THEM. Tronsky

(about 120-180 AD)

en.wikipedia.org

Biography

Born in Samosat (Syria). His father was a small craftsman. Lucian received a general and rhetorical education, had a lawyer's practice in Antioch, traveled a lot (visited Greece, Italy, Gaul), studied law in Athens; at the end of his life he received the honorary position of procurator in Egypt.

Lucian's work, which has not come down to us in the originals, is extensive and includes philosophical dialogues, satires, biographies, and novels of adventure and travel (often overtly parodic) related to the prehistory of science fiction. In his first writings, Lucian pays tribute to rhetoric ("The Tyrant Killer", "Praise of the Fly", "Dream" and others). But soon he becomes disillusioned with rhetoric and grammar and sharpens his satire against them (“Leksifan”, “Liar”, “Teacher of Rhetoric” and others). later he turns to the study of philosophy, but at first he does not become a supporter of any philosophical school and equally ridicules philosophers of various directions in his works. At one time he was fond of Cynic philosophy, later he prefers the philosophy of Epicurus. Lucian ridicules in his sharp satire both the dying paganism and the established Christianity. The most striking works of Lucian, in which he laughs at the gods of Olympus, are his Conversations of the Gods, Sea Conversations and Conversations in the Realm of the Dead. Everywhere Lucian laughs at mythological images.

Lucian is often called "the first science fiction writer" in history, referring to his "fantastic" novels - "Icaromenippus" (lat. Icaromenippus) (c. 161; Russian 1935 - "Icaromenippus, or Transcendental Flight"), which gave the name to the literary the term "menippea", and "True History" (lat. Vera Historia) (c. 170; Russian 1935). In the first book, the hero makes a space flight to the moon with the help of wings (and with the sole purpose of looking at earthly affairs "from above"), after which he visits Olympus; in the second, claiming the title of "the first sci-fi novel in history", the navigators are also carried away to the Moon (by a storm), meet many exotic forms of extraterrestrial life there, actively interfere in local "politics" and even participate in "stellar wars" for the planet Venus.

The satirical works of Lucian, with their sharp attacks on religious orthodoxy and authority, had a great influence on later authors, among whom are Ulrich von Hutten, Thomas More (translator of many of Lucian's writings into English language), Erasmus of Rotterdam, Francois Rabelais, Jonathan Swift. In the satirical dialogues of Ulrich von Hutten, especially in the dialogue "Vadisk, or the Roman Trinity", an echo of the satirical dialogues of Lucian is undoubtedly felt, as well as in the satire of Erasmus of Rotterdam "Praise of stupidity". In the fantasy of Rabelais' novels one can even find direct parallels to Lucian's True Stories. Lucian's True Stories inspired Swift's Gulliver's Travels.

Literature

Texts and translations

Ed. Sommerbrodt, Berlin (Wiedmann). Complete translation. in French lang.: Eugene Talbot, I-II, P.-Hachette, 1882.
In the Loeb classical library, the works were published in 8 volumes (No. 14, 54, 130, 162, 302, 430, 431, 432).
Vol. I
Vol. II
Vol. III
Vol. IV
Vol. V
Vol. VI
Vol. VII
Publication started in "Collection Bude" (4 volumes published, essays No. 1-29)

Russian translations:

Conversations of Lucian of Samosata. / Per. I. Sidorovsky and M. Pakhomov. St. Petersburg, 1775-1784. Part 1. 1775. 282 pages. Part 2. 1776. 309 pages. Part 3. 1784. S. 395-645.
Icaromenippus or Transcendental. / Per. M. Lisitsyna. Voronezh, 1874. 23 p.
Cathedral of the Gods. Sale of lives at auction. Rybak, or Resurrected. / Per. M. Lisitsyna. Voronezh, 1876. 30 p.
The writings of Lucian of Samosata. The conversations of the gods and the conversations of the dead. / Per. E. Shnitkinda. Kyiv, 1886. 143 pages.
Lucian. Works. Issue. 1-3. / Per. V. Alekseev. SPb., 1889-1891.
True incident. / Per. E. Fechner. Revel, 1896. 54 pages.
Misanthrope. / Per. P. Rutskoy. Riga, 1901. 33 pages.
Selected writings. / Per. and note. A. I. Manna. SPb., 1906. 134 pages.
How should history be written? / Per. A. Martova. Nizhyn, 1907. 25 p.
Selected writings. / Per. N. D. Chechulin. SPb., 1909. 166 pages.
On the death of Peregrine. / Per. ed. A. P. Kastorsky. Kazan, 1916. 22 p.
Hetero dialogues. / Per. A. Shika. M., 1918. 72 pages.
Lucian. Works. / Per. member Student. about-va classic. philology. Ed. F. Zelinsky and B. Bogaevsky. T. 1-2. Moscow: Sabashnikovs. 1915-1920.
T. 1. Biography. Religion. 1915. LXIV, 320 pp.
T. 2. Philosophy. 1920. 313 pages.
Lucian. Collected works. In 2 volumes / Ed. B. L. Bogaevsky. (Series "Antique Literature"). M.-L.: Academia. 1935. 5300 copies. T. 1. XXXVII, 738 pp. T. 2. 789 pp.
Selected Atheistic Works. / Ed. and Art. A. P. Kazhdan. (Series "Scientific-Atheistic Library"). M.: Publishing house AN. 1955. 337 pages, 10,000 copies.
Favorites. / Per. I. Nakhov, Y. Schultz. M.: GIHL. 1962. 515 pages, 30,000 copies. (includes a translation of Lucian's epigrams for the first time)
Lucian. Favorites. / Comp. and before. I. Nakhova, comm. I. Nakhov and Yu. Schultz. (Series "Library of ancient literature. Greece"). M.: Artist. lit. 1987. 624 pages, 100,000 copies.
Lucian - Selected prose: Per. from ancient Greek / Comp., intro. Art., comment. I. Nakhova. - Moscow: Pravda, 1991. - 720 p. - 20000 copies. - ISBN 5-253-00167-0
Lucian of Samosata. Works. In 2 volumes / [Based on the 1935 edition], under the general ed. A. I. Zaitseva. (Series "Antique Library". Section "Antique Literature"). St. Petersburg: Aleteyya, 2001. Vol. 1. VIII + 472 pages. Vol. 2. 544 pages (complete works)

Research

Spassky, Hellenism and Christianity, Sergiev Posad, 1914;
Bogaevsky B., Lukian, his life and works, with vol. I "Sochin." Lukiana, M., 1915;
Prozorov P., Systematic index of books and articles on Greek philology, St. Petersburg, 1898
History of Greek literature, edited by S. I. Sobolevsky [and others], vol. 3, M., 1960, p. 219-24;
Takho-Godi A. A. Some questions of Lucian's aesthetics. // From the history of aesthetic thought in antiquity and the Middle Ages. M., 1961. S. 183-213.
Popova T. V. Literary criticism in the writings of Lucian. // Ancient Greek literary criticism. M.: Science. 1975. S. 382-414.
Losev A. F. Hellenistic-Roman aesthetics of the 1st-2nd centuries. n. e. M.: Publishing house of Moscow State University. 1979. S. 191-224, 273-280.
Cicolini L. S. Dialogues of Lucian and Mora's "Utopia" in Giunti's edition (1519) // Middle Ages. M., 1987. Issue 50. pp. 237-252.

Martha? Constant, Philosophers and Moral Poets in the Time of the Roman Empire, trans. M. Korsak, Moscow, 1880;
Croiset, A. and M., History of Greek Literature, trans. ed. S. A. Zhebeleva, ed. V. S. Eliseeva, P., 1916;
Croiset, Essai sur la vie et les uvres de Lucien, P., 1882.
Caster M., Lucien etla pensee religieuse de son temps, P., 1937;
Avenarius G., Lukians Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung, Meisenheim am Glan, 1956 (bibl. pp. 179-83).

Lucian of Samosata

1. General overview of the activities of Lucian.

Lucian was born in the city of Samosata, that is, he was by origin a Syrian. The years of his life cannot be determined with accuracy, but approximately they were 125-180s AD. His biography is almost unknown, and what little is known is drawn from vague indications in his own works. He did not follow the path of his father, a craftsman and his uncle, a sculptor, but began to strive to receive a liberal arts education. Having moved to Greece? - he perfectly studied the Greek language and became an itinerant rhetorician, reading his own works to the general public in different cities of the empire. At one time he lived in Athens and was a teacher of rhetoric, and in old age he took a highly paid position as a judicial official in Egypt, to which he was appointed by the emperor himself.

84 works have come down to us with the name of Lucian, which can be conditionally divided into three periods (the complete accuracy of this periodization cannot be established, due to the fact that the dating of most works is very approximate, so the distribution of treatises by periods may be different). Of the treatises, we present only the most important ones.

The first period of Lucian's literary work can be called rhetorical. It probably continued until the end of the 1960s. Soon, however, he became disillusioned with his rhetoric (this disappointment, as far as one can judge from his own statement, he experienced already at the age of 40) and moved on to philosophical topics, although he was not a professional philosopher.

During this second philosophical period of his activity - probably up to the year 80 - Lucian dealt with many different topics, of which it is necessary to note first of all his many satirical works against mythology, which brought him world fame, as well as a number of treatises against philosophers, superstition and fiction.

The third period of his activity is characterized by a partial return to rhetoric, an interest in Epicurean philosophy, and clearly expressed features of disappointment.

Having taken the big post of a judicial official, Lucian did not shy away from flattery to the rulers of that time, despite the fact that he most severely exposed the humiliations of philosophers before rich people. The lack of positive convictions always led Lucian to the great limitation of his criticism, and this became especially noticeable in the last period of his work. However, this can hardly be considered the fault of Lucian himself.

In the person of Lucian, in general, all antiquity came to self-denial; not only he, but the whole society to which he belonged, gradually lost all prospects, since the old ideals were long lost, and it was not easy to get used to the new ones (and such was Christianity that arose just some 100 years before Lucian) was not easy, for This needed not only more time, but also a big social turn.

2. The first rhetorical period.

With the development of Roman absolutism, rhetoric was bound to lose the enormous social and political importance that it had in the period of the republic in Greece and Rome. Nevertheless, the ancient craving for a beautiful word never left either the Greeks or the Romans. But during the period of the empire, this rhetoric was detached from life, limited to formalistic exercises and pursued exclusively artistic goals, enticing for all lovers of literature. Starting with rhetoric, Lucian creates a long series of fictitious speeches, just as generally in those days in rhetorical schools they wrote essays on a given topic for the sake of an exercise in style and for the sake of creating a declamatory effect on readers and listeners. Such, for example, is Lucian's speech entitled "Deprived of Inheritance", which proves the rights to the inheritance for a fictitious person who has lost these rights due to family circumstances. Such is the speech "The Tyrant Killer", where Lucian casuistically proves that after the murder of the son of a tyrant and after the suicide of the tyrant himself on this occasion, the murderer of the tyrant's son must be considered the murderer of the tyrant himself.

It is often pointed out that even during this rhetorical period, Lucian did not remain only a rhetorician, but in some places he already began to show himself as a philosopher using the dialogic form. In the "Teacher of Eloquence" (chap. 8) a distinction is made between lofty rhetoric and vulgar, ignorant rhetoric. In the speech "Praising the Fly" we find a satire on rhetorical praise speeches, because here such an object as a fly is praised in the most serious way, with citations from classical literature, the fly's head, eyes, paws, abdomen, wings are painted in detail.

3. Transition from sophistry to philosophy.

Lucian further has a group of works of the second half of the 50s that do not yet contain direct philosophical judgments, but which can no longer be called purely rhetorical, that is, pursuing only a beautiful form of presentation. These include: a) the critical-aesthetic group "Zeuxis", "Harmonides", "Herodotus", "About the House" and b) comic dialogues - "Prometheus, or the Caucasus", "Conversations of the Gods", "Conversations of Geteres", "Marine conversations."

In "Zeuxis" we find a description of the paintings of the famous painter Zeuxis. This is praise in essence, since its subject this time is that which has aesthetic value, and, moreover, for Lucian himself. A treatise on the house praises some beautiful building; praise is in the form of a dialogue. Dialogue was in Greece the original form of philosophical reasoning. Here is a direct transitional link from the rhetoric of praiseworthy speeches to philosophical dialogue.

Lucian's talent as a satirist and comedian was widely developed in comic dialogues.

"Prometheus, or the Caucasus" is Prometheus' brilliant defensive speech against Zeus. As you know, Prometheus, by the will of Zeus, was chained to a rock in the Caucasus. In form, this is a completely rhetorical work, capable of still making a spectacular impression with its argumentation and composition. In essence, this work is very far from empty and meaningless rhetoric, since in it we already find the beginning of a deep criticism of the mythological views of the ancients and a virtuoso overthrow of one of the most significant myths of classical antiquity.

Another work of Lucian of the same group and also world-famous is "The Conversations of the Gods". Here we find very brief conversations of the gods, in which they act in the most unsightly philistine form, in the role of some very stupid philistines with their insignificant passions, love affairs, all sorts of base needs, greed and an extremely limited mental horizon. Lucian does not invent any new mythological situations, but uses only what is known from tradition. What once had a significant interest and expressed the deep feelings of the Greek people, after being transferred to the everyday environment, received a comic, completely parodic orientation. "Conversations of Hetaerae" depict a vulgar and limited world of petty love adventures, and in "Sea Conversations" there is again a parodic mythological theme. The dialogue of all these works is reduced from its high pedestal by classical literature of the form of philosophical reasoning.

4. Philosophical period.

For the convenience of reviewing the numerous works of this period, they can be divided into several groups.

a) Menippean group: "Conversations in the Realm of the Dead", "Twice Accused", "Tragic Zeus", "Zeus Convicted", "Assembly of the Gods", "Menippus", "Icaromenippus", "Dream, or Rooster", "Timon" , "Charon", "Crossing, or Tyrant".

Menippus was a very popular philosopher of the 3rd century. BC, belonging to the Cynic school; the cynics demanded complete simplification, the denial of any civilization and freedom from all those benefits that people usually chase after. Lucian no doubt sympathized with this Cynic philosophy for some time. Thus, in "Conversations in the Realm of the Dead" the dead are depicted suffering from the loss of wealth, and only Menippus and other cynics remain here cheerful and carefree, and the simplicity of life is preached.

Of this group of Lucian's works, "Tragic Zeus" is especially sharp in character, where the gods are also depicted in a vulgar and insignificant form, and a certain Epicurean hammers with his arguments the Stoic with his teaching about the gods and the expediency of world history implanted by them. The "tragedy" of Zeus lies here in the fact that in the event of the victory of the atheists, the gods will not receive the sacrifices laid down for them and therefore will have to perish. But the victory of the Epicurean, it turns out, means nothing, since there are still enough fools on earth who continue to believe in Zeus and other gods.

b) Satire on pseudo-philosophers is contained in the works of Lucian: "Ship, or Desires", "Cynic", "Sale of Lives", "Teacher of Eloquence" (the last two works, perhaps, belong to the end of the rhetorical period).

Lucian was interested in the discrepancy between the lives of philosophers and the ideals they preached. In this regard, we find many examples in the work "Feast", where philosophers of different schools are depicted as hangers-on and flatterers with rich people, spending their lives in carousing and adventures, as well as in mutual quarrels and fights. Some scholars have thought that in this critique of the philosophers, Lucian remained committed to Cynicism, with its protest against the excesses of civilization and its defense of the underprivileged.

c) Satire on superstition, pseudoscience and fantasy is contained in the treatises: "The Lover of Lies", "On the Death of Peregrinus" (after 167), "On Sacrifice", "On Sorrow", "Luke, or the Donkey", "How to Write a History "(165). Especially against narrow-minded rhetoricians and school grammarians - "Leksifan", "Parasite", "Liar".

The small treatise "On the death of Peregrine" deserves special attention. Usually this treatise is regarded as a document from the history of early Christianity, because the hero Peregrinus depicted here at one time was in the Christian community, captivated her with his teachings and behavior, and enjoyed her protection. This is absolutely correct. Among the early Christian communities, there certainly could have been those who were composed of gullible simpletons and succumbed to all sorts of influences that had nothing to do with the doctrine of Christianity itself. But about Christians, there are only a few phrases here: the Christian community excommunicated Peregrinus from itself and thus, from the point of view of Lucian himself, proved its complete alienation to Peregrinus. Undoubtedly, this Lucian image itself gives more, which is still capable of shaking the reader's imagination.

Peregrine began his life with debauchery and patricide. Obsessed with philanthropy, he went around the cities in the form of some kind of prophet - a miracle worker and a preacher of unprecedented teachings. He was greedy for money and suffered from gluttony, although at the same time he aspired to be an ascetic, preaching the highest ideals. This is also a cynic with all the features inherent in these philosophers, including extreme simplification and hostility to philosophers. Lucian tries to portray him as an elementary charlatan, using human superstition for selfish purposes, mainly for the sake of increasing his fame. Lucian's mockery of Peregrin depicted in him is very vicious, sometimes very subtle, and speaks of the writer's hatred for his hero. However, the fact that Lucian actually told about his Peregrinus, painting this latter as a charlatan, goes far beyond the usual fraud. Peregrine is the most incredible mixture of depravity, ambition and glory, asceticism, belief in all sorts of fabulous miracles, in one's divinity, or at least in a special heavenly destiny, the desire to rule over people and be their savior, desperate adventurism and a fearless attitude towards death and the strength of the spirit. It's a mixture of incredible acting, self-exaltation, but also selflessness. In the end, in order to become even more famous, he wants to end his life by self-immolation, but somehow he does not believe Lucian's constant claims that Peregrine does this only for glory. Shortly before self-immolation, he broadcasts that his golden life should end with a golden crown. With his death, he wants to show what real philosophy is, and he wants to teach to despise death. In a solemn atmosphere, a fire is arranged for Peregrine. With a pale face and in a frenzy in front of the fire in the presence of an excited crowd, he turns to his dead father and mother with a request to accept him, and he is trembling, and the crowd hums and screams, demanding from him immediate self-immolation, then stopping this execution.

The burning takes place at night in the moonlight, after Peregrine's faithful disciples, the cynics, solemnly light the firewood brought in, and Peregrine fearlessly rushes into the fire. They say that he was later seen in a white robe with a wreath of the sacred olive, joyfully walking in the temple of Zeus in the Olympic portico. It should be noted that Peregrine set himself on fire in no other place and no other time than at the Olympic Games.

This stunning picture of individual and social hysteria, drawn with great talent by Lucian, is regarded by the writer himself in a very flat and rationalistic way. Lucian understands all the monstrous pathology of the spirit only as Peregrine's desire for glory.

Other works of this group, especially "The Lover of Lies", "On the Syrian Goddess" and "Luky, or the Ass", exposing the superstition of that time in the most talented way, also go far beyond simple ideological criticism. The treatise "How to Write History" exposes the other side of ignorance, namely the anti-scientific methods of historiography, which do not take into account the facts and replace them with rhetorical-poetic fantasy, as opposed to the sound approach to them by the writers of the classical period - Thucydides and Xenophon.

d) The critical-aesthetic group of Lucian's works of this period contains treatises: "Images", "On Images", "On Dance", "Two Loves" - and refers more to the history of aesthetics or culture in general, than specifically to literature.

e) From the moralistic group of works of the same period, we will name "Hermotim" (165 or 177), "Nigrin" (161 or 178), "Biography of Demonact" (177-180). In "Hermotimus" the Stoics, Epicureans, Platonists are criticized very superficially, and the Cynics also do not constitute any exception for Lucian. On the other hand, in Nigrin one can notice Lucian's rarest respect for philosophy, and, moreover, for Platonic philosophy, the preacher of which Nigrin is depicted here. True, here Lucian was primarily interested in the critical side of Nigrin's preaching, who attacked the then Roman customs no worse than the great Roman satirists.

5. Late period.

The third period of Lucian's activity is characterized by a partial return to rhetoric and, undoubtedly, features of decline and creative weakness.

