Fiction As a Discourse of Philosophy in Lucian's Verae

FICTION AS A DISCOURSE OF PHILOSOPHY IN LUCIAN’S VERAE HISTORIAE

Andrew Laird

Now poetry and philosophy are two names for what is, in reality, a single thing, differing within itself only to the extent that, as one might hold, day is distinct from the light of the sun falling on the earth, or the sun in its course over the earth is distinct from the day… What else is the point of a myth? It is a doctrine concealed beneath adornments of a different kind, like the statues that the priests of the mysteries have clothed in gold and silver and robes, so as to make their appearance the more impressive. Maximus of Tyre Oration 4.1.5

The formal and stylistic influence of philosophical dialogue on the ancient novel in general has been recognised for a long time.1 How- ever, the extent to which ancient prose fiction itself might self- consciously be a vehicle of philosophy has been very much ignored. The basic aim of this paper will be to illustrate the profundity of the relationship between philosophy and fiction – by concentrating mainly on a particular aspect of this relationship in the Verae Histo- riae or True Stories: the complex response to Plato in this text. The engagement with a range of philosophical traditions—Platonist, Py- thagorean and Stoic—as well as individual philosophers, like Empe- docles, Socrates, and Zeno, is a major feature of Lucian’s work.2 However, this discussion will be confined to consideration of Plato’s Republic as a model for Lucian’s Verae Historiae. But this consideration might have some important consequences for our under- standing of the nature and evolution of ancient fiction. From the beginning, it is important to bear in mind that the cate- gorical boundaries between genres of discourse which are essential to classicists today were not always so prominent or so self-evident to

1 See e.g. Bakhtin (1981), Rohde (1876). 2 Abundant material and bibliography can now be found in Georgiadou, Larmour (1998). On Lucian’s relation to Plato, Tackaberry (1930) is still useful. 116 ANDREW LAIRD ancient readers and writers.3 Part of the process of commentary and explication has always been to classify generically any ancient text under scrutiny.4 The Verae Historiae has not been exempted from this process. The resounding conclusion is that this is a work of comic romance. The satirical elements add only a modicum of grav- ity to a work that is primarily supposed to be funny.5 The panorama of Lucian’s works within their literary and cultural background in- clines one to this consensus. However, the complexity, suggestive- ness, and open-ended quality of this particular text, so finely articu- lated by Massimo Fusillo, might serve as a caveat.6 The multiple, dialogical perspectives and possible worlds generated by Lucian’s narrative mean that the consensus verdict of Verae Historiae as en- tertaining fiction can only be provisional. Attempts to establish the relationship between Lucian’s Verae Historiae and philosophy call for a second, more general, caveat. It is important to be clear about the different ways ‘philosophy’ can be conceived: as a practice professional or otherwise, as a technical form of argument, system building or ideology, as a genre of discourse, or even literature.7 Where Plato is concerned, for instance, I argue elsewhere that all the elements in his philosophical dialogues—including, say, inherited myth, invented fiction, or mise-en- scène—could well constitute philosophical discourse, de facto.8 This obtains even if Plato’s dialogues often appear to constitute philosophy in a weaker or more open sense than current standards permit. That realisation has important consequences for the morals we draw about the reading of Plato (or even ‘philosophy’ as a whole) in the Verae Historiae. Here Lucian is not just generally involved with philosophy – he is specifically concerned with the relation between philosophy and invented fiction.

3 For an excellent discussion of modern treatments of ancient genre, see Rosen- meyer (1985); contrast Cairns (1972) and even Genette (1992). Conte (1994) is also pertinent. 4 This tradition ultimately goes back to the accessus in late antiquity; see the con- tributions to Most (1999) and Gibson, Kraus (2002). 5 URQWFC¾QY G¿Y VÓ IGNCU[PCK is Eunapius’ appropriate comment on Lucian Vit. Soph. ed. Dübner (1878), 454. Anderson (1976) 1-11, Bompaire (1958), Perry (1967), Reardon (1989a) 619-20 all concur that the VH primarily serves to amuse. 6 Fusillo (1988). 7 See e.g. Wilson Nightingale (1995). 8 Laird (2001).