verbal performances in lucian’s symposium

ΤΟΜΟΣ 16, Τεύχη 1-3 (2010-2012) ΑΘΗΝΑ 2012

Α ΡΧΑ Ι Ο ΓΝΩΣ Ι Α

000-010.QXD:000-010.QXD 11/4/12 10:06 AM Page 3

Π Ε Ρ Ι Ε Χ Ο Μ Ε Ν Α C O N T E N T S

ΜΕΛΕΤΕΣ - A RT I C L E SΓ . Δοντά ς , Μία ακόμα Βερενίκη στην Αθήνα .................................................................11Μ . W ę k o w s k i , When did the Symposion rise?Some Archaeological Considerations Regarding the Emergence of theGreek Aristocratic Banquet ..................................................................................................19N . G i a n n a k o p o u l o s , Remarks on the Decrees of the Euboean Citiesfor the Leukophryena ...................................................................................................49P. N a d i g , Hunting for Elephants. How the Ptolemieskept up with the Seleucids .....................................................................................................71I . A . P a p a p o s t o l o u , The Homeric Catalogue of Shipsand Aetolian Ethnicity ...........................................................................................................85Δ . Γ ρ η γ ο ρ ό π ο υ λ ο ς , Αρχαία Ρώμη και «Eκρωμαϊσμός»:Απαρχές και μετασχηματισμοί της έννοιας στην ιστοριογραφίακαι την αρχαιολογία από τον 19ο στον 21ο αιώνα .............................................................101Μ . Ι . Πωλ ο γ ι ώ ρ γ η , Δύο νεανικές ανδρικές κεφαλές ...............................................127Ξ . Χαρα λ α μ π ί δ ο υ , Κεραμικά ευρήματα από τη νεκρόπολητου Τσικαλαριού στη Νάξο: Παρατηρήσεις σχετικά με το ταφικόπεριβάλλον και τη χρήση των ευρημάτων ........................................................................149Α . Χατ ζ η π α ν α γ ι ώ τ ο υ , Μία αττική μελανόμορφη λήκυθος και άλλεςνεκρικές προσφορές από σωστική ανασκαφή στην Κάρυστο ...........................................187Φ . Α . Μπαλλά , ΗΔημητριάδα της Πελοποννήσου και οινομισματικές μαρτυρίες από την περίοδο της ίδρυσής της ................................................209A . Ve r g a d o s , Verbal Performances in Lucian’s Symposion ...............................225M . G i a n n a k i , Intertextual and Intercultural Dynamicsbetween Roman Comedy and Latin Love Elegy ...........................................................245A . Τ σ ι ο ύ σ ι α , Ιδιωτικές αιτήσεις στη Ρωμαϊκή Αίγυπτοαπό τον Αύγουστο μέχρι τον Διοκλητιανό ..........................................................................269Β . Λ ε ν τ ά κ η ς , Ερμηνευτικές παρατηρήσεις στον Λόγγο ..........................................283

ΣΥΜΜΕΙΚΤΑ - M I S C E L L A N E AΠ . Ράδης , Επισκευές τειχών και ιερών. Συγκριτική προσέγγιση τωνπαραγόντων ανάληψης επιδιορθωτικών εργασιών στην αρχαιότητα ............................289Ι . Πούλ ι ο ς , Εισαγωγή στη διαχείριση της πολιτισμικής κληρονομιάς:Ορολογία, έννοια και μοντέλα διαχείρισης .........................................................................321Τ . Πανά γ ο υ , Το αρχαίο θέατρο της Καρθαίας στην Κέα:!κθεση εργασιών έτους 2011 .............................................................................................343

000-010.QXD:000-010.QXD 11/4/12 10:06 AM Page 7

ΒΙΒΛΙΟΚΡΙΣΙΕΣ - B O O K R EV I EWS

Ν . Μπιργ ιάλας , Από την κοινωνική στην πολιτική πλειοψηφία: το στάδιοτης ισονομίας. Μελέτες για τις πολιτειακές μεταβολές ιδιαίτερα στον εκτόςΑθήνας αρχαίο ελληνικό κόσμο μεταξύ 550 και 479 π.Χ., Αθήνα 2009.( J. Roy) .......................................................................................................................379Δ . Πλάντζος , Ελληνική τέχνη και Αρχαιολογία (1100-30 π.Χ.), Αθήνα 2011(Λ. Κ. Μπουρνιάς) .................................................................................................................382B . B l a n d i n , Eretria. Fouilles et recherches XVII. Les pratiques funérairesd’époque géométrique à Erétrie, Gollion 2007.(N. Κούρου) ............................................................................................................................385S . L a n g d o n , Art and Identity in Dark Age Greece, 1100-700 BCE,Cambridge 2008.(N. Kourou) ...........................................................................................................................388C . B erna rd i n i, I bronzi della stipe di Kamiros, Atene 2006.(P.D. Scirpo) ...........................................................................................................................391E . M . Ma y A s t o n , Mixanthrôpoi: Animal-Human Hybrid Deitiesin Greek Religion (Kernos Suppl. 25), Liège 2011.(C.S.-D. Ananiades) .............................................................................................................393T. J. S m i t h , Komast Dancers in Archaic Greek Art, Oxford 2010.(N.A. Xαρoκόπος) ................................................................................................................401C . Hu g u e n o t , La tombe aux Érotes et la tombe d’Amarynthos. Eretria XIX,Gollion 2008.(M. Σμιτ Δούνα) ....................................................................................................................409Μ . Giannop ou lou, Pithoi. Technology and History of Storage Vesselsthrough the ages (BAR Inter. Series 2140), Oxford 2010.(Π. Βαλαβάνης) .....................................................................................................................415H.I . Flower , Roman Republics, Princeton 2010.(Χ. Κοκκινιά) ..........................................................................................................................419J.W. Hayes , The Athenian Agora XXXII. Roman Pottery: Fine-ware Imports,Princeton 2008.(Γ.Α. Ζάχος) ............................................................................................................................422T.T. Ce vo l i (επιμ.), Πομπηία. Η θαμμένη πόλη. Καθημερινή ζωή -Ιστορία - Τέχνη - Πολιτισμός, Αθήνα 2005.(P.D. Scirpo) ..........................................................................................................................432

000-010.QXD:000-010.QXD 11/4/12 10:06 AM Page 8

ATHANASSIOS VERGADOS

VERBAL PERFORMANCES IN LUCIAN’S SYMPOSION

(i) Introduction

In Lucian’s Symposion the narrator Lycinus informs his interlocutor Philonabout the events which occurred during the dinner-party that Aristaenetus, a

rich man with cultural pretensions, hosted to celebrate the wedding of his daugh-ter Cleanthis. This work belongs to a long literary tradition that begins withPlato’s Symposion, and several similarities with earlier literary symposia have beendetected.1 To give a few examples, the opening dialogue between Philon andLycinus is certainly meant to allude to the dialogue between Apollodorus and hishetairos at the beginning of Plato’s Symposion. Like Plato, Lucian includes aphysician in the company of the symposiasts, Dionicus, whose services will beneeded at the end of the banquet.2 The prominent role that is given to the clown(ch. 18-9) may owe something to Xenophon’s Symposion.3 Finally, the readingout of a letter (ch. 22-7) is reminiscent of Plutarch’s Symposion of the Seven Sageswhere the letter of Amasis to Bias, dealing with a well-known adynaton, to drinkup the sea, was read aloud (cf. Plu. Mor. 151b-c).

What distinguishes Lucian’s Symposion, however, is the combination of theform of the literary symposium (an orderly gathering of intellectuals) with theallusion to mythological feasts that went awry (e.g. that of the Lapiths or thewedding feast for Peleus and Thetis, hence the work’s title Symposion or

225

1. See especially ROMERI 2002, 195-207 who speaks of Lucian’s Symposion as an antisymposiumphilosophique. Furthermore BRANHAM 1989, 104-7 points out allusions to Plato’s Euthydemus;MÄNNLEIN 2000, 247 n. 4 and ANDERSON 1978, 372 detect allusions to the Phaedrus; andHELM 1967, 256-60 discusses the reminiscences of Plato, Xenophon and Plutarch; at 261-8 hediscusses the influence of Menippean Satire; on this matter, see also HALL 1981, 132 (scepti-cal) and 133-50 (criticism against Helm’s approach), and RELIHAN 1992, 224 with n. 34. Seefurther BOMPAIRE 1958, 313-318, and the overviews in RELIHAN 1992 and MARTIN 1921.

