Table Of Content(cid:9)
© 2015 Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium Claudio Moreschini
Apuleius
and the Metamorphoses
Nutrix is a peer-reviewed Series.
The content of each volume
is assessed by specialists chosen by the Direction of the Series. of Platonism
All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted,
in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, or otherwise,
without prior permission of the publisher.
The logo of the series Nutrix
— a miniature from Ms. New York,
Pierpont Morgan Library, M. 302
(Ramsey Psalter), f. 2" — portrays the Christ Child
among the Doctors in the Temple.
Photographic credit:
The Pierpont Morgan Library, New York.
D/2015/0095/236
ISBN 978-2-503-55470-9
BREPOLS
Printed in the E.U. on acid-free paper
Apuleius evokes the demons as intermediaries
between humanity and divinity (cfr. AucusTINE, De civitate Dei, VIII, 18)
Ms. Den Haag, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, MMW 10 A 11, f. 385r
AUGUSTINE, La Cite de Dieu (vol. I), french translation by Raoul de Presles
Illuminator: Maitre Francois (Paris, c. 1475)
© National Library of the Netherlands, The Hague
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE 13
INTRODUCTION
APULEIUS PHILOSOPHER AND RHETOR 15
1. Apuleius and Middle Platonism 15
2. Apuleius the Philosopher and Man of Letters 25
CHAPTER 1
POPULAR PHILOSOPHY AND PLATONISM: THE APO-
LOGIA AND THE FLORIDA 29
1. The Defense of Philosophy and Philosophers 29
2. Philosophers and Poets 30
3. Praise of Poverty 31
4. Scientific Research 32
5. Magic 34
6. Mystery Religions 39
7. Platonism 42
8. Platonism and Sophistic 49
CHAPTER 2
THE METAMORPHOSES, THE NOVEL OF A PLATONIC
PHILOSOPHER 59
1. Some Observations on Criticism of the Metamorphoses 60
2. The Novel and Religion 65
3. The Platonism of the Metamorphoses 69
4. Platonism and the Isiac Mysteries 77
5. The Metamorphoses: an Autobiographical Work? 84
CHAPTER 3
THE TALE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE 87
1. Symbolic Interpretation 88
2. Folkloric Interpretation 91
3. Religious Interpretation 93
4. Literary Interpretation 96
9
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6. Providence and Fate 279
5. Attempts at Reconciliation 98
7. Time 286
6. The Moral Interpretation 99
8. The Human Soul 288
7. The Platonic Interpretation 102
9. Some Physical Questions 294
8. Platonism in the Tale 109
Appendix
Notes on Latin Middle Platonism before Apuleius 297
CHAPTER 4
THE DE DEO SOCRATIS AND APULEIUS' DEMONOLOGY 117 Seneca 297
1.(cid:9) The World and Living Beings 120 Quintilian and Tacitus 299
2.(cid:9) Middle Platonic Demonology 123
3.(cid:9) The Nature of the Demons 126 CHAPTER 8
APULEIUS «PHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUS» . ETHICS 301
4.(cid:9) The Roles of the Demons 127
1.(cid:9) First and Second Goods 301
5.(cid:9) Demon or Soul? 131
2.(cid:9) Man and Oikeiosis 303
6.(cid:9) A Difficulty in Apuleius 135
3.(cid:9) The medietas of Virtue 308
7.(cid:9) The Language of Demons 136
4.(cid:9) Virtues and Vices 309
8.(cid:9) Apuleius and Plutarch 142
5.(cid:9) Goods and Evils 318
CHAPTER 5 6.(cid:9) Rhetoric 321
RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES 147
7.(cid:9) Varia Moralia 323
1.(cid:9) Pronto 147
8.(cid:9) The Perfect Sage 325
2.(cid:9) Pronto and Marcus Aurelius 151
9.(cid:9) Likeness to God 328
3.(cid:9) Favorinus in Rome 153 10. Following God 333
4.(cid:9) Aulus Gellius 155
5.(cid:9) Gellius and Calvisius Taurus 158
CHAPTER 9
6.(cid:9) The Speculum morale of Gellius 160 APULEIUS AND CHRISTIAN AUTHORS 335
7.(cid:9) Cynicism 165 1.(cid:9) Apuleeeiiuuss and_Arnobius 336
8.(cid:9) Aelianus 167 2.(cid:9) Cornelius Labeo 343
9.(cid:9) Minor Platonists of the Roman World 168 3.(cid:9) Augustine's Polemic against Apuleius 348
10. Aelius Aristides and the Platonism of the Second Century 169
CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION 365
THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS 187
1.(cid:9) The De Platone et eius dogmate 189 BIBLIOGRAPHY 369
2.(cid:9) The De mundo 198
3.(cid:9) Chronology of the Philosophical Works 200 INDEX OF NAMES 401
4.(cid:9) The Authenticity of the De Platone and the De mundo 203
5.(cid:9) The De interpretatione 204
CHAPTER 7
APULEIUS «PHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUS». PHYSICS 219
1. The Doctrine of God 219
2. Matter 249
3. The Ideas 255
4. The Cosmic Soul and Cosmogony 259
5. The Creation of the World 265
