Exempla ia Classica 8, 2004, 83-87.
A NOTE ON APULEIUS’ METAMORPHOSES1
When he s o y o he wicked s epmo he in Me amo phoses
10.2-12 is abou o conclude wi h he dea h o he i uous son, a
membe o he ju y, an old physician, s ands up and s a es wha
he knows abou he case. I is wo h ecalling how Apuleius
in oduces he man: unus e cu ia senio p ae ce e is compe ae idi
a que auc o i a is p aecipuae medicus. A ex ual p oblem a ises
when he begins his speech wi h his sen ence:
‘Quod ae a is sum, uobis adp oba um me dixisse
gaudeo...’
This is he eading o all he manusc ip s wi hou excep ion, bu
mos edi o s modi y he in ini i e —dixisse— and p in Be oaldus’
uixisse. F om a paleog aphical poin o iew, he di e ences
be ween hese wo ds —d/u o d/b— a e so sligh ha i migh seem
e y easy o accep ha hey had been in e changed; he e a e
no , howe e , many ins ances o his con usion2. Bo h dixisse and
uixisse a e such common wo ds ha o speak o lec io di icilio in
his case is simply o no ad an age. The meaning o he ex a e
his minimal co ec ion is pe ec :
1 This no e a emp s o explain a passage which p esen s some ex ual
p oblems in Apuleius’ Me amo phoses; al hough his eading has ecen ly
been main ained (see J. Ma os, Apuleyo. Las Me amo osis o El asno de o o,
Mad id 2003, II, 166), i has no hi he o been de ended. Thanks a e due o
he anonymous e e ees o he e iew o hei help ul c i icism and o J.
Zol owski o his e ision o he English manusc ip .
2 As ega ds Me amo phoses, mos o hese consis in co ec ions o he
ype ad ep um o ab ep um (1.23.1; 1.25.1; 3.6.1; 4.3.3; 4.27.3; e c.) which can
ha dly be adduced as es imony.
84 JUAN MARTOS
85
A NOTE ON APULEIUS’ METAMORPHOSES
Old as I am, happily I ha e li ed my whole li e wi h a
good epu a ion among you...3
I seems clea ha his man is s essing his own mo al alues
as a wi ness be o e elling he s o y he knows. Ne e heless, his
co ec ion is a om being indispu able, as has been exp essed
elsewhe e4. Oudendo p5, when commen ing on his sen ence,
quo es he Diges on de es ibus o con i m ha he mos
impo an i ue o a wi ness was a espec able li e:
Callis a us lib o qua o de cogni ionibus: es ium
ides diligen e examinanda es , ideoque in pe sona
eo um explo anda e un in p imis condicio
cuiusque, u um quis decu io an plebeius si : e an
hones ae e inculpa ae ui ae an ue o no a us quis
e ep ehensibilis: an locuples uel egens si , u luc i
causa quid acile admi a : uel an inimicus ei si ,
adue sus quem es imonium e , uel amicus ei si ,
p o quo es imonium da . nam si ca ea suspicione
es imonium uel p op e pe sonam a qua e u
(quod hones a si ) uel p op e causam (quod neque
luc i neque g a ia<e> neque inimici iae causa i ),
admi endus es 6.
Fo his eason he labels wi h a male he p ocedu e o
Col ius, Flo idus and he Roman edi ion, which kep he ex
o he codices. He also adduces a ex by Cice o o con i m wha
3 This is Hanson’s ansla ion —J. A. Hanson, Apuleius. Me amo phoses,
Camb idge (Mass.) - London 1989, II, 231—, pe haps mo e li e al a his
poin han hose o Walsh (P. G. Walsh, Apuleius, The Golden Ass, Ox o d
1994, 197) o Kenney (E. J. Kenney, Apuleius: The Golden Ass, London
1998, 178).
4 J. Ma os, ‘M. Zimme man, Apuleius Madau ensis. Me amo phoses.
Book X’, Habis 35, 2004, 454.
5 F. Oudendo p, Appuleii Me amo phoseon lib i XI, Lugduni Ba a o um
1786, 694: ‘Vide Callis a um lege 3. Diges . de es ibus.’ As o he i s
pa o he ex –quod ae a is sum- Oudendo p in e p e s as ollows: ‘Quod
ae a is sum signi ica quan ae ae a is sum, u dici u hoc ae a is es el id
ae a is es p o hac ae a e.’
6 Dig. 22.5.3 p .
84 JUAN MARTOS
85
A NOTE ON APULEIUS’ METAMORPHOSES
p obably nobody would ques ion: ha i someone has li ed a
long and honou able li e, he becomes a eliable ci izen o he
socie y he li es in:
Cic. op. 73
Nam e ingeniosos e opulen os e ae a is spa io
p oba os dignos quibus c eda u pu an .
Hildeb and7 ag ees and also p in s uixisse on he basis ha :
Vixisse neque dixisse legendum esse ce e a p oban
na a ionis momen a, quia quae e e ad eius
i ae p obi a em ac idem spec an , neque e o ad
acundiam8.
In any case, Oudendo p himsel p o ides an in e es ing
in e p e a ion o his exp ession bo h wi h dixisse and uixisse:
Quod ae a is sum, uobis adp oba um me dixisse el
ixisse gaudeo, i. e., lae o , me sempe pe an um
empus, quan um ixi, dixisse sen en iam obis
adp oba am, el po ius, ixisse obis p oba um, &,
pe compe am meam idem, apud os auc o i a e
ale e.
