¹ Versions of this paper were read to the Centre for Mediterranean Studies at the University of Exeter and at the Universities of Padova, Florence, Oxford, and London. I wish to thank the Wellcome Trust and the British Academy for supporting visits to the Università degli Studi di Pisa and the Fondation Hardt pour l'Étude de l'Antiquité Classique, where much of the research was undertaken.

² Timaeus FGH 566 F 81 = Polyb. 12.3.1–6 is accused of the uncritical reproduction of the ancient claim that Libya is entirely desert, parched and without crops. Yet, as Walbank at Polyb. 12.3.2 observes, Hecataeus FGH 1 F 335 and Hdt. 4.168–99 are aware of arable and pastoral in some parts of Libya while the latter divides the land into a cultivated region along the coast (Hdt. 2.32.4, 4.181.1), a region inhabited only by wild beasts to the south (Hdt. 2.32.4, 4.181.1), and a desert or hilly region south and west of that (Hdt. 2.32.4, 4.181.1, 4.185.3). Later writers regularly identify the area south of the Syrtes and west of Cyrene as a desert, snake-infested region (Diod. Sic. 3.50.1–51.5; Strab., , Geog. 17.3.1Google Scholar; Plin., , HN 5.26Google Scholar) and it is in this micro-climate that the writers at issue in this paper — Lucan, Lucian, Dio — all locate their beasts.

³ Ap. Rhod., Ἀλεξανδρείας Κτίσις fr. 4 Powell = Schol. Nic, Ther. 11. For the attribution of this claim to Apollonius, see Livrea at Rhod., Ap., Arg. 4.1506Google Scholar and H. Fränkel, Noten zu den Argonautika des Apollonios Rhodios (1968), 606.

⁴ Rhod., Ap., Arg. 4.1513–17Google Scholar; Ov., , Met. 4.617–20Google Scholar; Luc. 9.619–99.

⁵ Rhod., Ap., Arg. 4.1228–536Google Scholar.

⁶ Dionysius Scytobrachion FGH 32 F 8 = Diod. Sic. 3.72.2–3.

⁷ Diod. Sic. 20.42.1–2.

⁸ Tubero fr. 8 (Peter) = Gell., , NA 7.3Google Scholar; Liv., Per. 18; Val. Max. 1.8. ext. 19; Plin., , HN 8.37Google Scholar; Sen., , Ep. 82.24Google Scholar; Dio Cass. fr. 43.23; Flor. 1.18.20; Sil., , Pun. 6.140–293Google Scholar; Oros. 4.8.10–15.

⁹ Sail., , Jug. 89.5Google Scholar.

¹⁰ Luc. 9.294–949.

¹¹ For the Psylli and Cato's march, see Luc. 9.890–937 and Plut., , Cat. Min. 56.3.Google Scholar For the Psylli and the march of Ophelias, see also Callias of Syracuse FGH 564 F 3 = Ael., NA 16.28. For other references to the Psylli as snake-doctors, see Nic. fr. 32 Schn.; Paus. 9.28.1; Cinna fr. 10 with Courtney ad loc; Plin., , HN 8.93, 21.78 and 28.30Google Scholar; Suet., , Aug. 17.4Google Scholar; Cass. Dio 51.14. For the immunity of the Psylli and the exposure of infants to snake-bite, see Agatharchides FGH 86 F 21 a and b = Plin., , HN 7.14Google Scholar and Ael., , NA 16.27Google Scholar; Varro ap. Priscian 10.32. See also Morel, W., ‘Iologica’, Philologus 83 (1928), 347–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Treidler at Pauly, RE 23.2.1464–76Google Scholar. The claim at Hdt. 4.173 that the Psylli are totally extinct is striking for its association of their demise with the utter aridity of the terrain which once they inhabited.

¹² Andromachos, , Theriac vv. 27–8Google Scholar ap. Galen 14.32–42 Kühn: τῆι πίσυνος λειμῶσι θέρους ἐπιτέρπεο Καῖσαρ, | κὰι Λιβυκὴν στείχων οὐκ ἀλέγοις Ψάμαθον. The manuscript tradition prints these lines at vv. 25–6, and this is reflected in the contributions to the text of Andromachos of Schneider, O., ‘De Andromachi Archiatri Elegia’, Philologus 14 (1858), 25–58Google Scholar and E. Heitsch, Die griechischen Dichterfragmente der römischen Kaiserzeit (1964), but they are much more telling as a coda to the catalogue of snakes against which theriac is effective at vv. 11–28. There is no obvious relationship between the herpetological verse of Andromachos and Lucan but it is striking that the emperor's chief-surgeon should be composing poetry on this theme at much the same time as the author of the Pharsalia.

