The "Asclepius": Thoughts on a Re-Opened Debate

Author(s): Mariateresa Horsfall Scotti

Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 54, No. 4 (2000), pp. 396-416
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1584609
Accessed: 23/04/2010 11:39
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bap.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
BRILL is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Vigiliae Christianae.
http://www.jstor.org
THE ASCLEPIUS:
THOUGHTS ON A RE-OPENED DEBATE
BY
MARIATERESA HORSFALL SCOTTI
Pandora's
box, again
In a recent
article,
V.
Hunink,' following
a hint of B.L.
Hijmans
Jr.'s,2
rekindles
controversy
on the
Asclepius.
In the
particularly complex
field of
authorship
and
attribution,
startling
novelties
(which
are often
enough
revivals of old
theses)
are in themselves
by
no means unwelcome: but when
V. Hunink revives the assertion that
Apuleius
wrote the
Asclepius,
a detailed
and
systematic
answer is
required.
This text is the Latin translation of a
Greek treatise
attributed,
like a series of
comparable
Greek
theosophic
trea-
tises,
to the divine and charismatic
figure
of Hermes
Trismegistos.3
The
Asclepius
is transmitted within a
part
of the
corpus
of
Apuleius,
of which two
works are of doubtful
authenticity.
Inside the
corpus,
the
sequence
is main-
tained,
and not
only by
the best mss.:4
(a) fragments
of the
Florida, transmitted as
'prologue'
to
(b)
the De deo Socratis,5 a
speech
which was to contain a first
part
in
Greek,
now
missing,
to
which, probably,
the last of the
fragments
alludes.
'
Hunink
(1996):
in the course of the
present paper,
I will refer to this article with-
out its date.
2
Hijmans (1987) 411f., restating
the doubt
expressed by
F.
Regen (1971)
10lf.,
who
proposed
a
study, specifically,
of
Asclepius.
3 "Hermes fulfils both
roles,
that of
revealing deity
and that of
inspired
ancient
sage",
Wigtil (1984)
2289. For
Hermes, Thot/Teuth/Tat,
cf.
Nock-Festugiere
I
(1945)
Iff.
and,
more
amply, Festugiere
I
(1944) 67ff.,
309ff.
4
For the best mss.
(B
M
V),
cf.
Beaujeu (1973) XXXVI-XXXVIII,
Moreschini
(1991)
III, IVf.,
L.D.
Reynolds
in
(ed. id.)
Texts and transmission
(Oxford 1983)
16f. The same
order of works is also found in F
(Florent.
or
Laurent.,
ex Marc. 284: cf.
Beaujeu (1973)
XIf.;
Moreschini
(1985) 276;
id.
(1991) IV, VII),
in Paris. Lat. 6634 and in Vat. Urb.
Lat. 1141
(cf.
Moreschini
(1985) 272ff.).
5
Beaujeu (1973)
161f. Cf. Hunink
(1995)
292-312. That the
prologue
as transmit-
ted is a
unity
and
really
does
belong
to the De deo S. are
unacceptable propositions.
?
Koninklijke
Brill
NV, Leiden,
2000
Vigiliae
Christianae
54,
396-416
THE ASCLEPIUS: THOUGHTS ON A RE-OPENED DEBATE
Presumably, therefore,
it
belonged
to the
original Forida,
the more
likely
if Florida were indeed
originally
a
miscellany
of
epideictic
oratory,6
(c) Asclepir,
(d)
De Platone et eius
dogmate,7
(e)
De
Mundo,
a
markedly enlarged
translation of the
pseudo-Aristotelian
Ilepi
Kc6aotbv.
In its
prologue
the author addresses a 'son' called
Faustinus,
as in De Platone 2: not for this reason alone
(d)
and
(e)
are bound indis-
solubly
in the debate on
authenticity,
from which
they emerge
as
pro-
bably Apuleian.8
So
why
should not
Asclepius, coming
after the De deo
S.,
be likewise
Apuleian,
as was indeed once
thought?9 Challenging
the view
long
domi-
nant
(from
Reitzenstein to W. and
J. Kroll,
from Nock and
Festugiere
to
Moreschini,
not to mention Mahe and
Wigtil,
let alone older
scholars),10
H. takes
up
the
question,
and
goes
over the varied
arguments
which had
led scholars
away
from
Apuleius
and towards the fourth
century (p. 289).
With marked and
persistent
vis
critica,
H. sets about
dismantling
a view
which for him
(and
Hijmans)
rests on
fragile
foundations and tries to lend
substance to an
hypothesis
of
authorship
which-while
only apparently
it
is
simple,
even obvious in its
possibility-is not,
he
claims,
lightly
to be
rejected. However,
much
though
one admires the obstinate effort H. devotes
Interestingly,
H. himself resorts to "a
praefatio dealing
with
improvisation"
and "a
prae-
locutio
announcing
the Latin
part
of the discourse"
(p. 312), implying
a
preceding,
lost
Greek
part.
The
preface
as it stands is not
explicable
as an
organic
whole: cf. H. him-
self
(p. 298)
and B.L.
Hijmans Jr. (AJVRW I, 34,
2
(1994) 1771),
who resorts to "some
other collection of
excerpts".
Hard to see the need to
conjure up
a text so like
Florida,
when Flor. themselves are
ready
to hand!
6
Florida seems a literal translation of
'Av&rlpa,
one of the titles of miscellaneous
works listed
by
Gellius in the
proem.
to N'oct. At.
(?
6).
Hildebrand had
proposed
a
close link between De deo S. and Flor.
((1842) XLIII),
while
Goldbacher,
in his edition
of
Apuleius' Philosophica (Wien 1876), suggested
a codex unicus at the
beginning
of the
ms. transmission.
Why, though,
a
(latin) unabridged
oration in a collection of
excerpts?
Perhaps
on account of
Augustine's
interest: cf.
p.
406f. and
my Apuleio
tra
magia
e
filosofia
(1990),
31 ff.
7
See however the
explicit
to book 2 in the
potiores.
8
Beaujeu (1973) IX-XXIX;
cf. now Marchetta
(1991), notably
88ff. for the
"sepa-
ratists"'
arguments.
9
Notably
Hildebrand
(1842) I, LIff.,
as we shall see. Ascl. was included in some
old
Apuleian
editions: those
by
Aldo
(Venezia 1521), by
B. Vulcanius
(Paris
1601: be-
cause of Aldo's
auctority,
its "recondita doctrina" and not coarse
style), by
G. Elmen-
horstius
(Frankfurt 1621).
10 For scholars
1600-1900,
cf.
p.
399ff. and nn.
18,
19.
397
MARIATERESA HORSFALL SCOTTI
to the
issue,
one must admit
(as
H. does
himself,
p. 299)
that the consi-
derations he raises are
scarcely decisive;
even the least
forceful, though,
do
have the merit of
provoking
a reconsideration of the whole
question
and
of the
Asclepius'
actual character.
Here I return to H.'s
discussion,
and
hope
to contribute some more
precise
and new elements to the
linguistic analysis
he has
begun:
above
all to establish how much
(not
much!)
there is of
distinctively Apuleian
in
the
language;
on the other
hand,
to
identify
words and
expressions foreign
(or positively opposed)
to
Apuleius' usage,'
and to consider terms which
first
appear slightly (or long)
after
Apuleius.'2 Though
these
points may
not
be in isolation decisive
(p.
296 and n.
30),
their force
(and
not theirs
alone)
is
cumulative,
given
how little solid common
ground
between
Apuleius
and
Asclepius
has been established.13
If H. is
right
to
object (p. 292f.)
that
Apuleius
uses words which there-
after
reappear only
in Christian
authors,'4
the
argument
is itself
ambigu-
ous and is to be
weighed
further in the
light
of other
perspectives
and
conclusions,
whose
importance
will be the
greater,
the more
they
reveal
linguistic usage
not as the
quirk
of a recherche
stylist
but as
part
of a stand-
ard
practice.
After
all,
how
many
texts should one attribute to
Apuleius
"
Divinitas--e.g.-is
absent in
Apuleius
and found 29 times in Ascl.: Ciceronian and
then
very
common in Christian authors
(see Gudeman,
Thes.lL.
V, 1, 1614, 69ff.).
Peculiar
to Ascl. is the active sense of incredibilis
(ch. 28)
and incredibilitas
(ch. 27).
For
conflicting
usage,
cf.
firequentatio (4x
in
Ascl.) against frequentia (7x
in Met. and
Flor.);
musice
(Ascl. 13,
bis) against
musica
(9x
in
Apul.);
deductio
(Ascl. 25) against
deductus (Met.
