilles, see Green 1991: 230-54, Christophorou 2010: 177-191. However, the relation between
Pompey and Agamemnon was discussed only by Von Albrecht 1968: 272-77.
2
For the text of Lucan, I follow the edition of Schackleton Bailey 1988. For the text of Homer‟s Iliad, I
follow the edition of West 1988, and 2000.

1
kings” by different members of his party3. Bearing this fact in mind, it is interesting to
explore parallels with Homer and specifically trace Agamemnon‟s influence on Lucan‟s
Pompey. As much as Pompey is associated with Agamemnon particularly in his role as
“king”, he is a composite figure in the Pharsalia since he also shares some characteristics
with Hector. They share a common military power exhibited at the specific and most
importantly climactic moments they win during the fighting around the Achaean wall and
ships (Il. 12.-15, specifically Il. 13.136-145, 15. 623-627) and the attack against Caesar
and his soldiers in the fort near the sea when the attacks in Dyrrachium take place (BC 6.
263-301). They also share a common conjugal interest which is clearly seen when the
two heroes converse with their wives (Il. 6. 441-465 and BC 5. 739-59).

On the level of historical reception, Champlin suggests the realignment of

Pompey with Agamemnon in their political career. On the literary level, I trace allusions
and similarities in their common role as commanders of the forces of the Achaean and
Roman Republican army respectively. Moreover, building upon and expanding on the
Homeric precedents in the representation of Pompey, I identify contextual parallels,
verbal and visual similarities detectable even when altered in order to be magnified or
even conflations of Homeric and Virgilian similes, seen however from the point of view
of Lucan‟s originality in the handling of the associations of Pompey with Hector in both
the martial and private life of the hero.4 Specifically, Champlin suggests that Pompey is
related to Agamemnon through his victories over Mithridates and Tigranes which recall
the Greek victory over Troy under the leadership of Agamemnon.5 Most importantly,
Pompey divorced his wife for bad conduct and considered Caesar to be the culprit to

3
Plut. Pomp. 67.3, App. B.Civ. 2.67.278.
4
It will be evident that in this paper, I will discuss parallel allusions which are primarily textual. However,
given the original handling of Lucan of all his sources, I will include the broader term intertextuality to
analyse contextual correspondences, or even conflation of two previous sources within a new poetic
connotation. It is necessary to note that there is a study by Peter O‟Brien of Virgilian allusions in
Ammianus‟ Res Gestae which adopts the same ideological and even political background inherent in the
allusion from the quoted text, in O‟Brien‟s case Virgil‟s Aeneid and my case Homer‟s Iliad to the alluding
text, in the first case Ammianus‟ Res Gestae and in the second Lucan‟s BC, whereby Ammianus seizes the
Virgilian concept of heroism in his portrayal of Julian‟s attempt to revive the empire on explicitly non-
Christian terms, (see O‟Brien 2006: 276) . In a similar manner, Lucan encapsulates in Pompey‟s initial
speech to his troops, Agamemnon‟s authoritative attitude and boast of power in violating the rights of the
opponent. For the history of theoretical debate over allusion and intertextuality in Latin studies see Pucci
1998, Edminds 2001 and Hinds 1998, see O‟Brien 2006: ft 6, 275.
5
Champlin 2003:299.

2
whom he was accustomed to refer with a groan as Aegisthus (Suet. Jul. 50.1; Plut.
Pomp.42; Cic.Att..12).6 Therefore, the misbehaviour of Pompey‟s wife corresponds to
that of Clytemnestra and of Caesar to that of Aegisthus.

In literary terms, Berno associates the way Pompey dies with the death of
Agamemnon in Seneca. These associations are especially noted in the description of
decapitation. What Berno argues further is that in Seneca the name of Agamemnon is the
equivalent of a dire omen as far as Pompey is concerned since both heroes on the one
hand are murdered by the curse of their wives, Julia and Cletemnestra and on the other
hand by the adulterers Aegisthus and Caesar.7 In addition, the act of murder is defined as
maius scelus (Sen. Ag. 169, BC. 8. 667-8), the first strike is hit on the hip (Sen. Ag. 904,
BC 8.687) the head hangs and needs another blow to be cut (Sen. Ag. 901-2 and BC
8.672-4) and the head makes sound through the lips (Sen. Ag. 903 and BC 8.682-3).8

After the poet‟s brief character sketch and the rather unflattering simile of the
rotten oak-tree BC 1.135-143,9 Pompey appears for the first time in book 2 and gives a
speech. Pompey‟s speech revolves around his glorious but distant victories and aims at
denigrating the rival. In fact, his speech bears little relevance to the war in general and to
the army in particular. He bypasses issues such as the restoration of order and the
military rewards granted to Caesar‟s veterans who fought in the Gallic war which is
mentioned in Caesar‟s speech (BC. 1. 340-2). Instead, the leader concentrates on his past
achievements (BC. 2.576-95), boasts of his reputation (BC.2.555-568) undermines
Caesar‟s success by claiming that it is incomplete (BC.2.568-74) and generally
undervalues Caesar by reducing him to the level of Spartacus. Lucan is familiar with
military cohortationes as Pompey‟s speech shares one standard feature of the
cohortationes which is the comparatio virium where Pompey underestimates the military
successes of Caesar in the battles of Gaul and Britain (BC 2. 568-574). He then compares
them with his success in confronting the pirates for less than two months, his victory over
Mithridates, the king of Pontus, his army in Africa and Egypt, the command of the army

6
Champlin 2003: 298.
7
Berno 2004:5.
8
Berno 2004:2-3.
9
On this simile, see Rosner-Siegel 1983:165-177.

3
in particular.10 Despite Lucan‟s use of historiography, there is no extant counterpart of
the direct speech given by Pompey to his troops in order to justify the war he wages
against Caesar in any text that appeared before or after Lucan‟s historical text related to
the subject of civil war.11 Therefore, the allusion hinc acies statura ducum est (BC.2.566)
sends back to Homer linking the authoritative perspective of Agamemnon and Pompey
both textually and ideologically. Seen in this perspective, there is a deliberate
juxtaposition of a historical with a literary narrative where the latter has the purpose of
explaining the nature and importance of the former. It is made clear, therefore, that the
Achaean quarrel gives shape to the Roman civil war, if not in its details, at least, in the
motives of the leaders. As Caesar‟s speech to his soldiers in book 1 is modeled on the
angry tirade of Achilles against Agamemnon‟s bad administration of the army so is the
address of Pompey to his soldiers influenced by the justifications given by Agamemnon.
In this way, both parts that led to the Roman civil war have a Homeric precedent: Caesar
has the undeserved soldier Achilles and Pompey the king Agamemnon who is followed
by other generals.

