Apuleius and the Metamorphosis of Platonism 2503554709, 9782503554709

Citation preview

© 2015 Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium

Nutrix is a peer-reviewed Series. The content of each volume is assessed by specialists chosen by the Direction of the Series.

Claudio Moreschini

Apuleius and the Metamorphoses 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 Printed in the E.U. on acid-free paper

BREPOLS

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 1. Apuleius and Middle Platonism 2. Apuleius the Philosopher and Man of Letters

15 15 25

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

CHAPTER 1 POPULAR PHILOSOPHY AND PLATONISM: THE APOLOGIA AND THE FLORIDA The Defense of Philosophy and Philosophers Philosophers and Poets Praise of Poverty Scientific Research Magic Mystery Religions Platonism Platonism and Sophistic

29 29 30 31 32 34 39 42 49

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

CHAPTER 2 THE METAMORPHOSES, THE NOVEL OF A PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER Some Observations on Criticism of the Metamorphoses The Novel and Religion The Platonism of the Metamorphoses Platonism and the Isiac Mysteries The Metamorphoses: an Autobiographical Work?

59 60 65 69 77 84

1. 2. 3. 4.

CHAPTER 3 THE TALE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE Symbolic Interpretation Folkloric Interpretation Religious Interpretation Literary Interpretation

87 88 91 93 96

9

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5. 6. 7. 8.

Attempts at Reconciliation The Moral Interpretation The Platonic Interpretation Platonism in the Tale

98 99 102 109

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

CHAPTER 4 THE DE DEO SOCRATIS AND APULEIUS' DEMONOLOGY The World and Living Beings Middle Platonic Demonology The Nature of the Demons The Roles of the Demons Demon or Soul? A Difficulty in Apuleius The Language of Demons Apuleius and Plutarch

117 120 123 126 127 131 135 136 142

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

CHAPTER 5 RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES Pronto Pronto and Marcus Aurelius Favorinus in Rome Aulus Gellius Gellius and Calvisius Taurus The Speculum morale of Gellius Cynicism Aelianus Minor Platonists of the Roman World Aelius Aristides and the Platonism of the Second Century

147 147 151 153 155 158 160 165 167 168 169

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

CHAPTER 6 THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS The De Platone et eius dogmate The De mundo Chronology of the Philosophical Works The Authenticity of the De Platone and the De mundo The De interpretatione

187 189 198 200 203 204

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

CHAPTER 7 APULEIUS «PHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUS». PHYSICS The Doctrine of God Matter The Ideas The Cosmic Soul and Cosmogony The Creation of the World

219 219 249 255 259 265

6. 7. 8. 9.

Providence and Fate Time The Human Soul Some Physical Questions Appendix Notes on Latin Middle Platonism before Apuleius Seneca Quintilian and Tacitus

279 286 288 294 297 297 299

CHAPTER 8 APULEIUS «PHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUS» . ETHICS 1. First and Second Goods 2. Man and Oikeiosis 3. The medietas of Virtue 4. Virtues and Vices 5. Goods and Evils 6. Rhetoric 7. Varia Moralia 8. The Perfect Sage 9. Likeness to God 10. Following God

301 301 303 308 309 318 321 323 325 328 333

CHAPTER 9 APULEIUS AND CHRISTIAN AUTHORS eeius and_Arnobius 1. Apuleius 2. Cornelius Labeo 3. Augustine's Polemic against Apuleius

335 336 343 348

CONCLUSION

365

BIBLIOGRAPHY

369

INDEX OF NAMES

401

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 studies 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 vision of Middle Platonism, Apuleius' role was difficult to define. 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 attention 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

superficiality (although they are no more so than those of other Middle Platonists) is not a sufficient motive to dispense from studying them. The literary character, and especially the `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 cannot understand the most specific aspect of his philosophy, which consists in a sort of intermingling of philosophy and literature (a typical attitude of Greek and Latin culture of the second century AD), and above all, of religion and Platonism. The dichotomy between philosophy and literature that was normal in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries therefore still persists in the case of Apuleius. We attempted in some way to fill this gap in our 1978 study on Apuleio e it Platonismo. It was obviously in vain. Accordingly, in this book we would like to reflect on the possibility of a synthesis between these two aspects.

This book would not have been published without the valuable help of my friend Giulio d'Onofrio who, in his studies, knows how to highlight the influence of late antique thought and to notice its continuity within medieval thought. I would like to thank him, in the first place, for his friendship. Secondly, I would like to thank Dr. Diego Ianiro who, with patient and intelligent thoroughness, has revised this work according to Nutrix's guidelines and has also proposed some additions and corrections. The English translation is due to Dr. Seth Cherney, whom I thank for his attention and precision.

INTRODUCTION

APULEIUS PHILOSOPHER AND RHETOR

1. Apuleius and Middle Platonism In the last few decades the study of Middle Platonism has been marked by some `revolutions' that have notably modified the status of research, and that on Apuleius in particular, regarding what was universally accepted until 1980 and my book (1978). First of all, the identification that Freudenthal proposed in 18791, which, from two well known figures with similar names, Albinus (author of a Prologue to Platonic Philosophy and mentioned by some ancient sources) and Alcinous (the then largely unknown author of a Didaskalik~s), had made one Middle Platonist philosopher with the name of Albinus', who then became the author of the two works, has been contested. This identification was gradually abandoned beginning with the innovative study of Giusta2, which was then followed by those of Whittaker3. Dillon, who, in his fundamental study of Middle Platonism 4, I Cfr. J. FREUDENTHAL, DerPlatonikerAlbinos and derfalscheAlkinoos, Berlin 1879 (Hellenistische Studien, 3). I am informed about this book thanks to the critics it received by Whittaker, cfr. J. WHITTAKER, Platonic Philosophy in the Early Centuries of the Empire, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der r~mischen Welt — Philosophic, Wissenschaften, Technik: Philosophie (Historische Einleitung: Platonismus), edd. H. Temporini — W. Haase, Berlin — New York 1987 (ANRW II — 36,1), [pp. 81-123], pp. 83-96. 2 Cfr. M. GIUSTA, I dossografi di etica, Torino 1964. 3 Cfr. J. WHITTAKER, Parisinus Graecus 1962 and the Writings of Albinus, 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 identification was opportune, later openly adopted the opinions of Giusta and Whittaker'. At this point, Alcinous and Albinus are not considered to be the same Middle Platonist philosopher, even if Giusta's proposal of viewing Alcinous as a Stoic rather than a Middle Platonist was not accepted. Another conviction that was considered valid by all criticism until 1980 was partially abandoned along with the identification of Alcinous and Albinus. The existence of a `Gaiosgruppe', or `school of Gaius', had been maintained based in the fact that Albinus (but not Alcinous) studied under Gaius6, published his lessons', and taught at Smyrna around 150 — as Galen states8 — and in the similarities between the Didaskalik~s of `Albinus' (i.e. Alcinous) and Apuleius' De Platone et eius dogmate (as well as a few doctrines of the anonymous commentator on the Theaetetus) 9 . Once the distinction between Alcinous and Albinus had been re-established10, the attestations of the relationship between Gaius and Albinus could not be applied to Gaius and Alcinous. But Apuleius could not be connected to Gaius either, because the similarities between the Didaskalik~s ofAlcinous and Apuleius' De Platone et eius dogmate were not as close as had been believed. J. H. Loenen, although conditioned by the identification of Alcinous and Albinus, was one of the first scholars to seriously criticize the entire construction of the school of Gaius, which was commonly accepted at that time. Loenen first of all disputed

the similarity between `Albinus' and Apuleius (in the doctrine of `likeness to god', the doctrine of providence, the conception of the transcendent god, and in the ontological status of the ideas) in order to demonstrate that «it is impossible that Albinus and Apuleius should both have been dependent on Gaius in all the essential points» 11. According to Praechter, the points of divergence between `Albinus' and Apuleius consisted in Apuleius' misunderstandings and errors, so that Loenen rightly observed that «the most characteristic feature of Apuleius would then consist in an extreme stupidity!». As result of his efforts to rehabilitate `Albinus', Loenen thought that `Albinus' was an even greater thinker than Gaius. Forty years later, Dillon concluded that «the two works agree no more than might be expected for any two elementary handbooks of Platonism that might be produced at any time in the first two centuries AD. Consequently, these two texts are more `cousins' than `brothers'»12 . They perhaps depend on the same penultimate source, whether Arius Didymus or another, but they do not represent a well defined school of Middle Platonism13. The derivation of Alcinous and Apuleius from the same source was questioned even more by Whittaker14, and G~ransson finally dedicated an entire study to demonstrate that these two texts were different and could not have come from the same soured'. A distinction must nevertheless be made in this regard. 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. The strong similarities between them in ethics are probably due to the fact that Middle Platonist ethics were much more homogeneous than their physics were. The major differences between Middle Platonists are encountered in physics, while the source for the ethics of Apuleius and Alcinous was much more sensitive

Cfr. ID., Alcinous cit. (see above, Preface, note 1). Cfr. GAIus, test. 8, in A. GIoE, Filosofi medioplatonici del it secolo d. C. Testimonianze a fiammenti: Gaio, Albino, Lucio, Nicostrato, Tauro, Severo, Arpocrazione, Napoli 2002 (Elenchos, 36), pp. 45-76. Cfr. ibid., test. 7. 8 Cfr. CLAUDIUS GALENUS PERGAMENUS, De libris propriis, II, ed. I. von Muller, 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). 9 Cfr. H. DIELS, Einleitung, in Anonymer Kommentar zu Platons Theaetet (Papyrus 9782), edd. H. Diels — W. Schubart, Berlin 1905, pp. xxvi-xxvm. 10 Praechter was the principal proponent of this interpretation, cfr. K. PRAECHTER, 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 Alterturn, in Grundrif3 der Geschichte der Philosophie, ed. F. Oberweg, 1, Berlin 1920 (repr. Basel 196210). 5

6

" J. H. LOENEN, Albinus' Metaphysics. An Attempt at Rehabilitation, in «Mnemosyne», Ser. IV, 10 (1957), [pp. 35-58], pp. 37-38. 12 DILLON, Alcinous cit., p. XI. 13 Cfr. ibid., p. xxix. 14 Cfr. WHITTAKER, Platonic Philosophy cit., pp. 103-110. 13 Cfr. T. Gt RANSSON, Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus, Goteborg 1992 (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 61).

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

to Aristotelianism, or more precisely, to the Peripatetics and Stoics of the imperial era. With the abandonment of the idea of a school of Gaius that was active in Smyrna around 150 AD, one must note that Dillon proposes an interesting hypothesis that situates Apuleius in a context which, even if not that of the obscure Gaius, was nevertheless related to the Platonic teaching of Athens. This attempt is justified by the fact that we know that Apuleius studied in Athens through his own personal affirmations16 . However, even if one accepts this, we unfortunately cannot take the next potentially interesting and stimulating step of linking Apuleius with the Platonic philosopher who seems to have been the most authoritative one in Athens during that period, that is Calvisius (or Calvenus) Taurus, because there are no significant doctrinal similarities between Apuleius and Taurus. If Apuleius learned his Platonism in Athens, and not in Africa (Carthage would be the city that most probably could have provided him with this formation), he learned it from another Platonic philosopher teaching in Athens. Dillon however observed that there are not elements in Gellius' Noctes Atticae to suggest a true rival to Taurus during Gellius' times17 , and that the philosopher Sextus, the nephew of Plutarch and the teacher of Marcus Aurelius, is mentioned with reverence two times by Apuleius in the Metamorphoses18. One could therefore think that Sextus was Apuleius' teacher in Athens. Nevertheless, Dillon himself recognized, the chronology is somewhat 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 and became Apuleius' teacher — otherwise, Apuleius' homage to Sextus appears to be without motive.

Another `revolution' that occurred was the abandonment of the schemata into which one attempted to insert the various Middle Platonists. Praechter and others had applied the schema of `orthodoxy' — `eclecticism' to them, according to their acceptance of or interest in Aristotelian doctrine (but why not Stoic doctrine?). In one of my earlier studies, I proposed distinguishing Apuleius and Alcinous from other Middle Platonist currents through the distinction between a `religious current' and a `rationalist current', because no Platonic philosopher ever wanted to be anything other than Platonic'''. Praechter's distinction was therefore nothing more than a modern distinction. My division was accepted by some at that point; although it too was eventually abandoned, because, as was said, it substituted one division for another20: it thus seems more useful to consider Middle Platonism as a `battleground' of the various schools, according to the description suggested by H. D~rrie 21. A third revolution influenced the criticism of Apuleius, as it did for all of Middle Platonism. Who initiated Middle Platonism? Ferrari22 limits himself to observing that the origin of Middle Platonism had at times been attributed to either Posidonius 23, Antiochus24, or to Eudorus of Alexandria25. Of these three philosophers, the hypothesis of Posidonius appeared immediately to be the least persuasive, because Posidonius had remained substantially faithful to Stoicism, despite his many innovations and his interest for Platonism. The conviction that the role of origi-

16 Cfr. LUCIUS APULEIUS MADAURENSIS, Florida (henceforth Flor.), XX, ed. R. Helm, Leipzig 19592 (Bibl. Teubn., 1057), p. 41,2. Gersh follows Dillon's hypothesis regarding Apuleius as a disciple of Taurus, and thinks that, if this was the case, Apuleius studied Plato following the convivial seminars described by Gellius in various passages of the Noctes Atticae; cfr. S. GERSH, Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism. The Latin Tradition, 2 vols., Notre Dame (IN) 1986 (Notre Dame Studies in Medieval Studies, 23), p. 227. 17 Cfr. DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., pp. 308-309. 18 Cfr. APULEIUS, Metamorphoseon libri XI (henceforth Met.), I, 2 and II, 3, ed. M. Zimmerman, Oxford 2012 (Oxford Classical Texts).

19 Cfr. C. MORESCHINI, La posizione di Apuleio e della Scuola di Gaio nell'ambito del Medioplatonismo, in «Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa», 33 (1964), pp. 17-56, esp. pp. 52-56, and In., Apuleio a it platonismo, Firenze 1978, 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! 21 So D~rrie; cfr. H. DORRIE, Der Platoniker Eudoros von Alexandria, in «Hermes» 79 (1944), pp. 25-39 (repr. in ID., Platonica Minora, Munchen 1976, pp. 297-309); for a description of the differences of the streams in the Platonism of the Imperial age, cfr. ibid., pp. 186-190. 22 As stated in his chapter on Middle Platonism (see above, Preface, note 1). 23 Cfr. E. BICKEL, Senecas Briefe 58 and 65. Das Antiochos-Posidonios Problem, in «Rheinisches Museum», 103 (1960), pp. 1-20. 24 Cfr. W. THEILER, Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus, Berlin 1934 (Problemata. Forschungen zur klassischen Philologie, 1). 25 Cfr. DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., pp. 114-129.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

nator of Middle Platonism belonged to Antiochus of Ascalon lasted for a longer period (from around 1890 to around 1960). This was already the case for Hermann Diels 26, whose opinion was corroborated by his student Hans Strache 27, and presented more systematically by Willy Theiler28. The connection Antiochus — Middle Platonism was still considered valid by Dillon (1977) and Glucker (1978), but since then has suddenly been discarded. Scholars such as Mette29, Barnes3°, Gorler31 and Fladerer32 do not see any connection between Antiochus and Middle Platonism. For example, according to Fladerer, the typical doctrine of at least one part of Middle Platonism, that of the ideas as the thoughts of god, does not depend on Antiochus, despite its presence in Varro's theology. The problem is whether one should consider Antiochus as the germanissimus stoicus (a perfectly genuine Stoic), as Cicero did33, or as he who introduced the rediscovery and rehabilitation of the veteres into Platonism. The `dogmatic' aspect of Platonism that manifested itself in the first century AD with the first Middle Platonists came from this rediscovery and rehabilitation. In 1977, Dillon had already expressed some doubts on the personality of Antiochus. First of all, the new interpretation of Platonic ideas as one finds it in Cicero presents Antiochus to us as a Stoic

who transformed the original function of the Platonic ideas 34, which he interpreted according to the doctrine of the Phaedo, into some sort of Stoic spermatik~i logoi, from which, through another step, they would become thoughts in the mind of god 35. Further, «we cannot be sure, on the other hand, that Antiochus was the first to regard the Ideas as thoughts of God; such a notion may well go back to the Old Academy», and eventually to Polemon, who had admired Aristotle and who for Antiochus was the archetype of the identification of Platonism and Aristotelianism by overcoming Aristotle's criticisms of Plato. Antiochus was not however the direct source of the Middle Platonists for Diels, Theiler, or the others. Arius Didymus had this role. There is in fact a strong similarity of `Albinus' 36 to Arius Didymus37, so that Witt could conclude «Arius alone would suffice as the source»38. Eudorus of Alexandria has recently been considered instead of Antiochus. This philosopher was in some way `rediscovered' by Dorrie in now distant 194439. In 1977 Dillon insisted on the importance of Eudorus for Middle Platonism, and observed that Eudorus accentuated monism even more than Alcinous or others. Later on, Whittaker pointed out his importance40, and Napolitano Valditara41 and Bonazzi agreed 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. Berlin 1909; ID., Der Eklektizismus des Antiochos von Askalon, Berlin 1921 (Philologische Untersuchungen, 26). 28 Cfr. THEILER, Die Vorbereitung cit. 29 Cfr. H. J. METTE, Philon von Larisa and Antiochos von Askalon, in «Lustrum», 28-29 (1986-1987), pp. 25-63. 3° Cfr. J. BARNES, Antiochus of Ascalon, in Philosophia Togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society, edd. M. Griffin — J. Barnes, Oxford 1989, pp. 51-96. 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, Die hellenistische Philosophie, ed. H. Flashar, 2 vols., Basel 1994, II, pp. 938-980, esp. pp. 950-952. 32 Cfr. L. FLADERER, Antiochos von Askalon Hellenist and Humanist, Graz 1996 (Grazer Beitr~ge. Suppl., 7). 33 Cfr. MARCUS TULLIUS CICERO, Lucullus, 43, 132, ed. O. Plasberg, in ID., Academicorum reliquiae cum Lucullo, Leipzig 1922 (repr. 2013, Bibl. Teubn., 1218), [pp. 26-102], p. 94, 19.

34 Cfr. ID., Academici libri, I (Varro), 8, 30, ed. Plasberg, in Academicorum reliquiae cit., [pp. 1-25], p. 49. 35 Luck already maintained that Antiochus had substantially remained a Stoic, cfr. G. LUCK, DerAkademikerAntiochos, Bern 1953 (Noctes Romanae, 7), p. 46. Later Dillon, cfr. DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., pp. 63-91. 36 ALCINOUS, Didaskalik~s, 13, 1, ed. J. Whittaker, in ALCINOUS, Enseignement des Doctrines de Platon, Paris 1990 (repr. 2002, CUF S~rie grecque, 336). 37 Cfr. fr. 1 in H. DIELS, Doxographi Graeci, Berlin 1877. 38 Cfr. R. E. WITT, Albinus and the History of Middle Platonism, Cambridge 1937 (repr. 2013, Cambridge Classical Studies), p. 118. 39 Cfr. DORRIE, Der Platoniker Eudoros cit. 4° Cfr. WHITTAKER, Platonic Philosophy cit., p. 119. 41 Cfr. L. M. NAPOLITANO VALDITARA, 11 platonismo di Eudoro. Tradizione protoaccademica e medioplatonismo alessandrino, in «Museum Patavinum», 3 (1985), pp. 27-49.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

stantially Pythagorean, proposing the existence of the absolutely transcendent god (insofar as ~pX11) 42 and the second god tied to the dyad. Thus, Eudorus seems to anticipate the `doctrine of the three principles', which was typical of Middle Platonism. In this respect, however, Bonazzi observes that there are no doctrines found in the Timaeus to which Eudorus referred that might justify 'the reversal that occurs in regard to the eidetic model and the demiurge, which was a decisive inversion in the history of Platonism'. Further, the Stoic doctrine of the two principles, one active and one passive, is used by Eudorus, but not in all its simplicity 43. Thus, «Eudorus' doctrine of the principles would be one of the first attempts to break with such a tradition, by decisively asserting the requirement of overcoming the immanentistic prospective that had dominated the physical and cosmological discussions of the previous centuries» — which had been largely the work of the Stoics. «Beginning the first century Bc, new forms of Platonism began to circulate, which did not identify with the Hellenistic tradition of the Academy, and rather seemed to oppose its philosophy. Platonism appeared linked with Pythagorism, as can be seen in the fragments of the doctrines of Eudorus. Instead — and one might find a point of contact with Antiochus here — this renewed Platonism looked to the Ancient Academy». According to Bonazzi then, Antiochus was simply one of those in the first century BC who turned to the doctrines of the Ancient Academy with renewed interest — but he remained substantially a Stoic. The true renewal of Platonism owed more to Eudorus, thanks to his interest, not only in the Ancient Academy, but also in Pythagorism, which had been quite important in the Ancient Academy. Eudorus considered the two movements of interest in Plato and interest in Pythagoras to be united. One must therefore also reject the hypothesis (that some have suggested) of Eudorus' dependence on Antiochus. «Cicero's report in the section that presents physical doctrines of the

Academica44 shows that the perspective in which Antiochus is situated is completely different than that of Eudorus. Unlike the latter, Antiochus still appears to follow conceptions that are typical of the Hellenistic era (...). His two fundamental theses presuppose the immanentistic and materialistic interpretation of reality that was proper to Stoicism: in utroque (that is, in the two principles, the active one of the logos and the passive one of matter) tamen utrumque. Antiochus' dogmatic position lacks what most profoundly characterizes imperial Platonism: opening to transcendence». Nevertheless, in our view, Eudorus seems, not premature to, but distant from Middle Platonism. There is not a true and proper doctrine of the transcendence of the ideas conceived as the thoughts of god in Eudorus. The common opinion is perhaps still influenced by the old conviction that there must be a arpw'roS E~pE'rijC, even for ideas and thoughts — that one must be able to designate one person, and one alone (whether this be Antiochus or Eudorus), who was the first of an ever more defined and characteristic series that would come to be considered a `chain' of Middle Platonists. In fact, the attribution of the Vorbereitung des Mittelplatonismus to a more generalized movement of ideas, into which individual thinkers can be situated, seems more convincing than attribution to any one individual. One of these would be Eudorus, whose interest for Aristotelianism and for Pythagorism has been noted by Bonazzi. The doctrine of the ideas as thoughts of god that marked the dogmatic position of Antiochus is perhaps not as characteristic of Middle Platonism as it seemed in Theiler's times. Even if it is clearly expressed in Alcinous and Apuleius, it has a less determining role in the other Middle Platonists. It was perhaps already found in the Ancient Academy, as Dillon thought, and was then taken up by Antiochus, but also by an unknown commentator on Plato's Timaeus, active between the first century BC and the first century AD, to whom Seneca refers 45

42 Cfr. M. BONAZZI, Eudoro di Alessandria alle origini del platonismo imperiale, in L'eredit~~platonica cit. (see above, Preface, note 2), pp. 119-123. 43 Cfr. ibid., pp. 133-136.

44 Cfr. CICERo, Academici libri, I (Varro), 6, 24 — 7, 59, ed. Plasberg cit., pp. 45-47. 45 Cfr. A. SETAIOLI, Seneca e i Greci. Citazioni e traduzioni nelle opere filosofiche, Bologna 1988 (Testi e manuali per 1'insegnamento universitario del latino, 26), pp. 133-140.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

Can one also attribute the origin of Middle Platonist ethics to Antiochus, with his strong admixture of Aristotelianism, as was observed primarily by Diels and Strache? This admixture seems rather strong in Apuleius and Alcinous. In my opinion, it is probable that the ethics of Alcinous and Apuleius derive from the ethics of Antiochus (which was not incorrectly considered by Dillon to be more an ethics of common sense than a rigorous philosophical system). Certain specifications are however necessary. One cannot speak of a Middle Platonist ethics in a general sense, placing Plutarch, Apuleius, and Alcinous on the same level. The similarities between the Middle Platonists' ethics manifest different phenomena. Plutarch proposes a personal and developed re-elaboration of the ethics of two philosophical systems (Plato and Aristotle), refusing the Stoic's one, while Apuleius and Alcinous depend, in what is perhaps a manualistic (i.e., unoriginal) way, on a source from more than a century beforehand, such as Arius Didymus, who in turn depended on Antiochus. Due to the similarities between Apuleius' second book of the De Platone, of Alcinous' Didaskalik~s and books four and five of Cicero's De finibus (which contain Antiochus's ethics), we are still inclined to believe that Apuleius and Alcinous depend on Antiochus and Arius Didymus (whose doctrine are preserved by Stobaeus 46), as already suggested by Strache and Theiler, on whom we rely. Another innovation that characterizes current Middle Platonist studies is the confirmation of the hypothesis that Philo followed contemporary Platonism. This hypothesis was only roughly sketched out by Theiler, was then further developed by Lilla47 and myself48, and is now commonly accepted, with valid arguments, by many scholars such as Runia, Dillon, Calabi and Bonazzi. In his words, «between the end of the first century BC and the early first century AD a type of Platonism gained ground

that had taken up themes and problems that were thought to be distinctive of early Pythagoreanism», which was the one that Eudorus adhered to. Ammonius the teacher of Plutarch and others contributed to the `formation' of a Pythagorizing type of Platonism (which we now call Middle Platonism) 49. One can find Neo-Pythagorean doctrines close to those of the Middle Platonists in Philo: Philo's ambiguous expressions on god and his transcendence, rather than being inspired from the OT only, depend on interests that are also common to other traditions, particularly the Platonic-Pythagorean one 5o

46 Cfr. IOHANNES STOBAEUS, Anthologium, II, 49, 8 — 50, 10; 53, 21— 75, 15, ed. C. Wachsmuth, in IoANNIS STOBAEI Anthologium, I, Eclogae physicae et ethicae, Berlin 1884 (an edition of Arius Didymus fragments in Stobaeus is now avalaible, cfr. A. J. PomiERoY, Arius Didymos, Epitome of Stoic Ethics, Atlanta 1999). 42 Cfr. S. R. C. LILLA, Clement of Alexandria. A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism, Oxford 1971. 48 Cfr. MORESCHINI, Apuleio cit., pp. 71-73 and elsewhere.

2. Apuleius the Philosopher and Man of Letters If the studies on the Platonic philosophy of Apuleius have been somewhat rare in the last few decades, the contrary is true for the interest in his sophistic culture and his novel, the Metamorphoses. Apuleius' sophistic culture has attracted the attention of critics in recent years as a consequence of studies of Greek Sophistics, which began timidly around 1970 and then became ever more plentiful from 1990 on. Remarkable results have been achieved in this domain: they have restored a large part of Apuleius' personality to him, and placed him in the cultural world of the Antonine era. We therefore do not agree with Dillon, who continues to speak of Apuleius in a reductive manner, as simply a lawyer or a `rhetorician' 51. Recent studies in the Metamorphoses have primarily focused on narratology. The epoch-making volume of J. J. Winkler opened the path to a proliferation of studies52, which in truth are largely verbose and hyper-speculative. Some of them remain of interest for Apuleius' Platonism, and this is a valid perspec49 Cfr. M. BONAZZI, Towards Transcendence: The Renewal of Platonism in the Early Imperial Age, in Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelian Philosophy, ed. F. Alesse, Leiden 2010 (Studies in Philo of Alexandria, 5), [pp. 233-251J, p. 236. 50 Cfr. ibid., p. 241. 51 Cfr. DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., pp. 311 and 326; In., Alcinous cit., p. xI. 52 Cfr. J. J. WINKLER, Auctor & Actor. A narratological Reading of Apuleius' The Golden Ass, Berkeley 1985.

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

tive. One must nevertheless pay attention, since most of them see Platonism, along with symbologies, allegories, and allusions, more or less everywhere in the Metamorphoses, and thus abandon themselves to a poorly controlled desire to discover a second (philosophical and religious) meaning in every aspect and detail. There is also a prevalence of an extremely vague and superficial idea of Platonic philosophy — not only in regard to its original form, but also that contemporary to Apuleius. Nevertheless, whatever these studies lack in respect to the historical reconstruction of the relationships between the Metamorphoses and Platonism, they have the merit of understanding the fundamental paradigm: the author was a philosophus Platonicus who set out to write a novel. They also fill the hiatus that had existed since the end of the nineteenth century in Apuleian criticism: those who studied his literary works overlooked his philosophy. Narratology scholars, even if they do not have a detailed knowledge of Middle Platonism, and are sometimes affected by a sort of Panplatonism', at least know that Apuleius was a Platonist. The fundamental principle of these studies on the Platonism of Apuleius' Metamorphoses has been explained by K. Dowden, who begins from valid interpretive principles, even if (in our opinion) he eventually takes them to excesses: «There is no doubt that the author of the Golden Ass professed Platonism. This is not something which we need to read out of his text, as we might in the case of Heliodoros (...). We know that the real Apuleius propagated Platonic ideas in his Carthaginian period, that he translated the Phaedo, knew his Platonic texts — and other philosophical texts»53. These words of a scholar who is convinced of the Platonism of Apuleius' Metamorphoses are undeniably true, and he (sometimes too) consistently applied this interpretive principle. But this is the newest and most interesting aspect of Apuleius' personality: a Platonic philosopher decided also to become the author of a `novel', that is, of a literary genre that had a bad reputation among the learned, but that was highly popular among common readers.

Apuleius wanted to be known as a philosopher, and at the same time as a man of letters (a sophist). This did not create difficulties in the second century AD, but does constitute a specific and necessary step in the evaluation of Apuleius. It is therefore legitimate to consider Apuleius' Platonism together with his literary interests — as his specificity is precisely that of being at once a sophist and a philosopher. The scholarly problem here is then to see to what degree his Platonism is found in his nonphilosophical works. Everything that we have briefly presented here will be the object of our studies in this book, and we shall see whether we reach valid conclusions on these issues'''.

53 K. DOWDEN, Cupid & Psyche. A Question of the Vision of Apuleius, in Aspects of Apuleius' Golden Ass, II, Cupid and Psyche, edd. M. Zimmerman, V Hunink et Al., Groningen 1998, [pp. 1-22], p. 1.

54 Because of the already advanced stage of the proof-correction, I could not take into full account the book of Richard FLETCHER, Apuleius' Platonism. The Impersonation of Philosophy, Cambridge 2014, whose aim is to redirect "the conversation of Apuleian studies to a more responsible acknowledgment of the totality of his literary and philosophical achievement". Notwithstanding the similar purposes, our methods are different, and therefore I think that the two books can be read in a complementary way. It is my intention, however, to discuss in detail elsewhere Fletcher's achievements.

CHAPTER 1

POPULAR PHILOSOPHY AND PLATONISM: THE APOLOGIA AND THE FLORIDA

The Apologia (or De magia) is probably the oldest (158 AD) of Apuleius' works that has reached us, and, as is recognized by all scholars, is an oration in the Second Sophistic style': in stating this we maintain that many elements of the culture of the second century AD that we will examine later (ch. 5) are present in it. It in fact unites erudition, anecdote, above all philosophy (physics and ethics), and magic, which is interpreted as religion. 1. The Defense of Philosophy and Philosophers It seems almost necessary to Apuleius that he should affirm what had become a topos since the times of Ennius, that is, repeating that 'it is good to philosophize, but not too much'. He quotes the famous verse of Ennius' tragedy, the Neoptolemus2, which is also repeated by his contemporary, Aulus Gellius3. Apuleius 1 Thereabout, inter alios, cfr. S. J. HARRISON, Apuleius. A Latin Sophist, Oxford 2000, pp. 39-88 (on the Apologia) and 86-88 (conclusions). Apuleius' sophistic attitude in the Apologia has been questioned by Richard Fletcher (cfr. R. FLETCHER, Plato re-read to late: citation and platonism in Apuleius' Apologia, in «Ramus», 38 (2009), pp. 43-74), who proposes a Platonic reading, referring the tenets of the Apologia not so much to Middle-Platonism, as we do, but to an ideal biography of Plato, which corresponds to that of Apuleius himself. 2 Cfr. APULETUS, Pro se de magia liber (Apologia, henceforth Apol.), 13, ed. R. Helm, Leipzig 1959 (Bibl. Teubn., 1056), p. 15,4-6 (corresponding to QUINTUS ENNIUS, Scaenica, 376, ed. J. Vahlen, in Ennianae poesis reliquiae, Leipzig 19032, p. 191). 3 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, V, 15, 9 - 16, 5, ed. P. K. Marshall, 2 vols., Oxford 1968 (Oxford classical texts), II, p. 210,6-16. See below, p. 156.

29

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

1. POPULAR PHILOSOPHY AND PLATONISM

does not however hesitate to present himself as a philosopher at the beginning of the oration (ch. 3). The lawyers of the opposition had accused him in particular, and all philosophers in general, with the most banal and ignorant accusations. Apuleius wished to communicate that he was an educated and upstanding philosopher, who was engaged in respectable studies out of love for science and the progress of knowledge. Hunink observed that this opposition between the philosopher and his ignorant accusers reproduces the contrast between Apollo and Marsyas in Florida III, where Apuleius is identified with Apollo4. Further, Apuleius the philosopher is an expert «tam Graece quam Latine». Two philosophers are more famous than the rest: Pythagoras and Plato, as is the case, not only in Platonism, but also in the culture of the period. It is permitted for the philosopher to have a noble face'. Pythagoras, who was the first to qualify himself as a `philosopher' 6, was one of the most handsome men of his period, and Zeno, the famous philosopher from Velia, was also handsome, as Plato notes'. Apuleius anecdotally added a detail with philosophical content: «Zenonem ilium antiquum Velia oriundum, qui primus omnium ~7ropia5 sollertissimo artificio ambifariam dissoluerit».

are also quoted by Diogenes Laertius10, are remembered" Apuleius also spoke of other philosophers, such as Epicurus, who did not enjoy a good reputation among the Platonists: he briefly presented Epicurus' doctrine of simulacra12, which he placed together with that on the reflection of mirrors that was proposed by Plato", Archytas the Pythagorean", and by the Stoics15. Certain philosophers, who studied the ultimate and elementary causes of bodies, are considered to be atheists, and it is therefore believed that they deny the existence of the gods. Among these are found Anaxagoras, Leucippus, Democritus, Epicurus, and all the other defenders of nature.

2. Philosophers and Poets Using erudition and anecdotes, as the oratory of his time would have it, Apuleius enumerated those who were philosophers and poets: Diogenes the Cynics and Zeno, the founder of Stoicism9, as well as the greatest of all Plato, whose poems, which 4 Cfr. V. HUNINK, Introduction, in APULEIUS, Pro se de magia, ed. Hunink, 2 vols., Amsterdam 1997, I, p. 21. Cfr. Apol., 4, ed. Helm cit., p. 5,15-16. 6 Cfr. CICERO, Tusculanae disputationes, V, 3, 8-9, ed. M. Pohlenz, Leipzig 19822 (Bib'. Teubn., 1220); Flor., XV, 6-11, ed. Helm cit. 7 Cfr. Farm., 127b. 8 Cfr. Apol., 9. Diogenes Laertius speaks in respect to Diogenes the Cynic of an erotik~s, which he however calls a «dialog», cfr. DIOGENES LAERTIUS, Vitae Philosophorum, VI, 80, edd. M. Marcovich — H. Gartner, Leipzig 1999 (Bib'. Teubn., 1316). 9 Diogenes Laertius states that Zeno wrote an Ars amatoria and that Chrysippus wrote many works full of vulgarities, cfr. ibid., VII, 1, 34 and II, 1, 87.

3. Praise of Poverty The discussion of Cynicism is more complex, because almost by necessity is introduced with a praise of poverty (something quite opportune for Apuleius, who was accused of having taken the goods of the widow Pudentilla through the magical arts). This is proposed in a particularly interesting section, in which Apuleius, to defend himself from the insinuation of having made himself wealthy by marrying the rich widow Pudentilla, begins by specifying what his own economic means are, which he had from his father, and, in defence of his own social status, gives a philosophical

1° Cfr. ibid., III, 29-33. " Cfr. Apol., 10, ed. Hunink cit., I, p. 43, and Hunink'commentary, ibid., II, pp. 49-50. 12 Cfr. Apol., 15, ed. Helm, p. 18,6-9. The Epicurean doctrine of the eidola (translated with imagines by Cicero and with simulacra by Lucretius, cfr. CICERO, De finibus bonorum et malorum, I, 6, 21, ed. C. Moreschini, Leipzig 2005, p. 10,211 and TITUS LUCRETIUS CARUS, De rerum natura, IV, 30, ed. K. Muller, Zurich 1975) is not taken from Epicurus himself, but probably from Lucretius (cfr. ibid., IV, 26-468; on mirrors: 269-323) and Cicero. 13 See Tim. 46a. Plato's opinion probably comes from a manual of philosophy, and is also found in PSEUDO-PLUTARCHUS, Placita philosophorum, IV, 13, ed. H. Diels, in Doxographi Graeci cit. (see above, Introduction, note 37), [pp. 267-444], p. 404. 14 Apuleius himself says elsewhere that Plato traveled to Italy, to Taranto, in order to meet the Pythagoreans Archytas and Eurytus, cfr. APULEIUS, De Platone et eius dogmate (henceforth Plat.), I, 3, 186, ed. C. Moreschini, in ID., De Philosophia libri, Leipzig 1991 (Bibl. Teubn., 1058), [pp. 87-145], p. 90 (see below, p. 195). 15 Cfr. PSEUDO-PLUTARCHUS, Placita, IV, 15, ed. Diels cit., pp. 405-406.

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

1. POPULAR PHILOSOPHY AND PLATONISM

and rhetorical `praise of poverty'16 . Apuleius does not say anything particularly new when he cites the examples of the great Romans of the past, from Cato to Agrippa and Publicola. Likewise, he enters into a Cynical and Stoic moralizing diatribe when he introduces the exempla of Greek philosophy, such as those of Crates and Socrates (and then those of Phocion, Epaminondas, and Homer). A special example of poverty that was specifically chosen following a meditation on the vanity of human goods and fate is found in the Theban Crates, who voluntarily liberated himself of all the riches he possessed17 . Apuleius' accuser, Aemilianus, had said that Apuleius only possessed a sack and a staff before marrying Pudentilla (thus insinuating that he had enriched himself after the marriage). Apuleius replied that the staff and the sack, the only things that Cynics possess, are not the proper instruments of Platonists, it is true, but illustrate the nobility of soul of the most famous Cynics, such as Diogenes and Antisthenes. Hunink sees a contradiction in this fact]s, because Apuleius is a harsh critic of the Cynics elsewhere, and holds them in disdain. In reality, Apuleius contrasts Diogenes and Antisthenes, who were noble philosophers of the past, to the vulgarity of contemporary Cynics, as can be seen in for., VII and IX19 . A little further on, Apuleius in fact repeats his accusations of ignorance in respect to the Cynics, to which he contrasts the culture of the Platonic philosophers, and thus his own.

phers, such as Aristotle, Theophrastus, Eudemus21, Lyco22, and all the other disciples of Plato, who left many written books on the generation of animals and their way of life, on their parts and on all their differences. Thanks to his culture, the judge of the process himself, Claudius Maximus23, had undoubtedly read the many volumes of Aristotle's On the Generation of Animals, On the Anatomy of Animals, On the History of Animals, and further, always by Aristotle, countless Problems24, as well as the Problems of all the other philosophers of the Peripatetic school, who treat various questions of this kind. For this reason Apuleius places his own Natural Questions together with the works of the great philosophers of the past, to make it known that he does more research than is believed. He also refers to volumes he had written on fish25, to explain the manner in which they are united and generate children — there is the interesting fact of Apuleius proposing the terms of viviparous and oviparous as the Latin translation of the correspondent Greek terms 26:

4. Scientific Research Apuleius prides himself in having carried out much scientific research20, thus following the examples of the great philoso16 Cfr. Apol., 17-22; a description in P. VALLEIIL, L'apologie d'Apul~e, Paris 1908, pp. 129-157; K. SALLMANN, Erzahlendes in der Apologie des Apuleius, oder Argumentation als Unterhaltung, in Groningen Colloquia on the Novel, VI, ed. H. Hofmann, Groningen 1995, pp. 137-168, esp. pp. 152-153; HUNINK in APULEIUS, Pro se de magia, ed. Hunink cit., II, pp. 67-68. 17 Cfr. Apol., 22, ed. Helm cit., pp. 25,21-26,8. Crates was a pupil of Diogenes the Cynic and lived in the second half of the fourth century. The episode narrated here is repeated by Apuleius in Florida, cfr. for., XIV and XXII, ed. Helm, pp. 18,10-19,10 and 42,20-43,12. 18 Later correcting his judgment, he admits that Apuleius criticized the lack of culture of contemporary Cynics (cfr. HUNINK, in APULEIUS, Pro se de magia cit., p. 119). 19 See below, p. 53. 20 Cfr. Apol., 36, ed. Helm, p. 42,11-14.

Quibus membris et causis discrerit natura viviparos eorum et oviparos — ita enim Latine appello quae Graeci wordIca et wardlca.

21 Eudemus of Rhodes, a friend and pupil of Aristotle; but it is improbable that the work which Claudius Aelianus (cfr. CLAUDIUS AELIANUS, De natura animalium, III, 20; IV, 8, IV, 45; IV, 53; V, 7, edd. M. Garcia Valdes et Al., Berlin 2009) attributed to `Eudemus' (and which should be the one that our author based himself on as well) can actually be attributed to Eudemus of Rhodes. It was probably a work of another Eudemus, whom Apuleius confuses with the pupil of Aristotle. n Lyco was the successor to Strato of Lampsacus as the head of the Peripatetic school, around 270 sc. 23 Claudius Maximus, the judge before whom Apuleius was presenting his defense against the accusation of magic, on the occasion of the trial at Sabratha in 158. On Claudius Maximus, see p. 168. 24 Had Apuleius read these works of Aristotle? Perhaps he had, but in compendiums or through manuals that assisted his encyclopedic knowledge. It should be noted that the treatise On the Anatomy of Animals, which was in eight books as can be seen from Diogenes Laertius (Vitae Philosophorum, V, 25), has been lost — and that the Problems that have reached us under Aristotle's name are considered to be spurious. 28 Cfr. Apol., 38, ed. Helm, p. 43,15-16. 26 Apuleius, as his philosophical works also attest, was a good translator, and the pride he manifests on this point is not completely unjustified. If we are to listen to what he says, these two terms were first coined by him.

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

1. POPULAR PHILOSOPHY AND PLATONISM

These studies in natural history are justified, both because in this way Apuleius competed with Aristotle, and because they constitute a sort of noble pastime, a distraction that one does not need to repent of Hoc negotium ex lectione et aemulatione Aristoteli nactus sum, nonnihil et Platone meo adhortante, qui ait eum, qui ista uestiget, ~p.ETc trArFov 7rca8t2tv šv pic) 7ro4stv27 .

Vulgar magic is the exercise of a condemnable supernatural power, but one that is no less real because of this. Apuleius defends himself from the accusation of this vulgar magic with extreme energy, throughout the Apologia categorically denying ever having done anything related to it. On the other hand, the highest magic is the means by which man can enter into contact with the divinity. An issue arises since the ignorant often accuse philosophers of goety, because they seek to interrogate on the mysteries of the universe and to specify in what the providence that rules the world consists (ch. 27). Apuleius therefore accentuates the identification of magician and philosopher, so that true magic is the one that Plato taught, as can be seen from the quotes. In this identification, Apuleius agrees with certain `theosophical' tendencies of his times, as can be seen in the Chaldean Oracula, and which were later manifest in the diffusion of `theosophy' during the centuries that followed. Theurgy in fact enjoyed a certain prominence in some currents of Neoplatonism (Porphyry, Iamblichus, the emperor Julian, and Maximus of Ephesus) 31. Apuleius returns to this identification numerous times: the philosopher is in fact the «haruspex of all the animals, and the priest of every divinity»32. The magician possesses an intimate relationship with the demonic powers, to the point that they govern divinations of all kinds and all sorts of prodigies33. With this distinction, Apuleius distances himself from the accusation of witchcraft, the thing that most immediately interests and engages him. He however rapidly sketches the lines of a doctrine that seemed to be reserved to the domain of religion in the second century, and more specifically to the mysteries: the philosopher who is priest of all the gods and in contact with all the divinities, with which he is authorized to speak, is quite close to the priest of the mystery religions — and Apuleius himself informs us that he had been initiated to many mystery religions during the years of his formation. According

5. Magic Magic naturally makes up the most important part of the work, which takes its tide from it. Apuleius does not respond to the accusation of being a magician by denying the existence of magic itself — on the contrary, he believes in it. With the term `magic', he nevertheless intends something different than what his adversaries saw in it. Apuleius in fact distinguishes a noble magic (which can be called theurgy) from a vulgar magic (which can be called goety): Nam si, quod ego apud plurimos lego, Persarum lingua magus est qui nostra sacerdos, quod tandem est crimen, sacerdotem esse et rite nosse atque scire atque callere leges cerimoniarum, fas sacrorum, ius religionum, si quidem magia id est quod Plato interpretatur, cum commemorat, quibusnam disciplinis puerum regno adulescentem Persae imbuant (...) wv b p.Iv tayeiav Te &8~mcst Thy Zwpodurrpov To~~1poptgou: fait TovTo eswv 9spa7rsia 28. Magiam (...) artem esse dis immortalibus acceptam, colendi eos ac uenerandi pergnaram, piam scilicet et diuini scientem, iam inde a Zoroastre et Oromaze auctoribus suis nobilem, caelitum antistitam, quippe qui inter prima regalia docetur nec ulli temere inter Persas concessum est magum esse, baud magis quam regnare? Idem Plato in alia sermocinatione 29 de Zalmoxi quodam Thraci generis, sed eiusdem artis viro ita scriptum reliquit (...). Quod si ita est, cur mini nosse non liceat uel Zalmoxi bona uerba uel Zoroastri sacerdotia?30 Ibid., 41, p. 48,16-17. An (imprecise) quote from memory of Timaeus 59c. Ibid., 25, pp. 29,25-30,13; a quotation of Plato, Alcib., I, 121e. 29 See Charm., 157a. 3° Apol., 26, ed. Helm, pp. 30,14-31,3. See A. DE JoNG, Traditions of the Magi. Zoroastrianism in Greek and Roman Literature, Leiden — New York — K~ln 1997 (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 133). 27

28

31 Gregory Shaw (cfr. G. SHAW, Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of lamblichus, Pennsylvania 1995) and Carine van Lifferinge (cfr. C. VAN LIFPERINGE, La Th~urgie. Des Oracles Chaldaiques a Proclus, Liege 1999) provide good syntheses on this subject. 32 Apol., 41, ed. Helm, p. 48,1-2. 33 Cfr. ibid., 43, p. 50,5-11.

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

1. POPULAR PHILOSOPHY AND PLATONISM

to Apuleius, the philosopher is thus similar to the priest, and his own Platonic philosophy is therefore closer to religion here than in his philosophical works. Platonism also provides him with the instruments to form a nobler culture comprehensive of `experiments' and `scientific research' that ill-willed and calumniating criticism had understood in malam partem. The `experiments' that Apuleius had carried out on the slave Thallus and the epileptic woman had been, according to him, experiments of a scientific nature (and Plato's Timaeus provided him with the justification for this) 34. Even if they were not scientific experiments, Apuleius certainly would not have been able to perform such acts of witchcraft to know the future (and many Pudentilla, the rich widow). In order to know the future and to possess divination (as Platonism, and Plutarch in particular, had explained it to him) one must engage with persons that meet certain specific requirements, such as purity and spiritual innocence. According to the philosophy that Apuleius professed, he definitely could not have accomplished what he had been accused of by using the slave Thallus, whose ugliness was the demonstration of his stupidity. The explanation is derived from the Timaeus". The people's ignorance regarding magic is united with ignorance about the true nature of philosophy 36. Pythagoras himself, a philosopher whom Apuleius admired, as did everyone in the second century, had learned magic from Zoroaster37. On the basis of this identification of philosophy and magic, Apuleius sees magicians in a series of philosophers who primarily dedicated themselves to religion, and in particular maintained that there is a providence that rules the world, and honored the gods with more zeal than others do 38. They knew of the existence of a magical, divine force that rules the world, but

they were not thereby capable of doing, through some special art, what that force is capable of. Among these were found Epimenides, Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Ostanes39. With a defiant tone, Apuleius elsewhere manifests his detailed knowledge of the ancient magicians40: if his accusers could find even the slightest proof of his having irritated Pudentilla with perverse magical arts, then: Ego ille sim Carmendas vel Damigeron vel Moses vel Ioh~nnes vel Apollobex vel ipse Dardanus vel quicumque alius post Zoroastren et Hostanen inter magos celebratus est41.

Cfr. ibid., 43-45. 3s Cfr. ibid., 50, pp. 56,25-57,21; see Plato, Tim. 82a if 36 Cfr. ibid., 27, p. 31,21-22. 37 Cfr. ibid., 31, p. 36,15-17. The idea that Pythagoras had been a student of Zoroaster was a legend that had been spread since the time of Aristoxenus, a disciple of Aristotle. 38 Cfr. ibid., 27, p. 31,16-26.

39 These are all mythical figures - including Pythagoras in certain aspects. They are seers and prophets, a sort of `sage' that was quite popular in Apuleius' times. Pythagoras was also considered to be a semi-divine personage. Similarly, Epimenides of Crete would have been the friend of Pythagoras, and would thus have lived in the sixth century sc. He was considered to be both philosopher and priest. Ostanes would have been one of the magicians who accompanied Xerxes during his expedition into Greece, and perhaps one of those who instigated him to bum the temples of the Athenian acropolis, as Cicero tells us (cfr. CICERO, De legibus, II, 26, ed. K. Ziegler, Heidelberg 1950). He appears to have been a ferocious and fanatic personage who hated Greek civilization. He is attributed a superstitio (cfr. GAIUS PLINIUS SECUNDUS, Naturalis Historia, XXX, 2, 8, edd. L. Jan - K. Mayhoff, in ID., Naturalis historiae libri XXXVII, IV, Libri XXIII-XXX, Leipzig 1897) that degenerated into black magic, occultism, alchemy, and necromancy. On Ostanes, cfr. J. BIDEZ - F. CUMONT, Les mages hell~nis~s, Paris 1938, pp. 167-212. Cfr. Apol., 90, ed. Helm, p. 100,5-13. ( 41, Pliny (cfr. PuNIus, Naturalis Historia, XXX, 5) speaks of a certain Tarmendas (who should be identified with the person called Carmendas here). Damigeron, who is mentioned by Tertullian (cfr. QUINTUS SEPTIMIUS FLORENS TERTULLIANUS, De anima, 57, PL 2, [641-752B], 747-750, ed. J. H. Waszink, in TERTULLIANI Opera, II, Opera montanistica, Turnhout 1954 (CCSL, 2), [pp. 779-871], p. 865) and Arnobius (cfr. ARNOBIUS AFER, Adversus Nationes, I, 52, PL 5, [713-1288C], 790A, ed. C. Marchesi, Torino 19532), would have been the author of a work on the various (magical) properties of stones, and would have lived in the second century sc. Moses was known as a magician (cfr. STRABO, Geographica, XVI, 2, 39, ed. S. Radt, in STRABONS Geographika, IV, Buch XIV-XVII, Gottingen 2005; PLuvlus, Naturalis Historia, XXX, 11; DECIMUs IuNrus IuvENALIs, Saturae, V, 14, 102, ed. J. Willis, Stuttgart - Leipzig 1997) and was also famous among writers with philosophical and religious tendencies, such as Numenius (according to whom Plato was a Moses who spoke Attic, Cfr. ATTICUS, fr. 8, ed. E. des Places, in In., Fragments, Paris 1977). According to the Hebrew tradition, they were two of the magicians who opposed Moses (cfr. Ex 7, 11 and 22), and their names are frequently mentioned by Christian authors beginning with Saint Paul (2Tim 3, 8), and then also Pliny (cfr. PLuntus, Naturalis Historia, XXX, 11) and Numenius (cfr. NUMENIUS APAMEENSIS, fr. 9, ed. E. des Places, in ID., Fragments, Paris 1973). According to Pliny (cfr. PLINIus,

36

37

34

LEEDS UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

1. POPULAR PHILOSOPHY AND PLATONISM

The demonstration of erudition gave rise to protests from his adversaries, who saw a clear proof of his guilt in those words (ch. 91). Apuleius however maintained that his knowledge of magic was a knowledge of the history of the discipline, and not of magical practices. Another passage is more difficult to interpret. In chapter 61, Apuleius writes that he wanted an artisan to make a statuette of a god, without specifying further. It was enough for him that the statuette was of wood. The sculptor first of all attempted to make it from box-wood, but since it gave him the opportunity of working with ebony, he made it of ebony. The statuette was of Mercury, a god who was the friend of human beings, with a happy and friendly face42. Nevertheless, his enemies accused him of having made a statue that resembled a skeleton (which could be interpreted as being an instrument for magical practices) and of fervently adoring it, calling it `king' in Greek («et Graeco vocabulo Pacraia nuncupare»). Apuleius justifies himself in this manner43: the statuette is an agreeable image of Mercury, it is not a sceletus that could be used for maleficia occulta. It is therefore true that Apuleius had a statue and addressed a god — even if it is not an ominous god — and called him `king', and it is thus possible that this prayer to the `king' was the manifestation, not of maleficia, but of magical practices with good intentions. Scholars have long shown that Apuleius was not so distant from magic as he wanted, for obvious reasons, to appear during the trial. According to Hunink, «a wooden statue of Mercury does raise very serious suspicions: Mercury is the god of magic", wooden statuettes are well-known attributes from magic, and the title `King' seems quite possible for a magician's God (the use of Greek in spells being widespread), while the allegedly secret fabrication and the resemblance of a skeleton would only confirm

this»45. Nicole M~thy underscored that the presence of magic along with Platonic philosophy was not such an absurd reality 46 I agree with M~thy's interpretation of the intermingling of philosophy and religion in the second century, in which magic was an important aspect, but I maintain that Apuleius was not indifferently Platonic and magician, that is, I think that the (lac ae of his statuette, to whom he prayed, was the same Pao-ask as that of his Platonic philosophy on the basis of the interpretation of magic that he presents in the Apologia47. Identifying magic and philosophy, according to the doctrine of Apologia chs. 25-26, Apuleius thinks that it is logical to move from the `king' of magic to the Pao vk of Platonic philosophy and in this way he can justify his worship of Mercury as a `king'. After thus having furnished the explanation that was sought for, which excluded any suspicion of magic, Apuleius concludes by explaining the reason why he used a piece of wood to have a statuette of Mercury made. The justification comes from Plato, who in the Laws (955e) admonishes that wood or stone is the best material for making an offering to the gods 48. The use of a little known passage of the Laws would lead us to believe that Apuleius had a solid knowledge of Plato's dialogs 49.

Naturalis Historia, XXX, 9), Apollobex (or Apollobeches) would have been the teacher of Democritus. The same is said of Dardanus, who could perhaps be identified with the mythical founder of Troy, and was later considered to be a magician. Zoroaster and Ostanes were already mentioned in chs. 26-27. 42 Cfr. Apol., 63, ed. Helm, pp. 71,20-72,2. 43 See also p. 45. 44 Cfr. ibid. 31, p. 37,19; also 42, p. 49,16-18.

6. Mystery Religions In a famous passage (Apologia, ch. 55), Apuleius affirms that in his youth he had been introduced to numerous sacred rites in Greece. The passage clearly witnesses to Apuleius' interest for the mystery Cfr. HUNINx, in APULEIUS, Pro se de magia cit., II, p. 162. Cfr. N. METHY, Magie, Religion et Philosophie au II' siècle de notre ere. A propos du dieu-roi d'Apul~e, in La magie, Actes du Colloque Internationale de Montpellier (25-27 mars 1999), III, Du monde latin au monde contemporain, edd. A. Moreau — J.-C. Turpin, Montpellier 2000, pp. 87-107. I do not think it is necessary to affirm that ale platonisme d'Apul~e reste tr~s approximatif» (p. 93) in order to justify this co-existence. 47 Unlike M~thy's affirmation: «Les interferences ~taient en fait in~vitables dans la mesure o~~la magic, religion et philosophie ont pour objet un seul et m~me ~tre divin» (ibid., p. 98). as Cfr. Apol., 65, ed. Helm, p. 73,16-27. 49 Fletcher understands this citation as a direct appeal to the audience - by means of inserting many Platonic quotations, from juvenile works to mature ones, Apuleius is thus able to perform his identification with Plato (Plato re-read to late, cit., p. 64). 4s

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

1. POPULAR PHILOSOPHY AND PLATONISM

religions and to his familiarity with many cults — in this case, the cult of Liber Pater. Three years before the trial, right after his arrival in Oea (Tripoli) in Libya, he held a public conference" on the majesty of Asclepius, and he listed all the sacred rites that he knew. Also in Florida XVIII Apuleius presents himself as a pious man, who worships Aesculapius: «sum enim non ignotus illi sacricola nec recens cultor nec ingratus antistes»51.The cult of Hermes Trismegistus has been placed among these by some scholars52 — who however do not consider that Hermetism was not a religion, and it did not have a cult, but a religious philosophy or mysteriosophy. Let us return to the wood statuette that the artisan had made for Apuleius at his request. Fowden based himself on the fact that Apuleius refers to Mercury Trismegistus numerous times in the Apologia. But let us see in what way. The first reference to Hermes is not important. Apuleius refers to him as the protector of magic and as the «bearer of incantations» (carminum vector) 53. These were all traditional facts in magical ceremonies. Later, Apuleius refers that Mercury during the war against Mithridates gave the faculties of divination to a youth, but he had read of this miraculum in a work of Varro 54 We are once again in the domain of traditional knowledge, and not in that of Apuleius' contact with the then contemporary Hermetism. Therefore, in all of Apuleius' affirmations regarding Mercury, the specific element required to consider the relevant passages of De magia as attestations of the practice of Hermetism is lacking. Apuleius denies that the statuette could have any sort of strict magic significance, and, above all, it does not have any of the characteristics of the Hermetic writings. That is to say,

the statuette of Apuleius did not represent the Trismegistus (were there even statues of the Trismegistus?). The observation that, like Aelius Aristides, Apuleius was a devoted disciple of Asclepius55 — an important figure in the pantheon of Hermes — seems just as misleading to us. The Asclepius of Apuleius is a god like all the others. This is said pace Hijmans, who uses the Hermetic Asclepius to explain Apuleius' philosophy, simply because it was found together with Apuleius' philosophical treatises in medieval manuscripts 56 How then should one understand the passage where Apuleius, after presenting Middle Platonic theology and the definition of Oath) i5S in ch. 64 (we'll treat this below), now (at the beginning of ch. 65) refuses to say which king he venerates, even though the judge, Claudius Maximus, asked this of him (i.e., running the risk of serious harm-condemnation)? These words («quin, si ipse proconsul interroget quid sit deus meus, taceo») have been interpreted by the supporters of Apuleius' Hermetism as a declaration of the ineffability of the god that they maintain Apuleius worshiped, the one revealed to him by Hermes Trismegistus. In my opinion,Apuleius' refusal is to be explained in a completely different manner, as Mortley did: Apuleius was not a disciple of an unknown god, and in particular in the sense of the absurd hypothesis of Leon Hermann, according to whom the god that Apuleius did not want to name was the Christian God. Apuleius therefore did not speak of his god — not because he did not want to speak of it due to the arcanum that he believed in, but, just as Platonism taught — because his god was paucis cogitabilis, nemini effabilis, as he had just said57. Further, the Middle and Neo-Platonists were inclined to believe that their doctrine had a certain `mysterious' character. In Platonic tradition, `mystery' which is the prerogative of philosophy has an important role. According to Plutarch 58, the highest part of philosophy, that is, theology,

5° 51 52

This is the conference mentioned in Apol., 73, p. 81,12-16. Flor., XVIII, ed. Helm, p. 38,19. Cfr. F. REGEN, Apuleius philosophus Platonicus, Berlin 1971 (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur and Geschichte, 10), pp. 100-102; G. FOWDEN, The Egyptian Hermes. A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind, Princeton 19932 (Mythos: The Princeton/Bollingen Series in World Mythology), pp. 198199; H. MtiNSTERMANN, Apuleius. Metamorphosen literarischer Vorlagen, Stuttgart — Leipzig 1995 (Beitr~ge zur Altertumskunde, 69), p. 201; V. HuNINIC, Apuleius and the `Asclepius', in «Vigiliae Christianae», 50 (1996), pp. 288-308; HARRISON, Apuleius cit., pp. 74-75. 53 Apol., 31, ed. Helm, p. 37,19. 54 Cfr. ibid., 42, p. 49,13-18.

55 56

Cfr. ibid., p. 63,1-4. Cfr. B. L. HIJMANs JR., Apuleius, Philosophus Platonicus, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der romischen Welt (ANRW II — 36,1) cit. (see above, Introduction, note 1), [pp. 395-475], pp. 411-412. 57 Cfr. R. MORTLEY, Apuleius and Platonic Theology, in «American Journal of Philology*, 93 (1972), [pp. 584-590], p. 588. 58 Cfr. PLUTARCHUS CHAERONENSIS, De Iside et Osiride, 77, 382D, ed. C. Froide-

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

1. POPULAR PHILOSOPHY AND PLATONISM

is `initiating', and the knowledge of the highest god is an initiation.Alcinous affirms that the expression `to be initiated' indicates the study of the highest part of philosophy59. This same interest for mystery initiation is present in Apuleius himself; as he asserts in ch. 55: when he quotes the famous passage of the Timaeus (28c) regarding the difficulty of knowing god and the impossibility of manifesting him, does not say «to all» (Etc 'Kb-rag) with Plato, but «to many» (Etc 7ro»ottg), where sic iro»ot S has a clearly derogatory sense60. And Maximus of Tyre states that a precious, hidden science (aiv('y wtTa) can be found in poets' compositions61 In conclusion, Apuleius manifests no signs of the Hermetic theosophy. He moves in the domain of Platonic tradition, where `mystery' had its right place.

The Timaeus, as is known, is the fundamental dialog for Middle Platonism. Apuleius considers it praeclarissimusb3: Plato would have manifested his caelestis facundia in it while describing the entire reality of the world. Among other things, after having discussed the three powers of our souls with extreme precision64 and having taught the motive why each of our members was constructed by divine providence65, he surveys the causes of the sickness of the human body and divides them into three classes. He attributes the first cause to the constitutive elements (primordia corporis) 66 of the body and the second cause to a lack of harmony between the qualities that characterize the elements. The nurturing of epilepsy is found in the causes that make up the third group67, something Apuleius explains on the basis of Tim. 85a while referring to the Problemata of Aristotle and the opinion of Theophrastus as well68. The doctrine of love according to Plato is far more important than these scattered references. This doctrine was also treated by his contemporaries Fronto and Maximus of Tyre, as we will see later (pp. 153-154). Apuleius speaks of it in the Apologia and provides a description that became famous in the Italian renaissance:

7. Platonism The knowledge of Plato that Apuleius demonstrates in the Apologia62 corresponds with the manner in which he unites philosophy and rhetoric in works addressed to the public at large, and not to philosophers. We thus find reference to erudite questions, which are mainly treated in the Timaeus, as well as to much more difficult subjects that occupy the Platonism contemporary to him. They are nevertheless treated quite hastily, but have parallels in the De philosophia libri. We thus distinguish the two types of doctrine.

Mitto enim dicere alta illa et divina Platonica, rarissimo cuique piorum ignara, ceterum omnibus profanis incognita: geminam esse Venerem deam, proprio quamque amore et diversis amatoribus pollentis; earum alteram vulgariam, quae sit percita populari amore, non modo humanis animis, verum etiam pecuinis et ferinis ad libidinem imperitare vi immodica trucique perculsorum animalium serva corpora complexu vincientem; alteram vero caelitem Venerem,

fond, in PLUTARQUE, Ouvres morales, V, 2, Trait~~23 — Isis et Osiris, Paris 1988 (CUF S~rie grecque, 317); In., Quaestiones Convivales, VIII, 2, 718CD, edd. F. Frazier — J. Sirinelli, in PLUTARQUE, Ouvres morales, IX, 3, Trait~~46 — Propos de Table (Livres VII-IX), Paris 1996 (CUF S~rie grecque, 372). 59 Cfr. ALcixous, Didaskalik~s, 28, ed. Whittaker cit., p. 182,8. 60 Cfr. Plat. I, 5, 191; cfr. MORTLEY, Apuleius cit., pp. 588-589. The idea of the arcane in Middle Platonism has been studied by H. DORRIE, Die Frage nach dem Transzendentem im Mittelplatonismus, in Les Sources de Plotin, (Vandoeuvres/ Geneve, 21-29 aotit 1957), Geneve 1960 (Entretiens surl'Antiquite Classique, 5), [pp. 191-223], pp. 199-200 (repr. in In., Platonica Minora cit., pp. 211-228). 61 MAxIMus TYRIUS, Dissertations, 4, 5, ed. M. B. Trapp, Stuttgart — Leipzig 1994 (Bibl. Teubn., 1535), pp. 32,82-33,91. 62 Apuleius for the first time declares himself to be a philosophus Platonicus: «nonnihil et Platone meo adhortante», Apol., 41, ed. Helm, p. 48,15.

63 Ibid., 49, p. 56,10. 64 Cfr. Tim. 69e-70a; 70e. Apuleius speaks of potestates of the soul, while Plato had spoken of parts of the soul. 65 Cfr. ibid., 70a if 66 Primordium is a Lucretian term. Thus, a little later one, we find elementorum qualitates. This is the reason why, despite the fact that Apuleius' paraphrase is generally faithful to the Platonic text, there are imprecisions from time to time. 67 Cfr. Apol., 50, ed. Helm, p. 57,7-21. 68 On the scientific' doctrines of the Timaeus present in the Apologia, cfr. HIJMANs, Apuleius, Philosophus cit., pp. 418-422.

42

43

1. POPULAR PHILOSOPHY AND PLATONISM

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

praedita quae sit optimati amore, solis hominibus et eorum paucis curare, nullis ad turpitudinem stimulis vel illecebris sectatores suos percellentem; quippe amorem eius non amoenum et lascivum, sed contra incomtum et serium pulchritudine honestatis virtutes amatoribus suis conciliare, et si quando decora corpora commendet, a contumelia eorum procul absterrere; neque enim quicquam aliud in corporum forma diligendum quam quod ammoneant divinos animos eius pulchritudinis, quam prius veram et sinceram inter deos videre69

he refers to the demons as mediae potestates, something not found in the Symposium, where one only finds that demons are intermediaries between the gods and men. This would therefore represent an evolution of demonology that occurred during the course of the Platonic tradition. Something else not found in Plato, but typical of Apuleius' demonology, is the affirmation that the demonic potestates «govern the prodigies of the magicians» — a specification that once again orients the activity of magic and magicians to Platonic philosophy.

Even before explaining it in the De deo Socratis, as we will see, Apuleius introduces Middle Platonic demonology in the following passage:

The god of Plato is called the `supreme good' ('r~ya86v) 76.The passage is quite interesting, because it contains what is perhaps the first attestation of T~ya86v in Latin Platonism, which will be later translated into summum bonum. Two theological doctrines proper to Middle Platonism correspond with this concept: the identification of god with the Pao-lei; of the second pseudo-Platonic epistle, and the series of designations that are typical of negative theology. Both of these doctrines are found in De magia. Apuleius first states that Claudius Maximus (like Apuleius himself, a fortiori) has attentively studied the meaning of the expressions T~v ~7rspovprivlov T~7rov and o~pavo~~vcZnov from the Platonic Phaedrus (247c): they refer to the situation of the transcendent god, the one that Apuleius adores and invokes as `king' (see above, p. 39):

Sed dubius sententiae sum, dicamne fieri posse an negem, quamquam Platoni credam inter deos atque homines natura et loco medias quasdam divorum potestates intersitas, easque divinationes cunctas et magorum miracula gubernare70. This passage is typical of Apuleius' demonology. Although 8aip.wv is often translated into Latin by deus71, or is considered the equivalent of animus72, Apuleius translates it here with potestas, which is equivalent to 8vv~.t tg and ~~pxai, and is a meaning that he could not have found in Plato. These potestates are personified, precisely because potestas designates a demon73. The first hierarchy of personified dynameis is found in Philo of Alexandria74. Maximus of Tyre also states that the divine intelligence (i.e. a daimon) is able to divine75. According to Regen, Apuleius is repeating the original doctrine of the Symposium (202d) in a highly approximate fashion, because 69 Apol., 12, ed. Helm, pp. 13,25-14,16. 70 Ibid., 43, p. 50,1-5. 71 As in CICERO, De divinatione, I, 30, 64 and II, 58, 119, ed. 0. Plasberg, in De divinatione. De fato. Timaeus, Leipzig 1938 (repr. 1987, Bibl. Teubn., 1222), [pp. 1-129], p. 32 and p. 88, so APULEIUs, De deo Socratis (henceforth Socrat.), 15, 151, ed. C. Moreschini, in De Philosophia libri cit., [pp. 7-38], p. 25,13. 7z Cfr. ibidem. 73 Cfr. REGEN, Apuleius cit., pp. 10-11. 74 Cfr. ibid., pp. 18-21. 75 Cfr. MAXIMUS TYRIUS, Dissertationes, 13, 3, ed. Trapp cit., p. 111,59-60.

44

Idem Maximus optime intellegit (...) quisnam sit ille non a me primo, sed a Platone (3avlOetk nuncupatus: 7rEpi 'thy 7r~vrcav 13ao'17 a 7r~vr' ~arl x&~~ixeNov ~VE1Ca 7rc vTa 77. This is an obvious citation of the second pseudo-Platonic epistle (312e): The matter stands thus: related to the King of All are all things, and for his sake they are, and of all things fair He is the cause. And related to the Second are the second things and related to the Third the third.

76 77

Apol., 27, ed. Helm, p. 31,26. Ibid., 64, p. 72,16-19.

45

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

1. POPULAR PHILOSOPHY AND PLATONISM

God as king is found elsewhere in Apuleius78, as well as in Maximus of Tyre 79, Atticus 80, and Numenius 81. This has already been observed by many scholars (Festugi~re, Regen, D~rrie, Mortley and O'Brien) 82 . If this pseudo-Platonic epistle is a false neoPythagorean text from the second century, it is significant that the Middle Platonists used it immediately. The fact that it is cited in one of Apuleius' non-philosophical texts addressed to a larger audience, that is, the De magia, is more important still. As can be easily understood, the `triad' of the pseudo-Platonic epistle was later widely diffused among Christian writers, who considered it a pagan anticipation of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. According to pseudo-Hippolytus83, Valentine used it to maintain the existence of a 'king of the universe' constituted by the father, the abyss of silence, while the other aeons are around the second principle and around the third principle. When Lactantius presents the opinion of the philosopher Hierocles, who had been one of the most authoritative instigators of the Diocletian persecution, he says that Hierocles called the pagan god rex and maxi-

mus84. The characteristics of the transcendent god who remains provident in respect to man and the world are as follows: Ille basileus, totius rerum naturae causa et ratio et origo initialis, summus animi genitor, aeternus animantum sospitator, assiduus mundi sui opifex: sed enim sine opera opifex, sine cura sospitator, sine propagatione genitor, neque loco neque tempore neque vice ulla comprehensus eoque paucis cogitabilis, nemini effabilis85. Apuleius thus joins this transcendent king with the prerogatives that we will see in the De Platone - of being the cause and origin of all things (that is, creator and father), and the concomitant concepts of immeasurableness and ineffability. He nevertheless also adds other characteristics of god that are rather interesting: the god and father of the universe eternally conserves the life of all living beings, but this providential care occurs without material intervention (sine cura) and without material generation (sine propagatione).This will be repeated by Apuleius in the De mundo: De rectore quippe omnium non, ut ait ille, silere melius est, sed vel parum dicere86. Vetus opinio est (...) deum esse origims auctorem deumque ipsum salutem esse et perseverantiam earum, quas effecerit, rerum. (...) sospitator quidem ille, genitor est omnium qui ad complendum mundum nati factique suntS7, non tamen ut corpore88 laboris officio orbem istum manibus suis instruxerit, sed qui quadam infatigabili providentia et procul posita cuncta contingit et maximis intervallis disiuncta complectitur 89.

78 Cfr. ID., De mundo (henceforth Mund.), 25, 343; 27, 350; 30, 357, ed. C. Moreschini, in De Philosophia libri cit., [pp. 146-188], p. 173, 10; 176, 1; 179, 5. 79 Cfr. MAxIMus TYRIUS, Dissertationes, 11, ed. Trapp, p. 91,78. 80 Called xagcicrt .s , Cfr. ATTICUS, fr. 4, ed. des Places. 81 Cfr. NuMENIus, fr. 12, ed. des Places. 82 Cfr. A.J. FESTUCI~RE, La revelation d'Herm~s Trism~giste, III, Paris 1953, p. 110; REGEN, Apuleius cit., pp. 92-94; H. DORRIE, Der Konig. EM platonischer Schliisselwort, vom Plotin mit neuem Sinn erfiillt, in «Revue internationale de philosophie», 24 (1970), pp. 217-235, (repr. in ID., Platonica Minora cit., [pp. 390405], pp. 395-396); D. O'BRIEN, Origene et Plotin sur le roi de l'univers, in EO'IHE MAIHTOPEE «Chercheurs de sagesse», Hommage &Jean Pepin, edd. M.-O. GouletCaze et Al., Paris 1992 (Etudes Augustiniennes. S~rie Antiquite, 131), pp. 317342, esp. pp. 321-323, who quotes a number of witnesses: Numenius, Apuleius, Celsus, Justin, Athenagoras, Clement, and the Valentinians; and recently A. TIMOTIN, La demonologie platonicienne. Histoire de la notion de daimon de Platon aux demiers neoplatoniciens, Leiden 2011 (Philosophia Antigua, 128), pp. 128-130. Dorrie and O'Brien are however primarily interested in Plotinus and in Origen the Neo-Platonist, who during the reign of Gallienus, according to the witness of Porphyry's Vita Plotini (ch. 3), wrote a work entitled Only the King is the Creator. The problems surrounding that title do not regard Apuleius, and are better discussed by those critics. 83 Cfr. HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS, Elenchos, VI, 36, 5-6, ed. P. Wendland, in HYPPOLYTUS, Werke, III, Refutatio omnium haeresium, Leipzig 1916 (GCS, 26). The recent Italian translation of pseudo-Hippolytus (Brescia 2012) is particularly inadequate for the interpretation of the first book of the Elenchos.

84 LUCIUS CAECILIUS FIRMIANUS LACTANTIUS, Divinae Institutiones, V, 3, 25 edd. E. Heck - A. Wlosok, in Divinarum Institutionum Libri septem, 3, Libri V et VI, Berlin 2009 (Bibl. Teubn.), p. 450,6-9. 8s Apol., 64, ed. Helm, pp. 72,19-73,5. 86 The editors understood the incision of ut ait ille as a reference to Sallust's Bellum Iugurthinum (19, 2), but perhaps ille is Plato, and the reference is then to the famous passage of Timaeus 28c. 87 On this text, which is usually corrected to «quae (...) nata factaque sunt», see below p. 230. 88 Most editors correct to corporei, but in my opinion Apuleius presents a characteristic by corpore (god does not act through his body) that is further specified by laboris officio (he does not act through the activity of `work'). 89 Mund., 24, 342-343, ed. Moreschini, pp. 172,14-173,8.

46

47

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

1. POPULAR PHILOSOPHY AND PLATONISM

Here too then, Apuleius asserts, as in Apologia ch. 64, that god is the origin of all things and the protector of their existence. However, his protective activity is not to be directly explained by his body (corpore) and materially (laboris officio), but through his providential function. The idea of divine providence is typical of Apuleius' thought, and is treated in the De Platone as well90. In the De mundo, where he mainly examines the physical presence of god in the world, Apuleius explains that god has a multiformis vis that is manifested by his various names (Iuppiter, Saturnus) and by the terms of haruspicy and Roman religion91; this variety of his providential actions is also witnessed to by Orpheus 92.

8. Platonism and Sophistic

In conclusion, Apuleius was an orator and a man of letters in the Apologia; he had been initiated to mysteric religions and (in his opinion) he had a wide knowledge of Platonic philosophy. He would also preserve these characteristics later, when he continued his career as a sophist in Africa with the pronunciation of the orations of De deo Socratis and the Florida, which have philosophical content in the same way. In the Metamorphoses, of which one can say with a degree of certainty that they are later than the Apologia and contemporary to the Florida, we will seek, although with more difficulties given the literary genre and the audience of the work, to find traces of Apuleius' Platonism, which are wrapped in a strong literary re-elaboration. It is interesting to see that almost all the Platonic doctrines that will later be discussed in the De philosophia libri are at least briefly presented in the Apologia. In his first work, Apuleius first of all presents himself as a philosophus, and then as a philosophus Platonicus, even if — as far as we know — he had not yet written any work that treated a subject of Platonic philosophy (but only works of science and `natural history'). In that moment however, he could not (and probably did not wish to) have dealt with Platonic doctrines more in depth and systematically, since he was giving an oration and not writing a philosophical treatise.

The structure, content, and intentions of the Apologia also offer us a tool for the interpretation of the Florida. The Florida are an anthology of fragments of epideictic oratory, divided into 4 books and 23 excerpts. The meaning of the name is uncertain. It either means `anthology' or `passages with a flowery style' 93. The division into four books that is found in the manuscripts was that of the original anthology, since the text that has reached us is so short that it is unnecessary to divide it into books. The orations from which these passages were taken date from the period of the empire of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (161-169 AD). These excerpta are, according to La Rocca94, prolaliai, even if some of them are dubious, such as Floridum X, whose content — the doctrine of demonology — does not seem to be traceable to any theme of the prolalia. With these terms one indicated `chats' which last a few minutes that the conferencier prefaced to his recitation in an exquisitely colloquial tone. Within these limits, they were an exceptionally pliable instrument that could be used for epideictic or deliberative ends, to praise the city, its nobles, and the governor, but also to speak about oneself; to attack adversaries, or to persuade the citizens. Now, these prolaliai of Apuleius (the Florida) have often been considered with disdain, like `shoddy erudition'. As we had the occasion to observe 95, in the Florida Apuleius more than once refers to his quality of being a philosopher (not always specifying that he is a `Platonic' one), and shows his interests in philosophy96. We see him argue, Vallette observes, with those who contest this title of his — but there is no `true'

Cfr. Plat., I, 12, 205, ed. Moreschini, pp. 101,17-102,18. Cfr. Mund., 37, 371, ed. Moreschini, p. 186,3-9. Cfr. ibid., 37, 371-372, p. 186,9-19 (corresponding to Orphicorum Fragmenta, fr. 21a, ed. O. Kern, Berlin 1922, pp. 91-92).

93 HARRISON, Apuleius cit., pp. 92-93. 94 Cfr. A. LA ROCCA, Il filosofo e la citt~. Commento storico ai Florida di Apuleio, Roma 2005 (Saggi di storia antica, 24), pp. 28-39. Also cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit., pp. 133-134. 95 Cfr. C. MORESCHINI, Aspetti della cultura filosofica negli ambienti della Seconda Sofistica, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der r~mischen Welt — Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik: Systematische Themen; Indirekte L7berlieferungen; Allgerneines; Nachtrage, ed. W. Haase, Berlin — New York 1994 (ANRW II — 36,7), pp. 5101-5133; already cfr. VALLETTE, L'apologie d'Apul~e cit., pp. xxLx-xxxl. 96 Cfr. Flor., ed. Helm, V, p. 6,2; IX, p. 10,14 and 13,17-23; XIII, pp. 17,26-18,9; XV, pp. 21,7-23,16 (Pythagoras); XVI, p. 27,1-2; XVIII, p. 34,1-2; XX p. 41,2-9.

48

49

90

91 92

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

1. POPULAR PHILOSOPHY AND PLATONISM

philosophy in the Florida. Did Apuleius then speak without any motive of his philosophy? It is therefore clear that this must be understood, when he does not specify himself as Platonic, as the philosophy of the pepaideumenos, according to the modem definition of educated readers of the second century, who listened to the sophists with a lively interest. Vallette himself; who understood the term `philosophy' in the most restricted sense, observed that something of the philosophical genre could be found in the Florida, such as in fr. X, which is dedicated to demonology. There are many others fragments on philosophical erudition, presented in the ornate style of epideictic oratory: a characteristic of the Florida (and of many other literary texts in Apuleius' age) 97 is the use of anecdotes about famous persons (philosophers included). The anecdotes on Socrates 98, on Hippias99, on Diogenes the Cynic and Crates "°, on Protagoras101, on the Gymnosophists102, on Pythagoras, the Magi, and Zoroaster103 , and on Pythagoras, who was splendid among the philosophers1°4 Certainly, Apuleius was not a master of philosophy who taught within the confines of a school, but he was a Platonic philosopher who, given the situation that he found himself in (he was presenting his oration to an audience of educated people), was at the limits of philosophy, and often felt authorized to go beyond it — believing that he possessed both domains, that of philosophy and that of oration. The division between philosophy and oration that had always existed became much less rigid in the Second Sophistics, and the sophist believed that he could also be a philosopher, without thereby appropriating a tide that did not belong to him. Furthermore, insofar as a sophist, he occupies a sufficient social position. For this reason, Apuleius disdains the Cynics, and because he is even a sacerdos

provinciae, he even insults the palliata mendicabula105 This interpretation is not accepted by La Rocca, according to whom Apuleius, when he speaks of himself as a `philosopher', intends to present himself as such, and not as a sophist. The Florida, he says, are not examples of sophistic orations, but of philosophical orations106 «The philosophers of the imperial era were happy to appear before various types of audiences. A group of disciples, a wider group of educated persons, or the entire population of a city. Apuleius interacted with this last type of audience on many occasions. The De deo Socratis is a conference of this type» 107 But when I included Apuleius with the sophists and the culture of his Florida with that of the sophists, I always considered (and I could not do otherwise) the other aspect of his personality, that of being a philosophus Platonicus. According to La Rocca, on the other hand, the distinction between the philosopher and other men of letters — including sophists — was always clear and precise. Apuleius' activity as a conferencier in the Florida must therefore be evaluated while «avoiding any assimilation to sophistics whatsoever», by speaking «of a philosophy open to a larger public, to rhetoric, and poetry». One must then agree on the terms in use. La Rocca understands `philosopher' as certain type of true and proper profession within Roman society, while I understand it as a cultural attitude. It is certainly true that Apuleius calls himself a `philosopher' numerous times in the Florida. But the profession of itinerant philosopher who went from one city to the next holding conferences had never existed. Conference giving, on the contrary, was not the work of the philosopher, but of the sophist. The prolaliai themselves were normal for the sophist, and not the philosopher. A characteristic of Apuleius, which he shared with other sophists, was that of providing philosophical content for his conferences at the occasion, and of presenting the Platonic doctrines with a different style and attitude in his philosophical works. The practice of uniting oration and philosophy was normal in contemporary sophistics, which allowed for the use of a certain level of phi-

97 See below on ch. 5. 98 Cfr. ibid., II. 99 Cfr. ibid., IX. 100 Cfr. ibid., XIV. 101 Cfr. ibid., XVIII. 102 Cfr. ibid., VI and XV. 103 Cfr. ibid., IX. 104 Cfr. ibid., XV.