1, 16, 5); neglec-
tus
(Ascl. 24) against neg/lgentia (3x
in
Apul.); perseveratio (Ascl. 41) against perseverantia (4x
in Plat. and
Mund.).
12
Note-e.g.-idolum
in the sense of "statue"
(Ascl. 37; 38),
a
Greek,
Christian
term,
deliberately
different from class.
statua/simulacrum/imago (Bannier,
Thes.LL.
VII, 1, 226,
26ff.).
For Tertullian's
insistence,
cf. the index of Castorina's ed. of
Spect. (Firenze 1961)
and,
on
Idol.,
T.D.
Barnes, Tertullian
(Oxford 1971)
96-100. Creabilis
(Ascl. 15)
is then
found in
Jerome
and
Augustine (Wulff,
Thes.lL.
IV, 112, 75ff); dispensator,
distributor
(Ascl. 27)
of
divinity
start
respectively
from Tertullian
(Thes.l.L. V, 1, 1401, 5ff.)
and
Jerome, Ep. 108, 13,
2
(Vetter,
Thes.l.L.
V, 1, 1541, 66ff.).
t3
It will be more and more clear in the
working
out of this
paper.
Not without in-
terest is Nock's list of words
((1945)
II
280f.) missing
from
Ascl., though mostly
com-
mon,
and thus also
Apuleian (igiur,
rursus
(-ur), diu, mox, inde, sane, adhuc).
Cf.
Beaujeu
(1973)
XVf for Redfors' lexical observations between Plat. and Mund. as
against
the
rest of
Apuleius:
if no real conflict in the
linguistic usages
is
noticed,
there are
pecu-
liar
expressions
which occur in both
groups.
14
See Bernhard
(1927) 100; 315; 329; 337;
349 for a list of words found first in
Apuleius
and then in late authors.
398
THE ASCLEPIUS: THOUGHTS ON A RE-OPENED DEBATE
just
because he
might
have
anticipated
later
usage? Consequently,
lexico-
graphical soundings,
which
may yield significant details,
remain in them-
selves valuable.
That
Apuleius
liked such suffixes as
-tor, -tio, -as,
which occur in words
of the
Asclepius only attested,
as I elsewhere
observed,
later than
Apuleius
(p. 293),
is not an
argument
of
independent weight:
nouns in -tor and -tio
are
always widespread,
while those in
-as, frequent
in
Cicero,
are
typical
of later Latin.'5 If I insist on
linguistic
annotations it is because
they
do
seem
altogether
to lead to a
powerful
nexus of
conclusions, despite
H.'s
fundamental
scepticism-which
does not
prevent
him from
being axiomatic;
this nexus weakens the
appeal
to
"Apuleian stylistic originality", possible
in
itself,
but not absolute and exclusive.
Histoy
of
a debate
The debate is old
(if
not
always entirely
exact in all its
assertions)
and
it is a
pity
that H. has set it
aside, given
the
importance
of-e.g.-the
usage
of
angelus
and
benedictio,
raised centuries
ago,
and in Holland at that.
The debate's
history
has much to teach us
still,
as does G.F. Hildebrand's
conversion from a
separatist position
to a conviction of
Apuleian
author-
ship,'6
on the basis of certain attractive
linguistic
details'7
(none
however
decisive),
which
gave
him the
impression
that
they
must lead towards a
peculiarly
innovative author. Hildebrand
quotes
earlier
opinions
and dis-
cussions, interesting though
rather
hasty,
of
linguistic
and
stylistic
features,'8
of conclusions to be drawn from the ms.
tradition,
and of the silence both
of
Apuleius
and of later authors.
Augustine
is crucial: we shall see
(vd.
more
fully p. 406f.),
he cites the text
widely,
but seems not to know the
author's
identity.'9
Bosscha,
in his
reprint
of
Oudendorp,
remarks that he
plunged
into the
Asclepius
"nulla...
praeiudicata opinione occupatus".20
He noted at once
'5 Bernhard
(1927)
100.
16
(1842)
LIIff.
I7
Ib. LIV: he
speaks
of
"singularis
ratio".
18
Citing
Colvius
(Leiden 1588),
Wowerius
(Basel 1606);
cf. too
J.
Floridus
(Paris
1688)
I
14,
P.
Lambecius,
Prodromus Historiae Literariae
(..) (Leipzig-Frankfurt 1710)
131.
19
See Harlesius
ap.
Hildebrand
(1842)
L.
20
See L. Bosscha's
"disputatio"
on
Apuleius
in vol. III
(appendices)
of his
reprint
of
Oudendorp (Leiden 1823)
517-521
(notably 518).
399
MARIATERESA HORSFALL SCOTTI
certain rare terms which
appeared
to occur
again
in
Apuleius. So-e.g.-
humanitas in the sense of "human race"
(Ascl.
4
(bis); 8; 10; 18;
23
(bis); 25;
38):
not
decisive,
because
already
in
ps. Quint. (Decl
mai.
8),
common in
Tertullian and in
Apuleius only
at Plat.
1,
16
?
215.21 Adunatus at Ascl.
2;
19;
25 is
only
a
conjecture by
Purser at Plat.
2,
24
?
256. Neither sustollere
(Ascl.
6)
nor mutescere
(Ascl.
25) actually
occur in
Apuleius;
mutescere seems
not attested before Lactantius and Paulinus.22 Likewise
vivficare:
Ascl.
6,
30
(bis);
not in
Apuleius,
and then in
Tertullian, Ambrose,
Prudentius.23 The
same
goes
for
vivjficus (Ascl. 2), present
in
Ammianus,24
and vivescere
(Ascl.
4),
already
found in Lucretius and
Pliny.25
As we
see,
our modern lexico-
graphical
tools do
strenghten
Bosscha's
general (if impressionistic)
assertion
that the
dialogue's style
seemed
non-Apuleian.
Hildebrand was
rightly sceptical
about the 'lack of Grecisms' which
Bosscha attributed to the Ascl. as a distinctive feature
against Apuleius:
in
Met.
they
are
uncommon,
apart
from bks. 10 and 11
(there grecisms
are
largely
of established
literary character);
in the De
mundo, they
are limited
to the citation of certain terms in the
original
Greek!26
Coming
to
Ascl.,
we should
up-end
Bosscha's
argument
and note how
singular
it would be
for
Apuleius
himself to use a
syntactical calque
like the
gen.
absolute numeri
completi
(Ascl.
27);27
so too the
genitives dependent
on consentaneus
(Ascl.
1)28
and
dominari
(Ascl. 39),29
or the
participle intellegens
after videris
(Ascl.
1).30
21
The
Apuleian passage
is not listed
by
Ehlers at
Thes.L. VI, 3, 3076,
60ff.
22
Baer in Thes.lL.
VIII, 1719,
42ff.
23
Frequent (vd. Cetedoc):-e.g.-Tert.
Praescr. haer.
25;
Prud.
Apoth. 234;
Ambr. Isaac
v.an.
2, 4;
id. Bon. mort.
7,
26.
24
Amm.
21, 1,
8.
25
Lucr.
4, 1068; 1138;
Plin.
JVat.
9, 160,
etc.
26 Cf.
Berhard
(1927)
143ff.
(Met.),
336
(Plat.), 330
(Mund.).
27
Hijmans (1987)
412 n. 59 would cite
preceding corporis
to
justify
the
gen.
abs.: un-
convincing
for
Apuleius,
no occasional writer. Gen.
depending
on a
comparative
(Ascl.
I omnium ...
divinior)
is
quite
different: in
Apul.,
but also in Christian writers
(E. L6fstedt,
Syntactica
II
425).
28 hes.LL
IV, 394, 20f.;
cf.
Thes.Graec.ling. (Stephanus,
ed.
Hase-Dindorf) I,
1240c
(dcKXo,uoc0).
29
Despite
Hor. C.
3, 30,
1lf.
(Daunus agrestium/regnauit populorum;
cf. F.
Muecke,
Enciclopedia
oraziana
II (Roma 1997) 761),
this is the
language
of Itala and Christian
writers: E.
Lbfstedt, Syntactica
II
416,
Thes.LL.
V, 1902, 14ff., esp.
83ff.
("de potestate
divina");
see L.
Ziegler,
Die lat.
Bibeliibersetzungen
(Miinchen 1879)
55.
30
Cf. LHS
364, citing
Tert. Pudic.
1,
nemo
proficiens
erubescit, influenced
by
biblical
Greek,
but also within the
category
of verba sentiendi et dicendi
(ib. 388).
