Student ID: 680030225 1

What is the significance of boundary violation in Lucan’s Pharsalia? (3000)

Boundary violation is a predominant theme which remains consistent throughout the

entirety of the Pharsalia. Lucan is obsessed with the transgressions of physical,

metaphysical, and moral boundaries; thus, allowing him to push the limits of

traditional epic and various Roman beliefs and ideologies. His epic contains many

complex and cryptic connotations concerning the theme of boundary violation, which

could easily be neglected due to the poetic density of the text. Therefore, it is

important to elucidate the significance of these violations as they are essential in

delving further into Lucan’s more obscure textual connotations and literary devices.

Understanding these transgressions also allows us to gain insights into Lucan’s

wider intentions with writing the Pharsalia and how his epic differs to others from the

Neronian period. Lucan expresses boundary transgression in various different ways

throughout his epic. The main boundary violations that I shall focus on within this

essay are: geopolitical boundaries; the characterisation of Caesar as an individual

who defies moral and societal boundaries; the violation of human bodies and the

limits between the self and the not-self; and also the boundary between the narrator

and text. In my attempt to explain the significance of these violations, I shall include

and expand upon the ideas of scholars, such as Bartsch, Myers, and Bexley to name

a few,1 who collectively agree and recognise Lucan’s excessive references to

boundary violation in its wide variety of forms. The aim of my work is to collate their

various arguments to display the widespread significance of boundary violation

clearly and effectively, and also to source my own specific examples of these

transgressions.

1
Bartsch (2001); Myers (2011); Bexley (2009).
Student ID: 680030225 2

Lucan places great emphasis on geopolitical boundaries and the

repercussions that come with crossing these physical limits. The first expression of

this is the death of Crassus, who Lucan likens to a “boundary” between Pompey and

Caesar. Lucan describes the First Triumvirate, in which Caesar, Pompey, and

Crassus each held equal power over Rome (Pharsalia 1.85), and he states that

“temporis angusti mansit concordia discors…nam sola future Crassus erat belli

medius mora” (Pharsalia 1.98-100). Lucan exemplifies the importance of Crassus’

position within this triumvirate with an extended simile. He compares Crassus to the

“Isthmus of Corinth” that divides the Ionian and the Aegean Seas, which, for the

purposes of this simile, are Pompey and Caesar (Pharsalia 1.100-103). Lucan’s use

of both “secat” and “separat” (Pharsalia 1.101) emphasises the extent to which

Crassus was the boundary between Caesar and Pompey and how he was the “sola”

thing preventing an outbreak of war. However, with the death of Crassus, Lucan

states “Parthica Romanos solverunt damna furores” (Pharsalia 1.106). This line

demonstrates that as a result of this death, “furores”, which translates to

“madnesses” and can be interpreted as Caesar and Pompey here,2 had the ability to

seize Rome and move society away from peace. As noted by Myers, the death of

Crassus establishes him as a “failed partition” between the rivalry of Pompey and

Caesar.3 This episode is significant as it represents the delicate political climate of

the Roman Empire; it also allows Caesar and Pompey to transgress the boundary

between peacetime and war, which was previously prohibited. This idea is evidenced

with “nec quemquam iam ferre potest Caesarve priorem Pompeiusve parem”

2
PLD, s.v. “furor”.
3
Myers (2011) p.407.
Student ID: 680030225 3

(Pharsalia 1.125-126); therefore, civil war has now become a necessity as neither

leader can withstand the other.

Caesar commences the civil war by transgressing various geopolitical

boundaries, which are depicted in the Rubicon scene (Pharsalia 1.183-222). The first

physical boundary that Caesar violates is the “gelidas Alpes”, thus meaning that he

now “ingentesque animo motus bellumque futurum ceperat” (Pharsalia 1.183-185).

This transgression sets the scene for Caesar’s next boundary violation; crossing the

Alps allowed Caesar to dream about “futurum bellum”, whereas his later

transgression of the Rubicon permitted him to actually act out this dream, as the

“futurum bellum” became a reality. Before this crossing, Caesar is met with a vision

of Rome (Pharsalia 1.185-192), in which Lucan describes Rome’s face with the

superlative “maestissima” and that she “Caesarie lacera nudisque adstare lacertis”.

