Best wishes from Lucian to Cronius.

The greeting here employed (its sense might perhaps be more adequately rendered by “Good issues to all your doings”) marks Cronius as a Platonist. Lucian himself (Lapsus, 4) ascribes its origin to Plato, and he employs it in addressing the philosopher Nigrinus (I, p. 98). A Platonist named Cronius is more than once mentioned by Porphyry, but to identify the two would contribute next to nothing to our knowledge of either.

Unlucky Peregrinus, or, as he delighted to style himself, Proteus,

Cf. Aulus Gellius, XII, 11: philosophum nomine Peregrinum, cui postea cognomentum Proteus factum est, virum gravem et constantem, etc. Lucian calls him Peregrinus Proteus in Demonax, 21 (I, p. 156), but simply Proteus the Cynic in adv. Indoct., 14 (III, p. 192), and he is Proteus to the Philostrati (cf. Vit. Soph. II, 1, 33 and for the elder Philostratus the title of his lost work Proteus the Cynic ; or, the Sophist), to Tatian (Orat. ad Graecos, 25), and to Athenagoras (Legat. de Christian., 26). The name Peregrinus is used in Aulus Gellius, VIII, 3, Ammianus Marcellinus, X XIX, 1, 39, Tertullian ad Martyres, 4, and Eusebius, Chron., Vol. II, p. 170, Schéne. From the passage in Gellius cited above we can infer only that he did not hear the sobriquet Proteus when he was in Athens. The manner of its employment by Lucian is sufficient evidence that it did not originate with Lucian, or after the death of Peregrinus. It was probably applied to him towards the close of his career. That it bears a sense very like what Lucian attributes to it is clear from Maximus of Tyre, VIII, 1. In § 27 Lucian professes to have heard that he wanted to change it to Phoenix after his decision to immolate himself.

has done exactly what Proteus in Homer did.

The transformations of the sea-god in his effort to escape from Menelaus, who wanted to consult him, are told in the Odyssey, IV, 454-459.

After turning into everything for the sake of notoriety and achieving any number of transformations, here at last he has turned into fire; so great, it seems, was the love of notoriety that eae be him. And now your genial friend has got imself carbonified after the fashion of Empedocles, except that the latter at least tried to escape observation when he threw himself into the crater,

Of Aetna; it was said that the manner of his death remained unknown until the mountain cast up one of his golden sandals.

while this gentleman waited for that one of the Greek festivals which draws the greatest crowds, heaped up a very large pyre, and leaped into it before all those witnesses; he even addressed the Greeks on the subject not many days before his venture.

I think I can see you laughing heartily at the old man’s drivelling idiocy—indeed, I hear you give tongue as you naturally would: “Oh, the stupidity ! Oh, the vainglory! Oh”—everything else that we are in the habit of saying about it all. Well, you are doing this at a distance and with far greater security, but I said it right by the fire and even earlier in a great crowd of listeners, angering some of them—as many as admired the old man’s fool-hardiness; but there were others beside myself who laughed at him. However, I narrowly missed getting torn limb from limb for you by the Cynics just as Actaeon was by his dogs or his cousin Pentheus by the Maenads.

The complete mise en scéne of the affair was as follows. You know, of course, what the playwright was like and what spectacular performances he presented his whole life long, outdoing Sophocles and Aeschylus. As for my part in it, as soon as I came to Elis, in going up? by way of the gymnasium I overheard a Cynic bawling out the usual street-corner invocations to Virtue in a loud, harsh voice, and abusing everyone without exception. Then his harangue wound up with Proteus, and to the best of my ability I shall try to quote for you the very words he said. You will find the style familiar, of course, as you have often stood near them while they were ranting.

