Geschichte u. Kultur Roms im Spiegel d. neueren Forschung ;2. Principat. Bd. 34. Sprache und Literatur [Reprint 2014 ed.] 3110103907, 9783110103908

Table of contents :
Vorwort
Inhalt
Sprache und literatur
Marco Cornelio Frontone
Aspetti e problemi delle teorie retoriche frontoniane
Chariton von Aphrodisias: Ein Überblick
History and Historicity in the Romance of Chariton
Xenophon von Ephesos: Ein Überblick
Studies on the Biography of Aelius Aristides
Elio Aristide tra Retorica e Filosofia
Aelius Aristides’ Political Ideas
L’ ‘Eiç βασιλέα’ dello pseudo-Aristide e l’ideologia traianea
Zeitgeschichte unter den Antoninen: Die Historiker des Partherkrieges des Lucius Verus
Lucianic Studies since 1930
Lucían: Tradition versus Reality
Lucían and Historiography: ‘De Historia Conscribenda’ and ‘Verae Historiae’
Apuleius’ ‘'Metamorphoses’ and the Ancient Novel
Style and Character in ‘The Golden Ass’: “Suddenly an Opposite Appearance”
Formes et modes d’expression dans les oeuvres d’Apulée
Greek and Latin Versions of the Ass-Story
Apuleius Orator: ‘Pro se de Magia’ and ‘Florida’
Aspetti linguistici e letterari del ‘De mundo’ di Apuleio
Aulus Gellius: A Miscellanist and his World
Aulus Gellius and the Cult of the Past
On the Aims and Purposes of Aulus Gellius' 'Noctes Atticae'

Citation preview

AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R Ö M I S C H E N WELT BAND II. 34.2

RISE AND DECLINE OF T H E R O M A N WORLD VOLUME II. 34.2

AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER RÖMISCHEN WELT (ANRW) RISE AND DECLINE OF THE ROMAN WORLD H E R A U S G E G E B E N VON / E D I T E D BY

WOLFGANG

HAASE

UND / AND

HILDEGARD

TEMPORINI

T E I L II: P R I N C I P A T BAND 34.2 PART II: P R I N C I P A T E VOLUME 34.2

w DE

G

WALTER DE G R U Y T E R · BERLIN · NEW YORK 1994

AUFSTIEG UND NIEDERGANG DER R Ö M I S C H E N WELT (ANRW) GESCHICHTE UND KULTUR ROMS IM SPIEGEL DER NEUEREN FORSCHUNG

T E I L II: PRINCIPAT BAND 34 (2. T E I L B A N D ) SPRACHE UND L I T E R A T U R (EINZELNE AUTOREN SEIT DER HADRIANISCHEN Z E I T UND A L L G E M E I N E S Z U R L I T E R A T U R DES 2. UND 3. J A H R H U N D E R T S [ F O R T S . ] ) HERAUSGEGEBEN VON

W O L F G A N G HAASE

W G DE

WALTER DE GRUYTER · BERLIN · NEW YORK 1994

© Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier, das die US-ANSI-Norm über Haltbarkeit erfüllt. ® Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication

Data

Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt: Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung. English, French, German, Italian and Spanish. Later volumes have English parallel title: Rise and decline of the Roman world. T h e volumes of Teil II have separate titles: Politische Geschichte, Künste, Recht, Religion, Sprache und Literatur, Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik. Teil II edited by Hildegard Temporini and Wolfgang Haase. „Joseph Vogt zum 23. 6. 1970" (28 p.) in pocket of vol. I, 1. Includes bibliographies. Contents: T. I. Von den Anfängen Roms bis zum Ausgang der Republik (5 ν.) - T. II. Principat. 1. R o m e — Civilization — Collected works. I. Vogt, Joseph, 1895 - 1 9 8 6 . II. Temporini, Hildegard. III. Haase, Wolfgang. IV. Title: Rise and decline of the Roman world. DG209.T36 937 72-83058 ISBN 3-11-001885-3 (I, 1)

Die Deutsche Bibliothek

-

CIP-Einbeitsaufnabme

Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt : (ANRW) ; Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschung / hrsg. von Wolfgang Haase und Hildegard Temporini. — Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter. Teilw. hrsg. von Hildegard Temporini und Wolfgang Haase. — Teilw. mit Parallelt.: Rise and decline of the Roman world NE: Haase, Wolfgang [Hrsg.]; Temporini, Hildegard [Hrsg.]; ANRW; PT Teil 2. Principat. Bd. 34. Sprache und Literatur / hrsg. von Wolfgang Haase. Teilbd. 2. (Einzelne Autoren seit der hadrianischen Zeit und Allgemeines zur Literatur des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts (Forts.)). - 1993 ISBN 3-11-010390-7

© Copyright 1993 by Walter de Gruyter & Co., D-10785 Berlin. Dieses Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Printed in Germany Satz und Druck: Arthur Collignon G m b H , Berlin 30 Buchbinderische Verarbeitung: Lüderitz & Bauer, Berlin 61 Einbandgestaltung und Schutzumschlag: Rudolf Hübler

Vorwort Mit dem vorliegenden Teilband II 34,2 wird innerhalb der Rubrik 'Sprache und Literatur' im II. Teil fPrincipat') dieses Werkes die Behandlung der einzelnen Autoren und Werke der griechischen und lateinischen Literatur fortgesetzt. Nachdem der vorausgehende Teilband 1 1 3 4 , 1 (Berlin —New York 1 9 9 3 ) Autoren von der hadrianischen Zeit bis nach der Mitte des 2. Jahrhunderts gewidmet war, gehört der vorliegende im wesentlichen Autoren der Zeit der Antonine, also von den vierziger Jahren bis in die achtziger Jahre des 2. Jahrhunderts. Die folgenden Teilbände werden die Literatur der ca. 100 Jahre vom Ausgang der Antoninenzeit bis an die Schwelle der sog. Spätantike, d. h. von den achtziger Jahren des 2. bis in die achtziger Jahre des 3. Jahrhunderts, behandeln. In dem vorliegenden Teilband fehlt ein umfassender und eingehender Forschungsbericht über einen interdisziplinär, für Literaturgeschichte und Archäologie, so wichtigen Autor wie Pausanias (vgl. die Ankündigung in Teilbd. II 34,1, S. XI); der Beitrag, der sich noch in Arbeit befindet, soll nun als Nachtrag am Schluß des ganzen Bandes II 34 erscheinen. Die Helfer der Redaktion in Tübingen und die Herstellerin im Verlag waren die gleichen, die im vorausgehenden Teilband (II 34,1, S . VI f.) genannt worden sind; in Boston sind jetzt ALEXANDER INGLE und ANNMARIE WHALEN mit Dank zu erwähnen. Im Hause de Gruyter hat mit Wirkung vom 1. Juli 1 9 9 3 HANS R O B E R T C R A M die Leitungsfunktionen von H E I N Z W E N Z E L , dem langjährigen verlegerischen Betreuer dieses Werkes, übernommen. W. H.

Department of Classical Studies/ ANRW Research Center, Boston University Arbeitsstelle ANRW, Universität Tübingen im Oktober 1993

Inhalt Vorwort

V

SPRACHE UND LITERATUR (EINZELNE A U T O R E N SEIT DER HADRIANISCHEN ZEIT UND ALLGEMEINES ZUR LITERATUR DES 2. U N D 3. J A H R H U N D E R T S [FORTS.])

Band II. 34.2: COVA, P. V. (Brescia)

Marco Cornelio Frontone S o VERINI, P. (Bologna)

Aspetti e problemi delle teorie retoriche frontoniane

873 — 918 ....

Ruiz MONTERO, C. (Murcia) Chariton von Aphrodisias: Ein Überblick HUNTER, R . (Cambridge)

History and Historicity in the Romance of Chariton . . . .

Ruiz MONTERO, C. (Murcia) Xenophon von Ephesos: Ein Überblick

919 —1004

1006 - 1 0 5 4 1055 - 1 0 8 6

1088 — 1138

ARIAS, P. E. (Pisa) - PAOLETTI, M . (Pisa)

La ricerca sulla 'Periegesi' di Pausania e i suoi problemi [Nachtrag in Bd. II. 34.4]

BEHR, C . A. (New York, N Y )

Studies on the Biography of Aelius Aristides

1140 — 1233

VIII

INHALT

MORESCHINI, E . (Pisa)

Elio Aristide tra Retorica e Filosofia

1234 - 1 2 4 7

STERTZ, S. A. ( N e w York, N Y )

Aelius Aristides' Political Ideas

1248 - 1 2 7 0

LIBRALE, D . (Milano)

L"Eiç βασιλέα' dello pseudo-Aristide e l'ideologia traianea

1271 —1313

STROBEL, K. (Heidelberg - Würzburg) Zeitgeschichte unter den Antoninen: Die Historiker des Partherkrieges des Lucius Verus 1315 — 1360

MACLEOD, M. D. (New Milton, Hants, U. Κ.) Lucianic Studies since 1930, with an Appendix: Recent work (1930—1990) on some Byzantine Imitations of Lucian, by B. BALDWIN (Calgary, Canada) 1362-1421 ANDERSON, G. (Canterbury, Kent) Lucian: Tradition versus Reality

1422 —1447

GEORGIADOU, A. (University P a r k , PA) - LARMOUR, D . H . J.

(Lubbock, TX) Lucian and Historiography: 'De Historia Conscribenda' and 'Verae Historiae' 1448-1509

SANDY, G. N. (Vancouver, Β. C., Canada) Apuleius' 'Metamorphoses' and the Ancient Novel

1511 — 1574

SMITH, W. S. ( A l b u q u e r q u e , N M )

Style and Character in the 'Golden Ass': "Suddenly an Opposite Appearance" 1575 - 1 5 9 9 CALLEBAT, L. (Caën)

Formes et modes d'expression dans les œuvres d'Apulée . . 1600 —1664 MASON, H . J. (Toronto)

Greek and Latin Versions of the Ass-Story

1665 —1707

HIJMANS JR., B. L. ( G r o n i n g e n )

Apuleius Orator: 'Pro se de Magia' and 'Florida'

1708 —1784

BAJONI, M . G . (Milano)

Aspetti linguistici e letterari del 'De mundo' di Apuleio

. . 1785 - 1832

INHALT

ANDERSON, G. (Canterbury, Kent) Aulus Gellius: A Miscellanist and his World

IX

1834-1862

VESSEY, D . W. T. (London)

Aulus Gellius and the Cult of the Past

1863-1917

HENRY, M . M . (Ames, IA)

On the Aims and Purposes of Aulus Gellius' 'Noctes Atticae' 1918 - 1 9 4 1

Band II. 34.1: MICHEL, A. (Paris)

Rhétorique et philosophie au second siècle après J.-C. . . .

BESSONE, L (Torino)

Floro: un retore storico e poeta

CRINITI, Ν . ( M i l a n o - P a r m a )

Granio Liciniano

CURRIE, H . MACL. (Middlesbrough, Cleveland)

Pervigilium Veneris

BOSWORTH, Α. Β. ( N e d l a n d s , W. Α.)

Arrian and Rome: the Minor Works

3-78

80 — 117

119 — 205

207 — 224

226 - 275

SILBERMAN, A. (Grenoble)

Arrien, 'Périple du Pont Euxin': Essai d'interprétation et d'évaluation des données historiques et géographiques . . .

DEVINE, A . M . ( O x f o r d )

Arrian's 'Tactica'

BRODERSEN, Κ. (München)

Appian und sein Werk

276 — 311 312 — 337

339 — 363

HAHN, I. (Budapest) - NÉMETH, G . (Budapest)

Appian und Rom

364 - 402

X

INHALT

F. J. (Alcalá de Henares [Madrid]) Appian's Tberiké'. Aims and Attitudes of a Greek Historian of Rome

403 - 427

G. (München) Appians 'Annibaike'. Aufbau — Darstellungstendenzen Quellen

428-462

G Ó M E Z ESPELOSÍN,

LEIDL, C H .

-

G. (Viterbo) m i l y r i k é ' di Appiano

MARASCO,

463-495

MCGING, B. C. (Dublin)

Appian's 'Mithridateios'

496-522

D. (Pavia) Le 'Guerre Civili' di Appiano

523 — 554

A. (Firenze) Favorino di Arelate

556-581

(Paris) Hadrien littérateur et protecteur des lettres

583 — 611

(New York, NY) Semper in omnibus varius: The Emperor Hadrian and Intellectuals

612-628

MAGNINO,

BARIGAZZI,

ANDRÉ, J . - M .

STERTZ, S. A .

LEWIS, R . G . ( E d i n b u r g h )

Imperial Autobiography, Augustus to Hadrian

629 — 706

BLANK, D . L. (Los Angeles, CA)

Apollonius Dyscolus

708-730

(Leiden) The Semantics of a Syntactician. Things meant by verbs according to Apollonius Dyscolus'Περί συντάξεως'

731—770

VAN O P H U I J S E N , J . M .

DYCK, Α. (Los Angeles, CA)

Aelius Herodian: Recent Studies and Prospects for Future Research

772-794

(Leiden) O n Poems': Two Hephaestionic Texts and One Chapter from Aristides Quintilianus on the Composition of Verse

796 — 869

VAN O P H U I J S E N , J . M .

INHALT

Band II. 34.3: TRAPP, Μ . Β. (London)

The 'Dialexeis' of Maximus of Tyre: Form, Style and Tone

LINDBERG, G . (Lund)

Hermogenes of Tarsus PATILLON, M . (Paris)

Le 'De inventione' du Pseudo-Hermogène

LUKINOVICH, A. (Genève)

Les 'Deipnosophistes' d'Athénée ou l'érudition en fête ANDERSON, G. (Canterbury, Kent) Athenaeus: the Sophistic Environment HENRY, M . M . (Ames, IA)

The Edible Woman: Athenaeus' Concept of the Pornographie

ANDERSON, G. (Canterbury, Kent) Alciphron's Miniatures

MORGAN, J . R . (Swansea)

Longus, 'Daphnis and Chloe': A Bibliographical Survey HUNTER, R . ( C a m b r i d g e )

Longus, 'Daphnis and Chloe'

ANDERSON, G. (Canterbury, Kent) Perspectives on Achilles Tatius

ARNAUD-LINDET, M.-P. (Paris)

Le 'Liber memorialis' de L. Ampelius

SALANITRO, G . (Catania)

Osidio Geta e la poesia centonaría

XI

XII

INHALT

BENEDETTI, F. (Perugia)

La poesia didattica degli Oppiani

DE LANNOY, L. (Gent)

Le problème des Philostrate: État de la question STERTZ, S. Α. ( N e w Y o r k , N Y )

Philostratus, 'The Lives of the Sophists'. Greek Intellectuals in the Roman Empire FOLLET, S. (Paris)

L' c Héroïque' de Philostrate

RAMPOLDI, T. (Milano)

I 'Kestoi' di Sesto Giulio Africano e l'imperatore Severo Alessandro

MAZZA, M . (Bari)

Cassio Dione, storico di Roma

AMELING, W. (Würzburg)

Griechische Intellektuelle und das Imperium Romanum: das Beispiel Cassius Dio LINTOTT, A. W. (Aberdeen)

Cassius Dio and the History of the Late Roman Republic SWAN, P. M . (Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada) How Cassius Dio Composed his Augustan Books: Three Studies GOWING, A. M . (Seattle, WA)

Cassius Dio's Account of Nero and his Reign

BESSONE, L. (Torino)

Cassio Dione e la guerra civile del 69 d. C. SCHMIDT, M . G . (Heidelberg)

Die 'zeitgeschichtlichen' Bücher im Werk des Cassius Dio: vom Tode des Commodus bis zu Severus Alexander DE BLOIS, L. (Nijmegen)

Soldaten und Volk bei Cassius Dio: Ideologie und Anachronismus

INHALT

BIRLEY, Α. Κ. (Düsseldorf)

Marius Maximus, the Consular Biographer

BENARIO, H. W. (Atlanta, Georgia) Ignotus, the "Good Biographer"?

ATKINSON, J. E. (Cape Town) Q . Curtius Rufus

Band II. 34.4: SLDEBOTTOM, H . ( O x f o r d )

Herodian's Historical Methods and Understanding of History MARASCO, G . (Viterbo)

Erodiano e la crisi dell'Impero

OPELT, I . t (Düsseldorf)

Furcht und Schrecken bei Herodian

KINDSTRAND, J . F. (Uppsala)

Claudius Aelianus und sein Werk

LUKINOVICH, A. (Genève)

Les 'Histoires variées' d'Elien. L'agencement de la mosaïque

ZECCHINI, G . (Milano)

Asinio Quadrato storico di Filippo l'Arabo

FROMENTIN, V. (Paris)

Dexippos

BRISSON, L. (Paris) - PATILLON, M . (Paris)

Longinus Platonicus philosophus et philologus, II. Longinus philologus

XIII

XIV

INHALT

F. D. (Sevilla) Menander Rhetor and the Works Attributed to him

G A S C Ó LA C A L L E ,

(Lisbon) Heliodorus' 'Aethiopica': A Bibliographical Survey

FUTRE PINHEIRO, M .

(Murcia) Heliodorus' 'Aithiopika'

CONDE GUERRI, E.

(Lisbon) Time and Narrative Technique in Heliodorus' 'Aethiopica'

FUTRE PINHEIRO, M .

BOWEN, A . C .

(Princeton)

Music as Source of the Principles of All Learning: The Argument of Aristides Quintilianus' 'De musica'

VoLPiLHAC, P. ( C l e r m o n t - F e r r a n d ) Etat présent des recherches sur Nemésien

D. (Potenza) Lettura di Reposiano

GAGLIARDI,

(Urbana, IL) Alcestis Barcinonensis

MARCOVICH, M .

(Perugia) Terenziano Mauro, grammatico e metrico: problemi e stato della ricerca

CONTI, C .

BREEN, A . ( B o s t o n ,

MA)

Studies in the 'Fabulae' of Hyginus: An Investigation into Sources, Structure, and Method

G. (Gainsville, Florida) Apollonius of Tyre: Last of the Troublesome Latin Novels

SCHMELING,

INHALT BESSONE, L . ( T o r i n o )

Casi controversi di 'imitado Vergiliana' nella poesia dei 'novelli' MORGAN, J . R .

(Swansea)

On the Fringes of the Canon: Work on the Fragments of Ancient Greek Fiction ( 1 9 3 6 - 1 9 9 2 ) DE BLOIS, L .

(Nijmegen)

Kaiser- und Reichsideologie bei griechischen Autoren des 3. Jh. POLVERINI, L . ( P e r u g i a )

La 'crisi del III secolo' nella prospettiva della letteratura contemporanea DURET, L . (Paris)

Dans l'ombre des plus grands III. Poètes et prosateurs mineurs de langue latine aux Ilème et Illème siècles de notre ère

N A C H T R A G Z U BAND II. 30.1: SIDER, D . ( N e w Y o r k , N Y )

The Poetry of Philodemus and its Influence on Latin Poetry

N A C H T R Ä G E Z U BAND II. 33.6: TORRACA, L . ( S a l e r n o )

Lingua e stile nei 'Moralia' di Plutarco GALLO, I. ( S a l e r n o )

Forma letteraria nei 'Moralia' di Plutarco

SPRACHE UND LITERATUR ( E I N Z E L N E A U T O R E N SEIT DER HADRIANISCHEN ZEIT UND ALLGEMEINES ZUR L I T E R A T U R DES 2. U N D 3. J A H R H U N D E R T S [FORTS.])

Marco Cornelio Frontone di

PIER VINCENZO C O V A ,

Brescia

Sommario Premessa

874

I. La fortuna 1.

LEOPARDI

875 e Frontone

2. Edizioni e letture

876

3. La formazione del corpus

880

II. L'opera

882

1. Le lettere come fonte storica

882

2. Esegesi di luoghi particolari

886

3. Temi generali a) Elocutio novella b) Εικόνες c) L'arcaismo e il pensiero linguistico-letterario

890 890 891 892

4. Le a) b) c)

895 895 897 898

grandi lettere-trattati I 'Principia Historiae' L"Arion υ ' Ε ρ ω τ ι κ ό ς e le favole

5. Lettere retorico-didattiche e private III. L'uomo

899 901

1. L'ambiente a) Il quadro generale b) L'ambiente di Gellio

901 901 903

2. Il carattere a) Il processo di Erode e il rapporto col potere b) L'orazione contro i Cristiani

904 904 907

3. La vita a) Questioni cronologiche b) L'Africitas

911 911 913

Bibliografia

58"

875

914

1. Edizioni

914

2. Lessici

914

3. Saggi

914

874

PIER

VINCENZO

COVA

Premessa A distanza di p o c o più di un quarto di secolo non si possono ripetere le parole con le quali R. MARACHE accumunava Frontone e Gellio nella sua rassegna per Lustrum 10, 1965, 213 - 225 nella « caractéristique d'être un peu délaissés de nos jours»1. Oggi la bibliografia frontoniana è ricca e vivace, anche se spesso indiretta e quindi dispersa sotto voci disparate. Inoltre non è più interessata solo al testo, ma affronta i molteplici problemi, che coinvolgono l'epistolario. Evita le visioni generali, che possono indurre a giudizi sommari, le condanne c o m e le rivalutazioni, ma conduce un'opera paziente di esegesi. Tuttavia questa non copre ancora in m o d o uniforme tutto Frontone e lascia vuoti disuguali. Alcuni aspetti rimangono trascurati, c o m e le risultanze dei numerosi testimoni indiretti. Quindi manca ancora il grande commento, che coroni l'attività interpretativa di intere generazioni: m a gli studi attuali se ne possono considerare una seria preparazione. Abbreviazioni (titoli di periodici): Am. Journ. Philol. Ann. Ling. Bari Ann. Mag. Cagliari Ann. Pisa ANRW Boll. St. Lat. Civ. Class. Crist. Class. Philol. Class. Quart. Cult. Se. Giorn. It. Filol. Journ. Rom. St. Mat. Discuss. Mem. Acc. Torino Par. Pass. Rev. ét. lang. anc. ord. Rev. ét. lat. Riv. Cult. Class. Med. Riv. Filol. Class. Riv. St. Chiesa St. It. Filol. Class. Symb. Osi. Trans. Am. Philol. Ass. Zeitschr. Pap. Epigr. 1

American Journal of Philology Annali del Corso/Facoltà di Lingue e Letterature straniere dell'Università di Bari Annali della Facoltà di Magistero dell'Università di Cagliari Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa, Classe di Lettere, Storia e Filosofia Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt/Rise and Decline of the Roman World Bollettino di Studi Latini Civiltà Classica e Cristiana Classical Philology Classical Quarterly Cultura e Scuola Giornale Italiano di Filologia The Journal of Roman Studies Materiali e Discussioni per l'analisi dei testi classici Memorie dell'Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, Classe di Scienze morali, storiche e filologiche La Parola del Passato Revue de l'organisation internationale pour l'étude des langues anciennes par ordinateur Revue des études latines Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia Studi Italiani di Filologia Classica Symbolae Osloenses Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik

La rassegna del MARACHE viene assunta come terminus post quem della presente, la quale perciò considera solo i contributi posteriori al 1964, salvo alcune integrazioni di titoli là non menzionati e gli indispensabili cenni ai precedenti dei principali problemi.

MARCO

CORNELIO

1. La

FRONTONE

875

fortuna

1. LEOPARDI e F r o n t o n e

Oggi suscita qualche meraviglia osservare l'impegno, con il quale, poco dopo la prima scoperta del MAI, GIACOMO LEOPARDI tentò di raccordare il giudizio macrobiano sulla secchezza di Frontone con la pompa che Mamerto gli attribuiva 2 . Nella Lettera sul Frontone del MAI il grande poeta recanatese riusciva più facilmente a conciliare questa seconda valutazione con la gravità riconosciutagli da Girolamo 3 ; ma, per accettare lo strano giudizio di Macrobio, doveva ricorrere da una parte a una sottile e artificiosa distinzione fra stile estrinseco (ossia le parole come materia del discorso) e stile intrinseco (ossia il modo di usarle), dall'altra a una acuta osservazione storica: la materia verbale impiegata dal retore (άπαξ, costruzioni inusuali ecc.) doveva dare ai lettori contemporanei quella impressione di asprezza, che giustifica il rilievo di Macrobio, ma che a noi sfugge davanti a una lingua morta. A questa conclusione il LEOPARDI arrivò dopo lunghe meditazioni e ripetuti tentativi, che sono puntualmente riportati nell'Appendice, che S. TIMPANARO e G. PACELLA fanno seguire al testo di quello scritto nel volume Vili = Scritti Filologici ( 1 8 1 7 - 1 8 3 2 ) dell'edizione nazionale degli 'Scritti di G. L. Inediti o Rari', a cura di U. B o s c o e A. LA PENNA, Le Monnier, Firenze 1969, 70 —103 passim. L'Introduzione premessa dai due curatori informa invece sulla genesi della Lettera. Questa era stata preceduta dalla traduzione di Frontone, composta dal LEOPARDI sulla edizione milanese del 1815 e poi ritirata dal suo autore. La lettera sul Frontone del MAI fu cominciata nel 1818, ma presto il LEOPARDI pensò di scinderla in due, una letteraria, una testuale. Delle due però venne stesa solo la prima, che contiene i giudizi sopra ricordati. Eppure la parte più significativa sarebbe stata la seconda lettera. In essa infatti dovevano trovare posto le congetture testuali: alcune di esse furono comunicate privatamente al MAI (che se ne appropriò senza che il LEOPARDI mostrasse di accorgersene), le altre rimasero ignote (anche se in parte coincidono con quelle avanzate in modo indipendente dagli editori berlinesi del 1816). Non entrando nel circolo degli studiosi, le congetture leopardiane non influirono sulla determinazione moderna del testo dell'epistolario (solo il VAN 2

3

Macr., Sat. V,l,7: Quattuor sunt, inquit Eusebius, genera dicendi: copiosum, in quo Cicero dominatur, breve, in quo Sallustius regnai, siccum, quod Frontoni adscribitur, pingue et floridum, in quo Plinius Secundus quondam et nunc nullo veterum minor noster Symmachus luxuriatur. M a m . Claud., epist. ad Sapaudum p. 206 ENGELBRECHT: Naevius et Plautus tibi ad elegantiam, Cato ad gravitatem, Varrò ad peritiam, Gracchus ad acrimoniam, Chrysippus ad disciplinam, Pronto ad pompam, Cicero ad eloquentiam capessendam usui sint. Hieron., epist. 125,12,1: ad quam (seil, mentem) edomandam cuidam fratri, qui ex Hebraeis crediderat, me in disciplinam dedi, ut post Quintiliani acumina Ciceronisque fluvios gravitatemque Frontonis et lenitatem Plinti alphabetum discerem, stridentia anhelantiaque verba meditarer.

876

PIER V I N C E N Z O

COVA

DEN HOUT ha preso a registrarle nella sua edizione del 1954). M a , se non ottenne risonanza esterna, l'attività filologica ebbe grande influenza sull'evoluzione della personalità intellettuale del LEOPARDI: lo fece uscire dalla filologia formale (ancora evidente nella Lettera stesa) per farlo approdare alla filologia testuale, gloria del secolo 4 . Questo processo si può dir completato solo nel soggiorno romano dell'inverno 1 8 2 2 - 2 3 , quando il Recanatese abbandonò il genere umanistico della 'lettera' per il 'saggio' critico. Soprattutto per merito di S. TIMPANARO, La Filologia di G . Leopardi, I ed. Le Monnier, Firenze 1955, II ed. Laterza, Bari 1978, gli studi filologici del Recanatese non sono più visti in opposizione alla poesia, ma in feconda interazione con essa. Questo spiega come mai un così grande spirito abbia potuto entusiasmarsi per uno scrittore tanto più piccolo di lui: in realtà il suo interesse andava alla scoperta in sé e alla potenzialità della filologia piuttosto che al messaggio del Cirtense 5 . E' noto che la decifrazione dell'epistolario costituì una grossa delusione per il suo tempo: un cenno in F. PORTALUPI, Opere di M . C. Frontone, Classici Latini Utet, Torino 1974, 11 — 12, la quale l'addebita alla radicale diversità fra le aspirazioni ideali del primo Ottocento e la ristretta concretezza dell'antico.

2. Edizioni e letture Anche perdendo la sua preminenza, la critica testuale conserva un certo peso, date le condizioni, in cui ci è pervenuto il palinsesto frontoniano. Perciò anche in anni recenti non è mancata l'attività congetturale, spesso in relazione diretta con specifici problemi di esegesi. I contributi più corposi sono venuti da P. PESCANI e da S. TIMPANARO, il primo con un quaderno della Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale (Coniecturae atque animadversiones criticae in Frontonis opera, Ateneo, R o m a 1961, non schedato in MARACHE), il secondo con una serie di articoli, alcuni dei quali ristampati e ritoccati (Altre postille frontoniane, in: ID., Contributi di filologia e di storia della lingua latina, Ateneo e Bizzarri, R o m a 1978, 3 6 4 — 388; Spigolature frontoniane, in: Studi Barigazzi, Ateneo, R o m a II, 1986, 2 3 7 - 2 4 3 = Sileno 11, 1985; Il 'ius osculi' e Frontone, M a i a 39, 1987, 2 0 1 - 2 1 1 ; Il nuovo Frontone di VAN DEN HOUT, Riv. Filol. Class. 117, 1989, 365 — 382). Le congetture prendono anche spunto

4

Cfr. G. PACELLA, La filologia di G. Leopardi tra Settecento e Ottocento, in: VARI, Leopardi e l'Ottocento, Olschki, Firenze 1970, 4 5 5 - 4 6 8 ; TIMPANARO - PACELLA in LEOPARDI, Scritti filologici..., praef. VILI. Per altri riferimenti bibliografici e sintesi di queste notizie P. V. COVA, Problematica frontoniana, Boll. St. Lat. 1, 1971, 460 - 4 8 2 , spec. 4 6 4 - 466.

5

M a J . FIGURITO, Leopardi e Frontone, in: VARI, Leopardi e il mondo antico, Olschki, Firenze 1982, 4 3 7 - 4 3 9 individua anche una congenialità tra i due spiriti nell'affettività e nella sincerità, come nell'attenzione al quotidiano e alla pene; E. PARATORE, Il Leopardi e la letteratura latina postoraziana, in: VARI, Leopardi e l'Ottocento, 493 — 506, vede ragioni della simpatia leopardiana per Frontone nella comune condanna di Seneca, nell'interesse formale, nella nostalgia per le favole, mentre i difetti del frontonianesimo vengono scaricati sui seguaci.

MARCO

CORNELIO

FRONTONE

877

l'una dall'altra; ad esempio G . P. ROSATI, N o t a a Frontone, p. 136,2 VAN DEN Η ο υ τ , M a t . Discuss. 18, 1987, 2 0 5 - 2 0 6 , partendo da TIMPANARO, Spigolat u r e . . . , 243, che respinge in 136,2 VAN DEN Η ο υ τ commune, propone comminutis/comminutum e lo riferisce al pasto sobrio del timoniere, contrapposto a de integris tegoribus, cioè il pasto forte del pugile 6 . A sua volta TIMPANARO, in: Il nuovo F r o n t o n e . . . , 369 prende atto che nel codice c'è posto forse per satus, ma non per saviolo, che era l'integrazione da lui preferita nell'art. 'lus o s c u l i . . . ' , 201 7 , e, rinunciando a far dipendere suilaboris da fructum, considera laboris (aggiunta della seconda mano) come variante alternativa di satus. I metodi adottati per le emendazioni sono i più vari e di solito combinati tra loro; PESCANI assume come criterio-base due caratteri dello stile frontoniano: Y oratio numerosa e l'uso di ripetere lo stesso concetto. Secondo TIMPANARO le esigenze del senso devono essere prioritarie, pur nel rispetto delle probabilità paleografiche (Il nuovo F r o n t o n e . . . , 375; e rivaluta le letture o t t o c e n t e s c h e di STUDEMUND, S p i g o l a t u r e . . . , 2 3 9 ) . D . POTTER, T h e M y s t e r i o u s

Arbaces, Am. Journ. Philol. 100, 1979, 5 4 1 - 5 4 2 parte da un dato esterno, l'esistenza di un re Agar VII, per correggere il tradito Arbaces dei 'Principia Historiae' in Agare (e spiega le ragioni paleografiche della confusione). Le proposte si trovano quindi nelle sedi più disparate, comprese le recensioni (solo per esempio: M . L. ASTARITA, R o m a e l'Oriente: la ciceroniana ' D e imperio Gn. Pompei' nella lettura di Frontone, Romanobarbarica 5, 1980, 5 - 3 5 ; R. W. DAVIES, Fronto, Hadrian and the R o m a n Army, Latomus 27, 1968, 75 95; S. FASCE, Nota a Frontone (ep. aceph. 8, p. 236,4 VAN DEN Η ο υ τ ) , M a i a 24, 1972, 3 6 2 — 363 e ID., L"erotikós' di Frontone, in: VARI, Argentea Aetas. In mem. Marmorale, 1st. Fil. Class. Univ. Genova 1973, 261 - 2 7 2 ; A. GARZYA, recensione a L. PEPE, M a r c o Aurelio latino, M a i a 1 0 , 1 9 5 8 , 333 - 337; R . SYME, Tacitus, II, Clarendon, Oxford rist. 1963, 650 n. 2 = ed. ital., Paideia, Brescia 1971, 850 n. 2). Per TIMPANARO la lettura di Frontone è diventata un problema esemplare di metodo. La sua complessità non è dovuta solo alle difficoltà di decifrazione dipendenti dallo stato miserando dei codici. In ' S p i g o l a t u r e . . . ' lo studioso ha osservato che il palinsesto è già un'edizione critica, con varianti, correzioni e glosse (le note di altra mano, che costellano i margini, gli spazi intercolunnari

« A 396 = De eloq. 11,6 (5) = 1 3 5 , 1 8 - 1 3 6 , 1 - 3 VAN DEN Η ο υ τ = 1 3 7 , 1 6 - 1 3 8 , 2 VAN DEN Η ο υ τ 1988 At non aeque sequentia officia, quae sunt qualitati cuiusque accomodata, possunt omnium esse communia. Aliud prandium gubernatori commune et aliud pugili de integris tegoribus; aliud prandendi tempus, alia lavatio, alius somnus, alia pervigilatio. 1 A 430 = Ad Verum imp. 11,8,1 = 1 2 8 , 2 9 - 1 3 0 , 3 : ...primum me intromitti in cubiculum iubebas, ita sine cuiusquam invidia osculum dabas, credo ita quom animo tuo reputans, mihi cui curam cultumque tradidisses oris atque orationis tuae, ius (quo}que osculi habendum omnisque eloquenti(ae) magistros sui lege fructum capeare} sa ... in vocis aditu locato. La seconda edizione VAN DEN Η ο υ τ (che non registra in apparato la proposta TIMPANARO) legge così l'ultima parte del passo: ius tui quoque osculi habendum omnisque eloquentiae magistros sui laboris lege fructum capeare} satus in vocis aditu locato(m) (Ad Verum imp. 1,7,1 = 1 1 2 , 5 - 7 ) .

878

PIER V I N C E N Z O

COVA

e tra le righe). Le lezioni della seconda mano sono anche frutto di collazione con altri codici. Quindi non basta decifrare, bisogna anche vedere se la lezione è corretta (vedi le osservazioni metodiche nella recensione al nuovo VAN DEN Η ο υ τ ; ma, per individuare ciò che è dovuto a Frontone e ciò che dipende da copisti e redattori, occorrerebbe la collaborazione di specialisti diversi). Questa situazione spiega l'interesse dei codicologi per il palinsesto in quanto tale. In uno studio dedicato al significato molto vario di emendare, The Subscriptions in the Manuscripts of Livy and Fronto and the meaning of emendado, Class. Philol. 75, 1980, 3 8 - 5 9 J. E. G. ZETZEL ha dato un intero paragrafo (pp. 49 - 55) a Frontone, descrivendo la tipologia molto varia degli interventi sul codice e riconoscendo l'impossibilità per il lettore moderno di individuare un criterio direttivo causa l'estrema varietà delle forme: forse si tratta solo del gusto personale del curatore antico, che accumula osservazioni senza curarsi di stabilire un testo (cfr. TIMPANARO). Per ulteriori riflessioni sul problema saranno comunque utili le statistiche e i calcoli contenuti in questo lavoro dello ZETZEL. Significativi i rilevamenti sulle note marginali, le quali contengono varianti, riflessioni, sottolineature, giudizi, riassunti, osservazioni linguistiche, e sono particolarmente utili quando la pagina del testo è illeggibile (spesso perché corrosa dagli acidi del primo decifratore). Fondandosi sulle note marginali P. V. COVA ha tentato di ricostruire almeno le linee essenziali di svolgimento dei 'Principia Historiae' (Le note marginali e il contenuto dei 'Principia Historiae' di Frontone, in: Mélanges Renard, Coli. Latomus 101, Bruxelles, 1969, 2 6 8 - 2 7 9 ) . E' da osservare che nessuno degli studiosi contemporanei interessato ai problemi testuali ha ispezionato direttamente allo scopo il codice frontoniano. Risale a più di trent'anni la riscoperta di un passo dimenticato dell'epist. Ad Verum 11,1 nel Cod. Par. Lat. 12161 della Biblioteca Nazionale di Parigi, letto da B. BISCHOFF, Der Fronto-Palimpsest der Mauriner, Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, München 1958. L'episodio è importante per tre motivi: 1) insieme al frammento della 'Gratiarum actio pro Carthaginiensibus', che si trova nel Vat. Pai Lat. 24 (e di cui pure lo stesso studioso ha dato una nuova lettura nella stessa sede, pp. 27 — 28), rappresenta l'unico caso di testo frontoniano trasmesso al di fuori dei codici Ambrosiano e Vaticano scoperti dal MAI8; 2) integra una grossa lacuna quasi iniziale dell'epist. Ad Verum 11,1 e per un breve tratto (le ultime parole del cod. Ρ 133 corrispondono alle prime di A 420) consente di confrontare due tradizioni diverse del medesimo passo; 3) comporta un ordinamento dei fogli diverso da quello postulato dalle edizioni precedenti. Della nuova lettura e della nuova proposta di ordinamento dei fogli hanno tenuto conto le edizione successive 9 , PORTALUPI (cit.) e VAN DEN Η ο υ τ 8

9

D ' o r a in poi q u a n d o si parlerà di codice o palinsesto o di corpus f r o n t o n i a n o s'intenderà sempre il complesso f o r m a t o dai due tronconi, l'Ambrosiano e il Vaticano, scoperti dal MAI, ossia il grosso del testo a noi noto, escludendo i pochi passi giunti per altra via. Alle edizioni del corpus f r o n t o n i a n o (che c o m p r e n d o n o sempre anche i corrispondenti) si aggiungono le edizioni a parte delle lettere di M a r c o Aurelio contenute in quella

MARCO

CORNELIO

FRONTONE

879

(1988). La prima, pur non essendo un'edizione critica (è fondata sul VAN DEN Η ο υ τ 1954; le divergenze sono segnalate alle pp. 45 — 46), è però molto significativa per la ricezione di Frontone nella cultura moderna, cui ha approntato uno strumento di lettura sostanzialmente completo, fornito di indici, bibliografia, introduzione e, fatto notevole, un sobrio commento e una traduzione italiana (non risultano versioni in altre lingue dopo l'inglese di HAINES nella Loeb, salvo qualche saggio disperso, come PH. MURRAY, Fronto to my Lord M . Aurelius Antoninus - 'De nepote amisso' - , Arion 2, 1963, 28 già in: T h e Hudson Review 15, 1 9 6 2 - 6 3 ) . Naturalmente l'edizione centrale per la seconda metà del Novecento rimane il VAN DEN Η ο υ τ . Poiché tutti (o quasi) gli studi considerati nella presente rassegna citano Frontone secondo pagina e riga dell'edizione 1954, anche qui i numeri si riferiranno a quella edizione e solo in qualche caso alla seconda (segnata allora come tale oppure VAN DEN Η ο υ τ 1 9 8 8 ) . Purtroppo il raccordo fra le due edizioni non è agevole, perché l'autore si è limitato a indicare (p. 296) le diversità nella distribuzione dei libri (e delle pagine rispetto ad H A I N E S , 2 9 5 — 2 9 6 ; la prima edizione consentiva il riferimento anche alle pagine del NABER). D'altra parte non è ancora possibile citare sempre solo in base a titolo, libro e paragrafo delle diverse raccolte, come si usa per ogni altro classico, perché la ripartizione non è ancora universalmente accettata. Anzi la seconda edizione VAN DEN Η ο υ τ ha innovato in questo campo rispetto alla prima: nella raccolta 'Ad M . Caes.' tre lettere sono state spostate dal primo al secondo libro, facendo così slittare la numerazione di quest'ultimo; nella raccolta 'Ad Ant. imp.' sono state unificate sotto un sol numero coppie di lettere (11,4 e 5 = 4; 11,6 e 7 = 5; 111,4 e 5 = 4; 111,7 e 8 = 6); nelle raccolte 'Ad Verum imp.' il gruppo 1,1—4 è diventato 1,10 — 13 e il gruppo 11,2 — 10 è diventato 1 , 1 - 9 1 0 . Questa non è l'unica novità di VAN DEN Η ο υ τ 1988, il quale anzitutto ha potuto prendere visione delle letture di H. HAULER ancora inedite (ma il frutto pare sia scarso, sia per l'emersione di una incertezza metodologica di quel pur benemerito decifratore sia per la duplicità di alcune decifrazioni sia per l'eterogeneità dei materiali). Gli amplissimi Prolegomena riproducono in

silloge. Al M a r c o Aurelio latino di L. PEPE, che risale al 1957, presso A r m a n n i di Napoli, si aggiunge o r a il volume degli Scritti di M a r c o Aurelio. Lettere a F r o n t o n e , Pensieri, D o c u m e n t i a c u r a di G. CORTASSA, Classici Greci Utet, T o r i n o 1 9 8 4 , che contiene la corrispondenza c o n F r o n t o n e alle pp. 1 1 3 - 2 2 1 . Anche nella parte dell'Introduzione dedicata a queste lettere il punto di vista è spostato sul principe, di cui si n o t a n o l'evoluzione dalle banalità giovanili alla sottile ironia e alla stanchezza, e l'incompletezza della conversione dalla retorica alla filosofia. Il ritratto di F r o n t o n e è delineato secondo tradizione. 10

Dunque l'assegnazione delle lettere alla raccolta può essere diversa fra VAN DEN Η ο υ τ e NABER (con cui c o n c o r d a HAINES), l'ordinamento nelle raccolte può esser diverso nelle due edizione VAN DEN Η ο υ τ . N o n o s t a n t e questa intricata situazione, tutte le volte, in cui sarà possibile evitare equivoci, userò l'indicazione per raccolta, libro, n u m e r o d'ordine e paragrafo, riservando la precisazione della pagina VAN DEN Η ο υ τ ai casi dubbi o bisognosi di immediato reperimento.

880

PIER V I N C E N Z O

COVA

larga parte quelli della precedente edizione (utilissimi per le notizie su testo, decifrazioni, edizioni) con le necessarie modifiche. La bibliografia va molto oltre l'elenco dei contributi testuali ( L X X X I - X C I V ) . Molto arricchita risulta la sezione Testimonia et Fragmenta (pp. 2 5 9 - 2 7 6 ) . Su questa edizione si può ricordare S. TIMPANARO, Il nuovo Frontone... (che è assai più di una recensione 11 ) anche per un utile confronto con le pagine dedicate al primo VAN DEN HOUT, pubblicate negli Ann. Pisa II, 24, 1955, 276 — 282 e ristampati in ID., Contributi..., 3 4 5 - 3 6 3 (anche lì comparivano contributi testuali, come per 38,19 a proposito del processo di Erode: viene proposta l'aggiunta di haud o non davanti a ita - contra COVA, Problematica ..., 468).

3. La formazione del corpus La complessità dei caratteri del palinsesto non si limita al suo aspetto di edizione critica o, se si preferisce, di antologia annotata per uso personale, ma riguarda anche la fisionomia del corpus come tale. Non è ancora stato possibile definire il criterio, con il quale furono formate e poi accostate le singole raccolte. Dopo una minuziosa analisi delle singole lettere, la conclusione di E. CHAMPLIN, The Chronology of Fronto, Journ. Rom. Stud. 64, 1974, 157 è perentoria: " n o single principle, especially chronological, lies behind the present state of the Frontonian corpus". Non serve allo scopo neanche la descrizione della tipologia delle lettere: P. CUGUSI, Evoluzione e forme dell'epistolografia latina nella tarda repubblica e nei primi due secoli dell'Impero, Herder, Roma 1983, 51—72 ha studiato le forme deli'inscriptio (varie in Frontone, semplici in Marco Aurelio) e dei poscritti (spesso letterari, non dovuti a cause sopraggiunte) e il loro rapporto con la tradizione (le maggiori innovazioni si trovano in Marco Aurelio), ma senza trarne conseguenze sulla composizione nel suo insieme. Anche quelli, che sembrerebbero punti fermi, si rivelano poi suscettibili di diverse interpretazioni. Per es. la presenza di lettere trascritte due volte dovrebbe deporre per l'assenza di una edizione organica originaria; ma le seconde trascrizioni potrebbero essere state aggiunte a una silloge già strutturata (il problema è studiato da CUGUSI, Evoluzione..., 244). Il fatto che Frontone, Ad am. 1,21 si dichiari restio a scrivere lettere dovrebbe escludere l'eventualità che poi si sia fatto editore di sè stesso: ma potrebbe essere anche una dichiarazione scherzosa. Piuttosto è importante il fatto che l'epistolario non segua il modello pliniano 12 , cioè della letterarietà degli scritti e della sapiente ricerca di varietà nella distribuzione, ma torni se mai al tipo cicero-

11

12

Per es. individua una differenza fondamentale fra la prima mano correttrice del codice (che reca grafie arcaiche autentiche, ma lezioni incerte) e la seconda (che modernizza la grafia, ma dispone di lezioni migliori). CUGUSI, E v o l u z i o n e . . . , 263 — 264 fornisce però riscontri precisi di Frontone con Plinio.

MARCO CORNELIO

FRONTONE

881

niano della raccolta ad Attico, cioè allo scritto occasionale di valore documentario. La frequenza di lettere ai principi potrebbe testimoniare l'intento di ostentare la familiarità con la corte (che pare poi non fosse così stretta 13 ), avere dunque una finalità politica. M a i rapporti con i principi segnano un'evoluzione abbastanza evidente; a una prima fase, in cui Marco Aurelio e Vero giovani sono quasi semplici scolari, segue un momento di tono diverso, più officioso, con i due ormai pervenuti all'esercizio del potere; infine Marco Aurelio si riaccosta al maestro per le necessità retoriche del suo ufficio. Inoltre l'ostentazione del rapporto è più comprensibile nei discendenti che in Frontone, il quale non aveva interesse alla pubblicazione (CHAMPLIN, The Chronology ..., 157) e non avrebbe commesso l'imprudenza di pubblicare lettere banali o relative a personaggi caduti in disgrazia, come Avidio Cassio (J. E. G. W H I T E HORNE, Ad amicos 1,5 and 6 and the Date of Fronto's Death, in: VARI, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History I, Coll. Latomus 164, Bruxelles 1980, 477 - 479). In finalità di questo genere non rientrerebbero comunque le lettere rivolte ad altri destinatari, esemplate sulle commendatizie di Cicerone o di argomento retorico: per queste si potrebbe pensare a una genesi nella scuola o nell'ambiente di Gellio, della negligenza del quale nel raccogliere le sue cose Frontone si lamenta, forse per antifrasi (ma il passo è oscuro: Ad amicos I, 19 = 175,5 — 6 non agnovi ista mea ab Gellio pessime quaeri: credideris admonuisse se edere). La questione è stata esposta negli ultimi anni da PORTALUPI, Opere..., 33 e più diffusamente da C U G U S I , Evoluzione..., 246, riprendendo ovviamente le ipotesi precedenti. C U G U S I tende a ridurre a motivi di prestigio la pubblicazione di quasi tutte le lettere a personaggi di rilievo e a prova di versatilità le altre lettere Ad amicos 1,11 e seguenti, separandole dagli scritti di impegno letterario, ma riconosce (249) che il corpus deve aver subito molti passaggi, prima di diventare un'antologia scolastica: se Frontone fosse stato l'ordinatore, certo gli avrebbe conferito maggiore unità (257 - 258) e comunque avrebbe lasciato qualche traccia del suo intervento (cfr. C H A M P L I N , The Chronology..., 156 — 157). Forse si può aggiungere che le motivazioni esposte sono le ragioni della conservazione delle singole lettere e raccolte, non della loro organizzazione e distribuzione in corpus. Né si dovrebbe dimenticare, per una corretta imposta13

Al t e m p o dell'affare di Erode Frontone dichiara di ignorare che questi fosse amico del principe (Ad M . Caes. 111,3,2 = 3 7 , 9 - 1 1 VAN DEN H O U T 1988: sed illud vertus est, probum virum esse quem tu dignum tutela tua indicas. Quod si.unquam scissem, tum me di omnes male adflixint, si ego verbo laedere ausus fuissem quemquam amicum tibi)·. G. W. BOWERSOCK, Greek Sophists in the R o m a n Empire, Clarendon, O x f o r d 1969, 49 lo trova strano, ma A. BIRLEY, M a r c u s Aurelius, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London 1966, 100 osserva che Frontone non era „tutore a t e m p o pieno" (e potrebbe essere solo un espediente avvocatesco). In Ad Verum imp. 11,9 ( = 1,8 VAN DEN H O U T 1988) Frontone scrive di aver avuto due lutti in pochi mesi: e questo presuppone una mancanza di rapporti altrettanto lunga o estrema lentezza nelle comunicazioni postali. N o n v'è cenno esplicito nelle lettere a partecipazione al consilium principis, anche se non manca una certa attività consultiva, come per il testamento di Matidia (v. oltre).

882

PIER V I N C E N Z O

COVA

zione del problema, la latitudine del concetto di pubblicazione nel mondo antico. Si può invece congetturare che Frontone conservasse copia delle sue lettere (CUGUSI, Evoluzione..., 246 e voce 'Epistolografi' nel 'Dizionario degli scrittori greci e latini', II, Marzorati, Milano 1987, 829 citando 90,24 1 4 VAN DEN Ηουτ) e certo ne faceva (cfr. per es. Ad amicos 1,14 a Vittorino sul parere espresso a Marco in Ad Ant. imp. 11,1 a proposito del testamento di Matidia: quid ad eum de re scripserim, ut scires, exemplum litterarum misi tibi). Quindi le prove della fortuna di Frontone rimangono ancora affidate alle testimonianze esterne, le quali pongono delicati problemi di veridicità e di coerenza (come il conflitto siccus-pompaticus, che affaticò il L E O P A R D I ) . Ma gli ultimi decenni registrano un silenzio quasi totale della critica su questo fronte (cenni in PORTALUPI, Opere ..., 23; CUGUSI, Evoluzione ..., 264; A. PENNACINI, La funzione dell'arcaismo e del neologismo nelle teorie della prosa da Cornificio a Frontone, Giappichelli, Torino 1974, 142 —143 e G. MASELLI, Considerazioni sulla lingua di Frontone, Ann. Ling. Bari 10, 1968, 42 — 43 accennano, come altri, più alla fortuna dell'arcaismo che del retore nel suo complesso). Invece due contributi recenti sono dedicati all'epigrafe pesarese del pronipote di Frontone. A. GIULIANO, Il sarcofago di Μ. Aufidio Frontone, Par. Pass. 27, 1972, 271—280 individua nell'iscrizione gli stessi elementi di sensibilità, che riconosciamo nel bisnonno (segno dunque della persistente memoria di un carattere). G. MENNELLA, La sfondo politico dell'epigrafe di M. Aufidio Frontone, Civ. Class. Crist. 2, 1981, 1 5 9 - 165 ne indaga l'ambientazione storica (al tempo di Settimio Severo, che si proclamava figlio di Marco Aurelio, ma a Pesaro, perché il nonno Vittorino si era suicidato sotto Commodo). Tanto risuonava ancora il nome di Frontone, „oratore, console, maestro degli imperatori Lucio e Antonino", come recita l'epigrafe!

II.

L'opera

1. Le lettere come fonte storica All'assenza di un criterio evidente di strutturazione del corpus frontoniano tràdito consegue la scelta, come oggetto primario di indagine, della singola lettera nella sua (relativa) autonomia. Questa situazione di per sé non impedisce il tentativo di riordinare cronologicamente le epistole, purché ciascuna di esse sia databile con sicurezza in relazione a eventi esterni o ad altre lettere. Purtroppo questi elementi sono piuttosto scarsi per due ragioni di fondo: al 14

90,21 — 27: Meministin eius orationis tuae, quam vixdum pueritiam egressus in senatu habuisti? in quam cum imagine utriculi ad exemplum adcommodandum usus esses, anxie verebare, ne parum pro loci et ordinis dignitate τ ή ν εικόνα usurpasses, meque primam illam longiusculam ad te epistulam scripsisse qua id, quod res est, augurabar, magni ingeni signum esse ad eius modi sententiarum pericula audaciter adgredi...

MARCO

CORNELIO

FRONTONE

883

contrario di Plinio, che cancellava nella pubblicazione i dati di cronaca della lettera reale, per trasformare il documento in letteratura, Frontone non ha neanche bisogno di introdurli perché sono noti al suo interlocutore; e quando cita riferimenti certi (consolati, guerre, processi) non rivela sempre a quale distanza da essi si collochi il suo scritto. CHAMPLIN, The Chronology... (e cfr. ID., Fronto and Antonine Rome, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge Mass. and London 1980, 131 —136), l'ultimo studioso che si è occupato del problema per tutto il corpus, con l'intento dichiarato di esaminare i singoli scritti senza pregiudizi, pur individuando alcuni punti fermi (un esempio a p. 139: in Ad M. Caes. 1,9,4 Marco Aurelio ha 22 anni, quindi la lettera è del 143 - 1 4 4 , essendo il principe nato nel 121) e senza rinunciare a proporre una tabella di datazioni (158 —159), è però molto più pessimistico sulla possibilità di stabilire un ordine cronologico di quanto siano stati i suoi predecessori illustri, M O M M SEN, HANSLIK, H A I N E S 1 5 .

E tuttavia lo stesso studioso (157) riconosce che il corpus è una fonte storica di primaria importanza. Su questa linea la critica recente, rinunciando ai tentativi di ingegneria cronologica, si volge a individuare con minore o maggiore acribia notizie storiche nelle singole lettere o parti di lettere di Frontone. N o n è evidentemente possibile né conoscere né esporre tutte le risultanze di questi tentativi, dispersi sotto i più vari titoli e in servizio di altre indagini. Quindi solo pochi esempi. K. WACHTEL, Ein neuer Calestrius Tiro?, Klio 48, 1967, 174 η. 2 assume i 'Principia Historiae' come prova che le legioni del Danubio erano già state condotte una volta (da Traiano) contro i Parti (205 N A B E R = 194,23 VAN DEN H O U T = 207,21 VAN DEN H O U T 1988); M. DONDIN, Pour une identification du censeur de 64, Rev. ét. lat. 57, 1979, 126 —144 individua il censore di cui Marco Aurelio chiede il nome al maestro in Ad M. Caes. V,41 e 42 = 78,16 e 23 VAN DEN H O U T = 76,17 e 77,3 VAN DEN H O U T 1988); M. L. ASTARITA, Avidio Cassio, Ediz. di Storia e Letteratura, Roma 1983, 107—118, a proposito della complicità di Faustina con il generale poi ribelle, ricava dalla lettera Ad Verum imp. II,4 L É = 126,4 VAN DEN H O U T la notizia che l'imperatrice tornò dall'Oriente senza la nuora; A. TCHERNIA,

15

TH. MOMMSEN, D i e Chronologie der Briefe Frontos, H e r m e s 8, 1874, 1 9 8 - 2 1 6 ( = ID., Gesammelte Schriften IV, Weidmann, Berlin 1906 [rist. 1965], 4 6 9 - 4 8 6 ) ; C. R. HAINES, O n the Chronology of the Fronto Correspondence, Class. Quart. 8, 1914, 112 — 120 e soprattutto: T h e Correspondence of Marcus Cornelius Fronto, T h e Loeb Classical Library, H e i n e m a n n , L o n d o n e Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge Mass. 1920 e rist.; R. HANSLIK, Die Anordnung der Briefsammung Frontos, C o m m e n t a t i o n e s Vindobonenes 1, 1935, 2 1 - 4 7 . Riassunto della storia della questione (la quale coinvolge anche il criterio di ordinamento) in M . L. ASTARITA, Questioni di cronologia frontoniana, Koinonia 2, 1978, 7 — 12, che ha affrontato in proprio i problemi di datazione di alcune lettere, per cui v. qualche cenno nel testo, e alle pp. 39 — 42 ha fornito un utile prospetto d e l l e p r o p r i e d a t a z i o n i a c o n f r o n t o c o n MOMMSEN, HAINES, HANSLIK, CHAMPLIN.

16

In VAN DEN HOUT 1988 la lettera Ad Verum 11,4 e diventata 1,3 = 109,9 e l'espressione in causa (socrum et liberos vestros saluta) è stata integrata in soc(ß)rum et liberos vestros saluta dallo stesso editore, che in apparato ricorda ancora la correzione uxorem di HAINES (la quale però nella ediz. Loeb è data s o l o c o m e possibile e in nota, 11,236).

884

PIER V I N C E N Z O

COVA

Amphores et textes: deux esemples, in: VARI, Recherches sur les amphores grecques. Actes du colloque intern, org. par le Centre nat. de la recherche scient., Univ. Rennes II, École franç. Athènes 1984 = Bull, de Correspondance Hellénique, suppl. XIII, Paris 1986, 3 1 - 3 6 trova conferma a notizie sul commercio del vino in De eloq. 1 = NABER 1 1 5 = 1 3 2 , 2 4 VAN DEN HOUT = 1 3 4 , 2 4 VAN DEN HOUT 1 9 8 8 .

Un caso interessante è studiato da E. SKARD, Sallust — Geschichtsdenker oder Parteipublizist?, Symb. Osi. 47, 1982, 7 0 - 7 8 . Secondo Ad Verum 11,1,7 = 1 1 7 , 6 - 12 il discorso, che Ventidio aveva pronunciato in occasione del suo trionfo sui Parti nel 38 a. C., sarebbe copiato da Sallustio o da lui scritto. Ma 10 storico era scrittore troppo lento e occupato per trasformarsi in logografo, e aveva troppo scarsa simpatia verso i triumviri e i loro accoliti (come Ventidio) e in genere verso l'imperialismo romano per apprestare un testo adatto allo scopo. Quindi il passo va reinterpretato nel senso che Ventidio avrebbe recitato un collage di passi sallustiani: l'esagerazione di Frontone rientra nella tesi generale che scredita i precedenti (fino a Nerva) per esaltare i presenti (una linea ben nota ai regimi autoritari e già evidente nel 'Panegirico' di Plinio 17 : Frontone la trasferisce dal piano politico a quello politico-culturale, forse in armonia con la tesi che lo storico migliore è lo stesso autore delle gesta, come si vedrà più avanti). Accanto alla possibilità di trarre da Frontone dati singoli, si pone il problema se l'epistolario possa considerarsi fonte storica a più ampio raggio. 11 maggior assertore della risposta positiva è V. A. SIRAGO, Involuzione politica e spirituale nell'Impero del II secolo, Liguori, Napoli 1974, che trae di là notizie su molti aspetti della vita del tempo, dall'agricoltura al brigantaggio, e in genere sullo stato dell'impero. Decisamente negativo è L. POLVERINI, Sull'epistolario di Frontone come fonte storica, in: VARI, Seconda miscellanea greca e romana, Studi pubblicati dall'Istituto Ital. per la St. Antica XIX, Roma 1968, 4 3 7 - 4 5 9 , il quale, pur ritenendo che la futilità dell'autore garantisca la veridicità del suo messaggio, giudica che il mondo conosciuto da Frontone sia troppo ristretto per rappresentare la civiltà romana del suo secolo, che non coincide con la letteratura: il retore documenta solo alcuni problemi come il rapporto retorica-filosofia, l'indifferenza religiosa, il fondamento etico del vero, ma, in sostanza, rispecchia una scuola e una cultura avulse dalla società. M a neanche questa capacità sembra riconoscergli CUGUSI, Evoluzione..., 256 — 257 a causa della frammentarietà e dell'autobiografismo della sua testimonianza. 17

A. GARZETTI, L'Impero da Tiberio agli Antonini, Storia di R o m a dell'Istit. di St. R o m . VI, Cappelli, Bologna 1960, 467 ( = ID., From Tiberius to the Antonines, A History of the R o m a n Empire, A.D. 1 4 - 1 9 2 , transi, by J. R. FOSTER, M e t h u e n , London 1974, 447), ipotizza che la gratiarum actio di F r o n t o n e console nel 143 istituisse un c o n f r o n t o fra Adriano e Antonino, come sembra suggerire Ad Caes. 11,1 = 24 VAN D E N H O U T . SU Plinio cf. P. SovERiNl, Impero e imperatori nell'opera di Plinio il Giovane: Aspetti e problemi del r a p p o r t o con D o m i z i a n o e Traiano, A N R W II, 33, 1, ed. W. HAASE, B e r l i n - N e w York 1989, 5 4 8 - 5 5 2 .

MARCO CORNELIO

FRONTONE

885

E' chiaro che, prima di assumere Frontone come fonte di notizie, occorre muoversi con grande cautela. Al rigore del metodo sono chiamate a concorrere sia la critica testuale che l'esegesi retorico-letteraria. Per es. R. W. DAVIES, F r o n t o . . . corregge l'enigmatico salibus di Principia Historiae 10 secondo HAINES 11,206 ( = 195,20 VAN DEN HOUT) - che porta alla denigrazione dell'esercito di Adriano come dedito solo ai divertimenti - in salicibusn, con allusione alle armi leggere da esercitazione, con le quali quei soldati si 'divertivano' (nel senso che l'addestramento è un gioco, non la guerra) sub pellibus, cioè durante le manovre. Quindi Frontone riconosce che anche Adriano, pur amante della pace, non aveva lasciato in ozio i suoi soldati. Il riconoscimento è solo a metà, non discorda dalla poca simpatia per quell'imperatore in linea con le esigenze della synkrisis (a confronto stanno le difficoltà incontrate da Vero), senza eccedere nelle critiche verso l'avo legale del principe. DAVIES riconosce che l'elogio di Vero in tale contesto non rientra nei realia, è un topos. J. LE GALL, Rome, Ville de fainéants, Rev. ét. lat. 49, 1971, 266 - 277 ammonisce a non dare troppa importanza alla rappresentazione frontoniana della vita romana come oziosa e dissipata; a proposito della famosa sentenza di Princ. Hist. 18 = 200,1 populum Romanum duabus praecipue rebus, annona et spectaculis, teneri, ricorda la reale e positiva funzione calmieratrice dell'annona. Invece sopra si è ricordato TCHERNIA, che ricava informazioni da un passo, che è un esempio per immagini (sul valore probatorio delle εικόνες ν. più avanti). Minori problemi si pongono per le informazioni letterarie, che rientrano direttamente nel mondo dell'epistolario. E' naturale che Frontone e i suoi allievi citino autori, e non solo arcaici e arcaicizzanti, ben oltre i testi a noi pervenuti, consentendo così qualche aggiunta alle nostre conoscenze su scrittori, opere, fortune. V. per es. A. MARASTONI, Studio critico su Ennio Minore, Aevum 35, 1961, 3; M . BARCHIESI, Nevio epico, Storia, interpretazione, edizione critica dei frammenti del primo epos latino, Cedam, Padova 1962, 87; A. LA PENNA, Per la ricostruzione delle Historiae di Sallustio, St. It. Filol. Class. 35,1963, 8,21,62-63; ID., Congetture sulla fortuna di Sallustio nell'antichità, in: VARI, Studia Fiorentina A. Ronconi, Ateneo, Roma 1970, 202; P. D E SIDERI, Dione di Prusa. Un intellettuale greco nell'impero romano, Bibl. di cultura contemp. 135, D'Anna, Messina 1978, 6 - 1 6 ; S. TIMPANARO, Ripensamenti enniani, in: ID., Contributi..., 665; P. SOVERINI, Tra retorica e politica in età imperiale. Studi su Plinio il Giovane, Frontone e la 'Historia Augusta', Clueb, Bologna 1988, 2 3 0 - 2 3 1 n. 51 (contro LA PENNA, Per la ricostruzione ..., 21). Persino nella documentazione frontoniana degli arcaici non è semplice ricavare frammenti attendibili: si veda la storia recente della discussione sulla paternità noviana divisa e incerta tra fauces fovi e gargarissavi in alternativa 18

Nella seconda edizione VAN DEN H O U T l'integrazione ma non accolta nel testo di 209,7.

DAVIES

è segnalata in apparato,

886

PIER VINCENZO COVA

tra loro (lettera di Marco IV,6 = 6 3 , 3 VAN DEN HOUT = 6 2 , 1 3 VAN DEN HOUT 1988) in G . P. SELVATICO, LO scambio epistolare tra Frontone e M. Aurelio: esercitazioni retoriche e cultura letteraria, Mem. Acc. Torino V,5, 1981, 268 n. 184. Un esempio di manipolazione intenzionale e riscontrabile di citazione d'autore ha studiato F. CAVIGLIA a proposito de II Telamo di Ennio, Ann. Pisa 39, 1970, 4 8 5 . Le parole di Telamone conservate da Cie., Tuse. 111,13,28 nella forma ego cum genui tum morituros scivi et ei rei sustuli; praeterea ad. Troiam cum misi ob defendendam Graeciam scibam me in mortiferum bellum non in epulas mittere, sono da Frontone, De Bello Parthico 2 1 7 NABER = 2 0 6 , 7 VAN DEN HOUT = adattate al caso suo, cioè generalizzate e messe in bocca a Marte con le opportune trasformazioni nel verso centrale, che ora suona così:

2 2 0 , 8 VAN DEN HOUT 1988

praeterea, cum ob terrae orbem misi ob defendendum

imperium.

Non solo le alterazioni, ma anche le parafrasi possono conservare elementi genuini. Però non è facile distinguere citazioni autentiche di testi da proverbi e formule d'uso, da imitazioni dello stesso Frontone, da distorsioni della tradizione; e delimitare l'ampiezza della citazione. La questione metodologica è affrontata da S. TIMPANARO, Alcune citazioni di autori antichi nella corrispondenza epistolare di Frontone e di Marco Aurelio, in: VARI, Tra linguistica storica e linguistica generale, Scritti in onore di T. Bolelli, Pacini, Pisa, 1985, 3 0 3 - 3 2 1 attraverso una ricca messe di esempi significativi. Si veda il caso di 149,19 VAN DEN HOUT, in cui l'ampiezza della citazione diretta di Laberio varia dalle tre righe dell'editore olandese fino alla sola parola dictabolaria del RIBBECK: l'analisi coinvolge problemi di uso e stile frontoniano (317 — 320).

2. Esegesi di luoghi particolari Come da Frontone si possono ricavare notizie esterne, così da dati esterni si possono avere lumi per l'esegesi di punti particolari delle lettere. Il confine tra le due prospettive è labile perché a un'interpretazione moderna concorrono testo, cotesto e contesto. Si veda il caso della ius osculi di 128,29 —129,3, su cui TIMPANARO è tornato, salvo errore, quattro volte (ree. al VAN DEN HOUT 1954, in: ID., Contributi...., 358, Spigolature..., 242, lus osculi..., Il nuovo Frontone..., 369), mettendo a profitto storia, diritto, antropologia, critica letteraria e testuale. La conclusione è che la designazione di questo istituto, originariamente onorifico (riconoscimento di parentela), poi diventato repressivo (controllo sulla eventuale assunzione di vino), è ripresa dal retore in senso nuovo e scherzoso e esprime metaforicamente, ma senza malizia, il diritto del maestro sugli allievi. Decisamente giuridica è l'analisi che M. LAURIA, Epistula 11,1 (Domino meo Antonino Augusto), Fronto, in: VARI, Studi in onore di C. Sanfilippo II,

MARCO CORNELIO

FRONTONE

887

Giuffré, Milano, 1982 — 83, 3 1 7 - 3 3 2 , conduce sulla prima delle lettere relative al testamento di Matidia (Ad Ant. imp. 11,1 e 2, Ad amicos 1,14). L'intera problematica della questione era già stata esposta da G. SCIASCIA, Il testamento di Matidia e la sua collana di perle, in: VARI, Studi in onore di G. Chiarelli IV, Giuffré, Milano 1974, 4075 - 4099, che non si era limitato a Frontone, ma aveva ragionato anche sulle caratteristiche e le modalità della situazione ereditaria e sulle sue possibili soluzioni. Utili notizie di inquadramento offre anche M. L. ASTARITA, Questioni di cronologia frontoniana ... (per es. a p. 1 5 il complesso rapporto di parentela della testatrice con i coniugi imperiali). Secondo questa studiosa riesce „difficile comprendere quale sia la decisione che Frontone consiglia a Marco Aurelio" (p. 16). Però è certo che lo dissuade energicamente dal rinunciare all'eredità o invalidarla (per non lasciare intestata la parente), dall'acquistare o far vendere la collana (in quanto destinata alle figlie) allo scopo di ricuperare la quota di eredità spettante alla moglie, dal ripianare coi fondi de thesauris Antonini quello che mancava all'esse ereditario per realizzare codicilli di dubbia legalità. Quindi si può dedurre che Frontone proponga di non riconoscere i legati, che egli ritiene ottenuti con la frode; questa era già la spiegazione fornita da C. R . HAINES nella sua edizione della Loeb 11,94 — 9 5 (qui le prime due lettere sono ancora indicate con N A B E R come Ad M. Caes. 11,16 e 17). Comunque sia, il consiglio esposto nella prima lettera (lacunosa all'inizio) è analitico: la novità esegetica del LAURIA consiste nel tentativo di individuare o congetturare un testo giuridico sotto ogni suggerimento, comprese le immagini come quella del fuoco. Ancora su base storico-giuridica, ma con risultati immediatamente esegetici, è la nuova interpretazione che A. GUARINO, Divagazioni massuriane, Labeo 20, 1974, 370 — 373 offre dei deliramenta massuriani in Ad M. Caes. 11,8 =

3 1 , 1 2 VAN DEN HOUT ( = 11,11 =

3 1 , 1 7 VAN DEN HOUT 1 9 8 8 ) : n o n si

tratta di Vaneggiamenti', bensì di 'divagazioni' e non del grande giurista, ma dei suoi commentatori, che finivano per inflazionarlo. Si potrebbe aggiungere che ripristinare il senso originario di una parola o innovarlo è consono alla sensibilità linguistica frontoniana. K . D I E T Z , Der pollio in der römischen Legion, Chiron 15, 1985, 235 — 251, si occupa del po/io di Ad M. Caes. 11,5,3 =

2 8 , 2 2 VAN DEN HOUT (11,8,3 =

2 9 , 6 VAN DEN HOUT 1 9 8 8 ) , in c u i , a

proposito di Orazio, si legge: cum Politone est emortuus. Pollio o Polio non è un nome proprio, tanto meno del celebre Asinio, bensì comune: indica una delle tante specializzazioni militari, quella rivolta a fornire ai soldati un'istruzione di base. Dunque Marco Aurelio vuol dire che Orazio per lui è morto al tempo della scuola (critica al sistema scolastico che guasta i classici 19 ). Per giungere a tale conclusione l'autore esamina non solo testi frontoniani, la 'Historia Augusta' e le varie interpretazioni proposte, ma anche documenti epigrafici militari. Certo pollio non esiste nella nomenclatura 19

Proprio proprio proprio discusso

Orazio, epist. 1,20,17 temeva di diventare testo scolastico; forse Marco allude a quel passo. Rimane però il problema della presenza di Pollio come nome nella 'Historia Augusta', Vita di Marco Aurelio 2,3; ma anche quel passo è e variamente emendato; cfr. DIETZ, Der pollio..., 243.

59 ANRW LI 34.2

888

PIER V I N C E N Z O

COVA

scolastica civile, ma il principe può averlo assunto scherzosamente tenuto conto del basso livello che doveva contrassegnare i maestri militari (p. 250). PENNACINI, L'evoluzione..., 1 4 7 n. 1 6 1 combatte l'interpretazione moralistica di verum dicere (45,4 — 7), che non significherebbe „dire la verità", ma „perfetta aderenza del significante al significato". Questa è certamente una preoccupazione fondamentale di Frontone, capace di gettare luce sul dibattuto problema dell'arcaismo (intanto ricorda però che BIRLEY, Marcus Aurelius..., 89 sospetta in verum un gioco di parole col nome che contrassegna il fratello di Marco Aurelio e che prima di lui serviva per Marco Aurelio stesso). Infine G. ALFÖLDI e H . HALFMANN, Iunius Maximus und die victoria Parthica, Zeitschr. Pap. Epigr. 35, 1979, 195 — 212 hanno dato un nome al tribuno, che portò a Roma la notizia della vittoria partica di Avidio Cassio: si tratta di Iunius Maximus, su cui informa un'epigrafe trovata ad Efeso nel 1968. L'identificazione è convincente; serve anche a datare la lettera Ad amicos 1,6 (p. 208 n. 40) e a illuminare il prestigio politico di Frontone (se a lui ricorre, sia pure in privato, un tribuno in un momento di gloria). Rimane qualche dubbio sulle ragioni per le quali un ufficiale, già tanto quotato presso il suo comandante da meritare di esser scelto per portare a Roma la grande notizia (con i vantaggi politici che la missione comportava, ben illustrati nell'articolo) abbia indotto Frontone a scrivere una lettera di raccomandazione; anzi a questo punto dovrebbe cominciare la vera interpretazione letteraria dello scritto, che, a giudicare dal tono generale e dall'allusione al miles gloriosus, sembra piuttosto distaccato e divertito (o annoiato). ALFÖLDI e HALFMANN sostengono invece che il resoconto del tribuno „höchst beeindruckte" il vecchio maestro (208). La lettera meriterebbe ancora attenzione. ASTARITA, Questioni di cronologia frontoniana ..., 12, identificando questo ufficiale con il destinatario della lettera Ad amicos 1,26, è in grado di datare a parecchi anni di distanza dalla precedente questa lettera, se nel frattempo Giunio Massimo da raccomandato è diventato tanto autorevole da ricevere raccomandazioni 2 0 . Più oggetto di attenzione della critica sono passi che affrontano temi linguistici e letterari. L'interpretazione fornita da C. H E N D E R S O N , Cato's Pine Cones and Seneca's Plums: Fronto p. 149 VAN DEN HOUT, Trans. Philol. Ass. 36, 1955, 2 5 6 - 2 6 7 del passo De orat. 149,13 VAN DEN H O U T = 153,12 VAN DEN H O U T 1988 pineis nucibus Catonis ... Senecae mollibus et febriculosis prunuleis, che vi scopre un'anomala riserva su Catone (notoriamente un idolo frontoniano), è già stata accolta con qualche dubbio da COVA, Problematica ..., 478 — 479, che preferisce tradurre neglegere con „abbandonare" (intendendo: meglio lasciare del tutto l'eloquenza che praticarla male, mescolando uno sfatto Seneca a un sano Catone 21 ). Ora SOVERINI, Tra retorica e politica..., 20

21

Almeno per curiosità si p u ò notare che in 1,26 Frontone attribuisce al nuovo raccomand a t o la stessa qualifica di praedicator delle virtù del destinatario, con cui aveva designato Giunio M a s s i m o in 1,6. II passo è collocato nella prima facciata leggibile della lettera, che si usa intitolare De orationibus'. L'immediato contesto recita: ...feres prefecto bona venia veterem potestatem et nomen magistri me usurpantem denuo. Fateor enirn, quod res est, unam solam

MARCO CORNELIO

889

FRONTONE

268 - 272 riprende l'esame, riferendo neglegere alla trascuratezza della qualità stilistiche (140,2) e approfondendo l'esame della metafore botaniche, di cui riduce le implicazioni c o n g e t t u r a t e da HENDERSON a una più

immediata

contrapposizione „fra uno stile integro, solido e pieno di nerbo, e uno fiacco e bacato, privo di linfa sana e vitale" (p. 272). Il passo rientra comunque nel quadro della critica antisenecana 2 2 , studiata e documentata da W. TRILLITZSCH, Seneca im literarischen Urteil der Antike. Darstellung und Sammlung der Zeugnisse, II. Quellensammlung und Testimonia, Hakkert, Amsterdam 1971 ( 6 9 - 7 2 per Frontone). Più discussa ancora è l'immagine della tuba e della tibia, usata nel frammento di lettera Ad M . Caes. ΙΙΙ,Ι = 36,7 - 8 per contrapporre due diversi

tipi di eloquenza: ...ut qui scias eloquentiam Caesaris tubae similem esse debere, non tibiarum, in quibus minus est soni, plus difficultatis. Non può

sottrarsi a questo passo anche chi rivolge la sua attenzione principalmente alle teorie linguistiche e retoriche. Per SOVERINI, T r a retorica e p o l i t i c a . . . ,

121 tuba

e tibia

107-

sono due gradi della stessa eloquenza. M o l t o innovativa è

l'interpretazione di PENNACINI, L a f u n z i o n e . . . , 1 0 4 - 1 2 6 , perché distingue

un'eloquenza razionalizzata (si potrebbe dire una forma di comunicazione diretta a tutti, chiara e univoca, come dovrebbe essere l'oratoria politica) da una eloquenza-espressione, diretta a pochi, che mira alla delectatio e che non è razionalizzata (la tibia). Allora si capisce perché Frontone abbia approvato M a r c o Aurelio, che nella sua orazione in senato nullo verbo remotiore usus (est), un elogio che a prima vista sembrerebbe contraddire l'opinione del retore o doversi a piaggeria. L'interpretazione è notevole per sottrarre a Frontone la mania della ricercatezza ad ogni costo e per restituirgli una più realistica concezione del rapporto della forma, non solo con il contenuto, ma anche con la situazione e il destinatario. Va da sé però che la simpatia e il magistero di Frontone vanno nella direzione della cura stilistica (che è poi quella insegnabile, cioè la parte tecnica 2 3 ). Sembra che su questa linea si ponga anche la riflessione di E. posse causam incidere, qua causa claudat aliquantum amor erga te meus: si eloquentiam neglegas. Neglegas tamen vero potius censeo quam prave excolas. Confusam eam ego eloquentiam cata(cyhannae ritu partim pineis nucibus Catonis, partim Senecae mollibus et febriculosis prunuleis insitam, subvertendam censeo radicibus ... 22

L'avversione di Frontone verso Seneca è dettata anche dal sospetto nei riguardi della filosofia, che nell'epist. Ad amicos 1,2 viene definita la paideia divina, cioè fuori della misura media e realistica, in cui Frontone e la retorica si collocano; e la filosofia era anche lo stoicismo, ossia l'opposizione, cui Frontone è contrario per il suo realismo, che non va confuso con il servilismo. Quindi i diversi aspetti dell'atteggiamento frontoniano si tengono bene fra loro. Della mancanza di realismo dei filosofi Frontone sembra lagnarsi anche nell'epist. Ad am. 1,14, quando spiega al genero di essere intervenuto su perversi M a r c o a proposito della questione del testamento di Matidia ne quid pbilosophia suaderet.

23

Altri esempi di interpretazione di luoghi singoli hanno occasione di dare J. E. G. ZETZEL, Emendavi ad Tironem, Harvard Studies in Class. Philol. 77, 1973, 241 (secondo il quale in Ad M . Caes. 1,7,4 = 15,12 ss. Frontone non fa elenco di edizioni critiche, ma solo di libri copiati da personaggi famosi — e si tratta spesso di contraffazioni - ) e W. AMELING,

59*

890

PIER V I N C E N Z O

COVA

La retòrica de Fronton y los poetae novelli, Actas V Congreso español de estudios clásicos, Soc. español, de estud. clás., Madrid 1978, 411 — 416, che dall'attribuzione alla tibia di minus soni, plus difficultatis, ricava che la tuba ha plus soni, minus difficultatis, aderendo per il resto alla interpretazione PENNACINI che Veloquenza-tibia esprime sentimenti vaghi e non formalizzabili 24 . A questa mi sembra che si avvicini anche, almeno per alcuni tratti, F. PORTALUPI, Umgangssprache e Kunstsprache in Frontone, Civ. Class. Crist. 10, 1989, 147 - 1 6 7 , quando sottolinea la componente dell'affettività, la quale tien conto del parlato, non per sciatteria, ma per raffinatezza: YUmgangssprache serve alla Kunstsprache. SÁNCHEZ SALOR,

3. Temi generali a) Elocutio

novella

L'analisi di SÁNCHEZ SALOR avvicina esplicitamente l'eloquenza-i/fe/a alla poetica dei novelli: la ricercatezza è effetto della consapevolezza della insufficienza della lingua colloquiale, il sublime {tuba) viene abbandonato a favore di un'espressione, che dia voce all'indefinito e procuri piacere. Molto più in là era andato E. CASTORINA, I 'poetae novelli'. Contributo allo studio della cultura latina nel II secolo d. C., La Nuova Italia, Firenze 1949, che, pur ammettendo l'autonomia di svolgimento del movimento poetico (p. 25), ne aveva però indicato la genesi nel frontonismo, anche attraverso la presenza fisica di novelli, come Anniano Falisco (p. 137 ss.), nel circolo di Gellio (assunto però come tipicamente frontoniano, p. 37). Non hanno sempre trovato buona accoglienza nella critica specializzata né l'indicazione di questo legame esterno né l'assunzione del termine 'novello' come definitorio della poetica frontoniana (benché sia corrente nella manualistica). Vedi per es. le riserve di SOVERINI, Tra retorica e politica..., 273 — 283. Lo stesso aggettivo non solo è usato in situazioni diverse, ma ha connotazioni negative, come osserva L. H O L F O R D STREVENS, Elocutio novella, Class. Quart. 26, 1976, 1 4 0 - 1 4 1 . Novus è tanto il neologismo quanto l'arcaismo oscuro. In 146,13 — 15 la formula non nihil interdum elocutione novella parum signatum ha intonazione diversa secondo

24

Baiae, Odysseus und Marc Aurel, Hermes 114, 1986, 380 — 382 (che vede nel labirinto di Ulisse in Ad M . Caes. 1,4,2 = 6,14 più il palazzo reale che il locale sistema di gallerie sotterranee, interpretato come passaggio agli Inferi). II PENNACINI è tornato sull'interpretazione del passo in un intervento al IX Convegno interuniversitario di studi 1981, intitolato 'Eloquenza dell'imperatore e prosa dei dotti nella dottrina di Frontone', ora in: Retorica e classi sociali, a c. M . A. CORTELAZZO, Quaderni del Circolo Filologico Linguistico 13, Padova 1983, 31 — 38, arricchendola di riferimenti metaforici (la tuba, tromba militare, fornisce segnali e messaggi univoci e autoritari, la tibia suscita e seda sentimenti e moti psichici), di commenti sociologici (quella della tuba è l'eloquenza per imperatore e sudditi, adesione al sistema linguistico stabilito e quindi eloquenza del consenso), di referenze filosofiche (la tuba allo stoicismo, la tibia al medioplatonismo e all'aristotelismo, meno popolari).

MARCO

CORNELIO

FRONTONE

891

che si intenda parum come „troppo poco" e come „piuttosto", „alquanto"; certo il contesto è critico (esame di u n o scritto di Marco 2 5 ). Rimane c o m u n q u e indubbia la vicinanza nei gusti linguistici (come osserva S. MATTIACCI, I frammenti dei 'poetae novelli', Ateneo, R o m a 1982, 16—18 e 42), indotti da bisogni espressivi: un'affinità di questo genere tra movimenti culturali coevi è piuttosto scontata 2 6 . Per evitare riduzionismi, bisogna interpretare al di là della loro facciata alcune direzioni linguistiche comuni, che coinvolgono arcaismo, neologismo, popolarismo. Per A. RONCONI, Cicerone e l'arcaismo del II secolo d. C., in: ID., Da O m e r o a Dante. Scritti di varia filologia, Argalia, Urbino 1981, 286, Yelocutio novella di 146,15 riguarda solo parole antiche che sembrano nuove (l'inopinatum non è il neologismo, ma il vocabolo antico rimesso inaspettatamente in circolazione, 282). Proprio sul grande tema dell'arcaismo e le sue connessioni teoriche, linguistiche e retoriche la critica recente ha realizzato una forte innovazione. Si è superata la stretta che, facendo di Frontone solo un arcaista e dell'arcaismo solo la ricerca di parole disusate in q u a n t o tali, attribuiva al retore una visione angusta e irreale. Intanto la ricerca di parole disusate non è solo di Frontone (già W. KROLL, Studien zum Verständnis der römischen Literatur, V, Grammatische und rhetorische Sprachtheorien, Metzlerscher Verlag, Stuttgart 1924, rist. D a r m s t a d t 1973, 90 — 95 aveva indicato i precedenti). J. E. G. ZETZEL, Statilius M a x i m u s and Ciceronian Studies in the Antonine Age, Univ. London, Instit. Class. Stud., Bulletin 21, 1974, 107 - 1 2 3 ha illustrato la figura di un altro raccoglitore di parole rare, Statilio (conservatoci da Carisio attaverso Giulio Romano), indicandone talune convergenze con il Nostro, di cui era forse più spinto, se è vera l'ipotesi che l'opera di Statilio era risposta alle critiche di Frontone a Cicerone (in cui ci sono già verba singularia). SIRAGO, Involuzione..., 310, in armonia con la tesi generale del libro, che collega strettamente il retore al suo tempo e quindi ricerca informazioni storiche nell'epistolario, congettura che Frontone sia stato valorizzato proprio da Adriano perché rispondeva agli indirizzi della sua cultura. b) Εικόνες M a la dinamica critica è già notevole all'interno del solo Frontone. R. M A R A C H E (i cui due libri, La critique littéraire de langue latine et le développement du goût archaïsant au Ile siècle de notre ère, Plihon, Rennes 25

26

Si tratta dell'attacco della lettera Ad M. Ant. imp. de eloquentia 5,1 = 1 4 6 , 1 3 - 1 5 VAN DEN HOUT = 1 5 1 , 2 - 5 VAN DEN HouT 1988: Pleraque in oratione recenti tua, quod ad sententias attinet, animadverto egregia esse; pauca admodum uno tenus verbo corrigenda; nonnibil interdum elocutione novella parum signatum. Una ragione di vicinanza ai novelli è data anche dalla nuova attenzione rivolta dai retori alla poesia. PENNACINI, La funzione..., 99 ricorda che secondo Quintil. X , l , 2 7 si attinge dai poeti in verbis sublimitas e che secondo Plin., epist. IX,26,4, maxime mirabilia quae maxime insperata, perché la grande prosa deve audere come la poesia.

892

PIER VINCENZO COVA

1952 e M o t s nouveaux et mots archaïques chez Fronton et Aulu-Gelle, Presses Univ. de France, Paris 1957, costituiscono un precedente imprescindibile) aveva già modificato le prospettive, individuando un buon numero di neologismi (anche se l'esattezza dell'elenco è stata poi messa in dubbio, a causa della parzialità della nostra documentazione, che potrebbe classificare come neologismi termini già usati o arcaismi restaurati). Che la ricerca frontoniana rispondesse a esigenze di rinnovamento è generalmente accettato, ma la formula rimane generica, se fine a se stessa. Che esplori zone dello spirito oltre la logica è già stato osservato ( P E N N A C I N I , S Á N C H E Z SALOR, P O R T A L U P I ) . SOVERINI, Tra retorica e politica..., 1 0 1 ss. finalmente nega che in Frontone l'espressione sia gratuita; così si supera una prospettiva che, specie nella manualistica, tende a fare del retore un cacciatore di parole isolate e a mettere in o m b r a tutta la teoria delle εικόνες, importante e applicata nell'epistolario. Come si è visto per tuba-tibia e nuces-prunulae, le immagini sostituiscono o sorreggono un ragionamento, per cui la loro decodificazione diventa necessaria ai fini della comprensione del pensiero. Lo osserva F. P O R T A L U P I , Sull'interpretazione del mito di Orfeo in Frontone, Riv. Cult. Class. Medioev. 27, 1985, 1 2 7 e già prima in: Seconda nota frontoniana, in: V A R I , Studi Paratore, Patron, Bologna 1 9 8 1 , 7 7 3 — 7 8 3 a proposito del paragone con i galli ( 1 1 8 , 1 1 — 1 5 e 1 1 9 , 1 4 — 1 8 ) , i quali nascono con tutti i caratteri già definiti. Si tratta d u n q u e di una f o r m a di argomentazione, con funzione psicagogica, che persuade il vero sostanziale anche se è apparentemente falso (è questo forse il senso di verum dicere?). Il mito è diverso solo quantitativamente dalla metafora e dall'immagine; però mito, metafora e immagine, a differenza dalla dimostrazione razionale, consentono l'elaborazione artistica (benché questa non sia il loro scopo unico). E tuttavia è sempre in agguato il pericolo che immagine e mito siano scelti per se medesimi, tratti da un repertorio di luoghi comuni buoni per tutti gli usi, senza reale interesse per il significato. Secondo la PORTALUPI l'immagine del galletto geneticamente predeterminato, ridicolizzando il problema, dimostra il disinteresse sostanziale di Frontone per la ereditarietà scelta da M a r c o Aurelio per la sua successione. Anche l'interesse per la parola singola p u ò essere agevolmente riportato a una dimensione del discorso che la superi; sembra che Frontone avverta come la potenza della comunicazione non formalizzata sia in proporzione diretta dello scarto dalla norma. Questo scarto (che è l'anima della retorica) era generalmente affidato alla dimensione frastica, ma la lunga elaborazione dottrinale aveva ormai trasformato la retorica in grammatica, cioè aveva organizzato in sistema tutte le forme sintattiche possibili. N o n rimaneva dunque ormai che puntare sul vocabolario. Anche per questa via si vede come l'attenzione alla parola singola si inquadra in una strategia comunicativa. c) L'arcaismo e il pensiero linguistico-letterario La critica recente ha perciò correttamente reinquadrato il problema d e l l ' a r c a i s m o nel p i ù v a s t o dei verba

inopinata

e insperata,

già c a p a c e di

MARCO CORNELIO FRONTONE

893

assorbire anche neologismi e popolarismi 2 7 . L'arcaismo non è dunque antiquariato verbale, anche se rientra in una corrente di gusto rivolta al passato. N o n si identifica sic et simpliciter con l'atticismo (vedi le cautele con cui a questo proposito G. CALBOLI aggiorna E. NORDEN nell'edizione italiana della sua opera più celebre, L a prosa d'arte antica dal VI secolo a. C. all'età della Rinascenza, Salerno, R o m a 1986, 1160 n. 7 6 a proposito della p. 3 7 2 sull'arcaismo). Né l'arcaismo esaurisce la problematica stilistica frontoniana. Conciliare arcaismo, neologismi, popolarismi, parole inaspettate in un quadro teorico (non solo psicologico!) coerente è tutt'altro che facile; cfr. il tentativo di MASELLI, Considerazioni... nella prima parte del suo saggio. Alle difficoltà intrinseche si aggiunga la frammentarietà della documentazione: non abbiamo i contesti e le lettere sono per lo più occasionali. Si tratta di solito di punti specifici, su cui lo scrittore si trova a insistere, senza pretese di sistematicità, ma senza neanche escludere una teoria di fondo; PENNACINI, L a funzione... e SOVERINI, Tra retorica ... aprono qualche spiraglio su tale teoria implicita, che non è solo lessicale, quando insistono sulla espressività e sulla capacità di significare e sulla relazione con oggetti, situazioni, destinatari. Frontone concilia arcaici e moderni (o, se si preferisce, atticisti e asiani) nella sua aspirazione a una lingua che si evolva nel solco della tradizione. L a ricostruzione del pensiero linguistico frontoniano dunque non è ancora completata in m o d o convincente in tutti i suoi aspetti 2 8 . N o n sembra superata del tutto, neanche da parte di studiosi che hanno contribuito a smussarla, 27

28

V. soprattutto PENNACINI, La funzione..., 82 per il discorso specifico. Molto spazio all'arcaismo e a Frontone come caratteristici del tempo (interpretato però in senso piuttosto negativo) ha dedicato A. LA PENNA nel saggio su La cultura letteraria latina nel secolo degli Antonini, in: VARI, Storia di Roma, Einaudi, Torino 1992, 491—577. In genere le discussioni su questo argomento non distinguono bene fra teoria e prassi. D'altra parte le realizzazioni linguistiche frontoniane che conosciamo non sono tutte stese in punta di penna, data la varietà delle occasioni. Gli studi sulla frase sono ancora agli inizi; qualche cenno in F. Russo, Utilisation de la mesure des longueurs de phrases pour la détermination de la structure de la Prose de Fronton dans le 'De eloquentia' et 'De orationibus', Rev. ét. lang. anc. ord. 2, 1975, 3 1 - 4 8 (l'abbreviazione della frase e la destrutturazione del periodo). Si accresce invece la disponibilità di materiali; dopo MARACHE, Mots... si ricordino almeno MASELLI, Considerazioni... (la seconda parte) e V. BEJARANO, Vulgarismos en la lengua de Fronton, in: VARI, Bivium. Homenaje Díaz y Diaz, Gredos, Madrid 1983, 41—47. Sono state avviate anche rilevazioni esaustive di sezioni del corpus: oltre Russo, Utilisation..., R. FONTANELLA, M.OLIVETTI, M. RAMELLA VOTTA, Index verborum mit statistischen Aufstellungen zu 'De nepote amisso', 'De feriis Alsiensibus' 'Arion', 'Laudes fumi et pulveris', 'Laudes neglegentiae' von M. C. Fronto, Olms, Hildesheim - New York 1981 (testo in italiano); F. GARRONE, M. MATTEA, F. Russo, Lessico del 'De Orationibus' e del 'De eloquentia' di M. C. Frontone con rilevazioni statistiche, Olms, Hildesheim - New York 1976 (segnalato nelP'Année Philologique' sotto il nome PENNACINI, autore dell'Introduzione); M. MATTEA, Statistical Researches in the Verbum Lexical Field on the Frontonian Rhetorical Works, 'De orationibus' et 'De eloquentia', Rev. ét. lang. anc. ord. 3,1975, 3 5 - 4 8 . Tuttavia le analisi quantitative non possono essere immediatamente trasferite in qualitative: la frequenza della parola verbum, per es., a parte la vastità del suo campo semantico, non può da sola attestarne l'importanza (cfr. MATTEA, Statistical..., 40).

894

PIER V I N C E N Z O

COVA

l'opposizione tra discorso che dice e discorso che piace. Qualche indicazione offriva già la coppia tuba-tibia: o Frontone ammetteva nel suo sistema entrambi gli aspetti o pensava che il superamento della razionalità incrementasse la persuasività o amava l'effusione dei sentimenti (questa è la spiegazione che si avvicina di più alla tesi del diletto). Certo accetta, come tutti al suo tempo, la dicotomia res-verba, ma, se insiste sui verba (da intendere non solo come lessico, ma anche come forma in generale), lo fa perchè ritiene che la materia sia data e immodificabile, mentre la forma costituisce il vero possesso dell'uomo, non un'eredità, ma una conquista, e soprattutto è insegnabile. Il suggerimento di leggere e ritenere quanto più possibile, allo scopo di disporre al momento opportuno del materiale linguistico idoneo, fa parte della didattica frontoniana (cfr. ZETZEL, Statilius..., 107). In questo retore, che non teneva professionalmente una scuola, la mentalità del maestro è sempre presente, almeno nel corpus che ci è stato trasmesso e specialmente nelle lettere ai principi, persino in quella, che sopra si è chiamata la terza fase: Marco Aurelio ritorna a Frontone per averne insegnamenti nell'arte che può riuscire utile al suo governo e Frontone riassume volentieri veterem potestatem, come si è già letto (n. 21). Come maestro di retorica Frontone può interessarsi anche di dottrine diverse della sua. Anche la cosiddetta critica letteraria è in funzione della scuola: le citazioni di autori sono di solito suggerimenti di lettura o esempi di applicazione 29 . Quindi l'argomento in sé riscuote poco interesse negli studi recenti. Dopo il MARACHE, La critique... i manuali di critica letteraria antica si limitano di solito a esporre le teorie linguistiche o retorico linguistiche di Frontone. Sempre con la riserva dei limiti della nostra documentazione sono indicative anche le assenze: A. RONCONI, La critica plautina e terenziana nel mondo romano, in: ID., Interpretazioni letterarie nei classici, Le Monnier, Firenze 1972, 163 (già in: Maia 22, 1970, 19 — 37 col titolo Sulla fortuna di Plauto e di Terenzio nel mondo romano) ha sottolineato quella di Terenzio, coerente però con la poca fortuna di quel commediografo nel momento. La presenza di Cicerone invece si ricava da allusioni e reminiscenze: per il Brutus lo ha fatto rilevare F. PORTALUPI, Nota frontoniana (in memoria di V. Ciaffi). Rileggendo il Brutus, Giappichelli, Torino 1974; l'apprezzamento per lui non si limita all'epistolografia 30 . SELVATICO, Lo scambio epistolare..., 230 individua il 'programma' di Frontone nella lettera Ad M . Caes. IV,3,2; gli autori qui elencati sono gli stessi, che ricompaiono con più frequenza nell'espistolario. Scarsa la fortuna degli storici. Secondo P. V. COVA, l'Principia Historiae' e le idee storiografiche di Frontone, Libreria scientifica Ed., Napoli 1970, 79 — 86 anche Sallustio vale solo per il suo stile (ma anche come storico secondo LA PENNA, Congetture..., 202). Da qui è facile ricavare il poco 29

30

Pochi gli esempi di analisi: sulla critica a Lucano 1,1 —7, S. DOEPP, Fronto's critique on Lucan 1,1—7, Res publica litterarum 9, 1986, 117 — 118, che non ho potuto vedere. L'equilibrato atteggiamento verso Cicerone era già stato messo in luce da TH. SCHWIERCZINA, Fronto und die Briefe Ciceros, Philologus 8 1 , 1 9 2 5 , 7 2 - 85, il quale aveva raccolto anche apprezzamenti verso l'oratore e riecheggiamenti di motivi.

MARCO CORNELIO FRONTONE

895

interesse del retore per un genere, in cui le res non potevano essere personalizzate, se non a costo di una manipolazione sostanziale del vero. M a c'è uno scritto, i cosiddetti 'Principia Historiae', che consente di verificare indirettamente la reazione frontoniana di fronte a questo genere.

