Laughter in the Exchange: Lucian’s Invention of the Comic Dialogue Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By Anna Irene Peterson, M.A. Graduate Program in Greek and Latin The Ohio State University 2010 Dissertation Committee: Tom Hawkins, Advisor Fritz Graf Richard Fletcher Copyright by Anna Irene Peterson 2010 Abstract My dissertation examines Lucian’s claim to have invented the comic dialogue. For Lucian, this new generic category resolves the quarrel between Old Comedy and Platonic dialogue, which he imagines arose from Aristophanes’ portrayal of Socrates in the Clouds and the subsequent blame that Socrates directs at Aristophanes in Plato’s Apology. Through a study of specific texts such as the Fisherman and the Nigrinus as well as broader categories within Lucian’s corpus, I argue that Lucian rescues Old Comedy from the attacks of Plato and his successors by attributing philosophical value to it. My work stands in contrast to recent scholarship on Lucian, which has focused on his relationship to the historical and cultural debates surrounding the Second Sophistic and the Cynic tradition. While these approaches have contributed substantially to our understanding of Lucian’s cultural and philosophical identity, I want to extend its implications to articulate the significance of Lucian’s characterization of his writings as the union of the comic and philosophic traditions. The first half of my dissertation is devoted to examining the different ways in which Lucian characterizes his literary project. In chapter one, I focus on the category of texts generally referred to as Lucian’s prologues. While scholars have tended to view these texts as sophistic showpieces, I argue that Lucian’s use of complex intertextual ii references to respond to his rivals and critics, whether real or imagined, betrays a debt to the Aristophanic parabasis and as such characterizes the programmatic statements found within these works are far from straightforward. As I show through a close analysis of several of these texts, Lucian’s manipulation of the traditionally serious genres of epic, tragedy and philosophy within these texts provides us with a methodology with which to approach his overall literary project. In my second chapter, I turn to the Fisherman and the Twice Prosecuted, two texts that are, in effect, apologies for Old Comedy. By imagining that he is on trial for his comic reinvention of the philosophical dialogue, Lucian engages with the critique of the genre put forth by Plato and his followers and reinvents the philosophical apology as an apology for Old Comedy. Through his reworking of this genre, Lucian attributes philosophical value to Old Comedy by arguing that the socio-political focus of the genre is necessary to save philosophy from becoming corrupted by the charlatan philosophers that Lucian sees plaguing society. These first two chapters contend that Lucian’s comic dialogues are more than humorous works written in dialogue format; they reinvent Old Comedy as a species of philosophy. In my third and fourth chapters, I consider how this understanding of Lucian’s literary style reveals new layers of meaning in a variety of different texts. In my third chapter, I explore how Lucian enacts this literary and philosophical program by staging (and thereby attempting to resolve) through different comic sources, drawn not just from Old Comedy, the sectarian debates of the philosophical schools in four key texts: the Menippus, the Icaromenippus, the Parasite, and the Hermotimus. Closely iii connected with this problem is that of philosophical education, an issue that is rooted in the Clouds and Plato’s discussions of the sophists. As I suggest, Lucian fuses both comic and philosophical approaches to this problem so as to develop and enact his comic dialogues. By calling into question the established philosophical schools, these texts demonstrate the different ways in which Lucian employs his new hybrid genre and, more importantly, how he uses it to establish his own comedic-philosophical approach as a return to the Socratic search for knowledge before it came to be reinterpreted by the different schools. In contrast to the broad focus of my third chapter, my fourth and final chapter examines the Nigrinus, a text traditionally deemed to be one of Lucian’s few positive portrayals of a contemporary philosopher. Applying the methodology established in the first two chapters to this text, however, I argue that an initial invocation of Platonic eros, as well as a double allusion to the Clouds and the Phaedrus found in the description of Nigrinus reveals that the Nigrinus is in fact a critique of the type of philosopher portrayed in this text. By undermining Nigrinus in such a way, Lucian establishes himself as the true philosophical writers deeply indebted to both the comic and Platonic traditions. As the Nigrinus reveals, Lucian’s comic dialogues refer not just to works written in dialogue form, but rather more broadly to his philosophic approach. iv For my Mother, Father, and Steve v Acknowledgements It is impossible to properly thank everyone who has helped me in the process of composing my dissertation. First and foremost, I owe the greatest debt to my advisor, Tom Hawkins, whose continued intellectual support, guidance, and encouragement have helped me at every step of the way. It is impossible for me to put into words what his enthusiasm, wit, keen eye for detail, and enduring patience have meant to me over the past few years. From the inception of this project in his Lucian seminar to its final stages, Tom has improved almost every page of this dissertation and in doing so, has made me a more careful reader of literature. Without him, this project would not have been possible. I thank Fritz Graf, who has been both a guide and a paradigm of scholarly excellence throughout my graduate career. I am very grateful to Fritz for agreeing to be part of this project, despite the fact it stands outside the scope of his recent scholarly interests. His invaluable comments on my various drafts have revealed new connections and overall have made me a better writer. I thank Richard Fletcher, who is both a teacher and friend, for all of the generous help that he offered on each of the chapters. Richard has always inspired me to ask vi overarching, difficult, and at times unanswerable questions about the material covered in my dissertation. These questions have often pushed me beyond what I thought were my limitations and I believe that Richard’s input have truly made this a better and more fulfilling project. I thank all of my friends, in particular Kira, Todd, Lindsay, and Molly, for the emotional support that you have offered me through this long process. You have helped me to keep focused on what is truly important and without you, I am not sure I would have stayed sane. I would also like to thank my parents for instilling in me the importance of hard work and for the help and encouragement that they have always offered me. Finally, I would like to thank my fiancé, Steve, who has been my rock during this entire process, offering assistance at every step of this process, from my oral exams to my final revisions. It is to them that I dedicate my dissertation. vii Vita July 13, 1982……………………………………..Born, Hamilton, NY May, 2004………………………………………..B.A. Classics, Mount Holyoke College May, 2006………………………………………..M.A. Greek and Latin The Ohio State University September 2004-present…………………………Graduate Teaching Associate Major Field: Greek and Latin viii Table of Contents Abstract ......................................................................................................................ii Dedication ..................................................................................................................v Acknowledgments......................................................................................................vi Vita .............................................................................................................................viii Introduction ................................................................................................................1 1. Discussions of Old Comedy in Plutarch, Dio, and Aristides ....................7 2. Lucian and Old Comedy ............................................................................29 3. Some Terminology Defined .......................................................................31 Chapter 1 Defining the Syrian: the Prologues as Comic Parabases ...........................33 1 .Lucian’s Prologues as Comic Parabases ....................................................37 2. The Heracles ..............................................................................................42 3. The Dionysus ............................................................................................62 4. The Literary Prometheus ..........................................................................85 5. Conclusions ...............................................................................................104 Chapter 2 Lucian on the Defensive: the Fisherman and Twice Prosecuted as Apologies for Old Comedy .......................................................................106 ix 1. The Fisherman ...........................................................................................110 2. The Twice Prosecuted ................................................................................133