Wiater - Tragedies to Laugh At

7/29/2019 Wiater - Tragedies to Laugh At

1/26

MOSAQUE,revuedesjeuneschercheursenSHSLilleNorddeFranceBelgiquefrancophone1,juin2009

1

NicolasWIATER

Tragediesto

Laugh

at

Lucian

on

the

Failures

of

Mimesis

Noticebiographique

NicolasWiaterisalecturer(wissenschaftlicherMitarbeiter)inClassicsatBonnUniversity.He

wrote his Ph.D on The Ideology ofClassicism. Language,History, and Identity inDionysius of

Halicarnassus andhaspublishedarticlesonGreek IntellectualCulture andhistoriographyof the

HellenisticandEarlyImperialTimes.

Rsums

CetarticleexaminelesconceptionsdelatragdiechezLucien,entrephilosophie,thtreet

rhtorique. Lide selon laquelle la vie est une forme de tragdie que nousjouons sur terre est

insparablede la conception rhtoriquede lamimsis,quiexigede celuiquiprend laparolequil

imitelesgrandsorateursetlesacteursde lhistoirepasse.lpoquedeLucien,cetterecherchede

limitationnese limitaitpasauxorateursmaisconcernaitaussi lesphilosophes.Llmentprincipal

autourduquelsarticulelacritiquedeLucienestquecesderniersprtendenttrelessuccesseursdes

philosophesclassiquesetqueladfinitionquilsdonnentdeuxmmesreposesurcetteprtentionet

leurmasquesocial,pluttquesurdesralisationsintellectuelles.Laconceptiondutragiquechez

Lucienapourbutdervlercefossentrelespersonnesrellesetleurstentativespoursemettreen

scnecommelesgrandsphilosophesdupass.UndesobjectifsprincipauxdestextesdeLucienestde

mettrefincettetragdie(involontaire)endmasquantlesprtensionsinfondesdecesacteurseten

tournantcestragdiesdelautofabricationdesoiencomdiesdelchecdelamimsis.

My paper examines Lucians conception of tragedybetween philosophy, drama, and

rhetoric.Theideaoflifeasatragedywhichweareenactingonearthisinseparablefromtherhetorical

conception ofmimesiswhich requires the speaker to impersonate the great orators and historical

actorsofthepast.InLucianstimes,thismimeticdesirewasnotlimitedtooratorsbutalsoincluded

philosophers.Luciansmainpointofcriticismisthatthelatterpretendtobesuccessorsoftheclassical


2/26


2

forebearsandthattheirselfdefinitionisbasedonthesepretensions,theirsocialmasks,ratherthanon

intellectualachievement.Luciansconceptionofthetragicisaimedatrevealingthisgapbetween

theactualpersonandtheirattemptstostagethemselvesasthegreatphilosophersofthepast.Oneof

themajoraimsofLucians texts is to end this (involuntary) tragedybyunmasking theunfounded

pretensionsofitsactorsandturningthesetragediesofselffashioningintocomediesoffailedmimesis.

Motscls:Lucien,mimsis,philosophie,rhtorique,tragdie,comdie.

Keywords:Lucian,mimesis,philosophy,rhetoric,tragedy,comedy.

Sommaire

Introduction:TragedyandComedy................................................................................................................. 21.MimesisMisunderstood:LuciansConceptionofTragedy........................................................................ 42.TurningtheReaderintoSpectators:LuciansUseofComedy............................................................... 153.ReFashioningTradition:LuciansConstructiveLaughter..................................................................... 20Bibliography....................................................................................................................................................... 24

Introduction:TragedyandComedy

The relationship between the comic and the tragic and especially between its

exemplarymanifestationsinliterature,tragedyandcomedy,ishardtodefine.Comparisons

are deceptive,but in some ways tragedy and comedy resemble nonidentical twins: the

observercanhardlydenyastrangesimilaritybetweenthetwo,andtheoneinevitablyseems

tocalltomindtheother;butatthesametime,thesesimilaritiesareconstantlyontheverge

ofbeingdissolvedbyanequallystrongimpressionofdistinctnesswhichleavestheobserver

withanambiguousmixtureofdoubtandcertainty.Inthesameway,comedyandtragedy

belong togetherwhile at the same timebeing totally separate,and they complement each

otherasmuchastheyareopposites1.

1Ontheintersectionsoftragedyandcomedysee,e.g.,SEIDENSTICKER1982;TAPLIN2003.


3/26


3

Thisambiguitywasfeltalreadyinantiquity.InPlatosPhilebus,forexample,Socrates

points to the paradoxical nature of the spectators experience during a performance of a

tragedy or a comedy: spectators of a tragedy, Socrates says at 48a 56, enjoy crying

( ); a comedy, by contrast, provokes laughter at other peoplesmisconceptionsofthemselvesortheirabilities,their ofthemselves:lifedepictedin

comedy is lifewhich is contrary to the famousDelphicmaxim of ,which

Socrateshimselfhasadoptedasthestandardofhisownlife.Yet,bydefinition,laughingat

otherpeoplesmishapsismaliceorillwill,theGreektermforwhichis ,and

harms the soul, it is a .Therefore as tearsandjoy, and , are

mixed in tragedy, laughter and harm, and , arepaired in comedy.Themost

famous passage, however,which deals albeitbriefly with the strange relationship of

comedyandtragedyisthelastsceneofPlatosSymposium:whileallotherguestsarealready

firmly asleep, Socrates, the philosopher, is arguing with the tragedian Agathon and the

comedianAristophanes,forcingthemtoagreethatitispossibleforoneandthesameman

toknowhowtocreatecomedyandtragedy,andthatthemanwhohastheskillofatragic

poetisalsoacomicpoet([ ]

,

,223d362).

This statementofSocrates shows thatPlatowas awareof adeepaffinitybetween

bothtypesofdrama,buthisdeclarationofsuchanaffinitywasatoddswiththehistorical

realityofhistimes:Platosphrasing,thatSocrateshastoforceAgathonandAristophanes

toagreewithhim,remindsusofthefactthatapoetwhocombinedcomicandtragicskills

didnotexisteitherinthefifthorinthefourthcenturyBCE:ForthefifthcenturyAthenian,

tragedy was tragedy, and comedy comedy, and never the twain should meet thusBernardKnoxsasfamousasdecisivestatement,whichis,paradoxicallyenough,confirmed

bythesameSocratesinthePoliteia.Everyindividual,Socratesstatesat395a16,candoonly

one thing well. Therefore, the same persons cannot perform well two different acts of

2 On Platos conception of tragedy and the tragic in general see HALLIWELL 2003; HALLIWELL 1984;HALLIWELL 1982;KUHN 1941;KUHN 1942; on tragedy and comedy in the Symposiums specifically seePATTERSON1982;KUHN1941,p.12(onSymp.223d).


4/26


4

mimesis [], even if these seem tobevery closely related to each other [

],suchascomedyandtragedy3.

Iwillargue in thispaper thataproperappreciationof the functionofhumourandlaughter, in short: of the comic, in Lucians uvre depends on our understanding of

Luciansconceptionoftragedy.ToLucian,itwillturnout,thetermtragedywasnot

confined anymore to classical Attic drama as it was presented at the feast of the Great

Dionysia.Tobesure,heusesthisterminthissensetoo,butwhatinterestsushereisrathera

metaphoricaluseoftheword4.InthefirstsectionofmypaperIwillshowthatLucianuses

tragedyasametaphorforamistakenconceptionofmimesis.Thiskindofmimesisrisksto

reduce the culture of the past to a shallowmask and thus to strip it of itsmeaning, its

authorityanditsvalue.

As Iwill argue in the second section, the satiric and comic inLuciansworksde

maskstheshallowattitudeofhiscontemporariesbyrepresentingitinanexaggerated,even

grotesque,mannerand,thus,laysbaretheirfaultsandtheconsequencesfortheroleofthe

GreekintheRomanpresentwhichtheyimply.Lucianstextsturnhisreadersintospectators

oftheircontemporariesridiculoustragediesandthusactasacorrectivewhichmakestrue

continuitywiththegreatpastpossibleagain.

