¹ Cf. for example Bompaire, Jacques, Lucien écrivain, Paris 1958Google Scholar; Swain, Simon, Hellenism and Empire. Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World AD 50–250, Oxford 1996Google Scholar, on Lucian 299329; Branham, R. Bracht, Unruly Eloquence. Lucian and the Comedy of Traditions, Cambridge, Mass. etc. 1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anna Beltrametti, ‘Mimesi parodici e parodia della mimesi’, in: Lanza, D., Longo, O. (edd.), meraviglioso e il verosimile tra antichita e medioevo, Florence 1989, 211–25Google Scholar. For a detailed study see Schmitz, Thomas, Bildung und Macht. Zur sozialen und politischen Fimktion der zweiten Sophistik in der griechischen Welt der Kaiserzeit, Munich 1997Google Scholar [= Zetemata 97]. Cf. also the summary in Möllendorff, Peter v., Aufder Suche nach der verlogenen Wahrheit. Lukians Wahre Geschichten, Tübingen 2000, 1–11Google Scholar, (further lit. there), and Albrecht Dihle, ‘Literaturkanon und Schriftsprache’, in: Dummer, J., Vielberg, M. (edd.), Leitbilder der Spätantike, Stuttgart 1999, 9–30Google Scholar.

² Cf. Swain (n. 1)311f., 314.

³ This seems to be the case even if we know nearly nothing about his life and his career, apart from occasional remarks in Eunapius, Lactantius and Galen; also the polemic Vita in the Suda s. v. Λουχιανός. His own remarks to be found in his texts should not easily, and surely not completely, be trusted, as has been shown by Baldwin, B., Studies in Lucian, Toronto 1973, 7–20Google Scholar.

⁴ Cf. for example Weissenberger, Michael, Literaturtheorie bei Lukian. Untersuchungen zum Dialog Lexiphanes, Stuttgart/Leipzig 1996, esp. 85–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵ On the form see Riemenschneider, Margarete, ‘Die Abhandlung Lukians “Wie man Geschichte schreiben soil“’, in: Acta Conventus XI, ‘Eirene’ Warsaw 1971, 399–404Google Scholar. That this is a treatise is made clear in (6), immediately after the introductory anecdote, when the arrangement of the text to follow is presented: 6-32 will show what the historian must avoid, 33–63 what he must achieve.

⁶ Cf. Avenarius, Gert, Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibimg, Meisenheim 1956Google Scholar; Helene, Homeyer (ed.), Lukian. Wie man Geschichte schreiben soll, Munich 1965Google Scholar; Georgiadou, Aristoula, Larmour, David H. J., ‘Lucian and Historiography: “De historia conscribenda” and “Verae historiae“’. in: ANRW II.34.2 1994, 1448–1509Google Scholar.

⁷ Cf. the list based entirely on Lucian in FGrHist 203–10.

⁸ Sic Riemenschneider (n. 5); for Crepereius Calpurnianus of Pompeiopolis (HC 15) see Christopher Jones, P., Culture and Society in Lucian, Cambridge, Mass. etc. 1986, 161–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar (with further lit.), who argues that this author is genuine. Homeyer (n. 6) 21–3 believes that the general target of Lucian's criticism. i.e. historiography on the Parthian War, is genuine, but that he invented the authors he mentions specifically (and probably also the quotations he uses).

⁹ In Herc. 3, for instance, the chain linking Hercules' tongue to his followers' ears is described as being made of gold and amber, whilst the Celt's exegesis merely talks of the binding power of the logos (5f.) Gold and amber, however, are not extra-thematic details which slot nice and neatly into the overall picture – they are conspicuous and require explanation. The text offers none, readers must therefore think for themselves. Is this an allusion to the famous poetological dichotomy between truth (clear, transparent amber) and lies (shining, bedazzling gold), or more widely to the beguiling powers of language in general, a theme which also crops up later in the interpretation of the image? Lucian occasionally makes explicit calls upon the readers' hermeneutic capabilities, as in Ver. hist. 1.2.

