TheClassicalQuarterly

http://journals.cambridge.org/CAQ
AdditionalservicesforTheClassicalQuarterly:
Emailalerts:Clickhere
Subscriptions:Clickhere
Commercialreprints:Clickhere
Termsofuse:Clickhere

LUCIANAMONGTHECYNICS:THEZEUS
REFUTEDANDCYNICTRADITION
PHILIPR.BOSMAN
TheClassicalQuarterly/Volume62/Issue02/December2012,pp785795
DOI:10.1017/S0009838812000316,Publishedonline:20November2012

Linktothisarticle:http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0009838812000316
Howtocitethisarticle:
PHILIPR.BOSMAN(2012).LUCIANAMONGTHECYNICS:THEZEUSREFUTED
ANDCYNICTRADITION.TheClassicalQuarterly,62,pp785795doi:10.1017/
S0009838812000316
RequestPermissions:Clickhere

Downloadedfromhttp://journals.cambridge.org/CAQ,IPaddress:163.200.81.9on21Nov2012

Classical Quarterly 62.2 785795 (2012) Printed in Great Britain

doi: 10.1017/S0009838812000316
PHILIP R. BOSMAN

785

LUCIAN AMONG THE CYNICS

LUCIAN AMONG THE CYNICS: THE ZEUS

REFUTED AND CYNIC TRADITION
The nature of Lucians relationship with the Cynicism of his time remains unre
solved. He generally features prominently in treatments of Cynics of the Roman
period, but scholars are more often than not reluctant to include him within their
ranks.1 Two recent studies continue the ambiguity: Klaus Dring refers to Lucian
as a satirist, but employs him only for his depictions of identifiable Cynics.2
William Desmond, on the other hand, lists Lucian himself among the second
century Cynics, hesitantly describing him as a literary Cynic and a cynical critic
of mankind: he is a Cynic in his adulation of a Diogenes or Menippus, and
cynical in his self-assured contempt for his ignoble contemporaries.3 Desmonds
attribution to Lucian of Cynicism with and without a capital is historically tenuous,
as is the implied opposition between his adulation of some Cynics and his critical
endeavour towards other people/Cynics. But the notion of literary Cynicism, which
scholars have long since associated with Bion, Menippus and Cercidas, may prove
useful in the search for a more satisfactory solution to the issue, namely to focus
less on the doctrinal allegiance of the author and more on the diversity within the
movement we wish to relate him to.4
There are good reasons for the continued uncertainty regarding Lucians Cynic
status. Most prominent perhaps is his Protean authorial persona. Philosophy is a
favourite satiric theme in the corpus, but the authors various protagonists and
narrators even where he seemingly speaks in his own voice hold a variety of
views, among others, Cynic, Epicurean and Sceptic. The shifting stance and absence
of philosophical commitment disallow easy equation of philosophical allusions and
ideas with the convictions of the historical figure.5
Linked to the authors lack of commitment is the apparent superficiality of his
use of and reference to philosophy which are, in the view of Judith Hall, limited
to the sort of things that anyone who has dozed his way through a course of
philosophy lectures at some time is likely to remember.6 Scholars have attributed
1
Notably in D.R. Dudleys influential History of Cynicism (London, 1937) and M.-O. GouletCazs catalogue of Cynics in R.B. Branham and M.-O. Goulet-Caz (edd.), The Cynics: The
Cynic Movement in Antiquity and its Legacy (Berkeley, 1996), 389413; also ambiguously G.
Luck, Die Weisheit der Hunde (Stuttgart, 1997), 378404. See, however, H. Niehues-Prbsting,
Der Kynismus des Diogenes und der der Begriff des Zynismus (Frankfurt a.M., 1988), 23961,
with the conclusion of which this article is in general agreement.
2
K. Dring, Die Kyniker (Bamberg, 2006), 56, 5964. See also R.B. Branham and M.-O.
Goulet-Caz, Introduction, in Branham and Goulet-Caz (n. 1), 14 and n. 41.
3
W. Desmond, Cynics (Stocksfield, 2008), 607, at 61.
4
Niehues-Prbsting (n. 1), 23940, 261.
5
Cf. D. Ogden, In Search of the Sorcerers Apprentice (Swansea, 2007), 1819. For a survey
of scholarship on Lucian as philosopher, cf. J. Hall, Lucians Satire (New York, 1981), 15375
who at 175 concurs with M. Caster, Lucien et la pense religieuse de son temps (Paris, 1937),
120 that Lucians ideal philosopher, like that of Isocrates, is occupied with the practical conduct
of life rather than with barren subtleties.
6
Hall (n. 5), 16970.