105 Ibid., IX, p. 11,8. Cfr. A. LA ROCCA, II filosofo e la citt~~cit., pp. 33-34. 107 Ibid., 35. 106

p.

50

51

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

1. POPULAR PHILOSOPHY AND PLATONISM

losophy in epideictic orations. Philostratus' famous observation at the end of his presentation of Favorinus and others that preceded him, that «this is all I have to say about the men who, though they pursued philosophy, ranked as sophists (To6a5Ta F.iv inrip TWV (l%06O4)1oc vTc)V ~V S~~Y) TO~~604)LO TE~6al)» 105, can also be applied to Apuleius. Even before Apuleius, the African audience had participated in conferences of other philosophers or sophists. Apuleius says of himself:

Life offApollonius of Tyana 112. Florida VII argues against the philosophasters113. I had stated "4 that Apuleius was speaking here as an authoritative sophist, but La Rocca "5, probably correctly, responds that he is nevertheless speaking as a philosopher in this case. The common theory, which I followed, is that Apuleius polemizes against the Cynics, who are also insulted in IX, 9 with the title of palliata mendicabula 116 It is an episode of jealousy within a rivalry between schools. La Rocca does not agree with this: this is simply a theory, he says, because the correspondence between access and uncouthness was a widespread common theme in arguments among philosophers, regardless of the sect they belonged to. Apuleius polemic is therefore against poor philosophers, and not the Cynics117 . But Apuleius' consideration of Cynicism is not simple. He appreciates the poverty of the Cynic Crates in Florida"' and in Apologia119. Crates however belonged to the group of ancient Cynics, while it was normal to treat contemporary Cynics with disdain. Apuleius contrasts the arrogant and impoverished Cynics of his time with the Cynics of the past, who were truly free human beings. Apuleius viewed ancient Cynicism, more so than its contemporary forms,

Tanta multitudo ad audiendum convenistis, ut potius gratulari Carthagini debeam, quod tam multos eruditionis amicos habet, quam excusare, quod philosophus non recusaverim dissertare 109 Apuleius thus thinks that philosophy is close to eruditio — which is a virtue proper to the sophist — and considers dissertare to be the proper task of the philosopher. As we attempt to explain in regard to the Metamorphoses"°, it is this specific type of philosophizing that characterizes the non scholastic works. Consequently, in the Florida we can find philosophical doctrines that are neither profound nor precise, but that are the kind that could please an educated but non-specialist audience. Let us briefly consider some of them, by mainly taking into account the Platonic doctrines. Apuleius celebrates the famous gymnosophists of India and their wisdom, in which young and old excel alike111. The severe and intelligent habits of the life of the gymnosophists (they practised asceticism, silence and vegetarianism) are presented to the audience with hearty approval. This was a subject that was particularly agreeable to Greek and Latin culture of the second and third centuries, which was attracted by stories about distant and fabulous lands and human beings. One example of this is the

108 FLAVIUS PHILOSTRATUS, Vitae Sophistarum, I, 8, 492, ed. C. L. Kayser, Eng. tr. by W. C. Wright, in Philostratus and Eunapius. The Lives of the Sophists, London — Cambridge 1921 (repr. 1968, Loeb Classical Library, 134), pp. 28-29. See also p. 169. 109 Flor., XVIII, ed. Helm, pp. 33,24-34,2. 110 See pp. 69-86. 111 Cfr. ibid., VI, pp. 7,4-8,2.

112 La Rocca gives Apuleius' presentation of the gymnophysists a political significance: evoking an exotic world where sages are educated and instructed from their early youth, Apuleius appears to allude to the same philosophical ideal proposed in VII, 31-38 (= p. 9,5 ff. Helm) of a discipline limited to a formed and selected elite, and therefore forbidden to lower classes, cfr. LA RocCA, It filosofo e la citt~~cit., p. 163. But Apuleius' polemic is against the ignorant, that is, the philosophasters, and does not refer to social classes. 113 Cfr. Flor., ed. Helm, p. 9,5-21. 114 Cfr. MORESCHINI, Aspetti della cultura filosofica cit., p. 5122. 115 Cfr. LA ROCCA, Ilfilosofo e la citt~~cit., p. 168. 116 Cfr. Flor., IX, ed. Helm, p. 11,8. The term is usual to Apuleius: «ut saepe dixi». Cynics wear the pallium, like the philosophers, said Apuleius (cfr. ibid., IV, p. 5,24-25), but this does not make a philosopher: «item pallio cadaver operiri et philosophos amiciri». 117 Once again, LaRocca (cfr. LA ROCCA, Ilfilosofo e la citt~~cit., pp. 169-170) links the ignorant with the lower classes: Apuleius' adherence to derogatory cliches that were found among the provincial aristocrats shows that social pressures were just as important within philosophical circles as differences among schools were. The Platonists, but more general, the aristocratic philosophers, aimed at proposing a philosophy which was fitting their way of life and their social prejudices. But how can we know if Alcinous, Taurus, or Atticus was or was not from the aristocracy? 718 Cfr. Flor., XIV and XXII. 119 Cfr. Apol., 18-22, see p. 32.

52

53

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

1. POPULAR PHILOSOPHY AND PLATONISM

as an authoritative source for a life detached from the world, and it was for this reason that he assumed a moderately approving stance toward it (as was allowed by his Platonism). As stated by Harrison, Florida IX compares Apuleius and the sophist Hippias, who was one of the old sophists considered as models by the Second Sophistic: as Hippias showed himself able to practice many arts, so Apuleius is able to compose various works on different kinds of literature. This statement is in accord with the more famous one of Florida XX, about the versatility of Apuleius himself 20. Fragment X is a fragment that is very close (most likely, contemporary) to the De deo Socratis conference. Apuleius briefly summarizes Middle Platonist demonology, speaking of the mediae deum potestates as in Apologia121. He enumerates some of the star gods of traditional religions (Sun, Moon, Venus, Mercury, Saturn, Mars):

was venerated with an almost religious tone by all the Middle Platonist philosophers of the imperial era. With admiration, this passage recalls Pythagoras' moral integrity, who wanted nothing to do with Polycrates, the tyrant of his isle, but preferred to flee to Egypt (or, according to others, he was captured by Cambyses, the king of the Persians, during his victorious expedition into that country). Among the slaves of Cambyses, there were some Magi and the most illustrious of them, Zoroaster, who was omnis divini arcani antistes, who instructed Pythagoras. But the celebrior fama refers that Pythagoras learned sciences and doctrines of all kinds from the Chaldaeans, the Brahmans and the Gymnosophists125. What is most important for Apuleius is that he too, as a Platonist, learnt the lesson of silence126, because, as he states in the conclusion, «noster Plato, nihil ab hac secta vel paululum devius, pythagorissat in plurimis»127, in the same way that Numenius affirms: ~~8~~HXc'rc v lru8ayop(6ag 128. Besides, in Florida XV, the reader is interested in the career of Pythagoras, who is considered as a model for Apuleius' cultural formation129. Pythagoras was «tot doctoribus eruditus, tot tamque multiiugis calicibus disciplinarum toto orbe haustis»130: therefore «this description (...) is very like the account of Apuleius' own well-travelled and broad education given by him in Florida XVIII 131 and XX132 and Apology 1331 134

Sunt et aliae mediae deum potestates, quas licet sentire, non datur cernere, ut Amoris ceterorumque id genus, quorum forma invisitata, vis cognita 122_ These are the demons of the highest genus that the De deo Socratis speaks of 23. Florida XIV (like Florida XXII and Apologia ch. 22) tells the story of the Cynic Crates, who suddenly converted to philosophy: Apuleius, aiming at ~pater les bourgeois, adds the anecdote of Crates' marriage and its consummation in public124. Florida XV contains the praise of the isle of Samos, and thus the exaltation of Pythagoras, who came from it. Pythagoras was a personage who

Cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit., pp. 107-108. Cfr. Apol., 43. Flor., X, ed. Helm, p. 16,3-6. 123 Cfr. Socrat., 16, 155. We had proposed the hypothesis (cfr. MoREscsINI, Apuleio e it platonismo cit., p. 42) that Cupid, in the tale of Cupid and Psyche, was a demon according to the doctrine of this passage of the De deo Socratis. He in fact appeared as a god of a lower level than the gods of the Roman religion, but remained superior to humans while subject to the passions like human beings and demons are. This was later proposed by Schlam (cfr. C. C. SCHLAM., The Metamorphoses of Apuleius: On Making an Ass of Oneself, Chapel Hill (NC) 1992, p. 13) as well. 124 One might suppose that this detail could diminish the nobility of Crates, but this was not Apuleius' opinion: the ancient Cynics, despite their megalopsychia, were famous for their coarseness.

125 See p. 21,7-15. Further details can be found in La Rocca, cfr. LA ROCCA, Il filosofo e la citt~~cit., pp. 209-219. 126 Apuleius himself, in order to be adopted into the family of his masters, learned meditationibus academicis regarding when one must speak and when one must be silent. Meditationibus academicis here indicates the true and proper Platonic philosophy, without any of the academic skepticism that was still normal during Plutarch's times. 127 Flor., ed. Helm, p. 23,13-14. 128 NuNIENIus, fr. 24, 57, ed. des Places. 129 The biography of Pythagoras is similar to the biography related by Diogenes Laertius in his Vitae Philosophorum (VIII, 1-50), cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit., p. 115. 13° Flor., ed. Helm, p. 22,18-19. 131 Cfr. ibid., p. 35,13-16. 132 Cfr. ibid., p. 41,2, a passage which we quote immediately. 133 Cfr. Apol., 55. 134 HARRISON, Apuleius cit., p. 115. And we may add, like to the biography of Plato, which is told in Apuleius' De Platone (I, 1,183-185).

54

55

120

121 122

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

1. POPULAR PHILOSOPHY AND PLATONISM

On the contrary, in Florida XVIII, with the reference to Protagoras Apuleius wishes to distinguish between the sophist, in the degraded sense of the term as presented by Plato and the Platonic tradition, and the true philosopher (who we can imagine Plato himself and Protagoras would be). The following passage is famous:

As a conclusion, we see that the African audience that attended Apuleius' conferences was no less cultured than the Greeks or Asians who listened to other sophists of the period. The culture and instruction in Africa were therefore fairly developed. The Florida, which are similar to the Apologia and the De deo Socratis, confirm this impression. In one of them, Apuleius refers to his audience in this manner:

Ego et alias creterras Athens bibi: poeticae comptam, geometriae limpidam, musicae dulcem, dialecticae austerulam, iam vero universae philosophiae inexplebilem scilicet et nectaream. Canit enim Empedocles carmina, Plato dialogos, Socrates hymnos, Epicharmus modos, Xenophon historias, Crates satiras: Apuleius vester haec omnia novemque Musas pari studio colit. Here Apuleius asserts to be equally fluent in Greek and Latin, in prose and poetry, like in Florida IX135 and Apology136 More important, he presents the program of the philosopher and sophist together137. Instead, according to Hijmans138 Harrison139 and La Rocca140, Apuleius presents the program only of the philosopher in this passage, insofar as all the personages that he says he imitated were philosophers, or at least held to be such. But Apuleius says that he studies poetry and music too; furthermore, some of the philosophers cited here are remembered for their literary compositions (carmina, hymni, modi etc.) and not for their philosophical works.

Quis enim vestrum mihi unum soloecismum ignoverit? quis vel unam syllabam barbare pronuntiatam donaverit? quis incondita et vitiosa verba temere quasi delirantibus oborientia permiserit blaterare 141? Apuleius can therefore be considered to be the most important Latin representative of second century sophistics. Apuleius has a variety of interests and is even capable of presenting philosophy to his audience.

135

Cfr. Flor., ed. Helm, pp. 13,17-14,2. Cfr. Apol., 4. 137 Cfr. Flor. XX, p. 41,2-9; C. MoREscHINI, Elementi filosofici nelle Metamorfosi di Apuleio, in «Koinonia», 17 (1993), pp. 109-123, p. 123. We also discuss the meaning of this text later, pp. 76-77. i38 Cfr. B. L. HUMANS JR., Apuleius Orator: 'Pro se de Magia' and `Florida', in Aufstieg and Niedergang der romischen Welt — Sprache and Literatur (einzelne Autoren seit der hadrianischen Zeit and Allgemeines zur Literatur des 2. and 3. Jahrhunderts), edd. H. Temporini — W. Haase, Berlin — New York 1993 (ANRW II — 34,2), [pp. 1708-1784], p. 1747. 139 Cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit., p. 116; however at p. 127 Harrison states that Apuleius presents himself «as an encyclopaedic intellectual and man of letters who is primarily a philosophus». 140 Cfr. LA RoccA, I filosofo e la citt~~cit., p. 285. 136

56

141

Flor., IX, ed. Helm, p. 10,21-24.

57

CHAPTER 2

THE METAMORPHOSES, THE NOVEL OF A PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER

It is certainly not easy to reflect on the large number of interpretations that have been advanced for Apuleius' Metamorphoses, while at the same time not abandoning oneself to the narratological evaluations that are in fashion today, but considering only the link between Apuleius' novel and his philosophical works. The fact that this link exists has been one of the most important results of recent criticism, but has, however, led to a sort of `pan-Platonism' that is poorly justified by the Metamorphoses and the Platonic models that many would like to conform them to Please allow us to briefly pause on this highly debated issue, of course not by covering all of the interpretations, but only the principal points that can lead us to an interpretation that takes into account both the Metamorphoses and the openly Platonic works (the De philosophia libri). For those interested in the problems of the Metamorphoses, whose bibliography increases every year, see the critical survey of C. Schlam for 1930 to 19712, and the more recent one by E. Finkelpearl for 1971 to 19983. 1 This already occurred in Schlam's study (cfr. SCHLAM, The Metamorphoses of Apuleius cit.). Then, correctly (although with a different interpretation than our own) Harrison: cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit., p. 224: «There are also prominent echoes of Platonic dialogues (...) their ideological content has commonly been overvalued» (a statement that comes into accord with our considerations: see pp. 69-77). Despite this, Kenney still sees too much Platonism in the Metamorphoses, with the stated goal of excluding the interest for the mysteries of Isis, cfr. E. J. KENNEY, In the Mill with Slaves: Lucius Looks Back in Gratitude, in «Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association», 133 (2003), pp. 159-192. 2 Cfr. C. C. SCHLAM, The Scholarship on Apuleius since 1938, in «Classical World», 64 (1971), pp. 285-308. 3 Cfr. C. C. SCHLAM — E. FINKELPEARL, A Review of Scholarship on Apuleius'

59

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

1. Some Observations on Criticism of the Metamorphoses The first critics of Apuleius' Metamorphoses (as far as they are attested) were not favorable. This is demonstrated by a passage in the Historia Augusta: the Emperor Septimius Severus wrote to the Roman Senate, which had been hostile to him and had supported his enemy Clodius Albinus, saying: Maior fuit dolor quod ilium pro litterato laudandum plerique duxistis, cum ille neniis quibusdam occupatus inter Milesias Punicas Apulei sui et ludicra litteraria consenesceret 4. And Macrobius observes: Auditum mulcent (...) vel argumenta fictis casibus amatorum referta, quibus vel multum se Arbiter exercuit vel Apuleium nonnumquam lusisse miramur5. During the nineteenth century and the first decades of the twentieth century, the critical debate mainly considered the problem of whether the `comical' element of the Metamorphoses had to be separated from the `serious', religious one that was present in the `tale' of Cupid and Psyche, as well as in the eleventh book — or whether the novel was a unified work, thus permitting to situate the comical episodes within a range of experiences that are ordered towards the final `conversion'. Critics' positions were substantially divided into two main groups: the first, the `separatists', interpreted the Apuleian novel only and above all as an anthology of comical, funny stories with-

2. THE

METAMORPHOSES,

THE NOVEL OF A PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER

out any pedagogical or moral meaning; while the second group, the `unitarians', considered the Metamorphoses as a fundamentally `serious' work with moral and religious intentions6. The first group of critics considered the Metamorphoses to be a heterogeneous book without unity that was written only to entertain the reader. They maintained that one cannot create the problem of whether there is a moral and religious meaning that underlies the text, and thus excluded any symbolic value in the tale of Cupid and Psyche and in the eleventh book. B. E. Perry, the most authoritative of these critics, considered the eleventh book to be a simple rhetorical elaboration, like a ballast that Apuleius added to the previous ten books «to redeem his book from the appearance of complete frivolity»7. Apuleius «will say whatever occurs to him at the moment as being dramatique or picturesque, and in the next moment he will forget it in his preoccupation with some other fancy». The eleventh book has its significance as an evocation of religious experiences, but it was added to the other books «in a very perfunctory and superficial fashion». By inserting the religion of Isis at the end of the Metamorphoses, Apuleius achieved two goals: «the author will have delivered (...) the kind of entertainment with which he knew that his readers would be charmed, in spite of its disrespectability as literature; and (...) his book (...) will have been redeemed (...) from the appearance of complete frivolity and from the scorn of his learned contemporaries». Perry thus thought that the novel was to be considered strictly as such, without the possibility of any serious intellectual content. The Metamorphoses therefore had to be situated within paradoxography, because the author's intention was simply to move 'from the contemplation of one wonderful thing to another'. The critic insists on the fact that, in antiquity, the novel was not a highly regarded literary form — it was developed to satisfy popular tastes, but those who desired respect as authors and a solid literary reputation avoided any contamination with the genre. For this reason

Metamorphoses' 1970-1998, in «Lustrum», 42 (2000). More briefly, cfr. F. GRAVERINI, Le Metamorfosi di Apuleio. Letteratura e identit~, Pisa 2007 (Arti, spazi, scritture, 5), pp. 59-63. 4 Vita Clodii Albini, XII, 12, in Scriptores historiae Augustae, edd. C. Samberger — W. Seyfarth — E. Hohl, I, Stuttgart — Leipzig 1971 (repr. 1997, Bibl. Teubn., 1772), p. 179,26-30. 5 AMBROSIUS THEODOSIUS MACROBIUS, Commentarii in somnium Scipionis, I, 2, 8, in Opera, ed. J. Willis, II, Leipzig 1970 (repr. 1994, Bibl. Teubn., 1526), p. 5,13-17. The words Milesia Punica require clarification of both the term and the content, while Macrobius' words have also been understood in a positive sense, so that miramur would not «express surprise rather than admiration» (cfr. KENNEY, In the Mill cit., p. 179, note 70, and also cfr. GRAVERINI, Le Metamorfosi cit„ pp. 106-107), but «with marvel and admiration, we read his fantastic narratives full of acts of love».

6 There is also a (perhaps too) short synthesis in Harrison (cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit., pp. 235-237). 7 B. E. PERRY, The Ancient Romances. A Literary-Historical Account of Their Origins, Berkeley — Los Angeles 1967 (Sather Classical Lectures, 37), pp. 242-247.

60

61

2. THE

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

Apuleius added the eleventh book, so that the Metamorphoses would not be considered as total `trash'. This interpretation has been completely abandoned, because it is overly simplistic. It must also be rejected in light of the additional information that we now possess regarding the ancient novel: of its literary elaboration, which is less superficial than was once thought; and of its goals, which, although comical, should not be considered a lower form of art. Further, all of the so-called `separatist' studies are more or less spoiled by an inadequate approach to the text, which is never considered as an autonomous entity that in itself is both complete and has its own structure. These criticisms were heavily influenced by the model of the nineteenth century novel, its structures, requirements, and its psychological determinations$. Recently, G. Sandy has maintained a discontinuity 9, although it is different than Perry's radical one. In his opinion, the narrative of the first three books of the Metamorphoses receives its meaning from the last book, and above all from the discourse of the priest of Isis'''. The Metamorphoses are therefore not an `Entwicklungsroman', as was maintained during the twentieth century, because instead of a great development within the events, Lucius' transformation into a man is imposed from something external, that is, from the intervention of Isis. The comical and the ideal, «dirt and deity», are thus both present in the novel, but they are not integrated into a coherent whole. The first three books are dedicated to magic, and negatively correspond to the positive figure of Isis in the last book. The search for an overarching 8 In some of his previous studies, C. Schlam himself proposed the idea that the Metamorphoses are a unified work, by using a thematic continuity: the intermingling of curiositas that is typical of Lucius, the protagonist of the Metamorphoses (we will return to this on pp. 80-81), and of fate, which is found in the various tales and is resolved in Book XI, cfr. C. C. ScIILAM, Platonica in the Metamorphoses of Apuleius, in «Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association», 101 (1970), pp. 477-487. Schlam later underscored the integration of the comical and the serious, and maintained that the principal problem is that of an interpretation that is valid for a comical and a serious reading at the same time (cfr. In., The Metamorphoses cit.). 9 Cfr. G. N. SANDY, Apuleius' `Metamorphoses' and the Ancient Novel, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der romischen Welt (ANRW II — 34,2) cit. (see above, ch. 1, note 138), pp. 1511-1574. 19 Cfr. Met., XI, 15, ed. Zimmerman, p. 269.

62

METAMORPHOSES,

THE NOVEL OF A PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER

unity is based on a `misunderstanding' of the words of the priest of Isis", who does not say that Lucius has suffered because of his curiosity and his pleasures, but that curiosity made him a slave of magic, and only secondarily of pleasure, because Lucius turned to Photis for help with seeing the magical rites of her mistress12 . The goal of the so-called `unitarian' critics is instead a global interpretation of the Metamorphoses. Their interpretive proposals were far more diversified, and above all not conditioned by the antinomy of serious/funny or lewd/religious, which was typical of the criticism that we just spoke of. These critics maintain that the two elements must be considered together, insofar as the Metamorphoses are a coherent work — even if it gives the impression of being disorganized — and they above all insist on the serious and religious interpretation as the guarantee of a presumed and ideal unity. For example, Ker~nyi13, Merkelbach14 and Scazzoso 15 try to show the unity of the Metamorphoses by considering it exclusively as a manifestation of the author's religiosity, so that they make an effort to locate religious elements even in books I-X. Ettore Paratore, for example, noted a general contrast that characterizes the work as a whole16. Following the judgment of Albin Lesky, according to whom the Metamorphoses were developed through a baroque alternation of Lust zu fabulieren and a confused aspiration to divine grace (which dominates book XI), Paratore concludes that, if divine grace is given as an illumination of the spirit, it can open the eyes of someone who is guilty, thus unexpectedly kindling disgust for the life he had previously lived. The religious character would thus constitute the true tone of the work, without however excluding the presence of Milesian, mythographic, and romance traditions. Agreeing with Wittmann17, Paratore believes that the concern " Quoted at p. 79. Cfr. ibid., III, 19-23. 13 Cfr. K. KER~NYI, Die griechisch-orientalische Romanliteratur in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung, Tubingen 1927, 19622. 14 Cfr. R. MERKELBACH, Roman and Mysterium in derAntike, Munchen 1962. 15 Cfr. P. ScAzzoso, Le Metamorfosi di Apuleio. Studio critico sul signcato del romanzo, Milano 1951. 16 Cfr. E. PARATORE, La novella in Apuleio, Messina 1942, pp. 156-158. 17 Cfr. W. WITTMANN, Das Isisbuch des Apuleius, Stuttgart 1938 (Forschungen zur Kirchen and Geistesgeschichte, 12), pp. 146-148. 12

63

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

for mystery and the supernatural and the sense of the presence of unknown forces are, together with specific stylistic tendencies, the strongest sign of Apuleius' Africanness: the religiosity that characterizes the Metamorphoses is the same one that is alive in Oriental mysteriosophies. The Metamorphoses would thus belong to mystery-magical literature, which was the most original contribution of those centuries. A new path has been — quite cautiously — presented by J. P. Mah~18, who proposes a typological comparison of the fundamental motifs of the Metamorphoses and certain typical Gnostic motifs, while clearly excluding any attempt to discover influences or derivations. These comparisons help to better situate Apuleius' work in the cultural context of the second century. The 'Tale of Cupid and Psyche', as we will see later on, is particularly suited, as numerous scholars after Mahe have noted, to this interpretation. An overall judgment on the proposals of these critics is that they are convincing in proposing that the `serious' and the `funny' are not irreconcilable, and that, if we were to separate them, the Metamorphoses would lose their status as a work of art. More recently, certain studies have provided valid contributions to an organized and coherent evaluation of the Metamorphoses, so as to globally explain the work in its apparent heterogeneity and ambiguity, as well as to situate the comical episodes within a series of experiences that reach the religious conclusion. Tatum correctly affirmed that the usual contrasting of `seriousness' and `frivolity' appears to be out of place in regard to the Metamorphoses19. Riidiger20, Nethercut2' and Heine 22 agree that it is a methodological error to separate the comical component from the philosophical and religious one, insofar as both of them contribute in parallel to the same message, and

2. THE

METAMORPHOSES,

THE NOVEL OF A PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER

irony constitutes a determining element in the narrative structure, as well as being an irreplaceable unifying element. According to these critics, the last book is a reference to the preceding ones, but in an inverted sense, because it only underscores the religious value and the edifying meaning of the narrative23. P. G. Walsh therefore affirmed that there is a central ambivalence in the novel, a tension between Milesian roguery and Platonic mysticism, which reflects the author's complex personality. Walsh also maintained that it was an error to consider those elements as if they mutually excluded each other, while a proper evaluation of the work would require one to take both the motifs into account, despite the fact that they deprive the novel of the homogeneity of a strictly articulated work of art24. This dissonance is due to the very nature of the Apuleian novel, which has an original character that had not been found in ancient literature before it. 2. The Novel and Religion All of the interpretive criteria that we have presented were placed in doubt by the revolutionary book by J. J. Winkler, according to whom the Metamorphoses are «a deliberate unauthorized, selfquestioning performance» that is characterized by the variety of perspectives and the refusal ofunivocality. The end of the work does not authorize us to find a specific meaning for either reader or author25. If some of the critics we spoke of wish to make the novel a declaration of religious faith, Winkler maintains that, on the contrary, the Metamorphoses are an affirmation of religious 23

18 Cfr. J.-P. MAH~, Quelques remarques sur la religion des Metamorphoses d'Apul~e et les doctrines gnostiques contemporaines, in «Revue des Sciences Religieuses», 46 (1972), pp. 1-19. 19 Cfr. J. TATUM, Apuleius and the Golden Ass, London 1979, p. 103. 20 Cfr. H. RtiDIGER, Nachwort, in APULEIUS, Der goldene Esel, Germ. tr. by A. Rode, ed. H. Riidiger, Zurich 1960, pp. 517-559. 21 Cfr. W. R. NETHERCUT, Apuleius' Metamorphoses: The Journey, in «Agon», 3 (1969), pp. 97-134. 22 Cfr. R. HEINE, Picaresque Novel versus Allegory, in Aspects of Apuleius' Golden Ass, edd. B. J. Hijmans — R. van der Paardt, Groningen 1978, pp. 25-42.

Tatum has approached the problem of unity on the basis of the importance of the tales to understand the work coherently. He maintains that, instead of pure entertainment, they present, even more than Book XI, a nucleus of morality that unifies the entire narrative, cfr. J. TATUM, The Tales in Apuleius' Metamorphoses, in «Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association», 100 (1969), pp. 487-527 (repr. in Oxford Readings in The Roman Novel, ed. S. J. Harrison, Oxford 1999, pp. 157-194); also cfr. ID., Apuleius and the Golden Ass cit. 24 Cfr. P. G. WALSH, The Roman Novel: the `Satyricon' of Petronius and the `Metamorphoses' of Apuleius, Cambridge 1970, pp. 144 ff. 25 Cfr. WINKLER, Auctor & Actor cit. (see above, Introduction, note 52), pp. 126 and 131.

64

65

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

2. THE METAMORPHOSES, THE NOVEL OF A PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER

skepticism. If Apuleius intends to state something, his message is that religious knowledges are arbitrary by nature and experience in this domain is extremely subjective: Apuleius' text is `open' and manifests this principle. Apuleius incorporated both the positions (the skeptical and the religious) without excluding either of them: «he gave a vehicle for both belief and ridicule of belief»26. Neither the book nor life can be unified outside of a decision of the `reader' to see things in a certain manner — an individual decision that is perhaps informed, but that, in final analysis, is arbitrary27. The Metamorphoses describe what is probably a conversion that would give a new orientation to life, but do not give it any positive value. Once he had established the distinction between auctor and actor, that is, between the narrating I and the `experiencing' I, Winkler stated that Lucius does not reconsider his past life like we would expect a deacon of Isis to do, or as Augustine does in the Confessions — it is from this that the aporetic nature of the text arises. While the Platonic and religious interpretations tend to give the Metamorphoses a unified meaning, thereby making it a serious work, Winkler maintained that the eleventh book is no different than the others, but proceeds by a different path. In it, Lucius has the same characteristics that he had at the beginning and narrates in a way that is quite different than the disciple of Isis that one supposes he has become. In two studies (one of them explicitly takes into considerationWinkler's approach), Penwill repeatedly noted that the last book of the Metamorphoses does not contain any true change: Lucius' rebirth is simply a return to the human form in which Lucius lived at the beginning of the novel, and the religious interpretations of the various transformations are not justified. The eleventh book is simply another `metamorphosis'. Penwill's conclusion is that there can be no certain reading of everything that constitutes the world of the senses28. These interpretations ought to be qualified in some way, however.

In fact, some scholars attempted to surpass the traditional antinomy between the ludic and religious elements without reaching Winkler's conclusions. Nancy Shumate observed that, despite Perry's assertions, Greek novels were not purely entertaining texts, but promoted a common morals. The so-called `Christian' novels, such as the Pseudo-Clementine literature and some apocryphal writings, for example, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, were also texts that engaged the moral and religious sense29. Religion could also have an important place in pagan novels, even if there is a difference between the melodramatic prayers addressed to the gods and the intervention of Isis, the salvific divinity, in the Metamorphoses. The tradition of combining instruction and entertainment was quite lively in Apuleius' literary circles, and is justified by Aulus Gellius30. The ancients did not have difficulty in recognizing the co-existence of the comic and the serious in the same text, and they accepted that a text could belong to any genre — or combination of genres. Further, even Gianotti had maintained that the ancient novel could be a means of discussing philosophical questions, or for presenting and promoting cultural values31 While admitting that the Metamorphoses have Platonic elements, Shumate, rather than developing this topic, affirms: «I propose to approach the Metamorphoses from another angle and in process situate earlier Platonically oriented studies of the novel in a larger context. By identifying the generic features that make the novel a prototypical narrative of conversion, we may learn something new about what conversion meant in Platonism» 32 . Another type of reading that Shumate intends to contest is that constructed on a more general moral paradigm that includes sin,

Ibid., p. 256. Cfr. ibid., pp. 131-132. 28 Cfr. J. L. PE/SWILL, Slavish Pleasures and Profitless Curiosity. Fall and Redemption in Apuleius' Metamorphoses, in «Ramus», 4 (1975), pp. 49-82; In., Ambages reciprocae': Reviewing Apuleius' Metamorphoses, in «Ramus», 19 (1990), pp. 1-25. Shumate will later accept Winider's premises, so that she also will

propose «a reading of the Metamorphoses, not the reading» (N. SHUMATE, Crisis and Conversion in Apuleius' Metamorphoses, Ann Arbor (MI) 1996). 29 Cfr. ibid., pp. 8-9. However the intention of Christian `novelists' are completely different from those supposed by Shumate: see C. MORESCHINI, Motivi romanzeschi e interessi cristiani nelle Recognitiones dello Pseudo Clemente tradotte da Rufino, in Koinonia XXXV (2011), pp. 179-196. 3° Cfr. AuLus GELLIus, Noctes Atticae, II, 29, ed. Marshall cit. 31 Cfr. G. F. GIANorri, Romanzo e ideologia. Studi sulle Metamorfosi di Apuleio, Napoli 1986 (Forme materiali e ideologie del mondo antico, 26). 32 SHUMATE, Crisis and Conversion cit., pp. 10-11.

66

67

26 27

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

2. THE METAMORPHOSES, THE NOVEL OF A PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER

punishment, and redemption33. This kind of interpretation was exemplified in the aforementioned study by Walsh, who concludes that «This sequence in the priest's analysis is important as the key to the fable (...). Lucius' suffering as an ass are a punishment for involving himself in base sensuality and magic»34. Shumate agrees that magic and sex can be linked, but not in the way that Walsh understands it. One cannot therefore think that Apuleius condemns the transgressions of common morals when there is a fall into magic or sex. One errs by thinking, as a consequence of this moralistic approach, that the tales of the Metamorphoses are moral examples that reflect and implicitly condemn Lucius' propensity towards sex and his curiosity regarding magic. It is true that living with Isis implies a certain religious asceticism for Lucius, but these interpretations of the Metamorphoses are suggested by a vaguely Christian erotophobia, which is inappropriate for texts of this kind. Sex as such is not something problematic in the Metamorphoses, and Lucius' failures in his sexual adventures imply a more general failure of character, and not only the violation of a moral norm. Lucius' experience as presented in the Metamorphoses therefore exemplifies a type of conversion situated within a cognitive paradigm rather than a moral one. We cannot agree with this. Sex was considered negatively by the Platonism that Apuleius followed, which was normally directed toward an ascetic life. It is consequently difficult for us to affirm with Shumate that Lucius' sin and the substance of his preconversion crisis are not what we might call moral, but rather epistemological35 According to Shumate, this conversion should not be understood on the moral level alone. Many of the topoi and structures found in Apuleius to narrate conversion are found in a schematic form in the contemporary Corpus Hermeticum and in other Gnostic or semi-Gnostic texts. These topoi include the disdain for conventional values and the assertion that the unilluminated are fooled by these false values and have gone off-course through attraction to `false' desires and pleasures. True knowledge is regularly opposed to simple opinion, and those under the influence

of opinion are often described in medical terms, that is, as suffering a sickness of the soul. Learning the truth is presented as a transformation and movement from blindness to sight, from darkness to light, from slavery to liberty, from drunkenness to sobriety — in short, as Nock states — from the old to the new36. Shumate thus understands conversion as something that is substantially extraneous to religion — which is not convincing and in clear contrast to Nock's interpretation. Ellen D. Finkelpear137 as well, maintains that the description of Lucius' turning back and reconsidering his life, which appears completely changed after the Isiac experience, is overly conditioned by Christian expectations. But the pagan mystery cults, including the form of Isiac devotion that tends towards monotheism, did not require a `tunnel-like' conversion like the one that Augustine proposed for his own conversion to Christianity. Lucius' external change regards his concrete nature as a man. He is again a human being, and whether or not he finds the true response to religious doubts is not as important as the fact that he has found security on the human and social level, at least momentarily. 3. The Platonism of the Metamorphoses It is generally admitted, nowadays, that the Metamorphoses is the work of a Platonic philosopher, — just like the De philosophia libri. If such is the case, which are the Platonic tenets of the Metamorphoses? If Platonism is considered in a strict sense, its presence in the Metamorphoses is quite limited. Its most evident elements had already been detected by R. Helm38. Apuleius exalts Socrates as «sectae Platonicae auctor», and emphasizes the dishonor that blemished the Athenians when they condemned him to death 39 — but any educated person could come to the same conclusion.

36

Cfr. ibid., p. 33. Cfr. E. D. FI xnr .PFARL, Metamorphosis of Language in Apuleius. A Study of Allusion in the Novel, Ann Arbor (MI) 1998. 38 Cfr. R. HELM, Praefatio, in Flor., ed. Helm, p. xI. 39 Cfr. Met., X, 33, ed. Zimmerman, pp. 254-255. 37

Cfr. ibid., pp. 12-13. The Roman Novel cit., p. 177. 35 Cfr. SHUMATE, Crisis and Conversion cit., p. 13. 33

34 WALSH,

68

69

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

2. THE METAMORPHOSES, THE NOVEL OF A PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER

Again, Apuleius celebrates Pythagoras' divine nature40 and, by doing so, he conforms to the Platonic philosophy of his time, which appears to be imbued with Pythagorean elements, as Apuleius himself states in the Florida: «noster Plato nihil ab hac secta vel paululum devius, pythagorissat in plurimis» 41. All this is certainly `philosophical', but to what philosophy does it belong? And at what philosophical level is it? It seems to me that, in these comments, Apuleius does not show that he actually reached a particular philosophical knowledge. In any case, after Helm's `search for sources', an extremely scarce amount of new and convincing material has been found. This does not mean that the problem of the presence of Platonism in the Metamorphoses has not been discussed — quite the opposite. Schlam, for instance, moves from a mostly correct assumption: the frequent quotations from the works of Plato found in the De Magia imply Apuleius' constant reading of the Platonic dialogs, and corroborate the fact that their echoes may be detected in the Metamorphoses. This is certainly true in theory, but in practice these echoes are substantially absent. Schlam has tried to identify more than one42, but I believe that none of them is convincing. For instance, he observes that in the famous invocation of Lucius to the dea caelestis this goddess is identified with Venus and is called «mother of Love» 43; therefore this passage can be linked with that from the Apologia44, where Venus is actually defined as the mother of Love, and where an open reference to the doctrine of the Platonic Symposium is made. However, in the Apologia Plato is quoted, while he is not in this passage from the Metamorphoses- naming Isis as `mother of Love' in the eleventh book is a theocrasy more than Platonic philosophy. Fredouille also sees a discreet allusion to the tale of Cupid and Psyche in this passage: a hypothesis that does not seem to me to be

more probable than the other45. G. C. Drake's work has a similar method and lack ofresults46: Lucius' white horse (candidus) should be «a unifying element in the Metamorphoses». On the basis of this hypothesis, Drake constructs a series of difficult and convoluted references between different elements of the Apuleian narrative. A symbolic meaning has not been excluded by K. Dowden either47: Lucius' white horse may be a reference to the intellect, the good horse of the Platonic Phaedrus, which is obedient to his master — because Lucius' white horse, which was believed to be lost, comes back to his owner after he has regained his human form and has been purified in the mysteries of Isis. Finally, the Platonic interpretations of the tale of Cupid and Psyche can be explained more clearly if elements of Platonism actually existed in the Metamorphoses. I already hesitated in the past (and even more so now) to see the undoubted presence of Platonic elements in the Metamorphoses48. I believed at that time that the Apuleian novel was substantially devoid of them. I noticed that its emphasis was entirely concentrated on the necessity to defeat the danger of magic and oppose the power of Isis to it, like the initiation into the mysteries was opposed to the knowledge of the supernatural world, which was provided by magic. Platonic philosophy was almost entirely absent, because the attention of the writer is no longer focused on the hyper-Uranian god, but on the Egyptian deity. The Metamorphoses should therefore be considered aside from Apuleius' Platonism49. This suggestion, which I maybe expressed at that time in an overly firm way, does not intend to rule out Plato-

4° Cfr. ibid., XI, 1, p. 258. 41 Flor., XV, ed. Helm, p. 23,10-11. 42 Cfr. SCREAM, Platonica in the Metamorphoses cit. 43 Cfr. Met., XI, 2, ed. Zimmerman, pp. 258,18-259,1: «Regina caeli (...) seu to caelestis Venus, quae primis rerum exordiis sexuum diversitatem generato Amore sociasti». 44 Cfr. Apol., 12, ed. Helm.

45 Cfr. J.CL. FREDOUILLE, Introduction, in Apule'e, Metamorphoseon Liber XI, ed. J. Cl. Fredouille, Paris 1975 (Erasure: Collection de textes latins comment~s, 30). 46 Cfr. G. C. DRAKE, Candidus: A Unifying Theme in Apuleius Metamorphoses, in «Classical Journal», 64 (1968), pp. 102-109. 47 Cfr. K. DOWDEN, The White Horse in Apuleius, a paper read at the conference on 'The Ancient Novel' held in Bangor in July 1976. I could not read this contribution by Dowden, but I had information about it from J. Gwyn Griffith, cfr. J. GwYN GRIFFrrns, Commentary, in Apuleius of Madaums: the Isis-book (Metamorphoses, book XI), ed. J. Gwyn Griffiths, Leiden 1975 (Etudes Pr~liminaires aux Religions Orientales dans l'Empire Romain, 39), p. 161 and note 127. 48 Cfr. MORE5cHINI, Elementi frlosofici nelle Metamorfosi cit. n Cfr. ID., Apuleio e it platonismo cit., p. 16.

70

71

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

2. THE METAMORPHOSES, THE NOVEL OF A PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER

nism from the novel, but to point out that it exists in a way that the traditional `search for sources' can hardly detect. We think that the adventures of Lucius (as well as those of Psyche, which constitute its pattern and mirror) can be read for personal entertainment (for the so called 'Lust zu fabulieren' that German scholars spoke of), but also permit a second level of interpretation, which fits Platonic philosophy. The world of Lucius is the world of irrationality; the flight from it, as for many Platonists of the second century AD, must be searched. For Apuleius, it is achieved through the mysteries of Isis. Thus, the novel does suggest a Platonic doctrine by a not philosophical way of reasoning. Gianotti's interpretation falls within the same province'''. In his opinion, the story of Lucius is the story of the loss of liberty, which binds the protagonist to a tormenting process of rising to the human condition and of conquest of a different kind of `liberty'. There is a redemption from human beings' enslavement to the passions and from their transformation into an animal. This is demonstrated by the frequent symbols which are present in Plato, especially in the Phaedo and in the Republic, and which are taken up again by the Platonism of Late Antiquity51. The stories of the brigands, and the description of their inevitable defeat and death manifest in a fantastic manner, through a narration and the description of the society in which Apuleius himself lived, a Platonic teaching which advises the perfect ruler of the city to inflict the death penalty on the wicked; the anteludia of the Isiac procession52 are a transformation into the ridiculous of the whole variety of human society. Gianotti remarkably re-dimensions the Isiac element, particularly because he is not so inclined to see an explicitly autobiographical meaning in the Apuleian tale, while he gives primary importance to the Platonic reading of the text. I am not convinced of all the Platonic interpretations of Gianotti; however, his thesis is true that Apuleius wished to present a program with a definite

Platonic orientation, the passage from the chaos of the sensible world to a gratifying knowledge of the divine, while avoiding the elitist preaching of an explicit philosophical creed53 A program accessible to the multitude, because it was the story of an individual, written like a novel, as well as the symbolism of a widespread religion — that of Isis — represents with greater facility what appeared difficult, if explained in a rigorously philosophical manner. Apuleius understood that the `novel', which precisely in the second century had the greatest diffusion especially in Greek-speaking areas, could be a quite useful instrument in spreading his Platonic message, since it does not belong to one of the traditional literary genres nor were his readers identifiable with those of high culture: to such an audience Apuleius addresses himself with his work, with the traditional intent of docere, but also delectare, just as classical aesthetics had always taught. In conclusion, the Apuleian `novel' attempted to preserve a message which had an origin which was learned, i.e. philosophical; yet it also took into account the interests and tastes of a non-elite public. The renewed interest in sophistics, which characterizes the studies of the last forty years (Reardon, Bowersock, Anderson, Bowie, and many others) has eliminated the narrow models of the past, when only a rhetorical self-ostentation was usually seen in the Sophistic, while recognizing the limits ofits `classicism'. New light has thus been shed on sophistics, which up to now had been passed over by an easy yet unfounded contempt. Certainly the themes of the Sophistic orations are all of a rhetorical character, but this was just their intent: epidictic orators and imitators of Greece's free past as they were, the Sophists passionately cultivated oratory and preferred it to philosophy. Thus, they took up again the ancient conflict between rhetoric and philosophy, resolving it in favor of the former. This did not mean, however, that philosophy did not exist in the education of the free man. Aelius Aristides, Philostratus, and others demonstrate that philosophy had its function. G. Anderson used two terms that seem particularly useful to understand the culture of the second cen-

5o Cfr. GIANOTTI, Romanzo e ideologia cit., p. 52. 51 It can be found again in Boethius, cfr. ANICIus MANLIus. SEVERINUS BOETHIUS, Consolatio Philosophiae, I, 5,4-5, PL 63, [580-869], 642A-643A, ed. C. Moreschini, in In., De consolatione philosophiae. Opuscula theologica, Munchen — Leipzig 20052 (Bibl. Teubn., 1278), [pp. 3-162], p. 21,9-19. 52 Cfr. Met., XI, 8-11, ed. Zimmerman, pp. 263-266.

72

53 Gianotti takes this from an essay of Donini, cfr. P. L. DONINI, Le scuole, l'anima, l'impero: la filosofia antica da Antioco a Plotino, Torino 1982, p. 135.

73

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

2. THE METAMORPHOSES, THE NOVEL OF A PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER

tury AD: first of all, pepaideumenos, which characterizes the cultivated man, who was formed in the schools of rhetoric and who possessed, as such (pepaideumenos), a formation structured heavily around rhetoric54. The other term used by Anderson is «Halbphilosoph»: this indicates the cultivated man that is interested in philosophy, but has neither the competence nor the specialization which are proper to `philosophers by profession', i.e. to those who attend philosophical schools or even teach in them. Such `Halbphilosophen', among the Greeks, are Aelius Aristides, Maximus of Tyre, Favorinus of Arles; Fronto, Gellius and the Apuleius of the Apologia and the Florida55. This is the way we must think of that form of philosophy which German scholars of the first decades of the twentieth century called, not without contempt, Popularphilosophie: `popular', certainly, in the sense that it was not widespread in the philosophy of the schools, but was widespread in larger circles of cultivated people, who dedicated themselves to it without the intention to carry out specific scientific research. If Alexander of Aphrodisias, for example, is a `philosopher', Apuleius, on the contrary, in his literary works, including the Metamorphoses, acts as a `Halbphilosoph', i.e. a follower of a Popularphilosophie', just like Dio Chrysostom or Maximus of Tyre. The De deo Socratis is also important as an example of a sophistic oration, i.e. a declamation of a `Halbphilosoph' analogous to that of Maximus of Tyre, who asked in one of his orations 'what the god is according to Plato', and the Metamorphoses convey a philosophical — religious message. In this way, Apuleius is situated in the educated culture of the second century, which is that of the Second Sophistic. His Platonism can be summarized in two fundamental concepts, that of the chaos and irrationality of the material, non-philosophical life of the human being who has fallen prey to the «serviles voluptates»; and the exhortation to `become similar to god', who, in the novel, is not the Platonic god, but the goddess Isis. This Pla-

tonic message is expressed in a literary form that is the work of a sophist. The message certainly remains enigmatic, and this ambiguity comprises part of the attraction the work exerts upon the reader, who would like everything to be clear and explicit. A further example of this enigmatic nature of the novel is the mention, which occurs twice in the Metamorphoses56, of the origin of Lucius from the family of Plutarch — a reference which, despite all attempts to interpret it, remains obscure. Why does Lucius say he is a descendant of Plutarch? And should this declaration be understood in an autobiographical sense, i.e. with reference to Apuleius, or not? Since this is impossible, it is difficult not to consider it more than casual, and the reference to Plutarch assumes a symbolic significance: Apuleius would be declaring, in an obscure manner, that his philosophical lineage is from Plutarch57. He would intimate that Plutarch, who was also famous in Rome during the second century (he is often cited by Gellius), was his model as a man of letters and as a philosopher's. Yet this does not lead us to return to the dichotomy between Platonic philosophy and the novel: to point out the almost total absence from the Metamorphoses of specific elements belonging to Platonism does not mean to interpret separately, as was once done, the De philosophia libri on the one hand and the literary works on the other. Apuleius remains philosophus platonicus, except that his Platonism adapts itself to a different literary genre (the novel) and to the cultural conditions of his (sophistic) age. If he is a philosopher in works intended for the study of Platonic

54 For instance, cfr. G. ANDERSON, The pepaideumenos in Action: Sophists and their Outlook in the Early Empire in Aufstieg and Niedergang der r~mischen Welt — Sprache and Literatur (Allgemeines zur Literatur des 2. Jahrhunderts and einzelne Autoren der trajanischen and fnihhadrianischen Zeit), edd. H. Temporini — W. Haase, Berlin — New York 1989 (ANRW II — 33,1), pp. 79-208. ss Cfr. MOREscHINt, Elementi filosofici cit., pp. 119-122.

se Cfr. Met., I, 2 and II, 3. 57 This was the proposal of Walsh, cfr. WALSH, The Roman Novel cit., pp. 182-183. On the question, see now the more developed discussion of De Filippo, cfr. J. DE FILIPPO, Curiositas and the Platonism of Apuleius' Golden Ass, in «American Journal of Philology», 111 (1990), pp. 471-492 (repr. in Oxford Readings in The Roman Novel cit., pp. 269-289). 58 The interpretation of Wlosok (cfr. A. WLOSOK, Zur Einheit der Metamorphosen des Apuleius, in «Philologus», 113 (1969), [pp. 68-84], pp. 82 ff.) is a bit forced, but not wrong. In the mention of Plutarch, she sees a conscious reference of Apuleius to him as to his standard-bearer for the mystical interpretation of the Metamorphoses, inspired by the initiation to the cult of Isis, which Plutarch so attentively observed fifty years before, and which, according to Wlosok, Apuleius takes up and celebrates at the end of his novel. In summary, Apuleius wanted to inform his readers, through a reference to one who, like him, had been Platonic and Isiac at the same time, that the work which he was writing would also be Platonic and Isiac.

74

75

2. THE

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

philosophy59, then his Platonism must appear under a different form in works which have a different purpose. The necessity of observing the rules of the literary genres is strong for Apuleius too. The didactic tone of some passages in his epideictic orations (Apologia and De deo Socratis) permits a profession of Platonism which certainly has depth, but lacks the technicality specific to his philosophical works. The Metamorphoses, which belong to yet another literary genre, have their own proper message 60: Apuleius adapted his Platonism to the novel he was composing and to the public which he was addressing, and therefore passed from the role of the philosophus platonicus, who writes for few scholars, to that of the `Halbphilosoph', who writes for the pepaideumenoi. Consequently, a correct interpretation of the Metamorphoses permits both a `hedonistic' reading and a deeper reading. If it is true that large sections of the Metamorphoses seem to ask for a `between the lines' reading, and although at least one character (Mithras) proposes an interpretation of this type for the adventures of Lucius as a key for reading the novel, it is also true that there are many parts in it which do not seem to contribute to the construction of a symbolic significance at all, and that would certainly leave a reader in constant search for philosophical or religious teachings unsatisfied'''. A description of his literary activity is provided by Apuleius himself in the famous passage of the Florida we quoted above: Ego et alias creterras Athenis bibi: poeticae comptam, geometriae limpidam, musicae dulcem, dialecticae austerulam, iam vero universae philosophiae inexplebilem scilicet et nectaream. Canit enim Empedocles carmina, Plato dialogos, Socrates hymns, Epicharmus modos, Xenophon historias, Crates satiras: Apuleius vester haec omnia novemque Musas pari studio colit 62.

METAMORPHOSES,

THE NOVEL OF A PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER

This is the program of the Platonic philosopher who is also the sophist, and «cultivates with equal dedication all the disciplines and the nine muses together»63 4. Platonism and the Isiac Mysteries However, if Apuleius remains a philosophus platonicus in the Metamorphoses, how does his adherence to Platonism harmonize with the final episode of conversion? Can Platonism be reconciled with the Isiac mysteries? In the nineteenth century already, E. Rohde attempted to give an answer to this problem. Presuming that the Metamorphoses were written before the Apologia, he maintained that it was possible to move from the mysteries in the Metamorphoses to Platonism in the Apologia, but not the inverse. Thus, there are not traces of Platonic philosophy in the Metamorphoses, but only an abnormally developed religiosity". Since Rohde's chronology has been criticized65, and, on the basis of certain historical indicators most scholars maintain that the Metamorphoses are the work of Apuleius' full maturity, the problem persists, but as the reverse of that understood by Rohde. For this reason, Walsh thinks he can discern a reconciliation of Platonic doctrine and the Isiac religion in the novel66 The relationships between Platonism and the Isiac mysteries are not obvious, but neither can they be excluded a priori67. Before Apuleius, Plutarch, whom Apuleius explicitly mentions in the Metamorphoses, already speaks of Isis who prepares

63

sv Although, at the present time, these works are passed over by students of ancient philosophy. 60 Graverini also holds that the philosophical message entrusted to a novel cannot have the same direct clarity that it would have if presented in a treatise, cfr. GRAVERINI, Le Metamorfosi di Apuleio cit., p. 127. 61 Cfr. MORESCHINI, Elementi filosofici cit., p. 133. 62 Flor., XX, ed. Helm, p. 41,1 ff. (see above, p. 56).

The interpretation of Hijmans and La Rocca (see above, p. 56) is different. Cfr. E. ROHDE, Zu Apuleius, in «Rheinisches Museum», 40 (1885), pp. 66-95 (repr. in Kleine Schriften II, Tubingen — Leipzig 1901, [pp. 43-74], pp. 63-65). 65 Dowden has recently returned to this dating (see p. 232). 66 Wlosok's mystery accentuation is excessive. In her opinion, Platonic philosophy would be a preparation to the mysteries for Apuleius, and she produces a series of forced interpretations of some of Apuleius' texts. Wlosok speaks of the knowledge of god in terms of mystical contemplation, thus failing to explain why Apuleius in Socr. (3,124, p. 11, 10-12) introduces the sudden illumination of the knowledge of god according to Plato, epist. 7, 341cd. 67 In pp. 78-80 I re-propose what I said in 1978, cfr. MORESCHINI, Apuleio e it platonismo cit., pp. 27-31.

76

77

64

2. THE

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

human beings for knowledge of the supreme divinity68 — and, in De Iside et Osiride, he offers an example of synthesis of Platonic philosophy and the cult of Isis, in what is almost an antecedent for the Metamorphoses of Apuleius. It is also probable that the initiation to the Isiac mysteries had already been prepared for by youthful experiences: «sacrorum pleraque initia in Graecia participavi»69. It is difficult to reconcile, or eventually to identify, the gods of the mysteries to which Apuleius was initiated from his youth with the Platonic god of the Apologia70. The problem was probably not clear to Apuleius himself; who was disposed to a sort of generic religious aspiration without feeling the need to further clarify the terms of his various experiences. In this sense, the Metamorphoses, by speaking of the god of the mystery religion instead of that of Platonic philosophy, constitute a new aspect ofApuleius' experience, although it does not deny the Platonic doctrine professed in his philosophical works. There is thus a link and a reciprocal contrast between Platonism and Isiac religion in the novel. If the Metamorphoses have a religious meaning — we however know that this interpretation is not among the most accepted at the moment — it consists in manifesting human beings' depravity in succumbing to pleasure and curiosity. This depravity is exemplified in Lucius' transformation into an ass, the enemy animal of Osiris and the symbol of Typhon in the Isiac theology that is also witnessed to by Plutarch71. The restitution of human beings to their true nature thanks to the providential intervention of the divinity also follows from this — but when it saves them, it places them in a nature that is infinitely higher (like the Christian who is reborn to a new

METAMORPHOSES,

THE NOVEL OF A PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER

dignity). Lucius' conversion occurs independently of any philosophical knowledge, insofar as it is the direct work of divine intervention. Apuleius explicitly affirms that the religious experience has greater prominence in him than the philosophical one when he declares, by the mouth of the priest of Isis: nec tibi natales ac ne dignitas quidem, vel ipsa, qua fibres, usquam doctrina profuit, sed lubrico virentis aetatulae in serviles delapsus voluptates curiositatis improsperae sinistrum praemium reportasti72. Not even Platonism, the doctrine that Apuleius was so proud of at the time of the Apologia, seemed sufficient to him, at the time of the Metamorphoses, for the redemption or for the defense from evi173. The words of the priest of Isis thus give meaning to the entire affair: Lucius voluntarily sought the «serviles voluptates», the pleasures of the senses, which make human beings their slaves74. Consequently, Lucius gave into his own inclination which was mainly drawn to curiosity: he violated the laws of nature by turning to magic He fell into the power of blind and cruel Fate because of all these faults, and only clairvoyant Fate, that is, the providence ofthe goddess Isis («sed videntis»), managed to assist him and redeem him by giving him back his human form. Religion overcame magic, providence was stronger than chaos, and the certitude of religion satisfied all the requirements of curiositas 75 .

cs Cfr. PLUTARCHus, De Iside et Osiride, 2, 351EF, ed. and Eng. tr. byJ. Gwyn Griffiths in Plutarch's De Iside et Osiride, Cardiff 1970, p. 121: «Her name certainly seems to imply that to her more than anyone belong knowledge and understanding. For Isis is a Greek name (...)». 6e Apol., 55, ed. Helm, p. 62,20. 7° Cfr. ibid., 64-65 (see above, pp. 39-42). 71 Cfr. PLUTARCIIUS, De Iside et Osiride, 49-50, 371BD, ed. Froidefond. According to De Filippo as well (cfr. DE FILIPPO, Curiositas and the Platonism cit., pp. 280-282), Plutarch is convinced that religious knowledge is acquired through a philosophical approach, and that this philosophical approach is specifically valid in regard to Isiac religion. This fits perfectly Apuleius' Platonism in the Metamorphoses.

Met., XI, 15, ed. Zimmerman, p. 270. I am not convinced by what Graverini asserts (cfr. GRAVERINI, Le Metamorfosi di Apuleio cit., pp. 129-132), namely that the words of the priest Mithras can be specifically interpreted in a Platonic sense — and that they represent, just like the tale of Cupid and Psyche, a reference to the Phaedrus of Plato. He is however right when he rejects Winkler's doubts about the name of Mithras: see note 75. 74 This is the meaning of the expression in our opinion. Harrison (cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit., p. 253, note 205) observes that serviles voluptates take up the Platonic expression of Resp. IX 587c and the general Platonic idea that base pleasures make us slaves (Phaed. 65c; Resp. IX 589e). Sandy instead affirms that Lucius did not seek the pleasure of the senses, but magic, to which he links the voluptates of this passage. Sandy however admits that serviles voluptates «encompass both magic and, a double entendre, love-making» — in brief; there is not that much difference, cfr. G. N. SANDY, Book 11: Ballast or Anchor?, in Aspects of Apuleius' Golden Ass cit., [pp. 123-140], pp. 130-133. 75 In defense of his thesis that Book XI has no religious meaning, Winkler also observes how absurd (and ridiculous) it is that the priest of Isis is named

78

79

72 73

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

Much has been written on curiositas in the Metamorphoses76, and the most interesting current interpretation appears to us to be that ofJ. De Filippo, who connects it primarily to Apuleius' Platonism, and then, not without motives, in second place to the Isiac religion: «It was part of Apuleius' intellectual climate to interpret Isiac religion Platonically, again in such a way that curiositas becomes a theme of interest and importance to a Platonist. I hope to demonstrate that the Platonism of Apuleius' novel informs one of its most central themes, and is not limited merely to the incorporation of Platonic elements into a narrative that is otherwise decidedly un-Platonic» 77. Lucius' curiosity is a sort of `meddlesomness' that corresponds to Plutarch's 7rsptspyia and o% tnrpaypoovv117S. But 7rav7rpaypoovvvi is already found in Plato, for whom it indicates the activity of the lowest part of the soul, and is often represented as a multiform beast with many heads.There is a deeper meaning at the root of 7ro%virpaypoo- v , which Plutarch — not in the De superstitione, but in De Iside et Osiride — connects to dualism. In De Iside et Osiride, Isis represents matter and is a sort of cosmic soul, while Osiris is the Nous of the soul, and Typhon, as in Plato, represents the material elements that are responsible for disorder of the soul,

2. THE

METAMORPHOSES,

THE NOVEL OF A PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER

that is, its 7ro)uirporntoovvi. The violence of `meddlesomness' stops the soul's progress toward truth and the divinity. Plutarch also makes a link between Typhon and the ass. To Isis, Typhon is impure, 3at.w mc~g, and disdainful — and this affirmation is found in Apuleius as well79. Lucius' transformation into an ass symbolizes his transformation into a figure of Typhon. This is caused by, and is emblematic of, his curiositas. De Filippo accepts Schlam's affirmation by which «the metamorphosis changes his (Lucius') appearance, but it serves to objectify rather than alter his nature»80. The answer implicit in Apuleius' Platonism is that curiositas is really the demonic, Typhonic, or asinine condition of being under the control of the appetites and the pleasures. It is when the appetites predominate in the soul that one meddles, just as the appetites themselves meddle when they usurp from the intellect his role as decision-maker for the whole person81. We must, however, once again confront an authoritative dissenting voice: Winkler rejects the Isiac interpretation of the Metamorphoses. He is against any sort of biographical aspect in the Metamorphoses, including Lucius-Apuleius' initiation to Isis82. Winkler thus wound up not far from the reading proposed by his fellow countryman, B. E. Perry: there is no religious element in the Metamorphoses. This seems to be more a petitio principii than a true and proper reading. A more serious objection of Winkler is that Apuleius identified himself as philosophus platonicus, and not as a pastophorus of Isis, and he was considered in this way by his audience as well. Further, the inscription on the statue erected to him at Madaura calls him Platonic and not Isiac, and his fame in Late Antiquity always identified him as a magician, and not as a follower of Isis. One can respond

Mithras, that is, the name of a god from a competing religion, cfr. WINKLER, Auctor & Actor cit., pp. 245 and 247. Graverini responds to this objection by observing that, if Coarelli's hypothesis (see later, p. 232) of the existence of a domus of Apuleius at Ostia is correct, one cannot forget that a Mithraeum was found there, cfr. GRAVERINI, Le Metamorfosi di Apuleio cit., pp. 75-76. In this case, «we would have a fairly concrete indicator of a connection between Apuleius and the cult of Mithras, even Wit is filtered by a Platonic interpretatio. The choice of Isis as a salvific divinity does not exclude the fact that there is a sort of syncretism between the two religions, and that Apuleius would have wished to allude to it through the name of the goddess' priest». Rather than labelling this as `syncretism' I would interpret this connection as an example of the late antique pagan inclusive mentality, which did not exclude the possibility to be initiated to different cults (Apuleius himself attests it, cfr. Apol., 55; and see also the famous case of Vettius Agorius Praetextatus). As a whole, it seems to me that too much attention was given to details, such as the name of the priest of Isis. 76 On this, cfr. MORESCHINI, Apuleio e it platonismo cit., pp. 43-50. 77 DE FILIPPO, Curiositas and the Platonism cit., p. 272. 78 Cfr. PLUTARCIIUS, De curiositate, 516A, 519C, edd. J. Dumortier — J. Defradas, in ID., Ouvres morales, VII, 1, Trait& 27-36, Paris 1975 (CUF S~rie grecque, 236). Cfr. DE FILIPPO, Curiositas and the Platonism cit., pp. 276-277. Walsh had already observed this.

79 Cfr. Met., XI, 6, 6-7, ed. Zimmerman, pp. 262-263. 8o SCHLAM, Platonica in the Metamorphoses cit., p. 481. 81 Cfr. DE FILIPPO, Curiositas and the Platonism cit., pp. 286-287. 82 Including the famous Madaurensem of XI, 27 («nam sibi [Asinio Marcello] visus est quiete proxima, dum magno deo coronas exaptat, de eius ore, quo singulorum fata dictat, audisse mitti sibi Madaurensem, sed admodum pauperem, cui statim sua sacra deberet ministrare»), whose meaning, although again and again subject to new interpretations and corrections, must be conserved intact in my opinion, so that one must accept that it entails a reference by Apuleius to himself — whether or not this violates some narratological laws of modern criticism.

80

81

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

to this with the hypothesis that, in the centuries that followed, the adherence to Isiac religion appeared to be secondary in relation to the Platonic one, and for this reason it is not found in references to Apuleius in Late Antiquity. Further, Apuleius' public activity was always characterized as the activity of a Platonic sophist, and the title of follower of Isis did not, in practice, replace that of Platonic philosopher. Winkler's skepticism has been influential. Harrison, while not accepting his conclusions, excludes all religious meaning from the eleventh book of the Metamorphoses, which according to him is a sophist nove183. Despite many balanced observations, we do not find his conclusions acceptable. Harrison does not accept in toto Winkler's interpretation by which the Metamorphoses are «a philosophical comedy about religious knowledge», but adds that «the effect of the novel and the intent of Apuleius is to put that question (whether there is a higher order that can integrate conflicting individual judgments), but not to suggest an answer»84 . However, being a sophist does not exclude either Platonism or Isiac religion a priori. Harrison observes that, even if Apuleius might have been initiated into this cult of Isis, his description of it is not a sign of the Apuleian promotion of the Isis cult. In particular, «the frequency with which Lucius is required to pay money (...) is quite extraordinary», even though «cult-initiation in the ancient world was a feature of elite culture and was therefore likely to be expensive» 85. For Harrison, as for Winkler, there are too many comical elements in the eleventh book to require us to adopt a religious interpretationS6. The Metamorphoses undoubtedly manifest a knowledge of Isiac religion, but religion is employed «for cultural and intellectual display and satirical entertainment rather than to assert any ideological or personal commitment» 87. According to Winkler, Book XI suggests both a serious and a comi-

2. THE

METAMORPHOSES,

THE NOVEL OF A PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER

cal interpretation of religious experience, as the reader prefers, while for Harrison, in final analysis it is comical and parodial — in the end, the satirical content overpowers the serious element88, and further, the general perspective that emerges from a reading of Book XI is not that of a complete and unconditional abandonment to mysticism. Book XI thus constitutes a satire of religious mania in a manner similar to that of Lucianus and hypothetically refers to the experiences of Aelius AristidesS9. Harrison admits the presence of Platonic elements; however, the ones he specifies are not doctrinal but purely literary. In conclusion, the Platonism of the Metamorphoses is a purely literary motif, since the Phaedrus and the Symposium from which Apuleius' Platonism derives were highly read works in the second century90. Nevertheless, Apuleius was a philosophus Platonicus and read those dialogs as ;a philosopher. Kenney also remains unconvinced that Apuleius proposes a «Platonic-Isiac synthesis». He largely bases himself on the description of Lucius in the eleventh book, where his religious awareness "is a pretty shallow affair", so that he substantially follows Harrison's interpretation. He therefore maintains that the so-called `Iliac experience' either does not exist or is superficial. If this is the case, however, why would Apuleius have narrated it? At that point it was enough to follow the interpretation of Winkler or Harrison. As a consequence, Kenney accentuates the Platonic meaning of the Metamorphoses, but all of the parallels between the Metamorphoses and Platonism that he individuates are highly generic91

83 Cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit., pp. 210-253. 84 Ibid., 237. 85 Ibid., p. 245. Graverini too (cfr. GRAVERINI, Le Metamorfosi di Apuleio cit., pp. 61-102) has noted that the practice of a religious cult could also be quite expensive; about the greed of the priests, cfr. ibid., pp. 83-90. s6 Cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit., p. 236. 87 Ibid., p. 238.

88 Cfr. ibid., pp. 240 and 244. Winkler and Harrison include Lucius' shaved head among the ridiculous elements of Book XI, something that Graverini rightly contested, cfr. GRAVERINI, Le Metamorfosi di Apuleio cit., pp. 83-90 and 90-99. 89 Cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit., pp. 249-253. 9° Cfr. ibid., pp. 224-226. 91 Kenney's interpretation (cfr. KENNEY, In the Mill with Slaves cit., see above, note 1, pp. 177-178) is an example of the `Pan-Platonism' that I spoke of at the beginning of this chapter. Likewise, Graverini (cfr. GRAVERINI, Le Metamorfosi di Apuleio cit., p. 130, note 95) does not accept Kenney's interpretation that there is no Platonic-Isiac synthesis — but he does this on an unconvincing basis: that there are Platonic concepts in the words of Mithras.

82

83

p.

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

2. THE METAMORPHOSES, THE NOVEL OF A PLATONIC PHILOSOPHER

5. The Metamorphoses: an Autobiographical Work?

morphoses who then converts to the cult of Isis, is probably Apuleius himself, in the sense that the author wished to present his own `spiritual itinerary', so that, after an initial interest in magical arts, it moved, through fantastic adventures with symbolic meaning, to adherence to the cult of Isis. The metamorphosis into an ass indicates human beings becoming a beast after their abandon to the senses, dangerous curiosity, and the search for magic. The second metamorphosis into a man instead indicates the abandoning of the world that is the cause of disorder and error, so that human beings might return to what they were before, or even something more and better: `reborn' human beings («quodammodo renatus» is the man who obtained salvation from the goddess95). As in all religions (as inJn 3, 5: «Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God»), human beings not only return to their original state, but to something nobler. But this birth, this return to the human, this more than human condition is exclusively due to the goddess' benevolence and mercy, and not own merit. Salvation is a free gift from the divinity, and is neither merited nor procured by any actions human beings accomplish. Autobiography is not absolutley necessary to the interpretation of the Metamorphoses, and nowadays it is generally refused, but we cannot escape it totally.

What we said until now about conversion and curiosity has an autobiographical flavor. Having been absolved in a trial regarding magic a few years earlier, Apuleius probably could not have stopped his reputation as a magician from following him, despite his brilliant career as a sophist that had received public honors. The authorities of Carthage or of Madaura would not have bestowed honors on Apuleius, had he been condemned for magic. This is witnessed to by the fact that the reputation of Apuleius as a magician continued in Africa even two centuries after his death. The last, headstrong, defenders of paganism used the figure of Apuleius, opposing the miracles of their magician to those of Christ92. It is thus probable that the Metamorphoses take up Apuleius' goal in De magia — defense from the accusation of the practice of magical arts and presentation as a philosophus platonicus — although in a different manner, in the form of the adopted literary genre. The defense from magic is not as explicit in the Metamorphoses as in the Apologia, because the circumstances were different. When he wrote the novel, Apuleius was not accused before a magistrate, and did not address the audience of the Sabratha trial, but the readers. This means that the Metamorphoses also present a polemic against magic through which Apuleius wishes once again to proclaim his innocence. Should we thus think that the Metamorphoses constitute an autobiographical novel? This interpretation does not enjoy much favor at this point: all the critics we have mentioned (Winkler, Shumate, Harrison) either contest it or do not even mention it93. It was commonly accepted at least from the time of Augustine94: Lucius, the protagonist of the events of the Meta-

Nam sibi visus est quiete proxima (...) audisse mitti sibi (scil. Asinio Marcello) Madaurensem sed admodum pauperem, cui statim sua sacra deberet ministrare96. It is absurd to attribute to Apuleius the adventures of Lucius, but this famous passage seems to identify the writer and the protagonist of the novel as far as Lucius' adventures have, for Apuleius, a religious meaning. Further, there is no reason to believe that the novel was written exclusively for entertainment: Apuleius wishes to communicate that Lucius' tribulations have a philosophical and religious sense as well.

92 See later, pp. 349-352. 93 But Kenney substantially accepts this, given his interpretation of Book XI of the Metamorphoses, cfr. KENNEY, In the Mill with Slaves cit., p. 187. He admits the presence of autobiographical elements in the sense that Lucius-Apuleius becomes multiscius after his experiences, but those experiences, according to him, are Platonic in nature. That the whole Book XI of the Metamorphoses is a faithful document of the (uneasy) life of the African Apuleius in Rome, has been asserted by E. Finkelpearl, Marsyas the satyr and Apuleius of Madauros, "Ramus", 2009, pp. 7-42, pp. 30-33. 94 Cfr. AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS, De civitate Dei, XVIII, 18, PL 41, [13-805], 574, edd. B. Dombart — A. Kalb, in ID., De civitate Dei libri XXII, 2, Libri XIV-XXII, Stuttgart 1981 (repr. 1993, Bibl. Teubn., 1105), p. 278,13-15: «Sicut Apuleius

in libris, quos asini aurei titulo inscripsit, sibi ipsi accidisse, ut accepto veneno humano animo permanente asinus fieret, aut indicavit aut finxit». 95 Cfr. Met., XI, 21, 7, ed. Zimmerman, p. 274,17. 96 See above, note 82.

84

85

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

The Metamorphoses therefore constitute a novel that ends with the celebration of Isiac religion, and Apuleius the philosophus platonicus concludes the experiences of Lucius in this unexpected manner. Apuleius is thus distinguished from other Middle Platonist., who (Plutarch excepted) were not very interested in religion. He had experience of the sciences, as the titles of many of his works show us; of Platonic philosophy; and magical arts (even if he denied it) — and of the mysteries of Isis. Certainly not without motives, Apuleius chose the novel to give life to these motifs and contradictions. The novel, the last of the literary genres formed in ancient culture, was the freest of the rules to which each genre was tied. In this sense, it could be the best adapted vehicle to bring the thought of its author to the largest audience. The development of scholastic instruction was the work of the popularization of culture that occurred in the second century and was manifested by the forms of the Second Sophistics (conferences, widespread reading, variety of interests) that brought large parts of society to literature, and for whom the novel was in fact the chosen instrument of entertainment (the acme of the novel can be situated precisely in the second century). For Apuleius, the novel could also be an instrument to manifest his own ideas to a wide audience: not only philosophy, not only literature, not only religion, but the complexity of an experience — without thereby renouncing the ineluctable requirement of enjoyment. Even if he wished to instruct, Apuleius also desired his readers' pleasure, and not to do this would be absurd.

CHAPTER 3

THE TALE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE

The 'Tale of Cupid and Psyche'1 must have seemed as peculiar to the reader in Late Antiquity as it does to us today. Its central position in the tale line of the Metamorphoses could not go unnoticed — it contains mythical characters, and is built around the transgression of a divine ordinance with a subsequent fall, followed by the necessity of confronting a series of tests, and it ends with an apotheosis. The presence of the traditional gods in the tale did not prevent a more profound reading — even if they were represented in human guise, and often in a ridiculous manner. Late Antiquity was in fact disposed to accept the traditional cast of divinities, and it reserved for itself the right to interpret them allegorically. Such a form of interpretation of the tale corresponds, essentially, with a cultural trend typical of that age, which recognized a deeper significance in some works or authors from the past. A relevant parallel is found in the contemporary treatment of the works and person of Virgil. It is logical then that Apuleius himself wanted to suggest that the tale signified something else. In this sense, Apuleius already appears in the second century as a philosopher open to allegorical interpretation and the Tale of Cupid and Psyche in some way prefigures Plotinus' interpretation of Plato's myth of Eros2. What this interpretation was must however be reconsidered. Cfr. Met., IV, 28 — VI, 24. Cfr. PLOTINUS, Enneades, I11, 5, 9, and VI, 9, 9, edd. P. Henry—H.-R. Schwyzer, in PLOTINI Opera, I, Enneades 1-111 cum vita Porphyrii, and III, Enneas V[, Oxford 1964 and 1983 (Oxford Classical Texts), pp. 323,24-324,50 and 331,1-333,57. 1

2

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

3. THE TALE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE

1. Symbolic Interpretation

tor of the tales. The purpose of Fulgentius' work is disclosed by Calliopea at the end of the long and perplexing introduction: if the author entrusts himself to the Muse, he will obtain eternal glory, but not, as in the case of Nero, on account of poetic flattery, but in the manner of Plato, on account of mysticae rationes. Fulgentius' interest in Apuleius is also confirmed by the fact that the myth of Cupid and Psyche is one of the few that he refers to one specific author as the source6. The allegorical interpretation is as follows'. The city over which the king and queen reigned represents the world, while the king and the queen themselves are God and matter.The three daughters are the flesh, free will («ultronietas, quam libertatem arbitrii dicimus»), and Psyche, that is, the soul. The last one mentioned is also the youngest, because the soul is inserted into the body only at a later time, after it has already been created'.

Allegorical exegesis appears systematically for the first time in Fulgentius, who is even viewed favorably by some contemporary scholars. He remains nevertheless, despite efforts to better identify him, a little understood author. At any rate, Fulgentius needs to be situated in sixth century Africa, in a region still rich in a strong tradition of classical culture'. He displays many interests that are all connected by an internal coherence: the philosophical-allegorical interpretation of Virgil and of pagan myths, together with questions of grammar. He makes use of material from the Metamorphoses in his Expositio sermonum antiquorum, betraying an interest in both linguistic and philosophical questions. Apuleius' tale, Fulgentius says, cannot be interpreted literally, because, in the way that it is presented, it is nothing other than a falsitas and an enormous collection of lies4. Also guilty of the same crime would be Aristophon of Athens, the inven3 The date of Fulgentius the `orthographer' is very uncertain. Usually he was supposed to be a younger contemporary of the bishop Fugentius of Ruspe (468-533 AD), but in recent years Hays (cfr. G. HAYS, The Date and Identity of the Mythographer Fulgentius, in «The Journal of Medieval Latin», 13 (2003), pp. 163-252) suggested a later date, that is the second half of the sixth century, on the basis that Mitologiarum liber, seems quoting Corippus' Iohannis VIII, 278: «tunc Phoebus disiunxit equos, tunc Cynthia iunxit»; cfr. FABIUS PLANCIADES FULGENTIUS, Mitologiarum libri III, ed. R. Helm, in FABII PLANCIADIS FULGENTII V. C. Opera, Stuttgart 1970, [pp. 1-80], p. 13,9. According to Mazzarino, Fulgentius, as can be seen from his citations, preserved a text of the Metamorphoses that was quite different than the one we know from the manuscript tradition (the recensio of Sallust), in as much as none of the three citations of Fulgentius agree with the text of Sallust, cfr. A. MAZZARINO, La Milesia e Apuleio, Torino 1950, pp. 26-30. Contrary to the communis opinio, which considers Fulgentius a falsifier or guilty of negligence in the citations, Mazzarino holds that Fulgentius made use of an Apuleian text in circulation in Africa and contaminated with the (supposed) tradition of the fabula Milesia, fairly vigorous in that province (which will be the so-called `Milesia Punica', characterized by its particular connotations also on the level of content and spiritual conceptions). Such a tradition of the fabula Milesia were characterized by the use of rare and foreign words (cfr. ibid., p. 31) and were preserved above all by the effort of the African Grammarians (ibid., pp. 32-24). For more about Fulgentius' reading of Apuleius, cfr. S. MATTIACCI, Apuleio in Fulgenzio, in «Studi italiani di filologia classica», 4.1 (2003), pp. 229-256, and GRAVERINI, Le Metamorfosi di Apuleio cit. (see above, ch. 2, note 3), pp. 145-146. 4 See also the accusation expressed on Mitologiarum liber. «sed dum is qui hanc fabulam legerit in nostra haec transeat sciturus quid sibi illorum falsitas sentire voluerit» (cfr. FULGENTIUS, Mitologiarum libri III, ed. Helm cit„ p. 69,3);

illorum indicates the two authors of whom Fulgentius is speaking in this context, Apuleius and Aristophon of Athens. Cfr. ibid., p. 68,21-25. Of this Aristophon we know now as much as we have known for a long time, that is nothing, because he is named only here by Fulgentius. We repeat what various scholars have observed, remaining in the realm of hypotheses. The plot itself of the tale of Apuleius is found in Aristophon of Athens, says Fulgentius «in libris qui disarestia nuncupantur» (ibid., p. 68,23), i.e. «On dissatisfaction». The title, according to Weinreich, who wrote the notes of Friedlander article (cfr. L. FRIEDLANDER, Das Marchen von Amor and Psyche, in Amor and Psyche, edd. G. Binder — R. Merkelbach, Darmstadt 1968, pp. 16-43, p. 21, note 10b), were adapted to the contents of the tale, for whom there would be no motive to correct, with Rohde (cfr. ROHDE, Zu Apuleius cit., p. 371, note 4) in Aucreparrucci, or, with Plasberg (cfr. O. PLASBERG, Praefatio, in FULGENTIUS, Mitologiarum libri, ed. Helm, Leipzig 1898), in tog apto-reia. These books were apparently composed with extreme prolixity («inormi verborum circuitu»): a testimony which is considered to be unreliable by Paratore (cfr. PARATORE, La novella in Apuleio cit., pp. 325-326), because it is in contrast with the normal procedure, according to which Apuleius should have used summaries in order to rework his narrative in the most fitting way, and summaries cannot be prolix. But this is an undue conclusion. Why should this Aristophon have been the source for Apuleius? Fulgentius only says that the myth of Apuleius is related with extreme prolixity by Aristophon, who might even have been later than Apuleius. It is better to stop at the testimony of Fulgentius, and accept it as it is, if we believe that it is reliable. 6 Cfr. FULGENTIUS, Mitologiarum libri, ed. Helm cit., p. 68,21-22. Fulgentius also alludes to Psyche in his introduction (cfr. ibid., p. 4,1 and 11,8). ' Cfr. ibid., pp. 66-70. 8 This doctrine caused lively debate among Christians; it is enough to think of the exchange of letters between Augustine and Jerome on this subject.

88

89

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

3. THE TALE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE

In addition, Psyche is the most beautiful, because she is superior to free will, and more noble than the flesh. Venus represents libido, and sends Cupid, who represents desire, in order to destroy Psyche. Nonetheless, desire can be turned as much towards good as to evil, and so Cupid unites himself to the soul, and seeks to convince her not to desire to see his face, in other words, to be ignorant of the delights of desire. In the same manner, Adam did not notice his own nakedness though he could in fact see — that is to say, he was ignorant of the evil present in sin until he ate of the tree of concupiscence. So too, Psyche lends an ear to her sisters, to the flesh and free will, in order to satisfy her curiosity about Cupid's appearance. In the end, urged on by her sisters, Psyche takes the lamp9, which represents the flame of desire hidden in her heart, and after she has seen its beauty, loves and desires it. Fulgentius seems to confuse here the desire, which is intrinsic to Psyche, with Cupid, which is extrinsic, by uniting the double significance of cupido, `desire' and `object of desire'. This confusion continues in the phrase that follows in the text: quam («desiderii flamma» according to the text, Cupid according to the logic of the tale) «in pectore absconsam depalat visamque taliter dulcem amat ac diligit». Psyche is now on fire with the boiling oil of the lantern: in fact, the more any desire is loved, the more it burns and imprints the stain of sin onto the flesh. The interpretation here is unabashedly Christian. Psyche is then chased out of the magical palace of Cupid on account of her disobedience. Fulgentius' interpretation stops at this point, and he exhorts the reader to continue the exercise on his own, making use of the method just explained. The method is the same allegorism that had been in use among Christians since Origen. It first outlines the meaning of a work very broadly, and then proceeds to make very minute parallels. Every detail must be allegorized, not just the overarching tale. Fulgentius, for his part, follows this method when interpreting the context of Virgil's various works, the Vergiliana continentia. Fulgentius's allegorical interpretation is paradigmatic of a particular way of reading Apuleius, because it influenced all succes-

sive interpretations for a long time 10 : in fact, even in more recent times, an interpreter of Apuleius' novel follows him closely11 2. Folkloric Interpretation Beginning with the nineteenth century, apart from unrelenting research into the `meaning' of the novel, as was then a common approach, there was also a tendency in respect to the problem of origins and sources to place the origins of the novel in popular tales and traditions. Friedlander, though never completely rejecting the possibility of an allegorical interpretation12, which he nonetheless considered weak and unjustified, mainly turned to certain elements proper to popular tales, which he traced in the fables and sagas of Europe, Africa, and Asia. The elements which best lend themselves to such an interpretation are: the singular beauty of the heroine; the beginning of the tale which is not historical, but fabulistic («erant in quadam civitate rex et regina»); the number three, which Hildebrand had already attributed to the symbolism of the mystery religions (see p. 93), and interpreted by Friedlander as indicative of popular origin13; the presence of an unknown lover of royal birth. These elements were compared by Friedlander with stories of every kind, especially with those with which nineteenth century German society was most familiar: the collection of the Grimm brothers.