¹⁰ To our certain knowledge for the first time in the Χϱεῖαι of the comedian Machon (3rd century BC), in Ath. 8.349b–c; = XI (Stratonikos), 119–33 Gow (Gow, A. S. F., Machon. The fragments, Cambridge 1965Google Scholar); before this possibly in Herondas: cf. Klimek-Winter, Rainer, Andromedatragödien, Stuttgart 1993, 102f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who also discusses the whole tradition of Abderite foolishness, listing further examples and lit. See also Kraft, K., Die Abderitenfabel, (ms. thesis) Giessen 1924Google Scholar, and the very informative survey of the motif's history in Hans Jürgen Tschiedel, ‘Hic Abdera. Gedanken zur Narrheit eines Gemeinwesens im Altertum–oder: Wie dumm waren die Abderiten?’, in: Krafft, P., Tschiedel, H. J. (edd.). Concentus hexachordus. Beiträge zum 10. Symposion der bayerischen Hochschullehrer für Klassische Philologie in Eichstätt (24.–25. Februar 1984), Regensburg 1986. 169–95Google Scholar.

¹¹ Cf. HC 32, and Tschiedel (n. 10) 184, 186.

¹² Cf. HC, 16, 18, 19, 23, 26.

¹³ Nünlist, R., Poetologische Bildersprache in der frühgriechischen Dichtung, Stuttgart/Leipzig 1998. 162–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. Pindar, , Ol. 9.21f.Google Scholar, Ft: 52b, 66f., Fr. 52s. 4f., Bacch., Fr. 4.80Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Swain (n. 1) 313 detects no irony here, but a sincere personal identification with Rome on the part of Lucian, but this cannot account for the apparent exaggeration.

¹⁵ πυϱετός can refer to something which causes one to become hot with excitement, as for example in Arist. Vesp. 1038.

¹⁶ See Langholf, Volker, ‘Lukian und die Medizin. Zu einer tragischen Katharsis bei den Abderiten (De historia conscribenda §1)’. ANRW II.37.3 1996 2793–841Google Scholar, here: 2815f. On the association of these symptoms specifically with Abdera see Tschiedel (n. 10) 185f. and Hipp., Ep. 3.6–10, 13Google Scholar. The entire pathology described by Lucian can be found in the Hippocratic case-histories 3.7 and 3.9.

¹⁷ See above p. 120.

¹⁸ See, for example, Marasco, Gabriele, ‘Lo storico e il suo publico: Luciano egli storici della guerra partica di Lucio Vero’. Itaca 9–11. 1993–1995. 137–49Google Scholar, who supposes an affinity between contemporary historiography and tragic-mimetic literature to have been the background here. See also Ambaglio, Delfino, ‘Luciano e la storiografia greca tradita per citazioni’, in: Mélanges Gasco. Turin 1996. 129–36Google Scholar.

¹⁹ For the significance of the kruos motif see below pp. 138–140.

²⁰ The seventh day as turning-point is, however, a commonplace in case-histories such as those described in the Corpus Hippocraticum: see Langholf (n. 16) 2815.

²¹ Andromeda F 136 Klimek-Winter (n. 10); see below pp. 128f.

²² Blockley, R. C., The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire. Eunapius, Olxmpiodonts, Priscus and Malchus, II. Liverpool 1983Google Scholar = Hist. Gr. Min. 1.246–8 Dindorf = Exc. Sent. Const. Porph. Fr. 52 (IV.87.21 Boissevain) = Test. IV b.2 Klimek-Winter (n. 10). For reasons of space only a translation is offered here, but with the Greek wording at crucial points. The translation is essentially that of Blockley, but various changes have been made.

²³ Bernays (based on Philostr., VA 5.9Google Scholar: see below n. 58) Ἴσπαλιν [Seville], Niebuhr Ταϱσόν, Meineke Τάπην; Blockley (n. 22) 142, on the other hand, thinks it possible that Abdera could be meant here, but that the name was not mentioned at this particular point: it appeared, he thinks, earlier, in the lost section preceding this fragment. But see below n. 58.

²⁴ It is not clear exactly what the meaning of ϰατέχειν is here; the context (summer heat) would suggest that we translate the theatre was exposed to the sun with no cover’, whilst the phrase τὸ θέατϱον ϰατέχειν could also mean ‘to hold the audience under its spell’. Perhaps the reader is supposed to think of both possible meanings.

²⁵ The ϰαϰῶς ὑπὸ τῆς Ἀνδϱομέδας ἐπιτϱιβόμενοι suggests an obscene double entendre here, which would be in keeping with the satirical tenor of the text as a whole.

