^{page 488 note 1} As suggested by Getty, R. J., Lucan de Bello Civili I (Cambridge, 1940/1955), pp. xxvii and xxx.Google Scholar

^{page 488 note 2} See, against Haffter, H.'s recent view (Mus. Helv. xiv (1957), ii8ff.)Google Scholar that the poem was complete, Rutz, W., Lustrum ix (1964), 243 ff., esp. 268.Google Scholar

^{page 488 note 3} (California, 1954), 1 ff discussing Poetics 9. I45i^a–b.

^{page 488 note 4} Cf. Walbank, F. W., Historia, ix (1960), 216 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 488 note 5} Cf. Pichon, 157 ff.

^{page 488 note 6} I have not the space here to discuss fully the sources of Lucan's narrative. The communis opinio since Pichon is that Lucan's only source for facts was Livy. Certain passages show that Lucan used him: i. 299 fr., cf. Oros. 6. 15 (quoting Livy), contra Caes. 1. 7, App. 2.33, Plut. Caes. 31.3; 3. 181–3, cf. Commentum Bernense ad loc; 4. 402 ff., cf. Livy, Ep. CX and Comm. Bern. 4. 462; 7. 151 ff., cf. Obsequens 65a, Plut. Caes. 47. 3–6, contra Caes. 3. 105. 3–6 (the portents here are also mentioned by Obsequens but not by Lucan); 8. 88 ff., cf. Comm. Bern, ad loc, Plut. Pomp. 74. 3. Pichon–s argument otherwise depends on two hypotheses: (a) any similarity between Lucan and other post-Augustan authors must be the result of common dependence on Livy, (b) Lucan himself was likely to have used a single source. Recently other scholars have suggested additional sources—Caesar and Cicero (Malcovati, E., M. Anneo Lucano [Milan, 1940], 36 ff.Google Scholar; Athenaeum xxxi [1953], 288 ff.Google Scholar); Asinius Pollio (Syndikus, 1 ff.); the three foregoing authors and the elder Seneca (Brisset, 35 ff.); a handbook of rhetorical exempta like that of Valerius Maximus (Morford, M. P. O., The Poet Lucan [Oxford, Blackwell, 1967], 65, comparing 5. 67 fr.Google Scholar and Val. Max. 1. 8. 10). Furthermore Haffter, op. cit. (p. 488 n. 2) has pointed out that Lucan's poem and Caesar's Bellum Civile break off at almost the same point and argued that there was deliberate imitation, while Rambaud, M. (L'Information littéraire, xii [1960], 155 ff.)Google Scholar believes that Lucan was deliberately creating a counter to Caesar's propaganda. Though there is little firm evidence for Lucan's using other sources (he may have been influenced by Caesar and Cicero via Livy), there is no reason to suppose that Lucan followed Livy alone in as strict a way as, e.g., Diodorus followed Poseidonius. Lucan must have learnt the basic story of the civil war and particular topics for declamation in childhood. He could have written much of the work out of his own head and only needed to refer to a historical work to get material for detailed descriptions. He need not always have referred to the same work.

^{page 489 note 1} On this see Walbank, , Bull. Inst. Class. Stud, ii (1955), 4ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 489 note 2} Cic. Fam. 5. 12. 4–5; Leg. 1. 7 (Cleitarchus and Sisenna).

^{page 489 note 3} Presumably a parody of accounts of Alexander's visit (Plut, . Alex. 15. 4–5Google Scholar; Arr. Anab. 1. 12. 1; Cic. Fam. 5. 12. 7—perhaps derived from Callisthenes). According to Strabo (13. 1. 27) Julius Caesar favoured Ilium in imitation of Alexander. Cf. Pearson, L., Lost Histories of Alexander the Great, 40 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 489 note 4} In 1. 526 ff. there are portents otherwise unattested (cf. Dio 41. 12. 2–4) and in 1. 550 the feriae Latinae are misdated (see Pichón, 134 f.). Other probable supplements by Lucan: Julia's appearance to Pompey in a dream (3. 9 ff.), though Pompey's dream before Pharsalia is based on one feature of a probably common account (7. 7 ff, cf. Obseq. 65a; Plut, . Pomp. 68. 2Google Scholar); the alleged sacrilege in the forest at Massilia (3. 399 f.)—conceivably already in some anti-Caesarian source; the meeting of Brutus and Cato (2. 234 ff.); Caesar's grisly post-Pharsalia breakfast (7. 786 ff). See in general Pichón, 133 ff.