In the third, final section ofmypaper, Iwillproffer some suggestions as to how

Luciansgenreofthecomicosatiricdialogueitselfismeantasacontributiontokeepingthe

classicaltraditionmeaningfulbycreativelyreworkingit.

1.

MimesisMisunderstood

:

Lucians

Conception

of

Tragedy

In order to understand Lucians conception of humour and his criticism of his

contemporaries, we have to recall the role of Attic language and literature for the self

definition of Greek intellectuals in the Second Sophistic5. Stephen Greenblatts notion of

3Onthispassagecf.KUHN1941,p.12.

4SeetheoverviewinSEECK1994,p.234235.5Thistopichasrecentlybeenexploredbyanumberofexcellentstudies;someofthemostrecentareSWAIN1996;SCHMITZ1997;WHITMARSH2001;REARDON1971providesastillveryvaluableoverview.


5/26


5

selffashioning is a helpful tool to understand the intersection of selfdefinition and

literature in Lucians times6. The Roman conquest of Greece in the second century BCE

triggered a process which is now commonly described as Hellenization. But this term

obfuscates thejanusfacednatureof thiscomplexprocess,because it suggestsaonesidedtransformation ofRoman life throughGreek culture. Yet the Romanswere anythingbut

passiverecipients.TheysoontriedtofreethemselvesfromGreekinfluenceandtostressthe

subordination of Greek culture to Roman power: Graecia capta might have civilized the

barbarousvictors,butitremainedGraeciacapta7.TheRomanattemptatdistinctionforcedthe

Greeks to reassert thevalueof, and topreserve, theirown cultural and literaryheritage.

Only thuscould theypreventGreek languageandculture frombeing subduedbyRoman

power. Selffashioning, as Stephen Greenblatt has it, is achieved in relation to

somethingperceivedasalien,strangeorhostile,and:selffashioning isalways, though

notexclusively,inlanguage8.GreekliteratureoftheRomanEmpirecanbeexplainedasthe

medium of this process of selffashioning. It is the attempt to keep the Greek heritage

meaningfulbymaking it the interpretive grid throughwhich the authorsperceived their

presentandpast,theirworldandthemselves:literature,thus,isnotanexpressionofGreek

identity,but literarypractice,writing, readingand reciting, constitutesGreek identity.The

boundariesbetween literature and social life are thusblurred: literature, in Greenblatts

words, invariably crosses theboundariesbetween the creationof literary characters, the

6SeeGREENBLATT1980.7 TheRomans ambivalent attitude towards theGreeks andGreek culture is illustratedby such passages asCicero,Tusc.,1.12(meumsemperiudiciumfuitomnianostrosinvenissepersesapientiusquamGraecosautacceptaabillisfecissemeliora[].Nammoresetinstitutavitaeresquedomesticasacfamiliarisnosprofectoetmeliustuemuret lautius,

remveropublicamnostrimaiorescertemelioribustemperaverunt etinstitutisetlegibus.Quidloquarderemilitari?inqua

cumvirtutenostrimultumvaluerunt,tumplusetiamdisciplina.Imaillaquaenatura,nonlitterisadsecutisunt,nequecum

Graecianequeullacumgentesuntconferenda.Quaeenimtantagravitas,quaetantaconstantia,magnitudoanimi,probitas,fides,quae tamexcellens inomnigenerevirtutis inullisfuit,utsitcummaioribusnostriscomparanda?);Vergil,Aen.,847853(excudentaliispirantiamolliusaera| (credoequidem),vivosducentdemarmorevultus,|orabuntcausasmelius,caeliquemeatus|describentradioetsurgentiasideradicent:|turegereimperiopopulos,Romane,memento|(haetibierunt

artes),paciqueimponeremorem,|parceresubiectisetdebellaresuperbos);ValeriusMaximus2.2.2(magistratusveroprisciquantopere suipopuliqueRomanimaiestatem retinentes segesserint hinc cognoscipotest, quod inter cetera obtinendae

gravitatisindiciailludquoquemagnacumperseverantiacustodiebant,neGraecisunquamnisiLatineresponsadarent.quin

etiamipsoslinguaevolubilitate,quaplurimavalent,excussaperinterpretemloquicogebantnoninurbetantumnostra,sed

etiaminGraeciaetAsia,quoscilicetLatinaevocishonosperomnesgentesvenerabiliordiffunderetur.necillisdeerantstudia

doctrinae, sed nulla in repallium togae subici debere arbitrabantur, indignum esse existimantes inlecebris et suavitati

litterarum imperii pondus et auctoritatem donari). On the Romans ambivalent reactions to the process ofHellenizationwhichtheywereundergoingseeWHITMARSH2001,p.917;onthedifferentaspectsofthiscomplex

processofHellenization see,e.g.,WALLACEHADRILL1998and,most recently,WALLACEHADRILL2008;GRUEN1992;MACMULLEN1991.8Greenblatt1980,p.9.


6/26


6

shaping of ones own identity, the experience ofbeing moldedby forces outside ones

control,theattempttofashionotherselves9.

It is this process of selffashioning which we are used to call mimesis. Therefore

mimesisismuchthansimplyimitation,asTimWhitmarshstressed:toengageinliterarypracticewasnecessarily toanchor thepresent in traditionand to reanimate thepast.The

dominantnotionintheliteraryaestheticofRomanGreecewasmimesis,acomplextermthat

coversboth artistic representation and imitation of predecessors. Impersonation of

figures from theClassicalpastwasubiquitous inGreek cultureduring theperiod of the

Romanprincipate10.

Arrian,forexample,styledhimselfasthenewXenophonorreferredtohimselfas

Xenophon tout court,andonan inscriptionanAtheniancallshimself thenewHomer

and new Themistocles ( ); the sophists extempore

speeches inacrowded theatrebroughtthemclosest toactuallymergingpresentandpast:

deliveringanextemporemeleteinperfectAttic,theynotonlyrepresented,say,Alexanderor

Demosthenesas longas theywere speaking, theywere them,and theheroesof thepast

materializedthroughtheirbodies11.

However, this process of selffashioning through literary mimesis was inherently

ambiguous:itcouldconcealthedistancethatseparatedpresentandpast,butitcouldaswell

makethisdistanceallthemoreevident.Ideally,thespeakershouldlivetheidealofthepast:

speakinglikeDemosthenesandbeinglikeDemostheneswerethesame.Yet,aswewillsee,it

isarecurrentsubjectinLucianswritingsthatmanyofhiscontemporariesfellshortofthis

aim: instead of selffashioning, theyused language for selfmasking, trying to hide their

patheticexistencebehindthesublimeauthorityofAtticlanguage.AccordingtoLucian,his

contemporaries created a discrepancybetween words and life which underscored, evenenforced,thesenseofagapseparatingpastandpresent:thegreatpastisindangertolose

itsmeaning to thepresent.Thismisallianceof the sublime, the ,of thepast and the

bathos of the present endangers the central concern of Greek intellectuals in the Second

9GREENBLATT1980,p.3;cf.ID.,p.45.10WHITMARSH 2001, p.2627; cf.ID., p.2: literarywritingwas in this period inherentlybound upwith theprocessofnegotiationofan identitydiscrete fromRome.Literarywritingwas the central (albeitno theonly)

meansofaffirmingGreekness[]authorsdonotwritebecausetheyareGreek;theyareGreekbecausetheywrite.Literatureisaneverincomplete,everunstableprocessofselfmaking(emphasesintheoriginal).11TheseandotherexamplesquotedinWHITMARSH2001,p.27.


7/26


7

Sophistic, to establish continuitywith their greatpast, thus keeping itmeaningful as the

pointofreferenceoftheirselfdefinitionasGreeksunderRomanrule12.

Itisagainstthisbackground,theroleofmimesistobridgethegapbetweenpastandpresentandthedangersinherentinit,thatwehavetoconsiderLuciansuseoftragedy13.