786

PHILIP R. BOSMAN

this to the authors subordination of philosophical views firstly to his arsenal of

traditional topoi and secondly to his literary, rhetorical, performative and humor
ous aims.7 Observing Lucians contentment to represent the various schools by
means of (often repeated) caricatures and commonplaces, Hall ascribes the result
ing eclectic mix to the satisfaction of immediate contextual requirements.8 In the
wake of Branhams seminal work on Lucians rhetoric of laughter, a significant
section of current Lucianic studies tends to regard all philosophical allusions as
ludic constructs subject to the authors comic poetics.9
A further ambiguity in his relationship with Cynicism concerns his fluctuating
sentiments towards its exponents, dishing out both praise and blame. In the two
treatises on contemporary Cynics Peregrinus and Demonax, the former is depicted
as a melodramatic charlatan, the latter judged the best of all philosophers.10 An
unkind stereotype of the Cynic occurs in the Philosophies for Sale and disparag
ing depictions are found in the Runaways and the Symposium. Most other Cynic
and Cynic-like figures, however, play favourable or sympathetic roles, including
Diogenes, Crates and Menippus, Anacharsis, Parrhesiades, the cobbler Micyllus and
the god Momus. An earlier generation of scholars sought to solve the variance by
means of historical reconstruction based on a postulated chronological arrangement
of Lucians output.11 Bernays, for example, proposes an initial positive appraisal of
the philosophy which in later works turned into mutual hostility between Lucian
and his Cynic contemporaries.12 However, owing to a lack of evidence, theories
based on the chronological development in Lucians thought have struggled to find
acceptance.13
The current stress on Lucians literary strategies is no doubt necessary. The
authors elusive self-positioning is crucial to the lasting attraction and fascination
his work exerts, and any attempt to suppress it or to put him in a doctrinal strait
jacket would be futile. His preferred literary forms are evidently chosen for their
ability to entertain and not to convey doctrine; extracting theoretical philosophy
7
Caster (n. 5), 6587 and J. Bompaire, Lucien crivain: imitation et cration (Paris, 1958),
1825 both emphasize Lucians indebtedness to preceding literary tradition as outweighing any
personal sentiments regarding philosophy.
8
Hall (n. 5), 16593, who does seem to overcompensate for factors inhibiting the performer
eager to entertain and retain his audiences; her arguments regarding unwritten dictates of good
taste and [co]nsiderations of tact and prudence, cf. 2067, are difficult to reconcile with her
agreement at 439 n. 11 with M.D. Macleod, Lucians activities as a , Philologus
123 (1979), 326 that Lucians absence from contemporary sources may be due to his capacity
for making enemies.
9
R.B. Branham, Unruly Eloquence: Lucian and the Comedy of Traditions (Cambridge, MA,
1989), who remains balanced (but see already M.D. Macleod, Review: Unruly Eloquence,
CR 40.2 [1990], 2501); T. Whitmarsh, Greek Literature and the Roman Empire (Oxford,
2001), 250; J. Brusuelas, Review of M. evik (ed.), International Symposium on Lucianus of
Samosata, 1719 October 2008 (Adiyaman, 2008), CR 60.2 (2010), 3957.
10
Lucian, Demon. 2.7.
11
For brief surveys cf. Hall (n. 5), 1715; H.-G. Nesselrath, Lucien et le Cynisme, AC 67
(1998), 1224.
12
J. Bernays, Lukian und die Kuniker (Berlin, 1879); see also Hall (n. 5), 1712 on the view
of Litt, and those of Gallavotti and Rohde that Lucian passed through a series of philosophi
cal allegiances.
13
On J. Schwartz, Biographie de Lucien de Samosate (Bruxelles, 1965), see M.D. Macleod,
Review: Lucians literary evolution, CR 17.1 (1967), 378, and Lucianic studies since 1930,
ANRW 2.34.2 (1994), 137984. Hall (n. 5), 163 is similarly dismissive of attempts to date the
majority of Lucians works; cf. also Ogden (n. 5), 323 nn. 16 and 17.