2. Cf. ANDERSON 1976, 48.3. Lucian’s Symposion (ch. 46) ends with Alcidamas’ stripping the flute-girl and attempting to

rape her, and subsequently the injured guests are carried out of Aristaenetus’ house. Could thisfinal scene be a twisted allusion to the final scene of Xenophon’s Symposion, where the guestswatch an erotic pantomime and subsequently all run excited to their homes?

11Verdagos.qxd:02karadimas.qxd 11/4/12 10:21 AM Page 225

Lapiths), that is put in the service of Lucian’s satire against philosophers andpseudo-intellectuals. In this paper I focus on two verbal performances that tookplace in this symposium and illustrate well this genre-bending: the epithalami-an hymn read out by Histiaeus the grammarian (ch. 41) and Hetoemocles’ let-ter (ch. 22-27). The former proves Histiaeus’ incompetence in the field inwhich he professes to be a specialist. In the latter Lucian casts the angry Stoic(!)philosopher as a multi-layered comic character while embedding into the mainnarrative a text that challenges the expectations of both the internal and exter-nal audiences, just as Lucian’s Symposion as a whole frustrates our expectations.For in a gathering of intellectuals one expects a series of speeches on an agreed-upon topic. The narrator draws our attention to this possibility when he has thePlatonic Ion say (ch. 37) παύσασθε . . . ἐγὼ γάρ, εἰ δοκεῖ, λόγων ἀφορμὰς ὑμῖν ἀξίωντῆς παρούσης ἑορτῆς καταθήσω ἐς τὸ μέσον· ὑμεῖς δὲ ἀφιλονείκως4 ἐρεῖτε καὶἀκούσεσθε ὥσπερ ἀμέλει καὶ παρὰ τῷ ἡμετέρῳ Πλάτωνι ἐν λόγοις ἡ πλείστη δια-τριβὴ ἐγένετο. This of course calls to mind Lucian’s debt to the PlatonicSymposion: the character Ion of the Lucianic Symposion alludes to the PlatonicSymposion as if aware of his own status as a fictional character in a work indebt-ed to Plato. Time and again we will witness these ‘high’ guests trying to act outthe earlier, prototypical, symposium, but falling short of their illustrious prede-cessors. The symposium described by Lucian/Lycinus becomes a comedy, orrather a parody and a farse.

Ion’s words draw our attention especially to the differences between the twotexts. In Plato the dinner proper was not described; it had already taken place,and the guests were wondering whether they should spend their time with theusual sympotic entertainment or entertain themselves through discussion.5They opted for the latter, and asked the flute-girls and other entertainers toleave; drunkenness really entered the banquet when Alcibiades burst in as anaklētos. In Lucian, on the other hand, when Ion utters these words we havealready witnessed the philosophers’ drunkenness, an initial fight, and the dinnerproper is still going on. We also get the sense that a great fight is building up.6

A. VERGADOS

226

4. MACLEOD and BOMPAIRE print ἀφιλονίκως, whereas earlier editors printed ἀφιλονείκως (so alsoLSJ, s.v. ἀφιλόνεικος).

5. FRAZIER 1994, 126. ROMERI 2002, 196 speaks of a silence alimentaire in Plato’s, Xenophon’s,and Plutarch’s Symposia.

6. See WILDBERGER 2005b for retardatio and build-up in the Symposion.


The philosophers show a great interest in food. In fact, food rather than wordsis the instrument with which the eris between the philosophers finds its expres-sion, and this eris replaces the discussion on Eros found in the Platonic Sympo-sion.7 From the beginning the philosopher guests are absorbed in mundanethings: Zenothemis the Stoic argues with the host for the seat of honor andthreatens to abandon the festivities if it is given to Hermon the Epicurean;Cleodemus the Peripatetic points out to Ion the Platonic philosopher howZenothemis is stuffing himself with food to the extent that his clothes arestained and is stealing food from the banquet, passing it on to his slave; Lycinus,the narrator, observes later how Cleodemus unsuccessfully attempts to seduce ahandsome wine-pouring boy; and later Alcidamas the Cynic (the banquet’sakletos) temporarily steals the show by challenging the clown in a pancrationmatch, in which he is defeated, to everyone’s amusement.

Lucian’s philosophers frustrate any attempt at organized speech or politeand thoughtful conversation (e.g. speeches in praise of Eros or Gamos, anappropriate topic in the context of a wedding celebration). Already in ch. 17 wefind out that the guests are drunk and the banquet has become loud, as severalof the guests “perform” simultaneously: Dionysodorus the orator declaimssome of his speeches to the by-standing slaves, Histiaeus the grammarian recitesverses that mix Pindar, Hesiod, Anacreon, and Homer (lying on the couch, atthat), while Zenothemis reads out from a book.

The second attempt is presented directly and with more detail. First, Ion thePlatonic philosopher who proposed that they engage in conversation, offers todeclaim a speech appropriate to a wedding, since not everyone’s philosophicalsystem examines the ideas or the immortality of the soul. But he goes on toclaim that the best thing would be not to need to marry at all, but to resort topederasty following the advice of Plato and Socrates, for this would lead us toἀρετή. But if we must marry, then wives should be common to all, so as to avoidrivalry (ζῆλος; ch. 39).8 The result is as expected laughter since this speech is notuttered ἐν καιρῷ.9


7. Cf. RELIHAN 1992, 224.8. Ion’s speech might also be a reflection of a problem often posed in symposia, viz. what is the

best, wisest, etc. Cf. RELIHAN 1992, 229.9. On the question of kairos in the Symposion’s quotations, see CAMEROTTO 1998, 53-58.

227


(ii) Histiaeus’ epithalamion

Ion’s inappropriate speech primes us for what is to follow. Indeed there comesan epithalamian song, one composed in such a way that the audience react withlaughter. This poem is a curious piece of verse, and it is important not onlybecause it ironically characterizes the grammarian, but also because it is nothingmore than a pastiche of disparate phrases and motifs. This epithalamian is yetanother indication that these ‘intellectual’ guests are not real masters of theirart, but men drawn to wealth, who pretend to possess knowledge which theyparade through random and inappropriate quotations of material that does notfit together, not unlike Petronius’ Trimalchio. These guests are not eclectics butpasticheurs.

Histiaeus introduces his poem with the words: παύσασθε...ἐγὼ γὰρ ὑμῖνἐπιθαλάμιον ἀναγνώσομαι. Already the verb ἀναγνώσομαι produces a strangeeffect when we consider that the wedding song consists of only eight lines,which Histiaeus ὁ βέλτιστος(!) who composed them cannot recite by heart.Further, we might have expected a lyric song, such as those by Sappho,10 butinstead we are faced with an elegiac poem that begins with the phrase ἢ οἵη. Thisincipit reminds of the Hesiodic Catalogue of Women, but this should not lead usto assume that the bride, Cleanthis, is cast by Histiaeus as a heroine of early(genealogical) epic. The Hesiodic Catalogue narrates stories of women whowere united with gods, but the bridegroom, in front of whom this poem is recit-ed, is certainly not divine. This implicit comparison of Cleanthis and thewomen of Hesiod’s Catalogue is then inopportune in the context of a weddingcelebration of mortals, while the archaic sounding beginning of this short poemis not matched by its content or the versifier’s competence.

Besides the inappropriateness of Histiaeus’ ideas, his versification is monot-onous and false. Scholars have attempted to emend the transmitted text so as toproduce correct verses, assuming textual corruption rather than metrical incom-petence. But in doing this they ignore not only what the scholia have remarked

A. VERGADOS

10. Theoc. 18, a hexameter poem, is referred to as an epithalamion in the scholia and its title, butat line 8 the term hymenaios is used. On epithalamia, see WHEELER 1930, MUTH 1954, esp. 23,37-45, CONTIADES-TSITSONI 1990 who offers an account of the ancient Greek marriage cere-mony in ch. 2, and LAMBIN 1992, 85-103.

