…, and in the critical discussion of enthusiastic poetic licence in Hes. 4f., 9. Enthusiastic fascination provoked by philosophical teaching is – perhaps also parodically – described in Nigr. See also below p. 136f.
(Eunapius' source) and 
(Lucian).
(Il. 15.605f.).
(which Lucian does not mention at all), that he turned Lucian's elaborate and subtle comparison of the Abderites and the pepaideumenoi into the simple sequence ἡμυβάϱβαϱοι and ούϰ ἀνόητοι, and, finally, that he changed the familiar, even almost commonplace case-history with seven-day fever, crisis, and second stadium, into the daring construction of a seven-day drama recitation. These modifications seem, by contrast, even quite logical if one assumes that they were made, as it were, the other way round, i.e. by Lucian (and if one assumes that his intentions really were the ones I have postulated for him): the ‘typical’ case-history in particular would actually have been necessary in order for Lucian to introduce himself metaphorically as physician (see Tschiedel (n. 10) 185f, who rightly rejects Homeyer's interpretation). Klimek-Winter does not mention, for example, the aetiology of the disease given in Eunapius, which, in this form, could be derived neither from Philostratus nor Lucian. The city's inhabitants in Eunapius do not fall ill of fever (although Klimek-Winter seems to think otherwise), as they do in Lucian, but of diarrhoea (which Lucian's Abderites are spared entirely). The differences between Philostratus' restrained description of the tragic actor's performance and Eunapius' very detailed account are striking. The actor's attempt to win his audience over by letting their leaders in on his theatrical secrets is only found in Eunapius, not in Lucian or Philostratus. This all leaves me convinced that the three versions are based on one source (second half of the 1 st century) to which the account in Eunapius is probably most similar, whilst Philostratus reduced it to the simple barb about un-Hellenic barbarism – which fits nicely into his narrative proper: cf. 
θεάτϱον in HC 1 is to be read in the temporal and in the causal sense). The arguments which Langholf bases on the naming of Lysimachos (see above n. 50) and of the (now unknown) actor Archelaus have little weight here (2813f.; cf. Klimek-Winter (n. 10) 103).
(10.2). However, the Abderites see themselves as representatives of paideia, which they value more than money and which they endeavour to express in their thinking and style. And, in fact, their behaviour towards Hippocrates is more fitting than, for example, that of the Persian king who, as shown in earlier letters, thought he could bribe and threaten the physician into becoming his obedient servant. At the same time, the Abderites fail to appreciate the reality of the situation: their paideia is inferior to that of Democritus, he is sane, they are the true madmen. This matches in my opinion the portrayal intended by Lucian, in which the Abderites, with their love of theatre, are not wholly barbarian, but merely of limited paideia, like his pepaideumenoi, who – as their historiographical writing shows – are not truly educated. When the Abderites of the Hippocrates novel decide that Democritus is suffering from an excess of wisdom (10.1: 
), then it is really their own inadequate paideia that prevents them from seeing the truth. Comparable to this in Lucian is, perhaps, the fact that the anecdote is used to illustrate the discrepancy between true and false paideia. The search for such parallels produces no further results in terms of content, but there are no contradictions to be found either: proof that Lucian was extremely careful when combining his sources. Just for the record, 
Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Schmalzriedt, Egidius
and
Nesselrath, Heinz-Günther
2020.
Kindlers Literatur Lexikon (KLL).
p.
1.