Utopian Laughtcr: Lucian and Thomas More

To be sure, man 's hfe is a business

which does not deserve to be ta ken seriously;
yet wc cannot hclp being in earncst w ith it.
-l'lato Law< Ho3b

La marque profonde d'une nouveauté

c'est son pouvoir rL'troactif.
-M ichel Butor

At a tirne when More's Uttlpia is attcntively studied as a mastcrpiccc

while Lucian remains largcly an unknown qu antity, it is a curious fact
that in Morc's lifctimc he was probably more widcly rcad as the trans-
lator of Lucian than the author of Utopia. By 1535 his translations of
Lucian had appearcd in fourtcen editions compared to onl y six editions
of Utopia . Whethcr More or Erasmus fn·st conccivcd the idca of pub-
lishing a collection of Latin translations of Lucian, the result of thcir
efforts was to hclp initiate a L1scination vvith his work that made him
one of the most widcly read Greek au thors in sixtccnth-ccntury Europe.
By 1550 there were about 270 printings of Lucian in circulation, includ-
ing more tlun 6o editions of the Greck tcxt. 1 ln vicw of the fact that
Morc 's literary reputation in the Tudor period was in part a product of
his involvcm ent with Lucian carly in his ca reer, it would be surprising
to find that Lucian was of only incidcntal rclcvance to More's later
work . Yet, oddly enough, the recognition of Lucian's special impor-
tance for the study of More, and for Utopia in particular, has been slow
in coming. Lucian is dismissed in a si ng le paragraph in the preface to
the Yale Utopia as "finding a possible echo only in a touch here or
there." 2 ln spi te of the attem pts of somc cri tics to correct this vicw, 3 a
thorough re-evaluation ofMorc's relation to Lucian appcared only with
Alistair Fox's brilliant study of More's intcllectual devclopmcnt in which
he argues that More's "encounter with Lucian was absolutely crucial to
the development of his mature vision and its literary and philosophical
consequences were long lastin g ." 4
One of the virtues of Fox 's study is to have demonstratcd significan t
continuities bctween the structure of irony in Utop ia and that which
distinguishes certain tex ts of Lucian that More chose to translate. What
is apt to be overlooked from this perspective arc the different functions
that humor and irony typically perform in their works and how thor-

[2 3l
 H. BHACHT I:!RANf!A'\1

oughly More transtorms hi s Lucianic startin g poims. I wish to cmpha-

size berc the way in \Yhich Morc's own inrcrcsts shapcd his rcsp on sc ro
Lucian as it is rcfkctcd in UfOJJin in his selective adaptati on of Lucianic
thcmes and techniques carefully purgcd ofqualities unsu ited to his own
very diftèrent purposes . ln thi s respect the rclarion sh ip bc twccn More
and Lucian may serve as an in tc resting modcl of th e ki nd of d ialecrical
reversais which Ren aissance auth ors often imposed on rhe classical
material that has traditionally been rhought ro ktw ' 'inrluenced" them .
This may sound as if Lucian is being givcn an exJgger,ltcd impor-
tance, but he was takcn very scrio usly, perhaps too seriously. m the
sixtecmh ccntury: His na mc quickly became a tcrm of abuse in rcligious
conrrovcrsics and "Lucianism " becamc sy non ymous \\'ith a particu-
larly virulent form ot disbelicf, ass ocia red nor mL-rely wirh an abse nce
of fai th but with a kind of skepticism intormcd hy ridicule for the
crcdulity of the [lithfi.tJS lt is no wonder thar thL· young More fclt
movcd ro writc a kttcr (ro Rurhall) cxplaining rhc va lue of Lucian tor
Christian rcadcrs . Dut the value of reading which Lucian' The witry,
versatile sophist of the age of the Antonines be ars lmh· modcst rcsem -
blancc ro the Rctormarion 's athcist and srilllcss ro thL· ;1llcgori zcd Lucian
of the fifrcenth ccntury. '' More w as publishing hi s translations of Lucian
and his Uropiajusr as Lucian's mcdiacval image w as being rd(ll'mularcd
in the light of the ncwly availablc Grcck rcxts, but bct(lt'C the diabolical
Lucian of the controvcrsiali srs had become tîxed in the minds of many
rcadcrs. The original Lucian is worth rccallin g hcre if wc arc to appre-
cia te the complcxity of his appcal for More or what More made ofhis
Lucianic inhcritancc .
As a protèssion al sophist Lucian was the practition cr of the now
torgottcn art of oratory as cntcrtainmcnt (iui)'oc; ÈTILÙELKnKôc;), a kind
of litcrary divertis se ment exrrcmcly popul ar ,Imon g Grccks in the
Empire, which Lucian transtè)rmcd from a mode of arrful ephemera
imo a mcans for parodie rcrlecrion on the prcoccup .Itions of contcm -
porary Hcllcnic culture. Dcvcloping his own pcculiar forms t()r this
purposc, ï he for gcd a wry, cri ti cal rcsponse ro dctîning tl_',tture o f Creek
culture in the noman E n1pirc : Its sclf-conscious classic1sm. ln certa in
respects Lucian 's stance vis-à-vis his own culrurL' is IlOt unlike More's
own: a consummate traditionalist who has mastcrcd the idioms of an
ancient language, litcrary Attic thcn ovcr tivc hundrcd years old, an d
who uscd his agile command of his culturc·s mo st ,lutlwritativc tradi-
tions to mount a pla yfu l rca ppraisal ofthcir contempor,Hy sig niticmcc .
ln their own ways both au rhors arc intcrcstcd in probing the durabilitv
 LUCIAN

of idealized cultural traditions in whi ch they themsclves arc steeped,

indeed, of which they arc products . The crucial difference is thar wherc
Lucian habitually weds formai traditionahsm to an instinctive skepti-
cism as to the value of the traditional attitud es and ideologies he
reproduces, More 's traditionalism is mu ch more th an a matter of form.
Neverthcless, the broad sirnilarities in their cultural contexts and inter-
ests must have contnbuted to Lucian's appeal for More by providing a
"classical" precedent for such characteristically humanist predilections
as the delight in rhetorical technique for its own sak e (cf. Morc's
translation of and reply to Lucian 's Tyrannicida), the interest in devcl -
oping a lingu 1stic style based on classical modcls but not ri gid ly imita-
tive, H and, above ali, the use o f an acknowledged canon of classical
authors as a constant frame of reference (cf. Hythlodaeus' habitua]
quo ting of Plato) . Each of these tendencies distinguishes Lucian tî·om
authors of the classical and archaic periods (Homer to Aristotle) and
made his work more accessible and germane to humanists like More
who a Iso worked in the shadow of prestigious cultural traditions .
But of cou rse the primary source ofLucian's ap peal for More was his
quizzic:d satiric method, the complex virtues of which arc hinted at
somewhat confusingly in the letter to Ruthall. Only oversimplified
notions of Lucian's method could be usee! to set up the artificial imer-
pretativc dichotomies that would rcquire us, for example, to choose
bctwcen a Lucianic reading of Utop ia as a kind of jeu d'esprit and one
which views the work as a senous treatmcnt of its them es .'' Fo r this is
to misconstrue, or simply to overlook, the seriocomic character of
Lucian 's texts and to ignore the explicit reasons More gives for translat-
ing him . ln the opening sentence of the lcttcr to Ru th al] More accu ratel y
charactcrizes Lucian's ambivalent gualities in classical Horatian tcrms :
" Si guisquam fuit unquarn vrr doctissime, gui Horatianum praeceptum
implcvcrit, voluptatemque cum utilitate coniunxerit, hoc ego cerro
Lucianum in primis puto praestitisse" (p . 2) . Surprisingly, he thcn
proceeds in the body of the lctter to foist a onc- sidedly didactic cmpha-
sis on particular works, even when it cntails manitè:stly misreading
them as illustrations of tàmiliar Christian pieti cs . If mod ern cri tics have
often mis sec! the scriousness of Lucian 's hu mor, he re More errs in the
oppos ite direction . His suggestion of a dryly cOJnic Horatian manner
in his opening sentences is contradicted by the rcductive, univocally
didactic meanings that he attributcs to his chosen tcxts. The lcttcr rhus
su ggests both the scri ousness More accorded Lucian and thL' peculiar
diffiwltics thar imitating the sophist would pose for him, given that his
 R. BRACHT BRANHAM

