John Cook, University of Melbourne

This paper examines a number of aspects of Bakhtin爷s treatment of Lu- cian of Samosata (115/125 CE -190 CE), a Menippean satirist writing during the period of the Second Sophistic. In a similar way to the Roman satirist Varro, Lu- cian represents an exemplar of the various qualities of , which include a focus on philosophical concerns through a literary lens, the use of literary bricolage, and a multi-planar view of the universe. And like Varro, Lucian provided Bakhtin with the raw material that facilitated a connection between literary theory and an analysis of language. Bakhtin positions Lucian within a long and distin- guished Classical tradition of Menippean satire. In addition, the study of allowed Bakhtin to interweave the traditions of Graeco-Roman, Mediaeval and Re- naissance literature with the Russian literary tradition (specifically Dostoevsky) which occurred much closer in time to the 耶zone of contact爷 between author and reader. Bakhtin爷s close focus on the topics of and Lucian post-date 1929. However, there are indications in Volume 3 of his that an interest in Lucian is developing. This is confirmed in Volume 5 by 耶Satira爷 [1940] and in Volume 4-I by 耶Menippova satira ...爷[1944]. These texts reference Lucian and the published results of this focus are seen in Bakhtin爷s works of the 1960s. This focus stresses the serio-comic ( ), juxtaposition or bricolage ( ), and contestation ( ). There appear to be a number of structural and stylistic con- nections between Bakhtin爷s analysis of Lucian爷s work and Bakhtin爷s own theory of language. This paper connects Bakhtin爷s literary theory and his analysis of language: through a review of his theory of heteroglossia and its relationship with parody. Lucian爷s is characterised by burlesque, an extension of parody and travesty in Bakhtin爷s literary-theoretical framework. Independently, yet comple- mentary to these two meta-genres, Bakhtin爷s theory of heteroglossia has clear con- nections to Lucian爷s bricolage.

M. M. Bakhtin, Lucian of Samosata; Menippean Satire, Menippea; Parody; Serio-comic, ; Juxtaposition, Bricolage, ; Contestation,

窑62窑 n order to simplify the various aspects of Menippean satire, I have chosen to re- I iterate the way in which Joel Relihan groups the facets of in the second chapter of his (Relihan 1993, pp. 12-36). These elements are: the mixture of prose and verse (the 1), the fantastic narrative, the burlesque of language and literature, and jokes at learning爷s expense. J rgen Brummack reframes these elements thus: 野Among its most characteristic 俟 traits are fiction that is often inconsistent and fantastic and apparently used for effect; the displacement of the familiar perspective; the combination of learnedness with sometimes blatant irony; linguistic and stylistic colourfulness; and freedom of arrangement冶.2 But the aspect of most material to the concerns of this paper is its paradoxical nature, the fact that it is an uncomfortable hybrid, 野a mixture of oppo- sites, of things that do not belong together ... so fashioned of warring components as to make it a literary anomaly冶 (Relihan 1993, p. 20). One outcome of this hy- bridity is a sense of travesty or burlesque, based on an assortment of literary parodies. Another outcome is the inversion of the reader爷s orientation, created by a combination of an often-unreliable narrator (created by a number of inconsistent authorial perspectives), and a fantastic plot line complicated by a catascopic viewpoint.3 This dislocation is further reinforced by the fact that whilst various of the lampoon philosophy and enquiry after knowledge, they do so despite their authors being well-known as academics ( ).4 The genre of Menippean satire is named after Menippus (Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, p. 736),5 a Greek writer who flourished in the IIIrd century BCE,6 known for his diatribes ( ). As a Classical philologist, Bakhtin plots the development of this sub-genre through references to the writings of Bion Borysthenes7 [c.335-c.245 BCE], the eponymous Menippus of Gadara [first half IIIrd century BCE], Marcus Terentius Varro [116-27 BCE], Lucius Annaeus Seneca [c.4 BCE - 65 CE], Publius Petronius Arbiter [c.27-66 CE], and Lucian of Samosata [115/125-190 CE], .8 Relatively sparse references to Apuleius of Madaura [125-190 CE] in the context of seem to indicate that Bakhtin deems him not to be in the main-

John Cook, Honorary Fellow of School of Languages and Linguistics of University of Melbourne, his research project focused on Bakhtin爷s self-fashioning and its implications for his work, and he continues to work on narrative theory and the philosophy of language and identity, combining this with his work as Reviews Editor of Australian Slavonic and East European Studies.

窑63窑 stream of this genre (for example Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, p. 742). This view of A- puleius seems to be supported by current scholarship, which views Apuleius less as a Menippean satirist, and more as a rhetor or writer of picaresque fiction (Relihan 1993, p. 21). That being said, the generic attribution of is not seen as clear cut, being easily confused with categories such as 耶imaginary journey爷, 耶iron- ic encomium爷 or 耶picaresque novel爷.9 Of the writers mentioned in earlier parts of this section, several stand out for various reasons. For example, Bakhtin emphasises the contributions of Varro (particularly his and , specifically referred to in Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, pp. 738-739, 743, 746, 749) and Petronius (in his 10) to the history of the European novel. However, both Varro爷s and Petro- nius爷 are now held to be fragments of much larger works.11 In addition, Seneca爷s ,12 whilst influential was a relatively small part of his oeuvre. But Lucian of Samosata is another matter entirely.

In terms of breadth and depth of reference, Lucian provides an ideal template for any treatment of . Concentrating on Lucian brings a number of aspects of the genre into sharp focus. One method of sharpening this focus is to use the cultural milieu in which Lucian operated － that of the 耶Second Sophistic爷－ as a back- drop against which to consider these aspects. The Second Sophistic was a cultural phenomenon － generally agreed to have occurred in the Roman Empire between 60 CE and 230 CE － characterised by an emphasis on 耶Sophistic declamation爷 (Greek: ). The term was apparently coined by Philostratus and has been used to describe the literary culture of the time 野in which the rhetorical training of the Greek elite and their admiration for effective public declamation influenced most of the literary genres...冶.13 This stylistic phenomenon permeated a wide range of occupations associated with religion, politics, education, the law and, above all, literature, where the influence of rhetorical de- vices could be seen in Hellenistic narrative. In terms of the characteristics of , most (if not all) of those identified by Brummack and Relihan appear in Lucian爷s work. Examples are: the sense of parody-driven travesty14 so often referred to by Bakhtin throughout his collected works;15 the intentional disorientation of the reader by the author爷s creation of an unreliable narrator (Lucian 1913 [Vol. I], p. 249) and the use of s － a

窑64窑 top-down, spy-glass view of the world (Lucian 1915 [Vol. II], pp. 287-295)16 － embedded in fantasy. Finally, a large number of Lucian爷s works are concerned with philosophers and their approaches to knowledge, which are seen as irreconcilable with everyday life and thus self-defeating.17

For the purposes of this paper I have chosen to commence my analysis of the context of Menippean satire by reviewing the characteristics of menippea as outlined in Bakhtin爷s (Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, pp. 128-134; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], p. 114-119). In doing so, I wish to consider them in the order of their relevance to, and importance in, Lucian爷s work, rather than the order in which Bakhtin tackled them. It seems to me that one key concept in Bakhtin爷s treatment of is ( ),18 which he describes as 野the juxtaposition of various points of view on a specific object冶 (Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 125; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], p. 110). Using this comparative technique, Bakhtin indicates that strips back the philosophical process to a naked 野 of life爷s ultimate ques- tions冶.19 He further suggests that this juxtaposition involves 野sharp contrasts and oxymoronic combinations冶 which, in turn, lead to 野abrupt transitions and shifts冶.20 Evidence of Bakhtin爷s focus on this aspect can be seen in section II of 叶FVKvR曳 that analyses the transformation of Lucius, the protagonist in Apuleius爷 . Due to his particular fascination with the novelistic form, he had a pronounced interest in those genres that he felt made a specific contribution to the European novel, amongst which he included . These characteristics are supported by the use of 野inserted gen- res冶, whose presence 野reinforces the and nature of the : what is coalescing here is as the material of literature冶.21 Another salient characteristic of Lucian爷s menippea is the fact that the comic, particularly the serio-comic ( [ ]), is an essential element in his work.22 This characteristic is combined with the way in which the fantastic is employed in Menippean satire: as a means to search for, provoke and thus test for truth.23 This is closely linked with a term that complements Bakhtin爷s view of juxtaposition ― () ― 野the provocation of the word by the word冶 (Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 125; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], p. 111). This is caused

