text published  in: Mnemosyne 49, 1996, 159-67

For the transmission of Apuleius' Apology, Florida and Metamorphoses, our main witness is a Florentine MS (F = Laur. 68,2), on which all other MSS depend1). Closely related to F is φ (= Laur. 29,2), which often presents the correct reading when F is illegible. Some more recent MSS appear useful in other cases where Fφ agree in obviously wrong readings. On the whole, the authority of Fφ has been widely accepted in modern Apuleian scholarship. In individual places, their readings are increasingly defended2). As far as the Apology is concerned, the same tendency can be observed, but many editors and other scholars still allow much room for emendations3).

In this article, I will examine some passages in the Apology. In most of them, emendation can be discarded in favour of readings found in the MSS4). For each passage, the text as printed in the edition of Butler and Owen5) is given, followed by variant readings and a brief discussion.

7,5           Quidni? Crimen haud contemnendum philosopho, nihil in se sordidum sinere, nihil uspiam corporis aperti immundum pati ac fetulentum, praesertim os, cuius in propatulo et conspicuo usus homini creberrimus (...)

apertum mundum Fφ; apertum immundum δ et m.rec. in mg. φ; aperti immundum Helm

Helm's correction is generally accepted. Immundum is indeed necessary, considering the context, and has some evidence in the MSS; the error in F may have arisen in synaloephe of -um im-. However, the change to aperti seems less imperative. At least here, the MSS' reading can be retained: nihil uspiam corporis apertum would then mean 'no open spot anywhere on the body', which fits perfectly. This is how the passage is quoted in TLL II,221,39-40, though with the addition "(aspectu) E. Rohde" to the last word.


9,38         Tu mihi des contra pro uerno flore tuum uer, / ut nostra exsuperes munera muneribus. / Pro implexis sertis complexum corpore redde, / proque rosis oris sauia purpurei. / Quod si animam inspires donaci, iam carmina nostra / cedent uicta tuo dulciloquo calamo.

das Fφ; des Krüger; dans Bywater; da v / animum Fφ; animam Colvius / dona et Fφ; donaci Haupt / nam F, in iam mut. eadem manus φ

The poet has listed his gifts to a boy, and now continues with what he receives, or is to receive. Fφ read das, which is defended by Helm ("Ap. exponit se omnibus muneribus a puero superari"); but consequently, Helm is forced to change the unproblematic redde to a future redde<s>. Therefore, this does not bring us much further. The emendations des and dans both make good sense, though the latter would produce a rather complex sentence of four lines. Alternatively, we may return to one of the 'lectiones uulgatae' (v): da. This reading puts the word on one line with redde, producing a clear and natural exhortation to the boy. Less attractive, but equally possible would be retaining both readings of F, das and redde; we would then have a descriptive couplet, as Helm suggests, followed by an exhortation.

In the first line of the final couplet, which is the climax of the poem, the text has been considered corrupt by scholars expecting the image of 'playing the flute' here. Accordingly, changes were made to animam 'breath' and donaci 'reed'. Neither is necessary.

In fact, an erotic detail rather than a strictly musical one would be more to the point within the hellenistic atmosphere of this epigram. For this, F's reading animum seems to offer some possibilities. One is tempted to think of the erotic topos 'a lover's soul passing his lips and wanting to come over to the beloved'; cf. e.g. Plato A.P. 5,786); further Catulus Fr. 1 (Courtney) aufugit mi animus..., an imitation of Callim. Epigr. 41 (Pfeiffer)(=4 Gow-Page)7). However, here the poet rather than the boy is the lover. Alternatively, we might start from the sense "concupiscendi facultas, uoluntas; 1.cupido, libido" (TLL II,95,74 ff), as in Apol. 71. In that case, this line would again express the poet's hope for attention and love on the part of the boy: 'if you put your heart (in your music), I will become silent'. But as fitting as this sense would be, such usage of animum inspirare seems unparalleled.

