Lucian's Satire 0405140398

1,049 132 14MB

English Pages 675 [686] Year 1981

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Lucian's Satire

Citation preview

This is a volume in the Arno Press collection


Editorial Board E. Badian P.E. Easterling David Furley Michael H. Jameson W.R. Johnson Bernard M.W. Knox Jacqueline de Romilly

See last pages o f this volume fo r a complete list o f titles.


Jennifer Hall

ARNO PRESS A New York Times Company New York · 1981

Editorial Supervision: Steve Bedney

First publication in book form 1981 by Arno Press Inc. Copyright © 1981 by Jennifer Hall Reproduced by permission of Jennifer Hall MONOGRAPHS IN CLASSICAL STUDIES ISBN for complete set: 0-405-14025-8 See last pages of this volume for titles. Manufactured in the United States of America

L ib ra ry of C ongress C ataloging in P u b licatio n D ata

Hall, Jennifer. Lucian's satire. (Monographs in classical studies) Revision of thesis (Ph. D.)— University of Cambridge, 1967 Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. 1. Lucian,, of Samosata, 2. Authors, GreekBiography. I. Title. I-I. Series. PAA236.H5 1981 887'.01 80-2652 ISBN 0-L05-11039-8 AACR2


Marito Filiae Matri Nec Non Manibus Patris, Carissimis




I Lucian's life and the dating of his works.


The question of a 'development' Date of birth Lucian's life and travels.

6 The datable works


Attempts to date Lucian's works by groups and




Lucian and Menippean Satire Menippus:

the external evidence


Cynic ideas and historical allusions


Menippean influence on other writers




The Apocolocyntosis








Meleager and Julian





Philosophy, Religion, 'Social Satire' and



'Anti-Roman' Satire 1)

Lucian and Philosophy a)

Lucian the 'Philosopher'

151 151

vili b)

Literary tradition and contemporary


philosophy c) 2)





Lucian's Satire on Religion



Lucian the 'Iconoclast'



Contemporary features


'Social Satire' and 'Anti-Roman' Satire

Lucian and Rhetoric 1)


The Charlatan Sophist a)



Literary tradition and contemporary


rhetoric b) 2)



The identity of the Rhetorum Praeceptor

Satire on 'Hyperatticists'


273 279





The Pseudologistes or Apophras



The Pseudosophistes or Soloecistes



Parody, Pastiche and Burlesque



How to write history


Encomium of Demosthenes


The Parasite


True Story


Lucius or the Ass


ix The Tragodopodagra and Ocypus


The Syrian Goddess and the Astrology


Concluding Remarks




I : The Imperial Chair of Rhetoric at Athens


and Pollux's Appointment II: III:

The Origin of Menippus'


The Content and Authorship of the

403 414

Metamorphoses attributed by Photius to Lucius of Patrae Notes

433 to Chapter I


to Chapter II


to Chapter



to Chapter IV


to Chapter V


to Concluding Remarks


A final word


Select Bibliography


General Index


Index of Lucianic Passages


PREFACE I should like to thank the Arno Press and its Editorial Board for inviting me to contribute to their new series of Monographs in Classical Studies this revised dissertation on Lucian's Satire that I wrote in 1966 for the degree of Ph.D. in the University of Cambridge.

It has been registered in the University Library

at Cambridge since May 1967.

I have left it substantially as

I originally wrote it, but have obviously had to add a certain amount of material to text and notes to take account of various books and articles that have been published since 1966. I

would like to express my thanks to Professor E.J. Kenney of

Peterhouse and Mrs. Pat Easterling of Newnham College for their kind interest and encouragement. It was with great sadness that I learnt recently of the death in Australia of my former research supervisor Dr A.H. McDonald of Clare College.

I shall always remember with affection and

gratitude his kindness to me as a student and his cheerful enthusiasm for my project. I

cannot sufficiently express my thanks to my husband, Dr J.B.

Hall of Bedford College, London, for generously surrendering the whole of this summer vacation to the laborious business of typing this work.

He volunteered to do it when it proved impossible to

find a professional typist who could cope with typing Greek on an IBM machine, and though he must have regretted this noble offer many times this summer, he has never breathed a word!


am immensely grateful to him both for his typing skill and also

xii for compiling the indexes.

Without his help it would have been

impossible to complete the work for the publishers in the few months available to me. Finally I must express my warmest thanks to my mother for invaluable assistance on the domestic front, and to my daughter, Penny, for putting up so good naturedly with the privations and disappointments of this summer, and for never (well, hardly ever) complaining of my preoccupations with the 'B.B.'!

Jennifer Hall Westfield College, London September 1980

CHAPTER I LUCIAN'S LIFE AND THE DATING OF HIS WORKS. THE QUESTION OF A.’DEVELOPMENT’. 'I should be infinitely obliged to you', says Lord Lyttelton to Lucian as they wander through Francklin's Elysian Fields, 'if you would indulge me with a little sketch of your life from your own mouth.'1 Unfortunately, Lucian, while still in the land of the living, was not so obliging!

Instead, he has left us the tantalising

task of piecing together from references here and there in his numerous works the course of his career.

When all the available

pieces have been fit.ted together (due proviso having always been made as to whether the work from which the evidence is drawn is rightly ascribed to Lucian or not), there still remain many gaps which can only be bridged by conjecture, and such is the power of wishful thinking that the critic constantly faces the danger of allowing the 'conceivable possibility' to become a hopeful 'probability', of imperceptibly transforming the 'probability' into a 'certainty', and of then deluding himself into thinking that a mere tissue of conjectures is a solid foundation on which he may base an account of the 'development' of our author from the standpoint of his literary artistry or his thought. Nevertheless many scholars have believed themselves able to trace such developments in Lucian's literary career:


(Essai sur la Vie et les Oeuvres de Lucien) and Sinko (Symbolae Chronologicae ad Scripta Plutarchi et Luciani, 1947, correcting

2 an earlier article on the subject in Eos 14, 1908) arrange Lucian's works in chronological groups and thus attempt to trace phases in his career;

Gallavotti tells us that all

Lucian's life is a continual artistic and 'spiritual' evol­ ution (Luciano nella sua evoluzione artistica e spirituale, p. 135 and passim);

Helm pronounces on the date at which and

order in which the 'Menippean' works were written (Lucian und Menipp);

Bernays (Lucian und die Kyniker) and Litt (Lucians

Philosophische Entwicklung) trace developments in Lucian's philosophic outlook;

while J. Schwartz- (Biographie de Lucien

de Samosate) asks himself at the end of his researches 'Comprenons-nous desormais mieux l'évolution littéraire et spirituelle de Lucien?' and replies confidently that we do (p. 137). We shall see.


For the minute let us consider what facts we

have about Lucian's life and the chronology of his works. Ancient testimony, unfortunately, provides us with virtually no help in this respect.

Lactantius mentions Lucian briefly

as a merciless critic of men and of gods (Inst. Div. 1. 9). Eunapius informs us merely that Lucian of Samosata, as a rule an άνήρ απουδαΐος ές τδ γελασθηνοα, wrote a life of his contemp­ orary, the philosopher Demonax, and a few other completely serious works (Vit. Soph. 454).

Isidorus of Pelusium (Epist.

4. 55) counts Lucian as a Cynic, who attacked most of the philo­ sophic sects, but was approved of by the Platonists because he pilloried the gods invented by the poets.

The erudite Photius

3 lists the works of Lucian which he has read, with comments of literary criticism (Bibl. cod. 128), tries to determine whether Lucian in the 'Ass' imitated the 'Metamorphoses' of Lucius of Patrae or vice versa (cod. 129), and tells us that Lucian's 'True Story' had for its source 'The Wonders beyond Thule' of Antonius Diogenes (cod. 166). The Suda provides us with a short biography written by a Christian who was as ignorant about Lucian as he was biased against him.

He informs the reader that Lucian of Samosata,

nicknamed the Blasphemer, the Slanderer, or rather the Godless, because in his dialogues he actually ridiculed religion, lived in the time of the Emperor Trajan and later.

Lucian practised

as an advocate in Antioch for a time, but, proving unsuccessful in that capacity, he turned to writing, and wrote no end of things!

The story goes, continues the writer, that because the

scoundrel turned the savagery of his tongue against the Truth, mocking at Christianity in his life of Peregrinus, and speaking ill of Christ himself, he was torn to pieces by dogs (which choice piece of information may perhaps have been inspired by a passage in the Peregrinus, c. 2, in which Lucian jokes that he was almost torn to pieces by the Cynics like Actaeon by his 3 dogs). Our biographer concludes with the pious prediction that, having thus met his just deserts on earth, Lucian, in the life to come, will inherit with Satan the portion of Everlasting Fire.

4 The piece of chronological information offered by this Article, γέγονε énfi τοϋ Και,σάρος Τραϊανού Hai. έπέκε iva, is as worthless as most of the rest.

γέγονε in the Suda gen­

erally means 'lived', not 'was born' (as .some scholars have taken it to mean in the present instance).


When one refers

to a writer 'living' at a certain time, one normally refers to the period of his literary activity, and all the refer­ ences to contemporary events in Lucian's works centre around the reign of Marcus Aurelius;

so, as Croiset says (Essai ...,

p. 2 η. 1), 'il est bien certain que Lucien ne vécut pas sous Trajan'.

There may perhaps be some truth in the statement

that Lucian practised as an advocate in Antioch (cf. infra P.17 ). There is one other piece of ancient testimony to which attention has recently been drawn.


It is a passage in a

ninth century Arabic translation of Galen's commentary on Hippocrates' Epidemics (2. 6. 29), found in a part of Galen's work which has been lost in the original Greek.

Galen, dis­

cussing what he considers to be a nonsensical prescription deliberately interpolated into Hippocrates' writings in order to discredit ignorant commentators, compares a hoax played by 'one of our contemporaries called Lucian', who, it seems, wrote a treatise containing obscure and nonsensical pronounce­ ments and ascribed it to the philosopher Heraclitus.

He handed

it over to others, who took it to a philosopher of some repute,

5 and asked him to comment on it and elucidate it for them. Their unfortunate victim, not noticing that they were making fun of him, set about producing interpretations of the afore­ said pronouncements, thinking himself exceedingly clever, but in fact exposing himself to ridicule.

The passage continues

with the account of another hoax of some kind (apparently the Arabic presents some difficulty)6 that this Lucian perpetrated on some grammarians, to whom he sent some nonsense for elucid­ ation, in doing which they also made themselves look silly. The perpetrator of these deceptions sounds just like our Lucian, in view of his Heraclitean fooling in the Sale of Lives (14, to say nothing of Ionic pieces like the Syrian Goddess and Astrology, whose authenticity not everybody accepts, and which will be discussed later), his fondness for parody and linguistic fun as seen in works like the Lexiphanes, and the general contempt that he expresses in many works for those whom he considers frauds and charlatans.


I do not think that we

can necessarily infer from this passage that Galen and Lucian (assuming that it is our author) were either friends, or, indeed, even on terms of personal acquaintance, for we do not know the source of Galen's information. Lucian himself?

Had he heard the story from

(In which case, surely he would have called him

'one of my friends' or 'acquaintances', instead of 'one of our contemporaries'?).


Had he heard it from mutual acquaintances,

or merely from hearsay?

Or might it be the case that Lucian had


described his activities in one of his own works (now lost, like the Sostratus to which he refers in the opening of his Demonax), and that Galen had read the story there?

In which

case there will doubtless be sceptics who will argue that Lucian could have made the whole thing up.


Neither place nor date can be assigned to the episode (or episodes) in Lucian's life, since it seems that the second book of Galen's commentary on the Epidemics cannot be dated more exactly than to some time before 180 A.D.1®

This passage,

as its discoverers observe, is our only reference to Lucian by one of his contemporaries.

Philostratus does not give our

author even a mention in his Lives of the Sophists;

but then,

Philostratus was describing Sophists proper, and Lucian, with his flair for using typical sophistic themes in a highly un­ typical way, a way, it would seem, far more original and amus­ ing than had ever occurred to the other rhetorical performers of his age, Lucian, who 'rolled his barrel up and down the Craneum' with a satirical laugh at the frivolity and vapidity of his profession and the absurdities of his fellow profess­ ionals - this Lucian, Philostratus may well have considered, was a highly Improper Sophist, one of the 'playthings of the Greeks' whom he deems unworthy of the name of sophist and un­ worthy of discussion at all!'*''*' Date of Birth Many attempts have been made to establish the date of Lucian's

7 birth.

The most recent investigator of the chronological

problems of our author, J. Schwartz, suggested a new crit­ erion for so doing (Biographie, pp. 11-15).

In the Apology

Lucian refers to himself as having in his old age (Apol. 1, 10) taken up a well paid judicial post in the Imperial Administration in Egypt (12).


H.G. Pflaum identifies this

post with that of άρχιστάτωρ, or chief court usher, comparing the mention of such an officer in Pap. Oxy. II (1899), p. 294, 13 no. 294. Schwartz argues that if we can find the date of Lucian's stay in Egypt, which means finding the prefect under whom he served, we can use the reference to Lucian's age to determine his date of birth.

(In fact he does not use the

references in the Apology but instead the reference that Lucian makes to himself as πρεσβύτης in the Pro Lapsu (1), a work in which Lucian is addressing a Roman governor (13).

It is custom­

ary to identify the governor referred to in the Apology with the person to whom the Pro Lapsu is addressed, although in neither case is he named. is the same person.)

We cannot, I think, prove that it

Schwartz next declares that there is no

doubt but that the Prefect of Egypt under whom Lucian served was C. Calvisius Statianus (p. 12), whose term of office seems to have lasted from 170 to 175, when his career was ended abruptly with the failure of Avidius Cassius' revolt.

He was

exiled to an island by Marcus Aurelius but all his associates were allowed to go free (Dio Cassius 72. 28. 3-4).



says Schwartz, since Lucian was in Egypt in 175, and since he was at that time a πρεσβύτης, i.e. between 49 and 56 years of age (according to Hippocrates' account of the seven ages of life, Schwartz p. 14), his date of birth is certainly before 126 and could be pushed back to 119 A.D. Now, quite apart from the fact that Lucian, on Schwartz's own admission (p. 15), interchanges the terms γέρων and πρεσ­ βύτης at times (e.g. Herrn. 12 Ò πρεσβύτης ... & ν δ ρ α γέροντα, and 9 γέρων ήδη ές το ύστατον, all referring to the same per­ son), and apart from the fact that in the Apology (1) Lucian describes himself as having one foot in Charon's ferryboat (cf. 4 έν γήρςί 6è ύστάτφ καί σχεδόν ήδη ύπέρ τόν ούδόν ...), which implies a man somewhat older than 49-56 (cf. Herrn. 78 Hermotimus is described as having one foot in the grave, and from 2, 13 it appears that he must be at least 60), apart from these considerations, on what evidence does Schwartz state that, 'il n'est pas douteux qu'il (Lucien) fut appelé en Égypte par le préfet C. Calvisius Statianus'? offers no argument.

He cites no evidence.


I am unable to discover one scrap of evid­

ence to prove that Lucian served under C. Calvisius Statianus: 14 to the best of my knowledge none exists. Some thirty years previously C. Gallavotti (Luciano, p. 184) had similarly argued that, according to his own method of dating Lucian's birth (which we will examine below), Lucian must have been old in, and written the Apology in, c. 175 A.D.

He suggests

9 (p. 190 η. 3) that the fact that Lucian once more took up his sophistic career (Hercules, Bacchus), his hopes of attaining some higher post in the Imperial Administration (Apol. 12) evidently being disappointed, perhaps resulted from a radical change of government in Egypt after the failure of Cassius' revolt.

But it is not proved, by Gallavotti or anyone else,

that Lucian was in Egypt in 175 under Statianus. possible guess, and that is all.


It is a

What we cannot do is to

date Lucian's birth from his stay in Egypt:

we simply do not

know for certain when that was. Schwartz goes on to base further conjectures on his first argument:

viz. that Lucian had long been a friend of Statianus,

having met him many years previously in Gaul (the main evidence for this is provided by altering the perfectly lucid ένέτυχες ΑμΓν τοΓς μεγαλομίσθοις των σ ο φ ι σ τ ώ ν έναροθμουμένοις - Apol. 15, the person addressed being one Sabinus, as we see from the open­ ing of the Apology - to ένέτυχον ύμϊν ..., and arguing that ύμϊν may refer to Sabinus and Statianus);

furthermore (pp. 13-

14), since Fronto knew Statianus and since Herodes Atticus was brought up in the house of a Calvisius, ergo Lucian was also friends with Fronto and Herodes Atticus, and it may have been their influence that helped him obtain his Egyptian post. Later on (pp. 32-33) Schwartz talks about the relations between Herodes Atticus and Lucian not being very good at the time when Lucian composed his Icaromenippus, because he thinks that there


is criticism of Herodes in Ic. 18 (I laughed at those who were proud of cultivating the plain of Sicyon etc.).

But Herodes

was hardly the only rich landowner in Lucian's day, and one cannot be sure that the passage in any case may not derive from Menippus or some other source.

There is in fact, even if this

passage does refer to Herodes, no evidence that he and Lucian were ever personally acquainted.^

Nor is there any evidence

that Lucian knew Fronto, but Schwartz is still talking about the 'relationship' between them on p. 131 (Lucian is supposed to imitate a phrase from a letter that Fronto wrote to Marcus Aurelius' mother).

Lucian was also friends, according to

Schwartz, with Aulus Gellius (p. 33ff.).

In fact they spent

the Saturnalia of 159 together (p. 94) - not, of course, that we can date Gellius' stay in Athens with any certainty (cf. Rolfe, intro, to the Loeb ed. of Gellius, pp. xiii-xv) - and Lucian may well have attended the same philosophy teacher (p. 36).

These conjectures are based (a) on Gellius' descrip­

tion of how he spent the Saturnalia when he was staying in Greece (18. 2:

he and his friends awarded themselves prizes

for discussing various light-hearted conundrums, a passage from Ennius, some sophistical catch questions, including the 'horns' fallacy, Plato's κοινός τάς γυναίκας dictum etc.), and (b) on the fact that Lucian wrote a work called the Saturn­ alia (which has nothing whatever to do with Gellius) and that in other works he mentions the 'horns' and Plato's injunction


about women (they are two of what I would call Lucian's 'stock jokes' about the Stoics and Plato, see below p. 165ff.).


is, in fact, no evidence that Gellius and Lucian even knew of one another's existence. Gallavotti's method for dating Lucian's birth (Luciano, pp. 2-5) is based primarily on the assumption that the Longaevi is a genuine work and that it was written in 159 A.D.

Most other

critics regard as spurious this list of men who lived to an advanced age, a list compiled, as the author states in the opening paragraph, at the behest of a dream 17 and addressed to one Quintilius.

As Householder observes, trying to decide

whether this work is genuine or not is 'like distinguishing your grocery list from my grocery list, unless you can be sure Lucian would never be caught dead with any grocery list' (re­ view of Bompaire's book, A.J.Ph. 82, pp. 197-201).

One section

of the De Saltatione (whose authenticity has also been called in question, in my opinion unjustifiably, see below pp. 22ff.), does, it is true, read rather like a grocery list (37-61), but the work as a whole does not:

cast in dialogue form it is both

lively and in many places amusing (e.g. 9, 19, 76), and the author is obviously conscious of the danger of inartistry inher­ ent in his subject (33, he does not want to be pedantic).


seems to me from the general character of the vast mass of Lucian's works that, had he wished to present a patron with a complimentary account of long-lived men, it would not have been


beyond the resources of his wit to devise a more diverting way of doing it than we find in the present work. However, since one cannot offer proof positive of either the one .case or the other, let us grant, for the sake of argument, that the work is genuine.

Let us also grant that the Quintilius

addressed is to be identified with one Plautius Quintilius who was consul in 159.

However, even if Gallavotti is correct in

these two assumptions, how does this prove that the Longaevi was written in 159?

There is no reference in the work to the

fact that Quintilius is a consul, so it could equally well have been written at any time before or after Quintilius' consulship. Gallavotti also assumes that Lucian is in Rome at the time on an embassy from Samosata, but there is no evidence at all that 18 Lucian ever was on such an embassy. In order to deduce Luc­ ian's date of birth from the date 159 Gallavotti further assumes that Lucian's meeting with Nigrinus (Nigr. 1-3) took place in 159, and that it was as a result of this meeting that Lucian 'abandoned rhetoric' and turned to philosophy, which he did, according to Gallavotti's interpretation of Bis Acc. 32, at the age of 40.

Hence, Lucian was about 40 in 159;

was born c. 121 (sic).

therefore he

But there is no evidence in Lucian's

works that he ever abandoned rhetoric or devoted himself to philosophy (see below, pp. 35ff.), or that Nigrinus (and some scholars doubt that there was such a person) was responsible for any sort of 'conversion' (see below, pp. 157ff.) or that

13 Lucian's meeting with him took place when Lucian was 40 or that it took place in 159.

Gallavotti's entire case rests

on sheer guesswork, and not even plausible guesswork at that. We are left with one other criterion for dating Lucian's birth, one used by Helm (Pauly Wissowa article p. 1726) and Croiset (Essai .., p. 2) and Wetzlar (De aetate, vita scrip­ tisque Luciani, p. 8), namely that Lucian specifically refers to himself in the Bis Accusatus (32) and Hermotimus (13) as aged about 40 and that if we can date these works our problem is solved. In the Bis Accusatus Lucian (calling himself 'the Syrian', 14, 25), replying to Oratory's charge of deserting her in favour of Dialogue, says that he considered it high time for him, 'a man already about forty years old', to bid farewell to her lawsuits, her encomia of princes and accusations of tyrants and to take himself off to the Academy and Lycaeum, there to converse with that splendid fellow, Dialogue (32). Dialogue then accuses Lucian of robbing him of his dignified character and making him play the comedian, penning him up with 'Jest, Satire, Cynicism and Eupolis and Aristophanes' and finally digging up Menippus too to torment him (33). Similarly, in the Piscator, the angry philosophers come up from Hades in pursuit of Lucian (this time calling himself Parrhesiades) and inveigh against this miscreant orator who has deserted the lawcourts to turn the fire of his eloquence

14 on them, making his audiences laugh at them, just as they used to laugh when Aristophanes and Eupolis brought Socrates on the stage;

he has seduced their henchman Dialogue, and bribed

Menippus to help him (25, 6).

In the Hermotimus, Lucian (this

time using the name Lycinus) is referred to as 'about forty' (13), and his disgruntled interlocutor complains that he is always making fun of philosophers (51). From these passages it emerges that Lucian, on reaching middle age, wearying of the trite, conventional themes of dis­ play oratory, hit on the idea of writing comic dialogues in which he drew inspiration not only from the writers of Old Comedy but also from the writings of the Cynic Menippus and in many of which he made fun of philosophers. As Helm observed (P.W. article on Lucian, s.v. Bis Accus­ atus), there appears to be a reference in the Bis Accusatus to the Parthian War of 161-5 and to a celebration of the Olympic Games:

in the opening passage Zeus is complaining that he is

vastly overworked;

among his many other duties he has to keep

an eye on 'those making war at Babylon' and at the same time attend the sacrifice at Olympia (2).

This reference would .fit

the year 165, in which were held those famous Olympic Games at 19 which the Cynic Peregrinus burned himself to death and in which the victorious Roman armies were in the vicinity of Baby­ lon, in the last stages of the Parthian campaign, sacking Seleucia and capturing the enemy stronghold at Ctesiphon (Dio

15 Cassius 71. 2;

Hist. Aug. Ver. 8). Several other 21 'Menippean' dialogues contain references to a war:


Cataplus 6 (Clotho computes that eighty-four should have died yesterday in battle in Media);

Nec. 10 (Charon's boat was

full of wounded men, from some war or other, as Menippus reckoned);


in the Navigium Samippus daydreams of leading

a victorious army to the Euphrates and Babylon, and there is mention of Ctesiphon and Seleucia (Nav. 34), while Timolaus dreams of possessing a magic ring which will enable him to announce on the self-same day the name of the Olympic victor at Babylon, have lunch in Syria and dine in Italy (Nav. 44); in D. Mort. 4 there may be a reference to the now finished Parthian War and the plague that followed it (Charon cannot pay Hermes for his purchases at the moment, but if some plague, or a war, sends down a good batch of corpses, he'll be able to make a profit:

he is not doing good business at

the minute, because it is a time of peace - 'Better that way', replies Hermes). Now, most of these references are vague enough, and one can dispute this one or that on its own, arguing that the references to a war may be drawn from one of Lucian's sources, that references to Olympic Games could apply to any period, and that Samippus' dream may be inspired by the campaigns of Alexander the Great as much as those of the Parthian War; but at the same time one must observe that at least one of

16 the 'Menippean' dialogues can be dated definitely to a period soon after 165, viz. the Fugitivi,in which there are references to the recent suicide of Peregrinus at Olympia (Fug. 1 and 7). Lucian, then, is not averse to bringing contemporary allusions into his dialogues, and he is certainly composing soon after 165 the type of work to which he refers in the Bis Accusatus. It therefore seems to me a reasonable assumption that the re­ ference to a war in the vicinity of Babylon and a celebration of the Olympic Games in the Bis Acc. indicates the year 165 as the date at which that work was composed, and since Lucian re23 fers to himself as about 40 (32), he was born about 125. Lucian's life and travels.

The datable works

Lucian was born, therefore (if we accept the preceding argument), somewhere around 125 A.D., in Samosata, a city in Commagene, in the north of the province of Syria (Hist. Consc. 24:

Lucian refers to his Syrian origin in several places, 94 Pise. 19, Bis Acc. 27, Adv. Ind. 19 etc.). In the Somnium, an address delivered on his return to Samosata, after having acquired some degree of wealth and reputation on his travels as a sophist (Somn. 18), Lucian gives a humorous account of his youth.

His family was of moderate means and inconspicuous

social position.

He does not mention his father's occupation,


but his maternal grandfather and two of his uncles were sculp­ tors (Somn. 2, 7), and Lucian was apprenticed to one of the latter.

He was not, however, a success as a sculptor (Somn. 3)

17 and had dreams of becoming rich, famous and influential as a sophist;

so, in his late teens he left home to seek rhetor­

ical training.^® For a few years, he tells us, he wandered about in Ionia, acquiring his higher education (Bis Acc. 27).

It is futile 27 to speculate what teachers he attended and where. He did not have much money (Somn., Bis Acc. 27) and the important rhetors charged large fees (Phil. Vit. Soph, passim, e.g. 535, 538, 527, 590), so, as Croiset remarks (Essai .., p. 6), his teachers were probably obscure figures.

It is possible

that the Suda's testimony that Lucian practised as an advocate in Antioch is more accurate than the rest of the information in that article:

Lucian seems to have earned his living in

Athens at one time both by giving rhetorical displays and by pleading in the courts (Pise. 9 φασι γοϋν £>ήτορά σε καί δικανuxóv τι,να eüvcu, cf. 25) as many another sophist did (e.g. Phil. Vit. Soph. 606 Damianus), and it is to a judicial post that he is appointed in later life (Apol. 12).

However, Luc­

ian tells us only that after studying in Ionia and displaying his talents there and in Greece, he decided to travel to Italy and to Gaul (Bis Acc. 27). In Ionia and Greece Lucian appears to have achieved only moderate success (Bis Acc. 27), probably, as Wieland suggests (Tooke, intro., p. iii), because of the enormous competition from other exponents of his art, but in Gaul he fared better,

18 holding a public appointment as lecturer in rhetoric in one of the municipalities (Apol. 15);

for most of the large towns

there seem to have maintained professors of rhetoric and grammar at the public expense - Marseilles and Reims, Narbonne, Arles, N 28 Toulouse, Treves and many others. In which parts of Gaul Lucian travelled or how long he stayed there we do not know: his only reference to anything that he has seen in Gaul is to a picture of the god Ogmios (Here. 1) whom he says the Gauls identified with Heracles, although it has been suggested with some probability that Lucian is mistaken in this, and that 29 Mercury is a mòre likely candidate. Nor are we much better informed about Lucian's travels in Italy:

he mentions that he

voyaged up the River Po (Electr. 2), and refers to the journey as occurring 'not long previously' (2), which may indicate that this particular Prolalia was delivered in Gaul, the trip up the river taking place en route to that country;

he refers to a

picture that he has seen in Italy (Herod. 5 Aötion's painting of the wedding of Alexander and Roxana) without specifying where the picture was;

he visited Rome (Nigr. 2, 16;


Cond. 26), perhaps more than once, for in the Nigrinus he re­ presents himself as going to Rome especially to see an oculist (2, though this could be mere literary artifice).


It has been suggested (by Wetzlar, De aetate .., p. 36, and Croiset, Essai .., p. 8) that where Lucian says in the Hermotimus that when he was about twenty-five somebody tried to

19 interest him in philosophy (Herrn. 24, cf. 13 Lucian aged c. 40) he is referring to his meeting with Nigrinus in Rome, as a re­ sult of which he represents himself in the work of that name as filled with rapturous enthusiasm for philosophy.

Hence Croiset

declares that in the Nigrinus we have 'la plus ancienne com­ position datée et certaine' (p. 44, cf. p. 9;

i.e. on an

assumed birth date of c. 125 it was written c. 150) and that at this period Lucian underwent 'une sorte de crise morale' (p. 8).

But even if we were to take quite literally everything

that is said in the Nigrinus about Lucian's enthusiasm for philosophy, the episode there described does not suit the philo­ sophic encounter referred to in the Hermotimus, for Lucian there says that 'in his youth and folly' he took no notice of the philosopher's teaching (24).

The Nigrinus will be discussed in

greater detail below (pp. 157ff.);

suffice it to remark at pre­

sent that the 'philosophy' which inspired Lucian with such rap­ ture consists of the tritest moral commonplaces, churned out for generations by rhetoricians quite as much as by philosophers, and that there is no evidence at all in what we know about Luc­ ian's views on philosophy from the rest of his works that his encounter with Nigrinus (or anybody else for that matter) pro­ duced any sort of 'crise morale', nor have we any means of proving at what stage in his life the Nigrinus was written (some scholars have argued, as confidently as Croiset maintains his contention, that the work is in fact very late).

As for


the Hermotimus reference, it would indeed be surprising if when Lucian was in his early twenties someone had not 'tried to interest him in philosophy':

as an educated man and a

professional rhetorician he would hardly have been likely to miss out the philosophic stage in the normal educational curriculum. When Lucian had made his fórtune and his reputation he decided to leave Gaul;

in precisely what year we do not know,

but in about 164 he returned to Samosata to show those he had left in his home town that he had 'made good' (Somn. 18).


can fix an approximate date for this work from Lucian's re­ ferences to his journey back to Greece in the Alexander 55-58, and the fact that he is back in Greece in 165, as we see from the Hist. Consc. and the Peregrinus;

we can also date the

Imagines to c. 163 (v. infra) and it seems certain that it was written in Antioch. 31 In the spring of 162 the Emperor Lucius Verus set out for the East to take supreme command in the war against Vologeses III of Parthia, command in name only, for he left the task of subduing Vologeses to the generals under him and spent most of his time in Antioch (Hist. Aug. Ver. 7. 1) where he arrived after an agreeable and leisurely progress through Greece and the cities of Asia ('... in Apulia venabatur et apud Corinthum et Athenas inter symphonias et cantica navigabat et per sin­ gulas maritimas civitates Asiae Pamphyliae Ciliciaeque clar-


iores voluptatibus immorabatur' Hist. Aug. ibid. 6. 9). Verus cannot have arrived in Antioch much before 163.

Thus, At

Antioch he set about beguiling the war 'in deliciis' while his 32 generals won battles for him, and we learn that helping him lighten the burden of his command was an 'amica vulgaris' ('fertur praeterea ad amicae vulgaris arbitrium in Syria posuisse barbam; Aug. ibid. 7. 10).

unde in eum a Syris multa sunt dicta' Hist. This seems to have been the Panthea whose

devotion to Verus is mentioned by Marcus Aurelius (8. 37).


the Imagines and its mock recantation, the Pro Imaginibus, Luc­ ian celebrates the beauty, virtue and culture of this mistress of the Emperor (Im. 10) whom he has seen recently (Im. 1).


164 Verus married Lucilla, Marcus Aurelius' daughter, who had been sent out east to join him (Hist. Aug. Ver. 7. 7 and Marc. 9. 3);

Verus had by now, at the insistence of his staff, set

out for the Euphrates, but returned thence to Ephesus to meet Lucilla (Hist. Aug. Ver. 7. 6-7).

It would scarcely have been

tactful for Lucian to have written an encomium of Verus' low­ born mistress after he had acquired his Imperial wife.


fore we can date and place the Imagines to the year 163 and to Antioch.

Doubtless Lucian hoped to win his way into the

charmed circle of those cultured men who enjoyed Verus' patron­ age ('multos disertos et eruditos semper secum habuisse dicitur' Hist. Aug. Ver. 2. 8). Among the genial Verus' other predilections was a liking for


the pantomime:

as souvenirs of his Syrian campaign he took

back to Rome, besides musicians and jugglers, '...histriones scurrasque mimarios' (Hist. Aug. Ver. 8. 11; 8. 10);

cf. 8. 7 and

indeed the wags had it that 'bellum non Parthicum

sed histrionicum confecisse' (8. 11).

In the Lucianic corpus

is an encomium of the pantomimic art, set in the form of a dialogue between 'Lycinus' and a venerable personage who appears to be a Cynic (Salt. 4-5).

He heartily disapproves

of this frivolous pastime (1), but after Lycinus has demons­ trated to him in what high e s t e e m the art has always been held by all nations, gods, heroes of antiquity, poets and philo­ sophers, what erudition and what physical skill it requires from its exponents, he pronounces himself (as H e r m o t i m u s does at the end of the dialogue of that name) completely converted (85),

The author of this piece singles out the people of

Antioch, a εύφυεστάτη πόλος, for praise because of their intell­ igence and their sharpness of wit (76), and gives examples of their witticisms as exhibited during performances of the dance; these are of a personal nature (e.g. a portly dancer attempting to leap like a gazelle is exhorted to 'spare the stage') and one is reminded of the way the Syrians made jokes at Verus' expense ('risui fuit omnibus Syris, quorum multa ioca in theat­ ro in eum dicta exstant' Hist. Aug. Ver. 7. 3, cf. 7. 8 cited above).

Here and there there is a glimmer of irony amidst the

effusive praise of the art - was not Achilles more delighted by

23 the 'Pyrrhic' dancing of his son than by the fall of Troy? (9). We observe that Lucian shows a liking for puns:

for example,

in the Vitarum Auctio, the Sceptic Life sold in the slave market is called, appropriately, Pyrrh-ias, and bids his angry master, who threatens to put him in the mill, to έτιέχει,ν his judgement (27).

In general character the work reminds us of

other compositions in the Lucianic corpus, the Parasite, for instance, a tongue-in-cheek encomium in dialogue form, and those other ironic pieces, The Fly and Phalaris.

Lucian wrote

an encomium of Panthea (also in dialogue form) to please Lucius Verus while he was staying in Antioch.

It is a not unreason­

able assumption that he wrote this encomium of the pantomime to amuse him. 33 Others, however, have pronounced the work spurious.


J. Bieler's case against the authenticity of the De Saltatione is based largely on an examination of the language: he picks 35 out this word and that phrase as 'un-lucianic'. R. Helm (Lucian und Menipp, pp. 369-370), while not entirely convinced by Bieler's linguistic arguments, considered that the author's description of himself as φιλοσοφία τα μέτρια ώμιληκώς (2), and the fact that he is censured by the interlocutor for having forgotten 'Plato and Chrysippus and Aristotle' did not fit Luc­ ian:

when, he asks, was Lucian ever a Stoic?

D.S. Robertson,

however, in reply to this objection, pointed out that these are typical names used by Lucian on many occasions when he

24 wants to signify 'philosophers' in general (e.g. Pise. 8 'I should never have thought that Plato or Chrysippus or Arist­ otle could be angry';

Merc. Cond. 24 'have you forgotten all

those sermons on slavery by Plato and Chrysippus and Arist­ otle?').

The reference to 'Lycinus' as a 'friend of Paideia

and moderately versed in philosophy' (2) seems a most apt description of the cultured Lucian.

Robertson also pointed

out the basic flaws in Bieler's linguistic arguments:


he fails to take account of the vast range of Lucian's vocab­ ulary and the number of dixag λεγάμενα in works of whose auth­ enticity there is no doubt, the possible influence of Lucian's sources, and the long duration of his career.

In fact there

seems no good reason to deny the authenticity of the De Salt­ atione and the suggestion that it was composed in Antioch to please Verus seems entirely plausible.

A. Boulanger adds the

further observation that Lucian could have had in mind Arist­ ides' denunciation of the dance, known to us from Libanius' refutation (τιρός Άρι.στείδην ùnèp των όρχηστων), just as Lucian may have drawn a few suggestions in his strictures on false philosophers from Aristides' invective at the end of his ùrtèp των τεττάρων.^® In 163, then, it seems pretty certain that Lucian was in Antioch and composed the Imagines (and Pro Imaginibus) and De Saltatione.

It may also be that we can date another work to a

period shortly before Lucian's stay in Antioch.

This is the

25 Pseudologistes, an invective which appears to have been delivered in Ephesus (10, Lucian could tell a tale or two about his enemy's conduct in Palestine etc., 'and, on top of everything, what you are now doing at Ephesus';

cf. 22 to

those who marvel at τά έν Έ φ έ σ φ νυν πραττόμενα ΰπό σοϋ, I say they would not be surprised if they knew about your earlier goings on;

and 21, a reference to the man's latest employer,

a distinguished Roman, whom Lucian will not name because he is addressing people who all know whom he means). 37 In this work Lucian tells how he offended a rival sophist at the Olympic Games where the latter was giving a display (5-7) and how this person tried to repay the affront shortly before Luc­ ian wrote his invective.

Now, in the Peregrinus, Lucian, re­

ferring to the Olympic Games of 165, says that they were the most splendid ones that he had ever seen, τετράκις ήδη δρών (35);

whether these words mean that the Games of 165 were the

fourth he had seen then, or whether they are to be taken as referring to the point of time at which he is composing the Peregrinus (which may well date from several years after the suicide o:f Peregrinus, see below p. 28 ff.), one cannot deter­ mine with certainty, but it is probable that one of the Olympic festivals that he had attended was that of 161,


He tells us

in the Pseudologistes that it was on January 3rd that his enemy 39 had an opportunity of getting his own back (8). It therefore seems possible that Lucian, having attended the Games in the

26 summer of 161, then set out for Asia Minor, and before going south to Antioch, where we find him in about 163, stayed for some months in Ephesus, the present work being written in the early months of 162.

One cannot, however, prove this hypo­

thesis because it is impossible to prove that having returned to Greece in 165 Lucian never again went back to Asia Minor, or that before he set out to Italy and Gaul, at an earlier stage in his career, he never attended the Olympic Games, sub­ sequently returning to Asia Minor. From Antioch Lucian travelled inland to his home town of Samosata, whence he set out for Greece with his father and family (Al. 56).

Their way lay north through Cappadocia to

the coast of the Black Sea, probably, as has been suggested by Gallavotti (Luciano .., pp. 10-11), in order to avoid any danger of becoming embroiled in the fighting, as the scene of operations in the Parthian War moved southwards to the area around Edessa and Nisibis in the vicinity of Samosata, as appears to have happened in the autumn of 164 (C.A.H., voi. XI, p. 347).

Sending his family ahead to wait for him at Amastris

on the Bithynian coast, Lucian himself, with one friend or attendant, and an escort of two soldiers provided by the gover­ nor of Cappadocia, who was, he tells us, a friend of his, jour­ neyed to Abonuteichos to visit the prophet Alexander (Al. 55, 56).

How much truth and how much fiction there is in the rest

of the story about his relations with Alexander it is difficult

27 to say.

Caster regards both the account of his bizarre inter­

view with Alexander, and the subsequent attempt Lucian says Alexander made to murder him on his voyage along the coast to Amastris, as pure fiction, in accordance with the literary con­ ventions of the ψόγος, and he is probably right.40

That Lucian

may have sent some experimental questions to test the oracle, that he may have been acquainted with Rutilianus, and have at some stage expressed opinions about the character of the pro­ phet and the inadvisability of Rutilianus' marrying Alexander's daughter (Al. 53, 54), that he may have wished to expose Alex­ ander as an impostor, and may have had some discussion of the prophet with the governor of Bithynia (Al. 57) possible.


is all quite

Nor is it inconceivable that he made himself un­

popular at Abonuteichos in some way: be wholly out of character.

it would, one feels, not

One can only agree with Caster

(Etudes sur Alexandre .., p. 91) that 'le récit de Lucien est un ouvrage de guerre ... lui-mème, sans doute, n'aurait pas qualifié cet ouvrage d'étude documentaire', and treat it, accordingly, with caution. By the summer of 165 Lucian was back in Greece.

He tells

us in the Peregrinus how he attended the Olympic Games and witnessed (in Tooke's delicious phrase) the 'solemn spontaneous 42 combustion of that crack-brained enthusiast, Peregrine'. It was not, it would appear, the first time that he had come into contact with Peregrinus, for he tells us that, on his return

28 from Syria, he sailed on the same ship as Peregrinus from the Troad (Per. 43:

Peregrinus, as Schwartz suggests, p. 19,

had probably been making his last visit to his home town of Parium). 43

It is not certain how soon after 165 Lucian com­

posed his work on Peregrinus, except that it may have been after the cult of Peregrinus, referred to in what looks like a 44 'vaticinium post eventum' (Per. 28, 41), had been established. Caster suggests that the Peregrinus belongs to the same period as the Alexander, which, to judge from the reference to θεός Μάρκος (48), must have been composed after 180.

He may be

right, but we cannot prove this. Just after Lucian's return to Greece is to be dated his composition of the 'How to Write History', for it is written after the Roman victory over the Parthians is assured (2 at συνεχείς υϊκαι, cf. 5; he writes, he says, in case there should be another war, whether Celts versus Getae etc., ού γάρ πρδς ήμας γε τολμήσειεν άν τις, άπάντων ήδη κεχειρωμένων), and after the start of the plague, as it appears from the reference to the historian who makes his plague descend, à la Thucydides, on the town of Nisibis (15, cf. Dio Cassius 71. 2:

after the Romans

captured Seleucia and C t e s i p h o n m a n y of them died from disease on the return journey;

Hist. Aug. Ver. 8. 8:

the plague began

after the sacking of Seleucia), but before the triumph in the October of 166 (31 he heard one historian including the future in his narrative, how Vologeses was going to be captured etc.,

29 and έτιι πασι, xòv τριπόθητον ήμίν θρίαμβον, cf. C.A.H., voi. XI, ρ. 349).

Lucian had been inspired to compose his treatise, he

says, by the bad historians whom he has heard reading their works έναγχος έν Ίωνίςι ... καί νή Δία έν 'Α χ α ϊ φ πρφην (14) and πρφην έν Κορίνθψ (17, cf. 29).

If J.F. Gilliam is right

in stating that the plague began at Seleucia in the January of 166, then his suggestion of the spring or summer of 166 seems the most probable date for the composition of Lucian's work. 45 It is in 165 (if the argument p. 13ff. is accepted) that we find Lucian, in the Bis Accusatus and Piscator, discussing the new genre that he feels he has created by combining dialogue with Old Comedy and Menippean humour.

In two other works, the 46 introductions Zeuxis and Prometheus Es In Verbis, Lucian ex­

patiates upon his originality.

Dialogue and Comedy, he says

in the Prometheus Es, used not to be the best of friends, for Dialogue was a serious sort of chap who spent his time in the public walks, philosophising about Nature and Virtue, while Comedy had fun with Dionysus in the theatre, mocking Dialogue's companions as Deep Thinkers and Star-Gazers, showing them walk­ ing on air and hob-nobbing with the clouds and measuring the jumps of a flea (an obvious reference to Aristophanes’ Clouds), but Lucian has had the audacity to combine these two disparate and refractory elements into a harmony (Prom. Es 6);

he hopes

he has not created an ugly ’hippocentaur1 in so doing (5). the Zeuxis he describes the enthusiasm with which a recent


30 audience greeted one of his displays - 'Oh, what novelty! Hercules, what marvellous story-telling! man is!' - (1);

How inventive the

but was this all they cared for, that his

works were unconventional and kept off the beaten track? Did they not notice his excellent style, his good Greek, his Attic grace, etc.? (2)

In that case they were just like the

Greeks of Zeuxis' day who marvelled at his painting of a 1hippocentaur' for its novelty, but ignored the artistry of its execution (3-7).

Does Lucian's audience then marvel only

at his 'hippocentaur', and is the rest of his work wasted? No, no, for his present audience are connoisseurs; appreciate everything (12)!

they will

In the Bis Accusatus, one re­

members, the last of Dialogue’s g r u m b l e s is that, in addition to making him associate with Eupolis and Aristophanes and Menippus, Lucian has turned him into a 'hippocentaur' by mix­ ing his prose with verse (33 fin.), though the mixture of prose and verse, which was one of the elements in Menippus' composition (below, p. 71), is not in fact used very often in Lucian's comic dialogues. I

cite these passages in some detail because critics dis­

agree about which works Lucian is referring to in these two introductions.

Helm decrees that the Prom. Es and Zeuxis re­

fer only to the Dialogues of Gods and Dialogues of Hetaerae etc. and have nothing to do with Lucian's 'Menippean' works (Lucian und Menipp, pp. 280-2):

these little dialogues and

31 these two Prolaliai, he says, precede the start of Lucian's Menippean genre;

Menippus, after all, is not mentioned by

name in the Prom. Es and Zeuxis, and he is in the Bis Accus­ atus.

It would, as we shall see, have embarrassed Helm's

whole conception of the extent of Lucian's debt to Menippus had he allowed that these two introductions in which Lucian explicitly stresses his own originality could refer to the works in which there is Menippean influence.

J. Schwartz,

with regard to the Prom. Es, says (Biographie de Lucien, p. 132), 'II est fort malaisé de dire à quels opuscules Lucien fait plus précisément allusion' (i.e. whether Lucian is re­ ferring to his Menippean works or his Dialogues of Gods, Sea Gods and Hetaerae), but on p. 144 he states that the Prom. Es is 'précisément antérieur a 1'influence Ménippéenne'.


apparently thinks that the Zeuxis refers to such works as the 47 Dialogues of Hetaerae or the mock encomium of The Fly. With regard to the latter work, of course, Lucian could not possibly claim originality, since the mock encomium had been practised since the days of Isocrates (Helen 210).

The Dialogues of

Hetaerae, as Barbara P. McCarthy points out (Lucian and Men­ ippus, p. 5), are influenced by New Comedy, whereas in the Prom. Es the emphasis is on Lucian's blend of dialogue and Old Comedy. There is also, one notes, specific reference in this Prolalia to the mockery of philosophers in Old Comedy, just as in the Piscator (25-6) much is made of Lucian's dependence on Old

32 Comedy in this respect. In the Prom. Es, Zeuxis, and Bis Accusatus Lucian's work is compared to a 'hippocentaur':

the obvious inference seems

to be that Lucian has the same type of work in mind in all three cases.

In the Dialogues of Gods and Sea Gods Lucian is

drawing on a variety of sources - the Iliad, Odyssey and Homeric Hymns, 48 the Hellenistic idyll, satyric drama, pictorial re­ presentations of mythology etc. (cf. Bompaire, Lucien Écrivain, pp. 550-583) - and while the humorous element, which is much more prominent in the collection of Dialogues of Gods than of Sea Gods, has something in common with the spirit of Old Comedy (i.e. the burlesque presentation of the gods), there is not the same borrowing of specific motifs from Comedy as in the 'Menippean' dialogues (e.g. in the Bis Acc. the inspiration behind Oratory's suing Lucian for neglect seems to be Cratinus' Wine Flask, where Comedy sues Cratinus, cf. Edmonds, Fragments of Greek Comedy I, pp. 84ff., and the resurrection of dead philo­ sophers in the Piscator is probably inspired by the Demes of Eupolis, cf. Edmonds, ibid., App. pp. 978ff., while the opening pursuit scene draws on a variety of Comic sources, including Aristophanes' Acharnians, cf. Helm, Lucian und Menipp, p. 298). Furthermore, to some extent, Lucian's Dialogues of Gods etc. had been forestalled as a literary genre, for a similar type of 'transposition' (to use Bompaire's convenient term) had been practised by Dio Chrysostom (e.g. 59, a paraphrase into prose

33 dialogue of a scene from Euripides' Philoctetes, and 58, a dialogue between Achilles and Cheiron, light and humorous in tone, whose source is uncertain but may be a satyr play), and possibly by other sophists.


It therefore seems very prob­

able that the novel compositions that Lucian is discussing in the Zeuxis and Prom. Es are the same as those referred to in the Bis Acc. and Piscator, viz. the 'Menippean' dialogues, and the two Prolaliai were presumably written at about the same period as the Bis Acc. and Piscator, when the novelty was V. 50 fresh. The scene of the Bis Acc. and Piscator is set in Athens, as is the Hermotimus, also written, as we have seen, when Lucian was 'about forty' (Athenian scene in Bis Acc. 4, 9, 10, Pise. 13, 16, 21 etc,, Herrn. 4), and as Lucian is elsewhere in the habit of referring in a complimentary manner to his surround­ ings (cf. Fug. 25, Philippopolis in Thrace; Scyth. 9, Macedonia;

Herod. 7, 8,

Salt. 76, Antioch) it is reasonable to

suppose that these works were composed in the first instance for delivery in Athens, as also, presumably, the Vitarum Auctio, which is mentioned in the Piscator as a recent composition which the audience enjoyed (27),

Obviously one or two of the

'Menippean' dialogues must have been presented in Athens before the Bis Accusatus, but whether it was in Athens after his return from the East in 165 that Lucian first devised his new kind of dialogue, or whether he had already presented some of these

34 works earlier, while he was in the East, one cannot be certain.^ It looks as though, after introducing his new genre to Athens, Lucian took it on tour:

the Fugitivi seems to have

been delivered soon after Peregrinus' death (7) at the city of Philippopolis in Thrace (25);

the Zeuxis too shows us

Lucian visiting some town which is evidently not Athens, for he mentions that he has been recently in that city (3).


possess two Prolaliai which were delivered in Macedonia:


the Scythian Lucian is in an imposing Macedonian city (9) where he appeals to two leading men for support (10);

in the

Herodotus Lucian is giving a display at a festival where men 52 from all over Macedonia have gathered (8), and he tells us that he has chosen the festival for his performance, because when he first arrived in Macedonia the inclemency of the season prevented him from going on tour (7);

he contrasts

the city in which he is lecturing with Pisa in the season of the Olympic Games, with its stifling heat and its crowds (8). As Lucian would have had to pass through Macedonia on the way to Thrace, one is tempted to date these two little works to this period and assume that Lucian, having visited the Olympic Games of 165 and experienced the discomforts of Pisa, journeyed north and arrived in Macedonia in the winter of 165/6, sub­ sequently going on to Philippopolis in Thrace.

However there

is nothing in either the Herodotus or Scythian to indicate a

35 date, and those critics who suggest that Lucian's Macedonian tour took place earlier, after his return from Gaul (e.g, Wetzlar, De Aetate

p. 45, Gallavotti, Luciano ,,, p. 6),

may be right. It is at this stage of Lucian's life, when he develops his 'Menippean' genre, that many critics talk in terms of Lucian 'abandoning rhetoric' in favour of philosophy, or of a period of 'philosophic retirement' on Lucian's part.


(Symbolae Chronologicae, p. 43) considers that for some twenty years after he reached the age of forty Lucian devoted himself to philosophy and to mockery of false philosophers, and that his return to rhetoric in his old age is marked by the intro­ ductions Hercules and Bacchus.

Croiset, having assigned to

Lucian a 'crise morale' at the age of twenty-five (p. 8), posits another short flirtation with philosophy, especially with the Lyceum and Academy, in Lucian's middle age, after which Lucian, who would have preferred philosophy without the philosophers, found himself emancipated both from rhetoric and philosophy and created the genre in which he excelled (p. 24).

Gallavotti declares that Lucian's meeting with Nigrinus

at the age of forty made him resolve to abandon rhetoric for philosophy and that there followed in Lucian's life 'un peri­ odo per così dire filosofico, breve ma di importanza capitale' (pp. 51-2), in which Lucian begins by professing the doctrines of the Academy;

the Parasite, according to Gallavotti, belongs

36 to the period when Lucian still liked to represent himself as a Platonic philosopher, but reveals that Lucian had begun to feel doubts about the logical procedures of philosophy (p. 101); thus Lucian, who at first treats all problems seriously in his dialogues, gradually loses confidence in philosophers and in mankind, and introduces mockery into his works (p. 135).


votti is followed by Quacquarelli (La retorica antica al bivio, pp. 33-4).

Schwartz, throughout his book, keeps referring to

Lucian 'abandoning rhetoric' (p. 49, 'renonfant au métier de sophiste et au barreau1, Lucian installs himself in Athens, only to find his 'désir de tranquillité' thwarted by his departure for the East, as it was later to be disappointed once more, after his return from his Egyptian post; bid adieu to rhetoric by 162 A.D.;

p. 82, he had already

cf. pp. Ill, 140).

Yet to talk in this way of Lucian 'abandoning rhetoric' is misleading.

It is based on a literal interpretation of Bis

Accusatus 32, which wholly ignores the fact that the entire passage is metaphorical and humorous:

even if his wife,

Oratory, had not played him false, was it not high time for him to let the gentlemen of the jury rest in peace, and, refraining from those accusations of tyrants etc., 'stroll about with this excellent fellow, Dialogue', 54 in the Lyceum and Academy.


fail to see how this can mean anything other than that Lucian decided to abandon the hackneyed subjects in which most soph­ ists dealt, and of which he makes fun in one of his 'Menippean'

dialogues (J. Trag. 32), as well as in the Rhetorum Prae­ ceptor, and to borrow the dialogue form used by Plato and Aristotle;

although, of course, as Dialogue next complains,

he has totally transformed it.

There is not the slightest

evidence in Lucian's works that he was ever remotely inter­ ested in Platonism or the doctrines of Aristotle or, indeed, 55 in any other form of dogmatic philosophy; what he admires in Plato is his style (Pise. 6, 22), not his philosophy (Bis Acc. 34 'those thorny, subtle topics');

the judgement that

he expresses in the Hermotimus, that all dogmatic philosophy is a 'quarrel over the shadow of an ass' (71), seems admirably to sum up his attitude.

The 'philosophy' that he voices in

his dialogues (both his 'Menippean' works and his dialogues such as the Nigrinus) consists of the merest commonplaces, that at one time belonged to the Cynic diatribe, but by Luc­ ian's day had been incorporated into the general stock of the rhetoricians.

All this, however, will be discussed in more

detail below (pp. 151ff.).

His new comic dialogues he now

reads to his audiences, just as he used to read those sophist­ ical 'accusations of tyrants' (Pise. 26, 27; Zeuxis 1);

Prom. Es 7;

they were then presumably circulated in written

form, like the De Mercede Conductis, a later work which was first read to an audience and subsequently published (Apol. 3), just as other sophists later published the works that they read at their displays (Phil., Vit. Soph. 579).

38 Lucian, therefore, did not renounce the profession of sophist at the age of forty: he merely devised a new form of 56 sophistic display. We cannot even take it for granted, as many Critics do in dating his works, that after inventing his new dialogue form he never again composed a purely 'sophistic' work:

we know that in later life he wrote invectives such as

the Adversus Indoctum;

we find ecphrasis employed in intro­

ductory pieces such as the Zeuxis and the Hercules (composed in his old age);

the Pro Lapsu is a purely sophistic trifle.

How then are we entitled to assume that all the purely soph­ istic works in our collection to which no date can be assigned from any internal references (e.g. De Domo, Muscae Encomium, Calumniae non temere credendum) belong to the period before Lucian devised his new genre?

For after the year 166 or

thereabouts we do not have many indications as to Lucian's comings and goings and his sophistic activity, and there are not many more works that we can date with certainty. The invective against the Ignorant Book Collector was written at some point between late 165 and (probably) 180 (Adv. Ind. 14 somebody paid a talent for the staff which Peregrinus laid aside before his suicide;

22 Lucian's enemy

is trying to attract the attention of the emperor, who is σοφός άνήρ καί παιδείαν μάλιστα τιμών, which hardly seems applicable to Commodus, although, of course, it is theoret­ ically possible that Lucian is indulging in flattery towards

Marcus Aurelius' successor).

The Eunuch represents Lucian as

witnessing a dispute between two Peripatetic philosophers for one of the Chairs of Philosophy established at Athens by Marcus Aurelius in 176 (Dio Cassius 72. 31;

Phil., Vit. Soph. 566),

which has now fallen vacant on the death of its holder.


odes Atticus was originally given the task of choosing the holder of these Chairs (Vit. Soph. 566), but Lucian refers to a commission (Eun. 8 etc.) as making the appointment on this occasion;

the way in which he refers to the establishment of

the Chairs (3 συντέτακται ... ώς οίσθα έκ βασιλέως μισθοψορά τις ού φαύλη κατά γένη τοΐς ψιλοσόφοις ...) seems to suggest that it is a fairly recent event and that Marcus Aurelius is not yet dead.

(Since Herodes is not represented as making the

appointment on this occasion, his death is also presumed.


know only that he lived to the age of 76, Phil., Vit. Soph. 565, but neither his date of birth nor the exact date of his death is certain)

So we have a date for the Eunuch between

about 177 at the earliest and before March 180 at the latest. From this same work we learn that Lucian has a son who is κομιδη νέος, so perhaps a wife was included among the family 57 that he brought back from Samosata (Al. 56). In the Rhetorum Praeceptor, as will be argued below (pp. 273ff.), it seems virtually certain that the principal butt of Lucian's satire is Julius Pollux, although in caricaturing him Lucian seems to have ridiculed a large number of other

40 sophists as well,

5 8 using the figure of Pollux much as Aristo­

phanes uses that of Socrates in the Clouds.

Wieland suggested

that 'the present ironical school for orators looks pretty much like an effusion of long süppressed bile, now stirred up by some particular occasion' (Tooke, voi. II, p. 496 = Wieland, voi. VI, p. 3).

Ranke (Pollux et Lucianus, p. 32) takes the

occasion to be the accession of Pollux to the Imperial Chair of Rhetoric at Athens, arguing that Lucian refers to that Chair 'quamquam obscurius' in 9, where the Guide of the Hard Road is said to demand no small fees for his teaching, from which Ranke infers that the Guide of the Easy Road does not demand a fee at all and therefore must hold a Chair. tenuous.

This, however, is very

The whole passage about the Guide of the Hard Road is

ironical in tone, for Lucian is speaking in the character of a disillusioned rhetorician, trained in the hard school, who, now that it is too late, professes to see the error of his ways: it would have been more profitable to have taken the Easy Road (8, 26).

The passage in question here (9) forms the conclusion

to the account given of the Hard Road and the precepts of its Guide, who recommends the study

of 'obsolete old fogeys' like

Demosthenes and Aeschines, preaches the virtues of hard work and other such nonsense, and, to crown all, actually has the impertinence to charge a fee for such twaddle!

It does not

seem to me that this implies anything about the other Guide's not charging fees.

41 Nevertheless Pollux's accession to the Chair in Athens would seem a very likely occasion for the composition of this piece. Unfortunately this is an event which it is impossible to date exactly.

Philostratus tells us that the Emperor Commodus

appointed Pollux because he was enchanted by his mellifluous voice (Vit. Soph. 593).

This would have been somewhere between

178 A.D., the retirement of Theodotus, the first holder of the Chair, who was appointed by Marcus Aurelius (Phil., Vit. Soph. 566), and the death of Commodus in 192.

(Commodus had been

consort in the Imperial Power since 177, Hist. Aug. Marc. 27. 5)

There is some evidence to suggest that Adrian, the

teacher of Pollux, held this Chair before his pupil, and that the Athenians would have preferred a rival sophist, Chrestus, to be appointed instead of Pollux;

in which case Lucian's

ridicule of Pollux would have gone down well with an Athenian ,. 59 audience. At some stage in Lucian's later life he took up the post in Egypt previously discussed (p. 7ff.). of this event:

We do not know the date

Gallavotti and Schwartz could be right in sup­

posing c. 175, in which case we must read Lucian's references in the Apology (1, 4, 10) to his being an old man with one foot in the ferry as humorous exaggeration on the part of a man in his fifties (assuming that we are correct in dating his birth 60 to c. 125 or a little earlier). His stay in Egypt could equally well, however, be some years later than 175, perhaps as

42 much as a decade or more later.

The Pro Lapsu is quite poss­

ibly addressed to the governor of Egypt under whom he served, whoever that was, but not necessarily.

Lucian refers to

the De Mercede Conductis as being composed some time before his Egyptian appointment (Apol. 3 πάλαι ... εύδοκίμηται but 6 implies that it was written a short time previously μετά μικρόν).

The introductions Hercules and Bacchus refer to

Lucian as an old man returning to the practice of epideictic rhetoric after a period of absence (Here. 7 Lucian was wonder­ ing whether it was right for a man his age to come once more before an audience who might sneer χαλεπόν γήρας κατείληφέ σε etc. but was encouraged by his recollection of the aged Ogmios, the Gallic god of eloquence, cf. Bacch. 6-8).

Some critics

posit a hypothetical period of retirement before Lucian went to Egypt,®2 and assume that his last years were spent in the tenure of his official post there, but it is, I think, more likely that the period of retirement to which Lucian refers coincides with his stay in Egypt. The Alexander was composed some time after the death of Marcus Aurelius in the March of 180 (θεός Μάρκος Al. 48);


it is possible that the Demonax was written about the same time, if those critics are right who suppose that the anecdotes about Herodes Atticus (24-5) and Cethegus (30) could not have been written in their life-time (see Croiset, Essai .., pp. 80 n. 1 and 81 n. 1, citing Waddington, Fastes des Provinces d'Asie,

43 on the death of Cethegus in 180).

At all events, the fact that

Cethegus is referred to as ύπατυκός gives us a definite terminus post quern of 171 A.D. (cf. Croiset, ibid.).®^ It is a moot question whether the references to Egypt in various works indicate that those works are to be dated late in Lucian's life, after the tenure of his administrative post there.

In the Dea Syria (on the question of whose authenticity

see below, pp. 374ff.) the author, whom I believe to be Lucian, describing the way in which a man climbs a pillar in the Goddess' Temple, adds 'if anyone has not seen this, but has seen men climbing palm trees in Arabia or Egypt or elsewhere, he will know what I mean' (29);

in the De Luctu the Egyptian

custom of seating mummifidd relatives at table is described and the words λέγω 6' ίδών are added (21);

while the De Sacri­

ficiis, the abrupt opening of which and similarity in theme suggest that it was composed as a continuation to the De Luctu, describes Egyptian religious beliefs and the explanations for them (14, 15 ή'ν 6 ’ είς xf)v Αίγυπτον δλθης ... άκούσρ), though not necessarily in terms which imply personal experience, in 64 view of the commonplace nature of what follows. Such pass­ ages can, however, be explained in terms of literary artifice; and it is not outside the bounds of possibility that Lucian made a journey to Egypt earlier in his life, since we cannot document fully all his comings and goings throughout his career.

44 We have no information about the date of Lucian's death. The existence of the Tragodopodagra


among Lucian's works and

the reference to an illness in the Apology (10;

more con­

vincing perhaps is Hercules 7 'βραδέες δέ τοι ίπποι', ές τούς πόδας τούτο άποσκώπτων) have led Croiset (Essai .., p. 84) and others to suppose that Francklin's Lucian is telling the truth in confessing to Lord Lyttelton that although 'Suidas has set his dogs at me and worried me to death ... the real cause of my death was, by Hercules, that rascally disorder which had killed so many honest fellows before me, that opprobrium medic­ orum, the Gout, who at last ... transported me ... from a wicked world to these happy mansions'. Attempts to date Lucian's works by groups and by crossreferences We have, therefore, a mere handful of works datable either with virtual certainty, or with probability, from internal references to contemporary events, or from references to Luc­ ian's age; others.®®

while one can assign a tentative date to a few In most of his works there are no such references.

This, however, does not deter most critics from dating those other works as well, but they do so on the basis of what, in my opinion, are inadmissible assumptions and highly dubious procedures. In the first place it seems to be tacitly assumed by almost all scholars that those works which they deem to have roughly

45 the same character and to belong to a group (e.g. the 'Menippean' group, works showing the influence of New Comedy, works of a 'Platonic' character, encomia in dialogue form etc.) are to be dated to successive periods of Lucian's life and that once Lucian has progressed to a new type of compos­ ition he never goes back to composing works of an earlier type.

One aspect of this has been mentioned above (p. 38),

viz. the assumption that after devising his 'Menippean' genre Lucian never again composed a purely sophistic type of work. I say almost every scholar:

Helm, to be sure, criticises

Sinko for this assumption (P.W. p. 1764, with reference to Sinko's article in Eos 14, 1908), but he himself seems to be doing exactly the same thing in declaring, for instance, that all the 'Menippean' works were written in the period 161-165 (Lucian und Menipp, p. 340, P.W. p. 1764ff.), with the solit­ ary exception of the Saturnalia, which he attributes to Lucian's old age because he thinks it displays 'Altersschwäche' (Lucian und Menipp, p. 215ff., P.W.).

The Fugitivi, he tells us (ib.

p. 307ff.), was the last of the Menippean group, and because it was also the worst, and therefore proved unsuccessful, Lucian gave up the genre;

and when Fritzsche suggests that the Icaro-

menippus may be dated to 180, Helm denies this on the grounds that Lucian could not compose that sort of dialogue at that stage in his life (ib. p. 112).

But why could he not?


shouldn't Lucian have returned again and again throughout his

46 career to the genre that he was so proud of inventing, or indeed to any of the other types of composition that we find among his works?

Obviously Lucian would have produced quite

a number of his 'Menippean' dialogues at the period when he first devised the genre, and when it caught the popular fancy, and some of them, to judge from the apparent references to contemporary events discussed above (p. 14ff.), seem to have been written about 165, or perhaps earlier in the Parthian War.

Other works of this kind, however, contain no such indic­

ations as to their date, and could theoretically have been written at any stage in Lucian's career.^ The Bacchus, written in Lucian's old age, may lend some support to this suggestion,

'Most people,' says Lucian (5),

'are like the Indians meeting Dionysus and his Maenads for the first time when they encounter literary novelties like mine, for, expecting to hear from me σατυρικά καί γελοϊά τινα και κομιδή κωμικά, some people consider it beneath their dignity to come to my displays, while others come along because they expect a comedy show, and when they find 'steel instead of ivy' they don't know quite what to make of it and are slow to applaud,'

However, he is sure they will enjoy themselves, just

as they used to in former days, if his old boon-companions are willing again to join in his rites and remember the revels that once they shared.

This prologue has been taken by some critics

as the introduction to part II of the True Story (see below.

47 p. 581 η.68), but the talk of literary novelties and of comedy with a sting in its tail would seem at least an equally apt description of the Menippean works, and it may be that Lucian is proposing to read to his audience some new examples of the genre he had invented many years before.

It is often assumed

that when Lucian returned to his rhetorical career in his old age he merely re-read his former works (Croiset, Essai 83;

Sinko, Symbolae Chronologicae, p. 43;


Schwartz, Bio­

graphie, p. 140), but this is as unwarranted as the assumption that all works of the same group necessarily belong to the same period. Furthermore, the establishment of groups and their arrange­ ment in chronological sequence is inevitably a most arbitrary kind of procedure, and no two scholars agree on which works should be put in which group.

Croiset, for example, draws up

a group of works showing the influence of Middle or New Comedy (Essai .., pp. 55-6) in which he includes the Convivium (which Helm puts in his Menippean group) and the Philopseudes (which others, such as Gallavotti, Luciano .., p. 196, regard as belonging to a much later period of Lucian's life, when his interests have turned towards the superstitions of his contemp­ oraries);

this is followed by a group which Croiset considers

influenced by the writings of Menippus (Essai .., pp. 55-63) and which includes the Dialogues of Sea Gods and the True Story (in neither of which is there any Menippean influence that I

48 can see, while Rohde regards the True Story as a late work, because he considers it belongs to an 'Epicurean' period in Lucian's development, see below p.581 n.68);

then comes 'un

nouvel essor d 'imagination', in a group influenced by Old Comedy (pp. 64-75), including the Gallus, Charon and Cataplus (though it is difficult to see quite how these differ from the Icaromenippus, Necyomanteia etc. that Croiset has put in his chronologically earlier 'Menippean' group);

lastly the aging

Lucian writes his memoirs in retirement (pp. 79-80), viz. the Demonax, Alexander and Sostratus (though since the Sostratus is lost, and in referring to it, Demon. 1, Lucian does not say it was a recent work, for all we know, it might have been com­ posed at a much earlier stage in his life).

Croiset declares

before he embarks on his chronological arrangement of Lucian's works, that, although we cannot date most of them, 'nous discernons facilement dans ses procédés de composition plusieurs manières qui η 'ont pu .... se produire que successivement'. But why, for instance, assume that the dialogues influenced by New Comedy precede the dialogues influenced by Old Comedy? (Helm follows Croiset in this, P. W. p. 1764ff.; Schwartz, Biographie .., p. 57)

so does

There is just as much, or

rather as little, justification for assuming that Lucian, hav­ ing been inspired to combine Old Comedy and dialogue and having composed some of his 'Menippean' works, subsequently decided to compose a different type of humorous dialogue, or to revert

to the more purely sophistic type, drawing his inspiration from other sources. Sinko's system of groups (Symbolae Chronologicae) is quite different from Croiset's.

It is somewhat vaguer from the

chronological point of view, but he does start off by listing the works of Lucian's youth, and among these juvenilia are the Navigium, Saturnalia, Gallus and Convivium (Group A, pp. 36-43) which Sinko chooses to regard, for some reason, as different in character from the Cynic or 'Menippean' dialogues of his later group F (pp. 54-8).

Helm, of course, as already ment­

ioned, finds in the Saturnalia, on the contrary, signs of senility.

In fact, for what another personal opinion is worth,

I consider that this set of variations on a theme is a clever and amusing little work and displays signs neither of senility nor immaturity.

Can one, in any case, assume that any of Luc­

ian's works were adversely influenced by his advancing years? Philostratus, after all, considers that at the age of 56 a sophist is approaching his prime (Vit. Soph. 543), and the Hercules and Bacchus, in which Lucian refers to his advanced age, lack nothing in liveliness and imaginative power when com­ pared with, say, those Menippean works which seem to have been composed in Lucian's middle age.

Helm had pronounced that the

Dialogues of the Dead were composed after the longer 'Menippean' Dialogues (Lucian und Menipp, p. 190ff.;

P.W. p. 1764ff.);

Sinko states with equal confidence, and with equal lack of

50 evidence, that, on the contrary, the longer dialogues followed the shorter ones (p. 54). Gallavotti's system of groups is different again and largely dependent (cf. p. 444 n.23 ) on pre-conceived ideas of Lucian's 'spiritual' or philosophic development:

thus we have, after

Lucian's 'conversion', an early 'Platonic' period marked by the Imagines, De Saltatione, Amores (regarded by almost every other critic as spurious), Toxaris and Anacharsis,


which are all

described as 'dialoghi filosofici', dealing with the 'problems' of beauty etc.;

then we have a 'Cynic-' period in Lucian's

writings, followed, for some reason, by a 'Menippean' period; and eventually, after a period of disillusionment, in which is composed the Hermotimus (c. 172 A.D.), a final 'Epicurean' period (Gallavotti summarizes his conclusions in tabular form pp. 224-5).

Lucian's life, in Gallavotti's eyes, is a long,

mournful search for an ever escaping truth, his artistic activity 'una missione morale per tutti gli uomini' (p. 215), the salient traits in his character are 'fermezza e severità spirituale' (p. 97);

he speaks of Lucian's 'profonda com­

passione' (p. 161), and declares that our author 'nasconde nell’ arguto sorriso la commozione e la pena del suo cuore ..' (p. 211) - 'Je me presse de rire de tout, de peur d'etre oblige d'en pleurer!', as Beaumarchais' Barber puts it.


a personal view of Lucian, however, is hardly a solid basis for dating his works.

51 The dividing of Lucian's writings into groups which (one thinks) share the same general characteristics, and the arrange­ ment of those groups in chronological order on the assumption that Lucian would only write one kind of work at a time and would never revert to an earlier type of composition, is com­ pletely useless as a dating method.

In effect all one is doing

is inventing a 'development' and dating the works from that. However, with regard to my remarks on his 'Menippean' group, Helm might rejoin that here at least his assumption that all these works were composed during the same period of time (from 161 - 165) is not purely arbitrary:

he has proved it.

So let

us consider the methods that he uses to date most of these dialogues, for these same methods have been extended by Schwartz and applied in the greater part of his book to the dating of Lucian's works in general.

They are these:

that where work

'a' employs an idea or an illustration or a proverb, quotation or piece of phrasing that is also employed in work 'b', those two works were necessarily composed at about the same date, and that, furthermore, if one considers carefully how the aforesaid idea or illustration etc. is used one can determine the order of composition between the two works. principles explicit:

Schwartz makes these

'la répétition entraine la proximité de

date et ... l'élément bien en place précède l'élément plaqué plus ou moins habilement' (p. 142). Take, for instance, the following examples:

Helm considers

52 that the Gallus is close in date to the Imagines because the story of Icarus is used in both works to illustrate a point in the argument (Im. 21:

when elated by Fortune the vulgar rise

to ever greater heights of pride, only to fall like Icarus; the prudent, like Daedalus, exercise restraint, and in their case pride suffers no fall.

Gall. 23:

the rich are like

Icarus, the poor like Daedalus, for the richest men have far­ thest to fall;

Croesus mounts the pyre etc. - a common rhetor­

ical conceit, cf. Sen. Contr. 2. 1. 7). works close in date for this reason;

Not only are the two

Helm further pronounces

that the Gallus is obviously older than the Imagines because the Imagines passage is longer than the corresponding Gallus passage (i.e. Lucian has expanded an earlier idea).

On a

similar principle the Gallus is 'proved' to be older than the Pro Imaginibus, for in Gall. 26 we have what Helm considers a 'colourful' illustration (when the rich fall it is like an actor falling and breaking his mask, thereby being revealed to the audience in his true colours) whereas in Pro Im. 3 the same idea appears but is, in Helm's opinion, (actually the idea is not quite the same:


praising people for

qualities they do not possess is like putting a beautiful mask on an ugly man or buskins on a short man.

Illustrations from

the theatre are used over and over again by Lucian and other rhetoricians, see’below p. 81).

Thus Helm considers that he

has now proved that the Gallus is written c. 163, shortly

53 before the Imagines and its sequel (P.W. s.v. Gallus, p. 1742, and Lucian und Menipp, p. 355), and this is one of the main pieces of evidence which is supposed to prove that the 'Hen69 ippean' works were begun in c. 161. Schwartz (p. 88) like­ wise declares that 'la confrontation entre Gallus 23 et Imag­ ines 21 montre, d'une manière incontestable, que les Imagines sont postérieures au Gallus.' This seems to me complete nonsense.