^{page 489 note 5} See 1. 143 fr.; 2. 439 ff, 511 ff; 3. 360 ff.; 5. 300 ff., 340 ff.; 7. 557 ff., 786 ff.; 9. 1035 ff. for Caesar's cruelty. Other anti-Caesarian distortions are Lucan's picture of an Italy hostile to Caesar in 49 (contra Cic. Att. 8. 13. 1, 16. 1), and the omission of Domitius' use of Massilia as a base and of Massilia's breach of a truce. Cf. Pichón, 123fr.; Brisset, 91 ff.; Rambaud (op. cit. pp. 488–9 n. 6), 157 ff., although I cannot accept his view that Lucanaiso tried to correct an unfavourable picture of Pompey in Caesar and elsewhere.

^{page 490 note 1} Cf. Pichon, 130 ff.

^{page 490 note 2} 4. 28–32 ═ Caes. i. 41. 3–6; 33–5 ═ Caes. i. 43; 46–7 ═ Caes. i. 46. 2–3.

^{page 490 note 3} e.g.4 148 fr. ═ Caes. 1.64. 2 ff; 157 fr. ═ Caes. 1. 70.

^{page 490 note 4} Cf. 2. 519 ff.; 9. 1059 ff.

^{page 491 note 1} Cf. Pichon, 131 f.

^{page 491 note 2} Notice Lucan's approval of Curio's attempt in 50 to make both Caesar and Pompey lay down their proconsular commands, ‘vox quondam populi libertatemque tueri / ausus et armatos plebi miscere potentes’ (1. 270–1).

^{page 491 note 3} A useful map can be found in JRS xxxvi (1946), 55.Google Scholar

^{page 492 note 1} Lucan at first seems to have thought that the whole coast of Illyria and Epirus was south-east of Brundisium (2. 645–6) but later he was better informed (3. 1). I do not find convincing Pichon's argument (120–1) that Lucan believed that Antonius was making for Palaeste on the Acroceraunian peninsula, where Caesar first landed (5. 460; Caes. 3. 6). Contrast with Lucan' version that of Plutarch (Ant. 7. 3–4), who relates the same wind-shift as Caesar but gives it an entirely different significance.

^{page 492 note 2} Pichon notes (p. 132) that Pompey (6. 15 ff.) is supposed to have encamped at Petra before Caesar could stop him, whereas in fact Caesar reached Dyrrhachium first and forced Pompey to occupy Petra. However, the discrepancy is not so great as to suggest that Lucan has conflated two operations, as Pichón thinks.

^{page 492 note 3} Florus (2. 13. 40) says the same. Plutarch (Caes. 16. 3) makes them 130, while Appian attributes 120 holes to the shield of Minucius (2. 60).

^{page 492 note 4} Caes. 3. 70. 1; Plut, . Pomp. 65. 5, Caes. 38. 9; App. 2. 62. Cf. Suet. Jul. 36.Google Scholar

^{page 493 note 1} Cf. Syndikus, 308ff.

^{page 493 note 2} Examples are the smoke-signal and the inner fortification of the Pompeian camp (6. 279, 288) mentioned above. Nor is the episode of Antonius’ crossing of the Adriatic (he is not even named by Lucan) placed properly in context and explained (5. 703 ff.). To someone ignorant of Republican history the description of Curio (1. 270–1) would be as bafHing as an obscure mythological reference.

^{page 493 note 3} p. 117.

^{page 493 note 4} The view that Florus was influenced by Lucan, which was put forward by Jahn (Praef. xlviif. of 1852 edn.) and developed by Westerburg {RhMus xxxvii (1882), 35 ff.Google Scholar), was rejected by Pichón (70 if.) in spite of the striking resemblances in language as well as thought between the two authors. Apart from this instance and two others which I shall discuss in the text, the following are the most significant: 1. 109–11 and Flor. 2. 13. 14; 3. 157 and Flor. 2. 13. 21 (an unusual use of census); 4. 402–3 and Flor. 2. 13. 30 (fortuna aliquid ausa est in both authors); 7. 51–2 and Flor. 2. 13. 43 (praecipitare fata/ praecipitantibus fatis). For other evidence see Westerburg's article. See also p. 501 n. 14, p. 502 n. 3.

^{page 494 note 1} Phil. 2. 24; Farn. 6. 6. 4. Cf. Att. 7. 3. 4, 7.6.

^{page 494 note 2} Plut. Cato mi. 43.

^{page 494 note 3} Hor. Od. 2. i. Cf. Syme, A Roman Post-Mortem, Tod Memorial Lecture 3 (1950).

