Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:37:09.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Lucian's True Histories and the Wonders Beyond Thule of Antonius Diogenes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 February 2009

J. R. Morgan
J. R. Morgan
Affiliation:
University College of Swansea
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The 166th codex of the Bibliotheke of Photios comprises a summary of a peculiar work written by one Antonius Diogenes, entitled τ⋯ ὑπ⋯ρ Θούλην ἄπιστα. This told the story of an Arkadian named Deinias, who travelled the world κατ⋯ ζήτησιν ἱστορίας (109a 13–14), coming eventually to Thule, where he met Mantinias and Derkyllis, a brother and sister from Tyre, and struck up an erotic relationship with Derkyllis (109a 26). A narrative of Derkyllis, told to Deinias, seems to be inset at this point (109a 29–110b 15), relating her own travels and including much Pythagorean material associated with her wonder-working companion, Astraios, which was authentic-seeming enough for Porphyrios to make use of it in his biography of Pythagoras. The Apista was a long work, running to 24 books, and it seems likely that a sizeable proportion of its length was devoted to paradoxographical material related to the places and peoples visited by the various narrators, but largely omitted from Photios' summary; the plot itself, though both complex and episodic, does not seem capable of sustaining such length.

At the end of his summary Photios has a short discussion of the place of the Apista in literary history (111 b 32ff.). Detailed analysis of this passage will form an important part of this paper, but for the moment it will suffice to say that Photios saw the work as germinal for Greek fiction, and in particular expresses the view that it was the ‘source and root’ (πηγ⋯ κα⋯ ῥίζα, 111 b 36–7) of Lucian's True Histories.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , December 1985 , pp. 475 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Photios' summary is cited from the Budé edition of R. Henry (Paris, 1960). This epitome can be supplemented from three sources: (i) references in Porphyrios' Life of Pythagoras, which cites Antonius by name in sections 10 and 32, and no doubt makes use of him elsewhere without specific acknowledgement; (ii) a single reference in Iohannes Lydus, de mens. 3.5, quoting Antonius as evidence for the longevity of Egyptians; (iii) two papyrus fragments, both dated 2nd–3rd century a.d.: PSI 1177 (= Zimmermann, , Griechische Romanpapyri und verwandte Texte, 85ff.Google Scholar) and P. Oxy. 3012. For commentary on these two fragments and discussion of their place in the work as a whole, see, respectively, Zimmermann, F., ‘Die Ἄπιστα des Antonius Diogenes im Lichte des neuen Fundes’, Hermes 71 (1936), 312–19Google Scholar, and Borgogno, A., ‘Sul nuovo papiro di Antonio Diogene’, Grazer Beiträge 8 (1979), 239–42Google Scholar.

2 One suspects that, as with his summary of Heliodoros' Aithiopika, Photios has attempted to iron out various complexities and temporal convolutions resulting from multiple framed narratives. Derkyllis' narrative concluded with the end of Bk 23 (110b 17), but what follows, though apparently confined to the last book, seems to contain more substance than what precedes the inset. Furthermore, the wonders beyond Thule, which gave the book its name, seem not to appear until this last book. One possible answer might be that Derkyllis' relation of her experiences was not continuous, but fragmented like Kalasiris' narrative in the Aithiopika. Photios will then have simplified the structure by pulling together the experiences of Derkyllis and her brother.

3 Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer (3rd edn., ed. Schmid, W., Leipzig 1914, reprinted Hildesheim & New York, 1974), 206 (192) n. 4, 277 (258)Google Scholar — the figures in brackets refer to the pagination of the first edition. Photios' statement was one of the pillars of Rohde's view that the Apista was a kind of missing link between travel stories and romance proper, now rendered untenable by the discovery of papyri which show that fully fledged romances predate Antonius Diogenes.

4 Reyhl, K., Antonios Diogenes: Untersuchungen zu den Roman-Fragmenten der ‘Wunder jenseits von Thule’ und zu den ‘Wahren Geschichten’ des Lukian (Diss. Tübingen, 1969)Google Scholar.

