¹ Cf. Plato, Rep. x 620c.

² van Rooy, C. A., Studies in classical satire and related literary theory (Leiden 1965) 111Google Scholar; cf. Bernays, J., Lucian und die Kyniker (Berlin 1879) 44Google Scholar.

³ Winkler, J. J., Auctor et actor: a narratological reading of Apuleius' ‘Golden Ass’ (Berkeley 1985) 271Google Scholar.

⁴ This passage (Rhet. Gr. i 215 Walz) is accepted as a fragment by Bergk (Fr. 192: PLG iii 522) and Page (Fr. 646: PMG 320), though it does not scan properly. It is considered an allusion to Simonides by Householder, F. W. Jr., Literary quotation and allusion in Lucian (New York 1941) 37Google Scholar. An attribution to Semonides would seem equally possible (cf. n. 5). Bompaire, J., Lucien écrivain: Imitation et créalion (Paris 1958)Google Scholar does not mention this passage in his discussion of χρεῖαι and παροιμίαι in Lucian (297–8, 405–434, 443–68; cf. 369 n. 2). Cf. also Hock, R. F. and O'Neil, E. N., The chreia in ancient rhetoric i: the ‘progymnasmata’ (Atlanta, Ga. 1986) 336Google Scholar. For the first part of Tiresias' advice (τὸ παρὸν εὗ θέμενος), cf. Cratinus fr. 184, PCG iv 216.

⁵ It would be all the more characteristic of Lucian's method of drawing on ancient traditions if his Tiresias should give advice covertly recalling one of the most satirically-minded of the archaic poets, that is, if the line belongs to Semonides of Amorgos (almost universally spelled Simonides before Choeroboscus) rather than Simonides. Lucian refers approvingly to Semonides along with Hipponax at Pseudol. 2 while likening himself to Archilochus. The only other appearance in Lucian of either poet is a quotation from Simonides, Pro Im. 19. It is impossible to rule out either poet as the source of the χρεία on the basis of its content, especially since we do not know its original context; in any event, the lack of any discernible metrical pattern suggests that Theon's ‘quotation’ involves paraphrase.

⁶ Cf. Branham, R. B., CA iii 2 (1984) 143–63Google Scholar; TAPA cxv (1985) 237–43Google Scholar.I refer to the σπουδογἑλοιος here not to ‘explain’ the passage by reference to another puzzle but to suggest that Tiresias' advice may in part be a Lucianic gloss on the idea of the seriocomic. Menippus is virtually the only author actually called σπουδογἑλοιος in antiquity (Strabo xvi 2.29 Kramer ed.).

⁷ While the pairing of the serious with the comic or playful strikes a familiar note (cf. Ar. Ran. 389–93), the demotion of seriousness and advocacy of laughter or play is unusual in extant Greek literature. This emphasis differs, for example, from that of a famous passage in Plato (Lg. 803b) which endorses a serious attitude in spite of the game-like nature of life when viewed from the perspective of the gods (on παίʒειν, see Burkert, W., Eranos Jb li [1982] 335–51Google Scholar). The closest parallel I know (other than Theon's khreia) occurs in a sympotic fragment celebrating σκὠπτειν and γἑλως against σπουδή as forming the ἀρετή of the occasion (Iambi et Elegi Graeci, ed. West, M. L., ii [Oxford 1972]Google Scholar Adesp. Eleg.fr. 27). It may be that part of the effect of Lucian's joke depends on making Tiresias the spokesman for a recognizably sympotic theme, thus violating our generic expectations for the grave wisdom the prophet would impart in Hades.

⁸ I wish to thank the referee and Tony Edwards for their helpful comments on this note.