PREFACE
Apuleius was a respected philosophus Platonicus in Late Antiquity
and the Middle Ages, to the point that, for better or worse, his
philosophical works were a medieval conduit for the diffusion
of Plato's doctrines, which were almost completely unknown
in the original Greek form. Until the middle of last century, he
attracted the attention of scholars as a so-called `Middle Platonist'
author. Then, with the rejection of the historical schema that he
had been situated in (the so-called `school of Gaius', which we
will treat shortly), his `brother' Alcinous was the object of stu-
dies and (even harsh) criticisms, while almost nothing more was
written about Apuleius by anyone. Studies of Middle Platonism
primarily accentuated the liberty of the philosophers of the first
and second centuries AD, who interpreted the doctrines of Plato
without constituting a specific school'. Due to this new vi-
sion of Middle Platonism, Apuleius' role was difficult to de-
fine. It is not uncommon to find that Apuleius the philosopher
is completely neglected: in a miscellanea recently published
in Italy on the history of Platonism from Arcesilaus to Proclus2,
not only was Apuleius not the object of a specific study, but he
was not even mentioned. Studies on Middle Platonism would
undoubtedly be enriched if scholars focused the requisite atten-
tion on the particularities of Apuleius' work. The fact that one
can criticize his philosophical proposals because of their supposed
This is how Dillon and Ferrari correctly explain it, cfr. J. DILLON, Alcinous.
The Handbook of Platonism, Oxford 1993 (Clarendon Later Ancient Philosophers),
and F. FERRARI, Verso la costruzione del sistema: it medioplatonismo, in «Paradigmi»,
21 (2003), pp. 343-54 (see also Ferrari's chapter on Middle Platonism to be
published in the fifth volume, edited by C. Horn, of Die Philosophic der Antike
in the new edition of Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophic).
2 Cfr. L'eredit~ ~platonica. Studi sul platonismo da Arcesilao a Prodo,
edd. M. Bonazzi — V. Celluprica, Napoli 2005 (Elenchos, 45).
13
PREFACE
INTRODUCTION
superficiality (although they are no more so than those of
other Middle Platonists) is not a sufficient motive to dispense APULEIUS PHILOSOPHER
from studying them. The literary character, and especially the AND RHETOR
`rhetorical' nature of some of his works and of his personality
have probably hurt his reputation in philosophy. These aspects
of his personality have however been ever more accentuated
in the last few decades within the development of studies on
Second Sophistics.
Consequently, not only have there been few scholars to show
interest for Apuleius' philosophical doctrines, but those few
who have the opportunity to almost manage his philosophical
doctrines usually disregard his literary works. In this way one
1. Apuleius and Middle Platonism
cannot understand the most specific aspect of his philosophy,
which consists in a sort of intermingling of philosophy and
In the last few decades the study of Middle Platonism has been
literature (a typical attitude of Greek and Latin culture of the
marked by some `revolutions' that have notably modified the sta-
second century AD), and above all, of religion and Platonism. tus of research, and that on Apuleius in particular, regarding what
The dichotomy between philosophy and literature that was nor-
was universally accepted until 1980 and my book (1978). First
mal in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries therefore still per- of all, the identification that Freudenthal proposed in 18791,
sists in the case of Apuleius. We attempted in some way to fill
which, from two well known figures with similar names, Albi-
this gap in our 1978 study on Apuleio e it Platonismo. It was obvi- nus (author of a Prologue to Platonic Philosophy and mentioned by
ously in vain. Accordingly, in this book we would like to reflect
some ancient sources) and Alcinous (the then largely unknown
on the possibility of a synthesis between these two aspects. author of a Didaskalik~s), had made one Middle Platonist philos-
opher with the name of Albinus', who then became the author
of the two works, has been contested. This identification was
This book would not have been published without the valu- gradually abandoned beginning with the innovative study
able help of my friend Giulio d'Onofrio who, in his studies, of Giusta2, which was then followed by those of Whittaker3.