5 Anderson, G., Studies in Lucian's Comic Fiction (= Mnemosyne Suppl. 43, Leiden, 1976), 1 ff.Google Scholar; Hall, J., Lucian's Satire (New York, 1981), 339ffGoogle Scholar.

6 Ver. Hist. 1.2ff.: …⋯λλ' ὅτι κα⋯ τ⋯ν ἱστορουμένων ἔκαστον οὐκ ⋯κωμῳδήτως ᾔνικται πρός τινας τ⋯ν παλαι⋯ν ποιητ⋯ν τε κα⋯ συγγραɸέων κα⋯ ɸιλοσόɸων πολλ⋯ τεράστια κα⋯ μυθώδη συγγεγραɸότων, οὓς κα⋯ ⋯νομαστ⋯ ἃν ἔγραɸον, εἰ μ⋯ κα⋯ αὐτῷ σοι ⋯κ τ⋯ς ⋯ναγνώσεως ɸανεῖσθαι ἔμελλον <ὧν> Κτησίας… The Isle of the Damned is in Ver. Hist. 2.31.

7 This can be neatly illustrated by a passage from Photios' summary of Ktesias, ' Persika (cod. 72, 49b 39–50 a4)Google Scholar: τα⋯τα γράɸων κα⋯ μυθολογ⋯ν Κτησίας λέγει τ⋯ληθέστατα γράɸειν, ⋯πάγων ὡς τ⋯ μ⋯ν αὐτ⋯ς ἰδὼν γράɸει, τ⋯ δ⋯ παρ' αὐτ⋯ν μαθὼν τ⋯ν ἰδόντων, πολλ⋯ δ⋯ τούτων κα⋯ ἄλλα θαυμασιώτερα παραλιπεῖν δι⋯ τ⋯ μ⋯ δόξαι τοῖς μ⋯ τεθεαμένοις ἄπιστα συγγράɸειν. Claims of this kind are mocked by Lucian's explicit disavowal of veracity at Ver. Hist. 1.4: γράɸω τοίνυν περ⋯ ὧν μήτε εἶδον μήτε ἔπαθον μήτε παρ' ἄλλων ⋯πυθόμην, ἔτι δ⋯ μήτε ὅλως ⋯ντων μήτε τ⋯ν ⋯ρχ⋯ν γενέσθαι δυναμένων. For the last part of the Ktesias passage, cf. Ver. Hist. 1.13, 1.18, 1.25.

8 Anderson, op. cit. I n. 3; Hall, op. cit. 349.

9 111 a4–11: κα⋯ ἔτερα δ⋯ ⋯παγγέλλει ἰδεῖν ὅμοια, κα⋯ ⋯νθρώπους δ⋯ ἰδεῖν κα⋯ ἕτερα τιν⋯ τερατεύεται, ἃ μηδε⋯ς μήτε ἰδεῖν ἔɸη μήτε ⋯κο⋯σαι,⋯λλ⋯ μηδέ ɸαντασίαις ⋯νετυπώσατο. κα⋯ τ⋯ πάντων ⋯πιστότατον, ὅτι πορευόμενοι πρ⋯ς Βορρ⋯ν ⋯π⋯ σελήνην, ὡς ⋯πί τινα γ⋯ν καθαρωτάτην, πλησίον ⋯γένοτο, ⋯κεῖ τε γενόμενοι ἴδοιεν ἃ εἰκ⋯ς ἦν ἰδεῖν τ⋯ν τοιαύτην ὑπερβολ⋯ν πλασμάτων προαναπλάσαντα. Note particularly Photios' contemptuous repetition of ἰδεῖν: it is the claim to autopsy that he finds so hard to swallow, even in a work of fiction.