9 As Fulgentius says, Psyche «lucernam desub modio eicit» (ibid., p. 69,19). This is not found in Apuleius; it is probably an echo of Mt 5, 15, repeated several times: «lucernam modio contegit» (p. 68,8); «lucernaque modii custodia eruta» (p. 68,10).

10 A short history of this way of interpreting the tale in Italian literature is found in Moreschini, cfr. C. MORESCHINI, .11 mito di Amore e Psiche in Apuleio, Napoli 1994 (Stone e testi, 14), pp. 26-35. 11 Cfr. K. DOWDEN, Psyche on the Rock, in «Latomus», 41 (1982), pp. 336-352. 12 Cfr. FRIEDLANDER, Das Marchen von Amor and Psyche cit., p. 17. 13 Cfr. ibid. p. 32. Friedlander observes, as is logical, that the trials imposed by Venus on Psyche are really four and not three, and thinks that the number four is explained by the fact that the final trial is an addition which is the most difficult and in which the three preceding trials culminate; and Weinreich, commenting the passage, observes that the number four should not astonish, being a formulaic expression, as in Greek Tplc Kai TETpccxl5 and in Latin terque quaterque. The explanation of Reitzenstein is different and overcomplicated: the fourth trial is supposedly due to the invention of the unknown Greek author, who retold the myth; cfr. R. REITZENSTEIN, Noch einmal Eros and Psyche, in «Archiv fir Religions Wissenschaft», 28 (1930), pp. 42-87 (repr. in Amor and Psyche, edd. Binder — Merkelbach cit., pp. 235-292, esp. p. 243, note 11).

90

91

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

3. THE TALE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE

The search for the source in popular accounts was recently carried out systematically by J. O. Swahn14 using the sum of knowledge gained by modern research into the subject. He traced out typologies in fairytales from European and African traditions, and outlined some patterns which can also be applied to Apuleius' tale. Following him, T. Mantero15 based her analysis on the results of research in folklore. She has corrected, however, the results of research in folklore by means of the new interpretations gained from modern narratology, specifically concentrating on the structure of fable. F E. Hoevels has also adopted this scheme. He has published a learned, if perhaps a bit eclectic, essay that joins research in ancient and modern European, African, and Asian folklore with investigations in psychoanalysis 16 In order to achieve this, Hoevels has excluded all religious relevance in the tale, following Helm's interpretation (which will be discussed shortly) step by step, in all of the text's details. These researches, whose relevance and importance we cannot deny, are nonetheless of little help, because they are concerned with what came before the text and before Apuleius. Their primary interest is the origin of the tale, but not the tale itself and its meaning17. We certainly do not exclude the presence of some popular elements in the tale of Cupid and Psyche, but we are convinced that the literary elaboration which Apuleius has given to his narration does not present sic et simpliciter a folk tale, or a magic tale dressed up with the embellishments of his refined art. We consider such classifications of a narrative-fabulist type to be concerned with something other than Apuleius himself, and even though contributions to the understanding of the text are certainly present in the research of these scholars, they are of secondary importance. Thus, Friedlander reaffirmed's that the image of an amorous relationship between Eros and Psyche is first clearly expressed in the poetry of Meleager (an observation already made by Jahn)

and is also depicted in many sculptures, even though not with the same attitude we know from Apuleius. Likewise the definition of Eros as «saevum atque ferum vipereumque malum» 19 might be an allusion to Sappho's: y)u3cIS7rucpov ~t.toirvov 6p7rErov 2o In any case, even if it were proven (and it never has been) that the tale is derived from a specific source (whether religious, popular, literary, philosophical, or other), nothing prevents the tale from having assumed a different meaning in the Metamorphoses. It is not without reason then that the most recent research has abandoned the problem of the origin of the tale, so as to concentrate once more on the question of its meaning, which is not derived from some archetype more or less far removed from the times, or from a different cultural environment, but from its existence in the Metamorphoses and Apuleius' own culture. In a similar manner, recent studies on the ancient novel have relegated the problem of origin to a secondary place in order to focus more specifically on the novel as such. 3. Religious Interpretation In 1842 Hildebrand had already observed21 that Venus, identified as «rerum naturae prisca parens»22 is to be equated to Isis, who is said to be «rerum naturae parens, elementorum domina, saeculorum progenies initialis»23. The myth narrated by Apuleius would then be of Platonic origin, but, and this is the novelty of Hildebrand's interpretation, it can be traced back to the mystery religions, in which Apuleius had already been initiated in his youth. The frequent use of the number three is evidence of this: three sisters, Psyche's three invocations to the gods, the three punishments inflicted by Venus, the three labors on earth24, the three

74 Cfr. J. O. SWAHN, The Tale of Cupid and Psyche, Lund 1955. 15 Cfr. T. MANTERO, Amore e Psiche. Struttura di una fiaba di magia, Genova 1973 (Pubblicazioni dell'Istituto di filologia classica e medievale, 36). 16 Cfr. F. E. HOEVELS, Marchen and Magie in den Metamorphosen des Apuleius von Madaura, Amsterdam 1979 (Studies in Classical Antiquity, 1). 17 Fair criticisms of the folkloric interpretation can be read also in Schlam, cfr. SCHLAM, The Metamorphoses ofApuleius cit. (see above, ch. 1, note 123), p. 88. 18 Cfr. FRIEDLANDER, Das Marchen cit., p. 16.

Met., IV, 33 (see below, note 31). Cfr. FRIEDLANDER, Das Marchen cit., p. 25. It is Sappho's fr. 130, cfr. Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta, edd. E. Lobel — D. Page, Oxford 1955 (repr. 1963). 21 Cfr. G. F. HILDEBRAND, Praefatio, in L. Apuleii Opera Omnia, pars I: Prolegomena et Metamorphoseon libros continens, ed. Hildebrand, Leipzig 1842, pp. xxxii-xxxvin. 22 Met., IV, 30, ed. Zimmerman, p. 92. 23 Ibid., XI, 5, p. 261,4-5. We consider this correspondence at p. 111. 24 The same detail of the three trials (or four) of Psyche would be considered (as we said) as a fundamental element of the popular character of the tale.

92

93

19 20

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

3. THE TALE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE

attempts during the descent to the netherworld to prevent her from completing her mission. Venus' threats that frighten Psyche" are symbolic of the tests which the initiate has to undergo. Apuleius refers to the mysteries of Isis, as can be deduced from the invocation of Psyche to Ceres and Juno, who are nothing other than two aspects of Isis according to what the goddess herself relates26, as does Lucius27. The tale therefore illustrates corruption, the fall of the soul and its redemption. This is connected to the last book of the Metamorphoses, which explains how one might undergo the necessary purifications. This idea that the tale originated in the mystery religions was developed by R. Reitzenstein. When he approached Apuleius in 1912, Reitzenstein had already turned his attention to ancient narrative; he had studied the Wundererzahlungen and the fabula Milesia, which he found significantly present in Apuleius' Metamorphoses. If one considers the time when he wrote, his interpretation was characterized by the search for the source of the narrative — even though in Reitzenstein's contributions one can also find several observations of a literary type, and these last are the most valid28. He traces back the nucleus of Apuleius' tale to religious experience, and more specifically to Iranian civilization. The instrument or vehicle whereby this tale had been introduced to the Roman reader of the second century AD was the fabula Milesia. After rejecting allegorical interpretation consistent with Platonism29, and exegesis of a folkloric type,

Reitzenstein maintains that the literary origin must be traced back to oriental Hellenism, in which a myth of Iranian origin had implanted and diffused itself. The myth of Eros and Psyche, in fact, found several confirmations in the funerary art and magical papyri of the Hellenistic era. In the original myth there was a hostile relationship between two divinities: Psyche, who in Apuleius' account has become a mortal woman, was a goddess or a divinized mortal. A divinity interpreted in a Greek milieu, as Psyche had been, could have only originated in oriental myth; eastern mythology alone could know of a god who could at the same time be a winged dragon (according to the interpretation, so typically religious3°, which Reitzenstein drew from the verses: «saevum atque ferum vipereumque malum / quod pinnis volitans super aethera cuncta fatigat»31) and a youth, even though the precise myth (as Reitzenstein was forced to admit) had yet to be found. Such a myth, therefore, after wide circulation in a Greek milieu, was over time divested of its most characteristic elements, so that the divinities assumed the characteristics that love poetry attributed to them. This is how an aura of religion and mystery was left behind to color the narrative. The goddess became Psyche, symbol of the human soul, just as other oriental divinities were identified with divinized Greek concepts in the first period of the Hellenistic era, such as Tyche, Providence, Justice, and Wisdom. After advancing this indubitably daring and new hypothesis, Reitzenstein next considers (and this part of his research is probably the most valid and useful) the literary instruments whereby the oriental myth, transformed in the Hellenistic world, came to reach Apuleius. He thus examined the characteristic elements of the fabula Milesia, even though he admits of not being certain that the tale of Cupid and Psyche was already present in the Latin

However, there is no reason why the number three must be typical of the mystery cults; and above all, of which mystery cults? In reality Hildebrand still had a rather vague undemanding of the topic, and in 1842 the study of ancient religions was still just beginning. Further, the preceding affirmation of Hildebrand («Psyche calls three times for the help of the gods without success») is anything but clear: what other gods does Psyche call on, besides Ceres and Juno? 25 Cfr. ibid., VI, 14, 5. 26 Cfr. ibid., XI, 5, pp. 261-262. 27 Cfr. ibid., XI, 2, pp. 258-259. 28 For example, Reitzenstein was among the first to recognize the variety of tones which characterizes the narration of Apuleius, rightly observing that «the elaborate Rococo style of Alexandrianism is always appearing in graceful movements and humorous inventions» (R. RErrzENSTEIN, Das M~rchen von Amor and Psyche bei Apuleius, Leipzig 1912, repr. in Amor and Psyche cit., pp. 87-158, p. 91). 29 The allegory, he says, is neither coherent nor acceptable, cfr. ibid.,

94

p. 100. But Reitzenstein demands something which Apuleius did not want to give: a precise meaning of the allegory, through an equally precise religious meaning that would correspond to each detail. In reality, the absence of an allegory does not mean that the tale does not have any meaning, and does not entail the necessity of tracing a mythical origin of the events. 38 This means that this definition of Eros has nothing to do with Sappho and is not a literary allusion. 31 Met., IV, 33, ed. Zimmerman, p. 95,11-12.

95

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

translation of Aristides of Miletus, namely in Sisenna (second to first centuries Bc). Reitzenstein later wrote other contributions regarding the tale of Cupid and Psyche32, which were also motivated by the necessity of opposing subsequent objections raised to his hypothesis. These objections, some of them spirited, had the effect of smoothing out some of the more rigid and selfsupporting points in his interpretation. The thesis was accepted, however, by some historians of religion, who later retraced the path to a reading with religion as the interpretative key, not only of the tale, but of the ancient novel as a whole. That is the interpretation given by K. Ker~nyi33. He substitutes the presumed Iranian origin of the tale with the Isiac one, which, in addition, he reconciles with Reitzenstein's own opinion, in the sense that the Greek elaboration of the Iranian myth took place in Alexandria and its environment. It stands to reason that Hellenized Alexandrian culture would take a local myth, of Egyptian origin. Taking as a starting point Helm, who, on a strictly literary level, had compared the adventures of Psyche with those of lo, Ker~nyi proposed an equivalence (not literary, but religious) between Io and Psyche; yet this, and the rest of Ker~nyi's proposed interpretations, are devoid of all persuasive force.These same criticisms can be directed at Merkelbach34, who considers the tale of Cupid and Psyche, like many others, a simple attestation of a religious saga35

3.

THE TALE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE

human element of the tale and precluded any sort of religious purpose, much in the same way that, taken as a whole, the Metamorphoses themselves are, according to him, devoid of any deeper significance37. It was not at all difficult for Helm to reject Reitzenstein's reconstruction and his hypothesis of a pre-existing oriental myth as source for Apuleius' tale. In fact, proofs of an oriental myth almost immediately appeared to be rare or non-existent. Helm, moreover, denied any possibility of interpreting the myth allegorically38, going so far as to affirm that not even Psyche's name had a symbolic meaning, because it simply referred to a woman; in fact, Psyche was a commonly used name39. Also summarizing some previous attempts made by lesser known scholars40, Helm systematically traced the points of contact that could be individualized on a formal level between Apuleius' tale and contemporary Greek novels, and between the Greek and Latin tradition of love poetry and several points in Apuleius' account. Many of his literary observations have been taken up again by commentators of the novel, such as Grimal or Kenney. This controversy brought criticism to an impasse: it clearly constituted the dead end to which research on sources must necessarily lead. The religious source of the tale appeared

32 Cfr. R. REITZENSTEIN, Eros and Psyche in der agyptisch-griechischen Kleinkunst, in «Sitzungs Berichte der Heidelberg. Akademie der Wissenschaft», 12 (1914), pp. 3-15 (repr. in Amor and Psyche cit., pp. 159-174); ID., Noch einmal Eros and Psyche cit., the denser and more balanced of the two contributions. 33 Cfr. KERfNYi, Die griechisch-orientalische Romanliteratur cit., pp. 191-196. 34 Cfr. MERKELBACH, Roman and Mysterium cit. (see above, ch. 2, note 14). 35 See the criticisms which someone who disagreed toto corde offered of such interpretations of Merkelbach and of Ker~nyi, not only concerning the Metamorphoses of Apuleius but all ancient novels, that is, Perry, cfr. PERRY, The Ancient Romances cit. (see above, ch. 2, note 7), p. 336, note 17. Perhaps it is not random that Perry did not dedicate any particular attention to the tale. 36 Cfr. R. HELM, Das Marchen' von Amor and Psyche, in «Neue Jahrbiicher

fair das Klassische Altertum», 33 (1914), pp. 170-209 (repr. in Amor and Psyche cit., pp. 175-234). 37 Helm arrived at this radical conclusion at the end of his career as a critic of Apuleius, and that within the «addenda et corrigenda» of the reprint of his Teubner edition of the Florida (cfr. Flor., ed. Helm cit., p. 47). He maintained that Apuleius in the first ten books (and therefore also in the tale of Cupid and Psyche) exclusively seeks the entertainment of the reader. In contrast, in the first edition of the Florida (Flor., ed. Helm, Leipzig 1910, p. x), he had admitted that Apuleius had been guided by a religious intention in the composition of the Metamorphoses. 38 Cfr. HELM, Das Marchen cit., pp. 190-193. 39 Cfr. ibid., p. 231. 40 But it is fair to quote, among so many serious studies on the meaning of this tale, the words which a rather delicate scholar of Apuleius (even if, perhaps, not much of a philologer) had pronounced already twenty years before: «replac~e au milieu des folles inventions de l'Ane d'or, l'histoire de Psyche se montre ce qu'elle est, un r~cit mil~sien comme les autres, o~~se m~lent la raillerie et la poesie, la fantaisie et le r~alisme, la galanterie et la magie (...). Pour bien comprendre les Amours de Psyche et l'intention de l'auteur Latin, it faut voir simplement le plus long et le plus joli des contes milesiens encadres dans les Metamorphoses» (P. MONCEAUX, Apule'e, Roman et magie, Paris n.d. [1884], pp. 152-153).

96

97

4. Literary Interpretation The most systematic critique of Reitzenstein's interpretation was that of R. Helm36, who was thoroughly concerned with the purely

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

3. THE TALE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE

at the bottom, distant, and very indistinct, to such an extent that Reitzenstein himself was forced to imagine at a later date a series of intermediary stages which conducted one from the Iranian religion to the Latin narrative of Apuleius. Moreover, in this series of steps, the last, which is certainly the most important since it deals directly with the author of the tale, remains obscure. Walsh has observed that'll, even if one wished to regard the Iranian origin of the tale as certain, its influence on the composition of Apuleius' novel would have been so tenuous and indirect as to be of nothing but hypothetical interest. The search for the source had deleted the author, and had reached a point similar to that of the allegorical interpretation of the preceding centuries: if allegory was meant to point to something deeper that the author wished to communicate, the novel itself, whatever its origin, was, as a literary composition, of secondary importance in every instance42. Nonetheless, also the complete exclusion of any religious meaning was unable to appear convincing, and so Helm's position had no following in the scholarship, which approached the views of Reitzenstein".

ence of a goddess Psyche, but he went on to introduce some new elements, which could respond in a plausible manner to the excessively 'flat' reading of Helm. Denying that the novel was a popular tale, he affirmed that it was a `Kunstmarche' 4a recognizing with this, at least implicitly, Apuleius' literary elaboration. Most importantly, he admitted that the myth of Cupid and Psyche could also be a Hellenistic myth or invention, not necessarily of Iranian origin45. Reitzenstein began on a path which others would also follow. E. Paratore was the first Italian scholar to enter the discussion46. In his opinion the hypothesis of the popular origin of the tale was inadmissible. He however saw an essentially religious meaning in the tale, which culminates in the conception of the `goddess Psyche'. He expressed the necessity47 of giving due attention to the literary elaboration of the tale after its oriental origin, or at least to the literary aspects brought to light by Helm. He held, then, that the two contrary theses could in some way be integrated48, even if such integration was carried out by Paratore in a rather mechanical manner. In fact, the originality of Apuleius consists in having developed the already predominant erotic-Alexandrian element; in having introduced Milesianism, and in having given a popular touch to the tale; it consists above all in a new manner of blending the different motifs, in the way in which the short tale is placed in the novel and in the symbolic-allegorical function which is attributed to it, according to the old distinction between form and content and the supposed impossibility that a Latin writer should have invented something.

5. Attempts at Reconciliation Moreover, even though he did not respond directly to the criticisms of Helm and repeated his convictions in his later contributions, Reitzenstein nevertheless partially modified what he had proposed in an excessively axiomatic manner, and not proved, in 1912. He reconfirmed his hypothesis of the exist-

6. The Moral Interpretation

Cfr. WALSH, The Roman Novel cit., p. 195. 42 On the contrary, one can repeat here the objection which Schlam advances concerning the hypothesis of Jahn: «the tale of Apuleius has created, not preserved, a myth of Cupid and Psyche» (cfr. SCHLAM, The Metamorphoses of Apuleius cit., p. 89). 43 I am not only referring to the interpretation of Paratore, which, although it holds in due consideration Helm's study, is still fairly `dated' (it dates back to 1942), but also to the observations of Grimal who, though he does not entirely accept the hypothesis of Reitzenstein, nevertheless believes that one must hypothesize the existence of a myth underlying the tale of Cupid and Psyche, cfr. P. GRIMAL, Introduction, in Apulei Metamorphoseis IV,28-1/1,24 (Le conte d'Amour et Psyche), ed. P. Grimal, Paris 1963 (Erasme, collection des textes latins comment~s, 9).

44 Cfr. REITZENSTEIN, Noch Einmal cit., p. 273. 45 Cfr. ibid., pp. 252-253. 46 Cfr. PARATORE, La novella in Apuleio cit., pp. 332-336. 47 A necessity repeated later by Walsh, cfr. WALSH, The Roman Novel cit., p. 223. 48 Cfr. PARATORE, La novella in Apuleio cit., p. 334, note 30.

98

99

41

The exclusion of religious meaning is suggested by other scholars, but not from a literary perspective. J. L. Penwill, in an interest-

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

3. THE TALE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE

ing new essay49, opposes many of the interpretations advanced so far, because he holds that the tale neither symbolizes nor prepares for the meaning of the Metamorphoses, but rather constitutes an obstacle, in particular to the eleventh book, in which such a meaning is both found and openly proclaimed. Penwill first of all rejects (and is without doubt right in doing so) the interpretation which Tatum had proposed of Voluptas, the daughter born from Cupid and Psyche at the end of their adventures50 . According to Tatum, the birth of Voluptas signifies the discovery, on the part of the soul, of the spiritual joy that arises when one is liberated from blind Fortune. Penwill observes, however, the only example of Voluptas used in a mystical sense is the following: «inexplicabili voluptate simulacri divini perfruebar»51, while in all the other passages of the novel voluptas signifies sensual, physical pleasure. Further, coming to the end of a tale in which Venus and Cupid are important, voluptas probably signifies the type of pleasure which is procured by them and which, I would add, is the most common meaning of the word 52. According to Penwill, therefore, the tale is a myth that explains how voluptas entered into the world (i.e. through the soul's slavery to sexual desire), and therefore illustrates the present state of the human being who has not been regenerated. Consequently, far from anticipating the conclusion and the most profound meaning of the Metamorphoses, the tale is opposed to both: he who desires salvation must break the union between Psyche and Cupid, i.e. one's own soul and physical desire; thus, Lucius will obtain immortality thanks to the «tenaces castimoniae» prescribed by Isis' religion 53. The mortal condition of Psyche (i.e., of the soul), in a world dominated by Jove, i.e. by the gods which

people believe in, consists in remaining joined to Cupid; thus, her vicissitudes do not represent a redemption, but a fall, and the fate of Psyche is the destiny of the soul that subjects itself to a false religion. In fact, there is no parallel between the traditional Olympic gods who grant immortality to Psyche, and the goddess Isis, who grants salvation to Lucius. The true parallels to the Olympic gods are the depraved priests of the Syrian goddess in the eighth book, as well as magic, which binds the soul to the necessity of satisfying sexual desire. Jove and the other gods are not the gods of Plato's Phaedrus that lead the soul to the contemplation of the most elevated realities. This interpretation of Penwill clearly shows that a rigorously philosophical and symbolic reading can lead to a diametrically opposite result as well. The negative significance attributed to the Olympic gods is certainly strong: yet their weakness does not imply, as Penwill believes, a conception of a low and vulgar religion that Apuleius wishes to contrast to the cult of Isis. It rather indicates the humanization and the vulgarization to which the gods were subjected in Menippean satire, which constitute a stage in the history of literature rather than the history of ancient religion. Thus, Penwill's condemnation of Cupid on the moral level, as pure desire of pleasure, springs from the fact that he does not wish to take into account the literary aspects of this divinity. Rambaux also believes that the tale prepares the conversion to Isis by means of criticizing the traditional religion54: not only Jove, but also — if not more so — Ceres and Juno do not have the strength to oppose Venus, goddess of evil and symbol of Fortune. The Olympic religion, therefore, is incapable of saving human beings. Rambaux too assigns too much importance to Apuleian satire. That said, Rambaux proposes a more humble purpose of the tale: the exaltation of 'middle' love, which Apuleius speaks of elsewhere55. This is the love

49 Cfr. PENW1LL, Slavish Pleasures cit. (see above, ch. 2, note 28), pp. 52 and 59. 5° Cfr. TATUM, The Tales in Apuleius cit. (see above, ch. 2, note 23), pp. 181-182. 51 Met., XI, 24. 52 Tatum refers to Cicero (cfr. CICERo, De finibus, II, 3, 8-9, ed. Moreschini cit., pp. 36-37) for the meaning of voluptas as pure, philosophical pleasure. I doubt that the ancient reader, who has not read Tatum, would think of such a rare meaning rather than the common use of the term for physical pleasure. 53 Cfr. Met., XI, 6, 7, ed. Zimmerman, p. 262.

54 Cfr. C. RAMBAUX, Trois analyses de l'amour, Paris 1985 (Collection d'~tudes anciennes), pp. 209-210. 55 More precisely in Apuleius, cfr. Plat., II, 14, 240, ed. Moreschini cit., p. 126,19-22: «Est amoris tertia species, quam diximus mediam, divini atque terreni proximitate collectus nexuque et consortio parili copulatus, et ut ration propinquus est divinus ille, ita terrenus ille cupidity iunctus est et voluptati». The importance of this species of love, which is intermediate between divine

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

3. THE TALE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE

of spouses, which Plutarch, whose works Apuleius was quite familiar with, described in his Erotikos. The tale, then, simply proposes a path to happiness, which for Psyche is different than that of Lucius, whose happiness is beyond the love of spouses and consists in the self-giving to the supreme divinity. Thus, for Rambaux just as for Penwill, the tale does not connect with the meaning of the Metamorphoses, though its message is only different, not contrary. But if we accept such a presupposition, we must admit that the tale has no symbolic meaning, but is simply one within the Metamorphoses like many others, no different from that of Plotina, narrated in the Metamorphoses 56, which exalts conjugal love as well. Nor do we need to resort to Apuleius' De Platone et eius dogmate in order to find a justification for the myth of Eros and Psyche. Thus, the tale loses its function and importance in the Metamorphoses, in which it has been placed since the time of Fulgentius.

In the romantic age already, Hildebrand, summarizing the allegorical interpretation, had given it a new direction 57. His edition was carried out with antiquated criteria, even for his time: he did not subject the text of Apuleius to a critical revision, but followed pre-Lachmann methods, citing a hodgepodge of readings of varying value and provenience; analogously, the commentary was made cum notis variorum. It is not surprising, then, that Hildebrand, although he was writing in the same years in which studies on folklore were increasing, still proposed an `allegorical' type of interpretation — except that he substituted Platonic allegory for generically `Christian' allegory, thus unexpectedly paving the way for current interpretations. He believed that the myth of Cupid and Psyche was of Greek origin, but its exposition and narration were the work of Apuleius, as is shown by the allu-

sion to the Roman world: the Metae Martiae58 or the Lex Iulia59 The two sisters of Psyche symbolize the base, sensual pleasures, which are portrayed as beautiful and attractive on the outside; thus, as they are strictly bound to the soul, they dwell together with Psyche. Because of their beauty, the sisters are sought as spouses by many, but such human beings are of the common sort, worthy of their baseness. Psyche, on the contrary, is the pure and uncorrupted soul, which has taken its origin from the supreme god, according to the explanation of Plato. Apuleius does not determine whether Venus is celestial or earthly, according to the distinction which goes back to Plato's Symposium, even if her exclamation: «en rerum naturae prisca parens, en elementorum origo initialis, en orbis totius alma Venus» 6° suggests a celestial Venus. Therefore, Venus symbolizes fate, which rules the lives of human beings. Cupid indicates celestial and divine love that, so to speak, is innate in the pure and chaste soul and unites the spirit, and thus is the spouse of Psyche — and yet it is not immune from certain aspects of earthly love. Venus, i.e. fate, is envious of the happy innocence and holiness of Psyche, so she sends base pleasures and envy, the sisters of Psyche, that seek to corrupt the happy state of the chaste soul. Allured by their deceptions, Psyche abandons the right path and violates chaste Cupid, who then abandons her. Then Psyche, having been given as prey to the most atrocious evils and fallen into extreme misery, seeks to regain friendship with the divinity. At the end of her wanderings, thanks to the help of Cupid, she is able to be reunited with her husband, i.e. she is able to regain her former state of happiness and integrity, having been carried to heaven. This interpretation is quite similar to the ancient, allegorical one of Fulgentius. Yet some of Hildebrand's points are valid, and were taken up again by later scholars, even if they did not always recognize his merits: the tale, Hildebrand asserts, is connected to the eleventh book; it is necessary to consider Apuleius' Platonism and Isiac initiation globally; the evident symbolism of some

love and purely physical, sexual love, would be emphasized by the Aristotelian school, cfr. J. BEAUJEU, Commentaire, in APULEIUS, Opuscules philosophiques. Fragments, ed. J. Beaujeu, Paris 1973 (CUF S~rie latine, 211), p. 296. ss Cfr. Met., VII, 6-7, ed. Zimmerman, p. 151. 57 Cfr. HILDEBRAND, Praefatio cit., pp. xxxii-xxxvIII.

58 Cfr. Met., VI, 8, 2. Better: Metae Murciae. They are the metae of the Circus Maximus, situated near the temple of the goddess Murcia, a Roman goddess connected with Venus Murtea. 59 Cfr. ibid., VI, 22, 4. b0 Ibid., IV, 30, 1, ed. Zimmerman, p. 92.

102

103

7. The Platonic Interpretation

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

3. THE TALE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE

characters, such as Voluptas, Tristities, and Sollicitudo, confirms the allegorical reading. The hypothesis that Platonism was the origin of the tale was proposed with much more balance, as well as interest for literature and arts which Hildebrand lacked, by 0. Jahn61. He extended his research to Greek literature and to the sculpture of Apuleius' time. The relationship between Cupid and Psyche presupposes a philosophical and religious conception of the soul accepted by educated readers. The doctrine of the soul had been formulated for the first time by Plato, but it can be found in neither Plato nor the Platonists in the same form as in Apuleius. The love between Cupid and Psyche (i.e. the soul) is an invention of the Hellenistic age, and can be found in Meleager, in Posidippus, and in Polystratus62. This shows that Apuleius did not invent the tale, but had found it in contemporary works of art; the variety of artistic testimonies (literary epigrams, gems, paintings) means that a relationship between Cupid and Psyche was sometimes understood in a serious manner, and sometimes humorously. The tale of Cupid and Psyche, then, is not a saga, but a myth constructed in a Platonic manner, which was widespread in learned circles of the Hellenistic and Roman age. Recently, Schlam has rightly objected that none of the artistic testimonies can be convincingly interpreted as attempts to illustrate a tale relative to the mythical figures: «The personifications are `mythical' in so far as they reflect ancient ideas relative to the divinity»63. It is interesting to note that, with the rise and increase of the study of narrative, there has been a return to the Platonic interpretation; a consequence, perhaps, of the fact that, for good reasons, scholarship has been attempting to overcome the gap, which until then had been silently accepted, between Apuleius' literary works and his philosophical ones. Interest in research-

ing the sources has diminished or extinguished; attention now returns to the tale and its symbolism. Likewise, the complete abandonment of Helm's purely literary proposal is indicative of the interests of recent years. The tale has been considered a myth of the Platonic type, invented by Apuleius as a philosophus Platonicus, who took as his model the well-known Platonic myth of the soul in the Phaedrus64. Thus, there has been a return to symbolic interpretation and `allegory' after the manner of the ancients. But too often there is an attempt to see in every detail of the tale a more profound meaning. Still, when they arrive at the heart of the interpretation, in order to indicate the symbolic meaning of the tale of Psyche, the very scholars who are convinced of finding the origin of the myth in the Phaedrus bring forth no convincing demonstration65. The trials and the wanderings of Psyche are considered to be the mythical fantastic projection of the doctrine of the transmigration of souls, explained by Plato66, or of the pilgrimage (sic) of the soul to the celestial world67. This is all fantastic and arbitrary. The curiositas that Psyche is guilty of, and the trials which she must confront as a consequence, have not the least similarity with the myth in the Phaedrus. In Plato the soul `falls' from its original beatitude and `loses its wings' — not for being curious or having seen what it should not have, as in the Apuleian tale, but, on the contrary, for not having seen what it should have, namely the `plain of truth' (Phaedrus 248b) and the celestial realities that appear during its journey of the cycle, following the gods. Through this one acquires the beatitude that derives from the contemplation of that which truly is. The journey of the souls into the celestial world, described by Plato, is not a series of wander-

61 Cfr. O. JAHN, Ueber einige auf Eros and Psyche bez~gliche Kunstwerke, in «Sitzungsberichte der s~chslichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig», 3 (1851), pp. 153-179. 62 CE Anthologia Palatina, V, 57 and 179; XII, 80 and 132; XII, 98 and 91, in Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina cum Planudeis et appendice nova, 3 vols., edd. F. Diibner et Al., Paris 1864-1890, I, pp. 70 and 90; II, pp. 405-406 and 413, pp. 409 and 407. 63 SCHLAM, The Metamorphoses of Apuleius cit., p. 89..

64 I restate here some considerations contained in another contribution of mine, cfr. C. MORESCHINI, Esegesi efilologia del Fedro nella tarda antichitd, in Understanding the Phaedrus. Proceedings of the II Symposium Platonicum, ed. L. Rossetti, Sankt Augustin 1992 (International Plato studies, 1), pp. 191-205. 65 Among the Platonizing interpretations in recent years I mention only those that have some degree of plausibility. 66 See Phaedr. 248c-249c; cfr. SCHLAM, Platonica in the Metamorphoses of Apuleius cit., pp. 477-480; ID., The Metamorphoses of Apuleius cit., pp. 95-98. 67 Cfr. TH. HAcc, The Novel in Antiquity, Oxford — New York 1983, p. 183; N. HOLZBERG, Der antike Roman, Munchen — Zurich 1986 (Artemis Einfiihrungen, 25), p. 97.

104

105

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

3. THE TALE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE

ings, as are those of Psyche. In brief, the myth of the Phaedrus looks to the pre-earthly, whereas the myth of Psyche takes place on earth and has its conclusion in the afterlife. The Phaedrus states the very opposite of what we read in Apuleius 68. Tatum, in a synthesis on the figure and work of Apuleius that is sometimes careful, sometimes questionable, also returns to Plato and interprets the fault of Psyche as the fall of the soul from the celestial world69; whereas her redemption due to the intervention of Cupid and entrance into the symposium of the gods depends on Plato's Symposium70, which exhorts the soul to extend itself to its most elevated purpose, the knowledge of the divine — and the path to this end is love. The influence of the Phaedrus is also suggested by Grimal, who, in an eclectic manner, unites it with Apuleius' experience with magic: since magic uses incantations and potions aimed at the human soul, Psyche can signify the soul of the beloved woman71. Apuleius superimposed Platonic themes taken from the Phaedrus upon the theme of magic. Grimal, who wrote at a time when the interpretations of the period between 1910 and 1940 were still near, takes into consideration Reitzenstein's ideas, and the supposed Iranian origin of the myth. Magic and Platonism cannot go together, however. If the Apologia proposes a modus vivendi, thanks to the distinction between magic and theurgy, in the Metamorphoses magic has a negative function. Walsh also insists on the Platonic element of the tale. Apuleius' narrative is created by the insertion of a Platonic myth into a popular tale. In the Hellenistic period, there already existed a tale of love between Cupid and Psyche, inspired by Plato' Phaedrus — yet Walsh does not provide convincing proofs of this72. Still, he rightly eliminates the false and artificial antitheses between the `serious' interpretation and the `pleasure in telling stories', which characterize the Metamorphoses; finally, he assigns to Apuleius his role, considering him author of the tale. Since

the hypothesis of an oriental origin has been shown to be false, Walsh explains that, even if in the Hellenistic and Roman periods representations (sculptures, sarcophagi, etc.) exist of the myth of Cupid and Psyche, they never represent the two characters in situations analogous to those in which Apuleius placed them. It is more consonant with the usual method of the writer to think that he himself attempted to make a synthesis of the popular tale with the Hellenistic theme of Cupid and Psyche73. A Platonic interpretation has been advanced by Kenney as well74: on the basis of an unconvincing study by Schlam 75, he affirms that the nature of Eros is two-fold, as was said by Plato76, and is taken up again by Apuleius77. The nature of Venus is also two-fold: the one celestial, source of life, propagating human beings and animals; the other goddess of pleasure and passion. Apuleius, therefore, Took from Plato the doctrine of the two Venuses and two Cupids, and adapted it to his tale. Kenney carries out all his research quite rigorously on the basis of this dualism, comparing the role which is suitable to one Cupid or to the other, to one or the other Venus. He concludes that, following Plato, Apuleius resolves certain contradictions in the conduct of Venus and Cupid that were presented in the literary tradition as paradoxes, either without an attempt being made to resolve them (e.g. Homer), or else while remaining silent about them (e.g. Virgil) 78. This Platonic interpretation relies, in my opinion, upon an artificial schematization: Apuleius' conduct toward the Platonism of Cupid and Psyche pivots on what might be called a chiastic structure: that is, the action is motivated by the opposing forces of Venus II (exclusively) and Amor I (almost exclusively) 79 . 73

Restated by Graverini, cfr. GRAVERINI, Le Metamorfosi cit., pp. 126 and 129. 69 Cfr. TATUM, Apuleius and the Golden Ass cit., pp. 57-58 (about Phaedr. 248cd). 70 Cfr. Symp. 210e. 7 ' Cfr. GRIMAL, Introduction cit., pp. 11-19. 72 Cfr. WALSH, The Roman Novel cit., pp. 195 and 220-221.

Cfr. ibid., pp. 195 and 197. Cfr. E. J. KENNEY, Psyche and Her Mysterious Husband, in Antonine Literature, ed. D. A. Russell, Oxford 1990, pp. 175-198; ID., Introduction, in Apuleius, Cupid & Psyche, ed. E. J. Kenney, Cambridge 1990. 7s Cfr. SCHLAM, Platonica in the Metamorphoses cit. 76 Cfr. Symp. 180d. 77 Cfr. Apol., 12, ed. Helm, p. 13 (see above, p. 43). 78 Cfr. KENNEY, Psyche and Her Mysterious Husband cit., p. 178. 79 My doubts about this schematization are confirmed by Harrison, who considers that Kenney uses his method «perhaps over-ingeniously at times» (HARRISON, Apuleius cit., p. 225, note 80).

106

107

68

74

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

3. THE TALE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE

The tendency to interpret from a Platonist perspective has been carried forward in recent years. Dowden justifies it so: if one does not accept the Platonic interpretation, «paradoxically it would be necessary to suppose that Apuleius, an expert in Platonic discourse and a person initiated in religions, had found this tale in some more or less contemporary author and used only its folksy shell, emptying out its religious-philosophical contents» 80. In a former paper" he asserts that Cupid is the passion that pushes human beings toward god, as we can see from his name and from the feelings which Psyche has towards him. He is a personal demon, and specifically the demon of Psyche. If we consider the human being, who is divided between Cupid, Psyche, and her wicked sisters — Cupid, considered as internal to man, is the Nous, i.e. the most important faculty that we can arrive at with mature age. Dowden later amplified his study, giving it more historical foundations. The pattern of the myth of the fall was not limited to Apuleius, he says, but was well-known in Rome around 150 AD, where Apuleius probably was82. It in fact has a parallel in the myth of Sophia taught by the Valentinians, who may have been, among all the Christians, the only ones that Apuleius would have been able to accept 83. If Cupid and Psyche are normally purely decorative figures, in Apuleius they have a reality that is richer in significance. For Graverini as well, the description of Psyche, who, seeing Cupid fly away, clings to his leg until, exhausted, she falls to the soil", is enough to connect the Apuleian tale to the Platonic myth about the fall of the soul (Phaedr. 248a ff.), and the function of Eros, who can cause the wings to grow again and conduct her to the celestial realm85. He nevertheless balances out this excessive Platonism with more correct observations: this parallelism cannot be pushed to the most minute details86.

8. Platonism in the Tale As a result of the reservations which I have advanced, it seems opportune to reconsider the Platonism of the tale of Cupid and Psyche, as we did for the Platonism of the Metamorphoses, as the tale of a philosophus Platonicus who contemporarily aims at the amusement of the readers: therefore we have to take into account two levels of reading87. Amidst the proliferation of blindly Platonic papers, the interpretation I find more convincing is that put forward by M. J. Edwards. Edwards reconstructs — something no one had hitherto done — the philosophical and religious culture of Apuleius' times by gathering testimonies not only from authors close to Apuleius, such as Plutarch, but singjling out «Gnostic and Valentinian Parallels». There was an «evolution of Platonic Myth that conflates the Phaedrus with the Symposium» — an example being Plotinus88. Besides, Edwards himself admits that «we must not leap too rapidly from parallel to sources, from inherited materials to generic affiliation (...) Apuleius, however, was not a Gnostic (...). Such rigid schemes deny to Apuleius his facility in invention, combination and the avoidance of expected commonplaces. We should not forget how often he sets out to surprise his readers»89. Therefore, not every detail of the fantastic tale of Apuleius can be made to correspond to the philosophical scheme of the Phaedrus. Following that path, Ch. 0. Tommasi compares the tale to a version of the story preserved in a Gnostic text from the Nag Hammadi Library90, as well as to the Valentinian myth

Cupid & Psyche cit., p. 9. Cfr. ID., Psyche on the Rock cit. 82 But it is likely that the Metamorphoses are later than the De magia, which was written around 158. See p. 232. 83 Cfr. ID., Cupid & Psyche cit., pp. 3-11 and 22. 84 Cfr. Met., V, 24, 1. 85 Cfr. GRAVERINI, Le Metamorfosi cit., p. 126. 8s Cfr. ibid., p. 131.

87 On the presence and interaction of religious and philosophical interests in Apuleius' personality, see, e.g., Moreschini (cfr. MORESCHINI, Apuleio e it platonismo cit.) and Hijmans (although I do not understand how Hijmans says that I introduce a clear distinction between the two elements): cfr. HIJMANs, Apuleius, Philosophus cit. (see above, ch. 1, note 56), p. 397, note 7. 88 Cfr. PLOTINUS, Enneades, III, 5, 9 and VI, 9, 9 (mentioned above, note 2). 89 M. J. EDWARDS, The Tale of Cupid and Psyche, in «Zeitschrift fiir Papyrologie and Epigrafik», 94 (1992), pp. 77-94, p. 93. Edwards was preceded by Dowden, cfr. DOWDEN, Psyche on the Rock cit. 90 See NHC II, 5, 'On the origins of the world' (or `Untitled treatise'); cfr. Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, Together with XIII, 2*, Brit. Lib. Or. 4926(1), and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655, 2 vols., edd. B. Layton et Al., Leiden 1989 (Nag Hammadi Studies, The Coptic Gnostic Library, 20), II, pp. 11-134.

108

109

8° DOWDEN, 81

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

3. THE TALE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE

of the fallen Sophia and to the interpretation of Psyche and Eros developed by Plotinus91. The author reassesses the vexata quaestio of Platonic inspiration and allegorical significance in Apuleius, by showing that Platonism had undergone many significant changes during the second century AD, as for example the incorporation of numerous religious and mysteriosophical elements. In addition, following John Penwill's pessimistic interpretation of the tale, she is inclined to suggest that Apuleius and the anonymous Gnostic author both derived their story from a Platonic source, which combined the famous `myths' of the fallen soul in the Phaedrus and that of Eros in the Symposium, though conferring a negative nuance to these passages92. That the tale may cover also a deeper religious meaning seems testified by the fact that a small marble relief depicting the Tale of Cupid and Psyche adorns the southern wall of the Mithreum in Santa Maria CapuaVetere93. According to interpreters it dates back to the second century AD, namely to an early stage of the cult and of the building: therefore it has been suggested that the Capuan Amor-Psyche relief represents a conscious and intentional re-representation of a classical mythic theme in a Mithraic context and that some Mithraists could interpret the story of Cupid and Psyche as an initiatory tale reflecting their own gradual initiation94. This detail casts further light on the supposed links between Apuleius and the mysteries of Mithras95

As we said before, the Platonism of the Metamorphoses is not as explicit and open as many have thought, and above all a correspondence cannot be established in detail between Apuleius and Plato. If the most obvious point of contact between the experiences of Psyche and that of Lucius resides in the fact that both owe the origin of their misadventures to their curiosity 96, this curiosity has nothing to do with the `seeing' of the Ideas in the hyper-Uranian world, discussed in the Platonic Phaedrus: it pushes Lucius, despite repeated warnings, to transgress his human limits in the attempt to reach, via magic, a supra-terrestrial dimension. Magic, in turn, if presented in the first three books of the Metamorphoses as a reality simultaneously attractive and frightening (think of the stories of Socrates and Thelyphron), is finally condemned inasmuch as it turns out to be a purely evil means, aimed at controlling cosmic reality, on which Isis, rerum naturae parens and elementorum progenies initialis97, exercises her powers. Thus the curiosity to experience magic and to violate the order of nature and of the universe will be sacrilegious. The result of the curiosity and of the culpable interest in magic is the fall of Lucius into an animalistic condition98. The guilt of Psyche is the same: the first time, when, despite the warnings, she, a mortal woman, contemplates Cupid, who is a god 99; the second time, when, despite the warning of the talking tower, she opens the pyx in which beauty is contained, that had been given to her by Proserpina to carry to Venus1°°. If the curiosity

91 Cfr. PLOTINUS, Enneades, VI, 9, 9 cit. 92 Cfr. C. O. TOMMASI MORESCHINI, Gnostic Variations on the Tale of Cupid and Psyche, in Intende lector — echoes of myth, religion and ritual in the Ancient Novel, edd. M. Futre Pineiro et Al., Berlin 2013 (MythosEikonPoiesis, 6), pp. 123-144. 93 Cfr. Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religions Mithriacae, 2 vols., ed. M. J. Vermaseren, Den Haag 1956-1960 (CIMRM), I, nr. 186. 94 Cfr. L. H. MARTIN, The Amor and Psyche Relief in the Mithraeum of Capua Vetere: An Exceptional Case of Graeco-Roman Syncretism or an Ordinary Instance of Human Cognition?, in Mystic Cults of Magna Graecia I, edd. P. A. Johnston — G. Casadio, Austin (TX) 2009, pp. 277-289. It is worth remembering the invocation to Psyche in the magical papyrus of the so-called `Mithrasliturgy', a text which, however, is not strictly speaking purely Mithraic, but witnesses the syncretistic attitude of late antique mentality. 95 Coarelli (cfr. F. COARELLI, Apuleio a Ostia?, in «Dialoghi di Archeologia», 7 (1989), pp. 27-42) and Beck (cfr. R. BECK, Apuleius the Novelist, Apuleius the Ostian Householder and the Mithraeum of the Seven Spheres: Further Explorations of an Hypothesis of Filippo Coarelli, in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in honour of Peter Richardson, edd. S. G. Wilson — M. Desjardins, Waterloo 2000, pp. 551-567) suggest that the Apuleius recorded as the owner of a house in Ostia near the Mithraeum of the seven spheres is one and the same

110

as the author of the Metamorphoses. If this is the case, Apuleius might have been involved in the Mithraic mysteries (cfr. Martin, The Amor and Psyche Relief cit., p. 281). Although this is not certain, the problem (presumed by Winkler) that the name Mithras could not fit a priest of Isis is competently solved by Griffiths, who, following Reitzenstein (Hellenistische Mysterienreligionen, Leipzig 1927, p. 228), asserts that «we have here a syncretistic borrowing in that the High Priest is equated with Mithras as the guide of souls» (J. G. Griffiths, The Isis-Book cit., p. 282). 96 Aware of omitting certain names, let us cite a very short list of works on this subject: cfr. MORESCHINI, Apuleio e it platonismo cit., pp. 43-48 (and the bibliography indicated there); WALSH, The Roman Novel cit., p. 192; TATUM, Apuleius and the Golden Ass cit., pp. 50-51; RAMEAUX, Trois analyses cit., p. 207; GIANOTTI, Romanzo e ideologia cit., pp. 36-37; KENNEY, Introduction cit., pp. 14-15. 97 Isis defines herself in this way in Metamorphoses XI, 5 (see above, note 23). 98 See the words of the priest of Isis, addressed to Lucius after he has returned to his human form (cfr. Met., XI, 15). 99 Cfr. ibid., V, 6; V, 19 and V, 23. loo Cfr. ibid., VI, 19; 20; 21.

111

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

3. THE TALE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE

of Lucius is sacrilega, that of Psyche is united to simplicitas (and from this difference derives the mostly positive characterization of Psyche)101 In any case, she is constrained to face trials which lead her to the servile condition, becoming the slave of Venus. Despite all this, at the end of their adventures both will obtain salvation, which consists in union with the divinity. The experience of Lucius is certainly more complex, and the final salvation also involves mystic initiation, divine service, earthly consolation and the promise of joy in the future:

negative — attitude; curiosity, as is known from a famous passage of the Metamorphoses (based, albeit ironically, on the contrast between the curiosity of Lucius-ass and that of the clever Odysseus), nevertheless always has a partially positive function". Human beings, finally, are naturally drawn to wanting to investigate that which surrounds them, which is so often wrapped in obscurity, and Lucius describes himself as wanting to know everything, or at least as many things as possible". Thus, not everything in curiosity is negative; it also has something valuable, and Lucius, despite his errors, deserves salvation. For this reason, the crowd present at the ceremony in honor of Isis, after having listened to the words of the priest who explained to Lucius the meaning of his transformation into an ass and of the salvation performed by the generosity of the goddess, observes: «felix Hercules et ter beatus, qui vitae scilicet'praecedentis innocentia fideque meruerit tam praeclarum de caelo patrocinium, ut renatus quodam modo statim sacrorum obsequio desponderetur»108. Isis' adepts do not know what happened to Lucius, but, seeing that he has been transformed into a man, suppose that such a miracle could only happen thanks to Lucius' innocentia fidesque. But what is the meaning of the trials and experiences imposed by Venus on Psyche, those trials which have made some entertain the idea of a reproduction, on Apuleius' part, of the myth of the Phaedrus? Tatum correctly observes that these are completely lacking in meaning and have no purpose". None of what Psyche does can placate Venus, because she cannot be propitiated, just as her equivalent, fortune, cannot be changed. Even the tragic events of books VIII-X do not have any pedagogical function for Lucius: and it is just that they do not, if Isis should be the unique aid. No preparation, no caution can serve to defend a human being from the whim of Fortune. For this reason Psyche needs

Quod si sedulis obsequiis et religiosis ministeriis et tenacibus castimoniis numen nostrum promerueris, scies ultra statuta fato tuo spatia vitam quoque tibi prorogare mihi tantum licere 102 The salvation of Psyche is, on the other hand, appropriate to her simplicitas and to her characterization, and for her the union with a loved one and the birth of a mortal girl, Voluptas, are sufficient". Lucius is put on guard by the sensible Byrrhena, lest he may trust his landlady, the witch Pamphile 104; furthermore, the two stories which are told to Lucius, the one of Meroe and the other of Thelyphron, must serve as a forewarning, and make him understand how dangerous magic is. The ekphrasis of Actaeon, punished for his curiosity105 and transformed into a stag, like Lucius will later be transformed into an ass, has the same function. Despite all this, neither Psyche nor Lucius succeeds in understanding the effective reality of the danger which menaces them and, above all, they do not grasp the trap that curiosity represents for them (for all human beings). Both remain in their imprudence and persist in their culpable — even if not completely 101 The positivity of simplicitas, which reduces the condemnable aspect of curiosity, has been underlined by Tatum and Rambaux, cfr. TATUM, The Tales in Apuleius cit., p. 512; RAMBAUX, Trois analyses cit., pp. 208-209. This is a 'naivety' in a good sense. 102 Met., XI, 5, ed. Zimmerman, p. 262. 103 The name is obviously symbolic, as many others of the tale: Sobrietas (cfr. ibid., V, 30), Consuetudo (VI, 8), Sollicitudo (VI, 9), Tristities (VI, 9); but the clearly transparent symbolism is not such as to justify particular interpretations (for recent exegesis of Voluptas see above, notes 51 and 52). 104 Cfr. ibid., II, 5, 2, p. 25. 105 Cfr. ibid., II, 4, pp. 24-25.

106 Cfr. ibid., IX, 13. I repeat here what I proposed elsewhere, cfr. MOREscHlNl, Apuleio e it platonismo cit., pp. 47-50. But `partially', as I said, because the negative aspect of curiositas has been well established by De Filippo, as we saw earlier (pp. 80-82). 107 Cfr. Met., I, 2. 108 Ibid., XI, 16. 109 Cfr. TATUM, The Tales in Apuleius cit., and KENNEY, Introduction cit., p. 14.

112

113

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

to be saved, just like Lucius. Both will obtain salvation exclusively thanks to the unexpected action of the divinity, of Isis or Cupid110 Cupid introduces Psyche into Olympus, just as the priest of Isis will say to Lucius, turned back into a man: «in tutelam iam receptus es Fortunae, sed videntis, quae suae lucis splendore ceteros etiam deos illuminat»111 Therefore, human beings are never able to oppose the power of fortune, and their decisions always turn out in a way opposed to what they foresaw. The only possibility of fleeing from the domination of fortune and irrationality, which dominate this world, is the gratuitous intervention of the divinity 112. That which, in the novel, is shown by the message of religious character, is only symbolized and foretold (mise en abime) by the tale of Cupid and Psyche, whose plot, as it is generally admitted, is parallel to that of Lucius 113 — better yet, it provides its symbolic interpretation in advance for the judicious reader: the soul must follow a difficult path through the material world, dominated by irrationality, to obtain salvation. Kenney rightly114 observes that this differs only in appearance from the Isiac experience presented in the last book: Apuleius employs a different `style of imagery' to express the same idea, that is, the progress of the soul towards a mystic union. Through literary elaboration, the tale thus reaches a religious and philosophical meaning — but this meaning should not be too strictly understood, even if Platonism is at its base. I would like to cite Kenney's. conclusion in its entirety, also because, for certain aspects, it questions his rigorous dualism:

3. THE TALE OF CUPID AND PSYCHE

proportion of utile and dulce. Allegory is not easy to manage well: to be effective it must neither dominate the narrative nor be submerged in it. This rule, as I account it, Apuleius respects, and does so with great adroitness115. This rule is valid not only for the novel, but for the Metamorphoses in their entirety. Both the tale and the novel have an ambiguous literary status that encourages a complex reading which includes both attitudes without considering them as separate and irreconcilable modes of reading. As Graverini observes1t6, the many and often contradictory religious-mystery and Platonic interpretations are defensible in a measure that is in an inverse relationship to level of detail that they propose; on the other hand, to simply deny any possibility of symbolic or allegorical interpretation, as R. Helm did in reaction to the excesses of the preceding criticism, appears unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons 117

Cfr. Met., VI, 22. Ibid., XI, 15. 112 We quoted above (p. 67) Gianotti's opinion: «Apuleius wished to present a program with a definite Platonic orientation, the passage from the chaos of the sensible world to a gratifying knowledge of the divine». 113 This relationship has been denied, however, by Penwill, who on the other hand proposes a radical opposition between the short tale and the last book of the Metamorphoses, in which the meaning of the novel is contained, cfr. PENWILL, Slavish Pleasures cit. 114 Cfr. KENNEY, Introduction cit., p. 12, note 53.

11s Ibid., p. 178. Cfr. GRAVERINI, Le Metamorfosi cit., p. 125. 117 Like we speak of two levels of reading of the Metamorphoses, Graverini speaks of a `satirical' reading, even if it «does not at all lead to an interpretation of the novel as satire of religious credulity» (ibid., p. 105). `Satirical' thus indicates a middle tone that contains both comical and serious content (cfr. ibid., pp. 106-119); the term reflects the serious intentions of Horace's satire, as well as other Latin literary texts (cfr. ibid., pp. 125-129). One should not forget that Apuleius calls the tale of Cupid and Psyche an anilis fabula, also stating that the old lady who told it to him was temulenta et delira, cfr. Met., VI, 25, ed. Zimmerman, p. 139. Underscoring the presence of both serious and comical aspects does not entail re-proposing Winkler's interpretation, which required a choice from the reader of one reading or the other. One must above all underscore that both of these exegeses are partial and incomplete. The hedonistic reading is undoubtedly capable of being fruitful, but it nevertheless overlooks both the meaning of the tale of Cupid and Psyche as well as the final book, cfr. GRAVERINI, Le Metamorfosi cit., pp. 132-133.

114

115

Apuleius had a message, but his first stated priority was to entertain: lector, intende: laetaberis. He was just as keenly aware as Lucretius and Horace had been of the need for a judicious 110

111

116

CHAPTER 4

THE DE DEO SOCRATIS AND APULEIUS' DEMONOLOGY

Due to its literary form and content, the De deo Socratis together with the Apologia and the Florida is closest to the Second Sophistics, but more than the formers shows an intermingling of philosophy and rhetoric, thus surpassing a centuries old antagonism that could be traced to the times of Plato and Isocrates. Within this background, Apuleius is on the same page as the most celebrated sophists of the period — Dio, Herodes Atticus, Favorinus, and Aelius Aristides. The De deo Socratis is a conference on Platonic demonology, developed in an unknown town in Africa': Apuleius concludes it with an exhortation to practice philosophy2. The moralizing conclusion could seem unexpected, but it is fitting for sophistic oratory. The Dialexeis (or Dissertationes) of Maximus of Tyre have a similar structure and conclusion. The term `philosophy' should certainly not lead us astray. The philosophy of De deo Socratis, although not without a certain expository clarity, is what German scholars often call `popular philosophy'. It is a cultural attitude that contains little that is speculative strictly speaking, but prefers to focus, through the ample repetition of the common places of moral philosophy,

De deo Socratis or De daemone Socratis? Lakmann explains that deus is also used by Plato along with daimon and that deus is also often used by Apuleius to indicate the demon of Socrates, cfr. M.-L. LARMANN, Einfishrung in die Schtift, in Apuleius, De deo Socratis. Ober den Gott des Sokrates, edd. H.-G. Nesselrath et Al., Darmstadt 2004 (SAPERE, 7), [pp. 13-44], pp. 20-22. Also cfr. BEAUJEU, Commentaire cit. (see above, ch. 3, note 55), pp. 202-203; MORESCHINI, Apuleio e it platonismo cit., pp. 242-243, note 69 and later (see pp. 354-355). 2 On this, cfr HARRISON, Apuleius cit., pp. 166-168.

117

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

4. THE DE DEO SOCRATIS AND APULEIUS' DEMONOLOGY

on literary, erudite, historical, anecdotal, and pseudo-scientific elements. The De deo Socratis is also a witness to the decent level of culture that had been reached by the upper classes of the empire of the second century, who could appreciate the literary aspects and the philosophical culture of an epideictic oration. One element of this culture is constituted by the figure of Socrates, the symbol of the true philosopher3. As Beaujeu has rightly observed, «the De deo Socratis appears to us, in a certain measure, to be a polemical work. Like Atticus the Platonist a few years later, and like Plutarch, to whom he gives homage in the Metamorphoses4, Apuleius defends the religious interpretation of Platonism against certain peoples rationalist dryness»5.

species, and the one on feet that is earthly (ire ~v xai xsporaiiov), that is, uman beings and the other animals on the earth. The Epinomis contains a development of the doctrine of the Timaeus, and attempts to situate the demons in the world, and their nature within this fourfold division:

Much has been written on Middle Platonic demonology, including that of Apuleius, because it is full of many elements that are not theologically and philosophically rich, but which change from one author to another. Apuleius is quite close to other Middle Platonists such as Plutarch and Maximus of Tyre, but all of them add personal variations which can express the interests they have regarding the subject. Apuleius is much more coherent and ordered in his exposition than the other two Middle Platonists are, as Donini has demonstrated. Plutarch, with his discussion of demons in many works, is a witness of a stage of Platonic tradition when demonology had not yet reached a structured systematization, while Maximus is far more superficial6. As is known, in some of his dialogs, Plato gathered various popular and religious beliefs regarding the existence of demons in a nonsystematic manner (Symposium, Cratylus, Phaedrus, Timaeus, and Laws), while he offered a brief structured synthesis in the Timaeus7. In the Timaeus, Plato describes four classes of beings that the demiurge created in the physical world: heavenly gods, winged creatures of the air, i.e. birds, aquatic 3 Cfr. P. L. DONINI, Sokrates and sein Damon im Platonismus des 1. and 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr., in Apuleius, De deo Socratis cit., [pp. 142-161], pp. 153-156. 4 Cfr. Met., II, 3, 2, ed. Zimmerman, p. 23,21 (see later, p. 142). 5 J. BEAUJEU, Introduction cit., pp. 14-15. 6 So, rightly, Donini: cfr. DoNINI, Sokrates and sein Damon cit., pp. 157-161. 7 Cfr. Tim. 39e-40a.

118

For let us consider ether as coming next after fire, and let us hold that soul fashions from it live creatures with their faculties, as it does creatures from the other kinds of element each being for the most part of that one nature, but in its lesser parts derived from the other elements for the sake of connection. After ether, there is fashioned by soul another kind of creature from air, and the third kind from water; and by having produced all these it is likely that soul filled the whole heaven with creatures, having made use of all the elements so far as it could, and all the creatures having been made participators in life; but the second, third, fourth, and fifth kinds, which took their first origin from what are manifest gods, end finally in us men. Now the gods — Zeus and Hera and all the rest — each man must regard in what light he pleases, though according to the same law, and must take this account as reliable. But as our visible gods, greatest and most honorable and having keenest vision every way, we must count first the order of the stars and all else that we perceive existing with them; and after these, and next below these, the divine spirits, and air-born race, holding the third and middle situation (...). We must say of either of these two creatures — that which is of ether and, next to it, of air — that it is not entirely plain to sight: when it is near by, it is not made manifest to us; but partaking of extraordinary intelligence, as belonging to an order which is quick to learn and strong in memory, we may say that they understand the whole of our thoughts, and show extraordinary kindness to anyone of us who is a good man and true, and hate him who is utterly evil, as one who already partakes of suffering. For we know that God, who has the privilege of the divine portion, is remote from these affections of pain and pleasure, but has a share of intelligence and knowledge in every sphere; and the heaven being filled full of live creatures, they interpret all men and all things both to one another and to the most exalted gods, because the middle creatures move both to earth and to the whole of heaven with a lightly rushing motion. The kind which is of water, the fifth, we shall be right in representing as a semi-divine product

119

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

of that element, and it is at one time seen, but at another is concealed through becoming obscure, presenting a marvel in the dimness of vision'. The length of this quotation is justified by its importance, because the essential aspects of Middle Platonic demonology are derived from it, probably with concomitant influences from Xenocrates9. The author of the Epinomis does not speak of the physical qualities of demons. He replaces the four classes of the Timaeus with five classes, and inserts the demons between the star gods and the beings on the earth. These demons are divided into three classes and formed by the elements in which they reside (ether, air, and water)10. A demonology structured in this way appears to have already been established in the first century AD, but the Epinomis shows that it already existed in the Ancient Academy: it is a «creative misinterpretation» (as Dillon called it11) of the Timaeus.

4. THE

DE DEO SOCRATIS AND APULEIUS' DEMONOLOGY

(the demons); the third is that of creatures formed by water and earth, and is sub-divided into «species dwelling in the earth» and those «dwelling on the earth» (according to Gersh; the latin formula is terrenum atque terrestre, with a play on words). The group that lives in the earth includes trees, which live fixed in the earth, while those on the earth are those that are (mobile and) nourished from the earth73. This doctrine is noticeably different from that of the Timaeus. insofar as it adds the class of the demons, which is the second class of living beings. This difference is due to Apuleius drawing from the Epinomis14 Alcinous also proposes a division of living beings, but in a different way. This is probably because Alcinous' source is different than that of Apuleius". According to Apuleius16, the stars are only composed of fire, while Alcinous, who follows Plato",

(Loeb Classical Library, 201), pp. 463-465. 9 Cfr. XENOCRATES, fr. 15, ed. R. Heinze, in XENOCRATES, Darstellung der Lehre and Sammlung der Fragmente, Leipzig 1892 (corresponding to fr. 213, ed. M. Isnardi Parente, in SENOCRATE — ERMODORO, Frammenti. Edizione, traduzione e commento, Napoli 1982). '° This theory of the elements and the idea that they can be mixed with each other in various ways, to which various types of demons correspond, was developed until the end of Middle Platonism. Cfr. Calcidius, ch. 129 and TIMOTIN, La d~monologie platonicienne cit. (see above, ch. 1, note 82), pp. 133-135. 1I Cfr. DILLON, Alcinous cit. (see above, Preface, note 1), p. 132; ID., Damonologie im friihen Platonismus, in Apuleius, De deo Socratis cit., [pp. 123141], p. 133. A short summary is now provided by Hunink, cfr. V. HuNINI, The Epinomis and Apuleius of Madauros, in Epinomide. Studi sull'opera e la sua ricezione, edd. F. Alesse — F. Ferrari, Napoli 2013 (Elenchos, 60.1), pp. 283-293. 12 Cfr. Plat., I, 11, 204-205.

13 In regard to the third and fourth, there was a distinction in the Timaeus between ivu8pov st8o5 and 7rst6v xal xepo eio (Tim. 40a). Apuleius instead makes svu8pov st&oc a quality of the two genera (that is, they are composed of water and earth), and thus, to make the number correspond with that of the Timaeus, he must divide the genus of 7rs ~v xai xspoaiov in two, which was one for Plato. Apuleius clearly understood the determinations of place from the Platonic passage (ltepo1r~pov, svu8pov, xspoziiov) as distinct genera. Beaujeu corrects the corrupt text of Apuleius' manuscripts, and reads iyysLov et iiriystov instead of 7r4bv et xepoaiov, unlike most editors, by referring, not to the Timaeus, but to the Republic (546a); cfr. BEAUJEU, Commentaire cit., ad locum. Timotin follows him, cfr. TIMOTIN, La d~monologie platonicienne cit., pp. 113-114. It however seems unlikely to me that Apuleius' source (or Apuleius himself) at this point abandoned the Timaeus, which had been followed previously, to turn to an unknown passage of the Republic. Calcidius does not modify the Platonic passage, and translates irst~v xal xepaa~ov with quaeque per terram feruntur (CALcmIus, Timaeus a Calcidio translates commentarioque instructus, 119, edd. P. J. Jensen — J. H. Waszink, in Plato latinus, IV, London — Leiden 19752, p. 164,14). On the systemization of living beings in Apuleius, cfr. REGEN, Apuleius philosophus cit. (see above, ch. 1, note 52), p. 59, note 206. 14 Barra had already observed that Apuleius innovated in respect to Plato and Albinus (Alcinous), cfr. G. BARRA, Il valore e it significato del De deo Socratis' di Apuleio, in «Annali della Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia di Napoli», 9 (1960-1961), [pp. 67-119], pp. 85-89. The similarities and the differences between Alcinous and Apuleius have been considered in short also by Gioe, cfr. A. Groh, Richiami e citazioni dell'Epinomide nella letteratura medioplatonica (e oltre), in Epinomide. Studi sull'opera e la sua ricezione cit., [pp. 263-282], pp. 276-278. 15 Cfr. GSRAN5SON, Albinus, Alcinous cit. (see above, Introduction, note 15), p. 150. 16 Cfr. Plat., I, 11, 203. 17 Cfr. Tim. 40a.

120

121

1. The World and Living Beings In De Platone12, Apuleius proposes a division of living beings that is analogous to that of the Timaeus, but it is modified. The first is of igneous nature (the star gods); the second has a nature of air

8 Epin. 984b-985b, in Plato, XII, Charmides. Alcibiades I and II. Hipparchus. The Lovers. Theages. Minos. Epinomis, Eng. tr. by W. R. M. Lamb, London 1927

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

says that they are «composes de feu pour la plus grand part»18 . In the classification of living beings, Alcinous is even further from Apuleius, because, following Plato, he presents four classes: 1)the gods, that is, the heavenly bodies19 , which live in the ether20; 2) winged beings, which live in the air; 3) `aquatic creatures' which live in water; and 4) 'the beings that go on foot' and live in the earth21. Alcinous ties the demons to this classification: they are distributed among each of the elements of the world, and specifically in ether, fire, air, and water22. Nothing is said regarding their substance. Apuleius, on the other hand, maintains that the relationship between the four orders of animantia and the elements depends on their substance, and not on the place where they live. Two centuries later, Calcidius will take up the traditional Middle Platonic discussion, which can be traced to the Epinomis, regarding the specification of various living beings in relation to the individual elements of the universe 23: Plato also says there are five regions or places in the world which can contain living beings, and which have some reciprocal difference in position because of the difference of the bodies inhabiting these same places. For he says that

'" ALCINOUS, Didaskalik~s, 14, ed. Whittaker cit., p. 171,2 (Fr. tr. by P. Louis). 19 Cfr. ibid., 14, p. 171,13-14. 20 Cfr. ibid., 15, p. 171,34. 21 Cfr. ibid., 16, p. 171,40. G~ransson says that according to Alcinous, as for Plato, all these living beings — including the gods, although they are largely fire — have bodies formed from all four of the elements, but I have not found this point in either Alcinous or Plato. 22 Cfr. ibid., 15, p. 171,15-20. Alcinous appears to have followed Tim. 39e and Epinom. 984bd, as observed by Gio~, cfr. GIO~, Richiami e citazioni dell'Epinomide cit., pp. 273-274. 23 Cfr. CALCIDius, Timaeus cit., 129. According to Steinheimer, Calcidius' demonology comes from Porphyry, cfr. E. STEINHEIMER, Untersuchungen fiber die Quellen des Chalcidius, diss. Wiirzburg 1912, pp. 19-29. This hypothesis was taken up and developed by Waszink, cfr. J. H. WASZINI1Sthv, which was the more commonly used term, cfr. TIMOTIN, La demonologie platonicienne cit., pp. 281-282. The voice of the demon is also understood as a Ic~11S61+ by Alcinous (cfr. ALcllvous, Didaskalik~s, ed. Whittaker cit., p. 171,23-26) and Maximus of Tyre (Dissertationes, 8, 7), as we will see shortly. 145 According to Timotin (cfr. TIMOTIN, La demonologie platonicienne cit., p. 283), the idea of the visibility of the demon's signum is also found in Maximus of Tyre and already in Plutarch, cfr. MAXIMUS TYRIus, Dissertationes, 8, 6; PLUTARCHUS, De genio Socratis, 10, 580C. Apuleius' response is thus close to that of Plutarch.

146 An example we already cited is found in Socrat., 11, 145. 147 See the Iliad, I, 194. Regen (cfr. REGEN, II De deo Socratis cit., p. 56, note 215) observes that, according to Beaujeu (cfr. BEAUJEU, Introduction and Commentaire cit, pp. 12 and 243 ff.), Plutarch also affirmed (cfr. PLUTARCHUS, De genio Socratis, 10, 580C) that Socrates saw his demon, but this is doubtful. Nevertheles, even if this is not explicitly stated, it can be deduced from the fact that Plutarch states that Athena was near Achilles. 148 Cfr. Socrat., 20, 167. 149 «Les presages*, tr. Louis cit. (see above, note 18), cfr. WHITTAKER in ALcuvous, Enseignements cit., note 303. '5° Cfr. Tim. 41a. 151 Cfr. MAXIMUS TYRIus, Dissertationes, 8, 1 and 8, 3. 152 Ibid. 8, 3, p. 63, 59-61, tr. Trapp: «What was distinctive about Socrates was that he conversed with the divine in his minds. 153 This is the normal Stoic definition of the word. 154 CALCIDIUs, Timaeus cit., 255, ed. Waszink, p. 264,4-8: But the voice that

140

141

139

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

4. THE DE DEO SOCRATIS AND APULEIUS' DEMONOLOGY

According to Timotin, this is not Apuleius' vox quaepiam, but a voice that enters into the category of x%rp8wv. But, if Calcidius affirms that it was not a voice of the usual kind, it was a quaepiam vox, just as Apuleius had stated. Calcidius continues, affirming:

Nam et familia Plutarchi ambae prognatae sumus 159

Both references to Plutarch are not superfluous: they intend to witness to the fact that Lucius belongs to the family of Plutarch, and, since Lucius is identified by many scholars with Apuleius himself160 , such a reference could signify an intellectual and philosophical union between Apuleius and Plutarch. Apuleius also mentions the nephew of Plutarch, Sextus, who was one of Marcus Aurelius' teachers161 For this reason, it has been presumed that one can find elements from Plutarch in Apuleius' philosophy. This was maintained, and not without reason, by P. G.Walsh162, who however did not succeed in manifesting sure parallels between the two authors. On the other hand, Plutarch was certainly known in the second century in the Latin world, because Aulus Gellius mentions him numerous times. But, all things considered, there is not a true and proper sourcing of demonology from Plutarch in Apuleius — on the contrary, Apuleius' solution to the voice of the demon of Socrates is different, as we saw. One element that might lead us to think of a dependency on Plutarch might be the following. Let us reconsider Apuleius' Apology. In ch. 42, he must defend himself against the accusation of having performed magical practices on a boy who, in a trance, gave information to Apuleius, who interrogated him. This boy would therefore seem to be a medium 163. As a good Platonist,

Socrates heard was not, in my opinion, a voice that occurred following a blow that the air received, but was a voice that, thanks to the laudable purity of his limpid and therefore most intelligent soul, revealed to him the presence and company of the divine being that was familiar to him, from the moment that being close to and uniting oneself with pure things is only licit for those who are just as pure. 155 Ibid. 156 Cfr. PLUTARCHUS, De genio Socratis, 20, 589C (above, p. 137). Timotin (cfr. TIMoTIN, La d~monologie platonicienne cit., p. 283) instead maintains that Calcidius refers to the vision of the signum, as in Apuleius (Socrat., 20, 166) and Maximus of Tyre (Dissertationes, 8, 6). It is true that Calcidius speaks of a «signum perspicuum», but he does not say that Socrates saw it. Rather, he «augurabatur» it, a verb that indicates, in my opinion, a perception linked to conjecture, and not a true and proper vision. 157 Timotin openly speaks of contact between Apuleius and Plutarch, cfr. ibid., pp. 201-204. 155 Met., I, 2, ed. Zimmerman, p. 2,3-6 (Lucius is speaking of himself). 159 Ibid., II, 3, p. 23,21: «ambae» are Salvia, Lucius' mother, and Birrhena, a friend of hers.

16° Of course, the identification is not justified, but the reference to Plutarch remains significant. 161 Cfr. MARCUS AURELIUS, Ad se ipsum, I, 9; Vita Marci Antonini philosophi, 3, 2, in Scriptores Historiae Augustae, ed. Hohl et Al. cit., I, p. 49,2-3. Nevertheless, Graverini (cfr. GRAVERINI, Le Metamorfosi cit., p. 158, note 15, and p. 215) is more inclined to follow the interpretation of Keulen (cfr. W. H. KEULEN, Apuleius Madaurensis, Metamorphoses, Book I, 1-20: Introduction, Text, Commentary, Groningen 2003, p. 89), according to whom these words of Lucius had nothing to do with Apuleius himself; but only with Lucius as the character of the Metamorphoses, who attempts to play the intellectual. I learn from Keulen and Graverini that, in the third century, also the sophist Nicagoras was proud to call himself a descendant of the philosophers Plutarch and Sextus. 162 Cfr. P. G. WALSH, Apuleius and Plutarch, in Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought: Essays in Honour of A. H. Armstrong, London 1981, pp. 20-32. 163 It is interesting to note that Butler and Owen observe that «at the present time (i.e. 1914) in the Italian state-lotteries the lot is drawn by a boy dressed in white», and that Cyprian (Epist. 16, 4) knew of similar forms of prediction of the future, cfr. H. E. BUTLER — A. S. OWEN, Commentary, in APULEI Apologia sive Pro se de magia liber, Oxford 1914, p. 101. Cyprian's text is: «praeter noctumas visiones per dies quoque impletur apud nos spiritu sancto puerorum

142

143

Atque, ut in sonmis audire nobis videmur voces sermonumque expressa verba, nec tamen illa vox est, sed vocis officium imitans significatio, sic vigilantis Socratis mens praesentiam divinitatis signi perspicui notatione augurabatur155 This explanation appears to be similar to that of Plutarch156 8. Apuleius and Plutarch The problem of the relationship between Apuleius and Plutarch is fascinating, but it has not been resolved in a definitive manner at this point157. Apuleius names Plutarch two times in the Metamorphoses: Thessaliam — nam et illic originis maternae nostrae fundamenta a Plutarcho illo inclito ac mox Sexto philosopho nepote eius prodita gloriam nobis faciunt — earn Thessaliam ex negotio petebam158

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

Apuleius then moves on to give what he considers to be the more truthful interpretation, which is that, which we saw above, of the existence of divinae potestates, which look over divination and magic. He continues: Debet ille nescio qui puer providus (...) et corpore decorus atque integer deligi et ammo sollers et ore facundus, ut in eo aut divina potestas quasi bonis aedibus digne diversetur, si tamen ea pueri corpore includitur. (...) Non enim ex onuli ligno, ut Pythagoras dicebat, debet Mercurius exculpi164

4. THE

DE DEO SOCRATIS AND APULEIUS' DEMONOLOGY

Demonology, which is so clearly and systematically presented (even in a conference before non-philosophers, as the De deo Socratis was), certainly represents one of the better results of Apuleius' thought168. It is enough to think of the lack of attention that Alcinous has for it, who states little on the subject. Further, if one considers its presence, beyond the De deo Socratis, in the De Platone, the Apologia, and the Florida, it appears as a subject that could interest the cultured people from Apuleius' circles as well.

It is necessary for the material instrument of divination to be worthy of the divina potestas that is enclosed in the child who must prophecy. A passage of Plutarch's describes a Delphic priestess of the period: she was certainly not an educated lady, to the point that she could not give her responses in verse, as had instead been the case in previous times, in the glorious ages of Greece. Anyway, the Pythia must be a perfectly pure child, suited to union with god165 Another detail that ties Apuleius to Plutarch could be the following. In the De defectu oraculorum Cleombrotus, while debating the origin of demonology, hypothesizes that it could have been a discovery of the Zoroastrian magi or of Orpheus from Thrace, or perhaps from Egypt and Phrygia, as the ceremonies of those countries attesti66 This origin of demonology could have been a doctrine of middle-platonism, because Apuleius too, while not explicitly linking demonology and magic, and basing himself on Plato, traces magic back to Zoroaster and Oromasdus, or to Orpheus and the rites of Thrace 167 * * *

innocens aetas, quae in ecstasi videt oculis et audit et loquitur ea quibus nos Dominus monere et instruere dignatur» (THASCIUs CAECILIUS CYPRIANUS, Epistulae, 16, 4, ed. G. F. Diercks, in ID., Epistularium, I, Turnhout 1994). 164 Apol., 43, ed. Helm, p. 50,13-20. 165 Cfr. PLUTARCHUS, De Pythiae oraculis, 22, 405C, ed. Flaceli~re, in In., Dialogues pythiques cit. 166 Cfr. In., De defectu oraculorum, 10, 415A. 167 Cfr. Apol., 25-26. About this issue, see pp. 34-35.

168 This was already observed by Barra (cfr. G. BARRA, La questione dell'autenticitd del De Platone et eius dogmate di Apuleio, in «Rendiconti della Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti di Napoli», n.s. 41 [1966-1967], pp. 127-188), even if one can consider excessive his affirmation that Apuleian demonology is the essential fulcrum of Apuleius' philosophical speculation together with the religious intuition of mysteries (cfr. ibid., p. 135).

144

145

CHAPTER 5

RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

In order to better understand Apuleius' cultural environment, in which (for Apuleius, Platonic) philosophy was non-problematically united with rhetorical interests, it seems proper to reconstruct that environment, at least to the point where we can see how rhetoric and philosophy co-existed, despite the theoretical opposition between them. This concordia discors is a characteristic of all of the writers from the second century AD. We will consider it in Rome, while adding some considerations regarding one of the Greek sophists, Aelius Aristides, whose works give a better than average witness to this subject. Aristides was undoubtedly the most cultured and philosophical of the sophists. 1. Fronto Erudition, which was a typical characteristic of the culture of the second century, can be considered as the link between philosophy and rhetoric. There is not however a lack of polemics between the two. Both use the traditional reasons. Fronto thus insists on the old motive of the superiority of rhetoric to philosophy. He expresses this in his epistle sent to Apollonides1, in which philosophical paideia is contrasted with that of rhetoricians: rhetorical education is at least human, while philosophical education is perhaps divine, but is also unattainable. Fronto's inter-

Cfr. MARCUS CoRNELIus FRONTO, Ad amicos, 1, 2, in ID., Epistulae, ed. M. P. J. van den Hout, Leipzig 1998 (Bib'. Teubn., 1227), p. 171,16-17.

147

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

ests in the eloquence and literary studies of Marcus Aurelius2 aim to convince the emperor to study rhetoric. He exalts eloquence in a letter to Lollianus Avitus3 and in Ad Verum imperatorem4; underscores the contrast with philosophy in the letter Ad M. Antoninum de eloquentia 5; and admonishes Marcus Aurelius for having abandoned rhetoric6. Fronto's attitude is therefore clearly in favor of rhetoric, even if he does not adopt the same degree of bitterness in respect to philosophy and philosophers (e.g. Plato) as his contemporary, Aelius Aristides, whose defense of rhetoric, which Plato had criticized in his time, led to long and detailed considerations against philosophy. On the other hand, Fronto's function as Marcus Aurelius' teacher conditioned his convictions: only with difficulty would Fronto have been able to persuade Marcus Aurelius, who would take the throne, that philosophy was the first and most important discipline, and that rhetoric, which he was to use in his political relations (with the Senate, the civil magistrates, official letters, etc.), was not important. Philosophy was neither a subject nor a profession that could be easily adapted to the activities of an emperor, or that a sovereign could profitably use. The art of oration, on the other hand, had always been the privileged and essential instrument of the statesman. It was therefore inevitable that the emperor's teacher would underscore that rhetoric was more important than philosophy. Fronto's culture was influenced by the rhetorical tradition and by his archaizing tastes, of which he was a principal supporter and representative. In conformity with these literary tendencies, Fronto studied Sallust and frequently quoted him Sallust was perhaps appreciated by Fronto, not only because of his stylistic and literary qualities, but also because he repre-

sented the typical figure of the moralist: moralism was an essential part of the period's culture, as we will see in Genius as well. Finally, Fronto did not avoid a characteristic of his century that we will speak of later, that is, anecdotalism: he offers an anecdote about Plato' that is also found in Athenaeus8, as van den Hout observed. Nevertheless, Fronto is not bereft of philosophy: he lists some philosophers, but always considers them from the perspective of eloquence9, while his remarks on their style are completely manualistic. Marcus Aurelius read the books of Aristo the Stoic, was quite impressedi0, and recommended him to his teacher. Fronto's references to the Platonic dialogs (Protagoras, Gorgias, and the first book of the Republic) remain on the level of a `Halbphilosoph'. It would seem that Fronto had a somewhat limited (almost `hearsay') knowledge of them'1. The Gorgias was a rather well known dialog in the second century, and was often quoted by Genius and Aelius Aristides. The passage of the Phaedo 12 in which Plato narrates that Socrates, while in prison just before drinking the poison, was released and experienced a strong pleasure and observed that pleasure and pain are intimately intertwined, was famous. Fronto knew it, and had perhaps personally read the Phaedo13 He also perhaps had direct knowledge of the passage of the Phaedrus (262c) in which Socrates admonished Lysias for having composed his discourse on love without any structure in the order of the arguments or any rational links to hold the arguments together1''. Both the Phaedo and the Phaedrus were undoubtedly highly read Platonic dialogs during that period1s. This point was

2 Cfr. ID., Ad Antoninum Imperatorem, II, 2, 2; Ad Antoninum imperatorem et invicem, I, 2, 5-6, in Epistulae, ed. van den Hout cit. 9 Cfr. ID., Ad amicos, I, 3, 2, ed. van den Hout cit., p. 172,17. We know of this important political figure from Apuleius' Apologia (ch. 95) as well (see p. 168). 4 Cfr. In., Ad Verum Imperatorem, II, 1, 9, ed. van den Hout cit., pp. 122,11123,2. Cfr. ID., Ad Marcum Antoninum De eloquentia, II, 2, 7-12, ibid. 6 Cfr. ibid., II, 2.

