Posted: Jun 17, 2017 11:21 pm
Tracer Tong wrote:
Cool. So let's look at the references in Lucian, since he's most fun. Why do you say they're spurious?
Here's the Loeb translator's introduction ...
- LUCIAN of SAMOSATA
Introduction by A.M. Harmon, 1913,
Published in Loeb Classical Library,
9 volumes, Greek texts and facing English
translation: Harvard University Press.
Among the eighty-two pieces that have come down to us under the name of Lucian, there are not a few of which his authorship has been disputed. Certainly spurious are Halcyon, Nero, Philopatris, and Astrology; and to these, it seems to me, the Consonants at Law should be added. Furthermore. Deinostitenes, Gharidemus, Cynic, Love, Octogenarians, Hippias, Ungrammatical Man, Swiftfoot, amid the epigrams are generally considered spurious, and there are several others (Disowned and My Country in particular) which, to say the least, are of doubtful authenticity.
There are a hundred and fifty manuscripts of Lucian, more or less, which give us a tradition that is none too good. There is no satisfactory critical edition of Lucian except Nilén’s, which is now in progress. His text has been followed, as far as it was available, through the True Story. Beyond this point it has been necessary to make a new text for this edition. In order that text and translation may as far as possible correspond, conjectures have been admitted with considerable freedom: for the fact that a good many of them bear the initials of the translator he need not apologize if they are good; if they are not no apology will avail him. He is deeply indebted to Professor Edward Capps for reviewing his translation in the proof.
It is therefore quite evident that a great many works were passed off under the name of Lucian.
One of the more well known Lucian forgeries is The Philopatris
- Passed under his name. This dialogue, unlike what Lucian had written in the Peregrine and The Liar, is a deliberate attack on Christianity. It is clear to us now that it was written two hundred years after his time, under Julian the Apostate; but there can be no more doubt of its being an imitation of Lucian than of its not being his; it consequently passed for his, the story gained currency that he was an apostate himself, and his name was anathema for the church.
Consequently there is a reasonable doubt that any specific work actually attributed to Lucian is not one of the spurious works that appeared during the 4th century under his name. As far as I am concerned, for the purpose of the exercise outlined in the OP, all I need to do is to establish a reasonable doubt.