Lucian refers to an incongruitybetween language and speaker, words and identity, as

alazoneia,astateofmindwhichTheophrastusdefinesasa ,

pretendingtoownthingswhichdonotexist14.Lucianusestragedyasametaphorto

describe this discrepancy between appearance and reality. Lucian is drawing on a

metaphoricaluseoftragedyandcomedyforacertainkindoflifewhichisatleastas

oldasPlato.InawellknownpassageintheseventhbookoftheLaws(817b),Platodescribes

thepoliteia,theconstitution,ofhisidealcity,asanenactmentofthebestandmostbeautiful

life, a ; this form of life he calls the truest

tragedy, .Similarly,inthePhilebus,asmentionedabove,Socrates

defines the simultaneous presence ofjoy and pain as the defining characteristic of the

spectatorsexperienceoftragicandcomicperformances.Thismixtureof and ,

hearguesalittlelater(50b14),isnotconfinedtothetheatre, ,butis

typicalof thewhole tragedy and comedyof life,

. TRD has rightly pointed out that these passages represent a precursor to

Lucians conception of tragedy15. To Lucian, as to Plato, tragedy is the vehicle of a

highlydistinctive sense of life somuch so, indeed, that itbecomes equally possible to

regard tragedyasan interpretationof life,and life itselfasaquasiaestheticphenomenon

possessing thekindsofpropertieswhichare exhibited in theirmost concentrated form in

theatricalworks16

.Yet,Platoobservesanatleastambiguousattitudetowardstragedy.Heviewstragedy

asadangertotruth,asamythandafalshood[]whichissharplyopposedtothetruth

12SeeREARDON1971,p.18.13Luciansuseoftragedyandthetragichasbeensubjectofvariousstudiesinthepast,seeKARAVAS2005;SEECK1994;SCHMITZ(forthcoming);TRD2002,esp.p.587595;cf.BRACHTBRANHAM1989,p.181210.14Char.XXIII.1.HALL1981,p.186,callsthenotionofthe almostLuciansfavouritetheme(withexamplesonp.186188).

15TRD2002,p.589.16HALLIWELL2003,p.337(onPhil.50b14);HALL1981,p.81,pointsout thatthe idea thatall theworld isastagehadbecomeacommonplacebyLucianstimeinrhetoricaswellasphilosophy.


8/26


8

of the divine17.At the same time, though,Plato seeks to transform and overcom this

dangerous formof tragedywithhisownphilosophicalconceptionoftragedy,with the

truesttragedythatisrepresentedbyalifeinformedbyphilosophicalknowledge18.Lucian

toouses tragedy todenote amistaken conceptionof lifewhich isdistinguishedby anincompetentattempttoimplementliteraryandculturaltraditioninthepresent19.Butunlike

Plato,Luciandoesnotseektodevelopanalternativeconceptionoftragedy;tohim,there

canbe no . Instead, he seeks to end this tragedy of life that

threatensthevalueoftheGreekclassicaltraditionbyrevealinghiscontemporariesclaimto

betherepresentativesofthepastasbeingnomorethanabadlystagedperformance.Inthe

remainderofthissection,IwillillustratehowLucianemploysthenotionoftragedyasa

metaphoreforan,inhisview,mistakenattitudetotheclassicalGreektradition.

In a rather general, quasiphilosophical sense Lucian calls the lives of people in

superior positions in society tragic: there is no need to envy exceptionally rich or

powerfulpeople,becausetheirwealthandpowerisnotruevalue20.Itsadvantagesaremore

thanweighedupbyitsdisadvantages,andoncelifeisoverandinmostcasesthelivesof

the powerful and rich are over more quickly than they think their former pompous

possessionsareworthnothing.Whentheyfall,thecockexplainstoMicyllus inTheDream,

or:TheCock,thepowerfulandrichmakenobetterfigurethantheactorsthatyouoftensee,

whoforatimepretendtobeaCecropsoraSisyphusoraTelephus,withdiademsandivory

hiltedswordsandwavinghairandgoldembroideredtunics;butif(asoftenhappens)one

ofthemmisseshisfootingandfallsdowninthemiddleofthestage,itnaturallymakesfun

17HALLIWELL2003,p.337;similarly,TREDE2002,p.585586:toPlato,sheasserts,tragedyisalwaysnegative,

because itrepresents the ideaoflhommecommeunemarionettesoumiseaux tensionsde fils infrangiblesceux duplaisir et de lapeine, ces deux conseillers qui lescortent, tousdeuxprivsde raison et cherchent lentranerdansdesdirectionsopposes,sanssoucidufildordelaraison(p.585).18HALLIWELL2003,p.338(onleg.VII,817b18);Cf.ID.,p.338339(truesttragedyastheultimatetropeforphilosophyitselfandforitseffortstocreateanalternativevisionofwhatthefinestandbestlifemightbe);thisconstructiveapproachtotragedyinPlatoisneglectedbyTRD.19OnLuciansrelationtoPlatoingeneralseetheimportantdiscussioninBRACHTBRANHAM1989,p.67123;onLuciansuseoftragedybeinginfluencedbyPlatoseeSCHMITZforthcoming,p.5.20ThequestionofwhetherLuciansworksaretobeconsideredphilosophicalhasbeenmuchdebated;seethediscussioninHALL1981,p.151251,whorightlypointsoutthatinLucianstimesphilosophyandrhetoricwerenotstrictlyseparatedanymore(p.151).ApartfromPlato,itisabovealltheuseoftheatreasametaphorforlifeincynicwritingsandinMenippusthatinfluencedLuciansuseofthenotionoftragedy,seeTRD2002,

p.587588;BRACHTBRANHAM1989,p.25;butseethecautionaryremarkinHALL1981,p.81,whorightlywarnsagainstviewingLuciansuseof theatreasametaphor for lifeasdue tocynic influenceonly.KOKOLAKIS1960providesanimportantoverviewovertheuseoftragedyasasimileforlifethroughoutancientGreekliterature.


9/26


9

fortheaudiencewhenthemaskgetsbrokentopieces,diademandall,andtheactorsown

faceiscoveredwithblood,andhislegsarebaredhigh,soastoshowthathisinnergarments

aremiserableragsandthatthebuskinswithwhichheisshodareshapelessanddonotfithis

foot21

.

Laugthergoeshandinhandwiththerevelationoftheincongruitybetweentheactor

and his role, the rich or powerful persons appearance and his true nature.Thedecisive

momentisthefalloftheactor:itisthefulcrumwhichmarksthetransgressionfromstageto

life, from sublime tobathosand fromappearance to reality.This transgression isbrought

aboutby thejuxtapositionof theactorandhisrole, theinnergarmentsandthegold

embroideredtunic.Theatreworks iftheaudienceforgetthattheperformance issimplya

performance, if they let themselvesbedeceivedby theperformance.Thedrastic contrast

betweentheridiculousactorandtherolewhichhewouldbesupposedtomaintainbreaks

this illusionand reminds the spectators that the show isjusta show.TheaimofLucians

writingsistocausetheactorstofall.Bythusjuxtaposingroleandactor, and ,he

makeshisreadersawarethattheyarebeingdeceivedbyappearanceandthat, infact,they

arejustwatchingaperformance,anda fouloneat that.Whenhe succeeds inmakinghis

readerslaugh,hesucceedsinbreakingthespellofthisfoulperformance.

ThisprocedureisevocativeofthenotionofcomedyasitisdefinedinPlatosPhilebus

(4850):asBRACHTBRANHAMpointsout,inthispassagefromthePhilebustheexemplary

subjectofcomedyappearsastheexposureofadiscrepancybewteenselfperceptionand

reality,particularlywithregard to intellectualandmoralcapacities22.Lucianseems tobe

implementing thisnotionof comedy inhisworks:heuses themetaphoreofabad tragic

performancetorevealtheridiculousdiscrepancybetweentherichpeoplesclaimsandtheirselfimage and reality. By making tragedy the vehicle of his interpretation of his

21 Gall. 26: , , , , , , , ,

,

.Cf.thediscussionofthispassageinTRD2002,p.590591.22BARACHTBRANHAM1989,p.50;cf.SEIDENSTICKER1982,p.43.