LUCIAN AMONG THE CYNICS

787

from his works amounts to generic abuse. On the other hand, the Protean aspect
of his satire should not be exaggerated to the point where all serious intent is seen
to be subverted, deliberately contradicted and finally meaningless.14 He is evidently
not a rigid school philosopher (these are exactly the butt of his humour), but his
philosophical works are not markedly self-contradictory; it should even be possible
to find them supported by a fairly consistent set of critical principles related to con
temporary polemics but only loosely connected to any particular theoretical system.
There are good reasons to think that Lucian found in Cynic tradition the stance
from which to show up the current state of philosophy.15 Certainly, the prevalence
of specifically Cynic figures and the recurrence of Cynic themes and motifs in
the corpus are out of proportion to the stature and influence that the school is
usually allowed. Nesselraths survey has shown Cynic motifs to occur more often,
more consistently and over a wider part of his uvre than the two contending
systems of Epicureanism and Scepticism.16 Added to these are intricate and oblique
Cynic imagery and disembodied voices within the corpus.17 Literary caricatures and
critique against charlatan figures of the sect are not compelling evidence for view
ing him as a hostile outsider. On the contrary, his association with the Cynics is
long-standing, as is testified by the fact that the treatise The Cynic was attributed
to him, mistakenly or not. Even the generally breezy philosophical engagements in
the corpus do not necessarily reflect a superficial grasp of the positions involved.
Many allusions to contemporary philosophical issues appear to be deceptively
simple, masking a decent range of polemical topics.18 Again, this feature invites
comparison with the Cynics, who traditionally were reluctant to formulate theory
above a rudimentary level, but excelled at pointing out erroneous conceptions held
by others. This ability rules out the oft-repeated but misguided conclusion that
the rough Cynic figure was ignorant and even inherently incapable of coherent
thought.19 Still, like Lucian, their real impact lay elsewhere: apart from transmitting
the legendary embodiments and performances of wisdom of their founders in pithy
format, the Cynics could lay claim to a distinct rhetoric and imaginative use of
literary forms.20
14
Cf. S. Prince, The discourse of philosophy in Lucians fantastic worlds, unpublished paper
read at the 2007 annual APA Meeting, San Diego. My thanks to Prof. Prince for this and other
references.
15
Prince (n. 14).
16
Nesselrath (n. 11), 1234, 135, on this score in agreement with R. Helm, Lucian und
Menipp (Leipzig and Berlin, 1906), 188215.
17
Cf. Ogden (n. 5), 273 on the Cynic imagery interspersed in the Lover of Lies.
18
P. Grsslein, Untersuchungen zum Jupiter Confutatus (Frankfurt a.M., 1998) reveals the
remarkable skill and variety with which Lucian alludes to contemporary controversies. While
Grssleins approach obscures Lucians light satiric touch, T. Whitmarshs review, CR 49.2
(1999), 3745 is overly dismissive.
19
Cf. A.A. Long, The Socratic tradition: Diogenes, Crates and Hellenistic ethics, in Branham
and Goulet-Caz (n. 1), 2846 at 29; J. Moles, The Cynics, in C. Rowe and M. Schofield
(edd.), The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought (Cambridge, 2000),
41723; on protreptic as alternative philosophical mode, cf. M. Schofield, Epictetus: Socratic,
Cynic, Stoic, The Philosophical Quarterly 54.216 (2004), 44856; Epictetus on Cynicism, in
T. Scaltsas and A.S. Mason (edd.), The Philosophy of Epictetus (Oxford, 2007), 845.
20
On the Cynic style, see Demetr. Eloq. 170, 25961; for their distinctive rhetoric and generic
inventiveness, R.B. Branham, Defacing the currency: Diogenes rhetoric and the invention of
Cynicism, in Branham and Goulet-Caz (n.1), 81104 at 856. Cynic influence on Lucianic
rhetoric is evident throughout Branham (n. 9).

788

PHILIP R. BOSMAN

Lucians affinities with Cynic tradition no doubt extended beyond philosophical

content and it is this area which should receive due emphasis if we wish to cir
cumscribe his relationship with the movement any further. The way forward seems
to lie in proposing ways to reconcile Lucians literary aims with his predilection
for the Cynic tradition. It also seems important to relate Lucian not primarily
to the legendary, idealised and ultimately bygone Cynic-as-moral-exemplum we
know from the anecdote tradition, but rather to the Cynic-as-critic closer to and
contemporaneous with himself.
The issue may be further clarified by considering the no (Zeus
Refuted). In this mini-dialogue, the supreme Olympian god is cross-examined by
an impertinent and obstinate character named , or Puppy. Cyniscus is
obviously meant to be regarded a Cynic.21 The dialogue revolves around contradic
tions in and the consequences of determinism, the same topic dealt with in another
Lucianic dialogue, the Zeus Rants. In the latter work, however, the gods eavesdrop
on a conversation between a Stoic and an Epicurean, the latter carrying the same
banner as Cyniscus. This raises the question as to why Lucian chooses a Cynic
to treat the topic in the Zeus Refuted and whether there is something specifically
Cynic in the way it is treated.
The dialogue starts abruptly: no setting is provided and no character intro
duced.22 Cyniscus approaches Zeus to answer one simple question (
, 1.9) which soon opens a whole can of worms on how the gods relate
to fate. Lucians human interrogator, under the pretence of ignorance, remains in
relentless control of the conversation up to the final , reducing the god to
rhetorically inept defensive strategies. Apart from facile warnings and accusations,
Zeus adds little more to the dialogue than providing keys to further arguments
exposing the debilitating consequences of determinism on traditional belief and
morality and, recursively, on determinism itself.23
Answering Cyniscus initial question, Zeus affirms the authority of the poets
Homer and Hesiod when they say that the Fates control everything even, he
admits, the gods themselves.24 Whenever Homer contradicts himself on the issue,
he is not speaking under the inspiration of the Muses (2.614; 4.14). Cyniscus
then pushes on to question the need for sacrifice and prayer when the gods are