I seems ha Oudendo p is no absolu ely con inced ha
he ex o he manusc ip s mus be co ec ed. In con as ,
Hildeb and, when ep oducing his agmen , omi s he i s
possibili y, i.e., dixisse sen en iam obis adp oba am.
In he supe b commen a y on book 10, Zimme man9 accep s
he adi ional co ec ion agains F’s eading wi hou u he
a gumen s and in e p e s he whole sen ence as ollows: quod
7 G. F. Hildeb and, L. Apuleii Ope a Omnia, Hildesheim 1968 (= Leipzig
1842), II, 896.
8 One o he anonymous e e ees is igh in assessing ha Hildeb and
simply misses he poin : i is a ques ion o consilium, no o acundia.
9 M. Zimme man, Apuleius Madau ensis Me amo phoses Book X. Tex ,
In oduc ion and Commen a y, G oningen 2000, 153-4.
86 JUAN MARTOS
87
A NOTE ON APULEIUS’ METAMORPHOSES
ae a is sum as an in e nal accusa i e wi h uixisse and adp oba um
quali ying his accusa i e.10 She also p o ides a new quo a ion
om Cice o ega ding he impo ance o hones beha iou
o winning au ho i y: non cani nec ugae epen e auc o i a em
a ipe e possun , sed hones e ac a supe io ae as uc us capi
auc o i a is ex emos (Cic. Ca o 62).
Ne e heless, i does no seem absolu ely necessa y o emend
he ex as ansmi ed. I is possible o in e p e i in much
he same way as Oudendo p11. In his case dixisse clea ly has
i s widely used in ansi i e meaning o “ o speak (in a cou ,
poli ical assembly, e c.), make a speech” (OLD s. . 1b; ThLL s. .
970, 26 .). The e a e no exac pa allels o quod ae a is sum, bu
in my opinion i should be ega ded as an ad e bial ime clause,
simila o e.g. cum id ae a is essem, quod nunc sum (as in Sen. clem.
1.9.112) o jus as Valle e (‘à l’âge où me oici13’) o Zimme man
he sel (‘Up o his old age o mine’) ansla e. Adp oba um mus
be linked, o cou se, wi h me, he subjec o dixisse, in a clea
p edica i e sense. I should be no ed, in passing, ha he e b
app obo is e y o en associa ed wi h dico: see ThLL s. . 310.54-5
(and e.g. Cic. Tusc. 5.20.60, Li . 10.35.16, Tac. his . 5.17.3), 312.76-
7. As o uobis, i is undeniably he usual da i e cons uc ion
wi h adp obo (ThLL s. . 312.43-4, 77-9); bu , as i can also be he
objec o dixisse (OLD s. . 1), an ἀπὸ κοινοῦ cons uc ion may
10 In my opinion, he ex ci ed as an example on his poin (Li .
25.6.23) is uncon incing: quidquid pos ea iximus id omne des ina um
ignominiae es .
11 When pa aph asing, Oudendo p, o he sake o cla i y, adds a
sen en iam and makes adp oba um ag ee wi h i ; I assumed ha he was
aking he o iginal adp oba um as a p edica i e cons uc ion wi h he
subjec me; howe e , al hough I s ill conside dixisse o be comple ely
in ansi i e, one o he anonymous e e ees belie es ha Oudendo p akes
adp oba um as neu e , di ec objec o dixisse.
12 Cum hoc ae a is esse , quod u nunc es, duode icensimum eg essus
annum, iam pugiones in sinum amico um absconde a , iam insidiis M. An onii
consulis la us pe ie a , iam ue a collega p osc ip ionis. Pe haps cum huius
ae a is essem, c . Sen. con . 9.6.6 (illa cum huius ae a is esse nec no e ca
e a nec ene ica).
13 D.S. Robe son (ed.) - P. Valle e ( .), Apulée. Les Mé amo phoses,
Pa is 1956 (=19452), III, 110.
86 JUAN MARTOS
87
A NOTE ON APULEIUS’ METAMORPHOSES
be unde s ood. B oadly speaking, i is by no means necessa y
o assume ha , i someone has jus men ioned his own age, he
mus go on o e e o his own li e: in ac , his old physician
has jus said ha he has spoken in cou many imes wi h he
app o al o his ci izens14; o simply, as has been p oposed by one
o he anonymous e e ees: “you ha e ollowed my ad ice in
he pas : belie e me now.” The e o e, he meaning o he whole
agmen could be explained as ollows:
Up o his age o mine, I am e y pleased o ha e
always won you app o al whene e I ha e made a
speech be o e you.
JUAN MARTOS
Uni e sidad de Se illa
[email p o ec ed]
14 I could be objec ed ha he e is no p io e idence ha his doc o
would ha e spoken p e iously o habi ually be o e his ellow-ci izens, bu
we ha e jus been old ha he is an old and espec able man and, he e o e,
i should no be impossible o assume ha a some p e ious ime he has
been a decu io, jus as he is now —unus e cu ia—, and ha he could ha e
in e ened in some o he public assemblies o ials, as he eading o he
manusc ip i sel sugges s.