What makes a writing "Fiction" versus "History"?

[neilgodfrey]

But now that you bring up Lucian, is satire 'history'? Is, for instance, the Passing of Peregrinus a(n) historical account of a philosopher named Peregrinus? Is it proper to identify the narrative as 'historical'?

If we judge Passing of Peregrinus by what Lucian wrote in The Way to Write History then according to his own standards it appears that he is writing what he classifies as history. He's an eyewitness, quotes others witnesses, is very straightforward, etc.

Roger Parvus believes that external testimony dovetails too well into Lucian's PP tale for it to be a fabrication, and he presents an argument that that identifies Peregrinus with the author of the original Ignatian letters. As Lucian wrote of Peregrinus pending his death:

The story is that he despatched missives to almost all the famous cities—testamentary dispositions, so to speak, and exhortations and prescriptions—and he appointed a number of ambassadors for this purpose from among his comrades, styling them " messengers from the dead" and "underworld couriers.”

I had always assumed that Lucian was simply writing a tall tale. Lucian does write tall tales elsewhere. I really don't know if it's "history" or not. It may be that Roger Parvus is correct.

If we do not accept the "Ignatius" connection, in the absence of any other external corroboration, I would be content to put PP in the already overflowing "don't know" basket.

[andrewcriddle]

A similar Xian-apologist argument is that there was no genre of fiction in antiquity. However, Ancient Greek novel:

Five ancient Greek novels survive complete from antiquity: Chariton's Callirhoe (mid-1st century), Achilles Tatius' Leucippe and Clitophon (early-2nd century), Longus' Daphnis and Chloe (2nd century), Xenophon of Ephesus' Ephesian Tale (late-2nd century), and Heliodorus of Emesa's Aethiopica (third century). There are also numerous fragments[1] preserved on papyrus or in quotations, and summaries by Photius a 9th-century Ecumenical Patriarch. The unattributed Metiochus and Parthenope may be preserved by what appears to be a faithful Persian translation by the poet Unsuri.[2] The Greek novel as a genre began in the first century CE, and flourished in the first four centuries; it is thus a product of the Roman Empire. The exact relationship between the Greek novel and the Latin novels of Petronius and Apuleius is debated, but both Roman writers are thought by most scholars to have been aware of and to some extent influenced by the Greek novels.

...
There are no clear distinctions of genre between the five 'romantic' novels and other works of Greek prose fiction, such as Lucian's A True Story, the Alexander Romance and the Life of Aesop.

Chariton's Callirhoe is probably influenced by Plutarch and is either very late 1st century or early 2nd century. Heliodorus of Emesa's Aethiopica is probably 4th century (influenced by the Emperor Julian). I agree the others are 2nd century although I'm dubious about the order given above.

Andrew Criddle

[Secret Alias]

It may be that Roger Parvus is correct.

Lot's of people have identified the parallels. I am one of those and used to have an article up on Detering's website (before I questioned his research about Marcion). But even with these parallels between the Passing of Peregrinus and the Ignatius letter - does any of this help confirm Lucian as witnessing history or making up an entirely fictitious narrative? Why couldn't Lucian have come across the letters from underworld couriers he mentions at the end of the Passing of Peregrinus and this was in turn the basis for a refutation of the entire narrative? In other words, he came across the letters and then retrojected a supposed encounter he had with the 'fiery one'? I have yet to find a way of proving fiction other than an absolutely implausible narrative. For instance the Golden Ass could be loosely based on historical events (i.e. an allegorical reconstruction of this Lucian's conversion to the Isis religion).

[lpetrich]

I have yet to find a way of proving fiction other than an absolutely implausible narrative. For instance the Golden Ass could be loosely based on historical events (i.e. an allegorical reconstruction of this Lucian's conversion to the Isis religion).

So Lucius had made an ass out of himself only in a metaphorical sense, and not in the literal sense of that novel? In that novel, he got turned into a donkey in a literal sense as a result of meddling with some love potions. He then got used as a beast of burden and sold from master to master. Late in it, Isis makes an appearance, and Lucius begs to be restored to human form. He follows her instructions, gets restored, and becomes one of her followers.

[lpetrich]

But now that you bring up Lucian, is satire 'history'? Is, for instance, the Passing of Peregrinus a(n) historical account of a philosopher named Peregrinus? Is it proper to identify the narrative as 'historical'?

It would be satire written in a style typical of history writing.

[lpetrich]

Greek Popular Biography: Romance, Contest, Gospel | Κέλσος

Matthew Ferguson repeats some of what he has blogged about earlier, and he makes a distinction between historiographical and novelistic biographies.

Some ancient biographers, such as Plutarch and Suetonius, modeled their narratives more closely on the conventions of historiography, while other biographies, such as the Certamen and the Aesop and Alexander Romances, followed more closely the style of the novel. Biographies that were historiographical tended to be more critical (and even polemical) toward their subject, while novelistic biographies tended to be hagiographical in exulting their subject. Likewise, historiographical biographies were directed almost exclusively toward an elite audience, whereas novelistic biographies were more popular and directed toward less educated audiences.

In historiography, the author and the narrator are the same.

“This is the display of the inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, so that things done by man not be forgotten in time, and that great and marvelous deeds, some displayed by the Hellenes, some by the barbarians, not lose their glory, including among others what was the cause of their waging war on each other.”

“Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote the history of the war between the Peloponnesians and the Athenians, beginning at the moment that it broke out, and believing that it would be a great war, and more worthy of relation than any that had preceded it.”

I'll quote Luke 1:1-4 (NRSV):

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

This is in first person, like what Herodotus and Thucydides wrote, but "Luke" does not name himself in it.

The manner of narration of described above is very different from the role of the narrator in ancient novels. In both the genres of epic and novel, the narrator usually describes events omnisciently in the third-person. This style of narration does not equate the author with narrator, but instead is formally anonymous.

The rest of the Gospel of Luke fits very well, along with the other three canonical Gospels and the noncanonical ones that I've read: the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, and Philip.

It must be noted that the Old Testament's historical parts also have an omniscient third-person narrator, and that they also are anonymous. They also don't have much effort in them to analyze sources or to resolve contradictions. However, there is real history in them, history corroborated from other sources.

[neilgodfrey]

It may be that Roger Parvus is correct.

Lot's of people have identified the parallels. I am one of those and used to have an article up on Detering's website (before I questioned his research about Marcion). But even with these parallels between the Passing of Peregrinus and the Ignatius letter - does any of this help confirm Lucian as witnessing history or making up an entirely fictitious narrative? Why couldn't Lucian have come across the letters from underworld couriers he mentions at the end of the Passing of Peregrinus and this was in turn the basis for a refutation of the entire narrative? In other words, he came across the letters and then retrojected a supposed encounter he had with the 'fiery one'? I have yet to find a way of proving fiction other than an absolutely implausible narrative. For instance the Golden Ass could be loosely based on historical events (i.e. an allegorical reconstruction of this Lucian's conversion to the Isis religion).

Could be, yes. I agree. We cannot accept a positive probability or historical status for a claim unless we have some independent verification of some kind.

(Hence the Peregrinus-Ignatius link can never be anything more than a hypothesis, never a "historical fact".)

Till then, if we don't know we don't know. The historian R.G. Collingwood wrote:

And in this context Croce points out that whenever historians indulge in conjecture or permit themselves to assert mere possibilities they are in fact giving way to the temptation of poeticizing or romanticizing history: they are going beyond what the evidence proves and expressing their own personal feelings by permitting themselves to believe what they would like to believe. . . . .

Collingwood, R. G.. The Idea of History (Kindle Locations 3878-3881). Albion Press. Kindle Edition.

[neilgodfrey]

I'll quote Luke 1:1-4 (NRSV):

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

This is in first person, like what Herodotus and Thucydides wrote, but "Luke" does not name himself in it.

If we set Luke's prologue side by side those found in Greco-Roman historical works we see how different Luke's opener really is. It is vague and so brief as to be uninformative by comparison with the introductions we find in known historical works.

The manner of narration of described above is very different from the role of the narrator in ancient novels. In both the genres of epic and novel, the narrator usually describes events omnisciently in the third-person. This style of narration does not equate the author with narrator, but instead is formally anonymous.

The rest of the Gospel of Luke fits very well, along with the other three canonical Gospels and the noncanonical ones that I've read: the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, and Philip.

It must be noted that the Old Testament's historical parts also have an omniscient third-person narrator, and that they also are anonymous. They also don't have much effort in them to analyze sources or to resolve contradictions. However, there is real history in them, history corroborated from other sources.

The canonical gospels, Luke included, do not equate author with narrator. Rather, the anonymous narrator has knowledge of scenes that no real author could possibly have. The canonical gospels are written from the perspective of the omniscient narrator without any sideways glances to sources or attempts to justify to readers the miraculous events recorded or knowledge of things that had no likely reporting witnesses. (Luke drops all pretence after verse 4.) In these respects they depart significantly from the way Greco-Roman historians wrote about events.

[neilgodfrey]

The Gospel of Luke falls right into the mode of fiction immediately after the prologue is dispensed with. The omniscient narrator begins his story by relating a private conversation between an angel and an old man in the privacy of a restricted space in the temple.

By the standards of the day, from what I recollect of the sources, no historian would permit himself to write such a scene, least of all in such an unqualified and dogmatic manner. We would expect a historian to justify his narrative by telling us the source of such a bizarre and incredible event, or giving readers some assurance or sympathy regarding their credulity or incredulity, and/or expressing his own view as to its veracity.

[neilgodfrey]

The angelic vision in private is followed by another miraculous performance of charades. The old man is able with mere gestures to explain to the crowd so that they clearly understood that he had seen a vision. (He never thought of writing anything at that time.)

Our "historian" then goes on to relate how God sent an angel to Elisabeth. . . .

Need we go on?

No historian writes like that. Whenever Herodotus writes about a miracle or the intervention of an angel or god he always (I think -- is there an exception? I cannot recall encountering one) qualifies the account by saying someone told him about it, or a prophet was used to convey the words of the god, or that he doubts it personally, or that he believes there is evidence surviving to prove it true. That is, he takes the side of the normal reader who thinks a miracle is unusual enough to warrant some justification or explanation or scepticism on the part of the historian.

The gospel narrative is exactly what we find in fiction and "OT history" that allows for fish to keep people alive three days in their bellies, the sun to turn backwards, Jerusalem to be the centre of a major empire in the Early Iron Age, etc: the omniscient narrator can tell us what God and angels do and say, what happens behind closed doors with no witnesses but the mute, what crowds think and understand, what happens within the wombs of aged women, etc.