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 brico- lage, 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 lan- guage: through a review of his theory of heteroglossia and its relationship with par- ody. 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 sec- ond chapter of his (Relihan 1993, pp. 12-36). These ele- ments are: the mixture of prose and verse (the 1), the fantastic narra- tive, 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 ef- fect; 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 paro- dies. 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 view- point.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 con- text 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 (par- ticularly his and , specifically referred to in Bakhtin 2008 叶 曳, pp. 738-739, 743, 746, 749) and Petronius (in his 10) to the his- tory 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 addi- tion, 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 cultur- al 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 phe- nomenon 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 con- text 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 transforma- tion 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 ele- ment in his work.22 This characteristic is combined with the way in which the fan- tastic 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 ..