Cfr. ibid., I, i, 9, p. 139,20 ff. Cfr. ATHENAEUs NADCRADIEs, Dipnosophistarum libri, XI, 507D, ed. G. Kaibel, III, Leipzig 1927 (repr. 1992, Bibl. Teubn., 1103). 9 Cfr. FRONTO, De eloquentia, ed. van den Hout cit., I, 1, 3, p. 134,7-15; I, 1, 14-16, pp. 141,20-143,3. '° Cfr. ID., Ad M. Caes. et invicem, IV, 13, 2, ibid. " Cfr. ibid., III, 16, 2. 12 Cfr. Phaed. 60bc. 13 Cfr. FRONTO, Ad M. Caes., IV, 9, ed. van den Hout cit., p. 64,12-14. 14 Cfr. ID., Laudes fumi, 4, ibid., p. 216,2-10. 13 For the Phaedrus, cfr. M.B. TRAPP, Plato's Phaedrus in Second-Century Greek Literature, in Antonine Literature cit. (see above, ch. 3, note 74), pp. 141-173.

148

149

8

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

discussed by Grammarians and rhetoricians16, and is commented on by the Scholia in Platonis Phaedrum of Hermias of Alexandria'''. Fronto observes that not even the severe Chrysippus refuses the toils of rhetoric:

and various philosophical elements have been identified in his works by P. Fleury21 and L. Pernot 22 .

Turn si studium philosophiae in rebus esset sous occupatum, minus mirarer quod tantopere verba contemneres. Discere te autem ceratinas et soritas et pseudomenus, verba contorta et fidicularia, neglegere vero cultum orationis et gravitatem et maiestatem et gratiam et nitorem hoc indicat loqui te quam eloqui mane, murmurare potius et friguttire quam clangere. (...) adtende quid cupiat ipse Chrysippus. Num contentus est docere, rem ostendere, definire, explanare? non est contentus, verum auget in quantum potest18. Again, if the study of philosophy were concerned with practice alone, I should wonder less at your despising words so much. That you should, however, learn horn-dilemmas, heap fallacies, liar-syllogisms, verbal quibbles and entanglements, while neglecting the cultivation of oratory, its dignity and majesty and charms and splendor, this shows that you prefer mere speaking to real speaking, a whisper and a mumble to a trumpet-note (...) Wake up and hear what Chrysippus himself prefers. Is he content to teach, to disclose the subject, to define, to explain? He is not content: but he amplifies as much as he can19 One can see from these words that Fronto had a limited consideration for philosophy, which was even less than that of the sophistics of the times. This was in part due to traditional Roman pragmatism. Gellius is better informed than Fronto. Nevertheless, «Fronto's notorious aversion to philosophy will need to be reexamined» 20

2. Fronto and Marcus Aurelius The communis opinio on the relationship between Marcus Aurelius and Fronto is that Marcus Aurelius, born in 121, began his education in 138 under Fronto, who was a convinced proponent of rhetoric — but that Marcus dedicated himself to philosophy in 146, at the great displeasure of his teacher23. It is also said that Marcus Aurelius' rejection of rhetoric and the impetus for his conversion to philosophy came from his encounters with Junius Rusticus and the writings of Epictetus or the Stoic Aristo of Chios. On the other hand, a profound need for ethical values and the condemnation of rhetoric as an expression of injustice, vacuous formalism and instrument of adulation has been assumed. This interpretation was the object of Kasulke's justified criticism24. He observes that it is obvious that Marcus Aurelius, who would have been a prince, and would therefore have had numerous obligations as a spokesperson, could not have completely abandoned rhetoric, even if he dedicated himself to philosophy at the same time. In fact, in the correspondence with Fronto, there are clear attestations, not only of the practice of rhetoric, but also of Marcus Aurelius' appreciation of it — even after 161, the year that he acceded to the throne 25.

16 Cfr. CAECILIUS CALACTINUS, fr. 110, ed. E. Ofenloch, in CAECILII CALACTINI fragmenta, Leipzig 1907; PSEUDO-LONGINUS, Libellus de Sublimitate, 32, 8, ed. D. A. Russell, in 'LONGINUS', On the Sublime, Oxford 1964. 17 Cfr. HERMIAS ALEXANDRINUS, In Platonis Phaedrum Scholia, edd. C. M. Lucarini — C. Moreschini, Berlin 2012 (Bibl. Teubn.), pp. 242,2-244,5. 18 FRONTO, De eloquentia, II, 2, 13-14, ed. van den Hout cit., p. 141,10-22. 19 Ibid., Eng. tr. by C. R. Haines, in The Correspondence of Marcus Cornelius Fronto, 2 vols., Cambridge (MA) — London 1919-1920, II, p. 67. 20 E. CHAMPLIN, Pronto and Antonine Rome, Cambridge (MA) 1980, p. 31.

21 Cfr. P. FLEURY, Lectures de Fronton. Lin rh~teur latin a l'~poque de la Seconde Sophistique, Paris 2006 (Etudes anciennes S~rie latine, 64), pp. 283-323 (above all for the Erotik~s). 22 Cfr. L. PERNOT, Aspects m~connus de l'enseignement de la rh~torique dans le monde gr~co-romain a 1'~poque imp~riale, in L'enseignements sup~rieur dans les mondes antiques et me'di~vaux, ed. H. Hugonnard-Roche, Paris 2008 (Textes et traditions, 16), [pp. 283-306], pp. 304-305 (on Fronto and philosophy). 23 Cfr. Marcus Antoninus Ad Front. 4, 13, 2, in FRONTO, Epistulae, ed. van den Hout cit., p. 68. 24 Cfr. CH. T. KASULKE, Fronto, Marc Aurel and kein Konflikt zwischen Rhetorik and Philosophie im 2. Jh. n. Chr., Munchen — Leipzig 2005 (Beitrage zur Altertumskunde, 218). 25 Cfr. FRONTO, Ad M. Antoninum et invicem, I, 2, 6; Marcus Antoninus Ad Front., Ad Antoninum imperatorem et invicem, IV, 1, ed. van den Hout cit., p. 105.

150

151

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

Champlin also rightly opposed the generalized idea that Marcus Aurelius had suddenly or completely abandoned rhetoric26. It is true that Marcus Aurelius dedicated himself to study of philosophy, rhetoric, and law, and above all to Stoic philosophy, even after his accession to the throne — but he never had a clear conversion to philosophy, nor did he ever abandon rhetoric. Dio Cassius (Hist., LXXI, 2 and LXXI, 36, 6) and the Historia Augusta do not speak of Marcus Aurelius discontinuing rhetoric at all, even if they underscore his interest for philosophy. The testimonies of Aurelius Victor and Eutropius are similar27. Marcus Aurelius' attitude towards rhetoric in the years after 146 is no different than the One he manifested in the years of his principate. He uses rhetoric as an instrument in the activity of governing. This is demonstrated by Fronto's letter Ad Marcum Antoninum28, from autumn 161. Accession to the throne obliged the emperor to return to the practice of rhetoric, due to the official and political situations in which rhetoric was useful. In the first years after 161, Fronto still maintained the role of master of rhetoric and oratorial counselor for Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus. Elsewhere29, Marcus Aurelius asked his teacher to send him a selection of Cicero's letters ad facultatem sermonis fovendam. In conclusion, Marcus Aurelius not only restarted rhetorical practice after 161, but also continued his activity as an author who was attentive to style until the final years of his life, something that does not harmonize with the hypothesis of his completely abandoning rhetoric. The De eloquentia letters of Fronto and Marcus Aurelius do not contain any important debate for our understanding of whether or not the emperor intended to make a life choice between rhetoric and philosophy. On one hand, Marcus Aurelius fully respected the practical role of rhetoric. Even if he may have contemplated abandoning it in the beginning, Fron-

to's considerations led him to reject that course of action. On the other hand, Fronto never considered a justification of philosophy to be necessary. He recommended the emperor to use philosophy as the content of his orations, providing the appropriate linguistic form was maintained. 3. Favorinus in Rome Favorinus, a sophist and versatile writer, is considered to be a philosopher by modern scholars, who situate him close to skepticism (a problem that is irrelevant to the current discourse) 30 He was also considered to be a philosopher by Aulus Gellius, who knew him personally, but he appears to be a philosopher to us in a very specific sense: Favorinus isthe figure who best represents the encyclopedism of the second century AD. The monumental work of the edition and collection of fragments of Favorinus' works which have been published by E. Amato (2 vols.) 31 contain many moralistic titles32 or of strictly theoretical works33. Other titles refer to sparkling discourses with `vulgar' content («infames materiae»), such as the Thersitae laudes34 and the Laudes febris quartanae35, like similar compositions by Fronto. There

z6 Cfr. CHAMPLIN, Pronto cit., pp. 121-122. 27 Cfr. SFXTUS AURELIUS VICTOR, Lther de C4esarthus, 16. ed. F. Pichlmayr, Leipzig 1911 (repr. 1993, Bibl. Teubn., 1108); FLAVIUS EUTROPIUS, Breviarium Historiae Romanae, 8,11 ff., ed. C. Santini, in ID., Breviarium ab urbe condita, Leipzig 1979 (repr. 2009, Bibl. Teubn., 1346). 28 Cfr. FRONTO, Ad Antoninum imperatorem et invicem, I, 2. 29 Cfr. ibid., III, 2.

30 On the interest in academic philosophy and skepticism, see Ioppolo, whose study clearly manifests that Favorinus was a philosopher who was still far from the problems of the second century, and still tied to those of Plutarch from a century earlier, cfr. A. M. IoPPOLo, The Academic position of Favorinus of Arelate, in «Phronesis», 38 (1993), pp. 183-213. Favorinus was still interested in the problems regarding the history of the Platonic Academy, and whether it should be accepted as a skeptical or dogmatic school. None of this has any importance for Apuleius. For this reason we do not consider other works by the same Favorinus, which apparently do not treat Apuleian topics. 31 Cfr. FAVORINUS ARELATENSIS, Opera, ed. E. Amato, in FAVORINOS D'ARLES, Ouvres, I, Introductiong~n~rale etc. and III, Fragments, Paris 2005-2010 (CUF S~rie grecque, 445, 473); also cfr. ed. A. Barigazzi, in FAvORINo DI ARELATE, Opere, Firenze 1966. 32 Cfr. ID., Ilspi Twig 8rip68ou5 oto4 pocrowl5 (fr. 22, ed. Amato cit.); IIspi s~$5 (fr. 20, ibid.); Ilspi yripw5 (fr. 4-19, ibid.); llpOc ~oTpo)6you5 (fr. 27, ibid., corresponding to AuLus GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, XIV, 1). 33 Cfr. FAVORINUS, IT).o~Tapxoc i irspi Tt15 Axaaripaux115 sic/Okra.); (fr. 33-34, ed. Amato); Ilspi rv1S IcaTa).rpr uclic ()mTaoiac (fr. 37-38 ibid.); Ilupptvslol Tp6lrol (frs. 30-32 ibid., corresponding to AuLus GELLIus, Noctes Atticae, XI, 5). 34 FAVORINUS, fr. 28, ed. Amato. 35 Ibid., fr. 29, quoted by Aulus Gellius (Noctes Atticae XVII, 12).

152

153

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

are also numerous works on various issues: the IlEpi Eoncp~Tous Kai Tlig KaT' a~T~v ipWTLK1' T~xv1Y 36 probably had similar content to Maximus of Tyre's two dissertations 7rspi spwros (nos. 19 and 21). The fletv-roacenii Io'ropia 37 is even too well known, and managed to draw all of the attention of the `source researchers' of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by itself The IlEpi rY `O.ojpou 40%.000cpiag 38 is part of the tradition of Homeric exegesis. The fragments that Gellius quotes are interesting too. Gellius, as has been observed39, makes Favorinus the champion of his work — the exemplary type of the philosopher. Gellius nevertheless describes him without interest, it would seem, in his more serious philosophical studies. His description accentuates the characterization of Favorinus as a man of letters, in order to conform him to the interests of his times: he is therefore an expert in literary and linguistic problems as well, and above all — something quite rare for a Greek — in the Realien of Roman civilization4''. This perhaps manifests Favorinus' western origins. He was a native of Arles, and was disdained by Lucianus as a `Celt'. He received his first formation within Latin culture, which he quickly completed with Greek culture, for which he is much better known. The literary problems show a Favorinus who was interested in Latin archaism, not unlike Fronto, Gellius, and Apuleius 41: there are readings of Sallust42, of Plautus43, and of Claudius Quadrigarius44; on Virgil and Lucretius; and stylistic comparisons of Pindarus and Virgil45. The linguistic problems he deals with

in respect to the Latin language are also interesting: the good writer must archaize, but not excessively46. Gellius shows us that Favorinus examined literary and linguistic problems like Fronto did. Sophistic-philosophical sayings47 and anecdotes complete this variegated image. In conclusion, «most of the information regarding Favorinus is anecdotal in character»48. But Plato, Aristotle, and Plutarch are treated in the same anecdotal way by Gellius — Aristotle even more hastily than Plato.

36

4. Aulus Gellius As Favorinus was long portrayed only as a skeptical philosopher, and not as an encyclopedist and man of letters, so also Aulus Gellius was long considered almost exclusively as a conduit for information that had nothing to do with the one who collected it49. Therefore he was only used as a repository for the doctrines of others; whether they were grammatical, linguistic and literary, historical, or philosophical. And yet, if nothing else, Aulus Gellius wrote to be read, and in this aim he at least attempted to discern his readers' interests. In order to do this, he developed the material that he collected according to an organizational principle. In what is now an old study, J. Gassner attempted to globally interpret Gellius' work50 as responding to ethical and pedagogical interests that are presented in the form of a diatribe, thereby

Ibid., fr. 24. Ibid., frs. 59-96. 38 Ibid., fr. 23. 39 Cfr. L. HOLFORD-STREVENS, Aulus Gellius. An Antonine Scholar and his Achievement, Oxford 2003, pp. 98-99. 4~~For this topic, also cfr. L. GAMBERALE, Confronti e incontri di cultura nell'et~~ degli Antonini, in Filellenismo e tradizionalismo a Roma nei primi due secoli dell'Impero, Atti del convegno (Roma, 27-28 aprile 1995), Roma 1996 (Atti dei Convegni Lincei, 125), pp. 57-84. 41 Anderson considers Favorinus similar to Apuleius, which is a bit unjust to Apuleius, cfr. ANDERSON, The pepaideumenos cit. (see above, ch. 2, note 54), p. 123. 42 Cfr. FAVORINUS, test. 24, ed. Amato (in Noctes Atticae, III, 1). 43 Cfr. ibid., test. 25 (in Noctes Atticae, III, 3). 44 Cfr. ibid., test. 31 (in Noctes Atticae, IX, 13). 4s Cfr. ibid., test. 22 and 35. Holford-Strevens does not think that Favorinus

wrote his rhetorical — grammatical observations in Latin, despite his interest in Latin civilization — at most, he would have spoken in Latin, cfr. HOLFORDSTREVENS, Aulus Gellius cit., pp. 84-85. Astarita and Gamberale do not think (correctly, I believe) these doubts are founded, cfr. M. L. ASTARITA, La cultura nelle Noctes Atticae, Catania 1993 (Saggi e testi classici, cristiani e medievali, 6), pp. 175-182; GAMBERALE, Confronti e incontri cit., pp. 80-85. 46 Cfr. FAVORINUS, fr. 20, ed. Amato (in AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, I, 10). 47 Cfr. ibid., fr. 36. 48 GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., pp. 204-205; p. 205, note 17. 49 For this subject, see MoREscFFINI, Apuleio e it platonismo cit., pp. 10-12; Aspetti della cultura filosofica cit. (see above, ch. 1, note 95), pp. 5107-5109 and 5122-5126. 5° Cfr. J. GASSNER, Philosophie and Moral bei Gellius, in Serta Philologica Aenipontana, II, ed. R. Muth, Innsbruck 1972 (Innsbrucker Beitr~ge zur Kulturwissenschaft, 17), pp. 197-235.

154

155

37

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

excluding any encyclopedic aspect of the work. But Gassner does not move beyond the presentation of the single chapters of the Noctes Atticae. One can only identify pedagogical intentions in Gellius regarding some marginal observations on customs that are connected with the doctrine and exemplum of the greatest personalities of the period (Fronto, Herodes Atticus, and Calvisius Taurus). In more recent times, with the study of Barry Baldwin" and the fundamental study of Holford-Strevens, there has been an effort to understand Gellius as a writer motivated by precise intentions, even if they are difficult to encapsulate (this is the difficulty in interpreting Gellius: what goal do his selections and his excerpta have?). Baldwin, for example, mainly focused on reconstructing the relationship between Gellius and Favorinus, and accentuated the Latin author more than his Greek `source'. M. L. Astarita attempted to clarify Gellius' cultural interests 52. Philosophy is a minor part of Gellius' work, and is also largely presented with anecdotal interests: «philosophandum est paucis», Gellius repeats", thus quoting the famous Neoptolemus of Ennius54 — and this even in respect to important questions" If one accepts an early chronology for the publication of the Noctes Atticae56, Gellius also appears well informed about philosophers

who were only a little earlier than himself; such as Favorinus, Plutarch, and Epictetus, and above all about his contemporaries through direct experience, such as Calvisius 57 Taurus, Herodes Atticus, and the non-philosopher Fronto, whose pupil he was and whom he quotesSS. Gellius quotes the Symposium and the Phaedrus, but in reference to an episode of Taurus' teaching: Taurus blamed those students who were only interested in curiosities, such as the Alcibiades' drunkenness59 or Lysias' discourse60. He also quotes Theages, Protagoras, and Gorgias; Xenophon and the Republic of Plato; as well as the Timaeus and Laws61 Taurus' judgment on the Platonic dialogs that Gellius transmits shows that, if Taurus was mainly interested in content, Gellius was also interested in style62. In conclusion, unlike Taurus, Gellius is not interested in Plato's metaphysical questions, but mainly in his ethical problems, because his quotes from the Phaedo, Gorgias, Republic, and Laws are of ethical subjects63. It appears that he manifests the influence of Favorinus here as well. When Gellius chooses philosophical texts, he does it on the basis of this criterion for his choice of themes, and his adaptation to the tastes of his period. He is nevertheless more open to philosophy than Fronto, and no less so than many of his readers. He has no taste or perspective for metaphysics and mysticism64. He has limited

51 Cfr. B. BALDWIN, Studies in Aulus Gellius, Lawrence (KA) 1975. 52 Cfr. ASTARITA, La cultura Cit. 53 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, V, 15, 9 and 16, 5. 54 Cfr. ENNIUs, Scaenica, 376, ed. Vahlen cit.; MORESCHINI, Apuleio e it platonismo cit., pp. 10-12; HOLFORD-STREVENS, Aulus Gellius cit., pp. 260-261. 55 On the philosophical interests of Gellius, cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., pp. 199-213. 56 Unfortunately, this problem is anything but resolved — but it is not influential for what we are discussing. Marache was in favor of an early chronology in his edition, and placed the publication of the work of Gellius around 155 (something compatible with Apuleius' famous plagiarism in Mund. — seep. 198), cfr. R. MARACHE, Introduction, in Aulu-Gelle, Les Nuits attiques, I, Livres I-IV, ed. R. Marache, Paris 1967 (CUF S~rie latine, 189), pp. x-xn. Late dates include Baldwin, around 166-176, and Holford-Strevens, at the end of the principate of Marcus Aurelius, Cfr. BALDWIN, Studies cit., pp. 13-20; HOLFORD-STREVENS, Aulus Gellius cit., pp. 14-15. Discussing the problem of the relationship between the Noctes Atticae and the Mund., Holford-Strevens does not exclude placing the Mund. even in the third century, although he notes the difficulties of this theory. It however seems impossible to avoid admitting that the Mund. (which

would be a late work of Apuleius) `plagiarized' Favorinus (cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Nodes Atticae, II, 22). Cfr. ASTARITA, La cultura cit., p. 66, note 148; EAD., Note di cronologia gelliana, in «Orpheus», n.s. 5 (1984), pp. 422-432. 57 In the Oxford Classical Texts edition of Noctes, P. K. Marshall reverts to the form Calvenus Taurus, which is also found in SIG 868 to 101-103 (cfr. Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, ed. W. Dittenberger, II, Leipzig 1917, p. 580, and already in Praechter, Cfr. K. PRAECHTER, Nikostratos der Platoniker, in «Hermes», 57 (1922), pp. 480-517); as well as Holford-Strevens, cfr. HoLFORDSTREVENS, Aulus Gellius cit., p. 227. The identification of Calvisius Taurus and Calvenus Taurus is instead rejected by Astarita, cfr. ASTARITA, Note di cronologia cit., p. 427; La cultura cit., p. 101, note 80. 58 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, XIX, 8; XIX, 13 etc. sv Cfr. Symp. 180e. 60 Cfr. Phaedr. 237a. Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Nodes Atticae, I, 9, 9. 61 Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., pp. 209-210. 62 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, XVII, 20, 7-9. 63 Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 212. 64 Cfr. HOLFORD-STREVENS, Aulus Gellius cit., p. 261.

156

157

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

interest, or even hostility, for eastern cults65. Apuleius is more modern than Gellius in this respect.

Calvisius Taurus is the contemporary philosopher, along with Favorinus, whom Gellius presents with the greatest signs of honor. Gellius probably considered Taurus, like Favorinus, as an ideal philosopher (I believe this can be seen also in the Taurus noster affirmation of Noctes Atticae IX, 5, 8 and in the description of Taurus in Noctes Atticae XII, 5). If Gellius does not classify Favorinus as the follower of a specific school, Taurus is instead known as a Platonist who is hostile to Stoic philosophy76. Both of these themes, the refutation of Stoic ~vakyrroia and ~ir~8sta, were particularly vibrant in Middle Platonism (Taurus' anti-Stoic polemics nevertheless remained highly courteous77). The definition of fortitudo is however accepted from Stoicism (XII, 5, 13), as the scientia rerum tolerandarum et non tolerandarum78. On the other hand, Gellius makes a choice, or is not informed on all points of Taurus' philosophy: the most difficult problems of Platonism, such as the cosmogony of the Timaeus, are not mentioned at all in Gellius, who obviously writes for an educated audience, but not one that is expert in philosophy or that would be interested in the debates of the Platonic school. To sum up, according to Gellius' interpretation, Taurus was interested in ethical problems, and more specifically, in those that did not entail the dumeta of the Stoics. Gellius was inspired by events that had actually occurred, or at least from biographical episodes: during a voyage to Delphi for seeing the Pythian games79, Taurus was informed that in Lebadea a friend of his, who was a Stoic philosopher, was sick: despite the difficulties of the voyage, he transferred there, and a discussion between Taurus and his friend about suffering ensuedS0. The most interesting problem for this society of educated persons who were not exclusively dedicated to philosophy was the exhortation to practice proper morals and to follow the example of the philosopher who struggled with suffering. Such a philosophy occupied an elevated position within the values of the society of the times.

5. Gellius and Calvisius Taurus Gellius is precious to us, because he is one of the major sources for our knowledge of the work of Calvisius Taurus66. If we exclude the texts with little philosophical value, he provides us the following information: Taurus was particularly interested in the doctrine of the Pythagoreans, in their way of life and their studies (such an interest is a characteristic of the entire second century and beyond67); he blamed the obedience of the philosophers to the pretensions of rich young people68 and was interested in Aristotle's Problemata69. He defended the moderation of affections, with explicit reference to Plutarch, who had the same convictions on this issue (see De virtute moral:), and Gellius asks him his opinion on it70. Gellius refers to Taurus' exegesis of the doctrine of ~~a~4v1g cim5crtg71, taken from the Platonic Parmenides72 (there is a similar application of this doctrine in a passage of Apuleius73: the sage who proceeds on the path of virtue but is not yet wise, according to the Stoic doctrine «repente fieri perfectus» when his moral perfection is complete74). While referring to the Stoic Hierocles, Taurus polemicized against Epicurus' hedonism and his negation of providence 75.

6s Cfr. ibid., pp. 288-289. 66 See M. L. LAItMANN, Der Platoniker Tauros in der Darstellung des Aulus Gellius, Leiden 1995 (Philosophia antiqua, 63). 67 Cfr. AULus GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, I, 9. 68 Cfr. ibid., VII, 10, 5. 69 Cfr. ibid., XIX, 6; cfr. fr. 243 Rose. 7° Cfr. litmus GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, I, 26. According to Holford-Strevens, Plutarch would have been the teacher of Taurus, even if their relationship would have been informal, cfr. HOLFORD-STREVENS, Aulus Gellius cit., p. 283. 71 Cfr. AuLus GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, VII, 13, 8-11. 72 Cfr. Parm. 156d. 73 Cfr. Plat., II, 20, 248. 7 4 Cfr. MoREscIIINI, Apuleio e it platonismo cit., p. 11, and cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 208. 78 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, IX, 5.

158

76

Cfr. ibid., XII, 5, 5-6. Cfr. ibidem. 78 Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, III, 280 and 285-286. 79 Cfr. AuLus GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, XII, 5. 80 Cfr. HOLFORD-STREVENS, Aulus Gellius cit., pp. 66-71.

77

159

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

It was not the problem of pathos according to the Stoics or the Peripatetics that was of interest, but the attitude of human beings before it, in such a way that they might provide an example to others. Taurus, in his morality and his equilibrium, was the fitting person for this type of philosophy.

flict with the teachings of Zeno and ChrysippusS2. Elsewhere, Epictetus is known through what Favorinus tells of him83: Epictetus condemned those who were philosophers in words only, and not in deeds. He requested that those who studied the theoretical problems of philosophy be purified of their own habits and way of life. He had also severely condemned weakness of spirit in bearing pain (intolerantia), as well as incontinence84. In I, 2, Genius introduces another famous person, Herodes Atticus, who condemned the garrulity and captiousness of a young Stoic who was in Herodes' own Athenian villa along with others. Herodes condemned the exclusive interest in syllogisms and sophisms85. Original Stoicism had certainly cultivated logic equally with physics and ethics, but in Gellius' times, Epictetus' moralism was preferred. Gellius quotes a large passage from one of Epictetus' dissertations 86. There is little to be found on the doctrines of Musonius, which were quoted by Gellius. One traditional locus is the contrast between the composure of the true philosopher and the behavior of those who are stirred and adopt unusual attitudes in order to be admired by their listeners87. In XVI, 1 Gellius quotes a little moral enthymeme (enthymemation), which had been explained by Musonius, but is not highly significant, and in XVIII, 2, 1 he quotes another saying of Musonius that does not offer much: «animum remittere» is almost equivalent to «animum amittere». Genius' quotations of Plutarch, whom he considers a «vir doctissimus ac prudentissimus»88, are the first, or among the most ancient that we have of his work. But, as with Calvisius Taurus, Gellius makes a selection in respect to Plutarch. He completely neglects the most strictly philosophical and technical works, such as those on Platonic cosmogony, the De Iside et

6. The Speculum morale of Gellius The Noctes Atticae are representative of the moralism of the second century. Gellius took numerous moral inspirations and ideas, not only from Taurus, but also from another one of his auctoritates, Favorinus81. Gellius' references to Favorinus are all part of the so-called Popularphilosophie, that is, they are all moral. In general, Favorinus, as he is presented by Genius, professes a blandly Stoic ethics, with many characteristics taken from the principles of Roman life: he discusses friendship, proposes his interpretation of a moralizing passage of Sallust, and the episode of the childbirth of the wife of one of Favorinus' friends provides the opportunity to discuss the issue of children being nursed by their own mothers. It is important to note that Gellius does not present the doctrines of Favorinus or Taurus for the sake of erudition, but because he wants to spread a certain moral message among his readers: morals were more readily adapted to a rhetorical presentation than physics were. On the other hand, one should not think that Genius was a pure and simple moralist, like Dio Chrysostom and Plutarch were (if we can be permitted to apply the somewhat vague term of `moralist' to them). This is demonstrated by the fact that his reading of three great Greek moralists who were almost his contemporaries, and were already famous, Musonius, Epictetus, and Plutarch, did not lead Gellius to provide a positive judgment of their doctrines, but instead primarily to give us literary and erudite information on their works. Genius in fact observed that Epictetus' dialexeis, which were ab Arriano digestae (also mentioned in I, 2, 6), did not con-

81 On the figure of Favorinus as presented by Aulus Gellius, cfr. ibid., pp. 72-92; ASTARITA, La cultura cit., pp. 175-190.

Nodes Atticae, XIX, 1, 14. Cfr. ibid., XVII, 19. 84 Cfr. ibid., XVII, 19, 5. On Epictetus in Gellius, cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 202, note 8. 85 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, I, 2, 4. 86 Cfr. ibid., I, 2, 6-7. 87 Cfr. ibid., V, 1. 88 Ibid., I, 26, 4; see also IV, 11, 11: «homo in disciplinis gravi auctoritate», and IV, 11, 11-12.

160

161

82

Cfr. AuLus GELLIUS,

83

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

Osiride, and those against the Stoics and the Epicureans. Plutarch is used to open the series of Gellian commentariiS9 but with an anecdote in which Pythagoras would have managed to calculate the height of Hercules from his footprint found in Pisa, at the temple of Jupiter Olympius. There is not much of philosophy, and what exists seems to have come from a minor work of Plutarch (a Life of Hercules) that is now lost90. There are numerous other anecdotes and mirabilia: a passage of the Quaestiones convivales91 is quoted in III, 6 together with fragments of Aristotelian works92. Erasistratus' criticism of Plato93 is also taken from the Quaestiones convivales94, a memorable saying of Plutarch is quoted in III, 5, and in XI, 16 Gellius begins from Plutarch's flspi 7r o%virpayl.Coovvrig to discuss the precise meaning of the Latin word curiositas (an Apuleian topic, see above, pp. 80-81). In I, 3, 31 he quotes another lost work, the 11epi 1tvxvig, but only to note a saying by the Spartan Chilon on friendship. This is a fairly large commentarius, probably because Gellius deals with a fundamental problem for Roman ethics which interested him: Chilon's statement that Plutarch transmitted is in fact only the conclusion of a discussion on friendship that involved Cicero and Theophrastus. The quote from Panaetius' de officiis in XIII, 28, 1 introduces Cicero's work on that topic, while in I, 13 and II, 7 Panaetius remains unnamed, but Gellius speaks of xa8vpxov and officium, which was typical of Panaetius' ethics. In II, 8 Gellius quotes Plutarch's criticism of Epicurus' famous `syllogism': «death is nothing for us: for what is dissolved is without sensation, and what is without sensation is nothing to us» 95. What is interesting here is that Gellius does not agree this time with the constant communis opinio that criticized Epicurus, but he holds that the syllogism is not poorly formed, and that similar syllogisms can even be found in

Plato. The immediately following commentarius96 also contains a criticism of Plutarch, and another defense of Epicurus. Again in the De Homero97 Plutarch had criticized Epicurus for a lexical question regarding a sentence (Sent. Selectae 3) in which Epicurus would have expressed himself imprecisely. Once again, Genius reproaches Plutarch for accusing Epicurus nimis minute ac prope etiam subfrigide and correctly observes that Epicurus did not normally focus on cura verborum and elegant style, so that a criticism like that of Plutarch is requiring something from Epicurus that he did not wish to do98. In response to his own interests as well as those of his readers, along with the anecdotage and the mirabilia, which he generously quoted, Gellius also wrote not insignificant commentarii that were fairly precise and informed on technical issues, such as the syllogism99, the ~~iw1ta 100, and providence and fate according to Chrysippus (VII, 1 and 2, which were probably taken from Cicero's De faro, but perhaps from Stoic manuals)101 In any case, the problem of fate and free will had always been pertinent since its inception, and Apuleius too discusses it in Gellius' own time102. An important section is dedicated to the (avTa6(at, and related Stoic doctrines103, while the problem of pleasure and the interpretation of what it is can be found as a doxography in IX, 5. There is also a commentarius about the natural ambiguity of the words, an issue on which the Stoic Chrysippus and the Megarian Diodorus contrastedl04. We fmd an anecdote about Democritus, who blinded himselfin order to better concentrate on his meditations without distractions from external «illecebrae» 105.

Cfr. ibid., I, 1. Cfr. PLUTARCHUS, fr. 7, ed. F. H. Sandbach in Plutarch's Moralia XV, London - Cambridge 1969 (The Loeb Classical Library). 91 Cfr. ID., Quaestiones Convivales, VIII, 4, 724E. 92 See Aristotelian fr. 229 R3. 93 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, XVII, 11, 6. 94 Cfr. PLUTARCHUS, Quaestiones Convivales, VII, 1, 698B. 95 Cfr. PLUTARCHUS, De Homero, fr. 123, ed. Sandbach cit.

96 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, II, 9. 97 Cfr. PLUTARCHUS, fr. 124, ed. Sandbach. 98 Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 204, for this and for Quaestiones Convivales, III, 6, 1, 3; XV, 10, 1-2; XVII, 11, 1-6. 99 Cfr. AuLus GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, XV, 26. On this, Cfr. A. CAVARZERE, Gellio traduttore e la definizione aristotelica di sillogismo, in «Maia», 39 (1987), pp. 213-215. 100 Cfr. AULus GELLIUs, Noctes Atticae, XVI, 8. 1o1 Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 202. 102 Cfr. Plat., I, 12. 103 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, XIX, 1. 104 Cfr. ibid., XI, 12. 105 Ibid., X, 17.

162

163

89

90

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

one about Carneades106; about Plato and his Laws107, on Demosthenes, who was considered by a widespread rhetorical tradition108 to be the disciple of Plato, as Apuleius also mentions 1°9 There are the anecdotes about the hostility between Plato and Xenophon110; about the succession of Aristotle "1; about the letters of Aristotle to Alexander112; about Protagoras113 who is the typical example of the sophist understood in the pejorative sense 114; and about the chronologies of and synchronies in the biographies of famous menus Anecdotage is also the prevalent feature of Gellius' quotations of Plutarch's de Homero 116 By transmitting these anecdotes, Gellius certainly wished to grab his readers' attention and entertain them with interesting and unusual details, but didactic intentions were definitely also present. This didactic attitude can become more important when Genius no longer refers to biographical anecdotes, but to philosophical placita, which are not only presented in an ornate and agreeable style, but are also chosen with the precise goal of teaching and entertaining an educated readership that was not specialized in these problems. For example, the affirmation that an unexpected joy can lead to death is confirmed by the anecdote, also found in Livy117, of the sudden death of a mother who unexpectedly saw her son whom she had believed dead in the battle of Trasimenus, come back

safe and sound. Genius"' bases himself here on the authority of Aristotle119 Likewise, the anecdote about the extraordinary number of births that a woman accomplished120 is narrated on the basis of what Aristotle had said. Gellius adds testimonies from Roman life to the narrative of Aristotle. The problems of physics are more demanding: whether the voice is corporeal or incorporeal; on the characteristics of the senses according to the philosophy of Aristotle121, with moralizing affirmations from popular philosophy (Gellius condemns the sensations, but this is an expected criticism); on the crysta1122; on Aristotle's physical problemata123 , which were also studied by Apuleius124 Naturally, the list of anecdotes in this regard continues. In conclusion, the Noctes Atticae, however much they can be criticized for certain superficial aspects, such as the accentuation of anecdotes and mirabiliar or the voluntary avoidance of difficult issues, nevertheless constitute a work that has its own specific quality: it focuses on certain problems that were proper to the educated class of the second century. Even if it is rare or almost impossible to find personal observations in his commentarii, the selection of material itself is eloquent, and can assist us in reconstructing the environment that Gellius lived in, as well as his personality as an author. 7. Cynicism The need to adapt to a behavior that demanded respect and was properly situated in everyday life caused most of the educated people to condemn Cynicism (and, on the contrary, led an author like Tertullian to write, as a Christian, the De pallio in defense of Cynicism) 123 . Genius more than once shows his disdain

Cfr. ibid., XVII, 15. Cfr. ibid., XV, 2. 108 Cfr. ibid., III, 13, 1. On Demosthenes' fame and the ancient information regarding him being a disciple of Plato, Cfr. L. PERNOT, L'Ombre du tigre. Recherches sur la reception de Demosthene, Napoli 2006 (Speculum. Contributi di filologia classica). This information appears in Latin circles, among others, in Cicero (De orat. I, 20, 89; Brut. 31,121; Orat. 4, 15). 109 Cfr. Apol., 15. 11° Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, XIV, 3. 111 Cfr. ibid., XIII, 5. 112 Cfr. ibid., XX, 5. 113 Cfr. ibid., V, 10. t34 But in Flor. XVIII Apuleius considers Protagoras as a sophista multiscius. 115 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, XVII, 21. 116 Cfr. ibid., IV, 11. 117 Cfr. ibid., XXII, 7, 13.

118 Cfr. ibid., III, 15, 1. 119 Cfr. Aristotelian fr. 559 R3. 120 Cfr. AuLus GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, X, 2; ARISTOTELES, Hist. anim. VII, 4, 584b29. 121 Cfr. ibid., VI, 6 and XIX, 2. Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 201, note 7. 122 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUs, Noctes Atticae, XIX, 5. 123 Cfr. ibid., XIX, 4 and 6; XX, 4. 124 Cfr. Apol., 36. 125 Cfr. MORESCHINI, Aspetti della cultura filosofica cit., pp. 5121-5122.

164

165

106

107

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

for these street philosophers. It is significant that two important figures, Herodes Atticus and Musonius, are the ones to ridicule an impudent Cynic, who pretended to be a philosopher126. Philostratus agrees with this sentiment127, and Apuleius repeats this disdain in two of his conferences128. When he must defend himself from the accusation of profiteering and having availed himself of his wife Pudentilla's funds, it becomes useful for him to remember the Cynic Crates along with various moralizing considerations on the value of poverty129. Crates was the first to renounce his elevated social position before his fellow citizens. He disdained his wealth and turned to live naturally. Maximus of Tyre wrote a dissertation (n. 36) in which he exalts the life ofthe Cynic and celebrates their liberty. Maximus however wrote other moral dissertations in which Cynicism has little influence. The Cynicism that Maximus celebrated no longer has the same brazenness and polemical rigidity as true Cynicism, but is mainly colored in what I would call Stoicizing characteristics, such as renunciation of the useless goods of life, of riches, and of power, linked with the exaltation of an imperturbable spirit before human affairs. The Cynic of Maximus of Tyre is more a Stoic than a Cynic. The rebellious attitudes that broke with good social order were rejected, such as dressing like a beggar and speaking in an arrogant and impudent manner «like dogs». Easier to appreciate attitudes, like those we mentioned (disdain for wealth and power, independence oflife, imperturbability before events) were instead accepted. An anecdote on Diogenes the Cynic is quoted by Maximus of Tyre130 in this sense, as he is also by the contemporary Claudius Aelianus131. These are however primarily anecdotal citations.They also mainly focus on Cynics' ready and spirited jokes, and their freedom of speech before all, whether powerful or authoritative (Plato himself is implicated132)

8. Aelianus A work like the Varia Historia of Aelianus, which has similar goals to Gellius' work, but is exasperatingly flat and mediocre with its almost exclusive search for `memorable sayings and acts', cannot be of the same utility to us133 Aelianus never offers us excerpta, but presents everything more or less by hearsay. It is difficult to gather something more precise about Aelianus' philosophical culture from the collection of anecdotes, even if we limit ourselves to those referring to philosophers and their doctrines. It can be interesting to note the anecdote about Plato, who studied music and poetry before dedicating himself to philosophy1". Apuleius is also aware of this detail from the Platonic biography135. Pythagoras, is transformed into a mythical personage, as in Apuleius, and is considered to be a philosopher with a superhuman nature, who could perform miracles136 Only Socrates and Diogenes the Cynic are presented as almost perfect personages who cannot be criticized. Plato himself is not free from censures, while the contrasts between Plato and Aristotle are presented in a gossiping fashion in III, 19 and IV, 9. Aelianus' personal opinions are basically inexistent: there are a few banal moralizing considerations on the nobility of Alexander the Great137; on the episode of Aeneas, which was a symbol of pietas towards the gods and one's parents138; on the generosity of Epameinondas 139; on the unexpected changes of fortune and the educational value they can have14°; as well as a few other notes. Even

126 Cfr. AuLus GELLIUs, Noctes Atticae, IX, 2. 127 Cfr. PHILOSTRATUS, Vitae sophistarum, II, 563, ed. Kayser cit., p. 71,11-22 (about Peregrinus Proteus). 128 Cfr. Flor., VII and IX. 129 Cfr. Apol., 17-23. 13° Cfr. MAXIMus TYRIUS, Dissertations, XV, 9; Diogenes is praised in XXXII, 9 etc. 131 Cfr. CLAUDIUS AELIANUS, Varia historia, III, 29; IV, 11; IX, 19; IX, 34 etc., ed. M. R. Dilts, Leipzig 1974 (Bibl. Teubn.). 132 Cfr. CLAUDIUS AELIANUS, Varia Historia XIV, 33.

133 A literary evaluation of that work is provided by Campanile, cfr. D. CAMPANILE, Eliano e la sua Varia Historia, in Approches de la Troisi~me Sophistique. Etudes en l'honneur de J. Schamps, edd. E. Amato et Al., Bruxelles 2006 (Collection Latomus, 296), pp. 420-430. 134 Cfr. CLAUDIUS AELIANUS, Varia historia, II, 30. 135 Cfr. Plat., I, 2, 184. 136 Cfr. CLAUDIUS AELIANUS, Varia historia, IV, 17. 137 Cfr. ibid., IX, 38. 138 Cfr. ibid., III, 22. The version that this episode was narrated in is quite different from Virgil's version, which is more known to us. According to Aelianus, Aeneas was spared during the conquest of Troy by the Greeks themselves, who recognized his pietas towards his father. 139 Cfr. ibid., V, 5. 148 Cfr. ibid., IV, 8 and VI, 12.

166

167

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

the praise of the wisdom of the barbarians141 should not be considered an example of the tendency, which was already strong in the second century, of admiring those peoples, but is simply a banal observation of the fact that even the most primitive peoples have an innate idea that there is a divinity.

is furnished by his treatises on Plato. Neither the argument nor the intelligence of his interpretation is praised, but the twin gifts that are praised constitute the unmistakable sign of Fontonian eloquence, that is, an enviable deployment of terms and a great shower of sententiae. Julius Aquilinus was also a respected member of African society (he was born in Sicca Veneria), which was characterized by wealth, culture, and service to the state. The philosopher had fulfilled his duties in life as a judge and as the prefect of a court.

9. Minor Platonists of the Roman World One can note Lollianus Avitus, who was an ordinary consul in 144 and the proconsul of Africa in 157-158, from among these men who were interested in rhetoric and Platonic philosophy. He was the personification of the classical ideal and expertly eloquent. His letters to Fronto manifest a particular charm and culture, as well as a precise choice of words. Apuleius speaks of him enthusiastically in the Apologia 142, where he affirms that Avitus united all the qualities of the best orators. Apuleius read one of his letters during his trial and underscored his enjoyable style. Claudius Maximus was the successor to Lollianus Avitus (158-159) in Africa. We know of him mainly from the trial of Apuleius at Sabratha. He was a philosopher and a friend of Apuleius, who exalts his virtues, erudition, and their common interests in philosophy. Claudius was able to recognize Apuleius' allusions to the works of Plato, Aristotle, and all the ancient philosophers. He possessed the ideal union of philosophy and action, «vir tam austerae sectae tamque diutinae militiae»143 Claudius Maximus was in fact a soldier who had already distinguished himself in Trajan's Parthian campaigns. He was a teacher of Stoic philosophy, and taught Marcus Aurelius, who praised his humanity in particular144. Claudius Maximus was also a friend of his predecessor, Lollianus Avitus. The letter of Fronto Ad amicos I, 4 presents Julius Aquilinus as a philosopher and a sophist. Aquilinus was both learned and elegant, a concrete example of the union of intellectual gifts

141 Cfr. ibid., II, 31. 142 Cfr. Apol., 24 and 94-95. 143 Ibid., 81, 2. 144 Cfr. MARCUS AURELIUS, Ad se ipsum, I, 15,

168

10. Aelius Aristides and the Platonism of the Second Century Aelius Aristides was certainly the sophist contemporary to Apuleius who was most interested in philosophy — even more than Lucianus, despite his polemical attitudes against it 145 Philostratus, writing the Vitae Sophistarum a few decades after the death of Aristides, declared that his intention was to narrate the biographies of those «who though they pursued philosophy, ranked as sophists, and also of the sophists properly called» 146 Philosophy and rhetoric were therefore considered to be united by some of the most important representatives of sophistics (Aelius Aristides) and their oldest interpreter (Philostratus). Aelius Aristides was therefore one of those sophists who was also a philosopher. Various biographical details are narrated by Philostratus147 : he was the student of Aristocles of Pergamum, a Peripatetic philosopher; he was known for the scrupulous preparation of his orations, for his avoidance of frivolous verbiage, and for having lived without the support of powerful men; his eloquence would have made a favorable impression on Marcus Aurelius, to whom he however responded with a cer-

145 Aelius Aristides is also considered by Harrison as the object of the satire of the religious experiences that Apuleius included in the Metamorphoses, cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit., pp. 250-252. This theory does not convince us, as we said above (pp. 82-83), but we see that Harrison too thought that any sort of comparison between Apuleius and Aristides was fitting. 146 P~~LOSTRATUS, Vitae Sophistarum, Praefatio, 479, ed. Kayser, tr. Wright cit., p. 1,1. 147 Cfr. ibid., II, 9, 582-583, pp. 87,10-88,13.

169

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

tam audacity — which Philostratus justified; and he was well cultured. Similar, but in some ways more interesting, information comes from Suda148. Aristides was the student of Polemon, and also followed the conferences of Herodes Atticus in Athens and the lessons of Aristocles in Pergamum; he was a «philosopher and priest of the temple of Zeus» in his country — like Apuleius was «sacerdos provinciae» and «philosophus Platonicus». Philostratus does not mention Aristides' On Rhetoric or In Defense of the Four although they are among his best orations — probably because they were never spoken.

and this with a certain rigidity. The principles behind this attitude can be traced back to Isocrates. In the past, the communis opinio was that of Aristides' complete opposition to Plato, as well as the equally rigid opposition of rhetoric to philosophy. However, Pernot has reconstructed the various motives for Aristides' effort to demonstrate the practical and concrete possibility of a noble rhetoric, that is, a philosophical one, which was substantially implicit in the thought of Plato himselfl52. Consequently, the three orations of Aristides in defense of rhetoric are re-examined by Pernot in the perspective of an implicit Platonism, or at least of an implicit philosophical substance for the art of rhetoric 153 We had observed that Aristides distinguishes two types of rhetoric154 If before Aristides, there was no lack of effort to separate the philosophical aspect from the practical, common one — which was still the usual one in Aristides' time — rhetoric is present in contemporary Platonism, namely in Apuleius155 Milazzo also interpreted in this way: Aristides, far from wanting to refute Plato, wanted to pull him in and make him part of rhetoric (naturally, of rhetoric as Aristides conceived of it), and make one science out of the two disciplines. Isocrates himself had aimed to propose the true philosophy, which for him also included rhetoric 156

The practice of sophistry (even if Aristides never wanted to be considered a sophist, since he refused any compensation for his orations149) obviously required a primary role for rhetoric — but it did not reject philosophy's role as well, as long as it fitted oratory. We presented this as our interpretation years ago15o, and it was confirmed in a study by Alain Michel151, according to whom Aristides aimed at the fusion of rhetorical and philosophical culture, and would not have so much attempted to combat Plato as to appropriate him as an ally within philosophical rhetoric. Aristides was not alone in the rediscovery of this role during the second century. Maximus of Tyre manifested the same interests, and sought out a new form of rhetoric that paid proper attention to philosophy. It is therefore evident that opposition between philosophy and rhetoric is not that radical in Aristides, despite the fact that he opposes rhetoric to the philosophy of Plato,

148 Cfr. Suidae Lexicon, s.v. AptaTaric, ed. A. Adler, 5 vols., Leipzig 19281938, I, p. 353. 149 Cfr. PUBLIUS AELIUS ARISTIDES, Orationes, III, 98-99, edd. F. W. Lenz C. A. Behr, in AELLI ARISTIDIS Opera, I, Orationes I-XVI, Leiden 1976-1980. 150 Cfr. C. MORESCHINI, Elio Aristide tra retorica e filosofia, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der r~mischen Welt (ANRW II - 34,2) cit. (see above, ch. 1, note 138), pp. 1234-1247. 151 Cfr. A. MICHELL, Rh~torique et philosophie au second siècle ap. J.-C., in Aufstieg and Niedergang der r~mischen Welt - Sprache and Literatur (einzelne Autoren seit der hadrianischen Zeit and Allgemeines zur Literatur des 2. and 3. Jahrhunderts), edd. H. Temporini - W. Haase, Berlin - New York 1992 (ANRW II - 34,1), pp. 3-78.

152 On the pertinence of Aristides' defense of rhetoric, cfr. L. PERNOT, Platon contre Platon: le probl~me de la rh~torique dans les discours platoniciens d'Aelius Aristide, in Contre Platon, 1, Le platonisme d~voile', ed. M. Dixsaut, Paris 1993 (Tradition de la penshe classique), pp. 315-338, pp. 329-336. 153 Cfr. ibid., pp. 317-328. 154 Cfr. MoREseiINI, Elio Aristide cit., pp. 1236-1238; In., Elio Anstide e it platonismo del secondo secolo, in Plutarco e la cultura della sua eta, Atti del X Convegno Plutarcheo (Fisciano - Paestum, 27-29 ottobre 2005), edd. P. Volpe Cacciatore - F. Ferrari, Napoli 2007 (Collectanea, 25), [pp. 87-102] , pp. 89-91. 155 Cfr. Plat., II, 8, 231. This identification was also accepted by Mastrorosa, cfr. I. MASTROROSA, Annotazioni critiche sal IIepi (*optic* aristideo, in «Sileno», 29.1-2 (1993), [pp. 481-504], pp. 496-503. 156 Cfr. A. MILAZZO, Un dialogo d!cile. La retorica in conflitto nei Discorsi Platonici di Elio Aristide, Hildesheim - Zurich - New York 2002 (Spudasmata, 87), p. 346 (admiration of Plato), pp. 352-354 (agreement with Plato).

170

171

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

The Platonism of Aristides and his readers is situated at this level. We have an example of this in the fourth sacred discourse, which is from 145157. Aristides says:

instead did present some research, but after having reached some concrete information from the studies on Middle Platonism, he attributed too much importance to what was still just a hypothesis, and affirmed that «a Platonic school flourished at Pergamum under Caius». This `Caius' (who would be Gaius, the head of the so-called Gaiosgruppe that is no longer credible) would have been the source of Aristides' Platonic doctrines. According to Behr, this same Caius was the one who was strongly offended by the accusations that Aristides made of Plato in the second and third orations, so that Aristides took that occasion to renew his criticisms while addressing Sextus Julius Capito in the fourth oration. However, if we follow the interpretation of Milazzo164 , the fourth oration is a `palinode' of the second (Aristides himself uses the term), and has an exactly opposite intention, that is, it does not intend to make accusations, but to better explain and harmonize them. This does not require us to think, as Behr does, that Sextus Julius was «a member of that school» (i.e., of the Platonic school of Gaius). He could have simply appreciated Platonism, and nothing more. Also the other hypothesis of Behr, that Lucius of Athens had been the teacher of Aristides, remains strictly hypothetical165. Actually

During approximately the first year of my sickness, I gave up the study of oratory (...). While I rested in Pergamum (...), I received from the god a command and exhortation not to abandon oratory158. God thus exhorted him to `converse', not only with Socrates, but also with Demosthenes and Thucydides159 In fact, an unknown philosopher who appeared to him in a dream, after having spoken of Plato and Demosthenes, added: For us you have surpassed Demosthenes in dignity, so that not even the very philosophers can scorn you 16°. The philosopher Evarestus of Crete, having come to Pergamum from Egypt to study the cult of Asclepius, exhorted Aristides, as suggested by Asclepius himself, to pursue the activity of rhetoric as more appropriate to him than other disciplines 161 Thus, like Nicosia spoke of a `recovered rhetoric'162, one can speak of Aristides' `recovered philosophy'. Aristides imaged that Plato, asked his judgment on his own attitudes as an author of epistles163 We cannot but smile at Aristides' vanity, but we can nevertheless extract the fact that Plato was an authority for purely literary activity.

157 Cfr. CH. Bacot, Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales, Amsterdam 1968, p. 255; MILAZZO, Un dialogo duile cit., pp. 415-416. 159 AELIUS ARISTIDES, Orationes, L (Orationes sacrae, IV), 14, Eng. tr. by C. A. Behr, in The complete works, 2 vols., Leiden 1981-1986, II, p. 320. 159 Cfr. ibid., L, 15. 1b0 Ibid., L, 19, p. 321. 161 Cfr. ibid., L, 23. 162 Cfr. S. NICOSIA, Introduzione, in Elio Aristide. Discorsi sacri, Milano 1984, [pp. 7-53], pp. 28-29. 163 Cfr. AELiuS ARISTIDES, Orationes, L, 57_

164 Cfr. MILAZZO, Un dialogo docile cit., pp. 387-393. Milazzo maintains that the Epistle to Capito (Oration IV Behr) has a palinodial function after the oration of For Rhetoric (Oration II), and that it differs from that one and from the one after it, For the Four (Oration III), cfr. ibid., pp. 397-398. The epistle is important for the reconstruction of the debate of the second century between rhetoric and philosophy, and tempers their supposed opposition in the thought of Aristides. Behr dates the discourse to the end of 147, cfr. BEHR, Aelius Aristides cit., pp. 59-60 and 128. It is addressed to Sextus Julius Capito, a religious authority and high functionary of Pergamum. Milazzo also agrees to the date of late 147, shortly after the composition of the second oration was complete, cfr. MILAZZO, Un dialogo cit., pp. 391. The discourse In Defense of the Four would instead be a later work, from about twenty years later between 161 and 165. 165 Cfr. BEHR, Aelius Aristides cit., pp. 12 and 13, note 34; p. 50, note 14. The two theories (which we find improbable) are also adopted by Milazzo, cfr. MILAZZO, Un dialogo dii icile cit., p. 422: «Pergamum was a flowering philosophical center during the period of Aristides' stay, and seat of the famous Middle Platonic school of Gaius, which formed Galen and Albinus, and that Capito himself belonged to»; and ibid., p. 432: «Aristides studied (...) in Athens under the Platonist Lucius, the student of Musonius Rufus, and in Pergamum at the school of the Platonic philosopher Gaius». We have expressed our disagreement with these reconstructions, cfr. MORESCHINI, Elio Aristide tra retorica

172

173

The philosophical formation of Aristides was traced to `Caius' by Wilamowitz and Behr. As is often the case, Wilamowitz did not provide any erudite support for his statement. Behr

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

the old hypothesis that Gaius taught in Athens is unmaintainable, while Pergamum might be the location of his philosophical school, as had been asserted — with greater or lesser certainty — by Witt166, and D~rrie167 among others, on whom Behr clearly based himselfi68; G~ransson instead supposes169 that Albinus was the successor of Gaius, not in Pergamum, but in Smyrna, because Pergamum would have been a provincial environment, where the possibility of philosophical studies would have depended on chance 170 . Galen affirms that he follows the lessons of Gaius at Smyrna171 . It is best to conclude with Dillon: «Even as we do not really know when Gaius taught, so we have no clear indication as to where he taught (...), the place of Gaius' teaching activity remains uncertain» 172. Let us then look at the Platonism of Aristides and of his environment. Even if we cannot assert that Gaius was the teacher of Aristides, we can think that Aristides learned his Platonism from the Platonists of Pergamum — and not necessarily a master of a school, whose teaching would have been more developed than theirs. It is probable that there were Platonists in the Asclepieion of Pergamum, whose intellectual abilities raise legitimate concern. They would not have been philosophers in the strict sense, but `Halbphilosophen', or even at a lower level than that. We can form some idea by reading an episode of a conversation that occurred in the Asclepieion. Aristides had encountered a philosopher named Pirallianus, who, he says, had an excellent knowledge of Plato's works, and is presented with little sympathy173. Aristides observed that the Platonists gave

themselves airs by mixing the serious and the humorous, believing that this would impress people:

cit., p. 1242, and Elio Aristide e it platonismo cit., pp. 91-93. Gio~~is in agreement with us, cfr. Gio~, Filosofi medioplatonici cit., p. 133. 166 Cfr. Wirr, Albinus cit. (see above, Introduction, note 38), pp. 107 and 144. 167 Cfr. many of Dorrie's contributions to Middle-Platonism, now in Platonica Minora cit., passim. 168 Cfr. BEHR, Aelius Aristides cit., p. 12, and cfr. ID. in AELIUS ARISTIDES, The Complete Works cit., pp. 449 and 489. 169 Cfr. GoRANSSON, Albinus, Alcinous, cit., p. 35, note 2. 178 Also cfr. GIO~ , Filosofi medioplatonici cit., pp. 58-59. 171 Cfr. ALBINUS, test. 1, ed. Gio~~cit. 172 DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., pp. 266-267. 173 Cfr. AELIUS ARISTIDES, Orationes, L, 55-56.

174

This remark of mine was in reference to Plato's dialogues about nature and being (sic Toi)g 7repl Oaecog Kai 'ray 6vTwv 16yo4. (...) And Pyrallianus ordered me to pay attention and walk behind him (...). And having gone a little ways, he held up his hands and showed me a certain place in the heaven. And at the same time as he showed it, he said: `This, as far as you are concerned, is what Plato calls the soul of the universe'. I looked up and I saw Asclepius of Pergamum established in heaven174 This was naturally one of Aristides many dreams, which, besides showing his usual egocentric attitude that led him to always speak about himself; does not give the least impression of philosophical precision when it affirms that the god Asclepius of Pergamum is the visible manifestation of Plato's cosmic soul, and that Plato wrote "dialogues about nature and beings", i.e. about the sensible and intelligible worlds. In brief, Pirallianus the Platonist does not seem to be much of a philosopher. This does not even bring us to the level of the gossip of Sacred discourse. During a dream, Aristides relates, Lucius made other complimentary remarks about me to him, and praised me somehow in the following fashion: This man, he said, is Plato and Thucydides, and Plato and so and soli'. The god, Asclepius, said that it was fitting that my mind be changed from its present condition, and having been changed, associate with god, and by its association be superior to man's estate (Icn11eiivoct T~v voiiv C'67r~~TO~~Kaeeo rvpc6roc, KtviOevra 8i wyysv€or8at Sew, oUyyev6Levov 8~~inrepixety ~tv8pwarivrc € ewg). And another was remarkable, either by associating with god (Oak) ovyyevc*Evov), to be superior, or being superior, to associate with god (ovveivat OW 176

Ibid., tr. Behr cit., p. 329. Ibid., LI (Orationes sacrae, V), 58, p. 350. 176 Ibid., L, 52, p. 328.

174

178

175

APULELUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

This is the typical requirement of Middle Platonism to separate oneself from the sensible world to unite oneself with god. It was not without reason that Pernot spoke of `an insipid (affadi) and conciliatory Platonism' in Aristides' discourses in defense of rhetoric177 .

change in his strategy, and sought to give himself a fresh image as one who studied philosophy and as a friend of the representatives of Middle Platonism (§§. 6-7)»181. Aristides affirms that Plato held truth above all other things182, and considers anyone who condemns his conduct to be foolish183. Oration 4 would thus be a `palinode', because Aristides sought to show that Plato's position was in fact close to his own184 . There are frequent admirative remarks for Plato throughout the oration. It follows that Aristides thought that, if one looked closely, Plato's opinion on rhetoricians was similar to his own conciliatory opinion, which distinguished between true orators and second rate orators. Only the latter would truly be in conflict with Plato. It seems to us that Aristides did not actually have much sympathy, not only for contemporary Platonists who were probably likewise hostile to Aristides' rhetorical exhibitions, but also for Plato, despite all the celebratory topoi.This antipathy can be seen throughout the two extremely long orations in defense of rhetoric and the four. It is particularly significant that Aristides mentions all the elements of the Platonic biography that had been the object of ill willed criticism and gossipy considerations in antiquity185. A contemporary of Aristides, Aulus Genius186, expresses himself with a bit of ill will towards Plato and with even less sympathy than that of Fronto towards philosophy. There are also ill willed references to the life of Plato (above all to his voyages to Sicily and ephebic love) among the Christian authors who adopted more rigid attitudes towards pagan paideia, such as Tatian187 and

As one would expect, Aristides knew Plato's texts that were most congenial to him, or at least those that were most accessible to a rhetorician: the entire Gorgias, because of the polemics against rhetoric and the four great Athenian citizens of the fifth century BC (Mikiades, Themistocles, Cimon, and Pericles); the Republic, almost exclusively for the most picturesque aspects (so to speak) that critics and detractors noted in the dialog (the city under the control of philosophers, and the sharing of women)178; the Phaedrus, almost exclusively in relation to it stating that Pericles had been a disciple of Anaxagoras and to the introductory passage of Socrates' discourse in defense of divine folly; the seventh Epistle, for its autobiographical elements, which Aristides used maliciously. Beyond these elements (which are constantly repeated), it does not seem to me that Aristides, despite his numerous references, knew much about the philosophy of Plato. A reference to the Parmenides as an excellent work179 is little more than a topos, and does not necessarily come from direct reading. The 'hyper-uranian' place of the Phaedrus is mentioned twice by Aristides180, but always leads to elaborations with rhetorical content and character. Milazzo thought, as we do, that Aristides' anti-Platonic polemics were in fact a sort of attempt to reconcile rhetoric and philosophy. In this light, he re-examined the Epistole to Capito (Orat. 4). At the beginning, Aristides proposes the integration of rhetoric and philosophy through the assertion that he would have studied Plato for many years, and by placing Plato together with Demosthenes. «It seems clear here that Aelius Aristides made a sensible

177 Cfr. PERNOT, Platon contre Platon cit., p. 328. 178 Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 209. 179 Cfr. AELIUS ARISTIDES, Orationes, IV, 37 (to Capito). 190 Cfr. Phaedr. 247c (in Orat., XXVIII, 142), and 246e (in Orat., XLII, 4).

176

181 MILAZZO, Un dialogo domicile cit., p. 392; the examination of the letter to Capito continues ibid., p. 393. 182 Cfr. AELIUS ARISTIDES, Orationes, IV, 8. 183 Cfr. ibid., IV, 12. t84 Cfr. ibidem. 188 Similar gossip or hostile interpretations can be found in others contemporary to Aristides. We note here only Diogenes Laertius and Aelianus. Due to his perspective, Milazzo instead observes that Aristides did not repeat the accusation of plagiarism that many writers had made of Plato, cfr. MILAZZO, Un dialogo dfcile, cit., p. 349. 786 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, III, 13; III, 17. 187 Cfr. TATIANUS ASSYRIUs, Oratio ad Graecos, 2, PG 6, [803-888], 805-809A, ed. M. Whittaker, in TATLAN, Oratio ad Graecos and fragments, Oxford 1982 (Oxford early Christian texts).

177

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

Tertullian188 . It is thus not surprising that Porphyry189 took the issue up again later, and attempted to defend Plato from all these accusations. Apuleius was aware that many people harshly criticized Plato's voyages to Sicily, to the point that he thought it was necessary to re-establish the truth by indicating what Plato's intentions had been190 It is further known that Aristides has weak points in his reasoning, such as prolixity of speech, continual repetition of the same arguments, and the constant but somewhat mechanical habit of contrasting Plato with himself The three orations contain many sophisms and clearly untenable arguments, whose only scope is polemics and the final goal of celebrating rhetoric191

Aristides' philosophical weakness and illogical reasoning have been studied in relation to what has been called his `personal religion'192. These `defects' merit consideration from the religious perspective, and that of henotheism in particular. This concept is foundational for both the Sacred Discourses and the prosical Hymns, in which religious ideas are united to philosophical knowledge. Even if they are confused, they can nevertheless lead to some interesting results. J. Amann definitely provides us with the strongest contribution for our knowledge of the Hymns in his book on the Hymn to Zeus 193. This is not a recent study. However, in respect to our problem it can be considered the most important product of the method followed by the scholars of philosophy and religion who represented the German school of the beginning of the twentieth century. It is influenced by two great masters, O. Weinreich and E. Norden. The latter's Agnostos Theis certainly provided the model that Amann used for the study of Aristides' religious philosophy. Today's research into the sacred hymns of Aristides accentuates his tendency to henotheism more than was done in earlier periods, and it considers it as a typical sign of the pagan religiosity of the second century. One could however ask how the henotheism of the Hymn to Zeus relates to the author's devotion to Asclepius (i.e. to Aristides' `personal religion'). According to Behr, Aristides' particular devotion for Asclepius should not lead us to forget that he considered Asclepius as just another divinity of the Greek pantheon, and thus as inferior to Zeus. For Aristides, «excepting a few trivial details, where unique powers are predicated of Zeus and in a moment

1B8 Cfr. TERTULLIANUS, Apologeticum, 46, PL 1, [305-604], 565A-581A, ed. E. Dekkers, in ID., Opera, I, Opera catholica. Adversus Marcionem, Turnhout 1953 (CCSL, 1), pp. 77-170. 189 Cfr. BEHR, Aelius Aristides cit., pp. 186-199. 190 Cfr. Plat., I, 4, 189. For this subject, we note the old study of Geffcken, cfr. J. GEFFCKEN, Antiplatonica, in «Hermes», 64 (1929), pp. 87-109. Lenz dealt with it in greater detail, and examined a passage of Olympiodorus' Commentary on the Gotgias (cfr. OLYMPIODORUS ALEXANDRINUS, In Platonis Gorgiam Commentaria, ed. W. Norvin, Leipzig 1936, pp. 197,21-198,2, corresponding to Gorg. 515c) that speaks of 'a philosopher' who would have rebutted Aristides' criticisms, and more specifically would have observed that Aristides contradicted himself, cfr. F. W. LENZ, Die Aristeideszitate in Olympiodors Kommentar zu Platons Gorgias, in Aristeidesstudien, Berlin 1964 (Schriften der Sektion fiir Altertumswissenschaft, 40), [pp. 147-166] (repr. from «American Journal of Philology», 67 (1946), pp. 103-128), p. 150 ff. This philosopher was probably Porphyry, who, according to Suda, s.v., wrote against that work. The same reference is found in Olympiodorus' Commentary on Alcibiades I (II, 190) and in Julian the Apostate, Contra Heraclium, 237C. In such cases, all the quotations of and allusions to Aristides manifest a solid knowledge of Platonic discourses. Olympiodorus could also have used some scholia in Aristides. In Olympiodorus' Commentary on the Gorgias, it appears that he used a source, which he called rig TWY grryrFeirv, that was particularly hostile to Aristides, cfr. OLYMPIODORUS, In Platonis Gorgiam, ed. Norvin cit., p. 149,20-29 (corresponding to Gorg. 499b). This E iyrrT11S should probably not be understood in the strict sense, that is, as a commentator. It could then refer to Porphyry, who had contradicted Aristides in defense of Plato, but was never a true and proper commentator of any of his works. 191 We observed (cfr. MoREscilINI, Elio Aristide cit., p. 1245) that the Oration 3 (In Defense of the Four) is the most theoretical of them, and aims to defend rhetoric as an art, thus refuting the Platonic Gorgias, which considered it a sort of adulation. On the basis of Plato's own affirmations in the Phaedrus (244a), which exalted the folly inspired by god and nature as opposed to art, which could not attain such elevated results, because it is simply a human work,

178

Aristides replied that the lack of art, that is, of science, which would constitute the intrinsically negative aspect of rhetoric is not in fact a defect. Poetry is a gift of nature, and not art, so that Plato is confounded by his own arguments, which are exemplified by a long quotation from the Phaedrus (244a-245b). Aeschines of Sphettus, who came from the Socratic school itself, confirmed this conviction of Aristides that art is not necessary for poetry (Oration 3, 61 ff.). 192 Treated by Festugi~re, cfr. A.J. FESTUCI~RE, Sur les Discours Sacr~s' d'Aelius Aristide, in «Revue des Etudes Grecques», 82 (1969), pp. 117-153. 193 Cfr. J. AMANN, Die Zeusrede des Ailios Aristeides, Stuttgart 1931 (Tiibinger Beitrage zur Altertumswissenschaft, 12).

179

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

of religious ecstasy Asclepius impinges on them, this theological ranking is kept surprisingly intact»19a However, the supreme position of Zeus does not preclude a ranking of other divinities, and this is the specific meaning of henotheism. According to Behr, Aristides' devotion to Asclepius cannot properly be called a `conversion', because Aristides, who was a true polytheist, continued to venerate Serapis and Isis195 — but it is precisely this attitude that is characteristic of henotheism, for which the veneration of a supreme god does not exclude faith in other minor gods. It appears that Lenz too, when writing a few years ago, did not yet have a clear understanding of henotheism, and spoke more generally of `monotheism': «Up to what point did Aristides express his personal religiosity in this hymn, and up to what point did he take up the philosophical concepts that preceded and were contemporary to him, in order to organize his personal work? The concept that all supernatural events are manifestations of a central divine force, and that this force is benevolent towards human beings, and that is does not make any substantial difference whether one recognizes it in Dionysius, or Zeus, or Athena, or Hephaestus, and thus that the hymn is directed to this divine force, is something that tends toward monotheistic syncretism and speculations» 196 The most striking characteristic of Aristides' Hymns is, however, the strong tendency to theocrasy (ovv~'rrToNtev To c ~v~pavty, as he says in Discourse to Asclepius 4). When the author is able, he from time to time identifies the god he is celebrating (Asclepius, Dionysus, or Serapis197) with the greatest god, Zeus supreme (Zeus is lit 7rp&Tct TWv 8vrc v and his will is t57rip TWv ~)LWv) 198 Zeus had a birth like Asclepius did, but he remained ray 6vTwv 7rcer p ma ?rot/Trig (an expression that seems to echo Plato's famous

expression in Timaeus 29e). The greatest god, Zeus, is also, as some say, Dionysus199, as Asclepius is also Zeus200. In this way Asclepius possesses 7r~m ai 8vviEhsuS to give benefices to human beings, above all giving them health. Serapis (who is usually identified with Zeus) never lacks supreme power, but he goes through the universe and fills it with himself201. The other gods have a variety of powers (not only over the earth, but also over the sea, §. 23) and honors. Human beings sometimes call on one or the other, but Serapis, as the first and gccfporoc, possesses power over the beginning and end of all things 202. This type of theocrasy leads to an androgyny of the divinity203, insofar as the characteristics of other male and female gods are sometimes included in the god that Aristides is celebrating (at times Zeus, at others Dionysus). Zeus wants to be both father and mother for Dionysus, and thus both male and female 2o4 Dionysus' place is either with the girls or the boys, as beardless 2os

194 BEEIR, Aelius Aristides cit., p. 151. 195 Oft. ibid., p. 25. 196 LENZ, Aristeidesstudien cit., p. 222 (italics mine). Russell remains outside this problem, and mainly underscores the rhetorical aspects of these compositions of Aristides, cfr. D. A. RUSSELL, Aristides and the Prose Hymns, in Antonine Literature cit., pp. 199-219. 197 For this hymn, see A. HoFLER, Der Sarapishymnus des Ailios Aristeides, Stuttgart 1935 (Tiibinger Beitr~ge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 27). 198 Cfr. AELIUS ARISTIDES, Orationes, XL (Hymn to Heracles), 2.

199 Cfr. ibid., XLI (Hymn to Dionysus), 4: aiirb5 6 Zciv al 6 At6vuooS. 20° Cfr. ibid., L, 46; XLIII, 25 (identity of will between Asclepius and Zeus). 201 Cfr. ibid., XLV (Hymn to Sarapis), 21: iXXh Stec rr~vrwv filar tcal T6 7r~v 7rs7r)riprpak, an expression that echoes Stoicism. 2°2 Cfr. ibidem: elia'rrep tcopu4aioS 7r~vrwv r pxecs xal 7r€pare i st. 2°3 This was already observed by Lenz, who however gave a completely inadequate literary explanation for it, cfr. W. LENZ, Der Dionysoshymnos des Aristeides, in «Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale», 3.2 (1961), pp. 153-166 (repr. in ID., Aristeidesstudien cit.). According to him, Dionysus is both masculine and feminine — androgynous. Aristides thus attributes to Dionysus the characteristics that Plato had attributed to primitive human beings in the discourse of Aristophanes (Symp. 189d). This exclusively literary analysis continues, and Lenz sees imitations of Plato (Crit. 109c and Polit. 274c) in Hymn to Dionysus 6, where the aretalogy of Dionysus is described. Dionysus is transformed into a new Prometheus, and does for contemporary human beings what Prometheus had done in ancient times by stealing the fire from the gods and being punished for it. Aristides no longer believes in the gods of religion as punitive powers, but as beneficial powers. The audience for the hymn must believe in these powers, and this is the new gospel proposed by Aristides, who was influenced by Stoicism. In the conclusion, Lenz refers to Plato (Symp. 197e) again, where he says «all men must follow Eros, singing hymns in his honor», and Aristides refers this affirmation to Dionysus. Thus, in Aristides eyes, Dionysus assumes the role that Eros had for Plato. 2°4 Cfr. AELIUS ARISTIDES, Orationes, XLI, 3-4. 205 Cfr. ibid., XLI, 5.

180

181

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

The tendency to henotheism is a further result of this. Giulia Sfameni Gasparro206 observed that Aristides strongly asserts his faith in henotheism: «And I shouted out: 'The One!', meaning the god»207. In this context we reach an important aspect of the history of religious philosophy. In the Hymn to Zeus208, Aristides calls the supreme god a~To7r~'wp, that is, «father to himself» (Behr). Amann asserted209 that although a~ToTcderwp is not attested to in the period in which Aristides wrote, it was typical of Egyptian philosophical and religious concepts: Aristides would have composed the Hymn to Zeus in Egypt210, and, despite the fact that the term a rroir&Twp must have seemed barbaric to him as a rigorous Atticist, he would have used it to please his audience - all the more so since Aristides was well aware of the Hellenic syncretism that was prevalent in Egypt. Behr largely accepted Amann's explanation, but without accepting, as other did, that the work had been written in Egypt. New research has however led to results that were not foreseen by either Amann or Behr: for Whittaker 211, avTo7r~Twp is «a theological commonplace

of the Roman Empire». Whittaker found the presence of this concept and term in the invocation to Zeus of Orphic Hymn (used for Nature in this passage212) and in Synesius213, to which we can add other witnesses as well. First of all, the analogous term a~To4)w c is present in the Orphic Hymns. Similar adjectives, such as avToysvi]S and others which express similar concepts are also frequent in the Corpus Hermeticum, whose treatises in their current state are probably from the second century. The same concept of god being engendered from himself is in Maximus of Tyre214 and in Plutarch 215, who however expresses the idea of an `autonomous movement' of Isis at the moment of her `birth', and does not use the specific term in question. A~To7r~Twp spread from pagan religious speculation to Christianity and gnosticism. This dissemination seems to begin with the latter, so that, once again, it is possible to observe Aristides' use of the term in many other authors of his times, such as in the gnostics. Airrowdercop is used by the gnostics mentioned by Epiphanius 216 and by the Valentinians217. We have witnesses to the term later as well. It is used by some Christian writers, who, while noting its pagan origin, could nevertheless find a convenient and fitting use for it. The term is found in a verse of an anonymous poet, quoted by pseudo-Didymus: «There is only one God, the father of himself; from whom come all things of this world (Etc Bloc a~zorrtxtwp, it o$ Ta& Tab= y€vovro)»218. This is a verse from those «who are outside of Christianity», and its author remains unidentified. Pseudo-Didymus prob-

206 Cfr. G. SFAMENI GASPARRO, Elio Aristide e Asclepio, un retore e it suo dio: salute del corpo e direzione spirituale, in Cultura e promozione umana. La cura del corpo e dello spirito nell'antichit~~classica e nei primi secoli cristiani. Un magistero ancora attuale?, Convegno internazionale di studi Oasi `Maria Santissima' (Troina, 29 ottobre - 1 novembre 1997), edd. E. Dal Covolo - I. Giannetto, Troina 1998, [pp. 123-143], pp. 135-138. 207 AELIUS ARISTIDES, Orationes, L, 50, tr. Behr cit., p. 328. 208 Cfr. ibid., XLIII (Hymn to Zeus), 9. 209 Cfr. AMANN, Die Zeusrede cit., pp. 31-34. 210 Aristides' presence in Egypt is attested to by Philostratus (cfr. NinoSTRATUS, Vitae Sophistarum, II, 9, 582, ed. Kayser cit., p. 87,7-8) and by a few epigraphs, such as CIG 4679 (cfr. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, III, 4679, ed. A. B~ckh, Berlin 1853, p. 327, corresponding to OGIS 709, cfr. Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae, 709, ed. W. Dittenberger, 2 vols., Leipzig 19031905, II, pp. 446-448) which contains the name of Publius Aelius Aristides Theodorus. 211 Cfr. J. WHITTAKER, The historical background of Proclus' doctrine of the AbOuir~o rara, in De Jambliche a Produs, ed. H. Dtirrie, Vandoeuvres - Geneve 1975 (Entretiens sur 1'Antiquit~~classique, 21), [pp. 193-230], pp. 203-206; ID., Self-Generating Principles in Second-Century Gnostic Systems, in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, I, The School of Valentinus, Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut (28-31 march 1978), ed. B. Layton, Leiden 1980 (Studies in the history of religions, 41), [pp. 176189], pp. 185-186 (where he explicitly refers to the passage of Aristides).

182

Cfr. MAxIMUS TYRIus, Dissertationes, 15, 7 and 10, 10. Cfr. SYNESIUS CYRENENSIS, Hymni, I, 146, PG 66, [1587-1614], 1589, ed. N. Terzaghi, in ID., Hymni et Opuscula, 2 vols., Roma 1939-1944, I, p. 11. 214 Cfr. MAxIMUS TYRIus, Dissertationes, 16, 6. 215 Cfr. PLUTARCHUS, De Iside et Osiride, 62, 376A. 216 Cfr. EPIPHANIUS CONSTANTIENSIS, Panarion haereticorum, XXVI,10, PG 41, [173-1199], 315C, ed. K. Holl, rev. J. Dummer - C. Collatz - M. Bergermann, in Ancoratus und Panarion haer. 1-33, Berlin 2013 (GCS n.f, 10, Bd. 1): TON 7[aT£pa Twv awl/ tC011 xfiplov T~v avT~v a~Tarr~Twpa. 217 Quoted by the same Epiphanius, cfr. ibid., XXXI, 5, 3, PG 41, 481B: o-rs y~p ~Tr'~picfiS 6 A~To7r~Twp avT~S iv iavTw TraplsTXa T~~Tr~vra, and XXXI, 6, 4: 7rolo~vTOC, T~~T€aoS TOO a~TOTC~TwpoS itSlXoT~TKYITov Tip ~avTov &v~7rauol.v. 218 PSEUDO-DIDYMUS, De Trinitate, II, 5, 9, PG 39, [270-992], 493D, ed. I. Seiler, in DIDYMus DER BLINDE, De Trinitate in Buch 2, Kapitel 1-7, Meisenheim am Glan 1975 (Beitrage zur klassischen Philologie, 52). 212

213

183

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

ably took it from an Orphic or Chaldaic theosophy, or from one of the theological oracles in verse that circulated in Late Antiquity. It is in fact similar to an oracular verse which, according to John Malalas 219, had been given to Pharaoh at a most ancient time (but which in fact must be from Late Antiquity): «This is the God, father of himself, without father, father and son of himself> Z20. Gregory of Nazianzus, writing to his friend Nemesius who was famous for his eloquence but was still a pagan, invites him to abandon his error and stop singing of Orpheus, Hesiod, Homer, and other famous poets 221. Pagan gods, even if against their will, must subject themselves to assisting the Christian poetry of Gregory. Among these, Hermes Trismegistus, considered here in his role as a prophet, and the Sybil, must venerate the Cross of Christ 222. For this reason they all must withdraw, turning to their senses even if late. Phoebus prophesied the death of the gods, which no longer exist. These must be his words: Instead, He who destroyed my evilness exists; this one is alito1r~zwp, dataxeutoc, ~..ti rwp 223; this one is Christ, who is father of himself, generated without the labor pains and without mother. There is finally the passage that Whittaker identified from Synesius 224, whose interest for pagan and gnostic theosophies is known: flc Tr pwv 7r~vTwv / 7rdtrsp ctirroir trwp. Aristides, with his ready attention to philosophical and religious doctrines, perhaps momentarily used the term afxro7r~twp to compose his Hymn to Zeus, but did not encounter another fitting moment to think about the theological concept that it implied. A rhetorician such as himself could have easily learned a typical element of a philosophical or religious concept from an environment that he happened to find himself in, use it

momentarily, and then abandon it. All of his philosophical and religious concepts are extemporaneous and immediate. Even if sincere, they are neither developed, nor meditated, nor systematic. In conclusion, Aristides' Platonism is an important element of the vast and varied philosophical and religious culture of the second century AD. Further, it is also essential for our understanding of the doctrines of Middle Platonism that are not strictly scholastic, since it is adapted to other interests. It therefore represents a moment of the history of Platonism rather than a contribution to its evolution, and manifests the interests of a rhetorician rather than a proper speculation. Aristides intellectually shifted just as easily towards religious attitudes (henotheism, the faith in a supreme god originating from himself) that were distant from the intellectualism of Platonic systems, but which heralded the cultural situations of later periods, just as Apuleius' religious opinions did (pp. 237-249). These religious opinions would not even be foreign to later Platonism.

219 Cfr. IOANNES MALALAS, Chronographia, III, 13, PG 97, [75-717], 144B, ed. J. Thum, Berlin 2000 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantine, 35), pp. 46-47. 220 For this passage in the history of Christian Hermetism, cfr. C. MOREscluNl, Hermes Christianus. The Intermingling of Hermetic Piety and Christian Thought, Turnhout 2012 (Cursor mundi, 8), pp. 37-38. 221 Cfr. GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS, Ad Nemesium (Carmina, II, 2, 7), PG 37, [1551D-1578B], 1570-1571, 239 ff. 222 Cfr. ibid., 1570A, 245-246. 223 Ibid., 1571A, 252. 224 Cfr. SYNESIUS CYRENENSIS, Hymni, I, 145-146, ed. Terzaghi cit., p. 11.

