In my previous post I discussed the radical views of Cynic philosophy – to be happy you must give up everything that can be lost, including all your possessions and your attachments to them. That was a set-up for what I really wanted to discuss, a “Journey to the Afterlife” (technical term: Katabasis) found in the writings of Lucian of Samosata, one of the great writers of Satire in the Roman world, writing in the second century CE.
Here I introduce Lucian and begin to talk about his very funny dialogue, The Downward Journey. (Again, this is taken from a draft of my book Journeys to Heaven and Hell, to come out from Yale University Press in April)
******************************
Born in Samosata on the Euphrates, outside the centers of intellectual power and not known for its cultural icons, Lucian originally would have spoken Aramaic but he came to be trained in Greek rhetoric. He eventually abandoned law for a literary career. Some eighty of his prose pieces survive, many of them attacks on charlatans and hucksters (Alexander of Abonuteichos; Peregrinus); mockery of philosophers (“Philosophies for Sale,” “Fisherman”); and satirical dialogues with sundry purposes, one of which was to ridicule the affluent by revealing the devastating harm of wealth (e.g., “Dialogues of the Dead,” “Mennipus,” “Charon,” “Dream of the Cock,” and “Timon”).
Lucian had a complicated relationship with philosophy. A good deal of his work parodies it, not from a specific philosophical perspective of his own but in general and on principle. He never undercuts philosophical positions by espousing a better one: on the contrary, even in antiquity he was notorious for never espousing any view at all.
As a rule, Lucian maligns the philosophers rather than their views per se: they contradict each other, propose all kinds of nonsense, and engage in endless and rather pointless debates. Moreover, they are hypocrites who cannot be trusted, urging actions they do not take, and propounding views of no use to anyone else, simply to line their own pockets.
But in several of his dialogues Lucian does put forth a decidedly Cynic understanding of wealth (see my previous post). Almost everywhere this was acknowledged as a radical view, at odds with moral philosophy as endorsed, for example, by traditional Stoics and Platonists. It nonetheless seems to be the view endorsed by Lucian – not in his own life, but in his writings, as he maligns wealth as a great evil that will lead to abject misery, a view that stands precisely counter to the one endorsed, whether explicitly or implicitly, by most of the rest of his world. So much becomes clear in a number of his dialogues that could yield to fruitful analysis along this line, especially Menippus and Timon. But here I have chosen to focus on Cataplus – The Downward Journey.
In some ways it is not quite right to call the work a katabasis (= a journey to the afterlife). It is less a guided tour of the realm of the dead than an account of people journeying to it as a permanent residence. It is the reader who is given the tour, to see the wealthy go in abject misery, having lost all they cherished in life, their possessions in particular; whereas others – including a Cynic and an impoverished cobbler — go down rather merrily, finding that an afterlife with no poverty, hunger, and injustice provides a pleasant prospect indeed.
The Downward Journey
The account beings with a discussion between one of the Fates, Clotho, and Charon, ferryman of the dead. Charon is upset that the god Hermes, “conductor of the dead” (νεκροπομπός), who guides the recently deceased down to Hades, has not yet arrived with his first batch of souls for the day, and Charon has so far not earned a single obol. He suspects that since the underworld is not exactly a place of high entertainment, Hermes has found more interesting things to do. But eventually the god shows up with 1004 of the deceased in tow and in a very bad mood. One of his charges has repeatedly been trying to escape back to the land of the living, and Hermes has constantly been having to make chase. The deceased miscreant is set in contrast with one other, a fellow with a pack over his shoulder and a club in his hand – equipment traditionally associated with Cynics — who not only is happily coming to the River Styx but has also proved helpful in securing the run-away. We later learn this person is called Cyniscus.
And the run-away? He is a fabulously wealthy tyrant, aptly named Megapenthes (“Great Grief”), out of his wits with anger and frustration for having just lost his fabulous wealth, power, and pleasure, desperate to get it all back. When he arrives at the river, he begs Clotho: surely the Fate could reverse her decision, if just for a day. He needs to complete the palace he has been building, instruct his wife about the treasure he has buried, finish his municipal building projects, subdue his warring enemies, learn how his death has been received, and take vengeance on his manservant who abused his corpse. He offers significant bribes, pleads the injustice of it all, and argues that as a tyrant he should be above the law of the dead. Is it all to no avail. His life is over, his fate has been decided, and Rhadamanthus will soon render his verdict. Having everything he desired in the world above, Megapenthes will now be perpetually miserable, having lost it all simply by experiencing the fate common to all mortal flesh.
The dialogue shifts then to another of the deceased, an impoverished cobbler, Micyllus. He too is upset, but not for being removed from the world of the living but for being delayed from crossing the Styx. He cannot get to the underworld fast enough, and is perturbed that Charon’s boat has filled up without him and he has to wait on shore. Clotho is surprised that Micyllus does not welcome the delay, but he replies by referencing Homer: unlike Odysseus in the cave of the Cyclops he is not at all pleased by the promise that “I will devour ‘Noman’ last” (πύματον ἐγὼ τὸν Οὖτιν κατέδομαι; Odyssey 9.369; quoted in Cataplus 14). That is, Micyllus sees no advantage to being the final one to cross, and he says so with a striking witticism: ἄν τε γοῦν πρῶτον, ἄν τε πύματον, οἱ αὐτοὶ ὀδόντες περιμένουσιν: “Whether [I am] first or last, the same teeth are waiting.” Yes indeed.