The news is Lucian's partial return to rhetoric. But this rhetoric is striking in its emptiness and pettiness of the subject matter. Such are the small treatises "Dionysus" and "Hercules", where the former Lucian sharpness and power of the satirical image are already missing. He is also engaged in empty scholasticism in the treatise "On the mistake made when bowing." In three works - "Saturnalia", "Kronosolon", "Correspondence with Kronos" - the image of Kronos is drawn in the form of an old and flabby Epicurean who has abandoned all business and spends his life in gastronomic pleasures. Apparently, Lucian himself was aware of his fall, because he had to write the "Letter of Justification", where he no longer condemns, but justifies those who are on a salary, and where he defends even the emperor himself, who receives a salary from his own state. In the treatise "On the Prometheus of Eloquence, Who Called Me," Lucian expresses fear that he might turn out to be a Prometheus in the spirit of Hesiod, covering up his "comic laughter" with "philosophical importance."

6. The ideology of Lucian.

Lucian ridicules all areas of the then life and thought. Therefore, there was always a temptation to interpret Lucian as an unprincipled mocker, depriving him of absolutely all positive convictions and statements. At the other extreme, Lucian was forced into a deep philosophy, principled attitude to social issues and protection of the rights of the poor, including even slaves. These two extreme points of view cannot be carried out in any consistent way if one seriously considers the literary heritage of Lucian.

The writer himself greatly contributed to the confusion of the views of subsequent generations on him, because he did not like the system, was too fond of red words and fearlessly expressed the most contradictory views.

However, we would be making a big mistake if we began to think that in his positive convictions, Lucian is always clear and consistent, always has the most essential in mind, never gets carried away by external rhetorical and poetic devices, is always distinct and systematic.

b) If we touch on the socio-political views of Lucian, then the first thing that catches your eye is, of course, the unconditional condemnation of the rich and undoubted sympathy for the poor. We have already seen this above, for example, in the treatise Nigrin (ch. 13 et seq., 22-25). However, in Lucian it is unlikely that this went beyond his emotions and simple, direct protest, and hardly reached any thoughtful concept. In the treatise "Parasite, or That life at someone else's expense is art," the idea is very witty proved that (ch. 57) "the life of a parasite is better than the life of orators and philosophers." This is witty rhetoric, leaving no doubt about Lucian's true views. From the point of view of Lucian, the life of a parasitic philosopher certainly deserves every kind of censure, and we read about this more than once in his works: "How to write history" (ch.39-41) - about the venality of historians; "Feast, or Lapiths" (ch. 9-10) - about the disputes of philosophers at the feast of the rich man, in order to sit closer to the latter; "Timon" (ch. 32) - about the depravity of wealth and the prudence of poverty; "On those on a salary" (ch. 3) - about the meaning of flattery. We find a very vivid condemnation of the rich in the Menippe, or Journey to the Underworld, where (ch. 20) the dead pass a decree: the bodies of the rich will forever suffer in hell, and their souls will move into donkeys on the surface of the earth and be driven for 250 thousand years and eventually die. In this respect, Correspondence with Kronos also differs in a certain character of a weak utopia. In the first letter (ch. 20-23) the poor paint their miserable condition; but in the second letter from Kronos to the poor (ch. 26-30) various difficult moments are drawn in the life of the rich themselves, although in the third letter (ch. 31-35) Kronos urges the rich to have mercy and live with the poor in common life. Nevertheless, in the fourth letter (ch. 36-39), the rich prove to Kronos that the poor should not be given much, because they demand everything; if you give them everything, then the rich will have to become poor, and inequality will still remain in force. The rich agree to live a common life with the poor only during the Saturnalia, that is, on the days dedicated to the feast of Kronos. Such a solution to the problem of wealth and poverty in Lucian can by no means be considered clear and thought out to the end. The prosperity of the poor only during the Saturnalia is not a solution to the problem, but only a weak utopia.

Lucian's judgments about slaves are even more confusing. Undoubtedly, he sympathized with the poor and understood the intolerable situation of the slaves. Nevertheless, his judgments about slaves are no less sarcastic than his judgments about the rich and free. In the treatise "How to write history" (ch. 20), Lucian speaks of "a rich slave who received an inheritance from his master and who does not know how to put on a cloak or eat decently." In "Timon" (ch. 22) the incredible depravity of the slaves is spoken of, in the "Teacher of Eloquence" the "impudence", "ignorance" and "shamelessness" of one slave, distinguished by unnatural depravity, is depicted; in the treatise "On those on a salary" the slaves are sneaky (ch. 28) and the very appearance of a slave is shameful (ch. 28). But Lucian has a whole treatise, The Fugitive Slaves, which must be considered a direct pamphlet against slaves; recognizing their difficult and unbearable position, Lucian nevertheless draws them as gluttonous, depraved, ignorant, shameless, flattering, impudent and rude, incredibly foul-mouthed, hypocrites (especially ch. 12-14).

As for specifically political views, here too Lucian did not show the genuine adherence to principles that one would expect from such a deep satirist.

He is not only a supporter of the imperial power, but he owns the direct glorification of its bureaucratic empire, with the justification of all the honors, glorification and admiration done by the population to the emperor (ch. 13).

Moreover, among the writings of Lucian there is a wonderful treatise on female beauty, built on a very refined and sophisticated aesthetics. It is known that this treatise entitled "Images" was written for Panthea, the beloved of the Roman emperor Lucius Verus.

As a result, it must be said that Lucian very keenly felt the untruth of his contemporary life, deeply experienced the injustice of social inequality, and with his subversive satire contributed a lot to the eradication of social evil, but his views were rather limited, and since he was not a systematic thinker, he allowed all kinds of contradictions in their views.

c) The destructive effect of the religious-mythological views of Lucian is well known.

Let us say a few words about these views of Lucian.

Here we must distinguish between ancient Greek mythology and those superstitions that were contemporary to Lucian. Ancient Greek mythology no longer played any vital role for him and was, simply speaking, only an artistic and academic exercise. This is not the mythology of Aristophanes, who really struggled with still living myths and expended his enormous literary talent on this. Quite a different impression is made by Lucian's satires on contemporary superstition. He is very passionate, and for him this is not at all a formalistic exercise in artistic style. But Lucian, in his contemporary beliefs, cannot in any way distinguish between the old and the new, the lagging behind and the progressive.

In Lucian's "Peregrine" everything is confused together: paganism, and Christianity, and Cynic philosophy, and comedy, and tragedy. This testifies to the literary talent of Lucian, who managed to see such a complexity of life, but this does not indicate a clear understanding of the religious and mythological phenomena of his time.

Lucian is not always a comedian and satirist in the religious-mythological field. His treatise "On the Syrian Goddess" does not contain anything comical or satirical, but, on the contrary, here we find an objective examination of various traditions and myths from a purely historical point of view or a description of temples, rites and customs without the slightest hint of any irony.

A geographer like Strabo (1st century BC-1st century AD) or a travel collector like Pausanias (2nd century AD) did the same. There is absolutely no satire or laughter in Lucian's letter "Long-lived", which he sends to his friend for the sake of consolation and edification, and in which he lists long-lived mythical heroes. In the treatise "On Astrology" a calm and objective reasoning is given and even an idea is expressed in defense of astrology (ch. 29): "If the rapid movement of a horse raises pebbles and straws, then how does the movement of the stars not affect a person in any way?" In the treatise "On the Dance" numerous myths are given in a positive form, which play the role of a libretto in dances. In "Halcyone" the myth of the kingfisher is also far from any caricature and comedy, not to mention satire. True, the last five treatises mentioned were in doubt as to their authenticity. But, in any case, all these treatises are always contained in the collected works of Lucian. Lucian's criticism of mythology need not be exaggerated.

d) In the field of philosophical views, Lucian also has enough confusion.

Lucian's sympathy for the Platonists in the Nigrinus does not at all refer to the teachings of Plato himself and the Platonists, but only to their criticism of the heterogeneous ulcers of Roman society. In general, Lucian does not distinguish between philosophical theory and the way of life of the philosophers themselves.

It seems that the Cynics and the Epicureans matter most to him, as one would expect in view of their materialism. Lucian has several positive hints about the Cynics. But the Cynics, while rejecting the whole civilization as a whole, took a very reactionary position. Lucian himself, regardless of this, often spoke of them very badly. In Pravdinsky History (ch. 18), Diogenes on the Isles of the Blessed marries a woman walking around Laisa and leads a very frivolous lifestyle. Lucian writes in Fugitive Slaves (ch. 16):

"Although they do not show the slightest zeal in imitating the best features of dog nature - vigilance, attachment to the house and to the owner, the ability to remember good things - but dog barking, gluttony, flattering waggling before a handout and jumping around the set table - they learned all this exactly, sparing no labors." (Baranov).

In The Sale of Lives (chap. 10), the Cynic Diogenes, among other things, says:

"You must be rude and impudent and scold in the same way both kings and private people, because then they will look at you with respect and consider you courageous. Let your voice be rough, like a barbarian, and your speech unsound and artless, like dogs. One must have a concentrated expression and gait corresponding to such a face, and in general be wild and in everything like a beast. Shame, a sense of decency and moderation must be absent; forever wipe the ability to blush from your face. "

This sounds to Lucian more like a mockery of Cynicism than like a direct preaching of his ideals. Sarcastically ridiculed by Lucian, Peregrine is regarded by him as a cynic and dies in a cynic environment.

The Epicureans are also praised by Lucian. In "Alexander, or the False Prophet," the deceiver Alexander is most afraid of the Epicureans, who (ch. 25) "revealed all his empty deceit and the whole theatrical production." Epicurus is declared here "the only person" who "explored the nature of things" and "knew the truth about it", "the impregnable Epicurus was his [Alexander's] worst enemy", since he "subjected all his tricks to laughter and joking." In Zeus the Tragic, the Epicurean beats the Stoic with his arguments in a dispute about the activities of the gods. Materialists generally enjoy sympathy with Lucian. In Alexander (ch. 17):

"Everything was so cunningly arranged that some Democritus was required, or Epicurus himself, or Metrodorus, or some other philosopher who had a mind as hard as steel, in order not to believe all this and figure out what was the matter" (Sergeevsky).

In the essay "On Sacrifice" a materialistic understanding of death is preached, while the opinion is put forward that Heraclitus should ridicule and mourn for death those who cry and mourn for death (ch. 5). For all that, however, this did not in the least prevent Lucian from depicting in the "Feast" (ch. 33, 39, 43) the tavern fight of all philosophers among themselves, not excluding the Platonists and Epicureans, and in "Hermotimus" even a nihilistic thesis is put forward against all philosophers (Ch. 6):

“If sometime in the future, walking along the road, I meet a philosopher against my will, I will turn aside and avoid him, as they bypass mad dogs” (Baranov).

Thus, Lucian's ideology, for all its undoubted progressive tendencies, is characterized by uncertainty.

7. Genres of Lucian.

We list the literary genres of Lucian, using mainly the materials already cited:

a) Oratorical speech, fictitious-judicial ("Disinherited") or commendable ("Praise to the fly"), which is a common school model of the then recitation.

b) Comic dialogue ("Conversations of the Gods"), sometimes turning into a mimic dialogue ("Feast") or even into a scene or sketch of a dramatic nature ("Runaway Slaves").

c) Description ("About the Syrian goddess").

d) Reasoning ("How to write history").

e) Memoir story ("Life of the Demonact").

f) Fantastic story ("True story").

g) The epistolary genre, in which Lucian wrote very often, especially in the last period of his work ("Correspondence with Kronos").

h) The genre is also parodic and tragic ("Tragopodagra", "Swift-footed" - two humorous tragedies, where a choir of gouty people performs and the main idea is the fight against gout).

All these genres were constantly intertwined with Lucian in such a way that, for example, “How to write history” is not only reasoning, but also writing, “Long-lived” - both description and writing, “On sacrifices” - and dialogue and reasoning, “On the death of Peregrine "- description, reasoning, dialogue and drama, etc.

8. Artistic style.

a) Comic with complete indifference to the ridiculed subject ("Conversations of the Gods"). Lucian impresses here with his light fluttering, often even frivolity, quickness and unexpectedness of judgment, resourcefulness and wit. When the comic in Lucian ceases to be superficial and reaches a certain depth, one can speak of humor. If you make a careful literary analysis, it will not be difficult to find in this comic and humor of Lucian the easily and quickly slipping methods of Platonic dialogue, middle and new comedy and Menippean satire.

b) Sharp satire, combined with a very intense desire to subvert or at least reduce and prick the depicted ("Tragic Zeus"). This satire sometimes reaches the level of murderous sarcasm in Lucian, striving to completely subvert the depicted subject ("On the death of Peregrine").

c) Burlesque, that is, the desire to present the sublime as base. Comic, humor, satire and sarcasm must be distinguished from burlesque, because, while presenting the sublime in a base form, it still continues to consider the sublime to be sublime.

d) A complex psychological portrait with elements of deep pathology, reaching hysteria. The most talented and most complex examples of this style are Alexander and Peregrine in the works that bear their names. Alexander is very handsome, a lover of cosmetics, incredibly depraved, deeply educated, a charlatan, a mystic and a deep psychologist who knows how to enchant people, hysterically feels his divine mission, if not directly divinity, an enthusiastic, although at the same time fake actor. Peregrine is depicted in the same style and even more so.

e) A sharply negative depiction of life with a nihilistic tendency ("The Sale of Lives", "Germotimus"), when Lucian not only stigmatizes the then ulcers of life, but also, as it were, boasts of his complete disinterest in anything positive.

f) The general style of classical prose is a consistent feature of Lucian, who seems to have been a connoisseur of the literature of the classical period, since all his writings are literally stuffed with innumerable quotations from every Greek writer since Homer. An element of the classics must also be considered the frequent presence of images of works of art in him, that is, what Homer was already famous for and which only intensified in the era of Hellenism ("On the Dance", "Images").

g) Variegation and cheap amusingness of style, that is, what exactly contradicts the artistic methods of the classics. Lucian at every step equips his presentation with various funny details, jokes, anecdotes (and often all this has nothing to do with the case), the desire for detail and any petty artistry, naturalistic transmission, sometimes reaching obscenity. He is often too talkative, boasts of his disinterest in nothing, slips on the surface, makes ambiguous allusions. All this is combined in an amazing way with his love for the classics and forms a chaotic variegation of style.

h) Sometimes a progressive tendency involuntarily shows through in the artistic image ("Nigrin"), and the very fact of the overthrow of life causes the reader to imagine its possible positive forms.

9. General conclusion about Lucian.

“In Rome, all the streets and squares are full of what is most dear to such people. Here you can get pleasure through “all the gates” - with your eyes and ears, nose and mouth. , perjury and all kinds of pleasures; from the soul, washed from all sides by these streams, shame, virtue and justice are erased, and the place vacated by them is filled with silt, on which numerous coarse passions blossom" (Melikova-Tolstaya).

Such lines testify to the fact that Lucian had a deep understanding of social evil and a desire, albeit powerless, to destroy it.

Zaitsev A.I.

Lucian of Samosata - ancient Greek intellectual of the era of decline

Lucian. Works. Volume I. St. Petersburg, 2001.

Spellchecked Oliva

The ancient Greek orator and writer of the 2nd century of the Christian era, Lucian from Samosata, by the will of fate, turned out to be for us the most interesting and in its own way influential figure in the pagan culture of the Roman Empire of that era. He is able today to both make us laugh and lead us to gloomy reflections.1)

The life of Lucian is known to us almost exclusively from his own writings. He was born in northern Syria, in the city of Samosata on the middle Euphrates, which was formerly, before the Roman conquest, the capital of the small kingdom of Commagene. For the majority of the population, the native language was Aramaic, which belonged to the Semitic language family. Lucian himself claims that he went to the Greek school, being a "barbarian in language" (Twice accused 14; 25-34): does this mean that his native language was Syro-Aramaic, and his literary activity is connected with the language that he had to be mastered already at a conscious age (as it was for the author of Ondine Lamotte Fouquet or for Joseph Conrad), or he only wants to emphasize his insufficient knowledge of the Greek literary language by that time, it is difficult to say. The name Lucian is Roman, but it is unlikely that he was born into a family that had the rights of Roman citizenship. To my hometown Lucian forever retained warm feelings (Praise to the motherland; Rybak 19; How to write history 24; Harmonides 3).

The time of Lucian's birth is most likely between 115 and 125 BC. after R. Chr .: the comic dialogue "Fugitive Slaves" was written by him, apparently, shortly after 165, and he himself says that he began to compose such dialogues at the age of about forty. In a speech to fellow countrymen called “Dreaming”, Lucian, by that time already a well-known speaker, tells how at one time his family, faced with the boy’s resistance, abandoned their original plans to teach him the craft of his uncle, a sculptor, and, despite financial difficulties, decided to give him the prestigious rhetorical education he aspired to.

Young Lucian went to study in Ionia (Twice Accused 25 ff.), the main cultural centers of which were Smyrna and Ephesus. We do not know anything about how and from whom he studied, but soon, at the age of about 22, Lucian appears before us in the role of a “sophist”: in contrast to the sophist philosophers of the times of Socrates and Plato, in the era of the Roman Empire they called people who delivered public speeches, and not so much even judicial or business ones, but most often designed to please listeners with eloquence, ingenuity of the orator, or even a heap of paradoxes. 2) Lucian travels a lot, and we soon see him in Macedonia, obviously in Beroe (Scythian 9) during a large meeting taking place there from all over the province: Lucian makes a speech there (Herodotus 7-8). In 153, 157, 161 and 165 years. he attended the Olympic Games, gave speeches there. Lucian also appears at the other end of the Empire, in Gaul (Twice Accused; Letter of Exculpation 15), and here he already makes good money with his eloquence. Lucian also spoke in the courts (twice accused 32; Rybak 25), possibly in the largest city of Syria - Antioch.

Around the age of forty, Lucian became disillusioned with his former activities, stopped appearing in courts, 3) directed his energies towards literary creativity proper (Lucian himself speaks of turning to philosophy: Germotimus 13; Twice accused 32; Nigrin): first of all, he began to write comic dialogues that he not only transmitted for distribution in manuscripts, but also recited in person (in some of these dialogues, Lucian himself spoke under the name of Likin): 4) these speeches were a great success (Zeuxis 1). A detailed description in Zeuxis's speech of the famous painting "Family of Centaurs" indicates that Lucian was oriented towards the educated part of the population and, obviously, had success with her (Prometheus 1-2; Zeuxis 3-7; Rybak 26; Letter of Acquittal 3) .5)

Did Lucian, who characterized himself, in general, as a poor man (Nigrin 12-14; Saturnalia), exist on his literary earnings, or, which is very likely, did he enjoy the support of influential patrons (Saturnalia 15-16; cf. on a salary 37), it's hard to say. Such a patron could be a senator, at whose morning reception Lucian misspoke, and then apologized at length (To justify the mistake ...), the prefect of Egypt, who gave Lucian an important and well-paid position in his administration (Letter of Acquittal 9).

In the era of the Empire, Athens, which for some time lost this role to Egyptian Alexandria, again becomes the leading center of Greek education. Lucian visited Athens already in his youth, and in his advanced years during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180), Lucian apparently lives there permanently (Demonakt), and Athens is the scene of a number of his dialogues. In his youth, Lucian also visited Rome (Nigrin: cf. On philosophers who are on a salary, esp. 26), he also mentions his travels in Italy (Twice accused 27; On amber 2; Herodotus 5). During the war with the Parthians, which ended in 166, Lucian was in Antioch, in the residence of the co-emperor of Marcus Aurelius Lucius Verus (On the Dance), who commanded the Roman troops, and his work “How to write history” contains elements of a panegyric in honor of the victories of the emperor .

At the Olympic Games of 165, Lucian witnessed the demonstrative self-immolation of the Cynic philosopher Peregrinus-Proteus and ridiculed him in the most ruthless way in his essay “On the Death of Peregrinus”.