窑65窑 by Menippean mechanisms which internally motivate and justify the fantastic by devoting it to a 野purely ideational and philosophical end冶 (Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 129; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], p. 114). The end result of this process is a particular kind of 野experimental fantasticality冶, itself characterised by 野observation from some un- usual point of view ... which results in a radical change in the scale of the observed phenomena of life冶.24 Bakhtin also identifies 爷s focus on current issues, going into great detail to identify the 耶zone of contact爷 to which Menippean satirists implicitly refer, using Lucian as an exemplar:

野The satires of Lucian, taken as a group, are an entire encyclopedia of his times: they are full of overt and hidden polemics with various philosophical, religious, ideological and sci- entific schools, and with the tendencies and currents of his time; they are full of the images of contemporary or recently deceased public figures, 耶masters of thought爷 in all spheres of societal and ideological life (under their own names, or disguised); they are full of allu- sions to the great and small events of the epoch; they feel out new directions in the development of everyday life; they show newly emerging types in all layers of society, and so on.冶25

As a consequence, there is in the a strong element of 耶social utopia爷, which is combined with an 野extraordinary freedom of plot and philosophical inven- tion冶.26 This plot is often framed around a tri-planar of the Under- world, Earth and Heaven.27 The transitions between these planes are subject to the same characteristics as the chronotope of the threshold. The remaining three char- acteristics28 are less well represented in Lucian, although scandals and eccentric be- haviour29 (sometimes accompanied by slum naturalism30) occasionally appear. Working back in time from Chapter Four of the , we see the seeds of Bakhtin爷s researches encapsulated in 耶Menippova satira i ee znachenie v istorii romana爷叶曳, written in 1944 (Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, pp. 733-749). This work alternates coherent passages of writing with more cryptic sections in highly condensed note form, with the emphasis on speculation rather than polished scholarship. This piece itemises the formal fundamental features of Menippean satire and .31 It also works through issues associated with the chronotope. The chronotope most discussed is that of the public square where people 耶sell, laugh and amuse themselves, dethrone and crown, trade, take to pieces, crucify, where summit and gorge meet, the Underworld and Heaven爷 (Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, p. 745), although that of the threshold is mentioned in connection with Dostoevsky. In the later part of his oeuvre Bakhtin traces through works ranging from those of Classical authors through those of early mod-

窑66窑 ern times ― Rabelais, Cervantes, the French political satire 叶曳 of 1594, and finally B roalde de Verville (the latter爷s work being exemplified by 叶佴曳, published in 1617 and referred to by Bakhtin in Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 346) ― to those of Dostoevsky. The area of action in which Classical operate is the Underworld,32 which is introduced by Bakhtin in the initial paragraph of 叶Men曳. This region (a 耶special artistic plane爷) has certain characteristics that make it ideal for satire: peo ple meet without regard to their place in the hierarchy; likewise, the hero has an opportunity to interact with the other characters, without any consideration of status; this enables people to exchange views with the 耶utmost candour爷, to the point of 耶provocation爷 (Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, p. 733). This facilitates literary 耶conver- sations with the dead爷. However, Bakhtin links this underworld with more prosaic spaces, which he believes participate in similar interstitial, limbo-like characteristics: the tavern and the ship爷s deck; the threshold and staircase, public square and street; the room as a fragment of the public square (Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, p. 745); and the crowd (as opposed to the chorus); all these embody the same characteristics as the underworld (Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, pp. 735, 745, 747, 748).33 And they all represent the 耶ex- tra-hierarchical plane爷, the 耶plane of plotted action爷 (Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, pp. 734, 735). Linked to these liminal regions is the notion of protean transformation, specifically involving a mystical transformation of the person: these themes are covered in greater detail in another part of Bakhtin爷s work that analyses Petronius爷s Satyricon and Apuleius爷s (Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, pp.742, 746).34 This transformation was closely allied to the principle of inversion that defines Bakhtin爷s notion of carnival, a notion in turn derived from the earlier Saturnalia. The inversion of the hierarchy in carnival, combined with its abrogation of laws, resulted in a hero without a place in the hierarchy, stripped of status (Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, pp.734, 740, 744, 747). Bakhtin points to the interesting parallel between hierarchical disconnection and temporal disconnection (Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, p. 744), in which one can see a Dantesque view of the universe. This temporal disconnection is intimately linked with the annihilation of epic and tragic distance, and the consequent ability to transfer from the far past to the 耶zone of contact爷 (Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, pp. 734, 738, 744). Bakhtin is quite specific about the meaning of the latter term: 耶The universal problems (耶the last questions爷) of the el- evated mythic plane are carried onto the [public] square, in the present in its speci- ficity. The transfer of all this from a distant plane into the zone of contact (Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, p. 734).爷 This transfer from the far past to the 耶zone of contact爷 e-

窑67窑 vokes an ( ) or dialogical provocation (Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, p. 748), driven by the fantastic plot. The bridged gap between the far past and the 耶zone of contact爷35 is paralleled by the gap in Bakhtin爷s detailed analysis between B roalde de Verville and the 佴 time of writing of 叶MenSat曳 (1617 to 1944), thus implicitly demonstrating perfor- matively the applicability of to Soviet Russia. This connection becomes clearer when one views less as a generic characteristic of a literary text and more of a bridging mechanism between the past and the present. Whilst Bakhtin engage with the technique of Aesopian language ― specifically the way that language was used in the XIXth century ― the mechanisms of as he analysed them appear to be similar to those of Aesopian language. Satira 叶Sat曳, written in 1940 (Bakhtin 1997 叶曳, pp. 11-38) ― the work that preceded 叶MenSat曳 ― is a more traditional piece in the form of general historical review, destined for an encyclopaedia. As a consequence, it is less speculative, more polished and thus far more accessible. On the basis of the dates attributed by the editors of the to 叶MenSat曳 and its predecessor 叶Sat曳, together with the relative proportions devoted to , it appears that Bakhtin developed an intense interest in Menippean satire during the four-year period that sepa- rates these texts. This has resulted in the two pages covering in 叶Sat曳 (Bakhtin 1997 叶曳, pp. 24-25), expanding to seventeen pages in 叶MenSat曳 (Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, pp. 733-749). In both 耶Satira爷 and 耶Menippova satira.. .爷, Lucian of Samosata features prominently. Bakhtin爷s interest in the satire of the Second Sophistic appears to have undergone a significant development over the four years separating these two works, providing significant influences on his books of the 1960s ( 叶TFR曳叶PPD曳). After considering (and discarding) Schiller爷s definition of satire in his finished piece 叶Sat曳, Bakhtin suggests a definition of his own: 耶Thus, satire is the figurative negation of contemporary reality in its various aspects, a negation that necessarily includes within itself 要 in one form or another and with varying degrees of speci- ficity and clarity 要 the positive aspect of the affirmation of a better reality爷.36 From this point on in 叶Sat曳, Bakhtin patiently assembles examples and outlines the history of satire to provide concrete support for both his typology and his definition. In 叶MenSat曳 he further refines and encapsulates as 耶dialogue which ... aspires not only to teach but to entertain爷 (Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, p. 742), bas- ing this refinement on Menippean satire爷s formal fundamental features: a combination of philosophical dialogue with an acutely adventurous and fantastic plot; the

窑68窑 appearance of the hero-ideologue; 耶moral experimentation爷; the role of the motif of sleep, dreams and madness; the appearance of utopian elements; the development of internal dialogue (soliloquy); specific spatio-temporal relationships; and finally, the annihilation of epic and tragic distance (Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, p. 734). Most of the analysis of Bakhtin爷s studies of by modern scholars appears to focus on the formal and textological aspects of his work. For example, the commentator who edited Volume 4 (I. L. Popova) expresses a view of 耶the Menip- pean topic爷 that reveals much about the ambivalence that characterises scholarship on this aspect of Bakhtin爷s work (Bakhtin 2010 [ ], pp. 564-584). Popova deals with in the commentary on the contents of both parts of this volume of Bakhtin爷s largely because 野Menippean satire and its significance in the history of the novel冶 appears in Volume 4-1, despite its more obvious applicability to his subsequent work on the . This results in a bifurcation of Popova爷s treatment of as it relates to the 耶Rabelaisian bundle爷. One branch of her analysis of Menippean satire drives toward Bakhtin爷s assessment of Dostoevsky爷s work as polyphonic, the other reviews the context of as being 耶in its entirety concentrated around the book on Rabelais爷 (Bakhtin 2010 [ ], pp. 568). Whilst aspects of this commentary are undoubtedly valid and perceptive,37 this artificial split blunts her analysis somewhat. Much ink is spent on purely textological issues and discontinuities in Russian Classical scholarship in the area of satire, rather than the broad- er implications for Bakhtin爷s thought. What is omitted from Popova爷s analysis is any hypothesis as to how Bakhtin internalised the notions implied in Menippean satire, and further, in what areas (other than polyphony and carnival) were there outcomes that might be traced back to . Of more interest to this paper than these bifurcations and omissions, is the scarcity of Popova爷s references to Lucian,38 indeed to any individual Classical author apart from Menippus. Whilst we can identify at least twelve references to individual pieces by Lucian throughout the ,39 Popova cites only three ( [ ], and [ ] ), the latter two of which are not amongst the most frequently cited by Bakhtin. The lack of correlation between the text and commentary is pronounced throughout those volumes of the in which Bakhtin mentions Lucian,40 where the instances of 耶Lucian爷 in the text far outweigh any references in the commentary material.41