4. Le grandi lettere-trattati a) I 'Principia Historiae' l'Principia Historiae' sono normalmente definiti la promessa o il proemio (o, come dice S. MAZZARINO, Il pensiero storico classico 11,2, Laterza, Bari 1966, 162 con sarcasmo, l'antipasto) di quella storia delle guerre partiche, che Vero chiede in modo esplicito a Frontone a suo onore e gloria nell'epist. Ad Verum 11,3 (o 1,2 secondo VAN DEN H O U T 1988). E' stato sempre riconosciuto che nei 'Principia' il retore adotta il metodo della synkrisis, che è tipico del panegirico. Il panegirico, come già voleva Plinio, epist. 111,18,2, serve all'exemplum e Yexemplum si svolge per species virtutis, come voleva Quintiliano 111,7,15, non per successione di avvenimenti (e non è legato alla fides come la storia!). Purtroppo anche i 'Principia' sono fortemente lacunosi: il tentativo di ricostruzione del suo svolgimento secondo P. V. COVA, Le note marginali... individua tre grandi ripartizioni: 1) rapporto storico-condottiero (che occupa le pp. 275, 266, 265, 272 del codice Ambrosiano); 2) il confronto fra due guerre partiche (Ambr. 271, 262, 261, 274, 273, 252, 251, 270, 269, 268, 267); 3) il confronto fra i due rispettivi comandanti (Ambr. 258, 257, 256, 255, 246, 245, 260, 259, 250, 249). Tale ricostruzione si fonda sulla prima edizione VAN DEN HOUT: la seconda sposta più indietro e in diverso ordine le pp. 270 - 267; le difficoltà della sistemazione sono illustrate alle pp. LVI —LVII dei 'Prolegomena'. Comunque non si può assumere come criterio ordinatore la sola logica di sviluppo, che non risponde alle caratteristiche sincroniche del confronto panegiristico. Per un esempio di ritorno sullo stesso tema nel corso della trattazione COVA, Le note marginali..., 273 — 274. Dalla struttura dello scritto si può trarre una interpretazione dei 'Principia Historiae', che non li considerino promessa o proemio della storia, ma elegante rifiuto di scriverla. Nella sua richiesta Vero aveva suggerito le linee di svolgimento, indicato le fonti, promesso l'invio di commentari o promemoria. Frontone ignora bellamente le due prime proposte (oltre tutto al suo orgoglio professionale doveva dar fastidio ricevere instruzioni dal suo benché imperiale alunno) e si sofferma sulla terza: scrivendo a Marco Aurelio (è la lettera che nel corpus precede i 'Principia') assicura che, se sarà approvato il thema (su cui COVA, I Principia..., 3 7 ) , che allega ( = i Principia?), si metterà all'opera appena ricevuti i commentari. L'invio di promemoria poteva essere un tempo la procedura normale, con cui l'autore dell'impresa ne affidava il racconto letterario a uno scrittore professio-

896

PIER V I N C E N Z O

COVA

nista. Con la diffusione della cultura anche tra gli uomini d'azione il commentario non ha più bisogno di abbellimenti (celebre il giudizio su Cesare di Cie., Brut. 75,262). Quindi l'invio di commentari a un professore di retorica, perché li trasformi in storia, diventa un atto di convenienza, che presuppone il rifiuto 31 . Cicerone manda a Posidonio i suoi commentari (in greco!) per sentirsi dire che stanno bene così come sono (Ad Att. 11,1,2). Non è escluso che Vero si proponesse lo stesso scopo 32 . E' altrettanto probabile che il suo maestro, scarsamente interessato alla storia, desiderasse evitare i risvolti politici di una condotta bellica molto chiaccherata. Quindi prepara una risposta simile a quella di Posidonio, ma costruita su una teoria storiografica: lo storico migliore è lo stesso autore delle gesta, purché sappia scrivere. Vero ha anche questa caratteristica: l'ultima parte del confronto con Traiano nei 'Principia' sviluppa appunto il tema dell'eloquenza di Vero, ultimo e supremo motivo della sua superiorità sul predecessore (ad senatores scripsit litteris diserte ad significandum rerum statum compositis, ut qui facundiam inpenso studio restaurale cuperet}...; segue una pagina illeggibile). Ma per un altro elogio delle qualità militari e letterarie insieme del principe basta leggere Ad Verum 11,1. questa tesi 33 recano appoggio più recenti osservazioni di F. P O R T A L U P I , V nota frontoniana. L. Vero memorialista?, Koinonia 4, 1980, 7 - 2 3 , in parte coincidenti: la preminenza della peritia ( = conoscenza per esperienza) sulla doctrina ( = teoria) in tutto il pensiero di Frontone; i suggerimenti dati a Vero sullo stile da usare; i ricordi di precedenti illustri come Senofonte e Catone (generali e insieme storici); le personali incertezze del retore in campi estranei alla sua competenza, come la storiografia, mentre Vero dispone di esperienza pratica e di capacità retorica, oltre che dei materiali necessari (e quindi forse si fece davvero memorialista). Se la tesi ha qualche probabilità di cogliere nel segno 34 , la risposta di Frontone a Vero (che gli chiedeva di esagerare i suoi meriti) non è „disgustosa" A

31

32

33 34

Anche la richiesta di Vero obbedisce al cliché, q u a n d o attribuisce la sua gloria non ai fatti, ma al racconto: In summa meae res gestae tantae sunt, quantae sunt scilicet, quoiquoi modi sunt: tantae autem videbuntur, quantas tu eas videri voles, Ad Verum 11,3,3 = 125,28 - 30 = 1,2,2 = 109,3 - 4 VAN D E N H O U T 1988. Così anche Plin., epist. VII,33,10 scrivendo a Tacito; per il c o n f r o n t o v. V. USSANI, Leggendo Plinio il Giovane, I, Historia — n o m e n inertiae, Riv. Cult. Class. Medioev. 12, 1970, 275 n. 19. Un passo della lettera Ad M . Caes. IV,3,8 = 60,8 —11 dimostra insieme lo scarso interesse di Frontone per la storia e (forse) le velleità storiografiche del principe: Post ita monui quibus studiis, quoniam ita velles, te historiae scribundae praeparares. Qua de re cum longior sit oratio, ne modum epistulae egrediar, finem facio. Si tu de ea quoque re scribi ad te voles, etiam atque etiam admonebis. L'ipotesi non è esclusa neanche da A. LA PENNA, La cultura l e t t e r a r i a . . . , 509. Però t u t t o è lungi dall'essere chiaro. Il fatto che solo la prima parte dei 'Principia' usi la seconda persona potrebbe far pensare che questa sola contenga la risposta diretta a Vero, mentre la seconda sia la proposta di svolgimento o thema. Questa proposta di svolgimento poi potrebbe riguardare il c o m m e n t a r i o di Vero, non la stesura f r o n t o n i a n a della storia, ossia essere a sua volta la risposta alla richiesta di Vero di indicargli come doveva essere il suo p r o m e m o r i a (quod si me quoque voles aliquem commentarium facere, designa mihi qualem velis faciam et ut iubes faciam-, questa è l'interpunzione

MARCO

CORNELIO

FRONTONE

897

come vuole A. J . PAPALAS, Lucius Verus and the hospitality of Herodes Atticus, Athenaeum 56, 1978, 184 η. 16, ma solo diplomatica e artificiosa. La storia della guerra non fu scritta, forse anche perché la morte salvò il retore da ulteriori pressioni, specie da parte di Marco Aurelio, che aveva ragioni dinastiche per coprire agli occhi dell'opinione pubblica il discusso comportamento del fratello. In un'altra lettera a Vero Frontone richiede ancora l'invio del commentario, citando esplicitamente le sollecitazioni di Marco Aurelio 35 . La perdita dei fogli dell'Ambrosiano ci invidia la risposta di Vero. In ogni caso però i 'Principia' non scrivono la storia, ma sulla storia: si riavvicinano così, sia pure in modo diverso, allo scritto di Luciano, Έ ω ς δει ίστορίαν συγγράφειν', che tratta anch'esso del modo di scrivere la storia, non senza qualche significativa convergenza, come la richiesta che lo storico abbia esperienza diretta (COVA, I Principia..., 1 0 3 - 1 1 0 ) . b) L"Arion Nonostante l'assunto e l'argomento, i 'Principia Historiae' conservano la forma epistolare, compresa la seconda persona nella prima parte. E' naturale che queste lettere, per così dire monografiche, siano oggetto di attenzione critica particolare, anche per verificare in concreto la vicinanza del loro autore ai gusti e alle maniere della seconda sofistica, sottolineata da A. R A M Í R E Z D E VERGER, La 'fabula de Somno' de Frontón, in: VARI, Religión, superstición y magia en el mundo romano, Univ. Cadiz 1985, 61—73: le laudes sono esercizi retorici e divertimenti su motivi fittizi, usati anche da Dione, Favorino, Luciano; le narrazioni sono exempla (v. Gellio e Luciano) da rielaborare secondo retorica (così la storia di Policrate si trova in Dione, Luciano, Apuleio). La mancanza di pretesa all'originalità contenutistica è un contrassegno di quel movimento culturale. Anche l"Arion' ha i suoi corrispettivi greci e latini; secondo i larghi canoni antichi può essere considerato una traduzione da Erodoto. L. GAMBERALE, La traduzione in Gellio, Ateneo, Roma 1969, 1 7 4 - 185 procede a un interessante confronto dei modi tenuti dai due arcaisti romani di fronte all'originale greco. Gellio è fedele a Erodoto, Frontone infedele nell'ordine dei fatti; Gellio amplia rispetto al modello in tutta la sua versione, Frontone solo nella seconda parte;

35

della prima ediz. VAN DEN HOUT 1 2 5 , 1 4 - 1 5 , che mi sembra preferibile alla seconda = 108,16 - 17 quodsi me quoque voles aliquem commentarium facere, designa mihi: qualem velis faciam et ut iubes faciam). Una volta ricevuto il commentario, steso in base alla traccia fornita, Frontone l'avrebbe sottoposto a esame, c o m e fa spesso con gli scritti e i discorsi principeschi. Nella lettera a M a r c o Aurelio, sempre stampata c o m e introduttiva ai 'Principia', COVA, Ί Principia'..., 67, n. 9 suggerisce di leggere, anziché res scribere (scrivere la storia), rescribere (revisionare): la lettura del passo è incerta. Egit praeterea mecum frater tuus impense, quod ego multo impensius adgredi cupio, et ubi primum commentarium miseris, adgrediar ex summis voluntatis opibus, nam de facúltate tute videbis, qui me idoneum censuisti, Ad Verum 11,9,2 = 130,13 - 1 6 VAN DEN HOUT = 1,8,2 = 1 1 3 , 1 4 - 1 7 VAN DEN HOUT 1988. La risposta di Vero è contenuta nella lettera che segue, lacunosa e incerta per la parte che ci interesse.

898

PIER V I N C E N Z O

COVA

Gellio e Frontone razionalizzano ed esplicitano i cenni di Erodoto; Gellio mescola arcaico e moderno, Frontone si segnala per la brevità delle frasi più vicina al modello. Lo scritto è utile anche per il problema della conoscenza del greco da parte di Frontone, il quale nella lettera Ad Caes. 1,10 = 22,17 si scusa dei barbarismi (una forma di modestia?) e in Gellio appare specialista di solo latino (contrapposto a Favorino, che lo è per il greco). Se l'analisi GAMBERALE è tenuta nei limiti del tema dello studio, in cui trova collocazione, un saggio di esegesi linguistica della medesima opera si può leggere in M. P. PIERI, Una reminiscenza del Bellum Poenicum neviano in Frontone?, in: VARI, Studi di poesia latina Traglia, Ed. St. Lett., Roma 1979, 1 1 — 2 3 , che esamina volgarismi (presenti solo se testimoniati in precedenza, quindi non come neologismi), allitterazioni, toni epici, variazioni rispetto ai modelli arcaici. L'analisi sul terreno consente di portare sostegni concreti alla tesi, già esposta, che l'arcaismo sia una delle funzioni dell'espressività e si radichi nel contesto. L'ipotesi di una reminiscenza da Nevio 2 3 M O R E L fornisce solo l'avvio alla ricerca. c) υ Έ ρ ω τ ι κ ό ς e le favole Se T'Arion' è traduzione o ripresa del greco, υ Έ ρ ω τ ι κ ό ς è steso in greco, perché estraneo alla tradizione latina. T . M A N T E R O , Ί'Έρωτικός di Apuleio, in: VARI, Studi classici Cataudella, Fac. Lettere Catania, III, Catania 1972, 475 — 516 l'inserisce nella storia del genere, che gode di buona ripresa nel secondo secolo, ma ha origini antiche. Un filone esalta l'amore naturale, che sfocia nel matrimonio, l'altro l'amore disinteressato e platonico. A questo secondo indirizzo appartiene lo scritto di Frontone, stando a ciò che si può arguire da quel che rimane. La parte superstite, secondo S. FASCE, L"erotik ó s ' . . . , rientra nella terza sezione di un trittico. La prima esporrebbe la tesi del Lisia platonico; la seconda forse svolgerebbe la condanna delle passioni, la terza sarebbe a sua volta divisa in tre parti. Di queste la prima sosterrebbe la tesi che, chi non ama, vede meglio di chi ama e desidera lo stesso di chi ama (p. 263); la seconda che il rapporto con chi non ama è più utile, perché privo di manifestazioni esterne di cui vergognarsi; la terza che la bellezza non riceve gloria dall'amore, che è cieco. Lo studio della FASCE non si limita a questa ricostruzione, ma propone interessanti integrazioni testuali (p. 263), discute la originarietà del titolo, inserisce lo scritto nel filone retorico-filosofico (aspetto importante in un intellettuale avverso alla filosofia e messo in crisi dalla 'conversione' dell'alunno migliore). Nell"Erotikós' si trovano immagini dilatate alla misura di racconto: tipica la novella del girasole. Poiché l'immagine, anche raggiunte queste dimensioni, conserva le funzioni probatorie delPEÌKróv, si spiega la sua frequenza nelle lettere monografiche, che hanno l'ampiezza adatta ad accoglierle. Nel 'De Bello Parthico', che è una consolatio per la sconfitta, la favola di Policrate dovrebbe dimostrare che il continuo favore della fortuna è foriero di disgrazie. La possibilità di rielaborazione personale di temi noti consente l'analisi letteraria:

MARCO CORNELIO

FRONTONE

899

F. PORTALUPI, Un mimo letterario in Frontone; la fabula di ΈΓΟ e Leandro', Riv. Cult. Class. Medioev. 21 - 22, 1979 - 80, 83 - 92 osserva un atteggiamento antiromantico nella versione frontoniana del mito di 'Ero e Leandro', perché Ero non doveva permettere che l'amato corresse il rischio, che gli riuscì fatale. Il racconto qui è denso ed essenziale, perché deve realizzare l'assunto enunciato nel prologo teorico della laus. Nonostante la sua autonomia formale, proprio per la sua funzione la favola non può essere correttamente intesa prescindendo dal contesto, in cui viene collocata. I n v e c e p e r RAMÍREZ DE VERGER, L a f a b u l a . . .

il m i t o d e l l ' o r i g i n e

del

sonno nel gruppo delle lettere 'De feriis Alsiensibus' è una semplice narratio fabularis di tipo scolastico, il cui scopo è la delectatio·, ma, quando, nel quadro di una interpretazione più complessa sia della struttura dello scritto che del formulario, e sempre pensando al tempo che conosceva la parola fascinatrice, individua l'intenzione di Frontone di operare con la parola una sorta di magia terapeutica in favore di Marco Aurelio, non si discosta molto dall'interpretazione di J . M. ANDRÉ, Le 'De otio' de Fronton et les loisirs de Marc-Aurèle, Rev. ét. lat. 49,1971, 2 2 8 - 2 6 1 , che vede in questo gruppo di lettere l'intenzione frontoniana di fissare lo statuto deWotium di un principe, suggerendo a Marco Aurelio come non lasciarsi soffocare dal dovere (dunque uno scritto funzionale, non gratuito). La parenetica si fonda sulla tradizione del mos maiorum (Numa, le feste e la pace), ma anche su esempi naturalistici (il mare, l'alcione, l'arco, le ciglia); il sonno rientra nell'ordine cosmico. Inutile dire che questo tentativo di convertire al piacere un asceta stoico non è riuscito, se non forse per il richiamo a una vita semplice, in cui si può trovare un tratto comune al maestro e al discepolo. L'uso dei topoi è talmente radicato in Frontone (e in genere nella cultura romana) che nulla detrae alla sincerità dei sentimenti e alla veridicità dei fatti (la prima da sentire, la seconda da verificare per altra via). Cosi A. RAMÍREZ DE VERGER, La 'consolatio' en Fronton: en torno al 'De nepote amisso', Faventia 5, 1983, 65 — 78 può condurre un'analisi linguistica e retorica anche sullo scritto più commovente e meno discusso, il 'De nepote amisso', in cui individua topoi, oratio numerosa, strutture formali. L'indagine si collega a quella del 1985 sulla favola del sonno, nel senso che anche qui vengono individuati i rapporti con le correnti letterarie contemporanee, se si guarda al genere (consolazioni e orazioni funebri), e vien operato il superamento del lessico (che è arcaicizzante).

5. Lettere retorico-didattiche e private La dimensione retorica in Frontone è inscindibile da quella didattica e privata, perché risponde sia alla sua cultura e, se è lecito dir così, „malattia professionale" sia allo spirito del tempo. SIRAGO, Involuzione..., 331 - 3 4 9 ha potuto dedicare un intero capitolo all'autobiografismo, non solo in Frontone e in Marco Aurelio, interpretandolo però in negativo, come effetto dell'assenza di grandi problematiche politiche e sociali. Un tema, che emerge con particolare

900

PIER V I N C E N Z O

COVA

frequenza, è quello delle malattie: sono state addirittura elaborate statistiche (J. E. G . WHITEHORNE, Was Marcus Aurelius a Hypochondriac?, Latomus 36, 1977, 413 - 421) per accertare quale percentuale (il 3 0 % ! ) delle lettere accenni ai malanni 3 6 , che affliggevano il retore. Si è pensato a una ossessione o a una mania, magari diffusa nel secolo (BOWERSOCK, Greek S o p h i s t s . . . , 72). Infatti il motivo si trova anche in M a r c o Aurelio. WHITEHORNE, Was Marcus ... mira a scagionare il principe dall'accusa di ipocondria (nel senso di cura eccessiva del corpo e ossessione della medicina), attribuendo la presenza nelle sue lettere di questo tema a un atteggiamento di compiacenza verso il maestro. Se però si tratta di ipocondria, questa è più grave nel giovane che nel vecchio. M a il fatto che Frontone non esiti a interrompere le sue riflessioni teoriche per lamentarsi dei propri mali e alterni ai concetti più sottili particolari banali come mani e piedi, può avere anche un significato positivo (P. V. COVA, La filostorghia di Frontone, in: ID., LO stoico imperfetto, Soc. Ed. Napoletana, Napoli 1978, 114 — 131). Da una parte conferma che lo scrittore non si colloca sulla linea evolutiva, che da Plinio in poi trasforma il genere epistolare in fatto letterario, svincolandolo dai realia per collocarlo nel verosimile (che è letteratura): Frontone è ben radicato nel concreto, anzi nel quotidiano 3 7 . Dall'altra attenua o annulla l'officiosità, lasciando trasparire i sentimenti di affetto, che lo legano ai suoi allievi; la dimensione magistrale non consiste dunque solo nell'insegnamento tecnico della retorica, ma anche nel rapporto umano (donde le gioie e le amarezze, per i successi e per le conversioni). Siccome la maggior parte dell'epistolario tradito è indirizzato ai principi, si giunge al risultato paradossale che le lettere più connotate affettivamente hanno per corrispondenti M a r c o Aurelio e Lucio Vero. Le lettere 'Ad amicos' rivelano meno confidenzialità. Ciò è dovuto a due ragioni. Da un lato Frontone ha l'occasione o l'intenzione di mostrarsi in relazione con personaggi influenti dell'epoca, magari destinati a cadere in disgrazia, come Avidio Cassio (e questo denota ingenuità e interesse per il contingente). Dall'altro il retore (o il raccoglitore dell'epistolario) raduna in questa sezione scritti che rispondano a un genere canonico, quindi con scarse possibilità di abbandoni ed effusioni. E' il caso delle prime dieci 'Ad amicos', che rispondono al modello della lettera di raccomandazione. Esaminando questa categoria A. PLANTERA, Osservazioni sulle commendatizie latine da Cicerone a Frontone, Ann. M a g . Cagliari ns 2, 1 9 7 7 - 7 8 , 5 - 3 6 , vi scorge un'intrusione di elementi orientaleggianti (il tono supplichevole) e in genere un arricchimento dello schema base. L'esempio canonico analizzato è la lettera ad Avidio Cassio, in cui però non viene notata la possibile ironia del paragone col miles gloriosus. Di questa si è già detto; la maggior parte dei contenuti delle lettere ai principi ricade a sua volta sotto le rubriche dei problemi retorico-letterari e linguistici, pure già considerati. 36 37

Frontone appare fisicamente impedito anche in Gellio, Noct. Att. 11,26,1 e X I X , 1 0 , 1 . II rapporto di Frontone epistolografo con la tradizione del genere non è stato studiato in modo particolare negli ultimi decenni. L'unico accenno si trova in P. CUGUSI, voce Epistolografi in Dizionario..., 8 2 8 - 8 2 9 , che vede già in Cicerone e Plinio il Giovane anticipazioni dell'inserimento della vita privata nella lettera letteraria.

MARCO

CORNELIO

III.

FRONTONE

901

L'uomo

1. L'ambiente a) Il quadro generale Le lettere ci informano direttamente su alcuni aspetti, non tutti, della personalità e della attività di Frontone. Nella scarsità di notizie d'altra fonte, bisogna tener conto della parzialità di questa, di cui disponiamo, per non trarre giudizi affrettati sull'uomo e sui rapporti con l'ambiente, in cui viveva. Le lettere ci danno anzitutto l'immagine di un retore profondamente legato alla sua professione; ma non bisogna dimenticare che per lo più sono indirizzate ai suoi regali discepoli o ex discepoli in quanto tali. Quindi la dimensione didattica è molto presente, con tutti i difetti (minuzie, insistenze, ripetizioni) che essa comporta. Ma è pure sempre limitata dall'orizzonte di corte. Per avere qualche idea della sua attività fuori dalla reggia, bisogna interrogare Gellio; ma la consuetudine di accoppiare i due uomini (anche nella bibliografia) produce effetti riduttivi su entrambi, sia dal punto di vista delle teorie (l'arcaismo) che dei rapporti reali (maestro-allievo). Frontone non teneva una scuola nel senso istituzionale del termine; ma è difficile dirlo maestro di Gellio anche nel senso ideale. Non si sa se esistesse una vera a propria secta, quale fosse il suo metodo, quali i seguaci. CHAMPLIN, Fronto..., 4 5 - 5 9 ha ricordato il contubernium coi giovani (forse rapporti di studio o un canale di diffusione delle idee). PORTALUPI, Nota frontoniana..., 22 n. 24 ha steso un elenco di allievi (ma in che senso?) di Frontone e ricordato la testimonianza di Gellio, Noct. Att. XIX,8,1 sull'efficacia del suo insegnamento. La ricerca preferisce allargare l'orizzonte all'ambiente culturale in senso lato, cioè alla rete di relazioni, che il retore intratteneva con gli intellettuali del tempo. Su questo aspetto CHAMPLIN, Fronto ... reca un contributo notevole di informazioni e di inquadramento, formando un grande affresco, pullulante di vita e di nomi, di un tratto del mondo contemporaneo. Emergono soprattutto i contatti col mondo greco. A Iuliano, collegato con Erode Attico e forse parente della moglie Grazia (presumibilmente anch'essa di origine greca), sono indirizzate quattro lettere (Ad amicos 1,5; 17; 19; 20): il massimo dopo Vittorino (e, si intende, i principi). I rapporti con l'est sono più intensi che col sud, di cui pure Frontone era originario. In questo quadro compaiono anche uomini d'azione, non solo intellettuali (anche se le due qualifiche si incontrano nella stessa persona, come in Avidio Cassio). Sorge il problema se Frontone fosse attivo anche nel campo politico. CHAMPLIN, Fronto..., 2 ritiene che sia sbagliato studiarlo solo sotto l'aspetto retorico, anche se Frontone fu console (ma solo suffectus) e senatore, mai però comandante militare o governatore di provincia (la rinuncia a quest'ultimo ufficio appare nell'epist. Ad Ant. P. 8), forse prefetto urbano. ASTARITA, Roma e l'Oriente... insiste sugli interessi politici del retore, anche se tradotti in azione a modo suo. Frontone approfitta della richiesta marcaureliana di

902

PIER V I N C E N Z O

COVA

avere scritti ciceroniani a scopo di relax (Ad Ant. imp. IV,1) o di miglioramento della propria eloquenza (Ad Ant. imp. 111,9) per inviargli consigli attraverso il discorso ciceroniano 'De imp. Gn. Pompei', attraverso il quale formula alcune direttive (un comando unico, attorniato da un gruppo di esperti, fusione di abilità diplomatiche e capacità militari, doveri e vantaggi nella tutela delle province). Secondo l'autrice questi consigli non sono dati in forma esplicita e diretta, perchè già prima espressi a voce (ma forse si tratta del solito modo coperto dei retori di influire sul potere; da sottolineare la coerenza di Frontone con la sua convinzione dell'utilità pratica della retorica). Frontone dimostra di conoscere bene la situazione della parte orientale dell'impero e forse si fa portavoce di forze locali favorevoli a Vero. Scarsi sono comunque i documenti di una presenza operativa anche in senato. Un frammento della 'Gratiarum actio pro Carthaginientibus' ci è giunto attraverso il Cod. Vatic. Palat. 24 (notizie in VAN DEN HOUT 1954 LXXXI = L X X I X - L X X X VAN DEN H O U T 1 9 8 8 ; testo rispettivamente alle pp. 241 e 2 5 6 - 2 5 8 ) . Intensa è invece l'attività giudiziaria: delle orazioni politiche e forensi, di cui si ha notizia, la seconda edizione VAN DEN HOUT fornisce un buon elenco a p. 277. Le cause sostenute da Frontone sono per lo più di due tipi: per amici e per municipi, conclude CHAMPLIN, Fronto ..., 73 — 74, secondo il quale Frontone doveva conoscere bene la legge (cfr. la questione del testamento di Matidia). Purtroppo si va raramente al di là dei puri titoli (ma vedi, poco oltre, l'affare di Erode Attico). E tuttavia pare valido il giudizio di G. KENNEDY, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, 300 B. C. - A. D. 300, Princeton Univ. Press. 1972, 594, che stabilisce così le varie componenti della personalità: "Fronto was not a sophist, not a rhetorician, nor a professional teacher but a Roman orator, who was interested in sophistry and rhetoric and became a tutor". Invece, interrogando le lettere, si aprono spiragli su aspetti e momenti anche minori della vita e del carattere del nostro. Un articolo di P. FEDELI, Sul prestito librario nell'antichità e sull'arte di sedurre i bibliotecari, Quaderni Urbinati di Cultura Classica 16 ( = N° 45), 1984, 1 6 5 - 1 6 8 , a proposito di 6 2 , 4 - 8 VAN DEN H O U T = 6 1 , 1 5 - 1 9 VAN DEN H O U T 1988, cioè Ad M . Caes. IV,5,2, lo mostra destreggiarsi tra le difficoltà dei prestiti librari. ANDRÉ, Le 'de o t i o ' . . . , 256 ne fa vedere la simpatia per un'immagine più gaia del potere e della vita, che non fosse quella di Marco. Questo saggio costituisce un buon commento del gruppo di lettere 'De feriis Alsiensibus', da cui traspare un ideale di vita semplice e serena, non turbata da frenesie attivistiche (realtà o aspirazione?). Delle qualità dell'animo del maestro danno testimonianza concorde entrambi gli imperiali allievi già nel tono delle loro lettere. L'ideale di Frontone è il verus amor, che COVA, La filostorghia ..., 127 ha cercato di definire come un rapporto mollis et humanus, ma soprattutto autentico e disinteressato. Marco Aurelio nel famoso Pensiero 1,11 dichiara di dovere a Frontone la scoperta che i personaggi altolocati, che lo circondano, sono άστοργοι, hanno la qualità opposta alla φιλοστοργία, che è il corrispettivo greco del verus amor. F. DELLA CORTE, U n p r e c e t t o r e d i M a r c o A u r e l i o : F r o n t o n e , C u l t . Se.

95,

MARCO

CORNELIO

FRONTONE

903

1985, 6 8 - 7 4 sospetta che sotto questo severo giudizio si nasconda l'effetto di letture 'democratiche', Catone, Gracco, Sallustio (che sono tra gli autori prediletti dal maestro). Il principe vede che invece sotto l'abito del retore batte un cuore. Del rapporto con Frontone W H I T E H O R N E , Was Marcus ..., 420 tenta anche una spiegazione psicosociologica: negli studi propostigli il principe trovava una forma di evasione da una situazione familiare difficile (orfano di padre, una madre possessiva, parenti anziani) e quindi l'atteggiamento era verso qualche cosa di più che un maestro. Si presuppone comunque un buon carattere. Della generosità verso gli amici testimonia l'aneddoto raccontato da Dione LXIX,18,3 ( = n. 16 p. 266 della ricca sezione Testimonia et fragmenta della seconda edizione VAN DEN H O U T ) . Ma questa filostorghia è solo debolezza o sensibilità morbosa oppure un riflesso dell'inquietudine di un'epoca di angoscia? Verso la prima ipotesi sembra propendere I. LANA, Simplicitas, philostorghia e curiositas nella letteratura latina del II sec. d. C., Cult. Se. 1 8 , 1 9 6 6 , 9 0 - 9 4 ; e cfr. POLVERINI, Sull'epistolario...; del suo tempo Frontone riflette aspirazioni intime o solo la superficie? Il dilemma, probabilmente insolubile, non investe solo Frontone, ma anche le correnti culturali del suo tempo, che non lasciano sempre distinguere quanto abbiano di spiritualità e di ricerca, quanto invece di esteriorità e di inconsistenza. Il riferimento va alla seconda sofistica, di cui si sono già ricordati i punti di contatto nelle teorie linguistiche e retoriche, ma l'affinità con la quale è più profonda anche nei difetti (banalità e indifferenza alla filosofia): B. A. VAN GRONINGEN, General Literary Tendencies in the Second Century A . D . , Mnemosyne 1 8 , 1 9 6 5 , 4 1 - 5 6 ; inoltre BOWERSOCK, Greek Sophists...; di un rapporto complesso parla SOVERINI, Tra retorica..., 2 6 5 267; V. A. SIRAGO, La seconda sofistica come espressione culturale della classe dirigente del II sec., ANRW II, 33,1, ed. W. HAASE, B e r l i n - N e w York 1989, 36 — 78 e G. ANDERSON, The pepaideumenos in Action: Sophists and their Outlook in the Early Roman Empire, ibid. 79 - 208. b) L'ambiente di Gellio La principale fonte extra Frontone di notizie su Frontone è Gellio, ma in qualche modo delude (forse anche per la mancanza di una ricerca come quella di A. BARIGAZZI SU Favorino di Arelate, Opere, Le Monnier, Firenze 1966). Contro l'opinione comune, che fa di Gellio lo scolaro devoto di Frontone, sta il fatto che il retore di Cirta nelle 'Noctes Atticae' compare solo cinque volte (B. BALDWIN, Aulus Gellius and his circle, Acta Classica. Proc. of the Class. Ass. of South Africa 16, 1973, 103 — 107), forse anche perché i loro rapporti si erano a un certo punto raffreddati (dopo il 143 si sarebbero incontrati una volta sola, secondo M . L. ASTARITA, Note di cronologia gelliana, Orpheus 5, 1984, 429). Inoltre il Frontone di Gellio è unidimensionale, viene presentato cioè solo come specialista di lingua. Può anche essere che questo, come vuole SIRAGO, Involuzione..., 233 sia dovuto ai tempi, che esigevano la specializzazione, ma certo non giova a dare un'immagine reale del personaggio. Inoltre il famoso retore non viene mai fatto incontrare con i personaggi più 60

A N R W II 34.2

PIER VINCENZO COVA

904

in vista della cultura: mai con Erode Attico (e questo si p u ò spiegare con i loro dissapori), una volta sola con Favorino (11,26,1). L'isolamento p u ò esser dovuto alle necessità della „messa in scena", che sostiene la struttura delle 'Noctes' e riesce a far campeggiare un personaggio per volta: però Gellio non esita a rappresentare Frontone malato, come appare anche dalle lettere. L'incontro con Favorino è paradigmatico di un'altra limitazione, che Gellio (e si discute se con buon fondamento) impone al suo personaggio: Frontone è esponente solo della cultura latina, Favorino della greca ( G A M B E RALE, La t r a d u z i o n e . . . , 60). Le due culture sono antagoniste nelle 'Noctes Atticae' come nella tradizione; non so se (cfr. L. C R A C C O R U G G I N I , Sofisti greci nell'impero R o m a n o , Athenaeum 49, 1971, 415 [a proposito di B O W E R SOCK, Greek Sophists...]) siano riconciliati tradizione ellenica e m o n d o r o m a n o nel consolato congiunto di Erode e Frontone nel 143 (Frontone è solo suffectus, Erode ordinario, e forse la contemporaneità nella carica fu voluta da M a r c o Aurelio sia per riconciliarli sia per uguagliare in qualche m o d o il maestro, homo novus, all'altro, nobile). Secondo A. L A P E N N A , Aspetti del pensiero storico latino, Einaudi, Torino 1978, 27 — 29 nell'età degli Antonini l'egemonia culturale romana è in declino; la miglior difesa è proprio quella operata con successo da Frontone (sul suo terreno) nel dibattito con Favorino in Gellio. Si tratta del tema del nome dei colori (Noct. Att. 11,26), a proposito del quale Frontone (con scarso rispetto delle differenze storiche e di registro, secondo U. E c o , Trattato di semiotica generale, Bompiani, Milano 1982 2 , 116 — 117) dimostra vittoriosamente la maggior ricchezza del lessico latino. M a Favorino, pur avendo caratteri e metodi in comune con Frontone (arcaismo, futilità ecc.), secondo la moda del tempo, aveva prospettive più larghe ( B A R I G A Z Z I , F a v o r i n o . . . , 27,29,140). Di conseguenza è naturale che pesasse non meno e forse di più sulla formazione di Gellio: su questa conclusione si trovano d'accordo M . P E Z Z A T I , Gellio e la scuola di Favorino, Ann. Pisa 111,3 1973, 8 3 7 - 8 6 0 ; A. L A P E N N A , Aspetti..., 34; R O N C O N I , Cicerone..., 273. Gellio guarda più di Frontone al contesto e al contenuto. R. M A R A C H E nell'Introduzione alla sua edizione delle 'Noctes Atticae', Les Belles Lettres, Paris 1967, XXII riconosce che nella critica letteraria Gellio è molto meno esclusivista di Frontone.

2. Il carattere a) Il processo di Erode e il r a p p o r t o col potere L'assenza di rapporti culturali fra Erode Attico e Frontone nelle 'Noctes Atticae' trova riscontro nell'epistolario dove il primo appare come parte avversa in tribunale, poi, riconciliato, in quadri familiari, senza che la relazione sia mai cordiale e disponibile come con altre persone. Le ragioni dell'ostilità, o del sospetto, possono essere molteplici: Frontone avvertiva un senso di inferiorità rispetto a quell'ingombrante personaggio o lo considerava un concorrente temibile nei favori di M a r c o Aurelio o gli attribuiva la corruzione

MARCO CORNELIO FRONTONE

905

di Vero in Oriente o lo giudicava veramente capace delle colpe che gli venivano attribuite. Il punto culminante del loro rapporto è il famoso processo, nel quale i due si trovano impegnati su sponde opposte (vedi G. R . STANTON, Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, and Commodus: 1 9 6 2 - 1972, A N R W 11,2 ed. H. TEMPORINI, B e r l i n - N e w York 1975, 482 n. 10) e al quale Frontone e M a r c o Aurelio dedicano un nutrito scambio epistolare (Ad M . Caes. 1 1 1 , 2 - 6 = 3 6 40 VAN DEN Η ο υ τ = 3 6 - 3 9 VAN DEN HOUT 1988). Però i punti oscuri rimangono numerosi. Intanto è arduo precisare di quale processo si tratti: Erode si trovò spesso coinvolto in liti giudiziarie e inimicizie di ogni genere. Il processo in questione potrebbe essere quello celebrato davanti a M a r c o Aurelio per l'accusa di non aver osservato il testamento, che suo padre aveva fatto a favore degli ateniesi; ma si svolge a Sirmium. Oppure si tratta di un altro processo non meglio identificato, in cui Erode non compariva come imputato, ma come avvocato della parte avversa: la violenza, con cui Frontone lo attacca (ma, per quanto ne sappiamo, in privato) sembra esagerata, anche se denigrare la persona poteva indebolire l'autorità del patrocinante. L'impossibilità di definire meglio la situazione deriva dal fatto che i riferimenti vengono per noi soltanto dalla corrispondenza fra il principe e il retore, i quali non avevano bisogno di precisare le circostanze (Frontone non pensa a scrivere storia e CUGUSI, Evoluzione..., 256 osserva che anche di queste cose egli scrive nel modo solito, cioè familiarmente). La data è incertissima (le proposte oscillano almeno nell'arco di un ventennio). Poiché M a r c o Aurelio nella prima lettera si dichiara puerolus, l'episodio dovrebbe essere riportato all'età giovanile: ma l'espressione può essere scherzosa o captativa (il principe deve chiedere un favore). Dell'episodio ha tentato una ricostruzione completa BOWERSOCK, Greek S o p h i s t s . . . , 98 (seguito in gran parte da CHAMPLIN, F r o n t o . . . , 6 3 s s . ) , il quale mette a profitto e raccorda anche altri punti dell'epistolario. Egli opta senz'altro per la seconda ipotesi, perché niente nella lettera di Frontone presenta l'altro come imputato {adversarias, non reus)·, gli accenni alle colpe personali non costituiscono il capo d'imputazione, ma normali accuse lanciate all'avversario per togliergli credito; infatti Frontone può promettere a M a r c o di limitare il suo attacco a ciò che riguarda direttamente il processo. Le parti in causa sono Asclepiodoto, assistito da Erode, e Demostrato, assistito da Frontone. Le lettere Ad Ant. imp. 111,4 e Ad Verum 11,9 (ora 1,8) informano che il testo dell'orazione è stato trasmesso dall'autore a M a r c o ; ad Asclepiodoto poi Frontone accenna nella stessa lettera 11,9,2, dichiarando di volersi riconciliare con lui, come aveva fatto con Erode. Il processo è anteriore al 161, perchè M a r c o non è ancora imperatore; non si identifica dunque con quello, di cui parla Filostrato, che è posteriore al 170 ed è sollevato da un appello di un altro Demostrato. Anche W. AMELING, Herodes Atticus, I, Biographie, Olms, Hildesheim Zürich - New York 1983, 70 - 76 separa il processo, di cui si legge in Frontone, da quello di Sirmium; però riferisce questo secondo, più tardo, a rivalità interne ad Atene e riporta invece il primo alla questione del testamento 60*

PIER V I N C E N Z O

906

COVA

paterno, facendolo però celebrato a Roma, dove erano venuti tanto Erode quanto Demostrato in epoca anteriore al 143. Dunque Erode è l'imputato, e questo spiegherebbe le accuse di Frontone e le preoccupazioni di Marco Aurelio, mentre la localizzazione nella capitale giustifica il coinvolgimento del retore (non si spiega però bene l'intitolazione pro Demostrato e la diffusione di questo discorso). Ma più ancora che accertare la reale articolazione e collocazione del l'episodio, è importante osservare il comportamento di Frontone. Prima del processo egli riceve dal principe una lettera molto abile: Marco Aurelio ricorda al maestro la promessa di compiacerlo e sostiene di essersi deciso a intervenire perché nessuno osa farlo; pensa che Frontone, col suo animo nobile, non si abbandonerà all'ira e non rimbeccherà Erode, che a sua volta è stato invitato a non provocarlo. Si tratta di un pesante intervento del potere nel corso della giustizia. Come reagisce Frontone? Secondo CORTASSA, Scritti . . . , 3 1 si adegua; secondo CHAMPLIN, Fronto ..., 1 0 5 "capitulates completely". Di parere diverso COVA, Problematica..., 4 6 7 , La filostorghia..., 1 1 9 3 8 . Infatti Frontone promette di evitare le questioni personali e letterarie, ma afferma di non voler derogare alla giustizia. E a sua volta abilmente coinvolge l'interlocutore, affermando che Marco Aurelio è certo d'accordo su questo punto. Infatti questi acconsente, riassumendo i risultati dello scambio di idee. Se si pensa all'enorme dislivello di forza fra i due interlocutori, si deve convenire che la risposta di Frontone è abbastanza coraggiosa. Non sorprende la sicurezza, con cui altrove il retore esercita il diritto di critica verso i difetti espressivi del principe, anzi afferma la sua potestas in questo campo: è una libertà che gli deriva dalla competenza. Ma nel caso del processo il terreno è diverso, se non proprio politico almeno giudiziario. Del resto non è l'unica occasione, in cui il nostro manifesta la sua indipendenza, pur nei limiti del rispetto gerarchico e sotto il velo delle dichiarazioni di ossequio. Per es. in Ad. Ant. P. 4 rivendica il suo diritto di accettare l'eredità di Censorio Nigro, anche se questi era caduto in disgrazia della corte (CHAMPLIN, Fronto ..., 1 0 1 ) . Non nasconde ai nipoti la sua poca simpatia per Adriano 39 , nonostante l'affinità nei gusti letterari (DELLA CORTE, Un precettore..., 6 9 ; M. C . T E D E SCO, Opinione pubblica e cultura: un aspetto della politica di Adriano, in: VARI, Aspetti dell'opinione pubblica nel mondo antico, Contrib. Istit. St. Ant. V, Vita e Pensiero, Milano 1978, 174). A Vero, di cui erano note le intemperanze, suggerisce la dieta ( 1 2 6 , 2 5 ; cfr. A. J . PAPALAS, Lucius Verus..., 183).

38

39

La risposta di Frontone è già significativa se, come alcuni pensano, non ignora, ma finge di ignorare (qui n. 13) che Marco Aurelio era strettamente legato a Erode (che il principe in una lettera agli Ateniesi definisce tòv έμόν καί τόν ϊδ[ι]ον αύχών Ήρώιδην (r. 94 del testo secondo J. Η. OLIVER, Marcus Aurelius. Aspects of Civic and Cultural Policy in the East, Hesperia Suppl. 13, Amer. School of Class. Stud, at Athens, Princeton, New Jersey 1970, 8; sul processo a Sirmium 71—72). Meno significativa la critica alla politica rinunciataria, perché introdotta nei 'Principia Historiae' in funzione della synkrisis, che deve esaltare Vero.

MARCO

CORNELIO

FRONTONE

907

Oscura alcuni aspetti del suo carattere il riflesso della vita di corte, col suo scenario a volte lezioso di cerimonie e intrighi, salutazioni e favori; ma il suo rapporto è affettivo, non di potere. La sua indipendenza non si spinge fino a rimproverare a M a r c o le contraddizioni tra credo filosofico e azione politica, oggi messe in luce da G. R . STANTON, Marcus Aurelius, emperor and philosopher, Historia 18, 1969, 5 7 0 - 5 8 7 . Questi rileva indirettamente alcune debolezze del maestro: Frontone avalla la sostituzione del principio ereditario di successione al metodo della adozione, che poteva premiare il migliore; prega M a r c o di appoggiare Senio Pompeiano (che aveva evidentemente bisogno di raccomandazione!) quando Antonino Pio gli chiederà conto della sua gestione delle imposte in Africa (Ad M . Caes. V,49). Frontone sembra avere un debole per Vero, forse proprio perché questi era un simpatico irresponsabile (così suona pressappoco la definizione di PAPALAS, Lucius V e r u s . . . , 185). Le lettere di Frontone costituiscono una delle fonti cui si appoggia P. LAMBRECHTS, L'empereur Lucius Verus. Essai de réhabilitation, L'Antiquité classique 3, 1934, 1 7 3 - 2 0 1 nel tentativo di migliorare l'immagine tradita del principe, che P'Historia Augusta' avrebbe depresso per radicalizzare l'antitesi tra i due fratelli-colleghi, riuscendo quindi inattendibile. Il problema della veridicità si sposta allora su Frontone, che probabilmente non mente, ma va letto con parametri retorici: ossia quello che dice può non essere vero come fatto, ma vero come giudizio. H a tentato di delineare questo atteggiamento COVA, P r o b l e m a t i c a . . . , 4 7 2 a proposito del discorso anticristiano. b) L'orazione contro i Cristiani Dell'orazione di Frontone contro i cristiani abbiamo notizia solo dall'Octavius di Minucio Felice: nessun cenno nell'epistolario né in M a r c o Aurelio né altrove. Questo silenzio non solo diminuisce le possibilità di individuare concretamente limiti e natura di questo scritto, ma induce a forti dubbi sulla rilevanza dell'intervento del retore e del suo ruolo pubblico. Minucio in due passi dell'Octavius ( 9 , 6 - 7 e 3 1 , 1 - 2 ) 4 0 si limita ad attribuire a qae\Yoratio ciò di cui tutti parlano, ossia le dicerie sui conviti cristiani con orge, promiscuità e

40

9,6 — 7 (parla il pagano Cecilio) Et de convivio notum est: passim omnes loquuntur; id etiam Cirtensis nostri testatur oratio. Ad epulas sollemni die coeunt cum omnibus liberis, sororibus, matribus, sexus omnis homines et omnis aetatis. lllic post multas epulas, ubi convivium caluit et incestae libidinis ebrietatis fervor exarsit, canis, qui candelabro nexus est, iactu offulae ultra spatium lineae, qua vinctus est, ad impetum et saltum provocatur. Sic everso et extincto conscio lumine impudentibus tenebris nexus infandae cupiditatis involvunt per incertum sortis, etsi non omnes opera, conscientia tarnen pariter incesti, quoniam voto universorum adpetitur, quidquid accidere potest in actu singulorum-, 3 1 , 1 - 2 (parla il cristiano Ottavio) Et de incesto convivio fabulam grandem adversum nos daemonum coitio mentita est, ut gloriam pudicitiae deformis infamiae adspersione macularet, ut ante exploratam veritatem homines a nobis terrore infandae opinionis averterei. Sic de isto et tuus Fronto non ut adfirmator testimonium fecit, sed convicium ut orator adspersit; haec enim potius de vestris gentibus nata sunt.

908

PIER V I N C E N Z O

COVA

libertà sessuali. Si tratta cioè di alcuni dei flagitia, che la voce popolare attribuiva ai cristiani, alterando grossolanamente i riti eucaristici. Secondo R . FREUDENBERGER, Der Vorwurf ritueller Verbrechen gegen die Christen im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert, Theologische Zeitschrift 23, 1967, 103 Frontone per primo avrebbe connesso cannibalismo e bambini; ma l'ambito dei flagitia è molto vasto e implica l'intera problematica delle persecuzioni, delle loro cause e del loro regime giuridico 4 1 . Come si spiega che Frontone credesse alle accuse infamanti, che Minucio gli attribuiva? Una risposta è fornita appunto dalla sua logica retorica. Il topos non comporta la verità del fatto, ma un giudizio sul fatto. O r a la connessione fra flagitia e nomen (ossia l'appartenenza all'antistato) era stabilita fin dal tempo dei Baccanali: in Livio X X X I X , 1 5 —16 il console Postumio, per provare il sovversivismo degli iniziati, i quali non hanno ancora consumato questo specifico reato, sostiene che esso è la inevitabile conseguenza dei loro flagitia privati e sociali. Perciò flagitia e sovversivismo diventano tra loro convertibili; non occorre credere alla realtà dei flagitia per credere al sovversivismo; i flagitia sono, per così dire, figure del reato politico 4 2 . Già Minucio 31,2, fa dire a Ottavio che Pronto non ut adfirmator testimonium fecit, sed convicium

ut orator

adspersit.

Una spiegazione più semplice potrebbe essere suggerita dalla circostanza che tali accuse formavano un ingrediente usato in modo acritico (quindi senza ulteriori significati) in tutte le dispute religiose, trascinandosi per inerzia da una situazione all'altra con poche variazioni. FREUDENBERGER, Der Vorw u r f . . . , 105, dopo aver tracciato un minuzioso elenco delle testimonianze in tal senso, ha fatto osservare che le stesse accuse si ritrovano anche nelle dispute tra le sette cristiane. Si tratta dunque di un motivo popolare. M a come mai se ne appropria Frontone, che a noi sembra vivere in una atmosfera rarefatta e certo in un ambiente medio-alto? Perplessità o tatticismo di fronte alla reazione di massa? Così sembrano suggerire implicitamente J . SPEIGL, Der römische Staat und die Christen, Hakkert, Amsterdem 1970, 183 e J . MOREAU, La persecuzione del Cristianesimo nell'Impero R o m a n o , Antichità class. & crist. 16, Paideia, Brescia 1977 (ed. ital. della originale francese del 1956, 'La persécution du Christianisme dans l'Empire Romain'), 50. Le persecuzioni spesso erano motivate solo da ragioni di ordine pubblico,

41

E' evidentemente impossibile anche solo accennare alla vastissima e multidisciplinare bibliografia sull'argomento. Riferimenti ai problemi generali si trovano spesso anche nella letteratura frontoniana, come i titoli generali hanno occasione di introdurre Frontone. Così A. BIRLEY nella seconda edizione della sua biografia su M a r c o Aurelio ha ricostruito l'intero quadro dei rapporti fra società romana e Cristianesimo nell'Appendice 4, Il Cristianesimo, 3 4 8 - 3 5 9 dell'ed. ital. (Appendix 4, Marcus and the Christians, 308 — 331 dell'originale inglese).

42

FREUDENBERGER, Der Vorwurf..., 104 riconnette esplicitamente le modalità dell'accusa frontoniana alla teoria delle εικόνες come mezzo di prova; F. MARTINAZZOLI, Parataxeis. Le testimonianze stoiche sul Cristianesimo, La Nuova Italia, Firenze 1953, definisce di „origine in parte letteraria" la testimonianza di Frontone rispetto a quella di Epitteto e di M a r c o Aurelio.

MARCO

CORNELIO

FRONTONE

909

cioè servivano a tenere a bada la piazza. L'opinione pubblica vedeva con sospetto i Cristiani per la loro diversità sostanziale, interpretava per sinistre analogie i loro riti, li riteneva responsabili delle pubbliche sventure, osservando la concomitanza fra l'emergere della nuova religione e l'ondata di calamità. L'incidenza dell'opinione pubblica è analizzata da M. SORDI, Opinione pubblica e persecuzioni anticristiane nell'Impero Romano, in: VARI, Aspetti dell'opinione pubblica..., 1 5 9 - 1 7 0 . Frontone può essersi fatto o portavoce della reazione della cultura (in senso lato) pagana e della sua incomprensione (e ignoranza) del nuovo (SPEIGL, Der römische Staat..., 1 2 4 ; P . C A R R A R A , I pagani di fronte al Cristianesimo. Testimonianza dei secoli I e II, Nardini, Pisa 1984) in armonia con la personale visione passatista (SIRAGO, Evoluzione..., 355) o strumento della linea politica ufficiale (A. HENRICHS, Pagan ritual and the alleged crimes of the early Christians: A Reconsideration, in: VARI, Kyriakon. Festschrift Quasten, Aschendorff, Münster 1970, 1,27) o di non ben determinati circoli. Però Marco Aurelio, a quanto è dato sapere, è contrario ai Cristiani per ragioni ben diverse: condanna la loro insania in nome del razionalismo stoico, ethos contro logos 43 . Nei Pensieri non v'è cenno alle accuse anticristiane, ma BIRLEY, Marcus Aurelius..., 331 sottolinea che il principe era religioso e i più religiosi sono spesso i più persecutori. Il problema del ruolo avuto dal retore in questo frangente è da mettersi in relazione col più ampio problema del suo rilievo politico in generale (v. qui Ill.l.a), p. 901). M. C. CRISTOFORI, L"oratio' di Frontone contro i Cristiani e la persecuzione di Marco Aurelio, Riv. St. Chiesa 32, 1978, 1 3 0 - 1 3 9 vuole riconoscerglielo. M. SORDI, Le polemiche intorno al Cristianesimo nel II secolo e la loro influenza sugli sviluppi della politica imperiale verso la Chiesa, Riv. St. Chiesa 16, 1962, 1 — 28 attribuisce a questo discorso l'effetto di aver ridato credito alle accuse popolari e provocato la confutazione di Atenagora e la reazione in Gallia. Inoltre l'intervento sarebbe collegato con i 'nuovi decreti' di Marco Aurelio, i quali a loro volta sarebbero stati originati dal momentaneo successo dei Montanisti 44 . Questi eretici, col loro massimalismo, erano autentici sovversivi: confondendoli con la generalità dei cristiani, il potere era portato a perseguitarli senza fare distinzioni. Per aggirare il noto divieto di Traiano (apud Plin. epist. X,97 conquirendi non sunt), sarebbero stati emessi 43

44

Sono però discusse sia l'autenticità dell'accenno ai Cristiani nei Pensieri XI,3 (forse una glossa), sia la riferibilità agli stessi di altre meditazioni nello stesso libro (R A. BRUNT, Marcus Aurelius and the Christians, in: VARI, Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, Coll. Latomus 164, Bruxelles I, 1980, 4 8 3 - 5 2 0 ) . I Montanisti hanno successo in Africa e Frontone è africano. P. MONCEAUX, Histoire Littéraire de l'Afrique chrétienne I, Culture et civilisation, Bruxelles 1963 (I ed. Paris 1901), 2 8 - 4 0 , attribuisce rilievo all'orazione fontoniana (sostenendo che i pregiudizi pagani erano condivisi dagli intellettuali, p. 40) e spiega l'avversione anticristiana in Africa con la fioritura locale di religioni d'ogni tipo e l'antisincretismo del Cristianesimo. ASTARITA, Avidio C a s s i o . . . , 1 2 9 - 1 3 5 nega la confusione coi Montanisti e preferisce collegare la persecuzione col clima di sospetto creato dalla tentata usurpazione di Avidio (si potrebbe allora pensare che Frontone sia intervenuto pesantemente per far dimenticare in qualche modo la sua precedente amicizia col generale?).

910

PIER V I N C E N Z O

COVA

decreti contro i sacrilegi in generale, tra i quali sarebbe stato facile catalogare e perseguire i cristiani. Secondo CRISTOFORO L"oratio'..., 1 3 6 l'assimilazione sarebbe stata addirittura suggerita da Frontone 45 . L'ipotesi è molto suggestiva, perché spiega insieme il momentaneo mutamento di rotta dell'imperatore (che tornò poi alla tolleranza, consolidatasi sotto Commodo) e motiva l'intervento frontoniano. Tuttavia CHAMPLIN, Fronto..., 64ss. ritiene eccessive le costruzioni moderne erette dai critici su pochi dati e la connessione dell 'oratio di Frontone con fatti noti. In cambio egli formula un'ipotesi altrettanto suggestiva, che riduce l'attacco frontoniano a un passaggio interno a un altro tema (così anche BRUNT, Marcus Aurelius..., 5 0 3 ) . Sidonio Apollinare, Epist. VILI 1 0 , 3 accenna a un discorso di Frontone contro un certo Pelope, il cui nome poteva ben offrire l'occasione di rievocare i delitti nefandi dei re di Micene imperniati appunto su cene tiestee. In questo quadro sarebbe possibile un accenno di attualità ai cristiani. L'orazione poteva essere nota come tale a Minucio, ma senza riguardare un'occasione polemica. In effetti l'apologista non dice che il retore avrebbe pronunciato un vero e proprio discorso di portata politica o ufficiale. Il termine oratio, da lui usato, è piuttosto generico (per un altro caso cfr. L A PENNA, Aspetti..., 1 8 7 ) ; ma la ricostruzione di un vero e proprio discorso effettuata da P. FRASSINETTI, L'orazione di Frontone contro i cristiani, Giorn. It. Filol. 2, 1949, 2 3 8 - 2 5 4 ha incontrato molto favore per la sua coerenza interna, la raccolta di altri possibili indizi sparsi in Minucio e i riferimenti al precedente dei Baccanali. L'accetta per es. CRISTOFORI, Llorad o ' . . . , che individua due linee portanti in quell'intervento: contro i flagitia, contro la tolleranza. Questa impostazione esige per l'intervento di Frontone una precisa collocazione storico-politica (secondo D E L L A C O R T E , Un precettore... il testo sarebbe diventato popolare, perché pubblicato come pamphlet), cioè un momento di tensione. Si è pensato al tempo del processo contro Giustino (circa 165 —167), condotto dal prefetto Giunio Rustico (assai più intimo di Marco Aurelio e su lui influente che non Frontone) e contrassegnato dalla novità di un interrogatorio informale per l'accertamento dei fatti. Oppure al processo dei martiri di Lione, che sarebbero le prime vittime dei nuovi decreti (entrambe le possibilità in HENRICHS, Pagan ritual..., 2 7 , il quale avanza l'ipotesi che Frontone potrebbe esser stato consultato per l'occasione). Con il processo di Lione si arriva però attorno al 177, cioè molti anni dopo la data comunemente accettata per la morte di Frontone. Perciò la questione dell'oraf/o anticristiana è strettamente connessa con la biografia frontoniana. Accettano la data alta dell'orazione, e quindi spostano quella della morte, tra gli altri CRISTOFORI, L"oratio'..., 1 3 6 , SORDI, Le polemiche..., 4 ; FRASSINETTI, L'orazione..., 2 4 1 pensava ai fatti del 160 —166.

45

II termine è da Minucio messo in bocca a Cecilio subito prima del passo De cioè 9,5: haec sacra sacrilegiis omnibus taetriora.

convivio...,

MARCO CORNELIO FRONTONE

911

3. La vita a) Questioni cronologiche La data standard per la morte di Frontone si colloca interno al 166, dopo il ritorno di Vero dall'oriente. Le ragioni possono essere elencate come di seguito, anche se di tipo e peso diverso: non vi sono notizie esterne di una sopravvivenza; nessuna lettera è databile dopo quell'epoca; sono conservate lettere a personaggi caduti in disgrazia dopo la campagna partica come Avidio Cassio; manca la promessa storia di quella guerra; l'uomo era troppo vecchio e malandato per giungere ad età avanzata. A parte la prima ragione, che non prova questa ipotesi e non smentisce l'opposta, anche le altre sono di scarso momento. Il corpus a noi giunto è tanto parziale e formato con criteri così enigmatici che non può dimostrare l'inesistenza di altri scritti perduti; la storia della guerra partica può non esser stata stesa per molte ragioni, compreso il disinteresse per questo genere letterario o anche perché mai promessa; la conservazione di lettere a personaggi come Avidio Cassio può esser dovuta al senso di indipendenza e lealtà del retore. Infine non sono rari i casi di valetudinari che giungono a tarda età, specialmente se si curano molto e quasi si compiacciono del loro stato (BOWERSOCK, Greek Sophists..., 124). D'altra parte anche la data della nascita è incerta; di solito si pone all'anno 100 (ricavato dall'anno del consolato all'età media di un homo novus), ma potrebbe essere il 9 0 - 9 5 (CHAMPLIN, T h e Chronology..., 139, F r o n t o . . . , 1 3 7 - 1 3 8 ) o il 110, come suggerisce CRISTOFORI, L " o r a t i o ' . . . , 137. La debolezza delle ragioni a favore della morte attorno al 166 spianano la via alla collocazione dell'evento almeno a una dozzina d'anni più tardi, ritornando all'opinione del MOMMSEN, Die Chronologie..., 216. Questo consente di far rientrare nell'arco dell'esistenza di Frontone i 'nuovi decreti' di Marco Aurelio e il processo di Lione. Una data posteriore al 175 è accettata senza discutere da scritti di carattere generale, come KENNEDY, T h e Art of R h e t o r i c . . . , 592 e PENNACINI, S.V. Retori, in: VARI, Dizionario degli scrittori greci e latini III, Marzorati, Milano 1987, 1865. Questa tesi dispone di un argomento esterno, già usato dal MOMMSEN. Nel De orationibus 18 = 154,17 VAN DEN Η ο υ τ (ora 14 = 159,12 VAN DEN HOUT 1988) Frontone cita il nummus Commodi: poiché il figlio di M a r c o fu proclamato coreggente solo nel 175, Frontone deve esser vissuto almeno fino allora. I sostenitori della morte attorno al 166 devono industriarsi a demolire questo dato esterno. Gli argomenti sono di solito due: nella povertà del lessico romano, nummus può anche significare 'medaglione', il quale può esser coniato a prescindere dalla posizione gerarchica del personaggio, con la possibilità conseguente di retrodatazione alla fanciullezza del principe; il nome Commodo non indica necessariamente il figlio e successore di Marco, ma anche lo zio Vero. La tesi è sostenuta con vigore soprattutto da A. R. BIRLEY, A nickname for Commodus and the date of Fronto's death, Chiron, 2, 1972, 4 6 3 - 4 7 3 , il quale ragiona così: il 'De orationibus', in cui cade la menzione del nummus, è diretto a Marco Aurelio, che, per indicare il fratello, non poteva usare il nome Vero, che era

912

PIER V I N C E N Z O

COVA

stato anche il suo, e, per indicare il figlio, avrebbe adoperato il n o m e Sesto, usato in famiglia per ricordare il posto che il futuro imperatore occupava nell'ordine della nascita tra i numerosi figli di M a r c o . WHITEHORNE, Ad a m i c o s . . . , 4 8 1 aggiunge che il ' D e o r a t . ' sarebbe fuori posto nel 175 — 176, q u a n d o M a r c o Aurelio era impegnato in ben altre questioni che l'eloquenza (guerre, rivolte, epidemie) e si era allontanato dalla retorica (questo a r g o m e n t o urta c o n t r o il ritorno dell'imperatore all'arte del dire proprio per necessità pratiche; anche l'altro è debole, se si tien c o n t o dell'illusione frontoniana che l'eloquenza dovesse tenere un posto tra le arti di governo). E ' vero però che il ' D e o r a t . ' sembra gemello del ' D e eloquentia', che vien datato al 161 —167 e usa pure la metafora della m o n e t a 4 6 . N o n m o l t o diverse da BIRLEY le argomentazioni di CHAMPLIN, F r o n t o . . . nell'Appendice C, dedicata espressamente al p r o b l e m a , 139 — 142. L o studio del BIRLEY è soprattutto p o l e m i c o nei riguardi di BOWERSOCK, Greek Sophists . . . , 124— 126, che è forse il maggior sostenitore della datazione tarda della morte di F r o n t o n e . Agli argomenti, sopra ricordati, aggiunge infatti indizi ricavati da personaggi nominati nell'epistolario. Per es. la lettera Ad amicos 1,9 è diretta a Celio O p t a t o per raccomandargli Sardio Saturnino, il quale ricompare nella lettera successiva (a Petronio M a m e r t i n o ) con un figlio m o r t o e l'altro già operante nel f o r o : se la prima è databile al 166 —167 (anno della legazione in Numidia del destinatario), la seconda deve essere distanziata di qualche anno, ma BIRLEY (p. 471) insinua che il primo destinatario potrebbe essere un o m o n i m o del legato, e che del resto dalla lettera non si ricava tale qualifica. Si può aggiungere che dall'analisi delle due missive non si deduce tra loro un forte intervallo: nella prima i figli di Sardio Saturnino sono ancora iuvenes e adsidui di F r o n t o n e ; del superstite la seconda dice solo che è stato in forum deductus „dalla casa e dalla frequentazione" di F r o n t o n e . L'esempio basti a provare la gracilità di molti argomenti e l'incertezza di molte date che si vorrebbero fissare. L'unica certa è il c o n s o l a t o , a n n o 143. A c c a n t o a questa se ne dispongono altre in forza di riferimenti a fatti certi, che però non si c o l l o c a n o a una distanza ben determinabile dal m o m e n t o , in cui F r o n t o n e ne parla: la guerra partica ( ' D e bello Parthico', 'Principia Historiae'), la rinuncia al governo provinciale (Ad Ant. P. 8), la ricostruzione del foro di Cartagine (cui si riferisce la ' G r a t i a r u m actio pro Carthaginiensibus' fuori dal corpus), la conversione di M a r c o Aurelio alla filosofia (che però non deve esser stato un fatto improvviso), la m o r t e del nipote (ma si discute anche quale fosse dei figli di Vittorino). A questo punto il p r o b l e m a biografico si intreccia con quello dell'ordinamento cronologico delle lettere, già ricordato. Per delineare la vita di F r o n t o n e finora non si può andare m o l t o oltre la verosimiglianza. A titolo d'esempio si ricordi il quadro tracciato da CHAMPLIN ( T h e C h r o n o l o g y . . . , e F r o n t o . . . ) , uno dei pochi studiosi che in questi ultimi 46

In una delle note marginali superstiti di A 403 (per il resto illeggibile) = 134,26 — 28 Ηουτ = 136,20 - 22 VAN DEN H O U T 1988 si dice: In primis oratori cavendum

VAN DEN

ne quod novum verbum ut aes adulterinum percutiat, ut unum et id verbum noscatur

et novitate

delectet.

vetustate

MARCO

CORNELIO

FRONTONE

913

decenni abbia scritto sul retore una monografia attenta al suo vissuto. Ben definito il quadro familiare: la moglie Grazia, l'evanescente figlia Cornelia Grazia, l'importante genero Aufidio Vittorino, tre nipotini. Poche notizie sulle proprietà: un'abitazione sull'Esquilino, una villa suburbana, una in Campania, possedimenti ed eredità varie. La vita è povera di avvenimenti esterni, di cui si sia serbata notizia nelle lettere tradite, si svolge prevalentemente a Roma con poche uscite (una questura in Sicilia). Nella capitale Frontone doveva esser venuto da giovane per completare gli studi. A prima vista non è facile trovare in lui traccia della provenienza africana, che peraltro si vuole innestata su antica origine italica. b) L'Africitas Nonostante la prevalenza dei rapporti con l'oriente dell'impero, già ricordata, la sorte ha voluto che uno dei due soli frammenti pervenutici indipendentemente dall'epistolario sia una gratiarum actio in occasione della ricostruzione del foro di Cartagine. Questa e le testimonianze epigrafiche del rapporto di Frontone con l'Africa settentrionale non sono state fatto oggetto di molto studio negli ultimi trent'anni; per la prosopografia v. però la monografia di CHAMPLIN. L'art, di J . DESANGES, La Cirta de Salluste et celle de Fronton, in: VARI, L'Africa romana. Atti Conv. Sassari 1986, Dipart. Storia Univ. Sassari 1987, 133 —135 può essere ricordato per la identificazione della patria di Frontone con la Cirta di Sallustio, cioè la moderna Costantina, non Le Kef. Sulla città come crocevia di più civiltà ha scritto qualche pagina CHAMPLIN, Fronto..., 5—7, osservando che l'Africa del tempo di Frontone non è quella di Agostino, ricca di scuole (p. 18). La grande romanizzazione di questo territorio è opera degli Antonini, ma tocca il suo culmine con i Severi (A. PELLETIER, Les sénateurs d'Afrique proconsulaire d'Auguste à Gallien, Latomus 23, 1964, 527). Frontone è uno dei primi frutti di questa politica. Si occupa di Cirta, ma stando a Roma; in Ad amicos 11,11 declina il patrocinio della città. Per questa romanizzazione spirituale e culturale è difficile dire se le simpatie arcaicizzanti fossero in lui connesse con l'origine africana. L'orientamento attuale è di respingere (PENNACINI, La funzione ..., 146 n. 157) la teoria dell 'Africitas come autonomia culturale e umana 47 . M a tra le due opposte tesi, della persistenza di caratteri diversi organizzati in sistema e di completo assorbimento nella civiltà romana, oggi M . METHY, Fronton et Apulée: Romains ou Africains?, Riv. Cult. Class. Medioev. 25, 1983, 37 — 47 avanza l'ipotesi intermedia che Frontone sia un romano d'Africa, cioè che abbia una visione policentrica, con senso vivo della provincia ma romana. Cioè Frontone si pregerebbe d'essere un provinciale, ma di una provincia, che non è periferia, bensì uno dei centri di Roma. Quest'idea, suggestiva pur nella sua congettura47

Rimane fermo il rilevante contributo africano alla letteratura latina; sintesi recente in R . AVALLONE, Quid Africa R o m a e ilia quae Imperii dicitur aetate dederit, Latinitas 16, 1968, 63 — 68, che non dimentica Frontone.

914

PIER

VINCENZO

COVA

lità, può spiegare per esempio il ritardo di Frontone rispetto ai Cristiani, che s'avviavano ad accettare di R o m a l'universalità. METHY preferisce sottolineare come la concezione policentrica sostenga l'idea di una civiltà, che, liberata dall'impegno di un centralismo culturale parallelo a quello politico e quindi dell'univoca successione alla Grecia, si renda più libera e autonoma nella sua occidentalizzazione.

Bibliografia L'elenco non comprende tutti i titoli citati nel testo, ma solo quelli più propriamente frontoniani a partire dalla data della rassegna di R. MARACHE, Fronton et A. Gellius (1938 - 1964), Lustrum 10, 1965, 2 1 3 - 2 2 5 con l'integrazione di pochi titoli là non segnalati. H o contrassegnato con asterisco i lavori, che non ho potuto consultare direttamente e dei quali riporto gli estremi secondo le indicazioni dell"Année Philologique'. 1. E d i z i o n i CORTASSA G . (a c u r a di), Scritti di M a r c o A u r e l i o . L e t t e r e a F r o n t o n e , Pensieri, D o c u m e n t i , Classici greci diretti da I. LANA, U t e t , T o r i n o 1 9 8 4 . PORTALUPI F. (a c u r a di), O p e r e di M a r c o C o r n e l i o F r o n t o n e , Classici Latini diretti da I. LANA, U t e t , T o r i n o 1 9 7 4 . VAN DEN Η ο υ τ M . P. J . , M . C o m e l i i F r o n t o n i s E p i s t u l a e schedis tarn editis q u a m ineditis E . HAULERI usus iterum edidit M . P. J . v. D. HOUT, B i b l i o t h e c a S c r i p t o r u m G r a e c o r u m et R o m a n o r u m T e u b n e r i a n a , T e u b n e r , Leipzig 1 9 8 8 . 2. Lessici FONTANELLA

R.,

OLIVETTI

M.,

RAMELLA

VOTTA

M.,

Index

verborum

mit

statistischen

Aufstellungen zu ' D e n e p o t e a m i s s o ' , ' D e feriis A l s i e n s i b u s ' , ' A r i o n ' , ' L a u d e s f u m i et pulveris', ' L a u d e s n e g l e g e n t i a e ' von M . C . F r o n t o , A l p h a - O m e g a R e i h e A L V I I I , O l m s , H i l d e s h e i m - N e w Y o r k 1 9 8 1 (testo in i t a l i a n o ) . GARRONE F., MATTEA M . , R u s s o F., L e s s i c o del ' D e o r a t i o n i b u s ' e del ' D e e l o q u e n t i a ' di M . C . F r o n t o n e c o n rilevazioni statistiche ( a n c h e c o p i e c o n t i t o l o in t e d e s c o : I n d e x v e r b o r u m mit statistischen Aufstellungen zu ' D e e l o q u e n t i a ' und ' D e o r a t i o n i b u s ' von M . C. Fronto), Alpha-Omega Reihe A X X X I I , Olms, Hildesheim - N e w York

1976

(testo in inglese; r e g i s t r a t o nell'Année P h i l o l o g i q u e 1 9 7 6 s o t t o il n o m e di A . PENNACINI, autore dell'Introduzione). MATTEA M . , Statistical R e s e a r c h e s in t h e V e r b u m L e x i c a l Field o n the F r o n t o n i a n R h e t o r i c a l W o r k s ' D e o r a t i o n i b u s ' a n d ' D e e l o q u e n t i a ' , R e v . ét. lang. a n c . o r d . , 3 , 1 9 7 5 , 3 5 — 4 8 . R u s s o F., Utilisation de la mesure des l o n g u e u r s de p h r a s e s p o u r la d é t e r m i n a t i o n de la s t r u c t u r e de la P r o s e de F r o n t o n d a n s le ' D e e l o q u e n t i a ' et ' D e o r a t i o n i b u s ' , R e v . ét. lang. a n c . o r d . 2 , 1 9 7 5 , 3 1 - 4 8 . 3. Saggi ALFÖLDY G . - H A L F M A N N H . , Iunius M a x i m u s und die v i c t o r i a P a r t h i c a , Z e i t s c h r . P a p . Epigr. 3 5 , 1 9 7 9 , 1 9 5 - 2 1 2 . AMELING W . , H e r o d e s A t t i c u s I, B i o g r a p h i e , O l m s , H i l d e s h e i m - Z u r i c h - N e w Y o r k 1 9 8 3 , 7 0 - 73 e 7 4 - 7 6 e passim. AMELING W . , B a i a e , O d y s s e u s u n d M a r c

Aurel, H e r m e s 114, 1986, 380 — 382.

MARCO

CORNELIO

FRONTONE

915

ANDRÉ J . M . , Le 'De otio' de Fronton et les loisirs de Marc-Aurèle, Rev. ét. lat. 49, 1971, 228-261. ASTARITA M . L., Questioni di cronologia frontoniana, Koinonia 2, 1978, 7 - 4 2 . ASTARITA M . L., Roma e l'Oriente: la ciceroniana 'De imperio Gn. Pompei' nella lettura di Frontone, Romanobarbarica 5, 1980, 5 - 3 5 . ASTARITA M . L., Avidio Cassio, Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, Roma 1983, passim. AVALLONE R., Quid Africa Romae ilia qua Imperii dicitur aetate dederit, Latinitas 16, 1968, 63-68. BALDWIN Β., Aulus Gellius and his circle, Acta Class. South Afr. 16, 1973, 103 - 1 0 7 . BEJARANO V., Vulgarismos en la lengua de Fronton, in: VARI, Bivium. Homenaje M . Cecilio Diaz y Diaz, Gredos, Madrid 1983, 4 1 - 4 7 . BIRLEY Α., Marcus Aurelius, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London 1966, 8 6 - 1 1 1 . BIRLEY Α., Marco Aurelio, Rusconi, Milano 1990 = Marcus Aurelius. A Biography, Batsford, London 1987. BIRLEY A. R., A nickname for Commodus and the date of Fronto's death, Chiron 2, 1972, 463-473.

BOWERSOCK G. W., Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire, Clarendon, Oxford 1969, 1 2 4 126 e passim. BRUNT Ρ. Α., Marcus Aurelius and the Christians, in: C. DEROUX (a cura di), Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History, Coll. Latomus 164, Bruxelles 1980,1, 483 — 520. CASTORINA E., I 'poetae novelli'. Contributo alla storia della cultura latina nel II sec. d. C., La Nuova Italia, Firenze 1949, passim. CASTORINA E., Questioni neoteriche, La Nuova Italia, Firenze 1968, 157 — 202. CHAMPLIN E., The Chronology of Fronto, Journ. R o m . St. 64, 1974, 1 3 6 - 1 5 9 . CHAMPLIN E., Fronto and Antonine Rome, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge Mass. and London 1980. COVA P. V., Le note marginali e il contenuto dei 'Principia Historiae' di Frontone, in: VARI, Mélanges Renard, Coli. Latomus 101, Bruxelles 1969, 2 6 8 - 2 7 9 . COVA P. V., Ί Principia Historiae' e le idee storiografiche di Frontone (Collana di St. Class, dir. da F. CUPAIUOLO 9), Libreria Scientifica Editrice, Napoli 1970. COVA P. V., Problematica frontoniana, Boll. St. Lat. 1, 1971, 4 6 0 - 4 8 2 . COVA P. V., La filostorghia di Frontone, in: ID., Lo Stoico imperfetto. Un'immagine minore dell'uomo nella letteratura latina del Principato (Studi e testi dell'antichità, collana dir. da F. CUPAIUOLO 10), Società Editrice Napoletana, Napoli 1978, 1 1 4 - 1 3 1 . CRISTOFORI M . C., L"oratio' di Frontone contro i Cristiani e la persecuzione di Marco Aurelio, Riv. St. Chiesa 32, 1978, 1 3 0 - 1 3 9 . CUGUSI P., Evoluzione e forme dell'epistolografia latina nella tarda repubblica e nei primi due secoli dell'Impero, con cenni sull'epistolografia preciceroniana, Herder, Roma 1983, 2 4 1 - 2 6 4 . D'ALTON J . F., Roman Literary Theory and Criticism. A Study in Tendencies, Russell and Russel, New York 1962, 3 1 8 - 3 2 2 e 3 4 8 - 3 5 3 . DAVIES R . W., Fronto, Hadrian and the Roman Army, Latomus 27, 1968, 7 5 - 9 5 . DELLA CORTE F., Un precettore di Marco Aurelio: Frontone, Cult, e Se. 95, 1985, 6 8 - 7 4 . DESANGES J . , La Cirta de Salluste et celle de Fronton, in: A. MASTINO (a cura di), L'Africa romana (Atti IV Conv. Studi Sassari 1986), Dipartim. Storia Univ. Sassari 1987, 1 3 3 135. DESIDERI P., Dione di Prusa. Un intellettuale greco nell'Impero Romano, Bibl. di cultura contemp. 135, D'Anna, Messina —Firenze 1978, 6 - 1 6 . DIETZ K., Der pollio in der römischen Legion, Chiron 15, 1985, 2 3 5 - 2 5 2 . *DOEPP S., Fronto's critique on Lucan 1 , 1 - 7 , Resp. Litt. 9, 1986, 1 1 7 - 1 1 8 . DONDIN M . , P o u r une identification du censeur de 6 4 , R e v . ét. lat. 5 7 , 1 9 7 9 , 1 2 6 - 1 4 4 .

916

PIER

VINCENZO

COVA

FASCE S., N o t a a F r o n t o n e (ep. a c e p h . 8, p. 2 3 6 , 4 H o u t ) , M a i a 2 4 , 1 9 7 2 , 3 6 2 - 3 6 3 . FASCE S., L ' ' e r o t i k ó s ' di F r o n t o n e , in: VARI, Argentea Aetas. In m e m o r i a m E. M a r m o r a l e , Istit. Filol. C l a s s . Univ. G e n o v a 1 9 7 3 , 2 6 1 - 2 7 2 . FEDELI P., Sul prestito librario nell'antichità e sull'arte di sedurre i b i b l i o t e c a r i , Q u a d . U r b . C u l t . Class. 16 ( = N ° 4 5 ) , 1 9 8 4 , 1 6 5 - 1 6 8 . FIGURITO J . , L e o p a r d i e F r o n t o n e , in: VARI, L e o p a r d i e il m o n d o a n t i c o , Atti V. Conv. intern, studi leopardiani 1 9 8 0 , O l s c h k i , Firenze 1 9 8 2 , 4 3 7 - 4 4 9 . *GAERTNER H . , Ein K r o n p r i n z und sein Lehrer. M a r c Aurel in seiner K o r r e s p o n d e n z mit F r o n t o , in: VARI, S t r u k t u r und G e h a l t , ed. NEUKAM P., D i a l o g . Schule - W i s s . Klass. Spr. Lit. 17, Bayer. Schulbuch-Verlag, M ü n c h e n 1 9 8 3 , 2 5 - 4 9 . GAMBERALE L . , L a traduzione in G e l l i o , Edizioni dell'Ateneo, R o m a 1 9 6 9 , 181 — 185. GARZYA Α . , ree. a L. PEPE, M a r c o A u r e l i o l a t i n o , M a i a 10, 1 9 5 8 ,

333-337.

GIULIANO Α . , Il s a r c o f a g o di M . A u f i d i o F r o n t o n e , Par. Pass. 2 7 , 1 9 7 2 , 2 7 1 - 2 8 0 . GRUBE G . Μ . Α . , T h e G r e e k and R o m a n C r i t i c s , M e t h u e n , L o n d o n 1 9 6 5 , 3 1 9 — 3 2 4 . GUARINO Α . , D i v a g a z i o n i m a s s u r i a n e , L a b e o 2 0 , 1 9 7 4 , 3 7 0 — 3 7 3 . HENRICHS Α., Pagan ritual and the alleged crimes o f the early C h r i s t i a n s . A R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , in: GRANFIELD P.-JUNGMANN J . Α . , K y r i a k o n . Festschrift J . Q u a s t e n , A s c h e n d o r f f , Münster 1970, 1 , 1 8 - 3 5 . HOLFORD-STREVENS L . , E l o c u t i o novella, Class. Q u a r t . 2 6 , 1 9 7 6 , 1 4 0 - 1 4 1 . JOZEFOWICZ M . , Les jeunes années de M a r c Aurèle (dans les lettres à F r o n t o n )

(titolo

francese d e l P ' A n n é e P h i l o l o g i q u e ' ) , M e a n d e r 2 6 , 1 9 7 1 , 4 9 - 6 4 . KENNEDY G . , T h e Art o f R h e t o r i c in the R o m a n W o r l d 3 0 0 B . C . - A . D . 3 0 0 ( = ID., A H i s t o r y o f R h e t o r i c vol. II), P r i n c e t o n University Press, 1 9 7 2 , 5 9 2 - 6 0 2 . LA PENNA Α . , Per la ricostruzione delle ' H i s t o r i a e ' di Sallustio, St. it. Filol. Class. 3 5 , 1 9 6 3 , 63. LA PENNA Α . , C o n g e t t u r e sulla f o r t u n a di Sallustio n e l l ' a n t i c h i t à , in: VARI, Studia F i o r e n t i n a A l e x a n d r e R o n c o n i o b l a t a , Ediz. dell'Ateneo, R o m a 1 9 7 0 , 2 0 2 . LA PENNA Α . , Aspetti del pensiero s t o r i c o latino, E i n a u d i , T o r i n o 1 9 7 8 , 28 — 3 5 . LAURIA M . , Epistula 11,1 ( D o m i n o m e o A n t o n i n o Augusto) F r o n t o , in: VARI, Studi in o n o r e di C . S a n f i l i p p o , G i u f f r è , M i l a n o

1982-3,

11,317-332.

L E GALL J . , R o m e , ville de f a i n é a n t s ? , R e v . ét. lat. 4 9 , 1 9 7 1 ,

266-277.

L E O P A R D I G . , S c r i t t i f i l o l o g i c i ( 1 8 1 7 — 1 8 3 2 ) , a c u r a di G . PACELLA e S . TIMPANARO,

Colle-

zione Scritti di G . L. inediti o rari, a c u r a U. B o s c o e A . LA PENNA V i l i , Le M o n n i e r , Firenze 1 9 6 9 , VIH - X I I I , 4 3 - 1 0 3 e passim. MANTERO T . , Ί ' Έ ρ ω τ ι κ ό ς di Apuleio, in: VARI, Studi classici in o n o r e di Q . C a t a u d e l l a , Univ. C a t a n i a , F a c o l t à L e t t e r e 1 9 7 2 , III, 4 7 5 - 5 1 6 . MASELLI G . , C o n s i d e r a z i o n i sulla lingua di F r o n t o n e , A n n . Ling. Bari 10, 1 9 6 8 , 3 5 — 5 4 e 1 - 2 , 1970-71, 203-265. MATTIACCI S., I n t r o d u z i o n e a: I F r a m m e n t i dei ' p o e t a e novelli', Edizioni dell'Ateneo, R o m a 1982, 1 3 - 4 5 . MENNELLA G . , LO s f o n d o politico dell'epigrafe di Μ . A u f i d i o F r o n t o n e , Civ. C l a s s . Crist. 2 , 1981, 1 5 9 - 1 6 5 . MÉTHY M . , F r o n t o n et Apulée: R o m a i n s ou Africains?, Riv. Cult. Class. M e d . 2 5 , 1 9 8 3 , 37-47. PACELLA G . , L a filologia di G . L e o p a r d i tra S e t t e c e n t o e O t t o c e n t o , in: VARI, L e o p a r d i e l ' O t t o c e n t o , Atti II C o n v . intern, di Studi L e o p a r d i a n i , 1 9 6 7 , O l s c h k i , Firenze 1 9 7 0 , 455-468. PAPALAS A . J . , Lucius Verus and the hospitality o f H e r o d e s A t t i c u s , A t h e n a e u m 5 6 , 1 9 7 8 , 182-185. PARATORE W . , Il L e o p a r d i e la letteratura latina p o s t o r a z i a n a , in: VARI, L e o p a r d i e l ' O t t o c e n t o , Atti II C o n v . Intern, di Studi L e o p a r d i a n i 1 9 6 7 , O l s c h k i , Firenze 1 9 7 0 , 4 9 4 496.

MARCO

CORNELIO

FRONTONE

917

PARATORE E . , Leopardi e la letteratura latina postaugustea, in: VARI, Leopardi e il m o n d o antico, Atti V Conv. Intern, di Studi Leopardiani 1980, O l s c h k i , Firenze 1982, 215 217. PELLETIER Α., Les Sénateurs d'Afrique proconsulaire d'Auguste à Gallien, Latomus 2 3 , 1964, 511-531.

PENNACINI Α., La funzione dell'arcaismo e del neologismo nelle teorie della prosa da Cornificio a F r o n t o n e , Giappichelli, T o r i n o 1974, 1 0 3 - 1 6 5 . PENNACINI Α., Eloquenza dell'imperatore e prosa dei dotti nella dottrina di Frontone, in: VARI, R e t o r i c a e classi sociali, Atti I X Conv. Interuniv. di Studi, Quaderni Circolo Filologico di Padova 13, 1983, 3 1 - 3 8 . PESCANI P., Coniecturae atque animadversiones criticae in Frontonis opera, Edizioni dell'Ateneo, R o m a 1961. PIERI M . P., Una reminiscenza del Bellum Poenicum neviano in Frontone?, in: VARI, Studi di poesia latina Traglia, Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, R o m a I, 1979, 1 1 - 2 3 . PLANTERA Α., Osservazioni sulle commendatizie latine da Cicerone a Frontone, Annali M a g . Cagliari N S 2, 1 9 7 7 - 7 8 , 9. POLVERINI L . , Sull'epistolario di F r o n t o n e c o m e fonte storica, in: VARI, Seconda miscellanea greca e r o m a n a , Studi pubblic. dall'Istit. Ital. per la Storia Antica X I X , R o m a 1968, 436-459. PORTALUPI F., N o t a frontoniana (In memoria di Vincenzo Ciaffi), Giappichelli, T o r i n o 1974. PORTALUPI F., Un m i m o letterario in F r o n t o n e , la fabula di ' E r o e L e a n d r o ' , Riv. Cult. Class. M e d . 2 1 - 2 2 , 1 9 7 9 - 8 0 ,

83-92.

PORTALUPI F., V N o t a frontoniana, Koinonia 4, 1980, 7 - 2 3 . PORTALUPI F., 2A nota frontoniana, in: VARI, Studi in o n o r e di E. Paratore, Patron, Bologna II, 1981, 7 7 3 - 7 8 3 . PORTALUPI F., Sull'interpretazione del mito di O r f e o in F r o n t o n e , Riv. Cult. Class. M e d . 2 7 , 1985, 1 2 5 - 1 3 4 . PORTALUPI F., Umgangssprache e Kunstsprache in Frontone, Civ. Class. Crist. 10, 1989, 147-167.

POTTER D . , T h e Mysterious Arbaces, A m . J o u r n . Philol. 100, 1979, 5 4 1 - 5 4 2 . RAMÍREZ DE VERGER Α., F r o n t ó n y la segunda Sofistica, H a b i s 4 , 1973, 1 1 5 - 1 2 6 . RAMÍREZ DE VERGER Α., L a ' c o n s o l a t i o ' en F r o n t ó n : en t o r n o al ' D e nepote amisso', Faventia 5, 1983, 6 5 - 7 8 . RAMÍREZ DE VERGER Α., La 'fabula de S o m n o ' de F r o n t ó n , in: VARI, Religión, superstición y magia en el mundo r o m a n o , D e p a r t , de historia antigua, Univ. Cádiz 1985, 61 —73. RONCONI Α., Cicerone e l'arcaismo del II sec. d. C . , in: D a O m e r o a D a n t e , Scritti di varia filologia, Argalia, Urbino 1981, 2 7 3 - 2 9 1 . ROSATI G . P., N o t a a F r o n t o n e p. 136,2 VAN DEN HOUT, M a t . Discuss. 18, 1987, 2 0 5 - 2 0 6 . SÁNCHEZ SALOR E., La retórica de F r o n t ó n y los poetae novelli, in: Actas V Congreso español de estudios clásicos. Soc. español, de estud. clás., M a d r i d 1978, 4 1 1 - 4 1 6 . ^SANTIAGO J . , N o t a s sobre F r o n t ó n , in: VARI, R o m a en el siglo II, Universidad, Barcelona 1975, 1 5 5 - 1 5 8 . SCIASCIA G . , IL testamento di M a t i d i a e la sua collana di perle, in: VARI, Studi in onore di Giuseppe Chiarelli IV, Giuffrè, M i l a n o 1974, 4 0 7 5 - 4 0 9 9 . SELVATICO G . P., L o s c a m b i o epistolare tra F r o n t o n e e M . Aurelio: esercitazioni retoriche e cultura letteraria, M e m . Acc. T o r i n o II, serie V,5, 1981, 2 2 7 - 3 0 1 . SIRAGO V. Α., Involuzione politica e spirituale nell'Impero del II secolo, Liguori, Napoli 1974, passim. SKARD E . , Sallust -

Geschichtsdenker oder Parteipublizist?, Symb. Osi. 4 7 , 1972, 7 0 - 7 8 .

SORDI M . , Le polemiche intorno al Cristianesimo nel II secolo e la loro influenza sugli sviluppi della politica imperiale verso la Chiesa, Riv. St. Chiesa 16, 1962, 1 - 2 8 .

918

PIER

VINCENZO

COVA

SORDI M . , O p i n i o n e p u b b l i c a e persecuzioni a n t i c r i s t i a n e n e l l ' I m p e r o R o m a n o , in: VARI, Aspetti d e l l ' o p i n i o n e p u b b l i c a nel m o n d o a n t i c o , C o n t r i b u t i d e l l ' I s t i t u t o di S t o r i a A n t i c a dell'Univ. C a t t o l i c a , Vita e P e n s i e r o , M i l a n o 1 9 7 8 , 1 5 9 - 1 7 0 . SOVERINI P., T r a r e t o r i c a e p o l i t i c a in età i m p e r i a l e . Studi su P l i n i o il G i o v a n e , F r o n t o n e e la ' H i s t o r i a A u g u s t a ' , C L U E B , B o l o g n a 1 9 8 8 , 9 5 - 2 8 3 . STANTON G . R . , M a r c u s Aurelius, L u c i u s Verus a n d C o m m o d u s , 1 9 6 2 - 1 9 7 2 , A N R W 11,2, ed. H . TEMPORINI, B e r l i n - N e w Y o r k 1 9 7 5 , 4 7 8 - 5 4 9 p a s s i m . STYKA J . , Q u i d F r o n t o , Gellius, Apuleius de p u l c h r i t u d i n i s g e n e r i b u s in o p e r i b u s a u c t o r u m g r a e c o r u m obviis censuerint (titolo l a t i n o d e l P ' A n n é e P h i l o l o g i q u e ' ) , M e a n d e r , 3 7 , 1982, 1 2 9 - 1 4 6 . TcHERNiA Α . , A m p h o r e s et t e x t e s , d e u x e x e m p l e s , in: VARI, R e c h e r c h e s sur les a m p h o r e s g r e c q u e s , A c t e s du C o l l o q u e I n t e r n . O r g a n , p a r le C e n t r e N a t . de la R e c h e r c h e S c i e n t . , Univ. R e n n e s II, É . F r a n c . A t h è n e s 1 9 8 4 =

Bulletin de C o r r e s p o n d a n c e H e l l é n i q u e ,

suppl. X I I I , 1 9 8 6 , 3 1 - 3 6 . TIMPANARO S., F r o n t o n i a n a 1) IL F r o n t o n e di MICHIEL VAN DEN HOUT (già in A n n . Pisa 2 4 , 1 9 5 5 , 2 7 6 - 2 8 2 ) ; 2) A l t r e Postille F r o n t o n i a n e in: ID., C o n t r i b u t i di F i l o l o g i a e di S t o r i a della lingua l a t i n a , A t e n e o e Bizzarri, R o m a 1 9 7 8 , 3 4 5 — 3 8 8 e p a s s i m . TIMPANARO S., A l c u n e c i t a z i o n i di a u t o r i antichi nella c o r r i s p o n d e n z a e p i s t o l a r e di F r o n t o n e e di M a r c o A u r e l i o , in: VARI, T r a linguistica s t o r i c a e linguistica g e n e r a l e , Scritti in o n o r e di T . B o l e l l i , P a c i n i , Pisa 1 9 8 5 , 3 0 3 - 3 2 1 . TIMPANARO S., S p i g o l a t u r e f r o n t o n i a n e , in: VARI, Studi in o n o r e di A . B a r i g a z z i , E d i z i o n i dell'Ateneo II, 1 9 8 6 , 2 3 7 - 2 4 3

=

Sileno 11, 1985.

TIMPANARO S., Il 'ius o s c u l i ' e F r o n t o n e , M a i a 3 9 , 1 9 8 7 , 2 0 1 - 2 1 1 . TIMPANARO S., Il n u o v o F r o n t o n e di Van den H o u t , R i v . Fil. C l a s s . 1 1 7 , 1 9 8 9 , 3 6 5 - 3 8 2 . TRILLITZSCH W . , S e n e c a im literarischen Urteil der A n t i k e . D a r s t e l l u n g und S a m m l u n g der Z e u g n i s s e , I, D a r s t e l l u n g , H a k k e r t , A m s t e r d a m 1 9 7 1 , 6 9 - 7 2 . VAN DEN HOUT M . P. J . , P r o l e g o m e n a a: M . C o r n e l i i F r o n t o n i s E p i s t u l a e , II ed. T e u b n e r , Leipzig 1 9 8 8 , V I I I - L X X X . ^WHITEHORNE J . E . G . , F r o n t o ' s letter t o Avidius C a s s i u s , P r u d e n t i a 9, 1 9 7 7 , 4 1 - 4 5 . WHITEHORNE J . E . G . , W a s M a r c u s Aurelius a H y p o c h o n d r i a c ? , L a t o m u s 3 6 , 1 9 7 7 , 4 1 3 421. WHITEHORNE J . E . G . , A d a m i c o s 1,5 a n d 6 a n d the D a t e o f F r o n t o ' s D e a t h , in: VARI (a c. C . DEROUX), Studies in L a t i n L i t e r a t u r e a n d R o m a n H i s t o r y , C o l l . L a t o m u s

164,

Bruxelles 1980, 1 , 4 7 5 - 4 8 2 . ZETZEL J . E . G . , E m e n d a v i ad T i r o n e m . S o m e n o t e s o n S c h o l a r s h i p in the S e c o n d C e n t u r y A . D . , H a r v a r d Studies in C l a s s i c a l P h i l o l o g y 7 7 , 1 9 7 3 , 2 2 5 - 2 4 3 . ZETZEL J . E . G . , Statilius M a x i m u s a n d C i c e r o n i a n Studies in the A n t o n i n e A g e , University o f L o n d o n . Institute o f C l a s s i c a l Studies, Bulletin 2 1 , 1 9 7 4 , 1 0 7 - 1 2 3 . ZETZEL J . E . G . , T h e s u b s c r i p t i o n s in t h e m a n u s c r i p t s o f Livy a n d F r o n t o a n d the m e a n i n g of 'Emendatio', Classical Philology 75, 1980, 3 8 - 5 9 .

Aspetti e problemi delle teorie retoriche frontoniane di

P A O L O SOVERINI,

Bologna

Sommario I. La dottrina del verba quaerere

920

1. I fondamenti

920

2. Eloquentia

925

tubae similis

3. Altri valori dell'immagine della tuba II. Le matrici culturali III. Frontone e i verba

934 945

nova

955

1. Arcaismi

955

2. Volgarismi

963

3. N e o l o g i s m i

974

IV. Elocutio

novella

990

L'approccio critico nei confronti dell'opera di un autore come Frontone è stato spesso condizionato, in passato, dal giudizio più o meno pesantemente negativo che la lettura di essa suscitava in ordine alla dimensione u m a n a e letteraria — valutata per lo più men che mediocre — del personaggio. Un tale atteggiamento mentale nell'accostarsi agli scritti del Cirtense non poteva non rivelarsi metodologicamente improduttivo, e assai opportunamente ai nostri giorni la ricerca tende a concentrarsi — prescindendo da considerazioni più o meno fondate sulla statura morale, intellettuale o letteraria di questo autore — su di un più meditato approfondimento del contenuto e del significato della sua dottrina, al fine di metterne meglio in luce l'essenza e l'effettiva consistenza, e inquadrarne la portata e le implicazioni sia nel contesto dei rapporti con la società e la cultura del suo tempo, sia nella prospettiva più ampia e generale della storia di tendenze, movimenti, indirizzi che hanno caratterizzato l'età imperiale in campo linguistico, retorico, letterario. In questa sede intendiamo prendere in considerazione alcuni caratteri decisamente significativi e qualificanti delle sue teorie linguistico-retoriche, tenendo costantemente presenti gli indirizzi esegetici sviluppati dalla critica recente in ordine a un più f o n d a t o e proficuo inquadramento delle stesse nel complesso p a n o r a m a dei primi due secoli dell'impero. Nello sviluppo delle 61

A N R W II 3 4 . 2

920

PAOLO SOVERINI

problematiche prese in esame si tenderà sempre a procedere partendo direttamente da un'analisi puntuale delle esplicite enunciazioni di Frontone 1 , confrontando e discutendo dettagliatamente le interpretazioni distinte che ne sono state date, onde giungere a soluzioni che, pur necessariamente personali e soggettive, siano nondimeno in grado di recepire, per quanto possibile, gli aspetti validi e costruttivi certamente presenti in esegesi anche diverse da quelle che cercheremo qui di delineare.

I. La dottrina del verba quaerere 1. I fondamenti Il primo e più appariscente aspetto delle teorie retoriche frontoniane si riscontra certamente nella dottrina inerente ai verba. Non che manchino nel complesso dell'epistolario testimonianze dell'interesse del Cirtense per altri aspetti dell'insegnamento retorico, ma certo l'attenzione da lui prestata a questa tematica appare largamente dominante e tale da offrire una caratterizzazione peculiare all'immagine di retore e maestro che di lui ci è rimasta 2 . Richiameremo innanzitutto i connotati fondamentali di tale dottrina. A parere di Frontone i verba debbono in primo luogo essere scelti con la massima accuratezza: occorre quaerere industriosius (p. 56,24), scrupolosius (p. 57,13), sollertius (p. 59,9), indagare (p. 134,9), investigare (p. 132,21), al fine di giungere alla scelta delle parole migliori. Si tratta di una ricerca estremamente impegnativa, fondata su di un labor (pp. 56,23 s.; 132,18,20) e uno Studium (p. 132,19,20) che deve risultare costante e indefesso (p. 59,10 s. si quaerendo desistes, numquam reperies; si perges quaerere, reperies)·, non bisogna infatti arripere i verba obvia (p. 92,3 s.), o accontentarsi di quelli che ultro obveniunt (p. 134,7 s.), come aspettando a bocca aperta che il verbum necessario in linguam quasi palladium de caelo defluat (p. 134,12 s.): il grande oratore deve costantemente quaerere i verba optima, né potrà mai dirsi bonis contentus, si sint ulla meliora (p. 92,6). Il problema che si pone è dunque quello di stabilire le caratteristiche che contraddistinguono questi verba optima. Quale dovrà essere innanzitutto il 1

2

L'edizione costantemente seguita, alla quale si rimanda con l'indicazione della pagina e del rigo in occasione di ogni citazione del testo frontoniano, è quella di M. P. J. VAN DEN Ηουτ, M. C. Frontonis Epistulae adnotatione critica instructae, voi. prius, Lugduni Batavorum 1954. Soprattutto ai fini della traduzione si sono tenute in considerazione anche quelle di C. HAINES, The correspondence of M. C. Fronto etc., 2 voll., London 1 9 6 2 - 6 3 (I ed. 1919) e di F. PORTALUPI, M . C . Frontone, Opere, Torino 1974. [Sulla nuova edizione del VAN DEN Ηουτ vd. la nota finale.] Si tenga presente che anche la dottrina frontoniana relativa all'uso delle 'figure' finisce a volte per intrecciarsi nell'esposizione con la problematica attinente ai verba (cfr. ad es. pp. 9 0 , 2 1 - 9 3 , 2 6 ) .

TEORIE RETORICHE

FRONTONIANE

921

campo di scelta entro il quale quaerere? Frontone ci offre la risposta più diretta in un famoso passo (p. 134,3 — 9), ove paragona la ricerca e la scelta dei verba alla coscrizione militare: post ista omnia investigata examinata distincta finita cognita, verborum omnium, ut ita dixerim, de populo, sicut in bello ubi opus sit legionem conscribere, non tantum voluntarios legimus, sed etiam latentis militari aetate conquirimus, ita ubi verborum praesidiis opus sit, non voluntariis tantum quae ultro obvenerint utemur, sed latentia eliciemus atque ad imperandum indagabimus. L'interpretazione di questo passo, di per sé perspicua ed univoca in funzione del senso più immediato della similitudine in esso contenuta, corre peraltro il rischio di essere sottoposta ad improprie forzature allorché si tenta di ricavare dalla presenza del termine populus (impiegato metaforicamente in collegamento a verborum omnium) presunte implicazioni di carattere sociale, con più o meno esplicito riferimento alla posizione teorica di Frontone nei confronti della lingua popolare e parlata. Così il CASTORINA 3 , a sostegno dell'affermazione che Velocutio novella frontoniana „doveva consistere nell'arricchire la prosa di termini 'popolari'", richiama proprio questo passo 4 ; la P O R T A L U P I 5 interpreta l'espressione de populo come „dalla lingua usata dal popolo latino nel suo complesso, in tutti i suoi strati sociali". Non sembrano prescindere completamente dall'attribuzione a populus di valenze che esulano dall'immagine metaforica entro cui l'impiego del termine andrebbe strettamente considerato — nell'ambito della quale quest'ultimo rappresenta verba, non uomini 6 — neppure il RONCONI 7 , che interpreta „dell'intero patrimonio lessicale in uso a qualunque livello sociale", e il MASELLI 8 , che parla di „una consapevole immissione nel linguaggio colto di termini scelti da ogni categoria sociale e stratificazione linguistica", facendo riferimento al concetto di popolo „inteso non solo come volgo, ma anche e soprattutto come 'totalità della nazione'" 9 . In realtà, interpretata senza preconcetti circa le posizioni linguistiche frontoniane, l'immagine della coscrizione contrappone semplicemente il 3 4

5 6

7

8

9

61*

Cfr. E. CASTORINA, Questioni neoteriche, Firenze 1968, 181. A questo proposito A. CAMERON, Poetae novelli, HSCP 84, 1980, 157, nell'ambito del suo duro giudizio sul libro del CASTORINA, parla senza mezzi termini di "quaint mistranslation" del passo frontoniano. Cfr. F. PORTALUPI, M a r c o Cornelio Frontone, Torino 1961, 104. Occorre, in altri termini, tenere sempre presente che il „popolo delle parole" non ha nulla a che vedere con le parole del popolo. Cfr. A. RONCONI, Cicerone e l'arcaismo del II sec. d. C., in: Da O m e r o a Dante. Scritti di varia filologia, Urbino 1981, 285. Cfr. G. MASELLI, Considerazioni sulla lingua di Frontone, I, Ann. Corso Ling, e Lett. Stran. Bari 10, 1968, 52. In queste prospettive rischia forse di rimanere in o m b r a il polo importantissimo della lingua letteraria di ogni epoca, che gioca una parte essenziale nella visione frontoniana, e che certamente doveva essere presente alla coscienza del retore nell'ambito della stessa formulazione che stiamo esaminando.

922

PAOLO

SOVERINI

gruppo dei volontari al ' p o p o l o ' inteso c o m e totalità dei soggetti passibili di leva, senza evocare alcuna delle connotazioni eventualmente ascrivibili al termine, così d'ordine sociale c o m e d'altro genere; trasferita ai verba essa indicherà metaforicamente in populus verborum omnium l'intero p a t r i m o n i o di parole posseduto dalla lingua latina quale si era venuto f o r m a n d o in ogni età e in ogni f o r m a di espressione letteraria, di c o n t r o alla limitata cerchia dei verba obvia impiegati nella lingua d'uso corrente (del problema della caratterizzazione di quest'ultima alla luce delle teorie frontoniane avremo occasione di occuparci più diffusamente in seguito 1 0 ). N o n pare dunque esservi nell'enunciazione f r o n t o n i a n a alcun voluto riferimento al c o n c e t t o di livello sociale o tanto m e n o di „tradizione o r a l e " 1 1 , aspetti che possono direttamente condurre a vedere nel Cirtense un'adesione consapevole alla lingua popolare e parlata che, c o m e cercheremo di chiarire successivamente, non appare mai espressamente teorizzata nell'insieme delle dottrine retoriche frontoniane. Ciò che, c o n f o r m e m e n t e ai tratti più tipici del suo pensiero in questo c a m p o , a F r o n t o n e preme anche qui di sottolineare è la necessità di rinunciare all'uso linguistico più ovvio e banale per una ricerca impegnata e 'scientifica', atta a sfruttare tutte le potenzialità espressive effettivamente disponibili. Una volta stabilito che i verba v a n n o ricercati con la massima cura nell'ambito di tutto il c a m p o lessicale esistente, occorre fissare i criteri secondo i quali i verba stessi possano considerarsi veramente optima. F r o n t o n e in questo senso è abbastanza esplicito: carattere principale e massimamente distintivo del verbum optimum è la sua attitudine al significare, cioè ad esprimere nella maniera più c o m p l e t a , aderente e adeguata il pensiero da trasmettere. I verba che possiedono in misura s o m m a questa prerogativa sono quelli che F r o n t o n e chiama insperata atque inopinata verba, definendoli — in un f a m o s o passo (p. 5 7 , 2 4 — 28) — in questo m o d o : insperatum (se. verbum) autem atque inopinatum vero appello, quod praeter spem atque opinionem audientium aut legentium promitur, ita ut, si subtrabas atque eum, qui legat, quaerere ipsum iubeas, aut nullum aut non ita significando adcommodatum verbum aliud reperiat12; tali verba possono essere ricercati non nisi cum studio atque cura atque vigilantia atque multa veterum carminum memoria (p. 5 7 , 2 2 — 24). Il richiamo al c o n c e t t o di inopinatum, così c o m e il riferimento all'esigenza di multa veterum carminum memoria, implicano una ben precisa tendenza verso parole abbastanza lontane dall'uso corrente; con ciò peraltro F r o n t o n e non afferma che questi vocaboli siano in grado di maggiormente significare per il solo fatto di essere rari e lontani dall'impiego c o m u n e : egli non si stanca di porre in evidenza il periculum che il ricorso a tali verba possa riuscire inadatto o nocivo allo scopo, e non esita ad affermare che multo satius est 10 11

12

Cfr. p. 963 ss. Cosi la PORTALUPI, M . C. Frontone, cit., 109.

Un esplicito esempio è a pp. 8,26 —9,2: elegantissime [lacuna] ... est, ut eo sublato

aliud subdi eiusdem

'praevaricari'

usus et ponderis

non

te ais, quod possit.

...

