THE AESTHETICS OF PARADOX

IN LUCIANS PROLALIA
Valentina Popescu*
University of California, Davis

RESUMO: Este artigo explora o emprego, por Luciano, de material

paradoxogrfico em suas introdues retricas, prolalia, como uma
retrica oblqua de autorreferncia. Especialmente, mostra que o
material paradoxogrfico, gradualmente estabelecendo sofisticados
paradigmas para a recepo do novo e da alteridade, parte de uma
estratgia requintada, um sistema referencial complexo, atravs do
qual Luciano define sua potica e reflete o clima cultural multifacetado
de sua poca, em que tenta estabelecer a si mesmo como,
paradoxalmente, uma identidade tanto heterodoxa quanto ortodoxa.
PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Luciano; automoldagem; identidade cultural;
potica; paradoxo.

a)lla_ ti/ pro\j to\n Dio/nuson o9 Dio/nusoj ou[toj;

What has this Dionysus to do with Dionysus?
(Lucian, Bacchus, 5.1)

ucian frequently describes his literary novelty as a marvel

pardoxon , a term typical for paradoxography, the literature of wonders.
Yet, in his rhetorical introductions prolalia , the paradoxographical
hypotext is pervasive and deserves a more systematic examination,
1
within the broader cultural and literary context. Lucian exploits the
* [email protected]
1
On Lucians prolalia, see Thimme, op. cit.; Stock, op. cit.; Mras, op. cit.; Anderson, op.
cit., 1977; Branham, op. cit., 1985, republished in Branham, op. cit., 1989; Nesselrath, op.
cit.; Georgiadou; Larmour, op. cit.; Villani, op. cit. References can also be found in more
general studies: Bompaire, op. cit., p. 286-288; Reardon, op. cit., p. 165-166; Robinson,

57

nuntius antiquus

Belo Horizonte, v. IX, n. 2, jul.-dez. 2013

ISSN: 2179-7064 (impresso) - 1983-3636 (online)

aesthetical and rhetorical functions of marvels (pardoxa), by using them

as paradigms for his exoticism, in terms of cultural identity, and the
exoticism of his work, in terms of generic identity.2
However, the rich and diverse paradoxographical material does
more than just presenting the author as exotic; and exotic still sells in the
Second Sophistic.3 It amounts obviously, in Lucians case, to more than
just a conventional rhetorical repertoire. It goes beyond just equaling the
generic novelty of the comic dialogue, or the mxis of genres in it, of
prose and verse, of serious and comic, to a pardoxon. Lucian constantly
focuses on earning dxa (fame) through pardoxa from an audience of
pepaideumnoi expected to sublimate the experience of kplexis (astonishment)
from bewilderment to aesthetic pleasure. His use of paradoxographical
material is part of a more sophisticated strategy. Through the oblique
rhetoric of pardoxa, Lucian defines his poetics and reflects the multilayered
cultural climate of the era, in which he attempts to establish himself as a,
paradoxically, distinct and orthodox identity.
I will limit my study to the eight texts established as prolalia by
Rothstein, given their consistency in scholarly classifications.4 The
purpose of my study is not to establish taxonomy based on genre purity,
which seems a paradoxical attempt for an author who revels with
impunity in generic impurity. I only attempt to investigate Lucians
modes of self-presentation filtered through the culture of pardoxa in
texts that are self-referential and indisputably introductory. I will discuss
Lucians prolalia in approximately the same order as Nesselrath (1990),
yet not a strictly chronological one, acknowledging that committing to
even a loose chronology may prove risky. I divide them into three
groups, not completely separate, but in a rather fluid continuity and
cross-referential correspondence, based on the development of Lucians
rhetorical skills in incorporating paradoxographical material and on the

op. cit., p. 7-8, p. 13; Anderson, op. cit., 1993, p. 53-55; Pernot, op. cit., p. 547-554; Camerotto,
op. cit., p. 266-274 and passim; Whitmarsh, op. cit., 2001, p. 77-78; Brando, op. cit., p. 7588, p. 91-96, p. 134-138. Cf. Bompaire, op. cit., p. 286, n. 5; Russell, op. cit., p. 77-79.
2
Anderson, op. cit., 1977, points, in a summary observation, to the presence of
paradoxographical material in Lucians prolalia, while Branham, op. cit., Camerotto,
op. cit., and Brando, op. cit., briefly discuss it.
3
Cf. Branham, op. cit., p. 183-184; Anderson, op. cit., 1993, p. 55, p. 171-199; Whitmarsh,
op. cit., 2005, p. 35-37. Cf. Gleason, op. cit., passim on Favorinus and his three paradoxes
(Phil. VS 489) and p. 39-40 on the possible use of pardoxa in Polemos introductions.
4
Rothstein, op. cit., p. 116-123.

58

POPESCU, Valentina. The Aesthetics of ..., p. 57-86

self-referential statements concerning cultural identity: a first group,

in which the author is concerned with establishing an audience and
blending in with the Greek culture (Harmonides, Herodotus, The Scythian,
The Dipsdes), a second, with establishing a degree of difference in the
reception of his work not as mere novelty, but also as exquisite artistry
(Amber or Swans, Zeuxis or Antiochus), and a third, with reestablishing
himself after an alleged absence from the rhetorical arena (Heracles,
Dionysus).
***
Harmonides has earned only very short treatments, at most a few
lines. Not only is its artistic value obviously inferior in comparison
with the rest of Lucians prolalia, but it also proves hard to fit into any
5
compositional pattern. Harmonides, a hopeful young pipe player, asks
Timotheus, who has already taught him perfectly the art of pipe playing,
to teach him also how to acquire general fame, for him the final purpose
6
of art. Harmonides wants to be distinguished (e0pi/shmon) among men
like his teacher, whom people admire just as day birds regard a night
owl (w#sper e0pi\ th\n glau=ka ta_ o1rnea, 1), is. Timotheus teaches his
disciple that the shortest path to glory is not to seek the admiration of the
crowds, but of the knowledgeable lite (tou\j a)ri/stouj kai\ o0li/gouj).
They, as leaders of opinion, are able to influence the masses, people of
bad taste who are unable to appreciate value (a)gnoou=si ta_ belti/w,
5

Cf. Anderson, op. cit., 1977, p. 314-315; Nesselrath, op. cit., p. 121; Anderson pairs it
with Somn. and distinguishes three common thematic elements: the would-be
artist prefers fame to a life of obscurity, his first youthful essay is his last, and a
trial scene.
6
There is no other extant source for this anecdote. Timotheus is a famous fourth
century Boeotian pipe player (Diphil. fr. 78 Kassel-Austin; Dio Chrys. Or. 1. 1-3;
Athen. Deipn. 12.54.34; Phot. 243. 372 a 37-40. His musical performance produced a
strong impression on Alexander the Great (Dio Chrys. Or. 1. 1-3; cf. Suda t 620, 713, where Timotheus of Thebes is confused with Timotheus of Miletus (Suda t
620, 1-7); cf. Suda a 1122, o 573; Anna Comn. 4.1.16-21; Eust. Comm. ad Il. 3.137.1213. The story is celebrated by Dryden and adapted by Hamilton to a libretto for
Handels Alexanders Feast). This Timotheus needs to be distinguished from the 5-4
c. musician and citharode Timotheus of Miletus (Luc. Harm. 1. 24; cf. Arist. Metaph.
993 b15; Diod. 14.46.6.5; Plut. De Alex. fort. 334 b; Steph. Byz. 452.16-453.4; Phot.
Bibl. 239. 320 b 10-11; see West, op. cit., p. 361-364; Campbells Greek Lyric, vol. 5,
1993, p. 70-121; Hordern, op. cit.). On Timotheus of Thebes/ Miletus see Blis, op.
cit., 1998 and 2002.

59

nuntius antiquus

Belo Horizonte, v. IX, n. 2, jul.-dez. 2013

ISSN: 2179-7064 (impresso) - 1983-3636 (online)

ba&nausoi o1ntej, 2). In his very first and last attempt to acquire glory in
a competition, Harmonides blows too ambitiously and breathes out
his life into his pipe, thus dying uncrowned.7 In a disproportionately
long sncrisis Lucian claims to apply Timotheus principles to himself
and his epdeixis on a short road to fame. He launches into excessive and
rather clumsy flattery of an unnamed patron, whose opinion exceeds
everyone as the sum of all excellence (to\ kefa&laion a)reth=j), an expert
(gnw&mwn), and the most appropriate critic (o9 o0rqo\j kanw&n, 3-4). The
utmost expression of dxa is articulated here through a pardoxon. The
lites admiration of the artist is illustrated by the wonder felt by birds
at the strange daylight appearance of an owl (w#sper e0pi\ th\n glau=ka
ta_ o1rnea, 1).8 The artists ultimate goal is, therefore, to be regarded as
a marvel, as a surprising, astonishing, exotic entity. Herodotus or Ation is
a diptych prolali. In the two illustrative stories, the historian Herodotus
and the painter Ation gain universal recognition by displaying their
talents at Olympia. Herodotus travels to mainland Greece to gain quick
and easy fame. He allegedly decides to perform at Olympia, during the
games, before an lite audience representing the entire Greek nation.9

Paradoxically, although Harmonides dies without glory, he nevertheless gains

posthumous fame through this story, whether as part of a shared tradition, or through
Lucians invention. Lucian uses here elements of the common stock sophistic
material later recommended by Menander Rhetor for introductory speeches, e.g.
the mention of famous citharodes and pipe players (Men. Rhet. 392.19-20). Lucian
speaks here of the two Timotheuses, of Marsyas, the legendary Phrygian alosplayer, and of Olympus, Marsyas legendary pupil (cf. Pl. Symp. 215 c). Timotheus
of Thebes, Marsyas, and Olympus appear all in one of Dio Chrysostoms prolalia
(Dio Chrys. Or. 1. 1-3). One of Apuleius introductions tells the story of Marsyas,
while another makes mention of another famous alos-player, Antigenidas (Apul.
Fl. 3 and 4).
8
Arist. Hist. anim. 609 a: th=j d 0 h9me/raj kai\ ta_ a!llia o0rni/qia th\n glau=ka
peripe/tatai, o4 kalei=tai qauma&zein. Here qauma&zein has an ironic use, since in
fact the little birds pluck the feathers of a confused owl (ti/llousin). There are also
references to the bad treatment of the owl (th\n glau=ka twqa&zousi, Com. Adesp. fr.
724 Kock; cf. Ael. Dion. t 15; Phot. Lex. t 586), and to the owls strange walk, like
a dance, during the day (Suda ai 137 on Call. Hec. fr. 326; cf. Hesich. Lex. g 610). On
the seducing power of the owl see Ael. NA 1.29. Lucian seems to employ here a
paradoxographical imagery, that of the exotic sight of an owl during the day.
9
See Johnson, op. cit., p. 240-242 and Nesselrath, op. cit., p. 117-118 on the
improbability of these facts; cf. Euseb. Chron. Arm. 83; Didyllus FGrH 73 F3; Plut.
Herod. mal. 862 A 6-8.