I cannot see the

slightest justification for supposing that Lucian can only repeat his illustrations etc. within short intervals of time. Must we suppose that the poor fellow has a bad memory? he never re-read his works once he has written them?

Or does And as

to the conclusion that the Gallus is older because the simile in the Imagines is longer and Lucian has obviously expanded an earlier idea:

why not argue that the longer passage was

written first and that when Lucian used the idea again he de­ cided to shorten it?

In point of fact Helm does use this type

of argument in reverse, declaring, for instance (Lucian und Menipp, p. 76), that the Necyomanteia precedes the Cataplus because Nec. 15 (Menippus wonders how he could tell Thersites from Nireus, Irus the beggar from the King of the Phaeacians etc. now that they are all skeletons) is longer than Cat. 22 (How dark it is!

Where now is handsome Megillus and how can

one tell that Simiche is not fairer than Phryne?), and that the longer 'ass in lion skin' comparison of Pise. 32 compared

54 with the shorter comparisons in Pseudol. 3, Fug. 13, Philops. 5, Adv. Ind. 23, shows that the Piscator preceded all those other works (P.W. s.v. Piscator pp. 1756-7). As to the matter of passage 'a' being more 'colourful' than passage 'b' and therefore indicating the priority of the work containing passage 'a', the arbitrary nature of this argument and its absurdity is obvious.

Yet it is used repeat­

edly by both Helm and Schwartz as a dating criterion.


instance, whereas Helm has opined that the Icaromenippus is prior to the Charon (with regard to the κατάσκοπος scene, Lucian und Menipp, pp. 166-8), Schwartz- uses this type of argument to indicate that, on the contrary, the Charon is prior to the Icaromenippus, because (among other considerat­ ions, all equally weak) 'l'histoire est vécue' in the Charon and merely recounted in the Icaromenippus (pp. 51-2).

By a

similar type of reasoning Schwartz 'proves' (p. Ill) that the De Mercede Conductis precedes the Adversus Indoctum (by a short interval, of course) because he thinks that the compar­ ison of flatterers praising a patron with 'stranded frogs raising their thirsty voices' (Merc. Cond. 28, Adv. Ind. 20) is better suited to the context in the Merc. Cond. (I do not agree), and (p. 108) that the Gallus is prior to the Somnium because he thinks that the latter work employs in a less felicitous manner the phrase τρι,έσπερος ... δνειρος with its reference to the myth of Jupiter's affair with Alcmene (Gall.

55 12, Micyllus wishes his pleasant dream had lasted three nights, Somn. 17, Lucian fears that his audience will say of his tale χειμερινός δνειρος ... η τάχα που τριέσπερος).

Helm uses this

type of argument to prove that the Timon is later than the Gallus because of the way in which quotations from Pindar and Euripides are used (Tim. 41;

Gall. 7, 14:

see Helm in P.W.

s.v. Timon pp. 1761-2). The same principle is applied in the case of proverbs, of ■which a collection must have come into Lucian’s hands, Schwartz informs us, in 165 (p. 141;

on what grounds I do not know.

Did Lucian, then, not read Aesop in the primary school like every other small boy?

Did he not assimilate proverbs from the

time he was in the nursery?).

Thus Helm, following Rein (P.W.

p. 1764 'Als Anhalt für chronologischer Zusammenhang hat mit Recht W. Rein, 'Sprichwörter bei Lucian', 1894, die Wiederkehr gleicher Sprichwörter angegeben ...'), declares that the use of the same proverbs in the Adv. Ind. and the Merc. Cond. proves that the two works were close in time (P.W. s, vv. Adv. Ind., Merc. Cond.

I can see only one proverb in common:

Ind. 4 δνος λύρας άκούεις κινών τά. ώτα; κοινόν, φασί, λύρςι και δνψ; 7,


Mere. Cond. 25 τί γάρ

cf. D. Meretr. 14. 321, Pseudol.

and for examples of its use in other authors, cf. Liddell &

Scott, s.v. δνος);

and Schwartz, also following Rein's prin­

ciple (p. 116), argues that the Timon was written before the Adversus Indoctum because the 'dog in a manger' proverb is

56 used in both and fits the context better in the Timon (Tim. 14 applied to misers;

Adv. Ind. 30 applied to the ignorant

book-collector who will not lend his books to others. seem to me equally well fitted to their contexts).



ence in a piece of phraseology in two works, or the telling of the same anecdote in two works is also used by Schwartz and Helm in their dating:

in the Peregrinus, for instance,

Lucian says that he was nearly torn apart by the Cynics (διεσπάσθην) like Pentheus (2);

in the Adv. Ind, is told an

anecdote of a Cynic tearing up (διέσπασεν) a beautiful copy of the Bacchantes to stop an ignorant man reading it (19), while another story tells how dogs tore to pieces a tyrant who was trying to play Orpheus' lyre (12):

this, Schwartz

thinks, is an indication that the Adv. Ind. and the Peregr­ inus are close in time (pp. 114-5)!

The myth of Phaethon

is told in the Electrum and in the twenty-fifth Dialogue of the Gods:

this suggests to Schwartz that the Dialogues of

the Gods were composed at the same time as the Electrum (p. 129.

Croiset had argued in similar fashion with regard

to the Jupiter Confutatus and the nineteenth Dialogue of the Dead, p. 62). Schwartz's book is packed with cross-references of this 70 type (see pp. 41 - 136), on the basis of which he informs the reader (p. 114) that, for instance, the invective against the Book Collector may have been composed in two separate

57 stages, one before 169 A.D., and the other after the compos­ ition of the

Pseudologistes (in c. 170 A.D., according to the

table at the

back, p. 149), that parts I and II of


alia were written in 160, while part III was composed later in 161 (p. 94), that the Timon and perhaps the Assembly of Gods were left unfinished when in 162 Lucian set out for the East, and that 'il

est certain que le départ pour l'Asie

et bouleversa le programme de travail' 138).


futbrusque section, p.

It is predominantly on arguments such as these that he

bases his account of Lucian's 'development' (Chap. VII 'Esquisse d'une Evolution'), and, in my opinion, he is building on sand. The only reasonable criterion, therefore, that one can use in dating Lucian's writings is that of references in them to contemporary events, or statements that the author himself makes about his literary career.

One is not entitled to take

it for granted that all the works which have similar subject matter or treatment, or are subject to the same literary influences were necessarily all composed at any one period in Lucian's life.

It may satisfy one's desire for tidiness and

simplicity to divide Lucian's career into various 'philosophic' periods, or to bundle his works into successive chronological groups, such as groups of purely sophistic compositions, works inspired by Old or New Comedy, works inspired by Menippus, attacks on philosophers, on superstition, on contemporary rhetoric,


but this line of approach does not seem to me to

58 be justified by the evidence.

X cannot accept the principle

of Schwartz and Helm that repetition of ideas etc. in different works necessarily entails proximity of date, for just as it seems conceivable to me that Lucian might revert at any stage in his career to subject matter or to a particular type of composition that he had used before, so it seems equally con­ ceivable that he might repeat at substantial intervals of time anecdotes, illustrations, even phrasing that he had employed in earlier works, either because he had re-read his own compos­ itions or because he carried them in his memory.

Still less

do I consider admissible the arbitrary procedure of declaring that this simile, that quotation is 'better suited to its con­ text' or 'more colourful' or what you will than that one, and that in consequence this work is earlier than the other. It is always tempting to be carried away by one's personal impressions about a work's literary quality, and one may feel strongly that this or that piece displays a lower standard of artistry than the rest and is unlikely to belong to the period of Lucian's maturity, but just such personal impressions led one critic, as we have seen, to pronounce the Saturnalia a work of Lucian's youth and another to maintain that it was written in his old age, when the work in question may very well belong to his middle years.

It is customary to consider

that the two controversiae, the Tyrant Slayer and the Dis­ inherited Son, are works of Lucian's youth.

This is very

59 likely right;

but is it not just conceivable that, alter

Lucian had declared that he was weary of the conventional compositions that most of the sophists produced and had turned to writing unconventional pieces like the Menippean works, somebody one day hinted the dark suspicion that Lucian was incapable of doing well at this type of compos­ ition and Lucian rose to the challenge, just to show that he could?

I am not saying that I think this is probable;

I am merely suggesting it as a hypothesis, to demonstrate that one cannot take too much for granted in dealing with dating problems.

Similarly, one scholar (Emily J. Putnam,

'Lucian the sophist', C. Ph. 4 (1909), 162-177) assumes that the Anacharsis is later than the De Saltatione because in the Anacharsis the dialogue form is handled with more artistry; there is more of an 'argument', and the characters are more lifelike.

She may very well be right, but might it not be

simply that in the De Saltatione Lucian chose to use a 'frame dialogue' to enclose an encomium of the Dance and for the Anacharsis preferred to set the subject matter throughout in the form of a dialogue?

Theoretically, therefore, the

Anacharsis could be earlier than the De Saltatione.


impression about a work's artistic quality is therefore a most uncertain dating criterion, and I see no point in attempting to trace a writer's literary evolution on this basis. There are so many of Lucian’s works which cannot be dated

60 on any satisfactory criteria that I do not think one can talk in terms of a 'development' in his literary career.

He tells

us that at the age of forty or thereabouts he developed his 'Menippean' genre and we can date a number of those compositions to about 165 with fair probability.

The handful of works to

which we can thereafter assign an approximate date, with the exception of the Apologia, the Pro Lapsu and the introductions Hercules and Bacchus, are satirical in content to a greater or lesser degree and reflect a variety of interests:

there is

criticism of contemporary literary practice in the De Historia Conscribenda and the Rhetorum Praeceptor;

there is ridicule of

contemporary false philosophers in the Peregrinus and Eunuch, while the Demonax portrays Lucian's idea of what makes a true philosopher, and contains criticism, in the form of witticisms made by Demonax, on various aspects of contemporary behaviour; the Alexander and Peregrinus are directed against two religious cults of which Lucian heartily disapproves because of the pers­ onalities involved;

and there is also that sketch of the mis­

eries to be endured by a Greek of culture who accepts the pos­ ition of hired tutor in a Roman household, the De Mercede Con­ ductis . The Menippean works contain contemporary touches here and there, such as the occasional mockery of rhetorical practice (see below p. 311) or reference to a contemporary religious feature (below p. 200), while the currently popular theme of

fhe false philosopher appears in many of them and the Fugitivi seems to be aimed at specific contemporary individuals of this kind (below p. 138ff.); in them is slight:

but the element of contemporary satire

they are concerned rather with the Vanity

of Human Wishes, and with ridiculing dogmatic philosophy, and making fun of the gods of mythology.

One cannot, however, ass­

ume that all the Menippean works belong to one period and that Lucian then concentrated exclusively on contemporary satire, for there is no reason why he should not have continued to pro­ duce Menippean works while composing satirical works of a more contemporary nature.

Conversely, he may have produced some

works of contemporary satire before or about the same time as he began his Menippean genre:

the Pseudologistes, which has

much in common with the Rhetorum Praeceptor (below p. 279ff.), may have been written as early as 162, while the other works such as the Lexiphanes or Philopseudes or True Story cannot be dated on any objective criteria.

Nor does the fact that those

works which we can date to the period post 165 are mostly satirical in content necessarily support the assumption that Lucian had abandoned compositions of a more purely sophistic nature:

obviously we are more likely to find dating material

in works which deal with contemporary personalities or practices than in the more conventionally sophistic pieces which do not. We cannot therefore take it for granted that all the purely rhetorical works were written before 165.

There are no grounds

62 for envisaging Lucian as 'abandoning rhetoric' in favour of 'philosophic retirement' at any stage in his career; what evidence we possess (see above p. 37;

and from

cf. Pseudol. 21)

it seems that the satirical compositions were written to entertain his audience just as much as the more conventional examples of the sophist's repertoire. We see from his works that Lucian travelled a good deal, and in some of his prologues we find him soliciting prospective patrons (Harmonides, Scythian).

He earned his living by

pleasing both his patrons and his audiences.

These circum­

stances may well have entered into his choice of subject matter 72 or type of composition on different occasions: he may have known that in one town a particular sort of composition went down well, and that in another town it would be to his advantage to try to suit the tastes of such and such eminent personages; he may have reflected that whereas one place had given his 'Menippean' writings a good reception on one occasion, they were not so acceptable to the audiences somewhere else. how, one wonders, did Lucian arrange his displays?



Did they

consist of several works of the same kind, or did he perhaps vary the types of composition in each display to demonstrate his versatility?

We do not know.

Sinko (Symbolae Chronologicae, p. 68) compares Lucian with the octopus who changes colour with his surroundings, and with Proteus who assumes a multitude of forms (D. Mar. 4).

It is,

63 I think, an apt description:

indeed, if the Encomium of

Demosthenes is genuine (see below p. 324ff.), this is how Lucian describes himself.

It seems to me far better to rest

content with viewing this second century showman in this light than to exhaust one's ingenuity in a vain attempt to elicit from insufficient evidence an account of a literary 1development'.



LUCIAN AND MENIPPEAN SATIRE 'As for theft ... away with that charge!

That is the one fault

you could not find in my works!' (Prom. Es 7).

Whatever faults

may be found in his writings, declares Lucian, and he is refer­ ring, as there is every reason to believe (see above p. 29ff.), to that group of compositions inspired by the Cynic Menippus,''' one cannot call him a plagiarist.

Plagiarism, as he is well

aware, is the mark of the mediocre, the feeble-minded, the third-rate:

he pours scorn on it in his treatise on the writ­

ing of history (15) and in the Jupiter Tragoedus (14). condemns plagiarism in others; is free from the fault himself.


he declares expressly that he He takes the greatest pride

in his own originality, boasting that he has abandoned the trite themes favoured by other sophists and has invented a new liter­ ary genre (Bis Acc. 32-4), that of the comic dialogue:


resulting productions, he freely and proudly acknowledges, owe much to the influence of the Cynic Menippus of Gadara (Bis Acc. 33, Pise. 26). But how much does Lucian owe to Menippus?

On the answer to

that question depends to a large extent one's estimate of Luc­ ian as a writer.

The answer which Rudolf Helm gave in his

book, 'Lucian und Menipp', led him to the conclusion that our author was a third-rate hack, of extremely limited talent, a conclusion which seems to have coloured not only much of his own subsequent thought about Lucian (even, for instance, leading

65 him to deny the authenticity of a work like the Encomium of Demosthenes on the grounds that it is too good for Lucian; below p. 330), but also the thought of other scholars, Isidore Lévy, for instance, whom we find stating in his 'Legende de Pythagore de Grèce en Palestine', 'Comme Helm l'a montré, Lucien, conteur sans imagination et dont le talent mince et court n'est pas à l'aise dans les vastes compositions, supplée aux facultés qui lui manquent par l'art d'accommoder les re­ liefs et d'exploiter, jusqu'à l'épuisement de la matière imitable, le modèle auquel il s'est attaché ...' (p. 93).


vast appears the extent of Uenippean borrowings in Lucian’s writings, on Helm's estimate, that Lucian stands convicted of being just what he boasts that he is not, a plagiarist, and moreover a plagiarist not merely by present day standards, which are admittedly somewhat different from those of the ancient world, but a plagiarist on his own terms, for like those he censures in the De Historia Conscribenda and the Jupiter Tragoedus Lucian has, according to Helm, merely re­ produced his model more or less verbatim in much of his work, stringing together Menippus' themes and phrases 'with a few slight modifications' (J. Trag. 14). In Helm's judgement, Lucian's suc c e s s as a sophist was due entirely to the lucky chance which led him to discover the forgotten writings of this third-century Cynic which he system­ atically plundered and used over and over again.

Not only


plots and motifs are borrowed from Menippus' works but even historical examples, similes and metaphors are taken in large quantities from Lucian's Menippean models. borrowing does not stop at that:

Yet Lucian's

even the form, the new lit­

erary genre which he claims to have invented, the blend of comedy and dialogue which he declares so vehemently in the Prometheus Es to be of his own devising ('For from whom could I have stolen?

Unless somebody else, all unbeknownst to me,

has also put together such hippocampuses and goat-stags.' 7), even this was really filched from Menippus.

In the attack

which she launched on Helm in 1936, Barbara P. McCarthy calls attention (Lucian and Menippus, p. 3) to Helm's basic assumption that Menippus wrote dialogue.


(For this assumption cf.

Helm p. 53 'der mimische Dialog des Menipp', pp. 280-2 etc., and his article on Menippus in Pauly Wissowa, p. 892, 'Etwas Neues schuf er dadurch, dass er ... seine Gedanken in bestimmte Situationen und Szenen goss und damit den platonischen Dialog 3 ins Komische wandte.') An innovation in form would alone, by ancient standards, suffice to justify Lucian in claiming originality, even if most of his subject matter were taken from Menippus' works, so let us examine the validity of his claim.

The various passages in

which Lucian vaunts his originality in devising the comic dia­ logue have been discussed in the previous chapter. attempts to explain them away (pp. 280-2).


Is Lucian perhaps

67 lying through his teeth in the Prometheus Es when he boasts that he has created a new literary genre by uniting dialogue and comedy?

Is he, as Riese suggested, 'Menippum ... fraudul4

ento silentio opprimens1?

Helm in fact favours Riese1s

other suggestion, 'Menippum nondum tum cognitum habens1, and declares that the Prometheus Es refers only to the Dialogues of Gods, Sea Gods and Hetaerae, which were written before the Menippean works.

For this dating there is no evidence;


as we have seen, a comparison of the Prometheus Es, Zeuxis, and Bis Accusatus (32ff.) indicates strongly that Lucian has the same type of composition in mind in each case, viz. his 'Menippean' works, where Old Comedy, Dialogue and the satire of Menippus combine (see above p. 29ff.).

However, let us

assume, for the sake of argument, that the Prometheus Es, with its specific claim that Lucian himself is the first to unite dialogue and (Old) Comedy, was written before Lucian came across the writings of Menippus;

but how are we to explain

the Bis Accusatus and Lucian's discussion in that work of his new genre? 'I was dignified up till now ...' grumbles Dialogue about Lucian (Bis Acc. 33), 'but he dragged me down ... He took away my respectable tragic mask, and made me wear a comic, satyr­ like, well-nigh ludicrous one instead.

Then he shut me up with

Jest and Satire and Cynicism and Eupolis and Aristophanes ... and finally dug up Menippus ... and thrust him in on me too!'

To which Lucian replies that he is quite taken aback that Dialogue should say that sort of thing about him:

when he

took Dialogue over he was still stern-faced and unattractive to the general public;

but Lucian made him human, he made him

smile, and, above all, he united him with Comedy (ènt πασυ 6è την χωμψδΰαν αύτψ παρέζευζα Bis Acc. 34).

Helm flatly denies

that Lucian is here talking about innovation:

'im Doppelt­

verklagten ist von ihr (der Neuerung) überhaupt nicht die Rede'. I fail to see how the above passage can mean anything other than that Lucian is the first to unite dialogue (σεμνόν τέως δντα ...) and comedy;

and this is exactly what he claims in

the Prometheus Es (6, 7). If this claim were false, and if in fact Menippus had written comic dialogue before him, could Lucian have expected his audience to believe him?

Knauer (De Luciano Menippeo, p. 2)

and Helm (p. 14) believe that Menippus' works were no longer known in Lucian's time;

but that there were still some people

who knew his writings is indicated by references in other authors of this period, such as Marcus Aurelius (6. 47) and Athenaeus, who even quotes from Menippus' works (v. infra). Even if Helm is right in thinking that άνορύ£ας (Bis Acc. 33) implies that Lucian found Menippus' writings in obscurity (and it could just as easily mean simply that Lucian 'resurrected' the dead Cynic to make him play his part in his new dialogues), it was not total obscurity, and the more learned members of

69 Lucian's audience may very well have read him for themselves.5 From the story in Philostratus, about a sophist who was caught out by the pupils of a rival in a pretence of extempore eloqu­ ence (Vit. Soph. 579), and from a similar story that Lucian tells about how an audience detected another sophist indulging in plagiarism (Pseudol. 5-6), we can see that a rhetorician could expect at least some of his audience to be both well read and acute (cf. Pise. 6, Lucian expects his audience to recog­ nise his sources).

It is therefore hardly reasonable to supp­

ose that Lucian should make several elaborate claims to have originated a new literary genre, when it had really been de­ vised by Menippus, and when any rival sophist in his audience could easily give him the lie by turning up a text of that author. There are, however, other means of determining whether or not Lucian's claim is false.

Menippus had other imitators who

throw some light on this problem, M. Terentius Varro and the author of the Apocolocyntosis.

If Menippus' works were in the

form of comic dialogues one would expect the works of his other imitators to be in dialogue form.

The Apocolocyntosis, however,

is a narrative in prose interspersed with verse, containing passages of conversation, but not as a whole cast in dialogue form.

Only fragments of Varro's Menippean Satires now survive.

One cannot, therefore, prove that a fragment which looks as if it is part of a narrative (such as the description of a storm

70 in the Marcipor, frags. 269-272 Buecheler)


or of a diatribe

(such as the discussion of avarice in the άνθρωπότιολι,ς, 36) may not be part of what one interlocutor is saying to another in a dialogue.

Conversely, when we overhear a snatch of con­

versation ('ego nihil, Varro, video:

ita hic obscurat qui

ante me est nescio qui longurio', 562), we obviously cannot assume that the whole satire from which the fragment comes was in dialogue form;

some fragments indicate that reported

conversation formed part of a narrative (’haec postquam dixit, cedit citu' celsu' tolutim', 9).

The two satires which allow,

more easily than the rest, a certain degree of reconstruction, the Eumenides and the Sexagesis, both give the impression of being, in the main, first person narratives with passages of reported conversation.

In the Sexagesis, for instance, the

story of a Roman Rip Van Winkle, our hero recounts how: 'Romam regressus ibi nihil offendi, quod ante annos quinqua­ ginta, cum primum dormire coepi, reliqui' (491).

There appar­

ently followed a description of the degeneracy that the narr­ ator found at Rome (495-8);

and he told of an unfortunate

adventure that befell him ('acciti sumus, ut depontaremur...', 493), in the description of which there appears to have been some conversation ( "'vix effatus erat", cum more maiorum ultro 7 carnales arripiunt, de ponte in Tiberim deturbant', 494). Similarly the Eumenides looks, in large part, like a first person narrative ('sed nos simul atque in summam speculam

71 venimus,/ videmus populum


'et ecce de inproviso O

ad nos accedit cana Veritas

141, etc.).

In point of

fact, those two works of Lucian in which, as will be shown below, a certain amount of fairly close Menippean imitation can be most easily proved, viz. the Necyomanteia and the Icaromenippus, are not dialogues in the same sense as the other Menippean works such as the Cataplus, Vitarum Auctio etc. They are 'frame dialogues', the dialogue being used simply to introduce a narrative, which itself contains passages of reported conversation (e.g. Nec. 21, 22). There is, therefore, absolutely no reason to suppose that Menippus wrote comic dialogues of the type on which Lucian prides himself.

Like the Apocolocyntosis and the Satires of

Varro, the Menippean originals were probably for the most part narratives or discussions interspersed with passages of conversation when required.


They were also, on the testimony

of Probus, written in that mixture of prose and verse typical of Varro's Satires and of the Apocolocyntosis:

'Varro ...

Menippeus non a magistro, cuius aetas longe praecesserat, nominatus, sed a societate ingenii 'quod is quoque omnigeno carmine satiras suas expoliverat' (ad Verg. Ecl. 6. 31).^ There would seem to be confirmatory evidence of this in Lucian's Bis Accusatus (33), where Dialogue tacks on to his other com­ plaints the moan that ούτε πεζός είμι. ούτε έπΐ τώυ μέτρων βέβηκα.

This is not strictly true of Lucian's comic dialogues:

only at the beginning of the Necyomanteia (1), the Piscator (1, 3) and the Jupiter Tragoedus (1, 2;

cf. also Fug. 30) is

the mixture of prose and verse at all striking, while many of the other works of this kind are entirely in prose, with but the occasional brief quotation from poetry,^

and some do not

even have that (e.g. Cataplus, Vitarum Auctio).

So in refer­

ring to the mixture of prose and verse, Lucian must surely have in mind a practice of Menippus, which those of the audience who knew the Cynic's works would recognise as his characteristic method of writing.

Lucian can hardly be including the mixture

of prose and verse seriously as part of his claim to originality since he uses it so infrequently in his comic dialogues (it is only the mixture of dialogue and comedy that Lucian claims as his own invention in the Prom. Es, just as this is the main point stressed in the Bis Acc.):


it is merely added to

Dialogue's accusation (after the mention of Menippus) for humor­ ous rhetorical effect, as the final insult which crowns the injuries he has suffered at Lucian's hands.

The Cynics made

frequent use of verse parody and quotation in their teaching (cf. Teletis Reliquiae, ed. Hense, passim; passim;

Diog. Laert. 6 13 id. 6. 85 Homeric parody by Crates). It seems

reasonable to suppose that Menippus developed his characteristic style of composition by extending this practice on a large scale, so that the narrative was not only embellished by verse quotations but was continued in passages of parodie verse and

73 other verses of his own composition. It is clear, then, that, as far as the actual form of Lucian's Menippean works goes, Lucian is not copying slavishly the writings of Menippus, secure in the knowledge that none of his audience will have read that author and so be able to de­ tect the absurdities of his own claim to originality in invent­ ing a new literary genre, namely that of the comic dialogue. The references to Menippus in the Piscator (26) and the Bis Accusatus (33) are intended as acknowledgements of Lucian's debt to the Cynic writer, not for the form of his Menippean works, but for his subject matter.

In order to discover the

extent of Lucian's debt to Menippus in this respect we must first attempt to reconstruct as far as is possible the lost works of this Cynic who, as Dudley puts it, 'like the Cheshire cat, has faded away to a grin' (A History of Cynicism, p. 69). To aid us in this task, we have a certain amount of evidence in the form of statements about Menippus and his writings in ancient authorities, and the occasional (and not always cert­ ain) quotation, and the evidence provided by a comparison of Lucian's works with the writings of Menippus' other imitators, of whom Varro and the author of the Apocolocyntosis have al­ ready been mentioned;

while possibly, as some critics think,

Menippean influence can be traced also in some of the works of other Roman satirists.

In addition to this we can, according

to Helm, elicit a large amount of information about Menippus'

74 works from the composition of Lucian's Menippean writings. Menippus:

the external evidence

Our independent evidence about Menippus comes mainly from the sixth book of Diogenes Laertius (99ff.), from whom we learn that he was a Phoenician, to which Strabo adds the information that he came from Gadara (Geog. 16. 2. 29).


Diogenes Laert­

ius tells us that Menippus was enslaved to a citizen of Pontus, a tradition supported by Aulus Gellius (2. 18. 6 'alii quoque non pauci servi fuerunt, qui post philosophi clari extiterunt; ex quibus ... Menippus fuit ...').

Later he appears to have

been freed and to have come to Thebes, where he is said to have earned his living as a money-lender and become a citizen of that city, subsequently losing the fortune he had accumulated, and hanging himself in despair - a most un-Cynic thing to do, as Diogenes Laertius feels impelled to observe in an uninspired piece of v e r s e (ib.), and probably to be attributed to the slanders of his enemies, like most of the rest of this inform­ ation, and the further statement that Menippus passed off the works of Dionysius and Zopyrus (both from Colophon) as his own.1®

Menippus was, it appears, a pupil of Crates' disciple,

Metrocles (Diog. Laert. 6. 95), and since Crates flourished in the 113th Olympiad (328-324 B.C., Diog. Laert. 6. 87), we can date Menippus' floruit to the first half of the third century B.C. 17

Menippus' writings, according to Diogenes (6.

101), numbered thirteen, but he only cites eight of them at the

75 most:

Necyia, Wills, Letters from the Gods (Έπιστολαι

κεκομψευμέναι άπδ τοϋ των θεών προσώπου), works directed against the physicists and mathematicians and grammarians, and 'the birth of Epicurus and the School's reverence for the twentieth day' (it is not clear whether the last phrase is intended to imply one work or two, though I think the former 18 is much more likely). To this list Athenaeus adds two titles, the Symposium and the Arcesilaus, and three brief fragments:

Deipn. 14. 629 e-f

καλείται δέ τις καί, άλλη όρχησις κόσμου έκπύρωσις Μένιππος δ κυνικός έν τφ Συμποσίψ;


14. 664e δ δε κυνικός

Μένιππος έν τφ έπιγραφομένψ ‘Αρκεσιλάψ γράφει ούτως" πότος ήν έπικωμασάντων τινων καί· ματύην έκέλευσεν εΐσφέρειν Αάκαινάν τις"

και εύθέως περιεφέρετο περδίκεια όλίγα και χηνεια όκτά

καί. τρύφη πλακούντων;

1. 32e (in connexion with different

kinds of wine) ό γοϋν κυνικός Μένιππος άλμοπότιν την Μύνδον φησίν.

It has been suggested that the reference in Menippus'

Symposium to a dance called 'the conflagration of the world' indicates that the Cynic was at this point mocking the Stoic views on cosmology.

The Arcesilaus was probably an attack on

Menippus' Academic contemporary aimed at his love of luxury and high living and all the pleasures of the flesh, for which the Stoics also assailed him (cf. Diog. Laert. 4. 40-41). phrase 'sea-drinking Myndian', from its hexameter rhythm, might come from a passage of verse, as Piot suggests. 19


76 In the Suda, s.v. φοαός, there is a passage which is almost word for word the same as a passage of Diogenes Laertius (6. 102) describing the Cynic Menedemus, who went around dressed up as a Fury, saying that he had come from Hades to spy out people's sins, and was going to return and report them to the gods of the underworld;

he wore a grey tunic reaching to his

feet, a crimson girdle and an Arcadian hat (πίλος) with the twelve signs of the zodiac on it, tragic buskins, and he had a long beard and carried an ashen staff.

The only difference

is that in the Suda the opening words are Μένι,ππος 6 χυνι,χός. In Lucian's Necyomanteia Menippus' guide to the underworld is a Chaldaean magician with a long beard (6) and a similarly dramatic sort of costume though it is not described at length (8 'a magician's gown very like the Median dress'. himself wears a πίλος).


The most reasonable interpretation of

this evidence is that there was a character in Menippus' own Necyia, probably Menippus himself, who wore the costume descr­ ibed in the Suda / Diogenes passage when going down to Hades, and Diogenes himself, or his source, mistakenly transferred the description to Menedemus;

presumably too Menippus would have

represented himself as returning charged with a commission from the powers below to act for them as an έπίσχοπος of his fellow men.20 Diogenes Laertius also cites a short excerpt from a work by Menippus called 'The Sale of Diogenes' (6. 29-30),



seems to have been the inspiration behind Lucian's Sale of Lives.

The Menippean original presented Diogenes in the slave

market, unabashed and outspoken:

asked by a prospective buyer

what he can do, he replies, 'Govern men';

he bids the crier

ask whether anyone wants to buy a master for himself, and tells the man who eventually purchases him that he must obey his new slave, just as he would a physician if he were sick (Diog. Laert. 6. 29-30).

In Lucian's work the section in which the

Cynic philosophy is put up for sale (Vit. Auct. 8f.) shows some similarity to this:

the Cynic Life is asked what he can do,

and replies that he is a liberator of men, and their spiritual physician;

he then tells his prospective master how he is go­

ing to rule him, and generally displays the outspokenness that Diogenes exhibits in the other work.

Lucian goes further, how­

ever, and turns his passage into satire directed against one of his favourite targets, the ignorant and abusive Cynics of his own day (10, 11), whom many of his contemporaries likewise attack (below p. 190). About the general character of Menippus' works we have the testimony of Diogenes Laertius (or rather, his source Diodes) that Menippus' presentation of his Cynic message was of a pre­ dominantly comic nature:

'there is nothing serious in him;

his books are full of laughter ...' (6. 99).

Strabo (16. 2. 29)

draws attention to the humorous character of Menippus' writings, but without ignoring the underlying serious intent, by

78 describing him as δ σπουδογέλοιος.

Some.of the extant titles

confirm this evidence, the Necyia, for instance (which, even if we had no other evidence about it, we would certainly, knowing the Cynic fondness for Homeric quotation and parody, presume to be some sort of parody on the eleventh book of the Odyssey), genes.


the Letters from the Gods, and the Sale of Dio­

Marcus Aurelius (6. 47) classes Menippus among those

who mock the brief and transient life of mankind, from which it is clear that, even if there is a grain of truth in the tradition that Menippus did not himself adopt the itinerant life of the typical Cynic, but instead maintained himself as a business man of some sort in Thebes, he at least preached the usual Cynic doctrine of indifference to worldly goods, freedom from vain ambitions, self-sufficiency, the pursuit of virtue as the only true road to happiness etc. (cf. Diog. Laert. 6. 103-5 and passim), his mordant wit directed against those who were not (in the words of Crates, Clem. Alex., Str. 2. 492) ήδονξί άνδραποδώδει Αδούλωτοι καί άκαμπτοι.

Like other

Cynics Menippus mocked those who wasted their lives in the pursuit of fruitless knowledge, and so wrote books 'against the physicists and mathematicians and grammarians' (cf. Diog. Laert. 6. 103, 104 on Cynics in general), and attacked other philosophers:

the Epicureans in the 'Birth of Epicurus and

the School's reverence for the twentieth day', the Stoics (and perhaps others) in the Symposium, and the Academic Arcesilaus

79 in the work of that name, just as Diogenes had mocked at Plato and the paradoxes of the Stoics and the speculations of the physical philosophers (Diog. Laert. 6. 39-40 etc.). That is all that can be gleaned about Menippus and his 23 writings from the statements of our ancient authorities. Lucian himself, as Piot observed (Un personnage de Lucien, Ménippe, p. 101), does not give a very accurate picture of Menippus, in that he appears to be drawing for details about him on the traditions about the Cynic Diogenes.

Thus, in the

first Dialogue of the Dead, Diogenes tells Pollux that he will find Menippus in the Craneum at Corinth or the Lyceum at Athens, and that he is old and bald and clad in a ragged cloak (cf. no. 10 Menippus portrayed with conventional stick and wallet), whereas the tradition about Menippus in Diogenes Laertius states that he lived in Thebes, and suggests that he may not have lived the vagrant, ascetic life of the conventional Cynic.

On the

other hand the Craneum at Corinth and the gymnasia of Athens were favourite haunts of the ascetic Diogenes, who died at a ripe old age (Diog. Laert. 6. 22, 23, 38, 80 etc.).


all Lucian knew of Menippus was his writings, and these he was in a position to characterise accurately, summing up the essence of his character, in Bis Acc. 33, as a Dog philosopher who bit and laughed as he did so (γελών &ua εδακνεν), and in the first Dialogue of the Dead, where he describes him as 'always laughing and mostly poking fun at those hypocritical philosophers'.

80 Cynic ideas and historical allusions Before discussing the works of Menippus' other imitators and the light that they shed on Lucian's debt to Menippus, which is the second of the three methods that Helm outlines (Lucian und Menipp, p. 15ff.) for unearthing Menippean borrowings in Lucian's works, let us consider his other two principles for doing this. The first is that where we find Cynic ideas and typically Cynic imagery in Lucian's dialogues there we may presume that Lucian is borrowing from Menippus (cf. Knauer, De Luciano Menippeo, p. 14 '... comparationes quae cum Cynicorum arte coniunctae erant in Necyomanteia inveniuntur, ut Menippo ... Lucianum esse usum appareat').

It is, however, begging the

question to assume that the only Cynic writer whom Lucian had read was Menippus and that all the Cynic influence in Lucian's works comes from him.


Might not Lucian have read the poems

of Crates, or the diatribes of Bion the Borysthenite or Teles, might he not have listened to the street-corner Cynics of his 25 own age, or have read the works of Dio Chrysostom? When we meet Micyllus, the poor cobbler, in the Gallus or the Cataplus, need we necessarily assume (cf. Helm pp. 66f., 346) that he has stepped out of the pages of Menippus?

A poor man of that

name is to be found, after all, in the poems of Crates (cf. Plut., de vitando aere alieno 830C), and he might have been used as the typical 'poor man' in many a Cynic diatribe.

81 Similarly, in the case of figures of speech favoured by the Cynic writers, one cannot take it for granted that they appear in Lucian's works through the influence of his Menippean model. For instance, a comparison much used by Lucian and popular with the Cynic writers (cf. Helm pp. 44-50) is that in which man's transitory life is compared to a play or pageant, whose pro­ ducer is Fortune, who determines what part a man shall play and when he shall quit the stage.

In the Necyomanteia (16) and

elsewhere in Lucian's Menippean works this siznile appears in very elaborate form, but one is not therefore justified in assuming that Lucian has lifted the whole thing from a Menippean 26 model, for the idea that 'all the world's a stage' had become a commonplace by Lucian's time in rhetoric as well as philosophy (cf. Max. Tyr. 1. 1, Marc. Aurel. 3. 8, Dio Chrys. 64. 17, Epict. Encheiridion 17, and cf. Boulanger, Aelius Aristide .., pp. 415-7) as had other illustrations that were popular in the dia­ tribe (e.g. comparisons from navigation, medicine etc., cf. Boulanger ib.), and indeed many of the themes (cf. below pp. 152ff.).

No doubt Menippus did use this particular comparison;

he would have been an unusual Cynic if he had not (for a fairly elaborate version of this comparison cf. Teles, ed. Hense, 2. 3. 2, a quotation from Bion;

also 2, 11. 5, 6. 40. 2), but

there is no reason for assuming that Lucian's embroideries on 27 this idea are not largely his own. Another example of this type of argument in Helm’s book is

that concerning a passage in the Charon (7-8) where the Stygian boatman explains how he happens to be able to quote Homeric lines:

it is a result of Homer being sea-sick on the voyage to


A painter called Galaton, who is thought to belong to

the time of Ptolemy Philopator, made a picture based on a sim­ ilar idea (Aelian, Var. Hist. 13. 22 Γαλάτων 6 ζωγράφος δγραψε τόν μέν "Ομηρον αυτόν έμοϋντα τούς 6δ άλλους ποιητας τα δμεμεσμένα άρυτομένους).

Helm considers that the picture must

have been based on a literary description, and suggests that since the idea of a poet 'vomiting' his verses is characterist­ ically Cynic in its crudeness, such a description probably occurred in Menippus' Necyia and Lucian has borrowed it from there (p. 172f.).

Lucian, however, often draws on his acquain­

tance with art and sculpture for the material of his works (e.g. Zeuxis, Imagines, Hercules etc.), so is it not possible that he might have known of Galaton's picture?

In any case

the actual metaphor of 'vomiting' speeches etc. is commonplace in the rhetoric of this period (cf. Phil., Vit. Soph. 583, 491, Eunap. 454) and there is nothing particularly Cynic about it. Another method of determining which parts of Lucian's Menippean works are borrowed from the writings of Menippus, accord­ ing to Helm, is the observation of the historical allusions which Lucian uses in them.

In the course of his discussion of

every Menippean work Helm enumerates all the historical charac­ ters mentioned in the piece - kings, poets, philosophers etc. -

and draws attention to the fact that none of them are later than the third century B.C. and the life-time of Menippus. Thus, in the Necyomanteia (cf. Helm pp. 56-61), we hear of Croesus, Xerxes, Darius, Polycrates, Mausolus, Dionysius of Syracuse, Philip of Macedon etc., and the poets mentioned are Homer, Hesiod, Euripides, the philosophers, Socrates, Diogenes, Aristippus:

we are disconcerted, says Helm, by the fact that

there is no reference later than the end of the fourth century ('Gab es in den nächsten vier Jahrhunderten bis zu Lucian denn keinen Philosophen, keinen König oder Reichen ...?').

The only

conclusion, according to Helm, is that Lucian is following his Menippean source very closely.

Similarly, in the case of the

Icaromenippus, he poin t s out that no n e of the historical allus­ ions are later than the third century B.C.;

and when Zeus,

torn between promises of two juicy sacrifices, cannot make up his mind, άλλ1 ώ σ π ε ρ & Πύρρων έπεϊχεν ετι καί διεσκέτιτετο (25, Lucian's favourite joke about the Sceptics and Academics, cf. below p. 168), Helm finds it highly significant that the later Carneades is not mentioned! (p. 89).

Obviously, if we believe

Helm, Lucian has filched this joke, like all the other histor­ ical references, from a Menippean model (cf. Helm, passim). It was, of course, the normal sophistic practice for an orator to embellish his works with historical allusions and to avoid illustrations drawn from the present.

One of the best

pieces of evidence for this practice, as many critics have

observed, is provided by Dio Chrysostom 21, 11:

'Perhaps you

turn up your nose at me and think I am talking nonsense because I am not speaking of Cyrus and Alcibiades, as clever men do even at this late date, but about Nero and that sort of thing, more recent and inglorious ...’

The sophists and their audi­

ences, in fact, liked living in the past.

Helm (p. 15) acknow­

ledges this fact, but he refuses to admit the possibility that Lucian, in using historical allusions in his Menippean works, is simply doing what every other sophist of his age does.


ian himself, argues Helm, scorns this practice, as we see from Bis Acc. 32 and Ehet. Praec. 18 (έτη, τιασι 6è δ Μαραθων καί δ Κυνοάγειρος, 2>ν ούκ &ν


άνευ γένοιτο.

καί ά,ει δ "Αθως

πλείσθω καί δ ‘Ελλήσποντος πεζευέσ&ω ... καί ΞέρΕρς Φευγέτω .. πολλά ταϋτα καί πυκνά ...).

'Sollte er da trotzdem in den

selben Fehler verfallen sein?'

The implication is that obv­

iously Lucian would not be making such allusions if he were not copying them out of his Menippean original.

To this Barbara

P. McCarthy replies (Lucian and Menippus, p. 28) that in the two passages mentioned Lucian is not talking about historical allusions, but about the actual themes which contemporary soph­ ists used for their displays.

This is certainly true as far as

the Bis Acc. passage goes (accusations of tyrants and encomia of princes), but in the passage from the Rhetorum Praeceptor one cannot, I think, deny that Lucian is referring to historical allusions.

What he is censuring, however, is not in itself the

85 use of such illustrations, but the excessive triteness in this respect of contemporary sophistic practice.

One cannot infer

from the passage that Lucian thinks that no orator should use historical allusions, and still less that he has resolved to avoid the practice himself!

Helm next proceeds to insinuate '

that the historical allusions in Lucian's Menippean works are of a different character from the usual sophistic type.


Cynegeirus and Marathon and Salamis etc. are not mentioned by Lucian in these works, but I fail to see how, for instance, Croesus' fall from power (Nec. 16) is in any way different from the usual rhetorical practice (cf. Sen., Contr. 2. 1(9). 7), or how Lucian's frequent references to Mausolus, Sardanapalus, Xerxes, Darius etc. are 'unsophistic'.

There is absolutely no

reason for supposing that Lucian is indebted to his Menippean models for historical references such as these. In Lucian's Menippean works, however, there are also allus­ ions to persons of the period just after the death of Alexander, allusions which are less well-worn than the kind mentioned no


It is the illustrations drawn from this period, which

is about the time when Menippus lived, which we might concede to Helm as indicating Menippean influence, if such examples were confined to Lucian's Menippean works, or were confined to Lucian at all;

but they are not.

An example from one of Luc­

ian's non-Menippean works cited by Barbara McCarthy (Lucian and Menippus, p. 29) is that of the Pro Imaginibus, where we find


references to Stratonice, wife of Seleucus I (358 - 280 B.C., Pro Im. 5), and to the otherwise unknown Cynaethus, toady of Demetrius Poliorcetes (336 - 283 B.C., Pro Im. 20);

to this

one can add De Historia Conscribenda 35, where Antiochus I (Soter) is mentioned (324 - 262 B.C.), and Prom. Es 4, where a story is told about Ptolemy son of Lagus (367 - 283 B.C.). Similar examples are to be found in Dio Chrysostom, whom nobody suspects of lifting his historical allusions from the pages of Menippus:

e.g. 2. 76-77 Apollodorus tyrant of Cass-

andreia (c. 279 B.C.);

37. 6 Antiochus II (287 - 247 B.C.);

in 64. 22 (περί τύχης, which is believed not to be by Dio but by some other sophist) there is reference to Demetrius Poli­ orcetes, Antiochus II and sundry other persons of about the same period.

So it is clear that Lucian is not necessarily

dependent on Menippus for his examples from the Hellenistic Age any more than for his references to Xerxes, Sardanapalus etc. However there may be one or two other passages in which it is more legitimate for Helm to suspect Menippean influence in this respect, references to minor historical personages, for instance.

In Nec. 16 there is mention of two actors, Pòlus

and Satyrus, contemporaries of Demosthenes.

It is, argues

Helm (p. 58), hardly likely that the fame of these actors lasted until Lucian's day.

Similarly in the twenty-seventh

Dialogue of the Dead (7), there is a reference to the hetaera

87 Myrtion.

This lady, says Helm (p. 192), is the mistress of

Ptolemy II Philadelphus (308 - 246 B.C.).

How would Lucian

have known about her, if not from his Menippean source?


the Cataplus (6) is mentioned a doctor called Agathocles whom Helm believes to have lived in Menippus' time (pp. 77-8): too, says Helm, must have been taken from Menippus. 29" Let us consider these minor characters.


The two fourth-

century actors, Polus and Satyrus, who appear in a 'pageant of life' comparison (Nec. 16), would hardly have been unknown to Lucian's audience, for both of them are mentioned in Plutarch's Life of Demosthenes ( 7 , 28), and Satyrus and Aristodemus, another actor who is mentioned by Lucian (e.g. J. Trag. 3), in Demosthenes' De Fals·. Leg. 19. 193, 196 and De Corona 18. 21. What is more important, these persons had by Lucian's time become typical literary examples of actors.


But, objects

Helm, Lucian supplies a description of these two actors which only audiences of Menippus' day would have appreciated:


(we have to lay aside our parts in life's drama just as actors have to lay aside their costumes at the end of the play and appear as they really are, no longer Agamemnon, son of Atreus ... but) 'Polus, son of Charicles of Sunium, or Satyrus,son of Theogiton of Marathon'.

Was there, then, no other source than

Menippus from which Lucian might have obtained the information about these actors' patronymics and the names of their demes? Has Aulus Gellius too plundered the pages of Menippus for his


own information about Polus (6. 5)?

Plutarch in one place

cites Eratosthenes and Philochorus as authorities for a piece of information about Polus (An seni sit ger. resp. 785C). Obviously Lucian could have gleaned his information from other sources than Menippus, most probably from some rhetorical handbook.^ The hetaera Myrtion (D. Mort. 27. 7) is, according to Helm, the mistress of Ptolemy II.


It is odd, in that case, that

none of the other characters appearing with her seem to be historical, viz. Blepsius, the money-lender from Pisa, Damis, the rich man from Corinth, Lampis, the mercenary commander fro m

Acarnania, who killed himself for love of the aforesaid

Myrtion - what is he doing in love with the mistress of an Egyptian king?

In the Dialogues of the Hetaerae (2) we meet

Myrtion again:

is she supposed to have wandered here, too,

from the pages of Menippus?

May we not, perhaps, suspect that

'Myrtion' might be just a fictitious name for a hetaera?


Agathocles of the Cataplus (6) has been disposed of by Barbara McCarthy (p. 49):

there was, to be sure, a doctor called

Agathocles who lived some time before the age of Augustus (cf. Helm p. 77), but there is not a scrap of evidence which would justify our putting him back to the third century B.C.; 33 moreover, she says that there are thirty three persons of that name in Pauly Wissowa: call an unusual name.

it was not therefore what one might Lucian could just as easily be referring

to a doctor of his own age, just as it may be the Cynic friend of Peregrinus (Per. 5) at whom Lucian is making a mischievous dig in Cataplus 8, when he mentions 'the philosopher Theagenes 34 who committed suicide for the courtesan from Megara'.


natively, of course, the doctor may be a fictitious person (Dr. Fairfame), like the tyrant 'Megapenthes', who, having caused great misery in life, is now to suffer in his turn, by being denied a drink from the water of forgetfulness (Cat. 29). The references to minor personages of Menippus' time or shortly before it do not, therefore, prove that Lucian is following a Menippean model closely.

There are also one or two

passages in Lucian's Menippean works in which political condit­ ions are described which are not those of Lucian's age, and are therefore, according to Helm, to be explained as borrowings from Menippus.

The Gallus, for instance, contains a passage

about the advantages of the poor and disadvantages of the rich in war and peace (21), -where the conditions are those of the independent Athenian democracy of classical times.

A similar

passage in Teles confirms Helm in the opinion that this pass­ age in the Gallus is taken from Menippus (p. 327), but as J. Delz points out (Lucians Kenntnis der Athenischen Antiquitäten, p. 58), it could have been suggested by Xenophon's Symposium, 4. 29ff., and, of course, it is not impossible that Lucian might have read Teles, or that there were similar passages in other diatribes.

If Lucian had not been following a model

90 closely, argues Helm, he would naturally have described the conditions of his own age:

but this is exactly what one would

not expect a second-century sophist to do, especially when treating what had become by this time an extremely common­ place rhetorical theme (cf. below p. 225ff.;

also Parasite

40ff., another passage where it is not the Athens of the Roman Empire that is envisaged). In a few other passages there is phrasing which, Helm thinks, carries chronological implications which necessitate our suppos­ ing that Lucian has borrowed slavishly from a Menippean model. In the Deorum Concilium (12), for instance, there is a reference to one Polydamas, an Olympic victor in 408 B.C., of whom Momus says 'already his statues heal those suffering from fever'. How, argues Helm, could Lucian use the word 'already' of a man who died five centuries before his time?

His answer is, of

course, that Lucian lifted his whole sentence out of his Men­ ippean model (p. 155).

From Helm's chronological viewpoint,

however, the word ήδη here, since it applies equally to Theag­ enes (Olympic victor 480 B.C.) and also to Hector and Protesil­ aus at the end of the sentence, would seem equally absurd whether the passage were written in the second century A.D. or 35 the third century B.C. But why, in any case, translate the word as 'already'?

Surely, in its context it is just as likely

to mean 'nowadays' (άλλ& ήδη πας λίθος ... χρησμψδεϊ ... ηδη καί 6 Πολυδάμαντος ... άνδρυάς ίαται τους πυρέττοντας ... / 13

έγώ δε καί ξένα όνόματα πολλά ήδη άκούων), since Momus is contrasting the present state of divine affairs with the good old days.

Another such passage is found by Helm in the Fugit­

ivi (11).

Here Philosophy is complaining to Zeus of her harsh

treatment at the hands of men:

she would have fled from the

world when Socrates was killed, but Antisthenes and Diogenes, and a little later Crates and Μένίππος οΰτος persuaded her to tarry a while.

The scene of this work is set in Lucian's day

(Peregrinus is mentioned at the beginning), so why, Helm asks, does the series of Cynics end with Menippus? should Menippus be referred to as οδτος?^

Furthermore, why The answer he

suggests is that here again Lucian, the slavish copyist, has lifted a passage verbatim from his model (pp. 312-4).


Lucian is saying in this passage, however, is that Philosophy tarried on earth because of the genuine Cynics (the subject of the Fugitivi concerns false Cynics, a most popular theme in Lucian's age, cf. below p. 189 ff.):

he naturally picks the

typical representatives of the school, and could very well be including Menippus, and phrasing it 'Menippus here' (whom we all know), because his audience had met him before, in other Menippean dialogues of his. 37

Similarly in Gallus 26, there is

one of the popular 'theatre comparisons', in which an actor is described as κενεμβατήσας, and so falling and breaking his mask. This, Helm thinks (p. 328 n. 2), implies an actor falling off a stage, and is more applicable to the high, narrow stage of

92 Hellenistic times than to the low, wide stage of Lucian's day: so Lucian is once more indulging in slavish borrowing. in fact reads έν μέση τή σκηνή καταπέση.

The text

Not that this daunts


obviously Lucian has altered the κ α τ ά της σκηνης of his


In any case κενεμβατεϊν need imply no more than 'miss

one's footing, trip' (cf. Plut., Mor. 336F where it is used, in a metaphorical sense, as a synonym of σφάλλομαι.). Helm's strongest case rests on three passages in the Icaromenippus, in which, on historical grounds, he finds indications of close Menippean borrowing on Lucian's part (Lucian und Menipp, p. 96ff.).

In Ic. 12, Menippus, surveying the earth from

the moon, is only able to recognise it because he sees the Colossus of Rhodes (which fell in an earthquake in 227 B.C.) and the lighthouse of Pharos (built c. 285 B.C., and therefore a very topical subject in Menippus' time);

in Ic. 15 he ob­

serves the misdoings of a variety of Hellenistic monarchs;


in Ic. 24 he is questioned on several topics which Helm thinks had more relevance in the third century B.C. than in Lucian's day, viz. why the Athenians no longer celebrate the Diasia (which seems to have lapsed some time after the fifth century, 39 but to have been reinstated by Lucian's time), whether they have yet completed the Olympieum (begun by Pisistratus, con­ tinued by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and completed by Hadrian 132 A.D.), and whether the thieves who robbed his temple at Dodona have been caught yet (this, Helm thinks, is unlikely to have

93 been after 219 B.C. when the Aetolians destroyed the temple). The Colossus, however, was still one of the wonders of the world in Lucian's age (cf. Phil., Vit. Ap. 5. 21;

Lucian, Hist.

Consc. 23), and the lighthouse of Pharos was still famous (Hist. Consc. 62);

while, with regard to the historical exam­

ples of Ic. 15, Barbara McCarthy observes that they range in date from c. 359 B.C. (the murder of Alexander of Thessaly) to c. 279 - 274 B.C. (the marriage of Ptolemy II Philadelphus to his sister Arsinoe).

She argues that Menippus would have been

more likely to confine himself to contemporary court scandals than to have included in a list of events which (as far as they can be dated, since several of the persons are completely un­ known to us) the period 294 - 274 B.C. a reference to a murder which happened nearly a century before, and that there­ fore it is more likely to have been Lucian who concocted this list (Lucian and Menippus, p. 52).

This is quite possible,

or, alternatively, Lucian may have added details of his own to an already existing list. The third passage (Ic. 24) is the most convincing, at least as far as the references to the Diasia and Olympieum are concerned.

(The temple robbery at Dodona is rather less con­

vincing, since there was still a shrine at Dodona in the second century A.D., even though it may not have been of major import­ ance, and temple robberies are, in any case, something of a rhetorical cliché).

However, even if Lucian has taken the

94 references to the Diasia and the Olympieum from his Menippean model, he is not following his source slavishly throughout the whole passage, for he has added (as Helm himself observed) a reference to the cult of Asclepius at Pergamum, which did not become important until the Roman Empire.

Moreover, the Olymp­

ieum, completed by the Emperor Hadrian in Lucian's youth, was doubtless an object of great pride to the Athenians of Lucian's day.

Allinson (Lucian Satirist and Artist, pp. 14, 15) gives

a lyrical description of the splendour of this edifice, and the impression it may have made on a foreigner arriving in Greece for the first time.

It is not impossible that Lucian himself

might have made Zeus ask Menippus why the Athenians had not finished his temple, perhaps adding this detail to the refer­ ence to the Diasia in his original, in order to please an Athenian audience with what was, in its own way, a topical reference.


It is also possible that Lucian in this passage,

and in the other two cited above (Ic. 12 and 15), has deliber­ ately retained some historical references from his original because he felt that such touches lent a little historical colour to his reincarnated Menippus.

There is nothing else­

where, however, in any of his other Menippean works which points unmistakably to a dependence on Menippus in this resp­ ect, and, in view of the normal sophistic practice, there are no grounds for considering that all such historical illustrat­ ions in these works are borrowings from Menippus.

95 Menippean influence on other writers Helm's remaining method for the discovery of Menippean influence in Lucian, and the only really valid one, is the comparison of Lucian's Menippean works with the writings of those other authors who are known to have been influenced by Menippus. Varro Chief of Menippus' other imitators is M. Terentius Varro of Reate, whose Saturae Menippeae exist now only in fragments preserved by the ancient grammarians and antiquarians, princip42 ally by Nonius. Since most of the fragments are passages which were selected to illustrate some obscure word or grammat­ ical point, and since many are highly corrupt, it is impossible in the majority of cases to guess their context or indeed, all too often, to see what they mean.

Even the Romans of Aulus

Gellius' day, who had the full text of the Satires, did not always find them easy to understand, as is illustrated by the story that Gellius tells (Noct. Att. 13. 31) of how he put to shame a pretentious fellow who boasted of his prowess in inter­ preting Varro's Menippean Satires, and how he himself searched 'diu et anxie' for the meaning of a phrase which Varro had used in one of them. Varro's aims in composing his imitations of Menippus seem to have differed from Lucian's in one respect at least:


Lucian's main concern was to entertain an audience, and in so

96 doing he devoted much of his wit to the ridicule of philosophy and philosophers, Varro apparently hoped by means of his Menippean Satires to encourage the Romans of his day to discover an interest in philosophy.

In the Posterior Academics (1. 3),

Cicero asks the learned Varro why he had never written on philo­ sophy, and Varro replies that he had not considered it necessary to do so, because those of his countrymen who were interested in philosophy would prefer to read the works of the philosophers in the original Greek, while those who were not interested would not read such books even in Latin (2. 4, 5);

nevertheless he

has done what he could to arouse the interest of the less learn­ ed by treating philosophic matters in a light and diverting manner in those compositions which he wrote in imitation of Men/o 8). o\ 43 ippus (2. Varro's satires differed from Lucian's imitations of Menippus in other respects as well. been noted.

The difference in form has already

Another obvious difference is that Varro, as one

might expect, dealt largely with the life of Rome, with topics such as provincial government (in the Flaxtabula, περί, έπαρχιών; cf. frag. 64, from the Bimarcus), and the notorious pleasure 44 resort of Baiae (frag. 44), with the First Triumvirate, if the Tricaranos is a Menippean Satire, though many scholars dis45 pute this, and above all with that theme beloved by Roman satirists, that of the 'good old days' of Rome as against mod­ ern decadence (e.g. frag. 63, from the Bimarcus, 'avi et atavi

97 nostri, cum alium ac cepe eorum verba olerent, tamen optume animati erant';

cf. frag. 488, from the Sexagesis:

'ergo tum Romae parce pureque pudentis vixere, en patriam, nunc sumus in rutuba’).


He uses illustrations from Roman history (e.g. 195, Manius Curius;

537, Numa Pompilius) and quotations from Latin poets

(e.g. Bimarcus 59, γεροντοδι&άσκαλος 189, quotations from Ennius), and seems to have drawn considerably on the Roman Comedians (cf. Boissier, É t u d e sur la vie et les ouvrages de M.T. Varron, chap. Ill, part II).

Moreover, 'vir eruditissimus'

as he was (Quintii. 10. 1. 95), Varro seems to have included in his Satires information on a variety of subjects from his encyclopaedic repertoire.

Fo r

example, in the Parmeno there is

a discussion of poetry, and the various words for poetry are defined:

'poema est lexis enrhythmos, id est verba plura

modice in quandam coniecta formam; grammation vocant poema.

poes i s


itaque etiam distichon epi­ perpetuum argumentum e

rhythmis, ut Ilias Homeri et annalis Enni, earum rerum' (398).

poetice est ars

Similarly, in the Nescis quid vesper serus

vehat, Varro gave a lecture on the correct way to give a dinner party, the right number of guests to invite, the proper topics of conversation, the suitable desserts to serve and so forth (Gell., Noct. Att. 13. 11).· All this is, of course, vastly different from the character of Lucian's Menippean inspired works, and to judge from what

98 Diogenes Laertius records about Menippus' own compositions (6. 99 φέρει uèv οΰν στχουδαϊον ούδέν, etc.), some at least of Varro's imitations must have differed considerably from them as well:

it is the form rather than the subject matter or

general character of Menippus' works that the Roman satirist seems to have imitated for the most part.

Nevertheless there

are a few things which Varro's Saturae Menippeae and Lucian's comic dialogues have in common, and which we may take to be indications of Menippus' influence.

There is, first of all,

in some of Varro's Satires, that same imaginative treatment of the subject matter, that vein of fantasy which seems to have been characteristic of the Cynic philosopher from Gadara who preached his message in the form of imaginary Letters from the Gods, put the founder of his sect up for sale, and repres­ ented himself as returning from a visit to the underworld, à fantasy which pervades Lucian's Menippean works, and which in Varro's case can be seen in the fragments of a Satire like the Sexagesis where the hero falls asleep in those 'good old days' and wakes up fifty years later in the author's own degenerate times (488, 490, 491, 495, 497), and which is suggested by such titles as the Pseudaeneas, Oedipothyestes, Sesculixes, Aiax 47 Stramenticius. Occasionally we find a specific motif which Lucian and Varro have in common.

The Eumenides brings on the stage Truth person­

ified ('et ecce de inproviso ad nos accedit cana Veritas,

99 Attices philosophiae alumna', 141) and, as far as one can re48 construct the Satire, it seems she has arrived to rescue someone from a difficult situation.

With this may be compared

the appearance of Philosophy; in Lucian's Piscator (13ff.) who comes on the scene with her attendants, one of whom is Truth, and saves 'Parrhesiades' from the irate philosophers.


same Satire provides another example of a motif used by Lucian and therefore very probably drawn from a work of Menippus, that of an aerial view of mankind: 'sed nos simul atque in summam speculam venimus, videmus populum furiis instinctum tribus diversum ferri exterritum formidine' (117); cf. frag. 123: 'tertia Poenarum Infamia stans nixa in vulgi pectore flutanti, intonsa coma, sordida vestitu, ore severo'. This reminds one of the situation in Lucian's Charon where Hermes and Charon look down on mankind struggling out their existence, beset by a ghostly crowd of Hopes and Fears and other abstractions (15f.), and of the Icaromenippus, where Menippus surveys the misdoings of mankind from the moon (15f.). The idea of an aerial journey found in Lucian's Icaromenippus looks rather as though it is paralleled in Varro's Marcipor: 'at nos caduci naufragi ut ciconiae,


quarum bipinnis fulminis plumas vapor perussit, alte maesti in terram cecidimus' (272); although various scholars, including Vahlen, think that this fragment indicates not the disastrous end of an Icarian flight but merely a shipwreck. 49

Helm (article on Menippus in Pauly-

Wissowa) suggests that Varro's περί έ£αγωγης may have been in­ spired by Menippus' Necyia, like Lucian's Necyomanteia and other works.

He is so persuaded, it would seem, by one of the

six fragments, 'quaerit ibidem ab Hannibale, cur biberit medic­ amentum: (407).

"quia Romanis" inquit "me Prusiades tradere volebat"' None of the other fragments, however, appear to support

this theory:

the piece looks more like a moral lecture on death

and suicide in the general manner of the diatribe, with mythol­ ogical and historical examples, remarks to an imaginary oppon* etc. * 50 ent, Although, according to Varro's friend and admirer, Cicero, it was one of the aims of Varro's Menippean Satires to interest the less learned of his countrymen in philosophy, he seems to have made fun of philosophers in them upon occasion.

The frag­

ments and the title of the Armorum Iudicium suggest that this was a satire on the quarrels of philosophers (’ut in litore cancri digitis primoribus stare', 42, 'illic viros hortari, ut rixarent praeclari philosophi', 43), and one is reminded of the behaviour of the philosophers in Lucian's Convivium and of the violent dispute between the Stoic and the Epicurean in the


Jupiter Tragoedus.

It is possible, therefore, that the philo­

sophers' quarrel may have been one of the motifs that both Varro and Lucian drew from Menippus.


The plethora of philo­

sophic sects seems to have been the object of ridicule in the περί αιρέσεων and the Sesculixes, which has a number of frag­ ments about various philosophic sects, while others mention Ulysses:

on this basis Popma suggests that the Satire con­

cerned the wanderings of a New Ulysses 'in deverticulis philo52 sophiae'; it is* one notes, the multitude of contrary philo­ sophic opinions that sends Menippus up to heaven in Lucian's Icaromenippus and down to Hades in the Necyomanteia.


Eumenides also seems to have contained mockery of a variety of philosophers and their doctrines, Pythagorean metempsychosis (127), Stoicism (164), Empedocles (163),

and there is a

scathing denunciation of philosophy in the lines 'postremo nemo aegrotus quicquam somniat tam infandum, quod non aliquis dicat philosophus' (122).

If these words are to be taken as representing the

author's standpoint in this Satire, Varro is perhaps adopting the Cynic position that all philosophic speculation that is not immediately concerned with the virtuous life is a waste of time, in which case the philosophy that is censured in this fragment is physical philosophy rather than philosophy in general.


the other hand, these words might be spoken by a character in the Satire who is brought on as an opponent of philosophy and


who Is not to be taken as representing the author's views: after all, Truth is represented in this work as the foster54 daughter of Philosophy. Menippus, as we have seen, wrote works Against the Physicists and against Epicurus and other philosophers.

Lucian and Varro are thus to some extent follow­

ing his example in making fun of philosophy and its represent­ atives, but Varro, if we may trust what Cicero says, had an 55 ulterior motive in so doing. Some of Varro's Satires seem to have ridiculed in Cynic fashion men's false ideas about the gods, such as the necessity for placating or bribing them with sacrifices, the validity of divination, the Mystery religions, and the absurdity of men's ideas about death as reflected in their funeral customs.


are the έκατόμβη (περί θυσιών), the Mysteria (only one of whose seven fragments, however, seems to have anything to do with Mysteries), the Pseudulus Apollo (whose title suggests a ridi­ cule of Apollo's oracular pronouncements as in Lucian's Jupiter Tragoedus 30f.), and the Epitaphiones and Cycnus (both concerned with funeral customs).

There are certain resemblances of a

fairly general nature between Varro's έκατόμβη and Lucian's diatribe On Sacrifices (frags. 94, 95 refer to the sacrifice of Iphigeneia, cf. Sacr. 2) and between the Cycnus and Lucian's diatribe On Mourning (frag. 81, Luct. 21: customs;

frag. 80, Luct. 19:

different burial

displays of excessive grief),

but there is nothing which points to the common influence of

103 Menippus upon them both rather than that of the Cynic diatribe m

, 56 general. A comparison between Varro's Testamentum, περί διαθηκών,

which seems to have included in a general discussion of wills ('venio nunc ad alterum genus testamenti

541) at least one

mock will, to judge from the bizarre character of some of the fragments ('e mea Φιλοφθονίςι natis, quos Menippea haeresis nutricata est, tutores do "qui rem Romanam Latiumque augescere vultis"', 542;

'si quis mihi filius unus pluresve in decem

mensibus gignantur, ii si erunt δνοι λύρας, exheredes sunto 543), and Lucian's eleventh Dialogue of the Dead where Crates describes what he has inherited from Diogenes ('wisdom, selfsufficiency, truth' etc. 3), possibly lends some colour to Oehler's suggestion (in his ed. of Varro, p.225) that Menippus' Wills, which Diogenes Laertius mentions, but about which we know nothing else, was some kind of parody on the wills of philosophers like those preserved by Diogenes Laertius. 57 There is nothing else, however, in what little remains of Varro's Satires which throws much light on the subject matter of Menippus' writings.

The Cynic influence behind such works

as the Cynicus, ίπποκύων, and κυνορήτωρ is indicated by their titles, if not by their scanty fragments. 58

Elsewhere Varro

ridicules the vices and follies which are the common ground of all satirists, such as avarice (άνθρωπόπολις, 36, 37;


ides, 126 'denique qui sanus sit avarus? ...'), and gluttony,

104 intemperance, and extravagance (Bimarcus 53; περί μέθης;

Est Modus Matulae,

Modius 315, 317), or else discusses such topics as

marriage or old age (εδρεν ή λόπας τό πώμα, περί γεγαμηκότων; De Officio Mariti;

Tithonus, περί γτ)ρως);

but there are no

other parallels between Lucian and Varro which indicate unmist­ akably that they are both using material drawn from Menippus. In fact the fragments of Varro's Saturae Menippeae provides disappointingly little information which would help us to est­ imate the extent of Lucian's debt to Menippus for the subject matter of his works. The Apocolocyntosis The Apocolocyntosis, that most malicious and amusing satire on the dead Emperor Claudius, ascribed to the philosopher 59 Seneca, provides rather more assistance in this respect. There are a number of striking parallels both in motif and even in phrasing between this lampoon and various of Lucian's Menippean works.

Here we have, as in the Icaromenippus, a visit

to Olympus, where we find, as in the Deorum Concilium, a Council of Gods debating the celestial population problem caused by the vast influx of unworthy immigrant d e i t i e s . T h e debate duly ends, as in Lucian's work, with the passing of a formal decree, and we are then plunged down to the depths of Hades, where earlier in the proceedings we had overheard a conversation between Clotho and Mercury (Ap. 3), just as we hear these two persons conversing, in company with Charon, at

105 the beginning of Lucian's Cataplus.

In Hades, as in the Necyo-

manteia (11-13) and the Cataplus (23ff.), we witness a trial in the court of the dead, at which, as in the Cataplus (28), after some discussion as to how best to let the punishment fit his crimes, the prisoner at the bar is sentenced to an appropriately hellish torment.

Here and there in the Apocolocyntosis various

satirical themes are touched on which appear frequently in Luc­ ian's satires;

there is mockery of the dissensions of the

philosophers (Ap. 2 'facilius inter philosophos quam inter horo­ logia conveniet', cf. Ic. 5, Nec. 4)‘, and ridicule of prophecy (Ap. 3 'patere mathematicos aliquando verum dicere', cf. in a general way J. Trag. 43, J. Conf. 12) and of the unedifying tales told of the gods, such as Jupiter's somewhat hasty treat­ ment of Vulcan and of Juno (Ap. 11, cf. Char. 1, J. Conf. 8). It is not merely general motifs and themes such as these, however, that the Latin satirist and Lucian have in common, for there are close similarities in detail, and occasionally almost verbal parallels between parts of the Apocolocyntosis and pass­ ages in the Icaromenippus, Cataplus and Deorum Concilium. When Claudius arrives in heaven (Ap. 5) he is greeted by Herc­ ules with the Homeric question τ(ς πόθεν εις άνδρών, πόθι τοι πόλις ήδε τοκηες; Menippus is admitted to heaven by Hermes instead of Hercules, but the same question is asked him by Zeus (Ic. 23).®^


Menippus hears Zeus' thundering voice he almost dies of fright

106 (ìb.);

Hercules is likewise overcome with terror when he hears

the sounds emitted by the miserable Claudius ('vocem nullius terrestris animalis sed qualis esse marinis beluis solet', Ap. 5), and thinks that his thirteenth labour has come (cf. Fug. 23, Heracles' thirteenth labour is to exterminate the false philosophers).

Eventually Claudius and Menippus are expelled

from Olympus and are both ushered out by Hermes in a similarly unceremonious manner (έμδ δε ò Κυλλήνιος του δεξιού ώτός άποκρεμάσας ... κατέθηκε ψέρων ές τδ Κεραμεικόν, le. 34;

cf. Ap.

11 'nec mora, Cyllenius illum collo obtorto trahit ad infer,, 62 os '). During the debate in the divine assembly (which in the Apocolocyntosis is conducted according to the procedure-of the Roman Senate, while in the Deorum Concilium and Jupiter Trag­ oedus 6ff. it is the Athenian έκκλησία that is in session) Janus (Ap. 9) indignantly declares that the status of the gods has gone down because of the vast numbers of base interlopers: 'olim ... magna res erat deum fieri:

iam fabam (coni. Buech-

eler) mimum fecistis', and Augustus echoes him (11), 'dum tales deos facitis, nemo vos deos esse credet'. Concilium Momus is no less vehement (5):

In the Deorum

είτα θαυμάζομεν εί

καταφρονοϋσιν ήμων ot άνθρωποι δρώντες οϋτω γελοίους θεούς καί τεραστίους;'®® When Claudius enters Hades, the throng of those friends and relations he has murdered press round him, 'πάντα φίλων πλήρη,

107 quomodo huc venistis vos?' (Ap. 13);

even so in the Cataplus

the tyrant's victims, who include his closest kin, throng round him as he is tried in the court of Rhadamanthus (26), and in the thirteenth Dialogue of the Dead the victims of Alexander the Great, led by his friends Clitus and Callisthenes, are seen bearing down on him to exact vengeance (6).

In the trial scene

the dead discuss Claudius' punishment, and after various con­ ventional penalties have been rejected it is decided that 'novam poenam constitui debere' (Ap. 14);

similarly in the

Cataplus (28) when Rhadamanthus wonders whether the tyrant should be thrown to Cerberus or hurled into Pyriphlegethon, Cyniscus comes up with a bright idea: πρέτιουσαν αύτφ τιμωρίαν ύποθήσομαι.

έγώ σοι καινήν τινα xal Both works then close with

similar abruptness as Claudius and the tyrant meet their re­ spective fates. It is assumed by A.P. Ball (The Satire of Seneca on the Apo­ theosis of Claudius, p. 74) that Lucian is drawing on the Apo64 colocyntosis, but 0. Weinreich (Senecas Apocolocyntosis, p. 10) is surely right in considering it out of the question that Lucian could have known this work.

There is indeed no reason

to suppose that Lucian was totally ignorant of Latin:

he had

visited Italy and Rome in the course of his sophistic travels, he counted several upper class Romans as his friends (or patr­ ons), and was in his later years appointed to a post in the administration of Egypt in which an ignorance of Latin might

108 well have been a handicap, while in the Pro Lapsu he himself mentions that he has some slight knowledge of the language (13 εΰ τι κάγώ της ‘Ρωμαίων φωνής έπαϊω: is to be assumed here is a moot point).

whether mock modesty There is also some

evidence which suggests that he may have been acquainted with the writings of Horace and Juvenal (cf. below pp.116 f., 245f.).

They, however, are the sort of main-line authors that

one might expect a cultured foreigner with some knowledge of Latin to have read, but would Lucian have been likely to come across this little lampoon on a dead emperor?

Ball himself

admits that the extent to which it would have been circulated is doubtful (p. 47), and when discussing Dio Cassius' statement (61. 35) that Seneca had composed a work called Apocolocyntosis, Ball declares (p. 56) that Dio is writing 'of a work then so little read that very likely he had no more than heard of it'. Surely, in that case, Lucian, writing only about fifty years before Dio, would be equally unlikely to have read it?

In any

case, since Lucian acknowledges his debt to Menippus for works like the Cataplus and Icaromenippus, it seems a highly unlikely supposition that he would at the same time be drawing on this political pamphlet in Latin.

Such coincidences as there are,

therefore, between the Apocolocyntosis and Lucian's Menippean compositions can safely be taken as indicating common Menippean influence.

109 Lucilius A satire entitled Deorum Concilium appears to have formed either the whole or part of Book I of Lucilius' Satires.