Lucian at this time was clearly pleased with his position in society (Alexander 55; Letter of justification 3; About Dionysus 5-8; About Hercules 7-8; Prometheus). He is patronized by the governor of Cappadocia (Alexander 55), and Lucian, apparently, had some kind of relationship with the richest and most influential person of that time, Herod Atticus (On the death of Peregrine 19). Cronius, to whom Lucian addresses his essay On the Death of Peregrinus, seems to be a Platonist philosopher from the circle of Numenius. Celsus, to whom "Alexander" is dedicated, is apparently an Epicurean, mentioned in the writings of the famous physician Galen; Sabinus, to whom the "Letter of Exculpation" is addressed (see § 2), is a well-known Platonist philosopher who lived in Athens.

Apparently, already after the death of Marcus Aurelius in 180, during the reign of Commodus, Lucian, who should have long ago received the rights of a Roman citizen, took a position related to adjudication in the administration of the prefect of Egypt (Letter of Acquittal 1; 4; 12-13), 6) and even hoped to become a procurator (ibid. 1; 12), but at the same time he felt the need to justify himself.

Shortly thereafter, Lucian apparently ended his life, but we do not know anything about his last years.

At the first glance at the work of Lucian, it is striking that it, if one can use modern terminology, is highly journalistic. Our author speaks directly, openly, often in the most blunt form on the burning problems of life, and it must be said that it is precisely these judgments of his that attract the reader to this day.

But it is striking that Lucian's own views (I'm not talking more loudly about convictions) are very difficult to catch: in his different works he changes like Homeric Proteus.7) It seems that Lucian's only constant is the desire to mock stupidity, vanity , the depravity of people, to ridicule, often bordering on nihilism.8) Sometimes it even seems that Lucian is not able to free himself from the ironic approach, even when he would like to be completely serious.

Lucian began his career with small compositions, usually speeches, designed to puzzle listeners or readers with paradoxical, if often insignificant content, with brilliant oratory technique.

“Praise to the fly” had predecessors in the form of eulogies to various insects already at the time of Isocrates (4th century BC).

The vowels decide in court the dispute between the consonants sigma and tau (Court of the vowels).

In the dialogue "The Tyrant Killer", a citizen of the Greek polis of the time of independence, having decided to liberate the city from tyranny, killed the tyrant's son, and the tyrant himself died of grief. The fellow citizens have denied him the reward due to the tyrannicide, and he makes a speech demanding it for himself. (It is curious that in 1935 the publishing house Academia could not, apparently for censorship reasons, include this dialogue, which evoked associations dangerous for the authorities, in the two-volume Lucian they published.)

The notorious tyrant Falarid, who roasted his opponents in a red-hot bronze bull, defends himself and asks to accept the bull as a gift to Apollo in Delphi (Falarid).

Publishes Lucian and "In justification of the mistake made in the greeting." Greeting in the morning when meeting a certain high-ranking person in Rome, he allegedly wished him good health, while in Greek it was customary to say this when parting: the content of the speech is an attempt to prove that there is nothing wrong with this mistake.

The brilliance of Lucian’s usual wit also attracts the reader to the “Conversations of the Geters” 9) no less than the risky details found there in some places. and wherever venal sex exists or will exist.

By the way, like all Greek literature, Lucian in all forms of relations between the sexes ascribes an active role to women, and if they are not hetaerae, then they appear in Lucian cheating on their husbands. It's funny that in the amorous adventures in the next world (True Story), Elena herself takes the initiative: this is news compared to the traditional myths about the abduction of Elena by Paris or Theseus.

However, when the subject of Lucian's depiction turns out to be the same, in essence, relations, but only transferred to the level of the first persons in the state, our author becomes hardly recognizable. In the dialogues "Images" and "In Defense of "Images"" Lucian praises Panthea, known for her beauty and education, who became the mistress of Emperor Lucius Verus. A panegyric to a high-ranking person is generally one of the most difficult genres, and it is very, very difficult to compose it so that it does not cause either ridicule or disgust from readers. Lucian brilliantly copes with this task, so that we are ready to come to terms with the fact that Panthea is more beautiful than Aphrodite of Cnidus Praxiteles, and Athena of Lemnos of Phidias herself, and even with the fact that, having become acquainted with the "Images", she, out of modesty, began to object to the contained praises there, while showing a noticeable rhetorical skill, so that the dialogue “In Defense of Images” was required to refute her arguments. Lucian clearly hoped that these writings of his would reach Lucius Verus, but no trace of his reaction has come down to us. As for Panthea, after the death of Vera, she sat for a long time sad at his grave, until she died herself (Marcus Aurelius. To himself, VIII.37). Perhaps there was something in her character that could arouse sincere admiration, and Lucian, in his panegyrics, was guided not only by calculation? During the Renaissance, these eulogies were repeatedly imitated.

Judging by the degree of wit and inventiveness with which Lucian ridicules traditional Greek religious beliefs and the myths associated with them, it was precisely this direction of his peculiar critical activity that gave him particular pleasure. attracted to Lucian especially a lot of sympathy in modern times, the sympathy of people inclined to protest against any form of systematized religiosity that has turned into a tradition, such as Erasmus of Rotterdam, Ulrich von Hutten, the English historian Gibbon, who especially often evoked associations with Lucian Voltaire12) or the German enlightener Wieland .

To paraphrase here the Dialogues of the Gods or the Gathering of the Gods would be to deprive the reader of the pleasure which these little masterpieces of Lucian's chosen genre give in reading. By the way, Lucian's "Assembly of the Gods" had prototypes that have been lost to us, but we can get an idea of ​​them from the Latin "Pumpkin" by Seneca - a satire on the death of the emperor Claudius - or from the reasoning of the academic philosopher Cotta in Cicero's dialogue "On Nature gods."

That Lucian's ridicule was prepared by the deep decline of traditional Greek religion was already clear to Gibbon,13) and Jones's recent attempts to challenge the deplorable state of Greek paganism14) are not convincing: it is worth referring at least to the works of Plutarch and especially to his work "On how the oracles fell silent.

Lucian is irreconcilable in his hostility to the oracles (Zeus the tragic 30-31; Zeus convicted 14; Council of the gods 16). Delphi, the oracle of Trophonius in Swan in Boeotia, the oracle of Amphilochus in Mallos, Claros, Delos, Patara (Alexander 8; Twice Accused 1) are places for Lucian where deceit gives rise to disastrous consequences, faced with ridiculous gullibility. It must be said that Lucian had special reasons for attacking the oracle of Amphilochus in Cilicia, whom Lucian calls the son of a father who defiled himself with matricide: the false miracle worker Alexander, hated by Lucian, relied on this oracle (Alexander 19; 29).

The dispute on earth between the Epicurean Damis, who completely denies the very existence of the gods, and the Stoic Timocles, who defends the divine care of the world and people, causes panic in the world of the gods and comic debates, in which Mom, the mocking god (Tragic Zeus), is the main speaker. In "Zeus Convicted" the supreme god is not able to intelligibly answer the stubborn questions of the cynic Kinisk, who still rules in the world - the gods or fate, fate, providence. Even Lucian's Prometheus is a comic character.

With obvious irritation, Lucian attacks the widespread cults of foreign gods - Phrygian Attis, Corybant, Thracian Sabazius, Iranian Mithras, Egyptian animal-like Anubis, Memphis bull, Zeus-Ammon.

The spread of new cults was often carried out with the help of deceit and intrigue, and Lucian could not only castigate such phenomena, being at a safe distance, but sometimes entered into a difficult and not always safe struggle with deceivers. A monument to such a struggle is one of the most interesting works of Lucian, Alexander, or the False Prophet. It is directed against Alexander from Avonotikh in Paphlagonia on the Black Sea coast, who proclaimed himself the interpreter of the will of the god Glikon, who appeared in the form of a snake, the hypostasis of the healer god Asclepius. The gullible inhabitants of Avonothich, where he returned with a large hand snake with an artificially attached linen head, built a temple for the new deity (§ 8-11). The Glycon cult began to spread rapidly. Alexander from the dungeon interpreted the answers of the prophesying deity, which were given for a fee. The opposition of the Epicureans and Christians (§ 24-25) could not restrain the spread of the cult. Alexander subdued to his influence the Roman dignitary, the former consul Rutilian, and extended his sphere of activity as far as Rome. Women, zealots of the new cult, giving birth to children, believed that their father was the god Glikon. During the war with the Marcomanni and Quadi, Alexander demanded through an oracle that two lions be thrown into the Danube. It is surprising that his demand was met; less surprising that the lions swam away to the enemy. Lucian's attempts to fight Alexander through the governor of Bithynia, Lollian Avitus, ran into the latter's fear of the influence of Rutilian (§ 55-57), and Lucian himself was almost thrown overboard from the ship at Alexander's request (ibid.). All attempts to oppose Alexander ended in failure, and only after his death did his followers quarrel over the succession (§ 59). Two bronze figurines of the snake-god seem to come from Athens. A statue of Glycon was recently found in Tomy on the western coast of the Black Sea, in the city where Ovid was once exiled. Glykon is depicted on many coins of the cities of Asia Minor of that era. The cult of Glycon is also attested by an inscription from Dacia.

It is instructive, however, that one religious innovation that played an important role in the life of the Empire, Lucian did not seem to notice: I mean the cult of the emperor. pay.

The essay "On the Syrian Goddess", dedicated to the exotic cult of a female deity in Hierapolis, causes bewilderment of researchers. Imitating the language and style of Herodotus, Lucian describes with faith and reverence the details of this cult. A number of scholars vehemently refuse to accept Lucian's authorship. Others consider this whole description full of irony, but then it turns out to be somehow too deeply hidden.

At the time of Lucian, Christianity was already widespread throughout the Empire, but not a single prominent representative of the Greco-Roman culture of the 1st-2nd centuries felt the significance, did not foresee, even vaguely, the historical mission of the new religion. Lucian, of course, was no exception here. He speaks about Christians in two of his works - "The Death of Peregrine" and "Alexander, or the False Prophet" - and both times only in connection with the adventures of two pseudo-religious adventurers. Lucian is full of contempt for Christians, the epithets with which he characterizes them can be translated in Russian as unfortunate (On the death of Peregrine, 13), vain (37), dupes (39). However, the most expressive assessment of Christians is the assertion that the despicable deceiver Peregrine, having converted to Christianity, became a prominent figure in the community (§ 11-14). Meanwhile, Lucian was quite knowledgeable about the Christian religion - about the death of Jesus on the cross, about the sacred books and about the brotherly love of Christians - but all this for him is only a manifestation of shameful superstition.

For Lucian, the philosophers of his era turned out to be a desirable object for withering ridicule. When he attacks the hateful vices of hypocrisy and venality, the personal targets of his attacks are, first of all, philosophers.

Lucian, apparently, did not deeply understand the essence of the doctrine philosophical schools, from the Platonists to the Cynics, and he did not aspire to this. But he never misses an opportunity to emphasize the comic appearance of the philosophers, and the solemn poses that they take, and the worn-out dirty cloak, and the unkempt beard, and frowning eyebrows. Having drunk at the feast, the assembled philosophers arrange a massacre (Feast). Lucian makes fun of the "invisible" ideas of Plato and the community of wives, which Plato proposed to introduce in his "State" (True History II.17), and the Platonist Ion, who appears in "Lovers of Lies" and in "Feast", turns out to be the most gullible of all and rude and dishonest. Plato himself, it turns out, thoroughly studied in Sicily the art of flattering tyrants (Dialogues of the Dead 20.5).

Lucian and Socrates do not spare, sometimes repeating malicious attacks against him: in the image of Lucian, we can recognize Socrates from the "Clouds" of Aristophanes, but we do not recognize the teacher Plato and Xenophon.16)

Jokes related to the belief of the Pythagoreans in the transmigration of souls already haunted Pythagoras, and Lucian, of course, did not fail to portray a rooster, which in a past life was Pythagoras (Dream). The Pythagorean Arygnotus tells Lucian how he cast out a ghost from an enchanted house (Lovers of Lies 29 ff.), and exposing the hated charlatan Alexander from Avonotichus, Lucian emphasizes Pythagorean motives in his sermon (Alexander 4, 25, 33, 40).

Lucian repeats the usual attacks on the Epicureans, accusing them of gluttony and, in general, adherence to pleasures (Fisherman 43; Pier 9, 43), but in Zeus the Tragic, the Epicurean Damis criticizes religion from the standpoint of Lucian himself, and in On Sacrifices Lucian expresses the epicurean idea that it is not the one who denies the gods of the crowd that is impious, but the one who ascribes to the gods what the crowd thinks of them. And when Lucian needs to expose the charlatan Alexander from Avonotichus, he willingly cooperates with the Epicureans from Amastris (Alexander 21, 25, 47).

Of all schools of thought, Lucian is most annoyed by the Stoics. A detailed argument against stoic morality is presented by Hermotimus. Sold the stoic Thesmopolis in Salaried Philosophers (33-34). One is more disgusting than the other, the Stoic philosophers Zenothemis, Diphilus and Etimocles are the characters in the Feast. One must think that the well-known commitment to the Stoic philosophy of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius himself contributed a lot to the fact that unscrupulous and often ignorant people, wanting to get their share in the public pie, preaching philosophy, chose precisely the Stoic direction (An ignoramus from Lucian even buys books in the hope that that the emperor learns about his zeal: Ignorant 22-23).

Peripatetics, comparatively less popular in his time, are touched by Lucian only once, in The Eunuch, where the ridiculous rivalry between two Peripatetics for a post in the state chair established by Marcus Aurelius in Athens is described.

Against this backdrop, notable exceptions stand out all the more strikingly. The idealized figure of the cynic Menippus of Gadera (3rd century BC) appears repeatedly as a mouthpiece for Lucian's own views. A number of researchers strongly suggest the use by Lucian of his works that have not come down to us - Menippean satyrs, or menippeas, known to the Russian reader from the works of M. M. Bakhtin.17)

Among contemporary philosophers, Lucian distinguishes with his serious, respectful attitude the Roman Platonist Nigrinus (Nigrinus), his friend the Cynic Demonact (Biography of Demonact). But in "On the death of Peregrine" Lucian gives a devastating description of the two most famous cynics of his time - Peregrine of Parion and his student Theagenes of Patras. Peregrine committed suicide by a theatrical suicide at Olympia in 165 by throwing himself into a fire shortly after the games were over, in order, he said, to teach the people to despise death. Lucian, trying in vain to hide his hatred under a mask of indifference, tells of Peregrine's turbulent life and begins, as was usual in the Greco-Roman world, with Peregrine's debauchery in his youth, and then attributes to him the murder of his own father. Then Peregrine becomes a prominent member of the Christian community with Lucian (and here he can be trusted). Peregrine writes some writings in the Christian spirit, but then is expelled by Christians for violating food prohibitions. He demonstratively distributes his property, and then tries to return it through the emperor Antoninus Pius. After that, Peregrinus converted to Cynicism, attacked the emperor in Rome in the style of the founder of Cynicism, Diogenes, was expelled from Italy by the prefect of Rome, and, gaining a reputation as a suffering philosopher, provoked the Greeks in Olympia to revolt against Rome. Turning to the main thing - the description of the end of Peregrine, Lucian gives a lot of details that should emphasize both the ridiculousness of Peregrine's desire for fame, which he decided to gain in such an unusual way, imitating Hercules who burned himself, and the cowardice of the pseudo-philosopher, revealed in endless delays when it came to execution long stated intention.

However, Lucian was not original in his attacks on philosophers: his less gifted and less well-known contemporary, the sophist Aelius Aristides, made surprisingly similar attacks on the Cynics, accusing them of rudeness and gluttony.

Gets from Lucian and his associates by occupation - sophist orators. Clearly prohibited methods are also used. So, in his jokes against Favorin from Arelat (modern Arles), Lucian does not miss the opportunity to offend him as a eunuch (Biography of Demonact 12-13).

Lucian does not respect the famous sophist and the richest man of that time, Herodes Atticus (Biography of Demonact 24).

Leksifana ridicules a lover of ancient obscure Attic words that has crossed the limits of reason, replenishing their collection with his own ridiculous inventions. According to Lucian, only an emetic can cure such a person, but whether he is quite fair here is very doubtful: Lucian’s arrows were directed, apparently, at the grammarian Polideukos, whose dictionary has come down to us and, in general, such ridicule is not calls.

Lucian's "Master of Eloquence" sarcastically presents perverted, uncaring eloquence as the easiest and surest path to success. However, Lucian himself did not know any brakes and did not at all reckon with the truth when he needed to discredit the enemy. The "teacher of eloquence" seems to have in mind a certain person whose name readers of Lucian could easily guess. This man had several clashes with Lucian, who, it seems, was most offended by the accusation of using a rare word inconsistent with ancient tradition (§§ 16, 17), and he responds by going over the opponent’s entire life path and showering him with every conceivable insult.

However, the mere attempt to importunately demonstrate a lack of education could become an occasion for Lucian's satire (About the ignoramus who bought many books): the hero, like Petronius' Trimalchio, buys books, which many do today, as a means to gain a prestigious reputation.

Lucian characterizes himself as "a hater of braggarts, a hater of lies, a hater of liars and a hater of nonsense" (Rybak 20). He ridicules the gullible taste for the crudely fantastic that was becoming more widespread in his time. In Lovers of Lies, the interlocutors tell stories about magic and sorcery, one more implausible than the other, although in one of them a very real person appears - the Egyptian Pankrates, whose poem in honor of the favorite of the emperor Adrian Antinous so pleased the emperor that he elevated him to the membership of Alexandria museum with a double salary.18)

"True Story" parodies fantastic tales of travel to distant lands. To surpass even the most daring inventions, the hero-narrator is not limited to the Earth, but also tells about a journey to the Moon and other celestial bodies. Lucian himself names two addressees of his parody - a historian prone to fantasies of the 4th century. to R. Chr. Ctesias from Cnidus and Yambulus, the author of a fantastic description of a journey through the Indian Ocean, but we have reason to believe that Lucian largely used the work of Antony Diogenes, which is lost to us, Miracles Beyond Thule, where the action took place in the North Atlantic Ocean. Lucian's work found, in turn, imitators in modern times, including Rabelais and Swift. Lucian, of course, did not like numerous historians, in particular, those who tried to perpetuate the events of the time of Lucian's life. In their address, he wrote the essay “How History Should Be Written”: specifically, it is about the war against the Parthians under the command of Lucius Verus and how this event should not have been described (166). The work of Lucian was written in fresh footsteps, immediately after the victory of the Roman commander Avidius Cassius. Lucian still knows nothing about the terrible epidemic that the legions returning from Parthia and Armenia will bring home.

Lucian talks about a historian who, calling on the help of the Muses, compares Lucius Verus with Achilles (As follows ... 14). Lucian seems to be referring to Fronto, the teacher of Lucius Verus and Marcus Aurelius: in the reign of the philosopher-emperor, such critical attacks were quite safe. Other historians mentioned here by Lucian copied entire phrases from Herodotus or from Thucydides (ibid. 18, 15). It is curious that Lucian's irony towards historiographers does not extend to those who fought: both the Roman generals and Lucius Verus himself could be rather flattered by what Lucian wrote.

It is difficult to say anything definite about Lucian's political views. Roman dominance in Greece in itself hardly annoyed Lucian, and when the opportunity arose, he readily became an official of the Roman administration in Egypt (Letter of Acquittal). Like most bearers of Greek culture, and probably even natural Greeks, the descendants of those who once defended Hellas from the Persian invasion, Lucian clearly considered the rule of Rome as a whole beneficial for the Mediterranean: arguments in favor of such a view can be found at least in the panegyric " To Rome" by Lucian's contemporary Elius Aristides. Peregrine's hostility to Rome was perceived by Lucian with bewilderment (On the death of Peregrine 19). It is very significant that Lucian repeatedly says "we" about himself along with all the inhabitants of the Empire (Alexander 48; How to write history 5, 17, 29, 31).19)

However, this did not prevent Lucian from writing with bitterness about the ups and downs of the life of educated Greeks who went into the service of wealthy Romans in the position of clients - domestic philosophers, teachers or soothsayers (On salaried philosophers). It is not surprising that the Roman masters appear before us here in an even less attractive form than their mercenaries. Lucian had been to Rome more than once; he knew the life there personal experience, but researchers are haunted by strange coincidences in the details of the picture that Lucian paints with the satyrs of Juvenal, whom he (although he knew Latin: On the Dance 67) hardly read: the Greeks, even in the era of the Empire, as a rule, did not read the works of the Roman literature. The morals of the rich, especially the Romans, are denounced by Lucian and the Platonist philosopher Nigrin (Nigrin), who is sympathetic to him, is a Roman himself, but in his criticism there is not a trace of attacks on the Roman state.