10 E.g. Rohde, op. cit. 206 (192) n. 4.

11 The locus classicus for this doctrine is Aristot., Meteor. 354a 23ff.Google Scholar, where he says that ancient meteorologists believed τ⋯ν ἥλιον μ⋯ ɸέρεσθαι ὑπ⋯ γ⋯ν, ⋯λλ⋯ περ⋯ γ⋯ν κα⋯ τ⋯ν τόπον το⋯τον (the northern mountain), ⋯ɸανίζεσθαι δ⋯ κα⋯ ποιεῖν νύκτα δι⋯ τ⋯ ὑψηλ⋯ν εἶναι πρ⋯ς ἄρκτον τ⋯ν γ⋯ν. There is a lengthy discussion of this topic by Kiessling, in RE s.v. Ῥίπαια ⋯ρη, Reihe 2, Hlb.1 (1920), col. 846ff.Google Scholar, who finds traces of the ancient belief in writers such as Herakleitos, , Anaximenes, , Sophokles, (OC 1248f.)Google Scholar and Virgil, (Georg. 1.240ff.)Google Scholar; in particular it is explicitly expounded by Avienus, (Ora Marit. 649ff.)Google Scholar and finds its apotheosis in the Topographia Christianike of Indikopleustes, Kosmas (2.31ff.)Google Scholar, who presses it into service as part of an extensive polemic to support the notion of a flat earth which he derives from Holy Scripture. Kosmas, however, appears to have combined the primitive idea of northern shadow-casting mountains with a more scientific one concerning the inclination of the plane of a flat earth relative to the movement of the planets. Thus for Kosmas the entire surface of the earth slopes upwards from SE to NW so that one is literally going higher as one travels northwards. This is also why all rivers flow from north to south, except the Nile, whose slowness is due to the fact that it is flowing uphill. Cf. Wolska, W., La Topographie Chrétienne de Cosmos Indicopleustes (Paris, 1962), 230ffGoogle Scholar.

12 Diod. 2.47.5: ɸασ⋯ δ⋯ κα⋯ τ⋯ν σελήνην ⋯κ ταύτης τ⋯ς νήσου ɸαίνεσθαι παντελ⋯ς ⋯λίγον ⋯πέχουσαν τ⋯ς γ⋯ς κα⋯ τινας ⋯ξοχ⋯ς γεώδεις ἔχουσαν ⋯ν αὐτῇ ɸανεράς.

13 This is not to suggest that Hekataios was in fact Antonius' model here. He may have been, but perhaps a more likely candidate is Antiphanes of Berge, who we know was actually cited in the Apista (112 a 5).

14 Op cit. 288 (268) n. 2.

15 οὐ μ⋯ν ⋯πουρο⋯σίν γε κα⋯ ⋯ɸοδεύουσιν, ⋯λλ' οὐδ⋯ τέτρηνται ᾗπερ ⋯μεῖς, οὐδ⋯ τ⋯ν συνουσίαν οἱ παῖδες ⋯ν ταῖς ἔδραις παρέχπυσιν, ⋯λλ' ⋯ν ταῖς ἰγνύσιν ὑπ⋯ρ τ⋯ν γαστροκνημίαν. ⋯κεῖ γάρ εἰσι τετρημένοι.

16 48b 10ff.: ὅταν δ⋯ γένηταί τιν αὐτ⋯ν παιδίον, οὐ τέτρηται τ⋯ν πυγήν, οὐδ' ⋯ποπατεῖ, ⋯λλ⋯ τ⋯ μ⋯ν ἰσχία ἔχει, τ⋯ δ⋯ τρ⋯μα συμπέɸυκε. δι⋯ ⋯ποπατο⋯σι μ⋯ν οὔ.

17 48b 13ff.: οὐρεῖν δ⋯ ὥσπερ τυρ⋯ν αὐτούς ɸασιν οὑ πάνυ παχὺν ⋯λλ⋯ θολερόν.