10/26


10

contemporaries behaviour, he is turning this behaviour in his writings into a comic

performanceforhisreaders.

Themetaphorof thetragic lifedoesnotonlyapply to the livesof the richand

powerful. More importantly, it also applies to all the pseudoeducated, the pseudo, inLucians timewhopretend tobecontinuing thegreatpast,butwho, in

fact, cannot ordonotwant to liveup to this ideal.This concerns, for example,most

philosopherswhoclaimtoberepresentativesoftheancientschoolsofthought,suchasthe

Stoics,Academics,EpicureansandPeripatetics23. In the Icaromenippus,or:TheSkyman, the

CynicphilosopherMenippus is fedupwith thevanityon earth.Thereforehe follows the

mythicalparadigmofIcarusandattachesonewingofaneagleandoneofavulture tohis

armsandfliesupintothesky.Fromhere,hecantakeagoodlookattheearthandmanfrom

theoutsidewhichenableshimtoperceiveclearlythetruenatureofhumanlife24.

Thisiswhathehastosayaboutthephilosophers:[C]loakingthemselvesinthehigh

soundingnameofVirtue,elevatingtheireyebrows,wrinklinguptheirforeheadsandletting

theirbeardsgrowlong,theygoabouthidingloathsomehabitsunderafalsegarb,verylike

actors in tragedy; for if you take away from the latter their masks and their gold

embroidered robes,nothing is leftbutacomical littlecreaturehired for theshowatseven

drachmas25.

Somewhat earlier in thedialogue,Menippus had called the philosophers attitude

pretentiousness, , and working wonders in speech,

:[T]heystoodonthegroundandwerenotabitbetterthantherestofuswho

walktheearth;infact,theywerenotevensharpersightedthantheirneighbours,butsome

of them were actually purblind through age or idleness. In spite of that, however, they

23 As HALL 1981, p.189191, points out, invectives against false philosophers were a popular subject inLucianstimes(p.189191);onLucianandthephilosphersseeJONES1986,p.2432;onthephilosophicalschoolsactiveduringtheearlyRomanempireingeneralsee,e.g.,ANDR1987;WHITTAKER1987.24Thethemeofthephilosopherlookingdownfromavantagepointintheskyonhumanlifeandobservingthefaultsofmankind,the ,iscynicinorigin,andLucianprobablytookitfromMenippuswritings,seeHALL 1981, p.123; HALL further compares the similar situations depicted in Lucians Charon 1516 andIcaromenippus1516 (seebelow)andpointsout that the samemotifcanbe found inVarrosEumenidesandhisMarcipor(p.99).25Icar.29:

, , , .


11/26


11

claimed to discern theboundaries of Heaven, they measured the sun, they visited the

spheresbeyondthemoon,andyouwouldhavethoughttheyhadfallenfromthestarsfrom

thewaytheytoldabouttheirmagnitudesandpresumedtosayjusthowmanycubitsitisin

distance from the sun to the moon, often, perhaps, without even knowing how manyfurlongsitisfromMegaratoAthens26.

Theshortsightedness,evenblindness,ofthephilosophersstandsinstarkcontrastto

Menippussharpvision, ,withwhichtheeagleswingendowshimandwhich

permitshimtohavesuchaclearviewoftheearthandthebehaviourofman.Whereasthe

philosophersare theorizingon thegroundaboutheaven,Menippus actually is inheaven.

Butinsteadofacquiringfirsthandastronomicalknowledge,thesubjectofthephilosophers

enquiries,hemakes thephilosophersand the contentsof theirphilosophy themselves the

objectofhisenquiry.Menippusflighttoheavenillustratesthemainflawofcontemporary

philosophy: the avowed successors of Plato, Epicurus, Zeno or Aristotle are toobusy

arguingoverpointlessastronomicalquestions insteadof scrutinizing theirownbehaviour

andcorrectingitaccordingtothestandardsestablishedbythefoundersofthephilosophical

schoolsthetraditionofwhichtheyclaimtocontinue.

Thevantagepointaboveinthesky,fromwhichMenippusgetssuchaclearsightof

thesituationonearth, isat thesame timeametaphor for thevantagepointofknowledge

whichLucians storyoffers to the readers.The literaldistancewhich separatesMenippus

fromtheearthsymbolizesthemetaphoricaldistancewhichthegrotesquecomicelementsof

Luciansstoryestablishbetweenhisreadersandtheworld27.ThecomicelementofLucians

story, Menippus actually flying to the stars, is a tool tobring home his message: the

absurdity ofMenippus flight intoheavenmakes the readers realize the absurdity of thepseudophilosophers behaviour. Thus Lucians story creates an Archimedian point:

26Icar.6: , , ,

, , ,

[].27ItisBRACHTBRANHAMsmerittohavepointedouttheattempttosetupadistancebetweenthereaderandthe

cultural and literary tradition as amain constituent of Lucians conception of the comic and as themainfunctionofhissatiricalwritings,seeesp.p.4546;104;seetheimportantdiscussioninWHITMARSH2001,p.261263.


12/26


12

through the grotesquecomic it makes the readers step outside the regular philosophical

discourseinwhichtheyhavebecomeentangledsothatthe ofthephilosophers

show isrevealed.LikeMenippus,Luciansreadersthusbecomedetachedspectatorsofthe

worldaroundthem,andLucianstextturnsthetragedyenactedbythephilosophersintoacomicspectacleforhisreaders.

InTheDeadCome toLife, or:TheFishermanLucianor, rather,his surrogatepersona

Parrhesiades, isattackedby theancientphilosophers inpersona.Plato,Diogenes,Socrates,

Empedocles and others accuse him of denigrating classical philosophyby attacking the

contemporary philosophers, who are their representatives in the present. But Lucian

Parrhesiadesdefendshimself:his attacks arenotdirected against ancientphilosophybut

againstthepseudophilosopherswhodonotevencomeclosetotheoriginalstheyclaimto

berepresenting28.Again,Luciancouchesthebehaviourofthepseudophilosophersinterms

oftragedy.Thecaseseemedtomeasifsomeactorintragedywhowassoftandwomanish

shouldactthepartofAchillesorTheseus,orevenHeracleshimself,withouteitherwalking

orspeakingasaheroshould,butshowingoffairsandgracesinamaskofsuchdignity.Even

HelenorPolyxenawouldnever suffer suchaman to resemble them tooclosely, letalone

Heracles,theconqueringhero,who, inmyopinion,wouldverysoonsmashbothmanand

maskwithafewstrokesofhisclubformakinghimsodisgracefullyeffeminate29.

Thedirectcomparisonbetween thepatheticactorand theoriginal,Heracles,which

Lucianevokesinthelastsentence,isexactlythekindofgrotesquecomicsubjectonecould

imagineforoneofhiswritings.Infact,inthepresentdialogueitselfLucianpresentshimself

asbeing confronted exactlyby thephilosophers themselves,justashe imagines the actor

beingconfrontedwithHeracles.Thedecisivedifference is,ofcourse, thatLuciansmask is

28Cf.WHITMARSH2001,p.261(discussingPisc.31):philosophyhasbecomethemeansofarrogatingtooneselfthesuperficialtriflesofconventionalsocietythatitoncesoughttodisplace.Thistext[Pisc.]enactsadisjunctionbetweencanonicalpastanddecadentpresent in termsof thereductionofphilosophy tospectacleanddisplay.[]His [Lucians] irewas raisedbyhisobservation thatmosthavegained the statusofphilosophybymeremimesis,byexternalselfpresentation.29 Pisc. 31:

, ,

, , , .ThispassageisdiscussedbyTRD2002,p.590.


13/26


13

notsmashedbythephilosophers,buthisintegrityisconfirmed.Theunmaskingofthetragic

actorinthelastsentencemightthusbetakenasametapoeticalcommentaryonthescopeof

Luciansdialogue.Theactofunmaskingthroughsatiricliteraturemakesthereadersaware

thatthebehaviourofthepseudoisnotgenuinebut,precisely,atragedy,apatheticshow,whichtheysimplyacceptwithoutquestioningit.