Lucan then depicts Rome speaking directly to Caesar with “quo tenditis ultra? Quo

fertis mea signa, viri?” and then the final warning “si iure venitis, si cives, huc usque

licet” (Pharsalia 1.190-192). This intervention acts as a reminder to Caesar about the

severity of violating this physical boundary, which is simultaneously a moral one.

Masters reiterates this by stating that Rome’s appeal to Caesar “re-emphasises the

sanctity of the Rubicon as a limit which no army may legally transgress”.4 Therefore,

Caesar’s decision to transgress this limit evidences both a physical and moral

boundary violation. The Rubicon is later described as a “certus limes” (Pharsalia

1.215-216), which again emphasises Caesar’s actions as a significant violation of a

fixed boundary. Additionally, as Spentzou acknowledges, Lucan places emphasis on

the water of the river, which is “tum vires praebebat hiemps” (Pharsalia 1.217);

4
Masters (1992) p.1.
Student ID: 680030225 4

hence, a greater effort was needed from Caesar to be able to cross it (Pharsalia

1.220-222).5 This, paired with the vision of Rome, demonstrates that even nature

was making the boundary transgression difficult for Caesar, and accentuates the

gravity of his actions. In connection, a further limit is crossed with Caesar’s invasion

of Ariminum (Pharsalia 1.231-261),6 thus creating a tricolon of boundary violations

within this section of the text. Lucan describes the invasion as the “primos tumultus”

of the war (Pharsalia 1.233), which certifies the commencement of the conflict and

validates Caesar’s previous boundary transgressions as movements away from

peace. Therefore, these aforementioned violations of geopolitical boundaries

evidence Lucan’s attempt to portray the severity of Caesar’s actions and his

willingness to cross physical limits, which have extreme moral consequences; they

also explicitly illustrate the movement of Roman society from peacetime into civil

war.

The audacity of Caesar to transgress moral and physical boundaries leads us

to consider him as an individual who defies societal norms, with Lucan using his

character to push traditional boundaries of epic. After a description of Caesar’s

character, with his never-ending readiness to destroy (Pharsalia 1.143-150), Lucan

compares him to a lightning bolt (Pharsalia 1.551-557). As Bexley promotes, this

simile portrays Caesar as someone who defies limits; just as lightning transgresses

the boundaries of the environmental world, Caesar violates the boundaries of the

human world.7 To further this, the statement “rupitque diem populosque paventes

terruit obliqua praesrtingens lumina flamma” (Pharsalia 1.153-154) demonstrates the

5
Spentzou (2018) p.249.
6
Masters (1992) p.3-4; Myers (2011) p.408.
7
Bexley (2009) p.468.
Student ID: 680030225 5

effect that Caesar has on both his surroundings and mankind. Interestingly, the term

“obliqua”, which references the typical nature of a lightning bolt, could also be a

slight foreshadow to Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, with his troops tackling the

river “in obliquum” (Pharsalia 1.220). Thus, this lightning simile is an allusion to the

fear that Caesar shall inflict on Rome when he crosses the Rubicon and emphasises

his aggressive violation of this boundary. In addition, Lucan describes the lightning

as “magnamque cadens magnamque revertens dat stragem late sparsosque

recolligit ignes” (Pharsalia 1.155-157). This again foreshadows the Rubicon scene in

which Lucan assimilates Caesar’s character and aggression to a lion. In the same

sense as the lightning, the lion is described to “totam dum colligit iram” and

“stimulavit se” (Pharsalia 1.207-208). Here, both similes imply that Lucan’s Caesar

has the ability to incite his own anger, which explains why he acts so relentlessly and

has no regard for moral and social boundaries throughout the poem. His disregard

for morality is evidenced further with the mutiny at Brundisium (Pharsalia 5.252-373).

Caesar’s forces express their concern for civil war and Caesar’s ceaseless conquest

for victory; this is specifically displayed when his troops ask “finis quis quaeritur

armis? Quid satis, si Roma parum est?” and state “sit praeter gladius aliquod sub

Caesare fatum” (Pharsalia 5.273-274; 5.282-283). As Spentzou notes, Caesar

“refuses to be constricted to the limits of expected triumphs” and is “adverse to the

closure that a formal victory brings to civil war”;8 therefore, he continuously forced his

troops into violence. Caesar’s limitlessness when it comes to warfare actually causes

him to violate moral boundaries. He places personal victory over the safety and

collective wishes of his troops, which would have been frowned upon in Roman

society. This scene is testimony to Caesar exploiting his troops by manipulating the