Lucian generally clearly sees the negative side of life, often even absolutizes it, presenting almost all people as vile, and even wealth causes only suffering to people (Timon, or the Misanthrope).20)

The bleak picture of the surrounding world that filled Lucian's consciousness required at least a partial contrast, and Lucian to a certain extent finds him in the world of people not spoiled by civilization - among the Scythians. In the Toxaris dialogue, the Athenian Mnesippus and the Scythian Toxaris tell each other about striking examples of male friendship, respectively, among the Greeks and among the Scythians: the stories of Toxaris turn out to be more impressive. Scythian Anacharsis is depicted talking with the wise Athenian statesman Solon and evoking sympathy with his common sense and immediacy.21)

However, in general, Lucian, himself a Syrian by origin, adopted the contemptuous attitude of the Greeks and Romans towards representatives of any other peoples: Lucian calls Sedatius Severian "a stupid Celt" (Alexander 27). It is difficult to draw any conclusions from this regarding the origin of Severian, but Lucian himself is quite clearly characterized by such usage. In general, "barbarian" in his mouth is the strongest swear word.

Lucian's culture, like most of his educated contemporaries, is predominantly bookish. These people often looked at things that seemed to be before their eyes, through the prism of authoritative writings in which all these things are described. Thus, Lucian speaks of the remains of the ancient Pelasgian wall in Athens as if everyone could see them: he read about it in Herodotus and other classical authors, but Lucian ignores the fact that these remains have long since been demolished. Even in such a work oversaturated with topical life material as "Alexander", speaking of the fact that he went ashore in Aegial, he adds one more detail: Aegial already mentions Homer (Alexander 57). 22) Of course, Lucian with his lively mind does not he could fence himself off from impressions of reality,23) but he reflects them in his work framed by countless literary reminiscences. However, when he strives for this, his observation extends even to seemingly minor details. Thus, in his work “On the Syrian Goddess”24) Lucian describes in detail the exotic cult of the goddess Atargatis in a sanctuary near Hierapolis in Syria, and much of his description has been confirmed as a result of excavations by archaeologists.25)

In Lucian, education and upbringing appear constantly as one of the highest values. However, from our point of view, his understanding of education seems to be very one-sided: for Lucian, education is what could be called verbal culture. It includes, first of all, the knowledge of the literary language, which by this time had far departed from the spoken language. A knowledge of classical literature is obligatory, and Lucian possesses it: it is curious that at the same time he shows a good knowledge of the same authors who were known and quoted by most of his educated contemporaries, i.e., above all, authors studied at school. Lucian did not like the Alexandrian poets and for some reason never mentions Sophocles. However, often Lucian also quotes second-hand, using collections of effective quotations that were already widespread in those days. The crowning glory of education was the ability to deliver a speech on any topic, following the rules of rhetoric, and here Lucian is completely in his element. But why the research of mathematicians and astronomers is needed, Lucian did not understand.

He knew the fine arts well and preferred all recognized masters of the 5th-4th centuries. He willingly speaks about the details of architecture (About the house, Hippias, or Baths, Zeuxis, Herodotus, About the fact that one should not be too gullible in slander, Images, In defense of "Images").

Lucian knows many details from the history of Greece, the features of the state and the life of people at different times, but he cares little about using this information in his works to observe historical authenticity: in the time of Solon in Athens, he already had statues of the founders of Phil, and these phyla were created almost a hundred years later by Cleisthenes, and the statues were put up at the same time. Timon in the 5th or 4th century BC. they put a statue with a wreath of rays around the head, although such statues appeared much later.

Lucian's vocabulary is surprisingly rich: even such an outstanding artist of the word as Plato cannot compare with him in this. Basically, Lucian focuses, without going to extremes, on the language of the Attic authors of the 5th-4th centuries, which differed markedly from the colloquial speech of his time, and this means that Lucian is oriented towards an educated reader or listener. “Old”, “ancient” are his usual commendable epithets both in relation to works of art, verbal, and fine art. However, those who took the imitation of the language of Demosthenes and Plato to extremes, Lucian caustically ridiculed (Lexifan, Pseudo-Scientist, Demonakt 26).

The form of the works of Lucian speaks for the fact that they were all intended primarily for oratorical reading, and then already distributed in writing.27)

If the "Praise of Demosthenes" belongs to Lucian, this means that he did not fail to use the fashionable device of his time - a fictitious reference to an allegedly found manuscript of sensational content (see § 26).

Lucian skillfully parodies the style of Homer, tragedy and comedy, official documents and historical writings, philosophical dialogues and works of religious content. Following the Attic comedy, especially the New, Lucian willingly gives his characters comical sounding names, say, his name is Geter Tryphena - something like “inclined to luxury” or Likena - “she-wolf” (Dialogues of getters II.12.1).

Of the works of Lucian's contemporaries that have come down to us, the name of Lucian mentions only one of the works of the well-educated famous physician Galen, and, moreover, in a very unflattering context: Lucian allegedly fabricated a false work of the classical philosopher Heraclitus and used it to mock his teachings, and also resorted to some then deceitful methods in their attacks on the interpreters of grammar poets.

In the first centuries after Lucian's death, his writings were not very popular. Only his younger contemporary Alciphron, possibly an Athenian, imitates the works of Lucian in his collection of fictitious letters composed by him, written on behalf of the Athenians of the 4th century BC. BC, famous and unknown. However, not a single papyrus with the text of any authentic work of Lucian has been found so far, and we have his work only thanks to the rather numerous medieval Byzantine manuscripts. With the writings of Lucian, in particular with "Leksifanom", was apparently familiar with Athenaeus of Naucratis, who composed around 200 an extensive compilation of "Feasting Sophists". Around 250, an imitation of Lucian "The Two Loves" was created, which has come down to us in the manuscripts of Lucian's writings. At the beginning of the IV century. the Latin Christian writer Lactantius speaks of Lucian's poisonous attacks on gods and people. At the beginning of the 5th century Eunapius, the author of the Biographies of the Sophists, also mentions Lucian, who "was serious in his laughter." The author of "Erotic Letters" Aristenetus imitates Lucian. In the VI century. one of the works of Lucian was translated into Syriac. Byzantine writers imitate him a lot. A number of well-aimed expressions of Lucian ended up in a Byzantine collection of proverbs.

Almost everything that Lucian wrote has come down to us. His manuscripts have preserved 85 works, but among them there are those that undoubtedly do not belong to Lucian, but were attributed to him as a fairly popular author. These include "Two Loves", "Haridem", "Halcyone", "Long-lived", "Nero", "Friend of the Fatherland", "Fast-footed". There are also works whose belonging to Lucian is controversial.

Now we know that Lucian belongs to the time of the decline of ancient culture, but he himself clearly felt this. Most of all, he brilliantly mocks what he thought was funny or disgusting in the life around him. Perhaps he is less interesting where he tries to protect the values ​​traditional for his time and cultural circle. We learn almost nothing from his works about what he personally believed in, what was especially dear to him, and we will never know whether he really was a man with an empty soul, as many researchers of his work believe, or he, as and many of our outstanding contemporaries, believed that such things should be kept silent.

1) Croiset M. Histoire de la litterature grecque. 4th ed. T. V. R., 1928. P. 583 svv.; Lucianus Oeuvres. Texte et. et trad. par J. Bompaire. T. I. R., 1993. R. XI-XII.
2) Bowersock G. W. Greek sophists in the Roman empire. Oxford, 1969. P. 17ff.
3) Ibid. P. 114.
4) See BelungerA. R. Lucian's dramatic technique: Yale Classical Studies 1,1928. P. 3-40.
5) Lucian's description enables researchers to reconstruct the composition of the painting: Kraiker W. Das Kentaurenbild des Zeuxis. Winckelmannsprogramm der Archaologischen Gesellschaft zu Berlin. Berlin, 1950. S. 106.
6) Pflaum H. G. Lucien de Samosate, Archistator: Melanges de l "Ecole francaise de Rome 71, 1959. P. 282 svv.
7) Wed. Reardon B. R. Courants litteraires grecs des IIe et IIIe siecles apres J.-C. R., 1971. R. 157 svv.
8) Palm J. Rom, Romertum und Imperium in der griechischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit. Lund, 1959. S. 44.
9) Lucian makes extensive use of Attic comedy here. See: Bompaire J. Lucien ecrivain: imitation et creation. R., 1958. R. 361 svv.
10) Several richly illustrated editions of these dialogues have been published in the West.
11) Caster M. Lucien et la pensee religieuse de son temps. R., 1937.
12) Egger. De Lucien et de Voltaire: Memoires de litterature ancienne. R., 1862; F. Engels. From the history of early Christianity (1895). Lucian even presents the case as if he was ready, like Voltaire later, to risk his life in the fight against superstition (Alexander). On the other hand, it is worth thinking about Reardon's judgment, to which Lucian is more like Oscar Wilde (Reardon VR Courants litteraires... P. 172).
13) Gibbon E. Decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Vol. I. P. 30, ed. Bury.
14) Jones C. P. Culture and society in Lucian. Cambridge, Mass. 1986. P. 35f.
15) Caster M. Lucien et la pensee religieuse de son temps. Paris, 1937.
16) Bompaire J. Lucien ecrivain... P. 236.
17) Bruns, Ivo. Lucian's philosophische Satiren: Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie 43, 1888, pp. 26-103, 161-196; Helm R. Lucian and Menipp. Leipzig u. Berlin, 1906; Norden E. P. Vergilius Maro. Aeneis VI. Darmstadt, 1957 (1924). S. 199-250; Jones S. R. Culture and society in Lucian... P. 31.
18) Jones S. R. Culture and society in Lucian... R. 49 sq.
19) Palm J. Rom, Romertum und Imperium in der griechischen Literatur der Kaiserzeit. Lund, 1959, pp. 44-56; Bowersock G. W. Greek sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford, 1969. P. 115.
20) This dialogue was used by Shakespeare for his drama Timon of Athens.
21) M. I. Rostovtsev believed that Lucian used a collection of short stories that arose among the Greeks in the Bosporus (Rostoutzeff M. Skythien und Bosporus. I, Berlin, 1931).
22) Householder F. W. Literary quotation and allusion in Lucian. Columbia, 1941. The French researcher Bompaire (Bompaire J. Lucien ecrivain ... R., 1958) especially insisted on this feature of Lucian's work, but later he supplied his views with some reservations (Bompaire J. Travaux recents sur Lucien. Revue des etudes grecques 88, 1975. P. 224-229).
23) Jones C. P. Culture and society... P. V.
24) Its belonging to Lucian raised serious doubts, but now most researchers are inclined to recognize its authenticity (Воpaire J. Lucien ecrivain ... P. 646-653; Hall J. Lucian's Satire. N. Y., 1981. P. 374-381 ; Jones S. P. Culture and society ... P. 41).
25) Jones C. P. Culture and society ... P. 41 ff.
26) Bompaire J. Lucien ecrivain... P. 628.
27) Bompaire J. Lucien ecrivain... P. 239.

Lucian.

Lucian's work can be divided into several periods.

I period.

Actually rhetorical period of creativity. "Anichnaya craving for the word never left either the Greeks or the Romans," notes A.F. Losev. Sophists, proving anything and anyone, became the scourge of Lucian's time. Having studied rhetoric and being an itinerant sophist, over the years Lucian begins to feel in opposition to the mainstream in sophistry. So, a striking example of Lucian's work of this period can be considered "Praise of the fly." On the one hand, this is a rhetorical paradox, with an arc - a satire on the sophists, on the third - a manifestation of the philosopher Lucian. A fly, described according to all the rules, the construction of a commendable speech, with a detailed description of the structure of the body, comparison with other insects, with a number of quotations from Homer and other classics, legends - in many ways a satire on empty rhetorical recitations.

II period.

Lucian switches to a dialogical form. He acts most often as a critic and nihilist, blaming philosophers, rhetoricians, rich people, handsome men, and, it seems, everyone in general. D. Dilite speaks of him as a nihilist, while A.F. Losev notes that Lucian had some positive ideas, but it seems that he himself got confused in them: he sometimes asserted completely opposite opinions, was fond of different ideas and schools. So, in "Conversation in the Realm of the Dead" along with ridicule of various kinds of people, we will see a representative of Cynic philosophy, with whom the author clearly sympathizes. His "freedom of spirit and freedom of speech, carelessness, nobility and laughter" are sympathetic to the author. Here, by the way, we see another feature characteristic of Lucian's depiction of the gods: irony. Lucian takes traditional situations6 that have been described in the literature and brings them down to the everyday level. So, "Conversation in the Realm of the Dead" begins with Charon and Hermes discussing their financial affairs: Hermes bought everything necessary for Charon's boat.

III period.

Lucian refuses the dialogic form and turns to a pamphlet-letter, which gives him the opportunity not to act in the mask of one of the heroes, but to speak on his own behalf. An example of the creativity of this period is "Alexander or the False Prophet". Here we see the biographical facts of Lucian's life: he really had to fight the false spirit Alexander. This pamphlet is primarily directed against contemporary religious trends. Of course, he somewhat justifies people who are drawn to this preacher and notices that one must have a remarkable mind in order to recognize a charlotte in him, but nevertheless he sometimes speaks rather harshly about the parishioners of Alexander's oracle: he says that these are people without "brains and reason ". Lucian consistently reveals all the "magic" of the false prophet and even thinks out his plans and thoughts. Lucian was one of the easiest and most exciting writers of the entire course of ancient literature, it was pleasant and exciting to read him. Apparently, his style and rhetorical education are to blame. From the point of view of the artistic style, we can note the satire that permeates almost all of his work, burlesque (the desire to present the sublime as base), the presence of rather complex psychological characteristics ("Alexander or the false prophet", for example), some negizism and the general variegation of style. Not being a systematic thinker, he allowed many contradictions, because of which he could seem to be a complete "denier" of everything, but despite criticism of superstition, sophistry, empty literature and moral vices, certain positive ideas of the writer are visible - "the desire to transform life on the basis of reason and humanity", as A.F. Losev wrote.

Second sophistry. (according to M.L. Gasparov).

“The cradle of the second sophistry was the cities of Asia Minor, which at that time were experiencing their last economic upsurge. From here, the far-flung wanderings of the sophists carried it to the last limits of the empire. ". Trips and speeches were made with great luxury, fame preceded the orator and followed him, applause at his speeches reached real orgy. The orator was considered the embodiment of the human ideal, so admiration for him was universal, the Roman governors made way for him, and the people elected his intercessor in the most important matters. Hence the unheard-of vanity of the sophists: thus, according to Aelius Aristides, God himself announced to him in a dream that he was equal in genius to Plato and Demosthenes. Hence, unprecedented examples of envy and competition, for example, between the sophist- the philosopher Favorin and the sophist-rhetor Polemon.

All three genres of eloquence could still be used as a form of speeches: Dion delivered deliberative speeches among the rulers of his Prusa, Apuleius became famous for his judicial speech - self-defense from charges of black magic. But the main genre, of course, remained solemn eloquence: praises of visited cities, discovered monuments, local heroes, etc. Praise-paradox in honor of some insignificant object: a fly, a mosquito, smoke, etc. was considered a special chic: a paradox and vulgarity went hand in hand. But even these traditional forms were not enough for the sophist to show himself in all his splendor. Therefore, a special type of concert oratory is formed, consisting of two parts: melete (exercise) and dialexis (reasoning). These two parts corresponded to the two elements of sophistical wisdom, rhetoric and philosophy; "Melete" meant some publicly pronounced exercise from the repertoire of rhetorical schools - controversion, svazoria, description, comparison, etc., "dialexis" meant reasoning on some popular philosophical topic, usually on a specific occasion. Depending on the personality of the speaker

the main part for him was either the rhetorical or the philosophical part: it was carefully prepared and thought over, while the other part served only as an introduction to it, a means of establishing contact with the public and often improvised on the spot. Most sophists still preferred to put the rhetorical part at the center of their speech: those who preferred philosophy were fewer, and they were called "philosophers among rhetoricians."

The preference given to school-rhetorical themes over philosophical ones is partly due to the fact that it was in such recitations that it was easier to show off the fashionable mastery of the Attic dialect. The topics of recitations were most often chosen from Athenian history and required skillful stylization: the orators of the second sophistry achieved perfection in this. The line of orators who have specialized in such topics stretches over several generations"...

... "Thus, the focus of the second sophistry was exclusively on language and style: genre novelty was indifferent to them and even undesirable, since within the framework of the old genres their rivalry with ancient models was more visible. Special mention should be made of two school genres: description and writing. Description was attractive for the opportunity to give vent to a refined style, not constrained by a narrative plot, four books of such descriptions of paintings and statues have survived, belonging to third-century rhetoricians, two Philostratus and Callistratus, and all these descriptions are not real works of art, but fictitious ones. the opportunity to stylize the language and thoughts of the great people of antiquity, without resorting to high-flown methods of recitation: this is how the letters of Themistocles were composed, in which he tells the story of his exile, the letters of Socrates, in which he talks about his family affairs, the letters of Diogenes, in which he teaches his cynical wisdom, etc.: rhetorical form and philosophical content are combined ali in these letters is very convenient. Collections of these fictitious letters were long considered to be the genuine works of Socrates, Diogenes, etc.; the establishment of their inauthenticity in the XVIII century. became an epoch in the history of philology.

Artistic features of Lucian's work

1. Genres

Lucian's artistic techniques deserve no less study than his ideology.

Let us list the literary genres of Lucian, using mainly the materials already cited.

Oratory, fictitious-judicial ("Disinherited") or commendable ("Praise to the fly"), which is a common school model of the then recitations.

Comic dialogue ("Conversations of the Gods"), sometimes turning into a mimic dialogue ("Feast") or even into a scene or sketch of a dramatic nature ("Runaway Slaves").

Description ("About the Syrian goddess").

Reasoning ("How to write history").

Memoir story ("The Life of the Demonact").

Fantastic story ("True story").

An epistolary genre in which Lucian wrote quite often, especially in the last period of his work ("Correspondence with Kronos").

Parody-tragedy genre ("Tragopodagra", "Swift-footed" - two humorous tragedies, where the choir of gouty performs and the main idea is the fight against gout).

All these genres were constantly intertwined with Lucian in such a way that, for example, "How to Write History" is not only reasoning, but also writing, "Long-lasting" - both description and writing, "On Sacrifices" - and dialogue and reasoning, "On the Death of Peregrine "- description, reasoning, dialogue and drama, etc.

2. Artistic style

Lucian's style has been little explored. We confine ourselves here to its most general analysis.

Comic with complete indifference to the ridiculed subject ("Conversations of the Gods"). Lucian impresses here with his light fluttering, often even frivolity, quickness and unexpectedness of judgments, resourcefulness and wit. When the comic in Lucian ceases to be superficial and reaches a certain depth, one can speak of humor. If you make a careful literary analysis, it will not be difficult to find in this comic and humor of Lucian the easily and quickly slipping methods of Platonic dialogue, middle and new comedy and Menippean satire.

Sharp satire, combined with a very intense desire to subvert or at least reduce and prick the depicted ("Tragic Zeus"). This satire sometimes reaches the level of murderous sarcasm in Lucian, striving to completely subvert the depicted subject ("On the death of Peregrine").

Burlesque, that is, the desire to present the sublime as base. Comic, humor, satire and sarcasm must be distinguished from burlesque, because, while presenting the sublime in a base form, it still continues to consider the sublime to be sublime.