²⁶ Blockley (n. 22) 142 notes the parallel in Zosimus 4.33.3–4 (disapproval of the theatre's renewed popularity under Theodosius).

²⁷ But sic Langholf (n. 16) 2832f., n. 174.

²⁸ See also the fuller discussion at n. 58.

²⁹ Cf. RAC s.v. ‘Ekstase’ (F. Pfister) 951. Similar use of (παϱα) ϰινεῖν (cf. HC 1): Plato. Phdr. 245b4. Plut., Solon 8.2Google Scholar, Quaest. Rom. 112 (291B).

³⁰ ‘The meaning of “enthusiasm” thus ranges – in ancient and in modern usage – from feelings of joy. fear, and sadness to pathological madness and divine possession in the religious sense’ (RAC (n. 29) 945. It also covers Plato's θεῖαι μανίαι.

³¹ RAC (n. 29) 964.

³² RAC (n. 29) 964f. and, for example. Od. 11.334 =13.1: Plato. Mx. 235a7–bl. Phdr. 228b6–7. 234d4–6. Snip. 215el–216a2.

³³ RAC (n. 29) 971.

³⁴ Sweating as a sign of deep emotion brought on by some divine power perhaps in Eur. Bacchae 620f.: there Pentheus is breathing heavily and sweating, fooled by Dionysius' optical illusions.

³⁵ ϰαὶ ὁ μέν τῶν ποιητῶν ἐξ ἄλλης Μούσης. ὁ δὲ ἐξ ἂλλης ἐξήϱτηται – ὀνομάζομεν δέ αὐτὸ ϰατέχεται. τὸ δέ ἐοτι παϱαπλήσιο· ἒχεται γάϱ – … (Plato. Ion 536a7–bl). For the Platonic concept of enthusiasm cf. Büttner, StefanDie Literaturtheorie bei Platon und ihre anthropologische Begründung. Tübingen, 2000, 255–365Google Scholar.

³⁶ See above n. 26.

³⁷ Or even, if ούϰ άνόητος is to be understood in a broader sense (cf. Lucian who compares theatre-goers and pepaideumenoi), generally educated people. But the narrator of the anecdote does not seem to me to leave the thematic field of the theatre. And why should he? Enthusiastic reactions to theatre-like performances (not only chariot-races but also citharodes) were common enough at this time, even with a more sophisticated audience: cf. D. Chr. Or. 32.41. 50. 55f., 69. and 30.30. 42. 59f. and Jones., Christopher P.The Roman World of Dio Chrysoslom. Cambridge. Mass. 1978. 41fCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁸ Hp. Morb. sacr. 6.

³⁹ Hp., Morb. sacr. 1.7, 15.5Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ Hp., Morb. sacr. 15.5–6Google Scholar.

⁴¹ I.e. with pathological enthusiasm, as is clear from the first sentence of the fragment; this possibly refers to a previously reported fatal case of enthusiasm in a theatre-goer.

⁴² Adv. Ind. 15: …, and in the critical discussion of enthusiastic poetic licence in Hes. 4f., 9. Enthusiastic fascination provoked by philosophical teaching is – perhaps also parodically – described in Nigr. See also below p. 136f.

⁴³ We noted above that the ἡμυβάϱβαϱι in Eunapius were predestined to suffer an extreme reaction to literary recitation on account of their naïvety. We can see a correspondence to this in Lucian, where the Abderites' proverbial Gothamite nature (see above n. 10) and the (in reality deficient) paideia of the pepaideumenoi make both groups similarly susceptible.

⁴⁴ Eunapius' source and Lucian use similar terms for the audience's captivation and from spellbound to ‘enthused’ reaction to the tragedy: (Eunapius' source) and (Lucian).

⁴⁵ (Il. 15.605f.).

⁴⁶ F. 136 Klimek-Winter (n. 10); cf. the other version in Ath. 13.561BC, which offers seven verses and in which the word-order is slightly different from the one cited by Lucian.

⁴⁷ Eros is for Plato one of the theiai maniai, albeit as the philosophers' Eros of the forms; cf. for example Phdr. 249d4–e4. In early Greek poetry we frequently find the Eros of pederasty or of heterosexual love rendering victims ‘possessed’: cf. Anacr. 31, 53, 68, Theogn. 1231. That Longus (Proem 4) prays to Eros to let him write his story in a mood of σωφϱοσύνη shows this to be exactly not the state of mind Eros usually provokes.