knows how to highlight the influence of late antique thought Dillon, who, in his fundamental study of Middle Platonism4,
and to notice its continuity within medieval thought. I would
like to thank him, in the first place, for his friendship. Sec-
ondly, I would like to thank Dr. Diego Ianiro who, with patient I Cfr. J. FREUDENTHAL, DerPlatonikerAlbinos and derfalscheAlkinoos, Berlin 1879
(Hellenistische Studien, 3). I am informed about this book thanks to the critics it
and intelligent thoroughness, has revised this work according
received by Whittaker, cfr. J. WHITTAKER, Platonic Philosophy in the Early Centuries
to Nutrix's guidelines and has also proposed some additions and of the Empire, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der r~mischen Welt — Philosophic, Wissen-
corrections. The English translation is due to Dr. Seth Cherney, schaften, Technik: Philosophie (Historische Einleitung: Platonismus), edd. H. Tempo-
rini — W. Haase, Berlin — New York 1987 (ANRW II — 36,1), [pp. 81-123],
whom I thank for his attention and precision.
pp. 83-96.
2 Cfr. M. GIUSTA, I dossografi di etica, Torino 1964.
J. WHITTAKER, Parisinus Graecus 1962 and the Writings of Albinus,
3 Cfr.
in «Phoenix», 28.3-4 (1974), pp. 320-354 and 450-456; ID., Platonic Philosophy
cit., pp. 83-102.
4 Cfr. J. DILLON, The Middle Platonists. A Study of Platonism 80 Be to AD 220,
London 1977 (Classical Life and Letters).
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
was at first not at all convinced that the abandonment of this the similarity between `Albinus' and Apuleius (in the doctrine
identification was opportune, later openly adopted the opinions of `likeness to god', the doctrine of providence, the concep-
of Giusta and Whittaker'. At this point, Alcinous and Albinus tion of the transcendent god, and in the ontological status of the
are not considered to be the same Middle Platonist philosopher, ideas) in order to demonstrate that «it is impossible that Albinus
even if Giusta's proposal of viewing Alcinous as a Stoic rather and Apuleius should both have been dependent on Gaius in all
than a Middle Platonist was not accepted. the essential points»11. According to Praechter, the points of diver-
Another conviction that was considered valid by all criticism gence between `Albinus' and Apuleius consisted in Apuleius'
until 1980 was partially abandoned along with the identification misunderstandings and errors, so that Loenen rightly observed
of Alcinous and Albinus. The existence of a `Gaiosgruppe', or that «the most characteristic feature of Apuleius would then con-
`school of Gaius', had been maintained based in the fact that sist in an extreme stupidity!». As result of his efforts to rehabili-
Albinus (but not Alcinous) studied under Gaius6, published his tate `Albinus', Loenen thought that `Albinus' was an even greater
lessons', and taught at Smyrna around 150 — as Galen states8 — thinker than Gaius. Forty years later, Dillon concluded that
and in the similarities between the Didaskalik~s of `Albinus' (i.e. «the two works agree no more than might be expected for any
Alcinous) and Apuleius' De Platone et eius dogmate (as well as a few two elementary handbooks of Platonism that might be produced
doctrines of the anonymous commentator on the Theaetetus) 9. at any time in the first two centuries AD. Consequently, these
Once the distinction between Alcinous and Albinus had been two texts are more `cousins' than `brothers'» 12. They perhaps
re-established10, the attestations of the relationship between depend on the same penultimate source, whether Arius Didy-
Gaius and Albinus could not be applied to Gaius and Alcinous. mus or another, but they do not represent a well defined school
But Apuleius could not be connected to Gaius either, because of Middle Platonism 13. The derivation of Alcinous and Apuleius
the similarities between the Didaskalik~s ofAlcinous and Apuleius' from the same source was questioned even more by Whittaker14,
De Platone et eius dogmate were not as close as had been believed. and G~ransson finally dedicated an entire study to demonstrate
J. H. Loenen, although conditioned by the identification of Alci- that these two texts were different and could not have come
nous and Albinus, was one of the first scholars to seriously criti- from the same soured'.
cize the entire construction of the school of Gaius, which was A distinction must nevertheless be made in this regard.
commonly accepted at that time. Loenen first of all disputed Apuleius and Alcinous are not close in physics, but in ethics
their similarities are much stronger than the proponents of the
differences between the two philosophers have maintained.