400
THE ASCLEPIUS. THOUGHTS ON A RE-OPENED DEBATE
There is even what
appears
a certain case of a neuter
plural
noun
gov-
erning,
more
Graeco,
a
singular
verb
(18
omnia...
quae est),
not
easily explained
as a
vulgarism imported by
the
mss., given
also
species...
deorum... con-
formata
est
(Ascl. 23),
'normalized' as
confonnatae
sunt in
B2,
which
may
well
have been influenced
by
the Greek
(e'i&lr),
as Nock
suggested.31
To return to Bosscha's list of words: Ascl. 17 inaltata occurs in the Vulgate
and
Paulinus,32
but was corrected to inhaata
by
Goldbacher
(so Apul.,
Met.
2, 5, 4): inconclusive,
therefore.33 Ascl. 31 ambitudo
(of
the motion of the
stars)
seems a
hapax;
likewise the inaversabilis of Ascl. 40
(where
Nock's
inaversibilis
may
be either a correction or a
slip!);
contrast the insolubilis of
Ascl.
40,
likewise an attribute of the ratio aeterna: found
already
in Seneca
and
Quintilian,
it is familiar in Minucius
Felix,
Lactantius and the
Vulgate.34
Nothing comparable
to the
participle
salvatus
(Ascl. 35; 41)35
is
present
in
the
parallel pap.
Mimaut,36
and we should note the insistent use of salus
in the sense of
otrnpi[a
at Met.
11, 2,
6f. But
closely comparable
uses of
a
tKelev/aqpi%va0t
occur in Hermetic texts37
and-e.g.-Philo.38
The word in
short
belongs
to a koine to which
pagan
and Christian texts adhere.39
Bosscha also
says
that the author of Ascl. uses inchoative verbs "ad fas-
tidium
usque";
he notes
particularly
36 caelum umescens vel arescens
velfrigescens
vel
ignescens
vel sordescens: all classical
words,
but in
Apuleius only ignescere
3 But he
prefers
to be cautious and
prints
the first est
only:
vd.
(1945) 278f.,
325.
32
Rubenbauer,
Thes..L.
VII,
1, 816,
55ff.
33 Transiet
(Ascl. 28)
for transibit does not count: Hildebrand
compared
Met.
6, 19,
6
redies;
the
phenomenon
is not
binding (Neue-Wagener
III, 326-8).
34
Alt,
Thesl.L. VII, 1, 45ff.
35
Scott
(1926)
and Mahe
(1974)
correct numine to lumine
(Mah6 following
the
Coptic):
attractive, notably
if
compared
with the Ambrosian
Epiphany liturgy (cf.
P.A. Carozzi
in Perennitas. Studi... A. Brelich
(Roma 1979), 115-38),
but Nock and Moreschini do still
print
the transmitted text.
36
Pap.
Louvre 2391
fr.l,
col. 18
(PGM
Il
591f.).
See Mahe
(1974) 44f.,
Moreschini
(1985)
79. Mahe remarks
(p. 41):
"En effet s'il est hors de doute
que
nos trois textes
remontent finalement a une source commune
redigee
en
grec,
nous ne saurions tenir
pour acquis
a l'avance
que
le traducteur
copte
ou le traducteur
latin, par exemple,
ont
travaille sur un texte
grec
en tous
points identique
a celui
qui
a servi de modele au
copiste
du
papyrus grec".
37
Vd. Nock
(1945) 400,
n.
351,
G. Foerster in
Kittel-Friedrich,
Theol. Worterb. des NT
VII,
969f.
38
lb., 988f.
39
Ib.,
1003. Cfr.
(Itala)
Rom.
13, 11,
II Tim.
2,
10
(salus);
lac.
2,
14
(salvare): later,
ad
abundantiam,
in ecclesiastic
writers, notably
Jerome
(Isai. 6, 16, 19;
Ezech.
5, 16; Jaumw
1:
salvatus referred to God's misericordia and
gratia).
401
MARIATERESA HORSFALL SCOTTI
(Mund.
3
? 295;
5
? 297;
15
?
321)
and clarescere
(Met.
4, 19, 3; 5, 22, 2)
recur;
notice
though
that the accumulation of
inchoatives,
of a
type very
common in
Apuleius,
is
exceptional
for Ascl. The rest of Bosscha' list is of
particular significance.
First,
benedictio: in Ascl.,4 but not in
Apuleius;
we
may
add a distinction
in the use of benedicere: transitive in
Ascl.,
but + dat. in
Apuleius.4'
Yet
more
singular
is the case of
angelus,
which seems to show a
sharp
distinc-
tion between
usages
in Ascl. and
Apuleius;
it deserved
comment,
but not
such as that offered
by
Klotz in Thes.l.L.:42 he concentrates on the nocentes
angeli
of Ascl. 25 and takes the term in a
negative
sense,
distinct from that
of
daemon,
which recurs
frequently
in Ascl.
4-6,
in the neutral sense of
"being
of
superhuman
character".
Actually,
at Ascl.
25,
it is the
participle
that
gives
the
expression
its
negative
flavour. Lactantius
comments,
with a
Christian
bias,
but
quite correctly
(Inst. 2, 15,
8),
on a
passage precisely
from the Sermo
perectus: quos
(sc.
daemonas)
ideo
Tismegistus
ciyyXovu 7ovrlpovS
appellat:
adeo non
ignorauit
ex caelestibus
deprauatos
terrenos esse
coepisse.
The dae-
mones that the Hermetic text
quoted
mentions are inimici et vexatores
hominum,
not far different from those of Ascl. 37 evocantes animas daemonum vel
angelo-
rum
(a
contrast
thereupon amplified: per quas
idola et
benefaciendi
et male vires
habere
potuissent, etc.).
The distinction between
good angeli
and evil daemones
was noted
briefly by
Bosscha,
is
recognised implicitly by Klotz,43
and
Cetedoc now adds instances
by
the thousand. Bosscha
finely
noted that in
the De deo S.
(after
all a work on
demonology,
in which the term daemon
occurs some fifteen
times)
there is no use of
angelus;
bis, however,
in Ascl.
Suppose though
that
Apuleius
had turned to
translating
Ascl. not
before
but
after writing
the De deo S.: even in this
case,
it is hard to credit that he
did
nothing
to enrich at least the
terminology
of its
central, complex
con-
cept,44 especially given
that the
speech
would have had to be included
presumably by
him in the
Florida,45
before the
excerptor's
work a mature
miscellaneous collection of
Apuleius' public production.
40 Ascl. 26: deus.. .
fiequentibus
laudum
praeconiis benedictionibusque
celebretur.
4 Ascl. 40: benedicentes
deum;
41: solus deus est
benedicendus;
Flor.
20,
9:
Carthagini
benedicere.
42
II,
45,
24ff.
43
Ib. 44ff.
44
The
expression
Hos Graeci nomine daemonas
nuncupant (6 ?133)
could have been
provocative,
as well as
augustius genus
daemonun
(16 ?154),
that of S.'s custos or
deus, very
different from osores et amatores... deos
(12 ?165).
On the Latin
side,
vd. the termino-
logical
show at ch. 15
(cf. Regen (1971)
17,
n.
54).
45
Just
because the title does seem the exact translation of
'Av&npa (cf.
n.
6);
the
402
THE ASCLEPIUS THOUGHTS ON A RE-OPENED DEBATE
When we turn to the distinction between the translator's
technique
in
the De mundo
(decidedly loose)
and the
distinctly
literal
approach
of the
Asclepius,46
Hildebrand noted that we should take account of different inten-
tions,
whence "diversus
utriusque
libri
color,
sententiarum
coniunctio,
enun-
tiationum
dispositio";47
such
diversity might
be
explicable,
had the
dialogue
been a
youthful work,
composed
"stili exercendi
causa",
like the transla-
tion of Phaedo and De
Republica.
To which we
may
answer that the Platonic
translations were
probably
the fruit of an intellectual
allegiance, just
as the
manner of the
Asclepius
seems to reveal the conviction of a believer.48
Hildebrand himself does not exclude that Ascl.
might
have been
part
of
some real
experience, falling
indeed into self-contradiction when he admits
that
Apuleius'
later silence
may
indicate a
disciplina
never entered "in sucum
et in
sanguinem".
It
is, however,
most odd that the
compelling
loftiness of
the treatise's
message
and
(yet more)
the influence that Ascl.'s consistent
doctrine of the
divinity
of man would
inevitably enough
have exercised
upon
an author such as
Apuleius,
immersed as he was in
Platonism,
left
no visible trace
upon
him,
even
given
the
relatively
modest
compass
of the
surviving works;
he does after all revel elsewhere in such
'mysteries'.
To return to Ascl.'s lexicon: Bosscha
pointed out, among
terms that
sug-
gested
to him an
author,
if not
Christian,
then at least one familiar with
Christian
texts,
Ascl. 37 mundanus
homo,
id est
corpus.
