A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology

9. Of SAMOSATA. [See also No. 1.]

(Λουκιανός[*](* According to analogy, the a ought to be long in Lucianus; but Lucian himself makes it short in his first epigrami. Λουκιανὸς τάδʼ ἔγραψε, &c.)), also called LYCINUS, a witty and voluminous Greek writer, but of Syrian parentage, having been born, as he himself tells us, at Samosata, the capital of Commagene. (Ἁλιεύς, § 19; Πῶς δεῖ ἱστ. συγγρ. § 24.) There is no ancient biography of Lucian extant, except the short and inaccurate one by Suidas; but some particulars may be gleaned from his own writings.

Considerable difference of opinion has existed respecting the time in which Lucian flourished. Suidas places him under Trajan, and subsequently, and in this he is followed by Bourdelot. The opinion of Voss (De Histor. Graec. 2.15), that he flourished in the reigns of M. Aurelius Antoninus and Commodus seems, however, more correct, and has been generally followed by later critics. It is impossible to fix the exact dates of his birth and death, but the following passages will afford some clue to his chronology. In the Πρὸς ἀπαίδευτον, § 13, he tells us that there existed in his time, and was probably still alive, a man who had bought the lamp of Epictetus for 3000 drachms, in the hope of inheriting his wisdom. As this purchase was probably made shortly after the death of Epictetus, the natural inference is, that Lucian was alive in the time of that philosopher (hardly that Epictetus died before the time of Lucian, as Mr. Clinton says, Fasti Rom. A. D. 118). The uncertainty expressed as to whether the purchaser was still alive denotes that a considerable period had elapsed between the transaction recorded and the date of the Πρὸς ἀπαίδευτον. But that piece can be shown to have been written shortly after the extraordinary suicide of Peregrinus, A. D. 165; for in § 14 Lucian mentions another silly fellow who had just recently purchased (Χθὲς καὶ πρώην) the stick of the fanatical cynic for a talent. Now Epictetus could hardly have survived the reign of Hadrian, who died A. D. 138 (EPICTETUS, and Clinton, l. C.), and it is more likely that he did not reach the middle of it. On these grounds we might at a venture place Lucian's birth about the year 120; and this date tallies pretty well with other inferences from his writings. The Πῶς δεῖ ἱστορίαν συγγράφειν must have been nearly contemporary with the Πρὸ ἀπαίδευτον, since it alludes to the Parthian victories of Verus (Clinton, A. D. 166), but was probably written before the final triumph, as from an expression in § 2 (τὰ ἐν ποσὶ ταῦτα κεκίνηται) the war would seem to have been still going on. These pieces, together with the account of the death of Peregrinus (Περὶ τῆς Περεγίνου τελευτῆς), which has all the air of a narrative composed immediately after the event it records, are the earliest works of Lucian which we can connect with any public transactions. But he tells us that he did not abandon the rhetorical profession, and take to a different style of writing, till he was about forty (Δὶς κατηγοπ. § 34); and though he there more particularly alludes to his Dialogues, we may very probably include in the same category all his other works, which, like the preceding, are unconnected with rhetoric. If these were his first works of that kind, and if he was forty when he wrote them, he would have been born about the year 125. They were, however, in all probability preceded by some others, such as the Hermotimus, which he mentions having written about forty (§ 13), the Nigrinus, &c. This brings us again to the year 120, as a very probable one in which to fix his birth; and thus he might have been contemporary as a boy with Epictetus, then in his old age; and with the man who bought his lamp, some 30 or 35 years, perhaps, before 165. A passage which alludes to later political events occurs in the Alexander, 48, where mention is

made of the war of Marcus Antoninus against the Marcomtanni, A. D. 170-175; and as Marcus is there called Θεός, Voss inferred that the piece was written after the death of that emperor in 180. According to the computation of Reitz, which is that above given, Lucian would then have been more than sixty years old. From § 56, it appears that Lucian's father was still alive when he visited Alexander; but the visit might have taken place at least ten years before the account of it was written. (Clinton, Fasti Rom. A. D. 182.) That Lucian himself was a man of some consequence at the time of it appears from the intimate terms he was on with Rutilianus, § 54, and from the governor of Cappadocia having given him a guard of two soldiers (§ 55). This is another argument for the visit having taken place when Lucian was well advanced in life, probably about fifty; for his youth was spent in struggling with adverse fortune. In the Ἀπολογία περὶ τῶν ἐπὶ μισθῷ συνόντων, § 1, he mentions having obtained an appointmltent in Egypt, probably under Commodus, when he had one foot almost in Charon's boat; but we have no means of determining the age at which he died. On the whole, however, Reitz's calculation may be safely adopted, who places his life from the year 120 to the end of the century.