228


on this short poem (p. 35 Rabe: ὅλα τὰ ἐλεγεῖα χωλά11!), but also the narrator’sjudgment of Histiaeus attempts at versification in ch. 17:ὁ δὲ Ἱστιαῖος ὁ γραμματικὸς ἐρραψῴδει ὕστερος κατακείμενος καὶ συνέφερεν12

ἐς τὸ αὐτὸ τὰ Πινδάρου καὶἩσιόδου καὶ Ἀνακρέοντος, ὡς ἐξ ἁπάντων μίανᾠδὴν παγγέλοιον ἀποτελεῖσθαι...

I reproduce Histiaeus’ poem here:Ἢ οἵη ποτ᾽ ἄρ᾽ ἥ γ᾽ Ἀρισταινέτου ἐν μεγάροισι

δῖα Κλεανθὶς ἄνασσ᾽ ἐτρέφετ᾽ ἐνδυκέως,13

προὔχουσα πασάων ἀλλάων παρθενικάωνκρέσσων τῆς Κυθέρης ἠδ᾽ αὐτῆς Ἑλένης.

νυμφίε, καὶ σὺ δὲ χαῖρε, κρατερῶν κράτιστε ἐφήβων, 5κρέσσων Νιρῆος καὶ Θέτιδος παϊδός.

ἄμμες δὴ αὖθ᾽ ὑμῖν τοῦτον θαλαμήιον ὕμνονξυνὸν ἐπ᾽ ἀμφοτέροις πολλάκις ᾀσόμεθα.

The meter in some cases is simply wrong: cf. Ἀρισταινέτου (in l. 1), προὔχουσα(l. 3), and κρατερῶν κράτιστε ἐφήβων (l. 5; false scansion and hiatus).14 Therhythm in lines 3 and 7 is rather heavy. The use of the particles in l. 1 (ἄρ᾽ ἥ γε)and the article in l. 4 give the impression that the versifier was looking for line-fillers.15 Besides its metrical blunders, this poem is also characterized by monot-ony: note ἀλλάων πασάων παρθενικάων in l. 3;16 the repetition in l. 4 τῆς


229

11. χωλός is a technical term in metrical theory; cf. LSJ, s.v. II 2 (‘halting’). For an attempt toaccount for the metrical anomalies in Histiaeus’ epithalamion, see WILHELM 1938.

12. Or perhaps read συνέφυρεν? At any rate, both attempts of Histiaeus’ to compose poetry in theSymposion, show him as someone who fuses together disparate elements, as if he had composedthe poem drunk.

13. Cf. ἔτραφέ τ᾽ ἐνδυκέως uttered by Patroclus’ soul at Il. 23.90 (verse beginning).14. BOMPAIRE 1958, 623 n. 5 argues against emendation and points to parallels in inscriptions for

such metrical anomalies.15. Note especially that ὅ / ἥ γε is used in epic to refer to characters who have been mentioned

immediately preceding this combination of pronoun + γε. This is of course not the case withCleanthis, since we are at the beginning of the poem. The inferential particle ἄρα also presup-poses that something precedes the clause in which it is found. And ποτε contributes to the pre-sentation of Cleanthis’ wedding as an event that took place in the distant past, when in realityit has occurred shortly before the hic et nunc of the performance.

16. The manuscripts offer here προὔχουσα πασέων (πασάων Ν) ἀλλάων; the text printed byMcLeod is an emendation of Guyet’s.


A. VERGADOS

230

Κυθερῆς ~ αὐτῆς Ἑλένης; and κρατερῶν κράτιστε(?) in l. 5,17 as well Θέτιδοςπαϊδός of line 6, not to mention the repetition of κρέσσων at the same sedes of ll.4 and 6. This epithet may be appropriately used for a man but not so whenspeaking of a woman’s beauty. The formΚυθέρη is not classical, as it occurs pre-dominately in later poetry;18 and the mention of Nireus is inept (just like themythological allusions in Hetoemocles’ letter), particularly so as it appears nextto a reference to Achilles. As we find out at Il. 2.671-5 Nireus came from Symewith three ships, was the most beautiful hero after Achilles, but he was also fee-ble (ἀλαπαδνός); hence Histiaeus’ praise of the groom as κρατερῶν κράτιστε . . .κρέσσων Νιρῆος is less than successful. Furthermore, the comparison intendedto heighten the appreciation of the bride’s beauty is also inept. Assuming thatαὐτῆς is genuine, the characters to whom the bride is compared (Aphrodite,Helen/Selene) are not presented in the correct order: Aphrodite should havebeen mentioned last, as she was the most beautiful goddess.19 In line 5 the genreof this short poem changes, as it concludes with a hymnal envoi (καὶ σὺ δὲ χαῖρε).This phrase reminds us of the conclusion of the so-called Homeric Hymns.20 Inthat case the bridegroom is elevated to the status of a god who is to rejoice in thepreceding hymn.21 This may remind us of the beginning of this poem ἢ οἵη, theimplication of which seems to be that Cleanthis mated with a god; but thisimpression is of course false, and this will be shown most dramatically in ch. 44where the skyphos thrown by Zenothemis gravely injures the bridegroom in hishead. At any rate, the groom seems to be privileged here, at least temporarily.That in l. 5 we have a reflex of a hymnal mode is shown by the final couplet,

17. ANDERSON 1976b argues against emendation; cf. PABST 1986, 136, on metrical ugliness incena Nasidieni.

18. Cf. Manetho (many times), Antipater of Thessalonike (AP 6.209.1), Anubion fr. 5a.6 (suppl.),fr. 16.9, 16.45 (Obbink), Anacreont. 4.iii.19 (West) etc.

19. Ἑλένης is an emendation; the manuscripts offer here σελήνης. Even if this was the genuine read-ing, the comparison would be incompetent in that case as well. Note, finally, that one manu-script offers αὖ τῆς for αὐτῆς, which if adopted would remove some of the comparison’s empha-sis; but in that case the article would again seem a filler.

20. Cf. the closing lines in h.Hom. 3, 4, 9, 14, 19, 18: καὶ σὺ μὲν οὕτω χαῖρε . . . | αὐτὰρ ἐγὼ καὶ σεῖοκαὶ ἄλλου μνήσομαι ὕμνου / καὶ ἄλλης μνήσομ᾽ ἀοιδῆς.

21. χαίρειν would not be inappropriate in an epithalamion; cf. Sappho fr. 116 Voigt χαῖρε, νύμφα,χαῖρε τίμιε γάμβρε; fr. 117 †χαίροις ἀ νύμφα†, χαιρέτω δ᾽ ὀ γάμβρος. Notice that the personaloquens in these fragments salutes both the bride and the groom.



231

which switches to the first person, and the promise to repeat the song in thefuture appears in the final couplet, where the song is termed a (θαλαμήιος) ὕμνος.But this generic shift is jarring. For while it is reasonable to envision the re-per-formance of a hymn, which aims to secure the god’s favor towards the commu-nity, this is out of place in an epithalamion that by definition is meant to be per-formed only on one occasion, when the pair went into their wedding chamber,before the consummation of the wedding. This short poem allows us to observethe same pastiche of genres that we detect in the letter of Hetoemocles, and it isnot surprising that both these verbal performances cause the audience’s laughter.

(iii) Hetoemocles’ letter

The only real, sustained oration in Lucian’s Symposion is that composed by theuninvited Stoic Hetoemocles and is delivered by a slave. This speech is maskedas a letter and constitutes a turning-point in the action: it precipitates yet anoth-er quarrel among the philosophers, thus functioning as the Apple of Discord, asLycinus later realizes (35), an apt comparison since this speech was ‘thrown’ ina wedding celebration by an uninvited guest.

