._6th_century_B.C.jpg){kind=link}
An abandoned house, a solitary philosopher reading by lamplight, an apparition and a skeleton beneath the floor form one of antiquity's enduring haunting patterns. In Lucian's version the setting is Corinth and the visitor is Arignotus, a Pythagorean whose reputation for wisdom impresses everyone except the dialogue's sceptical narrator. The tale survives within The Lover of Lies, also translated as The Liar, not as an excavation report or an independently recorded investigation.
The distinction is central to this case. Lucian gives a character an apparently testable personal story and then has another character reject his authority. Readers encounter both the haunting and the challenge to believing it in the same ancient text. Extracting the adventure while discarding its dramatic setting changes the kind of evidence the source offers.
A conversation already full of marvels
The relevant source is Lucian's Philopseudes, particularly sections 29–32. This article uses the early twentieth-century English translation by H. W. and F. G. Fowler, available with its original sequence intact. It follows Arignotus's story and the surrounding exchange rather than treating a later folklore summary as the primary testimony.
Tychiades, the principal sceptical voice, describes a visit to Eucrates, whose company trades extraordinary accounts. Shortly before Arignotus arrives, Eucrates tells a story about his dead wife returning because a golden sandal had not been burnt with her belongings. The younger listeners are frightened. Tychiades's replies expose his impatience with what the others regard as accumulating evidence.
Arignotus enters with a solemn appearance and an established reputation. Tychiades initially hopes that this learned philosopher will put a stop to the stories. Instead, Arignotus proposes a qualified theory of apparitions: perhaps, he suggests, the sceptic means only that the violently dead walk, unlike those who died naturally. When told that Tychiades denies apparitions altogether, he becomes another defender of supernatural testimony.
The house near the Craneum
Arignotus directs his listener to Corinth, to the house of Eubatides near the Craneum. He names Tibius, its doorkeeper, as the person who can show the place where he claims to have unearthed and expelled a demon. These details make the account sound local and checkable within the dialogue. They do not establish that a modern building, household or archaeological trench can be identified with it.
The house had supposedly stood empty for years. Every prospective occupant had fled a terrifying apparition, and the neglected building was becoming ruinous. Arignotus says that hearing of it prompted him to gather books on the subject, including Egyptian works, and go there at bedtime. His host warned him that he risked death and tried to prevent the visit.
He entered alone with a lamp, sat on the floor of the main room and began reading. The familiar image of intellectual composure becomes a test: a man who expects to understand frightening appearances deliberately puts himself in the place where ordinary residents have failed. His equipment is a lamp, books and claimed ritual knowledge, rather than a measuring device or a team of independent observers.
The apparition changes its form
According to Arignotus, a dark, shaggy apparition approached and attacked him from different sides. It shifted through animal forms, described in the translation as dog, bull and lion. The transformations are part of his account. They should not be rewritten as zoological observations or as separate creature encounters elsewhere in Corinth.
Arignotus says that an Egyptian adjuration forced the apparition into a dark corner, where it disappeared. He marked the place and spent the remaining night peacefully. The next morning his survival amazed those who had expected to find him dead. He told Eubatides that the house could now be inhabited again and brought the owner and curious onlookers to the marked spot.
The excavation within the story revealed a decayed corpse at about a fathom's depth, with the bones still together. They removed the remains and gave them burial. Arignotus closes with the assertion that no apparition had troubled the house since. This supplies the narrative's practical resolution: discovery and proper treatment of concealed human remains restore the building to ordinary use.
What was supposedly witnessed, and by whom
The story distributes its evidence unevenly. Arignotus alone claims to have seen and fought the apparition during the night. The owner and others join the next day and are said to have seen the digging and burial. Even within his telling, their presence at the excavation is not independent witnessing of the transformations or the spoken spell.
Lucian supplies no surviving inscription, dated burial record or separately preserved statement by Eubatides or Tibius. Naming them gives the story specificity; it does not supply their testimony outside the literary work. The announced end of the haunting likewise belongs to Arignotus's narrative, without an independently measured period of observation.
The exact year of the supposed night is not given. The date of Lucian's writing is a different matter from the date of an event claimed by one of his characters. The case therefore has no assigned incident year in the directory. It would be misleading to turn the author's century into the year of an excavation at Corinth.
The narrator refuses the expected conclusion
After this apparently impressive account, the company condemns Tychiades's disbelief. He refuses to be intimidated by the philosopher's solemn appearance or reputation, expressing disappointment that someone presented as an authority is repeating the same kind of story as the others. The dialogue thus includes its own criticism of relying on status to settle what happened.
Arignotus challenges him to name an authority more credible than the assembled speakers. Tychiades answers with Democritus and tells a counter-story: young men dressed as frightening dead figures tried to disturb the philosopher while he worked in a tomb, but he continued writing and dismissed their performance. A supposedly courageous encounter with the supernatural is answered by an account of refusing to mistake a performance for the supernatural.
That exchange does not constitute a modern experiment refuting a particular house ghost. Both episodes are literary contributions to an argument. Its importance is that Lucian does not simply endorse the tale he preserves. The objections, the competition over authority and the effect on frightened children are part of the ancient source, rather than modern scepticism added afterwards.
A related Athens story, but a different source
Pliny's letter about Athenodorus at Athens also describes a philosopher, a haunted dwelling, an apparition and buried bones. The parallel helps explain why these accounts are often discussed together. It does not make them one incident: their named protagonists, settings, narrative voices and methods of confronting the apparition differ.
In Lucian, Arignotus uses a spell against a changing, aggressive apparition; the story is embedded in a satirical dispute about credulity. In the Athens account the philosopher follows the ghost's indication and the burial resolves the disturbance. Similar narrative elements are not corroborating witnesses to the same event. The existing Athens case remains a separate reference.
Location and source limits
Approximate map area: the pin at 37.91°N, 22.88°E represents ancient Corinth, rounded from the Digital Atlas of the Roman Empire locality reference. It does not identify Eubatides's house, the Craneum, a grave or a private property. The modern photograph shows the Temple of Apollo as ancient-city context, not the haunted building. Geographical source.
The source supports a substantial history of a haunting story and its reception within an ancient argument. It does not support announcing a verified exorcism, a recovered modern skeleton or a scientifically established apparition. Its distinctive value is that the spectacular narrative survives alongside a direct challenge to the way such narratives win assent.
Source trail: Lucian, Philopseudes 29–32, with surrounding dialogue checked in the Fowler translation. Related reading: the separate Athenodorus and Pliny case at Athens, and Ghosts & Hauntings. Sources and image licence checked 10 November 2026. Read the primary text in translation. Ghosts & Hauntings.