¹³ [Orph.] Lithica Kerugmata 145–6 (Abel).

¹⁴ cf. Bassett, E. L., ‘Regulus and the Serpent in the Punica’, CPh 50 (1955), 1–20Google Scholar, esp. 10, for the striking absence of correspondence between Lucan's narrative and the otherwise densely intertextual Sil., , Pun. 6.140–293Google Scholar.

¹⁵ Bassett, art. cit. (n. 14), 4, notes the echo of Luc. 4.587–8 at Sil., , Pun. 6.140–3Google Scholar, and on p. 6 notes Sil., , Pun. 6.181–7Google Scholar and the comparison of the snake of Regulus to three different combats in which Hercules was involved.

¹⁶ Plut., , Alex. 27.1Google Scholar; Arr., , Anab. 3.3.3–4Google Scholar; Diod. Sic. 17.49.3–4 all mark the rain unexpectedly enjoyed by Alexander and his retinue en route from Paraetonium to Ammon as a sign of divine favour. Another striking case is that of Andron the Argive who was so immune to thirst that he thrice walked to Ammon without drinking a drop. For Andron, see Ar. fr. 103 Rose = Epit. Athen., , Deipn. 2 p. 44Google Scholard and Apollonius, Mirab. 25, cf. Diog. Laert. 9.81 and Sext. Emp., , Hyp. 1.84Google Scholar. For the route to Ammon as hot and thirsty, see also Anon. Hist. Alex. Magn. FGH 151 F 1. 9; Stat., , Theb. 3.476Google Scholar; Mart. Cap. 2.192; Amp., , Mem. 2.1.1Google Scholar; Serv. at Verg., , Aen. 4.196Google Scholar.

¹⁷ There are a very few exceptions to this statement. Ptolemaios Lagu FGH 138 F 8 = Arr., , Anab. 3.3.5Google Scholar claims that Alexander was led to Ammon not by crows but by two snakes. Jacoby ad loc. argues that this must be connected with the role of snakes in the cult of Ammon and cites Hdt. 2.74 and Hesych. s.v. Ἂμμων. Nigidius Figulus fr. 89 (Swoboda) = Schol. Germ. Arat. pp. 80.8–81.1 and 143.12–144.9 (Breysig) refers to a ‘serpentium multitudo’ at Chrys., Ammon. Dio, Or. 5.24Google Scholar (vide infra Section IV) has his snake-women attack youths travelling on a Greek embassy to Ammon, but only after giving a detailed description at 5.6–11 of their habitat in the desert below the Syrtes.

¹⁸ For Cato at Ammon, see Luc. 9.511–86. For the geographical implausibility of this visit, see also Wuensch, M., Lucan-Interpretationen, Diss. Kiel (1930), 54–5Google Scholar.

¹⁹ For the walk along the Syrtes as a paradigm for a particularly challenging journey, see Hor., , Carm. 1.22.5Google Scholar with Nisbet and Hubbard ad loc. and 2.6.3; Ov., , Am. 2.16.21Google Scholar; Apul., Met. 72.

²⁰ Gsell, S., Histoire ancienne de l'Afrique du nord, vol. 8 (1928), 31–3Google Scholar.

²¹ Plut., , Cat. Min. 56.1–4Google Scholar.

²² Strab., , Geog. 17.3.20Google Scholar.

²³ Luc. 9.948–9.

²⁴ Luc. 9.300–410.

²⁵ Luc. 9.940.

²⁶ Note, however, the alternative suggestion of Holmes, T. Rice, The Roman Republic, vol. 3 (1928), 221Google Scholar, that Cato's ships were driven ashore off the coast of Cyrenaica and that the march proper was begun only from Berenice.