The gods met to discuss the death of one Lucius Cornelius Lentulus Lupus, whose dubious character did not prevent him being appointed censor and princeps senatus in the Rome of Lucilius' day, and many of the fragments apparently come from a description of the degeneracy of the Roman state as Lucilius saw it.®®

Helm noted one or two resemblances between this

satire and the divine assembly in Lucian's Jupiter Tragoedus (Lucian und Menipp, p. 158f.).

One of the fragments of Lucil­

ius' satire appears to be a gibe at Apollo's oracular utter­ ances (30-32 Warmington) and there is mockery of Apollo's prophetic powers, or rather the lack of them, in the Jupiter Tragoedus (30f.), but the resemblance is so slight that we can­ not say that both authors were drawing on Menippus for the idea. The same applies to J. Trag. 26, where Apollo is made fun of for his youthful appearance and beardless state when he is the father of the elderly, bearded Aesculapius, and those fragments of Lucilius' satire in which firstly a member of the divine council refers to the fact that all the gods are called 'Father' (24-27 Warmington), and secondly Apollo is found objecting to being given the epithet 'pulcher' (28-9).

Here again the resem­

blance between Lucian and Lucilius is slight;

nor are jokes

about the youthful appearance of Apollo rare in literature.

110 Dionysius of Syracuse is supposed to have made a jest of this sort when stealing the golden beard from Aesculapius' statue at Epidaurus (Cic., De Nat. Deor. 3. 83 'non convenire barbatum esse filium cum pater imberbis esset').67

I see no reason to

suppose that Lucilius was drawing on Menippus either for his Deorum Concilium (where he may well be parodying a divine council in Ennius' Annals) satires.


or for any other details in his

An ancient commentator on one of Horace's epistles

tells us that Lucilius was influenced by the diatribes of Bion the Borysthenite (Acron ad Hor. Epist. 2. 2. 60 'sunt autem disputationes Bionis philosophi ... cui paene consentiunt carmina Luciliana'), and it is reasonable to suppose that where we find Cynic ideas or the stylistic devices of the diatribe in Lucilius' satires Bion is his source.

We have no ancient infor­

mation about Lucilius having been similarly influenced by Men­ ippus, and there are no correspondences between the fragments of Lucilius' Satires and Lucian's Menippean works which would justify such a supposition. Horace Menippean influence has also been suspected in the Satires of Horace.

According to T. Fritzsche parallels exist between

passages in Lucian's Menippean works and Horace's Satires which indicate unmistakably that they were both drawing on Menippus (Menipp und Horaz, Güstrow 1871).6®

The first of these parall­

els that he cites (p. 27) is Horace Sat. 1.1.20-21 and Ic. 25.

Ill In the Horatian passage the context is that while all men envy the lot of others, nevertheless if a god were to promise that their prayers should be granted and that they should change places with those they envy, they would refuse.


'quid causae est, merito quin illis Iuppiter ambas iratus buccas inflet, neque se fore posthac tam facilem dicat, votis ut praebeat aurem?' According to Fritzsche, this passage, with the picture of the god puffing out his cheeks in anger, is only intelligible if one remembers the situation in the Icaromenippus (25) where Zeus blows back the impious prayers from the prayer wells in Olympus:

both Horace and Lucian, therefore, are here drawing

on a Menippean source (cf. Oltramare, Les Origines de la Dia­ tribe Romaine, p. 139: ménippique').

Horace Sat. 1. 1. 20 is 'nettement

Were Horace's readers, then, one wonders, unable

to understand the passage in question unless they appreciated the Menippean allusion?

We do not, it is true, appear to

possess an exact parallel in ancient literature to the idea of puffing out one's cheeks in anger:

Demosthenes, De Falsa Leg.

442 τάς γνάθους φυσων is, as Fritzsche observes, said of pride, not anger, and Horace, Ars Poetica 94 'iratus .., tumido de­ litigat ore' refers not to a facial expression but a tone of voice.

On the other hand, the passive and reflexive of 'suf­

flare' is used to describe both anger and pride (cf. the ex­ amples in Lewis and Short:

Varro ap. Non. 46. 31 'neque auro


aut genere aut multiplici scientia / sufflatus', obviously of pride, but Plaut., Bacch. 4. 2. 21 'sufflatus ille huc veniet', of an angry soldier;

cf. also Plaut., Cas. 3. 3. 20 'nescio

quid se sufflavit uxori suae', of anger).

It is surely more

reasonable to suppose that the idea of puffing out the cheeks in anger was readily intelligible to Horace's contemporaries than to see in Horace's words a recherché allusion to a passage of Menippus.

Fritzsche's case would only be convincing if in

the Horatian passage Jupiter were said to 'blow back' prayers 70 at all, but he is not. Fritzsche's second example is Horace. Sat. 2. 6. 20 'Matutine pater, seu "lane" libentius audis', and the opening sentence of Lucian's Timon:

ΤΩ Ζεϋ φίλυε και

Εένιε και έταιρεϊε ... καί εί χί σε άλλο οί έμβρόντητοι ποιηταί καλοϋσι ...

In this case the resemblance between the Horatian

passage and that of Lucian is even weaker than in the previous example, and in any case the influence on Lucian at this point, as far as our evidence goes (cf. Helm p. 185ff.), is far more likely to have been Comic than Menippean.

Fritzsche's third

parallel is, to be sure, verbally closer than the previous two examples:

this is the ridicule of the Stoic Wise Man in Horace,

Sat. 1. 3. 124-5 and Lucian's Vit. Auct. 20: '... si dives, qui sapiens est, et sutor bonus et solus formosus et est rex', öxu μόνος οδτος σοφός, μόνος καλός, μόνος δίκαιος Ανδρείος

113 βασιλεύς £>ήτωρ πλούσιος νομοθέτης καί τα άλλα δπόσα έστιν.


Fritzsche's side, let us observe that in Varro's Menippean Satire, Longe fugit qui suos fugit (245 Buecheler), there is similar mockery of the Stoic Wise Man ('solus rex, solus rhetor, solus formonsus, fortis, aecus vel ad aedilicium modium, purus putus

This Stoic paradox might well have been seized

upon by Menippus in attacking Stoic doctrine, but the recurrence of the idea in Horace, Varro and Lucian does not necessarily mean that they all drew it from the same source, for what more obvious or commonplace point could there be on which to ridicule the Stoics?


In any case it seems more likely that Horace's

immediate source at this point was Lucilius (cf. Porph. ad Hor. Sat. 1. 3. 124

Lucilius ... sic ait

"... nondum etiam ίψαντα έαυτόν ε(ς τό πϋρ περί τήν ’Ολυμπίαν - ò μεν και αύτός λέγεται χρηματίζειν ... ò δέ Νερυλλϊνος καί ò Πρωτεύς καί 6 ’Αλέξανδρος τί πλέον τοϊς νοσοΰσιν;)


Whether there

was any truth in the rest of Lucian's 'prophecy' about the establishment of a regular cult in honour of this absurd new divinity, with a nocturnal Mystery and a torchlight procession (Per. 28), and whether there were other statues to Peregrinus

208 elsewhere, at Elis for instance, or on the site of his pyre, we are not in a position to say.®'''

Athenagoras describes the

sacrifices and ceremonies connected with the other two statues that he mentions, but is silent about any such ceremonies in connexion with Peregrinus' statue, so it may be that Lucian is just indulging in sarcastic embroidery. About Alexander's oracle at Abonuteichos we have, in addition to Lucian's account, the evidence of coins, which show that before the arrival of Alexander the town was a centre of Aesculapius' worship, and corroborate Lucian' statement (58) that the name of the town was changed to lonopolis, and that the inhabitants were allowed by the Emperor to put the image of the new god, Glycon, on their coins;

they also indicate that

the cult continued at least to the middle of the following , 62 century. Lucian tells us that he composed his attack on this cult at the suggestion of his Epicurean friend Celsus (Al. 1),®® whose book 'Against the Magicians' which Lucian refers to in the course of this work (21), may have furnished him with some at least of the technical details in his description of Alexander's 'spec­ ial effects', to judge from what Lucian says himself, and as has been deduced from the similarities which Lucian's work presents to the fourth book of the 'Refutation of All Heresies' attributed to Hippolytus. 64 The most striking coincidences with this section of Hippolytus' book are Lucian's description

209 of how Alexander made the snake god appear to utter oracles from its own mouth by means of an artificial head and a speak­ ing tube made from cranes' windpipes joined together (26, cf. Hippolytus' account of how magicians made skulls appear to speak 4. 41 ed. Duncker and Schneidewin, cf. 28);

the dis­

cussion of various devices for unsealing documents and return­ ing them with the seals apparently intact (Al. 21, cf. Hipp. 4. 34);

and the description of how Alexander contrived the

'birth' of the snake from the goose's egg (13, cf. Hipp. 4. 29 how magicians extract the inside of eggs and substitute blood red earth etc.).

Hippolytus stresses the importance of dis­

tracting the audience's attention in various ways during the display of the magician's 'supernatural' abilities (e.g. by making them wave laurel branches and utter loud shouts, 4. 28); Lucian tells us that Alexander was careful to exhibit Glycon in a dimly lit room, with the spectators hustled past in a crowd so that they could not look too closely at the 'god' (16).

The devising of ambiguously worded oracular responses

which would fit anything was a necessity, Hippolytus informs us, when the magician had not had time to find out in advance the questions that his clients were going to ask him (4. 28; cf. Al. 49). Lucian's description of how he tested Alexander's oracular powers (53-4) may have been suggested in part by another source, Oenomaus'

'Detection of Impostors', in which the Cynic author


relates how he was disillusioned when he consulted Apollo's oracle at Claros, on one occasion receiving an obscurely worded response all about 'the gardens of Heracles', which he later discovered had been given to somebody else as well, and on another occasion, in reply to the question 'Where shall I go from Colophon?', receiving an illuminating response about a man hurling stones from a sling and slaying grass-eating geese (Euseb., Pr. Ev. 5. 22. 214ff.).

This does not, of

course, mean that Lucian's account of how he put various questions to the oracle, and received ridiculous replies of one sort or another, is wholly fictitious.

He may have

embroidered this part of his tale with one or two extra details of his own invention, 65 but it would have been an entir e l y natural thing for a sceptical visitor to the shrine like himself to do.

The difficulty of sifting the fact from the

fiction in Lucian's account of his own dealings with Alexander has already been discussed (above p. 26), and the major work in this respect has been ably carried out by Caster in his 'Etudes sur Alexandre'.

One must obviously ignore all the

conventional accusations of the invective that Lucian makes against Alexander, such as his penchant for choir boys and his affairs with married women (41-2, cf. Caster pp. 84-8); and Caster may well be right in observing that the Neo-Pythagoreans had a 'delicate moral sense' (p. 1 0 0 ) , and that Alexander cannot therefore have been so utter a villain as

211 Lucian alleges, but there must have been some degree of deliberate deceit in the management of any oracle;

and even

if we discount the stories of the oracle's blackmailing activities (32), that Alexander made a good deal of money (23) out of the gullibility of his followers seems highly probable in view of what we know about other cults such as that of Isis (below p. 508;

cf. Livy on the foreign cults that sprang up

at Rome, 4. 30).6^ Lucian's visit to Alexander seems to have taken place late in 164, or perhaps early in 165, but this work was not com­ posed until after the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180 (Al. 48). Caster comments that the piece is therefore 'loin de reprdsenter une réaction spontanee de bon sens’ (Etudes .., p. 6).

It may

be that at the height of the oracle's popularity, before the death of Alexander himself, Lucian judged such a composition not to be conducive towards the success of a rhetorical enter­ tainer trying to establish himself in the cultural centres of the Graeco-Roman world.

Even if he were not, as he represents

himself in the Alexander (54), a close friend of Rutilianus, he may have hoped for patronage from one who would seem to have 0Q

been an influential person in Rome.

Possibly by the time

Lucian wrote this piece, after Rutilianus and Alexander were both dead (34, 57), the popularity of the cult had diminished somewhat to the local affair it seems to have been at the start. He'would not therefore have risked offending many of its


devotees. Caster also feels that with the exception of the Mysteries which formed part of this cult, Lucian avoided satirising Mysteries in general because there was no literary tradition for the subject (Lucien et la Pensée Religieuse

p. 306):

Lucian only deals with Glycon’s Mysteries because he is writing an invective against Alexander.

It seems to me that the more

probable explanation for Lucian's silence on the subject of Mysteries is that those of Isis and other gods were much more widespread and popular than Glycon's, and that consequently Lucian could not have satirised them without alienating a large proportion of his audience.

In any case, whether or not he

was himself an Eleusinian initiate, Lucian may not have dis­ approved so heartily of the other Mysteries:

the whole point

about these particular ones is that they were founded by a person whom Lucian regarded as a scoundrel and an impostor, and were part of what in his eyes was a deliberate religious fraud. It is not surprising that Alexander's oracle attained some success as far afield as Rome at a period when, in the panic caused by the impending Marcomannic war, we hear that Marcus Aurelius 'undique sacerdotes acciverit, peregrinos ritus impleverit, Romam omni genere lustraverit ...' (Hist. Aug., Marc. Aur. 13. 1).®® In the Alexander Lucian tells us that the Christians were cited together with the Epicureans in the formula of deprecation

at the beginning of Alexander's Mysteries (38, cf. 25: Alexander's proclamation against Christians and atheists). Caster observes with perspicacity that Lucian is not saying this with the intention of praising the Christians for their opposition to this cult:

it is rather that Lucian feels that

Alexander wanted to discredit the Epicureans by associating them in people's minds with this hated sect (Lucien et la pensée Religieuse

p. 349).

We see more clearly from the

peregrinus how Lucian felt about the Christians.

He does not

subscribe to the usual slanders about them, that they indulge in 'Thyesteian meals and incest like that of Oedipus' (Athen­ agoras, Leg. pro Christ. 1-3;

cf. Apuleius, Met. 9. 14, where

it looks very much as if the baker's wife, possessed of every vice imaginable, who rejects all true religion in favour of a blasphemous cult of an 'Only God' and drinks wine early in the morning, is a Christian), but presents them as gullible simpletons, easily presumed upon by a rogue like Peregrinus. The poor fools worship a 'crucified sophist' and have con­ vinced themselves that by so doing they will live forever (Per. 11-13).

To Lucian they represent one more silly sect in a

world teeming with strange beliefs, but it is difficult to see how an educated Greek in Lucian's age, with a sceptical turn of mind, acquainted with the story of Pythagoras, god incarnate (cf. Lévy, La Légende de Pythagore), and with the similar claims made by persons like Apollonius of Tyana and Alexander

214 of Abonuteichos, could feel otherwise.

Indeed, Lucian's

attitude towards the Christians' unquestioning faith in the teachings of the founder of their sect (Per. 13 &νευ τινός άκριτους τχίστεως τα τοι-αΟτα παραδεζάμενοι. ) reminds one of the Athenians' reaction to St Paul when he preached to them in the Court of the Areopagus:

'When they heard about the

resurrection of the dead, some of them scoffed, and others said, "We'll hear about this from you some other time"1 (Acts 17. 32). Caster, true to his general thesis, considers that Lucian does not elsewhere satirise the Christians because there was no literary tradition on the subject (Lucien et la Pensée Religieuse .., p. 356):

'Quand on reconnait dans Lucien un

littérateur qui ne goute que 1 'heritage classique, son silence relatif sur les Chrétiens s'explique, et apparaìt mime comme inévitable';

Lucian, he says, had no sense of the rising

importance of Christianity (ib. p. 353).

Quite so, but then,

Lucian was not gifted with the faculty of divination.


failure to provide us, his twentieth century readers, with a satire on the subject of Christianity in his age may not be due to a lack of literary models: simple lack of interest;

it may betoken either a

or could it, perhaps, be a feeling

that these naive devotees of this eccentric new cult, who believed that they were all brothers one to another, who shared their money and possessions (Per. 13, cf. Acts 2. 44, 45;

215 Acts 4. 32, 33), and who flocked to provide their imprisoned comrade with comfort and encouragement (Per. 12) were not


such pernicious individuals as to deserve satire? Som e


of the cruder aspects of the superstition that was

so prominent a feature of Lucian’s age are ridiculed in the philopseudes.

Here we have a collection of stories about magic

and ghosts and animated statues, all recounted solemnly by respectable, educated persons:

representatives of the philo­

sophic sects (Epicureans, Cynics and Sceptics excepted), a doctor, and a sexagenarian devotee of philosophy.

The telling

of such tales does not seem to have been altogether unusual for a sophist:

we hear that Adrian of Tyre used to take magic so

often as the subject of his rhetorical displays that he was himself accused of practising it (Phil., Vit. Soph. 590), while we find another sophist, Heracleides, debating, in the person of 'the magician who wished to poison another magician, an adulterer, but failed', whether or not to commit suicide (Vit. Soph. 619).71 Magic was taken very seriously:


Apuleius, like Adrian,

had to defend himself against the charge of practising it (Apologia); Ap. 7. 39;

Philostratus earnestly deplores its practice (Vit. cf. Vit. Soph. 590:

no cultured man would indulge

in such activities), and while telling in all seriousness of how Apollonius of Tyana exorcised evil daemons (Vit. Ap. 3. 38, 4. 10, 20), dealt with 'empusae' (2. 4, 4. 25), raised the

216 dead (4. 45), understood the language of birds (1. 20), was served by animated tripods when dining with the Brahmans (3. 27), freed himself from his chains (7. 38) and disappeared mysteriously into thin air (8. 5), he several times digresses to abhor the idea that the sage was an exponent of the black art (5. 12, 8. 7).

Some of the emperors were believed to have

dabbled in magic and similar practices, Hadrian for instance (Dio Cassius 69. 11, 22, cf. Hist. Aug., Hadr. 16. 7), while, according to Dio Cassius, Marcus Aurelius had an Egyptian magician with him on the Marcomannic campaign (who made it rain at an opportune moment 72. 8).

This, however, seems highly

unlikely, for the emperor, pious as he was, and convinced that 73 the gods revealed medical remedies to hi m in dreams,· neverthe­ less declares in his Meditations that he learnt from Diognetus not to believe in magicians and wonder-workers and their stories of spells and exorcisms (1. 6).

Other persons besides Celsus

seem to have felt it necessary to write books denouncing magic­ ians:

Philostratus talks as though there were q u i t e a number

of works on the subject (Vit. Ap. 7. 39), and on some such work,

whether it be Celsus' κατά μάγων or not, is obviously

based that part of Hippolytus' Philosophumena mentioned above, which is filled with fascinating information about how such persons contrived the summoning of fiery apparitions (35-6), the appearing of visions in a bowl of water (35), walking on coals, plunging their hands into boiling pitch without being

217 burned (33), making sheep cut off their own heads (30) and other such curious feats. As in the Deorum Concilium (12), Lucian ridicules the belief in statues with supernatural powers:

here Eucrates boasts that

he owns a statue of Pellichus, a Corinthian general of the fifth century B.C. (Philops. 18, cf. Harmon's note, Loeb ed. voi. Ill p. 349), which, he claims, has cured him of the ague, as well as doing many other remarkable things, while the doctor declares that he too has an animated statue, of a rather more mischievous disposition (Philops. 21).

The belief in miraculous 74 statues seems to have been widely held in Lucian's age. Luc­ ian mentions in the Scythian (2) that a pillar in Athens with

a carved representation of Toxaris was believed to effect cures in his day.

Athenagoras, besides providing us with information

about Peregrinus' statue in Parium, also describes the sacri­ fices and ceremonies with which the healing image of Alexander (Paris) was honoured in that city, and tells us that in Troas the statue of one Neryllinus, gilded and garlanded on special occasions, was offered sacrifice by the citizens, and in return revealed the future to them and healed their diseases.

It has

been suggested that the person in question was M. Suillius Neryllinus, proconsul of Asia under Vespasian, but Athenagoras, addressing Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, refers to Neryllinus as being still alive (Leg. pro Chr. 26), so this identification 75 is impossible. What claims Neryllinus had to be singled out

218 as a h e a l i n g divinity, any more than Peregrinus, is a mystery; in this passage of the Philopseudes Lucian makes fun of the arbitrary nature of the superstition that can credit such an unlikely person as Pellichus with medical powers from beyond the grave. The old wives' remedies that Lucian depicts his philosophers recommending to the gouty Eucrates with an air of earnest log­ icality ('No, it's not a lion skin that you should wrap the tooth of the field mouse in, but the skin of a young deer ... because the deer is particularly strong in her legs ... The lion's whiskers are certainly very potent for other complaints, providing you know the right incantations, but he is not so efficacious for the feet' -'Yes, I was of that opinion myself once, that it ought to be a deer's skin because the deer is fast, but in point of fact, as a Libyan, an expert in such matters, recently pointed out to me, lions are faster than deer:

"Of course they are", said he, "because they catch

them ..."’ 7) do not seem too wild an exaggeration when one recalls Theophrastus' recommendations that epilepsy could be cured by the application of the skins of newts (Apul., Apol. 51) and sciatica by the hearing of flute music in the Phrygian mode (Athen., Deipn. 14. 624b), or the various 'cures' that Aristides underwent in the Asclepieion at Pergamum (though Lucian, we note, hastens to deny that he is criticising the practices of the healing temples): what impressed Aristides

219 was that the god's remedies were so παράδοΕα, and, as Boulanger comments, the only real miracle of which Aristides could boast was that of having survived so many of them 76 (Aelius Aristide, pp. 202-3). The belief in ghosts was also widespread:

Pliny (Ep. 7. 27) tells a very similar

story to the one that Lucian narrates here (30, 31) and informs his correspondent of some supernatural incidents that had occurred in his own household, while Apollonius of Tyana had an interview with the ghost of Achilles (Phil., Vit. Ap. 4. 11, 16, cf. Max. Tyr. 9. 7a) which disappeared, in the traditional manner, at cock-crow. As Harmon observes (Loeb ed. voi. Ill p. 319), Lucian is able in the Philopseudes 'to kill two birds with a single lucky stone':

he can tell the stories that the sophists'

audiences obviously liked, and at the same time laugh at those who believed in them.

The anecdotes themselves seem

to have come from a variety of sources (cf. Bompaire pp. 457 460) but Lucian makes them peculiarly his own, ridiculing them with a wry comment at the end (15 Tychiades wonders why they needed to employ a Hyperborean magician for 20 minae to procure the affections of a certain lady of somewhat easy virtue, who would have come of her own accord from the Hyperboreans for 20 drachmae!

cf. 13), with the same technique that he uses in the

Navigium to ridicule the foolish aspirations of his friends (15, 21, 33 etc.), or hitting off the air of earnest veracity

assumed by the narrators (Philops. 24:

Yes, I did see

Socrates in Hades ... but I can't honestly say I recognised Plato, for one must tell the truth to friends ...';

cf. 36:

Of course Eucrates still remembers the spell, but h e ’d better not demonstrate it because he never learnt the antidote ... ). Caster criticises Lucian for not carrying his observation far enough in search for the reasons behind such beliefs or in portraying the states of mind of the believers (Lucien et la Pensée Religieuse .., p.334), but Lucian makes it quite clear at the start that he does not know the reasons or understand the state of mind of educated persons who can believe such nonsense;

the whole business is to him incomprehensible;


when, in this century, and in a supposedly civilised· area of the globe like this, one encounters similar instances of super77 stition no less extraordinary than those Lucian ridicules, one.cannot really censure Lucian for failing to provide his reader with a psychological analysis, for to the man-in-thestreet the whole business may well seem incomprehensible.



'Social Satire' and 'Anti-Roman Satire'

To Lucian the 'Philosopher' and Lucian the 'Iconoclast' has been added in recent years the picture of our author as Lucian the 'Social Satirist'.

He is viewed by some scholars

as a man with a political message, a critic of the social conditions of his age, sympathising with the poorer elements of society in a 'class struggle' and voicing the anti-Roman sentiments of a section of Greek society.


declares that 'the social problem, the cleavage between rich and poor, occupies a prominent place in the dialogues of Lucian;

he was fully aware of the importance of the problem'

(Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, second ed., p. 621, n. 45).

Peretti writes that throughout his life

Lucian was aware of the economic contrast between rich and poor (Luciano.

Un intellettuale greco contro Roma, p. 41),

and that this consciousness of the misery to which a consider­ able part of the human race is condemned has inspired him to compose, in the De Mercede Conductis among other works, 'qualche pagina ricca di comprensione e pervasa di umana solidarietà con le vittime di un ferreo sistema sociale (ibid, pp. 121-2). Highet (Anatomy of Satire, pp. 42-3) views not only the De Mercede Conductis and the Nigrinus as 'anti-Roman polemics', but also the Rhetorum Praeceptor and the Adversus Indoctum, and this, as Lewis Carroll would say, is odd, because the Indoctus is a Syrian (19) and the Praeceptor and his fellows are Greeks.


The translator of Lucian for the Penguin Classics, P. Turner, is moved to talk of Lucian's 'lifetime of opposition to the Establishment' and his resulting 'uneasiness' in accepting his post in Egypt (intro, pp. 8-9), while, needless to say, the earnest gentleman who regards Lucian as a more profound philosopher than Plato dilates with emotion upon Lucian's 'passionate sympathy for the lower classes justice of human life haunts him.

'The in­

He drags in slums even in

his burlesques ...' (Chapman, Lucian, Plato and Greek Morals, p. 14). These ideas were brought forward again in a paper by B. Baldwin ('Lucian as Social Satirist', C.Q. 1961 pp. 199209) who argued that Lucian lived in 'an atmosphere of class hatred and violence' (p. 207) and 'widespread social unrest' (p. 199), in which the activity of the Cynics was 'the leading factor' (p. 204).

His life and experiences 'bred in him a

realisation of the gravity of the class question and an un­ easy awareness of the guilt of the propertied classes which led to the expression of a sincere sympathy for the exploited people’ (p. 208), which is voiced in various of his Menippean works, such as the Dialogues of the Dead, the Cataplus, Necyomanteia, and Saturnalia.

The ’key to our understanding’ of

Lucian was provided by Peretti's view of Lucian as 'a Greek intellectual giving vent to the anti-Roman feelings of the despised Greeks' and Baldwin therefore accepted Peretti's

223 thesis (Luciano

pp. 73ff.) that the Nigrinus was intended

as a reply to Aristides' Encomium on Rome (p. 207).


opinion (Lucien Écrivain, pp. 5X2-3) that there is no echo of a 'révolte prolétarienne contre Rome' in Lucian's works, which merely present commonplaces drawn from Cynic and other moralis­ ing literature, is 'wholly misleading', because Bompaire has failed to take into account the social conditions of Lucian's \

age and the circumstances of his life.

Lucian's purpose in

the Dialogues of the Dead etc, is 'to establish a programme of social criticism unmistakably associated with the Cynics' (p. 201 ).

Baldwin has now modified his views slightly (Studies in Lucian, p. 107):

'the element of social satire in Lucian ...

is undeniable and considerable', but 'to write about the social problems of the Antonine age did not ipso facto make a Greek intellectual anti-Roman. should be;

The two facets can be related, indeed

but they can be related in more than one way.' How

does Baldwin now relate them?

It seems that Lucian'-s anti78 Roman sentiments have become 'debatable' (p. 42), and Lucian would now appear to be more of an 'armchair revolutionary, whose ardour cools rapidly when his theories are in danger of being accepted and acted upon' (p. Ill);

he 'did not care to

go on record as supporting violent action against the author­ ities' (p. 112;

cf. p. 113:

'It was one thing to indicate

the issue, quite another to support any "final solution" to it.

224 For that way could lead from the relatively safe expedient of being pro-poor to the dangerous path of anti-Roman activity'). So, while Baldwin does not now see Lucian 'as a radical or a "freedom-fighter"' (p. 24), nevertheless 'there is no reason to deny that he had a genuine sympathy for the poor, inspired in part by his own experiences' (p.112).

And although Lucian

the revolutionary merely theorises from the safety of his armchair, in Baldwin's view, nevertheless, in the opinion of other recent writers, Lucian's anti-Roman soul still goes marching on. 79 What does Lucian, then, tell us about 'the cleavage between rich and poor'?

How does he express his 'solidarity' with the

victims of the social system? does he voice?

And what anti-Roman sentiments

First of all, however, irksome though it ob­

viously is to those who see Lucian as social satirist, and who stress the importance of viewing him against the e c o n o m i c back­ ground of his age, we must take into consideration also the fact that Lucian, like any other ancient writer, must be viewed against the context of his literary background too. his inspiration in part from earlier writers: Bis Accusatus (33) he tells us so; to recognise his sources (Pise. 6);

He draws

in works like the

he expects his audiences and as a professional

rhetorician he entertains them with the themes they like.


one of the themes that audiences liked in Lucian's day was that of wealth and poverty.

225 It goes back in literature, of course, to the exponents of the Cynic diatribe, and to many other ancient authors, such as Theognis, whom Lucian quotes on the subject more than once (Tim. 26, Apol. 10, Merc. Cond. 5), Xenophon, and the writers 80 of Comedy. In Lucian's age it was one of the most popular subjects in the rhetorician's repertoire.

Philostratus, descr­

ibing the themes handled by the sophists of his day, says that the Second Sophistic depicts 'poor men and rich men, princes and tyrants' (Vit. Soph. 481;

cf. Luc., Salt. 65:

the róles

the sophist must play in his declamations are tyrant slayers, poor people etc.), while the account of the millionaire Herodes Atticus provides him with an excuse to indulge in a little sophistic moralising himself about the right way to handle wealth, and the blindness of Plutus;

and he cites some bons

mots that Herodes made, presumably in an exercise on the theme of wealth (e.g. money stored up avariciously he called νεκρόν πλούτον, and the treasure chambers where it was guarded πλούτου δεσμωτήρια .., Vit. Soph. 547,


while misers he called 'Aloadae'

after the mythological characters who imprisoned Ares, ibid.; cf. Luc., Nec. 2:

misers guard their gold as closely as Danae

was guarded). The poor man and the rich man turn up with monotonous regularity in the Controversiae of Seneca and the Declamationes of Ps.- Quintilian;

and when Trimalchio asks Agamemnon what

controversia he had declaimed in school that day, the latter

226 begins, sure enough,

'pauper et dives inimici erant

(Petr., Sat. 48. 5;

cf. Luc., Pseudol. 29:

two poor men were enemies').

'a rich man and

A good example of the moralising

which this theme enabled the rhetorician to indulge in is Seneca, Contr. 2. 1.

Here Arellius Fuscus descants on avarice,

on whether riches are a source of joy to their owner or a burden, the mutability of fortune as demonstrated by the sad history of Croesus, and the joys of poverty (4ff.);


Fabianus (lOff.) depicts money in passionate terms as the Root of all Evils, and describes the happiness of the poor ( Ό 82 paupertas, quam ignotum bonum es !'13). So

when Lucian's Pythagorean cock demonstrates to the

cobbler Micyllus that he is really much happier than the rich man whom he envies (Gall.. 21-25, 29f.;

cf. Sat. 26, 27, Tim.

31-38), or when Lucian preaches that the love of money is foolish because 'you can't take it with you when you go1 (D. Mort. 10. 6;

1. 3), or demonstrates in the Charon the mutab­

ility of fortune, not forgetting to bring in our old friend Croesus (9, 13;

cf. Nec. 16), he is behaving like every other

sophist of his age.

The only difference is that Lucian, thanks

to the devising of his Menippean genre, has hit on a vastly more original and diverting way of putting across such popular moralising, as the follies of mankind are viewed by Charon from the heights of Ossa piled on Pelion, and the poor discover in Hades that they are happier than the rich in having had .nothing

227 to lose. Here, then, we have a sophist handling a typical sophistic theme.

Why should we suppose that his purpose is not, like

every other sophist's, merely the entertainment of his aud­ ience?

Why should we think that his purpose is 'to establish

a programme of social criticism’ (Baldwin, C. Q. 1961, p. 201) or to make his audience reflect upon 'the social problems of the Antonine age' (Studies in Lucian, p. 107)?

Do we find

him drawing the attention of his hearers to these 'problems'? According to Baldwin we do.

'The conflict between rich and

poor is the dominant motif of the 30 short Dialogues of the Deaa' (Studies .., p. 107, cf. C.Q. 1961, p. 199), the first of which 'establishes the tenor of the entire series by indic­ ating the major themes of poverty, wealth and the classless society of Hades', and suggests 'that the miseries of the oppressed may cause social upheaval' (Studies .., p. 108). Neither statement is true.

There is not a word in D. Mort. 1

about the miseries of the oppressed causing social upheaval. Diogenes in Hades sends some messages to earth via Pollux: Menippus is invited down below to· laugh at the rich and powerful regretting that their riches and power have vanished (1), the philosophers are advised to stop their empty wrangling about the nature of the universe, and their formulation of silly conundrums about 'horns' and 'crocodiles' (2, one of Lucian's usual jokes about the Stoics), the rich are advised

228 to stop 'punishing themselves' by hoarding their gold and amassing interest, and the handsomé and strong are reminded that their beauty and strength are transitory (3), while the poor are told to stop weeping and wailing because they will find that everybody is equal in Hades (4).

There is no

mention of 'social upheaval'. Nor is the conflict of rich and poor exactly the 'dominant motif' of the Dialogues of the Dead as a whole.

One dialogue

has as its theme the folly of pride in wealth (no. 2, where Croesus, Midas and Sardanapalus, the rhetoricians' stock figures, bewail their lost riches);

no. 4, in which Hermes

asks Charon to pay for his shopping, reflects on the inferior quality of the dead who cross over in Charon's ferry these days, no heroes slain in battle, but men who die from gluttony, or because they have been murdered for their money by their nearest and dearest;

no. 27, presenting a picture of the

universal fear of death, even on the part of a beggar, includes one rich man poisoned by his heir and another who died from starvation because too miserly to use his wealth;

five treat

the folly of pride in wealth among other transient things such as beauty, physical strength, power, military glory or other fame (nos 1, 10, 15, 20, 24); of 'captatio' (nos 5 - 9 ,

six are variations on the theme

11), and may have been suggested

either by an acquaintance on Lucian's part with Horace, or because the theme was popular in the Roman world.


229 dialogues remain which do not treat the theme of wealth at all (except that Menippus, possessing no money like a true Cynic, cannot pay Charon his fare in 22):

they present other

aspects of Cynic teaching, ridiculing belief in prophecy or predestination or various of the myths with an underworld theme (nos 3, 16, 17, 19, 23, 26, 28, 29. 3Ö), or underlining tne transience of beauty (nos 18, 25);

while the remaining

four treat themes which seem to have had some popularity with rhetoricians.(12, the contest for precedence between Alex­ ander, Hannibal and Scipio, cf. Livy 35. 14, Plutarch, Vit. Pyrrh. 8, Vit. Flamin. 21;

13, 14, Alexander the 'god1, cf.

Sen., Suas. 1. 5, Gellius 13. 4, Aelian, Var. Hist. 2. 19, 9. 37;

21, the 'cowardice' of Socrates, cf. Athenaeus 5.


It hardly seems, therefore, that Lucian's aim in this

series of Dialogues was to draw attention to the plight of the poor, or to underline the dangers of social upheaval, or to suggest that there was a social 'problem' that needed to be remedied, any more than he does in any of the other Menippean works which Baldwin regards as the continuation of Lucian's programme of social criticism, the Necyomanteia, Cataplus, Gallus and Saturnalia. The Necyomanteia, dealing with the folly of philosophers (4, 21) as well as the folly of those who 'keep their gold close guarded like Danae' (2), provides comfort for the poor by assuring them that they will be tortured in Hades less than

230 the rich and allowed little rests (14), which will be nice for them;

and they will doubtless be cheered by the reflection that

those who have been made proud by the possession of wealth and high office will be judged most harshly in Minos' court, even more so, it would seem, than pimps, or adulterers, or flatterers (11, 12);

while present social injustices will all

be ironed out, thanks to a decree in the Assembly of the Dead that the rich are to be reincarnated for thousands of years as donkeys driven by the poor (20) - whether that is a worse fate than to be reincarnated as a camel or an Indian ant of the gold digging variety or a cockerel (even a white one and therefore safe from being eaten by Pythagoreans) is a moot point.


poor are happy in Hades in the Cataplus once again, because they have had nothing to lose (14-15), while the rich lament their lost wealth (20), and a tyrant is punished for his crimes by being forced to remember for ever his lost power and luxury (28).

The Gallus and Saturnalia (the latter of which, while

not 'an ancient Communist Manifesto', according to Baldwin, Studies .., p. 110, nevertheless analyses 'alternative social programmes and their implications') both demonstrate once more every sophist's favourite proposition, that the poor are really happier than the rich (Sat. 25ff.);

while the rich, in the

Saturnalia, are allowed to answer the grumbles of the poor by stating their own case against them, and are actually given the last word too (36ff.)!

231 The role that Menippus plays in some of these dialogues suggests to Baldwin that 'the social criticism of these dia­ logues represents the serious thought of Lucian' (Studies p. 109;

cf. C. Q. 1961, p. 201).

Our satirist does not, how­

ever, seem to have taken his preaching about the unimportance of wealth and the paradoxical happiness of the poor too seriously in his own life, to judge from what he tells us about himself.

In the Somnium we find him complacently dis­

playing to his fellow townsmen that he has won some at least of the fortune and fame that Paideia promised him in his 'dream';

in the Apologia, towards the end of his life, he

talks with pride of the money he made in Gaul from his rhetor­ ical post there (15), and refers to the large salary that his Egyptian position brings in (12). This represented originally, in Baldwin's eyes,

'an almost

pathological determination to make money' (C. Q. 1961, p. 208): the Somnium indicated 'the rigid class nature of society', because Lucian's parents felt that higher education was im­ possible for him, and were 'in urgent need' of his wages (ibid, pp. 205-6).

He now seems to have modified his romantic idea of

Lucian fighting his way up from poverty (Studies .., p. Ill: 'Lucian's family was not rich, but neither was it desperately poor'):

indeed with three sculptors and stone-masons in the

family, two of them 'very well-known' (Somn. 7), Lucian's circumstances cannot have been all that desperate,

and when

232 he set his heart on the profession of sophist he was in fact able to receive the necessary education.

So what 'experiences'

produced Lucian's 'genuine sympathy for the poor' (Studies p. 112)?

Apparently the fact that he 'had ample opportunity

to see poor men in Syria, Greece and Egypt', in the last of which 'he may have had dealings with some in his official capacity.

There was plenty of overt social unrest in the

second century ...' (Studies

p. 111).

One is, however, inclined to wonder whether the condition of the poorer classes in the second century A.D. was any worse than it had been at any other stage in ancient history, and whether there was 'widespread social unrest' and anti-Roman feeling on their part.

Historians are agreed that in the

century after the death of Alexander in 323 B.C. (in the first half of which falls Menippus' lifetime), a period of almost constant warfare all over the Greek world, the cost of living was rising and wages were falling, and that, as a result, (in the Aegean area) 'the lot of the worker was desperate:


standard of living was declining steadily' (Day, An Economic History of Athens under Roman Domination, p. 10);

and there

is in this period considerable evidence for civil disturbances in various parts of the Greek world, with the poorer classes 84 aiming at γης άναδασμόν καί χρεών άποκοτιήν. Lucian's age, however, presents a different picture:

in the first two

centuries of the Empire there was, in general, peace, sound

233 government and prosperity throughout the provinces,

and we

hear nothing of similar demands on the part of the poorer classes. The general enthusiasm for Roman rule attested in inscriptions and in literary sources


admittedly comes from the

higher reaches of society (although, according to SherwinWhite, The Roman Citizenship, p. 248, there are some examples of such inscriptions set up by men of humbler· means);


some of the benefits of the imperial peace must surely have been felt by the poorer classes, for whose material conditions and sentiments (as Rostovtzeff observes, Social and Economic History of the Roman Einpire, p. 190) we have little or no evidence.

The lavish building programmes that many of the

provincial cities undertook, the construction of gymnasia, theatres and baths, the building of aqueducts and covering of open sewers (cf. Pliny, Ep. 10. 37, 98 etc.) would have benefitted everybody, and would have provided a good deal of employment.

Such building projects appear to have been fin­

anced in large measure by the generosity of wealthy individuals (cf. Rostovtzeff, ibid. p. 142f.),' or from the honoraria that the wealthy had to pay on taking up a magistracy or entering the local βουλή.

One also hears of wealthy persons now and

then giving donations to the populace of one sort or another (cf. Pliny, Ep. 10. 116).

Herodes Atticus, for whom Baldwin

supposes Lucian feels as intense a dislike as he obviously

234 does himself, is praised by Philostratus and by Lucian for his public benevolence, displayed in the disbursement of what must have been vast sums of money on building projects (Vit. Soph. 547, 550, 551;

cf. Luc., Per. 1 9 ) , and other sophists

similarly spent freely from their own resources on the adorn­ ment of their cities.88 In spite of the general prosperity of the provinces, how­ ever, the depressed condition of the poorer elements of society and the existence of a 'class struggle' is supposed to be proved by the mentions of riots and civil dissensions in the speeches of Dio Chrysostom and Aristides and various passages of Philostratus, and by the stress laid on όμόνοια by Dio, Aristides, and Plutarch in his Precepts of Statecraft (cf. Peretti, Luciano .., pp. 42, 60;

Rostovtzeff, Social and

Economic History of the Roman Empire, p p . 117, 179 and n. 45; Baldwin, C. Q. 1961, p. 205). qualification.

But the evidence does need some

When we hear of riots in our sources it is

usually because in a particular area the grain supply, which was always a problem in the ancient world (both in the Hellen­ istic age, cf. Day, Economic History of Athens .., pp. 20, 21, and under the Empire, cf. Rostovtzeff, ibid. p. 145), had broken down.

On such occasions the irate populace accuse their

magistrates of mismanagement or specific individuals of profit­ eering (e.g. Phil., Vit. Soph. 526:

the sophist Lollianus,

when 'strategus' and in charge of the city's food supply, is

235 blamed by the Athenians for mismanagement;

on another occasion,

however, he finances the purchase of grain with the help of his students (ibid.);

Vit. Ap. 1. 15 certain unscrupulous individ­

uals at Aspendus cause a shortage by holding back their stocks of grain for sale elsewhere so as to get a higher price, but Apollonius persuades them to change their minds;

cf. Dio Chrys.

46, who protests to the people of Prusa that he is not profit­ eering in this way during a similar shortage). however, are temporary:

Such conditions,

the ill-feeling apparently evaporates

once the food-supply is remedied.


Not all riots, in any case,

seem to have been the result of desperation on the part of the suffering poor:

for instance we hear of the people of Ephesus

rioting because their baths are not hot enough (Phil., Vit. Ap. 1. 16), and of other cities thrown into disorder when passions ran high over horse-races and other entertainments (Phil., Vit. Ap. 1. 15 πολλαΐ (sc. πόλεις) έστασίαζον ύπέρ θεαμάτων ού σπουδαίων; ύπέρ ίππων;

ibid. 5. 26, violence and bloodshed in Alexandria cf. Dio Chrys. 32. 75f.);

while Alexandria is

thrown into such confusion on one occasion that the emperor has to intervene, because the different districts all want to be the seat of worship of the newly discovered Apis (Hist. Aug., Hadr. 12. 1-2;

Dio Cassius 69. 8).

Similarly, when we find Dio Chrysostom and Aristides and other sophists deprecating civil dissension and pleading for Concord, it is perhaps possible to leap over-hastily to the

236 conclusion that it is a matter of class conflict between rich and poor.

Philostratus, for instance, talks of Smyrna

being divided between the factions of the 'higher part' of the city and 'the coast' until the sophist Polemo restored harmony to the state (Vit. Soph. 531).

This is usually taken as an

instance of animosity between rich and poor, but the text gives no actual details about this, and there is a similar lack of information about many other instances of στάσις (e.g. Naucratis, Phil., Vit. Soph. 603; 4. 8; 75).

Antioch, ibid. 6. 38;

Smyrna, Phil., Vit. Ap.

Sardis, Epistles of Apollonius

Such conflict might have been a matter of rivalry between

guilds of workers with conflicting interests, or between the ambitions of different groups among the higher reaches of society, or between rival parties in the local assembly that cut right across social classes.

At Tarsus, for instance, we

hear from Dio Chrysostom about the 'linen workers' causing trouble because they were too poor to pay the 500 drachmae necessary to be registered as citizens (Or. 34. 21-3: recommends that they be enrolled without charge);


but this

was not the only cause of internal dissension in the city, for Dio in the same speech also refers to other groups at variance with one another:

he talks of discord between Council and

Assembly and Youths and Elders (16, 17, 21),

So even in 90 Tarsus it is not simply a matter of rich versus poor. Furthermore, the occasion for preaching the virtues of

237 Concord .is provided very often not by internal civic dissens­ ions, but by rivalries between different provincial cities for precedence, especially for the possession of such titles as 'metropolis' or 'neocoros' (e.g, Aristides 23 Keil; Chrysostom 34. 10, 48;

38. esp. 23 - 32;


cf. 40, 41 etc.;

cf. Boulanger, Aelius Aristide, p. 377, who cites a letter in which the Emperor Antoninus Pius soothes the ruffled feelings of the people of Ephesus who are at variance with Smyrna because they have not been given their proper titles in official decrees). 91

And there is also one other consideration to

be taken into account, when one reads in Philostratus or other sources about the sophists of the Empire preaching Concord and reconciling factions, before one talks in terms of a 'class struggle'.

In the Classical age of Greece Isocrates and many

of his fellow sophists used to preach Concord to the Greeks (Panegyricus 3, 4:

'I know that many who claim to be sophists

have rushed upon this theme, but I hope to rise superior to them

cf. Phil., Vit. Soph. 485 Leon of Byzantium,

Plato's pupil, reconciles factions in Athens; preaches Concord).

493 Gorgias

So when we read in Philostratus of the sage

Apollonius of Tyana quelling στάσεις by his mere appearance (Vit. Ap. 1. 15 init.), or of Lucian's Demonax reconciling quarrelling brothers and calming excited mobs (Demon. 9), or even of Scopelian or Polemo calming the assembly at Smyrna (Phil., Vit. Soph. 519, 531), or find Dio Chrysostom or

238 Aristides preaching Concord, it is just possible that Boulanger has a point, when he refers to the sophists of Lucian's age settling 'des désordres plus ou moins imaginaires' (Aelius Aristide, p. 87, cf. 55).

Perhaps the times were not quite

so turbulent as the sources appear to suggest.

At all events

it certainly seems something of an exaggeration to envisage Lucian as passing 'his whole life in an atmosphere of class hatred and violence' (Baldwin, C. Q. 1961, p. 207).


According to Peretti the 'social struggle' between rich and poor assumed a political aspect of opposition to Rome, and there was widespread anti-Roman feeling throughout the pro­ vinces on the part of the poorer elements of society (Luciano, pp. 42, 122).

There is, however, little evidence for this.

Peretti finds it in documents such as the Acts of the Pagan Martyrs and the Sibylline Oracles (pp. 44, 64), but the Sibyl­ line Oracles are mainly Jewish and Christian in origin (cf. Milton S. Terry and H.N. Bate in the introduction to their editions), while the anti-Roman sentiments expressed in the Hellenic oracles of Book III (e.g. 175-189, 350-355, 520-572 Bate) relate to the Republican period, to the Roman conquest of Greece and the Mithridatic Wars;

and the later books

(which appear to be Jewish and Christian anyway), while con­ taining abuse for some emperors such as Nero, Domitian and Vespasian 'destroyer of the godly', speak warmly of others such as Nerva, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius

239 (5. 1-50,, 10, 12):

Sherwin-White observes that it is the

peace-bringing emperors who are praised (The Roman Citizen­ ship, p. 263).

The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs relate to the

aristocrats of Alexandria, the main cause of whose grievance against Rome appears to have been the refusal of the Romans to grant them a city council until the time of Septimius Severus (Musurillo, The Acts of the Pagan Martyrs, p. 276; cf. Sherwin-White p. 256).

Most of the fragments are anti-

Roman only in the sense that the Greek faction in Alexandria objects to the Roman government favouring the Jewish element there (Acta Isidori p. 88f., Acta Hermaisci p. 44f., Acta Pauli et Antonini p. 49), while in the Acta Appiani (p. 65) Marcus Aurelius is spoken of in the warmest terms, in contrast to his son Commodus. Such revolts as there are in this period occur either in Egypt, where Rostovtzeff points out that conditions were exceptional (Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, pp. 101-3), in Palestine, where the Jews not unnaturally resented the rule of gentiles who burned down their temple, and later tried to erect one to Jupiter on the site, or in various of the less thoroughly subjugated provinces such as Britain and Mauretania.


We also hear of a rising in Achaea

under Antoninus Pius (Hist. Aug., Ant. P. 5. 3 '... in Achaea etiam atque Aegypto rebelliones repressit') but we do not know anything about its immediate cause or extent.

There is

240 general agreement among historians that the picture of the economic decline of Greece (on which Baldwin lays stress, C.Q. 1961, p. 207) is somewhat overdrawn in our sources for the first century A.D., and that by the second century the condition of Greece had vastly improved. 94

Perhaps, however,

there were still some areas of especial depression.


refers to the Cynic Peregrinus, who had been expelled from Rome for abusing· the emperor, 9 5going to Greece and trying to persuade the Greeks to take up arms against the Romans (Per. 18, 19).

This may be a reference to the rising whose

suppression is noted in the Historia Augusta.

If so, it lends

some colour to Peretti's argument (Luciano .,, pp. 203-4) that the Cynics of Lucian's day - or at least some of them fomented opposition to Rome among the poorer elements of society (cf. Dio Chrysostom's mention of certain philosophers of Tarsus who have caused some kind of trouble in the city 34. 3;

and 32. 9 where he censures the Cynics of Alexandria for bringing the name of philosophy into disrepute). 96 Against this, however, must be set the fact that we hear

of another Cynic, Pancrates, intervening to calm down the Athenians during the bread shortage for which they held Lollianus responsible (Phil., Vit. Soph. 526, which he appears to do very easily with a rather feeble joke);

and, for what

the evidence is worth, Lucian's eclectic Cynic, Demonax, 'calms mobs' (Demon. 9);

while the orthodox Cynic teaching,

241 as reflected in the speeches of Dio Chrysostom (4, 6, 8. 16, 9

. 12, 79. 6) and in Epictetus' discussion of Cynicism (3. 22

nept κυνι,σμοϋ esp. 23 - 45), remains the same as that of the early Cynics:

that happiness does not depend on material

possessions but is to be found within the soul.

This is the

theme that is treated in the mass of Lucian's Menippean v/orks. It

is not the doctrine of social revolution.

Indeed, apart

from the rising in Achaea, in which the Cynic Peregrinus may or may not have been involved, and apart from the two refer­ ences in Dio to some sort of trouble caused in Tarsus and Alexandria by street-corner Cynics, there is evidence neither for widespread discontent with Roman rule among the lower classes in the provinces, nor for Cynic involvement in fomenting such discontent. 97

As for Lucian's attitude towards Cynics

such as Peregrinus, and for the sort of Cynic described by Dio Chrysostom in Tarsus and Alexandria, it is quite clearly one of contempt (e.g. Fug. 7, 12-21). So let us return to Lucian's 'profonda avversione al mondo romano1 (Peretti p. 41), and trace his ’lifetime of opposition to the Establishment’ (Turner, Penguin trans., p. 8).

In 163

A.D. we find Lucian paying court to Lucius Verus, eulo'gising his mistress in the Imagines, and referring to the emperor himself as μεγάλψ χρηστφ καί ήμέρψ όντι (Im. 22);


thereafter we find him apparently on the best of terms with the governor of Cappadocia, and claiming to be a friend of the

242 influential, if superstitious, Rutilianus (Al. 30, 54, 55). We find him, in the Peregrinus, making complimentary refer­ ences to Antoninus Pius (προιότατον αότόν καί ήμερώτατον, 18); while the city prefect who expels Peregrinus from Rome is an άνήρ σοφός, and the governor of Syria who imprisoned Peregr­ inus earlier is spoken of with similar approval (Per. 14). In the invective against the Syrian book-collector the emperor (presumably Marcus Aurelius, rather than Commodus) is praised as a wise man and a lover of culture (Adv. Ind. 22).


getting on in years Lucian is proud to accept a post in the Imperial Service (Apol. 11, 12);

and in the Pro Lapsu we find

him paying an elaborate compliment to a Roman official.


much for the 'ostilità contro Roma' in his life! In his works, however, in particular the Nigrinus, the De Mercede Conductis and parts of the Demonax, we find, according to Peretti, the expression of Lucian's anti-Roman feelings. The Demonax, to be sure, contains a few of the philosopher's witticisms at the expense of various Roman individuals (viz. two effeminate Romans 18, 50, and a conceited Roman muscle man 38) and an expression of disapproval of gladiatorial games (57). There are, however, a large number of similar criticisms of Greek persons, so one can hardly argue that in Demonax's, or Lucian's, opinion conceit and folly were the exclusive property 98 of the Romans. The De Mercede Conductis is about philosophers (and other educated men) who enter service in a Roman household.

243 The hired man of letters may have been quite a commonplace theme:

Philostratus refers to a sophist who was said to have

gone to Macedonia in a similar capacity, and the criticism of his conduct that this occasioned (μισθωτόν οίκίας ούδέ εδ πραττούσης Vit. Soph. 599-600:

Philostratus obviously regards

such employment as unbecoming to a free born man, άνελεύθερον); and Epictetus (4. 1. 139) mentions with disapproval philosophers who turn parasite and hire themselves out for pay. touches on the theme again in the Nigrinus (24).

Lucian The faults

of which the Roman employers in the De Mercede Conductis are guilty boil down to meanness and vulgar ostentation.

These are

the basic faults that are ridiculed in the Nigrinus (13, 21, 22, 31-4):

Romans throw lavish dinner parties and have masses of

slaves and hunt legacies and are mean to their clients and love horse-racing (Nigr. 29) - heinous crimes!

Did Lucian,

then, consider that no Greeks or any of his own compatriots were ever guilty of meanness or extravagance or pride or vulgar­ ity?

Not to judge from his other works, his Menippean pieces,

his ridicule of the Professor of Rhetoric and the Ignorant Book Collector, etc. The Nigrinus is supposed by Peretti to have been composed as a counterblast to Aristides' Encomium of Rome (Luciano .., pp. 75-80).

There is not the slightest resemblance between

the two works to lend colour to this suggestion. 99

For the

praise of Athens as the city of spiritual values Lucian had

244 precedents in Thucydides' Periclean Funeral Oration, in Isocrates' Panegyricus (esp. 47-50) and Aristides' Panathen­ aicus, while Dio Chrysostom (13), speaking in Athens about how he became a philosopher, reflects, like Lucian's Nigrinus, that mankind has been led astray in pursuit of false blessings, money and reputation and pleasure (13. 13, cf. Nigr. 4 etc.), and draws his Athenian audiences a picture of materialistic Rome (29ff.), where all the wealth of the world has been collected (36), where flourish those terrible twins of the Roman moralists, luxuria and avaritia (τρυφής έπικρατούσης καί πλεονεξίας ibid.), and where everybody delights in gold and splendid clothes, and keeps multitudes of slaves (34-5). There he used to preach to the Romans, he says, that in order to be truly happy they needed a new education in virtue:


must learn δτι τούτων μέν ούδέν έστιν Αγαθόν, υπέρ ών σπουδάξουσι καί πάση προθυμίςι κτώνται (31) and despise χρυσού καί Αργύρου καί έλέφαντος και όψου δη καί μύρου καί Αφροδισίων (33).

This, of course, amounts to that 'wisdom of Nigrinus'

which is supposed to have filled Lucian with wild enthusiasm for philosophy.

I think it may well be that Lucian had Dio's

speech in mind among his other sources when composing his own work. Rome, the Wicked City, was a popular theme with Roman writers themselves: 'Quid Romae faciam?

mentiri nescio ..'

245 asks Juvenal's Umbricius (3. 41), while Martial demands (4. 5) 'Vir bonus et pauper linguaque et pectore verus, quid tibi vis urbem qui, Fabiane, petis?..'. So Nigrinus tells how, on coming to Rome, 1£γωγ1 οδν ... έμαυτόν λόγον άπήτουν της δεύρο άφίζεως ... ή τί καί πράζειν διέγνωκας μήτ' άπαλλάττεσθαι μήτε χρήσθαι τοϊς καθεστώσι δυνάμενος;' (17).

There is in the Nigrinus, the Saturnalia

and the De Mercede Conductis much which calls to mind Juvenal's Third and Fifth Satires and various epigrams of Martial.


are the indignities suffered by the clients of the Roman pluto­ crats, such as the morning call, for which the client has to rise in the small hours, and the miserable reward to be got from it, a meal - of sorts:

cf. Juv. 5. 12ff. and Nigr, 22

('... habet Trebius propter quod rumpere somnum / debeat et ligulas dimittere ... / sideribus dubiis ... / Qualis cena tamen!'

vv. 19, 20, 22, 24;

νυκτός μέν έζανιστάμενοι μέσης,

περιθέοντες δε έν κύκλφ τήν πόλιν ... γέρας δ£ τής πίκρας ταύτης αύτοΐς περιόδου το φορτικόν έκεϊνο δεΐπνον καί πολλών αϋτιον συμφορών ...').

The miserable client then has to dance

attendance on his patron as he pursues his business in the city:

cf. Juv. 3. 240ff. and Merc. Cond. 24 (esp. the detail

'pinguia crura luto' Juv. 3. 247; έπΐ τοΐν σκελοϊν;

£τι τόν χθιζόν £χων πηλόν

cf. also Martial 3. 36, 5. 22, 10. 70, 74,

82) . The insulting behaviour of the rich man towards the poorer

246 guests at his dinner party is graphically described in Juvenal's Fifth Satire (cf. Martial 1. 20, 3. 49, 60, 82, 10. 49), and in Lucian's Saturnalia (esp. 17, 22) and De Mercede Conductis (26). Tne clients are served with inferior food and wine, while the host stuffs himself with delicacies;

the servants ignore them

but are all attention towards their host (cf. Juv. 5. 49-50 and Sat. 17 μηδ' δσχω πρόφασις τψ πλουσίψ and Sat. 22, Merc. Cond. 26).

Juv. 5. 62, 80ff.

To make matters worse, the ins­

ulting treatment they receive is quite deliberate (cf. Juv. 5. 157 'hoc agit ut doleas ...' and Sat. 32 καί τά πολλά έφ' ößpet αώτων γίγνεσθαι, Merc. Cond. 26 ϋβρις άντικρυς καί άτιμία).


that the unfortunate client wants is that the host, even if he is too mean to provide his guests with a decent dinner, should at least eat the same fare as them, and so 'dine democratically' (cf. Juv. 5. Ill '... solum / poscimus ut cenes civiliter' and Sat. 22 δειπυίζειν ... ές το δημοτικώτερον). The client has to live beyond his means, even tipping the servants of his rich patron (cf. Juv. 3. 183-9 and Merc. Cond. 14, 37).

He also has to dress more extravagantly than he can

afford (cf. Juv. 3. 180 'hic ultra vires habitus nitor ...' and Merc. Cond. 38;

cf. also Martial 2. 57, 74).

The Roman attitude towards the Greeks and other foreigners is viewed in Juvenal's Third Satire from the point of view of a disgruntled Roman client;

while Lucian, as a foreigner him­

self in Rome, views it from the opposite side in the De Mercede

Conductis, but the points that he has to make echo those in Juvenal's Satire.

Juvenal's Umbricius 'cannot bear a Greek

Rome' (3. 60, 61 'non possum ferre, Quirites, / Graecam urbem'), while Lucian's hired philosopher is fully aware that his patron's jealous clients grumble that Rome is thrown open to these Greeks (Merc. Cond. 17).

The Roman client talks with

scorn of the 'hungry little Greek' (3. 78 'Graeculus esuriens'): the Greek philosopher knows what they call him (Merc. Cond. 17 άνθρωπος ... λιμού τιλέως). The Roman client complains that, once the Greek has poisoned his patron's mind,

'limine sum-

moveor, perierunt tempora longi / servitii' (3. 122- 125), while Lucian's hired philosopher knows that his patron's Roman clients are muttering about how this interloper, who has only just arrived, has been given precedence over them, although they have endured years of such servitude (Merc. Cond. 17). The ready tongue of the Greek is resented (Juv. 3. 73, Merc. Cond. 17);

and the Greeks are loathed by the Roman clients as

flatterers and toadies (Juv. 3. 85-108), while for their own part the Greeks loathe having to flatter and toady, but their patron expects it of them (Merc. Cond. 28 and 35).

The Roman

client voices dark suspicions about the Greek's insatiable lust, from which no member of his patron's family is safe (3. 109-115), while the Greek complains that such false accus­ ations are used as a means of getting rid of him (Merc. Cond. 39) .

248 These similarities between Lucian and Juvenal may exist because they are both drawing on what has become a common Graeco-Roman rhetorical stock, or it may be that Lucian has read Juvenal (as Helm thought, Lucian und Menipp, p. 219). As we have seen (above p. 107), it is very likely that Lucian knew some Latin, and various close resemblances in small details, like the mud on the legs, the expressions 'civiliter' and ές τό δημοτικώτερον, 'esuriens' and λι.μοϋ τιλέως etc., seem to me to lend some colour to the latter possibility, but one cannot be absolutely certain.

Peretti considers that

Lucian is writing as one who has suffered himself (Luciano .., p. 129), but while Lucian mentions various Roman friends and (presumably) patrons of his, and had certainly visited Rome, he denies vehemently that he is writing from personal experi­ ence (Merc. Cond. 1).

Of course, Lucian only has to make a

statement of this kind about himself for most critics to declare at once that he must be telling lies!

In any case it

seems highly improbable that verbal resemblances such as there are between his works and Juvenal's satires could have been produced by two persons writing independently on the basis of common experience. Lucian's animosity towards Rome, therefore, consists in the fact that he has treated various themes, such as Rome the Wicked City and the meanness of patrons to their wretched clients, which had been handled before him by the Romans

249 themselves 3°^ The picture of Athens, City of Philosophy, had a long literary tradition behind it and would obviously have been a popular one with Athenian audiences, while Dio Chrysostom had used Rome as an illustration of the false values of materialism when speaking in Athens about the true' joys of philosophy.

The sophist Aristides, as Boulanger

observes (Aelius Aristide, p p . 358-9), praises Rome enthus­ iastically for her power, her splendour, her military genius, and the peace and good government she has given the world, but 'pour les choses de 1'esprit il reserve formellement la supériorité de la race hellénique';

and thus he lauds

Athens, as Thucydides and Isocrates had done, as the Educator of Greece, who has by his day made the whole world subject to her civilisation, a sentiment not exactly unknown to the Romans - 'Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit' - and which, in the days of the philhellenic Antonines, they would hardly have been likely to resent.

Furthermore, although Lucian chooses in

the Nigrinus to contrast materialistic Rome with Athens, City of Philosophy, in the Imagines (17) he draws a comparison between Rome and Athens in which he implies that the only difference between contemporary Rome and Athens in- the days of her greatness is one of magnitude. There is one final point to be made before we leave our (armchair) revolutionary, who finds it more expedient to be pro-poor than to be anti-Roman these days, and who 'does not

250 care to go on record as supporting violent action against the authorities'.

How does our anti-Roman Lucian view the triumph

of the Roman military machine in the Parthian war?

Does he

gnash his teeth in silent solidarity with the oppressed proletariat throughout the length and breadth of the Empire? Not exactly.

For, as J. Palm has noted (Rom, Römertum und

Imperium in der Griechischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit, p.54), when Lucian composes his little treatise on How to Write Hist­ ory, he informs the reader that he is writing it in case some other war turns up in the future, perhaps a war of Celts against Getans, or Indians against Bactrians, because, says he, since all Rome's enemies have been defeated, nobody would now dare to make war 'against us' (Hist. Consc. 5 ού γάρ πρός ήμάς ye τολμήσει εν αν τις, άπάντων ήδη κεχειρωμένων. 6 ήμέτερος &ρχων).

cf. 17:

History, of course, was shortly afterwards

to prove Lucian's cheerful prediction wrong.

In his account of

the charlatan Alexander of Abonuteichos (written after the death of 'the divine Marcus') Lucian was to include among the prophet's false oracles the pronouncement, made during the Marcomannic War, that if the Romans cast a couple of lions into the Danube, then victory and great glory would 'straightway' ensue.

This the Romans duly did, says Lucian, and 'straight­

way' that appalling disaster, in which twenty thousand or so lost their lives, befell 'our troops' (τοΐς ήμετέροις, Al.48. Alexander, of course, protested, in the best tradition of the

251 Delphic oracle, that he had not actually specified to which side the great glory would ensue!).

Palm observes that Lucian

appears to be the first Greek writer to refer to the Romans as 'us'.




The Charlatan Sophist

Literary Tradition and Contemporary Rhetoric

An aspect of contemporary life which Lucian was in an ex­ cellent position to satirise from personal knowledge was his own profession and its exponents.

In thè Rhetorum Praeceptor

he draws us a caricature of the successful contemporary rhetor­ ician in the person of the Guide of the Easy Road to Rhetoric. A vitriolic piece of personal invective, the Pseudologistes, presents us with a second, very similar portrait of a charlatan sophist, and incidental satire at the expense of the rhetorician and his art is to be found scattered here and there in other works. The charlatan in the Rhetorum Praeceptor is an effeminate dandy, of honeyed voice and ethereal air (11-12), and unbounded self-confidence (13), who assures the young would-be rhetorician that he has no need of education in order to enter upon the profession of sophist (14):

he should on no account bother

to study Demosthenes or Plato or any of the other antiquated authors commonly taught in the schools as preliminaries to the art of rhetoric, for all the material he requires can be drawn from the modern sophists, whose speeches are the best models to follow (17).

His lack of education can easily be camouflaged

by the practice of extempore declamation, provided, of course, that he is careful to select easy themes (18).

Indeed he must

253 never prepare his speeches in advance, for that would only reveal his ignorance (20). totally unimportant:

The content of his speeches is

he must just keep talking, spinning out

his speech by 'starting from the twin eggs' (20), and saying the first thing that comes, in the words of the proverb, the tip of his ill-timed tongue'.


Above all, he must be sure

to drag in copious historical examples of the most trite and hackneyed nature:

έπί πασι δέ δ Μαραθων καί δ Κυναίγειρος .·.

καί άεί δ (Αθως πλείσθω καί δ Ελλήσποντος πεζευέσθω ... (18).·*He can give his speeches a vender of Attic culture by learning fifteen to twenty Attic words and sprinkling them in whenever he speaks, τδ 'άττα' καί 'κ^πτα' καί 'μων' καί 'άμηγέπη' καί Άφατε' καί τα τοιαϋτα, and it is of no consequence if the rest of his language does not match (16).

An impression

of immense erudition may be produced by the use of old and obscure words, rarely used by the ancient authors, while any solecisms or barbarisms that he commits may be covered up by invoking imaginary authorities (17). theatrical:

His delivery must be

he must intone and sing, slap his thigh, sway his

hips, cry melodiously 'o Cu o l των κακών' and 'ώ άνδρες δι,κασταί' (19).

He must take great care to wear elegant clothes, and

have multitudes of attendants about him, and a book always in his hand to show his studious disposition (15);

while in the

lecture room he should employ a claque to applaud him and cover up for him if he falters (21).

Above all, he must be boastful

254 and arrogant, mocking all other speakers, carping at his rivals, behaving boorishly at their displays (21, 22).

He must indulge

in any excesses in his private life necessary to advance his career, and in the law-courts mu s t shamelessly betray his clients (23, 25).

In short the basic list of requirements for

the successful orator are άμαθία, θράσος, τόλμα, Αναισχυντία, βοή ότι μεγίστη, μέλος άναίσχυντον (15). The miserable recipient of Lucian's invective in the Pseudologistes, that most misguided of sophists who actually had the effrontery to censure Lucian's Greek usage, is accused of similar turpitudes: 15);

ignorance and lack of education (2, 13,

imitation or, in this case, shameless plagiarism, of

modern sophists, for Lucian tells with relish how at a display the audience amused themselves by spotting from whom among the recent sophists this jackdaw had stolen his verbal plumage (5-6);

in his declamations he indulges, like the Guide of the

Easy Road, in bursts of song (7);

and affects to practice

extempore eloquence (although in his case it is only pretence, 5).

He peppers his speeches with obscure words of dubious

origin (24), while his lack of culture displays itself in solecism and barbarism (29).

Like the charlatan orator of the

Rhetorum Praeceptor, this sophist is not above lying and perjury (25);

his appearance, too, is effeminate (31) and a galaxy of

other vices typical of the invective are attributed to him (25-8 etc,), for, like the Guide of the Easy Road, he believes

that Αγαπητόν .. όπωσοϋν κλεινόν και όνομαστόν είναι (Pseudol. 26). One new detail is added to the caricature in the Pseudologistes, namely preciosity (29):

this egregious sophist

regards it as the height of eloquence to make a husband con­ fronted with three adulterers call for a trident to dispatch them;

to describe Theopompus as a 'literary Cerberus', 'razing

the leading cities of Greece with his three-barbed book', and to portray himself as a latter-day Diogenes, lantern to seek an erring brother'.

'lighting his


From these two works, therefore, we have a composite portrait of the charlatan sophist:

as ignorant of good Greek as he is

of the ancient writers, confining his imitation of the Classical authors to the incessant use of a few Attic phrases, while seeking to impress his listeners with stylistic preciosities and outlandish words, whether obsolete expressions dredged up from the forgotten depths of ancient literature, or affectations of his own invention;

he is much given to extempore displays of

eloquence, employing hackneyed themes and equally trite illustr­ ations;

ostentatious and effeminate in appearance, arrogant

and boorish in manner, vulgar and theatrical in delivery, in the law courts dishonest, in private life dishonourable, his aims (to add an extra detail about him from the Parasite, 52) the acquisition of wealth and fame. How far is this caricature, like Lucian's satire on the

256 philosopher, based on literary tradition, and how far does it, albeit in a distorting glass, reflect reality?

Bompaire, while

conceding that 'il est vraisemblable que la réalité se reflète aans la description de Lucien', maintains that Lucian is also influenced by various literary sources:

'On ne peut cerner

avec exactitude 1'influence comique ou mimique;

par contre

celle de la littérature cynisante et ménippée est claire' (Lucien Écrivain, p. 490).

To illustrate the influence of the

mime he cites Herondas 2, in which the brothel-keeper's speech seems intended in some degree as a parody of the topoi of 3 forensic rhetoric (ib. p. 490 n. 2). To this Brecht (Motivund Typengeschichte des Griechischen Spottepigrams, p. 30 and η. 189) adds the statement of the sixth century Choricius of Gaza describing the rhetorician as a figure represented among the multifarious stock characters of the mime such as masters 4 and slaves, inn-keepers and sausage-sellers; and the mention of 6 ... όητορεύων Βουλίας in one of Sophron's mimes (fr. 109 Kaibel) who ούδέν άκόλουθον αύτών λέγει (although Kaibel comments 'Boulias non rhetor sed iudex αναβαλλόμενος άεί, καί ύπερτιθέμενος τάς κρίσεις; Zenob. Vulg. II 76')..

in proverbio est "Βουλίας δικάζει"

All that we learn from this evidence is

that the rhetorician and parody of rhetorical traits appeared in the mime:

we know of nothing that indicates that Lucian

was drawing on such sources. The orator was certainly a figure who appeared in Attic

257 comedy:

that is to say that the demagogues of fifth century

Athens, the speakers in the law courts, and those highly-paid teachers of how to succeed in civic life, the sophists, were pilloried on the comic stage.

Since, however, the principal

function of the contemporary rhetoricians that Lucian descr­ ibes in his satires was the entertainment of the cultured public with display oratory and the instruction of students in that art, it is only in the caricature of the orator as advocate in the courts that Lucian is at all likely to have been influenced by comedy, and even here such influence is open to doubt.

For although we find forensic orators in Attic

comedy accused of dishonest practices in the courts, of bribery and corruption and indifference to justice,



it is far more likely that the literary influence on Lucian's satire in this respect is the tradition of invective:

one has

only to think of the taunts that Aeschines and Demosthenes hurl at one another, that Aeschines accepts bribes, while Demosthenes takes pay for writing speeches for his clients to deliver in court and then betrays their contents to the oppos­ ite side, and so forth.®

Lucian's seamier gibes at the rhetor­

ician's conduct are not unknown to comedy (Kock, C.A.F. Ill p. 40 0 frg. 15, κεκολλόττευκας '

τοιγαροΰν £>ήτωρ £oeu, ascribed

by Edmonds to Plato Comicus), but, again, accusations of vice 7 were among the commonplaces of the invective. Among the references to orators in the fragments of Attic

258 comedy collected by Brecht (p. 27), there are a few which indicate that it was sometimes an orator's style that was ridiculed:

Aristophanes in the Babylonians makes fun of some

orator's excessive use of diminutives (Kock I p. 414 frg. 90; Bergk thinks Gorgias is satirised here);

Theophilos jokes

about an orator's 'frigidity' (Kock II p. 474 frg. 4);


cleides and Ameipsias mock an orator called Diopeithes for his 'madness', which is perhaps in reference to his impassioned style (Kock I p. 212 frg. 6, p. 673 frg. 10).^

There is, how­

ever, nothing in the fragments which Brecht has collected to indicate specific comic influence on Lucian in this respect. The influence of Attic comedy, therefore, on Lucian's rhetorical satire appears to be as minimal as that of the mime. The influence of Cynic ana Menippean literature, however, Bompaire maintains, is clear.

There was, to be sure, criticism

of the rhetoricians and their art in Cynic teaching, but the basis of such criticism was not, as in the case of Lucian's satire, that the rhetoricians were bad exponents of their art, but that rhetoric, like the studies of the grammarians and the other branches of learning such as logic, music, mathematics etc. distracted mankind from the pursuit of true happiness, 9 which was to be found in virtue alone. In accordance with this standpoint Diogenes used to express amazement that the orators should rant about justice but never practise it them­ selves (Diog. Laert. 6. 28), dubbed rhetoricians who talked for

259 display τρισανθρώπους, meaning τρισαθλίους (Diog. Laert. 6. 47), and would demonstrate his disapproval of their art in typically Cynic fashion by munching lupins or fish during their displays in order to distract the audience's attention (ibid. 48, 57). Among the writings of Menippus Diogenes Laertius lists works 'Against the Physicists and Mathematicians and Grammarians' (6. 101).

We know of no similar work 'Against the Orators', but

among Varro's Menippean satires is one called 'Papia Papae' (περί έγκωμίων), and another entitled Κυνορήτωρ, while among the works of Meleager is mentioned a λεκίθου και φακής σύγκρισις (Athenaeus 4. 157b);

on the basis of which Hirzel declares

'Er (sc. der Kyniker) verhöhnte die Rhetoren, deren έγκώμια und συγκρίσεις' (Der Dialog, I p. 388).