60

POPESCU, Valentina. The Aesthetics of ..., p. 57-86

Herodotus prefaces his display by affirming his status as a performer

competing for recognition, not a passive spectator (ou0 qeath\n, a)ll 0
a)gwnisth/n, 1). His statement serves as a prologue to his performance,
through which he obliquely aims at the audiences attention and their
favorable judgment, a metaliterary paradigm for Lucians own prolali
and its function.10
Herodotus enchants his audience with the recitation of his Histories
(a!d| wn ta_j i9stori/aj kai\ khlw~n tou\j paro/ntaj, 1). The magical aspect
of the performance makes it extraordinary, thus equivalent to a marvel.
As magic charming is associated with both pleasure and deceit, the charm
of pardoxa is transferred for Herodotus the father of history, but
also of lies to his performance of a text whose fabric is dappled, in
the spirit of poikila, with marvels (qw&mata).11 In Lucians case, on the
other hand, the expression of dxa lies in the beholding of a charming
performance perceived as an aesthetic marvel. Paradoxically, in both
Harmonides and Herodotus, Lucian represents the lites ideal reception
as a reaction characteristic of the masses: shocked and curious little
birds flocking around an owl in the middle of the day, or crowds
bewitched by the marvellous stories of a mendacious charmer. The
paradoxographical imagery evokes strong irrational emotions, attributed
12
elsewhere by Lucian to a rather untrained audience. Here, however,
it vividly translates the intensity of aesthetic emotions. The epdeixis,
perceived as an aesthetic pardoxon, produces not just a cerebral reaction,
but also a strong emotional response, as admiration for tchne is elevated
to wonder and awe.
These two prolalia share striking similarities in terms of theme
and motifs. They are both articulated on the idea of fame (timh/ ,
do/ca), particularly on the shortcut (h9 e0pi/tomoj) to universal renown.
This shortcut is facilitated by the lite, whose paidea makes them not
only appropriate judges, but also leaders of opinion, able to shape the
13
artistic and cultural judgments of the non-lite. While in Harmonides
Lucian avoids the issue of ethnicity and cultural identity altogether, in
Herodotus he seems to be one step further on his cultural homecoming
journey. Following on Herodotus steps, Lucian crosses the sea from
10

Cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 8.11 on Diogenes similar attitude.

Cic. Leg. 1.5, Div. 116; cf. Luc. VH 2.5, 2.31. Evans, op. cit.; Hartog, op. cit.
12
Luc. Zeux. and Prom. es.
13
Luc. Harm.2.13; Herod.3.1. Cf. Luc. Rhet. praec. 3.11, where Lucian satirizes the
shortcut to rhetorical fame facilitated not by paidea, but by simulation of paidea.

11

61

nuntius antiquus

Belo Horizonte, v. IX, n. 2, jul.-dez. 2013

ISSN: 2179-7064 (impresso) - 1983-3636 (online)

the east to his own Olympia, in fact Macedonia.14 Herodotus comes

from a marginal area, therefore he is perceived as foreign to mainland
Greece and mainstream Hellenism. However, not only is he able to
enchant the Greek lite, but he also sets the foundations of a new
cultural pattern, thus paving the way for other artists who will display
their work at Olympia. The list of Herodotus followers on this shortcut
to fame opens, suggestively, with the name of Hippias of Elis. In virtue
of the Eleans control of the Olympic Games, Hippias appears as a
native of the sacred ground that stands for Greekness as the cement of
a nation. Thus, he epitomizes the very core of the Greek lite. By
making Hippias a follower of Herodotus, Lucian affirms the ability of
an Asian to bring innovation to all Greece and become a model for all
Greeks. Not only does an outsider conquer Greece, but he also teaches
Greeks a cultural lesson, thus incorporating fringe elements previously
perceived as foreign and marginal.
In his praise of the Macedonian host city Lucian, in zealous flattery,
disparages Olympia and its spectators in favor of the present location
and audience. Thus, sacred old symbols of Greekness are reduced to
primitivism and lack of paidea. It is time for new symbols and new
canons, the inclusion of the marginal areas of the Greek world. In
changing the center from Olympia to Macedonia, Lucian points to a
pattern for other fringe territories that can be incorporated and usurp
the old centers birthright. On the other hand, Herodotus path is a
paradigm for Lucians own path from the margin to the center, for his
cultural homecoming. Thus, Lucians lo/goj e0pibath/rioj before a
Macedonian audience becomes from a visitors speech a cultural
homecoming speech, in an attempt to change his cultural status, from
15
a visitor to a native of Greek letters.
Ation exhibits at Olympia his representation of the wedding of
16
Alexander and Roxana, a painting that Lucian claims to have seen in Italy.

14

The performance has been placed in Thessalonica (Gallavotti, op. cit., p. 6) or

Beroea (Jones, op. cit., p. 11 n. 25).
15
In Menanders taxonomy, this introductory speech, if taken individually, would
fit well into the category of lo/goi e0pibath/rioi, in this case a speech occasioned by
the rhetors visit to a city other than his native one. As such, it should, as it does,
contain praise of the host city and its leadership (Men. Rhet. 377.31-378.3); cf.
Nesselrath, op. cit., p. 117.
16
Cf. Nesselrath, op. cit., p. 119-120. For Ation cf. Luc. Merc. cond. 42.2, Imag. 7.16,
7.26-8.1; Pl. NH 35.78, 34.50.

62

POPESCU, Valentina. The Aesthetics of ..., p. 57-86

Proxenides, one of the judges, is so pleased by such a display of talent,

that he offers his daughter in marriage to the painter. Displaying his
own skills of painting with words in an kphrasis, Lucian does not
address the relevance of this story.17 Ations skills make possible the
transfer of art that imitates reality (i.e. the wedding of Alexander and
Roxana) to a new reality that involves the artist himself (i.e. his own
wedding). This anecdote becomes paradigmatic of Lucians hope to
emulate the painter and to transfer, through his rhetorical skills, fame
from lgos to actuality. The Olympian judge who marries his daughter
to the stranger (ou0k e0pixwri/w) Ation is Proceni/dhj, the son of a
pro/cenoj (host/ friend/ protector of foreigners; patron). Therefore, his inclusion
of Ation into the family expresses Lucians expectation to be embraced,
as a xnos (friend), by his influential audience/ hosts/ patrons into the
family of Greekness.18
In The Scythian, also delivered in Macedonia, Lucian develops
further the concept of proxena. He compares the cultural relationship
between himself and his prxenoi, Macedonian father and son, to the
relationship between the Scythian Anacharsis and his prxenoi, Toxaris
and Solon, one a former compatriot now completely Hellenized, the
other a genuine Athenian epitomizing the best of Greece.19 Lucian
works here with two different forms of pardoxa: exotic, illustrated by
the contact between two different cultures, Greek and barbarian; and
aesthetic, represented by Greek paidea, especially in the form of
rhetorical display.

17

Luc. Dom. 21.14, Calumn. 2.1-2.

It is also significant that Lucian invokes Zeus Fi&lioj, the god of friendship (Luc.
Herod. 7).
19
Both of the names Anacharsis and Toxaris appear in two other Lucianic works,
the dialogues Anacharsis or On Athletics and Toxaris or Friendship. Visa-Ondaruhu, op.
cit., argues for the same identity of the characters bearing these names; cf. Anderson,
op. cit., 1976, p. 267-269. While the character of Toxaris seems to be entirely Lucians
invention in both cases (cf. Kindstrand, op. cit., p. 13-14 n. 27; Gorrini, op. cit.),
Anacharsis is well established as a Scythian wise man in the earlier Greek literary
tradition, with a notable resurgence in the Imperial literature; cf. Hdt. 4.46, 76-77;
Hermipp. (apud Diog. Laert. 1.101-105); cf. Ps.-Anacharsis Ep.; Plut. Sol. 5.1-6, Mor.
146b-164d; Athen. Deipn. 4.49, 10.32, 50, 64, 14.2; Max. Tyr. Or.25.1; Dio Chrys. Or.
32.44; Nic. Dam. FGrH 90 F104; Gal. Adhort. ad artes 17; Ael. VH. 2.41, 5.7; Fronto
Ep. Graec. 1.5; etc. For a complete list of sources, see Kindstrand, op. cit., and
Ungefehr-Kortus, op.cit.
18

63

nuntius antiquus

Belo Horizonte, v. IX, n. 2, jul.-dez. 2013

ISSN: 2179-7064 (impresso) - 1983-3636 (online)

Anacharsis, enamored with Greece, comes to Athens, reenacting

the journey of Toxaris. While the Athenians make fun of his barbarian
appearance, he is perplexed and frightened at the encounter with a new
world (tetaragme/noj, yofodeh/j, 3. 4-5; e0tetara&gmhn, 4.20). Entrusted
by Toxaris to Solon, his patron, Anacharsis is initiated in Greek paidea
and thus, conquering novelty through understanding, his bewilderment
changes from cognitive to aesthetic, as he is astonished (teqhpw&j, 8) by
Solons sopha. While the theme here is still the shortcut to fame, the
focus subtly shifts from the idea of dxa to that of proxena, from achieving
literary glory to achieving a more inclusive cultural embracing, not just
as an artist, but more importantly as culturally Greek.
Travel and displacement lead to the experience of the otherness,
to the shock of novelty, which those writers of pardoxa who claim
autopsy confess to have undergone themselves and to which they
attempt to expose their readership. Anacharsis journey is not just
physical, but also cultural. He is engaged in theora, in seeing the world,
here reduced to Greece.20 His interests in foreign customs echo those
of a paradoxographer.21 Although Lucian emphasizes the emotional
effect of pardoxa on Anacharsis, he also refers to them in terms of
their intellectual aspect (pa&nta a)gnow~n, 3.4; a#panta e1gnw, 8.10-11).
He, thus, makes the Scythians effort distinctive from that of the
paradoxographer proper, who records marvels aiming at creating shock,
not understanding. His readership enjoys the pleasure of the emotional
effect and escapes the rationalizing effort. For Anacharsis, however,
pardoxa, to which he is keen to be exposed, represent a novel world
that fascinates him, yet which he attempts to understand.
While for Anacharsis, Toxaris, and Solon, Lucian stresses the idea of
displacement by using compounds with a)po- (a)podhmh/saj,4.17, 5.11;
a)podhmi/a, 7.16), in his own case he uses an e0 p i- compound
(e0pedh/mhsa, 9.13), thus emphasizing not the idea of dis-location, but rather
that, which comes as its possible consequence, of re-location, of putting
down roots in a new place. One could even stretch the use of the verb
e0pidhme/w here to deliberately imply the idea of (cultural) homecoming.