184

185

CHAPTER 6

THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

Jean Beaujeu, whose edition of Apuleius' philosophical works remains indispensable even if it is forty years old, has considered the philosophical works of Apuleius in a detailed and intelligent manner there'. One can then read the summary proposed by John Dillon in the context of the history of Middle Platonism as a whole2, or that of Stephen Gersh in his history of the Latin Platonic tradition3. All of Apuleius' works were the recent object of an extensive study by S. Harrison 4. Harrison provides a summary of the various works and a synthesis of the status quaestionis of some problems, even if his general interpretation of the submission of philosophy of Apuleius to Sophistics is, in my opinion, not convincings. There is therefore no lack of studies, so that we will only reflect on certain aspects of Apuleius' philosophical works that in our opinion still merit some attention. The first aspect is the fact that Apuleius, like Aulus Gellius, and following the interest for Greek culture that was typical of his period, completed his studies in Athens6. Apuleius' presence in Athens is also confirmed by his personal addition to the text of the pseudo-Aristotelian De mundo that he transCfr. BEAUJEU, Introduction cit. (see above, ch. 3, note 55), pp. vn-xxxv. Cfr. DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., pp. 306-338. 3 Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., pp. 215-227. 4 Cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit. (see above, ch. 1, note 1). 5 This nevertheless surpasses the earlier study by Sandy, cfr. G. N. SANDY, The Greek world of Apuleius. Apuleius and the Second Sophistic, Leiden 1997 (Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca classica Batava Suppl., 174). 6 Cfr. Apol. ch. 72; Flor., XVIII and XX, ed. Helm, pp. 35,15-16 and 41,1-9. 2

187

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

lated: in that work he affirms to have personally seen the portrait of Phidias, which Phidias himself attached to the shield ofAthena's statue in the Parthenon'. We can also perhaps consider a detail of Lucius' story in the Metamorphoses to be autobiographical8. It speaks of a strange personality, Pythias, who had been Lucius' «condiscipulus apud Athenas Atticas». According to Rohde9, who bases himself on Apuleius' affirmation about his «diutina studia»10, his studies at Athens lasted for about ten years (143151). For some time, it was thought that Apuleius had studied at the school of Gaius the Middle Platonist in Athens, but this conviction has been abandoned, as has been said". More recently, Dillon suggested that in Athens there was a true and proper Middle Platonic `school', because the philosopher Calvisius Taurus taught in Athens around the middle of the second century, and Aulus Genius speaks at length of him with approval12. We unfortunately do not have proofthat Apuleius followed Taurus' lessons, nor Apuleius' doctrines manifest any particular similarity with those of Taurus13. He translated some Platonic dialogs, and we could put them in this period of Apuleius' life, even if in a fully hypothetical manner. The dialogs that Apuleius translated are the Phaedo, which is witnessed to by Sidonius Apollinaris14 and Priscian15, and the Republic16. Apuleius' time in Greece was not

only dedicated to philosophical instruction: «sacrorum pleraque initia in Graecia participavi», he asserts''. If we understand what is said at the end of the Metamorphoses in an autobiographical manner, Apuleius was in Rome as well as in Athens, and he was initiated to the mysteries of Osiris there, after having been accepted into the initiation to Isis at Cenchries, in Greece18 . According to Coarelli's theory, he was in Ostia between 140 and 150, and took the name Marcellus, in honor of his patronus, Q. Asinius Marcellus, who is mentioned as priest of Osiris in the Metamorphoses (XI, 27): therefore Apuleius stay in Greece was not as long as Rohde supposes (143-151 An). This theory, however speculative, seems rather attractive" and has been recently reinforced with further arguments by Beck20. Let us then consider the De philosophia libri.

Cfr. Mund., 32, 361. Cfr. Met., I, 24. To be taken with caution, however. 9 Cfr. ROHDE, Zu Apuleius cit. (see above, ch. 2, note 64). '° Apol., 23. 11 See above, pp. 158-160. 12 Cfr. DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., p. 310. 13 Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., pp. 221-222. 14 Cfr. GAIUS SOLLIUS SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS, Epistulae, II, 9, 5, PL 58, [443-640A], ed. C. Luetjohann, in MGH, Scriptores, I, Auct. ant., 8, GAI SoLII APOLLINARIS SIDONII Epistulae et carmina, Berlin 1887, [pp. 1-172], p. 31,24-25. 15 Cfr. PRIscIANus CAESARIENSIs, Institutions grammaticae, X, ed. M. Hertz, in Grammatici Latini, II-III, ed. H. Keil, Leipzig 1855-1858, II, pp. 511,18-21 and 520,20-21. 16 Cfr. FULGENTIUS, Expositio Sermonum Antiquorum, ed. L. Lersch, in De abstrusis sermonibus, Bonn 1844, p. xxi, and cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit., p. 25. It seems unlikely to me that this was a true and proper translation of the Republic— perhaps of a section of it, like the Timaeus of Cicero? Unlike the later Neoplatonists, the Middle Platonists often did not comment nor translate entire dialogs, but only the most interesting sections of a dialog, cfr. F. FERRARI, Commentari 8

188

1. The De Platone et eius dogmate The De Platone takes the form of a manual with its conciseness, its renunciation of all discussion, and its presentation of doctrines that were apparently already established or interpreted in a satisfactory manner. Apuleius himself affirms that he desires to present the «consulta, quae aernec ra graece licet dici», that is, the opinions of Plato — and he does not wish to discuss them. The opinions of Plato that Apuleius intends to gather are useful for the active (symbolized by ethics) and contemplative (logic and rhetoric) lives: «ad utilitatem hominum vivendique et intelligendi ac loquendi rationem» 21. This common distinction specialistici alle sezioni matematiche del Timeo, in La filosofia in eta imperiale. Le scuole e le tradizioni filosofiche, Atti del colloquio (Roma, 17-19 giugno 1999), ed. A. Brancacci, Napoli 2000 (Elenchos, 31), pp. 169-224. 17 Apol., 55. 18 Cfr. Met., X, 30 and 35. 19 Cfr. COARELLI, Apuleio a Ostia cit. (see above, ch. 3, note 95). 20 Cfr. BECK, Apuleius the Novelist cit. (see above, ch. 3, note 95); ID., Divino quodam stellarum consortio coniunctum: The astrological relationship of Lucius to the priest of Isis as a chronotopic' template for Apuleius, Met. 11, in Concentus ex dissonis: Scritti in onore di Aldo Setaioli, 2 vols., edd. C. Santini et Al., Napoli 2006 (Quaderni del Dipartimento di filologia e tradizione Greca e Latina, 4), I, pp. 85-96. 21 Plat., I, 4, 186.

189

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

between active and contemplative life is found in Alcinous22, in Maximus of Tyre23, and in Calcidius as well 24. Despite these characteristics which make the De Platone an impersonal work on many levels, Beaujeu, better than any other, was able to consider certain specifics of Apuleius' interests and the placement of his work in an environment of Latin language and culture25. The work is divided into two books on physics and ethics, although Apuleius had declared that he also wished to present Platonic logic — a problem that we will speak of shortly. The first book presents doctrines that are almost exclusively taken from the Timaeus, the dialog most frequently read by the Middle Platonists. Despite the fact that the passage from one section to another is often forced and abrupt, and the resulting disconnectedness is undeniable, the book nevertheless has a unified character. There is no lack of insertions of Stoic and Aristotelian doctrines, something natural for a Middle Platonist, but the discussion as a whole moves in the domain of the Timaeus. Some placita are discussed more amply and in greater detail, while others more faithfully reproduce the original Platonic doctrine. Some dogmata are presented in a highly synthetic fashion, unlike what occurs with other Middle Platonists: thus, the doctrine of the cosmic soul is summarized in a few lines, while Plutarch had dedicated at least two works to the problem, and Atticus had treated it in depth. Furthermore, the two themes of cosmogony and the cosmic soul are logically connected to each other, and they appear in this way in Plutarch and Atticus. In Apuleius (as in Alcinous), however, they are separated from each other, and classified under two different rubrics. The insertions of doctrines from outside Platonism are far more frequent and extensive in the second book. Plato had never composed a structured body of ethical doctrines according to the ends and systematizations of the Hellenistic philosophical schools. It is obvious that if Apuleius attributes well-developed

ethical doctrines to Plato, they cannot be of genuine Platonic origin. The very idea of composing a treatise of ethics would be one of the strangest things for the Platonic mind. It is clear that the intentions and ends of Apuleius are already quite far from his model, and that the tradition that Apuleius belonged to did not constitute, at least in regard to ethics, a return to pure Platonic doctrine, but instead represented a continuation of the Hellenistic philosophical schools. Stoic ethics, and to a lesser degree Peripatetic ethics, had an important role in Middle Platonism: this can be seen in Plutarch and in Calvisius Taurus. If the metaphysics, physics, and psychology of the first book of the De Platone were, despite the large Stoic influence, the Platonic ones, the whole of the ethical doctrines presented by Apuleius is instead marked by a high degree of `eclecticism' (with the exception of Epicureanism, which was strongly rejected at all times by the Platonic and Stoic traditions) 26 , in which Platonic, Stoic, and Peripatetic elements appear with almost the same level of importance 27. One could perhaps say that what is new and lively in Apuleius' ethics is taken from the Stoic school, while many typically Platonic elements, or those that had so much importance for Plato, appear for the most part to be fossilized relics of the scholastic tradition: it is enough to think of politics, a problem that was so lively at the time of Plato, which is dried up and schematized at the end of the De Platone. Following these strong Stoic and Peripatetic influences, the second book is not a real and systematic treatise, because the doctrines contained in it are almost presented 'in blocks'. More than a treatise that follows a rigorously determined logical line, the second book of the De Platone is a manual of a highly doxographic nature.

22

Cfr. ALCINOUs, Didaskalikds, 2, ed. Whittaker cit., p. 152,30-31. and 16.

23 Cfr. MAxiMUs TYRIIIs, Dissertations, 15 24 Cfr. CALCIDIUs, Timaeus cit., 264-265. 25

Cfr. BEAuJEu, Commentaire cit., pp. 57-58.

190

26 `Eclecticism' must not be understood in a negative way for the Middle Platonists, as Dillon has rightly asserted, cfr. J. DILLON, `Orthodoxy' and Eclecticism': Middle Platonists and New-Pythagoreans, in The Question of 'Eclecticism': Studies in Later Greek Philosophy, edd. J. Dillon — A. Long, Berkeley 1988 (Hellenistic culture and society, 3), pp. 103-125. 27 For the importance of Stoicism and its renown, cfr. P. L. DONn4I, Testi e commenti, manuali e insegnamento: la forma sistematica e i metodi della filosofia in eta postellenistica, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der romischen Welt (ANRW II — 36,7) cit. (see above, ch. 1, note 95), [pp. 5027-5100], pp. 5027-5035.

191

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

The biography of Plato constitutes one of the characteristic elements of the De Platone. It appears to be better developed and more original than the other Middle Platonist doctrines, because it has a specific meaning28. Barra correctly proposed the theory that the biography of Plato contains an «autobiographical reflection of Apuleius' disquiet»29. Plato's voyages to know wisdom are parallel to those of Ulysses, who is spoken of at the end of De deo Socratis as well. Certain elements of the biography of Plato are analogous to those of Apuleius' life itself30. According to Hijmans, «the lives were certainly written in order to provide models for emulation», and for this reason Apuleius wrote that Plato had encountered labor in the defense of his doctrines, and likewise sought to phrase his words elegantly31. «Not only did the doctrine itself need to be coherent, or symphonically organized, but Plato's life also had to appear as consistent with his doctrine»32. Apuleius' biography of Plato is the oldest of those that have reached us. It has certain points in common with the biography found in the third book of the Vitae Philosophorum by Diogenes Laertius and with the anonymous Prolegomena to Plato's Philosophy33. It is difficult to specify the origin of this biographical information with greater precision. According to Leo34, Thrasyllus was the source for Diogenes Laertius and Apuleius; but this

is no more than a theory, based on Thrasyllus' mention by Diogenes in respect to a somewhat secondary piece of information35. Wilamowitz observed, in regard to the information provided by Diogenes Laertius, that the first generation of Academy scholars after the death of Plato must have written biographies of the master36. Apuleius himself in fact speaks to us of Speusippus as «domesticis documentis instructus»37, and Diogenes Laertius38 uses a work of Speusippus39. There is also biographical information on Plato in Aristotle, as is known. It is particularly important that Aristotle4° already underscored Plato's dependency on Heraclitus, just as Apuleius did later41. This all permits to suppose that the Middle Platonist school depends on the systematic arrangement that the Ancient Academy had given to the teaching of Plato and all the information pertaining to the biography of the master. The biographies of Apuleius and Diogenes Laertius have a common inclination to insert fabulous elements together with historical facts, and in particular to underscore the relationships between Plato and Pythagoras 42. These elements had to have become traditional fairly early on. The tendency to tie Plato to Pythagoras, which is so widespread in Middle Platonism, is already present in the passage of Aristotle mentioned above, in the Florida and in the De deo Socratis43, while some mythical elements of the biography of Plato (the Magi who were in Athens sacrified to the gods in occasion of his death) are found in Seneca44

28 On Plato's biography also cfr. I. MANNLEIN ROBERT, Griechischen Philosophen in Indien? Reisewege zur Weisheit, in «Gymnasium», 116 (2009), [pp. 331-357], pp. 344-345. 29 BARRA, La questione dell'autenticitd cit. (see above, ch. 4, note 168), p. 138. 3° Cfr. ID., La biografia di Platone nel `De Platone et eius dogmate' di Apuleio, in «Rendiconti della Accademia di Archeologia Lettere e Belle Arti di Napoli», n.s. 38 (1963-1964), [pp. 5-18], pp. 8-12. 31 Cfr. HUMANS, Apuleius, Philosophus cit., p. 435, note 175. 32 F. FERRARI, Esegesi, commento e sistema nel medioplatonismo, in Argumenta in dialogos Platonis, I, Platoninterpretation and ihre Hermeneutik von der Antike bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts, edd. A. Neschke-Hentschke et Al., Basel 2010 (Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana, 31), [pp. 51-76], p. 59, note 26. 33 Cfr. ANONYMI prolegomena philosophiae Platonicae, ed. and Eng. tr. by L. G. Westerink, in ANONYMOUS, Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy, Amsterdam 1962, 1-6. More specific relationships between the Apuleian biography and that of Diogenes Laertius can be found in the work of Sinko, cfr. Tx. SINK°, De Apulei et Albini doctrinae platonicae adumbratione, Krakow 1905. 34 Cfr. FR. LEO, Die griechisch-romische Biographie nach ihrer literarischen Form, Leipzig 1901, pp. 54-55.

35 Cfr. DIOGENES LAERTIUS, Vitae Philosophorum, III, 1. 36 Cfr. L.T. VON WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF, Platon, 2 vols., Berlin 1919, II, p. 3. 37 Plat., I, 2, 183. 38 Cfr. DIOGENES LAERTIUS, Vitae Philosophorum, III, 2. 39 Cfr. SPEUSIPPUS, fr. 27, ed. P. L. F. Lang in De Speusippi Academici scriptis. Accedunt Fragmenta, Bonn 1911; ID., fr. 147, ed. M. Isnardi Parente, in SPEUSIPPO, Frammenti. Edizione, traduzione e commento, Napoli 1980 (La Scuola di Platone, 1). 4° Cfr. Metaph. 987a 29 if. 41 Cfr. Plat., I, 2, 185. 42 Cfr. ibid., I, 3, 186-187; DIOGENES LAERTIUS, Vitae Philosophorum, III, 8-9. 43 Cfr. Flor., XVIII; Socrat., 22, 169; DONINI, Sokrates and sein Damon cit. (see above, ch. 4, note 3), p. 160. 44 Cfr. SENECA, Ad Lucilium epistulae morales, VI, 58, 30-31.

192

193

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

A point of information produced by Apuleius does not correspond to the historical reality, but to the one that Apuleius himself lived in, that is, Platos's supposed intention to go to India to learn wisdom from the Magi and the Brahmans. The archetype of the voyage to seek wisdom is present in Plato himself, who, as is well known, narrates in the Timaeus45 that Solon went to Egypt and managed to learn strange and marvelous things from the priests, among which is included the myth of Atlantis. It is thus no surprise that the conviction might arise that the Greek sage (or he who desired to become such) would seek to learn wisdom from the Orient, which was a wisdom that was different from, but not inferior to, the Greek one. Cicero already speaks of this, underscoring Plato's intention to educate himself as the basis for such voyages: Sed audisse to credo, Tubero, Platonem Socrate mortuo primum in Aegyptum discendi causa, post in Italiam et in Siciliam contendisse, ut Pythagorae inventa perdisceret, eumque et cum Archyta Tarentino et cum Timaeo Locro multum fuisse et Philolai commentarios esse nanctum, cumque eo tempore in his locis Pythagorae nomen vigeret, ilium se et hominibus Pythagoreis et studiis illis dedisse 46 Elsewhere Cicero also adds that Plato wished to learn numbers and astronomy from the Egyptians, and names many Pythagoreans that he encountered in order to learn their doctrine as well as that of Socrates, whom he faithfully followed47. Plato's voyages to Egypt became more famous than others. A poeta doctus such as Lucan introduces Caesar asking the Egyptian priest Acoreus to teach him the Egyptian mysteries: 0 sacris devote senex, quodque arguit aetas, non neclecte deis, Phariae primordia gentis terrarumque situs volgique edissere mores et ritus formasque deum; quodcumque vetustis insculptum est adytis profer, noscique volentes

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

prode deos. Si Cecropium sua sacra Platona maiores docuere tui, quis dignior umquam hoc fuit auditu mundique capacior hospes48? And some years later, Quintilian: (Plato) non contentus disciplinis quas praestare poterant Athenae, non Pythagoreorum, ad quos in Italiam navigaverat, Aegypti quoque sacerdotes adiit atque eorum arcana perdidicit 49. Thus, a tradition regarding Plato's voyages had been established in Rome before Apuleius5°. According to him, Plato went to the philosopher Theodorus, in Cyrene, to learn geometry, and to Egypt to learn astrology and the «ritus prophetarum», that is, the religious practices of the Egyptian `prophets', of the priests who manifested the will of god. The presumed religious aspect of Plato's philosophy appears in these words, which are, however, more suitable for Apuleius than for Plato. The prophetae that Plato desired to know are those who were famous in Apuleius' time. Apuleius introduces (even if it is not sure whether he does it for Egyptian propaganda, since he is narrating an episode about necromancy) an Egyptian «Zatchlas propheta primarius», into one of the stories of the Metamorphoses51. Plutarch too asserts that Plato went to Egypt 52 . Plato also went into Italy, to the Pythagoreans Eurytus and Archytas, to learn mathematics. The cultural links between Plato and Pythagorism are a concrete reality that is present in the teaching of the Platonic Academy itself. The tradition

45 Cfr. Tim. 21c-22b. 46 CICERO, De re publica, I, 10,16, ed. K. Ziegler, Leipzig 1969' (Bibl. Teubn., 1215); ed. J. G. F. Powell, in M. TULLI CICERONIs De re publica, De legibus, Cato Major De senectute, Laelius De amicitia, Oxford 2006, p. 13,10-18. 47 Cfr. ID., De finibus bonorum et malorum, V, 29, 87.

48 MARCUS ANNEUS LUCANUS, De bello civili, X, 176-183, ed. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Leipzig — Stuttgart 19972 (Bibl. Teubn., 1502), p. 272. 49 Cfr. MARCUS FABIUS QUINTILIANUS, Instituti0 Oratoria, I, 12, 15, ed. M. Winterbottom, 2 vols., Oxford 1970 (Oxford Classical Texts), passim. s° About this tradition, see the well informed study of D~rrie, cfr. H. D0RRIE, Platons Reisen zu fernen V6lkem, in Romanitas et Christianitas: studia lano Henrico Waszink AD VI Kai Nov A MCMLXXIII XIII lustra complenti oblata, edd. W. den Boer et AL, Amsterdam — London 1973, [pp. 99-118], pp. 99-105. 51 Cfr. Met., II, 28. 52 Cfr. PLUTARCIIUS, De Iside et Osiride, 10, 354E; 48, 370F-371A. According to Plutarch, the Egyptians themselves asserted that Homer and Thales had also studied the Egyptians (De Iside 34, 364D): thus Miinstermann, cfr. MUNSTERMANN, Apuleius cit. (see above, ch.1, note 52), p. 137, note 40.

194

195

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. TI-SE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

was based on the testimony taken from the Timaeus: Timaeus was a Pythagorean philosopher according to Plato, and a treatise De natura mundi et animae has been attributed to him. Later, Plato intended to go to the Indians and the Magi if the wars that broke out around that time had not hindered him: «ad Indos et Magos intendisset animum, nisi tunc eum bella vetuissent caletica» (this is the text of the manuscripts)". Apuleius does not specify what wars these were. The same is told by the anonymous author of the Prolegomena to Plato's philosophy54: Plato desired to go to Persia, but he could not do it. He encountered, however, the Magi in Phoenicia as well as those who taught magic. Diogenes Laertius also provides similar information55: «Plato planned to dialog with the Magi, but he gave up his idea because of the wars in Asia» which certainly stopped him from reaching the country of the Indians. This is a point of information that corresponds to the period's (the first imperial era) interest for Oriental civilization, in which they held that wisdom began and came forth from, and was still cultivated by the sages of the area (Magi, Brahmans, and gymnosophists, who we encountered in the Florida). We cannot fail to remember that Plotinus also attempted to make a trip to India at the time of the unfortunate expedition of Gordian III against the Persians: Plotinus' intention was no different than that which Apuleius, in the preceding century, had attributed to Plato.

Finally, Plato's first voyage into Sicily was due to his desire to know the nature of mount Aetna and its eruptions (189), while the second was due to his desire to know the laws of the municipia of that province (a typically Roman formulation). The fame of Plato's voyages, together with those of he who was considered his master, Pythagoras, was also accepted by Christian culture. Jerome, who was quite interested in pagan traditions, speaks of it: Legimus in veteribus historiis quosdam lustrasse provincias, novos populos adisse, maria transisse ut eos, quos ex libris noverant, coram quoque viderent: Sic Pythagoras Memphiticos vates, sic Plato Aegyptum et Architam Tarentinum eamque oram Italiae quae quondam magna Graecia dicebatur, laboriosissime peragravit, ut qui Athenis magister erat et potens cuiusque doctrina Academiae gymnasia personabant, fieret peregrinus atque discipulus, malens aliena verecunde discere quam sua aliis impudenter ingerere56 After having narrated Plato's biography, Apuleius wished to present the consulta, that is the dogmata of his philosophy. Since there are three parts of philosophy, Apuleius intends to begin with physics. The tripartition of philosophy in ethics, physics, and logic had been canonical in Platonism since the times of Xenocrates57, and was also accepted by the Stoics58. It is common to all the Middle Platonists, from the time of Eudorus on59 (and perhaps from even earlier), with Antiochus of Ascalon (if we should believe Cicero60). Texts which parallel that of Apuleius can be found in Hippolytus61, Atticus 62 ,

53 Cfr. Plat., I, 3. The text is corrupted: the Editio princeps Romana corrects the caletica of the manuscripts with Asiatica, that is, the wars in Asia stopped Plato from reaching India. In our edition of Apuleius' De Platone we accepted this correction, because it harmonizes with the information that is given by Diogenes Laertius. My text is accepted by Mknnlein Robert, cfr. MANNLEIN ROBERT, Griechischen Philosophen cit., p. 344. Others (Goldbacher and Beaujeu) correct caletica with dialectica, linking it with the following inventa, to indicate the logical doctrines that Plato learned from Parmenides and Zeno. This solution is preferred by Baltes as well, cfr. M. BALTES, Der Platonismus in der Antike. Grundlagen-System-Entuicklung, IV, Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus. Einige grundlegende Axiome / Platonische Physik im antiken Verstdndnis, I, Bausteine 101-124: Text, Uher_setzung, Kommentar, edd_ H. Dome — M. Baltes. Stuttgart 1996, pp. 218-219. 54 Cfr. Anonymi prolegomena philosophiae Platonicae, 4. See the rich annotations to the text by Segonds, cfr. ibid., edd. L. G. Westerink — A.Ph. Segonds, in Prol~gom~nes a la philosophie de Platon, Paris 1990, (CUF S~rie grecque, 335). 55 Cfr. DIOGENES LAERTIUS, Vitae Philosophorum, III, 7.

56 SOPHRONIUS EUSEBIUS HIERONYMUS, Epistulae, LIII, 1, 2, PL 22, [325-1224], 541, ed. I. Hilberg, 2 vols., Wien 1910-1918 (repr. 1996 in Editio altera supplementis aucta, CSEL, 54-55), I, p. 443,4-13. 57 Cfr. XENOCRATES, fr. 1, ed. Heinze (corresponding to fr. 82, ed. Isnardi Parente). 58 Cfr. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, II, 37 ff. 59 Cfr. STOBAEUS, Anthologium, II, 42, 11. 60 Cfr. CICERo, Academici libri, I (Varro), 5, 19, ed. Plasberg cit., p. 43. 61 Cfr. HIPPOLYTUS, Elenchos, I, 18, 2. 62 Cfr. ATTICUS, fr. 1, ed. des Places cit.

196

197

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

Diogenes Laertius63, and Calcidius64. It is also significant that Atticus, Hippolytus, and Diogenes Laertius like Apuleius, affirm that Plato unified the various parts of philosophy, which had been separated before, into one philosophical system. This assertion perhaps also has its precedent in Aristotle65 Apuleius further affirms that he wants to begin his discussion with physics («a naturali philosophia fa.cientes exordium»), unlike Alcinous and Atticus, who began from logic as Chrysippus recommended66. There is thus no unity of method in regard to this problem within Platonism, as Beaujeu observes67. The exposition of Plato's doctrine shows an Apuleius who is firmly placed within the currents of thought of the second century.

The Apuleian De mundo elicits certain questions: since the work is a translation, what were the motives that led its author to focus on the pseudo-Aristotelian IIEpi xdo ,ov? What significance did the Greek original have for him? Can it be situated in terms of Apuleius' other works? Until the middle of the twentieth century, scholars were exclusively interested in the Greek original, and they neglected the Apuleian version, while simply noting its errors (whether real or presumed) and its rhetorical modifications in respect to the original. W. Capelle primarily noted the Stoic elements of the IIEpi x~o-.tou70; while Strohm instead discovered a long list of correspondences between the Greek original and Plato, Aristotle, and the Ancient Academy71. Festugi~re, who found certain doctrines in it that were typical or anticipatory of Middle Platonism, opened a path towards a better understanding of Apuleius' De mundo72. F. R~gen made an in-depth study of it, and manifested Apuleius' innovations and the doctrine that may have suggested them to him (above all, demonology and the need to mediate the space between the transcendent god and human beings)73. With the same level of penetration, Beaujeu analyzed certain philosophical and literary elements. If for De mundo we can rely on a source, the identification of a `source' for the De philosophia libri as it was conceived in nineteenth century is of little use for Middle Platonism, and is almost never pursued now. In some cases, . it is certainly clear that Apuleius is using a specific work of Plato, such as the Timaeus, which is even quoted at times (and the quotation does not correspond with the manuscript tradition of the Timaeus whatsoever). Apuleius may have read certain dialogs of Plato, even if they were commented by a Middle Platonist master, that is, in a text that was closer and more pertinent to his times. One cannot exclude, beyond the Timaeus, him having perhaps read the Symposium, for demonology, in the original Platonic text as well.

2. The De mundo The De mundo translates a treatise with the same title (Ilepi Kdo-ltou) that was attributed to Aristotle, and which some scholars consider to be genuine If spurious, the FlEpi xdo-pou would have been written between the first century BC and the first century AD. It explains the different manifestations of the sensible world and their seeming contradictions by attributing the variety of the contingent to the transcendent god. Such an interpretation could be accepted by Apuleius' philosophy. His translation is actually an adaptation in Latin with numerous additions by Apuleius himself, who for instance speaks in a passage68 of a volcanic phenomenon that he had witnessed in Hierapolis of Phrygia. Another addition is that of 13, 318 — 14, 321, which Apuleius presents as a reworking from a treatise on the winds by Favorinus, while it heavily depends (some scholars have used the word 'plagiarism') on Gellius69, who translated Favorinus' text into Latin.

63

Cfr. DIOGENES LAERTIUS, Vitae Philosophorum, III, 56. Cfr. CALCInIUs, Timaeus cit., 264. 6s Cfr. Metaph., 987a 29 66 Cfr. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, II, 42. 67 Cfr. BEAUJEU, Commentaire cit., p. 254. 6s Cfr. Mund., 17, 327. 69 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, II, 22.

64

198

70 CfY. W. CAPELLE, Die Schrift von der Welt, in «Neue Jahrbi.icher fftr Klassische Philologie», 15 (1905), pp. 529-568. 71 Cfr. H. STROHM, Studien zur Sehrift von der Welt, in «Museum Helveticum», 9 (1952), pp. 137-175. 72 Cfr. A. J. FESTUGI~RE, La revelation d'Hermes Trism~giste, II, Paris 1949, pp. 460-518. 73 Cfr. REGEN, Apuleius Philosophus cit.

199

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

It was not the problem of pathos according to the Stoics or the Peripatetics that was of interest, but the attitude of human beings before it, in such a way that they might provide an example to others. Taurus, in his morality and his equilibrium, was the fitting person for this type of philosophy.

flict with the teachings of Zeno and ChrysippusS2. Elsewhere, Epictetus is known through what Favorinus tells of him83: Epictetus condemned those who were philosophers in words only, and not in deeds. He requested that those who studied the theoretical problems of philosophy be purified of their own habits and way of life. He had also severely condemned weakness of spirit in bearing pain (intolerantia), as well as incontinence84. In I, 2, Genius introduces another famous person, Herodes Atticus, who condemned the garrulity and captiousness of a young Stoic who was in Herodes' own Athenian villa along with others. Herodes condemned the exclusive interest in syllogisms and sophisms85. Original Stoicism had certainly cultivated logic equally with physics and ethics, but in Gellius' times, Epictetus' moralism was preferred. Gellius quotes a large passage from one of Epictetus' dissertations 86. There is little to be found on the doctrines of Musonius, which were quoted by Gellius. One traditional locus is the contrast between the composure of the true philosopher and the behavior of those who are stirred and adopt unusual attitudes in order to be admired by their listeners87. In XVI, 1 Gellius quotes a little moral enthymeme (enthymemation), which had been explained by Musonius, but is not highly significant, and in XVIII, 2, 1 he quotes another saying of Musonius that does not offer much: «animum remittere» is almost equivalent to «animum amittere». Genius' quotations of Plutarch, whom he considers a «vir doctissimus ac prudentissimus»88, are the first, or among the most ancient that we have of his work. But, as with Calvisius Taurus, Gellius makes a selection in respect to Plutarch. He completely neglects the most strictly philosophical and technical works, such as those on Platonic cosmogony, the De Iside et

6. The Speculum morale of Gellius The Noctes Atticae are representative of the moralism of the second century. Gellius took numerous moral inspirations and ideas, not only from Taurus, but also from another one of his auctoritates, Favorinus81. Gellius' references to Favorinus are all part of the so-called Popularphilosophie, that is, they are all moral. In general, Favorinus, as he is presented by Genius, professes a blandly Stoic ethics, with many characteristics taken from the principles of Roman life: he discusses friendship, proposes his interpretation of a moralizing passage of Sallust, and the episode of the childbirth of the wife of one of Favorinus' friends provides the opportunity to discuss the issue of children being nursed by their own mothers. It is important to note that Gellius does not present the doctrines of Favorinus or Taurus for the sake of erudition, but because he wants to spread a certain moral message among his readers: morals were more readily adapted to a rhetorical presentation than physics were. On the other hand, one should not think that Genius was a pure and simple moralist, like Dio Chrysostom and Plutarch were (if we can be permitted to apply the somewhat vague term of `moralist' to them). This is demonstrated by the fact that his reading of three great Greek moralists who were almost his contemporaries, and were already famous, Musonius, Epictetus, and Plutarch, did not lead Gellius to provide a positive judgment of their doctrines, but instead primarily to give us literary and erudite information on their works. Genius in fact observed that Epictetus' dialexeis, which were ab Arriano digestae (also mentioned in I, 2, 6), did not con-

81 On the figure of Favorinus as presented by Aulus Gellius, cfr. ibid., pp. 72-92; ASTARITA, La cultura cit., pp. 175-190.

Nodes Atticae, XIX, 1, 14. Cfr. ibid., XVII, 19. 84 Cfr. ibid., XVII, 19, 5. On Epictetus in Gellius, cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 202, note 8. 85 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, I, 2, 4. 86 Cfr. ibid., I, 2, 6-7. 87 Cfr. ibid., V, 1. 88 Ibid., I, 26, 4; see also IV, 11, 11: «homo in disciplinis gravi auctoritate», and IV, 11, 11-12.

160

161

82

Cfr. AuLus GELLIUS,

83

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

Osiride, and those against the Stoics and the Epicureans. Plutarch is used to open the series of Gellian commentariiS9 but with an anecdote in which Pythagoras would have managed to calculate the height of Hercules from his footprint found in Pisa, at the temple of Jupiter Olympius. There is not much of philosophy, and what exists seems to have come from a minor work of Plutarch (a Life of Hercules) that is now lost90. There are numerous other anecdotes and mirabilia: a passage of the Quaestiones convivales91 is quoted in III, 6 together with fragments of Aristotelian works92. Erasistratus' criticism of Plato93 is also taken from the Quaestiones convivales94, a memorable saying of Plutarch is quoted in III, 5, and in XI, 16 Gellius begins from Plutarch's flspi 7r o%virpayl.Coovvrig to discuss the precise meaning of the Latin word curiositas (an Apuleian topic, see above, pp. 80-81). In I, 3, 31 he quotes another lost work, the 11epi 1tvxvig, but only to note a saying by the Spartan Chilon on friendship. This is a fairly large commentarius, probably because Gellius deals with a fundamental problem for Roman ethics which interested him: Chilon's statement that Plutarch transmitted is in fact only the conclusion of a discussion on friendship that involved Cicero and Theophrastus. The quote from Panaetius' de officiis in XIII, 28, 1 introduces Cicero's work on that topic, while in I, 13 and II, 7 Panaetius remains unnamed, but Gellius speaks of xa8vpxov and officium, which was typical of Panaetius' ethics. In II, 8 Gellius quotes Plutarch's criticism of Epicurus' famous `syllogism': «death is nothing for us: for what is dissolved is without sensation, and what is without sensation is nothing to us» 95. What is interesting here is that Gellius does not agree this time with the constant communis opinio that criticized Epicurus, but he holds that the syllogism is not poorly formed, and that similar syllogisms can even be found in

Plato. The immediately following commentarius96 also contains a criticism of Plutarch, and another defense of Epicurus. Again in the De Homero97 Plutarch had criticized Epicurus for a lexical question regarding a sentence (Sent. Selectae 3) in which Epicurus would have expressed himself imprecisely. Once again, Genius reproaches Plutarch for accusing Epicurus nimis minute ac prope etiam subfrigide and correctly observes that Epicurus did not normally focus on cura verborum and elegant style, so that a criticism like that of Plutarch is requiring something from Epicurus that he did not wish to do98. In response to his own interests as well as those of his readers, along with the anecdotage and the mirabilia, which he generously quoted, Gellius also wrote not insignificant commentarii that were fairly precise and informed on technical issues, such as the syllogism99, the ~~iw1ta 100, and providence and fate according to Chrysippus (VII, 1 and 2, which were probably taken from Cicero's De faro, but perhaps from Stoic manuals)101 In any case, the problem of fate and free will had always been pertinent since its inception, and Apuleius too discusses it in Gellius' own time102. An important section is dedicated to the (avTa6(at, and related Stoic doctrines103, while the problem of pleasure and the interpretation of what it is can be found as a doxography in IX, 5. There is also a commentarius about the natural ambiguity of the words, an issue on which the Stoic Chrysippus and the Megarian Diodorus contrastedl04. We fmd an anecdote about Democritus, who blinded himselfin order to better concentrate on his meditations without distractions from external «illecebrae» 105.

Cfr. ibid., I, 1. Cfr. PLUTARCHUS, fr. 7, ed. F. H. Sandbach in Plutarch's Moralia XV, London - Cambridge 1969 (The Loeb Classical Library). 91 Cfr. ID., Quaestiones Convivales, VIII, 4, 724E. 92 See Aristotelian fr. 229 R3. 93 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, XVII, 11, 6. 94 Cfr. PLUTARCHUS, Quaestiones Convivales, VII, 1, 698B. 95 Cfr. PLUTARCHUS, De Homero, fr. 123, ed. Sandbach cit.

96 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, II, 9. 97 Cfr. PLUTARCHUS, fr. 124, ed. Sandbach. 98 Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 204, for this and for Quaestiones Convivales, III, 6, 1, 3; XV, 10, 1-2; XVII, 11, 1-6. 99 Cfr. AuLus GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, XV, 26. On this, Cfr. A. CAVARZERE, Gellio traduttore e la definizione aristotelica di sillogismo, in «Maia», 39 (1987), pp. 213-215. 100 Cfr. AULus GELLIUs, Noctes Atticae, XVI, 8. 1o1 Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 202. 102 Cfr. Plat., I, 12. 103 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, XIX, 1. 104 Cfr. ibid., XI, 12. 105 Ibid., X, 17.

162

163

89

90

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

one about Carneades106; about Plato and his Laws107, on Demosthenes, who was considered by a widespread rhetorical tradition108 to be the disciple of Plato, as Apuleius also mentions 1°9 There are the anecdotes about the hostility between Plato and Xenophon110; about the succession of Aristotle "1; about the letters of Aristotle to Alexander112; about Protagoras113 who is the typical example of the sophist understood in the pejorative sense 114; and about the chronologies of and synchronies in the biographies of famous menus Anecdotage is also the prevalent feature of Gellius' quotations of Plutarch's de Homero 116 By transmitting these anecdotes, Gellius certainly wished to grab his readers' attention and entertain them with interesting and unusual details, but didactic intentions were definitely also present. This didactic attitude can become more important when Genius no longer refers to biographical anecdotes, but to philosophical placita, which are not only presented in an ornate and agreeable style, but are also chosen with the precise goal of teaching and entertaining an educated readership that was not specialized in these problems. For example, the affirmation that an unexpected joy can lead to death is confirmed by the anecdote, also found in Livy117, of the sudden death of a mother who unexpectedly saw her son whom she had believed dead in the battle of Trasimenus, come back

safe and sound. Genius"' bases himself here on the authority of Aristotle119 Likewise, the anecdote about the extraordinary number of births that a woman accomplished120 is narrated on the basis of what Aristotle had said. Gellius adds testimonies from Roman life to the narrative of Aristotle. The problems of physics are more demanding: whether the voice is corporeal or incorporeal; on the characteristics of the senses according to the philosophy of Aristotle121, with moralizing affirmations from popular philosophy (Gellius condemns the sensations, but this is an expected criticism); on the crysta1122; on Aristotle's physical problemata123 , which were also studied by Apuleius124 Naturally, the list of anecdotes in this regard continues. In conclusion, the Noctes Atticae, however much they can be criticized for certain superficial aspects, such as the accentuation of anecdotes and mirabiliar or the voluntary avoidance of difficult issues, nevertheless constitute a work that has its own specific quality: it focuses on certain problems that were proper to the educated class of the second century. Even if it is rare or almost impossible to find personal observations in his commentarii, the selection of material itself is eloquent, and can assist us in reconstructing the environment that Gellius lived in, as well as his personality as an author. 7. Cynicism The need to adapt to a behavior that demanded respect and was properly situated in everyday life caused most of the educated people to condemn Cynicism (and, on the contrary, led an author like Tertullian to write, as a Christian, the De pallio in defense of Cynicism) 123 . Genius more than once shows his disdain

Cfr. ibid., XVII, 15. Cfr. ibid., XV, 2. 108 Cfr. ibid., III, 13, 1. On Demosthenes' fame and the ancient information regarding him being a disciple of Plato, Cfr. L. PERNOT, L'Ombre du tigre. Recherches sur la reception de Demosthene, Napoli 2006 (Speculum. Contributi di filologia classica). This information appears in Latin circles, among others, in Cicero (De orat. I, 20, 89; Brut. 31,121; Orat. 4, 15). 109 Cfr. Apol., 15. 11° Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, XIV, 3. 111 Cfr. ibid., XIII, 5. 112 Cfr. ibid., XX, 5. 113 Cfr. ibid., V, 10. t34 But in Flor. XVIII Apuleius considers Protagoras as a sophista multiscius. 115 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, XVII, 21. 116 Cfr. ibid., IV, 11. 117 Cfr. ibid., XXII, 7, 13.

118 Cfr. ibid., III, 15, 1. 119 Cfr. Aristotelian fr. 559 R3. 120 Cfr. AuLus GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, X, 2; ARISTOTELES, Hist. anim. VII, 4, 584b29. 121 Cfr. ibid., VI, 6 and XIX, 2. Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 201, note 7. 122 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUs, Noctes Atticae, XIX, 5. 123 Cfr. ibid., XIX, 4 and 6; XX, 4. 124 Cfr. Apol., 36. 125 Cfr. MORESCHINI, Aspetti della cultura filosofica cit., pp. 5121-5122.

164

165

106

107

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

for these street philosophers. It is significant that two important figures, Herodes Atticus and Musonius, are the ones to ridicule an impudent Cynic, who pretended to be a philosopher126. Philostratus agrees with this sentiment127, and Apuleius repeats this disdain in two of his conferences128. When he must defend himself from the accusation of profiteering and having availed himself of his wife Pudentilla's funds, it becomes useful for him to remember the Cynic Crates along with various moralizing considerations on the value of poverty129. Crates was the first to renounce his elevated social position before his fellow citizens. He disdained his wealth and turned to live naturally. Maximus of Tyre wrote a dissertation (n. 36) in which he exalts the life ofthe Cynic and celebrates their liberty. Maximus however wrote other moral dissertations in which Cynicism has little influence. The Cynicism that Maximus celebrated no longer has the same brazenness and polemical rigidity as true Cynicism, but is mainly colored in what I would call Stoicizing characteristics, such as renunciation of the useless goods of life, of riches, and of power, linked with the exaltation of an imperturbable spirit before human affairs. The Cynic of Maximus of Tyre is more a Stoic than a Cynic. The rebellious attitudes that broke with good social order were rejected, such as dressing like a beggar and speaking in an arrogant and impudent manner «like dogs». Easier to appreciate attitudes, like those we mentioned (disdain for wealth and power, independence oflife, imperturbability before events) were instead accepted. An anecdote on Diogenes the Cynic is quoted by Maximus of Tyre130 in this sense, as he is also by the contemporary Claudius Aelianus131. These are however primarily anecdotal citations.They also mainly focus on Cynics' ready and spirited jokes, and their freedom of speech before all, whether powerful or authoritative (Plato himself is implicated132)

8. Aelianus A work like the Varia Historia of Aelianus, which has similar goals to Gellius' work, but is exasperatingly flat and mediocre with its almost exclusive search for `memorable sayings and acts', cannot be of the same utility to us133 Aelianus never offers us excerpta, but presents everything more or less by hearsay. It is difficult to gather something more precise about Aelianus' philosophical culture from the collection of anecdotes, even if we limit ourselves to those referring to philosophers and their doctrines. It can be interesting to note the anecdote about Plato, who studied music and poetry before dedicating himself to philosophy1". Apuleius is also aware of this detail from the Platonic biography135. Pythagoras, is transformed into a mythical personage, as in Apuleius, and is considered to be a philosopher with a superhuman nature, who could perform miracles136 Only Socrates and Diogenes the Cynic are presented as almost perfect personages who cannot be criticized. Plato himself is not free from censures, while the contrasts between Plato and Aristotle are presented in a gossiping fashion in III, 19 and IV, 9. Aelianus' personal opinions are basically inexistent: there are a few banal moralizing considerations on the nobility of Alexander the Great137; on the episode of Aeneas, which was a symbol of pietas towards the gods and one's parents138; on the generosity of Epameinondas 139; on the unexpected changes of fortune and the educational value they can have14°; as well as a few other notes. Even

126 Cfr. AuLus GELLIUs, Noctes Atticae, IX, 2. 127 Cfr. PHILOSTRATUS, Vitae sophistarum, II, 563, ed. Kayser cit., p. 71,11-22 (about Peregrinus Proteus). 128 Cfr. Flor., VII and IX. 129 Cfr. Apol., 17-23. 13° Cfr. MAXIMus TYRIUS, Dissertations, XV, 9; Diogenes is praised in XXXII, 9 etc. 131 Cfr. CLAUDIUS AELIANUS, Varia historia, III, 29; IV, 11; IX, 19; IX, 34 etc., ed. M. R. Dilts, Leipzig 1974 (Bibl. Teubn.). 132 Cfr. CLAUDIUS AELIANUS, Varia Historia XIV, 33.

133 A literary evaluation of that work is provided by Campanile, cfr. D. CAMPANILE, Eliano e la sua Varia Historia, in Approches de la Troisi~me Sophistique. Etudes en l'honneur de J. Schamps, edd. E. Amato et Al., Bruxelles 2006 (Collection Latomus, 296), pp. 420-430. 134 Cfr. CLAUDIUS AELIANUS, Varia historia, II, 30. 135 Cfr. Plat., I, 2, 184. 136 Cfr. CLAUDIUS AELIANUS, Varia historia, IV, 17. 137 Cfr. ibid., IX, 38. 138 Cfr. ibid., III, 22. The version that this episode was narrated in is quite different from Virgil's version, which is more known to us. According to Aelianus, Aeneas was spared during the conquest of Troy by the Greeks themselves, who recognized his pietas towards his father. 139 Cfr. ibid., V, 5. 148 Cfr. ibid., IV, 8 and VI, 12.

166

167

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

the praise of the wisdom of the barbarians141 should not be considered an example of the tendency, which was already strong in the second century, of admiring those peoples, but is simply a banal observation of the fact that even the most primitive peoples have an innate idea that there is a divinity.

is furnished by his treatises on Plato. Neither the argument nor the intelligence of his interpretation is praised, but the twin gifts that are praised constitute the unmistakable sign of Fontonian eloquence, that is, an enviable deployment of terms and a great shower of sententiae. Julius Aquilinus was also a respected member of African society (he was born in Sicca Veneria), which was characterized by wealth, culture, and service to the state. The philosopher had fulfilled his duties in life as a judge and as the prefect of a court.

9. Minor Platonists of the Roman World One can note Lollianus Avitus, who was an ordinary consul in 144 and the proconsul of Africa in 157-158, from among these men who were interested in rhetoric and Platonic philosophy. He was the personification of the classical ideal and expertly eloquent. His letters to Fronto manifest a particular charm and culture, as well as a precise choice of words. Apuleius speaks of him enthusiastically in the Apologia 142, where he affirms that Avitus united all the qualities of the best orators. Apuleius read one of his letters during his trial and underscored his enjoyable style. Claudius Maximus was the successor to Lollianus Avitus (158-159) in Africa. We know of him mainly from the trial of Apuleius at Sabratha. He was a philosopher and a friend of Apuleius, who exalts his virtues, erudition, and their common interests in philosophy. Claudius was able to recognize Apuleius' allusions to the works of Plato, Aristotle, and all the ancient philosophers. He possessed the ideal union of philosophy and action, «vir tam austerae sectae tamque diutinae militiae»143 Claudius Maximus was in fact a soldier who had already distinguished himself in Trajan's Parthian campaigns. He was a teacher of Stoic philosophy, and taught Marcus Aurelius, who praised his humanity in particular144. Claudius Maximus was also a friend of his predecessor, Lollianus Avitus. The letter of Fronto Ad amicos I, 4 presents Julius Aquilinus as a philosopher and a sophist. Aquilinus was both learned and elegant, a concrete example of the union of intellectual gifts

141 Cfr. ibid., II, 31. 142 Cfr. Apol., 24 and 94-95. 143 Ibid., 81, 2. 144 Cfr. MARCUS AURELIUS, Ad se ipsum, I, 15,

168

10. Aelius Aristides and the Platonism of the Second Century Aelius Aristides was certainly the sophist contemporary to Apuleius who was most interested in philosophy — even more than Lucianus, despite his polemical attitudes against it 145 Philostratus, writing the Vitae Sophistarum a few decades after the death of Aristides, declared that his intention was to narrate the biographies of those «who though they pursued philosophy, ranked as sophists, and also of the sophists properly called» 146 Philosophy and rhetoric were therefore considered to be united by some of the most important representatives of sophistics (Aelius Aristides) and their oldest interpreter (Philostratus). Aelius Aristides was therefore one of those sophists who was also a philosopher. Various biographical details are narrated by Philostratus147 : he was the student of Aristocles of Pergamum, a Peripatetic philosopher; he was known for the scrupulous preparation of his orations, for his avoidance of frivolous verbiage, and for having lived without the support of powerful men; his eloquence would have made a favorable impression on Marcus Aurelius, to whom he however responded with a cer-

145 Aelius Aristides is also considered by Harrison as the object of the satire of the religious experiences that Apuleius included in the Metamorphoses, cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit., pp. 250-252. This theory does not convince us, as we said above (pp. 82-83), but we see that Harrison too thought that any sort of comparison between Apuleius and Aristides was fitting. 146 P~~LOSTRATUS, Vitae Sophistarum, Praefatio, 479, ed. Kayser, tr. Wright cit., p. 1,1. 147 Cfr. ibid., II, 9, 582-583, pp. 87,10-88,13.

169

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

tam audacity — which Philostratus justified; and he was well cultured. Similar, but in some ways more interesting, information comes from Suda148. Aristides was the student of Polemon, and also followed the conferences of Herodes Atticus in Athens and the lessons of Aristocles in Pergamum; he was a «philosopher and priest of the temple of Zeus» in his country — like Apuleius was «sacerdos provinciae» and «philosophus Platonicus». Philostratus does not mention Aristides' On Rhetoric or In Defense of the Four although they are among his best orations — probably because they were never spoken.

and this with a certain rigidity. The principles behind this attitude can be traced back to Isocrates. In the past, the communis opinio was that of Aristides' complete opposition to Plato, as well as the equally rigid opposition of rhetoric to philosophy. However, Pernot has reconstructed the various motives for Aristides' effort to demonstrate the practical and concrete possibility of a noble rhetoric, that is, a philosophical one, which was substantially implicit in the thought of Plato himselfl52. Consequently, the three orations of Aristides in defense of rhetoric are re-examined by Pernot in the perspective of an implicit Platonism, or at least of an implicit philosophical substance for the art of rhetoric 153 We had observed that Aristides distinguishes two types of rhetoric154 If before Aristides, there was no lack of effort to separate the philosophical aspect from the practical, common one — which was still the usual one in Aristides' time — rhetoric is present in contemporary Platonism, namely in Apuleius155 Milazzo also interpreted in this way: Aristides, far from wanting to refute Plato, wanted to pull him in and make him part of rhetoric (naturally, of rhetoric as Aristides conceived of it), and make one science out of the two disciplines. Isocrates himself had aimed to propose the true philosophy, which for him also included rhetoric 156

The practice of sophistry (even if Aristides never wanted to be considered a sophist, since he refused any compensation for his orations149) obviously required a primary role for rhetoric — but it did not reject philosophy's role as well, as long as it fitted oratory. We presented this as our interpretation years ago15o, and it was confirmed in a study by Alain Michel151, according to whom Aristides aimed at the fusion of rhetorical and philosophical culture, and would not have so much attempted to combat Plato as to appropriate him as an ally within philosophical rhetoric. Aristides was not alone in the rediscovery of this role during the second century. Maximus of Tyre manifested the same interests, and sought out a new form of rhetoric that paid proper attention to philosophy. It is therefore evident that opposition between philosophy and rhetoric is not that radical in Aristides, despite the fact that he opposes rhetoric to the philosophy of Plato,

148 Cfr. Suidae Lexicon, s.v. AptaTaric, ed. A. Adler, 5 vols., Leipzig 19281938, I, p. 353. 149 Cfr. PUBLIUS AELIUS ARISTIDES, Orationes, III, 98-99, edd. F. W. Lenz C. A. Behr, in AELLI ARISTIDIS Opera, I, Orationes I-XVI, Leiden 1976-1980. 150 Cfr. C. MORESCHINI, Elio Aristide tra retorica e filosofia, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der r~mischen Welt (ANRW II - 34,2) cit. (see above, ch. 1, note 138), pp. 1234-1247. 151 Cfr. A. MICHELL, Rh~torique et philosophie au second siècle ap. J.-C., in Aufstieg and Niedergang der r~mischen Welt - Sprache and Literatur (einzelne Autoren seit der hadrianischen Zeit and Allgemeines zur Literatur des 2. and 3. Jahrhunderts), edd. H. Temporini - W. Haase, Berlin - New York 1992 (ANRW II - 34,1), pp. 3-78.

152 On the pertinence of Aristides' defense of rhetoric, cfr. L. PERNOT, Platon contre Platon: le probl~me de la rh~torique dans les discours platoniciens d'Aelius Aristide, in Contre Platon, 1, Le platonisme d~voile', ed. M. Dixsaut, Paris 1993 (Tradition de la penshe classique), pp. 315-338, pp. 329-336. 153 Cfr. ibid., pp. 317-328. 154 Cfr. MoREseiINI, Elio Aristide cit., pp. 1236-1238; In., Elio Anstide e it platonismo del secondo secolo, in Plutarco e la cultura della sua eta, Atti del X Convegno Plutarcheo (Fisciano - Paestum, 27-29 ottobre 2005), edd. P. Volpe Cacciatore - F. Ferrari, Napoli 2007 (Collectanea, 25), [pp. 87-102] , pp. 89-91. 155 Cfr. Plat., II, 8, 231. This identification was also accepted by Mastrorosa, cfr. I. MASTROROSA, Annotazioni critiche sal IIepi (*optic* aristideo, in «Sileno», 29.1-2 (1993), [pp. 481-504], pp. 496-503. 156 Cfr. A. MILAZZO, Un dialogo d!cile. La retorica in conflitto nei Discorsi Platonici di Elio Aristide, Hildesheim - Zurich - New York 2002 (Spudasmata, 87), p. 346 (admiration of Plato), pp. 352-354 (agreement with Plato).

170

171

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

The Platonism of Aristides and his readers is situated at this level. We have an example of this in the fourth sacred discourse, which is from 145157. Aristides says:

instead did present some research, but after having reached some concrete information from the studies on Middle Platonism, he attributed too much importance to what was still just a hypothesis, and affirmed that «a Platonic school flourished at Pergamum under Caius». This `Caius' (who would be Gaius, the head of the so-called Gaiosgruppe that is no longer credible) would have been the source of Aristides' Platonic doctrines. According to Behr, this same Caius was the one who was strongly offended by the accusations that Aristides made of Plato in the second and third orations, so that Aristides took that occasion to renew his criticisms while addressing Sextus Julius Capito in the fourth oration. However, if we follow the interpretation of Milazzo164 , the fourth oration is a `palinode' of the second (Aristides himself uses the term), and has an exactly opposite intention, that is, it does not intend to make accusations, but to better explain and harmonize them. This does not require us to think, as Behr does, that Sextus Julius was «a member of that school» (i.e., of the Platonic school of Gaius). He could have simply appreciated Platonism, and nothing more. Also the other hypothesis of Behr, that Lucius of Athens had been the teacher of Aristides, remains strictly hypothetical165. Actually

During approximately the first year of my sickness, I gave up the study of oratory (...). While I rested in Pergamum (...), I received from the god a command and exhortation not to abandon oratory158. God thus exhorted him to `converse', not only with Socrates, but also with Demosthenes and Thucydides159 In fact, an unknown philosopher who appeared to him in a dream, after having spoken of Plato and Demosthenes, added: For us you have surpassed Demosthenes in dignity, so that not even the very philosophers can scorn you 16°. The philosopher Evarestus of Crete, having come to Pergamum from Egypt to study the cult of Asclepius, exhorted Aristides, as suggested by Asclepius himself, to pursue the activity of rhetoric as more appropriate to him than other disciplines 161 Thus, like Nicosia spoke of a `recovered rhetoric'162, one can speak of Aristides' `recovered philosophy'. Aristides imaged that Plato, asked his judgment on his own attitudes as an author of epistles163 We cannot but smile at Aristides' vanity, but we can nevertheless extract the fact that Plato was an authority for purely literary activity.

157 Cfr. CH. Bacot, Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales, Amsterdam 1968, p. 255; MILAZZO, Un dialogo duile cit., pp. 415-416. 159 AELIUS ARISTIDES, Orationes, L (Orationes sacrae, IV), 14, Eng. tr. by C. A. Behr, in The complete works, 2 vols., Leiden 1981-1986, II, p. 320. 159 Cfr. ibid., L, 15. 1b0 Ibid., L, 19, p. 321. 161 Cfr. ibid., L, 23. 162 Cfr. S. NICOSIA, Introduzione, in Elio Aristide. Discorsi sacri, Milano 1984, [pp. 7-53], pp. 28-29. 163 Cfr. AELiuS ARISTIDES, Orationes, L, 57_

164 Cfr. MILAZZO, Un dialogo docile cit., pp. 387-393. Milazzo maintains that the Epistle to Capito (Oration IV Behr) has a palinodial function after the oration of For Rhetoric (Oration II), and that it differs from that one and from the one after it, For the Four (Oration III), cfr. ibid., pp. 397-398. The epistle is important for the reconstruction of the debate of the second century between rhetoric and philosophy, and tempers their supposed opposition in the thought of Aristides. Behr dates the discourse to the end of 147, cfr. BEHR, Aelius Aristides cit., pp. 59-60 and 128. It is addressed to Sextus Julius Capito, a religious authority and high functionary of Pergamum. Milazzo also agrees to the date of late 147, shortly after the composition of the second oration was complete, cfr. MILAZZO, Un dialogo cit., pp. 391. The discourse In Defense of the Four would instead be a later work, from about twenty years later between 161 and 165. 165 Cfr. BEHR, Aelius Aristides cit., pp. 12 and 13, note 34; p. 50, note 14. The two theories (which we find improbable) are also adopted by Milazzo, cfr. MILAZZO, Un dialogo dii icile cit., p. 422: «Pergamum was a flowering philosophical center during the period of Aristides' stay, and seat of the famous Middle Platonic school of Gaius, which formed Galen and Albinus, and that Capito himself belonged to»; and ibid., p. 432: «Aristides studied (...) in Athens under the Platonist Lucius, the student of Musonius Rufus, and in Pergamum at the school of the Platonic philosopher Gaius». We have expressed our disagreement with these reconstructions, cfr. MORESCHINI, Elio Aristide tra retorica

172

173

The philosophical formation of Aristides was traced to `Caius' by Wilamowitz and Behr. As is often the case, Wilamowitz did not provide any erudite support for his statement. Behr

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

the old hypothesis that Gaius taught in Athens is unmaintainable, while Pergamum might be the location of his philosophical school, as had been asserted — with greater or lesser certainty — by Witt166, and D~rrie167 among others, on whom Behr clearly based himselfi68; G~ransson instead supposes169 that Albinus was the successor of Gaius, not in Pergamum, but in Smyrna, because Pergamum would have been a provincial environment, where the possibility of philosophical studies would have depended on chance 170 . Galen affirms that he follows the lessons of Gaius at Smyrna171 . It is best to conclude with Dillon: «Even as we do not really know when Gaius taught, so we have no clear indication as to where he taught (...), the place of Gaius' teaching activity remains uncertain» 172. Let us then look at the Platonism of Aristides and of his environment. Even if we cannot assert that Gaius was the teacher of Aristides, we can think that Aristides learned his Platonism from the Platonists of Pergamum — and not necessarily a master of a school, whose teaching would have been more developed than theirs. It is probable that there were Platonists in the Asclepieion of Pergamum, whose intellectual abilities raise legitimate concern. They would not have been philosophers in the strict sense, but `Halbphilosophen', or even at a lower level than that. We can form some idea by reading an episode of a conversation that occurred in the Asclepieion. Aristides had encountered a philosopher named Pirallianus, who, he says, had an excellent knowledge of Plato's works, and is presented with little sympathy173. Aristides observed that the Platonists gave

themselves airs by mixing the serious and the humorous, believing that this would impress people:

cit., p. 1242, and Elio Aristide e it platonismo cit., pp. 91-93. Gio~~is in agreement with us, cfr. Gio~, Filosofi medioplatonici cit., p. 133. 166 Cfr. Wirr, Albinus cit. (see above, Introduction, note 38), pp. 107 and 144. 167 Cfr. many of Dorrie's contributions to Middle-Platonism, now in Platonica Minora cit., passim. 168 Cfr. BEHR, Aelius Aristides cit., p. 12, and cfr. ID. in AELIUS ARISTIDES, The Complete Works cit., pp. 449 and 489. 169 Cfr. GoRANSSON, Albinus, Alcinous, cit., p. 35, note 2. 178 Also cfr. GIO~ , Filosofi medioplatonici cit., pp. 58-59. 171 Cfr. ALBINUS, test. 1, ed. Gio~~cit. 172 DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., pp. 266-267. 173 Cfr. AELIUS ARISTIDES, Orationes, L, 55-56.

174

This remark of mine was in reference to Plato's dialogues about nature and being (sic Toi)g 7repl Oaecog Kai 'ray 6vTwv 16yo4. (...) And Pyrallianus ordered me to pay attention and walk behind him (...). And having gone a little ways, he held up his hands and showed me a certain place in the heaven. And at the same time as he showed it, he said: `This, as far as you are concerned, is what Plato calls the soul of the universe'. I looked up and I saw Asclepius of Pergamum established in heaven174 This was naturally one of Aristides many dreams, which, besides showing his usual egocentric attitude that led him to always speak about himself; does not give the least impression of philosophical precision when it affirms that the god Asclepius of Pergamum is the visible manifestation of Plato's cosmic soul, and that Plato wrote "dialogues about nature and beings", i.e. about the sensible and intelligible worlds. In brief, Pirallianus the Platonist does not seem to be much of a philosopher. This does not even bring us to the level of the gossip of Sacred discourse. During a dream, Aristides relates, Lucius made other complimentary remarks about me to him, and praised me somehow in the following fashion: This man, he said, is Plato and Thucydides, and Plato and so and soli'. The god, Asclepius, said that it was fitting that my mind be changed from its present condition, and having been changed, associate with god, and by its association be superior to man's estate (Icn11eiivoct T~v voiiv C'67r~~TO~~Kaeeo rvpc6roc, KtviOevra 8i wyysv€or8at Sew, oUyyev6Levov 8~~inrepixety ~tv8pwarivrc € ewg). And another was remarkable, either by associating with god (Oak) ovyyevc*Evov), to be superior, or being superior, to associate with god (ovveivat OW 176

Ibid., tr. Behr cit., p. 329. Ibid., LI (Orationes sacrae, V), 58, p. 350. 176 Ibid., L, 52, p. 328.

174

178

175

APULELUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

This is the typical requirement of Middle Platonism to separate oneself from the sensible world to unite oneself with god. It was not without reason that Pernot spoke of `an insipid (affadi) and conciliatory Platonism' in Aristides' discourses in defense of rhetoric177 .

change in his strategy, and sought to give himself a fresh image as one who studied philosophy and as a friend of the representatives of Middle Platonism (§§. 6-7)»181. Aristides affirms that Plato held truth above all other things182, and considers anyone who condemns his conduct to be foolish183. Oration 4 would thus be a `palinode', because Aristides sought to show that Plato's position was in fact close to his own184 . There are frequent admirative remarks for Plato throughout the oration. It follows that Aristides thought that, if one looked closely, Plato's opinion on rhetoricians was similar to his own conciliatory opinion, which distinguished between true orators and second rate orators. Only the latter would truly be in conflict with Plato. It seems to us that Aristides did not actually have much sympathy, not only for contemporary Platonists who were probably likewise hostile to Aristides' rhetorical exhibitions, but also for Plato, despite all the celebratory topoi.This antipathy can be seen throughout the two extremely long orations in defense of rhetoric and the four. It is particularly significant that Aristides mentions all the elements of the Platonic biography that had been the object of ill willed criticism and gossipy considerations in antiquity185. A contemporary of Aristides, Aulus Genius186, expresses himself with a bit of ill will towards Plato and with even less sympathy than that of Fronto towards philosophy. There are also ill willed references to the life of Plato (above all to his voyages to Sicily and ephebic love) among the Christian authors who adopted more rigid attitudes towards pagan paideia, such as Tatian187 and

As one would expect, Aristides knew Plato's texts that were most congenial to him, or at least those that were most accessible to a rhetorician: the entire Gorgias, because of the polemics against rhetoric and the four great Athenian citizens of the fifth century BC (Mikiades, Themistocles, Cimon, and Pericles); the Republic, almost exclusively for the most picturesque aspects (so to speak) that critics and detractors noted in the dialog (the city under the control of philosophers, and the sharing of women)178; the Phaedrus, almost exclusively in relation to it stating that Pericles had been a disciple of Anaxagoras and to the introductory passage of Socrates' discourse in defense of divine folly; the seventh Epistle, for its autobiographical elements, which Aristides used maliciously. Beyond these elements (which are constantly repeated), it does not seem to me that Aristides, despite his numerous references, knew much about the philosophy of Plato. A reference to the Parmenides as an excellent work179 is little more than a topos, and does not necessarily come from direct reading. The 'hyper-uranian' place of the Phaedrus is mentioned twice by Aristides180, but always leads to elaborations with rhetorical content and character. Milazzo thought, as we do, that Aristides' anti-Platonic polemics were in fact a sort of attempt to reconcile rhetoric and philosophy. In this light, he re-examined the Epistole to Capito (Orat. 4). At the beginning, Aristides proposes the integration of rhetoric and philosophy through the assertion that he would have studied Plato for many years, and by placing Plato together with Demosthenes. «It seems clear here that Aelius Aristides made a sensible

177 Cfr. PERNOT, Platon contre Platon cit., p. 328. 178 Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 209. 179 Cfr. AELIUS ARISTIDES, Orationes, IV, 37 (to Capito). 190 Cfr. Phaedr. 247c (in Orat., XXVIII, 142), and 246e (in Orat., XLII, 4).

176

181 MILAZZO, Un dialogo domicile cit., p. 392; the examination of the letter to Capito continues ibid., p. 393. 182 Cfr. AELIUS ARISTIDES, Orationes, IV, 8. 183 Cfr. ibid., IV, 12. t84 Cfr. ibidem. 188 Similar gossip or hostile interpretations can be found in others contemporary to Aristides. We note here only Diogenes Laertius and Aelianus. Due to his perspective, Milazzo instead observes that Aristides did not repeat the accusation of plagiarism that many writers had made of Plato, cfr. MILAZZO, Un dialogo dfcile, cit., p. 349. 786 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, III, 13; III, 17. 187 Cfr. TATIANUS ASSYRIUs, Oratio ad Graecos, 2, PG 6, [803-888], 805-809A, ed. M. Whittaker, in TATLAN, Oratio ad Graecos and fragments, Oxford 1982 (Oxford early Christian texts).

177

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

Tertullian188 . It is thus not surprising that Porphyry189 took the issue up again later, and attempted to defend Plato from all these accusations. Apuleius was aware that many people harshly criticized Plato's voyages to Sicily, to the point that he thought it was necessary to re-establish the truth by indicating what Plato's intentions had been190 It is further known that Aristides has weak points in his reasoning, such as prolixity of speech, continual repetition of the same arguments, and the constant but somewhat mechanical habit of contrasting Plato with himself The three orations contain many sophisms and clearly untenable arguments, whose only scope is polemics and the final goal of celebrating rhetoric191

Aristides' philosophical weakness and illogical reasoning have been studied in relation to what has been called his `personal religion'192. These `defects' merit consideration from the religious perspective, and that of henotheism in particular. This concept is foundational for both the Sacred Discourses and the prosical Hymns, in which religious ideas are united to philosophical knowledge. Even if they are confused, they can nevertheless lead to some interesting results. J. Amann definitely provides us with the strongest contribution for our knowledge of the Hymns in his book on the Hymn to Zeus 193. This is not a recent study. However, in respect to our problem it can be considered the most important product of the method followed by the scholars of philosophy and religion who represented the German school of the beginning of the twentieth century. It is influenced by two great masters, O. Weinreich and E. Norden. The latter's Agnostos Theis certainly provided the model that Amann used for the study of Aristides' religious philosophy. Today's research into the sacred hymns of Aristides accentuates his tendency to henotheism more than was done in earlier periods, and it considers it as a typical sign of the pagan religiosity of the second century. One could however ask how the henotheism of the Hymn to Zeus relates to the author's devotion to Asclepius (i.e. to Aristides' `personal religion'). According to Behr, Aristides' particular devotion for Asclepius should not lead us to forget that he considered Asclepius as just another divinity of the Greek pantheon, and thus as inferior to Zeus. For Aristides, «excepting a few trivial details, where unique powers are predicated of Zeus and in a moment

1B8 Cfr. TERTULLIANUS, Apologeticum, 46, PL 1, [305-604], 565A-581A, ed. E. Dekkers, in ID., Opera, I, Opera catholica. Adversus Marcionem, Turnhout 1953 (CCSL, 1), pp. 77-170. 189 Cfr. BEHR, Aelius Aristides cit., pp. 186-199. 190 Cfr. Plat., I, 4, 189. For this subject, we note the old study of Geffcken, cfr. J. GEFFCKEN, Antiplatonica, in «Hermes», 64 (1929), pp. 87-109. Lenz dealt with it in greater detail, and examined a passage of Olympiodorus' Commentary on the Gotgias (cfr. OLYMPIODORUS ALEXANDRINUS, In Platonis Gorgiam Commentaria, ed. W. Norvin, Leipzig 1936, pp. 197,21-198,2, corresponding to Gorg. 515c) that speaks of 'a philosopher' who would have rebutted Aristides' criticisms, and more specifically would have observed that Aristides contradicted himself, cfr. F. W. LENZ, Die Aristeideszitate in Olympiodors Kommentar zu Platons Gorgias, in Aristeidesstudien, Berlin 1964 (Schriften der Sektion fiir Altertumswissenschaft, 40), [pp. 147-166] (repr. from «American Journal of Philology», 67 (1946), pp. 103-128), p. 150 ff. This philosopher was probably Porphyry, who, according to Suda, s.v., wrote against that work. The same reference is found in Olympiodorus' Commentary on Alcibiades I (II, 190) and in Julian the Apostate, Contra Heraclium, 237C. In such cases, all the quotations of and allusions to Aristides manifest a solid knowledge of Platonic discourses. Olympiodorus could also have used some scholia in Aristides. In Olympiodorus' Commentary on the Gorgias, it appears that he used a source, which he called rig TWY grryrFeirv, that was particularly hostile to Aristides, cfr. OLYMPIODORUS, In Platonis Gorgiam, ed. Norvin cit., p. 149,20-29 (corresponding to Gorg. 499b). This E iyrrT11S should probably not be understood in the strict sense, that is, as a commentator. It could then refer to Porphyry, who had contradicted Aristides in defense of Plato, but was never a true and proper commentator of any of his works. 191 We observed (cfr. MoREscilINI, Elio Aristide cit., p. 1245) that the Oration 3 (In Defense of the Four) is the most theoretical of them, and aims to defend rhetoric as an art, thus refuting the Platonic Gorgias, which considered it a sort of adulation. On the basis of Plato's own affirmations in the Phaedrus (244a), which exalted the folly inspired by god and nature as opposed to art, which could not attain such elevated results, because it is simply a human work,

178

Aristides replied that the lack of art, that is, of science, which would constitute the intrinsically negative aspect of rhetoric is not in fact a defect. Poetry is a gift of nature, and not art, so that Plato is confounded by his own arguments, which are exemplified by a long quotation from the Phaedrus (244a-245b). Aeschines of Sphettus, who came from the Socratic school itself, confirmed this conviction of Aristides that art is not necessary for poetry (Oration 3, 61 ff.). 192 Treated by Festugi~re, cfr. A.J. FESTUCI~RE, Sur les Discours Sacr~s' d'Aelius Aristide, in «Revue des Etudes Grecques», 82 (1969), pp. 117-153. 193 Cfr. J. AMANN, Die Zeusrede des Ailios Aristeides, Stuttgart 1931 (Tiibinger Beitrage zur Altertumswissenschaft, 12).

179

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

of religious ecstasy Asclepius impinges on them, this theological ranking is kept surprisingly intact»19a However, the supreme position of Zeus does not preclude a ranking of other divinities, and this is the specific meaning of henotheism. According to Behr, Aristides' devotion to Asclepius cannot properly be called a `conversion', because Aristides, who was a true polytheist, continued to venerate Serapis and Isis195 — but it is precisely this attitude that is characteristic of henotheism, for which the veneration of a supreme god does not exclude faith in other minor gods. It appears that Lenz too, when writing a few years ago, did not yet have a clear understanding of henotheism, and spoke more generally of `monotheism': «Up to what point did Aristides express his personal religiosity in this hymn, and up to what point did he take up the philosophical concepts that preceded and were contemporary to him, in order to organize his personal work? The concept that all supernatural events are manifestations of a central divine force, and that this force is benevolent towards human beings, and that is does not make any substantial difference whether one recognizes it in Dionysius, or Zeus, or Athena, or Hephaestus, and thus that the hymn is directed to this divine force, is something that tends toward monotheistic syncretism and speculations» 196 The most striking characteristic of Aristides' Hymns is, however, the strong tendency to theocrasy (ovv~'rrToNtev To c ~v~pavty, as he says in Discourse to Asclepius 4). When the author is able, he from time to time identifies the god he is celebrating (Asclepius, Dionysus, or Serapis197) with the greatest god, Zeus supreme (Zeus is lit 7rp&Tct TWv 8vrc v and his will is t57rip TWv ~)LWv) 198 Zeus had a birth like Asclepius did, but he remained ray 6vTwv 7rcer p ma ?rot/Trig (an expression that seems to echo Plato's famous

expression in Timaeus 29e). The greatest god, Zeus, is also, as some say, Dionysus199, as Asclepius is also Zeus200. In this way Asclepius possesses 7r~m ai 8vviEhsuS to give benefices to human beings, above all giving them health. Serapis (who is usually identified with Zeus) never lacks supreme power, but he goes through the universe and fills it with himself201. The other gods have a variety of powers (not only over the earth, but also over the sea, §. 23) and honors. Human beings sometimes call on one or the other, but Serapis, as the first and gccfporoc, possesses power over the beginning and end of all things 202. This type of theocrasy leads to an androgyny of the divinity203, insofar as the characteristics of other male and female gods are sometimes included in the god that Aristides is celebrating (at times Zeus, at others Dionysus). Zeus wants to be both father and mother for Dionysus, and thus both male and female 2o4 Dionysus' place is either with the girls or the boys, as beardless 2os

194 BEEIR, Aelius Aristides cit., p. 151. 195 Oft. ibid., p. 25. 196 LENZ, Aristeidesstudien cit., p. 222 (italics mine). Russell remains outside this problem, and mainly underscores the rhetorical aspects of these compositions of Aristides, cfr. D. A. RUSSELL, Aristides and the Prose Hymns, in Antonine Literature cit., pp. 199-219. 197 For this hymn, see A. HoFLER, Der Sarapishymnus des Ailios Aristeides, Stuttgart 1935 (Tiibinger Beitr~ge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 27). 198 Cfr. AELIUS ARISTIDES, Orationes, XL (Hymn to Heracles), 2.

199 Cfr. ibid., XLI (Hymn to Dionysus), 4: aiirb5 6 Zciv al 6 At6vuooS. 20° Cfr. ibid., L, 46; XLIII, 25 (identity of will between Asclepius and Zeus). 201 Cfr. ibid., XLV (Hymn to Sarapis), 21: iXXh Stec rr~vrwv filar tcal T6 7r~v 7rs7r)riprpak, an expression that echoes Stoicism. 2°2 Cfr. ibidem: elia'rrep tcopu4aioS 7r~vrwv r pxecs xal 7r€pare i st. 2°3 This was already observed by Lenz, who however gave a completely inadequate literary explanation for it, cfr. W. LENZ, Der Dionysoshymnos des Aristeides, in «Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale», 3.2 (1961), pp. 153-166 (repr. in ID., Aristeidesstudien cit.). According to him, Dionysus is both masculine and feminine — androgynous. Aristides thus attributes to Dionysus the characteristics that Plato had attributed to primitive human beings in the discourse of Aristophanes (Symp. 189d). This exclusively literary analysis continues, and Lenz sees imitations of Plato (Crit. 109c and Polit. 274c) in Hymn to Dionysus 6, where the aretalogy of Dionysus is described. Dionysus is transformed into a new Prometheus, and does for contemporary human beings what Prometheus had done in ancient times by stealing the fire from the gods and being punished for it. Aristides no longer believes in the gods of religion as punitive powers, but as beneficial powers. The audience for the hymn must believe in these powers, and this is the new gospel proposed by Aristides, who was influenced by Stoicism. In the conclusion, Lenz refers to Plato (Symp. 197e) again, where he says «all men must follow Eros, singing hymns in his honor», and Aristides refers this affirmation to Dionysus. Thus, in Aristides eyes, Dionysus assumes the role that Eros had for Plato. 2°4 Cfr. AELIUS ARISTIDES, Orationes, XLI, 3-4. 205 Cfr. ibid., XLI, 5.

180

181

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

The tendency to henotheism is a further result of this. Giulia Sfameni Gasparro206 observed that Aristides strongly asserts his faith in henotheism: «And I shouted out: 'The One!', meaning the god»207. In this context we reach an important aspect of the history of religious philosophy. In the Hymn to Zeus208, Aristides calls the supreme god a~To7r~'wp, that is, «father to himself» (Behr). Amann asserted209 that although a~ToTcderwp is not attested to in the period in which Aristides wrote, it was typical of Egyptian philosophical and religious concepts: Aristides would have composed the Hymn to Zeus in Egypt210, and, despite the fact that the term a rroir&Twp must have seemed barbaric to him as a rigorous Atticist, he would have used it to please his audience - all the more so since Aristides was well aware of the Hellenic syncretism that was prevalent in Egypt. Behr largely accepted Amann's explanation, but without accepting, as other did, that the work had been written in Egypt. New research has however led to results that were not foreseen by either Amann or Behr: for Whittaker 211, avTo7r~Twp is «a theological commonplace

of the Roman Empire». Whittaker found the presence of this concept and term in the invocation to Zeus of Orphic Hymn (used for Nature in this passage212) and in Synesius213, to which we can add other witnesses as well. First of all, the analogous term a~To4)w c is present in the Orphic Hymns. Similar adjectives, such as avToysvi]S and others which express similar concepts are also frequent in the Corpus Hermeticum, whose treatises in their current state are probably from the second century. The same concept of god being engendered from himself is in Maximus of Tyre214 and in Plutarch 215, who however expresses the idea of an `autonomous movement' of Isis at the moment of her `birth', and does not use the specific term in question. A~To7r~Twp spread from pagan religious speculation to Christianity and gnosticism. This dissemination seems to begin with the latter, so that, once again, it is possible to observe Aristides' use of the term in many other authors of his times, such as in the gnostics. Airrowdercop is used by the gnostics mentioned by Epiphanius 216 and by the Valentinians217. We have witnesses to the term later as well. It is used by some Christian writers, who, while noting its pagan origin, could nevertheless find a convenient and fitting use for it. The term is found in a verse of an anonymous poet, quoted by pseudo-Didymus: «There is only one God, the father of himself; from whom come all things of this world (Etc Bloc a~zorrtxtwp, it o$ Ta& Tab= y€vovro)»218. This is a verse from those «who are outside of Christianity», and its author remains unidentified. Pseudo-Didymus prob-

206 Cfr. G. SFAMENI GASPARRO, Elio Aristide e Asclepio, un retore e it suo dio: salute del corpo e direzione spirituale, in Cultura e promozione umana. La cura del corpo e dello spirito nell'antichit~~classica e nei primi secoli cristiani. Un magistero ancora attuale?, Convegno internazionale di studi Oasi `Maria Santissima' (Troina, 29 ottobre - 1 novembre 1997), edd. E. Dal Covolo - I. Giannetto, Troina 1998, [pp. 123-143], pp. 135-138. 207 AELIUS ARISTIDES, Orationes, L, 50, tr. Behr cit., p. 328. 208 Cfr. ibid., XLIII (Hymn to Zeus), 9. 209 Cfr. AMANN, Die Zeusrede cit., pp. 31-34. 210 Aristides' presence in Egypt is attested to by Philostratus (cfr. NinoSTRATUS, Vitae Sophistarum, II, 9, 582, ed. Kayser cit., p. 87,7-8) and by a few epigraphs, such as CIG 4679 (cfr. Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, III, 4679, ed. A. B~ckh, Berlin 1853, p. 327, corresponding to OGIS 709, cfr. Orientis Graeci inscriptiones selectae, 709, ed. W. Dittenberger, 2 vols., Leipzig 19031905, II, pp. 446-448) which contains the name of Publius Aelius Aristides Theodorus. 211 Cfr. J. WHITTAKER, The historical background of Proclus' doctrine of the AbOuir~o rara, in De Jambliche a Produs, ed. H. Dtirrie, Vandoeuvres - Geneve 1975 (Entretiens sur 1'Antiquit~~classique, 21), [pp. 193-230], pp. 203-206; ID., Self-Generating Principles in Second-Century Gnostic Systems, in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, I, The School of Valentinus, Proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut (28-31 march 1978), ed. B. Layton, Leiden 1980 (Studies in the history of religions, 41), [pp. 176189], pp. 185-186 (where he explicitly refers to the passage of Aristides).