own conception of the proper rolc ofliterature was far more unJmbig-
uously didactic than any that actually guided Lucian 's practice.
Ifwe compare More's characterization ofLuciJn in the lctter with the
texts themsclves wc cm observe a clcar discrcpancy bctwccn what he
ostcnsibly thinks Lucian is saying and what Lucian does in fact say or
suggcst m the relevant works . More clearly wishcs to present LuciJn as
speaking in a voice more consonant with his own. His Lucian is sym-
pathetic to such characteristically Christian values as asccticislll, rcserv-
ing his satiric hu mor for thosc who corrupt and confuse traditions (pp.
2/20-4/ô) . But for Lucian the _idcalists and dogmatists of Hcllcni c
traditions, whether advocating Cynic asccticism (Cyuiws), Stoic phi-
losophy (Hcrlllolillllls), or the aristocratie cult of athlctics (Auacll!lrsi.'),
arc the propcr targets for satiric scrutiny: they reflcct the tendency
toward complaccncy vvith whatcvcr is sanctioned by tradition that is
the hall mark of a classicizing culture. Th us his Cyui(lfs, which More
dcscribcs in the lctter as praising Christian simplicity, temperance, and
frugality and denouncing luxury, is acrually an ironie presentation of
Cynic asccticism through the co mie persona of its disrcputablc advo-
catc: the Cynic street prcachcr, dresscd in rags and cagcr to harangue
un suspccting passersby.
The work is cast as a dialogue in which an anonymous Cynic takcs
ad van tage of a chance encounter to underrake the philosophical instruc-
tion ofLykinos, a common authori al persona for Lucian, in the virrucs
of the rude Cynic way of !ife and the tolly of a world th ::tt Llils to
acknowlcdge the Cynic's truth. But whilc the philosopher dominates
the dialogue verbally and succccds in reducing Lykinos to silence bcfore
he is through, his attempted apology for Cynicism turns into mischie-
vous self-caricature: it begins with a parodie rcndition of Socratic
method ( 1-4) and culmina tes in an unintcntionally ludicrous encom-
ium of the Cynic eth os, full of faulty and nonscnsical rcason in g (c . g .,
r 1), comically un apt analogies (e .g ., 12), and examp les that subvcrt
what they arc meant to prove (e.g ., r6). The comic qualitics of the
Cynic's performance can pet·haps bcst be secn in his trcatmcnt of the
heroes, Heracles and Theseus, whom he scems to admire !css for the
moral qualitics traditionally attributcd to them than bccause they look
and dress like Cynics- witncss the beard and barc fcct ( 13 -14). lndced,
the grcatness of the hcroic age lies not m the hcrocs' virtuous conduct
but in thcir steadfast refusai to shavc : "not a single one of them wou ld
sit still for a razor any more th an a lion would " ( 14), he observes with
understa nd able excitcment.
 1. U ClAN

The comic tendency to confuse the literai details of physical appcar-

ance with the moral qualirics they arc supposcd to signify characterizcs
the C ynics in Lucian . 1" Hencc the topic ofdrcss rccurs rcpcatcdly in the
course of the philosopher\ diatribe, which both bcgms :md cmls with
ludicrous rationalizations of the familiar Cy111c ga rb : If a lyrcplaycr or
piper or tragic actor is entitlcd to his own uniform, shouldn't the gond
man, i.e. , the Cynic. also be distinguishcd by his drcss) asks the
philosoph er rhctorically ( 1o). l3ut the comparison to cntcrtaincrs con-
veys more than he intcnds : the Cynics too arc popular pertormcrs of a
kind who have choscn their ecccntric rok as much out of cnthusiasm
for its out!andish style as ti·mn philos.ophical insight. Whilc the Cynic
also pcppcrs his harangue with somc lcgitimatc points. the humorous
ctTcct of his illogicality accumulatcs un til it wou Id be difficult for any
reader to takc him very scriously. l3y the rime he concludcs his perora-
rion by comparing himsclf to the gods - their statues show them
without shirts and shoes- it is clcar wh y Lykinos nccd makc no rcply.
Nothing is more Lucianic than this ironie use of a confidcnt!y didactic
VOl Ce.

Thus , the satire of the Cyniws is not, as More suggcsts, directcd

primarily against "cncrvata . . luxuria" (p. 4/ 3), but neither arc its
sources ofhumor limitcd to the wayward rcasoning of the philosopher.
The hu mor is primarily a function of the particular type of dialogue
devcloped by Lucian that serves to dramatizc the comic inability of
eithcr speaker to grasp full y the othcr's point of vicw bccausc of thcir
absorption in distinct uni verses of discoursc . The Cynic is so mgrosscd
in the evangclicallanguagc of his sect thar he seems scarccly aware that
in conccding Lykinos' single argument- thar it is Cynic sclf-dcpriva-
tion that is contra naturmn- he has abandoned the central premisc of
his own position (5-6). Un_fazcd by this possibility, the philosopher
rushes on to his ncxt point, whilc Lykinos listcns paticnt!y, scarccly
able to ger a word in cdgcwisc . This is lcss the record of an argument
than of how an attcmptcd conversion is foilcd by an uncoopcrativc
intcrlocutor. Thus the charactcristic procedures of Platonic dialogue,
the systematic refutations and the scarch for a philosophical method
thar will campel agreement, arc purposcfully cschcwcd by Lucian. For
the focus of Lucianic dialogue is the humor of conccptual in congruity
itsclf, which Platonic techniques scck to dispcl by rcducing the comic
multiplicity of perspectives to the truc and the falsc.
The rolc of hum or in the Cyniws is th us representative of a series of
dialogues, including the Anaclwrsis and Hcmw tÎ/IIIIS, in which an ideal-
 R . BRACHT BRANHAM