Perhaps most simply, we can adduce animum inspirare as used in Verg. A. 6,11-2 and Sen. Thy. 275 for divine inspiration of a soul. Here, this would mean that the adored boy is addressed as a divine person, who is asked to inspire the soul of the poet by his music. That seems fine.

The other change to donaci is clever indeed, but F's text dona et makes excellent sense8). The poet has just mentioned several of his gifts, which are to be answered by corresponding (and actually: greater) gifts of the boy. Presently, the poet is finishing his epigram, which will equally be surpassed once the boy will play his inspiring music: 'If you can really inspire me, my gifts and even my poem will be surpassed, conquered by your music'. The galant poet is only too eager to have his poem outdone by the beauty of the boy's talents and gifts. There may be even a stronger paradox: as soon as the poet will perceive the divine inspiration he so longs for, -- he will rather fall silent than produce new verses. Such an exquisite pointe seems not misplaced in a learned epigram as this.


15,33       (...) an, ut alii philosophi disputant, radii nostri seu mediis oculis proliquati et lumini extrario mixti atque ita uniti, ut Plato arbitratur, seu tantum oculis profecti sine ullo foris amminiculo, ut Archytas putat, seu intentu aëris coacti, ut Stoici rentur, cum alicui corpori inciderunt spisso et splendido et leui, paribus angulis quibus inciderant resultent ad faciem suam reduces atque ita, quod extra tangant ac uisant, id intra speculum imaginentur.

facti F; acti Helm; coacti Purser and most editors

This is part of a complex text dealing with various explanations of visual perception. In the clause on the Stoic view, F reads facti, which seemed problematical to most editors. The preceding word is given by F as ueris, where the emendation to aeris seems beyond reasonable doubt. However, none of the solutions proposed for facti seems satisfactory on a philosophical level. In a study on the Stoic theory of vision, Ingenkamp9) discusses the present passage, but is unable to decide whether or not Apuleius has correctly understood the Stoic theory. If he has, all conjectures are to be rejected, Ingenkamp argues, since they mistakenly assume an emission of rays from the eyes; if he has not, all attempts at conjecture seem rather pointless. His conclusion is that we should probably come to terms with facti.

I agree with this: in the absence of strong arguments against a reading in F, it is best to retain it. A crux is not absolutely necessary; the sense of the Latin words might be that the radii are formed in some way by the tension of the air. Apuleius may even have used the rather vague facti on purpose, in order to avoid a technical point too difficult for his public, and perhaps even for himself. It should not be forgotten that Apuleius' aim is rhetorical rather than academic. He wants to impress his audience, not to annoy it with matters too abstruse10).

16,1         Videturne uobis debere philosophia haec omnia uestigare et inquirere et cuncta specula uel uda uel suda soli uidere?

uel suda soli Fφ; edd. alii alia

The awkward soli is probably the most frequently discussed textual point in the Apology and many emendations have been proposed11). Scholars who refrain from emendation have interpreted it either as of solum 'soil'; or as or of solus 'only'; or as of sol 'sun', but none of these will do. Recently, Lucifora (1993) has tried to reopen the discussion by defending soli once again as to be taken with philosophia, interpreted as a collective noun. Philosophers, then, would be 'the only ones' who must examine all kinds of mirrors. However, this solution is syntactically harsh, even for Apuleius, and the parallels adduced are not convincing. Moreover, I fail to see why this study should be said to be the exclusive concern of philosophers. Therefore, I cannot accept Lucifora's proposal.

La Penna (1952) regards soli as an interpolation: a scribe did not understand suda and added soli above su, to make the perfectly normal solida, which was then taken into the text. The same solution has been defended by Traina (1986). Modern Italian editors of the Apology accordingly delete the word, and this is probably the best solution.


