Lucian and his Roman Voices.

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0025147/00001

Material Information

Title: Lucian and his Roman Voices.
Physical Description: 1 online resource (250 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Bozia, Eleni
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009


Subjects / Keywords: apologists, gellius, imperial, juvenal, lucian, second
Classics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Classical Studies thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Abstract: In this dissertation, I explore the 2nd century C.E. reality through the writings of Lucian of Samosata, a native Syrian who wrote in Greek and was a Roman citizen. Lucian wrote a large volume of works that cannot be filed under one specific genre, including Satires, admonitory treatises, and philosophical dialogues. He flourished as a rhetorician, and even hold an official position in the Roman Empire. My intention is to discuss Lucian s works in comparison to an earlier, a contemporary and later Roman authors and try to indicate that there has been an interaction between several nations at the boundaries of the Roman Empire and up to a degree there has also probably been fusion. Lucian s self presentation and promotion as well as his attitude towards other nations show clearly that he perceives the Roman Empire in its entirety and considers it an entity which encompasses several different co-existing nations. Finally, I focus on Lucian s Nachleben in European literature and art and I argue that the Roman Empire, the Roman and the Greek culture may have been long dead at the time, but the spirit of Lucian, his playful tone, his insight, and astute perception have lived in later authors, namely Erasmus, More, Flaubert, Molie gravere, and Holberg, who were inspired by his motifs and sometimes his rhetorical and other narrative techniques.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Eleni Bozia.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Schmeling, Gareth L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0025147:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0025147/00001

Material Information

Title: Lucian and his Roman Voices.
Physical Description: 1 online resource (250 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Bozia, Eleni
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009


Subjects / Keywords: apologists, gellius, imperial, juvenal, lucian, second
Classics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Classical Studies thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation


Abstract: In this dissertation, I explore the 2nd century C.E. reality through the writings of Lucian of Samosata, a native Syrian who wrote in Greek and was a Roman citizen. Lucian wrote a large volume of works that cannot be filed under one specific genre, including Satires, admonitory treatises, and philosophical dialogues. He flourished as a rhetorician, and even hold an official position in the Roman Empire. My intention is to discuss Lucian s works in comparison to an earlier, a contemporary and later Roman authors and try to indicate that there has been an interaction between several nations at the boundaries of the Roman Empire and up to a degree there has also probably been fusion. Lucian s self presentation and promotion as well as his attitude towards other nations show clearly that he perceives the Roman Empire in its entirety and considers it an entity which encompasses several different co-existing nations. Finally, I focus on Lucian s Nachleben in European literature and art and I argue that the Roman Empire, the Roman and the Greek culture may have been long dead at the time, but the spirit of Lucian, his playful tone, his insight, and astute perception have lived in later authors, namely Erasmus, More, Flaubert, Molie gravere, and Holberg, who were inspired by his motifs and sometimes his rhetorical and other narrative techniques.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Eleni Bozia.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Schmeling, Gareth L.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0025147:00001

This item has the following downloads:

Full Text




2 2009 Eleni Bozia


3 To my husband,


4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank m y supervisor, Prof Gareth Schmeling, for his inexhaustible inspiration and intellectual support during my doctorate studies. His insightful guidance made the completion of this sometimes overwhelming proj ect possible. I would also like to thank Prof. Konstantinos Kapparis for his continuous help and for the time he devoted to our discussions, as well as his always valuable feedback. Moreove r, I would like to tha nk Prof. David Young, Prof. Florin Curta, and Prof. Bracht Branhman fo r serving as members of my PhD committee. I would like to thank Prof. Karelisa Hartigan and Prof. Robert Wagman for their guidance and support throughout the PhD program. I would al so like to thank Prof. Timothy Johnson and Prof. Andrew Wolpert for their guidance as grad uate student coordinato rs and Prof. Victoria Pagn for her continuous support as teaching assistant coordinator, for her valuable guidance and feedback that benefited immens ely my teaching experience. Furthermore, I would like to express my sincer e gratitude to Prof. Co stas Panayotakis for being my mentor during my MP hil studies at the University of Glasgow and for following closely and supporting my academic career. I would al so like to thank the f aculty of the Classics Department at Glasgow University for their s upport and inspiration dur ing my first academic years. It is very important that I express my gratitude to my old teachers of philology, and They were beside me in my formative years as a philologist. They influenced in many ways both my academic personality and my character in general. Although not directly associated with my doctoral studies, I want to thank my family, , and especially my grandmother


5 Last but not least I w ould like to express my gratitude to my husband, for always being there, for his support, hi s inspiration, for always believing in me, even when I did not. I would like to thank him for, if it were not for him, I would not have been here.


6 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................................8ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................9CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................10Life and Works................................................................................................................. ......10Summary.................................................................................................................................132 LUCIAN AND JUVENAL ON PARASITIC LI FE............................................................... 23Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........23Social and Literary Backgrounds............................................................................................ 23Lucians De Mercede Conductis vs. Juvenals Satires 3 and 5.............................................. 28The Elegiac Motif of the Exclusus Amator .............................................................................52How does De Parasito Fit in the Image?................................................................................ 61Lucian's Narrative Technique................................................................................................. 66Conclusion..............................................................................................................................723 LUCIAN'S VS. AULUS GELLIUS' 2ND C.E. L ITERARY AND SOCIAL REALITIES............................................................................................................................74Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........74Lucian and Gellius in a Greco-Roman Context...................................................................... 77Prolaliae and Praefatio ..........................................................................................................81Who are the Foreigners After All?......................................................................................... 98Latinitas in Gellius ...............................................................................................................112Conclusion............................................................................................................................1304 LUCIAN'S OLYMPUS AND THE BRIDGE T O CHRISTIANITY.................................. 133Introduction................................................................................................................... ........133Olympians Revisited............................................................................................................ .133De Dea Syria as a History of World Religion............................................................... 135Dei Confutati ?...............................................................................................................138Gods and Men................................................................................................................142Peregrinus Lucians Reproach Against Christians?............................................................ 145


7 The First Apologists.............................................................................................................154Statuary..........................................................................................................................155Sacrifices.......................................................................................................................162De Sacrificiis .................................................................................................................164Lucian and Tatian.............................................................................................................. ...166Standards of Morality and the Role of Spectacles................................................................ 173Conclusion............................................................................................................................1815 LUCIAN'S NACHLEBEN IN EUROPEAN LITERATURE ..............................................183Introduction................................................................................................................... ........183Lucian in the Second Century C.E. and in Byzantium.........................................................184Lucianic Humor in the 15th and 16th Century Europe........................................................... 192Erasmus Praise of Folly...............................................................................................194Mores Utopia ...............................................................................................................199Lucianic Echoes in 17th Century French Literature.............................................................. 203Molires Tartuffe and Le Misanthrope........................................................................ 205Ludvig Holbergs The Journey of Niels Klim to the World Underground.......................... 211Lucianic Echoes in Flaubert................................................................................................. 215Lucianic Satire Back to 20th Century Greece...................................................................... 219Lucian in European Art........................................................................................................ 223Conclusion............................................................................................................................2286 CONCLUSION..................................................................................................................... 231REFERENCES............................................................................................................................236BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................250


8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 5-1 Lucas Cranach,1528, Oil on wood, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York............... 2255-2 Rubens, 1632/1635, Oil on oak, National Gallery, London............................................ 2265-3 Jean-Antoine Watteau, c. 1720, Oil on wood, Louvre, Paris, France.............................. 227


9 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy LUCIAN AND HIS ROMAN VOICES By Eleni Bozia December 2009 Chair: Gareth Schmeling Major: Classical Studies In this dissertation, I explore the 2nd century C.E. reality through the writings of Lucian of Samosata, a native Syrian who wrote in Greek and was a Roman citizen. Lucian wrote a large volume of works that cannot be filed under one sp ecific genre, including Satires, admonitory treatises, and philosophical dialogues. He flourished as a rh etorician, and even hold an official position in the Roman Empire. My intention is to discuss Lucians works in comparison to an earlier, a contemporary and later Roman authors and try to indicate that there has been an interaction between several nati ons at the boundaries of the Roman Empire and up to a degree there has also probably been fusion. Lucians self presentation and prom otion as well as his attitude towards other nations s how clearly that he pe rceives the Roman Empire in its entirety and considers it an entity which encompasses se veral different co-exist ing nations. Finally, I focus on Lucians nachleben in European literatu re and art and I argue that the Roman Empire, the Roman and the Greek culture may have been l ong dead at the time, but the spirit of Lucian, his playful tone, his insight and astute perception have lived in later authors, namely Erasmus, More, Flaubert, Molire, and Holberg, who were inspired by his motifs and sometimes his rhetorical and other narrative techniques.


10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Life and Works Traditionally Lucian has been treated one-sided ly: a satirist, an orat or, a reflector of 2nd century reality, or a commentator on religion. My intention is to provide a spherical view of Lucian which discusses all the aforementioned aspects of his wr itings. Society and Greco-Roman culture certainly are the axis around which his work s rotate. Therefore, I compare first Lucian to Roman authors previous and contemporary, namely Juvenal and Gellius, in order to gain a clear perspective of his place and th eses, and of the Greco-Roman reality examining opposing views on crucial issues. Lucian's comment s on religion also have been translated in diffe rent ways, but most scholars conclude that he demonstrates ignorance. I be lieve, however, that Lucian's religious writings were not meant only to be satir ical and create utopias; on the contrary, I argue that Lucian presents the religious reality of his era from different perspectives, either pagan or Christian. Finally, I discuss Lucian's Nachlebe n and his influence on authors starting from Alciphron in the 2nd century C.E. up to Modern Greek literature and its debt to Lucian. I conclude with some thoughts about his inspirat ion to European painters. In order to determine Lucian's position with regards to society, language, and religion it is important to discuss his life, his career and hi s place in the Empire. He was born around 125 C.E. at Samosata in the kingdom of Commagene which became part of the Empire in 72 C.E. Commagene had Syrian roots; in fact Lucian ca lls himself Syrian or Assyrian and says that before his Greek education he was "barbarian in speech". We do not know anything about his early years. Only in Somnium does he describe his choice of profession and that literarily. He says that he was being trained to become a sculptor when Cultu re along with Craft appeared to him in his dream and offered him their benefits. Lucian chose Culture and became an orator. The


11 literary motif he uses is classic: Prodicus' myth of the choice of Heracles is the obvious precedent. Veneration of the past, which among othe r things included the revival of Attic Greek, were included in the education which Lucian recei ved in order to become an orator. He actually emphasizes his attraction to the purity of Atticism in two of his works, Lexiphanes and Pseudologista At first Lucian works as a sophistical orator, and travels to Asia Minor, Athens, Rome, and Gaul in which places his rhetorical works probably made him popular. Some of his speeches which function as prologues are Herodotus De Electro Zeuxis and Dionysus He tries to win his audience's captatio benevolentiae by inducing them not to disapprove of him solely on account of his nationality and proceeds to show cases where a foreigner like Herodotus, for instance, was accepted in Macedonia, and Dionys us prevailed over his Indian opponents only due to the fact that they underestimat ed him and his elephant entourage. Toxaris, Anacharsis and Scytha are written on a similar basis, namely the acceptance of 'the other' and the close relations between Greeks and other nati ons, not necessarily Romans. Later in Bis Accusatus he defends himself in front of Rhetoric for having abandoned he r and argues that it was time for him at the age of forty to find a different o ccupation. There is a number of works concerning philosophy which has been suggested belong to th e same period; he writes about and attacks Cynics, Epicureans, and Stoics in Nigrinus Demonax Cynicus Hermotimus and even Peregrinus Lucian also creates an am algam of Cynicism, Satire, Pl atonic and Socratic dialogue to discuss religion in Dialogi Deorum Dialogi Marini Jupiter Confutatus Jupiter Tragoedus Deorum Concilium and De Sacrificiis Cynicism penetrates Dialogi Mortuorum Menippus, and Charon. Other writings discuss the elusive relatio nship between Romans and Greeks, namely De Mercede Conductis De Parasito Nigrinus and Apologia


12 Dating Lucian's works is problematic; the wo rks which we can place chronologically with some certainty are the ones wr itten in the years after 161 C.E. and the accession of Marcus Aurelius and the war that later broke in Armenia. Lucian was in the entourage of Lucius Verus who was sent to the front and travelled by way of Italy, Greece, along th e south coast of Asia Minor, until the company reached Antioch. Lucian writes Imagines and Pro Imaginibus for Verus' mistress, Pantheia of Smyrna. It is at that time that he probably also visited his native city and delivered Somnium and Patriae Encomium He also encountered Alexander, the false prophet who became the target of his Satire in Alexander, when he was in the province of Cappadocia and then later at th e Olympic games of 165 he saw Peregrinus, against whom he launched an attack in the hom onymous work. Basing the judgemen t on this work, scholars have argued that Lucian appears ignorant about Christianity. Later in his life at the time of the second Parthian war he writes De Historia Scribenda where he attacks historiography. J ones (1986, 18) mentions that this work "is in part a disguised encomium of the emperor's victories" and that it was probably written in 166 when Verus brings his army back from the east. In Vera Historia he also satirizes author s like Ctesias, Iambulos, even Homer, who write stories about monsters on sea and on earth, about man-eater nations, and other fictional events and creatures. Lucian prom ises his readers then that he can give them a story, which will be the mother of al l stories, and that that only trut h he will say is that he is lying ( 1.4). Very rarely does he give information about hi mself, or his family. He says that he was accompanied by his father and family from Cappa docia to Pontus and mentions a Lycinos as a young son1. He claims as acquaintances Sisenna Rutilianus2 and the governor of Cappadocia3. It 1 Eun 13; Alex 56


13 is very late in his life when he accepts a positi on in Egypt and this is probably when he wrote Apologia the apology for De Mercede Conductis We do not have any more information about his life or his career; it is possible that he died in Egypt. The Suda records about his death that he was torn to pieces by dogs on account of his blasphemy. The treatment he received in his afterlife is interesting as he proves to be as elusive for the authors of future generations as he was during his lifetime. Alciphron, a 2n d century C.E. author writes the Letters of the Courtesans and although he was a c ontemporary of Lucian, his Letter to Lucian indicates that he might have actually borrowed from the former. Philostratus in the 3rd century does not include him in hi s list of sophists. Libanius in 3rd century C.E. attacks Lucian and Aristophanes but he also borrows from th e latter in oration XXV on slavery. Lactantius (4th C.E.) talks of him as someone who spared neith er gods nor men. Photius in the 12th century includes Lucian in his Library. Tzetzes in the 12th century C.E. includes him in his poem among numerous other authors. Joha nnes Georgides (1000) uses ex amples from Lucian in the Collections of Maxims and Thomas Magister (1300) in the Selection of Attic Nouns Finally, Erasmus, More, Ariosto, and Rabelais are a few of the European authors who found inspiration in several of Lucian's works. Summary A reasonable approach to gain perspectives on L ucian is to compare and contrast him with a Roman author who is concerned with similar matters. Juvenal lived and wrote earlier than Lucian, but they both share the same caustic spirit and, what is more important, they give us diametrically opposed theses about the same t opic, namely the relation between Romans and 2 Alex 30; 54 3 In Alex 55 Lucian says that the governor gave him two soldiers as escorts.


14 Greeks. In Chapter 2 therefore I discuss Lucian and his literary correspondence with Juvenal and I also try to determine what we learn about Greeks and Romans and their relationships. As we move further into the study of Lucian and we become familiar with his style, his innovative techniques, and his borrowings and adaptations from various literary genres, we wonder about those 2nd century Roman authors who write an thologies and their intentions. Gellius's Noctes Atticae is an interesting representative of this literature and the comparis on of the two authors, Lucian and Gellius, is crucial since they both gi ve us opinions of the 2nd century life and culture. Questions that arise: do Lucian and Gellius addr ess the same issues, and if not, why. Gellius' anthology provides information for a large number of civil and political issues in Greek and Roman communities, and other nations' cultural asp ects. Lucian also has incorporated in his works, Roman, Greek, and Scythian characte rs among others. Furthermore, both authors embrace the past: Lucian in the form of a retu rn to old Greek language and culture and Gellius with his articles on Roman mores maiorum Veneration of the past is the characteristic of this era, but it is important to discer n what Lucian writes about, what Gellius withholds and for what purpose. Religious concerns color 2nd century C.E. culture and Christian apologists try to place Christianity on the map. Scholars have been tryi ng to determine what Lucian's positions were and they focus on the most part on Peregrinus On the other hand, they tend to detach Christian apologetic literature from Greek and Roman contemporary writings A close reading of certain religious works of Lucian proves that there was an open dialogue betw een pagan and Christian writers at the time. In Chapter 4 I discuss Luci an god-centric works in relation to Clemens of Alexandria, Athenagoras, Tatian, an d Tertullian and try to show that Lucian by means of his works becomes the bridge between the pagan an d the Christian world. Although, we do not have hard evidence regarding his relig ious convictions, it is unreasonable to assume that he was


15 unaware of current issues, when he has always pr oven to be current. Finally, it is important that we acknowledge Lucian's mark on Byzantine and Eu ropean literature. It is not only fictional works, for instance Swift's Gulliver's Travels, but also mock encomia like Erasmus' Praise of Folly some of Molire's plays, as well as Fla ubert, among many others, who found inspiration in Lucian's works. Lucian finally survives in so me form in the works of artists like Rubens, Cranach, Renoir, and Dali. In this dissertation therefore my intenti on is to give a full picture of Lucian as a historical and liter ary personality, as an orator, a Syrian by birth, who becomes a Roman citizen who embraces Greek culture, a co gnizant individual who examined the pulse of an era and left his thought for all later generations. In Chapter 2 I examine Lucians attitude as part of "the other" towards the Romans and the Greeks. I discuss Lucians De Mercede Conductis and De Parasito in relation to Juvenals Satires 3, 5 and 9, and try to determine what lingu istic or literary motifs Lucian has borrowed or imitated and what this tells us about his attitude as an "outsider" towards the Romans and the Greeks. In the first part I discuss Luci ans and Juvenals identity, as well as their historical and ethnic background with the intention to explain th e choice of the topics they write about, the views they seem to have on those subjects, and the literary techniques they employ. In the second part I discuss Lucians De Parasito and De mercede conductis and compare and contrast it with Juvenals Satires 3, 5 and 9. I suggest that Lucians works might be perceived as responses to Juvenal. Both authors discuss the lives of their contemporaries and also th e social status of the clients-parasites. When we read Lucian and his views on the Romans and the Greeks and the way they relate to each other, it is difficult not to think about Juvenal. Although they wrote in different periods, their focus on human conduct, virtues and vices and especially the presentation


16 of the relation between the Roman conquerors and their Greek subjects lead me to believe that there was a literary corresponden ce between the two authors. More specifically, Juvenal accuses the Greeks of having usurped the places of the Romans in the symposia in Satire 3, but in Satires 5 and 9 he castigates the Roman Clients who have become prey to the wealthy patrons. Lucian, on the other hand, claims that it is the Romans who have opened their houses to Greek intellectuals; he is, however, against those Gr eeks who have accepted the role of the client. According to Lucian Greeks deserve a far better place in society than being someones parasite or servant. Therefore, on the one hand, Lucian admits that Juvenal is right; Greeks hold those positions in Roman households. On the other hand, however, he attacks the Romans by saying that they may covet a position like that in society, but it is not one that befits a Greek. In other words, Lucian purposefully responds to Juvenal and using the latters argumentation supports a diametrically different thesis; the former presents events from the Greek point of view, while the latter from the Roman. The third section is about th e way Lucian manipulates Roman literary motifs in order to attack the Romans. Using the motif of the exclusus amator Lucian presents the treatment of a Greek client. Therefore, I argue that even implicitly Lucian claims that the Romans are bound to be dominated by someone, either a patron or a mi stress. In the last section I discuss the relation of De Parasito to De mercede conductis and to the aforementioned Satires of Juvenal for that matter. In De parasito it is a parasite defending hi s place in the world and his activities. What are Lucians intentions? I believe that De parasito is also a direct answer to Juvenals Satire 9 where Naevolus has lost every trace of self-respect and is presented as utterly degraded. Lucian seizes the opportunity to presen t the comic aspect of that degradation, while simultaneously differentiates once more Gr eek from Roman clients since Simon, in De parasito seems to be literate and even employs the Platonic motif for his dialogue with Tychiades.


17 Chapter 3 is a discussion of Lucian's prolaliae and Toxaris, Anacharsis, and Scytha and certain articles from Gellius Noctes Atticae. Gellius writes mainly about Roman customs and manners, and about strange stories that take place amidst other nations. In his prologue he states that he intends to preserve the memories of the Roman past. Lucian, on the other hand, in his prolaliae attempts to win his audience by saying th at they should not dismiss him simply on account of his nationality. In Toxaris Anacharsis and Scytha he writes about Greeks and their relation to other nations, namely the Scythians. An analysis and syncretism of the two authors therefore is very crucial in that they both address the same issu es, Romans, and citizens in the Empire, their relationship and their place under the Romans aegis. The first part of this chapte r is a discussion of the sociohistorical circumstances under which Lucian and Gellius lived and wrote. The Roman conquest of Greece and the East and consequently the relations that developed betw een all those nations affected both authors and they undoubtedly give us pictures of these c onnecting threads from different aspects. In the second section I discuss Lucians prolaliae and Gellius praefatio with regards to the literary techniques they employ, the influence of the S econd Sophistic, on the basis of the social circumstances of their times. Lucian is ce rtainly influenced by the teachings of the Second Sophistic and intends to gain a benevolent r eception from his audience. Gellius, on the other hand, while he claims at first that he is just storing useful info rmation for his children, as one reads through the praefatio realizes that Gellius employs rhetorical techniques, wants to influence a larger audience, and also sta ndardize a past for the Roman people. The third and fourth sections of this chapter elaborate on the position of Lucian and then of Gellius pertaining to other nations. Lucian writes Toxaris, Scytha, and Anacharsis where one of the interlocutors at least is a Scythian. He shows social awaren ess and also provides information


18 about the communication between different nations. Consequently, one may gain a perception about the Roman Empire of the second century C. E. considering it from different points of view, other than the Roman and the Greek. At the same time, Lucian gives voice to other nations, which do not belong to the powerful combination of the eminent Greco-Roman cultures. On the other hand, Gellius presentation of other nations, his criticisms, or even his silence at some points give the reader the image of a more cons ervative and less well-adj usted to the new world order Roman who is only focused on the past and consequently fails to handle the evolution and the need for intercultural communication that the new age mandates. He has several references to the Greeks, which shows that a familiarity ha s grown between Romans and the Greeks. His attitude, however, concerning ot her foreign nations shows his di fficulty to accept the different. Gellius chooses to include in some of his chapters incredible stories about Scythians and Indians and he never seems to consider them a vital part of the Empire, who simply happen to have different customs. A large number of the Lucianic corpus includes works that discuss religious issues, pagan and Eastern deities, and worshipping rites. The fact that Lucian de votes a number of his works to religion means that it is a current issue and a matter of concern for his contemporaries. In Chapter 4 I examine Deorum Concilium Juppiter Tragoedus and De Sacrificiis in comparison to Clemens' of Alexandria Protrepticus, Tatian's Oratio ad Graecos, Justin's the Martyr Apologia Athenagoras' Legatio sive Supplicatio ad Christianis and the anonymous Epistle to Diognetos and my intention is to present the cha nging religious climate in the Roman Empire through the eyes of Lucian and th e first Apologists and discuss th e transition from paganism to Christianity.


19 The first Apologists try to define Christia nity. They defend Christians' reluctance to worship statues and other man-made material, an d they accuse pagan gods of cruelty since they indulge in sacrifices. It becomes clear th at Christians frown upon pagan anthropomorphic mentality; for them it is God who created everything. Lucian in Juppiter Tragoedus discusses peoples (dis)belief in the existence of gods. Zeus is concerned th at they may be neglected, if mortals stop offering sacrifices. In Deorum Concilium Momus discusses the appearance of Eastern deities and asks if the material by which statues are made should define the importance of gods. Lucian therefore, without openly supporting any religion, give s an account of how someone non-pagan might view and perceive pagan rituals. In the first section I briefly discuss the presentation of the Olympians, the way Luci an pushes anthropomorphism to a new level and what this means for the already aging de ities. In the sec ond section I discuss Peregrinus and try to determine Lucian's familiarity with Christianity, and the role of two kinds of individuals at the time, those, like Peregrinus, who are entagled in a conundrum looking for answers in philosophy and religion, and those who take advantage of th is instability and doubt. In the third section I elaborate on the transition from paganism to Chri stianity. It seems that Lucian is aware of the emergence of Christianity, but there have been opposing views regarding the profundity of his knowledge. Peregrinus definitely targets the homonymous deceitful individual and not the new religion, but in De Sacrificiis it is as if Lucian makes the case for the Christians. He questions gods' dependency on offerings and he cauterizes pe ople's deification of man-made statues. In order to reach a conclusion regarding Lucian's inte ntions as well as the re ligious circumstances at the time I discuss the aforementioned works in re lation to the writings of Tertullian, Clemens of Alexandria, Justin the Martyr, Athenagoras, and Tatian. Pagan deit ies are being laughed at ever since Aristophanes and now Lucian seems to be questioning their acti ons, and asking logical


20 questions about sacrifices and matters that c onstitute the core of paganism. Non-Christian authors at the time, however, namely Apuleius, Paus anias, and most of all Aelius Aristides still revere pagan deities and it is they whom the first Apologists try to contradict in their writings. Christianity, however, does not offer only a new religion to the world; it provides a new lifestyle that comes in contrast to the established cultu ral reality, the theatrical performances and aspects of leisure that were an integral part of the 'old' life. In the last section therefore I examine what Christianity proposes as approve d lifestyle and I examine the thesis of authors like Aelius Aristides who, although opposed to Ch ristianity as a religion, noneth eless seem to ally with its 'cultural' doctrine. Finally in Chapter 5 I elaborate on Lucian's lasting influence on Byzantine and European literature. His dexterous rhetori cal techniques, his imagination, along with the fact that he discusses several aspects of th e social sphere make him a source for literary borrowing. Byzantine and later European authors from the 12t h century onwards find inspiration in Lucian's works. Timarion, written in the 12th century, borrows Lucian's underworld images to discuss people's diachronic fear of death. Erasmus in the Praise of Folly fights the false preaching of the clergy borrowing from Lucian's well-known inge nuous pseudo-laudatory works. More's Utopia aims to prove that the theoretically perfect society suggested by Eras mus cannot exist and he achieves that by employing the Lucianic technique of teaching by example, estrangement, and imaginary travelogue. In 17th century Molire expresses his opposition towards the Company of the Holy Sacrament in Tartuffe and Le Misanthrope He shows how perilous to society an impostor is, especially when he is a part of it. Although we cannot prove that Molire had read Lucian, character portrayal and philosophical questions about life ar e topics that the latter had delved into centuries earlier. Timon as well as Menippus are two of the works that could have


21 inspired the French writer. Lucians journe y through European literature continues in 18th century Denmark and specifi cally in Ludvig Holbergs The Journey of Niels Klim to the World Underground. Holdberg responds to religious intolera nce of his contemporaries. Some nations accept those who are different, some do not. Th e Potuans let women hold important positions, something that is unacceptable in Niels' and Holb erg's society. Others are too irresponsible to run their nation. Niels respectively accepts some na tions' policies and dismisses others. Holberg playing with the technique of es trangement and showing the perspe ctive of 'the other', whoever that may be, sends a message to his contemporaries about how one should treat the others, even if they are different. Flaubert's Bouvard et Pcuchet displays some Lucianic traces. Menippus goes to the underworld in an attempt to find the truth about life. The two French try to do the same and set on a mental journey where they try their powers and abilities only to r ealize, just as Teiresias told Menippus, that the simple life is always the best life. Madame Bovary and ducation Sentimentale thrive with social comments and show the author's reluctance to compromise. Although Lucian does not survive unedited in Flaube rt's works, it is his spirit and unconformity that certainly live in the latter. In other words, Emma Bovary could be the descendant of Lucian's meretrices Lucian left also his influence in Modern Greece, namely in F. Germanos and A. Laskaratos. Germanos' Good News from Aphrodite and Greece under Zero reinvent utopian literature, and satiric didactic treatis es that teach by example. Laskaratos' Behold the man is also a revival of Lucian's character portrayal. I believe I showed that it is not far-fetched to suggest that Lucian was one at least of th e sources for those works, since he has been translated and he is still being taught and read in Greece.


22 Finally, Lucian seems to have left his mark in visual art as well. Lucas Cranach, Peter Paul Rubens, Jean-Antoine Watteau, William Blak e, Pierre-August Renoir, Salvador Dali found inspiration in Lucians Dearum Iudicium and the fact that the thre e goddesses stand in front of Paris naked. Bonaventura Geneli also presented Lucians Centaurs family as described in Zeuxis or Antiochus Lucian gave a fresh breath to the stor y of the judgment of the goddesses that obviously triggered those artists' imagination.


23 CHAPTER 2 LUCIAN AND JUVENAL ON PARASITIC LI FE Introduction Lucians works have been an object of discu ssion for m any years and one of the questions that rise is if they can be classified in any li terary genre. The level of literary borrowing and allusions in Lucians work most of the times renders this classification difficult or even impossible. The allusions to other authors, Greek and Roman, previous and contemporary, has also a bearing on what, if any, is the message Lucian intends to send to his audience and how all that may have been influenced by the historic al circumstances under which Lucian lived and wrote. In this chapter my intention is to provi de a possible explanation about Lucians attitude towards the Romans and the Greeks and about his lit erary, if not his historic al, persona. In order to achieve that I compare and discuss Lucians De Mercede Conductis and De Parasito in relation to Juvenals Satires 3, 5 and 9. I disc uss what Lucian has borrowed and how he has integrated elements and characteristics of Juve nal and what this tells us about his attitude towards the Romans and the Greeks. Social and Literary Backgrounds Lucians and Juvenals diffe rent historical and ethnical backgrounds render the correspondence between the two authors intrigui ng and worth discussing. In this section I com pare and discuss their theses on Greek and Ro man society and try to provide an explanation for the points on which they converge and for those on which they dissent. I also present briefly their literary techniques a nd the way they relate to their autorial intentions. Lucian is writing about Greeks and Romans; Juvenal is writing about Romans and Greeks. Lucian is from Samosata, near Comagene a nd Greek is probably not his native language. Why then does he seem to be attacking the Romans in several occasions and why does he seem to


24 have embraced Greek culture and the Greek litera ry past? A possible explanation could be that Lucian, along with other contemporaries, was re acting against Roman authorities, while Greek civilization gave him a past to look up to. It should be noted, how ever, that Lucian in several works notices flaws and characteri stics of the Greeks as well and using Greek literary techniques manages to describe them fully. Hence, he seems to be a child of this new era; he is conscious of the changing social circumstances, of the power of the Romans as well as of their imperfections as a nation and of the role of the Greeks and thei r literary past and presen t and its effect on them. Combining all that he gives his contemporaries these works which cannot exactly be classified because they simply do not concern one nation or one society but they are a mirror of the new Roman Empire. Specifically, Lucian employs satire in De Mercede Conductis and in De Parasito in order to show Romans how others look and think about them and provide them with a different picture of their subject nations. Roman imperialism created a huge and massive so ciety. From one point of view, it reminds us of mode rn societies. People and ethnicities are integrated; but what happens to their individual identi ties? It is reasonable that they would try to retain their ethnic traits, without becoming merely products of the new society, amalgamating simultaneously characteristics of the different ethnical and social strata. A nati on like the Greeks was the most probable to react this way since it has both stro ng ethnical feelings and also flexibility in integrating into their lifestyle new social parame ters. We should not forget also that there are several authors who at that time are trying to revive Classical Greece and seem to leave the Romans in the shadow. For instance, Pausanias in the Graeciae Descriptio clearly shows admiration for Classical Athens, just like Lucian, and he also s eems to purposefully neglect or suppress the importance or even the exis tence of Roman monuments. Apollodorus Bibliotheca is


25 a collection of Greek myths. It is not just Lucian then, who occasionally focuses on the Greeks and openly disfavors the Romans1. While the above offer a perspective on Lucian and his way of thinking, it is interesting that Juvenal had the same reaction to the conduct of his contemporary Romans some time before Lucian. We are not certain, of c ourse, about the genealogy of Juve nal, but sources lead us to suspect that he may not ha ve been of Roman origin2. Therefore, we have so far two authors of different origins, exposed in different ways to Greek and Roman civilization and in different eras and still their reaction and feelings converge. Even when they do not agree, it is as if the reader is exposed to two different sides of the same story and he is 'invited' to choose. This can be considered a proof of the validity and truthfulness of their opinions. Lucian and Juvenal therefore view the same issues from a different perspective, namely Juvenal expresses hatred towards foreigners a nd especially Greeks, while Lucian attacks the Romans. Regardless of that they both expose the rich and they both attack the patrons lack of respect towards the clients. Reading both writer s, it is as if someone can cross-examine two witnesses coming from different backgrounds and he still gets the same answer. Through my examination of the two authors, I hope to show that the similarities between Lucian's and Juvenal's presentations of Greek parasites and Roman patrons cannot be coincidental. The language the former employs, the motif of the and the similar aspects of the 1 Bowie (1970) 28 argues that: To a certain extent the ar chaistic tendencies must be taken as a flight from the present at a time when Roman power was consolidated. Wo olf (1994) argues against this assumed self-depreciation of the Greeks. 2 The ancient biography, which by Valla is attributed to Probus attests to the fact that J unius Juvenalis is the son or adopted son of a rich freedman. Further details about Juvenals life, even his birth date, are ambiguous and in most cases they cannot be verified. We have more information about Juvenal when he is in the middle age. Martial and Juvenal himself take us a step further in the latters life. See Anderson (1965) 418 about Vallas Probus and his validity; Cf. also Wiesen (1969) 76. On the conflicted opinions and information about Juvenals life see also Wessner (1931) 1; Ribbeck (1859) xii; Clausen (1959) 179.


26 parasites and of the rela tion between Greeks and Romans that he presents are a direct answer to Juvenal. The relation between them is that Lucian could be perceived as a t ranslator of Juvenal. Lucians attitude towards the Romans, as well as hi s portrayal of the Greeks could be in a way a translation of Juvenals Satires into Greek a nd also from a Greek viewpoint. Lucian writes satirical sketches of characters, but they are no t written in the classica l Roman manner of the hexameter. He employs instead Greek literary te chniques and motifs. His dialogues for instance remind us of the Platonic ones; he even quotes Ho mer. Lucians intention to diversify himself from Roman tradition could not ha ve been more straightforward. He even uses Roman literary motifs in order to laugh at the Romans. In the wo rks I discuss in this chapter, for instance, Lucian employs the motif of the exclusus amator when he intends to present the utter degradation of the client. Furthermore, Lucian is an author and a re presentative of the Second Sophistic and he presents a list of character types3. There have been different s uggestions about his intentions. When one is dealing with an author of the Sec ond Sophistic movement it is difficult to reach a conclusion with regards to the latter's intentions Lucian, instead of just presenting his audience with a catalogue of virtues and vices, gives character portr ayals through dialogues and even through satiric travelogues and, by using precedent li terary motifs, he creates in his works a live picture of the new social milieu of his era4. Beyond any doubt, however, Lucian has succeeded in 3 The name Second Sophistic was first used by Philostratus in VS 1.481 .... Philostratus also says that Aeschines is the founder of the Second Sophistic, which was concerned with social phenomena, like the types of poor, rich, or tyrants. The Second Sophistic extends from the first century A.D to the early third century C.E. 4Second Sophistic literature has not always been regarded in secondary bibliography as the highlight of literary production. See Perry (1955) for instance who claims that lite rature of the second century has got nothing to offer, while he accuses this period of the major losses in classical literature due to the editing of selections and excerpts in this period. Cf. also Bowersock (1969) 1: The quality of the second-century works we possess (and they are many) is not high. See also van Groningen (1965) 41 ff.


27 integrating the Greek past with the Greco-R oman present. He shows his approval and disapproval employing dexterously examples from th e past, literary techni ques, characters and examples, and assimilating them in his present historical reality. Juvenal, on the other hand, following Persius, writes social Satires5. His style is more straightforward and his intenti on is to address and reform hi s contemporaries, the everyday Roman citizens. Therefore, his style is clear and explicit. He castigates in a harsh tone everyday flaws and he admonishes his contemporaries against erring6. Another major difference between the two author s is that Juvenal did not face his fears and his enemies when he wrote his Satires, for most of them were already dead by then, including Emperor Domitian. Lucian, on the contrary, in the wo rks which I discuss in this chapter, handles issues that were sensitive at the time. The struct ure and style of his works are also affected by the fact that he does not intend to be corrective. His works point at problems, issues, stories and philosophical schools in an attemp t to criticize them and vex certain groups of people. There is nothing, though, which may indicate that he wishes to change people. Lucian gives an overview of society and then focuses on any aspect which can be considered interesting, for one reason or another. Juvenal, on the other hand, has undertaken a serious tas k. He sounds despondent at the state in which the Romans lie and he seems determin ed to alert them and wake them up from this slumber of apathy, from which Rome can certainly not benefit. 5 On Roman Satire and how it differs from the Greek satir ical literary works see Hendrickson (1927). It is an interesting discussion on th e predecessors of Juvenal; are they Greek or Roman and why is Satire considered by Quintillian Roman invention? 6 Cf. also Horace who defines the genre of Satire as: c armen apud Romanos maledicum et ad carpenda hominum vitia archaeae comoediae ch aracter compositum. Roman satirists cl early intend to reform society.


28 Lucians De Merced e Conductis vs. Juvenals Satires 3 and 5 A subject that is treated bot h by Juvenal and Lucian is th e parasites in the houses of wealthy patrons and the life they pursue7. Lucian combines Juvenal's Satire 3 and 58 in De Mercede Conductis and attacks clients. He talks about educated Greeks who become clients in the houses of wealthy Romans in an attempt to prevent Timocles from becoming a client. Lucian is the narrator and his work seems to resemble a didactic treatise or an admonitory speech that comes as an answer to Umbricius allegations in Juvenal's Satire 3 who accuses the Greeks of taking the place of freeborn Romans in the symposia9. The rest of Lucians work resembles Juvenals Satire 5. A symposium is described and the life of the cl ient is put under the microscope, while it is outlined on the basis of a dinner. More specifically, Juvenal in Satire 5 is talking to Trebius, the parasite, and about Virro, his patron. Throughout the first book Juvenal has trea ted issues like the luxurious life in Rome, the degradation of morals, the li fe of the clients and the flooding of foreigners in Rome with critical spirit, humor and occasional indignation. In Satire 1 he gives an outline of life in Rome and of the degradation of Roman citizens. He refe rs to newly rich people and their arrogance, 7 The patron-client relation has been discussed extensively. Highet (1949) 600 n.30 and Frank (1957) 79 claim that parasites are only a Greek phenomenon. Damon (1995); Damon (1997), Morford (1997), Tylawsky (2002) present the counterview. Serres (1980) argues that parasites are a universal ph enomenon and they are present everywhere, in all aspects of life. My intention in this chapter is to provide an overview of the relation between Lucian and Juvenal with regards to that specific social phenomenon, the parasites in the new Greco-Roman society, and what their works tell us about their attitude to the new society. 8 For assessments of Juvenals Satire 3 and 5 see Ramage, Sigsbee, and Fredericks (1974), 147-50; Highet (1954), 65-5 and 83-8. On the historical circ umstances under which Juvenal is writing and the effect on the Satires see Freudenberg (2001), 209-77; Knoche (1975), 143-57. 9 This could be explained by the appearance in Rome of Greek philosophers. Tylawsky (2002) 112 argues that: in Plautus day some of the Greek, Italian, or Sicilian fore igners who came to Rome brought the Cynic way of life with themThe foreign beggar concealed under a Greek label who exchange d philosophizing and brazen wit for subsistence was a frequent enough figure in Rome to provide a clever contrast to Saturio and the life of the parasite. Cf. also Leo (1913) 146: Winkelphilosophen, die sich nach der mchtigen Barbarenstadt aufgemacht haben. Eupolis in Flatterers refers to those individuals who live at the expense of Callias.


29 about marital relationships and about infamous and adulterous wives. He also attacks the informers and the low quality of life of noble Ro man citizens. In the second Satire he uses the technique of the narrator-camera and elaborat es on the new ways of living. Money can buy anything and it can certainly overs hadow nobility. People are not guard ians of ethics and morals anymore, but live like the Greeks and have become more effeminate10. The third Satire concentrates on the citizens and their life in the city. Rome and the Romans become an undivided whole which produces noise and uproar. The Romans cannot li ve without Rome and Rome cannot find her old self with the Romans pursuing this kind of life. Amidst this abnormal Roman way of life, the parasite s flourish. They are people coming from all over Greece, who manage by being blandishers to win a place at the symposia and to push honest Roman citizens aside. Juvenals attack on clients in Satire 3 concentrates only on the Greeks and their traits. These emotions accumulate and characterize each Sa tire, till the crescendo which comes with the fifth and last Satire of the first book. Satire 5, though, emphasizes the degenerate attitude and character of a Roman who is pursu ing the life of a client. In the fifth Satire all human vices concentrate on the faces of Virro and Trebius. Ju venal sounds exasperated at Trebius for the lack of self-respect and at Virro for representing this new class of wealthy people with no stature, intellect, respect for others or self-respect. He gives the outline of a model of a client. He goes over the traits of a client, and at the same time he patronizes Trebius in an effort to admonish him and help him reform his life. Satire 9, however, is the culmination of these conditions and of this lifestyle. Juvenal in this Satire shows the results of the previous kind of behavior. It is as if he 10 This is a common cultural stereotype which is found in Roman literature concerning the Greeks and in Greek literature concerning the Persians. It probably shows the way ancient civilizations treat the different nations and probably, in the case of the Roman attitude concerning the Greeks, a fear of change. Actually, Romans at that time admire the Greek past, but are suspicious and not respectful of their contemporary Greeks.


30 had warned his contemporaries about the imminent degradation of the client, and now he is proved right. The parasite there has lost every shred of self-respect. With regards to people who attach themselves to wealthy individuals, Lucian admits that there are educated Greeks, like rhetoricians or philosophers, who pursue this kind of life. The difference between him and Juvenal is that the fo rmer treats the subject from the viewpoint of the Greeks, while the latter from the perspective of th e Romans. Lucian tries to deprecate the clients conduct by saying that his position does not befit a man of letters endowed with self-respect. The image of the client, as presented by Lucian, constitu tes the model of clients. By that I mean that he does not refer to contemporaries and he creates a character who displays the basic characteristics of the traditional client. The character of the client has undergone a series of changes throughout the ages. The idea of the cl ient as flatterer is employed in Old Comedy. Cleon, according to Aristophanes is a parasite of democracy. Eupolis employed the image of the parasite to criticize contemporary philosophers and specifically the Cynics. The characteristics of the parasite fit the conduct of many people in different eras and comic poets seem to have noticed that. After Middle Comedy and especial ly in New Comedy and later in Roman comedy, the traits of the parasite are standardized and th e poets have literary sources from which they can draw material11. It is at this time that the portrayal of the parasite is not related to contemporary historical circumstances, but it is rather related to what serves the intentions of the author12. Therefore, Lucians work comes as an answer to Juvenal's Satires. He argues that the life of the client is not proper for the Greeks and it is not something that they should look up to. At 11 For a discussion and overview of the history of the parasites in Greek literature see Tylawsky (2002); Damon (1997). 12 See Webster (1970) 102: the majority of political references in New Comedy have only the purpose of giving contemporary reality to the play. See also Arnott (1993); Tylawsky (2002) 93-106


31 the same time, however, he admits that many Greeks have become clients of prosperous patrons and up to a degree he acknowledges Umbricius' accu sations against the morale and self-respect of the Greeks who go to any lengths in order to please the patron. They laugh when he laughs and split the end of their mouths and cry when he cries ( rides, maiore cachinno / concutitur; flet, si lacrimas conspexit amici, 3.100-1). This was the traditi onal position of the client. He knew how to treat his patron; he knew what he wanted or needed to hear13. Lucians treatise can be divided into sections The first one is Luci ans general admonition to Timocles and his first attempt to save him fr om a life of degradation. The second part covers the expectations of the individual who decides to pursue the life of the client and the excuses he recruits to persuade himself and the others. The third part emphasi zes the treatment of the client at an early phase of his relationship to the patr on and his treatment as th eir relation evolves. The fourth part is the self-real ization of the client. The last parts of this work are a harsh invocation to reality and to the future life of a client. Lucian does not rely only on his admonitions and he does not believe that he can instill this kind of values only through a treatise. This is when he employs Juvenals satiric techniqu e. He describes with the dullest colors the life of a philosopher who attached himself to a wealthy lady and he continues by outlining a future life, after the client has been removed from the patrons house The conclusion that Lucian reaches resembles that of Juvenal. Everything depends on what you decide to do and there is no 13 Tylawsky (2002) 11 discusses Medons position in the Odyssey and his ability to match his enthusiastic eloquence to the situation was what earned him his supper. Arist. Knights 40-3; 46-9 presen t Paphlagon as the handler of the patron, Demos. This is the point when clie nts seem to assume the role of the flatterer as well. The same image of the parasite as a kolax appears in Eupolis Flatterers KA 172 ( / ). Cf. also Timocles Drakontion KA 8 ( / ; / / < > / ./ / ...).


32 one who can make you respect or disrespect yourself He clearly states that the degradation of the client is not only the patrons fault; this relationship is two-way. Juvenals Satire 5 is basi cally an outline of a dinner, or th e life of the client is outlined having as a skeleton a symposium, since this is the clients stage of performance14. The Satire begins with Juvenal addressing Trebius in a depr ecatory manner. He asks Trebius whether he is ashamed of his plan of life and whether he th inks that it is commenda ble to live on someone elses table (5.1-2). Therefore, for Juvenal a clie nts life does not encomp ass anything else other than the symposia. His whole life and his pers onality can be very sufficiently outlined and wrapped around a simple feast. This is the main idea of the Satire and it becomes even clearer when we consider that Trebius life and activitie s begin, according to Juvenal, at the time that he is invited to dine with Virro15. The Satire is written in the form of a hypothetical dialogue. Juvenal addresses Trebius but we never actually hear Trebius voice and the questions that are very frequently addressed to him, although they gi ve emphasis and change the dramatic effect of the Satire, are rhetorical. Juvenal not only is the only one who app ears in the Satire, but he also takes the liberty to outline the thoughts and emotions of both Trebius and Virro. In the first section Lucian gets directly to the point. He addresses an unknown individual promising to tell him everything there is in th e life of a parasite. Th e vocabulary he employs clarifies from the first lines his point of view on th e subject. In the next li nes, the description of 14 It is of course predictable that Juvenals and Lucians skeleton of the Satire is the dinner. The cena and are the traditional place for discussions and a cradle for satirical motifs. Lucian employs the motif of the vulgar host of the symposia. He does not onlydeprecate his eating manners, but also the way he degrades the guests brings forth another aspect of his vileness. That image cannot but bring in mind Petronius Trimalchio. On more primary sources which employ the motif of the cena in the Satire see Shero (1923) 15 Roman parasites are not presented in literary tradition as un invited. They are usually considered friends or parts of the family, contrary to Greek parasites. Ch aracteristic examples ar e found in Plautus Men 667; Capt 867, 875, 980. For Greek uninvited parasites ( ) Athenaeus preserved a poem by Asius (1.125b-d). Cf. also Arist. Birds 983-5; Alexis Phygas KA 259; Athenaeus 13.584e For a list of re ferences to the Greek parasite in Old, Middle and New Comedy see Damon (1995) 182 n.3


33 hardships and vilification reaches a crescendo. Th e first reference to clients comes with the participle (1). For Lucian this life is a straightforward degradation. He then says that these people are in a bad state ( 1), and they appear to be crying and suffering ( / 1). The last part of the sentence of this vivid and rather descriptive outline of patronage is the image of a prisoner ( 1). Another even more compelling image of a ship wrecked man follows. Lucian at this point relates the shaven head of a sl ave with the shipwrecked individua l and amalgamates them in the face of the client. This image resembles Encolpius and Giton in Petronius Satyricon They boarded Lichas ship expecting calm sea and then in the midst they had to shave their heads, feel degraded and then appear as the slaves of Eu molpus, after having been shipwrecked. The image of the shaved people in front of the temple reminds the reader also of Apuleius Metamorphoses and the fate of Lucius. At the end of his journey, he is still fates and peoples fool. He has even shaved his head. Lucian most probably expect ed his educated audi ence to pick up these allusions. In this way he prepares them from the very beginning for the utter humiliation of the client and he also sets the tone of the work; disparagement of the parasitic life via literary allusions. The way he moves amidst Greek and Roma n literary genres proves also his dexterity. At the beginning of Satire 5 Juvenal describes a relation between two people. In fact in one sentence, which covers the first five lines, Juve nal lays out his whole argumentation. He accuses Trebius of living on another mans table ( ut bona summa putes aliena vivere quadra 5.2), he refers to Trebius degradation by providing examples of other parasites who, according to the author, would not have endured what Trebius tolerates ( si potes illa pati quae nec Sarmentus iniquas / Caesaris ad mensas nec vilis Gabba tulisset 5.4-5) and in lines 5-10 he concludes with


34 his own opinion. These lines constitute also the first attack against cl ients in this Satire. The rest is an outline of a banquet, as described by Horace, Plato, Athenaeus and many others. Trebius is first invited to dine with Virro and then the rest of the Satire focuses on Trebius belittlement in the course of the dinner, while Juvenal pres ents another aspect of a symposium. The introduction to the symposium begins w ith the invitation. Lines 12-17 constitute a section. Primo fige loco, quod tu discumbere iussus mercedem solidam veterum capis officiorum. fructus amicitiae magnae cibus; inputat rex, et quamvis rarum tamen inputat. Ergo duos post si libuit menses neglectum adhibere clientem, tertia ne vacuo cessaret culcita lecto (l.12-17) At line 14, the patron is re ferred to with the word rex and on line 16 we have the first reference to the client (clientem ). Lines 12-3 introduce the issue of the client and the fact that the invitation comes as a belated reward, while line 17 works as a response. Juvenal says that the patron did not want his third couch to remain empty ( tertia ne vacuo cessaret culcita lecto ). Line 14 corresponds to line 16 in a chiastic way. The first half of line 14 says that food is the return for a great friendship ( fructus amicitiae magnae cibus ) which relates to the client ( clientem ), who appears on the second half of line 1616. The second half of line 14 says that the great man imputes it ( inputat hunc rex ); while the first part of line 16 refers to the patron who after an interval of several months may decide to invite the neglected client ( si libuit menses neglectum adhibere clientem ). The endings of both lines 14 and 16 relate to each other ( rex ; clientem ); rex 16 There have been different suggestions as concerns the use of the word amicus and if it is a synonym to friend or client, or if it encompasses both. Gold (1987) 134 argues that: The word amicus is a nicely ambiguous word which applies equally well to political allie s or personal intimates, to the patron or the client. Cf. also pp. 40, 71, 104. Konstan (1995) claims that friendship and clientship are distinctly separate terms and notions in Latin Literature. For the relation between patrons and friends see also Baker (1988); Cloud (1989); Eisenstadt and Roniger (1984); Herman (1980); Hunter (1985); Saller (1982), (1989).