“Does anyone dare,” he said, ‘to call Proteus vainglorious, O Earth, O sun, O rivers, O sea, O Heracles, god of our fathers!—Proteus, who was imprisoned in Syria, who renounced five thousand talents in favour of his native land, who was banished from the city of Rome, who is more conspicuous than the sun, who is able to rival Olympian Zeus himself? Because he has resolved to depart from life by way of fire, are there people who attribute this to vainglory? Why, did not Heracles do so? Did not Asclepius and Dionysus,

The cases of Dionysus and Asclepius were not quite parallel. Zeus could not have Asclepius raising the dead, and so transferred his activities to a higher sphere by means of the thunderbolt. It was Semele, the mother of Dionysus, whom his other bolt carbonised; but as it certainly effected, even if only incidentally, the translation of Dionysus, and as one of the epigrams in the Anthology (XVI, 185) similarly links Dionysus with Heracles as having achieved immortality by fire, it is hard to see why so many editors have pruned the exuberance of Theagenes by excising mention of Dionysus from his remarks. Cf. Parl. of the Gods, 6 (p. 425).

by grace of the thunderbolt? Did not Empedocles end by leaping into the crater?”

When Theagenes

We learn elsewhere in this piece that Theagenes lived in Patras and had property worth fifteen talents, obtained by lending money. Bernays (Lucian und die Kyniker, pp. 13-18) is very likely right in thinking this to be the man whose death in Rome is described by Galen (Meth. Med., 13, 15: X, 909 Kiihn), but he makes rather too much of tha passage as an endorsement of Theagenes. ;

—for that was the bawler’s , name—said that, I asked a bystander, “What is the meaning of his talk about fire, and what have Heracles and Empedocles to do with Proteus?” “Before long,” he replied, “Proteus is going to burn himself up at the Olympic festival.” “How,” said I, “and why?” Then he undertook to tell me, but the Cynic was bawling, so that it was impossible to hear anyone else. I listened, therefore, while he flooded us with the rest of his bilge-water and got off a lot of amazing hyperbole about Proteus, for, not deigning to compare him with the man of Sinope,

Diogenes,

or his teacher Antisthenes, or even with Socrates himself, he summoned Zeus to the lists. Then, however, he decided to keep them about equal, and thus concluded his speech:

“These are the two noblest masterpieces that the world has seen—the Olympian Zeus, and Proteus; of the one, the creator and artist was Phidias, of the other, Nature. But now this holy image is about to depart from among men to gods, borne on the wings of fire, leaving us bereft.” After completing this discourse with copious perspiration, he shed tears in a highly ridiculous way and tore his hair, taking care not to pull very hard; and at length he was led away, sobbing as he went, by some of the Cynics, who strove to comfort him.

After him, another man went up at once,

Evidently the Cynic had spoken from a high place (perhaps the portico of the asium) to which the new speaker now ascends. What Lucian has previously said (§ 2), together with his failure here to say a word about the identity or personality of the author of these remarks, puts it beyond doubt that the “other man” is Lucian himself, and that he expects his readers to draw this inference. The device is so transparent that its intent can be regarded only as artistic. It is employed also in The Hunuch, 10 (p. 341). Somewhat similar is his borrowing a Prologue from Menander to speak for him in The Mistaken Critic (p. 379).

not permitting the throng to disperse, but pouring a libation on the previous sacrificial offerings while they were still ablaze. At first he laughed a long time, and obviously did it from the heart. Then he began somewhat after this fashion: “Since that accursed Theagenes terminated his pestilential remarks with the tears of Heraclitus, I, on the contrary, shall begin with the laughter of Democritus.” And again he went on laughing a long time, so that he drew most of us into doing likewise.

Then, changing countenance, he said, “Pray, what else, gentlemen, are we to do when we hear utterances so ridiculous, and see old men all but standing on their heads in public for the sake of a little despicable notoriety? That you may know what manner of thing is this ‘holy image’ which is about to be burned up, give me your ears, for I have observed his character and kept an eye on his career from the beginning, and have ascertained various particulars from his fellow-citizens and people who cannot have helped knowing him thoroughly.

“This creation and masterpiece of nature, this Polyclitan canon,

The proportions of the statue of a naked youth carrying a spear (the Doryphorus), made by Polyclitus, were analysed by the sculptor himself in a book called the Canon, and universally accepted as canonical for the male figure.

as soon as he came of age, was taken in adultery in Armenia and got a sound thrashing, but finally jumped down from the roof and made his escape, with a radish stopping his vent. Then he corrupted a handsome boy, and by paying three thousand drachmas to the boy’s parents, who were poor, bought himself off from being brought before the governor of the province of Asia.