5 Cfr. ID., Alcinous cit. (see above, Preface, note 1). The strong similarities between them in ethics are probably due
6 Cfr. GAIus, test. 8, in A. GIoE, Filosofi medioplatonici del it secolo d. C. Testi- to the fact that Middle Platonist ethics were much more homo-
monianze a fiammenti: Gaio, Albino, Lucio, Nicostrato, Tauro, Severo, Arpocrazione,
geneous than their physics were. The major differences between
Napoli 2002 (Elenchos, 36), pp. 45-76.
Cfr. ibid., test. 7. Middle Platonists are encountered in physics, while the source
8 Cfr. CLAUDIUS GALENUS PERGAMENUS, De libris propriis, II, ed. I. von Mul- for the ethics of Apuleius and Alcinous was much more sensitive
ler, in CLAUDII GALENI PERGAMENI Scripta Minora, II, Leipzig 1891, [pp. 91-124],
p. 97,8-11 (corresponding to ALBINUS, test. 1, in GIoE, Filosofi medioplatonici cit.,
p. 79 and 87-89).
" J. H. LOENEN, Albinus' Metaphysics. An Attempt at Rehabilitation, in «Mne-
9 Cfr. H. DIELS, Einleitung, in Anonymer Kommentar zu Platons Theaetet mosyne», Ser. IV, 10 (1957), [pp. 35-58], pp. 37-38.
(Papyrus 9782), edd. H. Diels — W. Schubart, Berlin 1905, pp. xxvi-xxvm.
12 DILLON, Alcinous cit., p. XI.
10 Praechter was the principal proponent of this interpretation, cfr. K. PRAE-
13 Cfr. ibid., p. xxix.
CHTER, Zum Platoniker Gaios, in «Hermes», 51 (1916), pp. 510-529 (repr. in ID.,
Kleine Schriften, Hildesheim — New York 1973, pp. 81-100) and ID., Das Alter- 14 Cfr. WHITTAKER, Platonic Philosophy cit., pp. 103-110.
turn, in Grundrif3 der Geschichte der Philosophie, ed. F. Oberweg, 1, Berlin 1920 13 Cfr. T. Gt RANSSON, Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus, Goteborg 1992
(repr. Basel 196210). (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 61).
(cid:9)
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
to Aristotelianism, or more precisely, to the Peripatetics and Sto- Another `revolution' that occurred was the abandonment
ics of the imperial era. of the schemata into which one attempted to insert the various
With the abandonment of the idea of a school of Gaius that Middle Platonists. Praechter and others had applied the schema
was active in Smyrna around 150 AD, one must note that Dillon of `orthodoxy' — `eclecticism' to them, according to their
proposes an interesting hypothesis that situates Apuleius in a con- acceptance of or interest in Aristotelian doctrine (but why not
text which, even if not that of the obscure Gaius, was nevertheless Stoic doctrine?). In one of my earlier studies, I proposed dis-
related to the Platonic teaching of Athens. This attempt is justi- tinguishing Apuleius and Alcinous from other Middle Platon-
fied by the fact that we know that Apuleius studied in Athens ist currents through the distinction between a `religious current'
through his own personal affirmations1 6. However, even if one and a `rationalist current', because no Platonic philosopher ever
accepts this, we unfortunately cannot take the next potentially wanted to be anything other than Platonic'''. Praechter's dis-
interesting and stimulating step of linking Apuleius with the Pla- tinction was therefore nothing more than a modern distinction.
tonic philosopher who seems to have been the most authoritative My division was accepted by some at that point; although it too
one in Athens during that period, that is Calvisius (or Calvenus) was eventually abandoned, because, as was said, it substituted
Taurus, because there are no significant doctrinal similarities one division for another20: it thus seems more useful to con-
between Apuleius and Taurus. If Apuleius learned his Platonism sider Middle Platonism as a `battleground' of the various schools,
in Athens, and not in Africa (Carthage would be the city that according to the description suggested by H. D~rrie21.
most probably could have provided him with this formation), he A third revolution influenced the criticism of Apuleius, as it
learned it from another Platonic philosopher teaching in Athens. did for all of Middle Platonism. Who initiated Middle Platonism?