When Hetoemocles’ letter arrives, everyone expects an epithalamion or asong in praise of the bride; this, after all, is what the occasion demands. Anotherpossibility, not mentioned in Lucian’s text at this point, would be a special typeof oration that was delivered at a wedding celebration, namely the γαμήλιοςλόγος. Such a speech in praise of marriage is attempted by the Platonic Ion, butwithout success, as we have seen. Our information regarding the γαμήλιος andthe related ἐπιθαλάμιος speech derives from ps.-Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ ArsRhetorica (II, 1, p. 260-266, 269-271 = §233.19-242.16, 247.19-250.24Usener-Radermacher) and from the second treatise attributed to MenanderRhetor (περὶ ἐπιθαλαμίου, περὶ κατευναστικοῦ, p. 399.12-412.2 Spengel).22 One

22. On this type of oration, see RUSSELL 1979; on Menander Rhetor, the commentary of RUSSELL -WILSON 1981. Such a speech would be in order here if we consider the way [Dionysius] intro-duces his μέθοδος of the γαμήλιος (233.3-234.10): ἐπεὶ δὲ ἔοικεν δεσμός τις οὗτος ὁ πρὸς τοῖς λόγοιςκαὶ τῇ παιδεύσει τῇ παρούσῃ διαιρεῖν ἡμᾶς τοῖς σώμασιν καὶ τοῖς τόποις ἀπ᾽ ἀλλήλων (μὴ γὰρ δὴ ταῖςψυχαῖς τε καὶ διαθέσεσιν καὶ εὐνοίαις ταῖς ἐπ᾽ αὐταῖς χωρισθείημέν ποτε), ἀλλ᾽ οὖν ἔστω σοι ὥσπερτι δῶρον παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ εἰς συντέλειάν τε καὶ κόσμον τῶν γάμων τὸ μηδὲ τῶν περὶ τούτων εἰωθότωνλέγεσθαι μηδὲ αὐτὸν ἀπείρως ἔχειν, εἴτ᾽ οὖν αὐτὸς καὶ παρὰ σεαυτῷ φυλάττειν βούλοιο εἴτε καὶἑτέρῳ τινὶ τοῦτον οἷον ἔρανόν τινα εἰς χάριν συνεισφέρειν.


A. VERGADOS

232

could perhaps assume that the stern Hetoemocles was detained by his seriousphilosophical occupations from joining the wedding dinner that Aristaenetushosted, but thought it appropriate to deliver a speech on the occasion. The let-ter exploits some oratorical conventions (albeit of a different genre of speech)and exhibits some of the didacticism found in such a wedding speech.23 As wegather from ps.-Dionysius’ exposition, one spoke about the origins of the insti-tution of marriage and its πρῶτοι εὑρεταί, Zeus and Hera, some of whose appel-lations are accounted for by their involvement in this institution (e.g. HeraΖυγία). Marriage differentiates man from animals, since the latter minglepromiscuously, whereas man makes use of the τάξιν...καὶ νόμον ...τοῦ γάμου,which amounts to a κοινωνία rather than cohabitation as in an ἀγέλη. Theadvantages of marriage are enumerated,24 before concluding with the necessarygood wishes for the newly-weds and their offspring.

But instead of this, the audience hear a letter of complaint by someone whothinks should have rightfully been invited to the feast. This letter inflicts insultsand accusations against the philosopher-guests, while mixing philosophical dis-course with food.25 Hetoemocles begins with a typical letter opening (Ἑτοι-μοκλῆς φιλόσοφος Ἀρισταινέτῳ), but immediately abandons all epistolary con-ventions. A comparison with actual epistles surviving on papyrus suggests thatthis is not going to be an ordinary letter. For besides the name of the sender andthe addressee, the opening of a letter contains normally also a greeting, χαίρειν,which is sometimes expanded (e.g. καὶ διὰ παντὸς ὑγιαίνειν or the like). Herehowever the angry Hetoemocles hastens to the issue that concerns him withouteven paying lip service to the addressee’s well-being. His vanity is evident also inthe fact that he calls himself a philosopher but does not mention the addressee’sprofession. Furthermore, to jump to the end of this letter, we do not meet nei-ther a closing formula (normally wishing the addressee’s well-being, e.g. ἐρρῶ-

23. The audience must have been familiar with the contents of such a speech, since marriage wasone of the topics young men had to explore in their rhetorical training ([Dionysius] § 234.20-2,προκεχείρισται γὰρ ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα καὶ τοῦτο πρὸ πάντων τοῖς νεωτέροις εἰς γραφήν, εἰ γαμητέον).The topic had received extensive treatment by philosophers; see van GEYTENBEEK 1961, 62-71.

24. That is, good reputation on account of the couple’s σωφροσύνη, accompanied by trust, honor,and kind disposition towards one’s fatherland; the ability to share life’s adversities and joys;marriage is the foundation of society, forging relations between families; finally, mythologicalcharacters were also mentioned who obtained great advantages from their marriages.

25. Cf. ROMERI 2002, 213-214.


σθαί σε εὔχομαι vel sim.) nor a final request nor any other epistolary trope.Instead Hetoemocles ends with the brusque injunction that Aristaenetus notgive his slave any food to bring home to him lest he seems that he wrote this let-ter in order to receive something from the dinner – but of course this onlyreveals that this is precisely the reason he sent his slave with the letter.

After the partial epistolary opening, Hetoemocles immediately launches intoa rhetorical speech that begins by exploiting the ‘λόγον βίου διδόναι-theme’.26

Hetoemocles assumes the role of an unjustly accused defendant who wishes pre-emptively to shake off the accusation that he sent this angry letter because he isinterested in a free dinner. He sets up an argument based on the way he has con-ducted his life up to that point. Thus a topos the audience might hear in a courtspeech (i.e. in an official context where accusations are serious matters) becomesin the hands of Hetoemocles an instrument by which he aims at convincing hisaudience that he does not normally attend dinner parties because of the accom-panying noise and drunkenness. The fact that ch. 24 of Hetoemocles’ letter ispunctuated with the phrase ταῦτα ἐγὼ τοῖς παροῦσιν ἀπολελόγημαι confirms thatthis is not an ordinary letter but a speech of apology.

In addition, this first part of the letter contains certain rhetorical devicesappropriate to the genre: questions directed at his opponents, the philosopher-guests, aiming at showing how incompetent they are in their field (23.7-8); arefutation of the possible objection that another opponent (the host) couldraise, namely that in the midst of the preparations for the wedding he forgot toinvite Hetoemocles (24); a pathetic invocation of Adrasteia (23.22); andaposiōpēsis at 26.

But this letter does not portray Hetoemocles simply as a philosopher orrhetorician, which would be in keeping with his professional activities. Thissophist/philosopher/orator shows affinities to a character known from come-dy: the parasite. Some telling echoes from Comedy contribute this importantlayer to Hetoemocles’ character, and render him similar to types familiar from


233

26. For the theme of παρεληλυθὼς βίος, cf. e.g. Pl. La. 188a, D.H. A.R. 13.5.3. For the theme ofλόγος or ἔλεγχος βίου, cf. e.g. Lys. 16.1, 9, 24.1, Pl. Ap. 39c, Dem. 18.3; [Andoc.] 4.37.Hetoemocles’ attempt to use the way he led his life thus far is ironic since his deeds do notmatch his words.