“All this and the like of it I propose to pass over ; for he was still unshapen clay, and our ‘holy image’ had not yet been consummated for us. What he did to his father, however, is very well worth hearing; but you all know it—you have heard how he strangled the aged man, unable to tolerate his living beyond sixty years. Then, when the affair had been noised abroad, he condemned himself to exile and roamed about, going to one country after another.

“It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—how else could it be P—in a trice he made them all look like children ; for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom

The sense of the unemended text here is ‘ protector ; that great man, to be sure, they still worship,” etc.

they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.

“Then at length Proteus was apprehended for this and thrown into prison, which itself gave him no little reputation as an asset for his future career and the charlatanism and notoriety-seeking that he was enamoured of. Well, when he had been imprisoned, the Christians, regarding the incident as a calamity, left nothing undone in the effort to rescue him. Then, as this was impossible, every other form of attention was shown him, not in any casual way but with assiduity ; and from the very break of day aged widows and orphan children could be seen waiting near the prison, while their officials even slept inside with him after bribing the guards. Then elaborate meals were brought in, and sacred books of theirs were read aloud, and excellent Peregrinus—for he still went by that name—was called by them ‘ the new Socrates.’

“Indeed, people came even from the cities in Asia, sent by the Christians at their common expense, to succour and defend and encourage the hero. They show incredible speed whenever any such public action is taken; for in no time they lavish their all. So it was then in the case of Peregrinus; much money came to him from them by reason of his imprisonment, and he procured not a little revenue from it.

The poor wretches have convinced themselves, first and foremost, that they are going to be immortal and live for all time, in consequence of which they despise death and even willingly give themselves into custody, most of them. Furthermore, their first lawgiver

From the wording of this sentence the allusion is so obviously to Christ himself that one is at a loss to understand why Paul, let alone Moses, should have been suggested. For the doctrine of brotherly love cf. Matt. 23, 8: πάντες δὲ ὑμεῖς ἀδελφοί ἐστε.

persuaded them that they are all brothers of one another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws. Therefore they despise all things indiscriminately and consider them common property, receiving such doctrines traditionally without any definite evidence. So if any charlatan and trickster, able to profit by occasions, comes among them, he quickly acquires sudden wealth by imposing upon simple folk.

“However, Peregrinus was freed by the then governor of Syria, a man who was fond of philosophy.

The Roman governor of the province of Syria is meant. Identification is impossible because the date of the imprisonment of Peregrinus cannot be fixed.

. Aware of his recklessness and that he would gladly die in order that he might leave behind him a reputation for it, he freed him, not considering him worthy even of the usual chastisement.

“The usual chastisement” (Allinson’s phrase) was scourging.

Upon returning to his home, he found that the matter of his father’s murder was still at fever heat and that there were many who were for pressing the charge against him. Most of his possessions had been carried off during his absence, and only his farms remained, amounting to fifteen talents; for the entire property which the old man left had been worth perhaps thirty talents, not five thousand as that utterly ridiculous Theagenes asserted. Even the entire city of Parium,

A small (but not really so contemptible) Greek town on the Hellespont, site of a Roman colony since Augustus. See Sir W. Leaf, Strabo on the Troad, pp. 80-85.

taking along with it the five that are its neighbours, would not fetch that much, including the men, the cattle, and all the rest of their belongings.

“However, the charge and complaint was still aglow, and it was probable that before long somebody would appear against him; above all, the people themselves were enraged, mourning over a good old man (as he was called by those who had seen him) so impiously slain. But observe what a plan our clever Proteus discovered to cope with all this, and how he escaped the danger. Coming before the assembly of the Parians—he wore his hair long by now, dressed in a dirty mantle, had a wallet slung at his side, the staff was in his hand, and in general he was very histrionic in his get-up—manifesting himself to them in this guise, he said that he relinquished to the state all the property which had been left him by his father of blessed memory. When the people, poor folk agape for largesses,

The phrase is F. D. Allinson’s.

heard that, they lifted their voices forthwith: ‘The one and only philosopher! The one and only patriot! The one and only rival of Diogenes and Crates!’ His enemies were muzzled, and anyone who tried to mention the murder was at once pelted with stones.