⁴⁸ Intense emotional reactions to performances of Euripides' plays in general are mentioned in Plut. Mor. 33c (Aeolus), Mor. 756c and Lucian, JTr. 41 (Melanippe), Sen. Ep. 105.12 (inc. fab.); see Slater, Niall W., ‘Making the Aristophanic Audience’, AJP 120, 1999, 351–68Google Scholar, here: 354 n. 5, and Robert W. Wallace, ‘Poet, Public, and “Theatrocracy”: Audience Performance in Classical Athens’, in: Edmunds, L., Wallace, R. W. (edd.), Poet, Public, and Performance in Ancient Greece, Baltimore/London 1997, 97–111Google Scholar, here: 102 and n. 20. For the ancient view of the violent effect specifically of the Andromeda myth see Heliod. Aeth. 4.8, and Hilton, John, ‘An Ethiopian Paradox: Heliodorus, Aithiopika 4.8’, in: Hunter, R. (ed.). Studies in Heliodorus. Cambridge 1998, 79–92, esp. 84–9Google Scholar (further lit. there).

⁴⁹ It is the continuation of this fragment that provides the satirical twist here: war proves some to be gods, others mortals, some it turns into slaves, others it sets free – and others, we may surmise, it turns into historians. The irony in Lucian could also be linked to Heraclitus' well-known aversion to πολυαθίη (22 B 40: the mention of Hecataeus here does indicate that historians too perhaps have more knowledge than sense).

⁵⁰ The allusion would perhaps explain the (pseudo-)dating of the anecdote to the reign of one of the Diadochi, Lysimachus of Thrace and Macedonia; we encounter neither Abdera nor Lysimachus in the other extant versions of the story, but both could, of course, have appeared in a common source; cf. below n. 58. When Lucian mentions Abdera elsewhere (Macr. 18, Vit.auct. 13, Philops. 32, Fug. 9), the subject is always Democritus; of the other ‘great’ Abderites (see Tschiedel (n. 10) 181) Lucian mentions only Anaxarchus (Par. 35), but without naming his home city. Lysimachus is otherwise mentioned only in Icar. 15 and Macr. 11. Democritus and Lysimachus feature together in Macr., which could mean that the mention of the former in HC is to be read as an automatic allusion to the latter, for Lucian: the Abderite.

⁵¹ Cf. Democritus 68 A 21 [= Sotion Πεϱὶ ὀϱγῆς β¹(= Stob. Ecl. 3.20.53)].

⁵² Cf. Sacr. 15 and Peregr. 7, also Fug. 9. For this argumentation see also below n. 61. On ‘laughing Democritus’ cf. below n. 60, on ‘weeping Heraclitus’ cf. Fattal, M., ‘La Figure d'Héraclite qui pleure chez Lucien de Samosate (Les sectes à l'encan 14)’, in: Guglielmo, M., Gianotti, G. F. (edd.), Filosofia, storia, immaginario mitologico, Alessandria 1997, 175–80Google Scholar.

⁵³ Cf. for example Hor. AP 295–301, 309.

⁵⁴ On this active aspect of paideia cf. the concept of askesis in A True Story 1.1 as in Dom. 2f.

⁵⁵ See above p. 121f.

⁵⁶ For this distinction see RAC (n. 29) 959f.and esp. Plato, , Lg. 7.790e8–791b2Google Scholar, Plut. Pyth. orac. 404F–405E. Quaest. Rom. 112 (291B).