A. VERGADOS

234

the Comic stage.27 Hetoemocles’ asserts that he ought to have been invited tothe banquet since he knows his subject-matter better than his colleagues byaddressing some questions, quizzing them, as it were: what is philosophy? orwhat is the difference between ἕξις (= permanent state) and σχέσις (= transientstate)? This not only represents him as an ἀλαζών, boasting for his (putative)intellectual achievement. It has a bathetic effect since it presents the philoso-pher scholar using fine philosophical distinctions in order to show that he ismore worthy than his despised colleagues to be invited to a banquet. Accordingto Hetoemocles, Aristaenetus cannot discern whom he ought to invite becausehe does not possess the καταληπτικὴ φαντασία, unlike his student Pammeneswho knows what his καθήκοντα are.28 But these questions of Hetoemocles alsoremind us of the speeches that parasites sometimes deliver on stage. In particu-lar, a speech delivered by the parasite in Alexis’ Kybernetes (fr. 121) bears somesimilarities with Hetoemocles’ didactic tone. In that piece, the parasite teacheshis addressee (note διδάσκω at line 14) about the two types (gene) of parasites:the common ones that are the butt of jokes in Comedy and that other typewhich he calls ‘the σεμνοπαράσιτον,’ i.e. those who know how to pretend in life(just like Lucian’s philosophers), hold high offices, but still act as parasites.These furthermore deceive through their serious looks (note lines 6-7: ὀφρῦςἔχων χιλιοταλάντους!):

27. The art of the parasite, just like that of the philosophers, depends to a large extend on theirtongue, i.e. on a certain verbal dexterity by which they convince their target that they are intel-lectuals of high rank or at least witty enough to warrant that they would make pleasant dinnercompany. See NESSELRATH 1985; TYLAWSKY 2002, 46-51 and ARNOTT 1996, 542-544 as wellas OLSON 2007, 55 for more literature on parasites. Further affinities to Comedy: Uninvitedguests are mentioned at Cratinus, fr. 182, Apollod.Car. fr. 29, 31, Eup. fr. 315. A symposium inwhich the guests misbehaved is narrated in Aristophanes Wasps 1292-1325. For philosophersattempting to steal from the banquet’s utensils (as in ch. 46 of Lucian’s Symposion), cf. Eup. fr.395 δεξάμενος δὲ Σωκράτης τὴν ἐπιδέξι᾽ <ᾄδων> | Στησιχόρου πρὸς τὴν λύραν οἰνοχόην ἔκλεψεν.Finally, CAREY (2000) presents the scanty evidence for criticism of philosophers and sophistsin the fragments of comedy.

28. Notice that the emotions that Hetoemocles experiences (ἀνιῶμαι, ἀγανακτῆσαι, 22; ὀργίζεσθαι,25) are not appropriate for a Stoic philosopher; cf. Hermon’s ironic comment to Zenothemis,screaming with pain, at 47: ὥστε καὶ τὸν Ἕρμωνα καίπερ ἐν κακοῖς ὄντα – δὺο γὰρ ὀδόνταςἐξεκέκοπτο – ἀντιμαρτύρεσθαι λέγοντα, Μέμνησο μέντοι, ὦ Ζηνόθεμι, ὡς οὐκ ἀδιάφορον ἡγῇ τὸνπόνον.



235

δύ᾽ ἐστί,Ναυσίνικε, παρασίτων γένη·ἓν μὲν τὸ κοινὸν καὶ κεκωμῳδημένον,οἱ μέλανες ἡμεῖς· θάτερον ζητῶ γένος,σεμνοπαράσιτον ἐκ μέσου καλούμενον,σατράπας παρασίτους καὶ στρατηγοὺς ἐπιφανεῖς 5ὑποκρινόμενον εὖ τοῖς βίοις, ὁφρῦς ἔχονχιλιοταλάντους ἀνακυλῖόν τ᾽ οὐσίας.νοεῖς σὺ τὸ γένος καὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα;Ν. καὶ μάλα.Α. τούτων ἑκατέρου τῶν γενῶν ὁ μὲν τύποςτῆς ἐργασίας εἷς ἐστι, κολακείας ἀγών· 10ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν βίων δέ, τοὺς μὲν ἡ τύχηἡμῶν μεγάλοις προσένειμε τοὺς δ᾽ ἐλάττοσιν,εἶθ᾽ οἱ μὲν εὐποροῦμεν, οἱ δ᾽ ἀλύομεν.ἆρά γε διδάσκω,Ναυσίνικ᾽;Ν. οὐκ ἀστόχως·ἀλλ᾽ ἄν σ᾽ ἐπαινῶ μᾶλλον, αἰτήσεις μέ τι. 15

Hetoemocles appears to be one of them. As we learn after the ‘recitation’ of hisletter, everybody is surprised by it: the Stoic philosopher was good at hiding histrue nature; he appeared to everyone as a serious person (28: πολιὸν καὶ σεμνὸνεἶναι δοκοῦντα), and deceived everybody with his beard and the seriousness ofhis countenance. He was so successful in his pose that Aristaenetus (the host)did not even try to invite him to the dinner-party because he thought that a per-son of such strict character would not accept an invitation to a banquet.

Furthermore, Hetoemocles inadvertently reveals that he used a strategysimilar to that described by the chorus of parasites in Eupolis’ Kolakes (fr. 127,esp. 7-8) in order to secure a dinner invitation. In the Eupolis fragment thechorus of parasites (= philosophers) explain how they go about securing a freedinner: they go to the market-place and look for a rich (and foolish) person;once they have discovered such a man, they keep close at him to obtain thedesired invitation.

ἀλλὰ δίαιταν ἣν ἔχουσ᾽ οἱ κόλακες πρὸς ὑμᾶςλέξομεν· ἀλλ᾽ ἀκούσαθ᾽ ὥς ἐσμεν ἅπαντα κομψοὶἄνδρες· ὅτοισι πρῶτα μὲν παῖς ἀκόλουθός ἐστινἀλλότριος τὰ πολλά, μικρὸν δέ τι κἀμὸν αὐτοῦ.ἱματίω δέ μοι δύ᾽ ἐστὸν χαρίεντε τούτω, 5


οἷν μεταλαμβάνων ἀεὶ θάτερον ἐξελαύνωεἰς ἀγοράν. ἐκεῖ δ᾽ ἐπειδὰν κατίδω τιν᾽ ἄνδραἠλίθιον, πλουτοῦντα δ᾽, εὐθὺς περὶ τοῦτον εἰμί.κἄν τι τύχῃ λέγων ὁ πλούταξ, πάνυ τοῦτ᾽ ἐπαινῶ,καὶ καταπλήττομαι δοκῶν τοῖσι λόγοισι χαίρειν 10εἶτ᾽ ἐπὶ δεῖπνον ἐρχόμεσθ᾽ ἄλλυδις ἄλλος ἡμῶνμᾶζαν ἐπ᾽ ἀλλόφυλον, οὗ δεῖ χαρίεντα πολλὰτὸν κόλακ᾽ εὐθέως λέγειν, ἢ ᾽κφέρεται θύραζε...

Hetoemocles’ strategy when attempting to obtain an invitation to dinnerfrom Aristaenetus is similar. In ch. 24 he makes a point of reminding Aristae-netus (and informing everyone else at the banquet) that he had twiceapproached him during that very day, both in the morning near his house – pre-sumably he had been waiting for him to go out – and later, when he was sacri-ficing to the Twin Gods. In addition, like everybody else, Hetoemocles must beaware of Aristaenetus’ financial situation, especially now that his daughter ismarrying the son of Eucritus, the money-lender as Lycinus the narrator informsus. Hetoemocles also comments on Aristaenetus’ intellectual capabilities (23:‘you cannot yet discern what is best, and you do not possess the φαντασίακαταληπτική,’ i.e. the faculty of perceiving images that leads to the apprehensionof objects), which, just like with his earlier reference to philosophical terminitechnici (ἕξις vs σχέσις, τὰ καθήκοντα), he incongruously applies to a lowly con-text (a free dinner). Just like Eupolis’ parasite, Hetoemocles goes after a rich per-son without high intellectual capabilities: Aristaenetus is evidently a case inpoint since he invites all sorts of philosopher-quacks in order to show with whatsort of cultivated people he associates – but he does not realize the true natureof these “professors”. The Stoic uses these philosophical catchwords to impresshis would-be host, just like Eupolis’ parasite has to utter many χαρίενταwhen heattends his rich host’s banquet. But unlike the professional parasite,Hetoemocles fails. Lucian speaks elsewhere (Nigrinus esp. 24-5) of “philoso-phers” who join the ranks of the kolakes and behave badly at dinner-parties.29

A. VERGADOS

236

29. See ANDERSON 1978, 371-372 for structural similarities between Lucian’s Symposion andNigrinus. SCHRÖDER 2000, 437-442 proposes that there is an affinity between Nigrinus (whocriticises philosophers) and Lucian (who elsewhere uses the name Lycinus). Note too that in§8-12 the idea of a theater is brought out, just like in the Symposion. Hermotimus 11-12 also



237

But as their verbal performances in the Lucianing Symposion show, their capa-bilities are limited, and it is only through their “Maecenas’” incompetence thatthey can pass for men of intellectual rank.

