Two Enemies of Lucian Jones, C P Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies; Winter 1972; 13, 4; ProQuest pg. 475 Two Enemies of Lucian c. P. Jones THOSE WHO MOCK the foibles of others tend to be reticent about themselves, and Lucian is no exception. For all his comments on the world around him, he has little to say about his back­ ground, family or education; there is not even agreement about his profession. But sometimes modern ignorance is due not to Lucian's reticence but to the loss of information that was readily available to his public. In what follows it will be argued that two enemies, whom he chooses not to name in his attacks on them, can be identified from other sources, notably from Philostratus' Lives of the Sophists.1 I. Lexiphanes The Lexiphanes is a dialogue between Lucian and a sophist (23) satirized under the clearly fabricated name of 'Lexiphanes'. The sophist's conversation and (as soon appears) his writing betray an ob­ session with linguistic novelty, whether familiar words used in strange senses, or outright neologisms. Thus in his opening remarks (1), 'T1}'TtVOC 'yearling' is known only from the grammarians; VEOXf.L0C 'newen' was already archaic in the classical period; ap'Ttypac/n]c 'new­ writ', KVt/Jf£A6{3vc'TOC 'wax-stopt', and aV'TtCVf.L7TOCL(X~W 'I counter-tain', all appear to be novel coinages, presumably of Lucian himself. After their preliminary conversation (1), Lexiphanes reads Lucian part of his recently completed Symposium, in which naturally his linguistic peculiarities are displayed to the full (2-15). Eventually Lucian in­ terrupts him with an outburst against his "swarm of strange and awkward words, some of which you made up yourself, others you grubbed up from wherever they were buried" (16-17). At that 1 I wish to thank Professors T. D. Barnes, G. W. Bowersock and J. F. Gilliam for their criticisms. The folloWing abbreviations will be used: BOWERSOCK, Sophists= G. W. Bower­ sock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford 1969); HELM = R. Helm, "Lukianos," RE l3 (1927) 1725-77; SCHWARTZ, Biographie=J. Schwartz, Biographie de Lucien de Samosate, Collec­ tion Latomus 83 (Brussels 1965). 475 476 TWO ENEMIES OF LUCIAN moment (18), Sopolis the doctor arrives, and on hearing of Lexiphanes' disorder applies an emetic; Lexiphanes drinks, vomits a large number of hyperatticisms and neologisms, and So polis hands him over to Lucian to be educated afresh (19-21). Lucian advises Lexiphanes to read the ancients (22), not merely the sophists of the preceding genera­ tion (23); he should no longer try to drag in every Houtlandish word" (p-ij,.ux EK4>VAOV) he finds or makes up (24); above all, he should not hope to be thought the last word in Atticism when he makes mistakes that even schoolboys avoid (25). Lucian gives practically no information about the sophist'S circum­ stances. There is perhaps a hint that he was from a region not too re­ mote from Lucian's own Commagene when the author says, "You cannot imagine how I prayed for the earth to swallow me" on hearing Lexiphanes make his blunders in public (25): that sounds like the dis­ comfort of an assimilated foreigner at the uncouthness of a fellow­ immigrant. Lexiphanes has variously been identified as Herodian the grammarian, Phrynichus, Pollux, Pompeianus of Philadelphia (an otherwise unknown sophist mentioned by Athenaeus), Ulpian of Tyre (one of Athenaeus' tAayp6e €l,.,., (3). Now 4>tAaypoe as an adjective, pctc 'evil day', and his enemy accused him of employing it barbarously (1, 8).15 Lucian's reply is divided between a defence of his usage and an attack on the sophist's character and history, which he claims to know 'at first hand' (OLKO()EV, 2). The Critic was from "the fairest and largest of all the cities in Phoenicia" (19). He had allegedly begun his career as a prostitute (18), a minor actor (19, 25), and a petty schoolmaster (25): all these items