We learn nothing of

the general content of the Κυνορήτωρ from its two possible frag­ ments (Buecheler 231(?) and 232), while views about the 'Papia Papae' (παπαί, an expression of wonder) are not unanimous,·*·® but the subtitle and fragment 376 ('qui potest laus videri vera cum mortuus saepe furacissimus ac nequissimus civis iuxta ac P. Africanus') indicates that some of the criticism in this satire is directed against the panegyric genre and its excesses. One can, however, deduce very little from the extant frag­ ments about Varro's satire on the rhetorician and his art, and still less is it possible to draw conclusions from such frag­ ments as to satire on similar themes by Menippus, whom Varro imitated very freely in any case, as we have seen.

The only

260 reasonable assumption one can make about Menippus' satire on this subject is that if he directed his mockery against the rhetoricians of his age, such satire would probably have been in keeping with the teaching of other Cynics and designed to show that there were more important things in life than rhet­ oric.^·*"

Lucian's satire is directed against what he considers

to be travesties of rhetoric and against those whom he considers unworthy exponents of that art.

The influence of Cynic and

Menippean literature on Lucian's satire on the rhetorician's art therefore appears as negligible as that of comedy and the mime. Lucian's satire on this subject is not, however, entirely without literary precedents.

From the advent of the sophists

in the fifth century B.C. the rhetorician's art had been under attack from one quarter or another, whether it was the philo­ sophers denying that the rhetoricians had an art at all, or whether it was the exponents of one type of rhetoric heaping scorn on rivals who did not share their views.

Thus Isocrates

criticises the sophists for the superficiality of their rhetor­ ical teaching (Against the Sophists 9, 10), and Plato too has similar things to say in the Euthydemus, where the two sophists in question are ironically described as having become omniscient overnight (272B, 303C) and as being able to pass on their rap­ idly acquired knowledge to others without the slightest diffic­ ulty (303E - 304C).

In the Phaedrus (272C) Socrates says 'We

261 must ... see whether there is no shorter and easier road to the art of rhetoric, that one may not take a long, rough road when it is possible to take a short, smooth one' - versed as he was in Plato's works, did Lucian perhaps have this passage at the back of his mind as well as Cebes' allegorical picture to which he alludes (Rhet. Praec. 6)?

The arrogance and conceit

which Lucian portrays as essential ingredients in the recipe for the 'instant' rhetorician are salient traits in Plato's portrait of the sophist Hippias (e.g. Hippias Minor 364, 368 etc.;

cf. Gorgias 449 for similar self-confidence on the part

of Gorgias).

Later, when the Atticist versus Asianist contro­

versy comes on the scene, we find Dionysius of Halicarnassus congratulating the Augustan age on its recovery of good taste and sound principles in rhetoric and inveighing against the Asianist type of eloquence as a hetaera who had usurped the place of the truly wedded wife, ή "Αττική μούσα καί αρχαία (De Antiquis Oratoribus, ed. E. Rowe Mores, introd. 1),


a reminiscence of this passage played its part in suggesting to Lucian his picture of the oratory of his age as a modest wife turned harlot in the Bis Accusatus (31). There is, however, no literary source that one can point to with any degree of certainty as having influenced Lucian's rhetorical satire before the middle of the first century A.D. and the age of Nero when we find a few epigrams in the Greek Anthology, by Lucillius and Cerealius, which foreshadow some of

262 Lucian's themes in the Rhetorum Praeceptor,

and in the follow-

ing century the subject of the rhetorician's failings is still being treated in epigrammatic form by a somewhat older contemporary of Lucian, Ammianus. 13 Three epigrams treat the theme of superficial imitation of the language of the ancients:

in Anth. Pal. 11. 142 Lucillius

ridicules one Crito, who considers himself a fine orator because he sprinkles his speeches with phrases from Demosthenes and other Attic writers, πολλοΟ Set, and δι,κασταί άνδρες three times in each period, λέγε δή τόν νόμον ένθάδε μοι, ταυτί, μων, τετταράχοντα, άττα, γρΰ, νή Δία and μα Δία, and obsolete forms not used in Attic prose such as μίν and σφίν;

in Anth. Pal.

11. 144 Cerealius declares that the use of five or so Attic words and a number of counterfeit expressions (παράσημα, presum­ ably neologisms intended to produce a specious air of antiquity) is no more going to make an orator out of a man than the use of κάρκαι,ρε and κοναβεΐ will transform him into a Homer;


Anth. Pal. 11. 157, turns the same theme to make fun of the affectations of philosophers, with their would-be Platonic language, ώ 'γαθέ, μων οδν, φέρε δή and κομι,δη and ποΐ δή καί πάθεν & τάν (with these three epigrams cf. Rhet. Praec. 16, 17). The fondness of orators for classical allusions (cf. Rhet. Praec. 18) is satirised in an epigram by Lucillius in which he ridicules the inappropriate use of such allusions in the courts: Anth. Pal. 11. 141 Ί

lost a little pig and a cow and one goat..

263 I've got nothing in common with Othryades and it isn't the men from Thermopylae that I'm prosecuting for theft ... so how do Xerxes and the Spartans help rne?

Please, Menecles,

give me a mention as well ...' (cf. Martial's imitation, 6. 19).

Bad grammar and ignorance are other faults ridiculed in

the epigrams on the rhetorician:

Ammianus, 11. 146, mocks an

orator for his innumerable solecisms, and in 11. 152 declares that ignorance is the rhetorician's primary qualification (cf. Rhet. Praec. 14, 15, 17 etc.).

The venality of the sophist

Polemo is the object of Ammianus' attacks (Anth. Pal. 11. 180, 181, cf. Rhet. Praec. 25),


while other epigrams in the Anth­

ology ridicule various orators in more general terms (e.g. 11. 143 Lucillius tells how an orator is enrolled as one of the tormentors of Hades;

147 Ammianus marvels at the sudden trans­

formation of a certain Theban into an orator - another miracle in Thebes! 16. 20).

cf. others by Ammianus, 11. 145, 149, 150, 151, Three epigrams on similar themes are attributed to

Lucian in the Anthology:

11. 274 (= Jacobitz 26) on the dead

Lollianus' loquacity - did he insist on haranguing Hermes too on his way to the underworld?;

11. 435 (= Jacobitz 42) that

it is extraordinary how Bytus comes to be a sophist when he has neither common sense nor common speech;

and 11. 436 (= Jacobitz

43) that it is easier to find a white crow than a good Cappadoc15 ian orator. It is not impossible that these three epigrams are by Lucian, and he may well have been acquainted with some

264 of the others cited above.

On the other hand the coincidences,

such as there are, between these epigrams and the Rhetorum Praeceptor could be due simply to the fact that Lucian and the epigrammatists are describing the same phenomena,

as may

various resemblances between Lucian's works on this theme and comments made by Aristides and Dio C h r y s o s t o m on contemporary rhetorical practice. Aristides, for instance, vents his scorn on those orators who abandon the classical tradition, the άρχαΰα Ιδέα (κατά των έΕορχουμένων Keil 34. 11, cf. Rhet. Praec. 17 that there is no need for the orator to study the classics), their excuse that they do so in order to please their audiences sounding as un­ convincing as that of a eunuch or hermaphrodite declaring that his physical deficiencies are not the fault of nature or fortune but are deliberate policy (11 and 48).

The content of their

speeches is as unsatisfactory as the form (45 ούτε γνώμην Ικανήν ούτε κόσμον παρασχόμενοι περί τούς λόγους, cf. Rhet. Praec. 18:it does not matter what the orator says or in what order he says it, just as long as he keeps talking);

and their

method of presentation is both vulgar and theatrical, for they seek to please the public by the same means as dancers and pantomime players, a thing quite unworthy of all men of culture (55), enlivening their eloquence with elaborate gestures and facial contortions, by means of theatrical effects with their dress, such as covering their heads as in mourning, and by

265 prancing about the platform while they talk (28 Keil περί του ηαραφθέγματος 128-9: in such practices;

Aristides says that he has never indulged cf. Rhet. Praec. 19).

At times orators

virtually burst into song, as is illustrated by the story Aristides relates (34 Keil 47) of the rhetorician who intoned a little refrain at intervals during his melodically delivered speech until the audience began to amuse themselves by chanting it in chorus just before he came in with it (cf. Rhet. Praec. 19, and for a story of audience participation, although of a slightly different kind, Pseudol. 5-6).

Like Lucian Aristides

disparaged the practice of extempore eloquence, although Philostratus intimates, on the authority of Damianus, that this was a case of sour grapes (Vit. Soph. 583, cf. Boulanger, Aelius Aristide, pp. 436-7).^ Dio Chrysostom in his Thirty Third Discourse, To the People of Tarsus, speaks slightingly of the sophists with their supreme self-confidence and their displays of extempore eloquence (4), their dandified appearance and their luxurious way of life (13).

In the address to the people of Alexandria (32), in

which Dio rebukes them for their general frivolity and unseemly behaviour, he observes that their passion for music and singing has even affected the eloquence of their sophists (... πάυτες 6fi ςίδουσι καί ρήτορες καί σοφισταί κτλ 68):

why, if you go past a

courtroom, you can't tell whether a trial is in progress or a drinking party!

The arrogance and boastfulness of sophists is

266 mentioned in 77, On Envy (27), while they come in for criticism as educators in 35, To the People of Celaenae, where Dio talks scornfully of the false pretensions of certain sophists who gain an unmerited reputation for wisdom because of the large numbers of idle young men who go leaping about them with cries 18 of admiration like the Bacchae around Dionysus (8-9). Lucian's satire on the rhetorician and his art is, therefore, not entirely without literary precedents in the form of a few epigrams of the Imperial Age and the comments of Aristides and Dio, although we cannot point to anything with certainty as direct imitation of these sources on Lucian's part.

We also

hear that Proclus of Naucratis, teacher of the Philostratus who wrote the Lives of the Sophists (Vit. Soph. 603), in his old age composed a satire against all who were teaching in Athens (Vit. Soph. 617).

Perhaps he was inspired to do this by Lucian's

example,^ or perhaps there were other sophists of Lucian's day who devoted works to satirising in general fashion the other exponents of their art:

we do not know.

The charlatan sophist

may have been a popular figure in the literature of the age, like the false philosopher, but the writings of Lucian's con­ temporary sophists have perished almost in entirety, and we have not the evidence to say.

At all events the descriptions of the

second century sophists with which the pages of Philostratus are filled indicate that Lucian's satire on this theme is rooted in fact, and there seems no reason to suppose that Lucian is not

267 writing very largely from observation of the contemporary scene. The arrogance that Lucian censures in his Guide of the Easy Road (Rhet. Praec. 13) is paralleled especially in the case of Polemo, who is supposed to have appeared before an Athenian audience for the first time with the words 'They say you are connoisseurs of eloquence, Athenians; (Vit. Soph. 535;

I shall soon find out'

cf. the story of his boorish behaviour to­

wards Antoninus Pius, 534).

Similarly Adrian of Tyre assumed

the Chair of Rhetoric at Athens with the none too modest quip that 'Letters' had come to them once again from Phoenicia (587);

and Aristides surely carried the practice of self-praise

beyond all sophistic precedents in declaring that, alone of all orators, he felt able to boast, speaking with all due modesty, that he had united in his oratory all the qualities that exist and that one could possibly imagine, and that he had raised them to the very highest level.


'If your audience do not

applaud1, says Lucian's Guide (Rhet. Praec. 19), 'abuse them; if they get up to leave in disgust, order them to sit down'. The sophist Philagrus went one better than this:

when a member

of his audience dozed off, he marched up and slapped the man's face (Vit. Soph. 578, cf. 570-1 Alexander of Seleucia sharply bids Antoninus Pius 'Pay attention, Caesar!'). To arrogance Polemo and Adrian added cupidity;

Polemo, so

it was said, refused to visit the King of the Bosporus when the

268 latter was staying in Smyrna, and the King eventually had to go to him, with the somewhat improbable sounding fee of ten talents (Vit. Soph. 535 ten times the annual salary of the Municipal Chair in Athens!);

when Herodes Atticus sent him

a fee of 150, 000 drachmae for a few declamations Polano refused to accept the gift until Herodes made it 250, 000 (538);

Adrian, according to some people (though Philostratus

gives a more favourable version of the story 590), was sent by one of his pupils a fish, which the student was foolish enough to present on a handsome silver platter:

this Adrian

kept, murmuring 'So nice of you to send the fish as well' (cf. the strictures in the Parasite on sophists' cupidity).


Lucian's Guide, as we have seen, counsels the young rhetor­ ician to pay careful attention to external appearances, the way he dresses, the way he walks:

Adrian's admirers used to

emulate the elegance of his attire and his gait;

his person

was adorned with jewels, says Philostratus, and he drove to his lectures in Athens in a chariot with silver bridles (587), his ostentation only rivalled by the elaborate retinue which attended Polemo on his journeys (532);

when the foppish

Alexander of Seleucia rose to address the Athenians a buzz of approval ran round his audience at his exquisite appearance (572):

this, we remember, was the egregious gentleman who

ordered the emperor Antoninus Pius to 'pay attention', to which the emperor retorted,

'I am paying attention, and I know

269 you.

You're the one who is forever prinking and patting his

hair-do and making his teeth shine and filing his nails, and who always smells of perfume!' (570).


The theatrical delivery censured by Lucian and Aristides is illustrated by Philostratus' account of how Polemo used to leap from his chair at exciting moments during his display, stamp his foot 'like Homer's horse' and round off every period with a seraphic smile, to show how easy it was for him (537), just as Alexander used to spring to his feet at the beginning of a speech with an expression of great joy upon his face 23


Scopelian used to smite his.thigh while declaiming,

and when describing the arrogance of the Persians would throw himself into the par.t with histrionic fervour, swaying to an fro as though in Bacchic frenzy (519-20);

while Favorinus,

declaiming in Greek before a Roman audience, some of whom could not understand a word he was saying, held them entranced with his expressive glances and the modulations of his voice, and his custom of intoning a little epilogue at the conclusion of an argument (491-2).

The practice of intoning parts of a

speech in a rhythmical and melodious manner seems to have been 24 widespread: Dionysus of Miletus was another who indulged in it, and was rebuked by Isaeus for so doing: έγώ δέ σε φδειν ούκ έτιαίδευσα (513);

μειράκιον Ιωνικόν,

Adrian's audiences were

enchanted by his mellifluous voice, ώσπερ εϋσχομούσης άηδόνος, whether he spoke or chanted in this way (589);

Varus of

270 Laodicea ruined what small vocal charm he had by his tasteless little snatches of song (620). No less popular was the practice of extempore speaking, which Philostratus regards as the highest culmination of the sophistic art (583):

Herodes Atticus passionately aspired to

it, Scopelian and Polemo were masters of it, Aristides dis­ paraged it, because he was no good at it (536, 519, 521, 537, 583);

while the unfortunate Philagrus discovered, like Lucian's

Pseudologistes, that Athenian audiences were not easy to deceive, when he pretended to improvise a speech he had already delivered somewhere else and had published, only to be shown up by certain members of his audience reading aloud from his earlier oration (579).

The Guide in the Rhetorum Praeceptor

recommends the employment of a claque (21):


mentions how Aristides anxiously asked the Emperor to allow him to have his students present at his lecture and to let them applaud him as loudly as they could (583), while Adrian made sure of a good reception by throwing dinner parties and giving games (587).^^ As for the hackneyed themes and allusions that Lucian so despises (Marathon and Cynegeirus and so forth, Rhet. Praec. 18), the pages of Philostratus bear abundant testimony to their popularity:

Scopelian excelled all sophists περί τάς Μηδικάς

(sc. ύποθέσευς) έν αΐς ot Δαρεΐοί τέ


και où ΞέρΕαι (519);

characteristic of Varus' style of rhetoric was έφ' "Ελλήσποντον

271 έλθών ϊπ,π,ον αίτεΐς;

έπ' Άθω 6è έλθών πλεϋσαι, θέλεις; (576);

we even hear of one sophist, Ptolemy of Naucratis, who was so addicted to such illustrations that he was nicknamed 'Marathon' (595).

'Sprinkle in a few Attic words', says Lucian's Guide

(Rhet. Praec. 16), like the epigrammatists mentioned above; Philostratus does not castigate any sophist in particular as being guilty of this sort of practice, but Boulanger considers, after examining Polemo's practice in his two extant orations, that he employed similarly facile means of giving his style an 27 Attic air (Aelius Aristide, pp. 92-4). 'Use obsolete words, or invent some monstrosities of your own', recommends our Guide (Rhet. Praec. 17):

'tastelessness in Atticizing is

barbarous', declares Philostratus, apparently contrasting the restraint of Critias and his avoidance of outlandish words with what he observed to be the practice of sophists of his own age (503).

'If you commit a barbarism', says the Guide (17),

'cover it up by invoking imaginary authorities':

when Philagrus

is challenged regarding an outlandish expression he has used (παρά τίνι των ελλογίμων τοΰτο εϋρηται;) he displays all the panache that the Guide recommends in retorting παρ& Φίλάγρψ (578). The precious expressions ridiculed by Lucian in the Pseudologistes (29) might appear, to modern taste, to be paralleled by almost every passage from the sophistic speeches that Philo­ stratus holds up to the admiration of his reader, but even

272 making allowance for the fact that there may perhaps be euphonic effects that we cannot appreciate in seemingly absurd or insipid expressions, and that phrases which seem tasteless to us may depend on some literary reminiscence which escapes us but would not have escaped the cultured audiences the sophists were addressing (e.g. Herodes to Favorinus,


shall I lick your lips?' - πότε σου περιλείξω τό στόμα; - Vit. Soph. 490, apparently a reminiscence of lines in a now lost play of Aristophanes quoted in Dio 52. 17 ò 6' αδ Σοφοκλέους του μέλι,τι κεχρισμένου / ώσπερ καδίσκου περι,έλειχε τό στόμα), even so we find that some conceits were apparently too much even for that age:

thus we find Isaeus ridiculing Nicetes'

hyperbolic expression 'Let us fasten Aegina to the king's ship' (Vit. Soph. 513).28 The Rhetorum Praeceptor's scorn for ancient writers (17) finds support in the case of Herodes Atticus' father, who, in his enthusiasm for Scopelian, ordered all the busts of the ancient orators in his house to be stoned (521), while Polemo, asked to suggest a punishment suitable in magnitude to the crimes of a robber, says κέλευσον αύτόν αρχαία έκμανθάνειν (541).

The Guide also recommends the aspiring rhetorician to

ridicule and disparage all his rivals (22).


account is filled with examples of the mutual jealousies and feuds of the sophists: F.avorinus (490-1);

Polemo was at daggers drawn with

Philagrus quarrelled with Herodes Atticus

(578, cf. 613, 615 for the feuds between Heracleides and other sophists).

Lucian, of course, was hardly in a position to

censure such behaviour in others:

he portrays himself in the

Pseudologistes (7) as provoking just such a professional feud by laughing derisively at a rival's display;

and the personal

abuse that Lucian hurls at his enemy in that invective was probably no worse than the things said in the savage speeches that Philostratus tells us Polano and Favorinus composed against one another (Vit. Soph. 491). b)

The identity of the Rhetorum Praeceptor

The Rhetorum Praeceptor itself has often been taken as a blow struck in a professional feud of this nature, that is to say, as a personal invective rather than a general satire. According to the scholiast, the work was thought by some to be directed against the sophist Julius Pollux (Rabe, Scholia p. 174).

What makes this identification certain, says the

scholiast (Rabe p. 180), is the Guide's statement τοΐς Διός καί Λήδας παισίν όμώνυμος γεγένημαι (Rhet, Praec. 24).


assertion, maintains Wieland (Tooke voi. 2 p. 496 = Wieland voi. 6 p. 3), 'is built on such miserable arguments as scarcely to merit the honour of being refuted by such a man as Hemsterhuis in his preface to the Onomasticon of Pollux'.

In his

preface Hemsterhuis argued that if Lucian had intended to lampoon Pollux, he would have identified him by calling him Διός καί Λήδας παιδί όμώνυμος, for the plural, παισίν, would

274 more naturally suggest a name such as Dioscorus or Dioscor29 ides, as Palmer thought. Hemsterhuis1 other objections relate to the various details that Lucian gives about the Guide's life and character:


base parentage ('My father was an ex-slave from Egypt, and my mother a seamstress down a back alley1 Rhet. Praec. 24), his dissolute youth (inter alia, he is accused of having made up to an old woman of seventy, until caught trying to poison her for her money), the fortune he made in the law-courts by swindling his clients, pretending to bribe the juries on their behalf, while selling out to their opponents (25).


objected that Pollux's parents cannot have been of low station, because Philostratus (Vit. Soph. 592) calls his father learned (though he concedes that learned men can be poor!), that Marcus Aurelius would not have made Pollux tutor to his son Commodus if the former had been of such dubious character, 30 that since Pollux had a son by his wife (Phil., Vit. Soph. 593) she can hardly have been seventy (!), and finally that Pollux did not make his fortune in the law courts but by teaching rhetoric. Ranke, arguing that the Guide to the Easy Road is to be identified with Pollux, replied to Hemsterhuis' objections (Pollux et Lucianus, p. 30f.) that Pollux's father must have been of low station, since Philostratus does not name him, whereas he does mention the fathers of sophists of distinguished birth (Vit. Soph. 480), and that, since Philostratus does not

27 5 praise Pollux's character in the way that he lauds other sophists, such as Chrestus or Athenodorus, Pollux probably was of dubious character;

with regard to the wife, Pollux

might have been married twice, and anyway Lucian is probably referring to Grammar in a metaphorical way, just as he makes Rhetoric his own wife in the Bis Accusatus (!), and as to the source of Pollux's wealth, well, he both taught and spoke in the courts. 31

All these arguments are unnecessary:

even if

Lucian's Guide to the Easy Road is Pollux, one would not expect accuracy on Lucian's part with regard to such personal details, for he would merely be following the accepted con­ ventions of the invective, and doing exactly what Aeschines and Demosthenes were .doing when they disparaged one another’s parentage, title to citizenship, morals, veracity, honesty in the courts, and so forth,


while the septuagenarian wife was

perhaps inspired by the (now lost) speech of Lysias against Aeschines the Socratic in which the latter was accused of seducing the seventy-year-old wife of a perfume seller (Athen­ aeus 13. 611d) . The argument about the name has rather more substance:


Lucian was lampooning Pollux he ought, to be exact, to have referred to him as the namesake of the 'son' of Zeus and Leda, but, as Ranke rightly comments (p. 31), Lucian is writing satire, not history, and the slight vagueness may have been intentional. 34

We know of no rhetorician of Lucian's period

276 called Dioscorus, Dioscorides, Geminus or Didymus, whereas Pollux, who came from Naucratis in Egypt (Vit. Soph. 592, Suda s.v. Πολυδεύκης), just as the Rhetorum Praeceptor describes him­ self as Egyptian in origin (24), was one of the most distin­ guished sophists of that age, and his name is surely the one that would have sprung instantly to the minds of Lucian's audience when presented with an Egyptian sophist, namesake of the sons of Zeus and Leda. Moreover, some of the details in Lucian's caricature square well with what little we learn of Pollux from Philostratus. The Rhetorum Praeceptor is endowed with a honey-sweet voice (μελιχρόν xò φώνημα 11) so distinctive that one might recognise him by it with one's eyes shut;

Philostratus writes that Pollux

so charmed Commodus with his honey-sweet voice that he won from him the Imperial Chair at Athens (έλέγεχο δέ ταϋτα, sc. his speeches, καί μελιχρά τη φωνή άπαγγέλλειν, ζ καί βασιλέα Κόμμοδον θέλζας τδν Άθήνησι θρόνον τιαρ' αύτοϋ εύρεχο 593).


Rhetorum Praeceptor recommends that the aspiring rhetorician should cover up his ignorance and deficiencies in skill by shamelessness and brashness (κόμιζε τοίνυν το μέγιστου μέν τήν άμαθ(αν, εΓχα θράσος έπΐ χούχψ καί χόλμαν καί άναισχυνχίαν 15, cf. 17);

Philostratus opens his account with the words Πολυ­

δεύκη xòv Ναυκραχίχην ούκ οίδα εϋχε άπαίδευχον δει καλεΐν εϋχε πεπαιδευμένου and says that he composed his speeches χόλμη μάλλον η χέχνρ (592).

The Rhetorum Praeceptor recommends the

277 use of a few Attic words here and there, which would not seem at first glance to apply to Pollux the lexicographer (cf. Bethe P.W. s.v. Pollux p. 775), but Philostratus observes that al­ though in his lexicographical work Pollux showed a wide know­ ledge of Attic, yet in his declamations he was no better an Atticist than anyone else (Vit. Soph. 592).

The substance of

one's speeches is of no importance, says the Rhetorum Praeceptor (18);

in the Lives of the Sophists we learn that Pollux's

contemporary, Athenodorus, poured scorn on him for the vapidity and superficiality of his speeches (έπέσκωπτεν αύτόν ταΐς δί.αλέ£εσιν ώς μειρακι,ώδη, λέγων 'οι. Ταντάλου κητιοι', δοκεΐν έμοί τά κοϋφον του λόγου καί έιτιπόλαιον φαντασίςι προσεικάζων οΰση τε καί ούκ οΟσηι .595, cf. 607). There does not, therefore, seem any good reason to doubt that it is Pollux whom Lucian intends his audience to recognise in the Guide of the Easy Road, but, as Ranke suggests (pp. 29, 36), Lucian appears to be following the practice of Old Comedy and including in his caricature of Pollux the traits of other sophists as well.

Just as Aristophanes used Socrates in the

Clouds, including in his caricature a few details which were characteristic of the real Socrates (e.g. the reference to spiritual midwifery 135f., cf. Plato, Theaet. 149), while at the same time presenting him as the representative of the physical philosophers and the whole sophistic class, taking money for his teaching (98), investigating τά κατά γης καί

278 τα μετέωρα (188, 215ff.), giving instruction in biology, astronomy, geometry, philology (150ff., 201ff., 660ff.) and, of course, the art of winning one's case right or wrong (99, 112ff.), in the same way Lucian seems to be including in his caricature of Pollux, as well as the honey-sweet voice which characterised the real Pollux, the habit of slapping his thigh which was one of the peculiar characteristics of Scopelian, the luxurious dress and ostentatious display of Adrian, Pollux's teacher (592), the effeminacy of the hermaphrodite Favorinus, and so forth (some of which traits may, of course, have belonged to Pollux as well:

we have no means of telling).

The Aristophanic Socrates is both Socrates and Anaxagoras and Prodicus etc. all rolled into one:

the Rhetorum Praeceptor is

probably a similar hybrid creature, a sophistic Chimaera, 'Pollux the head of him, Adrian the tail, raid-way Favorinus' - not forgetting Polemo, Scopelian, Philagrus and the rest!

279 2)

Satire on 'Hyperatticists' and Purists: Lexiphanes, Pseudologistes, Soloecistes



One of the pieces of advice given to the aspiring rhetor­ ician by the Guide to the Easy Road to rhetorical success is that he should provide himself with a supply of obsolete and unfamiliar words, preferably ones hardly ever used even by the ancient authors (Rhet, Praec. 17).

His audiences will be no

end impressed if he refers to 'destrigillating' instead of to the less classical, but to them more familiar, process of 'scraping off' (άποστλεγγ ίσασθαι, instead of άποΕύσασθαι, ). One must not 'warm oneself in the sun' (ήλίψ θέρεσθαι) in an elegant oration, for- that is much too readily intelligible: the clever orator will select a more recherché expression and will 'insolate himself' (είληθερεΐσθαι).

The regular word for

a deposit, άρραβών, must be ousted by the unusual τιρονόμιον, which, to ignoramuses who know no better, might suggest a sort of musical, rather than a financial, offering (a song sung before the νόμος);

while one must never refer to the dawn as

δρθρος, like everybody else from the fifth century B.C. on­ wards:

one must describe it as άκροκνεφές (a crepuscular

word with a Hesiodic colouring, and only attested elsewhere in 35 Lucian's Lexiphanes 11). However, this alone is not suffic­ ient:

the budding rhetorician must supplement such linguistic

elegances with new flowers of his own invention:

he must

280 portray a good writer as 'fair-lectioned' (εΟλεΕι,ς, found elsewhere only at Lexiphanes 1), a dancer with expressive arm movements as χεορόσοψος (cf. Lex. 14, and Salt. 69, where its invention is ascribed to the sophist Lesbonax of Mytilene), while, if an intelligent man is to be described, a humdrum adjective like σοφός must, of course, be replaced by the more grandiloquent σοφόνους (άτι. λεγ .) . In Lucian's Lexiphanes we meet an orator who has put this advice into such assiduous practice that even his ordinary conversation is redolent with such obsolete and new-fangled expressions.

He has just written 'a count er-banquet to

Aristo's son’ (dvτισυμποσιάζω τφ Άρίστωνος 1), which 'Lycinos' correctly interprets as an imitation of Plato's Symposium,^® and does not need much persuasion before reading an excerpt from it, first bidding his hearer, in his own inimitable style, to 'throw the dissembler to the ground, make his ears 37 passable and remove the stopper-uppress, Cypselis', or, in other words, to listen attentively, without irony or stupidity. Lycinus assures him that no 'Cypselid' tyrants have taken up lodging in his ears;

and Lexiphanes proceeds to read his work,

which he considers to be most εΰλεΕι,ς (cf. Rhet. Praec. 17) and εύώυυρος (here supposed to mean 'expressed in well-chosen words', but it would more naturally mean a variety of other things, inter alia 'of good name', ious', or even, euphemistically,

'of good omen' or 'auspic­


C f . Liddell

281 and Scott ) . His Symposium, like his conversation, reveals him to be suffering, as Lycinus later diagnoses (17), from a kind of verbal dropsy:

desiring to be more than Attic, ύπεραττικός

(25), he has abandoned all current idiom and addresses his contemporaries προ χιλίων έτών (20);

the swarm of outlandish

words that constitutes his vocabulary consists of (17) either obsolete expressions (κατορωρυγμένα ποθέν) or words of his own invention (τά. μεν αύτός έποίησας), while he obviously does not understand the correct use of many of the archaic expressions which he so lovingly resuscitates (25), or else he uses the wrong forms (ib.), and he falsely imagines that he can give his work a truly Platonic and Attic air by over­ working a number of Attic idioms such as fi 6' δς (21). The obsolete words which Lexiphanes employs are drawn to a large extent from Attic comedy. 38 Bompaire comments (p. 635) 'on a la certitude qu'il a consulti un lexique des comiques ou tout au moins d !Aristophane ...'

Lucian certainly seems

to have been using a lexicon or lexica of some sort:

the way

the vocabulary falls into groups reminds one in particular of the arrangement of Pollux's Onomasticon.

Thus in the Lexi­

phanes there are groups of words relating to vegetables (2), various foods, and shopkeepers (3), eye disorders (4), wrest­ ling and gymnastic terms (5), hair-styles (5), more food (5-6), various drinking cups (7), words describing a reprobate

282 (10 and 12), nautical terms (15), and so forth,

In Book 1

of the Onomasticon, after groups of words relating to gods and their worship etc., terms to use in praising a king, expressions of time, and words relating to the house and its parts, there is a long section on nautical terms (82-119 ed. Bekker), and further on, after words appertaining to military matters and the adjectives to employ in praising or blaming a general, there is a section on farming and horticultural terms, including a list of vegetables (247 Bekker).

Elsewhere in the Onomasticon

there are groups of words relating to food (in Book 6), shop­ keepers (in Book 7), furniture and utensils (in Book 10), ill­ nesses and medicine (in Books 3 and 4).

It is possible that

Lucian may have consulted Pollux's lexicon in the course of composing this work, but not all of the archaic words in the. Lexlphanes are to be found in the Onomasticon,


and there

would in any case have been many such lexica available for him to use:^

he may very well have culled his recherché vocab­

ulary from quite a few. Sometimes the words Lexiphanes uses are poetic in origin, occasionally occurring in late prose but never in the classical Attic prose writers:

e.g. νεοχμός (1);


ακμής (2) (Iliad,

Sophocles, Anth. Pal., and four examples from late prose writers cited in Liddell and Scott); Med. 903);

άρτίδακρυς (4) (Eur.,

cf. Bompaire p. 636 for a list of other examples.

Many words and phrases used by Lexiphanes are new coinages:


283 e.g. άρτιγραφής (1), δελφιv £ζειν τό ψυχροβαφές κάρα (5), θερμοτραγέω (5), κρυψιμέτωπος (7), άησιμετρεϊν (9 cf. Pseudol. 24).

Bompaire draws attention to the fact that a large pro­

portion of such neologisms are formed on the pattern of words found in Attic comedy (p. 635, examples λακκοσχεας,



τρωκτής, ίτινολέβης). The words which Lycinus gives (25) as illustrations of Lexiphanes' misuse of the expressions he has found in classical authors, δουλάρια of male servants and χιτώνιον of a man's garment, do not in fact occur in the piece that Lexiphanes reads or in his conversation (χιτώνιον is used by Lucian him­ self in the censured meaning, Merc. Cond. 37), but there are many instances of this tendency in the text:

for example in

Lex. 2 the refined Lexiphanes wants to say that he is sore from riding on a hard saddle, but by using a word found in Lysias and Demosthenes, άστράβη, which really means a soft, padded saddle (cf. L. & S.), and by combining it with τά άμφι την τράμιν μαλακίζεσθαι, he produces a distinctly less reputable impression;

a moment or two later he describes himself as

helping his servants prepare a grave for his father, συντυμβωρυχήσας, meaning, according to Lexiphanes,

'help in the grave­

digging', but which in facts suggests 'help in grave-robbing' (cf. L. & S. s.v. τυμβωρυχέω as used in Aristotle, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus).

At Lex. 6 he enjoys a 'dinner of disasters',

δεΐπνον άπδ συμφορών (giving συμφορά the meaning of συμβολή,

284 contribution'), at which he appears to eat Gargantuan fare in the shape of λάχανα Οπερφυη (Lexiphanes means 'growing above the ground', a meaning attested elsewhere only in Dioscorides Medicus).

Desiring to say that on a certain day no courts

could be held or law suits pleaded, he produces the absurdity fjv μέν γάρ άδικος ή ήμέρα ... καί άλογος (9);

while at 10 he

meets the hierophant of the Eleusinian mysteries and other 'partakers in the secret rites', άρρητοπο ιοί, elsewhere found only in the sense 'participants in unspeakable vice'. In addition to distorting the sense of words, Lexiphanes, according to Lycinus (25), uses the wrong forms:-


άπαντώμενος, καθεσθείς are cited, but do not in fact appear in the text (Bompaire observes, p. 636, that in 3 Lexiphanes has in fact used the active άπανχάν;

while ϊπτατο and καθεσθείς

are actually used by Lucian himself elsewhere, cf. Harmon's note, Loeb ed. voi. 5 pp. 326-7).

In Lexiphanes' masterpiece

forms which are presumably intended to be censured are (2) άπιτητέον for άπιτέον (though Aristophanes uses ίτητέσν Nub. 131) and (5) άπ^ειμεν for άπημεν (Όειμεν, acc. Goodwin, Greek Grammar, p. 179, rare and doubted);

while in 2 a pedantic

insistence on using the contracted Attic form of the verb άπολούω results in comic ambiguity:

Lexiphanes wants to say

that he rejoiced at the prospect of bathing after his labours, but in using άπολούμενος, which could be taken as the future participle middle of άπόλλυμι, he appears to be declaring that

285 the prospect of death delights him. Lastly, the words and phrases that the Rhetorum Praeceptor also recommends as giving an Attic air to any speech if used liberally are not neglected by Lexiphanes:

μών (3, 12), μ&

Δία (3), άττα (5), άμηγέπη (10), κφτα (13), δήπουθεν (13), γρυ (19.

Cf. Anth. Pal. 11. 142),^ and wherever possible

6' δς

or ην 6' έγώ (2-4, 9-16 at least twenty times, varied only twice, with εφη 4 and ήρόμην 9, cf. Bompaire p. 634), for Lexiphanes evidently feels that by overworking the phrase in this way he is giving his Symposium a truly Platonic flavour. Poor Lexiphanes!

No wonder he has earned the mocking nick­

name of 'the Greek1 and ’the Athenian1 (23), just because he deserves μηδέ βαρβάρων έν τοϊς σαφεστάτοις άριθμεϊσθαι,. But fortunately along comes the physician Sopolis 46 in the nick of time to cure him of his 'dropsy1 and make him human in thought and speech (ώς άνθρώπινα ίρρονοίης καί λέγοις 20) and Lycinus completes the cure by advising him to re-educate himself in the classical authors, to sacrifice to the Graces and to Clearness, and to learn in his speeches to fit his words to the thought and not to do violence to the thought in order to drag in outlandish words (22-24). Who is Lexiphanes?

Various attempts have been made by

scholars to identify him.

Graevius and others 47 are of the

opinion that Pollux is again Lucian’s butt in this work, as he was in the Rhetorum Praeceptor, on the grounds that in the

286 Onomasticon are to be found all the obsolete words that are ridiculed in the Lexiphanes.

As Hemsterhuis observed, how-

ever, 48 this is simply not true.

Nor, as Bethe pointed out

(P.W. s.v. Iulius Pollux p. 775), does Pollux make the mistakes that Lexiphanes is criticised for (25):

χιτώνιον is not cited

by Pollux as meaning a man's dress, δουλάρια as male slaves and so forth.

Bethe adds to this the further consideration

that the Guide of the Easy Road cannot b e the same person as Lexiphanes, because of the advice he gives that a mere fifteen to twenty Attic words will suffice the orator (Rhet. Praec. 16).


, In point of fact Lucian's Guide goes on, immediately

after giving this advice, to counsel the same kina of rare and obsolete words and new coinages that are ridiculed in the Lexi­ phanes, even coinciding in several examples, άχροκνεφές (Lex. 11), εΰλεΕις (Lex. 1), χειρόσοφος (Lex. 14), while the list of handy Attic words (Rhet. Praec. 16) is fully paralleled in Lex. 21.

On this particular point, therefore, there is no real

reason for denying that Lexiphanes and the Guide of the Easy Road are the same person.

What one can say is that since in

the Rhetorum Praeceptor Lucian is creating a composite picture of the charlatan sophist, he simply slips into his caricature, as an aaditional comic trait, details applicable to the 'hyperatticist' practices ridiculed in the Lexiphanes:

there is no

reason at all to suppose that Pollux himself indulged in such practices, 50 or that it is Pollux who is pilloried in the

287 Lexiphanes. Ranke (Pollux et Lucianus, p. 27) suggests tentatively that the Lexiphanes may have been a.imed at the grammarian Herodian, who, he says, composed a Symposium in which grammatical topics were discussed.

From the extant fragments, however, it is

impossible to tell whether this interpretation of the Symposium is correct:

indeed Lentz's view is worth consideration, that

the work was entitled Symposium because all the words discussed 51 in it had to do with Symposia. There seems, therefore, to be no adequate reason for supposing that Herodian is Lucian's intended butt in this work. There is in Athenaeus' Deipnosophistae a passage (3. 97d 98f) in which Ulpian of Tyre and Pompeianus of Philadelphia are ridiculed by the Cynic for their indulgence in similar linguistic absurdities to those of the Lexiphanes.

A number of

the examples cited are, indeed, to be found in the Lexiphanes. These are mostly instances of comic ambiguity arising from .the use of words in a new significance. 52

There is also the use

of όπτός, visible (formed from όράω, όψομαι,), causing confusion with όιιτός, roasted (formed from ότττάω), Ath. 98a (Pompeianus), cf. Lex. 9;

and the confusion caused by the obsolete Attic

contracted άτιολούμενος (discussed above), Ath. 97e 98a, cf. Lex. 3;

and a somewhat less close parallel may be found in the

phrase fi τητες ήμέρα = 'this very day' Ath. 98b (τπτες - this year, of/in this year, found esp. in Com.) and the adjective

288 τητι,νός Lex. 1.


Finally, there is the use of the neologism

ί.πνολέβης, a word invented by the Ulpinian sophists, acc. Ath. 98c, for the caique μιλιάριον, cf. Lex. 8.

The other examples

of linguistic absurdities attributed to Ulpian and Pompeianus and their circle by Athenaeus are not found in the Lexiphanes, and are mostly similar instances of words used in an ambiguous manner (e.g. Αλέκτωρ 98b for άλεΕίκακός, ανυπόστατος 98b in the classical and obsolete sense of 'unshakable' instead of its later meaning 'without sure foundation' Polybius, Diog. Laert.). So it seems that there was in Lucian's age a group of sophists, whose ringleaders were lllpian of Tyre and Pompeianus of Philadelphia, and who were characterised by their fondness for unusual words:

obsolete words or forms, new coinages, and

the use of words in a new sense. to this group of sophists;

Lexiphanes obviously belongs

whether he is to be identified with

a specific individual, whether Pompeianus or Ulpian, is a moot point. 54

We know no other details about Pompeianus, and the

identity of Ulpian is a matter of dispute. to be identified with the famous jurist?

Is he or is he not If he is, it seems

extremely odd that there should be no hint in the Deipnosophistae of his juridical activities:

the Ulpian of Athenaeus is

a pedant, whose constant investigation at all hours into ling­ uistic questions earned him the nickname κειτούκε ιτος, because his custom was never to take food until he had made enquiries into any word that aroused his interest, saying κεΐται η ού

289 κεΐται; 1. ld-e.

(Is the word to be found in literature or not?) Ath. He is described as φιλάρχαιος and as one who refuses

to allow any word that is not Attic (3. 126e), and 3. 97d his pedantry arouses the wrath of Cynulcus who declares that he is incapable of making a connected speech himself or of turning a neat phrase, but all the time insists on asking κεΐται, οΰ κεΐται;

εΐρηται, οΰκ είρηται;.

The jurist Ulpian was murdered

in 228 A.D. by the mutinous Praetorian guard, of which he was praefectus;

if the Ulpian of Athenaeus is in fact the jurist,

it seems extraordinary that Athenaeus should have described him (15. 686c) as dying peacefully and without illness.

It does

not, therefore, look as though Athenaeus' Ulpian is the celebrated jurist:

he might have been the jurist's father,

perhaps, but one can only guess. 55 Apart from this passage in Athenaeus there is little other mention of the hyperatticists in the Greek literature of the period.

Philostratus (Vit. Soph. 503), praising Critias for

his moderation in Atticizing and his avoidance of outlandish words, reflects that bad taste in Atticizing is barbarous:


is presumably thinking of the excesses of such persons as Lucian satirises in the Lexiphanes.

Lucian in the Demonax (26)

tells how that philosopher used to mock those who used άρχαίοις καί Εένοις όνόμασι in conversation:

when somebody answers

ύπεραττικώς a question he had asked, Demonax rejoins 'I asked you now, but you answer me as though I had asked in Agamemnon's

290 time'.

Sextus Unpiricus (πρός γραμματικούς 208, 218) stresses

the necessity for making speech conform to contemporary usage. There was a similar contemporary archaizing vogue m

Latin. 56

Aulus Gellius relates (1. 10) how Favorinus, in the same manner as Demonax, rebuked a young man who was over-fond of using archaic words and unfamiliar expressions:

'tu ... proinde quasi

cum matre Evandri nunc loquere, sermone abhinc multis annis iam 57 aesito uteris ...’

In 11. 7. 3-9 he recalls how a pretentious

orator in the law-courts aroused unintentional mirth among his hearers by employing the obsolete words 'apluda' and 'flocces', which he had met in his reading of Plautus and Caecilius;


how another, wanting to call his adversary (who had applied for a postponement of the case) a 'tergiversator', which those present would have found intelligible, instead went back to the language of Lucilius and astonished everybody by bellowing re­ peatedly 'bovinator est!'.

Similarly, in the previous century,

Seneca (Ep, 114. 13) declared that many orators 'ex alieno saeculo petunt verba, duodecim tabulas loquuntur'. As in Greek, the passion for resuscitating obsolete words was accompanied by a mania for making new coinages.


Gellius considered both tendencies equally bad (11. 7. 1, 2), and pronounced the use of obsolete words to be just as much an innovation as the invention of new expressions (cf. Sen. Ep. 114. 10).

Fronto, while a supporter of archaism, and in favour

of 'digging deep' for a really appropriate word (ad M. Caes.

291 4. 3. 3 Naber = Loeb ed. Haines voi. 1 p. 6;

cf. De Eloquentia

3. 5. 8 = Loeb ed. voi. 2 pp. 76, 78, where he praises Marcus Aurelius for his ability to embellish his speeches by giving them a 'colorem vetusculum'), is nonetheless against excess in that direction, just as he censures the coining of new words, and pronounces it 'absurd' (De Orationibus 12, De Eloquentia 1. 4 = Loeb ed. voi. 2 p p . 112-4, 54).

Quintilian similarly

considers that archaic words give style a certain charm;


they must be used sparingly and unobtrusively, and must not be taken from times too remote:

it is not just a question of

what words the great authors used, it is a question of which words they succeeded in sanctioning.

As for new coinages, he

does not forbid them, but feels them better suited to Greek than to Latin:

current words are the safest to use;

for the

principal virtue of speech is clarity ('oratio vero, cuius summa virtus est perspicuitas, quam sit vitiosa si egeat interprete!'

Inst. Or. 1. 5. 70, 71;

12, 3. 24f.). 58

1. 6. 39 - 42;

8. 2.

And this, of course, is Lycinus' primary

recommendation to the 'dropsical' Lexiphanes (23):


especially offer sacrifice to the Graces and to Clarity'.

292 b)

The Pseudologistes or Apophras

Lucian, who so diverted himself in the Lexiphanes by ridiculing the barbarisms of the Ulpinian sophists, was not himself exempt from being criticised for barbarism.


Pseudologistes is a vitriolic riposte to a criticism of this nature.

Lucian had used the word άποφράς (a feminine adjective

applied to an unlucky, ill-omened day, cf. Lucian's definition Pseudol. 12) 59 in referring to a sophist with whom he had previously quarrelled (7).

His use of the word occasioned

the other to gibe in reply that Lucian was βάρβαρον τήν φωνήν (1, cf. 11 δτι βαρβαρίζω καί Εενίζω καί ύπερβαίνω τούς δρους τους Αττικούς). Precisely how Lucian had used the word and precisely what he is being criticised for, he seems to take some pains to conceal:

at the beginning of the piece he implies that what

he said of his rival was that he was 'like an ill-omened day' (1:

είπόντα ύηέρ σου ώς άποφράδι δμοι,ος είης - τόν γάρ τρόπον

σου νή Δία μέμνημαι είκάσας τή τοιαύτη ήμέρςι ...);

later he

alleges that what he said was 'we must get out of the way of this ill-met sight, whose appearance is likely to make this delightful day ill-omened for us' (8:

ωρα ήμΐν ... έκτρέπεσθαι

τδ δυσάντητον τοΰτο θέαμα, ό'ς φανείς έοικε την ήδίστην ημέραν άποφράδα ποιήσειν ήμΐν);

but later still it appears from

Lucian's references to the incident that he in fact called the man himself άποφράς (23:

after giving his version of the

293 fellow's, disreputable life ού περί πόδα oöv τψ τοιούτψ ... άποφράδα όνομάζεσθαι;

cf. 26:

just before giving a list of

his enemy's nicknames, viz. Rhododaphne, Hedge, Sore-throat, Atimarchos είτα καταριθμήσεις ··· τάς πολλάς σου κροσηγορίας .. δ" καί θαυμάζω, δτι τήν μέν άποφράδα έδυσχέρανας άκούσας, tu'

έκείνοις δέ τοϊς όνόμασιν οΰκ ήγανάκτεις

cf. also 28:

τοιούτοις δή καί τοσούτοις όνόμασι τιλουτών αισχύνη τήν άποφράδα; ). Why, Lucian asks (11), did his adversary laugh at his use of the word?

Firstly, he suggests, it was because the ignorant

fellow thought it was οΰ ... των Ελλήνων ίδιον, and that Lucian had stepped outside the boundaries of Atticism (11), whereas it is in fact a peculiarly Attic idiom (11-13).

But, someone might

say (14), even in the case of ancient words only those which are not obsolete and completely unfamiliar to the contemporary ear are to be used:

to this objection Lucian replies that the word

has in fact been used at all periods by the Athenians, adding cattily that he could cite examples, but will refrain, in defer­ ence to the other's ignorance (15).

Lastly Lucian deals with

the objection that he had used the word inappropriately (16), citing in defence of his usage the nicknames κόθορνος and έβδομη and λΰμην (Harmon's emendation for the manuscripts' meaningless λυπάην, printed by Jacobitz in the text) as applied to certain persons by the ancients (κόθορνος to Theramenes). This seems to settle the question of what Lucian actually said:

294 he must have called the man άποφράς in some way.

Why else

should he bother to canvass this possibility at all?

In so

applying this feminine adjective to a man he was treading on shaky ground.

He could, as Harmon observes (Loeb ed. voi. 5

p. 373), have cited as an excellent parallel a passage from hupolis (... συνέτυχεν έ£ιόντι μοι / άνθρωπος άποφράς Fr. Incert. 32Μ, 30ÖK = Edmonds voi. 1 p. 418;

there seems to other example of the adjective used in this way), but instead he makes do with less conclusive examples, though έβδομη is close enough, if Lucian did, in fact, address the man himself, or refer to him, in such a way as to use άποφράς as a sort of nickname, on the analogy of έβδομη (with ήμερα understood).

But did he?

What he alleges he said at 8 is

ώρα ήμΐν έκτρέπεσθαι τδ δυσάντητον τοϋτο θέαμα, ος φανείς έοικε τήν ήδίστην ήμέραν Αποφράδα ήμΐν ποιήσειν (a use of άποφράς which would have been quite unexceptionable).

With all

his talk of nicknames thereafter (23, 26, 28), Lucian may be trying to insinuate tnat - even if the above was not exactly what he said - at least he said something on the lines of ώρα flUtv έκτρέπεσθαι τούτον τόν άνθρωπον, δν δει ημάς άπαντας 'άποφράδα' όνομάζειν, or murmured to the man himself some sweet sentiment such as διαρραγείης or ερρ' ές κόρακας, ώ 'άποφράς'. One suspects, however, because of all the hedging, that Lucian probably said something more in the nature of ώρα ήμΐν έκ­ τρέπεσθαι (if not something ruder!) τούτον τόν άποφράδα (or

295 τ5ν Αποφράδα τούτον άνθρωπον), which he could only have defended with the help of an analogy such as the Eupolis passage, and confound it! - he could not find one, not in any of his lexica. Whether, in saying that Lucian Εενίζει. and βαρβαρίζευ, his enemy intended to criticise only Lucian's particular use of the word, or to call in question the credentials of the word as well, it is not possible to determine with certainty.®1

We may,

however, suspect that Lucian was stung into making this vituper­ ative reply by a consciousness, to which he did not want to admit, that he had in fact used the word in a questionable manner.

That Lucian was acutely sensitive to matters of lang­

uage is, as Harmon observes (Loeb ed. voi. 5 p. 371), borne out by the Pro Lapsu, a piece which, while providing Lucian with an opportunity of displaying his erudition and of turning a pretty compliment to an influential person, nevertheless appears to indicate - even allowing for literary exaggeration - that making such a slip as to say ύγίαανε when he should have said χαΐρε caused him some embarrassment (Pro Laps. 1, 16f.).

One does

indeed tend to feel a little silly when absently wishing someone 'good afternoon' in the morning.

What may have made matters

worse for Lucian was perhaps the fact that he was by birth a Syrian, anxious to be considered a true Greek in culture;


whether or not his joke about himself in the Bis Accusatus (27) as having been in his youth, when Oratory chose him as her husband, βάρβαρον δτι την φωνήν καί, μονονουχί κάνδυν ένδεδυκότα

296 ε(ς τον Άσσύρι,ον τρόπον, implies that his native language was not Greek, 62 Lucian was possibly always conscious that his place of birth in a remote part of Syria might furnish rival sophists, upon occasion, with the gibes appropriate to the invective at the expense of his language and education.


looks very much as though this is what has happened in the present instance.

His adversary has jeered at him as βάρβαρον

τήν φωνήν (Pseudol. 1), and has touched Lucian on a sore place; and, to make matters worse, Lucian cannot hit on quite the right literary parallel to prove him wrong. Attack, therefore, which is often said to be the best method of defence, is interwoven:

this would-be purist, Lucian

alleges, is in no position to criticise other people, for, quite apart from the stylistic extravagances in his speeches, such as the trident for an outraged husband to use on three adulterers (29), and his ridiculous pretence at extempore declamation (5), his plagiarism (6) and his indulgence in bursts of song (7), his language as well leaves much to be desired, peppered as it is with barbarisms and solecisms.

He is guilty of perpetrating

tasteless neologisms and archaisms (24) such as βρωμολόγος and τροπομάσθλης and even our old friend from the Lexiphanes (9) φησι,μετρεΐν. (29):

He also uses forms not found in Attic prose

ένεχύνω for έκχ,έω, άνηνεμία for νηνεμία, πέταμαι, for

πέτομαι (just as Lexiphanes is reproached for ϊπτατο, Lex. 25); 64

, and employs faulty syntax such as θάτερον wnere τον

297 έτερον was required, and the self-explanatory τριών μηνοΐν. Can we identify Lucian's victim in this invective?*^


learn only that he was an.elderly sophist (3,13) from 'the most beautiful and the largest of all the cities in Phoenicia' (19), which probably (but not inevitably) indicates Tyre, who was, at the time Lucian made this attack, in Ephesus (10,22).

If there

is any more substance in the above charges of linguistic ex­ cesses than there is in the conventional invective taunts of his having been a second-rate actor, an elementary school-teacher, a pederast etc. (19-22,25), the Pseudologistes would appear to be a sophist of the same type as Lexiphanes,

He knows everything

there is to know about Attic usage, jeers Lucian (, and therefore has the temerity to accuse Lucian of transgressing τούς δρους τούς Αττικούς.

It is tempting to wonder whether he

might have been the Ulpian of Tyre, nicknamed κειτούκειτος, who parades his pedantic knowledge in the pages of Athenaeus, but we cannot be certain.

At all events he seems on the surface to be­

long to the class of pedants whom Athenaeus dubs 'the Ulpinian sophists', and whom Lucian regards as charlatans. In the Soloecistes we may have one further example of Luc­ ian's ridicule of such charlatans, for in this work, if it is by Lucian, and if it is a satire, pedants who pretend to omni­ science in questions of linguistic usage, and who devote their energies to criticising the Greek of their fellow sophists, come under fire again.

298 e)

The Pseudosophistes or Soloecistes

The Solecist is a puzzling work:

classed by some critics

among Lucian's satirical pieces, denied by others any place at all among Lucian's work, its interpretation and the question of its authenticity is one of the most vexed problems connected with the study of Lucian's writings. It is a linguistic duel between Λουκιανός


and an opponent,

who, at the commencement of the piece, in a brief, would-be Platonic, cross-questioning, is made to claim that he can avoid committing solecisms himself and can recognise them when made by others.

'See if you can catch me out making solecisms', chall­

enges 'Lucian' (1), 'and I shall make one right now' (άρτι δέ σολουκιώ) and he combines άρτι with the future as was. explicitly forbidden by the contemporary lexicographer Phrynichus (Ecloga 12 'άρτι

μηδέποτε είκης έπί μέλλοντος ...).

But Lucian's

opponent, in spite of his pretensions to literary acumen, fails to notice anything amiss, and his lack of perception persists, as Lucian slips into his conversation a string of other dubious usages.

Eventually Lucian considers he has won the first round

and advises his opponent to relinquish those pretensions of his (4).

He then reminisces about the comments of one Socrates of

Mopsus (with whom, he says, he associated in Egypt) on a number of solecisms that persons happened to commit in his hearing (5 7), after which he once more challenges his opponent to a bout of solecism spotting, at which the latter proves himself even

299 more obtuse than in the previous contest (8 - 9).


he begs Lucian to stop, and go over all the solecisms he claims that the other has missed, explaining what they are, and why they are solecisms.

'Goodness me, no' replies Lucian, 'that

would make our conversation much too long' (10).

He will,

however, discuss a number of other interesting points for the other's edification, such as the distinction between σέ ΰβρίζειν and ε(ς σέ ϋβρ(ζειν and καθέζεσθαι and καθίζειν (10 - 12). Finally he informs his, by now thoroughly crushed, opponent that there are a lot of other things for him to learn, unless he imagines that he knows them already, but they had better stop the conversation now.

So it stops.

Like that.


more abruptly than it began. If this is by Lucian, what is he trying to do?

Could this

be just a lecture on miscellaneous points of linguistic usage, cast in the form of a dialogue?

If so, it is difficult to see

precisely what his standpoint is.

Some of the words and phrases

put forward as solecisms in fact have sound parallels in class­ ical Attic prose writers:

e.g. Demosthenes uses πηνικα in the

sense of πότε, and μαντεύομαι of a god giving an oracle (Sol. 5, 9;

Dem., De Cor. 313, 253;

cf. Luc., Tim. 4, Al. 19);

πλήν ei uij, and νϋν δύ with the future are found in vari o u s classical prose writers (Sol. 7, 9; Arist., De An. 406b 8;

Plato, Politicus 286d v.l.,

Xen., Cyr. 4. 1. 23, Macleod Loeb ed.

of Lucian voi. 8 p. 35n.).

Is Lucian, then, censuring

300 deviations from contemporary educated usage?

Why, in that

case, does he judge to be solecisms various usages which are found in celebrated contemporary authors and even elsewhere in his own work (e.g. & μεν ... & 6έ, for τά uèv ... τό. δέ, Sol. 1, a use of the relative which has only one or two examples in classical Attic prose, but which, according to Liddell and Scott, is frequent in later prose writers such as Arrian, and is paralleled in Lucian's Timon 57 and Rhet. Praec. 15;


υφαυότατος, Sol. 5, is found in Plutarch and in Lucian's Hist. Consc. 34, Al. 30, Par. 42;

περι-έστην in the sense 'avoid'

Sol. 5, found in Galen and Josephus inter alios, and in Luc­ ian's Hermotimus 86;

άνέψγε, meaning 'to be open', Sol. 8, 69 found in Plutarch, and Lucian's Nav. 4, Gall. 6, 32); Many

critics have believed that the reference to Egypt (Sol. 5) indicates that the work, if genuine, is late, because we know of no other visit to that country that Lucian made before his 70 imperial appointment there in his old age. Perhaps then we should assume that Lucian has by this time revised his ling­ uistic views and is aware that he is condemning faults of which he was once guilty himself (cf. Macleod, C. Q. 1956, p. 106, who observes that few of the condemned forms are to be found in those works of Lucian which can be dated late), and in respect of which he would consider that those other contemp­ orary writers are as misguided as he once was. In short, perhaps we should take the Solecist as a serious

301 discussion of correct contemporary linguistic usage in which all the views put into Lucian's mouth (and into that of Socr­ ates) represent his own views:

in Macleod’s discussion of

four possible lines of interpretation (C. Q. 1956, p. 106ff.). this is the first suggestion;

his second is that Lucian may

be suppressing deliberately his own views in favour of the 'fashionable but ill-informed ideas of the niceties of Attic usage' held by his audience, though fully realising that those views may not, in fact, be supported by classical Attic Greek. On neither of these lines of interpretation, however, does the Solecist seem in character when one considers Lucian's mockery of pedantry and pedants as seen in the Lexiphanes, for instance, or in other works (e.g. Conv. 40:

a rhetorician is

ridiculed for quibbling over the use of a word;

Salt. 33:

any omissions that Lucian has made are due to a desire to avoid pedantry; pedantic fashion;

Hes. 5:

poetry should not be judged in a

perhaps also, if it is by Lucian, the epi­

gram eulogising Grammar in sarcastic fashion, Jacobitz 22 = Anth. Pal. 11. 400).

Even a hypothetical fading of talent in

the decrepitude of extreme old age scarcely seems sufficient to account for Lucian himself becoming such a pedant as to write a serious discussion about the niceties of correct ling­ uistic usage, especially if (as on Macleod's second line of interpretation) he did not himself subscribe to all the views put forward.

302 Therefore those critics who accept the work as genuine do not consider that it is to be taken seriously, an attack on the pedantry of Attic purists.


but see in it

Macleod's third

line of interpretation is, therefore, that Lucian does not expect the pronouncements of 'Lucian' or Socrates of Mopsus to be taken seriously (cf. Loeb Lucian voi. 8 p. 1);

he ex­

pects his audience to recognise that he is m o c k i n g the purists by a 'reductio ad absurdum':

Lucian himself is the Pseudo-

sophistes of the title, not his opponent, i.e. he is the 'teacher of false doctrines' or the 'teacher with tongue in cheek' or 72 even (C. Q. 1956 p. 108 n. 2) the 'exposer of falsehood’. If, however, the basic idea of this piece is to ridicule the whole business of linguistic hairsplitting by ironically putting forward as solecisms (or ’barbarisms') 73 things which are not mistakes at all, but just pointless quibbles, it seems odd that some of the linguistic usages that 'Lucian' offers as mistakes for his opponent to spot, or that Socrates of Mopsus criticises, do in fact appear to be faulty (or at least) dub­ ious usages to which exception could legitimately be taken (e.g. όφελον used with the future (1), a 'gross mistake’, acc. Macleod ad loc., even for late Greek;



beard just sprouting', for Αρτιγενείς or άρτιγεννήτους (cf. Luc., Al. 13),'just made' (2);

χράσθαι, used by somebody who

is trying to 'Atticize', instead of χρύσθαι (7); αύτούς διήλθομεν (8);

κατά, σφας

and surely, even in late Greek, one

303 might have left oneself open to a charge of malicious ambiguity if one referred to a young man as μειραξ (5)!). seem to be any consistent standpoint;

There does not

and yet, if the whole

piece is supposed to be recognisable as an ironical attack on the empty quibbles of linguistic pedants, there should be. On the other hand, perhaps the whole point of the satire is less subtle.

The idea may be simply to ridicule linguistic

pedants by presenting the spectacle of one self-styled 'expert' in such matters being made to realise that his pretensions are false.

Macleod's fourth possible line of interpretation, there­

fore, and the one that he favours (C. Q. 1956 p. 109, cf. Loeb Lucian voi. 8 p. 1), is that the Solecist is a malicious attack by Lucian on some personal enemy who has criticised his Greek, and that Lucian's spite leads him into 'outrageous hypocrisy' in the form of condemning as solecisms linguistic usages which appear elsewhere in his own works (some eighteen or so, cf. C. Q. 1956 p p . 104-5 and Macleod's notes to the Solecist, Loeb Lucian voi. 8).

If so, it is an extraordinarily badly executed

satire for Lucian, firstly because 'Lucian's' opponent is so nebulous:

it would have been perfectly easy for Lucian to have

introduced him as a vain-glorious charlatan, much given to carp­ ing unpleasantly at other people's linguistic shortcomings and to making extravagant claims to omniscience in such niceties, before proceeding to show the reader his ignominious downfall; instead we are presented with a colourless nonentity who is more

304 or less forced, in the feeble conversation at the beginning, to claim that he is able to spot solecisms, because it would be a pity if he couldn't at his age. Secondly, even if we assume that Lucian is simply writing 'below himself' in this respect (perhaps because of his 'failing powers' in old age!

Macleod, Loeb Lucian voi. 8 p. 2), what on

earth is the point of the central section (5 - 7), in which we are told how Socrates of Mopsus used to point out to people the solecisms they had committed?

We are told that he did this

nicely, without causing those he criticised any offence (ctvεπαχθως 5) - not that any point has been made about 'Lucian's' opponent being wont to do the same thing 'offensively' - but this Socrates of Mopsus appears to be just as much of a pedant as the enemy Lucian is supposed to be attacking. evidently approves of him.

Yet 'Lucian'

One of the tests by which one tells

a satire, declares Highet (Anatomy of Satire, p.21) is the emot i o n evoked

in the reader.

With works such as the Rhetorum

Praeceptor and the Lexiphanes the reader is not left in any doubt as to the author's satirical intent;

still less is there

room for doubt about the author's purpose in the case of invect74 ives like the Pseudologistes and the Adversus Indoctum. What Lucian does not normally do, when attacking a personal enemy, or satirising a class of persons, is to insert a section in the middle of a work that appears to say exactly the opposite of what he is saying in the rest.

305 Perhaps, however, another line of interpretation altogether is possible.

Bompaire, commenting on Atkins' view that Lucian

shows himself more pedantic than his victims, says 'il oublit qu'il s'agit d'un jeu' (Lucien Écrivain, p. 142 n. 2), by which he means a satire, a sustained piece of irony at the ex­ pense of the purists' quibbling methods (pp. 141, 142).


wonder whether the Solecist, if it is conceivably by Lucian, might not be a game of a rather different sort, a piece of pure fun, without any satiric intent, like the Lawsuit between Sigma 75 and Tau. Lucian challenges his audience, as much as his opponent, to see if they can spot what is being criticised, and why, in the light of the current views of the day, whether or not he or they happen to agree with the particular linguistic view implied on each occasion.

Most of the 'solecisms' (whether

genuine solecisms from the point of view of classical Attic prose usage, or from the standpoint of current educated prose usage, or not really solecisms at all from either point of view, but just things that he and they know that Phrynichus and other such persons quibble about) are introduced in such a way as to leave no doubt as to their whereabouts, as in Sol. 1, 2: άρτι δε σολοικιώ ..., ti μέν ... ä 6ε ..., όφελον ... δυνήσβ 'there, now you've missed three solecisms!' - άρτιγενείους, 'that makes four!' - μέγα άθλον χατέπραξας &ν (instead of μέγαν &θλον:

'prize' instead of 'task') - 'You didn't spot τό δ,θλον

did you?'

In some cases it is easy to see what is being

306 criticised, while other points are more obscure,^® and this may be intentional, in order to make the game more tricky and more interesting. However, when one looks at the conclusion of this work, all the quibbling about apparent synonyms, introduced by a little lecture on the use of άττα and άττα (10), and concluding with the smug comment of 'Lucian' to his opponent that (12) 'There are lots of other things besides for you to learn, if you will not persist in thinking you know them when you don't’'No, I would not think that' - 'Then let's postpone the rest to some other time, and now let's stop the conversation' (νϋν δε 77 διαλύσωμεν τον διάλογον - What an ending!); when, moreover, one glances back at the no less insipid commencement' of the piece, and at the comments of Socrates of Mopsus, which, to be sure, begin by being moderately amusing, but which degenerate for the most part into a pedantic list, with comments like ψευδαττικόν τό ónua;

when, finally, one reflects that Lucian

does not normally call himself Λουκιανός in dialogues but Λυκΐνος, if he does not give himself a more fanciful name like 78 'Parrhesiades' or 'Tychiades'; - when one considers all this, then indeed one may well question whether Lucian, author of the Rhetorum Praeceptor and the Lexiphanes and the True Story and the rest, could conceivably, even when tottering on both gouty feet towards Charon's ferry, write such stuff!

And even though

I feel that, when any work in the Lucianic corpus is on trial

307 for inauthenticity, it ought to be presumed innocent unless there is very good reason for pronouncing it guilty, in the case of the miserable Solecist I am drawn ineluctably to the conclusion that all one's ingenuity in trying to vindicate this work is a waste of time:

it was, after all, just some

pedantic little Ass of a grammarian braying in the disguise of the Lucrarne Lion,




Having seen Lucian at his most destructive and malicious, pouring scorn, in the Rhetorum Praeceptor, the Lexiphanes and the Pseudologistes, on what he considered the faults of the other sophists of his age, we should perhaps look briefly at the other side of the coin and summarise what Lucian considers the ideal sophist, the man worthy of the name, should be. First and foremost he must be a man of sound education: what he requires is a thorough grounding in the best of the ancient authors, the great masters of prose and poetry.


Guide of the Easy Road lightly dismisses the necessity for such study (Rhet. Praec. 17), while Lexiphanes' education has gone sadly astray, and he knows neither the right authors to imitate nor the right way to imitate them.

When he has been

purged of his linguistic disorder Lycinus teaches him what he must do to win true fame as a sophist (Lex. 22ff.):

he must

308 study the best poets and orators, tragedy and comedy, Thuc­ ydides and Plato;

he must steep himself in their writings

and model himself on them, while obviously he must avoid imitating obscure writers like Lycophron or Dosiadas (25, cf, Pseudol. 24, Philaenis), and he must refrain too from imitating the modern writers (Lex. 23, cf. Rhet. Praec. 17).

This is

the programme that the Guide of the Hard Road has to offer: the aspiring rhetorician must follow in the footsteps of Demosthenes, Plato and Aeschines, and must be prepared to study them hard and long, for his skill is not. acquired overnight (Rhet. Praec. 9 - 10).


Similarly Demonax, Lucian's ideal

sage, is a man of broad culture, who has made a thorough study of poetry and oratory as well as the various branches of philo­ sophy (Demon. 4);

and Lucian himself includes the philosophers

(though he seems to be thinking mainly of Plato) among the ancient writers who furnished him with models for his work (Pise. 6). In imitating the language of the ancients, the true sophist avoids superficiality, knowing that a veneer of Atticism, a mere sprinkling of overworked Attic idioms, will not do (Rhet. Praec. 16, 18), while at the same time he imitates his Attic models only so far as is compatible with clarity of diction and modern usage, shunning obsolete words no longer readily intelligible to his audience, and also far-fetched coinages of his own (Lex. 20, 24, Pseudol. 14, 24, Rhet. Praec. 17).


309 χη the same way he avoids servile imitation of the style and subject matter of his models, a tendency which Lucian ridicules in several parodie passages (below p. 311), as well as in the pseudologistes (5, 6, plagiarism of modern sophists). Like Aristides Lucian approves neither of Asianist theatric­ ality nor of the currently fashionable extempore oratory (Rhet. Praec, 19, 20):

his own work, he intimates in the Piscator

(26), is prepared carefully and at length.

He pours scorn on

the trite themes beloved of his contemporaries (Rhet. Praec. 18, J. Trag. 32, Bis Acc. 32), and is proud of his own literary novelty;

but nevertheless he stresses that this novelty does

not involve abandoning the ancient tradition (Prom. Es 3, Zeux. 2, cf. Bis Acc. 34).

Those scholars who have studied

Lucian's vocabulary have revealed a graceful blend of the old and the new:

Boulanger agrees with W. Schmid in observing that

the difference between Lucian and his contemporary, Aristides, in this respect is that, while Aristides has tried to put the clock back and to repudiate the language of the present in an attempt to write like the masters of the past, Lucian has been content merely to enrich his language by drawing on the heritage 82 they had bequeathed. Similarly, with regard to his subject matter, Lucian's claims in the Zeuxis and the Prometheus Es are justified:

he has indeed succeeded in practising what

he preaches, in combining happily the two elements on which he set such store, originality and imitation of the ancients.


Encomium of Demosthenes ;

True Story ;

Parasite ;

Lucius or the Ass;

Tragodopodagra and Ocypus;

Syrian Goddess and Astrology

One of the literary devices employed by Lucian in his novel style of rhetorical entertainment was that of parody.


times it is satirical parody that he writes, i.e. parody used as a means of literary criticism, imitation which 'wounds the original', as Highet puts it (Anatomy of Satire, p.68),


ing out faults, revealing hidden affectations, emphasising weak­ nesses and diminishing strengths ... ; admires the original a little less'.

the audience thereafter At other times Lucian's

parody simply adds an element of fun to the work in hand and is better described by other terms such as pastiche and burlesque. In the case of several works found in his collection scholars disagree as to how they should be interpreted or described, and whether they are even genuine. In the Lexiphanes, as has been discussed above, Lucian parodied the style of the hyperatticists;^

in other works he

makes use of parody here and there as a means of ridiculing other traits in contemporary oratory.

In particular Lucian

pours scorn on those feeble minded exponents of his art who allow their zeal for the ancients to carry them into excessive and servile imitation of their writings.

In the Jupiter

311 Tragoedus (14) Zeus, about to begin his address to the Divine

Assembly, dries up, and the helpful Hermes suggests that he follow the modern fashion in oratory by delivering one of Demosthenes' speeches, with one or two slight modifications

(où 5è των Δημοσθένους δημηγοριών των κατά Φιλίππου ήντινα άν έθέλης, σύνειρε όλίγα έναλλάττων· δητορεύουσιν).

οϋτω γοΰν οι πολλοί νϋν

So Zeus duly borrows the opening three sentences

of Demosthenes' First Olynthiae for his prooemium, just changing a word here (producing the comically incongruous ώ δνδρες θεοί 2 in the process ) and omitting or adapting the odd phrase there as appropriate (15).

Oratory is similarly in vogue when called

to make her plea against Lucian in the Bis Accusatus, opening her address by plagiarising the first sentence of Demosthenes’ On the Crown, adapting the last part to suit her circumstances, and adding to it, with similar alterations, the first sentence of the Third Olynthiae (Bis Acc. 26).3 There is; no doubt, quite apart from the inevitable comic exaggeration in such passages, an element of literary cliché here.

An epigram by Pollianus (Anth. Pal. 11. 130;


is of uncertain date, perhaps second century A.D.) makes the same sort of fun of over-zealous imitators of Homer as Lucian does at the expense of Demosthenes' sophistic devotees.


subject of plagiarism would appear to have been much discussed in the first century A.D., and several books were written περί κλοπής (Porphyry's list of such works is mentioned in Eusebius'

312 Praeparatio Evangelica 10. 3. 12, cited by J.D. Duff, Oxford Classical Dictionary second ed., p. 838).

However, with all

due allowance for the possible influence of literary sources on Lucian's strictures on this subject, there is probably a certain amount of truth underlying his caricature:

even a

luminary of the Second Sophistic like Aristides has not escaped the criticism that his work is 'un pastiche perpétuel' of 4 Demosthenes; it would not be so very surprising if some of the less celebrated representatives of the sophistic profession, whose works have vanished without trace, had asked themselves upon occasion Longinus' question, 'How would Homer have put this, or how would Plato or Demosthenes or, in history, Thuc­ ydides have raised it to the sublime?' (περί ϋψους 14. 1 ed. Roberts) and had come up with an answer that had less of the sublime than the ridiculous. How to Write History Lucian provides other parodie examples of such servile imitation of the ancients in the course of his criticisms of contemporary historians in the treatise πως δεΰ Ιστορίαν συγγράφειν.

Since the Parthian War began, he declares, every­

body has taken to writing history;

indeed, they have all turned

into Thucydideses and Herodotuses and Xenophons (2);

but it is

in particular the unfortunate Thucydides who suffers at the hands of his admirers (άπασι γάρ αύτοίς πρός τόν ούδέν αίτιον των έν Άρμενίςι κακών, τόν θουκυδίδην, ή &μιλλα, 26).

One such

313 enthusiastic emulator of the great historian, says Lucian (15), begins by borrowing Thucydides' first sentence, substituting names as appropriate:

'Crepereius Calpurnianus of Pompeiopolis

(a name 'redolent with Attic thyme') συνέγραφε τόν πόλεμον των Παρθυαίων καί "Ρωμαίων, ώς έπολέμησαν πρός άλλήλους, άρΕάμενας εΰθΰς Ευνισταμένου'.