Dillon however observed that there are not elements in Gellius' Ferrari22 limits himself to observing that the origin of Middle
23
Noctes Atticae to suggest a true rival to Taurus during Gellius' Platonism had at times been attributed to either Posidonius ,
times 17, and that the philosopher Sextus, the nephew of Plutarch Antiochus24, or to Eudorus of Alexandria25. Of these three phi-
and the teacher of Marcus Aurelius, is mentioned with reverence losophers, the hypothesis of Posidonius appeared immediately
two times by Apuleius in the Metamorphoses18. One could there- to be the least persuasive, because Posidonius had remained sub-
fore think that Sextus was Apuleius' teacher in Athens. Never- stantially faithful to Stoicism, despite his many innovations and
theless, Dillon himself recognized, the chronology is somewhat his interest for Platonism. The conviction that the role of origi-
difficult. Sextus was the teacher of Marcus Aurelius around 140
in Rome, because Marcus Aurelius was born in 121. We would
then have to suppose that Sextus returned to Athens around 150 19 Cfr. C. MORESCHINI, La posizione di Apuleio e della Scuola di Gaio nell'am-
bito del Medioplatonismo, in «Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa»,
and became Apuleius' teacher — otherwise, Apuleius' homage
33 (1964), pp. 17-56, esp. pp. 52-56, and In., Apuleio a it platonismo, Firenze 1978,
to Sextus appears to be without motive. pp. 186-191.
20 Cfr. GIoh, Filosofi medioplatonici cit., pp. 16-17 — an easy observation
to make twenty five years after renewed scholarship on Middle Platonism!
16 Cfr. LUCIUS APULEIUS MADAURENSIS, Florida (henceforth Flor.), XX, 21 So D~rrie; cfr. H. DORRIE, Der Platoniker Eudoros von Alexandria,
ed. R. Helm, Leipzig 19592 (Bibl. Teubn., 1057), p. 41,2. Gersh follows Dil- in «Hermes» 79 (1944), pp. 25-39 (repr. in ID., Platonica Minora, Munchen 1976,
lon's hypothesis regarding Apuleius as a disciple of Taurus, and thinks that, pp. 297-309); for a description of the differences of the streams in the Platonism
if this was the case, Apuleius studied Plato following the convivial seminars of the Imperial age, cfr. ibid., pp. 186-190.
described by Gellius in various passages of the Noctes Atticae; cfr. S. GERSH, Mid- 22 As stated in his chapter on Middle Platonism (see above, Preface, note 1).
dle Platonism and Neoplatonism. The Latin Tradition, 2 vols., Notre Dame (IN) 23 Cfr. E. BICKEL, Senecas Briefe 58 and 65. Das Antiochos-Posidonios Problem,
1986 (Notre Dame Studies in Medieval Studies, 23), p. 227. in «Rheinisches Museum», 103 (1960), pp. 1-20.
17 Cfr. DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., pp. 308-309. 24 Cfr. W. THEILER, Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus, Berlin 1934 (Prob-
18 Cfr. APULEIUS, Metamorphoseon libri XI (henceforth Met.), I, 2 and II, 3, lemata. Forschungen zur klassischen Philologie, 1).
ed. M. Zimmerman, Oxford 2012 (Oxford Classical Texts). 25 Cfr. DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., pp. 114-129.
(cid:9)
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
34
nator of Middle Platonism belonged to Antiochus of Ascalon who transformed the original function of the Platonic ideas ,
lasted for a longer period (from around 1890 to around 1960). which he interpreted according to the doctrine of the Phaedo,
This was already the case for Hermann Diels26, whose opinion into some sort of Stoic spermatik~i logoi, from which, through
was corroborated by his student Hans Strache27, and presented another step, they would become thoughts in the mind of god35.
more systematically by Willy Theiler28. The connection Antio- Further, «we cannot be sure, on the other hand, that Antiochus
chus — Middle Platonism was still considered valid by Dillon was the first to regard the Ideas as thoughts of God; such a notion
(1977) and Glucker (1978), but since then has suddenly been may well go back to the Old Academy», and eventually
discarded. Scholars such as Mette29, Barnes3°, Gorler31 and to Polemon, who had admired Aristotle and who for Antiochus
Fladerer32 do not see any connection between Antiochus and was the archetype of the identification of Platonism and Aristo-
Middle Platonism. For example, according to Fladerer, the typi- telianism by overcoming Aristotle's criticisms of Plato.