TEORIE RETORICHE

volgaribus13

923

FRONTONIANE

et usitatis quam remotis et requisitis uti (sc. verbis), si parum

significet (p. 5 8 , 4 - 6 ) . Il fatto è che la cura precisa e rigorosa, volta ad esprimere attraverso i vocaboli anche le sfumature più raffinate del pensiero, comporta il ricorso — onde poter puntualizzare con precisione e aderenza distinte, anche se simili, accezioni di significato — a vocaboli che, nell'ambito di una visione superficiale e di una conoscenza non sufficientemente approfondita della lingua quale quella propria dell'uso corrente e banale, sono effettivamente suscettibili di assumere una connotazione di 'inatteso'. Esemplare in questo senso l'esame, che segue immediatamente la disquisizione teorica appena citata, dei vari termini che possono essere impiegati per esprimere varie sottili accezioni in cui può differenziarsi il concetto fondamentale di 'lavare' (p. 58,10 ss.); si noti in particolare il richiamo a un Plautinum verbum (elauere) al fine di individuare una minuta distinzione semantica relativa al tipo di macchia da eliminare (p. 58,20 s. si quid vero magis haeserit nec sine aliquo

detrimento exigi possit).

Questa appassionata ricerca del significare da parte di Frontone tende ad essere talora interpretata come aspirazione ad un'espressività del tutto scissa dalla sana preoccupazione di intelligibilità che caratterizzerebbe invece l'arcaismo di un Favorino e di un Gellio: sotto questo aspetto, secondo il R O N C O N I , „Frontone non guardava troppo per il sottile, preoccupato solo di eruere verbum ex alto, dissotterrare dal profondo i vocaboli, purché si adattassero ad esprimere un'idea", seguito fedelmente dal suo imperiale discepolo „preoccupato di scartare voci che non siano abbastanza espressive e non facciano spicco ... più di quanto non si preoccupi di scartare parole poco intelligibili" 14 ; e in questa prospettiva i verba remota et requisita „in tanto hanno valore" a parere del M A S E L L I - „in quanto significent, abbiano cioè una funzione espressiva, insomma colpiscano" 15 . Si tratta di una questione tutt'altro che irrilevante, anche perché coinvolge direttamente Io stesso inquadramento culturale delle teorie frontoniane. Per questa via, infatti, non è difficile giungere ad accostare Frontone ai fanatici arcaizzanti di cui ci parla Quintiliano in un noto passo (inst. 8 pr. 31), a coloro, cioè, che non si accontentano di presentare

Latina, significantia, ornata, apte collocata, in una parola di reperire ma si spingono artificiosamente oltre, e quaerunt

antiquum, remotum,

inopinatum.

aliquid,

quod

sit

optima, magis

A noi sembra che questi 'prefrontoniani', questi 'precursori' di Frontone, come sono stati talora indicati 16 seguendo un accostamento che risulta di fatto abbastanza naturale, debbano essere più opportunamente inquadrati in una prospettiva critica distinta. Il loro atteggiamento può essere giustamente inter-

13

14 15 16

Sul preciso valore che questo e il successivo aggettivo vengono ad assumere nella visione retorica frontoniana, con particolare riferimento all'ambito linguistico che in essa configurano, avremo modo di soffermarci ampiamente in seguito. Cfr. Cie. e l'arcaismo, cit., 284 s. Cfr. Considerazioni, I, cit., 46. Si veda ad es. in proposito il saggio di L. VALMAGGI, I precursori di Frontone, Ivrea 1887.

924

PAOLO

SOVERINI

pretato come „una reazione ai virtuosismi del neoasianesimo" 17 , una reazione che peraltro finisce per risolversi nella ricerca di altri virtuosismi non meno artificiosi di quelli. Quintiliano specifica chiaramente che la ricerca di costoro va al di là dell'esigenza di trovare verba significantia: in questi appassionati cultori del remotum e dell'inopinatum, che si identifica ai loro occhi ne\Yantiquum, la ricerca lessicale spinta sino all'esasperazione si esaurisce nello scopo di trovare un'espressione che possa rivestirsi dei crismi del virtuosismo fine a sé stesso e tale da suscitare, anche a costo di superare i limiti dell'equilibrio e della moderazione, l'ammirazione e il compiacimento del lettore (ibid. 33 admirabilem ... sic, quomodo prodigia miramur, et iucundam ... deformi voluptate [se. orationem])n. Ora non si può certo negare che in questa tendenza vi siano evidenti punti di contatto con le posizioni di Frontone: ad esempio, la ricerca del consenso dell'uditorio costituisce una preoccupazione non secondaria nel nostro retore, e si manifesta d'altro lato — come particolarmente sottolineato dal MARACHE19 — quale evidente punto di contatto con i caratteri propri della retorica 'moderna'. Inoltre l'aspetto erudito delle ricerche lessicali spinte sino alle minime sfumature accomuna indubbiamente Frontone con la tendenza in questione (che certamente si ricollegava ad un fiorire di interessi grammatico-antiquari testimoniati nella seconda metà del I secolo d. C.): si pensi al riferimento di Quintiliano all'attenzione ossessivamente portata sinanco alle sillabe (ibid. 31 cum singulis paene syllabis commoriendi), che ci ricorda atteggiamenti corrispondenti del Cirtense (p. 58,14 s. nolim igitur te ignorare syllabae unius discrimen quantum referai). Accanto a queste analogie riteniamo peraltro si debbano sottolineare importanti differenze. Innanzitutto ci sembra si possa riconoscere che la ricerca lessicale del nostro autore si colloca in una visuale più genuinamente 'scientifica'; Frontone mostra di sentire profondamente questo aspetto (p. 59,4 ss. nos vero, qui doctorum auribus servituti serviendae nosmet dedimus, necesse est tenuia quoque ista et minuta summa cum cura persequamur), e da esso appare caratterizzata ogni parte dell'insegnamento impartito ai discepoli. Inoltre la dimensione 'erudita' non appare fine a sé stessa né orientata allo sfoggio di sterili performances verbali: la ricerca dei verba ha sempre nella sua visione, come abbiamo visto dai passi citati, quale scopo finale il maggior grado possibile di espressività, un'espressività che, se può anche per lui trovare alimento nella scelta di ciò che è antiquum, remotum, inopinatum, è però costituzionalmente fondata su

17 18

19

Così RONCONI, Cie. e l'arcaismo, cit., 282. Diversa l'interpretazione — peraltro f o n d a t a su di una svalutazione forse eccessiva dell'attendibilità della critica quintilianea — di A. PENNACINI, La funzione dell'arcaismo e del neologismo nelle teorie della prosa da Cornificio a F r o n t o n e , Torino 1974, 78, a parere del quale questi personaggi „è ragionevole supporre che ritenessero di riuscire più significativi, cioè che „sapessero o avvertissero che il vocabolo r a r o o r e m o t o dall'uso p r o p r i o per la sua rarità e inusualità è latore di una quantità di informazione maggiore di quella che p o r t a n o i vocaboli c o m u n i e usuali". Cfr. R. MARACHE, La critique littéraire de langue latine et le développement d u goût a r c h a ï s a n t a u I l e siècle d e n o t r e è r e , R e n n e s 1 9 5 2 , 128 ss.

TEORIE RETORICHE

di un significare

FRONTONIANE

925

che tali connotazioni possono pure risultare inadeguate a

realizzare (p. 58,5 s. si parum significet).

Una volta puntualizzata la necessaria distinzione tra la ricerca frontoniana e quella di coloro che potremmo considerare gli arcaizzanti 'ad ogni costo', riuscirà più agevole comprendere come per il nostro retore raggiungere il massimo di espressività non vada affatto disgiunto — ma anzi, finisca per integrarvisi — da un'esigenza di intelligibilità e chiarezza a tutti i livelli. Frontone è ben conscio che ciò che è minus usitatum può essere sentito come

minus clarum (p. 155,1 ss.), e con ciò stesso non risultare probe

placitum20.

Soprattutto egli sa che la vera, grande eloquenza — quella cui debbono tendere i suoi regali discepoli, e che si identifica appunto con quella imperatoria — ha l'obbligo di evitare accuratamente tutto ciò che possa produrre oscurità nell'espressione delle sententiae concepite dal principe-oratore. Di capitale importanza risulta a questo proposito l'interpretazione di un famoso passo, che costituisce in pratica il frammento rimasto di una lettera, purtroppo in gran parte perduta, indirizzata a M a r c o Aurelio. Ad esso risulterà opportuno dedicare un'analisi particolarmente approfondita.

2. Eloquentia tubae similis Riportiamo innanzitutto per esteso il brano in questione:

p. 36,5 — 9 Denique idem tu, quom in senatu vel in contione populi dicendum fuit, nullo verbo remotiore usus es, nulla figura obscura aut insolenti: ut qui scias eloquentiam Caesaris tubae similem esse debere, non tibiarum, in quibus minus est soni, plus difficultatis. E' diffusa la tendenza a identificare i verba remotiora e le figurae obscurae aut insolentes che M a r c o , con l'approvazione del maestro, evita di introdurre nelle sue allocuzioni al popolo e al senato, con le caratteristiche proprie della genuina ed originale teoria retorica frontoniana, richiamando l'ovvio

confronto con i verba insperata, inopinata, remota, requisita di cui si parla in altri luoghi dell'epistolario. Ciò evidentemente comporta una certa contraddizione interna nel complesso dell'insegnamento impartito dal nostro retore, contraddizione non sfuggita alla critica, che ha cercato di spiegarla in vario modo. Accenneremo, nell'ambito degli studi più recenti, alle opinioni di due tra i più acuti critici frontoniani. Il M A R A C H E interpreta le enunciazioni di Frontone nel senso che «l'usage

du mot rare paraît réservé à des travaux d'un caractère plus nettement littéraire et où la liberté de l'auteur reste plus grande», mentre «dans un discours véritablement tenu à des auditeurs, il faut avant tout être clair». Ad un tempo però lo studioso riconosce che il retore «a voulu aussi limiter sa théorie en un autre sens et proscrire l'excès dans la recherche de la rareté» con tutti gli 20

II retore fa qui riferimento a un'arditezza semantica sallustiana.

926

PAOLO SOVERINI

abusi - soprattutto nel senso dell'oscurità espressiva — che uno sviluppo pedantistico della sua dottrina poteva fatalmente comportare 21 . A un'espressa distinzione fra due varietà stilistiche pensa anche il P E N N A C I N I che, nella differenziazione metaforica tra un'eloquentia tubae similis (che deve caratterizzare Yeloquentia Caesaris) e uri eloquentia tibiarum similis, vede adombrate „due varietà distinte dello stile sublime; quanto alla funzione, l'una, erede della tradizione dell'eloquenza politica, è specificamente strumento di governo del princeps ovvero di comunicazione della volontà del potere, l'altra, probabilmente assunta a rappresentare l'eloquenza epidittica e in genere la prosa letteraria ..., è specificamente strumento di espressione pertinente alla vita privata e individuale" 22 . A nostro parere, per l'interpretazione di questo problematico passo, può risultare opportuno e proficuo tener conto anche delle poche frammentarie parole che lo precedono nella tradizione manoscritta, e che costituiscono, assieme alla parte citata, quanto rimane leggibile della lettera in questione. Parole che rappresentano la conclusione di un periodo di cui non possediamo l'intero sviluppo, ma di cui forse possiamo intuire il contenuto generale: ... verborum honestatur, fit plane impudens atque impudica. Evidentemente Frontone aveva svolto un'argomentazione riguardante i difetti che possono rendere l'eloquenza impudens e impudica, due qualificazioni che designavano ormai tradizionalmente 23 , dal punto di vista degli avversari, l'eloquenza modernista dei rhetores novi, secondo un concetto che troviamo ancora espresso nell'epistolario a p. 18,4, dove si parla di in sententia impudentia in riferimento a un modo di esprimersi in cui l'eccesso di artificiosità (al di là dei pur necessari delenimenta che l'oratore deve saper apprestare mulcendis volgi auribus) giunge a configurarsi a scapito della recta eloquentia24; del resto proprio l'avverbio pudice - pur se nell'ambito di una metafora - caratterizza, nel famoso brano che contiene la critica allo stile di Seneca (pp. 149s.), l'atteggiamento opposto a quello - fortemente stigmatizzato - attribuito al filosofo di Cordova 25 . L'ammaestramento era verosimilmente rivolto a Marco, 21 22

23

24

25

Cfr. La critique, cit., rispettivam. 148, 147, 148. Cfr. PENNACINI, La funzione, cit., 121 η. 105 bis. Lo studioso ha ripreso di recente — in forma più breve — l'argomento, onde ricavare dal passo in questione „indicazioni sulla interpretazione che l'autore vi dà dei rapporti tra retorica, potere e classi sociali": cfr. Eloquenza dell'imperatore e prosa dei dotti nella dottrina di Frontone, in: Retorica e classi sociali. Atti del IX Convegno interuniversitario di studi (Bressanone, 1981). Quaderni del Circ. Filol. Ling. Padovano, XIII, Padova 1983, 3 1 - 3 8 (per la citaz.: 31). Cfr. per contro l'impiego di pudicus in Petr. 2,6 grandis et, ut ita dicam, pudica oratio non est maculosa nec turgida eqs. nel corso della tirata 'antimodernista' di Encolpio. Cfr. anche i brani citt. infra, n. 100. Poco appropriata ci pare perciò la traduzione della PORTALUPI, M. C. F., Opere, cit., ad loc., ove l'espressione in sententia impudentia è resa con „fatuità di pensiero". Cfr. p. 150,4 ss. Quid vero, si prandium idem utriusque apponatur, adpositas oleas alter digitis prendat, ad os adferat, ut manducandi ius fasque est, ita dentibus subiciat; alter autem oleas suas in altum iaciat, ore aperto excipiat, exceptas ut cálculos praestigiator primoribus labris ostentet? Ea re profecto pueri laudent, convivae delectentur, sed alter pudice pranderit, alter labellis gesticulatus erit. Molto significativo appare pure l'im-

TEORIE RETORICHE

FRONTONIANE

927

come testimonia l'inizio del periodo successivo (denique idem tu) che, secondo quanto si può presumere avvenisse anche in quello precedente (cfr. idem26), faceva riferimento ad un altro difetto da cui bisognava che l'eloquenza del principe si tenesse lontana, difetto che si può facilmente supporre collegato a quello sopra ricordato, o comunque sempre inquadrato nel senso di un eccesso. A questo punto dobbiamo puntualizzare un elemento fondamentale per l'interpretazione del passo, vale a dire il riconoscimento che le caratteristiche presentate quali negative per ì'eloquentia Caesaris sono da Frontone valutate come tali anche in una considerazione retorica generale. Remotiora configura quello che rimane comunque un eccesso rispetto alla giusta misura: il comparativo assoluto, in un contesto del genere, andrà interpretato nel senso di „troppo fuori dell'uso", non con un semplice «un peu étrange» come lo rende il MARACHE27 (e si noti del resto che l'unico altro luogo in cui il retore parla di verba remota [p. 58,5] è in funzione di un'argomentazione in cui l'impiego di essi, pur di per sé conforme alla teoria dei verba inopinata, compare nella prospettiva negativa del parum significare). Per quanto riguarda poi i termini obscurus e insolens, andrà notato che i due aggettivi designano sempre in Frontone (in conformità, del resto, ad una tradizione abbastanza consolidata in ambito linguistico-retorico 28 ) caratteristiche intrinsecamente negative: a p. 146,5 s. alle sententiae gravissimae et honestissimae di Marco, in cui l'altezza del pensiero trova espressione adeguata attraverso una diligente ricerca e collocazione delle parole, impreziosita dalla capacità di colorem sincerem vetustatis appingere, vengono contrapposte le rationes dei famigerati dialectici, in cui vi è semper obscuri aliquid et tortuosi-, a p. 115,20 s. il maestro loda Vero per non aver usato, in una lettera scritta al senato, alcun verbum insolens aut intempestivum (si tratta anche in questo caso di una manifestazione di eloquentia Caesaris, ma resta significativo il fatto che, come già abbiamo

26

27

28

piego di pudicus in riferimento al puro e incorruptum stile di Catone (il vero ideale frontoniano) a p. 2 0 2 , 2 7 s. Modo dulce illud incorruptum sit et pudicum, Tusculanum ac lonicum, id est Catonis et Herodoti. La resa corrente di idem con 'anche' (cfr. HAINES e PORTALUPI, edd. citt., ad loc.) ci sembra disviante nei confronti di quello che appare lo sviluppo logico del discorso di Frontone, nell'ambito del quale l'aggettivo costituisce l'elemento di collegamento che sottolinea il riferimento delle osservazioni contenute nei due periodi all'eloquenza di Marco Aurelio, verosimilmente in funzione di tematiche critiche per qualche aspetto analoghe; la traduzione più corretta ci sembra possa risultare „ancora tu", „nello stesso tempo tu". Cfr. La critique, cit., 147. Neppure le traduzioni di HAINES e PORTALUPI (cfr. edd. citt., ad loc.), che rendono l'aggettivo rispettivamente con "far-fetched" e „insolito", appaiono tenere sufficientemente conto della valenza semantica attribuibile alla forma comparativa. Sull'obscuritas operante da contraltare nei confronti della virtus della perspicuitas si consulti H. LAUSBERG, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik, München 1960, numm. 64, 132, 288, 299, 427, 530, 533, 564, 716, 844, 899, 1 0 6 7 - 1 0 7 0 ,

1 0 7 3 . Cfr. a d es. Cie. de

or. 2 , 3 2 9 ; Quint, inst. 8 , 2 , 1 2 ss. Quanto al concetto di insolens/-tia, la più o meno spiccata sfumatura negativa che esso tende ad assumere in questo campo è largamente testimoniata: cfr., tra i molti ess., Caes. anal. frg. ap. Gell. 1,10,4; Cie. Brut. 274; orat. 25; de or. 3,50; Quint, inst. 4,1,58; Gell. 1,21,4 s.; 11,7,1; 16,8,5; Mart. Cap. 5,510 ecc.

928

PAOLO

SOVERINI

visto a proposito di remotus, Frontone impieghi anche questo aggettivo solo nell'ambito di contesti in cui esso assume valore, in senso retorico, negativo: non meraviglierà di ritrovare in un adepto del Cirtense quale Gellio la condanna generalizzata dell'uso di verba ... insolentiti nel corso di un importante passo delle 'Noctes Atticae' di cui avremo occasione di occuparci più ampiamente in seguito [11,7,1 s.]). La prospettiva appena indicata, naturalmente, non si concilia con la visione secondo cui Frontone avrebbe inteso formulare due distinte dottrine retoriche in relazione a diverse esigenze espressive che, in particolare, richiederebbero o meno l'impiego di parole rare ed antiche. M a occorre tener conto che l'insegnamento del nostro retore appare costantemente rivolto alla formazione oratoria del principe, colui che può pienamente e a tutti gli effetti presentarsi come l'oratore per eccellenza, in quanto proprio questa funzione riassume in sé i connotati più significativi della sua altissima ed esclusiva investitura (si ricordi la famosa ed emblematica affermazione di p. 118,1 secondo cui Imperium ... non potestatis tantum modo vocabulum sed etiam orationis est)29. In questa direzione sono dunque concentrati gli sforzi e gli obiettivi della sua dottrina retorica, coerentemente rispecchiati nei metodi proposti agli allievi: significativamente, allorché parla (p. 89,26 s.) di una nostra secta di cui i due imperiali discepoli seguono i vestigia, il riferimento è tutto a manifestazioni di eloquentia Caesaris. Stranamente disomogeneo sarebbe dunque risultato, anche particolarmente in relazione alla posizione di maestro di corte rivestita dal Cirtense, un insegnamento retorico che distinguesse — così sembra suggerire il MARACHE nel luogo sopracitato — il caso di «un discours véritablement tenu à des auditeurs» come suscettibile di criteri espressivi del tutto diversi da quelli considerati dal docente come i migliori. Per la verità il MARACHE non insiste troppo su questo punto, sottolineando anche l'aspetto di autolimitazione della propria teoria che sarebbe da considerare compresente nelle enunciazioni frontoniane che abbiamo esaminato, il tutto naturalmente nell'ambito della particolare ottica che caratterizza l'indagine dello studioso, orientata a vedere comunque nelle dottrine del retore quale elemento dominante la ricerca della rarità, più che dell'espressività, del dettato. La direzione critica volta invece a riconoscere in termini ben definiti la teorizzazione da parte di Frontone di un duplice tipo di eloquenza, caratterizzato dai riferimenti metaforici alla tuba e alle tibiae, trova espressione compiuta e congruente nel citato saggio del PENNACINI. Sarà bene seguire un po' più da vicino l'originale e stimolante argomentazione ivi svolta. La contrapposizione tuba-tibiae viene interpretata dallo studioso italiano in questi termini: „di fronte alla tuba, strumento produttore di eccitazione e di spavento, la tibia, strumento produttore di tranquillità e di piacere; ma anche: di fronte alla tuba, strumento di una comunicazione razionalizzata di informazioni già formulate in un cifrario certo e invariabile, una tibia strumento di espressione 29

Si legga, oltre alla lettera da cui è tratto il passo citato, l'importante brano di p. 1 3 6 , 4 s s . sulla funzione determinante rivestita dall'eloquenza nell'esercizio, da parte del principe, dei suoi più significativi compiti e prerogative.

TEORIE RETORICHE

FRONTONIANE

929

di stati psichici irriducibili ad uno schema razionale e comunque non razionalizzabili, almeno nello spazio di quella cultura, ma, insieme, rigorosamente insieme, strumento per governare e contenere tali stati psichici in una condizione e area di non pericolosità" 30 . Mentre per l'interpretazione dell'impiego metaforico di tuba vengono chiamate in causa le connotazioni relative da una parte alla potenza e forza suscitatrici di paura, dall'altra alla tecnica militare di trasmissione dei segnali, per la singolare e dotta esegesi delle connotazioni assunte dall'uso metaforico di tibiae lo studioso fa riferimento per un verso al carattere 'patetico' e 'orgiastico' attribuito al flauto in un passo aristotelico, e confermato del resto dal suo legame con i riti bacchici e quelli della Magna Mater 3 1 , per l'altro alla funzione di moderare e sedare l'eccitazione degli animi che lo stesso strumento era in grado di svolgere, secondo una testimonianza tucididea riportata da Gellio, in ambito militare 32 . L'eloquentia tibiarum similis rappresenterebbe dunque quella che Frontone sentiva come più congeniale, in quanto in grado di venire incontro all'insoddisfazione linguistica dello scrittore, bisognoso di esprimere „sentimenti, emozioni, stati psichici evidentemente non comuni, rari, eccezionali o più profondi o più sottili o più intensi di quanto possano descrivere o comunicare i mezzi linguistici altamente formalizzati della tradizione oratoria illustre": un'insoddisfazione linguistica che „fornisce una motivazione funzionale della presenza di vocaboli rari, inconsueti, antichi" 33 . Lasciando per il momento da parte il tema della presunta insoddisfazione linguistica frontoniana — a proposito della quale ci sembra si rendano necessarie alcune puntualizzazioni, che cercheremo di formulare motivatamente più oltre —, vorremmo innanzitutto soffermarci a considerare una conseguenza immediata che scaturisce dalla prospettiva critica che viene così delineata. L'eloquentia tibiarum similis, col suo recepire verba remotiora e figurae obscurae aut insolentes, apparirebbe come „diretta a pochi e raffinati uditori", ai „circoli dei pochi, degli intenditori, degli addetti ai lavori", così che nel concetto stesso alla base di essa si potrebbe avvertire „un cenno ad una dottrina dell'espressione difficile" — con rinvio „alla teoria alessandrina (callimachea) della poesia" —, che renderebbe possibile un confronto con la „poetica dell'oscurità" riconoscibile in un autore come Persio; analogamente, infatti, a quanto operato da quest'ultimo in ambito poetico, Frontone muoverebbe „in direzione di una teoria della prosa dove incremento e intensificazione di espressività sono assicurati dalla difficoltà dell'intelligenza del testo" 34 . A 30 51 32 33 34

Cfr. La funzione, cit., 125. Si veda pure Eloquenza dell'imperat., cit., 35. Cfr. ibid., 122 e n. 110. Il luogo aristotelico è Polit. 1342 A 3 2 - B 6 . Cfr. ibid., 124. Il luogo gelliano è 1,11,1-5. Ibid., 126 e 130 s. Ibid., 126 e n. 125; 120 e n. 104. Per una più completa configurazione della 'classe sociale' cui si riconnetterebbe questo tipo di eloquenza cfr. ID., Eloquenza dell'imperat., cit., in partie. 37: „Letterati, retori, filosofi, che provengono (come Frontone e Apuleio) da questo ceto [il riferimento è a ceti agiati urbani, borghesie cittadine o aristocrazie municipali], sono proprio i latori del nuovo stile àeW'elocutio novella, il linguaggio nel quale sono scritte le opere ad esso dirette, in qualche modo summae della cultura classica e sistemazioni della nuova sensibilità etico-religiosa; nel quale sono composte le

930

PAOLO SOVERINI

nostro parere risulta estremamente problematico poter conciliare l'elaborazione da parte del Cirtense di una 'teoria dell'oscurità' con la sua fondamentale aspirazione al significare (esigenza cui è disposto, come già visto, a sacrificare 10 stesso impiego dei verba remota e requisita), sia tenendo conto dell'importanza che questo concetto assume nell'ambito della teoria classicistica della perspicuitas, cui il nostro retore sembra volersi richiamare più volte (relativamente ad essa cfr. particolarmente un es. come Quint, inst. 8,2,9 proprie dictum, id est, quo nihil inveniri possit significantius, a proposito della proprietas, qualità essenziale della perspicuitas), sia del legame che, come già abbiamo avuto modo di sottolineare, egli stesso non manca di stabilire con decisione tra esso e le irrinunciabili esigenze di intelligibilità (p. 58,3 s. ne ... parum dilucide ... conlocetur [sc. verbum]·, cfr. Cie. part. 19 dilucidum fiet usitatis verbis propriis). Si consideri del resto che in un autore come Persio l'oscurità si rapporta, oltre che aH'„esperienza dell'alessandrinismo astruso" 35 , anche all'influsso stoico, con riferimento, ad esempio, alle teorie di Crisippo sull'anfibolia 36 : ma proprio in Frontone leggiamo la critica ai verba contorta et fidicularia (p. 140,1 s.), all"oscurità' e 'tortuosità' (p. 146,5 s.) propri della 'dialettica' stoica. N o n sarà forse casuale che ad affermazioni secondo le quali 11 Cirtense avrebbe dato inizio „ad un uso di scrivere e parlare in modo da attenuare e rendere non agevolmente intendibile il significato" 37 , corrispondano, ad opera di chi ne è autore, notevoli forzature nell'interpretazione del testo di passi essenziali 38 .

35

36

37

38

conferenze e le lettere che i membri di questo ceto si indirizzavano". Ci sembra peraltro vada osservato che le lettere di Frontone indirizzate a personaggi diversi da quelli della famiglia imperiale sono in numero minimo relativamente al complesso dell'epistolario, e che le ipotizzabili teorizzazioni del nuovo stile sono unicamente riscontrabili tra quelle dirette ai reali discepoli. Cfr. E. PASOLI, Note sui componimenti d'argomento letterario di Persio, Paideia 23, 1968, 282 s. [ = Tre poeti latini espressionisti: Properzio, Persio, Giovenale, a c. di G. C. G I A R D I N A e R. C U C C I O L I M E L L O N I , Roma 1982, 91 ss.], citato da P E N N A C I N I , La funzione, cit., 126 η. 125. Per il riferimento alla poetica di Persio vd. anche n. 125. Cfr. E. PASOLI, Attualità di Persio, in: ANRW II 32,3, ed. W. HAASE, B e r l i n - N e w York 1985, 1833 s. [ = Tre poeti, cit., 411], ove si legge fra l'altro che „la fede stoica di Persio e il suo speciale interesse per Crisippo ... già di per sé rendono plausibile che egli, per temperamento portato alla poesia 'verbale' di stampo alessandrino, fosse indotto a sfruttare l'ambiguità al fine di ottenere maggiore pregnanza espressiva". Cosi S. JANNACCONE, Appunti per una storia della storiografia retorica nel II secolo, GIF 1 4 , 1 9 6 1 , 2 9 0 , che giunge a proporre un accostamento a V E R L A I N E e al movimento del simbolismo. Si veda al contrario la lettera di Marco Aurelio (pp. 4 4 , 3 4 — 4 5 , 2 4 ) in cui Frontone è lodato perché insegna al discepolo a verum dicere, senza far ricorso a aliquid ancipitis ... vel obliqui. Significativo in questo senso il commento della JANNACCONE, Appunti, cit., 297, al passo di p. 58,3 s. multo satius est volgaribus et usitatis quam remotis et requisitis uti, si parum significet: „Frontone, dunque, è d'accordo nel pensare che è meglio usare parole comuni che rare, se c'è poca differenza di significato" (in verità tale interpretazione risale allo HAINES, ed. cit., ad loc. ["if there is little difference in real meaning"] che peraltro aggiungeva in nota la corretta alternativa: "if the word be inadequate"; giusta la linea e s e g e t i c a , a n c h e se n o n f e l i c i s s i m a la r e s a , d e l l a PORTALUPI, e d . c i t . , a d l o c . : „ u n v o c a b o -

TEORIE RETORICHE FRONTONIANE

931

La difficoltà che suscita, dal nostro punto di vista, il riconoscimento della teorizzazione frontoniana di un'eloquentia tibiarum similis, con le connotazioni funzionali relative ad una presunta ricerca di oscurità/inintelligibilità a fini espressivi, ci costringe naturalmente ad un'analisi del passo in questione che possa fornire una diversa interpretazione e caratterizzazione dell'opposizione metaforica tuba-tibiae in riferimento all'eloquenza. In effetti risulta tale la quantità delle possibili implicazioni legate all'uso metaforico dei due termini che, a nostro avviso, appare necessaria una scelta metodologica tra esse. In particolare ci sembra piuttosto problematica la contrapposizione del valore metaforico di tuba quale strumento di comunicazione di informazioni in un cifrario ben determinato, a quello di tibiae quale strumento di espressione (ma questa qualificazione può lasciare fondatamente perplessi 39 ) di stati psichici irrazionali, valori che riconducono a due aree semantiche e concettuali totalmente diverse (quella militare e quella patetico-orgiastica). Omogenee risulterebbero invece le connotazioni riferite all'impiego di entrambi gli strumenti in ambito militare, l'uno al fine di produrre eccitazione e spavento, l'altro calma e moderazione: ma un'implicazione di questo genere — pur a priori non escludibile - appare di fatto troppo estranea all'impostazione tematica delineata dall'autore per il confronto in questione (centrato sul motivo della corrispondenza inversa sonus-difficultas), per entrare significativamente in gioco nell'interpretazione della metafora stessa. In realtà, se rimaniamo aderenti allo sviluppo esplicito del discorso frontoniano, potremo rilevare che l'unica chiave di spiegazione della metafora da esso espressamente suggerita è quella incentrata sulla possibilità di percezione maggiore o minore che l'uso dei due strumenti è in grado di produrre nei confronti degli uditori: a minor potenza di suono corrisponde evidentemente maggiore difficoltà di percezione. In funzione della distinzione di due diversi tipi di oratoria, la metafora permetterà dunque di configurare da un lato un'eloquenza caratterizzata da doti di nitidezza e comunicabilità, dall'altro un'eloquenza in cui la tendenza all'oscurità porta ad un offuscamento delle qualità suddette. Il concetto di sonus non risulterà qui evocato — conformemente ad implicazioni che pure

39

lo ... che vuol dir poco"); cfr. anche, ibid., l'interpretazione secondo cui a p. 146,10 ego immo volgaribus et obsoletis (sc. verbis utor) „Frontone si vanta di usare verba obsoleta et volgaria, che sono elementi essenziali della sua dottrina àtW'elocutio novella", che non tiene in alcun conto l'intonazione di ironica falsa modestia che, come avremo modo di vedere in seguito analizzando approfonditamente il passo in questione, risulta qui insita nell'atteggiamento con cui il nostro retore pronuncia tali parole (vd. infra, p. 968 s.). Riguardo a quest'ultimo aspetto occorrerà infatti puntualizzare che il flauto appare presentato dalle fonti non tanto come strumento „di espressione" degli stati in questione, quanto 'suscitatore' di essi (e non per propria caratteristica instrinseca, ma in relazione ai ritmi su di esso impiegati, in grado, come quello frigio, di eccitare le menti alla follia, o al contrario, come quello spondaico, di placare gli animi concitati: cfr. rispettivam. Quint, inst. 1,10,33 e 32): proprio l'impossibilità di mettere in luce una connotazione intrinseca e specifica inerente in senso reale al flauto sul diretto piano della trasmissione di un messaggio o segnale, rende problematica la possibilità di correlazione con l'immagine della tromba latrice dei segnali militari e l'utilizzazione stessa di quest'ultima per l'interpretazione della metafora.

932

PAOLO

SOVERINI

di fatto può talvolta assumere in ambito retorico - in funzione stilistica 40 , ma, rapportato in parallelo inverso a quella di difficultas nella percezione del messaggio, assumerà una connotazione metaforica relativa alla pienezza e limpidezza espressiva che può diversamente contraddistinguere, in relazione alla sua maggiore o minore presenza, il messaggio stesso 41 . Accogliendo questa chiave di lettura potremo riconoscere un collegamento metaforico tra il maggior suono della tuba e l'impiego di verba che risultino in primo luogo significantia; tali verba, che non potranno essere remotiora — per non correre appunto il rischio di parum significare - , e che andranno impiegati senza indulgere a figure troppo astruse per risultare intellegibili (cfr. p. 59,23 — 25 sit sane audax orator, ... sed a significando quod vult eloqui nusquam digrediatur), sono in grado di produrre un'efficacia espressiva che costituisce la migliore garanzia di comunicabilità nei confronti dell'uditorio. In una prospettiva di questo tipo non dovremo evidentemente più preoccuparci di ricercare ηeìì'eloquentia tibiarum similis la teorizzazione frontoniana di un diverso tipo di eloquenza che, pur caratterizzato dagli aspetti più propri della dottrina retorica del Cirtense, verrebbe qui sconsigliato al discepolo per eccellenza: in conformità a quella che appare essere la tematica insita nello sviluppo logico del brano — alla luce dell'argomentazione complessiva che doveva essere svolta nella lettera, quale si può ragionevolmente ricostruire allargando la considerazione alle parti frammentarie rimaste —, potremo vedere in essa la configurazione di un ulteriore difetto, talvolta rimproverato allo stesso Marco, legato non al quaerere verba, magari rari e lontani dall'uso corrente, ma bensì alla indiligentia quaesiti verbi, considerata absurda in quanto produttrice di oscurità e aliena dal significare (p. 5 9 , 2 6 - 6 0 , l ) 4 2 . In 40

41

42

In relazione a l l ' a b b a s s a m e n t o o i n n a l z a m e n t o della qualità dello stile; cfr. PENNACINI, La f u n z i o n e , cit., 121 η. 105 bis. Si noti nello stesso F r o n t o n e la dizione personantis (nell'ambito di un b r a n o [p. 143,19 ss.] i m p r o n t a t o a u n a diversa c o n f i g u r a z i o n e m e t a f o rica, del quale a v r e m o m o d o di occuparci d i f f u s a m e n t e in seguito [cfr. i n f r a , p. 934ss.]) in riferimento allo stile alto in c a m p o poetico. N o n sarà forse inutile, anche se in via solo secondaria, osservare c o m e l'idea di ' s u o n o ' , in a m b i t o retorico, possa c o n n o t a r s i di interessanti implicazioni in una prospettiva per certi aspetti p a r a g o n a b i l e , anche se al di f u o r i della chiave m e t a f o r i c a , a quella or ora delineata. In un i m p o r t a n t e b r a n o ciceroniano (de or. 3,150) si puntualizza che in propriis igitur (sc. verbis) illa laus oratoris ut abiecta atque obsoleta fugiat, lectis atque inlustribus utatur, in quibus plenum quiddam et sonans inesse videatur. l'impiego di verba propria e, n e l l ' a m b i t o di questi, inlustria (per il valore dell'aggettivo cfr., nello stesso Cicerone, p a r t . 20 est ... plus aliquanto inlustre quam illud dilucidum. Altero fit ut intellegamus, altero ut videre videamur e fin. 3,40 verbis inlustribus et id, quod vis, declarantibus, dove il riferimento è alla brillante efficacia c o m u n i c a t i v a , c o n n o t a z i o n e più c o n f a c e n t e al caso in questione che non quella di ' n o b i l t à ' , p u r presente in altri esempi), costituisce m o t i v o di lode per l ' o r a t o r e in q u a n t o in essi risulta avvertibile u n a particolare 'pienezza' e ' s o n o r i t à ' , il t u t t o n e l l ' a m b i t o di un'espressività f o n d a t a su aderenza ed evidenza semantica. La considerazione che, in linea generale, un uso m e t a f o r i c o di tibial-ae ad indicare un genere letterario ci riconduce i m m e d i a t a m e n t e al c a m p o della poesia (con particolare riferimento alla lirica: cfr. gli ess. citati e discussi d a P E N N A C I N I , La f u n z i o n e , cit., 121

TEORIE

RETORICHE

FRONTONIANE

933

conclusione: artificiosità eccessiva che si risolve in impudentia da un lato, dall'altro mancanza di adeguata cura e studio nello scegliere parole lontane dall'uso e nell'impiegarle in figure, con conseguente produzione di oscurità espressiva e difficoltà di comunicazione, appaiono qui delineati come i difetti da cui deve guardarsi Veloquentia Caesaris, cioè quella che per Frontone rappresenta la vera, grande eloquenza; difetti che, seppure incorporando e mescolando caratteri formalmente riconducibili a tendenze retoriche distinte, quali la neoasiana e l'arcaizzante, saranno nella sostanza da ricollegare a quella comune degenerazione cui l'oratoria peggiore del I sec. d. C. era approdata nel senso della 'cacozelia' stigmatizzata da Quint, inst. 8,3,57 corrupta oratio in verbis maxime impropriis, redundantibus, sion obscura, compositione fractal, vocum similium aut puerili captatione consistiti.

comprehenambiguarum

Se la nostra interpretazione è fondata, la dottrina frontoniana appare essenzialmente rivolta alla delineazione di una sola grande eloquenza, quella che dovrà essere per i suoi regali discepoli lo strumento per eccellenza del loro ruolo imperiale, intrinsecamente ad essa connesso 4 5 . In questa direzione saranno quindi da intendere orientati gli aspetti anche più tipici delle teorie elaborate dal nostro retore, a meno di non dover riconoscere significative incongruenze nel complesso delle sue affermazioni: ad esempio, ove si voglia identificare in un'eloquentia tibiarum similis quella che «specchierebbe in sé le caratteristiche intrinseche dell'ideale retorico frontoniano, e quindi di quell'e/ocMi/o novella comunemente riguardata dalla critica come la definizione ad esso attribuita dal retore stesso 4 6 , occorrerà spiegare come mai il maestro

n. 105) può fondatamente suggerire che nell'immagine in questione sia pure compresente una critica all'impiego troppo ampio e indiscriminato nell'eloquenza moderna di procedimenti — quali il ricorso alle arditezze e oscurità espressive — per natura propri della poesia stessa e normalmente solo ad essa consentiti (cfr. Quint, inst. 8,1,25 a corruptissimo quoque poetarum figuras seu translationes mutuamur, tum demum ingeniosi scilicet, si ad intelligendos nos opus sit ingenio·, con riferimento allo stesso Frontone, si veda infra, p. 948 s., la trattazione relativa al famoso brano di p. 4 5 , 2 6 s. Quod poetis concessum est eqs.). 43 44

45

46

Cfr. in Frontone (p. 18,3) in compositionis ... mollitia. Cfr. anche inst. 2,3,9. Cfr. in precedenza la critica formulata dallo stesso Seneca, nella famosa ep. 114 sugli aspetti morali dello stile, nei confronti dell 'animus che ... etiam in oratione quod novum est quaerit, et modo antiqua verba atque exsoleta revocat ac proferì, modo fingit et ignota ac deflectit, modo id quod nuper increbruit, pro cultu habetur audax translatio et frequens eqs. (10 s.). Ciò non esclude, naturalmente, che M a r c o progredisca - con pieno compiacimento del maestro - in omni genere dicendi, compreso quello delle epistulae remissiores et Tullianae (p. 1 9 , 1 - 5 ) , evidentemente in virtù dell'uniforme e costante applicazione dei principi retorici instillatigli dal maestro. Una diversa interpretazione della famosa espressione appare peraltro ammissibile, se non addirittura preferibile, c o m e potrà risultare dall'esame delle più recenti esegesi del passo in questione, non sempre conformi alla communis opinio dominante (cfr. infra, p. 9 9 0 s.).

934

PAOLO

SOVERINI

rimproveri in un'occasione a M a r c o (p. 146,13 - 1 5 : l'interpretazione è quella volgata) di non aver improntato a quest'ultima varie parti di una sua orazione — con la quale siamo pienamente in ambito di eloquentia Caesaris, dunque tubae (non tibiarum) similis - . Andrà peraltro sottolineato che di volta in volta nel corso dell'epistolario l'accento può risultare posto su distinti aspetti della visione frontoniana, a seconda del particolare interesse didattico che impronta un certo contesto. Proprio questo potrà dare ragione del fatto che la metafora della tuba47, volta generalmente, nell'ambito retorico, ad indicare, in conformità all'idea di forza e potenza, lo stile alto e sublime, si connoti poi, nel ripetuto impiego che Frontone ne fa in contesti differenti per orientamento, impostazione e svolgimento dell'argomentazione, di sfumature ed implicazioni diverse. Se nel passo appena esaminato la maggiore potenza della tuba nei confronti delle tibiae si connotava in relazione al carattere maggiormente chiaro, distinto ed efficace del suono, e quindi ad una sua migliore percettività, individuando, fuor di metafora, un'elocutio tendente alla massima evidenza ed intelligibilità, così avremo modo di cogliere, in altri brani che chiamano in causa la stessa immagine in contrapposizione ad altri suoni, differenti valenze in ambito retorico, tali da offrirci una visione più completa e comprensiva dei vari aspetti della teoria frontoniana. Sarà opportuno dunque dedicare anche a questi passi un esame specifico e approfondito.

3. Altri valori dell'immagine della

'tuba'

Consideriamo innanzitutto il riferimento alla tuba in un brano piuttosto complesso, che riporteremo prendendo in considerazione un contesto più ampio di quello solitamente considerato: p. 143,3 — 25 At vocis modulatae amatores primas audisse feruntur vernas aves luco opaco concinentes. Visi sunt perdulcia audire, avium murmura prosus sine discrimine prodere, etiam alibi plerique crapula affecti. Vel pastores suis modulati recens repertis fistulis se atque pecus oblectabant. Visae fistulae longe avibus modulatiores et se(datiores). Videbaris mihi ridenter declarare ... signum inceptui canere ... ου (LENAERTS suggests σίτου) before λίχνος. I agree with L E N A E R T S ' conclusion that this « confirme l'impression que, pour Lucius, nous disposons d'une tradition manuscrite fermée avec un MS. très proche de l'archétype de tous nos manuscrits». (Incidentally this new piece of evidence should help to vindicate me against the strictures of VAN T H I E L who complains, op. cit. vol. 2, p. viii of my remissness in not reporting the readings of more recentes. I remain unrepentant; late mss. which reveal themselves as deteriores passim throughout the considerable Lucianic corpus are unlikely to be much better in 'Asinus'. For details of other variants in this fragment see O . C . T . vol. iv, ix —X.) J. COENEN, Lukian Zeus Tragodos, Überlieferungsgeschichte, Text und Kommentar, Beiträge zur Klassischen Philologie, Band LXXXVIII, Meisenheim am Glan, 1977, is a work of value and quality. The text is beautifully printed, established on sound principles and supplemented by a clear and accurate apparatus criticus. One interesting innovation is C O E N E N ' S decision to print his text without speakers' names to stress the fact that in C O E N E N ' S view (on the whole I agree with him) a Lucianic dialogue should be regarded as Ein-Mann-Theater. There are over 100 pages of excellent commentary, but C O E N E N ' S most valuable contribution to scholarship is in his work on the manuscript tradition, to which the first 150 pages are devoted. C O E N E N gives many accurate details of the 39 mss. containing this work, often adding useful details absent from the pages of N I L É N , M R A S , WITTEK and myself. 'Jup. Trag.' was a good choice for such a careful and detailed critical edition, because it is one of the works with a traditio duplex where the best witnesses of the β tradition are missing. C O E N E N ' S apparatus is superior to my own, on which I was working simultaneously with him, in that it gives readings of more of those presumed witnesses of β, on which faute de mieux we have to rely, than I do. In particular C O E N E N shows the importance of Berolin., Phillips 1515, a ms. cognate with P. C O E N E N ends his work on the mss. with a plausible stemma codicum, though of course it only applies to c Jup. Trag.'; the relationship of all but a few of the Lucianic mss. to each other varies from work to work. M . D. M A C L E O D , Syntactical Variation in Lucian, Glotta LV, 1977, pp. 215 — 222, argues that the evidence of the best mss. suggest that L. occasion21

91

See p. 1404 seq. for my separate excursus on 'The O x f o r d Text and its Critics'. A N R W II 3 4 . 2

1400

MATTHEW

D.

MACLEOD

ally varies the syntax of verbs which one would expect to be parallel, as being connected by καί, άλλα, ... μέν ... δέ, etc. Twenty-nine passages are quoted in many of which editors have wrongly restored syntactical symmetry by overriding the evidence of the mss. An appendix lists 37 passages in the Lucianic Corpus in which the mss. suggest that he used the simple optative, without äv, in apodosi. M . D . M A C L E O D , Luciani Opera, Tomus iii, O x f o r d , 1 9 8 0 . H.-G. N E S S E L R A T H , G n o m o n L V I , 1984, 5 7 7 - 6 0 9 reviews O . C . T . i - i i i , vide infra, p. 1407. J. B. ITZKOWITZ, Prolegomena to a new Text of Lucian's Vitarum Auctio and Piscator, Spudasmata XXXVIII, Hildesheim 1986, (a revised version of part of his original University of Michigan dissertation published in microfilm in 1974) is an accurate and detailed study offered by way of an introduction to a forthcoming Teubner text of the t w o works. H e describes thirty-nine codices containing one or both of the works, analysing their readings in a sample (approximately 10% ) of the passages where β and γ differ. His general conclusions about the relative value of mss. for these t w o works are hardly surprising, though it is useful to k n o w that by and large they agree with those of M R A S for the corpus in general, which I followed in these two works as usually elsewhere. T h u s the 'pillars' of his proposed 'Teubner' apparatus for 'Piscator' will be precisely those I used in my O.C.T. of 1974, ΦΓΩΒΙ], while for 'Vitarum Auctio' he differs f r o m me mainly in regarding C as the next best witness after U for β, and in correctly preferring U to Γ 3 as evidence for β. His apparatus is more detailed than mine and occasionally more accurate, but, though the t w o works he chose to edit are a natural pair and make good reading, he might have performed a more useful service to scholarship had he chosen to edit works where the β tradition seems to exist but is not represented by the excellent Β a n d / o r U. See my review in 'Journal of Hellenic Studies', CVIII, 1988, 2 3 6 - 7 . M . D. M A C L E O D , Luciani Opera, Tomus iv, O x f o r d , 1987, reprinted with revisions 1990. H.-G. N E S S E L R A T H , G n o m o n LXII, 1990, 4 9 8 - 5 1 1 reviews O.C.T. iv, vide infra, p. 1414.

VII. Recent Work (1930-1990) (by

on some Byzantine Imitations

BARRY BALDWIN,

of Lucian

University of Calgary)

General Surveys and Discussions BALDWIN,

B.,

Some Aspects of Byzantine Satire, Byzantinische Forschungen V I I I , 1982, 1 9 - 2 8 (reprinted in: I D . , Studies on Late R o m a n and Byzantine History, Literature and Language, Amsterdam, 1984, 4 5 9 - 4 6 8 )

LUCIANIC STUDIES SINCE

HUNGER, H., IRMSCHER, J.,

ROBINSON, C , SOKOLOVA, T. M . , SOKOLOVA, T. M . ,

ZAPPALA, M . ,

1930

1401

Die Hochsprachliche profane Literatur der Byzantiner, Munich, 1978, II. 1 4 9 - 1 5 8 Römische Satire und Byzantinische Satire, Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Universität Rostock, XV, 1966, 441 446 Lucían, London & Chapel Hill, 1979, 6 8 - 8 0 Vizantijskaja Satira, Vizantijskaja Literatura, Moscow, 1974, 1 2 2 - 1 5 8 Stranica iz istorii vizantijskoj satiry, Anticnost i sovremennost (Festschrift F. A. Petrovskogo), Moscow, 1972, 387 — 395 Lucían of Samosata in the Two Hesperias: An Essay in Literary and Cultural Translation, Potomac, Maryland, 1991, 2 0 - 3 1

'Charidemos' The most recent critical text is that of M . D. MACLEOD in his Oxford Classical Texts series edition of Lucían, v o l . 4 , Oxford, 1987, 3 9 0 - 4 0 4 ; see also the same scholar's text and notes in the Loeb Lucian, London & Cambridge, M a s s . , 1967, v o l . 8 , 4 6 7 - 5 0 3 . There is also a separate edition by R. ANASTASI, Bologna, 1971. The date of this limp pastiche is unknown und unknowable. ANASTASI regards it as late Byzantine, probably the period of the Macedonian Renaissance. ROBINSON (241), giving no reason, thinks it may be early Byzantine. An earlier date cannot be ruled out. See further ANASTASI, Appunti sul Charidemus, Siculorum Gymnasium XVIII, 1965, 259 — 283, also 'Sul testo del Philopatris e del Charidemus', Siculorum Gymnasium X X , 1967, 111 - 1 1 9 . The piece was undeservedly popular with Humanist translators; cf. ZAPPALA (128, 136, 2 0 0 , 2 0 1 ) .

'Philopatris' MACLEOD includes a (367 — 389) and Loeb (413 by R . ANASTASI, Messina, Comnenus ( 1 0 5 7 - 1 0 5 9 ) ,

text in the aforementioned volumes of his Oxford — 465) editions of Lucian. There is a separate edition 1968, who assigns the piece to the reign of Isaac I a hypothesis that tempts but does not altogether

c o n v i n c e ROBINSON ( 7 3 - 7 6 ) . MACLEOD ( L o e b 413) f o l l o w s S. REINACH,

La

question du Philopatris, Revue Archéologique XCIII, 1902, 79 — 110, who narrowed the date down to the spring of either 969 or 965 in the reign of Nicephorus Phocas. The linguistic and historical arguments for this or any Byzantine date are challenged by B. BALDWIN, The date and purpose of the Philopatris, Yale Classical Studies X X V I I , 1982, 3 2 1 - 3 4 4 (reprinted in Studies on Greek and R o m a n History and Literature, Amsterdam, 1985, 370 — 393), who shows that the work might just as well fit the age of Julian. BALDWIN also furnishes some detailed historical and linguistic commentary. See further ANASTASI, Sul Philopatris, Siculorum Gymnasium XVII, 1 9 6 4 , 1 2 7 - 1 4 4 , 2 8 6 91*

1402

MATTHEW D. MACLEOD

291, also 'Sul testo del Philopatris e del Charidemus', Siculorum Gymnasium X X , 1967, 1 1 1 - 1 1 9 , and D. TABACHOVITZ, Zur Sprache des pseudolukianischen Dialogs Philopatris, Byzantinische Forschungen III, 1971, 1 8 2 - 1 8 4 . T h e dialogue attracted a good deal of humanist attention, often censorious for its supposed impiety; cf. Z A P P A L A (4, 30, 131, 133, 136, 164, 193, 253). 'Timarion' R . ROMANO has furnished a critical edition with commentary and Italian translation (Naples, 1974), and M A C L E O D includes the piece in his aforementioned Oxford text (432 - 470). An annotated English translation by B . BALDWIN (Detroit, 1984) comports essays on Lucianic imitations in Byzantium along with discussion of date and authorship of the work and a translation of the attack on its supposed blasphemy in a letter by Constantine Acropolites written not later than 1324. Majority opinion puts the 'Timarion' in the twelfth century, albeit M . KYRIAKIS, Slapstick and Satire in seventh and twelfth century Byzantium, Byzantina V, 1973, 2 9 1 - 3 0 6 , prefers the eleventh, whilst D. J . CONSTANTELOS, Byzantine Philanthropy and Social Welfare, Rutgers, 1968, 60, plumps for the fourteenth. There is much more dispute over authorship. A. A. VASILIEV, History of the Byzantine Empire, Wisconsin, 1964, 497, revives DRÄSEKE'S old equation of narrator with author. H U N G E R (151 154) advanced the claims of Theodore Prodromos. ROMANO, Sulla possibile attribuzione del 'Timarione' pseudolucianeo a Nicola Callide, Giornale Italiano di Filologia Ν. S. IV, 1973, 3 0 9 - 3 1 5 (repeated in his edition, 2 5 - 3 1 ) urged the claims of the contemporary doctor and poet Nicolas Callicles. This last notion has become popular, but for an exposure of the weakness of ROMANO'S arguments along with a survey of the whole question and tentative ascription to the coeval polymath Michael Italicus, see B. BALDWIN, T h e Authorship of the Timarion, Byzantinische Zeitschrift L X X V I I , 1984, 233 237 (reprinted in ID., Roman and Byzantine Papers, Amsterdam, 1989, 324 — 328). All such indagation of author is deprecated by M . ALEXIOU, Literary Subversion and the Aristocracy in Twelfth-Century Byzantium: A Stylistic Analysis of the 'Timarion' (ch. 6 —10), Byzantine & Modern Greek Studies VIII, 1982 — 83, 29 — 45, in which the "new criticism" makes an unwelcome appearance.

'Mazaris' A critical edition with English translation and commentary of this fifteenth century Lucianic katabasis was produced by J . N. B A R R Y , M . J . SHARE, A. SMITHIES, and L. G . WESTERINK under the title 'Mazaris' Journey To Hades', Arethusa Monographs V, Buffalo, 1 9 7 5 . S. P. KONDRATEV and T. M . SOKOLOVA provide a translation and commentary in Russian, Vizantijskij Vremennik XIV, 1958, 318 — 357. T h e one monograph is R.WALTHER, Die Hadesfahrt des Mazaris, Diss. Vienna 1 9 7 1 . [See Addendum p. 1 4 2 1 . ]

LUCIANIC STUDIES SINCE

1930

1403

Theodore Prodromos The most versatile of twelfth century Byzantine writers produced five short prose satires in the Lucianic manner: 'The Ignoramus or Self-Styled Grammarian', 'The Tanner or Plato-lover', 'The Executioner or the Doctor', 'The Always Blooming or Loves Of An Old Man', and 'The Sale of Literary Men and Public Figures'. The first three of these are edited with Italian translations and brief notes by G. PODESTÀ, Aevum X I X , 1945, 2 3 9 - 2 5 2 ; X X I , 1947, 3 - 25. For an analysis of 'The Tanner or Plato-lover', laced with English extracts, see the aforementioned article of KYRIAKIS; 'The Sale of Literary Men and Public Figures' is similarly treated by ROBINSON ( 6 9 72). Prodromos also hit off a versified tragi-comic skit comparable to the 'Tragodopodagra', edited by H. HUNGER, Der byzantinische Katz-MauseKrieg, Graz — Vienna — Cologne, 1968, with German translation; an annotated extract is included in B. BALDWIN, An Anthology of Byzantine Poetry, Amsterdam, 1985,

202-207.

Miscellany Various other Byzantine imitations of Lucian survive. The dialogue 'Timotheos or About Demons' is traditionally ascribed to Michael Psellus, but P. GAUTIER, Le De Daemonibus du Pseudo-Psellos, Revue des Etudes Byzantines X X X V I I I , 1980, 1 0 5 - 1 9 4 , re-assigns it to Nicholas of Methone in the twelfth century. On its content, see C. MANGO, Byzantine Literature as a Distorting Mirror, Oxford, 1 9 7 5 , 1 0 - 1 3 ; also A. KAZHDAN & A. EPSTEIN, Change in Byzantine Culture in the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1985, 138 —139. At Constantinople, sometime between 1342 and 1345, Alexios Makrembolites combined Lucianic technique with contemporary point in his 'Dialogue between the Rich and the Poor', edited with English translation by I. SEVÊENKO, Zbornik Radova Vizantoloskog Instituta VI, Belgrade, 1 9 6 0 , 1 8 7 - 2 2 8 (reprinted in ID., Society and Intellectual Life in Late Byzantium, London, 1981, same pagination). This same Makrembolites also produced an inevitably unconvincing Christian allegory of the Lucianic 'Ass'; cf. SEVCENKO ( 1 9 4 ) . Another late effort (the exact date is uncertain) was the 'Hermippus' of John Katrarios; cf. F. JÜRSS, Johannes Katrarios und der Dialog Hermippos oder Über die Astrologie, Byzantinische Zeitschrift LIX, 1966, 275 — 284. In addition to this piece on astrology, Katrarios also came up with the dialogue 'Hermodotus', modelled on the Lucianic 'Affairs of the Heart' cf. ROBINSON ( 7 2 - 3 ) . An anonymous piece utilising the Lucianic device of the mock decree is a text edited by HUNGER with the enchanting title 'Gegen eine Byzantinische Mafia', Revue des Etudes Sud-est européennes VII, 1969, 95 - 1 0 7 (reprinted in ID., Byzantinische Grundlagenforschung, London, 1973, same pagination). Another late and anonymous pastiche is a dialogue between Charon and Hermes: O. KARSAY, Eine byzantinische Imitation von Lukianos, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae X I X , 1 9 7 1 , 3 8 3 - 3 9 1 ; also (with Russian translation) T. M. SOKOLOVA, Esce odno vizantijskoe 'podrazanie' Lukianu, Anticnost' i Vizantija, Moscow,

1404

MATTHEW D. MACLEOD

1975, 1 9 5 - 2 0 2 . Finally, in the ms. M a r c i a n u s graecus 5 2 4 o f the early fourteenth century, containing amongst other things P r o d r o m o s ' aforementioned ' K a t a m y o m a c h i a ' , is a poem in 165 iambics attributed to an official called Andronicus in which the nun M a r i a confesses her crimes o f murder and cannibalism before the tribunal of the patriarchate. T h i s piece may be a parody of an official semeioma or court report, in which case it could fairly be reckoned as Lucianic; the supposition is strengthened by the subtitle 'Written in place of a semeioma . F o r text, translation, and commentary, see R . MACRIDES, Poetic Justice in the Patriarchate: M u r d e r and Cananibalism in the Provinces, Cupido Legum, Frankfurt am M a i n , 1985, 1 3 7 - 1 6 8 .

VIII. The Oxford Text and its Critics

I have already mentioned the critical editions of COENEN (lib. 21), the ITZKOWITZ (lib. 27 — 28), the contributions to the text of lib. 33 made by NESSELRATH and VAN THIEL'S synoptic edition o f lib. 3 9 and Apuleius ' M e t a m o r p h o s e s ' . T h e s e four along with NESSELRATH'S teacher, R . KASSEL, are the only c o n t e m p o r a r y scholars k n o w n to me to have taken a specialised interest in the ms. tradition of L u c i a n .

Prolegomena and proposed ' T e u b n e r ' of

Prior to the O x f o r d T e x t should be noted the earlier contribution o f the L o e b Classical Library in providing an improved text. Readers should be especially grateful to A. M . HARMON for departing from a frequent practice of the series and not simply reproducing the ' T e u b n e r t e x t ' , in this case that of JACOBITZ, and for deciding to produce a new text based on the mss. shown by MRAS to be m o s t important and in particular for making full use o f Γ . HARMON'S fifth, and unfortunately his last, volume was published in 1936, containing lib. 4 5 — 48 and 51 — 57 and revealed him, as in his four previous volumes, to be a careful and sensible editor. K . KILBURN, L o e b , v o l . vi, 1 9 5 9 , c o n t a i n i n g l i b . 5 9 - 6 8 ,

70-71,

73,

all

„einstämmig" w o r k s , based his t e x t on Γ and Ν (theoretically he might also have used E, where extant, though E and Γ seldom differ significantly) and M . D. MACLEOD, L o e b , vol. vii, 1961, contained lib. 7 7 - 7 9 , based on Γ Ω Β and lib. 80 based on L X as per MRAS' individual edition. L o e b vi and vii were reviewed by D. A. RUSSELL, Classical Review, XII, 1963, 6 2 - 6 5 . M . D . MACLEOD, L o e b vol. viii, 1967, completed the series by adding works of doubtful Lucianic authorship and spuria, viz. lib. 18, 39, 4 9 , 5 8 , 69, 72, 7 4 , 82 — 84. Retrospectively I regret not including a text of the epigrams (as suggested by BOMPAIRE, J o u r n a l o f Hellenic Studies X C , 1970, 2 1 9 in an otherwise favourable review), referring t o an author o f some epigrams as Lucilius rather than Lucillius, and n o t finding r o o m for IZAAK WALTON'S rendering of 'Lucian on his own book'.

LUCIANIC STUDIES SINCE

1930

1405

These two Loeb volumes were in a way a digression from my aim of eventually producing an O x f o r d text' of Lucian, but they were a useful apprenticeship. After completing my undergraduate studies at Cambridge, I decided to concentrate on Lucian not as an author on whom to exercise such talents as I might have as a textual critic, but for personal enjoyment, as he was the writer of what I have always regarded as the most amusing work in Greek literature, the 'Dialogues of the Gods'. I was, however, persuaded by one of my teachers, Professor R. A. B. MYNORS, that there was a great need for a critical edition of Lucian and encouraged by him to start work on it as a long term project. How long, I didn't then realise. It was to take nearly forty years! If the remarks which follow read at times like an Apologia, it is because the status of a Bis Accusatus has been thrust on me by N E S S E L R A T H ^ two reviews. Indeed that is very much of an understatement, as in his 1984 prosecution, he indicts me on at least twenty charges, to some of which I do plead guilty, but I hope that on others the verdict will be "not proven" or perhaps even on some "not guilty". I am grateful to Dr. H A A S E for giving me the chance of explaining my aims and priorities in my edition and perhaps also rebutting some of N E S S E L R A T H ' S charges. O.C.T. vol. i was published in 1972 and contained a general introduction and lib. 1 — 25. Throughout the series my aim has been to cater not for the handful of specialists in the text of Lucian of the N E S S E L R A T H type but for the general reader who will usually trust the editor to have done the spadework for him and merely to tell him what it is essential for him to know about the traditon and the mss. in clear and simple form. First I described the manuscript tradition as I saw it. My general picture of it was, and still remains, close to that of MRAS, though I departed from him in recognising what had been apparent to M. ROTHSTEIN, Quaestiones Lucianeae, Berlin, 1888 and was more clearly argued by WINGELS, that Β was almost certainly a copy of Ε. I admit that some of the details, particularly of the origin, nature and component books of the β tradition, may be open to question and might more accurately, if less clearly, have been given in oratio obliqua, as merely embodying my opinion. I also provided two stemmata, one of the γ class mss., the other of the β mss., with the warning that these stemmata were of general not universal validity; as I put it in my simplified account of the tradition in my Aris and Phillips Selection, 16— 19, "Most of the larger scale mss. are composite, putting together such a collection" (sc. 'of so voluminous an author') "as they could amass from a variety of sources, so that they vary in quality from work to work". I then gave brief descriptions of nineteen mss. which I used in establishing the text of one or more of the works in the Lucianic corpus proper (lib. 1 - 8 0 ) ; further details for all of them are available in N I L É N ' S 'Teubner Prolegomena , and for some of them in COENEN and ITZKOWITZ. My task in editing lib. 1 - 1 9 was the comparatively simple one of abbreviating the textual notes of N I L É N ' S two 'Teubner fascicles', which, though magnificently accurate, are far too detailed about minutiae and report the readings of far too many mss. to be digestible for the average reader of

1406

MATTHEW D. MACLEOD

an O x f o r d text'. Thereafter I was on my own, but had had the considerable advantage of having had NILÉN'S own collations of these works on temporary loan f r o m the University of Uppsala Library. T h o u g h they were difficult to collate, they were very useful as a check on my own readings of the mss.; I soon found that the textual notes of SOMMERBRODT, the only large scale editor within the last hundred years, were of very limited value as, quite apart f r o m their inaccuracies and omissions they failed to differentiate between the first hands and those of later correctors. As a clear, simple apparatus was one of my main aims, I followed the example of H A R M O N and M R A S in using the symbols β and γ, where the tradition is, or seems to me, to be zweistämmig. (Vol. i was reviewed by R E A R D O N , Journal of Hellenic Studies XCIV, 1974, 200 - 201.) Vol. ii, containing lib. 26 —43, was published in 1974, too soon for me to k n o w of LENAERT'S identification of the fragment of lib. 39 fAsinus'), vide supra, p. 1399. Of interest for the general picture of the tradition was my failure to find any surviving evidence for a β tradition in lib. 36 and 39, a point on which M R A S had reserved judgment. (Vol. i and ii were reviewed by BOMPAIRE, Revue des Études grecques LXXXVIII, 1975, 2 2 4 - 2 2 6 and by P. G. MAXWELL-STUART, Classical Review XXVI, 1976, 1 7 6 - 1 7 8 . ) Vol. iii, containing lib. 4 6 - 6 8 , was published in 1980. A distinctive feature was my decision in editing lib. 44 and 48, the t w o books written in Ionic, to abide by the readings of the t w o elsewhere eminently reliable mss., E and Γ, rather than follow recentes a n d / o r previous editors in correcting Lucian's Ionic for him, where it was felt to be defective. T h e decision to have the type for this volume set abroad was an unfortunate one, as the text and apparatus contain far too many misprints. (In reviewing vol. iii MAXWELL-STUART, Classical Review XXXIII, 1 9 8 3 , 316 — 317, understandably expresses disappointment in view of the misprints of which he offers a useful list and also complains of my frequent alteration of the punctuation of earlier editors, a complete reversal of his verdict on vols, i - i i , complimenting me in this respect. O n the subject of misprints, all I can say is that editors are somewhat at the mercy of the type-setters, and that I checked the proofs of vol. iii no less carefully than those of vols, i and ii, and that they were also checked by an able colleague.) O n the date of Γ. I date Γ saecli χ ineuntis, because I regard is as having for a terminus post quern the composition of Arethas' scholia. This probably, but not necessarily, means that Γ postdates E; Arethas could have composed his scholia before Baanes produced E for him. T h e evidence is to be found in marginalia in Γ, all by the first hand: (1) Icar. 8: δρα τήν ΛουκιανοΟ άθεότητα (written in the typical wedgeshaped [inverted isosceles triangle] manner of Arethas; it is of course a typical Arethan comment, though Basilios of Adada, before him, could comment in the same way.) (2) Charon 8 άναλωτάτου added in the margin as a variant (the reading of Β a n d p r e s u m a b l y of E.)

L U C I A N I C STUDIES S I N C E

1930

1407

(3) Parasit. 41 ίίπαγε κατάρατε κτλ. (again a typical Arethan comment; Γ doesn't ascribe this scholium to Arethas, but other mss. do.) 1984 was as grim a year for this editor of Lucían as it was for O R W E L L ' S characters as it produced NESSELRATH'S monumental and almost completely uncomplimentary review of vols, i - i i i in Gnomon LXVI, 1984, 5 7 7 - 6 1 0 . Though NESSELRATH clearly lacks a sense of proportion, his review must be taken seriously by those with a specialised interest in the text of Lucían - I advise others to leave it severely alone! — as it is the result of many months or indeed years of study by a chalcenteric scholar with an acute eye for detail, who has also had the considerable benefit of the notes and advice of his distinguished mentor, R . KASSEL. Moreover NESSELRATH is just the sort of whom Lucian himself might well approve as resembling one of his favourite mouthpieces, the god Momus, or his ideal reader of history, one who scans everything δικαστικώς και νή Δία συκοφαντικώς, letting nothing amiss escape his notice, one with sharper sight than Argus, examining every word άργυραμοιβικώς. He corrects me on many points of detail in my apparatus, all of which I am taking into account, as I am preparing a revised reprint of vols, i — iii. His list of misprints in the body of the text, like that of M A X W E L L - S T U A R T for vol. iii, was particularly useful, and forms a considerable part of the corrigenda to be found on pp. 471 — 472 of vol. iv and the extra corrigenda on p. 474 of the revised 1990 reprint of vol. iv. Unfortunately the value of his review is impaired by his misconception of the function of a critic in a learned journal, which surely consists of more than merely listing faults, real or imaginary, serious or trivial, and by his policy of sowing not 'with the hand' but 'with the whole sack', as along with valid, important points he includes trivialities, quibbles, nit-picking, subjective views which at least need substantiating and occasional errors and/or misprints of his own. I suspect that Theophrastus might well have thought him μεμψίμοιρος; I admit that I myself am όψιμαθής. I am still learning about Lucian after 40 years, and have learned a great deal from N E S S E L R A T H , but much chaff has to be removed from the wheat he provides.

This unremitting attack on the 'defects' of vols, i — iii is subdivided, rather like a Suetonian biography, under headings of which I could recognise at least twenty. It would be tedious to list or discuss all of these, particularly as some of these overlap, and occasionally NESSELRATH is inconsistent from one section to another, or inaccurate, or illogical, or contradicts himself. (Thus though he makes the incontrovertible point that mss. readings, not Akoluthie (libellorum ordo) should be the vital factor in determining whether a particular work is einstämmig or zweistämmig, he is perfectly prepared to quote W I N G E L S ' theories against me, apparently forgetting that they are based on Akoluthie alone; nor is he consistent on what they are (e.g. W I N G E L S is represented, 578, as thinking lib. 32 to have an einfach tradition, but later, and more correctly, 581, thinking it to have existed in β as well.) After devoting 32 pages, mostly of small print, to these multifarious defects, he does give me some credit in one paragraph on his last page as the

1408

MATTHEW

D.

MACLEOD

first editor known to him to avoid the temptation systematically to remove late Greek usages from Lucian's text replacing them with the proper Attic forms. His conclusion is that editing all Lucian was perhaps too great a task for one man and that this edition, though useful, falls far short of what it could have been. M y general answer to NESSELRATH is that he judges me against a theoretical ideal and finds me wanting. Life, alas, unlike art, is short; non omnia possumus omnes. M y primary aim was practical and limited - to produce a text based on the best mss. and to report to the best of my ability the most important readings of these mss., particularly Γ Ε Φ Ω Β and U, plus the best witnesses of β I could find when both Β and U are lost. I shall therefore deal first with what I regard as the most serious of his complaints, my inaccuracy in reporting the mss. All things are relative, though I accept that I am far less accurate than NILÉN, to whose memory I dedicated my fourth volume. NESSELRATH'S method of proving my inaccuracy is the unfair one of comparing my apparatus with those of C O E N E N (to which I accept that I am significantly inferior), ITZKOWITZ (to which I admit slight inferiority; I have made a handful of changes to my new text of lib. 28 in my Aris and Phillips selection) and VAN THIEL, and with NESSELRATH'S own findings for lib. 33. O f course one may expect far greater detail and accuracy over a small fraction of the corpus; COENEN covers the equivalent of 35 O.C.T. pages, even ITZKOWITZ a mere 61 pages of the 1, 100 pages in my three vols.; moreover their textual work presumably formed the major part of at least three years of full-time research; the years I might have spent on a research studentship I had lost to the war, and during 37 years of university teaching, my sum total of research leave amounted to one term unpaid and, when eventually sabbatical leave was introduced, three sabbatical terms, the maximum to which I was entitled. It would have been far fairer to compare my accuracy with that of SOMMERBRODT, but it is typical of NESSELRATH'S selectivity that the only times he mentions SOMMERBRODT and even STEINDL is on details where he compares me unfavourably with them! I note that where NESSELRATH compares me with COENEN and ITZKOWITZ he seems much more interested in the readings of Ω than of Γ to which I attached far greater weight. I should here confess a defect and misleading feature of my apparatus, one which N E S S E L R A T H seems to have missed, in that I say e. g. Γ Ω = γ, Β U = β, instead of saying that I had inferred the readings of those two hyparchetypes from particular mss.; occasionally it's not the same thing, e . g . I suspect that the reading δαί after an interrogative which I report as β may have originated with Arethas or his scribe, cf. vol. 2, 203.8, I have on occasions assumed a probable mistake, itacism etc., particularly in Ω, without reporting it. NESSELRATH is occasionally inaccurate and often trivial in these detailed strictures. For a start 'Vitarum Auctio' and 'Piscator' are in vol. 2 not vol. 1; in Pise. 9 άπολογήσεσθαι is the reading of Q c not Ω, in Pise. 23 both NESSEL-

LUCIANIC

STUDIES SINCE

1930

1409

and ITZKOWITZ fail to mention κινδυνεύσεται U, an alternative worth a mention. In discussing 'Asinus' N E S S E L R A T H refers to the review of VAN THIEL by Α. Η. M. K E S S E L S , Mnemosyne, Ser. 4, XXX, 1977, 2 0 1 - 3 , listing differences from my apparatus. The most significant difference, of course, is that VAN THIEL clutters up his apparatus with the readings of recentes, which on their record elsewhere are unreliable, interpolating their text with conjectures. N E S S E L R A T H ' S supplementary list of differences from VAN THIEL consists of eleven items, all of slight and seven of no importance at all. Thus I refrained from noting that in c. 16 Γ reads κατελίπετο for the imperfect middle or passive, because quite apart from being an itacism, this is a habitual mistake in Γ with λείπω and its compounds; again in c. 48 I don't report that Γ1 reads ανένευων for the imperfect, where the accent clearly indicates a mere lapsus calami. I am sorry to have to labour this point so tediously, but N E S S E L R A T H makes many complaints of this sort and it does illustrate a major difference between us. N E S S E L R A T H wants me to report everything; I prefer to confine myself to the important. RATH

One complaint which N E S S E L R A T H makes time and again is that of inadequacies and inaccuracies in my references to the emendations of earlier editors and scholars, particularly continental ones of the nineteenth century. Though I don't think it an editor's bounden duty to report all the conjectures or manipulations of the transmitted text suggested by my predecessors, I do admit that N E S S E L R A T H establishes his point, particularly in respect of BEKKER'S edition. The only editions which I could use continuously were those in my private possession, B O U R D E L O T , H E M S T E R H U I S and R E I T Z , D I N D O R F (1840) and JACOBITZ'S major and minor editions; the others, even FRITZSCHE and S O M M E R B R O D T , I had to borrow from, or consult in, distant libraries. In my defence I would plead that I subconsciously applied the principle of parsimonia temporis in my efforts to avoid the incompleteness of N I L É N (19 works), FRITZSCHE (30 works) and S O M M E R B R O D T (65 works). Also the textual suggestions of these scholars are already in print somewhere; an improved report of the readings of the main mss. was not. Moreover, if I had my time over again, I would have preferred rather to pay more attention in my apparatus to Lucian's quotations, echoes and adaptations of sources, and cross-references in his works, though later I did concentrate more on this aspect, particularly in vols, iii and iv, and in the index of vol. iv. The world won't come to an end if I have failed to discover that a particular conjecture which C O B E T published, thinking it to be original, was in fact anticipated by a contemporary. Dico expertus in nobis; my conjecture on Menander, Samia 13, published in Classical Review XX, 1970, 289 — 90, was, no doubt correctly, attributed by S A N D B A C H in his Oxford Text of 1972 to O G U S E . N E S S E L R A T H also complains with some justification of my attribution of speakers. I was probably wrong to pay too much attention to, and report in too much detail, speakers' names, as and when they appeared in leading mss. C O E N E N was no doubt theoretically more accurate in not printing speakers' names at all, as it is unlikely they appeared in the archetype. Thus I probably

1410

MATTHEW D. MACLEOD

took too much account of the speakers' names supplied by Ω in 'Piscator'; I hope my Aris and Phillips text, where I give several extra speeches to Plato rather than to one or more philosophers is an improvement. Again NESSELRATH is probably right to object to Apollo as a speaker in Fugitivi 30, in view of Orpheus' greeting in the preceding chapter. NESSELRATH also criticises my Latinity, though in a mercifully brief paragraph listing six items. He rightly corrects one howler in my preface (it should be „ d i v i n a v i t " for „divinatus est"), and there is also one misprint, „aliqua" for „aliquae", which could more charitably have been explained as a printer's assimilation with the next word, the neuter plural varia, as he notes I get the form „ a l i q u a e " correct elsewhere (unfortunately he gets his references the wrong way round!). His other criticisms I just don't understand.

He dislikes my mention of a „locum vix sanandum"; hardly a „calamitas vix toleranda"!

He also dislikes „non legi potest"

of a codex where illegible. He

himself corrects my „explicandus est" to „explicari potest" (as I am theorising

in my preface, any fault would seem to be of probabilities or logic, rather than of Latin). I just don't understand all his rules for gerundives and for „possum" positive and negative with passive infinitives. I am, however, reminded of Caesar's description of a river flowing so slowly ut oculis in utram partem fluat iudicari non possit. T h e flow of NESSELRATH'S argument, unlike that of the Arar, is very clear indeed — towards fault-finding! S O M E T H E O R E T I C A L UNCERTAINTIES I must admit that I have always been very much less concerned with theoretical reconstruction of stemmata than with the practicalities of reporting what the best mss. say, and I also note that NESSELRATH, although severely critical of much of my theorising, studiously avoids much positive theorising of his own. I now turn to some details where my views may be and have been questioned: T h e original position of lib. 32 Somnium in β. I was probably wrong to follow MRAS, 18 seq. and reconstruct the beginning of β from the order of the constituent books of N , and to disregard the suggestion of WINGELS, 132 that it can be deduced from the contents and order of Ρ that β started with book 32. As Ρ has a distinctive β Akoluthie, nowhere contains lib. 32, and now also lacks the early chapters of its first extant work, lib. 13, WINGELS is probably right. He could have further strengthened his arguments by noting the suitability of the autobiographical piece as the first work in a collection. T h e problems of lib. 1 — 12. These twelve books exist in this distinctive order as a unitary part of both Γ and Β and some related mss. It should also be noted that Β consists of two parts both written by the same hand, the earlier in pages of two columns, the later in pages of one column only. The change to single columns,

LUCIANIC STUDIES SINCE

1930

1411

however, occurs, not, as one might expect, before lib. 1 - 1 2 , but after it; hence my theory, vol. i, xvi, that lib. 1 - 1 2 were added to an ancestor of E, (which I call B1) supplementing β. In my preface I leave open the possibility that lib. 1 - 1 2 originally existed only in β, not in γ. There are no significant omissions to differentiate between Γ Ω and Β, apart perhaps from the omission of έβδομος in Β in Longaevi 12, which, however, doesn't necessarily mean it was missing from its exemplar E. I think it possible but unlikely that lib. 1 — 12 were added to a precursor of Γ from β as an initial supplement. I prefer to believe that the twelve books were tacked on to β after lib. 53,54, (the two controversiae 'Tyrannicida' and c Abdicatus'), as lib. 1,2, (the two suasoriae, Phalaris 1,2) could follow naturally at that point and lib. 3 — 7 and 10 — 11 are also rhetorical works. My apparatus of lib. 53,54 suggests that lib. 53,54 are zweistämmig, though the differences are comparatively rare. It can be stated with comparative certainty that lib. 53,54 could not have come from β into γ because of the lacuna in BU in 53.17; it therefore seems to me unlikely that their natural companions lib. 1,2 etc. would also have crossed from β to γ. N E S S E L R A T H notes places in lib. 1 — 12 where Β and Γ differ, and where Γ 3 , Alexander, has added the Β reading to Γ. There is no difficulty with that; Alexander has used the Arethas ms. E or one similar; I have already argued that Arethas' scholia were available to the first hand of Γ. On the other hand the differences between Β on the one hand and Γ and Ω on the other are infrequent and insignificant (a rare exception being B's reading έγκλίναντες in Bacchus 4, which, though perhaps an Arethas correction, deserves consideration both here and in Zeuxis 10) so that they do not seem to have arisen from a distinct original β tradition, but from a later period when lib. 1 — 12 were added to E or an ancestor. N E S S E L R A T H also lists a few instances in lib. 1 12 where Β and Ω agree in opposition to Γ. This causes no surprise. Differences where Β and Ω are correct can be ascribed to occasional errors in Γ and elsewhere to regarding ω as the common ancestor both of Ω and the supplements of E after the β source had run out. In conclusion, therefore, I see no compelling need to abandon my theory about β1. The constituents of the β tradition. N E S S E L R A T H refers to an article by B . KEIL (inconsistently, cf. pp. 5 7 8 and 581!) arguing that readings, not Akoluthie, should be regarded as the only reliable indication of relationships of mss. Of course that is true and no-one will contest that. N E S S E L R A T H and ITZKOWITZ both object to M R A S ' modus operandi because he started by examining Akoluthie but the fact remains that he tried to verify his findings by examining readings and indeed examination of readings formed the major part of his work. It could be maintained that there are three categories of Lucianic works:

(1) Those where both Akoluthie einstämmig.

and readings clearly indicate the tradition is

1412

MATTHEW D. MACLEOD

(2) Works where both Akoluthie and the existence of distinctive readings at regular intervals clearly indicate the existence of both β and γ. (3) Works where Akoluthie suggests the tradition is zweistämmig but there is little evidence in the surviving mss. of regularly occurring distinctive differences between γ and those mss. which could be expected to preserve the β tradition. Readers may work out their own list from my apparatus or that of N I L É N and specialist scholars from further collation of the mss. (Thanks to C O E N E N ' S edition lib. 21 can now be eliminated from this category and classified unter (2)). My symbol β does include works of category (3). The fact remains that these works exist cheek by jowl within mss. with a distinctive β Akoluthie alongside works that are clearly in category (2). Those who feel my symbol β is misleading because it contains works in category (3) may prefer to regard β as representing an early collection of Lucianic works, particularly the most popular ones, which offered an extensively revised version of the text; (note here that I modify vol. i, ix —x, now making popularity the criterion not for inclusion in β but for having the text substantially revised.) As the types of alternative readings in the various works in category (2) remain reasonably consistent throughout, all these category (2) works would seem to emanate from the same source. My conviction still is that the other works, viz. those of category (3), existed in the same collection but had been much less revised; this I take to be the case in lib. 18, where U, which one would expect to be a faithful witness of β, seldom differs from γ. Some of the β readings are worthy of Lucían himself and could emanate from an edition or editions by Lucian himself, but most of the β variants in my view originate with another editor, who may be the same man as the amasser of the β collection. Corpus or corpuscular My views may be controversial but I differ from N E S S E L R A T H and others before him in preferring to think in terms of large scale corpora being broken up into smaller segments, rather than vice versa, perhaps so that copies of the relevant parts would be made; take for example the present condition of E and B. I may be wrong but it seems to me that there is reasonable evidence for the prolonged existence of only two corpuscula, lib. 1 - 1 2 , already discussed and of a collection of the minor dialogues, where the fact that Φ switched to β for 'D. Mort.' suggests that there may have been a separate corpusculum, but it wasn't available to Φ as it was to Γ. Though, however, I admit the evidence in favour of those two corpuscula, I don't really believe in their existence as units at an early stage in the tradition. O.C.T. vol. iv, published in 1987 and reprinted with corrections in 1990, contains Preface of 12 pages, text and apparatus of lib. 69 — 74, 76 — 80, and 82 — 86, plus three pages of important corrigenda to vols, i — iii (plus a fourth page in the reprint) and an index nominum of forty-three pages including details (listed under the various authors) of Lucian's quotations, parodies, echoes and adaptations.

LUCIANIC STUDIES SINCE

1930

1413

Lib. 85 consists of 65 epigrams (arranged according to the numeration of the Palatine and Planudean Anthologies) attributed to Lucian by mss. and/ or editors (however mistakenly; as I point out in my preface the headings ΛΟΥΚΙΑΝΟΥ, ΛΟΥΚΙΛΛΙΟΥ and ΙΟΥΛΙΑΝΟΥ are remarkably similar and could have led to confusion). Though I discuss it in my preface, I do not print a text of lib. 75 ('Libanius de Saltatoribus'), although it occurs in Γ and five other Lucianic mss. and the diortbota of Γ, Γ% Alexander Bishop of Nicaea, (in my view the original owner of Γ), notes his personal belief in Lucian as the author. There is little doubt that Libanius was the author and it can be found in the excellent Teubner edition of R. FOERSTER. As room in an already large vol. had to be found for my long index nominum (extended far beyond the norm of an O.C.T. final volume, as it was a high priority for me), and to avoid further delay to the publication of my main project, I decided also to omit lib. 81, the forty-two letters found in L and related mss.; these consist of nine Anacharsis Letters, added in a plausible place after the dialogue 'Anacharsis', one 'Letter of Pythagoreans' and thirty-two (of the 148) 'Phalaris Letters'. These can all be found in HERCHER'S edition, and there is also a good edition of the 'Phalaris Letters' by F. H. REUTERS (Berlin, 1963). I do, however, in addition to 'Philopatris', 'Charidemus' and 'Nero', include the Byzantine dialogue, 'Timarion', though there is a good edition by R. ROMANO (Naples, 1974).

I start my preface by noting the two earliest surviving texts of the Lucianic corpus, a tiny papyrus fragment (late second century A. D.) of 'Halcyon' and the fourth century parchment fragment of 'Asinus', identified by LENAERTS and stress its importance in suggesting that Γ is by far the best surviving ms., but not without defects. I then give a discussion of the final works in Γ , lib. 71 —79, (80 is now lost), which should be regarded as replacing my more superficial account in the Preface to vol. i. I note the probability that the scribe of Γ thought he had finished after lib. 70, as possibly did Alexander too, (if the original owner, before the ms. was complete) when he added his subscriptio. Lib. 71—73 were subsequently added, perhaps again from γ or a descendant, and again the scribe thought he had finished; later lib. 74 became available and was added as complementing lib. 69, whether again from γ proper or from ω Lib. 75 and 76 were probably added from another source; (my personal conjecture is that Alexander as the first owner of Γ got his scribe to humour him by including lib. 75 in view of a belief that it really was by Lucian, and then adding lib. 76, which may be another fourth century work from the same source, because it also had a Lucianic flavour). Lib. 7 4 - 7 6 do have a certain unity, as forming a perhaps fourth century supplement of works with Lucianic affinities. Again the scribe of Γ thought he was finished after lib. 76, as the Minor Dialogues seem to have been added as an afterthought. This can be explained, as ROTHSTEIN does, by assuming that these four works existed in a separate corpusculum, and, when available, were added to the end of Γ. An alternative possibility is that the Dialogi Minores originally were in the order found in

1414

M A T T H E W D.

MACLEOD

Ω or its descendants, i. e. lib. 77 — 79 after lib. 34 (a natural place with lib. 35 'Dearum Iudicium' following immediately after the 'Dialogi Deorum') and lib. 80, 'Dialogi Meretricii', after lib. 54. (I explain Photius' mention of having read 'Phalaris' (lib. 1), 'D. Mort.', lib. 77, and 'D. Mer.', as suggesting he was naming the first books of a tripartite text of Lucían in his possession, containing (1) lib. 1 - 3 4 (2) lib. 7 7 - 7 9 , 3 5 - 5 4 (3) lib. 80, 55 seq. Photius' text, clearly of the γ class, could therefore have been ω or be descended from it; N . B . on p. xiv of my preface read ex ω for ex Ω. (The scribe of Γ might have omitted the Dialogi Minores from the middle of his work either by an oversight or deliberately, intending to add them together later, because of their distinctive form, and at first forgotten to so.) NESSELRATH^ review of vol. iv in Gnomon LXII, 1990, 4 9 8 - 5 1 1 , though severely criticising me in much the same vein as his earlier review, and for much the same reasons, is marginally less hostile, as he actually seems to welcome a few features, apart from the mere completion of the edition, e. g. the inclusion of the epigrams and 'Timarion', the provision of an index and several original sugestions of my own on the text in the apparatus, which NESSELRATH acknowledges as worth consideration. His final verdict is similar to the one on the first three vols., that this vol. is not what it could have been; he regards it as an improvement on earlier editions, but only partially replacing them, as much work remains to be done. I can hardly disagree with that! This review, like his previous one, offers many valuable corrections and good suggestions. It is a pity, however, that he doesn't confine himself to using his heavy artillery, but feels it necessary as well to snipe at me incessantly with small arms fire, as many of his details are on trivialities or based on quibbles or mere matters of opinion. Once again, if I may adapt Lucian on Theopompus, he seems more like a prosecutor than a critic. NESSELRATH'S main complaint is of my neglect of the work of earlier scholars, particularly FRITZSCHE. Once again he chastises me for attributing conjectures to the wrong scholar, complaining that I should have used the repertory of conjectures published by FRITZSCHE, of which I must confess I was unaware. He also points out that some of the conjectures I make on the text had been anticipated by FRITZSCHE. I admit that I should have spent more of my limited time on FRITZSCHE (or more properly the books he edited, 70, 71, 73 and 77 — 79), but I did have to spend many, many hours on collating the mss. of all the other works, including the spuria. The other editors, DINDORF ( a d m i t t e d l y o n l y in h i s 1 8 4 0 e d i t i o n ) , JACOBITZ a n d SOMMERBRODT

I thought I had studied carefully. NESSELRATH even complains of my failure to make enough use of BEKKER, though, stung by his previous review, I made a special point of working right through BEKKER'S edition. NESSELRATH dismisses what I regarded as my primary task, the reporting of the readings of the best mss. as accurately and clearly as possible, in a mere eight lines. He uses his microfilms of Ω to compare my accuracy with that of FRITZSCHE (whom rightly he prefers to SOMMERBRODT) in eight passages. In seven cases he finds me the more accurate, but in the eighth, D.

LUCIANIC STUDIES SINCE

1930

1415

M o r t . 12.6, he prefers F R I T Z S C H E , correctly surmising that, p. 178 1. 19,1 failed to report KOÙ om. γ; indeed the γ reading should probably be printed in the text with και omitted before ούκ αισχύνη at the start of the second question. T h o u g h N E S S E L R A T H doesn't say so, the eight passages can only come f r o m one or more of the three sets of miniature dialogues, lib. 7 7 - 7 9 , contained in both Ω and FRITZSCHE'S edition, which is a mere 30 books. N o r does N E S S E L R A T H say h o w he chose the eight passages. At random or as the particular passages where F R I T Z S C H E and I differed most? This paragraph is brief and vague and in sharp contrast with N E S S E L R A T H ' S usual practice of going into things in meticulous detail. I am not however presumptuous enough to disagree with his conclusion that one cannot rely on my data mit absoluter Zuverlässigkeit! Two complaints of N E S S E L R A T H are entirely justified. I was u n a w a r e of the existence of C. W. M Ü L L E R , Die Kurzdialoge der Appendix Platonica. Munich, 1975, 272 seq. and so failed to take account of it in editing 'Halcyon'. Similarly I, like my chief source of information for publications, the Lucian sections in 'L'Année Philologique', failed to note the existence of P. M A A S , Kleine Schriften, Munich, 1973, 131—4, with its important suggestions for the text of 'Podagra' and 'Ocypus', to which I shall return. (I should point out that my ignorance of these t w o publications is similar to N E S S E L R A T H ' S own ignorance of L E N A E R T S ' article on the 'Asinus' fragment, as he could and certainly should have mentioned it in his review of vols, i — iii! N E S S E L R A T H quite properly corrects me for my spelling of L E N A E R T S ' name, but incorrectly describes the fragment as papyrus; it's actually parchment. His reference to L E N A E R T S , as der letzte Editor is also less than accurate.) Once again N E S S E L R A T H expresses irritation at the misprints. Of course any misprints are regrettable, but, though N E S S E L R A T H w o n ' t admit it, they are much less frequent in the fourth volume. N E S S E L R A T H also complains of the three year delay between my completion of the ms. and its publication. This occurred because my ms. had to take its place in the queue of work waiting the admirable type-setting of Cambridge University Press, and I for one would like to put on record my appreciation of the skill of its staff and perspicacity of its classics reader. Stung by N E S S E L R A T H ' S criticism of vols, i iii I spent the best part of a year (full-time, being now retired) on reading the proofs and I also had the devoted help of my late friend, R . V . K E R R of Cambridge University Library, and of R . L. H U N T E R of Pembroke College, Cambridge. M y personal view, though admittedly I am prejudiced, is that there are comparatively few misprints. In all N E S S E L R A T H lists 5 5 misprints in the 4 7 3 pages (index excluded) of vol. iv which it is most useful to have as they will be noted for correction in my next reprint; regrettably it is already too late for the first reprint, of 1990, which did make a few corrections. This list, however, occupying almost a whole G n o m o n page in small type is less monumental than its first appearance suggests. First there are 16 misprints in the body of the Greek text, of which six are important, namely 92

A N R W II 3 4 . 2

1416 6.114 62.20 72.25 156.10 352.5 363.10

MATTHEW D. MACLEOD

read read read add add add

άφέτου άπέχρη ημάς ότι before μή σέ after δέ του after παρά

and ten others regrettable, but less important, as they will mislead nobody, viz. 37.19 86.6 86.24 110.17 145.3 326.11 436.5 447.1 464.10 464.31 468.15

read read read read read read read read read read read

τοίνυν ίπνοποιούς χαρίεντα in the text and app. crit. χοινικίδα ασκεπτου comma before τω (already corrected in 1990 reprint) ήθος άδαμάντινον σκοπηθήτω άπαντα ήλθε.

A few items in N E S S E L R A T H ' S list of misprints involve wrong accents or breathings, which is unfortunate, but they hardly mislead anyone. Most of the other items are absolutely trivial, e.g. more space needed between two entries in the apparatus, omission of closure of bracket, the Greek form scholiastes instead of scholiasta, marginal omission of a chapter number. This section of the text of the plaintiff seems to contain a much higher proportion of misprints than he can detect in the 470 pages of text and apparatus that stand accused, as N E S S E L R A T H ' S list of 5 6 misprints contains four errata of its own. Though N E S S E L R A T H rightly complains of a scansional mistake on p. 16, line 1 (an iambus has fallen out after the initial cretic), his own version is one syllable short! (This is N E S S E L R A T H ' S sole comment on the considerable help given with some rare metres.) N E S S E L R A T H complains of references to the text in the apparatus being one line out (4 times) and two lines out (once), but his own reference re p. 298 is six lines out and those re pp. 422 and 423 quite meaningless! As I have often blessed good indices of other authors, I devoted the best part of a year to making mine as detailed as possible in the hope that whatever the defects of the edition this at least would be useful. The credit N E S S E L R A T H gives it is, as usual, strictly limited; he judges some of my entries better than those of J A C O B I T Z , but not always better than those of D I N D O R F . He does appreciate my attempts to indicate which characters are fictitious, but castigates me for failing to add fictus after Alethion, the pseudonym for Lucian's father. I'm sure my omission will have misled no-one! He also complains of my inconsistency in describing Lampichus as a rex, Megapenthes as a tyrannus. H o w petty can he get? Some of his complaints are based on mere opinion,

LUCIANIC STUDIES SINCE 1930

1417

e. g. that the Ptolemy called Dionysus in Cal. 16 is Philopator, not Auletes. H e also does me less than justice in condemning tout court my reference to Philopator in Cal. 2; admittedly Lucian has set the anecdote in the time of Apelles, but the original anecdote did involve Philopator. I had hoped that my listing of sources in the index would serve a particular need, and had tried to include everything f r o m HOUSEHOLDER and a great deal besides, cf. my extra entries for M e n a n d e r and Plato, but all NESSELRATH can d o is complain of inconsistency, because, despite giving full details for H o m e r i c references, I merely list references to Aristophanes under plays and to H e r o d o t u s under b o o k s . Is it too much of a hardship to turn to the pages of my edition indicated? NESSELRATH complains in both his reviews that, where there is a choice between β and γ, I often m a k e the wrong one. Even if I d o , the d a m a g e is limited by having the alternative clearly indicated in the a p p a r a t u s . I describe my policy on such matters on p. 17 of my Aris and Phillips selection. "In works where β is well represented, one has to choose between each variant reading of γ and β on its merits, even if γ seems to be generally superior, as being freer f r o m recognisable errors and interpolations or offering more readings that by the criteria of textual criticism seem preferable. In a few works, however, notably the miniature dialogues, β seems to a p p r o a c h γ in merit. Where, however, the best representatives of β are lost, it seems safer to follow γ, unless there are strong attractions in the alternative reading." Obviously there are p a s s a g e s where both readings are perfectly acceptable and choice is a mere matter of opinion. Let me discuss just one of these, D. Mer. 10.2, where the philosopher, Aristaenetus, who I agree is a Stoic, after walking with his young protégé to the Dipylon G a t e , proceeds ές τήν πόλιν (γ) or ές τήν Άκαδημίαν (Β). NESSELRATH may be right in preferring the γ reading, and I admit that προς not ές would be the m o r e natural preposition with the Academy, but perhaps the general area rather than the gymnasium is meant. Let us consider topography. T h e A c a d e m y is on a direct line from the Stoa Poecile via Dipylon, though three quarters of a mile further on, too far for the maid Nebris to follow, whereas the colourless alternative, the 'city' whether the acropolis or the area beneath it, presumably including the agora or its environs, involves the two going on a circular walk and is near enough for Nebris to follow them, whereas the A c a d e m y might be too far f r o m her mistress' house. NESSELRATH has missed the suggestiveness of the name Clinias, given deliberately by Lucian in the first line to m a k e his audience think of Alcibiades and his family. M o s t of them might think merely of Alcibiades himself, the son of Clinias, and his relationship with Socrates, but the more erudite a m o n g them might remember another Clinias, the h a n d s o m e cousin of Alcibiades w h o w a s in danger of being corrupted, cf. Plato, Euthydemus 274 B, 275 B, if not of Alcibiades' younger brother, in similar danger, cf. Plato, Protagoras 320 A. We are soon thinking of Socrates again, when his favourite haunt, the agora is mentioned. M o r e o v e r there is a close parallel in Piscator 13, where the speaker, a philosopher as I print it, or Plato as I now prefer, suggests waiting at the Ceramicus for Philosophy w h o may p a s s there en route f r o m the Academy 'to g o walking about in the Stoa Poecile'. T h a t 92*

1418

MATTHEW

D.

MACLEOD

περιπατώ is here meant to suggest the Peripatetics (it is of course also a joke and pun) is obvious from the next chapter, where Plato, Chrysippus and Aristotle are all mentioned. These two passages afford, in my view, an excellent example of Lucian's common habit of repeating or adapting motifs and phrases from earlier works, what ANDERSON calls "self-imitation". It is of course theoretically possible the reading 'to the Academy' has been interpolated into the β traditon from a knowledge of the Piscator passage, but that seems less likely. T h e β tradition offers many good readings in 'D. Mer.' and L here is an excellent representative of it. Philosophers of Lucian's day tended to be eclectic and Lucian certainly represented the Platonist Nigrinus as such; so too with Aristaenetus here. T h e Academy is a very suitable place for Lucian to send him with young Clinias, if suspicions of pederasty are to be aroused. M A A S in his important contribution on 'Podagra' and 'Ocypus' argues that the end of Libanius Ep. 1380, the letter to Acacius, describing his amusement at the comedy sent him by Acacius, ends with a quotation from that comedy

ύπό σοι κορυφαίφ τιμήσομεν φδαΐς τήν έρώσαν των ποδών, presumably seeing this as two anapaest tripodies catalectic and a trochaic dimeter catalectic. He thinks it improbable that Acacius was the author either of the comedy quoted or of O c y p u s ' , and also believes that the style of 'Podagra' is zu wichtig for Lucian. M A A S may be right in recognising a quotation from a lost comedy, but alternatively the lines may have been composed by Libanius himself. M A A S ' textual suggestions are directed at ZIMMERMANN'S edition. He didn't know of O x . Pap. X X X I I , 2532 with its similarities to Ocyp. 57 and 123 or of Loeb vol. viii, 3 1 9 - 3 3 7 , when he wrote this piece. I don't think his rejection of an Acacian authorship for 'Ocyp.' absolutely certain, but he clearly makes it more probable. If he is right, the beginning of my translation of the Libanius letter should be emended from 'your comedy' to 'the comedy'; the Greek της κωμωδίας could mean either. Had I known of M A A S ' S work, I would certainly have printed πυρπολούν έμήν at the end of Pod. 22, deleted the question marks at Pod. 86 and 126 and printed his νήπιον at Ocyp. 154. Other important suggestions by M A A S are: Pod.

Ocyp.

10

read

πάντων

71 129 157

read read read

καν μή δύνηται αίθήρ κανεμος ψύλλεια,

213 232 51

read read read

δοίω μοι σαθρόν ίλυσπωμένφ άτονος

as the first word (not absolutely necessary) with Wl LAMO WITZ with DINDORF anticipating my conjecture with Wl LAMO WITZ with R A D E R M A C H E R

LUCIANIC STUDIES SINCE

1930

1419

Less convincing in MAAS' retention τόση δράσις (sic!) at the end of Pod. 276 and his suggestion of τούς πόδας in Ocyp. 169, which is unnecessary, cf. πδσι θρίαμβος in 1.14. NESSELRATH also makes some suggestions of his own on 'Pod.' and O c y p . ' His best is the attribution of Pod. 288 - 290 to ΒΑΣΑΝΟΙ, cf. 308. His judgment, however, on some aspects of tragic usage seem fallible. Thus on Pod. 75 he disapproves of my printing τίνα δαιμόνων αγουσι κωμαστήν χορόν; in view of τίνι δαιμόνων in Aristophanes, Thesm. 104. I thought my choice justified as a difficult reading but paralleled in e.g. Soph. El. 5 5 6 - 5 5 7 , my attitude being precisely the same as that of JEBB on Soph. El. 709 — 710. Again on Ocyp. 104 he thinks I should have quoted GAVELENS' και φόβος πάντας λάβεν; I refrained from doing so, not out of ignorance, but because I credited the poet with observing the tragic norm and not dropping the augment in trimeter dialogue, a rule normally waived only in messengers' speeches. (I admit that O c y p u s ' occasionally resembles satyric drama, though I regard its basic purpose as a parody of tragedy.) Though NESSELRATH indulges in much nit-picking, he does make many good suggestions on the text, to which it is impossible to do full credit here, but I particularly liked his suggestion of reading [ό Αιτωλός] ó Μεγαρεύς in D. Mer. 15.1. He also notes some important suggestions by KASSEL, including one palmary emendation on Timarion 34; read πέρα του δέοντος, cf. Plato, Grg. 4 8 1 D and Luc. 45.82. I hope in due course to take account of the suggestions on vol. iv from NESSELRATH a n d KASSEL w h e n n e x t v o l . iv is r e v i s e d .

Appendix:

Luciani Libellorum

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Φάλαρις Α Φάλαρις Β 'Ιππίας ή Βαλανεΐον Διόνυσος 'Ηρακλής Περί του Ή λ έ κ τ ρ ο υ ή των Κύκνων Μυίας Έγκώμιον Νιγρίνου Φιλοσοφία Δημώνακτος Βίος Περί του Οϊκου Πατρίδος Έγκώμιον Μακρόβιοι 'Αληθών Διηγημάτων Α 'Αληθών Διηγημάτων Β Περί του μή ραδίως πιστεύειν Διαβολή Δίκη Συμφώνων

17. 18. 19. 20.

Συμπόσιον ή Λαπίθαι Ψευδοσοφιστής ή Σολοικιστής Κατάπλους ή Τύραννος Ζεύς ελεγχόμενος

ordo

Phalaris 1 Phalaris 2 Hippias Bacchus Hercules Electrum Muscae Encomium Nigrinus Demonax De Domo Patriae Encomium Macrobii Verae Historiae 1 Verae Historiae 2 Calumniae non temere credendum Lis Consonantium ( = Iudicium Vocalium) Symposium Soloecista Cataplus Iuppiter confutatus

1420 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71.