Having thus endeavoured to fix Lucian's chronology, we may proceed to trace those particulars of his life which may be gathered from his works. In the piece called The Dream (Περὶ τοῦ ἐνυπνίου), which stands at the beginning of them, he represets his parents as in poor circumstances, and as deliberating with their friends about the choice of a profession for himself, then about fourteen years of age. Those of the learned sort were too expensive for the family means, and it was therefore resolved to apprentice him to some mechanical trade, which light bring in a quick return of money. As a schoolboy, he had shown a talent for making little waxen images; and his maternal uncle being a statuary in good repute, it was determined that lie should be put apprentice to him. Lucian was delighted with the thoughts of his new profession; but his very first attempt in it proved unfortunate. Having been ordered to polish a marble tablet, he leant too heavily upon it, and broke it. The consequence was, a sound beating from his uncle, which Lucian resenting, ran away home to his parents. In the version of the affair which he gave to them, he took the liberty to add a little circumstance, which already betrays the malice and humour of the boy. he affirmed that his uncle had treated him thus cruelly because he was apprehensive of being excelled in his profession ! The event itself may almost be regarded as an omen of his future course, and of his being destined from his earliest years to be an iconoclast. From the remainder of the Dream, where, in imitation of Prodicus's myth of the choice of Herriles, related in Xenophon's Memorabiliua, Ἑρμογλυφική (Statuary) and Παιδεία (Education) contend which shall have him for a votary, we can only infer that, after some deliberation, Lucian henceforward dedicated himself to the study of rhetoric and literature; but of the means which he found to compass his object we have no information. From. the Δὶς κατηγορ. § 27, it would appear that, after leaving his uncle, he wandered for some time about Ionia, without any settled plan, and possessiug as yet but a very imperfect knowledge of the Greek tongue. Subsequently, however, we find him an advocate by profession; and if we may trust the authority of Suidas, he seems to have practised at Antioch. According to the same writer, being unsuccessful in this calling, he employed himself in writing speeches for others, instead of delivering them himself. But he could not have remained long at Antioch; for at an early period of his life he set out upon his travels, and visited the greater part of Greece, Italy, and Gaul. At that period it was customary for professors of the rhetorical art to proceed to different cities, where they attracted audiences by their displays, much in the same manner as musicians or itinerant lecturers in modern times. The subjects of these displays were accusations of tyrants, or panegyrics on the brave and good (Δὶς καρηγ., § 32). It may be presumed that his first visit was to Athens, in order to acquire a perfect knowledge of the language; and that he remained there a considerable time may be inferred as well from his intimate familiarity with all the graces of the Attic dialect, as from his acquaintance with Demonax there, whom he tells us he knew for a long period. (Demonactis Vita, § 1.) He did not, however, gain so much reputation by his profession in Ionia and Greece as in Italy and Gaul, especially the latter country, which he traversed to its western coasts, and where he appears to have acquired a good deal of money as well as fame. (Ἀπολογία περί τῶν ἐνὶ μισθῷ § 15; Δὶς κατηγ., § 27.) Whether he remained long at Rome is uncertain. From his tract Ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἐν προσαγορ. πταίσματος, § 13, he would seem to have acquired some, though perhaps an imperfect, knowledge of the Latin tongue; and in the Περὶ τοῦ ἡλέκτρου lie describes himself as conversing with the boatmen on the Po. In the Περὶ τῶν ἐπὶ μις. συν., he shows an intimate acquaintance with Roman manners; but his picture of them in that piece, as well as in the Niginus, is a very unfavourable one.

He probably returned to his native country in about his fortieth year, and by way of Macedonia. (Herodotus, § 7.) At this period of his life lie abandoned the rhetorical profession, the artifices of which were foreign to his temper, the natural enemy of deceit and pretension (Δὶς κατηγ., § 32, Ἀλιεύς, § 29); though it was. perhaps, the money he had made by it that enabled him to quit it, and to follow his more congenial inclinations. In his old age, indeed, he appears to have partially resumed it, as he tells us in his Ἠρακλῆς, § 7; and to which period of his life we must also ascribe his Διόνους (§ 8). But these latter productions seem to have been confined to that species of declamation called a προσλαλιά, to which the pieces just mentioned belong, and for which we have no equivalent term; and they were probably written rather by way of pastime and amusement than from any hopes of gam.

There are no materials for tracing that portion of his life which followed his return to his native country. It was, however, at this period that he produced the works to which he owes his reputation, and which principally consist of attacks upon the religion and philosophy of the age. The bulkiness of them suggests the inference that many years were spent in these quiet literary occupations, though not undiversified with occasional travel; since it appears from the Πῶς δεῖ ἱστ. συγ., § 14, that he must have been in Achaia and lolnia about