21
Cyniscus also features in the Downward Journey, where his Cynic credentials are clearly
indicated: Catapl. 7; cf. Grsslein (n. 18), 34.
22
Helm (n. 16), 11719 argues that the Zeus Refuted fits into the prayer wells scene of the
Icaromenippus, both dialogues being filched from an original Menippean satire. His hypothesis
on Lucians use of Menippus has, however, been thoroughly discredited; cf. B.P. McCarthy,
Lucian and Menippus, YClS 4 (1934), 355; Hall (n. 5), 64150. The Zeus Refuted stands well
on its own and seems rather to be an instance of Lucianic recycling; cf. G. Anderson, Lucian:
Theme and Variation in the Second Sophistic (Leiden, 1976), 11; 164. The scenes intended
setting may be the divine abode, although Zeus is the one finally departing. In the Downward
Journey Cyniscus is on his way to the Underworld. Abrupt starts are a regular Lucianic tech
nique; cf. Anach.; Dial. mar. 4; Dial. D. 2.15; Dial. mort. 7.3, 18; Dial. meret. 7.8.11.3; cf.
Helm (n. 16), 117; Hall (n. 5), 134; Grsslein (n. 18), 58.
23
I. Bruns, Vortrge und Aufstze (Munich, 1905), 2612.
24
The following brief summary deliberately resists abstracting arguments from the lively inter
action. Grsslein (n. 18), 312 treats the various arguments each on its own, the main part
revolving around three philosophical problems stemming from determinism: on the validity of
statements about the future, the theological problem regarding prediction, and the moral conse
quences of fatalism (free will, accountability and the futility of punishment).

LUCIAN AMONG THE CYNICS

789

unable to change the course of things (5.213).25 Zeus prefers not to answer,
instead accusing Cyniscus of allying with the sophists ( ;
6.2) who conspire to strip the gods of their influence among humans.26 Cyniscus
denies that he has anything to do with the sophists27 and repeats his question,
warning Zeus not to provide feeble arguments again (
; 6.1516). Zeus now provides an alternative justification for sacrifice:
acknowledgment of the gods superiority ( ; 7.1011),28
which Cyniscus rejects once a slave to the Fates, immortality only worsens your
plight (7.1924). Oh no, says Zeus, the gods are eternally happy (8.13). But at
this stage Cyniscus is on a roll: not all that happy, just look at poor Hephaestus
and Prometheus and even Cronus. Also, the gods are frequently robbed, sometimes
turning them into paupers in the twinkling of an eye. Even worse: they may be
melted down if they are of gold or silver. Naturally, he adds, all these events can
only be ordained by Destiny (8.422). Zeus resorts to threats: Careful, Cyniscus,
what you say is slanderous; youll soon be sorry! (9.12). But Cyniscus remains
defiant: Spare your threats, Zeus: you know that nothing can happen to me if Fate
hasnt decided upon it for you. I see that not even temple robbers get punished,
most of them get away; I suppose they were not destined to get caught (
, , ; 9.37).
On the ascendancy, Cyniscus softens up his opponent: Doesnt it follow that
the gods are mere servants, tools in the hands of Fate (11.36)? And the Fates
themselves? Surely, even they are subject to Destiny () and bound to
their own decrees (11.1224). Zeus counters feebly by suggesting yet another reason
why the gods should be honoured: because they can foretell the future (12.36).
Cyniscus, however, sees no sense in knowing the future if one cannot take any
precautions against it, even on the rare occasion when the recipient of the oracle
manages to unravel the usual obscurity and ambiguity (12.714.13). In a final bout
he confronts Zeus with the issues of injustice and free will: honest people suffer
in poverty while the wicked thrive: how can all that be destined (15.817.5)? Even
if punishment awaits the wicked in the afterlife, would that be fair if they only
acted out what was destined for them to do? Destiny is the one that should be
punished, not Sisyphus and Tantalus (18.434). The poor supreme god, against the
ropes, refuses to respond. But the pestilent interrogator will not let go without a
final probing jab, this time subverting the very possibility of the Fates themselves:
he still wanted to ask where they are located and how they manage to hold so
many strings. Their destiny does not seem much better than anyone elses. But,
25
Questioning sacrificial practices has for Lucian an especially Epicurean flavour, Icar. 32;
Iupp. trag. 18; Bis acc. 2.88, but it is of course equally Cynic; cf. Grsslein (n. 18), 34.
26
Bruns (n. 23), 260 links these sophists to Epicureans, especially known for criticising Stoic
theology; Grsslein (n. 18), 11 n. 58; cf. also Grsslein (n. 18), 36 n. 151, 37 who thinks of
exponents of the Second Sophistic as advancing an Epicurean view. Their fifth-century equiva
lents, like Protagoras and Aristophanes Socrates, were similarly associated with undermining
the gods. Both the argument against the gods blissful state in 8.422 and the dialogues setting
in suspended time warn against precise identification; Zeus may simply resort to the term as
conveniently abusive towards dangerous erudition; cf. Iupp. trag. 30.6.
27
Despite the denial, Cyniscus does not dissociate from their line of thought; cf. 7.14; 9.10
11.1.
28
Lucian associates the Epicureans with mocking the gods concern for sacrifices, cf. Iupp.
trag. 18; Icar. 32; Bis acc. 2.8.3; all schools since Socrates were against the idea of manipulat
ing the gods, seen as originating with the poets, cf. Grsslein (n. 18), 329.