He then lifts the speech of the Corcyrean

delegation from Thuc. 1. 32, applying it to the situation in Armenia, after which he filches the description of the Plague from Thuc. 2. 47 - 54, inevitably making it 'begin in Ethiopia' and 'descend into Egypt' before it eventually swoops down on the unfortunate inhabitants of Nisibis.

At this point Lucian

tells us he took his departure, for he knew just what was going 5 to happen in the rest of the work! Another would-be Thucydides obviously feels that if he does not borrow his model's actual words, he must at least follow him slavishly in other respects, regardless of historical ver­ acity (thereby, of course, forgetting Thucydides' cardinal principle):

Pericles makes a speech over the Athenian dead, so

this historian has to have a funeral speech too, and if nobody in the present war actually made one, no matter, he can always invent both circumstances and speech (26).

Thucydides' descr­

iptions are emulated by another historian, who has unfortunately failed to notice that his model inserts them only where necess­ ary and makes them no longer than the occasion demands, and who accordingly lavishes thousands of words on the emperor's shield

314 and King Vologeses' trousers, not to mention the cave in which the Parthian commander Osroes took shelter when he fled, com­ plete with picturesque screen of ivy and laurel (19). Someone else, taking Herodotus as his model (18), follows the same procedure as that zealous imitator of Thucydides men­ tioned above and copies out the very words of the original with a minor change here and there, duly proclaiming £δεε γάρ Πέρσησι γενέσθαι κακώς (cf. Hdt. 1. 8).

Another has noticed that the

great historians of the past specify that they have used inform­ ation provided by eyewitnesses, or that they are writing from their own personal recollections:

ώτα όφθαλμών άπιστότερα, he

accordingly declares, γράφω τοίνυν & εΖδον, ο ύχ ά Ακόυσα (29), and proceeds to a lurid description of a battle he has witnessed in which the Parthians used large serpents to crush and devour the Roman enemy - making his observations no doubt, as Lucian wrily declares, from the prudent heights of a tall tree. The first half of the πώς δει ιστορίαν συγγράφειν is devoted to a series of such humorous illustrations of how not to write history (6 - 32), parodie descriptions of errors which Lucian declares he has himself heard aspirants to historical fame perpetrating in their displays (14);

while in the second half

the satiric tone is dropped as Lucian enumerates the principles to be followed by the true historian (33 - 61).

The works of

these second century historians have not survived, so we cannot tell how true to life or how wildly exaggerated Lucian's little

315 caricatures are, though here and there 'the pointed ear of the Lucianic faun' is pretty obvious,® but Lucian declares that he is describing readings that he has himself attended 'recently in Ionia', and 'the other day in Achaea', and similarly 'the other day in Corinth' (14, 17), and he claims that his reader (or listener) will be able to see for himself when he attends such displays that he is telling the truth (7). The reaction of some has been that Lucian 'protests too much methinks', with his 'in the name of the Graces, let nobody dis­ believe the things I am about to say, for I'd have taken an oath that they are true, if it were the done thing to affix an oath to a treatise of this kind!' (14).

Firstly, attention has

been focussed on the few names that Lucian bestows on his hist­ orians.

About fifteen of them are mentioned as typifying one

fault or another, but the majority are left anonymous. four are actually given names:


there is the aforementioned

'Crepereius Calpurnianus of Pompeiopolis' (15), a certain 'Callimorphus' (16), an 'Antiochianus' (30), and a 'Demetrius of Sagalassus' (32), whose title for his history,


nicica', is almost as portentously polysyllabic as his name. H. Homeyer (Lukian:

Wie Man Geschichte Schreiben Soll, p. 22)

suspects 'Crepereius' of being an invented name ('Dunkelmann'), although the historian in question is not represented as ob­ scure (he is the first mentioned emulator of Thucydides whose thoroughly Thucydidean Plague 'began in Ethiopia .....').

316 'Callimorphus' appears no less suspect to others (cf. Baldwin, Studies in Lucian, p. 83, and Anderson, Lucian, Theme and Variation, p. 78:

'the author of a shapeless diary', although

no point is made in the text about the 'shapelessness' of his work:

the criticism is directed at his jejune style and in­

competent Ionic, and the pomposity of his headings and intro­ duction).

Anderson also points out Lucian's fondness for

inventing polysyllabic names (of which Bompaire has made a collection, Lucien Écrivain, p. 702f.).

On the other hand, it

is argued by Baldwin (Studies in Lucian, pp. 82-85) that they are all perfectly possible names:

Crepereii and Calpurniani

are attested, Antiochianus recalls the history-writing sophist Antiochus of Aegae (Phil., Vit. Soph. 570), and, although we have no real life specimen of a 'Callimorphus', there is a 'Callidromus'. Both sides have a point.

What Lucian is doing, however, is

presenting his audience with a portrait gallery of amusing caricatures (cf. Bompaire, Lucien Écrivain, p.606, and Macleod, C.R. 17 (1967), 285), just as he draws us a hybrid portrait of a Charlatan Sophist, and dubs him 'namesake of the sons of Zeus and Leda', and another caricature, of a hyperatticist, with the suitably lexicographical sounding name of 'Lexiphanes'.


is no reason, therefore, to expect to find the literal truth in the names of his caricatured historians, one or two of whom may be cross-bred quite as much as the Rhetorum Praeceptor, and all

of whom.are certain to be comically exaggerated.


it may be the case that the four names contain hints which would enable Lucian's audience to identify some of his victims. E.L. Bowie’s survey of the histories that were being written in this period has helped to provide a background against which to set Lucian's portrait gallery of historians.



would-be Herodotus (Hist. Consc. 18) has a counterpart in the person of Cephalion in Hadrian's reign, who wrote a worldhistory in Ionic modelled on Herodotus' work, each of his nine books named after one of the Muses (Bowie, Past and Pesent 1970, p. 12);

while Lucian's contemporary, Arrian, wrote his

Indica in Ionic, in imitation of Herodotus and the Ionian logoO

graphers (cf. P. Chantraine, Budé ed. p. llff.).

Arrian, of

course, was also an indefatigable emulator of Xenophon, and called himself 'the new Xenophon' (cf. Bowie, pp. 25-27), just as that historian's Anabasis is aped by some of Lucian's victims (Hist. Consc. 23).

Lucian's Crepereius Calpurnianus (15) would

have found his enthusiasm for Thucydides shared by many hist9 orians and rhetoricians in his age. Lucian's doctor-historian (16) had a fairly recent forerunner in the person of Statilius Crito, Trajan's physician, who wrote about the emperor's cam­ paigns in his Getica (Bowie, p. 15, cf. p. 21: Smyrna, another doctor who wrote history);

Hermogenes of

and Lucian's philo­

sopher-historian (17) provides Epictetus' disciple, Arrian, with a companion;

while rhetoricians who also wrote history -

318 believing, no doubt, like Pliny, that history and oratory have much in common (Ep. 5. 8) - are numerous (e.g. Cephalion, described by the Suda as rhetor and historian; Aegae, Phil., Vit. Soph. 570;

Antiochus of

Aelian, Phil., Vit. Soph. 624;

Polyaenus of Macedon, Bowie p. 22;

not to mention Appian,

Fronto, and 'distressingly rhetorical' Herodian, Bowie p.16).^® Lucian speaks of a positive epidemic of history writing during the Parthian War.

Doubtless many of them were rhetor­

icians, although he only refers to one specifically as being 'celebrated for his eloquence' (19).

He would hardly inform

his audience of his desire not to be the only mute in his ’polyphonic’ age (4), if such a rash of historians had not in fact broken out, but, as it happens, there is confirmatory evidence in Herodian's History (1. 2) where that author remarks on the number of accounts of Marcus' Northern and Eastern campaigns written by persons whom he, it seems, considers able historians (πολλοΐς καί. σοφοΰς άνδράσι).

On the other hand,

in his introductory chapter, Herodian declares that many hist­ orians display a contempt for truth in their narratives and an excessive preoccupation with style:

they set a higher prem­

ium on giving their audiences pleasure, even if it means indulging in a bit of fiction upon occasion, than on providing them with the fruits of accurate research.

This is very largely

the main burden of Lucian’s complaints in the De Historia Con­ scribenda.

C.R. Whittaker remarks on the 'conventional flavour'

319 of Herodian's critique of contemporary historiography (note on p p . 2-3 of voi. 1 of the Loeb ed. of Herodian), but there are some grounds for thinking that neither Lucian's account nor Herodian's is entirely devoid of substance. For instance, the first portrait of a contemporary hist­ orian that Lucian offers us is one, supposedly from Miletus, who confuses history with panegyric, comparing the Roman commander to Achilles, and the enemy leader to Thersites, because, no doubt, he has learnt at school, like every budding rhetorician, that comparison lends lustre to an encomium.


He then promises to glorify the exploits of the Roman side (τα ήμέτερα, incidentally!) and to do the reverse for the Parthians, before launching into his account with the not entirely unbiassed sentiment δ γάρ μιαρώτατος καί -κάκιστα άπολούμενος Ούολόγεσσος ήρ£ατο τχολεμεϊν δι' αιτίαν τοιάν&ε (14). It has been observed that Fi-onto's Principia Historiae, the preface to his account of the Parthian War, is 'simply a panegyric of Lucius Verus' (M.D. Brock, Studies in Fronto and his Age, p. 63), and indeed the first words of it that survive are '... tantas res a te gestas quantas Achilles gessisse cuperet et Homerus scripsisse'.

It has accordingly been sugg­

ested by several critics that Fronto is one of Lucian's targets;


and that perhaps Fronto is again Lucian's butt when

he speaks elsewhere in the De Historia Conscribenda (19) of the historian 'celebrated for the power of his eloquence'.


320 historian is a purist who will not admit Latin words, even to the extent of writing Frontis for Fronto, and Cronios for the Roman general Saturninus (21).

In addition, this writer

is prone to giving highly coloured versions of casualty figures (enemy dead: 70,236;

Roman casualties:

two dead, nine wounded)

and no less highly coloured descriptions of horrendous modes of death (such as the unfortunate warrior who expired on the spot when wounded in the big toe, 20) as also, we recollect, of picturesque scenic features such as Vologeses' trousers and Osroes' cave (19). The 'Lucianic faun' is obviously enjoying himself with this historian.

Possibly, in addition to gross exaggeration, we have

here an instance of caricature involving the blending of several figures into one, but I doubt whether Fronto is one of them: there is nothing that specifically suggests him, quite apart from the question of whether his Principia Historiae would have been likely to have been circulating in Greece at the time Luc­ ian was writing (before the triumph in October 166), and whether Lucian and his audience (assuming they spoke Latin) would have been likely to be familiar with it.

The comparison of the

victorious general to Achilles (14) is the sort of idea that any encomiastic historian might employ;

distorted casualty

figures are not unknown in news bulletins today;

and an

over-enthusiastic indulgence in ecphrasis is probably a fault to which any number of historians trained in the schools of

321 rhetoric might succumb (cf. Apuleius' description of the robbers' cave in Met. 4. 6, with its initial burlesque of the practice of rhetorical historians in introducing such passages; cf. Walsh, The Roman Novel, pp. 57, 58).

As to several of

Lucian's other criticisms of contemporary historians, they too sound probable enough:

a haziness on matters geographical,

for example (Hist. Consc. 24: to Mesopotamia;

the man who transported Samosata

mention of his own birth-place, even if not

quite so wildly misplaced in reality, is the sort of thing that would have caught Lucian's attention at a reading), or an inability to distinguish the important from the trivial and to prefer romance to fact (Hist. Consc. 28:

the 'historian'

who covered the Battle of Europus in seven lines but wrote a positive saga about a Moorish cavalryman and his visit to some hospitable Syrians;

'quelques éléphants de trop' there may

well be in Lucian's version,


but the tendency to romanticise

is not unknown to ancient historiography - witness Ctesias! and doubtless some of Lucian's contemporaries were prone to it as well).

In short, I see no reason to doubt that Lucian

actually attended some readings of the sort that he describes or witnessed some of the faults that he caricatures:


here, as

so often, his satire is likely to be a blend of literary reminiscence, contemporary reality and, of course, a large measure of fun. In the second half of his treatise Lucian turns to giving

322 some positive advice on the writing of history.

Like Thuc­

ydides, to whose principles (1. 20-22) he several times refers (Hist, Consc. 5, 42, 57), Lucian demands that the historian's primary concern is to tell the truth for the instruction of future generations;

and like Polybius he pours scorn on those

who so far lose sight of this aim as to confuse the laws of history and panegyric, or who commit blatant geographical errors because they have not taken the trouble to visit the terrain or to gather accurate information;

the errors committed

by would-be historians through lack of military knowledge are also castigated by Polybius, and he too had ridiculed those who let their rhetorical zeal run riot in the form of wildly improbable and unsuitable speeches.


The multifarious correspondences between the principles of historiography set forth in Lucian's treatise and the pronounce­ ments of previous historians and theorists have been collected by G. Avenarius (Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung. Meisenheim am Glan 1956), who concludes that, with two except­ ions, every single precept set forth by Lucian can be traced to earlier sources.

He rejects the idea that Lucian's work is 16 based on any one particular treatise on historiography and considers that Lucian is setting down in a superficial and haphazard manner reminiscences of the historiographical prin­ ciples that he learnt from his teachers in rhetoric (p. 178), at times contradicting himself (p. 168).

In brief,


323 arbeitet mit den üblichen Gemeinplätzen wie sie uns in den Geschichtswerken immer wieder begegnen' and has not enriched the ancient theory of historiography in a single point (p.165). As Grube, however, rightly comments, it seems likely that 'if we treated a modern essay, however original, on the writing of history in the same way we should no doubt achieve the same result' (The Greek and Roman Critics, London 1965, p. 336 n.l). However ’unoriginal' they may be, Lucian's main precepts fidelity to truth, impartiality, care in gathering, selecting and arranging one’s material, the careful distinction between the task of the historian and that of the orator, which last characteristic was by no means common to all historiographical theorists (cf. Grube p. 338) - are none the less sensible, and,, unless we are to assume that Lucian is indulging in pure invent­ ion all through the first part of the treatise, some at least of the historians of his age appear to have been oblivious of such principles. Lucian's treatise on How to Write History may not be, as \ 18 Croiset puts it, 'un livre à méditer', but was it ever intended to be?

In the closing years of the Parthian campaign

Lucian has observed that the literary topic that is all the rage in sophistic circles is the current war, and naturally he wants to be in the fashion too.

However, as so often, he pre­

fers to do something a little more unusual than the rest of the sophistic herd.

So he will not entertain his audience

324 with yet another history à la Thucydides or Xenophon or Herodotus:

they have all heard plenty of those already.


will 'roll his barrel' like Diogenes with a lecture on How to Write History, a theme which enables him to be in vogue and yet, at the same time, somewhat off the beaten track, 19 to divert his audience by reminding them of precepts for the writing of good history which they too probably heard in the rhetor's school, and at the same time to amuse them by making fun of the sort of thing that other men of letters were currently producing.

Croiset is probably right in con­

sidering that the satire of the first part 'est la vraie raison d'étre de tout l'ouvrage' (p. 243), but, taken as a whole, the treatise, with its blend of comedy in the first half and common sense in the second (much in the manner of the Lexiphanes), is eminently entertaining;

and that, whatever the merits or

demerits of the πώς δεϊ Ιστορΰαν συγγράφειν when viewed as a treatise on historiography, was almost certainly Lucian's primary aim. Encomium of Demosthenes The Encomium of Demosthenes, whose right to a place among Lucian's works has been hotly contested by some critics, has been interpreted by others as a satire by Lucian on another aspect of the sophistic art, namely as a parody of the con­ ventional manner of composing an encomium. Δημοσθένους έγκώμιον.

A. Bauer (Lukians

Paderborn 1914) devotes the first few

325 pages of.his thesis to drawing up the formidable array of scholars who have pronounced the work spurious, headed, in Wieland's words (voi. 6, p. 123), by 'Marcilius, Gronovius, pusoulius, Kusterus, la Crozius, Reitzius und anderer Herren in -us', and the almost equally formidable array of scholars who have considered it 'eine geistreiche Schrift' and eminently worthy of ranking with Lucian's genuine works, led by Gesner and Wieland, who think that the piece, at any rate in its. first half, is a satire on the trite encomiasts of Lucian's day. The main argument of those who deny the authenticity of the piece is that they find in it peculiarities of language and an avoidance of hiatus which they consider uncharacteristic of Lucian.


Bauer, on the other hand, examines the language

of the work and finds nothing in it which would prevent its being by Lucian;

in fact he considers that the language shows

'einen durchaus lukianischen Charakter' (p. 101).

He thinks

that the avoidance of hiatus is probably a deliberate parody of rhetorical practice.

Chabert, however (Atticisme de Lucien,

p. 153), concludes of Lucian's style in general that he tends to avoid hiatus, so that avoidance of hiatus in this work is neither a strong argument against its authenticity nor does it need to be explained in terms of parody:

it might simply

be the case that Lucian, if he is the author, is taking particular care on this occasion, for some reason, perhaps, as

326 Baldwin suggests (The Authorship and Purpose of Lucian's Demosthenis Encomium, Antichthon 1969, pp. 54-62), in view of Demosthenes' own practice, 'as a stylistic tribute to his subject '. As to the peculiarities of language, one's judgement about the authorship of the work must depend on how important one considers the fact that, for example, πότερον is used in a single question in 1, διαβαδίζειν is used in the future active instead of the future middle (1), καταψρονεϋν is used with the accusative in 5, whereas Lucian in other works uses it with the genitive, οίκάδε is used for oChol in 26, and so forth, 21 where in some cases even if there appear to be no precise examples of the usage in Lucian's other works, there are parallels in classical authors or later writers contemp­ orary with or prior to Lucian (e.g. for πότερον without a following η cf. Plato, Rep. 501d; Thuc. 6. 34;

καταφρονεΐν with acc.,

οίκάδε for οίκοι, Xen., Cyr. 1. 3. 4 etc.),


while even those works whose Lucianic authorship no one denies are not entirely without linguistic singularities (cf. Chabert pp. 183, 185 etc.).

Helm (Beri. Phil. Wocb. 1915, p. 1334)

acknowledges that it is an uncertain undertaking to try to determine questions of authenticity from the comparison of single phenomena of this nature (though he seems to have changed his mind by the time he wrote the article on Lucian in P.W.) and says that one's judgement on such questions ought rather

327 to rest on a sensitivity for the author's style as a whole, which Bauer, he feels, does not possess (p, 1335;

the same

presumably goes for Wieland and Gesner and everybody else who thinks the work genuine). him that the work is spurious.

His own sensitivity convinces My own feeling is that since

in other respects the work seems not unworthy of Lucian's talent, and since it is also conceivable that such deviations as there are from Lucian's normal usage might be due to a variety of factors, such as the date at which the work was composed, corruptions in the text, sheer human caprice or carelessness on Lucian's part, I cannot see sufficient reason for denying its authenticity. Is the Encomium of Demosthenes, however, as Bauer and others think, intended as a parody?

At the beginning, we have a dia­

logue between the narrator of the piece and a poet, Thersagoras, in which the former bewails the difficulty of composing an adequate encomium of Demosthenes, and Thersagoras maintains that it is much easier to write an encomium on Demosthenes than, as he has just done, to write in praise of Homer (1-9).


then demonstrates just how easy it is (10ff.), rattling off the conventional topoi (cf. Quintii. 3. 7. lOff., Hermogenes, Progymnasmata chap. 7 ed. Rabe):

Demosthenes' native land (which

provides, as he points out, a splendid opportunity for digress­ ions on the mythology, laws, institutions and the whole glorious history of Athens, all quite legitimate in an encomium, for one

328 would only be following the precedent set by Isocrates in his Helen, Dem. Enc. 10), his parentage and education (where one may again digress on the theme of the 'two kinds of love ... 13), his virtues, noble deeds and political actions. 23


Thersagoras has finally wound to a conclusion (22), the other informs him that he is well aware of the conventional way of composing an encomium, but, unlike the celebrated Anniceris of Cyrene, he does not want to drive round and round in the same ruts (23).

For years it has been his constant aim in

rhetoric to be original:

he is like Proteus turning himself

into many different shapes (24).

There follows in the second

half of the work (29ff.) another encomium of Demosthenes, in the form of a dialogue between his enemies Antipater and Archias, which purports to be an excerpt from some memoirs of the Macedonian Kings which Thersagoras has unearthed.

In this

Demosthenes is lauded for his eloquence (32), his noble char­ acter and incorruptibility (33-34), his value to Athens as a counsellor (35-37);

Philip is made to reflect on what a fine

general he would have made (38) and Aristotle, by a similar fiction, is quoted on his ability in philosophy (40); we have an account of Demosthenes' noble death.


This second

encomium too is based on conventional topoi, viz. έκ των έπιχηδευμάχων, the author apparently having tried to combine (by means of the fictions in 38 and 40) the Ρητορικόν β(ον, the σχραχιωχικόν βίον and the φιλόσοφον βίον mentioned by

329 Hermogenes (Prog. 7. 38), and it concludes in a conventional manner with the τρόπον τής τελευτής (Hermogenes ibid.). Thus we have, set in a dialogue frame, two encomia of Demosthenes, both based on headings laid down by the theorists but both composed in an unconventional manner, the first pre­ sented, as Helm observes (B.Ph.W. 1915 p. 1334), almost without the reader's noticing it, and the second set in dialogue form 24 by an ingenious piece of fiction, and all the more effective in that it is Demosthenes' enemies who are made to sing his praises. It is true that in the first half the author seems to be laughing up his sleeve at the run-of-the-mill rhetoricians and the triteness of the usual encomium:

one is reminded of Plato's

Menexenus (itself the object of controversy both as to intention and author, cf. Jowett, voi. 2 p. 495) in which Socrates shows how easy it is (234-5) to compose an encomium and employs (236ff.) the topoi of birth, education, native land, ancestors etc.

Bauer and Wieland, however, find satire in the second half

as well (e.g. in 38 and 40, on which Wieland comments 'By the help of Philip he had made a great general of him and now Arist­ otle must needs make him also a philosopher, a genuine·Lucianic trick which at least to me seems to betray unequivocally the 25 stamp of his wit!'), but if the work were designed primarily to satirize the use of conventional topoi, it seems strange to me that the author should compose a second encomium also based

330 on such topoi.

The second half of the work (in particular the

closing paragraphs) seems too solemn and too elevated in tone to be intended as satire;

and at the end of the work Demos­

thenes has been praised from every angle, as a supreme orator, a fine statesman and a noble patriot.

The most straightforward

interpretation of the piece is, I think, that it is designed to display the author's skill and versatility in handling the traditional encomium form by the composition of two encomia on the same theme, both embodying conventional topoi, but both pre­ sented in a lively, imaginative and unusual manner, thus demon­ strating that the author can go one better than the average rhetorician in the employment of such elements.

This, in fact,

is exactly what he is telling us he is doing in 22,-23:

he is

fully competent to compose an encomium according to the rules, but he wants to be original. It is a most ingenious piece of work, as Helm obviously felt, but he considered that, for that very reason, it is spurious: the whole conception, he was inclined to think, is too good for Lucian (B.Ph.W. p.1334).

But then Helm, as we have seen from

his examination of Lucian’s debt to Menippus, had the lowest opinion of Lucian's natural abilities.

It is the ingenuity of

the work as a whole, the desire for originality expressed in 22, 24, which seems to agree so well with Lucian's literary principles as set forth in Bis Acc. 33, and as displayed in most of his other works, and the humorous tone of the first

331 part (16, 22-25 etc.) that make me disinclined to pronounce the work spurious.

It seems to me, however, designed as a

piece of rhetorical virtuosity rather than a parody as Bauer 26 interprets it. The Parasite In the Parasite, writes Wieland,

'... methinks I discern in

several passages a wipe at the affected subtlety and tiresome prolixity of some of the Platonic dialogues'. 27

He presumably

has in mind such passages as 8, in which it is proved, with analogies from sea-faring and horse driving that 'parasitic' is not 'want of art', and 60-61, that it is a creditable art: Πότερον ίζα, Bibl. cod. 166. 111b) was Antonius Diogenes’ novel, the twenty-four books of The Wonders Beyond Thule (id imep Θουλην άπιστα, 109a);

but Photius1 resume of this long,

rambling narrative, with its multiple digressions and its tales within tales, 42 gives us little more information of relevance to Lucian's work than the bare facts that Antonius Diogenes made one of his characters visit Hades (109a) and another the moon, a 'bright shining land' (γην καθαρωτάτην),43 on which he saw 'what one might imagine he saw who makes up such exaggerated tales' (111a);

while this novel may have furnished Lucian with

one or two other ideas as well, such as the frozen sea (V. H. 2. 2;

Photius cod. 166. 109a 110b, although other sources also

probably played their part in this episode, as will be seen), and perhaps the fact that our hero's voyage in the True Story is motivated by intellectual curiosity (1. 5), like that of Antonius Diogenes' protagonist Deinias (Photius cod. 166. 109a

343 κατά ζήτησι,ν Ιστορίας).

Κ Reyhl (Antonios Diogenes ..., diss.

Tübingen 1969) considers that Lucian is drawing on Antonius Diogenes' novel for a great deal more than this.

In fact Reyhl

attempts to do for Antonius Diogenes what Helm tried to do for Menippus, to reconstruct the lost author from Lucian.


follows Helm in adopting the lowest opinion of Lucian's invent44 ive capacity (Reyhl p, 76) and comes to the same sort of con­ clusions as Helm did in his Lucian und Menipp.

Lucian's True

Story, Reyhl considers, reflects Antonius Diogenes' work on a very large scale;

'ohne die Apista wären die Wahren Geschichten

nicht möglich gewesen' (p.77).

It is in vain for Lucian to

inform his reader at the start that he is parodying a number of authors, to talk of poets, historians and philosophers (1.2), to refer by name specifically to Ctesias and Iambulus and Homer (1.3), or m e n t i o n Herodotus (2.31), or refer in passing to Aristophanes (1.19) and Antimachus of Colophon (2.42), and to assure his reader that there are other sources whom he would name, but for the fact that he will recognise them for himself from his reading (οΟς καί όνομαστί άν δγραφον, ε ί μη καί αύτφ σοι έκ της άναγνώσεως φανείσθατ έμελλον, 1.2) - according to Reyhl, this is all bluff!

('Also sind alle Hinweise des Lukian

auf Herodot, Ktesias und andere letztlich nichts als Bluff', P. 72). Objections to Reyhl's hypothesis have already been raised by G. Anderson (Studies in Lucian's Comic Fiction, pp.1-7, one

344 section of his book with which I am entirely in accord), for Reyhl’s arguments are open to the same criticisms that have been levelled against Helm.


Thus Reyhl (p.41), for instance,

goes to a phrase in the Apocalypse of John (9.17 'having breast­ plates of fire and brimstone') to support the suggestion that Lucian's celestial battle scene in Book 1 is based on Antonius Diogenes, when Lucian's 'helmets of beans ... and breastplates all of lupines' etc. (1.14) are far more likely to have been inspired by the comical armour worn by the combatants in the Batrachomyomachia (124-30, 161-5);

and similarly he does not

appear to consider it possible that.Lucian may be drawing di­ rectly on Megasthenes for his Moon-dwellers1 diet of vapours 4c (V.H. 1.13, Reyhl p.47). He supposes (p.52) the adventure with the whale (V.H. 1.30f.) to have come to Lucian from the pages of Antonius Diogenes, who m a y have taken it (if 0. Weinreich is correct) from that notorious teller of tall stories Antiphanes of Berge, who was one of Antonius Diogenes' sources, 47 according to Photius (112a); but even if this hypothesis is correct (and Photius mentions no adventure with a whale in his résumé of the novel), Lucian could equally well have read Antiphanes'

'Bergaean' nonsense for himself, and be including

him in the general parody of writers whom the reader is invited to recognise;

and the whale, in any case, may have been

suggested (as will be seen below) by other sources. In fact Reyhl puts too much emphasis on the phrase that

345 Photius uses to describe the relationship of Lucian's True Story to Antonius Diogenes' novel, viz. that the latter is the πηγη καί φίζα. of Lucian's work (111b).

Reyhl argues (p. 32)

that Photius carefully distinguishes between the literary successors of Antonius Diogenes:

one the one hand he is the

example (παράδειγμα) for Iamblichus, Achilles Tatius and Helio­ dorus (i.e. his lovers and their adventures provide the model for the tribulations of the lovers in the romances of those three writers);

but for Lucian, on the other hand, he is the

'source and root'.

True, but Photius' sentence also states -

and this Reyhl omits - that Antonius Diogenes is the 'source and root' for the Metamorphoses of Lucius of Patrae (καί γάρ τοϋ περί Αληθών διηγημάτων Λουκιανού και τοϋ περί μεταμορφώσεων Λουκίου πηγή και

£οικεν είΓναι τοϋτο) .

We only know the

general content of the first two books of the lost Metamorph­ oses, which Photius also discusses (cod. 129), namely that these two books comprised the same story that is told in the Lucius or the Ass attributed to Lucian, while the rest of the Metamorphoses, according to Photius, contained other such 48 transformation tales, but it looks as though Photius is using the phrase πηγη και όίζα in a very general sense in this case, the obvious resemblance between the Metamorphoses and the Wonders Beyond Thule being the theme of magic:

Antonius Dio­

genes' novel contained a magician who puts two of the prot­ agonists under a spell by which they live by night but are dead

346 by day (cod. 166. 110b).

So we may fairly be entitled to con­

clude that Photius is using the phrase in a general sense also in the case of Lucian's True Story.

What Photius appears to be

doing (111b fin.) is simply distinguishing between two groups of novels which he considers Antonius Diogenes influenced: romantic novels about the adventures of two lovers (Iamblichus etc.) and stories of fantastic adventures without this basic love element (the True Story and the Metamorphoses). One cannot possibly, therefore, conclude from what Photius says here, as Reyhl does (p. 32), that the correspondence be­ tween the Wonders Beyond Thule and the True Story must have been striking in many particulars, but only that there were some resemblances;

and these may have amounted to little more

than the basic idea of an episode, such as the visit to the moon in Book 1 and the visit to the Isles of the Blest in Book 2, and in these episodes the introduction of parody of other sources probably resulted in the complete transformation of whatever material was drawn from Antonius Diogenes' novel. Still less is one entitled to talk in terms of 'bluff' about Lucian's assertion in his preface that he is parodying a number of sources.

It is far more reasonable to conclude with A.

Stengel, who examines Lucian's sources in the True Story, chap­ ter by chapter, that Lucian took much from Homer, and a great deal from Herodotus, Ctesias and Iambulus, and other things besides from many other sources (De Luciani Veris Historiis,

347 Berlin 1911, p.91).

In particular, as it seems to me, Lucian

was drawing on a variety of those travellers' tales which so aroused Gellius' disapproval. The θαύματα described in these travellers' tales were firstly the physical features and climates of the lands visited, and their flora and fauna.

Ctesias described fountains of wine,

honey, and liquid gold (Photius cod. 72. 45b, 46a-b), Theo­ pompus rivers of Pleasure and Grief (Aelian, Var. Hist. 3.18): so Lucian has rivers of wine (filled with intoxicating fish, 1.7), fountains of honey and myrrh (2.13), springs of laughter and pleasure (2.16), and, most wondrous of all, a whole sea of 49 milk and an island of cheese (2.3). The climate of Iambulus' Islands of the Sun was one of perpetual spring, with crops all the year round (Diodorus 2.56), Theopompus' Anostus is. a place of perpetual twilight (Aelian ibid,): Lucian's Island of the 50 Blest has both elements (2.12-13). The giant reeds of India are described by many writers (Ctesias, Photius cod. 72. 45b; Megasthenes, Strabo 15,1,56;

Ps.-Callisthenes has a city built

on such reeds), from a single section of which a two-seater canoe can be made (Pliny, N.H. 7.2.21, cf. Hdt. 3.98);51 Ps.-Callisthenes, among other wonderful flora, includes a pair of talking trees which prophesy Alexander's death:

Lucian out­

does the marvellous reeds with his outsize asphodel (2.26), a single stalk of which provides a warship large enough for fifty oarsmen, and rivals the talking trees with his seductive female

348 vines (1.8).

The most fearsome animals are encountered by

Ps.-Callisthenes' intrepid adventurers, scorpions a cubit long, bats as big as eagles, lions bigger than bulls, ταυρέλεφαντες, talking birds with human faces and (best of all, in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions) 52 a dragon which they destroy with a combustible breakfast;

Ctesias inter alia

describes the μαρτίχορα, a man-faced beast as large as a lion with three rows of teeth and a scorpion's tail (Photius cod. 53 72. 45b); Iambulus provides tortoise-like creatures with eyes and mouth at both ends and legs all round, whose blood can glue on a detached arm (Diodorus 2.58):

Lucian's fauna

include three-headed vultures, spiders bigger than the Cyc­ lades, a Vegetable Bird (1. 11, 15, 13), the colossal whale (who is killed, rather like P s .-Callisthenes' dragon, by internal combustion, 1. 30ff.) and the enormous kingfisher, enlarged from the pages of Aristotle (2. 40, Hist. An. 542b and 616a).54 Even more weird than the animals of these strange lands are the inhabitants:

Iambulus' Sun-Islanders possess among other

characteristics the useful features of closeable ears and double tongues, with which they can carry on two conversations at once (Diodorus 2.56);

Megasthenes’ Ένωτοχοΐται (Strabo 15.1.

57) have such large ears that they can wrap themselves up in them at night, while Hecataeus and Ctesias describe the one55 legged Sciapodes, who use their outsize foot as a sunshade;

349 Ps.-Callisthenes supplies a galaxy of horse-faced, lion-headed, scaly-tailed men, men with asses' legs (camels' legs in the Ethiopic version), not to mention (ϋνδρες έζάχ,ειρες και. Ιμαντόποδες και κυνοπέρδυκες, while Pliny cites Duris and Eudoxus on similar creatures (N.H. 7.2.21;




rivals Ps.-Callisthenes' collection of half-men with his Καρκινόχει,ρες and θυννοκέφαλοl and Ψητχόπ,οδες (1.35) and his female 56 Ass-legs (2.46); and he provides a detailed study of thp inhabitants of the moon (1.21-6), who find the absence of women no bar to the procreation of offspring (a detail perhaps inspired by the androgynous Machlyes? Pliny N.H. 7.2.1), 57 are nourished by sniffing the smoke of roasted flying frogs (much in the manner of Megasthenes' &στομο(.),®^ have a tail like Ctesias' dog-headed men (Photius cod. 72. 47b, 48a), except that theirs happens to be a cabbage leaf, and whose natural functions parody those of Ctesias' milk-drinkers (V.H. 1.23-4, Photius cod. 72. 48b). The adventures of Lucian and his companions, like the wonders they see on their travels, were inspired by a variety of sources, including some of these travellers' tales:

the visits

to the Moon and the Isles of the Blest and the Damned, as pre­ viously mentioned, were suggested (perhaps in some of the de­ tails as well as the basic idea) by Antonius Diogenes' novel; like many seafarers of romance, including Odysseus and Iambulus, they suffer shipwreck;

and as Iambulus and his companions are

350 expelled from the Utopian Isles of the Sun for bad behaviour, so Lucian's company is expelled from the Isle of the Blest (2. 27;

Diodorus Siculus 2.60);

Ps.-Callisthenes' adventurers

are detained for thirty days by a terrible snowstorm (in the Armenian and Ethiopic versions), just as Lucian's travellers are halted for thirty days by a frozen sea (2.2), while Ant­ onius Diogenes' heroes also visit the far north (Photius cod. 166. 110b);

some of Alexander's men have unfortunate encount­

ers with whales (landing on one in mistake for an island, in the Greek, Armenian and Syriac versions of Ps.-Callisthenes, or getting swallowed by one, in the Ethiopic). 59 Various of the tellers of these tall stories were wont, it seems, to make earnest protestations of veracity:


Diogenes seems to have taken great pains to give his fantastic narrative an air of verisimilitude by citing 'authorities' for his fictions, or by making his hero declare vehemently that he had witnessed marvels so fantastic that nobody could have heard or seen or even imagined them (Photius cod. 166.111a);


Ctesias similarly made earnest professions of veracity, assert­ ing, while he told his fantasies about India, that he had seen these wonders himself, or learnt of them from eye-witnesses, and that he had left many things untold that were even more marvellous, because those who had not witnessed such things themselves might think them beyond belief (Photius cod. 72. 49b, 50a) - and that too after he had in the Persica heaped

abuse on Herodotus for telling lies! (Photius cod. 72. 35b, 36a).

In like fashion Lucian solemnly professes himself re­

luctant to comment on things he has not actually seen himself (V.H. 1.13), or expresses apprehension lest what he is about to tell his readers may prove too extraordinary for them to. believe (1.25), but nevertheless assures them, for example, that should they happen to go to the moon, they will, of course, see that he has not been deceiving them (1.26);

while, with

the scrupulous air of veracity assumed by Ctesias and Antonius Diogenes, he has informed his readers at the start that he is telling them nothing but - untruths. In addition to Antonius Diogenes and the tellers of travell­ ers' tales like Ctesias, a variety of other authors appear to have inspired details here and there in the True Story.


and Herodotus, whom Lucian names among his sources, furnish him with numerous ideas.^ (2.36, Od. 5);

Lucian's heroes visit Calypso's island

Homer's account of the land of dreams is ’cor­

rected' (2.32, 33, Od. 19. 560ff.);

the blood that flows in

the aerial battle (1.17) provides a mock serious explanation for the rain of blood in Iliad 16. 459.

From the mention in

Herodotus (4.82) of the footprint of Heracles to be seen in Scythia Lucian apparently gets the idea of making his travell­ ers come across the footprints of Heracles and Dionysus (1. 7), though he probably has in mind also the fact that most of the writers on India speak of the mythical conquests of that country

352 by Heracles and Dionysus;®1

and no doubt the ants two hundred

feet long (1. 16) are enlargements of Herodotus' gold-digging ants (3.102, although other writers on India also talk of them, 69 cf. Strabo 15.1.37, Arrian, Indica 15). Several poets besides Homer furnish Lucian with details for his parody.

The comic armour worn by Endymion's troops in the

aerial battle (1.14) is supplied by courtesy of the Batracho­ myomachia;

the moon men are forced to surrender when a wall of

cloud blocks off the rays of the sun (1.19), a stratagem well known to Aristophanes' Birds, whose city of Cloudcuckootown (1.29) reminds Lucian as he sails past on the descent to earth of what a wise and truthful poet Aristophanes is.


Queen Tyro's island of cheese in its sea of milk (2.3) aptly boasts a temple to her marine kinswoman-by-marriage, the Nereid Galatea, who, as Lucian's readers would doubtless recall from their Theocritus, was λευκοτέρα πακτας ποτι,δεΐν.


The lyrical

description of the Isles of the Blest (2.5f.), from whose fragr­ ant, flower-filled, meadows sweet breezes blow as from Arabia the Blest (Hdt. 3.113), whose woodlands resound with the song of birds and distant echo of flute and lyre and laughter, must owe some at least of its inspiration to Pindar and Aristoph­ anes;®^

while the island's more practical characteristics, the

loaves of bread that grow ready baked on the stalks of corn, the cups that fill themselves with wine, are no doubt suggested by many a Comic Utopia such as those cited by Athenaeus (6. 267e -

353 2 7 0 a).

The miracles on board Lucian's ship (2.41) involve

reminiscences of Apollonius Rhodius (4. 580f.) and the Homeric Hymn to Dionysus;

while the immediate inspiration of the

voyage over the forest growing in the sea (2.42) was probably the combination of the line that Lucian cites from the poet Antimachus of Colophon with Megasthenes' description of trees growing in the Indian Ocean. 65 The True Story is indeed a most rich and erudite parody. It is, as Bompaire says, 'd'une rare densite parodique' (p.672). Lucian darts from one source to another with dazzling rapidity, combining, exaggerating, and adding from his own invention at the same time.

Precisely how much we cannot, of course, say

with certainty, since so many of the works parodied here are lost, but in some cases we can see how Lucian takes the merest suggestion of an idea from some source and transforms it into something completely new:

in 1. 40-42, for instance, Lucian

describes a sea-battle, perhaps intending to burlesque descrip­ tions of such battles in Thucydides;®®

from Herodotus he takes

the mention of a floating island, from Homer the divine fire with which he surrounds the heads of his heroes, 67 and, combin­ ing both elements, he makes his naval combatants giants, with flames for hair, who sail upon huge floating islands, adding to this a variety of picturesque details, that their oars are cypress trees, their missiles enormous oyster shells, their grappling irons giant squids;

while the whole battle is viewed

354 from the vantage point of Lucian's company behind the vast teeth inside the whale's mouth. In the Hermotimus (74) Lucian describes the technique of how to make a convincing piece of fiction:

one makes an absurd

supposition and then fills in all the details and logical con­ sequences with careful consistency;

if one invents a man with

three heads and six hands, one must describe his six eyes and his three voices coming from three mouths, his thirty fingers, his three shields, his three sets of weapons when he goes forth to war - and who, he asks, would not believe the man who told his tale like that?

This is the technique that Lucian employs

when telling his True Story;

and in this way he has succeeded

in producing what is not only a highly ingenious parody but at the same time something that is in its own right a most amusing and inventive piece of fiction.®8 Lucius or The Ass The Λούχοος ή' Όνος, that most entertaining tale of a man whose interest in magic results in his transformation into an ass, is denied by some critics a place among Lucian's works because of the presence of a large number of ’un-Lucianic' expressions in it;

others claim to have discovered in it an

equally large number of peculiarly 'Lucianic' expressions and ideas and therefore consider it genuine. the

Some scholars regard

work as a mere epitome of part (or the whole) of a lost

novel, the Metamorphoses ascribed by Photius to one Lucius of

355 Patrae (Bibi. cod. 129;

cf. cod. 166. 111b);

that it is a parody of that novel.

others believe

Another view is that al-

though the Onos 69 itself is an epitome and is not by Lucian, nevertheless it was Lucian who was the author of the lost Meta­ morphoses;

and there are other views as well:

that Lucian

wrote both works, and that Lucian wrote neither. 70 Photius, who had read both works, tells us this about the Onos and its relationship to the lost Metamorphoses (cod. 129): that the Metamorphoses of Lucius of Patrae was a work consisting of several books, of which the first two were almost a transcr­ iption of Lucian's Λοΰκυς (sic)

Όνος, unless Lucian, in fact,

copied his work from the Metamorphoses.

Photius does not know

which of the two authors wrote first, but considers that Luc­ ian's work looks more like a copy, in a shortened form, of Luc­ ius' tale:

'for Lucian has, as it were, filed down and removed

from the bulk of Lucius' books everything that did not seem to him to be useful for his own purpose, and has fitted together what remained into one book, using the very words and syntax of the original, and giving the title Lucius or the Ass to what was stolen thence'.

Each work, Photius declares, is full of

fictitious stories and shameful obscenity, but whereas Lucius of Patrae was in earnest, and really believed in the metamorph­ osis of men into other men, beasts into men, and vice versa, Lucian composed his book with the intention of mocking and ridiculing such superstition, as he does in his other works

356 (σκώπτων καί διασύρων την Ελληνικήν δεισιδαιμονίαν, ώσπερ κάν τοϊς άλλοις). It is, however, difficult to see why Photius should consider the Onos satirical.

Here we have a fairy story about an in­

quisitive man meddling in the supernatural with unfortunate consequences to himself.

It is a humorous tale, because there

is inevitable comedy in the basic situation of a man turned 71 into an animal, but retaining his human mind and tastes, and many of the situations are comic, such as the ass feeling shocked by the lecherous behaviour of the eunuch priests (38), the ass being unable to restrain his curiosity when hidden in the upper storey of a house and thus revealing the hiding place (45), the ass dining in style and performing 'tricks' (47-9), his encounter with the rich Pasiphae, and his subsequent chast­ ening discovery,when restored to human shape .that his inamorata preferred him as an ass (56).

There is, to be sure, one comic

episode which is satirical in tone, in that the hypocritical eunuch priests of the Syrian Goddess are there presented in a ridiculous and repulsive light (36-42), but the presence of this one episode does not mean that the basic conception of the work as a whole was that of a satire on superstition. 72 A theory advanced by E. Rohde to account for Photius' opinion was that the author of the Onos substituted the name of the author of the Greek Metamorphoses, Lucius of Patrae, for the (unknown) name of the hero of the original tale, thus

357 making a facetious parody of the original, the superstitious author himself becoming the ass.

However, there seems no reason

to doubt that the name of the hero of the lost Metamorphoses was Lucius of Patrae, like that of the hero of the Onos. Photius tells us of the close relationship, even to the use of the same words and syntax, of the two Greek versions;

he surely

would have remarked on the fact if the name of the hero had been different.

It has also been proved convincingly that the

Onos and a Latin version of the same story, Apuleius' novel, the Metamorphoses, both derive independently from the lost Greek Metamorphoses, 73 and the name of the hero in that is Lucius (although Apuleius makes him come from Corinth). The ass story in both our extant versions is basically the same (a man is turned into an ass when he dabbles in magic, and has various adventures in his asinine form until he finds the antidote to the spell);

and it contains the same episodes (such

as the capture by brigands, the encounter with the eunuch priests etc.), told in the same way, even to the extent of close verbal parallels, the only difference between the two versions being that Apuleius has added a good deal of material to the framework of the tale in the form of inset stories, and has given it a more elevated (and autobiographical) ending, as Luc­ ius becomes an initiate of Isis.

It appears, therefore, that

the ass story in the lost Greek Metamorphoses must have been of the same humorous character as the extant Onos and the Latin

358 Metamorphoses.

So, even if the author of the Onos had, for

example, substituted Lucius of Patrae for an original Lucius of Corinth, it is difficult to see how, on Rohde's theory, the Onos could have been turned into a parody by that means. Perry's very reasonable supposition is that Photius must have assumed that since the story of the Metamorphoses was told in the first person (as in the extant versions), the hero's name and the author's name were identical, viz. Lucius of Patrae.

Perhaps this was sheer oversight on Photius' part,

or, more probably, his copy of the Metamorphoses provided him with no other name for the author.

Lucius of Patrae could not

be the author's real name, Perry argues, because no ancient author would represent himself in a story as having been changed into an ass (The Metamorphoses ascribed to Lucius of Patrae, p. 14;

cf. The Ancient Romances, p. 212).

He is probably


certainly, as he observes, we are not entitled to assume

that Lucius of Patrae is any more a real person than 'Baron Munchausen or Mr. Gulliver' (The Metamorphoses ascribed to Lucius of Patrae, p. 15). Rohde's theory, therefore, that the author of the Onos has parodied the lost Metamorphoses by changing the name of the hero, and that that is why Photius considers the Onos to be satirical, is not at all convincing.

Furthermore, it looks as

though all the author of the Onos has done is to abridge the humorous story he found in his original.

Could the author,

359 therefore, be Lucian?

Could Lucian, author of works like the

True Story and the Rhetorum Praeceptor and the Menippean pieces, with their blend of dialogue and comedy and Cynic satire, really descend to being a'mere epitomator, passing off somebody else's work as his own? It is certainly not Lucian's normal method of composition to borrow somebody else's material without altering it in any way so as to make it his own creation. the Onos suspect.

That, for a start, makes

Furthermore, certain of the linguistic feat­

ures which various scholars have dubbed 'un-Lucianic' do, in this case (taken in conjunction with the fact that the work looks like a mere epitome), appear convincing:

e.g. οίδας (11),

whereas Lucian elsewhere has οΓσθα 107 times, οίδας being found only twice without a variant in the MSS;

ήμηυ for fiv (15), a

form condemned by grammarians and found only once elsewhere in Lucian without a variant;

οϋκοϋντα ές τά. "Υπατα (1), which is

quite without parallel in Lucian's works (could Lucian really write anything so glaringly un-Attic?

I am not a bit comforted

by Rohde's parallel from the twelfth century Theodorus Pro­ dromus!);

and a large number of inconsistencies, such as κελεύω

with the dative (48) but correctly with the acc. (12);


with the acc. (51) but correctly with the dative (24, 30, 35); ä uèv ... & δέ (23) but τα μέν ... τα δέ (7);

έπει,δάν used

twice correctly with the subjunctive (6, 9) but once incorrectly with the optative (21:

Neukamm counts about twenty such in-

360 74 consistencies). Of course, if one could persuade oneself that Lucian would, for some reason, publish an epitome (and a rather hasty and badly done epitome at that), 75 or that the work were anything other than a mere epitome, one could argue that some of these instances were due to 'Homer nodding', and others to the care­ lessness of a scribe (which may equally well account for the isolated parallels to such features elsewhere in Lucian). Those who defend the authenticity of the Onos are wont to fall back on a phrase used by W. Schmid, 'mimische Erzählung' (Neue Jahrbücher 13 (1904), 485), and argue that a frivolous comic novel or short story of this kind would naturally be written in a less formal, more colloquial,

'lower' style than, say, a

rhetorical showpiece or serious philosophic treatise.^®


ever, while this factor would certainly account for some of the linguistic features that have bothered scholars (such as colloquial sounding phrases like otxίδιον ανεκτόν, 1; οίκοι έδράξατο, 25;

εί. των

cf Helm's list, P.VJ. p. 1749), especially

since, as has been observed, Lucian is by no means an inflexible Atticist, 77

it is not such a satisfactory explanation

for the presence in the Onos of verb forms like οίδας and fiunv, or for the occurrence of a fairly large number of instances of bad grammar in a work which is basically in good Attic Greek. Rohde believes such linguistic features to be deliberate parody of the style of the lost Metamorphoses, but apart from the fact

361 that Photius pronounced the style of that work to be good (cod. 129), and apart from the fact that Rohde's parody theory is un­ convincing on other grounds, the distribution of such instances is much too sporadic to be effective as parody. 78 The most straightforward explanation of the two facts, that the Onos appears to be nothing more than an epitome of somebody else's work, and that it contains in addition a number of verb forms uncharacteristic of Lucian and a fair sprinkling of bad grammar, is that it is not by Lucian.

At this point, however,

the defenders of the Onos would urge that there remain other arguments on their side.

Firstly there are what various schol­

ars have considered 'Lucianic peculiarities' in the language of the Onos which are supposed to indicate his hand in the compos­ ition;

and secondly there are other ways of interpreting the

work as a parody.

Above all, there is Perry's hypothesis,

which has won wide acceptance, that although the Onos itself is an epitome, and not by Lucian (hence the 'un-Lucianic' lingu­ istic features), nevertheless the presence of this work in the MSS of Lucian, and the 'Lucianic peculiarities' in the language of the Onos, can both be accounted for on the supposition that the lost Metamorphoses itself was by Lucian, and that Photius misinterpreted the character of that work:

it was not written

in a spirit of superstitious credulity, as he supposed, but was itself designed as a satire on such credulity. The 'Lucianic peculiarities' in the language of the Onos,

362 however, are not convincing:

Perry provides a list of them

in The Metamorphoses ascribed to Lucius of Patrae, pp. 67 - 73 (drawing on studies by V.Neukamm and C.F.Knaut).

The instances

selected consist very largely of expressions attested in Class­ ical authors, which could have been used by any other sophist of Lucian's age with Atticist tendencies (e.g. τά έν ποσϊ (20) used four times elsewhere by Lucian, but also found in Plato (Theaet. 175b) and Thucydides (3.97);

σαρδώνιον (σαρδάνιον

O.C.T.) γελώντες (24), cf. Luc., J. Trag. 16, but also Plato, Rep. 337a άνεκάγχασε σαρδάνιον;

ευκαταφρόνητος (4), one of

Lucian's 'favourite' words according to Perry, but also quite a favourite with other prose writers, both Classical (Xen., Dem. etc.) and later, cf. Liddell and Scott). Perry collects more phrases in C.Ph. 21 (1926), 225ff., which he considers typical of Lucian, but they do not seem to me much more convincing than the others:

e.g. Onos 4 the

description of the wealthy Abroea with her slaves, gold jewelry, and ίμάτια άνθινά, with which Perry compares D. Meretr. 6.2, Tox. 15 and D. Meretr. 9. 2, singling out 'flowery raiment' in particular as being found in four other passages in Lucian (έσθητα άνθινήν Demon. 16 etc.);

but what else would an ancient

writer select when describing the outward appearance of a rich woman than her clothes, jewelry and attendants?

And 'flowery

raiment' is a phrase often used in describing female dress, especially that of courtesans (cf. Liddell and Scott, άνθινος:

363 hence Eratosthenes' description of how Bion the Borysthenite 'tarted u p ’ philosophy with his attractive style, πρώτος Βίων τήν φιλοσοφίαν άνθινό. ένέδυσεν, Diog. Laert. 4. 52);


most convincing example, perhaps, is his comparison of Onos 36 (δναιο 5è τούτων των καλών γάμων καί τέκοις ταχέως ήμϊν πώλους τοιούτους) with D. Meretr. 14. 4 (δναιο αύτου ... καί γένοιτο ίιμϊν παιδίον δμοιον τζί πατρί) where he sees deliberate word-play in the fact that the word δνος has previously occurred in both instances, but apart from the fact that a sarcastic joke on a commonplace sentiment (cf. ούτως όναίμην των τέκνων Aristoph., Thesm. 469, Demosth. 28. 20 etc.) is an obvious one, a play on words was not necessarily intended in either case, δνος standing three lines away from δναιο at Onos 36, and occurring in a proverb in a quite different context at D. Meretr. 14.4 (όπόταν &.ÖTJ ... δνος αύτολυρίζων) . With regard to the second argument, that the lost Metamorph­ oses was satirical (and therefore, of course, the Onos also, its epitome), and that Photius has misinterpreted it, Perry offers in proof 'the simple fact that the Eselmensch is a litterateur and an investigator of marvels' (The Metamorphoses ascribed to Lucius of Patrae, p.53;

cf. Onos 55).

Personally, I cannot see

that there is anything more 'satirical' in the story of how such an educated man’s interest in the occult leads him into mis­ adventure than there is, for example, in the tale in the Arabian Nights of how the thieving of 'quicksilver' Ali of Cairo results

364 in his being turned into an ass (among other creatures) by a magician.

Sold, in his asinine form, to a water carrier, Ali

reflects that such uncongenial employment will speedily ruin his health;

and he extricates himself from his predicament by

making to leap upon his owner's wife with lascivious intent (cf. Onos 32), with the desired result that the water carrier returns his unsatisfactory and libidinous purchase to the vendor.

In another adventure (as a bear) Ali narrowly escapes

the butcher's knife (cf. Onos 39, Apul., Met. 8.31 - 9.2; Burton's transl. of the Arabian Nights, voi. 7, p. 199f.).


seems to me that the Arabian Nights tale, like our Greek story, is comic, bawdy and entertaining, and that is all. In The Ancient Romances (pp. 220, 221) Perry expands his view of the lost Metamorphoses as a satire.

He argues that the

hero of the ass story is 'a Roman of high social standing' (be­ cause of the reference at Onos 55 to the 'tria nomina' which indicate Roman citizenship) and that since all the other heroes and heroines of ancient romance, even in Latin literature, are Greek or Oriental, the fact that the hero of the Metamorphoses is a Roman would be startling to an ancient reader.


the satire is directed either against a real and particular Roman writer or (more .probably) against 'superstitious people in general, of which high born Romans ... v/ere thought of as being typical' ... 'it seems certain that the author of our story thought of prominent Romans as being on the whole a

365 credulous lot'.

P.G. Walsh (C.J., March 1968, pp. 264-5)

replied that there is no anti-Roman sentiment in Lucius or the Ass;

and that in Apuleius the hero identifies himself as a

Greek (Met. 1. 1) and claims descent on his mother's side from Plutarch:

Walsh thinks it more likely that Lucius is a Greek

who possesses Roman citizenship obtained by his father or a 79 remoter progenitor. However, let us grant to Perry, for the sake of argument, that the hero of the Onos (and therefore the lost Metamorphoses) is a Roman, the fact remains that there is nothing else in the piece that indicates that the author felt that Romans were any more credulous than, the rest of mankind. In any case, we only have a handful of ancient novels extant, and it may be pure chance that we do not happen to have a 'high born Roman' as the hero of another. Perry's arguments, therefore, do not prove that the Onos let alone the lost Metamorphoses - is satirical, nor that the language of the Onos shows such marked 'Lueianic peculiarities' as to necessitate Lucian's having had a hand in the composition 80 at some stage. The Onos still looks to have been nothing more than an epitome of a comic story that formed the first two books of the Metamorphoses written by an unknown author whom, for want of anything better, we shall have to continue to call Lucius of Patrae,

Perhaps one further suggestion deserves

consideration, the idea that the Onos was designed to parody the Ideal Romance, because 'the usual adventures of the ideal

366 hero are assigned to a humble ass' and at Onos 25, for instance, we find the author using a theme frequently found in this type of novel, robbers plotting a grisly fate for their victim (G. Anderson, Studies in Lucian's Comic Fiction, pp. 87 and 118). There is, however, no reason why the author of a comic novel or short story should not employ some of the motifs used in a diff­ erent type of novel:

the mere use of such themes does not turn 81 the work into a parody. There still remains the fact that Photius, who had read both the lost Greek Metamorphoses and the extant Onos, thought that the author of the Metamorphoses was a credulous believer of superstitious nonsense, while the author of the Onos, whom he accepted as Lucian, wrote his abridged version of the ass story in order to ridicule such superstition.

How do we account for

that? The simplest solution of all the problems seems to me to be that, whoever the author of the lost Metamorphoses was, our extant epitome of the ass story is not by Lucian:

hence the

'un-Lucianic' language, the 'Lucianic peculiarities’ being merely instances where the epitomator has copied his original faithfully, whose style Photius praises (δστι 6è τήν φράσί-ν σαφής τε καί. καθαρός καί φίλος γλυκύτητος cod. 129 init.).


similarity of the names Lucius and Lucian, and the fact that this is an amusing story about magic and adventure - and Lucian was known to tell amusing stories involving magic and fantastic

36? adventure (Philopseudes, Vera Historia) - caused the (anonymous, Qρ epitome to be incorporated among Lucian's works. Photius' impression that the Onos was satirical stemmed from the fact that he regards Lucian first and foremost as a satirist of his age and its religious beliefs (cod. 128 fin.).

With this

idée fixe in his head he. automatically assumes that the Onos which he finds attributed to Lucian in his copy of that author's works must necessarily differ from the almost identical, albeit longer, account in the Metamorphoses in being written with the same satirical intent that Lucian displays in his other works. Photius' impression that the author of the lost Metamorphoses really believed in such superstitious tales was probably due in part, as Perry suggests, to the fact that he took the name of the hero of the first person narrative, Lucius of Patrae, to be that of the author:

it seems that St Augustine made the

same mistake with regard to Apuleius (De Civ. Dei 18. 18. Perry, The Ancient Romances, p. 212).

Photius' belief in the

author’s credulity may also have been conditioned by the con­ tents of the rest of the Metamorphoses, the other tales of transformation that his account suggests the work comprised unless, that is, we are to believe with Perry that there were no other tales.

But that is another story.

and their shadows now!

Enough of asses

368 The Tragodopodagra and Ocypus Q O

The Tragodopodagra Com i c

is parody only in the sense that the

Muse there 'struts in heroics, and in pompous verse does the minutest incidents rehearse'.

It is, as Bompaire observes (Lucien Écrivain, p.642), a sort of mock encomium of the gout - Favorinus wrote one in praise of Quartan Fever (Gell., Noct. Att. 17. 12) - cast in the form of a burlesque tragedy.

Delz dismisses it as 'ein witzloses

Machwerk' (Gnomon 32 (1960), 761). ion of its worth.

Others have a higher opin­

Zimmermann 's study (Luciani quae f e r u n t u r

Podagra et Ocypus, Leipzig 1909) has drawn attention to its clever use of unusual metres, 84 and Bompaire, with reason, pronounces it 'une vraie Symphonie de themes parodiques' (Lucien Ecrivain, p. 645). 85 It is an ingenious and entertaining little piece, and certainly not devoid of humour.

The customary messenger speech

is here delivered by an acolyte of the invincible goddess, Gout, who has made all haste to bring his mistress urgent tidings of her foes, and who describes with feeling the diff­ iculties and dangers of his arduous journey (221ff.) - the five painful wooden stairs, the flinty path, the hazardous highway with whirling chariots to dodge, νωθρόν ελαφρά κουφίζων τιόδα yet here he is at last, having covered in but five days the immense distance of four hundred yards:

ώς κραι.τίνος έπτης,

369 άγγέλων ώκιστέ μοι, the delighted deity exclaims!

The goddess

reveals herself to be that dread Ate, of whom the poet Homer sang as one who never sets soft foot upon the ground (Iliad 19. 91-4;

Trag. 185-7).

She it was, if truth be told, who

laid low the heroes of legend - swollen-footed Oedipus, Achilles of the famous Heel, Philoctetes so long tormented with his leg, and many more (250-264):

one is reminded of how Proteus and

Empusa were actually pantomime dancers, while Nestor and Patr­ oclus were ancient adepts at the art of 'parasitic' (Salt. 19, Par. 44f.);

and of the demise of Alexander of Abonuteichos

from a disease of the foot, an end well suited to the son of Pod-aleirius (Al. 59). wreaths of elder (74),

The chorus of Initiates, aptly wearing 86

sing eloquently of the spring (44f.), 8T fit season for their rites, hymn the birth of their Goddess in Homeric style,


at whose appearance all creation laughed

(108f.) - as well it might at the advent of one whose followers would fill the world with merriment at their expense (332-3) 89 and emulate the Orphic hymns in lauding her with six verses consisting entirely of extravagant compound epithets (198 203).


The miscreant quacks from Syria, who dare resist her

might with secret ancestral ointment, are forced to sample their own medicine, and learn, as all presumptuous mortals must, from Salmoneus to Niobe, that it is vain to vie with gods above; and our drama closes with that sage reflection, inspired by many a Euripidean epilogue


370 πολλά!, μορφαί των - άτυχοϋντων ... Not such a 'witzloses Machwerk', surely? The Ocypus, in comparison, is but a pale shadow of the former piece.

If the preamble were not obliging enough to

inform us that this is a δράμα των πάνυ άστε ίων, we might never have guessed, for a fair sample of the height of wit that the author seems able to reach is some elephantine play on the doctor's name (78, 79), the elaborate revelation of the name of the disease to which his hero is reluctant to admit (135ff.), and a feeble exchange of taunts between 'Swiftfoot' and his elderly attendant as the older man supports the younger's tottering steps (40ff., a theme resumed at the end, if end it is).

The author, who does not venture beyond the iambic tri­

meter, unlike the accomplished composer of the other work, takes shocking liberties with his metre, it seems, committing awful sins like fourth foot spondees;


and would appear to

have had some difficulty padding out his verses:

e.g. two

lines ending τοΰ πάθους την συμφοράν (77 and 125); πίστευέ μου, τοΰτο γοΰν άκουέ μου (61 and 104);

τοϋτσ δη

τί δ ’ §στ'

έκεΐνο, τί 6' δστι δεινόν, τί 6' έστι χείρον (134, 144, 148) (cf. Zimmermann pp. 67, 68);

and one might add the repetition

of μόνος at the end of lines 107 and 112, whose sole purpose seems to be to fill out the metre.

Furthermore, as Zimmermann's

study of the language shows, our author is no more an accom­ plished grammarian than he is a metrician:

ποΐ ποΐ καθεύρω

371 κλεινόν Ώκύπουν, φίλοι (68);

ήλθεν ... έν δόμοις (105);


with the subjunctive in a consecutive sense (62), etc. The problem is whether either of these works is really by Lucian.

Some critics deny the authenticity of both pieces;

others have maintained that both are genuine, a position which, as Zimmermann concludes (p.79), is quite untenable:

it is in­

conceivable that two pieces on the same subject but so different in quality in every way should both be by Lucian;

and still

less likely that they could represent the beginning and the end 93 of the same play. On the other hand, Lucian's verse parodies in the Menippean works, and the excellent fooling in the delib­ erately banal and unmetrical epithalamium composed by the dimwitted grammarian of the Convivium (41) make it impossible to deny that Lucian would have been capable of composing the accomplished Tragodopodagra. 94 Zimmermann cites (pp. 79, 80) a letter from Libanius to his friend Acacius (Ep. 1380), from which it emerges that the latter had written a comedy on the Gout;

and the main theme of Lib­

anius 1 letter, like the theme of the Ocypus, is the habit of persons afflicted with the disease not to confess the true nature of their malady.

On the basis of this letter Zimmermann

argues, following a suggestion made by Sievers, that the Tragod­ opodagra is by Lucian, while the Ocypus was written in the fourth century by Acacius.

He further observes that after the

Ocypus in Γ is found Libanius' πρός Άριστείδην περί των

372 όρχηστών (ρ. 81). supposition.

It seems to me an eminently convincing

The objection that there is no chorus in the

Ocypus, whereas one is apparently implied at the end of Libanius' letter, 95 can be met either by the observation that Libanius is speaking in a figurative fashion and it is not necessarily implied by his words that Aeacius' play contained a chorus;

or, as I think more probable, by supposing that we

do not have the whole of the Ocypus:

the hypothesis to the

Ocypus mentions a chorus of gouty Thebans, as well as Pain and a messenger, who do not appear in our play either (ή uèv σκηνή τοϋ δράματος ύποκεϊται έν θήβαι,ς·

ò δε χόρος συνέστηκεν ég

έπιχωρίων ποδαγρών συνελεγχόντων τόν 'Ωκύπουν .... τό. τοΰ δράματος πρόσωπα Ποδάγρα, Ώκύπους, Τροφεύς, 'Ιατρός, Πόνος, “Αγγελος).

It has been suggested that this hypothesis was

added to the Ocypus by a later editor who wished to unite the Tragodopodagra and Ocypus into a single play. 96

That it was

added by a later editor and not the author I do not doubt (an author would hardly include in his own hypothesis the statement το δε δράμα τώυ πάνυ Αστείων), but the description of the chorus as consisting of gouty men from Thebes, συνελεγχόντων τόν 'Ωκύ­ πουν, does not suit the chorus of Initiates in the Tragodo­ podagra, who do not argue with the hero or refute him;


there are two doctors in the Tragodopodagra (212, 265 etc.), so why should this later editor talk of just one list of characters?

Ιατρός in his

Furthermore, Gout summons her torments

373 (βάσανοι 282) in the plural, and they reply in the plural (288), so why should this editor talk oi a single Πόνος? It is surely simpler to suppose that we have lost part of the Ocypus, in which there is indeed one doctor, from whom our hero tries to hide the nature of his illness;

and that in the

missing part there appeared the chorus of gouty Thebans, who no doubt questioned the hero, and were not deceived by his excuses either.

The subject matter of the Ocypus agrees so

well with the theme of Libanius' letter to Acacius, his own reluctance to admit that he had gout, that it seems entirely likely that this is the play Acacius wrote, perhaps, as Gesner 97 suggested, in imitation of the Tragodopodagra, a poor imit­ ation to be sure, but Libanius tells us that the audience greeted it with acclaim (ήσθησαν καί. έγέλασαν &παντες). The Tragodopodagra itself there is no reason to deny to Lucian. 'An epigram is also ascribed to him, addressed to that same invincible goddess, who spurns the 'brassless' threshold of the poor and comes only πλούτου πρδς πόδας (Anth, Pal. 11. 403, Jacobitz 47).

Perhaps we may indeed infer from his own

Homeric jest about his elderly feet, βραδέες δέ τοι ίπποι (Here. 7), that Lucian in his turn had succumbed to 'the rich man's disease';


and that like the hero of his play he had

learnt to endure his fate έμπαιζόμενσς καί σκωπτόμενος, τοϊον γάρ έφυ τόδε πράγμα.

374 The Syrian Goddess and the Astrology There are two schools of thought about the Syrian Goddess. There are those who flatly deny that it is by Lucian and those who maintain that it is a genuine work and is intended as a parody of Herodotus.

The main reason put forward by those who

deny the authenticity of the work is the author's apparent credulity and his taste for the marvellous:

'on voit à quel

point tout cela diffère des opinions souvent et fermement exprimées par Lucien sur les oracles et les faits surnaturels' writes Caster (Lucien et la Pensée Religieuse de son Temps, p. 361), while Helm declares (P.W. Lukianos, s.v. de Syria Dea) 'Lucian kann es (sc. the author) unmöglich gewesen sein wegen des ernsten Tones der in der Schrift herrscht'. On the other side Wieland maintains that 'the refined class of readers will nevertheless perceive the pointed ear of the Lucianic faun appear ... and be the more confirmed thereby in the belief of the genuineness of this performance' (Tooke voi. 2 p, 433, Wieland voi. 5 p. 290n.), an opinion to which Strong and Garstang subscribe (The Syrian Goddess, preface), also Harmon (Loeb voi. 4 p. 337) and Bompaire, who describes it as a 'parodie voilée' (Lucien Écrivain, p. 647), while conceding that the second half (49ff.) seems to bear out Caster's view, the explanation for this being, he says, that Lucian failed to carry out his plan adequately. Greek Literature, p.845):

Lesky disagrees (History of

'Those who do not try to read parody

and irony between the lines at all costs, as partly done again by Bompaire, must deny that this work of religious-historical importance is Lucian's, as argued recently by J. Delz'. what is Delz's 'argument'?

It is this:


'Ich kann in der

religionsgeschichtlich hoch-interessanten Schrift mit dem besten Willen weder komische Züge noch irgendwelche Verwandschaft mit qq Lukian entdecken' (Gnomon 32 (1960), 761). One cannot, however, help wondering whether those critics who deny the authenticity of this work have really considered the resemblances between the way in which the Syrian Goddess is composed and the manner of Herodotus (cf. Harmon's notes passim and Bompaire pp. 647-50).

Firstly, the author's method of

presenting his material is similar to that of Herodotus.


is the careful distinction between eyewitnesses and hearsay evidence:

in describing the temple of the Syrian Goddess and

its history and institutions he declares (1) that some things he saw himself and others he learnt from the priests, just as Herodotus (2. 99) distinguishes between what he saw himself and what he learnt from the Egyptian priests;

sometimes the author

specifies with Herodotean scrupulousness that he is not writing from eyewitness knowledge, έγώ μέν ulv ούκ δπωπα ... (5), cf. Hdt. 1. 183 έγώ μέν


ούκ εϊδον ...

to be withholding information:

Sometimes he professes

in mentioning, for instance,

the wooden figures placed on the phalluses in the temple (28) he says with Herodotean reticence δτευ μεν εΐνεκα έγώ ούκ έρέω,

376 cf. Hdt. 2. 46 (on the Egyptian representation of Pan with the head and feet of a goat) δτευ 6è εϊνεχα ... οΰ μοι {“ιδιών έστι λέγειν (cf. 2. 47, 2. 61). Secondly, the author adopts an attitude towards the stories he tells which mirrors Herodotus' blend of scepticism and credulity.

He declares that he does not necessarily believe

all the stories he heard in Hierapolis (τους έγώ τχάντας μεν έρέω, δέχομαι δέ ούδαμα 11);

in recounting the myth of the

river changing colour from the blood of Adonis he says he pre­ fers a more rational explanation (8), and with regard to the scorpion who prevents the priest living on the pillar from falling asleep, he adds that personally he suspects that it is fear of falling that keeps him awake (29, cf. 28).'

On the

other hand he solemnly states that it is proved that Dionysus founded the temple because the god left an inscription saying so (16), and relates with an air of credulity how he witnessed the levitation of a prophetic statue (36-7).

With these ex­

amples may be compared on the one hand Herodotus 2. 123, where he declares that his reader may believe the tales the Egyptians tell if he is sufficiently credulous: simply to record them;

the author's job is

and 1.122 where he suggests the rat­

ional explanation behind the story of the infant Cyrus being suckled by a bitch (cf. 1.45, 2.73, 1.5);

and, on the other

hand, his account of the divine nemesis that was visited on Croesus, and the heralding of his misfortunes by a prophetic

377 dream (1.34ff.), and his story of Polycrates' ring (3.40ff.). Thirdly, the author of the Syrian Goddess shares with Herod­ otus a fondness for digressions in the form of anecdotes and racy stories:

the myth of Deucalion (Syr. D. 12), the love-

story of Queen Stratonice and her stepson (17-8), the story of Combabus' castration and the founding of the temple (19-27); with which one may compare the story of Gyges and Candaules' wife (Hdt. 1. 8ff.) and the tale of Cheops' daughter (2.126) who when sent by her father to a brothel charged her clients a block of stone (plus the usual fee) and built a pyramid with the proceeds (cf. Bompaire p. 648, who comments on Herodotus' fondness for giving 'les raisons les moins avouables' for the construction of an edifice or dedication of a statue, and cites other examples). Furthermore, there are many similarities in detail between the Syrian Goddess and Herodotus' work:

Harmon notes the con­

fusion between 'Syrian' and 'Assyrian' (Syr. D. 1 γράφω δέ Άσσύρϋος έών ..., Hdt. 7. 63 Άσσύριοι ... ùnè uèv Ελλήνων έκαλέοντο Σύρι,οι.);

there is the careful identification of

foreign deities with Greek gods (Syr. D. 4 Άστάρτην 5' εγώ δοκέω Σεληναίην εμμεναι., cf. 31;

Hdt. 1. 199, 2. 42 -etc.);

the temple of Heracles in Tyre is mentioned in chap. 3, cf. Hdt. 2. 44;

temple prostitution is described Syr. D. 6, cf.

Hdt. 1. 199 (in Herodotus each Babylonian woman offers herself άνδρί, ξεύνφ, and her fee is dedicated to the goddess Mylitta,

378 or Aphrodite, γίνεται Lpòv τούτο τό άργύριον;

in the Syr. D.

the women are offered μούνοισι geivoiDi .... και ò μισθός ές τήν Άφροδίτην θυσίη γίγνεται).

One may compare too the descr­

iption in the Syr. D. of the stone that shines in the dark (32) with Herodotus' account of an emerald pillar that shines in the dark (2. 44), the sacred fish with its golden ornaments (Syr. D. 45) with Herodotus' sacred, bejewelled crocodile (2. 69), while the perfume that comes from the temple (Syr. D. 30) is compared with the scents that drift from the land of Arabia (Hdt. 3. 113).100 I cannot, indeed, understand how anyone can read this Ionic piece and not see in it a deliberate imitation of Herodotus. It can scarcely be described as a 'parody', however, in any critical sense, for it does not seem sufficiently exaggerated: the reading of it does not tend to diminish one's appreciation of Herodotus;

his traits are mirrored rather than mocked (in

this I agree with Bompaire, who calls it a 'pastiche', because the primary purpose is to amuse rather than criticise, p.649). It is a description of a temple as Herodotus would have written it.

Thus the credulity in the Syrian Goddess which critics

feel to be 'un-Lucianic' is to be explained in terms of Herodotean imitation and is in consequence no bar to the authenticity of the work.

Whether one finds the piece funny or not depends

on whether one considers the Herodotean blend of scepticism and credulity amusing.