20

Cf. Luc. VH 1.2.4; cf. Hdt. 1.30 on Solons journey and theora (th=j qewri/hj
e0kdhmh/saj o9 So/lwn ei3neken, 1.30.1; gh=n pollh\n qewri/hj ei3neken e0pelh/luqaj,
1.30.2); Arist. Ath. pol. 11.1 (a)podhmi/an e0poih/sato kat 0 e0mpori/an a#ma kai\
qewri/an); see Baslez, op. cit., p. 164-165, on tourisme intellectuel.
21
Hdt. 4.76-77; Nic. Dam. FGrH 90 F104.9.11; Dio Chrys. Or. 32.44; Diog. Laert.
1.101; Ps.-Anacharsis Ep. 10.1-3.

64

POPESCU, Valentina. The Aesthetics of ..., p. 57-86

Lucian, who identifies with Anacharsis, confesses to have had a

similar emotional experience when he first came to the Macedonian
city where he is performing:
e0cepla&ghn me\n eu0qu\j i0dw~n to\ me/geqoj kai\ to\ ka&lloj kai\ tw~n
e0mpoliteuome/nwn to\ plh=qoj kai\ th\n a!llhn du/namin kai\ lampro/thta
pa~san w#ste e0pi\ polu\ e0teqh/pein pro\j tau=ta kai\ ou0k e0ch/rkoun tw~|
qau/mati (9.13-17).22

The object of Lucians bewilderment is an aesthetic pardoxon

(tw~| qau/mati): the beauty (to\ ka&lloj) and the sublimity (to\ me/geqoj)
23
of the Macedonian city. Indeed, the marvelous beauty of Greek paidea
is the defining quest of both Toxaris (filo/ k aloj a) n h/ r , 1) and
24
Anacharsis. We find its greatest expression in Lucians young
Macedonian prxenos, with whom the city is passionately in love and
whose physical beauty is matched by speech:
ei0 de\ kai\ fqe/gcaito mo/non, oi0xh/setai/ se a)po\ tw~n w!twn a)nadhsa&menoj,
tosau/thn A
) frodi/thn e0pi\ th=| glw&tth| o9 neani/skoj e1xei (11.6-8).25

Lucians construction of pardoxa develops fully here from exotic

to aesthetic, to astonishing beauty epitomized by Greek paidea,

22

I was immediately so astonished when I saw the greatness and beauty of your
city, its huge population, all its might and splendor, that I was in amazement for
quite a long time and my marveling could not match the marvel itself ./ Cf. Lucian
anticipated amazement at getting to know his patrons (ma~llon qauma&sh|j,11.1).
23
For the ancient rhetoricians me/geqoj is sublimity of style: Dion. Hal. Comp. 17;
Dem. Eloc. 5; Hermog. Id. 1.5; Ps.-Long. 4.1. In his taxonomy of marvels, Giannini, op.
cit., p. 249-251, recognizes under the category of aesthetic qau/mata the extraordinariness
of beauty or greatness (qau=ma = perikalle/j vel pamme/geqej), found either in a work
of art (te/xnh) or in a person (ei]doj) that can thus be described as qau=ma i0de/sqai. Cf.
Luc. Herod., where a Macedonian city compared with a famous place of Greece,
Olympia, is in the end deemed even superior to it; here the greatness of the
Macedonian city, indirectly compared with Athens, is not emphasized by contrast,
but only by positive association, by building up upon the greatness of Athens.
24
Luc. Scyth.: ta_ ka&llista tw~n A
0 qh/nhsin, 4.24; ta_ E
9 llh/nwn kala&, 5.9-10; ta_
ka&llista th=j E
9 lla&doj, 7.3-4; toi=j E
9 llh/nwn kaloi=j, 8.5; cf. ta_ ka&llista, 8.3-4; the
young patron also is described as both great and beautiful (me/gaj e0sti\ kai\ kalo/j, 11.5).
25
If he only opens his mouth, he will leave you enchained by your ears, so much
of Aphrodite the young man has in his tongue./ Cf. Luc. Herc. 3.

65

nuntius antiquus

Belo Horizonte, v. IX, n. 2, jul.-dez. 2013

ISSN: 2179-7064 (impresso) - 1983-3636 (online)

particularly by rhetoric, Lucians own craft. It inspires kplexis, the typical

response to marvels, as well as love, here a higher form of kplexis.26
Lucians relationship with his prxenoi, one of cultural patronage, takes
expression in a mixture of proxena and phila (11), both inner- and intercultural friendship. Thus, he claims to be at the same time a foreigner and a
citizen of Greece as a cultural paradigm. However, unlike Anacharsis, whose
experience of Greekness starts from ignorance and evolves to complete
familiarity, for Lucian Greekness here represented by the city and by his
patrons is a pardoxon only in terms of beauty, not of novelty. Therefore, he
already feels Greek; he only needs to be acknowledged as such.
While in The Scythian Lucian uses the imagery of marvels for
paidea and rhetorical performance, in The Dipsdes he describes the
relationship between the performer and his audience as a pardoxon.
Lucian invites the audience to explore the North African desert with
27
its oddities and to walk a fine line between fact and fiction. This
blending epitomizes the essence of the rhetorical art, the skill of
incorporating subjective reality into the objective. After a long list of
pardoxa, he comes to the greatest: h9 diya&j the thirst-snake, into
which the features of the parched desert landscape are sublimated.
Besides emphasizing it with a double mythological pardoxon, the water
28
related punishment of Tantalus and the Danaids, Lucian articulates
the story of the dipss also as a logical paradox that leads to apora:
kai\ to\ paradoco/taton, o3sw|per a@n pi/nwsi, tosou/tw| ma~llon o0re/gontai
tou= potou=: kai\ h9 e0piqumi/a polu\ e0pitei/netai au0toi=j. ou0d 0 a@n sbe/seia&j
pote to\ di/yoj, ou0d 0 h2n to\n Nei=lon au0to\n h2 to\n I1 stron o3lon e0kpiei=n
para&sxh|j, a)lla_ prosekkau/seiaj e0pa&rdwn th\n no/son (4.9-14).29
25

Cf. Segal, op. cit., on love as kplexis and forgetfulness of nmos in Gorgias Helen; cf.
Belfiore, op. cit., p. 137-138, p. 144.
27
Cf. Hdt. 2.32 and 4.181-199 for the description of North Africa; on the dpsas, Nic.
Ther. 124-127 and 334-342; Ps.-Diosc. Ther. 13 (ed. Sprengel, in Knn, Medici Graeci, vol.
26); Philum. Ven. 20.1-3; Aret. CD 2.2.5; Ael. NA 6.51; Alex. Aphr. Pr. 1.152; Afric. Cest.
3.30; cf. Dio Chrys. Or. 5 on the myth of a monstrous Libyan creature, half woman-half
snake (cf. Or. 4.73); for a comparison between Luc. Dips. and Dio Chrys. Or. 5 see
Nesselrath, op. cit., p. 122 n. 19; cf Arist. Hist. an. 606b 9-14 on monstrous snakes of Libya.
28
Cf. Giannini, op. cit., p. 250 and n. 12 on mythological marvels (meraviglioso
fiabesco: nella muqologi&a, qa~uma a)lh&qeia).
29
And the strangest thing of all is that the more the victims drink, the more they
yearn for water and their craving increases terribly. You could never quench their
thirst, not even if you give them the Nile itself or the entire Ister to drink dry, but
instead you would only grow the burning by watering the disease.

66

POPESCU, Valentina. The Aesthetics of ..., p. 57-86

The pardoxon is expressed in hyperbolic images and uses

geographical references familiar to the literature of marvels. Both the
Nile and the Ister border exotic, unexplored lands.30 The logical paradox
is anticipated by the startling statement that water causes fire:
a!fukta ga&r e0stin h2n o9 h3lioj a)naspa&saj th\n i0kma&da kai\ ta&xista
chra&naj th\n xw&ran u9perze/sh|, a)kmaiote/ran th\n a)kti=na prosbalw_n
a#te pro\j th\n noti/da parateqhgme/nhn: trofh\ ga_r au3th tw~| puri/
(2.17-21).31

On these pardoxa Lucian projects his own: he feels for his

audience the same unquenchable thirst (di/yoj a!sxeton). Yet his bite is
not physical, but spiritual (th\n yuxh/n), not poisonous and sickening,
32
but sweet and healthy (h9di/stw| kai\ u9gieinota&tw|). The pure water
fueling his thirst is his lite audience, more precisely, his coming before
them in a rhetorical performance (pari/w e0j u9ma~j). The flowing
streams of water represent the image of an audience flocking to hear
him perform and eagerly listening to his speech (9). Lucians own
pardoxon is loosely fit to the dipss story (o3moio/n ti). The author affirms
clearly that he is the victim and the audience is the ever desired water
that causes both relief and longing, sick desire and health. Yet the dipss
is absent from the equation of the applicatio. The sweet poisonous snake
is arguably the unresolved metaphor for literary fame. Just as the dipss
bites its victim inflicting thirst for water, the desire for fame drives
Lucian to perform before the lite again and again. His thirst for
rhetorical performance implies positive reception that builds fame.
The story of The Dipsdes lies on the fringe between paradoxographical
and scientific/ didactic discourse. Its factuality is challenged by the
comparison with other well-known texts that claim not only more
reliable sources, but also the status of true discourse. Nesselrath makes
a commendable effort to explain the incongruence of Lucians account
on the North African desert with that of Herodotus and Pliny the Elder.