²⁷ Rhod., Ap., Arg. 4.1232–1392Google Scholar. For an intelligent account of the relationship of Lucan 9 to the epic code in general, see Batinski, E. E., ‘Cato and the battle with the serpents’, Syll. Class 3 (1991), 71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ G. O. Hutchinson, Hellenistic Poetry (1988), 353, states simply that ‘Lucan uses Apollonius' sequence in the desert for his own’.

²⁹ von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, U., Hellenistische Dichtung in der Zeit des Kallimachos, vol. 2 (1924), 223Google Scholar n. 2, suggests the comparison with Diod. Sic. 20.42.1–2 and attributes this account to Duris of Samos. The suggestion is followed through in Wuensch, op. cit. (n. 18), 40–1 and 44. Very similar conclusions are reached independently in Kebric, R., ‘Lucan's snake episode (9.587–937): a historical model’, Latomus 35 (1976), 380–2Google Scholar.

³⁰ For Diodorus and Lucan on journeys of two months, see Wuensch, op. cit. (n. 18), 41 n. 1, and Kebric, art. cit. (n. 29), 381 and n. 15.

³¹ Wuensch, op. cit. (n. 18), 35–43, essays a reconstruction of Livy 112; Kebric, art. cit. (n. 29), 382, tends towards Lucan's direct dependence on Duris but acknowledges Livy as a possible intermediary.

³² It is, for instance, possible to imagine how the duration of two months for both marches filtered through Livy's reading of Duris to Lucan.

³³ vide infra Sections II–V.

³⁴ Paus. 9.28.1 attributes the relative weakness of the poison of the snakes of Mt Helicon to the healthy bushes, grasses, and roots which form their diet; Sil., , Pun. 1.285–6Google Scholar attributes the particular venom of the snake on which Zacynthus treads to the heat of the Spanish climate. See also Cels. 5.27.10; Scrib. Larg. 164; Galen 13.315–17 Kühn; Ov., , Met. 2.173–5Google Scholar with Bömer ad loc.

³⁵ vide infra Sections IV–VI.

³⁶ Luc. 9.420–30.

³⁷ For Lucan's emphasis on the absence of corn, vines, and pasture and its relationship to the categories of ancient ethnographical writing, see R. F. Thomas, Lands and Peoples in Roman Poetry. The Ethnographic Tradition (1982), 110 and n. 15.

³⁸ cf. Isid., , Orig. 12.4.13Google Scholar notes that the dipsas ‘Latine situla dicitur, quia quern momorderit siti perit’.

³⁹ For previous interpretations of Lucian's Dipsas, see Thiele, G., ‘Zur libyschen Fabel’, Philologus 75 (1918), 227–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and J. Bompaire, Lucien écrivain (1958), 687–9. Neither author discusses Lucan.

⁴⁰ For the uninhabitability of this region vide supra n. 2. See also Lucr., , DRN 5.35–6Google Scholar, who questions the usefulness of slaying the serpent guarding the apples of the Hesperides which lived ‘propter Atlanteum litus pelagique severa, | quo neque noster adit quisquam nec barbarus audet’.

⁴¹ Luci., Dips. 3 cf. Luc., , Phars. 9.700–8Google Scholar.

⁴² Luci., Dips. 3 cf. Luc., , Phars. 9.716Google Scholar.

⁴³ Luci., Dips. 3 cf. Luc., , Phars. 9.719Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Luci., Dips. 3 cf. Luc., , Phars. 9.727–33Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Luci., Dips. 3 cf. Luc., , Phars. 9.833–6Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Luci., Dips. 4 cf. Luc., , Phars. 9.736Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Luci., Dips. 4 cf. Luc., , Phars. 9.741–50Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Luci., Dips. 4 cf. Luc., , Phars. 9.751–2Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ For more on this problem, vide infra Section IV init.

⁵⁰ M. Leigh, Lucan: Spectacle and Engagement (1997), 267–73.

⁵¹ Luc. 9.398–402.

⁵² Curt. 7.5.9–12; Plut., Alex. 42; Arr., , Anab. 6.26Google Scholar. On this point, see also Wuensch, op. cit. (n. 18), 54, and Rutz, W., ‘Lucan und die Rhetorik’, in Entretiens de la Fondation Hardt 15 (1970), 233–65Google Scholar, esp. 233–49.

⁵³ Luc. 9.500–10.