izin g ala zon figure, closely idcntified with somc rcspcctcd cultural
tradition, takes it upon himsclfto cnlightcn a bcnighted ciron and in the
proccss rcveals not only his own confusion but thar latent in the tradi-
tion he advocatcs . The purity- or cxtrcmity- of the alazc)ld· position
is uscd to acccntuatc the undcrl yin g conccptu al clash which is the
dialoguc's Schwerpunkt. Thus the Cynic sharcs with his countcrparts in
othcr dialogues a penchant for ovcrgcncralization and ovcrsimplifica-
tion which fuels his righteous indignation at the world. The point is
not that in rcducin g the complcxity of the dialogue to the simple
functions of praisin g virtue and ridiculing vice More intcrprctcd Lucian
simplistically, but that this rcluctânce to acknowlcdge opcnly the skcp-
tical assumptions and subversive tcndcncies so csscntial to Lucian's
humor is symptomatic of Morc's reception and adaptation of his work. 11
More transl ated t!ucc other works by Lucian: the Tyrannicida, a fictive
excrcisc in forcnsic oratory, the Philopseudes, 1 ~ a collection of magic
talcs prcsented as a satire on superstitious philosophcrs, and the Mmip-
pus. Of these the Mcnippus bears most direct! y on Utopia both in its use
of the idea that !ife is likc a play and in its Mcnippcan inquiry into the
bcst way oflifc. Once a gain, Morc's charactcrization of the work in his
introductory le tt cr as a rcbukc to "the jugglery of magicians or the silly
fictions of pocts or the fruit!ess contentions of philosophcrs" (p. 51
9-1 1) sec ms oddly circumscribcd. ln the Mcnippus or the Dcsccnt into
Hades Lucian dons the mask of another kind of Cynic, the famous
Cynic jcster Menippus of Gad ara (3 rd cent. B . c.), and translates the
epie journey to Ha des, traditionally attributcd to Hcracles, Od ysscus,
Orpheus, or Pythagoras, among othcrs, into a parodie qucst for phil-
osophical cnlightcnment . Just as the dialectical humor of the Cyniws
derives from its juxtaposition of incompatible perspectives on Cynic
asccticism, so much of the hum or of Menippus ' talcs (in the Mcnippus
and lcaro111enippus) is crcated by vicwing the familiar world of archaic
my th through the alien lens of Cynic disco.u rsc . The clash of divergent
traditions forms the basis of the comedy as wc move prccariously
amon g shifting lcvcls of style and scrious ness .
Mcnippus' description of the circumstanccs th at provokcd his mis-
sion to Hades consciously parodies the ideals of the civilization of
paideia: 13 For his very convcntional education (paidcia) yiclds a comi-
cally deviant product. Likc cvcryonc cise, Mcnippu s bcgan his training
in lctters with a study of the old pocts. As a boy, he grcw up hcaring of
the deeds of the gods and he rocs , thcir loves and ha tes , thcir rapcs and
crimes of violence, the banishing of fa th ers and the marrying of sisters

[2 8]
 LUCIAN

-and was naturally ca ger to imita tc his bcttcrs (3). He was undcrstand-
ably disconccrtcd to discovcr as an adult thar the law for bade just su ch
conduct. This unexpected contradiction sent him off to the philoso-
phcrs for clarification, "out of the smoke into the firc" (4). For he soon
found thar not only did the philosophcrs disagrec on evcry known
question but their practicc oftcn contradictcd thcir own doctrines.
Mcnippus' experience of confusion in the face of this bcwildcring
disagrccmcnt among traditional authoritics playfully rccapitulatcs the
quandary of contcmporary Pyrrhoncan skcptics, who argucd thar the
conAicting varicty of plausible thcorjes and respectcd traditions con-
ccrning the most important subjccts makes the suspension ofjudgmcnt
(É1TOXTJ) the on! y rational rcsponsc. 14 lnstead of suspendin g judgmcnt,
howcvcr, Mcnippus decides to eut the Gordian knot of skepticism by
magical mcans : he cntrcats a Chaldcan sorcerer, Mithrobarzancs, to
transport him to Ha des to con suit Tciresias on the bcst way of !ife for
man .
If Mcnippus' journcy a cross the Achcrusian plain do es not succecd in
rcsolving his cpistcmic dilcmma, at lcast it prepares him for the The-
ban 's answer. For Mcnippus disco vers th at the most significant distinc-
tions bctween men on carth arc invcrted or effaced bclow. The rich,
dcprivcd of more, suffcr more. The cclcbratcd hcroes and hcroincs of
ancicnt Grccce are rcduced to indistinguishablc skclctons. Wcalth, fame,
knowledgc, and power appcar from Ha des as illusions of perspective.
Hcnce only the Cynics, Mcnippus and Diogcncs, find rcason to laugh
at "the incongruous contrast betwccn the ca ger fret of !ife and its fin al
nothingncss" 1' in the underworld.
Mcnippu s expresses his sense of discovcry by devcloping one of
Lucian 's favorite conccits, Je, the dra matie si mile of !ife ( 16). Men, he
says, now appcarcd to him to be playcrs in a pageant dircctcd by Chance
(TVXTJ). Their persona] attributcs and social roles arc distributed at
random. But the playcrs mistakenly idcntify them selves with thcir rolcs
and bence becomc indignant when they must cxchange parts at the
whim of Chance. Nor arc they plcased whcn the pageant cnds , and
cach must doff his costume with his body to be restored to a state of
pcrfcct cquality with his fcllow playcrs. ln thcir oblivion to the co ndi-
tions of the play, men are likc tragic actors who forget thar they must
play whatcver role the script rcquircs and, then, g ive up thcir solcmn
masks and lofty buskins to rcvcrt from the mythical stature of an
Agamemnon to the anon ymity of Satyrus, son of T l-icogiton. When,
aftcr his tour of the underworld, Mcnippus fin ally mccts Tcircsias, the
 R. BHACHT llRANIIAM

seer's ad vice is the mo ral coro llary of the dramatic si mile . I-le recom-
mends an ironie stance toward the world, not a suspension ofjudgment
perhaps, but a suspension of seriousness : "Set your mind on the pres-
ent, lau gh at most things and take nothin g seriousl y" (oTiw<; TÙ mxpùv
E1'1 6Éf-LEvos mxpaùpaf-L TJS "fEÀ.wv Tà Tio À. À.à Ka:L TIEPL f-L TJÙÈv ÉrrTiou-
ùa:Kws 21) .
Thus the Menipp us reflects some of the salient qu alities of Lucianic
seriocomedy: most important! y, the ironie use of comic masks for the
purpose of unmasking a world th at pretends to know wh at should be
taken seriously. The quality of tl?e hu mor originates in skepticism and
a very Grcek recognition of an al most willfully arbitrary force control-
ling the action ('ruxTJ), which in turn sanctions Cynic irony tO\·Vard
thosc who persist too single- mindedly in thcir zea lou s devotion to an
ideal, whcther philosophical or traditional. As an antidote to despair in
the face of the haphazard nature of the "play;' the satirist offcrs only
ironie dctachment and Mcnippcan laughte r at the gratuitous serious-
ness of the hu man players. This stance is cxprcsscd even in the mock-
scrious tone of the narrative, which sccms to rcflcct Tcircsias' ad vice in
taking nothin g seriously, not even itsclf: With a wry Cynic grin Men-
ippus , the clownish anti- philosophcr, deli ghts to find the "faith" ofhis
sect confirmcd by the wiscst of the Grecks. For if, as Teircsias says,
thcre is no rcason to takc anything scriously sub spccie Al'emi, thcn that
too docs not matter. The best kind of ]ife, thercforc, is that lcast
burdened by illusory notions of seriousncss, the lifc, not of hcrocs
and philosophcrs, but of the ordin ary man (o Twv t:ùwTwv Û:pLŒTo<;
j3Cos 21).
lt is hard to ima gine an attitude Jess Mcnippcan th an the kind of
serious idcalism and adm antinc moral commitmcnt naturally associ-
atcd with More. As in Nietzsche's fascination with Plato, thcrc is
something of the attraction of oppositcs at work in More's enthusiasm
for Lucian . Ncvertheless, if wc approach Utopia through the transla-
tions of Lucian, wc are immcdiately struck by thcir affinity both in
style and structure. More has combined the satiric strategies of the
Cyniws and i'v!enippus into a more complex and political fonn: the talc
of an exotic, mythical journcy which serves to establish a critical
perspective on familiar topics (Menippus) is used to make possible the
ironie juxta position of frag mentary truths in book 1 (Cyn iws). The
outlandish journcy and ironie dial ogue arc of course characteristically
Lucianic deviees for establishing satiric perspectives. But no lcss Lucianic
is the peculiar tex ture of Utop ia, which continua!] y unscttlcs the reader's
 LUCIAN