The
indication,
how-
ever,
is
inexact,
for the
adjective
means
simply
"belonging
to
the
mundus"
and is
really
little different from the mundanae conversionis of Plat.
1,
10
?
201
("revolution
of the
mundus")
or from the mundanas varietates of Mund. 29
?
355,
or from the mundano
fastigio
of Mund. 33
? 362; yet,
that
oversteps
the
typically
Platonic
dichotomy:
mundus
corresponds
to
corruptible
matter
and the text looks to man's
return,
as a whole
(totus), improved (melior)
by separation
from the
body,
to the heavens after death. The
correspond-
ing
Greek term
ijT/0uctKOV
(cf.
Ascl.
7;
14 for
explicit
references to the
equivalence), gives
us
pause
for
thought:
how
likely
is it that an author as
present
division in books is too brief to be the
excerptor's
work and that means that
both it and the title survive from the
original.
46
Though comparison
with the
Coptic version-scrupulously
faithful towards the
original-tends
to show
up
the Latin as an
'adaptation' (Mahe (1974) 52)-it
must be
said that so far as we can tell the translator's liberties are
precisely enough defined;
Wigtil (1984)
2294 talks of
"deep respect
for the source text on the
part
of the trans-
lator" and adds the
significant
detail: "even the clausulae of the version imitate the
source,
often sentence
by
sentence".
47
(1842)
LIII.
48
Cf.
Wigtil (1984)
2292f.
403
MARIATERESA HORSFALL SCOTTI
careful and
linguistically
rich as
Apuleius
should have rendered iTXn
by
that
same term mundus that he uses for
K6ogo;
(again explicit
at Ascl. 10 ut ex
hac divina
compositione mundus,
Graece rectius
K6oago;,
dictus esse
videatur)?
A
play
between mundus = "world" and mundus = "man" follows
(is
novit
se,
novit et
mundum): interesting,
but
potentially confusing,
for mundus
proves
to have dis-
tinct senses and reveals a lack of lexical
resources;
the author indeed almost
at once
distinguishes:
there are two
images
of the
divine,
mundus et homo.49
More
appositely,
Bosscha
points
to dominor +
gen.,
for which he com-
pares
Tert.
Apol.
26
(numquam
dominanr
eius);
numerous other
parallels,
all
Christian,
can be drawn from Thes.l.L.50
Hildebrand's
position
I
pass
to Hildebrand's
linguistic
remarks and
update
the more
pertinent.
Conversatio he claims to be
'Apuleian'
for conversio
(e.g.
Ascl.
36;
Ascl.
30,
where the text is uncertain and recent editors
print
conversione,
I leave out
of
consideration): only
Met.
9,
6, 2
really supports
his
case, praeter impedi-
mentum conversationis nostrae nihil
praestat amplius (sc. dolium).
Here-contrast
those
passages
where c. has the force of
"familiarity, intimacy"-the
sense
is
"coming
and
going",
not all that far from Ascl.
36,
above: but no
proof
of
identity
of
authorship!5'
lubere + ut
(Ascl.
41 iusserit ut...
dicamus)
is
scarcely significant, being
already
common in Cicero.52 That the terms
innominis
and omninominis
(Ascl.
20)
derive from multinominis
(epithet
of Isis at Met.
11, 22, 6) by analogy
is no more than a
pretty hypothesis:
the
coinages
at Ascl. 20 are
amply
justified by
the
closely-reasoned
context,
in which nomen is a
key
term.53
Among
the constructions which seemed to Hildebrand
"specially
wor-
thy"
of
Apuleius' genius,
no room remains for those which a
proper study
of the context reveals as normal
(e.g.
11
(ad fin.)
naturae ...
puros...
resti-
tuat),
or for those
lacking any
real
point
of
comparison
and hailed on
grounds
of
"preference"
or instinct alone! At Ascl. 20 voluntatis
praegnans
suae
49 ... non
ignarus
se etiam secundum esse
imaginem
dei cuius sunt
imagines
duae mundus et homo.
50
See
above,
p.
400 and n. 29.
51
Cf. Cael. Aur. Acut.
2, 37,
194: lecti latitudo
atque spatium
tantum
probatur, quantum
sufficiat aegro
alterna conversatione alterius loci
frigus
accipere,
Lommatzsch,
Thes.l.L.
IV, 850,
60. Thes.
distinguishes
conversatio from conversare
(what
interests
us).
52
Kuhlmann,
Thes.LL.
VII, 2, 580, 29ff;
cf.
Apol.
63 iussi
curriculo
iret
aliquis.
53
Thes.l.L.
IX, 2, 603,
60
(Baer)
refers to
Corp.
Herm.
V,
10
(ov6oraa EiXs
tT`avWxa ...
6v6ogaxa o ei
5C).
404
THE ASCLEPIUS: THOUGHTS ON A RE-OPENED DEBATE
is
memorably put
but in no
way
anomalous. Dominor + dat.
(27
terrae vero
et man
dominatur)
is
regular
at least from Itala and Irenaeus.54 The verb is
equally
common +
gen.,55
at the same
period;
such fluctuation looks the
natural
product
of an
age
which
accepts
both
usages
as tolerable.
Contigit
/contingit
+ acc. + inf.
(Ascl.
22 unde
contingi
in multis remanere mali-
tiam; tia
contigit
mundi
corporibus
commixta remanere;
37 unde
contingit
ab
Aegyptiis
haec sancta animalia
nuncupani)
is attested from Tertullian and Gaius
on,56
while the construction with ut +
subjunc.,
standard in
Apuleius,57
occurs
once
only
in Ascl.
(32
et sic
contingit
hominibus ut. . .
videamus).
The rare cons-
truction of comitor + dat.
(Ascl.
14 et mundo comitabatur
spiritus),
absent in
Apuleius,
is
already
found in
Cicero,
but
reappears only
late.58 Venerari as
passive (Ascl.
25 omnium
quae
venerari
laudari
amari
denique
a videntibus
possunt)
is indeed found in
Apuleius,59
but also in Ambrose.6
The
oddity
of credulitas "de eo cui de re
persuasum
est"6' requires
pro-
per
discussion. The definition as
given
suits well
enough
two
passages
of
Met. which Hildebrand does not
cite,62
which are
sharply
different from
Ascl. 29 unus enim
quisque pietate, relgione, prudentia,
cultu et veneratione dei clarescit
quasi
oculis vera ratione
perspecta
etfiducia credulitatis suae tantum inter homines
quan-
tum sol lumine ceteris astris
antistat,
where
"persuasion"
is
clearly religious
(as
guaranteed by
the
context).
Here
again comparison
with late and Christian
usage
is
significant.63
The
corpulentus
of
Ascl.
27
(locus...
ab omnibus rebus
corpulentis alienus)
means
simply "corporeal":
so
Tertullian, Chalcidius, Augustine;64 "corpulent",
how-
ever,
at Met.
7, 23,
2 and
8, 26,
5.
Despite
Hildebrand's best
efforts,
there-
fore
(and
it is a
pity
that
lexicography
does not attract
Hunink), nothing
specially Apuleian emerges
in Ascl.'s
terminology.
One detail of
substance,
4
Thes..L. V, 1, 1904,
43ff.;
Aen.
3,
97 cunctis dominabitur oris renders II.
20,
307.
$5
Cf. n. 29
supra.
56 Thes.L.
IV, 719,
75ff.
57 Common from Plaut.:
Spelthahn,
Thes..L.
IV, 720,
4ff.
8
Bannier,
Thes.LL.
III, 814,
79ff. (bis in
Tusc.;
Juvencus,
Augustine).
59
Met.
11, 2,
2.
60
Ambr.
Ep.
17,
1.
61
Hildebrand
(1842)
LIV.
62
Met.
2, 27, 6facti
verisimilitudine ad criminis cedulitatem
impelli; 9, 21,
7 ad credulitatem
delapsus
Barbarus: with
partic.,
the trick into which the
subject
falls is stressed.
63
Seee .g.-the
passages
from
Arob. and Chalcid. cited in Thes.L.
IV, 1151,
31ff.
(and those-ib.,
41ff.-specifically Christian) by Lommatzsch,
who
wrongly
classifies Ascl.
s.v. "facilitas
credendi,
imprudentia, superstitio", 1151,
8.
64
Lommatzsch,
Thes..L
IV, 998,
70ff.
405
MARIATERESA HORSFALL SCOTTI
though,
in
passing: angry
deities
(Isis
in
particular)
are
(Ascl. 37)
ab hominibus
utraque
natura
facti atque compositi;
contrast both
Apuleius' entirely
'ethereal'
demonology
and vision of Isis as
poor
Lucius'
portus quietis
at the end of
Met.,
when Isiac initiation
represents
a decisive
triumph
over the storms
of fortune.65
Dr. Hunink and St.