⁵⁴ cf. Sen., , Ep. 104.33Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Luc. 9.607–10.

⁵⁶ Luc. 9.611–18.

⁵⁷ Morel, art. cit. (n. 11), 369, notes that this motif is Lucan's own invention but does not explain its function in his narrative.

⁵⁸ Leigh, op. cit. (n. 50), 270–1.

⁵⁹ See esp. Nisbet and Hubbard at Hor., , Carm. 2.2.13–16Google Scholar and J. Bramble, Persius and the Programmatic Satire (1974), 35–6.

⁶⁰ Luc. 9.756–60; cf. Philumenus 20.2 (Wellmann) διὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὀρεκτικώτερος ὁ πάσχων γίνεται.

⁶¹ Philumenus 20.2 (Wellmann) says that victims of the dipsas burst ὡς ἐπὶ ὑδρωπικῶν τῶν καθ΄ ὑπέρχυσιν ῥηγνυμένων.

⁶² Wuensch, op. cit. (n. 18), 54, notes the ‘essential’ importance of Luc. 9.510 ‘suffecitque omnibus unda’ but does not discuss its reversal at 9.757 ‘sed non et sufficit’.

⁶³ Luci., Dips. 7–8.

⁶⁴ Luci., Dips. 9.

⁶⁵ Hes., WD 287–92.

⁶⁶ Simonides, PMG 579 cf. Tyrt. fr. 9.43 West; Pind., , Nem. 6.23–4Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Xen., , Mem. 2.1.21–34Google Scholar; Schol. Ar., Nub. 361. For discussion, see Nestle, W., ‘Die Horen des Prodikos’, Hermes 71 (1936), 151–70Google Scholar, esp. 164–8, and R. Höistad, Cynic Hero and Cynic King (1948), 31–3.

⁶⁸ Luc. 9.449–51 emphasizes the absence of mountains in this part of Libya.

⁶⁹ For equations between snake-bite and passion in Greek thought, see also Xen., , Symp. 4.27–8Google Scholar, Mem. 1.3.11–13; Aristid., Ael., Or. 15, I p. 234Google Scholar, Or. 49, II P. 395.

⁷⁰ The contention that Lucian's Nigrinus and De Mercede Conductis draw on Juvenal, Satires 3 and 5 goes back to Helm, R., Lucian und Menipp (1906), 218–22Google Scholar, and is endorsed in Bompaire, op. cit. (n. 39), 504–8, and Courtney, E., A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (1980), 624–9Google Scholar. For a more sceptical judgement, see Jones, C. P., Culture and Society in Lucian (1986), 80–1 and n. 15CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Lucian's general unconcern for Latin literary culture is noted by Baldwin, B., Studies in Lucian (1973), 41–2Google Scholar, and Swain, S., Hellenism and Empire. Language, Classicism and Power in the Greek World (1996), 319Google Scholar. Bowie, E. L., ‘Greeks and their past in the Second Sophistic’, in Finley, M. I. (ed.), Studies in Ancient Society (1974), 166–209Google Scholar, discusses the evidence for a Greek culture turned in on itself and its past in the face of Roman rule.

⁷¹ Morel, art. cit. (n. 11), 369, notes the resemblance between the passages in Lucan and Lucian on the insatiability of the thirst inspired by the dipsas even were the victim to drink down the great rivers of the world. Morel infers that Lucan draws this motif from Macer and then seems to suggest that both Macer and Lucian refer back to the same Hellenistic medical writer.

⁷² Nic., Ther. 334–58.

⁷³ Schol. Nic., Ther. 334, 336, and 338 discuss the species and the bite of the dipsas while Schol. Nic., , Ther. 3.343Google Scholar presents a lengthy discussion of the Ogygian fable which takes up much of Nicander's account of the dipsas. For Lucan and the scholia to Nicander, see Cazzaniga, I., ‘L'episodio dei serpi libici in Lucano e la tradizione dei Theriaka nicandrei’, Acme 10 (1957), 27–41Google Scholar.