A complex psychological portrait with elements of deep pathology, reaching hysteria. The most talented and most complex examples of this style are Alexander and Peregrine in the works that bear their names. Alexander is very handsome, a lover of cosmetics, incredibly depraved, deeply educated, a charlatan, a mystic and a deep psychologist who knows how to enchant people, hysterically feels his divine mission, if not directly divinity, an enthusiastic, although at the same time fake actor. Peregrine is depicted in the same style and even more so.

A sharply negative depiction of life with a nihilistic tendency ("Sale of Lives", "Germotimus"), when Lucian not only stigmatizes the then ulcers of life, but also, as it were, boasts of his complete disinterest in anything positive.

The general style of classical prose is constantly observed in Lucian, who was apparently an expert in the literature of the classical period, since all his works are literally stuffed with innumerable quotations from all Greek writers, starting with Homer. An element of the classics must also be considered the frequent presence of images of works of art in him, that is, what Homer was already famous for and which only intensified in the era of Hellenism ("On the Dance", "Images").

The variegation and spiritual amusingness of the style, that is, what just contradicts the artistic methods of the classics. Lucian at every step equips his presentation with various funny details, jokes, sayings, anecdotes (and often all this has nothing to do with the case), the desire to detail any petty artistry, naturalistic transmission, sometimes reaching obscenity. He is often too talkative, boasts of his disinterest in nothing, slips on the surface, makes ambiguous allusions. All this is combined in an amazing way with his love for the classics and forms a chaotic variegation of style.

Sometimes a progressive tendency involuntarily shows through in the artistic image ("Nigrin"), and the very fact of the overthrow of life evokes in the reader an idea of ​​its possible positive forms.

3. General conclusion about the work of Lucian

The murderous and subversive laughter of Lucian created him worldwide fame. In the depths of ruthless satire and sharpest sarcasm and often inability to understand the positive and negative sides of the society of that time, Lucian undoubtedly has an intense suffering over social ulcers and a great desire, although still powerless, to transform life on the basis of reason and humanity. In "Nigrin" (ch. 16) we read:

"In Rome, all the streets and squares are full of what is dearest to such people. Here you can get pleasure through" all the gates "- with eyes and ears, nose and mouth. Pleasure flows in an eternal dirty stream and washes away all the streets, adultery, greed rush in it , perjury and all kinds of pleasures; from the soul, washed from all sides by these streams, shame, virtue and justice are erased, and the place vacated by them is filled with silt, on which numerous coarse passions blossom" (Melikova-Tolstaya).

Such lines indicate that Lucian had a deep sense of social evil and a desire, albeit powerless, to destroy it. This helplessness, however, was characteristic not only of Lucian, but also characteristic of his entire era, which, for all its inclination towards scientific and artistic creativity, was not fruitful in a purely vital sense.

Translation by B. V. Kazansky

Hermes, Hephaestus and Prometheus

1. Hermes. Here is the Caucasus, Hephaestus, to which this unfortunate titan must be nailed. Let's see if there is some suitable rock here, not covered with snow, to make stronger chains and hang Prometheus so that he can be clearly seen by everyone.

Hephaestus. Let's see, Hermes. It is necessary to crucify him not too low to the ground, so that people, the creation of his hands, do not come to his aid, but not close to the top, since he will not be seen from below; but here, if you wish, let us crucify him here, in the middle, over the abyss, so that his arms are stretched out from this cliff to the opposite one.

Hermes. You made the right decision. These rocks are bare, inaccessible from everywhere and slightly sloping, and that cliff has such a narrow rise that one can hardly stand on one's fingertips: here would be the most convenient place for a crucifixion ... Do not hesitate, Prometheus, come up here and let yourself be chained to the mountain .

2. Prometheus. If only you, Hephaestus and Hermes, took pity on me: I suffer undeservedly!

Hermes. It's good for you to say: "have a pity"! So that we will be tortured instead of you, as soon as we disobey orders? Does it seem to you that the Caucasus is not big enough and there will be no place on it to chain two more to it? But stretch out your right hand. And you, Hephaestus, lock it in a ring and nail it, hitting the nail with force with a hammer. Come on and another! Let this hand be better chained. That is great! Soon the eagle will fly to tear your liver so that you will receive full payment for your beautiful and skillful invention.

3. Prometheus. Oh, Cronus, Iapetus, and you, my mother, look what I, unhappy, endure, although I have not committed anything criminal!

Hermes. Nothing criminal, Prometheus? But after all, when you were entrusted with the division of meat between you and Zeus, you first of all acted completely unfairly and dishonestly, taking away the best pieces for yourself, and deceptively giving only bones to Zeus, "covering them with white fat"? After all, I swear by Zeus, I remember that Hesiod said so. Then you sculpted people, those most criminal creatures, and, worst of all, women. In addition to all this, you have stolen the most valuable property of the gods, fire, and gave it to people. And having committed such crimes, you claim that you were chained without any fault on your part?

4. Prometheus. Apparently, Hermes, and you want, according to Homer, "to make the innocent guilty" if you reproach me for such crimes. As for me, for what I have done, I would consider myself worthy of an honorable meal in the tribune, if there were justice. Indeed, if you had free time, I would gladly make a speech in defense of the accusations raised against me, to show how unjust the sentence of Zeus is. And you, after all, are a speechist and a slanderer - take upon yourself the defense of Zeus, proving that he passed the correct sentence on the crucifixion of me in the Caucasus, at these Caspian gates, as a pitiful sight for all Scythians.

Hermes. Your desire to reconsider, Prometheus, is belated and completely unnecessary. But still talk. Anyway, I have to wait until the eagle comes down to take care of your liver. It would be good to take advantage of your free time in order to listen to your sophistry, since in a dispute you are the most resourceful of all.

5. Prometheus. In that case, Hermes, speak first and in such a way as to accuse me in the strongest way and not miss anything in your father's defense. You, Hephaestus, I take as a judge.

Hephaestus. No, I swear by Zeus, I will not be a judge, but also an accuser: after all, you stole the fire and left my forge without heat!

Prometheus. Well, divide your speeches: you support the accusation of stealing fire, and let Hermes accuse me of creating a man and dividing the meat. After all, you both seem to be skillful and strong in an argument.

Hephaestus. Hermes will speak for me. I am not made for court speeches, for me everything is in my forge. And he is a rhetorician and thoroughly engaged in such things.

Prometheus. I would not have thought that Hermes would also want to talk about the theft of fire and blame me, since in this case I am his fellow craft.

But, by the way, son of Mai, if you take on this case, then it's time to start the accusation.

6. Hermes. Indeed, Prometheus, many speeches and good preparation are needed to clarify everything that you have done. After all, it is enough to list your most important iniquities: namely, when you were given the opportunity to share the meat, you saved the best pieces for yourself, and deceived the king of the gods; you carved people, a thing completely unnecessary, and brought fire to them, stealing it from us. And, it seems to me, most respected, you do not understand that you experienced the boundless philanthropy of Zeus after such actions. And if you deny that you did all this, then you will have to prove it in a lengthy speech and try to discover the truth. But if you admit that you made a division of meat, that you introduced an innovation with your people and stole the fire, then I have had enough of the accusation, and I would not talk further; it would be empty talk.

7. Prometheus. We will see a little later if what you said is not also chatter; and now, if you say that the accusation is enough, I will try, as far as I can, to destroy it.

First of all, hear the matter of the meat. Although, I swear by Uranus, and now, speaking of this, I am ashamed of Zeus! He is so petty and vindictive that, having found a small bone in his part, because of this he sends such ancient god like me, forgetting my help and not thinking how insignificant the cause of his anger. He, like a boy, gets angry and indignant if he does not get the most part.

8. Meanwhile, Hermes, it seems to me that one should not remember about such table deceptions, and if there was any mistake, then you need to take it for a joke and immediately leave your anger at the feast. And to save hatred for tomorrow, to plot and keep some kind of yesterday's anger - this does not fit the gods at all, and in general this is not a royal business.

Indeed, if the revel were to be deprived of these amusements - deceit, jokes, teasing and ridicule, then only drunkenness, satiety and silence would remain - all things gloomy and joyless, very unsuitable for a revel. And I never thought that Zeus would still remember this the next day, he would begin to get angry and begin to believe that he had been subjected to a terrible insult if someone played a joke with him when cutting meat, in order to test whether he would distinguish between the best when choosing a piece.

9. Suppose, however, Hermes, even worse: that Zeus, when dividing, not only got the worst part, but she was completely taken away from him. What? Because of this, should, according to the proverb, the sky mix with the earth, invent chains and tortures, and the Caucasus, send eagles and peck out the liver? See that this indignation does not convict Zeus of pettiness, poverty of thought and irritability. Indeed, what would Zeus do, having lost a whole bull, if he is so angry because of a small portion of meat?

10. Still, how much more justly do people treat such things, and yet, it would seem, it is more natural for them to be sharper in anger than the gods! Meanwhile, none of them will condemn the cook to crucifixion if, while cooking meat, he dips his finger into the broth and licks it, or, while roasting, cuts off and swallows a piece of roast - people forgive this. And if they get too angry, they will use their fists or give a slap in the face, but no one will be tortured for such an insignificant offense.

Well, that's it for the meat; I am ashamed to justify myself, but it is much more shameful for him to accuse me of this.

11. But it's time to talk about my sculpture and the creation of people. There is a double charge in this offense, Hermes, and I do not know in what sense you impute it to me. Does it consist in the fact that it was not necessary to create people at all, and it would be better if they continued to be the earth; or is it my fault that people should have been sculpted, but it was necessary to give them a different look? But I will talk about both. And first I will try to show that the gods were not harmed by the birth of people; and then - that it was much more profitable and pleasant for the gods than if the earth continued to remain deserted and deserted.

LUCIAN

Lucian is a remarkable and, one might say, unprecedented phenomenon in ancient literature. Of course, Lucian does not have a special section of aesthetics, just as there is none anywhere in ancient literature. Nevertheless, the very search for aesthetics as a system is peculiar to Lucian to the deepest degree. In order to understand this, it is only necessary to abandon those current ideas about Lucian that reduce him to a simple and flat satirist or humorist and ignore the incredible psychological complexity that he has to ascertain. In this regard, it is necessary to dwell on the review of the periods of his creative development, while we often ignored such an analysis when studying other ancient writers. These periods are interesting in that they testify to Lucian's great interest in rhetoric, and in ethics, and in depicting the extremely complex structure of a person's mental development, and in using a wide variety of artistic genres. An analysis of the periods of Lucian's work also testifies to his constant thrashings, and his colossal sense of social evil, and his own pitiful weakness and inability to fight this evil, some kind of constant uncertainty bordering on aesthetic and psychological decay.

If we proceed from the fact that the first two centuries of our era are generally full of chaotic quests and that in those days some sublime aesthetic ideal was presented to talented minds, which they could not achieve, then all this must be said about Lucian in the first place; Lucian is known as a critic of mythology. But even a cursory glance at his corresponding works testifies to the fact that he interprets the myth he criticizes extremely flatly, without content, and in a comically everyday way. This, of course, has nothing to do with ancient mythology, which Lucian barely touched. But the seething mental passions with which his works are overflowing clearly testify to Lucian's striving for some lofty ideals, which he cannot achieve, which he reduces to a comic-everyday level, and about the impossibility of achieving which he, in the end, only mourns miserably, being close to complete moral and philosophical decay. The picture of the work of such a writer, of course, plays a huge role for us, and for the history of aesthetics we find here extraordinarily interesting factual material.

§one. General information

1. General overview of the activities of Lucian

Lucian was born in the city of Samosata, that is, he was by origin a Syrian. The years of his life cannot be established with accuracy, but they were approximately 120-180s AD. His biography is almost unknown, and what little is known is drawn from vague indications in his own works. He did not follow the path of his father, a craftsman and his uncle, a sculptor, but began to strive to receive a liberal arts education. Having moved to Greece, he perfectly studied the Greek language and became an itinerant rhetorician, reading his own works to the general public in different cities of the empire. At one time he lived in Athens and was a teacher of rhetoric, and in old age he took a highly paid position as a judicial official in Egypt, to which he was appointed by the emperor himself.

Eighty-four works have come down to us with the name of Lucian, which can be divided with some certainty into three periods. However, the full accuracy of this periodization cannot be established, due to the fact that the dating of most works is very approximate, so the distribution of treatises by periods may be different. Of the treatises, we present only the most important ones.

The first period of Lucian's literary work can be called rhetorical. It probably continued until the 1960s. Soon, however, Lucian began to feel disappointed in his rhetoric (a disappointment, as far as one can tell from his own statement, he experienced already at the age of forty) and moved on to philosophical topics, although he was not a professional philosopher.

During this second, philosophical, period of his activity - probably until the end of the 80th year - Lucian dealt with many different topics, of which, first of all, it is necessary to note his numerous satirical works against mythology, which brought him world fame, as well as a number of treatises against philosophers, superstition and fantasy.

The third period of his activity is characterized by a partial return to rhetoric, an interest in Epicurean philosophy, and clearly expressed features of disappointment.

Having taken the big post of a judicial official, Lucian did not shy away from flattery to the then rulers, despite the fact that he himself most severely exposed the humiliation of philosophers before rich people. The lack of positive convictions always led Lucian to the great limitation of his criticism, and this became especially noticeable in the last period of his work. However, this can hardly be considered the fault of Lucian himself. In the person of Lucian, in general, all antiquity came to self-denial; not only he, but the entire slave-owning society to which he belonged, gradually lost all prospects, since the old ideals were long lost, and it was not easy to get used to the new ones (and such was Christianity that arose just a hundred years before Lucian) was not easy, this required not only more time, but also a major social upheaval.

2. First rhetorical period

With the development of Roman absolutism, rhetoric was bound to lose the enormous social and political importance that it had in the period of the republic in Greece and Rome. Nevertheless, the ancient craving for a beautiful word never left either the Greeks or the Romans. But during the period of the empire, this rhetoric was detached from life, limited to formalistic exercises and pursued exclusively artistic goals, enticing for all lovers of literature. Starting with rhetoric, Lucian creates a long series of fictitious speeches, just as in those days in rhetorical schools in general they wrote essays on a given topic for the sake of an exercise in style and for the sake of creating a declamatory effect on readers and listeners. Such, for example, is Lucian's speech entitled "Deprived of Inheritance", which proves the rights to the inheritance for a fictitious person who has lost these rights due to family circumstances. Such is the speech "The Tyrant Killer", where Lucian casuistically proves that after the murder of the son of a tyrant and after the suicide of the tyrant himself on this occasion, the murderer of the tyrant's son must be considered the murderer of the tyrant himself.

It is often pointed out that even during this rhetorical period, Lucian did not remain only a rhetorician, but in some places he already began to show himself as a philosopher using the dialogic form. In The Teacher of Eloquence (ch. 8) a distinction is made between lofty and vulgar, ignorant rhetoric. In the speech "Praise to the Fly" we find a satire on rhetorical laudatory speeches, because here such an object as a fly is praised in the most serious way, with quotations from classical literature, the fly's head, eyes, paws, abdomen, wings are painted in detail.

3. Transition from sophistry to philosophy

Lucian, furthermore, has a group of works of the second half of the 50s that do not yet contain direct philosophical judgments, but which can no longer be called purely rhetorical, that is, pursuing only a beautiful form of presentation.

These include: a) the critical-aesthetic group "Zeuxis", "Harmonides", "Herodotus", "About the House" and b) comic dialogues - "Prometheus, or the Caucasus", "Conversations of the Gods", "Conversations of Geteres", "Marine conversations."

In "Zeuxis" we find a description of the paintings of the famous painter Zeuxis. This is praise in essence, since its subject this time is that which has aesthetic value, and, moreover, for Lucian himself. In the treatise "On the House" some beautiful building is praised; praise is in the form of a dialogue. Dialogue was in Greece the original form of philosophical reasoning. Here is a direct transitional link from the rhetoric of laudatory speeches to a philosophical dialogue.

Lucian's talent as a satirist and comedian was widely developed in comic dialogues.

"Prometheus, or the Caucasus" is a brilliant defensive speech of Prometheus directed against Zeus. As you know, Prometheus, by the will of Zeus, was chained to a rock in the Caucasus. In form, this is a completely rhetorical work, capable even now of producing a spectacular impression with its argumentation and composition. In essence, this work is very far from empty and meaningless rhetoric, since in it we already find the beginning of a deep criticism of the mythological views of the ancients and a virtuoso overthrow of one of the most significant myths of classical antiquity. Another work of Lucian of the same group and also world-famous is "The Conversations of the Gods". Here we find very brief conversations of the gods, in which they act in the most unsightly philistine form, in the role of some very stupid philistines with their insignificant passions, love affairs, all sorts of base needs, greed and an extremely limited mental horizon. Lucian does not invent any new mythological situations, but uses only what is known from tradition. What once had a significant interest and expressed the deep feelings of the Greek people, after being transferred to the everyday environment, received a comic, completely parodic orientation. "Conversations of Hetaerae" depict a vulgar and limited world of petty love adventures, and in "Sea Conversations" there is again a parodic mythological theme. The dialogue of all these works is reduced from its high pedestal of the classical literary form of philosophical reasoning.

4. Philosophical period

For the convenience of reviewing the numerous works of this period, they can be divided into several groups.

a) Menippean group: "Conversations in the Realm of the Dead", "Twice Accused", "Tragic Zeus", "Zeus Convicted", "Assembly of the Gods", "Menipp", "Icarome-nipp", "Dream, or Rooster", "Timon" , "Charon", "Crossing, or Tyrant".

Menippus was a very popular philosopher of the 3rd century BC. BC, who belonged to the Cynic school; the cynics demanded complete simplification, the denial of all civilization and freedom from all those blessings that people usually pursue. Lucian no doubt sympathized with this Cynic philosophy for some time. So, in "Conversations in the Realm of the Dead" the dead are depicted suffering from the loss of wealth, and only Menippus and other cynics remain here cheerful and carefree, and the simplicity of life is preached.

Of this group of Lucian's works, "Tragic Zeus" is especially sharp in character, where the gods are also depicted in a vulgar and insignificant form, and a certain Epicurean hammers with his arguments the Stoic with his teaching about the gods and the expediency of world history implanted by them. The "tragedy" of Zeus lies here in the fact that in the event of the victory of the atheists, the gods will not receive the sacrifices laid down for them and therefore will have to perish. But the victory of the Epicurean, it turns out, means nothing, since there are still enough fools on earth who continue to believe in Zeus and other gods.

b) Satire on pseudo-philosophers is contained in the works of Lucian: "Ship, or Desires", "Cynic", "Sale of Lives", "Teacher of Eloquence" (the last two works, perhaps, date back to the end of the rhetorical period).

Lucian was interested in the discrepancy between the lives of philosophers and the ideals they preached. In this regard, we find a lot of material in the work "Feast", where philosophers of different schools are depicted as hangers-on and flatterers with rich people, spend their lives in carousing and adventures, as well as in mutual quarrels and fights. Some scholars have thought that in this critique of the philosophers, Lucian remained committed to Cynicism, with its protest against the excesses of civilization and its defense of the underprivileged.

in) Satire on superstition, pseudoscience and fantasy is contained in the treatises: "Lover of Lies", "On the Death of Peregrine" (after 167), "On Victims", "On Offerings", "On Sorrow", "Luke, or Donkey", "How to write history" (165). Especially against narrow-minded rhetoricians and school grammarians - "Leksifan", "Parasite", "Liar".

The small treatise "On the death of Peregrine" deserves special attention. Usually this treatise is regarded as a document from the history of early Christianity, because the hero Peregrinus depicted here at one time was in the Christian community, captivated her with his teachings and behavior, and enjoyed her protection. This is absolutely correct. Among the early Christian communities, there certainly could have been those who were composed of gullible simpletons and succumbed to all sorts of influences that had nothing to do with the doctrine of Christianity itself. But about Christians, there are only a few phrases here: the Christian community excommunicated Peregrinus from itself and thus, from the point of view of Lucian himself, proved its complete alienation to this Peregrinus. Undoubtedly, this Lucian image of Peregrine itself gives more, which is still capable of shaking the reader's imagination.