35 is in the nominative, while clientem in the accusative as the objec t of the sentence and the one who is being acted upon. Finally, th e first half of both sentences shows an action, whose receiver is the last word of each sentence, rex and clientem respectively. Juvenal also presents a complicated relationship between the patron and the client. It is, as it seems, complicated in the mind of the client, Trebius in that case, since it is he whom the author addresses. The same relation, on the other hand, appears to be clear in the mind of the patron. As for the rest of that first part of the dining, specifically in lines 18 -23, line 18 seems to be th e question and lines 1923 the answer as well as an immediate and stra ightforward parody of Treb ius whose biggest wish is to be invited to Virros tabl e. Juvenal expresses his main idea in these 6 lines. The vocabulary he uses, addressing for instance Virro as rex, while Trebius is just a client, makes his point and his criticism clear and his attack against both patron and client straightforward. So far we notice that Lucian, al though he pretends to write an admonitory treatise and not a caustic satire, seems to be harshe r than Juvenal in his criticism. For him it is not about food, it is about freedom. He sets his own standards a nd he puts another complexion on the matter of patronage from the very beginning. Unlike Juvenal, he also employs a vari ety of literary methods to outline his argumentation, like similes and powerful imagery. After the introduction, Lucian addresses Timocles, the young man who seems to be entertaining the idea of becoming a wealthy ma ns parasite. Lucian has probably chosen the name on purpose. There cannot be one who carries the name of honor ( ) and fame ( ) and still be willing to be someones slave. At th is point, Lucians handling of the matter seems to be more effective than Juvenals. Instead of just censuring parasi tes, Lucian is trying to warn young men against this track of life. The way he a pproaches them is that he first admits how many temptations delude the expectations of a young man. He admits that the life of a wealthy


36 individual can be seductive. Luci an, instead of a direct attack, actually tries to approach his addressee or the audience fo r that matter capturing their captatio benevolentiae. On the contrary, the preponderant emotion in Juvenal is indignation17. Juvenal starts by addressing Trebius himself and he goes straight to the subject under di scussion. He says that he is unable to comprehend how Trebius is not ashamed of his way of life. The last part of this section in Lucian can be considered an attack against Roman clients. Lucian draws a clear line between Greeks who attach themselves to Roman patrons and Roman parasites. According to him, these Greeks are we ll qualified to be rhetoricians, grammarians and philosophers. Why then should they waste their mental strength in serving someone? Lucian proclaims that he is not intere sted in the rest of the mob ( 4.26), for these people who are not in a position to do anything more respectable than being someones parasites ( 4.3). This sounds as a direct attack against Juvenals Umbricius, who at tacks the Greeks in Satire 3 for taking the place of Romans in the symposia. Lucian characteri zes this last class of people as petty-minded ( 4.26). So far Lucians attitude co uld be explained as both criticism targeting Greeks for their subservience and th e Romans for degrading the Greeks and for coveting this place for themselves. 17 See Shero (1923) 139; also Morford (1977) 222-224 who makes the distinction between Juvenals indignation and Martials treatment of the same subject. Morford argues that for Martial the cena is an opportunity to make a single point. Whether that concerns the food itself or the relationship of host and client. For Juvenal the cena is another example of the corruption of Roman society. The fate and life of a client is described briefly at the introductory Satire 1. Juvenal describes them as old and tired who have left the door (of the patron) although the last hope that a man can relinquish is that of a dinner (1 32-4). The satirist treats parasites differently in this Satire than in Satire 5. He seems more sympathetic to them. Since he elaborates at this point on the patron and degradation of patrons, Juvenal makes his point even more distinct by presenting the wretchedness of the parasites. After having described the state in which a parasite is, Juvenal begins the next sentence with the word optima saying what the patron will eat and how he will feast instead.


37 After this introduction and the explication of his intentions, Lucian proceeds to the second section where he wishes to discuss the expecta tions that someone has when he first adopts the life of the client. This is anothe r effort to approach the prospec tive client not aggressively but with the intention to win him b ack. Lucian attacks the very first argument of a parasite or a parasite to be, namely poverty. Th is is what Juvenal also in Sa tire 5 claims to have driven Trebius to parasitic life (5.6-11) a nd this is what learned individuals proclaim that drove them to this kind of life. They may also argue that they are not in a position to work and labor anymore for their sustenance. Lucian attacks them heavily saying that no one has ever made a profit out of parasitic ( ...5.29). Lucian says in a sympathetic tone that if clients had found a way out of poverty then he would have excused them. Juvenal, on the contrary, attacks Trebius directly for having succumbed to the desires of his belly ( quamvis iurato metuam tibi credere testi 5.5). Hence, Lucian reveals the true intentions of perspective clients, th eir desire to indulge themselves in wealth and prosperity; their cove ting to live like rich patr ons do. The image of any man succumbing to pleasure, plunging into househol ds for that same reason and being dazzled by the image of gold and silver is very compellin g. This is the picture of a degraded person, who is only interested in appearances and the extravagances of life and is in itself in discordance with philosophers, grammarians and rhetoricia ns. Lucian probably alludes here to Hermotimus and his mocking of the pretentiousness of the philosophers (4.14-18). He is supporting his opinion on them and the fact that they ju st talk about philosophical ideas and morals, but when it comes to their lives they do not abide by them18. 18 This life forbidden for the philosophers reminds us of Hermotimus and the way Lucian ridiculed his philosopher teacher. The life of the client seems to befit the latter perfectly, according to Lucians portrayal and to Hermotimus disappointment and disbelief. This counter-image of a genuine philosopher which appears in Hermotimus enhances


38 The third section in both Lucians and Juve nals works focuses on the client and the symposium itself. This offers another aspect of the clients continuous humiliation along the lines of the symposium. Since para sitic life is straightforwardly c onnected to food and feast, it is understandable why both Lucian and Juvenal w rap their narration around the outline of a dinner. Lucian, just like Juvenal, considers the poor qua lity of food given to the client the most significant sign of humiliation. The latter has given up everything, his expectations for a large fortune, even his dignity; he has nothing else to expect other than a good feast, but the patron does not grant him that either. He just watches the patron eating and feas ting, while he is given only the remains. Even the door-man does not show any respect to the poor client, just like the wine-boy in Virros house. The de gradation of Timocles is even harsher since it comes from someone who is not even Greek or free born. He is of Syrian origin instead, a born slave19. Contrary to this treatment the client feels that he must live up to the ex pectations of the people with whom he associates. Therefore, he spends more money than he can afford.This is the exact same image described by Juvenal. Tr ebius is left with what no one el se at the table wants. This is one step closer to utter humiliation, since it is the symposium which supposedly rewards a client for all his sufferings; and Trebius appears despon dent and hungry, the lau ghing stock of the rest symposiastai. the point Lucian makes in this work. Athenaeus discusses the gluttony of the philosophers in 4.161d-e (But you, philosophers, practice none of these habits. But, extremely annoyingly, you babble about what you know nothing, while eating you put in the mouthfuls as decorously as Antiphanes so charmingly describes in Drapetagoges .) Cf. Antiph. Drapetagoges KA87 ( / / / ) 19 This is a sophistic joke Lucian is making based on his own non-Greek origin. It is another indication that Lucian is integrated in that multi national society and he plays with others unfamiliarity or social taboo and stereotypes that possibly still flourish at that time.


39 More specifically, Lucian says that the client eats the leftovers of the others just like a dog chewing bones or even the tough ma llow leaves used as garnish ( ...26). He does not have an egg on his plate and he also has the smallest bird. The wine is not good either for he gets to drink one that is thick and already gone bad. The client tolerates even the servants belittlement in or der to be accepted in the patrons house. Lucian compares the latters house to that of Zeus, th e same way Juvenal compares Virro to Aeneas and the Olympians (5.38-9; 45). The client, however, is not valued at all. The guests seem suspicious of him instead and he is neve r considered equal to them. Juvenal, starting with what a dinner however ( qualis cena tamen 5.24), raises the expectations of the readers, making them believe that the dinner would be worthy of Trebius hardships. The second half of the sentence, thou gh, refutes their expectations. The first thing on the table is the wine, which could not even be used for fomentations. Not only that, but a strife rises between some freedmen, in which Trebius unwillingly participates. Until line 29 a quarrel between Trebius and a company of freedmen is de scribed and then suddenly on line 30 a serene, almost Olympian image appears20. What is more, the descripti on of the quarrel brings to mind the battle of the Centaurs and the Lapiths in Ovid Metamorphoses (12.182-535). This is the stature of the guests among whic h the parasite sits. Virro (ipse ), on the contrary, sits as a godlike figure enjoying drinking, just like the Olympians indulged in nectar. The Satire and the 20 The brawl is a traditional motif in the literary descriptio ns of symposia. Petronius at Trimalchios dinner party included a quarrel between Trimalchio and Fortunata (74.8-17) and the dog fight (64.5-10). For a detailed account of the similarities between Juvenal and Petr onius see Shero (1923) 139-142. In Odyssey Irus, the beggar-parasite, hopes to retain his position by amusing the suitors by providing a spectacle to the latter of him fighting with Odysseus (18.44-9).


40 degradation of Trebius is implic it but obvious in this section fo r two reasons. Virro does not appear to be a part of an ything that is taking place in his symposiu m so far. He is so distant, as if he were an Olympian god, unconcer ned about the quarrels and misery of those below him. When the feast is about to begin, Juvenal addresse s Trebius with a number of imperatives ( finge, 5.72; aspice, 5.80). The use of the imperative describe s better the boundaries that are set for the parasite and makes the Satire more vivid, since it gives the impression that the reader is actually watching the whole scene. This impression is re inforced also by the recurrent use of the pronoun quis. Juvenal urges Trebius (and the reader for that matter) to see what a plate ( quam lancem 5.80) and what a shrimp ( quae squilla, 5.81) with what asparagus ( quibus asparagus 5.82) and with what tail ( qua cauda, 5.82) Virro eats and looks down on th e rest of the guests. A clear separating line between the patr on and the client is drawn when Trebius food is described21. Till now Juvenal has reserved himself from expr essing clear condemnation against Virro. He prepared the ground for that by comparing Virros conduct and life to that of Trebius. At this point it is the first time that Juvenal attacks the patron as well. He makes it clear that it is not only the mistake of Trebius and of any parasite for that matter that he does not have any selfrespect anymore; on the contrary the blame must be shared between both the parasite and the patron. Juvenal strikes the reader once more and becomes cruel with regards to Trebius when he explains that the extraordinarily decorated beryl cup22 is the one which Virro uses. Morford emphasizes the literary allusions in this part. He notices that the decoration of the cup resembles that of Aeneas sword. Trebius, on the contrary is not trusted with any golden cup. The status of the client is clearly stated even by the word or der. Virro is directly compared to Trebius (tibi ); 21 Cf. Lucilius 3.fr.132-9; 6.fr.251f.; 30 fr.1060-2. Suet. Iul 48 attests, however, Caesar punished his baker because he had served different kind of bread to the guests than what he had served to him. 22 Morford (1977) 234


41 the former holds the cup (tenet ), while the latter is not entrusted with one ( non committitur )23. After having clearly distinguish ed between Virro and Trebius, the author mixes the two personas proving, on the one hand, how nave the parasite was, in that he dares to complain about the quality of the wine he was served and, on the other hand, how self-conscious of his position Virro is. Juvenal also sets gradually the whole scene of the symposium. He says that even if Trebius is entr usted with a valuable cup, there is al ways someone to watch over him. He then refers to the beautiful young boy who attends the symposium, Virros Ganymede, while another one ( ecce alius 5.67) serves Trebius a piece of hard, inedible bread. The distance between Virro and his guests gets even more chaotic, since he carries something of Aeneas and all that the latter represents. J uvenal, without having actually a ttacked Virro and without having openly disapproved of his actions and indifference so far, manage s to slander his character. The comparison of Virro to Trebius alone succeeds in showing the social differences between the strata in Rome and the moral decay. Next comes the entertainment scene. In Lucian it is a dance teacher and a short man from Alexandria who sings in Ionia n. The Greek scholar-client mingles with that group of people who do not belong to the high ranks of society and th ey are certainly not of the same stature as the patron, while there is no reference to the rich pa tron. In Juvenal Trebius participates unwillingly in the strife, while Virro appears distant and re vered. The difference between Lucian and Juvenal is that in Lucian the educated Greek tries to detach himself from the rest of this crowd. He sits in the corner, realizing his degradation, while Lucian states that he is so different from everyone else so that even if he wanted to venture into singing or anything similar, he would not have been successful. Trebius, on the contrary, participates in the strife of th e freeborn Romans. He 23 Juv. 5.39 Virro tenet phialas: tibi non commititur aurum


42 becomes one of them and he sheds the last drop of self-respect. This way in which Lucian differentiates the Romans from the Greeks implies that for Lucian Roman clients may not be worthy of anything more than the position they hold. Greek scholars, however, have another position in the world24. The beginning of the treatise ha s also prepared the ground for that consideration. Lucian says to Timocles that th e relation between patron and client resembles a net. One should examine first if it is permeable so that he will not venture into something that eventually he will not be able to handle. Juvena l, on the other hand, presents Trebius as wanting only to be involved regardless of the consequenc es. Juvenals client also does not seem to entertain any high expectations out of his relation to the patron; feasting seems to be the only temptation. Timocles, on the other hand, intends to increase his fortune and lead a prosperous life. Lucian so far has blurred the image of the Romans, who are just shallow even when they are prosperous, while the Greeks, even as parasites, try to improve their place in society25. The last part of Lucian's symposium trea ts an issue which has been discussed by Umbricius in Satire 3 (109-112). The latter has accused the Greeks of not showing any respect towards the ladies or the young boys in the patron s establishment. According to Umbricius, Greeks do not set boundaries and they certainly do not know where to stop. Lucian answers in a way Umbricius accusations. He pr esents a scholar who, a lthough he is not indifferent to love, is respectful. Even if he takes a glance at one of th e ladies or the concubine s, he does not mean to offend them. Therefore, Lucian warns the Greek scholar to be cautious and not even look at 24 Tylawsky (2002) 29-41 ar gues that the way philosophical groups ap pear in Greece and their followers wander around shoeless and try to accost someone to earn their food create the image of a club, of a close group of people. She brings as an example Aristophanes Clouds and how Sprepsiades, who is not a part of the school, functions as the foil of the Socratic group. This image fits the way the Greek scholar in Lucian cannot include himself in the company of the rest of the parasites. Lucian intends to s how that the Greeks do not resemble the traditional parasites and the best way to achieve it is to show how he does not blend with the rest of the parasitic group. 25 This may allude to Trimalchio, in Petronius Satyricon He is the model of the shallow and boorish patron who tempts his guests with food and feasting.


43 anyone in case his gaze is misinterpreted. So far Lucian seems to be providing counterarguments to every point Juvenal made. It is also inte resting to notice how someones actions can be interpreted in diametrically different ways or si mply be misinterpreted. This, I believe, takes us back to one of the original inte ntions of Lucian, to present to the Romans how someone else is seeing and judging them; in other words how so meone else can interpret an action in a completely different way. The next paragraphs pertain to the actual sa lary that the Greek intellectual is going to receive26. Lucian reprimands implicitly anyone who is involved and he is either diminishing or being diminished in this relationship. The Greek who has set his life a nd dignity for sale, the Roman patron who just wants to buy the former and the Romans who envy him for that. It seems that Lucian has crushed the first and foremost expectation of a perspective client, his desire to get rich, as well as the Romans who, according to Juvenal, consider the lif e of the parasite one worthy to be aspired to. From then on everything is, Lucian sa ys, like the Mandrobulus proverb describes; everything diminishes and deteriorates every day (21.23). Therefore, the rest of the treatise until we get to the self-realization of the client is th e description of the clients pitiful everyday life. Paragraph 23 begins with a harsh statement. He says that from now on the client should remember that he is not free anymore ( 23.2). This severity points at two direc tions. First he prepares his addressee for what he should expect. Second, Lucian implic itly criticizes the Romans, as portrayed by Juvenal in Satire 3. Why do they want to have th e first place in the symposia claiming that they 26 White (1978) argues that there were actually differences between clients and literate friends. He also claims that the economic profit for the poets who were attached to wealthy individuals was so considerable as to sustain them and they were part of a Roman code of amicitia and its aspects. On literary patronage see also Gold (1987).


44 are freeborn, when if you are someones client you are not a free man any more? Lucian is mostly in consent with the content of Satir e 5, however, since Juvenal throws the same accusation at Trebius and tries to make him reali ze his position. In both cases there are recurrent images and vocabulary which pert ain to the lack of freedom. Lucian compares the life of the client to th at of a slave and atta cks the very basis of Umbricius argument. He personifies freedom sayi ng that she is not going to enter with him the patrons dwelling. He will be a slave, no matter how distasteful the name sounds. He destroys also the illusion of the client who, no matter what happens, will always be free, for he was born free. He also argues that when the client receives payment from the patron, just like the latters slave do, there is no dividing line between freebor n and slave by birth. He also compares the client to a monkey wearing a collar around his neck ( 24.15). This image seems harsher than th e description of the shaved head that Juvenal has at the end of Satire 5 ( pulsandum vertice raso / praebebis quandoque caput 171-2). Lucians client has been degraded to an animal, not just a slave; since he is actually performing for the patron. The evid ence of the performing client ensu es. He has to be seen in the company of the patron so that the latter may a ppear to be learned and attentive to the Muses ( 25.10). Then when the patron is busy with some of his friends, the client simply waits on him reading a book. Soon he becomes a used commodity and not welcom e in the immediate company of the patron any more. Lucians portrayal is stunning in that he gives a full psycho logical profile of an agitated person. He, contrary to Juvenal, approaches the client and delves deeper into his situation; he also sees that there is something more than the clients desire for mone y. He looks stealthily at


45 others not knowing what to do; he is full of agitation in his soul; amazed on the one hand and trying to persuade himself that he is going to lead a dream life, wh en all this is over. He suffers and he dreams at the same time. The recurrent employment of expressions like ... ... ... ... ... (16) burden the section and draw the darkes t picture of a clients life. They also make words like sound ironic and the discrepancy between them almost chaotic. This is one of Lucians most effective ways to approach his addressee and deter him from becoming someones client. Lucian emphasizes the treatment which the e ducated Greek is likely to receive from his patron and the other guests. This section does not have a corresponding one in Satire 5. The reason is that Juvenal does not refer to patrons of writers. His accusations point at parasites who lack any qualification and make their lifes purpose to live on other peoples properties. With regards to Satire 3, however, Lucian in that part of the treatise attacks Umbricius. He emphasizes the quality of all those Greeks, who have act ually erred, but who are capable of leading a perfectly respectable life, not under the shadow of a Roman patron. Lucian attacks the Romans instead and their desire to become someones parasites. His intentions become even more specific when one of the attendees of the symposiu m complaints because as he says the city of Rome has opened only for these Greeks ( 17.3). Lucian states that it is Rome itself that invites and embraces the incoming of Greeks. It is the Gr eeks, though, who should be able to protect themselves from the wealth of the Romans, since this lifestyle ma y blemish their dignity and self-respect. Lucian overturns Juvenals argument and he also blurs the historical circumstances when the conquered becomes guest.


46 The next section in Lucian discusses the self-r ealization of the client. It is the point where he reconsiders his situation and regrets what he has lost and the choices he made. Although Lucian is still the narrative voice, it sounds as if the client wa kes up from his lethargic condition and sees everything that the author talked to him about in his admonitory speech. He realizes that he has become a performing actor, an animal, a lion, as the author says more specifically ( ,, 30.26-7)27. In the last section Lucian outlines the future of the client. This image is the most co mpelling and scariest than anything else that the author has warned the client about. The dinners tu rn into an everyday torm ent and the association with the patron unbearable (30-31). The last act of the client comes when the patron discards him as unwanted property ( ... 39.24-7). He has used him while he was young, and when he gets old, the patron fabricates an excuse in or der to discard him. Hi s reputation is already destroyed and thus there is no other option for him. Lucian closes his admonitory speech clarifying that it is not the patrons, or the gods fault. It is the client himself who makes the final decision. This ending resembles the message Juvenal wants to send to Trebius. In the last line he says: if you can endure such things, then you are worthy of such a friend (5.173). What about Lucian and his atti tude towards the patron himself? So far we have discussed his admonitions and deprecations at Timocles a nd at clients in general. The view we have therefore with regards to the patron derives implicit ly from what the author says about the life of the client. From the beginning of the work Lucian has compared patronage to the worst form of 27 In Xenophons Symposium Philippus consciously assumes (3.11), accor ding to Tylawsky (2002) 52 the role of the actor. This is the only way for him to earn a place at the table.


47 slavery. One can only assume that it is the patr ons conduct that render s the clients life unbearable. In the course of the treatise we find scattered references to the conduct of the patron. The most characteristic and de scriptive ones are verbs like (8.10), or (8.16). Juvenals indignation, on th e contrary, in the beginning of Satire 5 targets exclusively Treb ius (5.1-11). A more direct refe rence to the patron is when Lucian introduces the first explicit comparison of a client to a Roman lover (7 ). He says then that the former is being treated superciliously ( 7.32-3). The patrons behavior becomes even more reprehensible in the course of the dinner; Lucian talks about the hungry client and the greedy patron ( 8.24) who is also presented as indifferent to his surroundings ( 11.23). This image along with the statemen t that the client seems so amazed at the sight of the patrons acquisitions and the luxury of his establishment as if the latter were Zeus mansion ( 15.28-9) resemble Juvenals comparison of Virro to Aeneas. Althoug h Lucian has not attacked the patron so far directly and severely, his comments are more acute. He is also accusing him of being superfluous. According to Lucian, the patron desire s to associate with the Greek scholar so that he himself could be considered literate ( 25.9-10). Finally, the description of the way the patron deceives the client when they are about to decide on the sa lary the scholar-client is about to receive (1921.16) shows clearly the quality of the patron as a person. The sh arpest attack, though, against the client is included in the story of Thesmopolis the Cynic (33-36) The ridiculous claims of his


48 patroness and the discreditable condition, in wh ich she puts the philosopher, make every other comment and description Lucian has made so far simply clearer. It also makes the description of the clients future, when the patron sends his away and he is not interested in his companionship or his presence anymore (39-40) and which fo llows the story of Thesmopolis, seem even gloomier and more unbearable. Juvenal, on the other hand, turn s his attention to Virro in th e middle of the symposium and, although so far he has only described what the pa tron is eating, his disapproval is immediate and clear. Although Juvenal has employed more consulti ng tone with regards to Trebius, now that he has come to Virro, he just patronizes his be havior. The comparison between the latter and ancestors like Seneca, Piso and Cotta explicitly se ts the tone. In the case of Trebius, Juvenal is aware that there has always been a class of pa rasites; but Virro had an cestors from whom he could have drawn better examples. In the last two lines of this section (112-3), Juvenal uses a chiaston. poscimus ut cenes civiliter. Hoc face esto, ut nunc multi, dives tibi, pauper amicis. He says to Virro We ask that you dine as a fellow citizen and the second part of the second line complements that notion be wealthy for yourself and poor to your friends; while the second half of line 112 is an exhortation to Virro do this and be a nd the first half of line 113 be, as many othersis a censure against new nobility and a reminder of the comparison with his contemporaries and his ancestors as it appear ed in Satire 1. Juvenal poses the question: which of the grandfathers built such number of villas and dined by himself of seven courses. (1.94-5). Once more there is a crescendo at the end of the sentence as well as an emphasis on its last element, namely the ancestor. Juvenal, however, saves a part in his censure for Virro. Although it seems as if he is addressing only Trebius, the au thor attacks Virro with vehemence. He says to


49 Trebius that his patron proves his wisdom by treating him like that ( ille sapit qui te sic utitur 5.170). The end of the Satire is relentlessly harsh both on the patron and the client. Juvenal finishes his first book by saying to Trebius that if he tolerates all the aforementioned he is worthy of such a friend and such a banquet. The utter degradation of Trebius is accompanied and complemented by the fact that he is degraded by someone who does not deserve any respect in the first place. Lucian and Juvenal have obviously approached in similar ways the portrayal of the patron; as a matter of fact they both refer to Roman wealthy men and both a Roman like Juvenal and a non-Roman, although they write in di fferent eras and their intentions are clearly different, the characterizations of the patrons persona have even verbal similarities. The differences lie once more in the fact that Lucian seems more literally oriented, with the imagery and the similes that has incorporated. He is as harsh as Juvenal in his depreciations of the patron, but he is more implicit; for one thing he does not even address the patron as Juvenal does. Finally, he does not conclude the satire with an att ack on both client and patron, like Juvenal does. In fact, I believe that the end of his work resembles more that of an admonitory tr eatise. He reviews his argumentation and then he describes an imaginar y picture in which he has personified Hope, Deceit and Servitude and has transferred the s cene on heaven. The client climbs up and this uplifting resembles the high expectat ions the latter have been en tertaining about his life and his association with the pa tron. While he is up, though, Hope seems to be always ahead; hence the client never really reaches it. Th is scene reminds the reader of the client who always hopes that the next day will be better and throughout his whole life chases after utopian expectations. At the end he ends up old and helpless, without having e ither enjoyed or attained anything. This clearly is the future that Lucian has foreseen for Timo cles. Lucian plays with literary motifs and with


50 previous works. The idea of the loft, golden gate way reminds us of Horace and the last ode of the second book. He feels that as a po et has reached at a level where wings will bring him away from the earth through the lofty air ( non usitata nec tenui ferar / penna biformis per liquidum aethera /vates neque in terries morabor /long ius invidiaque maior /urbis relinquam 2.20.1-5). Does Lucian hint at Horaces patronage and does he implicitly compare him to Timocles or any other common client, who is always under the shadow of the patron and he always hopes for leading a better life28? Lucian not only, therefore, attacks w ealthy Roman individuals who castrate scholars and Roman citizens whose only concern is to become clients, but also, if we accept the Horace related argument, it seems that Lucian turn s his attention and he dedicates in a way the conclusion of the whole work to Roman literate me n who have fallen into the state of clientship. He is also playing with anothe r literary work, namely Apuleius Metamorphoses Except for the fact that the client is at some point presented as Lucius at the end of the Metamorphoses, with his head shaved and still ignorant of reality, Apuleius uses the picture of Psyche in the conclusion of the work. Psyche had to go through Venus slaves and had to endure sufferings in order to get her husband back. The client does not have the same fate. There is no Jupiter to intervene. The end of Juvenals Satire, on the other hand, se rves as a culmination, and therefore it is even harsher than the rest of the poem. Juvenal, contrary to Lucian, attacks the client in a last attempt to alert him and thus he does not embellish his work quite as much with literary motifs. He makes it clear to Trebius that he means nothing to Virro and he concentrates his attention again on the parasite while accusing him of connivi ng at his stature and his position in the social hierarchy. The structure of the last paragraph begins with the descri ption of the patrons intentions and the means by which he is achie ving them, namely by leaving Trebius hungry. 28 On Horace and his relation to Maecenas see Horsfall (1981) 5; cf. also White ( 1978) 81-2; Ba ker (1988)


51 Finally, the author attacks Trebius' very belief s and illusions. He trie s to remind him of his Roman identity and his freeborn status by addressing the pride of his race. This is where Juvenal clearly differentiates once more the freeborn Romans from all t hose foreigners who have flooded Rome and have corrupted the morale of his contemporaries. The Roman client finally on lines 153-5 is compared to a monkey. On lines 157-8 the author intensif ies his attack when he says that there is no comedy or mime better than a disappointed belly ( nam quae comoedia, mimus quis melior plorante gula?). The culmination comes at the end of the Satire where Juvenal humiliates Trebius utterly presenting him as a clown, an actor with shaved head29. The connecting point between Lucians and Juve nals parasite is that neither of the two offers anything to the patron in exchange to th e food he requests and expects to receive. This image of the two parasites is in accordance with Serres argumentation about the parasites30. Serres claims that the parasite gives nothing and r eceives the most perishable of all commodities, food. This is in discordance with the image of the pa rasite or client as presented in other literary works as well. In Xenophon Memorabilia 2.9 the poor man offers servic es to the wealthy one. In Ciceros Pro Flacco the clients are willing to testify in favor of their wealthy patron31. They might not be offering something tangible, but s till they supposedly return the patrons favors32. 29 Morford (1977) 243 claims that Juvenal has adopted a persona; that he is a reasonable man, ostensibly sympathetic towards the downtrodden client, critical of the disdainful manners of the patron. But is Juvenal really that sympathetic towards Trebius? He has humiliated him and he has presented him as an actor. He has said explicitly that Trebius is a slave to his belly. 30 Serres (1980) 31 Cic. Pro Flacco 17 32 On this subject see Damon (1995). Saller (1989) 49 men tions also three conditions which need to be satisfied for a relation to be considered clientship; See also Saller (1982) 8-11; Cf. Eisenstadt and Roniger (1984) 2. Parasites even since the time of Odysseus usually offer information. In early Greek poetry they were usually wanderers who had news of the rest of the world. This is how Odysseus gained a position as a beggar at the suitors table (H.


52 The Elegiac Motif of the Exclusus Amator What is worth noticing at this point is the l iterary dialogue between these two authors, as well as the d ialogue between Greek and Roman litera ture and finally the way a literary motif is employed in different contexts and even in different languages in order to explicate diametrically different perspectives. It is interesting how Lucian seems to be working with the portrayal of the despondent Roman exclusus amator Although someone could argue that the motif of the amorous poet has its roots in Greek elegiac poetry, in Sappho and Alcaeus, it is even more appropriate to say that the Ro mans were the ones who embellish ed it and created the elegiac lover. Lucian therefore proves that second cen tury authors should not be underestimated or considered mere imitators33. He makes once more fun of the Ro mans, for the only technique that he borrowed from them is that of the freeborn who is a slave, even if he is his mistress slave. What does Lucian intend to emphasize? Juvenal ha s argued that parasites are the ones who forget their freeborn status and thus ri dicule their ancestors and their ethnicity. Lucian shows that Romans are bound to be dominated by someone, either a patron, or a domina. A question that might rise is if Lucian is closer to the Greek elegiac tradition or the Roman. In this section I intend to prove that he employs the Roman elegiac motif of the exclusus amator to serve his purpose and emphasize his criticism of the Romans. The main difference between the Greek poet in love and the Roman love r is that the former accuses Eros himself for everything that he has to e ndure. It is Eros who is and he has bound him inescapably. Odys .18.1-9). On that see Tylawsky (2002) 8-27 and passim; Austin & Vidal-Naquet (1977) 44-6; idem (1992) 107. The parasite sometimes can also offer to his patron, either amusement, or his services in general. In Charitons Callirhoe a parasite is hired due to his abilities as an actor (1.4.1). In Odyssey Irus wants to fight with Odysseus so that he may offer spectacle to the suitors. 33 See n.4


53 The Roman lover, on the cont rary, is bound by his mistress w ho appears to be cruel and inconsiderable. Lucian in De mercede conductis uses emphatically vocabulary of domination and freedom, ideas which do not seem to be in the center of the Greek elegiac poets. More specifically, in Greek lite rature love is bitter and swee t; it is limb loosening. It can render any man incompetent and sick physically and mentally. This motif of love appears in the epic tradition first. In the Iliad 3.441-446 Paris describes the smoot hness of his feelings and of the love that has seized him34. It is important to empha size the use of the verb which corresponds to the idea of conquering that we also find in Roman elegiac poets and the constant references to vinculum and servitium amoris In Homer we find the verb employed in two different semantic fields. It is used to describe the killing of men and the rape of women and also to describe the domination of men by love. The difference between Greek and Latin is that the Roman elegiac poets claim th at they are subdued by their domina -mistress, and not by the feeling of love or Eros himself. Zeus is said to be subdued by sleep and sex in the Iliad 14.35253 ( ). On the other hand, in the Iliad 3.428-436 Helen expresses her concern about Paris and Menelaus and her fear that either one of them could die. Both deaths are described in terms of the verb 35. When she talks about her marriage to Peleus, Thetis also uses the same verb to expre ss her unwillingness to participate ( Il.18.432-4)36. With regards 34 / ,/.../.../.../ 35 / / ... / / / / 36 / /


54 to the physical effects of Eros on men, the l oosening of the limbs and the clouding of the mind ( ) are typical of these descriptions. Th e aforementioned physical effects appear for instance in the Iliad when Zeus saw Hera ( Il. 14.294-6)37. Hesiod evolves the same idea of the limb loosening love in the Theogony when he talks about the four original gods, one of which is Eros (116-122)38. The first lyric poets, Archiloc hos and Alcman, continue singing the madness of love and of the erotic longing; but in their poems it is al ways the god himself who attacks humans and renders them helpless. Ar chilochos is talking about the limb-loosening desire that subdues him ( ) and in fragment 193 he states that he lies wretched with desire ( ,/ / ). Alcman also sings Eros and the attributive adjectives he employs as well as the description of the effects of love on his physical and mental condition resemble the af orementioned poems (fragments 58, 59a). The same can be said about Alcaeus (fragments 347, 283), Anacreon in fragment 428 refers to his love and his madness ( ,/). Ibycos in fragment 286 for instance says that Eros does not let him take a rest in any season (... / ...). Sapphos poetry also is undoubtedly erotic, and she does not escape the fate of the traditional elegiac lover or the pains of love39. 37 / / 38 .../ / / 39 For more information on early Greek love poetry see Cyrino (1995); Page (1955); Bowra (1961); Schmidt (2005).


55 The motif of was also introduced by Greek poets in the context of the same tradition of love poetry. We find it in Asclepiades for instance, a poet of the 3rd B.C, who is complaining about his torture outs ide the door of his beloved. Diosc ourides also writes about the popularity of Demophilos and how his mothers door shall never have a moments peace at night (... / AG 12.14). The motif, however, does not seem to be developed in the same way as when it appears in Roman poetry. Neither Asclepiades nor Discourides accuse the obj ect of their affection and in Greek poetry we do not have the portrayal of any mistress who p lans on purpose the demise of her lover and nowhere do we find the related to or so artistically interwoven with the cruelty of the mistress as in Roman elegiac poetry40. The big shift happens in Roman poetry wh en the lights and the emphasis focus on a specific lady; it is not just a bout Eros in general anymore41. The object of the affection appears either as the receiver of the love or of the exasperation of the lover42. Catullus writes for Lesbia praising her and his love for her; in other poems and at probably at different stages of their relationship he accuse s her of infidelity43. The woman in Roman elegiac poetry is a more active participant. She is desc ribed either physically or with regards to her conduct or misconduct. In poem 60 Catullus complains about Lesbia presenting her cruel like a Scylla. The motif where the poet describes himself as being the object of hi s mistress, who is addressed to by the name of 40 For more references to see AG 5.64, 12.118, 6.1 41 On the mistress in Roman elegiac po etry see Copley (1947), Greene (1998), idem (1995), Ogle (1920), Wyke (2002), Yardley (1977); idem (1986) 42 See Catullus 2,3,5,7 43 See Catullus 11.


56 domina, and the motif of are developed more by Tibullu s. What he adds to the Greek motif of is that the door is not just the inanimate object which keeps the poet away from his beloved, but it becomes a partic ipant in the relationship. It is even described with adjectives like cruel and hard and also is addressed to by th e poet. Tibullus in 1.2.6 he says that the hard door is clos ed with a steadfast bolt ( clauditur et dura ianua firma sera ) and then he begs the door to let him in the house ( ianua, iam pateas uni mihi victa querellis, / neu furtim verso cardine aperta sones, 1.2.9-10). Later in the poem Delia is implicated and Tibullus makes it clear that she is responsible for his being shut out of the house ( non mihi pigra nocent hibernae frigora noctis / non mihi cum multa decidit imber aqua / Non labor hic laedit, reseret modo Delia postes 1.2.29-31)44. In Tibullus we also find the idea of enslavement that had not previously been developed in Greek love poetry from that perspective45. Finally, another aspect of love which is presented by Tibullus and later by Propertius is the desire of the mistress for money46. Propertius employs the same vocabulary w ith Tibullus and the appearance of words like domina and servitium set the scene of the Roman elegiac poetry; something which does not appear in Greek elegiac poetr y. In 1.1.1 Propertius says that Cynthia captured him first ( Cynthia prima suis miserum me cepit ocellis ) and a few verses later in the same poem he make sit clear that even in mythology love is a bout taming the object of your love ( domuisse puellam 44 Cf. also 1.6.61-2; 2.3.77; 2.4.22 45 2.3.29-30 felices olim, Veneri cum fertur aperte / servire aeternos non puduisse deos .; 2.3.80 non ego me vinclis verberibusque nego ; 2.4.1-6 Hic mihi servitium video dominamque paratam Iam mihi, libertas illa paterna, vale. Servitium sed triste datur, teneorque catenis, Et numquam misero vincla remittit Amor, Et seu quid merui seu nil peccavimus, urit. Uror, io, remove, saeva puella, faces. 46 See 2.3.49-54; 2.4.45-6


57 1.1.15) and the references to servitium amoris are numerous47. He also elaborates on the motif ( alterius clausis expulit e foribus 1.3.36; heu nullo limine carus eris 4.22; exclusum quid sit abire domum, 5.20)48. The conclusion that can be reached is that the Greek poets have approached the subject in a more romantic way. They are focused on love while the Romans seem to be more pragmatists. They refer to the mistress coveting for money and to them as being tamed by her. Lucian elaborates on the real treatment clients receive, in contrast to their expectations. The description is that of the Roma n lover being tortured by his beloved49. The references to slavery, the image of the chained client as well as the frequent contradistinction between the words freedom and slavery resemble the image of the lover who is bound with the bondage of his mistress as described by the aforementioned Roman poets. The relationship between a lover and his mistress is unfair and one-way. The lover offers generously, while the mistress acts on her caprices and changes of mood50. The lover does not desire anything other than the ladys affections, just like the client wants to earn the attention of hi s patron. In both cases the elegiac lover and the client, end up fee ling despondent, abandoned and even trapped in an unfulfilling relationship. More specifically, the first image of a client is a powerful one. It is true that in this work the imagery Lucian employs is extremely live a nd easy to imprint on the audience's mind and his 47 1.4.4 hoc magis assueto ducere servitio ?1.5.19 tum grave servitium nostrae cogere puellae ; 1.7.6-7 atque aliquid duram quaerimus in dominam ; / nec tantum ingenio quantum servire dolori ; Cf. also 1.9.2-7; 1.10.27;10.30 48 Cf. also 1.10.16;13.34; 16.17 49 Lucians literary allusions are discussed by Householder (1941) and Bompaire (1958); See also Anderson (1976) who comments on Householders list of allusions and their validity. 50 This relates to Propertius poems on the ca prices of Cynthia. See Propertius. 1.11


58 vocabulary is very carefully chosen. He compares the client to a prisoner and those who have fled their patron to prisone rs who have just escaped ( ). The next description of the client is that of a fish which has been caught by a hook and it has been dragged by it ( ... ...). In fact the image could also be considered an ekphrasis The description of the fish ha ving been caught by the mouth and then his position in the net is an extremely sugge stive one. The selection of the epithets for that description makes the whole picture even more effective for a perspective client. The hook is described as being sharp, sad and inescapable ( ). Finally, the fish-client is just loot, like the one a stork is craving for. So far the difference between Lucian and Juve nal is that the first refrains himself from straightforwardly attacking his addressee. He seems sympathetic His implicit criticism, though, is far harsher. For him the fish may be unguarded a nd an easy prey, but this is not an excuse for a man of letters. The fish cannot comprehend his pos ition, while the client can consider what he is about to do and if he should. Juvenal, on the other hand, does not employ any imagery and he certainly does not try to appro ach the client by means of literar y techniques. Most probably the difference lies in the fact that the authors target diam etrically different audiences. In the next reference to slavery Lucian presen ts the real dimensions of patronage. He says that this actually becomes a way of life. It is an act and state of willing obeisance (... 5.13) and the decision to get under the aeg is of a patron is an act of selfdesertion to the enemy ( 5.15-6). This results in the transformation of a free man into slave ( 7.28-9). The client in Lucian reminds us of Catullus and Propertius; of


59 lovers who expect too much, but receive far less; lovers who are unfortunate ( ). Out of desire, lovers tolerate anything ( ...8.10) and at the end they allow rich patr ons to use them for anything they may want (... ...9.30-1). The references to Roman elegiac poetry continue qu ite explicitly in Lucian. The common image of the lover staying outside of the mistress door, this motif so often employed by Roman elegiac lovers is called by Lucian The doorman is hard and austere ( .10.14-17) just like the door is so rigid against Propertius. Finally the relationship between pa tron and client is described as being a bond ( ). Propertius often calls Cynthia domina and he describes his domineering feelings for Cynthia as bondage ( vinculum ). The rest of the description of the client appears in different places in the text. It seems to be scattered throughout the whole work, while the truth is that Lucian inserts this kind of imagery or vocabular y on key points of his argu ment. He just does not let either Timocles or his audience forget th e danger that lurks behind patronage. Lucian talks about a yoke ( ) and of things that cannot be endured by any free man ( ). Towards the end of the treatise, Lu cians comments focus on old age and on the new state of the client; the result after having tolerated everything pr eviously described. He emphasizes the lack of real freedom, of self-resp ect, of betraying his whole family and nation of freemen ( ). He also insists on the loss of the clients nobility as well as the memory of his ancestors (


60 ,23; ). The climax comes at the end of the treatise in paragraph 39 where Lucian describes the fate of the client when he gets old and he is not welcome anymore in the circle of his patron51. Lucian says that, when the client is ol d, he is deserted and unwanted by everyone. The image this time resembles the way Propertius describes Cynthias fate when she gets old. The client's status therefore at the end clea rly resembles that of a discarded mistress. Even in Juvenal the agony and concern of Tr ebius, his coveting to go near Virro and the reference to the different times of day or night that Trebius would rush to Virro, resemble the lover who would risk and sacrifi ce his comfort in order to go to his beloved. Juvenal plays with the idea of patron and client and its connotations and he has already expr essed ambiguities about this relation. He has also played with thr oughout the Satire and alre ady rejected the word amicitia and its connotations. This relation between patron and client clearl y reminds him of the lover and his mistress. But even in that case, Trebius appears to be the excluded lover, the one who is not loved by his mistress. In Propert ius 1.16 the poet accuses his mistresss door of being cruel to him and of letti ng him wait outside. He says that he takes a filthy sleep on halfwarm slab of stone ( turpis et in tepido limine somnus erit ? 1.16.22). The night and the stars see him as he is lying and the frozen dawn pities him ( me mediaeque noctes, me sidera plena iacentem / frigidaque Eoo me dolet aura gelu 1.16.23-4). Juvenal accuses Trebius of rushing to 51 The fate of the rejected client has been considered much harsher than the clients life itself, even if it consists of abuse and disrespect. In Odyssey Irus fate is going to be mutilation and death (18. 85-7). This descriptive image of Irus future seems to express clearly that there is really no other option for the parasite and no life beyond the bounds of the patron. In Eupolis Flatterers the fate of Acestor, who got marked, sent out of the house wearing a dog-collar, is narrated by the chorus. Th is idea of the marked parasite reminds us both of Trebius who, according to Juvenal, would even endure shave his head, as well as Lucian s warnings to Timocles that as a client, he will be probably treated as an animal.


61 his masters dwelling when dawn has not come yet and the stars are waning and the frozen wain of Bootes surrounds him ( frigida circumagunt pigri serraca Bootae 5.24). How does De Parasito F it in the Image? What is the role of De Parasito though, if we accept Lucians id entity as a social satirist? Simon, the parasite, extols his positio n in the house of the patron and his Anything that both Lucian and Juvenal for that matter have ce nsured, Simon turns upside down and presents it as aspect of an advantageous life. Lucian in this work behaves clearly as a sophist. He knows how to present his case from both sides and win a ll the arguments. This in fact is the two-faced blessing of the sophists of both the first and th e Second Sophistic. They were blamed for not having any standard or morale; for showing th at anything can be tr ue as long as you can persuade your audience about it. Moreover, I believe that De parasito is an answer to Juvenals Satire 9 and Naevolus, the parasite who has utterly degraded himself. It is as if Simon is the satiric equivalent of Naevolus a nd as if Lucian makes fun of J uvenal and his concerns about the parasite's decadence. Lucian in De Mercede Conductis offers an overview of paras itic life in which he includes the stages of life, which were described in th e above three Satires of Juvenal as well. The introduction of foreigners in Rome, as pres ented by Umbricius in Sa tire 3 along with the expectations of the client, then the real life the client leads an d finally his departure from the circle of respectful individuals are all given in that admonitory treatise. In De Parasito he gives the client the opportunity to present his own viewpoint on the subject. What are Lucians intentions and expectations, though? De parasito and the way Simon presents himself may provoke laughter; they may also sadden the read er if he considers th e clients level of degradation. The work may even be considered to be in agreement with Juvenal's Satire 9 where the parasite has lost control. But even then Simo n, Lucians parasite, is portrayed as being by far


62 more literate than Juvenals in that in Luci an Simon employs the motif of Platonic dialogue and uses philosophic notions in order to express himself and clarify his situation. On the contrary, Naevolus in Juvenal is portrayed only as a perv ert. Therefore, although up to a certain extent Lucian and Juvenal seem to be in agreement, there are fundamental underlying discrepancies. For Lucian it is clear that even a parasite, wh en he is Greek, deserves better treatment than a Roman. One of the participants in De parasito is obviously a parasite. The latters intention is to prove that being a parasite requires skill and a form of knowledge, just like being an orator, a musician or an architect. By fo llowing the Socratic method Lucian shows that being a parasite is a skill52. What does he manage to do, though, and what his intentions are? Actually, he achieves two goals; he puts philosophy and Platonic and Socr atic ideals on a different context. He shows how one can employ them for the purposes of pa rodying and also of ev en proving an almost absurd conviction. On the other hand, he still implicitly parodies and reprimands parasites. In 2 the question that Tychiades asks Simon resembles the on e with which Juvenal started Satire 5. is in accord with Si te propositi nondum pudetut bona summa putes aliena vivere quadra (5.1-2). Although Juvenal does not expect any answer from his addressee and he co ntinues scolding him, Si mon in Lucian startles the reader by saying not at all. Lucian, therefor e, overturns the very beli ef about parasites from the beginning. Another difference between Juvenal s and Lucians attitude and handling of the subject comes with Tychiades, who seems to ha ve missed the point. He seems troubled not about the moral of a parasite but about how Simon should be formally addressed, or if 52 Bompaire (1958) 284; 609 discusses the similarities be tween this work and the Platonic dialogue, as well as common points of reference between the character of Simon and Socrates.


63 can be included in the list of arts and skill s. This question immediat ely clarifies Lucians intentions to play with the pa rasites and show that something, which according to some people is reproachable, for others can be regarded as a form of art; or more generally that there are always two sides of the same issue. At the same time however, he manages to satirize parasites by presenting them as accepting every reproach against them and even supporting it. In any case the real quality of the parasites lif e surfaces. In this work therefor e, Lucian explains what he is doing, the basis of his argument in De Mercede Conductis and that De Parasito functions as a meta-language. With regards to the rest of the aspects of parasitic life, Simon gives an overview of everything, providing explanations a nd offering details. The first is sue discussed is the definition of art. Simon says that it is a system of knowle dge which has been put into practice having as a purpose to be useful for life (4.1-3). Simon also sa ys that parasitic is a sk ill even more important and crucial for the sustainance of life itself. If the parasite does not practice it daily, he will die, contrary to those who pr actice other skills (6-19-20)53. Lucian even contradicts his previous self when Simon claims that para sitic is a skill, since in De Mercede Conductis as well as in Juvenals Satires the parasite is portrayed as a person of no skill who just lives off other people. In De Mercede Conductis Lucian tries to make Greek schol ars refrain from parasitic life, for they are endowed with othe r skills and qualities. In De Parasito he presents Simon as an unscrupulous person who does not wish to acquire a ny other skill; for him be ing a parasite fulfils the expectations he has from life. Naevolus is portrayed by Juvenal the same way. He does not show any remorse for the life he has led, only for th e fact that he is now deserted and penniless. 53 Simon, however, does not give the impression that he is the hungry parasite, although his intention is to earn what is important for his sustenance and does not seem to entertain higher hopes. In fact, nowhere is he presented as a beggar or being in a deplorable state.


64 Lucian is probably using the image of Naevolus and satirically creates a character who argues that being what he (and subsequent ly Naevolus) is, namely a parasite, can be considered a skill. The next part of the dialogue reminds us of the Satires on clients in Juvenal. The terms he uses to address Trebius in Satire 5 an d his relationship to the patron, are amicus and amicitia respectively. What Juvenal shows, however, is that Virro does not consider Trebius to be his friend and he attacks the kind of friendship that is developed between a patron and a client. Lucian, on the contrary, plays with the meaning of friendship and the relation between patron and client54. According to Simon, therefore, you have to be a close friend of someone in order to be invited to dine with him. Therefore parasiti c re enforces friendship. Lucian does not examine the quality of friendship in the depth Juvenal does. He also does not point that a patron invites friends for dinner and the paras ite just comes along. Juvenal empha sizes that when he says to Trebius that he is only invited because Virro does not want to l eave one couch empty. Lucian in De Parasito keeps mentioning the aspect of th e events that fits his argument. The question that rises at the end is what does Lucian bor row from Juvenal? One could argue that it is Juvenals indignation filtered through the playfulness and the amalgams of second century literature, along with th e abilities of Lucian, his educ ational background, and familiarity with both cultures that are finally channeled in to a new kind of literary production, fresh and full of material from a variety of sources. In my opinion, we should consider the idea that Lucians and Juvenals relation is not a matter of borrowing or imitating, but rather, as I argued in the beginning, it is a matter of conscious and inten tional dialogue, of lit erary correspondence on 54 The relation, if any, between friendship and client ship appears elsewhere in literature. In Antiphanes Twins (KA 80) the parasite claims that he does not wish any harm to his patron, for in such a case, he would miss his won daily food. / / / / /


65 behalf of Lucian. If we had not had Juvenal, th en Lucian would not have been so challenging and the other way around. One of the interesting aspects of this dialogue is that it de scribes and focuses on real life issues. Both authors, regardless of their bac kground and the way they ha ndle certain issues, are interested in and concerned about society. This is most probably a result of the historical and social circumstances of the time. In Juvenals time, there were not literary creations for the sake of literature. Juvenals writing is motivated by unworthy Roman emperors, exile, death and the degradation of the Roman ethics Lucian, on the other hand, is a part of an ecumenical society. The Roman Empire opened the borders not only ge ographically, but also so cially and literarily. People communicated more, and they shared mo re common experiences and consequently Romans and Greeks became more entangled w ith each other. There has always been a communication on a literary leve l between the two nations, but in this era, the relation between the captor and the captured brought them even closer. Th is is actually what Lucian shows. As the time passed several Roman emperors favored the Greeks, gave them a number of freedoms, and became possible for people from other nations to acquire Roman citizenship. Consequently, it came as a natural outcome that, at the time of Lucian, Greeks and Romans were not viewing each other as necessarily the enemy. At the same time, however, they never stopped considering one another as the other. This, I believe, woul d be the impression of either a Greek or of a Roman who reads Lucian. The conclusion that can be reached is that Lucian adds to second century literature. It has been noticed that other contemporary Gr eek authors are not in the least concerned with the Romans. Pausanias, for in stance, tries to keep in the shadows any contribution of Roman emperors to Greece. Luci an, on the contrary, manages to be realistic, keep his eyes open and finally be a child of this new era.