^{page 494 note 4} Cf., e.g., Cic. Tuse. 4. 17–18; Inv. 1. 16.

^{page 494 note 5} Pomp. 70. 4.

^{page 494 note 6} Caesars Monarchie, 314 n. 3.

^{page 494 note 7} For this view cf. Plut. Ant. 6. 1; Suet. Jul. 30. 5 (citing Cic. Off. 3. 82–3).

^{page 495 note 1} Lucan–s strictures, in so far as they apply to the leading men who joined each side, are confirmed by Caesar's comments on Lentulus Crus and Metellus Scipio ( i. 4. 2–3) and Cicero's on those in the Pompeian camp (Att. 11. 6. 6; Fam. 4. 9. 3; 6. 6. 6; 7. 3. 2). See also Fam. 8. 14. 3; Att. 7. 3. 5 for Caelius and Cicero' comments on the future Caesarians.

^{page 495 note 2} Cf. 2. 60–3.

^{page 495 note 3} De Cons, ad Marc. 20.6.

^{page 495 note 4} Ep. 14. 12–13. Cf. Cic. Att. 8. 11. 2 (‘dominatio quaesita ab utroque est’); Fam. 4. 9. 3 (‘sed miserius nihil quam ipsa victoria; quae, etiam si ad meliores venit, tamen eos ipsos ferociores impotentioresque reddit’). The idea that the victor in civil war was automatically the worse for it was taken up by Lucan later (7. 122–3): ‘omne malum victi, quod sors feret ultima rerum, / omne nefas victoris erit.’ Tacitus too was clearly under the influence of Seneca when he wrote: ‘quorum bello solum id scires, deteriorem fore qui vicisset’ (Hist. 1. 50).

^{page 495 note 5} Ep. 95. 70, 104. 29 ff.

^{page 495 note 6} 9. 18 ff.; 256 ff.

^{page 496 note 1} Cf. Sen. Brev. Vit. 18. 5 (from the opposite point of view): ‘nee rationem pati-tur, nee aequitate mitigatur, nee ulla prece flectitur populus esuriens.’

^{page 496 note 2} Cf., e.g., ORF, pp. 70–1 (frr. 173–4); 82 (fr. 203); 127 (fr. 17); 133 (fr. 30).

^{page 496 note 3} Cat. 10–13 (esp. 11. 5 for the corruption of the Roman army); Hist. 1, frr. 12, 16.

^{page 496 note 4} Cat. 33, 37.

^{page 496 note 5} 1.47. 8 ff.

^{page 496 note 6} Above, pp. 493–4.

^{page 496 note 7} Ann. 3. 27.

^{page 497 note 1} Cf. Koestermann, , Cornelius Tacitus Annalen, i. 467–8Google Scholar, who believes that Tacitus jumped from the Twelve Tables to the revolutionary period (though he may have had in mind too the commands of Camillus and Scipio Africanus), and that hinc marks a logical consequence. It is difficult to find examples of such legislation during the struggle of the orders after the Twelve Tables. Contra Furneaux [Annals of Tacitus, i, p. 382Google Scholar), it is hard to believe that Tacitus thought it wrong for plebeians to become consuls and priests.

^{page 497 note 2} Some further possible examples of Lucan's influence on Tacitus are considered in Additional Note A, p. 504.

^{page 497 note 3} It is uncertain where Lucan discovered that the names of the Gracchi had been bandied about in the senate; possibly in a Livian speech. Caesar (1. 7. 6) used the Gracchi as examples to prove the inap-propriateness of the senatus consultum ultimum.

^{page 497 note 4} 1. 271. ‘Vox quondam populi’ (270) suggests not only that he was tribune but that he represented public opinion (rightly, cf. App. 2. 27; Plut. Caes. 30. 2).

^{page 497 note 5} ‘Livor edax tibi cuneta negat, gentes-que subactas / vix impune feres. socerum depellere regno / decretum genero est; partiri non potes orbem, / solus habere potes’ (288–90, cf. Caes. 1. 4. 4; Suet. Jul. 30. 5—‘tantis rebus gestis’).

^{page 497 note 6} Caes. 1. 3. 3; 3. 1. 4.

^{page 498 note 1} App. 2. 25; Suet. Jul. 30. 5.

^{page 498 note 2} I. 326 ff.: ‘et docilis Sullam scelerum vicisse magistrum … sic et Sullanum sólito tibi lambere ferrum durat, Magne, sitis.’ Cf. 7. 307.