182

Cfr. MAxIMUS TYRIus, Dissertationes, 15, 7 and 10, 10. Cfr. SYNESIUS CYRENENSIS, Hymni, I, 146, PG 66, [1587-1614], 1589, ed. N. Terzaghi, in ID., Hymni et Opuscula, 2 vols., Roma 1939-1944, I, p. 11. 214 Cfr. MAxIMUS TYRIus, Dissertationes, 16, 6. 215 Cfr. PLUTARCHUS, De Iside et Osiride, 62, 376A. 216 Cfr. EPIPHANIUS CONSTANTIENSIS, Panarion haereticorum, XXVI,10, PG 41, [173-1199], 315C, ed. K. Holl, rev. J. Dummer - C. Collatz - M. Bergermann, in Ancoratus und Panarion haer. 1-33, Berlin 2013 (GCS n.f, 10, Bd. 1): TON 7[aT£pa Twv awl/ tC011 xfiplov T~v avT~v a~Tarr~Twpa. 217 Quoted by the same Epiphanius, cfr. ibid., XXXI, 5, 3, PG 41, 481B: o-rs y~p ~Tr'~picfiS 6 A~To7r~Twp avT~S iv iavTw TraplsTXa T~~Tr~vra, and XXXI, 6, 4: 7rolo~vTOC, T~~T€aoS TOO a~TOTC~TwpoS itSlXoT~TKYITov Tip ~avTov &v~7rauol.v. 218 PSEUDO-DIDYMUS, De Trinitate, II, 5, 9, PG 39, [270-992], 493D, ed. I. Seiler, in DIDYMus DER BLINDE, De Trinitate in Buch 2, Kapitel 1-7, Meisenheim am Glan 1975 (Beitrage zur klassischen Philologie, 52). 212

213

183

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

5. RHETORIC AND PHILOSOPHY IN APULEIUS' TIMES

ably took it from an Orphic or Chaldaic theosophy, or from one of the theological oracles in verse that circulated in Late Antiquity. It is in fact similar to an oracular verse which, according to John Malalas 219, had been given to Pharaoh at a most ancient time (but which in fact must be from Late Antiquity): «This is the God, father of himself, without father, father and son of himself> Z20. Gregory of Nazianzus, writing to his friend Nemesius who was famous for his eloquence but was still a pagan, invites him to abandon his error and stop singing of Orpheus, Hesiod, Homer, and other famous poets 221. Pagan gods, even if against their will, must subject themselves to assisting the Christian poetry of Gregory. Among these, Hermes Trismegistus, considered here in his role as a prophet, and the Sybil, must venerate the Cross of Christ 222. For this reason they all must withdraw, turning to their senses even if late. Phoebus prophesied the death of the gods, which no longer exist. These must be his words: Instead, He who destroyed my evilness exists; this one is alito1r~zwp, dataxeutoc, ~..ti rwp 223; this one is Christ, who is father of himself, generated without the labor pains and without mother. There is finally the passage that Whittaker identified from Synesius 224, whose interest for pagan and gnostic theosophies is known: flc Tr pwv 7r~vTwv / 7rdtrsp ctirroir trwp. Aristides, with his ready attention to philosophical and religious doctrines, perhaps momentarily used the term afxro7r~twp to compose his Hymn to Zeus, but did not encounter another fitting moment to think about the theological concept that it implied. A rhetorician such as himself could have easily learned a typical element of a philosophical or religious concept from an environment that he happened to find himself in, use it

momentarily, and then abandon it. All of his philosophical and religious concepts are extemporaneous and immediate. Even if sincere, they are neither developed, nor meditated, nor systematic. In conclusion, Aristides' Platonism is an important element of the vast and varied philosophical and religious culture of the second century AD. Further, it is also essential for our understanding of the doctrines of Middle Platonism that are not strictly scholastic, since it is adapted to other interests. It therefore represents a moment of the history of Platonism rather than a contribution to its evolution, and manifests the interests of a rhetorician rather than a proper speculation. Aristides intellectually shifted just as easily towards religious attitudes (henotheism, the faith in a supreme god originating from himself) that were distant from the intellectualism of Platonic systems, but which heralded the cultural situations of later periods, just as Apuleius' religious opinions did (pp. 237-249). These religious opinions would not even be foreign to later Platonism.

219 Cfr. IOANNES MALALAS, Chronographia, III, 13, PG 97, [75-717], 144B, ed. J. Thum, Berlin 2000 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantine, 35), pp. 46-47. 220 For this passage in the history of Christian Hermetism, cfr. C. MOREscluNl, Hermes Christianus. The Intermingling of Hermetic Piety and Christian Thought, Turnhout 2012 (Cursor mundi, 8), pp. 37-38. 221 Cfr. GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS, Ad Nemesium (Carmina, II, 2, 7), PG 37, [1551D-1578B], 1570-1571, 239 ff. 222 Cfr. ibid., 1570A, 245-246. 223 Ibid., 1571A, 252. 224 Cfr. SYNESIUS CYRENENSIS, Hymni, I, 145-146, ed. Terzaghi cit., p. 11.

184

185

CHAPTER 6

THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

Jean Beaujeu, whose edition of Apuleius' philosophical works remains indispensable even if it is forty years old, has considered the philosophical works of Apuleius in a detailed and intelligent manner there'. One can then read the summary proposed by John Dillon in the context of the history of Middle Platonism as a whole2, or that of Stephen Gersh in his history of the Latin Platonic tradition3. All of Apuleius' works were the recent object of an extensive study by S. Harrison 4. Harrison provides a summary of the various works and a synthesis of the status quaestionis of some problems, even if his general interpretation of the submission of philosophy of Apuleius to Sophistics is, in my opinion, not convincings. There is therefore no lack of studies, so that we will only reflect on certain aspects of Apuleius' philosophical works that in our opinion still merit some attention. The first aspect is the fact that Apuleius, like Aulus Gellius, and following the interest for Greek culture that was typical of his period, completed his studies in Athens6. Apuleius' presence in Athens is also confirmed by his personal addition to the text of the pseudo-Aristotelian De mundo that he transCfr. BEAUJEU, Introduction cit. (see above, ch. 3, note 55), pp. vn-xxxv. Cfr. DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., pp. 306-338. 3 Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., pp. 215-227. 4 Cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit. (see above, ch. 1, note 1). 5 This nevertheless surpasses the earlier study by Sandy, cfr. G. N. SANDY, The Greek world of Apuleius. Apuleius and the Second Sophistic, Leiden 1997 (Mnemosyne, Bibliotheca classica Batava Suppl., 174). 6 Cfr. Apol. ch. 72; Flor., XVIII and XX, ed. Helm, pp. 35,15-16 and 41,1-9. 2

187

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

lated: in that work he affirms to have personally seen the portrait of Phidias, which Phidias himself attached to the shield ofAthena's statue in the Parthenon'. We can also perhaps consider a detail of Lucius' story in the Metamorphoses to be autobiographical8. It speaks of a strange personality, Pythias, who had been Lucius' «condiscipulus apud Athenas Atticas». According to Rohde9, who bases himself on Apuleius' affirmation about his «diutina studia»10, his studies at Athens lasted for about ten years (143151). For some time, it was thought that Apuleius had studied at the school of Gaius the Middle Platonist in Athens, but this conviction has been abandoned, as has been said". More recently, Dillon suggested that in Athens there was a true and proper Middle Platonic `school', because the philosopher Calvisius Taurus taught in Athens around the middle of the second century, and Aulus Genius speaks at length of him with approval12. We unfortunately do not have proofthat Apuleius followed Taurus' lessons, nor Apuleius' doctrines manifest any particular similarity with those of Taurus13. He translated some Platonic dialogs, and we could put them in this period of Apuleius' life, even if in a fully hypothetical manner. The dialogs that Apuleius translated are the Phaedo, which is witnessed to by Sidonius Apollinaris14 and Priscian15, and the Republic16. Apuleius' time in Greece was not

only dedicated to philosophical instruction: «sacrorum pleraque initia in Graecia participavi», he asserts''. If we understand what is said at the end of the Metamorphoses in an autobiographical manner, Apuleius was in Rome as well as in Athens, and he was initiated to the mysteries of Osiris there, after having been accepted into the initiation to Isis at Cenchries, in Greece18 . According to Coarelli's theory, he was in Ostia between 140 and 150, and took the name Marcellus, in honor of his patronus, Q. Asinius Marcellus, who is mentioned as priest of Osiris in the Metamorphoses (XI, 27): therefore Apuleius stay in Greece was not as long as Rohde supposes (143-151 An). This theory, however speculative, seems rather attractive" and has been recently reinforced with further arguments by Beck20. Let us then consider the De philosophia libri.

Cfr. Mund., 32, 361. Cfr. Met., I, 24. To be taken with caution, however. 9 Cfr. ROHDE, Zu Apuleius cit. (see above, ch. 2, note 64). '° Apol., 23. 11 See above, pp. 158-160. 12 Cfr. DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., p. 310. 13 Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., pp. 221-222. 14 Cfr. GAIUS SOLLIUS SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS, Epistulae, II, 9, 5, PL 58, [443-640A], ed. C. Luetjohann, in MGH, Scriptores, I, Auct. ant., 8, GAI SoLII APOLLINARIS SIDONII Epistulae et carmina, Berlin 1887, [pp. 1-172], p. 31,24-25. 15 Cfr. PRIscIANus CAESARIENSIs, Institutions grammaticae, X, ed. M. Hertz, in Grammatici Latini, II-III, ed. H. Keil, Leipzig 1855-1858, II, pp. 511,18-21 and 520,20-21. 16 Cfr. FULGENTIUS, Expositio Sermonum Antiquorum, ed. L. Lersch, in De abstrusis sermonibus, Bonn 1844, p. xxi, and cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit., p. 25. It seems unlikely to me that this was a true and proper translation of the Republic— perhaps of a section of it, like the Timaeus of Cicero? Unlike the later Neoplatonists, the Middle Platonists often did not comment nor translate entire dialogs, but only the most interesting sections of a dialog, cfr. F. FERRARI, Commentari 8

188

1. The De Platone et eius dogmate The De Platone takes the form of a manual with its conciseness, its renunciation of all discussion, and its presentation of doctrines that were apparently already established or interpreted in a satisfactory manner. Apuleius himself affirms that he desires to present the «consulta, quae aernec ra graece licet dici», that is, the opinions of Plato — and he does not wish to discuss them. The opinions of Plato that Apuleius intends to gather are useful for the active (symbolized by ethics) and contemplative (logic and rhetoric) lives: «ad utilitatem hominum vivendique et intelligendi ac loquendi rationem» 21. This common distinction specialistici alle sezioni matematiche del Timeo, in La filosofia in eta imperiale. Le scuole e le tradizioni filosofiche, Atti del colloquio (Roma, 17-19 giugno 1999), ed. A. Brancacci, Napoli 2000 (Elenchos, 31), pp. 169-224. 17 Apol., 55. 18 Cfr. Met., X, 30 and 35. 19 Cfr. COARELLI, Apuleio a Ostia cit. (see above, ch. 3, note 95). 20 Cfr. BECK, Apuleius the Novelist cit. (see above, ch. 3, note 95); ID., Divino quodam stellarum consortio coniunctum: The astrological relationship of Lucius to the priest of Isis as a chronotopic' template for Apuleius, Met. 11, in Concentus ex dissonis: Scritti in onore di Aldo Setaioli, 2 vols., edd. C. Santini et Al., Napoli 2006 (Quaderni del Dipartimento di filologia e tradizione Greca e Latina, 4), I, pp. 85-96. 21 Plat., I, 4, 186.

189

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

between active and contemplative life is found in Alcinous22, in Maximus of Tyre23, and in Calcidius as well 24. Despite these characteristics which make the De Platone an impersonal work on many levels, Beaujeu, better than any other, was able to consider certain specifics of Apuleius' interests and the placement of his work in an environment of Latin language and culture25. The work is divided into two books on physics and ethics, although Apuleius had declared that he also wished to present Platonic logic — a problem that we will speak of shortly. The first book presents doctrines that are almost exclusively taken from the Timaeus, the dialog most frequently read by the Middle Platonists. Despite the fact that the passage from one section to another is often forced and abrupt, and the resulting disconnectedness is undeniable, the book nevertheless has a unified character. There is no lack of insertions of Stoic and Aristotelian doctrines, something natural for a Middle Platonist, but the discussion as a whole moves in the domain of the Timaeus. Some placita are discussed more amply and in greater detail, while others more faithfully reproduce the original Platonic doctrine. Some dogmata are presented in a highly synthetic fashion, unlike what occurs with other Middle Platonists: thus, the doctrine of the cosmic soul is summarized in a few lines, while Plutarch had dedicated at least two works to the problem, and Atticus had treated it in depth. Furthermore, the two themes of cosmogony and the cosmic soul are logically connected to each other, and they appear in this way in Plutarch and Atticus. In Apuleius (as in Alcinous), however, they are separated from each other, and classified under two different rubrics. The insertions of doctrines from outside Platonism are far more frequent and extensive in the second book. Plato had never composed a structured body of ethical doctrines according to the ends and systematizations of the Hellenistic philosophical schools. It is obvious that if Apuleius attributes well-developed

ethical doctrines to Plato, they cannot be of genuine Platonic origin. The very idea of composing a treatise of ethics would be one of the strangest things for the Platonic mind. It is clear that the intentions and ends of Apuleius are already quite far from his model, and that the tradition that Apuleius belonged to did not constitute, at least in regard to ethics, a return to pure Platonic doctrine, but instead represented a continuation of the Hellenistic philosophical schools. Stoic ethics, and to a lesser degree Peripatetic ethics, had an important role in Middle Platonism: this can be seen in Plutarch and in Calvisius Taurus. If the metaphysics, physics, and psychology of the first book of the De Platone were, despite the large Stoic influence, the Platonic ones, the whole of the ethical doctrines presented by Apuleius is instead marked by a high degree of `eclecticism' (with the exception of Epicureanism, which was strongly rejected at all times by the Platonic and Stoic traditions) 26 , in which Platonic, Stoic, and Peripatetic elements appear with almost the same level of importance 27. One could perhaps say that what is new and lively in Apuleius' ethics is taken from the Stoic school, while many typically Platonic elements, or those that had so much importance for Plato, appear for the most part to be fossilized relics of the scholastic tradition: it is enough to think of politics, a problem that was so lively at the time of Plato, which is dried up and schematized at the end of the De Platone. Following these strong Stoic and Peripatetic influences, the second book is not a real and systematic treatise, because the doctrines contained in it are almost presented 'in blocks'. More than a treatise that follows a rigorously determined logical line, the second book of the De Platone is a manual of a highly doxographic nature.

22

Cfr. ALCINOUs, Didaskalikds, 2, ed. Whittaker cit., p. 152,30-31. and 16.

23 Cfr. MAxiMUs TYRIIIs, Dissertations, 15 24 Cfr. CALCIDIUs, Timaeus cit., 264-265. 25

Cfr. BEAuJEu, Commentaire cit., pp. 57-58.

190

26 `Eclecticism' must not be understood in a negative way for the Middle Platonists, as Dillon has rightly asserted, cfr. J. DILLON, `Orthodoxy' and Eclecticism': Middle Platonists and New-Pythagoreans, in The Question of 'Eclecticism': Studies in Later Greek Philosophy, edd. J. Dillon — A. Long, Berkeley 1988 (Hellenistic culture and society, 3), pp. 103-125. 27 For the importance of Stoicism and its renown, cfr. P. L. DONn4I, Testi e commenti, manuali e insegnamento: la forma sistematica e i metodi della filosofia in eta postellenistica, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der romischen Welt (ANRW II — 36,7) cit. (see above, ch. 1, note 95), [pp. 5027-5100], pp. 5027-5035.

191

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

The biography of Plato constitutes one of the characteristic elements of the De Platone. It appears to be better developed and more original than the other Middle Platonist doctrines, because it has a specific meaning28. Barra correctly proposed the theory that the biography of Plato contains an «autobiographical reflection of Apuleius' disquiet»29. Plato's voyages to know wisdom are parallel to those of Ulysses, who is spoken of at the end of De deo Socratis as well. Certain elements of the biography of Plato are analogous to those of Apuleius' life itself30. According to Hijmans, «the lives were certainly written in order to provide models for emulation», and for this reason Apuleius wrote that Plato had encountered labor in the defense of his doctrines, and likewise sought to phrase his words elegantly31. «Not only did the doctrine itself need to be coherent, or symphonically organized, but Plato's life also had to appear as consistent with his doctrine»32. Apuleius' biography of Plato is the oldest of those that have reached us. It has certain points in common with the biography found in the third book of the Vitae Philosophorum by Diogenes Laertius and with the anonymous Prolegomena to Plato's Philosophy33. It is difficult to specify the origin of this biographical information with greater precision. According to Leo34, Thrasyllus was the source for Diogenes Laertius and Apuleius; but this

is no more than a theory, based on Thrasyllus' mention by Diogenes in respect to a somewhat secondary piece of information35. Wilamowitz observed, in regard to the information provided by Diogenes Laertius, that the first generation of Academy scholars after the death of Plato must have written biographies of the master36. Apuleius himself in fact speaks to us of Speusippus as «domesticis documentis instructus»37, and Diogenes Laertius38 uses a work of Speusippus39. There is also biographical information on Plato in Aristotle, as is known. It is particularly important that Aristotle4° already underscored Plato's dependency on Heraclitus, just as Apuleius did later41. This all permits to suppose that the Middle Platonist school depends on the systematic arrangement that the Ancient Academy had given to the teaching of Plato and all the information pertaining to the biography of the master. The biographies of Apuleius and Diogenes Laertius have a common inclination to insert fabulous elements together with historical facts, and in particular to underscore the relationships between Plato and Pythagoras 42. These elements had to have become traditional fairly early on. The tendency to tie Plato to Pythagoras, which is so widespread in Middle Platonism, is already present in the passage of Aristotle mentioned above, in the Florida and in the De deo Socratis43, while some mythical elements of the biography of Plato (the Magi who were in Athens sacrified to the gods in occasion of his death) are found in Seneca44

28 On Plato's biography also cfr. I. MANNLEIN ROBERT, Griechischen Philosophen in Indien? Reisewege zur Weisheit, in «Gymnasium», 116 (2009), [pp. 331-357], pp. 344-345. 29 BARRA, La questione dell'autenticitd cit. (see above, ch. 4, note 168), p. 138. 3° Cfr. ID., La biografia di Platone nel `De Platone et eius dogmate' di Apuleio, in «Rendiconti della Accademia di Archeologia Lettere e Belle Arti di Napoli», n.s. 38 (1963-1964), [pp. 5-18], pp. 8-12. 31 Cfr. HUMANS, Apuleius, Philosophus cit., p. 435, note 175. 32 F. FERRARI, Esegesi, commento e sistema nel medioplatonismo, in Argumenta in dialogos Platonis, I, Platoninterpretation and ihre Hermeneutik von der Antike bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts, edd. A. Neschke-Hentschke et Al., Basel 2010 (Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana, 31), [pp. 51-76], p. 59, note 26. 33 Cfr. ANONYMI prolegomena philosophiae Platonicae, ed. and Eng. tr. by L. G. Westerink, in ANONYMOUS, Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy, Amsterdam 1962, 1-6. More specific relationships between the Apuleian biography and that of Diogenes Laertius can be found in the work of Sinko, cfr. Tx. SINK°, De Apulei et Albini doctrinae platonicae adumbratione, Krakow 1905. 34 Cfr. FR. LEO, Die griechisch-romische Biographie nach ihrer literarischen Form, Leipzig 1901, pp. 54-55.

35 Cfr. DIOGENES LAERTIUS, Vitae Philosophorum, III, 1. 36 Cfr. L.T. VON WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF, Platon, 2 vols., Berlin 1919, II, p. 3. 37 Plat., I, 2, 183. 38 Cfr. DIOGENES LAERTIUS, Vitae Philosophorum, III, 2. 39 Cfr. SPEUSIPPUS, fr. 27, ed. P. L. F. Lang in De Speusippi Academici scriptis. Accedunt Fragmenta, Bonn 1911; ID., fr. 147, ed. M. Isnardi Parente, in SPEUSIPPO, Frammenti. Edizione, traduzione e commento, Napoli 1980 (La Scuola di Platone, 1). 4° Cfr. Metaph. 987a 29 if. 41 Cfr. Plat., I, 2, 185. 42 Cfr. ibid., I, 3, 186-187; DIOGENES LAERTIUS, Vitae Philosophorum, III, 8-9. 43 Cfr. Flor., XVIII; Socrat., 22, 169; DONINI, Sokrates and sein Damon cit. (see above, ch. 4, note 3), p. 160. 44 Cfr. SENECA, Ad Lucilium epistulae morales, VI, 58, 30-31.

192

193

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

A point of information produced by Apuleius does not correspond to the historical reality, but to the one that Apuleius himself lived in, that is, Platos's supposed intention to go to India to learn wisdom from the Magi and the Brahmans. The archetype of the voyage to seek wisdom is present in Plato himself, who, as is well known, narrates in the Timaeus45 that Solon went to Egypt and managed to learn strange and marvelous things from the priests, among which is included the myth of Atlantis. It is thus no surprise that the conviction might arise that the Greek sage (or he who desired to become such) would seek to learn wisdom from the Orient, which was a wisdom that was different from, but not inferior to, the Greek one. Cicero already speaks of this, underscoring Plato's intention to educate himself as the basis for such voyages: Sed audisse to credo, Tubero, Platonem Socrate mortuo primum in Aegyptum discendi causa, post in Italiam et in Siciliam contendisse, ut Pythagorae inventa perdisceret, eumque et cum Archyta Tarentino et cum Timaeo Locro multum fuisse et Philolai commentarios esse nanctum, cumque eo tempore in his locis Pythagorae nomen vigeret, ilium se et hominibus Pythagoreis et studiis illis dedisse 46 Elsewhere Cicero also adds that Plato wished to learn numbers and astronomy from the Egyptians, and names many Pythagoreans that he encountered in order to learn their doctrine as well as that of Socrates, whom he faithfully followed47. Plato's voyages to Egypt became more famous than others. A poeta doctus such as Lucan introduces Caesar asking the Egyptian priest Acoreus to teach him the Egyptian mysteries: 0 sacris devote senex, quodque arguit aetas, non neclecte deis, Phariae primordia gentis terrarumque situs volgique edissere mores et ritus formasque deum; quodcumque vetustis insculptum est adytis profer, noscique volentes

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

prode deos. Si Cecropium sua sacra Platona maiores docuere tui, quis dignior umquam hoc fuit auditu mundique capacior hospes48? And some years later, Quintilian: (Plato) non contentus disciplinis quas praestare poterant Athenae, non Pythagoreorum, ad quos in Italiam navigaverat, Aegypti quoque sacerdotes adiit atque eorum arcana perdidicit 49. Thus, a tradition regarding Plato's voyages had been established in Rome before Apuleius5°. According to him, Plato went to the philosopher Theodorus, in Cyrene, to learn geometry, and to Egypt to learn astrology and the «ritus prophetarum», that is, the religious practices of the Egyptian `prophets', of the priests who manifested the will of god. The presumed religious aspect of Plato's philosophy appears in these words, which are, however, more suitable for Apuleius than for Plato. The prophetae that Plato desired to know are those who were famous in Apuleius' time. Apuleius introduces (even if it is not sure whether he does it for Egyptian propaganda, since he is narrating an episode about necromancy) an Egyptian «Zatchlas propheta primarius», into one of the stories of the Metamorphoses51. Plutarch too asserts that Plato went to Egypt 52 . Plato also went into Italy, to the Pythagoreans Eurytus and Archytas, to learn mathematics. The cultural links between Plato and Pythagorism are a concrete reality that is present in the teaching of the Platonic Academy itself. The tradition

45 Cfr. Tim. 21c-22b. 46 CICERO, De re publica, I, 10,16, ed. K. Ziegler, Leipzig 1969' (Bibl. Teubn., 1215); ed. J. G. F. Powell, in M. TULLI CICERONIs De re publica, De legibus, Cato Major De senectute, Laelius De amicitia, Oxford 2006, p. 13,10-18. 47 Cfr. ID., De finibus bonorum et malorum, V, 29, 87.

48 MARCUS ANNEUS LUCANUS, De bello civili, X, 176-183, ed. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Leipzig — Stuttgart 19972 (Bibl. Teubn., 1502), p. 272. 49 Cfr. MARCUS FABIUS QUINTILIANUS, Instituti0 Oratoria, I, 12, 15, ed. M. Winterbottom, 2 vols., Oxford 1970 (Oxford Classical Texts), passim. s° About this tradition, see the well informed study of D~rrie, cfr. H. D0RRIE, Platons Reisen zu fernen V6lkem, in Romanitas et Christianitas: studia lano Henrico Waszink AD VI Kai Nov A MCMLXXIII XIII lustra complenti oblata, edd. W. den Boer et AL, Amsterdam — London 1973, [pp. 99-118], pp. 99-105. 51 Cfr. Met., II, 28. 52 Cfr. PLUTARCIIUS, De Iside et Osiride, 10, 354E; 48, 370F-371A. According to Plutarch, the Egyptians themselves asserted that Homer and Thales had also studied the Egyptians (De Iside 34, 364D): thus Miinstermann, cfr. MUNSTERMANN, Apuleius cit. (see above, ch.1, note 52), p. 137, note 40.

194

195

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. TI-SE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

was based on the testimony taken from the Timaeus: Timaeus was a Pythagorean philosopher according to Plato, and a treatise De natura mundi et animae has been attributed to him. Later, Plato intended to go to the Indians and the Magi if the wars that broke out around that time had not hindered him: «ad Indos et Magos intendisset animum, nisi tunc eum bella vetuissent caletica» (this is the text of the manuscripts)". Apuleius does not specify what wars these were. The same is told by the anonymous author of the Prolegomena to Plato's philosophy54: Plato desired to go to Persia, but he could not do it. He encountered, however, the Magi in Phoenicia as well as those who taught magic. Diogenes Laertius also provides similar information55: «Plato planned to dialog with the Magi, but he gave up his idea because of the wars in Asia» which certainly stopped him from reaching the country of the Indians. This is a point of information that corresponds to the period's (the first imperial era) interest for Oriental civilization, in which they held that wisdom began and came forth from, and was still cultivated by the sages of the area (Magi, Brahmans, and gymnosophists, who we encountered in the Florida). We cannot fail to remember that Plotinus also attempted to make a trip to India at the time of the unfortunate expedition of Gordian III against the Persians: Plotinus' intention was no different than that which Apuleius, in the preceding century, had attributed to Plato.

Finally, Plato's first voyage into Sicily was due to his desire to know the nature of mount Aetna and its eruptions (189), while the second was due to his desire to know the laws of the municipia of that province (a typically Roman formulation). The fame of Plato's voyages, together with those of he who was considered his master, Pythagoras, was also accepted by Christian culture. Jerome, who was quite interested in pagan traditions, speaks of it: Legimus in veteribus historiis quosdam lustrasse provincias, novos populos adisse, maria transisse ut eos, quos ex libris noverant, coram quoque viderent: Sic Pythagoras Memphiticos vates, sic Plato Aegyptum et Architam Tarentinum eamque oram Italiae quae quondam magna Graecia dicebatur, laboriosissime peragravit, ut qui Athenis magister erat et potens cuiusque doctrina Academiae gymnasia personabant, fieret peregrinus atque discipulus, malens aliena verecunde discere quam sua aliis impudenter ingerere56 After having narrated Plato's biography, Apuleius wished to present the consulta, that is the dogmata of his philosophy. Since there are three parts of philosophy, Apuleius intends to begin with physics. The tripartition of philosophy in ethics, physics, and logic had been canonical in Platonism since the times of Xenocrates57, and was also accepted by the Stoics58. It is common to all the Middle Platonists, from the time of Eudorus on59 (and perhaps from even earlier), with Antiochus of Ascalon (if we should believe Cicero60). Texts which parallel that of Apuleius can be found in Hippolytus61, Atticus 62 ,

53 Cfr. Plat., I, 3. The text is corrupted: the Editio princeps Romana corrects the caletica of the manuscripts with Asiatica, that is, the wars in Asia stopped Plato from reaching India. In our edition of Apuleius' De Platone we accepted this correction, because it harmonizes with the information that is given by Diogenes Laertius. My text is accepted by Mknnlein Robert, cfr. MANNLEIN ROBERT, Griechischen Philosophen cit., p. 344. Others (Goldbacher and Beaujeu) correct caletica with dialectica, linking it with the following inventa, to indicate the logical doctrines that Plato learned from Parmenides and Zeno. This solution is preferred by Baltes as well, cfr. M. BALTES, Der Platonismus in der Antike. Grundlagen-System-Entuicklung, IV, Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus. Einige grundlegende Axiome / Platonische Physik im antiken Verstdndnis, I, Bausteine 101-124: Text, Uher_setzung, Kommentar, edd_ H. Dome — M. Baltes. Stuttgart 1996, pp. 218-219. 54 Cfr. Anonymi prolegomena philosophiae Platonicae, 4. See the rich annotations to the text by Segonds, cfr. ibid., edd. L. G. Westerink — A.Ph. Segonds, in Prol~gom~nes a la philosophie de Platon, Paris 1990, (CUF S~rie grecque, 335). 55 Cfr. DIOGENES LAERTIUS, Vitae Philosophorum, III, 7.

56 SOPHRONIUS EUSEBIUS HIERONYMUS, Epistulae, LIII, 1, 2, PL 22, [325-1224], 541, ed. I. Hilberg, 2 vols., Wien 1910-1918 (repr. 1996 in Editio altera supplementis aucta, CSEL, 54-55), I, p. 443,4-13. 57 Cfr. XENOCRATES, fr. 1, ed. Heinze (corresponding to fr. 82, ed. Isnardi Parente). 58 Cfr. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, II, 37 ff. 59 Cfr. STOBAEUS, Anthologium, II, 42, 11. 60 Cfr. CICERo, Academici libri, I (Varro), 5, 19, ed. Plasberg cit., p. 43. 61 Cfr. HIPPOLYTUS, Elenchos, I, 18, 2. 62 Cfr. ATTICUS, fr. 1, ed. des Places cit.

196

197

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

Diogenes Laertius63, and Calcidius64. It is also significant that Atticus, Hippolytus, and Diogenes Laertius like Apuleius, affirm that Plato unified the various parts of philosophy, which had been separated before, into one philosophical system. This assertion perhaps also has its precedent in Aristotle65 Apuleius further affirms that he wants to begin his discussion with physics («a naturali philosophia fa.cientes exordium»), unlike Alcinous and Atticus, who began from logic as Chrysippus recommended66. There is thus no unity of method in regard to this problem within Platonism, as Beaujeu observes67. The exposition of Plato's doctrine shows an Apuleius who is firmly placed within the currents of thought of the second century.

The Apuleian De mundo elicits certain questions: since the work is a translation, what were the motives that led its author to focus on the pseudo-Aristotelian IIEpi xdo ,ov? What significance did the Greek original have for him? Can it be situated in terms of Apuleius' other works? Until the middle of the twentieth century, scholars were exclusively interested in the Greek original, and they neglected the Apuleian version, while simply noting its errors (whether real or presumed) and its rhetorical modifications in respect to the original. W. Capelle primarily noted the Stoic elements of the IIEpi x~o-.tou70; while Strohm instead discovered a long list of correspondences between the Greek original and Plato, Aristotle, and the Ancient Academy71. Festugi~re, who found certain doctrines in it that were typical or anticipatory of Middle Platonism, opened a path towards a better understanding of Apuleius' De mundo72. F. R~gen made an in-depth study of it, and manifested Apuleius' innovations and the doctrine that may have suggested them to him (above all, demonology and the need to mediate the space between the transcendent god and human beings)73. With the same level of penetration, Beaujeu analyzed certain philosophical and literary elements. If for De mundo we can rely on a source, the identification of a `source' for the De philosophia libri as it was conceived in nineteenth century is of little use for Middle Platonism, and is almost never pursued now. In some cases, . it is certainly clear that Apuleius is using a specific work of Plato, such as the Timaeus, which is even quoted at times (and the quotation does not correspond with the manuscript tradition of the Timaeus whatsoever). Apuleius may have read certain dialogs of Plato, even if they were commented by a Middle Platonist master, that is, in a text that was closer and more pertinent to his times. One cannot exclude, beyond the Timaeus, him having perhaps read the Symposium, for demonology, in the original Platonic text as well.

2. The De mundo The De mundo translates a treatise with the same title (Ilepi Kdo-ltou) that was attributed to Aristotle, and which some scholars consider to be genuine If spurious, the FlEpi xdo-pou would have been written between the first century BC and the first century AD. It explains the different manifestations of the sensible world and their seeming contradictions by attributing the variety of the contingent to the transcendent god. Such an interpretation could be accepted by Apuleius' philosophy. His translation is actually an adaptation in Latin with numerous additions by Apuleius himself, who for instance speaks in a passage68 of a volcanic phenomenon that he had witnessed in Hierapolis of Phrygia. Another addition is that of 13, 318 — 14, 321, which Apuleius presents as a reworking from a treatise on the winds by Favorinus, while it heavily depends (some scholars have used the word 'plagiarism') on Gellius69, who translated Favorinus' text into Latin.

63

Cfr. DIOGENES LAERTIUS, Vitae Philosophorum, III, 56. Cfr. CALCInIUs, Timaeus cit., 264. 6s Cfr. Metaph., 987a 29 66 Cfr. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, II, 42. 67 Cfr. BEAUJEU, Commentaire cit., p. 254. 6s Cfr. Mund., 17, 327. 69 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, II, 22.

64

198

70 CfY. W. CAPELLE, Die Schrift von der Welt, in «Neue Jahrbi.icher fftr Klassische Philologie», 15 (1905), pp. 529-568. 71 Cfr. H. STROHM, Studien zur Sehrift von der Welt, in «Museum Helveticum», 9 (1952), pp. 137-175. 72 Cfr. A. J. FESTUGI~RE, La revelation d'Hermes Trism~giste, II, Paris 1949, pp. 460-518. 73 Cfr. REGEN, Apuleius Philosophus cit.

199

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

Likewise, the second book of the De Platone copiously employs the ethical works of Aristotle and the Stoics, but it is not possible to identify a specific `source'. The cosmogony of the Timaeus, demonology, and ethical doctrines had been subject to profound reworking for quite some time after Plato's death, so that it had become almost impossible to find a source within a long tradition. Regen does not accept this for the De deo Socratis however, and maintains that Apuleius used a specific Greek source 74. His research, which substantially attempts to continue his 1971 book on the De mundo, is not completely convincing. The presumed Greek source that Regen asserts remains without a name or an author. In the past, scholars heavily insisted on Apuleius' errors of translation and interpretation, but this has rightly been contested by Finamore75. Mannlein-Robert also gives a positive assessment of Apuleius' knowledge of Platonic texts 76.

ten much later, perhaps even after the Apologia (which is from 158), because the Apologia did not mention a work that spoke at length on the question of demons'$. The theory that places the De Platone and the De mundo in Apuleius' younger years is only based on the observation that their style is not highly literary. This is not however a proof The presumed non-literary style of the De Platone could be due to its manualistic character79. In second place, the De Platone and the De mundo are anything but stylistically ieiuni, although they do not attain the strong rhetorical elaboration of the Apologia, the Metamorphoses, the De deo Socratis, and the Florida. Despite what has often been asserted, the De Platone and the De mundo manifest a strong literary style80: Apuleius did not cease to be a great writer in even his most technical writings, when, at the end of his life (as we will now see), he decided to write more specifically Platonic treatises than his rhetorical works. One must therefore think of other arguments to establish chronology and consider De Platone and De mundo as works of Apuleius' youth. How could Apuleius have called himself a philosophus Platonicus in the Apologia if he was not already known as such? Various parts of Apuleius' Apologia are dedicated to Platonism, such as the demonology of ch. 43, or the doctrine on god of ch. 64, where he considers himself a Platonist together with the judge in his trial, Claudius Maximus. In this case as well, however, Apuleius could have called himself a Platonist simply because he considered himself as such, and not because he had already written books of Platonic philosophy. The early composition of the De Platone and the De mundo has been contested for specific reasons in regard to each of the works. It has been observed that the second book of the De Platone,

3. Chronology of the Philosophical Works The resolution of the problem of chronology is highly hypothetical, because none of the works have clear references to historical events. On the basis of style or of lesser and greater literary capabilities, it has been common to distinguish between the De Platone and the De mundo on one hand, and the De deo Socratis on the other. For this reason, certain scholars consider that the De Platone and the De mundo were written by Apuleius when he was younger77, while the De deo Socratis was writ-

74 Cfr. REGEN, rev. BEAUJEU, Commentaire cit., pp. 194 and 205; ID., It De deo Socratis cit., p. 447 ff. 75 Cfr. J. F. FINAMORE, Apuleius on the Platonic Gods, in Reading Plato in Antiquity, edd. H. Tarrant — D. Baltzly, London 2006, [pp. 33-48], p. 36 and his conclusion, p. 42. 76 Cfr. I. MANNLEIN-ROBERT, Mitteplatonismus and Neupythagoreismus, to be published in the fifth volume (Philosophie der Kaiserzeit and der Spiitantike) of Die Philosophie der Antike (see above, Preface, note 1). 77 This was the opinion of Sinko, cfr. SINKO, De Apulei et Albini cit., p. 44; also cfr. BARRA, II valore e it sign ficato cit., p. 71; ID., La questione dell'autenticit~~cit., p. 165: Apuleius was in Athens in 143, and wrote Plat. and Mund.; cfr. MORESCIIINI, Apuleio e it platonismo cit., p. 15. Miinstermann also accepts the chronological order of Plat. — Apol. — Socrat. (written at least 10 years after Apol.) — Met., cfr. MiiNSTERMANN, Apuleius. Metamorphosen cit., p. 129.

200

78 The same argument has been used to demonstrate that De Platone and De mundo precede the Apologia; but does not stop one believing that Apuleius did not refer to them in the Apologia simply because he did not find it necessary to cite them, cfr. BEAUJEU, Introduction cit., pp. xxxll-xxxin. 78 As is stated by Dillon and Harrison, cfr. DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., p. 310; HARRISON, Apuleius cit., p. 177. 88 A literary study of both De Platone and the De mundo is badly required, although for the De mundo we can use a work by Bajoni, cfr. M. G. BAJoNI, Aspetti linguistici e letterari del 'De Mundo' di Apuleio, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der romischen Welt (ANRW II — 34,2) cit. (see above, ch. 1, note 138), pp. 1785-1832.

201

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

beyond lacking any preface, is dedicated by Apuleius to his 'son' Faustinus. Barra, Dillon, Gersh, Miinstermann and Harrison therefore affirm that, since the first book of the De Platone lacks a dedication to Faustinus, the two were written at separate times81. In my opinion however, it is inconceivable that Apuleius wrote a separate 20 page treatise on physics and a 20 page treatise on ethics. What would the use of that have been? A treatise on physics, ethics, and logic had already been planned in De Platone I, 4, 189: the problem is not that the ethics are there, but that the logic is missing. In our opinion, therefore, Beaujeu is correct when he affirms that this Faustinus is probably a fictitious personage, who has been introduced for pedagogical motives into a moral treatise, not the real son of Apuleius and Pudentilla82. No information on him is available. This does not however justify the theory that the second book of the De Platone was written a long time from the first, nor that the De Platone and the De mundo (also addressed to his 'son' Faustinus) are works of Apuleius' maturity, who would have had a sonS3. The hypothesis of a later date must therefore be based on more solid considerations — all the more since, as we will see in the conclusions, it has its own significance. The De mundo includes the question of the derivation of 13, 318 — 14, 321 from Aulus Gellius84. If Gellius' Noctes Atticae were published around 169, as is theorized, the De mundo is a later work. There are however other hypotheses that place the publication of the Noctes Atticae after 146 and before 15885. If the preface only to the Noctes Atticae is from 169, this means that the collection of material (and thus the treatise on the winds

that Apuleius `plagiarized') had begun much earlierS6, or even that there was a friendship between the two that would explain the presence of the same topic and exclude the `plagiarism' 87 . The `plagiarism' from Aulus Gellius therefore does not stop the De mundo from being a work of the young Apuleius. The reality is that the problem of the chronology of the De Platone and the De mundo is closely connected to that of their authenticity. 4. The Authenticity of the De Platone and the De mundo Both the De Platone and the De mundo have a particularity, as B. Axelson observed: the use of the so-called cursus mixtus (a combination of the tonic accent with normal Latin prosody) in the clausulae, along with the so-called `Scheinprosodie', in which the usually long final syllable is abbreviated to complete the clausula. Both of these uses are late (beginning in the third century AD), so that Axelson deduced that the two works are not authentically Apuleian88. Redfors took up the research of Axelson, but did not confirm his conclusions89. Barra therefore observed that, if one accepts the theory of Axelson and Redfors, De Platone and De mundo are not necessarily spurious works of Apuleius, but could simply be his last works. The transformation of rhythm, from the quantitative to the accentual clausulae, could already be found at the end of the second century AD, and Apuleius could therefore have employed it90. Harrison reached the same conclusion, and theorized that these two works of Apuleius could have been composed in the beginning of that transformation, a movement that is already com-

86

Cfr. BARRA, La questione dell'autenticit~~cit., p. 165; DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., p. 311; GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 220; HARRISON, Apuleius cit., pp. 180 and 9 (on Faustinus). 82 Cfr. BEAuJEu, Commentaire cit., pp. 53 and 310. B3 Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism, cit., p. 220; HARRISON, Apuleius cit., pp. 179-180. 84 Cfr. AULUS GELLIUS, Nodes Atticae, I, 2, 3-29. 85 Cfr. BEAuJEu, Introduction cit., pp. xxx-xxxi.

Cfr. DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., pp. 307-308. Cfr. HOLFORD-STREVENS, Aulus Gellius cit., pp. 22-26. 88 Cfr. B. AXELSON, Akzentuierender Klauselrhythmus bei Apuleius: Bemerkungen zu den Schriften De Platone and De mundo, in «Vetenskapssocieteten i Lund: Arsbok», 1952 (1953), pp. 5-20. 89 Cfr. J. REDFORS, Echtheitskritische Untersuchung der Apuleischen Schnften De Platone and De mundo, Lund 1960, pp. 75-114, p. 117. 9° Cfr. BARRA, La questione dell'autenticitd cit., pp. 128-129. Barra however is still convinced that Apuleius' philosophical works belong to the youth of Apuleius.

202

203

87

81

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

mon in Cyprian, another African who wrote eighty years after Apuleius91 . It follows that these two works must belong to the final years of Apuleius' life — a conclusion that we accept. On this ground, we assume that the De Platone et eius dogmate and the De mundo are to be placed at the end of his philosophical and rhetorical career.

plicius' commentary on the Categories of Aristotle) dealt indepth with Aristotelian logic95. Atticus too was interested into the Categories, although in a polemic vein against Aristotle 96. In conclusion, on the basis of the few remaining fragments, we can say that the logical works taken into consideration by the Middle Platonists contemporary to Apuleius were the Categories of Aristotle, always read in a polemical light. On the other hand, if the De interpretatione is of Apuleius, he is not interested in the Categories, but in Aristotle's flEpi ipt.Crivsiac, and he interpreted it outside of strict Aristotelian exegesis, that is, with ample inclusions of Stoic logic. Despite this, the De interpretatione has received increased attention lately by scholars of ancient logic, who have appreciated the importance of the work in the domain of the history of that difficult discipline. Its technical nature makes it inadvisable for those — like us — who are not experts to deal with the problems of content: for these problems, we limit ourselves here and elsewhere to what scholars of logic have proposed, while we will confront certain questions that do not regard the understanding of the work, but have considerable importance for its history.

5. The De interpretatione The De interpretatione that has been attributed to Apuleius by the Mediaeval tradition, and even considered as the third book of the De Platone by some modern scholars, is not, in our opinion, authentic, despite the fact that Apuleius affirmed his desire to write a treatise of logic in the De Platone (I, 4, 189). More probably, Apuleius renounced his professed intention for concrete reasons, dissuaded because of the technical nature of the subject92 . In my opinion, an unknown author who lived a few centuries after Apuleius composed the De interpretation and attributed it to him, in order to assure its survival (as was often the case with falsely attributed works). This spurious origin of the De interpretatione is also reflected, in our view, in the fact that its manuscript tradition is completely different than that of the authentic works of Apuleius 93. The De interpretatione thus had its specific path, which was that of Latin logical works in Late Antiquity. The logic doctrines of the De interpretation are not those of the Didaskalik~s of Alcinous94. From among the Middle Platonists, it appears that only Lucius and Nicostratus, of whom we possess only a few fragments (usually from Sim-

We therefore intend to treat the authenticity of the work that is attributed to Apuleius by unanimous manuscript tradition, by indirect tradition from very ancient times, that is, from authors such as Cassiodorus and Isidore of Seville, and is still believed to be his, although without a basis in convincing proofs, by Dillon97 and Hijmans98. The authenticity was first questioned

91 Cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit., pp. 178-179. 92 Cfr. BEAUJEU, Commentaire cit., p. 52. 93 This does not have a decisive weight, however, because the Asclepius, which is not an authentic work, also entered into the manuscript tradition of Apuleius. We consider this problem later. 94 Cfr. ALCINous, Didaskalik~s, 5-7.

95 The fragments of Nicostratus have been analyzed by Praechter (cfr. PEARCHTER, Nikostratos der Platoniker cit., see above, ch. 5, note 57) and more recently by Gio~, cfr. GIO~, Filosofi Medioplatonici cit., pp. 119-154 (Lucius) and 157219 (Nicostratus). Cfr. ATTICUS, fr. 2, 136-138, ed. des Places. The polemics of Atticus against the Aristotelian Middle Platonists is well known. 97 Cfr. DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., pp. 311 and 336-337. 98 Cfr. HIJMANs, Apuleius Orator cit. (see above, ch. 1, note 138), p. 1746, note 129. One must however remember that for Hijmans the Asclepius too is probably a work of Apuleius (apparently he does not know the existence of the Logos teleios). Gersh (cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 218) and Harrison (cfr. HARRISON, Apuleius cit., pp. 11-12 and 175), although not decisively

204

205

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

by Hildebrand99, although publishing the De interpretation among Apuleius' works, and even as the third book of the De dogmate Platonis with the title De philosophia rationali. Nevertheless, Hildebrand added to the title: «qui (scil. liber) Apuleio falso tribuitur». Later editors, such as Goldbacher and Thomas, also considered the work to be spuriously attributed to Apuleius, and Beaujeu even went so far as to exclude it from his edition, as the Asclepius. Its attribution to Apuleius is found, as we said, in all of the medieval manuscripts, at least in all those we used for our edition. During the Italian renaissance, Pico della Mirandola, writing to Ermolao Barbaro, stated that he had found a fragment of the De interpretation, which he considered to be so erudite a work as to be a valid witness to Apuleius' philosophical capabilities. He, however, asked Barbaro if he knew whether the complete work existed some place, and not only the fragment he had found. The De interpretatione was in fact known only fragmentarily until the edition of Colvius. Before him, Johannes Sichardus had published a fragment in the Disciplinarum liberalium orbis with the title of De syllogismo categorico100. Colvius was the first to publish the entire work, taking it from a still extant manuscript from the tenth century, Leidensis B.P.L. 25101. After Colvius' edition, the De interpretatione was added to the works of Apuleius, sometimes as an independent work, at other times as the third book of the De Platone, and it is found in this way in the aforementioned edition of Hildebrandloz

It was this scholar, as we have said, who first raised the question of the Apuleian authenticity of the work. He considered it to be spurious based on the following considerations:

against authenticity, are nevertheless inclined to hold the De interpretatione as spurious. yv Cfr. HILDEBRAND, Praefatio cit. (see above, ch. 3, note 21), p. XLIV. 100 This information comes from Colvius' edition, cfr. P. CoLvius in PSEUDO-APULEIUS, De interpretatione, ed. Colvius, in APULEII Opera omnia quae exstant, Lugduni Batavorum 1588, p. 282. The problem naturally requires further research, which is however not possible to accomplish in this context. 101 This had already been supposed by Goldbacher in the prolegomena to his edition of the De interpretatione, to which we shall return shortly, cfr. A. GOLDBACHER, Liber Irepi ipµ p eia5 qui Apulei Madaurensis esse traditur, in «Wiener Studien», 7 (1885), [pp. 253-277], p. 257, note 3. 102 This completely arbitrary attribution of the De interpretatione to the De Platone et eius dogmate appears to have been first made by Wouver in his edition, cfr. J. WOUVER in PSEUDO-APULEIUS, De interpretatione, ed. Wouver, in APULEII Opera, Basileae 1606.

206

a) It is not found in the manuscripts that contain Apuleius' other philosophical works — that is, it has a different manuscript tradition. b) It is characterized by a dictionis ieiunitas, and the structure manifests no ingenuity. This contrasts with Apuleius' oratory art and excellent knowledge of philosophy. It contrasts with his fruitful intelligence and florida dicendi oratio, which could not be as depraved as they are found in the De interpretatione. The work stinks of the dust of the schools, the lack of ingenuity of the grammaticus, and already prepares for the medieval period. c) In the De Platone Apuleius states that he intends to present Platonic doctrine, while the De interpretatione presents Aristotelian and Stoic doctrines103. Hildebrand does not deny that Apuleius, according to what he promised or intended to do, wrote a third part (on logic) of the De Platone as well — how else this suppositicius book could have come out? Concluding his argument, Hildebrand thinks that the De interpretatione is the work of a `grammarian' who neg9j igently and incapably wrote the treatise (something false). This `grammarian' saw that one part of philosophy, namely logic, had been omitted by Apuleius, and took the occasion to illustrate his own discipline without thinking about being in agreement with the philosophy of Plato, which he saw present in Apuleius' other works (i.e., he had not studied the history of philosophy). He used the name of Apuleius to give a greater authority to his compilation. This falsification had been written sometime between the third and fourth centuries of the imperial era, because Cassiodorus cites the work using Apuleius' name. Thus, in between, it was attributed to Apuleius with certainty. These proofs or considerations of Hildebrand were accepted forty years later by Goldbacher,

1°3 Cfr. Plat., I, 4, 189.

207

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

who, while presenting a good edition of the work, added the fact that Apuleius is named as the subject of a proposition as a sort of example («Apuleius dissent»104) This is a proof of the work's inauthenticity because this manner of referring to oneself is in bad taste according to Goldbacher1 os Ph. Meiss opposed the doubts of Hildebrand and Goldbacher in a little known study, which is not thereby deprived of merit106 He refuted Hildebrand's first point as insufficient, and responded to the second point by maintaining that the first chapter of the De interpretatione, which contains the definition of oration, is in Apuleius' style and taste. He also added that the very period in which Apuleius had lived witnessed the passage from culture to the dust of the schools, so that Apuleius himself could not have been an exception to this. Meiss' responses to the third point were much more solid, because he observed that Apuleius was not only Platonic, but had also studied Aristotle and the Stoics. Further, in Apuleius' times, there was no other logic than the Aristotelian one, and, as Zeller had observed107, it was normal for a Platonist of the imperial era to present what in reality was from Aristotle as a doctrine of Plato. Finally, according to Meiss, Hildebrand does not offer any proof of his affirmation that Apuleius, although wishing to examine Plato's logic, had not done so, just in De Platone. Hildebrand thus moves in a vicious circle. On the contrary, the De interpretatione is from Apuleius and constitutes the third part of the De Platone. It is, as Prantl and Zeller maintained108, a translation by Apuleius of a Greek original. Apuleius was however the author of this translation (some-

thing negative for Prantl and Zeller), which he accomplished with a few personal additions that were included so as to leave no doubt about the identity of the author-translator, even if Meiss made no attempt to separate the additions of Apuleius from the presumed original Greek text. After this contribution of Meiss, the problem of authenticity was not dealt with in a rigorous manner Despite Meiss' defense, the De interpretatione was considered a spurious work of Apuleius. In his edition of Martianus Capella, Dick only touched on the question and adopted Hildebrand's opinion of the work109, although he moved the date of De interpretatione's composition to the sixth century AD, so that the hypothesis (which had never been rigorously demonstrated) of Martianus' dependence on it fell apart. Recently, criticism has returned to attribute the work to Apuleius. There are few observations that come together in a work that is as jumbled as that of G. Pfligersdorffer110 — but these observations have nevertheless convinced P. Hadot. Pfligersdorffer speaks (and I do not know on what basis) of the eschewal of the third book of the De Platone — meaning the De interpretatione by this". He opposes Dick's weak theories, and he too thinks that the work precedes Martianus Capella"2. According to Pfligersdorffer, the author is even prior to Marius Victorinus, because he used the adjective cachinnabi1is 113 instead of Victorinus' risibilis, so that the De interpretatione would be Apuleian, since Apuleius also uses cachinnabilis (see Metam. III, 7). Since these observations convinced somebody, we should immediately observe that the use of cachinnabilis is different in the two works. In the Metamorphoses it describes the maiden Photis who is shaken by a risus cachinnabilis. The adjective in this passage cannot be anything but an extensive use of a derivative from the verb cachinnare, so that risus cachinnabi-

104 Cfr. PSEUDO-APULEIUS, De interpretation, ed. C. Moreschini, in De Philosophia libri cit., p. 191,18. 105 Cfr. GOLDBACHER, Liber 7rspl ppivsiaS cit., p. 254: «Tam ineptum insulsumque hominem fuisse Apuleium vix existimabis, ut se ipsum pro exemplo posuerit». 106 Cfr. PH. MEIss, Apuleius IIEPI EPMENEIS2N, Lorrach 1886. We know this study because it was reprinted by Sullivan (see below, note 118), who provided an important service by doing this. 107 Cfr. E. ZELLER, Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrergeschichtlichen Entwicklung, III, Die nacharistotelische Philosophie, 2 vols., Leipzig 18813, II, p. 209, note 3. 108 Cfr. ibidem and cfr. C. PRANTL, Geschichte der Logik im Abendlande, 4 vols., Leipzig 1855, I, p. 579. One must however observe that Zeller is inclined to see the De interpretatione as spurious; if it was a translation of a Greek work, it would not be the work of Apuleius.

208

109 Cfr. A. Dlcx, Praefatio, in Martianus Capella, ed. A. Dick, Leipzig 1925 (repr. Stuttgart 1969 with addenda by J. Pr~aux), p. xxvi, note 1. 110 Cfr. G. PFLIGERSDORFFER, Zu Boethius, De interpr. ed. sec. I, p. 4, 4 sqq. Meiser nebst Beobachtungen zur Geschichte dei Dialektik bei den Riimern, in «Wiener Studien», 66 (1953), pp. 131-154. i11 Cfr. ibid., p. 132. 112 Cfr. ibid., p. 134. 113 Cfr. PSEUDO-APULEIUS, De interpretatione, ed. Moreschini, p. 197,14.

209

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

lis means `coarse laughter'. In the De interpretation on the other hand, the adjective cachinnabilis has no negative connotation, but is simply used in Latin to express human beings, as did similar definitions that were widely spread in rhetorical and philosophical schools (`man is an animal that laughs') 114. Cachinnabilis is one of the many neo-formations in -bilis that correspond to the Greek ones in -Tog that were ever more prevalent in late Latin. Pfligersdorffer's conclusion leaves us with many perplexities, because, after having made this comparison of this passage with that of Apuleius in regard to the adjective cachinnabilis he does not simply conclude as to the Apuleian authenticity of the De interpretatione (which he nevertheless suggests to his readers), but he affirms: «from this observation, I would first of all like to draw the conclusion that Marius Victorinus is chronologically situated between the author of the De interpretatione and Martianus Capella, and thus that the author of the De interpretatione lived before the fourth century»11s In his fundamental study on Marius Victorinus, P. Hadot commonly cites Apuleius as the author of this work, and at one point explicitly affirms its authenticity on the basis of Pfligersdorffer's arguments16 Hadot even adheres to the old theory that the De interpretatione is a translation of a Greek work, and concludes by saying that it is «a precious witness of the state of the tradition of logic in the second century AD» 117

The studies of Sullivan18 and Londey — Johanson119, which proceed in similar fashion in regard to the question of authenticity, repeat Meiss' considerations, to the point that Sullivan even reprints Meiss' work. Sullivan correctly maintains that Meiss' attempt to support the hypothesis that the De interpretation is the translation of a Greek work is completely indemonstrable. Londey and Johanson, after having provided a quick but somewhat banal outline of Apuleius' personality (with the clear scope of demonstrating that it is possible to attribute a treatise of logic to him), treat the objections to authenticity that were raised by Hildebrand now almost two hundred years ago. In doing this, they first limit themselves to Meiss' thesis, and then present some considerations on the style of the work to maintain that certain stylistic particularities of the work can fit in with what we know of the authentic Apuleius. In brief, the recent criticism has been oriented towards leading the paternity of the De interpretatione back to Apuleius, even if (in our opinion) it has not always taken into account the implications that such an attribution could have, not only in regard to the figure of Apuleius, but also in regard to the history of logic in the imperial era Latin world. These are highly pertinent problems, so that we consider it proper to reexamine this question from the beginning. Critics unanimously maintain that Hildebrand's objection based on the different manuscript traditions of the De interpretatione and the authentic Apuleius is without value 12o It cannot however be rejected in such a hasty fashion, but requires further consideration. The fact that the manuscript tradition is different than that of Apuleius' other philosophical writings is not

114 Already in Aristotle (De part. anim., III, 8, 673a8). It is a common definition in scholastic tradition (cfr. PORPHYRIUS TYRIUS, Isagoge, 2, 20-22, ed. A. Busse, in CAG, IV, 1, Isagoge et in Aristotelis categorias, Berlin 1887; BOETHIUS, In Isagogen Porphyrii commenta, edd. G. Schepss - S. Brand, Wien 1906 (CSEL, 48), p. 50,5 and 183,13) as well as among Christians, cfr. GREGORIUS NYSSENUS, Ad Graecos, PG 45, 176-185, ed. F. Miiller, in GREGORII NYSSENI Opera, III, Opera dogmatica minora, 1, Leiden 1985 (GNO, III.1), p. 22,2. 115 PPLIGERSDORFFER, Zu Boethius cit., p. 135. 116 Cfr. P. HADOT, Marius Victorinus. Recherches sur sa vie et ses ouevres, Paris 1971 (Collection des Etudes augustiniennes. S~rie Antiquit~, 44), pp. 188189. 117 Ibid.; and again cfr. ibid., p. 192: «One must reach the second century AD before finding a Latin language treatise dedicated exclusively to a part of logic: the structure of propositions and categorical syllogisms, that is, the Pen' hermeneias of Apuleius. This has a Greek work as its source, one that seems to mix elements from the Aristotelian and Stoic traditions. It therefore seems that nobody had translated the works of Aristotle into Latin before Victorinus».

118 Cfr. M. SULLIVAN, Apuleian Logic. The Nature, Sources and Influences of Apuleius's Peri Henneneias, Amsterdam 1967 (Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics), pp. 13-14. Sullivan nevertheless prefers to finish with a non liquet: he refuses to deal with the problem of the authenticity of the De interpretatione, and nevertheless declares that he will examine it as if it were a treatise written by Apuleius of Madaura. This position is contradictory, if only because of the historical importance of whether or not the De interpretation is a work of Apuleius. 119 Cfr. D. LONDEY - C. JOHANSON, The Logic of Apuleius, Leiden New York - Copenhagen - Cologne 1987 (Philosophia antiqua, 47), pp. 11-19. 120 Cfr. ibid., p. 12; HIJMANS, Apuleius Philosophus Platonicus cit., p. 409.

210

211

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

decisive, but is certainly significant. A different manuscript tradition usually (although not always) indicates a different origin, and the provenance of a work from a different edition of Late Antiquity. This does not mean (to respond to eventual objections) that everything found in the manuscript tradition of the genuine Apuleius is therefore authentic (for example, Asclepius is not). Whoever maintains that the manuscript tradition has no value because there are non-Apuleian works in the corpus of Apuleius is not taking into account that this is the inverse argument for which there are in fact similar cases: spurious works have entered into the corpus and manuscript tradition of the authentic works, while for the De interpretatione, we have a case of works that one maintains to be authentic that did not enter into the corpus of authentic works. Thus, in the first case we find that the Asclepius, a non-authentic work, entered into the corpus of authentic works of Apuleius, and it is probable that the Asclepius was found in a corpus together with the De deo Socratis and was read by Augustine (in the De civitate Dei) in this context. In the second case, the De interpretatione is not in the corpus of the authentic works, but has a title as if it was a work of Apuleius. If one does not wish to give a decisive weight to the manuscript tradition (as the defenders of the Apuleian origin of the De interpretatione seem to desire), one cannot avoid attributing the Herbarium to Apuleius as well. One must therefore be able to explain, if possible, why a philosophical work of Apuleius was not passed down with his other philosophical works. This is what Londey and Johanson attempted to do by theorizing that the De interpretatione had enjoyed an autonomous life because it could have been used almost immediately as a `textbook', and thus was `extracted' from the corpus of Apuleius' philosophical works. The fact that Cassiodorus and Isidore of Seville considered the work to be Apuleian does not seem important to us, because these two scholars simply accepted the tradition that had begun before their time. Finally, they consider the work to be the third book of the De Platone et eius dogmate without justification: this is only a hypothesis of the humanistic era, and is not justified by any concrete fact. We will not however limit ourselves to the consideration and eventual refutation of others' hypotheses. We must ask: is the

De interpretation attributed to Apuleius by the manuscript tradition and indirect tradition a work that Apuleius could have written? Do its content and style correspond with those in Apuleius' philosophical works? Are the logical doctrines contained in the De interpretation attested in the century that Apuleius lived in and in the philosophical works that are typical of that period? The fact observed by Hildebrand that the logic of the De interpetatione is not Platonic, but Aristotelian and Stoic, is certainly not a decisive impediment. Londey and Johanson, following Zeller, are right to observe that this was the only logic available in Apuleius' times. Apuleius could then have written the De interpretatione even if it does not present Platonic logic, but instead Aristotelian-Stoic logic. Just as Apuleius employs Aristotelian and Stoic doctrines in the first and second books of the De Platone, so he could have done as much in the De interpretatione (which is not — we state it once and for all — the third book of the De Platone). Aristotelian logic, or more precisely, a certain part of it, had its role in Middle Platonism. But what aspect of Aristotelian logic was in fact considered by the Middle Platonists? One can say, with the unique exception of Galen, whom we will speak soon, the Aristotelian logic that the Platonists contemporary to Apuleius used was constituted by the doctrine of categories and syllogisms, as they maintained that its fundamental nucleus was traceable to Plato's `logical' works. The attitude of Alcinous exemplifies this121 (on the other hand, Alcinous' attitude that was open to Aristotelian logic and conciliatory towards Aristotle is different from the hard attacks on him by Platonists such as Atticus, Lucius, and Nicostratus122). Apuleius, if he were the author of the De interpretation, would be placed together with Alcinous

Cfr. ALCINOUS, Didaskalik~s, 5 and 6. Nevertheless Alcinous' `Aristotelianism' in logic must be understood with due caution, more as an openness to certain issues and the use of a vocabulary corrupted with Stoic particularities than as a conscious adoption of Aristotelian logic. On this issue, especially cfr. G. INVERNIzzI, Il Didaskalikos di Albino e it medioplatonismo, Roma 1976, I, pp. 11-16. 122 This divergence of the two tendencies was already seen by Praechter, and was also underscored by Moraux, cfr. J. MORAUX, Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias, II, Der Aristotelismus im I. and II. _Jahrhundert n. Chr., Berlin — New York 1984 (Peripatoi, 6), pp. 519 and 528-563.

212

213

121

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

thanks to his favorable attitude regarding Aristotelianism — but Alcinous thought that certain syllogisms (including the ones pertaining to the categories) were present in Plato in nuce, and does not have a full treatment of them, so that the De interpretatione, if it were Apuleius', would be an unicum for the second century. The only exception is Galen, who treated logic extensively in his vast and multiform activity as a scholar and philosopher. Galen was not, however, a Platonist tout court. Galen commented on the De interpretatione, Analytics, and Categories of Aristotle, as well as the FlEpi xaTau~oswg xai Cerroclhirecoc of Theophrastus and the IIEpl) EWS of Eudemus123, which have been lost. His Institutio logica and De captionibus have survived on the other hand. The argument of the Institutio Logica could definitely have something to do with that of the De interpretatione. In VII, 4-9, Galen treats the categorical syllogism, while he deals with the fourteen conclusive modi in chs. VIII-X124 . The other work of Galen that has reached us, the De captionibus, contains a commentary on a short section of the Sophistici Elenchi125. In conclusion, there is a real affinity between Galen' Institutio logica and the De interpretatione, but the similarity is limited to the use of the same materials from Aristotelian tradition. Above all, this supposed contact would be an unicum in the context of the Platonism of the second century. It would be necessary to reconstruct the relationships between Apuleius the Platonic philosopher and Galen the Aristotelian, or, even more difficult, an eventual discipleship of Apuleius with the philosophical masters that Galen studied with in Pergamum and Smyrna. This would be a full immersion in fantasy. Further, the inscription of almost all the manuscripts reads something like: «Apuleii Periermeniae sive de categoricis syllogismis». Nothing similar is found among the contemporaries of Apuleius as far as we know.

only with the freer and more varied De deo Socratis, but also with the De Platone. The structure of the De Platone is the one that must be most carefully taken into account, due to its philosophical content, and above all because those who maintain the Apuleian authenticity of the De interpretatione have considered it to be either the third book of the De Platone, or at least as another, but parallel work with the De Platone, insofar as the De Platone presents physics and ethics, and the De interpretatione, according to the division of the parts of philosophy, presents logic, as Apuleius had announced at the beginning of the De Platone. Now, the structure of the De Platone is doxographical: `Plato says this and that' is the normal form for this and similar treatises, and that this must be the case is even specified at the end of the biography126. As a philosophus Platonicus, Apuleius desired to present the doctrines of his master. On the other hand, none of this is found in the De interpretatione, which is not a doxographical work, but a true and proper treatise, and further, an original treatise to the point that (not forgetting the established custom of the times) certain scholars of the nineteenth century thought that it was the translation of a Greek work, so that the `merit' of composing the De interpretatione would once again have been from the Greeks. The recent re-evaluations of the work, proposed by Sullivan and by Londey and Johanson involuntarily create an indirect refutation of the thesis they desire to maintain, that is, of Apuleian authenticity. According to the doxographical structure of the De Platone, Apuleius informs us that there are three parts of philosophy that were placed together by Plato. In I, 3, 187 and 4, 189, he speaks of them according to Plato's thought, while the De interpretatione instead states: «studium sapientiae, quod philosophiam vocamus, plerisque videtur tres species seu partes habere»127 . Why in this specific regard, in the passage in which he introduces the discipline he is examining, does he not speak of Plato, that is, introduce the thought of Plato in regard to the parts of philosophy as a Platonic philosopher should have done, but instead speaks of plerique? Because the author

Let us now consider the De interpretatione from the perspective of its literary construction. The treatise distinctly contrasts with the structure of the works that are definitely Apuleian — not 123 Cfr. ibid., pp. 689-690. 124 Cfr. ibid., pp. 701-710. 125 Cfr. Soph. Elench. 165b 24-30.

214

126 Cfr. Plat., I, 4, 189. 127 PSEUDO-APuLEIUS, De interpretatione, ed. Moreschini, p. 189,1-2.

215

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

6. THE PHILOSOPHICAL WORKS

of the De interpretatione is not a Platonist, and more specifically, is not Apuleius. Furthermore, in the exposition of Platonic doctrine, Apuleius proceeds in a regular fashion, presenting the various details in an objective (i.e. scholastic) manner without reference to other philosophers, precisely because they have nothing to do with Platonic doctrine. None of this occurs in the De interpretatione, whose author, because he writes a treatise and not a doxography, refers to Aristotle and more recent Peripatetics, to Ariston, and the Stoics — and also cites Plato one time (from the Theaetetus). Finally, it would be interesting to find a further confirmation of the late, non-Apuleian origin of the work from its language. This search however appears to be — already in principle — deluding, insofar as the vocabulary of the De interpretatione is largely constituted of technical terms that could be situated in any period of the Latin language. The fact that certain terms are only found in Martianus Capella, Boethius, and Cassiodorus can be explained by these authors imitating the De interpretatione. In brief, beyond rigorously technical terminology, there is not much left to examine linguistically. Let us at least attempt a few considerations, beginning with the fact that the author of the work proposes, against the entire praxis of Latin literary tradition — including Apuleius — to use 7rp6Talrig and ~~fwpta translating verbum e verbo 128. Certain elements lead us towards a later period: the use of abdicare with a meaning of to deny (here and in Nonius); hinnibilis129 (here and in Caelius Aurelianus); paucus for parvus130; incongruus 131, which is only found beginning in the fourth century; aequipollens 132, which is only in the De interpretation and the works it influenced; subiectivus133, which is only here, in the Grammarians, in the surveyors, and in Augustine; conversibilis 134, which is in the De interpretatione,

in Calcidius, Marius Victorinus, and Augustine; particulariter135 , which is used from Augustine on; quadratura 136, which is witnessed to here and in the surveyors; and the connection certum est quod137, which is only found in the Vulgate, in Rufinus, in the Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum, and in Nicetas. Let us further specify that we have not taken into consideration the hapax and the words used for the first time in the De interpretation and the authors that depend on it. In any case, the vocabulary, based on the few examples we have provided, unequivocally places the De interpretatione in the period from the fourth century on. There is no (non-technical) term that can be considered typical of Apuleius' period or of Apuleius himself

Cfr. ibid., p. 190,6. Ibid., p. 192,17. 130 Ibid., p. 191,17. 131 Ibid., p. 194, 5 ff. 132 Ibid., p. 196,4. 133 Ibid., p. 196,17 and 206,4. 134 Ibid., p. 197,6. 128

In his extensive examination of the literary and philosophical activity of Marius Victorinus, P. 'Hadot examines the logical writings that he composed and that can be partially reconstructed through Cassiodorus138. Among these works there is a De syllogismis hypotheticis, which has been lost, but was summarized by Cassiodorus, and probably by Martianus Capella; as well as a translation of Aristotle's Peri Hermeneias, which is now lost. These are therefore the works that touch on our problem most directly. For the first time, not only in the history of Latin Platonism, to which Marius Victorinus is linked, but also of western logic, we find an interest for Aristotle's Peri Hermeneias and for the syllogism. According to Hadot, we must ask whether Apuleius' De interpretatione was not tied in some way or another to this corpus of the works of Victorinus139 — but Hadot does not explain what he means by this `tie', given that he thinks, as was seen above, that it is an authentic work of Apuleius. Hadot saw a good part of the issue clearly, since he understood the historical moment in which the work of the pseudoApuleius could arise and in which we should place it; but, thinking Ibid., p. 198,4. Ibid., p. 206,4. 137 Ibid., p. 195,3. 138 Cfr. HADOT, Marius Victorinus Cit., pp. 105-109; FLAVIUS MAGNUS AURELIUS CAssloDoxus SENATOR, Institutions libri duo, II, 3, 1-18, PL 70, 1105-1220, ed. R. A. B. Mynors, Oxford 1937 (Oxford Classical Texts). 139 Cfr. HADOT, Marius Victorinus cit., p. 109. 135

129

136

216

217

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

CHAPTER 7

that it was the work of Apuleius without developing the issue, he believed that the tradition of the De interpretatione had begun earlier, and needed to be connected to that of the works of Marius Victorinus. It is instead more likely that the De interpretatione, even if it is not the work of Victorinus, came from an environment close to him, that Hadot himself rapidly but efficaciously described.

APULEIUS «PHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUS». PHYSICS

1. The Doctrine of God Apuleius presented his own ideas on god to the audience in the Apologia, while repeating the doctrine of the second pseudo-Platonic epistle and giving god the title of `king'. He also followed the Phaedrus of Plato, and maintained that god is transcendent and ineffable'. All of this is expressed by Apuleius in an `emotional' and rhapsodic manner that is not strictly `philosophical', as is proper for an oration that does not only intend to docere, but also movere. The same attitude is found in a passage of the De deo Socratis, which, like the Apologia, is an oration in which Apuleius speaks with a strong pathos to his audience, whom he wishes to instruct on the existence of demons and exhort to wisdom. In that specific situation, he described the transcendence and ineffability of god in the following manner Cum Plato (...) praedicet hunc solum maiestatis incredibili quadam nimietate et ineffabili non posse penuria sermonis humani quavis oratione vel modice comprehendi, vix sapientibus viris, cum se vigore animi, quantum licuit, a corpore removerunt, intellectum huius dei, id quoque interdum, velut in artissimis tenebris rapidissimo coruscamine lumen candidum intermicare2 . Cfr. Apol., 64 (see p. 45). Socrat., 3, 124. Festugi~re presents an outline of the two passages that we are now quoting, together with that of Plato, cfr. A.J. FESTucrRE, La revelation d'Herm~s Trism~giste, IV, Paris 1954, pp. 102-108. 2

218

219

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

7. APULEIUS «PHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUSN. PHYSICS

At the end of his life (if as we think, the late dating of the De Platone et eius dogmate is correct), Apuleius returned to the subject in a more scientific manner that corresponds with the doctrines of Middle Platonist tradition. He therefore began with a doctrine that is typical of the Platonic tradition, that of the `three principles'.

icism9 and not to Plato. The consideration of matter as ~pXri is a common concept among the Stoics, but in the Timaeus inrokli is considered the Tpirov El8o; from which the world has its origin10 : the interpretation of matter as a principle and the doctrine of the existence of three principles (demiurge, ideas and matter) are thus already present, in nuce, in Plato". Apuleius therefore develops this scholastic doctrine and focuses on the first principle, which is god. He thus first lists a series of god's attributes, referring to Plato twice in it (ait; ut ait ipse) - despite the fact that they are found in the developed form of the Platonism of the imperial era and do not immediately correspond to the original Platonic doctrine:

After stating that he was starting a treatise that began from physics3, Apuleius presents his discourse on god, who is one of the `three principles' (initia rerum): «Initia rerum tria esse arbitratur Plato: deum et materiam (...) rerumque formas, quas t8€ag idem vocat»4. This is the so-called Dreiprinzipienlehre': 8E6g - ~~>7 7rap~BEtwa, as in Seneca, Plutarch, Alcinous, Taurus, Aetius, pseudo-Hippolytus, pseudo Justin and Calcidius5; perhaps Atticus can be included6, if Festugi~re's addition to Proclus' testimony' can stand: Atticus asserts the existence of many principles joined together: (add. Festugi~re) 'thy Brll.Ctovpy~v xai T~S i8 cte. The opposition of god and matter is proper to StoInstead of from logic, as is done by Alcinous and the Stoics, cfr. DILLON, Alcinous cit., p. xv. 4 Plat., I, 5, 189. 5 Cfr. SENECA, Epistulae, 58, 16-25; PLUTARCHUS, Quaestiones convivales, 720A ff.; ALCINOUS, Didaskalik~s, 8-10; see also Taurus' and Aetius' testimonia, cfr. fr. 23, ed. Gio~~cit. (corresponding to IOANNES PHILOPONUS, De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum, ed. H. Rabe, Leipzig 1899, p. 147,13), and cfr. PSEUDOPLUTARCHUS, Placita, ed. Diels cit., p. 288,1. Furthermore, cfr. HIPPOLYTUS, Elenchos, I, 19, 1; PSEUDO-IUSTINUS, Cohortatio ad Graecos, 6, edd. B. Pouderon et Al., in PSEUDO JUSTIN, Ouvrages apolog~tiques: Exhortation aux Grecs (Marcel d'Ancyre?); Discours aux Grecs; Sur la monarchie, Paris 2009 (Sources Chr~tiennes, 528); CALCIDIUS, Timaeus cit., 307. Apuleius' succession (god matter - ideas) is different than Alcinous' (matter - ideas - god: from the lower to the higher level), as noted by Dillon, cfr. DILLON, Alcinous cit., pp. 89-90. Does this reflect the greater importance that Apuleius gives to the doctrine of god? 6 Cfr. ATTICUS, fr. 26, ed. des Places. 7 Cfr. PROCLUS LYCIUS DIADOCHUS, In Platonis Timaeum commentaria, ed. E. Diehl, 3 vols., Leipzig 1903-1906, I, p. 391,4-12. e Festugi~re's correction is not accepted by Bakes, cfr. M. BALTES, Der Platonismus in der Antike. Grundlagen-System-Entwicklung, V, Die philosophische Lehre 3

des Platonismus. Platonische Physik (im antiken Verstiindnis), II, Bausteine 125-150: Text, Ubersetzung, Kommentar, edd. H. Dome - M. Bakes, Stuttgart 1998, p. 86,

note 19.

220

Sed haec de deo sentit, quod sit incorporeus. Is unus, ait, ~7rspipsTpoc, genitor rerumque omnium extructor, beatus et beatificus, optimus, nihil indigens, ipse conferens cuncta. Quern quidem caelestem pronuntiat, indictum, innominabilem et, ut ait ipse, etepocrav, ~& 4Lcw'rov, cuius naturam invenire difficile est, si inventa sit, in multos earn enuntiari non posse. Platonis haec verba sunt12. God is therefore incorporeal, as one reads in Alcinous13 and the doxographical treatises of the imperial era14. He is unus: Alci-

9 Cfr. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, II, 300 ff 1° Cfr. Tim. 48e-49a. " Ideas and matter also appear in discussions on Platonic physics in Alcinous (cfr. ALCINOUS, Didaskalik~s, 4 and 10, ed. Whittaker cit., pp. 155,3940 and 166,3) and Plutarch, cfr. PLUTARCHUS De defectu oraculorum, 35, 429A; ID., De animae procreation in Timaeo, 3, 1013C, ed. H. Cherniss, in PLUTARCH'S Moralia, XIII, 1, London 1976 (Loeb Classical Library, 427), [pp. 131-345], pp. 172-174. 12 Plat., I, 5, 190-191; a quote of Tim. 28c follows. Like Alcinous, Apuleius presents Platonic theology in general, but does not refer to specific doctrines. Apuleius (or his source) alludes to Symp. 210e-211b and 211de (the beautiful and the divine have nothing to do with the body), to Phaedr. 247ce (the hyper-Uranian place) and to Resp. 509b (the good is beyond being), Cfr. M. BALTES - C. PIETSCH - M.-L. LAKMANN, Der Platonismus in der Antike. Grundlagen-System-Entuncklung, VII, Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus (4), 1, Theologia Platonica. Bausteine 182-205: Text, Ubersetzung, Kommentar, edd. H. Derfie - M. Bakes, Stuttgart 2008, p. 342. 13 Cfr. ALCINOUS, Didaskalik~s, 10, ed. Whittaker cit., p. 166,1. 14 Cfr. DIELS, Doxographi Graeci, p. 608,18; HIPPOLYTUS, Elenchos, I, 19, 2; PSEUDO-PLUTARCHUS, De Homero, 114, ed. J. F. Kindstrand, Leipzig 1990.

221

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

7. APULEIUS aPHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUS». PHYSICS

nous instead distinguishes between the supreme and second god, so that the supreme god is 7rpefrroc 5 He is tz7rsp(E,tETpos: the term used is a hapax16 (Philo employs ~7repiypc4oS17) and as Beaujeu has observed, has a corresponding affirmation in Apuleius' Apologia18. An electronic search in the TLG, which is now available, indicates that a rEp(E.tETpoS is only found in Eusebius19 , but without any philosophical connotation. He is the father and creator of all things. God is called father in the Timaeus as well20; while creator translates 7rotrirlig. Alcinous also calls god 7raTri p 21; Calcidius speaks of «opifex (...) deus» 22 . God is excellent, as Alcinous and Atticus affirm 23. Numenius also presented the idea of the goodness of god, but his interpretation was different. Numenius distinguishes between the idea of the goodness and the demiurge, seeing a superior principle in it insofar as the idea of the good is Ttzya66v, as we read in Plato's Republic— while the demiurge is *Mc, as the Timaeus states. Later, Plotinus too will distinguish between agath~n and the demiurge, who is n yaab,. This means that Atticus, Apuleius, and Alcinous identify the agath~n of the Republic with the demiurge, who is et ya66S. This identification was vigorously rejected by Proclus24, who categorically denied that 'the good' and `good' can

be the same thing25. Atticus most of all insisted on the goodness of god from among his attributes26. This agrees with the Middle-Platonic tenet that the demiurge acts on the world through his providence, and conserves it in eternity thanks to his goodness27. Calcidius, probably under the influence of Porphyry, maintains the distinction, and attributes the character of being «summum bonum ultra omnem substantiam omnemque naturam» to god28. The distinction between itya96S and Tttya66v is nevertheless present in Apuleius as well, since, if Apuleius calls god optimus in this passage of De Platone, in the De magia he recognized that Plato's supreme god is T~yae~v29. God needs nothing, as Alcinous and Calcidius also affirm30; he is the benefactor, as Alcinous maintains31 God lives in heaven (caelestis). Finamore has observed 32 that, in Plat., 11, 204, Apuleius calls god ultramundanus, while in 12, 205 and Mund., 27, 350, he maintains that god is «summus and exsuperantissimus» — so that it seems strange that he is called caelestis here33. The term is in fact a generic one to designate transcendence34, so that there is no contradiction35. In Apologia

25 Cfr. M. BALTES, Zur Philosophie der Platoniker Attikos, in Platonismus and Christentum: Festschrift far Heinrich D~rrie, edd. H.-D. Blume — F. Mann, Munster Cfr. ALclNous, Didaskalik~s cit., p. 164,31. Cfr. C. MORESCII NI, Studi sul De dogmate Platonis di Apuleio, Pisa 1966, p. 32; BEAUJEU, Commentaire cit., p. 256; MORESCHINI, Apuleio e it platonimmo cit., p. 199. The concept of god's immeasurableness probably reflects the religious environment of the second century, cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 271. 17 Cfr. PHILO ALEXANDRINUS, De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini, 15, 59, De posteritate Caini, 44, 151, ed. P. Wendland cit., I and II. 18 Cfr. Apol., 64: «neque loco neque tempore neque vice ulla comprehensus». 19 Cfr. EUSEBIUS CAESARIENSIS, Demonstratio Evangelica, III, 2, 33, PG 22, [9-704], 176C, ed. I. A. Heikel, in EUSEBIUS, Werke, VI, Die Demonstratio Evangelica, Leipzig 1913 (GCS, 23). zo Cfr. Tim. 28c and 37c. Festugi~re proposes to integrate (animi' genitor (not improbably, since we thus have two parallel members: animi genitor rerumque exstructor), based on the parallel passage of Apol., 64, which we examined earlier, cfr. FESTUGIERE, La revelation cit., IV, p. 105. 21 Cfr. ALCINOUS, Didaskalik~s. 10, ed. Whittaker cit., p. 164,40. 22 CALCIDIUS, Timaeus cit., 228. 23 Cfr. ALCINOUS, Didaskalik~s, 10, ed. Whittaker cit., p. 164,34: ityctO~r,; ATTICUS, fr. 3, ed. des Places. 24 Cfr. PROCLUS, In Platonis Timaeum, ed. Diehl cit., I, p. 305,6-11 (corresponding to ATTICUS, fr. 12, ed. des Places).