“He left home, then, for the second time, to roam about, possessing an ample source of funds in the Christians, through whose ministrations he lived in unalloyed prosperity. For a time he battened himself thus; but then, after he had transgressed in some way even against them—he was seen, I think, eating some of the food that is forbidden them

In Acts 15, 29 the apostles and the elder brethren prescribe abstaining “from sacrifices offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled’? (eidoAd8ura kat alya Kat amucrd). Probably what Lucian has in mind is pagan sacrificial meats. This may be just a guess, from the way he puts it; but if so, it is highly plausible on account of the

— they no longer accepted him, and so, being at a loss, he thought he must sing a palinode and demand his possessions back from his city. Submitting a petition, he expected to recover them by order of the Emperor. Then, as the city sent representatives to oppose the claim, he achieved nothing, but was directed to abide by what he had once for all determined, under no compulsion from anyone.

“Thereafter he went away a third time, to Egypt, to visit Agathobulus,

In Demonax, 3, Lucian alludes to Agathobulus as one of those with whom Demonax had studied. The teacher of Peregrinus was therefore reputable as well as famous.

where he took that wonderful course of training in asceticism, shaving one half of his head, daubing his face with mud, and demonstrating what they call‘ indifference’ by erecting his notorious indifference of the Cynics towards what they ate. Peregrinus may have signalised his relapse to Cynicism by sampling a “dinner of Hecate” at the cross-roads. yard amid a thronging mob of bystanders,

The allusion is to that variety of “indifferent” action (.e. neither good nor bad) ascribed to Diogenes himself by Dio Chrysostom VI, 16-20 (pp. 203-204 z).

besides giving and taking blows on the back-sides with a stalk of fennel, and playing the mountebank even more audaciously in many other ways.

“From there, thus equipped, he set sail for Italy and immediately after disembarking he fell to abusing everyone, and in particular the Emperor,

Antoninus Pius.

knowing him to be mild and gentle, so that he was safe in making bold. The Emperor, as one would expect, cared little for his libels and did not think fit to punish for mere words a man who only used philosophy as a cloak, and above all, a man who had made a profession of abusiveness. But in our friend’s case, even from this his reputation grew, among simple folk anyhow, and he was a cynosure for his recklessness, until finally the city prefect, a wise man, packed him off for immoderate indulgence in the thing, saying that the city had no need of any such philosopher. However, this too made for his renown, and he was on everybody’s lips as the philosopher who had been banished for his frankness and excessive freedom, so that in this respect he approached Musonius, Dio, Epictetus, and anyone else who has been in a similar predicament.

“Coming at last to Greece under these circumstances, at one moment he abused the Eleans, at another he counselled the Greeks to take up arms against the Romans,

The life of Antoninus Pius (Script. Hist. Aug.), § 5, notes suppression of a rebellion in Achaia,

and at another he libelled a man outstanding in literary attainments and position because he had been a benefactor to Greece in many ways, and particularly because he had brought water to Olympia and prevented the visitors to the festival from dying of thirst, maintaining that he was making the Greeks effeminate, for the spectators of the Olympic games ought to endure their thirst—yes, by Heaven, and even to lose their lives, no doubt, many of them, through the frequent distempers which formerly ran riot in the vast crowd on account of the dryness of the place!

The man was the famous Herodes Atticus. For the aqueduct built by him at Olympia see Frazer’s Pausanias, Vol. IV, pp. 72 ff. Philostratus (Vit. Soph. II, 1, 33) records that Herodes was often berated by Proteus, to whom on one occasion he hinted that it might at least be done in Greek.

And he said this while he drank that same water! When they almost killed him with stones, mobbing him with one accord, he managed to escape death at the moment by fleeing to Zeus for sanctuary (stout fellow !),

and afterwards, at the next Olympiad, he gave the Greeks a speech which he had composed during the four years that had intervened, praising the man who had brought in the water and defending himself for running away at that time. “At last he was disregarded by all and no longer so admired; for all his stuff was stale and he could not turn out any further novelty with which to surprise those who came in his way and make them marvel and stare at him—a thing for which he had a fierce craving from the first. So he devised this ultimate venture of the pyre, and spread a report among the Greeks immediately after the last Olympic games that he would burn himself up at the next festival.