^{page 498 note 3} Cic. Att. 9. 7. 3; 10. 2 and 6; 10. 7. 1. For invectives see Val. Max. 6. 2. 4 ff.; Sen. Contr. 10. 1(30). 8; Cic. Att. 7. 8. 5.

^{page 498 note 4} Plut. Caes. 13. 3; App. 2. 14; Flor. 2. 13. 8–14; Dio 37. 56. 1–2.

^{page 498 note 5} 4. 254 ff. See above, p. 490.

^{page 498 note 6} See p. 489 n. 5 above.

^{page 498 note 7} 1. 143 ff.; 2. 492 ff, 650 if.; 5. 403 ff. Historians had already created a picture of Caesar as an impetuous man who trusted to luck rather than judgement (App. 2. 35; 57; Plut. Caes. 32, 38. 2.).

^{page 499 note 1} 9. 1035 ff.

^{page 499 note 2} 10. 72 ff., 439 ff.

^{page 499 note 3} 10. 251 ff.

^{page 499 note 4} 1. 151 ff.; 10. 445 ff.

^{page 498 note 5} In Lucan fortuna favours Caesar and is sometimes his personal good luck (the felicitas of a great commander), see 1. 226; 4. 121–3; 5. 303–4, 510, 593; Brisset, 62 ff.

^{page 498 note 6} 1. 340 ff.

^{page 498 note 7} 5. 340–3.

^{page 498 note 8} Above, p. 495.

^{page 498 note 9} Ep. 14. 12–13, 24. 6, 51. 12, 67. 13.

^{page 498 note 10} Plut. Cato mi. 52.3 and Pomp. 61. i. Cic. Att. 7. 15.2: ‘Cato enim ipse iam serviré quam pugnare mavult.’

^{page 498 note 11} Ep. 14. 13; de Cons, ad Marc. 20. 6.

^{page 498 note 12} Ep. 95.69 ff., 104.29 ff.; Const. Sap. 2.2; Prov. 2. 10, 3. 14.

^{page 498 note 13} Ep. 104. 30.

^{page 498 note 14} Ibid. 32.

^{page 498 note 15} Ibid. 33 (details of the march are found in a more elaborate form in 9. 582 ff.).

^{page 499 note 1} 9. 1035 ff.

^{page 499 note 2} 10. 72 ff., 439 ff.

^{page 499 note 3} 10. 251 ff.

^{page 499 note 4} 1. 151 ff.; 10. 445 ff.

^{page 499 note 5} In Lucan fortuna favours Caesar and is sometimes his personal good luck (the felicitas of a great commander), see 1. 226; 4. 121–3; 5. 303–4, 510, 593; Brisset, 62 ff.

^{page 499 note 6} 1. 340 ff.

^{page 499 note 7} 5. 340–3.

^{page 499 note 8} Above, p. 495.

^{page 499 note 9} Ep. 14. 12–13, 24. 6, 51. 12, 67. 13.

^{page 499 note 10} Plut. Cato mi. 52.3 and Pomp. 61. i. Cic. Att. 7. 15.2: ‘Cato enim ipse iam serviré quam pugnare mavult.’

^{page 499 note 11} Ep. 14. 13; de Cons, ad Marc. 20. 6.

^{page 499 note 12} Ep. 95.69 ff., 104.29 ff.; Const. Sap. 2.2; Prov. 2. 10, 3. 14.

^{page 499 note 13} Ep. 104. 30.

^{page 499 note 14} Ibid. 32.

^{page 499 note 15} Ibid. 33 (details of the march are found in a more elaborate form in 9. 582 ff.).

^{page 500 note 1} Ep. 95. 71. Cf. 71. 10: ‘olim provisum est ne quid Cato detrimenti caperet.’

^{page 500 note 2} Att. 7. 5. 4, 7. 7; 8. 11. 2; 9. 6. 7, 7. 3; 10. 7. 1.

^{page 500 note 3} Att. 7. 7. 7. One wonders whether perhaps in his Cato Cicero ascribed to Cato his own views.

^{page 500 note 4} 9. 17 ff., especially 29–30.

^{page 500 note 5} 9. 262–6. Cf. Cic. Att. 10. 16. 3 for the view that all the boni would have joined Cato, if he had stayed in Sicily.

^{page 500 note 6} 9. 385 ff.

^{page 500 note 7} 7. 644–6.

^{page 500 note 8} 1. 129 ff.

^{page 500 note 9} Cf. Cic. Att. 7. 11. 3, 13 a. 1; 8. 16. 1; 9. 19. 3; Fam. 4. 6. 2; 9. 9. 2 (Dolabella–s view); Malcovati, , Athenaeum, xxxi (1953), 295 f.Google Scholar

^{page 500 note 10} See above, p. 492.