M A T T H E W D.

MACLEOD

Ζεύς Τραγωδός Ό ν ε ι ρ ο ς ή Άλεκτρυών Προμηθεύς Ίκαρομένιππος ή Ύπερνέφελος Τίμων ή Μισάνθρωπος Χάρων ή Έπισκοπούντες Βίων Πρασις Άναβιούντες ή Άλιεύς Δις κατηγορούμενος Περί Θυσιών Προς τον άπαίδευτον και πολλά Βιβλία ώνούμενον Περί τού Ενυπνίου ήτοι Βίος Λουκιανού Περί Παρασίτου οτι Τέχνη ή Παρασιτική Φιλοψευδεϊς ή Άπιστων Θεών Κρίσις Περί των επί Μισθφ συνόντων Άνάχαρσις ή Περί Γυμνασίων Μένιππος ή Νεκυομαντεία Λούκιος ή "Ονος Περί Πένθους 'Ρητόρων Διδάσκαλος 'Αλέξανδρος ή Ψευδόμαντις Εικόνες Περί της Συρίης Θεοΰ Περί Όρχήσεως Λεξιφάνης Ευνούχος Περί της Άστρολογίης "Ερωτες Υ π έ ρ τών Εικόνων Ψευδολογιστής ή Περί τής 'Αποφράδος Θεών 'Εκκλησία Τυραννοκτόνος ' Αποκη ρυττόμενος Περί τής Περεγρίνου Τελευτής Δραπέται Τόξαρις ή Φιλία Δημοσθένους Έγκώμιον Πώς δει Ίστορίαν συγγράφειν Περί τών Διψάδων Τα προς Κρόνον κτλ. Ηρόδοτος ή 'Αετίων Ζεύξις ή Άντίοχος Υ π έ ρ τού έν τή Προσαγορεύσει Πταίσματος 'Απολογία Άρμονίδης Διάλογος προς Ήσίοδον Σκύθης ή Πρόξενος Ποδάγρα Έρμότιμος ή Περί Αιρέσεων Προς τόν εΐπόντα Προμηθεύς εΐ έν τοις Λόγοις

Iuppiter Tragoedus Gallus Prometheus Icaromenippus Timon Contemplantes Vitarum Auctio Piscator Bis Accusatus De Sacrificiis Adversus indoctum Somnium sive Vita Luciani De Parasito Philopseudeis Dearum Iudicium De Mercede conductis Anacharsis Necyomantia Asinus De Luctu Rhetorum Praeceptor Alexander Imagines De Syria Dea De Saltatione Lexiphanes Eunuchus De Astrologia Amores Pro Imaginibus Pseudologista Deorum Concilium Tyrannicida Abdicatus De Morte Peregrini Fugitivi Toxaris Demosthenis Encomium Quomodo Historia conscribenda sit Dipsades Saturnalia Herodotus Zeuxis Pro Lapsu inter salutandum Apologia Harmonides Hesiodus Scytha Podagra Hermotimus Prometheus es in Verbis

L U C I A N I C STUDIES SINCE 72. 73. 74. [75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80.

Ά λ κ υ ώ ν ή Περί Μεταμορφώσεων Π λ ο ΐ ο ν ή Εύχαί Ώκύπους Libanii Προς Ά ρ ι σ τ ε ί δ η ν περί των Όρχηστών Κυνικός Νεκρικοί Διάλογοι Ε ν ά λ ι ο ι Διάλογοι Θεών Διάλογοι Ε τ α ι ρ ι κ ο ί Διάλογοι

1930

1421

Halcyon Navigium Ocypus De Saltatoribus] Cynicus Dialogi Dialogi Dialogi Dialogi

Mortuorum Marini Deorum Meretricii

Libelli adulterini [81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86.

Έπιστολαί Φιλόπατρις ή Διδασκόμενος Χαρίδημος ή Περί Κ ά λ λ ο υ ς Νέρων Επιγράμματα Τιμαρίων ή Περί τών κατ' αύτόν Παθημάτων

Epistulae] Philopatris Charidemus Nero Epigrammata Timarion

Addendum Ad

p. 1402, 'Mazaris':

WALTHER a l s o p r o d u c e d :

Zur Hadesfahrt

Mazaris, Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik X X V I , 1976,

des

195-206.

S e e a l s o in t h i s s a m e j o u r n a l , X V I I I , 1 9 6 9 , 9 5 - 9 9 , E. TRAPP, Z u r I d e n t i f i z i e r u n g d e r P e r s o n e n in d e r H a d e s f a h r t d e s M a z a r i s . T h e l a t e s t s t u d y , c o m p o r t i n g b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l s u r v e y , is Β. BALDWIN, T h e M a z a r i s : R e f l e c t i o n s a n d R e a p p r a i s a l , I l l i n o i s C l a s s i c a l S t u d i e s X V I I I , 1 9 9 3 , 1 - 14.

Lucían: Tradition versus Reality by GRAHAM ANDERSON, Canterbury, Kent

Contents I. Introduction

1422

II. Some General Considerations

1426

III. Some C o n t e m p o r a r y Targets:

1430

1. Rhetoricians

1430

2. 'Pseudologista' and 'Adversus Indoctum': a c o m m o n link?

1431

3. Philosophers

1433

4. T h e False Historians

1433

5. T h e M o c k e d Scholar and the Arabic Galen

1435

6. T h e Bogus Holy M e n

1435

IV. Athens and R o m e

1439

V. Conclusions

1442

Bibliography of w o r k s cited

1445

I.

Introduction

M u c h o f t h e a c t i v i t y in t h e p a s t h a l f - c e n t u r y o f L u c i a n i c s t u d i e s h a s b e e n c o n c e r n e d w i t h reconciling the literary a n d the actual e n v i r o n m e n t of their author. T h e controversy b e t w e e n 'traditionalist' and ' c o n t e m p o r a r y ' interpret a t i o n s o f L u c i a n 1 is e s s e n t i a l l y a d i s p u t e b e t w e e n l i t e r a r y a n d h i s t o r i c a l u s e s

1

T h e following titles are referred to by author's n a m e only: J. BOMPAIRE, Lucien écrivain: Imitation et création (Paris, 1958); Β. BALDWIN, Studies in Lucian (Toronto, 1973); G. ANDERSON, Lucian: T h e m e and Variation in the Second Sophistic (Leyden, 1976); ID., Lucian, a Sophists' Sophist, YCS 27 (1982), 61 — 92; C. ROBINSON, Lucian and his Influence in E u r o p e ( L o n d o n , 1979); J. A . HALL, L u c i a n ' s

S a t i r e ( N e w Y o r k , 1 9 8 1 ) ; C . P. JONES,

Culture and Society in Lucian (Cambridge, Mass., 1986); R. BRACHT BRANHAM, Unruly Eloquence: Lucian and the C o m e d y of Traditions (Cambridge, Mass., 1989). T h e text o f L u c i a n c i t e d is t h e O . C . T . o f M . D . MACLEOD ( I - I V , O x f o r d 1 9 7 2 - 1 9 8 7 ) . I h a v e

LUCIAN:

TRADITION

VERSUS

1423

REALITY

of evidence, and indeed between the kinds of evidence most proper to literary and historical scholarship - between literature, especially an author's own statements, and the traditional disciplines of prosopography, epigraphy and numismatics. Behind it are two potentially divergent preoccupations: the study of late antique rhetoric, with its treacherous conventions of exaggeration and even misinformation, and that of Graeco-Roman social and cultural relations. At their most extreme the differences of perspective can perhaps best be characterised by the two following statements: (i)

"Outside Lucian's own works and a wretched derivative notice in a Byzantine lexicon, there is no evidence for Lucian's existence at all ... Lucian in the end was not a person of importance."

(ii)

"(Lucian's pamphlets, except Peregrinus and Alexander) contain not one shred of evidence to suggest that their central figures — the master of rhetoric, the book-collector and the carping critic — need to be identified with living persons at all". 2

To the first of these writers it is almost as if Lucian is a kind of historical embarrassment - not the sort of person one should want to include in the social and cultural history of a century in which there are consulars and sophists and other persons of consequence who have left their mark on stone or bronze. To the second, it is as if Lucian's supposed victims, drawn from just such high society, have justly been reduced to (well-deserved?) anonymity by a master of world literature who requires no historical credentials. Much depends on whether we are interested in Lucian himself, or in his victims; and what view we take of their relative 'importance', however we care to define it. 3 But this divergence should perhaps not have reached the stage of a problem in the first place, as the following text will suggest. Lucian tells us that a certain rhetorician performed a 'faked' improvisation, although many of the audience realised that he was using a prompter. We are then told: oí δέ και αυτά γνωρίζοντες τα λεγόμενα παρ' ολην τήν άκρόασιν διετέλεσαν εν τοΰτο μόνον έργον εχοντες, αλλήλων πειρώμενοι όπως μνήμης εχουσι not included reference to J. SCHWARTZ, Biographie de Lucien de Samosate (Strassburg, 1965), which is so speculative as to call for extreme caution. But SCHWARTZ does deserve credit for escaping the kind of polarisation into 'history versus literature' to which most other recent approaches have proved vulnerable. 2

For the first, G. W. BOWERSOCK, Greek Sophists in the R o m a n Empire (Oxford, 1969), 114; for the second, ROBINSON 57. T h e measure of artifice with which Lucian decorates his own early life does not help matters: on 'Somnium', BOMPAIRE 5 2 8 — 531; BALDWIN 13 f.; ANDERSON

138;

H A L L 4 4 6 f. n . 2 6 ; JONES 8 f f . ; w h a t e v e r

one makes

of

Lucian's

alleged apprenticeship as a sculptor, the piece as a whole is a good illustration of the way pepaideumenoi like to present themselves in sophistic terms: see ANDERSON, T h e Pepaideumenos in Action: Sophists and their Outlook in the Early Empire, A N R W II 33.1 (1989), 1 7 0 - 1 9 2 , especially 180. 3

On the question of 'importance', E. L. BOWIE, T h e Importance of Sophists, Y C S 27 (1982), 2 9 - 5 9 ;

ANDERSON ( 1 9 8 9 ) ,

146-152.

1424

GRAHAM

ANDERSON

προς τό διαγιγνώσκειν οτου εκαστον ήν των όλίγον προ ήμών εύδοκιμησάντων επί ταΐς καλουμέναις μελέταις σοφιστών. (7) Έ ν δέ τούτοις απασι και ό τον λόγον τόνδε συγγράψας ήν έν τοις γελώσι και αότός. "Others recognised what was actually being said and ended up throughout the performance doing only one thing - trying out one another's memories for spotting who was the true author of each of his expressions, (borrowed from) the sophists who won a reputation for declamationexercises just before our own generation. Amongst all these, amongst the scoffers, was the very writer of this account". 4 It is obvious to all that Lucian is in his element. By his own admission he is engaged in a typical activity of second century urban élites - listening to a declamation. But he is in his element too in that he is correcting someone else's literary cheating - the imitation of compositions of the recent, instead of the classical past. 5 Lucian, then, is firmly anchored in what we might call 'the classical present' — like most other highly educated writers in Greek of his age. The work which has served to polarize scholarly positions has been BOMPAIRE'S 'Lucien Écrivain' ( 1 9 5 8 ) . BOMPAIRE'S Lucian is the culmination of a long series of 'literary' Lucians, 6 systematically accumulating the author's literary 'debts'; it is scarcely surprising that those of so voluminous a writer should have called for such a large and 'definitive' book. But BOMPAIRE'S Lucian cultivates the sort of reality that stocks a school library: he lives in a world of literary exercise, and the school habits and reflexes that are required to generate it. Hence the standard picture of an author who uses and perhaps indeed systematically exploits Aristophanes, Plato, 'Menippus', and rhetorical exercise, a smattering of later philosophy, and a few more specialised sources: 7 an author living his own literary life in terms of other authors, and producing smart and unexpected syntheses of them. 8 BOMPAIRE'S Lucian no less boldly turns his back on 'the real world' — or rather, any part of 'the real world' that lacks rapport with the classical world of his classical authors: there is thus little room for Rome and the Roman world, or for the emerging religious forces of the second century A . D . (with a few exceptions); little either for 'real' philosophy as opposed to the tired doxography of the schools. And 4 5 6

7

8

Pseudologista 6 f. For Lucian's requirements of declaimers, Rhetorum Praeceptor 17 (ironic). I am not always convinced by JONES' introductory 'Rezeptionsgeschichte' (1 — 5): the object seems to be to link BOMPAIRE and other literary students of Lucian with aspects of HELM'S 'Lucian und Menipp' (Leipzig, 1906) long since repudiated. A few more sources have come to light since BOMPAIRE: e. g. M. D. MACLEOD, Lucian's Knowledge of Theophrastus, Mnemosyne 27 (1974), 75 f.; BALDWIN, Lucian and Theophrastus, Mnemosyne 30 (1977), 174 ff.; ANDERSON, Some Sources of Lucian, Icaromenippus 25 f., Philologus 125 (1980), 159ff.; BALDWIN, Lucian and Europa. Variations on a Theme, Acta Classica 23 (1980), 1 1 5 - 1 1 9 . JONES gives a similar picture, 150— 153: but it should also be stressed how far it coincides with Lucian's own, e.g. Bis Accusatus 33.

LUCIAN: T R A D I T I O N VERSUS

REALITY

1425

much that looks impressive is felt to be 'conventional' rather than 'authentic'. A neat formulation of the prevailing perspective on Lucian just after BOMPAIRE is usefully provided by the introduction to a popular translation of the time: "Historical research has proved that he does not give at all an adequate picture of the second-century world ... his references to the actual world around him are extremely rare, and when they do occur, tend to be expressed in literary terms and adapted to pre-existing patterns ... He never seems to throw in a detail drawn from his own observation of life — not because he lacked observation, but because his critical taste instinctively rejected material for which there was no literary precedent" 9 . With the substitution of 'relatively rarely' for 'never', much of such a formulation can be allowed to stand. But it should be put in a wider context, and should not be allowed to obscure the fact that Lucian's observations are invaluable when we get them, and frequent enough to make his reticence all the more tantalizing. Lucian's writings have to be seen against some sort of picture of the 'institutional life' of the second century as such; and one's view of BOMPAIRE'S Lucian is likely to have been conditioned by how far the two perspectives converge. The standard views of the second century were provided a decade or so later than BOMPAIRE by three studies, BOWERSOCK'S 'Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire', REARDON'S 'Courants littéraires grecs', and BOWIE'S 'Greeks and their Past' 10 : all three embody views of the period as a whole that correspond to views of Lucian. BOWERSOCK in effect provides brief lives within the sophistic society which Lucian understood, and to which in at least some sense he belonged. But this is a highly eclectic view of sophists: in reality BOWERSOCK has updated Philostratus' 'Lives of the Sophists' without their compositions: we see them active in cities, and more particularly in relation to their Roman friends. REARDON by contrast presents a picture of Greek literature that is broadly in line with BOMPAIRE'S picture of Lucian: mimesis, classicism, some carefully controlled novelty, but again little of Rome, and not too much post-classical religion. 11 BOWIE bridges the gap: sophists were in some sense important men, but the really over-riding feature in their outlook is their sense of the past, which tends to colour the cultural life of a whole era. If BOWIE'S picture of the second century outlook is accepted — as indeed it is - then it is difficult to produce a Lucian who fails to conform to and accord with the archaising tastes of his age. It is only by producing slightly emotive and disparaging labels for this picture of the culturally attuned Lucian that one can really discredit it - by suggesting that BOMPAIRE'S Lucian is "living in the past", or is "a self-absorbed artist" or the like. 12

9 10

11

12

P. TURNER, Lucian: Satirical Sketches (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1961), 13 f. Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic, Past and Present 46 (1970), 3 - 41, revised in M. I. FINLEY, Studies in Ancient Society (London and Boston, 1974), 166 - 209. Courants littéraires grecs des II me et III me siècles après J.-C. (Paris, 1971), (on Lucian, pp. 1 5 5 - 1 8 0 ) . E.g. ROBERT sees the literary Lucian (of SCHWARTZ, in this instance), as «désincarné, arraché à son sol et à son milieu pour être considéré comme un pauvre rat de bibliothèque

1426

GRAHAM

ANDERSON

T h e t w o most directly opposite responses to BOMPAIRE have on the whole tended to follow along lines laid d o w n by BOWERSOCK, and indeed the lines of Symian prosopography in general: where Lucian has dealt in terms of some mid-second century person in particular he is held to be 'contemporary' (often irrespective of h o w such persons are actually presented), while he himself is viewed as a shrewd observer. So he can be — when it suits him. But both the main studies, those of B. BALDWIN and C. P. JONES, are open to a serious criticism of onesidednesss: both deal thoroughly with a very limited proportion of Lucian's work and very perfunctorily with the rest. 1 3 It might be urged that they have to look very hard to find 'realism' in more than a rather minor proportion of works, and even when they do so, it might be argued, that realism is of a curiously circumscribed variety: often but not always it turns out to be the resetting or manipulation of 'universal themes' or 'archaistic' (not anachronistic) concerns in an often vaguely contemporary setting.

II. Some General

Considerations

It is the sheer quantity of works conceived in relation to the past that seems crucial to me in determining Lucian's o w n emphasis. If we try to categorize the setting (and degree of contemporaneity) in the genuine works as a whole we shall find something like the following proportions: (a)

works set in either the mythical past or ancient history: 'Phalaris' I - II; 'Prometheus', ' T i m o n ' , ' C h a r o n ' ; 'Dialogi D e o r u m ' ; 'Dialogi Marini', 'Anacharsis', 'Toxaris', 'Menippus', 'Icaromenippus', and probably 'Kataplous'; most 'Dialogi M o r t u o r u m ' .

(b)

works set in a mythical or literary present: 'Bis Accusatus', 'Fugitivi', 'Piscator', 'Somnium seu Vita', 'Iuppiter Tragoedus', 'Iuppiter Confutarne', ' D e o r u m Concilium', 'Hesiodus', 'Verae Historiae', 'Navigium' (?), 'Dialogi Meretricum', a few 'Dialogi M o r t u o r u m ' , 'De Parasito'.

(c)

works with a contemporary interest or reference, but an interest centred on the past: ' R h e t o r u m Praeceptor', 'Pseudologista', 'Lexiphanes', ' Q u o -

13

recopiant ou variant ses vieux modèles». (A travers l'Asie Mineure, 1980, 393). Some historical and archaeological approaches repeatedly try to present the 'literary' Lucian as dead or desiccated instead of mischievously creative. Cf. JONES 23: Lucian is "not an otherworldly 'artist'"; but we have just been told (in significantly reverse order), that Lucian "talks of contemporary culture ... from the vantage point of a practised observer"; and that he wrote for "those who pursue letters". JONES too often does not add these statements together. I have concentrated on the whole on meeting the arguments of JONES, whose contribution is considerably more detailed than BALDWIN'S, and seems also (though not deliberately) to polarize literary a n d non-literary evidence m o r e sharply.

LUCIAN: T R A D I T I O N VERSUS

REALITY

1427

modo historia conscribenda sit', 'Adversus Indoctum', 'Imagines', 'Pro Imaginibus', 'Pro Lapsu', all prolaliae, 'De Dea Syria', 'De Astrologia'. (d) 'Nigrinus', 'Demonax', (the lost 'Sostratus'), 'Alexander', 'Peregrinus', 'De Mercede Conductis', 'Apologia', 'Philopseudeis', 'Eunuchus', 'De Saltatione'. From such a list, 14 (and no two scholars would be likely to agree on all the details of such a classification), it seems very obvious that only those in the last group can really claim to be in any sense contemporary works on specifically contemporary issues; the theme of most of those in (c) would be 'contemporary misuse of ancient culture' or the like; but neither of the last two groups is free of literary issues, still less of literary posturing. A good illustration of the need for a quantitative sense on a small scale is shown by a name which occurs in the Thanatousia in 'Verae Historiae': Lucian witnesses Games of the Dead in the Islands of the Blest, in which one Areius the Egyptian, buried at Corinth, draws in the boxing-match with Epeius. 15 It is characteristic of the approach of L. R O B E R T that we are represented with a dossier of evidence for the name Areios in Egypt as a typical athletic name, and another for burials of athletes at Corinth: 16 this serves to discredit the suggestion of F. OLLIER17 that the Areius here is the Augustan Stoic philosopher of that name; but O L L I E R gives a good reason for the choice of name itself, which R O B E R T omits to mention: its reference to Ares ('Warman'). Nor does he mention the fact that this one possibly current name is intruded among those of Achilles, Theseus, Kapros, Epeius, Homer and Hesiod. On either identification Areius is the honorary recent arrival; but after all he still has to be dead. There are also a number of conceptual complications attached to Lucian's treatment of 'contemporary' subjects. It is difficult to isolate consistently such abstractions as 'truth', 'authenticity', 'realism' and 'objectivity' so far as such a writer is concerned. Much of his treatment of the contemporary world is plausible or quasi-realistic without being 'true' or necessarily so. Take the following passages:

14

15 16

17

It is difficult to include 'De Sacrificiis', 'De Luctu', 'Calumniae non temere credendum', 'Muscae Encomium', or 'Patriae Encomium' easily anywhere; but again it is hardly possible to speak of 'contemporary' significance here in any other sense than that in which any diatribe or rhetorical piece can be said to be culturally 'contemporary'. Verae Historiae 2.22. ROBERT (1980), 429; Menander p. 361 RUSSELL-WILSON (the Hermopolitans). Note that these editors however mark a lacuna and suggest that in context Hermopolis should be famous for something other than athletics. C o m m e n t a r y a d l o c . ( P a r i s , 1 9 6 2 ) ; ROBERT ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 4 2 8 f . , r i g h t l y a d o p t i n g PAUMIER'S

emendation of the unknown Karos to the required name of a famous athlete, known to Pausanias VI.15.3, 10. Well might ROBERT punctuate as follows (425): «le plaisant chez Lucien est donc qu'il apparie l'homérique et le 'moderne' (212 a.c.) et qu'il fait battre Ulysse par Kapros». But how modem is modem?

1428 (i)

GRAHAM

ANDERSON

εγώ δέ έπεί τάχιστα εις τήν Ή λ ι ν άφικόμην, δια του γυμνασίου άλύων έπήκουον άμα Κυνικού τίνος μεγάλη καί τραχεία τη φωνή τα συνήθη ταϋτα και έκ τριόδου τήν άρετήν έπιβοωμένου και άπασιν άπαξαπλώς λοιδορουμένου. "As soon as I arrived in Elis, just as I was walking up through the gymnasium I heard some Cynic bawling in a loud, coarse voice the usual street-corner stuff, all about Virtue, and abusing everybody indiscriminately ...".

(ii)

εγώ δέ ... άνήλθον ές τό άστυ ώς περιπατήσαιμι το δειλινόν εν Κεραμεικω, (...) (16) Έπεί δέ γίγνομαι κατά τήν Ποικίλην, όρώ πλήθος ανθρώπων πάμπολυ συνεστηκός, ένίους μέν ένδον έν αύτη τη στοά, πολλούς δέ καί έν τω ύπαίθρφ, καί τινας βοώντας καί διατεινομένους καί έπί των θάκων καθη μένους, εΐκάσας οΰν δπερ ή ν, φιλοσόφους είναι των εριστικών τούτων, έβουλήθην έπιστάς άκούσαι αύτών ö τι καί λέγουσιν "I was going back to the city to take my evening walk in the Ceramicus, (...) but when I got to the Poikile Stoa I saw a huge crowd of men gathered together, some actually inside in the porch itself, a great many others in the open air, and people sitting on the benches shouting their heads off. So I reckoned that they were disputatious philosophers, and wanted to stand and listen to what it was they were saying...". 1 8

A curious passer-by comes across a strident philosophical performance, duly decked out with references to time and place. But which is Zeus speaking and which Lucian? That will only become clear when one of them goes on to discard his disguise of cloud! Such an ability to recount πιθανώς τε καί έναλήθως in the first person raises a problem for the realists: Lucian enjoyed indulging in fraud, often elaborately and elegantly. H o w far can one be prepared to trust an author who will confide in his reader as a self-confessed liar? 19 It can be difficult to trust in Lucian the sort of material that constitutes 'corroborative detail' to a tall story. The author who must be lying when he writes about a battle on the moon may be lying when he describes a charlatan's description of a campaign during the Parthian War ... When Symian techniques are applied to Lucian, it is often the S Y M E of the 'Historia Augusta' monographs whose approach is needed. Moreover much of the evidence adduced to show Lucian's observation and involvement can be applied equally if not more to show his lack of it. For JONES Lucian's 'Calumniae non temere credendum' "indicates his familiarity with a style favoured by fashionable preachers". 2 0 But it just as clearly shows the frequent tendency of such a style to deal in little more than a parade of clichés or commonplaces: not a single contemporary instance of 18 19 20

Peregrinus 3, Juppiter Tragoedus 15 f. E . g . Peregrinus 39; Alexander 53; Verae Historiae 1.4; ANDERSON (1982), 6 9 - 7 4 . JONES 25 (misleadingly i n d e x e d as t w o s e p a r a t e w o r k s , ' S l a n d e r ' a n d ' C a l u m n y ' ) .

LUCIAN: T R A D I T I O N VERSUS REALITY

1429

slander is actually mentioned from a century so generously supplied with it. So with 'De Domo': here it is to miss the point to discuss the art of ecphrasis, or the decoration of lecture-halls, though Lucian deals with both. The real subject-matter of the piece is concentrated in an apparently disproportionate digression on whether or not the décor of the hall assists the speaker — complete with its contrary logos and Herodotus called as a witness. 21 We should also note that the notion of 'contemporary society' used by JONES is quite an elastic one. Often it strays outside the second half of the second century to any point of the Hellenistic or Graeco-Roman world; captatio is a present vice, rather than one known in BOMPAIRE'S classical repertoire, as well as in Roman Satire as early as the Late Republic. 22 Here one has to recognise an 'undistributed middle' between universal themes that continue into the present, but are already the property of literature in that they apply equally to so many past generations as well. It has to be said that such themes have nothing s p e c i f i c a l l y 'contemporary' about them, 2 3 unless they are verified, for example, by the author's own personal experience, as in Pliny's account of Regulus' actions in that department; or if they are coloured by a host of corroborative details. And in the latter case such details again lend plausibility, not authenticity. 24 A good test case for the futility and circularity of such feuds between literary and extra-literary approaches is shown by the following scenario. Lucian tells us in 'Alexander' that he put a question to the bogus oraclemonger asking what was Homer's native country. 25 A literary reflex causes one to reflect that Lucian puts the same question to Homer himself - on the Island of the Blest; 26 one might then be tempted to infer how serious the enquiry is likely to be. But L. ROBERT has noted that coins of nearby Amastris show that it was one of the towns that claimed a local association with Homer. On this basis he infers that Lucian not only undoubtedly put the question (we should otherwise be left taking our joker's word for it), but did so to embarrass Alexander, the sworn enemy of Amastris. 27 At best all that this would really prove is that local patriotism at Amastris was an immediate additional cause for an enquiry Lucian might well have undertaken anyway as a practical joke. On the other hand even then ROBERT'S proposition is doubtful: there would have been no public embarrassment to the oracle, and in any case Alexander has already banned enquiries from Amastris ... But even if we uphold ROBERT'S theory, he in any case acknowledges that the

21

De D o m o 1 3 - 2 1 , 33, cf. JONES 155.

22

BOMPAIRE 3 4 1 , A N D E R S O N 8 7 .

23

A. OLTRAMARE, Les origines de la Diatribe Romaine (Lausanne, 1926) still offers an invaluable inventory of these infinitely adaptable (and easily updatable) complaints. For refutation of BALDWIN'S presentation of Lucian as a 'Social satirist', HALL 221 - 2 3 3 . Ep. II.20.2 —11. Alexander 53. Verae Historiae 2.20. L. ROBERT (1980), 4 1 5 - 4 1 9 .

24 25 26 27

1430

GRAHAM ANDERSON

Amastrians shared Lucian's preoccupation with the past 28 — as any literary scholar should already have assumed of the educated élite of any Greek city in Asia under the Early Empire.

III. Some Contemporary

Targets

1. Rhetoricians There is no doubt about the 'contemporary' aspect of the 'Rhetorum Praeceptor': Lucian presents and brilliantly parodies the flamboyant complacency of an easily-identifable type, the show-off sophist who makes his mark at the expense of genuine academic and artistic standards. The convergence with a cross-section of traits from Philostratus' 'Lives of the Sophists' has been generally noted, from declaiming about Xerxes to slapping the thighs and flaunting one's costume jewellery.29 But it should be emphasized that Lucian elects to present his worthies in a traditional framework, that of the 'Allegory of Prodicus'. 30 There is a double interest here: Prodicus himself, as one of the original sophists, had himself used the device as a characteristic part of his repertoire. Now it is used against this very type of sophist. But again we can see a perennial criticism of the rhetor here. Lucian's version would look more 'contemporary' if for example Persius' first satire, of Neronian date, did not use very similar traits in describing a Roman oration of probably more than a century earlier than Lucian. 31 scilicet haec populo pexusque togaque recenti et natalicia tandem cum sardonyche albus sede leges celsa, liquido cum plasmate guttur mobile conlueris, patranti fractus ocello. "Of course you are going to read this to the crowd from a high chair, well-groomed, resplendent in your new toga and wearing your sardonyx birthstone, after you've gargled a concoction to keep your throat supple, and put on a winsome expression". The rhetoricians' pose has a history at least as far back as Hippias of Elis. The word-flaunter Lexiphanes is obviously contemporary as well: his 28

29

30

31

R O B E R T ibid, 412: « Dans ces siècles de l'Empire, les villes ont partout un goût, une passion de leur passé, de leur antiquité, et cela se traduit par les légendes et par des titres. » BOMPAIRE 489 f.; BALDWIN 7 0 - 7 4 ; ANDERSON 6 7 - 7 1 ; ROBINSON 17 ff.; H A L L 2 5 2 - 2 7 8 ; JONES 1 0 5 - 1 0 8 . BALDWIN omits this; JONES accepts it, 1 0 5 , but does not consider what may well be a convergent echo of the Logos-Debate in Aristophanes' 'Clouds'. P e r s i u s S a t . 1 . 1 5 — 1 8 CLAUSEN.

LUCIAN:

TRADITION

VERSUS

REALITY

1431

'composition' is an elegant (and sometimes very coarse) parody of Ulpianean sophistry. But so thorough a parody once more serves to underline that the kind of contemporary issue which excited Lucian is one concerned with affectation of the past. JONES' attempt to identify the Lexiphanes with Philagrus of Cilicia is frustrated by an apparently equally recondite allusion to Alexander Peloplaton as well. 3 2 But it may be that an audience alert enough to savour this piece in the first place would have been ingenious enough to see allusion to both.

2. 'Pseudologista' and 'Adversus Indoctum': a common link? We have already noticed how readily the 'Pseudologist' captures the atmosphere of sophistic preoccupation with the past. Here it may be useful to suggest a further step in attempting to unmask one or more of Lucian's victims, and in so doing stress the inter-relation of literary and historical interests. JONES has with some plausibility identified the Pseudologist, who falsely criticizes Lucian's use of a single word άποφράς ("nefand"), with Hadrian of Tyre; much earlier M . D. MACLEOD had tentatively suggested that the Pseudologist might be the ignorant book-collector, victim of a separate and no less abusive attack ('Adversus Indoctum'). 3 3 It is possible to suggest further connexions by noting possible links between the book-collector and Hadrian of Tyre in turn. (i)

In the first place Lucian is angry at the book-collector for his cultural pretentions: he has been convinced by his flatterers that he is ού μόνον καλός ... καί εράσμιος άλλα σοφός καί ρήτωρ καί συγγραφεύς ("not only handsome and loveable but an intellectual, a speaker and a writer"). Hadrian is conceited and handsome, and has an entourage. 3 4

(ii)

Lucian's book-collector is implied to be a Syrian like himself. Hadrian came from Tyre. 3 5

(iii) Lucian's book-collector is clearly homosexual, as is the Pseudologist; we certainly know that Hadrian has an enthusiastic and devoted male following. 3 6 (iv) Lucian accuses the book-collector of acquiring books so that his reputation would percolate to Marcus Aurelius himself and thus benefit from 32

JONES, G R B S

( 1 9 7 2 ) , 4 7 7 , citing L e x i p h a n e s 3 ; ANDERSON 7 1 n. 4 0 , citing L e x . 2 2 ,

an

objection not noticed by JONES 104 f., o r by REARDON, CPh 8 4 (1989), 2 7 3 . F o r linguistic s a t i r e s , BOMPAIRE 6 3 3 - 6 3 6 ;

BALDWIN 4 9 - 5 9 ;

HALL 2 7 9 - 3 0 7 ; JONES 1 0 2 - 1 0 5 ; 33

34 35

93

ANDERSON 6 8 - 7 1 ,

c f . ROBINSON 1 8 f.;

109-116.

JONES, TWO Enemies of Lucian, GRBS 13 (1972), 4 7 8 - 4 8 7 ; M . D. MACLEOD, with "Αν the Future in Lucian and the Solecist, C Q N . S . 6 (1956), 109. Adv. Ind. 20; Philostratus VS 5 8 7 . Adv. Ind. 19; Philostratus VS 5 8 5 . Adv. Ind. 25; Pseudolog. 27; Philostratus 5 8 7 , cf. JONES 4 8 3 . ANRW II 34.2

1432

GRAHAM

ANDERSON

'hearsay culture'. He would not have been able to make the accusation if his enemy were totally excluded from the possibility of doing so. As it is, it seems perfectly clear that Hadrian would have had just such access: he dedicated a stele to Marcus' tutor Claudius Severus, who in turn advised Marcus on hearsay on the very subject of Hadrian (though not as favourably as the latter might have hoped). 37 (v)

Lucian implies that the book-collector's expensive tastes have brought him to the brink of ruin. Hadrian was known to have just such an expensive and ostentatious lifestyle.38

(vi) Lucian condemns the book-collector for giving performances at dinner and withholding drinks from those who did not admire. Philostratus tells of a drunken performance by Hadrian at the Clepsydrion, and Philostratus vouches for his hospitality. 39 These need not of themselves indicate the same person, but it is not hard to see the general direction in which both are heading. (vii) Lucian alleges an informant for the book-collector's secret vices: a pornos who exhibits the teethmarks of the master in front of witnesses. He is carefully described as a free man and an outsider, so that this is not a case of 'we all know what you get up to with your slaves'. Philostratus reports that Hadrian was constantly accused by an educated and articulate parasite, who was given gifts by his patron, but abused him — until beaten up by the slaves of Hadrian's pupils with fatal results. 40 The two accounts may be opposite versions of the same man: Lucian's account clearly implies, and Philostratus' gloss cannot exclude, the possibility of a homosexual blackmailer subjected to sadistic attack. Taken together these convergences might still be taken to indicate only the sort of high-living sophist of which Philostratus is full, no more specific than the 'Rhetorum Praeceptor' himself. As ROBINSON and this author have particularly stressed,41 Lucian's victims tend easily to assimilate. On the other hand the book-collector is the only man who fits geographically and chronologically in the whole of Philostratus: a grey-haired high-living homosexual from Syria with expensive tastes, against whom a parasite complained, only to be subjected to physical assault. Prosopography and pamphleteering have come so near, and yet so far: they still fall short of securing decisive

37

Adv. Ind. 2 2 f . ; J . KEIL, J ΠA I 4 0 (1953), 14 ( = SEG 13.505), JONES 4 8 1 , Philostratus VS 588.

38

Adv. Ind. 25; Pseudolog. 21; Philostratus, VS 5 8 7 , cf. JONES 475. Adv. Ind. 20; Philostratus VS 5 8 6 f. Adv. Ind. 25; Philostratus VS 5 8 7 f.

39 40 41

ROBINSON

18ff.; ANDERSON 6 7 - 7 1 .

T h e inconsistency

stressed by BALDWIN

(57),

that

the bookcollector is a target for fraud (Adv. Ind. 1), while the Pseudologist engages in it (Pseudolog. 30), is a timely warning; but since the bookcollector fancies himself as a rhetor as well (Adv. Ind. 20), such an inconsistency is not incredible.

LUCIAN:

TRADITION

VERSUS

REALITY

1433

identification for all these figures. But there is a bonus if this is the right candidate: the book-collector is said to pride himself on resemblance to a certain emperor, whose looks and walk he imitated: 42 the last feature can only indicate a contemporary who could have been observed. That gives us a choice of Hadrian, Antoninus, Lucius Verus, or Marcus. Hadrian at once suits the combination of scholarliness, savagery, and sexual proclivity represented in the book-collector. If the book-collector and Pseudologist are the same, Hadrian of Tyre would be fancying his resemblance to the emperor Hadrian. We cannot insist on present evidence that the case is proven; but it is a nexus worth reexamining in the light of any new evidence that may emerge. 3. Philosophers I doubt if there has ever been any real room for disagreement over Lucian's rhetorical integrity, or his capacity for observing rhetorical (mal)practice. Philosophy is more difficult. The situation in the reign of Marcus presented a doubtlessly favourable climate for philosophy, and Lucian is unstinting in his obsession with the inadequacies of the schools. 43 But once more there is a sense of stereotyping: the more one reads the endless permutations on philosophical caricature, the more obvious is the difference in approach and depth between Lucian and, say, Plutarch or Epictetus. It must be acknowledged that Lucian has the tools to turn Platonic dialogue to sceptical ends on a large scale in the 'Hermotimus'; and the professional student of philosophy sampling school after school would have been as authentic in the second century as he still was in the person of Augustine at the end of the fourth. One only needs to look at the contrasting portrayals of Euphrates of Tyre in Pliny the Younger and Philostratus to see that philosophers existed at the beginning of the second century capable of being presented as Lucian presents his caricatures. Contrast with Pliny is especially instructive: Lucian's consultation of the philosopher Nigrinus is thoroughly schematic, mechanistic and melodramatic in contrast to Pliny's account of his interviews with Euphrates, who comes over as a sound psychologist reassuring his subject with what he wants to hear, rather than converting an evidently callow youth with rather rechauffé satire. 44

4. The False Historians The problem of 'authenticity' seems particularly prominent with regard to the treatise ' Q u o m o d o historia conscribenda sit'. The fact of a Parthian 42 43

44

93»

Adv. Ind. 22. C A S T E R (1937), 9 - 1 2 2 ; B O M P A I R E 4 8 5 - 4 8 9 ; B A L D W I N 115 ff.; A N D E R S O N 67 f.; R O B I N S O N 29 ff.; H A L L 1 5 1 - 1 9 3 ; J O N E S 2 4 - 3 2 . For Lucian's considerable dexterity in specialist parody of the schools, see now the commentary of H . - G . N E S S E L R A T H on the 'De Parasito' (Berlin, 1985), passim. Nigrinus, e.g. 1 5 - 2 0 ; Pliny Ep. 1.10.10.

1434

GRAHAM

ANDERSON

W a r is n o t in d o u b t , n o r is t h e e x t e n t of historical activity in the second century A. D.; still less the p r o b a b i l i t y of a c r o p of w a r c o r r e s p o n d e n t s struggling t o m a k e their m a r k . But b e y o n d this p o i n t it is f a r m o r e difficult to be sure of o u r g r o u n d . 4 5 T h e a t t r a c t i o n of i n v e n t i o n a n d plausibility n o w begin t o coincide. I set o u t b e l o w my misgivings against uncritical a c c e p t a n c e of L u c i a n ' s catalogue: (i)

T o w r i t e history, especially of the degree of artistry implied in t h a t of s o m e of L u c i a n ' s victims, requires a g o o d deal of time a n d leisure: h o w is Lucian in c o m m a n d of so m u c h m a t e r i a l so s o o n , indeed b e f o r e the a c t u a l end of hostilities? 4 6 M e m o i r s h a v e t o get b a c k f r o m the P a r t h i a n f r o n t , a n d be ' w r i t t e n u p ' , w h i l e t h o s e actually o n c a m p a i g n h a v e t o r e t u r n o r send dispatches.

(ii)

H o w does it c o m e a b o u t t h a t an a p p a r e n t l y r a n d o m cross-section of c u r r e n t h i s t o r i o g r a p h e r s s h o u l d fall so neatly i n t o such well-contrasted a n d e n t e r t a i n i n g categories of i n c o m p e t e n c e as i m i t a t o r s of T h u c y d i d e s or H e r o d o t u s , d o c t o r o r p h i l o s o p h e r , e p i t o m i s t o r prolific digressor, a n d t h e like? L u c i a n ' s r o g u e s ' gallery seems suspiciously c o m p l e t e a n d schematic.

(iii) T h e piece retains its p o i n t a n d its relevance even if L u c i a n h a d n o t read a single genuine h i s t o r i a n of t h e War. (iv) L u c i a n ' s i m m e d i a t e p r e f a c e t o the c a t a l o g u e d o e s n o t inspire c o n f i d e n c e : καί προς Χαρίτων μηδείς ά π ι σ τ ή σ η τοις λεχθησόμενοις· δτι γαρ άληθή έστιν καν έπωμοσάμην, ει άστεΐον ήν δ ρ κ ο ν έντνθέναι συγγράμματι. "And by t h e G r a c e s let n o - o n e disbelieve w h a t I a m a b o u t t o say. F o r I w o u l d even s w e a r o n o a t h t h a t it is t r u e , if it w e r e p r o p e r t o insert a n o a t h in a t r e a t i s e " . 4 7 D o e s Lucian p r o t e s t t o o m u c h ? (vi) T h e m i x t u r e of s o m e real w o r k s w i t h o n e o r m o r e fictitious o n e s is n o t ruled out, so t h a t the identification of o n e of these figures w o u l d n o t clinch the case f o r the authenticity of t h e rest. (vii) T h e addressee's n a m e Philo goes u n s u s p e c t e d by either BALDWIN or JONES: this w o u l d be less e x c e p t i o n a b l e w e r e it n o t f o r P a m p h i l u s , the i n t e r l o c u t o r in E u n u c h u s , o r the philos w h o serves the s a m e p u r p o s e in I c a r o m e n i p p u s , t o say n o t h i n g of Philocles in the ' P h i l o p s e u d e i s ' . 4 8

45

46 47 48

actualité in this instance); BALDWIN 75 - 95; A N D E R S O N 7 7 80; HALL 3 1 2 - 3 2 4 ; JONES 5 9 - 6 7 . Historia 31. Historia 14. JONES 161 - 1 6 5 fails t o g o b e y o n d wishful thinking o n the existence of Crepereius Calpurnianus of P o m p e i o p o l i s (Historia 15), as d o e s BALDWIN, Crepereius Calpurnianus, BOMPAIRE 483 (siding with

LUCIAN: T R A D I T I O N VERSUS

1435

REALITY

5. T h e Mocked Scholar and the Arabic Galen Again the new testimonium on Lucian in the Arabic Galen affords us a sample of Lucian's kind of contemporary action. We are told that he forged a treatise purporting to be that of the sixth-century Ionian philosopher Heraclitus; it was used to expose a prominent contemporary philosopher, who unsuspectingly commented on it as if on the genuine article; 4 9 and he had not been the only victim. Here again we have a contemporary involvement very similar in import to the matter of the 'Pseudologist'. In this case Lucian catches someone out with a deliberately archaic forgery, and the result is to expose someone else's inadequate grasp of the past. It is worthwhile to note that interpretation of the incident has itself tended to vary considerably, depending on one's view of the present to which Lucian belongs: for BOWERSOCK Lucian is still as contemptible as he is irreverent; 5 0 I doubt if Galen, with his admiration for professional thoroughness and circumspection, would have taken the same view.

6. T h e Bogus Holy Men On religion it might be said that battle-lines had been drawn before BOMPAIRE. CASTER'S 'Lucien et la Pensée Religieuse de son Temps' and the same author's thèse supplémentaire51 on Alexander presented a Lucian faced with no lack of interest or opportunity to describe the religious life of his time, and just as resolutely allowing such an opportunity to pass. It is around the 'Alexander' 5 2 that claims for traditionalism and personal invention against

49

50

51

52

Q U C C (1978), 211 ff. who even provides him with a legion. The more probable such a name, the more skilful the potential forgery. Part of the humour, whether the man existed or not, is in the incongruity of such an obviously 'Roman-sounding' name and origin to so Hellenic a project as imitation of Thucydides. G. STROHMAIER, Übersehenes zur Biographie Lukians, Philologus 120 (1976), 1 1 7 - 1 2 2 ; M . D. MACLEOD, Lucian's activities as a μισαλάζων, Philologus 123 (1979), 326 ff.; HALL 387 ff.; JONES 19. ANDERSON (1989) 197 f., tentatively identifies the forgery with the 'De Astrologia'. Cf. G. W. BOWERSOCK, Cambridge History of Classical Literature (CHCL) 1 (Cambridge, 1985), 663; against, ANDERSON, The Second Sophistic: some problems of perspective, in: D. A. RUSSELL, Antonine Literature (Oxford, 1990), 105 f. Éudes sur Alexandre ou le Faux prophète de Lucien (Paris, 1938). On Lucian's 'literary' use of the Olympians there can be no argument, pace BALDWIN 104 ff., but of course if one prefers to put it this way, they are always an authentic and contemporary part of the educational system from before Plato to the end of Antiquity, whatever else they might be. Educated people could always be relied on to laugh at what they could be relied on to know. BOMPAIRE 6 1 4 - 6 2 1 ; BALDWIN 1 0 4 f . ; ANDERSON 7 2 ff., 7 6 f . , 1 2 4 - 1 2 7 ; ROBINSON 6 1 ; ROBERT ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 3 9 3 - 4 2 1 ,

432-436;

HALL 2 0 7 - 2 1 2 ;

JONES 1 3 3 - 1 4 8 ;

57-

BRANHAM,

The Comic as Critic: Revenging Epicurus — a Study of Lucian's Art of Comic Narrative, C l a s s i c a l A n t i q u i t y 3 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , 1 4 3 - 1 6 3 ; ID. ( 1 9 8 9 ) ,

181-210.

1436

GRAHAM

ANDERSON

authenticity and realism can be most clearly articulated. JONES has assembled a substantial number of authentic touches which no-one is likely to contest. Not least is the appearance in a collection of cult-objects at Tomis in Moesia of a replica of Alexander's snake, 5 3 endorsing the long-established evidence of the coin-types illustrating it. 5 4 T h e same image confirms Lucian's claim of the wide spread of the cult of Alexander's synthetic snake-god Glycon. 5 5 Moreover on a wider level Lucian's observations are invaluable to students of religion and of the operations of the holy man in particular. Alexander's shrewd choice of site, political manipulation of the oracle's patrons, and strong sense of theatre are all authentic acts of the self-made holy man who knows he has to be his own publicist. 5 6 But over against this is the large number of classical and classicizing touches (Alexander's villainy exceeds that of the Cercopes, Eurybatus, Phrynondas, Aristodemus, or Sostratus; or he is compared unfavourably with t h e Alexander, or with Pythagoras). T h e r e is also a considerable amount that must coincide with routine scandalmongering (such as charges of sexual irregularities and attempted murder), and Lucian's tendency towards mischievous embellishment is to be suspected (Alexander's assistant is bitten by a snake; Lucian himself bites Alexander's hand). 5 7 In some measure at least Lucian's interest in Alexander related to the latter's travesty o f traditional religious etiquette and good taste. In particular Alexander's mysteries are a comedown from those of Eleusis: he has Paphlagonian 'Eumolpids and Kerukes', wearing brogans and smelling strongly of garlic. 5 8 Moreover, there is a considerable problem over Lucian's access to these oracles. Did he go round the empire collecting specimens of Alexander's villainy? O r did he risk an uncomfortably long stay in a local community zealously loyal to Alexander to pick up his evidence? Certain pieces of information would have been difficult to obtain: how could Lucian have been certain that the oracle in Alexander 50 was offered in response to no enquiry? And if Lucian himself went to the trouble of forging enquiries to catch the oracle out, how can we ever be sure that he did not touch up the oracles themselves? 5 9 O n e other episode of the 'Alexander' has given rise to problems of interpretation and renewed suspicion, the alleged oracle given to the army on the Danube, to cast 'servants of Cybele' into the river, followed by a R o m a n defeat. All that can be safely surmised is that Lucian has interpreted s o m e 53

V. CANARACHE et al. Tezaurul de sculpturi de la Tomis (Bucharest, 1963); ROBERT (1980), 3 9 7 f.

54

F o r further numismatic evidence, ROBERT (1980), 3 9 3 — 421 passim. E. g. Alexander 2, 30, 36. Alexander 9 f.; 3 2 ; 1 1 - 1 4 , 16, 38 ff. F o r holy men as operators, see ANDERSON, Sage Saint and Sophist: Holy M e n and their Associates in the Early R o m a n Empire (Routledge, forthcoming).

55 56

57 58 59

Comparisons: Alexander 4, 1; scandal: 5 f., 3 9 - 4 2 , 5 6 ; embellishment: 10, 5 5 . Alexander 39. F o r suspicions, ANDERSON 124— 127.

LUCIAN:

TRADITION

VERSUS

REALITY

1437

t h i n g apparently reflected in a representation of animals swimming on the column of Marcus, and in a typically classicizing way (comparing Alexander's effort to the Delphic oracle given to Croesus). The fact that the oracle was simply given rather than produced in response to an enquiry leads one to suspect that Alexander simply joined in the act, like the miraclemongers who claimed credit for the so-called rain-miracle in the campaign against the Quadi — but at a distance. He or his enemies were then free to manipulate any subsequent event that bore any resemblance to the prediction. 6 0 But we are still left asking: why should Lucian attack t h i s oracle-monger, and why in the sort of piece he writes? A pamphlet against a now more quiescent shrine allows characteristic abuse of low life, a rehearsal of necessarily literary oracles, and a contest in pseudos with a really consummate villain, safely dead and without a successor. To a student of Lucian as literature such incentives will be enough. But much depends on one's own point of view. To historians of Christianity or paganism Lucian describes a credible type of local pagan oracle, 6 1 yet evinces no comparable interest, say, in the rise of Montanism in Phrygia, where the same ammunition could have been applied with equal effect. But had Lucian's route in 165 taken him through the inaccessible Pepuza rather than Abonouteichos, we might have had a picture of a Christian Alexander instead. But one must suspect that Alexander really did cultivate friends in high places and manipulated in Rutilianus a powerful patron — even if his dupe is described by Lucian in terms that recall Theophrastus' deisidaemon. But we should not ignore either how easily Lucian could cast the description of a shrine and its cult into a totally literary mould in the 'De Dea Syria'. 6 2 T h e 'Peregrinus' has problems similar to those of the 'Alexander': here again we have to weigh up the interplay of obvious literary subterfuge — some of it once again admitted by Lucian himself — with the life of a wellattested figure whom Lucian particularly disliked. 63 Here we can contrast the treatment in one of the 'mythical' works where Peregrinus has an honorary appearance - to offend the nostrils of Zeus (Fugitivi 1) with the more realistic presentation in the 'Peregrinus' itself; one says 'more realistic', because the artifice, even if taken at face value, is patent enough: most of the denunciation is done by an unnamed porte-parole of Lucian himself, bandying oracles with Peregrinus' side-kick Theagenes, and once more reacting part of the time on

61

R. B. RUTHERFORD, The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: a study (Oxford, 1989), 223 f. Of the latter e. g. R. LANE FOX, Pagans and Christians (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1986), 2 4 2 - 2 5 0 .

62

CASTER ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 3 6 0 - 3 6 4 ; BOMPAIRE 6 4 6 - 6 5 3 ;

60

Fiction (Leyden,

1976), 68 - 82; R .

A.

ODEN,

A N D E R S O N , S t u d i e s in L u c i a n ' s

Comic

Studies in Lucian's De Syria Dea (Missoula,

M o n t a n a , 1 9 7 7 ) ; ROBINSON 2 2 - 2 5 ; H A L L 3 7 4 - 3 8 1 ; J O N E S 4 1 ff. A f t e r C A S T E R t h e r e h a s

been general acknowledgment that the piece really is by Lucian, and that it masterfully maintains a straightfaced irony throughout. ODEN'S corroboration of the viewpoint from the Semitic side is particularly welcome. 63

P e r e g r i n u s : C A S T E R 2 3 7 - 2 5 5 ; B O M P A I R E 4 7 7 - 4 8 0 ; ANDERSON 7 2 - 7 6 ; ROBINSON 5 7 ff.; HALL 1 7 6 - 1 8 2 ; JONES

117-132.

1438

GRAHAM

ANDERSON

aesthetic as much as on religious grounds - before we find Lucian in his own person spreading false rumours of a parody apotheosis. 64 Even if all the scandal about Peregrinus is true - and as in 'Alexander' much has at least a ring of authenticity - there is more than Lucian's eccentric and schematic description of the Christians to arouse suspicion. 65 The 'Philopseudeis' poses a problem: 66 here there is a general air of plausibility, and the gathering of intellectuals is not far different from the kind of company in several of Plutarch's Delphic dialogues, or from some of Aristides' supporters in the 'Hieroi Logoi'; nor from an obviously fictitious and literary group such as that in Lucian's own 'Convivium'. J O N E S however connects one outsider among Lucian's villains, the Egyptian magos Pancrates, with the Pancrates honoured by Hadrian. 67 But one should also note the sort of point that Lucian misses out: the fact that Pancrates honoured Hadrian with a reference to his favourite Antinous in a poem. Such a feature would indeed have provoked Lucian, yet if he knew it, he kept quiet: the Imperial cult or related matters is either outside his interest, or offends his sense of tact. In the tales themselves it is more difficult and often futile to adjudicate between tradition and reality, but this time for a different reason. Folk material often relies on an oral tradition impossible to monitor by conventional timescales. Take the conventional ghost story told by Arignotus the Pythagorean, of how he exorcised a ghost at the house of Eubatides of Corinth. The characteristic procedure of the realists would be to ask how common and current was the name, especially in the area involved. This author's reflex is to see the name as a variation — for whatever reason — of some other name in Lucian himself. 68 The realists would point to a story as evidence of belief in ghosts in the late second century. The proponents of mimesis might then rightly point to the existence of the story in the Younger Pliny - set in Athens, to the credit of the philosopher Athenodorus. 69 It is open to us to claim that Lucian adapts the details of folktale to have some fun at Arignotus' expense. J O N E S once more tries to claim oral tradition as contemporary and divorced from books. But Lucian could have found this tale-type - demonstrably at

64

Port-parole, 7 - 3 1 ; oracles 2 9 f . ; aesthetic grounds, e . g . Theagenes' comparison of Peregrinus to Olympian Zeus (6), followed by Lucian's ironic reference to him as a Polyclitan canon; parody apotheosis: 39.

65

O n Peregrinus a n d the Christians, CASTER 3 5 0 - 3 5 6 ;

BOMPAIRE 4 7 9 f.; ANDERSON

26;

HALL 2 1 3 ff.; JONES 122 f. Lucian's dismissal of Christ himself as a 'crucified sophist' (Peregrinus 13) seems to me crucial in determining his own viewpoint. 66

CASTER 3 2 1 - 3 3 4 ; BOMPAIRE 4 5 7 - 4 6 0 ; ANDERSON 51 f.; ID., C o m i c Fiction H A L L 2 1 5 - 2 2 0 ; JONES

23-33;

46-51.

61

JONES 4 9 f. T o say that Lucian "has altered the features of the real Pancrates for his o w n purpose" seems to me to beg the question, o r conceal the fact that Lucian simply falls back on conventional Greek caricature of an Egyptian, Philops. 34; cf. Navig. 2.

68

Cf. Eucrates, Philops. 5; Eucritus, D . Meretr. 6; Echecratides, T i m o n 7 2 . F o r the technique as a whole, ANDERSON, Studies in Lucian's Literary Technique (D. Phil, thesis, unpublished, O x f o r d 1974) 115 ff. Ep. 7 . 2 7 . 7 - 1 1 .

69

LUCIAN:

TRADITION

VERSUS

REALITY

1439

least half-a-century old - as easily in a handbook of mirabilia or variae historiae: one thinks of the example of the miracle performed by the philosopher Asclepiodotus in Apuleius' 'Florida'. These examples, by no means exhaustive, serve to illustrate the kind of mediation which Lucian tends to practise between 'rhetoric' and 'reality', which naturally overlap in any case. To the prosopographer Philostratus' 'Lives of the Sophists' is almost a free gift: a collection of undoubtedly real people who can be checked against entries in 'Prosopographia Imperii Romani'; whereas Lucian's villains tend to be presented pseudonymously by a self-confessed (and proven) practical joker, moving among figures as Protean as Philostratus' Apollonius of Tyana. They demand a good deal of caution, and a constant awareness of Lucian's literary reflexes.

/V. Athens and

Rome

Much can be learned from Lucian's own presentation of his environment. Does he cultivate the Athens of the fifth and fourth centuries B. C. or that of the second century A.D.? 7 0 One should perhaps learn to minimise the difference. One could argue that he does not have to describe the daily life of Athenian politics, 71 which must have been familiar to any aware intellectual of his time; he need only allude to matters which bring it into line with that of its classical past. Hence his Athens is that of the Acropolis, the Pnyx, The Ceramicus and the Porch, of lawcourts, assemblies and decrees — but not a great deal else. 72 One misses, particularly, such a building as the theatre of Herodes. 73 Of course some late or modern details are bound to creep in as part of the mélange — as neologisms and higher koiné forms occur in Lucian's neo-Attic; but they remain an incidental part of the literary texture. In what century, for example, would one seek to place the 'thought-world' of Lucian's 'Navigium'? 74 Here we have a Platonic walk to the Piraeus to establish the 70

71

On Lucian's Athens, BOMPAIRE 520 — 527, refuting J. DELZ, Lukians Kenntnis der athenischen Antiquitäten (Fribourg, 1950). For contrasting perspectives (of the 'real' Athens under Rome), S. FOLLET, Athènes au IIME et au IIIME siècle, Paris 1976; D. J. GEAGAN, Roman Athens: Some Aspects of Life and Culturel. 86 B . C . - A . D .

2 6 7 , A N R W I I . 7 . 2 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 3 7 1 - 4 3 7 ; J . Η . OLIVER,

The

Civic Tradition and Roman Athens (Baltimore and London, 1983). 72

BOMPAIRE 2 2 5 f.

73

Philostratus VS 550. Commentary by G. HUSSON, Le Navire ou Les Souhaits (Paris, 1971); ANDERSON, Some Notes on Lucian's Navigium, Mnemosyne 30 (1977), 3 6 3 - 3 6 8 . Cf. ANDERSON (1982), 8 8 - 9 1 . On the dimensions of the ship, see now G. W. HOUSTON, Lucian's Navigium and the dimensions of the Isis, AJPh 108 (1987), 444 - 450; Adeimantus' extravagant wish requires a huge ship. JONES seems to miss the point and the emphasis, in arguing "the immense size of the ship and its destination in Italy betoken a world far different from Plato's" (158).

74

1440

GRAHAM

ANDERSON

scenario for a latter-day ' R e p u b l i c ' ; a remarle that Egyptians still clasp their hair in the Athenian m a n n e r mentioned by T h u c y d i d e s ; 7 5 a description o f a modern bulk-carrier seen at the Piraeus - en route, let it be noted, not for R o m e or Ostia or Puteoli but just vaguely for Italy; 7 6 a description o f a canal that could easily refer to the well-known ambitions o f Herodes Atticus to excavate the Isthmus o f Corinth, but does not actually mention Herodes by n a m e ; 7 7 a fantasy based on Alexander's conquests, which again does not actually mention A r r i a n ; 7 8 and another based on the Platonic a c c o u n t o f Gyges. 7 9 T h e vanity of human wishes is a universal theme, and Lucian ties it no m o r e specifically to a century than does J u v e n a l , with his harking b a c k to H a n n i b a l and C i c e r o . . . 8 0 JONES might well have related the modern ship to the contemporary epigraphic p o e m of Julianus of Laodicea which he himself had edited 8 1 , and in which a shipowner boasts about his cargoes f r o m the East; but the literary ambition o f the inscription and the recurrence o f the theme in the highly literary Alciphron once m o r e blurs the distinction between traditional and realistic. 8 2 T h e Î u n u c h u s ' is fully c o n s o n a n t with the ethos of Athens as presented in Philostratus: a colourful scandal over a candidate for a Peripatetic chair who has to decide whether to risk disqualification as a eunuch, or as an adulterer! But the liveliness with which Lucian can depict such a scenario, true or simply plausible, prompts the same disappointment that we have not heard m o r e , especially on the last years and final intrigues o f Herodes A t t i c u s . 8 3 O n e such authentic Athenian scandal has an unexpected link with an inscription u n k n o w n at BOMPAIRE'S time of writing: E. M . 13366. J . H . OLIVER contended that Lucian's ' D e o r u m concilium' is built round a c o n t e m p o r a r y issue o f fraudulent registration of the office-holders here discussed. T h e gods are parengraptoi, like the false claimants to the Eumolpid priesthoods to be dealt with by M a r c u s ' Quintilii. 8 4 T h i s would m a k e g o o d sense to literary and historical interpreters alike. Lucian's text need only be c o n t e m p o r a r y with the problem, not necessarily as late as M a r c u s ' (second) letter with its proposed solution. But o n c e m o r e it would serve t o illustrate the i n d i r e c t n e s s o f Lucian's involvement with a topical theme that itself is concerned with the safeguarding of antique precedence and probity.

75 76

77 78

79 80 81 82 83 84

Navig. 3, Thuc. 1.6. G. RICKMAN, The Corn-Supply of Ancient Rome, (Oxford, 1980), 123, still takes the whole business as fact. Navig. 24 (letting in the sea as far as the dipylon). For Lucian and Arrian, e. g. ANDERSON, Lucian's Historia and Arrian's Anabasis, Historia 29 (1980), 1 1 4 - 1 2 4 ; M. D. MACLEOD, Lucian's relationship to Arrian, Philologus 131 (1987), 2 5 7 - 2 6 4 . Resp. 359D ff.; Navig. 42. Juvenal 1 0 . 1 1 4 - 1 2 6 ; 1 4 7 - 1 6 7 . JONES, A Syrian at Lyon, AJPh 100 (1978), 3 3 6 - 3 5 3 . ANDERSON, Julian of Laodicea: trader or rhetor?, JHS 102 (1982), 202. ANDERSON 62 ff.; HALL 457 - 60; JONES 29 f. The Actuality of Lucian's Assembly of the Gods, AJPh 101 (1980), 3 0 4 - 3 1 3 ; ID., The Civic Tradition and R o m a n Athens (Baltimore and London, 1983), 76 — 84.

LUCIAN:

TRADITION

VERSUS

REALITY

1441

It is more difficult to place a work like the 'Demonax': a crude catalogue of one's teacher's apomnemoneumata might well be heralded as both 'contemporary' and 'actual', and dovetails well after a fashion with the world evoked by Philostratus for second-century Athens; 85 but a fair proportion of that world is once more engaged in correction to proper standards of paideia: the humiliation of a boastful and tasteless social climber who prizes Roman citizenship, or the taking to task of the theatrical Herodes for his ostentatious and irrational mourning. 8 6 J O N E S seems to note the unusual tone of the piece, lacking in literary artifice: but that might serve to underline how far removed from reality so many others tend to be. 87 The everyday wit and wisdom of Lucian's own teacher is relegated to a scoptic collection: like Lucian himself, Demonax turns out to be a γελωτοποιός. Lucian can indeed set himself in the Athens of the present — but a present where one has to run for one's life to avoid stones thrown by Socrates, and change one's name to Lycinus before facing Philosophy and securing an Orestes-style acquittal; or where one can run into Pan, always ready to allude to his role at Marathon ,.. 8 8 As to Rome, there is tantalisingly little support for J O N E S ' S assertion that Lucian 'constantly' mentions the city, its institutions and its citizens. 89 The key text for Lucian's view is the 'Nigrinus', where a philosopher's impressions of Rome, coinciding with some of the more stereotyped conventional wisdom of the satirist's repertoire, is wrapped up in an uncharacteristically clumsy frame of Platonic dialogue. One should compare Philostratus' presentation of Demetrius the Cynic's interview with Apollonius of Tyana at the house of Cicero, where similarly Platonic artifice is involved, but where one seems not much closer to authenticity. 90 One exhibit, the 'De Mercede Conductis', 9 1 offers the most promising prospect of convergence. The topic here is the social fixation of client-patron relationships, and there is no doubt about the convergence of Lucian's account with that of the graeculus esuriens of Juvenal's Third Satire, with his shifting

85

BOMPAIRE 4 6 3 f.; ANDERSON 6 4 f f . ; H A L L 1 7 3 f.; JONES 9 0 - 9 8 .

86

D e m o n a x 40; 24, 33.

87

JONES 9 8 .

88

Piscator

89

JONES 7 8 .

90

F o r ' N i g r i n u s ' , BOMPAIRE 509 ff.; BALDWIN 28 f.; ANDERSON 85 ff.; ID., L u c i a n ' s N i g r i n u s ,

passim.

t h e p r o b l e m o f f o r m , G R B S 1 9 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 3 6 7 - 3 7 4 ; ROBINSON 5 2 - 5 7 ; HALL 2 4 2 - 2 4 5 ;

JONES 84 — 87. In general there is n o w little if any support for ' a n t i - R o m a n i s m ' on Lucian's part; but JONES is unwise to stress c o m m o n heritage (159); cf. REARDON CPh 84 (1989), 274. 91

O n M e r c . C o n d . , BOMPAIRE 5 0 3 f.; BALDWIN 1 1 4 f.; ANDERSON 8 5 - 8 8 ; ROBINSON 5 5 f f . ; H A L L 2 4 4 - 2 4 8 ; JONES 7 8 - 8 3 . F o r its f r e q u e n t a n d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c c r o s s - r e f e r e n c e s t o

other w o r k s of Lucian, ANDERSON (1974), 27 ff. T h e arguments for Lucian's knowledge or even use of Juvenal III and V run contrary t o the usual inhibitions of educated Greeks vis-à-vis R o m a n literature, despite E. COURTNEY in the Appendix to his commentary on J u v e n a l ( L o n d o n , 1980), 6 2 4 - 6 2 9 .

1442

GRAHAM

ANDERSON

roles as a dubious companion doubling as doctor and fortune-teller; 92 but it is not too long before Lucian is adding his own characteristic fixations, such as the philosopher's cloak and beard, and a comparison of even the Romans to actors' masks - before ending with an adaptation of the 'Tabula' of (Ps.-) Cebes. 93 And while his Rome has its geographical ups and downs, one looks in vain for Juvenal's finely observed detail - the degeneration of Egeria's grotto, or the dripping from the porta Capena.94 But on the whole, Lucian's relationship to the Roman present is just as realistically expressed by 'Pro Lapsu': when looking for slips of the tongue to parallel his own before a real Roman patron, he offers one from the reign of Augustus, as against a fair number from Alexander or before. JONES notes that Lucian knows the formula for an emperor's greeting to governors. But that is not where his interests lie: what Alexander said to Hephaestion is more to the point — a balance of interests which Roman patrons might well be content to encourage. 95

V.

Conclusions

We can take a number of the foregoing considerations into account when arriving at a final estimate of Lucian's realism. The accusation by advocates of a 'contemporary' Lucian are that opponents make Lucian 'turn his back on the present'. This is largely a matter of semantics and presentation: in the 'Rhetorum Praeceptor', does Lucian flee the present by rejecting the rhetorical teacher à la mode, or involve himself in it by criticizing him? Does he register himself as a conservative and an archaist by opposing Demosthenes, or as a stickler for standards that he sees as slipping? There is however a further problem, especially in the evaluation of a satirist. It is always easy to use personal involvement in contemporary causes as a yardstick of 'sincerity'. And if a satirist cannot be labelled 'sincere', he can then be dismissed out of hand. GILBERT HIGHET has produced perhaps the classic designation of Lucian against which traditionalists and realists alike can react: "When I try to read these satires in which, with the same subtlety as a freshman preaching atheism, he deflates Bronze Age myths of Zeus and 92 93 94 95

Merc. Cond. 40; Juvenal 3. 6 9 - 7 8 . Merc. Cond. 40 ff. Cf. Merc. Cond. 26; Juvenal 3.11, 1 7 - 2 0 . Pro Lapsu 13; JONES 88. A similar question of balance can be raised in finding the measure of 'De Saltatione', where the probable ambience has long been acknowledged as the entourage of Lucius Verus at Antioch. But that does not alter the fact that Lucian produces the plausible pastiche of a littérateur on the subject, rather than that of an informed devotee. For instructively contrasting emphases in essentially the same material, ANDERSON, Lucian and the Authorship of De Saltatione, GRBS 18 (1977), 2 7 5 - 2 8 6 ; JONES

69-75.

LUCIAN: T R A D I T I O N

VERSUS

REALITY

1443

the Olympians and lards his thin dictionary-Attic prose with cultured quotations from the correct classics, I feel as though I were trying to savor a satire on the medieval Christian cult of relics written in Chaucerian verse by a Hindu of the present day." 96 H I G H E T lacked insight into the cultural integrity of the Second Sophistic, or the acquired taste for exquisitely wrought belles-lettres that are so often more entertaining than purely satirical. But he does underline a cultural limitation that is there, and a reality likewise endemic in Roman Satire as well: that the most directly contemporary allusions or clear identifications tend to be avoided or disguised in favour of the harmless gibe at a safely previous generation - unless the writer is very safely out of the firing-line, like the author of the 'Apocolocyntosis'. An ancient satirist who wished to continue in his calling tends to prefer the imperfect tense. The degree of contemporary involvement which Lucían allows himself can be set in a complementary perspective if one views him alongside a number of near-contemporaries. J O N E S compares Herodes Atticus' rejoinder "I am better than Andocides" with the Rhetorum Praeceptor's boast "What is Demosthenes beside me?" 97 Did Herodes concern himself with the present? When building aqueducts, yes; when building them at Troy, no. This idol of the sophists was as much concerned with the past as Lucian. It would of course be easy enough to point to such a writer as Alciphron and suggest that Lucian is 'more contemporary', indeed he could hardly be less so than a writer justly suspected of redigesting much of his already literary material from Old and New comedy through further borrowing from Lucian himself. 98 It might rather be suggested that Lucian is just about as close to the contemporary world as Aelius Aristides: the latter will fulminate against current comedy or the profanation of rhetoric, 99 or he will document more revealingly the interaction between his religious and professional life, 100 but on the whole that life is not devoted to the century in which he lives, except insofar as that century is a sounding-board for a more resonant era. There can be no contemporary reference in five Leuktrikoi set in the context of Mantinea or two Sikelikoi set in that of the Sicilian expedition. We hear incidentally of his problems with immunities, as we do of Lucian's over his post in Egypt. But that is not the world of his harangues against Plato; and even his Rome is not more real than Lucian's, and equally pale beside his Athens. When Lucian can be compared with Dio on the other hand, the relative absence of 'current concerns' on the former's part is quite striking. We could easily see Lucian as capable of writing the Second Tarsie Oration, with its extended hints at a still

96 97 98 99 100

T h e A n a t o m y of Satire, (Princeton, N . J . , 1962), 42. Philostr. VS 565; Rhet. Prec. 21. O n Alciphron, REARDON, Courants 181 - 185. Orr. 29; 34 KEIL. Orr. 47-52 KEIL.

1444

GRAHAM

ANDERSON

not understood effeminate gesture, but not the First, with its serious concerns for civic administration and political concord. 1 0 1 It might fairly be said that what has started as a polarization by BALDWIN against B O M P A I R E has reached something of an uneasy stalemate, and one in which either side might on fresh evidence claim fresh inroads. But this reviewer cannot help feeling that the battle-lines have been drawn in the wrong way to begin with. In acknowledging the importance of paideia in Lucian's attitudes J O N E S seems to be conceding to B O M P A I R E ' S position a good deal more than he realises. 102 But we can reformulate the problem in any number of ways. We can say that fascination with frauds will take Lucían outside his classical cocoon - into other people's. Among the barbarians of Paphlagonia he will find an oracle that answers in Greek hexameters, in honour of Homeric physicians; or he will find a Rome where a philosopher predictably prefers to praise Athens. Or we can simply say that culture and society in Lucian embody the contemporary cult of the p a s t . . . A new literary synthesis has put the problem in the following way: "Should (Lucian) be read primarily against the background of the manifold literary traditions he draws on, as a shrewd stylist in an aging rhetorical culture, who turned out clever variations on the inherited formulae of classical literature? Or is he, on the contrary, essentially a topical satirist whose work can be properly understood only with constant reference to the second century controversies and cultural trends that inspired it? The choice is of course a false one, but the terms of the dichotomy accurately reflect the preoccupations of much of the scholarship on Lucian". 103 On the contrary, I am not sure that they do: J O N E S has not attempted to deny Lucian's use of literary heritage; this author has not attempted to exclude reality in trying to strip away a Lucianic veneer. 104 All that really needs to be said is that 'constant reference to the second-century controversies and cultural trends that inspired it' is synonymous or convergent with 'shrewd style in an aging rhetorical culture 101

102

But JONES has sometimes treated D i o in the same fashion as he has treated Lucian: note the c o m m e n t s of REARDON, Travaux récents sur D i o n de Pruse, REG 96 (1983), 286 — 292. JONES 149, and especially 150: "Culture implies above all an acquaintance with the literary and artistic achievements of the past". But JONES really seems to want things both ways. H e wants to give Lucian the m a x i m u m literary culture, against those w h o warn of its limitations (e.g. ANDERSON BICS 1976, 1978); while at any available opportunity attempting to draw a distinction between Lucian's 'reading' and his 'interests' (e.g. 51 on 'Philopseudeis'). T h e w h o l e difficulty stems from JONES' refusal to take on board the w o r d 'journalist' as applied to Lucian, which comfortably allows for a cultured education but not the intensity of for e x a m p l e a literary scholar's recollection o f t e x t s ( c f . JONES 2 ) .

103 104

BRANHAM 1. E.g.

JONES 1 4 9 - 1 5 3 ;

ANDERSON

(1982), 7 8 - 8 4 .

REARDON

(1989), 275 suggests

that

there is need for reformulation of the mimesis-based approach. All that seems to me to be needed is an occasional change from assertions of CASTER or BOMPAIRE that Lucian's interests coincide with the contemporary to the observation that they converge with contemporary preoccupation with the past.

LUCIAN:

TRADITION

VERSUS

1445

REALITY

which turned out clever variations on the inherited formulae of classical literature'. T h e point was made in a sentence on the appearance of BALDWIN,105 and it is still as valid. Before this controversy subsides - as one hopes it will - it is illuminating to suggest a late twentieth century parallel: a certain public orator in Oxford began a speech in praise of Sir Basil Blackwell with the sentence „ 'Ibam forte

Via Lata, sicut meus est mos \ cum repente a foribus tabernae librariae omnium quae ubique sunt celeberrimae lovem exire vidi" ("I happened to be going down the Broad, as usual, when suddenly I saw Jupiter emerge from the doors of that most famous of all bookshops"). 1 0 6 What will scholars make of such a statement after nearly two millennia? T h e mimesis approach one hopes will still be there, and the Horatian model (Sat. 1.9.1) elucidated. But there will also be those whose purpose will be to show that the Broad is the street of that name in Oxford, England, and not Oxford, Ohio, or that this Orator is the John Griffith who was a major in the Royal Artillery. And someone will be sure to check whether a commemorative stamp confirms the existence of Blackwell's Bookshop. Some, too, will argue the irrelevance of Classical Latin for such a speech as this, others its seminal role even in late twentieth-century high culture. In the midst of such enquiries I hope that some will persevere and see GRIFFITH'S joke in the context of those that begin his other orations. T h a t is the quickest way to get the measure of this passage - as it so often is in the study of Lucian.

Bibliography ANDERSON, G . :

of works

cited

Studies in L u c i a n ' s Literary Technique, D. Phil. O x f o r d

1974

(unpublished). - :

Lucian: T h e m e and Variation in the Second Sophistic, M n e m o syne, Suppl. 41 (Leyden, 1 9 7 6 ) .

- :

Studies in Lucian's C o m i c Fiction M n e m o s y n e , Suppl. 4 3 (Leyden, 1 9 7 6 ) .

-:

Lucian and the Authorship of de Saltatione,

G R B S 18 (1977),

275-282. - :

Some N o t e s on Lucian's Navigium,

M n e m o s y n e , 4th series 3 0

(1977), 3 6 3 - 3 6 8 . - :

Lucian's Nigrinus: the Problem of F o r m , G R B S 19 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 3 6 7 374.

- :

Some Sources of Lucian, Icaromenippus

2 5 f., Philologus

124

(1980), 1 5 9 - 1 6 1 .

105

E . g . BOMPAIRE, T r a v a u x récents sur Lucien, R E G 88 (1975), 2 2 8 : « Je persiste ...

qu'à

une

méconnaître culture 106

époque chez

littéraire».

où fleurissent

Lucien

les exercices

de rhétorique

la part de la techné rhétorique,

...

à

il est impossible

qui ne se sépare

penser de

pas de la

Cf. ANDERSON 1.1.

JOHN G . GRIFFITH, Oratiunculae Oxonienses Selectae ( O x f o r d , 1 9 8 5 ) , p. 18. Jupiter turns o u t of course t o be Juppiter

Librarius,

i. e. Blackwell himself.

GRAHAM

ANDERSON

Lucian's Historia and Arrian's Anabasis, Historia 29 (1980), 119-124. Julianus of Laodicea: Trader or rhetor? J H S 102 (1982), 202. Lucian, a Sophists' Sophist, YCS 27 (1982), 6 1 - 9 2 . T h e Pepaideumenos in Action: Sophists and their Outlook in the Early Empire, ANRW II.33.1, ed. W. HAASE ( B e r l i n - N e w York, 1989), 7 9 - 2 0 8 . The Second Sophistic: Some Problems of Perspective, in: D. A. RUSSELL (Ed.), Antonine Literature (Oxford, 1990), 9 1 - 1 1 0 . Sage Saint and Sophist: Holy Men and their Associates in the Early Roman Empire, forthcoming. BALDWIN, Β . :

BOMPAIRE, J . : BOWERSOCK, G . W . : BOWIE, E . L . :

BRANHAM, R . B . :

Lucian as a Social Satirist, C Q N. S . l l (1961), 1 9 9 - 2 0 8 . Studies in Lucian (Toronto, 1973). Lucian and Theophrastus, Mnemosyne, 4th series 30 (1977), 174-176. Crepereius Calpurnianus, Q U C C 27 (1978), 211—213. Lucian and Europa. Variations on a Theme, Acta Classica 23 (1980), 1 1 5 - 1 1 9 . Lucien écrivain: Imitation et création (Paris, 1958). Travaux récents sur Lucien, R E G 88 (1975), 2 2 4 - 2 2 9 . Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1969). Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic, Past and Present 46 (1970), 3 - 4 1 , revised in: M . I. FINLEY (Ed.), Studies in Ancient Society (London and Boston, 1974), 1 6 6 - 2 0 9 . The Importance of Sophists, YCS 27 (1982), 2 9 - 5 9 . The Comic as Critic: Revenging Epicurus — a Study of Lucian's Art of Comic Narrative, Classical Antiquity 3 (1984), 1 4 3 - 1 6 3 . Unruly Eloquence: Lucian and the Comedy of Traditions (Cambridge, Mass., 1989).

COURTNEY, E . :

Tezaurul de sculpturi de la Tomis (Bucharest, 1963). Lucien et la pensée religieuse de son temps (Paris, 1937). Études sur Alexandre ou le faux prophète de Lucien (Paris, 1938). A Commentary on the Satires of Juvenal (London, 1980).

DELZ, J.:

Lukians Kenntnis der athenischen Antiquitäten (Fribourg, 1950).

FOLLET, S . :

Athènes au II M E et au III M E siècle (Paris, 1 9 7 6 ) .

Fox, R . L.:

Pagans and Christians (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1986). Roman Athens: Some Aspects of Life and Culture I,

CANARACHE, V . e t a l . CASTER, M . :

GEAGAN, D . J . :

86

Β . C . - A . D . 2 6 7 , A N R W I I . 7 . 2 , ed. H . TEMPORINI (Berlin - N e w York, 1977),

371-437.

GRIFFITH, J . G . :

Oratiunculae Oxonienses Selectae (Oxford, 1985).

HALL, J . Α.:

Lucian's Satire (New York, 1981). The Anatomy of Satire (Princeton, N . J . , 1962). Lucian's Navigium and the Dimensions of the Isis, AJPh 108 (1987), 4 4 4 - 4 5 0 . Le Navire ou Les Souhaits (Paris, 1971).

HIGHET, G . : HOUSTON, G . W . : HUSSON, G . : JONES, C . R :

MACLEOD, M . D . :

Two Enemies of Lucian, GRBS 13 (1972), 4 7 5 - 4 8 7 . The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom (Cambridge, Mass., 1978). A Syrian at Lyon, AJPh 100 (1978), 3 3 6 - 3 5 3 . Culture and Society in Lucian (Cambridge, Mass., 1986). "Av with the Future in Lucian and the Solecist, C Q N. S. 6 (1956), 102-111.

LUCIAN: T R A D I T I O N VERSUS REALITY

1447

Luciani Opera, 4 volumes (Oxford, 1972 — 87). Lucian's Knowledge of Theophrastus, Mnemosyne, 4th series 27 (1974), 75 - 76. Lucian's Activities as a μισαλάζων, Philologus 123 (1979), 3 2 6 328. Lucian's Relationship to Arrian, Philologus 131 (1987), 2 6 4 267. NESSELRATH, H . - G . :

Lukians Parasitendialog, Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte, Bd. 22 (Berlin, 1985).

ODEN, R. Α.:

Studies in Lucian's De Syria Dea, Harvard Semitic Monographs, Nr. 15 (Missoula, Montana, 1977). The Civic Tradition and Roman Athens (Baltimore and London, 1983). The Actuality of Lucian's Assembly of the Gods, AJPh 101 (1980), 3 0 4 - 3 1 3 . Les orgines de la Diatribe Romaine (Lausanne, 1926).

OLIVER, J. Η . :

OLTRAMARE, Α . :

R U T H E R F O R D , R . B.:

Courants littéraires grecs des II me et III me siècles après J.-C. (Paris, 1971). Travaux récents sur Dion de Pruse, REG 9 6 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , 2 8 6 - 2 9 2 . Review of JONES ( 1 9 8 6 ) , CPh 8 4 ( 1 9 8 9 ) , 2 7 1 - 2 7 5 . A travers l'Asie Mineure: Poètes et prosateurs, monnaies grecques, voyageurs et géographie (Paris, 1 9 8 0 ) . The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius: a study (Oxford, 1 9 8 9 ) .

S C H W A R T Z , J.:

Biographie de Lucien de Samosate (Strassburg, 1965).

T U R N E R , P.:

Lucían: Satirical Sketches (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1961).

R E A R D O N , Β . P.:

ROBERT, Ι . :

94

A N R W II 34.2

Lucían and Historiography: 'De Historia Conscribenda' and 'Verae Historiae' by

ARISTOULA GEORGIADOU,

and

DAVID

H. J.

University Park, PA, Lubbock, T X

LARMOUR,

Contents I. Introduction

1449

II. T h e 'De Historia Conscribenda' and Polybius

1450

2. History and Poetry

1453

3. History and Encomium

1460

4. History and Truth

1462

5. Organization, Language and Style

1470

III. T h e 'Verae

Historiae' 1

1. Relationship of the 'Verae Historiae' to the ' D e Historia Conscribenda'

1478 . . . 1478

2. 'Verae Historiae': Preface ( 1 . 1 - 4 )

1482

3. 'Verae Historiae': Narrative (1.5 - 2.47) a) Straightforward and non-sensational narrative tone b) T h e use of sound historical methodology c) Accuracy in numbers d) Familiar places and issues e) Internal consistency f) Familiar objects in strange contexts g) Hybrid creatures

1488 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500

4. Possible Prolaliae:

1500

IV. Conclusion V. Select Bibliography

1

1450

1. Precepts for Historiography: Lucían and Polybius

'Dionysus' and 'Heracles'

1505 1506

On the most appropriate way to refer to these works, opinions differ. T h e more reliable manuscripts (γ group) of the first have άληθών διηγημάτων, α, β and Photius, Bibl., cod. 166 has άληθή διηγήματα; other M S S (β group) have άληθής ιστορία. T h e title Πώς δει ίστορίαν συγγράφειν is securely attested. By now, it has become customary to use the Latin versions, 'Verae Historiae' and ' D e Historia Conscribenda', and to avoid unnecessary confusion we do so here.

LUCIAN

AND

I.

HISTORIOGRAPHY

1449

Introduction

In the 'De Historia Conscribenda', Lucian criticizes several writers of history on various grounds related to content, organization and style, and then gives some advice on the proper way to write history. T h e targets of the criticism are mostly unnamed historians who do not use the truth as their guiding principle, but instead tell untruths in order to entertain or flatter their audience. The 'Verae Historiae' is an account of a fantastic journey, narrated in the first person. Lucian warns in the Preface (1.4) that not a word of it is true. Thus, the 'De Historia Conscribenda' and the 'Verae Historiae' are connected by a common theme: the role of truth in historical narrative. T h e idea of telling the truth lies at the centre of the 'Hist. Conscr.', a treatise on historiography which deals primarily with historians of the Parthian war. Beyond this, however, it functions as a treatise on historical writing in general, for it frequently refers to the Greek historiographical tradition, starting with Herodotus and Thucydides. As such, it is closest in outlook to the tradition of historiographical theory and practice which we find expressed most clearly in the works of Polybius. Lucian was, no doubt, familiar with what we may term the "Polybian tradition" through acquaintance with Polybius' 'Histories' or intermediate sources or both. The first part of this article, therefore, is a detailed examination of the common ground between the theories of the 'Hist. Conscr.' and the precepts for historical writing enunciated by Polybius in his 'Histories'. 2 T h e purpose is not so much to determine whether Lucian used Polybius directly - although the parallels are striking and numerous enough to indicate that the chances of this have been underestimated - as to clarify the thinking behind the precepts in the 'Hist. Conscr.' by placing them in context. Parallels between the 'Hist. Conscr.' and Polybius have been noted by scholars such as A V E N A R I U S , H O M E Y E R , B A L D W I N and MACLEOD, but there has been no systematic exploration of them. Part I below is an attempt to fill that gap. Part II of the article deals with the "Ver. Hist.' in relation to the historiographical precepts set forth in the 'Hist. Conscr.' 3 T h e 'Ver. Hist.' examines in a different form the chief concern of both Lucian's treatise and the Polybian historiographical tradition: in a parodie narrative, it tackles the issue of truth 2

T h e m o s t detailed C o m m e n t a r y is F. W. WALBANK, A Historical C o m m e n t a r y o n Polybius, 3 vols. ( O x f o r d , 1 9 5 7 - 7 9 ) ; on historical m e t h o d s , see also P. PÉDECH, L a M é t h o d e historique de Polybe (Paris 1 9 6 4 ) , espec. 2 1 - 5 3 ; 3 5 5 - 4 0 4 ; K. SACKS, Polybius on the Writing o f H i s t o r y (Berkeley 1 9 8 1 ) .

3

O n a n o t h e r aspect o f the 'Ver. H i s t . ' , its connections with the tradition o f the " R o m a n c e " , see E . ROHDE, Der griechische R o m a n und seine Vorläufer (Leipzig 1 9 1 4 3 ) ; G . ANDERSON, Studies in Lucian's C o m i c Fiction, M n e m o s y n e Suppl. 4 3 (Leiden 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 — 11 a n d 83 9 8 in particular; J . BOMPAIRE, Lucien écrivain. Imitation et création (Paris 1 9 5 8 ) , 6 5 9 7 4 ; IDEM, C o m m e n t lire les Histoires

vraies

de Lucien?, in: Res s a c r a e . H o m m a g e s à

Henri Le Bonniec, Collection L a t o m u s 201 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , 3 1 - 3 9 . 94*

1450

ARISTOULA

GEORGIADOU

-

DAVID

H.

J.

LARMOUR

(ή αλήθεια) vs lying (το ψευδός) in history. The parody focuses on historians like Ctesias, who related marvellous tales and blended historia with poetry. In the 'Hist. Conscr.' and in the discussions of historiographical methods in Polybius' 'Histories', we see an attempt to evaluate this kind of writing in relation to a guiding principle of truthfulness; the "Ver. Hist.' continues the process by presenting an ultimate example of the marvellous history — a history which is, by its own admission, completely untrue. At the same time, however, it illustrates that such narratives can often seem credible; thus, the 'Ver. Hist.' is both a parody of the wrong kind of history writing and, at the same time, a demonstration of how it is successfully done. Lucian's peculiar contribution is to preface his narrative with the warning that everything which follows is fictitious. The point, then, is that Lucian's 'Hist. Conscr.' cannot be fully understood or appreciated in isolation. Firstly, our understanding of its relationship to the Greek historiographical tradition can be furthered by comparing it with the leading extant representative of the theoretical trend to which it belongs, namely Polybius. Secondly, in the context of the Lucianic corpus, the 'Hist. Conscr.' should be seen as laying the groundwork for the parodie 'Ver. Hist.'.

II. The De Historia Conscribenda'

and

Polybius

1. Precepts for Historiography: Lucian and Polybius The 'Hist. Conscr.' offers a set of precepts for the writing of history. Lucian says that advice works in two ways (6): it teaches one to choose this, and avoid that (Διττού δέ οντος του της συμβουλής έργου, τα μέν γαρ αίρεΐσθαι, τά δέ φεύγειν διδάσκει). 4 He first provides numerous negative examples, illustrating pitfalls to be avoided, 5 then offers some basic guidelines which the historian ought to follow. On the question of Lucian's sources, the most 4

G.ANDERSON, Lucian: A Sophist's Sophist, Yale Classical Studies, 27 (1982), 6 1 - 9 2 , p. 68: "In the literary pamphlets, comic and serious form a facile syncrisis: 'how not to succeed in extempore rhetoric, and h o w to do so' ('Rhetorum Praeceptor'); ' H o w not to write history, and h o w to write it' ('Historia'); or ' H o w not to revive Attic words, and h o w to do it' ('Lexiphanes'). In 'Historia' the balance is roughly even; in the other t w o it is no surprise to find that the caricature takes up most of Lucian's attention." Perhaps in the case of 'Hist. Conscr.', the balance was redressed by the extended caricature in the "Ver. Hist.'

5

On whether the historians cited by Lucian actually existed, see F. JACOBY, FGrH 2 B, nos. 2 0 3 - 2 1 0 and C o m m . pp. 628 — 629; B. BALDWIN, Studies in Lucian (Toronto 1973), 8 2 - 5 ; J.HALL, Lucian's Satire ( N e w York 1981), 3 1 5 - 2 1 ; C. P. JONES, Culture and Society in Lucian (Cambridge, Mass. 1986), 5 9 - 6 7 ; K. STROBEL, Zeitgeschichte unter den Antoninen: Die Historiker des Partherkrieges des L. Verus, above in this volume (ANRW II 34,2), 1 3 1 5 - 6 0 , esp. 1 3 3 4 - 5 5 ; and n. 19 below.

LUCIAN

AND

HISTORIOGRAPHY

1451

detailed guide is the survey of AVENARIUS. He divides them into the following groups: (1) Thucydides; 6 (2) Hellenistic historiography (a tradition most complete in Polybius, but also visible in Diodorus and Dionysius of Halicarnassus), which in turn displays two trends: (a) Ephorus and Theopompus, and the rhetorical historians, influenced by Isocrates and his followers, and (b) Duris and Phylarchus, and the historians of vivid representation, tending towards tragedy; 7 (3) Theophrastus and the Peripatetics; (4) the old Sophistic tradition of Gorgias and Protagoras. AVENARIUS concludes that Lucian is not original in his thought and simply applies his standard training in rhetoric, which would have included historiography. 8 Among the particular works mentioned as possibilities are the lost work of Theophrastus Περί ιστορίας 9 and Plutarch's lost Πώς κρινοΰμεν τήν άληθή ίστορίαν; H O M E Y E R regards Theophrastus or Praxiphanes as a likely single source. The notion of the single source, however, has generally not found favour: H A L L notes that "Lucian's normal method of composition ... is to combine his sources (in his Menippean works, or his True History)" and sees "no reason for assuming that in this treatise he should be drawing on only one." 1 0 There are many notable correspondences between Lucian's precepts and those of Polybius. There are no direct indications that Lucian used Polybius as a source for the 'Hist. Conscr.', since he never quotes him. This some have found surprising, in view of the similarity of their views. AVENARIUS, H O M E Y E R and M A C L E O D in their Commentaries note several connections between the two. 1 1 M A C L E O D says ( 2 8 3 ) that Polybius' views are "often remarkably similar to those of Lucian" and suggests (287) that "Perhaps Lucian and Polybius used a common source or more probably Lucian selected and adapted material from several sources who may either have influenced Polybius or been influenced by him." BALDWIN says " A connection between Lucian and Polybius is 6

S e e H i s t . C o n s c r . 2 , 5 , 1 5 , 1 8 - 1 9 , 2 5 , 3 8 , 4 2 , 4 7 , 5 3 - 5 4 , 5 7 , 6 1 ; G . AVENARIUS, L u k i a n s Schrift zur Geschichtsschreibung

7

Schrift ( M e i s e n h e i m 1956), 8

9

10

11

(Meisenheim

1 9 5 6 ) , 1 6 6 - 1 6 8 ; Η . HOMEYER,

Lukian:

Wie m a n Geschichte schreiben soll (Munich 1965), 2 9 - 3 4 . EADEM, Lukian (Munich 1965), 4 5 - 81 o n Hellenistic sources; cf. G. AVENARIUS, Lukians 170-177.

IDEM, Lukians Schrift (Meisenheim 1956), 165, 178; but F. VIAN, rev. of AVENARIUS, RPh. 3 2 (1958), 133 — 4, p. 134 says he tends « à surestimer la part faite à la rhétorique ». H . M . HUBBELL, in another review, AJPh 79 (1958), 106, c o m m e n t s that "it is unfortunate that f r o m this inspiring presentation of parallels very meager conclusions can be drawn." O n the various theories about sources up t o 1956, see AVENARIUS, 7 —12. See F. WEHRLI, D i e Geschichtsschreibung im Lichte der antiken Theorie, in: Eumusia: Festgabe für Ernst H o w a l d (Zürich 1947), 7 0 - 71 ( = IDEM, T h e o r i a und H u m a n i t a s [München 1972], 143 - 44). G. AVENARIUS, Lukians Schrift (Meisenheim 1956), 1 7 0 - 1 7 3 ; H . HOMEYER, Lukian (Munich 1965), 5 8 - 6 0 ; J. HALL, Lucian's Satire ( N e w York 1981), 5 5 9 - 5 6 0 n. 16. G. AVENARIUS, Lukians Schrift (Meisenheim 1956); H . HOMEYER, Lukian ( M u n i c h 1965); M . D . MACLEOD, Lucian: A Selection, Aris and Phillips Classical Texts (Warminster 1991). Cf. J. HALL, Lucian's Satire ( N e w York 1981), 322; M . CROISET, Essai sur la vie et les œuvres de Lucien (Paris 1882), 2 4 0 — 1 , notes in particular the similarities with Polybius Bk. 12; cf. Κ. SACKS, Polybius (Berkeley 1981), 2 1 - 6 6 .

1452

ARISTOULA

GEORGIADOU

-

DAVID

H.

J.

LARMOUR

striking, since this historian is nowehere adduced in the satirist's pamphlet as a model, and indeed is almost completely ignored in the entire Lucianic corpus. This neglect seems typical of the age. Which is not to say that Lucian never read him, or heard of him from his teachers. A malicious critic might be tempted to say that Polybius is suppressed by Lucian in order to conceal his critical debts." 12 The only appearance of Polybius in the Lucianic corpus is in Macrobioi 22, generally regarded as spurious. The reference is to Polybius' death from falling off a horse at the age of 82. BALDWIN, however, argues that it may not be spurious.13 It is possible, then, that Lucian does mention the historian by name, but, of course, he is reporting the story of his death from another source. 14 It is generally assumed that Lucian used intermediate sources, rather than Polybius directly. This may well have been the case: many of the ideas in 'Hist. Conscr.' were no doubt topoi by Lucian's day. H A L L comments that Lucian may "have been drawing on some intermediate source or sources, or on general recollections of precepts that he heard from his own teachers of rhetoric: he may not even have been aware of how far he coincided with Polybius." 15 MACLEOD comments that "we see Lucian drawing heavily from Thuc. and adding motifs from later historiographical theory shared with Polybius." 16 Nevertheless, the extent of the similarity between the two perspectives, and the apparent instances of more or less direct borrowing, suggest that the likelihood of direct Polybian influence on the 'Hist. Conscr.' may not have received sufficient attention. 17 In any case, it is clear that the Polybian 12

Studies (Toronto 1 9 7 3 ) , 9 0 . On the "neglect ... typical of the age", cf. Lucian's Satire (New York 1 9 8 1 ) , 5 5 9 n. 1 5 , who suggests that the reasons may have been Polybius' theme (the rise of Rome) and his unattractive style. B. B A L D W I N , Studies (Toronto 1973), 25. See W. K U N Z M A N N , Quaestiones de PseudoLuciani libelli qui est de longaevis fontibus atque auctoritate (Diss. Leipzig 1908), 5 - 9 , 51. Among those who think it is spurious are: J. B O M P A I R E , Lucien écrivain (Paris 1958), 473; C. P. J O N E S , Culture and Society (Cambridge Mass. 1986), 170; C. R O B I N S O N , Lucian and his Influence in Europe (Chapel Hill 1979), 239. Among those who consider it genuine are: C. M. W I E L A N D , Lucians von Samosata sämmtliche Werke (Munich 1788 99), 5.353; C. G A L L A V O T T I , Luciano nella sua evoluzione artistica e spirituale (Lanciano 1932), 2 - 5 , but see J. HALL, Lucian's Satire (New York 1981), 1 0 - 1 1 on his methodology. Uncertainty is expressed by: R. HELM, Lucian und Menipp (Leipzig and Berlin 1906), 230. F. W. H O U S E H O L D E R , rev. of J. B O M P A I R E (1958), AJPh 82 (1961), 1 9 7 - 2 0 1 , p. 199, thinks that "perhaps Bompaire is a bit overbold in his assurance ... that the Macrobii is false; the case here is like distinguishing your grocery list from my grocery list, unless you can be sure that Lucian would never be caught dead with any grocery list." On the accuracy of the statement that Polybius lives to 82, see M . D U B U I S S O N , Sur la mort de Polybe, REG 93 (1980), 72 - 82. B.BALDWIN,

J. HALL, 13

Lucians's Satire (New York

14

J. HALL,

"

EADEM, 5 5 9 n. 15.

16

M.

17

1981), 442

n.

17.

D. M A C L E O D , Lucian (Warminster 1991), 291 ch. 5. C. P. T. N A U D É , rev. of G. A V E N A R I U S (1956), Mnemosyne, Ser. I V , 11 (1958), 6 9 - 7 1 , p. 70, notes that A V E N A R I U S "focusses his attention on continuity in the tradition of historiography, and rightly so, because all historians owed a debt to their rhetorical schooling; but for an adequate understanding of the personalities of individual writers

LUCIAN A N D

HISTORIOGRAPHY

1453

a n d t h e L u c i a n i c c o n c e p t s o f h i s t o r i o g r a p h y h a v e m u c h in c o m m o n 1 8

and,

t h e r e f o r e , a n y e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e ' H i s t . C o n s c r . ' a n d t h e 'Ver. H i s t . ' n e e d s t o t a k e full a c c o u n t o f t h e t r a d i t i o n p r e s e r v e d in P o l y b i u s . 1 9

2. H i s t o r y a n d P o e t r y T h e ' D e H i s t o r i a C o n s c r i b e n d a ' o p e n s (1) w i t h a s u p p o s e d l y h i s t o r i c a l a c c o u n t o f a p l a g u e a f f e c t i n g t h e city o f A b d e r a , w h o s e i n h a b i t a n t s

were

p r o v e r b i a l l y s t u p i d . T h i s p l a g u e , w h i c h recalls t h e p l a g u e in A t h e n s d u r i n g t h e early y e a r s o f t h e P e l o p o n n e s i a n w a r , m a d e t h e p o p u l a t i o n m a d

with

tragedy, s o t h a t t h e y s h o u t e d o u t i a m b i c s until t h e w i n t e r c a m e . L u c i a n t h e n says t h a t t h e A b d e r i t e d i s e a s e h a s a f f l i c t e d t h e e d u c a t e d circles o f his o w n day, o n l y n o w e v e r y o n e is w r i t i n g h i s t o r y ( 2 ) . 2 0 T h i s i n t r o d u c t i o n , in a d d i t i o n to being a parody

o f h i s t o r i c a l n a r r a t i v e in g e n e r a l , a n d o f

Thucydides

in particular, a n t i c i p a t e s o n e o f t h e m a j o r i d e a s o f t h e treatise: t h e b a s i c

18

19

20

the symptoms of opposition and reaction require more serious s t u d y . . . T h e rules, for instance, prescribed by rhetoric for artistic composition are adapted to subserve the pedagogic function of history based on truth for the benefit of posterity; and the origin of this doctrine is partly Isocratean ... but it is the reaction of Polybius which establishes a separate tradition. There is therefore continuity, but there is differentiation as well. Indications of this are traceable in Lucian, who however on the whole sides with austere and scientific history." It is worth quoting F. W. WALBANK, Speeches in Greek Historians, the third J. L. Myers Memorial Lecture (Oxford 1965), 8, on the connections between Polybius and Thucydides: "The relationship between Polybius and Thucydides is not an obvious o n e . . . Thucydides is mentioned only once, and then only incidentally to indicate where Theopompus began his history [8.11.3]... Nevertheless there is some evidence that he affected Polybius' thought more deeply than a superficial reading ... might suggest." He goes on (10) to note that Polybius "betrays his knowledge of Thucydides in several places." T h e same sort of arguments may be applied to the relationship between Lucian and Polybius. G. ANDERSON, Lucian. Theme and Variation in the Second Sophistic, Mnemosyne Supplement 41 (Leiden 1976), 1 1 6 - 118, offers a dissenting perspective: he argues that Lucian's material in the 'Hist. Conscr.' "flows easily from its context or from his own idees fixes" (117); his "lip service to Thucydides" is "perfunctory" and therefore "when he shows so little interest in the master, he is much less likely to have had any interest in Hellenistic historians who would not have been part of his school diet" (118). He likewise ( 7 7 80) argues that the historians who are criticized in the first part of the 'Hist. Conscr.' need not be taken at face value, and probably did not exist. Cf. W. A. PASSOW, Lucian und die Geschichte (Meiningen 1854), 17; and η. 5 above. H. HOMEYER, Lukian (Munich 1965), 1 6 8 - 7 2 ; M . KOKOLAKIS, Lucian and the Tragic Performances in his Time, ΠΛΑΤΩΝ XII (1960), 67 - 109; on such plagues, see G . A N D E R SON, Lucian. Theme and Variation, Mnemosyne Suppl. 41 (Leiden 1976), 61; on this particular plague, see J. F. GILLIAM, T h e Plague under Marcus Aurelius, AJPh 82 (1961), 225 - 251.