27,13       Ceterum ea quae ab illis ad ostendendum crimen obiecta sunt uana et inepta simpliciter uereor ne ideo tantum crimina putes, quod obiecta sunt.

simplicia Fφ; <ac> simplicia Hildebrand; simpliciter Helm

Helm's emendation has been almost universally accepted, but the adverb seems a bit strange with uereor or with vana et inepta. Butler and Owen also suggest adding et before simplicia or reading inepte simplicia with Bywater. However, we may simply keep the text of F as it is and read: uana et inepta, simplicia,; here simplex would not be strongly negative as 'stupid', as Butler and Owen suggest, but mildly negative as 'naive, simple-minded'; cfr OLD s.v. 8b. There is a close parallel in Met. 4,1 deuius et protectus, absconditus; there too, the reading has been wrongly doubted12); see also GCA a.l..


27,30       Hiscine argumentis magian probatis, casu pueruli et matrimonio mulieris et obsonio piscium?

puerili Fφ; pueruli Salmasius

This seems a relatively simple case, where emendation can be dispensed with. Apuleius often uses an adjective instead of a noun in the gen. pl. For puerilis, cf. Met. 3,20 puerile... corollarium; Apol. 43 animus... puerilis. Hijmans (1994), 1775n218 compares Met. 6,31 uirginalis fugae with CGA a.l..


40,21       (...) more hoc et instituto magistrorum meorum, qui aiunt hominem liberum et magnificum debere, si quo eat, in primori fronte animum gestare.

si queat Fφ; si quo eat Helm; si qua eat Van der Vliet

Helm's emendation is commonly accepted, but in fact quite unnecessary. Similarly, we can avoid that proposed by Van der Vliet, for which Augello wrongly claims credit. The argument that such emendations give a stronger sense is not a sufficient reason to change the MSS' text. In addition, it may be argued that the statement becomes more universal with the traditional reading: one's face should reflect one's mind whenever possible, that is: not merely in public.


46,01       Hic satius veteratorie Tannonius Pudens (...) ait pueros alios producturum, qui sint aeque a me incantati. (...) Cedo pueros istos, quibus confiditis: produc, nomina qui sint. (...) Dic, inquam, Tannoni. Quid taces, quid cunctaris, quid respectas? Quod si hic nescit quid didicerit aut nomina oblitus est, at tu, Aemiliane, cede huc, dic quid aduocato tuo mandaueris, exhibe pueros.

didicerit Van der Vliet; dicerit F; dixerit φ

Van der Vliet's conjecture is now generally accepted. It makes the point that the advocate Tannonius 'has forgotten the evidence with which he was primed by the accusers', as Butler and Owen paraphrase. This point will be made explicitly a few lines later, in dic quid advocato tuo mandaueris. Admittedly, the passage is not without repetitions, and it is possible that this strong point is made twice on purpose. On the other hand, φ's reading dixerit, which remains closest to F's obviously incorrect reading, makes excellent sense: Tannonius has announced that he would bring some witnesses, but when requested to present them, it seems that he 'does not know what he has said himself, or has forgotten their names'. With this reading of φ, the sarcasm of the passage is even sharper.


63,27       Hunc [sc. a small statue of Mercury] qui sceletum audet dicere, profecto ille simulacra deorum nulla uidet aut omnia neglegit. Hunc denique qui laruam putat, ipse est laruatus.

laruatus V1 V3 V5; laruans Fφ; larua M1.

Unlike most other editors, Butler and Owen B/O choose larvatus, a form attested in Apuleius' Met.13). However, laruans may be retained. Its defenders seem to interpret it as participle of a deponent laruari or an intransitive verb laruare 'to be fearful, haunted by ghosts' or 'to be one of the ghosts'. But it seems better to take it as a participle of an active verb 'to haunt with ghosts', 'to evoke ghosts'; cf. TLL VII,978,65-67 larvis terreo; OLD s.v.; and Marchesi's translation 'le fa lui le larve'14). This projects the charge on the accuser himself, who is now pictured as an 'actively bad man' rather than a 'passive victim'. For a similar Apuleian pun, cf. a few lines before: Em uobis quem scelestus ille sceletum nominabat.