The speeches of Pompey and Agamemnon converge on three points: the boast of
authority and reputation, the undermining of the enemy‟s success and the downgrading of
the enemy. Although Pompey is the commander of the forces of the Republic, he
submits to the constitution when he says that he is the first man and citizen of Rome and
that above him there is only tyranny quo potuit civem populus perducere liber/ ascendi,
supraque nihil, nisi regna reliqui (BC. 2.562-3).12 In a similar vein, Agamemnon

10
See Tzounakas 2005: 401-403, Goebel 1981: 87-90.
11
Before Lucan, the sources for the civil war story are Livy, which is unfortunately lost, Asinius Pollio
whose Historiae survives only in fragmentary form and Caesar (B.Civ.). After Lucan the main sources are
Plut. (Pomp.), Florus, Appian (B.Civ.) and Cassius Dio. See Matthews: 307.
12
Leigh 1997: 148-150 distinguishes between the monarchical ideology of Aeneas and the Republican
values of the Senate. However, he argues that Lucan compromises the “constitutional” Pompey by decking
him out in the trappings of epic but most importantly in the second half of the speech where the appointed
servant of the senate forgets his position and represents the war as “my affair”. Leading on from this
remark and despite Pompey‟s preoccupation with his self-representation mainly in the second half of the
speech, it is still possible to detect personal motives from the lines BC 2.564-566 “non private cupis,
Romana quisquis in urbe/Pompeium transire paras” where he exposes his republican authority. This is
implied through the working of the constitution against Caesar because Pompey strives for political
supremacy as shown behind the above statement thereby denying Caesar‟s claims to power expressed
earlier at BC 1. 388-342 and his questioning of Pompey‟s power (BC 1. 317). In other words, Pompey
bypasses Caesar‟s historical attempt at reconciliation, showing firm confidence in his allies and speaking
contemptuously of Caesar, see Syme 1939, p. 42. Moreover, this line of interpretation links with the

4
expresses his superiority and demands the subservience of others to his authority stugevh/
de; kai; ]alloı/ i\son ejmoi; favsqai kai; oJmoiwqhvmenai a[nthn. (Il. 186-7) Moreover, as
the leader of the army he must have a prize and is willing to deprive one of the three great
leaders; Odysseus, Ajax or Achilles of their prize (Il. 1.135-139). However, when
Pompey says that higher than him is tyranny and that his rival does not oppose him as a
private citizen but instead he wants to conquer the Senate, it is made apparent that his
republican values are separated from the monarchical pretensions of Agamemnon.
Despite the different political position, there is a common point shared by both
Agamemnon and Pompey. On the one hand, Agamemnon, warns anyone who dares to
declare himself his equal, compare himself to him or to challenge him Agamemnon in
terms of monarchical authority. On the other hand, Pompey speaks and justifies his party
in terms of inviolable republican authority which is a recourse to the constition in order to
enhance his supremacy (Il.1.186-7, BC 2. 564-566) .

This is better shown in the following lines, where Pompey, in a mood of

intensification, welcomes the opportunity of a civil war in order to increase his glory by
fighting Caesar whom he calls father-in-law at the end of his speech (titulis accedere BC.
2.555 BC. 2.595). Therefore, the civil war is not a constitutional matter but a private
quarrel with Caesar and the means to further his fame and power.

It should be noted, however, that there is also a difference between the two
characters in the way they express the undermining of the enemy‟s success and the
diminishing of the rival; Pompey in military language and in a global retrospect of his
career describes his conquests as global (BC 2.584) and equates Caesar with Spartacus
(BC 2.554). He thinks that Caesar‟s victories are incomplete and deceptive (BC. 2.568-74)
whereas Agamemnon believes that Achilles‟ military power, although great, is not
irreplaceable because there are other good warriors in the Achaean army (Il. 1.174-5). In
fact, Pompey says: hinc consul uterque,/hinc acies statura ducum est (BC 2. 565-566), on
this side both consuls are found on the other side an army made up of generals, will take
their stand.13 This line alludes to Agamemnon‟s exclaimation: pavr∆ ejmoiv ge kai; ]alloi/

subject of civil war which is the struggle for power BC 1. 84-93 and with the poet‟s wondering and
questioning who was right BC 1. 126-127.
13
Transl. Braund 1992: 36.

5
oiJv kev me timhvsousi, mavlista de; mhtiveta Zeuvß. (Il. 1. 174-175) with me are others
that will honour me, and above all Zeus, the lord of counsel.14

Lastly, both of them are greatly preoccupied with denigrating the rival, a tendency
manifested in Pompey‟s address to Caesar as demens, famous for his fury and only
capable of threats (BC. 2.573-5)15 and Agamemnon‟s declaring of enmity against
Achilles whom he considers as the most hateful among kings and a lover of strife and
battles (Il. 1.176-77). In fact, both epic heroes miscalculate, underestimate the threat
posed by their rival and misjudge the consequences of their baneful quarrel which will
ultimately affect many and different people.

The mention of a series of self-assertive claims culminating in Pompey‟s

suggestion that civil war will add to his fame (BC. 2.555) and at the same time will
reinforce his might (BC. 2.595) seriously perverts his mission as rector rei publicae and
carefully foreshadows Pompey‟s highly un-Roman behaviour after the events of
Pharsalius in book 8 where he suggests summoning the help of Parthia which is an enemy
of Rome. Furthermore, Agamemnon suggests ignominious flight three times (Il. 2. 110-
41 meant as test, 9. 27-30 and 14. 65-81), while the circumstances and the position of his
ships in book 14 would have rendered flight impossible and even worse would have
meant sure destruction and burning of the ships left behind.16 Both Pompey and
Agamemnon express fear about the imminent danger and describe war as catastrophic.
The Homeric hero during the crisis of the army often appears deeply upset (Il. 9.9, 10.9-
10, 10.94-5) weeping excessively (Il. 9.9-14, 10.9-10), speaking with groans to the
Argive leaders (Il. 9.16) and trembling (Il. 10.10, 10.95). The behaviour of Pompey is
very similar to Agamemnon‟s during the assemblies in Epirus where Pompey does not
speak and is presented as a nomen rather as the leader of the party (BC 5. 13-14, 47-9)
and in Pharsalus, where he is deeply troubled, speaks with groans and generally does
little to command and co-ordinate the army (BC 7. 85-94). Interestingly, Appian (BC
2.81. 339-44) and Plutarch (Pomp. 72-3) liken Pompey to Ajax ovJmoio" paravfroni kaiv

14
Transl. Murray & Wyatt 1999: 25.
15
Fantham 1992: 191.
16
Taplin 1991:73,70.

6
paraplhghvi thvn diavnoian during the battle and like Caesar he mentions that he
removed the insignia of a general before retreating to Larisa.

Therefore, Pompey‟s insistence on his quarrel and superiority over Caesar bears
some resemblance to Agamemnon‟s behaviour completing in this way the other part of
the Roman quarrel. Despite Pompey‟s appeals to patria and the senate in the first half of
his speech, the emphasis on his global military power is better connected with one of
Lucan‟s causes of the civil war which is the struggle for power (BC 1.120-126).

