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.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Aug 02, 2017 4:18 pm 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'?
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:
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.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.”
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.