66 Lucian's Narrative Technique An interesting aspect of both Lucians and J uvenals works w hich affects the way we view them is their narrative technique. Who is the narr ator; is there a differe nce between the author and the narrator and how does the identity of the narrator affect the read ing? Also what are the differences, if any, between Lucians and Juvenals na rrative techniques? The dialogue between Lucian and Juvenal, their background, liter ary and historical, defines, along with the subject s they treat, the narrative te chniques they employ. On the one hand, the importance of oratory and the influence of the Second Sophistic pave the road which Lucian walks on. Lucian has obviously surpas sed the mere effort of several of his contemporaries to imitate or just criticize earlie r works of art or philosophy and rhetoric or to simply write a catalogue of myths, stories or info rmation about either the Greeks or the Romans. A mere dialogue, though, or a simple narration could not be enough to sa tiate his coveting for writing. This is why he employs diff erent literary genres and integrat es them in the context of his new literary creations. Therefore, not only he makes his works more interesting and alluring, but he also makes them more effective elevating at the same time the quality of literature of the Second Sophistic. In De Mercede Conductis the author is the narrative voice and he is using first person narration. The work is written in the form of a dialogue and the im aginary addressee is Timocles. This technique of the supposed dialogue where the author has the opportunity to lay out the outline of his thoughts and argue for his beliefs goes back to Hesiod. The Works and Days is an exact parallel where Hesiod addresses Perses and admonishes him on matters of agriculture and everyday life. Lucian admonishes Timocles about the dangers which lurk for a perspective client of a Roman patron. Hesiod sings of the Muses of Pi eria and they are the fi rst addressees in the


67 poem ( / 1-2). Lucian addresses friendship instead ( ). From then on the content of the work s appear to entertain the same notion. Both Hesiod and Lucian refer to the fate and life of men. Hesiod refers to different kinds of men and Lucian follows the same reasoning; he sepa rates people according to their relation to patronage. Both addressees, Timocles and Perses, a ppear after the first lines, and the first general outline of the subject and both authors promise to offer the best of their knowledge to their addressees. Juvenals approach is different. He does not promise to pass his knowledge on to Trebius and neither the context nor the style of the work is admonitory. Juvenal follows the traditional motif of Satire-writing. Lucian, on the other hand, approaches Timocles more efficiently and more leniently than Juvenal. Even the fact that Lucian imitates Hesiod shows his intention to proceed on and treat the matter in a different way than a traditional satirist would do. In all three works, however, the name of the addr essee does not appear until later. In neither case also do we hear the voice of the addressee. In Juvenal it is the author who makes assumptions about what Trebius and Virro may be thinking and attacks them on that basis as well and Lucian is clearly the narrative voice in his treatise. Juvenal does not include any specific referen ce to the time and the place where these dialogues might have occurred. Nothing more specific is either required or could add to the text itself. The author, although he does not set a place frame, clearly describes Rome and his contemporaries. The references in some of his Sa tires to real people may help in some cases the reader place the Satires in a speci fic historical context. With rega rds to Lucian, in almost all his works there are no specifications about the time or the place where the dialogues take place. In Menippus, for instance, it is necessary for the author to establish a place frame; to describe the setting in order to involve the audience in the work and make th em participate up to a certain


68 extent. In most of his philosophical works, howev er, it is not necessary for him to specify the time or the place55. In De Mercede Conductis his intention is to admonish his audience and possibly attack the Romans. The place wher e the supposed dialogue takes place could be anywhere and the same is true about the time and any other indicati on would not change the audiences perception. In De parasito the dialogue could have taken place anywhere and at any time. When the dialogue begins we do not know the names of the participants either. Just like in drama, however, we learn the names when one charac ter addresses the othe r. Lucian introduces Tychiades and Simon in the same way. This makes the work more intera ctive and easy for an audience to follow. It is also convenient sin ce there are only two characters who need to be introduced. Hence, Lucian is closer to drama and its techniques than Juvenal is. The way the dialogue between Tychiades and Simon begins rende rs the work even live lier since it gives the impression that there has already been a discussion between those two and the audience just caught them in the middle. This format resembles Platonic dialogues as well56. Euthyphro, for instance, begins with Euthyphro ad dressing a question to Socrates as a part of an already started conversation. The same is true about Phaedon If the reader assumed that the dialogue just began, it would sound very abrupt. Juvenal does no t pay attention to the place and the dramatic techniques. His works are simply Satires with no aspiration to being "well performed". Considering also that the dialogues were not regularly performed, Lucian had to be very specific and careful not to conf use his audience, and also not to become boring and repetitive 55 For details on Lucians dramatic technique, the use of the dialogue and the way he introduces the characters in his works see Bellinger (1928). 56 On the Platonic motifs found in De Parasito see Anderson (1979). For Platonic motifs in the second century C.E. see de Lacy (1974). Cf. also Putnam (1909).


69 either. That is why he employs, among others, the technique of es trangement. He presents a new situation to his audience or a familiar one, but in a different context, and he catches their attention57. In the beginning of De Parasito Simon states that his art is that being a parasite. Lucian surprises the audience first by the open st atement of Simon and also by the fact that he casually uses philosophical notions, like art and philosophy, that have been under feverish discussion and consideration by his predecessors and his contemporaries as well, to prove his point, and he puts them on the mouth of a parasite Juvenal, on the other ha nd, did not have to or was not interested in capturing the attention of the audience by means of literary motifs. He wishes to write Satire ( saturam scribere ) and his censure focuses more on social phenomena and everyday life, rather than in philosophy or on paragons of lite rature. Juvenal would like to change the attitude of his cont emporary Romans as well. Therefore, he needs to make his work easily perceptible to the majority of people and not only to an educated audience who can pick up literary allusions. As a matter of fact, Juvenal seems to be against all those pretentious literate people, and he wishes to see the Romans behavi ng like their ancestors and not like Greeks. It is reasonable therefore that his tec hniques should differ from those of Lucian. The main difference between De Parasito and Satire 5 is in the intentions of the authors, as I explained earlier. Juvenal wants to reform society. He does not want to be simply diagnostic, but rather curative. Lucian, on the other hand, does not aim to ach ieve any cure let alone any social cure58. Lucian presents different genres of people and along with employing literary motifs he comments on 57 The prologues in Dionysus Prometheus es in verbis and Zeuxis are representative examples of Lucians sophistic prologues, as they are described by Branham (1985). 58 Anderson (1982) 64 says that: Anyone who feels that it is a sophists obligation to be concerned for the human condition wholly misunderstands the sophists milieu. He argues that Lu cians intention was to combine literary traditions trying to bring them back to life and also to play with preachers themes in front of them.


70 both. Anderson notices that Lucian presents variations of hypocrites and pretenders59. A variation is the parasitic aspect of everything that Lucian outli nes. The whole reasoning which runs through De parasito is that the pursuer of any techn is actually a parasite. He claims that the purpose of every art is pleasantness ( ). What is the difference between epicureans and parasites then60? He also suggests that eating in the company of someone else is an expression of friendship. Why then are the parasites accused of frequenting in other peoples tables? Lucian turns things around, making the known, unknown and the familiar, odd. Juvenals variations of literary techniques may not be that rich, but his construction of the sentence is worth-noticing. The stru cture of the sentences is usually climactic and it increases the tension and gives emphasis to the point the author wants to make in each case. More specifically, in the first line Juvenal starts with si t ; he immediately specifies th at he is addressing someone else and that the Satire is going to be in the form of a dialogue. He refers to a plan and then he strikes the reader with the verb pudet The second half of the sent ence is a strong censure which concludes the address. Immediate sarcasm and attack against the parasites become obvious from the first two lines. Juvenal employs the same st ructure throughout the whole Satire. Line 38, for instance, starts with the subject of the sentence. Juvenal addresses Trebius again and then a series of adjectives and nouns follow while the reader waits for the aut hor's point. Juvenal concludes on line 39, in a completely balanced verse. He st rikes the reader again and he becomes cruel towards Trebius when he explains that the prev iously described extraordinary cup is the one which Virro uses. Trebius, on the contrary is no t trusted with any golden cup. The status of the 59 Anderson ibid. 66 60 This is an example of Lucians t echnique of turning things around and presenting them completely different. Anderson (1979) 63 calls it a normal topos of the


71 client is clearly stated even through the word order. Virro is directly compared to tibi (Trebius); the former holds the cup (tenet ), while the latter is not entrusted with one ( non committitur ). Virro tenet phialas: tibi non commititur aurum His criticism also becomes blatant in lines 120f. where he attacks societys pretension. He says that if Trebius had three na mes, or if he happened to have four hundred thousand sesterces, then he would have become Virros friend. This concluding sentence bears the burden of Juvenals inclement criticism. The first half of line 134 starts with from being nothing (ex nihilo ) and the sentence closes with the word friend ( amicus) The contrast between the two words and the fact that in a sentence Trebius became from nothing a friend show the satiric aspect of Juvenal and his ability to mo ck both patron and client in a sentence. Ex nihilo, quantus fieres Virronis amicus Juvenals intentions are to describe two aspects of Roman life. He does that by choosing and portraying representatives, one is wealthy, wh ile the other comes from a lower social rank. The structure of the Satire is circular. The fi rst and the last sentence constitute one whole. Juvenal says to Trebius: If you are not ashame d of your plan and this is your mind, you are worthy of such a feast and of such a friend (l.1; 173). The genera l meaning of the two sentences could well refer to Virro himself. As it will be presented through the Satire, Virro is the opposite of a noble Roman citizen. Therefore, if th is is the mode of life he desires to pursue, treating people, like Trebius, with disrespect and isolating himself fr om any true and honest friendship, then Trebius, the parasite, is the kind of friend that Virro deserves to have. Another important aspect of Juvenals techni que, which is also related closely to the message he intends to send to his readers, is th e way he incorporates in the Satires theatrical elements. He actually engages in Greek tragic motifs in a way that makes his audience wonder about his intentions. He accuses the Greeks, on the one hand, of having transgressed into every


72 aspect of Roman life, while, on the other hand, he employs a Greek literary motif. He attacks actors and their effeminate way of life and he us es them as an example of degradation, after having already connected their lifes tyle to the Greeks. His Satires work also as a meta-language. By that I mean that, when Juvenal uses tragic to ne to talk about aspects of Roman life, he makes his audience wonder if he is att acking the genre of tragedy, or if Satire, as a literary genre, undermines its own foundations61. Conclusion All the m aterial discussed above contributes to the mysterious and elus ive nature of Lucian and his works. Does he set himself against the Ro mans and completely in favor of the Greeks, or does he implicitly criticize both nations. By employing the platonic dialogue and distancing himself from the immediate scenery in De Parasito, for instance, Lucian as an individual seems to be neutral. It becomes clear, however, that he is answering intentionally Juvenal. The similarities in the phases of a parasites life, the way both aut hors handle the phenomenon of the Greek clients at the houses of wealthy Romans, and the degradation at the twilight of their career and life cannot be coincidental. The way also Lucian seems to be answering Juvenals accusations against the Greeks as well as the motif of which first appears in Satire 5 and then in Lucians De Mercede Conductis cannot but be consci ous choices on behalf of the latter. Taking the aforementioned into consid eration and Lucians literary persona, namely the way he employs Greek and Roman motifs, vices, philosophies, we may conclude that he is in touch with his era and shows an exceptional familiarity with the ever changing society and reality under the Roman reign. He is open to ne w interpretations and opinions on the different nations that this Empire consists of and this is reinforced if we have in mind that Lucian himself 61 For more details on the theatrical aspect of Juvenal see Keane (2003); Smith (1985); Freudenderg (1993), 227-28.


73 is of Syrian origin and still wr ites in Greek and almost about everyone. The rest of literary maneuvers render his works more generic, they di stract the audience up to a certain extent from the harsh critic, without, though, al lowing them to miss the point.


74 CHAPTER 3 LUCIAN'S VS. AULUS GELLIUS' 2ND C. E. L ITERARY AND SOCIAL REALITIES Introduction First and second century C.E. were a tr ansitional period in m any different ways, historically, socially and liter arily, for both Romans and Greeks. In Chapter 2 through the comparison of Lucian and Juvenal my intenti on was to show that Lucian was consciously answering Juvenals accusations ag ainst the Greeks and also that the former was consciously and intentionally commenting on Juvenals portrayal of the Romans. Juvenals Satires also and several of Lucians works photograph the relation be tween Greeks and Romans as it is shaped in the first and second century C.E. Greeks have acquired at the time positions in the Roman official hierarchy and are thus becoming a co mponent of the Roman society. Consequently, Greek and Roman cultures seem to communicate, although it has been argued that the two nations have never actually come to terms or considered each other equal. Therefore, Roman ambiguities and self-questioning, a lthough Romans were the rulers, and their tendency to cling to their past, appear in both Juvenal1 and also in other later Roman au thors, as I intend to show in this chapter basing my discussion on Lucian's prolaliae Anacharsis, Toxaris and Scytha and certain articles from Gellius Noctes Atticae A comparison between Lucian and Gellius is also intriguing in that, although at the time there is no Greek nation in the st rict political sense, it seems that Greek authors, like Pausanias, refute in their works the subjugation of the Greeks to the Romans. Longus in Daphnis and Chloe still uses the term implying the existence of a Greek nation and Chariton definitely promotes hellenismos and Greek paideia Language has also appropriate d a more substantial role 1 In several of Juvenals Satires an attachment to the past and also cauterizing of his contemporaries blemishes is obvious. He is railing against newly rich people, Romans who do not honor their ancestry, Romans who behave like Greeks.


75 in the realm of politics. Greek philosophers inf iltrate the Roman echelons by teaching Greek to Romans. Hence, ideas and issues of language and identity figure prom inently in the above authors and it is interesting to note how literature has become a mouthpiece of political propaganda and a "place" where identities are mo dulated. In this chapter, therefore, I will examine how literary and ethnic identity is constr ucted in the works of Lucian and Gellius and how each ethnic group perceives the other in th e conglomerate that constitutes the Roman Empire. Gellius, like Lucian, is an example of a second century author who wrote a collection of short works on a variety of topics. The content of Gellius works, his intentions and his opinions about the Romans, so well mirrored in the Attic Nights could be representing those of his contemporaries. The fact also that Lucian a ppears as a spokesperson for the Greeks and for other non-Roman nations as well makes a comparis on between the two author s really attractive. A reading of the two authors raises questions which concern mainly the position of the Romans and their relation to the Greeks a nd vice versa, as well as both na tions relation to other nations. These, it seems to me, are the points around whic h Gellius literary activity and several of Lucians works concentrate on and by which they are affected. This thesis about Gellius can be even more compelling and worth examining if we consider another contemporary author, Apuleius. The Florida resembles the works of both the af orementioned authors only in form, while there is chaotic difference between its conten t and character and Gellius style. Nowhere in Florida do we find stories about Roma n history or morality. Apulei us writes about sophists and philosophers, about strange stories and few gene ral statements about morality in official hierarchy. Lucian and Apuleius, on the other hand, seem to shar e in some respects the same inquisitive and playful spirit, which represents the attitude of the era, the character of the Second


76 Sophistic and also shows the liberality of the spirit of nations other than the Roman2. The Second Sophistic ideal appears al so strongly in Apuleius Apology and certainly in the Metamorphoses In neither of the two works does Apuleius seem concerned with the preservation of the past. Therefore, although his intentions are very different than those of Lucian, they both seem to have embraced the calling of their times in di fferent ways, contrary to Gellius. In this chapter I intend to compare and cont rast Lucian and Gellius having as a background and backbone the social and histor ical circumstances of the peri od and also try to provide an explanation for the style and cont ent of their works, examine how far their literary activity was affected by the reality they were experienci ng, and how this appears throughout their works. Lucian, as I tried to show in Chapter 2, is evid ently a product of the se cond century multicultural society. He is socially aware and acute in his observations and he is also interested in the coexistence of nations and cultures in the Roman Empire, avoiding th at way the obsession with the past. Gellius literary producti on, on the contrary, creates the impre ssion that his intention or his anxiety is to revive the Latin la nguage and preserve the Roman hist ory and also to go back to his sources, in other words to his literary predecessors3. Furthermore, the intere st of the Romans to establish a self is evident th rough a number of Gellius articl es. Lucians works and how they relate to Gellius Noctes Atticae may shed some light to this as pect of the second century, since it is mainly the aforementioned parameters, as I will try to show, that shape them. 2 On the Second Sophistic see Bowersock (1969); Bowersock (ed.) (1974); Bowie (1982); Nesselrath (1990); Whitmarsh (2001), (2005). On Apuleius see Sandy (1997), Harrison (2000), Kahane and Laird (eds.) (2001). On the Florida see Lee (2005). 3 On the importance of language for the Romans in the second century C.E. see Veyne (1979); Dubuisson (1981a), (1981b), (1982); Desbordes (1991). On the bearing that linguistics had at the time cf. also Lucian Lis Consonantium For some of Gellius linguistic discussions see NA 1.10; 2.3, 4, 6, 19; 3.14. Language seems to have been of great concern at that time since we also have lexica for instance Polluxs, Onomasticon which indicates a more extended interest in linguistic matters and archaisms for th e Attic dialect was the one praised and prescribed.


77 Lucian and Gellius in a Greco -Roman Context. In this section I discuss briefly Lucian and Gelliu s in a social context so as to get a better understanding of the content and st yle of the two authors works. This way I intend also to point out the importance of a comparis on between the two authors as a pi cture of the social structures in the second century4. This discussion will also probably give us a glimpse into Lucians and Gellius personalities, since, although they live in the same time period, they have different reactions to the events they experience. By this time the Roman Empire has been ar ound so long that one w ould reasonably assume that the Romans must have been enjoying the ruling position and the control they had over most nations. It is crucial th erefore to consider first the levels in which the Romans were affecting their subjects. By that time they have probably made the latter feel part of the Roman Empire, not merely their subjects, and by honoring foreigne rs with Roman citizenship and also by giving them offices in the public domain, they make them feel that they belong, while at the same time they diminish considerably the possibility of an overturn of the Roman authority. What about the literary and artistic aspect of the other nations however? With regards to Greece, it has been argued that it was Graecia capta that actually conquered the Ro mans, just as it had been doing all along with every nation that she had encounter ed. Apollodorus of Tarsus designed the Forum of Trajan in a Hellenized style and Hadrian was famous for his hellenophilia5. It is also worth mentioning that we have Roman authors writing in Greek. Their readers could well have been 4 For an overview of Lucians and Gellius era with in formation on other contemporary authors and the literary dialogue between Greeks and Romans see Lightfoot (2000). See also Kraus (2000) for a brief overview of the evolution of Latin Literature from the time of Augustus to Hadrian, how and why Roman writers turned to declamations, oratory and finally compilations. 5 The erection of the temple of Amor and Roma in Greek style as well as the establishment of the Panhellenion for the support and propagation of Cla ssical Greek civilization through his own worship are two characteristic indications of Hadrians love for Greece. On Hadrian an d his attitude towards Romans and Greeks see Spawforth and Walker (1985) 78-104; (1986) 88-105; Clinton (1989); Swain (1996) 75; Boatwright (2000); Romeo (2002) 2140.


78 educated Greeks who would want to familiarize themselves with Roman customs and lifestyle6. It is a fact, however, that the Romans have also affected other cultures artistically. We find both in Greece and in Asia Minor, for instance, constr uctions, like bath complexes and amphitheaters which are Roman inventions. This means that not only did people begin to incorporate new buildings in their lives, but that they are also incorporating new lifestyles7. This fact can effectively suggest that after th e centuries of subjugation there has been a closer communication between those nations under the Roman reign and people have started adapting into the new way of life. On a literary level this may explain why Greek authors write about Romans, like Dionysius of Halicarnassus, who wrote the Antiquitates Romanae8. On the other hand, we have authors who represent another group of people and still seem to feel defensive against the Romans. They want to emphasize and imprint on pe oples minds that it is the Greeks who need to protect their past and their literary achievements and that, whatever the Romans may have added, either artistically or ar chitecturally to Greek culture, it cannot compare to what earlier Greeks have accomplished9. One of them is Pausanias, who writes his Graeciae Descriptio and 6 Suetonius 7 In fact in Asia Minor Italian architecture was adopted bu t most often than not it was incorporated in the Eastern lifestyle and well-rooted Hellenistic stylistic inclina tions. Amphitheaters and arcaded aqueducts were the only buildings that were introduced almost unchanged in the Eastern part of the Empire. See Waelkens (1987), (1989); Ward-Perkins (1981) passim. A presentation of this intercultural exchange can be found in Hoff and Rotroff (eds.) (1997); Ostenfeld (ed.) (2002). A study also on the evolution and progress of the Syrian countryside in the 2ndB.C.3rd A.D in the area of building constructions and also organization of the cities which carry the signature of the Romans see Tate (1997). 8 Lightfoot (2000) 264 argues that it was more comforting for the Greeks to idealize the Romans for it would be easier to bear the burden of servitude if the ruler wa s worthy. See Swain (1996) 66-100 who argues that Greeks never actually denied their identity. Their past was acc omodated instead in the Greco-Roman present. Gruen (1990) 158 ff. presents as an example of this relation between Romans and Greeks the story about the relation between Numa Pompilius and Pythagoras. Gruen elaborates on who wanted to relate them and why some Romans were arguing against it; also, what this behavior of Romans indicate about their self-esteem and their respect towards the Greeks. 9 It has also been asserted that Greek literature and more specifically Greek novels of the 2nd and 3rd centuries C.E. have elements which strongly indicate Roman influence. On that see Lalanne (2002).


79 very rarely does he mention the Romans, but more often than not writes as if they do not exist in the Greek context in which he plac es his work. With regards to Latin literature, the Romans have already left behind their Golden Age, but they still have satirical wri tings, novels, as well as compilations, like Apuleius Florida, Plinys Historia Naturalis or Gellius Noctes Atticae. Many scholars have argued that th e Romans at that time do not ha ve anything valuable to show, with regards to literature. Except for a few excepti ons, Roman authors try to organize their past and their memories and also to show continu ity through their writings. That could indicate an attempt on their behalf to establish themselves in this multinational society, especially considering that they still do not feel secure when compared to the Greeks. The Roman Empire, however, was not just so much a multinational entity, but a multicultural society as well; ever y nation has had its own histor y and literary activity, although the two ruling cultures, the Greek s and the Romans seem to be monopolizing in several cases the scene. The importance of that reali zation is that we get an overview of the situati on and we are in a position to be more objective sinc e we hear different sides of the same story in several authors. Literary works of that period can be compared to a puzzle; each piece gives information and the result is a picture of the Greco-Roman culture of the second century C.E. What about the other nations then? What is their relation to the Romans and Greeks as it appears through literatur e? Lucian is both a foreigner a nd becomes also a voice for other foreigners. He is from Samo sata and he obviously has a ve ry well founded Greek literary background. He is very knowledgeable as c oncerns both Greek and Roman practices and lifestyle. Although under the Roman reign, Lucians li terary identity lays securely in the Greek and Syrian past. He does not have linguistic boundaries and he is not restricted or conservative either socially, or literarily. He is honest abou t his nationality, when he says that he is an


80 (As)Syrian, but this does not pr event him from viewing things from other peoples aspect, or from writing in a language that is not his native. Lucians character may also be an indication that Eastern nations feel more familiar with th e Greeks, perhaps due to the long lasting Greek literary activity. We should not forget also that the Eastern part of the Roman Empire had a Greek past. The Seleucids and the Antigonids rule d there before the Romans and they obviously left their mark, especially if we consider Lucians case10. What would be the place then of a Greek a nd a Roman respectively at the time; and how one can explain Lucians writing and Gellius work s? This can definitely be a complicated question. It has to do, among other things, historical and social, with sophists and rhetors and their position in the Roman Empire11. Lucian starts as an orator and this explains a lot of his works, the way they are arranged, as well as the figurative motifs he employs12. It does not restrict him, however, from pointing out or fr om commenting on Roman or Greek vices. He is also an acute observer of people in general. Probably his wide experience with different nations as well as the different kinds of positions he undertook exposed him to several nationalities and his ambition to excel cultivated his ability to familiarize and blend with 'the other'. The conclusions he reaches and presents to his audience is that people, regard less of their nationality, evolve similar tendencies and are prone to the same vices. When he is writing the Dialogi 10 Commagene must have been influenced by the Greek spirit and civilization. On that see Jones (1986) 6 and Swain (1996) 298-308. On the relation between language, culture an d political circumstances at the time of Lucian in Asia Minor, which shapes a background-basis for the literary activity of Lucian see Swain (1996) 44-51; 298-308. 11 See Bowersock (1969); Lightfoot (2000) 260 asserts that non-Romans who were in administrative positions and the Philhellene Romans could understand each other becaus e they aspired to a similar cultural ideal, that of polite learning or paideia. On the orators or, according to Philostratus, the sophists of the time see Philostratus, Vitae Sophistarum 537. 12 Most of Lucians works have rhetoric motifs and ma nnerisms to demonstrate. A characteristic example is Phalaris For his criticism, however, on contemporary rhetoric and its overtly and overly epideictic nature see Rhetorum Praeceptor On Lucian and rhetoric see Kennedy (1972) 585-90; (1994) 233; Anderson (2007) 343-7, 349-53.


81 Mortuorum although he is employing Greek names a nd the Greek gods, nowhere does he show that it is only the Greeks who are to be blamed fo r being arrogant or gluttonous. On the contrary, the fact that he has already di scussed and cauterized similar repr ehensible characteristics of the Romans in other works, proves that up to a ce rtain extent he is be yond national boundaries and beyond petty criticism directed agai nst a very specific group. He seem s to have risen to the needs of the new society and to have produced wo rks for everyone to r ead and profit from. Gellius proves to be more restricted and na rrowly minded. By that I do not mean to say that he does not make any reference to the Gr eeks, or to other nations. The way, however, he writes and the content of his work show that he views the Romans as the main citizens of the Empire and the other nations, just as secondary s ubject nations that just complement the Romans. When we read Gellius we do not get the picture of the Lucianic ecumenical society. The reason for that, at least on a social and historical level, may be that Gellius does not have the opportunities in life that Lucian had. He is a Ro man citizen and he writes in Latin. He visits Athens of course, just like so many others have already done, but this does not mean that he manages to relate himself to the two societies an d picture himself as a citizen of the new world order. In the Praefatio he also states clearly that the only reason for the title Noctes Atticae is that he was collecting those stories while he was residing in Athens13. Prolaliae and Praefatio The m ost important part of any work, whether speech, novel, or admonitory treatise, is the introduction. It is the part where the author expl ains his purposes, either implicitly or explicitly, and he has an opportunity to attract the attenti on of his readers-audience. One can only imagine 13 Vardi (1993) argues that the title says more than the place where the work wa s written. In fact, he says, it may not even mean that the work was literally written in Athens. He rather suggests that the title denotes the vigils of the learned individual and his relation to Athens, the cradle of education and civilization. Cf. also Stevenson (2004) 125-6; Holford-Strevens (2003) 27; for prologue techni ques which include the one Gellius is employing here see Janson (1964) 97-8, 147-8.


82 how important an introduction must have been at the time of Lucian for those orators who wanted to have an audience, or for those who pa rticipated in embassies to Roman emperors, they fought for popularity, and sometimes even coveted a position in the Roman o fficial hierarchy. It is also important to remember that Lucian belo ngs to the period of the so called Second Sophistic and this also affects his writings. Gellius, on the other hand, belongs, as it was mentioned before, to a generation of compilers who do not seem to be concerned with literary contribution. In this section, I discuss Lucians prolaliae as they appear in Herodotus Heracles Bacchus De Dipsadibus and Electrum14 and compare them to Gellius praefatio. Lucians prolaliae focus on his reception by the audience. He employs rhetorical, s ophistical and also exclusively Lucianic motifs in order to familiari ze his audience with his techniques, as well as with his nationality. What is more the technique of estrangement renders him not only a very intriguing orator, but also an accomplished author who is never detached from the reality of everyday life. Gellius, although seemingly not interested in attracting an audience, he still employs in the praefatio rhetoric and sophistic motifs, but he never reaches Lucian's level of maturity and dexterity. I argue also that Gellius complete neglect of the sophists and perhaps the fact that there has not been any generation or group of Roman sophists prevent him from being as literarily manipulative and diplomatic as Lucian is. Therefore, although they are writing at the same time and they are probably exposed to sim ilar experiences up to a certain extent, Lucian and Gellius seem to have diametrically different styles and intentions. In conclusion, I elaborate on the reasons why a Roman could be so constrained. Is it just indicat ion of insecurity and decline of the Roman literary production at the time and Gellius is a representative; or is it that 14 The first classification of sp ecific works of Lucian as prolaliae was made by Rothstein (1888), 116 ff. and Reardon (1971) 165. After that there has been a discussion on which works can be considered prolaliae; Somnium has caused a dissension in that it concludes with a moral message which does not remind us of Lucians prologues. On that issue see Bompaire (1958) 288, n.5; Anderson (1977) 314 n.5. On traditional techniques found in Lucians prologues, and especially that of es trangement, see also Branham (1985).


83 Gellius is trying to imitate Roman or Greek predecessors and contemporaries who wrote the same kind of compilation, namely Apollodorus, Plutar ch or Apuleius, but he just did not achieve to live up to their level of dexterity? A unique characteristic of Lucians prolaliae is that they indicate th at Lucian is very selfconscious of the nature of his works and of his differences with other orators, both personal and auctorial. These may either render him special among his contemporaries or make him feel that he does not belong, according to how he handles and promotes them and also how they are treated by his audience. He is also obviously aw are of the difficulty of some people to accept foreigners and since he is visiti ng both Athens and Rome, he intends to show his audience that he is different, but that does not make him any less accomplished; on the contrary it makes his contribution and his work worth-noticing15. Therefore, he clearly st rives to prepare the grounds for his acceptance16. The first prolalia Bacchus reveals a lot about Lucians literary and perhaps his historical personality as well. He introduces and expands the technique of estrangement17. In the very first sentence he talks about Dionys us, who was a new god for the Greeks and he was not received easily, and about an Indian nation. Between the two, Dionysus and the Indians, the former, although a foreign god, is probably more familiar to the audience. However, Lucian 15 Another reference to the importance of his rhetorical qualities and on how he could that way gain a place in Rome by impressing with his knowledge and dexterity is also Peregr 19. See also Jones (198 6) 159 Greek culture expressed the cohesion of the educated elite of the Empire; and for those not born into that elite, like Lucian and certain of the sophists, it offered unimagined avenues to social and economic advancement. 16 Philostratus also has included in hi s work introductory speeches. Nesselra th (1990) 113 points out that even Apuleius Florida can be considered prolaliae or excerpts from them; He also points out some basic differences between Lucians introductory works and those of Dio and Apuleius (114). On other authors of the Second Sophistic and their prolaliae see Stock (1911); Mras (1949). 17 Branham (1985) 241 ff. and Nesselrath (1990) 136 point out that Lucian in this prolalia presents everything from the Indians' point of view. That is why Dionysus is portrayed as a ridiculous figure. This reminds us also of Anacharsis, through the eyes of whom we are invited by Lucian to consider the Greek practice of athletics. We may also recall Toxaris where Lucian, especially at the beginning, describes the Greeks through the eyes of the newcomer young Scythian. Hence, the technique of estrangement, as described by Branham, applies also to the presentation of the foreigners and their place in Lucian and in the second century society for that matter. I will discuss this aspect of Lucians work later in the chapter.


84 turns the situation upside down, when he make s the Indians treat the god humorously by not paying attention to him or to his military powers. Lucian at this point shows flexibility and bends the criteria according to which one may consid er something familiar or strange. The Indians obviously have their own beliefs about what is st range and what is not and these are different from that of the Romans or the Greeks. Lu cian also immediately points the crucial characteristic of the relation between Dionysus and the Indians, and that is contempt ( 1). So far he has not disguised his f eelings or his fears about his reception. The next part of this prolalia is a lengthy description of Di onysus and his entourage. Lucian follows a long lasting tradition abou t the portrayal of Dionysus. The poi nt he is trying to make is that the image of Dionysus that is being wors hipped by Greeks and Romans seems contemptible to the Indians. Lucian shows therefore people's inability at first to vi ew things from other perspectives as well. He also says that the Indians do not even bother to fight against Dionysus and his army. The result, however, is not favorable for the Indians, as one might have expected ( .. ,4). Finally, Lucian concludes with the worshipping of Dionysus by the Indians. The closing message is a clear wa rning for his audience about his prospective contributions and against being so hasty as to reje ct him. He says that if people make a mistake, they blame drunkenness; but if they create something, they consider Silenos to be propitious ( ,8).


85 Lucian clearly wants his reader to identify him with Dionysus. He is recruiting traditional and stereotypical motifs about gods and nations that Greeks and Romans at first considered strange. To his audience Lucian w ith all the eccentric descriptions, and stories, and even the fact that he is Syrian appears like a new Dionysus18. It is not the first tim e that Lucian discusses issues pertaining to nationality. In De Mercede Conductis he makes fun of the client saying that he is not respected even by the slav e who is not even Greek or free, but he is of Scythian origin. It cannot escape the readers atte ntion that he plays with the orig ins of people, as well as with their conceptions and misconceptions. It is al so worth noticing how co mfortable he is with people of various ethnicities, and how the world is perceived by him as a big society. This is something that we do not find anywhere in Gellius a nd that it could be used as an argument that the Romans feel less at ease in this new society, in the Empire they created and, clinging to their past, they pretend that other nations are just fo reigners with no beari ng in the Roman life and reality. Lucian could be hinting at this idea when he says, referring to the Indians, or to nations which are afraid to move on and familiarize themselves with a new order of things This statement could definitely apply to what Gellius and his contemporaries do. Lucian retains the same tone in Herodotus19. He claims that the historian, although he visited foreign places, was accepted and praised; th ese cities were willing to receive someone from a different background and even compli ment his work. Lucian makes a point of emphasizing the nationality of Herodotus and of the ci ties that he is visiti ng, so that he himself 18 Lucians self-consciousness and dexterity can be also seen by the fact that there is a discussion between his works. In the prolaliae he implicitly compares himself to foreigners and in other works he openly admits that he is a barbarian.For his self-presentation as barbarian cf. also Bis Accusatus 14, 27, 34; Scythian 9; Fisherman 19. 19 On this prolaliae and especially on the place where Lucian perfor med see Hall (1981) 457; J ones (1986) 11 n.25.


86 may also win a benevolent hearing from hi s audience, although he is Syrian ( ,1; .2) It is obvious, at least so far as Lucian is concerned, that there were ethnicity related issues at the time in the Roman Empire which brings us to the realization that Lucian may be parodying, cauterizing, and em ploying uncommon techniques to make his point, but he is nonetheless concerned with serious social phenomena. Therefore, one should not underestimate the depth and the seriousness of his worries concerning his reception. One should also notice that Lucian menti ons a number of sophists in Herodotus claiming that they were accepted by their audience, while he make s sure to mention their nationality ( < > ). Although the work is at least seem ingly about Herodotus, Lucian notes that sophists were not that diffe rent in all aspects from travelli ng historians or logographers. One should also notice that he feels close to the sophists consider ing that he has already ranked himself among them. He does not however stay there; he brings as an example Aetion who, by means of his art, achieved a very profitable wedding20. Could Lucian be also thinking about climbing socially? In fact he accepted an official position and then he wrote the Apologia for De Mercede Conductis claiming that his situati on is not comparable to cl ientship. From what we can gather, we see that Lucian is very well aware of social hierarchy and the role of people in it. 20 Nesselrath (1990) 117-122 discusses Herodotus and the inclusion of Aetion in the scene, about which he argues that Lucian intended to emphasize his rhetorical abilities which managed to bring a work of art in front of the eyes of his audience (120). Nesselrath 120 n.17 also provides bibliographical references about the influence of this work of art in Renaissance paintings.


87 He is conscious of hindrances, like his nationality, but he is cons ciously trying to overcome that with the help of his art. Not onl y, therefore, is he well adjusted in the new Roman Empire, but he is also one of the most competent and efficient people in this, overwhelm ingly for some, massive society. In Zeuxis or Antiochus he refers to the new informa tion he intends to introduce his audience to. He also employs as examples of eccentricity a Greek painter and a Macedonian general ( ...3;...8). He is trying to persuade his audience to look beyond his eccentric ways and into his artistry, while all along he keeps mentioning strange events and stories. He writes about Zeuxis female Centaur ( 3) and about the way Antiochus won because the Galatians had ne ver seen an elephant before and they were scared away ( ... ,10). In other words, he admits that both Zeuxis and Antiochus achieved wh at they wanted, but they were nevertheless concerned that their merit was not valued. Lucian claims that this is not something he wishes to experience. Is he really being hone st or is he toying with his r eaders imagination and investing on them being intrigued? There is no way to pr ove where truth stops and lies begin with sophists of either the First or the Second Sophistic or even with orators. Nonetheless, Lucian is evidently preparing the ground for his favorable reception by emphasizing on the fact that Zeuxis is a very


88 accomplished painter ( ...3.17). Lucian does not put himself down; even his comparisons are meant to elevate him. He has followed the same reasoning in Herodotus Both Herodotus and Aetion are admittedly accomplished. Everything so far reinforces the belief that Lucian has great confidence in himself and his abilities and he is not afraid to say so and pursue daring undertakings. The next prolalia to be discussed is De Dipsadibus21. Having prepared the ground for his works, Lucian openly says that he is going to be the water for his audience. He is an essential source of education due to his literary creati ons, and rhetorical accomplishments. The reference to the spring, the torrent of words, should not escape our attention. The comparison of Homer to a spring, from which all later authors drank make the selection of by Lucian probably not coincidental. In this last prolalia Lucian practices all th e techniques for which he has prepared his audience in the aforementi oned introductory speeches. He starts with the technique of estrangement, the story about the Li byans and a very dangerous species of snakes. Afterwards he relates it to himself in a smart, rhetorical and most of all unexpected way. He may even hope that his audience will be pleased, but they will also not underestimate or overlook the quality of his writings, being absorbed by his strange story ( ... ,12). We certainly cannot dismiss the possibility that he hopes to win them over by the estrangement itself. 21 Nesselrath (1990) 122-5 discusses the sources for De Dipsadibus and Lucians debt to Herodotus and probably Pliny.


89 The last introductory work is Electrum where Lucian as a true orator and sophist employs the famous technique of captatio benevolentiae He informs his audien ce that there are many authors who promise exquisite things and they end up disappointing their readers ( 6.21); there are others who are indeed very unique ( ,6.28 30), but Lucian says that his audience should not expect too much from him and then feel frustrated ( ...6.31 2; ,,6.3 5). It should also be noticed that in the first part the author includes an extens ive literary and possibly social criticism. When he ta lks about the authors who promise Heridanus, amber and singing swans as the followers of Apollo, he is probabl y targeting fiction literature, which sometimes poses as historiography, and he castigates this tendency in De Historia Scribendis as well as in Vera Historia while he also attempts to show disappr oval of those people who are not moderate in their way of life, and their promises to others. As a matter of fact several of his works are against immoderate tendencies, or excessive cr iticisms against one nation or another. Lucian always tries to keep the balance and even when it seems that he has lost meaning, he does that only in order to parody, or teach by example. Even, for instance, in De Mercede Conductis he not only reprimands the Roman patron, but he gives a fair share of the fault to the Greek client as well, as I discussed in Chapter 2. His works on foreign nations, namely Anacharsis, Scytha and Toxaris, which will be discussed later in this chapte r, are evidence of his ability to judge, be


90 moderate and always try to put himself in someon e elses position and in that case in the place of the audience. With regards to Gellius, the first thing we notice is that he wrote a Praefatio which shows that he is employing the techniques of the orators of the period in that he wishes to capture the audiences captatio benevolentiae Except for the beginning of the introduction which was discussed above, Gellius wishes to have a favorable reception, just like Lucian does. Therefore, he starts from the title of his work, claiming that it is not so creative, un like other authors. Does he really believe that? As a matte r of fact, when someone reads the title of the work, he does not really know what to expect. The t itle, therefore, seems to be more creative than Gellius gives it credit for. He also acknowledges that other author s found intelligent titles for their works, but he is not one of them ( eo titulos quoque ad eam sententia m exquisitissimos indiderunt 1); his style may even seem rustic ( Nos vero, ut captus noster est, incuri ose et inmeditate ac prope etiam subrustice 1). We cannot help but wonder if Gellius here is being honest and he has realized his limitations, or if he is employing a sophistic motif when he does not prepare the audience for much so that they will be positively surprised when they hear what he has to say. He may be a real sophist at this point, considering that he goes on to say that he is aware of his limitations, something which is a very traditional rhetorical way by which to gain the readers benevolence ( Nos vero, ut captus noster est, incuriose et immeditate ac prope etiam subrustice. Praef 10)22. The fact is that here, although Gellius has not used a fancy title for his work, the title still does not prepare the reader for what he is about to read. It is a title which can certainly trick, something which Apuleius Florida does not do23. As a matter of fact, some of the works he 22 Cf. also Pliny, NH pr. 13-6. 23 See also Holford-Strevens (2003) 37f.


91 mentions, have less imaginative titles, like Antiquarum Lectionum Memoriales or even ( Praef 6, 8)24. From the very beginning we notice that he decl ares openly that his work is not a literary contribution. Although the beginning of the line is lost, the surviving text begins with Gellius saying that there are other more entertaining wr itings that can be found and recreate his children ( iucundiora alia reperiri que unt, ad hoc ut liberis quoque meis partae istiusmodi remissiones essent, quando animus eorum interstitione aliqua negotiorum data laxari indulgerique potuisset). He would not have used iucundiora however, if he did not consider his own work to be iucundus as well. The similarity of this st atement to Lucians introduction of the Verae Historiae is striking. Lucian says 1 2. It is worth noticing, however, that Lucian is still being more rhetorical and sophistic than Gellius. He supports his stat ement by following a climactic argumentation. He says that just like athletes need a recess, the sa me way a person of letters needs a relaxation from his mental work. Lucian obviously considers le arning process to be one which takes up your whole time and it can be compared, with regard s to the strenuousness, to any physical work. Gellius, on the other hand, probably displaying a mo re practical Roman nature that favors the negotium instead of the otium claims that these kinds of writ ings are used as a respite from physical and real work. This difference in the theses of the two authors may from the very beginning indicate the difference between an orat or and sophist from an educated Roman, who 24 See Gunderson (2009) 18-51 for a discussion of Gellius' praefatio where the author argues that Gellius' title is not as simplistic he proclaims and that as a matter of fact Gellius "by explicitly bringing up the question of the title, Gellius ensures the conjoint having and eating of the Honeycomb and the Bountiful Harvest That is, he can give all these titles to his work and none of them to it."


92 although he may have dedicated his life to letters and writing, he still considers them to be a secondary pursuit. It does not seem inexplicable, however, if we consider th e fact that the Golden period for Roman letters came to an end a while ago, in the age of Nero. Gellius, no matter how important his compilation may be, he still cannot be considered a literary contri butor. Another important aspect which is hidden behind the introductory sentences of Lucian and Gellius is the literary criticism. Both of them acknowledge that there are different liter ary genres and not only that, but they also rank their works in the entertaining, the narratol ogical genre. Without examining at this point, if they believe that or if they just wish to appeal to the interest of their audience, it is important to emphasize the fact that by that time, authors were conscious of others and consequently self-conscious as well. It is not something that you find in authors of the Classical period; in fact it is only in Aristophanes Frogs that we have the first sample of literary criticism in the judgment of Euripides and Sophocle s, but certainly not to the degree that we see in Gellius and Lucian. Furthermore, Gellius literary technique involves not only numerous literary criticisms, but it also works as meta-language. He is not only discussing about other works, but he also provides criticisms about hi s own work, when, for instance, he says that he found the title working in a rustic fashion ( subrustice Praef 10). Gellius emphasizes also that his material is rela ted to learning and subsequently it is useful. He does not, at least in the preface, make any clai ms that he is going to discuss any social or practical issues. Considering that one can argue that Gellius is not socially sensitive and acute like Lucian. Romans at the time seem to be more inte rested in establishing a literary self, than in either creating something new or addressing social issues. This doe s to mean, however, that their works do not have political bearings, as I will try to show later in the chapter.


93 Another characteristic which differentiates Luci an from Gellius is the way in which each one talks about authors of other nationalities. As it was discussed above, Lucian is open to new ideas and he also goes as far as to compare hi mself to Herodotus, or even Zeuxis, people of different nationalities. Gellius does not appear to be so open-minded. Instead he says that, although the Greeks have already written some co mpilations, they did not make any selection; they just wrote about anything that came into th eir way. Thus, their works cannot be as useful as his25. A question that arises is why Gellius criticiz es the Greeks. It could be because there have been well-known Greek authors, like Athenaeus, Plutarch or Apollodorus who have followed the same path in their literary creations; therefore, it is only reasonable that he compares himself to them. Why then does he not make any reference to Apuleius? Is it because, although he was from Africa, he wrote in Latin, or because Gell ius feels threatened only by the Greeks? Whatever the reason may be, we notice that Gellius work is placed in a bicultural environment, where a Roman is conscious of the Greeks, their produ ction and their comparab ility with the Romans; one cannot help but read also a degree of negativity targeti ng non Romans and it becomes more revealing if we consider that it appears in the introduction of the work, and in one of the few places where Gellius expresses his own opinion. In most of the narrations, he does not offer his own view, except for the occasional admission that a story seems strange even to him26. With regards to the intentions of the two author s and what they claim that their intention is, Lucian never openly admits what he wishes to achieve. That would actually oppose the techniques and reasoning of a representative of the Second Sophistic. The fact remains, however, that Lucian intrigues his audience and that the latt er need to be educated and sharp in judgment 25 Cf. Pliny 5.20.4 Est plerisque Graecorum, ut illi, pro copia volubilitas: tam longas tamque frigidas perihodos uno spiritu quasi torrente contorquent 26 Stevenson (2004) 139-41 discusses the way Gellius distan ces himself from taking a position either by declaring that he is unfit to express a view, or by hiding behind other authorships.


94 in order to follow his argumentation or even pe rceive the message and un derstand his intentions. Gellius, on the contrary, openly emphasizes his in tention to alert the minds of his readers and stimulate their interests ( ingenia prompta expeditaque ad ho nestae eruditionis cupidinem utiliumque atrium contemplationem celeri facilique compendio ducerent Praef 12). So, although, in the beginning of the introduction he claimed that his work was to meant to be a remission for the mind, he now says that he actu ally wishes to influence people mentally and, considering the content of his wo rks, he intends to put his sign ature in various aspects of his contemporaries lives, namely the ones pertaining to religion, archaisms, Roman history, even their attitude towards non-Roman nations27. The point in the introduction where Gellius is clos e to Lucian is when he warns his readers not to skip his writings because they might fi nd some obscure material. Both Lucian and Gellius are afraid that something may repel their readers. Lucian is worried about the fact that he is a foreigner and that he employs eccentric techniqu es, and Gellius because some of his topics are difficult to comprehend ( quod erunt autem in his commentar iis pauca quaedam scrupulosa et anxia, vel ex grammatica vel ex dialectica vel etiam ex geometrica, quodque erunt item paucula remotiora super augurio iure et pontifico, non opor tet ea defugere, quasi aut cognitu non utilia aut perceptu difficilia Praef 13). Another Lucianic motif presents itself when Gellius says that some of the things that he talks about may seem to his readers new or uncommon ( nova ignotaque. Praef 16). Later on he talks once more on the same subject, emphasizing the obscurity of some of the topics and how they are to be treated by the readers ( quae autem parum plana videbuntur aut minus plena instructaque, petimus, inquam, ut ea non docendi magis quam 27 See Holford-Strevens (2003) 37f. on the proclamations of Gellius regarding the educational ambitions he entertains for his work. Gellius intentions abide by the in terests of his time, meaning that grammar and linguistics defined, according to the second century archaists, th e Roman elite. See Gleason ( 1995) 167; Swain (1996) 64; McNelis (2007) 292. An example from Gellius is NA 17.6 which is about the setting of social boundaries and even the position and power of women in society based on the use of language.


95 admonendi gratia scripta existiment. Praef 17). This is a striking similarity to Lucians prolaliae even verbally. He extends the same request as Lucian, to his readers that they should not be ready to judge him negatively or dismiss what he has to say only because it sounds strange to them. The only difference from Lucian here is that Gellius is concerned only with the reception of the works, while Lucian makes sure th at he emphasizes his nationality as well. What is also worth mentioning is that Gellius concerns pertain to th e study of oratory. He wishes to stimulate his readers minds, to make it more vigorous, their memo ry trustworthy, their eloquence more effective, and their diction purer, or the pleasures of their hours of leisure and recreation more refined ( ad alendum stadium vescae vel ad oblectandum fovendumque animum frigidae, sed eius seminis ge nerisque sint ex quo facile adolescent aut ingenia hominum vegetiora aut memoria28 adminiculatior auto ratio sollertior29 aut sermo incorruptior aut delectatio in otio at que in ludo liberalior Praef 16)30. Therefore, Gellius not only wishes to leave something for his children to benefit from; in fact, he wishes to have a larger audience and also to be appreciated. He is more rhetorical here contrary to what he let the readers believe in the beginning of the praefatio It is only reasonable at the ti me to have Roman citizens trying to 28 In 5.3 Gellius refers once more the role of memory. Cf. also Quintilian Instit 1 pr. 26, 1.3.; Cicero DeOratore 1.18, 157; 2.299-300, 350-60; 3.230. 29 Cf. also Cicero De Oratore 2.108, 132. 30 Gellius dedicated several of his writings to oratory. He seems more interested in Cato, Gaius Gracchus and Cicero. He even has citations to Catos Origines (3.7.19). He favors the thesis that Roman oratory is a sign of Roman excellence which can distinguish Ro man citizens socially and he seems al so that he uses rhetoric, grammar and linguistics as a means of a dividing line between Romans and the other nations. McNelis (2007) 293 argues on the contrary that: The correlation between power and language must also be viewed in light of Romes growing dominance over the Mediterranean. Clarke (1996) 130-8 claims that the Antonine age was not distinguished for its achievements in oratory. It was only Fronto who has something to demonstrate, but still So Fronto has much to say about style, and little about the matter of orat ory. For more references to oratory cf. NA 6.3.52,53; 10.3.16,13.25; 10.3.1; 1.5.2-3; 19.14.1; 3.1;2.7; See also Holford-Strevens (1988) 142-65; (2003) 290-4; Kennedy (1994) passim; Dominic and Hall (eds.) 2007 passim; Morgan (2004) argues that Gellius references to rhetoric are part of the educational goals that he has for his work, All these st ories act protreptically, to show why oratory is worthstudying. Gunderson (2000) 127-31; 140-1 has also discussed the power of rhetoric as a performance and as a way to measure masculinity, which emphasizes more Gellius obsession with language and public conduct. For a history of paideia and its relation to grammar, rhetoric and language see Morgan (1998).