Peregrine began his life with debauchery and patricide. Possessed by ambition, he went around the cities in the form of some kind of prophet - a miracle worker and a preacher of unprecedented teachings. He was greedy for money and suffered from gluttony, although at the same time he aspired to be an ascetic, preaching the highest ideals. This is a cynic with all the features inherent in these philosophers, including extreme simplification and enmity towards "other" philosophers. Lucian tries to portray him as an elementary charlatan, using human superstition for selfish purposes, mainly for the sake of increasing his fame. Lucian's mockery of Peregrin depicted in him is very vicious, sometimes very subtle, and speaks of the writer's hatred for his hero. However, the fact that Lucian actually told about his Peregrinus, painting this latter as a charlatan, goes far beyond the usual fraud. Peregrine is the most incredible mixture of depravity, ambition and love of glory, asceticism, belief in all kinds of fabulous miracles, in one's divinity or, at least, a special heavenly destiny, the desire to rule over people and be their savior, desperate adventurism and a fearless attitude towards death and fortitude. It's a mixture of incredible acting, self-exaltation, but also selflessness. In the end, in order to become even more famous, he wants to end his life by self-immolation, but somehow he does not believe Lucian's constant claims that Peregrine does this only for glory. Shortly before self-immolation, he broadcasts that his golden life should end with a golden crown. With his death, he wants to show what real philosophy is, and he wants to teach to despise death. In a solemn atmosphere, a fire is arranged for Peregrine. With a pale face and in a frenzy in front of the fire in the presence of an excited crowd, he turns to his dead father and mother with a request to accept him, and he is trembling, and the crowd hums and screams, demanding from him immediate self-immolation, then stopping this execution.

Burning takes place at night in the moonlight, after the faithful disciples of Peregrin - cynics in a solemn atmosphere light the firewood brought, and Peregrine fearlessly rushes into the fire. They say that later he was seen in a white robe with a wreath of the sacred olive tree, joyfully walking in the temple of Zeus in the Olympian portico. It should be noted that Peregrine set himself on fire in no other place and no other time than at the Olympic Games.

This stunning picture of individual and social hysteria, drawn with great talent by Lucian, is regarded by the writer himself in a very flat and rationalistic way. Lucian understands all this monstrous pathology of the spirit only as Peregrine's desire for glory. Of Lucian and his religious skepticism, Engels wrote: "One of our best sources on the early Christians is Lucian of Samosata, that Voltaire of classical antiquity, who was equally skeptical of all kinds of religious superstitions and who therefore had neither pagan-religious nor political reason to treat Christians differently than to any other religious association. On the contrary, he showers them all with ridicule for their superstition - there are no less admirers of Jupiter than admirers of Christ; from his flat-rationalist point of view, both types of superstitions are equally absurd" 57 . The above judgment of Engels must also be combined with the literary characterization of Peregrine. Other works of this group, especially "The Lover of Lies", "On the Syrian Goddess" and "Luky, or the Ass", exposing the superstition of that time in the most talented way, also go far beyond simple ideological criticism. The treatise "How to Write History" exposes the other side of ignorance, namely, the anti-scientific methods of historiography, which do not take into account the facts and replace them with rhetorical-poetic fantasy, as opposed to the sound approach to them by the writers of the classical period - Thucydides and Xenophon.

G) The critical-aesthetic group of Lucian's works of this period contains treatises: "Images", "On Images", "On Dance", "Two Loves" - and refers more to the history of aesthetics or culture in general, than specifically to literature.

e) From the moralistic group of works of the same period, we will name "Hermotimus" (165 or 177), "Nigrin" (161 or 178), "The Biography of Demonact" (177-180). In "Hermotimus" the Stoics, Epicureans, Platonists are criticized very superficially, and the Cynics also do not constitute any exception for Lucian. On the other hand, in Nigrin one can notice Lucian's rarest respect for philosophy, and, moreover, for Platonic philosophy, the preacher of which Nigrin is depicted here. True, here Lucian was primarily interested in the critical side of Nigrin's preaching, who attacked the then Roman customs no worse than the great Roman satirists.

5. Late period

The third period of Lucian's activity is characterized by a partial return to rhetoric and, undoubtedly, features of decline and creative weakness.

The news is Lucian's partial return to rhetoric. But this rhetoric is striking in its emptiness and pettiness of the subject matter. Such are the small treatises "Dionysus" and "Hercules", where the former Lucian sharpness and power of the satirical image are already missing. He is also engaged in empty scholasticism in the treatise "On the mistake made when bowing." In three works - "Saturnalia", "Kronosolon", "Correspondence with Kronos" - the image of Kronos is drawn in the form of an old and flabby Epicurean who has abandoned all business and spends his life in gastronomic pleasures. Apparently, Lucian himself was aware of his fall, because he had to write the "Letter of Justification", where he no longer condemns, but justifies those who are on a salary, and where he defends even the emperor himself, who receives a salary from his own state. In the treatise "On the Prometheus of Eloquence, Who Called Me," Lucian expresses fear that he might turn out to be a Prometheus in the spirit of Hesiod, covering up his "comic laughter" with "philosophical importance."

Views: 889
Category: ,

The ideological state of the top of ancient society on the eve of its catastrophe was reflected in many ways in the work of the prolific satirist Lucian. The refinement of philosophical thought and the growth of superstition, the pretensions of sophistry and the vulgar philosophical opposition against it, the pedantic archaism and the lack of content of literature - all these symptoms of ideological decay were found in Lucian as a sharp and caustic critic who turned the formal stylistic art of sophistry against itself.

Having already become a famous writer, he recalls in his autobiographical "Dream" the difficulties of his path to education. His parents wanted to teach him some craft, but he was attracted by the fame of a sophist.

In the "Dream" it is depicted how, after an unsuccessful attempt to study with an uncle-sculptor, Sculpture and Education (that is, sophistry) appear to the boy in a dream, and each tries to attract him to herself. Lucian fully shares the slave-owning contempt for the craftsman, "living by the labor of his own hands", and Education promises fame, honors and wealth.

Themes of this kind were not new, but Lucian, like a typical sophist, emphasizes more than once that stylistic refinement and wit of presentation are dearer to him than the novelty of thoughts. He shines with the skill of a lively, light narration, relief details, figurative style; he is especially successful in describing monuments of fine art. Already in these early works, the future satirist is sometimes felt.

the rhetorical paradox "Praise the Fly" has an almost parodic character.

Over the years, Lucian began to feel more and more in opposition to the dominant trend in sophistry. A solemn, panegyric attitude to artificial "high" feelings was always alien to him, and he was sharply negative about the growing religious tendencies. The satirical stream in his work began to expand. The first stage on this path was the transition to peripheral small forms of sophistical prose. Lucian chose here the genre of comic dialogue, mimic scenes,

In "Conversations of Hetaerae" situations are reproduced such as middle and new comedy with their constant motives of pandering, training young hetairas, their mutual rivalry, love and jealousy for "young men". The mythological themes in "Conversations of the Gods" and in "Sea Conversations" receive the same development.

Lucian makes the mythological plot the subject of everyday intimate conversation between the gods. achieves a caricature effect by the very fact of transferring the mythological plot to the everyday sphere. The myth turns out to be absurd and contradictory, the gods - petty, insignificant, immoral. Numerous love renderings turn into a "scandalous chronicle" of Olympus; the existence of the Olympians is filled with love tricks, gossip, mutual reproaches, the gods complain about the arrogance of Zeus and the fact that they have to perform all sorts of servile duties for him.

The image of Prometheus attracted Lucian more than once. In the dialogue “Prometheus, or the Caucasus”, the situation of “Chained Prometheus” by Aeschylus is reproduced, and Prometheus’s sophistically constructed defensive speech turns into an indictment against Zeus in the name of reason and morality. for Lucian this served only as a prelude to a more serious and sharper critique of religion and the vulgar philosophy that supported religion.

By the 60s. 2nd century there has been a departure from Lucian sophistry. Philosophy begins to attract him. The theories of philosophers, however, interested the satirist Lucian not in positive teachings, to which he treated with ironic doubt, but in their critical side, as an instrument of enlightenment struggle against religious and moral prejudices.

Lucian's satire takes on a pronounced philosophical bias. Its main objects are religious superstition, Stoic theology with its doctrine of divine providence and oracles (pp. 194, 237), the emptiness and insignificance of human aspirations for wealth and power, the whims of the rich, the dogmatism of vulgar philosophers, their unworthy way of life, their vanity and envy, strife and servility.

In the face of death, everything turns out to be insignificant, beauty and wealth, fame and power - only a cynic arrives in hell with a smile, retaining his "freedom of spirit and freedom of speech, carelessness, nobility and laughter." Against the teachings of divine providence, foresight and retribution, "Zeus indicted" is directed.

One of the most colorful anti-religious satires of Lucian is “Tragic Zeus”. Along with anti-religious satire, Lucian often has satire directed against philosophers.

The hypocrisy of the philosophers, their rudeness, greed and gluttony are depicted in the dialogue "The Feast", and the pamphlet "On the Salary" gives a vivid picture of the humiliation to which the "domestic philosophers" who were in the service of the nobility were subjected.

The sharpness of social satire is, however, a relatively rare phenomenon in Lucian. His satire is distinguished by grace and wit, but not by the depth of capture! A clear, simply unfolding satirical plot, clarity of literary intent, variety and ease of presentation, witty, ironic argumentation, lively, entertaining narration, an inexhaustible abundance of expressive means, colors, images, comparisons, all these are the indisputable merits of Lucian's works, but he lacks the depth of the ideological content. The most important drawback of Lucian's satire is the absence of a positive program.

His satire skims the surface of social life, avoiding "dangerous" topics; The inevitable historical limitations of Lucian's satire and his lack of a positive program should not, however, obscure the fact that Lucian was one of the most free-thinking minds of his time. Despite his sophistical upbringing, he did not succumb to the reactionary moods common in sophistry. Lucian was not an original thinker; the ideological weapons that he used were created by others long before him, but he devoted his remarkable literary talent to the unceasing struggle against superstition, quackery and posturing, resurrecting the best traditions of Hellenic culture.

In the last period of Lucian's literary activity, this struggle took on even more acute forms. The theme is getting more and more modern. The satirist departs from the dialogic form, which forced him to act in the mask of one of the interlocutors, and turns to a pamphlet-letter, speaking directly on his own behalf.

Lucian repeatedly spoke with pamphlets and on purely literary issues. In The Teacher of Eloquence, he paid off sophistry by drawing a caricature image of a fashionable orator, an impudent and ignorant charlatan;

Under the name of Lucian, 80 works have been preserved; some of them are erroneously attributed to Lucian, and in other cases the question of authenticity is disputed. To this last category of disputed writings belongs, among other things, Lucius, or the Ass, an abridged account of a novel about a man turned into a donkey. The novel is also known to us in a more complete Latin edition: these are the famous Metamorphoses by Apuleius, and in the section devoted to this writer, we will return to the work that came down under the name of Lucian.

Lucian was too militant a figure not to arouse the hatred of both sophists and religious figures. Lucian's brilliant satires influenced the literature of medieval Byzantium. From the 15th century he became one of the favorite authors of the humanists. Lucian was also inspired by humanistic satire [Erasmus, Hutten, in France Deperier ("Cymbal of the World")] and the satire of the Enlightenment, and The True Story served as a prototype for Rabelais and Swift.

48. MORAL-PHILOSOPHICAL SOUND AND POETICS OF APULEI'S NOVEL "METAMAPHOSES", OR "THE GOLDEN ASSE"

The philosopher Apuleius is fascinated by mystical cults and is initiated into various "mysteries". But first of all, he is a "sophist",

Philosopher, sophist and magician, Apuleius is a characteristic phenomenon of his time. His work is extremely varied. He writes in Latin and Greek, composes speeches, philosophical and natural science works, poetic works in various genres.

The legend of a man turned into an animal by the spell of a sorceress and regained his human form is found in numerous versions among various peoples.

In Apuleius, the plot is expanded by numerous episodes in which the hero takes a personal part, and by a number of inserted short stories that are not directly connected with the plot and are introduced as stories about what was seen and heard before and after the transformation.

“Pay attention, reader: you will have fun,” - with these words the introductory chapter of Metamorphoses ends. The author promises to entertain the reader, but also pursues a moralizing goal. The ideological concept of the novel is revealed only in the last book, when the lines between the hero and the author begin to blur. The plot receives an allegorical interpretation, in which the moral side is complicated by the teachings of the religion of the sacraments. The stay of the reasonable Lucius in the skin becomes an allegory of sensual life.

Thus, the second vice, the perniciousness of which can be illustrated by the novel, joins sensuality - "curiosity", the desire to arbitrarily penetrate into the hidden mysteries of the supernatural. But even more important for Apuleius is the other side of the issue. A sensual person is a slave of "blind fate"; he who has overcome sensuality in the religion of initiation "celebrates victory over fate." Lucius, before initiation, does not cease to be a plaything of insidious fate; Lucius' life after initiation moves systematically, according to the prescription of the deity, from the lowest level to the highest.

however, satirical purposes are not alien to him. The donkey mask of the hero opened up wide possibilities for a satirical depiction of morals: "people, regardless of my presence, freely spoke and acted as they wanted."

A huge number of small strokes are scattered throughout the novel, depicting various layers of provincial society in various settings, and Apuleius is not limited to the comic-everyday side; he does not hide the hard exploitation of slaves, the difficult situation of small landowners, and the arbitrariness of the administration. Descriptions related to religion and theater have great cultural and historical value.

We find rich folklore and novelistic material in episodes and inserted parts.

In this motley and colorful picture, a large inserted story about Cupid and Psyche stands out.

The amazing beauty of the youngest of three daughters, her appointed marriage with a terrible monster, the husband’s magical palace with invisible servants, the mysterious husband who visits his wife at night and forbids looking at himself in the light, the violation of the ban at the instigation of insidious sisters, the search for the disappeared husband, who turned out to be a charming boy , revenge on the sisters, wanderings and slavish service of the heroine, performing difficult tasks with the assistance of wonderful assistants, her death and resurrection - all this fabulous ligature is evident in Apuleius.

The fall of Psyche, the result of the ill-fated "curiosity", makes her a victim of evil forces, dooms her to suffering and wandering until the final deliverance comes by the grace of the supreme deity - in this respect, Psyche is similar to the main character Lukiy.