Implicitly, thus, Lucian attributes part of the responsibility for the degradation of

classicalphilosophytoamerespectacletothespectators:iftheyscrutinizedtheworldand

thebehaviour of their contemporaries more diligently instead of simply accepting their

show,theclassicalstandardcanbereestablished.OnceLuciansreadersrealizethatthey

arenotdealingwith respectable representativesof theveneratedmasters of thepast,but

withmiserable copies, theywill stop to respect them.A little later,Parrhesiades explains

whythisissoimportant:ifitistakenforgenuine,thepseudophilosopherspseudoclassical

wayoflifedisseminatesawrongimageofthepast.InsteadofthegenuinelyclassicalGreek

identityand continuitywith thepast, the corruptpseudoclassical identity representedby

thepseudophilosopherswillcometobeadopted.Theauthorityanddignityofthepastwill

bedestroyed:

Butwhatseemedtomemostshocking,Philosophy,wasthis,thatifpeoplesawany

oneofthesefellowsengagedinanywickedorunseemlyorindecentpractice,everymanof

them at once laid blame upon Philosophy herself, and upon Chrysippus or Plato or

Pythagorasorwhicheveroneofyou furnished that sinnerwithaname forhimselfanda

modelforhisharangues;andfromhim,becausehewasleadinganevillife,theydrewsorry

conclusionsaboutyouothers[Plato,Socratesandtheotheroriginalphilosophers],whodied

longago.Forasyouwerenotalive,hecouldnotbecomparedwithyou.Youwerenotthere,

and they all clearly saw him following dreadful and discreditable practices, so that yousufferedjudgmentbydefaultalongwithhimandbecameinvolvedinthesamescandal30.

The dignity of the past cannot defend itself anymore, because its original

representativesaredead.Thereforeitistemptingjusttoacceptthemodeloflifepresentedby

thepseudophilosophers asgenuinelyGreek and to adopt itwithout even considering to

30Pisc.32: , , ,

,

.


14/26


14

questionit.Luciansdialoguesarrogatethetasktopreservethedignityandthetrueimageof

thepastbymakingthereadersawareofthatlackofcomparisonbetweentheoriginalsand

thecopies.

Asinthepreviousexamples,theactiondepictedinthedialogueareametaphorfortheprocessbywhichthissituationcanbecorrected.Theconfrontationoftheactorwiththe

realHeracles inthesimileandofLucianwithPhilosophyandtheclassicalphilosophersin

the dialogue illustrates the process which Lucians work is supposed to trigger in the

readers:as theactor ismeasuredagainstHeraclesandLucianswork ismeasuredagainst

the standard setby the classical originals, also the utterances and theway of life of the

contemporary philosophers has to be constantly controlled and measured against the

classicalstandards. Inorder todoso,Lucianexpectshisreaders togoback to theoriginal

texts, to study them thoroughly and to acquire the same, genuinely classical paideia as

himself, which alone permits him to recognize the charade of the pseudoeducated.

Intellectualswholoosesightoftheclassicalsourcesand,withit,ofthesourcesoftheirself

definition,bycontrast,allowthemselvestobecomenothingbuttrainedmonkeys:

Itissaid,too,thatakingofEgyptoncetaughtapestodance,andthattheanimals,as

theyarevery aptat imitatinghumanways, learnedquickly andgavean exhibition,with

purpleamntlesabout themandmaskson their faces.Fora long time the show, they say,

wentwell,untilafacetiousspectator,havingnutsinhispocket,tossedthemintothemidst.

Oncatchingsideofthem,themonkeysforgottheirdance,changedfromartistsoftheballet

ot thesimians that they reallywere,smashed theirmasks, tore theircostumes,and fought

witheachother for thenuts;whereby thecarefullyplannedballetwasentirelybrokenup

andwas laughedatbythespectators.Theseselfstyledphilosophersdojustthat,andIfor

mypart abused their sort, and shallnever stop criticizing and ridiculing ( )them31.

31 Pisc. 36: , , , ,

, . , [].


15/26


15

Thetossednutresemblesthefallofthetragicactorinourfirstexample:itreminds

the spectators that theyarewatchinga fake,carefullyplannedperformancewhichhas

nothing to do with the real thing apart from its superficial outward appearance. By

ridiculing thisbehaviour andby pointing out the discrepancybetween appearance andreality,Lucianmakesthetragicshowofhiscontemporariesthesubjectofacomedyinhis

works.Insodoing,he,theshrewdspectator,allowshisreaderstosharehissuperiorpointof

view and to see the monkeys underneath the masks and the costumes. Their role as

spectatorsinLucianstextsmakesthereadersrealizethattheyhadbeenspectators, ,

intherealworldallalong,thedifferencebeing,thatuntilnowtheyhadnotrealizedit.They

had been deceived by the carefully planned ballet of the pseudointellectuals. The

resulting laughter restores thebalancebetween reality and illusion: theviewon the true

nature of things is restored and the damaging influence of the mockphilosophers is

neutralized.Thecontrastbetweenthepseudophilosophersandtheclassicaloriginals,which

isunderscoredbyLucianswork,freesthewayforareturntotheoriginalsandmakestheir

qualityandauthorityshineforthonlystronger:noharmcanbedone,saysPhilosophyin

The Dead Come to Life, or: The Fisherman, by ajoke; [] on the contrary, whatever is

beautiful shines brighter and becomes more conspicuous, like gold cleansed by its

minting32.

2.TurningtheReaderintoSpectators:LuciansUseofComedy

IntheprecedingsectionwehaveseenthatisaconstitutiveelementofLucianstexts

thattheyaimtoturnhisreadersintodetachedobserversoftheworld.Inthissection,IwillinvestigatebywhatmeansLuciancreatesthisparticularreadingsituation.Iwillarguethat

andLucianachievedthisaimbycreatinganewliterarygenrebycrossingPlatonicDialogue

with satireand,aboveall,withComedy33.Lucianemploys thevividness, immediacy,and

therepresentationalforceofancientComedytoachievetheaimofphilosophicaldialogue,to

teachthereadersnovelinsightsintotheworld.MenippusflighttoheaveninIcaromenippus

32Pisc.14: , , , .33SeeBisAcc.33,quotedanddiscussedbelow.


16/26


16

isagoodexampletoillustratethisprocedure:asIhavearguedabove,thisflightimpliesa

metanarrativecommentary.Thecomicevent,Menippusdecision toputonwingsand fly

intoheaven,allowshimtotakeadistancedlookattheeventsonearthandtounderstandthe

truenatureofthephilosophersbehaviour.In the sameway, thecomicelements inLuciansdialogues ingeneral implementa

distancebetweenthereaderandhisenvironmentandthusenablethemtoachieveabetter

understandingofthecultureinwhichthey live.ThecomicelementsofLuciansdialogues,

regardingboth their content and their design, serve a purpose which goesbeyond pure

entertainment;theyareameansofprovidingthereaderwithnovelinsightsintotheculture

of their times34.Thus they enable them to takea selfconscious stance toward literaryand

culturaltraditionwhichLucianregardsastheprerequisitetoimplementingthistraditionin

the present. To the deceived spectator of tragedy35 Lucian opposes the selfconscious

spectatorofcomedy.

ItisimportanttonotethatLuciansdialoguesresemblecomedynotonlywithregard

to their content:Lucian also oftenusesnames forhis characterswhich are familiar from

comedy,suchasSimon,Pamphilus,Thais,DorisandChrysis;hepresentscharactersofall

social stratagodsandheroes,philosophers,politicians,generalsaswellas cobblersand

whoresmakestheminteract,andshowsthemasbeingengagedinthemostsublimeaswell

as in the most base activities of lives; this goes handinhand with a wide range of

vocabularywhichcoversthewholegammutoftheGreeklanguage.Allthisnodoubtrecalls

Comedyandcontributestomakingthereadersfeellikespectators.Butthemainfeatureof

Lucians dialogueswhich turns the readers into observers iswhat Ipropose to call their

mimeticquality.Lucianstextsaremimeticinsofarastheydepictactionthroughwords36.