96 make a lasting and broad impression on their au dience. Orators from other places swarm around Roman emperors, others acquire Roman citizenshi p, are awarded with offices, and they achieve all that by means of their impre ssionable tactics and the compositi on and delivery of speeches. It is only expectable from Gellius to look forward to this kind of recognition. His emphasis also on religious and moral matters, as it is presented la ter in the chapter, denotes his intention to contribute to the survival of the Roman history and culture. Th is can only be achieved if one is heard and read not only by hi s close family members. The way Lucian and Gellius handle paradoxographi c literature is also up to a certain point the same. This is why one may argue that Gellius, although he is not an orator and he does not have an audience to persuade, is employing rhetor ical techniques. They are both worried that in case something seems unfamiliar to their audience, they are bound to be rejected. Lucian, as more competent, and smarter in ha ndling these kinds of situations, invents the stories he narrates in his prolaliae and the message he sends is that he is not to be dismissed; he ventures, on the contrary, to teach people how to look further than what is in front of their eyes. Gellius, on the other hand, is less adventurous and does not usually surprise the re aders. He admits that some of the topics he has included in his works may be obscure, but people should not be afraid and quick in their judgment. Nowhere do we see the flexibility, the re sourcefulness or the manoeuvres that Lucian is employing when he wraps his audience around his finger. Gellius is straightforward, and someone might say quite unimagin ative. Is it because he is not interested in tricking his readers, or in anything other than ed ucation? The truth is th at we cannot be certain. The fact, however, that he claims in the praefatio that he wants his writings to motivate his readers into more profound knowledge and help th em develop a more astute memory and clear eloquence, denotes that he has in mind more than he lets us believe at the beginning; but he is


97 probably just not as adept as Lucia n. This may have to do with the f act that Lucian tried to gain a position in society and an office in Roman bureaucracy, which helped him develop dexterities in speech and persuasion that Gellius did not. What sets Gellius apart from sophists and orator s is that he encourages his readers not to censure him, in case they disapprove of or disagree with someth ing he says. He suggests instead that they criticize the sources from which he drew his material. It is not a standard motif for any author, of either poetry or prose, to accept openly that he is not the mind behind his writings and it is definitely not characteristic of Second Sophis tic authors to either imitate, or, if they do, to admit it openly. Gellius, on the other hand, accepts the possibility that someone may disagree with him, but he states that he does not intend to oppose him ( Quae vero putaverint reprehendenda, his, si audebunt, succenseant, unde ea nos accepimus ; Praef 18). He also quotes other authors in order to serve hi s intentions, but he is not so competent in incorporating them into his work cleverly. At the end of his praefatio he simply quotes a few verses from Aristophanes Frogs in order to show that his writings are intended for educated people and not for the uninitiated mob ( atque etiam, quo sit quorundam male doctorum hominum scaevitas et invidentia irritatior, mutuabor ex Aristophane choro anapaesta paucaneve adeat profestum et profanum vulgus. Praef 20-1)31. The conclusion from the above comparison of Lucian and Gellius is that the latter compiles information, writes his own encyclopaedia, but his ulterior motive is to send messages pertaining to social and moral in tegrity, as well as linguistic, edu cational and religiously related 31 Both Holford-Strevens (2003) 125 and Swain (2004) 30 have pointed Gellius choice to quote Aristophanes and have related that to the tendency of the second century educated Roman to belong in the group of the educated, which had as a prerequisite the familiarity with both Latin and Greek. Therefore, in one quotation Gellius provides a clear vignette of the spirit of his times. On bilingualism see also Horsfall (1979) 79-95; Dubuisson (1981a) 274-86; Adams (2003). On the language, the style and Atticism at the time see Swain (1996) 17-42; on Gellius language and style see Holford-Strevens (2003) 48-64.


98 issues. He wishes his descendants to be in a position to know how the Romans spoke, how they acted and how moral they were. In other words, Gellius wishes his books to create a long lasting, written social and educational history for the Romans32. Lucian is more socially aware and active. He is not, or at least he does not, seem concerned about the past. He is aware of the present and he is criticizing, or trying to improve, or laughing at the present and his contemporaries, the Greeks, the Romans, the Scyt hians, the citizens of the Roman Empire. Who are the Foreigners After All? Another aspect of Lucians writings which can easily be overlooked since the author seem s almost to keep it well disguised is his thesis on the other nations, other than the Greeks and the Romans. He does not have a separate treatise on the Syrians for instance, but his presentations of them in several dialogues are always in relation to the Greeks or the Romans. He is well aware of the fact, and he has also proved th at there is an interaction between everyone in th e boundaries of the Empire and up to a degree there is a familiarization33. It may not always be easily discernible, or people might not be willing to admit it, but Lucian has seen it happening. This is one of the reasons why one shoul d try to examine his world vi ew at this point. His works Toxaris34, Scytha and Anacharsis as well as numerous references to foreigners in the houses of Romans, show different attitu des, and social stereotypes35. Toxaris36 is a dialogue between 32 Polymatheia is a crucial aspect of 2nd century society, both Greek and Roman; it was a prerequisite and a privilege for the elite and a way for Roman citizens, with the broader sense of the word citizen, to distinguish themselves in the new society. It is not only Gellius who focuses on that. Strabo also emphasizes the utility of his geography for men of status and high offices and on how important education and erudition are ( ). 33 See Jones (1986) 1589 on Lucians perception of society. No doubt like most authors he did not aim to reach a single audience only; he could hope that what pleased those who heard his recitals would also please those who read his works in Gaul or Commagene (159). 34 For a discussion on Toxaris pertaining to Lucian narrative techniques see Anderson (1976) 12-23 35 On these three works and also on Dio of Prusa's consideration of the foreigners, the barbarians see also Gangloff (2007). She does not, however, discuss or relate these three Lucianic dialogues with his persona, his place in the society and she does not suggest what they may tell us about the social circumstances at the time.


99 Mnesippus, a Greek, and Toxaris, a Scythian. Lucian starts the dialogue addressing religion, an undeniably sensitive issue which is, however, th e core of ancient communities. Mnesippus is being critical about the worshi pping of Orestes and Pylades ( ; 1.1-2) and Toxaris explains that they are not being worshipped as deities, but as praiseworthy individuals ( 1.3-4). The question that Mnesippus poses next could be considered critical on behalf of Lucian as regards the Greeks. He asks why should the Scythians try to appease and win the favor of Orestes and Pylades since they are not deities and they are already dead ( ; 1.8-9). We should notice the different ideas concerning religi on described here, as well as the do ut des nature of the Greeks and the more unselfish nature of the Scythi ans. Mnesippus then s lightly derides the latter for honoring someone who has slighted them and ridiculed their king, by taking Iphigeneia, the statue of Artemis and by assassinating their king ( 2.14-5). This is the point where Lucian not only shows that nations consider thi ngs differently, but he also sugge sts that except for the Greeks who have appropriated self-righteou sness and the Romans who claim that they set the record of morality, there are other nations in the Roman Em pire who have high, even if diffe rent, moral 36 For a discussion on Toxaris pertaining to Lucian narrative techniques see Anderson (1976) 12-23

PAGE 100

100 standards37. The point, however, is not who is right and who is wrong; it is ra ther the realization of the variety of opinions. Lucian puts his social experience into words and suggests communication between the nations. Another aspect of the dialogue in need of consideration is the linguistic part. Lucian employs the stereotypical word when he refers to Scythians. First, when Toxaris explains the reasons for honoring Orestes and Pyla des he says that they are respected for not being afraid to explore plac es which were thought to be inhabited by wild nations ( ,, 3.268). The phrase though, coming from Toxaris show s a self-realization on behalf of the Scythians and Lucians acu te observation with regards to society and its attitude, or may be its immaturity, regarding the unknown. Later on Toxaris calls his nation barbarians. The opposition between the expression we the barbarians and the fact that Scythians are presented as being more grateful to their deities than othe rs, clearly displays Lucians thesis, and it should have been a wake-up call for his audience as well. Lucian therefore through Toxaris openly berates those who still cling to outdated stereoty pes and are thus prevented from getting in touch with 2nd century reality and consequently from relaxing their defenses against foreign nations38. 37 Bompaire (1958) 685 points out that Lucian contradicts the preconceived inferiority of the Scythians when, for instance, in Toxaris "mais le fait d' envoyer Lonkhats en ambassadeur pur rgler prcisment une affaire de pacage et la brigandage(49) es t encore une trouvaille." 38 It is important in order to set Lucian in a specific context to understand if the Greek element has blended with the foreign and how this infiltrates even imaginary narratives of the period. On the fusion of civilizations and the degree of acceptance as can be seen in different authors of this time frame, other than Lucian regarding religion cf. also Plutarch, Isis and Osiris 67 where he says that gods are for all nations the same, but they are just being called by different names. See also Momigliano (1980) on the relation between the Greeks and the barbarians in the Hellenistic period. The presentation of the self-consci ousness of the Greeks and their role in the Easter Mediterranean at the time may shed some light on the feel ings of Greeks towards the barbarians and consequently towards the stereotypes that Lucian is mockingly employing in these works. Th e author also argues that earlier the

PAGE 101

101 The irony is double here since Toxaris, the litera ry personality, is Scyt hian, and Lucian, the author, is Syrian. We should not fail to notice also that Lucian was walking on a thin line considering that he wanted, on the one hand, to be well-received by his audience, but he ran the danger of insulting some of them or walking on grounds that some people were probably not ready to handle at the time. Later in the dialogue Mnesippus launches an impugnation that targets the Scythian's culture. He says that although th e Scythians are considered dexter ous archers, it s eems that they are also very accomplished speakers. Mnesippus' entire argumentation is clearly founded on stereotypes. He appears to be suspicious and intransigently judgmental when it comes to the Scythians and their lifestyle. Toxaris, on the cont rary, is portrayed as free of standardized ideas and as being eager to explain that it does not matter if someone is Greek or Scythian as long as he displays arrant conduct. , , (5) It is difficult not to noti ce the way Lucian portrays Toxaris, danger of the imminent Roman occupa tion brought the Greeks and the others closer. He also gives an account, which sets the foundation for Lucians era, of the change in these relations that was taking place after the Roman conquest.

PAGE 102

102 the maturity of his rationale, th e degree of self-consciousness as well as the irony of the use of the word by the person who displays the aforementioned qualities. Even after Toxaris has delivered that speech, Mnesippus seems unable to comprehend how the Scythians can be so different than what he had expected. In what c ould be considered an insult therefore, he expresses his astonishment at the Scythian's eloquence, for, as he says, the latter are only considered dexterous archers. (8) He also says that the Scythian s were thought to be wild and inhospitable, and that the Greeks believe those who claim that Scythians cannot be fr iends and that they also eat their fathers when they die. (8) Lucian could be referring here to Herodotus, Pli ny, Ctesias, or even Gellius and their accounts of strange stories about foreign nations He also displays how easy it is to misinterpret someone if you do not get the chance, or if you refuse the opportunity to get to know them. The end of the dialogue seems to have the place of a sphragis or a parabasis in Old Comedy where Lucian demolishes centuries of stereotypes. Mnesippus suggests that they should forget their first agreement about losing an arm or an eye, if they lose the competition, a nd Toxaris agrees. They both agree to be friends and they declare their satisfaction at ha ving a friend, even if he is in Greece or Scythia respectively. Mnesippus is the one who closes the dialogue by saying that he

PAGE 103

103 will not be afraid to venture fu rther in the world so long as he knows that he has friends like Toxaris. , (63) Lucian shows that a moral thesis is honored outside of national boundar ies, and that even the Greek, who was defensive towards the Scythian at first, has accepted the latter's acculturation. Mnesippus now considers Toxaris on an equal basis, he countermands his earlier questioning of the latter's and the Scythian cultu re and realizes that they may not be that different, or that being different is not necessarily bad after all. Lucian aspires at two results: the first has to do with the amelioration of the inte rcultural relations in the Roman Empire and the other concerns his career as an orator; he is ambitious and he wi shes to climb the hierarchical ladder in the Roman Empire. Theref ore he strives for a meritocratic valuation of his abilities and he implicitly, through the characters in his works, declares that he does not want to be just the outsider-foreigner, but the Syrian individual who can be accepted for what he is, without being defined by social stereotypes39. With regards to Scytha Lucian seems to move furthe r into the berating of social stereotypes. Contrary to the e xpectation that the title may raise to the reader, Lucian does not alienate the Scythians from the re st of the Empire by narrating some strange event that took place amidst them, or a peculiar ritual that they are accustomed to pe rform. He presents instead the view of a Scythian who is visiting Athens40. Lucian portrays Anacharsis and his first impression 39 See Jones (1986) 1589 on Lucian's perception of society. "No doubt like most authors he did not aim to reach a single audience only; he could hope that what pleased those who heard his recitals would also please those who read his works in Gaul or Commagene." (159) 40 Bompaire (1958) 221-35 also says that Lucian presents the world from a different point of view ("on trouvera encore dans l' Hermotimos une parabole audacieuse, o le monde est vu du point de vue des ngres", 232). He makes sure to note, however, that "Barbare ou hellnique, le cadre gographique est conventionnel" (234). Even

PAGE 104

104 of Athens and something that may remain unnoticed is that Lucian give s the view of a person who considers Greek the unfamiliar for him ( , 3.21 23; 4.23-4). Anacharsis, like Toxaris in the homonym ous work, is very open-minded, maybe more than a Greek or a Roman would have been in his place. The former, although amazed even at the attire of the Athenians, is willing to become acquainted with what he considers to be a civilization and a city worthy of admiration ( 4.19-21). Everything seems ambiguous at first, the clothes, the way the Athenians wear their hair ( , 3.3-5), so much that Anacharsis plans on returning to Scythia. Lucian at this point launches a rather acrimonious attack against the Greeks employing a social stereotype when Anacharsis describes Toxaris as being 41. What is important is that Lucian here puts the Greeks on the opposite side on the side of the one who is being judged; and since there are several stereotypes ta rgetting foreign nations, Lucian makes a strong point when he says that in this case it is a Scythian who finds the Gr eeks outlandish. Anacharsis emphasizes also the feminine aspect of the Athenians for he focuses on the fact that the Greeks do not carry any kind though Bompaire notices a conventional note in Lucian, the unconventional employment of common motifs cannot be denied. 41 The most frequent use of the word bears the definition of talkative. Cf. for instance Ar. Ach 4.29; Pl. Erx 397d. In AP 9.39 has the meaning of nonsense.

PAGE 105

105 of armor ( 3). Up to this point Lucian draws a dividing line between Athenians and Scythians by presenting one throug h the eyes of the other. The next thing that he mentions, however, is meant to demo lish the barrier; he says that the two Scythians c onverse in their native language ( 4.1). The whole scene is the technique of estrangement in reverse. The event takes place in Athens, but the interlocutors are not natives. The environment for both of them used to be or is still unfam iliar. At the end of the work, however, even Anacharsis seems to be accustomed to his new life ( 8.28, 7-9). Lucian has captured in written form the idea of his century, namely cultural fusion. There are many nations which interact and it is more realistic when you try to assess this era to take this into consideration. Lucian also obviously believes that there has been communication and familiarization between the nations in the Roman Empire. It is reasonable that cultures are not the same and need not be assimilated; they need, though, to co-exist. Contrary to what other authors claim, contrary to the dissensions between Greeks and Romans, Lucian shows that people should be open to this society and, without forgetting their identity (Toxaris recognizes Anach arsis as a Scythian, 3.28-9, and converses with him in their native language), they need to learn more about different civilizations42. The degree of difference therefore, according to Lucian, has either decreased or he simply admonishes his contemporaries to handle their differences in a way befitting citizens of a multinational society and not of rustic, city-state like nations. Lucian then turns his attention to 42 An example of Lucians loyalty to his identity is in De Dea Syria where he writes in ionic dialect, but he does not completely disregard the traditional identity of the goddess and the characteristics of her local worship.

PAGE 106

106 himself. He uses first person na rration and says that he should not be disavowed on account of his appearance and his resemblance to a king ( 9.9-10). He acknowledges his ethnic alter ity as well as his discomposure regarding his reception by the Greco-Roman community and thus he invites to as certain that he is an integral part of their world. The connecting line between Lucian and his character, Anacharsis is unequivocal. They are both foreigners, but they are willing to fit in the new society. Athens has clearly inculcated Greek-ness into Anacharsis and he now fits in his adopted land and Lucian demonstrates his adeptness and desire to do so as well. He even plays with the word 43. In a work against social stereotypes, Lucian uses one over and ove r again so that he can teach by example. He approaches the Greeks, not by opposing them, but by embracing some of their views. The end of Scytha is an amazing display of Lucian s dexterity as he emphasizes his importance as an orator, while we should not fail to notice the simultaneous realization of the role of public speeches. He points out the importance of be ing a good public speaker and he concludes by saying that anyone who has influential friends like Alcibiades will be able to sail quietly in life ( 11.4-6). The point he probably makes here is the essentiality of his position and his abilities. He is an orator and that means that he can win over an audience. In the second century C.E. the relation of the provinces with the empe rors rendered abilities like that invaluable. Hence, Lucian, on the one hand, presents himself as trying to capture the audiences good will, while, on the other hand, he emphasizes the significance of his rhetorical efficacy. 43 Scytha 3.19; 8.28; 9.10.

PAGE 107

107 Another image of the relation between the Greeks and a foreign nation is also found in Anacharsis. Solon, the Athenian law-giver, and Anachar sis, the Scythian, are the interlocutors. The conclusion, however, that their discussion reaches is different than the one in Scytha. Although in the latter we notice th e willingness of the Scythian to be syncretized with the Greek customs, even a degree of awe in front of the Greeks, in Anacharsis the Scythian displays disavowal of the Athenian lifestyle and he states that he cannot comprehend the essentiality of gymnastics. What is the conclusion that Lucian wishes his audience to reach? One could argue that the author contradicts in a way Scytha and his previous thesis a bout the ability of different nations to come close. Anacharsis, however, can also be viewed as a statement in favor of what, in my opinion, Lucian has been advocating all along. Nowhere does he show that people should forget their identities and become fused with either the Greeks or the Romans. On the contrary, in Scytha Anacharsis admits openly his identity and origin and still wishes to learn more about the Greeks. In the same work Toxaris also, as it was mentioned previously, converses with Anacharsis in their native language. Anacharsis therefore comes to complement the idea of interaction between the nations in the Roman Empire and also advocate the preservation of everyones identity. That way he can also anticipate possible objections to what could be considered by some people in his audience a promotion of ethnic miscegenation. The first aspect of the dialogue is Anacharsis' request to get specifi c answers about certain aspects of Greek culture, namely athletics and theater. This detailed discussion complements Scytha where Anacharsis appears as an apprentice of Solon and seems to be willing to accept everything uncritically, only on the basis that it is Greek and therefore praiseworthy. As a matter of fact, Toxaris in the same work is portrayed as being utterly he llenized as he even looks Greek. Lucian in Scytha shows the evolution of Anacharsis. He may very well be making the point that

PAGE 108

108 people are open to change, they can also adopt characteristic s of different nations, but beyond that it is just a matter of any i ndividual to decide where he bel ongs and to dismiss any elements which do not express his individual ity or his national identity, as he perceives it. Anacharsis at the end of the dialogue with Solon is still intransigently critical towards Atheni an lifestyle and he goes as far as to impugn their decency. It is also im portant to notice that Lu cian chooses to relate athletics and theater to the social st ereotype of masculinity and bravery44. This is another deprecation of society's tendency to create social stereotypes and interpret behaviors on that basis. More specifically, Anacharsis watches young Athenians practice and wrestle and he wonders what is the point of that and why they would need to fight lie in the sand, or even apply oil on their bodies and how all that may benefit themselves or their city ( ... 1.1-4; 1.7-8; 1.13-16). Solon who is called to initiate the Scythian into the me ntality of the Athenian s explains that young men practice in order to be healthy a nd ready to fight in case of war and discard the fear of pain ( 44 Cf. Ungefehr-Kortus (1996), 211-17. See also Marrou (1948) 201-204 for a discussion on how Lucian presents a foreigner who questions the importance of athletics and the acuteness of his critique if one considers the relation between the notion of hellenismos and hellenic identity and athletics. Gangloff (2007) 83 "C'est une remise en question srieuse d'un element important de l'hellnisme traditionnel, par un regard tranger."

PAGE 109

109 15.25 28; 15.2-4). He also explains that oil can help the growth of their bodies. The Scythian expresses his objections by saying that this is not a preparation for war and th at all these movements cannot be of any help in an actual battlefield. He also mocks trag edians and comedians of their attire ( , . 23.14-15; 1921) and claims that they could scare the enem y away faster than th e practiced, athletic young men ( , 31.5; 32.17-21). Another issue that is brought up is the prize fo r which men are competing for. The fact that Athenians fight for oil branches and celery is not met with enthusiasm by Anacharsis ( ; 16.9-11). On the contrary, he finds it ridiculous, although Solon emphasizes the Athenian ideal which pertains to the appraisa l of those attending the games. This is a strong

PAGE 110

110 argument in Lucians reasoning in that he does focus on the very heart of Athenian civilization and world view45. What someone may consider worth fighti ng for, or how a nation may praise its citizens, except for or in addition to prizes, relates to the peopl es perception of praise, of good and bad. Lucian makes that clear when Solon says that young athl etes fight for the admiration and praise of the attendees ( , 36.17-20). Solon does not fa il also to mention the Spartans, their vigorous training and that they even scourge young men in front of their mothers in order to toughen them ( , 38.22-27). Anacharsis concludes that he does not believe that this upbringing benefits either the citizens or the city itself ( 39.19-21) and Solon invites him to introduce him (Solon) into Scythian lifestyle the next day ( 40.5-8). 45 Bompaire (1958) 681 argues that "Anacharsis est un faux naif".

PAGE 111

111 The conclusion that one might reach after having read Scytha is that Lucian opts for communication and acceptance of "otherness", not for assimilation of ethnic identities46. People should be open-minded, but that does not necessarily mean that they have to fall for everything new or different. It also shows th at, in Lucians mind at least a nd the way he perceived society, people can communicate and exchange ideas. He also shows that not everything Gr eek is always the best for everyone. Even the so called barbar ians have their customs and manners and they can dismiss aspects of the Greek lifestyle, as much as the Greeks believe that they have the prerogative to do so. Furthermore, Lucian sugges ts a globalization of institutions when Solon says that Anacharsis can play the role of the member of the Areopagus ( , 19.12-14). He is allowed to question and doubt Solon. The fact is that only Athenian citizens could be me mbers of the Areopagus. The democratic institution of the Areopagus, however, can be adopted by anyone. Lucian could be advocating here once more that people in this open society should be free to choose between various ideas, institutions, and wa ys of living. Actually, Anacharsis, without having realized it, has been appealing to and practic ing this Greek institu tion in his discussion with Solon all along. Lucian is also so open as to compare the Spartans to the Athenians and to show that they are alike in many aspects. He brings the Greek nati on together and in a few lines he abolishes the severed bond which has been standing between the two city-states. Lucian can be a very good source for the way other nations were viewing Greeks and Romans. Of course Lucian is not what we woul d call the everyday average Syrian. He leaves his 46 Bompaire (1958) 681 suggests a 'fusion' of Anacharsis and Lucian "Mais il arrive que la creature s'anime et chappe son crateur: c'est le destin d' Anacharsis. Anachars is s'est impos a Lucien, et Lucien n'a pu se soustraire au pouvoir de son proper rve."

PAGE 112

112 hometown, travels and rises in the Roman echelon. What makes his opinion valuable, however, is that he never hides his identity; he openly admits that he is an (As)Sy rian. What makes him an important writer for the assessment of his time and a special individual also is that he has the lucidity to comment on current ev ents. Although he is part of th e second century re ality, he does not fail to be critical, and to pick up the social pulse47. Latinitas in Gellius This generation of com pilers, or the so calle d archaists, does not openly express views on current social and historical circumstances48. Varros Antiquitates Romanae, Plinys Historia Naturalis Gellius Noctes Atticae focus on the Roman past, or on events that they believe are worth writing about and preservi ng for future generations. Could anyone claim, however, that there is such a literary work which is completely a-political? Since every author is living in a particular historical period, he is bound to be in fluenced by current conditions and thus give a vignette of his times either explicitly or as a background to his work. It is only reasonable therefore that all these shape his character and then show up in his work. The authors that decided not to create anything new, but to compile, make a specific political statement; that they feel in a specific way about the society and the er a they live in and therefore, they either do not 47 In order to get a clearer picture of what Hellenismos meant at the time and the distinction between Greeks and foreigners, one should look into other contemporary authors as well. For novelists of the Second Sophistic point of view on the Greeks and the barbarians, who can be considered Greek see Scobie (1975); Bowie (1991). See Plut. De Superstitione 166B. For Plutarch and the barbarians, the vocabul ary he employs, and his attitude towards the others see Schmidt (1999). Cf. also Xenophon Ephesius 1.5,7; Chariton II.5,11; VI,7,12; Dio Or.48.8,21.16,12.33. Bowie (1991) 195-201 asserts that Dio plays with the way he presents the difference between Greeks and barbarians according to the audience he expects to have. Even when, however, he does not use the straightforward verbal distinction, he still makes a play with the traditional elem ents of Greek education (195). Jones (1978) 126 calls Dio more mercurial than other authors as concerns his attitude towards Romans. On Dio see also Sidebottom (1996); Moles (1995); Gangloff (2007), 64-75. For the relation between Greeks and Romans see also Plutarch, Numa 1.3,4 on the relation between Numa Pompilius and Pythagoras. See also Swain (1990), (1996) 66-100 who argues that the Greeks were still differentiating themselves from other ethnicities.; Preston (2001); Titchener (2002), Castellani (2002); On Dionysius of Halicarnassus attitude towards Romans see Hartog (1991); Gabba (1991). 48 On the Roman Antiquarians, their topics, language, style and techniques see Stevenson (2004) 118-155.

PAGE 113

113 have anything to inspire them to create something ne w, or they feel that th ey have to protect their heritage49. It is usually in confusing or changing tim es that people feel threatened or unstable with regards to their environment that they deci de to turn to such kinds of literary genres. Considering the Roman Empire in the second ce ntury, the multicultural society that was created and the coming together of so many different ethnic, historic, social and cultural backgrounds may explain Gellius literary preferences. The strong social, historical and moral implications of Gellius works may elude the first time reader. The deceptive superficiality, the strange events that take place amidst barbarians or the story about Tarquinius and the old lady w ho was burning the books (1.19) may not strike someone as important. The point is that most probably Gellius narrated these stories in an attempt to create and stabilize a past for the Roman people. The fluidity of the times and the ever changing realities, along with the plethora of non-Roman newcomers, who eventually acquired the privilege of the Roman citizenship have probably made people like Gellius feel insecure50. Since the beginning of civilization nations coul d differentiate one another on the basis of language51. It is a common stereotype that Greeks called all others barbarians, of c ourse not with 49 It should be noted, however, that the Greek writers of the Second Sophistic displayed the same worry for the preservation of their past. The obsession with language, purity and return to Classical Greek are clear indications. On that see Swain (1996) 17-100. We can detect a form of the importance of language at the time even in Lucians Lis Consonantium His openness, however, to the new society and the fact that he was not a native Greek explain why this was not the sole subject matter of his work. What he does instead is that he presents different aspects of society, history and literature from several points of view. 50 Stevenson (2004) 155 points out as a conclusion to a chapter on Roman Antiquarian Tradition that: the second century seems to have witnessed a desire for self-identification, to set the present in its historical and cultural context. The impetus for this desire no doubt came largely from Hadrianic and Antonine policies of consolidation and unification. Cf. also Bowersock ( 1969) where he presents in detail the position of the sophists in the Roman Empire, their ambitions and how they ventured in achieving them, which could shed some light to Roman insecurity. On the definition and th e boundaries of the Roman nation which could also explain partly the attitude of the Romans and their insecurity cf. also Aelius Aristides, 61; Dio, Or 1.42. 51 Swain (2004) 30 says what emerges very strongly from Ge llius is a sense of the past as a repository of correct social behavior. What is new in Gellius is the convergen ce of this tradition with linguistic correctness and the bilingual/bicultural attitude s of Romans to Greece.

PAGE 114

114 the modern meaning of the word. In the second century C.E. however, Roman Empire is officially bilingual and there are people from the boundaries of the Empire, like Lucian, who are fluent in either or both Greek and Latin. Mytholo gy blends and there are also new religions that appear, like Christianity. The title of the Roman citizenship also granted everyone the opportunity to become an official in the Roma n Empire. One can only assume how Romans felt about this new world order. There has also been discussion about Gelliu s family and based on the fact that he has only nomen and praenomen it has been suggested th at his family must have its roots in the native Romans52. All the aforementioned create the picture of Gellius life and his experiences and that can provide a plausible expl anation as to the reasons why Gellius wrote the Noctes Atticae and also why his choice of topi cs cannot be considered haphazard. Several of his stories pertain to the Roman past one way or another. He has chapters on the morality of Roman generals and how they could not be corrupted, even when monetary gain was involved, or about hi storical events and the effective way Roman generals handled any situation. He even discusses several religion related issues The story of the sibyll ine books and Tarquinius cannot be considered random as well as the ch apters on pontifex maximus, the duties of the Vestals and the pomerium Lucian lives in the same time period, but he is on the opposite side. He is the foreigner who usurps the positions of Roman citizens. He is the one who threatens Gellius and his generation. Lucians attitude toward s the circumstances of his era is that he is explicitly and straightforwardly not passive. All his writings, his treatises, his satirical works, or even his dialogues are products of or about his time and his contemporaries. The difference between the two authors therefore is their r eaction to the new society. Lucian is writing about the present, 52 See Douglas (1958); Salway (1994); Holford-Strevens (2003) 11-2. See Kajanto (1982) 9, 19-20 for how the nomen and praenomen work for the Romans and what they mean.

PAGE 115

115 while Gellius concentrates on the past. Lucian, although he writes in Greek, most of the times he sounds like the third party. He is not afraid to point out vices either of the Greeks or of the Romans and he is not afraid to pr aise either of the two; it seems that both nations take a fair share in his social criticism. We should also notice that Lucian is more generic in some of his works. He castigates, for instance, the immorality of the wealthy, wit hout pointing the finger at any specific time period or nation. He is an astute observer of social realities and also an openminded individual, a product of second century r eality. His remarks on th e different ethnicities under the aegis of the Roman Empire, the degr ee of communication and influence and the attitude of people when they find themselves in a social boiler can be compared to modern theories on the communication between countries and how people respond to new realities. Where does Gellius stand with regards to Lucian though? He and Lucian are contemporaries, but we do not find in Gellius works what we find in Lucian; there is no vivacity, ingenuity or originality; what is more ther e is no comment, at least explicit one, on the period itself. Except for the relation between Romans and Greeks, which appears through several works as penetrating and coloring different aspects of the lives of the two nations, rarely do we read about other foreign nations blending together and shar ing ideas with the Romans. Is it happening and Gellius is simply ignoring it, or the society we read about in Lucian is just a fiction of the latters imagination, a description of a utopian society, as he believes it should be? It is important, however, to note at this point that the two auth ors do not differ that much in their choice of literary genre. They are both co mpilers in one way or another. They both write short works where they treat diffe rent topics, related to linguistic s, history, literary production, philosophers, Greeks and Romans. What sets them ap art is the way they present them, what they say, what they omit and what one can make out of the information that they decided not to

PAGE 116

116 discuss and their literary techniques as well. Lucians choice of works and topics shows that he is familiar with a variety of people and nations and also a very adept learne r of the Greek language. With regards to Gellius as a representative of his time and contemporary Romans, a popular opinion has been that Romans were never comfortable with the Greeks and there had never been a communication between the two; on the contrar y, the Greeks were for the Romans the other and vice-versa53. An important aspect of Gellius work which I intend to examine in this section and pertains to the psychology of the Romans at the time is the choice of subjects that Gellius handles and the topics on which he emphasizes54. I also try to provide a logical explanation for his attitude towards different nations something that may also shed a light to this aspect of the second century century as well. Gellius seems obsessed first of all with the Roman past; although he does not usually give a time frame within which his works can be plac ed, he always narrates a story of the past, a historical event which he read in some other authors book. He shows al so great interest in stories which evidently show how high Roman mora lity stands. This literary tendency reveals an aspect of the authors historical personality. It has been suggeste d, as I discussed above, that the Romans, feeling threatened in the new Empire, amidst so many different na tions and so close to the Greeks, turned to compilations in order to save pieces of their past an d establish their place in 53 For the attitude of the Greeks towards the Romans and their perception of themselves see Bowie (1970); Momigliano (1980), 11-33; Hartog (1991), Lvy (1991), Woolf (1994). For the Romans about the Greeks see Petrochilos (1974); Dubuisson (1991); Alcock (1993). For the communication of the two nations and cultures see Swain (1996); Walker and Cameron (eds.) (1989); Whitmarsh (2001); Ostenfeld (ed.) (2002). 54 Cf. Clemens of Alexandria, Strom 6.2.1. For a classification of the chapters in Noctes Atticae see Nettleship (1883), although I am not sure Roman antiquarians intended for their topics to be classified. See also Vardi (2004) 169-179. With regards to the haphazard order of Gellius material Morgan (2004) argues that it is within the boundaries of an ethicist and the fact that he intends his teachings not to be valid only within a restricted time frame clearly these texts do not work by tryi ng to provide exhaustively for the situations of all possible readersThey do not explicitly legislate for any particular community. If readers are to make se nse of the material, they must be bringing something to it themselves-identifying material and imposing an order which makes sense to them (2034).

PAGE 117

117 the map of the Roman Empire. It has also b een argued that they ha ve never felt really comfortable and confident and these compilations ar e an attempt to show that they are a wellrooted in the past nation with their own history and with many things to teach others. Gellius work comes to confirm these arguments. There ar e several stories about frugality and how it has been cherished by his ancestors55. There are stories about the objectivity of the Romans and how they were able to choose what would benefit their country more. For instance, we read the story of the poor Roman of humble birth, who after his services to the ci ty and his fervent attempts he managed to rise to the status of consul ( ut vulgo per vias urbis versiculi proscribentur: Concurrite omnes augures, haruspices/ Portentum inusitatum conflatum est recens;/ Nam mulas qui fricabat, consul factus est 15.4)56. Gellius shows that his predecessors were open to new ideas, and they were also very adept in the management of the nation. The question that rises, however, is if his contemporar ies did not have anything wort h-mentioning and that is why Gellius concentrates on the past or if he does th at only in order to enforce their nationalistic instincts. Whichever the answer may be the conclu sion we reach is that in Gellius work there is no second century reality; and even if there is, it lies in the ba ckground existing only in relation to and depending heavily on the pa st. It is indeed so overshadowe d that the reader easily forgets when Gellius is writing. There is also the possi bility that Gellius is writing for the future generations so that these events may never be forgotten. Even in that case, however, one cannot overlook that he skips his present as if he is not concerned about preser ving anything of his own socio-historical reality. Sometimes Gellius sounds like a Cato of the second century C.E. It is 55 See for instance 1.14; 2.24; 3.1; 11.2; 13.24; 15.12 56 The selection of topics regarding religion, morality, customs, and everyday life are common themes for the antiquarians. They satisfy both the need of the authors to pr eserve their past and also their intention to write a work replete with useful information for their contemporaries. Cf. Varro De Re Rustica 2.1.2 nemo enim omnia potest scire.

PAGE 118

118 hard therefore to find a connecting point betw een Gellius and Lucian. Although in the latters dialogues there is not an estab lished time-frame, it is clear th at he is talking about his contemporary world. For instance, in De Mercede Conductis he is writing about parasites in the houses of wealthy Romans and in Imagines he is praising the empero rs mistress. He is well adjusted in the present; his roots lie secure in his Syrian past, but he is no t afraid to venture into the present and explore it. More specifically, two aspects of Roman lif e on which Gellius concentrates are military attainments and everyday morality, the two pillars of Roman history. With regards to the first, the story in 3.8 about Quintus Caedicius is a striking and representative example of what Gellius believes about his ancestors, regarding their mora lity and their decency as soldiers. Although he rarely expresses an opinion about what he is narra ting, in that case he goes as far as to begin the story with the adjective pulchrum saying a glorious deed, goo d gods, worthy of the exalted diction of Greek eloquence ( Pulchrum, dii boni, facinus Graecarumque facundiarum magniloquentia condignum 3.7.1-2). The rest of the story is just a narration of the events that took place with occasional suppos ed direct quotations from the Roman tribune. This also comes in accordance with what I argued regarding the praefatio and the rhetorical tendencies that Gellius demonstrates, even if implicitly. The author is employing the technique of direct statements that can be more emotionally charged and can affect that way the Roman reader more than a third person narrative would. Furthermore, the way he is praising the tribune by comparing him to Leonidas the Spartan is also ingenuous. He starts smoothly by saying that your glory depends on where you come from and then he brings Leonidas forth as an example ( Leonides Laco, qui simile apud Thermopylas fecit, propter eius virtutes omnis Graecia gloriam atque gratiam praecipuam claritudinis inclitissimae decoravere monumentis: signis, statuis,

PAGE 119

119 elogiis, historiis aliis que rebus gratissimum id eius factum habuere; ). We read in 2.11 another similar story about a tribune who was called the Roman Achilles (scriptum est in libris annalibus plus quam credi debeat strenuum bellatorem fuisse nomenque ei factum ob ingentem fortitudinem appelatumque esse Achillem Romanum 2.11.1). The description of his achievements takes over the whole story. The intr oduction to it probably intends to emphasize again on the laudable events and affect the readin g altogether. These comparisons are crucial in two ways. The first has to do with the core of Gellius work and his historical personality. The fact that he is comparing a Roman to a Greek and he argues as well that they were equals, at least concerning their valor, shows that the two nations have come closer at the time than one may think, but it may also indicate that Romans re spected early classical Greek civilization and morality, but did not necessarily extend th eir admiration to contemporary Greeks.57 He may not say that Leonidas was more courageous that Q. C aedicius, and he would not do that since it is the latter that he is extolling, but still he is so objective and comfortable with the Greeks as to actually say that they are at th e same level as his fellow count rymen. The other aspect of the statement is that the author here explains once more the purpose of his work; it is as if he saying that he has come to fill the gaps in the recordi ng of events of the Roman past, because this is what amplifies the glory and creates a past for na tions. This is another reason, I believe, that he refers to the Greeks; they are for that matter th e most adept in recording and creating a past, a present and a future for themselves by means of literature. Another story of military decency is in chapter 3.8 where he talks about C. Fabricius and Q. Aemilius who sent a letter to king Pyrrhus informing him about an imminent plot against him, although th e latters death would 57 There have been opposing views based on linguistic criteria concerning the way the Romans were viewing the Greeks at the time. Petrochilos (1974) 48-53 and Balsdon (1979) 38 for instance claim that the use of words like Graeculus and graecari were employed by the Romans as diminutives targeting the Greeks. Dubuisson (1991) on the contrary argues that the formation of such words was meant as a satir e for the conduct of the Romans at that period and that therefore words like that ar e not meant to be sarcastic for the Greeks.

PAGE 120

120 benefit them. In this story, even though the narr ative itself begins with a temporal clause ( Cum Pyrrus rex in terra Italia esset 3.8.1), the short introduction starts with a fine letter of the consuls. ( Litterae eximiae consulum .). Once more Gellius emphasizes the value of these memorable events and he most probably intends to imprint that on the mind of his readers through the employment of exclamatory adjectiv es. In 1.13 we read a story related to the obedience that must be shown when one is a soldier towards his superiors. Crassus asked for a large mast to be used as a ram from the chief engineer of the people of Mylatta. The engineer decided that a smaller one would be more approp riate for that purpose. Crassus sent for him and punished him for disobeying and for thus weakening the authority of the commander ( Crassus eum vocari iussit et, cum interogasset cur non quem iusserat misisset, causis rationibusque quam dictitabas spretis, vestimenta detrahi imperavi t virgisque multum cecidit, corrumpi atque dissolve officium omne imperantis ratus. Si quis ad id quod facere iussus est non obsequio debito, sed consilio non desiderato respondeat 1.13.13). There are several other stories on military history and achievements and most of th em relate to Roman decency and the sense of appropriateness that the Roma ns were endowed with. The works that are dedicated to morality in ev eryday life, either of Roman citizens or of officials are also several58. The emphasis on this aspect of a na tions lifestyle could mean that the author believes that his contemporaries have lost their good judgment or that they can easily be influenced by others, who may not be paragons of virtue and exemplary conduct. Either assumption means that for Gellius there is no pres ent or future as commendable and worthy to be imitated as the Roman past. One could also sugg est, as it was mentioned before, that Gellius 58 This aspect can also be perceived as the educational side of Noctes Atticae Pliny also asserts that Historia Naturalis has educational purposes pr. 12-16. Holford-Strevens (2003) 37-47 asserts that Gellius does not intend either to educate or moralize. The selection of topics and his persistence on minor details show that he did not entertain high hopes. On the contrary, Morgan (2004) argues in favor of the educational perspective of Gellius work.

PAGE 121

121 wishes to establish a past for the Romans. It woul d be easier for them that way to survive in the melting pot of the Roman Empire of the second cent ury and retain their in dividuality. If that is true, however, Gellius has probably lost the measure, since he does not seem to be open to new ideas and customs. Other topics that concern him and are recurrent in several works are frugality and continence, marriage and women and propriety in public life in both conduct and attire. In 2.15 we read an extensive catalogue of the amount of money that was a llowed to be squandered for food by Romans. Gellius mentions specific laws that were passed regulating the appropriate consumption on specific days59. One may not be able to reach a conclusion about Gellius view on the subject, since nowhere in this narrative does he expre ss his own opinion. There is a number of other works, however, which demons trate without doubt his attachment to, and his admiration of the ancient frugality. In 11.2 he desc ribes the evolution in the use of the word elegans and how from a shameful characterization it came to be accepted as laudatory, when however the elegant person would demonstrate moderate conduct. As one would expect Cato is mentioned as are his remarks on the moderately eleg ant dressing. It should al so be noticed that in these stories Gellius rarely fails to mention that these were their ancestral customs ( quod elegantia apud antiquiores. .). In 3.1 and 3.5 the author elaborates on voluptuousness and avarice and on how these vices threaten the masc ulinity of people. Both tendencies in life are condemned and are shown by Gellius to be forbidden to all Romans regardless of their stature. In 15.8 he makes clear once more on whose side he is when he describes th e extravagant way of living as being hateful and he quotes Favonius ( ut meminisse possemu s odio esse hercle istiusmodi sumptus atque victus 15.8.1-2). Why would Gellius be so invested on frugality, 59 Gruen (1990) 170-3 discusses these laws on the basis of the Roman disapproval of the Greek lifestyle and he argues that The eastern wars had brought the luxury goods of the Greek world into Rome, a fact noted with dismay by moralists who saw the seeds of internal decay in the import of foreign opulence (171).

PAGE 122

122 however? A possible answer to that is that it pe rtains and encompasses various aspects of ones lifestyle, namely food expe nditure, attire, theatrical performances and several others. If therefore Romans remain faithful to their ancestral ideas of frugality, there are less likely to become engrossed in luxury and entertainment and subse quently less likely to neglect their civil and military duties and become effeminate. This brings us to another cat egory of stories, namely the ones which discuss proper Roman behavior in public as well as in private life. There are two stories against yawning, in both of which the Roman was reprimanded for his neglig ence and obvious wanton neglect of the proper conduct and his civil duties60. The extremely sensitive and mora lly charged issue of the relation between fathers and sons is also discussed. If the son has a high office in Roman hierarchy should the father show respect to his son or should old age always have priority61? What about the obedience that a son should show to his father ? Shall he always follow the fathers orders or can he occasionally judge and decide for himsel f? Gellius concludes that the only case when a father can be disobeyed is if one of his orde rs is harmful for anyone and therefore utterly inappropriate62. All the aforementioned topics clearly re mind us of several of Juvenals Satires. The latter appears to be exasperated at his contemporaries for reasons that are discussed by Gellius. Therefore, either the morality of the Romans has suffered incurable damage or it is 60 In 4.20 a young man was brought in front of the censors because he had yawned in court. This attitude was considered a indication of indifference ( atque inibi ut plecteretur fuit, tamquam illud indicium esset vagi animi et alucinantis et fluxae atque apertae securitatis ). In 8.3 Peregrinus reprimanded a young man of equestrian rank for having yawned (stantem segnem apud se et assidue oscitantem. illius quidem delicatissimas mentis et corporis halucinationes ). 61 In 2.2 Gellius states his opinion clearly, saying that in public the position of the son should respected and he should have priority; in private life, however, it is the father who comes first ( In publicis locis atque muneribus atque actionibus partum iura cum filiorum qui in magistrate sunt potestatibus collate, interquiescere paululum et conivere ). 62 2.7 Quae sua vi recta aut honesta sunt, ut fidem colere, patriam defendere, ut amicos diligere, ea fieri oportet, sive imperet pater sive non imperet; sed quae his contraria quaequae turpia, omnino iniqua sunt, ea ne si imperet quidem For a discussion on this chapter as an example of suasoriae see Bloomer (2007) 301-2.

PAGE 123

123 simply very important for many Romans that the ancient moral and customs be obeyed and preserved. We should not forget th at ever since the time of Juvenal many Romans felt threatened by the Greeks and their completely different lifestyle and ideas63. At this point it is important that we mention Lucians Anacharsis where the Scythian expre sses so many doubts about the Greeks and their obsession to athletics and theate r and their less warlike or manly spirit. The Scythians view may very well represent the anxi ety of other nations, like the Romans, who have come in close contact with the Greeks. Finally, another group of stories describe the impropriety of women. In one story Metellus Numidicus is reprimanded by some Romans, for he admitted openly that if men could avoid taking wives, they could live better without that burden. The critic ism, however, is unjustified because he concludes that men cannot live at all without women as they contribute to the proliferation of the Roman nation. Thus one should think further than the pleasure of the moment ( Si sine uxore pati possemus, Quirites, omnes ea molestia careremus; sed quoniam ita natura tradidit, ut nec cum illis satis commode, nec sine illis ullo modo vivi posit, saluti perpetuae potius quam brevi voluptati consulendum est 1.6.2). In 2.15 he gives us another story dedicated to the reasons why people should marry; somethi ng which does not stop him from mentioning in the following books incidents which blemish the feminine image. There are two stories about Socrates wife (1.17; 8.11) and al so a story about the thoughtle ss words of A.Caecus daughter and how she was punished (10.6). There are several stories and incidents de scribed which pertain to the reprehensible character of women, for instance their indul gence in wine (10.23). All these along with the plea of Favorinus for breastfeedin g (12.1), remind us of the norms and traditions of the Early Republic and the secluded place of wo men. Gellius, therefore, is not just archaizing 63 It is known and accepted that the Romans respected early classical Greek civilization, but did not extend their admiration to the contemporary Greek over whom they were ruling.

PAGE 124

124 when it comes to language and Roman citizens, but he does not approve of the women of the Early Empire either64. What can be noticed is the clearly different point of view from which Lucian discusses and presents women. It is not only that Gellius is invested on the Roman past, but his work emphasizes traditional points of view, which have been recurrent themes in Roman and Greek literature, like the posi tion and vices of women. Lucian, on the contrary, in this spirit of playfulness does not give exclusively the po rtrayal of women through the eyes of men, as it traditionally happens. In Dialogi Meretricium he dedicates a portion of his work to courtesans and their opinion and discussions on men, while he does not bother to write anything about traditional, married women. Except for the Dialogi Meretricium he wrote the Imagines which is about the emperors mistress. As he has been do ing all along, Lucian gives a different point of view of the world. He notices other groups of people, which do not necessarily have so far a place in literature. For Gellius, on the contrar y, there is no other world than the one he knows and admires and he does not intend to ques tion, challenge or rene w his perspective. Another aspect in Noctes Atticae, to which I alluded earlier in this section, is the relation between Romans and Greeks. Gellius writes arti cles on Greek philosophy, linguistics, morality and literature in relation to corresponding Roman topics. He has also compared Romans to legendary Greeks, namely to Leonidas and Achille s. Except for the information that the author preserves and the occasional literary criticism, it is important to note the relation between the two nations as it appears through Gellius works65. If we accept that the latte r is a Roman citizen of his times and therefore his opinion may well represen t the majority of Romans, then the fact that Greeks in most cases appear and are discussed as equals to the Romans probably shows a change 64 On women and marriage see also 1.23; 2.15; 4.3.2; 17.21.44; 5. 11. For a presentation of women in Gellius see Holford-Strevens (2003), 308-313 65 For more literary criticism and citations of Greek poets, orators and the Greek language see Holford-Strevens (2003) 226-40.

PAGE 125

125 in the way Romans consider the Greeks at the time. There are several narratives in which Gellius refers to Greek mathematicians or philosophers This means that the Romans have probably accepted the Greeks for what they are. They are not obsessed anymore with their diversity in interests. There are also works where Greek au thors are being compared to Roman authors and the former are favored by Gellius. For instance, when Gellius discusses Caecilius and his source Menander, states clearly that it is the latter that cannot be surpassed by the dim imitation of Caecilius66. Gellius also shows acceptance for actors and pe rformers. In fact we read the story of Arrion with the lyre and that of actor Polus. All that indicate that the Romans are not as inflexible in their judgment as th ey used to be; whether they rea lize it or not, and whether they still revere their military oriented and moral past, they have been influenced by the Greeks and their perspectives have shifted67. The fact also that hard-core moral criteria and a moral past worthy to aspire to, according to the Romans, has opened up to the Greeks is another indication of the formers evolution. By that I mean that in 1.3 the author narrates th e story of Lacedaemonian Chilo, the decision he had to make to save a friend and he then comp lements the work with quotations both from Theophrastus and Cicero68. This kind of blending, where Gree ks are used as an example of morality, of the same morality in fact that was exalted by a famous Roman like Cicero, means that not only have the Romans accepted the others at least partly, but they do not consider them to be as corrupted and hence a grave danger to the Roman lifestyle. In 2.1 Socrates is being 66 In 13.27 he says that Homer is superior to Vergil, but in 11.4 Ennius is a worthy competitor of Euripides and in 9.9.3-4 he praises Vergil as an adept translator of Homer. 67 Swain (2004) 31-2 points out, however, that Gellius is care ful so that the exaltation of the Greeks does not offend the Romans and their customs. He gives as an example Noctes Atticae 20.1 where: Gellius allows Favorinus Hellenism to be checked by a moral apology for early Roman brutality. 68 This is not always the case, however. We have se veral Romans ranging themselves against the Greeks and considering them dangerous to the morality of the Romans. For instance see Livy 39.6.7-9; Plut. Cato 23.1-3, 22.45; Suet. Rhet 1.1; Gellius 15.11.2; Sallust Iug 85.32; Cic. De Oratore 2.4; 3.95.

PAGE 126

126 praised for training himself in physical endurance. Not all the Gr eeks, therefore, are pleasure hunters, not all of them demonstrate feminine char acteristics. In 3.5 also Archilaus is set against voluptuousness. All the aforementioned Greek behavi ors fit also the profile of a decent Roman. It should be noted, however, that Gellius does no t appear to be over-hel lenized. In fact, he presents in several articles contemporary figur es, namely Favorinus and Fronto, as measures against which he wishes to create Roman-ness for his people. In 2.26 Fa vorinus tells to Fronto "Absque te,"inquit," uno forsitan lingu a profecto Graeca longe anteisset".69 Therefore, although Gellius occasionally admits the superiority of Greek literature, he nevertheless tries to emphasize the richness of Latin and the importan ce of establishing a Roman and not a Hellenic identity70. The third important aspect of Gellius works pe rtains to the way he treats and writes about other nations, other than the Greeks and the Ro mans. Considering the discussion on Lucians attitude regarding the same topic and the conclu sions that may be drawn, Gellius is not even remotely as open-minded as Lucian is. What I hope to show is that for Gellius and probably for his contemporaries as well the ot her nations were the foreigners and they were approached with doubts and suspicions. It is as if the Romans have inherited in some way the Greek idea of whatever is not Greek is barbar ic. Therefore, we read narrativ es about strange phenomena that took place in foreign nations and events that are hard to believe71. We cannot tell of course with certainty if the author himself believed in all that or if he is just transmitting them. One thing 69 Keulen (2009) 39-46 argues that ev en Fronto's authority is occasionally undermined by Gellius so "Gellius establishes himself in the Noctes as the true canonical authority who offers reliable judgment and guidance concerning propriety and impropriety in Latin usage." 70 Keulen (2009) 244 suggests that Gellius' educa tional program and the figures who appear in the Noctes only intend to "invite the reader to turn his gaze upon the triumphs of Roman imperial culture, triumphs in which the cultural authority embodied by Noctes Atticae participates." 71 On Gellius and foreign nations, other than the Greeks s ee Holford-Strevens (2003), 319-323 who points out that whatever is not Greek or Roman, it does not seem to be of Gellius interest.