窑69窑 The geographical spread of the cultural movement known as the Second Sophistic ranged from Asia Minor to the Latin West, also embracing Phoenicia and Egypt, but centred on Athens and the cities bordering the Aegean Sea. A particularly perti- nent characteristic of this period is that of the conflict between 野austere Atticism冶 (which harked back to the earlier, 耶purer爷 Classical Greek traditions of the ) and 野flamboyant Asianism冶 (which has stylistic features reminiscent of the sophist Gorgias with whom Socrates engaged).42 Two aspects of this Attic-Asian dichotomy are reflected in Lucian爷s works. One aspect is reflected in the characters in his dialogues or speeches which are generally recognised to be representations of Lucian himself.43 These characters mirror Lucian爷s perception of himself as a Syrian from Samosata, a town located on the northern bank of the Euphrates within the Roman Empire爷s eastern borders.44 In all likelihood, Lucian爷s native language was Aramaic and his command of Greek was acquired during his training as a rhetor.45 As Inger Kuin (a Lucian scholar) commented recently: 野in [Lucian爷s] scenario, one爷s cultural identity no longer depends on birth and blood alone, making it possible to Greek冶 (Kuin 2017: 134).46 This counterpoint between Classical Attic Greek and Aramaic clearly illustrates the performative nature of culture in the period of the Second Sophistic, arising from both the juxtaposition and contestation of cultural identities. Kuin illustrates this by reference to and another Lucian dialogue (sometimes rendered as , ), both of which pieces chal- lenge stereotypes about Syrians (Kuin 2017, p. 135). The other aspect of this dichotomy has its roots in one of Lucian爷s predeces- sors, Bion Borysthenes. Bion was born at the mouth of the river referred to in Clas- sical times as the Borysthenes (the modern-day Dnieper, which debouches into the Black Sea).47 He was an eclectic, peripatetic philosopher who held a form of philosophy characterised as , 野a more realistic and more practically oriented out- look on life than was the case with the first Cynics冶.48 He was renowned for his diatribes, which Bakhtin recognised as being lineal antecedents of Menippean satire. However, most importantly for the purposes of this paper, Bion was geographically Scythian and hence of interest to both Lucian and Bakhtin. Lucian爷s interest in Scythians as a group of barbarians can be gauged by the fact that three of his dialogues ― , and ― all feature Scythians as protag- onists (Lucian 1925 [Vol. IV], pp. 1-69; Lucian 1936 [Vol. V], pp. 101-207; Lucian 1959 [Vol. VI], pp. 239-257). All three pieces attempt to break the barbarian

窑70窑 stereotype. Bakhtin has an additional interest in Bion in that late XIXth and early XXth century Russian culture drew heavily on what it perceived to be its Scythian roots. Centred on the Crimea, the Scythian hinterland of the Black Sea stretched north- wards toward what was later to become Rus. Archaeological discoveries in this area fertilised historiosophical theorising (by scholars like Khomyakov and Kireyevsky) and the arts (Blok, Prokofiev and Bakst) connecting Scythia and Russia. Hence, there appears to be evidence of Bakhtin爷s increasing realisation of the importance of Bion Borysthenes being located in what was subsequently part of Russia.49 In 叶PPD曳, Bion of Borysthenes is specifically mentioned as 耶the man from the banks of the Dneipr爷,50 emphasising the connection between the sub-genre (through Bion as a representative of a proto-European literary tradition) and the antecedents of Russian literature, and thus underwriting the connection with Dostoevsky. One of the theoretical outcomes of this connection was that the European novel could be connected to Russian literary history much earlier than the XIXth century. It is also unlikely that the parallel between this dichotomy and those tendencies of the West- ernizers and Slavophiles in XIXth and XXth century Russia would have escaped Bakhtin. If Bion爷s interest to Bakhtin is associated with a link to Kievan Rus and an essential component of in the form of 野冶,51 Lucian爷s importance is seen as structurally related. This is determined less by the size of Lucian爷s corpus, but rather by the layered nature of his satires which have a 耶three-planed construction爷,52 and many of which contain so many inversions that their complexity is hard to disentangle. And it is precisely this level of complexity that acts as a protective shield against censorship and more draconian sanctions. Though all of the satirists mentioned in this paper engaged in fierce verbal polemics against what they saw as the shortcomings of contemporary society, the construction of their works was often so byzantine that it was difficult to identify the authorities and in- stitutions they attacked. This situation enabled the avoidance of accusations of l se-majest against the satirist. And whilst Bakhtin did not use this style in his own 侉佴 writing, his acute sensitivity to its importance in a writer爷s armoury alerts the reader to its use as a technique for dissimulation. One reason for Bakhtin爷s specific interest in Lucian may be that Faddei Zelin- skii, his Professor at Petrograd University, had authored a number of articles on Lu- cian (Zelinskii 1896, 1915, 1935 [all referenced in Voronkov 1961]), together with pieces on Old Comedy, and Dionysus, thus paving the way for Bakhtin爷s work in the 1940s on satire and Menippean satire and providing fertile

窑71窑 ground for Bakhtin爷s development of the theme of carnival in his works on Ra- belais (Bakhtin 2008 叶FRIR曳, pp. 11-506 and Bakhtin 2010 叶TFR曳, pp. 7-516). This nexus is further reinforced by Lucian爷s admission of his own debts to dialogue, comedy and Menippus, as well as his training as a rhetor.53

It is the view of this paper that Bakhtin爷s move from polyphony to heteroglossia in the 1930s was symptomatic of a deeper internalisation of lessons learned from his research into the structure and style of Lucian爷s works. Holquist characterises polyphony as the ability of an author (such as Dostoevsky) to 野successfully permit [s] his characters to have the status of an 耶I爷 standing over the claims of his own authorial other ...冶 (Holquist 2004, p. 34). And as Morson and Emerson observe:野... polyphony is not even roughly synonymous with heteroglossia [which] describes the diversity of speech styles in a language, the former has to do with the position of the author in a text冶 (Morson & Emerson 1990, p. 232). However, in his definition Ivanov focuses on the relationship (s) between the various elements: 野Het- eroglossia means the simultaneous use of different kinds of speech or other signs, the tension between them, and their conflicting relationship within one text冶 (I- vanov 2000, p. 100). In keeping with the tempo and mode of Bakhtin爷s theory development,54 the 1930s was a time of intense intellectual activity despite ― or perhaps because of ― his internal exile to Kustanai. Clark and Tihanov note a change in emphasis during this period, where the notion of polyphony is replaced by that of heteroglossia (Clark & Tihanov 2011, p. 127). From their perspective, Bakhtin爷s view of heteroglossia is that of 野a state of affairs in which language is no longer used holisti- cally but as a range of partial sociolects冶, and further, that Bakhtin views the novel as 野the preeminent, if not the sole, embodiment of heteroglossia冶 (Clark & Tihanov 2011, p. 127).