sense of the cmerging significance of the text by wcaving unpredictably

betwcen highly serious and pointedly Iudicro us or ironie material. It
serves to provoke the reader into considering how seriously any partic-
ular clement is, or should be, intcnded. It th us invites him to enter into
the rcalistic elaboration of the fantasy, as Giles did in crea ting a Utopian
alphabet, thercby acknowlcdging that he understood both the scrious-
ncss and the limits of the ga me .
However, More does not confme himself to reproducing Lucian's
formai structures and tonal incongruities . For the undcrlying concern
of Utopia is thoroughly Mcnippean: it asks in the most general terms
what is to be taken seriously by calling into question the moral author-
ity of the traditional sources of political wisdom, the king and his
counsclors, just as Menippus' inquiry serves to cast doubt, howcver
facetiously, on the intcllcctual authority of the ancient philosophical
schools. For the implication of Hythlodaeus' position in the debate on
councilorship in book I is that the grounds simply do not exist for
taking seriously the governing authorities of Europe as they now con-
ceivc their roles . The paradigmatic society of Utopia in book II serves
to makc this point of v1ew secm !css paradoxical by offcring a vcrisi-
milar image of authority made kgitimatc by its grounding in moral
traditions pointcdly similar to Europe's own. This ovcrriding conccrn
with the sources and validity of authority recalls the motives that send
a pcrplcxcd Cynic to a deflationary cncounter with Tcircsias in Hades.
Mcnippus' disillusioning qucst for the best way of !ife for a man bas
become the idcalizing sailor's discovery of the bcst way oflifc for men.
If More's rclationship to Lucian frequent! y takes the form of analo-
gies that reveal discrepancies as significant as the rescmblances, thcre is
a Iso a diffuse rcflection of particular works th at had bcen among th ose
translated by More and Erasmus. This complex evocation of the sa ti rist,
extending from the most basic concerns of the work to su ch idiosyn-
cratic features as the fabrication of co mie rumes in the mann cr of the
Veme historiae, resists any simple characterization. 17 But is there a dis-
cerniblc pattern to the Lucianic strains of Utopia' If wc isolate thosc
fcatures of the work that can argua bi y be considcrcd Lucianic, eithcr
because they pcrform scriocomic functions or modify identifiably
Lucianic procedures, and ana lyze them in the light of their classical
antecedents, certain characteristic emphases do begin to emerge. Morc's
use of co mie talcs in both books of Utopia and of dialogue in book 1 can
serve to indicatc the pattern.

r3 , 1
 R. BRACHT BRANHAM

Book 1: the fest ivus dialo,~?us

The tale of the JestÎ!JUS dialo,~!IS forms the conclusion of Hythlodaeus'
remarkablc account of his experiences as Cardinal Morton 's guest and
is used to support his contention that offering good advicc at court is
pointless. Hythlodaeus frames the talc in explicitly seriocomic terms,
"erant enim ridicula, sed narrabo ta men . nam non crant mala, & aliquid
ad hanc rem pertincbant" (p . Sol 21-2), which arc la ter cchoed by
Morus, " ... ita sunt abs te dicta prudenter simul & !epi de omnia" (p .
84/3 I ff.). This mingling of scrious and comic qualitics rccurs in the
characterization of the central figure of the tale, Cardinal Morton, who
combines good judgment with ·a shrewd sense of hum or ("subrisit
Cardinalis & approbat ioco," p. 82l13) and his self-appointed jcster, the
parasitic joker wh ose words arc not mere! y ridiculous ("non absurda,"
p. 80/27), but rather earnestjests ("iam scurra serio scurarri coepit," p.
82l28) . Clcarly More makcs such overt use of these seriocomic for-
mulae to alert his humanist readers to the purposeful rolc ofhumor in
the rhetorical strategy ofbook 1.
The talc itself begins with one of the guests challcnging the table to
devise a solution for the problem of beg gars comparable to th ose just
proposed for thieves and vagrants (p. 80/22 ff.). The parasite takes up
the challenge and offers his solution in the form of a jokc: turn the
beggars into monks and nuns. The Cardinal, whosc excmplary quali-
ties have already been lavishly praised by Hythlodaeus (p. 58/rS ff.),
serves as a normative audience: he approves of the jcst as su ch ("appro-
bat ioco"), but the rest of the party m istakes it for a scrious proposai
("caetcri etiam serio;' p. 82l13). The dullness of the courtly audience,
this inability to construe ajest, tores pond appropria tel y to the parasite's
ironie proposai, results almost immediately in a buffoonish quarre!.
For the theologian is so delighted at the tendcncy of the witticism
directed against monks that he decides to try his own hand at humor.
But the more agile parasite quickly tunis his quip against him with a
play on words, and the courtly audience, mistaking the Cardinal's
reticence ("eum viderent non abnucre," p. 82l21) for approval, eagerly
joins in the ridicule until the friar explodes with theologically justified
anger: "Nam is (neque cquidcm miror) tali perfusus accto, sic indigna-
tus est ... minas interim terribiles citans e scriptura sacra ."
The resulting exchangc of abuse is distinct! y Lucia nic: a familiar and
accepted rhetorical mode is caricatured in a series of parodie quotations
from scripture to produce the co mie degradation of an acknowledged
voice of authority with its habit of sanctioning whatcver it sa ys by an

[3 2 J
 LUCIAN

appca l to holy writ. The thcologian is not merely silly, he is as lcarnedly

silly as he is rightcously indignant. The misuse oflcarn ing is central to
the caricature. lx Similarly, he is pcrfcctly capable of cnjoying a joke at
the cxpcnse of his rivais, the monks, but cannot abidc one which
involvcs his kind in incongruity by collapsing so important a distinction
as th at between a mcndicant (111 enrliws) , vvhich he admits to bein g , and
a tramp (rno), which he clearly thinks bcneath his dignity (p. 82/16
ff.).
In ail this a rcadcr of Lucian will be put in mind of the comic dcpiction
of intcmpcratc philosophcrs in the Sy111posi11111 or the Lapiths in which
the lcarncd gucsts begin thcir cxcha1;gc with philosophical posturing
and mutual parody of rival doctrines only to concludc it by co ming to
blows ovcr a piece of roastcd fowl. For insofar as Hythlodacus' talc is
mcant to illustrate the obstacles to scrious discoursc in the social milieu
of the court, which is of course how he intcrprcts it (p. 84/20 ff.), it
rccalls Lucian 's parodie subversion of the ideal of philosophical discus-
sion crcatcd by Plata in his Sy111posi11111 : Lucian's contcmporary philos-
ophcrs arc as incapable of cngaging in the give and takc of scrious
dialogue as imagincd by Plato as arc Morc's courti ers. But Hythlodacus'
talc of the disputatious friar and thick-wittcd cam panions of the Car-
dinal transccnds this Lucianic function of satirizing the possibility for
scrious conversation with contcmporary interlocutors. For the Cardi-
nal's own more adcpt rcsponscs serve implicitly as a modcl of the very
interpretative skills Utopia rcquircs of its readcrs: to cons truc an elabo-
ra tc jcst, to distinguish the novel but seria us elemcnts from the facetious
twists in Hythlodaeus' fantastic sto ry. l'J
Th us thcrc arc two sources ofhumor in the anecdote bath crucial to
its rhctorical function. The first and most obvious is the tcndcntious
caricature of court society through its intcllcctual representative, the
thcologian, who serves the cause ofincongruity by viola ting his official
rolc in losing his tcmpcr, quoting scripturc inancly, and committing
clcmcntary grammatical crrors . lt is his succcss in provoking the theo-
logian to bctray the decorum of his office, rcflcctcd in his habitua]
gravity ("homo ali oqui pro pc ad torvitatcm g ravis," p. f.)21 15-1 6), th at
qualifies the parasite as a scrio us jcstcr, a court satiri st. But more
significan t than the ridiculous thcologian arc the comic interpretative
fail in gs of the courtly audience : thcir inability to sec any value in
Hythlodaeus' own novel proposais in the discussion immcdiatcly pre-
ccd in g the j èstivus rlia logus is cchocd in thcir obtuse reception of the
parasitc's jokc as on a par with Hythlodaeus' thinking ("cactcri ctiam