However, the portrait of Pompey cannot be appreciated only with comparison to

Homer‟s Agamemnon. He also needs to be juxtaposed with Homer‟s Hector with
particular reference to two similes that link the fighting of the heroes in their climactic
moments of victory and with the common verses they exchange with their wives. If the
link with Agamemnon is Pompey‟s boast of authority, the hero internalizes some of
Hector‟s key characterisations: the good warrior and the loving husband. It seems that
the representation of Pompey in the part concerning the fighting in Dyrrachium portrays
the good warrior who gains in stature through the association with Homer‟s Hector who
in the attack against the Achaean wall and the ships becomes the best warrior of the
Trojans, the momentary winner of the Achaeans and the worthy rival of Achilles and
above all Caesar. This presentation follows the dictates of epic which portrays rivals as
equals for the purpose of a decent fight. It is, therefore, plausible that Lucan would have
turned to Homer to poeticise the historical fighting of Dyrrachium and praise the
momentary victory of Pompey with language and simile derived from Hector‟s
corresponding momentary victory.

In fact, Pompey after the repulse by Scaeva, attacks the forts near the sea (BC 6.
263-278). The simile presenting at the beginning of Pompey‟s attack as the sea which
never grows weary when swollen by the winds rising and breaking with its waves on a
cliff or as the wave that gnaws the flank of a high mountain until it collapses (BC 6. 265-
267) corresponds to the simile which describes Hector‟s attack against the Achaean wall
first with a boulder as he entered the walls (Il. 12. 445-447) and secondly his leading of
charge against the Achaean ships as the speedy fall of a boulder falling from a cliff when
struck by a river swollen by winter rain (Il.13. 136-145). This is a climactic moment of

7
the fighting, the attack of the forts near the sea in the BC and the attack of the Achaean
ships in the Iliad respectively. Most importantly, the convergence with the Iliad lies not
in the first part, the referential part of Lucan‟s simile, whereby Pompey is compared to
the sea and wave which shatters the boulder, whereas Hector is the boulder which is hit
by the wave. It lies on the deictic part, where the two heroes rush with force against the
enemy. However, the referential part is not totally dissimilar, there is a shifting of the
subject as Pompey marches as the wave hiting the flank, able to unfound the earth and
Hector rushes against his enemy like the boulder falling showing the unstoppable power
of Hector. Lucan in inverting the referentail part of the simile turning Magnus as the
wave magnifies the power of Hector as a falling boulder. In this way, Pompey while
being marked in the context of the Iliad, outdoes his epic predecessor.17

It is not coincidental that the second climactic point in Pompey‟s advance against
the enemy is introduced again using Iliadic imagery, however, conflated with Virgilian
language. In this case, Magnus is compared to lava flowing molten on the plain (BC 6.
293-295) by way of reminding the common epithet and imagery used to describe Hector
as fiery leaping among the throng (Il. 13. 688 but most importantly Il. 15. 623-627) with
combinatorial allusion to the Virgilian simile of the volcano of Aitna which when pressed
by the buried Enceladus breathes forth flame (Aen. 3. 578-587). Again, the poet, retains
the image of fire, however, the fire with which Hector is presented becomes more
speedily destructive as lava covering and burning the plain, showing that Pompey
surpasses in heroism and intensity his epic predecessor Hector. By using the reader‟s
visual memory of the fiery image of the warrior, the intensification effect of the fire to
lava matches the Iliad in situation and the Aeneid in the verbal details. In the Iliad and
the BC , Hector is presented after the fiery simile in a nautical simile as wave covering
the ships, whereas Pompey as lava covering the plains substituting the ships with the

17
Von Glinsky, 2012, 88-89 identifies similar technigue in the rehandling of a Homeric simile in Ovid,
who reads the simile of the attacking wave in the Ceyx episode in Met. 11.524-32 as signalling Hector in Il.
15.621-8, whereas Ceyx who is killed by this wave is an elegiac hero misplaced in epic. What is more
important is that both Ovid and Lucan manage to compress climactic scenes taken from long Homeric
battles (12-15) in the space of few lines. Whereas Ovid, decreases the heroism of the elegiac hero
transferring the epic battle in the forces of nature as shown with the eventual killing of the hero by the
waves, Lucan increases the strength of Hector casting a new and original spin in the simile preparing us for
the major magnification in the representation Pompey as lava which forms a match to Caesar who is as
destructive as the lightning.

8
plains.18 Moreover, the destructive force of Aitna precludes burning in the Aeneid but
mentions only some lines earlier that Aitna veils the sky of Sicily with smoke, throws
rocks, tears out parts of the mountain and whirls molten rock into the air (Aen. 3. 578-
587).
It is necessary to analyse the details of the battle in order to appreciate Pompey‟s
success as his would be epic triumph over Caesar and the end of the civil war which was
not realised at the end due to his scruples to arm all his soldiers BC. 6. 299-301.
Although Pompey, most of the time is shown to move near his family surroundings in BC
2. 632-48, 5.739-59 and 8, and make a shadowy and highly questionable presence among
the councils of the senate in BC 5. 13-15, 47-49 and 8. 85-94, there is some important but
small part reserved for the display of his military skill. It will be argued that the fighting
at Dyrrachium is the turning point in the military career of Pompey. His achievement to
pass through Caesar‟s defences is conceived as a preliminary albeit momentary victory
over Caesar (BC. 6.138-140). Compared to other battles in the poem, the fighting at
Dyrrachium stresses Pompey‟s military feats. The momentary victory of Pompey is
described in language that recalls the advance of Hector against the Achaean wall and his
headlong rush against the Achaean ships.

The main events of Lucan‟s fighting at Dyrrachium as described by Lucan are as

follows. Caesar deploys all his forces upon the hill and seizes the fortress of Dyrrachium.
Pompey counters with following the coast-line and encamping at Petra.19 Then there is a
poetic description of the topography of the city which is mainly surrounded by sea.
Dreadful cliffs by the sea protect it from attacks.20 Although the forces of the enemy are
scattered all over the place, Caesar builds a rampart of an equal height as the hills, raises
structures as high as the mountain, entrenches the plain, places towered forts at intervals
on the tops of ridges, encompasses lines, territories, forests in order to surround the
enemy (BC 6. 39-41). However, as soon as Pompey sees that his position is surrounded
18
It is noteworthy to note that Pompey some lines earlier is again presented as river covering the plains BC
6. 270-271.
19
See map of Dyrrachium, Peskett 1914: 373.
20
Saylor 1978: 245 n.3 discusses the critical problem choosing between rupibus or turribus. In short he
observes that Pompey by scattering over Dyrrachium‟s great hills, he and his men deploy themselves
effectively according to the natural terrain so that they cannot be so easily attacked and need no wall. In
turn, Caesar is associated not with natural topography but with his wall, a man-made structure imposed on
the landscape in opposition to Pompey and Dyrrachium, 245.

