Reading is Lucian's True History, Book 1:
I found a less archaic (though still old) translation of Lucian's True
History. We are reading the Intro and Book 1:
Intro
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl2/wl211.htm
Book I
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl2/wl212.htm
Lucian was a Syrian who wrote in Greek under the Roman Empire, 2nd cent. AD. He was well educated in Greek philosophy, rhetoric, and literature and is widely recognized as one of the greatest wits of the ancient world. His style and content were very influential on Renaissance scholars who read him after the west "rediscovered" Greek literature, and the _True History_ (which gave me the name for this course) particularly inspired all manner of (dys)utopian and fantastic voyage narratives. It is also considered an early example (perhaps the earliest) of science fiction and indeed has much in common with 19th and early 20th century science fiction.
Consider why Lucian might have written this work and why any of his contemporaries might have read it. What themes and literary strategies do you see here that you have seen before in this course? Would it be useful to classify this work under a genre? If so, what genre?
Can you think of any later or even modern narratives that are similar in their themes, literary strategies, or general tone? Be ready to share specific parallels in class.
Jordann Markowitz
ReplyDeleteDid Lucian write this to show the ridiculousness of stories like the Odyssey? It almost seems like he is saying if you believe that the Odyssey is history than you should believe this as well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJordann,
ReplyDeleteHe certainly sees the Odyssey as the first example of this kind of history-like story in Greek literature. However, you should be able to notice connections also to ancient history such as Herodotus in how he describes the various lands and peoples as well as the wars that he takes part in. He is clearly mocking such authors as Herodotus, Ctesias, Thucydides, and Xenophon. Elsewhere he takes on the underworld and mocks both mythical and philosophical views. Basically he parodies all of Greek literature, but he does so in the format of fictive prose, a 1st-person pseudo-history. We have already discussed how the first-person view in the Alexander Romance and in Dictys helps provide an illusion of reality for the text. Lucian uses the same technique but with far greater subtlety and skill.
AR
Sara Welish
ReplyDeleteWhen Lucian says Aristophanes was very wise and truthful is he being sarcastic?
How long is a furlong?
Maeve Tischbein
ReplyDeleteDoes the story of the crew being swallowed by a whale have any connections with the biblical story of Jonah and the whale?
Katie Burke
ReplyDeleteIn the Introduction he claims that all the other historians have been lying and that one eyed monsters, strange ways of life and savages are all nonfiction. However, in the first few paragraphs of his 'True History', Lucian says that he saw a footprint an acre in size. Would the ancient world have believed him? Why does he discredit other historians' exaggerations and add in his own? Does this make him less credible?
Zander,
ReplyDeleteI liked the description of the Moonites, when the main character is captured (end of p.145, beginning of 146). It reminded me of the Herodotus readings and his details about foreign lands.
Krysta Brown
ReplyDeleteLucian's work is a convoluted contradiction. He describes archaic authors as liars but then creates an account based on science fiction and fantasy. I don't see why his work is any more influential to Renaissance writers than say Homer or Apollodorus.
Doug Ritchey
ReplyDeleteI liked the idea of the horse- vultures and horse-ants because they remind me of a precursor for the medieval dragon. The general principle of taking a usually small animal and making it large and powerful, is the same for both time periods.
Steve Fusco
ReplyDeleteI was still left a little confused after reading this. Did Lucian actually intend for his work to be seen as a satire, mocking the idea of over the top ancient literature, or was he simply using those pieces of work to justify what he wrote?