But this is not everything. Hetoemocles’ reference to the story of Oeneus israther inept and gives the philosopher-guests food for more laughter. Oeneushad forgotten to sacrifice to Artemis who then sent a wild boar that attacked hiscountry; the hunt organized to rid the country of the boar resulted in the deathof Meleager, Oeneus’ son. The epistolary Stoic thus likens Aristaenetus toOeneus (who is guilty of neglecting a deity), while he compares himself to anangry neglected Artemis (who should have rightfully received a share of the sac-rifice), thus creating a mythological antecedent for his own wrath. He supportsthis with poetic references: a line from Homer (Il. 9. 537), which suggests thatOeneus’ (i.e. Aristaenetus’) ‘soul was at fault,’ and two lines from Euripides andSophocles’ lost plays Meleagros; the quotation from Sophocles forms the climaxthese poetic references by bringing up the monstrous boar (συὸς μέγιστον χρῆμα)that Artemis sent to Calydon.30 But this mention of the boar is not merely arequirement of the mythological story, but also points forward into the narra-tive: the battle for the distribution of the boar’s hide and head mirrors the bat-tle that will ensue between the philosophers concerning the distribution offood, esp. the fowl that will be presented later that ends up with the host’s son-in-law badly wounded (ch. 44). Rather than a boar hunt, the final fight betweenthe philosophers will resemble the battle for Patroclus’ corpse.31 In addition, it

relates a battle between an old Stoic philosopher against Euthydemus the Peripatetic at a ban-quet, where the old Stoic eats and drinks too much, and gives his slave food to carry home, likeZenothemis in the Symposion. Criticism of philosophers, esp. for hypocrisy and venality: JONES1986, 24-32, who remarks on p. 29 that Hetoemocles’ letter “read out before the guests, simul-taneously parodies the ugly Greek of the Stoics and exposes their materialism.” For Lucian’s ref-erences to contemporary philosophers, see BALDWIN 1973, 25-30.

30. On the inappropriateness of Hetoemocles’ quotations, cf. Cleodemus’ words in ch. 30 καὶ αἱἐπιστολαὶ ὁρᾶτε ὅπως πρεσβυτικαί, καὶ τὸ τελευταῖον Οἰνεὺς μὲν Ἀρισταίνετος, Ἑτοιμοκλῆς δὲἌρτεμις.Ἡράκλεις, εὔφημα πάντα καὶ ἑορτῇ πρέποντα.

31. Lycinus/Lucian effectively corrects the philosopher’s false mythological comparison: Hetoe-mocles is not an Artemis (whose anger in the myth was justified) but an Eris (whom nobodywould invite in a banquet). With his letter Hetoemocles intrudes into the banquet as a quasi-aklētos. His letter resembles the apple of Eris also because both led to a war: the Apple precip-itated the Trojan War, whereas the philosopher’s letter leads to a battle over food which is com-ically likened to the battle for Patroclus’ corpse. RELIHAN 1992, 223, 226-227 speaks of an


A. VERGADOS

238

functions as yet another manifestation of a Leitmotiv in Hetoemocles’ letter, i.e.the wild boar that he desires to get for dinner (cf. ch. 22, 27, and the philoso-phers’ comments in 31).

Finally, Hetoemocles bears a speaking name that can be rendered ‘He who isWilling to Accept an Invitation.’ Both its components are found in parasites’names (e.g. in Alciphron’s Epist. 3.19, from Autoclētus to Hetoemaristus).32

Thus, Hetoemocles’ very name points to a parasite-like figure, and his lettershows that he can live up to the expectations that his name creates.

(iv) Concluding remarks

The philosophers’ humiliation is in keeping with Lucian’s hostility againstwould-be intellectuals. Chapters 54-5 from his Timon illustrate this sentimentwell:Ἀλλὰ τί τοῦτο; οὐ Θρασυκλῆς ὁ φιλόσοφος οὗτός ἐστιν; οὐ μὲν οὖν ἄλλος·ἐκπετάσας γοῦν τὸν πώγωνα καὶ τὰς ὀφρῦς ἀνατείνας καὶ βρενθυόμενός τιπρὸς αὑτὸν ἔρχεται, τιτανῶδες βλέπων, ἀνασεσοβημένος τὴν ἐπὶ τῷ μετώπῳκόμην, Αὐτοβορέας τις ἢ Τρίτων, οἵους ὁ Ζεῦξις ἔγραψεν. οὗτος ὁ τὸ σχῆμαεὐσταλὴς καὶ κόσμιος τὸ βάδισμα καὶ σωφρονικὸς τὴν ἀναβολὴν ἕωθεν μυρίαὅσα περὶ ἀρετῆς διεξιὼν καὶ τῶν ἡδονῇ χαιρόντων κατηγορῶν καὶ τὸὀλιγαρκὲς ἐπαινῶν, ἐπειδὴ λουσάμενος ἀφίκοιτο ἐπὶ τὸ δεῖπνον καὶ ὁ παῖςμεγάλην τὴν κύλικα ὀρέξειεν αὐτῷ – τῷ ζωροτέρῳ δὲ χαίρει μάλιστα–καθάπερ τὸ Λήθης ὕδωρ ἐκπιὼν ἐναντιώτατα ἐπιδεικνύεται τοῖς ἑωθινοῖςἐκείνοις λόγοις, προαρπάζων ὥσπερ ἴκτινος τὰ ὄψα καὶ τὸν πλησίονπαραγκωνιζόμενος, καρύκης τὸ γένειον ἀνάπλεως, κυνηδὸν ἐμφορούμενος,ἐπικεκυφὼς καθάπερ ἐν ταῖς λοπάσι τὴν ἀρετὴν εὑρήσειν προσδοκῶν,ἀκριβῶς τὰ τρύβλια τῷ λιχανῷ ἀποσμήχων ὡς μηδὲν ὀλίγον τοῦ μυττωτοῦκαταλίποι, μεμψίμοιρος ἀεί, κἂν τὸν πλακοῦντα ὅλον ἢ τὸν σῦν μόνος τῶν

‘Odyssean battle’ at the end of Lucian’s Symposion since the philosophers fight like Penelope’ssuitors. But in view of Hetoemocles’ quotation of Il. 9, the text’s other Iliadic quotations, thereference to the battle for Patroclus’ corpse, and the comparison of the letter to the Apple ofDiscord that led to the Trojan War, it may be more apposite to speak of an Iliadic battle. Thiswould have also the advantage of an implicit comparison of the philosophers who are given tofood and drink to Iliadic warriors who represent an ideal that the philosopher guests cannotreach.

32. Cf. BOMPAIRE 1998, 213 n. 33 and BOMPAIRE 1958, 699 for speaking names in Lucian; furtherTOMASSI 2011, 508.


ἄλλων λάβῃ, ὅ τι περ λιχνείας καὶ ἀπληστίας ὄφελος, μέθυσος καὶ πάροινοςοὐκ ἄχρι ᾠδῆς καὶ ὀρχηστύος μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ λοιδορίας καὶ ὀργῆς. προσέτικαὶ λόγοι πολλοὶ ἐπὶ τῇ κύλικι, τότε δὴ καὶ μάλιστα, περὶ σωφροσύνης καὶκοσμιότητος· καὶ ταῦτά φησιν ἤδη ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀκράτου πονηρῶς ἔχων καὶὑποτραυλίζων γελοίως· εἶτα ἔμετος ἐπὶ τούτοις· καὶ τὸ τελευταῖον, ἀράμενοίτινες ἐκφέρουσιν αὐτὸν ἐκ τοῦ συμποσίου τῆς αὐλητρίδος ἀμφοτέραιςἐπειλημμένον. πλὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ νήφων οὐδενὶ τῶν πρωτείων παραχωρήσειεν ἂνψεύσματος ἕνεκα ἢ θρασύτητος ἢ φιλαργυρίας· ἀλλὰ καὶ κολακεύων ἐστὶ τὰπρῶτα καὶ ἐπιορκεῖ προχειρότατα, καὶ ἡ γοητεία προηγεῖται καὶ ἡἀναισχυντία παρομαρτεῖ, καὶ ὅλως πάνσοφόν τι χρῆμα καὶ πανταχόθενἀκριβὲς καὶ ποικίλως ἐντελές.