⁵⁷ Cf. for example Ps.-Longinus, , De subl. 33.5Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ The relationship between the two texts remains unclear, even if my choice of wording has already betrayed my own personal opinion – founded on all the evidence here – that Lucian based HC 1 on a text which either corresponded to the version in Eunapius, or was very similar to it. Matters are further complicated by the existence in Philostratus, Vita Apollonii 5.9 of a narrative which is in parts comparable. It is set, like the version in Eunapius, in the reign of Nero and tells of a wandering tragic actor who gives recitations from tragedies (possibly Neronian ones) for a barbarian audience in Ipola (Seville?), and whose appearance, cothurni, and voice prompt his listeners to flee. Klimek-Winter (n. 10) 104f. assumes that Eunapius, who knew both Lucian and Philostratus' Life of Apollonius (cf. Eun., VS 2.1.9 and 2.1.4Google Scholar), combined the two accounts (and thus implies, of course, that Lucian, being the earlier of the two, is the original author of the story). Although Eunapius could conceivably have used Philostratus, I consider it highly unlikely that he drew on Lucian's concealed allusions to the ἐνθουσιασμός of poetics – concealed in particular by the two-phase course of the epidemic – to create this almost grotesque satire on a specific interpretation of audience reactions, i. e. one based entirely on the theory of ἐνθουσιασμός. If we assume that he did, then we also have to assume that Eunapius himself added the reference to (which Lucian does not mention at all), that he turned Lucian's elaborate and subtle comparison of the Abderites and the pepaideumenoi into the simple sequence ἡμυβάϱβαϱοι and ούϰ ἀνόητοι, and, finally, that he changed the familiar, even almost commonplace case-history with seven-day fever, crisis, and second stadium, into the daring construction of a seven-day drama recitation. These modifications seem, by contrast, even quite logical if one assumes that they were made, as it were, the other way round, i.e. by Lucian (and if one assumes that his intentions really were the ones I have postulated for him): the ‘typical’ case-history in particular would actually have been necessary in order for Lucian to introduce himself metaphorically as physician (see Tschiedel (n. 10) 185f, who rightly rejects Homeyer's interpretation). Klimek-Winter does not mention, for example, the aetiology of the disease given in Eunapius, which, in this form, could be derived neither from Philostratus nor Lucian. The city's inhabitants in Eunapius do not fall ill of fever (although Klimek-Winter seems to think otherwise), as they do in Lucian, but of diarrhoea (which Lucian's Abderites are spared entirely). The differences between Philostratus' restrained description of the tragic actor's performance and Eunapius' very detailed account are striking. The actor's attempt to win his audience over by letting their leaders in on his theatrical secrets is only found in Eunapius, not in Lucian or Philostratus. This all leaves me convinced that the three versions are based on one source (second half of the 1 st century) to which the account in Eunapius is probably most similar, whilst Philostratus reduced it to the simple barb about un-Hellenic barbarism – which fits nicely into his narrative proper: cf. Philostr., VA 5.8 and 5.10Google Scholar, where this very ‘barbarian ignorance’ motif is introduced and later taken up again. Lucian changed the setting in the source to the Abdera of Lysimachus (Klimek-Winter's idea (103) that this has something to do with later criticism of tragic-mimetic tendencies in contemporary historiography – see above n. 18 – would make sense here), and modified as described above. Langholf (n. 16) 2834f. n. 174 rejects the possibility of a definite link between Lucian and Eunapius. postulating instead an itinerant narrative – consistent with his theory (here n. 59, with some arguments to the contrary) that Lucian's Abderite anecdote is based on a Hellenistic catharsis parody which Lucian did not actually recognise as such: this could scarcely apply to Eunapius as well.

⁵⁹ This interpretation makes Langholf's very lucidly presented argument (n. 16; 2814–22) that the Abdera anecdote is an early Hellenistic parody of the Aristotelian theory of catharsis hard to accept. True, the course of the illness as described by Lucian would fit in with this reading: the fever caused by extreme summer temperatures is, writes Langholf, purged with a dose of tragic recitation (purging too soon can be harmful and worsen the symptoms, as is noted at various points in the Corpus Hippocraticum), and after the crisis on the seventh day the body rids itself of undigested cathartic substances, i.e. bits of tragic verse (at the risk of appearing pedantic, I would like to ask whether these bits should not then have been from Andromeda alone?). For his argumentation, however, Langholf has to deny any link between the anecdote in Eunapius and the Abdera version, but, as we saw above (p. 125 and n. 58). an (indirect) connection must exist; he also has to assume the existence of a lost and, in terms of context, not very easily imaginable parodistic anecdote which could only have been appreciated by readers with extremely specialised knowledge; he has to see Lucian's version as the only ancient response to Aristotle's theory of catharsis (2836), but at the same time maintain that Lucian has absolutely no idea what this theory actually means – and this entangles Langholf in the rekindling of some well-nigh anachronistic prejudices about the standard of the author's education (2810): here Langholf fails to appreciate that Lucian's mimetic aesthetics require the reader to be able to identify his (Lucian's) models, which would seem unlikely in the case of Aristotle's Poetics (as Langholf admits), but likely as far as Democritus and Plato are concerned, not to mention the fact that enthousiasmos was common poetological currency (cf., for example, above n. 42 and p. 130f). Langholf does not take into account the wider context of the quotation from Andromeda or the possibility of an allusion to Democritus. Finally, at one crucial point, he interprets Lucian in my opinion wrongly: the theatrical performance in Abdera is not, as he suggests, a cathartic event, but it is instead the combination of inner emotion, and thus inner heat, caused by the recitation, and the outer body temperatures caused by the hot weather that trigger the outbreak ( θεάτϱον in HC 1 is to be read in the temporal and in the causal sense). The arguments which Langholf bases on the naming of Lysimachos (see above n. 50) and of the (now unknown) actor Archelaus have little weight here (2813f.; cf. Klimek-Winter (n. 10) 103).