30

For the Ister, cf. Mir. ausc. 105, 168. For the Nile, cf. Antig. 162; Mir. ausc. 166; cf.
Hdt. 2.33-34; Arist. Hist. an. 7.4.584b; Plin. HN 1.33,39,272; Gellius NA 10.2. Cf.
Beagon 2005, 150-151, 164-166; 185. See Fraser, op. cit., 1, p. 176-177 on the Ptolemaic
expeditions in exploration of the Nile.
31
There is no escape from the desert if the sun boils over, drawing out the moisture
and quickly parching the land, casting stronger rays, as if sharpened by humidity;
for moisture fuels the fire.
32
Luc. Nigr 38 and Philops. 40.

67

nuntius antiquus

Belo Horizonte, v. IX, n. 2, jul.-dez. 2013

ISSN: 2179-7064 (impresso) - 1983-3636 (online)

He attributes it to an inconsistent mixture of the sources, some of

which give conflicting information themselves.33 Yet this approach tends
to read too much into Lucians account and to attribute to him serious
intentions regarding the factuality of his report.
On the contrary, Lucian repeatedly makes the effort to separate
himself from this information and to undermine its reality. The
paradoxographer proper does not rely on autopsy, as paradoxography
offers only a tour effectuated within the walls of a great library, thus
just an inquiry into written sources.34 He, nevertheless, emphasizes the
documentation of his accounts by producing plausible sources and/ or by
critically evaluating them. Therefore, he acknowledges his focus mostly
on reporting information based on inquiry into sources (i9stori/a),
rather than on attempting a reasonable explanation (e0ch/ghsij).35 Lucian
too confesses lack of autopsy and, even more, in an ironical turn, the
absolute lack of desire for autopsy:
e0gw_ me\n ou]n ou0de/na tou=to peponqo/ta ei]don, mhde/, w} qeoi/, i1doimi ou3tw
kolazo/menon a!nqrwpon, a)ll 0 ou0de\ e0pe/bhn th=j Libu/hj to\ para&pan eu]
poiw~n (6.1-4).36

Yet, on the other hand, Lucian is deliberately far more evasive

and less credible when it comes to his sources: he heard the report
from a friend, who had seen a funerary monument and its inscription,
both representing, in artistic form, the story of a dipss victim (6). Thus
the reality itself is twice filtered before reaching Lucian, who himself
gives now his own artistic version of it. The process of his inquiry is,
therefore, severely yet deliberately compromised.
While his documentation is, therefore, poorer than that of the
paradoxographer proper, Lucian still squeezes in, however under the
guise of histora, some sort of scientific explanation, exgesis. This, because
attributed to doctors, may present the appearance of authenticity (5).
Although not the result of the authors own rationalizing attempt, it may
falsely give the impression of such design on his part. Thus, Lucian skillfully
plays on the edge between paradoxography and paradoxographical
discourse incorporated into other genres, where the historiographer,
33

Hdt. 2.32 and 4.181-199; Plin. HN 5.26. Nesselrath, op. cit., p. 123-124.
Cf. Schepens, op. cit., p. 388.
35
Cf. Schepens, op. cit., p. 382-390, especially 390 with the discussion of Antig. 60.
36
I have seen nobody suffering this torture and, oh gods!, may I never see a man
punished in this way; but then, fortunately for me, I have never set foot in Libya.

34

68

POPESCU, Valentina. The Aesthetics of ..., p. 57-86

for instance, who makes use of pardoxa, besides often backing up inquiry
with autopsy, addresses at least sometimes and even if poorly the
question of causality. Lucian even flirts, again within the realm of histora,
with the idea of autopsy, yet not his own, but of his source. Moreover,
even the eyewitness saw not the reality of a dipss victim, but a stone
relief and an epigram, both art objects testifying to it, as Lucian identifies
ironically here autopsy with reading (e1legen au0to/j). This, combined
with anonymity (tw~n e9tai/rwn tij), undermines the authority of his
alleged eyewitness source (6).
Furthermore, in this playful rope-walking between fiction and the
appearance of truthfulness, Lucian claims he only remembers part of the
sepulchral epigram, specifically the four lines that describe in mythological
similes the terrible suffering of the dipss victim. Thus, not only is the
evidence limited to reproducing a friends ekphrastic report of a funerary
monument and his recollection of its epigram, both art objects already
one step removed from the pardoxon itself; it also becomes questionable
when Lucian acknowledges his poor memory of the source. Yet the final
blow to any deceiving illusion that he might claim factuality for his report
is the strong statement through which Lucian overtly separates himself
and his design from scientific/ didactic discourse (9).
Thus, although obliquely criticizing the literature of pardoxa as
avowed true discourse, Lucian uses pardoxa himself here at two separate
levels. He exploits them, just like a paradoxographer, to please the
audience with strange stories. What better captatio than in an introduction?
However, without making any strong statement on the truth-value of
pardoxa, he gives the appearance of factuality only to undercut it through
subtle inconsistencies with the paradoxographers methods. On the
other hand, he exploits a different, sublimated value of pardoxa, of
stylistic order, when he applies them as sophisticated similes and
metaphors for self-reference.
In Amber or Swans, Lucian plays again on a slim edge between
factuality and fiction and projects a deceiving self-image. While in The
Dipsdes he leaves classical Greece, the ambiance of the presumably
earlier prolaia, for an exotic Libya with anachronistic Hellenistic savor,
here Lucian engages the audience in his alleged travel to northern Italy,
mixing up mythological time and space with his present reality. Although
repeatedly claiming nave credulity with respect to mythological stories,
37
Lucian ironically hints at their ludicrousness. The illustrative story
37

Cf. Nesselrath, op. cit., p. 126-127; Camerotto, op. cit., p. 183 n. 39.

69

nuntius antiquus

Belo Horizonte, v. IX, n. 2, jul.-dez. 2013

ISSN: 2179-7064 (impresso) - 1983-3636 (online)

contains mythological pardoxa focused on metamorphoses from human

shape into a river (Phathon), into poplars dropping amber tears (the
Heliades), and into sweet singing swans (Cycni), all concentrated around
the mythical river Eridanus.38 Thus, mythological marvels are built on
natural and aesthetic pardoxa (miraculous physical changes and the sweet
song of the swans).
The key-terms in Amber or Swans are credulity, expectation, and
finally disappointment.39 Lucian tells here a story of enchantment and
disenchantment. Under the spell of poetic mthoi, of wretched tales of
poets, he goes in search for amber and swans. Instead, the locals laugh
at him, showing that all these stories about their land were lies and
nonsense. His disenchantment is presented in terms of a strong contrast
between expectation and reality. His childish credulity and the propensity
to transfer mythical marvels into reality and historical time are in
discrepancy with the poverty and toil of the people living in a land
allegedly rich in amber.40 With their ironical laughter, they shake off
the spell of pardoxa for the nave traveler. For the readers of pardoxa,
marvels are their only measure of a remote reality which they cannot
check, because they do not travel to exotic lands unless through books.
Lucian attempts the impossible journey to the reality of mthoi, to
experience in real life the wonder he felt as a credulous reader. The
reality check however is disappointing, since the literary space filled
with pardoxa is identified with a desolate real space.
His own experience of brutal change from enchantment to
disenchantment is transferred by Lucian from his own story to his
audience:

38

Eur. Hipp. 732-751; Diod. 5.23; Ov. Met. 2.324-380, 7.371-379, 12.64-171; Pl. Phaed.
85; Plin. NH 10.32; Cic. Tusc. 1.30; Hyg. Fab. 152, 154; Luc. Dial.D. 24.3.
39
pe/peiken, 1; pisteu/saj, 3; pisteu/ontaj, 6; h1lpizon, 1; e0lpi/doj ou0 mikra~j, 4;
e0lpi/santej, e0lpi/saj, th=j e0lpi/doj, 6; a)patew&n, yeudolo/goj, yeudome/noij, 3;
e0yeusme/noj, 4; katayeudo/menoj, 5; e0capathqh=nai, toi=j pro\j to\ mei=zon e3kasta
e0cegoume/noij, 6; ou0 metri/wj mou kaqi/keto, 3; h0niw&mhn, 4; a)niw~ntai, 6.
40
If there were such a thing [i.e. amber], do you think that, for two obols, we
would row or pull our boats upstream, if we were able to get rich by picking up the
tears of the poplars? (3); cf. Lucians reaction: It was truly childish (paidi/ou
tino/j w(j a)lhqw~j e1rgon) to have believed the poets who falsely speak about
unbelievable things (a)pi/qana ou3twj yeudome/noij, 3).

70

POPESCU, Valentina. The Aesthetics of ..., p. 57-86

w#ste ka)gw_ nu=n de/dia u9pe\r e0mautou= mh\ u9mei=j a!rti a)figme/noi, kai\ tou=to
prw~ton a)kroaso/menoi h9mw~n, h1lektra& tina kai\ ku/knouj e0lpi/santej
eu9rh/sein par 0 h9mi=n, e1peita met 0 o0li/gou a)pe/lqhte katagelw~ntej tw~n
u9posxome/nwn u9mi=n toiau=ta polla_ keimh/lia e0nei=nai toi=j lo/goij
41
(6.3-8).