9
he occupies a palisade and scatters his forces at different heights hoping to keep the
enemy‟s forces extended, while carrying a counter-blockade with scattered troops.21 He
too leads away his forces from the protection of Petra and scatters them upon different
heights in order to immobilize Caesar‟s forces by threatening different points of his work
simultaneously (BC 6.69-72).22 The position of the two camps causes each army different
perils as Pompey suffers from lack of fresh, clear water and pestilence while Caesar‟s
army from hunger. According to Lucan, although Pompey desires to make a breach in
the open, the fortress of Minucius provides him with an open space and the trees cover
his entrance, so that he reaches unexpected and takes the enemy by surprise (BC 6. 123-
127). The Ceasarians‟ resistance was easily repulsed and the fort was about to be
conquered, when Scaeva counterattacks until Caesar arrives.23 Although Magnus is
beaten back at one point of line, he decides to attack the forts that lay near the sea. It is,
therefore, necessary to analyse the neglected part of the episode in Dyrrachium with
reference to the historical background as well as the epic literary tradition.

In fact, Lucan mentions the fighting in Caesar‟s old camp which was revealed to
Pompey by the two Allobrogian deserters.24 Lucan says that Pompey attacks the forts
near the sea meaning the camp mentioned above. It is in this camp that the final battle
takes place and Pompey leaves victorious.25 In Lucan 6. 278-284 Caesar is informed of
the news by a fire signal and arrives at the spot only to find the Pompeians at rest after
conquering the Caesareans. At this point there is a departure in Lucan‟s text from
Caesar‟s historical account. Whereas Lucan encapsulates Caesar‟s fighting with
Torquatus in the fort in lines 6. 284-292 , the historical account mentions resistance by

21
See map of Dyrrachium, Peskett 1914: 373.
22
BC 6.69-72, Caes. 3. 41-45.
23
It is interesting to observe that Lucan selects only some scenes from the extended fighting described in
Caes. B.Civ. 3. 53 including six battles which have taken place in one day, three at Dyrrachium and three at
the outworks which had led to the fall of 2000 Pompeians, the death of few Caesarians and the injury of
many, among them Scaeva Caes. B.Civ. 3.53. Although Caesar praises Scaeva‟s wound, sheer resistance,
reward and promotion received for his services, he neither names exactly where the battle took place, nor
describes the battle. Instead Lucan, names the battle as the the fighting at the fort of Minucius, whose
name possibly derives from a friend who helps Scaeva and is the commnader of the fort mentioned in
Appian Bell. Civ. 2.60. Most importantly, he puts emphasis for literary purposes as Scaeva is a match for
Aias in the Iliad, although with many innovations. This topic which was raised by Marti 1966, p. 245-247
and Conte 1974, p.33, 47-48,52-53, 64-65. Moreover, Leigh 1997, p. 158-190 discusses Scaeva‟s virtus in
the perspective of Roman military devotio.
24
Caes. B. Civ. 3.63.
25
See map of Dyrrachium, Peskett 1914: 373.

10
the Pompeians in general and is significantly longer Caes B.Civ. 3.67.26 Caesar in BC.
3.66 tells us that Pompey occupies the former camp of the ninth legion which previously
belonged to Caesar.27 What seems to have been the problem is that Pompey fortified the
spot with a larger entrenchment. Thus the smaller camp was included within the larger
and functioned as a fort. Pompey had also built a fortification about four hundred yards
long from the left-hand corner of the camp to a stream, so that his men could get water
more easily and without danger. After the refortification Pompey abandoned the camp
and encamped at a nearby spot.28 When the Caesarians returned Pompey decided to
attack the spot he had previously refortified. In return, Caesar replies with a counter-
attack, breaches the walls and passes through. The resistance is led by Titus Pullienus.
However, Caesar‟s troops that moved there were caught unaware of the new architecture
of the fort with the lines not leading to the gate but mainly to the stream. As this has
caused considerable delay, Pompey taking advantage of his higher position BC 6.291, the
complex arrangement and narrow escape of the fort, launches an attack against his enemy
and causes panic and complete disorder. Instead, Lucan mentions that Caesar by mistake
passes the defences of the palisade when Magnus launched an attack against him from all
the height, thereby surrounding the foe, who was entrapped and could not escape (BC 6.
290-292). It should be noted that Caesar‟s text mentions that the attack by Pompey was
led by the rear(Caes. 3.69)29, rendering obvious that there is reminiscence of the Iliadic
and Virgilian wall siege, where the heroes attack from the front. Caesar‟s soldiers start
retreating and the final defeat is avoided from the fact that Pompey does not bring down

26
It is necessary to note that according to Caesar, Torquatus was captured at Oricum but was then
dismissed without being injured Caes. B.Civ. 3.11. The role he is called in to play in Lucan‟s poem is
totally different and has more literary than historical lineage. Indeed, the representation of Torquatus is
similar to that of Homer‟s Polydamas in terms of action. He plays an important role in the wall siege
section urging Hector to attack the wall using infantry and not on horseback in order to avoid difficulties
when passing trhough the ditch (Il. 12.60-107). In a similar manner, Torquatus, when attacked by Caesar,
is compared to a good sailor who wards off destruction by leading back his men and re-arranging his army
in closer ranks and a narrower ring.
27
Interestingly, Lucan omits this refortification of the camp by Pompey his departure and its retaking by
Caesar see Caes. 3.66-67 and transposes the fight from Scaeva, to the fighting at this camp near the sea BC
6. 268-313 which in Caesar is the fighting at 67-70.
28
See Peskett, map of Dyrrachium.
29
It can be supposed that the gates were open or that the attack was led from the outer camp towards
Caesar‟s old camp which was refortified by Pompey, see Peskett, map of Dyrrachium, although the
description of the battle is vague and only gives us an idea of the events, Carter 1993, 192.

11
all his troops fearing an ambuscade.30 Pompey is victorious and Caesar manages to
escape and then move to Thessaly. There is a match in the spatial ordering of the Iliad as
Hector similarly as Pompey attack from a height and the front and extend their forces.