Augustine
After the historic
objections
to the
non-Apuleian authorship
of
Asclepius
(never
hitherto
answered!),
let us
pass
to recentiora. Hunink's own
critique
begins
from the evidence of
Augustine,
which he
judges
overrated
(p. 290);
however,
the fact that
Augustine
"does not mention
Apuleius
as author of
the
Asclepius"
is
hardly
to be considered a
simple argumentum
ex
silentio, given
that
Augustine
clearly
does
distinguish Apuleius
from the translator
(never
identified)
of Hermes
Aegyptius' words,
cited for
comparison
with the De deo
S.
(Civ. 8,
23,
1 -
26,
3)
on
demonology (8, 23,
1: huius
Aegyptii
verba,
sicut in
nostram
linguam
interpretata sunt, ponam).
H. does
suggest (p. 291)
that differences
of context
might
have let
Augustine
to think of two distinct authors for
De deo S. and
Ascl.,
but it is
wrong
to
say
"it seems that he did not realise
or did not even know that Ascl. is a
translation",
to reach the conclusion
that
Augustine
is unreliable because he did not
recognise
the debt of
Ascl.
to its Greek
original.
Augustine, though,
will
presumably
have learned
enough
of Hermetism
in his Manichaean
past66
and cites with
proper precision
the text on which
he will
dwell,
in the
language
he and his readers know best. The author
he does not
name,
for it was not
transmitted;
he therefore does not know
it and will not
guess!
H., however,
presupposes
"a rather close connec-
tion"
(p. 290)
between the De deo S. and the Ascl. in
Augustine's library,
as
though
the works had been
compared simply
because
they
stood close
together,
because from the same hand. Such
argument
minimises
Augustine's
technical
competence;
he
gives
no hint of
any preceding
connexion between
the two works. H. also
appeals
to the "time" factor: the
passage
of 250
years
will have obscured the
authorship (perhaps implicit)
of the trans-
lation.
If,
though,
such
authorship
had
always
been hidden under the label
of
"Hermes",
it cannot ever have been
clearly
recognisable.
So how did
65
Cf. Moreschini
(1985) 193,
n. 66.
66
Cf. A. Gonzilez
Blanco,
A)VRW
II, 17,
4
(1984) 2253;
S.N.C.
Lieu,
Manichaeism
in
Mesopotamia
and the Roman East
(Leiden 1994)
41f.
406
THE ASCLEPIUS: THOUGHTS ON A RE-OPENED DEBATE
the two works ever come
together?
It seems worth
mentioning,
as I did
in the
paper
H.
cites,67
the exact
sequence
De deo S. /Ascl. not
only
in
Augustine's
citations but also in a
good part
of the ms. tradition. We can-
not but think of a link.68
H.,
who misses this
singular
coincidence and its
implications
and minimises the
possible place
of De deo S. within the
Florida,69
remarks
only
that the
position
of Ascl. not at the end
(a
sort of
appendix)
but "within" the
Philosophica supports
its authorial
unity
with the remain-
der
(p. 290).
Once
granted, though, Augustine's
role in the
transmission,
it seems
likely that,
neither
forgetful
of his Manichaean
experience
nor
devoid of
documentation,
he
compared
Hermes' words and the De deo S.-
using
distinct ms.
sources;
it was then his
polemic juxtaposition
of the texts
that somehow settled their
sequence
in the ms. tradition. A writer so
pre-
cise and
polemical
as
Augustine,
with such a varied
training,
can
hardly
have stumbled
through
his
bibliographical researches,
given
the excellence
of the
library
(and
its
staff)
at his
disposal, just
with a view to
strengthen
the thread of his
polemic, notably
over the thirteen
years
of
composition
of the De ciitate Dei.70
The evidence
of
the transmission
In the
obscurity
of the first
stages
of
Apuleius' transmission,
it does seem
that the
presence
of
passages
of the Florida
right
at the
beginning
of the
Philosophica
is a
strong argument
for a unified tradition. In the mare
mag-
num of
Apuleius'
lost works we can
hardly
undervalue the fact-to restate
what I have said elsewhere-that
Augustine
reveals that what he knows
are the texts that we have. The De
Platone,
not
named,
is no real
objec-
tion: it
may
well have been used.71 As for the Florida
(after
all in
origin
a
collection of
speeches),
note that the
speech
Pro statua sibi
apud
Oeenses
67
(1990)
312.
68 No
contrary
textual indications: cf.
Beaujeu (1973)
XXXV ("on
peut
dire
que
notre
meilleur manuscrit du De Deo Socratis est le fameux Corbeiensis du VIPI
s.");
Nock
(1945)
264ff.
69
See
p.
396f.
70
Cf. B.
Altaner,
Die Bibliothek des
hl.Augustinus,
Th. Rev. 44
(1948)
73-8
Augustinusstudien 174-8; id.,
In der Studierstube des
heiligen Augustinus,
Amt und
Sendung
ed. E. Kleineidam
-
O.
Kuss
-
E. Puzik
(Freiburg 1950)
427ff.
=
Kine
patristische Schnften,
52ff; J. Scheele,
Buch und Bibliothek bei
Augustinus,
Bibliothek u.
Wissenschafi
12
(1978)
61ff.
(esp. 67).
71
Cf.
my
article
(1990)
318.
407
MARIATERESA HORSFALL SCOITI
locanda,72
in addition to the De deo
S.,
was mentioned. The De deo S.'s trans-
mission-which
surely sprang
from
just
the collection mentioned and ob-
tained
precedence
over the
rest,
of which
only
short
passages
survive-
confirms the
importance
of
Augustine's
role.
It is worth
pausing
here over the
inscriptio:
in the chief mss.
(B
M
V)
"INCIPIT ERMU TRISMEGISTON DEHLERA AD ASCLEPIUM
ADLOCUTA FELICITER". Note the mix of Greek
(garbled)
and Latin:
'Eplxgo
is
shortened, Tptoagyio'aou confused; iepa clearly followed,
but the
sense and context have been lost. Latin is
added,
in
agreement;
the
dep.
adloquor
becomes
passive
and a
clumsy
hand has inserted de.73 It is the
pres-
ence of so much Greek that
may point
to an
early date;
note the name
of a Greek oracular
deity
which hides a translator unconcerned with
recog-
nition and the Greek definition of the text's
"sacrality".
Such details do
not conflict with the insertion of Greek words in the
translation,
but there
is no trace of that inventive
mastery
which
Apuleius
himself would have
unfailingly imposed!
Some confirmation from
Augustine,
Civ.
8, 23,
1:
Hermes
Aegyptius, quem Trismegiston
vocant;
ib.: cum
Asclepius,
ad
quem
maxime
loquebatur,
ei
respondisset.
We are here close
enough
to the
way
in which the
Greek
original (or
its close
kin)
is mentioned
by ps.Anthimus (Nock (1945)
305 Hermes
(pad?ict... Tpoq 'AlcKTlntO
v TOV
iarpov)
and
by Cyril
and Stobaeus
(Nock (1945) 333,
336 ?K
TCiv
np6S 'AoaKXTrt6v).
This assumes further
significance
when contrasted with
Lactantius,
who
helps
us return to a lost
AOyoq TxXeito;
(so
lohannes
Lydus,
Nock
(1945) 334),
which he renders
(Div.
Inst.
2, 15, 7)
as Sermo
perfectus.74 Though
Ascl. contains in its
proem
a hint
72
Aug. Ep. 138,
19.
According
to H.
(1997) 59,
n. 2 a court
speech.
But that is no
necessary
deduction from
Augustine's brief, sharp
remark:
qui
sacerdos
provinciae pro magno
fiuit,
ut munera ederet
venatoresque
vestiret et
pro
statua sibi
apud
Oeenses locanda ... adversus con-
tradictionem
quorundam
civium
litigaret?
Quod
posteros
ne
lateret, eiusdem litis orationem
scriptam
memoriae commendavit. The more
so,
if
Apuleius's
witticisms at Flor.
7, 9ff.; 9, lff.,
11 are
properly
valued: lis does not
necessarily
mean "case" and
"dispute"
will do as well
(cf.
Steinmann,
Thes.iL.
IV, 1499, 64ff.)-a
sense well suited to a contradictio
(Hoppe,
Thes.l.L.
IV, 755, 47ff.).
73
Rohde (Rh. Mus. 37
(1882) 146,
n.
2) thought
of an
original Pip[Xoq iepa;
cf.
Moreschini
(1991)
39. But how is the
'agreement'
of
iepa
with adlocuta
(in
all
appear-
ance a
neuter)
to be
explained?