1454

ARISTOULA G E O R G I A D O U

-

DAVID H. J. L A R M O U R

incompatibility of historia and poietike, one aspect of which is a criticism of the tradition of "tragic history." 21 Lucían begins (8) by arguing that the aims and rules of history are different from poetry and that in the latter, the thought (τό δόξαν) of the poet is the only rule. He uses the word τερατεΐα (marvellous tales) of high-flown poetic ideas, having given some quintessential examples from the 'Iliad'; Polybius too (34.2.1) discusses the τερατολογία of Homer. Lucian says that to bring the adornments of poetry - myth (τον μϋθον) and encomium (τό έγκώμιον) and their hyperbolae - into history is ridiculous. He later specifically criticizes one historian for his sensational account of the suicides of Severianus and Afranius Silo ( 2 5 - 6 ) . 2 2 Severianus' death is τραγικός (25), while Afranius' resembles that of Ajax, and the historian is described as the διδάσκαλος του δράματος (26). Such criticisms are of the same kind as the comments made by Polybius about Phylarchus, and other "tragic" historians. 23 For instance, in 2.56.7 —16, he criticizes Phylarchus for presenting material like a tragic poet (cf. 2.16.13-15), and in 12.24.5 he criticizes Timaeus for filling his work with dreams, prodigies (τεράτων), myths (μύθων), superstition and womanish liking for marvels (τερατείαςγυναικώδους). 24 The word τερατεία, used of tragic poets (τραγφδιογράφοι) in 2.17.6, 25 is used several times in connection with the tragic historians (e.g. 2.58.12-13: Phylarchus, for the sake of τερατεία, composed a narrative of lies, and unbelievable lies at that, cf. 2.59.3). 26 According to Polybius, the historian's task is quite different. 2 7 Lucian goes on to take up the matter of the pleasurable and the useful in historical writing (9):28 some think it is possible to distinguish between the 21

22 23

24

25

26 27

See B. L. ULLMAN, History and Tragedy, TAPhA 73 (1942), 2 5 - 5 3 , for a detailed survey beginning with Aristotle. H. HOMEYER, Lukian (Munich 1965), 230; cf. Hist. Conscr. 20, on incredible wounds. P. PÉDECH, Trois Historiens Méconnus: Théopompe, Duris, Phylarque (Paris 1989), 443 — 466, on Phylarchus and "tragic history". With this we may compare Lucian's picture of a "disgracefully feminized" history, looking like Heracles working for Omphale (Hist. Conscr. 10). T h e feminization is brought about by introducing an excess of τό μυθώδες and τό έγκώμιον into historia. They told marvellous tales about the Veneti; cf. F. W. WALBANK, Polybius (Oxford 1957 79), 1.183. The word τραγψδιογράφος is also used about writers w h o claimed that some god or hero appeared to Hannibal and showed him the way across the Alps: their accounts are founded on improbable assumptions and lies (3.48.7 — 10). Cf. 7 . 7 . 1 - 2 ; 15.34.1; cf. Κ. SACKS, Polybius (Berkeley 1981), 1 6 2 - 1 6 6 ; 2 1 0 - 2 1 7 . IDEM, P o l y b i u s ( B e r k e l e y 1 9 8 1 ) , 1 4 4 - 1 7 0 ; F. W . WALBANK, P o l y b i u s ( O x f o r d 1 . 1 8 0 ; IDEM, T r a g i c H i s t o r y : A R e c o n s i d e r a t i o n , and Tragedy, Historia 9 (1960), 2 1 6 - 3 4 , ΤΡΑΓΩΙΔΟΥΜΕΝΟΣ,

BICS 2 (1955), 4 - 1 4 ;

1957-79),

IDEM,

p . 2 3 0 n . 2 6 . S e e f u r t h e r , IDEM,

History

ΦΙΛΙΠΠΟΣ

A P o l y b i a n E x p e r i e n c e , J H S 5 8 ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 5 5 - 6 8 ; IDEM, P o l y b i u s ,

Philinus, and the First Punic War, C Q 39 (1945), 1 - 1 8 , espec. 8 - 1 5 ; B. L. ULLMAN, TAPhA 73 (1942), 25 - 5 3 ; V. D'HUYS, H o w to Describe Violence in Historical Narrative, Ancient Society

18 (1987), 2 0 9 - 2 5 0 ;

P. PEDECH, P o l y b e

(Paris 1964), 3 9 1 - 3 9 7 ;

W.O.

SCHMITT, Bemerkungen zu Lukians Schrift Wie man Geschichte schreiben muß, Klio 66 (1984), 4 4 3 - 4 5 5 ; A. MASTROCINQUE, La liberazione di Tebe (379 a. C.) e le origini della storiografia tragica, in: O m m a g i o Treves (Padua 1983), 2 3 7 - 4 7 . 28

See the discussion of this in C. W. FORNARA, T h e Nature of History in Ancient Greece and R o m e (Berkeley 1988), 1 2 0 - 1 3 4 ; on Polybius, 1 2 2 - 3 .

LUCIAN A N D

HISTORIOGRAPHY

1455

pleasurable (το τερπνόν) and the useful (τό χρήσιμον) when it comes to history, but they are wrong. History has only one task and one purpose: τό χρήσιμον, which comes f r o m truth alone. 2 9 For those w h o think that τό τερπνόν must be mixed in, they should do it with the beauties of language (τοις κάλλεσι του λόγου, 13), 30 not with τό μυθώδες or flattery (10). For Lucían, τό τερπνόν is closely connected with poietike.31 For Polybius, however, the question of τό τερπνόν και τό χρήσιμον is more complex, because both qualities are related to the different sections of his audience. This is not a homogeneous group like Lucian's, but is much more diverse. While Lucian's audience is limited to the present and future writers of history, 3 2 Polybius distinguishes, as the occasion arises, three groups: (1) οί φιλήκοοι (or oí άκούοντες, oí άναγνωσόμενοι), (2) oí φιλομαθείς (or oí φιλομαθουντες, oí προσέχοντες, oí βυβλιακοί) and (3) oí πολιτευόμενοι (or oí πρακτικοί, oí πραγματικοί). It is probable, then, that some of the divergences between the t w o writers should be attributed to their different audiences. Polybius' theoretical and utilitarian conception of historia, with its moralistic overtones, addressed to the φιλήκοοι, φιλομαθείς, and πολιτευόμενοι, becomes a practical tool in Lucian's hands, contributing directly to the correct writing of history. Both write with an eye to posterity; 3 3 both moreover value practical experience (ή εμπειρία): Lucían wants a student who has military and political experience (και γνώμη ν στρατιωτική ν άλλα μετά της πολιτικής καί έμπειρίαν στρατηγικήν, 37) and Polybius says that the man without experience of war and politics cannot write well on such things (ουτε περί των κατά πόλεμον συμβαινόντων δυνατόν έστι γράψαι καλώς τόν μηδεμίαν έμπειρίαν έχοντα των πολεμικών έργων οδτε περί των έν ταϊς πολιτείαις τόν μή πεπειραμένον τών τοιούτων πράξεων και περιστάσεων, 12.25g. 1). Lucían, however, appears to

29

30 31

32

M. D. MACLEOD, Lucían (Warminster 1991), 292 ch. 9: "a commonplace of classical literature and particularly c o m m o n in Polybius,... it goes back to Lucian's frequent source in 'Hist. [Conscr.'], Thuc. 1.22." Lucian uses the division between τερπνόν and ώφέλιμον/χρήσιμον in De Salt. 34 (and compares Plato, Laws 7 . 8 1 4 E - 8 1 6 C ) and 71 (some other pursuits have either usefulness or pleasure, the dance has both, the usefulness is all the more beneficial for being with pleasure). Cf. τό κάλλος of the athlete in Hist. Conscr. 9. Dion. Hal., Ad Pomp. 4 ( F G H 2 B , no. 115, T 2 0 a . 4 ) , praises Theopompus for including amazing and wonderful things on land and sea, and says they bring not only entertainment (ή ψυχαγωγία) to the reader, but much benefit (ή ώφέλεια) as well. Lucian's references to his audience appear in Hist. Conscr. 4, 10, 27, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 4 0 , 4 3 , 4 4 , 50, 51, 61. On the relationship between Lucian and his audience, see K. KORUS, F u n k t i o n e n d e r l i t e r a r i s c h e n G a t t u n g e n b e i L u k i a n , E o s 7 4 ( 1 9 8 6 ) , 2 9 - 3 8 ; T . P. WISEMAN,

Practice and Theory in Roman Historiography, Historia 66 (1981), 375 — 393, espec. 3 8 6 - 8 7 ; R. B. BRANHAM, Introducing a Sophist: Lucian's Prologues, TAPhA 115 (1985), 237 — 243, p. 239 no. 5, on the contrast between the intended and the unappreciative audience. For an interesting classification of Plutarch's audience in the De Genio Socratis 575B-C, see A. GEORGIADOU, Vita Activa and Vita Contemplativa: Plutarch's 'De Genio' and Euripides' 'Antiope', in: Teoria e Prassi Politica nelle Opere di Plutarco, eds. I. GALLO a n d B . SCARDIGLI ( S i e n a , f o r t h c o m i n g ) . 33

On Lucian's concern with posterity, see Hist. Conscr. 40, 42, 61, 63.

1456

ARISTOULA GEORGIADOU

-

DAVID H . J. LARMOUR

differ from Polybius, in that he regards political skill and knowledge (σύνεσις) as inborn in his would-be writers of history (34):34 Φημί τοίνυν τον αριστα ίστορίαν συγγράφοντα δύο μεν ταύτα κορυφαιότατα οίκοθεν έχοντα ήκειν, σύνεσίν τε πολιτικήν καί δύναμιν έρμηνευτικήν, την μέν άδίδακτόν τι της φύσεως δώρον . . . . "I say, then, that the best history writer comes already possessing these two supreme qualities, political understanding and power of expression; the former is an unteachable gift of n a t u r e . . . " comments that "Wherever Lucian actually got the phrase from, in the context of his treatise it looks very much to me like a reminiscence (whether direct or indirect) of Polybius' demand for political experience in the historian." 3 5 Lucian is working to perfect the skills of the élite few, who already have some talent, whereas Polybius aims his work at a broader audience. Polybius' differentiation of the groups in his audience is not always clear, since he uses a wide range of terms to characterize it, and his didactic purposes vary according to the context. 3 6 The φιλήκοοι are distinguished from the φιλομαθείς, with the former being viewed as casual readers, for whom history arouses pleasure, while the latter find more usefulness in the same work (7.7.8). 37 Again in 11.19a.2, he brings to our attention the fact that the άκούοντες find pleasure merely in the results of actions (ψυχαγωγεί μόνον), whereas the φιλομαθοΰντες find usefulness (ώφελοΰσι) in the "previous decisions of the responsible parties." 3 8 HALL

34

M. CROISET, Essai (Paris 1882), 244; G. AVENARIUS, Lukians Schrift (Meisenheim 1956), 31, 165; Β. BALDWIN, Studies (Toronto (1973), 89 n. 61; I. LANA, rev. of AVENARIUS, RFIC 36 (1958), 78 — 80, p. 79, suggest that Polybius' political experience is also inborn. J. HALL, Lucian's Satire (New York 1981), 561 — 2 n. 18, argues that the Lucianic and Polybian statements can be reconciled: "Lucian is just speaking loosely when he says that political understanding is an unteachable gift of nature: he means that the historian should possess natural intelligence, or common sense, and that this should be developed by practical experience." The idea of teaching with natural disposition and practice goes back to Protagoras: see Protagoras, 80.B.3 (H. D I E L S — W. K R A N Z , Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker [Berlin 19547]), cf. Plato, Phaedrus 269D; Rep. 2.374E. See further H. HOMEYER, Lukian (Munich 1965), 240; E. MATTIOLI, Retorica e storia nel Q u o m o d o historia sit conscribenda di Luciano, in: Retorica e Storia nella cultura classica, ed. A. PENNACINI, (Bologna 1985), 8 9 - 1 1 5 , pp. 9 2 - 3 and n. 11; G.ANDERSON, Lucian. Theme and Variation, Mnemosyne Suppl. 41 (Leiden 1976), 117, argues that the advice which Lucian gives in the 'Hist. Conscr.', including the need for inborn political skill, should not be taken so seriously (see above, n. 19 and below n. 168).

35

Lucian's Satire (New York 1 9 8 1 ) , 5 6 1 n. 1 8 ; B . B A L D W I N , Lucian, De Hist. Conscrib. 34: an Unnoticed Aristotelian Source, Philologus 1 2 1 ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 6 5 — 6 8 , p. 1 6 7 . F. W. WALBANK, Polybius (Oxford 1957 - 79), 1.7, notes Polybius' occasional lack of clarity as regards the particular audience to whom he is directing his frequent didactic observations. IDEM, 1.337, n. on 3.21.9. IDEM, 2.294, n. on 11.19a.2.

36

37 38

J. HALL,

LUCIAN A N D

HISTORIOGRAPHY

1457

When Polybius, in the opening paragraphs of his history, comments that both usefulness and pleasure are to be derived f r o m historia by perceiving how all the particular parts are interconnected in a general pattern (1.4.11), he does not characterize the type of audience he is addressing (άν τις έφίκοιτο). 39 He does so, however, later on, when he promises to give an adequate idea of his whole plan to the φιλομαθείς (3.1.6 — 7). Thus, pleasure, according to Polybius, is also to be derived f r o m the understanding of history, and, again, this depends on truth (1.4.8 - 1 0 ) . In 1.65.9, Polybius says that it will be useful (χρήσιμον) to the φιλομαθοΰντες for him to give the most truthful account possible of the causes of the Hannibalic war. In the preface to Book 6, we read that it is the study of causes and choices which brings το ψυχαγωγούν and, at the same time, την ώφέλειαν to students (τοις φιλομαθοΰσι, 6.2.8). 40 Nonetheless, Polybius does distinguish between history and tragedy, when it comes to the kind of attractions they present to the audience (2.56.11 — 12). The contrast between the object of tragedy and that of history is seen again in connection with their respective audiences. H e says that the aim of tragedy is to thrill (έκπλήξαι) and delight (ψυχαγωγήσαι) for the present, but the object of historia is to instruct (διδάξαι) and convince (πεΐσαι) for all time. Likewise, in 15.36, Polybius says that there are two objects of study through seeing and hearing - usefulness and pleasure; what is presented should cause admiration or pleasure, and the elaborate treatment of that which does neither is suitable for tragedy rather than history. Too generous a treatment of sensational events contributes to neither ώφέλεια nor τέρψις. Abnormal reversals of fortune arouse neither emulation nor pleasure, since they are contrary to nature and are not realistic (15.36.8). T h e t w o methods of suicide which Lucian objects to in the accounts of Severianus — starvation and cutting his throat with a piece of glass (21) — are instances of precisely this sort of unrealistic and "unnatural" behaviour. T h e usefulness side of the equation for both writers depends heavily on the value of history for the future: Lucian (40, 61) says the historian should look to the future, not to the present, 4 1 and notes that history can be of help if a situation recurs (42). 42 Polybius says that history helps people to avoid errors and suffering in the future ( 1 . 3 5 . 7 - 1 0 ) . He also notes that history helps with all contingencies (9.2.) and that past experiences serve as a guide for future events ( 1 2 . 2 5 b . 2 - 3 ) .

39

40

41 42

In 3.4.11, Polybius says that nobody studies skills and arts just for knowledge, but people do all their activities for the pleasure, or the g o o d , or the usefulness they bring. Consequently, the aim of his work is knowledge of historical events in the period of the Roman conquest. See also K. SACKS, Polybius (Berkeley 1981), 122 — 144. Polybius 9.2.6 appears to distinguish between the ωφέλεια of history and the τέρψις of the kinds of writing mentioned a few lines earlier in 9.2.1 (genealogies, myths, records of colonies, the foundations of cities, kinship-links). In 12.26d.2, these subjects are connected with Timaeus. Cf. Thuc. 1.22. Cf. Thuc. 2.54.3.

1458

ARISTOULA GEORGIADOU

-

DAVID H. J. LARMOUR

In neither Lucían nor Polybius, however, is the separation of poietike and historia total. In Hist. Conscr. 45, Lucian says that the historian's mind (γνώμη) should have a touch of poetry for battle arrays and land and sea battles, and that he should let his language rise with the beauty of the subjects, as far as possible resembling them, but without getting carried away. The greatest danger is of getting over-excited (παρακινήσαι) and being swept into "the Corybantic frenzy of poetry" (τον της ποιητικής κορύβαντα), so that he must obey the bit, knowing that "a stallion's pride in words is no minor affliction" (ίπποτυφία τις καί έν λόγοις πάθος ού μικρόν γίγνεται). When his mind is on horseback, his exposition should run alongside on foot. This passage recalls the tragic disease of the Abderites (1): "[the fever] put their minds into a ridiculous state, for they all had a craving for tragedy" (ές γελοΐον δέ τι πάθος περιίστη τάς γνώμας αυτών άπαντες γαρ ές τραγωδίαν παρεκίνουν). 43 The horse metaphor provides a connection with Perseus' speech from the 'Andromeda' which they were all declaiming. So, the invitation to have a touch of poietike is accompanied by a warning about the dangers of slipping into the tragic mode. Likewise, W A L B A N K notes that a "tendency towards a sensational presentation can be seen in Polybius' battle-pieces" and sees here the influence of rhetorical elaboration, but he points out that "Polybius does not develop the situation at length nor with the resources of emotional and tragic writing necessary to elicit the pity of his readers and to thrill them with sensation for its own sake." 4 4 Polybius does not attempt to justify the presence of poietike like Lucian, but he does comment (29.12.7-10) on the tendency of other historians to elaborate in such descriptions. His own accounts, he declares, will use the appropriate language (τον καθήκοντα λόγον, 29.12.6), without deviating from the truth. He asks to be criticized only if he is guilty of writing lies (29.12.12). By implication, then, the rather dramatic tone of some of the battle scenes falls within the limits of Polybius' own standards, and does not stray into the area of the "tragic" historians he condemns. Something similar occurs in the discussion of myth by both writers. Lucian includes the μΟθος among the embellishments of poetry which should be kept out of history (8). He also cites Thucydides' assertion that he was not interested in τό μυθώδες, but in leaving a true account for posterity (42).45 In 60, however, he says that if a myth falls the historian's way (καί μήν και μΰθος ει τις παραπέσοι), he should tell it, but not believe it entirely: leave it "in the middle" (έν μέσω θετέος) for the audience to decide. This looks like a contradiction of the two earlier statements, but can, in fact, be reconciled with them. « Cf. H. HOMEYER, Lukian (Munich 1965), 171. «

F. W . WALBANK, P o l y b i u s ( O x f o r d 1 9 5 7 - 7 9 ) , 1 . 1 5 ; c f . 3 . 4 3 . 7 - 8 ; 5 . 4 8 . 5 ; 1 8 . 2 5 . 1 ; IDEM, J H S 5 8 ( 1 9 3 8 ) , 5 5 ; B . L . U L L M A N , T A P h A 7 3 ( 1 9 4 2 ) , 4 3 - 4 4 ; K . SACKS, P o l y b i u s ( B e r k e l e y 1981),

45

166-168.

Dion. Hal., Thuc. 6 — 7, speaks of the deception practised on readers by historians who include mythical material, cf. A. R. 1 . 3 9 - 4 0 ; 41 - 4 4 . 2 .

LUCIAN

AND

HISTORIOGRAPHY

1459

It is a matter of degree: In Hist. Conscr. 8, Lucían says that myth and encomium and their hyperbolae are to be kept separate f r o m history, and in 10 he says that "in history complete fiction (το κομιδή μυθώδες) is not even pleasurable, and flattery on either side is particularly repugnant (μάλιστα πρόσαντες) to the listeners." These are the exaggerated instances of praise in historical works. In 9, he allows that some praise is possible in history, provided it is at the appropriate moment and is kept within reasonable bounds. Likewise, in 59, he comments that praise, like censure, is supposed to be thought out and considered. This passage is followed by 60, which deals with the acceptable use of myth. T h u s the original statement in 8 is elaborated upon in these other passages, and, by the end of the treatise, it has been established that myth and praise are permissible, but only in very restricted circumstances. Polybius' comments on myth are preserved by Strabo (1.2.9.20 = Polybius, 3 4 . 2 . 1 - 3 ) , w h o introduces them as follows: Έ κ μηδενός δέ άληθοϋς άνάπτειν κενή ν τερατολογίαν ούχ Όμηρικόν. προσπίπτει γάρ, ώς εικός, ώς πιθανώτερον αν ουτω τις ψεύδοιτο, ει καταμίσγοι τι καί αύτών των αληθινών οπερ και Πολύβιος φησι περί της 'Οδυσσέως πλάνης έπιχειρών. "To make an empty story of marvels from nothing truthful is not Homeric. For it happens, as is reasonable, that somebody lies more credibly if he mixes some truth with it; this is what Polybius says when he deals with the wanderings of Odysseus." In his comments on the travels of Odysseus, Polybius says that "to invent everything is neither believable nor Homeric," and advises against following Eratosthenes w h o said that one should not look for historia in H o m e r ' s poems (34.4.4). T h e basis is history, the myth is additional. 4 6 Lucian and Polybius are alike in making allowances for H o m e r : in Hist. Conscr. 40, Lucian comments that H o m e r leans more towards the mythical in his account of Achilles, but some people think he is truthful because he did not write about the hero during his lifetime (and therefore was not prey to the urge to produce an encomium). Lucian does not go as far as Polybius in promoting H o m e r ' s attachment to the truth — his standards are more exacting than Polybius' in general (see II. 4, "History and Truth", pp. 1 4 6 2 - 7 0 below) - but he does seem to echo his views here. This is all the more noticeable because in other works Lucian is rather scathing about H o m e r ' s lies, for instance in Ver. Hist. 1.3 and Philops. 2 (see below, p. 1485).

46

A. E. WARDMAN, Myth in Greek Historiography, Historia 9 (1960), 401 - 1 3 ; Η. STRASBURGER, Homer und die Geschichtsschreibung (Heidelberg 1972), espec. 2 0 - 3 0 .

1460

ARISTOULA GEORGIADOU

-

DAVID H. J.

LARMOUR

3. History and Encomium In discussing the role and position of the history writer, Lucian is much concerned with the question of freedom and the ability to write truthfully, without the constraint to flatter somebody in a position of power, and without being afraid. Just before drawing the distinction between historia and poietike in Hist. Conscr. 8, Lucian says that history and encomium are separated by a great wall (7). The terms used are very emphatic: "by no narrow isthmus has history been divided and separated from encomium, but there is a big wall in between" (ού στενφ τφ ίσθμφ διώρισται και διατετείχισται ή ιστορία προς τό έγκώμιον, άλλά τι μέγα τείχος έν μέσω αύτών) - more emphatic, in fact, than the words used of the division between history and poetry (8). It is a major fault in a historian to care less about recording events than about lauding his own leaders and slandering those of the other side. If history introduces flattery, what else does it become but a sort of prose-poetry, lacking its high style, and exhibiting its τερατεϊα without metre and, therefore, all the more blatantly (8)? It does not matter to the encomiast if he has to lie. Such dishonesty is, of course, subject to exposure: in 10, Lucian says that a history dressed up "like Heracles in Lydia" may be greeted with applause by the many, but the few, who see that it is unsuitable (άσύμφυλον), out-of-proportion (άνάρμοστον), and badly-structured (δυσκόλλητον), will laugh heartily. In 12, he tells a story about a historian Aristobulus, who tried, in vain, to flatter Alexander in an account of his flight with Porus, and then asks who could be so completely stupid (κομιδή άνόητος) as to believe praise which can be proved baseless (13). The other side of the coin is censure (ό ψόγος). Lucian restates this in 14, making fun of a writer who said explicitly in his preface that he was going to praise his own side and put down the barbarians to the best of his ability. In other words, then, flattery and censure are both forms of lying and are inappropriate for historiography. As to how it s h o u l d be done, Lucian allows for some praise in history, provided that it is at the right time and stays within reasonable limits (9). This is picked up in 59, where he says that praise and censure should be carefully thought out, supported by evidence (μετά αποδείξεων), and not inopportune. He then cites Theopompus as a bad example to follow, because he criticized nearly everyone. He was, in fact, more like a prosecutor than a historian (ώς κατηγορεϊν μάλλον ή ίστορεΐν τά πεπραγμένα).47 Polybius likewise (10.21.8) differentiates encomium from history, using the example of his own laudatory piece on Philopoemen. Polybius, like Lucian, points out that flattery is obvious: he criticizes Timaeus for his patently intemperate praise of Sicilians (12.26b.4). In 8.8 — 11, Polybius connects flattery with its counterpart, censure, citing Theopompus, just as Lucian does, referring 47

P. PÉDECH, Trois Historiens Méconnus (Paris 1989), 207 - 241.

LUCIAN A N D

HISTORIOGRAPHY

1461

specifically to his work on Philip, Alexander's father. Theopompus gave the impression in his preface that Philip was a virtuous man and then went on to accuse him of all kinds of atrocious behaviour (8.11.2). 48 Polybius says that this historian is, therefore, either a liar and a flatterer in his preface, or mindless (άνόητος) in his assertions about the king. It is possible that Lucian was aware of Polybius' criticisms of Theopompus, if not using them directly. 49 As for the correct use of praise and censure in history, Polybius says (10.21.8) that the account of Philopoemen's exploits in his history, which will differ from that in his encomium, will apportion praise and censure impartially (κοινός ών έπαίνου καί ψόγου) and do so with evidence (μετ' αποδείξεως). There is a time and a place for praise, as he indicates in 6.11.10, and in his discussion of the people of Megalopolis: by omitting to mention their noble behaviour when they were besieged by Cleomenes, Phylarchus has deprived us of the particular virtue of history, namely "the praise and the recording for one's own good of noteworthy policies" (τον επαινον καί την έπ' άγαθώ μνήμην των άξιολόγων προαιρέσεων, 2.61.6). 50 We may compare 12.15.9 — 11 on similar practices by Timaeus: he mentions only the bad points about Agathocles, not realizing that it is no less of a lie to conceal what did happen as to report what did not. Lucian makes the point that the historian must put aside any personal dislikes he may have and also not hesitate to criticize a friend for the sake of the public interest and the truth (39). Polybius makes the same point in 1 . 1 4 . 5 - 8 : the historian should not hesitate to accuse friends and praise enemies (οϋτε των φίλων κατηγορεΐν οΰτε τούς εχθρούς έπαινεΐν όκνητέον, 1.14.7; cf. 6.9.11). Timaeus does not mention the good points about Agathocles (12.15.10), because he is blinded by his own bitterness (έπεσκοτημένος υπό της ιδίας πικρίας). 51 Lucian also states that the historian should be free from fear and the hope of personal gain (38). He must tell what actually happened (ώς έπράχθη ειπείν, 39), without being afraid like Artaxerxes' doctor or hoping to get a Nisaean horse as a reward for his praises (an allusion to Ctesias of Cnidus). Polybius too notes that awkward personal circumstances can prevent the historian from expressing his true opinions (12.8.8). For instance, accounts of Philip's dealings with the Messenians have been coloured either by favour (εύνοια) or fear (φόβος) of the Macedonian kings (12.8.4). Polybius also recognizes that gain or self-interest can be a motive for distorting the truth (12.8.1). For Lucian, the connection between fear and truth is an important one: in 41, he characterizes the good historian as fearless (άφοβος), incorruptible 48 49

50 51

Ibid, 65 - 73 on the Preface; 74 - 1 4 6 on the history of Philip. Cf. e. g. the praise of Theopompus and refutation of the charge of malice in Dion. Hal., Ad Pomp. 6. See also M. D. MACLEOD, Lucian (Warminster 1991), 292 ch. 9. Cf. 12.7.1 ύπό δέ της φιλονεικίας έπισκοτούμενος, in a similar context about the attribution of praise and censure.

1462

ARISTOULA GEORGIADOU

-

DAVID H. J. LARMOUR

(άδέκαστος), free (ελεύθερος), 52 a friend of free expression and truth (παρρησίας και αληθείας φίλος), 53 , an impartial judge (ϊσος δικαστής), 54 a stranger (ξένος) in his books and a man without a country (απολις), independent (αυτόνομος), subject to no king (άβασίλευτος), and a man who tells what has happened. The same ideas reappear in 44 and at the end of the treatise, in 61 and 63. Truth is the aim (ό σκοπός, 44) of history and what matters is the reception of the work in the future (see II. 4, "History and Truth", below); therefore, pressures to compromise free expression must be resisted. Polybius has similar ideas: in 34.4.2, he says that the aim (τό τέλος) of history is truth and in 3 8 . 4 . 3 - 6 comments that the writer of political history should consider only the truth because the written record is for posterity. Someone who is afraid to speak his mind frankly (τον δεδιότα και φοβούμενον τούς μετά παρρησίας λόγους) or who is afraid of giving offence, does not make a good historian. 55 4. History and Truth This brings us to the role of truth in history, another area where Lucian and Polybius are in close agreement. Lucian is emphatic in his belief that historia must be truthful: he says in Hist. Conscr. 7 that history cannot allow any lie, not even a small one (ούδέ άκαριαΐον), just as the windpipe cannot allow anything to enter it. 56 The purpose of history is the presentation of the truth (τήν της αληθείας δήλωσιν, 9) and only to truth should sacrifice be made (40). 57 Polybius too (2.56.10, 12; 34.4.2) says that the purpose of history is to tell the truth. 58 Both writers speak of historia as a physical body. 59 In Lucian, the comparison is introduced with the reference to the windpipe in 7 and picked up briefly in 9 and 10, 60 before receiving extended treatment in 23: some historians write glamorous prefaces, but the body of their history (τό σώμα δε αυτό της ιστορίας) is small and undistinguished, like a child wearing a mask of Heracles or a Titan. The body must be in proportion with the head, or you end up with the head of the Colossus of Rhodes attached to the 52 53 54

55

56 57 58 59

Cf. 61: ελεύθερος άνήρ. Cf. 61 παρρησίας μεστός. Cf. 38: the man who is afraid or hopes for gain is like the bad judge who sells his verdict. G. ZECCHINI, Osservazioni sul presunto modello del „Come si deve scrivere la storia" di Luciano, in: Xenia. Scritti in onore di Piero Treves (Venice 1983), 2 4 7 - 2 5 2 , suggests Philodemus as a source for Lucian's views. See J. BOMPAIRE, Lucien (Paris 1958), 127 and n. 4 on Lucian and lies. Cf. 44, 63. Cf. 12.4d.l — 2; cf. Κ. SACKS, Polybius (Berkeley 1981), 139, 144. M. D. MACLEOD, Lucian (Warminster 1991), 295 ch. 23 says this goes back to Plato, Phaedrus 264C; cf. also H. HOMEYER, Lukian (Munich 1965), 224; G. AVENARIUS, Lukians Schrift (Meisenheim 1 9 5 6 ) ,

60

106-112.

In Hist. Conscr. 9, the pleasurable historia is depicted as surrounded by lovers and is contrasted with the truthful historia, who has little care for beauty; in 10, an ornamented historia is like Heracles in Lydia, all dressed up and feminized.

LUCIAN A N D

HISTORIOGRAPHY

1463

body of a dwarf. Some historians, who omit the preface, present bodies without heads (ακέφαλα τά σώματα). Later, Lucían speaks of the σώμα of material — the facts which have been gathered — to be arranged and given beauty by the historian (48). In 55, he uses the phrase τό λοιπόν σώμα της ιστορίας, referring to the main narrative. Polybius, at the beginning of his work, describes historia as σωματοειδή (1.3.4), which could mean "lifelike", although W A L B A N K prefers "as a unified whole." 6 1 The word appears again in 14.12.5, with reference to an account of the life of Ptolemy Philopator, which, he says, will not allude to small events every year. 62 Clearly, Lucian takes the σώμα metaphor much further than Polybius; he connects it with sculpture, mentioning Phidias three times (27, 50, 51), 63 and also with athletics (see II. 5, pp. 1477 — 78 below). Nevertheless, Polybius is clearly operating in the same area, for he says in 1.14.6 that history without truth is useless (ανωφελής), just as a living creature without sight is completely incapacitated. This is repeated in a substantially similar form at 12.12.3 in the discussion of the canons of historiography; 6 4 κανών is a word used with reference to sculpture and literature, as well as carpentry. Lucian says in Hist. Conscr. 5 that his precepts will provide a κανών to help historians write better (ϊνα ... εχωσιν άμεινον συντιθέναι τον κανόνα τούτον προσάγοντες); if they do not find it accurate, they can keep using the rule (ό πήχυς) they measure with now. This is echoed later in 39, when he talks about "a single accurate rule and measure" (the future audience) for the history writer: όλως πήχυς είς και μέτρον ακριβές. 65 There is an implication in Lucian's remarks about the audiences of historians that their poor taste is responsible for what he sees as the poor condition of current historiography (5). In 10, he characterizes the majority of the audience as "a mob and a common populace" (συρφετόν και τον πολύν δήμον); the historian should not aim to please them, but the ones who see more sharply. Finally, at the end of the treatise (63), he repeats that truth and thought for the future, rather than flattery, should be the κανών και στάθμη Ιστορίας; if some use this measure, then he will have written for a purpose ... if not, he has wasted his time and energy, rolling his pithos on Cornel Hill, like Diogenes in Hist. Conscr. 3. If the historian is to tell the truth, he must have access to reliable facts. H o w is this to be achieved? Both Lucian and Polybius insist that the ideal 61

62

F. W. WALBANK, Polybius ( O x f o r d 1 9 5 7 - 7 9 ) , 1.42; K. SACKS, Polybius (Berkeley 1981), 116-121. W. R. PATON, Polybius, T h e Histories, 6 vols., L o e b Classical Library (London and N e w York 1954), 4.461, translates this as 'lifelike', w h i c h F. W. WALBANK, Polybius ( O x f o r d 1 9 5 7 - 7 9 ) , 2 . 4 3 9 s a y s is i n a c c u r a t e .

63

64 65

95

Cf. S o m n . 8; Pro Imag. 14; Peregr. 9; Philops. 18. Polybius puts Phidias and the sculptural analogy t o a different use: in 6 . 4 7 . 7 — 1 0 , he argues that the constitution of Plato's 'Republic', in c o m p a r i s o n w i t h others, is like a statue, because it is not actually w o r k i n g in practice: it is like a statue as o p p o s e d t o living and breathing men. There is incidentally a mention of athletes in 6.47.8. Cf. Hist. Conscr. 8: history and poetry have different canons. T h e passage also includes mention of gymnastike and make-up; cf. also the use of metron in 9, in a c o m m e n t on h o w t o praise judiciously in history. ANRW II 34.2

1464

ARISTOULA GEORGIADOU

-

DAVID H. J. LARMOUR

means is eyewitness knowledge. Lucían introduces this in Hist. Conscr. 29, with a devastating description of a Corinthian historian who never left his city, but managed nevertheless to claim that his work rested upon αυτοψία; he said: "ears are less credible than eyes, and therefore I write what I saw, not what I heard" (Ώτα οφθαλμών άπιστότερα. γράφω τοίνυν α εΐδον, ούχ α ήκουσα). 66 He read his descriptions of battles to an audience of fellow Corinthians who knew for a fact that he had not even seen a battle painted on a wall. Moreover, he had no knowledge of military matters like weapons, organization and manœuvres. 6 7 Lucian also criticizes (24) the lack of geographical knowledge of a writer who misplaced Europus and Samosata. 6 8 Much of this is reminiscent of Polybius; he quotes Heraclitus' dictum that eyes are better witnesses than ears - οφθαλμοί γαρ των ώτων ακριβέστεροι μάρτυρες 69 - and says that Timaeus prefers his ears (12.27.1— 2). 70 He states his own preference for eyes elsewhere (4.2.2 71 ; 20.12.8) 72 . In 12.25f, Polybius ridicules Ephorus' accounts of the battles of Leuctra and Mantinea: the details of his description provoke laughter and show that he did not experience (άπειρος) or see (αόρατος 73 ) a battle (12.25f.3). 74 He seems to describe the battle of Mantinea in great detail and with a knowledge of military matters, but his account of the ground and the various manœuvres makes it clear that he did not understand it (12.25f.46). Polybius in the same vein criticizes Timaeus for a lack of geographical knowledge (2.16.15). 75 Both Lucian and Polybius connect doctors with historians in this context. The two professions seem to have overlapped from time to time: Ctesias was a doctor, as well as a historian, at the court of Artaxerxes. In Hist. Conscr. 16, Lucian describes the work of a military doctor, Callimorphus, as a bare collection of facts, like a diary of daily events; but this writer is not so bad, because he has laid the groundwork for a writer of grace and with the ability 66

H. HOMEYER, Lukian (Munich 1965), 233.

67

EADEM, 2 3 2 - 3 4 .

68

EADEM, 226; M. D. MACLEOD, Lucian (Warminster 1991), 295 ch. 24. Cf. 12.24.6: some people, however, are blind with their eyes open. Cf. Hdt. 1.8.2 and F. W. WALBANK, Polybius (Oxford 1 9 5 7 - 7 9 ) , 2.408 for a detailed discussion. Cf. also, for example, 12.28a.4. He says that he was present himself at some events and has the eyewitness testimony

69 70

71

o f o t h e r s f o r t h e t e s t , c f . 3 . 4 . 1 3 ; Κ. SACKS, P o l y b i u s ( B e r k e l e y 1 9 8 1 ) , 5 0 ; 2 0 3 - 2 0 9 . 72

73

74 75

He says that hearsay is not the same as being an eyewitness; in all matters the evidence of one's eyes is of the greatest value. Cf. 2.21.2: άπειροι δέ κάόρατοι used of absolute inexperience; in 3.108.6, άόρατος is used of inexperienced levies; in 12.25g.4, Polybius notes Timaeus' άορασία. Cf. 12.28.7, a similar criticism of Timaeus. Timaeus apparently admitted in his 34th book that he had no experience in war or familiarity with places, Polybius 12.25h.l. On Polybius and geography, see P. PÉDECH, Polybe (Paris 1964), 5 1 5 - 5 9 7 .

LUCIAN

AND

1465

HISTORIOGRAPHY

to compose history. Polybius ( 1 2 . 2 5 d - e ) has a systematic comparison of medicine and history, against which background it may be helpful to consider Lucian's Callimorphus. He first notes that many are d r a w n to historiography as they are to medicine, because of its good reputation, but they are reckless, audacious and roguish; they seek popularity like apothecaries and try to earn a living by these means. There are, then, quacks w h o aspire to be doctors and rogues w h o aspire to be historians (12.25e.2 —3). H e also distinguishes three kinds of doctors: those w h o deal with diseases, those who deal with dietetics and those w h o deal with surgery and pharmaceutics (12.25d.2 —3). The text is fragmentary and some material appears to be missing, but the doctors of diseases are described as λογικοί, and their practice is based upon research, theory and dogma: their eloquence takes precedence over practical experience. It is possible to extract from the passage an association between dietetics and autopsy — or eyewitness observation of places and geographical features — and between surgery/pharmaceutics and political experience. 7 6 In the text as we have it, Polybius goes on (12.25e.4) to equate some historians with the theoretical doctors (οί λογικοί των ιατρών): they d o a lot of research in libraries and think that is enough. This is the problem with Timaeus (12.25e.7; cf. 12.25g —h) and Ephorus (12.25f). To return to Callimorphus, he is clearly not one of the λογικοί ιατροί; he is, rather, most like the doctor whose method is autopsy, the equivalent of an observer of geographical features. Lucian does after all characterize his writing as prosaic and ordinary, like the diary of a soldier or a w o r k m a n or a pedlar following the army (16): οίον καί στρατιώτης αν τις τά καθ' ήμέραν υπογραφόμενος συνέθηκεν ή κάπηλός τις συμπερινοστών τή στρατιά. The name Callimorphus is perhaps fictional and intended to be redend: it is an appropriate name for a doctor — especially for one dealing with dietetics, which is often associated with athletics — and also alludes to the idea of historia as a body (σώμα) mentioned above, and the idea of the historian as a sculptor (see above, pp. 1462 —63) and an athlete (see below, p. 1478). 77 It is worth noting too, that the treatise opens with the picture of a disease (νόσημα) of tragedy, followed by the pathos of history writing, afflicting the Abderites (1—2). Lucian offers his guidelines for historiography without expecting to win over very many (notice that he says he is giving advice to people w h o feel they do not need it any more than they do for walking or seeing or eating): if they do not think his canon accurate, they should continue as they are - "the doctor will not be very upset if all the Abderites willingly play the e Andromeda' ". This last comment effectively makes Lucian a doctor, offering to cure a disease. It is picked up in 7, when

76

F. W . W A L B A N K , P o l y b i u s ( O x f o r d 1 9 5 7 - 7 9 ) ,

77

See

B.BALDWIN,

Crepereius

C . P. J O N E S , C u l t u r e

and

Calpurnianus,

Society

(Cambridge

Lucian's Satire ( N e w York 1981), 3 1 6 - 1 7 . 95'

2.391.

QUCC

27

Mass.

(1978), 1986),

211-213,

6 3 — 6;

pp.

212-13;

161-66;

J.HALL,

1466

ARISTOULA GEORGIADOU

-

DAVID H. J. LARMOUR

he again links history with medicine through the comparison of the clear windpipe with truthfulness in history. 78 Lucian's allusion to painting in his description of the Corinthian historian brings up the relationship between historia and the graphic arts. In Hist. Conscr. 13, he had already compared foolishly obvious flattery in history to men and women — especially women 7 9 — asking a painter to make them as beautiful as possible by using a deeper red and more white: in such cases the historian is like a painter, following "personal aims" (τό ϊδιον) and "advantage" (το χρειώδες). 80 Polybius brings painting into his assessment of Timaeus: in 12.25e.7, he says that for Timaeus to think that research enables him to write the history of recent events is the equivalent of someone who has viewed old paintings thinking that he can be a painter. In 12.25h.2 —3, he says that if Timaeus does come close to the truth, he is like a painter who draws sketches from stuffed bags; that is, he manages to approach reality by imitating things which only approximate to it. 81 Polybius has another painting analogy in 12.28a.1, where he says that the difference between history and epideictic oratory is like the difference between real buildings and painted scenes. He goes on to say (12.28a.6) that even these differences are not so great as the difference between, on the one hand, an account based on participation in the action (τήν έξ αυτουργίας καν τήν έξ αύτοπαθείας άπόφασιν) and, on the other hand, an account based on hearsay and the writings of others (των έξ ακοής και διηγήματος γραφομένων). Lucian and Polybius, then, share an interest in the similarities between historiography and painting. In his depiction of the Corinthian historian as someone who has not even seen a battle painted on a wall, Lucian takes the ridiculing of the armchair writer 8 2 a stage further than Polybius, who simply compares such history to painting. This may be explained by the generally humorous and satirical tone of Lucian's work. There is a parallel in the picture of the historian who had never met a Syrian or even heard "barber-shop" (επί κουρείφ) gossip about the place, and who therefore misplaced Europus and Samosata in Mesopotamia (24). This looks like an exaggerated version of Polybius' complaint that the works of Chaereas and Sosylus have the authority not of history, but of "the commonplace gossip of a barber's shop" (κουρεακής και πανδήμου λαλιάς, 3.20.5). 83

78

79 80 81

The phrase ιατρών παίδες means doctors; see M. D. MACLEOD, Lucian (Warminster 1991), 281, 'Zeuxis', ch. 5; on Lucian's views of, and interest in, the medical profession, and his possible connections with Galen, see B. BALDWIN, Studies (Toronto 1973), 1 4 15, 3 6 - 4 0 ; J. D.ROLLESTON, Lucian and Medicine, JANUS 20 (1915), 8 3 - 1 0 8 ; L. WEBER, ó ξένος Ιατρός, Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts in Athen, 46 (1921), 7 6 - 8 0 ; H. L. CROSBY, Lucian and the Art of Medicine, TAPhA 54 (1923), abstracts, xv —xvi. Cf. Hist. Conscr. 10 on the feminization of history (and n. 60 above). H. HOMEYER, Lukian (Munich 1965), 234, on painting and poetry, cf. Herrn. 72 — 3. F. W WALBANK, P o l y b i u s ( O x f o r d 1 9 5 7 - 7 9 ) , 1 . 1 0 . n. 2; 2 . 3 9 6 ; K . SACKS, P o l y b i u s ( B e r k e ley 1981),

82 83

159-160.

Cf. the "stay at home" (κατοικίδιων) in 37. Cf. Theopompus, F G H 2 B , no. 115, F283.b.

LUCIAN A N D

HISTORIOGRAPHY

1467

In addition to painting, Lucian explores the related arts of sculpture and architecture. The references to sculpture have been mentioned above (see pp. 1 4 6 2 - 6 3 ) ; in Hist. Conscr. 4, he says that he is offering his historiographical precepts so that he may share in the building (οίκοδομία) of the historians, if not in the inscription on it, by putting at least a fingertip in the mortar. In 33, he is challenged by an imaginary critic to build something (οίκοδομεΐν) himself, so as not to be thought of as just a demolisher of other people's buildings. 84 These ideas are picked up at the end of the treatise, with the story about the architect of the Pharos lighthouse, who inscribed his name behind that of the reigning king, so that it would eventually replace it. Thus the architect, like the good historian, looks not to the present, but to the future. A negative example is also provided in the person of the architect who planned to make Mt. Athos into a likeness of Alexander's face: he was dismissed as a flatterer by the king (12). With regard to truth in history, Lucian appears to be even more emphatic than Polybius. The tone is set by the statement in Hist. Conscr. 7 that history cannot tolerate any lie, even a very small one. Polybius shows slightly more flexibility on the issue: in dealing with encomium, he says that sometimes writers face difficult situations which prevent them from speaking their minds and sometimes we should excuse them (8.8.8 —9);85 small concessions are also made for the encouragement of piety, but we should not tolerate what goes too far (16.12.9); partiality for one's country is permissible, but misrepresentation of facts about it is not, and Polybius attacks the Rhodian historians Antisthenes and Zenon for their bias (16.14.6, 15). In all these cases, the scope for telling less than the complete truth is minimal, but does seem to go beyond what Lucian would allow. For instance, Lucian says that the historian should be a stranger in his books and a man without a country (Hist. Conscr. 41). There is apparently no room for even a slight patriotic partiality in a history which is to have truthfulness everywhere (αλήθεια έπί πδσι, 61). In 'Philopseudes' 1, lying in the interests of one's country is pardonable, even laudable, but these lies are not written records, so they are not perpetuated through the generations (2). This is exactly the point which Polybius makes in 38.4.7 — 8: κατά μέν γαρ τούς των περιστάσεων καιρούς καθήκει βοηθεΐν τούς "Ελληνας οντάς τοις "Ελλησι κατά πάντα τρόπον, τά μέν άμύνοντας, τα δέ περιστέλλοντας, τά δέ παραιτουμένους την των κρατούντων οργήν όπερ ημείς έπ' αυτών των πραγμάτων έποιήσαμεν άληθινώς· την (Mét. 111,2; V,23; IX,41), obsequium désignant un < cortège > (Mét. IV,31; XI,9), piscatus faisant référence aux (Mét. 1,24) ...; et c'est encore d'un phénomène fortement et constamment marqué dans tout parler vivant, l'affaiblissement des signes lexicologiques, que relève l'usage de diminutifs pris comme substituts de formes simples 24 : citons seulement l'exemple sans ambiguïté de casula appliqué dans les 'Métamorphoses' à une , mais apparaît en 111,29 (casas ampias) comme synonyme de uilla26. L'influence d'un système 'Métamorphoses' par quelques (Mét. VIII,5; VIII,31) substitué remplaçant praesagire27 ... Et

lexical vivant est encore marquée dans les (rares) exemples d'altérations formelles: femus à femur, praesagare (Mét. IX,38; cf. Ap. 43,12) des phénomènes communs de contamination

18

Cf. A.ERNOUT, o p . cit., p. 165.

19

Pour plus d'exemples et pour une étude plus détaillée de cette question, cf. L. C A L L E B A T , op. cit., p. 140 sq. Cf. infra, p. 1643 sq. Les exemples sont nombreux en latin d'interférences et de contaminations entre les termes marquant les notions de grandeur ou de petitesse: cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p. 150.

20 21

22

C f . L . CALLEBAT, o p . c i t . , p . 1 5 0 s q .

23

Sur la fréquence des transformations de ce type dans la latinité impériale tardive, cf. notamment E. LÖFSTEDT, Late Latin, Inst, for Sammenlingen. Kulturforskn., Ser. Α, 25, Oslo, 1959, p. 143 sq. Cet usage, nous le verrons, apparaît très limité dans les 'Métamorphoses'. Cf. Mét. IV,6: parua casula; IX,35,2: modicae casulae; IX,35,3: casulae paruulae.

24 25 26

C f . L . CALLEBAT, o p . c i t . , p . 3 1 .

27

Cf. ibid., p. 128 sq.

1620

LOUIS

CALLEBAT

peuvent notamment justifier plusieurs formes aberrantes d'adjectifs: ainsi eneruus (Met. 1,4), retrogradis (Met. IV,20), uegetis (Mét. II,32) 28 ... Un premier bilan établi à partir des informations précédentes laisse certainement apparaître une dette non négligeable à l'égard d'un système lexical vivant: locuteur du IIe siècle, Apulée se réfère à une structure linguistique qui est d'abord celle de son époque. La diversité même et l'abondance du vocabulaire des 'Métamorphoses', expression d'un choix sans contrainte rigide, sembleraient déterminer un écart fondamental avec les tendances négatives 29 , sélectives manifestées par le classicisme littéraire. Plusieurs termes, attestés à date ancienne, maintenus dans le parler courant, mais écartés par César ou par Cicerón d'une écriture travaillée, se retrouvent au demeurant dans les 'Métamorphoses' 30 où figurent surtout un assez grand nombre de mots qui ressortissent à un niveau lexical populaire ou spécifiquement vulgaire31. Un tel bilan toutefois ne saurait être que provisoire, les informations recueillies appelant d'importantes précisions: Il convient d'observer tout d'abord que la richesse lexicale des 'Métamorphoses' témoigne sans doute d'un choix beaucoup moins puriste que ne l'était celui des classiques, mais atteste aussi l'étendue de la compétence de l'auteur, compétence qui touche aux différents niveaux du lexique, et non uniquement à son niveau commun. Une première indication est ainsi fournie sur P'authenticité' des éléments populaires ou vulgaires utilisés dans les 'Métamorphoses': l'ampleur du registre verbal 32 , la désignation, variant en fonction du contexte, d'un même objet par des signifiants situés à des niveaux distincts de langage transcrivent non seulement la liberté, mais également la pertinence et le caractère concerté du choix. Etudiés dans cette perspective, les popularismes et les vulgarismes des 'Métamorphoses' dénoncent en fait, comme nous le verrons, une écriture de genre 33 . Un second élément d'appréciation est donné par la diversité même des niveaux lexicaux. La référence établie dans les 'Métamorphoses' à un système linguistique vivant n'exclut nullement un usage assez large de termes techniques ou spécialisés34, mais surtout coexiste avec un emploi abondant de formes vieillies, rares ou marquées soit par leur présence exclusive soit par leur 28

L a f o r m e eneruis

figure dans ¡ ' ' A p o l o g i e ' ( 7 4 , 2 9 ) et dans le ' D e P l a t o n e ' ( 2 , 1 6 , 2 7 ) ;

uegetus

est, d ' a u t r e part, la f o r m e la m i e u x attestée dans l ' œ u v r e d'Apulée (quatre e x e m p l e s dans les ' M é t a m o r p h o s e s ' ; un e x e m p l e d a n s le ' D e D e o Socratis'). 29

W. DE GROOT (op.

cit.,

p. 115 sq.) considère ces tendances (susceptibles de c o n d u i r e à

un appauvrissement du langage) c o m m e caractéristiques de la « langue de l'aristocratie r o m a i n e » au m ê m e titre que les tendances positives et conservatrices. 30

Ainsi: flaccidus

(VII,8; cf. D e D e o S. 1 , 2 1 ) ; lassus

(1,7; 11,17; 2 9 ; VIII,19; X , 2 ; 3 5 ; aucun

e x e m p l e dans les autres œuvres d'Apulée). 31

Cf. infra, p. 1 6 3 6 sq.

32

M ê m e à des niveaux très p r o c h e s de langage, Apulée varie c o m p l a i s a m m e n t les formes de désignation: lotium 6 , 2 0 ) ; nacca

( M é t . 1,14; 18) est ainsi attesté auprès de urina

( M é t . I X , 2 2 ) auprès de fullo

( M é t . I X , 2 4 ; 26) . . .

33

Cf. infra, p. 1 6 2 9 sq., 1 6 3 9 sq.

34

V o c a b u l a i r e s m é d i c a l , religieux, j u r i d i q u e n o t a m m e n t .

(Mét. 1,13; cf. A p .

L'EXPRESSION

DANS LES ΠU V R E S

D'APULÉE

1621

fréquence dans les textes des poètes et des stylistes. Cette structure lexicale détermine un type d'écriture composite et artificiel qui n'apparaît guère caractéristique du sermo cotidianus, mais dans lequel se retrouvent nettement en revanche les traits essentiels de la prose d'art 35 élaborée à l'époque augustéenne et impériale. On observera enfin que la mise en relation du lexique des 'Métamorphoses' avec le lexique des autres documents écrits du IIe siècle (Inscriptions, ouvrages littéraires), tout en témoignant de l'emploi fait par Apulée d'éléments formels appartenant à une langue vivante, permet aussi de situer ces éléments à un niveau d'expression qui est celui d'une société cultivée sur laquelle demeure encore forte l'emprise de tendances normatives et conservatrices. Nous avons noté que les cas d'altérations formelles étaient rares dans les 'Métamorphoses'. Sous une perspective beaucoup plus large, on constate également que le vocabulaire utilisé par Apulée transcrit une connaissance en vérité très précise du système lexical classique et que le pittoresque, la vivacité, l'intensité du registre verbal des 'Métamorphoses' sont notamment déterminés par une appréciation particulièrement sûre des valeurs lexicales: les marques d'affaiblissement relevées dans les effets de sens de quelques diminutifs ne sauraient ainsi masquer l'usage le plus constant de ces formes dans le récit d'Apulée, usage parfaitement concerté par lequel la fonction hypocoristique à la fois dénote la petitesse et enrichit l'énoncé de connotations diverses: tendresse, ironie, maniérisme 36 ... Non moins significatif est l'exemple des adjectifs en -osus dont la remarquable fréquence dans les 'Métamorphoses' ne révèle nullement un emploi spontané influencé par le sermo cotidianus, mais s'accorde d'abord avec une science et une appréciation lexicales très sûres et pertinentes: les effets de sens que revêtent ces adjectifs dans les différents contextes des 'Métamorphoses' où ils apparaissent traduisent nettement une sensibilisation entière à la richesse sémantique de ces formes et une utilisation pleinement motivée de leurs valeurs: valeur dans quelques cas dépréciative, mais avant tout pittoresque, intensive et marquant l'énoncé d'une empreinte plus fréquemment littéraire que populaire 37 . On constatera encore que les créations verbales, parfois caractérisées, nous l'avons dit, par le recours à des modes de formation bien vivants au IIe siècle, reflètent cependant un choix certainement plus puriste que celui des écrivains contemporains. Une confrontation entre les 'Nuits Attiques' et les 'Métamorphoses' est à cet égard instructive, mettant en évidence une réserve beaucoup plus grande de la part d'Apulée à l'endroit des créations usuelles et faciles: ainsi pour les substantifs en -ntia dont dix exemples nouveaux se rencontrent chez Aulu-Gelle 38 en face d'une seule création chez Apulée, celle

35

Prose qui, à partir d'un fonds lexical vivant, laisse interférer archaïsmes, poétismes, hellénismes . . . Cf. infra, p. 1643 sq.

36

Cf. infra, p. 1 6 3 3 sq., 1 6 4 9 sq.

37

Cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p. 3 8 0 sq. et bibl. cit. E t cf. infra, p. 1633 sq.

38

Cf. R . MARACHE, op. cit., p. 156 sq.

1622

LOUIS

CALLEBAT

de adlubentia39 forgé au demeurant à partir d'un terme plautinien; de même pour les adjectifs en -bilis: à la série des treize mots nouveaux de ce type attestés dans les 'Nuits Attiques' 4 0 ne répondent que sept formes dans les 'Métamorphoses' (au nombre desquelles quatre adjectifs composés 4 1 ); et si l'œuvre d'Aulu-Gelle propose six formes nouvelles d'itératifs 4 2 , un seul mot de ce type figure pour la première fois dans les 'Métamorphoses' 4 3 . Une confrontation plus large établie entre le vocabulaire des 'Métamorphoses' et le système lexical du II e siècle conforte ces observations. Créateur abondant de mots, Apulée se montre cependant très réservé à l'endroit de types de formation commodes, mais banals: à l'égard, par exemple, des créations (nombreuses dans la latinité tardive) en -tas44, en - a r i u s 4 5 , en - a x 4 6 , en -icius47, en -m«s 4 8 , en -(tjorius49. Cette réserve ne se manifeste d'ailleurs pas uniquement en face des procédés de formation les plus communs, mais également en face de procédés fréquemment utilisés dans des textes d'écriture élaborée. Le cas des adjectifs composés du préfixe négartif in- est ainsi remarquable: sur les quinze mots de ce type d'abord attestés dans les 'Métamorphoses', neuf figurent dans les livres II et III, et il semblerait qu'Apulée, d'abord séduit par ces créations chères aux poètes et aux stylistes de l'époque augustéenne et impériale, ait ensuite affirmé sa défiance envers un mode de formation, de qualité surtout « littéraire », mais trop exploité et perçu en conséquence comme banal. Or ce refus de banalité est particulièrement accusé dans les 'Métamor-

» Mét. 1,7. 40

C f . R . MARACHE, o p . c i t . , p . 1 7 7 s q .

41

lnoptabilis (IX,12); inremunerabilis (VIII,1; X , 2 5 ) .

42

C f . R . MARACHE, o p . c i t . , p . 1 9 6 s q .

(111,22; X I , 2 4 ) ; multiforabilis

(X,32);

praenobilis

« Curitare (VII,14). 4 4 Quatre substantifs en -tas sont proposés pour la première fois par les 'Métamorphoses': impossibilitas (VI,14); incredulitas (1,20); nimietas (11,16; 111,10; VIII,8; I X , 1 8 ; 25; cf. Ap. 19,16; De Deo S . 3 , 2 0 ) ; salebritas (VI,14), mais seule la dernière de ces formes peut être considérée c o m m e une création authentique. O r si Fronton ignore ce type de création, Aulu-Gelle a forgé pour sa part six substantifs en -tas (cf. R . MARACHE, op. cit., p. 165 sq.) et Tertullien présente dans le seul traité 'De anima' huit exemples nouveaux de ces termes en développement continu dans la latinité tardive. 45

On ne trouve dans les 'Métamorphoses' que deux exemples inédits (momentarius: 11,29; V,12; I X , 1 ; X , 2 5 ; ruderarius: VIII,23) de ce type d'adjectifs remarquablement vivant dans le parler courant. On en relève trois chez Fronton, quatre chez Aulu-Gelle (cf. R . MARACHE, op. cit., p. 5 3 sq.; 182 sq.).

46

Un seul exemple dans les 'Métamorphoses': sonax (IV,31; VIII,4). Aucun chez Fronton ni chez Aulu-Gelle. De ce type d'adjectifs, bien vivant dans la langue courante, les 'Métamorphoses' ne proposent qu'un exemple nouveau: concinnaticius (11,11). Deux exemples chez Fronton et deux chez Aulu-Gelle (cf. R. MARACHE, op. cit., p. 5 5 sq.; 189 sq.).

47

48

Deux exemples dans les 'Métamorphoses': igninus (VII,20); naccinus chez Fronton; un chez Aulu-Gelle (cf. R . MARACHE, op. cit., p. 194).

(IX,27). Aucun

49

Deux exemples dans les 'Métamorphoses': occursorius (IX,23); peremptorius (X,ll). Deux chez Fronton et deux chez Aulu-Gelle (cf. R . MARACHE, op. cit., p. 51 sq.; 181). Quatre dans le 'De anima' de Tertullien.

L'EXPRESSION

DANS LES ΠU V R E S

D'APULÉE

1623

phoses' où l'on constate que les types de creation privilégiés sont en fait le plus souvent étrangers non seulement au système lexical vivant de l'époque, mais aussi à celui des écrivains contemporains 50 . Ces différentes précisions nous permettent donc de compléter et de modifier notre premier bilan: par plusieurs de ses éléments le fonds lexical des 'Métamorphoses' ressortit certainement, nous l'avons vu, à un système linguistique vivant; mais ce fonds dénonce également une riche compétence, une connaissance et une appréciation très exactes des valeurs lexicales et fonde l'originalité d'un système de caractère essentiellement littéraire et artiste. B. Plan syntaxique Comme celle du système lexical, l'étude du système grammatical des 'Métamorphoses' révèle, à un premier niveau de recherche, une luxuriance et une liberté qui semblent coïncider avec les tendances vivantes d'une langue en évolution. Cette empreinte de structures linguistiques développées en marge de normes strictes, classiques et scolaires, est tout d'abord sensible dans quelques anomalies qui affectent les marques syntaxiques: contaminations entre marques de la 2 e et de la 4 e déclinaisons: génitif sucus (Mét. IX,32); ablatif sonu (Mét. VIII,30); marques analogiques de datif des pronoms: isto (Mét. V,31; VI,17; VII,26; XI,15); toto (Mét. XI,17); totae (Mét. XI,16); emploi du vocatif mi pour mea51; morphèmes établissant une confusion de genre: accusatif lactem (Mét. VIII,19; 28); transformations de marques verbales: futur redies (Mét. VI,19). Des corrections analogiques modifient également quelques formes de perfectum: parfait personauit (Mét. V,12), de participes: hauritus (Mét. 111,24; VI,13) 52 . Ces anomalies cependant, au total peu nombreuses 53 , ne sauraient être définies avec P. MÉDAN comme les incorrections d'un provincial d'origine barbare 54 . Elles témoignent surtout, en effet, d'hésitations linguistiques attestées non seulement dans la latinité tardive, mais déjà dans les textes archaïques, ou même perceptibles parfois chez les écrivains classiques. L'usage fait dans les 'Métamorphoses' des désignateurs55 transcrit plus largement sans doute une attitude assez indépendante et libre à l'égard des 50

51

52

Cf. infra, p. 1643 — 1646. De ce refus de banalité, mais aussi d'une connaissance approfondie des structures lexicales latines, les recréations étymologiques très nombreuses dans les 'Métamorphoses' portent aussi un témoignage extrêmement net. Cet emploi, qui semble s'être répandu dans le parler courant à partir de l'époque d'Hadrien (cf. F. NEUE, C. WAGENER, Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache, 3. Aufl., I - I V , Leipzig, 1892 — 1905, II, p . 3 6 8 ) , est relativement fréquent dans les 'Métamorphoses': IV,26; 27; V,16; VIII,8; I X , 1 6 . Personui est attesté dans les Mét. VII,13; haustus dans les Fl. 15,72.

53

C f . L . CALLEBAT, o p . cit., p. 1 2 2 sq.

54

Cf. P. MÉDAN, La latinité d'Apulée dans les Métamorphoses. Etude de grammaire et de stylistique, Paris, 1925, p. 6. Nous rangeons dans cette catégorie genre, nombre, personne, temps: cf. R. JAKOBSON, F.ssais de linguistique générale, Paris, Edit, de Minuit, 1963, p. 181 sq.

55

105

ANRW II 34.2

1624

LOUIS CALLEBAT

normes grammaticales classiques. Encore faut-il considérer que cette indépendance et cette liberté sont plus ou moins accusées selon les types de désignateurs et demeurent dans bien des cas ambiguës 56 . Les désignations de genre et de nombre ne présentent ainsi que des écarts peu importants par référence à l'usage littéraire classique. Le recul du neutre, par exemple, souvent affirmé dans le parler commun des affranchis du 'Satiricon' 5 7 , les incertitudes entre formes de neutre et formes de masculin 58 ne sont guère attestés dans les 'Métamorphoses' (indépendamment du cas précité de lactem) que par l'emploi masculin de lorus (en 111,13; 14) 59 . C'est de même isolément qu'est illustrée dans les 'Métamorphoses' la tendance de la langue vivante à doter d'une marque de féminin une forme épicène: coniuga (Mét. VI,4; VIII,22; IX,14) 6 0 . Dans les désignations de nombre se relèvent quelques traits qui semblent en conformité avec l'usage du parler vivant contemporain: singulier donarium (Mét. IX,10; Fl. 15,12), sans doute d'après aerarium; naris utilisé deux fois au singulier (Mét. VII,9; VIII,26), comme déjà toutefois chez Perse (Sat. 1,33) et chez Horace (Epod. 12,3) 6 1 ; préférence accordée au singulier de ceruix62 (treize exemples dans les 'Métamorphoses'; sept exemples au pluriel) 63 . La désignation de personne et, plus précisément, la désignation pronominale, est caractérisée dans les 'Métamorphoses' par un statut ambigu. Une étude en contexte établit le plus souvent la qualité pertinente et pleinement concertée des désignateurs de ce type: expression emphatique par ille, utilisation de ce mot pour introduire, pour assurer la présence ou pour rappeler avec force une personne, un objet, une scène; fonction dépréciative de iste, mais surtout relation étroite maintenue avec la deuxième personne 64 ... La liberté cependant dont fait preuve Apulée porte aussi témoignage des transformations depuis longtemps amorcées dans le système des pronoms. Différents modes de désignation attestés dans les 'Métamorphoses' apparaissent ainsi marqués par l'influence de tendances linguistiques vivantes s'écartant des 56 57

58

59

60

61

Dans l'emploi des pronoms, par exemple. Cf. infra 1625 sq. et note 66. Cf. P. PERROCHAT, Pétrone, Le festin de Trimalcion, Commentaire exégétique et critique, Paris, P.U.F., 1952 2 , p. 3 6 - 3 7 . Cf. V. VAANANEN, Introduction au latin vulgaire, Bibliothèque Française et Romane, Ser. A, Manuels et Etudes linguistiques 6, Paris, Klincksieck, 1963, p. 107 sq. Cet emploi se rencontre avant Apulée dans le sermo uulgaris d'un affranchi de la 'Cena Trimalchionis', Herméros (Satiricon 57,8). Cf. J. B. HOFMANN, A. SZANTYR, Lateinische Syntax und Stilistik, Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 2,2,2, Munich, 1965, p. 6. Sur ce singulier, peut-être favorisé par le rapprochement de rtasus, cf. J. SVENNUNG, Untersuchungen zu Palladius und zur lat. Fach- und Volkssprache, Arbeten utg. med Understöd av V. Ekmans Universitetsfond, 44, Uppsala, 1935, p. 171 sq.

62

S u r c e t e m p l o i , c f . F. N E U E , C . W A G E N E R , o p . c i t . , p . 6 7 2 -

63

Fronton accorde, au contraire, ses préférences à la forme du pluriel: cinq exemples, contre deux exemples de singulier: cf. A. EBERT, De M. C. Frontonis Syntaxi, Acta Sem. phil. Erlang., 2, 1881, p. 327. Sur l'emploi des démonstratifs dans les 'Métamorphoses', cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p. 264 sq.

64

674.

L'EXPRESSION

D A N S LES ΠU V R E S

D'APULÉE

1625

normes grammaticales scolaires: renforcement d'un possessif par le datif du réfléchi (type: suus sibi)65; fonction de réciprocité traduite par mutuo (Mét. VIII,13; 26; IX,2; X,7; 14); réunion de désignateurs antinomiques: hic iste (Mét. 11,13); ista haec (Mét. 1,2); iste meus et meus iste (dix exemples dans les 'Métamorphoses'); isti nostri (Mét. 1,11). Ce dernier fait, qui semblerait refléter l'extension prise par iste au détriment de hic pourrait également être mis en relation avec un phénomène plus général, celui de la redistribution de fréquences et de fonction des démonstratifs. On observera cependant que tous les cas précités de rapprochements antinomiques interviennent dans des contextes de dialogue où le pronom iste permet soit d'évoquer un geste en attirant l'attention de l'interlocuteur, soit d'établir un rapport d'intérêt entre l'émetteur et le destinataire du message. Si les 'Métamorphoses' témoignent, d'autre part, des remaniements subis par le système des démonstratifs (mettant notamment en évidence l'importance remarquable prise par ille)66, elles attestent aussi l'emprise en ce domaine de tendances conservatrices, exprimées, par exemple, dans la fréquence d'emplois de is et dans la permanence des formes monosyllabiques de ce mot 67 . Ces tendances conservatrices, interférant avec les tendances personnelles de l'auteur (fonction phatique et conative donnée à iste, fonction emphatique et d'insistance forte donnée à ille) déterminent un état linguistique, certainement en marge des structures classiques, mais ne reflétant qu'imparfaitement les caractères authentiques du système des démonstratifs dans le parler vivant du II e siècle 68 . C'est également un reflet sans aucun doute altéré des orientations linguistiques contemporaines que propose dans les 'Métamorphoses' la désignation de temps, le plus souvent utilisée par Apulée avec richesse et avec précision 69 . Un certain nombre d'éléments dénotent toutefois une liberté d'usage qui s'accorde aux transformations et aux écarts du parler vivant. La tendance du langage commun à élargir le champ de signification des termes exprimant une notion temporelle est ainsi marquée dans les 'Métamorphoses' par des emplois tels que ceux de adhuc, substitut de etiamtum et appliqué au passé; de interdum 65

Dix exemples sont attestés dans les 'Métamorphoses' de ce tour, déjà fréquent chez Plaute et Térence, mais bien attesté aussi à l'époque tardive: cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p. 258.

66

Les fréquences d'emploi des démonstratifs sont dans les 'Métamorphoses' les suivantes: ille·. 5 2 7 ; is: 4 2 7 ; hic: 328; iste: 237. L a répartition de ces formes entre les dix livres des 'Métamorphoses' marque une progression nette des emplois de ille, au détriment de hic, progression également sensible entre l' Apologie' (214 exemples de hic contre 126 de ille) et les 'Métamorphoses'. Le fait cependant que ille soit aussi bien représenté que hic dans l'écriture très élaborée et volontiers emphatique des 'Florides' (56 exemples de ille, 5 5 de hic) conduit à interpréter la fréquence remarquable de ille c o m m e significative, non d'une concession à des tendances linguistiques vivantes, mais de l'exploitation concertée d'un procédé d'insistance et de mise en valeur. Cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p. 2 6 6 — 2 6 7 .

67

C f . L . CALLEBAT, o p . c i t . , p . 2 6 5 -

68

D'une manière générale, les textes tardifs ne permettent que difficilement d'établir la situation linguistique des démonstratifs à une période donnée: cf. V. VAANANEN, op. cit., p. 129. Cf. infra, p. 1629 sq.

105"

266.

1626

LOUIS CALLEBAT

recouvrant le domaine de interim ou de interea70. La fréquence particulièrement notable des formes surcomposées avec fueram, dont certaines établissent une relation d'antériorité avec un perfectum, mais apparemment choisies dans bien des cas sans motivation grammaticale précise, répond de même à un phénomène nettement accusé dans le langage commun: le déplacement de temps à l'intérieur du système du passif 71 . Et c'est encore en conformité avec les tendances vivantes d'une langue en évolution qu'intervient dans les 'Métamorphoses' le plus-que-parfait de l'indicatif après cum primum (Mét. XI, 14), après dum (Mét. VIII,2), après ubi (et dans l'énoncé d'une simple succession temporelle: Mét. V,25; VII,15) 72 . Si les tendances linguistiques contemporaines n'ont d'autre part exercé dans les 'Métamorphoses' qu'une influence restreinte sur la catégorie des connecteurs (voix et modes) 73 , les références à un système grammatical vivant apparaissent en revanche assez nettes et nombreuses dans les emplois que fait Apulée des indicateurs de fonction, des prépositions notamment: on constate ainsi la diversité et la liberté d'utilisation de la préposition de (précisant l'origine, la cause, l'instrument...); la fréquence de cette préposition (260 exemples, en face de 84 exemples de ex, 80 de ab)·, la préférence accordée à la forme circa sur circum (attesté une seule fois, et comme adverbe, dans l'œuvre d'Apulée: Mét. VIII,19); la prédilection affirmée pour la préposition in (330 exemples avec accusatif; 200 avec ablatif), très souvent sans doute par recherche de relief et d'intensité, mais avec une large indépendance à l'égard des normes classiques (in 'instrumental', in 'final', in 'consécutif ,.. 74 ). Différents signes marquant le statut ou les articulations structurales de l'énoncé (négation, enchaînement, enchérissement, opposition ...) attestent de même l'influence de tendances linguistiques vivantes: denique, fréquemment utilisé dans les 'Métamorphoses' pour l'énoncé d'un exemple, d'une conséquence, d'une conclusion; nam, chargé d'un effet de sens adversatif; nec quidem pris comme substitut de ne quidem75. Et c'est en parfaite concordance avec l'usage du parler courant 7 6 qu'Apulée accorde une nette préférence à nec sur neque (400 exemples de nec·, 24 seulement de neque)77. On relèvera enfin la libre extension des emplois de quod auprès des verbes d'opinion et de 'déclaration' 7 8 . 70

Sur ces emplois, dont le premier apparaît, en fait, courant en prose après Tite-Live, cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p. 323 — 324. Interdum ne figure pas dans l"Apologie' et est attesté avec sa signification classique dans le seul passage des 'Florides' où il apparaît (21,1).

71

Cf. V. VAANANEN, o p . cit., p. 1 3 7 - 1 3 8 ; L. CALLEBAT, o p . cit., p . 3 0 2 s q .

72

Sur ces emplois, cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p.343sq.

73

Cf. L. CALLEBAT, o p . cit., p . 2 9 4 s q .

74

Sur l'emploi par Apulée des prépositions, cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p. 1 9 8 - 2 4 2 . Sur ces différents emplois, cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p. 3 2 4 - 3 3 5 . Cf. E. LÖFSTEDT, Syntactica. Studien und Beiträge zur historischen Syntax des Lateins, Skrifter utgivna av hungliga kumanistiska Vetenskapssamfundet i Lund, 10, Lund, Gleerup (I, 1928; II, 1933), I, p. 331 sq. Neque est attesté 10 fois dans les 'Florides', nec 63 fois, mais T'Apologie' propose 75 exemples de neque contre 64 de nec. Ces différentes fréquences sembleraient dénoter, moins sans doute des contrastes d'écriture, qu'une évolution (au moins dans ce cas particulier) vers un choix moins puriste.

75 76

77

78

Cf. L. CALLEBAT, o p . cit., p. 3 3 7 - 3 4 0 .

L'EXPRESSION D A N S LES ŒUVRES D'APULÉE

1627

Le matériau grammatical à partir duquel ont été rédigées les 'Métamorphoses' apparaît donc assez largement tributaire des tendances vivantes d'une langue en évolution. Mais cette observation appelle ici encore d'importantes réserves et précisions: On remarquera tout d'abord avec G. DEVOTO79 que la langue latine, bien qu"ordonnée', ne fut jamais totalement 'prisonnière' et que l'écriture artiste de prosateurs tels que Salluste, Sénèque, Tacite ou Tite-Live accorde une place non négligeable à un fonds linguistique vivant. Or parmi les écarts constatés dans les 'Métamorphoses' par rapport aux normes grammaticales classiques, rares sont les faits pour lesquels ne pourrait être invoquée la caution littéraire non seulement des écrivains contemporains, mais aussi et surtout des prosateurs stylistes ou des poètes de l'époque augustéenne et impériale. On ne saurait non plus méconnaître l'ambiguïté qui s'attache à différents emplois apparemment influencés par les orientations linguistiques contemporaines: la singulière prédilection manifestée par Apulée à l'endroit de l'infinitif peut être ainsi interprétée par référence à une tendance naturelle du parler courant 8 0 ; mais cette prédilection trouve assurément aussi sa justification dans les valeurs mêmes (vivacité, rapidité) d'une forme souvent exploitée par les poètes ou par les stylistes et parfaitement adaptée aux exigences d'une technique narrative. Et l'on note encore qu'Apulée évite ou rejette totalement plusieurs des tours avec infinitif les mieux connus par la langue courante et par la latinité tardive: type do bibere; infinitifs substantivés; infinitifs prépositionnels. Un exemple également significatif est proposé par ille: l'importance numérique de ce désignateur dans les 'Métamorphoses' paraît transcrire, nous l'avons dit, l'influence du système grammatical contemporain; mais l'utilisation constante qu'en fait Apulée comme marque de désignation forte trahit certainement aussi, en même temps qu'une connaissance précise des valeurs de ille, une volonté concertée de restaurer dans sa richesse initiale une forme dévaluée par l'usage courant. Il apparaît de même que la fréquence dans les 'Métamorphoses' des formes à préverbe coïncide sans doute avec la prédilection affirmée par le sermo cotidianus pour les expressions étoffées 81 , mais que cette fréquence n'exclut nullement une appréciation très exacte des fonctions propres aux différents préverbes 82 et, comme dans le cas cité de ille, une recherche continue de justesse, de plénitude ou de recréation sémantiques. L'étude du fonds grammatical auquel se réfère l'auteur des 'Métamorphoses' conduit enfin à une interprétation qu'imposait déjà l'examen du fonds lexical: la richesse de ce fonds est d'abord le signe d'une remarquable compétence qui touche aux structures grammaticales archaïques aussi bien qu'aux 79 80

81

Cf. G. DEVOTO, Storia della lingua di Roma, Storia di Roma, 23, Bologna, 1940, p. 179. De maniement simple et commode, l'infinitif (infinitif présent actif surtout) a connu une remarquable faveur dans le parler courant: cf. V. VAANANEN, op. cit., p. 148 - 1 4 9 . La latinité tardive et le bas latin offrent même de très nombreux exemples de verbes s u p e r c o m p o s é s : c f . V. VAANANEN, o p . c i t . , p . 1 0 0 .

82

Cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p. 3 9 4 - 3 9 8 ; et cf. infra, p. 1633 sq.

1628

LOUIS CALLEBAT

structures grammaticales contemporaines, aux niveaux les plus communs du langage aussi bien qu'à ses niveaux les plus élaborés, mais qui est également fondée sur une connaissance précise du système grammatical classique 83 . Sur le plan syntaxique, comme sur le plan lexical, les 'Métamorphoses' révèlent un choix libre, mais concerté 84 , de formulations diversifiées. Nous posions, au début de ce premier temps de notre recherche, la question de savoir dans quelle mesure et à quel niveau le fonds lexical et grammatical des 'Métamorphoses' avait été affecté par les phénomènes de transformation de la langue latine. Les analyses précédentes nous ont permis de constater que ce fonds était sans nul doute marqué par l'influence de tendances linguistiques contemporaines et que le langage des 'Métamorphoses' avait donc été élaboré à partir notamment d'un matériau vivant. Mais ce trait est, en fait, également pertinent pour le langage cicéronien 85 (sous une forme, il est vrai, moins exubérante et plus rigoureuse), également pertinent surtout pour le langage des poètes et des prosateurs stylistes de l'époque augustéenne et impériale. Et nous avons d'autre part constaté que l'influence de tendances linguistiques contemporaines devait être située au niveau d'une société cultivée sur laquelle demeurait forte l'emprise des normes classiques et scolaires 86 . Mais le caractère le plus significatif du fonds lexical et grammatical des 'Métamorphoses' est certainement l'ampleur variée de son registre: cette ampleur, s'accordant, nous l'avons dit, avec une science encore exacte et profonde des structures classiques, à la fois détermine un usage le plus souvent 'contrôlé' des données linguistiques vivantes et assure les fondements d'une création riche et libre de langage.

2. L'écriture des 'Métamorphoses' et ses transformations Soumis dans son élaboration à des influences de genre, d'école, de milieu, le langage des 'Métamorphoses' doit être d'abord envisagé par référence à un

84

La diversité et la richesse du matériau grammatical des 'Métamorphoses' ne sauraient donc être mises en relation avec celles du parler commun (dont la diversité se situe à l'intérieur d'un domaine limité et dont l'indépendance à l'égard des normes scolaires est essentiellement liée à l'ignorance de ces normes). Certains tours familiers, apparemment conformes aux tendances contemporaines, répondent ainsi à un choix très conscient: ainsi lorsqu'Apulée (qui partout ailleurs respecte la distinction classique) met dans la bouche d'un soldat romain la question: Vbi ducis asinum istum? attestant la confusion établie dans le parler commun entre ubi et quo (Mét. IX,39).

85

W. DE G R O O T , o p . cit., p. 1 1 3 .

86

La prose des 'Métamorphoses' est certainement marquée par des références plus nombreuses que celles de l"Apologie' à des faits linguistiques vivants. Cette plus grande liberté (qui n'est au demeurant nullement anarchie) ne nous semble cependant pas entraînée par une différence de genres, mais plutôt par une évolution dans l'attitude de l'écrivain. Le fait que les 'Florides' soient ici proches des 'Métamorphoses' conforte cette interprétation. Cf. supra, notes 66; 77. Voir cependant notre étude sur La prose d'Apulée dans le 'De Magia', W.S., Ν. F., 18, 1985, p. 1 4 3 - 1 6 7 .

83

L'EXPRESSION D A N S LES ŒUVRES D'APULÉE

1629

contexte de civilisation et à des formes esthétiques connues: à ce niveau et dans cette perspective, nous parlerons d'écriture.

A. L'écriture du récit a) Procédés narratifs et système du récit Il est difficile de rattacher les 'Métamorphoses' à un genre littéraire déterminé, dans la mesure notamment où le statut de cet ouvrage apparaît situé au confluent de traditions diverses: traditions orales des conteurs, arétalogies, fables milésiennes, relations de voyages et histoires merveilleuses, nouvelles et romans grecs, traditions aussi de la satura, du mime, de la comédie ancienne 87 ... Mais, sans être rattachées à un genre littéraire particulier, les 'Métamorphoses' peuvent être intégrées cependant dans un ensemble formel auquel participent la narration historique 88 aussi bien que les récits d'imagination: le 'genre' narratif en prose. En choisissant de représenter l'étrange histoire de Lucius, Apulée se trouvait nécessairement confronté à cet ensemble 'construit', orienté dans sa création de langage par un système et par des signes caractéristiques: ceux de l'écriture narrative ou écriture du récit. La situation de récit est affirmée dans les 'Métamorphoses' par des marques-repères qui soit annoncent explicitement l'acte de narration, soit désignent, en introduction ou dans le cours du texte, la séquence narrative. L'annonce de l'acte de narration est posée dans la première phrase des 'Métamorphoses': At ego tibi sermone isto Milesio uarias fabulas conseram (1,1) et se trouve rappelée en IX,14 avant l'épisode 89 tragique du meunier: Fabulant denique bonam ...ad auris uestras adferre decreui, en X,2 avant l'histoire de la belle-mère empoisonneuse: ... dissignatum scelestum ac nefarium facinus memini, sed ut uos etiam legatis, ad librum profero. Un signal de type analogue est également proposé par les narrateurs délégués des récits intercalés: ainsi par la vieille servante qui conte à Charité l'histoire de Psyché: Sed ego te narrationibus lepidis anilibusque fabulis protinus auocabo90. En même temps qu'elles annoncent l'acte de narration, ces formules établissent aussi la fonction d'échange du récit: entre donateur et bénéficiaire, entre je et tu (cf. en 1,1 et en IV,27 les rapprochements significatifs de pronoms: ego tibi·, ego te). 87

88

89

50

Cf. A. SCOBIE, Aspects of the Ancient Romance and its Heritage, Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie, 30, Meisenheim am Glan, Verlag Anton Hain, 1969, p. 1 - 5 4 ; P. GRIMAL, A la recherche d'Apulée, REL, 47, 1970, p. 94 sq. Sur les structures et les techniques de la narration historique, cf. J. P. CHAUSSERIELAPRÉE, L'expression narrative chez les historiens latins. Histoire d'un style, Paris, De Boccard, 1969. N o u s désignons par 'épisodes' les récits qui constituent l'expansion d'un support appartenant à la trame narrative; par 'récits intercalés' les récits introduits par encadrement. Mét. IV,27. Cf. en IX,17, le prélude au récit de la vieille complice de la femme du meunier: nosti totam Philesitheri et ipsius fabulant?

1630

LOUIS CALLEBAT

L'enchaînement des épisodes, l'ouverture et la conclusion des séquences narratives sont d'autre part signalés par différentes marques spécifiques 91 : les marques d'indication locale, jetant à l'initiale du récit le décor de l'action, sont exceptionnelles dans les 'Métamorphoses'; mais c'est par un signe de ce type que débute la relation des aventures de Lucius: Thessaliam ... earn Thessaliam ex negotio petebam (Mét. 1,2). Fréquentes sont en revanche les marques d'indication temporelle, qui figurent en introduction de sept livres des 'Métamorphoses' (livres II, III, IV, VII, Vili, Χ , XI) 9 2 et qui sont utilisées pour l'ouverture, l'enchaînement ou la conclusion aussi bien des épisodes que des récits intercalés. Ces marques apparaissent sous des formes variées, mais communément exploitées par l'écriture narrative 93 : ablatifs de temps tels que die sequenti (Mét. VIII,27; IX,31), node quadam (IX,33); tours participiaux du type his ... auditis, his actis (1,24), his cognitis (11,23); énoncés temporels avec dum·. Dum hune ... sermonem altercamur ... (11,3); Dum haec ... rimabundus eximie delector ... (11,5); adverbes, au nombre desquels trois termes privilégiés: commodum, ecce, tunc·, formule nominale: nec mora. Indépendamment de ces signes temporels, deux marques-repères sont utilisées par Apulée avec une remarquable fréquence: l'adverbe sic, qui propose, de manière commode, mais vague, une désignation conclusive; la particule at, signalant un passage au discours direct, un changement d'interlocuteur, une relance du récit après un dialogue, présentant un personnage ou ramenant sur lui l'attention, remettant au premier plan le narrateur Lucius 94 . On rangera enfin parmi les marques narratives les formules conclusives du type: Haec Aristomenes (Mét. 1,20) 95 et les tours prépositionnels: ad hune modum (sept exemples dans les 'Métamorphoses'); ad istum modum (intervenant seulement à partir du livre VI, et dont onze exemples sur les quinze attestés figurent dans les trois derniers livres) 96 . C'est également par référence à l'écriture du récit que sont pour une large part déterminés dans les 'Métamorphoses' l'emploi et la distribution des temps. Une indication significative est à cet égard donnée par l'identité de structure 91

92

93

94 95

96

Sur les marques d'ouvertures et d'enchaînements utilisées par les historiens latins, cf. J. P. CHAUSSERIE-LAPRÉE, op. cit., p. 1 7 - 1 2 4 . Cf. Mét. 11,1: Vt primum nocte discusso sol nouus diem fecit ...; III, 1 : Commodum punicantibus phaleris Aurora ...; IV,1: Diem ferme circa medium ...; VII,1: Vi primum tenebris abiectis dies inalbebat...; VIII,1: Noctis gallicinio ...; X , l : Die sequenti...; XI,1: Circa primam ferme noctis uigiliam ... A propos de ces 'clichés de liaison' et, plus précisément, à propos des tours participiaux et des formules conjonctives, J. P. CHAUSSERIE-LAPRÉE, (op. cit., p. 63) observe justement qu'ils trahissent « un automatisme d'écriture, une forme mécanique de l'expression narrative ». Cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p.422sq. Cf. 11,5: Haec mecum Byrrbena satis anxia. Avec un participe, cf. 11,7: Haec mecum ipse disputans; 11,8: Haec dicens; 111,1: Haec identidem mecum replicans; 111,24: Haec identidem adseuerans ... Sur ce type de formules, utilisé par les historiens grecs et exploité par des historiens latins, tels que Tite-Live, Tacite, Quinte-Curce (cf. Curt. VIII,8, 30: Haec Barbarus), cf. J.P. CHAUSSERIE-LAPRÉE, op. cit., p.55sq. Sur l'emploi de ad istum modum (qui ne figure ni dans Γ"Apologie' ni dans les 'Florides'), c f . L . CALLEBAT, o p . c i t . , p . 2 1 4 ; 4 3 7 .

L'EXPRESSION

D A N S LES ΠU V R E S

D'APULÉE

1631

qui caractérise le plus grand nombre des séquences narratives. L'ordonnance en est la suivante: en prélude à la séquence, présent immédiat du locuteur et passés explicatifs (rappel des faits ayant conduit à la situation initiale posée par le récit); à l'intérieur de la séquence, présents d'actualisation fixés dans un cadre où interviennent aussi - indices de l'acte de narration - les formes fondamentales du récit historique 97 (imparfaits, plus-que-parfaits, parfaits à valeur d'aoriste); après la séquence, retour au présent immédiat du locuteur 98 . Etudiées dans cette perspective de «genre», les variations très fréquentes de temps dénoncent essentiellement l'influence d'une écriture, soumise aux traditions 99 et aux exigences de la formulation narrative. Deux couples d'interférences temporelles sont particulièrement bien représentés dans les 'Métamorphoses': le couple présent — imparfait (type 11,26: cadauer accurro et... rimabar singula) ou imparfait - présent (type VII,19: lamque ... ignis surgebat ... nec salutis aliquod apparet solarium), et le couple parfait - présent (type 1,22: Intuii me eumque ... inuenio) ou présent — parfait (type 1,24: piscatum opiparem expositum uideo et ... uiginti denariis praestinauï). Beaucoup plus rares sont les couples parfait — imparfait (type V,22: lucernae quoque lumen hilaratum increbruit et acuminis sacrilegi nouaculam paenitebat), parfait - plus-queparfait (type VIII,16: nulli contra nos aditum tulerunt ac ne procul saltern ulli comparauerant), imparfait - plus-que-parfait (type V,21: Nox aderat et maritus aderat primisque Veneris proeliis uelitatus in altum soporem descender at)100. Ces variations qui interviennent au niveau de la phrase et au niveau des séquences, transcrivent tout d'abord deux aspects fondamentaux de la narration: le passé explicite le statut même de récit, l'énonciation historique; le présent, d'une part, reporte au temps de la narration, d'autre part, transforme le récit en représentation actualisée. Par les oppositions qu'elles proposent, ces variations enrichissent également de nouvelles dimensions un champ de perception dans lequel l'événement narré peut être saisi, non seulement dans sa ponctualité historique ou dans sa brusque actualisation, mais aussi dans la complexité contrastée de plans temporels en décalage et en profondeur 101 .

97

Cf. E. BENVENISTE, Problèmes de linguistique générale, Bibliothèque des sciences humaines, Paris, Gallimard, 1966, p. 238 sq.

98

L'encadrement au locuteur est implicite dans les épisodes des aventures de Lucius. Il n'intervient pas dans les récits à la troisième personne (Conte de Psyché; histoire de Barbarus). Le récit de Thélyphron ne comporte pas en son début de présent immédiat du narrateur (présenté auparavant par les convives).

99

Sur les variations temporelles (au niveau de la phrase et au niveau du récit) chez les historiens latins, cf. J. P. CHAUSSERIE-LAPRÉE, op. cit., p. 383 sq.; cf. aussi J. B. HOFMANN, A.SZANTYR, o p . cit., p. 8 1 5 .

îoo p o u r u n relevé des variations temporelles dans les 'Métamorphoses', cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p. 4 2 7 - 4 3 2 . 101

C'est ainsi une perspective en « profondeur » (en même temps qu'une suggestion de rapidité) qu'établit, après un imparfait, l'emploi des plus-que-parfaits dans le récit de la première rencontre d'Eros et de Psyché: lamque aderat ignobilis maritus et torum inscenderat et uxorem sibi Psychen fecerat et ante lucis exortum propere discesserat (Mét. V,4).

1632

LOUIS CALLEBAT

C'est dire que l'emploi des temps répond encore dans les 'Métamorphoses' à l'une des fonctions importantes de l'écriture du récit: la dramatisation. Décalages et oppositions des plans temporels constituent des instruments privilégiés de la dramatisation, déterminée par une rupture (effet, par exemple, de la variation parfait - présent: cf. 1,22: Intuii me eumque ... inuenio), mais, souvent instaurée également par des signaux antécédents qui posent une attente 1 0 2 , dénotent une instabilité (effet notamment des imparfaits et des plusque-parfaits). Différents éléments appuient, dans le système de la phrase, la fonction de dramatisation assumée par les temps: au niveau des signaux antécédents, et en convergence avec les formes d'imparfaits et de plus-que-parfaits, agissent surtout des marques temporelles: commodum, iam, necdum, uix, uixdum; l'effet de rupture est assez souvent manifesté par un cum inuersum (type IV,26: adfinium stipatus ... uictimas immolabat; domus ... constrepebat hymenaeum; tune me gremio suo mater ... ornabat mellitisque sauiis crebriter ingestis iam spem futuram liberorum ... propagabat, cum inruptionis subitae gladiatorum fit impetus)·, mais ce procédé, utilisé avec prédilection aussi bien par Pétrone 1 0 3 que par les historiens 1 0 4 , est fortement concurrencé dans les 'Métamorphoses' par l'emploi du et de rupture (type 1,11: Commodum quieueram et repente ... ianuae reserantur)·, plus rarement par l'asyndète (type 111,26: uix me praesepio uidere proximantem: deiectis auribus iam furentes infestis calcibus insecuntur)105. Originale en regard des usages du récit historique latin 1 0 6 , la préférence accordée par Apulée au et de rupture souligne aussi le choix d'un procédé par lequel la dramatisation revêt un accent nouveau d'intensité et de vivacité. A cet effet participe également l'utilisation remarquablement fréquente de l'ostentif ecce107 comme signe de rupture, soit à l'initiale (type 111,11: Ecce ilico etiam ipsi magistratus cum suis insignibus domum nostram ingressi talibus me monitis delenire gestiunt), soit en cours de phrase, souvent précédé de et, ou après un cum inuersum (type IV,8: Commodum cubuerant et ecce quidam ... iuuenes adueniunt alii; 11,11: Sed ... recreabar animi, cum ecce iam uespera lucernam intuens Pamphile: „Quam largus", inquit, „imber aderit")10S. Associés à la dramatisation du récit, un certain nombre d'éléments lexicaux et grammaticaux composent dans les 'Métamorphoses' une typologie 102

103

104

105

L'attente constitue, en fait, l'une des fonctions essentielles non seulement de la phrase, mais aussi du système du récit (avec oscillation entre attente posée, ruptures, résolution). Cf. P. PERROCHAT, Quelques procédés du style d'Encolpe, Mélanges de philologie, de littérature et d'histoire ancienne offerts à Alfred Ernout, Paris, 1940, p. 287 sq. C f . J . P . CHAUSSERIE-LAPRÉE, o p . c i t . , p . 5 6 1 s q . ; J . B . HOFMANN, A . S Z A N T Y R , o p . c i t . ,

p. 623. Pour un relevé de ces différents emplois, cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p.433sq.

106

C f . J . P. CHAUSSERIE-LAPRÉE, o p . c i t . , p . 6 4 7 .

107

Ecce, bien représenté dans le 'Satiricon', est au contraire évité dans le récit historique: c f . J . P . CHAUSSERIE-LAPRÉE, o p . c i t . ,

108

p.545sq.

Sur les différents emplois de ecce, et ecce dans les 'Métamorphoses', cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p.422sq.

L'EXPRESSION DANS LES ŒUVRES D'APULÉE

1633

narrative par laquelle les événements relatés sont désignés avec insistance, singularisés et posés dans une perspective où l ' o b j e t est à la fois décrit et interprété 1 0 9 (connotations de vivacité, d'intensité, de pittoresque). Assument plus particulièrement cette fonction: les formes diminutives (ainsi ancillula, évoquant en 1,21; 23 la servante Photis, mais chargeant cette évocation de c o n n o t a t i o n s esthétiques et morales: joliesse, jeunesse, grâce spirituelle; asellus, ajoutant une appréciation péjorative à la représentation de l'âne: V I , 2 6 ; I X , 3 9 ) ; les adjectifs en -osus, qui accusent une caractérisation pittoresque (cf. IV,2: uideo frondosi nemoris conuallem umbrosam), appuient une notation affective (cf. I X , 1 2 : dorsumque plagosum scissili centunculo magis inumbrati quam obtecti)·, les superlatifs, isolant hors du c o m m u n une donnée physique ou morale (cf. 1,7: a uastissimis latronibus; 11,10: mellitissimum illud sauium)·, les itératifs intensifs tels que aduentare, < approcher à grands pas>; cursitare, ; reptare, , < égarer > (VII,25; I X , 4 1 ) 1 2 6 . Associés, enfin, à la représentation m ê m e de la vie quotidienne, figurent dans les ' M é t a m o r p h o s e s ' un grand n o m b r e de mots dénotant les activités courantes: cuisine, alimentation, habillement, échanges s o c i a u x 1 2 7 . . . Parfois déterminé par une typologie spécifique (dans des expressions, par exemple, telles que: scrutariam facerem), l'effet c o m m u n de ces mots apparaît surtout fondé à la fois sur leur fréquence et sur leur convergence, en c o n t e x t e , avec d'autres éléments linguistiques non littéraires. Un mode particulier d'énoncé, bien connu du langage populaire, est également assez largement attesté dans les ' M é t a m o r p h o s e s ' : mode d ' é n o n c é 122

123

124 125

126 127

128

Apulée fait au début de son œuvre une référence explicite au langage narratif des 'Milésiennes': At ego tibi sermone isto Milesio uarias fabulas conseram (Mét. 1,1). Une référence moins nette semble faite à la source grecque (ibid.: Fabulam graecanicam incipimus). Quelle que soit l'indépendance affirmée par Apulée à l'égard de ses modèles, ces références initiales situaient cependant le récit par rapport à un langage et à une thématique déterminés. La richesse du code lexical et grammatical dont dispose Apulée, la science linguistique précise de cet auteur fondent nettement ce caractère concerté. Mét. 1,14; 18 (cf. Isid., Or. 11,1,138: urina ... uulgo lotium dicitur). Mét. IX.22 (cf. Fest. 166,7: naccae appellantur uulgo fullones). Cf. Mét. VI,18; VII,18; 25: agaso (cf. Serv., En. XII,65: duces equorum scilicet quos uulgo agasones uocamus); Mét. VII,28; X,24: titio (cf. Lact., Inst. 4,14: titionem uolgus appellai extractum foco torrem semiustum et extinctum) ... S u r c e s e m p l o i s , c f . L . CALLEBAT, o p . c i t . , p. 5 4 — 5 9 . S u r c e s t e r m e s , c f . L . CALLEBAT, o p . c i t . , p. 4 1 sq.

Mét. IV,8.

1638

LOUIS CALLEBAT

par lequel est substituée au terme propre, au prédicat usuel, une désignation accentuée, trait pittoresque et fortement individualisant, désignation métaphorique ou métonymique. Ce type de message, qui transmute les formes habituelles de représentation et donne figure nouvelle à l'objet représenté, assume le plus souvent une fonction de sarcasme, de dévalorisation et d'ironie en même temps que de grossissement. Ainsi dans les 'Métamorphoses' les dénominations injurieuses, termes abstraits (IV,7: dedecus-, fastidium; 1,17: fetor...) ou concrets (IV,7; VIII,25: cadauer; 1,17; V,ll: lamia ...) 129 , mais aussi différentes dénominations figuratives et translatives: commilito, appliqué à un (IV,5); frater, mis dans la bouche d'un mari s'adressant à l'amant de sa femme (IX,7); compilare, < rosser > (VII,18; IX,2); farcire, < bourrer > (VIII,28); cruciarius, < gibier de potence > (X,7); saucius (VII,12); áureos folles incubabat, évoquant la grande richesse de Chryseros (IV,9) ... Dans plusieurs exemples intervient non une substitution simple, mais un énoncé à deux pôles (oppositions; comparaisons): misella illa uelut elephantum paritura distenditur (1,9); « Veruecem», inquit, «non asinum uides» (VIII,25); ad instar testudinis alueum succubabat (IX,26) 130 . C'est enfin par référence au langage de la conversation familière que sera interprété, dans plusieurs séquences au discours direct, le système d'un énoncé que marquent plus particulièrement: -

129

130

131

la forme et la fréquence des éléments servant à établir ou à maintenir la communication, à situer et à souligner les positions respectives de locuteur et d'interlocuteur, à vérifier ou à contester le degré et le niveau d'intelligibilité d'une information: interjections et locutions telles que ain (Mét. 1,8; 111,22; VI,2; VII,25); hem (1,6; V,23; VII,11; IX,23); heus (1,3; 13; 15; 22 ...); sodés (1,4; 11,22); pronoms personnels sujets (1,8: «Pol quidem tu dignus», inquam, «es extrema sustinere»; 1,17: « Vbi es tu ...?»; rapprochements et oppositions des pronoms de la première et de la deuxième personnes (1,4: «Ego tibi solus haec pro isto credam»; V,26: «Tu quidem ... res tuas habeto, ego uero sororem tuam ... coniugabo »)131; Selon un type de transfert caractéristique du langage populaire, les dénominations injurieuses interviennent parfois comme apostrophes amicales (fonctionnant à la fois comme marques de langage et c o m m e signe interposé de pudeur): cf. Mét. X,16: „Non adeo", respondit, „absurde iocatus es, furcifer". Cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p. 70 —86; V. CIAFFI, Petronio in Apuleio, Univ. di Torino Fac. di Lett, e Filos., Fond. Parini — Chirio, Torino, G . G I A P P I C H E L L I ed., 1960, p. 127sq. Plusieurs adjectifs en -osus accusent aussi la fonction dépréciative du discours; type: uerbosus (Mét. V,28); uirosus /IX,14) ... L'usage fréquent des p r o n o m s personnels sujets semblerait coïncider, dans les ' M é t a m o r phoses', avec un affaiblissement de la valeur de ces formes (cf. P. MÉDAN, op. cit., p. 215; M . LEKY, De Syntaxi Apuleiana, Münster, 1908, p. 9). Mais l'effet emphatique demeure, en réalité, souvent très net (énoncés à pathos, formules rituelles, attention ramenée sur le narrateur: cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p. 94 —95); et sans doute convient-il aussi de considérer que l'emploi de ces formes à l'intérieur des séquences au discours direct répond à l'une des fonctions caractéristiques de ce type de message, fonction par laquelle le locuteur pose et confirme son action verbale.