the close of the Parthian war, A. D. 160-165; on which occasion, too, he seems to have visited Olympia, and beheld the self-immolation of Peregrinus. We have already seen that about the year 170, or a little previously, he must have visited the false oracle of the impostor Alexander, in Paphlagonia. Here Lucian planned several contrivances for detecting the falsehood of his responses and in a personal interview with the prophet, instead of kissing his hand, as was the custom, inflicted a severe bite upon his thumb. For these and other things, especially his having advised Rutilianus not to marry Alexander's daughter by the Moon, that impostor was so enraged against Lucian, that he would have murdered him on the spot had he not been protected by a guard of two soldiers. Alexander, therefore, dissembled his hatred, and even, pretending friendship, dismissed him with many gifts, and lent him a vessel to prosecute his voyage. When well out at sea, Lucian observed, by the tears and entreaties of the master towards the rest of the crew, that something was amiss, and learnt from the former that Alexander had ordered them to throw their passenger into the sea, a fate from which he was saved only by the good offices of the master. He was now landed at Aegialos, where he fell in with some ambassadors, proceeding to king Eupator in Bithynia, who received him on board their ship, and landed him safely at Amastris. (Alex. 54-58.) We can trace no later circumstances of his life, except his obtaining the office of procurator of part of Egypt, bestowed upon him in his old age, probably by the emperor Commodus, and which has been already mentioned. From the Ἀπολ. περὶ τῶν ἐπἲ μ., 12, it appears that his functions were chiefly judicial, that his salary was considerable, and that he even entertained expectations of the proconsulship. In what manner he obtained this post we have no means of knowing; but from his Imagines, which sone have supposed to have been addressed to a concubine of Verus, and which Wieland conjectures to have been intended for the wife of Marcus Antoninus, as well as from his tract Pro Lapsu, he seems to have been neither averse from flattery nor unskilled in the method of applying it. He certainly lived to an advanced age, and it is probable that he may have been afflicted with the gout; but the inference that he died of it merely from his having written the burlesque drama called Ποδάγρα is rather strong. He probably married in middle life; and in the Εὐνοῦχος, § 13, he mentions having a son.

The nature of Lucian's writings inevitably procured him many enemies, by whom he has been painted in very black colours. According to Suidas he was surnamed the Blasphemer, and was torn to pieces by dogs, or rather, perhaps, died of canine madness, as a punishment for his impiety. On this account, however, no reliance can be placed, as it was customary with Suidas to invent a horrid death for those whose doctrines he disliked. To the account of Suidas, Volaterranus added, but without stating his authority, that Lucian apostatised from Christianity, and was accustomed to say he had gained nothing by it but the corruption of his name from Lucius to Lucianus. So too the scholiast on the Peregrinus, § 13, calls him an apostate (παραβάτης); whilst the scholiasts on the Verae Historiae and other pieces frequently apostrophise him in the bitterest terms, and make the most absurd and far-fetched charges against him of ridiculing the Scriptures.

The whole gravamen of the accusation of blasphemy lies in the point whether Lucian was really an apostate. If he had never been initiated into the mysteries of Christianity, it is clear that he is no more amenable to the charge than Tacitus, or any other profane author, who from ignorance of our religion has been led to vilify and misrepresent it. The charge of apostacy might be urged with some colour against Lucian, if it could be shown that he was the author of the dialogue entitled Philopatris. The subject of the piece is shortly this. Triephon, who is represented as having been a member of the church, meets Critias, and inquires the reason of his disturbed looks and hurried gait. After some discourse about paganism and Christianity, Critias relates his having been among an assembly of Christians, where he has heard troubles and misfortunes predicted to the state and its armies. When he has concluded his story, Cleolaus enters, and announces some military successes gained by the emperor in the East. A sneering tone pervades the whole piece, which betrays so intimate a knowledge of Christianity that it could hardly have been written but by one who had been at some time within the pale of the church.

Some eminent critics, and amongst them Fabricius, have held the Philopatris to be genuine. Towards the middle of last century, Gesner wrote his dissertation De Aetate et Auctotre Philopatridis, in which he showed satisfactorily that the piece could not have been Lucian's; and he brings forward many considerations which render it very probable that the work was composed in the reign of Julian the Apostate.

The scholiast on the Alexander, § 47, asserts that Lucian was an Epicurean, and this opinion has been followed by several modern critics. But though his natural scepticism may have led him to prefer the tenets of Epicurus to those of any other sect, it is most probable that he belonged to none whatever. In the Ἀπολ. περὶ τῶν ἐπὶ μισθῷ συν., § 15, he describes himself as οὐ σοφός, but ἐκ τοῦ πολλοῦ δήμου; and in the Hermotimus he calls himself ἰδιώτης, in contradistinction to that philosopher. In the Βίων πρᾶσις, too, Epicurus is treated no better than the other heads of sects.

Of Lucian's moral character we have no means of judging except from his writings; a method which is not always certain. Several of his pieces are loose and licentious, but some allowance should be made for the manners of the age. The Ἔρωτες, the most objectionable, has been abjudicated by many critics, and for Lucian's sake it is to be hoped that they are correct; but in the Εἰκόνες we find allusions to the same perverted tastes, and in § 4 the promise of a story respecting the Cnidian Venus, which is actually found in the former piece. Yet in the Alexander, § 54, he seems indignant at the charge of immorality brought against him by that impostor; and that he must at least have avoided any grievous and open scandal may be presumed from the high office conferred upon him in Egypt. Lucian was not averse from praising himself, and in the Ἁλιεύς, § 20, has drawn his own character as a hater of pride, falsehood, and vain-glory, and an ardent admirer of truth, simplicity, and all that is naturally amiable; nor is there much to object against the truth of this autograph portrait. He seems to have retained

through life a natural taste for the fine arts, as may be inferred from the many lively descriptions of pictures and statues interspersed through his works. That he was a warm admirer of dancing appears from his treatise Περὶ ὀρχήσεως.

[T.D]