Cf. too K.
McNamee,
Abbreviations in Greek
literary
papyri,
BASP
Suppl.
3
(1981) 15f., against
the
palaeographical explanation
of the
pas-
sage
to de.
74
The fact that Lactantius
cites,
when not
directly
the
Greek,
a Latin version other
than ours
(cf. Epit.
37,
4 cuius verba de Graeco conversa
subieci)
is not decisive in
fixing
a
terminus
post quem
for
Ascl.,
as H.
rightly
notes.
408
THE ASCLEPIUS. THOUGHTS ON A RE-OPENED DEBATE
of the lost title's
"perfection"
(1:
divino sermoni ...
eique
tali
qui
merito omnium
antea a nobis
factorum
vel nobis divino numine
inspiratorum
videatur esse
religiosa
pietate
divinior),
neither our title nor
Augustine (ike
some other
witnesses)
show
any specific knowledge
of the title
A6yoS
tiXLtog.
We must conclude
either that AscL's
original
had
already
lost its title or that at some
stage
in the ms. transmission a tide was constructed
deriving
from the content.
The first
hypothesis
seems
quite improbable,
if we must return to the
c. 2 for a
A6toy
T?XItoq (as
some think
possible)
and
imagine (so H., though
he
acknowledges
the date is
early)
that it
immediately
attracted the eclec-
tic
curiosity
of
Apuleius (p. 292). Likewise,
the
apocalyptic
tone,
which for
Wigtil75
seems to indicate some
lapse
of time between
original
and trans-
lation,
does not bother H.
(p. 296),
who
simply
refers to Met.
11, where,
however,
there is
nothing comparably apocalyptic present
in the text. Were
the
original
Ao6yo' xrxeito c. 2
(difficult!),
then we would have to
suppose
it
had lost its real title at some
point
between
Apuleius
and
Augustine,
and
had
acquired
another substituted
by conjecture. If, though,
Ascl. had been
preserved among Apuleius'
works,
so as to reach
Augustine alongside
De
deo
S.,
it could
hardly
have
escaped
attribution to
Apuleius, except
on the
unlikely hypothesis
of some
anonymous copyist
or librarian well
acquainted
with the conventions of Hermetic titulature!
If, however,
Ascl.
belongs
to
a Hermetic
context,
then the
composite
title is
explicable,
on both the
hypotheses
advanced.
Augustine
had
good
reason
(the
Manichaean
link)
for
associating
Ascl. and
Apuleius;
no trace of
any
such reason is
present
elsewhere. That removes H.'s a
priori arguments,
such as
Apuleius'
interest
in the
mysteries (cf. Apol. 55,
but note too the
plangores
relished
by Aegyptia
numina at De deo S. 14
? 148f.,
contrasted with the
mysteriorum silentia, ib.,
and with the
spread
of the Hermetic
'Word'),
some links with
magic
in
Ascl.
(H., p.
293 with n.
31),
an interest in
Mercury (Apol.
63; 31; 48; H.,
p. 294)
and in
Aesculapius (Flor. 18, 37; Apol. 55;
De deo S. 15
?
154).
Although
we
might
at that
point
wonder whether the different
ways
in
which the two deities are mentioned in Ascl. and
Apuleius
do not assume
a certain
importance.
Let us think now about
literary
definitions. When
Apuleius,
at Flor.
9,
27-9 declares the
variety
of his
interests, offering
a list
(incomplete:
haec et
alia)
of the
genres
he has
attempted,
tam
graece quam latine,
he also men-
tions
dialogos
laudatos
philosophis.
And
why,
asks H.
(p. 296),
should not Ascl.
have come under this
heading?
Unverifiable:
comprehensible, yes,
but
75
(1984)
2284.
409
MARIATERESA HORSFALL SCOTTI
incompatible
with the
way
Ascl. refers to itself: as divinus sermo
(1); religio-
sissimus senno
(ib.);
tractatus
(ib., bis):
to
publish
this tractatus as common knowl-
edge (multorum conscientia),
tota numinis maiestate
plenissimus
as it
is,
would be
a mark of
impiety: explicitly,
therefore,
for a circle of
adepts.
Note also
tractatus,
again (10), disputatio (7)
and
(8)
audi
ergo, Asclepi:
this call shows that
disputatio implies
not a
general
discussion but the intellectual
difficulty
of
the
topic (whence
too
conquirere,
ch.
7).
In the same
direction, moreover,
the adlocuta of the
inscriptio.
Apuleius, 'Apuleian'
or later:
problems of
idiom
Given the
fragility
of the 'external'
arguments
for
Apuleian authorship,
discussion of the translator's
technique
and of certain
linguistic
features
likewise does not favour the conclusions H. draws-not without
original
and
provocative propositions.
In
principle,
H. is
right,
as I have said
(p. 398),
to claim
against
me that
Apuleius'
exuberance of
expression may
admit
terms hitherto
unknown,
which later
appear
in Christian texts: but we can-
not resolve a
question
of abstract
possibility.
In
positive terms, 'Apuleian
affinities' and the
general
lines of the
lexicographical argument require
careful clarification.
As for the translation's
technique,
"free translation"
(H., p. 295),
to
bring
Ascl. into
harmony
with De
mundo,
is
hardly
decisive: the freedom of the
De mundo is
quite
another matter.76 In his
comparison
of the last
prayer
of
Ascl.
(41)
with the text of
pap.
Mimaut
(where
the
adaptation
to
magical
ends is
notable),
Moreschini observes the
general fidelity
of the Latin ver-
sion,
which underlines
expressions
of
religious piety.77
In the De mundo a
bare dozen
phrases
translated
literally
have been
noted,
while
leaps
of
expression
have eliminated some 1/5 of the
Greek,
though
the overall bulk
is much
lengthened by additions, literary echoes,
and
superfluous
refinements
of sound and
rhythm.78
In Ascl. there are some efforts after
refinement,
well noted
by
H.
(p. 297),
but with excessive insistence on their
presumed
'Apuleian' provenance.
H.
mentions,
as a case of
divergence
from the
orig-
inal and
(likewise)
evidence for
Apuleius' hand,
a
passage (Ascl. 21)
less
than
convincing:
we do not have the
original
and cannot assess the trans-
lator's
interpretation!
In
any case,
if
something
can be
said,
the content is
76
Cf. 397 above.
77 Moreschini
(1985)
79f.
78
Beaujeu (1973)
113f.
410
THE ASCLEPIUS THOUGHTS ON A RE-OPENED DEBATE
consistent and the use of
euphemistic language
to describe the sexual union
of man and woman is
entirely
in
keeping
with the
strongly
marked
mys-
tic vision of the act. H.'s reference to
Apol
33-4
(p. 295)
for the
ability
"to create decent and chaste Latin words" is off
course, given
the
long
lit-
erary
tradition of sexual
euphemism (vd. Adams).
From these
chapters
there
emerges
a taste for
language
anatomical
(interfeminium), unusual,
entic-
ing (veretilla79/virginal,
later
defined,
despite
the
struggle
for
modesty,
manina
obscena).80
When
Apuleius
refers to the accusation hic etiam
pro gravitate
vitio
mihi
vortebat, quod
me nec sordidiora dicere honeste
pigeret,
he
probably
adds ho-
neste to the
charge, transforming
the attack
(alleged impropriety
of the
object
mentioned)8'
into
paradox (his honestas,
not
likely
to have been admitted
by
his
accusers).
This
lawyer's joke
on his own skill in delicate treatment
of
risque topics hardly
serves to claim as
Apuleian (so H.)
a
passage
of dis-
tinctly
different character. If the 'eroticism' of Ascl. had a more colourful
tone and richer
imagery
(it
does
not),
we
might
want to
compare
it rather
with the
loftily
unchaste Anechomenos.82
Passing
to
idiom,
H. notes a series of "new or rare"
words,
formed with
prefixes
or suffixes that
Apuleius
likes: careful
enquiry undoubtedly damps
the enthusiasm and somewhat
points
out a distance
(cf.
also
supra, p. 398).
None of the five instances of
dispensator
is in the
practical
sense of "admin-
istrator" found at Mund. 26
?
347
(dispensatores pecuniae); they
refer rather
to divinities or vital
forces,
such as the sun or the world
(29; 30)
and are
close to
usage
in Tertullian and later.83 In one of the two cases in ch.
27,
d. is linked with distributor. for
H.,
a
sign
of
originality,
but distributor is an
attribute of
godhead
from
Jerome
and
Augustine.84
In ch. 29 it follows
frequentator,
the latter used in the
grammarian
Servius and bis in
Isidore,
Orig.:85
does that look like
Apuleian originality?