L'EXPRESSION D A N S LES ŒUVRES D'APULÉE

1639

— les effets d'insistance, accusant le rapport d'intérêt entre le locuteur et son message, accentuant les données de ce message, les orientant plus intensément vers le destinataire: datifs 'éthiques' (IV,7: «sic nobis otiosa domi residens lusitabis ...?»); négations renforcées (V, 11 : «nil quicquam uel audias uel respondeas »); futurs affirmant la réalisation certaine d'une menace (V,10: «Seiet se non ancillas sed sorores habere»); redoublements et reprises (1,8: «Tace, tace», inquit; 111,16: « Audiui uesperi, mets his, inquam, auribus audiui»); — l'économie verbale et le resserrement d'expression liés à la fonction émotive du discours et au statut même de la conversation qui autorise ou détermine une élocution abrégée ou concise: économie de particules interrogatives (VII,21: « Videtis istum pigrun ... et nimis asinum? »), de pronoms compléments (de te, par exemple, en VIII,12: « non ego gladio, non ferro petam »); énoncés nominaux (1,22: «Plane», inquit, «sed quae causa quaestionis huius? »; IX,16: «Quanto melior Philesiterus adulescens »); — la structure lâche, le mouvement heurté de phrases non soumises à une élaboration critique: énoncés fractionnés (1,8: «Potens illa et regina caupona quid mulieris est?»); parenthèses, constituées notamment par des prédicats incidents du type credo, oro, oro, puto, scio (V,14: « Quantum, putas, boni nobis in ista geris perula?»); reprises, après un relatif, d'un démonstratif antécédent (IX,16: «De isto quidem, mi erilis, quem ... formidulosum familiarem istum sortita es»); accumulations par coordination (1,18: « nam et iugulum istum dolui et cor ipsum mihi auelli putaui et nunc etiam spiritu deficior et genua quatior et gradu titubo et aliquid cibatus refouendo spiritu desidero »)132.

c) Les transformations du réalisme narratif L'influence exercée sur les 'Métamorphoses' par une tradition narrative populaire était apparemment susceptible de déterminer un type particulier de récit, marqué par un langage spécifique: le langage 'realiste' 133 . Mais le choix fait par Apulée de formes lexicales et grammaticales communes, voire de certains des éléments les plus vulgaires de sermo cotidianus, ne coïncide qu'imparfaitement avec les exigences du 'réalisme'. Non seulement parce que ce choix demeure enclos dans les limites d'un ensemble conventionnellement typé, à la fois épuré et monolithique (aucune différenciation n'est établie notamment entre les 'dialectes' sociaux des personnages: parler courant des intellectuels, des gens moyens, du bas peuple, ni a fortiori entre les formes

132

Sur la typologie de la phrase dans les dialogues familiers des 'Métamorphoses', cf.

133

Entendons ici par 'réalisme' un essai d'adéquation entre une matérialité sensible, celle plus précisément de la vie quotidienne des gens moyens et du bas-peuple, des aspects les plus communs de cette vie, et sa transcription artistique.

L. CALLEBAT, o p . cit., p. 8 7 — 1 1 7 .

106

ANRW II 34.2

1640

LOUIS CALLEBAT

variées d'expression d'individus appartenant à un même groupe)134 mais en raison aussi de l'altération concertée de l'une des composantes essentielles du 'réalisme': la neutralité objective. Cette altération est tout d'abord manifestée par un effet de contraste que crée, au niveau des séquences et très souvent à l'intérieur des phrases, l'interférence d'éléments en discordance d'écritures: écriture triviale, populaire d'une part, écriture recherchée, précieuse d'autre part. Ainsi dans les évocations érotiques, scatologiques et, de manière plus large, dans de nombreuses descriptions intéressant les agents du récit (personnes, animaux, objets): citons pour modèle la séquence des «Amours de la Dame et de l'Ane» (Mét. X,21sq.), où mots et figures marqués par référence à une écriture poétique (lucida ... et lacté ac melle confecta; ambroseo rore purpurantes ...) voisinent avec des termes priapéens (inscendere; suscipere)·, des images-proverbes du parler commun {ex unguiculis perpruriscens) et avec une reminiscence probable de l'écriture des 'Milésiennes': totum me prorsus, sed totum recepii (à rapprocher de Sisenna, fgm. 10: ut cum penitus utero suo recepii)135. Peut-être faut-il voir dans cet amalgame artificiel de verdeur, de trivialité, de polissonnerie et de recherche un effort conscient de transformation par rapport à une tradition narrative populaire. Sans doute aussi convient-il de considérer l'action certainement exercée par la tradition poétique latine de Catulle, de Martial, d'Ovide ou même, plus précisément, par la tradition narrative alexandrine136. Mais il appert que les 'Métamorphoses' s'inscrivent, par ce mode d'énonciation, dans une perspective narrative ouverte bien au delà de la littérature antique: formes de récit du VOLTAIRE des 'Contes', d'ANATOLE FRANCE, de GIRAUDOUX, de PIERRE LOUYS . . .

C'est une réfutation de la neutralité objective du récit que pose également un autre type d'énonciation, fréquemment attesté dans les 'Métamorphoses': la parodie. Par ce type d'énonciation est donné, en effet, un signe accentué de non-coïncidence entre la parole transmise et la parole attendue: ainsi lorsque sont mis dans la bouche d'un pauvre hère, Socrate 137 , des termes nobles et vieillis (famigerabilis; domuitio), que lui est prêté un discours calqué dans sa structure sur les déclamations tragiques138; lorsqu'un brigand raconte la mort de son chef, Lamachus139, en ayant recours aux techniques d'expression normalement utilisées pour rapporter les hauts-faits des grands hommes de l'histoire (formes épiques: magnanimi·, clichés affectifs: per fidem sacramenti-, relation au discours indirect des dernières paroles du héros; sententia finale ...); lorsqu'un jeune esclave retrouve pour s'indigner contre l'âne, la force d'élo134

135 136 137 138

139

Le 'vérisme' linguistique est incontestablement beaucoup mieux affirmé dans la hiérachisation et dans la muabilité formelles des affranchis du 'Satiricon': cf. P. PERROCHAT, Le festin de T., p. XV. Pour d'autres exemples de ces interférences, cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p. 454 —458. Cf. E. PARATORE, La novella in Apuleio, Roma, G. d'Anna, 1942, p.26sq. Mét. 1,6 sq. La non-coïncidence est ici relevée par l'interlocuteur: aulaeum tragicum dimoueto et siparium scaenicum complicato et cedo uerbis communibus (Mét. 1,8). Mét. I V , 1 0 - 1 1 .

L'EXPRESSION

DANS LES ΠU V R E S

D'APULÉE

1641

quence de Cicerón apostrophant Catilina: « Quo usque tandem », inquit, « cantherium patiemur istumf140 ». A cette altération du 'réalisme' participent également les nombreux pastiches de la phraséologie juridique, qui transcrivent moins cependant une inadéquation absolue entre parole attendue et parole donnée qu'ils n'exagèrent et caricaturent une situation linguistique possible: tel est le cas du discours prononcé par Jupiter pour unir légitimement Psyché et Cupidon 1 4 1 , discours dans lequel figurent bien des traits caractéristiques de la langue du droit (groupes en asyndète: teneat; possideat; formes vieillies: datif 'iure ; impératifs en -to; mots juridiques anciens: congruus ...). Il n'est pas exclu enfin que fonctionnent comme marques d'intervention de l'auteur implicite, comme signes appuyés de l'acte d'énonciation l'écriture de grande poésie 1 4 2 qui ouvre les livres II, III et VII des 'Métamorphoses' (comme, plusieurs siècles après, les différents livres du 'Roman Comique' de SCARRON). Une altération originale du 'réalisme' narratif peut être encore perçue dans l'utilisation faite par Apulée d'un langage vieilli et, plus particulièrement, du langage plautinien: mode narratif par lequel est imposée une transposition intermittente de la situation historique et du temps logique du récit, par lequel est introduit un dépaysement affectant à la fois la vraisemblance de l'énoncé et le statut même des récits. Le langage plautinien accuse ainsi la fonction de représentation du récit, mais par la référence qu'il dénote à un 'genre' littéraire particulier, la comédie ancienne, pose cette représentation dans une perspective explicitement artistique et décalée par rapport à un réel immédiat. Or nombreux sont dans les 'Métamorphoses' les éléments lexicaux et grammaticaux qui installent les personnages et leur histoire dans une situation qui est celle du théâtre comique ancien: termes de tendresse, comme mea festiuitas (11,10), rappel de la 'Casina' (135); termes d'injure tel que impuratus (11,25; IX,10) dont l'effet dépréciatif est emprunté à Plaute (Rud. 543) et à Térence (Phorm. 669); désignations pittoresques de l'action: causificari (cf. Pit., Aul. 755) attesté en X , 9 auprès d'un autre verbe de couleur ancienne (blaterare) et d'un substantif fréquent chez les comiques ( u e r b e r o ) ; contruncare (cf. Bacch. 975; Stich. 554) 1 4 3 , renvoyant à la thématique bouffonne du théâtre plautinien; formulations accentuées du type: ampliter nummatus (1,21); et c'est encore au langage des vieux auteurs comiques que sont empruntées des structures telles que les accumulations pittoresques en groupes asyndétiques (IX, 14: saeua scaeua, uiriosa ebriosa, peruicax pertinax); les énoncés jussifs dans lesquels un impératif futur suit un impératif présent (11,6: euigila et tecum esfo) 1 4 4 .

ι « Mét. 111,27. Une même apostrophe figure en VI,26 et en VII,20. 141 142

143 144

106*

Met. VI,23. Cf. J. B. MISPOULET, Mythologie juridique, R E A . , 16, 1914, p. 84. Cf. 111,1: Commodum punicantibus phaleris Aurora, roseum quatiens lacertum, caelum inequitabat... A ce même effet participent les formes épiques d'enchaînement (type 111,4: Sic profatus-, IV,35: Sic profata uirgo conticuit) ... Mét. 1,4; VI,31; I X , 1 3 . Sur l'imitation faite dans les 'Métamorphoses' du langage des comiques, cf. L. CALLEBAT, op. cit., p. 4 7 3 - 5 4 5 ; ID., L'archaïsme dans les Métamorphoses d'Apulée, R E L . , XLII, 1965, p. 355 sq.

1642

LOUIS

CALLEBAT

Egalement nombreuses dans le 'Conte de Psyche', les marques d'archaïsme y apparaissent cependant orientées vers un effet original: effet non plus de discordance par rapport à un univers contemporain (connu et familier), mais d'harmonisation avec un contexte déjà situé hors du temps et du réel immédiats. Par la patine désuète dont il revêt l'énoncé, le langage ancien contribue donc à déterminer le genre spécifique de cette séquence: le merveilleux. On interprétera dans cette perspective: la désignation vieillie d'agents du récit (cf. 'Tristities', servante allégorique de Vénus: VI,9) et de leurs fonctions (fonction magique, par exemple, de Zéphyr exprimée en V,16 par un mot noble et ancien: sublimare)·, la simplicité naïve de la narration, dans des types d'énoncés dont la simplicité ou la gaucherie peuvent rappeler celles de la phrase des premiers chroniqueurs (ainsi en V,21 par les brefs énoncés coordonnés et la répétition: Nox aderat et maritus aderat); la forme vieillotte de discours prêtée à certains personnages: ainsi pour le dieu Pan adressant à Psyché des propos émaillés de nombreux termes surannés (autumare, scitula, suspiritus ...)145. Ces diverses infractions à la neutralité objective du récit ressortissent, en fait, à un large système de signes de distanciation 146 , au nombre desquels nous inscrirons encore: adverbes d'appréciation critique (alioquin; scilicet), souvent utilisés à l'intérieur d'une parenthèse et dans une réflexion incidente (type IV,3: nisi tandem — sapienter alioquin — ipse mihi tulissem auxilium); négations atténuatives (minus; non adeo), plaçant le statut de l'énoncé dans une perspective subjective 147 ; anomalies et figures fonctionnant comme marques d'ironie: antiphrases (cf. 1,7: boni latrones; VI,26: mitissimi homines altercant de mea nece)·, paronomases (cf. 1,9: officiosis roncis raucus appellai); ambiguïtés, liées notamment à la double nature (humaine et animale) de l'agent narrateur (cf. IV,23: asinali uerecundia ductus)m. Dans un récit où l'emploi de la première personne et les marques d'un 'réalisme' familier apparaissent comme garanties d'authenticité, cet ensemble de signes assume ainsi une double fonction de distanciation. Au niveau, tout d'abord, des relations entre l'agent-narrateur et son histoire, est déterminé un ton narratif que justifie l'issue heureuse de l'aventure: humour, apitoiement amusé ou condescendant du locuteur à l'endroit des événements qu'il vécut 149 . Au niveau des relations entre auteur et narrateur, est ouvert un mode de récit ambigu par lequel l'auteur implicite suggère sa présence derrière le narrateur et affirme l'écart esthétique, l'acte d'énonciation. De cette étape de notre recherche peuvent être retenus plusieurs éléments d'information: l'intégration, tout d'abord, du langage des 'Métamorphoses' à 145

Cf. L.CALLEBAT, L'archaïsme . . . , p . 3 5 3 - 3 5 5 .

146

Distanciation entre la chose narrée et son narrateur.

147

Le statut négatif de l'énoncé est en effet posé, non dans sa réalité objective, mais par référence à une appréciation du locuteur.

148

Cf. L.CALLEBAT, Sermo cotidianus . . . , p . 4 6 7 - 4 7 3 .

149

Le narrateur des ' M é t a m o r p h o s e s ' se rapproche, sous cet aspect, du héros picaresque. M a i s l'exemplarité de son histoire n'est pas celle de la réussite sociale, ni non plus celle du c o u r a g e dans les tribulations, mais d ' a b o r d celle du privilège d'une 'révélation' essentielle, r é c o m p e n s a n t une q u ê t e assidue.

L'EXPRESSION

DANS LES ΠU V R E S

D'APULÉE

1643

un système d'écriture, système de récit, dont il revêt les marques et assume les fonctions; la référence faite, d'autre part, à un type particulier de récit: la narration populaire, et l'actualisation de cette référence par le support donné du parler commun ou vulgaire contemporains. Mais, tout en s'intégrant à un code littéraire conventionnel, le langage des 'Métamorphoses' individualise et transforme la tradition reçue. Individualisation et transformation accomplies à deux niveaux essentiels: celui de l'écriture même du récit, dans la mesure où l'auteur implicite souligne son acte d'énonciation, dans la mesure où, parmi les possibilités offertes, sont choisis et sont aussi diversifiés les modes d'expression les plus vifs et les plus pittoresques; celui de la narration populaire, par les infractions accusées au 'réalisme' du récit, interférences et anachronismes linguistiques, pastiches et parodies ... C'est avec ostentation que le langage des 'Métamorphoses' reconnaît et dépasse les traditions narratives.

B. L'écriture artiste et les tendances esthétiques contemporaines a) La recherche du rare Construit par référence à une forme particulière d'expression: le « genre » narratif en prose, le langage des 'Métamorphoses' porte également témoignage de sa confrontation nécessaire avec un contexte plus large de culture et de civilisation: traditions de la prose d'art, esthétique contemporaine. Matériau 'naturel', la prose narrative des 'Métamorphoses' compose aussi un matériau noble, promu au statut d'instrument d'art, rival possible de la prose narrative des romans grecs d'amour. En choisissant d'écrire en prose, Apulée situait en même temps son langage par rapport à une esthétique formelle, dès longtemps codifiée par Gorgias, mais réfléchissant au II e siècle des types diverses d'influences: influence de la tradition styliste latine notamment marquée, après Salluste, par les noms de Sénèque et de Tacite; influences contemporaines de la Néo-rhétorique, de la 'Poésie nouvelle' et des théories frontoniennes. De ce faisceau de tendances, le langage des 'Métamorphoses' recevait sans doute des marques individualisées, mais un certain nombre surtout d'orientations fondamentales; recherche du rare, maniérisme et préciosité, modification des limites conventionnelles entre écriture de la prose et écriture de la poésie, rhétorique et baroquisme. Souvent manifestée dans les œuvres de Salluste, de Sénèque ou de Tacite, la recherche du rare devient au II e siècle le centre même d'un système littéraire: les théories frontoniennes posent, en exigence essentielle de toute élaboration de discours, la pertinence inattendue de la forme choisie; pour répondre à cette exigence, un outil essentiel est donné: l'archaïsme 150 .

150

Sur les théories frontoniennes, cf. M . D . BROCK, Studies in F r o n t o and his age, C a m b r i d g e , University Press, 1 9 1 1 , p. 9 7 - 1 2 4 ; R . MARACHE, L a critique littéraire de langue latine et le développement du g o û t archaïsant au II e siècle de n o t r e ère, Rennes, Plihon, 1 9 5 2 , p. 138 sq.

1644

LOUIS CALLEBAT

Dans les 'Métamorphoses', comme dans l'œuvre de Fronton ou dans les 'Nuits Attiques' d'Aulu-Gelle, l'archaïsme apparaît donc chargé d'une fonction non seulement d'ornementation, mais aussi de désignation singularisante. Emploi en vérité ambigu, dans la mesure où la fréquence même du procédé tendait à effacer l'effet voulu de surprise. Emploi dont l'efficacité est cependant maintenue dans les 'Métamorphoses' par la diversité des discordances établies: écarts en contexte avec des éléments du sermo cotidianus; écarts avec d'autres éléments archaïques utilisés par référence à un langage spécifique (langage du droit, langage de la comédie plautinienne ...) 1 5 1 , variations enfin entre les formes de désignation singularisante. Au nombre de ces formes, interviennent des expressions vieillies, mais en des types distincts d'emplois: emplois, pour un effet exceptionnel, de termes déjà rares chez les auteurs archaïques (Mét. IX,28: blandities; X,15: electilis)152, usage réitéré de termes explicitement catalogués comme désuets (type exanclare: huit exemples; prosapia·, six exemples 153 ; restauration de sens anciens: arbitrare, substitut sémantique de spedare (1,18; 11,29; 111,21 ...); ignobilis, de ignotus (V,4). Une recherche, d'inspiration analogue, est également manifestée au niveau grammatical par des formulations exceptionnelles ou réitérées, mais en référence à un modèle vieilli et rare: renforcement d'un comparatif par multo tanta (Mét. VII,15; X,21) 1 5 4 ; utilisation d'un ablatif auprès de facesso (11,24; 111,10; VIII,30; IX,22) 1 5 5 ; recours au signe interrogatif plautinien: quippini (IX,26; auprès d'un participe) 156 . Recherche du rare et préoccupations archaïsantes sont encore transcrites dans les 'Métamorphoses' par la préférence accordée à des types de formation vieillies ou situés en marge des tendances linguistiques contemporaines. Ainsi pour les adverbes en -(t)im dont dix exemples nouveaux figurent dans les 'Métamorphoses' (au nombre desquels six hapax)157; pour les dérivés en 151 152

153

154

155

Cf. supra, p. 1641 sq. La forme blandities ne figure, avant Apulée, que chez Caecilius (Corn. 66); electilis n'est attesté, en dehors des Mét., que par un seul exemple, chez Plaute (Most. 730). Sur exanclare et prosapia, cf. Quint. 1,6,40. Exanclare ne figure que dans les 'Métamorphoses'; prosapia figure également dans P'Apologie': un exemple; dans le 'De Deo Socratis': un exemple. Plusieurs mots de cette catégorie sont également bien représentés dans les œuvres d'Apulée autres que les 'Métamorphoses'. Citons pour exemple oppido (cf. Quint. VIII,3,25) attesté treize fois dans les 'Métamorphoses', huit fois dans Γ'ΑροΙοgie\ trois fois dans les 'Florides', cinq fois dans les ouvrages philosophiques. Sur cet emploi, qui semble directement emprunté à Plaute, cf. J . B. HOFMANN, A. SZANT Y R , op. cit., p. 136. C f . J . B . HOFMANN, A . SZANTYR, o p . c i t . , p . 1 0 3 .

156

C f . J . B . HOFMANN, A . SZANTYR, o p . c i t . , p . 4 5 8 .

157

Aggeratim (IV,8); bacchatim (1,13); capreolatim (XI,22); fistulatim (IV,3); granatini (VI,10); laciniatim (VIII,15). Deux autres formes ne sont pas attestées en dehors des 'Métamorphoses': pullulatim (11,16; V,20); pressim (11,16; 30). Fronton et Aulu-Gelle ne présentent chacun dans leur œuvre qu'un exemple nouveau de ce type: cf. R. MARACHE, Mots nouveaux ..., p. 67; 207. Sur les formes en -tim, cf. aussi L. CALLEBAT, Sermo cotidianus, p. 475 sq. Discretim (Mét. VI,1; Fl. 9,90), ordinairement donnée comme néologisme, doit être certainement lu chez Varron, R. R. 1,3.

L'EXPRESSION D A N S LES ŒUVRES

D'APULÉE

1645

-bundus, notamment représentés dans l'œuvre d'Apulée par onze formes originales (dont sept dans les 'Métamorphoses') 1 5 8 . Et c'est à des modes de création, non seulement peu productifs dans le parler courant du IIe siècle, mais peu exploités aussi par les écrivains de cette époque, que ressortissent dans les 'Métamorphoses' plusieurs catégories privilégiées de mots nouveaux: quatorze des dix-sept mots en -men apparus au siècle des Antonins se rencontrent d'abord chez Apulée 159 , et la prédilection singulière affirmée par cet auteur à l'endroit des formations en -tus (vingt-quatre exemples inédits dans les 'Métamorphoses', dont onze hapax) apparaît nettement personnelle en regard des tendances marquées dans les œuvres contemporaines de Fronton (qui ne crée aucun néologisme de ce type) et d'Aulu-Gelle (chez qui sont attestés seulement six mots nouveaux en -tus). Un riche système de signes est ainsi utilisé dont la fonction première est d'établir un écart par rapport aux formes connues et attendues: termes, non nécessairement archaïques, mais d'emploi exceptionnel, comme dearmare (Mét. V,30)160; ortiuus (111,28)161 ...; créations 'étymologiques' (adpendix, caractérisant en V,24 Psyché < suspendue > à Cupidon; detrimentum, dénotant en VI,6 < l'action d'enlever en frottant >); translation sémantiques (pour contabulatio, par exemple, désignant en XI,3 < l'ensemble de plis > que forme un vêtement 162 ; pour dilatio, appliqué en XI,11 à un < intervallo matériel); constructions inusitées: génitif auprès de curare (V,2: corporis curatae; V,4: uirginitatis curant)·, obuersus avec accusatif (11,28: orientem obuersus) ... A ce système sont également intégrés différents traits d'écriture qui instaurent dans l'énoncé une perspective inattendue, tendent à remodeler un langage: l'usage, tout d'abord, très fréquent dans les 'Métamorphoses', de la uariatio (1,5: caseum

158

159

160

161

162

Auxiliabundus (De D e o S. 11,20: hapax)·, certabundus (Ap. 22,28: hapax)·, excusabundus (Ap. 79,2: hapax)·, gaudibundus (Mét. VIII,2); imaginabundus (Mét. 111,1: hapax)·, munerabundus (Mét. XI,18: hapax)·, murmurabundus (Mét. 11,20: hapax)·, nutabundus (Mét. IX,41); periclitabundus (Mét. 111,21; V,23; Ap. 72,15); rimabundus (Mét. 11,5; De D e o S.2,21); sputnabundus (Ap. 44,28). Si Fronton ignore ce type de formation, Aulu-Gelle présente dans son œuvre huit dérivés nouveaux en -bundus. Sur ces formations, cf. P.LANGLOIS, Les formations en -bundus, REL., 39, 1962, p. 1 1 7 - 1 3 4 . Sur ces quatorze mots, huit figurent dans les 'Métamorphoses', un dans l " A p o l o g i e \ trois dans les 'Florides', deux dans le 'De D e o Socratis'. Mais sur les dix créations en -mentum attestées dans l'œuvre d'Apulée, trois seulement figurent dans les 'Métamorphoses' (trois également dans l " A p o l o g i e \ deux dans les 'Florides', une dans le 'Peri Hermeneias'; une forme, enfin, figure à la fois dans T'Apologie' et dans les 'Florides'); deux des trois créations qui interviennent dans les 'Métamorphoses' sont des hapax: antecantamentum (XI,9) forgé vraisemblablement sur un modèle ancien; nugamentum (1,25). Cf. J. PERROT, Les dérivés latins en -men et -mentum, Études et commentaires, 37, Paris, Klincksieck, 1961. En dehors de l'exemple cité des 'Métamorphoses', dearmare ne figure que chez Tite-Live (IV,10,7). Cet adjectif se rencontre d'abord chez Manilius (Astr. 111,189), puis chez Apulée et chez Mart. Capella (VI,136). Le mot se retrouve dans les 'Florides', mais avec son acception usuelle: proscaenii contabulatio (18,7).

1646

LOUIS

CALLEBAT

recens et sciti saporis; 11,10: fortiter et ex animo-, 11,32: uegetes et uastulis corporibus·, IV,28: Multi denique ciuiurn et aduenae copiosi...). Le procédé relève sans doute d'un contexte esthétique plus particulièrement marqué par les 'discordances' tacitéennes 163 et signalé au IIe siècle par les théories frontoniennes (cf. Laudes Fumi et Pulueris 5: Variatio uel cum detrimento aliquo gratior est in oratione quam recta continuatio)·, il participe aussi, par la rupture qu'il impose, aux techniques dramatiques du récit; mais il assume surtout une fonction importante de désignation singularisante: discontinuité et perception nouvelle de l'objet représenté. Un même effet de recréation est établi par un mode d'énoncé également fréquent dans les 'Métamorphoses': le transfert de fonctions entre modifiant et modifié, forme de message qui reporte sur le caractérisant la fonction prédominante de communication. Dans ce mode d'énoncé où l'objet représenté est proposé, non dans sa pure matérialité, mais selon la perception particulière d'un locuteur, deux types de transfert peuvent être distingués: le premier type recouvre l'ensemble des exemples dans lesquels l'adjectif reçoit une marque de neutre et le nom une marque de génitif: translation d'un groupe attendu: ardui montes au groupe choisi: ardua montium. A la fois maintenu et transformé, l'adjectif assume explicitement dans ce cas sa double fonction de désignation et de caractérisation (Mét. 1,2: ardua montium et lubrica uallium et roscida caespitum·, 111,28: per auia montium·, IV,35: per deuexa rupis). Le second type de transfert intéresse les différentes structures où n'intervient pas seulement une variation morphologique, mais également une substitution, opérée au niveau des catégories lexicales: substitution par échange entre modifiant et modifié, entre adjectif et nom. Au groupe usuel: uenenatas rosas est ainsi préféré par Apulée l'ensemble 'modifié': uenenum rosarium (Mét. IV,3: sponte illud uenenum rosarium sumere gestiebam). Confrontées aux signes virtuels attendus, les tournures de ce type définissent une matérialité nouvelle 164 , mais consacrent aussi la subjectivité du message, subjectivité qu'accuse encore, dans les échanges entre modifiants et modifiés, le choix fait de termes abstraits (Mét. 1,1: papyrum ... argutia Nilotici calami inscriptam-, 111,13: dolorem quem mihi lacrimarum adsiduitas incusserat; 111,15: simplicitatem relationis meae tenacitate taciturnitatis tuae remunerare-, VIII,5: similes humilitati seruorum uel in modum pauoris feminei deiecti...). Une désignation individualisée est posée, mais aussi une classification: effet de l'abstrait, par lequel le locuteur situe implicitement la représentation en regard d'une qualité générale, d'une catégorie. La recherche du rare par l'abstrait correspond, dans un système plus large d'écriture, à l'une des formes d'expression privilégiées des 'Métamorphoses'. Forme d'expression où le recours à l'abstraction n'est justifié ni par un phénomène linguistique vivant ni par la nécessité de traduire une notion 163

164

Cf. G. SÖRBOM, Variatio sermonis Tacitei aliaeque apud eundem quaestiones selectae, Diss., Uppsala, 1935. Dans l'exemple précité, la transformation pose en premier plan et matérialise la préoccupation immédiate du locuteur: non pas les roses elles-mêmes, mais leur fonction néfaste.

L'EXPRESSION

DANS LES ΠU V R E S

D'APULÉE

1647

conceptuelle, mais dénonce une volonté d'écart par rapport à un type usuel de communication, souligne l'acte d'écrivain, propose une transcription critique de l'objet représenté. De ce goût « moderne » pour l'abstraction portent notamment témoignage (indépendamment des modes d'énoncés précités): les emplois de termes abstraits dans une fonction de désignation communément assumée par un mot concret ou par un ensemble associant un mot concret (nom, pronom) et un caractérisant (type Mét. 1,12: diebus ac noctibus inlusit aetatulam meam; 11,17: lassitudinem refouentes165; 111,8: nostraeque uiduitati ac solitudini ... solarium date; V,27: fallacie germanitatis inducta166...); les périphrases avec abstrait, choisies comme substituts de formes verbales simples (type 11,31: domuitionem capesso; 111,4: si audientiam publica mihi tribuerit humanitas; V,4: delectationem et commendami ...) 1 6 7 ; la préférence très souvent accordée à une expression abstraite pour une désignation circonstante (cause, but...): abstraits avec préposition (type 1,6: diffletis paene ad extremam captiuitatem oculis suis; 11,25: desolatus ad cadaueris solacium; IX,1: ad tutelam salutis crebris calcibus uelitatus); ablatifs d'abstraits (type 11,20: eum adiuratione suae salutis ... cogebat effari; IV,21: odio perfidiae nostrae demigrarit; V,25: nec te rursus praecipitio périmas ...) 1 6 8 ; datifs abstraits 'finals' (type 1,4: quod ingressui primum fuerit stabulum; 1,23: oleum unctui et lintea tersui ... profer; VIII,18: ubi placuit illis ductoribus nostris refectui paululum conquiescere)169. b) Maniérisme et préciosité C'est vers un remodelage du langage, vers une recréation de l'univers représenté 170 , mais certainement aussi vers une esthétique marquée par le maniérisme et par la préciosité que tend dans les 'Métamorphoses' la complaisance affirmée à l'égard des formes rares de désignation. L'écart souligné et prolongé par rapport aux types communs d'énoncés, l'effet concerté et travaillé de surprise violentent les structures usuelles d'expression, font interférer raffinement artiste et bizarre.

165 166 167

168

169 170

Cf. V,2: lectulo lassitudinem refoue. Le signe usuel attendu serait ici sororis (et non l'adjectif germana). Assez largement et librement développées dans la latinité tardive, marquées dans divers cas par l'influence de tendances linguistiques vivantes (type Mét. VII,1: nuntium facere-, I X , 3 1 : pausam facere), les tournures périphrastiques attestent souvent aussi dans les 'Métamorphoses' une recherche concertée d'écriture artiste: qualité archaïque des termes de la périphrase (cf. 11,31); transcription d'un langage emphatique (langage emphatique des plaidoiries en 111,4); convergence en contexte avec les éléments d'une formulation abstraite très élaborée (cf. V,4: nouitas per assiduam consuetudinem delectationem ei commendarat et sonus uocis incertae solitudinis erat solacium). Un exemple particulièrement significatif est fourni par l'emploi dans les 'Métamorphoses' des mots nouveaux en -tus·, dix-sept de ces vingt-quatre mots ne sont en effet utilisés qu'à l'ablatif et pour une désignation circonstante. Sur ces datifs d'abstraits, cf. J. B. HOFMANN, A. SZANTYR, op. cit., p. 98. Cf. infra, p. 1661 sq.

LOUIS CALLEBAT

1648

A cette esthétique précieuse ressortissent bien des formulations abstraites par lesquelles est d ' a b o r d proclamée l'élaboration attentive du discours: expressions contournées, inattendues, où le primat de la c o m m u n i c a t i o n apparaît accordé beaucoup moins à l ' o b j e t q u ' a u signe qui le manifeste: ainsi dans les 'Métamorphoses': 11,9: Quid cum capillis color gratus et nitor splendidus inlucet ... aut in contrariant gratiam uariat aspectum; X , 4 : maturatae spei uaesania praeceps promissae libidinis flagitat uadimonium; X , 2 9 : puelli puellaeque ... nunc in orbem rotatum flexuosi, nunc in obliquant Seriem conexi et in quadratum patorem cuneati... A cette m ê m e esthétique participent également les différents modes d'énoncés qui associent dans un ensemble signifiant des éléments sémantiques contradictoires ou en non-coïncidence logique. Ce type d'infraction à la cohérence c o m m u n e du discours apparaît dans les n o m b r e u x exemples d'harmonisation dissonante entre un prédicat et son expansion, entre modifiants et modifiés (Mét. IV,27: me pedibus fugientem alienis-, X , 3 2 : saltare solis oculis ...). Particulièrement fréquents sont dans les ' M é t a m o r p h o s e s ' les paradoxismes (en V I , 6 , par exemple: currum ... limae tenuantis detrimento conspicuum et ipsius auri damno pretiosum), les ambiguïtés (cf. 111,23: Adiuro per dulcem istum captili tut nodulum, quo meum uinxisti spiritum), les caractérisations individualisées par une a n o m a l i e linguistique (adjectifs substituts d'un énoncé développé), par une inadéquation sémantique immédiate au mot caractérisé: type 1,2: fatigationem sedentariam; ientaculum ambulatorium·, 1,4: exossam saltationem ... D e l'esthétique précieuse l'écriture des ' M é t a m o r p h o s e s ' héritait encore l'emphase prédicative: volonté de motiver le langage, effort pour donner au message intensité et relief n o u v e a u x , souci d'accuser et d'aviver les formes de la représentation. Cette emphase prédicative est souvent associée à l'expression amoureuse: paroles de Psyché à Cupidon: Sed prius ... centies moriar quam tuo isto dulcissimo conubio caream ( M é t . V,6: avec figure hyperbolique: centies moriar, superlatif: dulcissimo). M a i s elle modifie aussi, sur un registre beaucoup plus large, les données d'un récit par lequel agents et actions sont singularisés, désignés avec insistance 1 7 1 , intégrés surtout dans un univers de l'outrance: outrance des gestes décrits, des sentiments projetés, des monologues et des c o n f r o n t a t i o n s verbales que déterminent la force élative du lexique choisi, la 'mise au s u p e r l a t i f du langage. Ainsi dans des énoncés tels que M é t . 1,19: uulnus dehiscit; 11,14: correptis nummulis; 111,22: stupore defixus; V,21: Tali uerborum incendio fiammata uiscera sororis-, V I I , 1 3 : rudiui fortiter, immo tonanti clamore personui·, X , 2 8 : inhiansque toto filiae patrimonio ... E x t r ê m e -

171

Cf. supra, p. 1633.

L'EXPRESSION DANS LES ŒUVRES D'APULÉE

1649

ment nombreux, les emplois de ce type 172 répondent sans doute aux exigences 'dramatiques' du récit, mais s'inscrivent certainement aussi dans un système de perception et de représentation marqué par l'influence de tendances originales, tendances de la préciosité à réfuter avec éclat la neutralité des choses et, par conséquence, la banalité du discours. En discordance apparente avec l'emphases prédicative, l'usage, bien attesté dans les 'Métamorphoses', de formes diminutives participe souvent cependant d'une même esthétique de préciosité et de maniérisme. La fonction assumée dans cet emploi par la forme diminutive est beaucoup moins, en effet, une dénotation de petitesse qu'un enrichissement artistique et affectif de la relation conventionnelle établie entre le signe et son référent: transcription d'une sensibilisation aiguë à la joliesse et au raffinement, d'une préhension chaleureuse de l'objet (attitude, spontanée ou concertée, de tendresse, de protection ...). Plusieurs diminutifs attestés pour la première fois dans les 'Métamorphoses' peuvent être proposés comme exemples de ces connotations: gustulum, participant en 11,10 à l'élaboration d'une expression érotique précieuse (dulce et amarum gustulum carpís), chargeant l'énoncé en IX,33 d'une tendresse naïve (paroles d'un fermier à une poule, bonne pondeuse: Nunc etiam cogitas ... gustulum nobis praeparare); incrementulum, associant 173 à l'évocation de la grossesse de Psyché une notion de fragilité et de grâce (V,12: miratur de breui punctulo tantum incrementulum locupletis uteri)·, curiosulus, carractérisant avec mignardise le vent folâtre (X,31: Quam quidem laciniam curiosulus uentus satis amanter lasciuiens reflabat) ... Les effets connotatifs sont également souvent accusés par l'abondance dans un même énoncé des formes diminutives dont la seule fréquence compose une harmonie phonique fonctionnant comme signe artiste et affectif: Ipsa linea tunica mundula amida et russea fasceola praenitente altiuscule sub ipsas papillas succinctula illud cibarium uasculum floridis palmulis rotabat (11,7); Tunc Psyche misella, utpote simplex et animi tenella (V,18); extimae plumulae tenellae ac delicatae tremule resultantes (V,22) ... Déjà perceptible dans P'Apologie' et dans les 'Florides' 174 , mais affirmée dans les 'Métamorphoses' sous une perspective beaucoup plus large et appuyée, la complaisance esthète à l'égard des formes diminutives ressortit à un contexte littéraire fortement imprégné par les tendances contemporaines, celles, plus particulièrement, des 'poètes nouveaux' du IIe siècle 175 .

172

173

174

175

L'intensité lexicale, le relief des figures sont souvent soulignés dans les 'Métamorphoses' par le choix fait de désignations appuyées (plus précisément avec ille), de termes de volume exceptionnel, de caractérisations intensifiées: superlatifs, surenchérissements emphatiques (extremius, par exemple, en 1,8 et VII,2: cf. L. CALLEBAT, Sermo cotidianus, p. 403 - 404). En convergence avec un autre néologisme diminutif, punctulum. L'opposition sémantique entre punctulum et incrementulum est dans cette phrase atténuée par l'effet des diminutifs établissant un accord connotatif. Pour un relevé des diminutifs dans ces deux œuvres, cf. M. BERNHARD, op. cit., p. 294; 315 sq. Sur les 'poètes nouveaux', cf. plus particulièrement E. CASTORINA, I poetas novelli. Contributo alla storia della cultura latina nel II secolo d. C., Bibl. di cultura, 31, Firenze,

1650

LOUIS

CALLEBAT

Marqués par les orientations artistes de ces imitateurs raffinés de Catulle, les fragments conservés des œuvres poétiques d'Apulée 176 attestent au demeurant la place privilégiée accordée à ces formes perçues et proposées comme signes implicites d'une transmutation intellectuelle et affective du message 177 . Par la transgression proposée aux formes 'littérales' d'expression, les théories frontoniennes définissaient, en fait, une esthétique du langage qui assignait à la prose une fonction et des matériaux traditionnellement réservés à la poésie. Recherche du rare, maniérisme, convergeant avec l'écriture des 'poètes nouveaux', participent ainsi à un système de communication qui consacre dans les 'Métamorphoses' une modification concertée des limites conventionnelles entre prose et poésie. c) Poésie C'est notamment, nous l'avons dit 178 , sur des emprunts aux auteurs archaïques, mais plus précisément aussi aux vieux poètes latins 179 que Fronton souhaitait fonder la pertinence inattendue de l'expression. Dès l'époque républicaine, Salluste avait également admis et recherché, comme plus tard devaient le faire des écrivains tels que Sénèque ou Tacite, des formes et des structures marquées par leur fréquence ou leur présence exclusive chez les poètes. De ces tendances à l'élaboration d'une prose artiste qui 'contaminait' code de la prose et code de la poésie, les 'Métamorphoses' présentent de nombreux témoignages: un système lexical, tout d'abord, souvent construit par référence aux signes spécifiques des poètes. Ainsi pour: cantamen (Mét. 11,1; 22) 180 , emprunté à Properce 181 (cf. Mét. 11,1: artis magicae natiua cantamina et Prop., El. IV,4,51: utinam magicae nossem cantamina Musae); flamen (Mét. XI,5; 25; Mu. 8,10), utilisé depuis Ennius par les poètes, mais attesté pour la première fois en prose chez Apulée 182 ; semihians (Mét. V,18; X,28; Fl. 15,31)

17S

177

La N u o v a Italia, 1949. On observera qu'interfèrent chez ces poètes, comme souvent dans les 'Métamorphoses', élaboration savante, 'naïveté' familière, raffinements précieux. Cf. E. CASTORINA, Apuleio poeta, Catania, Giannotta, 1950. Confrontation entre l'écriture des fragments poétiques d'Apulée et l'écriture de Catulle, ibid., p. 35 sq. Une illustration notoire de cette forme de maniérisme est fournie au IIe siècle par les vers célèbres d'Hadrien (fgm. Spart. Hadr. 25,9): animula, uagula, blandula ... pallidula, rigida, nudula). Cf. P. STEINMETZ, Lyrische Dichtung im 2. Jahrhundert n.Chr., A N R W II, 33,1, éd. W. HAASE, B e r l i n - N e w York, 1989, p. 271 sqq., et J.-M. ANDRÉ, Hadrien littérateur et protecteur des lettres, A N R W II, 34,1, éd. W HAASE, Berlin - N e w York, 1983, p. 602 sqq.

178 179

180 181

182

Cf. supra, p. 1643 sq. Fronton recommande ainsi de choisir les mots insolites et inattendus: quae non nisi cum studio atque cura atque uigilia atque multa ueterum carminum memoria indagantur (Ad M. Caesarem, IV,3,3). Cinq exemples de ce mot dans Γ Apologie' (26,15; 40,12; 43,27; 84,10; 102,14). Cf. H. TRÄNKLE, Die Sprachkunst des Properz und die Tradition der lat. Dichtersprache, Hermes, Einzelschriften, 15, Wiesbaden, 1960, p. 61. C f . J. PERROT, o p . cit., p. 1 0 7 .

L'EXPRESSION DANS LES ŒUVRES D'APULÉE

1651

pris à Catulle (cf. Met. X , 2 8 : semihiantes ... compressit labias; Fl. 15,31: semihiantibus labellis et Catull. 6 1 , 2 2 0 : semihiante labello)m; uipereus (Met. IV,33; V,12), dont l'emploi en V,12 (Furiae anhelantes uipereum uirus) rappelle l'évocation par Virgile (En. VII,351) du serpent d'Allecto: uipeream spirans animam . . . ; fréquentes sont aussi dans les 'Métamorphoses', c o m m e dans l'écriture noble de la poésie, les désignations périphrastiques: iuuenis Aoni appliqué à Penthée (Mét. 11,26); Musici uatis Piplei, substitué à Orpheus (ibid.); deus Delphicus, évoquant Apollon ( X , 3 3 ) ; les caractérisations ornementales, renvoyant à une information reconnue 1 8 4 , mais fonctionnant d'abord c o m m e signe artiste: igniferae ... Chimaerae (VIII,16); Thebas heptapylos (IV,9); legíferos Athenienses ( X , 3 3 ) ; mustulentus autumnus (11,4); Gretes sagittiferi (XI,5) ... Plusieurs traits de 'contamination' entre code de la prose et code de la poésie intéressant également le système grammatical des "Métamorphoses': ainsi, dans la désignation de nombre, l'emploi abondant de pluriels chargés de connotations variées (emphase, élargissement plastique, nuances descriptives, caractérisation 'ouverte' 1 8 5 ), mais manifestant surtout l'acte d'écriture, la référence voulue à un procédé d'art exploité par les poètes 1 8 6 : Atria longe pulcherrima (11,4); confinia noctis (11,17) 1 8 7 ; dispensans incerta lumina ( X I , 2 ) ; per nocturna silentia (11,28) 1 8 8 . . . ; la préférence aussi très souvent accordée à des structures d'énoncés plus spécialement utilisées par les poètes de l'époque augustéenne et impériale. Au nombre de ces structures, interviennent notamment différentes constructions qui tendent à restaurer la flexion dans sa plénitude originelle d'indications grammaticales; tendance particulièrement 183

184

185

186

187 188

Alors qu'aucune création en semi- ne figure chez Aulu-Gelle et que Fronton ne propose qu'un seul néologisme de ce type (cf. R. MARACHE, Mots nouveaux ..., p. 23), huit formes en semi- sont attestées pour la première fois dans les 'Métamorphoses' (semiamictus: 1,6; VII,5; IX,30; semiamputatus: 1,4; semicanus: VIII,24; IX,30; semiconspicuus: 111,2; semiobrutus: IX,5; semirotundus: V,3; XI,6; semisopitus: 1,15; semitrepidus: VII,8; semiadopertulus: 111,14 est moins une création authentique qu'un élargissement de l'adjectif semiadapertus, attesté chez Ovide, Am. 1,6,4). L'ensemble de ces formes, dont aucune ne se retrouve dans les autres œuvres d'Apulée et dont les modèles grecs sont peu nets, trahit une prédilection originale à la base de laquelle interviennent: recherche du rare, influence des prosateurs stylistes et des poètes de l'époque augustéenne et impériale (ces composés sont notamment bien représentés chez Ovide), choix d'une catégorie lexicale convenant à un contexte d'écriture élaborée, mais susceptible aussi de marquer l'énoncé d'une libre élégance. L"épithète ornementale' transcrit, en effet, un caractère 'officialisé': par l'histoire, le mythe, la littérature ... 'Caractérisation ouverte', dans la mesure où le pluriel peut opposer à une vision homogène une perception complexe: suggestion des implications multiples que portent en eux l'objet ou le concept évoqués. C f . HOFMANN, A . SZANTYR, o p . c i t . , p . 1 6 s q . e t b i b l . c i t .

Cf. Ovid., Mét. VII,706: Quod teneat lucís, teneat confinia noctis. Cf. IV,14: per opportuna noctis silentia; XI,5: inferum deplorata silentia; XI,21: magna religionis ... silentia. Cf. Lucr. IV,460: seuera silentia noctis; Virg., En. X,63; Ovid., Mét. 1,232 ... Sur la fréquence dans les 'Métamorphoses' de termes abstraits au pluriel, cf. M . BERNHARD, o p . c i t . , p . 1 0 1 s q .

1652

LOUIS CALLEBAT

sensible dans les désignations de mouvement (type Met. 1,5: si ... ciuitatem perueneritism; VII,1: castra nostra remeastis-, 11,32: plateam uadimusm; 111,16; quod non celerius sol caelo ruissetm), de situation (type Met. IX,16; coronam auream capite gestare; V,8: ut ... praecordiis ... nutrirent inuidiam·, VIII,18: prostrati solom). A la restauration des valeurs casuelles est fréquemment associée une revalorisation des éléments préfixés, qui peut également fonder l'économie de signes fonctionnels distincts (essentiellement prépositions): cadauer accurro (Mét. 11,26)193; dorsa permanat (11,9) m ; caelo demeat (VI,7; X,31) ...) Attitude archaïsante, volonté de recréation et de singularisation interviennent dans le choix de ces constructions, mais la recherche aussi d'un mode d'énoncé mis en relief par son resserrement. A cette densité frappante et rénovatrice de l'expression participent encore: l'association d'une forme à l'accusatif et d'un verbe 'intransitif (type Mét. V,7: cum iam possitis quam plangebatis amplecti)195; l'amalgame sémantique d'un prédicat et de son expansion: 'accusatifs de qualification' du type: altum soporem flare (V,20) 196 ou, avec adjectif neutre: dulce subridens (X,32) 1 9 7 , inquieta lasciuiunt (V,22) 198 ; la dénotation d'une relation à la fois matérielle (spatiale) et abstraite (rapport d'intérêt, personnalisation de l'objet) par un ensemble signifiant groupant un élément verbal et une forme au datif (type Mét. XI, 13: caelo manus adtendentes-, V,31: pelago uiam capessit199). Et c'est aussi par référence à l'écriture des poètes et des prosateurs artistes de l'époque augustéenne et impériale 200 que seront interprétés: le choix fréquent dans les 'Métamorphoses' des constructions avec 'accusatif de relation' qui réunissent étroitement, mais également soulignent 201 les éléments prédicatifs: uestitum quidem similis (XI,10; cf. XI,27:

189

190

Cf. Mét. VI,30: domus extremam loricam perueneramus; VIII,23: ciuitatem ... peruenimus. Cf. De Platone 2,19: uiam uadunt. Sur ces formes d'expression, cf. J. B. HOFMANN, A . SZANTYR, o p . c i t . , p. 4 9 - 5 0 .

191

Cf. Virg., En. 11,250: ruit Oceano

192

C f . J . B . H O F M A N N , A . S Z A N T Y R , o p . c i t . , p. 1 4 5 s q .

193

Cf. 111,21: me accurrit-, IV,14: epulas accurrunt-, VI,21: Psychen accurrit-, VIII,6: accurrit. Cf. Lucr. 1,494: permanat calor argentum. Cf. Prop., El. 11,24,51-52: ut me I... plangas; Tib., El. 1,7,28 ... Cf. Virg., En. IX,326: toto proflabat pectore somnum. Cf. Catull. 51,5: dulce ridentem·, Hör., Od. 1,22,23: dulce ridentem.

194 195 196 197

nox. cadauer

198

Cf. J . B . H O F M A N N , A.SZANTYR, op. cit., p . 4 0 .

199

Cf. pour le premier exemple, Virg., En. 11,688: caelo palmas ... tetendit; pour le second exemple, Virg., En. 1,363 — 64: portantur .../opes pelago. C'est par référence à cette écriture, et non comme des emprunts originaux à la langue grecque, que doivent être interprétés les hellénismes grammaticaux relevés dans les 'Métamorphoses': cf. J. V. V. GEISAU, Syntaktische Gräzismen bei Αρ., IF, 36, 1916, p. 7 0 - 9 8 ; 2 4 2 - 2 8 7 . Réunion étroite par le choix fait de la marque casuelle (accusatif) établissant le terme le plus immédiat du procès; mais l'écart impliqué par ce choix détermine aussi une relation nouvelle dans laquelle chacun des éléments se trouve singularisé.

200

201

L'EXPRESSION D A N S LES ΠU V R E S

1653

D'APULÉE

uestigium similis)·, mentem capitur (VI,20); frontes litterati et capillum semirasi et pedes anulati (IX,12); colla sanguinantem (V,17); l'usage complaisant du participe futur actif en fonction 'attributive' ou 'predicative' 202 (assumant, d'autre part, un rôle narratif: rapidité, dramatisation): puella nuptura deterget lacrimas (IV,33); ut ... discurrerem daturus ... multas muías (VII,14)203 ... Inscrite dans la tradition de la prose d'art post-cicéronienne, la contamination manifestée dans les 'Métamorphoses' entre code de la prose et code de la poésie révèle aussi ses liens originels avec l'instauration même d'une esthétique littéraire qui accréditait la prose comme discours artiste. C'est à la poésie que la prose décorative de Gorgias empruntait plusieurs éléments distinctifs de son code (symétries, assonances, allitérations ...) en même temps que le concept d'une parole fictive se mirant dans sa propre élaboration. Composantes et signes affichées de cette esthétique, les correspondances formelles sont nombreuses dans l'œuvre d'Apulée 204 . Particulièrement abondantes dans les 'Métamorphoses', elles servent fréquemment à préciser et à souligner les rapports entre unités syntagmatiques, mais elles déterminent également un type de discours marqué par référence aux plus anciens textes de la poésie latine (carmina, vers saturniens ...). Allitérations 205 , assonances, correspondances horizontales et verticales, climax, isosyllabies ... convergent vers une structure d'énoncé qui tend à restaurer le mot phonétique dans son importance primitive 206 . lam tumore iam salebris iam spiritu

pectus extolli uena pulsari corpus impleri (Mét. 11,29);

secreta quibus

obaudiunt manes turbantur sidera coguntur numina seruiunt elementa (111,15);

sacra differuntur templa deformantur puluinaria proteruntur caerimoniae negleguntur (IV,29); possidet

asinum luctantem asinum saltantem asinum uoces humanas intellegentem

(X,17)

202

Cf. J.B.HOFMANN, A.SZANTYR, o p . cit., p . 3 9 0 s q .

203

Pour un relevé détaillé des constructions grammaticales marquées dans les ' M é t a m o r p h o ses' par l'influence des poètes et des prosateurs stylistes, cf. plus particulièrement J . V . v . GEISAU, o p . c i t .

204

205

Cf.

M.BERNHARD,

op.

cit.,

p.353sq.;

H.E.

BUTLER, A . S .

OWEN,

Apulei

Apologia,

H i l d e s h e i m , O l m s , 1967 (repr. O x f o r d , 1914 1 ), p. I sq. Pour un relevé des allitérations, des assonances, des rimes, des symétries, cf. P. MÉDAN, o p . cit., p . 2 5 9 s q . ; M.BERNHARD, o p . cit., p . 8 7 s q . ; 2 1 9 s q .

206

Sur l'esthétique formelle archaïque, cf. A. W. DE GROOT, Le m o t p h o n é t i q u e et les formes littéraires de latin, REL, 12, 1933, p. 1 1 7 - 1 3 9 .

1654

LOUIS

CALLEBAT

Puelli puellaeque uirenti florentes aetatula forma conspicui ueste nitidi incessu gestuosi decoros ambitus inerrabant nunc in orbem rotatum flexuosi nunc in obliquam seriem conexi et in quadratum patorem cuneati et in cateruae discidium separati (X,29) ... En marge du code littéral de la prose, une texture phonique est ainsi établie qui à la fois recrée et nuance de variations les structures formelles archaïques 207 : corpus candidum demeat quod caelo amictus caerulus quod mari remeat (X,31). Ce système phonique, dans lequel interfèrent les différents modes de correspondances formelles, tant anciennes que nouvelles, se situe en fait sur un registre d'expression qui touche, mais aussi dépasse, les choix esthétiques d'une rhétorique 'ornementale' et d'un art linguistique archaïsant 208 . Un type de discours est créé qui non seulement affirme le statut littéraire de la prose, mais qui manifeste également une configuration originale, sonore et sémantique. Ainsi dans les séquences cultuelles à l'adresse d'Isis (Met. XI,2; 25) 2 0 9 , longues « périodes », segmentables en versets, marquées par la fréquence des figures phoniques récurrentes 210 , par les variations, par une mélodie sonore modulée tout au cours du phrasé, sans coïncidence nécessaire avec les catégories grammaticales: structure formelle dont la poésie elle-même adoptera plus tard le principe 211 .

207

Les structures de ce type sont assez bien représentées dans les autres œuvres d'Apulée, n o t a m m e n t dans le ' D e D e o S o c r a t i s ' (cf. M.BERNHARD, op. cit., p . 3 4 4 s q . ) et dans les 'Florides' (cf. Fl. 6 , 7 sq.; 1 8 , 9 5 sq.; 2 1 , 4 s q . ) . Elles y apparaissent plus rigides que dans les ' M é t a m o r p h o s e s ' : rareté du c h i a s m e , de la rime croisée, du parallélisme incomplet.

208

Manifesté n o t a m m e n t , au II e siècle, dans l'œuvre de F r o n t o n : cf. M . D . BROCK, o p . cit., p. 1 4 4 sq.; J . F. WESTERMANN, A r c h a i s c h e en archaistische W o o r d k u n s t (avec un abrégé en français), U t r e c h t , 1 9 3 9 , ch. 4 .

209

Une description de ces d e u x séquences est p r o p o s é e par J . F. WESTERMANN, o p . cit., p. 137 sq.

210

Allitérations, assonances, isocolies, isométries, c o r r e s p o n d a n c e s horizontales et verticales, rimes initiales croisées, rimes intérieures c o m p o s e n t plus particulièrement la structure phonique de ces séquences.

211

Cf. J . F. WESTERMANN, op. cit., ch. 4 - 7 . bibliographie 3 . C . b) Θ).

Sur l'ensemble de cette question, cf. n o t r e

L'EXPRESSION

DANS

LES ΠU V R E S

1655

D'APULÉE

d) Prose artiste et rhétorique La promotion de la prose comme objet littéraire peut apparaître, pour une large part, fondée sur son ouverture à la rhétorique. Dire du langage des 'Métamorphoses' qu'il fut influencé par la rhétorique, c'est non seulement reconnaître, parmi les composantes de ce langage, divers procédés catalogués, mais découvrir aussi à sa base une technique et une esthétique artistes de création. Le prestige d'une rhétorique totale, art de la parole, science, éthique est affirmé au IIe siècle avec une insistance particulière: par les théories frontoniennes 212 ; par la Néo-rhétorique ou Seconde sophistique qui triomphe à cette époque sous la double référence de la sophistique et de la rhétorique. Instruit à l'école des rhéteurs, rhéteur lui-même et conférencier, Apulée a fréquemment utilisé dans son œuvre les formes de langage rhétoriques. Signes de 'genre' dans les 'Florides', signes de 'genre' et instruments de l'action persuasive dans P'Apologie', ces formes de langage fonctionnent d'abord dans les 'Métamorphoses' comme signes de culture: techniques d'expression choisies non pour leur efficacité matérielle, mais comme marques esthétiques d'un art de la parole. Au nombre de ces structures formelles, on relèvera notamment: les énonciations par opposition ou antitheton (Mét. 1,20: me ... non dorso illius sed meis auribus peruecto; 11,13: non paruas stipes, immo uero mercedes opimas-, 11,27: uoce contenta quidem, sed adsiduis singultibus impedita213); les correspondances posant un renchérissement: type non modo sed etiam (1,8: non modo incolae uerum etiam Indi; 11,3: non modo sanguinis, uerum alimoniarum etiam socia-, VIII,9: quae res cum meum pudorem, tum etiam tuum salutare commodum respicit214)·, les groupements ternaires (Χ, 15: corpus obesa pinguitie compleueram, corium aruina suculenta molliueram, pilum liberali nitore nutriueram-, souvent avec élargissement de volume: 1,23: oleum unctui et lintea ter sui et cetera hoc eidem usui proferliS)·, la disposition singularisante,

212

Sur l'esthétique et sur l'éthique frontoniennes, on consultera, o u t r e les ouvrages cités de M . D . BROCK et de R . MARACHE, F. PORTALUPI, M a r c o C o r n e l i o F r o n t o n e (Università di T o r i n o , Pubblicazioni della F a c o l t à di M a g i s t e r o ) , T o r i n o , Giappichelli, 1 9 6 1 ; F r o n t o n e , Gellio, Apuleio. R i c e r c a stilistica, I, T o r i n o , Giappichelli, 1 9 7 4 . Voir aussi P. V. COVA, M a r c o C o r n e l i o F r o n t o n e , dans ce m ê m e t o m e ( A N R W II, 3 4 , 2 ) , supra, p. 8 7 3 — 9 1 8 , et P. SovERiNi, Aspetti e problemi delle teorie retoriche frontoniane, supra, p. 9 1 9 1004.

213

P o u r un relevé de ces emplois, très fréquents dans les ' M é t a m o r p h o s e s ' , cf. M . BERNHARD, op. cit., p . 5 9 s q .

214

Sur cette

figure,

cf.

H . LAUSBERG, E l e m e n t e

der literarischen

Rhetorik,

München,

M . Hueber, 1 9 6 7 3 ( 1 9 4 9 1 ) , p. 1 2 4 . Sur son emploi chez Apulée, cf. J . REDFORS, Echtheitskritische Untersuchungen der apuleischen Schriften ' D e P l a t o n e ' und ' D e m u n d o ' , L u n d , Gleerup, 1 9 6 0 , p. 3 8 . 215

Sur les n o m b r e u x tricóla

utilisés dans les ' M é t a m o r p h o s e s ' , souvent c o m b i n é s

avec

d'autres techniques (chiasmes, a n a p h o r e s . . . ) , cf. M.BERNHARD, op. cit., p . 6 2 s q . Ces g r o u p e m e n t s sont également très fréquents dans les 'Florides' et dans le ' D e D e o Socratis'. Ils sont bien attestés d a n s l " A p o l o g i e ' : cf. M.BERNHARD, o p . cit., p . 2 8 9 s q . ;

307sq.;

3 4 5 sq. M o i n s fréquents, mais attestés c e p e n d a n t d a n s les différentes œuvres d'Apulée, 107 ANRW II 34.2

1656

LOUIS CALLEBAT

mais scolarisée, des signes de l'énoncé: chiasmes (1,11: adducta fore pessulisque firmatis; 111,5: maribus animis et uiribus alacribus216); hyperbates (types 1,23: satis arduo itinere atque prolixo fatigatus-, IV,27: formonsae raptum uxorism); la richesse des terminaisons métriques, mais l'usage privilégié des clausules favorites des néo-rhéteurs: dichorée, crétique-spondée, spondée-crétique, double crétique 218 . Marques esthétiques d'un art de la parole, les signes rhétoriques convergent souvent aussi dans les 'Métamorphoses' vers un effet de pathos. L'influence de la déclamation latine 219 , mais plus encore sans doute celle des néorhéteurs 220 , ont certainement orienté le choix fait de formes d'expression qui, dans de nombreuses séquences, transcrivent et accusent le tragique de la représentation: énoncés interrogatifs 221 (1,14: sub oculis tuis homo iugulatur, et siles? Cur autem te simile latrocinium non peremit? Cur saeua crudelitas ...); groupes asyndétiques (IV,21: gloriam sibi reseruauit, uitam fato reddidit; IV,24: tali domo tanta familia tam caris uernulis tarn sanctis parentibus222·, IV,33: Maeretur, fletur, lamentatur223); répétitions 224 : par redoublements d'impératifs (1,7: Sine, sine ... fruatur diutius tropaeo Fortuna-, 11,28: Miserere, ait, sacerdos, miserere ...), par anaphore de différents éléments prédicatifs (Χ,6: Tanta denique miseratione tantaque indignatione curiam ... maerens inflammauerat·, X,29: priuatus humana manu, priuatus digitis), avec variation formelle (polyptote, du type VII,6: peruigilem curam sustinens aerumnas adsiduas ... sustinebat225)·, expressions abondantes, par ensembles binaires notamment (IV,20: Miserum funestumque spectamen aspexl·, VII,26: plangoribus fletibusque que-

sont les groupements par tetracola: cf. M.BERNHARD, op. cit., p . 7 4 s q . ; 292sq.; 309; sq.; 3 3 5 sq.; 3 4 7 sq. Avec cet entrecroisement élaboré des termes coexistent f r é q u e m m e n t aussi les dispositions symétriques (Mét. 1,21: ampliter nummatus et longe opulentus uerum extremae auaritiae et sordis infimae infamis homo). Sur ces structures formelles, cf. M.BERNHARD, op. cit., p. 31 sq. Sur ces emplois, cf. M . BERNHARD, op. cit., p. 24 sq. Sur leur fréquence dans les ' M é t a m o r phoses', cf. O. MOBITZ, Die Stellung des Verbums in den Schriften des Αρ., Glotta, XIII, 1924, p. 124. Cf. M.BERNHARD, op. cit., p . 2 4 9 s q . ; 356sq. Cf. Pétrone, Sat. 1,1 sq. Plusieurs séquences des ' M é t a m o r p h o s e s ' proposent des thèmes exploités p a r les déclamateurs latins: pauvre spolié (Mét. IX,35 sq.; Sén., Contr. V,5); femme adultère et empoisonneuse (Mét. X , 2 s q . ; 2 3 s q . ; Sén., Contr. VI,6) ... Cf. E. PARATORE, La novella in Apuleio, p. 316 sq. Par lesquels est invoqué un témoignage, sont transmis un appel, une protestation. Tetracolon, gradatio. Tricolon. De valeurs et d'effets distincts en contexte (cf. L. CALLEBAT, Sermo cotidianus ..., p. 105), les répétitions interviennent cependant avec une grande fréquence dans les énoncés à pathos: cf. Rhét. Her. IV,28,34: Vehementer commouet eiusdem redintegratio uerbi et uulnus maius efficit... Le polyptote apparaît aussi dans les ' M é t a m o r p h o s e s ' c o m m e signe esthétique ou c o m m e m a r q u e emphatique (1,1: glebae felices aeternum libris felicioribus conditae). Cf. 328

216

217

218 219

220 221 222 223 224

225

M.BERNHARD, o p . cit., p . 2 3 6 s q .

L'EXPRESSION

D A N S LES ΠU V R E S

D'APULÉE

1657

rebantur; IX,36: incensi atque infiammati sunt...); figures sémantiques telles que personnifications (111,5: stricto mucrone per totam domum caedes ambulet226), métaphores prolongées (V,12: Sexus infestus et sanguis inimicus iam sumpsit arma et castra commouit et aciem direxit et classicum personauit) ... Cette outrance pathétique, développée par référence à une esthétique rhétorique, certainement favorisée par un maniérisme complaisant, mais que l'ironie dénonce souvent aussi comme écriture, participe dans les 'Métamorphoses' d'un système plus large de communication par lequel est instaurée une inflation de la parole: abondance d'un discours jamais satisfait, riche de signes pour pallier leur insuffisance, séduit cependant et emporté par sa propre création. Abondance par accumulations (Mét. VI,10: accepto frumento et bordeo et milio et papauere et cicere et lente et faba ...; X , 2 : pallor deformis, marcentes oculi, lassa genua, quies túrbida et suspiritus cruciatus tarditate uebementior), par association de termes situés à un niveau très proche de signification: groupements binaires (IV,9: solus ac solitarius; VI,2: sollicite seduloque; VI,22: existimationem famamque227)·, caractérisations pléonastiques (avec adjectif: 1,4: flexibus tortuosis: 11,9: nitor splendidus; avec une forme au génitif 2 2 8 : 1,7: sordium enormem eluuiem-, V,5: humanae conuersationis colloquio-, avec interférence sémantique de deux caractérisants: V,26: mutuis amplexibus alternae salutationis), par renforcement des signes de coordination (11,15: mari pariter ac terrae. Souvent avec ob id, per hoc229: 1,10: ciuitatem summo uertice montis exasperati sitam et ob id ad aquas sterilem; 111,17: capillos ... flauos ac per hoc illi Boeotio iuueni consimiles) ... Dans cette inflation de la parole, comme dans la prédilection affirmée à l'égard du pathos peut être certainement reconnue la complaisance oratoire du rhéteur. Et les signes rhétoriques choisis trahissent la tentation offerte d'une écriture d'école, codifiée, riche de son passé, mais désormais figée et devenue stéréotype. Les néo-rhéteurs ont connu et accepté cette écriture. Ils l'ont aussi intégrée dans une esthétique susceptible de la transformer et de lui redonner vie: l'esthétique baroque, très largement manifestée dans la création artistique du II e siècle 2 3 0 . e) Une esthétique baroque A l'esthétique baroque ressortit tout d'abord l'importance accordée dans les 'Métamorphoses' à la fonction ornementale des éléments du discours. 226

Ce type d'énoncé est bien connu des déclamateurs latins, mais aussi des orateurs grecs, de poètes c o m m e Virgile, mais également de Cicéron, de Tacite.

227

Cf. M . BERNHARD, o p . cit., p. 1 6 5 sq.

228

Genitiuus inhaerentiae. Sur ce génitif, cf. J. B. HOFMANN, A. SZANTYR, op. cit., p. 63; 7 9 4 s q . Sur son emploi par Apulée, cf. J. V. VON GEISAU, op. cit., p. 2 5 5 sq.; M . BERNHARD, op. cit., p. 173 sq.

229

Cf. M . B E R N H A R D , o p . cit., p. 1 8 2 .

230

Cf. G. C . Picard, La civilisation de l'Afrique romaine, Civilisations d'hier et d'aujourd'hui, Paris, Pion, 1959, p. 2 9 1 — 3 5 3 ; J. AMAT, Sur quelques aspects de l'esthétique baroque dans les 'Métamorphoses' d'Apulée. R E A , L X X I V , 1972, p. 1 0 7 - 1 5 2 .

107*

1658

LOUIS

CALLEBAT

Instruments de la communication, les matériaux formels composent également un décor dont la richesse et la luxuriance surchargent et transforment l'objet de la communication. Ostentation de la parole que fondent l'étendue et la diversité des registres grammatical et lexical, la prolifération des figures, la variété et la rénovation de la texture phonique, l'accumulation même de signes souvent ordonnés selon les techniques scolarisées de la rhétorique, mais souvent posés aussi sur une ligne d'énoncé que marquent ruptures et inflexions inattendues 231 . En valorisant la fonction artistique des éléments formels, en cultivant l'exubérance ostentatoire de la parole, les néo-rhéteurs brisaient également les structures rigides et cohérentes du discours. L'éloquence d'apparat substitue désormais aux grandes unités syntagmatiques une composition discontinue, juxtaposant en une suite lâche différents morceaux brillants, consacrant le succès des excursus descriptifs ou ekphraseis. De cet éclatement du discours les œuvres oratoires d'Apulée 232 , mais aussi les 'Métamorphoses' portent nettement témoignage: au niveau de l'économie générale du récit, par l'insertion réitérée de motifs figuratifs immédiatement extérieurs à la trame narrative 233 : description de l'atrium de Byrrhène (11,4), de la caverne des brigands (IV,6), 'éloge' de la chevelure (11,8 —9) 234 ...; par la technique même choisie 235 des récits intercalés, récits dans le récit, jeux de miroir, perspective en trompel'œil 236 ; au niveau de l'énoncé, par un type de phrase surtout répandu dans les 'Métamorphoses': phrase 'pointilliste', procédant par touches successives dont chacune tend à assumer une fonction artiste originale, phrase marquée par la fréquence des participes, par les variations ou les ruptures grammaticales, par la disposition renouvelée des mots (11,4: Atria longe pulcherrima columnis quadrifariam per singulos ángulos stantibus attolerabant statuas, palmaris deae faciès, quae pinnis explicitis sine gressu pilae uolubilis instabile uestigium plantis roscidis delibantes nec ut maneant inhaerent et iam uolare creduntur237). Type de phrase essentiellement lié à un mode de représentation 231

Cf. dans les 'Métamorphoses' 11,4, la transcription complexe proposée de l'harmonie et du désordre de la végétation: muscis et herbis et foliis et uirgulis et sicubi pampinis et arbusculis alibi de lapide florentibus.

232

Cf. aussi la théorie oratoire proposée dans le 'prologue' du 'De Deo Socratis' (3,6). Cf. infra, p. 1663 sq. Les excursus, surtout attestés dans l' Apologie' sous forme de digressions (sur les miroirs par exemple: Ap. 14 — 16), sont essentiellement descriptifs et particulièrement nombreux dans les 'fragments anthologiques' des 'Florides' (vol de l'aigle: Fl. 2 , 1 7 s q . ; statue d'un jeune éphèbe: Fl. 15,18 sq. . . . ) .

233 234

235

236

237

Technique qui n'est certainement pas motivée par l'esthétique baroque, mais qui est en étroite coïncidence avec cette esthétique. Cf., dans la description de l'atrium de Byrrhène, le jeu de miroir créant la perspective d'une nature en trompe-l'œil. Cf. 11,7: Ipsa — undabat; 11,9 (dans un élément constituant de l'énoncé): nunc coruina nigredine caerulus columbarum colli flosculos aemulatur, VII,8: sumpta transabiui (avec fréquence remarquable de formes participiales). Ce type de phrase est certainement marqué aussi par la tendance constatée à restaurer le mot phonétique dans son importance primitive.

L'EXPRESSION DANS LES ŒUVRES D'APULÉE

1659

'impressionniste', réflexion par le moi de l'univers perçu, message transmis non c o m m e une reconstruction logique, mais selon l'ordre fragmenté des sensations fugitives reçues (ainsi pour la description faite par Lucius de la servante Photis: Mét. 11,7). Affirmation du primat accordé à la richesse brillante des formes, cet éclatement foisonnant du discours relève également d'un dynamisme du langage par lequel est proposée la vision, intense et chatoyante, d'un univers en mouvement. Attesté par les discontinuités d'énoncé 2 3 8 , par les formes dramatiques du récit 2 3 9 , par l'animation théâtrale de la narration 2 4 0 , cette esthétique du mouvement est exprimée aussi avec force dans les passages descriptifs; dans l'évocation offerte, par exemple, de l'atrium de Byrrhène (Mét. 11,4), évocation dont les éléments soulignent et proclament la vitalité dynamique des objets: faisceau sémantique de termes impliquant mouvement, instabilité (uolubilis; instabile; delibantes; uolare14X); caractérisations logiquement impertinentes, attribuant vie à l'inanimé (signant ... ueste reflatum, procursu uegetum); participes présents, saisissant le spectacle dans son devenir (arbusculis alibi de lapide florentibus); ensembles associant à la dénotation d'un état l'indication d'une transformation (lapis Parins in Dianam factus242); 2 4 3 succession de brefs énoncés juxtaposés , variant les angles de perception (his oculi minantur, aures rigent, nares hiant, ora saeuiunt244) ... Et le thème du miroir, interférant dans ce passage avec l'évocation (chère à la poétique

238

239 240

241

242

243

244

La fréquence des constructions en uariatio (cf. supra, p. 1645 sq.), les discontinuités observées au niveau de l'écriture du récit (cf. supra, p. 1630 —1632) peuvent être considérées comme participant à un dynamisme du langage, créateur d'une représentation dynamique du monde. Cf. supra, p. 1630-1632. Ainsi dans la transformation de séquences narratives en séquences comiques, notamment inspirées par Plaute: cf. supra, p. 1641 sq. Et les agents du récit sont fréquemment situés, ou se situent eux-mêmes, comme acteurs dramatiques (cf. Mét. IV,26: Specta denique scaenam meae calamitatis). Sur les possibles relations originelles du roman et du théâtre, cf. B. E. PERRY, The Ancient Romances, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967, p.72sq. Dans la première phrase du passage, où intervient ce faisceau sémantique, la représentation dynamique est encore accusée par la forme même d'infinitif (uolare) proposant, hors de toute autre contingence, la notion de mouvement. La notion de transformation est ici marquée par la construction 'prépositionnelle' avec accusatif (sur ce type d'emploi, cf. L. CALLEBAT, Sermo cotidianus, p. 227 sq.); la dénotation de l'état, par le participe passé (forme qui implique elle-même le concept d'instabilité, dans la mesure où l'état, où la qualité dénotés sont présentés, non comme immuables, mais comme résultats d'une action précédente). La description par touches successives, par brefs énoncés juxtaposés peut coïncider à la fois avec la spontanéité de la perception et avec la diversité changeante des objets. Une description méthodiquement organisée implique une vision repensée, mais transcrit souvent aussi la perception statique d'un objet figé. C'est d'une même esthétique dynamique que relève, dans les 'Florides' (15,18 sq.), la description de la statue de Bathylle.

1660

LOUIS CALLEBAT

baroque) de la source d'eaux vives245, confirme le primat accordé au dynamisme de l'image 246 . Deux types de figures, par lesquels est fréquemment marqué le langage des 'Métamorphoses', peuvent être aussi interprétés comme résumant en eux les tendances majeures de l'esthétique baroque: l'hyperbole et l'antithèse. Toute hyperbole ne relève sans doute pas d'une esthétique baroque. Certaines hyperboles sont 'figures d'usage', manifestations stéréotypées d'une exagération spontanée de message247. La préciosité connaît également ce mode d'énoncé en tant que signe intellectualisé, chargé de réfuter la banalité du discours248. Mais les effets hyperboliques coïncident plus étroitement encore dans les 'Métamorphoses' avec l'intensité de sensation et la force débordante de l'univers baroque. Le dynamisme du langage transmute la géométrie formelle et le maniérisme du précieux, recrée les procédés scolarisés du rhéteur ou les structures stéréotypées des figures d'usage. La prostration de Lucius, lors de la fête du Rire, est ainsi transcrite par une hyperbole connue, celle de la pétrification 249 , mais que singularisent l'effet de sens du participe passé, l'association de ce participe avec une 'construction prépositionnelle' marquant transformation 250 , la caractérisation prolongée (Mét. 111,10: fixus in lapident steti gelidus nihil secus quant una de ceteris theatri statuts uel columnis); à cette hyperbole est enchaînée une nouvelle hyperbole qui surcharge en variation l'évocation proposée: Nec prius ab inferís emersi... Dans l'aveu de passion de la 'belle-mère incestueuse' (Mét. X,3: Isti enim tui oculi per meos oculos ad intima delapsi praecordia mets medullis acerrimum commouent incendium) pourrait être perçue la tentation précieuse: thématique des yeux, de la flamme; jeux formels (tui oculi per meos oculos151). Mais l'hyperbole est d'abord soumise, dans ce passage, au dynamisme de la parole (constructions avec per; avec ad-, emploi de delapsi, de commouent)·, et l'intensité du champ lexical, accusée par les disjonctions, s'accorde avec l'incohérence brutale de l'étrange. L'hyperbole n'est pas seulement dans les 'Métamorphoses' outrance d'écriture; elle est aussi pressentiment d'une violence souvent dissimulée, effort pour révéler, au delà des apparences, les tensions d'une lutte 252 qui est base même 245 246

247 248 249 250 251

252

... fontem, qui deae uestigio discurrens in lenem uibratur undam. Primat affirmé dans l''Apologie' (14,12 sq.) lorsqu'Apulée attribue au miroir une perfection de ressemblance avec laquelle ne saurait rivaliser aucune autre image faite de main d'homme. Cf. Mét. VI,26: Nam timor ungulas mihi alas fecerat. Cf. supra, p,1647sq. Cf. Ph., Truc. 818: lapideus sum; Ovid., Mét. V,509: stupuit ceu saxea. Sur ce type d'emploi, cf. supra, note 242. Mais cet énoncé est peut-être message avant d'être jeu formel: la reprise d'un même terme {oculi, oculos), la disposition symétrique [tui, meos, oculi, oculos) implique correspondance, appelle union entre destinateur et destinataire, agent et patient. Caractéristique est à cet égard la fréquence dans les 'Métamorphoses' des figures impliquant agitation, bouillonnement des vents, et de l'eau (type Mét. V,21): aestu pelagi simile maerendo fluctuât-, X,13: talibus fatorum fluctibus uolutabar). Pour un relevé de ces figures, cf. H. KOZIOL, Der Stil des L. Apuleius, Wien, Gerold, 1872, p. 245 sq.; M . BERNHARD, o p . cit., p. 2 0 1 sq.

L ' E X P R E S S I O N D A N S LES ΠU V R E S

D'APULÉE

1661

de la vie. Telle serait la signification la plus constante de ce mode hyperbolique par lequel Apulée a construit un registre de représentation oscillant fréquemment entre deux extrêmes: ineffable de la beauté ou du bonheur, excès les plus tourmentés du pathétique et de l'horreur. L'antithèse possède, comme l'hyperbole, un double effet d'intensité et de transcendance. Confrontant des termes contradictoires, elle met en évidence un conflit. Mais par la confrontation même de ces termes, elle instaure aussi une relation par laquelle est créée une 'réalité' nouvelle. Certaines formes d'antitheton pourraient être ainsi interprétées dans les 'Métamorphoses' comme assumant une fonction complexe de marques esthétiques253 et d'informateurs: signes chargés de souligner écart et discordance entre 'réalité attendue' et 'réalité perçue', de situer un univers qui ne prend vie ou ne se définit que par opposition et par affrontement (Mét. VI,32: non pedibus sed totis animis latrones in eius uadunt sententiam; VII,14: Photidi diras deuotiones imprecarer, quae me formauit non canem, sed asinum; avec effet hyperbolique: V,l: domus regia est aedificata non humants manibus, sed diuinis artibus). C'est toutefois par 1 'oxymoron, ou conjonction de contraires, qu'est véritablement opérée la transmutation d'éléments incompatibles en un ensemble sémantique original, qu'est révélée, au delà du paraître, une figure nouvelle de l'être 254 : cruciatum uoluptatis (Mét. 11,10); uiuum producitur funus (IV,24); ut ... uagarer errore certo (IX,11); udis ignibus (XI,2). En association avec un antitheton255: non operosus sed inordinatus ornatus (11,9)256 ... Très largement manifestées dans les dix premiers livres des 'Métamorphoses', les tendances baroques apparaissent beaucoup moins nettes dans le onzième livre. Non que soient altérés, dans cette fin du récit, la richesse, l'éclat, le dynamisme ou P'impressionnisme' du langage. Mais une cohérence profonde intervient qui marque l'organisation de la parole, qui au vertige de l'ostentation substitue un épanouissement maîtrisé: tension fervente par laquelle sont réglés, dans les prières isiaques257, l'ampleur du phrasé, le rythme du discours 258 , la structure métrique259; sérénité conquise exprimée, dans les descriptions, par la configuration ordonnée des éléments changeants et vibrants du spectacle. On peut citer pour exemple la description proposée au chapitre

153 254

Cf. supra, p. 1655 sq. L ' o x y m o r o n n'est pas annihilation, mais conjonction, il n'efface pas totalement le paraître: il le recrée et en détermine la transcendance.

255

Dans les exemples de ce type, l'antitheton assume apparemment une fonction de renforcement, par la référence donnée en opposition; mais la référence négative tend aussi à annoncer l'insolite et donc à l'atténuer.

256

Formulation analogue dans le De M u n d o 2 , 6 , mais explicitement présentée par ut sic dixerim c o m m e modalité d'écriture: inordinatum, ut sic dixerim, ordinem semant.

257

Cf. Mét. X I , 2 ; 5 - 6 ; 25. Cf., par exemple, le mouvement lent de la parole marqué en X I , 2 par le rythme spondaïque tu mets iam nunc extremis aerumnis subsiste, tu fortunam conlapsam adfirma, tu saeuis exanclatis casibus pausam pacemque trihue. Cf. supra, p. 1653 sq.

258

259

1662

LOUIS

CALLEBAT

III de la tunique d'Isis: description d'inspiration baroque 2 6 0 par l'intensité des couleurs, par la technique impressionniste de représentation, par les variations de teintes et leur saisie dans le temps ...; mais la texture phonique et la structure formelle de l'énoncé déterminent un effet majeur d'harmonie: nunc nunc nunc

albo croceo roseo

candore flore rubore

lucida lutea florida.

Construit par référence à une écriture narrative, le langage des 'Métamorphoses' nous est assez largement apparu, dans cette étape de notre recherche, comme un lieu privilégié d'interférences littéraires, comme un point aussi de réflexion, riche et complexe, des tendances esthétiques contemporaines. Faisceau d'influences, dont les composantes diverses convergent cependant vers un même effort de recréation formelle, vers une même affirmation de la fonction artistique assumée par la parole. L'écriture des 'Métamorphoses' proclame ces deux orientations fondamentales. Mais par ses excès et ses écarts, elle réfute également les liens trop étroits d'allégeance et les rituels figés d'expression. En se personnalisant, elle dépasse son statut propre d'écriture pour s'ériger en langage original.

3. Essai de bilan et perspectives: Le langage des Métamorphoses L'originalité du langage des 'Métamorphoses' nous paraît d'abord fondée sur l'exaspération même de ce langage: exploitation intense et diverse des matériaux d'expression, recherche exacerbée d'un absolu formel par lequel signes et structures réalisent dans leur plénitude les valeurs dont ils sont chargés. Aux différents niveaux de la communication est ainsi manifesté avec ostentation l'éclat de la parole: art de la phonation, densité créée ou restaurée des mots, richesse et renouvellement de leurs combinaisons ... Sublimant les formes artistes annexées, anciennes ou modernes, mêlant, dans son jaillissement brillant, élaboration et dynamisme propre, le langage des 'Métamorphoses' affirme le primat de sa fonction esthétique, conforte le statut noble de la prose. Dans une civilisation en mutation profonde, dans un contexte culturel que marque l'altération des 'genres' traditionnels, et plus particulièrement du 'genre' poétique, est ainsi revendiquée et consacrée la promotion littéraire du récit d'imagination en prose. Avec une luxuriance insolite et une intensité accusée par rapport aux modes d'énoncé de P'Apologie' et des 'Florides', le langage des 'Métamorpho-

260

Le dynamisme de cette description sera évoqué par NERVAL dans 'Isis': « Aussi lui apparaît-elle vêtue à l'égyptienne, mais dégagée des allures raides, des bandelettes et des formes naïves du premier temps » (G. DE NERVAL, Œuvres, Bibliothèque de la Pléiade, Paris, Gallimard, 1956, p. 324).

L'EXPRESSION DANS LES ŒUVRES D'APULÉE

1663

ses' tend vers une esthétique de l'ostentation, ou esthétique du splendide, dans laquelle pourraient être perçus la gratuité artiste, l'uniformité scintillante et Péblouissement figé de la néo-rhétorique. Mais, dans son ostentation même, le langage des 'Métamorphoses' est aussi critique du langage. Posant avec insistance des structures formelles, accentuant leurs traits distinctifs, il les dénonce comme rituels d'expression, comme marques artificielles d'un code littéraire. Il les met en question par ses excès déclarés, par les signes nombreux de distanciation qui instaurent un écart entre parole attendue et parole transmise. Ironie, parodies, pastiches, conflits d'écriture (confrontation notamment dans un même contexte de systèmes discordants tels que maniérisme et « réalisme ») convergent vers un effet commun qui est à la fois reconnaissance affichée d'une esthétique et recul critique pris à son endroit. Le langage des 'Métamorphoses' se situe beaucoup moins, en vérité, sur le plan objectif du récit que sur le plan du discours: il construit une représentation qui est d'abord interprétation. Ainsi pour les écarts observés, dans une situation dénotée, entre parole transmise et parole attendue (parler vulgaire des dieux, déclamations emphatiques des brigands ...): au delà du jeu formel, un univers est suggéré où interfèrent l'être et le paraître, le naturel et l'étrange: intégration inadéquate des objets dans un réel familier, projection mátaphorique par laquelle le langage transcrit le fantastique ou, dans le Conte de Psyché, le merveilleux. C'est par rapport encore au système du discours que peuvent être, dans une large mesure, définies les composantes baroques du langage des 'Métamorphoses': les ekphraseis, par exemple, assumant une fonction non seulement esthétique (ornementale), mais également métaphysique (perception proposée, dans la description de l'atrium de Byrrhène, du dynamisme du monde, des liens étroits de sympathie par lesquels s'entrelacent les ordres de l'univers: animal, végétal, minéral); les figures déterminant, par conjonctions de contraires, une relation nouvelle qui est métamorphose des apparences immédiates, insinuant la possibilité de mutations extraordinaires (Mét. VI,14: mutata in lapident Psyche) que réalise la magie (111,21: Fit bubo Pampbile) ... Mais c'est aussi dans sa totalité que le langage baroque des 'Métamorphoses' est discours: représentation plus que toute autre subjective du monde, expression personnalisée du vertige complaisant et inquiet qu'imposent la fluidité, la diversité et la luxuriance du spectacle. Puisant aux sources intimes de l'auteur, le langage des 'Métamorphoses' transcende traditions formelles et tendances esthétiques contemporaines. Il n'est pas seulement écriture. Il est un style, voix singulière d'une expérience individuelle. Il rend perceptibles, au travers d'une narration imaginaire, les étapes essentielles d'une aventure spirituelle: attitude critique, marquée par l'ironie; recherche (transcrite par l'ostentation et par l'exaspération des formes) d'un refuge et d'un absolu dans l'univers des sensations et dans l'art; passage de l'ostentation à l'introspection, découverte, au delà du devenir et de l'inconstance, d'une « réalité » éternelle: étape ultime, manifestée dans le onzième livre par la transmutation d'un langage splendide en un langage sublime.

1664

LOUIS CALLEBAT

Situé aux niveaux les plus divers d'expression, créant des formes multiples de représentation (récits proprement dits, descriptions, spectacles dramatiques, confession mystique, poésie ...), le langage des 'Métamorphoses' recouvre un champ remarquablement vaste de significations qui, par sa richesse complexe, confère à la narration proposée le caractère d'œuvre totale que revendiquera plus tard le roman moderne.

Greek and Latin Versions of the Ass-Story b y HUGH J . MASON,

Toronto

Contents I. Introduction II. Photios, Codex 129

1666 1667

III. Questions about Photios

1668

IV. "Lukios of Patrae"

1669

V. "The First Two Books" VI. Epitome? VII. Satire in Onos'? VIII. Lucian and the Authorship of Onos':

1671 1674 1675 1677

1. Lucianus epitomatoti

1677

2. Lucianus soloecistai

1679

3. Who if not Lucian?

1680

IX. The Date of the 'Metamorphoseis':

1681

1. Introduction

1681

2. Lucius' Social Status

1681

3. The Arena and Pasiphae

1682

4. The Sophist Dekrianos

1683

5. Beroia and Thessaly

1683

6. Linguistic Criteria

1684

7. The Date of the 'Golden Ass'

1685

8. Conclusion X. The Author of the 'Metamorphoseis' 1. Lukios of Patrai?

1685 1686 1686

2. Lucian?

1686

3. Adrian of Tyre?

1689

4. Flavius Phoinix?

1690

5. Apuleius?

1690

6. Lucius Ampelius?

1691

7. Lucius Sisenna?

1691

HUGH J.

1666

MASON

X I . T h e Contents of the 'Metamorphoseis'

1692

1. Prologue

1692

2. " T h e Other B o o k s "

1693

3. T h e Dimensions of the Ass-Story

1693

4. T h e Inserted Stories

1693

X I I . T h e Character of the 'Metamorphoseis'

1695

X I I I . Apuleius and the T w o Greek Versions

1696

XIV. Apuleius' Use of the Greek Original

1697

1. Close Textual Similarity

1697

2. T h e Inserted Material

1699

3. Apuleianitas

1700

X V . Conclusion

1700

X V I . Bibliography

1701

1. Abbreviations

1701

2. References on the Onos-Problem

1702

3. Works Cited N o t Bearing Directly on the Ass-Story

1706

1.

Introduction

T h e n a r r a t o r o f A p u l e i u s ' ' G o l d e n A s s ' 1 d e s c r i b e s it a s a fabula ica

Graecan-

( A A 1 . 1 . 6 ) , a t a l e , t h a t is, a d a p t e d f r o m t h e G r e e k . 2 A s t o r y a s c r i b e d t o

Lucian, Λούκιος ή Ό ν ο ς

o r Lucius

siue

Asinus,

(hereafter ' O n o s ' ) , 3

which

r e c o u n t s a similar n a r r a t i v e o f a y o u n g m a n t u r n e d by m a g i c into a n ass, w a s identified as A p u l e i u s ' G r e e k s o u r c e by t h e first e d i t o r s o f L u c i a n a n d

Ap-

uleius,4 but the relationship w a s discovered to be m o r e c o m p l e x w h e n

the

first W e s t e r n editions o f the ' B i b l i o t h e k e ' o f t h e p a t r i a r c h P h o t i o s

became

available.5 T h e s e revealed that he knew of a w o r k which he described

1

I refer to the Latin text as the 'Golden Ass' to maximize the difference from O n o s ' and the Greek 'Metamorphoseis'. Following WINKLER JOHN J . , Auctor & Actor. A narratological Reading of Apuleius's Golden Ass (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1985), citations are in the form AA ( = Asinus Aureus) 1.2.1; the text used is the Budé edition o f P I E R R E VALLETTE a n d D . S . R O B I N S O N , 3 e t i r a g e ( P a r i s

2

3 4

5

(Cod.

1965).

H. J . MASON, Fabula Graecanica: Apuleius and his Greek sources, in: Aspects o f Apuleius' Golden Ass. A Collection of Original Papers, ed. Β. L. HIJMANS and R . TH. VAN DER PAARDT (Groningen 1978) ( = A A G A), 1 - 1 5 . Cited from the O x f o r d T e x t of Μ . T. MACLEOD, Luciani Opera, II (Oxford 1974). Probably first by POGGIO in his edition of ' O n o s ' , entitled 'Lucii philosophi Syri comoedia quae Asinus intitulatur', first published in 1450; see R . FUBINI, Poggi Bracciolini Opera O m n i a , I, (Torino 1964) reproducing POGGIO, Opera [Basel 1538]), 1 3 8 - 1 5 5 . Photius, Myriobiblon sive Bibliotheca, Graece edidit D . HOESCHELIUS, Augsburg, 1601; id., Latine reddidit et scholiis auxit A N D R E A S S C H O T T I U S Antwerpianus (Paris 1 6 1 1 ) .

GREEK A N D LATIN VERSIONS OF T H E

ASS-STORY

1667

129) 6 as Λουκίου Πατρέως μεταμορφώσεων λόγοι διάφοροι, (hereafter 'Metamorphoseis'), and compared to Lucian's O n o s ' . Although Photios had no knowledge of the Latin w o r k , 7 his modern editors did and drew the appropriate conclusions. 8 Since 1611, then, scholars have been busy delineating the possible relations between the three versions of the ass-story, perhaps to excessive length, with what one scholar has termed a "less than magnificent obsession." 9 Aside from the opportunities for debate and polemic and the detective pleasures of Quellenforschung that the three versions of the ass-story provide, there is a serious purpose to this scholarship. Apuleius' singular literary qualities, „L'apuleianità di Apuleio,"10 can best be seen by contrast with the Greek versions; Lucian's purpose and methods are more sharply defined for us after investigation of O n o s ' in comparison with his other works; 1 1 our evaluation of Photios' judgment of other, perhaps more important, works will be affected if his account of the versions of the ass-story is found to be misleading or defective.

II. Photios,

Codex

129

T h e passage in which Photios describes the two Greek versions deserves to be cited in extenso:11 Άνεγνώσθη Λουκίου Πατρέως μεταμορφώσεων λόγοι διάφοροι. Έ σ τ ι δέ τήν φράσιν σαφής τε και καθαρός και φίλος γλυκύτητος· φεύγων δέ τήν έν λόγοις καινοτομίαν, είς ύπερβολήν διώκει τήν έν τοις διηγήμασι τερατείαν, και ώς αν τις ει'ποι, άλλος εστί Λουκιανός. 6 7

8

9

10

11

12

RENÉ HENRY, ed., Photius, Bibliothèque, I (Paris 1960), 1 0 3 - 1 0 4 . The 'Golden Ass' was read in Constantinople in 397 CE (subscript to Book IX). Other Greek references to Apuleius, for example by Johannes Lydus, M a g . 3.64, and in Anth. Pal. 2 . 3 0 3 - 5 , and his appearance on contorniati (see RE 4.1 [1900], 1155), all probably allude to his general reputation, especially as a magician, rather than to the 'Golden Ass'. There is no evidence that Photios was aware of Apuleius' Greek reputation or of any Latin literature. SCHOTTIUS, 39, "ut ex Luciano vicissim L. Apuleius Madaurensis fabula Milesia asinum aureum. Vide eius interpretes." PAULA JAMES, Unity in Diversity. A Study of Apuleius' Metamorphoses; with Particular Reference to the Narrator's Art of Translation and the Metamorphosis Motif of Cupid and Psyche (Altertumswiss. Texte u. Stud., 16), (Hildesheim 1987), 7 - 2 4 ; see also GRAHAM ANDERSON, Studies in Lucian's Comic Fiction (Mnemosyne, Suppl. 43), (Leiden 1976) 34 n. 1; HENRY, Photius 128, n. 1. The expression is that of ANTONIO MAZZARINO, La Milesia e Apuleio (Torino 1950), chapter VIII; note also P. G. WALSH, Bridging the Asses, CR 88 (1974) 2 1 5 - 2 1 8 . ANDERSON 1976, 3 4 - 6 7 , is the fullest attempt to consider the O n o s ' seriously in this light. The text is that of HENRY.

1668

HUGH J. MASON

Οί δέ γε πρώτοι αύτοϋ δύο λόγοι μόνον ού μετεγράφησαν Λουκίω έκ του Λουκιανού λόγου ος έπιγέγραπται Ά ο ΰ κ ι ς ή "Ονος' ή έκ των Λουκίου λόγων Λουκιανώ. "Εοικε δέ μάλλον ó Λουκιανός μεταγράφοντι, οσον είκάζ ε ι ν τίς γαρ χρόνφ πρεσβύτερος, οΰπω έχομεν γνώναι. Καί γαρ ώσπερ άπό πλάτους των Λουκίου λόγων ó Λουκιανός άπολεπτύνας καί περιελών δσα μή έδόκει αύτφ προς τόν οίκεΐον χρήσιμα σκοπόν, αύταΐς τε λέξεσι καί συντάξεσιν είς ένα τα λοιπά συναρμόσας λόγο ν, 'Λοϋκις ή 'Όνος' έπέγραψε τό εκείθεν ύποσυληθέν. Γέμει δέ ó έκατέρου λόγος πλασμάτων μέν μυθικών, άρρητοποιΐας δέ αίσχρδς. Πλην ό μέν Λουκιανός σκώπτων καί διασύρων την Έλληνικήν δεισιδαιμονίαν, ώσπερ κάν τοις άλλοις, καί τούτον συνέταττεν. Ό δέ Λούκιος σπουδάζων τε καί πίστας νομίζων τάς έξ άνθρώπων είς αλλήλους μεταμορφώσεις τάς τε έξ άλογων εις ανθρώπους καί άνάπαλιν καί τόν άλλον των παλαιών μύθων ϋθλον καί φλήναφον, γραφή παρεδίδου ταύτα καί συνύφαινεν. "Read: Several volumes of the 'Metamorphoseis' of L u k i o s of Pa t r a e . H e is clear and pure in expression and fond of sweetness of style. H e avoids innovation in language and pursues to excess the marvellous in his narratives. One might say he is another Lucían. T h e first t w o books were transcribed almost exactly by Lukios from the work of Lucian entitled 'Lukis or the Ass', or by Lucian f r o m the work of Lukios. But it seems more likely that it was Lucian w h o did the transcribing, as far as one can guess, for we no longer can k n o w which of the t w o was older. In fact Lucian, as it were, by smoothing out from the breadth of Lukios' narrative and by removing what did not seem to him useful for his own purpose, fit the rest together into one book with the same words and expressions and gave the title 'Lukis or the Ass' to what he had stolen f r o m it. In both authors the narrative is stuffed with mythical inventions and vile obscenity, except that Lucian works into his narrative the mockery of Greek superstition that he does in his other writing, while Lukios is serious and believes that changes of humans into others' forms and into animals and back again are real, and in the idle chatter and nonsense of the ancient myths, and put all of this into writing and wove it into his narrative."

III. Questions

about

Photios

This section briefly outlines questions raised by Photios' account which merit further discussion in later sections. 1. Was there an a u t h o r "Lukios of Patrae?" (Section IV). Lukios of Patrae is also the name of the n a r r a t o r of O n o s ' (55). Photios' subsequent references to "Lukios" make it clear that he did in fact understand "Metamorphoseis of Lukios of Patrae" also to mean b y Lukios. If Photios was mistaken, and

GREEK AND LATIN VERSIONS OF T H E

ASS-STORY

1669

author and narrator are not the same, then it is possible to suggest another author. 2. Were there more than two books of ass-story? (Section V) There are two possible interpretations of Photios' text. In one view, the 'Metamorphoseis' was a large work dealing only with the ass-story; Photios read the first two books only, but was able to convince himself, on the basis of this abbreviated reading, of the work's similarity to 'Onos'. In the other view, the 'Metamorphoseis' dealt with several tales of transformation, not just the ass-story; the first two books dealt with the ass-story, the other (uncounted) books presented other tales of transformation. Some scholars of Apuleius have seen in the 'Metamorphoseis' of the first type a large-scale composition comparable to the 'Golden Ass'. Other scholars have seen in the "other" stories of transformation postulated by the second view, a possible source for the many "inserted tales" of the 'Golden Ass'. 3. Is 'Onos' an epitome? (Section VI). Photios postulated that O n o s ' was an epitome of 'Metamorphoseis'. BÜRGER13 and others have provided examples of lacunae in O n o s ' which seem to support Photios' supposition. However, some scholars, notably BIANCO,14 see 'Onos' as a complete text, and the 'Metamorphoseis' as an expansion of it. 4. Does 'Onos' demonstrate, as Photios suggests, satire of Greek religion? (Section VII) 5. What is the relationship of Lucian to the 'Onos'? (Section VIII) Discussion of all these topics has been much improved by recent scholarship on Photios, which makes it possible to consider Codex 129 in the general context of Photios' methodology and practice. 15

IV. "Lukios of Ρatrae"

Photios ascribes to the a u t h o r of 'Metamorphoseis' the same name and patria as the n a r r a t o r of 'Onos' (55). Since, according to Photios, O n o s ' employs "the same words and expressions" as the larger work, we must assume that Photios read a text of 'Metamorphoseis' in which "Lukios of Patrae" appeared to be the name of both author and narrator. 16 13

KARL (CAROLUS) BÜRGER, D e L u c i o Patrensi, diss. Berlin, 1 8 8 7 .

14

GERARDO BIANCO, La fonte greca delle Metamorfosi di Apuleio (Antichità class, e crist., 10), Brescia, 1971. TOMAS HÄGG, Photios als Vermittler antiker Literatur, Uppsala, 1975 (HÄGG 1975); WARREN T. TREADGOLD, The Nature of the 'Bibliotheca' of Photius, Washington, DC, 1980. It is clear that the name "Lukios" did appear in the title of Photios' manuscript, and was not deduced by him from the text itself. The heading is identical in form to those of Codices whose author's identity is certain, e. g. Cod. 100, and quite different from those where Photios did not have the author's name, e.g., Cod. 116.

15

16

1670

HUGH

J.

MASON

P E R R Y argued that no ancient author could have presented himself in a work of fiction as an ass and a fool; he concluded, therefore, that "Lucius as author of the ass-story was no more real than Baron Münchhausen or Mr. Gulliver." 1 7 It is true that ancient writers of fiction sometimes risked having their readers believe that they were personally involved; 18 but Lucían in the 'True History' is able to use a narrator "Lucian" without anybody, including Photios, believing that the author himself flew to the moon. R o m a n satirists employed themselves as narrators in imaginary situations which made them seem silly, if nothing worse, 1 9 a practice which may possibly be traced to Menippus. 2 0 To use P E R R Y ' S example, there w a s indeed a Baron Hieronymus von Münchhausen ( 1 7 2 0 - 1 7 9 9 ) ; a fairly extensive body of Münchhausen scholarship discusses the relationship of his (apparently oral) stories to various published Münchhausiaden.21 Despite P E R R Y ' S comments, it is surely not totally inconceivable for an ancient author to have presented himself as an ass in a work of fiction. 2 2

But there are nevertheless reasons to believe that "Lukios" is only the narrator, not the author. T h e name "Lucius" was regularly used, like "Gaius," to indicate a typical R o m a n citizen, especially in legal texts. 2 3 O n o s 55 suppresses αμφω τά λοιπά δύο ονόματα, which would alone make precise identification possible. 2 4 R o m a n citizens are sometimes referred to in Greek texts by their praenomina alone, 2 5 but the practice is not c o m m o n , for obvious reasons. Millions of R o m a n citizens shared a very limited number of 17

BEN EDWIN PERRY, T h e M e t a m o r p h o s e s attributed to Lucius of Patrae ( N e w York 1920), 14 - 15. See also Β. E. PERRY, Ancient Romances. A Literary-Historical Account of their Origins (Sather Class. Lect., 37), (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1967), 212.

18

Augustine, C D 18.18, confused Apuleius with his narrator; Sidonius Apollinaris, 23.155 — 157 seems to have made the same mistake with Petronius.

19

ROGER BECK, T h e ' S a t y r i c o n ' : S a t i r e , N a r r a t o r a n d A n t e c e d e n t s , M H

39 (1982)

206-

214, especially on Varrò (213). 20

JENNIFER H A L L , L u c i a n ' s S a t i r e ( N e w Y o r k 1 9 8 1 ) ,

21

W. R. SCHWEIZER, Münchhausen und Münchhausiaden (Bonn and M ü n c h e n 1969). A m o n g those w h o believe in an author "Lukios of Patrae" are: GERALD M . BROWNE,

22

128-130.

O n t h e ' M e t a m o r p h o s e s ' o f L u c i u s o f P a t r a e , A J P 9 9 ( 1 9 7 8 ) 4 4 2 - 6 ; TREADGOLD, 6 9 ,

n. 10; PAUL-LOUIS COURIER, La Luciade ou l'âne de Lucius de Patrae (Paris 1818), viii; and ALBIN LESKY, Apuleius von Madaura und Lukios von Patrae, Hermes 66 (1941) 43 - 74. 23

24

25

PERRY 1 9 6 7 , 2 2 1 a n d 3 6 9 , n . 9 ; HELMUT VAN THIEL, D e r E s e l s r o m a n , I ( Z e t e m a t a , 5 4 )

(München 1971), 30. M a n y since COURIER 316 have claimed that there is a lacuna in O n o s 55, in which Lukios gives his o w n praenomen as well as his father's; see the discussion in BROWNE, 445. But it does not seem that the text ever supplied his nomen or cognomen, which w o u l d be required for proper identification. Sextus of Chaironeia was referred to by his praenomen to distinguish him from his uncle Plutarch, with w h o m he probably shared nomen and cognomen. Plutarch refers to his friend L. Mestrius Florus as "Floras" but to his h o m o n y m o u s son as "Lucius" (Quaest. Conv. 7.3, 702 f.); cf. Β. PUECH, Prosopographie des amis de Plutarque, A N R W II, 33,6, ed. W. HAASE, B e r l i n - N e w York 1992, 4860. O n the jurist Gaius, see KÜBLER, RE 7.1 (1910), Gaius 2, 490.

