BMCR 2009.08.11: Brusuelas on Hopkinson, Lucian: A Selection. Cambridge Greek and Latin Texts

Neil Hopkinson (ed.), Lucian: A Selection. Cambridge Greek and Latin
Texts.  Cambridge/New York:  Cambridge University Press, 2008.  Pp. ix,
239.  ISBN 9780521603041.  $34.99 (pb).

Reviewed by James Brusuelas, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae Project,
University of California at Irvine ([email protected])
Word count:  1178 words
-------------------------------
To read a print-formatted version of this review, see
http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-08-11.html
To comment on this review, see
http://www.bmcreview.org/2009/08/20090811.html
-------------------------------

Though far outside the classical canon, the influence of Lucian of
Samosata upon Western literature is unquestionable.  One simply has to
read Erasmus, Rabelais, or Swift.  Yet even in 2009, and with two
decades of contemporary scholarship reevaluating the literary merit of
the Second Sophistic, commentaries, let alone a seminal commentary to
his corpus, are sorely lacking.  Hopkinson's current edition for the
Cambridge green and yellow series thus attempts to fill a marked gap in
classical scholarship.  For undergraduate and graduate students -- the
primary targets -- this edition and commentary is much needed.  We
finally have an adequate reading text that reflects current models of
Imperial Greek literature.  However, as welcome as this edition may be,
it has some noticeable gaps of its own.  Although it is canvassed with
the classical tradition, excellent philology, and a good understanding
of the textualist culture of the second century, a presentation of how
Lucian transforms the classical tradition and the Attic fetishisms of
his time is often missing.  And if we miss the joke, or to what end a
classical myth is comically parodied and reinvented, then we miss
Lucian.

Hopkinson's edition contains seven works: The Dream, You're a Literary
Prometheus, The Ignorant Book Collector, Praise of the Fly, Sigma vs.
Tau: the Court of the Vowels, Timon, and Dialogues of the Sea Gods.
Accordingly it is a fine selection of Lucian's comic and satiric
writing.  Accompanied by a concise preface to current models of the
Second Sophistic, this is a useful introduction to Lucian for both
students and scholars.

The text itself is nearly indistinguishable from Macleod's OCT.
Overall this is not a bad thing.  Macleod constructed a usable text.
But in light of Bompaire's new Bude/ and Nesselrath's lengthy, scathing
review of Macleod's work, any editor of Lucian needs to address these
scholars.  While Bompaire and Nesselrath are not entirely absent,
Hopkinson never critically positions himself (or defends Macleod) in
context.  In fact, nowhere does the reader glimpse the editorial
controversy -- established by Nesselrath -- that still haunts the last
Oxford edition.

Beyond this, one cannot pass serious criticism upon Hopkinson's
linguistic observations.  His Greek is impeccable.  He is, however, a
conservative critic.  There are places where established conjecture
seems quite preferable to manuscript readings.  As Shackleton Bailey
once brought Sir Richard Bentley back into the text of Horace, a
uniquely critical text to Lucian is possible.  An editor still has the
opportunity to affect this text.  Unfortunately I do not see
Hopkinson's mark on the Greek.

The real criticism rests with the commentary.  Although Hopkinson's
notes are full of keen philological comment and understanding of Greek
culture, his analysis is often limited, if not incomplete, when it
comes to Lucian's comic voice.  This unfortunately stems from his
general approach.  "A Callimachus or an Ovid seems to invite learned
comment, but Lucian does not . . . The apparatus of scholarship feels
somehow awkward when applied to these effortless compositions.  For my
part I have tried to evade the charge of pedantry by keeping the notes
brief," Hopkinson says in the preface (p. vii).  It is one thing to
evade pedantry. It is quite another to ignore the humorous mechanisms
of Lucian's seemingly simple prose.  The few following observations may
illustrate this.

The most pressing issue is that too often we find detailed mythological
and literary comments that fail to illuminate Lucian's comic writing.
Yes, we need to recognize the Greek tradition at Lucian's fingertips,
whether this is Theocritus, Aristophanes, or Herodotus.  But without
any notion of how Lucian reworks this material, we simply have lots of
paint on the canvass, but no picture.