are from the common stock of invective and need not be taken very seriously.I6 The man had then moved to Antioch (20), presumably to complete his education in rhetoric, though Lucian is naturally not interested in any respectable motive. It may have been here that Lucian came to know him, since as a great cultural centre Antioch could easily attract students from Commagene as well as Phoenicia: a late tradition maintains that Lucian began his career as a barrister thereP After getting himself into debt by buying expensive clothes, the Critic had moved to Alexandria (21) and thereafter to Greece and Italy (10, 27). In Italy he had entered the service of a man "among the best of the Romans," whose name Lucian declines to reveal "since everyone knows whom I mean" (21). According to Lucian he had been dis­ missed for immorality and was now established as a sophist in Ephe­ sus (10, 22): this need be no more than a malevolent interpretation of the fact that he was now no longer living in the great man's house­ hold but pursuing an independent career. At the time of Lucian's assault the Critic was at least in middle age (27,31); Lucian reproaches himself for trying "to change an old man's ways" (yepowra avopa f.1,ETa7T'aLOEVELJI, 13), which taken strictly would imply an age of at least sixty, but he seems to be thinking of some proverb as much as of literal fact.Is It also seems that the Critic either was a pederast or 22: for some reason B. Baldwin, CR N.S. 12 (1962) 3 n.1, supposes it to be Rome. Lucian's treatise was not, however, necessarily written in Ephesus, as assumed by Helm (1757) among others. 15 Cf the similar story told about Philagrus of Cilicia, Philostr. VS 2.8.1 (p.84 lines 2-15 K.). 16 M. Kokolakis, Platen 11 (1959) 46-51, has an elaborate discussion of the Critic's acting career. The loci classici are of course in Demosthenes' attacks on Aeschines: Oem. 18.129, 180,242; 19.337. 17 Antioch: cf already Cic. pro Arch. 4. Lucian: Suda, A 683. 18 E.g. of Soph. DC 395, ')IEpOJI'Ta S' op8oUv c/>avAov 8c VEOC 1TECT/, which became proverbial: Corpus paroemiograph. graec., edd. E. L. von Leutsch and F. G. Schneidewin (Gottingen 1839- 1851) I p.358 § 97, II p.106 § 51, etc. On the age implied by YEPWV, see Schwartz, Biographie 15 n.2; C. P. Jones, Plutarch and Rome (Oxford 1971) 20 n.!. 480 TWO ENEMIES OF LUCIAN might easily pass for one, since Lucian dwells on this charge with such ferocity and insistence that it seems more than merely factitious (2~ 22,27-28). It has been widely held that the sophist's real name was 'Timarchus' from Lucian's remark that the Athenians "honoured you with the addition of one letter and called you 'Atimarchus': for you had to out­ do him too" (27). But Lucian is clearly referring to the Timarchus attacked by Aeschines in his famous speech, where again perversion is the principal charge;19 as a rule, moreover, Lucian prefers to allude anonymously to prominent men among the living whether friend or foe. More recently the name of Lucian's victim has been declared beyond recovery.20 Yet, as with the Lexiphanes, help may be forth­ coming from extraneous sources. The Mistaken Critic was from "the fairest and largest of all the cities in Phoenicia" (19). That description, as has long been observed, should denote Tyre, the metropolis of the region.21 Now there is a very eminent sophist of Lucian's time who came precisely from Tyre, Hadrian.22 The possibility that this man was Lucian's Critic has recently been raised and rejected,23 but it deserves further investiga­ tion. Hadrian's birth can be dated around 110.2' There is no evidence that his early career had taken him to Antioch or Alexandria, though that is not unlikely for a sophist born in a region adjacent to Syria: thus Alexander the Clay-Plato was born in Cilician Seleuceia and spent most of his life in Antioch, Rome, Tarsus and Egypt.26 The Critic next went to Greece: Hadrian is said by Philostratus to have been "trained 19 Thus, rightly, Harmon, op.cit. (supra n.2) 404 n.l. For the other view, see (for instance) Helm 1757. 