^{page 500 note 11} As Brisset believes, 113f.

^{page 501 note 1} The contradictions are finally stressed in Cato' obituary on Pompey (9. 190 ff.).

^{page 501 note 2} 2. 531 ff., esp. 562 ff.

^{page 501 note 3} 2. 632 ff.

^{page 501 note 4} Cic. Att. 7. 8. 4. Cf. 7. 4. 2; Fam. 8. 8. 9.

^{page 501 note 5} 6. 296 ff.; 7. 85 ff.

^{page 501 note 6} 5. 739 ff., 769 ff.

^{page 501 note 7} 7. 107 ff., 376f ff.

^{page 501 note 8} 6. 299 ff., 319 ff.; 7. 87 ff., esp. 121–3.

^{page 501 note 9} 7. 659 ff.

^{page 501 note 10} 7. 686–711 698–706 pick up the theme of 121–4.

^{page 501 note 11} Marti, B. M., AJP lxvi (1945), 352Google Scholar ff. (esp. 369 ff); Brisset, 118ff.; Due, 109 ff.Contra Syndikus, 170. See Additional Note B, p. 504.

^{page 501 note 12} 8. 1–27.

^{page 501 note 13} Apparently at Attaleia in Pamphylia (Plut. Pomp. 76. 1).

^{page 501 note 14} 14 8. 211–38. We have no good evidence for a treaty sworn between Pompey and the Parthians (218f., cf. Flor. 1. 46. 4). Lucan presumably has in mind the Parthian embassy in 63 B.C. to Pompey in Syria, when Pompey received a commission to arbitrate between Parthia and Armenia (App. Mith. 106. 501; Plut. Pomp. 39. 3).

^{page 501 note 15} 8. 276–327.

^{page 502 note 1} 311 ff.

^{page 502 note 2} 330–455.

^{page 502 note 3} Caes. 3. 82. 4; Dio 42. 2. 5; Flor. 2. 13. 51 (only he and Lucan mention Syedrae).

^{page 502 note 4} App. 2. 83; Plut. Pomp. 76. 4.

^{page 502 note 5} Sydenham, Roman Republican Coinage, 1356f.; Dio, 48. 26. 3–5.

^{page 502 note 6} 8. 613 ff.

^{page 502 note 7} 630–1. His felicitas in the context is clearly the product of his past success and glory, not that of a philosopher.

^{page 502 note 8} 8. 793 ff., esp. 813–15.

^{page 502 note 9} 9. 190 ff.

^{page 502 note 10} 192–5.

^{page 502 note 11} 204–6.

^{page 502 note 12} Cf. Due, 111 ff.; Brisset, 124 ff.

^{page 502 note 13} 7. 120 ff.

^{page 502 note 14} 7. 705–6.

^{page 503 note 1} Cf. Syndikus, 103 f.

^{page 503 note 2} 7. 51 flf., esp. 79–80, 84–5. Cf. Caes. 3. 82. 2; App. 2. 67; Plut. Pomp. 67. 3.

^{page 503 note 3} Excellently discussed by Due, 110 ff. However, he does not make the point that, for Lucan, Pompey does not represent all of the old Republic.

^{page 503 note 4} Notice Lucan' lengthy treatment of the constitutional position at the end of 49, when the retiring consuls treat the Pompeian senators in Epirus as the senate and formally appoint Pompey supreme commander (5. 1–49, cf. Dio 41. 43),―also Lucan' comment on Cato: ‘oderat et Magnum, quamvis comes isset in arma / auspiciis raptus patriae ductuque senatus’ (9. 21–2).

^{page 503 note 5} Contrast with the refs. above 9. 249 ff., where Tarcondimotus suggests that the Pompeian remnants should show allegiance to the official Roman consul, a proposal which Cato condemns by ignoring it.

^{page 503 note 6} Cf. 7. 644–6, where Lucan hopes not so much for a change in the course of history, but an opportunity for each generation to struggle against it. Lucan' general hostility to the principate and his ambivalent treatment of Nero are admirably discussed by Due (92 ff.). Brisset (193 ff.) takes Lucan' acceptance in practice of a principate, if not of Nero as princeps, as a basis for interpreting the poem, but the relationship between Lucan' thought and practice is unlikely to have been so simple and the evidence of the poem itself is a safer guide.

^{page 504 note 1} Webster, Duchess of Malfi, Act v, Scene 5.