An important element is present in both cases: there is always a

third, a mediator between the perceiver and that which is perceived,
the authors who lie in mthoi, on the one hand, and the people who
wrongly exaggerate Lucians qualities, on the other. Thus, Lucian and
his rhetoric become the mthoi. The text ends with yet another
illustration of false perception due to a third. Objects seen under water
are distortedly enlarged and one needs to remove the distorting lens to
see their real dimension. Lucian stresses, therefore, the importance of
42
autopsa and of the use of ones own critical judgment in forming dxa.
The text opens itself to two levels of reading, one based on what it
says, another on what it conceals, or rather subtly pours into the ears of
the audience. At one level it deals with the expectations of a new audience
43
and serves what Brando calls uma retrica da diferena. Lucian clearly
separates himself from other authors, the poets who tell lies and the
44
sophists of his time whom he ironically praises in terms of gold. He
also separates himself from his own fame created by others and thus, by
destroying an existing false expectation, he creates a new one, an

41

Therefore, I too am now afraid on my account that you, who have just arrived
and are about to hear me now for the first time, expecting to find in me some amber
and swans, may later leave laughing at those who promised that many such treasures
were in my speeches./ Cf. the preceding gnome: With respect to many such
things people can be deceived, while they believe those who relate everything
exaggeratedly (polla_ toiau=ta e0capathqh=nai e1sti pisteu/ontaj toi=j pro\j to\
mei=zon e3kasta e0chgoume/noij, 6.1-2); cf. Gorg. Hel. 11: But those who have
persuaded and still persuade so many people, about so many things, are forgers of
false discourse (o3soi de\ o3souj peri\ o3swn kai\ e1peisan kai\ pei/qousi de\ yeudh=
lo/gon pla&ssantej). This is the only prolali in which Lucian himself is the keycharacter in the anecdote that serves as applicatio for the context of performance;
Nesselrath, op. cit., p. 126.
42
Lucian himself incurs the risk of being a third when he narrates the mythological
stories to the locals who, however, have the advantage of autopsa and do not fall
victim to his enchantment, but on the contrary disenchant him.
43
Cf. Brando, op. cit., p. 76.
44
Cf. Luc. Prom. es 1 where the same praises are showered on the forensic rhetors.

71

nuntius antiquus

Belo Horizonte, v. IX, n. 2, jul.-dez. 2013

ISSN: 2179-7064 (impresso) - 1983-3636 (online)

expectation of the difference.45 Lucian addresses here mainly a new

audience. They are, however, already under the spell of a false dxa. His
attempt to educate a new public, therefore, turns into an act of reeducation, of disenchantment. Lucian makes Eridanus, as the setting of
deceiving pardoxa tales, the paradigm for authors who claim the reality
of the marvels they write, a guild from which he clearly separates himself.46
In his use of pardoxa stories, he does not exploit their alleged factuality,
but their obvious lack of reality. He claims that his search for mythological
marvels was not the purpose itself of his voyage, but only a marginal
diversion from it, an accessory of his main rhetorical journey. He, thus,
reduces his marvel stories to their traditional role of mere entertaining
digression in more noble literary genres. Yet, this is an inverted manner
of paradoxo-grapha, in which the astonishment effect is undermined by
revealing the falseness of pardoxa. kplexis, however, as aesthetic emotion,
is transferred from these pseudo-pardoxa to the author himself, in a
paradoxical self-introduction. The author becomes the pardoxon here,
defying the dxa that his audience has of him.
At another level, Lucian uses the paradoxographical hypotext to
hint at his own deceit in self-presentation. In an alleged demystification
of his dxa, he describes his art as simple (a(ploi+ko/n), without mythic
47
tales (a!muqon) and without song (ou0de/ tij w)|dh\ pro/sestin). Yet he
emphasizes that his audience must have already noticed these qualities
during the current performance (o9ra~te h1dh, 6). However, up to this
point, his text has been all but simple in fact, full of metaphors that
bridge intricate correspondences; all but a!muqon since mythical marvels
are its foundation; and all but non-musical one has only to listen to its
48
first sentence and notice its exquisite rhythmic construction. Thus, by
claiming to disenchant his audience, he enchants them even more.

45

Cf. Brando, op. cit., p. 76.

Cf. Luc. VH 1.1-4.
47
Cf. Villani, op. cit., p. 228.
48
H
) le/ktrou pe/ri kai\ u9ma~j dhladh\ o9 mu=qoj pe/peiken, ai0gei/rouj e0pi\ tw~| H
0 ridanw~|
potamw~| dakru/ein au0to\ qrhnou/saj to\n Fae/qonta, kai\ a)delfa&j ge ei]nai ta_j
ai0gei/rouj e0kei/naj tou= Fae/qontoj, ei]ta o0durome/naj to\ meira&kion a)llagh=nai
e0j ta_ de/ndra, kai\ a)posta/zein e1ti au0tw~n da&kruon dh=qen to\ h1lektron (About
amber, you too, certainly, believe the story that poplars on the banks of the river
Eridanus shed it in their tears, lamenting Phathon, and that those poplars are the
very sisters of Phathon, and that, while mourning their young brother, they were
turned into trees, and that the amber, clearly their tears, still drips, 1). The sentence
46

72

POPESCU, Valentina. The Aesthetics of ..., p. 57-86

In Amber or Swans we have an incipient Lucianic trend of correcting

widespread false dxa formed around him. He evades the literary
categorization to which his familiar audience has subjected him and,
while indirectly reorienting this reception too, he specifically guides
his new audience by performing a subtle correction. Yet, within this
orientation process, he cunningly works with the paradoxographers
deceiving pen. He defines himself through what he is not an artist
inventively lying, and his work through what it is not mere lies.
However, his stories here seem to contradict this assertive discourse
of difference. By deceitfully ignoring the threshold between denotative
and connotative, Lucian creates a sophisticated discourse in which
pardoxa, obvious lies that others pass around as truth, are used for
what they really are: exposed lies no longer masquerading as true stories.
While they acquire a new value, almost inconceivable in a culture where
value and truth are inseparable, the author himself appears as a pardoxon,
one who condemns lying while, at the same time, enjoyably working
and entertaining with naked lies. He still addresses, in a tacit conspiracy
between storyteller and listener, the audiences concealed desire for
pleasant lies. Instead of their searching far and wide for marvelous
treasures and artistic pleasures, Lucian offers himself to the audience
as an aesthetic pardoxon, unwrapped from the deceiving package of
altering dxa, yet wrapped in his own mystery as artist, resisting an
easy perception while all the while cunningly claiming it.
As dxa precedes him for the first time, a now established Lucian
no longer looks for the approval of his audience, but for establishing a
49
degree of difference in his reception. He has overcome the complex
of the fringe, of the barbarian not yet completely integrated into the

has a ring composition, starting with (at the expense of an inversion) and ending in
the same word (h0le/ktrou / h1lektron) with equal metrical value, a sequence of
three long syllables (the last syllable in h1lektron is long by necessity because the
next period starts with a consonant). There are also other repetitions of the same
metrical value, like ai0gei/rouj / ai0gei/rouj, dakru/ein / da&kruon (followed by
consonant) and to\n Fae/qonta / tou= Fae/qontoj, the last one equaling in both
cases the end of a dactylic hexameter. The rhythm gains elevation through the
careful use of other prosodic bits, like the sequence of four trochees in a)llagh=nai
e0j ta_ de/ndra. Homoioteleuton also confers musicality to the text: tw~| H
0 ridanw~|
potamw|~. The passage immediately following offers an even better example:
toiau=ta ga_r a)me/lei kai\ au0to\j a)kou/wn tw~n poihtw~n a)|do/ntwn h1lpizon.
Obviously, even from the beginning, the text proves not to lack melodiousness.
49
Cf. Nesselrath, op. cit., p. 125-126.

73

nuntius antiquus

Belo Horizonte, v. IX, n. 2, jul.-dez. 2013

ISSN: 2179-7064 (impresso) - 1983-3636 (online)

core of Greekness. In Amber, Lucian is the Greek traveler in a remote,

barbarian land. The locals laugh at him, just as the Athenians laughed at
Anacharsis the barbarian, a sign that otherness is equally perceived as
pardoxon by both sides, no matter the degree of cultural progress. In
Amber, unlike The Scythian, the perspective of the wondrous, the exotic,
is no longer that of a barbarian. It is Lucians own perspective as
culturally Greek, nourished by Greek myths. Lucians eye for the
pardoxon is here that of a Greek, reflecting the Greeks perception of
pardoxa, just as in The Dipsdes. Thus, Lucian seems to feel already
embraced now into Greekness as its entitled citizen.
In Zeuxis or Antioch, part of Lucians audience is in awe of his
novelty:
w@ th=j kaino/thtoj. H
9 ra&kleij, th=j paradocologi/aj. eu0mh/xanoj
a!nqrwpoj. ou0de\n a!n tij ei1poi th=j e0pinoi/aj nearw&teron (1.13-16).50

He aims to correct this perception and be admired not just for

his literary exoticism, but also for his artistry, for creating an aesthetic
marvel.
In the first illustrative anecdote, Lucian again displays his painting
with words,51 in the kphrasis of a celebrated painting by Zeuxis. The
famous painter, as an innovator in art, is the perfect example for Lucians
breaking with the literary generic tradition. Zeuxis art is paradigmatic
for its audacious novelty (kainopoiei=n, a)llo/koton, ce/non, 3) and a
particular example of it is the innovative representation of a family of
centaurs, a copy of which Lucian claims to have seen in Athens.
In his detailed description of the painting, Lucian pays a keen eye
to the painters skills (te/xnh), specifically to the precision of line, the
suitable blending of colors and perfect brushwork, the masterful use
of the effects of shadow, the perspective, proportion, and harmony of
the parts. However, he particularly admires Zeuxis variety and skillful
combination. On the one hand, he is in awe (qaumasto/n, 6) of the
manifold genius of the painters art (poiki/lwj 5), illustrated by the
diverse attitudes and emotions of the characters in the painting, from
tenderness to wildness, especially in the image of the baby centaurs:

50

Oh, what novelty! Heracles, what strange stories! What an inventive artist! No
one could be more ingenious!
51
Luc. Dom. 21.14, Calumn. 2.1-2.

74

POPESCU, Valentina. The Aesthetics of ..., p. 57-86

tw~n neognw~n de\ to\ e0n tw~| nhpi/w| o3mwj a!grion kai\ e0n tw~| a(palw~| h1dh
52
fobero/n (6.10-11).