Lucianusuallysetshisdialoguesintoawelldefinedscene,placesinClassicalAthenslike theAreopagus,orGreece, likeMountOlympus,or theunderworld; these scenesare

never static.Theconversationsof thecharactersare themselvespartofanactionwhich is

revealed to the readers only through the speeches, a technique which is comparable to

implied stage directions in drama. While the characters are speaking, things happen, to

34SeeBRACHTBRANHAM1989,p.46;cf.KOVUS1984,p.313(ontheeducationalaimofLuciansworks).35Theideathatitisaconstitutiveelementoftragicperformancesinparticulartodeceivethespectatorisatleast

asoldasGorgiasfamousstatementthattragedyprovidesasortof (B23DK).36LuciansdramatictechniquehasbeenstudiedindetailbyBELLINGER1928;cf.RARDON1971,p.167.


17/26


17

whichthecharactersreferandwhichinfluencethecourseoftheargument.Thereadersare

throwninthemiddleoftheactionandonlygraduallydoesitbecomeapparentwhatisgoing

on, who is speaking to whom, where and why. Take thebeginning of Charon, or: The

Inspector, for example: What are you laughing at,Charon, andwhyhaveyou leftyourferryandcomeupheretoourpartoftheworld?Youarenotatallinthehabitofconcerning

yourselfwithaffairsupabove.Iwantedtoseewhatitislikeinlife,Hermes,whatmendo

init,andwhattheylosethammakesthemallgrievewhentheycomedowntous[]37.

Charon now convinces Hermes tobe his guide in the upperworld and Hermes

choosesasuitableviewpointfromwhichtoobserveearth:Well,then,willCaucasusdo,or

Parnassus,orOlympusyonder,whichishigherthaneither?Butno,asIlookedatOlympus

anideacametomethatisnothalfbad;butyoumustbearahandandhelpmeout38.

Hermesidea isHomeric:hesuggeststofollowtheexampleofOtusandEphialtes,

mentionedintheeleventhbookoftheOdyssey,andtosetOssaonOlympusinordertogeta

betterview:So letusuprootOssa first,according to thedirectionsof thepoemand the

masterbuilder, Homer; then upon Ossa Pelion quiveringleaved. Dont you see how

easilyandpoeticallywehavedone thejob?Comenow, letmeclimbupandsee if this is

enoughorweshallhavetoaddtothepile39.

Thedialogue itself,thestart inmediasres,thedeicticpronounsandtheplacenames

createaninvisblestageinthereadersmindsonwhichtheactionunfolds:thereaderswatch

theactiondevelopastheyarereadingthetext,theybecomespectators, ,oftheworld

in the text. But this process transforms the world outside the text and turns it into a

grotesquecomicworld.Thiscausesaneffectofestrangementandbringsaboutachangeof

perspective:lookingattheworldtheyknowthrough,forexample,CharonsorMenippuss

eyes, changes the readers perception of the world outside the text and reveals the truenaturebehindtheappearances.

37Luc.Cont.1: , ; ;38Luc.Cont.3: ; .

39Luc.Cont.4: , , . ; .


18/26


18

In the Double Indictment Lucian present in the dialogue as The Syrian is

criticizedheavilyby thepersonifiedPlatonicDialogue for thishybrid, this literaryhorse

centaur, :He tookaway fromme the respectable tragicmask that Ihad,

and put another upon me that is comic, satyrlike, and almost ridiculous. Then heunceremoniously penned me up with Jest and Satire and Cynicism and Eupolis and

Aristophanes, terriblemenformockingallthat isholyandscoffingatallthat isright.[]

HaveInotbeendreadfullymaltreated,whenInolongeroccupymyproperrlebutplaythe

comedianandthebuffoonandactoutextraordinaryplotsforhim?Whatismostmonstrous

ofall,Ihavebeenturnedintoasurprisingblend,forIamneitherprosenorverse,butseem

tomyhearersastrangephenomenonmadeupofdifferentelements,likeaCentaur40.

Dialogue issomewhatexaggeratingwhenclaimingthatallcomic isalientohim: it

hasbeenpointedoutthatPlatosSocratesisalsoanambiguousfigure,andwehaveonlyto

recall the famous passage from the Symposium in which Alcibiades compares Socrates

precisely toa littlewoodensatyr; furthermore,Socrates isoften referred toasstrange,

,andridiculous, , inPlatosdialogues41.ThemainprincipleofLucians

works,thecombinationoflaughterandinsight,mightthereforebesaidtoadopt,andadapt,

aconceptionwhichisitselfthoroughlyPlatonic42.

TheprecedingdiscussionofLuciansnotionoftragedyexplainswhyhethought

thisparticularcombinationwasespeciallyaptforhisowntimes:thepseudoeducatedofhis

times have turned the respectable, the , of the tragic into the shallow and the

pompous.Writingphilosophicaldialogues in the tragicmode, asDialogue claimsLucian

should have done, Lucian would have risked to be mistaken for one of the pseudo

philosophershimself.Howbelievableareyouifyouareexposingatragicactorasridiculous,

whilewearingatragicmaskyourself?Theonlywaytodemaskmocktragedyistoconfrontitwithitsradicalopposite.

40BisAcc.33: , . , . [] , ; , ,

.41See,e.g.,PATTERSON1982,p.8283.42Cf.BRACHTBRANHAM1989,p.5052.


19/26


19

Moreover,asBRACHTBRANHAMhasargued,Lucianscomparisonofhisworkswith

ficitious, hybrid creatures from mythology has metanarrative implications: in so doing,

BRACHTBRANHAMargues,Luciancaricaturestheclassicalconceptionofliteraryunityasa

reflectionofnaturalunity43

.Theprecedingconsiderationpermitustotakethisobservationofametanarrative functionof thedesignofLuciansdialoguesone step further.Lucians

contemporariespretend to representandcontinue theclassical traditionbyexternalself

presentationwhich works on the level ofmere appearance (doxa)44.By adopting the

classical philosophers outer appearance (beard, walk and clothing45) as well as

discussingthesametopicsastheclassicalphilosophersinthesamelanguageandthesame

literarymediaastheirmodels,Lucianscontemporariesclaimtobeimpersonatingandthus

continuing theclassical tradition.And it is this similarity inappearance, (Pisc.31),

whichdeceives these aswellas theiraudienceandconvinces themof the

truthofthisclaim.Thephilosophersandtheirworksaresuchperfectcopiesoftheirclassical

modelsthatpeopleforgetthattheyareonlycopieswhichshouldnotbetakenforor,worse,

whichshouldnotsubstitutetheoriginal.Luciancriticizesthathiscontemporarieshavefallen

prey to a Pygmalionian, as itwere,problem: their imitations are soperfect that they

conceal theirbeing imitationsand, thus,make theircreators forget thedifferencebetween

imitationandoriginal,between theauthorityanddignityof thepastand theobligationof

thepresenttopreservethispast,butnottosupersedeit.

Lucianshybridworksopposethisideologyofarsestcelareartem:byvirtueoftheir

very hybridity, his dialogues constantly keep the reader aware of the fact that they are

artificial creation which selfconsciously combine different elements of the classical

tradition46.Lucian andhiswork are consciouslypostclassical in the sense that they keep

evoking their classical roots, while at the same time reminding the reader that they aresomethingnew for the creation ofwhich these rootshavebeen altered and recombined.

Luciansdialoguesthusareclassicalandnotclassicalatthesametime;andfarfromtrying

43BRACHTBRANHAM1989,p.44.

44WHITMARSH2001,p.261262.45WHITMARSH2001,p.262.46OnLuciansselfconsciousimitationseeWHITMARSH2001,p.265.


20/26


20

toconcealthiscontemporaryofthenoncontemporary,Lucianmakesthistheconstitutive

elementofhisart47.

