to his fame. The inimitable Hellenic arts of architecture and of sculpture which adorned, disguised, and, in some measure, served to redeem the character of the religion of Zeus, or Jupiter, had long shown symptoms of decay, the outward and visible sign of a corresponding coolness in the "religious" feeling of the upper classes; but the religion of Homer and Hesiod still kept fast hold of the affections of the body of the peoples (as it continued to do, in fact, throughout the country districts, long after the State recognition of Christianity), while the great majority of the educated or influential sections of society regarded it as a useful means of retaining the masses in subjection.1 To undermine this imposing structure of mingled fraud and imposture, the absurdities, the follies, and the hypocrisies of its various adherents, Lucian especially devoted his almost unrivalled powers of wit and sarcasm; and, if ridicule could inflict a mortal wound, he might have been well satisfied with his brilliant efforts. But reflection on the history of the Past must sometimes have inspired him with some misgiving, or even despair. For he was far from having been the first to expose the character of the orthodox Theology. In the drama, the most popular form of literature in Hellas-in Tragedy, Euripides (of the school of Sokrates) had, in the latter half of the fourth century, given expression to the more rational belief of the besteducated minds of the time; in Comedy, the conservative Aristophanes, in his inimitable dramas, whether purposely or not, had held up to the most open and undisguised contempt the most sacred objects of the national and popular worship. In the two next centuries Scepticism was rampant. In the lighter forms of literature, the Mimes ("parodies") of Sophron of Syrakuse, and the bitter satires (silloi, as they were termed) of Timon of Phlius, a disciple of Pyrrho, whose name has given a synonym for the extremest scepticism, held up to derision the occupants of the national Pantheon. Such rationalistic writers, too, as Euhemerus, author of the Sacred Inscriptions; Palæphatus, author of the Incredible Legends; and, in particular, Menippus, were direct predecessors of the satirist of

1 For instances of this doctrine of Expediency, see the remarkably candid admissions of Polybius and of Strabo.

Samosata.

But these more popular writers were not the only assailants of the Pagan Pantheon and it is enough merely to mention the names of Anaxagoras, Xenophanes, Demokritus, Zeno (the founder of the Stoic School), Antisthenes (the founder of the most practical satirists, the Cynics), and, above all, Epikurus, to recall their wide divergences from, and sometimes direct assaults on, the Olympian theology. To Lucian, however, as to Voltaire, in the last century, was reserved, in very special degree, the work of popularizing and bringing within the reach of the most ordinary intelligence the various labours of his predecessors. Of his models in the Dialogue form of writing, Plato and Xenophon are most commonly quoted: but the eloquent founder of the Academy, and the author of the Economicus, rather improved than originated it. Sophron of Syracuse, and Zeno of Elea in Italy, had already brought it into use. In the following century, Antisthenes

also employed it.

As for the ethical character of Lucian, if we may trust to his own representation of himself, it deserves high praise. In the Dream, among the superior advantages offered by Paideia, he gives prominent place to the virtues of justice, mildness, and reasonableness. In his Revived Philosophers, he declares himself to be a hater of falsehood, of imposture, of arrogance, of pride, a lover of truth, of beauty, of sincerity, and all things lovely (öoa rų piλetodai σvyyεvñ). He abandoned the profession of the Law from disgust for its iniquity, or for the fraudulent methods of its practisers. He engages, as he declares, in the war against Falsehood quite conscious that he is fighting a desperate battle-that the vast majority are against him (Fisherman, 20). In his biography of his friend, Demonax, his appreciation of that superior Cynic exhibits him as a sympathetic admirer of true worth. In one department of Morals- -on the assumption of his having been the author of the scandalous Erotes ("Loves")—he has been made the subject of undeserved censure; for its tedious dulness and its frigid and sophisticated tone, alike foreign to Lucian's manner, prove it to be spurious.

It has been sometimes objected to Lucian's philosophical claims, that he made no attempt to build anew upon the ruins

of the religious system overthrown by him. But, in the first place, systems of "faith," or "morals," already abounded ad nauseam, and to have erected another system of "philosophy" would have been only to add to the existing confusion. The work immediately and urgently needed was that of complete destruction, and the clearing of the ground for the future dissemination of higher and nobler ideas. This he did at all events, as far as religionism and metaphysical shams were concerned with the persistent zeal of a sincere reformer. In the second place, if the charge be a substantial one, he shares the blame with almost every destructive critic of after ages, whose opportunities for establishing better faiths have been superior to his. The charge to which he is more justly open-and it is the only grave fault, perhaps, in his writings-is indiscrimination in his assaults on the philosophies of the day. His, apparently, contemptuous treatment, in particular, of Pythagoreanism, the parent of Platonism, and the philosophical school which was most productive of examples of the higher virtues as well as of intellectual ability, deserves censure. In his Sale of Lives, in the Revived Philosophers, and in one of the Dialogues of the Dead in particular, he seems to have yielded to the temptation-a sort of temptation to which great wits have always been liable—of utilizing matter so promising as the ridiculous fables which the enemies of Pythagoreanism abundantly supplied.' That among the (self-styled) followers of Pythagoras were to be found some pretenders, and not a few extravagant expositors of his teaching-as such are found in all societies or sectsis sufficiently probable; but to hold up indiscriminately to ridicule what was, in the main, a meritorious system of (ethical) philosophy-that, certainly, did not become the character of a just critic. He lived, indeed, before the appearance of the School of New or Newer Platonism,

In the Sale or Auction of Lives, Pythagoras, who responds to the inquiries of the bidder, as to his qualifications, that he does "not eat the flesh of animals, but everything else except beans," is sold at the price of forty pounds. Epikurus (to whose school, if to any, Lucian himself belonged), or rather an Epikurean, is sold for only eight pounds. Yet, in his Alexander he speaks of the founder of " The Garden" almost with the profound reverence and esteem of Lucretius.

whose founders, Plotinus, Ammonius, and Porphyry (the most erudite of all the later Greek scholars), belong to the following century. Extravagant as may have been some of their speculations, the New-Platonists, by their noble, if hopelessly futile, attempts to reform and spiritualize the established religion, and by their noble protests against the gross practical Materialism of life, have deserved (equally with the early Christians), among the various contending sects of religion or philosophy, very high esteem. Had he witnessed their self-denying lives, and been acquainted with their exalted ideas and aspirations, we may with some confidence believe that he would have done justice to their real merits, as distinguished from the errors of judgment which lay on the surface, and which were the inevitable outcome of the scientific defects of the age.

:

The present volume includes what may be termed the principal theological Dialogues. In the spelling of Greek names, in the transitional and unsettled state of Greek orthography in this country, any attempt to adopt a more natural method must, necessarily, be a compromise: hence the present version is open to the charge of some orthographical inconsistency. As for the translation itself, the method adopted has been to adhere as closely to the original as essential differences of idiom allow to represent Lucian's peculiar graces of style no translator can reasonably aspire. The versions, entire or partial, which have appeared up to this time, however spirited they may be and the German Wieland surpasses all his rivals in this respect, in whose hands, as Lehmann expresses it, “all Lucian lives and breathes "-for the most part are not distinguished by any very strict fidelity to their original. The text followed is that of the great work of Hemsterhuis and Reitz (in Lehmann's edition), which has been compared with the alternative readings adopted by Jacobitz.