⁷⁴ See esp. Morel, art. cit. (n. 11) and Lausberg, M., ‘Epos und Lehrgedicht. Ein Gattungsvergleich am Beispiel von Lucans Schlangenkatalog’, WJA 16 (1990), 173–4Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ Isid., , Orig. 12.4.24Google Scholar discusses the chelydrus and compares Macer fr. 8 (Courtney) ‘seu terga exspirant spumantia virus / seu terra † fumat, qua taeter labitur anguis’ and Luc. 9.711 ‘tractique via fumante chelydri’. It should be noted that Isid., , Orig. 12.4Google Scholar cites Lucan repeatedly but Macer only the once, which would suggest that Isidore's knowledge of the latter is indirect and perhaps drawn from a note in the margin to his text of Lucan. Isidore's other principal source, Solinus, Collectanea Rerum Memorabilium pp. 122.3–123.14, itself draws heavily on Plin., , HN 8.85–7Google Scholar and on other unidentified sources. For Lucan and Macer, see also Macer fr. 6 (Courtney) = Comm. Bern. ad Luc. 9.701 ‘serpentum nomina aut a Macro sumpsit de libris Theriacon — nam duos edidit — aut quaesita a Marsis posuit’. One might at first infer from this that the annotator knows nothing more about Macer than that he wrote two books of Theriaca, but the notion of Lucan interrogating the Marsi is less fatuous than it may seem. For this is just what Galen 13.315–17 Kühn claims to have done at Rome when seeking information about the flesh of the echidna.

⁷⁶ For the Libyan tale and its relationship to other forms of fable in antiquity, see West, M. L., ‘The ascription of fables to Aesop in Archaic and Classical Greece’, Entretiens de la Fondation Hardt 30 (1984), 105–36, esp. 114–15Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ Aesch. fr. 139 Radt.

⁷⁸ Ar., Rhet. 1393a; Quint., , Inst. 5.11.20Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ Hermog., Progym. 1 = Spengel, , Rh. Gr. 2.1Google Scholar; Theon, Progym. 3 = Spengel, , Rh. Gr. 2.73.1Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ Theon, Progym. 3 = Spengel, , Rh. Gr. 2.73Google Scholar criticizes this approach. Is it possible that the class of adunaton fables was entitled by some Libyan?

⁸¹ Theon, Progym. 3 = Spengel, , Rh. Gr. 2.73Google Scholar. For Cybissus the alleged inventor of the Libyan tale, see also Chamaileon ap. Hesych. s.v. Λιβυκοὶ λόγοι; Diog. Paroem. II 178. 180 Gott.

⁸² Ar., Rhet. 1393b; ps.-Ar., Oecon. 1345a2–5; Theon, Progym. 3 = Spengel, , Rh. Gr. 2.73Google Scholar.

⁸³ Ar., Rhet. 1394a; Hermog., Progym. 1 = Spengel, , Rh.Gr. 2.1Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Ar., Rhet. 1394a; Quint., , Inst. 5.11.19Google Scholar; Hermog., Progym. 1 = Spengel, , Rh. Gr. 2.1Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ Ar., Rhet. 1394a cf. Hermog., Progym. 1 = Spengel, Rh. Gr. 2.1 and Theon, Progym. 3 = Spengel, , Rh. Gr. 2.72–8Google Scholar who both assume that the orator will decode his own allegory.

⁸⁶ For previous work on this piece, see Thiele, art. cit. (n. 39), and P. Desideri, Dione di Prusa. Un'intellettuale greco nell'impero romano (1978), 493–6.

⁸⁷ For the allegorical dimension to the tale, see also Höistad, op. cit. (n. 67), 60 and 62 n. 8.

⁸⁸ Libya is often thought of as being inhabited by terrible women. The most famous of these is the Lamia, for whose Libyan origins see Duris of Samos FGH 76 F 17 = Schol. Ar., Vesp. 1035 = Suda s.v. Λαμία; Schol. Ar., Pax 758; Isid., , Etytm. 8.11.102Google Scholar; and J. Fontenrose, Python. A Study of Delphic Myth and its Origins (1959), 100 n. 17 for further references. Dionysius Scytobrachion FGH 32 F 4 = Schol. Rhod., Ap., Arg. 2.965Google Scholar and FGH 32 F 7 = Diod. Sic. 3.52.1–55.11 speaks of πλείω γένη γυναικῶν in Libya and records the struggles of Heracles and Perseus with the Amazons and the Gorgons.

⁸⁹ Chrys., Dio, Or. 5.5–6Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Chrys., Dio, Or. 5.6–11Google Scholar.