The concept of heteroglossia is an umbrella term which covers a nexus of nuanced words55 that Bakhtin uses to describe the ways in which the diversity of language 要 both spoken and written 要 are manifested. He makes his position with regard to

窑72窑 heteroglossia quite clear very early on in 叶SVR曳: 野The novel can be defined as a diversity of social speech types (sometimes even diversity of languages) and a diversity of individual voices, artistically organized.冶56 Heteroglossia involves a number of facets: aspects of variations in social speech, variation in language, and most significantly, variations in individual voices, all expressed on the same plane of discourse. Bakhtin presents these variations as a nested hierarchy progressing from utterances within a single language, which exists in the context of other 耶social lan- guages爷, that are placed in turn within national languages, operating within the same cultural space (Bakhtin 2012 叶曳 p. 29). On this basis he avers that 野Lan- guage...is never unitary. It is unitary only as an abstract grammatical system of nor- mative forms, taken in isolation from the concrete, ideological conceptualizations that fill it, and in isolation from the uninterrupted process of historical becoming that is a characteristic of all living language冶.57 This enables the process of 耶dialo- gizing language爷 referred to in the passage where 野dialogic reverberations ... pene- trate the deep strata of discourse, dialogize language itself and the world view a particular language has (the internal form of discourse)冶.58 One of the points Bakhtin makes to support this contention is that language has a number of strata: genre, professional expression, social stratification and proximi- ty of other (different) speakers, to name a few.59 These strata, whilst initially ap- pearing to be unamenable to juxtaposition, can accommodate a single methodologi- cal approach, that of being 野specific points of view on the world冶 so 野... all languages of heteroglossia, whatever the principle underlying them and making each unique, are specific points of view on the world, forms for conceptualizing the world in words, specific world views, each characterized by its own objects, mean- ings and values冶.60 The dynamism that this complex construct injects into the theory of language can best be seen by the way that heteroglossia manifests itself in discourse, specifically in the latter爷s 耶centripetal爷 and 耶centrifugal爷 forces. The former ― being posited (叶zadan曳) rather than given (叶dan曳) ― 耶unifies and centralizes the verbal-ideological world爷 (Bakhtin 2012 叶曳 p. 24). The reverse is true of centrifugal forces in discourse, which decentralise and disunify (Bakhtin 2012 叶曳 p. 25). But the real identifier and invigorator of language is that of intention or ideology. As Bakhtin expresses it: 野these linguistic markers ... are [merely] ... the sclerotic deposits of an intentional process, signs left behind on the path of the real living project of an intention冶.61 These separate languages (the strata identified above) are able to coexist on the plane of a personal world-view. Indeed, they mix with each

窑73窑 other to form an individual爷s 野concrete, heteroglot conception of the world冶,62 thus providing a context (and hence a discourse) that is shared with others. But appropri- ating (耶seizing爷 and 耶transforming爷) the words of these languages into one爷s own discourse is not necessarily easy: 野many words stubbornly resist, others remain alien, sound foreign in the mouth of the one who appropriated them ... they cannot be assimilated into his context ...冶.63 The notion of the 耶alien word爷 is central to heteroglossia, for the relationship between this and one爷s own word creates the tension that drives many of the tropes and figures of speech that Bakhtin identifies, most notably 叶slovo s ogliadkoi曳 and 叶slovo s lazeikoi曳. In its capacity as a driver of tension, heteroglossia is an anti-har- monic phenomenon. In addition, the dynamics of parody, satire and irony are all based on this tension, because they are all, in essence, repliques64 in a dialogue: parody to an original, satire to a state of affairs, and irony to reality. Bakhtin notes the inherently double nature of the replique when he observes:

野In any actual dialogue the rejoinder also leads such a double life: it is structured and con- ceptualized in the context of the dialogue as a whole, which consists of its own utterances (耶own爷 from the point of view of the speaker) and of alien utterances (those of the part- ner). One cannot excise the rejoinder from this combined context made up of one爷s own words and the words of another without losing its sense and tone. It is an organic part of a heteroglot unity冶.65

From this it can be seen that the 耶reach爷 of the notion of heteroglossia is far greater than that of an aggregation of sociolects. Indeed, it is fundamental to Bakhtin爷s concept of the utterance, inasmuch as each component of an utterance has its own ideology just as each sociolect does. And an utterance can be composed of overlapping or contesting sociolects, in a similar way to Fish爷s theory of 耶inter- pretative communities爷 (Fish 1976).

To see how Lucian has contributed to Bakhtin爷s theory of language one must examine the Lucianic corpus from a particular perspective. This viewpoint has already been prefigured in Daniel Boyarin爷s ,66 a book devoted to a Bakhtinian analysis and comparison of Socratic dialogue and the Babylonian Tal- mud. One of the most instructive in Boyarin爷s book is his echo of the ad-

窑74窑 monition of his erstwhile teacher to 耶Read Lucian!爷 in order for Boyarin to unlock the , or Babylonian Talmud (Boyarin 2012, pp. , 24-25). The reason for this becomes apparent as Boyarin爷s argument unfolds: Lucian爷s works are paradigm cases of literary bricolage, 67or 野textual monsters冶 (as Boyarin characterises Lu- cian爷s 野yoking together of disparate genres冶).68 And with the introduction into the mix of Bakhtin爷s studies of Menippean satire, Boyarin sees the the former爷s analysis as a kind of 野Rosetta stone for a richer, less abridged appreciation of the literary character of the Babylonian Talmud ...冶 (Boyarin 2012, p. 220). Indeed, later on in his book, Boyarin asserts that 野that to which we must attend in the Talmud is its all-pervasive heteroglossia, its almost Dostoevskian character ...冶 (Boyarin 2012, p. 260). This connection of Lucian to Dostoevsky through Socratic dialogue and the Talmud inclined me to look very carefully for evidence of the internalisation of Bakhtin爷s study of Lucian爷s work into the former爷s theory of language. It is on this basis that I wish to examine a selection of Lucian爷s writings for examples of this bricolage where the juxtaposition of elements brings into relief the 耶alien word爷 so characteristic of Bakhtin爷s concept of heteroglossia, that word which by its very otherness, subtly changes the context and therefore the meaning of the more familiar elements with which it mingles. In view of Bakhtin爷s position vis- -vis the Russian Formalists, it is ironic that the alien word acts as an agent of 伽 defamiliarization ( ), one of Shklovskii爷s signature concepts. Other concepts also play their part. The discussion of the 耶zone of contact爷 in section 3 (above) is also linked with Bakhtin爷s concept of 耶Great time爷. Bakhtin爷s discussion of this topic appears in 耶On the polyphonicity of Dostoevsky爷s novels爷, commencing with the description: 耶Generally speaking, I have a term ― Great Time. In Great Time nothing ever loses its significance爷.69

In analysing Lucian爷s works, I wish to consider aspects of five of the works mentioned by Bakhtin: , and .70 To supplement these pieces, I will also review ( , Lucian 1921 [Vol. III], pp. 83-151) which was not referenced by Bakhtin, but nonetheless appears to me to be material to his internalisation of Lucian爷s satire. In order to make a direct connection between Lucian爷s texts and Bakhtin爷s

窑75窑 theory, it is necessary to establish in the works listed above the existence of markers that provide evidence of Bakhtin爷s subsequent internalisation of Lucian爷s literary techniques, as well as their metamorphosis into Bakhtin爷s theoretical frameworks. These markers can be coarsely divided into two groupings, which overlap on occa- sion: style and structure. markers71 include metanarrative ploys72 such as the narrator depicting himself as 耶unreliable爷. This type of marker also has the effect of provocation ( ), which is evident in Lucian爷s spatial and temporal dilation, hyper-exaggeration, and his subtle indicators of frankness of speech ( ). The employment of laughter as a stylistic tool is a marker that is closely allied to the group of structural markers, particularly the way in which the comic is transformed into the serio-comic ( ).73 Conspicuous amongst other markers74 worthy of note in the context of this paper are the tri-planar construction of the Underworld, Earth and Heaven, the juxtaposition ( ) of prose and poetry ( ) that produces an amalgam with the effect of bricolage, the use of a catascopic viewpoint, and the episodic nature of some dialogues that is reminiscent of the . Cumulatively these markers result in a highly self-referential body of work with strong elements of parody and burlesque, epito- mised by Lucian爷s similarity to the character of Momus.75 In Part I of , the narrator engages the reader at the outset by his admission that he will tell 野all kinds of lies in a plausible and specious way冶 (Lu- cian 1913 [Vol. I], p. 249). The narrator爷s line that his 野lying is far more honest than theirs, for though I tell the truth in nothing else, I shall at least be truthful in saying that I am a liar冶 (Lucian 1913 [Vol. I], p. 253) is strongly reminiscent of the 耶All Cretans are liars爷 paradox that any Classicist would know, and which Bakhtin would relish. These introductory remarks precede the story proper, in which the narrative meanders through an episodic, Odyssey-like tale. Other markers that so- licit disbelief appear throughout Book I such as the narrator爷s claim about the dis- position of Endymion爷s troops: 野on the right wing, the Vulture Dragoons and the king, with the bravest about him (we were among them) ...冶 (Lucian 1913 [Vol. I], p. 265). Or, when describing the Arboreals who inhabit the moon: 野I am reluctant to tell you what sort of eyes they have, for fear that you may think me lying on ac count of the incredibility of the story, but I will tell you, notwithstanding冶 (Lucian 1913 [Vol. I], p. 279). A significant aspect for the purposes of this paper is the appearance of Momus in the dialogue . The character Momus (literally 耶Blame爷) is described by a number of Classical scholars as 野the personification of criticism and fault-find- ing冶 (Harvey 1966, p. 277) or 野the spirit of disapproval ...冶 (March 2014, p. 321).