On the other hand, he praises the subtle technique of the chiaroscuro,

of contrasts and transitions, perfectly exemplified by the beautiful image
of the female centaur, in which the harmonious blending and joining of
human and animal shapes (h9 mi/cij de\ kai\ h9 a(rmogh/, 6) is extremely smooth
53
and gentle.
Zeuxis expects to astonish his public with this display of his art
(e0kplh/cein e0pi\ th=| te/xnh|). However, although his admirers are in awe,
their response is due exclusively to the strangeness of his art object
(to\ ce/non). Therefore, seeing that the novelty of the subject matter
(h9 u9 p o/ q esij kainh\ ou] s a, 7) overshadows, in an improper act of
reception, his exquisite technique and detailed accuracy, Zeuxis decides
to have the picture covered and taken back to his workshop. He
protests with symbolic withdrawal, concealing art meant for display,
thus de-creating the art object and abandoning the creative process.
In the second anecdote, Antiochus wins a spectacular victory
54
against the Galatians by using elephants. The unexpected sight of the
strange beasts (to\ para&docon) brings the enemy into a state of shock
55
and confusion. To the astonishment produced by the novel subject in
the Zeuxis story, the centaurs, corresponds here astonishment from another
novel sight, that of the unfamiliar elephants (to\ kaino\n tou= qea&matoj
e0ce/plhce, 11). The applicatio compares the perception of Lucians display
with an inadequate army saved only by elephants, or other strange monsters
(ce/na mormolu/keia), or by the use of marvels (qaumatopoii/a), all
epitomizing novelty and strangeness (kaino\n kai\ tera&stion, 12).
This prolali echoes A Literary Prometheus, a text most probably
close in date, where Lucian talks in similar terms about his generic
56
innovation, the mxis of dialogue and comedy. There too, Lucian uses
52

As for the young ones, in their gentle infancy there was nevertheless something
wild and in their tenderness something frightening.
53
Cf. Rouveret, op. cit., p. 158-159.
54
Cf. Xen. Hipp. 8.17-21 on surprise in military tactics.
55
See Luc. Laps. 9 for a different version on the battle; cf. Just. Epit. 25; cf. Pol. 5.84-85 for
the reaction of the African elephants to the Indian elephants in the battle of Raphia, 217
B. C., between Ptolemy IV and Antiochus III; Scullard, op. cit., p. 122; Sage, op. cit.,
p. 208-210.
56
Zeuxis is likely close in date not only to A Literary Prometheus, which is probably
earlier, but also to other texts that discuss more specifically Lucians literary
innovation (Luc. Bis acc., Pisc.); Hall, op. cit., p. 29.

75

nuntius antiquus

Belo Horizonte, v. IX, n. 2, jul.-dez. 2013

ISSN: 2179-7064 (impresso) - 1983-3636 (online)

paradoxographical imagery and vocabulary to define his novel art object,

which is associated with hybrid creatures, monstrosities of nature. Yet
in A literary Prometheus, Lucian expresses his apprehension that his hybrid
novelty might not be well received just as the blending of its conflicting
parts might not be perceived as skillfully natural, but as an inconsistent
mixture of genres, of familiar and unfamiliar, tradition and novelty.
There, novelty as the result of literary hybridism still needs the authors
advocacy and its salvation lies in the art of blending.
In Zeuxis, on the other hand, the author expresses strong
confidence that he has already resolved the conflict of the elements
combined in his literary melting pot, that he has already tamed his
monster and attenuated its wild demeanor. In fact, his art of mixing,
illustrated by Zeuxis mastery of the palette, so competent that it creates
the impression of the natural, is now accomplished. On it Lucian wishes
to direct the focus of the audiences critical evaluation and enjoyment.
Once innovation is acknowledged as the essential and distinguishing
feature of his art, it is tchne the ever-proper aesthetic criterion that
measures the value of the art object. At this level of judgment, novelty
becomes only circumstantial (w#sper e0n prosqh/khj moi/ra|, 2.17).
Lucian wants his audience to overcome the stage of perceiving
his work as a generic pardoxon, a match for natural marvels, and to
acknowledge it as an aesthetic pardoxon, a marvel of tchne. The artist
himself shares the fortune of his art-object, which is the expression of
self. Therefore, just as his art-object shifts its paradoxical nature, from
novel and strange to an artistic marvel, the author too develops his
cultural identity from non-Greek to Greek, from a pardoxon as a
barbarian inventor to a pardoxon as an amazingly skillful artist working
with the consecrated Greek canons. The reaction to novelty is purely
emotional, while the response to an aesthetic marvel, equally strong
emotionally, is filtered through paidea. While a passive paidea remains
within the beaten path of fixed canons, which it sustains in an act of
obedient mmesis that equals slavery, 57 Lucian enacts here, for his
audience, an active form of paidea as creative response to tradition, an
artistic form of reflection on the familiar through the lens of otherness.
In Heracles, Lucian describes a painting of Heracles as Celtic
58
Ogmios, which he claims to have seen in Gaul. The kphrasis is gradually
57

Cf. Mestre; Gmez, op. cit.

Cf. Luc. Apol. 15 and Bis acc. 27 for his journey to Gaul. For an outline of the
scholarly debate on the reality of such a painting and on the significance of the
Celtic name see Nesselrath, op. cit., especially p. 133-134.
58

76

POPESCU, Valentina. The Aesthetics of ..., p. 57-86

built on pardoxa. Heracles is depicted as extremely old a hbris towards

Greek dxa. Very strangely (paradoco/taton), he drags after him a
cheerful crowd, bound by their ears with delicate cords of amber and
gold. Yet, as the strangest thing of all (pa&ntwn a)topw&taton, 3), the
painter supposedly in an aporetic gesture, since both of Heracles
hands are occupied with his traditional Greek attributes, the club and
the bow attached the chains to the pierced tongue of Heracles. This
ingenious solution, the deus ex machina of his artistic craft, is the key
point of the story. What now seems to the stranger an ingenious solution
to a perplexity will be revealed as the painters deliberate artistic choice
of expressing his own culture. Lastly, as a final delicate touch to the
climactic pardoxon, Heracles is turned towards his followers smiling,
sealing with serene contentment the unconceivable, joyful association
and conferring the pardoxon the status of pleasant norm (3).
The artists apora is transferred to Lucian the beholder (qauma&zwn
kai\ a)porw~n). He also feels a strong vexation (a)ganaktw~n, 4) that, in
contrast with Heracles peaceful smile, expresses his sense of hbris. A
vexed Lucian, coming from the Greek tradition, claims to feel his familiar
world threatened. A local old man solves his perplexity by explaining that
for the Celts Heracles is the god of speech, and thus reveals the painting as
59
an allegorical representation of charming lgos. The explanation of
Heracles old age lies in the fact that lgos attains perfection at this stage in
life, after a long process of maturation. Thus, the old Celt offers the
rationalization of what was perceived as a pardoxon, undoing it and solving
60
the strangers apora (lu/sw to\ ai1nigma, mh\ qauma&sh|j, 4). Therefore,
what seemed to the foreign beholder an expedient is now revealed as an
artistic expression that requires a hermeneutical exercise. It becomes the
59

Amato, op. cit., proposes the identification of the old Celt with Favorinus and
suggests that the art object may be a literary text, Favorinus De senect. (9-17 Barigazzi).
60
On allegorical painting see Rouveret, op. cit., p. 346-354; cf. Tabula Cebetis, in
which the painting represents a philosophical allegory and its explanation is
associated with the enigma of the Sphinx: e1sti ga_r h9 e0ch/ghsij e0oikui=a tw~| th=j
Sfiggo\j ai0ni/gmati (3.2); cf. Luc. Merc. cond. 42, Rhet. praec. 6. See Fitzgerald;
White, op. cit., on the problem of the association between Cebes of Thebes, the
Socratic apprentice (Pl. Phaed.) and the Tabula. Cf. Max. Tyr. Or. 4.3-5 on the
development of forms of expression from art, specifically poetry, to philosophy,
from allegorical to straightforward discourse. Cf. Porph. Antr. 3-4 on fiction (pla&sma)
using ai0ni/gmata (ai0ni/ttesqai) not for mere entertainment (ei0j yuxagwgi/an),
but as a form of argumentation for both philosophers and ordinary people (ou0 toi=j
sofoi=j mo/non, a)lla_ kai\ toi=j i0diw&taij); cf. Luc. VH 1.1.

77

nuntius antiquus

Belo Horizonte, v. IX, n. 2, jul.-dez. 2013

ISSN: 2179-7064 (impresso) - 1983-3636 (online)

essence of the artistic creation and serves as a skillful allusion to the problems
of interpretation of Lucians own work. Thus, Lucian hints to his audience
not to dismiss his rhetorical/ literary pardoxa as crafty expedients, but to
exercise paidea in an attempt to understand them as valid and deliberate
artistic means and to appreciate the subtleness behind them.
The old Celt is himself the result of a cultural mxis, being well
educated in Greek culture, for which mastery of Greek language is both
the key and the measure (ou0k a)pai/deutoj ta_ h9me/tera, w(j e1deicen
a)kribw~j E
9 lla&da fwnh\n a)fiei/j, 4). The Celts Greek paidea lies not
only in the perfect Greek he speaks, or in his ability to quote from
Greek literature in order to support the arguments of the barbarian
perspective on the matter of lgos. It also finds its expression in his
understanding of a Greeks perplexity when confronted with otherness.
After Heracles, he is the second illustration for Lucian, himself of nonHellenic ethnicity and claiming to be now old too. They are both the
result of a cultural mxis, have a more acute feeling of the otherness,
and are able to translate it between different cultures.
The old Heracles represents the maturation of lgos through
paidea. Lucian confesses to a certain apprehension about returning to
rhetorical epdeixis, submitting himself again (au]qij, 7) to the judgment
of a large educated audience. He anticipates that some of them, especially
the young, might object to his daring (tolmw~n, 7), to his paradox of an
old man acting in the spirit of the youth, in spite of his ripe age. Their
objections, expressed typically for pepaideumnoi in literary quotations,
contradict the argument built by the old Celt, and are then contradicted
by Lucian himself in a classic sophistic exercise of dssoi lgoi. He
supports his decision to start performing again, it is not clear after how
long a hiatus, with the argument of the old persuasive Heracles. The
flower of youth is spent in a long effort towards paidea and distilled in
the blooming flower of lgos. In a grand rhetorical manner, Lucian says
farewell to youth and love: it is time now for the seasonably late and
splendid bloom of eloquence to enthrall the audience in the manner of
the Celtic Heracles.
Rhetorical persuasion in the realm of ideas, already undermined
by the first sophists skillful play with opposite arguments, has long
lost its prominence through changes in the socio-political circumstances.
Rhetorical display, epdeixis, targets now a different sensibility in the
audience, the need for entertainment through paidea. Persuasion is often
reduced to convincing the audience of the rhetors skills. Lucian sees
persuasion, now aesthetic in nature, as a type of rapture with words,
similar to the forceful magic power of poetry and fiction/ fictitious
78