GREEK A N D LATIN VERSIONS OF THE ASS-STORY

1671

praenomina; even with an ethnic (e.g., Marcus of Byzantium) the praenomen does not supply enough information for positive identification. 26 Anyone who wished his authorship to be recognized would surely have supplied a fuller version of his name than "Lucius." Those authors who do present themselves in their own narratives are able to do so because they already have a persona, from their other works or their public lives, with which their readers are familiar, and which they can compare with that offered in the work at hand. The narrator "Lucían" of 'True History', for example, can be easily related to the Lucian who is author and participant of other Lucianic works. 2 7 For "Lukios of Patrae" there is no such point of comparison. Perhaps with less confidence than PERRY, we should nevertheless conclude with him, that "Lukios of Patrae" is not likely to have been the name of the author of the 'Metamorphoseis'.

V. "The First Two

Books"

The traditional interpretation of Οί δέ γε πρώτοι δύο λόγοι was that only the first two books of 'Metamorphoseis' dealt with the ass-story; later books contained other examples of metamorphosis. 2 8 This view was challenged by PERRY, who argued that the entire 'Metamorphoseis' dealt with the ass-tale, 29 and has convinced many. 30 JENNIFER HALL returns to the position that the 'Metamorphoseis' contained more than the ass-tale. 31 Both scholars' views depend heavily on their interpretation of the testimony of Photios. PERRY argued that Photios read only the first two books, did not bother to count the total number of books, and chose to "forego the perusal of a story already familiar to him, and none too congenial, written by an author whom he considered a fool." WINKLER restates this argument more clearly: "Since he 26

27

28

29 30

31

Note, for example, the difficulties presented by three philosophical Lukioi, RE 13.2 (1927), Lukios 1, 2, 3. See the discussion by a modern author, JORGE LUIS BORGES, w h o places himself in his own stories; Ν . T. Di GIOVANNI, ed., Borges on Writing (New York 1973), 58. CHRISTOPH-MARTIN WIELAND, Lucian von Samosata, Sämtliche Werke (Leipzig 1788 89), IV, 299; ERWIN ROHDE, Über Lucians Schrift 'Loukios e Onos' and ihr Verhältnis zu Lucius von Patrae (Leipzig 1869) (ROHDE 1869), 19; RUDOLF HELM, Apuleius Metamorphosen oder Der Goldene Esel, 6. Aufl. (Berlin 1970), 14. PERRY 1920, 2 1 - 3 1 ; 1967, 2 1 5 - 2 1 8 . ALEXANDER SCOBIE, Aspects of the Ancient Romance and its Heritage. Essays on Apuleius, Petronius and the Greek Romances (Beitr. zur klass. Philol., 30), (Meisenheim 1969), 3 2 - 3 3 ; Apuleius Metamorphoses I (Meisenheim 1975), 2; VAN THIEL I, 4 - 5 . HALL, Appendix III, 414 - 432. See also KEN DOWDEN, Apuleius and the art of narration, C Q 3 2 ( 1 9 8 2 ) 4 1 9 - 4 3 5 . PAUL JUNGHANNS a l s o a r g u e s f o r t h e t r a d i t i o n a l

interpretation,

Die Erzählungstechnik von Apuleius Metamorphosen und ihrer Vorlage, Philologus, Supplement-Band, 24.1 (Leipzig 1932), 2, note 2: „Unklarheit kann hier nur finden, wer mit vorgefaßter Meinung an den Text herantritt." 108

A N R W II 3 4 . 2

1672

HUGH

J.

MASON

already knew 'Lucius or the Ass', [Photios] did not need to subject himself to the ordeal of reading those wild sexy adventures again." 3 2 HALL however contends that it is quite unlikely that Photios should have failed to complete the reading of a work no more than 100 pages in length, when he had read it with enough care to note its verbal similarities to O n o s ' . She states that Photios regularly tells us when he has not read a work in its entirety, for example in Codices 41 and 97. If the 'Metamorphoseis' had been a diverse collection of paradoxa, P E R R Y argued, Photios would have given us a summary of its contents, as he does in Codd. 130, 188, 189; there is no such summary in Cod. 129, therefore, in PERRY'S view, the 'Metamorphoseis' was not such a collection. However, both HALL and PERRY fail to differentiate properly the different kinds of notes that Photios provides on the works he has studied; 33 the short note composed from memory, H Ä G G ' S Kurzreferat, is quite different from those fuller notes which Photios composed more carefully, by referring back to the manuscripts themselves or to notes based directly on them. Codex 129 is obviously such a Kurzreferat;34 the parallels cited by both H A L L and P E R R Y are from fuller reports. H Ä G G stresses that the argumentum ex silentio, which is employed in this case by both HALL and PERRY in their deductions about the 'Metamorphoseis', is quite inappropriate for a Kurzreferat,35 A useful parallel to Cod. 129 is provided by Codices 112 — 113, on the Clementine 'Recognitions' and 'Homilies', a typical Kurzreferat. T R E A D G O L D ' S suggestion in this case, that "apparently Photius read the 'Recognitions' but only glanced at the manuscripts of the 'Homilies'.... He concluded ... that the two texts were the same and did not continue reading a book he thought he had already read," 3 6 is remarkably similar to the views of PERRY and WINKLER on Lukios. PERRY argued that author-narrator confusion could not have arisen unless all the tales dealt with Lucius, and that it is unlikely that after the assadventure, Lucius could have been plausibly portrayed as very interested in metamorphosis. HALL counters with the suggestion that the later stories could have presented Lucius as the "narrating" rather than the "experiencing" I, so that some of the tale was indeed " b y " as well as " a b o u t " Lucius of Patrae. PERRY argued that the combination of the ass-story with a collection of transformation-tales would have been an absurd compilation; he stressed that Photios in Cod. 166 compared 'Metamorphoseis' with 'True History' as an example of a non-erotic tale of adventure, rather than with Damascius' collection of paradoxa (Cod. 130). H A L L responds that Damascius is excluded from the comparison not because his subject-matter is different, but because his work is a collection of s h o r t anecdotes, and that Photios quite rightly compares 'Metamorphoseis' to Antonius Diogenes, 'Wonders Beyond Thüle', 32

" 34 35 3I

WINKLER, 256. HÄGG 1975, 1 8 9 - 2 0 3 ; TREADGOLD, 8 1 - 9 6 . TREADGOLD, 181. HÄGG 1975, 199; TREADGOLD, 112. TREADGOLD, 71.

GREEK

AND

LATIN

VERSIONS

OF

THE

ASS-STORY

1673

as an example of a tale of fantastic adventure which combines a number of narratives into a unified tale. A similarly complex story with many incidents of transformation would not, she argues, have been impossible for a secondcentury writer to compose. The subscript to the manuscript of O n o s ' , Vaticanus 9 0 ( M A C L E O D [1974] 2.309) d e s c r i b e s O n o s ' as Λ Ο Υ Κ Ι Α Ν Ο Υ Ε Π Ι Τ Ο Μ Η Τ Ω Ν

ΛΟΥΚΙΟΥ

supports P E R R Y in claiming that this proves that the 'Metamorphoseis' dealt with the ass-story only. 37 However, as H A L L states, the absence of any mention of the "first two books" in the subscription could be due to imprecise expression or careless omission on the part of the subscriptor. The subscription may not be independent of Photios; 38 even if it does offer independent testimony, it does not provide convincing evidence concerning the contents of the 'Metamorphoseis'. H A L L argues ( 4 2 7 ) that Photios' words about the author's belief in the "transformation of men into other men" and similar matters implies a n u m b e r of stories about transformation. This can be countered by P E R R Y ' S assertion that σπουδάζων τε και πίστας νομίζων τάς έξ άνθρώπων εις αλλήλους μεταμορφώσεις τάς τε έξ αλόγων εις ανθρώπους και άνάπαλιν could be based on a statement by Lukios in the 'Metamorphoseis' comparable to those made by Lucius in the 'Golden Ass', AA 1.20.3, 2.1.3, and by the claim of a number of scholars that Photios' phrase is derived from a statement in the prologue of the 'Metamorphoseis' which can be postulated also to have been the source of Apuleius' figuras fortunasque hominum in alias imagines conuersas et in se rursum mutuo nexu refectas (AA 1.1.2). 39 Μ Ε Τ Α Μ Ο Ρ Φ Ο Σ Ε Ω Ν . VALLETTE

After reading H A L L , I am less certain than I once was that the 'Metamorphoseis' contained only the ass-story; 40 we should perhaps pay more attention to BIANCO'S emphasis on Photios' opposition between two books of 'Metamorphoseis' and one of 'Onos' as an indication of the dimensions of the assstory. 41 In a brief note on the 'Metamorphoseis', Photios chose to record only the two books that interested him (possibly the only ones he read), along with some general facts that he could have derived from a prologue. On balance,

37

38

39

40

41

108*

VALLETTE xvi, n. 1, « Le copiste tenait 'l'Âne' pour un abrégé, non d'une partie des 'Métamorphoses' de Lucius, mais du tout. » PERRY 1920, 27, n. 2 argues that the subscription may be independent, ROHDE 1869, 2, that it is not. VALLETTE, x v i i , D O W D E N , 4 2 6 , SCOBIE 1 9 7 5 , 6 5 ; M A R I A - T E R E S A SCOTTI, IL p r o e m i o d e l l e

'Metamorfosi' tra Ovidio e Apuleio, GIF n. s. 13 (1982), 54; TREADGOLD, 112. B. E. PERRY, The significance of the title in Apuleius 'Metamorphoses', CP 18 (1923) 199, denies the significance of the similarities. VAN THIEL, I, 4, argues correctly that diaphoroi is a term used by Photios in reference to several other works, and is not therefore an original phrase in the 'Metamorphoseis' reflected in Apuleius' uarias fabulas. H. J. MASON, Apuleius' 'Metamorphoses' and 'Lucius siue Asinus' since Rohde, in: Erot. Ant., 147; A A G A , 3. BIANCO, 1 4 ; M A Z Z A R I N O , 9 4 f.

1674

HUGH J. MASON

it seems best to assume those t w o books contained the entire ass-story; we can d r a w n o useful conclusion f r o m Photios' absence of comment about the number, content, or tone of the other books.

V/.

Epitome?

Photios concluded that Lucian had transcribed and abbreviated "Lukios;" the same assertion occurs in the subscription to the Lucian manuscript Vaticanus 90, but may not be independent testimony. Scholars in general have been willing to accept the conclusion that O n o s ' is an epitome, especially after B Ü R G E R and others provided examples of supposed lacunae in the text. 4 2 B I A N C O presents the alternative explanation, that O n o s ' is a unified, unabridged text, f r o m which the longer 'Metamorphoseis' was expanded. 4 3 While B I A N C O ' S assertion of the essential coherence of O n o s ' provides a valuable counterbalance to a century of dissection of the story, his attempt (93 - 1 3 3 ) to disprove the existence of lacunae has not been convincing. 4 4 T h e conditions for these lacunae are quite rigorous: (a) T h e text of O n o s ' must be logically or linguistically problematical; (b) Apuleius' text must be close enough to the Greek that it is safe to assume that he is following it at that point; 4 5 (c) An easy correction or addition can be made to the Greek text f r o m the Latin without introducing any obviously Apuleian feature. 4 6 Passages frequently cited include: 4 7 (a) Onos 17 = AA 3. 39, ωστε ές τήν τότε και εμεινα ονος, with no explanation of why he remained an ass; (b) Onos 24 = AA 6. 29, ενθα έσχίζετο τριπλή όδός, with no explanation of the significance of the cross-roads; ^ (c) Onos 38 = AA 8. 28, εκείνη τη εκ των αστραγάλων μάστιγι, with no antecedent for έκείντ); 42

43

1887; Α . GOLDBACHER, Über Lucius von Patrae, den dem Lukian zugeschriebenen Λούκιος ή Ό ν ο ς und des Apuleius 'Metamorphosen', ZÖstGym 23 (1872) 323—341, 4 0 3 - 4 3 1 ; JUNGHANNS, 5 , 39, 47, 106, 118; PERRY 1920, 8 - 1 2 ; M. ROTHSTEIN, Quaestiones Lucianeae (Berlin 1888), 1 2 8 - 1 3 8 . BIANCO, 1 6 3 ; see also COURIER, X, and W . S. TEUFFEL, Lukians Lucius und Apuleius' Metamorphosen, RhM 1 9 ( 1 8 6 4 ) 2 4 3 - 2 5 4 , reissued in ID., Studien und Charakteristiken zur griechischen und römischen Literaturgeschichte, 2nd. ed. (Leipzig 1 8 8 9 ) , ( 5 7 2 — 5 8 4 ) , BÜRGER

581. 44

WALSH 1 9 7 4 , 2 1 7 ; A N D E R S O N 1 9 7 6 , 3 5 , n . 3 .

45

These comparisons are greatly aided by

46

PERRY 1 9 2 0 , 9 - 1 0 ; M A S O N , A A G A , 3 , n . 3 5 .

47

Μ. D. M A C L E O D in his Loeb edition, Lucian 8 (Cambridge, Ma. and London 1967), 48, and 113, n. 1, emphasises Onos 24, 36 and 38, especially the unexplained demonstrative in 38.

VAN THIEL, II,

Synoptische Ausgabe.

GREEK A N D LATIN VERSIONS OF THE ASS-STORY

1675

(d) Onos 40 — 41 = AA 9.2, with no explanation of how the ass is shown to be free of hydrophobia; (e) Onos 44 = AA 9. 39, where a soldier τά μέν πρώτα λαλεί προς ημάς τη 'Ιταλών φωνή, with no account of his later switch to Greek. In each case, BIANCO gives some degree of sense to the text, but does not address the purely linguistic questions; what is the normal use in ' O n o s ' of ώστε (17), of έκείνΐ] (38), of μέν (44), without a following δέ? Overall, Photios' conclusion that Onos was an epitome seems to be supported by the evidence.

VII. Satire in 'Onos'?

Photios asserted that Onos is an example of satire on Greek religion, while "Lukios" in 'Metamorphoseis' genuinely believed in transformation and such "pagan nonsense." It is quite possible that the narrator Lukios in the 'Metamorphoseis' may have made pronouncements comparable to those of Apuleius' narrator Lucius (AA 1.20.3), ego uero nihil impossibile arbitror,48 which might explain Photios' account of the credulity of the author "Lukios;" but h o w could an epitome employing αύταΐς τε λέξεσι και συντάξεσιν as the original have changed a "serious" work into satire? 49 Photios certainly believed that change of this kind was possible in the process of making an epitome. In Codex 98 he argues that Zosimos transcribed and abbreviated Eunapios, but at the same time eliminated Eunapios' attacks on Stilicho; he uses the same terms in Codex 98 for "transcribing" (μεταγράφειν) and "attacking" (σκώπτειν) as he does in Codex 129. In the case of Eunapios, it appears that Photios was mistaken: where Zosimos' text depends on Eunapios, he is as critical of Stilicho as his source; it is only in his account of events after 408 (for which Eunapios was not available) that Zosimos lessens his criticism of Stilicho. 50 It seems highly unlikely that the tone and purpose of a w o r k can be changed by simple abbreviation; Photios was probably as wrong to see a change of this type in ' O n o s ' as he was in the work of Zosimos. Does the ' O n o s ' in fact show an attack on "Greek superstition?" W E R N E R could find no evidence of it. 51 PETER apparently concluded from the absence

48

PERRY 1 9 2 0 , 5 1 .

49

P. M .

50

BOLDERMANN, Studia Lucianea (diss. Leiden 1 8 8 3 ) , 1 1 3 , observes that Photios' description of "Lukios" as "another Lucían" makes it difficult to conceive of O n o s ' and 'Metamorphoseis' as fundamentally different. COURIER (iv) calls it a « rêverie toute manifeste» to believe that one author should employ a different tone from the other « en écrivant les mêmes choses dans les mêmes termes. » F. PASCHOUD, ed., Zosime I (Paris 1971), x x x v - x x x v i . See also PASCHOUD xxi, T R E A D GOLD 6 9 .

51

H. W E R N E R , Zum 'Loukios e Onos', Hermes, 53 (1918) 229; see also H A L L , 356, M A S O N , A A G A 4 , J. G W Y N GRIFFITHS, Apuleius of Madauros, The Isis-Book (Leiden 1975), 1.

1676

H U G H J. M A S O N

of satire, that Photios read a different 'Onos' from the one we have. 52 ANDERSON53 sees the attack on the Syrian priests (Onos 3 6 - 4 1 ) as an example of satire on paganism, but the priests are treated in the same way by Apuleius, 54 so that we must conclude that the (supposedly credulous) author of 'Metamorphoseis' was also equally critical. This passage, at least, cannot be the source of Photios' distinction between a satirical O n o s ' and a credulous 'Metamorphoseis'. There is in fact nothing in O n o s ' that resembles Lucian's very direct satire in works such as 'Alexander' or 'Peregrinus', or even that in 'Philopseudes' or 'True History'. 5 5 H o w then did Photios come to describe 'Onos' as satirical? This can perhaps best be understood when we consider his method in short reviews. In making notes on his reading of a wide variety of Lucianic texts (including 'Onos') in Codex 128, Photios chose as the salient point in Lucian's work his "attack on Greek religion." When he later came to read the 'Metamorphoseis', he observed its apparent verbal similarity to 'Onos', and the supposed faith of "Lukios" in transformations (probably on the basis of something in the prologue). It is quite unlikely that he then went back and re-read 'Onos' in his manuscript of Lucian, 56 and made extensive commentary on it. Rather, he ascribed to it once again the particular feature which he already had decided was most typical of Lucian, and had recorded in his earlier note. 57 Failing to find in 'Onos' evidence of direct satire on Greek religion, ROHDE argued that the author of O n o s ' adapted the 'Metamorphoseis' in such a way as to parody its author's serious beliefs; by substituting the name of the a u t h o r of 'Metamorphoseis', "Lukios of Patrae," according to ROHDE, the author of 'Onos' was attempting to depict a rival as a credulous fool. 5 8 Similar views were expressed by others, 59 and were quite popular for a while, 60 52

H. PETER, Der R o m a n bei den Griechen, N e u e s Schweizerisches M u s e u m 6 (1866) 16, η. 30; I rely on the report of this by ROHDE 1869, 6. Few will relish the prospect of yet another version of the ass-story.

53

ANDERSON 1 9 7 6 , 4 5 .

54

AA 8 . 2 4 - 3 0 ; see the analysis of this section of Ά Α ' in G C A 1985, 2 0 3 - 2 7 1 , 2 8 6 - 2 9 8 . BÜRGER 1887, 7; PAULA JAMES, Unity in Diversity: A Study of Apuleius' Metamorphoses (Hildesheim 1987), 7 - 24. MASON, A A G A , 4. HALL, 1 9 4 - 2 0 7 and 367 shows h o w "Lucian the iconoclast" is an idée fixe of Photios, and not really a correct characterization even of those works which Photios cites by name in Codex 128. ROHDE 1869. T h e position was first stated by J.-L. LEBEAU, Sur le 'Lucius ou l'âne' de Lucien, H M A I 34 (1770) 4 3 - 4 8 . T h e hypothesis w a s presented, apparently independently, by HELMUT JENNING, in: De metamorphosibus L. Apuleii, Berlin 1871. F. DORNSEIFF, Lukios' and Apuleius' 'Metamorphosen', Hermes 73 (1938) 2 2 2 - 2 3 3 ; O. GRUPPE, Review of REITZENSTEIN, Mysterienreligionen 2 , PhilWoch 41 (1921) 3 6 2 369; R. REITZENSTEIN, Hellenistische Wundererzählungen (Leipzig 1906), 32; E. ROHDE, Z u Apuleius, R h M 40 (1885) 6 6 - 9 5 ; M . SCHANZ, Geschichte der römischen Literatur III (München 1897), 91; O. SCHISSEL, Lukios von Patrai, RE 13.2 (1927) 1 7 9 8 - 1 8 0 2 ; E. SCHWARTZ, Fünf Vorträge über den griechischen R o m a n (Berlin 1895), 144; H. VON

55

56 57

58

59

60

GREEK A N D L A T I N V E R S I O N S O F T H E

ASS-STORY

1677

although, as B O L D E R M A N N pointed out, 6 1 they are surely a misinterpretation of Photios: neque Photius scripsit διασύρων τον Λούκιον sed διασύρων τήν Έλληνικήν δεισιδαιμονίαν. Where we do have the original texts ourselves, there are many cases in which we can tell that we need not accept without question Photios' judgment of their character, or even content. 6 2 The O n o s ' is not prima facie satire in the Lucianic manner on Greek superstition; there is no reason to alter our initial impression of the work on the basis of Photios' comments alone.

VIII. Lucían and the Authorship

of

Onos'

Photios believed that Lucían was the author of O n o s ' ; he presumably found the story, as we do now, in the same manuscripts as other Lucianic works. The first to dispute Lucian's authorship was T A N A Q U I L F A B E R , although he never presented his arguments in detail. 63 There are two principal reasons for doubting Lucian's authorship: (1) the conviction that Lucian could not have simply copied another's work; (2) a number of linguistic peculiarities alleged to be uncharacteristic of Lucian.

1. Lucianus

epitomatori

W I E L A N D perceived that an author like Lucian could never have produced a mere copy of another's work. 6 4 W I E L A N D , who himself adapted Lucian to such effect in such works as 'Peregrinus Proteus' and 'Neue Göttersprache', 6 5 was keenly aware of the difference between mere copying and creative adaptation, 66 and we should respect in this matter the judgment of a talented creative writer. W I E L A N D correctly emphasized Photios' pejorative terminology for the

ARNIM, Über Lucians 'Onos', WS 22 (1900) 176; CARL C. SCHLAM, T h e End of Lucian's O n o s ' , I C A N T W O , Proceedings of the International Conference: T h e Ancient N o v e l . Classical Paradigms and M o d e r n Perspectives (Hanover, N H , July 23 - 29, 1989) (Hanover 1990), 138. 61

BOLDERMANN, 108; see a l s o HALL, 5 8 4 , n. 7 2 .

62

HÄGG 1975, 46; see TREADGOLD, 70, "his conjecture was w r o n g , as he w o u l d have seen himself if he had rechecked w h a t he had said." TANAQUIL FABER, Epistolae, II (Saumur 1665), 194; Phaedri Fabulae (Saumur 1673), 4. CHRISTOPH-MARTIN WIELAND, Über den wahren Verfasser des 'Lucius', Lucian von Samosata, Sämtliche Werke (Leipzig 1788 - 89) IV, 296. For a review of scholarship on WIELAND, see H.-J. SCHELLE, ed., Christoph-Martin Wieland (Darmstadt 1981). See also COURIER, vii: « Voltaire peut parfois imiter d'autres écrivains; mais ira-t-il transcrire des morceaux de Rabelais? »

63 64

65

66

1678

H U G H J.

MASON

adaptation (ύποσυληθέν); in his accounts of other epitomes, Photios' expression is neutral or even congratulatory. 6 7 Few have attempted to argue against W I E L A N D directly; SCHMID theorized that Lucian copied another's work from dira nécessitas, and from a desire to please an audience by his startling effects. 68 N E U K A M M expanded this to a picture of Lucian as a desperate and impoverished old man. 6 9 This portrait of Lucian driven to plagiarism by acute poverty is quite implausible, given what is generally accepted about his personality and career; it is not a picture which one would expect scholars like A N D E R S O N , who cite SCHMID and 70 N E U K A M M with respect, to accept. WIELAND'S solution was to deny that O n o s ' was a copy or an epitome; for him, O n o s ' was the original work and Lucianic and expanded by "Lukios." 7 1 W I E L A N D was followed in some detail by K N A U T 7 2 and TEUFFEL. 7 3 Their argument is that Photios had no sound basis for his guess (εικάζειν) that Lucian adapted "Lukios," rather than the reverse, and that a creative author like Lucian is more likely to have been adapted by others than to have adapted their work. But this argument from probability is not sufficient to demolish the proof, on the basis of lacunae, that O n o s ' is an epitome (section VI, above 1674). If the epitome is as clumsy and mechanical as some see it, the likelihood of its being Lucianic is still further reduced. 74 R O H D E 1 8 6 9 defended Lucianic authorship on the grounds that 'Onos' was not a s i m p l e epitome, but an adaptation for satiric purposes; but the case that O n o s ' is a satire or parody is not convincing (see section VII, above 1 6 7 6 ) , nor is parody of the type proposed by R O H D E typical of Lucian's methods in attacking his enemies. 75 Further, it has never been convincingly demonstrated that (or how) an epitome employing "the same words and phrases" can achieve the effect of satirizing or parodying its source. A N D E R S O N claims that Lucian himself epitomized his own work, or rather first "wrote an elaborate version ... and later rewrote it ... recasting the tone to produce a different kind of humour." 7 6 A N D E R S O N provides a number of instances where Lucian appears to have reworked his own material, but these 67 68

69

Contrast Codices 107 (Stobaios), 186 (Apollodoros), 216 (Oreibasios). W. SCHMID, Bemerkungen über Lucians Leben und Schriften, Philologus 5 0 (1891) 2 7 9 319. V. NEUKAMM, D e Luciano 'Asini' auctore (Leipzig 1904), 106.

70

ANDERSON 1 9 7 6 , 4 3 .

71

WIELAND,

72

K. F. E. KNAUT, D e Luciano libelli qui inscribitur 'Lucius sive Asinus' auctore (Leipzig 1868), 25.

302-303.

73

TEUFFEL 1 8 8 9 ,

74

HALL, 3 6 0 a n d 5 8 7 , n. 75.

75

Contrast the treatment of "Lexiphanes" and "Pseudologista;" C. P. JONES, TWO enemies of Lucian, GRBS 13 (1972) 4 6 5 - 4 8 7 . ANDERSON 1976, 46; W. SCHMID, Epikritisches zur Echtheitsfrage v o n Lucianus O n o s ' , BPW 3 9 (1919) 168, also alludes t o e x a m p l e s of self-epitomizing, referring t o E. ROHDE, D e r G r i e c h i s c h e R o m a n 3 (Leipzig 1914), 429.

76

581-3.

GREEK

A N D

LATIN

VERSIONS

OF

THE

ASS-STORY

1679

interesting examples of self-pastiche do not constitute a very close parallel to two "almost identical" editions of the same tale. 7 7

2. Lucianus

soloecistai

There are some marked linguistic oddities in the text of ' O n o s ' . These led BELIN DE BALLU to declare that on stylistic grounds, O n o s ' was too early for Lucian. 7 8 COBET argued on similar grounds that it was too late. 7 9 Since then, there has been a widespread conviction that the language of O n o s ' proves it is not by Lucian. Others have attempted to show that the language of O n o s ' is indeed Lucianic, indicating that some of its more unusual vocabulary can be paralleled elsewhere in Lucian, 8 0 or else have argued that the language of O n o s ' was deliberately non-Attic, either (as R O H D E thought) in an attempt to parody the style as well as the content of the 'Metamorphoseis', 8 1 or else because the author chose a style more appropriate for informal storytelling and mime, what SCHMID termed „mimische Erzählung,"82 It must be asked if the choice of an informal stylistic register can explain instances of what appear to be solecisms, or at least forms approaching modern dhimotiki, such as οίκοδντα ές τά Ύ π α τ α (1), the use of the accusative participle είπόντα with no obvious accusative referent (3), or uncertainties in the proper use of δποι (1) and ποΐ (4). Such usage cannot be satisfactorily explained as an attempt to present realistically the normal speech of the narrator; expressions of this type would not have been expected f r o m a man as educated as the Lucius of Onos 55. 83 If a non-Attic style was being deliberately parodied by a linguistic purist, one would expect the linguistic usage to be consistent; but VAN THIEL demonstrates clearly the extent to which ' O n o s ' mixes Attic and non-Attic forms, with n o clear pattern to the choice. 84 Some of the strangest grammatical errors, such as the use of the accusative participle in Onos 3, might be explained as the result of careless epitomizing, retaining a case form f r o m the original without adapting it to the syntax of

77

HALL

in

her

review

of

ANDERSON

1976

in

JHS

100

(1980)

231-233

criticizes

his

s o m e w h a t loose parallels; similarly, R. TH. VAN DER PAARDT, SAG 1981, 4, "Similarity is one thing, dependency another." 78 79

80

81

82

BELIN DE BALLU, Traduction des Œuvres de Lucien (Paris 1789), III, 175. C. G. COBET, Variae Lectiones 2 (Leiden 1852), 260, provides only a few examples. Fuller lists may be f o u n d in R. HELM, Lukianos, RE 13.2 (1927) 1729, and VAN THIEL, I, 167, n. 10. M o s t notably KNAUT and NEUKAMM, f o l l o w e d by B. E. PERRY, O n the authenticity of 'Lucius sive Asinus', CP 21 (1926) 2 2 5 - 2 3 4 ; ANDERSON 1976, 43. ROHDE 1869, 37; ROHDE later gave up Lucianic authorship, placing less weight than before o n the subscription in Vaticanus 90, Z u Apuleius, R h M 40 (1885) 91. SCHMID 1891, 316; Der griechische R o m a n , N J b b 13 (1904) 4 8 4 - 5 ; 1919, 1 6 7 - 6 8 . See a l s o NEUKAMM, 106; ANDERSON 1976, 43.

83 84

HALL, 3 6 0 - 1 , and notes 7 6 - 7 8 , pp. 5 8 8 - 5 8 9 . VAN THIEL, I, 2 1 9 - 2 2 2 .

1680

HUGH J.

MASON

a differently structured sentence in the epitome. 85 Also typical of a mechanical epitomator, but not of a self-conscious literary author like Lucian, is the confused paragraph in Onos 44, in which ό δέ is used to introduce six consecutive sentences, with the subject changing each time. 86 The Lucianic parallels cited by KNAUT and NEUKAMM do not demonstrate Lucianic authorship; many are found in a range of authors and are not typical of Lucian alone. 87 No-one has yet, to my knowledge, attempted an analysis of 'Onos' using criteria other than vocabulary and syntax; criteria of authenticity, for example, comparable to the use of prose-rhythm and the avoidance of hiatus in the Demosthenic corpus. 88 With such criteria as we do have, the linguistic evidence points against Lucianic authorship of 'Onos'. 8 9

3. Who if not Lucian? For those who accept that O n o s ' is an epitome, produced without care or any special satirical purpose, the epitomator's name and date are not significant. I am not aware of any study which accepts the view of O n o s ' as a mechanical epitome but attempts to place the epitomator between the time of the 'Metamorphoseis' and Photios. The nature of some of the grammatical errors might suggest a date closer to Photios. Those who do n o t hold that O n o s ' is an epitome, but who also do not accept Lucian as the author, do not address the question of authorship of O n o s ' . BIANCO refers to the author as "pseudo-Luciano," and is content to cite others' views on its author. 90 COURIER, who believed that the 'Metamorphoseis' was a « pitoyable amplification » of 'Onos', ascribed both to "Lucius of Patrae," 91 who probably (section IV, above 1670) was not the author of anything. It should not, however, cause any surprise that 'Onos' is found in our manuscripts of Lucian. It is remarkably easy to confuse "Lucius" and "Lucian" and vice-versa. 92 SCHLAM, in a careful review of Apuleian scholarship, reports PERRY'S view that "Lucius" (sic) "was himself the author of the lost

85 86

87 88

85

MACLEOD, Loeb edition, ad loc., (8, 277), compendium neglegenter esse factum puto. BIANCO, 127 notes the change of subject, but defends the section as original, but not Lucianic. HALL, 3 6 2 - 3 . D. F. MCCABE, T h e Prose-Rhythm of Demosthenes, diss. Harvard 1980, published N e w York 1981. Nothing has been discovered to alter the judgment of R . J. DEFERRARI, Lucian's Atticism (Princeton 1916), recording a high proportion of verb forms in O n o s ' with few or no parallels in Lucian.

90

BIANCO, 9 , n. 2 .

91

COURIER, viii, x: the 'Metamorphoseis' were written « par Lucius vielli, mal inspiré, ayant perdu toute sa verve. » N o t e here the similarity to the elderly, impoverished Lucian

92

I have had to correct at least one example of my own error in writing Lucian for Lucius in the preparation of this article.

o f SCHMID a n d

NEUKAMM.

GREEK A N D LATIN

VERSIONS OF T H E

ASS-STORY

1681

'Metamorphoseis'." 93 POGGIO, who, so far as I can tell, was blissfully unaware of Photios' account of "Lukios of Patrae" and his 'Metamorphoseis', refers to the author of O n o s ' as „Lucius philosophus Syras;" 94 B E R O A L D O , equally unaware of Photios' "Lukios of Patrae," called the author of O n o s ' „Lucius Lucianus Patrensis,"95

IX. The Date of the

'Metamorphoseis'

1. Introduction Since it became apparent that O n o s ' is an epitome and also (section XIII, below 1696) not the direct source of Apuleius, research has naturally focused on the 'Metamorphoseis'. Underlying such research, but not always clearly enunciated, are assumptions about the date of the lost work. It must have been written a f t e r the settlement of a Roman colony at Patrae in 14 BCE, 9 6 and before the publication of the 'Golden Ass', a date itself in dispute but probably no earlier than the 170's CE. 97 This section analyses possible criteria for bringing these termini close together.

2. Lucius' Social Status Lucius is a Roman citizen, but obviously Greek in culture; whether he is an ethnic Greek who has acquired Roman citizenship or a Hellenized Roman, 98 his situation is one that is found more frequently a generation or two after the colony at Patrae was established than it was in its early years. 99 Lucius'

93 94

95

CARL C. SCHLAM, The Scholarship on Apuleius since 1938, C W 64 (1971) 292. His translation is entitled 'Lucii philosophi Syri comoedia quae Asinus intitulatur'. "Philosophi Syri" makes it clear that he is referring to Lucían, as does his dedication to Cosimo de' Medici, which refers to "Lucius' " habit of non tantum homines sed et déos irridendi. WERNER 231 comments on the error. FILIPPO BEROALDO, Commentarli in Asinum aureum Lucii Apuleii (Bononiae 1500); see KONRAD KRAUTTER, Philologische Methode und humanistische Existenz (München 1971), 54, n. 47.

96

E. MEYER, Patrai, R E 18.4 (1949),

97

RUDOLF HELM, Praefatio Floridorum, Apuleii opera, II.2 (Leipzig 1910), i x - x ; G . W . BOWERSOCK, Zur Geschichte des römischen Thessaliens, R h M 108 (1965) 282, n. 31; VAN THIEL, I, 36, n. 92; R. G. SUMMERS, A note on the date of the 'Golden Ass', AJP 94 (1973) 3 6 5 - 3 8 3 ;

2210.

P. G . W A L S H , T h e R o m a n

Novel. T h e Satyricon of Petronius

the M e t a m o r p h o s e s of Apuleius (Cambridge 1970), 98 99

and

248-251.

On this see P. G. WALSH, Was Lucius a Roman? C J 63 (1968) 2 6 4 - 5 . BIANCO 171. Corinth was almost completely Hellenized by the time of Hadrian; see Corinth 8.3 (Princeton 1969), 1 8 - 1 9 ,

[ D i o C h r y s . ] 3 7 , 2 6 . C f . J . WISEMAN, C o r i n t h

and

1682

H U G H J.

MASON

family has ties to the Roman governor (Onos 55). These ties are not perhaps as intimate as those of Plutarch with Sosius Senecio, cos 99 CE, governor of Achaea and host of a banquet for Plutarch and his circle at Patrae, 100 but friendships between the local Achaean élite and Roman governors became more common towards the end of the first century of the Common Era.

3. The Arena and "Pasiphae" P E R R Y thought that the comparison of Lucius' sexual partner to Pasiphae (Onos 51), and the idea of putting on an act of sexual bestiality in the theatre, should be dated after an apparent "live" performance by a "Pasiphae" and a bull in the circus at Rome in 80 CE. 101 Although any educated author might have thought of the "Pasiphae" comparison, it is indeed unlikely that an act which was a novelty in Rome in 80 CE could plausibly have been set in Thessalonike before that year. The Roman ludi, with wild beasts and gladiators, were still relatively uncommon in continental Greece in the first century of the Common Era; 102 Dio Chrysostom's 'Rhodian Oration' (31,121 —122), from 70 — 75 CE, appears to describe their recent introduction in Athens. 103 Muñera are attested epigraphically in Thessalonike in 141 CE, 104 but were probably established earlier, in the latter half of the first century. It was towards the end of that century that the economic recovery of Greece produced individuals with the surplus wealth required for the production of Roman-style games. 105 SCHMID and SCHISSEL suggested that Juvenal 6.334, quo minus imposito clunem submittat asello, was based on knowledge of the ass-story, and that therefore the 'Metamorphoseis' must be dated before the approximate date of Juvenal, ca 110 CE. 106 But the sexual act with an ass is attested in Egyptian and other art long before Juvenal. 107 In fact the point of both Onos 32 (the Rome I: 228 B . C . - A . D . 267, A N R W II, 7,1, ed. H. TEMPORINI, B e r l i n - N e w York 1 9 7 9 , 4 3 8 - 5 4 8 , esp.

100

502-508.

We are less well informed about Patrae, see R E 18.4 (1949) 2213; but as the foundation of Patrae included a synoikism of surrounding districts as well as the settlement of veterans, it was probably at least as Greek in character as Corinth. Plutarch, Q C 2.1 ( = Mor. 629F); F. D. FUHRMAN, Plutarque, Œuvres Morales 9.1 (Paris 1972), 3.

101 102

103

PERRY 1920, 62, citing Martial, Lib. Spec. 5 and Suetonius, Nero, 12.3. Louis ROBERT, Les gladiateurs dans l'orient grec (Paris 1940) 2 3 9 - 2 6 7 . See also L. ROBERT, Hellenica. Recueil d'épigraphie de numismatique et d'antiquités grecques, II, (Paris 1946), 149. C. P. JONES, The Roman world of Dio Chrysostom (Cambridge, Mass. 1976), 32. IG X . 2 , 1 3 6 .

105

R O B E R T 1 9 4 0 , 2 4 8 . J . A . O . LARSEN, R o m a n G r e e c e , i n : TENNEY FRANK, e d . , E c o n o m i c

106

Survey of Ancient Rome, IV, (Baltimore 1938), 482. W. SCHMID, Bermerkungen über Lucians Leben und Schriften, Philologus 50 (1891) 314, η. 7; O. SCHISSEL, Lukios von Patrai, R E 13.2 (1927) 1799.

107

GRIFFITHS, 2 5 , 3 7 .

GREEK

AND

LATIN VERSIONS

OF T H E

ASS-STORY

1683

ass accused of rape) and Onos 50 — 52 (the ass's intercourse with a woman) is more effective if the idea of ass —woman intercourse is already a literary commonplace. T h e author of 'Metamorphoseis' is then giving a new twist to a familiar theme by having the ass in these situations be an Eselsmensch.108 Juvenal, in other words, does not help us in determining the date of 'Metamorphoseis'.

4. T h e Sophist Dekrianos VAN THIEL argues that Dekrianos, the sophist from Patrae (Onos 2.2) suggests a Hadrianic date; the name Dekrianos is first attested under Hadrian and his title as ό Πατρεύς σοφιστής implies an „amtliche Stellung." Such a position in Patrae should, according to VAN THIEL, be dated after the establishment of the official "chairs" in Athens. 1 0 9 But any Dekrianos before Hadrian could destroy the first argument ex silentio, and the most cursory reading of Philostratus' 'Lives of the Sophists' is sufficient to show that "the sophist from x" need not be the holder of an official post. 1 1 0 However, the rôle of sophists as figures of social and intellectual importance is in general a second-century phenomenon; the earliest member of the Second Sophistic named by Philostratus is Niketas of Smyrna, of Neronian date. 111 Patrae was not a great intellectual centre in the Roman period; in matters such as providing employment for a sophist, it probably followed cities like Smyrna and Athens by some years. One might suggest that a sophist from Patrae is not likely to occur before the end of the first century.

5. Beroia and Thessaly In Onos 34, the peasants flee to Beroia, ές πόλιν της Μακεδονίας Βέροιαν μεγάλην καί πολυάνθρωπον. BIANCO argues that this dates the story after 97 CE, when Beroia officially received the titles of metropolis and neokoros.m T h e author may not here be stressing Beroia's recent prosperity and importance, but simply contrasting a large town with the small villages and deserted mountain districts of the previous chapters; 1 1 3 but even if he is stressing Beroia's prosperity, the importance of the city goes back well into the first

108

G C A 1981, 2 2 3 discusses the psychopathology of this passage. See GRAHAM ANDERSON, Ancient Fiction: T h e Novel in the G r a e c o - R o m a n World (London, Sydney and T o t o w a , N J 1984), 2 0 1 - 2 0 2 , for another example of the theme of intercourse with an ass.

105

VAN T H I E L , I, 3 6 , n . 3 1 .

110

e . g . V.S. 1.10 (494), Protagoras. G. W. BOWERSOCK, Greek Sophists in the R o m a n Empire ( O x f o r d 1969), 9.

111 112

BIANCO,

113

See G C A 1 9 8 5 , 1 4 6 , 1 9 5 , suggesting the formulaic nature of the expression, and providing a parallel in X e n o p h o n , Anab. 1,2.7.

173.

1684

HUGH

J.

MASON

century, when it became the seat of the provincial koinon,114 Nerva's grants of special status to Beroia mark the crowning, not the beginning, of its prosperity, and are inappropriate as a terminus post quern for the 'Metamorphoseis'. A number of scholars have argued that the qualification of Beroia as πόλις της Μακεδονίας is of importance, suggesting that Beroia's location in another province is deliberately contrasted with previous sections of the story which are set in Thessaly. According to this theory, the peasants are able to escape pursuit by fleeing from Thessaly into another (Roman) province. 115 Hence, they contend, the 'Metamorphoseis' must be dated before the transfer of Thessaly from Achaea to Macedonia. This transfer is placed by VAN T H I E L and B I A N C O in the time of Antoninus Pius, but B R O W N E cites B O W E R S O C K ' S demonstration that Thessaly became a part of Macedonia in 67 CE, 1 1 6 and concludes that the 'Metamorphoseis' must have been written before that year. This is a very early date in the light of such other evidence as we possess; J O N E S concludes that we do not know enough about the history of Roman Thessaly to draw any conclusions about the date of the 'Metamorphoseis'. 1 1 7 We may also legimately ask whether the narrative in Onos 34 compels us to assume that there has been a change of province. The peasants, or even the author of the 'Metamorphoseis', may not have known or cared about the legal questions relating to pursuit of criminals across provincial boundaries. The function of Beroia in this text, like the comparable but unnamed city in Apuleius (AA. 8.23.1), may only be as a community large enough that the influx of a band of impoverished newcomers would not attract unwelcome attention. "Macedonia" may have been added to Beroia either because that was conventional practice (to distinguish this Beroia from two other cities with the same name), or as an indication of the ass's progress towards the capital of that province, Thessalonike.

6. Linguistic Criteria The author of 'Metamorphoseis' was no Atticist. 118 This can be concluded from the language of 'Onos', which Photios reported was followed by the author of 'Metamorphoseis' word for word. VAN T H I E L suggests that the nonAttic vocabulary of the 'Metamorphoseis' derives from an "anti-Attic" word 114

D. KANATSOULI, TO koinon ton Makedónon, Makedonika 3 (1953) 39; F. PAPAZOGLU, Makedonski gradovi u rimslo doba (Skopje 1957) 115 — 118 (French summary, 334). EAD., Quelques aspects de l'histoire de la province de Macédoine, ANRW II, 7,1, ed. H. TEMPORINI, Berlin - New York 1979, 302 - 369, esp. 351 - 369, 'Cités et koina régionaux.''

1,5

BIANCO 1 7 2 ; VAN THIEL, I, 7 7 ; BROWNE, 4 4 3 .

116

BOWERSOCK 1 9 6 5 , 2 8 8 ; a c c e p t e d in K P 5 ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 7 6 0 , s . v . T h e s s a l i a .

117

C. P. JONES, Apuleius' 'Metamorphoses' and Lollianus' 'Phoinikika', Phoenix 34 (1980) n. 6 4 .

254, 118

VAN THIEL, I, 2 1 1 .

GREEK A N D

LATIN VERSIONS OF T H E

ASS-STORY

1685

list by Aelius Dionysius, who is Hadrianic in date. But his arguments for the parallels between the two works are not particularly compelling. 119 An author's "Atticism" is probably not usually a very accurate or useful dating criterion; but one might note that authors of the late first and early second centuries of the Christian Era, such as Dio Chrysostom, are generally more flexible in matters of Attic usage than those of the age of Herodes Atticus. 120

7. The Date of the 'Golden Ass' H o w long before the 'Golden Ass' is it reasonable to assume that the 'Metamorphoseis' was published? R U D O L F H E L M ascribed to the 'Metamorphoseis' a number of passages in the Golden Ass which are not in 'Onos'. These passages he dated to around 160 CE, but he allowed a few years after that before they appeared in the 'Golden Ass'. 121 BIANCO argues that the interval between the 'Metamorphoses' and the 'Golden Ass' should be short, so that the Greek story would be fresh in everyone's mind when reading the Latin, although his actual suggestions for the date of the 'Metamorphoseis' leave more than twenty-five years between versions. 122 There is little comparative evidence to help us determine what is a reasonable delay between the appearance of a Greek work and its Latin version. Most cases of Latin translations and adaptations of Greek works are of 'classics' several years removed. The most obvious parallel for the Latin adaptation of the ass-story is Sisenna's version of the 'Milesiaka' of Aristeides; unfortunately the latesecond-century BCE date generally assigned to Aristeides 123 seems to have no other basis than the need to have him precede Sisenna (praetor 78 BCE) by a reasonable period. If one were to suggest that there might have been a generation between the 'Metamorphoseis' and the 'Golden Ass', it would be no more than a plausible guess.

8. Conclusion Attempts at precise definition of the date of the 'Metamorphoseis' have proved inconclusive. However, it would appear that the terminus post quern should be placed towards the end of the first century of the Christian era, and the terminus ante quern a reasonable time before the publication of the 'Golden Ass', perhaps about 150 CE. 119

V A N T H I E L , I, 1 6 6 , n . 8 ; A N D E R S O N 1 9 7 6 ,

120

See W. SCHMID, D e r Atticismus 4 (Stuttgart 1887), 189, and F. DESIDERI, D i o n e di Prusa. Un intellettuale greco nell'impero r o m a n o (Bibl. di cultura c o n t e m p . , 135), (Messina 1978), 5 2 4 - 5 3 6 .

121

HELM 1916,

122

BIANCO, 1 5 7 , 1 7 1 - 1 7 4 ; PERRY 1 9 2 0 , 6 2 , c i t i n g

43.

ix. predecessors.

i " PERRY 1967, 93; Q . CATAUDELLA, La N o v e l l a Greca (Naples 1958), 132, η. 36; RE 2.1 (1895) Aristeides 23, 886.

1686

H U G H J. M A S O N

X. The Author of the

'Metamorphoseis'

1. Lukios of Patrai? The arguments against the reality of "Lukios" were presented in section IV above 1670); they make it extremely unlikely that "Lukios" should be equated with known Lukioi in Plutarch and Philostratus. 124 B Ü R G E R argued that the 'Metamorphoseis' were published anonymously, but that the details about "Lukios' " family in Onos 55 are in fact about the author. 1 2 5 B R O W N E ' S supposition is similar: "Lukios" was a real person, but concealed his full identity by suppressing his "other names" in Onos 55. 126 But there are no convincing parallels in antiquity for anonymous publication of creative fiction. O n o s ' , and by implication the 'Metamorphoseis', were no more trivial, or obscene, or politically dangerous, than other narratives which do have authors' names attached. The more usual practice in antiquity is pseudonymous publication, by which the obscure attempt to pass off their work as another's. The many "Xenophons" who are the supposed authors of Greek Romances appear to be pseudonyms of unknown novelists who attempted to link their works to the Athenian historian. 127 It is most likely, as stated by WINKLER,128 "that Photios mistook the credulous persona narrating the 'Metamorphoses' as the authentic voice of the author," while it was in reality only the narrative stance of the storyteller. There never was a "Lukios of Patrae" other than the protagonist of the Assstory.

2. Lucían? In the introduction to his edition of 'Onos' PAULY proposed that it was the 'Metamorphoseis', not 'Onos', that was written by Lucian. 129 This view was argued in detail by P E R R Y 1920 (and other works). A N D E R S O N 1976 restated the case for Lucian; a number of recent works also support the

124

GODFRIED OLEARIUS in his edition of Philostratus, Philostratorum Opera (Leipzig 1709) i d e n t i f i e s L u k i o s o f P a t r a e w i t h t h e L u k i o s in V S 2 . 1 8 (566); s e e WIELAND, 2 9 9 , ROHDE 1869,

25-29.

LIS

K. BÜRGER, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen R o m a n s (Blankenburg 1902), I, 18 -

126

BROWNE, 4 4 5 .

127

PERRY 1 9 2 0 , 1 7 -

128

WINKLER,

129

A. F. PAULY, Lukians Werke (Stuttgart 1827), IX, 1045; the 'Metamorphoseis' wahrscheinlich unseren Lucian zum Verfasser hat."

19; s e e a l s o K. BÜRGER, Z U A p u l e i u s , H e m e s 2 3 ( 1 8 8 8 )

489-498.

20.

253-255.

„höchst

GREEK

AND

LATIN VERSIONS

OF T H E

ASS-STORY

1687

ascription to Lucian. 1 3 0 WINKLER'S support for Lucianic authorship is more tentative, but includes some telling arguments. T h e studies o f KNAUT a n d NEUKAMM, a n d f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h b y PERRY,

demonstrated that much of the vocabulary of ' O n o s ' can be paralleled in the Lucianic corpus. 1 3 1 This argument is less compelling than it might seem; since Lucian's lexicon of over 10,000 words is one of the largest among Greek prose authors, 1 3 2 more parallels s h o u l d be found in his very large c o r p u s than in other authors. Further, as HALL reminds us, such parallels in Lucian prove nothing if the vocabulary can also be found in other Greek authors. 1 3 3 Expressions in ' O n o s ' which deviate significantly from Lucian's normal usage may have been caused by the epitomator, and so may not prove that the 'Metamorphoseis' were not Lucianic. Alternatively, they can be explained as deliberate imitation of non-standard Greek. 1 3 4 Similarly, any attempt at a statistical analysis of shared vocabulary and other features 1 3 5 between ' O n o s ' and genuine works of Lucian becomes of doubtful value for establishing Lucian's claim to the 'Metamorphoseis', if deviation from Lucianic norms can always be ascribed to the process of epitomizing. Lucian was indeed capable of a wide range of stylistic registers, and a clever mimic of others' styles. One wonders, however, if he could ever have produced, for whatever purpose, mimic, satiric or parodie, what SULLIVAN describes as the jejune and monotonous vocabulary and simple syntax of the ' O n o s ' , 1 3 6 and if the uninspired Greek of the ' O n o s ' could have been entirely the fault of the epitomator. If, according to Photios, the two Greek versions used the same vocabulary, can we ascribe all the worst grammatical oddities to the epitomator? It remains impossible entirely to exclude Lucianic authorship of the 'Metamorphoseis' on linguistic grounds alone, but it must be said that there has not been presented in more than two hundred years of scholarship, a particularly convincing positive case that the language of the ' M e t a m o r phoseis' as reflected in the ' O n o s ' is Lucian's. In terms of c o n t e n t , there is certainly much in O n o s ' that can be paralleled in Lucian; ANDERSON, for example, notes the similarity of treatment of the metamorphosis theme to that in 'Gallus', while PERRY made comparisons to the theme of periergeia in 'True History', of credulous belief in magic

130

131

NIKLAS HOLZBERG, Apuleius und der Verfasser des Griechischen Eselsromans, W J A , N . F. 10 (1984) 161 - 177; J . P. SULLIVAN, Translation of Pseudo-Lucian, T h e Ass, C A G N , 589-618. BEN EDWIN PERRY, O n the authenticity of 'Lucius sive Asinus', C P 21 (1926) 2 2 5 - 2 3 4 .

132

SCHMID 1 8 8 7 , 1 , 4 3 1 .

133

HALL, 3 6 2 - 4 ; the additional points raised by ANDERSON 1976, 4 3 do not detract from HALL'S negative arguments.

134

PERRY 1920,

135

F o r the kind of techniques that can be used, see LAURENCE D. STEPHENS, Review of J . C. RODRIGUEZ, Estudios del vocabulario de Q . Curtius Rufus (Salamanca 1980),

73.

Language 5 9 (1983) '«• SULLIVAN, C A G N , 109

ANRW II 34.2

659-663. 591.

1688

H U G H J. M A S O N

in 'Philopseudes' and of contempt for charlatans in 'Alexander'. 1 3 7 Such arguments do indeed show, as their proponents claim, that the 'Metamorphoseis' was the "kind of work Lucían would be likely to write," 1 3 8 but such arguments from plausibility do not demonstrate that "Lucian is the only man known to us who wrote in that humorous and satirical spirit." 139 Our increasing knowledge of the great range of ancient fiction makes arguments of the type "Who else, if not Lucian?" appear less forceful. 1 4 0 VAN T H I E L argued that the excellent knowledge of Thessaly which he ascribed to the author of 'Metamorphoseis' argued against his being Lucian, who had no special experience of the region. 141 A N D E R S O N responded by showing that the author knows no more than the conventional topoi concerning Thessaly, which were easily available to Lucian. 142 VAN T H I E L ' S claim that the obscenity of O n o s ' is not characteristic of Lucian, is far from being refuted by A N D E R S O N ' S examples of sexual themes in Lucian. 143 Is the description of public sex in Onos 52 really comparable to Lucian's sophomoric sexual jokes, such as the comments on the eunuch's "tool" in 'Eunuchus' 12?144 Part of P E R R Y ' S case for Lucianic authorship of the 'Metamorphoseis' was the claim that it satirised the credulity of Romans in high places, as Lucian did elsewhere, for example with Rutilianus in 'Alexander'. 1 4 5 But in none of the versions of the ass-story is Lucius presented as a Roman in a position of power, like Rutilianus; he is a partially Romanised Greek from a family of local notables. 146 Members of this class might indeed be the subject of satire either by Romans or by Greeks less assimilated to Roman culture; but they do not seem to have been a special target of Lucian. In addition, the official Rutilianus is far from the only credulous figure in 'Alexander', and on the whole is treated with more sympathy than Severianus ό ήλίθιος εκείνος Κελτός (Alex. 27). 147 Lucian's introduction of Rutilianus in fact suggests that

137

ANDERSON 1 9 7 6 , 4 8 ; PERRY 1 9 2 0 ,

138

PERRY 1 9 2 0 , 6 1 ; WINKLER, 2 7 1 .

139

PERRY 1 9 6 7 ,

140

L. EDELSTEIN, Plato's Seventh Letter (Philosophia antiqua, 14), (Leiden 1966), 1 1 8 - 1 1 9 , s h o w s the problems with "Who if not Plato?" arguments concerning a f a m o u s problem in the Platonic corpus. For the range of ancient novels in a less serious vein, see G. ANDERSON, Eros Sophistes: Ancient Novelists at Play (American Classical Studies, 9), (Chico 1982), 5 1 - 5 8 .

61.

213.

141

V A N T H I E L I, 3 8 .

142

ANDERSON 1976,

30.

143

ANDERSON 1976,

38.

144

JENNIFER H A L L , R e v i e w o f A N D E R S O N 1 9 7 6 , J H S 1 0 0 ( 1 9 8 0 )

145

PERRY 1 9 6 7 ,

146

P. G. WALSH, Was Lucius a Roman? CJ 63 (1968) 2 6 4 - 2 6 5 . HUGH J. MASON, T h e Distinction of Lucius in Apuleius' 'Metamorphoses', Phoenix 37 (1983) 135 — 143. C. P. JONES, TWO friends of Plutarch, B C H 96 (1972) 265, notes the position of M . Pacuuius Optatus, a Corinthian of Italian origin, in the circle of Plutarch. Apparently this is M . Sedatius Severianus, cos 153, BOWERSOCK 1969, 87. Cf. D. CLAY, Lucian of Samosata: Four Philosophical Lives (Nigrinus, D e m o n a x , Peregrinus, Alexander Pseudomantis), A N R W II, 36,5, ed. W. HAASE, B e r l i n - N e w York 1992, 3442.

147

231.

220-222.

GREEK

AND

LATIN

VERSIONS

OF

THE

ASS-STORY

1689

he was n o t intended to represent a typical R o m a n . T h e statement (Lucían, Alex. 30) that Rutilianus was άνήρ τα μέν άλλα καλός καί αγαθός και έν πολλαΐς τάξεσι Τωμαϊκαΐς έξητασμένος, τα δέ περί τούς θεούς πάνυ νοσών, suggests that n o r m a l l y , R o m a n officials were in Lucian's view relatively sane, and that his satire was not addressed at R o m a n s as a class. Chronological arguments cannot be used to exclude Lucian as the author of the 'Metamorphoseis', unless one accepts BROWNE'S very early terminus ante quem. Lucian and Apuleius were roughly contemporary, born about 125 CE, but it is possible to place 'Metamorphoseis' early in Lucian's career and 'Golden Ass' late in that of Apuleius, and so have a reasonable time between the t w o works. 1 4 8 Whether Apuleius could have published an unacknowledged adaptation of Lucian's work while Lucian, a severe critic of plagiarists, 1 4 9 was still alive, is a question which has not been addressed in any detailed way. T h e case for Lucianic authorship of 'Metamorphoseis' has been presented recently with wit and flair by authors ( A N D E R S O N and WINKLER) w h o bring important new insights to the study of Lucian and Apuleius; WINKLER'S comment that "the dummy Lucius of Patrae tells us his adventures, and all the while we hear the ventriloquist Lucian," 1 5 0 is a memorable summary of the hypothesis, with a pun on the word " d u m m y " that Lucian would have appreciated. It is still not clear, however, that a demonstration that the 'Metamorphoseis' is a work in the Lucianic manner outweighs the linguistic evidence.

3. Adrian of Tyre? T h e sophist Adrian of Tyre has been mentioned as a possible author by several scholars. 1 5 1 Philostratus records rumours that Adrian was involved with magic, which happened, Philostratus explains (VS 2.10.6 [590]), because he was τερατευόμενος έν ταΐς ύποθέσεσι περί τά των μάγων ήθη. In addition, the 'Suda' reports that Adrian wrote seven books of 'Metamorphoseis'. We k n o w nothing about Adrian's 'Metamorphoseis'. R O H D E thought that Adrian's reputation as a magician might be more easily explained if they were told in a credulous vein; 152 the parallel with the widespread belief in Apuleius as a magician is clear. A reputation for using magic is hardly sufficient grounds alone to assign an author responsibility for the ass-story; Philostratus also ascribes a similar reputation to Dionysius of Miletus, w h o allegedly used magic to aid his pupils' memories (VS 1.22 [423]). Such fragments as we do have of Adrian's work 1 5 3 do not suggest any close similarity in either content

148

PERRY 1 9 2 0 , 6 3 , n . 3 .

149

HALL, 64.

150

WINKLER, 275, in a chapter entitled 'Parody lost and regained'.

151

VAN THIEL, I, 3 8 - 3 9 ; H A L L , 4 2 9 - 4 3 1 ; JONES 1 9 7 2 a , 4 8 3 , n . 4 4 .

I " R O H D E 1 8 6 9 , 9 , n o t e 1.

Rhetores Graeci (WALZ) 1, 526 — 533; the authenticity of s o m e texts is questionable. 109*

1690

HUGH

J. M A S O N

or style to O n o s ' and hence to 'Metamorphoseis'. Similar questions concerning chronology arise with Adrian as we observed in the case of Lucian. There is, in short, even less basis for a rational discussion of Adrian's possible authorship than there is of Lucian's.

4. Flavius Phoinix? VAN THIEL suggested as author of the 'Metamorphoseis' either Flavius Phoinix of Hypata or his brother Phylax. 154 The reasons for the suggestion are his Hypatan origin, which VAN THIEL believes necessary to explain the author's supposed knowledge of Thessaly, his Roman citizenship, and Philostratus' account of the style of Phoinix, V S 2.22 (604). Also, VAN THIEL argues, as a student of Philagros, Phoinix might have shared his teacher's antipathy towards Herodes Atticus; since Adrian was in turn a student of Herodes, the work of Phoinix might have parodied the 'Metamorphoseis' of Adrian. All of this sequence of suppositions is quite unlikely; there is no special knowledge of Thessaly in 'Onos', Philostratus' account of the style of Phoinix (ού περιήμπισχεν αύτά ή λέξις) does not describe the O n o s ' , and chronologically, it is very difficult to squeeze an original 'Metamorphoseis' by Adrian, a parody of it by Phoinix, and a translation/adaptation of Phoinix by Apuleius into the time-span available. 155

5. Apuleius? C A R L DILTHEY proposed that Apuleius was the author of the first Greek version; he did not present a detailed argument. 1 5 6 The detailed argument was offered by C O C C H I A , 1 5 7 followed by VITALI. 1 5 8 Central to COCCHIA'S case is the belief that the 'Golden Ass' is autobiographical; since it is adapted from a Greek tale, that tale, in COCCHIA'S view, must also be Apuleius' own. Other eccentricities include rendering Οί δέ γε πρώτοι αύτοϋ δύο λόγοι μόνον ού μετεγράφησαν as "it is only the first two books that he failed to translate," and arguing that Apuleius' fame in Constantinople, attested in Anth. Pal. 2.303 — 5, must rest on a substantial Greek work. VALLETTE is one of the few scholars to argue strenuously and seriously against COCCHIA'S hypothesis, principally by showing the error of COCCHIA'S autobiographical assumptions. 1 5 9 One should also note that COCCHIA'S translation requires that

154

V A N T H I E L , I,

40-42.

JONES 1 9 7 2 b , 2 6 6 , n. 2 4 ; A N D E R S O N 1 9 7 6 , 156

157

158 159

36.

CARL DILTHEY, Festrede im N a m e n der Georg-August-Universität zur akademischen Preisverteilung am 11. Juni 1879 (Göttingen 1879). ENRICO COCCHIA, R o m a n z o e realtà nella vita e nell'attività letteraria di Lucio Apuleio (Catania 1915), 1 1 0 - 1 6 1 . G. VITALI, L'Asino d'oro (Bologna 1 9 6 0 - 1 9 6 3 ) . VALLETTE a n d R O B I N S O N , X —XV.

GREEK A N D L A T I N V E R S I O N S O F T H E

ASS-STORY

1691

the Greek be μόνοι oi πρώτοι δύο λόγοι ού μετεγράφησαν and that the other R o m a n s named in the ekphrasis of Christodorus in Anth. Pal. 2, i. e. Vergil and Caesar, wrote only in Latin.

6. Lucius Ampelius? HERRMANN argued that the Latin and Greek versions of the ' M e t a m o r phoseis' were written by one man, w h o was not Apuleius. T h e accounts of Apuleius in Macrobius and in 'Historia Augusta', he claims, cannot refer to the 'Golden Ass'; the 'Golden Ass' is written by one familiar with Peloponnesos, for w h o m Greek was the first language; internal references in the 'Golden Ass' point to the Hadrianic period, before Apuleius was born. The author of both the 'Metamorphoseis' and the 'Golden Ass', HERRMANN proposes, was Lucius Ampelius. 1 6 0 These arguments are hard to take seriously. T h e stylistic similarities between the 'Golden Ass' on the one hand, and the 'Apology' and 'Florida' on the other, make it impossible to claim with any degree of plausibility that they are not by the same author. T h e most cursory of readings of L. Ampelius reveals him to be an author quite incapable of a work as polished, complex and sophisticated as the 'Golden Ass'. 161 T h e r e is no evidence, other than the prologue, which is in the narrator's voice, not the author's, to suggest a Greekspeaking author for the 'Golden Ass'. There is no reason why Apuleius should not have set the tale some years before his o w n time.

7. Lucius Sisenna? A passage in Onos 51, ε'ι'σω ολον παρεδέξατο, reflected in Apuleius, A A 10.22, totum me sed totum recepii, is claimed by some to derive f r o m Aristeides, as translated by Sisenna, fragment 10, eum penitus utero suo recepit.162 T h e 'Milesiaka' of Aristeides and Sisenna, it was deduced, therefore included the ass-story. PEPE took this a stage further; the 'Metamorphoseis'

160

161

162

LÉON HERRMANN, Légendes locales et thèmes littéraires dans le conte de Psyché, AntCl 21 (1952) 1 3 - 2 7 ; L " A n e d'or' et le Christianisme, Latomus 12 (1953) 1 8 8 - 1 9 8 ; Lucius de Patras et les trois romans de l'âne, AntCl 41 (1972) 573 - 599; Lucius de Patras et le 'liber memorialis', AntCl 42 (1973) 5 3 2 - 5 3 5 . „Quod certe scio ... ilium indoctissimum fuisse et sero vixisse," N . TERZAGHI, Lucii Ampelii Liber Memorialis (Torino 1943), viii; „arida..., povera di contenuta, privo di senso critico," TERZAGHI, Studia Latina et Graeca (Torino 1963), 222. N o t e d first by Κ. BÜRGER, Der antike R o m a n vor Petronius, Hermes 27 (1892) 3 4 7 358; argued in detail by R. REITZENSTEIN, Das Märchen von A m o r und Psyche (Leipzig and Berlin 1912), 59; f o l l o w e d by Q. CATAUDELLA, La novella greca (Naples 1957), 150; KARL KERÉNYI, D i e griechisch-orientalische Romanliteratur (Tübingen 1927, reissued D a r m s t a d t 1962), 2 0 5 ; MAZZARINO, 7 7 .

1692

H U G H J.

MASON

of Lukios of Patrae, he claimed, were a collection of milesiae which retranslated Sisenna into Greek and adopted his praenomett.163 The discussion of Aristeides and Sisenna has been further complicated by attempts to see in the spurcum additamentum found in some manuscripts of the 'Golden Ass' at AA 10.21, either a further fragment of Sisenna or a genuine passage of Apuleius from an independent manuscript tradition, instead of what it is, an example of learned renaissance obscenity. 164 It is far from clear that the passage in Sisenna refers to intercourse with an ass, or even intercourse at all. 165 ANDERSON has discovered an incident in a Sufi text of the 13th century of the Christian era, 166 which deals with intercourse with an ass in a way that might explain both the fragments of Sisenna and Lucius' behaviour in the ass-story, and so provides a possible connection between Sisenna and the 'Metamorphoseis'. ANDERSON does not, however, suggest that Sisenna's text dealt with the story of an Eselsmensch, only that it contained a story about intercourse with an ass which throws some light on AA 10.21 and Apuleius' use of sources. To return to PEPE, there is no explanation why the author of the Greek 'Metamorphoseis', if he did adapt the 'Milesiaka', should have used the Latin version of Sisenna. Greek adaptation of Latin literature is an extremely rare phenomenon; most examples are of verse (Vergil, Ovid) or of technical Roman matters such as treatises on law and government.

XI. The Contents

of the

'Metamorphoseis'

1. Prologue As was noted above in section V (1673), the similarities between some of Photios' expressions and the prologue of the 'Golden Ass' strongly suggest that the 'Metamorphoseis' included a prologue similar to that of the Latin work. Given Photios' marked tendency to depend on prologues for his summary notes, 167 many of his judgments concerning the 'Metamorphoseis', such as the narrator's belief in various kinds of transformation, and the work's supposed obscenity, need not be based on reading beyond the prologue or the first two books. 168

163 164

165

L. PEPE, Lucio di Patra O Aristide-Sisenna? GIF 16 (1963) 111 - 1 4 2 . ED. FRAENKEL, A sham Sisenna, Eranos 51 (1953) 151 - 1 5 4 ; S. MARIOTTI, LO spurcum additamentum ad Apulei Met. X . 2 1 , SIFC 2 7 / 8 (1956) 2 2 9 - 2 5 0 ; G. PENNISI, Apuleio e l'additamentum a 'Metamorphoses' 10.21 (Messina 1970). ANDERSON 1 9 7 6 , 4 7 ; M A S O N , A A G A , 7 .

166

ANDERSON 1 9 8 4 ,

167

TREADGOLD,

201-202.

168

C . M O R E L L I , A p u l e i a n a , S I F C 2 1 ( 1 9 1 5 ) 1 2 1 ; VAN T H I E L , I, 2 3 ; H A L L , 4 2 5 .

112.

GREEK A N D LATIN VERSIONS OF THE ASS-STORY

1693

2. "The Other Books" Even if, as H A L L argues against P E R R Y (section V, above 1673), the assstory was restricted to the first two books of a multi-volume 'Metamorphoseis', we can say nothing useful about the content of the later books, on which Photios chose not to comment. Her own suggestions (424 — 426) of possible material, some of it similar to tales in Apuleius, can be no more than speculation. There is no special reason to suppose, as did SAUMAISE,169 that Apuleius derived his "inserted material" from later books of the 'Metamorphoseis'.

3. The Dimensions of the Ass-Story If the ass-story was limited to two books, discussion of the typical size of an ancient book-roll becomes relevant. A two-book 'Metamorphoseis' need not have been twice the size of O n o s ' , which is relatively long in comparison with single books of multi-volume works. 1 7 0 A two-book ass-story would be unlikely to contain much more than 'Onos', certainly nothing on the scale of the 'Golden Ass'. If, on the other hand, as P E R R Y argued, the ass-story took up the whole of a multi-volume 'Metamorphoseis' of which Photios only studied the first two books, the 'Metamorphoseis' could have been of any size between that of the 'Onos' and that of the 'Golden Ass', and scholars are free to assume that substantial sections of the 'Golden Ass' which have no parallel in 'Onos' may nevertheless be derived from 'Metamorphoseis'.

4. The Inserted Stories J U N G H A N N S argued for a 'Metamorphoseis' only three or four pages longer than O n o s ' , excluding all the "inserted stories;" 171 he claimed to discover in a 'Metamorphoseis' of such dimensions a coherent narrative, and demonstrated a distinctively Apuleian quality in those passages in the 'Golden Ass' which did not appear to derive from the Greek version. Yet we must wonder, with ANDERSON, if such a limited abbreviation would be worth the effort: 172 "Once we have assigned the extra material to the former, the epitomator has nothing to epitomate; for all he cut, he might as well not have

169

E. SALMASIUS, Prolegomena ad Solinum (Paris 1629), cited by C. H. DEE, De ratione quae est inter Asinum pseudo-Lucianeum Apuleique Metamorphoseon libros (Leiden

170

JUNGHANNS, 119 compared the 1088 lines of O n o s ' to Lucian's 'True History', 1392 lines divided into two books of approximately equal length.

171

JUNGHANNS, 1 1 8 .

172

ANDERSON 1 9 7 6 , 6 2 .

1 8 9 1 ) , 15, Η. 1.

1694

H U G H J. M A S O N

bothered." As well as the well-known places where the epitomator has removed something essential to the plot or the syntax, there must have been some other material left out, to justify Photios' claim that the epitomator excised όσα μή έδόκει αύτφ προς τον οίκεΐον χρήσιμα σκοπόν. However, any assumptions about what kind of material beyond the main ass-story m i g h t have been included in the 'Metamorphoseis' become impossibly subjective; I have noted elsewhere how V A N T H I E L and J U N G H A N N S use exactly the same criterion to admit or to deny that the "Diophanes" incident in Apuleius (AA 2.12—14) derives from the Greek 'Metamorphoseis'. 173 B I A N C O ' S case against the inclusion of several stories in the 'Metamorphoseis' can be set directly against V A N T H I E L ' S for including them. 1 7 4 Scholars who follow J U N G H A N N S in accepting a "short" 'Metamorphoseis' include L A V A G I N I N I , P A R A T O R E and WALSH; 1 7 5 those who attribute much of the material in the 'Golden Ass' to the 'Metamorphoseis' include S C H I S S E L , 176 K E R É N Y I and MORELLI; those who admit some inserted stories include HELM,

DE FRANTZ,

VALLETTE, LESKY,

CATAUDELLA,

PERRY,

VAN THIEL

and

177

In A N D E R S O N ' S recent discussion of the "Ancestry of the Ass-Tale," he claims to have "solve[d] the notorious 'Onos'-triangle once and for all," 178 by demonstrating the existence of details of the ass-story reported only by Apuleius in a wide variety of world literature and folklore. This implies that he believes in an extended 'Metamorphoseis' including most of the material in Apuleius. Fascinating though his comparative evidence is, without a better understanding of possible means of transmission of these traditional tales into the ass-story, we have no way of knowing whether Apuleius tapped into such material directly, or through the medium of the Greek 'Metamorphoseis'. SCOBIE.

It is likely, on balance, that the 'Metamorphoseis' included some digressions and secondary narratives which were excised by the epitomator as not serving his purpose; the history of other works of prose fiction can certainly provide parallels. 179 N o consensus has been achieved that any particular ™ MASON, AAGA, 3. 174

BIANCO, 2 3 - 9 5 ; VAN THIEL I, 1 5 1 ; s e e a l s o VAN THIEL'S t r a n s l a t i o n o f a r e c o n s t r u c t e d

text of the ' M e t a m o r p h o s e i s ' , Abenteuer eines Esels oder die Verwandlungen des Lucius, M ü n c h e n , 1972. 175

BRUNO LAVAGNINI, S t u d i s u l r o m a n z o G r e c o ( M e s s i n a 1 9 5 0 ) , 1 1 8 ; ETTORE PARATORE,

La novella in Apuleio 2 , Messina, 1942; WALSH 1970, 148; AAGA, 19. 176

O . SCHISSEL (VON FLESCHENBERG), E n t w i c k l u n g s g e s c h i c h t e d e s g r i e c h i s c h e n R o m a n s i m Altertum, Halle,

1913; C. MORELLI, A p u l e i a n a

IV, S I F C 2 1 ( 1 9 1 5 )

119-157;

KARL

KERÉNYI, Die griechisch-orientalische R o m a n l i t e r a t u r (Tübingen 1927, reissued D a r m s t a d t 1962), 177

HELM

151-176.

1910, Ν - v i i ;

MARTHA DE FRANTZ, Ü b e r

das Verhältnis des Lucían

und

des

Apuleius zur Urquelle der Eselsgeschichte, OpusPhil 6 (1934) 34 — 39; VALLETTE, xviii; A . LESKY, A p u l e i u s v o n M a d a u r a u n d L u k i o s v o n P a t r a e , H e r m e s 4 6 ( 1 9 4 1 ) 5 9 ; Q . CATAUDELLA, L a n o v e l l a g r e c a

(Naples

1957), 1 5 3 - 1 5 5 ;

PERRY 1 9 2 0 , 3 1 , 1 9 6 7 , 2 1 6 , n . 5 ;

SCOBIE, A A G A , 4 3 - 4 6 . 178

ANDERSON 1 9 8 4 , 2 0 4 .

175

T h e textual history of Petronius' 'Satyricon', especially the t w o traditions of abbreviation, is a parallel to the Ass-story which has yet to be explored fully.

GREEK

AND

LATIN

VERSIONS

OF

THE

1695

ASS-STORY

narrative in Apuleius and not in the O n o s ' can certainly be ascribed to the 'Metamorphoseis'; a two-volume ass-story, which is what Photios' text may imply, cannot have included very many tales of the scale of any of the significant "inserted tales" in Apuleius, such as that of Aristomenes, which takes up a considerable proportion of the first book of the 'Golden Ass'.

XII. The Character of the

'Metamorphoseis'

Photios' description of Lukios as σπουδάζων τε καί πιστάς νομίζων τάς ... μεταμορφώσεις has meant that the 'Metamorphoseis' have been viewed as an „abergläubige Metamorphosensammlung."m ROHDE, who defended Lucianic authorship of the O n o s ' , did so by presenting the epitome as a parody of a serious 'Metamorphoseis'; but Photios' other statement, that 'Onos' adapted 'Metamorphoseis' αύταΐς τε λέξεσι καί συντάξεσιν is directly contradictory to his claim that 'Onos' differed substantially in tone and degree of credulity from the 'Metamorphoseis', and makes it inherently implausible. Most scholars now accept that the 'Metamorphoseis' must have resembled 'Onos' in tone, and describe it as "playful, ironic and unsentimental." 1 8 1 Many also suggest that the 'Metamorphoseis' had the satiric features that Photios saw in 'Onos'. The 'Metamorphoseis', in this view, are a satire on serious belief in metamorphosis, 1 8 2 on superstitious Romans, 1 8 3 on Pythagorean metempsychosis, 184 or a parody of sentimental Greek romance. 1 8 5 Perhaps the best example of this approach is by WINKLER, who interprets the 'Metamorphoseis' as a "sendup of the Ί went in search of arcane knowledge' literature," 1 8 6 and provides examples of such stories (Thessalos, Harpokration, Iamblichos, Antonius Diogenes) with a demonstration of close similarities to the story of the Eselsmensch. The ass-story undoubtedly presents some amusing parallels to Greek Romances, and encourages the reader to make ironic comparisons between Lucius' transformations and those recorded in collections of mythical metamorphoses or Pythagorean theory; the credulous and stupid Lucius certainly provides an amusing foil to the thaumaturges and alchemists of W I N K L E R ' S paradoxographical literature. If Lucius is seen as a silly ass, it is possible to 180

ROHDE 1 8 6 9 , 10.

181

T h e w o r d s a r e SCOBIE'S, A A G A 4 4 ; s e e a l s o VAN THIEL, I, 2 0 9 ; PERRY 1 9 6 7 , 2 1 7 .

182

SCHANZ, 9 2 - 3 , VAN THIEL, I, 3 9 .

' « PERRY 1 9 6 7 , 2 2 0 , 3 6 9 , n . 8. 184

SCHWARTZ,

144;

REINHOLD

MERKELBACH,

Roman

und

Mysterium

in

der

Antike

(München 1962), 338. 185

ANDERSON 1 9 8 2 , 7 5 , n o . 2. S e e a l s o HOLZBERG; BÜRGER 1 9 0 2 , 2 1 ; VAN THIEL, I, 1 9 0 -

186

WINKLER, 2 7 1 .

193.

1696

HUGH

J.

MASON

sugg;est that others like him (Patrans? intellectuals? rich young men?) are equally asinine. But, as far as we can judge from the ' O n o s ' , it does not appear that the 'Metamorphoseis' can have maintained a consistent satirical or parodie tone, aimed at a single target. An author who wanted to satirize credulity or parody romantic novels could surely have found more effective means of doing so than by writing the ass-story that we have. Human transformation c a n be handled seriously, even tragically, as in KAFKA'S 'Metamorphosis'. But the evidence of both the 'Golden Ass' and the ' O n o s ' suggests that the tale of the ass-man was told in the Greek 'Metamorphoseis' in a comic spirit. HÄGG is right in arguing that the situation is comic enough in its own right that there is no need to see parody of any kind. 1 8 7

XIII. Apuleius

and the Two Greek

Versions

Apuleius' use of a Greek story is clearly signalled by his calling the work a fabula graecanica (AA 1.1); similarities in content and expression make it clear that the Greek story he adapted was one of the two versions briefly compared by Photios. There have been attempts to deny this, but they have not been supported by the evidence. HICTER'S denial that Apuleius used any Greek original was not based on any kind of systematic study of the relevant texts. 1 8 8 COCCHIA'S claim, that ' O n o s ' is a compendium of Apuleius, depends on his eccentric assertion that Apuleius wrote the Greek 'Metamorphoseis', and offers no explanation of the differences between the Greek and Latin versions. 1 8 9 Ever since the text of Photios has been known, making it apparent that the 'Metamorphoseis' were longer than ' O n o s ' , it has been generally assumed that it was the longer 'Metamorphoseis' that were adapted by Apuleius. 1 9 0 It is usually understood that ' O n o s ' and the 'Golden Ass' derived independently from the 'Metamorphoseis', although KNAUT argued that Apuleius used a 'Metamorphoseis' which was an expansion of ' O n o s ' . 1 9 1 TEUFFEL realized that this would present grave chronological difficulties, especially if Lucian were connected with the Greek versions, and so proposed that Apuleius derived from ' O n o s ' . 1 9 2 ROHDE also derived Apuleius from ' O n o s ' , on the grounds

187

T. HÄGG, Den Antika R o m a n e n (Uppsala 1980), 2 3 4 ; T h e Novel in Antiquity ( O x f o r d

188

M . HICTER, Apulée, conteur fantastique (Brussels 1942), 3 0 , 6 8 .

1 9 8 3 ) , 1 7 8 . S e e a l s o H A L L , 3 6 6 ; SCOBIE 1 9 6 9 ,

38.

189

COCCHIA,

190

E. SALMASIUS (SAUMAISE), Exercitationes Plinianae in Solinum (Paris 1629), vii; G . I . Vossius, De historiéis Graecis libri tres (Leiden 1624), 3, 5 1 7 - 5 1 8 .

152.

191

KNAUT, 2 5 - 2 6 ;

192

TEUFFEL 1 8 8 9 ,

COURIER, 582.

xii.

GREEK A N D LATIN VERSIONS OF T H E ASS-STORY

1697

that the tone of the 'Golden Ass' was closer to that of the 'Onos' than to the abergläubige stories of "Lukios." 1 9 3 None of these suggestions carries much authority, however, any more than various attempts to disprove the case established by BÜRGER and others (section VI above 1674), that O n o s ' is a lacunose epitome, which can be restored on the basis of material in the 'Golden Ass', a position which requires that Apuleius adapted the 'Metamorphoseis'. BIANCO attempted to disprove this case, and to demonstrate that Apuleius used an O n o s ' which was coherent and without lacunae, but he has not obtained many scholars' support. We must assume that it was the longer 'Metamorphoseis' which Apuleius adopted.

X7V. Apuleius'

Use of the Greek

Original

1. Close Textual Similarity It is well known that there are substantial sections of the 'Onos' where the content is similar to the 'Golden Ass', and there do not appear to be substantial lacunae; in a number of these places there is also a close verbal similarity, 194 and we can assume that in these cases, the O n o s ' represents something close to the text of 'Metamorphoseis' which was adapted by Apuleius. BEROALDO, an early editor of Apuleius, was able to use the 'Onos' to improve the text of the 'Golden Ass' in several places. 195 But it is rare for what appears to be word-for-word translation to continue for more than a sentence or two; 1 9 6 usually, even when the texts appear to be quite close, there will be a change of nuance, as when Onos 4, άπορων μέν τής αρχής του ζητήματος becomes nullo quidem initio uel omnino uestigio cupidinis meae reperto (AA 2.2.1). 197 Apuleius' expression is often fuller, as in this case, but the difference is not merely stylistic; the additional phrases enhance characterization, the creation of atmosphere, and other narrative features. 198 It is extremely uncommon to detect places where Apuleius' text shows him translating the Greek literally at the cost of the sense of his own narrative. One example appears to be A A 2.2.1, where cuncta circumibam tarnen reflects Onos 4.1, περιήειν τήν πόλιν, άπορων τής άρχής του ζητήματος, ομως δέ περιήειν. 193 194 195 196 197 198

ROHDE 1869, 18. VAN THIEL, I, 8, n. 17. KRAUTTER, 147. The examples cited by KNAUT, 16 - 1 7 , are all of this length. MASON, AAGA, 4 - 5 . The analysis in GCA 1981, 1 9 2 - 2 4 5 , of an extended section of the 'Golden Ass', the incidents with the sadistic boy, where the t w o texts are quite similar (AA 7 . 1 7 - 2 4 = Onos 29 — 33), provides many examples of Apuleius' characteristic adaptations.

1698

H U G H J. M A S O N

The Greek δμως is explained by the repetition of περιήειν. The Latin tamen is not motivated by anything in the Latin context and may merely be a translation of the Greek. In general, an incident will b e g i n with close similarity of language, as in the introduction of the Syrian priest "Philebus." Onos 36

AA 8. 25.6

'ένθα οίκεΐ Φίληβος — τούτο γαρ είχεν tradid.it Philebo — hoc enim ονομα ó ώνησάμενός με censebatur iam meus dominus

nomine

Even in this passage, one should note the characteristically Latin addition of censebatur. As the text continues, the appearance of close translation tends to diminish. The two versions may be of the same length; but Apuleius will alter the tone, content or direction of his source: 199 sometimes he will deliberately expand the Greek text; 200 sometimes his narrative will actually be briefer. 201 The presence in the 'Golden Ass' of passages both of close translation and of varying degrees of free adaptation suggests that Apuleius composed his adaptation of the 'Metamorphoseis' incident by incident, reading the Greek version of an episode before composing his own, retaining typical phrases of the Greek in his memory as he wrote, but not actually "translating" at a word-by-word level. Useful comparisons can be made to the style of adaptation/translation adopted by the author of the Latin version of 'De Mundo', or by Cicero in his treatment of Greek philosophical texts. 202 But the content of philosophical texts requires more faithful reproduction of the original than does creative fiction. Those who have observed the parallels between Apuleius' adaptations and the contaminatio of the Latin comedians 203 are probably closer to the mark; there the "translation" of one or two lines at most, rather than whole passages, is the norm. 204 From the comparison in detail of the two texts, it is possible to discern certain Apuleian characteristics. Recent studies have emphasised not just religious themes, or the embellishments of style, but also Apuleius' greater interest in character and motivation, an attempt to provide psychological 199 200

MASON, AAGA 5, analyzing O n o s 11.3 = AA 3.19. J. GIL, La novela entre los Latinos, EClas 22 (1978) 391, analyzing Onos 44 = AA 9.39.

201

BIANCO, 1 5 6 ; TEUFFEL 1 8 8 9 , 5 7 4 ; J U N G H A N N S , 7 9 .

202

J. BEAUJEU, Apulée, Opuscules philosophiques et fragments (Paris 1973), 113; B. L. HIJMANS, Apuleius, Philosophus Platonicus, A N R W II, 36,1, ed. W. HAASE, Berlin - N e w York 1987, 3 9 5 - 4 7 5 , esp. 3 9 9 - 4 1 2 , 'Apuleius as a translator/adapter.' GIL, 391. A. MAZZARINO, La Milesia e Apuleio (Torino 1950), 144. Κ. GAISER, Zur Eigenart der römischen Komödie: Plautus und Terenz gegenüber ihren griechischen Vorbildern, A N R W I, 2, ed. H. TEMPORINI, B e r l i n - N e w York 1972, 1026 - 1113; K. BÜCHNER, Das Theater des Terenz (Bibl. der klass. Altertumswiss., N . F. 1 R. 4) (Heidelberg 1974), 5 0 6 - 5 1 5 .

203 204

GREEK AND LATIN VERSIONS OF T H E

ASS-STORY

1699

wholeness, at least to Lucius. 2 0 5 Earlier, JUNGHANNS and other had observed Apuleius' greater liveliness, more effective use of pathos and other rhetorical techniques, and moralizing tendency. 206

2. T h e Inserted Material Where we have parallel texts, it can be seen that Apuleius' use of his Vorlage cannot be predicted; he may expand or reduce it in either content or expression. This makes it very difficult to decide, for any material that is in the 'Golden Ass' but not in the O n o s ' , whether or not it is likely to have been taken from the Greek original. 207 But the fact that on the small scale Apuleius rarely leaves his original unchanged for more than a line or two should suggest extreme caution before we assume that extended additional narratives represent the unaltered Greek original. If we c a n define the different qualities of the 'Metamorphoseis' and the 'Golden Ass' by close comparison where the texts of the O n o s ' and the 'Golden Ass' are relatively similar, we may attempt to apply those qualities to the "inserted" material. 2 0 8 To many scholars, the inserted narratives seem more appropriate to the psychological focus, the greater sophistication of expression, the more romantic tone revealed in Apuleius in such comparisons, than to the more comic and realistic nature of the 'Metamorphoseis' as revealed in the 'Onos', and to serve a purpose in the structure of the 'Golden Ass' as a whole. 2 0 9 Apuleius adapted a wide variety of materials — 'Platonica', drama, epideictic rhetoric — of which there is little or no evidence in 'Onos'. 2 1 0 All of these features might have been present in a Greek 'Metamorphoseis' composed by a Greek writer of sophistication and learning equal to that of Apuleius, such as Adrian of Tyre or Lucian, 2 1 1 but it is surprising that all trace of them should have been removed by the epitomator. They are, further, like his interest in character and in moralizing, features that can also be observed in Apuleius' other works. In general, most of the material in the 'Golden Ass' not found in ' O n o s ' is prima facie likely to be original to Apuleius.

205

KEN DOWDEN, Apuleius and the art of narration, CQ 32 (1982) 424; GIL 392; GCA 1977, 4 0 , 6 4 ; SCOBIE 1 9 7 5 , 7 9 .

206

JUNGHANNS, 3 8 , 5 2 η . 7 4 , 1 4 8 η . 4 8 ; WALSH 1 9 7 0 ,

207

ANDERSON 1976, 51, notes cases where it is impossible to tell whether material has been added by Apuleius or excised by the epitomator.

146-176.

208

JUNGHANNS, 3 , VAN THIEL, I, 2 1 - 2 6 , 1 5 1 - 1 5 8 . ANDERSON 1 9 7 6 , 5 1 , t h i n k s t h i s m e t h o d

209

WALSH 1 9 7 0 , 1 4 6 ; JAMES TATUM, T h e T a l e s in A p u l e i u s ' ' M e t a m o r p h o s e s ' , T A P A

of limited value when the material is found only in Apuleius. (1969), 4 8 7 - 5 2 7 ; Apuleius and the Golden Ass (Ithaca 1979), 3 4 - 3 6 ; S A G 1981,

8. 2'O

MASON, A A G A ,

211

ANDERSON 1 9 7 6 ,

6-12. 50-67.

100

167-

1700 3.

HUGH J. MASON

Apuleianitas

An understanding of Apuleius' debt to his Greek predecessor is, or should be, only a prerequisite for the study of the 'Golden Ass', not a substitute for it. 212 Yet those features of psychological insight, sophistication of rhetorical methodology and romantic tone, which emerge as characteristically Apuleian from close comparison of the Greek and Latin texts, are not substantially different from those features of Apuleius which are being emphasised by scholars who focus on the 'Golden Ass' as a text in its own right. 2 1 3 W I N K L E R ' S analysis of Apuleius' narratological games with his readers is brought into sharp relief by the contrast with the far more straightforward methods of the author of 'Metamorphoseis'.

XV.

Conclusion

Research on the three versions of the ass-story has continued along lines that were clearly established in the seventeenth century. N e w approaches, to end what some have seen as a stalemate, 2 1 4 have usually not won general approval. Instead, it is research not dealing directly with the ass-story that has provided greater insight. T h e testimony of Photios on our texts is better understood after recent research into his methods; the ass-story appears less unusual as a wider range of ancient fiction becomes k n o w n to us, and we become aware of more possible comparanda from folklore and world literature; W I N K L E R ' S study of Apuleius using the techniques of modern literary scholarship has shown the Latin novelist to be a far more unusual, amusing and creative writer than comparison with the Greek versions had revealed. In summary: 1. O n o s ' is confirmed as an epitome; the epitome is at times quite a w k w a r d and mechanical. It is unlikely to have altered substantially the tone or purpose of its original. Even as abbreviated, the O n o s ' , whose author is u n k n o w n , presents a lively and fairly consistent narrative. 2. T h e 'Metamorphoseis' which Photios read may have included other material than the ass-story. T h e first t w o books corresponded closely in content to the ' O n o s ' , and need not have been significantly larger in scale. This version may have included digressions, but not necessarily the same ones as in Apuleius. It was similar in tone to the ' O n o s ' , light and amusing rather than positively satirical; there may however have been an element of ridicule of true believers and wonder-seekers like the naive narrator of the tale. The 212

R. TH. VAN DER PAARDT, Summary and look ahead, SAG 1981, 167.

213

As in A A G A , SAG 1981, TATUM 1979.

214

ANDERSON 1 9 7 6 , 5 0 .

GREEK

AND

LATIN

VERSIONS

OF

THE

ASS-STORY

1701

author is not "Lukios of Patrae," w h o is rather the first-person narrator. T h e identity of the author cannot now be determined, although much recent scholarship has leaned towards PERRY'S suggestion that it was Lucian. T h e work must have been written at the end of the first century CE, or at the beginning of the second. 3. Apuleius adapted the lost Greek 'Metamorphoseis'; but his adaptation in matters both large and small demonstrates a wide range of fidelity to his original, and creative use of a variety of other sources. H e occasionally follows his source carefully, but in general his version of the story reflects his own attitudes and techniques. Comparison with Greek versions is only one of many approaches to the 'Golden Ass', and probably not the most important.

XVI.

Bibliography

1. Abbreviations For most periodicals, abbreviations follow the conventions of 'L'Année Philologique'. Once cited in the endnotes, a work will be referred to by the author's family name alone. Where an author is responsible for several items in the bibliography, repeated references will include the date (e.g., A N D E R S O N 1976). T h e following abbreviations are used for collaborative works. AAGA ANRW CAGN Erot. Ant. G C A 1977

HIJMANS, B. L. and VAN DER PAARDT, R . TH., eds., Aspects of Apuleius' Golden Ass. A Collection of Original Papers, Groningen, 1979. TEMPORINI, H . , HAASE, W., eds., Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt/Rise and Decline of the R o m a n World, B e r l i n - N e w York, 1 9 7 2 - . REARDON, BRIAN P., ed., Collected Ancient Greek N o v e l s , Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1989. REARDON, BRIAN P., ed., Erotica Antiqua: Acta of the International Conference on the Ancient N o v e l (July 1976), Bangor, 1977. HIJMANS,

B. L.,

VAN

DER

PAARDT,

R . TH.,

SMITS,

E. R . ,

WESTENDORP

BOERMA, R . E. H . & WESTERBRINK, A. G., Apuleius Madaurensis Metamorphoses, IV. 1—24 (Groningen Commentaries on Apuleius), Groningen, 1977. GCA

1981

HIJMANS,

B. L . ,

VAN

DER

PAARDT,

R . TH.,

SCHMIDT,

V.,

WESTENDORP

BOERMA, R . E. H . , & WESTERBRINK, A. G., Apuleius Madaurensis Metamorphoses, B o o k s VI 35 - 32 a m d VII (Groningen Commentaries on Apuleius), Groningen, 1981. G C A 1985

H I J M A N S , B . L . , VAN D E R P A A R D T , R . T H . , S C H M I D T , V . , S E T T E L S , C . B . J . , WESSELING, Β., &

WESTENDORP BOERMA, R . Ε. Η . , A p u l e i u s

Madaurensis

M e t a m o r p h o s e s , Book VIII (Groningen Commentaries on Apuleius), Groningen, 1985. ICAN T W O

SAG 1981

TATUM, JAMES a n d VERNAZZA, G A I L M „

eds., I C A N T W O :

Proceedings

of the International Conference, T h e Ancient N o v e l : Classical Paradigms and M o d e r n Perspectives, Hanover, N e w Hampshire, July 23 — 29, 1989. Hanover, N e w Hampshire, 1990. HIJMANS, B. L. &C SCHMIDT, V., eds., Symposium Apuleianum Groninganum 1980, Groningen, 1981.

1702

HUGH J. MASON

2. References on the Onos-Problem ANDERSON, GRAHAM, Studies in Lucian's Comic Fiction (Mnemosyne, Suppl. 43), Leiden, 1976.

ANDERSON, GRAHAM, Eros Sophistes: Ancient Novelists at Play (American Classical Studies, 9), Chico, Ca., 1982. ANDERSON, GRAHAM, Ancient Fiction. T h e Novel in the Graeco-Roman World, London, Sydney and Totowa, N J , 1984. BELLIN DE BALLU, Traduction des œuvres de Lucien, Paris, 1789. BEROALDO, FILIPPO, Commentarii a Philippo Beroaldo conditi in Asinum aureum Apuleii, Bononiae, 1500. BIANCO, GERARDO, La fonte greca delle Metamorfosi di Apuleio (Antichità class, e crist., 10), Brescia, 1971. BOLDERMANN, P. M . , Studia Lucianea, diss. Leiden, 1893. BOWERSOCK, GLEN W., Zur Geschichte des römischen Thessaliens, R h M 108 (1965) 277 — 289. BOWERSOCK, GLEN W., Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire, Oxford, 1969. BROWNE, GERALD M . , On the 'Metamorphoses' of Lucius of Patrae, AJP 99 (1978) 4 4 2 446. BÜRGER, KARL, De Lucio Patrensi, diss. Berlin, 1887. BÜRGER, KARL, ZU Apuleius, H e r m e s 2 3 (1888)

489-498.

BÜRGER, KARL, D e r a n t i k e R o m a n v o r P e t r o n i u s , H e r m e s 2 7 (1892)

347-358.

BÜRGER, KARL, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Romans, I. Der Lukios-Roman, Blankenburg, 1892. CASTIGLIONE L., Lezioni intorno alle Metamorfosi di Apuleio, Milano, 1943. CATAUDELLA, Q., La novella greca, Napoli, 1957. CIAFFI, VINCENZO, Il romanzo di Apuleio e i modelli greci, Bologna, 1983. COBET, C. G., Variae Lectiones, 2nd ed., Leiden, 1852. COCCHIA, ENRICO, Romanzo e realtà nella vita e nell'attività letteraria di Lucio Apuleio, Catania, 1915. COCCHIA, ENRICO, Dalla relazione che intercede secondo Fozio tra Lucio di Patrae e Luciano. Contributi alla critica Apuleiana, R F C 47 (1919) 3 5 8 - 3 6 5 . COURIER, PAUL-EMILE, La Luciade ou l'âne de Lucius de Patras, Paris, 1818. CRUSIUS, OTTO, Vorlagen der Apuleianischen Metamorphosen, Philologus 47 (1889) 448. DEE, CORNELIUS HENRICUS, De ratione quae est inter Asinum pseudo-Lucianeum Apuleique Metamorphoseon libros, Leiden, 1891. DEFFERARI, R . J . , Lucian's Atticism, Princeton, 1916, reissued Amsterdam, 1969. DILTHEY, CARL, Festrede im Namen der Georg-August-Universtität zur akademischen Preisverteilung am 11. Juni 1879, Göttingen, 1879. DORNSEIFF, FRANZ, L u k i o s ' u n d A p u l e i u s ' ' M e t a m o r p h o s e n ' , H e r m e s 7 3 ( 1 9 3 8 ) DOWDEN, KEN, A p u l e i u s a n d t h e art o f n a r r a t i o n , C Q 3 2 (1982) F A B L R , TANAQUIL, E p i s t o l a e , 2 , S a u m u r ,

222-233.

419-435.

1669.

FABI.R, TANAQUIL, Phaedri Fabulae, Saumur, 1673. FRAENKEL, EDUARD, A sham Sisenna, Eranos 51 (1953) 151 - 1 5 4 = ID., Kleine Beiträge (Roma 1961), II, 3 9 1 - 3 9 4 . FRANTZ, MARTHA DE, Über das Verhältnis des Lucian und des Apuleius zur Urquelle der Eselsgeschichte, OpusPhil 6 (1934) 34 - 39. GIL, JUAN, La novela entre los Latinos, EClas 22 (1978) 3 7 5 - 3 9 8 . GOLDBACHER, Α., Über Lucius von Patrae, den dem Lukian zugeschriebenen Ά ο ύ κ ι ο ς ή Ό ν ο ς ' und des Apuleius 'Metamorphosen', ZÖstGym 23 (1872) 3 2 3 - 3 4 1 , 4 0 3 - 4 2 1 .

GREEK A N D LATIN VERSIONS OF T H E ASS-STORY

1703

GRIFFITHS, J. GWYN, Apuleius of Madauros: T h e Isis-Book, Leiden, 1975. GRUPPE, O., Review of REITZENSTEIN, R., Mysterienreligionen 2 , PhilWoch 41 (1921) 3 6 2 369. Photios als Vermittler antiker Literatur, Uppsala, 1975. HÄGG, TOMAS, Den Antika Romanen, Uppsala, 1980. H Ä G G , T O M A S , The Novel in Antiquity, Oxford, 1983. H A L L , J E N N I F E R , Review of A N D E R S O N 1976, JHS 100 (1980) 2 3 1 - 3 . H A L L , J E N N I F E R , Lucian's Satire, New York, 1981. HANSON, J. ARTHUR, Apuleius: Metamorphoses (Loeb edition) Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1989, xi —xii. H E L M , R U D O L F , Praefatio Floridorum, Apuleii Platonici Madaurensis opera quae supersunt, II.2, Leipzig, 1910, reissued, 1959. HÄGG, TOMAS,

HELM, RUDOLF, L u k i a n o s , R E 13.2 (1927), 1749.

HELM, RUDOLF, Der Antike Roman, Berlin, 1948. H E L M , R U D O L F , Apuleius Metamorphosen oder Der Goldene Esel, 6e Aufl. besorgt von W. KRENKEL, Berlin, 1970.

HENRY, RENÉ, ed., Photius, Bibliothèque, Paris, 1960. H E R R M A N N , L É O N , Légendes locales et thèmes littéraires dans le conte de Psyché, AntCl 21 (1952) 1 3 - 2 7 . H E R R M A N N , L É O N , L''Ane d ' o r ' et le Christianisme, Latomus 1 2 ( 1 9 5 3 ) 1 8 8 - 1 9 8 . H E R R M A N N , L É O N , Lucius de Patras et les trois romans de l'âne, AntCl 4 1 ( 1 9 7 2 ) 5 7 3 - 5 9 9 . H E R R M A N N , L É O N , Lucius de Patras et le 'liber memorialis', AntCl 4 2 ( 1 9 7 3 ) 5 3 2 - 5 3 5 . H I C T E R , M A R C E L , Apulée, conteur fantastique, Bruxelles, 1 9 4 2 . H I C T E R , M A R C E L , L'autobiographie dans l''Ane d ' O r ' d'Apulée, AntCl 1 3 ( 1 9 4 4 ) 9 5 - 1 1 1 , 14 (1945) 6 2 - 6 8 . H I J M A N S , B . L . JR. &C VAN DER P A A R D T , R . TH.,

eds., Aspects of Apuleius' Golden Ass,

Groningen, 1979. ( = AAGA) H I J M A N S , Β . L . , VAN D E R P A A R D T , R . T H . , SMITS,

E . R . , WESTENDORP BOERMA, R . Ε . H .

&

WESTERBRINK, A. G., Apuleius Madaurensis Metamorphoses, IV. 1 - 2 4 (Groningen Commentaries on Apuleius), Groningen, 1977. ( = GCA 1977) HIJMANS, B. L. & SCHMIDT, V., eds., Symposium Apuleianum Groninganum 1980, Groningen, 1981. ( = SAG 1981) H I J M A N S , B . L . , VAN D E R P A A R D T , R . T H . , S C H M I D T . V . , W E S T E N D O R P B O E R M A , R . E . H .

