Lucian – True History

Original: ὥσπερ τοῖς ἀθλητικοῖς καὶ περὶ τὴν τῶν σωμάτων ἐπιμέλειαν ἀσχολουμένοις οὐ τῆς εὐεξίας μόνον οὐ -δὲ τῶν γυμνασίων φροντίς ἐστιν , ἀλλὰ καὶ τῆς κατὰ καιρὸν γινομένης ἀνέσεως — μέρος γοῦν τῆς ἀσκήσεως τὸ μέγιστον αὐτὴν ὑπολαμβάνουσιν — οὕτω δὴ καὶ τοῖς περὶ τοὺς λόγους ἐσπουδακόσιν ἡγοῦμαι προσήκειν μετὰ τὴν πολλὴν τῶν σπουδαιοτέρων ἀνάγνωσιν ἀνιέναι τε τὴν διάνοιαν καὶ πρὸς τὸν ἔπειτα κάματον ἀκμαιοτέραν παρασκευάζειν .

Translation: Just as those engaged in athletic pursuits and in the care of their bodies are not concerned only with the condition of their bodies , but also with the relaxation that occurs at the proper time — for they consider this relaxation to be the greatest part of their training — so , I think , it is appropriate for those devoted to discourse , after their extensive reading of serious works , to relax their minds and prepare them more keenly for the subsequent labor .

Note

The sentence employs a complex chiasmus-like structure framed by the correlative conjunctions ὥσπερ ('just as') and οὕτω ('so'), drawing a parallel between physical training (gymnastics) and intellectual training (rhetoric/philosophy). This analogy reflects the Hellenistic and Roman educational ideal that mental exertion requires periods of rest just as physical exertion does. The phrase 'κατὰ καιρόν' (at the proper time) is a key technical term in ancient medical and athletic theory, referring to the optimal moment for intervention or rest. The parenthetical clause introduced by dashes (—μέρος γοῦν…—) provides the rationale for the athletes' behavior, using the superlative μέγιστον (greatest) to emphasize the importance of rest. The text utilizes asyndeton (the omission of conjunctions) within the parenthetical explanation for rhythmic effect, while the main clause uses τε…καί ('both… and') to coordinate the two actions of relaxing and preparing the mind. The metaphor of the 'mind' (διάνοια) as an instrument that must be sharpened (αἰκμαιότεραν, literally 'more at the prime') for future work (κάματος) is a common trope in ancient literary theory, suggesting that reading without periodic mental respite leads to diminished capacity.

Original: γένοιτο δ’ ἂν ἐμμελὴς ἡ ἀνάπαυσις αὐτοῖς , εἰ τοῖς τοιούτοις τῶν ἀναγνωσμάτων ὁμιλοῖεν , ἃ μὴ μόνον ἐκ τοῦ ἀστείου τε καὶ χαρίεντος ψιλὴν παρέξει τὴν ψυχαγωγίαν , ἀλλά τινα καὶ θεωρίαν οὐκ ἄμουσον ἐπιδείξεται , οἷόν τι καὶ περὶ τῶνδε τῶν συγγραμμάτων αὐτοὺς φρονήσειν ὑπολαμβάνω ·

Translation: May this prove a fitting rest for them , if they converse with such readings , not merely to provide a bare entertainment from what is witty and charming , but to display a certain contemplation not without music , as I suppose they will think something of this nature regarding these very writings of mine .

Note

The sentence employs the optative mood (γενοίτο) in a wish or potential construction, softened by the particle ἄν, suggesting a polite or hopeful tone regarding the reader's experience. The structure relies heavily on a chiasmus-like balance between the negative clause (οὐ μόνον... ψιλην παρεξει) and the affirmative clause (αλλα... επιδειξεται), contrasting 'bare entertainment' (ψιλην ψυχαγωγιαν) with 'musical contemplation' (θεωριαν ουκ αμουσον). The phrase 'not without music' (οὐκ ἄμουσον) is a litotes, a figure of speech that affirms a point by negating its opposite; here, it implies the writings possess genuine artistic and intellectual value. The text also features a metanarrative element where the author directly addresses the reader's future judgment ('as I suppose they will think'), creating a self-referential loop typical of Lucian's satirical style. The use of τοιούτοις (such things) and τῶνδε (these) establishes a close proximity between the hypothetical 'readings' and the actual text being read, blurring the line between fiction and reality.