3.ReFashioningTradition:LuciansConstructiveLaughter

SofarwehaveseenthatLucians laughter isfarfrombeingsimplydestructive.On

thecontrary,itisconstructiveinsofarasbyridiculingthepseudoitpreserves

and reestablishes the authority of the Attic originals as the only legitimate models for

Lucians readers selffashioning.This is theonlyway inwhich thegapbetweenpastand

present,idealandreality,canbeovercomeandtruecontinuitywiththepastbeestablished.

Inthesubsequentfinalsectionofmypaper,Iwilltakeacloserlookatthiscreativesideof

Lucianic laughter. Iwillproffer some suggestion as to howLuciansdialogues as a new

literary genre actively contribute to preserving the classical tradition meaningful to the

present. In order to do so, we have discussedbriefly how Lucian defines the relation

betweenhisDialoguesandtherhetoricalpracticeofhistime.

Luciansworksarenotonlymeanttoopposethepseudophilosophers,butalsothe

massoforatorsand theirshowspeeches. In theDouble IndictmentLuciancomplainsabout

the decline of rhetoric. Rhetoricbecame a whore, happy to oblige to any suitor who is

crossingherways,andthisdrovehimawayfromhertophilosophy.Lucianisalittlemore

precise in a passage of The Dead Come to Life, or: The Fisherman in which Parrhesiades

describesoratorsasprimaryexemplarsofpretendersandcheats, .

Therefore,he fled from themand turned tophilosophybut,aswehave seenabove, the

philosophersturnouttobenolesspretendersandcheatsthantheorators.Disappointedbyboth,oratorsandphilosophersalike,Lucian finally createdhisown literarygenre, the

comicosatiricdialogue.

InAProfessor ofPublic SpeakingLucian explainswhy the orators charlatanry is so

detrimental. In this dialogue Lucian introduces by comparison two different kinds of

47ROMM1990,p.84:Lucianshybridliteraryworkssimplyrecombin[e]existinggenera,justasmanandhorse

arestillrecognizableinthecentaur.Atthesametime,LuciansliterarycrossbreedofAristophaniccomedyandPlatonicdialogueisquiteobviouslymoreoriginalthanastraightforwardimitationofeithergenre;cf.BRACHTBRANHAM1989,p.42,n.56;HALL1981,p.72;cf.RARDON1971,p.27.


21/26


21

learningAtticrhetoric,atraditionalandamodernone,eachofwhichisrepresentedbya

different typeof teacher48.The first teacher represents the traditionalapproach torhetoric.

Herecommendsalongandarduousprocessoflearningwhichinvolvesintensestudyofthe

originals;hisadversary,bycontrast,advertizesaneasyandquickwaywhichwillleadthepupiltosuccesswithoutrequiringmuchsubstantialeducation.Thisteacherrecommendsnot

to read the originals, that twaddling Isocrates or that uncouth Demosthenes or that

tiresomePlato,buttoreadthespeechesofthemenwholivedonlyalittlebeforeourown

timeandthesepiecestheycallexercises[].Tobesuccessful,theteacherargues,it

is enough to randomly throw in some catchphrases in order to give the otherwise

catastrophicspeech the flavourof theoriginal:[W]hen they [theaudience]havemade

their selection [of topic], unhesitatingly say whatever comes to the tip of your unlucky

tongue [].Butdomakehasteandkeep itgoing,andonlydontstop talking. Ifyouare

speakingofacaseofassaultoradulteryatAthens,mentioninstancesinIndiaorEcbatana.

Cap every thingwith references toMarathonandCynegeirus,withoutwhichyou cannot

succeedatall.UnendinglyletAthosbecrossedinshipsandtheHellespontafoot;letthesun

be shadowedby thearrowsof theMedes,andXerxes flee the field andLeonidas receive

admiration; let the inscription of Othryadesbe deciphered, and let allusions to Salamis,

Artemisium,andPlataeacomethickandfast49.

The shallow rhetoric represented by this teacher and by some of Lucians

contemporariesrisks toreduce theadmiredpast toacoupleofcatchphrases,clichesand

commonplaces50.Thispassageshouldbereadalongsideapriorstatementofthenarratorin

whichhehadblamedlearningrhetoricfromtheAtticoriginalsasanachronistic:whowould

seriouslydispla[y]deadmenofabygoneagetoserveaspatterns,andexpec[t]youtodig

up longburied speechesas if theywere something tremendouslyhelpful,wantingyou toemulatethesonofaswordmaker[i.e.,Demosthenes],andsomeotherfellow,thesonofa

48ROMM1990,p.9495,hasimportantremarksonthiswork.49Rh.Pr. 18: , []. . , . , .

,

.50HALL1981,p.8485,rightlypointsoutthatLucianisnotcriticizingtheuseofhistoricalreferencesinspeechesingeneral,buttheexcessivetritenessinthisrespectofcontemporarysophisticpractice.


22/26


22

schoolmasternamedAtrometus [i.e.,Aeschines],and that too in timesofpeace,whenno

PhilipismakingraidsandnoAlexanderissuingorderssituationsinwhichtheirspeeches

wereperhapsconsidereduseful51.

Lucian is here pointing to a risk inherent in the traditional approach to classicalrhetoric and, at the same time, to a rhetorical practice which, asmentioned in section 1

above, was typical of the sophistic performances of his times and a crucial aspect of a

sophists selffashioning. When delivering a speech in a theatron, the orators would

impersonatethegreathistoricalactorsofthepastincrucialsituations52;suchdeclamations

have theirorigin in the exercises thatwerepartof rhetorical training inantiquity, the so

calledmeletaiofwhichtherepresentativeofthemodernistapproachofrhetoricdespises

so easily53.Both the traditional and the modernist approach thusdonot appear as

wholly satisfactory because each of them risks turning tradition into a museum54: the

modernistapproachbecauseitreducestraditiontoamererepertoryofwordsandtopics

whicharehardlymore thanacamouflagetoconcealthespeakersown lackofpaideia.The

traditional approach, on the other hand, while providing a thorough knowledge of

classicalrhetoric,riskstakingthe intenseandtiresomestudyofclassical textsasanend in

itself.Andthisis,indeed,thewayinwhichmostofLucianscontemporariesmadeuseofthe

classicaltradition:theyreproduceditintheirspeeches,repeatingagainandagainthesame

subjectsinthesamestyle.

TothisapproachtotraditionLucianopposeshisownconceptionofaselfconscious,

creative reprocessing of the tradition material55. Following critics like Dionysius of

51Rh.Pr.10:[Thisiswhattherepresentativeofthetraditionalapproachwillsay] , , , .52Seesection1above,p.67.53OnmeletaiseeSCHMITZ1997,p.1015.54ForasimilarinterpretationofthisdialogueseeROMM1990,whoalsoarguesthatneitherthetraditionalnorthemodernistteacherareportrayedasunconditionallypositive.Thus,ROMMconcludes,malleability,whichlies somewherebetween thesepoles,holds thekey to success []; thePromethean artistmust reprocesshisClassicalmodelswithjusttherightamountofelasticgum(p.95).55Thus,rightly,ROMM1990,p.95.ROMMsassertion,however,thatmalleabilityliessomewherebetweenthese

poles(ibid.)issomewhatmisleading:Lucianarguesforaconceptionofmimesisthatradicallydiffersfromboththe traditional and the modernist approach, although it isbased on the kind of thorough and intenseeducationinclassicalrhetoricproposedbythetraditionalteacher.


23/26


23

Halicarnassus56, Lucian seems to envisage mimesis as a creative process which uses the

traditionalmaterialandthetraditionaltechniquetobuildsomethingnew.Classicalrhetoric

hastobelearntinalongandintenseprocessofstudyingtheoriginaltexts,butthenithasto

be turned intosomethingnewalong the linesof this tradition. It is thisprinciple that liesbehindLuciansnotionofhisownworksashippocentaurswhichIhavediscussedinthe

previous section. Lucians dialogues are themselves an example of how such a creative

reworkingoftraditioncanbecarriedout.Thecomicosatiricdialogueasagenreisnew,but

it isacombinationof twowellestablished classicalgenres, thePlatonicdialogueandOld

Comedy; similarly, Lucians language follows strictly the Attic canon. We can now

appreciatehowtheblendingofPlatonicDialoguewithComedytoahybridliterarygenre

fits intoLuciansoverallconceptionofcreativemimesisandhowhe intended it torelateto

therhetoricalcultureofhistimes.