PAGE 127

127 that we can tell, however, is that he does not write anything that concerns the morality, or philosophy, literature, laws and constitutions of t hose other nations. They constitute instead the exotic part of the Empire, which the Roma ns (and maybe the Greeks) look through the postcards, which in this case are works like those of Gellius and Pliny. It does not of course even consider as a possibility that these fore igners may have standards of their own, and not approve of what the others consider traditional or even correct. In any case, judging from his lack of creativity and reluctan ce to take responsibility even for wh at he writes, one may argue that, even if he realized the existence of other nations opinion, he may not have been in a position to conceive it at the level Lucian does and pass it smartly to his readers. One category of stories that concern foreign nations are the ones in which the author narrates or simply transmits a strange event that took place. A characteristic example appears in chapter 9.4. The introductory note is on some extraordinary ma rvels about barbarian people ( De barbararum gentium prodigiosis miraculis). It seems that Gellius is ready to believe that incredible or strange things may happen to ot her nations and conseque ntly it seems that his unfamiliarity with other nations makes this tende ncy or gullibility of his easy to flourish. We read about Scythians who feed on ot her men and are called cannibals ( Scythas illos penitissimos, qui sub ipsis septentrionibus ae tatem agunt, corporibus hominum vesci eiusque victus alimento vitam ducere et nominari ), of Albanians whose hair turn white in childhood and can s ee better in the darkness (praeterea traditum esse memoratumque in ultima quadam terra, quae Albania dicitur, gigni hominess, qui in pueritia canescant et plus cernant oculis per noctem quam interdiu ;), of Illyrians who can kill only with their glance ( Oculis quoque exitialem fascinationem fiery in isdem libris scriptum est traditurque esse hominess in Ilyriis qui interimant videndo quos diutius irate viderint ) and several other

PAGE 128

128 miraculous or incredible storie s about Indians and African tribes Nowhere does Gellius state if he thinks they are true or not Even when he comments on them saying that they are worthless writing, he says so because they do not contribut e anything to the enrichment of life and not because he thinks that they are not true ( Haec atque alia istiusmodi plura legimus, sed cum ea scriberemus, tenuit nos non idone ae scripturae taedium, nihil ad ornandum iuvandumque usum vitae pertinantis ). As a matter of fact, he not es that Pliny attests to th e truthfulness of one of the stories because he was a witness to the event ( Libitum tame nest in lo co hoc miraculorum notare id etiam, quod Plinius Secundus, vir in temporibus aetatis suae ingenii dignitatisque gratia auctoritate magna praeditus, non a udisse neque legisse, sed scire sese atque vidisse in libro Naturalis Historiae septimo scripsit 9.4). This is not the only ar ticle which is concerned with barbarians. Gellius transmits a story, among ot hers, narrated by Tubero about a serpent of unprecedented length (7.1). The serpent was report edly killed by Atilius Regulus when he was camped at the Bangadas river in Africa. In 15.10 we learn also about the strange suicides of young girls in Miletus. Regarding other aspects of barbarians lives, it is obvious that Gellius is not concerned with their history, literary endeavors, or social manners and this may indicate that he does not consider these other nations to be organized societies whose laws and customs are worthy of reference or comparison to those of the Greeks and the Romans. In fact even when Gellius refers to their morality or sense of decency he is care fully choosing unflattering events. For instance, he talks about a treachery of the Etruscan diviners and the attempt of Samnites to bribe Fabricius. In the first case it is the Etruscans who decide to deceive the Romans. Although the Romans trusted them with the prosperity of thei r city and requested their advice as to where they should put the statue of Horatius Coclitus, the diviners proved to be le ss worthy than the Romans had

PAGE 129

129 assumed72. In the second case the Samnites believe that it is the right of Fabricius to have more monetary rewards, Fabricius rises above the occas ion saying that what he can achieve by himself is already enough for him and he does not entertain any more ambitious thoughts73. In both cases the Romans are presented as more dignified a nd endowed with more se lf-respect. Considering the above it comes only as natural when we read that Romans and Carthagi nians were rivals of almost equal strength ( NA 10.27). Even if, therefore Gellius admits that other nations are distinguished in something, he nevertheless cannot go as far as to admit that they can be equal the Romans. That is even more noteworthy considering that Gellius compares Romans to Greeks several times and on a variety of different levels He discusses philosophi cal and literary topics about both the aforementioned nations, but when it comes to discuss barbarous nations he transmits a story like that of Sertorius and how he controlled his barbar ous soldiers mainly by deception ( NA 15.22). The conclusion one may reach regarding the position of Gellius in the new society and his historical along with his literary profile, is th at, beyond his acceptance of the other and the ambiguous quality of his works, the Second Sophistic spirit has not touched him. He is the proof that there was no literary production in Rome at the time. He is the proof that the Romans cannot surpass their rustic self. Lucian, on the contrary, is the mouth of the unive rsal society of all the nations under the Roman reign. It should not be underestimated, however, that, when it comes to the Greeks, the Romans have gone a long way to get to this point of acceptance, which indicates 72 NA 4.5 Ob id fulgur piaculis luendum aruspices ex Etruria acciti inimico atque hostili in populum Romanum animo instituerant eam rem contrariis religionibus procur are atque illam statuam suaserunt in inferiorem locum perperam transponi, quem sol oppositu circum undique altarum aedium numquam illustraret. 73 NA 1.14 Tum Fabricium planas manus ab auribus ad oculos et infra deinceps ad nares et ad os et ad gulam atque inde porro ad ventrem imum deduxisse et legatis ita respondisse: dum illis omnibus membris, quae attigisset, obsistere atque imperare posset, numquam quicquam defuturum; propterea se pecuniam, qua nihil sibi esset usus, ab his, quibus eam sciret usui esse, non accipere.

PAGE 130

130 that they have begun evolving somewhat their ment ality in accordance w ith the calling of their times. Conclusion In this chapter I discusse d Lu cian in relation to Gellius and I tried to give another perspective of the second century C.E. reality, wh ich would pertain more to the social aspect of this era, and subsequently to delve more d eeply beyond the politics and the ruling Roman nation, the relation between different nations and how they perceived each other. The comparison of a Latin author to a Syrian, who re presents the Eastern part of the Empire, but who writes in Greek and seems well acquainted with bot h cultures covers the perspectives I intended to examine. In my analysis of Lucian's prolaliae I tried to show that he is well aware of his position in the Empire and conscious of his abilities as well. He is also aware of the peoples misconceptions about foreign nations. Through a variety of sophistic and highly developed rhetoric techniques he ventures to win his audience. That tells us two things: first that the Roman Empire was a society which encompassed so many different cultures trying to find a place, and so many forces and socio-politic al and cultural thread s interconnecting that there were bound to be problems of communication between se veral nations. Lucia n, however, tries to accommodate himself in the new situation. He achieves that through his oratory. Gellius praefatio on the contrary, shows us a completely di fferent style. He lacks Lucian's techniques and dexterity, although he wishes to appeal to the good will of his readers and then influence them in a way oratory would do. Gellius does not fight so much for a position for himself in society, but for a place for the Roman past amidst the other nations. In the next section Toxaris Scytha and Anacharsis are examined in order to get a picture of the place of non-Greek and non-Romans in the Empi re. The author in these works gives a voice to those others. In the aforem entioned dialogues Scythians specifically come in close contact

PAGE 131

131 with Greek civilization and the la tter has to bear their judgmen t the way Greeks used to judge everybody else. One cannot argue with certainty if foreign nations were in fact questioning either the Greeks or the Romans, or if Lucian is ahead of his time and tries to open up peoples minds. Nonetheless, the message he sends is that in a society like the one they are living in can only exist and flourish if every nation accepts th e existence of the others, as well as their differences; if they manage to blend and feel parts of the new ecumenical society, but without having abolished their ethnic characteristics. As a matter of fact co-existence means that you recognize the differences and still manage to look beyond them. Lucian is obviously a pioneer and has definitely been living up to the calling of the second century. For Gellius, on the other hand, the Romans are the ruling nation, both politically and culturally. They set the standards of morality, institutions and proper conduct in public and private life. His compilation is an encyclopedia of memorable events of the Roman people. The only other nation that seems to exis t is the Greeks. That tells us that, should we consider Gellius a representative of his time, the Romans need a past to lean back to in order to survive culturally and that Gellius, among others, does not feel that his contemporaries are able to preserve the Roman ethics and lifestyle. He has seen them be ing influenced by Eastern cultures and at a time when non-Roman foreigners swarm in Rome, Gellius feels that he has to create a memorandum of what being Roman means. We should not of course diminish the importance of his treatment of the Greeks. They are compared to the Romans in several cases and this shows a communication and an understandin g which did not exis t earlier in the relation between Rome and Greece. The authors adherence also to th e Roman past explains the way he presents foreign nations. Unlike Lucian, fo r him Scythians and all other na tions are just exotic sources

PAGE 132

132 for many incredible narrations. The others obviously do not find in Gellius the Roman the voice and the representation they have in Lucian.

PAGE 133

133 CHAPTER 4 LUCIAN'S OLYMPUS AND THE BRIDGE T O CHRISTIANITY Introduction A large part of the Lucianic corpus in cludes works which discuss religious issues, Peregrinus and Alexander, as examples of immoral and degenerate individuals who take advantage of religion and people's gullibility, pa gan deities, as well as Eastern deities and religious rites. The fact that Lucian devotes a number of his works to religion probably means that this is a current issue and a matter of con cern for his contemporaries. Issues which are worth considering concern Lucian's position towards religi on in general and also towards Christians in particular as well as what we might ascertain from his works about s econd century religious reality. In this chapter I examine Juppiter Confutatus, Juppiter Tragoedus Dialogi Deorum De Sacrificiis and Peregrinus in relation to Tertullian's De Spectaculis Clemens' of Alexandria Protrepticus Tatian's Oratio ad Graecos Justin's the Martyr Apologia Athenagoras' Legatio sive Supplicatio ad Christianis and the anonymous Epistle to Diognetos and I attempt to describe the changing religious c limate in the Roman Empire as s een through the eyes of Lucian. Olympians Revisited The presentation of the Olym pians in Juppiter Confutatus, Juppiter Tragoedus Dearum Iudicium Deorum Concilium Dialogi Deorum and De Syria Dea has rendered Lucian an ambiguous figure with regards to his religious be liefs and even his intentions. On the one hand his focus on the Olympians is an indication that pagan deities were still popular at the 2nd century1. On the other hand, his writings have been used as proof by later Christian and 1 Jones (1986) 34-8 argues that pagan religion was most certainly popular at the time of Lucian, otherwise pagan gods would not have the focus of the attack launched by Christian authors.

PAGE 134

134 Byzantine authors that the Olympians did not exis t since they do not seem to be respected and are ridiculed in more than one case in his works2. In De Syria Dea Lucian writes about Eastern worshi pping rites and deities, and about common myths and heroes that are worshipped in different ways locally. Scholars of Lucian have argued against its authorship ; others claim that he makes fun of Herodotus and his ionic dialect, while, as I will try to demonstrate, al l he does throughout the work is to present clearly religion as a unive rsal phenomenon. Another important part of Lucian's religi ous works are those considered 'farcical'. Juppiter Confutatus, Juppiter Tragoedus and Dialogi Deorum have definitely funny and comic aspects. Gods are questioned by Momus, one of their own, a nd they are forced to face the results of their delinquencies. Lucian pushes anth ropomosphism to the furthest e nd and gods are ev en afraid of starving to death, in case people st op believing in them. Finally, in Prometheus and Timon he continues on the same tone and he chooses two fi gures that have challenged the gods to make his point and render his works even mo re inquisitive. It seems that Lucian handles a current issue that would certainly increase his popularity, but I also believe that by means of his literary and sophistic techniques he gives us a clear pictur e of what 2nd century was like in that matter. Pagan gods are still worshipped of course, but th ey are doubted by Christians and attacked for the reasons that Lucian comically presents. Ther efore, without taking a position, Lucian gives a journalist's report on the case of religions. 2 See Photios, Bibl 128

PAGE 135

135 De Dea Syria as a History of World Religion3 In De Dea Syria Lucian paints a picture of c ontemporary multicultural Roman society, and the reader cannot fail to notice his astute perc eption of the different nations' religious beliefs, as well as peoples fear, uncertain ty and questions regarding life and the divine. Only the fact that Lucian discusses both the Olympians and Eastern deities shows that he perceives and elaborates on the idea of divinity rather than on a specific god. He give s an account of Eastern divinities and he also notices that some deities a ppear in different places with different names, that their worship differs, or even that the same divinities are related to different myths and traditions4. Nowhere do we see, however, Lucian as an historical personality; the reader stays at a loss even after having read all his works concerning gods as to whether Lucian believes in them, or not, or even if his comic writings are m eant to ridicule gods them selves or if they are simply literary presentations of th e universal phenomenon of religion. 3 The authorship of this work has been doubted. It has been suggested that the author of De Dea Syria was a Syrian, but not Lucian, who had a Hellenized culture, but whose intentions when writing the above work were serious, contrary to Lucian's caustic and satirical spirit. For schola rship that attributes the work to Lucian see Macleod and Baldwin (1994). A prevailing argument is that Lucian wr ote it either when he was young or old; hence the difference in style and tone. The argument has been suggested by Jones (culture and society) 41-2. The opposite view has been put forward by Dirven (1997) who claims that there are fundamental di fferences between the style and tone of this work and other works of Lucian; a religio us work like this therefore, Dirven claims, cannot be attributed to the Syrian satirist. See also Caster (1937) 360-364 n. 63; Herman (1958-62); Betz (1961) 23-5; Baslez (1994). Attridge and Oden (1976) 2-3 consider the question unsettled. For an overview of this scholarly dispute see Oden (1977) 4-14. Bompaire (1958) 647 and Oden (1977) 16-24 try to find humorous references, among other evidence, in order to re enforce the possibility of Lucian's authorship. Others have claimed that the work is ironic. See, for instance, Allinson (1886); idem (1926) 119220; Cumont (1956) 13-4; Bompaire (1958) 653; Baldwin (1973) 33; Anderson (1976); Jones (1986) 42; Anderson (1994). As I argued in chapter 2, however, based on Anacharsis, Toxaris and Scytha Lucian seems concerned with co ntemporary events; based on his prolaliae he wishes to bridge the chasm between Greeks and non-Greeks. Humor is not his goal, but most often than not admittedly, his means to send a message. I do not think that seriousness should count against him at this point. 4 Oden (1977) 14-46 suggests that the De Syria Dea is ironic. Lucian, or whoever the author is, does not imitate Herodotean ionic dialect out of admiration, but to cauterize his methods and gullibility which ru ns through all the accounts of stories and myths that he includes in his narrative. Why would then Lucian begin with Thucydides' proclamation that he will recount events that he has chec ked or he has heard from others, if he is not the eyewitness? Furthermore, Lucian never disr espects his ethnicity; why would then say that he is an Assyrian in this work, something that he does not regurarly do, where he supposedly intends to disclaim the importance of those Eastern cults? I believe that irony is not necessarily Lucian's intention at this point. As a matter of fact, whenever he wishes to be caustic he is not afraid to do so openly, rather than hide himself behind some obscure ironic references.

PAGE 136

136 Lucian starts De Syria Dea by stating that he is a native Syrian5. He also proclaims his objectivity confirming that from what he will na rrate some he observed with his own eyes, and others that were before his time he learned through research. Cons idering that this work is not historical, Lucians insistence on be ing truthful and precise raises que stions. It is as if he turns his critical mind to a field that people rarel y, if not never, put under scrutiny. His closing statement also is that when he was young he partic ipated in the worship of Hippolytus. Hence, he had once accepted and embraced traditional forms of worship. Why, however, does he make sure to note that he did that in the pa st? It could be that he is usually reluctant to give out any personal information, or that now his judgment has put into question the religious status quo Throughout the work he approaches the subject of divinity from a mo re practical aspect and describes the rites, the sacr ifices, the traditions, and myths related to gods and lesser divinities in various places in Syria. In some cases he makes sure to note that he has heard several stories, which he is going to recount, w ithout necessarily believing them. He plants the seeds, therefore, not necessarily of disbelief against divine entities, but certainly of reconsideration. He is nonetheless critical and ma nages to separate the divine from the human creation. In Deucalions story, for instance, he says that after th e destruction of the world a big hole opened and it received a ll the water on top of which Deucalion erected a temple6. Lucian 5 Dirven (1997) 163-9 discusses the identity of the author and argues contrary to Oden (1977) 23-24 that the author did not abolish his Syrian identity. Dirven, although she claims that Lucian is not the author, suggests that the author is Syrian but he has received Hellenic culture and he has assimilated himself in the new reality, especially if we consider that he uses the Greek names of the deities and th e Greek versions of the myths. In chapter 2 I analyzed Anacharsis, Scytha and Toxaris from this point of view and it clearly appe ared that Lucian was well integrated in the new status quo without having denied his identity. 6 Oden (1977) 24-36 presents evidence that this account of the flood resemble s Genesis as well as the Eastern and not the Greek account of the myth.

PAGE 137

137 says then I, however, saw the hole and it exists under the temple very small7. Nowhere does he claim that the worship is unfounded, nowhere does he show irreverence to the cults and the worship itself8. He stirs, however, peoples minds towards a more inquisitive direction. He also says that the Egyptians were the first of a ll people who comprehende d the idea of divinity, erected temples, and established festivities. Consid ering the role that religion used to play in the ancient world and that it was an integral part of everyday life, public and private, it takes a man of astute intellect to accept religion as a uni versal phenomenon, along with the fact that other nations can claim premiership to establishi ng worshipping rites and honor the gods. Lucian therefore gives us a history of re ligion that is important for two reasons: first he establishes the human involvement in religion with all the references to rites and rituals and second he creates a united history for the religious rites of different nations9. He shows that the need for divine worship has been cultivated by every nation, the awe provoked by physical phenomena is also shared by many, as well as heroic figures and st ories about the beginning of the world. Religion is more interconnected than people realize a nd Lucian emphasizes that in several places. As I tried to show in Chapter 3 Lucian is a pragmatist and has a very keen and insightful sense of society and current even ts; this is one of the reasons why he excelled among the masses of orators and sophists in the Ro man Empire. He seems equally perc eptive in his c onsideration of 7 For archaeological evidence that conf irm Lucian's attestations see Attridge and Oden (1976) 3; Oden (1977) 43-6. Dirven (1997) 159-63 discusses also the reliability of the information that Lucian gives to his readership. See also Millar (1993) 245-7 who places De Syria Dea in the context of a broader exam ination of Syrian cult centers. 8 Oden (1977) 41-2 claims that "A second major satiric strain in the D.S.D is directed against what the author sees as new and inauthentic tales told about the gods whose auth entic actions are properly represented by the Greeks". Lucian, however, although he writes in Greek and he is assi milated in the Greek culture, he still does not hesitate to be critical against the Greeks. Furthermore, with regards to the variability of the myths, Lucian has proved to be skeptical about the myths in general. De Sacrificiis is a characteristic example of hi s perception of religion, or of what he believes to be the popular perception. 9 Jones (1986) 42 also points ou t the fact that although Lucian does not conceal the ba rbarian origin of the sanctuary of Atargatis, 'by explaining its antiquities in the manner of Herodotus he comes close to doing so'.

PAGE 138

138 the gods as well. Christianity and Eastern deitie s like Isis and Serapis mi ght not have prevailed or been widespread among the masses but nonetheless 2nd century C.E. is a period of thinking and reassessing of the divine. The reason may well be that all those nations that came in close contact did not only share traditions, and got acqua inted with each others customs, but they also realized that their faith in gods was also shared by other nations; the only difference was that the objects of worship or the rites differed. Lucian, without showing any signs of piety or impiety, still gives us a short history of world religion. Dei Confutati ? Dialogi Deorum Juppiter Confutatus Juppiter Tragoedus10, and Dearum Iudicium are even more ambiguous works that allow room for several different interpretations. The prevailing view entertains the possibility that Lucian ri dicules heathen gods and this argument was also used by the Christians. Finally, the possibility that Lucian commits hybr is, and that he could have been accused of impiety was also suggested but it has not won many adherents. Literary precedents in practically every genre, like Aris tophanic comedy, annul the contingency that such an accusation could ever be made. This treatment of the gods was an integral part of antiquity. It has also been suggested that Lucian was promoting Epicurean logic which includes questioning of gods. What is it then that sets Lucian apart from his predece ssors and what renders his works different and not mere extensions of previous literature? Where does Lucian stand with regards to gods and religion? Does he deconstruct paganism and its de ities? These are some of the questions that have occupied sc holars. The focus should, however, turn to the reason why he has become the center of such attention since he was not a pioneer in his attitude towards the gods. The religious system before Christianity allowed for the sometimes excessive anthropomorphism 10 For a commentary on Jupiter Tragoedus see Coenen (1977).

PAGE 139

139 of the gods and their introduction to the literary sphere. This doe s not mean that people were impious. Aristophanes uses gods and deities in several comedies and no one can claim that comic, farcical, and burlesque elements are not blatantly obvious. Even Plautus in Amphitruo uses mythological travesty and pr esents Jupiter and Mercury not clothed in a garment of glory and pious reverence. Neither of the aforem entioned was ever accused or tried for impiety. Lucian, no matter how different he seems and regard less of the attention he has attracted because of his alleged rebellious portrayal of the gods, is a part of that tradition. It cannot be argued that all this attention with re gards to his religious profile is unrea sonable, though. Considering that at the time Christianity had started claiming a pl ace in the pantheon of religions, Mithraism11, along with other Eastern religions12 has also appeared in the proscenium, although relatively late in the 1st century C.E., and Jews have long been a part of the Roman Empire, scholars of Lucian expected him to share some of his views on these matters, or even to acknowledge their existence13. The elusive Syrian, however, proves hims elf to be a true sophist, in the 5th century B.C definition of the word, and just like he has ne ver let himself be seen anywhere in his works, he follows the same tactic in his religious works as well. Lucians ridicule goes further than Aristophan es as the former exploits all the literary sources and genres about gods and pres ents it from the gods point of view14. So far in traditional 11 Discussions concerning the relation and possible borrowings between Christianity and Mithraism have been brought up. Common elements have led to the assumption that they shared common origins, or even in the late 19th century that Mithraism could have become the main religion in the Roman Empire; a view that was rejected later. For details see Cumont (1896/99); id. (1956); Patterson (1921); Loisy (1930); Vermaseren (1969); Lease (1980). 12 Sordi (1986) 55: "And yet at the same time, never before had an age seen such a powerful resurgence of the irrational, such a spreading of oriental cults and magical practices, such a chasing after miracles and prodigious happenings, or such religious fanaticism among the masses." 13 For a detailed history of religion and the position of the different religions see Nilsson (1961) 14 Bompaire (1958) 491-99 mentions the parallelisms between Lucian and Clemens' of Alexandria Protrepticus (492). He argues, however, that Luci an's comments are far from inventive, or audacious and that he uses as a repository the Epicurean and Stoic philosophies.

PAGE 140

140 literature the gods get occasionally angry at the mortals for not having offered proper sacrifices. Lucian now reveals the other point of view. Dialogi Deorum reminds us of several episodes from Homer. The gods fight, discuss about their childr en and their youthful delinquencies. Lucian, however, has breathed fresh air into these character s; they talk in prose and not in the heroic dactylic hexameter and thus they seem to be ev en more human. Hermes in Dialogue II urges Pan not to call him father when they are among others. The gods still bear some Homeric traits, but in Lucian they are forced to face the results of their actions as if th ey were mere mortals. There is no narration of the action itself, for instance of th e adultery, to make the dialogues funny, but it is what ensues the event that Lucian describes. The educated audience is also probably familiar with the myth of Ganymedes and his abduction by Zeus; but it is only in Lucian that Ganymedes engages into a conversation with the father of gods complaining about what he is going to occupy himself with and only in Lucian do we see Zeus trying to explain in childish terms the acts of homosexual love. It is also the first-time that Ganymedes ha s a voice in literature; in the literary tradition he is the fair-haired boy who is taken to live among the gods and Homer describes the pain of his father for having lo st him along with Zeus compensation. As Branham has argued the gods seem unaware of Homer and the stories he has written about them, their dependence on peoples sacrifices and their anthropomorphism. Jupiter appears baffled and concerned about the future15. Lucian has also incorporated in to some of the works literary and character criticism. In Deorum Concilium it is Momus personified who comments on the gods and their stature. In Juppiter Confutatus, it is the cynic that judges what Zeus says; he questions and disputes it. The Syrian therefore, no matter how well he fits in the aforementioned long literary tradition, 15 Branham (1989) 141

PAGE 141

141 presents another aspect in the foreground. It does not necessarily mean that the author wishes to invoke serious criticism and doubt the existence of gods; it could be just another sophistic and humorous rendering of the myths16. He could even be playing with the impugnation against paganism put forward by other religions. There is no evidence, except for scanty references to Christians and some Eastern deities that will be discussed later in the chapter, regarding Lucian's position towards other religious beliefs. Consid ering, however, how astu te his perception of current events is, he may be commenting on the arguments of the Chris tian side. If we also accept the possibility that people are aware of the other in the realm of religion, Lucians religious works could have attracte d large audience. It should also be considered, however, that it may not be the gods that the author is being sarc astic about. His works may target peoples nave perception and their simplistic interpretation of the divine. Finally, it should be noticed that, in this transitional period between paganism and Christianity, in a period when it has been clai med by many that there was a definite separating point between the two religions, things are obviously not black and white. Lucian, although obviously familiar with new developments in severa l areas in his era, st ill writes about the pagan gods, either Greek and Roman deities or Eastern deitie s. If he means to ridicule them or simply trigger peoples mind and force them to think and (re)consider, the conclusion we reach remains the same; pagan gods were still popular at the time and Christianity or othe r Eastern religions for that matter were just emerging. In Lucian's wr itings we get a glimpse of the dialogue between those different religious worlds. 16 Christian authors attack mythology as non-historical, or as evidence that pagan gods are merely human creations, who were born like human beings. This argumentation, however, may not have been as poignant as the Christians meant it, since earlier pagan authors had already been ex plicitly skeptic about mythology. See for instance Cicero, De Rerum Deorum where Cotta argues that the myths basically intend to question the existence of gods.

PAGE 142

142 Gods and Men In Prometheus17, Icaromenippus and Timon the gods appear mainly in the background as receivers of the peoples actions and the prota gonists are Prometheus, Menippus and Timon. The topics may not be new, but Lucian's approach, literary, and religious, is. First of all, Lucian draws inspir ation from traditional literary topoi as well as from different authors and genres, namely Aeschylus Prometheus Bound Aristophanes Pax and Aves and Euripides Bellerephontes The choice of three different li terary genres complicates the expectations of the audience. Aeschylus portray s Zeus as a relentless tyrant with no moral boundaries; except for Prometheus, Io also app ears as another victim of the unscrupulous god. Bellerephontes' actions are percei ved as contestation of the god s power and authority and thus as an hybris ; Bellerephontes falls from heavens and di es. On the other hand, in Aristophanes Peace war and other misfortunes have forced god s to relinquish their authoritative position. Nowhere do we see the undisputed pow er of Aeschylus Zeus. In the Aves the gods are obliged to share their imperium with the birds in order not to be be reaved of sacrifices and rituals, and also Zeus agrees to allow his daughter Basileia to marry Pisthetaerus. Lucian creates a masterful amalgam of all th e above literary traditions. Although he does not copy any of his predecessors unedited, he still shows clearly that he is familiar with those works, but he is nonetheless able to create fres h literary characters. No t only does he discuss issues that pertain to the existence of gods, not only does he employ as characters known literary figures who have transgressed in one way or anothe r the authority of the gods but he also writes a whole work about Timon who even at the end is not appeased and he openly shows his anger against gods. In Icaromenippus Menippus is also allowed to return to earth, unlike 17 See Bompaire (1958) 564-71 for a stylistic analysis of Prometheus the influence of mime and alexandrian tradition.

PAGE 143

143 Bellerephontes; the gods are a lot mo re tolerant and gracious toward him. This view can also be supported by Timon. Gods may have corrected their injus tice, but Timon does not forgive them, and he does not offer any sacrifices to them, as mortals customarily do after an act of kindness on behalf of the gods. The work ends and there is no devolvement; the relations between mortal man and immortal gods are not re instated, but the former is no t punished either. This is a different approach to the issue of the relation between men and the divine. Another issue that draws the reader's attention is the excessive sometimes anthropomorphism of the gods. Lucian seems to be indulging himself in literary precedents, when Prometheus says should Zeus be so exasperated because of such a small portion of meat that I took, or even why should he be angry for giving fire to men; fire never ends. The myths created around deit ies and men and the way poets write about them is another point where Lu cian focuses his attention. He always moves one step further and this is what di fferentiates him from the others. In that case he exposes literary exaggeration. In Aeschylus no one actually defies the word of Zeus and his orders; all the characters concentrate on the al leged misdeeds of Prometheus and on if Zeus is being relentless or fair. Lucian does not take the myth for grante d. He actually asks the question that so far had always been an accepted convention; was what Prometheus did so grave and unpardonable an offense18? In JuppiterTragoedus, Juppiter Confutatus and Deorum Concilium he blows the fear of the gods lest they be neglected by mortals out of proportion. They shudder at the possibility that the belief that gods do not exist may become pr evailing among men. Three different aspects can be detected in the issue of the gods (non) existe nce. First Lucian touche s the diachronic question if people believe in their myths, what they beli eve about divine entities, and the significance of 18 Jebb (1907) 173 notices that Lucian pushes ba re anthropomorphism to its extreme logical result'.

PAGE 144

144 rituals and religious worshipping. He exploits peoples awe and th eir superstitions. He seems to be questioning and laughing at th e peoples obsession with rituals19. So he puts into question whether the gods will starve in case mortals do no t perform any sacrifices. We cannot argue with any certainty about whether he doub ts the existence of pagan gods, or if he believes that people have missed the point of the rituals. Nonetheless he shows the practical asp ect of rituals and that they are rather a means so that people may feel closer to gods, communicate their needs and concerns, and so that they may believe that they have some saying in their fate. Finally, another point that could be made is that Lucian coul d be presenting the case of the non-pagans. As a matter of fact an argument th at Christians invoke late r is that even pagan authors like Lucian question the ex istence of the gods. Christianity was not in its heyday yet but its dissensions with paganism ha d already been set and one of the most open expressions of the Christians opposition to paganism was the fact that the former did not participate in sacrifices and rituals. In these works Lucian emphasizes gods concern about sacrifices It is indeed a fresh point of view from which to c onsider sacrifices and it is the point which divides pagans and nonpagans. As Lucian is always one step forward in his criticism and his pr ocess of reconsidering values, customs, lifestyle and the different forces that set societys wheels in motion, he steps with these works in the middle of religious diss ensions and presents their discord embellished with his literary charms. As a pragmatist and a man who understands human psychology, and how social norms work, Lucian plays with the l iterary tradition that had been woven around the gods and moves it even further, but he also makes a smart selection of topics. Adulteries illegitimate children, 19 Jones (1986) 39 also argues that 'The anthropomorphism of the gods does not merely lend the work charm and liveliness, it also indirectly satirizes conventional conception s of them'; id. 43 'The passage of the Tragic Zeus in which Apollo is called upon to predict the issue of the dispute between the two philosophers is a small anthology of stock jokes against prophecy, but it is directed less against th e god than the tricks of his prophets, their paraphernalia and hocus-pocus.'

PAGE 145

145 brothers who fight and do not have anything in common can interest even readers who are not aware of the classical myths; and they could attract attention even if th e protagonists were not immortals. Therefore, regardless of his inte ntions, about which we cannot comment with certainty, Lucian knows how to be a popular orator, how to move beyond the sphere of the usual and hackneyed and give new breath to an old topic. The conclusion one may reach regarding Lucians intentions is that he seems to be trying to bring the divine close to the human elemen t and shed some light and maybe demystify the relation between the two. He certainly is open to new religions and, although we cannot argue with certainty what his position was, we cannot assume that he was unaware of the appearance and the evolvement of new religious systems. Subsequently he, without showing impiety, deconstructs and shows what rituals consist of. He is realistic and a pragmatist who can pinpoint the essence of things and bring it to a clear view for everyone to see. His works are undeniably funny and smart and even if the audience did not ge t any of the above messages, they would still leave entertained having lived a 2nd century C.E. Aristopha nic experience. Peregrinus Lucians Reproach Against Christians? Peregrinu s is one of Lucians most poigna nt works, although admittedly not the most exquisitely written or the most smartly and oratorically embellished. Lucian supposedly writes to Cronius, that may have been the known Cynic who appears in other works, and he narrates the events that took place when Peregrinus Proteus committed suicide during the Olympian games in 167 C.E. Lucian claims that he was only a spectator and that the reason he attended to the events before, during and after Peregrinus suicide was that at first he could not leave the place due to the overflow of people and later because he could not find the means to travel. He is writing in

PAGE 146

146 first person but he also reports v erbatim what Theagenes the Cynic20 and another orator said on that very same day; he concludes the work by adding his own censure against Peregrinus. The whole work is written as a rhetorical exercise since Theagenes speaks in favor of Peregrinus, while the other speaker sets to demolish all th e previous arguments, present the truth hidden behind Theagenes speech, and reveal the real face of Peregrinus. The tone, remarks as well as the introduction and the conclusion of the work suggest that the second speaker may have actually been Lucian himself. Lucian does not give a lot of personal info rmation about Peregrinus at the beginning21; only later do we learn that he was born in Parion. Lucian paints an extremely unflaterring picture of Peregrinus. He mentions that he was accused of killing his father, that he became a Christian, while he was in Palestine, and that he retreated because of a misstep22. Lucian gives an account of Peregrinus' travels, among which are the ones to Italy, where he was expelled from, to Greece, where he tried to kindle the na tives anti-Roman sentiments and cause a revolt, and to Egypt23. Through all the events the only idea that the reader may form about Peregrinus is that he was an impostor, a deceitful pariah who did not believe in anything and adhered to religions or people aiming only at personal benefit, while exploiting those who actually believed in him24. The truth is that, although we do not have plethora of in formation regarding Peregrinus, he is not a 20 On Theagenes, his future as a preacher at Rome and further evidence about his lif e see Bernays (1879) 4-21. 21 Philostratus VS 71.19-20 suggests that Peregrinus was a contemporary of Herodes Atticus. See also Bagnani (1955) 112. For other studies on Peregrinus see Caster (1937) 243-55; Labriolle (1942) 100-7; Bagnani (1955). 22 On the date of his apostasy from Christianity see Schwartz (1963) 98; Jones (1986) 123. 23 On the offices Peregrinus had occupied as mentioned by Lucian see Betz (1958), 229-34. 24 Lucian mentions that during Peregrinus' imprisonment, Christian women were bringing him food and other essentials. This practice of Christians is also mentioned by Tertullian in Ad Martyras 1. See also in Ante-Nicene Fathers 3.693; 4.110; 3.702; 3.704.

PAGE 147

147 completely unknown figure first mentioned by Lucian25. He is mentioned also in Pausanias, Graeciae Descriptio and in other Ch ristian authors26. One may wonder therefore why Lucian chose to write a work about him. It has been suggested that Peregrinus is Lucians deprecation of Christianity. He uses the name four times and not one is complimentary. As a matter of fact he uses the adjective ill-fated, miserable, possessed by evil genius27. He also has a small digression in Peregrinus 13 where he goes into more detail s about Christians. What is worth pointing out is that this digressi on does not seem necessary at this point in the text and it does not even relate directly to Peregrinus; it merely s hows Lucian's perception of the new religion and its practices. There are two points that I will discus s concerning the information we get from Lucian regarding Christianity. One is wh at this account means for the im age of Christianity at the time and the other concerns Lucians attitude and wh at, if any, are the resemblances with Pliny's account of the Christians in the letter to Trajan. Lucian says that Christians believe in immo rtality; hence they c ondemn death. He also says, always in a pejorative manner, that their first persuaded them that they are all brothers, that they should refute all pagan gods and live their lives by the rules that the crucified sophist set for them. What one notices is his kno wledge of some Christian doctrines as well as his ignorance regarding others. He knows about Je sus and about the basic principles members of the new sect live by and he is also aware of their denial to participate in pagan rituals; that is 25 Cf. A. Gell. 8.3; 12.11; Paus. 6.8.4. He is also mentioned by Christian authors and rather negatively. See Tat. Orat 25.1; Athenag. Leg 26.4-5. 26 Cf. also Tertullian, Ad Martyras 4; Athenagoras, Legatio 26. For Christians attitude concerning death see Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 11.3; Tatian, Oratio 4; Epistula ad Diognetum 7.7. See also Edwards (1989) elaborates on the arguments of the Apologists that Lucian uses and twists in his presentation of Christianity and Peregrinus. He also very interestingly emphasizes similarities in Lucian's deprecatory presentation of Peregrinus and Zeus in De Sacrificiis 5. 27 Celsus also uses the same charact erization for the Christians. See Or. Contra Celsum 3.59

PAGE 148

148 actually one of the first elements that differentia ted them from the rest of the citizens of the Empire and one of the reasons why emperors an d officials in other provinces were sometimes negatively predisposed towards them. The choice of the word for Jesus is interesting considering that Lucian was himself a sophist28. It has been claimed that Lucian shows an inconceivable ignorance29 about all things Christia n and the basis for the argument is that he uses words like to describe the position of Peregrinus am idst Christians when it is not part of the Christian terminology and is never used in Christian literature. We should consider, however, that means the leader of a that is a company, a troop and also a religious guilt30. Lucian also seems concerned that the follo wers of Peregrinus may create a cult and worship him claiming that series of unexplained and natural phenomena took place after his death31. Lucian actually argues that he has come upon occurrences like the aforementioned. We know that the cult of Peregrinus did not take the proportions that the Syrian claims it did; still it is hard not to notice the simila rities between what he says about Peregrinus and what non28 On the use of the word see Jebb (1907) 189 29See Bernays (1879) 42-43 on Lucian's alleged ignorance concerning Christianity; See also Caster (1937) 346-57 who claims that Lucian does not seem to agree with Christians, but he does no t show hatred either. He would admire their condemnation of death, if they did not have the unreasonable belief in immortality. Caster concludes that 'leur (talking about Lucian and Voltaire) ob scurit mme semble tre un comble de finesse attique' (357). Caster's ultimate perception of Lucian's conception and presentation of religion in his era is that 'Mais son tmoignage est incomplete; quoi l'on peut rpondre qu'il ne prtend pas tre un historien. Ce qui est plus surprenant, c'est qu'il n'a pas utilis tous les matrieaux que le second sicle offrait son esprit satirique' (382). Jacob (1907) 179-92 agrees with Caster's perception of Lucian's attitude towards Chri stianity. Hall (1981) 199; Bagnani (1955) 111 "Lucian's ignorance of Christianity and Christian doctrine is really monumental". Betz (1959) 229-234 also claims that Lucian did not have first-hand knowledge of Christianity. He admits that we get information from an outsider, but he accuses Lucian of not being an attentive observer of the new religion "Sicher hat er kein Verst ndnis fr den Glauben der Christen, nicht einmal fr ihre Absage an die Gtterwelt" (237). Bompaire (1958) 477-80 points out that Lucian does not give a mere caricature of Peregrinus and the Christians; instead he acknowledges qualities, like their charitable feelings, while he also employs common motifs for their description. Bompaire still reaches the same conclusion regarding Lucian's superficial treatment of the new religion. 30 So far the word has been perceived as derogatory. See for instance Wilken (1984) 45 31 On Peregrinus' aspirations for the foundation of a cult see Jones (1986) 126-30

PAGE 149

149 Christians say about Jesus, his crucifixion and the events that ensued. He even pities Peregrinus for his vain pursuit of fame. According to Lucian, there will also be others carried on the cross and hold by the executioner and th erefore Peregrinus' fame is bound to fade gradually and eventually die. Perhaps Lucian knew more than we think about the new religion and the sophist from Palestine. In any case this work is indicat ive of the quantity of info rmation that Christians allowed non-believers to know and what some of the first reactions to their religion were. What one notices so far is that Christians have acquired a position in the pantheon of religions, but they do not hold the scepter of the true religion. They are treated as a sect that worships another deity and in some cases goes to extremes. This m eans also that they may have established some sort of identity but they still have not set their mark in the world in the way they wish to. That explains the Christian literature of this period, namely Clemens of Alexandria, Tatian, Justin the Martyr, Athenagoras, and Tertullian, that I will discuss later, who seem to adhere obsessively to Christian doctrines employing sometimes radi cal literary and admonitory techniques. Another matter for consideration is Lucians intentions for writing that work. Can it be considered an attack against Christianity? His fo cus does not seem to be Christianity; the target is Peregrinus instead. He starts by calling him The word has been used by Aristophanes and Arrianus with th e meaning of evil genius. It also means the ill-fated, but when one goes further in the work, realizes that Lucian does not pity Peregrinus. The tone of the work is thus set and Lucian launches bitter comments against Peregrinus until the very end. The way he discusses the subject, how ever, reminds us of other crit ical works concerning people or generic characters that he does not approve of, for instance Adversus Indoctum De Mercede Conductis Hermotimus and several others. He is obviously against any form of dishonesty and pretentiousness and he verbally attacks Peregrin us for being deceitful and not for temporarily

PAGE 150

150 being a Christian. He is also an ti-cynic, as he has shown elsewhere. He does not challenge the Cynic doctrine, but the grandiose and conceited wa y they want to promote it. He does not fail to laugh at them even when Theagenes, the Cynic sa ys that no other Cynic that was present when Peregrinus died wishes to follo w him, although they allegedly be lieve in sacrifice and condemn pain. Lucian really makes his point when he says that the Cynics, who infuriated attacked him, let him go when he threatened to throw them into the same fire with Peregrinus. The whole work is a manifest uncovering of pretentiousness. On e could even go as far as to suggest that Peregrinus is just the means by which he e xposes characters like him, just like in Alexander, which is a character work. At the end of Peregrinus he describes a comic event from the latters life, when he was aboard trying to seduce a young boy and later, during a te mpest, how afraid he was to die. Therefore, he concludes you can r ead this and laugh and es pecially when you hear other people being amazed at him. At the closing sections of Alexander, another character he condemns, however, the tone is different. He r ecounts the death of Alexa nder in a grotesque and rather gruesome way, without veiling his true emotions. He says that his foot decayed up to the groin and he was full of worms. He then pro ceeds to narrate what happened to those who had conspired with him and what their punishment was. The concluding paragraph is an admonition for the audience to lead an honest and truthful lif e where Lucian actually claims that this writing can benefit any reader. The gravity of his tone runs through the whole tr eatise and we should not fail to notice that rarely does Lucian claim a degr ee of responsibility and an intention to reform society. Finally, the end of both Peregrinus and Alexanders life are described as There has already been a discussion rega rding the choice of the words in relation to Christian writings and the crucifixion of Jesus. I would like to focus on the employment of the word The word has the meaning of act, deed, but it also means play. Even therefore

PAGE 151

151 linguistically Lucian makes sure to give an as sessment of their lives; for him everything was simply an act, a stage performance and, for Peregr inus at least, his c hoice to die was also a 32. Lucian's account of the Christians has common points of reference with Pliny's letter to Trajan when the former served as governor in Bithynia33 and asked for advice about how to treat Christians34. He is concerned about whether they may constitute a danger to state religion or to the Roman authorities. At first he notes that he is asking for advice since there is a policy against allowing people to join into groups ( post edictum meum, quo secundum mandata tua haeterias esse vetueram ); for the unity and the cohesion of th e group lead to str onger attachments, discussion of common problems and subsequently to complaints about authority and possible revolts35. Christians therefore were tr eated as another religious gr oup that worships a different 32 Mitchell (2007) discusses the use of the phrase and says that it has been used only 3 times in literature, by Polybius, Celsus, and Lucian. Polybi us uses the phrase"to refer to tragic-styled endings in purportedly historiographical accounts, which are implausible and false" (224). She therefore argues that both Lucian and Celsus use it in a derogatory manner targeting the Christians and Jesus and she suggests that Celsus could have been influenced on a linguistical level by Lucian. 33 Sherwin-White (1985) 80-2 places the governorship between 109-11 C.E. and Fr eudenberger (1967) between 111-113 C.E. 34 See Sherwin-White (1985) 691-710, Sordi (1986), 59-65 Benko (1980) 1070-6, Wilken (1984) 15-30 for a commentary on the Epistle There have been also claims that there are later interpolations in the Epistle On that see Hermann (1954) 343ff. For an answer to these claims see Dieu (1942); Grant (1948); 35 As a matter of fact Trajan did not allow Pliny to authorize a fire brigade in Nicomedia (Ep.x.33-34) ( tu, domine, dispice an instituendum putes collegiums fabrorum dumtaxat hominum CL. Ego attendam, ne quis nisi faber recipiatur neve iure concesso in utantur; nec erit difficile custodire tam paucos x.33; Sed meminerimus provinciam istam et praecipue eas civitates eius modi factionibus esse vexatas. Quodcumque nomen ex quamcumque causa dederimus iis, qui in idem contracti fuerint, hetaeriae eaeque brevi fient. x.34) He also forbade the foundation of eranoi organization that provided help, in any other place ex cept for Amisus. The later wa s enjoying the privileges due to an earlier agreement ( In ceteris civitatibus, quae nostro iure obstrictae sunt, res huius modi prohibenda est x.93). See Sherwin-White (1952) 199ff; idem (1960). Dio Chrysostom in 45.8 disapproves of the comprising of political clubs for they cause dissensions and fractures in the stability of the city ( There is also evidence that sometimes clubs would pr omote political theses as well and this could lead to uprising. On that see Dessau (1906) 6411a, 6419e, 6420b about the political activities of the group of fruit dealers, goldsmiths, and the worshippers of Isis respectively. Cf. also Celsus 1.1; 8.17

PAGE 152

152 deity. That was not perilous, however, consider ing the multitude of Eastern deities that had already appeared in the Roman Empire. They cons tituted a threat in the sense that they were a group ( collegium )36. In their case Trajan does not sound extremely concerned. His response to Pliny concerning the future treatment of Christia ns is mild and diplomatic. He does not wish them to be persecuted, or searched for37. In the Letter though, we become acquainted with what non-Christians believed about Christians and the rumors circulating about them. Superstitio38 is the word used by Pliny to describe Christianity, ( superstitionem pravam et immodicam ) since they only address a prayer to Christ as if to a divinity and they take an oath not to commit anything morally reprehensible. Late r Pliny attests that they separa te and then they re-convene so as to eat a meal. quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem conven ire, carmenque Christo quasi deo dicere secum invicem seque sacramento non in sc elus aliquod obstringere, sed ne furta ne latrocinia ne adulteria committerent, ne fidem fallerent, ne depositum appellati 36 For a description of the hierarchy of church in the fi rst years see Sordi (1986) 18 0-93 where she explains the function and the office of its members as well as the fact that it may have been easier for the Romans to accept the new religion if it appeared as an organization with stru cture and leaders. See also Wilken (1984) 31-47 and especially p.45. Tertullian has also employed vocabulary related to associations to present Christianity in a familiar context. See Apol 39 37 Tertullian in Apol .ii 7 calls it 'sententiam necessitate confusam'. For a discussion see Merrill (1918). Athenagoras, for instance, emphasizes the lack of esta blished laws concerning the Christians and the way they should be treated. Although there were Roman laws agains t impiety, they were not enforced; nonetheless Athenagoras proceeds to deconstruct the accusations of immortality and im piety. For more details see Schoedel (1973). 38 The word superstitio was also used before Pliny both by Tacitus and Suetonius. Although neither of the two latter authors' focus was the Christians, we still get an idea about the position and the impact, if any, the new religion had at the time. Tacitus, Annales 15.44 ergo abolendo rumori Nero subdidit reos et quaesitissimis poenis adfecit, quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Chrestianos appellabat. auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque Suetonius, Nero 16 afflicti suppliciis Christiani, genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae; vetiti quadrigariorum lusus, quibus inveterata licentia passim vagantibus fallere ac furari per iocum ius erat; Juvenal in Satire 14 criticizes severely the Jews for being superstitious. Plutarch also in the 2nd century dedicated a whole treatise, De Superstitione to discuss this 'phenonenon'. See also Janssen (1979). For the attitude of the Romans towards new religions see also Dio Cassius 52.36.2.

PAGE 153

153 abnegarent. Quibus peracti morem sibi disced endi fuisse rursusque coeundi ad capiendum cibum, promiscuum tamen et innoxium. From this choice of vocabulary and the desc ription of Christian activities it has been argued that his underlying questi on is whether Christianity is a punishable by law crime or simply a choice of lifestyle and mentality39. Pliny says also that th e number of Christians is growing and people of every age, rank, and sex ar e involved (multi enim omnis aetatis, omnis ordinis, utrtiusque sexus. ). Hence he deems that there is still time to reduce this number and therefore limit any imminent dang er since the temples are crowde d again and the rites seem to revive ( Certe satis constat prope iam desolata templa coepisse celebrari, et sacra sollemnia diu intermissa repeti passimque venirevictimarum, cuius adhuc rarissimus emptor inveniebatur ). If during Plinys time the phenomenon of Ch ristianity was so noticeable as to be a concern for Roman officials and the Emperor hims elf, we can only assume that at the time of Lucian even non-Christians could not be utterly ignorant, especially when it came to rituals and sacrifices or more specifically the abstinence fr om sacrifices, actions that can hardly remain unnoticed. It is obvious that Pliny does not consider Christians a threat to the Empire, or that they are guilty of engaging in obscene and repreh ensible acts. Laws against impiety may not be enforced, but Romans consider tr aditional religion and worship pr actices to be part of their everyday life, their customs, their past and present; they also cons ider gods as patrons of their Empire. Abiding therefore by these religious custom s is not only religious matter, but civil and political as well40. Augustine in Civitas Dei gives an account of this aspect of religion as perceived by Seneca and Varro41. 39 See Sordi (1986) 62; Keresztes (1979) 40 See Oliver (1953) on the degree of influence Rome as a ruling power had on religion and worship in Asia Minor; this will also shed some light on their religious tolerance. Millar (1993) 503-22 suggests that Syrian religious identity was not preserved. "In the Nea East only Palmyra pr ovides a (very partial) parallel to the persistence of Egyptian temples, with distinctive forms of priesthood, and which in the Imperial period were still contructed in

PAGE 154

154 The amount of information about Christians th at Pliny and Lucian share is probably an indication of what pagans knew about them in the Eastern provinces at least. The new sect per se is not considered perilous to the emperor sin ce its members, according to both authors, share meals, perform their ritual s, and tend to their 'brothers' welfare. The First Apologists Christian apologists write sim ultaneously w ith Greek and Roman authors, they share motifs with them and employ classical techniques in order to initiate peop le into their religion. Where did Christianity start then? What was the reaction of the non-Christian authors? Had Christian writers already rejected the old world, or did both worlds co-exist? Do they share any characteristics, or did the Christians write off everything pa gan and create their religion ex tabula rasa ? Many scholars have focused on the battle betw een pagans and Christians. They claim that this era was turbulent and that Christians, ha ving found their own truth and philosophy in life, refused to participate to everyday, customary ritu als and events, taking fo r granted that the two worlds were separate and that there were two parts, the Ch ristians and the pagans. This distinction, however, did not happen immediately at a certain da te; by that I mean that the first Christians used to be pagans. Therefore, it may not have been that the Christians cut themselves off the world, but it happened gradually and sh ould one examine closely the proto-Christian Egyptian style, and still used the Egyptian language, written in hieroglyphics" (505). Boissi er (1909) 346 also argues that Romans had limited tolerance towards foreign religions with regards to the latter's invasion to the Roman religious system. For a detailed presentation of Roman Empire and foregn religions see 343-403. 41 Augustine, Civitas Dei 6.10; 5-6. Even Celsus who exhorts Christians to participate in everyday Roman life, he also shows that traditional reli gious rites support the peace of the Roman Empire. See Origen, Contra Celsum 5.35. See Borret (1976) tome v for a commentary on Origen's wo rk. On Varro and his conception of the civil aspect of religion see Cardauns (1960) 53-8. For a full discussion see Schoedel (1973). See also Altheim (1938) 332 ff. about religion and its civil and political aspects and the beginning of the new age in religion, supersitition and the gods. Cf. also Nilsson (1949) 224-62 on Greek civic religion.