[33J
 R. BRACIIT BHANHAM

seno," p. R4/ 13). Th us, nor only does the parasire's fïrsr Jesr fall flat,
with only the Cardinal responding appropriately, but the second (p.
84/ 17-20), di recree! at the friar, serves to mcire a contest in abuse. This
is an audience on whom humor is wasred : Ir either misses the point of
ajokc altogether, as in the first case, or forgets thar iris ajoke, as in the
second . Clcarly, More is warning h1s readcrs againstjust such dullness
to the calculated ambivalence of tone rhat his own work notoriously
achieves- pcrhaps in anticipation of the confusL'd reception thar would
greet book II . The more cxplicir admonition ro heed the signiftcmce of
such deviees as the comic nam es, strewn rhroughour the work, which
More tèlt obliged to insert , albeir in an ironie manncr, in the lctter to
Giles appcndcd to the Paris edition ( 1517), :'Il contîrms the seriousness
of Hythlodaeus' co mie digression .

l3ook Il: thcfa!JII !a clc,'(alltissillla

Utilirarianism 1s ofrcn carried ro comic exrrcn1es in Utopia: the use of
gold for chamber pots, the premariral inspection of spouscs, and the
abolition of elever la\Nycrs arc comic paradoxes genera red by the shccr
consistcncy of the Utopians ' utilitarian logic. To be rhoroughly sensible
can have unexpectcd advantages and anomalous side eftècts. More
rclishes the apparently peculiar fcaturcs of his society precisely because
they illustrate the distinctively Utopian sense of the congruous and
incongruous : the prcd ictablc laughter of the European audience is a
measure of rhcir own un- Utopian rationality - and the cultural gap
that separates More's fictional society from his intended audience. The
vehicle for mcdiating betwccn the two rhetorically is the clcgantissinw
fab ula of the A ncmolian ambassadors .
The mcthod of the talc is to in vert the prevai li ng perspective of the
audience in book II by which ir vicws the utility of its own moral
prcccpts pragmatically disposcd in the rationa l activirics of the Utopi-
ans . This is the ideal izing perspective of the tcxt by which Utopia is
presentee! as a modcl. The satiric perspective, employee! more fre-
quently in book 1, reverses th is procedure by viewing European practice
in the light of Utopian rationality. Utopia serves the purposes of the
sa ti rist or the idealist dcpcnd ing on which way Hythlodaeus directs our
gaze . If the Utopians or their advocatc look back at the cl o ings of their
European audience, the incongruous effcct is invariably satiric.
The ambassadors of the Anemolians ("idle talkers") :' are surrogatc
1

Europcans, not only in their physica l isolation from Uto pia (p. 154/3-
4) but also in thcir working assumptions : If the Utopians do not wear
 LUCIAN

(utchantur) finery ir can only be bccausc they posscss none. Ancmolian

notions of propcr use arc assumed to be univcrsally applicable . ln them
supcrbia, the prerogative of power and the source of greed (p. 1 J ri 14-
9), appcars as a product of provincial thinking ("superbi magis quam
sapientes," p. 154/6) . Accordingly, they decide to dazzlc rhe eycs of the
"impoverished" Utopians by displaying in abundance prce1sdy what
their hosts arc thought ro Jack ("miserorum oculos Utopicnsium orna-
tus sui splcndore praestringcre." p. 1 q/]-8). They wiJl be as gods
among mortals : "apparatus clcganria dcos quosdam rcprescntarc" (p.
15417).
Whcn the Ancmolians arrive in Amaurotum preening themsclvcs on
their gold and jewclry, "articles which in Utopia arc used to punish
slaves, to stimatizc blackguards and to amuse children" (p . 155/r6-
17), the cOimc impression they make is wryly appropriate: Misintcr-
preting the trappings of the office, the Utopians mistake the am bassa-
dors for fools and slaves and greer thcir modestly attired servants as the
men in authority. The Utopian reception of the Anemolians serves as a
prcmeditated affront to thar love of magnificence ("supcrflua rerum
ostentatione," p. 138/6) which, as an acting ambassador, More himself
would have been cxpected to demonstratc. 22 But, like the courtiers of
Cardinal Morton, who cannot te11 when to take Hythlodacus scriously,
the Utopians cannot but misconstrue the "idlc" intentions of their
guests to make an impressive entrance- and in so doing unwittingly
upstage their performance. 2·1 For the meaning each party secs in the
Anemolians' gaudy apparcl is the mirror image of the other: "Uropien-
sium oculis omnium . . . totus ille splcndor apparatus pudendus vide-
batur . .."(p. 154, 21-3).
Just as in the comic talc of book I More develops a characteristicaJly
Lucianic jest, the broad parody of a contemporary intellcctual type,
into an admonitory parablc on the reception of his text, so the clc:\Zalltis-
silllafalm la ofbook Il reflects the argumentative concerns ofits contcxt
on more than one leve!. The talc concludes the account of Uropian
attitudes toward gold and silver and is obviously used to reinforce the
rationalc of this essential Utopian principle. Indeed, Budé argues in his
lctter ro Thomas Lupset that the contempt for gold and silvcr is, along
with the commuity of goods and the love of tranquility, the secret of
Utopian success (p. ro/r-r r). But the satiric anecdote also serves to
articulate a point of much more fundamental importance to More's
argument, to which the satiric affront to magnificence is almost
incidental.