8
Spentzou (2018) p.250-251; p.252.
Student ID: 680030225 6

situation to make them seem problematic. This is evidenced with his statement

“sperantes omnia dextras exarmare datus, quibus hic non sufficit orbis” (Pharsalia

5.355-356). Caesar claims that his troops are “greedy”, and that the world is not

enough for them, which is completely hypocritical. His manipulative tendencies are

further exaggerated with “nam quae dubias constringere…iniusta gravari, haud

retinet” (Pharsalia 5.256-259). Here, Lucan implies that Caesar understood that

terror and a lack of community is what is needed to control his troops. Lucan’s

observation “militis indomiti tantum mens sana timetur” (Pharsalia 5.309) also

demonstrates this; ironically, a return to rationale would lead the troops to abandon

Caesar’s conquests. Caesar’s calculated behaviour is recognised by Spentzou and

Bexley, who both argue that Caesar violates moral and societal boundaries which

other ‘heroes’, for example Aeneas, typically promote within the epic tradition.9

Regarding this, Spentzou elaborates that Virgil’s Aeneas promotes societal

resolution, whereas Lucan’s Caesar disrupts this; and Bexley claims that Caesar is

“deliberately immoral” and “rejoices in his own destructive potential”, which is the

antithesis of Aeneas.10 Hence, Lucan’s Caesar does not conform to the standard

epic convention, which consequently allows Lucan to push the boundaries of epic

and the traditional portrayal of ‘heroic’ figures. Caesar’s character not only violates

moral boundaries within this poem, but also defies poetical conventions in a broader

sense.

Within the Pharsalia, Rome’s centrality is destabilised, and the boundaries of

the Empire are altered, physically and ideologically, creating new concepts of Roman

9
Ibid. p.258; Bexley (2009) p.467.
10
Ibid.; Ibid.
Student ID: 680030225 7

space and geography. I shall not be able to analyse all of the factors that contributed

to the Empire’s altered boundaries in this poem; nonetheless, I shall discuss those

which I feel are most relevant. Myers argues that Rome is not considered the ‘centre’

of the Empire due to Caesar’s obsession with conquering other places; Rome is not

the goal of Caesar’s campaign, therefore Rome’s centrality must be questioned.11

He analyses Caesar’s statement “en, adsum victor terraque marique Caesar, ubique

tuus (liceat modo, nunc quoque) miles” (Pharsalia 1.200-202), which he notes

displays Caesar’s goals as “boundless and global”.12 This concept is also confirmed

within my previous argument concerning Caesar’s relentless eagerness to pursue

victory. The troops’ question “quid satis, si Roma parum est?” (Pharsalia 5.273-274)

demonstrates that Caesar seeks more than just the city of Rome. Caesar’s desire to

conquer beyond Rome implies a shift in the centre of the Empire and its political

boundaries. Furthermore, Bexley explains Rome’s destabilisation as a result of

Lucan’s focus on other locations, with explicit emphasis on Lucan’s positioning of the

major battle between Pompey and Caesar at Pharsalus in Book 7.13 Henderson

originally recognises this with his comment “the paradox of Roman Civil War fought

out in Thessaly”.14 This acknowledgement implies that Rome is no longer politically

central and suggests a change in the geopolitical boundaries of the Empire. Bexley

infers that Pharsalus is now the midpoint of the Roman Empire, for it is where

Caesar’s Western troops and Pompey’s Eastern forces meet.15 She furthers this

concept, claiming that “Pharsalus takes centre stage because it is the site where the

future of Rome, the ostensible centre of the world, will be decided”.16 This analysis

11
Myers (2011) p.412.
12
Ibid.
13
Bexley (2009) p.466.
14
Henderson (1998) p.135.
15
Bexley (2009) p.465-466.
16
Ibid. p.466.
Student ID: 680030225 8

not only implies a new geographic midpoint of the Empire, but also an altering of

Rome’s reputation as the most politically significant location. Therefore, Lucan has

successfully used the concept of civil war and battle placement to manipulate and

violate the boundaries of the Empire, thus creating new Roman geographical space

and political boundaries. Additionally, Lucan describes civil war as having the effect

of a cosmic cataclysm on the world (Pharsalia 1.72-80), in which various

metaphysical boundaries are violated. Within this section he states “cum conpage

solute saecula tot mundi seprema coegerit hora, antiquum repetens iterum chaos”

and he describes the stars, sea, earth, moon, and daylight as transgressing their

limits. Myers notes that this evidences Lucan’s ideology that civil war directly affects

