No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Authorship and Purpose of Lucian’s Demosthenis encomium
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 May 2015
Extract
Virtually all modern editors and commentators regard this dialogue as non-Lucianic, despite its presence in the best manuscripts. The three most distinguished Lucianic scholars of this century, Helm, Bompaire, and Macleod are all of this persuasion. Their usual objections are based on the alleged inferiority of the Greek style and language employed in the piece, and on the grounds of its inferior satirical qualities and general lack of inspiration. By contrast, I hope to show in this paper that these objections can be rebutted, and that there is no good reason to reject the work. I believe that the dialogue does contain some of Lucian’s best characteristics, and that it fits into the general context of second-century discussions of Demosthenes very effectively.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 1969
References
1 Helm, R., RE 8, 1735–6;Google ScholarBompaire, J., Lucien érivain (Paris, 1958), p. 190, n. 2; p. 314, n. 2;Google ScholarMacleod, M.D., Lucian, Vol. 8 (Loeb Library), p. 237.Google Scholar The dialogue is implicitly rejected by Schwartz, J., Biographie de Lucien de Samosate (Brussels, 1965).Google Scholar
2 The dialogue is rejected by: Fritzsche, K., Prolegomena, Vol. 3, 2, p. lxxii (Rostock, 1860);Google ScholarRothstein, M., Quaestiones Lucianeae (1888), p. 45;Google ScholarBoldermann, P., Studia Lucianea (1893), p. 128;Google ScholarAlbers, F., Luciani quae fertur Demosthenis Laudatio (Leipzig, 1910).Google Scholar Albers commented: ‘Demosthenis laudationem sub nomine Luciani falso relatam esse nunc inter omnes constat.’ This was not straining the truth. The only real defender of the dialogue, apart from myself, has been A. Bauer (Paderborn, 1914). I rely heavily upon his linguistic analysis, but, as will be seen, my reasons for defending the piece differ sharply from his.
3 Op. cit, p. 237.
4 See, e.g., Blass, F., Die Attische Beredsamkeit (Leipzig, 1893), Vol. 3, pp. 100 ff.;Google ScholarDobson, J.F., The Greek Orators (London, 1919), p. 241;Google ScholarJebb, R.C., Attic Orators (London, 1875; reprinted New York, 1962), Vol. 2, p. 397;Google ScholarKennedy, G., The Art of Persuasion in Greece (Princeton, 1963), p. 209, n. 109.Google Scholar
5 Quint. Inst, ix 4.33 ff. He couples Demosthenes with Cicero: ‘Demosthenes et Cicero modice respexerunt ad hanc partem.’
6 He cites Cicero (Orator, 23.77) with approval on the pleasing effect of certain types of hiatus.
7 Op. cit.
8 For a fuller analysis of these usages, see Bauer, op. cit.
9 Outstanding examples are his Lexiphanes and his Pseudologistes. See my article ‘The Pseudologistes of Lucian’, CR xii (1962), 2–5.
10 Helm, op. cit., finds its model in Peripatetic literature.
11 Sandys, J.E., A History of Classical Scholarship (Cambridge, 1908), Vol. 1, p. 316.Google Scholar
12 The view derives from the scholiast, never a reliable witness to Lucian’s merits!
13 We have no formal dramatis personae, but the narrator discharges the usual role of Lycinus-Lucian.
14 See Macleod, op. cit., p. 240, n. 1.
15 See Lucian, Bis accus. 26, where Oratory begins her indictment of the Syrian renegade (Lucian himself) with a flurry of Demosthenic pastiches, grafting the first sentence of the Third Olynthiac to the first sentence of the De corona.
16 It is mentioned only twice; once coupled with philosophy as the object of Demosthenes’ veneration (§12), and once as a possible theme for a panegyricist, though it is implied that this is a last resort (§ 16).
17 Lucian ridicules the idea of poetic inspiration in his Hesiod (a Lycinus dialogue).
18 See Luc. V.H. 2.20, where the usual issues regarding Homer’s birthplace, and the like, are ridiculed in a discussion between the narrator of the adventure and Homer himself.