PAGE 155

155 writings, he can still discern the process of the shift42. When one studies Lucian's works that deal with gods, philosophers and religion and then co mpares them with the writings of the first apologists, it becomes clear that there is no thre shold between pagan and Christian authors, but there is a bridge and Lucian clearly constitutes a part of that bridge. In this attempt to present the connecting points between Lucian and the Chris tians I intend to disc uss certain works of Clemens of Alexandria, Tatian, Justin th e Martyr, Athenagoras and an anonymous Epistle to Diognetos all contemporary with Lucian43. Some of the most common topics on which the aforementioned authors focus are god(s), their ex istence, the importance of sacrifices and the worshiping of statues and other i dols', the philosophers and if th ey are conveyors of the truth, and finally and most importantly, human concern about the life one should lead. Statuary The f irst Christian writers raise objections regarding the existence a nd potency of heathen gods because they are worshipped in the form of statues44. In the Epistula ad Diognetum45 the author urges the pagan believer to examine the existence of what he considers to be divine He 42 Dodds (1965) discusses the dialogue and the contacts between not only of pagan religion, but of philosophy as well with Christian reasoning and doctrine. Dodds presents a complete picture of the era when Christianity rose and places the new 'sect' in this context. He delineates their similarities, their differences and provides reaons why pagans were so hostile against Christians. He also elabor ates on the philosophical background of Christianity and presents it as a philosophy, a religion an d a lifestyle while he sketches the bridge between the two worlds. See also Wagner (1994) for a presentation of the 2nd century C.E. from a Greco-Roman, Christian, and Jewish point of view on the basis of history, society, philosophy, and religion. He also provides a comprehensive 'catalogue' of some of the first Apologists and their basic principles. For a history of Christianity up to the 7th century see also Chadwick (2001); Danilou (1977). On the Apologists see also Contreras (1980). 43 Osborn (1993) delineates the details of the Christian thought, philosophy and theology. See also Wiles (1967) and Chadwick (1966). 44 Early Apologists attempt to define their God and deconstruct pagan divinities by means of negative terminology. It is by means of this theological ap proach that they even tr y to contradict the charges against them regarding atheism. See Wolfson (1957); Palmer (1983). Plato, Middl e Platonism, Judaism, and early Presocratics have been considered the sources of this terminology. See Barnard (1967) 34-5; Osborn (1981) 31-63; Puech (1912) 292. 45 For commentary on the Epistula ad Diognetum suggestions about the exact dating, as well as the question of whether it is actually an epistle or not its authorship, and date see Marrou (1997), Meecham (1949), and Andriessen (1947).

PAGE 156

156 says that some statues are made of gold, others of bronze and others of wood, and most importantly they all are manmade. Christians refuse to subm it and worship these alleged deities. It seems that the author of th e Epistle along with other contempor aries focuses his attacks against the worshipping practices of pagans and in his quest for something higher and untouchable, he completely dismisses the worship of images and statuary46. His objections focus on the deification of statuary and perishable material. It is noteworthy that such a differentiation rose again later among the Christians, namely among the iconolaters and iconoclasts. Statues, according to the author of the epistle, are deaf, blind, and deprived of senses. ... ,... ; ; ;; ; ; ;...II Furthermore, pagans, he says, guard the gol den statues, but they leave the stone ones unattended. ...II Another Apologist set against the statuary is Clemens of Alexandria. In the Protrepticus he writes and admonishes non-Christians along th e same lines with the author of the Epistula ad Diognetum One of his arguments is the deification a nd worship of statuary and the belief that these materials are the heathen gods. It becomes clear that the Christia ns abandoned and frowned upon the anthropomorphic mentality. For them it is clear that the god is th e creator of everything on earth and god is definitely not created. 46 See Hanson (1980) 910-24 for more details on later Christian authors that discussed the worship of statues, as well as the response of the pagans who clai m that they do not revere the material itself, but the spirit of the gods.

PAGE 157

157 ,4. And later he says that it is not the act of representation itself th at he is so much against but rather the worship of those images ( ). From these writings it becomes clear that the Apologists are not ignorant of pagan religion and literature either. As a matter of fact, except for the literary topoi that they gradually incor porated into their Christian literature, they even use pagan authors themselves in their argumentation against the existence of heathen gods. Clemens quotes a passage from the Sibylline books expressing contempt for the idols of sculptured stone. , 4. Clemens argumentation resembles the Epistula ad Diognetum in many other points as well. The former discusses the lifelessn ess of statues, their inability to feel anything, and the peoples denial to perceive the falsity of thei r religion, the non-existe nce of their gods. ( ,

PAGE 158

158 4) 47.Athenagoras also discusses the origin of Greek sculpture in his argumentation against the existence of pagan gods who seem to be even younger than the artists that created them48.It seems that Christianity may not have been a popular religion at the time, but Christians had already self-identifie d and defined themselves and their pr ospectus in life and their religious doctrines, while they purposefully answer the accusations of pagans49. A focal point for their accusers was their refusal to worship other gods. Although the Roman Empire had seen the rise of various religions, Christians became the scapegoats and object s of prosecutions on account of their total abstinence fr om non-Christian rituals50. The first Apologists cl arify their position and try to familiarize people with the new religion and show that Christ ianity is not simply a religion, but a philosophy of life as well. Christianity, according to the Apologists, has moved beyond the mere spectacle and the elaborate ritu als; it is closer to the essence51. 47 The use of negative terminology is evident, even if implicitly used, when the authors of the Epistle says what the Christian God does not need. See Palmer (1983) 238-9. 48 Ruprecht (1992) discusses the parallels between Athenagoras list of artists and that of Pausanias in the Description of Greece. He brings up the issue of a handbook on artists from which the two authors seem to have drawn their material. This was also discussed previously by Jones (1895; reprinted in 1966). 49 Self-identification must have been focal point in th e writings of the Apologists since first Christians were converted pagans and in the early years they probably have not entirely perceived what Christianity as religion and lifestyle encompassed. This becomes clearer if we consid er that even in the 4th C.E. Christian literature was concerned with defining what Christian lifestyle means. Nice tas, bishop of Remesiana, addresses such issues in his book Adversus Genethilogiam Certain practices had become part of peop le's everyday life and these were the more difficult to discard as being part of their old religion, since for them it was simply part of their lives. For more details see Laistner (1951), Dodds (1965), De Labriolle (1934). 50 At the time also Montanism appeared and it seems to ha ve been difficult to differentiate between the latter and Christianity. The radical views of Montanism, however, must have blown some unfavorable winds against Christians as well. Celsus appears to have such thoughts, while he tries to exhort Christians to be better citizens and not abstain from civil duties. For more details see Dodds (1965) 66-8. On Celsus' attitude towards Christians as seen in his True Doctrine see Chadwick (1947); idem (1948); idem (1953); Lods (1941); Benko (1980), Wilken (1984) 94-125; Cf. also Origen, Contra Celsum 8.69. On Celsus' ideas as well as other 2nd century pagan authors see also Benko (1980) and Francis (1995) 131-179. 51 Ogilvie (1969) 1 as a matter of fact says that paga n religion and deities is more a decoration, magnificent but without impact or real meaning.

PAGE 159

159 The topic of the statuary is raised by Lucian in Juppiter Tragoedus The resemblances between the Apologists and this wo rk are striking in that the whol e discussion in Lucian's work is about peoples (dis)belief in the existence of gods. Zeus is concerned that they may be neglected, if mortals stop worshipping them an d offering sacrifices. When the gods convene, Zeus instructs Hermes about how the gods should be seated and he says that the golden should be seated first, then the silver, then the ivory, and then the bronze or the stone ones ,, 7. Hermes argues then that the barbaric gods will be seated in the first rows since the Greek gods are gracious, but they are ma de with humbler material. , ...8. It is Poseidon first that raises obje ctions refusing to demote himself ( , 9) and later they even argue be tween themselves about their value and their importance. Aphrodite, for instance, asks that she should be seated amidst the first since she is golden. Hermes, however, says that she is clearly made of stone an d Aphrodite contradicts him by quoting Homer who calls her golden Aphrodite.

PAGE 160

160 { } 10.1 10.2 { } ,, , 10.5 10.6 { } Is Lucian making the case for the Christians?52 Based on his profile I believe that he probably presents in his own terms and style di scussions between religious groups. He always seems well aware of new trends, social and political, and he has detected other religious rhythms playing at the time. He does not wish to reveal his personal beliefs, however, and we would not expect him to do so. He is rather journalistic a nd dispassionate, or simply a dexterous diplomat when it comes to taking a position in other issues. 52 Christian authors argue that only educated pagans can ma ke the distinction between idol and real divinity, while the great majority cannot. See Minucius Felix, Octavius 22.1-5; Origen, Contra Celsum 7.66; Athenagoras, Supplicatio 18.1.

PAGE 161

161 The same religious topics are brought up in Deorum Concilium The gods converge for a meeting and the issues of who should address the assembly and what would be the appropriate seating arrangement come up first53. Momus asks who should speak first and if the decision should be made on the basis of the gods origin. He also discusses the ap pearance of some of them, especially that of the Eastern deities, and he finally asks if the material by which statues are made should define the value and the impor tance of the gods and their position in the pantheon. ... 4. Momus goes as far as to question the degree of respect that such gods can claim from mortals ( 4)54. Concerning Deorum Concilium it has been argued that Lucian could be commenting on an ongoing reformation of the Areopagus55 and it is true that towards the end Momus summarizes the decision and says that the ekklesia of the gods will include both old and new members. One should not ignore, however, this work's possible 53 Bompaire (1958) 522 suggests that Lucian uses vocabular y and refers to institutions of the Imperial era in this work, namely 54 Caster (1987) 179-211 discusses Lucian's attitude towards the Olympians and argues that he combines the logic of the sophist with literary techniques and the Epicurean reas oning and the result are these works. Caster (209) also suggests that 'en fait, Mmos fait l'avance toutes les obj ections de Damis, et meme avec plus de vehemence. Sa critique est nettement picurienne, et il deviant ce personage trange: un dieu qui ne crois pas aux dieux.' Bompaire (1958) 191-203 points out that Lucian combined motifs from various literary genres in the portrayal of Momus, and other mythological figures "Il est entendu que Lucien a pu tirer aussi ses personages de la tradition srieuse, pique, tragique, alex andrine (195). 55 On that see Oliver (1980); Jones (1986) 38

PAGE 162

162 twofold message and should not therefore fail to notice its similarities to the argumentations of the aforementioned Apologists. Sacrifices Another issue the Apologists discuss extensiv ely is the sacrifices required by pagan gods. The main argument is that their god is the Creator of all things in the world and he does not need any offering from mortals56. They also condemn bloody sacrifi ces arguing that pagan gods are not lenient and do not show care for people, unlike their god57. By explaining and actually dissecting and defining the ritual of sacrifices, Christians de scribe pagan customs as being laughable and gods as merely human creations. The dissension as well as the c onnection between pagans and Chri stians can be detected in the writings of the Apologists, namely Clemens of Alexandria, Athenagoras, Tertullian and in the Epistula ad Diognetum since they are the among the first who try to set the foundations for their religion and define it, and in Lucians Zeus Tragoedus Deorum Concilium Prometheus but mainly in De Sacrificiis The author of the Epistula ad Diognetum in an explicitly ironic tone satirizes those who offer sacrifices to the Creator of th e whole world; it is as if someone honors a deaf who is unable to hear it. 56 It should be noted that there were other non-Christians that still disapproved of sacrifices. Plato, for instance, accepted sacrifice as part of re ligious ritual, but still it consid ered it to be an unacceptable quid pro quo between people and the gods. See Dodds (1951) 222. The Pythagorea ns had also discredited the practice of sacrifice. See Iamblichus, Vit. Pythag. 147. Galen in De Usu Partium 3.10 rejects the worship by mean s of sacrifice. Euripides in Hercules Furens 1345 says 57 It is important to note at this point that the Christians in the first years may have been accused, among other things, of performing certain rituals and clandestine sa crifices. A Greek romance written by Lollianus in the 2nd century and found in a papyrus from Cologne attests to those accusations. For details see Henrichs (1970). Christians were also aware of these accusations, as well as of the fact that there were certa in sects that practiced such rituals. Cf. Octavius 9.5-6. Justin the Martyr (1 Apol 26.7), for instance, was concerne d that people might think that all the Christians engage in such activities. Wilken (198 4) 21 points out, however, that "the accusations of promiscuity and ritual murder appear only in Christian au thors. They are not present in the writings of pagan critics of Christianity."

PAGE 163

163 3. Clemens characterizes heathen gods as hostile to the human race. , 3. Athenagoras openly responds to the accusati ons of non Christians on the subject arguing that it is not because of atheism th at Christians do not participate in sacrifices; it is rather because true god does not need blood or the smell of burnt offerings. He acknowledges the superiority of his god by admitting and appreciating the fact that the whole world is his creation. , ... , ,1358. Tertullian discusses the issu e of sacrifices in the Apologia saying that his offering to god is the prayer from a chaste body, from a clean soul, and a sacred spirit ( offero opimam et maiorem 58 Christians consider spiritual sacrifi ce appropriate for their god, instead of bloody, animal s acrifices. Spiritual sacrifice includes prayer, the Eucharist, asceticism, or even the death of Martyrs. Spiritual sacrifice has also a philosophical foundation. See Young (1972); Daly (1977); Watteville (1966). Specifically on Athenagoras and the proper sacrifice to god see Malherbe (1969).

PAGE 164

164 hostiam quam ipse mandavit, orationem de carne pudi ca, de anima innocent, de spiritu sancto profectam, Apolog. 30.5-6)59. In Juppiter Tragoedus Juppiter Confutatus and Concilium Deorum Lucian discusses the idea of (non) existence of gods and the ro le of human belief in the divine. In Juppiter Tragoedus for instance, Zeus is concerned because a c ynic philosopher has questioned gods existence and wonders what may happen, if people actually be lieve him; will they stop honoring gods and offering sacrifices? That will mean that the gods will eventually starve to death. ,18. Although the discussion and the c oncerns revolve around the cyni cs attitude towards gods, it still cannot be overlooked that Lucian takes a literary motif from the Apologists and turns it into a satiric dialogue where he discusses the sa me issue but on his own terms. The end of the dialogue does not provide a definitive picture of Lucians position or the impact Damis argumentation had on his audience. Lucian leaves all possibilities open and the work closes with Zeus saying that he would rather have one follo wer like Damis, than the whole Babylonia on his side. We could go as far as to suggest that Luci an may be referring implic itly to the new religion that still had only a few followers; they were co nscious believers, however, they had a developed doctrine and they were persuasive and willing to initiate others. De Sacrificiis De Sacrificiis is a c learer and certainly more definitive picture of how peoples perspective changed with regards to religion, and how anthropo morphism can be seen from a different 59 Cf. also Tertullian, Adv. Marcionem 3.22.6; 2.18.3; 2.22.3; Apolog 42.7; De virg. Vel. 13. See also Ferguson (1980)

PAGE 165

165 perspective. Lucian examines the veracity of paganism and the foundation of traditional rituals and he gives an account of how someone non-pagan might view and interpret sacrifices. As a matter of fact, this technique is his favorite tech nique of estrangement; he presents to pagans another perspective of their lif estyle and philosophy. He argues th at it is people who portray gods as low and mean since they are the ones who clai m that gods are flattered when praised and get angry at the mortals if they are neglected. .1. They also do not seem to grant anything to mo rtals, unless they get something in return and he has an endless repository of literary examples to reinforce his position, starting with Homer and Apollos reward to Chrysis ( , .. .3) .Afterwards he explains how people have assigned different places to each god. Delphi is Apollos territory, At hens is Athenas and all that seems to be distributed based on Homers and Hesiods description of Olympus (810). At this point Luci an hints at the human interference and all those elements that men have introduced to religion. His reference to Homer and Hesiod also remotely resemble the Apologist s' accusations that it is only authors on whom pagans base their beliefs about gods and the foundation of their religion. The most striking similarity between Lucian and the Apologists, ho wever, is his account of statues and their place in paganism. In a rather derogatory tone he says that it is not enough that pagans build temple so

PAGE 166

166 that gods are not houseless and they put statues, but they also co me to believe that what they behold is not ivory or go ld, but the god himself. ... .11. This is actually thesame argument that the early Christians make, targeting not paganism itself, but the worship of lifeles s, manmade material, as discu ssed above. He also proceeds to accuse men of being cruel when they perform sacr ifices assuming that they appeal to the gods. Therefore Lucian does not speak in favor of one or the other religion and he does not attack divine entity (ies) themselves. He simply stat es how people perceive re ligion, how they render it in everyday life and as usual he presents the perspec tive of the other, in this case of the nonpagan. The fact that he does not mention Ch ristians by name does not necessarily indicate ignorance on his behalf; on the contrary it ma y prove that he knows how to discuss crucial, current issues and be subtle at the same time. Lucian and Tatian At this point I would like to discuss Luci an and T atian, a Syrian Apologist of the 2nd century C.E60 with whom Lucian shares strong connec tions, one of which is the adoption of Greek language and culture. Lucian became an or ator, while Tatian used Greek as a means to promote his Christian beliefs. Pliny as a governor of Bithynia came in contact with Christians and Tatian converted to Christ ianity. This means that no matter how small the Christian community was, it was influential, slowly invasive and people in Syria were far from ignorant. 60 For a discussion on the exact date of Tatian's Apology see Grant (1988) and Elze (1960) 43-4.

PAGE 167

167 Lucian therefore must have known mo re than he lets us see. Both Lucian and Tatian seem to be addressing similar topics employing similar techniques as if they engage in a literary discussion. Both Lucian and Tatian elaborate on the issue of the philosophers veracity, the quality and role of performances and their reception. Philosoph ers, their role and cont ribution to religion and the philosophy of life as well as their truthf ulness are discussed by every early Apologist61. All of them, however, with the ex ception of Tatian, elabor ate on their philos ophy, their convictions and their contradictions62. The Apologists wonder about t hose who set the foundation of paganism; are they the philosophers or the poe ts? There are extended discussions on the topic and an argument they employ is that philosophers do not even manage to come to an agreement between themselves. Some of them have also worshipped and deified water or fire; elements that are created and subdued to the one true Ch ristian god. Therefore Ch ristians argue that philosophers are not trustwort hy sources from whom one can learn the truth concerning divinities and god. Tatian, w ho more than once seems to be in dialogue with Lucian, discusses philosophers as individuals, soci al entities, and members of the community. He says that 61 Origen in an attempt to found a philosophical background for the Christian religion examines Greek philosophers and finds common ground between the new religion and Plato's allegories ( Contra Celsum 4.39). For more details see Hanson (1980) 950. Justin also argues that Greek philosophers had discovered the truth about god and religion but through their own reasoning and this actually prepared the ground for the understanding of Christianity. See for instance First Apologia xx. See also Barnard (1967) 27-38 for more details on Justin's philosophical background. Barnard argues about Justin's strong Neo-Platonic influences. Clemens of Alexandria argues that Christians can actually benefit from Greek philosophy ( I Cor 1.22; Stromata I.V.28). See Danilou (1973) 107-27; idem 328-35 on the effects of Platonism on Christian doctrine. See also Wolfson (1956) v.1 passim on Platonic, Aristotelian and Stoic influences. 62 For a discussion about the relation of Christian theolo gy and ideology with Greek philosophy, their partial consensus with the Stoics and their dissension with Epicurea ns see Sordi (1986) 156-70. St Paul in the Epistle to the Romans chapter 13 discusses the similarities between Stoi c and Christian approach to politics. Apologists of the 2nd century admit that Greeks philosophy may have actually been their forerunner, the necessa ry preparation of the mind to achieve the ultimate goal, to understand and believe in god. They also claim that some of the Greek philosophers have talked about the One god and thus very early they impugn pagan polytheism. There is also a group who claims that philosophers cannot reach any kind of agreement regarding god(s) e ither between themselves, or even sometimes they seem to contradict themselves. The truth is that they all seem familiar with Greek philosophy and they have also employed in their process of attaining their Christian goal to be employing Greek philosopher's methods of thought.

PAGE 168

168 philosophers are dirty and untidy in appearance and also pretenti ous. They need, Tatian says, a servant to carry their wallet around. He also says that Diogenes, the Cynic, died of gluttony63. The same issue of honesty is criticized by Lucian in Cynicus and in several of his philosophical works. It has been argued mainly that Lucian is a foe to the Cynics and th at explains most of his animosity and the spiteful and caustic writings th at target them. When one considers these works, however, in a religious rather than philosophical context, then they reveal another aspect. Lucians criticism resembles Tatians comments. 2nd century C.E. saw a revival of the philosophical schools and one of the reasons may have been the quest for the truth, and peoples need for guidance. Apparently, however, philoso phers failed to live up to their followers expectations since they only fostered a verisimilit ude of faith to their doctrines. This reality has been picked up both by Lucian, and Tatian. The la tter emphasizes how pretentious philosophers are and their failure to remain fa ithful to their preaching. He talk s about secretly gluttonous cynic philosophers, like Diogenes, and abou t Aristotles failure to instil l the values he was supposedly abiding by even to his student Alexander who excel led only in murdering his best friend and then beguiling everyone into believing th at he was grieving for him. ... < > .2. 63 Diogenes Laertius VI.76f. mentions this version of Diogenes' death given by Tatian.

PAGE 169

169 In Lucians Hermotimus Hermotimus, a student of philosophy, converses with Lycinus. The latter asks Hermotimus if now, that he has been a student for a very long time, he has come to any definitive conclusion about philosophical trut h or even if he has been rewarded for his studies. In their discussion about philosophy, li fe, rewards and happiness Hermotimus invites Lycinus to attend his teachers lecture and asce rtain by himself the truthfulness of his teaching. The latter responds ironically that there is a note posted sayi ng that his teacher will not philosophize that day. Lycinus also explains that according to what he heard, Hermotimus teacher was at a birthday dinner th e night before; he ate and drank more that he should and as a result he was not feeling well ( ... 11). Furthermore he had an argument with Eythedemus and being unab le to persuade him he thrashed a cup at him ( .12). The caustic remarks targeting pretentious philo sophers may simply set the tone of the period and target their questionable conduct. The resemblance of Lucian s and Tatians arguments, however, cannot be coincidental. The only difference between the two is that Tatian wishes to be recuperative for his sake and for the others and thus he converts to Christianity. Lucian, on the other hand, pokes fun at philosophers, and this may re inforce our belief that Christians were not inexcusably inimical to other religious-philosophical do ctrines. Their poignant tone ag ainst philosophers seems to be

PAGE 170

170 result of soul searching, since even the non-Chri stian Lucian vouches for the foible points of pagan philosophers at the time. It seems that at the time peoples need for guidance triggered the revival of philosophical schools. Christianity also seems appealing as a religion to a gradually growing group of people because it is a combination of religion and philo sophy of life; it also consists of certain wellestablished norms of lifestyle that promise stability of life to the initiates. At the same time, if we believe the accounts of Lucian, philosophers dish onesty, among other things, starts cultivating a feeling of disbelief towards paganism. Another issue in which both Lucian and Tatian en gage is that of thei r reception. As it was presented in Chapter 3 Lucian in the prolaliae prepares the ground for his acceptance by the audience by means of several techniques. He also exhorts people not to dismiss him simply on account of his nationality. In Anacharsis, Toxaris and Scytha he elaborates also on the topic of fusion between different nationalities and how receptive people should be since they are members of a multicultural society. Tatian is sim ilarly open and honest about his origins but in his Oratio ad Graecos he encourages his audience not to dismiss his preaching assuming that he aspires to appear wiser than the Greeks ( < > .35)64. Tatian also makes a point about being an eye-w itness to all that he recounts. He went to Rome and he examined the philosophy and lifestyle of the Athenians before turning away from what he calls barbaric philosophy. 64 For Tatian's perception of 'barbarian', 'Greek', and 'Christian' see Waszink (1963) 41-56

PAGE 171

171 ... *** 35. Lucian also emphasizes the importance of se lf examination before one commits to an opinion both in De Historia Scribenda and De Dea Syria. In De Syria Dea refers to his nationality and then says that he was an eyewitness in all the events that took place during his lifetime; as for the rest he learnt from priests ( 1). Oratory obviously had an eminent role in the Empire at the time and, although the Christians make a point of dismissing anythi ng pagan, they still use classical literary and rhetorical techniques in order to support their doctrine. This is one proof against looking for the point where paganism ended and Ch ristianity started, when in fact we should be talking about the bridge between them. Scholars basing their evidence on Peregrinus have argued that Lucian was surprisingly ignorant of Christianity and its do ctrines. How is it then that he writes about the same topics that Apologists write and he elaborates on pagan rituals in the same context that the latter do? Christianity may not have been popular at the time and the number of Christians was not large, but the seeds for the new religion were all around and Lucian draws a picture of this transitional period. People were seeking for something else, for a higher entity. Christians interpret pagan sacrifices and rituals at face value and therefore they dismiss them. The same idea is put in the

PAGE 172

172 foreground by Lucian in Prometheus Prometheus argues that Zeus is unfairly infuriated for being deprived of only a sma ll portion of meat. Lucian seem s to be in a dialogue with Apologists; is he in accord with them or not? I do not believe that one can safely ascertain what his position was. I do not believe also that he was as ignorant of Christianity as some have been inclined to believe. Lucian has proven to be open-minded and perspicacious and therefore had most probably noticed the new religious trend. The reason why in Peregrinus he gives only scanty information about Christians is that they are not the focus of his treatise; he means to attack Peregrinus and one way to do that is to ad mit that he was able to distinguish himself only amidst nave people. As regards the argument that he should have dedicated some of his writings to the discussion of Christian ity, I believe that he has alr eady done that and that even Dialogi Deorum,Juppiter Confutatus, and Juppiter Tragoedus comically present the battle between the old and the new world. He also follows his traditional Lucianic te chnique of discussing important current issues but always with a patina of humor and under the faade of comic tradition. That way no one can accuse him of ridicu ling the heathen gods, since he just continues the tradition of Aristophanes. By focusing, however, not to the effeminacy of Dionysius, but to sacrifices, rituals and the truthfulne ss of philosophers, he stays current65. We cannot argue with absolute certainty that Lucian was deconstructing paganism, or that he was consciously discussing these questions wi th his contemporary Apologists. However, the fact that these seem to be current issues of concern proves beyond doubt that Lucian is not attached to the past. I suggest therefore that Luci an does not seem inclined to provide answers to religious and philosophical questio ns or to guide people; he does not give the impression that he 65 Sordi (1986) 57 compares Lucian to Galen and characterizing him as sceptic and rationalist who regards Christians "with mocking detachment or at most with a kind of tolerant respect and are prepared to ridicule their fideistic outlook, though not apparently feeling any preconceived antipathy towards them".

PAGE 173

173 wishes to be recuperative or a leading figure either. He simply acknowledges the existence of those issues while presen ting them from different perspectives He knows that it is always easier to approach people by appealing to their inclination to the comic. Standards of Morality and the Role of Spectacles Christianity and paganism have been discussed so far as religions and with regards to their differences in the m atter of sacr ifices and statuary. The dissensi ons, however, in the above issues indicate fundamental chasm also in the lifestyles of Christians and pagans. The subject that will be discussed in this section is what the paga n and Christian lifestyl e included, beyond religious rites. Christians claim premiership and infallibility in the way they lead their everyday life. They accuse pagans of immorality and attack spect acles for promoting indecent morals. Tatian and later Tertullian openly disapprove of performances and any other sort of spectacle, such as gladiatorial shows. Luci an, on the contrary, in De Saltatione argues in favor of theater and pantomime saying that they provide life lessons to the spectators. The literary discussion becomes more interesting when one considers Aelius Aristides, who although not a Christian, rallies against pantomime in Against the Dancers When one reads De Saltatione and compares it to Tatians Oratio ad Graecos Tertullians De Spectaculis passages from Clemens' Protrepticus and Philo Judaeus' De Agricultura questions arise regarding once more the shift from paganism to Christianity. It seems that there may have been more connecting points between th e two worlds and the passage from one to the other was gradual and lasted longer than we may think. It also becomes clearer that Christianity did not offer people only a religion, but also a a different lifestyle that even non-Christians approve of.

PAGE 174

174 Lucian's De Saltatione is a dialogue between Lycinus and Kraton; the former presents assiduously the merits and virtue s of theater and pantomime danc ing trying to persuade Kraton who is set against this sort of spectacles. Lyci nus discusses the abilitie s with which a dancer must be endowed, for instance admirable memory and clarity in his movements; he then argues that spectacles are not only amusing but they ar e didactic at the same time and then, taking for granted that Kraton is not agai nst tragedy and comedy, he says that pantomime is a form of theater. Towards the end of the di alogue, Lycinus discusses some negative aspects, namely that there is some possibility that the dancer may enter into an ecstatic state and thus forget who he is, act incomprehensibly, and be paranoid. Thes e occurrences are rare, though, and should not blemish pantomime as a genre. Kraton closes th e dialogue by admitting that he is persuaded and that he wants to go with Lyci nus to the next performance. There have been several suggestions concerning this work of Lucian. It has been argued that pantomime was a dangerous form of art for the stability of society and the moral standards of the upper classes. Lucian theref ore intends as always to familiar ize people with the unfamiliar. It has also been suggested that Lucian intends to put pantomime in a Greek context, the same way he did with Ea stern religions in De Syria Dea, and with the same mentality he tries to present himself as a partaker in the Greek culture and promote Greek-ness during the 2nd century C.E66. There is a possibility, however, that th is dialogue may have some bearing on the "discussion" between pagans and Christians. Cons idering that Lucian seems to be aware of the new religious current, although he doe s not say it explicitly, we can assume that he was not in a state of ignorance when it came to the other as pects of Christian doctr ine that pertained to 66 See Lada-Richards (2007) 98-103; 152-60.

PAGE 175

175 everyday lifestyle. When we read De Spectaculis it seems obvious that Lucian has not accepted the suggested Christian philosophy of life. He ma y have accepted or comprehended the religious aspect of the dissension between pagans and Chri stians, but theater and sp ectacles were forms of entertainment and moral teaching that were appropriate even for lower classes and women. The fact that many early Apologists at tack spectacles as early as the beginning of the 2nd century, but even later than that Tertullian feels that he has to defend Chris tian animosity towards theater and all kinds of performance and later in the 4th century Arnobius in Adversus Nationes still brings up the same issues means that it was a long way for the Christians until they established their cultural identity. The first sections of De Saltatione concern other religions an d nations that consider pantomime a respectable form of entertainment and they even include it in their religious rituals. Thessalians, for instance, call their protectors and heroes Lucian then exalts the performers' ability to remember ev ery single myth and claims that pantomime is an integral part of society since it only brings to life stories that are part of ci ties' mythological history. Early Apologists also attack gladiatori al shows arguing that they deva lue human life and self respect among other things. Lucian turns this argument around and says that dancing is by far a more beautiful and undeniably more wholesome spectacle. The final section con cerns the possibility that the performer may get absorbed in the pers onality that he impersona tes and loses control. Lucian admits that this is not acceptable by either the audience or the performer himself. He even presents the case of a dancer who was inflicted by this temporary dementia and when he regained control and realized the state in which he had entered, he was so remorseful that he became really sick. Lucian therefore contradicts anot her argument of the Apol ogists who claim that people tend to lose the control of their feelings and therefore act in a depreciatory manner and

PAGE 176

176 lose their dignity and morality. He tries to show that it is only the benefits of spectacles that people reap and any excess of emotions is an exception and not the general case. Clemens in Paedagogus accuses singing during dining fo r inducing passions, drunkenness and thoughtless behavior. [ ] , .2.4.40. He also argues that people are degraded to animal status for pipes are meant for animals and not for men ( 2.4.41). Later in the same work he openly ta rgets theater as a s ource of disease, disorderly conduct, and a place where the immora l congregation of men and women is fostered ( ... .3.11.76). The same accusation against theater is repeated also in Stromata ( < >, .2.15.68) Philo Judaeus in De Agricultura launces an attack against theater along the same lines. He argues that it is sloth that ha s given birth to theater

PAGE 177

177 just like an abundance in the number of cattle a stock keeper has may result in laziness on his behalf, irresponsibility a nd consequently in the scattering of the flock. Therefore, he says, that sloth lets the mind wonder along w ith the other senses, vision and hearing; this is when people attend spectacles and expose themselves to dancer s and mimes and leave their senses err without reigns. ... ... 34 35. Later in the same work he admonishes people to not even participate in athletic contests and not to concern themselves with winning (111 -3). Finally, Tatian discusses theater and more specifically pugilists, gladiators, musicians and mime actors in the Oratio ad Graecos 23-4. He reprimands everyone who is involved in any way in these spectacles, thos e who give their bodies and self-respect in the altar of th e arena or the stage, the wealthy ones who hire people in order to kill or be killed, the judges, and even the specta tors who subject themselves to such degradation. ... [ ] , ...23 4.

PAGE 178

178 Tertullian in De Spectaculis rails against any form of spect acle which he considers to be evil, a gathering of the impi ous, the chair of pestilence (" felix vir," inquit, "qui non abiit in concilium impiorum et in via peccatorum non stetit nec in cathedra pestium sedit ." 3). This description resembles Philo's description of them as being He also elaborates on the fact that everything is God's creation and therefore not by definition inimical to him, but it is because of men's misuse of what has been given to them that spectacles offensive to god have made their appearance. He is set ag ainst theater, amphitheater, and any form of amusement that relates to the old pagan culture a nd religion. He goes as far as to narrate a story of a woman who was possessed by evil spirits af ter she attended a th eatrical performance (Itaque in exorcissimo cum oneraretur immundus spiritus, quod ausus esset fidelem aggredi, constanter: "et iustissime quidem,"inquit,"feci: in meo eam inveni.". 26). One of his arguments actually goes back to Lucian's De Saltatione ; Tertullian condemns theater b ecause it is the source and the cradle of unrestrained feelings and every emotional excess is allowed ( Cum ergo furor interdicitur nobis, ab omni spect aculo auferimur, etiam a circo, ubi proprie furor praesidet. Aspice populum ad id spectaculum iam cum furo re venientem, iam tumultuosum, iam caecum, iam de sponsionibus concitatum. Sed circo quid amarius, ubi ne principibus quidem aut civibus suis parcunt? Si quid horum quibus circus furit, alicubi conpetit sanctis, etiam in circo licebit, si vero nusquam ideo nec in circo 16). As we see, the objections of the Christians to spectacles ultimately pertain people's lifestyle. At the time of Lucian Christians may not have established firmly their identity and that could be a reason why there are only scanty literary references to spectacles and their evil nature. At the time of Tertullian, however, Christians have developed their doctrine and also the vocabulary that the latter uses, for instance Christiani ethnici nationes, Christus dominus

PAGE 179

179 proves that they have also established their iden tity. Furthermore, Tertullian towards the end of De Spectaculis states with certainty that all the pagans will suffer when the Lord returns (30). Christians, judging by Tertullian's writings, are not hiding anymore and are not merely trying to explain themselves and their religion; they claim infallibility and clearly separate themselves from all the other religions. They also make the dua lity in the nature of Christianity clear, namely that it is a religion and a lifestyle as well. It is a fact that the circumstances and the quality of spectacles at the time had degraded and proflig ate characters were presented on stage, for instance naked women and prostitutes. One should consider, however, that these spectacles were part of people's lives and religion, as they knew and perceived it did not in terfere with them, and what is more their gods were not insulted but they were sometimes even revered by means of certain spectacles. The transition between pagan culture and morality and Christian appears less clear-cut once we consider the case of Aelius Aristides and his Oration Against the Dancers Aristides is pagan but he shares the Christ ian revulsion against theater, mi me, and pantomime and shows an evident deprecation against spectacles of any ki nd, although he considers Christians themselves to be a threat to Greek customs and religion. W ith regards to spectacles, Aristides argues that they are perilous to the standards of morality and consequently inappropriate for any group or age of people. He starts off saying that the da ncers claim that they step out of rhythm and correctness in order to be appealing to their audience. , 401 2.

PAGE 180

180 Therefore they are obviously aware of the indeco rous nature of their spectacles and in spite of that they still wish to pe rform, something that makes thei r conduct inexcusable. Aristides' argumentation against these spectacles does not focus on anything more specific; he seems to have taken for granted that pantomime is repr ehensible and he theref ore only explains why people should abstain. He considers it an a bomination of theater and an insult to the appropriateness of music. He also accuses pant omime actors of shedding every shred of selfrespect and even going as far as to hurt themselves so that they may attract larger audience. ( , .405.) Hence he concludes that pantomime is ina ppropriate for men and women, high-ranked officials, young and old people ( 415-6). Theater was an accepted and approved part of an tiquity, even for the more secluded social groups, like women. Aristides, however although not a disciple of Christianity, rejects it. It seems that the alteration in the standards of morality that started with the new religion was infiltrating society even before th e religious part did. Christianity indeed had a dual nature, it was both a religion and a philosophy of life, and it seems that subconsciously even non Christians

PAGE 181

181 were accepting this new lifestyle, without necessa rily approving of its religious extensions. Consequently, although we cannot argue with certainty that Lucian's De Saltatione was meant to engage in a conversation with Aristides and those of the same ideology, we can certainly entertain the idea that this work could serv e multiple purposes and bring in the foreground current issues, namely the newly proposed lifestyle, or the rejection of pantomime as a dangerous form of entertainment for the upper classes. Conclusion Lucian has been treated m ainly as a satirist, a representative of the Second Sophistic whose intentions are not serious. Charact eristic is, for instance, the clai m of scholars that Lucian cannot be the author of De Syria Dea mainly because the work is not e xplicitly comic. The truth is that Lucian finds effective literary means to approach people. He addresses is sues of concern or of general interest and the way he deceives his mode rn critics with his faade of humor, the same way his real-self eludes his contemporaries. In this chapter I examined Lucian's perception of religion and the transition from paganism to Chri stianity. Lucian belongs to the period when the religious status quo is no longer firmly rooted, although pa gan deities still have the prevalent position, and Eastern religions, Jews and Christians simply try to claim a place in the Roman Empire. Lucian draws a sketch of this era in De Dea Syria where he gives an account of Eastern deities and worshipping rites in i onic dialect. He gives a patina of Greek culture to those 'other religions' and his serious tone suggests that he perceives religion as a universal phenomenon; each nation, according to him, simply perceives a nd worships its deities in different ways. The rest of Lucian's god-centric works are weaved around the same core. The focal point of Lucian's critique are the heathen gods worrying, reaching the limits of anthropomorphism, and therefore being ridiculed. An issue that remains am biguous is whether Lucian opposes the aging

PAGE 182

182 Olympians, if he simply pokes harmless fun, or if he is actually aware of what other religions accuse the Olympians of and discusses it publicly. Peregrinus although a group of scholars uses it as proof of Lucian's limited knowledge of Christianity, is still a caustic wo rk that targets intriguant and hypocritical individuals, including the Cynics, who take advantage of the really pious. He talks openly about the Christians and without either approving or di sapproving their religion, he sti ll shows awareness. Taking into account that all the aforementioned works, we may argue safely that Lucian was aware of Christianity and the claims its adherents made against paganism and he becomes a proof of the dialogue between the different relig ions in the 2nd century C.E. Fi nally, I discuss Christianity as a lifestyle and how Lucian's De Saltatione fits in the image. Christians propose a life of morality and abstinence from entertainments like theatr ical performances. Lucian, on the contrary, proceeds to eulogiase the positive effects that pa ntomime has on the audience and the life lessons it provides. The discussion becomes more comp licated when we include Aelius Aristides' Against the Dancers Lucian's literary correspondence with Aristides may indicate once more the ongoing correspondence between lifestyles, perspec tives, and ultimately religions. Christianity seems to be infiltrating society gradually, sin ce standards of morality and the criteria of the pagan Aristides are in accordance with Christia n doctrines. Finally, Lucian is again in the spotlight of current events and offers a fresh pe rspective from which to consider this religious amalgam and maybe a way to ease the transition from pa ganism to a new theological reality.

PAGE 183

183 CHAPTER 5 LUCIAN'S NACHLEBEN IN EUROPEAN LITERATURE Introduction Authors carry in their wo rks traces of their lif e and their Zeitgeist, as they experience it. Some of them also have as a b ackbone or inspiration a predecesso r. Hence their literary creations carry onto the future nuances of their past as we ll as their present. Lucian as a literary persona has been influenced by earlier authors like Juvena l in his writings as he considers contemporary events and the socio historical circumstances of his lifetime. He has also proven a valuable source in our attempts to acquire a clearer view of the 2nd century C.E. reality. Finally, Lucians untraditional portrayal of the gods and his discussions on religion have rendered him a bridge between pagans and Christianity. Lucian therefore is a prolific and influen tial writer of his times who, by adopting and mastering hi s predecessors satiric tones, while infiltrating them through his personal style and agenda, ma nages to preserve not basic hist oric information, but the social pulse of a changing, challenging and transitiona l era for several nations, including the Greeks and the Romans. He manages also to avoid bei ng dated and to escape any specific and narrow time-frame. He cauterizes vices that are recu rrent in people throughout the centuries and he achieves all that through manipula tive rhetorical techniques. All the aforementioned in relation to the ingenuous narrative styles the plethora of liter ary allusions, the reve rsal of strange and familiar, expected and unexpected have rendered hi s writings a source of inspiration for different authors in the centuries that followed. In this chapter my intention is to find Lu cianic traces and proof of his influence on Byzantine and European authors from the 12th till the 20th century C.E. The religious and political upheavals, revolutions and reformations in Italy, England and Germany, for instance, have sowed the seeds for Lucianic writings. Several times peoples disappointment and

PAGE 184

184 pessimistic view of the world has led authors to write about utopian s ceneries and lands where one could travel or where there were still laws to be trusted. Lucian, the Roman Empire, the Roman and the Greek culture as we have been st udying them in the previo us chapters, may have been long dead at the time, but the spirit of Lucian, his playfu l tone, his insight and astute perception have lived in later authors, who were inspired by his motifs and sometimes his rhetorical and other narrative techniques. Lucian in the Second Century C.E. and in Byzantium Lucians reception m ust have been successful considering that he was appointed as a Roman official in Egypt. One can assume therefore that his Satire his admonitory treatises and all his prolaliae his religious works, and his speeches must have appealed to his audience. Considering also how well adjusted he seems to be in the political s ituation, judging from the encomium for the emperors mistress in the Imagines it is only reasonable to assume that he knew how to approach people and consequently to climb socially. He died around 170 C.E. and it was a long time after that, specifically in the 15th century that we have significant traces of Lucian and his literary productions, with Erasmus and Mores translations of some of his works. What happened in between; did Lucian survive in tr anslations or editions of his works, or even as a literary persona through his techniques? The rising of Christianity and Lucians controversial presentation of the gods and th e emphasis on not generally acceptable social groups, like courtesans, could have hi ndered his posthumous remembrance. Alciphron, who in the 2nd century C.E. wrote Letters of Fishermen Letters of Farmers Letters of Parasites, wrote also Letters of the Courtesans The latter shows Lucianic elements which remind the reader of Lucians Dialogues of the Courtesans Alciphron probably lived around the same time with Lucian. There is al ways the difficulty ther efore in saying with certainty who was influenced by whom. The extensiv e production of Lucian and the fact that he

PAGE 185

185 has developed his techniques, however, may be an i ndicator in this case that he was probably the source. In Alciphrons Letters of the Courtesans it is either a courtesan who is writing to her lover or to another courtesan, or a despondent love r is asking for fidelity from his mistress. The similarities to Lucians Dialogues of the Courtesans pertain to the choice of the topic and the fact that the author decided to give voice to a group of people which is not usually represented in literature. The roguish way the courtesans are sp eaking in Lucian is imitated by Alciphron in the face of women with no moral boundaries, engage d in amorous affairs and complaints about being neglected. Alciphrons style, however, se ems more awkward and the word order does not make the text flow. It is as if he is trying to imitate Lucian and also ap ply onto his work a patina of witty remarks and expressions, but not as successfully as Lucian. Even the interlocutory style of Lucians work separates it clearly from Antiphron in that it makes the formers text thrive with smartness and feminine impudence. There appear to be scanty traces of Lucian and his works in the times between Alciphron and the Byzantines and these are not always positi ve. The reason for that may very well be that Christianity was being shaped at the time and proto-Christian authors in their attempts to promote Christian doctrines must have been very cautious and suspicious about Lucian and his ambiguous views and treatises. Libanius in the 3rd century C.E. attacks Lucian and Aristophanes but he also borrows from the latter in oration XXV on slaver y. Julian also in Caesares comes as close to Lucian's symposium as one can get in the 4th century C.E. Lactantius (4th C.E.) in Divinae Institutiones 1.9.8 talks of Lucian as someone who spared neither gods nor men ( Lucianus, qui neque diis pepercit neque hominibus ) and Eunapius mentions him in Vitae Sophistarum 454. After that in the dark Middle Ages it must have been almost impossible for people to be able to see behind Lucians writin gs and appreciate his merits for obvious reasons.

PAGE 186

186 The reaction of the Byzantines varied. Some were set against Lucian c onsidering him an enemy to Christianity and others used him as a linguistic example for their grammar books. Suda defines him as an anti-Christian, while Johannes Georgides (1000) uses examples from Lucian in the Collections of Maxims and Thomas Magister (1300) in the Selection of Attic Nouns. Manuel Philes in the 13th century wrote a poem in Iambics titled The Marriage of Roxana and Alexander inspired by Lucians ekphrasis in Herodotus Theodoros Prodromos also in the Sale of Lives of Litterateurs and Men in Public Life in the 12th century imitates Lucians techniques. Philopatris another anonymous satirical work, which probabl y dates in the eleventh century, imitates the satirical aspect of Lucian and then Timarion follows on the same lines and dates in the 12th century. Therefore, although Lucian has always been impossible to rank in a specific literary genre, the Byzantines succeeded in getting from him the elements they wanted to use and incorporated this material accordingly into th eir works. They used him as a repository of correctness in the usage of li nguistics, Satire and even his ekphrases as a source of inspiration. Also, just like Lucian used satire and para doxographic writing, mock en comia and resourceful literary techniques in order to criticize while si multaneously influence pe ople, the same way, for instance, Prodromos employed satiric techniques a nd incorporated them in the context of his times. More specifically, the majority of Byzantine wo rks is concerned with religious matters and the language is archaizing. Ther e is also poetic and prose prod uction, which may not always be exceptional in quality, but nonetheless it cannot be denied that it is the continuity of the Classical Greek literary tradition. In the early Byzantine pe riod and specifically in the fourth century the focus turns to religious writings. Authors adhere to archaizing style and form, but not in language. Saints' lives is one of the main topi cs and the authors usua lly apologize for their

PAGE 187

187 inability to use the all wise Classical language. Later on as Classical archaizing language infiltrates into education it gradually dominates public life and the late fourth century Church fathers are classicizing in language as well as in style and form. That shift would help them in their attempt to approach and in fluence the upper classes as well. Representative examples of the times are John Chrysostom, and Gregory of N azianzus. This does not mean that everyday language, the so called Koine, was abandoned. As a matter of fact there we re still some not so literate Church fathers who were thus using simp ler language and of course there was the large mass of Christians who would not fully comp rehend preaching if done in archaizing language. The time between fifth and eleventh centuries saw the co-existence of three different levels in language; the archaizing Greek, the literary Koine and the popular Koine. The literary genre, the ability of the author and the expectations of th e audience of course were dictating each time the type of the language used. The eleventh and twel fth centuries signal the cultivation of a language closest to Classical rather than spoken Greek. Write rs of the time that mark this period are Anna Komnena, Nicetas Choniates,and Michael Psellus. Tw elfth century also is marked by a revival of interest in Platonism. Amidst Christian ideas and beliefs there are still these who search for truth in pagan philosophies1. The work which is examined in this section in relation to Lucian is Timarion2. It was most probably written in the twelfth centu ry. The authorship is still deba ted. It has been suggested that it could have been written by Timarion, Theodore Prodromus, or Nicolaos Callicles. What this kind of literary production indicates is the variety of genres to which the Byzantines turn their 1 For an overview of the Byzantine scholarship see Browning (1964), (1977), (1989); Kazhdan and Franklin (1984). 2 For more information on Timarion and a commentary see Romano (1974), Baldwin (1984)

PAGE 188

188 focus3; religious writings do not mon opolize the literary scene. Timarion specifically may be an example of how people handled religious issues and the issue of death. Considering that Christianity has long been in its heyday and topi cs like death and afterlif e were being discussed and also that Classical examples seem to be mo dels of language, style or topic, the author of Timarion seems to have tried a combination of the two. Browning mentions that Nicetas Choniates observes that the twelfth century s ees a resurgence of eccles iastical disputes and heresy trials such as had not been seen since the final condemnation of Iconoclasm in the early ninth century4. Timarion therefore could be seen as the auth ors position in this matter. Lucian as a source of inspiration for the author seems interesting and raises questions concerning the latters intentions. Lucian can be placed ch ronologically in the bounda ry between Classical world and Christianity; his choice of topics touc hes issues that interest and concern everyday people, while at the same time he adheres to th e Classical language. Furthermore, his ambiguous attitude towards the new religion coul d also explain why the author of Timarion invoked him as a source for the kind of work he wished to write5. Lucian lives in Timarion at various levels; the author of Timarion imitates him in language, motifs and scenes. The story is abou t a young man, Timarion, who goes with his father and friends to Thessaloniki for the festival of the city patron saint Demetrios. When he returns home he narrates his advent ure to his friend Kydion. He ta lks about their journey to Thessaloniki, that they were always escorted a nd stayed with friends on their way there or in 3 Another satiric work that also involves a descent to the underworld is Mazaris. It is dated about 3 centuries later than Timarion On Mazaris as part of Byzantine satirical tradition and how it relates to Timarion see Tozer (1881). 4 Browning (1989) 8. 5 Tozer (1881) 237 argues that For some of the vices that Lucian attacks, such as prid e, avarice and hypocricy, are amongst the things with which religion is constantly at war; and at the same time Christian teachers were amused at his ridicule of the heathen gods and ancient systems of philosophy

PAGE 189

189 other lodgings. They get to the city earlier than the festival, so they go hunting since, as Timarion explains, they loathe idleness. Afterwards he de scribes the festival, the people that attended, and the things sold there in an elaborate ekphrasis After that he describes in detail the religious part of the celebrations focusing on the civil and military parade that took place where the governor also participated6. Timarion describes with details the latte r, his appearance and his family. The festivities last for three days, after which Timari on falls ill with a fever. Nonetheless he decides to undertake the return portion of the journey. When they get, however, to river Hebrus in Thrace he loses part of his bile and th erefore at midnight two devils come to his bed to take him to the underworld. Timarion elaborates on the description of Hades, the people he meets, even the surroundings. He meets different gr oups of people, rich and poor as well as individuals who have special characteristics or vices, lik e gluttony. At some poi nt he meets an old teacher of his, Theodore of Smyrna7. When Timarion explains why he is there, his teacher volunteers to help him persuade the judges of the underworld to le t him live. In the cour t Theodore argues that Timarion was still alive and he al so provides evidence for that. The judges after long deliberation decide that the devils misjudged Timarion and transgressed his rights. Therefore, Timarion is set free to go back to the world of the living and th e devils are excused from their duties. Theodore asks from his student to send a few things to Hades once he is back to Earth. Timarion says to Kydion that he owes to take care of that and fina lly he suggests that they go their separate ways and return to their homes. 6 Tozer (1881) 245-6 discusse s how the author refers to other historical characters implicitly via linguistic games. For instance, Timarion says about the gov ernor who participated in the procession that hi s grandfather received his surname due to the ancient speeches ( ) that were made by or about him. The author obviously refers to Michael Palaeologus. 7 It is generally known that Byzantines wrote satirical works sometimes in order to target real people. An example is when Emperor Julian became the subject of such literary attacks and he responded with his work Misopogon For a collection of Byzantine satirical writings see Hase (1813) 129f. On Byzantine Satire see Baldwin (1984), 459-68; Jeffreys (1974).