72,1         Cum in hoc statu res esset inter procationem matris et metum fili, fortene an fato ego aduenio pergens Alexandriam.

interpretationem F; inter procationem Casaubonus; inter precationem M1

All editors accept Casaubon's emendation15), but it involves serious difficulties. Firstly, it is a hapax legomenon. Apuleius' works show many of these, but it seems dangerous if scholars create them. Secondly, its sense seems not quite clear. Translations remain rather vague: 'les projets matrimoniaux de la mčre' (Vallette); 'il desiderio di maritarsi' (Mosca), 'matrimonial intentions' (Butler). But since it is to be derived from procare 'demand', its sense is 'the act of wooing, suit' (OLD s.v.), which requires a male subject16), and makes matris an objective genitive. But this would produce a awkward lack of balance with fili, a subjective genitive. More importantly, in this passage Pudentilla is not suitored at all, but is rather actively looking for a husband.

If we look for an alternative, the reading of F seems impossible to defend. McCreight (1991),284 briefly discusses electionem, but admits that it is difficult to explain paleographically. Here we may follow M1 and read inter precationem. The word precatio is regular, though in the Apuleian corpus it occurs only in Ascl. 4117). Furthermore, it involves only a very small difference from F, and it would retain the balance with metum fili.

The word does not refer to marriage plans in general, but to the ardent appeal Pudentilla has made to her son. After a number of years, she had expressed the wish to remarry and had sent a letter to him in Rome (70,15 ff), exposing her intentions and demanding his sympathy for her case (cf. 70,22 ff tandem aliquando se quoque paterentur solitudini suae et aegritudini subuenire). It is this letter which has prompted Pontianus to come from Rome (71,11-2). Now, the way in which mother and son react upon each other are contrasted: she is praying his help and consent, while he is afraid about her plan for financial reasons.


79,3         An sola Phaedra falsum epistolium de amore commenta est ac non omnibus mulieribus haec ars usitata est, ut, cum aliquid eius modi uelle coeperunt, malint coactae uideri?

ac Novák; at Fφ; an V5.

The emendation ac connects two thoughts in one sentence. This is not necessary. If we follow F's reading and print a question mark after commenta est, the two sentences make excellent sense, and the rhetorical force becomes even stronger. The adversative at counters any possible doubt after the first question: 'Or is Phaedra the only woman who forged a love letter? But is it not the case that all women...?'. It may be added that short, pressing questions are much to Apuleius' taste (some examples can be found in the same chapter). For at non as introduction for such a question, cf. 25,3 At non contraria accusastis?

Alternatively, a case could be made for an. We would then have two parallel questions: an...? an...?, as in 15,7-8 an...? an non...?; 59,2 ff. But in view of the stronger authority of F, at seems preferable here.


89,3         nam non necesse est in re tam perspicua pluribus disputare

non necesse Novák; necesse non φ; necesse F (non add.m.rec.)

Not without reason Novák inserts the necessary non before necesse: "secundum usum Apuleianum". Indeed, not a single instance of the order necesse non is extant in his works. (I notice that in the great majority of cases, there is no negation at all). But this seems not enough to justify transposing the correction in Fφ. Necesse non est seems perfectly acceptable.


91,22       'modicam dotem neque eam datam sed tantum modo <commodatam>'

commodatam addit Purser; creditam addit Helm; alii alia; promissam addunt L3 V1 V5 et m.saec.XVI in φ

A word seems required for something less than 'given'. Many solutions have been brought forward. Butler and Owen print Purser's commodatam. Mainly on the basis of the legal aspects, F. Norden defended sed <dictam> tantum18), as in c.102 uti dotem mihi...diceret. It may be added that inserting dictam produces an Apuleian sound effect with datam.