Delz and company apparently do not, but

this is entirely irrelevant to the question of authenticity. Furthermore, the author describes himself as a Syrian, and the temple is in Lucian's home country, about a hundred miles from Samosata (cf. Strong and Garstang and Harmon, note on 1). What more natural than for Lucian to describe an interesting temple that he had himself visited


and in so doing to de­

monstrate his skill both in using the Ionic dialect after the current fashion, and in counterfeiting the manner of Herodotus? It is characteristic of Lucian to combine several elements of interest in one work (as in the Imagines, an encomium in dia­ logue form with the added interest of the δκΦρασις, and the Nigrinus, see above p. 164;

cf. also the disputed Parasite

discussed earlier in this chapter). A further objection, however, that is sometimes brought against the authenticity of this piece is that in the treatise on How to Write History Lucian ridicules the use of the Ionic dialect, and therefore would be unlikely to use it himself. Garstang (p. 31) argues against this that it would be in keep103 ing with Lucian's versatility to adopt one style at an early stage in his career and to mock later at the affectations of his early productions. necessary.

Such an assumption is, however, un­

The passages in the treatise on history in which

Lucian mocks the Ionising fashion are 16 and 18:

in the first

of these the point of the criticism is that the use of the Ionic dialect by one historian is inconsistent, for after an

Ionic opening he suddenly changes to the koine, sprinkling the occasional Ionic form into largely colloquial language; the point of the second criticism is that just as one historian (15) had plagiarised Thucydides, dragging into the Parthian War inappropriate speeches and incidents from Thucydides' History, altering only a word here and there in his original, in just such a slavish manner had the would-be Herodotus treated his model.

Lucian is not saying that nobody should

ever write in Ionic or try to imitate Herodotus: ing those who do the job badly.

he is ridicul­

He uses the Ionic dialect in

brief passages in other works, viz. those parts of the Vitarum Auctio in which he introduces the Pythagorean Philosophy and the Philosophies of Democritus and Heraclitus (2-6, 13-4), and Dorn. 20 in which Herodotus is summoned to give evidence.


expresses admiration for Herodotus in his introductory piece, Herodotus or Aetion ('Would that it were possible to imitate Herodotus' other qualities too’, viz. the beauty of his style, his power of thought, etc.:

all that ordinary mortals like

Lucian can do is to follow his example in declaiming at public assemblies, 1 and 7).

It is, of course, possible, although

not provable, that this little piece is the introduction to the Syrian Goddess.

In· which case, if we are right in dating

it to c. 166 (see above p. 34), it might be that Lucian, having censured some contemporary historians in the treatise on How to Write History for bad Ionic usage and Herodotean imitation, is

381 now showing how much better he can do it himself.

At all

events, in the Syrian Goddess, we have a fascinating account of a temple in Commagene, Lucian's native province, by an author who describes himself as a Syrian;

it is composed,

very cleverly,104 in.the manner of Herodotus and written in Ionic by an author who was quite capable of using the Ionic dialect when he chose.

There is, therefore, in my opinion no

reason whatsoever for denying the Syrian Goddess its rightful place in the Luciariic corpus. There is similar controversy about the Astrology.


has no hesitation in declaring spurious this defence of astro­ logy from the Stoic standpoint, in view of the fact that Luc­ ian elsewhere ridicules the art with Sceptic arguments (Lucien et la Pensée Religieuse de son Temps, p.260).

Helm (P.W. Luk-

ianos, de Astr.) finds that its authenticity is only conceiv­ able if one assumes that it was written in Lucian's youth. Francklin discerns in it a 'delicate persiflage', which Wieland, for his part, declares too subtle for him to see:

’if it must

be laid to (Lucian's) account, it is still a doubt whether too early youth or too advanced age should bear the blame of its not being more worthy of him.

To say the truth, I cannot con­

ceive what end he could have in view in scribbling such trump­ ery .... I am unable to discover the slightest vestige of either taste or humour, wit or irony' (Tooke voi. 2 p. 409 = Wieland voi. 5 p. 246).

Bompaire considers that the work could only

382 bè attributed to Lucian if not taken seriously, but feels that it is arid and devoid of comic interest (Lucien Écrivain, p. 653).

Harmon in the first volume of the Loeb (p. ix) declared

it spurious, but, by the time he came to write the fifth volume, he had changed his mind (p. 347):

'the thing is so clever that

it has duped almost everyone, including myself, into taking it in earnest and proclaiming it spurious.

Its Lucianic origin,

however, is apparent if one looks closely enough ... It is mock eulogy ... not quite meant as satire or parody.

It is

primarily a sophistical literary exercise of the same nature as the first and second Phalaris ...' From the linguistic point of view nothing much can be proved either for or against the authenticity of the piece.

F.G. All-

inson ('Pseudo-Ionism in the Second Century', A.J.Ph. 7 (1886), 202ff.) suggests very tentatively that one or two things (the use of ναι μήν, εμμεναι. etc.) may indicate that the work is by the same hand as the Syrian Goddess;

and Smyth (Greek Dialects,

pp. 118-9) considers that the Sale of Lives, Syrian Goddess and Astrology present in the main a uniform dialect. It is, of course, perfectly true that a defence of astrology is inconsistent with Lucian's views on prophecy as expressed, for instance, in the Jupiter Confutatus (12-14), where Cyniscus argues that since we cannot alter our destiny soothsaying is pointless (this is cited by Sextus Empiricus, adv. astr. 47, as one of the usual arguments against astrology; c f . Cic. De Div.

383 2. 20).

In Astrology 29 the author counters this argument

with the reply that, although one cannot alter Fate, one can rejoice in anticipation if a prediction is good, while if it is bad one can prepare for the worst, and so face misfortune with tranquillity.

He claims that his aim in composing the

treatise is to confute those who neither esteem nor cultivate an art devised by kings divinely favoured (1, 2);

and the bulk

of the work is designed to demonstrate the antiquity and re­ spectability of that art. On the other hand, several scholars have drawn attention to the various resemblances between the Astrology and other works in the Lucianic corpus, 105 of which the most striking is the rationalisation of mythology in terms of astrology (11-21), just as in the De Saltatione (whose authenticity there is no good reason to deny, above p. 23f.) various mythological per­ sonages are in mock-serious fashion euhemerised into famous dancers of old (9-19).

In neither work does the process seem

intended more seriously than in the other:

in both the object

is to praise the art by tracing its history and enumerating its distinguished exponents.1®*®

Therefore, just as in the De

Saltatione Lucian declares that he is sure Achilles valued his son Pyrrhus' invention of the 'Pyrrhic' style of dancing far more highly than his martial prowess (9), so in the Astrology the author, starting out from the tradition that Atreus owed his throne to an astronomical discovery (12, cf. Harmon's note

384 voi. 5 pp. 358-9), elaborates the theme with the addition of Thyestes,


Bellerophon, Daedalus and Icarus, all of them, as

he maintains, really ancient astrologers;

Pasiphae's love for

the Bull was indicative of her devotion to astrology, the Bull, of course, being Celestial (16), while to Mnaseas' explanation of Endymion as a man who discovered the course of the moon (cf. Harmon ibid. pp. 360-1) is added the similar interpretation of 108 the myth of Phaethon (narrated in Lucian's Amber). It has been argued that the De Saltatione may have been com­ posed, like the Imagines, to court the favour of Luc i u s Verus. Similarly, it is, I think, not inconceivable that the Astrology might have been composed by Lucian to please some patron of Stoic sympathies and astrological predilections.

As has also

been observed (above, p. 62), we have no information about the way in which Lucian arranged his displays, but it is perhaps possible that he might have written the Astrology as a sort of companion piece to the Jupiter Confutatus and included it in the same display in order to show (besides skill in handling the Ionic dialect) his dexterity in arguing on both sides of a question (as he does, for instance, in the Saturnalia on the rich versus poor theme, or in the Bis Accusatus, where the Academy is made to argue for and against her own case, 16ff., and where Lucian presents the arguments of Oratory and Dialogue against himself, and then answers them).

Another possibility

is perhaps that Lucian intended this work as a s o p h i s t i c riposte

385 to Favorinus' oration against astrologers (Gell. 14. 1). Is he then guilty, in view of his usual attitude towards superstition, of flagrant hypocrisy in defending astrology in this way?

This is not impossible:

Lucian, for instance,

pours scorn on flatterers in various works (Pro Im. 20, Hist. Consc. 11-12, Adv. Ind. 20), but when it suits his purpose he can play the most fulsome of flatterers himself (Scyth. 10-11, Harm. 3-4, Imagines etc.). I am, however, far more inclined to feel, like Harmon and others, that if the Astrology is "by Lucian, he is writing very much tongue in cheek.

Caster pronounces this to be impossible.

Lucian, he maintains, did not know 'that Anglo-Saxon type of humour’ by which one says exactly the opposite of what one means:

irony is foreign to him (p. 363).

As one trained in

the rhetorical profession, however, Lucian ought to have had experience in that subtle art of sophistic tight-rope dancing, the υπόδεσις έσχηματισμένη or 'veiled argument',


in which

the sophist, while apparently arguing one thing, tried to convey to his audience something different, letting his true intent, as it were, 'shimmer through' what was actually said (W.C. Wright's phrase;

see his discussion of this type of

rhetoric in the Loeb ed. of Philostratus' Lives of the Sophists, p. 570).

It seems to have been popular with the sophists of

Lucian's day, to judge from the frequent references to it by Philostratus, who regards it as a very difficult type of

386 speech.

The discussions of this type of argument in the

grammarians 112 deal primarily with its use in fictitious legal cases, in which, for example, sons accuse their fathers of seducing their wives, without actually saying so (cf. Phil., Vit. Soph. 542, in the list of Polemo's themes of this nature, the Adulterer Unmasked);

it was also employed in speeches

censuring tyrants or other important persons, 113 or in iron­ ical 'suasoriae' (e.g. Vit. Soph. 542 Solon demands that his laws be rescinded). It would not, however, be out of keeping with Lucian's usual manner to put a conventional sophistic device to a less conventional use.

Demetrius in his discussion of the ΰπόθεσι.ς

έσχηματισμένη (On Style 291) mentions the effect that Aeschines' (the Socratic) remarks on Telauges have on the reader;


the whole narrative, he says, leaves the reader wondering whether it is genuine admiration or mockery.

This seems to be

the impression that the Astrology makes on most readers, and it may be just what the author intended.

Perhaps Lucian is saying,

in effect, to his audience, or his readers, 'those who have ears to hear, let them hear'.

A believer in astrology might read the

piece and find nothing in it to offend him.

Lucian's public,

however, who knew what to expect from him, would discern the true intent behind what was said, and appreciate the subtle and amusing game that he was playing.

As the piece proceeded they

would see that this defence of Astrology, invested with an aura

of antiquity by its Ionic dialect,


could not be seriously

meant, with its solemn parade of increasing absurdities.


the time they reached the middle of the work, and found it suggested that Bellerophon was .an astrologer who scaled the heavens not by winged horse power but by the power of thought, and that Icarus, over-ambitious apprentice to his astrologer father, was drowned in a sea of unfathomable lore (πέλαγος ... άβύσσων πρηγμάτων, 15, a catastrophe perhaps heightened by the solemnity of an Aeschylean reminiscence:

άτρς δ' άβυσσον

πέλαγος o6 μάλ1 εΰπορον / τόδ' έσβέβηκα, κούόαμοΰ λ(μην κακών, Suppi. 470, 471), while, to crown it all, it transpired that Daedalus had another pupil, Pasiphae, who learnt from him of the heavenly Bull and the other constellations, and became the first lady astrologer (16) - by that point in the speech, Luc­ ian's audience, had they at first been puzzled to find Lucian, of all people, defending astrology, would surely have been in no further doubt. It is, therefore, as it seems to me, quite conceivable that the Astrology is by Lucian, and that it is not such 'trumpery' as Wieland thought it.

Finally, we should perhaps also take

into our consideration of both the Astrology and the Syrian Goddess the passage from the Arabic translation of Galen now brought to our attention by Strohmaier and others (above p.4), in which, as it appears, we hear of how Lucian fooled an eminent philosopher with a treatise he had composed, tongue in

388 cheek, in imitation of Heraclitus.

If the passage is indeed

about our author, it makes the ascription to Lucian of both these Ionic pieces, about which scholars have argued so long, all the more likely;

for, just as the worthy philosopher would

seem to have been completely taken in by both the 'philosophic' subject matter and the language of Lucian's Heraclitean hoax, so it is hardly surprising that many, no less worthy, scholars have been unable to discern in the Syrian Goddess and the Astrology the 'pointed ear' - and cloven hoof - of that sly and clever 'faun'.

CONCLUDING REMARKS 'If you are expecting amber and singing swans from me', said Lucian to his audience on one occasion, 'you will be dis­ appointed;

for remember, if you please, that I never made such

claims for myself and never will.

So do not set your hopes too

high, or you will have only yourselves to blame'

He might

address words to much the same effect to some of his latter day critics, if rumours of their pronouncements ever drift towards those Elysian Fields where doubtless he is now residing among the συμποτικώτατοι. One such critic, whose expectations have obviously been dis­ appointed, is Gilbert Highet.

Influenced, perhaps, by Photius'

judgement of Lucian as a comprehensive satirist of his age, whose aim is 'to set. forth in prose a comedy about the Greeks' (cod. 128), Highet has come to Lucian expecting to find such a satirist, but his hopes are frustrated:

'When I try to read

those satires in which, with the same sùbtlety as a freshman preaching atheism, he deflates the ancient Bronze-Age myths of Zeus and the Olympians ... I feel as though I were trying to savor a satire on the medieval Christian cult of relics, written in Chaucerian verse by an intelligent Hindu of the present day. To put it bluntly, most of Lucian's problems are dead, and were dead when he wrote about them ... and he has almost wholly abandoned one of the essential virtues of satire which is to be topical in subject and realistic, urgent, combative in style ..' (Anatomy of Satire, pp. 42-3).

390 To this critic Lucian might say, 'But why, dear Sir, are you disappointed?

Where in my works have you heard me claiming

that 'quidquid agunt homines, votum timor ira voluptas gaudia discursus, nostri farrago libelli est'? Did I not tell you that I am but a man from the common herd who has trained himself in words? only empty enjoyment and play?' makes for himself:

Did I not say that I offer you That is the claim that Lucian

that he is an entertainer, a Prometheus in

words, creating new forms for the subjects the audiences liked, presenting in a fresh and amusing way the popular moral themes on which other rhetoricians and philosophers dilated in more pedestrian manner, giving new sharpness and bite to the frequent contemporary strictures on philosophical shams, ridiculing in hilarious burlesque the myths which for many centuries it had been, as it still was, eminently respectable to deplore.


would rather', says Plutarch, arguing that superstition is a far more heinous crime against the gods than atheism,



rather people said about me "There is no Plutarch" than that they should say, "Plutarch is a capricious person, terribly touchy, vindictive about the smallest things:

if you don't

ask him to dinner or haven't time to visit him, or forget to say Good Morning, he'll set his teeth in you and eat you up, he'll kill your child, and send a wild beast to ruin your crops'" (De superst. 170ff.).

Lucian risked ruffling no religious

391 feelings.when he peopled his sophistic stage with the amorous Zeus and the jealous Hera, and Apollo making his frenziedly obscure predictions.

He was well aware that none of the men

for whom he wrote believed in the myths any more. 'freshman preaching atheism':

This is no

this is a master of the show­

man's art amusing his listeners in a way that is peculiarly his.

He was not a systematic observer of his age, noting

carefully with censorious eye all its salient features, as some of his modern critics evidently feel he ought to have done, in particular the religious tendencies of his times.

He was no

atheistic crusader, bent on the destruction of religion;


was no moral reformer intent on his mission for mankind;


was no social satirist righting the wrongs of class society, nor a political zealot seeking the downfall of the Roman power not even an 'armchair revolutionary' who has decided that the better part of valour is discretion!

Those very satires, in

fact, in which Highet feels there is most contemporaneity, such as the De Mercede Conductis or the Saturnalia or the Nigr­ inus, with their pictures of mean patrons and poor clients, and the turmoil of life in the Wicked City, are but further inst­ ances of Lucian's skill and originality in handling unoriginal themes.

His task was not to reform but to amuse.

Yet although Lucian is primarily an entertainer, he is an entertainer with a satirical bent.

"Μισαλαζών είμι καί μι,σο-

γόης καί, μισοψευδής καί μισότυφος", he declares, and while he

392 is quite in the current fashion with his ridicule of abusive Cynics and hypocritical Stoics, it often seems that a genuine irritation underlies his rhetorical denunciation.

He is at

his best when ridiculing false philosophers, his burlesque tinged with acidity:

the gods lean anxiously out of heaven

to see how the battle royal is faring between the Epicurean and their blustering Stoic champion, and Zeus remarks with satisfaction that so far their man is holding his own and proving that he can shout the louder,

'Well done, Timocles!

Lay it on thick, for that's your one strong point!'

And the

satirical streak in Lucian came to the fore in the case of certain persons who particularly aroused his animosity or contempt, the fanatical Peregrinus, the religious charlatan, Alexander of Abonuteichos, and, of course, a variety of rival sophists, especially Pollux of the honey-sweet voice and un­ merited Imperial success.

(Does one'detect in this picture

of how to succeed in ancient academic life with the minimum of effort, the bitter taste of personal disappointment?)


flair for parody produced many of his liveliest pieces, the linguistic tour de force of hyperatticist Lexiphanes'


Banquet to Aristo 's Son', the diverting demonstrations of how not to write history, and the Ctesian absurdities of his True Story, while his fondness for spinning a good yarn combines happily, in the Philopseudes, with his sense of the ridiculous to produce an indictment of the sillier aspects of the super-

393 stition which was, even among educated men, a very real feature of his age. It was no doubt his taste for satire that attracted Lucian to the writings of the Cynic Menippus and to the masters of Old Comedy, and under their inspiration he created his new kind of rhetorical entertainment, the comic dialogues for which he is chiefly known.

In his own day, to judge from the Dionysus,

Lucian's brand of comic and satirical entertainment does not seem to have been an unqualified success:

some members of his

audience, obviously preferred the amber and swans that more con­ ventional sophists had to offer.

It was not Philostratus alone

who was conservative and who regarded with disapproval such άθύρματα των


the story goes how the sophist Phil-

agrus caused great offence in Athens when he dared to make an innovation in his introductory speech, inserting into his praises of the city a lament for his wife who had died in Ionia. Doubtless some of Lucian's listeners felt that he had taken un­ warranted liberties with the dialogue form hallowed by Plato, and disapproved of the frivolity of his rhetorical displays. Like the Hindus confronted with Dionysus and his merry band, some felt it beneath their dignity to dismount from their elephants and enjoy themselves, came once and did not come again. Some of Lucian's later critics, too, have been reluctant to get off their elephants:

critics who disapprove, like Helm,

394 of his 'superficiality', and to whom his distinctive type of τέρφις καί παιδιά does not appeal;

critics like Bayle, who

pronounces him 'digne de detestation', because 'il n'a point temoignà moins d 'indifference ou moins d'aversion pour la vérité que pour le mensonge'.

Another is Norden.


high on his elephant, eyebrows raised in lofty disdain, he maintains that it is with a feeling of repugnance that he approaches Lucian's works. 'hat keine Seele'.'*' a philosopher.


Because wretched Lucian

Norden would have preferred him to be

Wieland on the other hand, for whom Norden,

as it appears from his opening remarks, has as low an opinion as he has for Lucian, declares (and let the elegant Mr. Tooke O

once more speak for him ), 'How any reader of liberal and sound judgement can make himself acquainted with Lucian from his works and not be enamoured of him is to me quite incon­ ceivable'.

To me as well.

I'll gladly join the genial Wieland

among the devotees of this sophistic Dionysus, and will not complain that he has no soul.

I'll settle for his sense of

humour, and own myself content with Lucian for what he is, a superb entertainer.

For in that sphere Lucian too might boast,

like.the mimic actor Vitalis,


'Hic ego praevalui, toto notissimus orbi, Hinc mihi larga domus, hinc mihi census erat. Gaudebam semper.

Quid enim, si gaudia desint,

Hic vagus et fallax utile mundus habet?'.


Appendix I : The Imperial Chair of Rhetoric at Athens and the Date of Pollux's Appointment The Imperial Chair of Rhetoric at Athens appears to have been founded at the same time as the Athenian Chairs of Philo­ sophy, when Marcus Aurelius came to Athens to be initiated into the Eleusinian Mysteries in 176 (Dio Cassius 72. 31, cf. Phil., Vit. Soph. 566).

Philostratus further informs us that the

salary of this Chair was 10,000 drachmae and that Theodotus was the first to hold it, appointed personally by Marcus Aurel­ ius, Herodes Atticus being entrusted with the task of selecting the holders of the philosophic Chairs (ibid.;

Lucian confirms

that the salary of these Chairs was also 10,000 drachmae a year, Eun. 3).

Theodotus, says Philostratus (567), held the Chair

for two years. This brings us to the year 178, if our information is correct. But is it?

For Philostratus has another passage which appears

to contradict the evidence of Dio Cassius as to the date at which the Chairs were established:

he tells us (Vit. Soph. 588)

that, at the time when Marcus came to Athens to be initiated, Adrian of Tyre, a pupil of Herodes, was already in posse s s i o n τοϋ των σοφιστών θρόνου and that since Marcus had appointed him on the basis of his reputation, but without having had an oppor­ tunity to hear him for himself, he determined to test his abil­ ity, and was so pleased with Adrian’s performance that he showered him with gifts and privileges (589).

If Philostratus

is correct in saying that Theodotus was the first holder of the

397 Chair of Rhetoric, then Dio Cassius must be wrong, it seems, in dating the establishment of the Chairs to 176:

they must

have been founded at least two years earlier (and perhaps more, for we cannot take it for granted that Adrian held this Chair immediately after Theodotus, because Philostratus says that he does not consider it worth mentioning all who held the Chair, 566).

To make matters worse, as it seems, Philostratus has

previously stated (526) that Lollianus of Ephesus was the first to hold the Chair of Rhetoric at Athens:

has he then,

by the time he comes to Theodotus (.566), forgotten his previous remark about Lollianus? Various solutions of this problem have been proposed, the one which seems the most probable is the following:


but that

after Marcus Aurelius' visit to Athens in 176 there were in fact two Chairs of Rhetoric, a Municipal Chair, which had been

* Bompaire (p. 103, n. 3) states that in 177 Marcus Aurelius established four Chairs of Philosophy and transformed a Municipal Chair of Rhetoric into an Imperial (State) Chair (= 6 πολιτικός θρόνος). This seems an unlikely interpret­ ation of πολιτικός (cf. Brandstätter, cited below p. 399) and does not take into account the fact that, according .to Philo­ stratus, the Chair had a salary not of 10,000 drachmae but of 6,000. (Also, there must have been more than four Philosophy chairs, see below; and why 177?) Schwartz (pp. 124-5) follows Bompaire regarding the transformation of the Municipal Chair, but argues that it occurred before 176 when the Philo­ sophy Chairs were established. Philostratus, he says, does not state that Theodotus was appointed at the same time as the Philosophy professors. In my opinion that is precisely what the passage in question does imply, and it seems supported by the iDio Cassius passage.

398 in existence since the time of Antoninus Pius, who ordered or permitted its establishment (Hist. Aug. Ant. 11. 3 'rhetoribus et philosophis per omnes provincias et honores et salaria detulit'), of which Lollianus of Ephesus was the first holder, as Philostratus says' ('Lollianus seems to have lived under Hadrian and Antoninus Pius;

he was Theodotus' teacher, Phil.,

Vit. Soph. 566), and an Imperial Chair founded by Marcus Aurel­ ius, of which Theodotus was the first holder, as Philostratus also says. This hypothesis (for which cf. C. Barbagallo, Lo Stato e l'Istruzione Pubblica nell' Impero Romano, pp. 147-152, and J. Day, Economìe History of Athens under Roman Domination, pp. 198-9) is, I think, supported by two facts.

Firstly, Philo­

stratus, having stated that the Chair to which Theodotus was appointed had a salary of 10,000 drachmae, later mentions a Chair of Political Oratory with an annual salary of 6,000 drachmae held by Apollonius of Athens (Vit. Soph. 600).


also tells us that, at the time this Apollonius was teaching in Athens, another Apollonius, of Naucratis, and a sophist called Heracleides were teaching there too (600);


held τόν Άθήνρσι. θοόνον (599) and Apollonius of Naucratis, his rival, connived at his expulsion from that Chair (613 his pupils conspired against Heracleides, 615 his own invectives against Heracleides):

Philostratus does not state in so many

words that at the precise time that Apollonius of Athens held

399 the πολιτικόν θρόνον Heracleides was holding another Chair, but his narrative seems to suggest it.

Secondly, since it

appears that there were two Chairs for each of the four philosophical Sects to which Chairs were granted (Lucian, Eun. 3;

Phil., Vit. Soph. 566) it would seem unlikely that

there should be only one Chair of Rhetoric. The Chair which Marcus Aurelius established was presumably financed from the Imperial Fiscus;

the earlier Chair, estab­

lished in the time of Antoninus Pius, with a lower salary, may have been financed by the municipal treasury (there is no explicit evidence, but for a discussion of the problem cf. Barbagallo, Lo Stato e 1' Istruzione Pubblica .., and T.J. Haarhoff, Schools of Gaul, pp. 112-5, who says that in Gaul it is 'clear that state paid school and university teachers were at one time dependent on the towns for their pay', witness 'the frequent mandates from the emperors to the municipalities not to neglect these salaries'.).

It has been suggested that

on the establishment of the second Chair the Municipal Chair became confined to 'political' or forensic oratory (cf. C. Brandstätter, De notionum πολιτικός et σοφιστής usu rhetorico, Leipziger Studien zur classischen Philologie 15 (1893), 194 and 244), while the holder of the Imperial Chair may have taught epideictic oratory (cf. Barbagallo, 152-6). Perhaps, therefore, one can solve the problem of the discrep­ ancies in our sources by assuming that it was the Municipal

400 Chair that Adrian was holding in 176 when Marcus Aurelius heard him lecture:

Philostratus would naturally refer to it

on this occasion as rdv των σ ο φ ι σ τ ώ ν θρόνον instead of τόν πολιτικόν θρόνον, as he later describes it, because it was not at this time limited in scope. complication.

However, there is another

Later on, as Philostratus tells us (591, cf.

589), Adrian was elevated to the Chair of (Greek) Rhetoric at Rome;

the Athenians then wished to petition that Chrestus

should be appointed to the position in Athens that Adrian had vacated, but Chrestus refused to let them send such a petition, remarking ούχ at μύριαι τον dvöpa (i.e. it was the Imperial Chair, with the 10,000 drachmae salary, that Adrian vacated). In this case, in order to reconcile all the scattered pieces of evidence at our disposal, we will have to assume that after Theodotus had held the newly established Chair from 176-178 Adrian was promoted from the Municipal to the Imperial Chair and subsequently was further promoted to τδν άνω θρόνον (as Philostratus calls it, 589) in Rome, a Chair with a salary of 100,000 sesterces a year (Suet., Vesp. 18). Our information on this whole question is indeed obscure and confusing and no certain conclusion is possible.

However, it

does seem that Adrian held the Imperial Chair at some stage; Pollux was Adrian's pupil (Phil., Vit. Soph. 592), and was appointed to the Chair by the Emperor Commodus (ibid.). not know whether Pollux was Adrian's immediate successor

Vie do

401 (because Philostratus says he will not name all who held the Chair) but it seems likely.

We are told that on Adrian's

retirement Chrestus was the candidate favoured by the Athenians as his successor.

Ranke's thesis (Pollux et Lucianus, pp.

34-5) is therefore extremely plausible, that Chrestus and Pollux were rival candidates for the Imperial Chair of Rhetoric at Athens.

Pollux won the appointment because he charmed

Commodus with his mellifluous voice (Vit. Soph. 592), but the Athenians would have preferred Chrestus.

It would have been a

splendid opportunity for Lucian to have increased his own popularity by attacking a Professor whose appointment the Athen­ ians did not approve.

It is, of course, perfectly possible

that there was a good deal of personal bile on Lucian's part too, for there are few things more galling than to see an important official appointment given to .someone of dubious ■worth, and Pollux seems to have come in for a good deal of criticism for his rhetorical practice (Vit. Soph. 592, 595; supra, p. 276f.).


Vfith regard to the date of Pollux's appoint­

ment, we have a terminus ante quem in the death of Commodus in 192, while the terminus post quem cannot be fixed exactly, but it must be some years after 178 (and the retirement of Theodotus) to allow for Adrian's tenure of the Chair.


thesis that Pollux obtained the Chair immediately after Theodotus in 178 seems most unlikely in view of the fact that we would then have Adrian, Pollux's master holding the Chair after

his pupil.


De Pollucis et Phrynichi Controversiis, Leipzig 1908 (résumé by K. MUnscher in Bursian 170 (1915), 17-20; cf. Bethe in P.W., s.v. Pollux, p. 773). Naechster argues that Pollux and Phrynichus were rivals for the Chair, apparently relying solely on the fact that Phrynichus in his σοφιστική προπαρασκευή (as the title is given in Photius) criticised Pollux's lexicon, the Onomasticon (of which the first seven books seem to have been published before Pollux's appointment, to judge from the pre­ face to Onom. Bk 8), in various particulars. Pollux appears to have reworked in Bk 10 the material of Bks 6 and 7 that had especially come under Phrynichus’ fire. Now the mere fact that Pollux and Phrynichus differed on lexicographical matters does not seem to m e to go anywhere near proving that they were rivals for the Athenian Chair; Phrynichus, strict Atticist as he was, criticised many other contemporary rhetoricians besides Pollux (e.g. Lollianus, Favorinus, Polemo , cf. Croiset, Histoire de la Litt. Gr. V, p p . 642-3, and Sandys, History of Classical Scholarship I, pp. 323-4); Photius in discussing the prefaces to the 37 books of Phrynichus' work (dedicated to many other persons besides Commodus) knows nothing of any rivalry between him and Pollux; as far as I can see, there is nothing in the prefaces to the Onomasticon to indicate such rivalry. I do not therefore think we can see Phrynichus, as Schwartz suggests (p. 119),in the Guide of the Hard Road: Chrestus, as Ranke supposes, seems more probable (Phil., Vit Soph. 591 de­ scribes him as a man ός άριστα μέν ‘Ελλήνων ύπδ Ήρώδου έπαιδεύθη), but if Lucian intended this Guide to be recognised as Chrestus it seems odd that he has provided no clue to the name as he has done in the case of the Guide to the Easy Road. Schwartz rejects the whole idea that the Rhetorum Praeceptor is to be dated after Pollux's accession, principally because Lucian 'n'utilise pas' the Onomasticon, some of which had been written by that time (p. 123), but how on earth could Lucian have 'used' Pollux's lexicon in this work? Schwartz also im­ plies that Lucian never attacks persons in official positions: he refers specifically to Cynics and other philosophers, but what Cynics were ever in official positions, and before 176 what other philosophers? Since, in any case, we do not know the identity of the persons attacked in the Pseudologistes and Adversus Indoctum and Fugitivi, it seems somewhat rash to decl­ are that Lucian only attacks unimportant persons (as also Sinko, Symbolae Chronologicae, p. 62, who says that Pollux is not attacked but only a personification, like Cebes' απάτη).

Appendix II:

The Origin of Menippus'


Various hypotheses have been advanced as to how it was that Menippus devised his characteristic blend of prose and verse (or 'prosimetrum', the medieval term adopted by 0. Immisch in his discussion of the question in Neue Jahrbücher für das Klassische Altertum 47 (1921), 409-21).

Immisch argued that

Menippus derived it from a primitive type of folk literature that was native to Greece, as to other countries.

D. Bartoftkovä

(Eirene 14 (1976), 65-91) is inclined to accept this view (pp. 89, 91);

E. Courtney (Philologus 106 (1962), 87) finds it

unconvincing. Some of the evidence Immisch adduces is certainly far from convincing, such as the occasional iambic line among the hexa­ meters in the comic epic Margites, and the satirical Silloi of Xenophanes, or the odd line of prose found in Old Comedy (Immisch's example is Aristoph., Knights 941;

cf. also Birds 865,

1661, Thesm. 295, Ach. 237, 241), a practice which appears to be confined to exclamations, oaths and prayers;

and the supp­

osed rhetorical practice in classical times of sliding into verse at emotional points:

Immisch cites Plato, Symp. 197c,

two lines of verse in Agathon's speech;

but Agathon, besides

being Gorgias' pupil, is also a poet, and this little flight of poetic fancy is scarcely more than a slight extension of the common literary practice of quoting verse in a prose context, as is Immisch's other example, Plato, Phaedr. 241d-e.


kova (p.90) takes Aristotle's pronouncement (Rhet. 3. 8. 3

404 p. 1408) that 'prose must have rhythm but not metre’ as an indication of 'the use of ... original verses in the works of prosaic writers', but Aristotle is surely referring to the faulty composition of prose in such a way that the rhythm accidentally turns it into verse. On the other hand it is true that the 'prosimetric' style of story telling is found in folk tales from many parts of the world (in Indian, Celtic, Norse, Chinese and South Slavic literature, and even, it appears, among Basutos and Eskimoes: cf. Immisch pp. 409, 410, Bartoftkovà p. 65; hood of Fiction, pp. 479-482; Literature, p. 70 n. 2).

MacCulloch, Child­

cf. Keith, History of Sanskrit

There is, therefore, a presumption

that it existed in Greece as well, and Immisch may be on firmer ground in citing as indications of its e x i s t e n c e such things as the Contest of Homer and Hesiod and the Ps.-Herodotean Life of Homer, both compositions of the Imperial period, but which appear to go back to much earlier narratives (cf. Lesky, History of Greek Literature, pp. 40 n. 3, 93, 155).

However, the sub­

ject matter of the Contest of Homer and Hesiod obviously re­ quires verse, and the Life of Homer not unnaturally contains what purport to be verses uttered by the bard on visiting a town, etc., so this again can be viewed merely as an extension of the normal practice of embellishing prose with verse quot­ ations.

Possibly also the mixture of prose and (original) verse

in the P s .-Callisthenes Alexander Romance (whose earliest

405 preserved version is generally dated to about the third century A.D., although it draws on much earlier material, cf. Lesky, ib. pp. 767, 768) is a revival of a primitive prosimetric method of story telling in Greece (Immisch p, 417, BartÖnkovä, p. 89); but may not the influence here be oriental rather than Greek? The Romance includes a fanciful account of Alexander's exped­ ition to India, and it might be the case that whoever introduced the verses into the narrative did so because he had some acquain­ tance with Indian literature, in which there is a long tradition of using prose interspersed with verses (e.g. in the Upanishads, which apparently date from about 600-300 B.C., and the Jätaka tales, of which the earliest collection may, it seems, have been made in the third century B.C., as well as in later collect­ ions of folk tales such as the Sanskrit Panchatantra;

and in

other literature of a later period like the Sanskrit drama).


Cf. A.B.Keith (A History of Sanskrit Literature, pp. viii-ix, 56-7, 67-71, 242ff., 352) who argues (pp.69-71) against Oldenberg's thesis that the original form of literature in India, as perhaps elsewhere, was mingled prose and verse: in the case of the Upanishads he feels that the use of original verse developed out of the practice of using verse quotations in illustration of a doctrine stated in prose (cf. also A.A. Macdonell, History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 226f. on the Upanishads, and R.E. Hume, The Thirteen Principal Upanishads transl. from the Sanskrit: the verses in the earlier Upanishads do seem to be almost invar­ iably introduced by words to the effect that 'on this point there is this verse ... 1; but what does one make of the verses in the curious contest on p.125?). In the Jätaka tales and the Panchatantra the verses are spoken by characters in the stories. For literature relating to the Buddhist Jätaka tales cf. below n. 49 to Chap. V; and on the Panchatantra cf. A.Yf. Ryder's translation, with introduction. For a brief account of the

406 Evidence for some Greeks reading Indian literature in the original appears to go back to at least the early first century B.C. (cf. Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria and India, Cambridge 1938, pp. 380, 381 and 387-389).

In Chariton's novel, another of

Immisch's examples, the verses are of a totally different character, being merely brief quotations from Homer;

and we

do not know for certain that the Latin romance of the third century A.D., Historia Apollonii Regis Tyrii, is based on a Greek model (Immisch pp. 417-8;

some believe it is not, cf.

B.E.Perry, The Ancient Romances, p.324).

In any case, neither

the practice of later writers of romance, nor isolated examples such as the papyrus fragment of the Charition mime (Immisch p. 417;

P. Oxy. 413 ed. Grenfell and Hunt, a papyrus which

is dated to the second century A.D.)

can be taken as proof

of literary conditions in Menippus' time.

The idea that Men­

ippus, a Cynic philosopher, writing to catch the attention of

(continued from previous page) Sanskrit drama, cf. Macdonell, India's Past, p. 97f. (the standard work is Keith's Sanskrit Drama); cf. also Ryder's Kalidasa: translations of Shakuntala and other works (Everyman's Library 1928). In general cf. A Dictionary of Oriental Literatures, ed. J. Prusek, London 1974, voi. 2 pp. 68, 112, 168. * This mime, apparently based on Euripides' Iphigenia Taurica, may also have been influenced by the Greek romance: the heroine, Charition, has come into the possession of an Indian prince, like the heroine of the novel by Xenophon of Ephesus. Various scholars have tried to identify an Indian dialect in the language spoken by the prince's followers (Grenfell and Hunt, Oxyrh. Papyri III no. 413 p. 55; contra Keith, History of Sanskrit Literature, intro, p. x).

407 the man in the street, may have developed his blend of prose and verse under the influence of a popular, sub-literary form of story telling native to Greece, is an interesting possib­ ility, but the evidence for it is very thin. An alternative view is that Menippus’ mixed prose and verse style was derived from an early form of Semitic literature from which, after many centuries, was to develop the Arabic maqama. W. Schmid was 'reminded o f

the maqama by Menippus' prose and

verse style (Christ-Schmid-Stählin II p. 89), and M. Hadas (Ancilla to Classical Reading, p. 58) suggests that Menippus learned his 'moralising prose discourse interspersed with bits of verse ... in Semitic Gadara ...

Here as in the clearly cog­

nate Arabic maqama the performer dealt humorously with some moral theme ... and brightened his remarks with snatches of verse' (cf. G.Highet, The Anatomy of Satire, pp. 36 and 251 n. 23).

B.E. Perry sees a resemblance between the maqama and

Petronius' Satyricon (The Ancient Romances, pp. 206-8), but it is, I think, only a superficial resemblance and does not stand up to close examination (cf. Perry p. 208 'They - sc. the maqami and the Satyricon - appear as remarkably similar but widely separated constellations in the broad heavens of. literary history'). An informative discussion of this type of literature is given by T. Chenery in the introduction to his translation of the maqamat (pi.) of Al Hariri (The Assemblies of Al Hariri,

London and Edinburgh 1867, voi. I;

voi. II translated by F.

Steingass, Oriental Translation Fund New Series III, London 1898;

cf. also R.A. Nicholson, A Literary History of the Arabs,

Cambridge 1907 repr. 1953, pp. 327-336;

and P.K. Hitti, History

of the Arabs, 7th ed. 1960, pp. 402-4).

The maqama was, it

seems, devised, or developed into an artistic form, by one Al Hamadhani (969-1008), its other main exponent being Al Hariri (1054-1122), whose 'Assemblies' are said to be, next to the Koran, the finest work of Arabic literature. In these maqamat a narrator recounts how in various towns of the Islamic world he continually comes across the same itin­ erant rogue (often in disguise), a man of vast literary accom­ plishments, delighting and amazing some gathering of men (hence the name maqama or 'assembly', Nicholson ib. p. 328 n. 1) with impromptu displays of rhetoric and poetry, and living on the money with which his audiences reward him, or which he contrives to extort from those he encounters, sometimes a local judge or governor, by some sort of imposture, in furthering which he displays his eloquence and literary ingenuity.

For example,

in the First Assembly of Al Hariri, the narrator, who is called Al Harith, arrives in a town in Yemen and wanders into a crowd gathered about a man preaching an eloquent sermon against selfindulgence, a sermon which concludes in verse.

Having accepted

alms from the crowd, the preacher slips away, but the narrator follows him, unobserved, to a cave where he finds him feasting

409 and drinking in a way which belies the sermon he has just preached.

Angry at first at being found out, the rogue, whose

name is Abu Zaid, subsequently extols (in verse) the art of living by his eloquence and invites the narrator to dine.


the ninth and tenth Assemblies the narrator encounters Abu Zaid tricking local dignitaries into subsidising him;

in the

forty-third Al Harith is himself tricked by Abu Zaid (who has entertained him with an eloquent discourse on marriage) into giving him his sword to pawn to purchase them some food, but Abu Zaid absconds with it.

And so it goes on, each Assembly

a self contained whole. The story content of each episode is negligible and frequ­ ently repetitive:

it was the language that was important, the

author's main object being 'to exhaust the beauties of the Arabic tongue' (Chenery p. 20).

Al Hariri writes in his pre­

face that he combines in his Assemblies 'what is serious in language and lively, what is delicate in expression and digni­ fied ...', adorning them with 'verses of the Koran ... and Arab proverbs, scholarly elegancies, grammatical riddles ... tear-moving exhortations and amusing jests' ;

and with regard

to his poetry he says 'of the poetry of others I have intro­ duced nothing but two single verses ... and two others in a couplet ... and, as for the rest, my own mind is father of its virginity' (Chenery pp. 105-6).

Al Hariri contended that his

Assemblies were not mere frivolous stories and that they had

410 a moral purpose, but a later Moslem critic grumbled that 'the reader derives no benefit from maqamat except familiarity with elegant composition and knowledge of the rules of verse and prose

and that such compositions had a 'debasing effect

on the mind, being founded on begging and sponging and dis­ graceful scheming to acquire a few paltry pence' (Nicholson, A Literary History of the Arabs, p. 329). The prose parts are written in an ornate, rhyming prose, developed, it appears, under Persian influence (P.K, Hitti, History of the Arabs, pp. 308, 403).

Nicholson has translated

two of Al Hariri's most celebrated Assemblies, the Eleventh and Twelfth, into English rhyming prose and verse,


their peculiar manner of composition as well as I can' (Transl­ ations of Eastern Poetry and Prose, Cambridge 1922, pp. 115-24). In the Twelfth Assembly (The maqama of Damascus) Al Harith relates how he and some fellow travellers are escorted across the desert between Syria and the Euphrates by a pious hermit who claims to be able to protect them from bandits by means of a magic incantation revealed to him in a dream.

Arriving safely

at their destination they invite him to choose his reward. chooses money, takes all he can get, and slips away.


Later Al

Harith hears that this pious man of God is spending the cash drinking in a wine-shop.

So he goes to the tavern in disguise:

'...and lo, amidst jars and vats, there was the old varlet in a robe of scarlet, and around him cupbearers beaming and

411 candles gleaming, and myrtle and jessamine and pipe and mandolin ... When I struck upon his guileful way and the difference of his today from his yesterday ... he guffawed with a will and began merrily to trill: .... "Did I never incline to the quaffing of wine, I had ne'er been with fine wit and eloquence gifted. Is it wonderful, pray, that an old man should stay in a wellstored seray, by a cask overflowing? Wine strengthens the knees, physics every disease, and from sorrow it frees, the oblivion-bestowing!"' Not at all the right sentiments for a pious Moslem!

Abu Zaid's

Bacchanalian song has been pronounced 'one of the finest pieces in Al Hariri's work' (Chenery p. 168), but Al Harith disapproves: 'I said to him, "Bravo, bravo, for thy recitation, but fie and shame on thy reprobation! ..."'

Abu Zaid is unrepentant, and

declares : '"I am the age's rarity, the wonder of mankind, I play my tricks among them all and many a dupe I find.." Said the narrator:

Then I knew he was Abu Zaid, the rogue of

his race, he that blackens the face of hoariness with disgrace.. "Old man", 1 said, "is it not time that thou draw back from thy course of crime?"

He growled and scowled and fumed, and pondered

412 a moment and resumed, " "Tis a night for exulting, not for insulting, and an occasion for wine-quaffing, not for mutual scoffing

So Al Harith leaves him and spends his night

'... in the weeds of contrition for having gained admission to the daughter of the vine, not to a mosque or shrine.


I promised God Almighty that never more would I visit a drink­ ing-shop, not though the empire of Baghdad were given me as a sop, and never see the vats of wine again, even if the season of youth might be mine again. 'Then we saddled the camels tawny-white in dawn's twilight, and left Abu Zaid in peace with his old tutor Iblis' (Satan). There is not much here that reminds one of Menippus’ writ­ ings, as far as we can form an idea of them from Lucian, Varro and the Apocolocyntosis;

and there remains a third explanation

for Menippus' blend of prose and verse:

the fact that other

Cynics enlivened their prose diatribes with snatches of verse quotation and parody, and it may simply have occurred to Men­ ippus to extend this practice (cf. Hirzel, Der Dialog, I p.380; Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa, p.755;

McCarthy, Lucian and

Menippus, p.24), and probably to add original (non-parodic) verses of his own as well.

Perhaps, however, those scholars

like Hirzel and Wachsmuth, who intimate that it would only have occurred to a Syrian like Menippus to do anything so unAttic ('tasteless' is Hirzel's description ib. p. 381;


Wachsmuth, Sillographorum Graecorum Reliquiae, p.85) also have

413 a point.

It may be that familiarity with a Semitic type of

prosimetric story telling and the practice of Cynic sermonisers both played a part in the development of the Menippean style.

Attributed by Photius to Lucius of Patrae A point which B.E. Perry argued repeatedly (in The Metamorphoses attributed to Lucius of Patrae, Chap. Ill,


Class. Phil.

18 (1923), 229-238, The Ancient Romances, pp. 215-218) was that previous scholars, such as Wieland, Rohde, Bürger and Helm, were wrong in taking Photius' testimony (Bibl. cod. 129) to mean that the lost Metamorphoses of Lucius of Patrae consisted of several books of stories about transformations, of which only the first two contained the same story as the Onos and Apuleius' Metamor­ phoses.

What Photius says is:

'Read, the Metamorphoses of

Lucius of Patrae in several books ... His first two books are almost transcribed by Lucius from Lucian's story entitled "Luc­ ius or the Ass" or else Lucian has copied them from .Lucius' books ... Lucius was in earnest and really believed in the meta­ morphoses of men into other men (lit. into each other) and of animals into men and vice versa and all the other nonsense and drivel of the ancient tales when he committed these things to writing and wove them into his book’ ( Άνεγνώσθη Λουκίου Πατρέως μεταμορφώσεων λόγοι διάφοροι ... οι δε γε πρώτοι αυτού δύο λόγοι μόνον ου μετεγράφησαν Λουκίψ έκ τοϋ Λουκιανού λόγου θς έπιγέγρατχται 'Λοΰκις (sic) ή' Ό ν ο ς '

ή' έκ των Λουκίου λόγων Λουκιανφ

... ò δέ Λούκιος σπουδάζων τε και π,ιστάς νομίζων τάς έ£ άνθρώπων εις


άλληλους μεταμορφώσεις τάς τε έξ άλόγων είς άνθρώπους και

Dissertation Princeton 1919, hereafter cited as Diss.

415 àvónxaÀLV και τόν άλλον των παλαιών μύθων ϋθλον καί ψλήναφον,

γραφή παρεδίδου ταϋτα και συνύφαινεν). It is a mistake, Perry maintains, to use the analogy of Ovid's Metamorphoses and other such works (e.g. the Μεταμορφώ­ σεων Συναγωγή of Antoninus Liberalis, Diss. p. 22 n. 2) as a presumption that the title of 'Lucius'1 work must similarly have referred to a collection of stories;

nor is Photius

giving an outline of the general contents when he declares that the author (unlike Lucian) seriously believed in the truth of transformations of men into other men and animals into men etc. 'If one does interpret the title as referring to a series of different stories about transformations', writes Perry (Ancient Romances, p.215),

’then the kind of book whose existence in the

second century we are thereby forced to assume, becomes, on closer consideration, a monstrosity without parallel in ancient literature.

The first story, our Luciad, was a burlesque novel

at least forty-five pages long, as we can infer with certainty from the extant derivations.

It had nothing to do with ancient

mythology or with the kind of myths and sagas which are related in Ovid's Metamorphoses.

To have added to that burlesque novel

about Lucius either other novels, or stories, of a similar character, featuring a metamorphosis, or antiquarian myths like those in Ovid, or any other conceivable kind of metamorphosis story, would have resulted in a combination of materials such as could not be paralleled elsewhere, and would have no conceiv-

416 able meaning, function or purpose as a book'. Moreover, the subscription at the end of the Onos in the oldest manuscript, 'Lucian's epitome of Lucius' Metamorphoses', says Perry (ib.), 'means of course an epitome of the entire Metamorphoses';

and Photius himself elsewhere implies that

Lucius' book was all one continuous story (sc. in cod. 166. 111b, where Photius says of Antonius Diogenes’ novel that it was 'the source and root' of Lucian's True Story and the Meta­ morphoses of Lucius, as of the romances of Iamblichus, Achilles Tatius, and Heliodorus).

Therefore, Perry concludes (p. 216),

'it is as certain as anything of the kind can be that the lost Greek Metamorphoses ... dealt in the main with only one story, namely that of Lucius changed into an ass'.

It would have been

'barely fifty Teubner pages in length' (i.e. when one adds to the epitome only those episodes in Apuleius' version which 'must have belonged' to the original), and probably consisted of only two books, 'although it could have extended to three if we allow no more than seventeen or eighteen pages to a book'. Photius, Perry says, often speaks loosely of 'several books' when he does not know (or care to find out) how many books there were in the particular work he is discussing, and in the case of the Metamorphoses,

'since he had already read the same story

in Lucian's Onos, in the same words and syntax, except for omissions, it is unlikely that he finished reading even the second book, since he considered the story an indecent one and

417 the author of it a fool' (ib. p. 216).

The title, Metamorph­

oses,. is taken by Perry to refer in a general way to the hero's interest in such phenomena (Class. Phil. 18 (1923), 238; Ancient Romances, p. 218:


'This title, understood in the

generic sense, implies that the author is telling us about the subject of metamorphoses as exemplified in the case of Lucius'). Perry's view of this question has found considerable accept­ ance (cf. recently A. Scobie, Aspects of the Ancient Romance and its Heritage, pp. 32-3; 4-5;

H. van Thiel, Der Eselsroman, pp.

H.J. Mason, Erotica Antiqua, Acta of the International

Conference on the Ancient Novel 1976, p. 147 'I stressed the importance of Perry's demonstration that the Metamorphoses contained only the ass-story ...'). quite impossible to accept.

It is a view which I find

Firstly the assumption seems to

me completely unreasonable that Photius should not have bothered to read to the end a work that was, on Perry's latest estimate, barely fifty pages long (or even, on his earlier estimates, seventy-five to eighty pages in length, Ancient Romances, p. 369), when he had obviously read it closely enough to note the verbal resemblances to the Onos, and to observe that the author of the Onos is omitting various parts.

Moreover, there are

instances in Photius' Bibliotheca where we find that when Phot­ ius does not read a book all the way through he tells his reader so (cod. 41. 9a: of ten;

Photius states that he has read five books out

cod. 97. 83b and 84a;

Photius specifies twice that he

418 has only read part of a book).

So if Photius informs us that

'Lucius1' work consisted of 'several books' and that his 'first two books' are virtually transcribed from the Onos (or, as he considers more probable, the other way round), we are surely entitled to take it from Photius that those are the facts. The subscription to the Onos in Γ does not necessarily prove that the ass story formed the basic content of the e n t i r e Meta­ morphoses of 'Lucius':

specific mention of the work as an epi­

tome 'of the first two books' of the Metamorphoses might have been changed into the subscription as we have it by accidental omission of the above phrase, or the writer may have been speak­ ing loosely, just because he did not think it important to specify exactly that the Onos was an epitome of two books only. A further argument that Perry puts forward in his dissertat­ ion (pp. 25, 26) is that Photius is thinking of the Metamorph­ oses as one continuous story, and not a series of stories, when he refers to it in cod. 166 (111b), in connexion with Lucian’s True Story and the romances of Heliodorus, Achilles Tatius and Iamblichus, as having been inspired by the novel of Antonius Diogenes, The Wonders beyond Thule. either.

This is not necessarily so

In the previous sentence Photius has mentioned along

with these writers a certain Damascius, whose four books of fantastic tales about ghosts and spirits and other marvels Photius had previously discussed in cod. 130 (cod. 166. 111b: έστι 5' , ώς εοι,κεν, οΰτος - i.e. Antonius Diogenes - χρόνψ

419 πρεσβύτερος των τ& τοιαϋτα έσπουδακότων διαπλάσαι, οΐον ΛουκuavoO, Λουκίου, 'Ιάμβλιχου, Άχιλλέως Τατίου, Ήλι.οδώρου τε καί Δαμασκϊου).

Perry presses the fact that Damascius is then

omitted from the list when Photius goes on to state that Anton­ ius Diogenes' book is the 'source and root’ of Lucian's True Story and Lucius' Metamorphoses, and that it also furnished the model (παράδειγμα) for the adventures of the lovers in the novels by Iamblichus, Achilles Tatius and Heliodorus.


is omitted, Perry maintains, because he does not write a novel with a unified plot like all the others, including the Meta­ morphoses . However, as Perry himself observes, Photius is thinking firstly of fictitious stories in general, so he includes Damasc­ ius with the other writers of fiction that he has read;


ly, he groups the True Story and the Metamorphoses together as tales of fantastic adventure inspired by the element of the marvellous in Antonius Diogenes' tale;

and thirdly he groups

together the romances of Iamblichus, Achilles Tatius, and Helio­ dorus, because the trials and tribulations of their heroes and heroines are inspired by the love element in Antonius Diogenes' novel (which, to judge from Photius' résumé, was secondary to the aspect of travel and fantastic adventure).


collection stood apart from all these works because each of his four books contained a large number of what must have been very short anecdotes, since Photius says (cod. 130) that there were

420 352 chapters of extraordinary fictions in the first book, 52 extraordinary stories about spirits in book two, 63 ghost stories in book three, and 105 chapters of extraordinary phen­ omena (φύσεων: ? monstrous births, ? creatures) in book four. So he could not have developed any of them as an adventure tale in the same sense as the True Story or the Onos, which occupied, according to Photius (cod. 129), two books of the Metamorphoses.

There is nothing in what Photius says in cod.

166 which precludes there having been other tales in the Meta­ morphoses containing similarly developed narratives of fant­ astic adventure inspired, in a general way, by the element of magic in Antonius Diogenes' novel (the magician who causes two of the protagonists to be corpses by day and alive by night, cod. 166. 110b). Perry further argues that the singular article in the phrase του περί μεταμορφώσεων Λουκίου (of which Antonius Diogenes' novel was the πηγή καί ί>ϊζα, as of Lucian's True Story, cod. 166. 111b) owing to its close coordination with the phrase τοϋ περί άληθών διηγημάτων Λουκιανού indicates a single story:


Photius had thought of the Metamorphoses as a number of stories, he would have used the plural τών (Diss. p.27).

But the phrase

simply means 'Lucius' work, the Metamorphoses’ just as τοϋ ... Λουκιανού in the other phrase means ’Lucian's work'. A work consisting of several stories involving transformation need not have been a 'monstrosity' as Perry alleges (Ancient

421 Romances, p.215), either from the point of view of length or of subject matter.

It need have been no longer than, for in­

stance, the novels of Achilles Tatius (in eight books) or Heliodorus (in ten).

We do not know exactly how long the

original 'ass story' was.

If Perry's later estimate of just-

under fifty Teubner pages is right, then it would have been approximately the same length as the first two books of Achilles Tatius’ novel (cf. the average length of the books of Achilles Tatius, Longus, and Chariton in Hercher's Teubner ed. of Erotici Scriptores Graeci, and Lucian's True Story in Jacobitz's ed.). If, on the other hand, Perry's earlier estimate of seventy-five to eighty pages is nearer the mark, then the original 'ass story' would have been rather closer to the length of the first two books of Heliodorus' romance.

(We might bear in mind also that

Antonius Diogenes' novel contained twenty-four books, according to Photius cod. 166. 109a, while Iamblichus’ novel was in six­ teen books, cod. 94. 78b, although the Suda puts it at thirtynine, s.v. Iamblichus, ed. Adler, which Perry takes to indicate that Photius was probably reading an epitome, Diss. p.60 n.3.) There is no reason why the original Metamorphoses should not have been a very long work;

but let us assume, for the sake of

argument, that Perry's estimate of about fifty Teubner pages for the original 'ass story' is correct.

Photius says this story

occupied the first two books of the Metamorphoses.

Let us

assume further that the novel as a whole was no longer than

422 Achilles Tatius' romance, and that, like his novel, it was divided into eight books.

That would allow for three other

stories of the same length as the original 'ass story' of two books; length:

but of course they need not have all been of the same there could have been one other story of the length

of the Ass and four stories of one book each, or even less (a couple of the eight books could have contained two or three stories apiece), so as to produce the over-all effect of var­ iety that there is in a work like Lucian's Toxaris or Philopseudes, only on a larger scale. The contents need not, in 'violation of taste and proportion' (as Perry says in Class. Phil. 18 (1923), 234), have combined a 'burlesque novel' (viz. the ass story) with 'antiquarian myths like those in Ovid', nor have consisted entirely of a series of 'burlesque novels' (cf. Ancient Romances, p.215).

Photius was

under the impression that the author seriously believed in the truth of 'metamorphoses of men into other men, animals into men and vice versa'.

Scholars, before Perry published his dissert­

ation, had always taken these words as indicating the general contents of 'Lucius'1 book, and they may well have been right. Perry thinks that 'metamorphoses of men into other men' (lit. into each other - but it comes to the same thing) refers to Pythagorean metempsychosis and argues that this, like the other sort of transformations that Photius mentions, must have been referred to in the Metamorphoses 'among the articles of Lucius'

423 belief' (Ancient Romances, pp. 217, 218);

but in fact this

type of transformation, like the transformations of 'animals into men' and 'men into animals' looks far more like a feature of folk tale (cf. on the general subject J.A. MacCulloch, The Childhood of Fiction:

a Study of Folk Tales and Primitive

Thought, chap. 6 Transformation, pp. 149-187). Stories of persons changed into animals appear to be the most common type (such as the well known Frog Prince or Beauty and the Beast;

Grimms' collection contains a story about a

huntsman who is turned into an ass by eating a lettuce, which he subsequently uses, together with its antidote, to contrive the punishment of his enemies and the conventional happy ending for himself;

Celtic, and other versions of this tale are men­

tioned by MacCulloch pp. 158-9).

Stories of animals turned

into humans are perhaps rather less familiar, but are never­ theless found in many parts of the world (e.g. the story in the Panchatantra, Book III 9, of the mouse transformed into a girl; and cf. MacCulloch for a variety of other stories of this type, pp. 157, 255-61, 331-42, 348 n.l etc.).

As to 'men transformed

into other men', witches and wizards in fairy tales magically take on the appearance of other people, or change a person's sex (MacCulloch pp. 186, 187; Teiresias etc.:

cf. the Greek myths of Caeneus,

as MacCulloch observes, p.166,

'over and over

again the mythologies and sacred books of all religions .... preserve folk tales as part of the history of the gods.


424 must regard them none the less as folk tales and nothing more'); and there are fairy stories about magic pools which transform those who bathe in them into different beings (men into women, mortals into immortals, a white man into a black, men into animals, animals into men, cf. MacCulloch pp. 156-7). An ancient author composing a work no longer than Achilles Tatius' novel (exempli gratia) about transformations of the fairy tale variety like the Onos need not have made all the stories into 'comic' or 'burlesque novels' (Perry, Ancient Romances, p. 215, and Class. Phil. 18 (1923), 234).

He could

perfectly well have combined one or two comic tales with a spine-chilling yarn or two about a werewolf (cf. Petronius, Satyricon 61-2;

and on this theme in folk-lore MacCulloch pp.

161, 455) or similar creatures, such as the snake-man of Apuleius' Metamorphoses (8. 19-21).

He could have told a trans­

formation story With a tragic ending, like the Actaeon myth, alluded to in Apuleius' Metamorphoses 2. 4.

It is a story

which may have come from Babylonian folk-lore (cf. MacCulloch p. 329), for we hear of a shepherd in the Gilgamesh epic who was turned into a leopard by the goddess Ishtar, who seems to have made rather a habit of this sort of magic, like Circe, and the witches Meroe and Pamphile in Apuleius' Metamorphoses (1. 9, 2. 5):

in N.K. Sanders' translation (The Epic of Gil­

gamesh, Penguin p. 84) the shepherd becomes a wolf, and 'now his own herd-boys chase him away, his own hounds worry his

425 flanks'.

Our author could also have diverted his readers with

a romantic transformation tale, such as one of the many versions of Apuleius’ Cupid and Psyche fairy story (Met. 4. 2 8 - 6 .


involving transformation, for in most versions the heroine marries a prince who is by night a man (whom she may not see), but condemned by his enchantress stepmother to be by day a bear (Norse version,

'East of the Sun and West of the Moon') or wolf

(Danish version) or reptile (Indian, Russian, Tuscan versions, cf. Apul., Met. 5. 17;

and on this ubiquitous theme in general

cf. MacCulloch pp. 325-8).

In addition, since Photius informs

us that the lost Metamorphoses was 'full of shameful obscenity' (cod. 129), the author could have added, perhaps, a salacious fairy story of adultery facilitated by magical transformation (cf. the Amphitryon myth), as the Ps.-Callisthenes Alexander Romance related how the Egyptian sorcerer Nectanebus seduced Olympias under various guises, as Ammon in the Ethiopic and Armenian versions;

or as snake, Ammon, Heracles and Dionysus

in the Greek and Syriac versions (Syriac tr. Budge, chaps 6,7; cf. Kroll's ed. of the Greek Recensio Vetusta chaps 6, 7; Ethiopic version, Budge 'Life and Exploits of A.', pp. 14-18; Armenian tr. Wolohojian, pp. 26-9). In short, a collection of folk tales involving transform­ ation would not have been at all impossible for a second century writer to assemble (pace Perry, Diss. pp. 22-3) and develop on lines comic or tragic or horrific or romantic or in any way he

426 pleased.

It would not have been in any way 'a monstrosity';

and its purpose, about which Perry expresses doubts (Ancient Romances, p.215), would have been the perfectly obvjous one of entertainment.

It is not impossible that an effect of unity

might have been given to such a collection by the author's using the Lucius character of the first tale as a connecting link;

for while Lucius himself, after his experiences as an

ass, would hardly have been likely to have performed an encore, he might have further indulged his curiosity in matters magical by recounting tales narrated to him by others about their own experiences, or about the misadventures of acquaintances, just as it looks as though the Milesian Tales were spun together in a similar sort of way, as Aristides narrated tales that had been told to him by others (cf. ps.-Lucian Amores 1).


author might also have used Antonius Diogenes' device, and made Lucius tell of stories he had unearthed from tablets hidden in long-forgotten caskets (or something of the sort, cf. Photius, cod. 166. 111b). It seems to me, therefore, that we do not have good reason to doubt Photius when^ he tells us that the Metamorphoses of Lucius of Patrae consisted of 'several' books, of which the Onos author abridged 'the first two'.

The title 'Metamorph­

oses' implies 'a number of stories about transformation' far more immediately than it does 'reflections upon and illustr­ ations of the general subject' of transformation (Perry, Class.

427 Phil. 18 (1923), 238), which would indeed be 'a somewhat un­ usual sense' (p.230);

and Photius' words about the author's

belief (as he supposes it to be) in 'transformations of men into other men etc.' likewise implies a number of stories about transformation. Since we know, both from what Photius says, and from compar­ ing Apuleius' version of the story with the Onos, that the ass story in the lost Metamorphoses was the same, and told in the same 'words and syntax', it must have been basically comic, but there is, as discussed earlier (in Chapter V), no evidence that it was in general satiric or parodie, just as there is no reason to suppose that the rest of the contents of the Metamorphoses were comic or satiric.

Indeed it is not impossible that Photius

got the impression that the author of the Metamorphoses really believed in such tales because his attention was distracted from the comic nature of the first tale by the rest of the stories, an impression no doubt reinforced, as Perry suggested, by the fact that he took 'Lucius of Patrae', the first person narrator of the initial story (and perhaps the link connecting the other tales) to be a real person and the author of the otherwise anon­ ymous work before him.

When, however, he found the epitomised

story, in isolation, among Lucian's works, Photius hastily ass­ umed that since Lucian did not normally hold such beliefs, his intention in retelling the tale must have been satirical. At some stage somebody, perhaps the person who first made the

428 epitome, gave it the title Lucius or the Ass, because he realised that Metamorphoses was no longer an appropriate title. No doubt the epitome itself was made for commercial reasons (cf. van Thiel, Der Eselsroman,p .7) because this was the story which had caught the popular fancy and was the most in demand, being possibly the most comic or the most unusual, or (human nature being what it is!) the most obscene tale in the collect­ ion.

Apuleius, on the other hand, choosing to expand the tale

into eleven books (its appeal for him perhaps lying not only in its entertainment value but also in the scope it offered him for the expression of his religious feelings in the new and more uplifting conclusion which he supplied), retained the original title Metamorphoses, possibly through sheer inadvertence (on his carelessness in other respects cf. Helm, Teubner ed. of Apuleius II 2 pp. vi, xv, xvi, and Scobie, Aspects of the Anc­ ient Romance and its Heritage, p. 81);

or perhaps to underline

his debt to his Greek source (just as he tells his readers initially 'fabulam Graecanicam incipimus', Met. 1. 1) and be­ cause he felt that since he recounted a few other transformation tales as inset stories the title was not wholly inappropriate (2. 32 the wine skins transformed into robbers;

8. 19 the

snake man who uses transformation to ensnare and eat his herds­ man victim;

while the witches Meroe and Pamphile punish those

who have offended them by changing them into animals;


becomes an owl to visit her lover, and other witches turn into

429 weasels etc. to mutilate corpses for their rites, 1. 9, 2. 5, 2. 21, 3. 21;

cf. P. Vailette, Budé ed. intro, pp. xxiv-v).

There remains Perry's contention (Diss. Chap. V, Ancient Romances p,213) that Lucian himself wrote the lost Metamorph­ oses because he is 'the only man known to us in the second century who wrote in that humorous and satirical spirit' (sc. that he finds in the Onos).

Apart from the fact that the

Metamorphoses need not have been comic throughout, and still less satirical, there must have been any number of writers in the second century capable of telling stories and telling them well:

retelling stories of various sorts was part of every

rhetorician's preliminary training (cf. Hermogenes' Progymnasmata).

Nor can one really believe that Lucian was the only

sophist in the second century with a sense of humour - of course, he may have been the best! - for we hear of those 'playthings' or 'jesters', whom Philostratus will not discuss, because he considers them unworthy of mention among his soph­ ists (Vit. Soph. 605). Furthermore, to indulge in one last piece of speculation, what sort of work was the lost Metamorphoses of the sophist Adrian of Tyre?

It is not mentioned by Philostratus, but was

included among the writings of Adrian by the author of the Suda. It was a work in seven books.

Philostratus tells us that Adrian

loved telling stories about magic (Vit. Soph. 590), and was, in fact, so fond of telling stories in his declamations about the

430 practices of magicians that many people suspected him of practising magic himself. like the Onos?

Could he have told a humorous story

He would appear, perhaps, from what Philo-

stratus tells us, to have had a sense of humour, albeit not universally appreciated.

Philostratus, we remember, relates

the story of how one of Adrian's pupils sent him a gift of fishes on a silver plate, and how Adrian failed to return the dish, as its owner had expected him to do:

instead Adrian

thanked the donor with the comment 'so kind of you to send the fishes as well!'

Some, says Philostratus, told the story

to prove that Adrian was a shameless character;

but others

said it was a joke, designed to teach a lesson to the pupil concerned, who was inclined to be stingy, and that Adrian later returned the dish. in some quarters.

So, if joke it was, it obviously misfired Adrian's remark at the beginning of his

inaugural lecture at Athens appears to have been another: ascending the Chair of Rhetoric, this sophist from Tyre quipped that 'Letters' had come to the Athenians once more from Phoen­ icia.

Philostratus obviously found this pun more arrogant than

amusing and pronounced Adrian's whole prooemium redolent of conceit (Vit. Soph. 587). Certainly we cannot, in the total lack of evidence, maintain that Adrian's lost Metamorphoses in seven books was none other than the equally lost Metamorphoses of Lucius of Patrae!


Thiel (Der Eselsroman, pp. 39, 153) rules out the possibility,


since he accepts Perry's ideas about the length and nature ol the latter work, and estimates its length as lour books at the most;

but he suggests that its author was parodying Adrian's

Metamorphoses, for which there is equally little evidence.


may be that the Metamorphoses of this Phoenician professor of rhetoric was just a large collection of mythological exempla, the sort of thing that every aspiring rhetorician should know, just like Lucian's dancer who, in addition to other mytholog­ ical tales,

'will know all about the transformations of myth­

ology, of the persons who have been turned into trees or beasts or birds and the women who have been turned into men ...' (Salt. 57;

cf. Perry, Class. Phil. 18 (1923), 229, on the place of

such handbooks in rhetorical training). At all events, when Photius informs his reader that the author of the Metamorphoses (who, while avoiding innovation in his style, is excessively addicted to the marvellous in his stories) 'is, so to speak, another Lucian' (cod. 129), we are not justified in concluding, with Perry, that the author was Lucian.

The tale of Lucius' transformation into an ass is such

a good story, so amusingly told, that, if the other books of which Photius speaks were even half as diverting, it would, one must admit, be nice to think of Lucian as their author.


thesis, at least in part, is tempting, and the present writer is fully as sensible of its attraction as others have been: 'la solution de Perry est ingénieuse' says Vallette (Budé intro


p. XV),

'elle est sdduisante'.

regarded as proven;

Yes indeed, but it cannot be

and the question of who wrote the lost

Metamorphoses of 'Lucius of Patrae' still remains open.


434 (Notes to Chapter I) 1.

On the Life and Writings of Lucian.

A Dialogue between

Lucian and Lord Lyttelton in the Elysian Fields.


The Works

of Lucian from the Greek, Thomas Francklin, London 1781, voi. I pp. i-xxxiv. 2.

At the opposite extreme from Schwartz stands B. Baldwin

(Studies in Lucian, Toronto 1973, p. 18):

'I refrain from the

fashionable construction of charts which purport to show the exact years and venues of particular Lucianic pieces ... It should be iterated that there is virtually nothing in the evid­ ence, internal and external, for Lucianic chronology that de­ serves the status of fact'.

I do not think the task is quite

as hopeless as that, and I believe it is helpful in discussing an author at least to attempt to sort out what facts and prob­ abilities one can about his life and the order of composition of his writings, even though the results may turn out to be a little disappointing in the end. 3.

Although, as B. Baldwin observes (Studies in Lucian, p.9),

'to be on the menu of dogs is no unique fate in an ancient bio­ graphy:

it was shared at least by Euripides and Heraclitus'

(Gell., Noct. Att. 15. 20, Ath., Deipn. 13. 598, Diog. Laert. 9. 4);

cf. his discussion of the sources of the Suda article

and the Byzantine creators of 'Lucian the Anti-Christ' (pp. 7-8, 100-3).

He may be right in suggesting that possibly somebody

conflated our Lucian at some stage with Lucian, the presbyter

435 (Notes to Chapter I) of Antioch, who was born at Samosata, and whose heretical opinions led to his being excommunicated by three successive bishops of Antioch and to his eventual death in prison in 312 A.D. (see W, Smith, Diet, of Gk and Rom. Biog. and Myth. p. 810 s.v. Lucianus no. 1). 4.

γέγονε (MSS Suda s.v. Λουκιανός ed. Adler), as E. Rohde

demonstrated (Rhein. Mus. 33 (1878), 161-220, esp. 165 and 219), in the vast majority of cases in the Suda describes not the year of birth but the most important period of a man's life (cf. Ritschl, Opuscula I p. 64 n. 1, and, for example, Suda, s.v. Λυγκεύς, σύγχρονος γέγονεν Μένανδρου τοϋ κωμικού).

The phrase

καί έπέκεινα in any case makes the translation 'was born' un­ likely as it implies duration. earlier’ or 'and later':

καϊ έπέκεινα could mean ’and

Wieland (reading λέγεται δε γενέσθαι)

translates 'er soll zu Trajans Zeiten und noch vorher geboren worden sein', and declares that Lucian could have come into the world neither earlier nor later than 116 or 117 (Lucians ... Sämtliche Werke voi. I p. v η. 2.

Gaisford and Bernhardy print

λέγεται δε γενέσθαι in the lemma, but nobody cites the authority for it).

The translation 'and later' is more probable, cf. Suda

s.v. Άριστοκλης Περγαμηνός, γεγουώς έπί τε Τραϊανού και Άδριανοϋ;

s.v. Πολέμων Λαοδικεύς, ήν έπί τε Τραϊανού και μετ' αυτόν

(cf. Rohde pp. 165-6;

on Lucian p. 173:

Rohde's opinion is

that he could scarcely even have been born under Trajan).


436 (Notes to Chapter I) scholiast on Lucian (Scholia, ed. Rabe p. 174) comments that Lucian and Pollux were σύγχρονοι. ... érti γάρ Μάρκου του αότοκράτορος. 5.

By G. Strohmaier in 'übersehenes zur Biographie Lukians',

Philologus 120 (1976), 117-22.

V. Nutton also mentioned the

passage in 'Galen and Medical Autobiography', PCPhS n.s. 18 (1972), 50-62, and commented (pp. 58-9) 'There can be little doubt that this parodist with an interest in philosophy and grammar was Lucian of Samosata, and it may well be that he and Galen were personally acquainted in the intellectual circles of Rome, Asia or Alexandria'.

M.D. Macleod, Philologus 1979

pp. 326-8, agrees that the contemporary mentioned by Galen is very probably the satirist from Samosata.

It certainly does

not look, from the information given by Strohmaier (118-9) as if there is much doubt about this. 6.

Strohmaier (120) is not clear about the exact nature

of the deception of the grammarians· that Galen reports.


translates the Arabic that follows the account of the hoax played on the philosopher, 'Lukianos hatte auch auf dem Wege der Anspielung (?) Ausdrücke fabriziert, hinter denen kein Sinn steckte, und einigen Grammatikern zugesandt, worauf diese sie deuteten und kommentierten und sich damit blamierten' (119), but tells us that the Arabic expression which he trans­ lates as ’Anspielung’ (with a query) normally means 'Eingebung,

(Notes to Chapter I) Inspiration', which he thinks does not make sense (120).


suggests that one may deduce from the wording of the Arabic that Lucian in his quarrel with the hyperatticists has invented some archaic sounding words in order to demonstrate that the philological pedants actually had no sure criteria for correct and incorrect linguistic usage (121).

