Jeffrey Ulrich (Rutgers University)
Plato’s Myth of Er experienced a bifurcated reception history in the Greek and Latin philosophical traditions, respectively. Whereas Greek Middle Platonic texts take criticisms of Plato head on (i.e., in polemical treatises, e.g., Plut. Adv. Col.), the Latin tradition, under the impetus of Cicero, adopts a more oblique approach. As we learn from our two extant commentaries on the Somnium Scipionis – Macrobius’ and Favonius Eulogius’ – Cicero chooses to conclude his de Re Publica with a prophetic dream narrative rather than resurrection story precisely to avoid the kind of derision Plato’s μῦθος received in Hellenistic criticism. Moreover, although the Myth of Er has been recognized as an authorizing force for underworld motifs in Latin fiction (e.g., Ulrich 2020), the influence of Plato’s eschatological tale on the Latin philosophical tradition has been generally underappreciated in the resurgence of studies on the ancient reception of Plato (see, e.g., Tarrant et al. 2017 and Delcomminette et al. 2015).
In this paper, I aim to excavate an understudied Latin reception of the Myth of Er, thereby tracing the wide-ranging influence of this famous μῦθος on Middle and Late Platonic texts. First, I demonstrate a shared Latin translational discourse for the tale. In all explicit exegeses of the μῦθος, from Valerius Maximus (1st c. CE) to Favonius Eulogius (5th), we find a recurrence of particular phraseology. For instance, Favonius Eulogius deploys the same phrase for Er’s resurrection and subsequent narration (de Somn. Scip. 1: rogo impositus revixisset…narrasset) that we encounter in Valerius Maximus’ paradoxographical treatment (1.8: impositum rogo revixisse…narrasse; cf. also Aug. de civ. Dei 22.28); on the other hand, the content of Er’s narration is almost universally described as a telling of secrets “from the underworld” (de inferis), though Er never actually visits the underworld. These phraseological correspondences suggest that there is a canonical version (or versions) of the myth circulating in the Latin tradition, attached in some way to Cicero’s translation.
After demonstrating a shared discourse in the commentary tradition, I argue that the Roman philosophical tradition engages with Plato’s tale only indirectly, either by fusing elements of the myth onto other Platonic dialogues (cf. Hoenig 2018), or by glossing over the tale’s explicitly mythical elements. Thus, Apuleius and Calcidius allude to the tale in their respective discussions (de Mundo 38; In Plat. Tim. 143-44) of fatum and providentia through blending the Myth of Er’s ‘doctrine’ with references to other dialogues. Similarly, Macrobius and Apuleius’ “Lost Third Book of de Platone” (cf. Stover 2016) interpret the closure of the Republic as a tale of metempsychosis and demonology; glossing over the myth’s bewildering features, they link it to other underworld and metempsychosis tales of Plato (e.g., Phaed. and Gorg.).
Finally, I conclude by suggesting that the fabulous elements of Plato’s myth, though glossed over as mere “play” (ludificatio), nonetheless provide authorizing force for fictional metamorphosis narratives. Thus, Augustine’s elision of authorial and auctorial personae of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses (de civ. Dei 18.18) is phrased in precisely the language contemporaneous critics use for the Myth of Er.