Original: οὐ γὰρ μόνον τὸ ξένον τῆς ὑποθέσεως οὐ -δὲ τὸ χαρίεν τῆς προαιρέσεως ἐπαγωγὸν ἔσται αὐτοῖς οὐ -δ’ ὅτι ψεύσματα ποικίλα πιθανῶς τε καὶ ἐναλήθως ἐξενηνόχαμεν , ἀλλ’ ὅτι καὶ τῶν ἱστορουμένων ἕκαστον οὐκ ἀκωμῳδήτως ᾔνικται πρός τινας τῶν παλαιῶν ποιητῶν τε καὶ συγγραφέων καὶ φιλοσόφων πολλὰ τεράστια καὶ μυθώδη συγγεγραφότων οὓς καὶ ὀνομαστὶ ἂν ἔγραφον , εἰ μὴ καὶ αὐτῷ σοι ἐκ τῆς ἀναγνώσεως φανεῖσθαι ἔμελλον .

Translation: For not only will the novelty of the subject matter and the charm of the design be no inducement to them , nor even that we have unfolded many varied falsehoods plausibly and as if true , but rather that each of the things recounted has been wrestled without effort from certain of the ancient poets and writers and philosophers , many of whom have composed many monstrous and mythical tales , whom we would have named individually , had not these very things seemed likely to appear to you from the reading itself .

Note

This sentence employs a complex 'not only... but also' (οὐ μόνον... ἀλλὰ) structure to build a layered defense of the work's fictional nature. The syntax relies on a series of parallel οὗτι clauses (that clauses) functioning as the subjects of the main verbs. A key rhetorical device here is the deliberate juxtaposition of 'novelty' (τοὺς ξένον) and 'charm' (τὸ χαρίεν) with 'falsehoods' (ψεύσματα), which the author ironically describes as being presented 'plausibly and as if true' (πιθανῶς τε καὶ ἐναληθῶς). The phrase 'wrestled without effort' (οὐκ ἀκωμωδήτως ἡνίχθη) is a striking metaphor, personifying the act of borrowing from predecessors as a physical contest that was easily won. The sentence concludes with a conditional clause (εἰ μή) that serves as a meta-commentary on the reader's experience, suggesting that the absurdity of the content is so self-evident upon reading that explicit attribution of names would be unnecessary. This structure highlights the author's playful, self-aware irony regarding the boundaries between history and fiction.

Original: οἷον Κτησίας ὁ Κτησιόχου ὁ Κνίδιος , ὃς συνέγραψεν περὶ τῆς Ἰνδῶν χώρας καὶ τῶν παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἃ μή -τε αὐτὸς εἶδεν μή -τε ἄλλου ἀληθεύοντος ἤκουσεν .

Translation: For example , Ctesias , son of Ctesiochus the Cnidian , who wrote about the land of the Indians and the customs of those people , neither saw these things himself nor heard them from anyone speaking the truth .

Note

This sentence employs a double negative construction using the correlative conjunctions μήτε... μήτε (neither... nor) to emphatically deny both direct observation and reliable testimony as sources for Ctesias's account. The phrase αληθεύοντος (speaking the truth) functions as a genitive of source, modifying 'anyone,' and highlights the author's skepticism regarding the veracity of his sources. The sentence structure utilizes a relative clause (ὃς) to define the subject, Ctesias, while the opening οἷον (for example) introduces him as a specific case study of unreliable historiography. The text relies on precise word order to contrast the author's lack of empirical evidence with the claims made in his work.

Original: ἔγραψε δὲ καὶ Ἰαμβοῦλος περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ μεγάλῃ θαλάττῃ πολλὰ παράδοξα , γνώριμον μὲν ἅπασι τὸ ψεῦδος πλασάμενος , οὐκ ἀτερπῆ δὲ ὅμως συνθεὶς τὴν ὑπόθεσιν .

Translation: Iambulus also wrote about the many strange things in the great sea , making the lie evident to all , but nevertheless he did not construct the story in an entertaining manner .