窑76窑 But more important than either of these characterisations are the words that Momus uses on his entry into this particular dialogue and Zeus爷 response: they concern frankness of speech. This is significant because in another dialogue76 Lucian爷s persona appears as a free-speaking character ( ) whose name has the same lemma as the words used by both Momus ( ) and Zeus ( ). Thus, freedom of speech is associated with the hybridised form of the Menippean satire. In what Menippus sees as he looks down on the Earth during a notionally serious investigation is comic: 野... there in the play-house itself, full of variety and shifting spectacles, everything that took place was truly laughable冶 (Lu- cian 1915 [Vol. II], p. 299). This provides a classic example of the serio-comic ( ) referred to by Classical scholars (Branham 1989, pp. 26-28; Bo- yarin 2012, pp. 14-15). Complementing this ― although not mentioned by Bakhtin ― is relevant because in it the Syrian (the persona representing Lucian) produces a defense of the use of the serio-comic in dialogue. consists of a gradual build up to two court cases: one being Ora- tory v. The Syrian, the other being Dialogue v. The Syrian. In the first, the personification of Oratory accuses the Syrian of leaving her for Dialogue; in the second, the personification of Dialogue accuses the Syrian of subjecting him to indignities by making him comic. The more important of the two cases is the latter because in it Lucian expresses, through the mouth of Dialogue, precisely how the writer sees his use of this genre. And he does this in two short sentences, the first dealing with comedy, the second with bricolage caused by the use of . Regarding comedy, Dialogue complains: 野... I no longer occupy my proper but play the comedian and the buffoon冶 (Lucian 1961 [Vol. VII], p. 147). In the four dialogues (often referred to as ), and the readers sees all of Lucian爷s tri-planar universe. The middle two pieces barely constitute dialogues as most of these works consist of narration by Menippus, with an occasional interjection (ei ther question or prompt) by his token interlocutor (a 耶Friend爷). In contrast to is situated in the Underworld, the lowest of the three planes of existence. This setting allows Lucian the license to populate his world with peo ple from different epochs, both actual and imaginary. This Dantesque underworld raises issues of temporality that are reflected in subsequent periods of European literature. As with , Lucian爷s focus is on the philosophers, but this is subtly changed by the incorporation of a theme from the 77 written by the historical Menippus, targeting the wealthy.

窑77窑 Like so many of Lucian爷s other works, there is a sting in the tale: Minos (one of three judges of the dead in the Underworld), after judging harshly78 those 野swollen with pride of wealth and place冶 (Lucian 1925 [Vol. IV], p. 93), unac- countably pardons the Sicilian tyrant Dionysius on the flimsy basis that 野many men of letters had found him obliging in the matter of money冶.79 The aim of Menippus in this dialogue ― to discuss the nature of life with the blind seer Teiresias ― is only realised in the last couple of pages when the seer advises Menippus: 野耶The life of the common sort is best ... make it always your sole object to put the pesent to good use and hasten on your way, laughing a great deal and taking nothing serious- ly爷冶.80 The is a fragmentary, episodic piece consisting of a number of short dialogues involving a range of characters. For example, in one dialogue, 耶Diogenes and Pollux爷, Diogenes sends a message from the Underworld to Menippus via Pollux,81 encouraging the latter to come down and laugh at its occu- pants. Diogenes also has other requests to Pollux for messages to pass on: advice for philosophers (Lucian 1961 [Vol. VII], p. 5), questions for the wealthy (Lucian 1961 [Vol. VII], p. 7), comments on the place of the healthy and handsome in the Underworld (Lucian 1961 [Vol. VII], p. 7), and even a gibe at the poor (Lucian 1961 [Vol. VII], pp. 7-9). With the exception of the poor, all these recipients represent Lucian爷s favoured targets. The most conspicuous aspect of is the use of prose interlarded with poetry (the referred to above). This technique is particularly evident in the initial pages of this work (Lucian 1915 [Vol. II], pp. 91-95), but longer passages of poetry recur periodically throughout the piece.82 Other evidence of occurs in , a fragmentary, episodic piece consisting of a number of short dialogues involving a range of characters. As Harmon notes in his introduction to this piece: 野Some dialogues in this collection are purely literary... [while other] dialogues are satirical冶 (Lucian 1961 [Vol. VII], p. 1), so that even the com- position of this collection constitutes a bricolage. As mentioned above, Lucian expresses in , through the mouth of Dialogue, precisely how the writer sees his use of this genre. In the passage referred to above Dialogue complains:

野What is most monstrous of all, I have been turned into a surprising blend, for I am neither afoot or ahorseback, neither prose nor verse, but seem to my hearers a strange phenomenon made up of different elements, like a Centaur冶 (Lucian 1961 [Vol. VII], p. 147).

窑78窑 Interestingly enough, Lucian only addresses Dialogue爷s second complaint obliquely when the Syrian says 野he cannot complain ... that I have stripped him of that Greek mantle and shifted him into a foreign one, even though I myself am considered foreign冶 (Lucian 1961 [Vol. VII], p. 151). One presumes that this referes to the fact that was becoming increasingly acceptable in Second Sophis- tic literature. The elements chara cteristic of in are Menippus爷 sceptical view of the philosophers with their contradictory views, and the catascopic view that Menippus has of Earth from the Moon. This view is enabled by the hybridised solution of employing a wing each from a vulture and an eagle83 as a method of propulsion to the Moon and eventually to Heaven. (This solution paral- lels the hybridised nature of the sub-genre.) The eagle爷s wing confers on Menippus a sharpness of sight that enables the catascopus (Lucian 1915 [Vol. II], pp. 291-294). An extension of this catascopus can be found in where the spatial and temporal dilation appears that characterises Rabelais爷 work and, to a lesser ex- tent, the Gothic novels that Bakhtin analysed in regard to the Chronotope of the Castle.84 The combination of self-conscious lying in the narrative combined with the descriptions of Heracles爷耶hundred foot爷 footprints and a 耶navigable爷 river of wine is obviously closer to the hyper-exaggeration of Gargantua and Pantagruel85 than the mild inflation of Herodotus爷 imagination.86 Descriptive passages in the various episodes in Lucian爷s tale reinforce this: the numbers of soldiers in Endymion爷s and Phaethon爷s respective armies87 and the size of Aeolocentaur爷s and Brinedrinker爷s navies88 are deliberately exaggerated with markers that indicate the Lucian爷s tongue was firmly in his cheek.89 These parodies of Herodotus and Thuycidides inevitably result in burlesque ― a travesty of historical and geographical method ― strongly reminiscent of Eratosthenes爷 comment to the effect that Lucian爷s predecessor Bion Borysthenes was a satirist 耶in drag爷.90

From the analysis of heteroglossia in Sections 5 and 6 of this paper and the detailed textual analysis of a selection of Lucian爷s works, my conclusion is that a number of strands of Lucian爷s thought ― particularly those indicated by stylistic and structural markers ― were internalised and transmuted by Bakhtin into his theoretical constructs that embraced both literary and linguistic theory. I suggest that this inter-

