Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 2.djvu/834

Rh 820 LUCIANUS. Meretricii, describe the manners of the Greek He- taerae or courtezans, with liveliness and fidelity ; perhaps too much so for the interests of morality. liKoitou -^ Evxai, Navigium sen Vota. In this piece the company form various wishes, which are in turn derided by Lucian. The imitation of Plato in the opening is very strong. Dialogues which cannot with propriety be placed under any of the preceding heads, are the EiK6v€s, Imagines, which has been already adverted to in the sketch of Lucian 's life. "Tnep twv EIkovcou, Pro Lnaginibtis, a defence of the preceding, with the flattery of which the lady who was the subject of it pretended to be displeased. To^apis, Toxaiis, A dialogue between a Greek and Scythian, on the subject of friendship, in which several remarkable instances are related on both sides. It is in the grave style. The *Avdxap(ns, Anacharsis, is an attack upon the Greek gymnasia, in a dialogue be- tween Solon and Anacharsis. It also turns on the education of youth. Here too the irony is of a serious cast. Uepl Spx^f^^^^^ De Saltatione, a dis- putation between Lucian and Crates, a stoic philo- sopher, respecting dancing. It has been observed before that Lucian was an ardent admirer of dan- cing, especially the pantomimic sort, to which he here gives the advantage over tragedy. The piece is hardly worthy of Lucian, but contains some curious particulars of the art of dancing among the ancients. A£a|iy irpos 'Hcr/oSov, Dissertatio cum Hesiodo. A charge against that poet that he cannot predict futurity, as he gave out. The genuineness is doubtful. 6. Miscellaneous Pieces. We are now to enumerate those few works of Lucian which do not fall under any of the preceding divisions, and which not being in the form of dialogues, bear some analogy to the modern essay. Tipos rov dirSvTa npoixrjOfvs d h yois. Ad eum qui dixerat Pro- metheus es in Verbis. A reply to somebody who had compared him to Prometheus. Allusion has already been made to this piece, which, as the title implies, turns chiefly on liis own works. Tlefi J&utn'wi', De Sacrificiis. 'i'he absurdities of the jieathen worship, especially of the Egyptian, are pointed out in a serious style. This was probably an early production. Ilepi riuv evri ^laQcf ctuvoutwu, De Mercede Conductis, was written to dissuade a Greek philosopher from accepting a place in a lloman household, by giving a humorous description of the miseries attending it. This little piece abounds with wit and good sense, and may be placed among Lucian's most amusing productions. It is likewise valuable for the picture it contains of Roman manners, which Lucian has here painted in highly unfavourable colours, but perliaps with some exaggeration and caricature. The 'A-n-uKoyla irepl rwi/ €7rl fi. (Tvv., Apologia pro de Merc. Cond., is Lucian's defence against a charge of inconsistency, in having accepted his Egj'ptian office, after having written the foregoing piece. The chief ground of defence is the difference between a public and private office, and indeed the charge was absurd. As already mentioned, this piece contains some particulars of Lucian's life. 'Tirep rov ev rfj irpocr- ayopev(rei irraiaixaros. Pro Lapsu in Saluiando, a playful little piece, though containing some cunous learning, in which Lucian excuses himself for having saluted a great man with vyiaive in the morning, instead of X^'P^* In the Tlepl rrepdoSs, De LuctUy the received opinion concerning the in- LUCIANUS. fernal regions is reviewed, and the folly of grief demonstrated in a rather serious manner. Upoi dnaiSevTov, Adversus Indoctum, is a bitter attack upon a rich man who thought to acquire a character for learning by collecting a large library. liepl rov firi paSloos TTiarevtiu hiaSoXfi, Non temere credendmn esse Delationi. The title of this piece sufficiently explains its subject. It is in the grave style ; but is well written, and has something of the air of a rhetorical declamation. 7. Poems. These conRi!=t of two mock tragedies, called TpayoTToZdypa and ^CIkvitovs^ and about fifty epigrams. The Tragopodagra, as its name implies, turns on the subject of the gout ; its malignity and pertinacity are set forth, and the physicians who pretend to cure it exposed. This little drama dis- plays considerable vigour of fancy. It has been thought that Lucian wrote it to beguile a fit of the malady which forms its subject. The Ocypus, which turns on the same theme, is much inferior, and perhaps a frigid imitation by some other hand. Of the epigrams some are tolerable, but the greater part indifferent, and calculated to add but little to Lucian's fame. Of some the genuineness may be suspected. In the preceding account of Lucian's works those have been omitted, of whose spuriousness scarce a doubt can be entertained. These are : — 'AAkucoi/ ^ Trepl MerajULopcpwaews, Halcyon seu de Transformatione. This dialogue is completely op- posed to Lucian's manner, as the fabulous tale of the Halcyon, which he would have ridiculed, is treated seriously. It has been attributed to Leo the academician. For the rest, the style is agree- able enough. Tlepi t^ 'Aar poAoylr)?, De Astro- logia, containing a serious defence of astrology, can never have been Lucian's, The Ionic dialect, too, condemns it ; the aflfected use of which Lucian ridicules in his Quoin. Hist. § 18. The same objections apply to the Ilepi rijs Supirj? S-eoO, De Dea Syria, also in the Ionic dialect. Though the scholiast on the Nuhes of Aristophanes ascribes it to Lucian we may safely reject it. Such a narrative of superstitious rites could never have come from his pen, without at least a sneer, or a word of cas- tigation. Nor would he have sacrificed his beard at the temple of Hierapolis, as in the last sentence the author represents himself as having done. The KvvLKos, Cynkus., is abjudicated by the scholiast, and with reason ; for the cynic worsts Lucian in the argument about his tenets. The Xapidrt/nos rf TTcpl /caAAoOs, Cluiridemus seu de Pulchro, is a frigid imitation of Plato, bearing no mark of Lucian's hand, and has been rejected by the best critics. "Nepup T^ TTfpl rrjs opvxvs rov *l(Td/J.ov, Nero, seu de Fossione Isthmi. Wieland seems to have stood alone in asserting this dialogue to be Lucian's. From the concluding part the author appears to have been alive at the time of Nero's death. It contains some curious particulars of that emperor's singing. The spuriousness of the Philopatris has been already shown. It is probable that several of Lucian's works are lost. In the Life ofDemonair, § 1, he mentions having written a life of Sostratus, which is not now extant. Of his rhetorical pieces perhaps the greater part is lost, as Suidas says of thera yiypatrrM at/TcJ Siireipa. Lucian's merits as a writer consist in his know- ledge of human nature, which, however, he gene- rally viewed on its worst side ; his strong common