790

PHILIP R. BOSMAN

he concludes, Zeus responses sufficiently clarified his thoughts on Destiny and

Providence, the rest was not destined for him to hear anyway (19.1519).
The dialogues purport requires careful formulation, since a number of issues
need to be kept in balance. Apart from its obvious and overriding entertainment
value, the initial impression of mocking popular religion gives way to criticism
of Stoic determinism. But, as Bruns has already noted, the depicted Zeus is not
the Stoic supreme god identical to Destiny.29 This Zeus is rather the Homeric,
literary figure who remains sharply distinguished from the , nowhere uses
the abstract terms and himself and twice prohibits Cyniscus from
raising questions about them (3.7, 10.67).30 This Zeuss main concern is to protect
the honours bestowed upon the gods; his main fear is that the perceptions cre
ated by sophistic arguments would result in the loss of divine privileges.31 In the
process, he makes the strategic error of opting for a Stoic interpretation of Homer
and Hesiod. Lucian is fond of grouping Stoicism and the Olympian gods on the
same side. In the Zeus Rants, the Stoic character Timocles champions the cause of
the gods; here Zeus defends their doctrine of determinism and has to stand trial
on behalf of Destiny and Providence.32 But defending the doctrine lands him in
an even worse conundrum than losing honour and privileges: he ends up without
sovereignty and without a basis for either morality or the gods function to praise
and blame.
In a sense, then, Lucian satirizes both the dominant philosophy of his time and
the great literary past of his Greek audience. A laugh at the expense of common
religious folk may not be completely absent, but Lucians audience was probably
well acquainted with the incongruities stemming from Homers anthropomorphic
gods. His parody exploits these logical discrepancies, in particular the fact that the
literature in which they feature was adopted as authoritative by the most reputable
philosophical school.33 Retaining the Homeric Zeus, he proceeds to target Stoic
compromises with traditional conceptions of the gods, in particular the glaring
contradictions arising from their notions on Providence and Fate, about which
Zeus pretends to be in the know.34 Constrained by genre and context, but wish
ing to display as much variety in his critical arsenal as possible, Lucian breezes
over quite a number of the complex issues inherent in the debate. In the process
he does not hesitate to present a caricature of Stoic thinking: unfair perhaps, but
within the bounds of the satirists art; perhaps superficial, but enough to touch the
nerves of the real Stoic conundrum which could ironically only be covered
over by means of sophistries.
There is nothing peculiarly Cynic about the philosophical arguments Lucian
puts in the mouth of Cyniscus: they were current against the Stoics from any of
the other philosophical schools Academics, Peripatetics, Epicureans and Cynics.35
E.g. SVF 2.937, 968; cf. Bruns (n. 23), 253; Grsslein (n. 18), 25 n.117.
also belongs to these, only used once by Zeus, 9.9.
31
Regarding 8.422, Caster (n. 5), 162 notes that the criticism is directed less against the
Stoics than against the gods of the myths, Homer and popular religion.
32
Grsslein (n. 18), 71 notes that from Iupp. conf. 15 onwards, Cyniscus attacks the Stoic
doctrine directly with no distinction being made any more between Zeus and the abstract notions.
33
Chrysippus in particular was known and criticized for relying on Homeric authority; cf.
Plut. Stoic. rep. 1056b6; Diogenianus in Euseb. Praep. evang. 6.216c.
34
The theologically destructive consequences of fatalism were well known since Carneades;
cf. Cic. Nat. D. 3; Div. 3; Alex. Aphr. De fato 20.
35
Bruns (n. 23), 252; Grsslein (n. 18), 91.
29
30