Lucan describes Pompey who rushes against Caesar like lava from Aetna. He
also describes him as a river of fire against his soldiers who are conquered before the
battle. Pompey‟s subsequent success in encircling and entrapping Caesar within a
narrower wall muro breviore (BC. 6.288) is the second climactic point of the narrative
action which covers the events of Dyrrachium as we know them from Caesar. This
highly epic narrative action is interrupted by the poet‟s comments in which he clearly
imagines that freedom will be suppressed through the advance of the enemy on the top of
the high rampart (BC. 6. 138-9) and that Caesar will be killed and defeated through his
entrapment (BC. 6. 299-305). Unlike Caesar who writes that Pompey is unwilling to
advance in full force because he is afraid of an ambuscade (Caes. 3.70) the poet
exaggerates about the possibilities of victory and the unreasonable scruples about
Pompey‟s advance with limited forces (BC. 6.299-301). To conclude, the poet
deliberately turns the events in favour of Pompey in order to praise his military policy.
He achieves this turn of events by omitting facts such as the help received by Caesar‟s
deserters by using language and metaphors appropriate to a great epic. He carefully
selects moments from the battle described in Caesar‟s commentaries in order to highlight
Pompey‟s epic victory.

Compared to other battles in the poem, the fighting at Dyrrachium stresses

Pompey‟s military feats and successes. The description of the fighting for the fort is
strikingly literary reminding us of Turnus‟ and Hector‟s similar breach of the Achaean
and the Trojan wall. In particular, the episode of the fight at Dyrrachium recalls the
Iliad’s corresponding episode from books 12-16. The structural analogy between the two
epics becomes evident since the fight in Lucan‟s poem is placed in book 6 following the
fight around the wall Τειχομαχία in book 12 and the repulse from the Achaean ships in

30
The leading attackers began to flee and most of the 33 cohorts involved dissolved into rout. Caesar tried
to stop standard-bearers as they fled past him but all rushed on to leave, some leaving the standards in his
hands, and one even trying to stab him with its butt-spike, prompting a bodyguard to cut off the man‟s arm,
Caes. B.Civ. 3.69.

12
book 15. Lausberg identifies two more structural correspondences between Lucan‟s
poem and the Iliad, namely the death of Pompey (book 8) with the death of Patroclus (16)
and Cato‟s renewed fight (book 9) with Achilles‟ forceful entering into battle (18).31
Despite the excellent scholarly work on the relation between Homer and Lucan32or
between Homer and later Flavian epic,33 the influence Homer‟s wall siege had on
Lucan‟s corresponding scenes has not been paid any attention to. Instead it was
suggested that Lucan‟s books 6 and 7 are only related to Virgil and not to Homer since
they share more analogies with scenes from Aen. 6 and 7.34 Possibly, the reason for the
scholar‟s claim that the above books are Lucan‟s sources for books 6 and 7 is the caesura
of Virgil‟s poem in books 6 and 7 and the switch from Aeneas‟ wanderings to the war
narrative of the poem. Undoubtedly there is a relationship between the BC and the Iliad
based on two similes which occur in a similar climactic moment in the narrative.

Based on two important similes, I discover the contextual parallels between the
BC and the Iliad with reference to the common terms used to describe the fighting of
each hero. It is not accidental that Pompey on advancing against the enemy is likened to
the forces of sea and wave, which break the elements, specifically the boulder and the
flank from the mountain. Hector‟s attacking force is portrayed as the speedy downward
fall of the collapsing boulder ready to attack the enemies in the the common climactic
phase of their victory, namely Pompey‟s attack against the fort and Hector‟s attack
against the Achean ships respectively. In other words Hector‟s attack against the walls
and ships is likened to the speed of the fall of one boulder from the top of the mountain
and its collapse, whereas Pompey‟s attack against the forts that lay near the sea is
described as the force with which the sea hits on a cliff and the wave which breaks a
flank. Specifically, Pompey is compared to the rising sea driven intermittently against a
cliff which breaks its tides or to a wave that gnaws the side of a high mountain in
preparation for an avalanche (BC 6. 263-271).

31
Lausberg 1985: 1596. In short, the author bases her argument on the assumption that Lucan‟s unfinished
epic would have possibly six more books including the suicide of Cato in book 12 and the murder of Caesar
in book 16 thereby sharing the same unity of plot with Homer which according to her opinion is split into
six tetrads.
32
Lausberg 1985, von Albrecht 1970.
33
Juhnke 1972.
34
Lausberg 1985: 1597.

13
Nec magis hac Magnus castrorum parte repulsus

Intra claustra piger dillato Marte quievit

Quam mare lassatur, cum se tollentibus Euris

frangentem fluctus scopulum ferit aut latus alti

montis adest seramque sibi parat unda ruinam.

Hinc vicina petens placido castella profundo

incursu Gemini Martis rapit, armaque late

Spargit et effuso laxat tentoria campo,

mutandaeque iuvat permissa licentia terrae.

Though driven back in this part of the camp, Magnus

did not put off the war or idly rest inside the barrier

any more than the sea grows weary when, with the Euri rising,

it strikes the billow-shattering rock, or when the wave eats into

the lofty mountain‟s flank, preparing collapse on to itself in time to

come.

From here he heads for forts placed near the tranquil deep

and seizes them by attack of twofold warfare, then scattering his

army

far and wide he spreads his tents across the spacious plain,

14
delights with the freedom granted him to change his ground.35

Similarly Hector is described like a boulder rolling from a cliff after an

overflowing river thrusts it from the top of a hill when it has shaken the foundation of the
stone. This boulder continues to roll after it has landed (Il. 13. 136-145).

Trw`eß de; proujvtuyan ajolleveß, h\rce d ajvr JvEktwr

Jantikru; memawvß, ojlooivtrocoß wJ;ß japo; pevtrhß,

o[n te kata; stefavnhß potamo;ß ceimavrrooß w;vsh/,

rJhvxaß ajspevtw/ o;vmbrw/ ajnaidevoß e]cmata pevtrhß,

uJvyi d∆ ajnaqrwv/skwn pevtetai, ktupevei dev q∆ uJp∆ aujtou`

uJvlh· o} d∆ ajsfalevwß qevei e[mpedon, e{wı iJvkhtai

ijsovpedon· tovte d∆ ou[ ti kulivndetai, ejssumenovß per

wJ;ß J;Ektwr ei{wß me;n ajpeivlei mevcri qalavsshß

rJeva dieleuvsesqai klisivaß kai; nh`aß jAcaiw`n

kteivnwn·

Then the Trojans drove forward in close throng and

Hector led them, pressing forward, like a boulder

from a cliff that a river swollen by winter rains thrusts from

the brow of a hill when it has burst with its wondrous flood

the foundations of the ruthless stone; high aloft it leaps in

35
Transl. Braund 1992:113-114.

15
its flight, and the woods resound beneath it, and it speeds

on its course and is not stayed until it reaches the level

plain, but then it rolls no more for all its eagerness; so Hector

for a time threatened to make his way easily even to the

sea through the huts and ships of the Achaeans, slaying as

he went;36

There is a clear intention to magnify the effect of Pompey‟s advance as he is

portrayed to the force of the wave breaking the flank whereas Hector is likened to the
force with which the boulder falls when hit by the river. Most importantly, although the
battle scene is compressed following the technigue of Ovid, the climactic points in the
respective battles on the one hand the short in the BC and the long in the Iliad are
retained.37It is also noteworthy that Lucan is following the Iliad in using the similes to
facilitate the transition from one theatre of action to another. According to Clay, these
transitional similes tend to view the action on the battlefield panoramically, zooming out,
from the fray.38 Therefore there is convergence witn the Iliad both on the spatial
orderings of the fight, both heroes attacking from the front and also on the temporal as
both heroes are related in common phases of their military career.