10 Baldwin, op.cit. (supra n.14) 4: "Who was the sophist concerned? ... A negative answer must be given." 21 Thus Macleod, op.cit. (supra n.2) 109; Schwartz, Biographie 117 (Tyre or Beirut). On Roman Tyre see now M. Chehab, MelUS] 38 (1962) 13-40. 89 The basic text is Philostr. VS 2.10 (p.89 line 32-p.94 line 28 K.). Cf. W. Schmid, RE 7 (1912) 2176-77; FIR2 H 4; Bowersock, Sophists 55, 82-84, 91-92. 28 Schwartz, Biographie 117 n.1: "il ne parait pas possible de songer serieusement au sophiste Claudius Hadrianus de Tyr, meme pour quelques details de ce portrait feroce." Cf. Bowersock, Sophists 116: "nowhere in the vast surviving corpus of his writings does [Lucian] attack sophists such as Polemo, Hadrian, or Damian." 24 He is said to have died at eighty under Commodus, which in itself would allow a range of 10~1l3, Philostr. VS 2.10.6 (p.94 line 6 K.). But since his teacher Herodes was born about 101 (Groag, FIR2 C 802, p.177), Hadrian ought to have been born at least a decade later. 25 Philostr. VS 2.5.2 (p.77 lines 23-25 K.). c. P. JONES 4S1 by Athens."26 Lucian's references to the Critic's stay in Italy and to his service with a man "among the best of the Romans" fit Hadrian par­ ticularly closely. For he appears in Rome attending Galen's anatomi­ cal lectures "when still not a sophist" (OtmW cmpLcTEvWV), that is, before he had begun his public career as a virtuoso speaker.27 These lectures of Galen can be dated roughly to the period from 161 to 164.28 At this time Hadrian was attached to the household of the consular Flavius Boethus, whose patria, Ptolemais, was very close to his own.29 As an eminent patron of learning Boethus may be the unnamed" em­ ployer" of the Critic. But not necessarily: another consular who attended this same set of lectures was Cn. Claudius Severus, the son­ in-law of M. Aurelius,so and Severus was certainly Hadrian's patron later, when the sophist set up a statue to him on the base of which he calls him his TTpOCTa77]c.S1 In the same text Hadrian also calls Severus ;toxoc ·E>.A~vwv, TTp6KpLTOC Avcovlwv. Similarly Herodian comments that Marcus married his daughters aVDpac£ Tfic cvyKA~TOV {JovAfie TOte aplcToLC, which recalls Lucian's characterization of the Critic's em­ ployer as avi]p EV TOtC aplcToLC ·PwJLalwv.S2 Lucian's description might seem to fit Severus more precisely even than Boethus. If so, it may be inferred either that Hadrian had consorted with both men in Rome, which in view of their connection with Galen is not unlikely, or else that Hadrian's later friendship with Severus caused Lucian to believe him Severus' client in Rome as well. Lucian's enemy had left his patron's household and was currently posing as a sophist in Ephesus: Philostratus records that Hadrian taught for a time at Ephesus and was the rival of Aelius Aristides, who taught in Smyrna.33 By a curious coincidence Ephesus provides strik­ ing proof of Hadrian's eminence in the monument already men­ tioned, which he set up to Claudius Severus after his friend's marriage with a daughter ofM. Aurelius.34 The inscription on this can be dated 28 Philostr. VS 2.10.1 (p.90 line 1 K.). 27 Galen, ed. C. G. Kuhn vol.XIV p.627. For this explanation of Galen's phrase, see Bower­ sock, Sophists 13-14. 28 The limits are provided by the date of Galen's arrival in Rome (see infra n.45) and by the presence of M. Civica Barbarus (cf PIR2 C 602). 29 Galen 14.627. On Boethus, see PIR2 F 229. 30 Galen 14.629. Cf PIR2 C 1024. 31 J. Keil,lOAI 40 (1953) 14=SEG 13.505. 32 Hdn. 1.2.2; Lucian, Pseudo!. 21. 33 Philostr. VS 2.23.2 (p.107 lines 24-26 K.). at Keil, /oc.cit. (supra n.31). 