PAGE 190

190 The way Timarion and Kydion meet and the fact that they engage in a discussion remind us of the treatises and the dialogues that Lucian wrote. Specifically, Lexiphanes starts with Lycinus saying Timarion begins respectivelywith Kydion saying .The author could be entertaining the idea of drawing the attention of the readers to Lucian from the very beginning. Was his intention to prepare them for a paradoxographic story? If we assume that the author enjoyed those perceptions, that would mean that Lucian along with his style and the motifs of his works were famous at the time. It does not necessarily mean, however, that he wa s known among the masses as well. Considering also that twelfth century was also the time that Neoplatonism was revive d in the literary world, amidst Christian preaching and despite it, Lucian the anti-conformist, and the doubter could very well have a position in the readings of the educat ed. There are also other linguistic similarities between this work and seve ral of Lucians writings8. In addition to linguistic borrowings the author used Lucian as a model in the selecti on of scenes and narrative motifs. The descent to Hades is the main scene in Timarion, described in great detail and being the repository of many of the authors philosoph ic, religious and political ideas as well. The selection therefore of a nonearthly place in order to cauterize earthly vices and current issues lies securely close to Lucian. It cannot be argued of course that the motif is excl usively Lucianic, but other details in which the author gets bring him closer to the Lucianic model. Timari on meets poor and wealthy people; their life in the underworld resembles the one th ey lived on earth. The old man who shows signs of gluttony cannot but be a clear satire ag ainst this diachronic human weakness. Dialogi Mortuorum and Menippus were obviously a source for the au thor. In the first work Lucian 8 For a detailed presentation and discussion of Timarions linguistic borrowings from Lucians works see Baldwin (1984) passim.

PAGE 191

191 makes a point of mentioning that no one takes anything with him in the underworld, neither wealth, nor food. His characters do not have any trac e of beauty or other ear thly characteristic to distinguish them. The satire also on vices like gl uttony and attachment to earthly pleasures run through all of Lucians dialogues. The end also of Timarion and the young mans ascent to the world of the living resembles that of Menippus9. Hence, it is interesting to notice the way twelfth century Byzantines assimilate Lucian. It seems that they have a full perception of his style and intentions and th is is how the author of Timarion manages to revive not only the Lucianic language, but also partly the spirit of the Second Sophistic. In Timarion also the author engages in a game with the feud between philo sophers of Classical an tiquity and emphasizes their disagreements. That could represent the eccle siastical disputes that were raging at the time as the author gets even closer to the problematic issues such as the conflict between paganism and Christianity. Timarion in his narration conc erning his experiences in the underworld says that he saw John Italus trying to sit next to Pythagoras; the la tter, however, rejected him on the basis of his religious beliefs. There are clear di fferences, however, in the style between Lucian and the author of Timarion. If we compare the Dialogues of the Dead to Timarion, we notice the lack of playfulness in the latter. Timarion's author just notices the dead and their situation. Lucian, on the contrary, is always satirical and caustic. He laughs at the previous lifes wealthy and the all powerful tyrants w ho are now nothing but deformed sk eletons. Lucian is also more theatrical; the characters threat en their interlocutors saying that they will abuse them physically and the dialogues resemble more a dramatic re citation. Timarion simply narrates, while Kydion interrupts from time to time without saying anyt hing to enliven the dialogue. Finally, another 9 Timarion 46; Menippus 22.

PAGE 192

192 probably essential difference betw een the two works is that in Timarion the dead are more passive, as if they have accepted their fate. They do not complain about what they miss, except for Timarions teacher who asks for some food fro m the world of the living. In Lucian, however, the dead have preserved a number of their hum an-self. Midas, Croesus, and Sardanapalus complain about the money and power and that th ey left behind and Menippus comments on the loss of beauty in the underworld with a particular reference to Helen of Troy10. Someone could argue that behind this lies the Chri stian belief of the author of Timarion regarding life after death11. It could also be of course that Timarions author was less charismatic than Lucian and could not render his dialogue as li ve, playful, and realistic as Lucian. He elaborates, on the contrary, on the display of his na rratological abilities, which can be better exhibited in a long narration rather than in a dialogue. Lucianic Humor in the 15th and 16th Century Europe Just as political and social circumstances dic tated the content of Lucians works, it is only reasonable that the same can be said about any writer throughout the centuries. In 15th and 16th century Europe the role of church, the demands and the vice s of ecclesiastic monarchs along with the humanists program for educational and theological reformations influenced the educated, the religious, the w ealthy and the poor in different ways. The clash between the different truths of Christia nity, the exploitation of religi on to achieve personal goals and prosperity on behalf of the clergy and the c ontinuous social and monetary ascend of the upper 10 The description of the underworld and the idea that nothin g is permanent and especially not wealth that is lost, like everything else, after death appears also later in Rabelais Pantagruel and Gargantua See Highet (1957) 184-5. 11 If we accept the possibility that the author of Timarion makes a religious statement with his presentation of the underworld, it would not necessarily mean that he is not a Christian. There are examples of other educated men who used rationality in relation to Christianity. Psellus is one of them; he did not accept religious occultism unquestionably and argued that Christian ity and Classical Greek antiquity could co -exist, spiritually at least. On that see Psellus, Chronography 3.3; Tatakis (1959) 175-6.

PAGE 193

193 classes created a prolific ground for men of letters. Authors like Lorenzo de Valla, Erasmus, Thomas More, and Luther tried to find the truth behind the writings of the church, the assertions of the wealthy, the pretentiousness of the educated and philosophers and teach it also to laymen. Some also tried to expose the unfairness agai nst lower classes that flourished in different sociopolitical and economic levels and they also tried to find the best way for the governing of a state and how commonwealth was to be achieved. These were the circumstances and the demands of the era that allowed or even neces sitated the spring of Humanism, both Italian and English. In this section Erasmus Praise of Folly and Mores Utopia are discussed in an attempt to assess Lucians influence on the tw o humanists, so that we may gain a better insight of the paragons under which the authors wrote, and of th e circumstances that inspired a revival of the Lucianic techniques and humor. So cially the position of the church was eminent and her role in the lives of everyday people crucial. Priests a nd friars were the reli gious leaders, the one claiming and presumed to hold the truth about Christianity, and afterlif e. They were the ones who had the responsibility to lead laymen si nce the latter were unable to comprehend the doctrines of religion. Beyond that, however, they we re also claiming the ability to retain a place in heaven for those who would pa y to the absolution of their sins. They often mistranslated, or miscomprehended the Greek in the Testament and th ey were using their interpretation to fit their idea of religion. The clergy also enjoyed other priv ileges; for instance, they did not have to pay taxes. It is only reasonable therefore that peopl e were often exasperated at the unfairness and that the educated would not consent unquestionably to ev erything the church di ctated. It was in the 14th and 15th centuries that the humanists made their appearance in the academic scene12. People 12 For more details see Tracy (1999) 44-6.

PAGE 194

194 like Lorenzo Valla and Erasmus started reading the Old and New Testament from the original Greek and pointing out the clergys mistakes13. They also, although they agreed that laymen had to be guided, insisted that the church was mis guiding the latter for her monetary benefit. In addition to the aforementioned, grammar and rhetoric at the time were revived and their role in society became more than embellishing. Classica l works pertaining to rhetoric came in the spotlight and were studied again, namely Quintilian, Cicero and Aristotle. Grammar became a means of polished speaking and eloquence was mandated to anyone who wished to climb the ladder of social, political, or even ecclesiastic hierarchy. Humani sts, influenced by Plato and his ideal state and statesman, were trying to establ ish some rules and ways of living for the people and ways of governing for the prince. Europe at the time period we are discussing may not be a newly formed world, but still church, society and state have not yet reached a balanced state, while the educated circles want to move pa st the superannuated preaching of the clergy and study and live by the correct doctrines. The chur ch, on the other hand, finds it hard not to interfere and thus relinquish the position of supremacy that it ha d been enjoying for so long. The upheavals therefore once more appear to be of a socio political character. Which is the ruling class, the state, the church or the educated? Who is right about life a nd the way one should live it? Erasmus Praise of Folly The Praise of Folly was conceived by Erasm us14 in 1519 on his trip from Italy to England to visit his friend Thomas More15. It was written during his stay in England and it was first 13 Tracy (1999) 45 says that Scholarship was never an end in itself for Erasmus, only a means to a badly needed reform of Christian doctrine. 14 For more information on Erasmus see Bainton (1969), Kristeller (1970), McConica (1991). 15 For a comparison and the relation between Erasmus Praise of Folly ( Stultitiae Laus ) and Vallas Of the True and False Good ( De Voluptate ac de vero bono ) see Panizza (2000). For details, commentaries, Follys relation to

PAGE 195

195 published in 1511. The editor of th e first edition was Richard Croke and the text was not properly handled. The first authorized edition was on 1512 by the Ascenian Press in Paris. Paris at the time was the cradle for humanists and re volutionary theologians; it seems reasonable therefore that the first house of the Folly would be there. In 1543, however, the Sorbonne condemned the Erasmian work and the Folly was also forbidden in Italy and Spain. The very fact of its banishment of course shows how seriously the satirized parties took the Folly and the degree of impact that Satires must have ha d at the time. Erasmian humanism evolved around theory and grew in two different branches, a relig ious and a political one. As far as religion is concerned Erasmus fought decisi vely against the pretentiousne ss of the clergy and their preassumed supremacy and correctness. He thought th at everyone should read the teaching of the pagan philosophers and take from them whatever he finds necessary for his current Christian life. On a political level, Erasmus believed that hi s theoretical teachings, results of his study of philosophy and Platonism could help the prince r each the right decision when it comes to the governing of the state. According to other humanists, however, Erasmus ideals were too theoretical to be applied to the Tudor England at the time and impossible to be implemented successfully on any society. This wa s the view of Thomas More fo r instance as presented in the Utopia, which is being discussed later in this chapter. In any case, The Praise of Folly is a work in which Erasmus dares to unmask the pretentio usness of different classes of people in an attempt to approach the truth and liberate people from long sta nding but false beliefs. That way, according to him, they can find truth and achieve virtue in life. Classical rhetoric and the place of this work in the spirit of the time see C homarat (1972), Christian (1971), Gavin (1973), Kaiser (1963), Kay (1977), Le febvre (1968), Rebhorn (1974), Rothschild (1970), Stenger (1971), Williams (1969).

PAGE 196

196 The work begins with Folly talking about hers elf, admitting that she has bad reputation but she knows that she brings joy into the hearts of men through divine radiance. The very beginning of the work has strong Lucianic elements. In Lucians Phalaris the tyrant himself talks and admits that there are numerous misdeeds that he ha s been accused of, but he is about to turn all that around and prove that he was not at fault. Throughout Phalaris the reader notices the reversals of the argumentation and the unsound basis of Phalaris defense. He says, for instance, that he did not wish to torture anyone and that is why he asked fo r the peoples cooperation; they were reluctant, though, and they made him punish them; he was actually forced. The Praise of the Folly can be divided into three sections. In the fi rst part Folly argues th at the happiest people are the fool ones. Wise men are never joyous. Marriage, marital relations, and harmony in society can only exist and flourish through folly. Otherwise, people get frustrated or examine things in great profundity and consequently they never reach a state of bliss. The second section is a discussion of different professions, lik e grammarians, schoolteachers, theologians, ecclesiastic members, kings and princes where Folly claims that they would have been the most miserable of men, working all the time, bearing the burden of the world, or the salvation of people struggling to find the correct usage of word s, if it were not for Folly. She actually claims that the arrogant are foolish and that is why they are content with what they do and consider it to be worthy of spending their life on its pursue. The third section is on the stupidity of the Christians. Folly says that it is due to a degree of madness that th ey believe in that high power and forget their earthly life and ailments. She is ev en taking it so far as to say that ecstasy, an alienation of the mind drawn out of itself brings it in a union with G od. This alienation is perceived by Folly as foolishness.

PAGE 197

197 The similarities between Erasmus and Lucian ar e detected on at least two levels. The first is in the content of the work, the condemnation of contemporary events, a nd of generic vices as well and the other in a literary level, when one considers the rhetorical techniques employed by Erasmus in the Folly With regards to the content, Erasmus laughs at the generic foolish people that live in all ages. He discusses the traditional favorite theme of Satire, women and their vices, mans disappointment with himself and how stupidity is what makes him forget what he lacks. Subjects like that can very well apply to differe nt generations of people in various eras. The same can be said about Lucian, as we noticed in previous chapters He is cauterizing the obsession with money and the vices of the wealthy. He is aiming of course at his contemporaries, but without excluding any historic period, or any nation for that matter. Erasmus of course does not stop there. He dedicates whole sections of his mock praise to contemporary classes of society. He does not mention any names, just like Lucian, but his refe rences to misjudging theologians, and arrogant and inconsiderate princes and kings photogra ph his society without leaving the author utterly expos ed. The way Erasmus talks about Christians and how they (mis) interpret their religion and the principles of life a nd that is why they are still disciples of this religion, reminds us of Lucian and his criticism of the Romans and their attitude towards the Greeks and the other subject nations. Without mentioning any names of contemporary Roman emperors, which would have made his position hard and his reception probably impossible, Lucian makes his perception of society obvious. Both Lucian and Erasmus, therefore, among others, have realized the power of Satire, either in the form of di rect Satire, satiric dialogue, or even mock praise and also the degree of immunity they can grant to their author against any attacks from the offended parties.

PAGE 198

198 With regards to the literary techniques Erasmus imitated Lucian in the complete, but extremely subtle and manipulative reversal of reasoning and argumentation. Erasmus does not define explicitly what Folly is; he does not set degrees in foolishness. For him whoever takes things in a lighter way or indul ges himself in unimportant matters exhibits characteristics of foolishness and consequently he is happy. He even sa ys that devout Christians must be fool since they have to detach themselves from their minds and bodies in or der to be dedicated to God and get closer to him. Of course Erasmus takes adva ntage of the fact that Folly is the speaker and does not therefore need to explai n herself or provide logical expl anations for her argumentation; otherwise the readers might very well raise strong objections pert aining to the kind of foolishness that a follower of Ch ristianity is showing. These are some of the techniques that were employed by Lucian first and are characteristic tricks of th e Second Sophistic. It could also be argued that Erasmus is using the Lucianic te chnique of estrangement, which was discussed in previous chapters. By creating a completely different and unfamiliar context for Christianity and explaining everything under a new light, he mani pulates the reasoning of his readers and it is therefore easier for him, or Fo lly, to make people agree with her or see things differently. Erasmus therefore shows another aspect of life, religion, mona rchs, grammarians and several other aspects of everyday, social and political life and engages his contempor aries into an absurd dialogue with Folly, through which however, they may decide to reconsider the established reality. Lucian probably had the same intenti on, for instance when he satirizes the Greeks through a Scythian, or the parasites, through a parasite. He tries to show that there are more aspects in the world and in society than the one that either the Greeks or the Romans were accustomed to see.

PAGE 199

199 Mores Utopia16 More is one of the representative figures of English humanism17. Although a friend of Erasmus, he was not an exponent of revealing cl erical corruption, and he was certainly not an adherent to the Erasmian theoretical approaches. Furthermore, he did not believe that teachings of Classical authors could lead to virtue, or that people could ever achieve perfection for that matter. It has been suggested that Utopia was Mores answer to Er asmus suggestions about ideal state and governing18. Utopia was written in the summer of 151519. In May More went from England to Flanders as a member of the royal trade commission. The negotiations were recessed by July 21, but More returned to England at the end of October. It was in those three months that he perceived the idea of Utopia. It should also be mentioned that we do not know exactly when the book was written or in wh at order. More before writing the Utopia had translated four works of Lucian, Cyniscus Menippus Philopseudes, and Tyrannicida20. The first part of the book is a letter by Mo re addressing Peter Giles and apologizing for the delay in writing the book and explaining the r easons for that, namely his busy personal and family life as well as his professi onal obligations. He says that he tried to be as close to what Hythloday told them and this is when he introdu ces the first Lucianic element which also seals the character of the work and should make the re ader suspicious about Mores intentions. More 16 For a complete bibliography on More see Wentworth (1995); Geritz (1998). 17 For More as a humanist and for interpretations of his life, career and writings see Ridley (1983) 29-38, Guy (2000), Fox (1983), Bietenholz and Deutscher (1985-7), Marius (1984), Ackroyd (1998). 18 On Mores dissension with Erasmian humanism and the basic of English humanism see Fox and Guy (1986), 1821 and 34-51. 19 For editions of Utopia see Logan, Adams, and Miller (1995). For an introduction to and a short discussion of Mores Utopia see also Logan and Adams (2002), xi-xxix; Hexter (1965); Surtz (1957); Fox (1993); Logan (1983) 20 In the Renaissance Lucian was famous and was largely translated in many European countries. See Highet (1957) 123-4; see also Bolgar (1954) 299, 340, 348, 435, 518-9.

PAGE 200

200 specifically, he says: For I beg you, consult your memory. If your recollec tion agrees with his, Ill yield and confess myself mistaken. But if you dont recall the point, Ill follow my own memory and keep my present figure. For, as Ive taken particular pains to avoid having anything false in the book, so, if anything is in doubt, Id rather say somethi ng untrue than tell a lie. The second part is Utopia, Book I. More discusses the way he met with Hythloday who, although he had been asked to join the court of a prince and give him advice, he nevertheless denied it. He argues that he could never persuade a prince or his councilors, since, wh enever they hear an opposing view, they are always defensive. He presents his views about England and the socioeconomic problems that overrun the population and sp ecifically the increase in the number of thieves, although the punish ment for that is death21. Book II is about a place called Utopia, which, according to Hythloday, is the ideal place ; it is the eutopia. Once we start reading, however, we realize that from so me aspects Utopia may be the ideal society, since no one is poor or hungry and everyone has a part in the commonwealth, but no one can live his life the way he wishes either. It is the society and the prosperity of the state instead that dictate everyones profession, the way he will be spending his leisur e time and one even needs permission to leave the city or even go for a walk in the country. In Utopia also the inhabitants engage in rather controversial ways at wartime. They pay mercen aries to kill the leader of the opposing party, so that the war may end quickly. At the end of the book More dissociates himself from this alleged utopia, disapproving of some of its laws and aspect s of its lifestyle, but he also admits that some of them he wishes rather than expects to see in Europe. The Lucianic influence is apparent even in the introductory letter to Giles, as it was mentioned before. More plays with the idea of tr uth and lies saying that he would rather be 21 For more information about the condition of England at the time and the circumstances of life about which More is talking in Book I see Guy (1988); Skinner (1978), Manuel and Manuel (1979)

PAGE 201

201 untruthful than purposefully lie. This re minds us of the beginning of Lucians Verae Historiae where he says that the one thing that is true from what he is about to say is that everything is a lie. He also openly admits that he has never been or seen any of the places and people that he is talking about ( 4) The Utopia and its author abide exactly by the same rules and principles. More employs Lucians game of admitting to what he is really doing, while at the same time he manages to state his own view on current matters. Fu rthermore, the idea of an imaginary state is Lucianic; the latter writes about so cieties that do not exist, but wher e current issues do exist. More adopts this literary motif and succeeds in ma nifesting that a state where everything is as theoreticians suggest could never exist. More delves more deeply into Lucians t echniques when he chooses the names of the characters in Utopia22, and even the name of the place itself U-topia means no-place. Therefore, this supposed perfect place is actually a no-place. The main speaker also, the one who supports the Utopia as an ideal place, is named Hythl oday, meaning the nonsense peddler. In De Parasito the name of the parasites interlocutor is Tychiades and the name of the parasite Simo. Lucian is playing with the fact that ones name has to do with luck and fortune and that person is not the parasite. In Verae Historiae also Lucian continues with the wordplays and manipulates the mind of his readers espying them off the fact that he is lying, something to which he had admitted doing in the first place. For instance, he says I did not therefore write down the 22 See Carey (ed.) (1999) for excerpts from utopian literature from 1940 B.C. to 1998.

PAGE 202

202 multitude of these, lest it seem s unbelievable-so large it was ( 18). More in his attempt to show why Erasmian hu manism and theory cannot be practiced in a society, he actually invents a society like that and shows that its ex istence is impossible. In other words someone could say that he teaches by example. This is also what Lucian does in several of his works. In Toxaris he shows how unfairly other nations ar e being judged and he does that by criticizing the Greeks, as it was shown in Chapter 3. He follows the same route in De Parasito where Simo actually defends his position as pa rasite showing through absurd reasoning and argumentation, only superficially correct and obviously sophistic, that being a parasite is an art. Finally, some of the principles that run through the governing of utopia appear in the works of Lucian that More had translated. In Menippus, a decree has passed concerning the wealthy. It has been agreed th at after their death their body wi ll be punished in the underworld, but their soul will return to life in the body of poor people, or animals. In Utopia money and the non-existence of private property seems to be important issues, whether or not More actually sanctions the Utopians practices Menippus also in the homonymous work is presented as being perplexed about which lifestyle he should a dopt and by which philosophy he should abide. Mores work, especially if considered a respons e to Erasmus, tackles contemporary issues that relate to the philosophy of life and which path one should foll ow, socially, religiously and politically. More, therefore, in contrast to Er asmus humanism, does not try to find truth and useful teachings in the writings of Classical wr iters, but he employs Lucians rhetorical and literary techniques to prove his points. Theref ore, the way More imitated Lucian is through adapting his techniques to manipulate his readers. An educated reader who is acquainted with Lucian may think at first that More is trying to introduce a different, more progressive and far

PAGE 203

203 healthier society than contempor ary Europe employing Lucians technique of estrangement and imaginary travelogue. As soon as he reads through Utopia, though, one starts wondering if More is actually suggesting th is kind of society or if he is undermining it by actually presenting how utopian it is, especially when one considers th e use of the names like Hythlodaey and their meaning23. It has also been suggested that More ma y have been actually preaching in favor of the monastic life he was lead ing. The controlled and virtuous pleasure that the Utopians are pursuing as well as the non-existe nce of personal wealth or propert y, the lack of ostentation and pride in fact are in a way characteri stics of Mores ideal way of living24. In fact More himself explains in his introduction to the translation of Lucians work that Lucians ways of writing satisfy the Horatian notion of the role of literature, which is both to instruct and please the readers. Lucianic Echoes in 17th Century French Literature In this section I discuss Molires Tartuffe and Le Misanthrope trying to present possible Lucianic influences in the French dramatist and also explain why and how the caustic spirit of Lucian and his graphic characte r portrayal survived through 17th century. Molire wrote under the reign of Louis XIV. He was also dealing wi th the opposition from the Company of the Holy Sacrament25, which was a secret religious society of both priests and laymen who were set against the new order of things and the evils of their age. Molire defied their parochial and superannuated assessment of society as well as thei r claim to correctness and piety. He put into 23 For a discussion on that issue see Surtz and Hexter (1965); Dorsch (1966-7); Thompson (1974); Robinson (1979) 130-3; Marsh (1998), 193-7. 24 See Thompson (1996) 350-5 25 For a detailed discussion on Molire and the reaction of the Company to his works see Chill (1963).

PAGE 204

204 question what had been so far unquestionably and axiomatically accepted, that every person who claims piety is honestly pious. Louis XIV after his victories in Franco-Dutch war and the treaty of Nijmegen got the honorary title of Louis the Great ( Louis Le Grand). It was decreed that every inscription as well as every statue should carry th is epithet. Louis in addition to the wars was interested in reorganizing France and he thus made social changes. The state became centralized and the focal point was the capital. That way he managed to re duce the dark traits of feudalism and to become the absolute monarch. He proceeded also to othe r fiscal reformations including the appointment to the administration for finances of Jean-Bap tiste Colbert who reduced the national debt by reorganizing the collection of taxes. He also in vited artisans from other countries to work in France so that the number of imports would re duce. As for Louis changes in the legal department, he introduced the Code Louis acco rding to which every marriage, death, and baptism had to be registered. He provided France with a unified law and organized the criminal law. The downside of his interference with the le gal procedure was a law that sanctioned slavery. Finally, Louis did not negl ect the arts either. He was the pa tron of Acadmie Franaise and under his reign important writers like Molire and Racine flourished. As a result of Louis active participation a nd reformations in those areas, he was also known as the Sun King ( Le Roi Soleil ) for the way the court and the whole France was to revolve around him. In the closing scene in Tartuffe it is actually King Louis who saves the day and restores the social order. Tartuffe was revised twice before finally presented on stage without obstructions and the last scene was one of t hose added later. The kings influence and his egocentricity along with Molires desire to see the play on stage could explain the addendum.

PAGE 205

205 Molires Tartuffe and Le Misanthrope Tartuffe was presented for the first tim e in 1664 and it was a three act play, but it was immediately suppressed after its first performance because of the involvement of the Company of the Holy Sacrament, which could apparently still influence matters of this nature26. On August 1667 Molire presented a five-act play in Palais Royal titled Panulphe ou LImposteur where Tartuffe was substituted by Panulphe. During all of Molires efforts to present the Tartuffe he made alterations to the play27. It has been argued that the ch aracter of Clante was a later creation; that is why he is so ostensibly portrayed as composed, rational, and a guardian of order. The King was unfortunately absent for the siege in Lille and the first president of the Parlement, Guillaume de Lamoignon, once a member of th e Company, closed the theater and forbade further performances. It was not until February 9, 1669 that the pl ay was finally performed in the version we have today and it found a tremendous success and acceptance from the audience. One cannot state for certain that Molire had re ad Lucian, as it was in the case of Erasmus and More who had translated some of Lucians works. The character, and the content of Molires works, however, bear a Lucianic aura. In this section I discuss Molires Tartuffe and Le Misanthrope in an attempt to show how Lucians so metime dubious characte rs, the parasites, the tyrant Phalaris, the courtesans as well as his satirical view and handling of contemporary issues and diachronic types of people have lived through the centuries and become motifs and literary traditions which appear fresh in French theater. Molire lives in a society where, in addition to the king, church and other religious groups try to defi ne peoples lives and set their set of rules which most often stray from the real teaching of the church writings. There are also 26 For more details on the first Tartuffe the second play Panulphe ou limposteur and the Tartuffe that survives today see Cairncross (1956) 1-53. 27 On the alterations in the different versions of Tartuffe and an analysis of the version we have see McBride (1977) 31-78.

PAGE 206

206 always these who under the cloak of piety take advantage of people and their awe fo r the afterlife and the punishment that may await them in Heaven. In Tartuffe the main characters are a typical noble fam ily, the core of French tradition, and Tartuffe, who does not appear until later scenes in the play, and is a parasite who feeds on the pater familias gullibility and has disguised his scrupulousness with hypocritical piety28. In the first scene the mother of Orgon is censuring her grandchildren and daughter in law for their contemptible and obscene behavior that is a source of gossip. Sh e is, however, praising Tartuffe for his laudable traits. The latt er is a religious fraud under whose spell Madame Pernelle and Orgon, her son, have fallen. Mariane, Orgons daughter is in love with Valre and about to be married, when Orgon announces his intention to marry her to Tartuffe. So far we have not got a glimpse of Tartuffe and one might have been in clined to believe in his exceptional conduct. When, however, Doris, the maid, concocts with Elmire, the lady of the house, to reveal Tartuffes passion for her and thus expose him in the eyes of her husband, the audience finds out the real face of Tartuffe. Damis, Orgons s on, who is hidden and eavesdropping jumps out and then accuses Tartuffe to his father. Orgon appear s to be blind to every accusation against the latter and goes as far as to denounce his son a nd then make Tartuffe his only heir. In the meantime Tartuffe has shown how well he decei ves the gullible Orgon and how dexterous he is in the role of pious man. The only way to expose the impostor is found by Elmire. She suggests that she has another intimate meeting with Tartuffe during which her husband will be hidden so that he can hear everything. Orgon agrees, fully convinced that Tartuffe is beyond any suspicion. Tartuffe falls in the trap and Orgon asks him to leave his house and his family. It is then that 28 On Molire and religion see Franois (1969). Greenberg (1992) 113-8 argues that except for the religious connotations that the play bears, it was probably consider ed a threat to the traditional family structure of 17th century France. The upheaval in the family of Orgon, as well as hi s absence in the beginning of the play and his inability to act when Tartuffe was making advances towards his wife, Greenberg suggests, undermine society. Cf. also Nurse (1991) 82.

PAGE 207

207 Tartuffe reveals his whole despi cable personality, reminding Orgon that he is the heir of all his property. The situation has reached a climax and there does not seem to be a solution. As a matter of fact Tartuffe has already been to the king and asked him to remove Orgon and his family from his (Tartuffes) property. Tartuffe goes with a police officer to enforce the eviction, but the latter arrests Tartuffe. The all-knowing an d all wise king Louis XIV is aware of Tartuffe and his schemes, he also knows about some previous misconducts of his and has ordered his arrest29. Madame Pernelle realizes he r fault and everyone in the fam ily thanks heaven for their luck and for not having to desert their home. The roguish and of dubious quality character frequently appears in Lucian mostly with the intention to cauterize or just comment on vices and contemporary issues in a way that could have an effect on the audience. The idea also of le tting this character expose himself through his sayings is clearly Lucianic The topic discussed in De Mercede Conductis is a parasite, Simon who tries to persuade Tychiades that being a parasite is a quality. Phalaris claims that he is not at fault; his actions are dictated by his subjects and their misconduct. In Cynicus it is a cynic of course who supports this lifestyle. It is easier, more appeal ing and suggestive for an audience when the character in trial exposes himself, in a ddition to the fact that in the case of Lucian and Molire it is also comic. The way Tartuffe changes personalities, deceives people and masterminds Orgon is comic and also proves Molires dexterity in character portrayal30. In addition to that, a reality that both authors emphasize is that th e most perilous of Tartuffes qualities is that he is a very good actor, and the mask of the villain is well hidden. It is this hypocrisy therefore that renders him dangerous since it allows him to infiltrate society and 29 Kogan Zwillenberg (1975) argues that this ending allo ws Molire to exploit every comic possibility and get the suspense to the highest point. 30 For a presentation of Tartuffes literary background which can also shed more light on the portrayal of the characters and also reveal a different perspective see Hall (1984) 144-158.

PAGE 208

208 threaten the social order31. Both Lucian and Molire want to unveil hypocrisy. By that I do not mean to argue that they intend to be recuperative through their works; but the fact that they see clearly through the masks and show it to th eir audience remains a ll the same. Another characteristic that Lucian and Molire share is the ambivalent comic spirit in their works. The comic elements in Molires works are not al ways funny. The way Tartuffe exploits Orgons obtuseness and the latte rs blindness regarding Tartuffes scrupulousness are comic but not necessarily funny. Molire has invented a different aspect of comic when he gives the audience glances of the real human behavior32. The similarities also between Lucians Timon and Molires Le Misanthrope are striking. The title, as well as the content of Molires pl ay, are certainly influenced by Lucian. It can either be a direct imitation, in case Molire had read Lucians work, or he could have been influenced by other stage productions of misanthropes, for instance Shakespeares Timon of Athens The play was first performed in 1666 with Molire in the role of Alceste and his young wife in the role of Climne. In the Misanthrope Molire castigates more generic vices, and he is not as specific as in Tartuffe Alceste is an honest and consci entious man who detests peoples hypocrisy and villainy. He is in love, however, with Climne who is endowed with all the characteristics at which he is appalled. After the latters disrespectful and blameworthy conduct and a trial in which Alceste lose s to Oronte, an uninspired po et, noble and friend of the court because Alceste dared to speak the truth about his verses, Alceste abhorred decides to leave society and severe any bond with people. 31 On Tartuffes hypocrisy and the way Molire plays with its presentation see Hubert (1 962) 91-112. On the social order in Molires plays and especially Tartuffe the overthrown and subversion of roles and the role of Louis at the end of the play see Gossman (1970). 32 In that see also Nurse (1991) 77-87; Moore (1948)

PAGE 209

209 The similarities between the two works are obvious from the very beginning. They both open with a clear statement on behalf of the main characters who state that they intend to retire from society. Both Timon and Alceste compla in about the misconduct and dishonesty of people Timon expresses also his disappointment for th e indifference of the gods, who do not protect people like him and let the villains flourish; while Alceste in the beginning of the play has still some trust to the judicial system which at th e end of the play proves unfounded and thus leaves him no hope for the society he lives in. It is in teresting to notice the evolution of Lucians dishonest characters, the dishonest orator, and the flatterer, in to the nobles of the court. 17th century was the time in which appearances and flattery were blooming and nothing was as it seemed. Both characters also are portrayed as being caustic and not so friendly and neither Lucian nor Molire try to make them sympathetic to the audience. Alceste is presented as an obsessed person who cannot find the golden line between isolation and fawning Climne. He exaggerates the unfairness against him in the event of his trial and he makes it sound as if this is the sign that he is fighting agains t the whole world. At the end of th e play Alceste goes as far as to ask from Climne to retire from the world with him. Why then Moli re, if he wants to castigate the life of the court, does not make Al ceste more reasonable in his requests and in his choices in life? In order to answer this quest ion one should take a closer look at the other characters of the play and specifically Philinte and Eliante33. Philinte seems to be the foil of Alceste. He is not blind to the shortcomings of so ciety, but he is not in favor of attacking it and leaving everything behind and isol ating yourself either. Up to a ce rtain extent he agrees with Alceste, but he recognizes nonetheless that people make mistakes and he seems more willing to accept this side of society, rank himself amidst ev ery other man and then live as well as he can 33 See also McBride (1977)107-159; Yarrow (1959).

PAGE 210

210 without selling his values. Eliante, however, sa ys that one should try to change the negative characteristics of the person he loves (comptent les defaults pour les perfections, / Et savent y donner de favorable noms, 715-6). This way one ma y manage to actually make society better, rather than crucify and deny it altogether, like Al ceste does. Molires co medies have certainly become more complicated with regards to character portrayal34. Therefore, in Le Misanthrope just like in Tartuffe the authors truth can be found if one considers more than one characters of the play. In any case, Molires criticism against society is obvi ous and, despite the war that the Company had waged against him because of Tartuffe he seems determined to prove that he did not grow complacent for the sake of safety. The similarities between him and Lucian, even if he had not read Lucian, denote that the social issues and vices that the latter was tackling were always current and the characte rs that he wrote about were interesting, sometimes ambiguous, appealing to the audiences throughout the centuries and creations of a prolific dramatist and that is why they are diachronic and therefore found a place on stage. As a matter of fact, even in the defense of Phalaris one has to be very ca reful in order not to get carried away by the intellectually engaging and verbally eloquent speech of the tyrant and needs to consider Phalaris in a more general context a nd in relation to others. The Dialogi Deorum has not yet been determined if it is an attack on the Olympians or on deity and religion altogether; that is why Lucian at one time was applauded by the Christia ns and at other times he was castigated as an immoral atheist. Consequently, Lucian at the end of Timon does not express either approval or disapproval of Timons anti social attitude. He presents him as showing no sign of forgiveness or of leniency, although he was assisted by the gods. As a matter of fact cries out to Timon that they are all leaving, but Timon is not appeased. He says instead that they will not go 34 On that see also Hubert (1962) 137-153.

PAGE 211

211 unpunished ( : : 58). Both Lucian and Molire th erefore do not dictate a point of view. They expose people and customs that need to be purged, but they certainly do not seem to sanction radical reactions. They instead give in the faces of their different characters a palette of possibilities for someone to consider. Ludvig Holbergs The Journey of Niels Klim to the World Underground The politica l reality in Denmark until the 16th century includes clas hes between Denmark, Norway and Sweden. From 1389 to 1523 the three c ountries were under the reign of the Danish king. After that time Sweden left the union and then Denmark and Norway threatened to close the formers access to the North Sea. Meanwhile Frederick III, the Dano-Norwegian king, allied with the burghers of Cope nhagen and they imposed abso lute monarchy on Denmark and Norway. Fredericks heirs, Christian V and Frederick IV tried to recover the lost eastern provinces, but to no avail. The clashes ende d in 1720 and, although Denmark was exhausted financially, there was finally peace. It was the pe rfect time then for the people to help rebuilding trade and industry and also for people from the middle classes to ascend socially and economically. This kind of social reformation was also assisted by the monarchic absolutism which was still thriving. The afte rmath of Denmarks rebuilt was that the middle classes as well as the clergy gained wealth and a higher social position. In the meantime German lands and other countries in Northern Europe pa rticipated in the m ovement of Enlightenment that stood for the power of reason, rationality, and the ability to judge intellectua lly. On the other hand, the power of the clergy had also as a result the flouris hing of a religious stream known as Pietism which preached absolute and full devotion to Christ. It was later, during the reign of Christian VI, that clergy and religious intolerance met their heyday because of the kings and queens attachment

PAGE 212

212 to religion and pietism. That is the time that Ludvig Holberg lived in and wrote. His theatrical works, his Satires, memoirs and his fictitious novel reveal a man of a keen sense of political and social circumstances and with an evolved sens e of artistry and dexterity in writing. His works derive from his era; they give us a clear picture of the time, while they have an effect on the way the reader will consider Denmark and Europe after having read Holberg35. The Journey of Niels Klim to the World Underground ( Nicolai Klimii iter subterraneum ) was written in Latin in 1741 and it was an attack against pietism, religious intolerance and several other superannuated beliefs36. Niels Klim, a graduate of the University of Copenhagen, falls into the Earths center when he attempts to explore a cave in Bergen in Norway. In this subterranean world he encounters another country of in telligent trees that have their own laws and lifestyle and their main trait and virtue, accord ing to them at least, is their tardiness in motion and thinking. Niels Klim is considered a pecu liar animal and also appropriate only to be the kings messenger for his swiftn ess; for the trees in Potu belie ve that he does not comprehend anything in its profundity. Holberg through the eyes of Klim presents the customs and laws of the trees and through them he cauterizes the society he lives in. For instance, Klim says that the trees do not exercise their ability in speech and the ability of orators and lawyers to answer quickly and make fast argumentations, something which is practiced in European universities. Women are allowed to have administrative posit ions, because it is unreasonable to exclude someone worthy from an office and therefore de prive the public welfare of someone who can definitely benefit the sy stem. During his stay with the Potu ans Klim travels around the rest of their state and writes down in a book his notes about the other nations that he encountered. 35 For more details about the age of Holberg and the ci rcumstances under and about which he wrote see Billeskov Jansen (1974) 13-21. 36 See Billeskov Jansen (1974) 98-102.

PAGE 213

213 Holberg presents different nations which have a distinct characteristic, such as the nation where people have eyes of different shap e. Klim comments on that saying that no one is judged because one sees something as rectangular and another as circular. This is another blatant attack of the author against the system in Denmark and its att acks against religious sect arians. Klim is finally exiled from the land of the Potuans because he tries to pass a new law according to which women should be excluded from any administra tive office. The law is found unreasonable by the Potuans, offensive and potentially dangerous fo r the people and they sent Klim away. He is exiled to the earths inner crust and his adventures begin in the kingdom of Martinia, a country of apes, where nothing is examined in depth and ther e he is considered too slow. He acquires some privileges when he invents the wig but then he is accused of making advances to the Syndics wife and is sent to the galleys He is then taken on a commer cial voyage to the Mezardorian islands that are inhabited by various kinds of creatures. After a shipwreck he ends up in an island of primitive men, the Quamites, where Klim disti nguishes himself, becomes the consultant of their king and later he becomes the king. As a monarch he subdues a number of nations and he becomes a tyrant. When his power is so oppressive that his subjects are rea dy to revolt, he tries to escape and through the same hole that he brought him to this underground world, he returns to Norway. Upon his return he encounters an old fr iend to whom he narrates his adventures. His friend advises him not to repeat th e story to anyone for fear of th e religious prosecutions. Klim is then appointed as a curate, he marries and he leads a normal life. After his death his friend publishes his manuscript. The work thrives with comments on the social, political and religious realities of Holbergs time. The sagacity of the Potuans, their customs, the fact that they have women in authority, and they show religious tolerance are, among other things, traits that the author does not find in his

PAGE 214

214 era. It is this conservative, au thoritative and superficial aspect of society that Holberg exposes. The nation where everyone has a different eye-shap e is a clear attack on the absolutism of the clergy who insists on punishing those who have a different view of things. The nation of the Martinians who do not give serious thought to anything, they take de cisions that affect their life lightly and the way they accept and embrace the periwi gs that Klim invents is obviously a Satire targeting the French. Holberg in his Memoirs refers specifically to his inspira tion from Lucian. It is in fact the novelty of cauterizing a society or types of characters in presen tation of fictitious nations that was first invented by Lucian. Holberg also shows K lims inability to accept the different, but he simultaneously shows the other side; the Potuans do not show any respect for Klims qualities either. As a matter of fact, whatever the latter considers praiseworthy, they seem to despise and consider it a sign of incompetenc y. The position of the other, whoever this may be, is also presented by Lucian, as it was discussed in Chapter 3. A society whose components are so many different nations, like in the Roman Empire, needs to be receptive. The same, though, can be said about Holbergs Denmark where religious intolera nce represents in this case the dismissal of anything different. Lucians effect on Holberg appears also in the latters th eatrical creations37. Jeppe of the Hill or the Political Tinker are comedies based on characters that flourish in the newly founded society. Holberg is not in favor of the new st atus of things where the newly rich acquire positions. He exposes the middle class and show s that their self-confidence is not based on merits or qualifications and th eir wealth and positions are not rightly deserved. Nowhere in the Jeppe of the Hill do we find any sympathy for the peasant fo r the farce they plotted in order to 37 See also Billeskov Jansen (1974) 56-81.

PAGE 215

215 ridicule him. In fact, in the last scene the audien ce probably feels relieved that Jeppe returned to his place. Once he thought he was a baron, he sh owed no responsibility, or reverence towards the less fortunate. On the contrary, he is portrayed as more cruel than the real baron, relentless and with no moral boundaries. The same impression we get from the Political Tinker as well. The politician there who comes from this new cas t of middle class people does not show any praiseworthy quality. Holberg recruits literature, innovative and sati rical works against the new order of things, contrary to Lucian. The latter wanted to mobili ze people and help them see the new social order, and be more receptive of others. Holberg is a su pporter of the old world. As concerns the vices they criticize, however, they ar e in consent; it is obvious that hu man characteristics never really change. The only thing that actually changes is the context we find them in. As concerns their style of writing, Holberg has adopted the comic, although not always farcical, way of Molire who is undoubtedly his source of inspirati on in his theatrical works at least38. Finally, the critical approach to the contemporary events is refreshing and resembles Lucians critical spirit. Holberg shows his oppositions through unexceptionably popular means, theater and fictitious novels. Lucianic Echoes in Flaubert Com ing down to the 19th century it is difficult to claim th at there can be a point to point criticism and comparison between Lucian and Flaube rt. As it has been discussed in this chapter many authors and literary works have appeared throughout the centuries as well as numerous political, social and literary fermentations have oc curred that have given birth to writers of the 19th century onwards. Even though, however, Lucian does not live unedited in Flauberts works, one can still sense Lucianic echoes in Flauberts presentation of huma nity, and his anxieties 38 On Holberg and Molire see Campbell (1914) 91-135.

PAGE 216

216 about contemporary events clothed in the satiric, sometimes farcical, and definitely smart novels that he has given to the readersh ip. Flaubert has proved to be a se ntimentalist and a naturalist at the same time. His ducation Sentimentale for instance definitely thrives, among other characteristics, with romantic elements, but the author has also sketched behind those a live and real world as it was being shaped in the revolution of 1848 and its aftermaths39. In this section I discuss Flauberts Bouvard et Pcuchet40 that resembles Lucians Menippus. This work is about the mainly mental adventures of Bouvard and Pcuchet, two Parisians who work as copy clerks. They are of the same age and share the same demeanor and beliefs on many subjects. When Bouvard inherits a large amount of money from his deceased father they leave Paris and set out to live in the countryside and pursue the lif estyles they always dreamt of. After that the whole work is about the quests of the two fr iends who, not having found what it is that interests them, not having realized their potentials and powers and always feeling as if something is lacking in their lives, pur sue various activities and flounder at the end. First they try agriculture, gardening, and food preser vation. Then they turn to chemistry, anatomy, medicine, biology, and geology. Chapter 4 is about their obsession with archaeology, architecture and history. Chapter 5 is about their interest in l iterature, drama and grammar. In chapter 6 Flaubert discusses th e current political situation th rough Bouvard and Pcuchet and several other characters who talk about the revolution, the new regime, and then they want to find their political representatives. The author th rough the peoples inability to recognize what is good and what pernicious for public welfare, as well as through thei r choice of delegates points 39 On the treatment of the social circumstances and ch anges by Flaubert see Olds (1997). There has been a discussion regarding the way Flaubert and the way he pres ents and feels about society and historical circumstances in ducation Sentimentale and Madame B ovary in relation or in contrast to Salammb (1862) and La Tentation de Saint Antoine (1874). On that see Donato (1993) 35-55. 40 The work was initially conceived in 1863 as Les Deux Cloportes (The Two Woodlice), but Flaubert started working on the novel as we have it today in 1872. It was published posthumously in 1881.

PAGE 217

217 out the main problems of the new situation in Fr ance which ultimately led to the overthrowing of the revolutionary status quo In the next chapter the two friends try their luck in love, but to no avail and then they turn their focus to gymn astics, occultism, theology, and philosophy. Being despondent after all their unsucces sful pursuits they even consid er suicide, but the spirit of Christmas revives them. Hence, in the next chapter they beco me religious. Perhaps Flaubert shows that there is a point in someones life when he turns to religion as a refuge. In chapter 10, after having taken in Victor and Vi ctorine as their children, they busy themselves with education, music, and urban planning. Considering themse lves experts in everything they argue with townsmen and as a result in what it would proba bly be chapter eleven, which survives as notes from the author since the novel was never finish ed and then it was published posthumously, they narrowly escape prison. At the end they decide that they should go back to being copy clerks. Bouvards and Pcuchets search for what is appropriate for them, how they should lead their lives depending on the incentives they have in each case remind us of Lucians Menippus. In this work Lucian shows, among other things, the human concern regarding his lifestyle, what is good and what is bad. Menippus sets out to go to the underworld and ask wise men of the past, namely Teiresias, how one should decide about the kind of life one should lead. He says to his interlocutor that poets write a bout adultery and brothers marryi ng their sisters and abominable things that the gods do. On the other hand, it is the exact same behavior that is censored, forbidden and punishable by laws. Both Menippus and Bouvard et Pcuchet can be categorized to the philosophical genre. Menippus expresses his uncertainty about life in several points when for instance he says (4). Bouvard and

PAGE 218

218 Pcuchet respectively almost at the end of every chapter having failed and being disappointed at everything they have tried, they wander what we nt wrong and what they should do the next time, or what else they need to lear n. At the end of the chapter two, for instance, they sit despondent and stumped (Pendant dix minutes, ils demeurren t dans cette posture, nosant se permettre un seul mouvement, ples de terreur, au milieu des te ssons. Quand ils purent recouvrer la parole, ils se demandrent quelle tait la cau se de tant dinfortune s, de la dernire surtout? -et ils ny comprenaient rien, sinon quils avaient manqu p rir). And after that they are ready to throw themselves onto a new career, that of the chemis t (Cest que, peut-tre, nous ne savons pas la chimie!). This phrase resembles a lot the e nd of the book as well as the end of Menippus. Menippus, on the one hand, after having seen different fates in the underworld he asks Teiresias what is the best way of living. Teiresias says th at the simple life is th e best life. He advices Menippus not to philosophize about everything, but to laugh instead ( 21) Bouvard and Pcuchet at the end realize that what they want to do is go back to copying as in the old days. It is worthnoting that this ending reminds us also of that of Holbergs Niels Klim. He becomes acquainted with a number of different cultur es, he does not seem satisfied w ith any of those and at the end he lives his life as a regular person; he is married and works as a curate 41. The adventurous 41 The end reminds us Voltaires Candide Cela est bien dit, rpondit Candide, mais il faut cultiver notre jardin. Berg and Martin (1997) 142 claim that the end of Candide and Bouvard et Pcuchet suggest the realization of the importance of keep going regardless of the results of our efforts rather than the acceptance of failure. On Lucians Menippus and Voltaires Candide see Robinson (1979) 52. On Menippus Candide and Bouvard et Pcuchet see Zagona (1985) 27 and Marsh (1998) 50.