Lucian began his literary career as a student of the rhetorical school and an itinerant reciter. His first works were rhetorical exercises, recitations. Political eloquence, which once played an important role in the Roman Republic, has long since lost its importance in Lucian's time. The political center of the Roman Empire was not the forum, but the imperial palace. Needless to say, that in the provinces of the empire, especially with the strict centralization of power that Trajan established, and even under other Caesars, one could not even think of any political eloquence. The old schools of rhetoric continued to exist, but their vital importance as an institution was reduced to a minimum, if not completely lost. In the Asian provinces, the schools of rhetoric were Greek, but the teaching in them differed little from the Latin schools, an idea of ​​which is given by the mentions of Petronius, Tacitus, Juvenal, and the samples of Quintilian's recitations.
A typical rhetorical exercise, drawn up in accordance with all school recipes, is Lucian's speech, entitled "Disinherited."
In the same way, on a predetermined situation, usual for rhetorical exercises, the speech "Tyrankiller" is built. Someone intended to kill the tyrant, but killed his son and left a dagger in the body of the slain. Seeing his son dead, the tyrant stabs himself with the same dagger. The murderer of his son proves his right to be called a tyrannicide, and the whole speech is a chain of his reasoning and evidence. Like "Disinherited", "The Tyrant Killer" is an example of the so-called paradox - rhetorical proof of the correctness of the speaker in a difficult, confusing situation. According to the same principle, Lucian built two speeches in defense of the Sicilian tyrant Falaris: the first on behalf of Falaris, the second on behalf of another person.
If this kind of speech can still be considered as preparatory exercises for speaking in court, although their content is too far-fetched and far from real life, then the so-called prolalia (entry into a conversation) is a completely self-sufficient type of eloquence. These introductions are devoid of any connection with the forthcoming speech of the speaker. The wandering orator tells some entertaining story (in Lucian this is most often a story from the distant past of Greece), only to demonstrate his skill to the listeners in the course of the story and make a graceful transition to a request for the attention and indulgence of the audience.
Among the prolalia are such works as "Scythian, or Friend in a Foreign Land", "Herodotus, or Aetius", "Hermonides", "About Amber, or About Swans". In the Scythian, often resorting to the form of a dialogue, Lucian tells how, in the time of Solon, the Scythian Anacharsis arrived in Athens. Here he met his compatriot Toxarides, who not only offered him friendship, but also won him the favor of Solon. Having outlined the story of Anacharsis, Lucian addresses his listeners (this speech, as can be seen from the quote below, was delivered in Macedonia): my story to Macedonia.
So, I declare that almost the same thing happened to me as to Anacharsis "(" Scythian, or Friend in a Foreign Land, "9). that he himself had already secured the friendship of local influential people.
The "Harmonides" speech was delivered by Lucian at the Olympic Games. It tells how the music teacher Timothy, in response to the request of his student, the flutist Harmonides, to show him the path to glory, advises, first of all, to achieve the recognition of the most respected people, since the crowd "in any case will follow those who know how to judge better." The whole story about Timothy and Harmonides, on the one hand, prepares Lucian's address to his patron and the Olympian audience, and on the other hand, introduces the listeners to the orator.
But already in the early works of Lucian, still in the power of rhetoric, one can distinguish the makings of a future satirist. Lucian does not yet experience the distaste for rhetoric that he will later claim. But he is already parodying rhetoric, bringing its methods to the point of absurdity. Lucian's laughter has not yet been directed against false prophets and false philosophers, against the old and new religion, everyday material has not yet entered his works. But a break with rhetoric in the name of satire is already looming. Such works as "Praise to the Fly" and "Court of Vowels" are extremely indicative. "Praise to the fly" parodies the rhetorical genre of enkomiya (eulogy). True, such parodies were themselves a special genre. Such parodies were written, for example, by the convinced rhetorician Fronto, who called them trifles, nonsense. But for Lucian, these parodies had a special meaning. Their techniques organically entered his work, became an integral part of his technique for constructing comic scenes. So, later, in "Prometheus, or the Caucasus", Lucian makes Prometheus build a speech against Zeus according to all the rules of oratory. The rhetorical reasoning in the mouths of the gods was in Lucian calculated to arouse the reader's laughter.
Let us return, however, to the Praise of the Fly and the Court of Vowels. "Praise of the fly" is composed according to all the rules of eulogy. One by one, the properties of this insect are described, Homer's references to flies are listed, and corresponding quotations from comic and tragic poetry are given. The serious tone is not disturbed by anything, and this seriousness, even sublimity, of praise for a small harmful insect not only demonstrates Lucian's brilliant declamatory skill, but also discredits the entire rhetorical arsenal. If "Praise to the Fly" parodies eulogies, then "Court of Vowels" is a parody of judicial eloquence.
There is no everyday element in these parodies. They are entirely bookish. Apparently, they appeared at the height of Lucian's rhetorical work, when he was not yet aware of his dissatisfaction with rhetoric, and when, laughing at its monotonous formulas, he himself had not yet gone beyond their framework. These parodies should not be exaggerated. It is very likely that, simultaneously with "Praise to the Fly", "Court of Vowels", such an essay as, for example, "About the House" appeared - a kind of combination of laudatory eloquence with judicial. The content of this work is praise to a certain luxurious house, pronounced on behalf of two persons who only superficially resemble litigants, since the speeches of both are aimed at the same thing - the glorification of the house. They are more competitive than arguing sides. The speech of the second is not a refutation, but, as it were, an addition to the praises of the first. Praises, as usual in writings of this kind, are supported by references to Homer. However, in this one, built according to general rules work, there is one purely Lucian feature - a description of the wall painting of the house. Lucian generally willingly describes paintings and statues. These descriptions are very expressive, they reflect the author's youthful studies in fine arts. “The difficulty of what I dare,” says one of those praising the house, “you see for yourself: without colors and outlines, outside of space, to create such pictures - verbal painting has few means for this task” (“On the House”, 21). In another work written in the prolalia genre, Zeuxis, the central place is occupied by the description of the painting by the artist Zeuxis.
Thus, already in the rhetorical works of Lucian, certain stylistic features are outlined (humorous tone, picturesque descriptions, predilection for dialogue), which will be developed in the future, in the course of the ideological enrichment of his work.
Rhetorical formulas, verbal patterns, outwardly brilliant and devoid of deep content, satisfy Lucian less and less. The writer wanted to speak "like a human being" ("Twice Accused", 34). “I saw how rhetoric decorates itself, combs her hair like hetaerae, rubs herself with blush and makes up her eyes ... I began to treat her suspiciously” (ibid., 31). Lucian himself, talking about the beginning of a new stage in his work, says that he changed his rhetoric and turned to dialogue. For ancient literature, in general, it is characteristic that certain formal features of the literary genre are attached to a certain content. Therefore, if only this testimony of Lucian about his transition to dialogue had come down to us, and the dialogues themselves had not come down, we would have to assume that a new content had flowed into the writer's work.
The turning point, the formal, external expression of which was the transition from prolalia and "paradoxes" to dialogic scenes, marks Lucian's turn to ideological questions; here, in fact, begins the original and significant of his work.
Since the time of Socrates, dialogue has become a form of philosophical reasoning. In “Twice Accused”, condemning the Syrian (that is, Lucian), the personified Dialogue sees his main fault in the transformation of the genre: “Until now, my attention has been drawn to the sublime: I have been thinking about the gods, then high under the clouds, where the great Zeus, driving a winged chariot, rushes in the sky. And the Syrian dragged me from there, when I was already directing the flight to the arch of the universe and ascended to the surface of the sky, he broke my wings and made me live the same way as he lives crowd. He took away the tragic, sad mask and put on me instead of it another, comic and satirical, almost comical. Then he ... introduced into me mockery, iambs, the speeches of cynics, the words of Eupolis and Aristophanes ... Finally, he dug out and set on me some Menippus, from among the ancient Cynics ... "(33). This passage contains a valuable indication of Lucian himself, not only on the nature of the changes he made to the dialogue, but also on the known order of introducing these changes, which helps us to establish the sequence of his dialogic works.
As can be seen from this quotation, Lucian came to the doctrine of the Cynics later, and immediately after the break with rhetoric turned to satire. It was during this period that he wrote such works as "Prometheus, or the Caucasus", "Conversations of the Gods", "Sea Conversations", "Conversations of Geters" - works whose heroes, regardless of whether they are people or the Olympian gods, live so, "how the crowd lives."
In "Conversations of the Gods" the image of the Olympians reached the limit of anthropomorphism. Lucian here takes mythological plots and, describing everything as it happens in reality, discredits the fiction of mythology. Horace advised the tragedians to avoid showing some mythological events in their faces, which, if presented in full detail, would reveal their inconsistency with earthly reality and lose their tragic coloring. For example, Medea should not kill children in front of the public, Atreus should not cook human meat, Procne should not turn into a bird, etc. Such things, Horace teaches, should not be brought on stage. Lucian does just the opposite. In all the actions of the gods, he brings a maximum of routine and "brings onto the stage", for example, the birth of Athena from the head of Zeus ("Zeus and Hephaestus").
Such a deliberate "reduction" of mythological images was encountered in Greek literature even before Lucian. Euripides emphasized in his tragedies the most absurd and rude places of myths. The founder of the so-called Doric comedy, Epicharmus (5th century BC), subjected the Homeric epic to a satirical retelling, travesty. The envious and petty Zeus of Lucian is very similar to the epicharmic Zeus, who at the wedding feast did not hesitate to demand the best pieces for himself. A lot of mockery of mythology was in the comedies of Aristophanes.
But in the era of the decay of the Greek polis, all these emphasizing mythological traditions that were most unfavorable for the gods expressed only doubt about the moral correctness of the gods and had not yet taken the form of an open mockery of the old religion. Lucian acted as the successor of these traditions of Greek literature in different historical conditions. It was in Lucian's writings that her anti-religious jet swelled with a powerful key.
Perhaps the immediate impetus that caused this mocking decline in the images of gods and heroes was a disgust for rhetoric with its "high" plots and mythological accessories. But whatever the immediate impetus, the very possibility of such a mockery of the gods could arise in an era when, in the eyes of the broad masses, the old religion had lost its former authority. That is why, by mocking the gods, boldly introducing into literature this new attitude towards the old religion, Lucian was in essence responding to one of the important social problems of his time.
Soon after Lucian's departure from rhetoric, "Prometheus, or the Caucasus" was written - a conversation between Hermes, Hephaestus and Prometheus. Hermes and Hephaestus chain Prometheus to a rock. Prometheus makes a speech against Zeus, and this speech seems convincing even to Hermes and Hephaestus, who play the role of Zeus' executioners. "I am ashamed of Zeus," says Prometheus, "he is so petty and vindictive." Among the offenses of Prometheus, for which he was condemned by Zeus to eternal torment, was that when he divided the sacrificial meat, he took the best pieces for himself. Prometheus sets people as an example to Zeus: “Meanwhile, how good-natured people are to such things, and yet, it would seem, they should be much ruder in anger than the gods! However, among them there is no one who would sentence the cook to execution if if, while cooking meat, he dipped his finger into the broth or snatched off a piece of roast. No, people forgive this "(ch. 10). Zeus appears just as petty and cowardly in the first of the Conversations of the Gods, which represents the dialogue between Prometheus and Zeus, and in other Conversations. He is not only petty, cowardly and cruel, but also lustful ("Eros and Zeus", "Zeus and Hermes", "Zeus and Ganymede"), treats people with contempt ("Zeus, Asclepius and Hercules"), jealous (" Hera and Zeus). Match Zeus and other gods. They behave like people, but people are insignificant, vindictive and envious. Prometheus, as we have just seen, opposed people to Zeus. “The gods of Greece,” wrote Marx, “who had already been mortally wounded once—in a tragic form—in Aeschylus’s Chained Prometheus, had to die again—in a comic form—in Lucian’s Discourses.
In the light of the "Conversations of the Gods" scattered in different places, the opposition of people to the gods acquires special meaning another cycle of dialogic scenes - "Conversations of Hetaerae". Bourgeois criticism of the West saw in "Conversations of Hetaerae" a simple imitation of comedy and mimes. Indeed, in their everyday content, in their purely Hellenistic coloring, these dialogues are reminiscent of the new comedy of Menander, similar to the comedies of Terentius.
But in Lucian's dialogues there is no intricate plot intrigue that played a significant role in comedy, and the images of hetaerae are devoid of the cliché characteristic of comedy, and are revealed psychologically. The comedy always ended with a happy denouement, the storylines outlined at the beginning intertwined and were resolved at the end. For Lucian, it is much more important to outline and psychologically reveal the conflict than to resolve it. Lucian's focus is on human characters. If the gods in the "Conversations of the Gods" hid their unseemly deeds behind Olympian grandeur and rhetorical reasoning, then the heroes of the "Conversations of the Geteres" do not embellish their actions in any way and, unlike the gods, often turn out to be kind and fair. Hetera Philinna does not want to come to terms with insults from her patron ("Filinna and her mother"). Unlike Zeus, who does not feel the slightest shame at the mention of his love affairs, hetaera Leena is ashamed to talk about her relationship with a wealthy lesbian ("Clonaria and Lena"). Hetera Musaria prefers a poor but beloved young man to a rich patron ("Mother and Musaria"). In general, the main point of "Conversations of Hetaira" is poverty and human dignity. At a time of ever-increasing impoverishment of the broad masses of the free population, this was an important modern problem. That is why "Conversations of Hetaerae" cannot be interpreted as a simple imitation of old models. In contrasting the gods with people, in posing the problem: "poverty and human dignity" is the connection between the "Conversations of Hetaerae" and the anti-religious works of Lucian, and with the writings that were the result of his philosophical searches.
The Conversations of the Gods, which still retain traces of rhetorical training, are adjacent in content to the Conversations of the Sea, written, however, much more lively: there are no such long monologues as in the Conversations of the Gods, the dialogue is livelier, there are no rhetorical questions. "Sea Talks" is a further debunking of mythological characters. If in "Prometheus, or the Caucasus" Lucian, as it were, sprinkled salt on the wound inflicted on the Greek gods by Aeschylus, then in one of the "Sea Conversations" - the dialogue "Cyclops and Poseidon" - he chooses for processing that place from Homer, where the mythological characters are compared with people they appear as rude and stupid creatures. Lucian mocks the stupidity of the Cyclops Polyphemus by reproducing his complaints to Poseidon about Odysseus.
In another dialogue - "Menelaus and Proteus" - Lucian ridicules the myth of the transformations of the sea god Proteus on the Egyptian island of Pharos. Distrust of myth and a mocking attitude towards it is personified by Menelaus, although a mythological character, but, like Odysseus, a mortal, not a god. Menelaus says regarding the transformation of Proteus into fire: "I do not argue, I myself saw it, but, speaking between us, it seems to me that some kind of witchcraft is involved in this matter, that is, that you, remaining the same, are only a deception vision, you act on the viewer" (ch. 1).
Lucian poses the problem of poverty, wealth and human dignity in Timon, or the Misanthrope. The large size of the monologues (especially Timon's very first monologue), the long periods of speech indicate that this work belongs to the period of Lucian's work that followed his rhetorical activity. The problem outlined in the "Conversations of Hetaerae" is posed here more clearly, and quite real material, taken directly from modern reality, is used to resolve it. The impoverished Timon is abandoned by his friends. Dressed in sheepskin, he cultivates foreign land with a hoe for a miserable fee. Timon complains to Zeus. By the way, we note that Lucian inserts a direct mockery of Zeus into this complaint: “... no one now sacrifices to you and decorates your images with wreaths, unless someone accidentally does this in Olympia; and even he does not consider it very necessary, but only fulfills some ancient custom" (ch. 4). "Timon, or the Misanthrope" has much in common with "Plutos" by Aristophanes. But for Aristophanes, the absence of people's fear of Zeus and other gods was the same utopia as the insight of the blind god Plutos. Lucian, on the contrary, speaks of people's disrespect for Zeus as a completely natural and real phenomenon.
It turns out that Plutos left Timon because of his excessive kindness and extravagance. At the request of Hermes, Plutos places the treasure under Timon's hoe. Friends who have turned away from him return to Timon again, but now he drives them away. The whole scene is not an apology for misanthropy (it is written in the most cheerful tone), but a satire on flatterers, hookers, including "philosophers" (ch. 54), on wealthy freedmen (ch. 22 and 23), that is, as times for common social types of that time. In addition, we find here, natural for a native of the working environment, such as Lucian, the opposition of wealth to honest poverty. “As soon as someone, having met me,” says Plutos, “opens the door in front of me to receive me, then blindness, ignorance, swagger, licentiousness, insolence, deceit and a thousand similar shortcomings sneak in with me unnoticed” (ch. 28 ). On the contrary, the companions of poverty are Prudence and Labor (ch. 32). This work is also interesting as an attack on rhetoric. To Plutos' proposal to make a defensive speech before Timon, the latter replies that he agrees to listen to a speech, "only not long and without prefaces, like those of swindlers-rhetors" (ch. 37).
Clear evidence of Lucian's final break with rhetoric, with empty verbal play, was such works as The Teacher of Eloquence and Leksifan, or Krasnobay.
AT " preparatory work on the history of Epicurean, Stoic and skeptical philosophy" Marx, speaking of the unpopularity of the first Greek sages, pre-Socratic philosophers, pointed out the fragility of the authority of the Olympic religion, its connection with a certain period of Greek history. people with divine truth, hidden in the twilight inherent in an unknown force, only as long as the clear power of the Greek spirit itself was proclaimed from the Pythian tripod ... ". In the 2nd century AD, the times when this religion enjoyed authority in the broad folk masses, receded into the area of ​​the distant past. Lucian, who in his work touched upon such issues as wealth, poverty, distrust of the old religion, had to, both as a man of his time and as a writer, seek a philosophical basis for his worldview. In the eyes of Lucian, who was distinguished by rationalistic mindset that did not want to accept myths about gods and heroes on faith, Christians, as we will see below, were only you are carriers of one of the varieties of superstition. The Stoic school and the Epicurean school were compromised by the way of life of their adherents. The philosophy of Plato, with its abstract ideal of "kalokagatia" - virtue in all respects, coming from Socrates, did not give an ethical understanding of the problems that were urgent for Lucian. This idealistic philosophy, which grew up in an aristocratic milieu alien to Lucian, could not nourish the work of a rationalist critic. Much more consonant with the needs of Lucian was the teaching of the Cynics.
Antisthenes, who lived in the second half of the 4th century BC, is considered the founder of the Cynic school. BC e. Cynic philosophy arose during the decline of the Greek polis, after the Peloponnesian War. This philosophy to a certain extent corresponded to the mood of poor free citizens and slaves, whose position after the Peloponnesian War was extremely difficult. The ethics of the Cynics reflects the dissatisfaction of the disadvantaged masses with the wealth and luxury of the ruling elite. The Cynics of this period rejected wealth, art, science, religion, seeing in all this the same obstacle to the moral autonomy of the individual. The plight of the poor in Lucian's time, the bankruptcy of the old religion, the decline of the arts, the pursuit of money and pleasure by the "philosophers" all created fertile ground for recourse to Cynic doctrine. During the search for a philosophical credo, Lucian wrote the dialogue Hermotimus, or On the Choice of Philosophy. The characters in the dialogue are Germotimus, who has taken up the study of Stoic philosophy, and Likin. Likin is clearly the positive hero of all the dialogues in which he participates, and therefore he expresses the views of the author. Likin proves to Hermotimus that the philosophy of the Stoics is no better than any other philosophy. Likin does not at all give preference to Cynic philosophy; he simply names the school of Antisthenes and Diogenes among other philosophical schools. True, we will not find such unflattering references to the Cynics in the dialogue as the Epicureans (“greedy for pleasures”), Peripatetics (“selfish and great debaters”), Platonists (“arrogant and ambitious”), Stoics (teacher Hermotimus is greedy and evil old man), but in "Hermotimus" there are still no signs of enthusiasm for Cynic philosophy, which we will see in other, obviously, later works.
In the Menippus dialogue we also find ridicule at the philosophers. These mockeries are put into the mouth of Menippus, a Cynic writer of the 3rd century BC. BC e., and reflect the attitude of the Cynics to various philosophical schools.
From Diogenes Laertes we know that the focus of attention of philosophers was questions of ethics; they denied logic and physics. Menippus, whose opinion is apparently shared by Lucian (since the main role in the dialogue belongs to Menippus, and not to his interlocutor Philonides), says about the philosophers: "... Every day, ad nauseam, I heard from them opinions about ideas and incorporeal entities about atoms and about the void and about a whole host of similar things.And the most insufferable thing of all was that each one gave decisive and most convincing arguments in defense of his exclusive opinion, so that there was nothing to object either to the one who proved that the given object was hot or to the one who asserted the opposite, but meanwhile it is obvious that one and the same thing cannot be both hot and cold at the same time" (ch. 4). In addition, Menippus accuses philosophers of "praising the neglect of wealth, while they themselves are firmly attached to it" (ch. 5). Menippus tells Philonides that in search of truth he went to the underworld, since philosophy could not show him the right path of behavior. This is followed by a series of hilarious mockery of mythological characters. In the underworld, Menippus was a witness to the "people's meeting" of the dead, but in the decision of this meeting there was nothing comforting for the seeker of truth. The decree read: “In view of the fact that the rich, committing robberies, violence and in every way annoying the poor, act in many ways contrary to the laws, the council and the people decided: let their bodies be tormented after death, like other criminals, and let their souls be sent back on the ground..." (Ch. 20). And only the shadow of Tiresias rescued Menippus, whispering in his ear that "the best life is the life of ordinary people" (ch. 21), that you need to take care only of the conveniences in the present and not be firmly attached to anything.
Thus, following the cynic Menippus, Lucian does not solve the problem of moral behavior in the conditions of the existence of rich and poor, but removes it, thus creating the appearance of solving the problem. In essence, the philosophy of the Cynic Menippus, as it appears before us in the words of Tiresias, differs little from the philosophy of the Stoics, against which Lucian spoke with such fervor in Hermotimus.