In theopeningparagraphsof theZeuxis, the speaker isannoyed thathis recipients

praise the strangeness of the thought inmy composition and thedegree of freshness it

involves (

).Heisdisappointedbecausetheaudiencespraiseforhisnoveltyonlyimplied

thatgoodvocabulary,conformity to theancientcanon,penetrationof intellect,powerof

perception,Atticgrace,goodconstruction,generalcompetence,perhapshavenoplaceinmy

work(

,

).Accordingtohim,however,thenoveltyofhisworkswas

just meant to be an additional ornament making some contribution indeed to the

approbationofmywork, theaudiencesrealpraiseandcommednation,however,going to

thoseotherqualities( []

56InparticularIamreferringtoDionysiusdistinctionbetweenanaturalandabookishkindofmimesisinhisessayOnDinarchus.Thisdistinction isvery similar to the two typesof (learninganddisplaying) classicalrhetoric in Lucians Rhet.Pr. Like Lucian, Dionysius strongly favours learning classical style directly fromstudyingtheoriginal texts ina longandtiresomeprocess,whilerejecting theeasywayof learningclassicalrhetoric from rhetoricalhandbooks.Thekeypassage isDin.7.5: [...]

, . , ; , , , ,

. For a detailed discussion of this passage andDionysiusconceptionofmimesisingeneralseemyforthcomingPh.DthesisTheIdeologyofClassicism:Language,HistoryandIdentityinDionysiusofHalicarnassus(Bonn2008),p.4050,esp.p.48.


24/26


24

,

)57.Luciansdialoguesaremeanttobenovel,while

being deeply obliged to the classical traditional: they are a lesson of how to do proper

mimesisthatkeepstheclassicaltraditionaliveandmakesitanintegralpartofthepresent.

Bibliography

ANDR 1987: J.M.ANDR, Les coles philosophiques aux deux premiers sicles de

lEmpire,AufstiegundNiedergangderRmischenWelt,II,36,1,1987,p.577.

BELLINGER 1928: A.BELLINGER, Lucians Dramatic Technique, Yale Classical Studies, 1,

1928,p.340.

BRACHTBRANHAM1989:R.BRACHTBRANHAM,UnrulyEloquence.Lucian and theComedy of

Traditions, Cambridge, Mass. / Londres, Harvard University Press, 1989, coll.Revealing

Antiquity,2.

GREENBLATT 1980: S.GREENBLATT, Renaissance SelfFashioning. From More to Shakespeare,

Chicago/Londres,TheUniversityofChicagoPress,1980.

GRUEN 1992: E.GRUEN, Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome, Londres,

Duckworth,1992.

HALL1981:J.HALL,LuciansSatire,NewYork,ArnoPress,1989.

HALLIWELL1982:S.HALLIWELL,PlatoandthePsychologyofDrama,inB.ZIMMERMANN

(d.),AntikeDramentheorieundihreRezeption,Drama,1,1982,p.5574.

HALLIWELL1984:S.HALLIWELL,PlatoandAristotleontheDenialofTragedy,Proceedings

oftheCambridgePhilologicalSociety,30,1984,p.4971.

HALLIWELL 2003: S.HALLIWELL, Platos Repudiation of the Tragic, in M.S.SILK (d.),

Tragedy and the Tragic. Greek Theatre and Beyond, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2003,

p.332349.

57Cf.thesimilardiscussioninProm.EsonwhichseeROMM1990.


25/26


25

JONES1986:C.P.JONES,CultureandSociety inLucian,Cambridge,Mass/Londres,Harvard

UniversityPress,1986.

KARAVAS 2005: O.KARAVAS, Lucien et la tragdie, Berlin / New York, DeGruyter, 2005,

UntersuchungenzurantikenLiteraturundGeschichte,76.

KOKOLAKIS,1960:M.KOKOLAKIS,TheDramaticSimileofLife,Athens,Boukouris,1960.

KOVUS 1984:K.KORNS, The Theory ofHumour inLucian of Samosata, Eos, 72, 1984,

p.295313.

KUHN1941:H.KUHN,TheTrueTragedy.OntheRelationshipbetweenGreekTragedyand

PlatoI,HarvardStudiesofClassicalPhilology,52,1941,p.140.

KUHN1942:H.KUHN,TheTrueTragedy.OntheRelationshipbetweenGreekTragedyand

PlatoII,HarvardStudiesofClassicalPhilology,53,1942,p.3788.

MACMULLEN1991:R.MACMULLEN,HellenizingtheRomans(2ndCenturyBC),Historia,

40,1991,p.419438.

PATTERSON1982:R.PATTERSON,ThePlatonicArtofComedy,PhilosophyandLiterature,6,

1982,p.7693.

REARDON1971:B.P.REARDON,Courants littrairesgrecsdesIIeetIIIesiclesaprsJ.C.,Paris,

LesBellesLettres,1971,AnnaleslittrairesdelUniversitdeNantes,3.

ROMM 1990: J.ROMM, Wax, Stone, and Promethean Clay: Lucian as Plastic Artist,

ClassicalAntiquity,9,1990,p.7498.

SCHMITZ 1997: T.A.SCHMITZ, Bildung undMacht.Zur sozialen undpolitischen Funktion der

zweitenSophistikindergriechischenWeltderKaiserzeit,Munich,C.H.Beck,1997,Zetemata,97.

SCHMITZforthcoming:T.A.SCHMITZ,ASophistsDrama.LucianandClassicalTragedy,

forthcoming.

SEECK 1994:G.A.SEECK, Lukian und die griechischeTragdie, inJ.BLNSDORF (d.),

Theater und Gesellschaft im Imperium Romanum. Thtre et socit dans lempire romain,

Tbingen,Francke,1994,MainzerForschungenzuDramaundTheater,4.

SEIDENSTICKER1982:B.SEIDENSTICKER,PalintonosHarmonia.StudienzukomischenElementenin

dergriechischenTragdie,Gttingen,VandenhoekundRuprecht,1982,Hypomnemata,72.


26/26


SWAIN 1996: S.SWAIN,Hellenism and Empire. Language, Classicism, and Power in theGreek

World,AD50250,Oxford,ClarendonPress,1996.

TAPLIN 2003: O.TAPLIN, Comedy and the Tragic, in M.S.SILK (d.), Tragedy and the

Tragic.GreekTheatreandBeyond,Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress,2003,p.188202.

TRD2002:M.TRD,LethtrecommemtaphoreduIIes.ap.J.C.,Comptesrendusde

lAcadmiedesInscriptionsetBellesLettres,2002,p.581605.

WALLACEHADRILL 1998:A.WALLACEHADRILL, ToBeRoman,GoGreek:Thoughts on

theHellenizationofRome,inM.AUSTIN,J.HARRIES,C.SMITH(d.),ModusOperandi.Essays

inHonourofG.Rickman,Londres,InstituteofClassicalStudies,1998,BulletinoftheInstitute

ofClassicalStudiesSupplement,71,p.7991.

WALLACEHADRILL 2008: A.WALLACEHADRILL, Romes Cultural Revolution, Cambridge,

CambridgeUniversityPress,2008.

WHITMARSH 2001: T.WHITMARSH, Greek Literature and the Roman Empire. The Politics of

Imitation,Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress,2001.

WHITTAKER1987:J.WHITTAKER,PlatonicPhilosophyintheEarlyCenturiesoftheRoman

Empire,AufstiegundNiedergangderRmischenWelt,II,36,1,1987,p.81123.

Documents

Wiater - Tragedies to Laugh At