⁹¹ Chrys., Dio, Or. 5.11Google Scholar.

⁹² The original half-woman, half-serpent is Echidna at Hes., Theog. 295–305. Her offspring are listed at Hes., Theog. 306–32 and include many of the monsters slain by Heracles. For an allegorical interpretation of Echidna as snake-woman, see Schol. Hes., Theog. 298. See also Luci., , VH 2.46Google Scholar, who describes the half-woman, half-dog temptresses of the island of Kabalousa.

⁹³ Chrys., Dio, Or. 5.12–15Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ Chrys., Dio, Or. 5.16–18Google Scholar.

⁹⁵ Chrys., Dio, Or. 5.18–21Google Scholar. For Heracles and the half-woman, half-snake mother of Scythes, see Hdt. 4.8–10. The Herodotean story has no allegorical dimension and Heracles emerges unscathed from this extended sexual encounter. Jupiter survives a similarly unappealing coupling with a Scythian snakewoman at Flacc, Val., Arg. 6.48–52Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Chrys., Dio, Or. 5.22–3Google Scholar. Note esp. 5.23 for Heracles who was able to ἀποϕῆναι καθαρὰν καὶ ἥμεραν τὴν αὐτοῦ διάνοιαν.

⁹⁷ Chrys., Dio, Or. 5.24–7Google Scholar.

⁹⁸ On this issue in general, see esp. Höistad, op. cit. (n. 67), 22–73.

⁹⁹ Feeney, D. C., ‘Following after Hercules in Virgil and Apollonius’, PVS 18 (1986), 47–83, esp. 52–3Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ Rhod., Ap., Arg. 4.1393–1460Google Scholar.

¹⁰¹ Rhod., Ap., Arg. 4.1432–49Google Scholar. Note esp. the description of Heracles at Rhod., Ap., Arg. 4.1433Google Scholar as ὁ κύντατος and at 4.1436–7 as ἀνὴρ ὀλοώτατος ὕβριν | καὶ δέμας.

¹⁰² Rhod., Ap., Arg. 4.1441–9Google Scholar.

¹⁰³ Rhod., Ap., Arg. 4.1447–9Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ Livrea ad loc. notes the imitation of Rhod., Ap., Arg. 4.1449Google Scholar at Nic., Ther. 340–2 and Alex. 495–6.

¹⁰⁵ For Heracles' war against the hybristae, see Pherecydes FGH 3 F 17 = Schol. Rhod., Ap., Arg. 4.1396–9Google Scholar: ἀϕικόμενος δὲ εὶς Ταρτησσὸν πορεύεται εἰς Λιβύην, ἔνθα ἀναιρεῖ Ανταῖον τὸν Ποσειδῶνος ὑβριστὴν ὄντα; Herodorus of Heracleia in Pontus FGH 31 F 7 = Schol. Rhod., Ap., Arg. 1.943Google Scholar; Pind., , Nem. 1.50Google Scholar; Schol. Pind., , Nem. 1.65Google Scholar; Bacchyl. 13.1–2; Eur., HF 181; Soph., Track. 1096; Lys., , Or. 33.1Google Scholar; M. Gigante, Ricerche filologiche (1956), 79–92 and N. R. E. Fisher, Hybris. A Study in the Values of Honour and Shame in Ancient Greece (1992), 229–35. For the reader used to thinking of Heracles as the slayer of the hybristae, the nymph's description of him must be particularly surprising.

¹⁰⁶ For the bestial Heracles see also Rhod., Ap., Arg. 1.1261–72Google Scholar where he reacts to the loss of Hylas like a bull stung by a gadfly.

¹⁰⁷ It is often disputed whether the Heracles of Apollonius is the archaic muscleman of saga or the wise and spiritual hero of the philosophers. Yet the language of Apollonius is such that, when he appears in the former role, it is because he is not appearing in the latter. The negated figure looms large. For more nuanced recent interpretations of the Apollonian Heracles, see Feeney, art. cit. (n. 99), 83 n. 35, and R. L. Hunter, The Argonautica of Apollonius: Literary Studies (1993), 25–36.

¹⁰⁸ Antistius ap. Themistius, Περὶ ἀρετῆς 33. This text survives only in Syriac translation. I quote the English version of G. K. Galinsky, The Herakles Theme (1972), 107.