⁶⁰ See Holzberg., N. ‘Der griechische Briefroman. Versuch einer Gattungstypologie’. in: Holzberg, N. (ed.). Der griechische Briefroman. Gattungstypologie uncl Textanalyse. Tübingen 1994. 1–52Google Scholar. on the Hippocrates novel 22–8. On Democritus as laughing philosopher see Rütten., Th.Demokrit – lachender Philosoph uncl sanguinischer Melancholiker. Eine pseudohippokrcitische Geschichte, Leiden etc. 1992Google Scholar. and Müller, Reimar, ‘Demokrit – der “lachende Philosoph”. in: Jäkel, S. (ed.). Laughter down the Centuries I. Turku 1994, 39–51Google Scholar.

⁶¹ The tenth epistle of the novel – the first letter from the council and people of Abdera to Hippocrates with their urgent request for him to help Democritus – also contains some details which match Lucian's Abdera anecdote, but this observation does not. as far as I can see. seem to lead to any further conclusions. The Abderites identify themselves fully with Democritus. His illness is an illness of the polis: τούς νομους (10.2). However, the Abderites see themselves as representatives of paideia, which they value more than money and which they endeavour to express in their thinking and style. And, in fact, their behaviour towards Hippocrates is more fitting than, for example, that of the Persian king who, as shown in earlier letters, thought he could bribe and threaten the physician into becoming his obedient servant. At the same time, the Abderites fail to appreciate the reality of the situation: their paideia is inferior to that of Democritus, he is sane, they are the true madmen. This matches in my opinion the portrayal intended by Lucian, in which the Abderites, with their love of theatre, are not wholly barbarian, but merely of limited paideia, like his pepaideumenoi, who – as their historiographical writing shows – are not truly educated. When the Abderites of the Hippocrates novel decide that Democritus is suffering from an excess of wisdom (10.1: ), then it is really their own inadequate paideia that prevents them from seeing the truth. Comparable to this in Lucian is, perhaps, the fact that the anecdote is used to illustrate the discrepancy between true and false paideia. The search for such parallels produces no further results in terms of content, but there are no contradictions to be found either: proof that Lucian was extremely careful when combining his sources. Just for the record, Horace, , Ep. 2.1.194–200Google Scholar links Democritus' laughter with the subject of ‘theatre performances’ for his own polemic: theatre now only serves to satisfy a craving for showy pageantry, it no longer listens to the words of the poet; for Democritus, then, as for Lucian, the audience represents a public display of human foolishness (Müller (n. 60) 43), itself stupid and deaf to the meaning of the words.

⁶² Marked by the echo of οἱϰοδομίας (4) in οἱϰοδομήσας(62).

⁶³ More on this in Romm, James S., ‘Wax, Stone, and Promethean Clay: Lucian as Plastic Artist’, CA 9, 1990, 74–98Google Scholar; v. Möllendorff (n. 1) 17–23.

⁶⁴ It might perhaps be significant that in the Pharos anecdote Lucian seems to compare himself with the ἀϱχιτέϰτων of the lighthouse. It is not by chance that in the four other instances where Lucian uses the term architekton he is always describing the planning and working of an artist: cf. HC 12 (= Pr. im. 9), Herm. 20 and esp. Char. 4, where it is Homer himself who is called architekton.