1983 (lahrbuch fiir Antike and Christentum, 10), pp. 38-57 (repr. in ID., Dianoemata: Kleine Schnften zu Platon and zum Platonismus, Stuttgart — Leipzig 1999, pp. 81-112), p. 84; and cfr. DILLON, .Alcinous cit., p. 106. 26 Cfr. ATTICUS, fr. 4 and 13, ed. des Places. 27 See pp. 279-285. 28 Oft. CALCIDIUS, Timaeus cit., 176. 29 Cfr. Apol., 27. 3° Cfr. ALCINOUS, Didaskalik~s, 10, ed. Whittaker cit., p. 164,32: ~7rpocrSE1jc; CALCIDIUS, Timaeus cit., 176: nullius societatis indiguus. 31 Oft. ALCINOUS, Didaskalik~s, 10, ed. Whittaker cit., p. 164,36-37: 7r~vra (...) siiepysTst 32 Cfr. FINAMORE, Apuleius on the Platonic cit. (see above, ch. 6, note 75), pp. 34-35. 33 For Finamore there is a motive for this difference between caelestis and ultramundanus, in the sense that the two terms indicate two divinities for Apuleius. 34 For this reason I did not examine it (cfr. MORESCHINI, Apuleio e it platonismo cit., p. 71), pace Hijmans and Finamore. See also Beaujeu and Dillon (cfr. DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., pp. 312-313). 35 Also Cfr. FESTUGI~RE, La revelation cit., II, pp. 514-515 (on summus); REGEN, Apuleius philosophus Platonicus cit., pp. 97-98; GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 272, note 180 (on ultramundanus).

222

223

15

16

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

7. APULEIUS «PHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUS>. PHYSICS

Apuleius stated that the expressions 'ray inrspoup~vtov T~rrov and ovpavoti vwTov refer to the situation of the transcendent god36. It is therefore clear that this same transcendence, which Apuleius in the De Platone expresses through the term caelestis, is eventually, a supercaelestis. God is unnamable, as Alcinous also affirms37. The concept of god's inexpressibleness is already present in Philo of Alexandria38, and is thus not exclusive to the Middle Platonists, but is also found among Christian authors influenced by Middle Platonism, such as the apologists of the second century and the theologians of the school of Alexandria. Dillon correctly observes that this derives from Plato himself, as can be seen in the philosophical digression of the seventh epistle and can also be found in the pseudo-Platonic second epistle, which is probably contemporary to Apuleius39. Calcidius will repeat this concept («aestimatione intellectuque melior») 40. Apuleius confirms the difficulty in knowing god through the translation of the passage of Tim. 28c, which is then quoted in Greek («Platonis haec verba sunt»). The quote of the Timaeus is also present in Alcinous and Celsus, and among the Christians, in Justin and Clement of Alexandria"

The impossibility of knowing god and his ineffability are not confirmed by the De mundo: «rex omnium et pater, quem tantummodo animae oculis nostrae cogitationes vident»42. To assert that god is unknowable and that at the same time one can have a certain intellectual knowledge of him is certainly contradictory, but is typical of Middle Platonism. Another one of Apuleius' passages makes a more refined distinction43: God, who is the «rector omnium», is not only knowable by thought, but also by the senses. This knowledge does not however regard his nature, but his power. For he is defender, father, etc. through his power, which, unlike his nature, can be known. In a later passage of De Platone44, Apuleius distinguishes various classes of gods and states that the god who is «summus and ultramundanus» belongs to the first class. The transcendence of god is clearly affirmed in 11,204, his unicity in 5,190-191. The adjective ultramundanus is a translation of inrspoup~vtoS45, as is demonstrated by Apol., 64, which translates the passage of the Phaedrus. According to Witt 46, it expresses a doctrine of Xenocrates 47. In conclusion, Apuleius surpasses the doctrine of the three principles in his theology: he does not place matter and the ideas on the same level as god", but he establishes a hierarchy at the top of which he places god. God is obviously the IcvptchTotToc, as Aetius also affirms49. He is the «causa generalis» of Seneca50. Plutarch and Taurus follow a similar line of thought51. Thus, Apuleius «is the first Latin writer to reestablish the metaphysical transcend-

36

Cfr. Apol., 64 (see Phaedr. 247c). Cfr. ALCINous, Didaskalik~s, 10, ed. Whittaker cit., p. 164,8: &pp>)Toc. The affirmation that it is impossible to speak about god is considered by Dillon and Zambon as a trace of esoterism and Neo-Pythagorean influence, cfr. DILLON, Alcinous cit., pp. 166-167; M. ZAMBON, Porphyre et le Moyen-Platonisme, Paris 2002 (Histoire des doctrines de l'Antiquit~~classique, 27), pp. 299-300. In reality, I think it is a characteristic of the Platonic tradition. 38 Cfr. PHIL° ALEXANDRINUS, De somniis, I, 67. 39 Cfr. DILLON, Alcinous cit., p. 101 (referring to Epist., 7, 343d-344a; 2, 312e-313a), «though they do not use the key words». 40 CALCIDIus, Timaeus cit., 176. Oddly, Calcidius uses this Platonic sentence, not to demonstrate god's unknowability, but to underscore how obscure the problem of matter is (ch. 274; see the note by Waszink, ad locum). 41 Cfr. ALCINOUs, Didaskalik~s, 27, ed. Whittaker cit., p. 179,35-37; CELSUS, fr. VII, 42, ed. R. Bader, in Der Al~th~s logos des Kelsos, Stuttgart - Berlin 1940 (Tiibinger Beitr~ge zur Altertunlswissenschaft, 33); IUSTINUS MARTYR, Apologiae, II, 10, 6, PG 6, [327-470], 460C-461A, edd. D. Minnis - P. Parvis, in Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies, Oxford 2009 (Oxford early Christian texts); Trrus FLAVIUS CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, Protrepticus, 68, 1, PG 8, [49-246], 175A, ed. M. Marcovich, Leiden - New York - K~ln 1995 (Suppl. VC, 34); C. ANDRESEN, Justin and der mittlere Platonismus, in «Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft», 44 (1953), [pp. 157-195], p. 167; ID., Logos and Nomos. Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum, Berlin 1955 (Arbeiten zur

Kirchengeschichte, 30), pp. 132-137 and 348-350; LILLA, Clement of Alexandria cit. (see above, Introduction, note 47), pp. 42-43. 42 Mund., 30, 357. 43 Cfr. ibid., 24, 342-343. 44 Cfr. Plat., I, 11, 204. 43 Cfr. Phaedr. 247c; BEAUJEU, Commentaire cit., p. 271; MORESCHINI, Apuleio e it platonismo cit., p. 198; GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 270, note 174. 46 Cfr. WITT, Albinus cit., p. 16, note 7. 47 Cfr. XENOCRATES, fr. 5, ed. Heinze (corresponding to fr. 83, ed. Isnardi Parente): 11 sx-rk of pavov xai vorrrlli ovoia. 48 The ideas are secondary causes for Atticus as well (7rapairm), cfr. ATTICUS, fr. 9, ed. des Places. 49 Cfr. PSEUDO-PLUTARCHUS, Placita, ed. Diels cit., p. 309,15. so Cfr. SENECA, Epistulae, 65, 12 and 58, 17. sl Cfr. PLUTARCHUS, De defectu oraculorum, 9, 414E: God is the ~picIj of everything; Taurus: «matter cannot be called `principle' in the strictest sense»;

224

225

37

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

7. APULEIUS «PHJLOSOPHUS PLATONICUS». PHYSICS

ence characteristic of ancient Platonism as opposed to the physical transcendence advocated by Antiochus of Ascalon, Cicero, Varro and Seneca», as rightly states Gersh 52.

between intelligence in act and intelligence in potentiality 58. Maximus of Tyre does the same, and underlines the ontological superiority of the intellect in act, which eternally thinks all, not different things in different moments59. This (the supreme god is the intelligence) was our interpretation 60 as well as of Whittaker61 and Giiransson62, who however only refer to Alcinous without discussing the problem further. Bakes also interprets the succession god — intelligence — ideas — cosmic soul by identifying god and the nous, as in Plato63 Dillon64 proposes the second succession instead, and affirms that, in I, 6, 193-194, Apuleius distinguishes between a) first god, b) mens and ideas, and c) the soul65. As far as the passage of II, 1, 220 is concerned, he (unconvincingly) interprets in a different way: «we have to do here not with two metaphysical entities, but rather with the supreme God, the Good of Republic VI (who may or may not be an intellect) and our own intellect (italic mine), which cognizes him» 66. Further, in Apol., 64, god is the «summus animi genitor» (that is, the father of the intelligence: two principles) 67. Gersh

The doctrine of the three principles is further developed by Apuleius, in such a way that its interpretation is a subject of controversy: (...) Et primae quidem substantiae vel essentiae primum deum esse et mentem formaeque rerum et animam53 (...) Prima bona esse deum summum mentemque illam, quam voiry idem vocat54. These two passages are important because, according to some scholars55, they precede Neo-Platonism with their triad of «deus primus — mens formaeque — anima». The problem is as follows: according to Apuleius, is the mens identified with god («primum deum et mentem»)? If this is the case, in I, 6, 193 he presents the succession of first god56, who is intelligence > forms (as in I, 5, 190) > cosmic soul (but in II, 1, 220 only the first member is mentioned). Or is the hypostasis of the mens distinct from god, because in II, 1, 220 god and the intelligence are the prima bona? In this case, in I, 6, 193 mens contains the forms («mentem formaeque rerum»), so that we have the succession of supreme god > intelligence (second god) with the forms (that are in the intelligence) > cosmic soul. Alcinous seems to parallel Apuleius' second passage, identifying god and intelligence: TO 7rpw•rov ~yaedv, &Trap OEdv TE Kai vovv T~v 7rpwTov 7rpOcF 7opsiKrat ~v T1S57. Alcinous indeed distinguishes between the first god and the intellect, and further, cfr. IOANNES PIIILOPONUS, De aeternitate mundi, ed. Rabe cit., p. 147,18 ff. (corresponding to fr. 23, ed. Gioe). 52 Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 271. 53 Plat., I, 6, 193. 54 Plat., II, 1, 220. ss Cfr. PH. MERLAN, Greek philosophy from Plato to Plotinus, in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, ed. A. H. Armstrong, Cambridge 1967, [pp. 14-136], p. 70; MARIE, Die Frage nach dem Transzendentem cit., p. 206 (repr. 1976 cit., pp. 218-219). 56 `First god', because distinguished from the other gods. 57 ALCINOUS, Didaskalik~s, 27, 1, ed. Whittaker cit., p. 179,39-42; APULEIUS, Plat., II, 1, 220.

226

58 To consider god as an Intellect, and an Intellect which thinks of itself as the perfect object of its thought, is a clear Aristotelian doctrine, typical of Alcinous: cfr. F. FERRARI, La teologia di Aristotele nel medio platonismo, in Aristoteles Romanus. La reception de la science aristotelicienne dans l'Empire gr~coromain, ed. Y. Lehmann, Turnhout 2013 (Recherches sur les rh~toriques religieuses, 17), [pp. 299-312], pp. 302-303. H Cfr. ALcINous, Didaskalik~s, 10, ed. Whittaker cit., p. 164,20-23; MAxiMUS TYRIUS, Dissertationes, 11, 8-9. 60 Cfr. MORESCHINT, Apuleio e it platonismo cit., pp. 78-79 and 100 — but our previous examination now appears to be too short and not exhaustive. 61 Cfr. WHITTAKER in ALCINOUS, Enseignements cit., note 430. 62 Cfr. G~RANSSON, Albinus, Alcinous cit., p. 160: God and nous are identified in Alcinous. 63 Cfr. ALenvous, Didaskalik~s, 27, 1 (as in Tim. 39e); M. BALTES, Die Weltentstehung des Platonischen Timaios nach den antiken Interpreten, Leiden 1976 (Philosophia antiqua, 30-35), p. 260. This is repeated by Pietsch, who supposes that this is a hierarchy, since at the end of the series there is the cosmic soul, Cfr. BALTES — PIETSCH — LARMANN, Der Platonismus cit., pp. 348-349. 64 Cfr. DILLON, The Middle Platonists cit., p. 313. 65 And later affirms that both Apuleius and Alcinous «postulate two distinct gods, both intellects» (ID., Alcinous cit., p. xxxm). This is however only true for Alcinous, and not for Apuleius. 66 ID., The Middle Platonists cit., p. 328. 67 Dillon thus find Festugiere's hypothesis, mentioned above in note 20, to be probable.

227

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

7. APULEIUS .PHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUS». PHYSICS

asks whether the mind, which contains all the forms, should be identified with the first term, god, or with the third term, soul, or with neither of them68. He also prefers the second interpretation, which identifies the first intelligence and god, so that he thinks there is a parallel between the Apuleian and Alcinous' passages69, — who, as mentioned, distinguishes between intelligence in act and intelligence in potentiality. Gersh substantially follows Loenen70, for whom there is only one principle above the soul, that is, the cause, insofar as the intelligence in potentiality is only introduced hypothetically, and the intelligence in act corresponds to the highest level of the soul 7l. Finally, Finamore thinks that Apuleius intends to speak of four principles, which he places in descending order: three are supracosmic (god, mind, and ideas), and one is cosmic (soul) 72. God is the intelligence that obviously is the highest being, but he is turned towards the world (as Numenius affirms), and in this sense he is caelestis, as was said in I, 5, 190. It does not seem to us that the text permits a clear decision, because the Latin language itself; when it uses the conjunction (et or -que) allows to join or to distinguish both words (god and intellect) 73. The supreme god is detached from the intelligence in one place and attached to it in another: both are the prima bona, while the ideas and the cosmic soul are not 74. The passage of Socr., 3, 124, does not help to solve the question: the supreme god is said to be the father of the gods and of all things and thus Apuleius does not speak of the Intelligence as a being that is subsistent and distinct from god in that passage either, nor does he say that god is the Intelligence. Further, the identification

of god with the prima bona will lead to the definition, which was proper to the Latin Neoplatonists, of god as the summum bonum. As other elements also show (considering god as basileus), Apuleius seems to propose a hierarchy of principles, even if it is not completely clear. The activity of god is explained in De mundo, in a passage that can be summarized as follows75. God is the guide («rector») of all things, the origin, salvation, and continuance of everything he has created, so that the ancient poets affirmed: «omnia Iove plena else»76. Nevertheless, even if god is the «sospitator» and father of all things, he does not actuate creation directly and personally, but he is like him whom «quadam infatigabili providentia et procul posita cuncta contingit et maximis intervallis disiuncta complectitur». To act in the universe, god uses potestates and intermediaries. God's activity initiates the movement of the world «sciente et salutifera opera» 77. F. Regen has the merit of having identified the importance of the De mundo in this metaphysical and religious context78. He manifested Apuleius' changes to the Greek text he translated (the pseudo-Aristotelian IZEpi x6oliou) — changes that had a highly specific function. If Festugi~re had earlier found three fundamental motifs in the pseudo-Aristotelian IIEpi x~oltov, that is: the supreme transcendence and greatness of god, the unicity of god, and the multiplicity of the divine names 79, Regen observed that the supreme divine transcendence is mediated by the 8vv~µ.ELS (which Apuleius translates by potestates), thanks to which god carries out his action on the world without coming into direct contact with it, which is too inferior to him, so that his nature is not contaminated. God is nevertheless father of these

68 Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., pp. 252-253. 69 Cfr. ibid., p. 261. 70 Cfr. LOENEN, Albinus' Metaphysics cit. (see above, Introduction, note 11), pp. 305-309. 71 Cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 262, note 139 and p. 263. 72 Cfr. FINAMORE, Apuleius on the Platonic God cit., pp. 36-37. The forms are supra-cosmic, as in Plato (Phaedr. 247c: they are in the hyper-Uranian world; see also Tim. 27c-31c). 73 Gersh also observes: «there is perhaps no clear answer which can be extracted directly from the Apuleian text» (GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 253). 74 Cfr. Plat., I, 6, 193 and II, 1, 220.

Cfr. ID., Mund., 24, 342 — 25, 346. Ibid. 24, 343; see Verg. Eclogae, 3, 60. 77 The concept of salus is also present in the Met. XI, 1, as Finamore observes, cfr. FINAMORE, Apuleius on the Platonic God cit., p. 40. In the Metamorphoses however, salus has a religious sense, while in the De mundo, the salus produced by the power of god is physical — but for Finamore these two sense co-exist in Apuleius. 78 Cfr. REGEN, Apuleius philosophus cit., BEAUJEU, Commentaire cit., pp. 117-118; MORESCI~NI, Apuleio e it platonismo cit., pp. 128-132. 79 Cfr. FESTUGIIIRE, La revelation cit., II, pp. 477-479.

228

229

75 76

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

7. APULEIUS .PHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUS.. PHYSICS

potestates as well, he is «genitor omnium qui (most edd.: quae) ad complendum mundum nati factique sunt (edd.: nata factaque sunt)». One must maintain the manuscript text for this passage: god is the father of all those who were created to give unity to the world («qui ... nati factique sunt») 80, that is, to fill the hiatus between transcendent and material reality — i.e. the demons. The necessity of placing a «media natura» between human beings and the transcendent god found a solution with the 8uvetlatc of the Ilspi x~o-t.aov, which are equivalent to demons, which we discussed above. Apuleius probably saw a confirmation of his demonology and theology in the pseudo-Aristotelian work, and translated it for this reason. This doctrine of the 8uvriqtag in the Ilspi icdoltou corresponds are intermediaries to that of Philo of Alexandria. The between god and the world for Philo as well. Their function, as it is expressed in De mundo81, are similar, according to Regen's interpretation, to the functions attributed to the demons, even if, for Apuleius, the demons are beings endowed with a true and proper individuality, so that they can have names, while the 8uv~psts of Ilspl x~o-pov, as the name itself conveys, are only abstract metaphysical entities.

of Nag Hammadi (NHC III, 72, 19), however, call god `happy'. Beatificus (which seems to be used for the first time by Apuleius, even if it was not necessarily formulated by him) 83 could perhaps find an echo in Christian writers, but it too is found in another Nag Hammadi text, The Apocryphon ofJohn. Further, the fact that god brings happiness (beatus) is confirmed by what the passage we quoted from De mundo stated: he brings salvation to all things. Finally, if ~dpwrog is an attribute of the intelligible in Tim. 58a and elsewhere", ~8~pao•roc, beyond its use in Greek epic poetry (which has little to do with this context of Middle Platonic philosophy), is also found in the magical papyri85. In conclusion, according to Apuleius god is not only the god of the Middle Platonists, but is also characterized as in the Gnostics. God is also called «summus exsuperantissimusque»86: this is, as has been known for some time, a term that is proper to this period (it is found in inscriptions from the period of Commodus) 87. According to Beaujeu, «ce qualificatif, qui exprime une conception nouvelle du dieu souverain, resultant d'une contamination de la theologie platonicienne et de la conception s~mitique du Seigneur du ciel, Ba'al samin, apparait aussi dans plusieurs inscriptions posterieures au milieu du He si~cle»S8. No wonder that Apuleius employs such therms which point to a sort of `henotheistic' worship of a supreme god widespread not only in philosophical milieus, but also in larger parts of the society, and in many regions of the Empire and especially in Asia Minor, perhaps because ofJewish influences89.

8ui.c tc

In Plat.1, 5,190, Apuleius refers twice to doctrines that he explicitly identifies as Platonic («ait» and «ut ait ipse»), but they are not in fact such. They first attribute the quality of being «beatus et beatificus» to god, and then that of being ~~pctToc and Icativ torog. These terms have been studied by van den Broek 82, who observed that the consideration of god as happy is not typical of Middle Platonism. First, Epicurus attributes the prerogative of being beatus to god in the Ratae sententiae, but the Ratae sententiae are completely foreign to Apuleius. The gnostic texts

83 As suggested 84 Cfr. ibidem.

by Beaujeu, cfr. BEAUJEU, Commentaire cit., p. 257.

8o The masculine qui nati factique sunt, which is usually corrected to quae nata factaque sunt, has rightly been defended by Regen, cfr. REGEN, Apuleius philosophus cit., pp. 46-51. 81 Cfr. Mund., 27, 350-351: «Eas autem potestates per omnes partes mundi orbisque dispendat (scil. god) ... horum enim cura salutem terrenorum omnium gubernari». 82 Cfr. R. VAN DEN BROER:, Apuleius, Gnostics and Magicians on the Nature of God, in Studies in Gnosticism and Alexandrian Christianity, Leiden — New York — Cologne 1996 (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean studies, 39), pp. 42-54.

8s Festugi~re, instead explained it as a synonym of `incomprehensible' insofar as our mind cannot be stronger than god so as to grasp and know him, cfr. FESTUGI~RE, La Revelation cit., IV, p. 106. 86 Plat., I, 12, 205; Mund., 27, 350. S7 One can remember here the classic (if henceforth surpassed) work of Cumont, cfr. F. CUMONT, Jupiter summus exsuperantissimus, in «Archie £tir Religionswissenschaftu, 9 (1906), pp. 323-336. es BEAUJEU, Introduction cit., p. xxxn. 8» Among a lavish proliferation of secondary literature at least c&. S. MITCHELL, The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians, in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, edd. P. Athanassiadi — M. Frede, Oxford 1999, pp. 81-148; Y. USTINOVA, The Supreme Gods of the Bosporan Kingdom: Celestial Aphrodite and the Most High God, Leiden 1999 (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 135).

230

231

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

7. APULEIUS ePHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUSP. PHYSICS

God has a multiplicity of names, as we can see in De mundo and the Metamorphoses90. This motif is dear, not only to Apuleius and the author of the l IEpi x~oltou, but also to Plutarch, who says that Isis is pupttvvp,o591 Also this statement founds many attestations in epigraphical sources92. There is thus a series of motifs that unites De philosophia libri and the Metamorphoses that scholars have neglected until now, but which is key to understanding Apuleius' literary activity in a unified way93. This is confirmed by the fact that the passage of Apol., 64 («quisnam sit ille basileus, totius rerum naturae causa et origo initialis») is echoed by Metam., IV, 30, 1 («en rerum naturae prisca parens, en elementorum origo initialis», said of Venus) and XI, 5, 1 («rerum naturae parens, elementorum omnium domina, saeculorum progenies initialis»: Isis) 94

Apuleius' doctrine of god shows how Middle Platonism was moving from a more traditional form to one that manifests the influence of a new cultural situation. This uncertainty is confirmed by the fact that the gods of the Roman religion also have their place and function. Apuleius affirms that the star-gods and the other gods come after the transcendent god, and they are called the «inhabitants of heaven» — after them come the demons (medioximi) 95: this tripartition is derived from Plato 96. Elsewhere97, while explaining the existence of three providences, Apuleius states that the «summus et exsuperantissimus» god places the heavenly gods and regulates their functions98. He also created («edidit») for eternity those beings which, through their reason («sapientia»), are superior to all animated beings. He entrusted the care for what occurs in the world according to fixed and unchangeable laws fo other gods that are spread throughout the air, the waters, and on the earth (and are distinct from the heavenly gods). Finally, there are the demons, who are ministers of god and mediators between him and human beings. In the De deo Socratis99, Apuleius places the visible and invisible gods under the supreme god. The visible gods are the heavenly bodies, planets, and stars; the invisible gods are known to us through our intellectual knowledge: they are those from traditional Roman religion, which Apuleius refers to through an erudite quotation of an archaic poet, Ennius100. There are also other invisible gods («ceterique id genus») whose names we know and whose potentiae are the object of our intellectual knowledge as with the earlier ones. We can perceive their potentiae in the course of our lives, whenever we are aware of the ben-

9° Cfr. Mund., 37, 370-372; Met., XI, 5 (Isis). 91 Cfr. PLUTARCHUS, De Iside et Osiride, 53, 372E and 67, 378A. Capelle observes that this motif is also present in Seneca's Nat. Quaest. (II, 45), cfr. CAPELLE, Die Schnft cit. (see above, ch. 6, note 70), p. 560, note 3. 92 See Versnel (cfr. H. S. VERSNEL, Ter Unus: Isis, Dioysos, Hermes. Three Studies in Henotheism, Leiden 1990) together with the considerations put forward by C. Tommasi Moreschini in her introduction of Norden, cfr. C. O. ToMMASI MORESCHINI, Per un bilancio di Agnostos Theos, in E. NORDEN, Dio ignoto, Brescia 2002 (It. tr. of ID., AI'NS2ETOE OEOE. Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religioser Rede, Leipzig — Berlin 1913), pp. 9-122. 93 Cfr. MORESCHINI, Apuleio e it platonismo cit., p. 131; GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 267, note 148. 94 Nevertheless, Dowden, for whom the Metamorphoses were written at Rome between 150 and 155, holds that the reverse occurred, i.e., that the Apologia used the expression from the Metamorphoses, cfr. K. DOWDEN, The Roman Audience of The Golden Ass, in The Search for the Ancient Novel, ed. J. Tatum, Baltimore — London 1994, [pp. 419-434], p. 427. With Graverini (cfr. GRAVERINI, Le Metamorfosi di Apuleio cit., pp. 212-213), I admit that some of the expressions that Dowden identifies as links between the Metamorphoses and the De magia might have a theological significance, while remaining skeptical on many others. Whatever the case, despite the problems of chronology that we deal with elsewhere, it remains true that Middle Platonic theology is linked to the Metamorphoses. Hunink also suggests that the Metamorphoses were written in Rome, before the Apologia, because the Apologia (34, 6) denies the existence of magic names and of sympathetic magic, while this is expressly stated in the Metamorphoses (III, 17), cfr. V. HUNINK, The date of Apuleius' Metamorphoses, in Hommages a Carl Deroux, II, Prose et linguistique, Medicine, ed. P. Defosse, Bruxelles 2002 (Collection Latomus, 270), [pp. 224-235], p. 233. The problem of the chronology of the Apologia and the Metamorphoses is not essential here, other than Dowden's assertion that the Metamorphoses were written in Rome before 156 AD, and his attempt to reconstruct Apuleius' cultural

232

milieu in Rome, cfr. DOWDEN, The Roman Audience cit. Apuleius could also have met gnostic teachers (for instance, Valentinus) there, from whom he could have drawn the religious meaning of the tale of Cupid and Psyche (see above, pp. 108-109). This is a fascinating hypothesis, but it has few solid bases and remains, in my opinion, speculative. 95 Cfr. Plat., I, 11, 204. 96 Cfr. Leg. 717b. 97 Cfr. Plat., I, 205-206. 98 Cfr. Tim. 40ac. 99 Cfr. Socrat., 1, 116 — 2, 121. 100 Cfr. ENNIUS, Annales, 240-241, ed. O. Skutsch, in The Annals of Q. Ennius, Oxford 1985.

233

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

7. APULEIUS «PHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUS'. PHYSICS

efits these gods bring to us101 They are all in the ether, far from all contact with human beings, and they are honored by many people, but not in the way that befits them (i.e., not in a philosophical manner). They are feared by all and denied by few. Plato considers them to be incorporeal, living entities without beginning or end, whose nature is so perfect as to attain supreme beatitude; they do not participate in any external good, but are good in themselves; their movement, which is immediate and easy, allows them to obtain all that is fitting for them; and their father is the supreme godlo2 What are these invisible gods that are distinct from those of traditional religion, but that are fully and completely gods endowed with every perfection? Apuleius' description is quite ambiguous. First of all, it appears that they are known through their intervention in human beings' lives — something that Apuleius denies shortly afterward, when, taking up the doctrine of Plato's Symposium, he affirms «nullus deus miscetur hominibus»103 They are certainly not the demons, even if their figures are `fluid' 104 Beaujeu underscores this distinction between the invisible gods and the demons, neither of which have clearly defined functions. He observes105 that Apuleius affirms that the different religious rites are addressed exclusively to the demons, which are the only divine realities to experience pleasure and pain706. Thus, all the cults to the gods are pure and simple mystification, because, on one hand, the gods have nothing to do with

human beings' cults, and on the other hand, the demons that might be interested in them are not the beings that the cults are addressed to107. Hijmans also notes how difficult it is to exactly determine the functions and competencies of these gods and their relationship with the visible gods108. Finally, another example of Apuleius' uncertainty on what the invisible gods are can be found in Socr., 14, 148-149, where the «Aegyptia numina» (who should thus be the gods of the various peoples of the empire) are placed in the category of the demons. Gersh attempted a solution by supposing that the invisible gods might be identified with the visible ones, and vice-versa. Apuleius in fact distinguishes between the material body of the visible gods and their `spiritual force', so that there are other gods along with those of the Romans and other peoples, according to astrological doctrines1°9. In Flor., X, Apuleius speaks of the power that the planets have on the material earth: for example, the beneficial influence of Jupiter or of Venus, who brings human beings pleasure. Finally, the list of invisible gods of Socr., 2, 121 includes various visible ones11° Consequently, Jupiter, Venus, Mercury, Mars, Apollo, and Juno are present in the lists of both invisible and invisible gods, while Vesta, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, Neptune, and Vulcan are only invisible, and Saturn and Hercules are only visible. As Gersh states, «Naturally, neither of the two lists intends to be a systematic classification». This means that the same gods are invisible gods at one time, and invisible at another. In conclusion, the visible gods represent the sensible manifestation in the heavenly bodies of the `spiritual force' that does

Cfr. Socrat., 2, 122. Cfr. ibid., 3, 123-124. Where does this description of the gods that Apuleius attributes to Plato come from? Regen speaks only briefly on this: «Apuleius calls the gods of popular faith `visible gods', and describes them as intelligible» (REGEN, Il De deo Socratis cit., pp. 443-444). He also observes that there is a contradiction, already noted by Vallette (cfr. VALLETTE, L'apologie cit., p. 259), between Apuleius' affirmation on the `competencies' of the gods and the Platonic god, who instead is not interested in human affairs. On this problem, also cfr. BEAUJEU, Commentaire cit., pp. 210-211. 103 Socrat., 4, 128. 104 Cfr. BEAUJEU, Commentaire cit., p. 209. 105 Cfr. J. BEAUJEU, Les dieux d'Apul~e, in Symposium Apuleianum Groninganum (Groningen, 23-24 October 1980), edd. B. L. Hijmans — V. Schmidt, Groningen 1981, [pp. 78-95], p. 91; and (much more important) cfr. In., Les dieux d'Apule'e, in «Revue de l'Histoire des Religions», 200 (1983), pp. 385-406. 106 Cfr. Socrat., 13, 148 — 14, 150.

107 Bernard attempts to explain this inconsistency (although he only uses a German translation, and never the Latin original), cfr. BERNARD, Zur Damonologie cit. (see above, ch. 4, note 121), p. 368. He observes that the demons in fact transmit human beings' cult to the gods, since their function is that of mediators. Apuleius attributes the multiplicity of cults to the gods, and not to the demons. The gods are adored in a variety of ways, as Isis explains in regard to her cult in Met., XI, 5. 108 Cfr. HUMANS, Apuleius philosophus Platonicus cit., p. 441. 109 Cfr. GEESE, Middle Platonism cit., p. 307, note 332. Nevertheless the expressions of Mund., 2, 293 («Pyrois [...] Martis stella [...] Phosphorus [...] Veneris stella») do not seem to me to indicate any distinction between visible and invisible gods. These could be simple specifying genitives: «the star with the name of Mars» etc. 110 Cfr. Flor., X; Plat., I, 11, 203; Mund., 2, 292-293.

234

235

101

102

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

7. APULEIUS «PHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUS.. PHYSICS

not have a spatial localization, and represents the invisible gods. Finamore develops Gersh's intuition on the basis of the Platonic Phaedrus. He observes'" that the division of gods in mund. 2,292 introduces an expression («aetheris dorsus») that is used to specify their habitation and can be traced to the Phaedrus (247bc: o~pavov v )Tog) but is not found in the flepi 1c6a .tou: it would therefore be an addition of Apuleius112. Apuleius thus intended to propose a transcendent region in which to situate the invisible gods. Unlike the planets and stars, which are visible gods, they are in a supra-terrestrial place where they can contemplate the Ideas. The path of the soul and the gods over the arc of the heavens that the Phaedrus speaks of cannot be traversed by the heavenly gods, because they are confined to the earth: the invisible gods that are on earth but can contemplate the Ideas are therefore `amphibious', and live both in heaven and on earth. In this way, Apuleius seeks to resolve a difficulty that had been perceived in the text of the Phaedrus by the Middle Platonists. The invisible gods of the Phaedrus cannot be the visible gods or the demiurge, who resides above and is inaccessible. It was therefore necessary to propose other intermediaries. Apuleius was thus an attentive reader of Plato, and attempted to construct his system on the basis of Platonic texts113. In any case, this is an anticipation of Neo-Platonic doctrine and the chain of the divinities: Apuleius is a religious philosopher. Such an anticipation is more clearly explained by Gersh than by Finamore's subtleties. The reference to the twelve gods, and the verses of Ennius that list them, suggest that Apuleius was simply thinking of the gods of the Roman religion, which he, even if he was a Middle Platonic philosopher, did no reject (or even think of rejecting). The fact that Gersh observed regarding the same gods being listed as both invisible and visible demonstrates this. The `spiritual force' that Gersh speaks of could be an anticipation of Neo-Platonic theology as we find two centuries later in the writings of the emperor Julian: the sun, which

is material and gives life to the universe, is the visible manifestation of the god Sun, who is the supreme and invisible god. In conclusion, our opinion is that the invisible gods are the gods of traditional religion, which are sometimes identified with the star gods, whose name they carry, and at other times are true and proper gods that are invisible (although sometimes visible), eternal, and engaged in the lives of human beings, as can be substantially found within the traditional religion of Rome when it is properly interpreted in a philosophical manner, and not a material one. Their presence in the literary works of Virgil and other poets could be an example of this. This definition of the invisible gods is clearly flawed with contradictions and obscurities. For example, the invisible gods take care of human beings14: they are thus the gods of the second providence that Apuleius speaks ofr15. They have an intellectual and completely transcendent nature, and only their potentiae can be perceived. Providence is in fact one of their `powers' 116. Apuleius probably refers to them when Lucius, observing with disgust the widespread obsession of the obscene priests of the goddess Syra, refused to believe that the presence of god in the human being leads to indecent aberrations, the loss of all rational self-control, and immoral behavior: «prorsus quasi deum praesentia soleant homines non sui fieri meliores, sed debiles effici vel aegroti»117. The incongruence between this doctrine of the curae of the gods for the humans and Plato's assertion that «nullus deus miscetur hominibus» can be resolved through the existence of the demons, who take care of humans, but do so in obedience to the will of the invisible gods. The gods of the traditional religion of Rome continue to have their function in Apuleius, as in the later Neo-Platonism of Macrobius and Martianus Capella. The existence of the `first god', of the «deus summus exsuperantissimus», does not preclude their

111 Cfr. ibidem. 112 This was already stated by Regen, cfr. REGEN, Apuleius philosophus Platonicus cit., p. 97. 113 Finamore (cfr. FINAMOItE, Apuleius on the Platonic cit., p. 47, note 48) however rejects Gersh's opinions (cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., pp. 307-308).

114 Cfr. Socrat., 2, 122. 115 Cfr. Plat., I, 12, 206. 116 Gersh maintains that they are characterized in the way that Plato characterized the intelligible world in Phaedr. 247c, cfr. GERSH, Middle Platonism cit., p. 303, note 318. 177 APULEIUS, Metamorphoseon libri, VIII, 27.

236

237

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

7. APULEIUS .PHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUSD. PHYSICS

presence and providential activity. We observed that the problem of the existence of god and the gods and their functions has its place in the Metamorphoses as well. Though, the Metamorphoses is wholly different both in literary genre and narrative frame. Its philosophical flavour seems to be trivialized in order to fit a larger audience. Therefore, whereas the De Platone distinguishes in a strictly platonic way between a transcendent supreme God, secondary gods, and demons, the Metamorphoses presents only the highest god, the goddess Isis, who can be worshipped directly.

tians do, that one cannot serve two masters122 , is to isolate oneself from the rest of the world. The same philosophical and religious requirement is found in other cultural environments of second century AD. Onatas' lrEpl OEoii xai esfou, which is conserved by Stobaeus123, is a Pythagorean pseudo-epigraph. Onatas affirms that there is not only one god, but there is one that is the greatest and highest and dominates over everything (E c piv 6 .thyto-rog xai xa8u7ripTEpoc xai 6 Icpwr cov Tw'ravr66), and the many other gods have a different type of power. He reigns over all of them and dominates and is superior in greatness and virtue (cal xp~TEt xai p,Eyi9Et xai ~p.'r .t cov). This is the god that dominates the whole cosmos, while the other gods move in the heavens according to the movement of the whole, and are submitted to the first intelligible god. It is clear that the author intends to propose a graduated theology, in which the first god and many other gods co-exist in a `monarchic' hierarchy that gives the first place to the supreme god, but also requires the presence and activity of many other subordinate gods. In fact, he continues, those who do not admit more than one god fool themselves, because they do not understand that what most elevates divine transcendence is the fact of reigning and commanding over those like himself, of being stronger and above others: Td yap Ntiytowrov ettic4ta -Etc OEiag inrspo g of) ovvOEcOptfvTt. Aiyw ai T6 ccpxEv xai xaeayiEoreat Twv 6p.ofcav xai xpecturrov xai 1c Ou7ripTEpov ei v Twv &)acv124. The cultural environment of Philostratus is certainly different, although it is also close to that of Apuleius. His Life of Apollonius of Tyana is a remarkable work, because it gives the reader two levels of interpretation: one regarding the historical Apollonius, who modeled his life on that of Pythagoras, and one proposed by Philostratus, the author himself. This biography and its philosophical and religious projects corresponded to the characteristics of the culture of the Severan period (193-235 AD), which

Henotheism, that is, the philosophical and religious conviction that places a mediation between the supreme god and human beings, is an important element of the culture of Late Antiquity. Insofar as it requires the existence of many intermediaries, it is distinct — something overlooked in the past — from monotheism, which does not include this multiplicity118 One could discuss this at length, because this requirement continued throughout all of Late Antiquity in pagan philosophical environments. For this reason, we limit ourselves to examining the witnesses to henotheistic faith in Apuleius' time and in the third century. Celsus' attitude is particularly interesting in regard to this problem, as he appears to be quite close to Apuleius' positions insofar as he also was a Platonic philosopher. He argues against the Jews because of their religious exclusivity119, and explicitly enunciates the principle that «the god over all» (6 ~irl 7r~o-t 8E6S) requires a hierarchy of subordinate powers. The world is governed through various intermediary powers between the supreme god and human beings120. In any case, the cult to demons should not replace the cult to the supreme god121 . Affirming, as the Chris-

118 This distinction was not fully observed even thirty years ago. On the problem cfr. C. MORESCRINI, Monoteismo cristiano e monoteismo platonico nella cultura Latina dell'etd imperiale, in Platonismus and Christentum cit., [pp. 133-161], pp. 136-145. 119 Cfr. ORIGENES, Contra Celsum, I, 24, PG 11, [637-1632], 701-705, ed. M. Marcovich, Leiden 2001 (Suppl. VC, 54), pp. 24-25. 120 Cfr. ibid., V, 26; VII, 68; VIII, 2 and 58-61. 121 Cfr. ibid., VIII, 60.

122 Cfr. Mt 6, 24; Lc 16, 13; ORIGENES, Contra Celsum, ed. Marcovich cit., VIII, 2; and cfr. G. SEAMEN' GASPARRO, Dio unico, pluralit3 e monarchia divina. Esperienze religiose e teologie nel mondo tardo-antico, Brescia 2010 (Scienze e storia delle religions, n.s. 12). 123 Cfr. STOBAEUS, Anthologium, I, 1, 39, ed. Wachsmuth cit., p. 48. 124 For this and the following passage already cfr. NORDEN, AINSZETOE OEOE cit., p. 39.

238

239

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

7. APULEIUS «PHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUS«. PHYSICS

included religious syncretism and the philosophical syncretism of Pythagoreanism, Cynicism, and Platonism. Philostratus, who was quick to agree with the religious ideas of the Empress Julia Domna, of Syriac origin, is sensitive to oriental mysteriosophies and to the entire confused and indistinct group of ideas and beliefs that were found in that period. Apollonius of Tyana, of whom Philostratus speaks, is the product and representative, not so much of the first century AD, when the historical Apollonius lived, but of the third century, when Philostratus wrote his biography. We only know of one doctrine from the historical Apollonius who lived under Nero and Domitian. It is found in a passage preserved by Eusebius125, and regards the nature of god and the way that god must be worshiped. Apollonius states:

Apollonius' other convictions also correspond to the widespread ideas of the Philostratean period and later: God does not need anything, not even from beings that are more powerful than us (these are certainly the second gods and the demons); he cannot be named with any name from the sensible world; there is nothing as pure as he is. In conforming himself to this god, Apollonius continually practiced ascesis and sought out purity. God must be prayed to with the intelligence, and it is therefore not legitimate to offer sacrifices to him. In the lively cultural environment of second and third century Carthage, pagan henotheism was widespread, because Tertullian pointedly criticized it more than once. Addressing himself to the pagans in the Apology (24, 3), he observes: even if one admitted that your gods were true gods, should not you recognize a higher and more powerful god, the lord of the universe, who is endowed with a perfect majesty?

In this way, then, I think, one would best show the proper regard for the deity, and thereby beyond all other men secure His favor and good will, if to Him whom we called the First God, and who is One and separate from all others, and to whom the rest must be acknowledged inferior, he should sacrifice nothing at all, neither kindle fire, nor dedicate anything whatever that is an object of sense — for He needs nothing even from beings who are greater than we are: nor is there any plant at all which the earth sends up, nor any animal which it, or the air, sustains, to which there is not some defilement attached — but should ever employ towards Him only that better speech, I mean the speech which passes not through the lips, and should ask good things from the noblest of beings by what is noblest in ourselves, and this is the mind, which needs no instrument. According to this therefore we ought by no means to offer sacrifice to the great God who is over all '26. Apollonius is therefore a «man of god» whose religiosity agrees with the henotheism professed by the cultured class of the imperial era. He therefore declared that there is one god, but also that he is the `first', inasmuch as the inferior gods come after him.

Nam et sic plerique disponunt divinitatem, ut imperium summae dominations esse penes unum, officia vero eius penes multos velint, ut Plato Iovem magnum in caelo comitatum exercitu describit deorum pariter et daemonum: itaque oportere et procurantes et praefectos et praesides pariter suspici. For very many also distribute the divine power in such a way as to wish the rule of the highest lordship to be in the hands of one, while his functions are in the hands of many, as Plato describes the great Jupiter in heaven, attended by a host alike of gods and of daemons, and held it thus to be right that the procurators and prefects and governors (in general) should be alike respected127. Tertullian objects before pagan henotheism, which is confirmed by a reference to the Platonic Phaedrus128, that Christians prefer to adore God directly, just as they prefer to honor their emperor directly instead of his functionaries. Concluding with a requirement of religious liberty (24, 5: «colat alius Deum alius Iovem»; see also 24, 6: «libertatem religions»), he does not affirm that the gods the pagans believe in do not exist at all, but asks that

125 Cfr. Eusa ms, Praeparatio Evangelica, IV, 13, 1, PG 21, 261, edd. K. Mras — E. des Places, in EUSEBIUS, Werke, VIII, 1, Die Praeparatio Evangelica, Berlin 1982 (GCS, 43.1-2). 126 Ibid., Eng. tr. by E. H. Gifford in Eusebius' Preparation for the Gospel, 2 vols., Oxford 1903 (repr. Eugene, OR 2002), I, p. 164.

127 TERTULLIANUS, Apologeticum, 24, 3, PL 1, 476A-B; Eng. tr. by A. Souter, in Tertulliani Apologeticus, Cambridge 1917, p. 85. 128 Cfr. Phaedr. 246e.

240

241

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

7. APULEIUS «PHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUS». PHYSICS

Christians be granted their right to practice their cult without persecution129. The gods of the pagan religion are insulted by Tertullian with a wicked sarcasm; nevertheless, he does not deny their existence, but just identifies them with demons. He continually proposes the Christian faith in the only God, in contrast to pagan henotheism'3o The same issue is treated by Tertullian a few years later, although with some differences, in the Adversus Marcionem. The ditheism professed by Marcion is substantially reduced to a polytheism by Tertullian131. The Marcionites could have defended themselves by objecting that one can think of the existence of two «summa magna» (that is, of two gods that are «summum magnum», the characteristic trait of the divine nature), each of which is distinct within its own limits and competencies, as occurs for the kings of the earth, each of which is the supreme greatness within his own domain. Tertullian responds by denying the possibility of comparing God's supreme greatness with the supreme greatness of a king, since the king's greatness is only relative132 . For this reason, the concept of «summum magnum» cannot be applied to many kings, but only to one, that is, the one who is «rex regum ob summitatem magnitudinis et subiectionem ceterorum graduum»133. This means that only the God who is superior to all the other gods can be the «summum magnum», and he can only be one. Tertnllian therefore argues in a way that is analogous to the mode of the pagans that the Apologeticum speaks of: a multiplicity of gods is possible according to the pagans, an only god is over them, and this is the henotheism that the pagans believe in. But the conclusion that Tertullian intends to reach is found in both the Apologeticum 134

and the Adversus Marcionem: any god that is not the Only God is nothing but a demon, and not an inferior god. Tertullian's Adversus Praxean offers similar explanations. The work primarily intends to clarify what must be understood by the concept of `monarchy', which Praxeas and the modalists proclaimed while only adoring God the Father and excluding the Son. Tertullian observes that it is true that the monarchy is nothing but a «singulare et unicum imperium», however135: Monarchy because it belongs to one man does not for that reason make a standing rule that he whose it is may not have a son or must have made himself his own son or may not administer his monarchy by the agency of whom he will. Nay more, I say that no kingdom is in such a sense one man's own, in such a single sense, in such a sense a monarchy, as not to be administered also through those other closely related persons whom it has provided for itself as officers: and if moreover he whose the monarchy is has a son, it is not ipso facto divided, does not cease to be a monarchy, if the son also is assumed as a partner in it, but it continues to belong in first instance to him by whom it is passed on to the son: and so long as it is his, that continues to be a monarchy which is jointly held by two who are so closely united136 Christian monarchy is not destroyed if it is articulated in other functions, but only if is subordinated to another power that is autonomous, independent, and thus its enemy. Tertullian develops a theology that is inspired from the state law of the Roman empire, and structures the intra-Trinitarian relationship on the example of the Roman state of his times; there would be a sort of Doppelprinzipat' within the Trinity: the Father and the Son are both God, even though They are distinct as Persons. A passage of Minucius Felix must also be understood in the context of henotheism: «unde autem vel quis ille aut ubi deus unicus, solitarius, destitutus, quem non gens libera, non

129 Cfr. TERTULLIANUS, Ad Scapulam, 2, 2-3, PL 1, 778-783, ed. E. Dekkers, in TERTULLIANI Opera, II cit., pp. 1125-1132. 139 Cfr. Apol., 17, 1 («quod colimus, Deus unus est»); 18, 2 («deum unicum»); 23, 11 («etiam illud in continenti cognoscetis, qui sit vere Deus, et an ille et an unicus, quem Christiani profitemur»); 24, 1 («onlnis ista confessio illorum, qua se deos negant esse quaque non alium deum respondent praeter unum, cui nos mancipamur»). 131 Cfr. ID., Adversus Marcionem, I, 5, 1 ff., PL 2, [263-559], 276B-C, ed. Ae. Kroymann, in TERTULLIANI Opera, I cit., [pp. 437-726], p. 445. 132 Cfr. ibid., I, 4, 1-3. 133 Ibid., I, 4,4. 134 Cfr. ID., Apologeticum, 23, 11: «quos enim praesumpseratis deos esse, iam daemonas esse cognoscitis».

133 Cfr. ID., Adversus Praxean, 3, 2, PL 2, [175-220], 158, edd. Ae. Kroymann — E. Evans, in TERTULLIANI Opera, II cit., pp. 1159-1205. 136 Ibidem, Eng. tr. by E. Evans, in Tertullian's Treatise against Praxeas, London 1948, p. 133.

242

243

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

7. APULEIUS aPHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUS». PHYSICS

regna non saltem Romana superstitio noverunt?»137. Minucius attributes the role of ridiculing the Christian God to the representative of paganism, Cecilius. This God, Cecilius observes, is `alone and abandoned', that is, defenseless in his solitude, and is not surrounded by the crowd of minor divinities to reign over them. For a pagan, the unicity of the Christian God is thus nothing other than a sign of weakness, as is confirmed by the similar lot of the Jewish God, who became a prisoner and slave of the Roman armies 138 Apuleius' henotheistic theology anticipated the philosophical and theological culture of Late Antiquity. There are terms found in his theology that will later become part of the common patrimony of pagan and Christian culture. Two characteristics of god, which we reflected on in the passage of Apuleius139, appear particularly interesting because they are not of a clear and direct Platonic origin like all the other ones are — we refer to the terms «beatus et beatificus» and «caelestis». Beaujeu observes that the perfect happiness of god is a concept that does not appear in Plato, but is typical of the Christian God14o; as we said, in this passage of Apuleius, «beatificus» represents the first witness to the word, even if it is not certain that Apuleius invented it. It is nevertheless certain that «beatificus», like «beatificare», is a term that is exclusively used by Christians. What interests us here is the philosophical and theological content of the term: Apuleius' god is happy and gives happiness, like the Christian God does. Speaking to the pagans in the Apologeticum, Tertullian appears interested in smoothing the edges and softening the tones of an extremely lively debate. His description of the Christian divinity could be accepted by pagans as well, and Tertullian writes with the specific goal of having cultured pagans accept the god of the new religion, while keeping intact certain specifics of Christian teaching. The primary difficulty for a pagan (and a Platon-

ist in particular) regards ex nihilo creation; for everything else, the Christian God is not that far from the Platonic god:

137 MARCUS MI1vucIus FELIx, Octavius, 10, 3, PL 3, [239-375], 275A, ed. B. Kytzler, Leipzig 19922 (Bibl. Teubn., 1539). 138 Cfr. ibid., 10, 4. 139 Cfr. Plat., I, 5, 190. 140 Cfr. BEAUJEU, Commentaire cit., p. 257.

244

Quod colimus, deus unus est, qui totam molem istam cum omni instrumento elementorum, corporum, spirituum, verbo, quo iussit, ratione, qua disposuit, virtute, qua potuit, de nihilo expressit in ornamentum maiestatis suae. (...) Invisibilis est, etsi videatur; incomprehensibilis, etsi per gratiam repraesentetur; inaestimabilis, etsi humanis sensibus aestimetur; ideo verus et tantus! Ceterum quod videri, quod cornprehendi, quod aestimari potest, minus est et oculis quibus occupatur, et manibus quibus contaminatur et sensibus quibus invenitur; quod vero immensum est, soli sibi notum est. Hoc est quod Deum aestimari facit, dum aestimari non capit. The object of our worship is one God, who through the word by which he commanded (that they should exist), the reason by which he arranged them, the power by which he could (carry out his will), fashioned out of nothing all this mass with all its apparatus of elements, bodies and spirits, for an ornament to his own greatness, whence it is that the Greeks also have applied the name lc~ol,toc (ornament) to the universe. He is invisible, though he may be seen; incomprehensible, though he is represented to human beings through his grace; inestimable, though he can be estimated through the human senses; therefore is he the true and the mighty God. What is capable, however, of being generally seen, of being grasped, of being valued, is less both than the eyes by which it is caught, than the hands by which it is touched, and the thoughts by which it is discovered; but that which is immeasurable is known only to itself. This is what makes God valued, while yet he is incapable of valuation. Thus it is that the power of his greatness presents him as both known and unknown to human beings. And this is the substance of their offence, that they refuse to recognize him of whom they cannot be ignorant'41.

The characteristics of the Christian God that Tertullian insists on remind us of some of those belonging to the Platonic god. He is «invisibilis», which corresponds to Apuleius' 64a-roc, «incomprehensibilis», which corresponds to the Platonic ~xa-rdayrrros

141 TERTULLIANUS,

Apologeticum, 17, 1-3, tr. Souter cit., p. 57.

245

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

7. APULEIUS «PHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUS.. PHYSICS

and which was explained in the De deo Socratis: «deum (...) non posse penuria sermonic humani quavis oratione vel modice comprehends»142. «Inaestimabilis» also enters into this same order of ideas. Consequently, God is «immensus». This is a term that will be common among later Christians, such as Lactantius and Hilary of Poitiers, but that is missing from Apuleius. However, the concept is not missing, because Apuleius maintains that the only god of Plato is rspitte'rpoc143 . Aeternitas, which is an important concept of Christian religion insofar as eternity belongs exclusively to the divine nature, according to Tertullian144, is also used with this specific role by Apuleius. In Apologia, the term is characteristic of the divine nature145, and is elsewhere linked to the Ideas146, to the gods147 and tO demons148. The difference between the Christian and Platonic conception is highly manifest here, since God alone is eternal for the Christian, while everything else is created nature. According to Apuleius, the divine being, in its nature, regardless of the distinction into first and second gods, is also mens, i.e., supreme rationality. In the Latin culture of the imperial era, the consideration of god as mens is a constant that is not limited to the philosophical schools, but is also a common concept among the educated class of the time. The Latin Panegyrists of the time of the Tetrarchy and Constantine are interesting in this regard. Educated in schools of rhetoric, and themselves masters of rhetoric, they represent a non-specialist middle culture that fits people who are not specifically trained in philosophy, but know it through the manuals they have studied at school and are mainly formed through the Latin classics — above all Sallust and Cicero. It is therefore noteworthy that we read, in a passage of the Gratiarum Actio Constantino Augusto: «sic denique divina ilia

mens, quae totum mundum hunc gubernat, quidquid cogitavit facit»149. The mind of god is providential and almighty. And, in a panegyric that is once again addressed to Constantine: «habes profecto aliquod cum illa mente divina, Constantine, secretum, quae delegata nostri disc minoribus cura uni se tibi dignatur ostendere»15o A little further on: «sed divina mens et ipsius urbis aeterna maiestas nefario homini eripuere consilium»151 (the theological concept is tied to a more obvious political meaning here). Another panegyric ends with an invocation to the supreme god: «Summe rerum sator, cuius tot nomina sunt quot gentium linguas esse voluisti (quem enim to ipse dici velis, scire non possumus, sive tute quaedam vis mensque divina es)» 152 It is difficult to say what is the origin of the doctrine that the supreme god is a supreme mind. It is probable that the Stoic doctrine of god as a rational being is at its root, but this was then spread in Roman spheres, due above all to the popularization of Cicero. Naturally, when Cicero spoke of a divine mind that created and governed the universe, he mainly expressed the opinions of the Stoics or of Antiochus of Ascalon, but did not thereby offer his unconditional assent to them, something that was too contrary to his suppositions of academic doubt. Nevertheless, in later centuries Cicero's skeptical position was largely unknown, and his philosophical works were simply seen as treatises of a `normal' type, that is, that aimed to spread a specific system, as all other `dogmatic' thinkers tended to do. Further, the knowledge of Cicero as a philosopher occurred through the vehicle of rhetorical schools, and could certainly not spread with a philosophical criterion that tried to reconstruct the original thought of Cicero. The work of Firmicus Maternus is in the domain of these same theological concepts. This author was still pagan at the time of Constantine, and only in the following decade converted to Christianity. Firmicus' designations of the supreme divin-

142 Socrat., 3, 124. 143 Cfr. ibid., I, 5, 190. 144 Cfr. 'I'ERTULLIANUS, Adversus Marcionem, I, 3, 2; Adversus Hermogenem, 4, 1, PL 2, 195-238B, ed. J. H. Waszink, in TERTULLIANI Adversus Hermogenem Liber, Utrecht 1956. 145 Cfr. Apol., 64: «aeternus animantum sospitator». 146 Cfr. Plat., I, 6, 192: «formas omnium, simplices et aeternas esse». 147 Cfr. Socrat., 4, 127: they have a «vivacitas aeterna et indefecta». 148 Cfr. ibid., 13, 148: «daemons sunt genere animalia ( ) tempore aeterna».

246

149 Panegyrici Latini, VIII, 10, 2, ed. ~. Galletier, in Pan~gyriques latins, II, Les pan~gyriques constantiniens (VI-X), Paris 1952 (CUF S~rie latine, 137). 15o Ibid., IX, 2, 5. 151 Ibid., IX, 16, 2, ed. Galletier cit., p. 136. 152 Ibid., IX, 26, 1, p. 144.

247

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

ity enter into the generic theism of Stoic and Ciceronian origins. This supreme god, he says, is superior to the star gods, which are discussed in the Matheseos books. The entire world is animated and providentially governed by a «mens (...) divina animusque caelestis per omne munch corpus in modum circuli collocatus»153. The stars were formed and animated by this animus (Latin translation of the Stoic 7rveiipc that fills the world) through the effect of the «maiestas divinae illius mentis»154. The concept of the «vis divinae mentis» returns in I, 6, 4 as well, just as we again find the doctrine of the «divinus spiritus», which supports us and into which we will return when death will dissolve the fragility of our bodies155. Firmicus manifests his faith in the existence of a mens divina, in a providence that orders and creates the universe and in the `creation' of human beings as a work of the divinity. He is therefore a `theologian' who is no different than the other writers of the Constantinian era, i.e., the panegyrists. It is virtually impossible to distinguish here between Platonism and Stoicism, or between Stoicism and Ciceronian doctrine (and thus, in the final analysis, Stoicism once again). We thus speak of `henotheism' and of `theocracy'. This is not only found in Firmicus, but in all the writers of the Constantinian era. In the context of a discourse in defense of astrology, according to which the movement of the stars as regulating human life draws its validity from the influence of the divine mind, Firmicus Maternus once again proposes the doctrine that we have already encountered: vere enim sunt res arduae atque difficiles et quas non facile possit animus terrenis sordium laqueis impeditus, licet ipse ignea sit divinitatis immortalitate formatus, facili inquisitionis ratione percipere. Divinitas enim eius (scil. animi), quae sempiterna agitatione sustentatur, si in terreno corpore fuerit inclusa, iacturam quandam divinitatis suae patitur ternporalem (...) quapropter (...) confiteatur etiam ipse necesse est quod animus, qui immortalis est, si a vitiis ac libidinibus terreni corporis fuerit separatus ac suae originis et seminis 153 IuLrus FlxMlcus MATERNUS, Matheseos libri, I, 5, 10, edd. W. Kroll — F. Skutsch, 2 vols, Stuttgart 19682 (Bibl. Teubn.), I, p. 17,3-4. 154 Ibid., I, 5, 11, edd. Kroll — Skutsch cit., I, p. 17,14. 155 Cfr. ibid., I, 8, 3.

248

7. APULEIUS .PHILOSOPHUS PLATONICUS.. PHYSICS

conscientiam retinens, vim suae maiestatis agnoverit, omnia quae difficilia putantur atque ardua, facile divina mentis vestigatione consequitur156 The human soul is therefore divine157, because it comes from the fire of heaven. Therefore, if it is true that the human soul had its origin in heaven, it can also follow the opposite path, that of the return of the soul to the stars: In the introduction to the eighth book, Firmicus, with an argument that partially repeats what he had said in the first book, observes that, while other living beings are prone near the earth and are entangled in mortal and passing life, the «immortalis animi divinitas» subjects the earthly body to itself. In this manner: Considerantes igitur originis nostrae principia et animum nostrum maiestatis suae praesidio roboratum, ita nos instruere debemus, ut animus per semet ipsum numinis sui auctoritate conventus, dignum aliquid auctore suo et cogitet semper et faciat, ut sic institutus atque formatus, rectum atque incorruptum immortalitatis iter ad originem suam reversurus inveniat (...) 158 2. Matter The physical doctrines in the first book of the De Platone, other than those on God, can be placed in two groups. The first contains some doctrines that had been updated in Apuleius times (matter and ideas, the cosmic soul and cosmogony, providence, or fate and free will), the second is more doxographical, and substantially consists in a paraphrase of the Timaeus. After having presented the doctrine on God (which is part of Middle Platonist physics), Apuleius considers the two other highest principles, matter and the forms. The discussion of matter is found in De Platone (I, 5, 190-192) and is interrupted by that on God, which is placed in the middle. The text poses a serious difficulty, as follows:

156 Ibid.,

I, 4, 1-3, edd. Kroll — Skutsch, I, pp. 11,15-12,1. Also cfr. ibid., I, 5, 9. 158 Ibid., VIII, 1, 5, edd. Kroll — Skutsch, II, p. 282,10-17.

157

249

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

Deum et materiam inabsolutam, informem, nulla specie nec qualitatis significatione distinctam, rerumque formas, quas 1.8€aS idem vocat159 This is the text of our edition, which follows that ofBeaujeu'6o The manuscripts instead agree to read: Deum et materiam reruinque formas, quas t8>120) It is nevertheless situated within a specific anti-pagan polemic: Non est mirum, inquiunt (the Platonists), si etiam ludorum obscenitatibus et poetarum figmentis delectantur (the demons), quando quidem humans capiuntur adfectibus, a quibus dii longe absunt et modis omnibus alieni sunt121 Augustine makes a completely personal deduction from this by which Plato's well-known condemnation of theater and poetry regarded the demons, as responsible for the obscenities which were performed in the theater, and not the gods. One could ask at this point how it was possible for Augustine to ignore the condemnation of poetry as a whole as it had been formulated by Plato, but to fundamentally limit himself to theater. The reason is that he was mainly polemicizing against the pagan cults and customs (games and theatrical representations)122 .

accused him of magical arts when he was alive, and now when he was dead, contradictorily attributed the capacity of working miracles to him. 116 Augustine's anti-Apuleian polemic has not been the object of particular attention by scholars. Cfr. J. C. GUY, Unite et structure logique de la «Cite de Dieu» de saint Augustin, Paris 1961 (Collection des Etudes augustiniennes. Serie Antiquit~, 12), pp. 66-70 (overly concise), and cfr. H. HAGENDAHL, Augustine and the Latin Classics, Goteborg 1967 (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 20), pp. 660-678. Hagendahl's work is a deep mine, which we also went to in order to discover the precise locations in Augustine's work where he is thinking of Apuleius. It is not however a study that offers a historical and critical interpretation of the individual relationships of Augustine and the writers from his `library'. One can however read a good comprehensive study on the presence of the De deo Socratis (and thus Apuleian demonology) in Medieval times by Karfikovi: cfr. L. KAiFIKOVA, Augustins Polemikgegen Apuleius, in Apuleius, Ober den Gott des Sokrates cit. (see above, ch. 4, note 1), pp. 162-189. Pages 162-171 contain a quick examination of presence of Apuleius' philosophical works in the Medieval period. The polemic of Augustine against Apuleius is treated there (pp. 172-189), but I do not think I have to modify the conclusions I reached in 1978, which I re-propose here, cfr. MORESCHINI, Apuleio e it platonismo cit., pp. 240-254. The contribution by M.T. Horsfall Scotti (Apuleio tra magia e filosofia, in Dicti Studiosus. Scritti di filologia offerti a Scevola Mariotti dai

suoi allievi, Urbino 1990, pp. 297-320) is very diligent and informed, but not always relevant (for instance, it discusses the Asclepius at lenghth). 117 Cfr. AUGUSTINUS, De civitate Dei, VIII, 13. 178 Cfr. Socrat., 1, ed. Moreschini, p. 7,1-3: «Plato omnem naturam rerun, quod eius ad animalia praecipua pertineat, trifariam divisit, censuitque esse summos deos». 119 Cfr. AUGUSTINUs, De civitate Dei, VIII, 14, ed. E. Hoffmann, 2 vols., Praha — Wien — Leipzig 1899-1900 (CSEL, 40.1-40.2), I, p. 376,23-377,6. 120 Ibid., p. 377,14. 121 Ibid., p. 377,6-10. 122 The same observation is also found hereafter, cfr. ibid., VIII, 18, p. 378,2428: «nemo iratur eos etiam scaenicam turpitudinem in rebus divinis habere voluisse, et cum deos se putari velint, deorum criminibus oblectari potuisse, et quidquid in eorum sacris obscena sollenmitate seu turpi crudelitate vel ridetur

352

353

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

9. APULEIUS AND CHRISTIAN AUTHORS

The fact that this passage involves anti-pagan intentions also seems apparent by the way that Augustine insists on the fact that the expulsion of poets from Plato's ideal city only meant the deprivation of the demons' impure pleasures. It is only in this way that the Platonic precept would have been effective:

tion of the existence of a «media potestas» had been refused, because it would be unacceptable in ethics (according to Plato and Apuleius, «media potestas» was an attribute of the demons), it was easier and a fortiori that Augustine could reject the affirmation of the Platonists, that the demons are better than human beings, both because they have more perfect bodies and because they occupy an intermediate position (the air) between the gods and human beings. Apuleius had stated:

Plato (...) admonuit animum humanum, quamvis adhuc in his moribundis membris positum, pro splendore honestatis impura daemonum iussa contemnere eorumque immunditiam detestari. Nam si Plato haec honestissime arguit et prohibuit, profecto daemones turpissime poposcerunt atque iusserunt12. One can see a positive appreciation of Plato in these words. There is also an attempt to contrast Plato and Apuleius, all to the detriment of Apuleius. The negative signification that the Christians, unlike the pagans and above all the Platonists, gave to the demons undoubtedly highly influenced this interpretation of Platonic doctrine. It is present throughout Augustine's polemic, and is accentuated by the fact that Augustine affirms that when Apuleius wanted to speak about the demons, he only spoke of the demon of Socrates (which in a certain sense was not an evil demon), and that he preferred to title his work De deo Socratis instead of De daemone Socratis, precisely because the demon represented something impure124. Once the Platonic postula-

Summum, medium et infimum fac intellegas non modo loci disclusione verum etiam naturae dignitate 125 Augustine's response to this affirmation of Apuleius is found in chapter 15, divided into two symmetrical parts. In VIII, 16, Augustine begins a more systematic and analytical polemic against Apuleian demonology. The definition of the demons

vel horretur, eorum adfectibus convenire». In brief, Augustine speaks according to the convictions of the Christian apologists who identified the pagan demons with the Christian demons and argued them of cruelty and obscenities. 123 Ibid., p. 377,25-378,4. 124 In this observation, Augustine touches on a linguistic problem that was no longer felt in his times, but had been important earlier insofar as it had always been normal for Christian writers to translate the 8aft.z.cov of Scripture with daemon, and to give this word a well defined meaning of `evil demon'. Latin authors, however, found it difficult to translate the Greek Sa(ptuty into their own language, since they did not have a precise equivalent. One example of this (as Traina observes, cfr. A. TRAINA, Vortit barbare, Roma 1970, pp. 108-109) is Matius' translation (cfr. GNAEUS MATIus, fr. 3, ed. W. Morel, in Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum Epicorum et Lyricorum praeter Ennium et Lucilium, Berlin — New York 20114, p. 123: «dum dat vincendi praepes Victoria paimam») of a verse from the Iliad (H 291: pa v~µE9'Eic S ice Sa(flwv ktfu Slaxpfv4, Sip 8'iTipoIOi yE v(Kriv), in which the difficulty in translating Safpwv can be seen in the fact that the word Sa(fiuv is omitted in the Latin, and v(IC 1 is personified like a Hellenistic divinity. Apuleius himself, although habitually using daemon in the De deo Socratis (and has no

difficulty using it in the De Platone et eius dogmate and in the De magia, even if he uses less frequently), nevertheless feels the need to Latinize the word by proposing the term genius (cfr. Socrat., 15, 150-151: «eum nostra lingua, ut ego interpretor, haud sciam an bono, certe quidem meo periculo poteris Genium vocare»; Plat., 1, 12, 206: «daemonas veto, quos Genios et Lares possumus nuncupare»). The fact that the title of the work is De deo Sonatis and not De daemone Socratis may be due to the author attempting to avoid a Grecism in the title, instead of the moralizing reason that Augustine imagine. Beaujeu's explanation, by which the Latin deus includes the meaning of daemon, is also plausible, cfr. BEAUJEU, Commentaire cit., pp. 202-203. The translation of Salton by genius was preserved in pagan circles: in Porphyrion (cfr. PomPONIUS PORPHYRION, Commentum in Horatium: Epistulae, II, 2, 187, ed. A. Holder, in POMPONI PORFYRIONIS Commentum in Horatium Flaccum, Leipzig 1894, [pp. 317-409], p. 341,3-6 — more precisely, correcting the oversight of the TLL, from which I have taken the indications: «propter hoc putant homines eiZa(pova5 et xaxo&a(fwva4 dici, quia daimon genius intellegitur», that is Apuleius' explanation in De deo Socratis 15, 150-151), in Finnicus Matemus (cfr. FIRMIcus MATERNUS, Matheseos libri, II, 19, 12, edd. Kroll — Skutsch cit., I, p. 64: «appellatur autem hic locus a nobis bonus daemon vel bonus genius, a Graecis agath~s daimon»); in a fairly classicizing Christian writer as Lactantius (cfr. LACTANTIUS, Divinae institutiones, II, 14, 12: «sibi geniorum nomen adsumunt; sic enim latino sermone daemonas interpretantur»). On the other hand, Christian writers (and the Latin translation of the Hermetic Asclepius 37) found no difficulty in Latinizing Sa(Euov with daemon. One must however note that Calcidius' use of Sctir.twv did not yet rigorously distinguish between angels (i.e. a good demon; cfr. CALCIDIUS, Timaeus cit., 132: «creator omnium et conservator deus volens esse hominum genus perfecit his, per quos recte regerentur, angelos sive daemonas») and demons (i.e. evil demon, cfr. ibid., 135: «daemones proprie vocant desertores angelos»). 125 Socrat., 1, 115.

354

355

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

9. APULEIUS AND CHRISTIAN AUTHORS

as animate beings subject to the passions, rational like human beings are, and eternal like the gods — while their nature would be specific to them alone — is untenable. Augustine argues that the gods too should be considered animate like human beings and demons are126 . In this case, such a nature also belongs to the beasts, and rationality is further common to both gods and human beings. Consequently, the demons are not superior to human beings at all. The fact that they are eternal would only be shared with the gods, the fact that they are «animo passiva» is only common with human beings, and their prerogative consists in inhabiting the air127. None of these characteristics places the nature of the demons above human nature. Even their only point of superiority, being eternal, is not an absolute advantage, because eternity can also be harmful if it lacks beatitude. Apuleius should have attributed virtue, wisdom, and happiness to the demons if he wanted to make them truly superior to human beings: this affirmation has a philosophical character that was completely foreign to Apuleian and Platonic demonology, which had a popular origin. The Christian inspiration of Augustine's polemic then becomes even more open (chapter 17): the perturbations of the soul that the demons are subject to (Apuleius had called them animo passiva) makes them exactly like human beings. Their cult is therefore absurd, because the demons are tainted by passions. There is a stronger ethical requirement visible here as well: religious worship can only be addressed to a superior being128. Nevertheless, such a requirement could not have

been part of popular pagan demonology, even when systematized and rationalized by the Platonic school. Therefore, according to Augustine, the honors conferred to demons are absolutely unjustified. The same argument is found in VIII, 18: in order to obtain what he wishes from the gods without practicing magic, even an honest human being (who could not practice it because honest), must nevertheless turn to the demons — who practice it, because the demons would be intermediaries between the gods and human beings. The condemnation ofmagic can also be traced to the earliest times of Christianity. Augustine accentuates how it had been the object of imperial decrees then in force, and condemned by important poets, such as Virgil129 . The most famous case of magic, at least in Africa, was that of Apuleius: he had not been accused of magic in a Christian court, and this means that the pagans too condemned magic. Augustine thus has an occasion to turn to the Apologia, where Apuleius tried to defend himself from this accusation by distinguishing between magic and theurgy. Augustine read Apuleius' declarations of innocence in the Apologia, but at the same time knew his reputation as a magician. This contradiction led to an unfavorable judgment on Apuleius himself, who is accused of cowardice for not having defended magic, if, as the De deo Socratis attests, he truly believed that magic was useful, legitimate, and demanded by the gods. To Apuleius' cowardice, Augustine opposes the strength of soul of the Christian martyrs, who did not hesitate to die rather than deny their faith (see above, p. 349). The hypothesis of the existence of the demons, required because of the absolute transcendence of God and the subsequent necessity of a mediation between him and human beings — as Apuleius himself had said, following Plato — is rejected by Augustine with no less vigor13o For the Christian, the divine transcendence did not exclude the incarnation of the Son of God, who did not need intermediaries. The uselessness of an intermediary is affirmed again

126 «Animalia quippe esse dicit et deos, suaque cuique elementa distribuens in terrestribus animalibus nos posuit cum ceteris quae in terra vivunt et sentiunt, in aquatilibus pisces et alia natatilia, in aeriis daemones, in aetheriis deos» (AUGUSTINUs, De civitate Dei, VIII, 16, ed. Hoffmann, I, p. 381,16-19). It seems to me that Apuleius in fact makes this fourfold division in ch. 8, and assigns the gods an abode in the ether, but he does not state that the gods are animalia: Augustine abusively says this on the basis that the beings which inhabit the four elements are animalia. This fourfold division is oddly misunderstood when it returns at the beginning of VIII, 17: «Si omnia quattuor elementa suis animalibus plena sunt, immortalibus ignis et aer, mortalibus aqua et terra» (ibid., p. 382,2324). Animal includes the gods here again. 127 Cfr. ibid., p. 381,22-24. 128 The conclusion of the argument is: «Quae igitur causa est, nisi stultitia

morgue mirabilis, ut ei te facias venerando humilem, cui te cupias vivendo dissimilem, et religion colas quem imitari nolis, cum religions summa sit imitari quem colis?» (ibid., p. 384,7-10). 129 Cfr. ibid., VIII, 19; see also Virgil's Aeneis IV, 492-493, and Eclogae, 8, 98. 13° Cfr. Socrat., 4-5; AUGUSTINUS, De civitate Dei, VIII, 20.

356

357

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

9. APULEIUS AND CHRISTIAN AUTHORS

in IX, 16 at the end of the discussion, after the demonstration of the inadequacy of Apuleian demonology. A Christian cannot accept the Platonic affirmation that Apuleius repeats: «nullus deus miscetur hominibus»131 . Neither can he accept that God would be contaminated by contact with the demons, if the demons are intermediaries between God and humans. The Platonic doctrine entails other contradictions and absurdities: the inefficacy of divine providence if there were need of mediation by other beings, and the uselessness of mediation by demons, because the gods, as purely rational creatures and because of their being, can know the human sou1132. In conclusion Augustine repeats the refutation of Apuleian demonology133, whose alternative, true Christian demonology — according to which the demons are completely evil — is presented to the reader. The cult and honor that the demons have managed to procure for themselves derive from the fact that human beings, although perceiving them to be evil, did not dare to refuse a certain veneration to them out of fear of their anger and revenge. The polemic begins again in IX, 1, after the refutation of the hermetic Asclepius134. Augustine introduces a new point while discussing the problem of the difference between the demons, since the Platonists affirmed that some demons are good, and some evil. Apuleius said that the demons are in fact subject to the passions like human beings are 135 , and this problem invites Augustine to an excursus on the «perturbationes» or 'irci8ri 136, and the different opinions of the philosophers (Platonists, Aristotelians and Stoics). The excursus appears superfluous on first regard, but has a role because it allows Augustine to specify the limits and value of the passions of animate beings before returning to the discussion of the passions of the demons. This problem is difficult, since it implicates

that of the wrath of God as well, as Augustine notices137, but immediately places aside 135. In conclusion, Augustine accepts the `moderation of the affections' that the Peripatetics maintained, probably basing himself on Cicero's Tusculanae, as the use of the term perturbatio seems to indicate139 For Augustine, the moderation of the affections is valid primarily because it appears to be consistent with Scripture — but if the demons are dominated by the passions, as Apuleius himself asserts, they have no metriopatheia140. The distinction between good and evil demons is therefore not possible: being subject to the passions comes from their very nature141. This criticism once again shows the failure of the Platonists' attempt to systematize rationally on the philosophical level a doctrine with popular origins. This failure could be exposed by those, such as the Christians, who conceived of God and his worship in a completely different way than the Platonists did. Augustine shows that the Apuleian and Platonic definition of the demons does not contain any element that manifests a moral superiority, that is, the only true superiority, of the demons over human beings142. Even if the polemic is hard, it remains fairly respectful of Apuleius. It appears as if Augustine wishes to communicate that Apuleius, if he had been properly understood, would have explained the true difference between the gods and demons:

Socrat., 4, 128 (as Symp. 203a). Cfr. Aucusruvus, De civitate Dei, VIII, 21. 133 Cfr. ibid., VIII, 22. 134 Cfr. ibid., VIII, 23-27. '35 Cfr. Socrat., 12-23. 136 Cfr. AUGUSTINUS, De civitate Dei, IX, 3-4, as above in VIII, 17. t31

132

Significavit tamen prudentibus quid de illis sentire deberent, quando quidem deos, quos omnes bonos beatosque credi voluit, ab eorum passionibus atque, ut ait ipse, turbelis omni modo separavit, sola illos corporum aeternitate coniungens, ammo autem, non dis, sed hominibus similes daemones apertissime inculcans143 137 Cfr. ibid., IX, 5. 138 The angels (i.e. the good demons, or better, the gods of the Platonists according to the identification mentioned above) are free of the passions. 139 Testard also observes this, cfr. M. TIISTARD, Saint Augustin et Ciceron, 2 vols., Paris 1958 (Collection des Etudes augustiniennes. S~rie Antiquit~~5-6), II, p. 56. 14° Cfr. AUGUSTINUS, De civitate Dei, IX, 6. 141 Cfr. ibid., IX, 7, ed. Hoffmann, I, p. 417,19-21: «Non quorundam, id est malorum, sed omnium daemonum (...) medietatem describebat». 142 Cfr. ibid., IX, 7-8. 143 Ibid., IX, 8, ed. Hofnann, I, p. 420,11-16.

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

A new argument begins that seeks to refute the demons' mediating function144 and appears to be the conclusion that Augustine aims for; however, the arguments are somewhat disordered and sometimes do not even reach a conclusion. The next chapter is not that significant either. With the help of an affirmation from Plotinus145, Augustine repeats what he had already said 146, that a living being that has an eternal body but an evil soul is not destined to an eternal beatitude, but an eternal unhappiness, so that the demons are less happy than human beings. Plotinus also asserts that the Father (i.e. the transcendent One), seeing the misery of humans in the world, gave them a mortal body, in order they could get free from it. When treating the Apuleian distinction of human souls into Lares (good souls), Lemures or Larvae (evil souls) and Manes (souls that are neither good nor bad)147, Augustine observes that Apuleius, by these distinctions, promises honors and recognition also to evil souls. The nature of intermediaries, which would be proper to the demons, is examined in detail with an abundance of dialectical subtleties that are not necessary to repeat here148 . In fact, the three properties specific to the gods, according to Apuleius, are «locus sublimis, aeternitas, beatitudo», while the three characteristics of human beings are «locus infimus, mortalitas, miseria» 149. It is possible to think of an intermediary locus (that is, the air), because sensible evidence shows it to us — but it should also be possible, according to logic, or better, according to the nature of the demons, to find an intermediation for the two other antithetical pairs as well («aeternitas/mortalitas; beatitudo/miseria»). It is therefore necessary for the demons to have the positive term of one pair and the negative one of the other if they are to preserve their Cfr. ibid., IX, 9. Cfr. PLOTINUS, Enneades, IV, 3, 12, edd. Henry — Schwyzer, II, p. 29,8-10. The quote is: «Pater misericors mortalia illis (of human souls) vincla faciebat» (AucusTINus, De civitate Dei, IX, 10, ed. Hoffmann, I, p. 422,19). 146 Cfr. ibid., IX, 10; VIII, 16. 147 Cfr. ibid., IX, 11. Augustine's definition does not precisely represent Apuleius' thought. Apuleius had distinguished between the Lar (good souls) and Larva (evil souls) of the Lemures (the souls of the dead). 146 Cfr. ibid., IX, 12-13. 149 Ibid., IX, 12, ed. Hoffmann, I, p. 425,2.

9. APULEIUS AND CHRISTIAN AUTHORS

intermediate nature. Since the demons are eternal, they must be miserable in order to preserve their intermediate position, so that they possess a miserable eternity150 . Augustine observes that the characteristics which link the demons to human beings, that is, being «genere animalia, mente rationalia, ammo passiva», are more prevalent than those they have in common with the gods (being «tempore aeterna»): Quomodo ergo medii, quando unum habent cum summic, tria cum infimis? quis non videat relicta medietate quantum inclinentur et deprimantur ad infima 151? Or if we consider the fact that all these beings are «genere animalia et mente rationalia», to be a characteristic common to the gods, the demons, and human beings, it follows that the demons are «animo passiva» like human beings and «tempore aeterna» like the gods. In this case, the demons would possess a «misera aeternitas».This is also confirmed by the conclusion: «numquam esset istorum aeterna miseria, nisi esset magna malitia»152 . Once he has rejected happiness for the evil demons153 , who as demons occupy an intermediate position, Augustine inquires about the position of the good demons, who, as good and eternal beings, must be happy. Thus good demons no longer possess an intermediary position, but one that is equal to that of the gods: they are therefore not subject to passions as humans are. Augustine's conclusion underlines Apuleius' illogicality: Ita ergo cum quaerimus medium inter beatos immortales miserosque mortales, hoc invenire debemus, quod aut mortale sit beatum, aut immortale sit miserum'S4

144 145

360

150 Cfr. ibid., IX, 13, p. 425,9-426,5. 15' Ibid., IX, 13, p. 426,15-17. 152 Ibid., p. 427,1-2. 153 Augustine affirms this on the basis of the Apuleian identification of eacifz.wv with «he who has a good Safµwv», as mentioned above (p. 331). Augustine even observes: «si igitur beati recte dicuntur eudaemones, non stint eudaemones daemones, quos inter homines et deos isti (the platonists) in medio locaverunt» (ibid., p. 427,3-5). 154 Ibid., IX, 13, p. 427,24-27.

361

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

9. APULEIUS AND CHRISTIAN AUTHORS

Likewise, the proposal, in IX, 14, of placing the happy human being as a more worthy mediator between human beings and the gods is irrelevant. This argument is so fallacious that not even Augustine insists on it, because it is predicated on an invented situation (blessed human beings on earth). It is simply an attempt to introduce next chapter on Christ the mediator. Nevertheless, the argument is part ofAugustine's systematic polemic to exclude the theory of the demons, since they would not be necessary in this case, having no more mediating power than a blessed sage 15s In this long discussion, it becomes apparent that Augustine accepts at least the fundamental definition of Apuleian demonology, by which the demons are intermediate beings («possunt autem medii esse angeli mall, quia immortales sunt cum ills [i.e. the good angels] miseri cum istis [i.e. human beings]»156), although restricting it in a Christian sense (that is, in the sense that the demons are evil). But this is not an advantage. The good demons (i.e. the angels) cannot be intermediaries either, because they, like the gods, are happy and immortal's' Karfikov~~provides a general interpretation of Augustine's polemic, which contains good arguments to add to those that emerged in our discussion here158. Augustine (she observes) wishes to show the intrinsic contradiction of Platonic demonology, which in his opinion contrasts with the doctrine of Plato itself, because Apuleius (or better, the Platonists) wish to take the official religion and its cult of demons into account. Augustine not only desires to distinguish Christian faith from the philosophy of Plato, but also to show that it is a legitimate development of the Platonic heritage, which preserves Plato's metaphysical and moral message much better than the demon worshipers do.