LUCIAN AMONG THE CYNICS

791

Many have an Epicurean feel, but not exclusively so. Cyniscus also counters the
view of the gods blissful state: while the latter would have been shared by anyone
believing in the gods immortal happiness and Cyniscus again ridicules traditional
myth rather than philosophical conceptions, he is certainly not on Epicurean ground
when doing so.36 On the other hand, no argument advanced by Cyniscus clashes
with Cynic thinking, while the issues raised fall within the ambit of their critique.37
Criticism of traditional religion, in particular divination and oracles, seems to have
been regarded as Cynic terrain.38 Cynics rejected the possibility of predicting the
future an area where the Stoics diverted most dramatically from their Cynic
roots and where the Cynics attacked when under threat of being engulfed by their
own offspring.39 Stoicism saw history as a fixed chain of events and advocated
acceptance of fate. Diogenes, on the other hand, preached radical freedom and
claimed that he would confront fate with courage.40 Where the autonomy of voli
tion is recognized, the future cannot be known. An amusing anecdote from one of
the pseudo-Diogenic letters illustrates their rejection of determinism: while at the
games, Diogenes encounters a diviner surrounded by a crowd. Are you a good
diviner? he asks. I am, comes the reply. Then tell me: am I going to strike you
now with my staff or not? You are not! Diogenes strikes him and the crowd
roars. What are you shouting about? He clearly is a bad prophet, and got beaten.41
Lucians choice of a Cynic voice to take on the supreme god was thus influ
enced, at least in part, by Cynic interest. This is clear from the second-century
Cynic Oenomaus Charlatans Exposed ( ), extensive fragments of
which were transmitted in Eusebius Praeparatio evangelica and one of a precious
few Cynic texts from the era. The overlap between the Charlatans Exposed and
the Zeus Refuted is too great to be a coincidence and Lucian might even have
been familiar with Oenomaus work.42 The invective, considered one of the liveliest
pieces of literature surviving from the second century,43 is directed predominantly at
Apollo himself. The author does not hold back on biting sarcasm and even straight
Grsslein (n. 18), 427.
Bruns (n. 23), 279; W.H. Tackaberry, Lucians Relation to Plato and the Post-Aristotelian
Philosophers (Toronto, 1930), 41.
38
Dio Chrys. Or. 9; Plut. De def. or. 413ab; Lucian, Demon. 11, 32, 39; Diog. Laert. 6.24,
39; cf. J. Hammerstaedt, Der Kyniker Oenomaus von Gadara, ANRW 2.36.4 (1990), 2856.
39
J. Hammerstaedt, Die Orakelkritik des Kunikers Oenomaus (Frankfurt a.M., 1988); id.
(n. 38), 2849; A. Brancacci, La polemica antifatalistica di Enomao di Gadara, in id. (ed.),
Antichi e moderni nella filosofia di et imperiale. Atti del II colloquio internazionale: Roma,
2123 Settembre 2000 (Naples, 2001), 71110.
40
Diog. Laert. 6.37; cf. Stob. Flor. 2.8.21 Wachsmut:
( 299) .
41
Ps.-Diog 38.2.
42
See the correspondences in Bruns (n. 23), 26770 and Hammerstaedt (n. 38), 28602.
Bruns hesitates to claim dependency and rather postulates both authors as having access to
Cynic literature on the topic, perhaps Menippus himself, but Hammerstaedt (n. 39), 41618 is
tempted to view Lucians Cyniscus as modelled on Oenomaus; Nesselrath (n. 11), 131 n. 33
remains circumspect. Hall (n. 5), 20910, 503 n. 36, not excluding the possibility that Lucian
knew Oenomaus, sees a closer resemblance between Oenomaus and the Alexander, but does not
appreciate Oenomaus true target as Stoic determinism. On the problematic dating of Oenomaus,
cf. Hammerstaedt (n. 39), 1119; id. (n. 38), 283543; Nesselrath (n. 11), 131 n. 33. The iden
tification of M. Luz, Abnimos, Nimos, and Oenomaus: A note, The Jewish Quarterly Review
75 (1996/97), 1915 of Oenomaus with Abnimos the friend of R. Meir seems convincing; some
parallels in Origen, C. Cels. (a.d. 2449) are striking.
43
Bernays (n. 12), 35; Dudley (n. 1), 170.
36
37

792

PHILIP R. BOSMAN

forward abusive language against the god, who is called, among other things, most
accursed, most shameless prophet ( , 2.34)
and, sarcastically, wonderful oracle-monger ( ; 2.67) who
is either ignorant or malicious (3.29) with less integrity than the soothsayers, the
quacks and the sophists (10.968).44
The Eusebian fragments may be organized into three parts.45 In the main part,
Oenomaus satirizes a number of well-known Delphic oracles from Greek litera
ture, which he shows to be either too vague or too ambiguous to be of any use.
Others are without moral foundation or consist simply of advice and feeble
advice at that rather than based on real knowledge of the future. In a second
part Oenomaus relates his personal experiences with the Clarian Apollo. He tells
of his enthusiasm after receiving an obscure oracle from the god, only to hear
that a certain businessman from Pontus got the exact same wording, which the
latter interpreted as advice for solving his financial troubles. On further enquiry,
Oenomaus received another two nonsensical answers, after which he bade the god
to go hang himself and take his unintelligible verses with him (5.234). In the final
section, Oenomaus turns to the philosophical problems underlying determinism.
He attributes the doctrine to Democritus and Chrysippus, respectively the enslaver
and half-enslaver of humanity, and accuses both of robbing humankind of what
the Cynics consider its most precious possession: free will (
, , 14.1315).
The so-called fixed chain of events () is constantly interrupted by the deci
sions of humans and therefore can never be predicted (14.18096).
Like those of Cyniscus, Oenomaus criticisms are not peculiarly Cynic. Only
when turning to the issue of volition in the third section does he appear to speak
from Cynic theory.46 Quite distinct, however, is the form of his satiric invective,
in which he directly accuses the god, who is depicted as a bungling fool trying
to cover up his ignorance.47 This has no equivalent in ancient literature apart from
Lucians dialogues and would have been the reason for the negative estimate of
Oenomaus by the emperor Julian, in whose eyes he scorns all things divine and
human.48 Despite Julians attempt to salvage Cynicism from its shameless side,