18 Ver. Hist. 1.24: κ⋯πειδ⋯ν ἢ πον⋯σιν ἢ γυμνάζωνται, γάλακτι π⋯ν τ⋯ σ⋯μα ἱδρο⋯σιν, ὥστε κα⋯ τυροὺς ⋯π' αὐτο⋯ πήγνυνται, ⋯λίγον το⋯ μέλιτος ⋯πιστάξαντες. It is interesting to note that Lucian has modified Ktesias' milky urine into milky perspiration; by alluding to the Pythagorean belief that the inhabitants of the moon were too pure to pass any waste matter from their bodies (see below p. 480), Lucian has denied himself the opportunity of describing their urine. Ktesias was too good a butt to pass over, and perspiration was virtually the only appropriate bodily fluid left.

19 Stob. Ekl. 1.26.4 = DK 44 a 20.

20 FGr Hist 31 F 21.

21 Burkert, W., Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (Harvard, 1972), 345ffGoogle Scholar. For further references in ancient writers cf. Gundel, W. in RE XVI. 1 (1933)Google Scholar, s.v. Mond, esp. coll. 77–80.

22 The dead are also nourished by smoke (Herakleit. Fr. 98, Luc. Charon 22); Pythagoreans told of creatures nourished by ⋯σμαί (Aristot. de sens. 445 a 16 = DK 58 b 43); Lucian is also tilting at Herodotos' cannabis-sniffing Skythians (Hdt. 1.202, 4.75) and the ἄστομοι reported by Megasthenes (Strab. 15.1.57). For moonmen nourished by very little substance, compare especially Plut. de fac. in orb. lun. 940c, a very interesting passage. The frogs in Lucian are a deliberately bathetic and deflating touch. For dew-drinking see below, p. 485.

23 A people living in the far north who had many links with the moon.

24 Lucian works the same joke again with the Isles of the Blessed and Damned in Bk 2, except that there the material derives from mythology and epic poetry rather than from mystic philosophy.

25 Photios is at constant pains to remind us of this frame: cf. 109b 3ff., 110a 16, 110a 40f., 110b 15f., 110b 22, 110b 39, 111a 20.

26 Both real personages, though not elsewhere recorded as man and wife; cf. Arr. Anab. 2.12.2, Diod. 18.22; id. 19.59.

27 Discussed at length by Speyer, W., Bücherfunde in der Glaubenswerbung der Antike (= Hypomnemata, 24) (Göttingen, 1970), esp. 43–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Plut. Mor. 577f, 578f.

29 Plin. NH 13.84–7, Augustin, . de civ. Dei 7.34.1–15Google Scholar, Liv. 40.29.3–14, Plut. Numa 22.

30 Sozomen. Hist. Eccl. 7.19.10ff.

31 Theodor. Anagnost. Hist. Eccl. 2.2 ( = PG 86.i. 184), Kedren. Hist. Comp. PG. 121. 673b, Nikeph. Kallist. Hist. Eccl. 16.37 (= PG. 147.200c).

32 Although it is hard to believe that anyone could be much entertained by the version of Dares that we have.

33 Photios himself comes rather close to saying just this when he says that the Apista gives pleasure because it deals with incredible material in a way that gives it credibility (109 a10–13): ταῖς δ⋯ διανοίαις πλεῖστον ἔχει το⋯ ⋯δέος, ἃτε μύθων ⋯γγ⋯ς κα⋯ ⋯πίστων ⋯ν πιθανωτάτῃ πλάσει κα⋯ διασκευῇ ὕλην ⋯αυτῇ διηγημάτων ποιουμένη.

34 The dramatic date is fixed early in the fifth century b.c. by the reference to Ainesidemos, tyrant of Leontinoi (110a6); cf. Paus. 5.22.7; probably the same Ainesidemos as in Hdt. 7.154, 165, Pi. Ol. 2.46, 3.9.

35 Cf. Rohde, op. cit. 270(251), n. 2, who is, however, at fault in arguing that Antiphanes of Berge was described as κωμικός. This is rather the result of the misattribution of a particular anecdote to a different individual, Antiphanes the comic playwright; see Weinreich, O., ‘Antiphanes and Münchhausen’, Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 220 (4) (1942), 11–13Google Scholar.