⁶⁵ Cf. the discussion of enthusiasm in oratory in the early chapters of (Ps.-) Lucian, Dem. enc. (5–8).

⁶⁶ See Homeyer (n. 6) 259f.; on Lucian's disapproval of Corybantic style Lex. 16, 20, 24 - cf. Weissenberger (n. 4) ad loc. - and Bacch. 5. For the treatment of the ἐνθουσιασμός theory in Pythagorean and Peripatetic thought see Roller, Hermann, Die Mimesis in der Antike, Bern 1954, 219–21Google Scholar. Rejection of ‘inspired’ poetry-writing that neglects its τέχνη also in Horace, AP 295–301, 309; for other parallels between Lucian's and Horace's thinking here cf. Homeyer (n. 6) 63–81.

⁶⁷ Cf. v. Möllendorff (n. 1) 73–6.

⁶⁸ Cf. e.g. Cic., De orat. 2.194–97Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Cf. Homeyer (n. 6) 260.

⁷⁰ Cf. here Kositzke, B., ‘Art. “Enthusiasmus”’, in: HWRh 2 (Tübingen 1994) 1185–97Google Scholar, esp. 1185–9.

⁷¹ See Mattioli., E. ‘Retorica e storia nel Quomodo Historia Sit Conscribenda di Luciano’, in: Pennacini, A. (ed.), Retorica e storia nella cultura classica, Bologna 1985, 89–105Google Scholar; Montanari, F., ‘Ekphrasis e verità storica nella critica di Luciano’, Ricerche di filologia classica 2, Pisa 1984, 111–23Google Scholar; Montanari, F., ‘Virtutes elocutionis e narrationis nella storiografia secondo Luciano’, Ricerche di filologia classica 3. Pisa 1987, 53–65Google Scholar. On parallels between Lucian's notions of the ideal orator and the ideal historian see Homeyer (n. 6) 251 f.

⁷² On the latter see Montanari ((n. 71) 1987) 59f.

⁷³ See Mattioli (n. 71) 100 ff.

⁷⁴ See Mattioli (n. 71) 94; cf. also Lucian, Pr.im. 20f. and Gerlinde Bretzigheimer, ‘Lukians Dialoge Εἰϰόνες - ῾Υπὲϱ τῶν εἰϰὸνων. Ein Beitrag zur Literaturtheorie und Homerkritik’, RhM 135, 1992, 161–87.

⁷⁵ See Mattioli (n. 71) 98f.

⁷⁶ See Mattioli (n. 71) 96f. and Montanari ((n. 71) 1984) 116f. On all problems regarding the conflict reality/fiction in historiography, the selection of historical facts and their organic arrangement, and rhetoric and ethics see M. J. Wheeldon's carefully considered ‘“True Stories”’: The Reception of Historiography in Antiquity', in: Cameron, A. (ed.), History As Text: The Writing of Ancient Historiography, London 1989, 36–63Google Scholar, who allots to Lucian's treatise its proper place within this debate.

⁷⁷ Montanari ((n. 71) 1987) 62, Mattioli (n. 71) 100.

⁷⁸ On Ψυχϱόν see Hook's, L. van informative ‘Ψυχϱότης ἢ τὸ Ψυχϱόν’, CPh 12, 1917, 68–76Google Scholar; on the metaphorical use of the frigus ‘motif’ see Freudenburg, Kirk, The Walking Muse. Horace on the Theory of Satire, Princeton, N.J. 1993, 191fGoogle Scholar. and, for example, Hor., Sat. 1.1.80–3Google Scholar, 2.5.39–41.

⁷⁹ Cf. here for the basic aspects of Ψυχϱόν in the sense of exaggerated amplificatio Lausberg, H., Handbuch der literarischien Rhetorik, ed. 3. Stuttgart 1990, sec. 1076Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ The terms can also be applied to shallow, fatuous and insipid literary products or their authors: see LSJ s.v. Ψυχϱόν II.4: s.v. Ψυχϱότης II.

⁸¹ Cf. above n. 9.

⁸² Given that Lucian warns readers right from the start that his expectations for the success of his treatise are low, the Ψυχϱόν motif is perhaps also supposed to suggest that the ‘frigidity’ of the historians' vapid products will in the long run be the end of them, because they will attract no (educated) readers.