To give one example, and there are many, in the eighth Dialogue of Sea
Gods Lucian recasts the myth of how Poseidon saved Amymone from a
lustful satyr, resulting in the creation of an eponymous spring.
Hopkinson gives a complete account of the myth's appearance in Greek
literature, and then simply notes that Lucian's version is lacking the
satyr and has an "uncharacteristically frenzied" Poseidon (p. 213).
Nowhere does Hopkinson recognize that Lucian's mythic recycling is a
comic travesty of a divine affair.  Thus, as accurate as his
philological comments may be, they do not accentuate Lucian's travesty,
nor even bring out why the dialogue is funny.

Similarly, numerous jokes and important Lucianic words lack comment.
In The Ignorant Book Collector, after sarcastically comparing the man
to Hesiod, Lucian claims that the Muses would have nothing to do with
him, that they would bestow lashes <greek>murri/nhi</greek> and
<greek>mala/xhs fu/llois</greek> instead of <greek>da/fnhs</greek>.  In
conjunction with the sexual accusation of an impure mouth, Hopkinson
fails to see the comic, invective charge of effeminacy.
<greek>murri/nhi</greek> is "unexplained" and <greek>mala/xhs</greek>
is ignored (p. 123).

In You're A Literary Prometheus, when comparing his own literary
composition to the artistic talents of the mythic Prometheus, Lucian
explains that his goal is entertainment and play.  Here the pun in
<greek>paidia/</greek> goes unnoticed.  In defining his hippocentaur,
Lucian programmatically exploits the linguistic connection between
gaming (<greek>paidia/</greek>) and intellectual activity
(<greek>paidei/a</greek>).  In Greek they are separated by only an
epsilon!  This is fundamental to understanding Lucian's creation of the
comic dialogue, not to mention how it works.  It is intellectual
entertainment.  Go ask Erasmus.

The metafictional consciousness of Lucian's work receives no comment
either.  Whether a piece depicts a theme from contemporary Antioch,
Fifth-Century Greece, or involves a talking rooster, Lucian's text
refers to itself as a rhetorical and even performed composition.  In
The Dream, for example, Lucian describes his tear-soaked introduction
to sculpting as the prelude (<greek>prooi/mia</greek>) to his art
(<greek>te/xnhs</greek>).  Predicated upon his tears, this word
underscores the rhetorically fabricated and performed biography that
ensues.  Similarly, important terms such as <greek>sxh=ma</greek>,
<greek>skhnh/</greek>, and <greek>pla/sma</greek>, which explicitly
refer to the stage and rhetorical composition, riddle Lucian's corpus.
Yet Hopkinson is unconcerned with how these words function and
invigorate, both comically and satirically, Lucian's writing.  The
Syrian is always commenting upon the second century, always commenting
upon the job.  This self-consciousness is another seminal aspect of the
humorous, inner workings of the comic dialogue.

In terms of a classical text, a classical commentary, and  as a reader
for students of classics, Hopkinson's edition is very usable.  Lucian
is linguistically and culturally well situated in the second century.
However, we must remember the words of Ewen Bowie: "Lucian developed a
form of rhetorical entertainment very different from the standard
declamations . . ."[[1]]  Indeed, Lucian's text is something different,
and thus requires something more than the usual commentary.  You can
isolate and throw the weight of the classical tradition at him.  Yet,
if his parodic recycling and the mechanisms of his humor are absent,
then you have only scratched the surface of Lucian.  Unfortunately, the
vast majority of Hopkinson's comments are reminiscent of the
much-respected, yet older approach of Bompaire; it is a rhetorical
stitching together of classical literature and myth.  A greater
sensitivity to the complex nature of comedy and the comic dialogue
would have made this work stronger.  After all, as the saying goes,
"drama is easy, comedy is hard."


------------------
Notes:


1.   Bowie, E. 2007: "The Ups and Downs of Aristophanic Travel," in E.
Hall and A. Wrigley (Eds.), Aristophanes in Performance 421 BC-AD 2007:
Peace, Birds, and Frogs. London: p. 34.