the classical review - a revisão das classes - heinzgünther

8/12/2019 The Classical Review - A reviso das Classes - HeinzGnther

1/5

The Classical Reviewhttp://journals.cambridge.org/CAR

Additional services for The Classical Review:

Email alerts: Click hereSubscriptions: Click hereCommercial reprints: Click here

Terms of use : Click here

Lucian (F.) Mestre, (P.) Gmez (edd.) Lucian of Samosata. Greek Writerand Roman Citizen. Pp. 290, ills. Barcelona: Publicacions i Edicions de laUniversitat de Barcelona, 2010. Paper, 23. ISBN: 978-84-475-3406-7.

Heinz-Gnther Nesselrath

The Classical Review / Volume 62 / Issue 01 / April 2012, pp 115 - 118DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X11003155, Published online: 09 March 2012

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009840X11003155

How to cite this article:

Heinz-Gnther Nesselrath (2012). Review of (F.) Mestre, and (P.) Gmez 'Lucian of Samosata. Greek Writer and RomanCitizen' The Classical Review, 62, pp 115-118 doi:10.1017/S0009840X11003155

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/CAR, IP address: 177.135.166.102 on 19 Sep 2012


2/5

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 115

The Classical Review vol. 62 no. 1 The Classical Association 2012; all rights reserved

138.8 discussed at p. 72), not to mention salient references to ancient comparanda(Homer, Plato, Xenophon, Strabo, Plutarch and Pliny, among others, all feature). Overall, then, W. has provided a fine translation and commentary for an interest-ing text. There are, however, some problems. An entertaining and pertinent point

pertaining to the understanding of this book comes from the preface, where W.

describes how it was that he came to research this text. There, rather fortuitously,he notes: With such a shaky grasp of science and mathematics that I had neverbefore found these works approachable or palatable, I now devoured them with aconverts zeal. For those without such a background, or who have not yet beenconverted, so to speak, this book particularly Apollodorus text whether in Greekor English will be hard going. As noted, much of Apollodorus discussion is filledwith technical details such as lengths and widths, not to mention various technicalelements, including not just the measurements, but also the components of ancientmachines. Indeed, many of the comments of the later interpolators seem to have

been intended to clarify the text, and not merely provide evidence of intelligence

and ingenuity. There are numerous remarks such as and the figure is appended(159.67), sometimes after Apollodorus text, sometimes after these interpolatorsown amendments. Many such drawings exist, though they have not been includedin this book, probably on grounds of cost. This is too bad, as reproductions of theByzantine illustrations, or at least greater use of the modern diagrams provided,would have gone some way towards clarifying many of the difficulties that awaitanyone keen to wade through Apollodorus text. Though the commentary helps,the fact that it is appended to the text and translation makes consultation some-what cumbersome: having to flip back and forth from text to commentary is nostraightforward process, though I admit that this particular edition is not unique

in this regard, as anyone who has used the Cambridge Classical Texts will attest.This problem is not one that should be directed at W. or even at the editors, forthe practice is by no means unusual. Rather, it is unfortunate that this problemwas not anticipated beforehand, as it might put off many a general reader who isunprepared to read the book and text from start to finish if overwhelmed by theabundance of technical, mathematical and scientific detail. Apollodorus Poliorktika is a fascinating text that deserves a wider audience,and in this volume W. has made some important strides in that direction. One onlyhopes that the complexities, which are not clarified quite as much as one mightlike, do not hinder that text from reaching such an audience.

University of Winnipeg CONO R [email protected]

LUCIAN

ME S T R E (F.), G M E Z (P.) (edd.) Lucian of Samosata. Greek Writerand Roman Citizen. Pp. 290, ills. Barcelona: Publicacions i Edicionsde la Universitat de Barcelona, 2010. Paper, 23. ISBN: 978-84-475-3406-7.doi:10.1017/S0009840X11003155

The English title of this collection of papers (most of which were first presentedat a colloquium in Barcelona in 2006) is somewhat misleading: only three of the


3/5

116 THE CLASSICAL REVIEW

eighteen papers (not counting preface and introduction, pp. 915) are in English,while seven are in French, four in Catalan (one of them accompanied by an Englishtranslation), three in Spanish and one in Italian. One must presume that the English

book title was chosen mainly for commercial reasons. After a preface by F. Mestre (pp. 910), the Introduction (pp. 1115) by P.

Gmez gives an overview of the papers. The first contribution (bilingual), by C.Miralles, Del meu tracte amb Lluci On my dealings with Lucian (pp. 1925/2734), presents personal reminiscences of the authors engagement with Lucian andremarks on Lucianic studies in Barcelona, mainly during the latter half of thetwentieth century. The first main section, Lucian the Writer, opens with a well-argued paper,Luciano e lo scetticismo del suo tempo (pp. 3748), in which M. Bonazzi showsthat Lucians knowledge of philosophical scepticism may have been more thoroughthan was hitherto supposed, but that he was not a convinced adherent of an official

philosophical school of scepticism (be it Pyrrhonian or Academic).