******************************
I’ll continue with the story in my next post.
Thankfully, you translate the ancient Greek to normal English and I can understand the dialogues! 😂😂 It is much easier this way than trying to get to the bottom of the etymology!
I read Lucian a long time ago, but I remember having a hard time digesting it, because he had some really weird space stuff going on in the book I happened to read – I couldn’t make sense of it, actually. But I was like nineteen years old or something at the time.
By the way, one thing that struck me in “How Jesus Became God” was something unexpectedly enlightening you mentioned about how satire can give you a good insight into a society’s common beliefs. This remark of yours was one of the highlights of that unbelievable book. Maybe you should write a piece (or a series of posts) some day about the tools historians employ to understand an ancient society’s ethics, norms, values etc. I think that would be really fascinating as well as valuable.
This question isn’t related to the topic at hand, but I wanted to sneak it in.
Was Paul an adoptionist?
I think the key to Paul’s thinking about Christ is in Phil. 2:6-11, where he understands Christ to be a pre-existent divine being who was made even a higher level divinity at the resurrection. So I’d say the answer is definitely no.
Cynicism sounds a lot like Buddhism.
Except their “Buddha” would be very skinny.
Hi Dr Ehrman!
I’ve been reading a bit about Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza and how groundbreaking her book: “In Memory of Her” is. Would you say that it’s worth buying this book, or would it just be too specialized for a non-scholar to read?
Thank you!
It would be tough sledding for someone at your stage. She loves big words and difficult ideaas. But it was indeed a ground-breaker.
Prof. Bart – Off-topic, if I may, about Luke 1-2:
Your lecture “Christ come in the flesh” from Yale Divinity School in 2004 has great insights on competing early-Christian views of Jesus. It focuses on the docetist Marcion, later countered as heretical by Tertullian, in their understandings of Luke. (Does Luke show two gods? A trinity?)
In it you point to scribal additions to counter a docetic reading of Luke, to make it show the flesh-and-blood nature of Jesus.
But you also give the argument, which you seem to accept, that the first two chapters of Luke, the birth narrative, were added by Luke himself later. They also stress that Jesus was a real human.
What I’m unclear on:
Do proponents of this idea assert that Luke *meant* to come back with the addition explicitly to counter docetists, as Tertullian later would? Or was Luke’s own non-docetic addition just a happy coincidence for proto-orthodox people? Luke c70 was writing way before mid-100s Tertullian. Was he already, shortly after his first edition, concerned to stress that Jesus was a real human – to counter some already-existing docetic viewpoint (which had been helped by his passionless passion)?
Thanks!
(That lecture: https://youtube.com/watch?v=NLAm6tU6-GY&feature=share)
It’s usually thought among those of us with this view that a later editor added the first two chapters; it’s not clear that it was necessarily in *order* to make the book anti-docetic, but one of the results was that it did become that way.
Off topic:
Dr Bart
You’ve talked about how Paul views Jesus as an angel before his incarnation. In 1 Corinthians 8:6 he mentions “Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” Is he suggesting here that Jesus was also a co-creator with God? And wouldn’t that make him God as well?
NOt necessarily. It could make him the angelic begin througn whom he made the world. Other Jews thought that God used angels to establish the universe.
Really? Do you know any articles or books I could read concerning Jews view of God’s use of angels in creation?
Nothing for a general audience comes to mind. I believe Jarl Fossum’s book on teh Name of God and the Angel of the Lord talks about it; the Rabbis argued against the view in places (which shows that others held it).
That’s interesting. Which Jews thought God created the universe through angels? I’m assuming you’re referring to certain ancient writings that we still have? If so could you please mention them? Thank you.
There is a discussion of the issue in Karl Jossum’s Name of the God and the ANgel of the Lord, and of the rabbinic refutation of such views in Alan Segal, Two Powers in Heaven.
if jesus thought that day of judgement was coming soon and that people should turn other cheek and give up their possessions, why he told his followers to purchase two swords?
what was the need for him to die if he thought that soon he will be ruling over the disbelievers?
“Repent for the kingdom of god is near”
The issue with knowing about Jesus’ teaching is figuring out which things he really said and which ones not. I don’t think he said that one.
Based on Micyllus’ desire to enter the afterlife as soon as possible, would it be accurate to say that life in the ancient world was difficult for most people and possibly miserable for some? Do we have any sense of how good life was for the ordinary person in the ancient world?
For the vast majority of the human race it has always been on average pretty awful, with good moments mixed in at various rates.
Love Lucian of Samosata, thanks for reminding me of this scene
From _How Jesus Became God_, page 42:
“We too, as I have pointed out, are on a continuum. Some among us are quite lowly — those whom the likes of Lucian of Samosata, for example, would consider the scum of the earth.”
What is the meaning and function of this reference to Lucian? What did you have in mind? He does not strike me as someone who would think of “lowly” people as “scum”.
Oh, he mocks all sorts of people. I’m thinking of Peregrinus and even Alexander of Abonuteichos, let along the philosophers he takes on.