Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 2.djvu/828

Rh 814 LUCIANUS. 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 Pere- grinus. 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 Paph- lagonia. Here Lucian planned several contriv- ances for detecting tlie falsehood of his responses ; and in a personal interview with the prophet, in- stead of kissing his hand, as was the custom, in- flicted 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 pro- secute 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 re- ceived 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 'AttoA. irepl rwv im ^u., ^ 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 Imayines, which some have supposed to have been addressed to a concubine of Verus, and which Wieland conjectures to have been intended for the wife of Marcus An- toninus, as well as from his tract Fro Lapsu, he Beems to have been neither averse from flattery nor unskilled in the method of applying it. He cer- tainly 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 Avritten the burlesque drama called Uo- Sdypa is ratlier strong. He probably married in middle life ; and in the Evvovxos^ § 13, he men- tions having a son. The nature of Lucian's writings inevitably pro- cured him many enemies, by whom he has been painted in very black colours. According to Suidas he was surnamed ilie 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 apos- tatised 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 (irapaSaTrjs) ; whilst the scholiasts on the Verae Historiae and other pieces frequently apos- trophise him in the bitterest terms, and make the LUCIANUS, most absurd and far-fetched charges against him of ridiculing the Scriptures. The whole gravamen of the accusation of blas- phemy 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 Chris- tianity, 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, Cleo- laus 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 Fa- bricius, have held the Philopatris to be genuine. Towards the middle of last century, Gesner wrote his dissertation DeAeiaieetAzictore 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 'AttoA. irepl rwv eul /xiad^ (Tvu., § 15, he describes himself as ov aocpos, but e/c rod iroWou S-n/xov ; and in the Hermotimus he calls himself ISiwttjs, in contradistinction to that phi- losopher. In the Biccu irpaais, 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 manne:fs of the age. The ''Epcores, the most objectionable, has been abjudicated by many critics, and for Lucian 's sake it is to be hoped that the}'^ are correct ; but in the Ei/cJ»'ey 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 Aleaatider, § 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 'AAjewy, ^ 20, has drawn his own character as a hater of pride, falsehood, and vain-glory, and an ardent admirer of truth, sim- plicity, and all that is naturally amiable ; nor is there much to object against the truth of thi« autograph portrait. He seems to have retained