482 TWO ENEMIES OF LUCIAN on internal evidence between about 163 and 169.35 It therefore emerges that when Galen met him in the early 160's Hadrian was just about to begin his public career by taking his first chair, at Ephesus. Severns, who was himself related to dynastic families of the Greek East, is likely to have had a hand in the appointment, just as he later intervened in Hadrian's appointment to the chair at Athens.36 Even when Galen met him Hadrian must have been not less than fifty and probably more: that accords with Lucian's reference to his "grey hairs" (31), even if his "old man" (13) is a slight exaggera­ tion.37 Lucian's treatise can certainly be dated to Hadrian's Ephesian period, since the quarrel that inspired it had taken place there. Later Lucian must have had the dissatisfaction of seeing his enemy advance even higher. When Marcus visited Athens in 176, Hadrian was already holding the imperial chair of rhetoric, having been appointed by the emperor merely on the strength of his reputation. Severus, who may have been travelling with Marcus, encouraged the emperor to make a personal trial of the sophist: the mild criticism of Hadrian's style that Severus expressed on the occasion does not show that he had broken with his former client but is merely the judgement of a con­ noisseur on a recognized master.3S Hadrian declaimed before the emperor with great success and was rewarded with a shower of gifts and privileges. Later he ascended the chair of rhetoric at Rome. On his death-bed, when he was about eighty, he was allegedly appointed by Commodus to the position of ab epistulis Graecis but died before he could assume his duties. In fact Commodus may not have cared very much for Hadrian.39 Naturally, since he is writing about Hadrian as a great sophist and the successor of Herodes Atticus, philostratus does not provide details 35 R. Syme, Historia 17 (1968) 102-03. Severns seems to have married Marcus' eldest daughter, Annia Galeria Faustina (PIRZ A 714), ca. 163, and since the inscription refers to "emperors" it should be earlier than L. Verus' death in the winter of 168/9. 38 Philostr. VS 2.10.4 (p.93 lines 2-10 K.). On this incident see further infra. 37 See supra p.479. 38 Philostr. VS 2.10.4 (p.93 lines 2-10 K.). Philostratus' verb 8La{lilloV'Toc need imply nothing stronger than a reproof, efLS) s.v. v 1. Cf Bowersock, Sophists 84. 39 Philostr. VS 2.10.6 (p.93 line 32-p.94 line 5 K.), with the discussion of this incident by Bowersock, Sophists 55. The Suda (A 528) states that Hadrian actually held the post (avTL­ "ypacp£tlc • •• €YEV£TO): since its ultimate source is likely to be Philostratus (F. Leo, Die grieehiseh-romisehe Biographie nach ihrer literarisehen Form [Leipzig 1901J 256-58), this looks like a compilator's error. C. P. JONES 483 about his private life to tnatch those in Lucian. Nevertheless, he dwells on Hadrian's extravagant style of living, and among other things mentions his ~cOij'Ta 7TA€lc'TOV aglav: Lucian also alleges that his Critic bought ~cOij'Tac 7TOAV'T€A€tC on credit in Antioch.40 Similarly Lucian's charges of pederasty perhaps find a remote echo in Philos­ tratus' description of Hadrian consorting with his pupils "at play, over wine, in the hunt ... and by accompanying them to Greek festi­ vals, so that they were disposed to him as children to a sweet and gentle father, one who joined thetn in tnaintaining Greek frivolity."41 That Hadrian made other enemies than Lucian is confirmed by philos­ tratus' report that he was accused of murdering another sophist's pupil; and the biographer is also concerned to defend his hero against the charge of avato€la.42 The picture of Hadrian would be sharper still if by any chance he were one of the sophists whom Aristides attacks in an extant speech for their devotion to wordly pleasures, in the first place pederasty: this speech is likely to have been delivered just when Hadrian was teaching in Ephesus as a rival of Aristides.43 Nor is the possibility to be discounted that Hadrian's lost Metamorphoses was the salacious original on which Apuleius based his romance of the same title.44 If the identification of Lucian's Critic as Hadrian of Tyre is accepted, it may he used to supplement what is known about the satirist him­ self. It has been seen that when the Pseudologista was written Hadrian was in Ephesus. It cannot therefore be earlier than 161, the earliest possible date for Galen's lecture which Hadrian attended,45 or later than 176, when he was already established at Athens. Since Lucian might have passed through Ephesus at almost any time during this period, it tnight not seem wise to delitnit the date further. 