POPESCU, Valentina. The Aesthetics of ..., p. 57-86

discourse in general, such as Gorgias discusses in his Helen.61 Lucian

puts a final touch on the prolali through his comparison with Odysseus
disguised as an old beggar, who astonishes the suitors when his might
is unveiled from under the rags (Od. 18.66-74). Just like Odysseus,
Lucian is polu/tropoj, much travelled on the seas of rhetoric, having
acquired multifaceted, versatile artistic skills, and master of a crafty, deceitful
discourse.62
After an alleged hiatus, Lucian returns to the rhetorical performance
to re-establish himself by displaying and reaffirming his paidea before
this audience of pepaideumnoi who, although silent, testify through their
presence, to their long approval of his paradoxical stance and artistic
worth. Willingly and cheerfully, they have long let themselves be
enslaved to this barbarian Heracles, who smiles peacefully while dragging
them by the ears through an enthralling adventure of amber and gold,
beauty and paidea, the voyage of his toiling Greek lgos.
In Dionysus, Lucian revisits the problem of reception through
two Dionysiac mthoi with pronounced paradoxographical features.63
The first mthos narrates the Indian perception of the Dionysiac thasos
as a complex of pardoxa. While Dionysus and his troops approach their
territory, the Indians send scouts to inspect the invaders. Lucian offers
his audience a detailed description through their eyes, culturally
64
unaccustomed to such a vision.
Learning of an effeminate and hybrid army, the Indians do not
find it a match for their military prowess. They avoid confrontation
with such an unfit enemy, against which they consider, at most, to
dispatch their women. However, when they learn that Dionysus troops
have set fire to their country, they hastily set out for battle, but encounter

61

Gorg. Hel. 11-12; cf. Zeno fr. 278 (Diog. Laert. 7.24); cf. Plut. Rect. rat. aud. 37.f 1138.b 3 (on Theophr. fr. 91 W).
62
Cf. Jones, op. cit., p. 14. Cf. Luc. Zeux. 5.11; Hom. Od. 1.1, 10.330; Pl. Hp. mi. 369e
5-370a 2.
63
Cf. Branham, op. cit., 1985 (and 1989), p. 43-46, p. 89-90; Nesselrath, op. cit., p. 135139; Georgiadou; Larmour, op. cit., p. 34-36; Urea Bracero, op. cit., p. 49, p. 74-79,
p. 81; Camerotto, op. cit., p. 120-129; Villani, op. cit.; Brando, op. cit., p. 137-142;
Santini, op. cit., p. 75. On attempts to couple it with a Lucianic text for which it
served as prolali see cf. Thimme, op. cit.; Anderson, op. cit., 1976, p. 262-264;
Georgiadou; Larmour, op. cit., p. 51-52.
64
See Branham, op. cit., p. 44-45 on the formalist concept of estrangement applied to
this passage.

79

nuntius antiquus

Belo Horizonte, v. IX, n. 2, jul.-dez. 2013

ISSN: 2179-7064 (impresso) - 1983-3636 (online)

terrible surprises, pardoxa. The frenzied, disarrayed thasos becomes

suddenly a well-organized army, while their noisy strategy still bears
the marks of the boisterous Dionysiac revel. The Indians react to the
description of the strange thasos (a)llo/kota) with laughter, derision,
and even sympathetic condescendence (katafronh=sai, kataghla~n,
e0leei=n, e0ge/lwn, 1, 3), but when they confront this bizarre enemy on
the battleground their immediate reactions are fright and disarrayed
flight (su\n ou0deni\ ko/smw| e1feugon, 4).
The Indians reactions are paradigmatic of the different human
responses to different types of pardoxa. Laughter mixed with
condescendence is the typical response to human freaks, perceived
always through the comparison not only with normality, but especially
with ones own sense of self-normality.65 At the direct contact with the
Donysiac pardoxa, the Indians become terrified and run away in an
irrational fashion, as humans usually do when encountering animal
monsters. 66 These different reactions are also illustrative of human
response to the degree of their contact with pardoxa, whether real or,
at least partly, fictional, whether of autoptic perception or perceived
through an intermediary (e.g. the writer of marvels or, here, the
scouts).67 The distinction between reality and report, nature and lgos,
makes pardoxa entertaining, as in the case of paradoxography. In art,
unlike in nature, pardoxa filtered through the creative genius of the
artist become enjoyable and produce laughter. Yet this laughter is of a
different sort: not derision, but the laughter of pleasure given by the
experience of lgos and paidea.
Lucian deals here with two different levels of audience and paidea.
Many (oi9 polloi/) are tempted to snub his novel performance (tou\j kainou\j
tw~n lo/gwn), as the Indians snub Dionysus, having formed a wrong dxa
based on its comic appearance. Others, on the other hand, may come to
enjoy exclusively the comic aspect of the performance. Bewildered by the
authors subtly veiled serious stance (tw~| parado/cw| teqorubhme/noi, 5),

65

Pliny says that nature created strange creatures of the human race as a jest,
amusement for herself and novel marvels for us (haec atque talia ex hominum genere
ludibria sibi, nobis miracula ingeniosa fecit natura, HN 7.2.32).
66
In Luc. Prom. es 4, the Egyptians manifest derision and repulsion towards a human
freak (oi9 me\n polloi\ e0ge/lwn, oi9 de/ tinej w(j e0pi\ te/rati e0musa&ttonto), while
they are frightened and shun an unusual black camel (e0fobh/qhsan kai\ o0li/gou
dei=n e1fugon a)naqoro/ntej).
67

Cf. Luc. Prom es; Zeux.

80

POPESCU, Valentina. The Aesthetics of ..., p. 57-86

they do not even dare to praise his display. Paradoxically, here Lucian calls
the lite oi9 polloi/ as the majority of his established audience, those many
who, having forgotten the sacred communion they shared with him long
68
ago as palaioi\ sumpo/tai, due to his pause, need to be re-educated. He
invites them to rekindle their communion and reminds them of the values
69
of his paradoxical spoudogloion. These are the usually serious audience,
70
the pepaideumnoi earnest about paidea. The prw&th a)koh/ (4) is, in their
case, the first level of perception of his utterance that can induce a false
dxa. Those who come only for the comic appearance are instead biased
71
either by a false report, or again by a mistaken interpretation. They,
however, are not serious with respect to paidea and thus represent the
non-lite. These need to be educated through the prolali. Their
bewilderment and hesitation are the expression of their lack of paidea. All,
however, will end up Lucian confidently professes (qarrw~ n
e0pagge/llomai, 5) like the Indians of the story, captured by his mixed,
72
paradoxical lgos.
Both the lite and the non-lite have incomplete, although different,
responses to Lucians spoudogloion, with some looking exclusively for
the serious, others for the comic elements. A comprehensive reaction to
spoudogloion is attainable by an ideal lite, the pepaideumnoi, which Lucian
73
does not always feel fortunate enough to have as audience. Yet he never
stops, not even in his old age, encouraging pepaideumnoi to perfect
themselves and to attain the level of subtlety and paidea that would allow
them to grasp all the facets of his display.

68

Santini, op. cit., p. 76-81 assumes that both groups represent the non-lite, usually
referred as oi9 polloi/, since the pepaideumnoi are clearly free from misconceptions.
She argues that the pepaideumnoi are only the target of the second mthos, deliberately
left without an applicatio, because the lite would not need an explanation (on the
lack of expressed applicatio for the second mthos see also Villani, op. cit., p. 222).
Santini misses the point that Lucians invitation to be rejoined in the sacred rites of
Dionysus by his old revel companions addresses the groups that she interprets as
non-lite (a)lla_ qarrw~n e0pagge/llomai au0toi=j, 5). However, she later identifies
the sumpo/tai as pepaideumnoi.
69
Cf. Camerotto, op. cit., p. 128-129; Santini, op. cit., p. 76.
70
Cf. Luc. VH 1.
71
Cf. Luc. Electr. Camerotto, op. cit., p. 275.
72
Cf. Luc. Herc.
73
Cf. Santini, op. cit., p. 76; Camerotto, op. cit., p. 128-129.

81

nuntius antiquus

Belo Horizonte, v. IX, n. 2, jul.-dez. 2013

ISSN: 2179-7064 (impresso) - 1983-3636 (online)

The second Dionysiac mthos is focused on an Indian marvel.

Old men drink once a year, during the festival of Dionysus, from a
spring consecrated to Silenus and, becoming drunk and inspired,
speak incessantly, yet charmingly. Yet the strangest thing of all
(to\ paradoco/taton) is this:
h2n ga_r a)telh= o9 ge/rwn metacu\ katali/ph| o4n diech/e| i to\n lo/gon, du/ntoj
h9li/ou kwluqei\j e0pi\ pe/raj au0to\n e0pecelqei=n, e0j ne/wta piw_n au]qij
e0kei=na suna&ptei a$ pe/rusi le/gonta h9 me/qh au0to\n kate/lipen
(7.20-25).74

This mthos is left without an applicatio, in the spirit of the sacred

and unutterable rites of Dionysus, yet understood by his audience as
his fellow initiates and symptai. Lucian associates himself with Silenus,
thus with the Dionysiac mysteries, as well as with the lgos of Socrates,
whom Alcibiades likens, in a sympotic context, to the old companion
75
of the god. The sequence of silence and eloquence is illustrative of
76
Lucians break followed by the comeback to rhetorical performance.
It is also a reference to his consistency, in spite of the hiatus, in practicing
in old age the same type of rhetoric he professed when younger. It may
also be an ironical anticipation of a long performance to follow. This
prolali, whether or not Lucians last, bears testimony to his continuous
struggle to validate his generic mxis, including the serio-comic, as well
as the mxis of enthrallment and thoughtful lgos. He invites his symptai
to drink from his cratr, to have their fill of his literary mixing bowl.