Note too
frequentatio, quater:
ch.
9,
as
Servius, Augustine
(and
others)
in the sense of
"frequent action";
the other
passages (ch.
3 is the
oddest)
bear the sense of
"accessio,
con-
79
As H. himself remarks
((1997)
on
Apol. 34, 5),
the term is linked to
veretrum,
a rare
term for the male
organ.
80
Cf.
spuria
etfascina
at ch.
35,
with H.'s note
(1997)
II 113.
81
Primarily,
Venus'
pose,
as H.
(on
Apol 34, 1) guesses,
but the
charge
of sordidiora
seems to stretch at will to the fish his
opponent
has such trouble in
naming.
82
Anech. 9 dant crebros ictus is no basis for a
connexion;
cf.
SJ. Harrison,
Henn. 120
(1992)
83ff.
83
Gudeman,
Thes.lL.
V,
1, 1401, 5ff.
84
Vetter, Thes.l.L V, 1, 1549,
66ff.
85
Vollmer,
Thes.l.L
VI, 1305,
46ff.
411
MARIATERESA HORSFALL SCOTTI
ventio
frequens",
not found before the
Panegyrici.86
Vutritor
(ch. 27)
is clas-
sical
(e.g.
Stat. Theb.
10, 228);87
imitator bis in
AscL,
in the once common
sense
(so Cic.)88
of
"qui
aemulatur" at Ascl.
8,
in a subtler sense
(implying
the
reproduction
of a
model),
but not rare at
all,89
at Ascl. 33. Validitas
(Ascl.
33)
is found in Ambrose90 in the same sense of
physical strength;
Apuleius
uses
valetudo!
Rotunditas (Ascl.
17;
40)
is far from
significant:
found
indeed at De deo S.
prol.
3
? 108,
but also in authors as Vitruvius or
Pliny
the Elder.91
Though
instances of
multfarius (Ascl. 12) begin
from Itala
(Eph.
3,
10),
and continue
through-e.g.-Tertullian (of
sapientia Dei,
which
Jerome
calls
multiplex)92
and Irenaeus
(1, 4,
1
=
1, 7, 7H),93 multifornis
is
perfectly
classical: Ascl. 3494 uses it just as does Cic.
(Acad. 1, 26),
of
qualitates,
in
conjunction
with variae.95
Omnformis
is trickier:
quinquies
in
Ascl.,
twice
(19
and
35)
with a sense the context
suggests
to be active
(the diversifying
role
of the divine
power's fonae);96
aside from this isolated
sense,
which reflects
the translator's
perplexity
when faced
by
an
ambiguity
in the
original's
tavTx6,oppog,
it is used elsewhere of
species (3
and
34)
or
imagines (36),
and
analogies
exist
in-e.g.-Chalcidius,97
Prudentius
(Perist. 10,
33998 of
machina,
that is
mundus,
a divine creation like the
species
of Ascl.
34)99
and Paulinus
of Nola
(Epist. 8, 3),
who uses it of the divine
harmony.
As
elsewhere,
significant analogies
not
just
of form but of content. H.
might
have found
interesting
the use of
receptrix
and restitutrix
(Ascl.
2: terra sola in se
ipsa
86
U.
Leo,
7hes.LL
VI, 1304,
40f.
87
PHI 5.3 s.v.
88
0.
Prinz,
Thes.LL.
VII,
1,
431,
70ff.
89
Ib.
432,
24ff
90 Ambr. Abr.
2, 11,
84 refers to the male
(virili
validitate)
and not to
corpora
in
general.
9' PHI 5.3 s.v.
92 Hier.
Eph. 2,
PL
26,
515A
multiplex quippe sapientia Dei,
quae
sermone Graeco
roAXvoAOiK'1o
et,
ut ita
dicam, multifari
appellatur.
93
Gruber,
Thes.lL.
VIII,
1583, 81ff.
94
... et variae et
multiformes
qualitates.
95
... variae ortae sunt et
quasi multformes
qualitates.
Cf.
Gruber,
Thes.l.L
VIII, 1585,
55ff.
96
Ascl. 19 horum
(sc. Horoscoporum) ouotiapXq
vel
princeps
est
quem navco6oppov
vel omni-
formem vocant, qui
diversis
speciebus
diversas
formas facit;
Ascl. 35 sed immutatur ille
omntformis
quem
diximus deus.
97
Cf.
Baer,
Thes.LL
IX, 2, 590,
43ff.
98
Verbo creavit
omniformem
machinam.
99 With Ascl. 3 mundus autem
praeparatus
est a deo
receptaculum omnformium specierum;
cf.
ib. 34: Omnia enim ab eo et in
ipso
et
per ipsum
(sc.
deum)...
et
omniformes species
etc.
412
THE ASCLEPIUS: THOUGHTS ON A RE-OPENED DEBATE
consistens omnium est
receptrix omniumque generum, quae accepit, restitutrix):
the first
is used
similarly
in Mund. 19
?
333
(receptrixque
sit
naturarum...,
of civilis
ratio),
while the three instances in the Verines
imply complicity:'00
it
seems,
though,
that in Cicero the
dependent genitives (furtorum
ac
praedarum)
inten-
sify
a term whose more neutral use cannot be an
Apuleian
invention. There
is
epigraphic
evidence for
restitutrix,
in the sense of
"restorer";'?0
the verb
restituo
("return")
is found in
Plautus, Cicero,
Livy...:102
a
range
which
reduces the
allegedly Apuleians originality
of the
'coinage'.
Irrationabilitas
(ch.
26
inreliio,
inordinatio,
i.)
deserves
separate discussion;
H.
(n. 56)
draws attention to "a
typical phrase
with three
very
rare
words,
closely parallel
to the
Apuleian adjectives inrelgiosus,
inordinatus and irra-
tionabilis". The
analogy
looks
good,
but is
by
no means decisive:
inreligiosus
is attested in
Pliny'03
and is common in Christian
authors;'04
inordinatus is
found in
Cicero,
Twnaeus and
Livy,
not to mention
post-Apuleian texts;'05
irrationabilis runs from
Quintilian
to the Christians.106
Inreligio
is the rarest
of these words: Thes.l.L. notes two c. 4-5
instances;'07
for
inordinatio,
Schmidt
in Thes.LL.
suggests
the
parallel
of Plat.
2,
17
?
244 iniuriam inordinatam
pas-
sionem et
aegritudinem
mentis esse
ait:
distinctly
limited and
circumscribed,
as
against
the
general
censure
suggested
in
Ascl.,
which we find
again
in later
texts,
from Ambrosiaster on.108
Of the
eighteen
words H.
indicates, only
three are not attested else-
where:
alongside praestitor,'09
is the
hapax tributor,
used of mundus
(ch. 27,
governing
omnium
quae
mortalibus videntur
bona);
likewise ambitudo
(ch.
31 tern-
pus autem,
quod definiri potest
vel numero vel alternatione vel alterius
per
ambitudinem
reditu,
aetenum est. note the translator's
pursuit
of the one
unambiguous
term,
corresponding
to
Virgil's
nomina
mill.)
and omninominis
(ch. 20,
in
paradoxical opposition
to
in-nominis). Clearly,
no
precise
conclusions: not
so much
'Apuleian' inventivity
as the translator's need to find
precise
equivalents.
100
Cic. Verr.
2, 4, 17; 4, 150; 5,
160
(Messana
..
praedarum
ac
firtorum
receptrix, etc.).
Il0
OLD
cites-e.g.-Ann. Epigr. 26,
89 Isidi
reginae
restitutrici salutis suae.
102
OLD s.v.
restituo,
? 8.
103
Plin.
Ep. 4, 1,
5.
'4
Ruhstaller, Thes..L. VII, 2, 395,
80ff.
105
Schmidt,
Thes..L.
VII, 1, 1759,
31ff.
106
Ruhstaller,
Thes.LL.
VII, 2, 384,
76ff.
o07
Passages
of Eusebius of Emesa and of the
Opus imperf.
in Matth.: cf.
Ruhstaller,
Th..L.
VII, 2, 395,
14ff.
108 Thes.LL.
VII, 1, 1759,
Iff.
109
Thes.l.L X, 2, 902,
66ff
(Pade):
instances in Marius Victorinus and Rufinus.
413
MARIATERESA HORSFALL SCOTTI
Another
perplexing comparison
concerns the
metaphorical
sense of
glutinum:
at Anechomenos 12 in the
phrase
Veneris
glutino
and at Ascl. 39 haec
itaque eiLappdevr
et necessitas ambae sibi invicem individuo conexae sunt
glutino.