36 Cf. di Gregorio, L., ‘Sugli Ἂπιστα ὑπ⋯ρ Θούλην di Antonio Diogene’, Aevum 42 (1968), 199–211, esp. n. 1 on pp. 199–201Google Scholar.

37 Though elsewhere he is vociferous in his criticisms of what he considers indecent. Compare his judgements on Achilleus Tatius (cod. 87, 66a 21ff.) and Iamblichos (cod. 94, 73 b 25ff.).

38 This is the suggestion of Knack, G., ‘Antiphanes von Berge’, RhM NF 61 (1906), 135–8Google Scholar, who argues that Antiphanes' work was itself a parody of the travel narrative of Pytheas of Massilia.

39 Steph. Byz. s.v. Βέργη; cf. Polyb. 34.5.10, Strab. 1.3.1, 2.3.5, Skymnos 653ff. (= Müller, GGM 1.221Google Scholar), Marcian. proem. ad Menipp. Peripl. (= GGM 1.565), P.Oxy. 1801 (from the Hesione of Alexis), and perhaps the quotation from the Meliboia of Eriphos at Athen. 3.84b (= Frg. 2 Kock), if we accept Kaibel's Βεργαῖε for the corrupt Βερβεαι of the MSS. On Antiphanes in general see Weinreich art. cit., who usefully gathers material on Antiphanes' career and reputation, but is perhaps over-generous in suggesting that his work was a moralising aretalogy rather than a collection of interesting and amazing ‘facts’ associated with the far north.

40 For example, Chariton's heroine, Kallirhoe, is the daughter of the Syracusan statesman, Hermokrates, and his plot is carefully placed in an historical milieu, though not with total consistency. In both Xenophon of Ephesos (5.15.2) and the Historia Apollonii Regis Tyri (rec. β. § 51), the hero writes an account of his adventures, which he lodges in a temple or library; we are left to presume that this is the source of the story we have just read. Iamblichos' Babyloniaka purported to be an old Babylonian tale told to the author by his Babylonian τροɸεύς (see Habrich's edition, p. 2). In Achilleus Tatius, the first-person narrative serves in a sense as its own source, presenting Kleitophon's ipsissima verba as told to the author. Heliodoros occasionally pretends to be an historian by feigning uncertainty about the events he is narrating; cf. Morgan, J. R., ‘History, Realism and Romance in the Aithiopika of Heliodoros’, CA 1 (1982), 227 ffGoogle Scholar.

41 Stengel, A., De Luciani Veris Historiis (Berlin, 1911)Google Scholar.

42 Ver. Hist. 1.4: γράɸω τοίνυν περ⋯ ὧν μήτε εἶδον μήτε ἔπαθον μήτε παρ' ἄλλων ⋯πυθόμην.

43 Hdt. 1.52, 66, 22, 2.99; Ktes. ap. Phot. 49b 39–50a4 (quoted above, n. 7).

44 Diod. 2.55.

45 See above, p. 480. It may be that Menippos himself had written a parodistic Himmelfahrt on which the Ikaromenippos is partly based, in which case Lucian might be recycling Menippean jokes. Cf. Helm, R., Lukian und Menipp (Leipzig & Berlin 1906, reprinted Hildesheim, 1967), 80ff.Google Scholar; despite important reservations on the extent to which Lucian's dialogue form was derived from Menippos, McCarthy, B., ‘Lucian and Menippus’, YCS 4 (1934), 51ffGoogle Scholar. agrees that much of the substance of the Ikaromenippos may derive from a Menippean visit to heaven.

46 The moon was often connected with the formation of dew; cf. esp. Plut. de fac. in orb. lun. 940a, τ⋯ν ⋯έρα καλεῖ Δία καί ɸησιν αὐτ⋯ν ὑπ⋯ τ⋯ς σελήνης καθυγραινόμενον εἰς δρίσους τρέπεσθαι; also Aristot. Probl. 937 b 4, Plin. NH 20.1, Virg. Georg. 3.337, Stat. Theb. 1.338, Nonn. Dionys. 40.376.