Rome’s geopolitical and spatial relations in the world.17 Nature mimics the effects of

civil war; therefore, civil war affects the metaphysical boundaries of the universe. As

discussed, these various factors all contribute to the violation of Rome’s physical and

conceptual boundaries. Lucan’s battle placement and focus on other locations

destabilises Rome’s centrality and the geopolitical boundaries of the Empire; whilst

his implication that civil war shall result in a cosmic cataclysm infers a future violation

of the metaphysical boundaries of the universe.

Lucan is renowned for expressing the theme of boundary transgression

through the violation of human bodies. The “abject” is relevant here, which is a

concept defined as “a bodily part or product that both is and is not identifiable with

the self, a thing that is ambiguously positioned between self and other because it has

been severed or separated from its origin”.18 Throughout the epic, Lucan uses the

17
Myers (2011) p.401-402.
18
Kristeva (1982) cited in Bartsch (2001) p.19.
Student ID: 680030225 9

“abject” by describing bodies that have been mutilated, with their innards protruding

out, thus violating the boundary between internal and external, and the self and not-

self. This is explicitly depicted in the snake scene of Book 9, in which Sabellus is

bitten by a “exiguus seps” (Pharsalia 9.763-780). Lucan narrates that Sabellus’ skin

shrank around the bite until “pallentiaque ossa retexit”, he then states that this

continued until he was a “nudum sine corpore volnus” (Pharsalia 9.768-769). It is

worth noting Lucan’s word order here with “corpore” placed inside “nudum volnus”;

this literally represents Sabellus’ body being consumed entirely by his own wound,

and thus his sense of identity is confused. Lucan describes the ligaments, lungs,

cavity of the chest and his entire innards as “morte patet” (Pharsalia 9.779-780). The

whole of Sabellus’ internal organs have now become external, and he can be

considered in the realm of the “abject”, as his body parts are now unidentifiable with

the self as they have been separated from their origin. This scene and its depiction

of the abject, which can also be seen in many other instances throughout this epic,

directly reflects the nature of civil war, which is technically a war between powers

from the same origin or “self”. As a result, Lucan uses the violation of human bodies

to represent the violation that civil war causes on the state and its people. As Bartsch

writes, “the state in civil war becomes a mutilated body parallel to those of its

citizens” and that once the civil war had commenced between Caesar and Pompey,

“the imagery of boundary violation becomes grimmer and more startling as human

bodies are used as the medium for its expression”.19 A specific example of this is

Lucan’s depiction of the naval battle at Massilia, in which a man is crushed between

the bows of two ships (Pharsalia 3.653-661). Lucan states “nec prohibere valent

obtritis ossibus artus, quo minus aera sonent” (Pharsalia 3.656-657). This

19
Bartsch (2001) p.16; p.15.
Student ID: 680030225 10

demonstrates the powerlessness of the man, and that his physical body and bones

could not prevent the force of the ships and subsequently his oncoming death. Lucan

also narrates that “eliso ventre per ora eiectat saniem permixtus viscere sanguis”

(Pharsalia 3.657-658), which implies the complete mutilation of the body and places

the individual in the “abject”. Moreover, the scene could be interpreted with wider

poetic implications. The two ships could represent Caesar and Pompey, and the

mutilated body could be a symbol of the state, which is experiencing the physical

effects of civil war. The ships have completely violated the physical boundaries of

this human body, just as the concept of civil war in general violates the boundaries of

society and state. This scene is an explicit reference to the civil war between

Pompey and Caesar, but also, in agreement with Bartsch, it evidences Lucan using

human bodies as a medium for expressing the boundary violations of civil war in

general. This is significant as Lucan’s use of human bodies in this way creates vivid

and realistic imagery for his readers, allowing them to fully comprehend the

gruesomeness of civil war which the poem promotes.