Really,
this is closer to
Cypr. Epist 66,
8: cohaerentium sibi invicem sacerdotum
glutino copulata (sc. ecclesia).1"0 Depon.
auxiliari
(Ascl. 38)
can
hardly
be called
"Apuleian" just
because
rare;
called "cotidiani sermonis vox"
by
Munscher
(Thes.l.L.),
it is found in a
range
of
authors,
from
republican
to Christian."'
Nor can the
presence
of archaic
optatives (vocassis,
Ascl.
1; putassis,
Ascl.
38)
reasonably
be taken as
pointing
to
Apuleius: they
raise the tone and
carry
a
legal solemnity."2
H. offers a list of
"Apuleian
favourites"
(p.
298 with n.
56). Singillatim
once in
Ascl.;
sexies in the rest of
Apuleius (including
once in the
Iepi
epPlTveit0;).
And what of 17 instances in
Cicero,
not to mention a
gener-
ous
spread in-e.g.-Caesar,
Tacitus,
Suetonius?"3 The case of
curiositas,
a
real
key-word
in
Met.,
is more
interesting,
and the issue is not
simple:
the
word
appears
once in Cic.
Att.,"4
and is therefore not an
Apuleian coinage;
common too in
Tertullian,
sometimes in a
negative
sense."5 The con-
demnation found at Ascl. 14 is also found in the
Corpus
Hermeticum."6 The
sharp
distinction between
vera,
pura sanctaque philosophia
and
sophistarum
cal-
liditas which "deceives" men and instils in the
spirit
an
importuna
curiositas
is
hardly
in
keeping
with what Flor. retails in favour of the
Sophists."7
As for
omnifariam (ch. 16),
is the
figure
of 4 instances in
Apuleius,
as
against
one in Gellius and one in
Tertullian,"8 really significant?
If
pass. vege-
tar is found in
Gellius,"l9
viduani is in Horace and
Columella;'20 perfruor
is
'10
Blatt in Thes.Ll.
VI, 2, 2117,
Iff.
"'
Minscher,
Thes..L.
II, 1616,
78ff.
112
Cf.
Leumann,
Laut- u. Formenlehre
(1977),
222. Cetedoc offers Ambr. Fid.
1,
11
(averruncassit),
and a number of late
hagiographic
texts.
"3 PHI 5.3 s.v.
114
Cic. At.
2, 12, 2.
115
Cf.
J.H. Waszink,
ed. Tert. De
anima, 107f.;
for curiositas in
Apul.
Met.,
cf. Antonie
Wlosok's
illuminating pages
Zur Einheit der
Metamorphosen
des
Apuleius,
Philol. 113
(1969)
71ff.,
now in
English
translation:
(ed.
SJ. Harrison) Oxford readings
in the Roman novel
(Oxford 1999)
142ff
116
Nock
(1945) 370,
n. 122.
17
Cf. Flor.
9,
15ff.
(esp. 9, 24)
and
18,
19 on
Hippias
and
Protagoras; amusing,
at
18, 21ff,
the subtle dialectic
struggle
between the latter and a
pupil
keen to astutia.
118
Baer, Thes..LL IX, 2, 589,
20ff
"9 Gell.
17, 2,
1.
120
Hor. C.
2, 9, 8,
Colum. Arb.
1, 5,
1 and ter in the R.R.
(PHI s.v.).
414
THE ASCLEPIUS. THOUGHTS ON A RE-OPENED DEBATE
common in
Cicero,
Livy,
Valerius
Maximus,
Seneca
Ep.
and
Pliny.121
Against
medela once in Ascl.
(m. vitiorum,
ch.
22),122
H. sets ten instances
in
Apuleius:
but the transferred sense occurs
only
at Met.
10, 19,
3 and
also-e.g.-in
Gellius
(20, 1, 22),
in Tertullian and often thereafter.123 So
too, proximitas (bis
in
Ascl.,
bis in
Apuleius):
there are cases in Vitruvius
and
Quintilian,
as also in Terentianus Maurus and Servius.'24
Conclusions
To conclude:
obliged though
we are to H. for the intellectual
challenge
offered,
his
argument,
not
lacking
in interest and
appeal,
does not unfor-
tunately convince;
unless I am much
mistaken,
it does not hold in the face
of a
linguistic analysis
(in
addition to other
details): sadly systematic
and
traditional it
may be,
but the
Ergastulum's training
is not soon
forgotten,
nor
safely
thrown over.125
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Editions and commentaries
Apuleius:
J. Beaujeu: Apulee, Opuscules philosophiques (Du
dieu de
Socrate,
Platon et sa
doctrine,
Du
monde)
et
fagments (Paris 1973);
G.F. Hildebrand: L.
Apuleii Opera
omnia
...), I-II
(Leipzig 1842);
V. Hunink:
Apuleius
of
Madauros,
Pro se de
magia (Apologia),
I-II
(Amsterdam 1997);
C. Moreschini:
Apulei
Platonici Madaurensis
Opera
quae supersunt,
IIIe De
philosophia
libri
(Stuttgart-Leipzig 1991) (including Asclepius).
Asclepius:
A.D. Nock
-
A.-J. Festugiere: Corpus
Hermeticum. Tome II
(Paris 1945), 257-401;
W. Scott - A.S.
Ferguson:
Hermetica. The ancient Greek and Latin
writings
which contain
religious
or
philosophic teachings
ascribed to Hermes
Trismegistos,
III
(Oxford 1926).
Other
references
J.N. Adams,
The Latin Sexual
Vocabulary
(London 1982);
M.
Bernhard,
Der Stil des
Apuleius
von Madaura. Ein
Beitrag
zur Stilistik des
Spatlateins
(Stuttgart 1927);
121
Delhey,
Thes.LL
X, 1, 1409,
Iff.
122
Thes.l.L. VIII, 518,
49f. notes the
interesting parallel
with Chalc. Comm.
267,
p. 298,
10.
123
Thes.LL.
VIII, 518,
45ff.
124
PHI 5.3 s.v.
125
I thank
my
husband Nicholas Horsfall for
translating
and
editing
the Italian
original.
415
MARIATERESA HORSFALL SCOTI
L.
Delatte,
S.
Govaerts, J. Denooz,
Index du
Corpus
Henneticum
(Lessico
intellettuale
europeo 13) (Roma 1977);
J.P. Festugiire,
La rivdtation
d'Hemrs
T?ismngiste,
I-IV
(Paris 1944, 1949, 1953, 1954);
B.L.
Hijmans Jr., Apuleius Philosophus
Platonicus,
AArRW
II, 36,
1
(1987)
395-
475;
M. Horsfall
Scotti, Apuleio
tra
magia
e filosofia: la
riscoperta
di
Agostino,
Dicti
studiosus. Scitti
difilotogia
offerti
a Scevola
Mariotti
dai suoi allievi
(Urbino 1990);
V.
Hunink,
The
Prologue
of
Apuleius'
"De Deo
Socratis",
Mnem. s.
IV,
48
(1995),
292-312;
V.
Hunink,
Apuleius
and the
"Ascdepius", frig.
Christ. 50
(1996),
288-308;
W.
Kroll,
Hermes
Tnismegistos, RE, VIII, 792-823;
J.
Kroll,
Die Lehren des Hermes
Trismegistos (Beitrage
zur Geschichte der
Philosophie
des
Mittelalters
12) (Munster 1914);
J.P. Mahe,
La
pri&ee
d'action de
graces
du codex VI de
Nag
Hamadi et le "Discours
Parfait", ZPE
3
(1974), 40-60;
A.
Marchetta,
L'autenticit4
apulsiana
del
"De
mundo"
(L'Aquila-Roma 1991);
C.
Moreschini,
Dall'
'Asclepius"
al "Crater Hermetis". Studi sull'ermetismo latino
tardo-
antico e rinascimentale
(Pisa 1985) (including
text and translation of the
Asclepius);
W.A. Oldfather,
H.V.
Canter,
B.E.
Perry,
Index
Apuleianus, Middletown,
CT
1934;
F.
Regen, Apueius philosophus
Platonicus.
Untersuchurgen
zur
'Apologie"
("De
magia")
und
zu "De mundo"
(Berlin/New
York
1971);
R.
Reitzenstein,
Zum
Asclepius
des
Pseudo-Apuleius,
ARW 7
(1904), 393-441;
D.
Wigtil,
Incorrect
Apocalyptic:
the Hermetic
"Asclepius"
as an
improvement
on
the Greek
original,
ANRW
II, 17,
4
(1984)
2282-97.
Dipartimento
di
filologia greca
e latina.
MARIATERESA HORSFALL SCOrrI
UniversitA di Roma "La
Sapienza".
via Roma libera
10
sc. A
int.
26
00153 ROMA
(Italia)
416