The next paper takes us into the late seventeenth century, considering howFontenelles Nouveaux dialogues des morts changed the themes, persons andstructure of Lucians Dialogues of the Dead by regularly presenting two anti-thetical speakers (in imitation of Plutarchs Parallel Lives?), thereby reflecting theantagonisms of the Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes (J. Carruesco / M. Reig,Fontenelle I els Nous Dilegs dels Morts: unes Vides Paralleles a la manera deLluci, pp. 4961). We then return to Lucians relationship with Scepticism: in Lucien doit-il trerang dans la bote des philosophs sceptiques? (pp. 6371), B. Decharneux arguesthat Lucian inherited a form of scepticisme platonisant issue de la voie trace

par Philon et Charmadas and was not a sceptique au sens strict (p. 66). Thishypothesis, however, is not really proved: discussing Lucians sceptic stance in theHermotimus and his jokes about scepticism in the True Story and Philosophies forSale, Decharneux does not take into account the quite different nature of theseworks. It is not easy to find a coherent line of thought in Luciano: Dilogo y com-

promiso intelectual (pp. 7386) by M. Garca Valds, who looks at some ofLucians prolaliai (Dionysus, A Literary Prometheus, Heracles) and at The Double

Indictment, drawing not very original conclusions about Lucians characteristics asa writer. Moreover, she regards Lucian almost romantically as a communicator of

truths (su objetivo: develar la verdad frente a la falsedad que imperaba, p. 86),trying to prove this by looking rather randomly at several Lucianic writings on herfinal pages. Much better focussed is I. Gassinos Par-del toutes les frontires: Le pseudosdans les Histoires Vraies de Lucien (pp. 8798), in which she convincingly dem-onstrates how Lucian quite deliberately blurs the borders between pseudos(fiction)and logos. P. Gmez and M. Jufresa deal with Lucians Symposium, Lluci a taula: alimentsi simposi (pp. 99113), representing it as an anti-banquet, in which elementsfrom philosophical dialogue, sympotic literature and comedy are combined.

In Luciano, los Cristianos y Jesucristo (pp. 11520), O. Karavas tries to showthat in The Passing of Peregrinus (Chapters 1113 and 16) Lucian draws a posi-tive portrait of Christians and that even the characterisation of Christ as sophistis meant positively (but cf. Peregr. 31). Karavas also thinks that the Syrian from


4/5

THE CLASSICAL REVIEW 117

Palestine in Philops. 16 refers to Christ (see also D. Ogden, In Search of theSorcerers Apprentice [2007], p. 133, not cited here). In The Game of the Name: onymity and the Contract of Reading in Lucian(pp. 12132), K. N-Mheallaigh well brings out Lucians subtle play with namesfor characters in his writings that may (or may not) hint at a certain degree of

identity with himself: while, for example, he uses his own name Loukianos forthe narrator and main hero in the tall tales of the True Story, he employs thefictional name Lykinos within contexts clearly embedded in contemporary reality(e.g. Essays in Portraiture and Essays in Portraiture Defended). The first section is concluded by T. Whitmarshs well-written essay TheMetamorphoses of the Ass (pp. 13341), which shows how metamorphosis affectsthe identity of the narrator and hero of the story. As for the identity of the author,Whitmarsh does not rule out that this might be Lucian himself after all. The second section starts with a clear exposition of Lucians (possible) relation-ship vis--vis two Roman emperors by A. Billault, Lucien, Lucius Verus et Marc

Aurle (pp. 14559). Billault well characterises the four essays with which Lucianapparently tried to win Lucius Verus favour (The Dance, Essays in Portraiture,Essays in Portraiture Defended, How to Write History) and argues that How toWrite History was meant as an offer to write Verus history. Billault also thinksthat with his Apology Lucian might have addressed Marcus Aurelius in order toattain a higher post in Roman administration than he seems to have had in Egypt

between 171 and 175. The next essay, Lhistoria dun citoyen romain de langue grecque (pp. 1618)

by C. Darbo-Peschanski, tries to show that Lucians conception of historia (in Howto Write History) derives from both a Greek and a Roman rhetorical tradition,

aiming to give encomiastic content (loge) a place centrale within historiography(p. 167), as subjects of Roman emperors had no other choice. I find this ratherunconvincing. In Luciano y el viaje: una estrategia discursiva (pp. 16982), J. GmezEspelosn collects all references to travel in Lucians writings, believing that someof them draw on personal experience. He recognises that Lucian does not seemvery much interested in travel as such, with one exception: fantastic journeys tofantastic destinations (exotic islands, heaven, netherworld). According to G.E., suchtravel is instrumentalised by Lucian to present an external perspective on ourworld, but does this apply to notions of real travel as well?

In an elegantly written piece, D. Konstan looks at the dialogue Anacharsis(Anacharsis the Roman, or Reality vs. Play, pp. 1839) and shows that both itsspeakers, Anacharsis as well as Solon, fail to grasp the real significance of sportsor theatrical representations vis--vis everyday reality. In this way, Lucian maydraw attention to a vitally important ingredient of his own work: playfulness. Lucien et lEgypte (pp. 191201) by A. Martin discusses Lucians referencesto Egypt. Though most of them are unoriginal, there are a few for which Lucianis our first or only witness. Martin cites as an example that mummies were par-ticipants in funeral banquets (mentioned in On Mourning 6), and illustrates thiswith archaeological and papyrological evidence.

In Lucien ne sait pas dire bonjour (pp. 20315), F. Mestre and E. Vintrconsider three hypotheses to make sense of Lucians A Slip of the Tongue inGreeting: (1) the described situation is invented to provide an occasion for a pro-lalia introducing a melet in praise of Asclepius and Hygieia; (2) it reflects a realevent, in which Lucian, as an employee in the Roman provincial administration


5/5

the classical review - a revisão das classes - heinzgünther

Documents