As one who does not know

Arabic (on which subject cf. Bowersock's comment in Greek Soph­ ists in the Roman Empire, ρ.120ί), might I ask whether the Arabic wording could conceivably mean something like 'Lucian had also in the course of the ? hoax (the "bright idea" of fooling the philosopher) fabricated some nonsensical express­ ions ...'?

That is to say, do we have to assume that Lucian

is making fun of hyperatticists? same hoax that is being described?

Is it not perhaps one and the Might Lucian not have writt­

en in Ionic a book of oracular sounding pronouncements in the manner of Heraclitus, doubtless full of stuff about 'not stepp­ ing into the same river twice' and 'dry souls being wisest’, in order to ridicule, on the one hand, the unfortunate philosopher who had to elucidate the 'philosophical' meaning, and, on the other, the grammatical pundits, who were invited to comment as experts on the linguistic niceties of 'Heraclitus'' Ionic usage? The philosopher in question was presumably a Stoic, in view of the Stoics' interest in Heraclitus and the books written about him by members of the sect (cf. Carol Evans, Ά

new fragment of

438 (Notes to Chapter I) Heraclitus?', Pegasus (Exeter) 9 (1968), 28-32). 7.

Cf. Strohmaier (ib. 120) who compares, besides Vit.

Auct. 14, Per. 39f. (the story Lucian claims he fabricated to fool the devotees of Peregrinus about the dead philosopher's soul flying up to heaven in the form of a vulture), and Macleod (ib. 326) who compares Al. 53-4 (the questions Lucian asked to test the oracle at Abonuteichos). 8.

Unless the Arabic which Strohmaier translates as 'con­

temporaries' can also mean ’friends’?

Baldwin (Studies in Luc­

ian, pp. 36-8) is among those who believe in a possible friend­ ship between Galen and Lucian, suggesting that Galen may be complimented in the Lexiphanes in the person of Dr. Sopolis. I have already expressed doubts about this in J.H.S. 1977 pp. 189-90 (cf. G. Sarton, Galen of Pergamum, p. 80 n. 108), and do not think, even on the basis of the present passage, that we can say more than that it confirms the similarity of outlook between Galen and Lucian on matters linguistic and on dogmatic philosophy: 9.

’Galen clearly approves of him’ (Macleod 327).

This appears to be the general attitude adopted by the

authors of the most recent books on Lucian.

G. Anderson (Theme

and Variation in the Second Sophistic, 1976) indefatigably collects parallel passages (a lot of which do not seem to me to be parallel at all) in order to show that Lucian will ’aim at (self-pastiche) wherever he can’ (p.99, cf. p.31);

one of

439 (Notes to Chapter I) the results being that 'his victims are practically inter­ changeable' (a gross exaggeration) and 'his self-portrait is blatant pastiche' (p.82).

The view that you cannot trust any­

thing Lucian says seems to be shared by C. Robinson (Lucian and his Influence in Europe, pp. 57-8 and p. 4:

'Lucian's special­

ity was the satirical dialogue, the techniques of which he claims, perhaps this time truthfully, to have developed him­ self').

While one has, of course, to bear in mind, as Caster

(Etudes sur Alexandre, p. 79f.) and others have pointed out, that one has to make allowance for the customary rhetorical fictions of an invective, one can carry scepticism too far: there is no need to treat Lucian as a congenital liar in all respects ! 10.

Cf. Strohmaier ib. 121.


Philostratus, Vit. Soph. 605.

Macleod (ib. 326)

suggests that Lucian's absence from contemporary sources may in part be due to his capacity for making enemies, who delib­ erately avoided paying him the compliment of any mention what­ soever in their works.

Indeed yes.

I should not have thought

that a work like Lucian's Rhetorum Praeceptor would have been likely to endear him to fellow members of his profession. Incidentally, if Lucian really carried out the hoax described in the Galen passage, he was not the only person in his age who enjoyed discomfiting those with false pretensions:

one is

440 (Notes to Chapter I) reminded of Aulus Gellius' obvious enjoyment of the way he made a Varronian 'expert' squirm! 12.

(Noct. Att. 13. 31).

On the general subject of success as a rhetorician

leading to high posts in the civil service under the Roman Empire cf. M.L. Clarke, Rhetoric at Rome, p.143; Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education, p.259;

D.L. Clark,

and G. Bowersock,

Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire, p.50f. 13.

Ed. Grenfell and Hunt.

It is a first century letter

from Alexandria, in which the writer is apparently thinking of entering the household of the archistator in order to put himself in a good position at a forthcoming trial in which he is involved.

Pflaum's article in Mélanges d 'Archéologie et

d'Histoire de l'École Fran^aise de Rome 71 (1959), 281-6, is called 'Lucien de Samosate "archistator praefecti Aegypti" d'après une inscription de Cesaree de Maurétanie':

the in­

scription in question, discussed by Mme H. d 'Escurac-Doisy in the same journal, 69 (1957), 137-50, relates to the career of one L(ucius) Septi(mius) Petro(nianus), in the course of which he becomes an archistator in Rome.

C.P. Jones, 'Two Enemies

of Lucian', Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 13 (1972), 486 n.58, thinks that Lucian's description of his duties (Apol. 12) indicates rather that the post he held was that of ύπομνηματογράφος (cf. Philo, In Place. 131, and J.F. Gilliam, C.P. 56 (1961), 103 Addendum), and that we should revert to the older

441 (Notes to Chapter I) view that this was Lucian's post.

I am inclined to agree, cf.

also Reinmuth, The Prefect of Egypt from Augustus to Diocletian, Klio Beiheft 34 (1935), 12. 14.

Cf. now G.W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman

Empire, p.114 n.6, who can obviously find no evidence either, and B. Baldwin, Studies in Lucian, p.17.

0. Bouquiaux-Simon,

Les lectures homériques de Lucien, Brussels 1965, p. 27, J. Bompaire, Rev. des Etudes Grecques 80 (1967), 653-4, and B.P. Reardon, Courants Littéraires Grecs des IIe et IIIe Siècles apres J.C., Paris 1971, p.156 n.4, all find Schwartz convinc­ ing, but still nobody offers any evidence for this initial hypothesis. 15.

There is no need to assume that the disappointment of

Lucian's hopes of holding higher office was due to his being involved in a political scandal; account for it:

any number of reasons might

he fell out with his superior, he failed to

distinguish himself notably in his post, he decided that this type of career did not suit him after all and longed for the glamour of the sophistic life, etc. 16.

Schwartz finds a sympathiser in Baldwin (Studies in

Lucian, pp. 28-9), who counts Herodes Atticus among Lucian's enemies, because of his belief in Lucian's sympathy for the poor:

the (spurious) Nero 'could have been classed as a re­

cognisable satire on Herodes' (who is not mentioned in it) and

442 (Notes to Chapter I) Lucian's (lost) Sostratus 'would have been a useful vehicle for passing adverse comment on Herodes1; while we should not take any notice of the fact that Lucian actually refers to Herodes in an extremely complimentary fashion in the Peregrinus (19) as an outstandingly cultured and eminent man who had bestowed great benefits on Greece! 17.

I agree with Wieland (Tooke voi. II p. 470 = Wieland

voi. V p. 353) that this would be a perfectly possible literary device even for the sceptical Lucian, used in order to suit the tastes of a patron of religious susceptibilities.

Wieland, how­

ever, regards the work as genuine, feeling that ’the imbecillity of the subject' is accounted for by the patron’s predilections. Not so, however, in my opinion, is the inartistry of the treat­ ment.

It may have been quite a fashionable theme:

Phlegon of

Tralles, a freedman of Hadrian, wrote a monograph on longevity, περί μακροβύων (frags in F, Jacoby, F.Gr.H. II 2 no. 257, p. 1169ff.). 18.

Croiset had earlier suggested that Lucian was sent on

an embassy from Samosata (Essai .., p.20), basing his case on Tox. 24 (an imaginary character mentioning that he had been an ambassador), Somn. 12 (Education promising that Lucian will become influential), Al. 53 ( a false question that Lucian sends his servant to ask the oracle).

Gallavotti also uses

to support his theory, besides Tox. 24, Longaevi 1 (which is

(Notes to Chapter I) irrelevant) and the Harmonides, an appeal to a patron in some city for support in his first rhetorical performances there; the man addressed is a patron of Samosata (3) and could well be a Roman, but there is nothing to prove either that the city in question is Rome or that Lucian was on an embassy there, or when the work was written. 19.

Nissen (Rhein. Mus. 43 pp. 254ff.) argued that these

Games were held not in 165 (as according to Eusebius, Chron. II p. 170) but in 167, Croiset (Mem. de l'acad. de Montpellier, Sect, des Lettres VI 490ff., cf. his Essai .., p.37) that the death of Peregrinus occurred at the Games of 169.


argument turns on the assumption that Nero’s altering the Olympic Games from 65 to 67 A.D. so that he could compete, started a new series, which hypothesis was refuted by A.Mommsen, Die Zeit der Olympiaden, Leipzig 1891, p.98.

Croiset's argument

depends on his interpretation of the word πάλαι in Per. 43, where Lucian tells how he voyaged from the Troad in company with Peregrinus early in 165.

As Lucian wrote the Peregrinus

soon after the latter's death, argues Croiset, and since Lucian says to the friend to whom the work is addressed 'You have long known that tale' (sc. about the voyage) and πάλαι must refer to a period of years, the death of Peregrinus cannot have been at the Games of 165 (only a few months after the voyage) but at the Games of 169.

The answer to this is of course quite simply tnat

444 (Notes to Chapter I) according to the context πάλαι can mean a period of years, months or even hours (for the last cf. Plato, Theaet. 142a), and in any case we do not know exactly when Lucian wrote the Peregrinus except that it was quite probably after his cult had started.

For discussions of Nissen and Croiset cf. P.V/.

s.v. Peregrinus (von Fritz) and Helm (Lucian und Menipp, pp. 114 n. 2). 20.

The reference to Babylon would not fit the year 161,

in which there was another celebration of the Olympic Games, and when the Parthian War had begun, because in that year the centre of operations was Elegeia in Armenia where the Parthians destroyed a Roman army, subsequently invading Syria and routing the governor's forces (Dio Cassius 71. 2;

Hist. Aug., Marc. 8).


For what I mean by this term, see n. 1 to Chapter II.


It has been suggested that Nec. 10 indicates the Roman

disasters of 161 (cf. Helm, P.W. Lukianos s.v. Menippus) but, if it refers to the Parthian War, it could apply to any stage in it. 23.

Helm dates Lucian's birth to about 120, because Lucian

says he was about 40 when he began his 'Menippean' genre and Helm believes that he can demonstrate that some of those works were written as early as 161.

His arguments for dating various

'Menippean' dialogues in the early 60s do not seem to me con­ clusive.

Lucian's statement about his age is vague enough to

445 (Notes to Chapter I) allow us to place his birth as early as c. 120 in any case. It must be mentioned that Litt and Gallavotti have denied that there is any reference to Lucian's actual age in the Hermotimus (13): age.

'Lycinus', they say, is given a fictitious

This is because both of them postulate a philosophic

development on Lucian's part, and place near its close a period of disillusionment marked by the Hermotimus, the last stage in Litt's scheme, the penultimate in Gallavotti's (pp. 175-6). The latter surmises that the Hermotimus was written in 172, because this suits his idea of Lucian's development.

But one

can only talk of a development after (and if) one can date the works.

It seems to me that if Lucian tells an audience in his

Bis Accusatus or Hermotimus that he is 'about forty' (and his works were first read to an audience and then published, like those of other sophists, Apol. 3, Phil., Vit. Soph. 579), it is not unreasonable to take him at his word. 24. p.2 n.2;

On Samosata and its geography, cf. Croiset, Essai .., and, most recently, C. Robinson, Lucian and his In­

fluence in Europe, pp. 2-3. 25.

Householder (Literary Quotation and Allusion in Lucian,

New York 1941, App. Ill pp. 95-6) has a theory that Lucian's father may have been a member of an auxiliary troop stationed in Samosata, which was a permanent army post (Legio XVI Flavia). At the expiry of his service he would have received citizenship,

446 (Notes to Chapter I) and his son(s) too.

As a Roman citizen was not eligible for

the auxiliary troops Lucian could not follow in his father's footsteps.

His hypothesis is attractive and may be right.


citizenship awarded to soldiers of auxiliary regiments, cf. J.A. Crook in Aspects of Greek and Roman Life (ed. H.Scullard), London 1967, Chap. II p. 41, cf. p. 48;

and Iiro Kajanto,

The Latin Cognomina, Helsinki 1965, Part II chap. 2 p. 172, on the cognomen Lucianus. 26.

It has been suggested that Lucian's artistic aptitude

as a child (Somn. 2) is merely a literary reminiscence of Nub. 878 (which is in any case not particularly close): Lucien Écrivain, p. 531; Penguin tr. p. 7;


Turner, Lucian: Satirical Sketches,

Anderson, Theme and Variation .., pp.80-2,

who collects miscellaneous other references in Lucian to status etc. to argue that Lucian's self-portrait is just 'blatant pastiche', even comparing Lucian's accident with the slab of marble to the Sorcerer's Apprentice story (Philops. 35;


in Lucian's Comic Fiction, p.29), just Lucian practising 'self­ pastiche ' again, 'trying to assimilate every subject to every other', 'working his themes and variations to saturation point' (pp. 21, 134 etc.).

Is it such a wildly improbable idea that

Lucian may in fact have displayed artistic talent in his youth, since it obviously ran in the family, or that his parents should decide to apprentice him into an uncle's business that was doing

447 (Notes to Chapter I) well, or that he should at some stage have tried his hand in his uncle's workshop and made a mess of things?

Obviously he

has worked up the story in a dramatic way, and it has provided him with a splendid opportunity for his own 'Choice of Heracles' in the guise of a dream;

and equally obviously we do not need

to embroider his story with more fiction, as some scholars have done, who have argued, from Par. 13, that Lucian ran away from home because of his hatred for the occupation he was forced to learn (it is far more likely that he simply talked his father round to the idea of financing further education);

but unless

there is some good reason for doubting what Lucian says, as when he uses stock charges in an invective, I think we should assume that when he gives us details like this about his life, he is telling the truth. 27.

Fritzsche supposed that Lucian studied at Smyrna under

Scopelian or Polemo (cf. Croiset, Essai .., p.6), Householder that he studied at Tarsus (T.A.P.A. 71, 199-216 'Mock Decrees in Lucian').

Neither opinion can be substantiated any more

than Householder's other suggestion (Literary Quotation and Allusion in Lucian, p.96) that the interest that Lucian shows in medical matters and in the theatre indicates that he once associated with a travelling physician or an acting company. 28.

Cf. T.J.Haarhoff, Schools of Gaul, pp. 33-8.

appears to have standardised the salaries, ib. 112-3.

Vespasian On the

448 (Notes to Chapter I) importance of Gaul as a rhetorical centre, especially Marseilles, cf. Strabo, Geog. 4. 1. 5;

and M.L. Clarke, Rhetoric at Rome,

p. 145f. 29.

Haarhoff pp.10-11;

maxime Mercurium colunt.

cf. Caes., B.G. 6. 17 '(Galli) deum Huius sunt plurima simulacra, hunc

omnium inventorem artium ferunt ...'

For discussion of various

other views, cf. G. Anderson, Theme and Variation .., pp.31-3. 30.

Baldwin (Studies .., p.12 n.31) suspects that it heralds

'Lucian's intellectual eye opening' later in the work.

On the

other hand H.L. Crosby ('Lucian and the Art of Medicine', ΤΑΡΑ 54 (1923), xv-xvi) suggests that Lucian's interest in eye dis­ eases, among other medical topics, may have been due to personal experience.

There is nothing particularly improbable in the

idea of Lucian's visiting the capital at some stage in his life to consult an eye specialist, but in the present instance it could obviously be just a literary device for introducing the dialogue. 31.

B.P. Reardon (Lucian;

Selected Works, intro, p. xix)

puts the Somnium in 162, in which case Lucian would have visited Antioch (and composed the Imagines) after his stay in Samosata, but from the account that Lucian gives of his journey after leaving his home town (Al. 55-56) it appears that he went north, through Cappadocia to Abonuteichos and Amastris, so that it seems more likely that he took in Antioch en route to Samosata.

449 (Notes to Chapter I) Lucian's intention in returning home may have been partly to remove his father and other members of his family from the war zone. 32.

It is rather tempting to view Verus as a mere play-boy

who 'led his regiment from behind';

but for another, and per­

haps fairer, view cf. M. Dorothy Brock, Studies in Fronto and his Age, Cambridge 1911, pp. 57-61. 33.

Cf. D.S. Robertson, The Authenticity and Date of the

De Saltatione, Essays and Studies presented to William Ridgeway, Cambridge 1913, pp. 180-6. 11


J. Bieler, Uber die Echtheit der Lucianischen Schrift

De Saltatione, progr.. Halle 1894, and R. Helm, Lucian und Menipp, App. IV pp. 365-70 (although he seems to have changed his mind by the time he wrote the article on Lucian in P.W.). 35.

It is exactly the same method that he follows in his

treatise on the authenticity of the Parasite, which he also pronounces spurious (discussed on p. 334ff. of the present work). 36.

A. Boulanger,

'Lucien et Aelius Aristide', Rev. de Phil,

nouv. s^r. 47 (1923), 144-5 and 149ff.;

cf. his book, Aelius

Aristide et la Sophistique dans la province d'Asie au IIe siècle de notre ère, Paris 1923, pp. 298-9, where he cites a number of more detailed parallels than in his article. Cmèp των τεττάρων see p. 190 of the present work. 37.

These references suggest to me that the work was

On the

450 (Notes to Chapter I) delivered in Ephesus, but others do not agree.

J.Schwartz has

his own methods for dating this work (discussed above p.47f.) and chooses to put it in the period 165-170 on the basis of these methods (Biographie de Lucien, p. 112f.), arguing that Pseudol. 21 'laisse entendre que l ’histoire se passe à Athènes' (ρ.117) - but Athens is not mentioned - and explaining the references to Ephesus by assuming that Lucian had recently stayed there, or was corresponding with the Ephesians (113). This hypothesis seems to me as unconvincing as it is complic­ ated.

I cannot see why C.P.Jones,

'Two Enemies of Lucian',

Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 13 (1972), 475-87, should doubt that it is written in Ephesus (478 n.14).

Jones suggests

that the sophist attacked in it is Adrian of Tyre, but even assuming that the reference to 'the loveliest and largest of all the cities in Phoenicia' (19) means Tyre, and not Sidon or Berytus, other sophists came from Tyre:

Ulpian of Tyre may be

a possible candidate (above p. 297). 38.

It is usually assumed that Lucian means that he had

attended the Games of 153, 157, 161 and 165, and this is prob­ ably correct;

but if Lucian were writing a number of years

after Peregrinus' death, after the inhabitants of Parium had established a cult in his honour, perhaps delivering the speech at a subsequent celebration of the Olympic Games, the phrase might mean 'I've seen them four times now' rather than that he

(Notes to Chapter I) had seen them four times then (in 165);

and he need not mean

that he had seen them on four consecutive occasions. 39.

Pseudol. 8, the day on which the Romans, according to

ancient custom, offer prayers and sacrifices for the whole year, cf. Harmon's note, Loeb voi. 5 p. 383, and C.P.Jones, Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 13 (1972), 485. 40.

M. Caster, Etudes sur Alexandre ou le Faux Prophète

de Lucien, pp. 73-7, 87f. cf. Caster pp. 52-8.

On P. Mummius Sisenna Rutilianus

C. Robinson (Lucian and his Influence

in Europe, p.60) points out that Rutilianus 'was safely dead and unlikely to quarrel with a convenient fiction', which is true, but I do not think it necessarily justifies us in assum­ ing that Lucian and Rutilianus were not personally acquainted: it is certainly difficult, however, to think of two men of such different character being friends. 41.

Editors accept Burmeister's emendation ΑΟει,τος for the

MSS αϋεκτος (8), αύτός (γ) - see now Macleod O.C.T. ad loc. one L. Lollianus Avitus being governor of Bithynia in 165 (inscr. from Amastris I.G.R. Ill 84, cf. P.W. XIII 2 p. 1367); the dates tally well enough for us to be virtually certain that this was the governor with whom Lucian had dealings (cf. Caster,


Etudes .., p. 76). Tooke's translation of Wieland (Tooke voi.I intro,

p.viii = Wieland voi. I p.xvi).

Reitzenstein, Hellenistische

452 (Notes to Chapter I) Wundererzählungen, p.50, thinks that Lucian is making it all up, and Caster, Lucien et la Pensée Religieuse de son Temps, p.253, seems rather inclined to agree with him.

I see no

reason to disbelieve Lucian when he tells us that he attended the Olympic Games of 165 ('the most splendid that I have seen' etc. Per. 35), or that he actually went along to witness Per­ egrinus' suicide:

details like the difficulty of getting

transport (35), the people arriving late (39), and the final, rather anticlimactic, touch in his description of how, when Peregrinus leapt into the fire, 'he could not be seen, but was enveloped in the flames which had risen high' (36), all seem to me to suggest an eye-witness description.

In addition,

however, there is certainly an element of fiction:


stein suggests (pp. 37-8, 49-50) that Lucian in the Peregrinus is parodying an 'aretalogy' (an account of the life of a divinely gifted human being:

for the meaning of the word cf.

Reitzenstein p.7, M. Hadas, Hellenistic Culture, p.l70f.) of Peregrinus by his follower Theagenes.

This may or may not be

so, but we can certainly see that at Per. 39-40 Lucian is embroidering his narrative with a parodie detail that stems ultimately from the legendary biography of Pythagoras (on which cf. I. Levy, La Le'gende de Pythagore de Grece en Palestine). This is the account that Lucian claims to have fabricated, to fool the gullible, of how Peregrinus' soul in the form of a

453 (Notes to Chapter I) vulture rose from the pyre, proclaiming in Doric, έλιπον γάν, βαίνω 5' επ' Όλυμπον;

to which there is a close parallel in

Philostratus' Life of Apollonius of Tyana, where Apollonius ascends to heaven to the strains of a celestial choir singing, again in Doric, στεΐχε γας, απείχε ές ουρανόν, στεΐχε (Vit. Αρ. 8. 30);

and just as Apollonius is subsequently seen on earth

by his disciples (Vit. Ap. 8. 31), so Peregrinus reappears (Per. 40;

cf. Lévy, La Legende de Pythagore .., pp,' 74, 77).


this detail Lucian could perhaps, as Levy suggests (Recherches sur les Sources de la Legende de Pythagore, p.149), be parodying the biography of Pythagoras written by Apollonius of Tyana, or one of Apollonius' sources;

or even one of the works celebrat­

ing the miraculous deeds of Apollonius himself that Philostratus says he was using for his own biography of the sage (Vit. Ap. 1. 3).

All that we can say for certain is that Lucian is blend­

ing some fiction into his account of Peregrinus' immolation:


does not entitle us to assume that there is no fact at all in what he says about his own presence at the scene. 43.

Here again, while one does not have to accept the rhet­

orical cliches about Peregrinus turning pale with fear at sea (cf. Gell., Noct. Att. 19. 1) or the rest of his disreputable conduct en route, since Lucian is employing the fiction legit­ imate in the invective (cf. Caster, Études sur Alexandre ... p.84;


Cicero, In Pisonem, App. VI), it is quite

454 (Notes to Chapter I) possible that Lucian did in fact sail back to Greece on the same ship as Peregrinus, as he tells us. 44.

Cf. Helm (Lucian und Menipp, pp. 307-8) and Caster

(Lucien et la Pensée Religieuse de son Temps, pp. 69 and 242ff.). We do not know how much fact there is in Lucian's description of Peregrinus' cult (Per. 28, 41), but we are told by Athenag­ oras (Leg. pro Christ. 26) that the people of Parium set up a statue to Peregrinus which was believed to give oracles and heal the sick.

Anderson (Theme and Variation .., p.75) regards

the reference to Peregrinus' cult as merely another example of Lucian composing by 'self-pastiche', transposing motifs from one work to another:

'nor would he have to wait until a cult

of Peregrinus was set up, since he assigns statues or rites to any other character without hesitation' (cf. Tim. 51, Scyth. 2, Ic. 13).

Personally I do not think for one minute that Luc­

ian composed his works in the mechanical way that Anderson suggests;

but in any case we do not need vague 'parallels'

like this to suggest to us that, if Lucian were writing before the Parians (or anyone else) set up statues to Peregrinus, he could have invented such details.

The fact remains, however,

that Lucian's remarks on this matter are supported by some external evidence, and would have more point if made after the establishment of some sort of cult. 45.

J.F. Gilliam,

'The Plague under Marcus Aurelius', A.J.P.

455 (Notes to Chapter I) 82 (1961), 228, 229 and n. 16.

Weber (C.A.H. voi. 11, p. 348)

suggests a rather earlier date (autumn 165). 46.

M.D. Macleod ( Ά note on Lucian's "Prometheus es in

Verbis"', C.Q. n.s. 6 (1956), 237) explains the phrase 'You are a Prometheus in words' on the following lines:

Prometheus in

stealing fire was letting men into one of the gods' secrets; this, in effect, is what Lucian is doing in works such as the D. Deor., J. Trag., Ic., etc.;

therefore 'perhaps Lucian is

being threatened by an enemy with a punishment equally dire (sc. as that which Prometheus suffered for his theft) at the hands of Zeus, or perhaps he is being warned by a literary friend that such may be his fate if he continues to offend the gods ...'

I feel, however, that since the whole point of Luc­

ian's Prolalia is his originality in combining two elements, dialogue and comedy, to create a new genre, what the person who said to him 'You are a Prometheus in words' had in mind was rather the story of Prometheus creating man by mingling together the two elements of earth and water (cf. Apollod., Biblioth. 1. 7. i, and Lucian's little dramatic sketch, Prometheus, 13 γαϊαν ϋδει. φόρας (= Hes., Op. 61) ... άνέπλασα τούς άνθρώπους). It is, I think, a sophistic friend who is complimenting Lucian on his novel creation, and Lucian mock-modestly pretends to misunderstand him:

perhaps he meant that Lucian's works are

of clay, for his own (Lucian compliments him in return) are of

456 (Notes to Chapter I) gold (1-2), and so forth. 47.

In Eos 1908;

cf. Barbara P. McCarthy, Lucian and

Menippus, p. 6. 48. Iliad;

E.g. D. Mar. 2 and 4 from the Odyssey;

11 from the

D. Deor. 21 from II. 1. 396ff. and II. 8. 17-27;


from the Homeric Hymn to Hermes. 49.

Perhaps by those 'playthings of the Greeks' whom

Philostratus refuses to discuss (Vit. Soph. 605)? 50.

Various critics interpret Bis Acc. 33 as an account of

successive stages in Lucian's use of the dialogue (cf. Gallavotti p. 68 and Schwartz pp. 143-4).

There is not complete

unanimity on precisely what these stages are, but the. general idea seems to be that Lucian is saying that first he wrote Platonic dialogues, then comic dialogues and finally Menippean dialogues.

But Lucian includes ’Cynicism’ in the second stage

together with 'Aristophanes and Eupolis', and precisely which works contain these three elements, but exclude Menippean in­ fluence?

He is obviously not'giving different stages in a

development, but different stages, so to speak, in a recipe, whose end product is the Menippean dialogue. 51. ion.

Helm and Schwartz, in fact, do pronounce on this quest­ Schwartz states that the bulk of the Menippean literature

(p.82), or (p.132) all of it, was written before 162 and Luc­ ian's departure for the East.

The arguments that they use in

457 (Notes to Chapter I) reaching their conclusions are discussed on p. 51f.



whose scene was set in Athens would have been perfectly suit­ able for delivery elsewhere in Greece, so one cannot press this argument.

Baldwin (Studies

p.17) says 'the temptation

to equate a dialogue or a piece set in Greece with a particular performance in a particular area should be resisted.


the sophists with their effusions on Marathon, Demosthenes, and so on would have to be absurdly circumscribed' in geographical terms'.

But we are not talking about the usual hackneyed rhet­

orical themes.

It was customary for sophists when visiting a

city to utter a panegyric about the place (e.g. Phil., Vit. Soph. 535, 572, 579):

Lucian's complimentary description of

Philippopolis in Fug. 25, and his scene setting in the Bis Acc., may have been his own way of complimenting the city where the piece was first delivered. 52.

Gallavotti, Luciano nella sua evoluzione artistica e

spirituale, p. 6, places it in Thessalonica, following Mommsen (Prov. Rom., p. 276 Ital. transl.). 53.

Cf. Schwartz,

'La Conversion de Lucien de Samosate',

L'Antiquite' Classique 33 (1964), 384-400; second ed. 1970 s.v. Lucian:

Oxford Class. Diet,

'about the age of forty, when he

moved to Athens he deserted rhetoric for "philosophy" ... He later resumed the habit of public recitation’; (Greek Sophists .., p.114):

and Bowersock

’He appears to have abandoned the

458 (Notes to Chapter I) the practice of rhetoric at the age of forty-two, and there is no sign that he had ever been a rhetorical performer.

There is

indeed nothing to suggest that he ever ranked (or practised) as a sophist'.

If Lucian was never a 'rhetorical performer', what

are we to make of his introductions and other works in which he is plainly talking to audiences, and often about the audiences that he addresses and their reactions to his displays (e.g. Bacchus, Heracles, Herodotus, Zeuxis, Prom. Es 7 τους άκούοντας, Apoi. 3, Pise. 26, 27), not to mention his own accounts of his rhetorical career (Bis Acc. 27, 28, Somnium), and the fact that he refers to himself as a £>ήτωρ (Pise. 23, Bis Acc. 14) and a σοφιστής (Apol. 15 ... ένέτυχες ήμϊν τοΐς μεγαλομίσθοις των σοφιστών έναριθμουμένοις)?

He usually uses the word 'rhetor'

in reference to himself, and only at Apol. 15 uses the word 'sophist', probably, I think, to avoid the appearance of im­ modesty, for although he uses the term 'sophist' in a flexible way (Christ is a crucified 'sophist' Per. 13), when Lucian uses the term in a rhetorical context it looks from various passages as if he regards 'sophist' as the higher of the two terms (Rhet. Praec. 1:

έρωτςίς, ώ μειράκιον, δίχως &ν ρητωρ γένοιο καί τδ

σεμνότατον τούτο καί, πάντιμον όνομα σοφιστής είναι δόξαις; Pseudol. 5: είναι λέγων).

Lucian's enemy is described as ò σοφιοτής οΰτος Cf. Bowersock's conclusion (Greek Sophists ..,

p.13) on the general use of the word 'sophist' in the second

459 (Notes to Chapter I) century.

Lucian may not have ranked as a 'sophist' or 'star

performer' in Philostratus' eyes, but he certainly 'practised as' a rhetorical performer. 54..

The reference to 'letting the gentlemen of the jury

rest in peace' Bis Acc. 32) could refer to actual cases in the courts, but I think it is more likely, in the present context, to refer to 'controversiae' such as Lucian's Tyrant Slayer and the Disinherited Son.

As to the 'accusations of tyrants', the

fourth century teacher Aphthonius gives us a model denunciation of a tyrant in his Progymnasmata under 'commonplace' (cf. Rhet. Graec. X Rabe).

The tyrant was almost as ubiquitous a figure

in rhetorical prose as the 'rich man' and 'poor man' (e.g. Phil., Vit. Soph. 569;

Sen., Contr. 1. 7, 2. 5, 3. 6;

De Invent. 2. 49. 144;

Quintii. 9. 2. 67;



Tac., Dial. 35).

In this I find myself in complete agreement with B.P.

Reardon, though I had not read his book when writing this in 1966 (Lucian: Selected Works, 1965, intro, p.xiii:

'In fact

neither now, nor at any time did (Lucian) occupy his mind with anything that could be called serious philosophic thought.


had merely grown tired, as well he might, of the trite themes of fashionable rhetoric, and sought new material and expression for his talents'.). 56.

It seems that one type of oratory that Lucian did

abandon was that of pleading in the courts (Schwartz, p.49), cf.

460 (Notes to Chapter I) the Suda tradition that Lucian was at one time an advocate, and his own reference to himself in the Piscator as a ρήτωρ καί δικανικός (9), who had abandoned τ& δικαστήρια (25). 57.

Baldwin (Studies .., p.13 n.36) suggests that Lucian's

son could be 'a literary figment', but adds, 'suspicion must be kept within reasonable bounds'!

I think it only remains

now for someone to voice the dark suspicion that Lucian never really had a sculptor uncle, or held a Chair in Gaul or an official post in Egypt or came from Samosata!

With regard to

the Eunuch itself, we might well, even without copious crossreferences (Anderson, Theme and Variation .., p.63), suspect that we were not exactly dealing with a 'documentary report' of a dispute for one of the Philosophy Chairs, but that does not mean that there is no actuality behind the piece at all and that Lucian is making the whole thing up. information about the matter;

We have no other

but presumably such an enter­

tainment would be more effective if it were based on facts which the audience knew about.

It does not, in any case,

affect the dating, which has to be some time (a year or more) after 176 to allow for the supposition that a Philosophy Chair has now fallen vacant and that its award lies with a panel of judges and no longer with Herodes Atticus, whose death is variously placed by scholars between 177-179. 58.

A larger number, I think, than the 'lignee spirituelle'

461 (Notes to Chapter I) that Schwartz (Biographie

119, 120) suggests Lucian is

attacking (viz. Scopelian, Herodes Atticus, Adrian and Pollux), cf. Chap. IV p. 273f. 59.

Cf. Ranke, Pollux et Lucianus, pp. 34-5;

and for

further discussion of the dating Appendix I p. 396ff. 60.

Philostratus, Vit. Soph. 543, considers that fifty-six

is the age when a sophist is approaching his prime! 61.

The reference to the 'book of instructions' from the

Emperor (Pro Laps. 13) indicates that a provincial governor is being addressed (cf. F. Millar, The Roman Empire and its Neighbours, New York and London 1967, p.55);

cf. Pro Laps.

16, the crowd of soldiers pushing their way to the front to present petitions.

Baldwin (Studies .., p.15) thinks the work

was published in Rome, for which there is nc evidence that I can see.

(Cf. H.L. Levy, Lucian: Seventy Dialogues, p. 213:

the 'salutatio' had spread to the provinces during the Empire.) 62.

Wetzlar and Sinko talk of periods of 'philosophic

retirement' (see p. 35);

and Croiset (Essai .., pp. 38 and

79-83) suggests that Lucian retired, and wrote his memoirs, viz. the Demonax and Alexander, subsequently returning to the prac­ tice of rhetoric for reasons unknown, perhaps financial. 63.

The anecdotes about Herodes (Demon. 24, 33) both relate

to Demonax's criticism of his ostentatious mourning for those he loved:

cf. Phil., Vit. Soph. 556-8 for similar stories of

462 (Notes to Chapter I) other philosophers rebuking Herodes' extravagant display of grief in bereavement. ists

They are used by Bowersock (Greek Soph­

p. 115) and Schwartz (Biographie

Baldwin (Studies

pp. 32, 33) and

p. 27) to indicate enmity on Lucian’s

part towards Herodes Atticus.

They display frank Cynic crit­

icism of what others also would seem to have felt to be absurd and unseemly behaviour by Herodes, but they form part of Luc­ ian's portrait of a philosopher and his teaching:

they do not

indicate that Lucian felt any hostility towards Herodes, and against them should in any case be set his praise of Herodes at Per. 19. 64.

On the authenticity of the Soloecistes and Encomium of

Demosthenes, which also contain references to Egypt (disputed in the case of the latter work) see pp. 298ff. and 324ff. 65.

On the authenticity of the Tragodopodagra and Ocypus

see pp. 368ff. 66.

These are:

Electrum (p. 18):

presumably an early work (Lucian has

recently sailed up the river Po, 2). Pseudologistes (p. 25):

probably in Ephesus c. 162.

Imagines, Pro Imaginibus, De Saltatione (pp. 21-4):


Antioch c. 163. Somnium (p. 20):

at Samosata c. 164.

Necyomanteia, Cataplus, D. Mort. 4, Navigium, Hermotimus,

463 (Notes to Chapter I) Bis Accusatus, Piscator, Vitarum Auctio, Zeuxis, Prometheus Es In Verbis (pp. 14f. and 29f.):

c. 165.

In the Zeuxis (3) Luc­

ian indicates that he has recently been in Athens, and in this work he is almost certainly talking about his new Menippean genre.

Therefore it seems reasonable to suppose that the Athen­

ian scene setting in some of the other works of the 'Menippean' type, such as Bis Acc. and Pise., may be intended as a compli­ ment to an Athenian audience (cf. n. 51 above).

One would

suppose it likely in any case that Lucian would present some of the examples of the new genre he has created in the cultural centre of Greece. Fugitivi (p. 34):

shortly after Peregrinus' death, in

Thrace (perhaps early 166). De Historia Conscribenda (p. 28): Peregrinus (p. 28):

early 166.

some time after 165, perhaps by several

years. Adversus Indoctum (p. 38):

after 165 and probably before

180. Demonax (pp. 42-3): Eunuch (p. 39):

after 171.

between 177-180 (in Athens).

Rhetorum Praeceptor (p. 39f.):

after 178 (probably in

Athens) . Alexander (p. 42):

after 180.

Works in which Lucian refers to himself as 'old':

464 (Notes to Chapter I) Apologia (in Egypt);

preceded by De Mercede Conductis

(p. 41f.). Pro Lapsu (p. 41f.):

? in Egypt.

Hercules and Bacchus (p. 42):

Lucian returns to display

lecturing after a period of absence (? because of his stay in Egypt). 67.

Viz. Charon, Icaromenippus, Timon, Gallus, Saturnalia,

Jupiter Confutatus, Jupiter Tragoedus, Deorum Concilium, Dia­ logi Mortuorum (apart from no. 4, in which there may be an allusion to the Parthian War and the Plague). 68.

These last two dialogues are regarded by others as

later works:

Schwartz connects them with the Prolalia Scytha

which might perhaps indicate a date c. 166 (see above p. 34), after at least some (in Schwartz's opinion, all) of the Menippean dialogues.

It is, however, impossible to prove with cert­

ainty which Prolaliai are connected with which works, and one cannot date works on this basis, for similarity of theme need not imply chronological connexion, and Croiset could be right in guessing that the same introduction might be repeated on different occasions (Essai .., pp. 75-6). 69.

Nec. 10 is taken by Helm to indicate the date 161,

although if the reference here is to the Parthian War it could just as easily be to the end of it as to the beginning;


arguments such as the one discussed above Helm establishes the

465 (Notes to Chapter I) order in which all the 'Menippean' works were written (Lucian und Menipp, conclusion, p. 340);

the Necyomanteia and the

Icaromenippus at least are cited as preceding the composition of the Gallus, and probably others as well:

thus, if we date

the Gallus to c. 163, we have a 'terminus ante quem' for those others. 70.

There has been nothing so complex as Schwartz's system

of cross-references since J.M. Cotterill tried to prove that the Peregrinus, and various other works which he considers falsely ascribed to ancient authors, was a Humanist forgery (Peregrinus Proteus, Edinburgh 1879). 71. 137-45).

This is the sort of scheme that Schwartz adopts (pp. B.P. Reardon, Lucian: Selected Works intro p. xxvii:

(Lucian) 'moves from one literary model to another'. 72.

Although I doubt whether idealists such as Gallavotti

would agree that Lucian could ever be influenced by such mat­ erial motives:

see his comments on the Apology (p. 184) which

he considers a most misunderstood work which has caused Lucian to be represented by some as a vulgar opportunist! 73.

To judge from the Bacchus, either these pieces, or

perhaps other satirical writings, seem to have had rather a mixed reception.

It is difficult to be sure whether this

indicates a falling off of an initial popularity (cf. Zeuxis), or whether it means that there were always members of Lucian's

466 (Notes to Chapter I) audiences who 'refused to get off their elephants'.

(Notes to Chapter XI) 1.

I count as Menippean works the Necyomanteia, Cataplus,

Dialogues of the Dead, Charon, Icaromenippus, Jupiter Tragoedus, Jupiter Confutatus, Deorum Concilium, Convivium, Gallus, Vitarum Auctio, Piscator, Fugitivi, Bis Accusatus, Saturnalia, Timon. These works have in common the fact that they are comic dia­ logues (the dialogue form mostly being used throughout, though the Nec. Ic. and Conv. have it as a frame and the Sat. only in the first part) containing a large element of fantasy, (visits to the Underworld, Olympus, conversations with gods etc.) and Cynic moralising on the subject of wealth, poverty, ambition etc., or mockery, in accordance with Cynic practice, of super­ stition and mythology, and ridicule of dogmatic philosophy and of philosophers.

In the case of many of them there is evidence

that Lucian is using motifs drawn from Menippus' works, while other motifs can be paralleled in Old Comedy.

Helm (pp. 182-

190) does not seem to class the Timon as a Menippean work, but since it is a dialogue influenced by Old Comedy and has in common with Cynic moralising the theme of the blessings of poverty, proper use of wealth etc. (15, 32, 36 etc.), and rid­ icules false philosophers (54) like most of the other works in

467 (Notes to Chapter II) this group, I see no reason for excluding it.

The Navigium is

similar in many respects to the Menippean group in that it is a humorous dialogue treating' the theme of the Vanity of Human Wishes, but the influence of Old Comedy is lacking:

it seems

rather a sort of offshoot of the genre. 2.

Cf. Dudley, History of Cynicism, pp. 70, 73-4, who

maintains that Menippus' chief contribution to literature was the adaptation of the dialogue for comic purposes; Dialog I p. 380;

Hirzel, Der

Oltramare, Les Origines de la Diatribe Rom­

aine, p. 28 ('les Merits de Lucien donnent une image exacte de la production ménippique ...'); Horaz, Chap. Ill;

T. Fritzsche, Menipp und

Oehler, intro, to his ed. of the fragments

of Varro's Menippean Satires, Chap. 3;

and, more recently,

P.J. Enk, Oxford Classical Dictionary second ed. 1970, p. 1108 s.v. Varro (2), Marcus Terentius - 'Varro followed, but in his own original way, the dialogues of the Cynic philosopher, Men­ ippus of Gadara';

D. Bartofikovä, 'Prosimetrum, the Mixed Style

in Ancient Literature', Eirene 14 (1976), 91 'the philosophicsatirical dialogues of Menippus'; Satyricon:

and G. Schmeling, 'The

Forms in Search of a Genre', Classical Bulletin 47

(1971), 49, who talks about 'the Cynic dialogues' of Menippus in an article which makes much ado about defining what is meant by Menippean Satire:

'if this is in fact a form or genre which

can be isolated and dissected for inspection by a literary

468 (Notes to Chapter II) pathologist, and is not merely the product of an overworked imagination ...'

Is it so difficult to define?

May we not

say that Menippean satire is ridicule of vice or folly in a mixture of prose and verse?

Menippus employed a mixture

of prose and verse to preach Cynicism in a diverting manner, Varro of Reate to criticise the Rome of his day and interest his countrymen in philosophy, Seneca to ridicule a dead

emperor, and Petronius to write an episodic novel with incid­ ental satire.

Since all four writers used a mixture of prose

and verse for satirical purposes of various kinds, we may surely describe their work as 'Menippean Satire'. 3.

And yet, on p. 13 of Lucian und Menipp, Helm also says,

speaking of Lucian himself, 'es war doch schon ein neuer Kurs den er einschlug, indem er den Dialog ausschliesslich komisch verwandte ... Es war in der Tat etwas Neues, diese Vereinigung verschiedener Stilgenres'. 4.

A. Riese, Varronis Saturarum Menippearum Reliquiae,

Leipzig 1865, p. 24. 5.

Cf. B.P. McCarthy,

'Lucian and Menippus', Yale Classical

Studies 4 (1934), 10. 6.

All the references to the fragments of Varro's Menippean

Satires are to Buecheler's edition, pp. 255-328 of his ed. minor of Petronius (eighth ed. 1963). 7.

Cf. J. Wight Duff, Roman Satire 1936 (reprinted 1964),

469 (Notes to Chapter II) pp. 88-9; 8.

M. Coffey, Roman Satire, 1976, pp. 159-60.

Cf. frags 138, 142-147, 149-152, 154, 155.


Cèbe (Varron, Satires Ménippdes, voi. 4, 1977, pp. 554-555) thinks that the first person narrator is a Cynic philosopher, who tells the story of his experiences during a dinner party that he gives (frag. 143) to some fellow philosophers of different sects.

For other reconstructions of the Eumenides,

cf. below, note 48 to this chapter. 9.

Menippus' Symposium would obviously have been a compos­

ition on the lines of Plato’s Symposium,, a form popular in the Hellenistic age (cf. B.P.McCarthy, Lucian and Menippus, pp. 1718).

No doubt it was comic and satirical, and contained anec­

dotes of a diverting nature.

Similarly in his Letters from the

Gods Menippus could have contrived to tell stories enlivened with passages of conversation;

and perhaps his Wills, if they

were parodies of the Wills of Philosophers, offered scope for amusing anecdote in the preamble, and in the conditions of the Will also, cf. the jolly Testamentum Porcelli that amused schoolboys in the days of St Jerome (text at end of Buecheler's Petronius, pp. 346-7). 10.

J.F. Ley (De Vita Scriptisque Menippi Cynici et de

Satira M. Terentii Varronis Menippea, p. 11), Oehler (intro, to his ed. of Varro, p. 36) and Boissìer (Ètude sur la vìe et les ouvrages de M. T. Varron, chap. Ili pt. 1) maintain that

470 (Notes to Chapter II) this testimony of Probus is false, because, according to Ley, there is no supporting evidence:

Diogenes Laertius would have

mentioned that Menippus wrote prose mixed with verse if this were so.

To this Oehler adds the consideration that 'hoc verum

esse infitias it Quintilianus (Inst. Or. 10. 95) condidisse Varronem genus saturae testatus' and that Probus is untrust­ worthy because he thinks Menippus was a 'saturographus' (cf. Boissier 'Que penser d'un critique qui donne aux ouvrages de Me'nippe le nom si romain de satire ...?').

Diogenes Laertius,

however, does not even list all Menippus' works, so why should he have mentioned the mixture of prose and verse?

Indeed it is

quite likely that he had not read Menippus' works himself (if one compares 6. 9, on Menedemus, with the Suda, s.v. φαι,ός, on Menippus' costume as an έτχίσκοτιος from Hades, and Lucian's Nec. 6-8, the costume worn by the Chaldaean who guides Menippus to Hades, it looks very much as though Diogenes or his source has transferred to Menedemus the description of a character who appeared in Menippus' Necyia, probably Menippus himself).


if Quintilian's 'condidisse' does mean 'founded', and it could equally well mean 'composed', Quintilian is referring specific­ ally to the field of Latin literature, not to ancient literature in general.

And as to Probus' referring to the ’satires' of

Menippus, what more natural way could there be of describing the works which furnished the model for Varro's satires?

471 (Notes to Chapter II) 11.

E.g. in the J. Conf. there are 2 quotations, 3 in the

Gall., 6 in the Char., 9 in the Ic.

In general there are no

more than in Lucian's non-Menippean works, e.g. 5 in the Apol., 5 in the Pro Im., 2 in the (very short) Here. 12.

The reference to his originality in the Zeuxis is in

vaguer terms:

he hopes his audience will not confine their

attention only to his 1hippocentaur’. 13.

Cf. Jul., Or. 6. 199d, parody of Solon by Crates;


Chrysostom (32), haranguing the Alexandrians, uses not only quotations from the poets (6, 16, 21, 79 etc.) but also pieces of Homeric pastiche (4 and 82-6, a Homeric cento of 36 lines). 14.

Cf. R. Hirzel, Der Dialog I p. 381;

Antike Kunstprosa pp. 755-6; p. 24;

E. Courtney,

E. Norden, Die

B.P. McCarthy, Lucian and Menippus

'Parody and Literary Allusion in Menippean

Satire’, Philologus 106 (1962), 87.

Lucian confines himself in

his Menippean inspired works to verse quotations and parodies (e.g. Nec. 1, J. Trag. 1, 6 etc.).

It is possible, therefore,

that it was Varro, the originator of the Menippean genre in Latin satire, influenced by the practice of Ennius and Pacuvius in composing their satires in miscellaneous metres (Diomed. 3. 485), who added to the verse element of the Menippean blend the composition of original (i.e. non-parodic) verses in a variety of metres (cf. I. Casaubon, De Satyrica Graecorum Poesi, pp. 263-6;

D. Bartofikova, 'Prosimetrum, the Mixed Style in Ancient

472 (Notes to Chapter II) Literature', Eirene 14 (1976), 92).

There is insufficient

evidence to make certainty possible on this point, but from what Probus says of Menippus ( 1... is quoque omnigeno carmine satiras suas expoliverat' ad Verg. Eel. 6. 31 ρ.14 Keil), and from the fact that the author of the Apocolocyntosis, who uses original verse, was almost certainly drawing directly on Menippus, as also the fact that Lucian makes Dialogue complain that he has become a hybrid of prose and verse (Bis Acc. 33), when in Lucian's hands this is not really the case, I think it more likely that Menippus' own practice in composing his verses went beyond that of mere parody (cf. C. Wachsmuth, Sillograph­ orum Graecorum Reliquiae, pp. 80-1).

For discussion of other

views as to the origin of Menippus' blend of prose and verse, sc. that he was influenced by oriental literature, or by a primitive type of Greek folk literature, see Appendix II. 15.

Piot observes (Un Personnage de Lucien, Ménippe, ρ.162)

that Strabo has confused the Idumaean Gadara with the Gadara of Coele Syria from which it is more probable that Menippus came. 16.

Diogenes Laertius’ Lives are replete with this sort of

malicious detail (e.g. 10. 3f. Stoic abuse of Epicurus, the usual invective commonplaces about his parentage, citizenship, disreputable occupation of his brother, a charge of plagiarism in that he was supposed to have dissembled his debt to Demo-

473 (Notes to Chapter IX) critus, that he flattered the great, was an adulterer, assoc­ iated with prostitutes, and vomited twice a day from over indulgence;

cf.. 8f., what purports to be Epicurus' own abuse

of rival philosophers; lender;

cf. 7. 13, 16 Zeno an avaricious money·*·

7. 187f. attacks of Chrysippus' enemies;

2. 20 even

Socrates was accused of financial speculation, and 4. 53-4, 57 Bion the Borysthenite was charged with luxurious living, of debauching young men and of displaying hypocrisy and cowardice in the face of death, while other Academics were either simil­ arly cowardly, like Carneades, 4. 64, or died of excessive wine bibbing, like Arcesilaus, 4. 43, and Lacydes, 4. 61).


slanders are echoes no doubt of the mutual polemics of rival philosophical sects, eagerly collected by some of Diogenes Laertius' Hellenistic sources such as the third century Arist­ ippus (on whom cf. Tarn and Griffith, Hellenistic Civilisation, pp. 293-4) and Callimachus' pupil Hermippus of Smyrna (on whom cf. Hicks, intro, to his Loeb transl. of Diogenes Laertius, voi. 1 p. xxiv), who is Diogenes' source for most of his information about Menippus.

One can compare also Lucian's own use of in­

vective commonplaces, e.g. his strictures on the money-lending activities of the Cynic Theagenes, Peregrinus' follower (Per. 30), his sophistic nonsense about the 'cowardice' of Socrates (D. Mort. 21), not to mention the rhetorical clichés about Peregrinus' cowardice in the face of death (Per. 33, 43) and

474 (Notes to Chapter II) the charges of literary dishonesty and plagiarism that he em­ ploys in attacking rival sophists (e.g. Pseudol. 6, 30).


course it is not impossible that the Phoenician Menippus did maintain himself for a time by some sort of trade or financial business, or that he ended his life voluntarily, as Diogenes and other Cynics were supposed to have done (Diog. Laert. 6. 76,. 95).

We hear of Zopyrus again, whose works Menippus is

supposed to have stolen, in connexion with Timon of Phlius (Diog. Laert. 9. 114).

He is spoken of as an orator to whom

the satirical Sceptic philosopher read parts of his works. Perhaps Menippus did the same thing, and a possible friendship between them lies behind the charge of plagiarism. 17.

Diogenes Laertius in fact tells us, in his account of

Menippus, that the Cynic was a contemporary of Meleager (6.99 Μελεάγρου τοϋ κατ' αυτόν γενομένου), in the first century B.C., which not only contradicts the statement about his having been a pupil of Metrocles (6. 95), but also conflicts with the testimony of Probus (ad Verg. Eel. 6. 31 'Varro ... Menippeus non a magistro cuius aetas longe praecesserat'), and is almost certainly to be explained (cf. Piot, Un Personnage de Lucien, Ménippe, p. 164, and Helm, P.W. article on Menippus) on the assumption that Diogenes Laertius made a mistake in copying out his source at this point, namely Diodes of Magnesia, a contemporary of Meleager (who dedicates the 'Garland' to him,

(Notes to Chapter II) Anth. Pal. 4. 1, 12. 257), whom Diogenes cites for the inform­ ation that Menippus' owner was a citizen of Pontus called Baton and that Menippus became rich frop the proceeds of begging, and thus obtained Theban citizenship (6. 99).

Diodes, it is sugg­

ested, wrote that Menippus' books were ίσον τι τους Μελεάγρου τοϋ καθ' ήμας γενομένου, which Diogenes Laertius would have transferred to his notes as ... κατ' αυτόν ... and then copied it into his text, without noticing that in changing its context the phrase now referred to Menippus and not Diodes. 18.

Cf. Bailey's commentary on Lucretius (voi. 3 p. 1322,

ad Lucr. 5. 62-79):

'This proem goes beyond the others in

claiming explicitly that Epicurus was a 'god' and placing the benefits which he conferred on mankind far above the legendary blessings given by the gods of the old myths. no novel or exaggerated outburst of Lucretius.

This claim was Epicurus him­

self, in his will, had provided for 'the customary celebration of my birthday every year on the tenth of Gamelion' (Diog. Laert. 10. 18) and Cicero (Tusc. 1.21.48;

de Nat. Deor. 1.16.

43) remarks with distaste that the Epicureans give enthusiastic thanks to the first discoverer (of the truths of nature) and worship him as a god.'

It is presumably this attitude towards

the founder of the sect that Menippus attacked. 19.

Piot, Un Personnage de Lucien, Ménippe, p. 183;


Dudley, History of Cynicism, p.73, on the Symposium of Menippus,

476 (Notes to Chapter II) and the Arcesilaus:

Dudley thinks it was Arcesilaus' devotion

to dialectic that the Cynics would have ridiculed.


Laertius (4. 34) says that Arcesilaus was frank and satirical and that Timon of Phlius commented on this when he included him in his Silloi.

Perhaps Arcesilaus offended the Cynics by

directing his witticisms against them.

On Arcesilaus and Tim-

on's criticism of him as 'a mere rabble rouser who gives him­ self airs with not the least justification' cf. A.A. Long, 'Timon of Phlius, Pyrrhonist and Satirist', PCPhS 1978, p.80. 20.

This suggestion was, it seems, first made by Crönert

(Kolotes und Menedemus). 21.

The Sale of Diogenes is variously attributed in the

MSS of Diogenes Laertius to Menippus or to Hermippus of Smyrna (cf. Huebner's ed., Leipzig 1831, and A. Gercke, Hermes 37 (1902), on the MS tradition).

Huebner, following Menagius,

believed Hermippus to be the more likely author, because the Sale of Diogenes is not included in the list of Menippus' works by Diogenes Laertius (6. 101), but D i o g e n e s does not give the names of all the thirteen works that he m e n t i o n s .

The Sale,

like the Arcesilaus and Symposium, is doubtless one of the works included in the phrase καί άλλα.

It is far more likely

that a scribe, having written the name Hermippus on many occas­ ions when Diogenes cites that authority, would absently sub­ stitute that name for Menippus than the other way round.


477 (Notes to Chapter II) Lucian's Sale of Lives, in any case, clinches the matter. 22,

The Cynic Crates would appear to have written an epic

parody of the Homeric Necyia, which may have served as one of the models for part of the Silloi of the Sceptic Timon of Phlius.

For the relevant fragments of Crates cf. Diog. Laert.

2. 118, Plutarch, De Vit. Aere Al. 7;

cf. C. Wachsmuth, Sillo­

graphorum Graecorum Reliquiae, Leipzig 1885, pp. 72-73;


A.A. Long, 'Timon of Phlius, Pyrrhonist and Satirist', PCPhS 1978, p .75. 23.

Eunapius 454 mentions Menippus, together with Demetrius

and Musonius, as a celebrated member of the Cynic school.


scholia to Lucian which comment on Menippus are of no value: on le. 1 (Rabe p.98) the scholiast confuses the Cynic Menippus with a disciple, called Menippus, of Apollonius of Tyana (Phil., Vit. Ap. 4. 25);

on Pise. 26 (Rabe p.135) the scholiast refers

to Menippus as a famous Cynic κατά τόν Σεβαστόν, which Rabe takes as a reference to Marcus Aurelius' remark in Comment. 6. 47, but since the passage is not cited, it could mean that the scholiast thought he lived in the time of Augustus.

The Suda,

according to T. Fritzsche (Menipp und Horaz, iii), adds another title to our list of Menippus' works (613 Μένίππος, των δραμάτων αύτοϋ έστι. Κέρκωπες καί άλλα).


Since the Suda

distinguishes this Menippus from Menippus the Cynic (612 Μένumog 6 κυνικός.

ζήτει έν τφ φαιός), it seems rather a waste

478 (Notes to Chapter II) of effort on Fritzsche's part (and others, vide Fritzsche) to attempt to prove that κωμικός does not mean comic poet and that δράματα really means 'satires'. 24.

Cf. B.P. McCarthy, Lucian and Menippus, p. 27.


Cf. p. 244, at least one speech of Dio's that Lucian

appears to have read.

In Bis Acc. 33 Lucian mentions 'Cynicism'

and Menippus separately, but the whole passage is so figurative that one can obviously not press this. 26.

As Knauer, at least, does, and as Helm ought to do,

according to his principle on p. 15, though in fact (p.53) he is rather more cautious here:

'sei es nun die Diatribe oder

der mimische Dialog des Menipp'. 27.

Helm, however, considers that in one particular at

least Lucian 'sklavisch an seine Quelle hielt' (p. 58), viz. the reference to Polus and Satyrus, on whom cf. p. 87. 28.

From the examples in Philostratus1 Lives of the Soph­

ists it seems that the favourite historical periods from which the sophists drew their themes and illustrations were the Pers­ ian Wars (Vit. Soph. 513, 515, 575 etc., cf. Dio. Chrys. 3. 31, 2. 77, 4. 45 etc., Max Tyr. 6. 6-7, 29. If.), the Peloponnesian War (Vit. Soph. 538, 574 etc., Dio 21. 3, 25. 1, Max. Tyr. 6. 6-7), and the age of Demosthenes and Alexander the Great (Vit. Soph. 522, 527, 538 etc., Dio 1. 1, 2, 4 etc., Max. Tyr. 29. 2a, 41. 1 etc,).

The epitomes of wealth and luxury, Croesus

479 (Notes to Chapter II) and Sardanapalus, are frequently to be found in Dio (1.2, 3. 72 etc.) and Max. Tyr. (7. 7 etc.). 29.

Bompaire apparently finds Helm's arguments convincing,

especially the references to Myrtion and Agathocles:


admettrons méme qu'il existe des arguments troublants, comme celui du contenu historique de la Traversie ou du D. Mort. 27' (Lucien Ecrivain, p. 370 and n. 5). 30.

Cf. Plutarch, Praec. Ger. Reip. 816 (Polus and another

actor, Theodorus);

Dio Chrys. 66. 11 (Polus used as a typical

representative of the acting profession, and Amoebus, of the third century B.C., as the typical musician);

Epictetus, ap.

Stob. 4. 33. 28 (Polus used in a 'theatre of life' simile). In Lucian's Apol. 5 (where there is no question of Menippean influence) Polus and Aristodemus appear as typical actors (cf. J. Trag. 41, where Polus, Aristodemus and Satyrus are linked), just as in Adv. Ind. 5 Timotheus and Ismenias, Theban fluteplayers of the fourth century B.C., are used as typical music­ ians . 31.

Plutarch in fact says that Demosthenes' contemporary,

Polus, came from Aegina. 32.

Athenaeus, Deipn. 13. 576f, provides a list of the

merry monarch's mistresses, one of whom was called Myrtion (καί Μύρτι,ον και άλλας δέ πλείστας, έπιρρεπέστερος ών τχρός άφροδίσια).

480 (Notes to Chapter II) 33.

Helm argues that Agathocles, who lived some time before

the first century B.C., must have lived in the time of Menippus because 'die Zeitanspielungen in Lucians Satiren nicht Uber die erste Hälfte des 3 Jahrhunderts hinausfuhren’! 34.

Not that Theagenes did!

Lucian voi. 2 p . 13:

See Harmon’s note, Loeb ed. of

'Galen says he was killed by his doctor

(X p. 909) but he may well have been alive when Lucian wrote this'.

I should think he probably was:

that would be the point

of the joke, especially if the audience Lucian was addressing knew that, perhaps, the philosopher was so austere that he would run a mile from any courtesan. 35.

One might also recollect that in the Herodotus Lucian

refers to the 'recent' story of Aetion (τά. τελευταία ταϋτα 4 = the time of Alexander the Great) and in Pro Laps. 6 says 'Why quote τούς παλαιούς when there is Epicurus?'


exactness scarcely seems to have been his main concern. 36.

Some scholars alter tKe text to οΰτοι (cf. Helm p.328).

This seems unnecessary. 37.

C f . Harmon's note, Loeb ed. voi. 5 p. 67.


It looks, however, as though the high, narrow stage

may date from a century after Menippus' lifetime in any case (cf. Pickard-Cambridge, Theatre of Dionysus in Athens, pp. 163, 182, 198;

Webster, Greek Theatre Production, p. 44).


to Pickard-Cambridge, p.270, the stage in Lucian's day would

481 (Notes to Chapter II) have been five foot high. tv

Another interpretation of the phrase

μέση τη σκηνη as 'in the middle of the performance' is

rightly discounted by M. Kokolakis,

'Lucian and the Tragic Per­

formances in his Time', Platon 12 (1960), 5 n. 11. 39.

Cf. Plut., De Tranq. An. 20;

Helm, Lucian und Menipp,

p. 99. 40.

On Dodona cf. Caster, Lucien et la Pensée Religieuse

de son Temps, p. 237.

For temple robbery cf. Hermogenes, Pro-

gymnasmata 6 (περί κοινού τόπου), who demonstrates how the rhetorician should develop an indictment of a temple robber; cf. also references to temple robbery in Lucian J. Conf. 8, J. Trag. 25, Tim. 4; 41.

Cicero, De Nat. Deor. 3. 83f., etc.

I suppose it is conceivable also that the revival of

the Diasia did not lack topicality in Lucian's time.


McCarthy (Lucian and Menippus, p. 52), while agreeing with Helm in thinking that Lucian has probably taken both references from his Menippean model, nevertheless points out that this still does not make the passage as a whole any more 'Menippean' than the conversation between Solon and Croesus in the Charon (lOf.) is 'Herodotean' (cf. Hdt. 1. 29-33). 42.

According to J.-P. Cèbe (Varron, Satires Ménippées, voi.

1 p. viii) about 95% of the fragments of Varro's Menippean Sat­ ires come from Nonius. 43.

Cicero, Ac. Post. 1. 2. 8:

'Et tamen in illis veteribus

482 (Notes to Chapter II) nostris, quae Menippum imitati non interpretati quadam hilar­ itate conspersimus, multa admixta ex intima philosophia, multa dicta dialectice, quae quo facilius minus docti intellegerent iucunditate quadam ad legendum invitati ...'

According to

Reid, 'intima philosophia' implies ethical philosophy only, but we find discussions of physical philosophy as well in the fragments, e.g. De Salute, '(Varro ... ait) mundum haud natum esse, neque mori' - the only fragment remaining - and Andab­ atae, 'in reliquo corpore ab hoc fonte diffusasi anima, bine animus ad intellegentiam tributus', 32 Buecheler.

On the

Andabatae in general cf. J.-P. Cèbe, Varron: Satires Ménippées, voi. 1 p. 115ff.

On the eclectic philosophic views of this

Roman disciple of the Academic Antiochus of Ascalon see Cèbe pp. 136-8.

To criticise the tenets of other philosophic sects

in his 'Cynic Satires', as Menippus had done in some of his own works, to introduce philosophers arguing about their re­ spective views in a lively fashion, as Varro seems to have done in this satire, was an effective way of introducing philosophy to his less learned countrymen.

(Cf. also J. Wight Duff, A

Literary History of Rome from the Origins to the Close of the Golden Age, pp. 244-5;

and Roman Satire, p. 90;



Corte, Varrone, il terzo gran lume romano, p. 44) 44.

Buecheler doubted whether the actual title of the

satire was Baiae because of the way Nonius quotes the only

483 (Notes to Chapter II) fragment;

Cèbe, voi. 2 p. 188 does not appear to share these

doubts. 45.

Appian, De Bell. Civ. 2. 9, tells us that the Roman

prose-writer (συγγραφεύς) Varro discussed the coalition between Caesar, Pompey and Crassus (60 B.C.) in a book entitled The Three Headed.

It does not seem to me that Appian's words

necessarily imply that the work was 'apparently not a satire but a prose writing' (Knoche, Roman Satire, Engl, trans. 1975, p. 54;

cf. M. Coffey, Roman Satire, pp. 150 and 256 n. 33).

Since Varro 's output was mostly in prose, would he not natur­ ally be referred to as a 'prose-writer' even in the context of a Menippean satire with its mixture of prose and verse?


Apocolocyntosis, in prose and verse, is a political pamphlet too)

And even if one accepts Cichorius' argument that the

Menippean Satires as a whole were composed between 80-67 B.C., does that preclude the possibility (cf. Cèbe voi. 1 p. xvixvii) that Varro might return to the genre upon occasion? 46.

Cf. Knoche, Roman Satire, pp. 60-2, on Varro's crit­

icisms of contemporary Roman life. 47.

On the influence of comedy, both Greek and Latin, that

such titles indicate, cf. E. Courtney,

'Parody and Literary

Allusion in Menippean Satire', Philologus 106 (1962), 89-90; and M. Coffey, Roman Satire, pp. 154, 155 and notes 42-45. 48.

G. Boissier (Etude sur la vie et les ouvrages de M.T.

484 (Notes to Chapter II) Varron, p. 86f.) thinks the Eumenides is a parody of the Aeschylean drama of that name:

'il y dtait question d'un

personnage que 1'on croit fou, peut-étre parce qu'il raisonne mieux que les autres, sorte d'Oreste bourgeois ...'

He seeks

a cure for his madness, visiting the temple of Cybele, Egyptian charlatans, and various philosophical sects, but all in vain, until Truth arrives to show him that all men are madder than he.

W,W. Merry's reconstruction of the Satire (Selected Frag­

ments of Roman Poetry, pp. 201-2) is somewhat different:


philosophers discuss at a dinner p a r t y the Stoic thesis that all men are mad, and later they walk about the town to inspect the various instances of madness, visiting the temples of Serapis and Cybele.

Eventually they mount an eminence from

which they see the people pursued by Three Furies.

The narr­

ator of the tale runs down to proffer aid but is rejected.


crowd think him mad and he is to be registered on the list of Insani, but is rescued by Truth who remarks that 'to the jaun­ diced eye everything looks yellow'.

J.-P. Cèbe, Varron: Satires

Ménippées, voi. 4 pp. 548-54 and 748-54, cites a dozen different interpretations besides his own (pp. 554-5).

It is, of course,

impossible to make any reconstruction which is absolutely cert­ ain.

The Eumenides has more intelligible fragments than any of

the other Satires but one can only guess the context of most of them.

Attempting to reconstruct any of Varro's satires is like

485 (Notes to Chapter II) playing with a kaleidoscope:

shake up the pieces and observe

the chance order in which they fall, and each time the pattern is different. 49.

J. Wight Duff (A Literary History of Rome from the

Origins to the Close of the Golden Age, p. 246 n.) does not agree that the 'naufragi' in this passage are merely ship­ wrecked mariners.

B.P. McCarthy (Lucian and Menippus, p. 51)

suggests that the fragment may indicate that a ship was whirled up into the air, as in Lucian's True Story, but obviously one cannot tell from so little evidence.

Helm (Lucian und Menipp,

p. 108) suggests that Varro's Endymiones (108 Buecheler) are also aerial voyagers. cipor fragment:

This is even less certain than the Mar­

Turnebus thought the satire was about men who

slept too much (Oehler's ed. p. 113);

P. Boyancd that it was

about a moon daemon whom Jupiter sends down to earth to spy on men's affairs (cf. Détienne, La Notion du Daemon dans le Pythagorisme Ancien, p. Ill;

and Cèbe, Varron: Satires Mén-

ippées, voi. 3 p. 450ff., who discusses the various different views) . 50. this:

The fragment cited might come in some such context as 'Imagine that someone could ask the great men of the

past why they committed suicide.

Whom does he ask?

He asks

X and y ... he asks Hannibal ...' etc. 51.

On the Armorum Iudicium cf. J.-P. Cèbe, Varron: Satires

486 (Notes to Chapter II) Ménippées, voi. 2 p. 179f. 52.

Cf. Oehler's ed., s.v. Sesquiulixes (LXXXI);

and M.

Coffey, Roman Satire, p. 157 (The wanderer may be Varro him­ self):

'to the wanderer's experience of real places, Asia

Minor, Athens and Rome, are added intellectual wanderings in different philosophical persuasions'. 53.

Though there is nothing in these fragments themselves

which suggests criticism (e .g .'Empedocles natos homines ex terra ait ut blitum', 163): frag. 122; 54.

it is merely a deduction from

cf. U. Knoche, Roman Satire, pp. 64-5.

Or perhaps better the 'foster-mother' of Philosophy,

as Cèbe, cf. Varron: Satires Ménippées, voi. 4 p. 543 and pp. 705-6.

Cèbe puts the denunciation of philosophy into the mouth

of a Cynic whose teaching, he thinks, cures the protagonist. 55.

Cf. J. Wight Duff, A Literary History of Rome from the

Origins to the Close of the Golden Age, p. 244:

'Varro's aim

was comparable to Addison's in the Spectator - to introduce academic thought to the average reader'. 56.

Cf. J.-P. Cèbe, Varron: Satires Ménippées, voi. 3 p.

333ff., on the Cycnus. 57.

Diog. Laert. 3. 41f, 5. 11, 51, 61f, 10. 17f. etc.

The idea that Menippus' Wills were concerned with 'captatio' is discussed on p. 116ff. 58.

Cf. U. Knoche, Roman Satire, p. 57, who also collects

487 (Notes to Chapter II) a list of scattered fragments alluding clearly to Cynicism. The ταφτ) Μεν ίππου appears to deal in large measure with extra­ vagant living at Rome (529, 530, 532, 533 etc.) 59.

Not that I think there is any doubt about this:


evidence.(of the MSS, and Dio Cassius 61. 35, etc.) is over­ whelmingly in favour of Seneca's authorship, though I suppose there are still some critics, like G. Bagnani (Arbiter of Elegance, Toronto 1954), who would disagree.

My references

to the Apocolocyntosis are to Buecheler's text in his ed. minor of Petronius,eighth ed. 1963. 60.

There is another divine assembly in the J. Trag. 6f.,

and a debate on a different topic, and in the Ic. 29f., where Zeus addresses the gods on the subject of miscreant philo­ sophers . 61.

It must, however, be admitted that this (Od. 10. 325)

is a not infrequent quotation, cf. Diog. Laert. 4. 46:


gonus Gonatas asks the same Homeric question of Bion the Borysthenite;

and cf. Xenophanes, quoted in Athenaeus 2. 54e.


Cf. Helm, Lucian und Menipp, p. 107f.


Helm compares Deor. Cone. 12, cf. also J. Trag. 20,

though here it is the behaviour of the gods, as recorded by the poets, not the vast numbers of new gods that is said to arouse human derision. 64.

'It is hard to persuade ourselves that Lucian ... did

488 (Notes to Chapter II) not have this in mind when developing some of his ideas ,.. Lucian's Council of Gods reads strikingly like an amplific­ ation of the idea suggested by the similar incident in our earlier satire ... There is abundant evidence ... that the religious conditions Lucian had especially in mind were Roman

Even if this were true, Lucian too lived in the

Roman world!

But where is Ball's 'abundant evidence'?


particular there is no evidence in the Deorum Concilium for an attack on emperor worship as Ball suggests (p.77).


'abstract gods' to which Ball draws attention as Roman deities are specifically said by Lucian to be inventions of the philo­ sophers (13 όνόματα Οπό ... των φιλοσόφων έπινοηθέντ.α, sc. άρετη καί φύσις καί ειμαρμένη καί τύχη):

it looks as though

he has, rather vaguely, in mind the Stoic ideas on theology (cf. Cic., De Nat. Deor. 1. 15. 39-40, 3. 18. 47, 2. 23. 61); Cybele and Sabazius had been introduced into Athens in the fifth century B.C. (cf. Nilsson, Greek Popular Religion, pp. 90-3);

the only really costemporary reference is the mention

of Mithras. 65.

Servius ad Aen. 10. 104:

'... totus hic locus de

primo Lucilii translatus est, ubi introducuntur dii habere concilium ...';

Lactantius, Div. Inst. 4. 3. 12 'Lucilius

in deorum concilio1.

Opinions differ as to how many satires

there were in Lucilius' Book I (cf. E.H. Warmington, Remains

489 (Notes to Chapter II) of Old Latin, Loeb voi. 3 p. 3; 66. etc.;

Servius (ib.):

M. Coffey, Roman Satire, p.42).

'... et agere primo de interitu Lupi'

frags 10-3 (Warmington) concern the Roman love of luxury,

and 14-6 the affectation of mingling Latin with Greek words. 67.

C f . the notes in A.S. Pease's ed. of the De Natura

Deorum on 3. 83 and 1. 83 for other references to 'beardless Apollo' and his bearded son. 68.

Cf. Helm, Lucian und Menipp, p. 158.


Cf. A. Oltramare, Les Origines de la Diatribe Romaine,

chap. 7 esp. p. 139.

Horace, as Fritzsche observes (p. 20ff.),

does not mention Menippus among the 'exemplaria graeca' for Satire (though he mentions the writers of Comedy, Archilochus, and Bion, Sat. 1. 4. 1, 2. 3. 11-2, Ep. 2. 2. 60).


argues that there are only two possibilities which would ac­ count for this:

either Horace had no opportunity to mention

Menippus or he did not do so on purpose;

but Horace had plenty

of opportunities, ergo he had a purpose, and that purpose accord­ ing to Fritzsche was political.

His arguments on this point

(sc. that Horace was afraid of offending Augustus by mentioning Menippus) I find wholly incomprehensible.

As further proof that

Horace was dependent on Menippus he offers the fact that Horace mentions Bion the Borysthenite!