[35J
 R. BRA CHT BRANHAM

The humor of the fa im/a depends on juxtap osing in a single context

two divergent cultural perspectives , a form ofhumor assiduously cul-
tivated by Lucian, ex posed as he w as to the morley cultural mélange of
the Roman Empire. ~ 4 The world of the audien ce is th us sccn from the
unfamiliar point of view of an alicn cu lture with its own peculiar set of
assumptions : the audience's norm bccomes through the fictive encoun -
ter the object of lau ghter. This perception of in congruity is a function
of the very prcmise of More 's arg ument in Utop ia, wh ich Hythlodacus
enunciates in introducing the .fàlmla: Different institutions cngender
corrcspondingly different passio~1s in the sou! ("itaque l1aec tam di versa
ab rcliquis gentib us instituta, quam diversas itidem animorum affcc-
tiones pariant .. . ," p. 152/25 ff.). Thus even the imaginary existence
of a Utopian perspective, at once a systcm atic rcflection of and reproach
to European norms, ~ 5 calls into questio n the authority of prcvailing
orthodoxies, thar n aive Anemoli an sense thar an y one w ay of sccing
things could somchow be mercly natural. The attribution of value,
even the seemin g ly objective value of g old, is sccn as a cultural con-
struct, not a product of nature . This distinction is csscntial to the
discussion of Utopian pleasures th at follows and forms the basis of
Utopian ethics .
Thus More has carcfully fashioncd his jokcs not just to sati rize
inf! ated social types and official social codes or to vary the tonc of his
narrative, but as a means of convcying somc of his most potcntially
disturbing ideas. ln so doing he rcflccts the tru th of Cicero 's observation
on the rhetorical resources of hu mor in the De oratorc: " nullum gemis
est ioci, quo non ex eodem seve ra ct gravia sumantur" (2 .250) . Even
laughter bas its utility in Utopia. But precise! y bccausc Utopia is offcred
as a persuasive definition of moral and social norms , divergence from
which is severe! y punished, ~ 1' therc would be prccious little cause for
laughtcr on the island. What laughtcr there is , is ofnccessity dirccted at
outsiders or professional jcsters. So consistcntly "normal" and thor-
oughly integratcd a society would have little latit ude for humor, which
depends on social hctcrogeneity and its consequence, incon g ruity. As
M ary Douglas argues, "if thcrc is no joke in the social structure, no
other joking can appear." 27

The Dialectical Movemcnt of Book 1

If More seems gen uincly Lucianic in his deft and pointed use ofhumor
in the two comic digressions , his adaptation of Lucianic dialogue in
book I reminds us of decper differences betwecn the two . It is difficult,

r 3 6J
 LUCIAN

perhaps impossible, to undcrstand the significancc of the particular

form of dialcctic wc mcct in book I without defining more precise! y its
rclationship to the principal modes of dialogue developed in antiquity.
Wh ile Plato and Cicero are often mcntioned in this context, 28 on cl oser
scrutiny their formai rclcvance dwindlcs. For in spite ofPiato's consid-
erable importance for the content of book II, the characteristic proce-
dures of Platonic dialogue bear little rcscmblance to the form of book I
of Utopia. The defining philosophical and literary fcature of Platonic
dialcctic, the systematic pro cess of refutation (É X.qxoc:;) conducted by
Socrates, is conspicuously absent. Tl~is is also true of Ciceronian dia-
logue, but that does not make Cicero any more relevant than Plato in
this respect. For Ciccro's philosophical dialogues actually makc little
use of the dialogue form per se. If Cicero had summarized and con-
trasted the views of the prevailing philosophical schools in his own
voice, little that is esscntial would be !ost. Cicero uscd the dialogue
form skillfully but extcrnally as a way of introducing variety and
personality into his work, not becausc it is intrinsic to his meaning.
The structural parallcls between book I of Utopia and Lucianic dia-
logue, howcver, are significant. Instcad of Socratic interrogation we
have a conversation, an cxchange of views, that is not uscd to familiarize
us with a body of doctrine, as in Cicero, but to typify the divergence of
two familiar but incompatible perspectives. Like Lucian, More projccts
himsclf into the conversation as a charactcr whosc primary function is
Jess to refute or reform than to providc a commonscnsical and prag-
matic countcrpoint to the vicws of the idcalist, who ovcrtly domina tes
the conversation both thctorically and intcllectually. More thus rccrc-
ates the characteristic procedure of Lucianic dialogue in a carcfully
contrivcd contrast betwccn two exemplary types: the more reticent,
worldly, authorial persona (eiro11) and his voluble self-appointed mentor
(alazon) .
The point of real intcrcst, however, is what More does with his
interlocutors aftcr cstablishing this familiar Lucianic tension. His pur-
pose bccomes cl car at the cmotional climax of the argument in book 1
whcn Morus makes his only extended speech. Hythlodaeus has just
concludcd his argument against the cfficacy of counscling kings by
citing the 111ira lex Macarensium, which sets permanent limits on the
Macarian king's wcalth, as an cxamplc of the kind of thinking that
would be unacceptable at European courts. Morus concedes that it
would indecd be rcjccted, but argues th at it is sim ply na ive of Hythlo-
daeus to cxpect such novel idcas to find a receptive audience in the

r nl
 R. BRACHT BRANHA M

councils ofkings. He devclops his own position in contrast to what he

calls Hythlodaeus ' philosophia scho lastica by claborating a conccit we
have alrcady met in Lucian, thar of the world as a stage . Although
Morus' stance in this passa ge has bccn describcd as a "Mcnippcan pose"
becausc of his use of the stage simile central to the Meuippus and
lcaromenippus, 2'! note how complctcly More has transformcd the sense
of Menippus' trope: far from exprcssing the arbitrary nature of experi-
ence and counscling Cynic detachment from the rolcs foistcd on us by
the perverse force of contingcncy (ruxll), Morus exploits the idca of a
play to advocatc the practical valu e of rolc playing . Rather than rccon-
ciling Ourselvcs [0 rolcs not of Our OWil m aking, WC are advised tO
adapt our self-presentation to "the play at band" ("guaccunguc fabula
in manu est," p. 981 23) lest we contamina te the Pla urine farce of a court
with Scnccan ,Rravitas. The vehiclc for reprcsenting Cynic alien ation
from the world has been adapted to a cheerfully pragmatic philosophy
of action. 10
At this point in a Lucianic dialogue wc would cxpcct the perspective
articulatcd by the worldly eiro11 to succced in cxposing the blind spots
in his intcrlocutor's idealism . And on a first reading of Utop ia wc might
well fccl thar Morus ' rcalism will act to countcr the high-mindcd but
absurdly impractical disd ain of Hythlodacus for the distastcful task of
counscling kings . But this is whcrc More surprises a rcadcr of Luci an .
For he has carefully identified Morus, the cirou , with a position thar is
indefensible givcn the prevalent idcology of the audience. By making
Morus an advocate of dissin111latio, More makcs possible the cnsuing
rhetorical pcripctcia in which Raphael indignantly rcpundiatcs the
ambass ador's "philosophy" as a grotesque caricature of Christian
tcaching, which unlike his philosop!Jia ciuilior makcs a virtuc of tru th
and consistcncy, not of adaptability : " . . . ac dissimulari usqucadeo
vetu ir fChristus ]. ut ea guoguc quac ipsc in aures insusurrasct suis,
palam in recris iusscrit pracdicari" (p. 1 oo/ 20-22). 11 Of ail the stands
taken by Raph ael, his dcnunciation of Moru s' rclativism is the most
forcefully prcsentcd. In allowing the idcalist to turn the tables on the
proponcnt of moral compromise and conscqucntialist cthics, expressed
in tcrms dcccptivcly reminisccnt of Menippus, More ncatly reverses
the charactcristic movement ofLucianic dialogue . Whercas in Lucian's
Cyniws, for cxample, the spokcsman for common sense and moral
skepticism, associatcd by namc with the author, is used to highlight the
comic inadcquacics of the idcalist's stance, in More iris the advocate of
the world's point of view whosc moral flexibility is made to appcar
 LUCIAN

inadequate and the idealist who is clearly given the upper hand rhetor-
ically. In the rest of book 1, Morus listens and asks questions but is
otherwise silent except for his brief objections to communism, again
on practical grounds, which in turn will serve as rhetorical foi] to the
evident success of communism in Utopia.
This passage is an excellent example of the complexity of More's
relationship to Lucian. For it involves the adaptation both of particular
clements and of forma] procedures to express a crucial difference between
them. A specifie figure, the stage simile, is appropriated in the process
of adapting a more fundamental and ~ignificant structure, the dialogue
form itself. Moreover, the altered sense of the figure is instrumental to
the adaptation. For it enables the decisive shift in rhetorical emphasis
by which More succeeds in inverting Lucian's dialectical procedure to
forge a persuasive counterexample to the persistently anti-id ealist tend-
ency of Lucianic dialogue. Hence, the idealizing Raphael ultimatcly
triumphs, however we may wish to qualify our responsc to him as
Hythlodaeus ("learned in nonsense") and this is profoundly un-
Lucianic. 32

