Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:17:41.308Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lucian as Social Satirist1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

B. Baldwin
B. Baldwin
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper owes its inspiration to a remark made by Professor M. Rostovtzeff; in a note in his Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire on the widespread social unrest of the first two centuries A.D., having cited other literary authorities such as Dio Chrysostom, Aelius Aristides, etc., he writes: ‘The social problem as such, the cleavage between the poor and the rich, occupies a prominent place in the dialogues of Lucian; he was fully aware of the importance of the problem.’ No one, as far as I know, has attempted to collect and discuss the main passages in Lucian on this topic, and the latest writer on this aspect of Lucian reaches a conclusion quite opposed to Rostovtzeff and one which I believe to be wholly misleading. The aim of this paper is to collect and discuss the main references in Lucian to the social problem interpreting them in the light of Lucian's life and background, and the social and economic conditions of his age. In particular I shall stress the importance of the Cynic tradition as it bears on Lucian's attitude, but shall endeavour to show that this tradition is firmly rooted in practical politics and actual participation in social revolutionary movements and goes far beyond the repetition of mere ethical cliches generally ascribed to it.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 11 , Issue 3-4 , December 1961 , pp. 199 - 208
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1961

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 199 note 2 RostovtzefT, , Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, second edition revised by Fraser, P. M. (1957), p. 621, n. 45.Google Scholar

page 199 note 3 Bompaire, J., Lucien Écrivain (1958);Google Scholar see the review in Gnomon xxxii (1960), 756 ff. by J. Delz for criticism of Bompaire's weaknesses.Google Scholar

page 200 note 1 For this view see Thomson, G., The First Philosophers, pp. 249–70;Google Scholar for a different view see von Fritz, K., Pythagorean Politics in Southern Italy, pp. 94–102, who views the Pythagoreans as extreme conservatives, defending aristocracies against nascent democratic movements and democracies against prospective tyrannies.Google Scholar

page 201 note 1 As, for instance, Bompaire, , p. 512.Google Scholar

page 201 note 2 Notably by the famous Lukian und Menipp of R. Helm; for an excellent refutation of Helm see MacCarthy, B., ‘Lucian and Menippus’, Yale Classical Studies iv (1934). 3–58.Google Scholar

page 201 note 3 Usually dated to 161/2 on the basis of a possible reference to the defeat of the Romans at Elegeia in the Parthian War (10). If true, tiiis would reinforce our contention that as a writer Lucian is directly under the influence of conditions and events contemporary with himself.

page 203 note 1 This incident is probably to be equated with the report in S.H.A. Pius 5, of the suppression of a revolt in Achaia in Pius' reign.

page 203 note 2 The dialogue was almost certainly composed at Philippopolis in 165/6.

page 204 note 1 See Caster, , Lucien et la Pensie religieuse de son temps, pp. 243 ff.Google Scholar, also p. 396 for bibliography; Pack, R., ‘The Volatilisation of Peregrinus Proteus’, A.J.Ph. lxvii (1946), 334–46;Google ScholarBagnani, G., ‘Peregrinus Proteus and the Christians’, Hisioria iv (1955), 107–12;Google ScholarBompaire, , pp. 477–80.Google Scholar

page 204 note 2 The Sophist from Ephesus, ridiculed, we may add, by Lucian, , Epigram 26.Google Scholar

page 204 note 3 On this passage see Rostovtzeff, , p. 115.Google Scholar

page 205 note 1 For a different view see Dudley, , A History of Cynicism, Introd. p. ii, who rejects the conception of Cynicism as the ‘Philosophy of the Proletariat’, though he admits a possible exception in the case of die Alexandrian Cynics of die second century A.D. On die other hand, Dudley makes an interesting point (p. 143) when he says diat in die second century Cynics were especially common in Syria, Asia, Adiens, Corinm, Epirus, and Thrace. Most of diese places were very familiar to Lucian.Google Scholar

page 205 note 2 S.H.A. Hadrian 5. 2: ‘Aegyptus seditionibus urguebatur.’

page 205 note 3 S.H.A. Aurelius 21; Dio Cassius 71. 4; see also Lesquier, , L'Armée romaine d'Egyple, pp. 29 ff.Google Scholar

page 205 note 4 S.H.A. Commodus 16. 2; S.H.A. Pescennius Niger 3. 4; Herodian 1. 10. On die social revolutionary aspect of Maternus' revolt see Thompson, E. A., ‘Peasant Revolts in Late Roman Gaul and Spain’, Past and Present ii (1953), 12–15.Google Scholar

page 205 note 5 See oration 24 (Keil) ‘To die Rhodians on Homonoia’, c. 5 and passim, also oration 27 (Keil) on die need for harmony and die end of civil strife in die cities.

page 205 note 6 See the article Samosata by Weissbach in R.E. iA, cols. 2220–4.

page 206 note 1 For conditions in Roman Syria at this time see Rostovtzeff, , pp. 261 ff.;Google ScholarHeichelheim, , ‘Roman Syria’ in Frank's Economic Survey of Ancient Rome (hereafter styled as Ec. Surv. in my notes), iv. 121–258.Google Scholar

page 206 note 2 Rostovtzeff, , pp. 255 ff.;Google ScholarBroughton, in Ec. Surv. iv. 499 ff.Google Scholar

page 206 note 3 These were not always disinterested; a striking case is that of Herodes Atticus who, despite his famous benefactions to Athens, was frequently the object of angry demon strations by the people. Day, Economic History of Athens under Roman Domination, p. 250, sees this as an expression of resentment by the people against their exploitation by the millionaire family of Herodes' father and himself.Google Scholar

page 206 note 4 See the long and varied list in Chapot, , La Province romaine d'Asie, pp. 168 ff.Google Scholar

page 206 note 5 See Buckler, W. H., ‘Labour Disputes in Asia Minor’, in Studies presented to Sir William Ramsay, pp. 27 ff.;Google Scholar also Rostovtzeff, , p. 621.Google Scholar

page 207 note 1 Rostovtzeff, , pp. 273 ff.;Google ScholarJohnson, in Ec. Surv. ii.Google Scholar

page 207 note 2 P.S.I. n. 822; Johnson, , op. cit., p. 243.Google Scholar

page 207 note 3 P.S.I., nn. 101–8.

page 207 note 4 Rostovtzeff, , pp. 397–8; text in Dessau 687.Google Scholar

page 207 note 5 Peretti, , Un intellettuale greco contra Roma. Peretti understands the nature of the issue; he writes (pp. 41 ff.):Google Scholar ‘per tutta la vita egli non ha ignorato il contrasto economico tra ricchi e poveri.’ For hostile reviews of Peretti's work see Philips, (J.H.S. lxvi [1946], 141);Google ScholarFlacelière, (R.É.G, lxvi [1948], 322).Google Scholar

page 207 note 6 Rostovtzeff, , pp. 253 ff.;Google ScholarLarsen, in Ec. Surv. iv. 259–498;Google ScholarDay, , op. cit. pp. 177–251.Google Scholar

page 208 note 1 All sorts of factors combined to produce anti-Roman feelings in this century. For instance, at Alexandria the race issue between Jews and Greeks was crucial. See P.Oxy. 1242 which reflects the pro-Jewish attitude of Trajan and especially Plotina, and the consequent bitter anti-Roman outburst of the Greek representative Her-maiscus.