47 Cf. Fauth, W., ‘Astraios und Zamolxis: über Spuren pythagoreischer Aretalogie im Thule-Roman des Antonius Diogenes’, Hermes 106 (1978), 220–41, esp. 237–8Google Scholar.

48 Much closer to Lucian in any case is the story of Lamia; cf. Diod. 20.41, Plut. Mor. 515f.

49 Cf. Geminus 6.9, Serv. ad Virg. Georg. 1.30, Plin. NH 2.186–7, 4.104; Pytheas is named by Pliny at 2.187.

50 Rabe's V = Vaticanus Gr. 89, written in the 13th century.

51 Reyhl, op. cit. 67ff.

52 Anderson, op. cit. 6–7.

53 PSI 1177; cf. Zimmermann art. cit. (supra n. 1) and id.‘Die stumme Myrto. Eine Szene aus des Antonios Diogenes Τ⋯ ὑπ⋯ρ Θούλην Ἄπιστα’, Philologische Wochenschrift 55 (1935), 474–80Google Scholar.

54 I.e. the novels of Iamblichos, Achilleus Tatius and Heliodoros.

55 111b 32–112a 4: ἔστι δ', ὡς ἔοικεν, οὗτος χρόνῳ πρεσβύτερος τ⋯ν τ⋯ τοια⋯τα ⋯σπουδακότων διαπλάσαι, οἷον Λουκιανο⋯, Λουκίου, Ἰαμβλίχου, Ἀχιλλέως Τατίου, Ἡλιοδώρου τε κα⋯ Δαμασκίου. κα⋯ γ⋯ρ το⋯ περ⋯ ⋯ληθ⋯ν διηγημάτων. Λουκιανο⋯ κα⋯ το⋯ περ⋯ μεταμορɸώσεων Λουκίου πηγ⋯ κα⋯ ῥίζα ἔοικεν εἶναι το⋯το. οὐ μόνον δ⋯ ⋯λλ⋯ κα⋯ τ⋯ν περ⋯ Σινωνίδα κα⋯ Ῥοδάνην, Λευκίππην τε κα⋯ Κλειτοɸ⋯ντα, κα⋯ Χαρίκλειαν κα⋯ Θεαγένην, τ⋯ν τε περ⋯ αὐτοὺς πλασμάτων κα⋯ τ⋯ς πλάνης ⋯ρώτων τε κα⋯ ⋯ρπαγ⋯ς κα⋯ κινδύνων ⋯ Δερκυλλ⋯ς κα⋯ Κήρυλλος κα⋯ Θρουσκαν⋯ς κα⋯ Δεινίας ⋯οίκασιν παράδειγμα γεγονέναι. τ⋯ν χρόνον δέ, καθ' ὃν ἤκμασεν ⋯ τ⋯ν τηλικούτων πλασμάτων πατ⋯ρ, Διογένης ⋯ Ἀντώνιος, οὔπω τι σαɸ⋯ς ἔχομεν λέγειν, πλ⋯ν ἔστιν ὑπολογίσαθαι ὡς οὐ λίαν πόρρω τ⋯ν χρόνων το⋯ βασιλέως Ἀλεξάνδρου.

56 Cf. Anderson, op. cit. 34ff., Hall, op. cit. 414ff.; Perry, B. E., The Ancient Romances (Berkeley, 1967), 211 ff.Google Scholar; van Thiel, H., Der Eselsroman, I. Untersuchungen (= Zetemata Heft 54.I) (Munich, 1971)Google Scholar; Bianco, G., La fonte greca delle Metamorfosi di Apuleio (Brescia, 1971)Google Scholar; Mason, H. J., ‘Fabula Graecanica: Apuleius and his Greek Source’, Aspects of Apuleius' Golden Ass, ed. Hijmans, B. L. & van der Paardt, R. Th. (Groningen, 1978), 1–15Google Scholar; Browne, G. M., ‘On the Metamorphoses of Lucius of Patrae’, AJP 99 (1978), 42–6Google Scholar. The majority of modern scholars believe that Apuleius' Metamorphoses and the Lucianic Ὂνος derive independently from the Metamorphoseis noticed by Photios, although his attribution of the work to ‘Lucius of Patrai’ is usually thought to be the result of a failure to distinguish author from narrator.