Note

The sentence employs a chiasmic structure through the pairing of 'making the lie evident' (γνωρίμον... ψευδος) and 'not constructing the story' (οὐκ... συνθεὶς τὴν ὑπόθεσιν), highlighting the tension between the obvious falsity of the narrative and its lack of artistic merit. The phrase 'great sea' (μεγάλη θαλάττῃ) likely alludes to the Atlantic Ocean, a boundary often associated with wonder and the unknown in ancient geography. The adjective 'strange' (παράδοξα) suggests marvels or wonders that defy natural expectation, a common theme in ancient travel literature. The participle 'having fabricated' (πλασάμενος) is a gnomic aorist, indicating a completed action with present relevance, while the adverb 'nevertheless' (ὅμως) introduces a concessive clause, emphasizing the failure of the work to achieve its intended entertainment value despite its clear deception.

Original: πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλοι τὰ αὐτὰ τούτοις προελόμενοι συνέγραψαν ὡς δή τινας ἑαυτῶν πλάνας τε καὶ ἀποδημίας , θηρίων τε μεγέθη ἱστοροῦντες καὶ ἀνθρώπων ὠμότητας καὶ βίων καινότητας ·

Translation: And many others , having chosen the very same things as these , wrote them down as if relating certain of their own wanderings and journeys , relating the sizes of monsters , the cruelty of humans , and the novelty of their ways of life .

Note

This sentence employs a heavy use of the enclitic particle τε...καί (and...and) to create a rhythmic, accumulative effect, listing three distinct categories of fantastical content: the sizes of beasts (θηρίων τε μεγέθη), the cruelty of men (ἀνθρώπων τε ὠμοτήτας), and the novelty of their lives (βίων τε καινότητας). The participle ἱστοροῦντες (relating/recounting) governs all three accusative objects, emphasizing the act of storytelling. The phrase ὡς δή τινας (as if indeed certain) introduces a layer of skepticism or irony, suggesting the authors are presenting their fiction as genuine personal experience (ἑαυτῶν πλαῦνας τε καὶ ἀποδημίας). The construction προελομένοις (having chosen) implies a deliberate selection of these specific tropes. The sentence structure mirrors the content: a long, flowing description that mimics the very 'novelty' and 'wandering' it critiques.

Original: ἀρχηγὸς δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ διδάσκαλος τῆς τοιαύτης βωμολοχίας ὁ τοῦ Ὁμήρου Ὀδυσσεύς , τοῖς περὶ τὸν Ἀλκίνουν διηγούμενος ἀνέμων τε δουλείαν καὶ μονοφθάλμους καὶ ὠμοφάγους καὶ ἀγρίους τινὰς ἀνθρώπους , ἔτι δὲ πολυκέφαλα ζῷα καὶ τὰς ὑπὸ φαρμάκων τῶν ἑταίρων μεταβολάς , οἷα πολλὰ ἐκεῖνος πρὸς ἰδιώτας ἀνθρώπους τοὺς Φαίακας ἐτερατεύσατο .

Translation: But their leader and teacher of such scurrility was Odysseus the Homeric one , recounting to those around Alcinous both the enslavement by winds and the one-eyed and flesh-eating and some savage men , and furthermore , multi-headed beasts and the transformations of his companions under drugs , such things as he told many lies to the ordinary men , the Phaeacians .

Note

This sentence is a prime example of Lucian's satirical parody of epic storytelling conventions. The syntax is heavily periodic, delaying the main verb (ἐτερατεύσατο, 'he told lies') until the very end, which creates a comedic anticlimax after a long, breathless list of fantastical elements. The sentence employs asyndeton in the middle section (listing the monsters without conjunctions between 'one-eyed', 'flesh-eating', and 'savage men') to mimic the rapid, breathless delivery of a storyteller trying to overwhelm the audience with wonder. The use of βωμολοχία (scurrility/buffoonery) to describe Odysseus's epic tales is a deliberate anachronism and irony, reducing the high style of Homer to low comedy. The phrase 'the Homeric Odysseus' (ὁ τοῦ Ὁμήρου Ὀδυσσεύς) uses a genitive of authorship to personify the character as a mere construct of the poet. The sentence structure mirrors the content: just as Odysseus piles up impossible monsters and transformations, the Greek sentence piles up nouns and adjectives, culminating in the revelation that all these 'tales' were merely lies (τερατεύομαι) told to 'ordinary men' (ἰδιώτας), highlighting the contrast between the heroic ideal and the reality of the liar.