44
Cf. Hammerstaedt (n. 39), 678; the abusive terms are ambiguous, as Oenomaus view
entails that the oracles do not really derive from a god.
45
Dudley (n. 1), 163; the fragments were reorganized from their order in Eusebius by
Hammerstaedt, cf. Hammerstaedt (n. 39), 70.
46
A. Brancacci, Libert e fato in Enomao di Gadara, in id. (ed.), La filosofia in et imperiale: le scuole e le tradizioni filosofiche. Atti del colloquio, Roma, 1719 Giugno 1999 (Naples,
2000), 3767; Brancacci (n. 39).
47
Other authors dealing with these issues, e.g. Cicero, Plutarch, Dio Chrysostom and Maximus
of Tyre, criticize the ignorance of the public who frequented the sanctuaries, but blame neither
the god nor even the oracle officials; references in Hammerstaedt (n. 38), 285460. Eusebius
in the Praep. evang. interprets the invective as against the deceptions and sophisms of human
charlatans contrived to deceive the multitude (
, 5.21.6.3) and the feebleness of both the givers and the
receivers ( , 5.26.41).
48
Julian. Or. 6.17 calls him
, in contrast to Diogenes being ; Hammerstaedt
(n. 39), 2832. In contrast to Julian, Eusebius of course found in Oenomaus a convenient pagan
rejecting his own religion.

LUCIAN AMONG THE CYNICS

793

Oenomaus speech would have been recognized as typically Cynic and

.49
Lucian was evidently attracted to the literary potential of Cynic style, which
he knew from the works of Menippus. Its vitality, its impertinence and its ability
to expose pretence these suited both his satirical aims and the dramatic require
ments of his own novel genre, the combination of dialogue with Old Comedy.50
In the Double Indictment, the Syrian is called to defend himself, first against
the accusation of abandoning Rhetoric for Dialogue, and then against the further
accusation of dragging Dialogue down (from the lofty heights of Platonism) to
the common level of humanity; the Syrian forced Dialogue to play the buffoon in
the company of Comedy, Jest, Lampoon and Cynicism, in particular of Menippus.
The Syrian from his side argues that he made Dialogue, who was at that stage
respectable but old and sour, attractive again. To the extent that this characters
voice resembles that of the author, Lucians claim was of revitalizing the genre
by introducing humour and Cynic elements into it.
Casting the arguments of an invective (in Oenomaus) into dialogue form has
additional benefits. It allows Lucian to turn the addressed god (Apollo in Oenomaus)
into a full-blown character (Zeus) with his own malleable voice. It also creates
greater distance between author and narrative spokesperson than would be the
case in direct speech, where the narrative voice is intuitively identified with the
authorial voice. The extra distance allows Lucian more freedom to manipulate his
characters, to make in the case of Cyniscus thorough use of Cynic ,
but to tone down the typical Cynic acerbity characteristic of Oenomaus and his
fellows. Cyniscus is bold and relentless, but remains cool and civil throughout.
The difference in tone relates to another generic distinction between Oenomaus and
Lucian. The Charlatans Exposed is satiric in the traditional sense of the word: its
aim is to ruthlessly expose vices and follies, using wit, irony and sarcasm. The
Zeus Refuted, on the other hand, dresses up its satiric elements as parody, which
is by definition more concerned with literary imitation than satire.51 The parodic
treatment of literary forebears applies both to the Homeric Zeus and to Platonic
dialogue, right up to the Socratic in the final lines. In a sense, then,
Lucians generic manipulation and originality allows him to present Cynic tradition
in apparel more palatable to the intellectual elite who were his intended audience
and who expected constant reference to classical literature.
The very aspect of generic originality in Lucian may itself be seen as Cynic.
The Cynics were among the great literary innovators of antiquity. They put the
Cynic stamp on philosophical genres such as dialogues, politeiai, symposia and
epistles, incorporated and redefined chreiai and gnomai for their own purposes, and
promoted extraliterary genres such as wills and diaries to satirical instruments.52
The tragedies of Diogenes were in all probability travesties on honoured mythical
themes: his Oedipus mocking views on the oracles and perhaps incest, his Thyestes
doing the same with cannibalism, and so forth.53 Oenomaus put himself firmly in
49
Euseb. Praep. evang. 5.21.6:
, .
50
Bis acc. 324; cf. Hall (n. 5), 6474.
51
Oenomaus satire is not devoid of parodic elements; cf. Hammerstaedt (n. 39), 407.
52
Cf. Diog. Laert. 6.101 on Menippus writings; Branham (n. 20), 85.
53
On the literary output of Diogenes, cf. G. Giannantoni, Socraticorum reliquiae, vol. 3
(Naples, 1990), 46184.