¹⁰⁹ For more on the encounter between Heracles and Prometheus and its relationship to Chrys., Dio, Or. 4.29–31Google Scholar, 9.33, 60, see Höistad, op. cit. (n. 67), 57–9.

¹¹⁰ The passage quoted is transmitted by John of Damascus in Cod. Paris. 1630 and attributed to Ἡρόδοτος ὁ σοΦώτατος. Since there is nothing of this sort in the extant writings of Herodotus, Lobeck, followed by Jacoby, attributes the passage instead to the noted sophist Herodorus. The attribution is strengthened by the parallel between the claim here that Herodorus identified seven other figures called Heracles and FGH 31F 42 = Schol. Rhod., Ap., Arg. 1.42Google Scholar, where Herodorus is said to claim that there were two separate figures called Orpheus, one of whom sailed with the Argonauts. Interestingly, G. Murray, Greek Studies (1946), 124, quotes the almost identical Suda s.v. Ἡρακλῆς and instinctively recognizes the work of a ‘late allegorist’. Murray appears not to know about the parallel FGH 31 F 14.

¹¹¹ For Herodorus as a possible source for the Pontic narrative of Apollonius of Rhodes, see Desideri, P., ‘Studi di storiografia eracleota’, SCO 16 (1967), 366–416, esp. 383–7Google Scholar.

¹¹² For the allegorical interpretation of the lion-skin and the club see also Luci., Vit. Auct. 8 and Diog., Ep. 8 Hercher. Höistad, op. cit. (n. 67), 72–3, notes the similarity between these passages and Herodorus and argues that the favoured motifs and allegorical procedures of late Cynicism reflect those of the fourth- and third-century B.C. founders of the school. For a comparable approach in Stoic allegoresis, see Cornutus 31 = SVF 1.514.

¹¹³ Plut., , Cat. Min. 56.3Google Scholar.

¹¹⁴ For discussion, see F. Ahl, Lucan. An Introduction (1976), 91–113.

¹¹⁵ For Lucan's manipulation of this episode ‘to elevate Cato beyond Hercules’, see Ahl, op. cit. (n. 114), 268–74. For Cato and Hercules in Book 9 of Lucan, see also Shoaf, R. A., ‘Certius Exemplar Sapientis Viri. Rhetorical subversion and subversive rhetoric in Pharsalia 9’, PhQ 57 (1978), 143–54Google Scholar, and Lausberg, art. cit. (n. 74), 194–5.

¹¹⁶ Luc. 9.379–81. A Herculean dimension to Cato's march may already have been present in the historiographical tradition; for Livy, Per. 112 talks of ‘laboriosum M. Catonis in Africa per deserta cum legionibus iter’. For the combination of ‘virtus’ and ‘labor’ as a Herculean marker in the representation of Aeneas, see Verg., , Aen. 1.372–4, 3.442–3, 6.103–5, 6.806, 6.890–2, 9.640–1, 10.648–9, 12.435–6Google Scholar and Galinsky, op. cit. (n. 108), 131–7 and idem, ‘Hercules Ovidianus’, WS 6 (1972), 110.

¹¹⁷ For the significance of the journey leading nowhere but to virtue in this episode, see also Viarre, S., ‘Caton en Libye: l'histoire et la métaphore (Lucain, Pharsale IX, v. 294–949Google Scholar), in J.-M. Croisille and P.-M. Fauchere (eds), Neronia 1977 (1982), 103–10. Lausberg, art. cit. (n. 74), 191, makes the related point that the only struggle in the Pharsalia which permits the maintenance of virtus is that with hostile nature.

¹¹⁸ See esp. Leigh, op. cit. (n. 50), 274–5, on Cato's hospital-visits at Luc. 9.884–9 and cf. Plut., , Ant. 43.2Google Scholar with Pelling ad loc. The pious frigidity of Cato contrasts sharply with Antony's warm-hearted recognition of his men's pain. Hard not to suspect that Antony is the more effective general.

¹¹⁹ Serban, G., La fonction du fantastique dans la Pharsale de Lucain (1973), 47–51.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Bakhtin, M., Problems of Dostoyevsky's Poetics, trans. Rotsel, R. W. (1973), 94.Google Scholar