A possibility that does not

seem to suggest itself to Fritzsche is that Horace does not men­ tion Menippus as one of his sources because Menippus was not one

490 (Notes to Chapter II) of his sources! 70.

There is, in any case, no proof that Lucian took the

idea of the prayer-wells from Menippus.

Zeus, incidentally,

is not described in the Iearomenippus passage as being angry. 71.

Cf. Plut., De Adul. et Am. 16 (Mor. 58E) εϋτα των μέν

Στωϊκών ούδ' άκούειν ένιοι ότιομένουσι τόν σοφόν δμοΰ πλούσιον καλόν εύγενίϊ βασιλέα προσαγορευόντων;

cf. De Tranq. An. 12

(472A), Cic., Pro Mur. 61 'solos sapientes esse ... formosos .. divites ... reges';

De Fin. 3. 75, 4. 74;

Paradoxa 5, 6;

Juv. 7. 190. 72.

Leutsch and Schneidewin, Paroemiographi Graeci, Dio-

genianus 3. 94, Apostolius 18. 11; 73.

Gaisford, Par. Graec. 950.

In none of the fragments of Greek Comedy, for instance,

does κόλαΕ appear to mean anything more than this, cf. Edmonds voi. 1 pp. 369, 885-6, 3B p. 655ff.;

Athenaeus 6. 236e oi

άρχαϊοι ποιηταί τούς παράσιτους κόλακας έκάλουν ...;


Eun. 232ff. where a parasite describes his art, which does not include fortune-hunting;

similarly in Aristotle's Nicomachean

Ethics the references to the κόλαζ imply nothing more than that he is a man who supports himself by sponging on others, 2. 7. 3, 4. 6. 9, 10. 3. 11. 74.

Cic., Paradoxa 5. 2. 39;

Horace (in addition to the

Tiresias Satire) E p . 1. 1. 77-9 legacy hunting mentioned as a money-making occupation like tax-farming;

Pliny, Nat. Hist.

491 (Notes to Chapter II) 14. 1. 1;

Sen., Ep. 95. 43 the captator 'vultur est, cadaver

expectat', cf. De Benef. 6. 38;

Martial 1. 10, 2. 26, 6. 62

('cuius vulturis hoc erit cadaver?'), 6. 63 (esp. 5, 6, 8 '"munera magna tamen misit".

sed misit in hamo; / et piscat­

orem piscis amare potest? / .... / si cupis ut ploret,des, Mariane, nihil.'

cf. the Lucian passage cited on p. 115);

Juv. 10. 201-2, 5. 137-40;

Petr., Sat. 116, 125, 141.


Sc. D. Mort. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11;

Tim. 21, 22.


Anderson's other comparisons between Lucian and Petr­

onius (Studies in Lucian's Comic Fiction, pp. 102-4) are even less convincing as arguments for common Menippean influence: e.g. Sat. 85, 140 compared with Conv. 26, Tim. 55 (which does not seem relevant), D. Meretr. 10. 4 and Merc. Cond. 39 (neither of which are Menippean inspired works as defined above, n.l to this chapter). 77.

It is accepted as Meleager's title for his Cynic writ­

ings by Dudley (History of Cynicism, p.122) and Piot (Un person­ nage de Lucien, Ménippe, p.227).

Piot goes further and suggests

that the collective title of Menippus' works also was at ΧάρυτεςHe is so persuaded by the epigrams mentioned, and by Athenaeus' reference to Meleager's Χάριτες, together with the fact that at the beginning of Lucian's Icaromenippus Menippus' friend begs him, πρδς Χαρίτων, to tell his story.

It was, however,

quite normal in Greek to swear 'by the Graces' (cf. Plato,

492 (Notes to Chapter II) Theaet. 152c, Aristoph., Nub. 773, Plutarch 710d, Lucian, Bacch. 5, Scyth. 9, Al. 4 etc.);

and it seems rather odd that

if such a collective title had existed for Menippus' works Diogenes Laertius should not have mentioned it. 78.

For discussion of the meaning of this proverb, which

suggests either the wasting of something valuable, or a combin­ ation of incongruous things, cf. the comments of How (Cicero, Select Letters, Oxford 1926, voi. 2 p. 89) and Shackleton Bailey (Cicero's Letters to Atticus, Cambridge 1965, voi. 1 p. 335) on Cicero, ad Att, 1. 19. 2, where the proverb is used in a punning joke about the presence of one Lentulus ('lens') with two other men on an embassy.

On Varro's satire see further

M. Coffey, Roman Satire, p. 155. 79.

Neither, if there is anything at all in Diogenes Laert­

ius' gossip about Menippus' financial activities, does Menippus. 80.

There is also, for what it is worth, the joke in the

Apocolocyntosis about the conflict of philosophical opinions (Ap. 2), and the fact that some of Varro's Menippean Satires appear to have treated the theme. 81.

A further possibility is suggested by I. Levy, La Lég-

ende de Pythagore de Grèce en Palestine, p. 155 η. 2, who points out a parallel between Ic. 25 and a Jewish work, the Gedullat Mole, in which Moses visits heaven, and sees windows I

there, through which men's prayers ascend.

He suggests that the

493 (Notes to Chapter II) idea came originally from Heraclides Ponticus.

(cf. also J.

Schwartz, 'Lucien de Samosate et Certains Merits Juifs', Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuses 49 (1969), 135-40) 82.

Cf. B.P. McCarthy, Lucian and Menippus, pp. 38-50, for

examination of all the evidence of clumsy, mechanical copying which Helm believes he can discern in the Cataplus. 83.

Prof. E.J.'Kenney drew my attention to the appearance

of bed and lamp as a motif in amatory epigrams:

e.g. Anth.

Pal. 5. 4 (bed and lamp as silent confidants of lovers' sec­ rets);

cf. Anth. Pal. 5. 5, 7, 8, 128, 166, 197, and also

Martial 14. 39. 84.

G. Anderson argues (Lucian: Theme and Variation in the

Second Sophistic) that the obscurities in the Fugitivi are to be explained by assuming that Lucian is, as usual, according to Anderson's conception of him, practising 'the technique of self-pastiche' (which is for Lucian 'an end in itself', p. 31), and 'trying to assimilate every subject to every other' (p.134):

in this case Lucian, visiting Philippopolis,'had

every incentive to include as much of his stock as he could for what might possibly be no more than a single hearing' (p. 108).

If Lucian did not want to be invited back for a second

hearing, he could hardly have done better than to adopt the method of composition that Anderson envisages! 85. He mentions one work that is now lost in the Demonax

494 ''Notes to Chapter II) (1);

and the Galen passage that G. Strohmaier has recently

brought to our attention suggests at least one other (see Chapter I). 86.

The same thing applies to entertainment nowadays,

witness the succession of James Bond films, or the shoal of toothy denizens of the deep that recently surfaced across the silver screen in Jaws, Jaws II, Orca, The Deep, Blue Water White Death, Piranha - and soon no doubt Jaws Bites Again!


the ancient world they could obviously stand a great deal more repetition.

H. Bornecque (Les Déclamations et les Déclamateurs

d'après Senèque le Pére, pp. 75-7) comments on the surprisingly small number of themes treated by the rhetoricians:

in fact

the more talented orators liked well-worn material because it presented more of a challenge to them in their efforts to be original.

'They practised the art - if art it was - of vary­

ing themes ...' (B.A, Van Groningen,

'General Literary Tend­

encies in the Second Century A.D.', Mnemosyne 18 (1965), 41-56). 87.

Barbara McCarthy concluded her dissertation with the

hope that the hyphenated Lucian-Menippus who had appeared in literary discussions since the advent of Helm's book would now disappear.

It seems, however, that a new hyphenated Lucian has

now appeared.

In a recent study of the True Story, K. Reyhl

has attempted to do for Antonius Diogenes what Helm did for Menippus, on the same general lines as Helm.

Barbara McCarthy's

195 (Notes to Chapter II) work is ignored.

But of this more in due course.

(Notes to Chapter III) 1.

Epict. 3. 23. 11;

Sen., Contr. 2. 6. 2.


On the close relationship between sophists and philo­

sophers cf. Boissier, La Religion Romaine II bk. 2 pp. 99,101; Boulanger, Aelius Aristide et la Sophistique .., pp. 48-9, Quacquarelli, La retorica antica al bivio, pp. 29-30; Quintii. 1. pf. 11-7; 3.

2. 4. 22f.;

From Epict. 3. 22. 26-38;

10. 1. 35;


12. 2. 5, 8, 9.

cf. Plut., de liberis educ­

andis 4E. 4.

Cf. Highet's notes in Juvenal the Satirist for examples

of moral themes handled by rhetoricians and philosophers, pp. 264, 265, 272, 276, 282, 285 etc. 5.

Why he should think, however, that uucian regarded it as

'his mission' to 'present the thoughts of the ancients to those unable to read them at first hand’ (p.12), and this on the basis of Pise. 6, where Lucian expressly says that his audience recog­ nise his sources, I cannot imagine. 6.

The only place where two contrasting views seem to be

opposed is the section on the Cynic, where no indication is given that the aim is to contrast genuine 'old' Cynics with their modern counterparts:

we have simply all the typical

496 (Notes to Chapter III) things that can be said about Cynics strung together in one breath. 7.

For enumerations of precisely which scholars held what

views see Tackaberry, Lucian's Relation to Plato and the PostAristotelian Philosophers, pp. 64-6;


'La Composition

du Nigrinus' in Melanges pre'sentées à 0, Navarre, p. 471ff.; and Bompaire, Lucien Écrivain, p. 511 n. 1;

also J. Palm, Rom,

Römertum und Imperium in der Griechischen Literatur der Kaiser­ zeit, p. 44ff. 8.

Gallavotti replies to this objection that it was probably

in other lectures that Nigrinus aroused Lucian's interest in Platonism (Luciano 9.

p. 53).

Tackaberry, p.67, cites other Platonic reminiscences

from the Phaedo, Phaedrus and Menexenus, of which the closest is Phaedrus 228, the feigned reluctance of Socrates' interloc­ utor to give an account of Lysias' speech:

he cannot do just­

ice to it, but will try to give the gist, etc. 10.

Emily James Putnam,

’Lucian the Sophist’, Classical

Philology 4 (1909), 162ff., enlarging an earlier note in AJPh 17 (1897), 339, published under (I presume) her maiden name, Smith. 11.

Nigrinus is hardly an unusual name:

a Nigrinus was

put to death for conspiracy in the time of Hadrian (Hist. Aug., Hadr. 7. 1-3).

497 (Notes to Chapter III) 12.

Cf. Zeller, Outlines of Greek Philosophy, p. 266f.,

Caster, Lucien et la Pensée Religìeuse de son Temps, chaps 1 and 2;

Quacquarelli, La retorica antica al bivio, p. 15.


Indeed, for one who so assiduously proclaims that

money and fame do not matter, and who stresses that one should practise what one preaches, if Lucian was really 'converted' by Nigrinus, he shows something of an inconsistency throughout his own life (cf. p. 231). 14.

Cf. Sext.Emp., Pyrrh. Hyp. 1. 4, 114, 196, 201 etc.


The caricature of the Stoic and Cynic of Lucian's age

is discussed on p. 186f. 16.

Cf. Householder, Literary Quotation and Allusion in

Lucian, pp. 63-4, for an account of Lucian's reading in the philosophical writers.

Ic. 5-9 is rather more detailed than

Lucian usually is, with regard to the physical theories of the various sects (references analysed by Helm, Lucian und Menipp, pp. 83-9), but Lucian may be drawing his examples from what­ ever source he is using at this point. 17.

Herrn. 14, 25-7 diversity of opinions (cf. Sext. Emp.,

Pyrrh. Hyp. 1. 145, 164, 3. 200, Cic., Ac. P r . 37, 42, 46); Herrn. 16 impossibility of deciding on the basis of a majority vote (Sext. Emp., Pyrrh. Hyp. 1. 88), or by finding a judge to decide for us, for will we not always need a second judge to decide if the first one is right?

(Herrn. 68-70, cf. Sext. Emp.,

498 (Notes to Chapter III) Pyrrh. Hyp. I. 114, 164, Cic., Ac. Pr. 3). 18.

But cf. Tackaberry, p. 40, who cites Xen., Mem. 1. 1

etc. to show that this type of argument is not confined to the Sceptics. 19.

See pp. 182ff.


Lukians Philosophische Entwicklung.

I rely on the

résumé by Bürger in B.Ph.W. 1910 pp. 841-4. 21.

Cf. the dating section, p. 47ff.

There is no evidence

to support Bernays' idea of a quarrel with the Cynics;


Per. is arguably more likely to be later than the Fug. because of the reference to Peregrinus' cult.

Litt's interpretations

of the Nigrinus and Hermotimus have been discussed above in this section.

For other hypotheses which have been suggested

regarding Lucian's 'evolution' (by Hahne, Weinreich, Plot, Bruns, who rejects the idea of a philosophic evolution but apparently devises a literary evolution, which involves plac­ ing the Eunuch - which cannot be before 177 - before works like the Bis Accusatus!), see Caster, Lucien et la P e n s é e Religieuse de son Temps, p p . 376-9, who rejects the whole con­ ception of an 'evolution'. 22.

Like Nigrinus, Demonax has sometimes been considered

a fictitious person, but if Lucian has invented him as the Ideal Philosopher, it seems odd, I think, that he should have included among his teachers Agathobulus (3), to whom he refers

499 (Notes to Chapter III) with such obvious disapproval in Per. 17, when he could just as easily have made Demonax the pupil of the saintly Epictetus alone (cf. Adv. Ind. 13). 23.

Cf. Zeller, Outlines of Greek Philosophy, 13th ed. tr.

Palmer, pp. 265-84;

Boissier, La Religion Romaine II bk. 2

chaps 6, 7 pp. 103ff., lllff.;

Dill, Roman Society from Nero

to Marcus Aurelius, p.334 (for the religious element in philo­ sophy);

on Stoics Caster p. 14, Platonists pp. 30-1, Pythag­

oreans pp. 41-2.

On daemons cf. Apul., De Deo Socr., Max. Tyr.

8, 9, Plut,, De Def. Or. 415A ff.;

De Genio Socr. 590ff., De

Fac. In Orb. Lun. 943A ff., and M. Detienne, La Notion du Daemon dans le Pythagorisme Ancien. 24.

The Peripatetics are not mentioned here.

According to

Eusebius, Praep. E v . 4. 136, 139, the Peripatetic school shared the Epicurean and Cynic distrust of oracles as human impostors. 25.

Spengel, Rh. Gr. 3. p. 346 lines 17-9 ...τχαράδοΕα δε

οΐον 'Αλκι,δάμαντος τό τοϋ θανάτου έγκώμιον ή' τδ της Πενίας ή' τοϋ Πρωτέως τοϋ κυνός.

Some scholars think 'Proteus' refers

to the author, not the subject, of the encomium, but the phras­ ing of the section as a whole does not seem to me to suggest this.

In any case would this not be worded ή' τοϋ Π.

τοϋ κυνός? 26.

Other references to Peregrinus (Amm. Marc. 29. 1. 39,

Tert., Adv. Marc. 4, Euseb., Chron. 2. p. 170 etc., cf. Harmon,

500 (Notes to Chapter III) Loeb ed. voi. 5 note to pp. 2-3, Tooke I p. 590ff.) are merely of interest as referring to his suicide.

Athenagoras, Leg. pro

Chr. 26, refers to Peregrinus' oracular statue at Parium. 27.

Cf. above n. 43 to Chapter I.


Cf. Hazel 51. Hornsby,

'The Cynicism of Peregrinus Pro­

teus', Hermathena 48 (1933), 82; p.l72f.;

Dudley, History of Cynicism,

Harmon's note 2, Loeb ed. voi. 5 p. 47.

Other views

about the name νερτεροδρόμος are that it was suggested to Per­ egrinus by an acquaintance with Mithraie ritual, in which the initiate passes through the grade of ήλυοδρόμος (cf. J.Schwartz's note in Lucien de Samosate, Philopseudes et De Morte Peregrini, Paris 1951, p. 112), or by the influence of Indian belief (cf. Harmon's note, Loeb ed. voi. 5 pp. 40-1).

G. Bagnani,'Peregr­

inus Proteus and the Christians', Historia 4, 107-12, argues that Peregrinus, who was converted to Christianity by associat­ ing with the Christians in Palestine (Per. 11), may have been influenced by Essene Ebionism, the most extreme and ascetic form of Christianity, which both makes his transition to Cynic­ ism a natural one, and may also account for Peregrinus' eventual excommunication because of the controversy relating to eating taboos that Lucian mentions (Per. 16):

if Peregrinus was an

Essene Ebionite he would have observed strict Mosaic law at a time when the Palestinian church was being reorganised on gent­ ile lines, and his expulsion would have been due to his refusal

501 (Notes to Chapter III) to eat food that was now regarded as lawful (p.lll). Harmon's note ad loc. pp. 18-9;


and Dudley, History of Cynic­

ism, p. 174, on the close relationship between the Cynics and the ascetic Christian sect of the Encratites. 29. holl

Plut., De Fac. In Orb. Lun. 944D κολασταί τε γίγνονταε

φύλακες ... καε σωτηρες etc.;

De Def. Or. 415A ff.;

Op. 122ff. δαίμονες Αγνοί ... φύλακες θνητών Ανθρώπων;

Hes., Diog.

Laert. 8. 32 dreams, oracles, health, sickness sent by daemons; Plut., De Gen. Socr. 591C, only pure souls received by moon; De Fac. In Orb. Lun. 943C, even good souls have to spend a time of purification in the air between the earth and the moon:


Lucian perhaps mistakenly referring to this belief in 33, Avaμεχθηναε τψ αίθέρε, for this would more aptly apply to the post-daemonic stage when the soul ascends from the moon to the sun (Plut., De Fac. In Orb. Lun. 943B, 944E)?

Perhaps Peregr­

inus' purification by fire was, so to speak, a short cut to the daemonic stage?

In general cf. M. Détienne, La notion du daimon

dans le pythagorisme ancien. 30.

Cf. Ovid, Fasti 2. 475f., Cic., Rep. 2. 10. 20.


Cf. Aelian, Var. Hist. 5. 6, the self-immolation of the

Indian Calanus at Babylon after he had greeted the sun at sun­ rise . 32.

Dudley, History of Cynicism (p.126 n.l and.-p.142) re­

gards Philostratus ' testimony as of dubious value.

Hazel M.

502 (Notes to Chapter III) Hornsby,

'The Cynicism of Peregrinus Proteus', Hermathena 48

(1933), 74-7, rejects the idea of Neo-Pythagorean influence on Peregrinus, but omits to take some of the evidence into consideration (e.g. the belief that Peregrinus was to become a φύλα£ δαίμων).

R. Pack,

'The "Volatilization" of Peregrinus

Proteus', A.J.Ph. 67 (1946), 334-5, sees confirmatory evidence for Neo-Pythagorean influence in Per. 6 όχούμενον επί τοϋ πυρός, in which he finds an allusion to the Neo-Platonic doc­ trine of the δχρμα or fiery envelope of the soul, and in the vulture (Per. 39), traditionally a visitor from the moon;


accepts Reitzenstein's (unprovable) hypothesis that Lucian is parodying an aretalogy of Peregrinus by Theagenes, and thinks the vulture appeared in that.

While there may be some sort of

parody of an ascension (cf. above n. 42 to Chap. I), the vulture itself could be Lucian's own comic touch, inspired by the eagle released from the pyre at the funeral of an emperor, which does not mean that we have to read into this any serious criticism of the Imperial cult! 33.

Cf. the inscription cited by Strabo, Geog. 15. 1. 73

Ζαρμανοχηγάς ... έαυτόν άπαθανατίσας ...;

Strabo and Dio Cass­

ius (54. 9. 10) offer other explanations, cf. also Rawlinson, India and the Western World, pp. 107-8, who refers to him as a Buddhist monk, s’ramanächärya. 34.

It was doubtless in Alexandria that Peregrinus came

503 (Notes to Chapter III) in contact with Neo-Pythagorean and Indian ideas.


the Cynic with whom Lucian says Peregrinus studied in Egypt, taught there (Per. 17, cf. Tox. 27;

cf. Dudley, History of

Cynicism, p. 175f.), as did the Neo-Pythagorean Sotion (cf. · Hornsby, Hermathena 48 (1933), 74;

Sen., Ep. 108. 17).


Sayre (Diogenes of Sinope, chap. 2) observes that from the time of Alexander Alexandria was the main trade route to India and a harbour for Indian ideas. 35.

V.H. 1. 23:

inhabitants of the moon live on odours,

as daemons were supposed to do (Plut., De Fac. In Orb. Lun. 943E), but Lucian may have in mind Megasthenes or Herodotus (see p. 349);

V.H. 1. 29:

Lychnopolis has been thought to

be a parody of the Neo-Pythagorean belief that souls wandered in the air in the form of sparks, but cf. Caster p. 290 who sees rather Aristophanic inspiration (Peace 838). 36.

Bruns suggests ('Lukian und Oenomaus', Rhein. Mus.

44, pp. 374-96) that Lucian may have been acquainted with Oenomaus' γοήτων φώρα, but there are no very close resembl­ ances between the quotations in Eusebius and either of these two works (the Alexander has somewhat more striking similar­ ities, cf. p.209).

It seems more likely that Lucian is here

drawing on his general knowledge of Cynic, Sceptic and Epicur­ ean arguments against the Stoics. 37.

Cf. Phil., Vit. Ap. 1. 8, Lucian, Al. 11;


504 (Notes to Chapter III) comments that the earliest Pythagoreans were of this appearance, 4. 164a. 38.

For other references to the Comedians cf. Helm, Lucian

und Menipp, App. V. 39.

Other sects have their representatives at Lucian's

Symposium, but the major role in the work is given to the Stoics (including the one who was not invited) and the Cynic. Two contemporary Peripatetics are caricatured in the Eunuch, but we do not know for certain whether such a dispute really did take place on anything like the lines that Lucian suggests. The jokes about the Academic Favorinus and his physical imper­ fections (Phil., Vit. Soph. 489, Lucian, Demon. 12, 13, Eun. 7) may have helped to colour Lucian's account. 40.

A passage which Boulanger thought Lucian was imitating

in the Pise, and Fug. (Rev. de Phil. Nouv. Sér. 47 (1923), 144151, cf. Aelius Aristide, pp. 250-6, 263), but, apart from the general theme, the resemblances between Lucian and Aristides are much too slight, in my opinion, to make this probable. 41.

Cf. Boissier, La Religion Romaine d 'Auguste aux Anton­

ins II pp. 95-6:

a letter from Antoninus Pius to an Asian

community regarding philosophers' salaries, Digest 27. 1. 6. 8. 42.

Dio Cassius ascribes the plethora of such persons to

the enthusiasm of Marcus Aurelius for philosophy (παμπληθείς φιλοσοφεϊν έπλάττοντο L'v' tm' αύτοϋ πλουτίζωνται, 72. 35);

505 (Notes to Chapter III) Hadrian and Antoninus Pius patronised philosophers (Hist. Aug., Hadr. 16. 10, Ant. P. 11. 3);

Apollonius of Chalcis, one of

Marcus Aurelius' tutors, was notorious for his arrogance and rapacity (Hist. Aug., Ant. P. 10. 4, cf. Lucian, Demon. 31, and probably Par. 52). 43.

Helm, Neue Jahrbücher 1902, ρ.188;

Croiset refers to

Lucian's 'connaissance superiideile' of philosophy as 'un défaut', Essai .., p. 94. on V.H. 2. 17ff. iei'.

Ollier feels impelled to comment

'Lucien est, comme d'habitude, bien superfic­

It would be interesting to see somebody make an audience

laugh with some profound philosophical jokes! 44.

Cf. Helm, P.W. pp. 1769-70, and Bompaire, p. 499 n. 2,

for other scholars who held the view of Lucian the Voltaire of antiquity. 45.

Cf. above n. 32;

in Per. 39 the vulture arising from

the pyre may be a comic touch inspired in part by the custom at Imperial funerals, but this does not amount to criticism of the Imperial cult:

the object of the satire is Peregrinus.

The Dialogues of the Dead relating to Alexander the Great and his claim to be divine (13, 14) are merely variations on what seems to have been a popular sophistic theme, cf. Aelian, Var. Hist. 2. 19, 5. 12, 9. 37, 12. 64. 46.

Actually Lucian could have found literary precedents

for ridiculing astrology, had he chosen to satirise this topic:

506 fNotes to Chapter III) the sophist Favorinus had composed a declamation against astro­ logers, as Gellius tells us (14. 1), cf. also Sext. Emp., Ad­ versus Astrologos.

The authenticity and interpretation of the

Astrology attributed to Lucian are discussed in the section on parody. 47.

Baldwin, Studies in Lucian, p. 104, asks 'Was (Lucian)

a flogger of dead horses?' and answers 'The notion is astonish­ ingly absurd ... The Olympians had not been dethroned in the second century.

They were still the gods of Greece and Rome.'

Yes, but is Lucian actually attacking 'the gods of Greece and Rome 1? 48.

As defined in note 1 to Chapter II.


Cf. Plutarch, Quomodo adulescens poetas audire debeat


few people believe the poets' tales about the gods and

the underworld;

Juvenal 2. 149-52:

(the tales about the under­

world) 'nec pueri credunt ...'. Boissier, La Religion Romaine II p. 393, considers that although the educated no longer believed in the myths (on which cf. II pp. 129-37, 367, 374, 380), the common people did.

He cites St Augustine as saying

that in his time the custom was introduced into pagan temples of reading salutary interpretations of mythology.

This does

not seem to me to indicate necessarily that up till then the uneducated took the myths literally, but rather an attempt to defend the traditional religion against Christian criticism.

507 (Notes to Chapter III) Lucian, in any case, was writing for the educated (Pise. 6 etc.·).

All this, of course, does not mean that the Olympians

themselves were no longer worshipped:

authorities seem agreed

that there appears to have been, in fact, an increase in their popularity (cf. Boissier II p. 367, Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, p. 367, Bompaire, notes on pp. 495-6). 50.

Cf. De Div. 2. 43, 44;

ib. 112, 113:

it is taken for

granted that the Stoics do not believe literally in the myths. 51.

Popularity of Aesculapius in the second century:


Vit. Soph. 535, 568, 611, his temples at Pergamum and Aegae visited by Polemo, Antiochus, Hermocrates;

Phil., Vit. Ap.

1. 8, 9, 4. 11 Apollonius of Tyana visits his temples at Aegae and Ilium;

Apuleius (Flor. 18) was a frequenter of his rites;

on Aristides and his visits to the Asclepieion at Pergamum see Boulanger pp. 127ff., 163ff.; 320 temples in the empire.

cf. Caster p. 336:

he had over

The temple of Serapis at Canopus was

thronged by noble patients, Strabo 17. 1, 17;

cf. Eunapius 471,

Hist. Aug., Marc. Aur. 23. 8;

on healing activ­

Caster p. 338;

ities of Isis cf. Diodorus Siculus 1. 25 (Boissier II p. 389, by this time even Jupiter and Minerva have cures to their credit: an inscr., Orelli 1429, records that Minerva cured a woman of baldness).

On Eastern gods in general cf. Boissier I p. 352f±.,

Nilsson, Greek Piety, p. 70, Cumont, Oriental Religions, chap.

508 (Notes to Chapter III) 52.

Apuleius had been initiated into a variety of different

Mysteries (Apol. 53-5); pensive (Met. 11. 28);

those of Isis at least were very ex­ Julian was initiated έν τελεταις μυρί-

cus (Or. 24. 39), cf. A .D . Nock in J.H.S. 45 (1925), 84-101; according to Boissier (I p. 373ff.) almost all the foreign cults had Mysteries; Bellona, the Mother of the Gods, Isis, Mithras.

The cult of Mithras seems not to have been so popular

in the Greek provinces, flourishing mainly in Pannonia, the Upper Rhine, and Dacia.

It had existed in Rome from 67 B.C.

but became really important during the later years of the Antonines and under the Severi:Cumont, Oriental Religions, p.353, Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, p.594, Boiss­ ier I p.353, Nilsson, Greek Piety, p.150. 53.

On the marks of favour shown to Aristides by Aesculapius

see Boulanger, Aelius Aristide, pp. 172-80, and C.A.Behr, Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales, Amsterdam 1968, 3. 38-40, 46 etc. Maximus of Tyre claims to have had visions of Aesculapius, Her­ acles and the Dioscuri, 9. 7. i;

cf. Apuleius, Met. 11 passim,

revelations of Isis in dreams and visions; the gods reveal cures to him in dreams;

Marc. Aur. 1. 17. 8

cf. Artemidorus, De

Somn. 4. 24 how Fronto had a dream which greatly alleviated his rheumatism;

Phil., Vit. Soph. 568 Aesculapius conversed with

Antiochus in visions;

Vit. Ap. 4. 10, 8. 7 the guidance of the

gods enables Apollonius to check a plague.

509 (Notes to Chapter III) 54.

Apuleius, Met. 11. 2. 5 (Isis);

in general cf. Boissier

I pp. 334-41, 361, Cumont, Oriental Religions, pp. 74, 89, Nock, J.H.S. 45 (1925), 84-101, Nilsson, Greek Piety, pp. 116-7, Boul­ anger, Aelius Aristide, pp. 185-8, 192, 201. 55.

Evidence in inscriptions cited by Nock ibid, and Boiss­

ier I pp. 382-4. 56.

Cf. Cumont, Oriental Religions, p. 156:

no religion on

earth was so dominated by the idea of purification;


had to wipe out all pollution by repeated lustrations.


(Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius, p.590) suggests that Lucian's reference to the magus' foreign words may be a re­ collection of the old Mazdean litany.

Both features may, how­

ever, be just a general burlesque of magic rites, cf. Sayed Idries Shah, Oriental Magic, chap. 10 'Calling the Spirits’: much dedication, purification and fumigation was necessary for the performance of such rites;

he cites a Greek papyrus of in­

vocation in which Hebrew, Syriac and other foreign words are intermingled (pp. 94-5). 57.

Cf. Harmon's note on Deor. Cone. 12, Loeb ed. voi. 5

pp. 434-5; 58.

and supra p. 217.

Trophonius : visited by Apollonius of Tyana (Phil. Vit.

Ap. 4. 24, 8. 19, a description of the rites);

Plut., de def.

or. 412, says that in his day it was the only oracle left in Boeotia;

cf. Max. Tyr. 8. lb-3a, Athenaeus 14. 614, Paus. 9.39.

510 (Notes to Chapter III) Caster (Lucien et la Pensée Religieuse as decadent in Lucian's age:

p.237) describes it

this does not seem borne out by

the references to it in ancient sources.

Amphilochus : Plut.,

de def. or. 434d, describes it as still flourishing;

Dio Cass­

ius (73. 7) was present when it was consulted by a Roman offic­ ial;

cf. Max. Tyr. 9. 7b;

Apollo's oracles at Delphi,


Colophon visited by Apollonius of Tyana, Phil., Vit. Ap. 4. 24, 4. 1;

Delphi, Xanthus included in Max. Tyr.'s list, 8. lb-3a;

cf. Plut., de def. or. 413A-B:

Delphi still functioning.


oracles in general, their decline in the last century of the Republic and first century of the Empire, and their revival in the second century, cf. Nilsson, Greek Piety, p.1 2 3 , Dill, Roman Society .., pp. 386-7, 434, 461, 471, Boulanger, Aelius Aristide, pp. 56-7;

Caster, Lucien et la Pensée Religieuse .., pp. 236-7:

Lucian has mingled contemporary features with literary reminisc­ ences.

Cf. Hazel M. Hornsby, Auli Gellii Noctium Atticarum Lib.

1, Dublin 1936, pp. xiii-iv:

' ...The second century is charac­

terised both in Italy and Greece by a revival of interest in ancient cults.

The deserted oracles of Branchidae and Delphi

were again thronged,and travellers willingly turned aside to local shrines to see horse-headed Demeter or fish-tailed Eury­ nome ’. 59.

'Tychiades', like 'Parrhesiades' in the Piscator, is

Lucian's name for himself.

J. Schwartz in his edition of the

511 (Notes to Chapter III) Philopseudes, p. 34, remarks,

'(Lucien) a pris ce pseudonyme

pour des motifs qui nous échappent (fils de Tychios ou fils de la Tyché?)'.

That Lucian should call himself 'Parrhesiades',

a name which suggests the frank speaking of the Cynics and Old Comedy, needs no explanation, but why Tychiades?

Does the

name mean 'Fortune's Son' and suggest 'the self-made man'? More probably Lucian is thinking of ò τυχών, any chance person, anybody one happens to meet, 'the man in the street', whose life both Tiresias and Demonax recommend as the most sensible. So perhaps we should take 'Tychiades' as 'Mr. Commonsense'. 60.

Cumont and Babelon take the reference to Alexander's

statue to refer to Alexander of Abonuteichos (cf. E. Babelon, 'Le faux prophète Alexandre d'Abonoteichos', Revue Numismatique 1900, pp. 8 and 25).

Nock ('Alexander of Abonuteichos',

C.Q. 22 (1928), 160-2) argues that Athenagoras, Leg. pro Chr. 26, refers to the cult of Paris, and I think, from the quotation from the Iliad that follows the reference to Alexander's statue (Δύστιαρι, είδος άριστε, γυναιμανές ...), that this must be right. 61.

Dudley (History of Cynicism, p. 181) thinks that Lucian's

remarks (Per. 28, cf. 41) may indicate that this was the case, and that on the site of the pyre there may have been 'a regular oracular shrine, with all the machinery of priests, mystic rites, and inmost sanctuary'. 62.

Cf. E. Babelon,

'Le faux prophète Alexandre d'Abono-

(Notes to Chapter III) teichos', Revue Numismatique 1900, pp.1-30:

'II faut bien

admettre la vdracitd de l'historien de Samosate, puisque les inscriptions, les pierres gravés et surtout les médailles confirment son recit


However, Babelon thinks that

in describing the human-headed serpent Lucian only described one of the forms that the snake might take, because sometimes it is represented on coins etc. with a lion's head or a dog's head (p.20), although possibly it was not until after Alex­ ander's death that these other forms appeared. Études sur Alexandre, pp. 94-6: been founded c. 140 - 145 A.D.

Cf. also Caster,

the oracle is thought to have Babelon explains the name

Glycon as formed from γλυκύς as a synonym of 'Ασκληπιός:


con is the ’gentle, good' new manifestation of Asclepius (p.13). The name Ionopolis (now Ineboli) he suggests is formed from a mystic term of Gnosticism;

on Alexander's connexion with

gnostic cults in the area cf. Babelon p. 25f. 63.

Schwartz, Biographie de Lucien .., pp. 23-4, followed

by Baldwin, Studies in Lucian, p. 30, thinks that this Celsus is the same as the Celsus whose True Doctrine (Αληθής λόγος) is attacked by Origen.

As Caster (Études sur Alexandre, pp.

1-5) and H. Chadwick (Origen Contra Celsum, Cambridge 1953, intro, p. xxivf.) argue, this cannot be so.

Lucian's friend

Celsus is an Epicurean, but Origen's Celsus believes in One God and Divine Providence (Origen, Contra Celsum 4. 4, 99,

513 (Notes to Chapter III) 5. 41), in divination (4. 88f.), daemons (1. 68, 5. 2) and the reality of magic (1. 28, 68):

he is therefore a Platonist, as

Origen himself, after some initial confusion (1. 8, 68, 2. 80) as to whether his Celsus is a Platonist or an Epicurean, and whether he is the same man who wrote several books χατά μάγων or not, eventually recognises (4. 53, 54, cf. 6. 47 e t e r ­ ei.

Cf. Harmon's note, Lucian Loeb ed. voi. 4 pp. 204-5,


Anderson (Theme and Variation .., p.125) suspects the

questions about Alexander's baldness and Homer's birthplace (p.127);

but if the prophet really "did have a head of beauti­

ful golden hair (Al. 3) there might have been rumours among the irreverent that it was not his own, and the cliché about Homer's birthplace would be an obvious question for anyone to put to an oracle (cf. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety, p.57, on the sort of questions put to oracles, as re­ vealed by papyri. Shall I get my salary?

Am I under a spell?

and - to the oracle at Claros - Are you God?

Or is someone

else God?). 66.

On the element of Neo-Pythagoreanism in Alexander's

cult cf. F. Cumont, 'Alexandre d'Abonoteiehos et le Néo-Pythagorisme', R.H.R. 86 p. 202f. 67.

In 1960 in one of the more popular Sunday papers I read

an account of a Frenchman who had devised a religious fraud which bore some similarities to Alexander's cult.

His in fact

514 (Notes to Chapter III) started as an accident, when he happened to cut his hand on picking up a statuette of St Anne.

Those present saw the blood

flowing, as it seemed, from the statue and hailed it as a miracle.

Realising the potentialities of this our hero cashed

in on it and started a regular cult of the statue.

Many people

claimed to have been healed by the statue and in spite of the disapproval of the Roman Catholic Church its veneration con­ tinued for quite a long time, until the person who had started the whole thing brought it to an end, on being touched by the sincerity of some of the devotees. 68.

Cf. E. Babelon, Rev. Numism. 1900 p.6,for inscriptional

evidence about Rutilianus. 69.

Cf. the epigram cited by Boissier, La Religion Romaine

II p.105, from Ammianus Marcellinus 25. 4. 17, in which the oxen of Rome are made to complain that if the emperor is vict­ orious they are lost. 70.

The idea, shared with the scholiasts by various later

scholars, that Lucian was familiar with the Old and New Testa­ ments, and was parodying them in various works such as the True Story, is rightly rejected by Stengel (De Luciani Veris Hist­ oriis, p.49), Caster (Lucien et la Pensée Religieuse .., p.356) and Betz (Lukian und das Neue Testament, p.12), cf. below, n.64 to Chapter V, and there seems no reason to believe that Lucian was acquainted with them, unlike the author of the violently

515 (Notes to Chapter III) anti-Christian and undoubtedly spurious Philopatris.


Gesner (De Philopatride Lucianeo Dialogo Nova Dissertatio, Leipzig 1730), who argues that this piece was written in the time of the emperor Julian;

others consider it a work of the

tenth century (cf, Betz pp. 15-6 and Macleod's introductory note, Loeb ed. voi. 8 p. 413);

R. Anastasi in his edition of

1968 (pp. 23-35) puts it later, in the reign of Isaac Comnenos (1057-9). 71.

Cf. Sen., Contr. 1. 3. 11 (Incesta de saxo):


'color' is that the priestess prepared herself for being thrown off the Tarpeian rock by hardening her body by witchcraft; Quintii. 2. 10. 4-6 disapproves of incredible themes about magicians. 72. age.

It was not, of course, an exclusive feature of Lucian's Cf. Nilsson, Greek Popular Religion, pp. 111-24, on super­

stition in the Classical period at Athens. 73.

On the importance attached to dreams by men of culture

in the second century, including a doctor and scholar such as Galen, cf. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire, pp. 73-4;

cf. also R. Pack, 'Artemidorus and the Physiognomists',

T.A.P.A. 72 pp. 321-35. 74.

Cf. Nilsson, Greek Piety, pp. 168-9, who cites Philo-

stratus, Heroicus 3. 2, on the image of Protesilaus which was quite worn away from the attentions of its devotees, and gives

516 (Notes to Chapter III) other examples of this belief.

Cf. also Hazel M. Hornsby in

Hermathena 48 (1933), 77. 75.

Cf. Nilsson and Hornsby ib.

Hornsby suggests that it

was his son (or even his grandson?). 76.

Cf. C.A. Behr, Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales:

with the field-mouse and lion skin cure, cf. Aristides 3. 36, where, among cures for toothache, is listed a toothpaste made by burning a lion's tooth and pounding it to a powder.


some of the cures that the asthmatic Aristides endured for his ailments cf. esp. 1. 65-8;

5. 49-55:

when Aristides is so

ill he can hardly move he has to run ten stades in a howling gale and bathe in an icy river. 77.

A good illustration of the superstition still very

much prevalent today is the number of magazines dealing with astrology and the occult that are to be found, for example, in W.H. Smith's bookshop on Charing Cross station in London (or indeed any of their local branches).

One will usually find a

good half dozen of them on display, with titles such as 'Zodiac', 'Midnight Horoscope' and 'Prediction, a Magazine for the Occult and Astrology' (the one that sells best, to judge from the rate at which its copies disappear from our local branch).

It is

not so much the articles that catch the eye (Artemidorus would doubtless think the dream interpretations very amateurish, and Polemo could probably teach the physiognomist a thing or two,

517 (Notes to Chapter III) and the astrological stuff is very dull) as the correspondence columns and the advertisements:

a letter from a lady who wants

to join a coven of witches, but is worried by 'just one thing', the fact that they wear no clothes;

a letter from a man reply­

ing sadly, to a point raised in a previous issue, that he doubts whether 'the present Pope will encourage links between the Cath­ olic Church and the pagan Old Religion';

a worried reader who

has been trying to locate by dream the whereabouts of a lost brooch is told that since she has dreamt of the number five, 'the number of Mercury, god of thieves', her brooch has been stolen, and she should contact the police;

while another reader

asks for advice on the cleansing of a crystal ball. and detergent?

Not a bit of it!

Warm water

The question related to

'psychometric cleansing', from 'unwanted influences'.


balls, incidentally, cost £9. 04, as I see from an advertisement for a shop in Leeds that claims proudly to supply 'many of the country's leading Occultists' with their paraphernalia:


would be amused to note that the shop is called 'The Sorcerer's Apprentice'.

Legions of clairvoyants, mediums, and other such

seers offer their services in these pages.

Some call themselves

'cartomante', 'cheiromants', and 'pyromants':

I haven't spotted

a 'coscinomant', but there is a 'Specialist in Magic Mirror' and another who predicts by casting 'Odin's Runes', which I expect is just as effective!

Alexander of Abonuteichos charged one

518 (Notes to Chapter III) drachma two obols per question, according to Lucian:


for single 'urgent questions' nowadays range from 50p. to £10 (some Experts offer cut price rates for Old Age Pensioners), while a prophet near my college in London, whose full page advertisement declares how he has Amazed newspaper reporters from Karachi to Golders Green, will predict you your next five years for £25.

Another advertisement states briskly:

influences and spirits removed.


Exorcism dealt with effici­

ently and privately, also poltergeists ... Homes visited, any distance'.

You can study astrology by correspondence course

(for an 'internationally recognised' diploma), attend weekly classes in 'ritual magic', learn mediumship on tape cassette, or buy yourself a 'Modern Witchcraft Spell Book' (a 'must', says the advertisement,

'for adept and beginner alike') and

use 'Frater Malak's Mystic Grimoire of Mighty Spells and Rituals' to invoke 'powerful Beings who are ready and willing to obey your commands' ('no Pacts with the Devil' guaranteed: summon only Benefic Beings to help you'). you can join a club:


If feeling lonely

the Syrian goddess still has a following,

it would appear, among the 'Friends of Ishtar', Plato might feel at home among the 'Atlanteans', Apuleius would hurry off to join the 'Fellowship of Isis', while the Rosicrucians will 'bring to the surface the Cosmic Mind within you'.

(I met a Rosicrucian

some years ago, whose Cosmic Mind had been brought to the

519 (Notes to Chapter III) surface.

He came from a local firm to lay a fitted carpet.

Instead of exchanging the usual pleasantries about the weather, he told me of his conversations with the ghost of his dead brother:

he obviously believed every word he said.).

It cert­

ainly bears out the information offered by a number of recent television programmes about witchcraft in this country.


of those interviewed, the reader will be relieved to note, were amiable souls who claimed to use their powers to benefit human­ ity.

The producer of one such programme did not take the

business too seriously, it seems, for as butcher, baker, bank manager and shorthand typist went about their mystic rites in the local copse, the background music provided was 'The Teddy Bears' Picnic' - 'If you go down to the woods today, you're sure of a big surprise!'

I fancy Lucian would have liked that

touch ! 78.

This remark is made in the context of Lucian's lingu­

istic satire, in which Baldwin finds that the most striking feature is Lucian's neglect of Latin topics.

The obvious

reason for this is that while Lucian probably had some know­ ledge of Latin, indeed, for all we know he may have been quite proficient in it, one would need to be a considerable expert in Latin literature and to have a considerable interest in the Latin language to discuss the minutiae of Latin diction: Lucian is, after all, a Greek writer, and there is nothing so

520 (Notes to Chapter III) very extraordinary in his confining his satire on linguistic matters to Greek phenomena. 79.

An enthusiastic follower of Baldwin and Peretti is

V. Papai'oannou (ΛΟΥΚΙΑΝΟΣ 0 ΜΕΓΑΛΟΣ ΣΑΤΙΡΙΚΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΑΡΧΑΙΟΤΗΤΑΣ, Thessalonica 1976), who maintains (pp. 234-7) that Lucian's works manifest solidarity with the under-privileged classes and anti-Roman sentiment, and who utterly rejects Bompaire's talk of commonplaces and cliches, which he feels has been fully refuted by Baldwin (p. 237).

Another supporter of the

view of Lucian as anti-Roman satirist, it seems, is M. Pinto, 'Fatti e figure della storia romana nelle opere di Luciano', Vichiana 3 (1974), 227-38 (résumé in L'Année Philologique for 1975).

Against this conception of Lucian, besides Bompaire,

cf. esp. J. Palm, Rom, Römertum und Imperium in der Griech­ ischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit, pp. 44-56. 80.

Cf. Teles (ed. Hense) 4a and b, On Wealth and Poverty;

2, On Self-sufficiency;

Diog. Laert. 6. 50, 104 etc.;

Mem. 1. 6 and Symp. 4. 29-45;


cf. Delz, Lukians Kenntnis der

Athenischen Antiquitäten, p. 58, who compares the latter passage on the blessings of poverty with Lucian's Gall. 21.


Aristophanes, at least four other writers of the Old Comedy handled the 'Plutus' theme, cf. Couat, Aristophane, pp.207-10; while the fragments of the Old and the New Comedy contain dozens of passages in which on the one hand the ills of poverty

521 (Notes to Chapter III) are described and on the other its blessings:

e.g. Philemon,

frags 92, 96, Edmonds II pp. 61, 63, that the poor man is happier than the rich;

Diphilus, frags 103-5, ibid. p. 147,

praise of poverty, cf. Alexis, frag. 281, ibid. p. 513, Antiphanes, frag. 258, ibid. p. 295;

Aristophon, frag. 1, ibid,

p. 521, the ills of poverty, cf. Menander frags 4 and 6, ibid. Illb p. 549, but frag. 284, p. 649, the poor man is happier than the rich. 81.

Cf. Lucian, Tim. 13-17 on the miser's hoarded wealth;

and the epigram ascribed to Lucian: itz 44;

Anth. Pal. 11. 397 = Jacob-

Juv. 14. 119-37, Hor. Sat. 1. 1. 41, 68ff.:

it is,

of course, a diatribe theme, e.g. Teles (ed. Hense) 4a init.; Dio Chrys. 4. 100. 82.

Cf. Apuleius, Apol. 18-20, praise of poverty:


about the rich man feeling desire for more money and therefore being poor;

Cic., De Partit. Or. 61-8, among examples of

'theses' for declamation: poverty?

For 'rich man and poor man' cf. Sen., Contr. 2. 1,

5. 2, 8. 6, 9. 1, 5. 5; 13.

How should a man conduct himself in

Quintii., Deci. Min. 316, Deci. Mai.

For other examples cf. Quacquarelli, La Retorica Antica

al Bivio, pp. 67-9. 83.

In Diocletian's edict of 301 A.D., which was aimed at

keeping wages and prices low, the painter of statues (’pictor imaginarius’;

presumably he would also be the sculptor) earns

522 (Notes to Chapter III) far more than any of the other skilled workers, viz. 150 denarii a day, plus his food;

the smith, baker, carpenter,

mosaic worker, and stone mason receive 50 den., and unskilled labourers (like water-carriers and mule drivers) 20-25 den., all plus their food, cf. Tenney Frank's Economic Survey of the Roman World V pp. 337ff. 84.

Cf. Tarn in The Hellenistic Age (Bury, Barber, Bevan,

Tarn, 2nd ed. 1925), pp. 112-5; Civilisation, pp. 119-23; 323-146 B.C., p. 302f.;

Tarn and Griffith, Hellenistic

Cary, History of the Greek World Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic

History of the Roman Empire chap. 1, and Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, pp. 135-208f.

All- base

their conclusions on evidence provided by the temple accounts at Delos. 85.

Cf. Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History of the

Roman Empire, pp. 51-3, 133-5, Sherwin-White, Roman Citizenship, p. 236f., Boulanger, Aelius Aristide, chap. 1;

cf. Hist. Aug.,

Ant. P. 7. 2 'provinciae sub eo cunctae floruerunt1, 9. 10 'tantum sane auctoritatis apud exteras gentes nemo habuit, cum semper amaverit pacem', Mare. Aur. 26 'omnibus orientalibus provinciis carissimus fuit';

and passim for the care devoted

to the provinces by Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, 86.

E.g. Aristides' Encomium on Rome, esp. 39, 66 (ed.

Oliver, The Ruling Power), where he stresses that both poor and

523 (Notes to Chapter III) rich prosper under Roman rule; Strabo 288e;

cf. Appian, praef. 7-11;

Philo, Leg. ad Gaium 21-2;

of Statecraft, Mor. 824C;

Plutarch, Precepts

cf. On the Fortune of the Romans

316E, On the Pythian Oracles 408B, C;

Epictetus 3. 13. 9;

for inscriptions see Boulanger, Aelius Aristide, pp. 11, 361, 362; 87.

Sherwin-White, The Roman Citizenship, p. 239. On the enmity which Baldwin supposes Lucian to have

felt for Herodes Atticus cf. supra n, 16 to Chapter I.


stratus (Vit. Soph. 549) has a puzzling story (in view of what he tells us of Herodes' other benefactions) about Herodes arous­ ing the hatred of the Athenians by wriggling out of paying them the bequests that his father had left each individual in his will.

It is used by Baldwin as evidence for the animosity of

the poorer classes towards the rich (C.Q. 1961, p. 206 n. 3); but the Athenians certainly got over their annoyance in due course, since we are told that when Herodes died they wept for him 'as sons bereft of a good father' (Vit. Soph. 566).


exactly the truth is behind the story of the bequests is any­ body's guess. 88.

Cf. G.W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire,

pp. 27-8, for examples. 89.

Cf. R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order, Harvard

University Press 1967, p. 180:

'Hostility, however, although

automatically directed at the rich in times of stress, there-

524 (Notes to Chapter III) after relaxed.

If famine proved the existence of class tens­

ions, abundance proved how fleeting were their aims';

cf. pp.

245-54 on food shortages under the Empire, caused sometimes by the arrival of large numbers of troops in an area, sometimes by severe winters, or excessive rains or drought. 90.

Cf. Plutarch, Precepts of Statecraft 19:


between upper and lower class citizens, but also quarrels be­ tween different groups among the wealthier classes.

On the

'Youths' and 'Elders' at Tarsus cf. C.P. Jones, The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom, Harvard 1978, pp. 80-1 and n. 76.

On guilds

and their rivalries cf. R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order, pp. 173-7. 91.

Cf. further R. MacMullen, pp. 185-7, esp. 186:


coinage of a small city called Anazarbus, which proclaims the city 'Noble Metropolis, The First, The Greatest, The Fairest, Standard Bearer of Rome, Site of the Free Common Council of Cilicia';

at which the neighbouring city of Mopsuestia, he

says, 'bristled, and asserted its own cause in an equal list of superlatives.

The two were at some time reconciled.


inscription announces "The Concord of Mopsuestia and Anazarbus"'. 92.

Baldwin also talks of the second century as being

'dominated' by strikes (C.Q. 1961, p.208).

In fact we only

have evidence for three strikes in this period, all from Asia Minor (W.H. Buckler, Labour Disputes in the Province of Asia,

525 (Notes to Chapter III) in Anatolian Studies presented to Sir William Mitchell Ramsay, pp. 27ff.), and of these instances one, a building dispute at Miletus about which the Delphic oracle is consulted, may, it is thought, not indicate a strike at all (cf. Broughton in Tenney Frank IV p. 847ff., who suggests that the workmen may have been tempted to abandon their contract because of a pro­ spect of better pay elsewhere), while another, a bakers' strike at Miletus, may not be a dispute of workers versus employers, but of the owners of the bakeries against the city authorities (cf. Rostovtzeff p. 179), and the third, a decree from Pergamum that building workers who do not fulfil their contracts shall pay interest (presumably on the money they have received in advance), looks rather like the first instance cited. 93.

Cf. Hist. Aug., Hadr. 5. 1-3, 14. 2, Marc. Aur. 21. 2,

Dio Cass. 69. 12-4, for Palestine and Egypt;

Hist. Aug., Ant.

P. 5. 3 Palestine, Egypt, Britain, Mauretania. 94.

Rostovtzeff, Social and Economic History of the Roman

Empire, chap. 6;

Day, An Economic History of Athens under

Roman Domination, pp. 184-8;

Coleman-Norton, Studies in Roman

Economic and Social History, p. 213; Empire IV p. 466-82; 95.

Tenney Frank, Roman

C.P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome, pp. 7-10.

Cf. Peretti p. 44, who uses the street-corner philo­

sophers of Rome who were expelled under Vespasian and Domitian as evidence for the revolutionary tendency of Cynicism, but it

526 (Notes to Chapter III) looks as though they did little more than criticise the behav­ iour of individual emperors (cf. Dudley, History of Cynicism, chap. 7;

Rostovtzeff, S.E.H.R.E. pp. 114-5, suggests that the

Cynics criticised the principle of hereditary kingship), and in showing lack of respect to their sovereign they were merely practising the frank speaking that Diogenes, for example, dis­ played towards Alexander (Diog. Laert. 6. 38, 60, 63, 68).


Acts of the Pagan Martyrs are also cited by Peretti (p.44) and Rostovtzeff (p.117) as evidence for Cynic participation in Alex­ andria in opposition to the Roman government, but as Musurillo points out (Appendix V p. 267f.) the national pride and pride of birth expressed in the fragments, together with the strong superstitious element, are most un-Cynic (cf. Acta Isidori p. 18f.;

for the superstitious element cf. P. Oxy. 1089,p. 4ff.,

and Acta Hermaisci p. 44f., a quarrel between the Jewish and Greek factions before the emperor, in the course of which a bust of Serapis breaks into a sweat).

The only 'Cynic' feature

is the bold way in which Isidorus and Appian (Act. Is. p,18f., Act. Ap. p. 65f.) address Claudius and Commodus respectively, and one did not have to be a Cynic to do that.

Baldwin (C.Q.

1961 pp. 203-4) uses Lucian's Fug. 12-7 as evidence for the participation of Cynics in social revolution:

as far as I can

see, there is not the slightest justification for using this passage as evidence that there were Cynic-inspired movements

527 (Notes to Chapter III) in Thrace like the Αναχωρήσεις in Egypt, where the villagers left their homes to avoid the demands of the tax-collector. It is simply a typical literary description of 'false Cynics' (cf. Anth. Pal. 11. 154).

So is Appian, Mith. 28, which

Peretti uses (pp. 47-8, 101, 135) to prove anti-Roman and revolutionary propaganda by the Cynics. 96.

Though, pace Dudley, History of Cynicism, p. 177, and

Peretti, p. 43, Dio does not actually say that these Alexandr­ ian Cynics 'caused frequent riots'. 97.

As stated earlier (p. 233), such evidence as there is

for provincial feeling towards Roman rule in the form of liter­ ary references and inscriptions is all favourable to Rome, but, of course, the poorest classes in society did not put up in­ scriptions or write books.

We can only infer their feelings,

cf. Ramsay MacMullen (Enemies of the Roman Order, p.189):


poor must have looked on Romans as accomplices to the rich and must at times have cursed them both in the same breath - must have, according to speculation, nothing more.

Only one doubt­

ful instance is known of poverty and anti-Romanism conjoined (sc. the rising in Achaea, cf. n. 29 p. 349 "an exceptional mention of popular anti-Romanism") to be set against a mountain of indirect proof of the popularity of the Empire among the lower classes'.

When I originally wrote my discussion of this

subject in 1966 his book had not yet appeared, but, in a far

528 (Notes to Chapter III) more exhaustive survey of the material than I have been able to carry out within the scope of this book, he reaches the conclusion (p. 242):

'I can see no significant struggle of

slave against free or poor against rich ... 1

The lot of the

poor must always have been hard in the ancient world, but it must have been worse in times of war and instability than it was, generally speaking, in the second century.

At all events,

the picture drawn by Peretti and others of wide-spread antiRoman feeling on the part of the poorer classes of provincial society and the part played in fomenting it by the Cynics appears to be as exaggerated and as little supported by the evidence as that of a class struggle between the rich and the poor. 98.

Demon. 40, incidentally, provides an illustration of

that provincial feeling towards Rome to which our literary and epigraphical sources bear witness:

a provincial is boasting

proudly that he has been honoured with Roman citizenship.


is, however, an απαίδευτος άνθρωπος καί σόλοικος, so Demonax jokes, 'What a shame the emperor didn't make you a Greek in­ stead of a Roman!'

In Demon. 50 we have an example of a Cynic

speaking his mind freely, in the traditional Cynic manner, to a proconsul and nearly getting into trouble for it, the sort of behaviour, it would seem, that caused various Roman emperors to expel them from Rome.

Disapproval of gladiatorial shows was

529 (Notes to Chapter III) common among the educated classes of both Greece and Rome, cf. C.P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome, p. 122. 99.

One parallel on which Peretti lays much stress is the

image that Aristides uses of the 'flood' of wealth and populat­ ion into Rome and the 'flood' of pleasure in Nigr. 16, but this is a commonplace metaphor, and if Lucian was influenced by any particular source it might have been Juv. 3. 62;

cf. Tac., Ann.

15. 44. 100.

Nigrinus, as Palm observes (Rom, Römertum und Imperium

in der Griechischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit, p. 50), who utters the denunciation of Rome the Wicked City, appears to be repres­ ented by Lucian as a Roman: Rome from Greece (έτιανι^ειν);

Nig. 17 'When first I came back to cf. 26 Lucian refers to Nigrinus'

estate outside Rome (άγρόν ού πόρρω της ιχόλεως).

(Notes to Chapter IV) 1.

Cf. J. Trag. 32: What would the orators do without

their Marathon and their Miltiades and Cynegirus? 2;

Iud. Voc. 11;

Phil., Vit. Soph. 576;

D. Mort. 20.

Sen., Suas. 2; 3

'Sed montes perforat, maria contegit', cf. 2. 17, 5. 7; 10. 174-6;

Sen., Suas. 5. 2 'Quid dicam Salamina?

aegirum referam et te, Polyzele?'


Quid Cyn­

Quintii. 12. 4. 1:

a know­

ledge of historical examples indispensable to the orator.

530 (Notes to Chapter IV) 2.

πρφην γάρ καί λύχνον αψας έζήτεις άδελφόν τινα, οϋμαι,

ά,τχολωλότα (Pseudol. 29).

Ths sophist, no doubt indulging in

a purple passage of popular moralising, made use of the story of Diogenes taking a lamp in broad daylight to look for a (virtuous) man (Diog. Laert. 6. 41), perhaps exclaiming some­ thing like 'I shall light my lantern to look for a man - but in vain!'

Lucian wickedly insinuates that 'Rhododaphne's ’

purpose in the quest is somewhat less reputable than the Cynic's (cf. the use of 'frater' in Petronius 9, Mart. 2. 4, 10. 65, and the note in Hemsterhuis' edition voi. 3 p. 185). 3.

Cf. Nairn's note on Herondas 2 in his edition, p.15.


Choricius, Apol. Mimorum 109, ed. Foerster-Richtsteig.


E.g. Aristophanes, Plutus 30, orators classed with

temple-robbers, sycophants and other wicked men who grow rich through criminal practices;

ibid, 379, it is easy to hush

crimes up by bribing the orators;

Clouds, Strepsiades is

anxious to attend Socrates' sophistical school so that he too may learn how to become victorious in the courts by making the worse argument appear the better and so avoid paying his debts. Cf. also Sext. Emp., πρδς δητορας 27-31:

it was a typical argu­

ment of the Academics against the art of rhetoric that judicial orators are forced to become cheats. 6.

Dem., De Fals. Leg. lllff.;

cf. 93, 153, Against Ctesiphon 173;

Aesch., On the Embassy 165, Dem., De Cor. 21, 34 etc.

531 (Notes to Chapter IV) 7.

Cf. Aesch., On the Embassy 4, 88, 99;

Dem., De Fals.

Leg. 196ff. 8.

Cf. the example cited by Bompaibe (p. 491 n.2) to indic­

ate that the charlatan orator's solecisms may have a comic origin (viz. a frag, from the Metics variously ascribed to Plato Comicus or Pherecrates, Koch I p. 623 frag. 78, where a character is made to use the form έμαυχός for comic effect), but Cobet is surely correct in assuming that the poet is here making fun of the bad Greek talked by resident aliens.


cited (p. 490 n.2) from Aristophanes' Ταγηνισταί and Eupolis’ Κόλακες do not have much relevance to Lucian's rhetorical sat­ ire (Protagoras mentioned as a glutton and Prodicus as corrupt­ ing somebody with his sophistical chatter.

Cf. Edmonds I pp.

708, 368). 9.

Diog. Laert. 6. 11, 71, 103, 104;

cf. Oltramare's list

of diatribe themes in Les Origines de la Diatribe Romaine, p. 44f. 10.

Oehler thinks the Papia Papae is about lovers who

'blandimentis suis pueros etiam nondum verba recte formantes superare soleant', and quotes Turnebus’ view that the satire treats 'immodicos laudatores et assentatores ... qui in admirat­ ionem saepe soleant prorumpere et assentatoria laude hominibus adulari';

J. Wight Duff, Roman Satire, p. 87, comments that

the satire ( O h My! Oh My!' or 'Well, I Never!1) 'professes to

532 (Notes to Chapter IV) express wonderment at silly flatteries, and'the opposite fault of unfair censure’; M. Coffey, Roman Satire, p.154 (’Tut tut!’) observes that besides praise of the undeserving in funeral or­ ations (376) and laudations of beauty (370-5), the fragments indicate that the satire treated speeches of abuse in the lawcourts and in politics (377, 378). 11.

The fact that a rhetorician appears in Lucian's tenth

Dialogue of the Dead, where he is made to jettison his 'baggage' of antitheses, barbarisms etc. before embarking on Charon's ferry, does not prove anything about Menippus:

Lucian may very

well have introduced this character himself into a model furn­ ished by Menippus, or have made up the entire 'excess luggage' scene himself. 12.

Cf. Brecht, Motiv- und Typengeschichte des Griechischen

Spottepigrams, Chap. II 2, Rhetor und Anwalt, pp. 27-30. 13.

Lucillius (Lucilius) can be dated with certainty to the

Neronian age;

Cerealius' date is uncertain, but he is generally

thought to belong to about the same period;

Ammianus is dated

by his references to Polemo, presumably the famous sophist of the second century, to the age of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius (cf. Mackail pp. 304-5 and Brecht, Index pp. 105-6). 14.

On Polemo's cupidity, mentioned by Philostratus, see

p. 267. 15.

On Cappadocian orators cf. Phil., Vit. Soph. 594:

533 (Notes to Chapter IV) Pausanias delivered his speeches παχείςι τη γλώττη καί ώς Καππαδόκαυς ξύνηθες. ··· and was spoken of as a cook who spoiled expensive food in preparing it.

Cf. Vit. Ap. 1.7 Apollonius'

accent not spoiled by the Cappadocians, among whom he lived. 16.

Boulanger observes (Aelius Aristide, pp. 58~9) that

although Philostratus does not start his account of the Second Sophistic until the time of Nicetes (in the last thirty years or so of the first century), there is reason to suppose that the first century was no less rich in sophists than Lucian's age:

he cites (ib. pp. 82-3) the few names preserved by Dio

Chrysostom (Or. 18. 12) and Plutarch (Quaest. Conv. 4. 4. 1, 667d) and the fact that Greek oratory was very much alive at the end of the first century B.C. as is attested by the refer­ ences to Greek orators in Strabo relating to the first century B.C. and the quantity of Greek orators cited and criticised by the elder Seneca (cf. W.A. Edward, intro, to his ed. of the Suasoriae, pp. xl-xli).

Greek rhetoric could hardly have ceased

to flourish between then and the advent of Nicetes.

The epi­

grams of the Neronian age provide additional evidence to support Boulanger's contention. 17.

Cf. Boulanger, pp. 265-70, for a discussion of Arist­

ides' views on rhetoric; n.s. 47 (1923), 144-51;

cf. also his article (Rev. de Phil, and his book, pp. 250-6, 297-9) point­

ing out possible imitation of Aristides by Lucian in connexion

534 (Notes to Chapter IV) with the theme of the False Philosopher, and that the Salt, may be a reply to Aristides' denunciations of the dance.


both connexions the parallels that he cites are not very close. Meridier thought that Rhet. Praec. 18 Hat άεΐ ò "Αθως πλείσθω καί ò ‘Ελλήσποντος πεζευέσθω καί ò ήλιος ύπδ των Μηδικών βελών σκεπέσθω is, a reference to Aristides' Panathenaicus 13D. 209; Boulanger (article, and his book p.366 n.l) says that if Lucian had Aristides in mind he would have been thinking of 46D..215 φ γε ò uèv "Αθως τ&ς ναϋς ò δέ ‘Ελλήσποντος τδ πέζον έδεξατο, δ δε ήλιος συνεκρύπτετο τοϊς τοξεύμασιν.

The theme is, however,

a sophistic commonplace, and there is no need to suppose that Lucian had Aristides in mind rather than other sophists of his age. 18.

Epictetus, as we have seen above (p. 151), gives a

graphic description of a philosopher-sophist, who drags Xerxes and Thermopylae into his orations (3. 23. 38), takes pains to present a handsome appearance (35), and is filled with pride because he attracts large audiences (19).

In Discourse 3. 1

we find Epictetus advising a young rhetorician of splendid attire, elaborate hairstyle and effeminate appearance that he would do better to cultivate manly virtue, and in 3. 9 he chides a rhetorician for being more concerned with carping at his (Epictetus') grammar than taking note of his teaching (14 'Let's drop in on Epictetus and see what he has to say';


535 (Notes to Chapter IV) you can go away and say oööäv ην ò 'Επίκτητος, έσολοίχιζεν, έβαρβάριζεν ...). 19.

Philostratus writes as though he heard Proclus' satire

while he was in Athens as a student (617 ... we expected to hear a riposte from Hippodromus etc.), therefore it cannot have been much before 190, assuming those scholars are right who date Philostratus' birth to c. 170 (Wright, Loeb ed. intro, p. ix; Conybeare, Loeb ed. of Vit. Ap. p. v), and it may well have been later:

we do not know the exact date at which he entered the

circle of the Empress Julia Domna. 20.

Aristides 34. 43 Keil;

cf. Boulanger (Aelius Aristide,

pp. 172-5) for other■examples of Aristides' vanity.


atus (Vit. Soph. 535) says that Polemo, in spite of his other examples of arrogance, did not indulge in the usual custom of sophists and deliver formal speeches of self-praise.


himself, of course, upon occasion followed this custom (Prom. Es, Zeuxis), but in rather more subtle manner.

Cf. also Apul-

eius, Flor. 9, Sen., Contr. 3. pf. 16 (that lovely anecdote of how Cassius Severus deflated Cestius:

'si cloaca esses, maxima

esses !') . 21.

Allegations of cupidity, of course, go back to the

reciprocal abuse of Demosthenes and Aeschines.

In the pages of

Philostratus we are doubtless hearing some of the taunts that rival orators flung at one another in their invectives;


536 (Notes to Chapter IV) the fact remains that many orators did become extremely wealthy. To give them their due, they did not spend it all on riotous living, but frequently used the proceeds of their lecture fees to beautify their cities with public buildings. 22. iscus); 23.

Cf. Phil., Vit. Soph. 536 and 623 (Scopelian and PhilGellius 1. 5 (Demosthenes and Hortensius). Cf. Seneca's account (Suas. 2. 17) of the orator who,

before uttering the perennial conceit about Xerxes tunnelling mountains and bridging seas, raises his hands and rises on tip­ toe, crying 'I rejoice!

I rejoice!' (We wondered, says Seneca,

what good fortune had befallen him);

and Sen., Ep. 75 '... I

would not stamp my foot, nor wave my arms around, nor raise my voice: 24.

I'd leave all that to the orators It seems to have been an Asianist mannerism from early

times (Cic., Or. 8. 27, 18. 57); Audiendi 41D;

cf. Plutarch, De Recta Ratione

cf. also Wright's note in the Loeb ed. of Philo-

stratus and Eunapius, p. 575 (φδή). 25.

Cf. Pliny, Ep. 2. 14, for this practice, in the law

courts at Rome. 26.

See above, n.l to this chapter.


Esp. p. 92 n.l.

Polemo's two orations are of the hack­

neyed kind that Lucian ridicules:

the fathers of Cynegirus and

Callimachus, fallen at Marathon, dispute who shall pronounce the funeral oration.

537 (Notes to Chapter IV) 28. hand:

Cf. Polemo's hyperbolic rhapsodising on Cynegirus' 'Oh hand!

Stronger than the winds!' etc. (cf. Boulanger,

Aelius Aristide, p. 93). 29.

Cf. Onomasticon ed. Seber, voi. 1 pp. 30-2.

In the

introductory poem to Meleager's Garland (Anth. Pal. 4. 1. 24) the epigrammatist Dioscorides is described as 18 (84, 252f., 262, 264, 270, 277, 308f., 534), 19 (253, 265, 267, 309), 20 (253, 309), 21 (253f., 270), 22 (254, 272), 23 (254), 24 (273f., 276), 25 (254, 263, 274), 26 (40, 555) also see pp. 37, 39, 60f., 146f., 221, 243, 278, 285, 304, 306, 316, 359, 402, 439, 463, 538, 542 De Sacrificiis 1 (204), 2 (102), 8-9 (197), 14-5 (43) also see pp. 131, 196 De Saltatione 1 (22), 2 (23f., 192), 4-5 (22), 9 (23, 383), 10-4 (383), 15 (203, 383,597 ), 16-8 (383), 19 (369, 383), 23 (597), 33 (301), 57 (431), 62 (556), 65 (225), 69 (280), 76 (22, 33), 85 (22) also see pp. 11, 50, 59, 384, 449, 462, 534 Saturnalia 5-6 (204), 17 (246), 22 (246), 25 (230), 26 (226, 230), 27 (226, 230), 28 (593), 32 (246), 36-8 (230) also see pp. 10, 45, 49, 57f., 120, 131, 144f., 148, 222, 229, 245, 384, 391, 464, 466 Scytha 2 (217, 454), 9 (33f., 492), 10 (34, 385), 11 (385) also see pp. 62, 162, 464 Soloeeistes 1 (298, 300, 302, 305), 2 (302, 305, 554), 3 (554),

673 4

(298), 5 (298ff., 303f., 554), 6 (298, 304), 7 (298, 302,

304, 549, 554), 8 (299f., 302), 9 (299), 10 (299, 306), 11 (299, 554), also see

12 (299,306) pp. 307,462, 550ff.

Somnium 2 (16, 446), 3 (16), 7 (16, 231), 9 (338), 12 (442), 16 (338), 18 (16, 20) also see pp. 17, 54f., 448, 458, 462 Sostratus (6, 48, 442) De Syria Dea 1 (375, 377), 3-4 (377), 5 (375), 6 (377), 8 (376), 11 (376), 12 (377), 16 (376), 17-27 (377), 28 (375f.), 29 (43, 376), 30 (378), 31 (377), 32 (378, 595), 33 (548), 36- 7 (376), 45 (378), 49-59 (374, 596), 60 (374,595 , 596) also see p p . 5, 380ff., 387f., 588f., 594 Timon init.

(112), 4(299, 481),

521), 15 (466, 521), 16-7 (521),

12(568), 13(521), 14 (56, 21(116, 491),



26 (225), 31 (226), 32 (226, 466), 33-5 (226), 36 (226, 466), 37- 8 (226), 41 (55, 567), 51 (454), 52 (538), 54 (187, 466), 55 (187, 491), 56 (187, 567), 57 (300) also see p p . 57, 464 Toxaris 15 (362), 24 (442), 27 (503), 34 (181) also see p p . 50, 341, 422 Tragodopodagra 30 (591), 44f. (369), 74 (369), 87 (591), 87111 (591), 108f , (369), 113 (591), 180-4 (592), 185-7 (369), 198-203 (369), 212 (372), 221-40 (368), 250-64 (369), 265 (372), 282 (373), 288 (373), 312-24 (591), 332-3 (369)

674 also see pp. 44, 371, 462, 588, 590 Tyrannicida (58, 459) Verae Historiae 1. 1 (341), 2 (340, 343), 3 (340, 343), 5 (342), 7 (347, 351), 8 (348), 11 (348), 12f. (580), 13 (344, 348, 351), 14 (344, 352), 15 (348), 16 (352), 17 (351), 19 (343, 352), 21-2 (349), 23 (349, 503), 24 (349), 25 (349, 351), 26 (349, 351), 29 (352, 503), 30 (344, 348), 31 (344, 348), 32 (348), 35 (349), 40 (353), 41 (353), 42 (353) 2. 2 (342, 350), 3 (347, 352, 572), 5f. (352), 11 (579), 12 (347, 574), 13 (347), 16 (347), 17 (166f., 333, 505), 18 (166, 581), 19 (166f., 333), 21 (165f.), 23-4 (166), 26 (347), 27 (350), 28 (166), 31 (340, 343), 32-3 (351), 36 (351), 40 (348), 41 (353, 580), 42 (343, 353, 572), 43 (572, 580), 46 (349) also see pp. 46-8, 61, 147, 182, 306, 339, 359, 367, 392, 416, 418ff., 421, 485, 514, 560, 578, 589 Vitarum Auctio 2 (166, 186, 380), 3 (166, 380), 4 (166, 380), 5 (166, 380), 6 (166, 380), 7 (169), 8 (77, 169), 9 (77, 169), 10

(77, 169, 188, 538, 548), 11 (169, 188), 12 (1681.), 13

(168, 380, 598), 14 (5, 380, 438), 15 (166, 333), 17-8 (167), 19 (166, 168), 20 (112f., 168f., 187), 21 (169, 187), 22 (169, 187), 23 (169, 187), 24 (169, 187), 25 (169, 187), 26 (167, 185), 27 (23, 168, 170), 29-31 (156) also see pp. 33, 71f., 132, 143f., 171f., 382, 463, 466, 477 Zeuxis 1 (30, 37), 2 (30, 309), 3 (30, 34, 463), 4-7, 12 (30)

675 also see pp. 29, 31-3, 38, 67, 82, 458, 465, 471, 535 Epigrams attributed to Lucian, Anth. Pal. 11. 274 (263), 397 (521), 400 (301), .403 (373), 410 (189), 430 (189), 435 (263), 436 (263, 548)