794

PHILIP R. BOSMAN

the tradition of Cynic writing with tragedies and a Republic of his own.54 However,
these amusing abuses of literary conventions never became a rhetorical goal in
themselves. Cynic combined wit and comic effect with serious
intent, even though the percentages of the mix varied among its exponents.55 Lucian
can be seen as belonging to the frivolous side of the tradition along with Bion
and Menippus.
How does Lucian relate to the Cynics of his era? The usual picture of the
imperial Cynics is two-sided: on the one hand, a great number of uneducated
charlatans who shamelessly heaped abuse on passers-by in the urban centres of the
empire but scandalized the Cynic way by their moral depravity; on the other hand,
Socratic figures such as Demonax and Demetrius who lived frugally according to
Cynic principles and were respected across philosophical divides. But some Cynics
complicate the Janus face: Dio Chrysostom with his Cynic period and evident
inclinations towards the sect, Theagenes treated with respect by Galen but lambasted
by Lucian,56 and Oenomaus, an evidently educated man practising literary .
It seems more productive to break down Cynicism into its component parts and to
accept that someone could claim to be a Cynic even if he or she were only true
to one or two of these parts. Cynicism in the briefest terms was known for
(1) a compact set of principles derived from nature; (2) a radical way of life in
adherence to these principles; (3) ruthless criticism of societal follies; (4) humour
and wit; and (5) literary inventiveness. Oenomaus, as we have seen, indulges in
some positive philosophy, but the famous Cynic protreptic is absent. Lucian not
only omits the Cynic life, but steers away altogether from philosophical ground
ing. Both, however, remain Cynic in their polemics against folly, their reliance
on and and their literary adventurousness. Their most
notable predecessor in this particular brand of Cynicism was Menippus, regarded
as a degenerate Cynic for not adhering to the austere Cynic life.57
It seems that Lucian may indeed find a home in an accommodating definition
of Roman Cynicism. Ancient evidence supports a broad church view: not only
was there uncertainty as to whether Cynicism could count as a , but even to
those including it among the schools, its was a matter of controversy. It was
structurally, like the other Hellenistic schools, geared towards happiness in practical
conformation to nature. But later authors significantly found the Cynic not
simply in the practical life: Julian lists more than one , among them contempt
for vain opinion and the search for truth, while Clemens mentions that the goal
of life for Antisthenes was , presumably in the sense of without delusion/
nonsense as opposed to the Cynic vice of .58 Such formulations represent
Cynicism in offensive mode. In this mode, the Cynic uses rational argument to
expose logical inconsistency and does not mind where the argument originated as
54
Oenomaus literary output is listed in the Suda and Julian. Or. 6.187c; cf. Hammerstaedt
(n. 39), 2835 n. 1; 284353.
55
Cf. Diog. Laert. 6.83 on Monimus; Menippus is first explicitly referred to as ;
cf. Strabo 16.2.29.
56
Gal. Method. medendi 13.15; cf. Bernays (n. 12), 1418.
57
Dudley (n. 1), 70. Dudley calls the mocking scepticism of Menippus, Oenomaus and Lucian
the peculiar Syrian contribution to Greek literature (170), but it probably goes back to Bion;
cf. K. Kindstrand, Bion of Borysthenes (Uppsala, 1976); on Cynic literature of the imperial age,
see M.-O. Goulet-Caz, Le cynisme lpoque impriale, ANRW 2.36.4:28006.
58
Julian. Or. 9.8.188bc; 12.192a; 13.193d; Clem. Al. Strom. 2.21.1307 Sthlin; cf. Branham
and Goulet-Caz (n. 2), 223.

LUCIAN AMONG THE CYNICS

795

long as it was reconcilable with common sense and its own basic tenets. This is,
of course, as true for most of the Diogenes tradition as for Oenomaus and Lucian,
and hence for literary Cynicism. However, there is an important difference between
Cynic anecdotes and Cynic writing: the anecdote tradition focusses on the Cynicas-exemplum, but that aspect diminishes in the Cynic-as-author; the former puts
the Cynic on display, the latter exposes his adversaries.
Are we to judge Lucians indebtedness to Cynicism on the basis of a precon
ceived and probably limiting definition of the Cynicism of his age, or are we to
allow Lucian to influence and expand our conception of what Cynicism of the
second century entailed? Who were the true heirs of Diogenes? You are not a
Cynic, Lucian has his pet hate Peregrinus accuse his hero Demonax. And you,
replies Demonax, are not human (Demon. 21). In Demonax, Lucian finds a
philosopher able to surpass the narrow confines of school philosophy, looking for
truth beyond the divides. This philosopher is identified as a Cynic. Furthermore,
within Cynic tradition he discovers the tools he requires to produce entertaining
satire: , humour, mocking exposure, the rhetorical stance designed to
attack folly. His novel combination of Old Comedy and the earnest philosophical
genre of the dialogue virtually necessitated his affinity with the Cynic tradition.
Lucian writes for a sophisticated audience who expected allusions to the Greek
literary heritage. He displays his own brand of sophistry by means of playful
parody of classical characters and literary forms, albeit not without earnestness
underlying the jest. In Cynic tradition he finds the appropriate vehicle for his
literary endeavour: it offers irreverent outspokenness, brave exposure of stupidity,
serious criticism mixed with ridicule and wit, and literary imagination. He is able
to remain aligned to the philosophys content without sounding philosophical, and
he deliberately stops short of stating premises and presenting theoretical exposition.
He has no wish to preach or win adherents, or to present a full account of the
philosophy. Like that of Epictetus, his Cynicism is stripped of the (unattractive)
harshness and anti-cultured aspects of Diogenes and the vulgar Cynics of the
times, but it still differs from Epictetus ideal Cynic sage. It is yet another strand
within the tradition: a second century a.d. version of literary Cynicism, one that
has become embarrassed with school allegiance, in which the famous Cynic body
rhetoric was eclipsed by entertaining critical display.
University of South Africa

PHILIP R. BOSMAN
bosmapr@unisa.ac.za