It has been pointed out that there was a minor, formal distinction between dotem dicere and dotem promittere: the first did not include a formal question, but only a one-sided statement. Both are legal methods of contracting to give a dowry, not just plain, common terms19). Furthermore, Augello says that in the course of time dictio of the dos was replaced by promissio. Given these facts, the old conjecture promissam may be supported as well20).


96,19       Litteras tamen, quas ad me Carthagine uel iam adueniens ex itinere praemisit, quas adhuc ualidus, quas iam aeger, plenas honoris, plenas amoris, quaeso, Maxime, paulisper recitari sinas, ut sciat frater eius, accusator meus, quam in omnibus <minor> Mineruae curriculum cum fratre optumae memoriae uiro currat.

in omnibus Mineruae Fφ; in omnibus <minor> Mineruae Butler; in omnibus minor u<it>ae Van Lennep; alii alia

We can retain the text of F, with Hildebrand, Marchesi, Mosca and TLL IV,1511,28 ff ("modo sanus sit locus"). Mineruae curriculum is an accusative with currat, in a rare figura etymologica (TLL gives as parallel only Stat.Theb. 3,116 certamen). But one problem of interpretation remains: where is the 'negative' element in the comparison between both brothers if we do not add minor? The translations of Marchesi and Mosca here seem to suggest that we should take quam as rather ironically: 'let him see how (i.e. how little)21) he competes ... with his brother'. Alternatively, the element of comparison might be implicit in currat or in optumae memoriae uiro. However, nothing of this would adequately explain the expressions used in the middle of the sentence. Actually, quam in omnibus, and especially the striking phrase Mineruae curriculum carry more weight than the rest.

Pontianus is closely associated with Minerva (cf. TLL's paraphrase: "nunquam Pontianum quicquam inuita Minerua scripsisse"). Possibly, it is in this bond that we have the negative implication for Pudens. In all things, he runs not a simple course against his brother, but a 'Minerva's course', which is impossible for him to win, since he lacks the erudition and culture of his brother. Pudens, who does not know Latin and speaks mostly Punic (c.98), simply does not stand a chance in a Minerva's course. Recitation of Pontianus' flattering and polite letter will show that Pudens runs such a course in omnibus, that is: in the field of letter writing too. Shortly before, Apuleius had referred to a letter by Pudens: quam nimis contumeliose et turpiter de matre tua scriptam (c.86), the very opposite of Pontianus' letter here.


101,4       Ipse iam, ut <qui> sui potens ac uir acerbissimas litteras matri dictet, iram eius deleniat: qui potuit perorare, poterit exorare.

ut sui potens ac uir Fφ; <qui> add. Helm

The text is perfectly sound and no emendation is required. Still, Helm's addition has crept into all modern editions, surprisingly also that of Butler and Owen, although they explicitly reject Helm's suggestion in their commentary.


103,5       Ceterum ad haec, quae obiecistis, numera an binis uerbis respondeam. 'Dentes splendidas': ignosce munditiis. 'Specula inspicis': debet philosophus. 'Vorsus facis ': licet fieri. 'Pisces exploras': Aristoteles docet. 'Lignum consecras ': Plato suadet. 'Vxorem ducis': leges iubent. 'Prior natu'st': solet fieri. 'Lucrum sectatus es': dotalis accipe, donationem recordare, testamentum lege.

prior natu is est Fφ.

Butler and Owen very rightly point out that we need two words (binis uerbis) for each element. It may be added that this is apparent until the very end of the section quoted here. Accordingly, they print natu'st, which is accepted by many other editors22). However, Butler and Owen shrink back before sectatu's (already proposed by Purser), although they give this form in the commentary, arguing that Apuleius is likely to have at least pronounced it in this way. Here, we must surely print it as well, if the effect is not to be spoiled. Admittedly, aphaeresis of es is less common than of est, but examples can be found in comedy, e.g. Plaut. Pers.146 facturu's; 237 odiosu's; Curc.407 quioati's; Epid.630 remoratu's23). A parallel within the Apology might be 46,10 pollicitu's, for F's pollicitus, to which most editors add <es>.