19 These points are listed in § 6; they include: emotional passages; descriptive passages; figures of speech; devices to relieve monotony; resumptions after digressions; elegant comparisons; avoidance of barbarisms. This is highly technical criticism and, at times, obviously strained.
20 See § 14. Demosthenes’ acquired attributes are: speech based on careful thought and language; persuasive argumentation; grandeur of style; strong lung-power; notable skill and care in selection of words and thoughts; versatility in his tropes. All these qualities are very reminiscent of the regimen prescribed by the ‘old orator’ (Lucian himself) in Rhet.praec. 9–10.
21 Antipater praises his power and logodaedaly. Philip stresses his integrity and his ability to arouse his audiences.
22 Op. cit. p. 237.
23 Although few moderns are able to accept the existence of the Macedonian ‘memoirs’. This is a difficult point. Is the motif of such a dubious volume satirical ? Since it is Thersagoras who produces the book, though ‘not without difficulty’ (§ 27), we might be tempted to take it as such. After all, Lucian ridicules the follies of a bibliophile in his Adv. indoct.; but the narrator of our present piece accepts Thersagoras’ volume without any further comment on its authenticity. It may be pertinent to compare Adv. indoct. 4, where alleged manuscripts of Demosthenes, in the orator’s own hand, are spoken of as great treasures.
24 Householder, F.W. Jnr., Literary Quotation and Allusion in Lucian (Columbia, 1941).Google Scholar
25 The key references for Lucian on Demosthenes are: Bis accus. 31; Somn. 12; Jup. trag. 14, 15, 23; De merc. cond. 5, 25; Rhet.praec. 10, 17; Adv. indoct. 4; Paras. 56.
26 Of the other orators, Lucian really only refers to Isaeus, Isocrates, and Aeschines for their oratory proper, though the allusions are casual. Of the older orators, Pericles receives the most detailed discussion. Householder’s statistics indicate a distinct preference for the later orators.
27 See Fronto, , ed. Haines, (Loeb Library), Vol. 1, pp. 21,Google Scholar 43, for allusions to Lysias; Demosthenes is praised as the perfect orator (ibid. p. 2g).
28 Gell. x 19, praises Demosthenes for using ‘lepidis et venustis vocum modis’.
29 Apol. 15.
30 For example, Lysias owes much to the Platonic criticism of him for his continued fame; Aeschines seems to have been known chiefly thorugh his Timarchus.
31 Hermogenes styles Demosthenes as 
at p. 396.26 Rabe.
32 Phrynichus and Moeris, however, tended to prefer the older Attic writers. This, in view of the absurd and often ignorant dogmatism of these critics, may have persuaded Lucian to prefer the later writers. In this, he had an ally in the Antiatticistes (whatever the date of this enigmatic figure). The statistics for the latter’s references to Attic orators are remarkable. They are: Antiphon (7 references); Andocides (1); Lysias (10); Isaeus (0); Demosthenes (40); Hyperides (14); Isocrates (12); Aeschines (0); Lycurgus (0); Dinarchus (1).
33 Op. cit., pp. 41–5. It should be noted that Householder does not include Phrynichus in his findings.
34 P.Oxy. 858 (Grenfell-Hunt, Vol. vi., pp. 164–7); P.Oxy. 1799 (Grenfell-Hunt, Vol. xv, pp.–135–6).
35 On this matter, see Householder, , ‘Mock Decrees in Lucian’, TAPhA 71 (1940), 199–216.Google Scholar
36 In Luc. Jup. trag. 14 Hermes remarks that most people now make speeches which are little more than close reworkings of Demosthenes’ Philippics. Zeus replies by saying that this device is useful for those who don’t know what to say. A glance at Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists shows that the favourite themes based on Demosthenes were to the discredit of the orator. Yet the same authority (V.S. i 25) relates that Herodes Atticus was hailed at Olympia with the cry ‘You are a very Demosthenes’.