***
So what has this Dionysus to do with Dionysus? What has this Lucian
with his ever-changing faces, from the young inexperienced

74

If an old man stops in the middle of his discourse, interrupted by the sunset,
next year, drinking again, he resumes it, where drunkenness/ inspiration left him
the year before. On water, wine and/ or madness see Luc. VH 1.5-7; Antig. 145,
149, 164; Par.Flor. 1, 12, 13, 14, 18, 20, 24; Par.Pal. 5; Par. Vat. 12, 22.
75
Pl. Symp. 215a-b; Urea Bracero, op. cit., p. 76-77; Camerotto, op. cit., p. 129 n. 222;
Santini, op. cit., p. 84 (Lucians modelli di eloquenza sono il divino Socrate e il
trascinante Odisseo); for a detailed parallel reading of Pl. Phaedr. and Luc. Bacch.,
including the interminable speech of Socrates vs. that of Silenus see Santini, op. cit.,
p. 85-86.
76
Cf. Villani, op. cit., p. 221.

82

POPESCU, Valentina. The Aesthetics of ..., p. 57-86

77

Harmonides to the old, seducing Heracles to do with Lucian? The

prolalia offer a glimpse at different stages of his rhetorical career, from
the hesitant young barbarian looking for the proxena and phila of the
Greek lite, to the accomplished Greek looking for approval for his
harmoniously blended hybrids, from the bewildered stranger to the
bewilderment of the Greeks. If pardoxa are equally a favorite delight
78
and an instrument of seduction, Lucian uniquely makes them his own.
79
In these little pieces that serve as hors-duvre au repas verbal,
Lucian uses pardoxa for their value per se, to shock and please, as useful
tricks from the sophists rich bag, but also as paradigms for his work
and its reception. He constantly addresses the pepaideumnoi from whom
he expects a reaction different from that of the non-lite, whom he
usually sets in parallel with barbarians (Egyptians, Galatians, and
Indians). His intended effect upon the audience is a more complex
form of kplexis coming both from novelty and from tchne. This
different type of reception is illustrated by another sort of barbarian,
presented not as an ethnic group, but individualized and named,
bewildered by Greek paidea (Anacharsis, Toxaris). He elevates the
pleasure produced by pardoxa from the level of a (pseudo-)cognitive
emotion to an aesthetic one. Ekphrastic discourse, a favorite rhetorical
exercise in the Lucianic corpus, praises other art objects for their beauty,
their marvelous edos. Lucian, in turn, elevates discourse itself to a
80
pardoxon as aesthetic marvel, both as paradoxical genre edos and tchne.

Bibliography
AMATO, E. Luciano e lanonimo filosofo Celta di Hercules 4: proposta di
identificazione. SO, Oslo, vol. 79, p. 128-149, 2004.
ANDERSON, G. Some alleged relationships in Lucians Opuscula. AJP,
Baltimore, vol. 97, n. 3, p. 262-275, 1976.
ANDERSON, G. Patterns in Lucians prolalia. Philologus, Gttingen, vol. 121,
p. 313-315, 1977.

77

Luc. Bacch. 5.1-2.

Lucians pardoxa are more prominent and more sophisticated than the famous
triple paradox of Favorinus; Philostr. VS 489. 11-16; Gleason, op. cit.
79
Reardon, op. cit., p. 165.
80
Cf. Giannini, op. cit., p. 249-250.
78

83

nuntius antiquus

Belo Horizonte, v. IX, n. 2, jul.-dez. 2013

ISSN: 2179-7064 (impresso) - 1983-3636 (online)

ANDERSON, G. The Second Sophistic: a cultural phenomenon in the Roman Empire.

London: Routledge, 1993.
BASLEZ, M.-F. Ltranger dans la Grce antique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1984.
BEAGON, M. The Elder Pliny on the human animal: Natural History, Book 7. Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 2005.
BELFIORE, E. Ovids encomium of Helen. CJ , Provo, UT, vol. 76, n. 2, p. 136148, 1980-1981
BLIS, A. Un Ajax et deux Timothe: (P. Berol. n 6870). REG, Paris, vol. 111,
n. 1, p. 74-100, 1998.
BLIS, A. Timothe, laulte thbain. RBPh, Bruxelles, vol. 80, n. 1, p. 107-123,
2002.
BOMPAIRE, J. Lucien crivain, imitation et cration. Paris: E. de. Boccard, 1958.
BRANDO, J. L. A potica do Hipocentauro: literatura, sociedade e discurso ficcional em
Luciano de Samsata. Belo Horizonte: UFMG, 2001.
BRANHAM, R. B. Introducing a sophist: Lucians prologues. TAPA, Cleveland,
OH, vol. 115, p. 237-243, 1985 (republished in BRANHAM. Unruly eloquence.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989).
CAMEROTTO, A. Le metamorfosi della parola: studi sulla parodia in Luciano di Samosata.
Pisa: Istituti editoriali e poligrafici internazionali, 1998.
EVANS, J. A. S. Father of History or father of lies: the reputation of Herodotus. CJ,
Provo, UT, vol. 64, n. 1, p.11-17, 1968.
FITZGERALD, J. T.; WHITE, L. M. The tabula of Cebes. Chico, CA: Scholars Press,
1983.
FRASER, P. M. Ptolemaic Alexandria. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1972.
GALLAVOTTI, C. Luciano nella sua evoluzione artistica e spirituale. Lanciano: Giuseppe
Carabba, 1932.
GEORGIADOU, A.; LARMOUR, D. H. J. The prolaliae to Lucians Verae
Historiae. Eranos, Oxford, GA, vol. 93, p. 100-112, 1995.
GIANNINI, A. Studi sulla paradossografia greca, I. Da Omero a Callimaco: motive
e forme del meraviglioso. RIL, Milano, vol. 97, p. 247-266, 1963.
GLEASON, M. W. Making men: Sophists and self-presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 1995.
GORRINI, M. E. Toxaris, o9 ce/noj i0atro/j. Athenaeum, Pavia, vol. 91, n. 2, p. 435-443,
2003.
HALL, J. A. Lucians satire. New York: Arno, 1981.
HARTOG, F. Le miroir dHrodote: essai sur la reprsentation de lautre. Paris: Gallimard,
1980.
HORDERN, J. H. The fragments of Timotheus of Miletus. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2002.

84

POPESCU, Valentina. The Aesthetics of ..., p. 57-86

JOHNSON, W. A. Oral performance and the composition of Herodotus

Histories. GRBS, Durham, NC, vol. 35, n. 3, p. 229-254, 1994.
JONES, C. P. Culture and society in Lucian. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 1986.
KINDSTRAND, J. F. Anacharsis: the legend and the Apophthegmata. Uppsala: Uppsala
Universitet, 1981.
MESTRE, F.; GMEZ, P. Retrica, comedia, dilogo: la fusin de gneros en la
literatura griega del s. II d.C. Myrtia, Murcia, vol. 16, p. 111-122, 2001.
MRAS, K. Die prolalia/ bei den griechischen Schriftstellern. WS, Wien, vol. 64,
p. 71-81, 1949.
NESSELRATH, H. G. Lucians introductions. In: RUSSELL, D. A. (org.). Antonine
literature. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990, p. 111-140.
PERNOT, L. La rhtorique de lloge dans le monde grco-romain. Paris: Institut dtudes
augustiniennes, 1993.
REARDON, B. P. Courants littraires grecs des IIe et IIIe sicles aprs J.-C. Paris: Les Belles
Lettres, 1971.
ROBINSON, C. Lucian and his influence in Europe. London: Duckworth, 1979.
ROTHSTEIN, M. Quaestiones Lucianeae. Berlin: Mayer und Mller, 1888.
ROUVERET, A. Histoire et imaginaire de la peinture ancienne: Ve sicle av. J.C.-Ier sicle ap.
J.C. Rome: cole Franaise de Rome, 1989.
RUSSELL, D. A. Greek declamation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
SAGE, M. M. Warfare in ancient Greece. London/ New York: Routledge, 1996.
SANTINI, L. Autoritratto dellartista: Luciano nella prolali Dioniso. AUFL,
Ferrara, n. s. 2, p. 73-97, 2001.
SCHEPENS, G.; DELCROIX, K. Ancient paradoxography: origin, evolution,
production and reception. In: PECERE, O.; STRAMAGLIA, A. (org.). La letteratura
di consumo nel mondo greco-latino. Cassino: Universit degli studi di Cassino, 1996, p.
375-460.
SCULLARD, H. H. The elephant in the Greek and Roman world. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1974.
SEGAL, C. P. Gorgias and the psychology of the Logos. HSPh, Cambridge, MA,
vol. 66, p. 99-155, 1962.
STOCK, A. De prolaliarum usu rhetorico. Knigsberg Diss. Knigsberg: Hartung/
Regimonti, 1911.
THIMME, A. Zwei Festvorlesungen des Lukianos. Jahrbcher fr klassische Philologie,
Leipzig, vol. 37, p. 562-566, 1888.
UNGEFEHR-KORTUS, C. Anacharsis, der Typus des edlen, weisen Barbaren: ein Beitrag
zum Verstndnis griechischer Fremdheitserfahrung. Frankfurt am Main/ New York: P. Lang,
1996.

85

nuntius antiquus

Belo Horizonte, v. IX, n. 2, jul.-dez. 2013

ISSN: 2179-7064 (impresso) - 1983-3636 (online)

UREA BRACERO, J. El dilogo de Luciano: ejecucin, naturaleza, y procedimientos de

humor. Amsterdam: A.M. Hakkert, 1995.
VILLANI, B. Lironia nelle prolalie di Luciano. Quaderni del Dipartimento di filologia
linguistica e tradizione classica, Bologna, p. 217-233, 2000.
VISA-ONDARUHU, V. Parler et penser grec: les scythes Anacharsis et Toxaris
et lexprience rhtorique de Lucien. REA, Paris, vol. 110, n. 1, p. 175-194, 2008.
WEST, M. L. Ancient Greek music. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
WHITMARSH, T. Greek literature and the Roman Empire: the politics of imitation. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2001.
WHITMARSH, T. The Second Sophistic. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

86