窑79窑 nalisation was initiated by Faddei Zelinskii爷s lectures and researches into Lucian but lay fallow until the twin events of the publication of the in 1929 and Bakhtin爷s arrest, which followed closely afterwards (Du- vakin & Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 377). Piskunova has astutely observed that Bakhtin爷s preoccupation with had its genesis during the years in Kus- tanai, because that location had many aspects in common with the underworld which characterises the genre of Menippean satire (Piskunova 2014, p. 50). This gestation period during his internal exile in Kustanai between 1930 and 1936/1937 (Duvakin & Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 379; Clark & Holquist 1984, pp. 260-261) 要 together with his subsequent residence in Saransk and Savelovo before his return to Saransk in 1945 要 provided an ideal opportunity to internalise the concepts associated with Menippean satire (Duvakin & Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, pp. 381). The advent of 叶MenSat曳 in the mid 1940s crystallised this process and allowed it to bifurcate into the Dostoevsky and Rabelais books of the 1960s. These effects can be traced by considering the way in which the serio-comic, the prosimetric and the catascopic all provide multiple concurrent worldviews that are disharmonic: they are all sites of contestation in the same way that utterances are. As Bakhtin observes, the utterance contains faint overlays of 野its context, the traces of addressivity and the influence of the anticipated response, dialogical e- choes from others爷 preceding utterances, faint traces of changes of speech subject that have furrowed the utterance from within冶 (Bakhtin 1986, p. 99). Lucian爷s influence becomes evident in Bakhtin爷s theoretical frameworks through the traces left by those 耶sclerotic deposits of an intentional process爷. These traces have their origin in the disharmony shown by the or juxtaposition of elements such as prose and poetry, catascopic and 耶normal爷 viewpoints, serious and comic expression, the original and the parody. These contrasts result in an or provocation 耶of the word by the word爷 embedded in Bakhtin爷s theoretical frameworks, with its consequent effect on the utterance. The nature of discourse is thus that of a contested space. As Bakhtin obeserves, the presence of these 耶inserted genres爷 in reinforce its 耶multi-styled and multi-toned nature爷 and generate 耶a new relationship to the word爷. But the effect of Lucian on Bakhtin was not confined to literature. The uncov- ering of the twin figures of speech 叶slovo s ogliadkoi曳 and 叶slovo s lazeikoi曳 in Dostoevsky ― both of which are supported by and ― resonates far beyond literary theory. The multi-layered replique that can be seen in Lucian constitutes an example of heteroglossia which profoundly affected Bakhtin爷s theorising on language. This is evident in his construct of the utterance

窑80窑 that appears in that was written in 1953 (Bakhtin 1997 叶曳, pp. 159-206; Duvakin & Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 382), and the way in which the network of utterances stretch across Great Time to the zone of contact, often a zone of conflict.

1 野A genre or style of literature in which the text is written partly in prose and partly in verse.冶 (耶prosimetrum爷 [retrieved 27-May-2017]). 2 Brummack, J., 耶Satire爷 in (online) [accessed 27-May-2017]. 3 A view down (implicitly from the top). 4 野 : educated, cultured persons冶 (Liddell, Scott, & Jones 1940: 耶爷). 5 Throughout this paper I have used the following contractions for the Russian titles of Bakhtin爷s works: ,

耶Menippova satira i ee znachenie v istorii romana爷叶曳, 耶Lote konspekt爷叶曳,

, 耶Dopolneniia i izmeneniia k 叶Dostoevskomu曳爷叶曳. In the cases where the originals are followed by another Bakhtin reference, the latter refers to a published English translation (the title of which is often abbreviated in [square] brackets for clarity). English translations enclosed by single quotes are my own. 6 Menippus is generally held to be a Cynic (see Baumbach, M., 耶Menippus爷, in: Brill爷s New Pauly, http://dx.doi.org.ezp.lib.unimelb.edu.au/10.1163/1574-9347_bnp_e732940 [accessed 27-May-2017]) although opinions differ (Relihan 1990). 7 Bakhtin. 2008. 叶曳, p. 736. Much of Bion爷s work was transmitted by Teles, also mentioned by Bakhtin. Teles was a near contemporary of Bion, active in mid-IIIrd century BCE (refer 耶Teles爷 (online), Goulet-Caz , M.-O. [accessed 19-May-2017]). For 佴 Bion爷s influence on Teles, see Hawtrey 1977, pp. 70-79. 8 I have specified only the main Classical sequence, excluding Heraclides Ponticus [c. 390-c.322 BCE] as being a proto-satirist and thus too early to be considered in the sequence. Though mentioned by Relihan 1993, I have considered the following writers to be too late to be relevant to the concerns of this paper: Julian the Apostate [c.331-363 CE], Martianus Capella [fl.420-470 CE], Fulgentius [467-c.532 CE], Ennodius [c.473-c.521 CE], and Boethius [480-524 CE]. 9 Brummack, J., 耶Satire爷 in (online). 10 Referred to briefly in Bakhtin 2008 叶曳 but covered in much more detail in Bakhtin 2012 叶曳 [ II: ] , pp. 367-384. 异

窑81窑 11 The current version of the Satyricon exists in a series of episodes in the form of narrative u- nits that are drawn from Books 14 to 16 of a work of unknown length. Similarly, exists in the form of 600 small fragments drawn from 120 books of prosimetric satires. Refer Manfred Landfester爷s entries on 耶Varro爷 and 耶Petronius爷 in [online] (accessed 20-Mar-2017). 12 Often rendered as . Refer Manfred Land- fester爷s entry on 耶Seneca the Younger爷 in [online] (accessed 20-Mar-2017). 13 耶Second Sophistic爷 (online), Bowie, E. (accessed 5-Apr-2017). 14 See the parodies of in Lucian 1913 [Vol. I], 267. 15 In his essays of the 1940s ― ― Bakhtin links parody (his fundamental meta-trope) closely with travesty (Bakhtin 2012 叶曳, 1940; 叶曳, 1940-1941]). 16 A different form of catascopus can be observed in Bakhtin爷s treatment of spying and eaves- dropping in (Bakhtin 2012 叶曳, p. 380). 17 The dialogue (Lucian 1925 [Vol. IV], pp. 71-109) focuses on this issue. 18 野Comparison; a figure by which diverse or opposite things are compared冶 (耶syncrisis爷 [retrieved 28-Oct-2016]). 19 Characteristic 5: Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 131; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], p. 116. 20 Characteristic 10: Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 133; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], p. 118. 21 Characteristics 12 & 13: Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 133; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], p. 118; emphasis added. 22 Characteristic 1: Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, pp. 128-129; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], p. 114. For a reference to , see Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 121; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], p. 106. Bakhtin also mentions the serio-comic in 耶Mennipova satira ...爷 (Bakhtin 2008 叶曳, pp. 733, 738, 739, 741, 746, 747), although this topic is not fully explored in that piece. 23 Characteristic 3: Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 129; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], p. 114. 24 Characteristic 7: Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 131; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], p. 116. Examples from Bakhtin would include Rabelais and Walpole. 25 Characteristic 14: Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 134; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], p. 118. 26 Characteristic 11: Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 133; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], p. 118 and Characteristic 2: Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 129; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], p. 114. 27 Characteristic 6: Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 131; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], p. 116. 28 Characteristics 4, 8, and 9: (Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, pp. 131-132; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], pp. 116-117). 29 Characteristic 9: Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 132; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], p. 117. 30 Characteristic 4: Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 130; Bakhtin 1984 [PDP], p. 115. 31 So named after Varro爷s lost series of books which appeared in dialogue form (

窑82窑 2012 [4 ed. online ― accessed 14-Jun-2017]. 32 Often called Hades, but 耶the Underworld爷 is preferred in this paper as a term for the place, so as to avoid confusion with the eponymous god of the Underworld, Hades. 33 Bakhtin also mentions the road, the crossing, the coaching inn, and the bath house in this passage - all chronotopic images. 34 The themes are discussed primarily in Bakhtin 2012 叶曳, where section II is devoted to these two works. 35 Clark and Tihanov make an interesting point in this connection about the 野ambiguous ―