Original: τούτοις οὖν ἐντυχὼν ἅπασιν , τοῦ ψεύσασθαι μὲν οὐ σφόδρα τοὺς ἄνδρας ἐμεμψάμην , ὁρῶν ἤδη σύνηθες ὂν τοῦτο καὶ τοῖς φιλοσοφεῖν ὑπισχνουμένοις ·

Translation: So , having encountered all these people , I did not blame the men very much for lying , seeing that this was already a custom even for those who promise to be philosophers .

Note

The sentence employs a concessive logic marked by the particle combination μεν... (implied contrast with the following clause), where the speaker admits to not rebuking the liars strongly. The verb μεμψάμην (aorist middle of μέμφομαι) carries the nuance of 'blame' or 'censure.' The phrase 'τοῦ ψεύσασθαι' uses the articular infinitive as the object of the verb, a common construction in Attic and later Greek. The participle ὁρῶν ('seeing') introduces a causal or explanatory clause. The term φιλοσοφεῖν υἱποσχούμενοις ('those promising to philosophize') is a satirical reference to the hypocrisy of self-styled philosophers who preach virtue but practice deceit. The sentence structure uses a participle of encounter (ἐντυχὼν) to set the scene, followed by the main clause and a participial explanation, creating a flowing, reflective tone typical of Lucian's ironic narrative voice. The use of ἤδη ('already') emphasizes the widespread and established nature of this deceptive behavior.

Original: ἐκεῖνο δὲ αὐτῶν ἐθαύμασα , εἰ ἐνόμιζον λήσειν οὐκ ἀληθῆ συγγράφοντες .

Translation: This is what I admired about them : whether they thought they were deceiving anyone by writing what was not true .

Note

The sentence employs a rhetorical question introduced by the particle 'εἰ' (whether/if), functioning as an indirect question dependent on the verb 'ἐθαύμασα' (I admired). The construction 'ἐνόμιζον λήσειν' (they thought to deceive) utilizes a present infinitive of purpose or result following a verb of thinking. The phrase 'οὐκ ἀληθῆ συγγράφοντες' (writing what was not true) uses a present participle in the nominative plural masculine to indicate the means or manner of the action, modifying the implied subject of the infinitive. The use of 'ἔκεινο' (that thing) as a neuter singular accusative object refers back to a preceding context regarding the authors' claims. The sentence exemplifies Lucian's satirical tone, questioning the intent of writers who fabricate stories while presenting them as factual accounts.

Original: διόπερ καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπὸ κενοδοξίας ἀπολιπεῖν τι σπουδάσας τοῖς μεθ’ ἡμᾶς , ἵνα μὴ μόνος ἄμοιρος ὦ τῆς ἐν τῷ μυθολογεῖν ἐλευθερίας , ἐπεὶ μηδὲν ἀληθὲς ἱστορεῖν εἶχον — οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐπεπόνθειν ἀξιόλογον — ἐπὶ τὸ ψεῦδος ἐτραπόμην πολὺ τῶν ἄλλων εὐγνωμονέστερον .

Translation: For this reason , I also , making an effort to leave behind something serious for those who come after me , so that I might not be the only one deprived of the freedom to tell myths , since they had no true history to relate — indeed , they were suffering no serious loss — turned to the lie , which is much more reasonable than the accounts of others .

Note

This sentence exemplifies Lucian's characteristic satirical tone and meta-fictional self-awareness. The phrase 'κενοδοξίας' (boastfulness/empty glory) is a key motif in Lucian's work, often used ironically to describe the pretensions of historians and myth-makers. The structure features a parenthetical insertion ('— οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐπεπόνθειν ἀξιόλογον —') which acts as an ironic aside, downplaying the loss of truth to emphasize the narrator's cynical justification for fiction. The use of 'εὐγνωμονέστερον' (more reasonable/kind) to describe a 'ψεῦδος' (lie) is a striking example of irony, suggesting that in a world devoid of truth, fabrication is the most sensible course of action. The syntax relies heavily on a causal clause introduced by 'ἐπειδή' (since) followed by a purpose clause ('ἵνα μή'), creating a complex justification for the narrator's turn to falsehood. The sentence also displays a form of asyndeton in the parenthetical remark, where the explanatory clause is set off by dashes rather than conjunctions, mimicking a sudden shift in the narrator's train of thought or a direct address to the reader.