PAGE 219

219 mental travel of the two charac ters resembles also Lucians The main character discovers different civi lization and cultures, where he re alizes that faults, vices and virtues are to be found everywhere. Lucian might have also influenced Flauberts Madame Bovary42, which was not well received because of its subversive and more liberal views an d was accused of being obscene43. The fact is that the authors, in his attempt to cauterize the society as he experiences it, invents a character who undermines the accepted social structures and that person is a woman44. Emma Bovary is infatuated with l uxurious life, disillusioned with her marriage and the norms of provincial society. The novel is th erefore even more subversive, even more disquieting for the French society45. This is where Lucian comes to the foreground. In Dialogi Meretricium Lucians main characters are women and what is more, women living in the margins of society. He presents the world and their lifestyle from thei r point of view and ultimately he gives voice to people who so far do not have one. Lucianic Satire Back to 20th Century Greece Lucians humor, Satire, adm onitions and imaginary voyages have travelled along the centuries and across several Europe an countries. One of the last stops in the 20th century where Lucians heritage may be found, which is discussed in this chapter, is in the country which also 42 It was being published in La Revue de Paris between October 1st 1856 and December 15th 1856. It was then out into trial for obscenity and then, when acquitted, it appeared in the form of book in April 1857. 43 As concerns the subversion in the novel, it has been suggested that there is also a reversal of roles and that Emma assumes male behavioral patterns. On that see Orr (1999) 49-64. 44 The woman protagonist through which the author comments on his contemporaries and his times does not appear only in Flaubert. Zola wrote Thrse Raquin (1867) and later Nana (1880); Goncourt wrote Germinie Lacerteux (1865). For more details see Farrant (2007) passim. 45 For more information on Flauberts perceptions of society in his time as presented mainly in Madame Bovary and ducation Sentimentale see Farrant (2007) passim. On Flauberts style in Madame Bovary and how his view appear by the mastering of different literary techniques, like th e voice of the narrator, the descriptions of objects which always convey some information about a char acter see Berg and Martin (1997) 28-60.

PAGE 220

220 inherited his adopted language, in Greece. 20th ce ntury historically, socially and politically has been a full and active era for Greece both nationally and internationally. It has been a century of the First and Second World Wars, a civil war, pol itical transitions and reformations, immigration because of the unfavorable and unstable political a nd economic circumstances. It is also a period when television and technology have entered peoples lives in all levels and thus have dramatically changed the way as well as the qua lity of living. After th e end of the First and Second World Wars, December 1944 until January 1945 was a short period of hostilities between the communist and the conservative party. March 1946 till October of 1949 was another period of warfare between the communist and the conserva tive parties. The result was the defeat of the communists, but not before th ere were bloody hostilities. The tragedy continued even after the pause of the warfare, when the official govern mental authorities sent members of the communists party to exile in different de serted Greek islands, while others left Greece. People were branded, countryside depopulated and thus the levels of poverty rose. The years that ensue were finally an era of stability for Greece. Different political parties, their feuds, the machinations behind economy, public and political offices, however, have been giving food for thought and caustic Satire to several journa lists, writers and au thors of chronographs. The products of literature over this century va ry and cover different genres. Authors are certainly products of their societies and their eras, but still there are these who focus more openly, cauterize or generally comment on current events. In this section I am discussing the authors F. Germanos ( ) and more specifically his works Good News from Aphrodite ( ), Wet Nights ( ) and Greece under zero

PAGE 221

221 ( ); and A. Laskaratos' ( ) Behold the Man ( ). Germanos Good News from Aphrodite (1978) is a fictitious nove l about the evolution of the human race after three nuclear wars. The ch apters are written in a reverse chronological order. The first one dates in 2186 when most of the human race is extinct and the survivors live below the surface of the earth. Human relations ba rely exist anymore, while there are substitutes for everything including food, drink and music. Peopl e co-exist with robots that are so evolved, but also imbued with the new mentality so much so that they are a threat for the disbelievers. The rest of the chapters describe the events that le d to this radical change in humanity, the loss of values and of everyday pleasures and acts of social courtesy, respect, and concern for the others. The last chapter, which technically is the first, is about a guard in the Acropolis, who was made to work with a robot; the robots ar e not as evolved as in the first chapter, of course. The guard at first seems unwilling to accept the new order of things, and the existence of non-humans and he is defensive against the machine, which also does not know any spelling. At the end of the chapter, which is also the end of the book, the gu ard has also forgotten spelling and accepted the robot as a part of his life. Wet Nights (1998) is about people whom th e author met at some point in his life and whose lives were significantly and irreparably affected by political changes and circumstances on which they had no power and in wh ich they never participated. The four stories ravel around life at night in cab arets. Nora, for instance, is a tortured soul who ended up spending her life on the streets af ter her husband, who was an o fficer in the navy, was falsely executed as a communist. Finally, Greece under zero (1993) consists of short chronographs,

PAGE 222

222 satirical and farcical stories about contemporary situations a nd events. Germanos deals with humor with political situations peoples habits, arts, even th e Olympic Games of 1996 that Greece lost to Atlanta. Germanos discusses his era thr ough people, their lives and the c hoices that they either had or that someone else deprived them of. Th e first two works, with the exception of Greece under zero are novels with regards to th e time-period they discuss, but th ey consist of short stories. Each chapter concerns a different person, but at the end they all make the picture of an era. This is what keeps Germanos close to Lucian. The latt er, as it has been show n in previous chapters, discusses his era and how his contemporaries handle or should handle it, mainly through stories and dialogues. He even goes as far as to write wo rks about his own choices in life, for instance De Somnium and that also helps the reader acqui re a better unders tanding of the 2nd century C.E. Germanos cauterizes, and unveils how reality affects people; that way he gives another perspective and a different dimens ion of current socio-political issues, just like Lucian offers a fresh view of the everyday reality in the Roman Empire. Germanos also resembles Lucian in his perspicacity concerning the future. Lucian in the Dialogi Deorum for instance gives us a new perspective of the old religion. He shows that am idst the multiple different deities worshipped in the Roman Empire there may even be a reconsid eration of the devotion to the old Olympians. The appearance of Christianity and Judaism shake the foundations of th e old religion and he detects some traces of what it is about to ensue. The same way Germanos, judging from the new lifestyle and the relations between people, and their priorities, gives us a glimpse of the future. It does not mean that by the year 2186 everything will be exactly the way he describes, with the

PAGE 223

223 dominant robots and the human race living below th e surface of the earth, but the idea of the loss of compassion, and the technological advances, which have not only en tered, but have also invaded and sometimes eroded basic human re lations, are the basi c truths of the 20th century and of the future for the author. Another characteristic aspect of Lucianic work is the portrayals of human types, namely Adversus Indoctum Philopseudeis and De Parasito. Laskaratos work Behold the Man (1970) consists of short descriptions of different char acters. He describes for instance how the funny, the pseudo-wise person, the gluttonous, or the politician act. He gi ves examples of behavioral patterns by taking a closer look at society and his contemporaries, while some of the virtues and vices that he discusses are so diachronic that Laskaratos can be read at any time and still be contemporaneous, just like Lucian. The narrative technique does not remind us of Lucian. Laskaratos gives us brief storie s, and not in dialogic form. Th ey still are however caustic and insightful, sometimes satiric and sometimes farcical. Lucian in European Art A topic tha t inspired Renaissance painters seem s to be the Judgment of Paris as described by Lucian in the Judgment of the Goddesses Paintings with this subject appear throughout Europe. Rubens has done several paintings with this subjec t. Cranach, the 15th century German painter, was also inspired. The topic seems to be living through the ages since also Renoir, and Dali created paintings, although the subject was traditional and they were priding themselves on avoiding classical topics. One of the interesting details is the fact that the goddesses are painted naked. It is not a usual representation and it is certainly not based on any known Greek literary

PAGE 224

224 work. It is only in Ovid Heroides V that Oenone talks about Paris unlucky judgment and refers to naked Minerva (more pleasing when she be ars arms). Lucian is the first who actually elaborates on the nudity of the goddesses, and it is Paris who asks Herm es to tell the goddesses to undress. ; ; ; Paris I shall try; for what would happen to one? But first I want to know wh ether it will satisfy the requirements to look them ove r just as they are, or it is necessary to have them undress for a thorough examination? Hermes That is your affair, as you are the judge. Give your orders as you will. Paris As I will? I want to see them naked. Hermes Undress, goddesses. Make your insp ection, Paris. I turned my back.

PAGE 225

225 Figure 5-1. Lucas Cranach, possibly ca. 1528, Oil on wood, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York46. The same alluring posture of the goddesses is al so noticed in Cranach. There are of course details in the painting, like the clothing of Pari s and Hermes, the horse and the hairstyle of the goddesses which are representative of the painters tim e. The detail of the Cupid appears here as well, but he is flying and he is ready to hurl an arrow. 46 Reprinted by permission from www.wikipedia.org under the GNU free documentation licence.

PAGE 226

226 Figure 5-2. Rubens, 1632/1635, Oil on oak, National Gallery, London47. A detail of Lucians narrative that Rubens doe s not follow is that in the formers version Hermes turns his head away, while in the painting Hermes is looki ng. Also, although, it seems that the goddesses are just getti ng undressed, Paris holds and seem s ready to offer the apple to one of them. It is as if Rubens decided to cap ture and encapsulate the whole story in only one painting. He has also painted the goddesses from th ree different sides. This relates to Lucians text where each goddess takes her clothes off and pr esents herself to Pari s differently. There is movement in Lucians narrative a nd the goddesses try to seduce Paris by means not only of their appearance, but of their movement s and grace as well. For instance, Athena warns Paris not to let Aphrodite take off her girdle in front of him, for she is capable of enchanting him only with that 47 Reprinted by permission from www.wikipedia.org under the GNU free documentation licence.

PAGE 227

227 ( 10). Later on Aphrodite encourages Paris to examine her thoroughly, part by part ( 12). There is also the detail of a small Cupid probably in the corner of the painting. Figure 5-3. Jean-Antoine Watteau, c. 1720, Oil on wood, Louvre, Paris, France48. 48 Reprinted by permission from Olga's gallery ( www.abcgallery.com) for not-for-profit Fair Use as defined in the United States copyright law.

PAGE 228

228 Renoir has painted a later scen e of the judgment, the one wh ere Paris has already made up his mind and he gives the apple to Aphrodite. It is obvious that the goddess in the middle has already extended her hand. Lucian in Zeuxis or Antiochus describes a Centau r family. He is the first to do so including in his narration a female centaur. (3). Among the other daring undertakings this Ze yxis painted a female centaur, which moreover was feeding twin Hippocentaur children no more than babies. Conclusion In this chapter I have tried to give a pers pective o f Lucians Nachleben in Byzantine and European literature. Lucian has written a large part of works, which may not be able to be categorized under any traditional ge nre, but they thrive with soci al, and political comments, fresh and insightful literary technique s, as well as an always modern aura of some one who actually sees through society and people and is a vital component of his era and has filtered his past through the present, without dismissi ng his identity. These are some of his traits that inspired or even offered a palette of possibilities for the authors to come. In the first section I discussed Alciph rons probable imitation of Lucians Dialogi Meretricium in his Letters of the Courtesans It was evidently Lucians spirit and unconventional characters that drew Alciphron. After the 2nd C.E. Lucian disappears until 1000 C.E. when Byzantines use in their grammar books examples from his works and later in the 12 C.E. he becomes the source of inspira tion, both linguistically and w ith regards to motifs, for Timarion.

PAGE 229

229 Authors borrow from him for different reasons, eith er to satirize, to quest ion established beliefs or simply because of his usage of Greek is perfect and the Byzantines at the time focus on Classical Greek. Erasmus and More in 16th C.E. translate some of Lucians works and discover new possibilities in his fi ctitious novels and th e mock encomia. The humanistic revolt, the questioning of the Christian doctrines and the cl aim to supremacy and correctness by the priests lead Erasmus to write the Praise of Folly creating a Lucianic parody commenting on everyone and everything. More, on the other hand, adheres by Lucians teaching by example and thus he created his Utopia that is a no-place and until the end of the work the reader cannot tell if More believes in it, or he mocks everyone with a sardonic-Lucianic smile. The Syrian writers influence is not restricted only to the aforementioned genres. He also makes a powerful appearance in Molires Tartuffe and Le Misanthrope. Character portrayal, philosophical thinking about different lifestyles and the undermin ing of society by the inside have been invented by Lucian. Timon De Parasito Phalaris are only few of the works which left traces in the French theatrica l creations. The satiric, comic, and occasionally funny tones, the insightful presentation of society and the intent ion to incite people to thinking is obviously shared both by Lucian and Molire. In 18th century Denmark Ludvig Holberg wrote his fictitious novel The Journey of Niels Klim to the World Underground and, although following other pred ecessors like Swift in this genre, it still cannot be denied that Lucian was the beginning of fictiti ous literature. Holberg admits in his Memoirs that he was inspired by Lucian a nd the formers presentation of the different nations as well as Klim reception of th em remind us of Lucian and his intentions when writing Toxaris Anacharsis and Scytha

PAGE 230

230 Flaubert in the 19th century found inspiration in Lucians philosophical work, Menippus. Peoples quest for the right way of life is always current. That is what Bouvard and Pcuchet do in Flauberts homonymous work. Only what they do on earth Menippus did in the underworld. The result of their search is all the same; they all agree that the si mple way of life can also be the happier and more complete. Finally, Lucianic humor found a place in 20th century Greece. F. Germanos and A. Laskaratos somewhat revived Lucians style, Satire and concern for society and their contemporaries and it is interes ting to notice the latters effect on the people about whom he wrote 18 centuries ago and examine if the custom s, virtues and vices, acceptance or dismissal still exist and under what name. The last section is on Lucians representation of Dearum Iudicium in European art. Lucas Cranach, Peter Paul Rubens, Jean-Antoine Watteau, William Blake, Pierre-August Renoir, Salvador Dali found inspiration in Lucians unconventional, intrig uing and live description of the well-known myth and this may also show that Lucian was actually dexterous in approaching and influencing people by taking something old and traditional and showi ng other aspects and possibilities, thus offering a whole new aspect and transforming it in to a whole new idea.

PAGE 231

231 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION In this dissertation I try to discuss the liter ary, linguistic, social, a nd religious aspects of Lucian' s works in such a way as to acquire a clear picture of the Syrian orator, his identity, literary and historical, and cons equently of the 2nd century C. E Roman Empire. His numerous short writings give us several te staments to the different sectors of everyday life in the Empire. The variability of his material also is one of the reasons why Lucian's Nachleben is long and traces of his works can be found in Byzantine and European authors up to the 20th century. The fact that Lucian does not stray to persona l information, as well as the large number of his works that cannot really be classified easily under any one lit erary genre render them rather complex. Somnium and Prometheus es in verbis are well as his prolaliae allow a part of Lucian as a historical personality to a ppear. Other than that, however, a researcher is unable to extract anything more regarding his life. Lucian wants to find a position in the Roman Empire; he adopts the Greek language and culture and he does not hesitate to praise the emperor's favorite friend in Imagines. Although he does not denounce his ethnicit y, nonetheless he does not discuss anything that pertains to Syria, except in De Syria Dea, when he elaborates on Ea stern religion but with a patina of Greek-ness again, and in Somnium when he characterizes his native language barbaric. The study of a multidimensional personality like Lu cian therefore is challenging and is always difficult to argue with absolute certainty about any of his theses. No ma tter how elusive he is, however, the fact that he is an orator means th at he discusses issues of public interest and concern and the palette of his writings shows that the Roman Empire at the time is a society under which social, political, religious and numer ous others fermentations take place and for which Lucian is a good source.

PAGE 232

232 In Chapter 2, I examine Lucian and his attit ude towards Romans and Greeks in relation to Juvenal's. De Parasito and De Mercede Conductis seem to be responses to Juvenal's accusations against the Greeks about having usurped the places of Romans in the symposia. Lucian questions the desirability of those positions all together and suggests that bei ng a client is not a role that befits a Greek man of letters; it seems more appropriate for Ro mans, however, who seem more submissive to patrons. He employs the motif of the exclusus amator to ridicule the Romans and then he proceeds to describe the life of the clie nt during dinner at the ta ble of the wealthy patron. The outline of the dinner reminds us of Juvenal's Sa tire 5 and the fate of Trebius. The similarities between the two works seem more than a co incidence. Finally, I try to show that De Parasito resembles Juvenal's Satire 9 and the degradati on of Naevolus in a comic way, since Simon, the parasite, defends in a philosophic-sophistic manner his uncomplimentary position in society. Chapter 3 is an overview of the 2nd century C.E. through the eyes of Gellius, the Roman anthologist, and Lucian with re gards to how adapted they are to the vastness of the Empire and the newly formulated society. Lucian's prolaliae clearly show that he is aware of his place as a newcomer and the fact that he attempts to excel in this new world. Gellius, on the other hand, in the praefatio of Noctes Atticae merely states his wish that his descendants learn how their ancestors spoke, how they acted and how moral they were. It seems therefore that orators in the Empire, especially non Romans like Lucian, ha d an extremely strong motive to distinguish themselves, and that they were socially aware and active. They disc uss reality and they feel that they are parts of the current si tuations, while Gellius simply wa nts his books to create a long lasting, written social and edu cational history for the Romans. On the same basis, I discuss Lucians Toxaris Scytha and Anacharsis and compare it to specific chapters from Gellius Noctes Atticae. Lucian is a Syrian who writes in Greek about Greeks, Romans and other nations,

PAGE 233

233 while Gellius Noctes Atticae consists of chapters mainly on Roman history, morality and lifestyle, while "other na tions" seem to exist only in the dim light of the background of the social milieu. A reading of the two authors raises ques tions which concern mainly the position of the Romans and their relation to the Greeks and vice ve rsa, as well as both na tions relation to other nations. Lucian writes Toxaris Scytha and Anacharsis, in which one of the interlocutors at least is a Scythian. He shows social awareness and also provides information about the communication between different nations while he gives voice to other nations, which do not belong to the powerful combina tion of the eminent Greco-Roman cultures. On the other hand, Gellius presentation of other nations, his criticisms, or even his silence at some points give the reader the image of a more conservative and le ss well-adjusted to the new world order Roman who is only focused on the past and consequently fails to handle the evol ution and anything else that the new age has brought. An aspect of Lucian that is very frequently overlooked is his religious writings. Since it is easy to read his works as Satires, or simply as funny stories, scholars ra rely examine his views on paganism and Christianity. In Chapter 4, I ar gue that Lucian was aware of the aging pagan deities and the rising of Chri stianity and I believe that Juppiter Confutatus Juppiter Tragoedus Dialogi Deorum De Sacrificiis and Peregrinus are purposefully written so that he might put in the foreground current religious issues and c oncerns. He pushes anthropomorphism to the furthest limit not only in order to provoke laughter, or to continue a classical Aristophanic tradition, but also in order to s uggest another consideration of pa gan religion. Satire is simply the means for him to approach sensitive issues without provoking anyone. A parallel reading the aforementioned works and Tertul lian, Clemens of Alexandria, Ju stin the Martyr, Athenagoras,

PAGE 234

234 and Tatian testify that Lucian was aware of th e new religion and its do ctrines and he simply presents the Christian arguments in a pagan c ontext by means of classical literary motifs. Finally in Chapter 5, I present Lucian's infl uence on Byzantine and European authors up to 20th century. Owing to his fluency, Lucian is popul ar with Greek Byzantine lexicographers in the 11th century who borrow examples from his works and later the author of Timarion finds a rich and colorful repository of underworld images and motifs in Lucian's stories. In the 15th century the humanistic moveme nt and its disapproval of the clergy's false preaching lead Erasmus, for instance, to write his caustic Praise of Folly imitating Lucian's Phalaris and other mock laudatory works. More, on the other hand imitates the techniques of openly lying and teaching by example when he writes Utopia in an attempt to persuade his readership that Erasmus' theoretical approach of life cannot be practiced effectively. Molire masterfully creates live characters and portrays a 17th century parasite in Le Tartuffe while he plays with the diachronic figure of 'Timon' in Le Misanthrope. Ludvig Holberg in The Journey of Niels Klim to the World Underground incorporates in The Journey of Niels Klim to the World Underground imaginary travelogue, caustic writing and the te chnique of estrangement, among other Lucianic motifs. Flaubert's Emma Bovary could be a descendant of Lucian's meretrices and Bouvard et Pcuchet remind us of Menippus and his quest for the proper lifestyle. Furthermore, Modern Greek literature seems to have revisited an ancestor in A. Laksaratos' Behold the Man and the science fiction novel's of F. Germanos Good News from Aphrodite the satiric Greece under Zero and the socially focused Wet Nights Finally, Dearum Iudicium and Zeuxis proved to be the source of inspiration for nu merous artists, namely Lucas Cranach, Peter Paul Rubens, JeanAntoine Watteau, William Blake, Pierre-August Renoi r, Salvador Dali, and Bonaventura Geneli

PAGE 235

235 I hope to have shown that Lucian is a multidim ensional personality; he is a sophist, and an orator, a Syrian by birth and a Roman citizen by choice; he is a product of the 2nd century Roman Empire. His writings give us a plethora of information and undeniably a sense of various aspects of everyday life. He employs traditional motifs and reinvents others only to become a popular orator and an official in the Empire and then to live a diach ronic legacy in literature and art. Although, one cannot fully comprehend Lucia n, I believe that I gained and presented a glimpse into his intentions as I tried to di scuss certain of his works and his literary correspondence with other authors chronologically and from several different aspects, namely literary, linguistic, social, and religious in order to acquire a spherical view of this prolific and creative writer.

PAGE 236

236 REFERENCES Ada ms, J. N. 2003. Bilingualism and the Latin Language Cambridge. Altheim, F. A. 1938. History of Roman Religion. Translated by H. Mattingly. London. Alcock, S. 1993. Graecia Capta: The Landscapes of Roman Greece Cambridge and New York. Anderson, G. 1976a. "Lucian: Theme and variation in the Second Sophistic." Mnemosyne suppl. 41. Leiden. _____. 1976b. "Lucians Classics: Some short cuts to Culture." Institute of Classical Studies 23: 59-68 _____. 1976c. "Studies in Luci ans comic fiction." Mnemosyne, suppl. 43. Leiden. _____. 1977. "Patterns in Lucians prolaliae." Philologus 121: 313-5 _____. 1979. "Motifs and Techniques in Lucians De Parasito.", Phoenix 33: 59-66 ____. 1982. "Lucian: A Sophists sophist." YCS 27: 61-92 ____. 1993. The Second Sophistic: A cultural phe nomenon in the Roman Empire. London and New York. ____. 2007. "Rhetoric and the Second Sophistic" in A Companion to Roman Rhetoric edited by W. Dominic and J. Hall, pp. 339-53. Malden Anderson, W.S. 1965. "Valla, Juvenal, and Probus." Traditio 21: 383-424 Andriessen, P. 1947. "The Authorship of the Epistle to Diognetus ." Vigiliae Christianae 1: 12936 Attridge, H.W. and Oden, R.A. 1976. The Syrian Goddess Montana. Austin M.M. and Vidal-Naquet P. 1977. Economic and Social History of Ancient Greece. London. Arnott, W.G. 1993. "Comic Openings." in Intertextualitt in der Griechisch-Rmische Komdie edited by N. Slater and B. Zimmerman, pp. 14-23. Stuttgart. Bagnani, G. 1955. "Peregrinus Proteus and the Christians." Historia 4 n.1: 107-55. Baker, R.J. 1988. "Maecenas and Horace, Satire II.8." CJ 83 n.3: 212-32. Baldwin, B. 1961. "Lucian as Social Satirist." CQ 1: 199-208 ______. 1973. Studies in Lucian Toronto.

PAGE 237

237 ______. 1984. Timarion. Detroit. Balsdon, J.P.V.D. 1979. Romans and Aliens. Chapell Hill. Barnard, L.W. 1967. Justin Martyr: Hi s Life and Thought London. Barnes, T. D. 1985. Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study. Oxford. Baslez, M.F. 1994. "L' auteur du 'Dea Syria' et le s ralits rligieuses de Hierapolis." In Lucien de Samosate: Actes du colloque international de Lyon organis au Centre d' etudes romaines et gallo-romaines le s 30 septembre-1er octobre 1993, edited by A. Billault, pp. 171-6. Lyon and Paris. Bellinger, A.R. 1928."Lucians Dramatic Technique." YCS 1: 3-40 Bernays, J. 1879. Lucian und die Kyniker. Berlin. Betz, H.D. 1959. "Lukian von Samosata und das Christentum." Novum Testamentum 3: 226-37 ____. 1961. Lukian von Samosata und das Neue Test ament. Religionsgeschichtliche und parnetische Parallelen. Berlin. Bloomer, W.M. 2007. "Roman Declamation: The Elder Seneca and Quintilian." in A Companion to Roman Rhetoric edited by W. Dominic, W. and J. Hall, pp. 297-306. Malden Boatwright, M.T. 2000. Hadrian and the Cities of the Roman Empire Princeton. Boissier, G. 1909. La religion romaine d'Auguste aux Antonins Paris. Bompaire, J. 1958. Lucien crivain: imitation et creation Paris. Borret, M. 1976. Origne, Contre Celse Paris. Bowersock, G.W. 1969. Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire Oxford. _____. 1974., ed. Approaches to the Second Sophistic: Pape rs presented at the 105th to the Annual Meeting of the Americ an Philological Association. Pennsylvania. Bowie, E.L. 1970. "Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic." Past and Present 46: 3-41 _____. 1982. "The Importance of Sophists." YCS 27: 29-59 _____. 1991. "Hellenes and Hellenism in Writers of the Early Second Sophistic." in : Quelques jalons pour une hist oire de lidentit grecque, edited by S. Said, pp. 183-204. Leiden and New York. Bowra, C.M. 1961. Greek Lyric Poetry Oxford.

PAGE 238

238 Branham, R.B. 1985. "Introducing a Sophist: Lucians Prologues." TAPA 115: 237-243 _____.1989. Unruly eloquence: Lucian and the comedy of Traditions Cambridge. Braun, R. 1977 Deus Christianorum. Recherches sur le vocabulaire doctrinal de Tertullien. Paris. Braund, D. and Wilkins J., eds. 2000. Athenaeus and his World Exeter. Braund, S. 1996. Juvenal: Satires Book 1 Cambridge. Buell, D. K. 2002. "Race and Universalism in Early Christianity." Journal of Early Christian Studies 10: 429-68 Campbell, D.A. 1982. Greek Lyric Poetry. Bristol. Cardauns, B. 1960. Varros Logistoricus ber die Gttervehrung (Curio de cultu deorum) Wrzburg. Cardman, F. 1999. "Women, Ministry, and Chur ch Order in Early Christianity." in Women and Christian Origins, edited by R.S. Kraemer and M.R. DAngelo, pp. 300-29. Oxford. Castellani, V. 2002. "Plutarc hs Roman Women." in Greek Romans and Roman Greeks edited by E.N.Ostenfeld, pp. 142-55. Denmark. Caster, M. 1937. Lucien et la pense religieuse de son temps. Paris. Chadwick, H. 1947. "Origen, Celsus and the Stoa." JTS 48: 34-49. _____. 1948. "Origen, Celsus and the Resurrection of the Body." HTR 41: 83-102. _____. 1953. Origen, Contra Celsum. Translated with Introduction and Notes Cambridge. _____. 1966. Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition. New York. _____. 2001 The Church in Ancient Society Oxford. Church, F.F. 1975. "Sex and Salvation in Tertullian." HTR 68: 83-101 Clarke, M.L. 1996. Rhetoric at Rome New York and London. Clausen, W.V. A. 1959. Persi Flacci et D. Iuni Iuvenalis saturate. Oxford. Clinton, K. 1989. "Hadrians Contribution to the Renaissance of Eleusis." in The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire edited by S. Walker and A. Cameron, pp. 56-68. London. Cloud, D. 1989. "The Client-Patron Relationship: Emblem and Reality in Juvenals First Book." in Patronage in Ancient Society edited by A. Wallace-Hadrill, 205-18. London.

PAGE 239

239 Coenen, J. 1977. Lukian, Zeus Tragodus: berlieferungs geschichte, Text u. Kommentar Beitrge zur klassischen Philologie 88. Meisenheim am Glan: Hain. Coffey, M. 1976. Roman Satire. London. Contreras, C.A. 1980. "Christian Views of Paganism." ANRW 23.2: 974-1022 Copley F.O. 1947. Servitium amoris in the Roman Elegists. TAPA 78: 285-300 Courtney, E. A. 1980. Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal. London. Croom, A.T. 2000. Roman Clothing and Fashion Stroud. Cumont, F. 1896/99. Textes et Monuments figures relati ves aux Mystres de Mithra I and II. Brussels. _____. 1956a. The Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism New York. _____. 1956b. The Mysteries of Mithra. New York. Cyrino, M.S. 1995. In Pandoras Jar. Lanham. Daly, C. 1993. Tertullian the Puritan and his Influence. Dublin. Daly, R. 1977. The Christian Idea of Sacrifice .Washington. Damon, C. 1995. "Greek Parasi tes and Roman Patronage." HSCP 97:181-195 Damon, C. 1997. The Mask of the Parasite Michigan. Danilou, J. 1973. A History of Early Christian Doctrine v.2. London and Philadelphia. _____. 1977. The Origins of Latin Christianity. Translated by D. Smith and J.A. Baker. London and Philadephia. Davies, M. 1991. Poetarum Melicorum Garecorum Fragmenta vol.1. Oxford. De Labriolle, P. 1934. La Raction Paienne, tude sur la polmique antichrtienne du Ier au VIme sicle Paris. De Lacy, P. 1974. "Plato and the Intellectua l Life of the Second Century C.E." in Approaches to the Second Sophistic edited by G.W. Bowersock, pp. 4-10. University Park. Desbordes, Fr. 1991. "Latinitas: Constitution et volution dun Modle de lidentit Linguistique." in : Quelques jalons pour une hist oire de lidentit grecque, edited by S. Said, pp. 33-47. Leiden and New York. Dessau, H. 1906. Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae. Berlin.

PAGE 240

240 Dieu, L. 1942. "La Proscution au IIe sicle. Une loi fantome." RHE 37: 5-19. Dodds, E.R. 1951. The Greeks and the Irrational London. ____. 1965. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety. Some aspects of religious experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine Cambridge. Douglas, A.E. 1958. "Roman Cognomina." GR 5 n.1: 62-6 Dubuisson, M. 1981a. "Utraque Lingua." AC 50: 274-86 _____. 1981b. "Problmes du bilinguisme romain." LEC 49: 27-45 _____. 1982. "Y a-t-il politique linguistique romaine?" Ktma 7: 187-210 _____. 1991. Graecus Graeculus, Graecari : lemploi pjoratif du nom des grecs en latin." in : Quelques jalons pour une hist oire de lidentit grecque, edited by S. Said, pp. 315-35. Leiden and New York. Edmonds, J.M. 1952. Lyra Graeca vol.2. Harvard. Edwards, M.J. 1989. "Satire and Verisimilitude: Christianity in Lucian's "Peregrinus." Historia 38 n.1: 89-98 Eisenstadt, S.N. and Roniger, L. 1984. Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society. Cambridge. Elze, M. 1960. Tatian und seine Theologie. Gttingen. Evans, E.C. 1941. "The Study of Physiognomy in the Second Century C.E." TAPA 72: 96-108 Ferguson, E. 1980. "Spiritual Sacrifice in Ea rly Christianity and its Environment." ANRW 2.23.2: 1151-1189 Fox, M. 2001. "Dionysus, Lucian, and the Pr ejudice against Rhetoric in History." JRS 91: 76-93 Frank, T. 1957. Life and Literature in the Roman Republic. Berkeley. Francis, J.A. 1995. Subversive Virtue: Asceticism and Authority in the second-century pagan world. Pennsylvania. Freudenberger, R. 1967. Das Verhalten der rmischen Behr den Gegen die christen im 2 Jahrhundert Munich. Freudenburg, K. 1993. The Walking Muse. Princeton. _____. 2001. Satires of Rome. Cambridge. Freduille, J. 1972. Tertullien et la Conversion de la Culture Antique. Paris.

PAGE 241

241 Gabba, E. 1991. Dionysius and the History of Archaic Rome. Berkeley. Gager, J. 1985. The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. Oxford. Gangloff, A. 2007. "Peuples et Prjugs chez Dion De Pruse et Lucien de Samosate." Revue des tudes Classiques 120: 64-86 Gleason, M.W. 1995. Making Men. Princeton. Gold, B.K. 1987. Literary Patronage in Greece and Rome. Chapel Hill. Grant, R.M. 1948. "Pliny and the Christians." HTR 41: 273-4 ____. 1988. Greek Apologists of the Second Century. Philadelphia. Greene E. 1995. Elegiac Woman: Fantasy, Materi al and Male Desire in Propertius 1.3 and 1.11. AJPh 116: 303-18. ____. 1998. The Erotics of Domination: Male Desi re and the Mistress in Latin Love Elegy .Baltimore. Gruen, E.S. 1990. Studies in Greek Culture and Roman Policy. Leiden. Guerre, A.J. 1991. "Polemical Christianity : Tertullians Search for Certitude." The Second Century 8: 109-23. Gunderson, E. 2000. Staging Masculinity. The Rhetoric of Performance in the Roman World Michigan. ____. 2009. Nox Philologiae: Aulus Gellius and the Fantasy of the Roman Library. Wisconsin. Hall, J.A. 1981. Lucian's Satire. New York. Hanson, R.P.C. 1980. "Christian Attitude to Pagan Religions." ANRW 23.2: 910-73. Harrison, S.J. 2000. Apuleius: A Latin Sophist. Oxford. Hartog, F. 1991. "Rome et la Grce: les choix de Denys dHalicarnasse." in : Quelques jalons pour une histoi re de lidentit grecque, edited by S. Said, pp.149-67. Leiden and New York. Henderson, J. 1999. Writing Down Rome. Oxford. Hendrickson, G.L. 1927. "Sat ura Tota Nostra Est." CPh 22: 46-60. Herman, G. 1980. "The friends of the Early He llenistic Rulers: Servants or Officials?" Talanta 12/13: 103-49.

PAGE 242

242 Herman, L. 1958/62. "L'origine et la date du Dea Syria." La Nouvelle Clio 10-12: 246-7. Hermann, L. 1954. "Hierius et Domitius." Latomus 13: 37-9. Highet, G. 1954. Juvenal the Satirist Oxford. _____. 1949. The Classical Tradition. Oxford. Hodge, R.I.V and Buttimore, R.A. 2002. Propertius, Elegies Book 1. Bristol. Hoff, M.C. and Rotroff, S.I., eds. 1997. The Romanization of Athens: proceedings of an international conference held at Lincoln, Nebraska (April, 1996) Oxford. Hoffman, D.L. 1995. The Status of Women and Gnosticis m in Irenaeus and Tertullian New York. Holford-Strevens, L. 1988. Aulus Gellius. London. _____. 2003. Aulus Gellius, An Antonine Scholar and his Achievements. Oxford. Holford-Strevens, L. and Vardi, A. 2004. The Worlds of Aulus Gellius. Oxford. Horsfall, N. 1979. "Doctus Sermones Utriusque Linguae." EMC 23: 79-95. Hunter, R.L. 1985. "Horace on Friendship and Free Speech ( Epistles I.18 and Satires I.4)." Hermes 113: 480-90. Hutchinson, G.O. 2001 Greek Lyric Poetry. Oxford. Janson, T. 1964. Latin Prose Prefaces. Studies in Literary Conventions Stockholm. Janssen, L.F. 1979. Superstitio and the Persecution of the Christians." Vigiliae Christianae 33: 131-59. Jebb, R. 1907. Essays and Addresses .Cambridge. Johnson, S.F. 2006. Greek Literature in Late Antiquity. Harvard. Jones, C.P. 1978. The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom. Harvard. _____.1986. Culture and Society in Lucian. Harvard. Jones, H.S. 1966. Select Passages from the Ancient Write rs Illustrative of the History of Greek Sculpture. Chicago. Kahane, A.D and Laird, A., eds. 2001. A Companion to the Prologue of Apuleius Metamorphoses. New York. Kajanto, I. 1982. The Latin Cognomina. Roma.

PAGE 243

243 Keane, C.C. 2003. "Theatre, Spectacle, and the Satirist in Juvenal." Phoenix 57 n.3/4: 257-75. Kennedy, G.A. 1972. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World. Princeton. _____. 1994. A New History of Classical Rhetoric Princeton. Keresztes, P. 1979. "The Imperial Roman Governme nt and the Christian Church: I. From Nero to the Severi." ANRW II.23.1: 257-72. Kerferd, G.B. 1981. The Sophistic Movement. Cambridge. Keulen, W. 2009. Gellius the Satirist: Roman Cultural Authority in Attic Nights. Leiden and Boston. Knoche, U. 1975. Roman Satire. Indiana. Konstan, D. 1995. "Patrons and Friends." CPh 90 n.4: 328-342. Kraus, C. S. 2000. "The Path between truculence and servility: Prose Literature from Augustus to Hadrian." in Literature in the Greek and Roman Worlds edited by O. Taplin, pp. 43867. Oxford. Kupersmith, W. 1972. "Juvenal as a Sublime Satirist." PMLA 87 n.3: 508-11. Laistner, M. L. W. 1951. Christianity and Pagan Culture in the Later Roman Empire. New York. Lalanne S. 2002. "Hellenism and Romanization: A comparison between the Greek Novels and the tale of Psyche in Apuleius Metamorphoses." in Greek Romans and Roman Greeks, edited by E.N. Ostenfeld, pp. 225-32. Aarhus and Oxford. Lease, G. 1980. "Mithraism and Christian ity: Borrowings and Transformations." ANRW 23.2: 1306-332. Lee, B.T. 2005. Apuleius Florida: A Commentary. Berlin, New York, De Gruyter. Lvy, Ed. 1991. "Apparition des Notions de Grce et des Grecs." in : Quelques Jalons pour une Histoire de l Identit Grecque, edited by S. Said, pp.49-69. Leiden and New York. Lightfoot, J.L. 2000. "Romanized Greeks and Helle nized Romans: Later Greek Literature." in Literature in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A new Perspective, edited by O. Taplin, pp. 257-84. Oxford. Lionel, C. 1962. Selected Satires of Juvenal New York. Lobel, E. and Page D. 1955. Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta Oxford.

PAGE 244

244 Lods, M. 1941. "tudes sur les sources juives de la polmiques de Celse contre les chrtiens." Revue d'histoire et de la philosophie religieuses 21: 1-31. Loisy, A. 1930. Les Mystres Paiens et le Mystre Chrtien. Paris. MacLeod, M.D. 1956. "Two Notes on Lucian. II. A Note on Lucians Prometheus Es in Verbis." CQ 6 n.3/4: 237. _______. 1972. Luciani Opera 4 vols. Oxford. MacLeod, M.D. and Baldwin, B. 1994. "Lucianic Studies since 1930." ANRW II.34.2: 13621421. MacMullen, R. 1986. "Personal Power in the Roman Empire." AJP 107 n.4: 512-24. Malherbe, A.J. 1969. "The Structure of At henagoras, Supplicatio pro Christianis." Vigiliae Christianae 23: 1-20. Marshall, P.K. A. 1990. Gellii Noctes Atticae 2 vols. Oxford. Marrou, H. I. 1948. Histoire de l'ducation dans l'Antiquit. Paris _____. 1997. Diognte: Introduction, dition Critique, Traduction et Commentaire. Paris. Marsh, D. 1998. Lucian and the Latins. Michigan. McCarthy, B.P. 1934. "Lucian and Menippus." YCS 4: 3-55. McNelis, C. 2007. "Grammarians and Rhetoricians." in A Companion to Roman Rhetoric edited by W. Dominic and J. Hall, pp. 285-96. Malden. Meecham, G. 1949. The Epistle to Diognetus. Manchester. Merrill, E.T. 1918. "Tertullian on Pli ny's Prosecution of the Christians." AJT 22: 124-135. Millar, F. 1993. The Roman Near East Cambridge and London. Mitchell, M. M. 2007. "Origen, Celsus and Lucian on the "Dnouement of the Drama" of the Gospels." in Reading Religions in the Ancient World edited by D.E. Aune and R.D. Young, pp. 215-36. Leiden and Boston. Moles, J. 1995. "Dio Chrysostom, Greece, and Rome." in Ethics and Rhetoric edited by D. Innes, H. Hine and C. Pelling, pp. 177-92. Oxford. Momigliano, A. 1980. Sagesses Barbares/ Les Limites de lhellnisation. Paris. Morford, M. 1977. "Juvenals Fifth Satire." AJP 98 n.3: 219-245. Morgan, T. 1998. Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds. Cambridge.

PAGE 245

245 ____. 2004. "Educational Values." in The Worlds of Aulus Gellius edited by L. Holford-Strevens and A. Vardi, pp. 187-205. Oxford. Mras, K. 1949. "Die bei den griechischen Schrifstellern." WS 64: 71-81. Nesselrath, H.G. (1990), "Luc ian's Introductions." in Antonine Literature, edited by D.A. Russell, pp. 111-40. Oxford. Nettleship, H. 1883. "The Noctes Atticae of Aulus Gellius." AJP 4 n.4: 391-415. Nilsson, M.P. 1949. A History of Greek Religion. Translated by F.J. Fielden. Oxford. _____. 1961. Geschichte der griechischen Religion 2: Die Hellen istische und Rmische Welt Munich. Oden, R.A. 1977. Studies in Lucian's De Syria Dea Montana. Ogilvie, R.M. 1969. The Romans and their Gods New York. Ogle, M.B. 1920. The Lovers Blindness. AJP 41: 240-52. Oliver, J.H. 1953. "The Ruling Power." TAPA 43: 963-80. Oliver, J.P. 1980. "The Actuality of Lucian's Assembly of the Gods." AJP 101: 304-131. Osborn, E.R. 1981. The Beginning of Christian Philosophy. Cambridge and New York. _____. 1993. The Emergence of Christian Theology. Cambridge. _____. 1997a. Tertullian: First Theo logian of the West. Cambridge. _____. 1997b. "Tertullian as Philosopher and Roman." in Die Weltlichkeit des Glaubens in der Alten Kirch. Festchrift fr Ulrich Wickert zum siebzigsten Geburstag edited by B. Aland and Scublin, pp. 231-47. New York and Berlin. Ostenfeld, E.N., ed. 2002. Greek Romans and Roman Greeks Aarhus. Page, D. 1955. Sappho and Alcaeus. Oxford. _______. 1974 Supplementum Lyricis Graecis. Oxford. Palmer, D.W.1983. "Atheism, Apologetic, and Negativ e Theology in the Greek Apologists of the Second Century." Vigiliae Christianae 37 n.3: 234-59. Paton, W.R. 1916 The Greek Anthology 5 vols. New York. Perry, B. E. 1955. "Literature in the Second Century." CJ 50 n.7: 295-298. Petrochilos, N. 1974. Roman Attitudes to the Greeks. Athens.

PAGE 246

246 Preston, R. 2001. "Roman Questions, Greek Answers: Plutarch and the construction of identity." in Being Greek under Rome: cultural identity, the Second Sophistic and the development of Empire, edited by S. Goldhill, pp. 86-122. Cambridge. Puech, A. 1912. Les apologistes grecs du IIe sicle de notre re. Paris. Putnam, E.J. 1909. "Lucian the sophist." CPh 4 n.2: 162-177. Ramage, E.S., Sigsbee D.L., Fredericks S.C. 1974. Roman Satirists and their Satire New Jersey. Rankin, H.D. 1983. Sophists, Socratics and Cynics New Jersey. Reardon, B.P. 1971. Courants littraires grecs des IIe et IIIe sicles aprs J.-C. Paris. Ribbeck, O. 1859. Den Satiren des Juvenal. Leipzig. Robinson, C. 1979. Lucian and his influence in Europe. London. Rokah, D. 1982. Jews, Pagans and Christians in Conflict. Leiden. Romeo, I. 2002. "The Panhellenion and Et hnic Identity in Hadrianic Greece." CPh 97 n.1: 21-40. Rose P.W. 1992. Sons of the Gods, Children of Earth: Ideology and Literary Form in Ancient Greece. Cornell. Rothstein, M. 1888. Quaestiones Lucianeae. Berlin. Rudd, N. 1986. Themes in Roman Satire Oklahoma. Ruprecht, L.A. 1992. "Athenagoras the Christian, Pausanias the Travel Guide, and a Mysterious Corinthian Girl." The Harvard Theological Review 85 n.1: 35-49. Russell, D.A. 1990. Antonine Literature. Oxford. Rutherford, I. 1998. Canons of Style in the Antonine Age. Oxford. Saller, R.P. 1982. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire. Cambridge. _____. 1989. "Patronage and Friendship in Early Imperial Rome: Drawing the Distinction." in Patronage in Ancient Society edited by A. Wallace-Hadrill, A. pp. 49-62. London. Salway, B. 1994. What's in a Name? A Survey of Roma n Onom astic Practice from c. 700 B.C. to C.E. 700." JRS 84: 124-45. Sandy, G. 1997. The Greek World of Apuleius. Leiden, New York, Kln. Schmidt, M. 2005. The First Poets. New York. Schmidt, T.S. 1999. Plutarque et les Barbares, la rhtorique dune image. Louvain andNamur.

PAGE 247

247 Schwartz, J. 1963. Lucien de Samosate: Philopse uds et De Morte Peregrini. Paris. Scobie, A. 1975. Apuleius Metamorphoses (Asinus Aureus): A Commentary. Meisenheim. Serres, M. 1980. Le Parasite. Paris. Shero, L.R. 1923. "The Cena in Roman Satire." CPh 18 n.2: 126-143. Sherwin-White, A.N. 1952. "Early Pr osecutions and Roman Law Again." JTS 3: 199-213. _____. 1960. "Trajan's Replies to Pliny." JRS 52: 114-125. _____. 1985. The Letters of Pliny. Oxford. Sidebottom, H. 1996. "Dio of Prusa and the Flavian Dynasty." CQ 46 n.2: 447-456. Sider, R. 1971. Ancient Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian. Oxford. Smith, W. 1985. "Heroic models for the sordid present: Juvenals View of Tragedy." ANRW 2.33.1: 811-23. Sordi, M. 1986. The Christians and the Roman Empire Translated by A. Bedini. Norman and London. Spawforth, A.J.S. and Walker, S. 1985. "The World of the Panhellenion I: Athens and Eleusis." JRS 75: 78-104. _____. 1986. "The World of the Panhellenion I: Three Dorian Cities." JRS 76: 88-105. Stevenson, A.J. 2004. "Gellius and the Roman Antiquarian Tradition." in The Worlds of Aulus Gellius, edited by L. Holford-Strevens and A. Vardi, pp. 118-58. Oxford. Stock, S. 1911. De prolariarum usu rhetorico. Knigsberg. Sullivan, J.P. 1968. Satire, Critical Essays on Roman Literature. Indiana. Swain, S. 1990. "Hellenic Culture and the Roman Heroes of Plutarch." JHS 110: 126-145. _____. 1996. Hellenism and Empire : Language, Power and Classicism in the Greek World, C.E. 50-250. Oxford. _____. 2004. "Bilingualism and Biculturalism in Ant onine Rome : Apuleius, Fronto, Gellius." in The Worlds of Aulus Gellius edited by L. Holford-Strevens L. and A. Vardi, pp. 3-40. Oxford. Tate, G. 1997. "The Syrian Countryside during the Roman Era." in The Early Roman Empire in the East, edited by S.E. Alcock, pp. 55-71. Oxford.

PAGE 248

248 Titchener, F.B. 2002. "Plutarch and Roman(ized) Athens." in Greek Romans and Roman Greeks, edited by E.N. Ostenfeld, pp. 136-41. Aarhus. Turcan, M. 1971. La Toilette Des Femmes (De Cultu Feminarum) Paris. Turner, P. 1990. Lucian: Satirical Sketches. Indiana. Tylawsky, E.I. 2002. Saturios Inheritance. The Greek An cestry of the Roman Comic Parasite New York. Ungefehr-Kortus, C. 1996. Der Typus des Endlen, weisen Barbaren Frankfurt am Main and New York. Van Groningen, B.A. 1965. "General Literary Tendencies in the Second Century C.E." Mnemosyne 18: 41-56. Vardi, A. 1993. "Why Attic Nights? Or Whats in a Name?" CQ 43: 298-301. _____. 2004. "Genre, Conventions, and Cultural Programme." in The Worlds of Aulus Gellius edited by L. Holford-Strevens a nd A. Vardi, pp. 159-86. Oxford. Vermaseren, M. J. 1969. "Paganism's Death Struggle: Religions in Competition with Christianity." in The Crucible of Christianity edited by A.Toynbee, pp. 235-60. London. Veyne, P. 1979. "Lhllenisation de Rome et la problmatique des acculturations." Diogne 6: 329. Von S. Bradshaw, A.T. 1965. "Glacie Aspersus Maculis: Juvenal 5.104." CQ 15 n.1: 121-25. Waelkens, M. 1989. "Hellenistic and Roman Influence in the Imperial Architecture of Asia Minor." in The Greek Renaissance in the Roman Empire edited by S. Walker S. and A. Cameron, pp.77-88. London. _____.1987. "The Adoption of Roman Building Technique s in the Architecture of Asia Minor." in Roman Architecture in the Greek World edited by S. Macready and F.H.Thompson, pp. 94-105. London. Wagner, W.H. 1994. After the Apostles Minneapolis. Ward-Perkins, J.B. 1981. Roman Imperial Architecture. England and New York. Waszink, J.H. 1963. "Some Observations on th e Appreciation of the 'Philosophy of the Barbarians' in Early Christian Literature." in Melanges offerts Mademoiselle Christine Mohrmann,edited by L. J. Engels, H.W.F.M. Hoppenbrouwers and A.J. Vermeulen, pp. 41-56. Utrecht. Watteville, J. 1966. Le Sacrifice dans les texts eucharistiques des premiers sicles. Neuchtel. Webster, T.B.L. 1970. Studies in Later Greek Comedy. Manchester.

PAGE 249

249 West, M.L. 1971. Iambi et Elegi Graeci vol.1. Oxford Wiesen, D. 1969. "Juvenal 10.358." CPh 64.2: 73-80. Wiles, M. 1967. The Making of Christian Doctrine. Cambridge. Wilken, R.L. 1984. The Christians as the Romans saw them. New Haven and London. White, P. 1978. "Amicitia and the Profession of Poetry in Early Imperial Rome." JRS 68: 74-92. Whitmarsh, T. 2001. Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: The Politics of Imitation. Oxford. _____. 2005. Second Sophistic. Oxford. Wolfson, H.A. 1956. The Philosophy of the Church Fathers v.1 Massachusetts. _____. 1957. "Negative Attributes in the Church Fathers and the Gnostic Basilides." The Harvard Theological Review 50 n.2: 145-56. Woolf, G. 1994. "Becoming Roman, Staying Greek: Culture, Ident ity and the Civilizing Progress in the Roman East." PCPS 40: 116-43. Wyke, M. 2002. The Roman Mistress: Ancient and Modern Representations. Oxford. Yardley, J.C. 1986. "Propertius 3.6.9: A Weeping Mistress?" Phoenix 40: 198-200. Yardley, J.C. 1977. "The Roman Elegists, Sick Girls, and the Soteria." CQ 27: 397-401. Young, F.M. 1979. The Use of Sacrificial Ideas in Greek Christian Writers from the New Testament to John Chrysostom. Cambridge.

PAGE 250

250 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Eleni Bozia received her B.A. degree in cla ssical philology from the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki in 2003, M.Phil. in classical philology from the University of Glasgow in 2004, and Ph.D. in Classical Studies from the Univ ersity of Florida in 2009. She has coauthored several journal and conference publi cations. Her current research interests lie in the areas of late antiquity and Greek and Roman novel and drama. Dr. Bozia has received various scholarships and awards during her undergra duate, master's and doctoral studies, including the Mary A. Sollman Scholarship from the American Academy in Rome.