57 As I tend to believe it did: Photios' reference to the first two books does seem to imply that there were more; the plural of the title is puzzling if only one case of metamorphosis was recounted; and it is hard to see why anyone should want to produce an abbreviated version of a story very little shorter than the complete original, whereas it is quite plausible that a single story might be excerpted from a collection for separate circulation. Hall's discussion of this point (op. cit. 414ff.) is excellent.

58 I know of only two attempts to explain Photios' statement that the Apista was the source and root of ‘Lucius’: (a) Scobie, A., Aspects of the Ancient Romance and its Heritage [= Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, 30] (Meisenheim am Glan, 1969), 32ffGoogle Scholar. suggests that Photios is classifying all three works as paradoxography, which is only part of the truth; (b) Fauth art. cit. 222f. sees a connection in the curiosity of the narrators of the three works; but the curiosity that leads Lucian's narrator and some of Antonius' characters to travel is very different from Lucius' fascination with black magic.

59 Damaskios, a writer of paradoxa and ghost stories, who is given a brief and ill-tempered notice by Photios (cod. 130, 96b 37–97a 7), is quietly dropped from the discussion. It would be interesting to know why Photios did not include him in this group of non-erotic fiction writers. The most probable answer is that Damaskios wrote not a continuous narrative but a series of anecdotes, and so was felt to be fundamentally different in his generic form.

60 This point is made also by Hall (op. cit. 345f.).

61 Photios does not give us a lot of information on the dating of the other fictional works he had read. His notices of Damaskios and Achilleus Tatius have no chronological reference at all. He debates the priority of ‘Lucius’ and Lucian (96b 20ff.), concluding that the Lucianic Ὂνος was more probably modelled on the Metamorphoseis of ‘Lucius’ than vice versa; but his equivocation on this question suggests that he thought the two works were more or less contemporary. At the end of his notice of the Aithiopika he mentions without comment the story that Heliodoros in later life became a Christian bishop (51b 40f., based on the report in Sokr. Hist. Eccl. 5.22); so he can hardly have conceived of Heliodoros writing before the second century a.d., and in all probability would have dated him rather later, as did Theodosios Melitenos in the 11th century (Test. XIV in Colonna's edition of the Aithiopika, misattributed to Georgios Kedrenos; cf. Colonna, 's note in Athenaeum n.s. 28 [1950], 86–7Google Scholar). The novelist most precisely dated in the Bibliotheke is lamblichos, who claimed in his Babyloniaka to have predicted the course of the war waged by Verus against the Parthians when Antoninus was emperor (75b 27–41).

62 Cf. Rohde, op. cit. 271 (252). For Antonius' date see also Böll, F., ‘Zum griechischen Roman’, Philologus 20 (1907), 1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hallström, A., ‘De aetate Antonii Diogenis’, Eranos 10 (1910), 200f.Google Scholar; Schwartz, E., Fünf Vorträge über den griechischen Roman (Berlin, 1896), 136f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sinko, T., ‘De ordine quo erotici scriptores Graeci sibi successisse videantur’, Eos 41 (1940–1946), 23–45Google Scholar. These scholars agreed that the Apista was written in the first or second century a.d., which is not contradicted by the papyri.

63 ‘Lucius’ cod. 129, 96b 11–35; Damaskios cod. 130, 96b 37–97a 7; Iamblichos cod. 94, 73b 24–78b 3; Achilleus Tatius cod. 87, 66a 14–28; Heliodoros cod. 73, 50a 6–51b 41.

64 Cf. Hägg, T., Photias als Vermittler antiker Literatur (= Studia Graeca Upsalensia, 8) (Uppsala, 1975)Google Scholar.

65 See supra n. 1.

66 Cf. Bompaire, J., Lucien Ecrivain (Paris, 1958)Google Scholar, passim.