Thus the comic tales in both books and the dialcctical structure of
book 1 can be secn as contrasting cxamplcs of Morc's rcvival of the
seriocomic tradition . ln the former More makcs complcx use of tcnd-
cncy wit without reflecting dircctly on specifie modcls. The latter,
howcver, offers an implicit rcsponsc to mcthods and conclus ion s char-
acteristic of Lucian's satiric dialogues . ln both cases wc sec Morc's
emphasis on the utilitarian end of the seriocomic equation , on hum or
as a didactic and rhetorical instrument, an cmphasis which rccalls the
charactcrization of Lucian in the lcttcr to Ruthall as much as it docs
Lucian himsclf. Yet More has clcarly discardcd the narrowly didactic
notions of literary value he fclt obligcd to ascribc to Lucian tcn ycars
earlicr in his introductory lcttcr. Accordingly, Lucian is idcntificd in
Utopia not with the improving utile of Christian tcachings , but with
wit and elegance: "Luciani guoquc facctis ac leporc capiu ntur" (p. 1 ô2/
2-J).
ln what sense thcn can Uropia be said to rcprcsent a continuation or
revival of the Lucianic tradition? Obviously the bulk of its political
concerns arc unrclated to anything in Lucian. 11 This in itsclf might
scem to make the question irrclcvant, but it also suggcsts why the
nature of their rclationship bas proven so difftcult to characterizc. The
techniques of humor and irony that Lucian devcloped in the parodie
 R. BRA C HT BRANHAM

scrutin y of the cultural ideas of ancicnt society arc ad apted by More to

the service ofhi g hly specifie social satire and political argument, activ-
ties which wcrc literally utopian under the Empire. The humor is
according ly more sharply focu sed and uncquivocal , Jess conccrncd
with cultural styles than with public morais , vvith obscrving the incon-
g ruitics of rcceived ideas than in purg ing them in contradictions : amuscd
skcpticism givcs way to advocacy of the ideal. A rcbirth of the zan icr,
more anarchie tcndencics in Lucian's humor, the comic subversion of
official culture, the irrevercnt skcpticism for the most ancient and
vcnerated traditions, would not appear in its authcn tic sixteenth-cen-
tury mode until the emergence of Gargantua from his moth cr's ear. 34

R. BRA C H T BRAN HAM

Universiry oJCalifomia , Berkeley

Notes
1. For the d ata on the availability of tcxts, sec C. rt Thompson . Tite
Ti·auslarious of Luciau by Erasuuts auri S1. TIJnnw s i\Iore (lthaca 1940), 203. The
cdi1io priuceps of the complete Lu cia n was in r 496 . For Lucian 's im age, sec C.
Robinson , "The Hcputation of Lucian in Sixtccnth -Ccntury France ," Fu•nr/1
Studics 29 (r~ns) 385-397.
2 . p. cl xii. References to the lctter to Huthall and Uropia arc to vols. 3. 1 and
4 of the Yale editions, respectively. Hefcrenccs to Lucian arc toM. D. Macleod 's
OCT editions of Lihelli r-68. M y discussion ass um es a general familiarity with
Freud's analysis of tendentious wit in Wit auri Its Rrlatiou ro tit e Uu ro nscious and
Bergson's essay on the comic, "Laughtcr."
J. Cf. T S. Dorsch, " Sir Thomas More and Lucian: An Interpretation of
Utopia ," A re/ii'' fi ir do s Studiunr der Ncucreu Spraclteu 11. Litcratlm'll 20 3 ( 1 960-67)
345-363 ; W W Wooden , " Thomas More and Lucian: A Stud y in Sati ric
Influence an d Technique," Uuir;ersiry of Mississippi Srudies iu Euy)is/1 13 ( r 972 )
43- 57; D. Duncan, Beu Jou sou auri tit e Luciauic Ti·adiriou (Cambrid ge 1979)
chaps . r-3; G. M. Loga n 's recent study, Tit e Mea niug o{Mord 'Utopia' (l'rince-
ton r 983) , m akes only pass in g reference to Lucian.
4- A. Fox, Tlto/1/a s More: History auri ProPidcu((' (Oxford 1982) 3 ).
5. Cf. L. Lefebv re, TÏ/(' Problenr (~{ Uubelicf iu tit e S ixteeut/1 Ccurury: Tl1 e
Religiou o_{ Rabelais, tran s. B. Gottlieb (Cam bridge 198 2) 75, <)T-<) 2, 13ô; cf.
also Robin son (above, n. r) .
6. Cf. C. Robin son, Lu ciau auri His Iuflucuce ill Eurnp c (Chape! Hill 1 979)
95 ff
7. Including sa tiric biog raphies, mythological and " !'! atonie" dialo g ues,
cpistles, lectures, and novellac coll ection s. The basic work on the litcrat urc of
 LUCIAN

this pcriod is B. P Reardon's Courants lirrérai rc.<.~ras des Il ct Ill sihlcs aprèsj-C
(Paris 1971) . For the sophistic movemcnt, sec 99-154. Also of fundamental
importance isE . L. Bowie's "The Grccks and T heir Pa st in the Second Sophis-
tic;' Pa sr and Present 46 (1970) 1-41.
8. Cf. the observations of M. Delcourt quoted by R. Monsuez in "Le Latin
de Thomas More dans ' Utopia'," Caliban 3 (1966) 3S: "C'est dans le choix des
mots que sa coquettrie sc donne carrière . JI va chercher chez Plaute ou chez
Ennius une expression archaiquc, chez Pline un terme technique, dans la langue
chrétienne une façon de dire détournée de son sens ancien. Le mot le plus rare
est toujours celui qu'il préfère." The elever use of archaic words and construc-
tions was highly regarded by Lucian and his contemporaries . Lucian satirizes
inept imitators of the [1shion in his Lcxipl1an cs.
9. Cf. Robinson (abovc, n. 6) 130-131: "In the case of Uropia, the issue at
stakc in asking the question 'ls ir Lucianic, and if soin what sense'' is the basic
one of whether to read the work in a scrious sense or not ." Cf. also Dorsch
(above, n . 3).
10. Cf. 13ergson's "general law": "Any incident is comic th ar calls our
attentio n to the physical in a persan, when it is the moral side thar is concerned"
("Laughtc r;' p. 93 , in Co111edy, cd. W Sypher [Baltimore 19~0]) .
1 1. Fox's more se rio us reading of the Cyuims and i\l!cnippus (above, n. 4 : 3 s-
44) may accuratcly describe what they meant to More, but at the expcnse of
ignoring their esscntially comic focus. Asceticism is not trcated as a serious
philosophical option by Lucian as it clcarly was for More. Rather ir was a
cultural style ripe for satiric caricature .
12. Structurally the Pl1ilopseudeis ("Those fond of lies") may be sig nificant
for Utop ia, howcver, bccause ir used a frame to distance the autho rial persona
from the body of the work, a series of fantastic tales told in the first persan by
contemporary philosophers. After listening to the philosophers ("fond of
wisdom") detail thcir supernatural experiences, even Lykinos secms to be
wavering in his skepticism, or at !east rcady to concede a covcrt cnjoymcnt of
thcir "lies:' Among the talcs recounted berc is the first ex tant version of "the
sorcerer's apprcnticc."
13. For this concept, see Peter Brown, "The Saint as Exemplar in La te
Antiquity;' Representations 1.2 (1983 ) 1-12 .
14. Cf. Sextus Empiricus' survcy of the conflicting traditions conccrning
the existence of gods: Ad v. Ph ys. 1.49-1 .94 . For an outline ofPyrrhonism, sec
S.E ., p. r.
15. S. Leacock, Humorand Humanity (N.Y. 1938) 219-220.
16. Cf. lcaromen ippus 17.
17. The editors of the Yale edition cite the Menippus, lcam111Cn ippus, Verae
Historia e, Cyniws, A lexander, N igl'inu s, and Satumalia as relevant to particular
passages (see the index s. v. Lucian) and the list cou id be cxtcnded (sec pp. 16 ff.
and n. 23 inf.) . But the most important parallcls involve the adap tation of
procedures rather than allusions, sometimcs faint or incidcntal, to parricular
works .
 R. BRACHT BRANHAM