After Torquatus‟ intervention the narrative switches to Pompey‟s encircling of

Caesar which happens at the moment when Caesar passes the defences of his outmost
palisade. Specifically, Caesar is entrapped within a narrower wall when he is attacked by
the Pompeian army which rushes against him from a higher plane. As Caesar explains in
his commentaries, the fort under attack was occupied and entrenched both by him and
Pompey so that the structure of the fort causes great confusion (Caes. B.Civ. 3. 67-70).

36
Transl Murray & Wyatt 1992: 13.
37
Von Glinsky 2012, 88.
38
Clay 2011 is an excellent work on the visualized narrative sequence of the Iliad rather than its random
description of seies of combats.

16
Therefore, Pompey taking advantage of his higher position and narrow escape of the fort
muro breviore (BC 6.288), launches an attack from all heights, slaughters the enemy and
causes panic and complete disorder (BC 6.296-99, Caes. 3. 69). In this second climactic
point, the speed of Pompey‟s rush is likened to a volcano struck by the south wind which
discharges all the caverns running like a river of fire over the plain

non sic Hennaeis habitans in vallibus horret

Enceladum spirante Noto, cum tota cavernas

egerit et torrens in campos defluit Aetna (BC 6. 293-5)

“... Magnus launched

his army and poured down his lines against the hemmed-in-enemy.

Not so does the dweller in Henna‟s valleys shudder

at Enceladus when Notus blows and Etna empties

all its caverns and flows molten down on to the plains”39

This simile clearly recalls the simile involving Hector who shining all over with
fire leaps among the throng and falls on them in the same way a violent wave swollen by
the wind falls on a swift ship and covers it with its foam.

“aujta;r o{ lampovmeno puri; pavntoqen e[nqor∆ oJmivlw/,

ejn d∆ e[pes∆ wJ o{te ku`ma qoh`/ ejn nhi pevshsin

39
Transl. Braund 1992: 114.

17
 lavbron uJpai; nefevwn ajnemotrofev, h{ dev te pa`sa

a[cnhi uJpekruvfqh, ajnevmoio de; deino; ajhvth

iJstivw/ ejmbrevmetai ” (Il. 15. 623-627)

But Hector shining all over with fire leapt among the

throng, and fell on them, just as beneath the clouds a vio-

lent wave, swollen by the winds, falls on a swift ship, and it

is all hidden by the foam, and the terrible blast of the wind

roars against the sail40

The similarity lies in the image of fire which in the BC is converted into lava.
The image of fire in the Iliad refers to the face of Hector which in turn resembles the fire
with which he will burn the ships of the Achaeans in Il. 16. 101-124. Whereas in the
Iliad, the fire of burning the ships prompts a nautical simile, in the BC there is the
combination of the Iliadic image with the Virgilian simile of the volcano of Aitna which
when pressed by the buried Enceladus breathes forth flame. However, the nautical simile
presenting Hector as a wave covering the ship (Il. 15. 624-627) matches with the simile
immediately preceding the lava one, which describes Pompey as a river whose fire cover
the fields (BC 6. 272-273). Following the work of Minchin, visual memory rather than
verbal memory plays an important role in reproducing similes, which are triggered by an
image firstly and are expressed using language.41 In this case, the image of the fiery face
of Hector functions more effectivel as a mnemonic device and, therefore, serves as a
reference point for the rest of the verbal description which takes up most of the material
from Virgil. The visual effect of Hector on Pompey is better prompted by the common

40
Transl Murray & Wyatt 1992: 153.
41
Minchin 2001: 25-28.

18
role they share as persons and not just elements such as volcano, wind, river, wave but
the winning warriors in the climactic point of their military career.42 In the Iliad and the
BC both heroes are fiery but both are presented in movement as burning when they are
rushing against the enemy lampovmeno puri; pavntoqen/ Aetna defluit torrens.43 Lucan
tending to intensify the effect of the Homeric simile converts fire into lava in order to
combine the Iliadic image with the Virgilian simile. With the combination of the Iliadic
and the Virgilian simile and following Ovid‟s technique of compressing long battles,
Lucan casts his own mark in the tradition while at the same time he creates a hero who is
a fair match for Caesar and who even looses because of his scruples and not his
shortcomings. Lastly, he is in line with the tendency of the silver linings of epic poetry
which intensify themes, magnify and recuperate heroes.44

Another similarity between the Iliad and the BC lies not only in the use of the
image of fire to describe both heroes but also in the reaction of the Trojans and Achaeans
respectively. Both similes describe the reaction of the Caesarians who flee (BC. 6. 296-
299) and of the Achaeans who shudder in their fear and eventually retreat (Il. 15. 627-8,
636-7). However, according to the poet‟s commentary, the great opportunity Pompey
missed to win a victory is due to his reluctance to arm all his soldiers. This climax is
almost similar to Pompey‟s stand on the high rampart with the conquest of liberty in the
whole world in the BC Iam Pompeianae celsi super ardua valli/, exierant aquilae, I am
mundi iura patebant (BC. 6.138-9). The poet finds Pompey‟s scelerum . . . summa to be
moral hesitation and compares him to Sulla who would not have spared the defeated.

In addition to the representation of Pompey‟s heroism, there is another important

dimension which links Pompey to the emotional, personal and familial aspects of a series
of other epic characters. Already from Book 2 Pompey is seen leaving Italy accompanied
by his wife and sons taking all their household with them in language that is reminiscent

42
The similes characterize the actions of individual warriors apart from transforming us to a new set of
action, Clay 2011, 65.
43
It is worth noting that Aetna moves mostly upward sending smoke even molten stone into the sky Aen.
3.572-577, whereas Pompey with his army rashes down like lava. Therefore the use of visual imagery of
fire is shared by both. Moreover, there is the integration of the simile of Il. 15.624-627 in the BC 6.272-
273 and the change of the dynamic force of the warriors: Hector as a wave covering ships and Pompey like
lava covering the plain.
44
Hershkowitz 1998a 1997-247, 1998b105-189.