* This article is a preliminary study for a new edition with commentary of Apuleius' Pro se de magia (Apologia), Amsterdam 1997. Research was supported by the Foundation for Literary Studies, Musicology and Drama Research, which is subsidized by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO). I wish to express my thanks to the Biblioteca Medicea-Laurenziana at Firenze (Italy) for granting me permission to consult F (Laur.68,2). I also thank Prof. J.H. Brouwers (Catholic Universi­ty Nijmegen), Dr. R. van der Paardt (State University Leiden and member of the Apuleius Research Group at the State University Groningen), and Prof. E.J. Kenney (Cambridge University), whose critical comments have been of great use to me. Of course, they are in no way responsable for any of my statements or proposals.

1. Recently, this position has been challenged by O. Pecere, Qualche riflessione sulla tradizione di Apuleio a Montecassino, in: G. Cavallo (ed.), Le strade del testo (Roma 1987), 97‑124. Pecere argues for an tradition independent from F, of which the so called Assisi fragments (C) would be an example. However, his examples are hardly of any consequence for our constitution of the text. For this, not even Pecere denies the central importance of F.

2. For the Metamorphoses, cf. especially the Groningen Commentaries on Apuleius (GCA), where readings of Fφ are consistently defended wherever possible.

3. The practice of making new emendations still continues even for the Apology. Recently, a number of them have been brought forward by W.S. Watt, Ten notes on Apuleius, Apologia, Mnemosyne 47 (1994), 51­7‑20. Most of Watt's proposals to change the text are superfluous, since they concern passages where F's reading makes good sense and is undisputed. In one or two other cases, where F is probably corrupt (e.g. 16,1), I cannot agree with Watt's suggestions either.

4. Here I follow the general principles set out by B.L. Hijmans jr, Apuleius orator: 'Pro se de Magia' and 'Florida', in: ANRW II 34,2, (1994), 1708‑84, esp. 1770-80. Among earlier scholars defending F in difficult places, I mention Harry Armini, Studia Apuleiana, Eranos 26 (1928), 273‑339, esp.327‑330.

5. H.E. Butler, A.S. Owen, Apulei apologia sive Pro se de magia liber with introduction and commentary (Oxford 1914). Reference is made to paragraphs and lines in this edition also. The most important other editions are: P. Vallette, Apulée, Apologie, Florides (Paris 1924) (Budé series) and R. Helm, Apulei Platonici Madaurensis Pro se De Magia liber (Apologia) (Leipzig 1972) (Teubner; 5th impr.).

6. In the next chapter (Apol.10) Apuleius actually quotes some Platonic epigrams in Greek. See especially Gellius 19,11, where Plato A.P. 5,78 is quoted along with a free Latin translation made by amicus meus, ouk amousos adulescens (dum seihiulco sauio / meo puellum sauior...). This amicus can be identified as Apuleius: cf. S.J. Harrison, Apuleius Eroticus: Anth. Lat.712 Riese, Hermes 120 (1992), 83‑89. This Latin translation is given as an Apuleian fragment by E. Courtney, The fragmentary Latin poets (Oxford 1993), 392-400. Here, the poet uses anima 'soul'. For animus used as anima, see TLL II,105,7 ff; further Pease on Cic. N.D. 2,18 animum spirabilem.

7. In his defence, Apuleius explicitly mentions Catulus as one of the Latin poets of erotic verse (Apol. 9).

8. Hildebrand a.l. (p.464) retains both animum and dona et, but he suggests that Critias must inspire his own soul, which seems an awkward idea. Hildebrand's interpretation of dona does not appear clearly from his concluding paraphrase: "Si velis, o Critia, ipse tibi inspirare vim illam divinam carminum, quam poetae alii ab Apolline et Musis petunt, tu vero tibi ipse praestare potes, dona mihi vicissim carmina pro carminibus, quae non minus cederit [sic!] tuo calamo, quam serta et rosae non sunt comparandae cum complexu et melitissimis tuis saviis". One may get the impression that he takes it as the imperative of donare, which seems impossible here.