18. Cf. Bergson: "For exaggeration fin caricatun:J to be comic, ir must not
appear as an aim, but rather as a means thar the artist is using in order to make
manifcst to our cycs the distortions which he secs in embryo. lt is this process
of distortion thar is of moment and intcrcst" (p. 78).
19. Thar Cardinal Morton is the perfect intcrlocutor for Hythlodaeus do es
not contradict the intcndcd sense ofHythlodacus' cxample (pace Fox, abovc n .
4, pp. 62 ff.), as is som crimes argued, but confirms ir: the Cardinal is obviously
not mcant to rcprcsem a typical courtier but the exception thar provcs the ru le.
The comic butts of the talc, on the hand, arc used to dcmonstrate the perry onc-
upmanship and failurc ofjudgmcnt typical of court !ife in Hythlodacus' view.
Hcncc, his harshjudgmcnt (284/ 29-30) is in fact consistent with his cxamplc .
20. p. zso!I 1 ti Cf. 44/ 4-8; cf. also E. Surtz, "More's ' Apologia pro
Utopia sua'," Modem Langua,ç;e Quarter/y 19 (1958) 3 19-324. More had to defend
his use of hu mor aga inst misinterprctation throughout his !ife: The Apolo,Ç?yc,
cd. A. 1. Taft (London 1930) 194, citcd by Surtz, cxlix.
21. cXVEf.LWI\ws ("windy, empty, idlc, vain") is a Homeric adjective from
&vEf.LOS ("wind"), wh ich is used primarily of words, but also of men and
wcapons . Odysseus dismisses Agamcmnon's charge thar he prefcrs fcasting
to fighting as "mm' civEf.LWI\La" ("idlc words ") : Il . 4-3 55. Cf. Lucian, De Astro-
lo;?ia 2.
22. Erasmus (or Giles) acknowlcdgcs More's self-satire in this passage: In
his marginal note, which is the on! y one in Greck othcr than thar refcrring to
the dramatic similc in book 1 (p . 98), he uses an accusative of exclamation
(borrowcd from Latin) to address, not the reader as in most notes, but More
himself: ~ TEXVLTfJV. The epithct connotes not mercly craftsmanship but sly
cunning (cf. Lucian, D. Mort. 13. s). Cf. More's drcam in which he is a Utopian
prince receiving the mcretriciously attircd ambassadors from other nations:
note to 154/8 (p. 430) .
23 . Cf. S. J. Grecnblatt's analys is of the anamorphic techniques in Utop ia
and Holbein's "The Ambassadors," Renaissance SclfFas !J ionin,~ (Chicago 1980)
cha p. 1 . It is preciscly in this manipulation of perspectives for the sake of
incongruity thar Morc's humor rcminds one most of Lucian .
24. The use of divergent cultural perspectives takcs many for ms in his work.
The Nigrinus is mentioncd in the note to r 52128 (p. 430) as the possi ble
"origina l" for the fo lm /a w ith its contrast betwecn phi losophical Athcns and
decadent Rome. But the contrast of two ci ti es in the N(ç;ri nu s Jacks the sense of
incongruity th ar charactcrizcs the j uxtaposition of Arhcnian and Scythian per-
spectives in the Anadwrsis and is the source of the hum or in the fabula.
M . M. Bakhtin suggcsts qui tc plausibly th at Lucian 's unprecedentcd sense
of cultural pcculiaritics, his un-Grcek sense of the oddity of Grcck traditions,
stems from his pol y lingual background in Samosata, Syria, on the edgc of the
Empire, where the native language was Arama ic, the official language Latin,
and the language of culture Greek: T he D ialogic !J na,ç;ination (A ustin 1981) 84 .
25. lnsofar as Utopia is a reflection of European society meant ro highlight
 LUCIAN

the distortions ofits modcl, it is a caricat ure inl3ergson 's sense (above, n. 18),
but one in which exaggeration achieves its end as much by contras t as by
imitation.
26 . T he punishments for ad ultery, for cxample, include slavery and death:
I90f7-20 .
27. "The social control of cognition: some factors injoke perception," Ma11
n.s. 3. 3 (1968) 366. Cf. Surtz: "The wholc atmos phcrc, iftaken seriously, is
stifling in its respec tabi lit y. The human nature of even a saint wo uld revoit
aga inst its priggish conventions. Utopian behavior is here contrary to ali hum an
experience" (cl iii).
28 . E.g ., Surtz: "The dialogue form of l3ook 1 is an obvious Platonic
contribution to the Utopia" (cl vii) .
29. Cf. Fox , 44, 64; cf. a Iso note top. 9 8112 (p. 3 72) .
30. Th is is ali the more striking in view of the fact thar clscwhere More used
the dramatic simile in much the samc sense as Lucian: sec Grcenblatt (above,
Il . 23 ) 26-27.
3 I. On e of the meanings of dissi11111 iatio , a cogna te of dissilllulo, is of course
" iron y." lt is fitting that More bas the eiron mount an explicit arg ument in
support of his own rhetorical mode as the most advantageo us 111odus opem11di
only to have it rejectcd as un- Christian . Cf. OLD, x. v. dissimulatio 2: "ca
dissimulatione quam Graeci eironeian vacant," Luc. 15.
p. Cf. Fox, pp. 64-6 5: "The most perturbin g irony in book 1 is th ar
howcvcr wrong Hythlodaeus is in some respects, he is nonethclcss ultim atcly
right. . Sin ce More chose to ac t according to [Morus'] pragmatic philosophy
for the ncxt 16 ycars, it cames as a shock to find thar Hythlodacus' repudiation
ofit is not refuted."
33. Cf., howcver, 13. Baldwin, "Lucian as Social Satirist," CQ II (1961)
199-208.
34. Cf. Scaevola de Sainte Marthe, Scaevo lae Sanunartlwm111 Ca llor111n doorine
ill ustrium elo,r;ia (1598), citcd by Ro binson (above, n. 1) 393: "[Rabelais]
preferred to cmulate Lucian, following whose cxamplc he crcatcd in hi s native
tangue things w hich arc entircly trivial but such as to captivate a rca dcr,
howevcr crudite he may be, and to submerge him in unb elievable pleasure." By
confusing the comic with the trivial Scaevo la comes up with the paradox of
engrossing triviality.

[4 3J
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.