19
of the language used to describe Aeneas‟ exile from Troy (Aen. 3.11-12).45 This scene
reveals an important complement of Pompey: his wife. In many respects, the heroism
found in the portrayal of Pompey‟s character reflects the Homeric notion of Hector as a
good father and husband and merges the roles of the Roman with that of a good father
and husband. Critics very often found Hector the most impressive and interesting
character of the poem, mainly because of the complex set of values he represents as a
good husband, father, statesman and warrior46. Although Hector kills more enemies than
any other hero of either side, he firstly appears in the poem with his wife and family in
Book 5. These tender family moments connected with Hector exerted great influence on
Lucan‟s poem. The love of Pompey for his wife is firstly expressed in Book 5 when
before he decides battle decides to send her to the island of Lesbos before the outbreak of
the war in order to keep her safe. He calls his wife dearer for him than life (BC. 5.739),
and demands her disengagement from the war when he implicitly opposes the gentleness
of their love to the brutality of the battle and explicitly dissociates Cornelia from the
abhorrence of civil war. The scene of farewell has many and variable literary sources but
most importantly gives the poet the opportunity to reveal Pompey‟s conjugal love and
Cornelia‟s emotional attachment and devotion to him. The rejoining of the couple in
Lesbos which is expressed in heavily tragic overtones, expresses both lamentation for the
destruction at Pharsalia and Pompey‟s emotional outburst at the sight of his wife. On this
occasion, according to the poet, Pompey was moved and his eyes that were dry in
Pharsalia became wet now (BC. 8.107-108).

A parallel reading of Hector‟s parting with Andromache (Il. 6.440-493) and

Pompey‟s farewell to his wife (BC. 5.722-815) will reveal that the two accounts have a
lot in common both at the verbal and contextual levels but most importantly will

45
The two heroes are related by the common present they share: Aeneas having to go into exile with his
family and comrades (Aen. 3.11-12) and Pompey abandoning his native shores accompanied by other
nations. Furthermore, the details of Pompey‟s departure from Italy are similar to those of Aeneas‟ arrival
in Italy (Aen. 3. 521-524) when he is portrayed as escaping Italy before daybreak and is looking from his
ship at the harbours of his country until they grow dim and disappear (BC. 3. 5-7). Contrary to Aeneas who
sets out in quest of the new city and becomes the founder of a new set of walls which will foreground the
future of Rome, Pompey, in what constitutes a lexical antiphrasis, will find a sedes not in Latium as Aeneas
but in a foreign land and will perish in an abominable way, Narducci 2002: 284-285, Fantham 1992: 220,
Rossi 2000: 572.
46
See Redfield 1994.

20
highlight the motif of familial and conjugal love that the two heroes experience. Bruère
and Barratt agree that the speech of Cornelia is modelled on the speech of Alcyone to
Ceyx in Ovid Met. XI. 47 Undoubtedly, Ovid‟s episode had a great influence on Lucan‟s
parting scene. This influence, however, is mainly seen in Cornelia‟s speech to Pompey,
which is heavily indebted to Alcyone‟s corresponding speech to Ceyx. In contrast,
Pompey‟s speech bears little resemblance to the speech of Ceyx which is significantly
shorter and given in reply to Alcyone‟s speech in which she tries to restrain and persuade
him to stay. In addition, the greatest part of Pompey‟s speech shares many characteristics
with that of Hector and Andromache which consistently convey the common military on
the one hand and the conjugal interest on the other that the two heroes seem to have. In
response to Andromache‟s appeal not to leave behind a widowed wife and an orphan,
Hector answers by bringing four argument, firstly he foretells the final fall of Troy,
secondly he places the love for her over and above the filial ties, thirdly the sense of
shame he feels over the Trojans and especially the Trojan women impel him to choose
the war and fourthly his heart qumo;ı wishes ti follow the heroic code which is identical
with his fate48 (Il. 6.441-443). There is correspondence between Hector‟s and Pompey‟s
words in response to Cornelia when he says that he feels shame to have her company
when the civil war begins (BC 5.749-752) conforming to the belief that civic duty is
above conjugal love. The presentiment of the disaster to follow is shared by both Hector
and Pompey and turns the otherwise epic characters into tragic figures. They both realise
that there will be a destructive day. Hector says to Andromache that Troy will fall
e[ssetai h\mar o{t’ a[n pot∆ ojlwvlh/ [Ilio iJrh; (Il. 6.448) while Pompey believes that
Cornelia will not wait for long because the imminent battle will bring everything crashing
down in ultimate destruction Praecipites aderunt casus; properante ruina summa cadunt
(BC 5.746-7). Moreover, both of them consider their wives to be very precious. Pompey
considers Cornelia as the best part of him and wishes that she survives after his death (BC
5.756-757).49 Hector admits that he loves Andromache more than his family and fellow

47
Barratt 1979: 245, Bruѐre 1951: 221-36.
48
This choice is imposed by the education the hero received and according to which the values and
expectations of the community become his own personal wishes. In this respect Hector is a tragic person,
see Cairns 1993: 79-83.
49
See BC 8. 129-133where Pompey proclaims that while Cornelia was in Lesbos, the island was his sacred
home, his dear house-gods and his Rome. Tzounakas 2012: 152, 154 eloquently discusses the significance

21
Trojans and would rather die than hear her protesting voice when the enemy drags her
into captivity (Il. 6.464-5).

Lastly, the re-union of Pompey with his wife after the end of Pharsalus is a new
turn in the story. It is also full of distinct literary (Ovidian), philosophical (Stoic) and
tragic elements. When a ship comes into view and Cornelia distinguishes the signs of
defeat in Pompey‟s ill and badly kept appearance she loses her consciousness and
recovers only after her husband embraces her. Interestingly, Pompey rebukes Cornelia
for her excessive reaction reminding her that the extent of her grief is unbecoming since
he is still alive (8.81-83). Bruére (1951) observes that this staunchness is in contrast to
Pompey‟s defeatism before Pharsalia and the fearful attitude he had shown after the
battle.50 Moving away from Homer, Pompey influenced by the style of Ovidian
consolatio begs Cornelia not to be disappointed by his defeat. Instead, he asks her to
seek fame from the fact that she is wed to a defeated general and pit her wifely devotion
against destiny (8.72-78).51 Considering the importance attached to Pompey‟s
relationship with Cornelia, and the extravagance with which it was portrayed he is
fundamentally perceived at this stage of his life to have fulfilled better the role of
husband than the role of military general. One of the reasons that led Pompey to flee
before the end of battle is the need to see his wife and avoid dying in her absence (BC 7.
676-677). In a similar vein, Pompey on his return to Lesbos states that while Cornelia
was in Lesbos, the island was his sacred home, his dear house-gods and his Rome.52

of this speech (BC 8.109-158) for the rhetorical treatment of the historical material. In addition, he situates
this statement in the literary tradition and identifies the difference with Aeneas‟ pietas and amor for his
homeland; see Tzounakas, 2012: 158 who cites also Ahl 1976: 173-183 on Pompey‟s desire to love and be
loved as a main trait of his image in the epic.
50
Bruѐre 1951: 226.
51
In the last speech of Pompey to his wife, Bruѐre 1951: 227 traces the form of consolatio, finds a debt to
Ovid‟s letters composed at great length when in exile and identifies the common features of the genre
which show that the Tristia were fresh in Lucan‟s mind. In turn, it is suggested that it betrays a patriarchal
attitude to women who are interested in money and fame whereas it is explicit that Cornelia is weeping for
the horrible situation Pompey is found.
52
Tzounakas 2012: 152, 154 eloquently discusses the significance of this speech (BC 109-158) as far as
the rhetorical treatment of the historical material is concerned. In addition, he situates this statement in the
literary tradition and identifies the difference with the Aeneas‟ pietas and amor for this homeland, see
Tzounakas, 2012, p. 158 who cites also Ahl 1976: 173-183 on Pompey‟s desire to love and be loved as the
main trait of his image in the epic. Moving a step forward, the act of Pompey signals the power of conjugal
love enhanced both in historical and literay terms.

