On the Authenticity of Lucius Siue Asinus

In a thorough study of the language of the Asinus, V. Neukamm (1914) found a considerable amount of Lucianic idiom in the text, and for that reason concluded that it was written by Lucian.^* But he also had to reckon with a comparatively large number of non-Attic usages, and these he explained as due to what W. Schmid calls mimische Erzählung, the conventional adaptation of style to subject matter.¹ Many considerations have convinced me of the adequacy of this explanation; and therefore, on the linguistic side, I see no good reason for denying the Lucianic origin of the Asinus, especially since Neukamm’s positive evidence is very strong. But since the Asinus is a mere abridgment, and has been transcribed^* [225|226] αὐταῖς τε λέξεσι καὶ συντάξεσι, as Photius says,² from a lost and at one time anonymous³ Μεταμορφώσεις, we must conclude, on the basis of this linguistic evidence, not that Lucian made the abridgment (the Asinus) from the Μεταμορφώσεις of an unknown writer, as Neukamm and others believe, but that he wrote this original Μεταμορφώσεις itself.

It is my purpose in the following paragraphs to strengthen this conclusion by adding somewhat to the bulk of evidence already accumulated by Neukamm and by C. F. Knaut.⁴ What I have to add will consist mainly of parallelisms between the Asinus and Lucian’s other works in ideas, wit, stylistic mannerisms, phraseology, and idiom; and these are intended to illustrate, but only partially and by way of supplement, the Lucianic character of the Asinus—or, more strictly speaking, the Lucianic character of the Μεταμορφώσεις from which the Asinus was copied. Since the Metamorphoses of Apuleius, though interpolated, has been in large part translated, often very freely and with many alterations, often quite literally, from the same common original from which the Asinus is derived, we may be doubly sure that such ideas or stylistic features as are common to both these derivatives belonged in the original Μεταμορφώσεις. For this reason I have generally cited the corresponding passages of Apuleius when they agree with the Asinus. Two independent witnesses for the readings of the common archetype are better than one, however faithful that one may be presumed to be.

Asin. 41: ἔτυχον δὲ οἱ δυσσεβεῖς εἰς τὸ τέμενος ἐκεῖνο παρελθόντες [226|227] ἀνάθημα φιάλην χρυσῆν κλέψαντες. . . . οἱ δὲ κωμῆται . . . ἀπῄτουν τὸ κλαπὲν ἀνάθημα, καὶ ἐρευνῶντες πάντα εὗρον αὐτὸ ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τῆς θεοῦ⋅^*

Now when the impious fellows entered that precinct, they stole a golden bowl. . . . and the villagers . . . searched everywhere and found it in the bosom of the goddess.

No one is more likely to have invented this episode than Lucian, for with him the idea is especially familiar; cf. Herm. 37–38. Here Lucian outlines the following hypothesis: Suppose two men enter the sanctuary of Asclepius or Dionysus, after which an ἀνάθημα, a golden (Herm. 38) φιάλη, proves to be missing; they will have to be searched (ἐρευνηθῆναι) to see which one has it ὑπὸ κόλπου. Compare further Tox. 28: συνεισῆλθέ τε αὐτοῖς ἐς τὸ Ἀνουβίδειον καὶ ἀποσυλήσαντες τὸν θεὸν χρυσᾶς τε φιάλας δύο καὶ κηρύκιον^* (“. . . he entered the temple of Anubis and they robbed the god of two golden libation-bowls and a caduceus”). Again, in Icar. 16, Menippus sees Kleinias stealing a φιάλη from the temple of Asclepius; and one Dionysodorus is caught in the act of stealing a σκύφος at the banquet (Symp. 46). Lucian has many references to ἱερόσυλοι. The whole episode in detail formed an integral part of the original story, as may be seen from the corresponding passage in Apuleius (Met. 9.9–10). Elsewhere in fourteen authors that I have read in this connection there happen to be no parallels.^{5 *}

Asin. 4: κἀν τούτῳ γυναῖκα ὁρῶ προσιοῦσαν ἔτι νέαν, εὐπορουμένην,⁶ ὅσον ἦν ἐκ τῆς ὁδοῦ συμβαλεῖν⋅ ἱμάτια γὰρ ἀνθινὰ καὶ παῖδες συχνοὶ καὶ χρυσίον περιττόν.⁷ (“I saw approaching me a woman who was still young and, to judge from seeing her in the street, was well off; for she was gaily dressed, accompanied by many slaves and wearing too much gold.”) Compare DMeretr. 6.2: ἀλλὰ νῦν ὁρᾷς οἵα πρόεισι, χρυσὸς καὶ ἐσθῆτες εὐανθεῖς καὶ θεράπαιναι τέτταρες^* (“But you can see what a figure she cuts now, when she goes out with her gold, her gay dresses and her four maids”). Compare further Tox. 15: θεράπαιναι καὶ ἐσθῆτες εὐανθεῖς καὶ χρυσόν (“Serving-women, gay clothing, and gold”); DMeretr. 9.2: χρυσόν, ἐσθῆτα, ἀκολούθους (“Gold, raiment, servants”); and similarly, Nigr. 13, Cat. 16, Sat. 1. The expression, “flowery raiment,” is found in four other passages, e.g., ἐσθῆτα ἀνθινήν in Demon. 16.

Asin. 28: ἐχρῆν δὲ ἄρα κἀνταῦθα ὥσπερ Κανδαύλῃ κἀμοὶ γενέσθαι⋅ ὁ γὰρ ἐπιστάτης τῶν ἵππων τῇ αὐτοῦ γυναικὶ Μεγαπόλῃ ἔνδον με κατέλιπεν (“Then too was I doomed to fare just like Candaules; for the groom...