The revelation of the pseudo-philosophers who do not live according totheir doctrine is a favorite comic topos in Lucian, and this passage from theTimon reflects well the behaviour of the Symposion’s philosophers.33 In fact,there are many similarities between the way Thrasycles and the Symposion’sphilosophers comport themselves at the banquet. We hear of his strict outwardappearance that is meant to evoke the impression that he is a serious philoso-pher;34 like Hetoimocles, who refuses on principle to attend banquets, he isostensibly opposed to those pursuing ἡδονή. But when he is at a symposium hereveals his true personality, thus confirming Alcaeus’ οἶνος . . . καὶ ἀλάθεα (fr. 366Voigt): he is more interested in food and drink than the people he accuses, andthe aggressive way in securing even the smallest bits of food reminds us of thebattle of the philosophers in the Symposion. He has no moral qualms: Besides


33. See TOMASSI 2011, 499-529. Cf. also Luc. Hipp. 2, Ind. 29, Pisc. 47ff. The immorality of thephilosophers is portrayed also in the agon narrated in the Eunuchus. See also HELM 1967, 40-42, TOMASSI 2011, 507, and above, n. 29, for the dissonance between doctrine and life.

34. Cf. DMort. 20.8 on the strict outward appearance of the philosopher (–Ὁ σεμνὸς δὲ οὗτος ἀπόγε τοῦ σχήματος καὶ βρενθυόμενος, ὁ τὰς ὀφρῦς ἐπηρκώς, ὁ ἐπὶ τῶν φροντίδων τίς ἐστιν, ὁ τὸν βαθὺνπώγωνα καθειμένος; –Φιλόσοφός τις, ὦ Ἑρμῆ, μᾶλλον δὲ γόης καὶ τερατείας μεστός). At Philops. 5-9 Eucrates the philosopher, οὕτω βαθὺν πώγωνα καθειμένος ἑξηκοντούτης ἀνήρ, is ill, and is visit-ed by Tychiades (the narrator). Tychiades finds a gathering of philosophers around the ill man,among whom there is Cleodemus the Peripatetic and Ion the Platonic. These philosophersattempt to cure Eucrates’ rheumatism by resorting to spells and other charlatan tricks (e.g. tyingaround the legs the tooth of a country mouse, which has been lifted with the left hand andwrapped in the skin of a recently killed lion), instead of following the physician’s advice. Thespeaker’s protest is met characteristically with an abrasive πάνυ γὰρ ἰδιώτης...εἶ (i.e. a layman, anunprofessional person).

239


his greed and gluttony, he attempts to seize the flute girl, just like Alcidamas inthe Symposion. It seems as if Lucian has intensified in his Symposion the effect ofthe character of the philosopher whose ἔργα do not match his λόγοι by diffusingthe personality type of a Thrasycles, dividing up his traits among the manyphilosophers of his Symposion. He thus presents the outcome of the philoso-phers’ ἀφροσύνη from multiple angles and strengthens its effects by hypostasiz-ing each of the negative traits found in Thrasycles.Τhe Symposion constitutes a nice example of Lucianic Gattungsmischung,35

while the comic features outlined above accord with the overall dramatic effectof the work which resembles a comedy: The philosophers appear as comic char-acters, the well-behaved orderly ἰδιῶται act as the audience (note their laughter,esp. in ch. 28, 34, 35, 42), while Lycinus (a by-name of Lucian himself ) resem-bles simultaneously a playwright or stage director and a privileged observer whoviews the events ἐκ περιωπῆς. The dramatic dimension of this dialogue isbrought to the fore also through the Euripidean quotation of ch. 48 (found atthe end of Alcestis, Andromache, Bacchae, andΗelen):πολλαὶ μορφαὶ τῶν δαιμονίωνπολλὰ δ᾽ ἀέλπτως κραίνουσι θεοί,καὶ τὰ δοκηθέντ᾽ οὐκ ἐτελέσθη.

But Lycinus does not conclude this quotation with the expected τῶν δ᾽ἀδοκήτων πόρον ηὗρε θεός, as Euripides does in these plays. For indeed no πόροςwas provided to these events, and the disillusioned Lycinus36 realizes the help-lessness (ἄπρακτον) which anyone who attempts to dine with such impostorshas to face.37

ATHANASSIOS VERGADOSSeminar für Klassische Philologie

Ruprecht-Karls-Universität [email protected]

A. VERGADOS

240

35. Cf. Bis Acc. 33-4 and Prom.Es 6 for the combination of Platonic dialogue and Aristophaniccomedy, which at the beginning were opposed to each other. Cf. ANDERSON 1976, 21 whospeaks of “typical ‘Lucianic’ blends of Plato, Aristophanes and the rest.” And HELM 1967, 269-70 on Lucianic names inspired by comedy. On genre in Lucian, see also KORUS 1986.

36. Since Licynus is not sitting among the ἰδιῶται, he must have some relation to the philosopherguests. Was he perhaps a student of one of them or a young and aspiring philosopher / rhetori-cian who was not as famous and vain as the others? On Lucian’s use of the pseudonym Lycinus,see DUBEL 1994, 25-26.

37. This article was written during the tenure of an Alexander von Humboldt research fellowshipat the Seminar für Klassische Philologie, Universität Heidelberg.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

ANDERSON, G., 1976a. Lucian. Theme and Variation in the Second Sophistic, Leiden.ANDERSON, G., 1976b. Metrical Howlers in Lucian, Hermes 104, 254-256.ANDERSON, G., 1978. Lucian’s Nigrinus: the Problem of Form, GRBS 19, 367-374.ARNOTT, W.G., 1996. Alexis, the Fragments: A Commentary, Cambridge.BALDWIN, B., 1973. Studies in Lucian, Toronto.BOMPAIRE, J., 1958. Lucien écrivain: imitation et création, Paris.BOMPAIRE, J., 1998. Lucianus, opuscules 11-20, vol. II, Paris.BRANHAM, R.B., 1989. Unruly Eloquence. Lucian and the Comedy of Traditions, Cambridge, Mass.CAMEROTTO, A., 1998. La metamorfosi della parola. Studi sulla parodia in Luciano di

Samosata, Pisa / Roma.CAREY, C., 2000. Old Comedy and the Sophists, in D. HARVEY - J. WILKINS (eds.), The Rivals

of Aristophanes. Studies in Athenian Old Comedy, London, 419-436.CONTIADES-TSITSONI, E., 1990. Hymenaios und Epithalamion. Das Hochzeitslied in der früh-

griechischen Lyrik, Stuttgart.DUBEL, S. 1994. Dialogue et autoportrait: les masques de Lucien, in A. BILLAULT (ed.), Lucien

de Samosate. Actes du colloque international de Lyon organisé au Centre d’Études Romaineset Gallo-Romaines les 30 septembre-1er octobre 1993, Lyon, 19-26.

FRAZIER, F., 1994. Deux images de banquets de lettrés: les propos de table de Plutarque et lebanquet de Lucien, in A. BILLAULT (ed.), Lucien de Samosate. Actes du colloque interna-tional de Lyon organisé au Centre d’Études Romaines et Gallo-Romaines les 30 septembre-1er octobre 1993, Lyon, 125-130.

HALL, J., 1981. Lucian’s Satire, New York.HELM, R., 1967. Lucian und Menipp, Hildesheim (repr.; originally published in Lipsia /

Berlin 1906).JONES, C.P., 1986. Culture and Society in Lucian, Cambridge, Mass.KORUS, K., 1986. Funktionen der literarischen Gattungen bei Lukian, Eos 74, 29-38.LAMBIN, G., 1992. La chanson grecque dans l’antiquité, Paris.MÄNNLEIN, I., 2000. What Can Go Wrong at a Dinner-Party: the Unmasking of False Philo-

sophers in Lucian’s Symposium or The Lapiths, in K. POLLMANN (ed.), Double Standardsin the Ancient and Medieval World, Göttingen, 247-262.