22
 Pompey is a figure with strong literary affinities. The connection between
Pompey and Agamemnon was detected on the levels of history and literature. On the
level of history, Pompey as Agamemnon is called leader of the armies. On the level of
literature, Pompey and Agamemnon boast of their authority, undermine and denigrate
the rival. Pompey is related to Hector too. On advancing against the enemy, Pompey was
related to Hector as a warrior and more specifically to Hector‟s fighting against the
Achaean walls and the ships. In addition, Pompey‟s farewell speech to his wife shares
many characteristics with the counterpart speech of Hector and Andromache. Both
speeches convey a common military and conjugal interest the two heroes seem to share.
The motif of the good warrior and loving husband are exaggerated in Lucan in the style
of his literary innovation as far as the former is concerned and in broad accord with the
dictates of history as far as the latter is concerned.

Bibliography

Barratt, P. (ed.), 1979. M. Annaei Lucani Belli Civilis liber V. Amsterdam.

23
Berno, F.R. 2004. „Un truncus, molti re: Priamo, Agamemnon, Pompeo (Virgilio, Seneca,
Lucano)‟ Maia 56, 79-84.

Bruère, R.T. 1950. „Lucan‟s Cornelia‟ CPh 46, 221-236.

Braund, H.S. 1992. Lucan: Civil War. Oxford.

Champlin, E. 2003. „Agamemnon at Rome: Roman dynasts and Greek Heroes‟ in D.

Braund and C. Gill (eds) Myth, history and culture in Republican Rome: studies in
honour of T.P. Wiseman. Exeter.

Christophorou, I. 2010. „The Presence of Homer‟s Achilles in Lucan‟s Caesar‟ Classica

et Mediaevalia, 61, 177-191.

Clay, J, S. 2011. Homer‟s Trojan Theater. Space, Vision and Memory in the Iliad.
Cambridge

Conte, G.B. 1996. „Il proemio della Pharsalia‟ Maia 18, 42-53.

Edmunds, L. 2001. Intertextuality and the Reading of Roman Poetry. Baltimore and
London.

Fantham, E. 1992. Lucan, De Bello Civili, Book 2. Cambridge.

Green, C.M.C. 1991. „Stimulos Dedit Aemula Virtus: Lucan and Homer Reconsidered‟
Phoenix 45, 230-54.

Goebel, G.H. 1981. „Rhetorical and poetical thinking in Lucan‟s harangues (7.250-382)‟
TAPhA 111, 79-94.

Hershkowitz, D. 1998. The madness of epic. Oxford.

Hershkowitz, D. 1998. Valerius Flaccus’ Argonautica. Oxford.

Hinds, S. 1998. Allusion and Intertext: Dynamics of Appropriation in Roman Poetry.

Cambridge.

24
Junkhe, H. 1972. Homerisches in romischer Epik flavischer Zeit. Untersuchungen zu
Szenennachbildungen und Strukturentsprechungen in Statius’ Thebais und in Silius’
Punica. Munchen.

Lausberg, M. 1985. „Lucan und Homer‟ ANRW II. 32.3, 1565-1622.

Leigh, M. 1997. Lucan. Spectacle and engagement. Oxford.

Marti, B. M. 1966. „Cassius Scaeva and Lucan‟s inventio‟ in L. Wallach (ed) The
classical tradition, literary and historical studies in honor of Harry Caplan. Ithaca, NY.

Matthews, M. 2008. Caesar and the storm: A commentary on Lucan, De Bello Civili,
Book 5, lines 476-721. Peter Lang

Minchin, E. 2001. „Similes in Homer: Image, Mind‟s Eye and Memory‟ in J. Watson (ed)
Speaking Volumes Orality & Literacy in the Greek & Roman World. Brill.

Murray, A.T.&Wyatt, F.W.1999, Homer: Iliad. 2 vols, Cambridge, MA.

Narducci, E. 2002. Lucano: un epica contro l’impero: interpretazione della Pharsalia.

Rome.

O‟Brien, P. 2006. „Ammianus Epicus: Virgilian allusion in the Res Gestea; Phoenix LX
No. 3-4, 274-303.

Peskett, A. G. 1951. Caesar. Loeb.

Pucci, J. 1998. The Full-Knowing Reader: Allusion and the Power of the Reader in the
Western Literary tradition. New Haven.

Redfield, J.1994. Nature and Culture in the Iliad, the tragedy of Hector. Duke.

Rosner-Siegel, Judith, A. 1983. „The oak and the lightning: Lucan, Bellum Civile 1.135-
57‟ Athenaeum, 165-177.

Rossi, A. 2000. „The Aeneid revisited: the journey of Pompey in Lucan‟s Pharsalia‟ AJPh
121. 4, 571-591.

25
Saylor, C.F. 1978 „Belli spes improba: the theme of walls in Lucan, Pharsalia VI‟ TAPhA
112, 169-177.

Schackleton Bailey, D.R. 1988. Lucanus De Bello Civili. Stuttgart.

Taplin, O. 1990. “Agamemnon‟s role in the Iliad,” in Pelling C.B.R. (ed.) 1990,
Characterization and individuality in Greek Literature. Oxford, 60-82.

Tzounakas, S. 2005. „Echoes of Lucan in Tacitus: the cohortationes of Pompey and

Calgacus‟ in Deroux, C.Collection Latomus. (ed.) 2005, Studies in Latin literature and
Roman history 12. Bruxelles, 395-413.

Tzounakas, S. 2012. „The Dialogue Between the Mityleneans and Pompey in Lucan‟s De
Bello Civili (8.109-158)‟ Minerva 25, 151-167.

Von Albrecht, M. 1970. „Der Dichter Lucan und die epische Tradition‟ in M. Durry
Lucain: Sept exposés, Geneva, 269-308.

West, M.L. 1998. Homerus Ilias I-XII, Stuttgart.

West, M.L. 2000. Homerus Ilias XIII-XXIV, Stuttgart.

26