and probably precisely because of that[,] rich and historically viable ― message of utopia and nostalgia冶 (Clark & Tihanov 2011, p. 123). 36 叶Itak, satira est爷 obraznoe otritsanie sovremennoi deistvitel爷nosti v razlichnykh ee momentakh, neobkhodimo vkliuchaiushchee v sebia - v toi ili inoi forme, s toi ili inoi stepen爷iu konkretnosti i iasnosti - i polozhitel爷nyi moment utverzhdeniia luchshei deistvitel爷nosti曳 (Bakhtin 1997 叶曳, p. 11). 37 See 野Parody 噎 is an integral element in Menippean satire and in all carnivalized genres in general冶(Bakhtin 1984 [PDP]: 127; Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 143). 38 Only four instances throughout the 20-odd pages of commentary on 耶menippea爷. 39 [2008 叶曳, pp. 337, 344, 346; 2008 叶曳, pp. 756, 758; 2010 叶曳, pp. 362, 368, 369; 2002 叶曳, p. 362], ) [2008 叶曳, p. 196; 2010 叶曳, p. 223], [2002 叶曳, p. 150], [2008 叶曳, p. 739; 2002 叶曳, pp. 131, 336, 338], [2002 叶曳, pp. 336,338], [2008 叶曳, pp. 61, 395; 2008 叶曳, p. 736; 2008 叶曳, p. 761; 2010 叶曳, pp. 81, 414; 2002 叶曳, p. 160], [2002 叶曳, p. 336], [2008 叶曳, p. 162; 2010 叶曳, p. 191], [2008 叶曳, p. 740], [2002 叶曳, pp. 154, 160], [2008 叶曳, p. 529], and [2010 叶曳, p. 176]. [All references to Bakhtin preceded by dates of publication in bold]. 40 Volumes 1 and 2 are the only volumes where Lucian is not mentioned. 41 Using an admittedly coarse system of measurement, Lucian is mentioned 133 times in Bakhtin爷s text, compared to 26 times in the commentary over volumes of the , the latter representing around 16% of the total instances. This reference ratio dips slightly to 15% in the two parts of Volume 4. 42 Anderson 1993, p. 18. 43 For example, Lycinus, the narrator of Lucian爷s [sometimes rendered as ]; Lycinus again, as a character in ; the Syrian in [sometimes rendered as ]; and the speaker in [Lucian 1913, pp. 411-463, 1959, pp. 429-487, 1921, pp. 83-151, 213-233]. 44 耶Samosata爷 (online), Hausleiter, A. (accessed 14-Mar-2017). 45 The eminent Classicist Gilbert Highet commented: 野I confess that I always feel foreignness in his work冶 (Highet 2015, p. 42).

窑83窑 46 Inge Kuin is a post-doctoral researcher at The University of Groningen. 47 耶Borysthenes爷 (online), von Bredow, I. (accessed 14-May-2017). 48 耶Bion of Borysthenes爷 (online), Goulet-Caz , M.-O. (accessed 14-May- 佴 2017). 49 There is no reference to Bion爷s place of birth in 叶曳, one reference in 叶MenSat曳, but there are multiple references in 叶曳. 50 叶No uzhe bezuslovnym predstavitelem 野Menippovoi satiry冶 byl Bion Borisfenit, to est爷 s beregov Dnepra (III vek do n. e.)曳 (Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 127). 51 叶trushchobnyi naturalizm曳 (Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, p. 130, author爷s emphasis). 52 In Lucian爷s case, these are Heaven, the Underworld and Earth (note that 野Lucian爷s gods live in Heaven, not on Olympus or Ida冶 [Lucian 1921 [Vol. III], p. 97 n1]. A detailed discussion of Lucian爷s representation of the plane of the afterlife occurs in Relihan 1987. 53 As outlined in Lucian爷s (Bis accusatus) 26ff (Lucian 1921 [Vol. 异异 III], pp. 134-151). 54 and are both terms associated with Gould and Eldredge爷s hypothesis concerning evolutionary speciation. This is a palaeobiological theory which was developed to explain discontinuities in the fossil record, a record that is extensive, re- constructed, and yet incomplete, not unlike Bakhtin爷s works (Eldredge & Gould 1972, Gould and Eldredge 1977). 55 As well as 叶曳, which Emerson and Holquist render as in Bakhtin , other terms include 叶曳 rendered as 耶爷 (Bakhtin 2012 叶曳, p. 47; Bakhtin 1981 [ ], p. 294), 叶曳 rendered as 耶爷 (Bakhtin 2012 叶曳, p. 47; Bakhtin 1981 [ ], p. 294) or a 耶爷 (Piskunova 2014, p. 49) and 叶曳, 耶爷 (Bakhtin 2012 叶曳, p. 52; Bakhtin 1981 [ ], p. 300) or an 耶爷 (Piskunova 2014, p. 49), but translated elsewhere as 耶hubbub爷. 56 叶Roman - eto khudozhestvenno-organizovannoe sotsial爷noe raznorechie, inogda raznoiazy- chie, i individual爷naia raznogolositsa曳 (Bakhtin 2012 叶曳, p. 15; Bakhtin 1981 [ ], p. 262). 57 Bakhtin 1981 [ ], p. 288; 叶Iazyk ... nikogda ne byvaet edinym. On edin lish爷 kak abstraktnaia grammaticheskaia sistema normativnykh form, vziataia v otvlechenii ot napol- niaiushchikh ee konkretnykh ideologicheskikh osmyslivanii i ot nepreryvnogo istorichesko- go stanovleniia zhivogo iazyka曳 (Bakhtin 2012 叶曳, p. 41). 58 Bakhtin 1981 [ ], pp. 284-285; 叶dialogicheskie otzvuchiia shumiat ... pronikaiut v glubinnye plasty slova, dialogizuiut samyi iazyk, iazykovoe mirovozzrenie (野vnutrenniuiu formu冶 slova)曳 (Bakhtin 2012 叶曳, p. 38). 59 Bakhtin 2012 叶曳, p. 15-16; Bakhtin 1981 [ ] , pp. 262-263. These are dealt with in more detail in Bakhtin 2012 叶曳, pp. 42-44; Bakhtin 1981 [ ], pp. 289-291. 60 Bakhtin 1981 [ ], pp. 291-292; 叶... vse iazyki raznorechiia, kakoi by printsip ni lezhal v osnove ikh obosobleniia, iavliaiutsia spetsificheskimi tochkami zreniia na mir, for- mami ego slovesnogo osmysleniia, osobymi predmetno-smyslovymi i tsennostnymi krugo-

窑84窑 zorami曳 (Bakhtin 2012 叶曳, p. 44). 61 Bakhtin 1981 [ ], p. 292; 叶... te lingvisticheskie priznaki ... iavliaiutsia ... sklerotich- eskimi otlozheniiami intentsional爷nogo protsessa, znakami, ostavlennymi na puti zhivoi raboty intentsii ...曳 Bakhtin 2012 叶曳, p. 45. 62 Bakhtin 1981 [ ], p. 293; 叶konkretnoe i raznorechivoe mnenie o mire曳 Bakhtin 2012 叶曳, p. 46. 63 Bakhtin 1981 [ ], p. 294; 叶... mnogie uporno soprotivliaiutsia, drugie tak i ostaiutsia chuzhimi, zvuchat po-chuzhomu v ustakh prisvoivshego ikh govoriashchego, ne mogut as- similirovat爷sia v ego kontekste ...曳 Bakhtin 2012 叶曳, p. 47. 64 野A reply, a response冶 (耶replique爷 OED Online [retrieved 8-Sep-2015]). 65 叶Takuiu dvoistvennuiu zhizn爷 vedet i replika vsiakogo real爷nogo dialoga: ona stroitsia i os- myslivaetsia v kontekste tselogo dialoga, kotoryi sostoit iz svoikh (s tochki zreniia govoriashchego) i chuzhikh vyskazyvanii (partnera). Iz etogo smeshannogo konteksta svoikh i chuzhikh slov repliku nel 耶zia iz爷耶iat爷, ne utrativ ee smysla i ee tona. Ona - organicheskaia chast爷 raznorechivogo tselogo.曳 Bakhtin 2012 叶曳, p. 37; (Bakhtin 1981 [Dialogic], p. 284. 66 Daniel Boyarin is Hermann P. and Sophia Taubman Professor of Talmudic Culture, Depart- ments of Near Eastern Studies and Rhetoric, University of California at Berkeley. 67 野Construction or (esp. literary or artistic) creation from a diverse range of materials or sources. Hence: an object or concept so created; a miscellaneous collection, often (in Art) of found objects.冶 (耶bricolage爷 [retrieved 4-Jun-2016]). 68 Boyarin 2012, p. 24. 69 叶Voobshche u menia est爷 termin - bol爷shoe vremia. Tak vot, v bol爷shom vremeni nichto i nikogda ne utrachivaet svoego znacheniia曳 (Bakhtin 2002 叶曳, pp. 461 ff.). See also Shepherd 2006 for a detailed analysis. 70 In order of mention above: 叶曳, Lucian 1913 [Vol. I], pp. 247-357; 叶曳, Lucian 1915 [Vol. II], pp. 89-169; 叶曳, Lucian 1915 [Vol. II], pp. 267-323; 叶曳, Lucian 1925 [Vol. IV], pp. 71-109; and 叶曳, Lucian 1961 [Vol. VII], pp. 1-175. 71 These aspects are discussed below in , and . 72 For a definition of 耶metanarration爷, see Neumann & N nning 2014. 俟 73 The serio-comic pervades Lucian爷s work, but has been specifically discussed in this paper in relation to . 74 These aspects are discussed below in , and . Relihan notes the thematic contribution of the Odyssey in his (Relihan 1993, pp. 31-32). 75 Momus appears as a character in . 76 , (Lucian 1913 [Vol. III], pp. 1-81). 77 Itself a parody, supposedly based on Homer爷s 爷 (refer 耶Menippus爷 (online), Baumbach, M. [accessed 27-May-2017]).