MARTIN, J., 1931. Symposion. Die Geschichte einer literarischen Form, Paderborn.MUTH, R., 1954. Hymenaios und Epithalamion, WS 67, 5-45.NESSELRATH, H.-G. 1985. Lukians Parasitendialog: Untersuchungen und Kommentar,

Berlin/New York.OLSON, S.D., 2007. Broken Laughter. Select Fragments of Greek Comedy, Oxford.PABST, W., 1986. Zur Satire vom lächerlichen Mahl. Konstanz eines antiken Schemas durch

Perspektivenwechsel, A&A 32, 136-158.RELIHAN, J.C., 1992. Rethinking the History of the Literary Symposium, ICS 17, 213-244.ROMERI, L., 2001/2. Ἰδιῶται et φιλόσοφοι à la table de Lucien, REG 114, 647-655.


241


ROMERI, L., 2002. Philosophes entre mots et mets. Plutarque, Lucien et Athénée autour de latable de Platon, Grenoble.

RUSSELL, D.A., 1979. Rhetors at the Wedding, PCPhS 25, 104-117.RUSSELL, D.A. - N.G. WILSON, 1981. Menander Rhetor, Edited with Translation and Com-

mentary, Oxford.SCHRÖDER, B.-J., 2000. ‘Eulen nach Athen.’ Ein Vorschlag zu Lukians ‘Nigrinus’, Hermes 128,

435-442.TOMASSI, G. 2011. Luciano di Samosata, Timone o il misantropo. Introduzione, traduzione e

commento, Berlin/New York.TYLAWSKY, E.I., 2002. Saturio’s Inheritance. The Greek Ancestry of the Roman Comic Parasite,

New York / Washington D. C.VAN GEYTENBEEK, A.C., 1963. Musonius Rufus and Greek Diatribe, Assen.WHEELER, A.L., 1930. Tradition in the Epithalamium, AJPh 51, 205-223.WILDBERGER, J., 2005a. Lukian Symposion, übersetzt und herausgegeben von J.W., Stuttgart.WILDBERGER, J., 2005b. Der eine der beiden Vögel...: ein Konjekturvorschlag zu Lukian,

Symposion 43, Hermes 133, 383-387.WILHELM, A., 1938. Das Epithalamion in Lukianos’ Συμπόσιον ἢ Λαπίθαι, WS 56, 54-89.

A. VERGADOS

242


ΠΕΡΊΛΗΨΗ

TῸ ἘΠΙΘΑΛΆΜΙΟΝ ΤΟΥ ἹΣΤΙΑΊΟΥ ΚΑῚ Ἡ ἘΠΙΣΤΟΛῊΤΟΥ ἙΤΟΙΜΟΚΛΈΟΥΣ ΣΤῸ ΣΥΜΠΌΣΙΟΝ ΤΟΥ ΛΟΥΚΙΑΝΟΥ

A. BEΡΓΑΔΟΣ

Στὸ Συμπόσιον ὁ Λουκιανὸς ἐκφράζει τὴν ἀπέχθειά του γιὰ τοὺς ψευδοφιλοσόφουςτῶν ὁποίων ὁ βίος δὲν συμβαδίζει μὲ τὰ ἔργα τους, θέμα μὲ τὸ ὁποῖο καταπιάνεται καὶσὲ ἄλλα ἔργα του. Τὸ παρὸν ἄρθρο ἐξετάζει τὸ θέμα αὐτὸ μέσῳ τῆς ἀνάλυσης τοῦἐπιθαλάμιου τοῦ Ἱστιαίου καὶ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς τοῦ Στωικοῦ φιλοσόφου Ἑτοιμοκλέους(Συμπόσιον κφ. 41 καὶ 22-7 ἀντίστοιχα), κείμενα τὰ ὁποῖα ἀναγιγνώσκονται κατὰτὴ διάρκεια τοῦ συμποσίου. Στὸ μὲν ἐπιθαλάμιο ἀναμιγνύονται διάφορα λογο-τεχνικὰ εἴδη: ἡσιόδεια καταλογικὴ ποίηση, ῥαψῳδικὸς ὕμνος, (ἐλεγειακό) ἐπίγραμ-μα.Παρατηροῦνται ἐπίσης μετρικὰ σφάλματα καὶ ἐπαναλήψεις λέξεων ἢ συλλαβῶνποὺ ἀποδεικνύουν ὅτι ὁ γραμματικὸς Ἱστιαῖος (ὁ βέλτιστος!) εἶναι ἀδέξιος καὶ μονό-τονος στιχοπλόκος. Ἐπιπλέον, ἡ σύγκριση τοῦ γαμπροῦ μὲ τὸν Νιρέα καὶ τὸν Ἀχιλ-λέα (στ. 6) εἶναι τοὐλάχιστον ἀτυχὴς δεδομένου ὅτι ὁ Νιρεὺς, ὁ ὡραιότερος ἥρωαςμετὰ τὸν Ἀχιλλέα, ἦταν ἀλαπαδνός (πρβλ. Ἰλ. 2.671-5). Ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ ἐπιστολὴ τοῦἙτοιμοκλέους ἀναμιγνύει λογοτεχνικὰ εἴδη (ἐπιστολή, δικανικὸς λόγος/ἀπολογία,στοιχεῖα ἀπὸ τὴν κωμῳδία, ἰδιαίτερα λόγους παρασίτων). Τὸ μυθολογικὸ παράδειγ-μα (κυνήγι τοῦ Καλυδωνίου κάπρου) εἶναι ἐπίσης ἀτυχές. Ὁ Στωικὸς φιλόσοφος,τέλος, φαίνεται νὰ βιώνει συναισθήματα τὰ ὁποῖα δὲν συνᾴδουν μὲ τὶς φιλοσοφικὲςπεποιθήσεις του (ἀγανακτῆσαι, ἀνιῶμαι, ὀργίζεσθαι) καὶ χρησιμοποιεῖ φιλοσοφικὸλεξιλόγιο (π.χ. ἕξις, σχέσις, κερατίνας, καθήκοντα, καταληπτικὴ φαντασία), γιὰ νὰδείξει τὴν ἀνωτερότητά του σὲ σχέση μὲ τὸν οἰκοδεσπότη καὶ τοὺς φιλοσόφους οἱὁποῖοι προσκλήθηκαν στὸ συμπόσιο ἀντ᾽ αὐτοῦ.Ὁ ἀφηγητὴς προσφυῶς παρομοιά-ζει τὴν ἐπιστολὴ αὐτὴ μὲ τὸ μῆλον τῆς Ἔριδος, διότι ὁδηγεῖ στὴ μάχη τῶν φιλοσόφωνποὺ καταλήγει στὸν τραυματισμὸ πολλῶν ἐξ αὐτῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦ γαμπροῦ. Ὅπωςκαὶ τὸ ὅλοΣυμπόσιον, τὰ ἐξεταζόμενα χωρία ἐκμεταλλεύονται τὸν ὁρίζοντα προσδο-κιῶν ποὺ δημιουργεῖ στὸν ἀναγνώστη ὁ τίτλος τοῦ ἔργου. Ἐνῶ ἡ ἀρχὴ παραπέμπειστὸΠλατωνικὸΣυμπόσιον, στὸ ὁποῖο οἱ καλεσμένοι συζητοῦν σοβαρὰ περὶ Ἔρωτος,ὁ Λουκιανὸς παρουσιάζει ψευδοφιλοσόφους οἱ ὁποῖοι δὲν εἶναι σὲ θέση νὰ συζητή-σουν, ἐνδιαφέρονται μόνο γιὰ τὸ φαγητὸ, τὸ ποτὸ καὶ τὰ ἀφροδίσια καὶ συμπεριφέ-ρονται με τέτοιο τρόπο ὥστε ἡ ἔρις τους προκαλεῖ τὸν γέλωτα τῶν ἰδιωτῶν.


243


verbal performances in lucian’s symposium

Documents