cal doctrine of at least one part of Middle Platonism, that of the Antiochus was not however the direct source of the Middle
ideas as the thoughts of god, does not depend on Antiochus, Platonists for Diels, Theiler, or the others. Arius Didymus had
despite its presence in Varro's theology. this role. There is in fact a strong similarity of `Albinus' 36 to Arius
The problem is whether one should consider Antiochus as Didymus37, so that Witt could conclude «Arius alone would suf-
the germanissimus stoicus (a perfectly genuine Stoic), as Cicero fice as the source»38. Eudorus of Alexandria has recently been
did33, or as he who introduced the rediscovery and rehabilitation considered instead of Antiochus. This philosopher was in some
of the veteres into Platonism. The `dogmatic' aspect of Platonism way `rediscovered' by Dorrie in now distant 194439. In 1977
that manifested itself in the first century AD with the first Middle Dillon insisted on the importance of Eudorus for Middle Pla-
Platonists came from this rediscovery and rehabilitation. In 1977,
tonism, and observed that Eudorus accentuated monism even
Dillon had already expressed some doubts on the personal-
more than Alcinous or others. Later on, Whittaker pointed out
ity of Antiochus. First of all, the new interpretation of Platonic
his importance40, and Napolitano Valditara41 and Bonazzi agreed
ideas as one finds it in Cicero presents Antiochus to us as a Stoic
with him. In one of his recent articles, Whittaker treated the issue
of the Vorbereitung des Mittelplatonismus (we state it in this way
to take up a modified version of the title of Theiler's study).
Bonazzi's study manifests that Eudorus' theology remained sub-
26 Cfr. DIELS, Einleitung cit., pp. xxvi-xxvm.
27 Cfr. H. STRACHE, De Arii Didymi in morali philosophia auctoribus, diss. Ber-
lin 1909; ID., Der Eklektizismus des Antiochos von Askalon, Berlin 1921 (Philolo-
gische Untersuchungen, 26). 34 Cfr. ID., Academici libri, I (Varro), 8, 30, ed. Plasberg, in Academicorum
28 Cfr. THEILER, Die Vorbereitung cit. reliquiae cit., [pp. 1-25], p. 49.
29 Cfr. H. J. METTE, Philon von Larisa and Antiochos von Askalon, in «Lustrum», 35 Luck already maintained that Antiochus had substantially remained a Stoic,
28-29 (1986-1987), pp. 25-63. cfr. G. LUCK, DerAkademikerAntiochos, Bern 1953 (Noctes Romanae, 7), p. 46.
Later Dillon, cfr. DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., pp. 63-91.
3° Cfr. J. BARNES, Antiochus of Ascalon, in Philosophia Togata: Essays on Phi-
losophy and Roman Society, edd. M. Griffin — J. Barnes, Oxford 1989, pp. 51-96. 36 ALCINOUS, Didaskalik~s, 13, 1, ed. J. Whittaker, in ALCINOUS, Enseigne-
ment des Doctrines de Platon, Paris 1990 (repr. 2002, CUF S~rie grecque, 336).
31 CE W. GORLER, Antiochos aus Askalon and seine Schule, in Grundriss der
Geschichte der Philosophie Hrsg. H. Holzhey, 1, Die Philosophie der Antike, 4, 37 Cfr. fr. 1 in H. DIELS, Doxographi Graeci, Berlin 1877.
Die hellenistische Philosophie, ed. H. Flashar, 2 vols., Basel 1994, II, pp. 938-980, 38 Cfr. R. E. WITT, Albinus and the History of Middle Platonism, Cam-
esp. pp. 950-952. bridge 1937 (repr. 2013, Cambridge Classical Studies), p. 118.
32 Cfr. L. FLADERER, Antiochos von Askalon Hellenist and Humanist, Graz 1996 39 Cfr. DORRIE, Der Platoniker Eudoros cit.
(Grazer Beitr~ge. Suppl., 7). 4° Cfr. WHITTAKER, Platonic Philosophy cit., p. 119.
33 Cfr. MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO, Lucullus, 43, 132, ed. O. Plasberg, in ID., 41 Cfr. L. M. NAPOLITANO VALDITARA, 11 platonismo di Eudoro. Tradizione
Academicorum reliquiae cum Lucullo, Leipzig 1922 (repr. 2013, Bibl. Teubn., 1218), protoaccademica e medioplatonismo alessandrino, in «Museum Patavinum», 3 (1985),
[pp. 26-102], p. 94, 19. pp. 27-49.
INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
stantially Pythagorean, proposing the existence of the absolutely Academica44 shows that the perspective in which Antiochus
transcendent god (insofar as ~pX11) 42 and the second god tied is situated is completely different than that of Eudorus. Unlike
to the dyad. Thus, Eudorus seems to anticipate the `doctrine the latter, Antiochus still appears to follow conceptions that are
of the three principles', which was typical of Middle Platonism. typical of the Hellenistic era (...). His two fundamental the-
In this respect, however, Bonazzi observes that there are no doc- ses presuppose the immanentistic and materialistic interpreta-
trines found in the Timaeus to which Eudorus referred that might tion of reality that was proper to Stoicism: in utroque (that is,
justify 'the reversal that occurs in regard to the eidetic model in the two principles, the active one of the logos and the pas-
and the demiurge, which was a decisive inversion in the history sive one of matter) tamen utrumque. Antiochus' dogmatic position
of Platonism'. Further, the Stoic doctrine of the two principles, lacks what most profoundly characterizes imperial Platonism:
one active and one passive, is used by Eudorus, but not in all its opening to transcendence». Nevertheless, in our view, Eudorus
simplicity43. Thus, «Eudorus' doctrine of the principles would seems, not premature to, but distant from Middle Platonism.
be one of the first attempts to break with such a tradition, by There is not a true and proper doctrine of the transcendence
decisively asserting the requirement of overcoming the imma- of the ideas conceived as the thoughts of god in Eudorus.
nentistic prospective that had dominated the physical and cos- The common opinion is perhaps still influenced by the old
mological discussions of the previous centuries» — which had conviction that there must be a arpw'roS E~pE'rijC, even for ideas
been largely the work of the Stoics. «Beginning the first cen- and thoughts — that one must be able to designate one person,
tury Bc, new forms of Platonism began to circulate, which did and one alone (whether this be Antiochus or Eudorus), who
not identify with the Hellenistic tradition of the Academy, and was the first of an ever more defined and characteristic series
rather seemed to oppose its philosophy. Platonism appeared that would come to be considered a `chain' of Middle Platonists.
linked with Pythagorism, as can be seen in the fragments of the In fact, the attribution of the Vorbereitung des Mittelplatonismus
doctrines of Eudorus. Instead — and one might find a point to a more generalized movement of ideas, into which individual
of contact with Antiochus here — this renewed Platonism looked thinkers can be situated, seems more convincing than attribu-
to the Ancient Academy». According to Bonazzi then, Antio- tion to any one individual. One of these would be Eudorus,
chus was simply one of those in the first century BC who turned whose interest for Aristotelianism and for Pythagorism has been
to the doctrines of the Ancient Academy with renewed interest noted by Bonazzi. The doctrine of the ideas as thoughts of god
— but he remained substantially a Stoic. The true renewal of Pla- that marked the dogmatic position of Antiochus is perhaps not
tonism owed more to Eudorus, thanks to his interest, not only as characteristic of Middle Platonism as it seemed in Theiler's
in the Ancient Academy, but also in Pythagorism, which had times. Even if it is clearly expressed in Alcinous and Apuleius,
been quite important in the Ancient Academy. Eudorus con- it has a less determining role in the other Middle Platonists.
sidered the two movements of interest in Plato and interest in It was perhaps already found in the Ancient Academy, as Dil-
Pythagoras to be united. lon thought, and was then taken up by Antiochus, but also by
One must therefore also reject the hypothesis (that some an unknown commentator on Plato's Timaeus, active between
have suggested) of Eudorus' dependence on Antiochus. «Cice- the first century BC and the first century AD, to whom Seneca
ro's report in the section that presents physical doctrines of the refers 45
44 Cfr. CICERo, Academici libri, I (Varro), 6, 24 — 7, 59, ed. Plasberg cit.,
pp. 45-47.
42 Cfr. M. BONAZZI, Eudoro di Alessandria alle origini del platonismo imperiale, 45(cid:9) Cfr. A. SETAIOLI, Seneca e i Greci. Citazioni e traduzioni nelle opere filosofiche,
in L'eredit~ ~platonica cit. (see above, Preface, note 2), pp. 119-123. Bologna 1988 (Testi e manuali per 1'insegnamento universitario del latino, 26),
43 Cfr. ibid., pp. 133-136. pp. 133-140.