A literal boundary which Lucan frequently transgresses is that of narrator and

text. As Masters notes, “Lucan is always on the side-lines, so to speak; often

entering the poem in his own persona” and he “makes himself not only a knowing

narrator, but a subjective and enthusiastic spectator of his war”.20 This argument is

supported by Henderson, who acknowledges that Lucan has “invented a voice which

lives in the drama of the narrative”.21 An example is Lucan’s authorial interjections in

the mutiny at Brundisium, where Lucan appears omniscient. Lucan’s observation

20
Masters (1992) p.5; p.88.
21
Henderson (1998) p.135.
Student ID: 680030225 11

“militis indomiti tantum mens sana timetur” (Pharsalia 5.309) alludes that he

understood what Caesar feared in the situation, thus implying a sense of

omniscience. Additionally, Lucan inserts his personal opinions here; he directly

addresses Caesar with “non pudet, heu! Caesar, soli tibi bella placer iam minibus

damnata tuis...saeve, quid insequeris? Quid iam nolentibus instas? Bellum te civile

fugit” (Pharsalia 5.310-316). Lucan interjects his disregard for Caesar’s actions with

this digression, which not only provides insights into his personal viewpoint of the

historical event, but also disrupts the boundary between author and text. Another

example is Lucan’s intervention before the battle of Pharsalus, where he predicts

that his future audience shall side with Pompey (Pharsalia 7.207-213). As Bartsch

explains, this certifies Lucan’s pro-Pompeian stance; however, the audience is left

unsure of whether to admire Pompey as Lucan previously portrays him as

unadmirable elsewhere in the narrative, which deeply fractures Lucan’s authorial

voice.22 Masters provides a potential explanation for this by stating that “this

fracturing of the authorial voice in itself represents civil war, in which there are many

potential authorities each vying for supremacy”.23 Lucan’s persistent violation of the

boundary between author and text allows him to display his personal opinions; it also

permits him to add depth to his epic as the fracturing of his own authority may

represent the very nature of civil war itself, in which different authorities are always

competing with one another.

It is evident that boundary violation is a recurrent and complex theme

throughout the Pharsalia, which is highly significant in various ways. Through

22
Bartsch (2001) p.81.
23
Masters (1992) p.90.
Student ID: 680030225 12

describing geopolitical boundary violations, Lucan emphasises the fragile nature that

was Rome’s political climate and creates new concepts of Roman space, both

politically and geographically. Whatsmore, through the violation of physical and

moral boundaries, Lucan compels us to consider the morality of individuals, namely

Caesar, and how his characters engage with the epic genre and the typical portrayal

of ‘heroic’ figures. Lucan also uses the mutilation of human bodies to express the

effect that civil war had on society and its people; the physical violation of human

bodies represents the violations that civil war causes on societal boundaries. Lucan’s

frequent interventions, which transgress the boundary between author and text, offer

his personal insights, and fracture the authorial voice of the poem, which in itself

represents the nature of civil war. Therefore, boundary violation is greatly significant

within the Pharsalia; it not only compels the audience to engage with the wider

ideological implications of the poem, but also forces them to recognise Lucan’s more

subtle allusions to morality and traditional epic conventions.

Bibliography

Ancient Works:

- Lucan, Pharsalia. From The Packard Humanities Institute. [Available at:

https://latin.packhum.org/loc/917/1/0#7].

Modern Works:

- Bartsch, S. Ideology in Cold Blood: A Reading of Lucan's Civil War. Harvard:

Harvard University Press (2001). [Available at: ProQuest Ebook Central,

https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/exeter/detail.action?docID=3300732].

- Bexley, E. M. “Replacing Rome: Geographic and Political Centrality in Lucan’s

Pharsalia”. Classical Philology, Vol. 104, No.4. New York (2009) pp.459-475.

- Henderson, J. Fighting for Rome: Poets and Caesars, History and Civil War.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (1998).

- Masters, J. Poetry and Civil War in Lucan’s Bellum Civile. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press (1992).

- Myers, M. Y. “Lucan’s Poetic Geographies: Center and Periphery in Civil War

Epic,” in Paolo Asso (ed.) Brill’s Companion to Lucan. Leiden (2011) pp.399-

415.

- Spentzou, E. “Violence and Alienation in Lucan’s Pharsalia: The Case of

Caesar”, in M. Gale and J. Scourfield (eds.) Texts and Violence in the Roman

World. Cambridge (2018) pp.246-268.

Dictionary:

- Shorrock, R & Butterfield, D. The Penguin Latin Dictionary (Penguin

Reference Library). London: The Penguin Group (2007).