窑85窑 78 For the punishment of the wealthy (based on a motion of the inhabitants of the Underworld), see Lucian 1925 [Vol. IV]: 105-107. 79 Lucian 1925 [Vol. IV], p. 95. The 耶men of letters爷 included Plato and a number of other prominent philosophers (p. 95 n1). 80 Lucian 1925 [Vol. IV], pp. 107-109. I feel that it is noteworthy that these words are imme- diately followed by a fragment of verse. 81 Lucian 1961 [Vol. VII], p. 3. Castor (and his brother Polydeuces [Latin: ]) spent al- ternate days in the Underworld and in Heaven (presumably via Earth). 82 Lucian 1915 [Vol. II], pp. 101, 135, 141, 153. However, single lines from famous poets are either quoted or parodied quite often. 83 Lucian outlines this solution in a passage rich with irony: 野Well, that I myself could ever grow winds was not in any way possible, I thought; but if I put on the wings of a vulture or an eagle ... perhaps my attempt would succeed冶 (Lucian 1915 [Vol. II], p. 285). 84 For example, Walpole爷s . See Cook 2014: 61-62 for a discussion of dilation in this novel. 85 Refer the circumstances surrounding Pantagruel爷s birth in Rabelais 1999, p. 142. 86 Refer Book III [Thalia], 23 on the 耶long-lived Ethiopians爷 (Herodotus, p. 175) 异 87 Lucian 1913 [Vol. I], pp. 263-269; for example: 野The infantry came to about sixty million冶 (p. 265). 88 Lucian 1913 [Vol. I], pp. 297-301; for example: 野There were islands [on galleys] ...fully a hundred furlongs in circumference冶 (p. 299). 89 These markers can be seen in the following passages inserted into the descriptions of the armies and navies respectively: 野Their number, however, I leave unrecorded for fear that someone may think it incredible, it was so great冶 (Lucian 1913 [Vol. I], p. 271) and 野Though I know what I am going to recount savours of the incredible, I shall say it never- theless冶 (Lucian 1913 [Vol. I], p. 299). 90 Refer 耶Bion爷 (online), Goulet-Caz , M.-O. [accessed 14-May-2017]). 佴

Anderson, G. 1993. (Rout- ledge: London, UK). Bakhtin, M. M. 1981. (University of Texas Press: Austin, TX). Bakhtin, M. M. 1986. (University of Texas Press: Austin, TX). Boyarin, D. 2012. (University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL). Branham, R. Bracht. 1989. (Harvard U niversity Press: Cambridge, MA). Clark, K., and M. Holquist. 1984. (Belknap Press/Harvard University: Cam bridge, MA).

窑86窑 Clark, K., and G. Tihanov. 2011. 野Soviet literary theory in the 1930s: Battles over genre and the boundaries of modernity.冶 In E. Dobrenko and G. Tihanov (eds.), (University of Pittsburgh Press: Pittsburgh, PA). Cook, J. 2014. 野Events set in amber: Bakhtin爷s 耶Chronotope of the Castle爷 as solidified space- time爷, , 28, 1-2: 51-70. Eldredge, N., and S. J. Gould. 1972. 野Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradual- ism.冶 in T. J. M. Schopf (ed.), (Freeman, Cooper and Co.: San Fran- cisco, CA). Fish, S. E. 1976. 野Interpreting the 耶Variorum爷冶, Critical Inquiry, 2, 3: 465-85. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1342862. [Retrieved on 21-Jan-2014]. Gould, S. J., and N. Eldredge. 1977. 野Punctuated equilibria: The tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered冶, , 3, 2, Spring 1977: 115-51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2400 177. [Retrieved on 6-Oct-2004, 21-May-2017]. Harvey, H. P. 1966. (Oxford University Press [Clarendon Press]: Oxford, UK). Hawtrey, R. S. W. 1977. 野On Bion the Borysthenite冶, , 9, 2: 63-80. http://prudentia. lbr.auckland.ac.nz/index.php/prudentia/article/download/212/197. [Retrieved on 20-Mar- 2017]. Herodotus, of Halicarnassus. 1962. (Oxford University Press: London, UK). Highet, G. 2015. (Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ). Holquist, M. 2004. (Routledge: London, UK). Ivanov, V. 1999. 野Heteroglossia冶, , 9, 1-2: 100-02. Kuin, I. N. I. 2017. 野Being a barbarian: Lucian and otherness in the Second Sophistic,冶 , 211, 19-Jan-2017: 131-43. http://groniek.nl/uitgaves/211-barbaren/. [Retrieved on 2-May-2017 (via Academia.edu)]. Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, and H. S. Jones. 1940. 野LSJ: The online Liddell-Scott-Jones Greek- English Lexicon.冶 Online: Tufts University (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu). [Accessed on 5- Jun-2017]. Lucian of Samosata. 1913, 1915, 1921, 1925, 1936, 1959, 1961, 1967. Lucian (Heinemann, 1913-1936 [Vols I-V]; Harvard University Press, 1959-1967 [Vols VI-VIII]: London, UK; Cambridge, MA). March, J. R. 2014. (Oxbow Books: Oxford, UK). Morson, G. S., and C. Emerson. 1990. (Stanford Uni- versity Press: Stanford, CA). Neumann, B. and N nning, A. 2014. 野Metanarration and metafiction冶. In: H hn, Peter et al. 俟俟 (eds.): . Hamburg: Hamburg University. http://www.lhn. uni-hamburg.de/article/metanarration-and-metafiction[Retrieved on 25 May 2017]. Piskunova, S. 2014. 野Aerial ways: The historical poetics of the novel in the works of Mikhail Bakhtin冶, , 50, 4, Fall 2014: 48-66. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753 /RSL1061-1975500405. [Retrieved on 11-May-2016]. Rabelais, F. 1999. (University of California Press:

窑87窑 Berkeley, CA). Relihan, J. C. 1987. 野Vainglorious Menippus in Lucian爷s 耶Dialogues of the dead爷冶, Illinois Classical Studies: 185-206. ---. 1990. 野Menippus, the cur from Crete冶, , 16, 3: 217-24. http://www.fupress.net/index.php/prometheus/article/viewFile/18891/17518. [Retrieved on 19-Feb-2017]. ---. 1993. (Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD). Shepherd, D. 2006. 野A feeling for history? Bakhtin and 耶The problem of Great Time爷冶, , 84, 1, Jan-2006: 32-51. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4214214. [Retrieved on 12-Sep-2010].

Bakhtin, M. M. 1997. [Tom 5] (叶Russkie slovari曳: 禺剜劂剀赜匮, ). 夭囟 ---. 2002. [Tom 6] (叶Russkie slovari iazyki slavianskoi kul爷 tury曳: Moskva, RF). ---. 2008. [Tom 4-I] (叶Iazyki slavianskikh kul爷tur曳: Mosk- va, RF). ---. 2010. [Tom 4-II] (叶Iazyki slavianskikh kul爷tur曳: Mosk- va, RF). ---. 2012. [Tom 3] (叶Iazyki slavianskikh kul爷tur曳: Moskva, RF). Duvakin, V.D., and M. M. Bakhtin. 2002. (So- glasie: Moskva, RF). Voronkov, A. I. 1961. (1895 - 1959 gg.) (Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk SSSR: Moskva, SSSR). Zelinskii, F. F. 1896. 耶Diskobol爷 u Lukiana爷, , T. X Otd. 1102. ---. 1915. 耶Lukian爷. . Perv. Chlelov studentskogo obshchestva klassicheskoi filologii i mifologii pri petrogradskom universitete. (M. Izd. Sanashnikovykh: Petrograd). ---. 1935. 野Lukian o konchine Peregrina.冶 In A. B. Ranovich (ed.), (Moskva, SSSR).

窑88窑