A very great similarity with the dialogue just analyzed is revealed by the dialogue - "Icaromenippus, or Transcendental Flight." In it, Menippus tells how he went to heaven, to Zeus, in search of truth. Here again we meet familiar mockery of philosophers, especially harsh ones - of natural philosophers. The latter, according to Menippe, are engaged in a completely useless business, while the pressing questions of human behavior are waiting for their resolution. Even Selena (the moon) is indignant at natural philosophy: “I am outraged by the endless and absurd chatter of philosophers who have no other concern than to interfere in my affairs, to talk about what I am, what are my dimensions, why sometimes I am a crescent moon, and sometimes I have the shape of a sickle" ("Icaromenippus", 20). Zeus promises to destroy all philosophers and makes an exception for Menippus, but takes away his wings to deprive him of the opportunity to appear in heaven. Through the whole work passes the thought of the insignificance and fragility of earthly goods. Teiresias's idea that one should only care about convenience in the present and not be firmly attached to anything is, as it were, illustrated by a number of examples. Menippus looks at the earth from a height and is amazed at the insignificance of everything that is on earth: “And I thought about what trifles the pride of our rich people is based on: indeed, the largest landowner, it seemed to me, processes only one Epicurian atom” (ibid. , eighteen). In Icaromenippus, Menippus mocks the absurdity of human prayers, and if in the previous dialogue the cynic sympathetically repeated the thought of Tiresias, which is very similar to the thought of the Stoic Marcus Aurelius, then here the cynic’s reasoning about the absurdity of human desires and prayers again resembles the thoughts of the Stoics. Thus, the doctrine that opposed wealth to honest and independent poverty, and this attracted Lucian, was essentially limited to an abstract moral preaching, in general, merging with the same preaching of other philosophical schools. Cynic philosophy, which undoubtedly reflected the protest of the poor against the material inequality of citizens, placed the source of liberation within man, and not outside him. Cynic contempt for material goods, for art, raises doubts in Lucian, and although in a conversation between Cynic and Likin the last word remains with Cynic, Likin for a moment instills in Cynic uncertainty about his own rightness ("Cynic", 5 and 6) :
Likin.... A life deprived of all these benefits is a miserable life, even if a person is deprived of them by someone else, like those who are in prison. But even more pathetic is the one who deprives himself of everything that is beautiful: this is already obvious madness.
Cynic. Well? Maybe you are right...
The Conversations in the Realm of the Dead also belong to the same period of Menippe's fascination. The themes of this cycle of dialogues were encountered by Lucian before. This is again wealth h poverty, the hypocrisy of philosophers, the absurdity of myths about the afterlife. Cynic philosophers Diogenes, Menippus and Crates act as positive characters in these dialogues. Diogenes addresses the rich in the realm of the dead. Croesus, Midas and Sardanapal mourn their treasures, and Menippus gloats: "You forced to prostrate yourself, offended free people, but did not remember death at all; so here you are: roar, having lost everything" ("Pluto or against Menippus", 2). Lucian, who in his lifetime has seen many flatterers and hypocrites posing as philosophers, distrusts the reputation of the sage so much that he makes the shadow of Alexander the Great complain to Diogenes about Aristotle. Alexander calls Aristotle a jester, a comedian and a flatterer who dreamed only of gifts. Socrates also gets it: Kerber tells Menippus that Socrates' contempt for death turned out to be false, that in Hades he wept like a child, began to grieve for his children and finally lost his temper. And only Diogenes, Menippus and Crates behave like true philosophers, maintaining a dispassionately contemptuous attitude towards the environment and among the dead of the underworld.
In "The Crossing, or Tyranny", a work not included in "Conversations in the Realm of the Dead", but adjoining them, the poor shoemaker Mikyll and the philosopher Cyniscus (no doubt a cynic) show complete contempt for death. In another dialogue (“Zeus indicted”), Kinisk expresses the idea that the gods are in a worse position than people, since death brings liberation to people, and the gods are immortal. Zeus objects to Kinisk: "This eternity and infinity is full of bliss for us, and our life is surrounded by all sorts of joys." “Not for everyone, Zeus,” replies Kinisk, “there is no equality and order among you in this matter. For example, you are blessed because you are a king ... But Hephaestus is lame and, moreover, an ordinary artisan, blacksmith. .." ("Zeus incriminated", 8).
Not preaching contempt for life, cynical "moral autonomy" and the renunciation of desires, but a satire on dilapidated mythological props and the false wisdom of hypocritical philosophers, a sharp opposition of the poor to the rich, all these works are strong. Lucian appears in them not as a rhetorician, but as a satirist writer, responding in his own way to contemporary social problems.
Having parted with rhetoric and combined, as he himself puts it, philosophical dialogue and comedy, Lucian sums up all his work. Such a final, self-critical work was the answer "To the man who called the author the Prometheus of eloquence." "You call me Prometheus. If it's because my works are also made of clay, then I recognize this comparison and agree that it really is similar to the model" (ch. I). Such a beginning is not just an expression of the author's modesty. Lucian is troubled by the outlandish form of his writings. "The fact that my work is composed of two parts - a philosophical dialogue and a comedy, which are beautiful in themselves - this is still not enough for the beauty of the whole" (5). But Lucian is much more concerned about the content of his works. He fears that they owe their success only to formal innovations. Most important, however, is that the philosophical significance of his own writings seems dubious to Lucian; he saves himself that the Menippean and Diogenes doctrines are not an organic part of his writings, but a cover for cheerful satire. “And I’m even more afraid of something else: that I might seem, perhaps, Prometheus, for I deceived my listeners and slipped them the bones, covered with fat, that is, I presented comic laughter hidden under philosophical importance” (ch. 7). This statement by Lucian himself regarding the philosophical content of his writings testifies to the writer's deep doubts about the validity of those positions of the Cynics, which he cited as the highest wisdom. In the conditions of acute social contradictions, "moral autonomy" quickly revealed its failure to Lucian, and Diogenes, who appeared in "Conversations in the Kingdom of the Dead" as a sage full of dignity and self-control, now turns out to be the same object of satirical laughter, like representatives of other philosophical teachings. If until now Lucian's laughter directed against the Olympian gods, pseudo-philosophers and the rich, was, to use the expression of Lucian, covered up by the philosophical importance that Cynic philosophy gave him, now Lucian ceases to care about the philosophical cover-up of his satire.
In The Sale of Lives, Zeus and Hermes arrange an auction of the lives of philosophers of all sorts. After selling the life of Pythagoras, it is Diogenes' turn. Lucian makes Diogenes expose his philosophy: “What you should have most of all is this: you must be rude and impudent and scold both kings and honest people in the same way, because then they will look at you with respect and consider you courageous. Let your voice be rough, like a barbarian, and your speech muffled and artless, like a dog. You must have a concentrated expression on your face and a gait corresponding to this, but in general you should be wild and in every way like a beast. Shame , a sense of decency and moderation should be absent: wipe the ability to blush forever from your face "(ch. 10).
In The Fisherman, or the Risen from the Coffins, Lucian, referring to Diogenes, says that he first came to admiration for his philosophy and the teachings of other philosophers and built his life in accordance with these teachings. "But then," Lucian continues, "I saw that many were obsessed with love not for philosophy, but only for the fame it brings ... Then I was indignant ..." (ch. 31). In other words, no matter how excellent the intentions of Diogenes and Menippus, following their teachings in practice does not justify itself. It was during this period of reassessment of Cynic philosophy that Lucian wrote the letter "On the Death of Peregrinus" - a work that Engels especially noted as a valuable testimony about the first Christians. Peregrine is a libertine and a parricide who speculated on the ignorance and superstition of the common people, surrounding himself with an aura of holiness and chosenness in order to achieve glory. About the Christians, from whom the charlatan Peregrinus achieved support and popularity, Lucian tells without any malice. In the eyes of Lucian, Christians are downtrodden, superstitious people who are entirely in the grip of strange prejudices and are incapable of demanding reasonable proof from their teachers of the law that they are right. Treating Christians as gullible simpletons, Lucian pours out his indignation at the cynics, who, with a selfish goal, extol the charlatans and hope to gain popularity with their help (cf. the image of the cynic Theagenes, herald of Peregrine's "feats"). As for Peregrine himself, he is not a Christian or a cynic, but a seeker of adventure and glory, without any convictions. In denouncing Peregrinus, Lucian directed his satire not just against religious obscurantism and superstition as such, but against a certain type of itinerant charlatan preacher, very common in those days. The story of Peregrine's death is an extremely topical work. Christian bourgeois criticism of modern times explained Lucian's irreverent tone towards Christians by his lack of knowledge of the teachings of Christ. But, as the entire creative path of Lucian shows, any doctrine that requires acceptance on faith is condemned by the writer in advance.
It was this intolerant attitude towards any kind of superstition that was the reason for Lucian's several enthusiastic statements about Epicurus, the great ancient materialist who denied the intervention of the gods in the lives of people. Lucian's satire, enlightening in character, was consonant with the ethical teachings of Epicurus, this "greatest Greek enlightener". In one of the anti-Olympic works of Lucian - "Zeus the Tragedian", the god of mockery Mom declares that "there is nothing to be angry with either Epicurus or his students and followers" (ch. 19) for their thoughts about the celestials, and gives a number of examples illustrating Epicurovo the position of non-intervention of the gods in the lives of people.
Above we have already spoken about Lucian's speech against the Paphlagonian false prophet Alexander. Lucian wrote a revealing biography of this rogue "Alexander, or the False Prophet", somewhat reminiscent of the story of the tricks of Peregrine. Realizing that "human life is in the power of two of the greatest masters - hope and fear - and that the one who knows how to use both as needed will get rich very soon (ch. 8), Alexander began to speculate on the ignorance of the common people, posing as a soothsayer Lucian describes in detail and exposes one after another the tricks of the false prophet, noting that Alexander saw the main enemy in the Epicureans who discredited him. nature, which alone without error cognized the beautiful, taught it and became the liberator of all who had communion with it "(ch. 61).
Traces of the teachings of Epicurus about ataraxia and the distinction between human needs in terms of their naturalness and obligatory satisfaction can be seen in the dialogue "Dream, or Rooster". Along the way, ridiculing the belief in the transmigration of souls and the Pythagorean prohibition of eating beans as ridiculous superstitions, laughing at the story of the talking keel of the Argo ship and other myths, Lucian solves the problem of attitudes towards poverty in the spirit of the teaching that human bliss lies in serenity spirit and satisfaction of natural and necessary needs. In this dialogue, we again meet the image of the poor shoemaker Mikil, familiar to us from The Crossing, or Tyrannus. But if in the "Crossing" the superiority of Mikyll over the rich man consisted only in the fact that it is easier for the poor to part with life, since he had nothing good in it, if the thought of the Cynics about the frailty of life and the need to get rid of earthly attachments passed through the whole work, then in The Dream, or the Rooster, the life of the poor Mikilla appears in a different light: “You don’t know any troubles, you don’t bring up accounts, demanding the payment of debts, arguing, almost to the point of a fight, with a scoundrel-manager, torn to pieces by a thousand worries. No : having finished a shoe and having received seven obols of payment, you leave the house in the evening and, after washing, if you want, you buy yourself a Black Sea herring or other fish, or a few heads of onions and bite to your heart's content, singing songs and having philosophical conversations with someone about sweet poverty" (ch. 22). This much more optimistic, life-affirming reasoning shows that Lucian was not as radical and implacable in dealing with specific social problems as he was in the fight against religious prejudice.
In the treatise "How to Write History", which, as the text shows (ch. 2, 15, 30), was a response to numerous historical writings on the Eastern wars of Marcus Aurelius (the sixties of the 2nd century), Lucian acts as a literary critic. The performance in this capacity of a writer who has shown the maximum interest in the spiritual life of modern society is completely natural. Lucian criticizes modern literature from the same point of view as modern religious superstitions. Lucian spoke out against the imitative, epigonic character of historical writings. Describing the events of a real war, epigone historians could not get rid of their ancient Greek models, mainly Thucydides, to such an extent that they inserted into the narrative the speeches of the participants in the events and even fictional episodes taken from these samples. Lucian also spoke out against the rhetorical ballast, the false prettiness of these works. But Lucian does not confine himself to criticizing the purely literary qualities of these writings, pointing out the lack of literary taste in their authors. The main thing for him is not these individual shortcomings, but the falsity of the very principle that historians adhere to: they do not care about an accurate description of events, but are engaged in praising the chiefs and generals of their state and immoderate reviling of the enemy. This is already a clearly hostile attitude towards the official Roman version of the events that took place in Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Syria. It is very likely that Lucian's deep dissatisfaction with the aggressive policy of the Romans was hidden behind the criticism of historians.
A special type of literary criticism was such a well-known work of Lucian as "True History", used by numerous authors of fantastic "journeys", from the Renaissance to modern times. Some scholars incorrectly consider The True Story to be one of the most important examples of fantastic travel after the Odyssey. The True Story is not an example of this genre, but a satire on this genre, just as Don Quixote is not a chivalric novel, but a satire on chivalric romances. Lucian ridicules the adventurous-fantastic storytelling genre common in antiquity. He names such representatives of this genre as "the Cnidian Ctesias, the son of Ctesioh, who wrote about the country of the Indians and their life, although he himself had never been there" and Yambul, who "also wrote a lot of amazing things about those living in the Great Sea" (I, 3 ). “The leader who taught how to describe this kind of inconsistency,” says Lucian, “was Homer’s Odysseus, who told Alcinous about the slave service by the winds, about one-eyed people, about cannibals and about other similar wild people ... about the transformation of satellites caused by magic spells; Odysseus fooled the gullible feacians with similar stories" (I, 3). The incredible adventures and transformations of the heroes of these "journeys" are just as absurd, just as repugnant to the rationalism of Lucian, as are all kinds of pagan and Christian superstitions. Lucian builds his story about a trip to the moon, to the Island of the Blessed and other islands as a parody. Parodying the fantastic heaps of ancient authors, Lucian at the same time repeats by the way some of his own methods, already familiar to us. There we learn that on the Isle of the Blessed, Aristippus and Epicurus are most respected, "lovely and cheerful people and the best companions" (II, 18), that the philosopher Diogenes "changed his way of life", "married Layda the hetaera" (ibid.) and behaves very immodestly.
"True History" helps to understand the place in Lucian's work of such a fantastic and designed for external entertaining work as "Luke, or the Ass", the plot of which basically coincides with the plot of Apuleius' Metamorphoses. "Luke, or the Donkey" is a story about the extraordinary adventures of a young man who was turned into a donkey and then again took on human form. Self-contained fantasticality has always been alien to the works of Lucian. The Menippean journeys to heaven and the underworld were justified not by the amusing plot, but by the philosophical meaning of the respective works. In "Lucia, or the Ass" there are no philosophical arguments. Lucian began his literary career with empty rhetoric, and then he himself spoke out against it. It is very possible that at some point in this path, most likely at the beginning of it, Lucian was attracted by the processing of common fantastic plots.
Thus, both in the satirical treatise "How History Should Be Written" and in the parody of fantastic "journeys", Lucian criticizes literature divorced from reality. In general, the idea of ​​the educational effect of works of art, whether they are examples of literature or other types of art - sculpture, architecture, painting, choreography - is often repeated by Lucian. This idea does not receive further development - Lucian was not an art theorist, but a satirist writer - but it testifies to Lucian's deep protest against the meaningless literature that was rhetorical exercises and ridiculous fantastic stories. Having exposed the squalor and hypocrisy of modern philosophy, ridiculing superstition, Lucian also severely criticized modern literature.
Focusing his attention on various manifestations of the ideological and moral crisis of modernity, Lucian, as we have seen, did not bypass the issue of social inequality. However, he touched on this issue in a more abstract form: the urgent problem of wealth and poverty, often touched upon by Lucian, is solved by him not by showing such images taken directly from life as he creates in the fight against superstitions (Peregrine, Alexander), but by not connected with concrete reality. 2nd century material. The rich and poor of Lucian either live in the Hellenistic era or in the heyday of Athens, or they are characters such as Croesus and Midas, Diogenes and Menippus, whose names serve as ready-made symbols of wealth or contempt for it. But the very posing of the question of wealth and poverty and the frequent return to this question testify to its importance for Lucian. The writer pays special attention to the position of philosophers who are on the payroll of the rich, and parasitic hangers-on in general.
The psychology of hangover was ridiculed by Lucian, in particular, in the dialogue "Parasite" Parasite proves that he lives better than philosophers and that living at someone else's expense is the same craft as any other ("Parasite", 2).
Tychiades. But all the same, if you think and imagine one thing, then there will be laughter!
Parasite. What is it?
Tychiades. If in letters from above, as usual, we would write: Simon, hanger-on.
But if in the dialogue "Parasite" the insolent and lover of easy life Simon was opposed by Epicurus as the personification of philosophy, then in the argument "On Philosophers on Salary", written in epistolary form and referring to the late works of Lucian, philosophy is not represented by the noble, impractical Epicurus, and the jesters who are on the salary of the rich. “When a person,” writes Lucian, “remaining poor all his life, a beggar, living on handouts, imagines that by doing so he avoids poverty, I don’t know if it can be denied that such a person deceives himself” (ch. 5). The position of a philosopher living on the payroll of a rich man is equated by Lucian with that of a slave. Curious is one real, everyday detail that Lucian introduces into this generally abstract reasoning. She immediately shows that the work, which avoids names and is of a speculative nature, is caused by the most concrete, most genuine circumstances. In addition, this detail complements the idea of ​​Lucian's attitude towards important Romans, which gives the treatise "How to write history."
"And you are not ashamed," Lucian addresses the mercenary philosopher, "to stand out alone in a crowd of Romans with your alien cloak of a Greek philosopher and miserably distort the Latin language, and then dine at noisy and crowded dinners along with some kind of human garbage, according to for the most part - with scoundrels of various stripes?" (ch. 24). Thus, if the position of a man living on handouts is generally humiliating, then the position of a stranger among the privileged Romans is completely unbearable. Poverty in this work is personified not in the shadow of Diogenes, but in the image that is most familiar and close to Lucian, closer than the image of the poor artisan Mikillus, the image of a man of an intelligent profession, forced to sell his labor.
The "letter of acquittal", written, apparently, shortly after this work, has as its task not only to ward off the accusation that he himself is on a salary from the writer, who has taken an official highly paid position in Egypt, but also to justify Lucian's departure from some other own convictions. In the past, Lucian has repeatedly compared high public positions to actor's masks, which create an external effect, while the actor who puts them on remains the same actor. Now Lucian himself can be compared to such an actor. What is the answer to this? Before moving on to rhetorical excuses, Lucian gives his would-be accusers an honest answer: "Wouldn't it be best for me to do deliberately wrong, to turn the attackers on the rear and, without denying my wrong, resort to a common well-known excuse - I mean Fate, Fate, Predestination - and beg my accusers, let them show indulgence towards me, knowing that we have no power over ourselves in anything ... "(ch. 8).
But the deviation from his own principles extended to the literary activity of Lucian. A writer who at the age of forty felt disgusted with rhetoric, who wrote such a murderous satire on it as "The Teacher of Eloquence", who parodied rhetorical formulas in his anti-religious dialogues - Lucian in his old age again takes up declamation.
This period of Lucian's "second rhetoric" includes the speeches "About Dionysus" and "About Hercules", built on the type of prolalia "Thirst" and the rhetorical composition "In justification of a mistake made in a greeting." In all these works there are indications of the venerable age of the author. Particularly curious is the word of excuse. Here is given, as it were, the anatomy of rhetorical works of this kind. The author, greeting a certain high-ranking person in the morning, mistakenly said "hygiaine" (hello) instead of the generally accepted "haire" (rejoice). Now he is writing a whole essay, which should justify this oversight. "Starting this essay, I thought that I would face a very difficult task - in the future, however, it turned out that there is a lot to talk about" (ch. 2). Referring to Homer, Plato, Pythagoras, to incidents from the life of Alexander the Great, King Pyrrhus and other rulers and demonstrating remarkable erudition, Lucian proves the legitimacy of using the word "hygiaine" in this case. A whole treatise has been written on a trifling occasion, a whole chain of evidence has been drawn on. This is the essence of rhetoric. As if flaunting his declamatory technique, Lucian declares: “It seems to me that I have already reached the point that a new fear naturally arises: lest someone think that I made a mistake intentionally in order to write this exculpatory word. dear Asclepius, my speech will not seem like an excuse, but only the speech of an orator who wants to show his art "(ch. 19).
As you can see, in his old age, Lucian also wrote funny parodies of the Greek tragedy - Tragopodagra and Quickfoot. It must, however, be repeated that the authenticity of the poetic works attributed to Lucian has not been precisely established. But a comparison of these "tragedies" with parodies of philosophical dialogue, with "True History", as well as with "Zeus the Tragedian", where there are parts written in iambic trimeter - the main poetic measure of the tragedy - speaks in favor of the assumption that "Tragopodagra" and "Swiftfoot" are the works of Lucian. Both "tragedies" involve a choir of gouty people. The "tragic" conflict in one and the other is the helplessness of a person in front of gout. In addition to the iambic trimeter, we find in these parodies other poetic meters adopted in tragedy. Both works are humorous, not satirical. The reader's laughter is caused not by the denunciation of any contemporary phenomena, but by the very fact of the tragedy being recast. But this can hardly serve as proof of the forgery of these works. They are quite suitable for the last period of Lucian's work, which is characterized by a fascination with naked literary technique. As for the epigrams, also included in the collected works of Lucian, the question of the falsity or authenticity of each of them would require too much space for presentation (there are 53 epigrams in total), and solving it in each individual case would not change our understanding of creative way Lucian. We only note that some epigrams (for example, 45, - that having a beard does not mean being a sage) in their thought resemble the prose works of Lucian, while others (for example, 9, - that you cannot hide from the gods) contain statements unexpected in the mouth of Lucian.
Lucian's path was uneven and difficult. Starting his career as a rhetorician, Lucian then moved away from rhetoric in order to turn to reality, to respond to the pressing issues of our time. Lucian's attention was focused on the ideological crisis that prevailed throughout the Mediterranean under Roman rule. Lucian's criticism of the religious, artistic and philosophical views of the past was an early harbinger of the death of the slave system. But, ridiculing the gods, mocking modern pseudo-philosophers who personified the crisis of ancient philosophy, finding the artistic fiction of ancient writers absurd, Lucian, a representative of the 2nd century. n. e. and besides, the free, and not the slave, did not see the deep causes of this ideological crisis. His work contains elements of social satire directed against the rich class. The most prominent representative of such satire was Juvenal, an older Roman contemporary of Lucian. However, the great progressive significance of Lucian's work is determined not by these sentiments - they did not become the main theme of the writer, did not receive proper development - but by criticism of religious superstitions and philosophical deception that hindered the awakening of the broad masses. The historical hopelessness (under the conditions of the slave-owning system) of the class to which Lucian belonged was, in the final analysis, the reason for the transformation of the freedom-loving man and satirical writer back into a rhetorician. But Lucian entered the history of ancient literature not as a rhetorician, but as a satirist; his works serve as one of the best sources for studying early Christianity. Translation by S. S. Lukyanov. Ctesias - a contemporary of Xenophon, the author of the works "Persia" and "India"; only excerpts have survived from both works. Translation by N. P. Baranov.
Translation by N. P. Baranov.
Translation by N. P. Baranov.