40 Philostr. VS 2.10.2 (p.91 lines 18-19 K.): Lucian, Pseudo!. 21. 41 Philostr. VS 2.10.2 (p.91 lines 25-30 K.). 42 Philostr. VS 2.10.3 (p.92 lines 3-27 K.); 2.10.6 (p.94 lines 12-20 K.). 43 Aristid. 33 K., esp. § 20: ~A,\OtC JL~ otv 6,u.Ala 1Tat8tKwV 7j8o, TOtC 8' £lc 1TAfj8oc 'lTtEtV, TOVC 8' r'IT'lTOt Ka~ KOVEC Jg€'lTATJgav. On the date of 33 K., note esp. §§ 30-32 referring to the plague of the late 160's as still rampant (cf. C. A. Behr, Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales [Amster­ dam 1968] 102-03). Aristides and Hadrian: Philostr. VS 2.23.2 (p.107 lines 24-26 K.). t4 Hadrian's Metamorphoses: Suda, A 528. Cf. now H. van Thiel, Der Eselsroman. I: Unter­ suchungen (Munich 1971) 38-39. 45 Galen's stay in Rome lasted from soon after the beginning of Marcus' reign (2.215) to shortly before Verus' return from the East in 166 (14.649). J. Ilberg argued for 162 as the date of his arrival, but had to emend Galen's text (ed. Kuhn vol. XVIll.1 p.347) to fit: NJbb 15 (1905) 286 n.l, Sudhoffs Archiv fur Geschichte der Medizin 23 (1930) 290. 484 TWO ENEMIES OF LUCIAN Nevertheless, a suggestion may be advanced which, if wrong, does not affect the question of the Critic's identity. It so happens that the first half of the 160's is the best known part of Lucian's career. The crucial date, unfortunately attested only by translations of Eusebius' Chronicle,46 is 165: for that is the year when the Cynic Peregrinus immolated himself after the Olympic games, and Lucian was present at the festival for the fourth time.47 Around this date several other items can be arranged. Lucian was almost cer­ tainly in the entourage of L. Verus at Antioch during the Parthian War. Two of his works, the Imagines and the Pro imaginibus, are writ­ ten in praise ofVerus' mistress Panthea, whom the emperor presum­ ably had with him in Antioch before his marriage to Lucilla, the daughter of Marcus, in about 164.48 Similarly, Lucian's treatise De saltatione was apparently composed in Antioch to gratify Verus' taste for pantomimes.49 Lucian must have returned to Greece before the end of the war, however, to be at the Olympic games of 165. This return journey is presumably the one described in the Alexander, which took him from Cappadocia along the Pontic coast to Bithynia; he then appears to have gone south to Ionia before crossing to Achaea.50 It has already been seen that some of Lucian's early career was spent in Athens, and that he gave up his sophistic ambitions about 160.51 Since he next appears in the entourage of L. Verus in the East, it is a reasonable inference that his renunciation of sophistry and his attach­ ment to the new emperor are connected. Now Verus is known to have visited Athens in the late autumn of 162, since illness prevented him from attending the Eleusinian mysteries, normally celebrated in September or October, and they had to be repeated for his benefit.52 4& Hieron. Chron. p.204lines 24-26 HelmS. 47 Lucian, Peregr. 35. 48 On Verus in Antioch if. H.A. Verus 7.3-4; G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria (Princeton 1961) 226; T. D. Bames,]RS 57 (1967) 71-72. On Panthea: H.A. Verus 7.10; PIRl P 69; Barnes, art.cit. 72. Verus' marriage is dated only by H.A. M.Ant. 9.4, medic belli tempore: Barnes argues for 163 on the ground that the inscription AE 1959.13 does not call Verus