&

WESTERBRINK, A. G., Apuleius Madaurensis Metamorphoses, Books VI 35 — 32 and VII (Groningen Commentaries on Apuleius), Groningen, 1981. ( = GCA 1981) H I J M A N S , B . L . , VAN D E R P A A R D T , R . T H . , S C H M I D T , V . , SETTELS, C . B . J . , W E S S E L I N G , B . ,

&

eds., Apuleius Madaurensis Metamorphoses, Book VIII (Groningen Commentaries on Apuleius), Groningen, 1985. ( = GCA 1985) H O L Z B E R G , N I K L A S , Apuleius und der Verfasser des Griechischen Eselsromans, WJA, N . F . 10 (1984) 1 6 1 - 1 7 7 . HUET, PIERRE-DANIEL, Lettre-Traité sur l'origine des Romans, Paris, 1669; modern edition WESTENDORP BOERMA, R . E . H . ,

by F. GÉGOU, P a r i s , 1971.

Unity in Diversity. A Study of Apuleius' Metamorphoses; with Particular Reference to the Narrator's Art of Translation and the Metamorphosis Motif of Cupid and Psyche (Altertumswiss. Text u. Stud., 16), Hildesheim, 1987. J E N N I N G , H E L M U T H , De Metamorphosibus L. Apuleii tum de episodiis tum de iis locis qui e Lucio Patrensi videntur translatis, diss. Rostock, 1867, published Berlin, 1871. J O N E S , C H R I S T O P H E R P., Two enemies of Lucian, GRBS 13 (1972) 465 - 487. ( J O N E S 1972a) JONES, CHRISTOPHER P., Two friends of Plutarch, BCH 96 (1972) 2 6 3 - 2 6 7 . (JONES 1972b) J O N E S , C H R I S T O P H E R P., Apuleius' 'Metamorphoses' and Lollianos' 'Phoinikika', Phoenix 34 (1980) 2 4 3 - 2 5 4 .

J A M E S , PAULA,

110

ANRW 11 34.2

1704

HUGH

J.

MASON

Culture and Society in Lucían, Cambridge, Mass., 1 9 8 6 . Die Erzählungstechnik von Apuleius' Metamorphosen und ihrer Vorlage (Philologus, Suppl.-Band 24.1), Leipzig, 1932.

J O N E S , C H R I S T O P H E R P., JUNGHANNS, PAUL,

K A R L , Die griechisch-orientalische Romanliteratur, Tübingen, 1927, reissued Darmstadt, 1962. KNAUT, C. F. E., De Luciano libelli qui inscribitur 'Λούκιος ή Ό ν ο ς ' auctore, Leipzig, 1868. KRABBE, J U D I T H Κ., The Metamorphoses of Apuleius. (American University Studies, Series 17, Classical Languages and Literatures.) N e w York, Bern, Frankfurt am Main, Paris, 1989. K R A U T T E R , K O N R A D , Philologische Methode und humanistische Existenz. Filippo Beroaldo und sein Kommentar zum Goldenen Esel des Apuleius, München, 1971.

KERÉNYI,

Apuleio o Luciano. A proposito di Lucio di Patrae, R F C 4 7 ( 1 9 1 9 ) 3 5 8 - 3 6 5 . Il significato e il valore del romanzo di Apuleio, Ann. R . Scuoi. N o r m . Sup. Pisa 28 (1923) = Studi sul romanzo Greco, Messina, 1950, 1 0 9 - 1 4 1 = Atakta, Palermo, 1978, 8 3 - 1 1 9 . LEE.EAU, J.-L., Sur le 'Lucius ou l'âne' de Lucien, et Sur 'l'âne d ' o r ' d'Apulée, H M A I 34 (1770) 4 3 - 4 8 , 4 8 - 5 6 . LEHMANN, J. T., Luciani Samosatensis Opera, Leipzig, 1826, VI, 137, 504. LESKY, ALBIN, Apuleius von M a d a u r a und Lukios von Patrae, Hermes 46 (1941) 43 — 72. LAHDI, C . ,

LAVAGNINI, B R U N O ,

MACLEOD, M . T., Lucían, Vol. 8, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1967. M A C L E O D , M . T., Luciani Opera, II, O x f o r d , 1974. M A N S O , J . F. K . , Vermischte Schriften, I I , Leipzig, 1 8 0 1 , 2 4 8 - 2 5 1 . MARIOTTI, S., Lo spurcum additamentum ad Apulei Met. X.21, SIFC 27/8 (1956) 229 - 250. M A S O N , H U G H J . , Review of VAN T H I E L , Der Eselsroman, Phoenix 2 6 ( 1 9 7 2 ) 3 1 3 — 3 1 7 . M A S O N , H U G H J . , Apuleius' 'Metamorphoses' and 'Lucius sive Asinus' since Rohde, Erot. Ant., 1 4 6 - 1 4 8 . M A S O N , H U G H J . , Fabula Graecanica: Apuleius and his Greek sources, AAGA, 1 —15. M A S O N , H U G H J . , T h e Distinction of Lucius in Apuleius' 'Metamorphoses', Phoenix 37 (1983) 1 3 5 - 1 4 3 . MAZZARINO, ANTONIO, L a M i l e s i a e A p u l e i o , T o r i n o , 1950.

MENZEL, H., De Lucio Patrensi, sive quae ratio inter Lucianeum qui Ά ο ύ κ ι ο ς ή Ό ν ο ς ' inscribitur et Apuleii libros intercedat, P a r t i (only published), Meseritz, 1895. M E R K E L B A C H , R E I N H O L D , R o m a n und Mysterium in der Antike. Eine Untersuchung zur antiken Religion, München, 1962. MOLT, MARGARETHA, De Metamorphosesin earumque fontibus, in: Ad Apuleii Madaurensis Metamorphoseon librum primum commentarius exegeticus (diss. Groningen, 1938), 1-6.

Apulée, Roman et Magie, Paris, 1888. MORELLI, C., Apuleiana I - I V , SIFC 20 (1913) 1 4 5 - 1 6 0 , 1 6 1 - 1 8 8 , 21 (1915) 9 1 - 1 1 8 , 119-157. MONCEAUX, PIERRE,

NEUKAMM, V., De Luciano 'Asini' auctore, Leipzig, 1904. NOVAKOVIC, D., 'Lucius ou l'âne' et les 'Métamorphoses' d'Apulée, L & G (Zagreb) 15 (1980), 2 5 - 4 6 . OLEARIUS, GODFRIED,

Philostratorum Opera, Leipzig, 1709.

La novella in Apuleio, 2nd. ed., Messina, 1942. PAULY, A. F., Lucians Werke, übersetzt von A. F. PAULY, Stuttgart, 1827. PENNISI, G., Apuleio e L'additamentum a 'Metamorphoses' 10.21, Messina, 1970. P E P E , Ι . , Lucio di Patra O Aristide-Sisenna? GIF 16 (1963) 1 1 1 - 1 4 2 . P E R R Y , BEN E D W I N , T h e Metamorphoses attributed to Lucius of Patrae, diss. Princeton, 1919, published N e w York, 1920. PARATORE, ETTORE,

1705

GREEK A N D LATIN VERSIONS O F T H E ASS-STORY P E R R Y , BEN E D W I N ,

T h e significance of the title in Apuleius' 'Metamorphoses',

C P 18 (1923)

229-238.

On the authenticity of 'Lucius sive Asinus', C P 21 (1926) 2 2 5 - 2 3 4 . The Ancient Romances. A Literary-Historical Account of their Origins (Sather Class. Lect., 37), Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1967. P E T E R , H . , Der Roman bei den Griechen, Neues Schweizerisches Museum 6 ( 1 8 6 6 ) , 1 6 , η. 30. P L A N C K , A D A L B E R T , Quaestiones Lucianeae, Tübingen, 1850. P O G G I O B R A C C I O L I N I , G I A N F R A N C E S C O , Lucii philosophi Syri comoedia quae 'Asinus' intitulatur, 1450, in: Poggi Bracciolini Opera, Basel, 1538, reproduced by R. FUBINI, Poggi Bracciolini Opera Omnia, Torino, 1964. P E R R Y , BEN E D W I N , P E R R Y , BEN E D W I N ,

P., ed., Erotica Antiqua, Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Ancient Novel, Bangor, 1977. ( = Erot. Ant.) R E A R D O N , BRIAN P., ed., Collected Ancient Greek Novels, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 1989. ( = CAGN) R E I T Z E N S T E I N , R . , Hellenistische Wundererzählungen, Leipzig, 1906, reissued Darmstadt, 1963. R E I T Z E N S T E I N , R . , Das Märchen von Amor und Psyche bei Apuleius, Leipzig and Berlin, 1912. RODE, Α., Apuleius, Der Goldene Esel, Berlin and Leipzig, 1790, xviii. R O H D E , E R W I N , Über Lucians Schrift Ά ο ύ κ ι ο ς ή Ό ν ο ς ' und ihr Verhältnis zu Lucius von Patrae, Leipzig, 1869. R E A R D O N , BRIAN

ROHDE, ERWIN, ZU A p u l e i u s , R h M 4 0 (1885) 6 6 - 9 5 .

Der Griechische Roman, 3rd ed., Leipzig, 1914. ROTHSTEIN, M., Quaestiones Lucianeae, Berlin, 1888. ROHDE, ERWIN,

Prolegomena ad Solinum, Paris, 1629. SCHANZ, M., Geschichte der römischen Literatur, 3rd ed., München, 1897, 9 1 - 9 3 . SCHISSEL VON F L E S C H E N B E R G , O., Entwicklungsgeschichte des griechischen Romans im Altertum, Halle, 1913. SCHISSEL, O T M A R , Lukios von Patrae, RE 13.2 (1927), 1 7 9 8 - 1 8 0 2 . S C H L A M , C A R L C , T h e Scholarship on Apuleius since 1 9 3 8 , C W 6 4 ( 1 9 7 1 ) 2 8 5 - 3 0 8 . S C H L A M , C A R L C . , T h e End of Lucian's 'Onos', lean Two. Proceedings of the International Conference: T h e Ancient Novel. Classical Paradigms and Modern Perspectives (Hanover, N H , July 2 3 - 2 9 , 1989). Hanover, 1990 ( = ICAN T W O ) , 138. S C H M I D , W I L H E L M , Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern, von Dionysios v. Halikarnass bis auf den zweiten Philostratus dargestellt, Stuttgart, 1887, reissued Hildesheim, 1964. S C H M I D , W I L H E L M , Bemerkungen über Lucians Leben und Schriften, Philologus 5 0 ( 1 8 9 1 ) SALMASIUS, C L A U D E ( = DE SAUMAISE),

279-319. SCHMID, WILHELM, SCHMID, WILHELM,

Der griechische Roman, N J b b 1 3 ( 1 9 0 4 ) 4 6 5 - 4 8 5 . Epikritisches zur Echtheitsfrage von Lucians Λούκιος,

BPW

39 (1919)

167-168. Photius, Myriobiblon sive Bibliotheca, Latine reddidit et scholiis auxit Antwerpianus, Paris, 1611. S C H W A R T Z , ED., Fünf Vorträge über den griechischen Roman, Berlin, 1895, 2nd ed., 1943. SCOBIE, A L E X A N D E R , Aspects of the Ancient Romance and its heritage. Essays on Apuleius, Petronius and the Greek Romances (Beitr. zur klass. Philol., 30), Meisenheim, 1969. SCOBIE, A L E X A N D E R , More Essays on the Ancient Romance and its heritage (Beitr. zur klass. Philol., 46), Meisenheim, 1973. SCOBIE, A L E X A N D E R , Apuleius Metamorphoses (Asinus Aureus), I. A Commentary (Beitr. zur klass. Philol., 54), Meisenheim, 1975. SCOBIE, A L E X A N D E R , T h e structure of Apuleius' Metamorphoses, AAGA, 4 3 - 6 1 . SCOTTI, M A R I A - T E R E S A , Il proemio delle Metamorfosi tra Ovidio e Apuleio, GIF, n. s. 13 (1982) 4 3 - 6 6 . SCHOTTIUS, A N D R E A S ,

A N D R E A S SCHOTTIUS

110*

1706

HUGH J. MASON

SOMMERBRODT, J., Einleitung zum Lucían, Luciani Scripta Selecta, Berlin, 1853, I, xvii XXV. SULLIVAN, JOHN P., T r a n s l a t i o n o f P s e u d o - L u c i a n , T h e A s s , C A G N ,

589-618.

SUMMERS, RICHARD G . , A n o t e o n t h e d a t e o f t h e G o l d e n A s s , A J P 9 4 ( 1 9 7 3 )

365-383.

TATUM, JAMES, The Tales in Apuleius' 'Metamorphoses', TAPA 100 (1969), 4 8 7 - 5 2 7 . TATUM, JAMES, Apuleius and the Golden Ass, Ithaca, NY, 1979. TATUM, JAMES, Xenophon's Cyropaedeia and the Rise of the Novel, SAG 1981, 9 7 - 114. TATUM, JAMES &

VERNAZZA, G A I L M . , e d s . , l e a n T w o . P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e

International

Conference: The Ancient Novel. Classical Paradigms and Modern Perspectives (Hanover, N H , July 2 3 - 2 9 , 1989), Hanover, 1990. ( = ICAN TWO). TEUFFEL, W. S., Lukians Λούκιος and Apuleius' Metamorphosen, RhM 19 (1864) 243 - 254. = ID., Studien und Charakteristiken zur griechischen und römischen Literaturgeschichte, 2nd ed., Leipzig, 1889, 5 7 2 - 5 8 4 . TREADGOLD, WARREN T., The nature of the 'Bibliotheca' of Photius, Washington, DC, 1980. VALLETTE, PIERRE & ROBINSON, D. S., Apulée, Les Métamorphoses, 3e tirage, Paris, 1965. VAN DER PAARDT, R. TH., L. Apuleius Madaurensis, The Metamorphoses. Ill, Amsterdam, 1971.

VAN DER PAARDT, R. TH., The Story of Mr. Overbold' as specimen historiae, SAG 1981, 19-29.

VAN DER PAARDT, R. TH., Summary and look ahead, SAG 1981, 1 6 6 - 1 7 5 . VAN T H I E L , H E L M U T , D e r E s e l s r o m a n , I & II ( Z e t e m a t a , 5 4 , 1 & 2 ) , M ü n c h e n ,

1971-2.

VAN THIEL, HELMUT, Die Abenteuer eines Esels oder die Verwandlungen des Lukios, München, 1972. VITALI, G. and PAGLIANO, M., L'asino d'oro, Bologna, 1 9 6 0 - 6 3 . VON ARNIM, Η., Über Lucians Όνος, WS 22 (1900) 1 5 3 - 1 7 8 . Vossius, GERHARD IOANNES, De historiéis Graecis libri tres, Leiden, 1624, III, 5 1 7 - 5 1 8 . WALSH, PETER G „ W a s L u c i u s a R o m a n ? C J 6 3 ( 1 9 6 8 ) 2 6 4 - 2 6 5 .

WALSH, PETER G., The Roman Novel. The Satyricon of Petronius and the Metamorphoses of Apuleius, Cambridge, 1970. W A L S H , PETER G . , B r i d g i n g t h e A s s e s , C R 8 8 ( 1 9 7 4 ) 2 1 5 - 2 1 8 . WALSH, PETER G . , A p u l e i u s , in: E . F. K E N N E Y a n d W . V. C L A U S E N , e d d . , C a m b r i d g e H i s t o r y

of Latin Literature, II, Cambridge, 1982, 7 7 4 - 7 8 6 . WERNER, HANS, Zum Λούκιος ή Όνος, Hermes 53 (1918) 2 2 5 - 2 6 1 . WIELAND, CHRISTOPH-MARTIN, Über den wahren Verfasser des Lucius, Lucian von Samosata, Sämtliche Werke, Leipzig, 1 7 8 8 - 8 9 , IV, 2 9 6 - 3 1 5 . WINKLER, JOHN J., Auetor & Actor. A narratological Reading of Apuleius's Golden Ass, Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1985.

3. Works Cited N o t Bearing Directly on the Ass-Story BEAUJEU, J., Apulée, Opuscules philosophiques et fragments, Paris, 1973. BÜCHNER, Κ., Das Theater des Terenz (Bibl. der Klass. Altertumswiss., N . F . 1 R. 4), Heidelberg 1974. CLAY, D., Lucian of Samosata: Four Philosophical Lives, ANRW II, 36,5, ed. W. HAASE, B e r l i n - N e w York 1992, 3 4 0 6 - 3 4 5 0 . DESIDERI, F., Dione di Prusa. Un intellettuale greco nell'impero romano (Bibl. di cultura contemp., 135), Messina, 1978. Dì GIOVANNI, N. T., ed., Borges on Writing, New York, 1973.

GREEK

AND

LATIN

VERSIONS

OF

THE

ASS-STORY

1707

EDELSTEIN, L., Plato's Seventh Letter (Philosophia antiqua, 14), Leiden, 1966. FUHRMAN, F. D., ed., Plutarque, Œuvres Morales, 9.1, Paris, 1972. GAISER, K., Zur Eigenart der römischen Komödie, ANRW I, 2, ed. H. TEMPORINI, B e r l i n N e w York 1972,

1027-1113.

HIJMANS, B. L., Apuleius, Philosophus Platonicus, ANRW II, 36,1, ed. W. HAASE, B e r l i n New York 1987, 3 9 9 - 4 1 2 . JONES, C. P., The Roman world of Dio Chrysostom, Cambridge, Mass., 1976. KANATSOULI, D., TO koinon ton Makedónon, Makedonika 3 (1953) 39. LARSEN, J . A. O., Roman Greece, in: TENNEY FRANK, ed., Economic Survey of Ancient Rome, IV, Baltimore, 1938. MCCABE, D. F., The Prose-Rhythm of Demosthenes, diss. Harvard 1980, published New York 1981. MEYER, E., Patrai, R E 18.4 (1949), 2210.

PAPAZOGLU, F., Makedonsi gradovi u rimslo doba, Skopje, 1957 (French summary, 334). PAPAZOGLU, F., Quelques aspects de l'histoire de la province de Macédoine, ANRW II 7,1, ed. H . TEMPORINI, B e r l i n - N e w Y o r k 1 9 7 9 ,

302-369.

PASCHOUD, F., ed., Zosime, I, Paris, 1971. PUECH, B., Prosopographie des amis de Plutarque, ANRW II, 33,6, ed. W. HAASE, Berlin New York 1992, 4 8 3 1 - 4 8 9 3 . ROBERT, LOUIS, Les gladiateurs dans l'orient grec, Paris, 1940. ROBERT, LOUIS, Hellenica. Recueil d'épigraphie, de numismatique et d'antiquités grecques, II, Paris, 1946. SCHELLE, H.-J., ed., Christoph-Martin Wieland, Darmstadt, 1981. SCHWEIZER, W. R., Münchhausen und Münchhausiaden, Bonn and München, 1969. STEPHENS, LAURENCE D., Review of J . C. RODRÍGUEZ, Estudios del vocabulario de Q. Curtius Rufus, Salamanca, 1980, Language 59 (1983) 6 5 9 - 6 6 3 . TERZAGHI, Ν., Lucii Ampelii Liber Memorialis, Torino, 1943. TERZAGHI, N., Studia Latina et Graeca, Torino, 1963. WISEMAN, J . , Corinth and Rome I: 228 B. C. - A. D. 267, ANRW II, 7,1, ed. H. TEMPORINI, B e r l i n - N e w York 1979, 4 3 8 - 5 4 8 .

Apuleius Orator: 'Pro se de Magia' and 'Florida'* by

B. L. HIJMANS

JR., Groningen and Schiermonnikoog

Contents Introduction I. 'Pro se de Magia': previous views 1. Some general remarks 2. Title, date, place and circumstances 3. The outcome of the trial 4. 'Publication' and historicity II. 'Florida': previous views 1. Origin and title of the collection 2. The meaning of the title 3. Date of the collection 4. The problem of the preface to 'De deo Socratis' III. 'Pro se de Magia': structural features 1. The narrative structure and the limitations of our knowledge 2. Formal structure a) The ms. division into two books b) The division of content ( = sequence of points made) IV. 'Florida': structural features V. Macrorhythms 1. 'Pro se de Magia' 2. 'Florida' VI. Mesorhythms, microrhythms and other stylistic elements VII. 'Pro se de Magia' and 'Florida': strategies 1. The choice of status 2. Aims announced and inferred

1709 1710 1710 1712 1714 1715 1719 1719 1722 1723 1724 1724 1724 1726 1726 1726 1730 1739 1739 1743 1744 1760 1761 1761

VIII. The constitution of the text

1770

Conclusion

1780

Appendix: Fragment 5 of the Praefatio to 'De deo Socratis'

1781

Bibliography

1782

Addendum

1784

I wish to thank Dr. PAULA JAMES — de Apuleio bene merita - for cheerfully undertaking the labour of correcting the English of the present contribution.

APULEIUS 'DE MAGIA' AND 'FLORIDA'

1709

Introduction Of the remains of Apuleius' work, his rhetorical production forms a considerable part, perhaps too large a part when seen in a list of titles which includes lost works. But that he was an orator of both fame and achievement is generally agreed, even if his rhetorical style is not to everyone's taste. The present contribution leaves aside the speeches included in the 'Metamorphoses' (all of them small jewels in their own right, but especially in their contextual function). It also, though regretfully, passes by 'De deo Socratis' (oratio cum Floridis accuratissime coniungenda, as HILDEBRAND 1 8 4 2 , xliii rightly said, but usually studied more for its doctrine than for its art) except where it needs to be adduced for the sake of comparison. Generically speaking we have (evidence for) speeches of various types. To the genus iudiciale belong: 'Pro se de Magia' 1 and several speeches within the 'Met.'. Augustine Ep. 138,19 in addition speaks of an oration pro statua sibi apud Oeenses locanda, which was still extant in his time. The genus deliberativum is represented by speeches in the 'Met.', whereas the genus demonstrativum forms the context of the 'De deo Socratis' and several (or even all, see below sub II) of the speeches and fragments collected in the 'Florida'. However, it is impossible to determine to what kind of speech a number of items in that collection belonged. Stylistically there are differences between the various items in the list of remnants of Apuleius' rhetorical output, 2 less important perhaps than the differences between his other works, but not insignificant nevertheless. Following NORDEN (Kunstprosa II 603) 3 I have argued earlier (1987, 407f.) that the stylistic differences between Apuleius' extant works cannot in themselves be used as a decisive argument in the debate on the question whether a particular work is genuine or not. Here I turn towards the more interesting question of the link between genre and occasion. There are palpable differences of style between 'De Magia' and the 'De deo Socratis', but also between the latter speech and various items of the 'Florida' — in several respects an exasperating collection. But equally interesting are the stylistic differences within a single speech — differences obviously linked to the matter discussed. 1

2

3

For the title see below sub 12, p. 1712 f. In the present paper I use either the full title 'Pro se de Magia', or the shortened form 'De Magia'. References are made in the form Mag. 1,1 etc., the paragraph numbers referring to those in VALLETTE'S edition. As to the speeches in the Met., both those belonging to a deliberative context — e.g. 6 , 3 1 - 3 2 ( 1 5 3 , 3 - 2 7 H.) - and those of the genus iudiciale - e.g. 3,3 ( 5 4 , 3 - 2 9 H.) and 3,4 — 6 (55,6 — 56,8 H.), which incidentally in their respective lengths reflect the laws allowing the defence more time than the prosecution - give the impression of allusive abbreviation typical of speeches in historical works. The speeches of the medicus at Met. 10,8 — 11 are those of a voluntary witness, but show the character of (part of) a prosecutor's narratio. In this contribution I refrain from reacting to NORDEN'S vitriolic reaction to Apuleius' style (to some extent still shared by LEEMAN 1963), much more venomous even than his judgement of Seneca. It is quite blatantly connected with his preference for the 'classical' and worth a paper in the context of the history of scholarship.

1710

Β. L.

HIJMANS

In studying style and genre I find an approach through various levels of rhythm invaluable as well as indispensable next t o other approaches. If in the present contribution t o o large a claim appears t o be made for the rhythmical aspects I must apologize, but my apology will be based on t w o main arguments, one negative, the other positive: few studies o f the rhythms o f Apuleius' prose exist. T h e older ones moreover are no longer useful because of the changes of perception in the field, whereas in more recent publications clausula rhythms are often treated as f o o t n o t e material appended to lexical and/or syntactical studies or as mere c o n c o m i t a n t effects with rhyme, homoeoteleuton and similar features. T h e positive argument is that in Apuleius' ' P r o se de M a g i a ' and in his ' F l o r i d a ' (as well as in his possibly originally e x t e m p o r e speech O n Socrates' G o d ' ) we have precious, but defective, recordings of what was essentially an oral art form, for the performance o f which the artists practised as concert violinists practice today — i . e . daily and for hours on end. It is my contention that a close study o f all three levels o f rhythm (sequence o f syllable lengths, sequence of colon lengths, sequence of sections of varying character) will help us to c o m e a little closer to detailed reconstruction o f the live p e r f o r m a n c e . 4 In this study I have n o t attempted to evaluate either ' D e M a g i a ' or ' F l o r i d a ' as sources for Apuleius' biography or for c o n t e m p o r a r y African history. T h e approach I have chosen has almost inevitably forced me, however, to b e c o m e doubly aware of the extreme caution required o f both biographers and historians in evaluating the undoubted importance o f these w o r k s for their subjects. 5

I. 'Pro se de Magia':

previous

views

Fiduciam igitur orator prae se ferat semperque ita dìcat tamquam de causa optime sentiat. (Quint. Inst. 5,13,38) 1. S o m e general remarks T h o u g h we have several instances o f other types o f practical rhetoric — i. e. speeches functioning in a political or social setting — 6 Apuleius' ' P r o se de M a g i a ' has been singled out by the M o i r a i to be one o f the very few pieces 4

5 6

It is true, of course, that all verbal art in Antiquity was composed for audible performance, rather than silent reading. See my paper in Entretiens Hardt XXXVI 1991, 16 ff. The evidence for silent reading does not alter that fact. For audible reading see e.g. NORDEN 1898, 6 η. 1 and 956, also Nachträge. Evidence for silent reading in BALOGH 1927. Recently, however, D. M. SCHENKEVELD has drawn attention to some further passages (Times Literary Supplement, March 22, 1991). See e.g. FONTAINE 1985, 146f. and the literature mentioned there. E. g. a number of Apuleius' 'Florida', but also, of course, Pliny's 'Panegyric'.

APULEIUS ' D E MAGIA' AND

'FLORIDA'

1711

o f f o r e n s i c r h e t o r i c in L a t i n surviving f r o m t h e first f e w c e n t u r i e s o f t h e R o m a n E m p i r e . I n e v i t a b l y it has b e e n c o m p a r e d , o f t e n u n f a v o u r a b l y , s o m e t i m e s w i t h p r a i s e , w i t h C i c e r o ' s s p e e c h e s . 7 It is a m o s t i n t e r e s t i n g p i e c e w h o s e p r o b l e m s s o far h a v e suffered f r o m a r e l a t i v e l a c k o f s c h o l a r l y

many

attention,

especially if o n e c o m p a r e s t h e s p a t e o f b o o k s a n d a r t i c l e s d e a l i n g w i t h t h e 'Metamorphoses'. F o r e n s i c r h e t o r i c : t h e c h a r a c t e r i s a t i o n e x c l u d e s t h e possibility t h a t it w a s a d e c l a m a t i o n (cf. e. g . A B T 1 9 0 8 , 2 f., w h o s e a r g u m e n t s o n this p o i n t a r e by a n d l a r g e still a c c e p t a b l e . See, h o w e v e r , a l s o b e l o w u n d e r 3 . a n d 4 . ) . N e v e r t h e l e s s it is p e r h a p s n o t e w o r t h y t h a t in t h e p e r i o d o f t h e s e c o n d s o p h i s t i c r u m o u r s o f m a g i c a l p r a c t i c e s c l u n g t o at least t w o c o m p a r a b l e o r a t o r s : 8 P h i l o s t r a t u s (VS

7

8

Occasionally the distance between the styles of De Mag. and Flor, is the basis for praising 'De Magia' 's more Ciceronian sobriety, e. g. PARATORE 1948, 33 f., SALOTTOLO 1951, 45; cf. also BUTLER —OWEN 1914, xliv who speak of "a sobriety and sanity (...) on the whole absent from his other writings". Others (e.g. HELM 1977, 9 f . who emphasises the sophistic elements) seek to contrast the two orators, especially on stylistic points. CARBONERO 1977 notes that Apuleius rises above the immediate juridical questions by giving a defence of philosophy in much the same way in which Cicero presents the case of Archias as a defence of poetry. KENNEDY 1972, 605 had underscored the point in more general terms. Comparison is possible, but difficult, not only in view of the time gap, but also because of the altogether different social and political circumstances in which the two orators were active. Apuleius mentions Cicero (in a list of orators, each one chosen for a single characteristic) for his rhetorical opulentia (Mag. 95,5) and again for his use of the term enuntiatum (P. herm. 1:176,15). There is no solid evidence that Apuleius studied Cicero's speeches. The many 'reminiscences' mentioned by HELM (Praef. Flor, xxiiff.) and BUTLER —OWEN (passim in their annotations) in most cases may be spontaneous phrasings, standard court room language (as SALOTTOLO 1951, 48 quite rightly remarks), or, for that matter, derive from other sources, many of them now inaccessible. I select a few instances: ch. 1 (etc.) quique in Consilio estis, treated by HELM as Ciceronian, is properly seen as "probably stereotyped" by BUTLER - OWEN; in ch. 3 HELM regards the expression uocem ... erupturam as a reminiscence of Cie. Pro Vatin. 15, but cf. O L D s. v. erumpo for more instances; albus an ater (ch. 16), an expression used by Cicero Phil. 2,16,41, is also Catullan (c. 93,2) and properly regarded as proverbial by both FORDYCE on Catullus and O L D s. v. albus 4a. For breui usura lucís (ch. 18) see also Acc. trag. 507. Quite a few of HELM'S instances are of a type that seems to derive directly from the court situation, thus the phrasing at ch. 68 quaeso uti adhuc fecistis ... diligentissime cognoscatis, of course, can be compared with several passages in Cicero, but doubtless could equally well be compared with passages from other forensic speeches if only we had them; and surely any and every orator learnt to use the effect of calling the audience to witness! For the magic of the word see also below sub VI, p. 1744f. As in ANRW 36.1 (1987), 396 I am inclined to make a distinction between Apuleius and the group that fits Philostratus' definition of the 'second sophistic', see e. g. Philostr. VS 1,8,7 (on Favorinus) and 2,26,3 (where the sophist is regarded as foremost a teacher), cf. BOWIE 1982, 39. Indeed almost all sophists dealt with by Philostratus either are rich or have been rich, and moreover have a noteworthy parentage. There is no indication that Apuleius ever taught rhetoric and he represents both his wealth and parentage as modest. On the term 'sophist' see now SWAIN 1991, 159 ff.

1712

Β. L. HIJMANS

1 , 2 2 , 3 - 4 p. 522/3) discusses the suggestion that Dionysius of Miletus used Chaldaean methods to teach his pupils the arts of memory, and VS 2,10,9 (p. 590) mentions the fact that Hadrianus at his death was regarded as a magician. 9 The thought might occur that Apuleius because of similar rumours faked a trial in his 'Pro se de Magia', but that notion is at once to be rejected as the sort of creative imagination that might do well in a novel; such a notion can only be established (or suggested) by external evidence, if the author himself leaves no hints. 10 Quite naturally several scholars have attempted to reconstruct the prosecution's case. Thus e.g. MOSCA 1974 in his introduction. The difficulties attending such an attempt — which has its rightful place in the construction of Apuleius' biography — are obvious, especially if one remembers Quintilian's remark (Inst. 5,13,27)

Utique numquam committendum est, ut aduersariorum dicta cum sua confirmatione referamus, aut etiam loci alicuius exsecutione adiuuemus, nisi cum eludenda erunt:n The biographer cannot trust a n y of the prosecution's charges in the wording presented by Apuleius. 2. Title, date, place and circumstances In F the subscription at the end of book I has: 'APVLEI MADAVRENSIS PRO SE AP V T CL. M A X I M V M PROCOS DE MAGIA' and at the end of book II 'APVLEI MADAVRENSIS PROSAE DE MAGIA', φ has as an inscription 'MADAVRENSIS APVLEI PLATONICI DE MAGIA'. In ancient testimonia the work is referred to, but not by title. 12 Since the work itself does 9

10

11

12

Whether BOWERSOCK 1969, 116 is right in ascribing the trial of Apuleius to similar "envious denigration" remains a moot point. Apuleius himself certainly argues that inuidia is the main motive force of the prosecution, see Mag. 66,3. Philostratus indeed deplores the suggestion of "magic", but gives no further details about the rumours — for all we know "envious awe" may be the more proper term in the cases of Dionysius and Hadrianus. Furthermore Apuleius reacts to the specific accusation of having won Pudentilla (and her money) through incantation Mag. 67,3 meis carminibus coactam; 71,1 meis carminibus·, through incantation and drugs: 90,1 carminibus et uenenis; through drugs: 91,4 ueneficiis, 102,1 magiae meae, ueneficiis (69,4 magicis maleficiis a me coacta, 78,5 mea magia in amorem inductam are less precise terms, cf. also 81,1; 82,1; 102,7). One may be inclined to treat Mag. 67,5 as just such a hint: Quae omnia tam falsa, tam nihili, tam inania ostendam adeoque facile et sine ulla controuersia refutabo, ut médius fidius uerear, Maxime quique in Consilio estis, ne demissum et subornatum a me accusatorem putetis, ut inuidiam meam reperta occasione palam restinguerem. See however below sub VII, p. 1767. There may be a case of direct quotation for the purpose of ridicule at Mag. 13,5 Habet speculum philosophus, possidet speculum philosophus. But of course this, too, may well be reworded summary. See also below (p. 1758, note 157). Cf. Augustine Ep. 137,13 Apuleium se contra magicorum artium crimina defendentem; see also Ep. 138,19; CD 8,19.

APULEIUS 'DE MAGIA' AND

'FLORIDA'

1713

not suggest a title, the ms. evidence should be accepted, rather than the traditional 'Apologia', which does not seem to antedate the Aldina edition of 1521.13

Scholars are now agreed that 158/9 A. D. must have been the year of the trial. 14 The venue of the trial was Sabrata (59,2 hie Sabratae).xs — All knowledge concerning the circumstances of the trial depends on the information given by Apuleius within the text of this speech in his own defence. This information encompasses the following main points: (a.) Immediate circumstances of the trial: — when Apuleius has started proceedings against the Granii on behalf of his wife Pudentilla, it is insinuated by the patroni of the Granii that he is guilty of magica maleficia and of causing the death of his stepson Pontianus. - Apuleius insists on a formal indictment. - Aemilianus indicts Apuleius on a charge of the practice of magic, but enters the libellus in the name of Sicinius Pudens, Apuleius' younger stepson. T h e murder charge is dropped. — All information we have on points raised in the speech for the prosecution. Several matters are not clear: 1. T h e reason for Apuleius' proceedings against the Granii; 2. the relationship between Aemilianus and the patroni of the Granii; 3. the reason for Apuleius' tactic in insisting on a formal trial (Mag. 1,6), apart from his obvious preference to have the affair out in the open. (b.) Surmises concerning the trial's background are many and varied, e. g. - T h e suggestion that the accusation was due in part to the particularly superstitious climate of North Africa has little to commend itself. 16 Nor is HELM'S very vague notion (1955, 86) of a period of increasing superstition very helpful.

» See MOSCA 1974, V. On the title 'Apologia' see also HELM Praef. Flor. 1910, X X . 14 Cf. ch. 85,1: ante has imperatoris Pii statuas implies the reign of Antoninus Pius, Lollianus Avitus was proconsul in the previous year: ... Carthaginem pergit, ubi iam prope exacto consulatus sui muñere Lollianus Avitus te, Maxime, opperiebatur, ch. 94,5, and Avitus' proconsulate fell in 157/8, see GUEY 1951, 307 ff„ and SYME 1959, 310 f. (cf. M O S C A 1 9 7 4 , vi η . 1 ) . 15

16

See VALLETTE 1908, 30 η. 2 (he argues against older attempts to change the text) for supporting evidence. The passages adduced are scarce: Gellius IX 4,7 is dependent on Pliny 7,16. MOSCA'S evidence for Africa superstitiosa therefore is extremely weak. The same goes for AUGELLO 1984, 9n2 who does not add any further evidence. VALLETTE 1908, 26 cites as his main authority Augustine who is still waging a war against superstition (no passages are cited, but see e.g. CD 8,19; 18,18). But Augustine's concern can hardly be treated as evidence for the African scene in Apuleius' time. In any case magic had been a much exercised and obviously fascinating - theme for a long time in the entire Greco-Roman world.

1714

Β. L. HIJMANS

- STEINMETZ, 1982, 104 refers to a contemporary case of undue (Christian 17 ) influence concerning a divorce with which he compares Apuleius' trial. This cannot be adduced to sketch the background of Apuleius' trial. In any case, there is also the suggestion of magic clinging to other representatives of the second sophistic mentioned sub i. above.

3. The outcome of the trial Most scholars are quite sure that Apuleius was acquitted, an opinion which may well be taken as approval for the performance, or for the speech as 'published', though it often is a qualified approval. Two opinions prevail: Apuleius was acquitted, it is thought, either with a 'not guilty' or with a 'non liquet', thus e. g. AUGELLO 1984, 18 apparently taking the latter term in the modern sense of 'insufficient proof, therefore not guilty', or perhaps thinking of 'a hung jury': sibi non liquere, however, in Apuleius' time was the jury's formula for requesting a continuation of the process, see MOMMSEN 1899, 422 f.: there is no evidence for such a further trial in Apuleius' case. 18 The main arguments that have been presented are the following: COCCHIA 1 9 1 5 , 1 0 6 ff. believes in a non liquet largely because of Augustine's statement (ep. 138,19) that for all his magic Apuleius did not reach any higher positions than that of sacerdos prouinciae. But do we know that Apuleius sought such positions? Or if he did, that it cannot have been for any other reasons that his path was blocked? ABT 1908, 14 reasons that the very fact that the speech was published makes it probable that Apuleius was acquitted: „Nur wer so gesiegt hatte, daß er wußte, seine Feinde seien nun ein für allemal mundtot gemacht, nur der konnte so schreiben, nicht, wer mit genauer Not am Tode vorbeigeschlüpft war." The argumentation falls down as soon as one remembers Cicero's 'Pro Milone'. It also assumes a revised version. In short, the argument is without value. Yet also BUTLER —OWEN very similarly write (1914, xvi): "the publication of the speech was probably, in a sense, a cry of triumph over his defeated adversaries." Cf. MARCHESI 1965, 19. The assumption that the speech was published in revised form is also for AUGELLO 1984, 18 reason to assume acquittal, together with the author's victorious tone, as well as the fact that the Met. was written afterwards, for, he says, otherwise the Met. would have been used by the adversaries. 19 VALLETTE 1908, 110 f. and 1924, xxii is much

17 18

19

See also VALLETTE 1908, 28 who notes that Christians were often suspected of magic. Hence COCCHIA'S phrasing ( 1 9 1 5 , 1 1 0 ) is more precise: „Apuleio non risultò dal processo come innocente del crimen magiae, cioè di 'non provata reità, anche se l'accusa non fu più rinnovata ne il processo riaperto a suo carico." The latter argument assumes that we have all the points advanced by the prosecution in Apuleius' rebuttal. Possibly we do, but we cannot be sure. It also assumes that the prosecution misread the 'Metamorphoses' by identifying a victim of magic with a

APULEIUS 'DE MAGIA' A N D 'FLORIDA'

1715

more cautious: he notes acquittal but a continuing reputation as a magician. 1 9 6 2 , 7 7 6 adds that the verdict left so much doubt that the publication of the speech was needed to remove such doubts. M o s t of this is based on no more than speculation. M O S C A 1974, xliii therefore wisely limits himself to presenting scholarly opinion on the point and turns to the fame the magician Apuleius continued to have in later antiquity. There is one fairly decent argument — used last by S T E I N M E T Z 1 9 8 2 , 204 f.: afterwards Apuleius is in Carthage and serves as sacerdos Africae — a position he would hardly have obtained or continued to hold if he had not been acquitted and if the imperial advisers at least who presented him for the post had not been persuaded that the charges were unfounded. PARATORE

4. 'Publication' and historicity As to the question whether 'Pro se de M a g i a ' was 'published' - itself a fluid notion in the ancient world and certainly not to be confused with modern publishing practice, even apart f r o m the production process (see also below footnotes 25 and 26) — in a form closely resembling the speech as it was given, or rather in an extensively revised version, several remarks need to be made. T h e question is of importance, not only for the literary interpretation — including the fascinating question of audible performance —, but also for the linguistic status of the text: C A L L E B A T accepts the text as immediate evidence for the contemporary linguistic situation in R o m a n Africa, at least of the Romanised and cultivated circles (1984, 143 f.). Those w h o think in terms of a thoroughly revised version cannot do so, since revision may well imply correction of all linguistic material according to a literary standard that diverged to a greater or lesser degree from the spoken version. T h e problem is rather complicated if one adduces both the internal evidence of the speech as we have it and Apuleius' as well as his contemporaries' practice. Older scholars by and large agreed that 'Pro se de Magia' as it stands must be a thoroughly revised version of the speech held during the court session. T h u s e.g. A B T 1908, 6 f f . , V A L L E T T E 1908, 118 (though he is rather cautious on the point), U S S A N I 1929, 130, E N K 2/1935, 253, S A L O T T O L O 1951, 45 and recently still G U A R I N O 1986, 159. T h e main arguments advanced for this possibility are the following: — ABT argues that in view of the length of the speech (for which he guesses some three hours 2 0 ) it has a comic effect on the reader „wenn Apuleius dem

20

performer. If I may participate for a moment in this sort of novelistic speculation, I must argue that the prosecution - even if half as incompetent as Apuleius sketches its various members — would know that the defence could laugh a charge based on the 'Golden Ass' right out of court. S T E I N M E T Z 1 9 6 2 , 2 0 3 , who accepts the argument in principle, strengthens it by speaking of some six hours required, including statements of witnesses and reading of documents. The latter, however, are expressly exempted, cf. e.g. Mag. 37,4 aquam sustine. (The

Β. L. HIJMANS

1716 Ankläger

vorhält,

er hätte

Claudius

Maximus

Besseres

Gewäsch werden

anzuhören

über

sich doch

klarmachen

und Notwendigeres Dinge,

die noch

müssen,

daß der

Prokonsul

zu tun hätte, als solch nicht

einmal

zur Sache

endloses gerechnet

T h e a r g u m e n t misrepresents t h e t e x t o f ch. 2 5 in w h i c h the

könnten."

quality o f the a c c u s a t i o n s ( f r i u o l a et inter

se repugnantia:

uana

conuicia)

is

m e n t i o n e d , n o t t h e length o f t h e speeches for t h e p r o s e c u t i o n . C e r t a i n sections a r e r e g a r d e d by ABT as possibly a d d i t i o n s for the published version: c c . 15 - 1 6 : it w a s u n n e c e s s a r y t o speak in c o u r t a b o u t p h i l o s o p h i c a l theories c o n c e r n i n g m i r r o r s a n d these c h a p t e r s w o u l d n o t be missed if left o u t . In m y view they a r e entirely functional: Apuleius h a s a r g u e d in c h a p t e r s 13 a n d 1 4 t h a t it is n o c r i m e t o l o o k in a m i r r o r a n d t h a t t h e m i r r o r i m a g e has its a d v a n t a g e s in c o m p a r i s o n with o t h e r likenesses. B u t he h a s a n n o u n c e d t h a t he will defend the c a u s e o f p h i l o s o p h y a n d so a t r e a t m e n t o f the m i r r o r in philosophical c o n t e x t fits his s c h e m e so well t h a t it is n o t surprising

he

i n t r o d u c e s it, taking first its m o r a l , s e c o n d its physical a s p e c t s . 2 1 c c . 18 ( 2 1 , 1 6 ) - 2 5 „mit Sicherheit"

( 2 9 , 1 3 ) o n t h e p h i l o s o p h e r s ' p o v e r t y in ABT'S view m u s t

be r e g a r d e d as a n e x t e n d e d version o f the s p o k e n t r e a t m e n t ,

several references to the water clock, and especially the point of 46,3 mea aqua licet ad hoc utare show that Apuleius' time must have been fairly precious.) I estimate the length close to five hours, but I do not regard the argument as valid: five hours (20 clepsydrae) is by no means excessive: Pliny the Younger says that he has spoken five hours as a prosecutor (Ep. 2 , 1 1 , 1 4 ) and narrates how in another case e lege accusator sex horas, nouem reus accepisset (of which he himself was asked to use five: Ep. 4 , 9 , 9 ) . In chapter 2 8 Apuleius appears to imply that the time available to him was fixed in proportion to the length of the prosecution's speech: quoniam mihi pro accusationis longitudine largiter aquae superest. The phrase seems an odd one if the measure taken in the lex Pompeia of 5 2 was in force (cf. Ase. in Milonianam p. 4 1 , 6 f. G I A R R . : deinde uno die atque eodem et ab accusatore et a reo perorati iubebat, ita ut duae horae accusatori, tres reo darentur. Cf. Cie. Brutus 324, Tac. Dial. 38,2; Cassius Dio 40,52,2). However, SHERWIN-WHITE on Plin. ep. 2 , 1 1 , 1 4 points out that Augustus' lex iudiciaria and certain other laws may have included regulations concerning ad hoc time allowances for the contending parties, cf. Cie. Verr. Act. 11,1,25, Pro Fiacco 82. See also MOMMSEN 1899, 427f. 21

The only thing we know about the prosecution's point concerning the mirror is that Apuleius calls it longa illa et censoria oratio. Though it is quite possible and perhaps even likely that it must have referred to some magic usage of mirrors, it is also possible that it elaborated on the theme of the philosophus formonsus (thus MARCHESI and AUGELLO ad loc.; MOSCA Intr. xviif. thinks both aspects may have been touched upon). For the rare occasions in which mirrors figure in magical context see ABT 1908, 24 ff. The possibility of magic use of mirrors is mentioned by v. NETOLICZKA in RE XI,1 (1921), 29ff. s.v. κάτοπτρον who cites Seneca N Q 1,5,4 (31,28). MOSCA 1974, xviii disagrees with COCCHIA p. 71 concerning the disgression here, which COCCHIA 7 1 had regarded as an „inopportuna divagazione"; it is on the contrary an apt element of the defence in so far as the proper study of the mirror belongs to the realm of the philosopher, just the same as the elogium paupertatis is no inept digression in view of the speaker's efforts to show that he neither gained nor wanted to gain by the marriage.

APULEIUS 'DE M A G I A ' A N D

'FLORIDA'

1717

though he finds it hard to decide what part or parts of the section were added at a later time. That sort of argumentation leaves much to be desired. I am rather convinced that ABT'S certainty is based on imagination. A small remark in the middle of the passage, however, gives an early hint that the prosecution made a quite substantial point of showing that Apuleius' poverty and hence greed was his main motivation in doing everything in his power to acquire Pudentilla and her wealth: 22,5 iam cetera tarn mirifica, quae si tu legisses, magis mihi peram quam nuptias Pudentillae inuidisses. In this passage we may read an attempt to create a boomerang effect, one just slightly less obviously stated than the one in ch. 23, where Apuleius finds it opportune to give his own — rather vague! — account of his worldly possessions and then very nearly accuses the formerly extremely poor Aemilianus of causing crebrae mortes of those of his kin from whom he stood to inherit, c. 29, according to ABT, could be left out without loss, since it contains the same thought as c. 32, the latter being presupposed in c. 33. This is not quite correct since in c. 29 Apuleius first discusses per quosdam piscatores, subsequently pretio quaesisse, in c. 32 he admits (for the sake of argument) that fish may be used for magic and asks, for the second time (cf. c. 30), whether therefore all those who acquire fish are also magi, subsequently citing comparable cases of materials that may be used for evil purposes but are commonly available. I do not believe therefore that ABT'S argument is valid. 22 - In the same year (1908) VALLETTE'S influential thesis was published. He notes (1908,116) that the speech shows much evidence of having been delivered and admits that Apuleius could have delivered it, for even if he had to improvise on the spur of the moment he could have done so in view of his rhetorical training. Nevertheless he argues that it probably was not pronounced as we read it for (a) it was quite customary for ancient authors to rewrite their speeches for publication. He cites Cicero's 'Verrines' and 'Pro Milone' as well as Plin. Ep. 4 . 9 . 2 3 in evidence.

(b) Apuleius probably would not trust stenographic recordings by third persons (cf. Quintilian's reason for publishing his 'Institutiones' and Arrian's letter to L. Gellius heading Epictetus' 'Diatribae' and (c) the speech is rather longer than one might reasonably expect, though it would be hard to show what segments were added later. - The argument that Apuleius had too little time to prepare such a long and detailed defense - an argument based on Apol. 1 , 4 - 5 and advanced by e.g. VALLETTE 1908, 118 - has little value, if one remembers that on Apuleius' 22

Much the same goes for the further instances of, in ABT'S view, "unnecessary" sections, for which see his p. 8 and n. 1. T h e several digressions have aroused objections among other scholars as well. I think MOSCA 1974, xviii f. is quite right in trying to demonstrate that in no case can one speak of a non-functional digression (against COCCHIA and VALLETTE). That is to say, of course, that we may well have to imagine a similar functionality for some of the excerpts preserved in the 'Florida'.

1718

Β. L.

HIJMANS

own showing 2 3 the situation out of which the accusation arose had been developing for a much longer period, and that therefore Apuleius had both time and the necessary incentive to prepare for just such an attack should it arise. Furthermore, in other c o n t e x t s Apuleius vaunts his proficiency in speaking ex t e m p o r e , 2 4 a long standing practice o f the schools for which there is ample evidence in Apuleius' o w n time: Philostratus for instance mentions this aspect in his discussion of most of his individual sophists, see e . g . 1,21,10 (Scopelianus), 1,23,2 (Lollianus), 1,25,9 (Polemon) and so forth. In recent decades opinions concerning revision have been thoroughly revised. T h u s WINTER 1969, 607 - 6 1 2 first establishes the possibility that the text is a faithful stenographic record of the spoken defence 2 5 and finally comes to the conclusion that its ' p u b l i c a t i o n ' was due n o t to Apuleius himself but to 'enterprising stenographers'. T h e first thesis must be admitted and partly for that reason CALLEBAT 1984, 143 η. 1 thinks it p r o b a b l e that the text as we have it represents the spoken speech with no m o r e than m i n o r corrections. T h e second is much less evident; it assumes the existence of a class of entrepreneurs for w h o m Flor. 9,13 provides hardly enough evidence. T h e words

nam quodcumque ad uos protuli, exce[r\ptum ilico et ledum est, nec reuocare illud nec autem [a me F] mutare nec emendare mihi inde quidquam licet indeed refer to stenographic recording, but not necessarily to recording for the purpose of 'gainful publication'. T h e y may equally well refer to the consideration that an o r a t o r like Apuleius in view o f the existence o f stenographic copies did not feel free to depart t o o much from the spoken version when preparing his oration for " p u b l i c a t i o n " . 2 6 In itself the latter expression has its well k n o w n — though t o o often neglected — difficulties: see VAN GRONINGEN 1 9 6 3 ; R A D T 1 9 9 0 .

23

24 25

26

Cf. e.g. Mag. 66,3 multa antea pericula uitae; 78,1 — 2 Herennius Rufinus' threats; and, especially 94,4 where Apuleius notes that a full account of the affair had been written to Lollianus Avitus. See Praef. DdS, fragments 1; 4 and, especially, the developed comparison of fragment 3. See also TEITLER 1983, 29 f. on the terms notarius and exceptor. An amusing anecdote concerning Prohaeresius (Eunapius, Vitae 83 f.) neatly illustrates the possibility of rather precise recording (admittedly a few centuries later), but also shows that the speaker's memory must have been a major aid in word perfect rendering for 'publication'. As to Cicero's two versions of 'Pro Milone' see WINTER 1969, 609, but again it is somewhat rash to conclude from Asconius' phrase manet autem ilia quoque excepta eius oratio (In Mil. p. 46,21 GIARR.) that it was "published" by a stenographer: Asconius may have had access to the recording made for Cicero himself, for all we know. A similar reasoning may apply at Suet. Iul. 55,3. As to the notion of publication see VAN GRONINGEN 1963, who argues that ekdosis never means 'edition' in the modern sense of the word: it refers to a single copy of a work made available to one or more others by the author. The same is true for editto (VAN GRONINGEN 1963, 4 η. 3).

APULEIUS 'DE MAGIA' AND 'FLORIDA'

1719

T h e speech as we have it does not suggest either a fake or strong reworking for publication. O n the contrary it shows many vestiges of the actual setting and conduct of a historical trial: — it refers to the water clock regulating the speaker's time (on the clepsydra and the time allowed to prosecution and defence see above p. 1715, note 20). — it refers to witnesses called by the prosecution — c. 61 Cornelius Saturninus artifex is present, apparently as a witness for the defence. Also present are Corvinius Celer and Cassius Longinus as witnesses for the defence (c. 101): their testimony not written out, but given live in court. — pieces of evidence are produced and discussed: the statuette (c. 63) Pudentilla's letters (c. 80 f., 82, 83 f.) Pudentilla's birth certificate (c. 89) the tabulae nuptiales (c. 91 f.) a letter of Aemilianus (c. 69) letters of Pontianus (c. 96) Pudentilla's Will (c. 100) a book of Apuleius (e. g. c. 55) — it refers to the audience as present (see below p. 1739, note 105 for the passages). N o n e of these is impossible in a reworking, but the very number of pieces of evidence that are referred to as to be seen or read in court, some of them in such a way that the reader has to guess at their contents, presents a strong argument in favour of direct recording. We may assume that Apuleius made a fair copy of that recording. T h a t copy subsequently became the archetype of further copies, a m o n g which are those of Augustine and Sal(l)ustius. 27

II. 'Florida': previous views

1. Origin and title of the collection In the ms. tradition the collection of fragments is divided into four books: I comprising nrs 1 - 9 (11,24H.); II comprising nrs 9 (11,25) - 15; III comprising nrs 1 6 - 1 7 ; IV comprising nrs 1 8 - 2 3 . With 249 lines in HELM'S Teubner text for book I, 262 for book II, 249 for book III and 262 for book IV, these sections are of roughly equal length. Compared with the books of 'De Magia' in the same manuscript tradition (book I 1778 lines, book II 999 lines) the 27

Whether the latter's work on the text included comparing several copies we do not know.

ILL ANRW 11 34.2

1720

Β. L. HIJMANS

'books' of the 'Florida' are very short indeed. It has been conjectured that the book division was retained from an edition of collected full (introductory) speeches (e. g. SINKO, MRAS) or at least a much larger collection of excerpts (e.g. AUGELLO 1984, 413). The same comparison shows that no guess can be made as to the length of the books in such an edition - if ever it existed. Indeed the argumentation is highly dubious: book lengths varied enormously. 28 It should be noted, too, that the subscriptions, unlike most of those in the 'Metamorphoses' and 'Pro se de Magia', lack any reference to the Sal(l)ustius. We do not know therefore whether he played any role in shaping the text of either the original collection of speeches (if any) or of these selected pieces as we have them. 29 Nevertheless some weight must be attached to the fact that F contains 'Pro se de Magia', the 'Metamorphoses', and the 'Florida', and that there is no overlap with the traditions of the opera philosophica, and 'Peri hermeneias'. We know that Augustine had access to the 'Metamorphoses' and 'De Magia', but also to 'De deo Socratis' and 'De Mundo', furthermore that he quotes extensively from the 'Asclepius', very soon after he has dealt with 'De deo Socratis', and that he mentions as still extant a speech about a statue concerning which Apuleius had litigation in Oea. There is some likelihood, then, that he had a fairly extensive Apuleius in his North African library at roughly the same time during which in Rome Sal(l)ustius was revising another manuscript containing at least 'De Magia' and the 'Metamorphoses'. Augustine does not refer to 'Florida'. 30 HELM 1 9 1 0 , x i x , VALLETTE 1 9 6 0 , x x v a n d o t h e r s , e . g . STEINMETZ 1 9 8 2 ,

194, agree that the original collection in four books was probably made by Apuleius himself. 31 This, while not impossible, is pure guesswork. The same may be said about the various theories 32 concerning the origin of the collection as advanced by others: 28

29

30

31

32

See e. g. SCHUBART 1921, 52 ff.; KENYON 1951, 53 f. When Martinus Bracarensis composes the 'Formula honestae vitae' from excerpts out of Seneca's writings, the length of his "book" (291 Teubner lines) hardly exceeds that of one book of the 'Florida'. ('De remediis fortuitorum', a similar excerpt, is a little longer; ca. 450 lines; 'De moribus' even shorter: 228 lines.) It seems possible that an excerptor from late antiquity was responsible for both the selection and the book division. See further below sub IV, p. 1730 f. T h e r e is n o w a r r a n t y f o r H E L M - K R E N K E L ' S r e m a r k ( 1 9 7 0 , 3 5 ) t h a t t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f

the three works transmitted together (Met., Mag., Flor.) is due to Sal(l)ustius' work, though the possibility cannot be denied. Unless the collection happens to contain an excerpt from the published speech concerning a statue at Oea. See Ep. 138,19 (testimonium # 10 in the collection of fragments and testimonia I am preparing): ...et pro statua sibi apud Oeenses locanda, ex qua ciuitate habebat uxorem, aduersus contradictionem quorundam ciuium litigaret? Quod posteros ne lateret, eiusdem litis orationem scriptam memoriae commendauit. However, no strong case can be made for that possibility. More cautiously WALSH 1982, 775: "a collection of twenty-three extracts from published speeches and lectures", a phrase that leaves open the questions whether some of the items are complete and to what rhetorical genre each of them is to be assigned. These opinions are also briefly sketched in AUGELLO 1984, 413 f.

APULEIUS 'DE MAGIA' A N D

'FLORIDA'

1721

OuDENDORP regards the collection as anthera chresima worked up by Apuleius himself (a kind of personal commonplace book); he is followed by BERNHARDY. SCHANZ - H O S I U S - K R U E G E R 1922, 118 rightly object that quite a few of the pieces are much too specific to be regarded as loci communes. H I L D E B R A N D 1 8 4 2 , xlii regards the 'Florida' as a collection of declamationes without further defining that term. - KRUEGER 1865, Ν regards the pieces as examples of a florid style. - GOLDBACHER 1867 agrees with HILDEBRAND, but adds that these excerpts from declamationes received the title 'Florida' from the epitomator, a title that probably was not given to the original collection in four books. - ROHDE thinks that Apuleius made the original collection of excerpts and complete speeches himself, including the division into four books, and called it 'Florida'. An epitomator subsequently shortened the collection and that epitome itself may not have been transmitted in its entirety. He is also one of the first scholars to use (1914, 333 n. 2) the designation ' p r o l a l i a ' for some of the pieces. N O R D E N , Kunstprosa II 6 0 4 is of the opinion that the 'Florida' are „nichts anderes als μελέται", a statement which in view of the various meanings of μελέτη remains a little vague: does he mean 'declamations' or 'preparations'? SINKO, Eos 1 8 ( 1 9 1 2 ) 1 5 1 regards all pieces as prooemia or excerpts from

prooemia.

B U T L E R — O W E N , comm. on M a g . 4 „tarn Graece quam Latine" say: "In the Florida we find prefaces to declamations which were written alternatively in Greek and Latin, though it is true that these were intended for the more cultured ears of the Carthaginians"; it is quite clear that they refer to the pieces attached to the tradition of ' D e deo Socratis', not to the collection preserved in F (see below p. 1771). We should also remember that it is part of the sophist's stockin-trade to praise his audience's high level of education.

- SCHANZ-HOSIUS-KRUEGER 1922, 118 note that the title is probably not Apuleius' own and that insufficient grounds exist to suppose Apuleius himself made a collection. M R A S 1 9 4 9 regards all pieces as prolaliai, or parts of pieces described by that term. Prolalia as a technical term indicating a genre has at best a shaky foundation. MRAS himself admits that the word occurs very rarely, see also NESSELRATH 1991, 110 f. who establishes after STOCK 1911, that it cannot have been an ancient technical term. - STEINMETZ 1982, 194 f., much impressed by MRAS' argumentation, regards the larger pieces (Flor. 9, 15, 16 and 18) as complete prolaliai/praefañones and argues that, since the shorter pieces show very similar characteristics, the original collection may have been four books of 'Praefationes' published by Apuleius himself. 3 3 33

111»

We do not know whether Apuleius would have referred to these speeches as praefationes. In the extant works the word praefatio occurs at Met. 7 , 1 5 (165,7) to refer to a speech to the ass's new keeper, and while it is tempting to think of that speech as a propemptikon for the ass, it may just as well refer to a set of instructions concerning his treatment. A

1722

Β. L.

HIJMANS

K Y T Z L E R 1974, 314 notes that the pieces are „ausgehoben wohl von späterer, anonym gebliebener Hand". AUGELLO 1984, 413 „ora intere conferenze, ora brani di esordi di conferenze, ora descrizioni che vogliono essere significative". As to the question of who compiled the collection AUGELLO declares a non liquet: it is not clear

whether the original anthology was made by Apuleius and if so why he should have compiled it. Previous scholarship, then, has been looking for some kind of line in the collection, usually in connection with the insoluble problem of its genesis. HILDEBRAND refers to unnamed predecessors who sought such a line in the content, from OUDENDORP onwards the main search was for a formal element linking the pieces.

2. T h e meaning of the title T h L L s. v. floridus

926,5 f. explains the title of the collection as follows:

floridarum sermonum partium

collectio.

In Latin the term floridus fairly often refers to a particular quality of style. T h L L has no parallels for " f l o r i d a " in the more general sense of "anthology": these are "pieces in a florid style" and it is not impossible therefore that the title implies a criterion for selection. With reference to a person's (rhetorical) style in general the word occurs at Cie. Brutus 285

At est (sc. Demetrius) floridior, ut ita dicam, quam Hyperides

quam

Lysias; Sen. Contr. 4. praef. 3

(Asinius Pollio) floridior erat aliquanto in declamando

quam in agendo.

It refers to the quality of sententiae at Sen. Ep. 114,16. Quint. Inst. 2,5,18 discussing appropriate reading material for beginners notes that some prefer a floridius genus (as contrasted with the minores preferred by others), whereas

similar problem (aggravated by a textual question, see the forthcoming volume of G C A by M . ZIMMERMAN, who prefers GROSLOT'S conjecture) occurs at 10,17 (249,26). The expression praefari ueniam occurs three times (Met. 1,1:1,1, cf. HARRAUER —RÖMER 1985, 361; 11,23:284,26 and Flor. 1,2) and may, like Mag. 75 multus honos auribus praefanda est, have its origin in religious context, cf. Met. 11,14 (Lucius, having just regained his human shape, asks himself) quid potissimum praefarer primarium where HARRAUER 1973 notes: „Der Gebrauch der Sprache ist für den wieder zum Menschen gewordenen Lucius ein sakraler Akt". At Met. 11,16 (278,20) and 11,17 (279,20) the context is obviously religious. Such a context may also be surmised at 3,20 (67,6) where Fotis, referring to her solemn injunctions of 3,15 (63,6ff.), says: ...modo, ut initio praefata sum, rei tantae fidem silentiumque tribue. In the latter passage, however, the word may also have no more than a simple referential function, as at Peri herm. 8 (186,4).

APULEIUS ' D E M A G I A ' A N D

1723

'FLORIDA'

he himself opts for the Best Authors. Later, when discussing similes he exclaims that the appropriate type (cf. Inst. 5 , 1 1 , 2 2 ) ornat orationem facitque sublimem, floridam, iucundam, mirabilem. From our point of view perhaps the most interesting passage in Quintilian is Inst. 12,10,58 f. because here the word is used in a technical division of styles: Altera est diuisio (...) qua discerni posse etiam recte dicendi genera inter se uidentur. Namque unum subtile, quod ίσχνόν uocant, alterum grande atque robustum, quod άδρόν dicunt, constituunt, tertium alii medium ex duobus, alii floridum {namque id άνθηρόν appellant) addiderunt. Quorum tamen ea fere ratio est, ut primum docendi, secundum mouendi, tertium illud, utrocumque est nomine, delectandi siue ut alii dicunt, conciliandi praestare uideatur officium, in docendo autem acumen, in conciliando lenitas, in mouendo uis exigi uideatur. This 'florid' style is then characterised as follows: medius hie modus et translationibus crebrior et figuris erit iocundior, egressionibus amoenus, compositione aptus, sententiis dulcis, lenior tamen ut amnis et lucidus quidem sed uirentibus utrimque siluis inumbratus. Later the word occurs with reference to style in an interesting passage in Macrobius Sat. 5 , 1 , 5 - 1 2 . 3 4 He has his speaker present first two and then four different oratorical styles, one of them the pingue et floridum genus (for which his example is Plinius Secundus) and then demonstrate that Vergil was a master of all four. The possibility, then, that an excerptor compiled the collection for students of rhetoric may well be taken seriously. But HELM 1910, xix rejects the n o t i o n , f o l l o w i n g GOLDBACHER 1 8 6 7 a n d SCHANZ. S e e a l s o AUGELLO 1 9 8 4 , 4 1 5 w h o agrees w i t h HELM.

3. Date of the collection It is obvious that a distinction must be made between the date of the collection we have, the date of the hypothetical collection it is thought to have been excerpted from and the dates of the various pieces. The latter dates may be determined with some precision in some instances. Cocceius Severianus Honorinus is mentioned in Flor. 9. He is proconsul and it appears he held that office before 163 (PIR 112, p. 298 no. 1218). In Flor. 16 Aemilianus Strabo, vir consularis is described as breui uotis omnium futurus proconsul, an office he held in 166. In Flor. 17 we read praise of Servius Cornelius Scipio Salvidienus Orfitus, the incumbent proconsul in 163. AUGELLO 1984, 414 concludes that all speeches of which we have fragments in the 'Florida' were held during the 34

T h e notion also occurs in Fortun. rhet. 3,9 p. 126,4 f: Ά δ ρ ό ν uniforme est aut αύστηρόν aut άνθηρόν.

est? Non:

nam

1724

Β. L.

HIJMANS

joint rule of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (161 —169). The conclusion is not warranted since a. the references mentioned as dating grounds are valid only for the fragments in which they occur, and b. we have no notion when Apuleius died and c. we do not know when the collection — or the possibly larger original collection — was made. 4. The problem of the preface to 'De deo Socratis' The manuscript tradition in which 'De deo Socratis' occurs contains a preface, which by common consensus is divided into five separate fragments, none of them properly belonging to 'De deo Socratis'. BEAUJEU 1973, 161 notes that the hypothesis « n'a plus besoin d'être démontrée ». The chief arguments have been advanced by THOMAS 1900, 143 ff. They are acceptable in so far as they demonstrate that fragments 1—4 have nothing to do with 'De deo Socratis'. The question whether they ever formed part of the 'Florida' is hard to answer for the simple reason that no external evidence is available. See also below sub VIII p. 1771 with n. 207, where it is argued that the internal evidence is rather less than conclusive. For that reason I have not included these fragments in the material for the present paper. For the problem concerning fragment 5 — which I believe to belong to 'De deo Socratis' — see the appendix.

III. 'Pro se de Magia': structural

features

1. The narrative structure and the limitations of our knowledge The circumstances of the trial play an important part not only in the negative sense that we do not know anything that is not said within the text of 'De Magia'- 35 but also in the positive sense that the work gives its readers a picture of a set of circumstances. The history of scholarship shows that this picture differs from one interpreting reader to another 36 notwithstanding the fact that all those readers are reacting to substantially the same text. 37 One may speak therefore of the usual unstable relationship between an author and his readers, the acknowledgement of which has thrown all claims to absolute truth in interpretation out of court. One may agree, however, on the likelihood of some points, one of which may be the hypothesis that the author has 35

36

37

References to the trial in other authors (see above p. 1712 n. 12) themselves depend on a copy of the text. As an example of a very personal picture I may mention the small booklet of PHILIP WARD, Apuleius On Trial At Sabratha, New York 1968. For the transmission of the text and the value of its chief witness see sub VIII, p. 1770.

APULEIUS

'DE

MAGIA'

AND

'FLORIDA'

1725

published his text. 38 If so, he has done so after the set of circumstances referred to above had ceased to exist. We must distinguish therefore between Apuleius the Author and Apuleius the Actor. Doubtless there is a clear link in historical identification, but in both cases it is of some importance to note the necessary distinction between Apuleius the historical person, and those aspects of his self he, in his roles as an Author and an Actor, allows to be seen. The point is of some importance when we consider the much debated question to what extent the speech has been published as spoken, or alternatively, to what extent it has been reworked: i. e. how much and what kind of activity do we assume on the part of the Author Apuleius? We must assume at least some work (if the possibilities mentioned in footnote 38 are disregarded): the technical possibilities of recording what has been said may have been quite advanced, but still the notation system must have needed a considerable amount of interpretation. 3 9 On the other hand, as I have argued above, the reasons advanced so far to prove extensive enlargement and reworking cannot be accepted since they are largely based on false or insufficient premisses. If we agree, then, with W I N T E R and C A L L E B A T , we may assume a rather small distance between the Author Apuleius and the Actor defending himself in this speech. 'Pro se de Magia' is a first person text — in terms of G E N E T T E — L I N T V E L T it is a homodiegetic discourse 40 - and failure to observe the limitations that circumstance entails has in the past led to unwarranted statements of a historical kind. One of the chief limitations obviously consists in the fact that the whole of the cast of the drama — or whatever metaphor we wish to use - is characterised in such a way that they generally support the main aim, which is to refute the charges brought against the speaker. The consequences for an attempt to use the text as a historical witness are obvious, 41 38

There are, of course, other possibilities: the text may have been published without the knowledge of the author, either because he was dead and a draught was found among his papers, or because stenographers present at the trial took down the speech for purposes of gain (thus WINTER 1969). See however above p. 1718.

39

F o r t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f s t e n o g r a p h i c n o t a t i o n s e e e. g . WINTER 1 9 6 9 , 6 0 7 ff.; KEES, R E X I , 2

(1922) s. v. Kurzschrift 2217,52 has a reference to the contemporary practice. See also above sub 14, p. 1718. 40

41

S e e G . GENETTE, N a r r a t i v e D i s c o u r s e (transi. J . E. LEWIN), O x f o r d 1 9 8 0 , J . LINTVELT,

Essai de typologie narrative: le 'point de vue', Paris 1981 ( 2 1989). We know Claudius Maximus was a man of letters, but only because of independent e v i d e n c e ( M . A u r . 1 , 1 5 ; 1 , 1 6 , 9 ; 1 , 1 7 , 1 0 , s e e a l s o CHAMPLIN 1 9 8 0 , 3 2 ) . W e d o n o t k n o w

whether Aemilianus was an uneducated provincial or Crassus a useless drunk or Herennius Rufinus as unsavoury a character as Apuleius sketches him: Quintilian Inst. 5,13,38 clearly treats reprehensiones of this sort as part of the game. N o r do we know, for that matter, whether Apuleius was, in 158, a „hochangesehener Redner" (HELM 1955, 86, much better in this respect VALLETTE 1908, 10f.), though that certainly is part of the impression he creates. Examples, even in recent scholarship, can be multiplied. They disregard the lack of independent testimony, or even a copy of the main speech for the prosecution, which at least could be used as a kind of balancing view.

1726

Β. L .

HIJMANS

and we may suspect any amount of slanting, but are in the unfortunate position that ours must remain a suspicion.

2. Formal structure a) The ms. division into two books M O S C A 1 9 7 4 , xiif. quite rightly notes that the division into two books which occurs in the ms. tradition is entirely apt: book 1 on the question of magic ends after chapter 65, book 2 deals with the seduction of Pudentilla, i. e. the two main aspects of the accusation. The possibility that Apuleius thus underscored the major structural feature of his speech in a very practical way is undervalued in the modern editions. 42

b) The division of content ( = sequence of points made 43 ) The main sections of the first part (cc. 1 - 65) are cc. 1—3 Exordium. Apuleius starts his speech with a strong attack on Sicinius Aemilianus announcing that he will defend philosophy and thereby incidentally also himself. He narrates a brief history of how this particular case came to court in such a way that the narrative strongly supports his own counterattack on Sicinius Aemilianus. 44 cc. 4 — 25 contain the refutation of a series of crimina friuola, possibly all of them raised by the prosecution in order to discredit the defendant, though it must be admitted that the reconstruction of the prosecution's case is far too shaky to allow us to state with confidence that one or more points were not linked with the main indictment. 45 These frivolous attacks include:

42

See below sub VIII, p. 1 7 7 4 MOSCA (ibidem) does not think the book division can have been m a d e by Apuleius himself. H e gives n o reasons for this opinion except t o say that it is much m o r e probable that Apuleius published the speech as a unit. In his opinion it may be ascribed t o the late 4 t h century emendation of Salustius (thus the spelling of that n a m e in the explicit after M a g . 6 5 ) . T h e usual scroll offers fairly limited space, and it seems unlikely that a speech of m o r e than twice the length of the ' P r o Milone', or one and a half times as long as In Verrem II lib. 4, De signis would have been written out on one scroll. H o w e v e r , the lengths o f papyrus scrolls varied immensely (see e . g . KENYON 1951, 5 3 f.) and the argument is not a strong one: the question must be shelved for lack of evidence. See also below sub IV, p. 1 7 3 0 , on the b o o k division of the 'Florida'.

43 44

O n the strategy t o which this sequence bears witness see ch. 7 below. Cf. KENNEDY 1 9 7 2 , 6 0 5 . F o r the presentation o f the case as a defence of philosophy CARBONERO 1 9 7 7 , 2 4 7 c o m p a r e s Cie. P r o Archia 3 and 19.

45

See above, p. 1 7 1 2 .

APULEIUS 'DE MAGIA' A N D 'FLORIDA' c. 4 T h e p r o s e c u t i o n ' s o p e n i n g s e n t e n c e accusamus formonsum

et tarn Graece

quam

Latine

...

apud

1727 te

philosophum

disertissimum46

c. 6 - 1 2 A p u l e i u s ' l i g h t verse', i n c l u d i n g t h e o n e de dentifricio

cited in c. 6

a n d t w o 'erotic' p o e m s c i t e d in c. 9 . 4 7 c. 13 —16 T h e d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s s e s s i o n a n d u s e o f a m i r r o r . 4 8 c. 17 T h e m a n u m i s s i o n o f three s l a v e s , a p o i n t l i n k e d w i t h t h e n e x t o n e : c. 18 - 2 3 T h e probrum

o f paupertas

c. 2 4 T h e o b j e c t i o n a g a i n s t his

a n d , finally,

patria,49

c. 2 5 , 1 - 4 g i v e s a s u m m a r y o f t h e c h a r g e s d e a l t w i t h s o far. c c . 2 5 , 5 - 6 5 c o m p r i s e t h e a r g u m e n t a t i o n a g a i n s t t h e c h i e f c h a r g e (ipsum magiae).

crimen

A p u l e i u s t a c k l e s this by d e a l i n g first

c. IS,S — 2 7 , w i t h t h e n o t i o n s magus c. 2 7 , 5 — 2 8 h a s p r e s e n t e d a partitio

a n d magia,

a n d t h e n , after h e

f o r t h e r e m a i n d e r o f his s p e e c h , 5 0 by

dealing w i t h a n u m b e r of single alleged acts of the practice of magic:51 c. 2 9 — 4 1 A p u l e i u s refutes t h e c h a r g e t h a t h e h a s m a d e a s e a r c h f o r s o m e types of fish for magical purposes and paid fishermen to provide them. T h e n he d e a l s

46

47

48

49

50 51

On the point of formositas cf. e.g. Philostr. VS 2,5,1 (Alexander of Seleucia) and 2,25,6 (Hermocrates). He also mentions an interesting reaction to Marcus' appearance: του δέ Πολέμωνος είπόντος "τί ές τόν αγροικον όρδτε; ού γάρ δώσει γ' ούτος ύπόθεσιν" (κτλ.] (VS 1,24,4). Τό κομαν is ridiculed by Dio Pr. Or. 35,2 ff. as a sign of wisdom, but Apuleius clearly thinks it prudent to draw attention to his unkempt hair. On the other hand, in Flor. 2 he tells the anecdote how Socrates reacts to a handsome young man who keeps silent. T h e context is one of the rejection of externa. One gets the impression, therefore, that the topic was alive well beyond the confines of the schools. It remains a theme in Eunapius' biographies (cf. e.g. Próhaeresius 77). Concerning the bilingual ability see also chapters 36, 38, 87, the preface to DdS etc. MOSCA 1974, xv makes the point that the prosecution must have used the dentifricium to demonstrate the use of drugs. Cf. ABT 1908, 20. MOSCA 1974, xvi again attempts to reconstruct the use made of the 'erotic' poems by the prosecution and refers to ABT 1908, 22 f. On the use made of mirrors in magic see ABT 1908, 99. His reference to Artemidorus 2,7 is inappropriate: Artemidorus, of course, does not discuss mirrors as such, but the significance of mirrors seen in dreams. It is perhaps interesting to note that in the Socrates myth of later antiquity the mirror plays a role in moral education, cf. Diog. L. 2,33: ήξίου δέ και τούς νέους συνεχές κατοπτρίζεσθαι, ϊ ν ' ει μεν καλοί εΐεν, άξιοι γίγνοιντο· ει δ'αισχροί, παιδεία τήν δυσείδειαν έπικαλύπτοιεν. For the address to Maximus (13,3 — 4) CARBONERO 1977, 248 compares Cie. Pro Archia 3 and 32 arguing that the captatio benevolentiae takes on special weight in both cases. T h e point concerning the irrelevance of one's provenance is compared by CARBONERO 1977, 251 with Pro Archia 23 (and 4). It seems, however, that the comparison is more than a little vague, because Cicero is speaking of Greek literature, Apuleius of North African local birth. For the function of this partitio in Apuleius' overall strategy see below sub VII, p. 1763. For the point "Why shouldn't I be allowed to acquire certain species of fish for the sake of knowledge if others may for the sake of gourmandise" CARBONERO 1977,249 compares Cie. Pro Archia 13. See below p. 1764.

1728

Β. L.

HIJMANS

c. 4 2 - 4 6 with the charge concerning the incantation of a slave (Thallus) 5 2 and other pueri incantati. After referring c. 47 to the 14 slaves he has produced at the request of the prosecution, he continues c. 48 —51 with the mulier incantata, by arguing that she was an epileptic, taking his material from Plato 5 3 . After c. 52 another attack on Aemilianus he treats c. 5 3 — 5 6 the charge concerning the mysterious object wrapped in a suda-

riolum,54 and c. 57 — 60 the written testimony of Iunius Crassus concerning nocturna sacra performed by Apuleius and his friend Appius Quintianus in Crassus' house. Follows c. 6 1 — 6 5 the refutation of the charges concerning the statuette of Mercury (which develops into a fascinating theological statement 5 5 flanked by an impressive malediction of Aemilianus). cc. 66 — 102 contain the refutation of the second main charge, viz. that Apuleius has caused Pudentilla to marry him by means of magic. 5 6 T h e speaker makes c. 66 first an opening statement announcing his main aim in this part of the speech and argues that the entire accusation derives from Aemilianus' invidia and proceeds c. 67 with a partitio in which he states that there are five points of the accusation he must dispute: — Pudentilla did not want to marry again — Pudentilla's letters show the use of magic — Pudentilla has married at 60 ad lubidinem57 — (the prosecution's inferences from the circumstance that) the wedding took place in the country villa, not the city, — the accusations concerning the dos. T h e final point is dubbed the chief one. After describing his main aim (and its risk 5 8 ) to the judge 5 9 Apuleius organises his presentation c. 68 —101 starting as a long narratio interrupted by the presentation evidence and including a great deal of invective. He narrates

"

of

F o r c. 4 3 c f . R E G E N 1 9 7 1 , 3 ff.

«

C f . R E G E N 1 9 7 1 , 8 9 η . 2 7 9 , HIJMANS 1 9 8 7 , 4 1 8 ff.

54

C. 5 4 contains a further lively attack on Aemilianus which at the same time reminds the audience of some of the points refuted earlier. T h e manner of refutation of the present charge serves as an extra refutation in those cases: there, too, Aemilianus had used the method of the fishing expedition.

55

Cf. e . g . REGEN 1971, 9 4 - 1 0 3 . T h e fact that Apuleius uses more than a third of his speech for the more directly juridical points is improperly evaluated by CARBONERO 1977, 2 4 8 . AUGELLO 1984, 1 7 n l cites the lex Papia Poppaea nuptialis of 9 A. D. See below sub VII, p. 1767. Is the exclamation medius fidius strategically placed? cf. c. 1.

56

57 58 59

APULEIUS ' D E M A G I A ' A N D

'FLORIDA'

1729

c. 6 8 - 7 3 the history of Pudentilla's marriage, interrupting his narrative for c. 69 the reading of Aemilianus' letter and c. 70/71 the reading of Pudentilla's letter (1) and after describing c. 72 — 73 his own arrival and describing how he yields to Pontianus' urging them to be married, he continues c. 7 4 with Pontianus' change of heart, adding an attack c. 7 4 , 3 - 7 6 on Herennius Rufinus and his household into which Pontianus has married. He resumes his narrative by describing c. 77 the ways in which Herennius influences Pontianus to put pressure on Pudentilla, who remains firm in her decision, and c. 78 Herennius' angry reaction, which includes calling Pudentilla a slut and Apuleius magum et ueneficum as well as a threat of murder. After an angry invective ( 7 8 . 3 - 4 ) , Apuleius returns to his narrative (ibid. 5 sed ne longius ab ordine digrediar) by mentioning Pudentilla's letter in which according to the prosecution Pudentilla confesses that she has been influenced by magic. Then follows c. 79 - 86 the refutation of this piece of evidence including c. 85 a heavy attack on Sicinius Pudens who publicly uses his mother's private correspondence, a despicable act put in the harsher a light by c. 86: the tale about the Athenians not reading the private correpondence of Philip II of M a c e d ó n . 6 0 After briefly dealing c. 87 with another letter, which Apuleius denies he has written, he proceeds c. 87,10 — 88 by dealing as briefly with the fact that the marriage act has been

signed in uilla suburbana, and c. 89 with Pudentilla's age, 6 1 and then makes

c. 9 0 - 9 3 the transition (90,1: Misssa haec facio. Venio nunc ad...)

to the

matter of the dos alleged to have been obtained by the undue influence exercised through magic. c. 92 T h e tabulae nuptiales are put in evidence to refute the allegations. T h e narrative then continues c. 94 with the repentance and death of Pontianus. A letter of Lollianus Avitus is read before the court to support the narrative. T h a t reading is followed by c. 95 a brief laudatio o f Avitus, after which c. 96 Pontianus' letters are mentioned 6 2 and read, and

60

61

62

T h e section is compared by CARBONERO 1977, 251 ff. with Cicero's point (Arch. 19) that many cities fight to have H o m e r their citizen, whereas R o m e would refuse Archias. T h e comparison is far-fetched as CARBONERO knows: he underscores the similarity of the somewhat ironic treatment in both authors. Cf. GUARINO p. 160 who notes that the passage is interesting from two points of view: evidence for proof of age through declaration of birth, and evidence for legislation against men marrying women who are t o o old for them. CARBONERO 1977, 2 5 3 treats the p a r a d o x (??) of 96,5 as comparable to the p a r a d o x at Cie. Arch. 4 (and the counter-claim of Socrates in Plato's Apol.). I am by no means sure that CARBONERO'S treatment of the passage in Apuleius is correct: Apuleius says that he has factual evidence of Pontianus' repentance.

1730

Β. L.

HIJMANS

c. 97 Apuleius alleges that Herennius Rufinus prevented Pontianus' last will from being d r a w n up and signed, because he disinherited his wife, Herennius' daughter - now intended to become Sicinius Pudens' wife. Sicinius Pudens is c. 98 said to have moved into the house of Aemilianus f r o m w h o m Apuleius expects bad influence. Nevertheless, he continues c. 9 9 - 1 0 1 , Pudentilla has made this surviving son her heir. As a kind of postscript Apuleius finally refutes by means of witnesses the allegation that a certain praedium has been bought in his name. T h e speech is rounded off c. 102 - 1 0 3 with a peroratio in which the main charges and their refutation are summarised. IV. 'Florida': structural features

In our editions Apuleius' 'Florida' are divided into twenty-three sections of unequal length and the book division of the manuscripts has been dropped. Perhaps it is not altogether superfluous to remember that in F these sections are not especially marked, though it is true that most of them start with a capital. Similar capitals, however, occur within several of the longer sections. T h e division into four books has been thought to be a remnant of an earlier, larger, collection, the main reason being the extreme brevity of the books. Above I have argued that the hypothesis is unnecessary and should be put on ice until more positive indications turn up showing that such a fuller collection in fact has existed. In the present chapter I shall work from the hypothesis that the collection, as we have it, roughly represents the intentions of the u n k n o w n epitomator - barring smaller accidents in transmission between his work and the one 11th century copy extant in F. The first book division occurs in Flor. 9 after the words accuratius disputaba. T h a t is to say the epitomator either was not interested in having the end of a book coincide with the end of a cohesive piece, or was for some reason unable to effect such coincidence. For the first possibility there are numerous parallels — the position of the tale of ' A m o r and Psyche' (Met. 4,28 — 6,24) may be one; 6 3 for the second we may, for instance, think of a time a n d / o r place in which writing material of appropriate size was hard to come by. 64 63

It may even be argued that this o d d position neatly marks the old crone's story as an inner, supportive, tale in the structure of the M e t . T h i s is not t o say that usually authors did not make the attempt to achieve such a coincidence. See e . g . SCHUBART 1921, 54. H o w e v e r , in all probability w e are not dealing w i t h an author, but with an epitomator, w h o s e concern e re nata is with brevity.

64

There w a s a d e m a n d for shortened w o r k s in later Antiquity; Valens orders Eutropius' 'Breviarium', an 'Epitome D e Caesaribus' appears, Gaius' 'Institutiones' are epitomised, Fulgentius d o e s his p o o r best as d o e s Martinus Bracarensis and so forth, see e . g . REYNOLDS a n d WILSON 1 9 7 4 , 2 9 ; a t t h e s a m e t i m e p a p y r u s g r a d u a l l y d i s a p p e a r s , t o b e

APULEIUS ' D E M A G I A ' A N D

'FLORIDA'

1731

This situation raises two questions: first we must consider whether the books as indicated in F are structured in any discoverable way, second we have to ask whether the section boundaries have been correctly indicated. 65 It is only after these questions have been answered that further elements of structure can be discussed. Scholars have introduced a further complication by assigning the four (or five) sections of the preface to 'De deo Socratis', as it occurs in the manuscripts, to the 'Florida'. The proposal entails a rather complicated hypothetical history of the transmission. For my reasons not to accept the hypothesis see the chapter on the constitution of the texts. If we survey the contents of book I, we note that sections 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 fit speeches with philosophical subjects, the same might well be the case for section 3 (Marsyas' argumentation in 3,11 — 13 presumably resembles the prosecution's objections to the philosophus formonsus against which Apuleius defends himself in 'Pro se de Magia'), and is not wholly out of the question for section 1, though that looks more like an epibaterion. Section 8 on the other hand seems to belong to a speech in which someone or other is honoured, whereas section 9 is a propemptikon 66 addressed to Severianus. Book II starts with the remainder of section 9, philosophical subjects appear to be the easiest imaginable contexts for sections 10, 11, quite likely 12, certainly 13, 14 and 15, though in the latter case the 'prolalia' 6 7 may do no more than establish the speaker's status as a philosopher, whereas the lost address to the magistrate (cf. 15,27 ab omnibus tuis antecessoribus) turned to other matters. Book III comprises the gratiarum actio (16) for the statue decreed by the Senate of Carthage and the panegyric for Scipio Orfitus (17). Book IV starts with the preface to a presentation about Aesculapius (18) in which the exempla of Protagoras and Thaïes refer to philosophy; next we have the exemplum of the healer Asclepiades (19); the praise of Carthage is introduced by the philosophus Apuleius (20); section 21 may well come from a speech dealing with officia·, 22 (Crates) almost certainly should be placed in a philosophical context, and the same is true of section 23. By far the majority of the fragments therefore have a direct bearing on Apuleius' status as a philosopher, but the order in which they occur does not — to me at least — suggest any structuring principle. Nor can I find such a principle in the selection and positioning of the formal elements that seem to have interested the epitomator, such as exempla, comparisons, descriptions and certain stylistic developments. As to the question whether the fragments have been marked correctly the answer must be affirmative: at no point can one read on from one fragment

65

66 67

replaced by (expensive) parchment, see e. g. KENYON 1 9 5 1 , 1 1 2 f., REYNOLDS and WILSON 1974, 31. It is an interesting oddity that neither HELM nor VALLETTE or AUGELLO discuss the history or the correctness of the division. See also below sub VI, p. 1750 f. F o r the term see above sub II, p. 1721.

1732

Β. L.

HIJMANS

to the next without at least assuming a considerable lacuna. This holds true even if we consider for a m o m e n t the possibility that something may have gone wrong with the order in which the fragments appear. Thus, to take the most obvious possibility, viz. that the t w o fragments dealing with Crates derive f r o m one speech, it is impossible to fit 14 either immediately before or after 22. 68 Within the fragments of some size and the more or less complete speeches, however, several structural features are worthy of note, and some of the very small fragments may well have had a structuring function. To start with the latter, Flor. 5 is closely akin to Flor. 18,4 — 5, where the point is part of an exordium, though not quite the opening. It is possible to surmise a similar place for Flor. 5. In the case of Flor. 8, on the other hand, one suspects that a considerable development has preceded and that here we have the remnant of a transition to the actual laudatio of the consularis addressed. 6 9 It is much harder to suggest a likely place for Flor. 11, except that the comparison presumably winds up the description of someone w h o uses another's goods to his own advantage — the fake philosophers w h o are the point of the description of Alexander's edict in Flor. 7 come to mind. 7 0 M u c h the same must be said of Flor. 13 on philosophic speech in comparison with the song of birds. 7 1 They sing at fixed times in fixed modes, unlike the philosopher, whose reasoned speech is apt at and adapted to all times. Flor. 1 is commonly regarded as the exordium of a speech held soon after the arrival in a new city, 72 and it has been suggested that the city must have been Carthage. 7 3 As to the latter suggestion there is no evidence. The former is certainly possible, but it should be noted that no really comparable exordia have been preserved within the corpus Apuleianum. T h e inner structure is simple: the speaker w h o is passing through a city compares himself with a devout traveller coming upon a holy place or sanctuary of any description. T h e comparison is split into t w o parts by its very brief application. T h e first part shows the traveller in action at some 68

69

70

71

Indeed it is much more likely that these two fragments served their respective purposes in two different speeches, for the point that Crates gave up his worldly possessions occurs in both. See also below, footnote 69. MRAS 1949, 215 suspects that the fragment is somehow linked with Flor. 7, but his summary seems unduly slanted. It is possible to imagine Flor. 11 to have been taken from the same speech as Flor. 7, but in view of enim and because the element of picking up particular flores from others has not yet been introduced at 7,13 the passage preserved in Flor. 11 cannot have followed immediately. The comparison involves the times of day when birds are singing. The fragment may have come from the same speech from which Flor. 12 was taken, but if so from an altogether different section.

72

T h u s e. g. MRAS 1949, 215.

73

Thus AUGELLO 1984 ad loc., but the fact that Apuleius says to be in a hurry (quamquam oppido festine) rather suggests that he is visiting this city while on his way to another destination (cf. the title V A L L E T T E prints for this piece).

APULEIUS 'DE MAGIA' A N D 'FLORIDA'

1733

sanctuary, the second lists several types of holy sites. The last sentence may well build a transition to further remarks concerning the city the speaker has just entered. The other fragments and/or speeches also show some inner structures and I shall take them in order. Flor. 2 After a lost passage, presumably concerning the relative value of the senses, Socrates' opinion 7 4 is illustrated by an anecdote, a contrary opinion is illustrated by a quotation from Plautus, which is turned on its head by the transposition of two words. Apuleius then starts his argumentation in support of Socrates' opinion by means of a paraphrase of some lines from Homer and the description of the sight of the high flying eagle which is sharper by far than that of human beings. The fact that the latter description ends with the purpose of the eagle's sharp sight - i.e. to descry its prey - may suggest a subsequent, now lost, contrast with the mind's eye of the philosopher which reaches into heaven (cf. DdS. 1:6,8 f. deos caelites intellectu uestigamus, 2:8,9 ff. acie mentis but also 'De Platone' 1 , 1 4 ( 2 1 1 ) with B E A U J E U ad loc.). 75 Flor. 3 shows a fairly simple inner structure, too. It starts with Hyagnis, one of the great inventors in the area of music 76 and the father of Marsyas, next sketches the latter in his rough appearance and his contest with Apollo (presided over by the Muses, who do not take the matter seriously), then presents Marsyas' speech, the first part in indirect summary, the second as direct quotation. The Muses' reaction follows — in this account they appear to flay Marsyas themselves — and the piece ends with a curious note concerning Apollo being ashamed of this victory. 77 Flor. 4 on Antigenidas, another musician, 78 plum for the point that humanity is common to No structuring function can be assigned to this perhaps the highly worked language may suggest in the speech from which it was taken. 74

75 76

77

78

is a simple historical exemall, whatever their externa. short fragment, except that a place of some importance

Maior meus is mistranslated by H E L M as „mein Meister", cf. VALLETTE'S and A U G E L L O ' S notes ad loc.: elsewhere Apuleius calls himself a member of Plato's family (a not uncommon metaphor, see HIJMANS, ANRW II 36,1, 1987, 416 and notes 82, 83) and here I think that maior must be translated as "ancestor" since it is a live metaphor. See also Mag. 36,3. See also HIJMANS, ANRW II 36,1, 1987, 459 and 462. He was a contemporary of Erichthonios and was thought to have brought the art of playing the aulos to Greece. See for his place in the company of Marsyas and Olympos e. g. A. J. NEUBECKER, Altgriechische Musik. Eine Einführung, Darmstadt 1977, 77 and 128. Apuleius usually does not characterise his fictional characters by the way they speak and therefore the fact that rough Marsyas here speaks a very polished language should not surprise us. Nevertheless it may also be remarked that perhaps the very polish of Marsyas' speech has something to do with the basic inner contrast Apuleius sketches in this unfortunate character. In fact a famous one, who was active in Athens between 400 and 370. See KIPauly 1,378 for literature.

1734

Β. L.

HIJMANS

Within Flor. 6 a clearly climactic structure may be discovered. Apuleius starts the fragment with the geographical situation of the Indi, continues with four mirabilia naturae to be discovered there, but notes that he prefers mirabilia hominum·, he mentions four kinds of people, and turns to the fifth group, the gymnosophists 7 9 , whom he describes first in negative terms, next in positive ones, finally to sketch — obviously the point of the passage — one particular custom they have. Flor. 7, the fragment concerning Alexander the Great, starts with an anacoluthon of rare structure in which we first are given a description of Alexander's greatness by the speaker, who subsequently mentions a poem on the subject by his friend Clemens. Then Alexander's edict (a myth 8 0 ) concerning his portraits is discussed. 81 A brief mention of the result of that edict follows, and finally we are given the application of the exemplum to philosophy, 8 2 an application which first notes how easily corruption occurs of both life and language, followed by an adstruction in chiastic order. 8 3 Flor. 9 is dealt with below in some detail (see below sub VI, p. 1750 ff.). Therefore I limit myself here to a very brief indication of structure. T h e piece — a propemptikon — can be divided into seven chapters: 1, the speaker asks his obtrectatores to look at the size of the audience and to review the risks this involves for the orator; 2, through a comparison with praeco and proconsul (both in toga) he sketches the difference between mere talk and weighty speech; 3, Hippias' proficiency in all sorts of handicraft is described; 8 4 4, speaker's own proficiency is in speech (Greek and Latin) applied to many fields of study: 5, he seeks approval of the proconsul, not because he is obliged to him for benefits, but because he regards him as a good man; 6, he elaborates on that goodness and includes the fact that the proconsul has brought his

79

They were described by Onesicritus on the suggestion of Alexander the Great. See e. g. RANKIN 1 9 8 3 ,

80

81

82 83

84

239.

T h e tale is attested for the first time in 56 B. C. in Cie. Fam. 5 , 1 2 , 7 - though he says no more than that Alexander preferred to be painted by Apelles and to be cast in bronze by Lysippus. It is repeated by H o r a c e (Ep. 2 , 1 , 2 3 2 ff.) and others. See SCHWARZENBERG (title in next note) 1976, 248 who believes that the notion of an edict was born in Augustus' time and vicinity. Apuleius mentions Polyclitus rather than Lysippus. M o s t commentators note an error on his part. However, several sculptors of that name were known and R E s. v. Polykleitos 12 considers him a possible candidate. Since the tale is probably fiction anyway, it is just possible that Apuleius uses a variant version. On Alexander's portraits see e . g . E. SCHWARZENBERG, T h e Portraiture of Alexander, in: Alexandre le Grand: Image et réalité, Entretiens H a r d t 22, Vandœuvres - Geneva 1976, 2 2 3 - 2 6 7 and 2 6 8 - 2 7 8 . Β. S. RIDGWAY, Hellenistic Sculpture I, Bristol 1990, 1 0 8 - 1 2 4 (and passim). T h e topos of the fake philosophers also occurs e . g . Tac. Ann. 16,23. F o r the theme of the true philosopher's facundia, ubiquitous in Apuleius, see below sub VI, p. 1744. For Hippias' autarchy see Plato, Hipp. Min. 3 6 8 b ff., cf. Suda s. v. Hippias: ος τέλος ώρίζετο τήν αύτάρκειαν; see also GUTHRIE 1969, 283, RANKIN 1983, 5 2 .

APULEIUS

'DE

MAGIA'

AND

'FLORIDA'

1735

equally worthy son with him; 7, finally he deplores the too short stay of proconsuls and expresses the hope that the son will return in the same function. Flor. 10 starts with Sun, 85 Moon and the five planets in their religious function, then notes that there are other, invisible, mediae potestates, mentions mountains and plains, rivers and meadows and finally living beings. The words utcumque prouidentiae ratio poscebat show that Apuleius is dealing with the unfolding of the divine in the cosmos. 86 Flor. 12 first gives a physical description of the psittacus, then deals with the process of teaching it to speak. After mentioning the fact that there are different types, the speaker notes that the broad tongue facilitates the learning process. Its speech really resembles human speech, possibly in comparison with the cornus.87 The piece ends with the essential limitation of these birds' speech. They just repeat what they have learnt. (Human speech may have been extolled in the sequence 88 .) Flor. 14 starts with a scene in which Diogenes' pupil Crates frees himself from the ties binding him to his worldly possessions, 89 then mentions his charisma which is exemplified by Hipparche's insistence 90 to live with him. He tries to dissuade her by showing her his hunched back. Hipparche's speech of acceptance is given in indirect citation, followed by the scene in which the two become a couple, with a kind of footnote describing Zeno's protective action. Clearly the fragment must have been preceded by a passage dealing with some essential elements in Diogenes' teaching. Flor. 15 This piece, which was characterised by MRAS 1949, 207 as a „zwanglose Plauderei", shows a very careful structure. I should prefer to say that Apuleius starts by taking great pains to create an impression of artlessness which he drops rather suddenly when arriving at his chief concerns of philosophia and facundia. The speech (or fragment 91 ) starts by describing the isle of 85

On the quotation from Accius' 'Phoenissae' (cf. 5 8 5 - 8 WARMINGTON) see AUGELLO

86

For the topos see HIJMANS, A N R W II 36,1, 1987, 4 4 5 ff. and n. 217. For the textual problem see below sub VIII, p. 1779 f. However, MRAS' suggestion (1949, 216), while put in too exclusive terms („Das geht offenbar auf mißgünstige Rivalen des Apuleius"), is not impossible. Cf. Flor. 22,6 and M a g . 22,3; see also Diog. L. 6,87 where he is said to have sold his possessions and to have given the money to his fellow citizens. See further DUDLEY 1937, 4 2 ff.; RANKIN 1983, 235; M . - O . GOULET-CAZÉ, Le livre VI de Diogène Laërce: analyse de sa structure et réflexions méthodologiques, A N R W 36,6, edited by W. HAASE, Berlin -

a d l o c . , MATTIACCI 1 9 8 6 , 87 88

89

181.

N e w Y o r k 1 9 9 2 , 3 9 0 4 f., 3 9 1 5 f., 3 9 3 5 . 90

The tale is also told in Diog. L. 6,96, where the girl is called Hipparchia; cf. Sext. Emp. P y r r h . 3 , 2 0 0 , C l e m . S t r o m . 4 , 1 2 1 , 6 ; see f u r t h e r DUDLEY 1 9 3 7 , 4 9 ff., BILLERBECK 1 3 9 , RANKIN 1 9 8 3 , 2 3 5 , 2 3 7 , G O U L E T - C A Z É , o p . c i t . ,

91

112

1978,

3905.

The last sentence leaves room for at least t w o possibilities: Apuleius may well have continued to discuss his own qualifications, but he may just as well have started on his main task for the day, whatever it was he had been asked to speak about. ANRW II 34.2

1736

B.L.

HIJMANS

Samos ( 1 - 3 ) and its two main sights, the city and the Juno sanctuary with its donarium (3 - 6) and its rich collection of bronzes, one of them the statue of Bathyllus, said by some to represent Pythagoras (6); an ecphrasis of the statue follows (7—10). The speaker then returns to the question of ascription and denies that it portrays Pythagoras (11 - 12). He narrates Pythagoras' early life and education (13 — 21), discusses his rule of silence (22 - 25) and notes that his own example, Plato, was in most respects a Pythagorean, and that he himself has learnt to speak or be silent where appropriate, a measure of control the addressee's predecessors have praised (26-27). The very line (Samos - Sanctuary - statue - Pythagoras - Plato - Apuleius) is a studied affair. Below (see sub VI, p. 1755 f.) we shall see that it is reinforced by stylistic means. Flor. 16 is the introduction to a gratiarum actio92 on the occasion of a statue granted by the Carthaginian Senate. 93 Apuleius starts with an exordium giving excuses for his earlier absence and announces an exemplum ( 1 - 5 ) , tells the tale of Philemon's death ( 6 - 1 8 ) , applies the exemplum to his own mishap and illness ( 1 9 - 2 4 ) , mentions the need for thanks, all the more since the honour (of a statue) was unsolicited 94 ( 2 5 - 2 8 ) , presents the book he has written for the occasion 95 and announces another book in honour of Aemilius Strabo (29-30). Praise of Strabo follows in the form of an 'Unfähigkeitsbeteuerung'9é (31 —34); Strabo's beneficia are enumerated (35 — 40); thanks to the role of the Carthaginian Senate are linked with the mention of a second statue (41—44), which the speaker hopes will be granted and which he will repay with yet another book. 97 Flor. 17, a piece not without its problems, 98 shows the following main sections: 92

Cf. 16,29 certa enim est ratio qua debeat gratias agere.

93

O n s t a t u e s f o r litterati

94 95

philosophus

ob decretarti

sibi publice

statuam

c f . A m m . M a r c . 2 1 , 1 0 , 6 w i t h DEN BOEFT, DEN HENGST, TEITLER

1991, 139 ad loc. with rich material for late antiquity. Philostratus' 'Vitae Sophistarum' just bristles with references to statues awarded to philosophers and sophists. T h e biographer may feel the urge to place a question mark. ROHDE/HELM'S proposal to read at Flor. 16,29 libro isto ...