9. Cf. H.G. Ingenkamp, Zur stoischen Lehre vom Sehen, RhM 114 (1971), 240‑246, esp. 245-6n8.

10. If we compare similar 'technical' passages, e.g. that in c.49-50 on epilepsy, we find Apuleius taking great care to make his exposition lucid and easy to follow for his non-specialist audience.

11. For various solutions, cf. especially: A. La Penna, Marginalia et hariolationes philologicae, Maia 6 (1952),108‑9; A. Traina, Vel uda vel suda. Apul. Apol. 16, MD 16 (1986),147‑51; R.M. Lucifora, Ipotesi d'interpretazione per Apuleio "Apologia" 16,3, Orpheus 14 (1993),129‑134; all with further references. The latest attempt at emendation has been made by Watt (1994),518, who proposes o<cu>lis.

12. Cf. Armini (1928), 273‑339, esp.327‑328; for the passage in the Met., see GCA a.l..

13. Cf. also Thomas D. McCreight, Rhetorical strategies and word choice in Apuleius' Apology (Diss. Duke University 1991), 453-6, with lexicographical discussion on laruatus. Recently, P. Frassinetti (Note testuali ad Apuleio (Apol. Flor.), in: Studi di filologia classica in honore di Giusto Monaco, III (Palermo 1991), 1205‑8 proposed larualis.

14. For periphrastic expressions of a participle with est, cf. Louis Callebat, Sermo cotidianus dans les Métamorphoses d'Apulée (Caen 1968), 320-1.

15. Earlier, I have also followed it in my Dutch translation of the Apology. Cf. Apuleius, Toverkunsten, vertaald (...) door Vincent Hunink, met een inleiding van Rudi van der Paardt (Amsterdam 1992), 75.

16. The noun procus 'suitor' is actually used in the context of Pudentilla's marriage in 68,14 ceteros procos absterrebat (sc. Pudentilla) and 92,35 ob haec et alia uiduae dote aucta procos sollicitant (it also occurs in 76,4). These passages from the Apology clearly show that Roman women can deter or attract suitors, but not 'suitor' them.

17. On the question of the authenticity of the Asclepius, see: Vincent Hunink, Apuleius and the 'Asclepius' (forthc.).

18. Fritz Norden, Apulejus von Madaura und das römische Privatrecht (Leipzig 1912), 97; on dotem dicere, see 96-8. For the present passage, Norden explains the omission as paleographically easy between seD TANtummodo. Cf. also A.J. Kronenberg, Ad Apuleium, Mnemosyne 56 (1928),29-54. esp.46. Without reference to Norden, Kronenberg proposes sed tantummodo <dictam>.

19. Cf. Jane F. Gardner, Women in Roman law & society (London 1990), 99-100.

20. Admittedly, by itself the value of these late MSS is limited; cf. Butler and Owen (1914), xxxvi-xxxix. Augello a.l. defends promissam too, but his objection to dictam is rather apodictic ("la dotis dictio č in decadenza fin dall' epoca classica") and comes without any proof.

21. Marchesi actually renders 'quanto poco egli sia compagno al fratello...'; Mosca prints 'quanto (...) resti indietro rispetto a suo fratello'.

22. Slightly less irregular are: 50,1 praecipuast and 50,24 sanctissimast.

23. Cf. W.M. Lindsay, The Latin language (...) (Oxford 1894),121; further Lindsay on Plautus' Captivi, p.24-5. The phenomenon seems to be neglected in the standard grammars. It is also called 'procope' or 'prodelision'.

latest changes here: 30-07-2012 16:01


(c) 2014 V. Hunink

copyright statement  / contact