Even in the question of God's eventual union with human beings, in which Augustine explicitly polemicizes with Plato, he actually mainly refers to the texts of Plotinus. Augustine therefore wishes to contrast the metaphysical, moral, and spiritual message of Plato and Plotinus to the adoration of the demons, and to show that Christian theology is the legitimate continuation of Platonic thought — specifically in the question where Platonism seems to be effectively lacking and to leave the door open to demon worshipers, that is, in soteriology. Augustine's polemic against Apuleius thus appears to be a struggle for Platonic heritage and its legitimate continuation.

155 These affirmations are partially based on observations by Dr. Seth Cherney. 1% Ibid., IX, 15, p. 429,9. 157 As can be seen from what was said above, and as observed by Hagendahl, Augustine's polemic only regards the first part of the De deo Socratis, which deals with Platonic demonology (chs. 1-15). The second part, which is dedicated to the demon of Socrates and contains a strong exhortation to seek wisdom and philosophy, does not interest Augustine. Cfr. HAGENDAHL, Augustine and the Latin Classics cit., p. 682. 158 Cfr. KARFIKOVA, Augustins Polemikgegen Apuleius cit., pp. 188-189.

362

363

CONCLUSION

At the end of our research, we would like to respond to this question: what kind of Platonism is the one of Apuleius? How is it situated in the Platonic currents of his times? How does it relate to the literary and religious requirements, which were as strong in Apuleius as his philosophical interests? For some scholars, Platonism had to correspond with Apuleius' specific requirements, and it is precisely for this reason that his Platonism does not seem highly `philosophical'. But this distinction is meaningless. Are religious requirements not 'philosophical'? Is the presence of literary and rhetorical interests in contrast with philosophy? Plutarch too was a philosopher, sensitive to religion (he was a Delphic priest), and a great and renowned author — he was similar to Apuleius in this regard. Interested in the religion of his times, initiated into the mystery cults, the most famous of which were those of Isis and Osiris, a renowned writer and orator — Apuleius was closer to Plutarch than to the other Middle Platonists who taught in the schools. Therefore his Platonism must not be considered separately from the culture and literature of his times, in which he had varied and numerous interests. The hypothesis that unites Apuleius' culture in sophistics alone is however not convincing. The studies that took this approach inevitably finish by either rejecting or minimizing his philosophical interests, or by re-proposing a dualism between literature and philosophy, which is unjustified in theory and by the facts. In conclusion, since Apuleius studied Platonism both as a philosophus Platonicus and as an orator and literary author,

365

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

CONCLUSION

he presented his doctrine on two levels, according to the various literary genres that he was using — rather, he proposed two levels of reading in the Metamorphoses, since the novel was quite difficult to adapt to philosophy. One can see this mixture of philosophy and literature in all his works, which we have effectively considered in their totality (the De philosophia libri together with the literary works). If the considerations we made on chronology are valid, the Apologia must be considered the oldest of Apuleius' works to have reached us. Apuleius thus already considered himself a Platonic philosopher in the Apologia, that is, even before having written specifically philosophical works, before having written treatises, such as the De Platone et eius dogmate, and before translating a philosophical work, as the De mundo. He thought that he was authorized to consider himself as such because of his knowledge, which he demonstrated in tribunal before a philosopher like Claudius Maximus. His fellow citizens, who would later erect a statue to him as a Platonic philosopher, also considered him as such. He could assert his particular Platonic convictions, because the Apologia, which was a juridical speech, permitted him to speak of himself At the end of his life, Apuleius wrote a manual, the De Platone et eius dogmate, and a translation, the De mundo. The late date of these two works is defended on the basis of certain linguistic and metric particularities that appeared at the end of the second century. The De mundo possess Apuleius' typical linguistic and literary ornamentation, because it is an `artistic translation', a typically Latin translation similar to Cicero's Aratea. If we want to understand Apuleius' Platonism, we cannot however content ourselves with observing the existence of the `Scheinprosodie' and cursus mixtus in his late works. We must infer from this stylistic problem a philosophical issue, and ask what Apuleius' motive at the end of his life was for writing two works that are different than all the other ones he had written until then. He probably had not abandoned the interests of his youth, but desired to deepen his knowledge of Platonic philosophy by attempting new literary genres that he had not used at that point: those of the philosophical manual and translation. There are also doctrines that confirm the late date of the De Pla-

tone. One of these could be that of the summus et exsuperantissimus god, which is a formula that comes from the period of Cornmodus — that is, at the end of the life of Apuleius, when he wrote the De Platone and the De mundo — and is found in these works, but not in the Apologia, despite the fact that at least one context, that of the `king' in ch. 64, offered him a fitting occasion to use it. We can perhaps trace a sort of `evolution' and `history of thought' for Apuleius that goes from the Apologia to the De Platone et eius dogmate and the De mundo. He declared himself, and not without motives, to be a `Platonic philosopher' in his youth, after he had frequented the philosophical schools in Athens, and at the end of his life he attempted to place into writing the Platonism he had learned earlier. Apuleius therefore remained interested in Platonism until his last years, and, thanks to the fact that we have works of his that were written in different periods of his life, we can reconstruct the various moments of his literary career as a Platonic philosopher.

366

367

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Primary Sources AELIUS ARISTIDES, PUBLIUS, Orationes, I-XVI, edd. F. W. Lenz — C. A. Behr, in AELII ARISTIDIs Opera, I, Orationes I-XVI, Leiden 19761980; Orationes, XVII-LIII, ed. B. Keil, in AELII ARISTIDIS Smyrnaei quae supersunt omnia, II, Berlin 1898 (repr. 1958); Eng. tr. by C. A. Behr, in The Complete Works, 2 vols., Leiden 1981-1986. ALBINUS, Isagoge, ed. C. F. Hermann, in Platonis Dialogi, VI, Leipzig 1873, pp. 147-151. — Testimonia, in A. GIo~, Filosofi medioplatonici del II secolo d.C. Testimonianze e frammenti: Gaio, Albino, Lucio, Nicostrato, Tauro, Severo, Arpocrazione, Napoli 2002 (Elenchos, 36). ALCINOUS, Didaskalik~s, ed. J. Whittaker and Fr. tr. by P. Louis, in ALCINOOs: Enseignement des Doctrines de Platon, Paris 1990 (repr. 2002, CUF S~rie grecque, 336). ALEXANDER APHRODISIENSIS, De anima; De fato, ed. I. Bruns, in ARISTOTELES, Supplementum Aristotelicum, II, Alexandri Aphrodisiensis praeter commentaria scripta minora, 2 vols., Berlin 1892. ANONYMI commentarius in Platonis Theaetetum, edd. G. Bastianini — D. N. Sedley, in Corpus dei Papiri filosofici Greci e Latini, Firenze 1995, pp. 227-562; edd. H. Diels — W. Schubart, in Anonymer Kommentar zu Platons Theaetet (Papyrus 9782), Berlin 1905. ANONYMI prolegomena philosophiae Platonicae, ed. and Eng. tr. by L. G. Westerink, in Anonymous Prolegomena to Platonic Philosophy, Amsterdam 1962; edd. L. G. Westerink — A. Ph. Segonds and Fr. tr. by J. Trouillard, in Prol~gom~nes a la philosophic de Platon, Paris 1990 (CUF S~rie grecque, 335). Anthologia Palatina, in Epigrammatum Anthologia Palatina cum Planudeis et appendice nova, 3 vols., edd. F. Diibner et Al., Paris 1864-1890 (Bibliotheca scriptorum graecorum).

369

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APULEIUS, Lucius MADAURENSIS, De deo Socratis, ed. C. Moreschini, in ID., De philosophia libri, Leipzig 1991 (Bibliotheca Teubneriana, 1058), pp. 7-38; ed. M. Bakes, in APULEIUS, De deo Socratis. Ober den Gott des Sokrates, edd. H.-G. Nesselrath et Al., Darmstadt 2004 (SAPERE, 7), pp. 46-91; ed. J. Beaujeu, in APUL~E, Opuscules philosophiques. Fragments, Paris 1973 (CUF S~rie latine, 211); ed. P. Thomas, in APULEI MADAURENSIS Opera quae supersunt, III, De philosophia libri, Leipzig 1908 (repr. Stuttgart 1970). — De mundo, ed. Moreschini, in De philosophia libri cit., pp. 146-188; ed. Beaujeu, in Opuscules philosophiques cit. — De Platone et eius dogmate, ed. Moreschini, in De philosophia libri cit., pp. 87-145; ed. Beaujeu, in Opuscules philosophiques; ed. Thomas, in De philosophia libri cit.; ed. J. Fleury, in Apuleii Opera, 2 vols., Parisii 1688, II, pp. 565-663. — Florida, ed. R. Helm, Leipzig 19592 (Bibl. Teubn., 1057; first ed. 1910). — Metamorphoseon libri XI, ed. M. Zimmerman, Oxford 2012 (Oxford Classical Texts). — Pro se de magia liber (Apologia), ed. R. Helm, Leipzig 1959 (Bibl. Teubn., 1056); ed. V. Hunink, 2 vols., Amsterdam 1997. PSEUDO-APULEIUS, De interpretatione, ed. C. Moreschini, in De Philosophia libri cit., pp. 189-215; ed. P. Colvius, in APULEII Opera omnia quae exstant, Lugduni Batavorum 1588; ed. J. Wouver, in APULEII Opera, Basileae 1606. ARISTOTELES, De caelo, Eng. tr. by W. K. C. Guthrie (On the Heavens), London 1939 (Loeb Classical Library, 338). ARNOBIUS AFER, Adversus Nationes, PL 5, 713-1288C. ed. C. Marchesi, Torino 19532. ATHENAEUS NAucRATITEs, Dipnosophistarum libri, ed. G. Kaibel, 3 vols., Leipzig 1923-27 (repr. 1985-1992, Bibl. Teubn., 1101-1103). ATTicus, Fragmenta, ed. E. des Places, in ID., Fragments, Paris 1977 (CUF S~rie grecque, 249). AuLus GELLIUS, Noctes Atticae, ed. P. K. Marshall, Oxford 1968 (Oxford Classical Texts). AUGUSTINUS, AURELIUS, De civitate Dei, PL 41, 13-805, edd. B. Dombart — A. Kalb, in De civitate Dei libri XXII, 2 vols., Stuttgart 1981 (repr. 1993, Bibl. Teubn., 1104-1105); ed. E. Hoffmann, 2 vols., Praha — Wien — Leipzig 1899-1900 (CSEL, 40.1-2). — Epistulae, PL 33, 61-1094, ed. K. D. Daur, 3 vols., Turnhout 20042009 (CCSL, 31, 31A and 31B); Eng. tr. by J. C. Cunningham,

in The Works of Aurelius Augustine: a new translation, XII-XIII, The letters of Saint Augustine, Edinburgh 1875. AURELIUS VICTOR, SEXTUS, Liber de Caesaribus, ed. F. Pichlmayr, Leipzig 1911 (repr. 1993, Bibl. Teubn., 1108). BOETHIUS, ANICIUS MANLIUS SEVERINUS, Consolatio Philosophiae, PL 63, 580-869, ed. C. Moreschini, in ID., De consolatione philosophiae. Opuscula theologica, Munchen — Leipzig 20052 (Bibl. Teubn., 1278), pp. 3-162. — In Isagogen Porphyrii commenta, PL 64, 71-158D, edd. G. Schepss — S. Brand, Wien 1906 (CSEL, 48). CAECILIUS CALACTINUS, Fragmenta, ed. E. Ofenloch, in CAECILII CALACTINI fragmenta, Leipzig 1907. CALCIDIUS, Timaeus a Calcidio translatus commentarioque instructus, edd. P. J. Jensen — J. H. Waszink, in Plato Latinus, IV, London — Leiden 19752. CASSIODORUS SENATOR, FLAVIUS MAGNUS AURELIUS, Institutiones libri duo, PL 70, 1105-1220, ed. R. A. B. Mynors, Oxford 1937 (Oxford Classical Texts). CELSUS, Fragmenta, ed. R. Bader, in Der Al~th~s logos des Kelsos, Stuttgart — Berlin 1940 (Tubinger Beitr~ge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 33). CICERO, MARCUS TULLIUS, Academici libri, ed. O. Plasberg, in ID., Academicorum reliquiae cum Lucullo, Leipzig 1922 (repr. 2013, Bibl. Teubn., 1218), pp. 1-25. — De divinatione; De fato, edd. O. Plasberg — W. Ax, in ID., De divination. De fato. Timaeus, Leipzig 1938 (repr. 1987, Bibl. Teubn., 1222), pp. 1-129; pp. 130-153. De finibus bonorum et malorum, ed. C. Moreschini, Leipzig 2005 (Bibl. Teubn., 1280). — De legibus, ed. K. Ziegler, Heidelberg 1950 (Heidelberger Texte, Lat. Reihe, 20). — De natura deorum, ed. A. S. Pease, 2 vols., Cambridge (MA) 19551958 (repr. Darmstadt 1968). — De officiis, ed. C. Atzert, Leipzig 19634. — De re publica, ed. K. Ziegler, Leipzig 1969' (Bibl. Teubn., 1215); ed. J. G. F. Powell, in M. TULLI CICERONIs De re publica, De legibus, Cato Maior De senectute, Laelius De amicitia, Oxford 2006. — Lucullus, ed. Plasberg, Academicorum reliquiae cit., pp. 26-102. - Tusculanae disputationes, ed. M. Pohlenz, Leipzig 19822 (Bibl. Teubn., 1220).

370

371

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CLAUDIUS AELIANUS, De natura animalium, edd. M. Garcia Valdes et Al., Berlin 2009 (Bibl. Teubn., 2006).

EuTROPIus, FLAVIUS, Breviarium Historiae Romanae, ed. C. Santini, in ID., Breviarium ab urbe condita, Leipzig 1979 (repr. 2009, Bibl. Teubn., 1346).

FAVORINUS ARELATENSIS, Opera, ed. E. Amato, in FAVORINOS D'ARLES, Ouvres, I, Introduction gen~rale etc. and III, Fragments, Paris 20052010 (CUF Serie grecque, 445, 473); ed. A. Barigazzi, in FAVORINO DI ARELATE, Opere, Firenze 1966. FIRmicus MATERNUS, Iu ms, Matheseos libri, edd. W. Kroll— F. Skutsch, 2 vols., Stuttgart 19682 (Bibl. Teubn.). FRONTO, MARCUS CORNELIUS, Epistulae, ed. M. P. J. van den Hout, Leipzig 1998 (Bibl. Teubn., 1227); Eng. tr. by C. R. Haines, in The Correspondence of Marcus Cornelius Fronto, 2 vols., Cambridge (MA) — London 1919-1920 (Loeb Classical Library, 112113). FULGENTIUS, FABIUS PLANCIADES, Expositio Sermonum Antiquorum, ed. L. Lersch, in De abstrusis sermonibus, Bonn 1844. — Mitologiarum libri III, ed. R. Helm, in FABII PLANCIADIS FULGENTH V. C. Opera, Stuttgart 1970 (Bibl. Teubn., first ed. Leipzig 1898), pp. 1-80. GAIUS, Testimonia, in GIoh, Filosofi medioplatonici cit., pp. 45-76. GALENUs, CLAUDIUS PERGAMENUS, Compendium Timaei, edd. P. Kraus — R. Walzer, in Plato Arabus, I, Galeni Compendium Timaei Platonis, London 1951. — De libris propriis, ed. I. von Muller, in Claudii Galeni Pergameni Scripta Minora, II, Leipzig 1891, pp. 91-124. GREGORIUS NAZIANZENUS, Ad Nemesium (Carmina, II, 2, 7), PG 37, 1551D-1578B. GREGORIUS NYSSENUS, Ad Graecos, PG 45, 176-185, ed. F. Muller, in GREGORII NYSSENI Opera, III, Opera dogmatica minora, 1, Leiden 1985 (GNO, III.1). HERMIAS ALEXANDRINUS, In Platonis Phaedrum Scholia, edd. C. M. Lucarini — C. Moreschini, Berlin 2012 (Bibl. Teubn.). HESIODUS, Opera et Dies, ed. F. Solmsen, in HESIODI Theogonia, Opera et Dies, Scutum, Fragmenta Selecta, Oxford 19903 (Oxford Classical Texts). HIERONYMUS, SOFRONIUS EUSEBIUS, Chronicon, PL 27, 11-652, ed. R. Helm, in EUSEBIUS, Werke, VII, Die Chronik des Hieronymus, Berlin 19562 (GCS, 47). — De nominibus Hebraicis, PL 23, 771-858, ed. P. de Lagarde, in ID., Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum, Turnhout 1959 (CCSL, 72), pp. 57-161. — Epistulae, PL 22, 325-1224, ed. I. Hilberg, 2 vols., Wien 19101918 (repr. 1996 in Editio altera supplementis aucta, CSEL, 54-55). HIPPOLYTUS ROMANUS, Elenchos, ed. P. Wendland, in HYPPOLYTUS, Werke, III, Refutatio omnium haeresium, Leipzig 1916 (GCS, 26).

372

373

— Varia historia, ed. M. R. Dilts, Leipzig 1974 (Bibl. Teubn.).

CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, TITUS FLAVIUS, Protrepticus, PG 8, 49-246, ed. M. Marcovich, Leiden — New York — ln 1995 (Suppl. VC, 34). Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae, 2 vols.,

ed. M. J. Vermaseren, Den Haag 1956-1960 (CIMRM). Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum, ed. A. B~ckh, Berlin 1828-1877 (CIG).

CYPRIANUS, THASCIUS CAECILIUS, Epistulae, PL 4, 191-438, ed. G. F. Diercks, in ID., Epistularium, I, Turnhout 1994 (CCSL, 3B). PSEUDO-DIDYMUS, De Trinitate, PG 39, 270-992; Liber I, ed. J. Honscheid, in DIDYMUS DER BLINDE, De Trinitate, Buch 1, Liber II; ed. I. Seiler, in DIDYMUS DER BLINDE, De Trinitate in Buch 2, Kapitel 1-7, Meisenheim am Glan 1975 (Beitrage zur klassischen Philologie, 44, 52). DIOGENES LAERTIUS, Vitae Philosophorum, edd. M. Marcovich — H. Gartner, Leipzig 1999 (Bibl. Teubn., 1316); partial ed. H. Breitenbach et Al., in Diogenis Laertii Vita Platonis, Basel 1907; ed. H. S. Long, 2 vols., Oxford 1964. ENNIUS, QUINTUS, Annales, ed. O. Skutsch, in The Annals of Q. Ennius, Oxford 1985. — Scaenica, ed. J. Vahlen, in Ennianae poesis reliquiae, Leipzig 19032.

EPICTETUS, Dissertationes ab Arriano digestae, ed. H. Schenkl, Leipzig 1916. EPIPHANIUS CONSTANTIENSIS, Panarion haereticorum, PG 41, 173-1199, PG 42, 9-888, ed. K. Holl, 3 vols., I, rev. J. Dummer — C. Collatz — M. Bergermann, in Ancoratus and Panarion haer. 1-33, Berlin 2013 (forthcoming, GCS n.f., 10), II-III, rev. J. Dummer, Berlin 1980-1985 (GCS, 31 and 37). EUSEBIUS CAESARIENSIS, Demonstratio Evangelica, PG 22, 9-704, ed. I. A. Heikel, in Eusebius Werke, VI, Die Demonstratio Evangelica, Leipzig 1913 (GCS, 23). -

Praeparatio Evangelica, PG 21, edd. K. Mras — E. des Places, in Eusebius Werke, VIII, 1, Die Praeparatio Evangelica, Berlin 1954-1956

(repr. 1982, GCS, 43.1-2); Eng. tr. by E. H. Gifford, in EUSEBIUS' Preparation for the Gospel, 2 vols., Oxford 1903 (repr. Eugene [OR] 2002).

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

IOANNES MALALAS, Chronographia, PG 97, 75-717, ed. J. Thurn, Berlin 2000 (Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae, 35). IOANNES PHILOPONUS, De aeternitate mundi contra Protium, ed. H. Rabe, Leipzig 1899. IusTINus MARTYR, Apologiae, PG 6, 327-470, edd. D. Minnis P. Parvis, in Justin, Philosopher and Martyr: Apologies, Oxford 2009 (Oxford early Christian texts). Dialogus cum Tryphone, PG 6, 471-800, ed. M. Marcovich, Berlin New York 1997 (Patristische Texte and Studien, 47); Eng tr. by G. Reith, in ID., The Ante-Nicene Christian Library, II, Justin Martyr and Athenagoras, edd. A. Roberts et AL, Edinburgh 1867, pp. 85-268. PSEUDO-IUSTINUS, Cohortatio ad Graecos, PG 6, 241-312, edd. B. Pouderon et Al., in PSEUDO JUSTIN, Ouvrages apolog~tiques: Exhortation aux Grecs (Marcel d'Ancyre?); Discours aux Grecs; Sur la monarchie, Paris 2009 (Sources Chr~tiennes, 528). IUVENALIS, DECIMUS IuNIUs, Saturae, ed. J. Willis, Stuttgart - Leipzig 1997 (Blibl. Teubn., 1471). LACTANTIUS, LUCIUS CAECILIUS FIRMIANUS, Divine institutiones, PL 6, 111-822A, edd. E. Heck - A. Wlosok, in ID., Divinarum Institutionum Libri septem, 4 vols., Munchen - Leipzig - Berlin 2005-2011 (Bibl. Teubn., 1265; 1472 etc.). PSEUDO-LONGINUS, Libellus de Sublimitate, ed. D. A. Russell, in `LONGINUs', On the Sublime, Oxford 1964. LUCANUS, MARCUS ANNEUS, De bello civili, ed. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, Leipzig - Stuttgart 19972 (Bibl. Teubn., 1502). LUCRETIUS, TITUS CARUS, De rerum natura, ed. K. Muller, Zurich 1975 (second ed. 2003). MACROBIUS, AMBROSIUS THEODOSIUS, Commentarii in somnium Scipionis, ed. J. Willis, in ID., Opera, II, Leipzig 1970 (repr. 1994, Bibl. Teubn., 1526). MARCUS AURELIUS, Ad se ipsum, ed. J. Dalfen, Leipzig 1987 (Bibl. Teubn., 1046). MATIUS, GNAEUS, Fragmenta, ed. W. Morel, in Fragmenta Poetarum Latinorum Epicorum et Lyricorum praeter Ennium et Lucilium, Berlin New York 20114 (Bibl. Teubn.). MAXIMUS TYRIUS, Dissertationes, ed. M. B. Trapp, Stuttgart - Leipzig 1994 (Bibl. Teubn., 1535); Eng. tr. by M. B. Trapp, in MAXIMUS OF TYRE, The Philosophical Orations, Oxfrod 1997. MINUCIUS FELIX, MARCUS, Octavius, PL 3, 239-375, ed. B. Kytzler, Leipzig 19922 (Bibl. Teubn., 1539).

Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, Together with XIII, 2*, Brit. Lib. Or. 4926(1), and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655, 2 vols., edd. B. Layton et Al., Leiden 1989 (Nag Hammadi Studies, The Coptic Gnostic Library, 20). NEMESIUS EMESENUS, De natura hominis, ed. M. Morani, Leipzig 1987 (Bibl. Teubn.). NUMENIUS APAMEENSIS, Fragmenta, ed. E. des Places, in ID., Fragments, Paris 1973 (CUF S~rie grecque, 226). OLYMPIODORUS ALEXANDRINUS, In Platonis Gorgiam Commentaria, ed. W. Norvin, Leipzig 1936; ed. L. G. Westerink, Leipzig 1970 (Bibl. Teubn.). Orphicorum Fragmenta, ed. O. Kern, Berlin 1922. Orientis Graeci inscriptions selectae, ed. W. Dittenberger, 2 vols., Leipzig 1903-1905 (OGIS). ORIGENES, Contra Celsum, PG 11, 637-1632, ed. M. Marcovich, Leiden 2001 (Suppl. VC, 54). Panegyrici Latini, ed. E. Galletier, in Pan~gyriques latins, 3 vols., Paris 1949-1955 (CUF S~rie latine, 128, 137 and 147). PHILO ALEXANDRINUS, De Abrahamo; De decalogo; De Iosepho, edd. P. Wendland - L. Cohn, in PHILONIS ALEXANDRINI Opera quae supersunt, IV, Berlin 1902. - Legum allegoriae; Degigantibus; De migratione Abrahami; De plantatione; De posteritate Caini; De praemiis et poenis; De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini; De somniis; Quod deus sit immutabilis, edd. P. Wendland - L. Cohn, in PHILONIS ALEXANDRINI Opera quae supersunt, I, II and III, Berlin 1896-1898 (rep. 1962). - De opio mundi, edd. Wendland - Cohn, in PHILONIS ALEXANDRINI Opera, I cit.; Eng. tr. by D. T. Runia, in Philo of Alexandria, On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, Leiden - Boston Cologne 2001 (Philo of Alexandria commentary series, 1). PHILOSTRATUS, FLAVIUS, Vitae Sophistarum, ed. C. L. Kayser, Eng. tr. by W. C. Wright, in PHILOSTRATUS and EUNAPIUS, The Lives of the Sophists, London - Cambridge 1921 (repr. 1968, Loeb Classical Library, 134). PLATO, Charmides, Alcibiades I and II, Hipparchus, The Lovers, Theages, Minos, Epinomis, Eng. tr. by W. R. M. Lamb, London 1927 (Loeb Classical Library, 201). - Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Phaedo, Phaedrus, Eng. tr. by H. N. Fowler, London 1914 (Loeb Classical Library, 36). PLINIUS, GAIUS SECUNDUS, Naturalis Historia, edd. L. Jan - K. Mayhoff, Leipzig 1897. PLOTINUS, Enneades, edd. P. Henry - H.-R. Schwyzer, in PLOTINI Opera, 3 vols., Oxford 1964-1983 (Oxford Classical Texts).

374

375

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PLUTARCHUS CHAERONENSIS, De animae procreatione in Timaeo, ed. and Eng. tr. by H. Cherniss, in PLUTARCH'S Moralia, XIII, 1, London 1976 (Loeb Classical Library, 427), pp. 131-345; edd. and It. tr. by F. Ferrari — L. Baldi, in PLUTARCO, La generazione dell'anima nel Timeo, Napoli 2002 (Corpus Plutarchi moralium, 37). — De communibus notitis apud Stoicos, edd. M. Casevitz — D. Babut, in ID., CEuvres morales, XV, 2, Trait~~72, Sur les notions communes, contre les Stoiciens, Paris 2002 (CUF S~rie grecque, 385). — De cohibenda ira; De curiositate; De tranquillitate animi, edd. J. Dumortier — J. Defradas, in ID., CEuvres morales, VII, 1, Trait~s 27-36, Paris 1975 (CUF S~rie grecque, 236). — De defectu oraculorum, ed. A. Rescigno, in PLUTARCO, L'edissi degli oracoli, Napoli 1995 (Corpus Plutarchi moralium, 19). — De E apud Delphos, ed. R. Flaceli~re, in ID., CEuvres morales, VI, Dialogues pythiques, Paris 1974 (CUF S~rie grecque, 232). — De genio Socratis, ed. J. Hani, in ID., Ouvres morales, VIII, Trait~s 42-45, Paris 1980 (CUF S~rie grecque, 384); ed. and Eng. tr. by D. A. Russell, in PLUTARCH, On the daimonion of Socrates, edd. H.-G. Nesselrath et Al., Tubingen 2010 (SAPERE, 16), pp. 18-100. — De Iside et Osiride, ed. C. Froidefond, in PLUTARQUE, CEuvres morales, V, 2, Trait~~23 — Isis et Osiris, Paris 1988 (CUF S~rie grecque, 317); ed. and Eng. tr. by J. Gwyn Griffiths, in PLUTARCH'S De Iside et Osiride, Cardiff 1970. — De liberis educandis, edd. A. Philippon — J. Sirinelli, in ID., CEuvres morales, I, 1, Introductiong~n~rale. Trait~s 1-2, Paris 1987 (CUF S~rie grecque, 312). — De Pythiae oraculis, ed. Flaceli~re, in Dialogues pythiques cit. - De sera numinis vindicta, edd. R. Klaerr — Y. Verni~re, in ID., CEuvres morales, VII, 2, Trait~s 37-41, Paris 20032 (CUF S~rie grecque, 231). — De Stoicorum repugnantiis, edd. M. Casevitz — D. Babut, in ID., CEuvres morales, XV, 1, Trait~~70, Sur les contradictions sto ciennes; Trait~~71, Paris 2004 (CUF S~rie grecque, 439). — De superstitione, edd. J. Defradas et Al., in ID., CEuvres morales, II, Trait~s 10-14, Paris 1985 (CUF S~rie grecque, 303). — De virtute et vitio; Quomodo quis suos in virtute sentiat profectus, edd. R. Klaerr — A. Philippon, in ID., CEuvres morales, I, 2, Trait~s 3-9, Paris 1989 (CUF S~rie grecque, 330). — De virtute morali, ed. F. Becchi, in PLUTARCO, La virtu etica, Napoli 1990 (Corpus Plutarchi moralium, 5).

— Fragmenta, ed. F. H. Sandbach, in PLUTARCHI Moralia, VII, Leipzig 1967. Non posse suaviter vivi secundum Epicurum, edd. B. Einarson — P. H. De Lacy, in PLUTARCH'S Moralia, XIV, That Epicurus Actually Makes a Pleasant Life Impossible etc., London — Cambridge (MA) 1967 (Loeb Classical Library, 428). Quaestiones convivales, edd. F. Frazier — J. Sirinelli, in ID., CEuvres morales, IX, 3, Trait~~46 — Propos de Table (Livres VII-IX), Paris 1996 (CUF S~rie grecque, 372). — Quaestiones Platonicae, ed. H. Cherniss, in PLUTARCH'S Moralia, XIII, 1 cit., pp. 1-129. PSEUDO-PLUTARCHUS, De fato, ed. E. Valgiglio, in [PLUTARCO], Il fato, Napoli 1993 (Corpus Plutarchi moralium, 16); Eng. tr. by Ph. H. de Lacy — B. Einarson, in PLUTARCH'S Moralia, VII, London 1959 (Loeb Classical Library, 405), pp. 301-359. — De Homero, ed. J. F. Kindstrand, Leipzig 1990. — Placita philosophorum, ed. H. Diels, in Doxographi Graeci, Berlin 1879, pp. 267-444. Poetarum Lesbiorum Fragmenta, edd. E. Lobel — D. Page, Oxford 1955 (repr. 1963). PORPHYRION, POMPONIUS, Commentum in Horatium: Epistulae, ed. A. Holder, in POMPONI PORPHYRIONIS Commentum in Horatium Flaccum, Leipzig 1894, pp. 317-409. PORPHYRIUS TYRIUS, Ad Marcellam, ed W. P~tscher, in Potphyrii, IIPOE MAPKEAAAN, Leiden 1969 (Philosophia antiqua, 15). — De abstinentia ab animatis, ed. A. Nauck, in PORPHYRII Opuscula tria, Leipzig 1886, pp. 83-269; edd. J. Bouffartigue — L. Patillon et Al., in PORPHYRE, De l'abstinence, Paris 1977-1995 (CUF S~rie grecque, 252, 270 and 368). — Isagoge, ed. A. Busse, in CAG, IV, 1, Isagoge et in Aristotelis categorias, Berlin 1887. POSIDONIUS, Fragmenta, edd. L. Edelstein — I. G. Kidd, in PosIDONIus, I, The fragments, Cambridge 20052; ed. W. Theiler, in Poseidonios. Die Fragmente, 2 vols., Berlin — New York 1982. PRISCIANUS CAESARIENSIS, Institutiones grammaticae, ed. M. Hertz, in Grammatici Latini, II-III, ed. H. Keil, Leipzig 1855-1858. PROCLUS DIADOCHUS, LYCrus, In Platonis rem publicam commentarii, ed. W. Kroll, 2 vols., Leipzig 1899-1901 (repr. Amsterdam 1965). — In Platonis Timaeum commentaria, ed. E. Diehl, 3 vols., Leipzig 1903-1906.

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

QuINTILIANus, MARCUS FABIUS, Institutio Oratoria, ed. M. Winterbottom, 2 vols., Oxford 1970 (Oxford Classical Texts). Scriptores historiae Augustae, edd. C. Samberger — W. Seyfarth — E. Hohl, I, Stuttgart — Leipzig 1971 (repr. 1997, Bibl. Teubn., 1772) . SENECA, LUCIUS ANNAEUS, Ad LLlcthum epistulae morales, ed. L. D. Reynolds, 2 vols., Oxford 1965 (Oxford Classical Texts).

STRABO, Geographica, ed. S. Radt, in STRABONS Geographika, 10 vols., Gottingen 2002-2011. Suidae Lexicon, ed. A. Adler, 5 vols., Leipzig 1928-1938. Sylloge inscriptionum graecarum, ed. W. Dittenberger, 2 vols., Leipzig 1915-19173 (SIG). SYNESIUS CYRENENSIS, Hymni, PG 66, 1587-1614, ed. N. Terzaghi, in Hymni et Opuscula, 2 vols., Roma 1939-1944; ed. Ch. Lacom-

brade, in Syn~sios de Cyr~ne, Hymnes, Paris 1978 (CUF S~rie grecque, 262). SYRIANUS, Metaphysica, ed. W. Kroll, in CAG, VI, 1, In Metaphysica commentaria, Berlin 1902. TACITUS, PUBLIUS CORNELIUS, Annales I- VI, ed. S. Borzs~k, in Libri qui supersunt, I, 1, Annales libri I-VI, Stuttgart — Leipzig 1992 (Bibl. Teubn., 1835). TATIANUS ASSYRIUS, Oratio ad Graecos, PG 6, 803-888, ed. M. Whittaker, in TATIAN, Oratio ad Graecos and fragments, Oxford 1982 (Oxford early Christian texts). TERENTIUS, PUBLIUS AFER, Eunuchus, ed. J. Marouzeau, in T~RENCE, Comedies, I, Paris 1942 (CUF S~rie latine, 102). TERTULLIANUS, QUINTUS SEPTIMIUS FLORENS, Ad Scapulam, PL 1, 778-783, ed. E. Dekkers, in TERTULLIANI Opera, II, Opera montanistica, Turnhout 1954 (CCSL, 2), pp. 1125-1132. — Adversus Hermogenem, PL 2, 195-238B, ed. J. H. Waszink, in TERTULLIANI Adversus Hermogenem Liber, Utrecht 1956 (Stromata patristica et mediaevalia, 5); Eng. tr. by J. H. Waszink, in TERTULLIAN, The Treatise against Hermogenes, London 1956 (Ancient Christian writers, 24). — Adversus Marcionem, PL 2, 263-559, ed. Ae. Kroymann, in TERTULLIANI Opera, I, Opera catholica. Adversus Marcionem, Turnhout 1953 (CCSL, 1), pp. 437-726. — Adversus Praxean, PL 2, 175-220, edd. Ae. Kroymann — E. Evans, in TERTULLIANI Opera, II cit., pp. 1159-1205; Eng. tr. by E. Evans, in TERTULLIAN'S Treatise against Praxeas, London 1948. — Apologeticum, PL 1, 305-604, ed. E. Dekkers, in TERTULLIANI Opera, I cit., pp. 77-170; Eng. tr. by A. Souter, in TERTULLIANI Apologeticus, Cambridge 1917. — De anima, PL 2, 641-752B, ed. J. H. Waszink, in TERTULLIANI Opera, II cit., pp. 779-871. THEON SMYRNAEUS, Expositio rerum mathematicarum ad legendum Platonem utilium, ed. E. Hiller, Leipzig 1878; ed. F. Petrucci, Sankt Augustin 2012 (Studies in ancient philosophy, 11). THEOPHRASTUS, Testimonia, edd. W. W. Fortenbaugh et Al., in Theophrastus of Eresus: Sources for His Life, Writings, Thought, and Influence, 2 vols., Leiden — New York — Koln 1993 (Philosophia antiqua, 54). XENOCRATES, Fragmenta, ed. R. Heinze, in Xenocrates. Darstellung der Lehre and Sammlung der Fragmente, Leipzig 1892; ed. M. Isnardi Parente, in SENOCRATE — ERMODORO, Frammenti. Edizione, traduzione e commento, Napoli 1982 (La Scuola di Platone, 3).

378

379

De beneficiis, ed. W. H. Alexander, Berkeley 1950 (University of California publications in classical philology, 14.1). — Dialogorum libri, ed. L. D. Reynolds, Oxford 1977 (Oxford Classical Texts). Naturalium quaestionum libri, ed. H. M. Hine, Stuttgart — Leipzig 1996 (Bibl. Teubn., 1792). SERVIUS HONORATUS, MAURUS, Commentarii in Vergilii Aeneidos libros, ed. G. Thilo, in Servii Grammatici Qui Feruntur in Vergilii Carmina Commentarii, 2 vols., Leipzig 1871-1884. SIDONIUS APOLLINARIS, GAIUs SOLLIUS, Epistulae, PL 58, 443-640A, ed. C. Luetjohann, in MGH, Scriptores, I, Auct. ant., 8, GAI Soul APOLLINARIS SIDONII Epistulae et carmina, Berlin 1887, pp. 1-172. SIMPLICIUS, In Aristotelis Physica commentaria, ed. H. Diels, in CAG, IX-X, In Aristotelis physicorum libros commentaria, 2 vols., Berlin 1882-1895. SPEUSIPPUS, Fragmenta, ed. P. L. F. Lang, in De Speusippi Academici scriptis. Accedunt Fragmenta, Bonn 1911 (repr. Hildesheim 1965); ed. M. Isnardi Parente, in SPEUSIPPO, Frammenti. Edizione, traduzione e commento, Napoli 1980 (La Scuola di Platone, 1). STOBAEUS, IOHANNES, Anthologium, I-II, edd. C. Wachsmuth — O. Hense, in IOANNIS STOBAEI anthologium, I-II, Eclogae physicae et ethicae, Berlin 1884 (repr. 1958). — Anthologium, IV, ed. O. Hense, in IOANNIS STOBAEI anthologium, IV-V, 2 vols., Berlin 1909-1912. Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta, ed. H. von Arnim, 4 vols., Leipzig 1903-1905.

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

2.

Secondary Sources

BIBLIOGRAPHY pp. 38-57 (repr. in ID., Dianoemata: Kleine Schriften zu Platon and zum Platonismus, Stuttgart — Leipzig 1999, pp. 81-112). — Der Platonismus in der Antike. Grundlagen-System-Entwicklung, IV, Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus. Einige grundlegende Axiome / Platonische Physik (im antiken Verstdndnis), 1, Bausteine 101-124: Text, Ubersetzung, Kommentar, edd. H. Dorrie — M. Bakes, Stuttgart 1996. — Der Platonismus in der Antike. Grundlagen-System-Entwicklung, V, Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus. Platonische Physik (im antiken Verstiindnis), 2, Bausteine 125-150: Text, Ubersetzung, Kommentar, edd. H. Dome — M. Baltes, Stuttgart 1998. — Der Platonismus in der Antike. Grundlagen-System-Entwicklung, VI, Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus, 3, Von der `Seele' als der Ursache aller sinnvollen Abldufe. Bausteine 151-181: Text, Ubersetzung, Kommentar, edd. H. Dorrie — M. Bakes, Stuttgart 2002.

ADORNO, F., La filosofia antica, IV, Cultura, filosofia, politica e religiositd t1- vt secolo d. C., Milano 1992. AMANN, J., Die Zeusrede des Ailios Aristeides, Stuttgart 1931 (Tiibinger Beitrage zur Altertumswissenschaft, 12). ANDERSON, G., The pepaideumenos in Action: Sophists and their Outlook in the Early Empire, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der r~mischen Welt — Sprache and Literatur (Allgemeines zur Literatur des 2. Jahrhunderts and einzelne Autoren der trajanischen and friihhadrianischen Zeit), edd. H. Temporini — W. Haase, Berlin — New York 1989 (ANRW II — 33,1), pp. 79-208. ANDRESEN, C., Justin and der mittlere Platonismus, in «Zeitschrift fur die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft», 44 (1953), pp. 157-195. — Logos and Nomos. Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum, Berlin 1955 (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 30). ASTARITA, M. L., Note di cronologia gelliana, in «Orpheus», n.s. 5 (1984), pp. 422-432. — La cultura nelle Noctes Atticae, Catania 1993 (Saggi e testi classici, cristiani e medievali, 6). AXELSON, B., Akzentuierender Klauselrhythmus bei Apuleius: Bemerkungen zu den Schn: ten De Platone and De mundo, in «Vetenskapssocieteten i Lund: Arsbok», 1952 (1953), pp. 5-20. BABUT, D., Le dialogue de Plutarque 'Sur le demon de Socrate'. Essai d'interpretation, in «Bulletin de 1'Association Guilluame Bud~», (1984, fasc. 1), pp. 51-76 (repr. in Parerga. Choix d'articles de Daniel Babut (1974-1994), Lyon 1994, pp. 405-430). — La part du rationalisme dans la religion de Plutarque: l'exemple du De genio Socratis, in «Illinois Classical Studies», 13.2 (1988), pp. 383-408 (repr. in Parerga cit., pp. 431-456). BAJONI, M. G., Aspetti linguistici e letterari del 'De Mundo' di Apuleio, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der riimischen Welt — Sprache and Literatur (einzelne Autoren seit der hadrianischen Zeit and Allgemeines zur Literatur des 2. and 3. Jahrhunderts), edd. H. Temporini — W. Haase, Berlin — New York 1993 (ANRW II — 34,2), pp. 1785-1832. BALDWIN, B., Studies in Aulus Gellius, Lawrence (KA) 1975. BALTES, M., Die Weltentstehung des Platonischen Timaios nach den antiken Interpreten, Leiden 1976 (Philosophia antiqua, 30-35). — Zur Philosophie der PlatonikerAttikos, in Platonismus and Christentum: Festschrift far Heinrich D~rrie, edd. H.-D. Blume — F. Mann, Munster 1983 (Jahrbuch fur Antike and Christentum, 10),

BALTES, M. — PIETSCH, C. — LAKMANN, M.-L., Der Platonismus in der Antike. Grundlagen-System-Entwcklung, VII, Die philosophische Lehre des Platonismus (4), 1, Theologia Platonica. Bausteine 182205: Text, ~bersetzung, Kommentar, edd. H. Dorrie — M. Baltes, Stuttgart 2008. BARNES, J., Antiochus of Ascalon, in Philosophia Togata: Essays on Philosophy and Roman Society, edd. M. Griffin — J. Barnes, Oxford 1989, pp. 51-96. BARRA, G., II valore e it signato del De deo Socratis' di Apuleio, in «Annali della Facolt~~di Lettere e Filosofia di Napoli», 9 (19601961), pp. 67-119. — La biografia di Platone nel De Platone et eius dogmate' di Apuleio, in «Rendiconti della Accademia di Archeologia Lettere e Belle Arti di Napoli», n.s. 38 (1963-1964), pp. 5-18. - Initia rerum. Un passo controverso nel De Platone et eius dogmate di Apuleio, in «Rendiconti della Accademia di Archeologia Lettere e Belle Arti di Napoli», n.s. 40 (1965), pp. 35-42. — La questione dell'autenticitd del De Platone et eius dogmate di Apuleio, in «Rendiconti della Accademia di Archeologia, Lettere e Belle Arti di Napoli», n.s. 41 (1966-1967), pp. 127-188. — Apuleio e it problema dell'origine del male, in «Vichiana», n.s. 1 (1972), pp. 102-111. BEAUJEU, J., Introduction and Commentaire, in APULEIus, Opuscules philosophiques. Fragments, ed. J. Beaujeu, Paris 1973 (CUF S~rie latine, 211).

380

381

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— Les dieux d'Apul~e, in Symposium Apuleianum Groninganum (Groningen, 23-24 October 1980), edd. B. L. Hijmans — V. Schmidt, Groningen 1981, pp. 78-95. — Les dieux d'Apul~e, in «Revue de 1'Histoire des Religions», 200 (1983), pp. 385-406. BECK, R., Apuleius the Novelist, Apuleius the Ostian Householder and the Mithraeum of the Seven Spheres: Further Explorations of an Hypothesis of Filippo Coarelli, in Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in honour of Peter Richardson, edd. S. G. Wilson — M. Desjardins, Waterloo 2000 (Studies in Christianity and Judaism, 9), pp. 551-567. — Divino quodam stellarum consortio coniunctum: The astrological relationship of Lucius to the priest of Isis as a `chronotopic' template for Apuleius, Met. 11, in Concentus ex dissonis: Scritti in onore di Aldo Setaioli, 2 vols., edd. C. Santini et Al., Napoli 2006 (Quaderni del Dipartimento di filologia e tradizione Greca e Latina, 4), I, pp. 85-96. BEHR, CH., Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales, Amsterdam 1968. BERNARD, W., Zur Damonologie des Apuleius von Madaura, in «Rheinisches Museum», 137 (1994), pp. 358-373. BICKEL, E., Senecas Briefe 58 and 65. Das Antiochos-Posidonios Problem, in «Rheinisches Museum», 103 (1960), pp. 1-20. BIDEZ, J., — CUMONT, F., Les mages hell~nis~s, Paris 1938. BONAZZI, M., Eudoro di Alessandria alle ongini del platonismo imperiale, in L'eredita platonica. Studi sul platonismo da Arcesilao a Proclo, edd. M. Bonazzi — V. Celluprica, Napoli 2005 (Elenchos, 45), pp. 119-123. - Towards Transcendence: The Renewal of Platonism in the Early Imperial Age, in Philo of Alexandria and Post-Aristotelian Philosophy, ed. F. Alesse, Leiden 2010 (Studies in Philo of Alexandria, 5), pp. 233-251. BOYANC~, P., Etudes Philoniennes, in «Revue des Etudes Grecques», 76 (1963), pp. 64-110. BOYS-STONES, G., `Middle' Platonists on fate and human autonomy, in Greek and Roman Philosophy 100 BC -200 AD, edd. E. W. Sharpies — R. Sorabji, 2 vols., London 2007 (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Suppl., 94), II, pp. 431-447. BUTLER, H. E. — OwEN, A. S., Commentary in APULEI Apologia sive Pro se de magia liber, Oxford 1914. CAMPANILE, D., Eliano e la sua Varia Historia, in Approches de la Troisieme Sophistique. Etudes en l'honneur de J. Schamps, edd. E. Amato et Al., Bruxelles 2006 (Collection Latomus, 296), pp. 420-430.

CAPELLE, W., Die Schri t von der Welt, in «Neue Jahrbiicher fiir Klassische Philologie», 15 (1905), pp. 529-568. CAVARZERE, A., Gellio traduttore e la definizione aristotelica di sillogismo, in «Maia», 39 (1987), pp. 213-215. CHAMPLIN, E., Fronto and Antonine Rome, Cambridge (MA) 1980. COARELLI, F., Apuleio a Ostia?, in «Dialoghi di Archeologia», 7 (1989), pp. 27-42. COSTANZA, S., La fortuna di Apuleio nell'et~~di mezzo, Palermo 1937. COURCELLE, P., Les sages de Porphyre et les `viri novi' d'Arnobe, in «Revue des Etudes Latines», 31 (1954), pp. 257-271. — Connais-toi toi-m~me. De Socrate a Saint Bernard, 3 vols., Paris 197475 (Collection des Etudes augustiniennes. Serie Antiquite, 58-60). CUMONT, F., Jupiter summus exsuperantissimus, in «Archiv ftir Religionswissenschaft», 9 (1906), pp. 323-336. DE FILIPPO, J., Curiositas and the Platonism of Apuleius' Golden Ass, in «American Journal of Philology*, 111 (1990), pp. 471-492 (repr. in Oxford Readings in The Roman Novel, ed. S. J. Harrison, Oxford 1999, pp. 269-289). DE JONG, A., Traditions of the Magi. Zoroastrianism in Greek and Latin Literature, Leiden — New York — Köln 1997 (Religions in the Graeco-Roman World, 133). DEN BOEFT, J., Calcidius on Fate. His Doctrine and Sources, Leiden 1970 (Philosophia antiqua, 18). — Calcidius on demons (commentarius ch. 127-136), Leiden 1977 (Philosophia antiqua, 33). DEUSE, W., Untersuchungen zur mittelplatonischen and neuplatonischen Seelenlehre, Wiesbaden 1983 (Abhandlungen der Geistes and Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, 3). DICK, A., Praefatio, in Martianus Capella, ed. A. Dick, Leipzig 1925 (repr. Stuttgart 1969 with addenda by J. Preaux). DIELS, H., Doxographi Graeci, Berlin 1877. — Einleitung, in AnonymerKommentarzu Platons Theaetet (Papyrus 9782), edd. H. Diels — W. Schubart, Berlin 1905. DILLON, J., The Middle Platonists. A Study of Platonism 80 BC to AD 220, London 1977 (Classical Life and Letters). — Metriopatheia and Apatheia: Some Reflections on a Controversy in Later Greek Ethics, in Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy, II, edd. J. P. Anton — A. Preus, Albany (NY) 1983, pp. 508-517 (repr. in ID., The Golden Chain. Studies in the Development of Platonism and Christianity, Aldershot 1990 [Collected Studies series, 333], nr. VIII).

382

383

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM -

`Orthodoxy' and `Eclecticism': Middle Platonists and New-Pythagoreans,

in The Question of `Eclecticism': Studies in Later Greek Philosophy, edd. J. Dillon — A. Long, Berkeley 1988 (Hellenistic culture and society, 3), pp. 103-125. — Alcinous. The Handbook of Platonism, Oxford 1993 (Clarendon Later Ancient Philosophers). — Seres intermedios en la tradicio'n platonica tarda, in Seres Intermedios. Angeles, Demonios y Genios en el Mundo Mediterr~neo, edd. A. Perez Jimenez — G. Cruz Andreotti, Madrid — Malaga 2000 (Mediterr~nea, 7), pp. 89-117. — Damonologie im fruhen Platonismus, in Apuleius, De deo Socratis. Ober den Gott des Sokrates, edd. H.-G. Nesselrath et Al., Darmstadt 2004 (SAPERE, 7), pp. 123-141. DODDS, E. R., Produs, The Elements of Theology, Oxford 19632. MRRIE, H., Der Platoniker Eudoros von Alexandria, in «Hermes», 79 (1944), pp. 25-39 (repr. in ID., Platonica Minora, Munchen 1976 [Studia et testimonia antiqua, 8], pp. 297-309). — Zum Ursprung der neuplatonischen Hypostasenlehre, in «Hermes», 82 (1954), pp. 331-342 (repr. in ID., Platonica Minora cit., pp. 286-296). — Ammonios der Lehrer Plotins, in «Hermes», 83 (1955), pp. 439-477, (repr. in ID., Platonica Minora cit., pp. 324-360). — Die Frage nach dem Transzendentem im Mittelplatonismus, in Les Sources de Plotin, (Vandoeuvres/Geneve, 21-29 ao~t 1957), ed. E. R. Dodds, Geneve 1960 (Entretiens sur 1'Antiquite Classique, 5), pp. 191-223 (repr. in ID., Platonica Minora cit., pp. 211-228). Der Konig. Ein platonischer Schlusselwort, vom Plotin mit neuem Sinn erfullt, in «Revue internationale de philosophie», 24 (1970), pp. 217-235 (repr. in ID., Platonica Minora cit., pp. 390-405). — Platons Reisen zu fernen V'~lkern, in Romanitas et Christianitas: studia lano Henrico Waszink ad VI Kal Nov A MCMLXXIII XIII lustra complenti oblata, edd. W. Den Boer et Al., Amsterdam — London

1973, pp. 99-118. — Platonica Minora, Munchen 1976 (Stadia et testimonia antiqua, 8). DONINI, P. L., Le scuole, l'anima, l'impero: la filosofia antica da Antioco a Plotino, Torino 1982. — Testi e commend, manuali e insegnamento: la forma sistematica e i metodi della filosofia in eta postellenistica, in Aufstieg und Niedergang der romischen Welt — Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik: Systematische Themen; Indirekte Oberlieferungen; Allgemeines; Nachtrage,

ed. W. Haase, Berlin — New York 1994 (ANRW II — 36,7), pp. 5027-5100.

384

— Socrate Pitagorico e medioplatonico', in «Elenchos», 24 (2003),

pp. 333-359. — Sokrates and sein Damon im Platonismus des 1. and 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr., in Apuleius, De deo Socratis. Ober den Gott des Sokrates,

edd. H.-G. Nesselrath et Al., Darmstadt 2004 (SAPERE, 7), pp. 142-161. DOWDEN, K., Psyche on the Rock, in «Latomus», 41 (1982), pp. 336352. - The Roman Audience of The Golden Ass, in The Search for the Ancient Novel, ed. J. Tatum, Baltimore — London 1994, pp. 419-434. - Cupid & Psyche. A Question of the Vision of Apuleius, in Aspects of Apuleius' Golden Ass, II, Cupid and Psyche, edd. M. Zimmerman, V. Hunink et Al., Groningen 1998, pp. 1-22. DRAKE, G. C., Candidus: A Unfying Theme in Apuleius Metamorphoses, in «Classical Journal», 64 (1968), pp. 102-109. EDWARDS, M. J., The Tale of Cupid and Psyche, in «Zeitschrift fiir Papyrologie and Epigrafik», 94 (1992), pp. 77-94. L'eredita platonica. Studi sul platonismo da Arcesilao a Proclo, edd. M. Bonazzi — V. Celluprica, Napoli 2005 (Elenchos, 45). FERRARI, F., Dio, idee e materia. La struttura del cosmo in Plutarco di Cheronea, Napoli 1995 (Strumenti per la ricerca plutarchea, 3). — Commentari specialistici alle sezioni matematiche del Timeo, in La filosofia in eta imperiale. Le scuole e le tradizioni filosofiche, Atti del colloquio (Roma, 17-19 giugno 1999), ed. A. Brancacci, Napoli 2000 (Elenchos, 31), pp. 169-224. - Verso la costruzione del sistema: it medioplatonismo, in «Paradigmi», 21 (2003), pp. 343-354. — Esegesi, commento e sistema nel medioplatonismo, in Argumenta in dialogos Platonis, I, Platoninterpretation and ihre Hermeneutik von der Antike bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts, edd. A. Neschke-

Hentschke et Al., Basel 2010 (Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana, 31), pp. 51-76. — Insegnabilita della virtu e ruolo della paideia nel medioplatonismo: Plutarco, Alcinoo, Apuleio, in Ethik des antiken Platonismus der Platonische Weg zum Gluck in Systematik, Entstehung and historischem Kontext,

ed. Chr. Pietsch, Stuttgart 2013 (Philosophie der Antike, 32), pp. 159-170. — La teologia di Aristotele nel medio platonismo, in Aristoteles Romanus. La reception de la science aristotelicienne dans l'Empire greco-romain,

ed. Y. Lehmann, Turnhout 2013 (Recherches sur les rhetoriques religieuses, 17), pp. 299-312.

385

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM -

`Orthodoxy' and `Eclecticism': Middle Platonists and Neu'-Pythagoreans,

in The Question of `Eclecticism': Studies in Later Greek Philosophy, edd. J. Dillon — A. Long, Berkeley 1988 (Hellenistic culture and society, 3), pp. 103-125. — Alcinous. The Handbook of Platonism, Oxford 1993 (Clarendon Later Ancient Philosophers). — Seres intermedios en la tradicidn platonica tarda, in Seres Intermedios. Angeles, Demonios y Genios en el Mundo Mediterr~neo, edd. A. Perez Jimenez — G. Cruz Andreotti, Madrid — Malaga 2000 (Mediterr~nea, 7), pp. 89-117. — Damonologie im friihen Platonismus, in Apuleius, De deo Socratis. Ober den Gott des Sokrates, edd. H.-G. Nesselrath et Al., Darmstadt 2004 (SAPERE, 7), pp. 123-141. DODDS, E. R., Produs, The Elements of Theology, Oxford 19632. DORRIE, H., Der Platoniker Eudoros von Alexandria, in «Hermes», 79 (1944), pp. 25-39 (repr. in ID., Platonica Minora, Munchen 1976 [Studia et testimonia antiqua, 8], pp. 297-309). — Zum Ursprung der neuplatonischen Hypostasenlehre, in «Hermes», 82 (1954), pp. 331-342 (repr. in ID., Platonica Minora cit., pp. 286-296). — Ammonios der Lehrer Plotins, in «Hermes», 83 (1955), pp. 439-477, (repr. in ID., Platonica Minora cit., pp. 324-360). Die Frage nach dem Transzendentem im Mittelplatonismus, in Les Sources de Plotin, (Vandoeuvres/Geneve, 21-29 aolit 1957), ed. E. R. Dodds, Geneve 1960 (Entretiens sur 1'Antiquite Classique, 5), pp. 191-223 (repr. in ID., Platonica Minora cit., pp. 211-228). — Der Konig. Ein platonischer Schl~sselwort, vom Plotin mit neuem Sinn erfiillt, in «Revue internationale de philosophie», 24 (1970), pp. 217-235 (repr. in ID., Platonica Minora cit., pp. 390-405). — Platons Reisen zu fernen V'6lkern, in Romanitas et Christianitas: studia Iano Henrico Waszink ad VI Kal Nov A MCMLXXIII XIII lustra complenti oblata, edd. W. Den Boer et Al., Amsterdam — London

1973, pp. 99-118. — Platonica Minora, Munchen 1976 (Studia et testimonia antiqua, 8). DONINI, P. L., Le scuole, l'anima, l'impero: la filosofia antica da Antioco a Plotino, Torino 1982. -

Testi e commenti, manuali e insegnamento: la forma sistematica e i metodi della filosofia in eta postellenistica, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der romischen Welt — Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik: Systematische Themen; Indirekte Oberlieferungen; Allgemeines; Nachtrage,

ed. W. Haase, Berlin — New York 1994 (ANRW II — 36,7), pp. 5027-5100.

384

— Socrate Pitagorico e medioplatonico', in «Elenchos», 24 (2003),

pp. 333-359. — Sokrates and sein Damon im Platonismus des 1. and 2. Jahrhunderts n. Chr., in Apuleius, De deo Socratis. Ober den Gott des Sokrates,

edd. H.-G. Nesselrath et Al., Darmstadt 2004 (SAPERE, 7), pp. 142-161. DOWDEN, K., Psyche on the Rock, in «Latomus», 41 (1982), pp. 336352. - The Roman Audience of The Golden Ass, in The Search for the Ancient Novel, ed. J. Tatum, Baltimore — London 1994, pp. 419-434. - Cupid & Psyche. A Question of the Vision of Apuleius, in Aspects of Apuleius' Golden Ass, II, Cupid and Psyche, edd. M. Zimmerman, V. Hunink et Al., Groningen 1998, pp. 1-22. DRAKE, G. C., Candidus: A Un fying Theme in Apuleius Metamorphoses, in «Classical Journal», 64 (1968), pp. 102-109. EDWARDS, M. J., The Tale of Cupid and Psyche, in «Zeitschrift ftir Papyrologie and Epigrafik», 94 (1992), pp. 77-94. L'eredita platonica. Studi sul platonismo da Arcesilao a Prodo, edd. M. Bonazzi — V. Celluprica, Napoli 2005 (Elenchos, 45). FERRARI, F., Dio, idee e materia. La struttura del cosmo in Plutarco di Cheronea, Napoli 1995 (Strumenti per la ricerca plutarchea, 3). - Commentari specialistici alle sezioni matematiche del Timeo, in La filosofia in eta imperiale. Le scuole e le tradizioni filosofiche, Atti del colloquio (Roma, 17-19 giugno 1999), ed. A. Brancacci, Napoli 2000 (Elenchos, 31), pp. 169-224. - Verso la costruzione del sistema: it medioplatonismo, in «Paradigmi», 21 (2003), pp. 343-354. — Esegesi, commento e sistema nel medioplatonismo, in Argumenta in dialogos Platonis, I, Platoninterpretation and ihre Hermeneutik von der Antike bis zum Beginn des 19. Jahrhunderts, edd. A. Neschke-

Hentschke et Al., Basel 2010 (Bibliotheca Helvetica Romana, 31), pp. 51-76. — Insegnabilita della virtu e ruolo della paideia nel medioplatonismo: Plutarco, Alcinoo, Apuleio, in Ethik des antiken Platonismus der Platonische Weg zum Gluck in Systematik, Entstehung and historischem Kontext,

ed. Chr. Pietsch, Stuttgart 2013 (Philosophie der Antike, 32), pp. 159-170. — La teologia di Aristotele nel medio platonismo, in Aristoteles Romanus. La reception de la science aristotelicienne dans l'Empire gr~co-romain,

ed. Y. Lehmann, Turnhout 2013 (Recherches sur les rh~toriques religieuses, 17), pp. 299-312.

385

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FESTUGI~RE, A.J., La doctrine des viri novi sur l'origine et le sort des dmes d'apr~s Arnobe, II 11-64, in Memorial Lagrange, Paris 1940, pp. 97-132. — La revelation d'Herm~s Trismegiste, 4 vols., Paris 1944-1954 (repr. Nouvelle edition revue et augment~e avec la collaboration de Concetta Luna, Henri Dominique Saffrey et Nicolas Roudet, 2014, Etudes anciennes Serie grecque, 75). — Arnobiana, in «Vigiliae Christianae», 6 (1952), pp. 208-254. — Sur les `Discours Sacres' d'Aelius Aristide, in «Revue des Etudes Grecques», 82 (1969), pp. 117-153. FINAMORE, J. F., Apuleius on the Platonic Gods, in Reading Plato in Antiquity, edd. H. Tarrant — D. Baltzly, London 2006, pp. 33-48. FINKELPEARL, E. D., Metamorphosis of Language in Apuleius. A Study of Allusion in the Novel, Ann Arbor (MI) 1998. — Marsyas the satyr and Apuleius of Madauros, in «Ramus», 38 (2009), pp. 7-42. FLADERER, L., Antiochos von Askalon Hellenist and Humanist, Graz 1996 (Grazer Beitrage. Suppl. 7). FLEURY, P., Lectures de Fronton. Un rheteur Latin d l'epoque de la Seconde Sophistique, Paris 2006 (Etudes anciennes Serie latine, 64). FLETCHER, R., Plato Re-Read to Late: Citation and platonism in Apuleius' Apologia, in «Ramus», 38 (2009), pp. 43-74. FOWDEN, G., The Egyptian Hermes. A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind, Princeton 19932 (Mythos: The Princeton/Bollingen Series in World Mythology). FREDOUILLE, J. CL., Introduction, in Apulee, Metamorphoseon Liber XI, ed. J. Cl. Fredouille, Paris 1975 (Erasme: Collection de textes latins commentes, 30). FREUDENTHAL, J., Der Platoniker Albinos and der falsche Alkinoos, Berlin 1879 (Hellenistische Studien, 3). FRIEDLANDER, L., Das Mdrehen von Amor and Psyche, in Amor and Psyche, edd. G. Binder — R. Merkelbach, Darmstadt 1968 (Wege der Forschung, 126), pp. 16-43. GAMBERALE, L., Confronti e incontri di cultura nell'etd degli Antonini, in Filellenismo e tradizionalismo a Roma nei primi due secoli dell'Impero, Atti del Convegno (Roma, 27-28 aprile 1995), Roma 1996 (Atti dei Convegni Lincei, 125), pp. 57-84. GASSNER, J., Philosophie and Moral bei Gellius, in Serta Philologica Aenipontana, II, ed. R. Muth, Innsbruck 1972 (Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Kulturwissenschaft, 17), pp. 197-235. GEFFCKEN, J., Antiplatonica, in «Hermes», 64 (1929), pp. 87-109.

GERCKE, A., Eine platonische Quelle des Neuplatonismus, in «Rheinisches Museum», 41 (1886), pp. 266-291. GERSH, ST., Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism. The Latin Tradition, 2 vols., Notre Dame (IN) 1986 (Notre Dame Studies in Medieval Studies, 23). GIANOTTI, G. F., Romanzo e ideologia. Studi sulle Metamorfosi di Apuleio, Napoli 1986 (Forme materiali e ideologie del mondo antico, 26),

F. Alesse — F. Ferrari, Napoli 2013 (Elenchos, 60.1), pp. 263-282. GIusTA, M., I dossografi di etica, Torino 1964. GLUCKER, J., Antiochus and the Late Academy, Gottingen 1978 (Hypomnemata, 56). GOLDBACHER, A., Liber irspi ipµrpaiog qui Apulei Madaurensis esse traditur, in «Wiener Studien*, 7 (1885), pp. 253-277. GoRANSSON, T., Albinus, Alcinous, Arius Didymus, Goteborg 1992 (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 61). GoRLER, W., Antiochos aus Askalon and seine Schule, in Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie, Hrsg. H. Holzhey, 1, Die Philosophie der Antike, 4, Die hellenistische Philosophie, ed. H. Flashar, 2 vols., Basel 1994, II, pp. 938-980. GRAVERINI, F., Le Metamorfosi di Apuleio. Letteratura e identitd, Pisa 2007 (Arti, spazi, scritture, 5). GRESCHAT, K., Apelles and Hermogenes. Zwei theologische Lehrer des zweiten Jahrhunderts, Leiden — Boston — Köln 2000 (Suppl. VC, 48). GRIFFITHS, J. GWYN, Commentary, in Apuleius of Madauros: the Isis-book (Metamorphoses, book XI), ed. J. Gwyn Griffiths, Leiden 1975 (Etudes Preliminaires aux Religions Orientales dam l'Empire Romain, 39). GRIMAL, P., Introduction, in Apulei Metamorphoseis IV,28-VI,24 (Le conte d'Amour et Psyche), ed. P. Grimal, Paris 1963 (Erasme, collection des textes latins commentes, 9). GUY, J. C., Unite et structure logique de la «Cite de Dieu» de saint Augustin, Paris 1961 (Collection des Etudes augustiniennes. Serie Antiquite, 12). HADOT, P., Etre, Vie, Pensee chez Plotin et avant Plotin, in Les Sources de Plotin, (Vandoeuvres/Geneve, 21-29 aoilt 1957), ed. E. R. Dodds, Geneve 1960 (Entretiens sur l'Antiquite Classique, 5), pp. 107-157.

386

387

GIoh, A., Filosofi medioplatonici del ii secolo d. C. Testimonianze e frammenti: Gaio, Albino, Lucio, Nicostrato, Tauro, Severo, Arpocrazione,

Napoli 2002 (Elenchos, 36). — Richiami e citazioni dell'Epinomide nella letteratura medioplatonica (e oltre), in Epinomide. Studi sull'opera e la sua ricezione, edd.

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

- Marius Victorinus. Recherches sur sa vie et ses oeuvres, Paris 1971 (Collection des Etudes augustiniennes. S~rie Antiquite, 44). HABERMEHL, P., Demonology in Apuleius' De deo Socratis, in Groningen Colloquia on the Novel, 6, ed. H. Hofmann, Groningen 1996, pp. 117-142. HADOT, I., Arts liberaux et philosophie dans la pensee antique, Paris, 2005 (2nd. ed.).

HAGENDAHL, H., Augustine and the Latin Classics, Goteborg 1967 (Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 20). HAGG, TH., The Novel in Antiquity, Oxford - New York 1983. HARRISON, S. J., Apuleius. A Latin Sophist, Oxford 2000 (repr. 2008). HAYS, G., The Date and Identity of the Mythographer Fulgentius, in «The Journal of Medieval Latin», 13 (2003), pp. 163-252. HEINE, R. , Picaresque Novel versus Allegory, in Aspects ofApuleius' Golden Ass, edd. B. J. Hijmans - R. van der Paardt, Groningen 1978, pp. 25-42. HELM, R., Das `M~rchen' von Amor and Psyche, in «Neue Jahrbiicher fair das Klassische Altertum», 33 (1914), pp. 170-209 (repr. in Amor and Psyche, edd. G. Binder - R. Merkelbach, Darmstadt 1968 [Wege der Forschung, 126], pp. 175-234). - Praefatio, in APULEIUS, Florida, ed. Helm, Leipzig 1910. HUMANS B. L. JR., Apuleius, Philosophus Platonicus, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der romischen Welt - Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik: Philosophie (Historische Einleitung: Platonismus), edd. H. Temporini - W. Haase, Berlin - New York 1987 (ANRW II - 36,1), pp. 395-475. - Apuleius Orator: 'Pro se de Magia' and Florida', in Aufstieg and Niedergang der romischen Welt - Sprache and Literatur (einzelne Autoren seit der hadrianischen Zeit and Allgemeines zur Literatur des 2. and 3. Jahrhunderts), edd. H. Temporini - W. Haase, Berlin New York 1993 (ANRW II - 34,2), pp. 1708-1784. HILDEBRAND, G. F., Praefatio, in L. Apuleii Opera Omnia, pars I: Prolegomena et Metamorphoseon libros continens, ed. Hildebrand, Leipzig 1842. HoFLER, A., Der Sarapishymnus des Ailios Aristeides, Stuttgart 1935 (Tiibinger Beitrage zur Altertumswissenschaft, 27). HOEVELS, F. E., M~rchen and Magie in den Metamorphosen des Apuleius von Madaura, Amsterdam 1979 (Studies in Classical Antiquity, 1). HOLFORD-STREVENS, L., Aulus Gellius. An Antonine Scholar and his Achievement, Oxford 2003. HOLZBERG, N., Der antike Roman, Munchen - Zurich 1986 (Artemis Einfiihrungen, 25).

HORSFALL Scorn, M.T., Apuleio tra magia e filosofia, in Dicti Studiosus. Scritti di filologia offerti a Scevola Mariotti dai suoi allievi, Urbino 1990, pp. 297-320. HUNINK, V., Apuleius and the `Asclepius', in «Vigiliae Christianae», 50 (1996), pp. 288-308. - Introduction, in APULEIUS, Pro se de magia, ed. Hunink, 2 vols., Amsterdam 1997, I. - The date of Apuleius' Metamorphoses, in Hommages a Carl Deroux, II, Prose et linguistique, Medicine, ed. P. Defosse, Bruxelles 2002 (Collection Latomus, 270), pp. 224-235. - The Epinomis and Apuleius of Madauros, in Epinomide, Studi sull'opera e la sua ricezione, edd. F. Alesse - F. Ferrari, Napoli 2013 (Elenchos, 60.1), pp. 283-293. INVERNIZZI, G., 11 Didaskalikos di Albino e it medioplatonismo, Roma 1976 (Collana di filosofia antica, 4). IOPPOLO, A. M., The Academic position of Favorinus of Arelate, in «Phronesis», 38 (1993), pp. 183-213. ISNARDI PARENTE, M., Seneca, Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium, 58: l'interpretazione di Platone, in «Rendiconti dell'Istituto Lombardo», 129 (1995), pp. 161-177. JAHN, 0., Ueber einige auf Eros and Psyche bezugliche Kunstwerke, in «Sitzungsberichte der s~chslichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig», 3 (1851), pp. 153-179. JOLY, R., Christianisme et Philosophie. Etudes sur Justin et les Apologistes grecs du deuxieme siecle, Brussels 1973 (Universit~~libre de Bruxelles, Facult~~de philosophic et lettres, 52). KAHL, W., Cornelius Labeo. Ein Beitrag zur spatromischen Literaturgeschichte, in «Philologus», suppl. 5 (1899), pp. 719-807. KARFIK, F., Mittelplatonische Lehre De finibus bei Stobaios, Alkinoos and Apuleius in Chr. Pietsch (ed.), Ethik des antiken Platonismus. Der platonische Weg zum Gluck in Systematik, Entstehung and historischem Kontext, Stuttgart 2013, pp. 115-129. KARFIKOVA, L., Augustins Polemik gegen Apuleius, in Apuleius, De deo Socratis. Ober den Gott des Sokrates, edd. H.-G. Nesselrath et Al., Darmstadt 2004 (SAPERE, 7), pp. 162-189. KAsuLKE, CH. T., Fronto, Marc Aurel and kein Konfiikt zwischen Rhetorik and Philosophie im 2. Jh. n. Chr., Munchen - Leipzig 2005 (Beitrage zur Altertumskunde, 218). KENNEY, E. J., Introduction, in Apuleius, Cupid & Psyche, ed. E. J. Kenney, Cambridge 1990 (Cambridge Greek and Latin classics).

388

389

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

— Psyche and Her Mysterious Husband, in Antonine Literature, ed. D. A. Russell, Oxford 1990, pp. 175-198. - In the Mill with Slaves: Lucius Looks Back in Gratitude, in «Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association», 133 (2003), pp. 159-192. KER~NYI, K., Die griechisch-orientalische Romanliteratur in religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung, Tubingen 1927, 19622. KEULEN, W. H., Apuleius Madaurensis, Metamorphoses, Book I, 1-20: Introduction, Text, Commentary, Groningen 2003. KRAmER, H. J., Der Ursprung der Geistmetaphysik. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Platonismus zwischen Platon and Plotin, Amsterdam 1964. KRAFFT, P., Apuleius' Darstellung der Providentia tripertita, in «Museum Helveticum», 36 (1979), pp. 153-163. KROLL, W., Die Zeit des Cornelius Labeo, in «Rheinisches Museum», 80 (1916), pp. 309-357. LAKMANN, M.-L., Der Platoniker Tauros in Der Darstellung Des Aulus Gellius, Leiden 1995 (Philosophia antiqua, 63). — Einfiihrung in die Schrift, in Apuleius, De deo Socratis. Ober den Gott des Sokrates, edd. H.-G. Nesselrath et Al., Darmstadt 2004 (SAPERE, 7), pp. 13-44. LA ROCCA, A., Il filosofo e la cittd. Commento storico ai Florida di Apuleio, Roma 2005 (Saggi di storia antica, 24). LENZ, F. W., Die Aristeideszitate in Olympiodors Kommentar zu Platons Gorgias, in «American Journal of Philology», 67 (1946), pp. 103128 (repr. in In., Aristeidesstudien, Berlin 1964, pp. 147-166). - Der Dionysoshymnos des Aristeides, in «Rivista di Cultura Classica e Medioevale», 3.2 (1961), pp. 153-166 (repr. in ID., Aristeidesstudien cit.). — Aristeidesstudien, Berlin 1964 (Schriften der Sektion flit. Altertumswissenschaft, 40). LEO, FR., Die griechisch-romische Biographie nach ihrer literarischen Form, Leipzig 1901. LILLA, S. R. C., Clement of Alexandria. A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism, Oxford 1971 (Oxford theological monographs). LOENEN, J. H., Albinus' Metaphysics. An Attempt at Rehabilitation, in «Mnemosyne», Ser. IV, 10 (1957), pp. 35-58. LONDEY, D. — JOHANSON, C., The Logic of Apuleius, Leiden — New York — Copenhagen — Cologne 1987 (Philosophia antiqua, 47).

LucK, G., DerAkademikerAntiochos, Bern 1953 (Noctes Romanae, 7). MANNLEIN-ROBERT, I., Griechischen Philosophen in Indien? Reisewege zur Weisheit, in «Gymnasium», 116 (2009), pp. 331-357. — Mitteplatonismus and Neupythagoreismus (forthcoming).

MERKI, H., Homoiosis Theoi, Freiburg (Schweiz) 1952 (Paradosis. Beitrage zur Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur and Theologie, 7). MERLAN, PH., Greek philosophy from Plato to Plotinus, in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy, ed. A. H. Armstrong, Cambridge 1967, pp. 14-136. MESSINA, M. T., Alcune osservazioni sui Florida di Apuleio, in «Rivista di cultura Classica e Medievale», 41 (1999), pp. 285-305.

390

391

MAH~, J.-P., Quelques remarques sur la religion des Metamorphoses d'Apul~e et les doctrines gnostiques contemporaines, in «Revue des Sciences Religieuses», 46 (1972), pp. 1-19. MANTERO, T., Amore e Psiche. Struttura di una fiaba di magia, Genova 1973 (Pubblicazioni dell'Istituto di filologia classica e medicvale, 36). MARACHE, R., Introduction, in Aulu-Gelle, Les Nuits attiques, I, Livres I-IV, ed. R. Marache, Paris 1967 (CUF S~rie latine, 189). MARTIN, L. H., The Amor and Psyche Relief in the Mithraeum of Capua Vetere: An Exceptional Case of Graeco-Roman Syncretism or an Ordinary Instance of Human Cognition?, in Mystic Cults of Magna Graecia I, edd. P. A. Johnston — G. Casadio, Austin (TX) 2009, pp. 277-289. MASTANDREA, P., Cornelio Labeone: un neoplatonico latino. Testimonianze e frammenti, Leiden 1979 (Etudes pr~liminaires aux religions orientales dans l'Empire romain, 77). MASTROROSA, I., Annotazioni critiche sul IIepi kTOpucil aristideo, in «Sileno», 29.1-2 (1993), pp. 481-504. MATTIACCI, S., Apuleio in Fulgenzio, in «Studi italiani di filologia classica», 4.1 (2003), pp. 229-256. MAZZA, M., Studi Arnobiani I. La dottrina dei viri novi nel secondo libro dell'Adversus Nationes di Arnobio, in «Helikon», 3 (1963), pp. 111-169. MAZZARINO, A., La Milesia e Apuleio, Torino 1950. Mc CRACKEN, G., Arnobius of Sicca, I, The Case against the Pagans, Westminster (MD) 1949 (Ancient Christian Writers, 7). MEISS, PH., Apuleius IIEPI EPMENEISIN, LSrrach 1886. MERKELBACH, R., Roman and Mysterium in derAntike, Munchen 1962.

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

N., Magie, Religion et Philosophie au IIe siecle de notre ere. A propos du dieu-roi d'Apul~e, in La magie, Actes du Colloque Internationale de Montpellier (25-27 mars 1999), III, Du monde latin au monde contemporain, edd. A. Moreau — J.-C. Turpin, Montpellier 2000, pp. 87-107. METTE, H. J., Philon von Larisa and Antiochos von Askalon, in «Lustrum», 28-29 (1986-1987), pp. 25-63. MICHEL, A., Rh~torique et philosophie au second siecle ap. J.-C., in Aufstieg and Niedergang der romischen Welt — Sprache and Literatur (einzelne Autoren seit der hadrianischen Zeit and Allgemeines zur Literatur des 2. and 3. Jahrhunderts), edd. H. Temporini — W. Haase, Berlin — New York 1992 (ANRW II — 34,1), pp. 3-78. MILAzzO, A., Un dialogo dile. La retorica in conflitto nei Discorsi Platonici di Elio Aristide, Hildesheim — Zurich — New York 2002 (Spudasmata, 87).

La posizione di Apuleio e della scuola di Gaio nell'ambito del Medioplatonismo, in «Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa», 33 (1964), pp. 17-56. — Studi sul De dogmate Platonis di Apuleio, Pisa 1966. — La `doxa' di Platone nella Refutatio di Ippolito (I 19), in «Studi Classici e Orientali», 21 (1972), pp. 254-260 (repr. in ID., Apuleio e il platonismo cit., see below). — Apuleio e it platonismo, Firenze 1978 (Studi — Accademia toscana di scienze e lettere 'La Colombaria', 51). — Monoteismo cristiano e monoteismo platonico nella cultura latina dell'eta imperiale, in Platonismus and Christentum: Festschrift far Heinrich Darrie, edd. H.-D. Blume — F. Mann, Munster 1983 (Jahrbuch fiir Antike and Christentum, 10), pp. 133-161. — Attico. Una figura singolare del medio platonismo, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der romischen Welt — Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik: Philosophic (Historische Einleitung: Platonismus), edd. H. Temporini — W. Haase, Berlin — New York 1987 (ANRW II — 36,1), pp. 477-491.

— Divinazione e demonologia in Plutarco e Apuleio, in «Augustinianum», 28 (1989), pp. 269-280. — Esegesi e filologia del Fedro nella tarda antichita, in Understanding the Phaedrus. Proceedings of the II Symposium Platonicum, ed. L. Rossetti, Sankt Augustin 1992 (International Plato studies, 1), pp. 191-205. — Elementi filosofici nelle Metamorfosi di Apuleio, in «Koinonia», 17 (1993), pp. 109-123. — Elio Aristide tra retorica e filosofia, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der riimischen Welt — Sprache and Literatur (einzelne Autoren seit der hadrianischen Zeit and Allgemeines zur Literatur des 2. and 3. Jahrhunderts), edd. H. Temporini — W. Haase, Berlin 1993 (ANRW II — 34,2), pp. 1234-1247. — Aspetti della cultura filosofica negli ambienti della Seconda Sofistica, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der romischen Welt — Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik: Systematische Themen; Indirekte ~berlieferungen; Allgemeines; Nachtrage, ed. W. Haase, Berlin — New York 1994 (ANRW II — 36,7), pp. 5101-5133. — Il mito di Amore e Psiche in Apuleio, Napoli 1994 (Stork e testi, 14). — Elio Aristide e it platonismo del secondo secolo, in Plutarco e la cultura della sua eta, Atti del X Convegno Plutarcheo (Fisciano — Paestum, 27-29 ottobre 2005), edd. P. Volpe Cacciatore — F. Ferrari, Napoli 2007 (Collectanea, 25), pp. 87-102. — Alla scuola di Siriano: Ennia nella storia del neoplatonismo, in Syrianus et la M~taphysique de l'antiquit~~tardive, Actes du Colloque International (Geneve, 29 sept. — 1°r oct. 2006), ed. A. Longo, Napoli 2009 (Elenchos, 51), pp. 515-578. — Motivi romanzeschi e interessi cristiani nelle Recognitiones dello Pseudo Clemente tradotte da Rufino, in «Koinonia» XXXV (2011), pp. 179-196. — Hermes Christianus. The Intermingling of Hermetic Piety and Christian Thought, Turnhout 2012 (Cursor munch, 8). MORTLEY, R., Apuleius and Platonic Theology, in «American Journal of Philology», 93 (1972), pp. 584-590. MUNSTERMANN, H., Apuleius. Metamorphosen literarischer Vorlagen, Stuttgart — Leipzig 1995 (Beitr~ge zur Altertumskunde, 69). NAPOLITANO VALDITARA, L. M., 11 platonismo di Eudoro. Tradizione protoaccademica e medioplatonismo alessandrino, in «Museum Patavinum», 3 (1985), pp. 27-49. NETHERCUT, W. R., Apuleius' Metamorphoses: The Journey, in «Agon», 3 (1969), pp. 97-134.

392

393

METHY,

The Cult of Theos Hypsistos between Pagans, Jews, and Christians, in Pagan Monotheism in Late Antiquity, edd. P. Athanassiadi — M. Frede, Oxford 1999, pp. 81-148. MONCEAUX, P., Apul~e, Roman et magie, Paris n.d. [1884]. MITCHELL, S.,

Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias, II, Der Aristotelismus im I. and II. Jahrhundert n. Chr., Berlin — New York 1984 (Peripatoi, 6).

MORAUX, J.,

MORESCHINI, C.,

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

NICOSIA, S., Introduzione, in Elio Aristide. Discorsi sacri, Milano 1984, pp. 7-53. NIGGETIET, F., De Cornelio Labeone, diss. Munster 1908. NORDEN, E., AFN, 2.ETOE OEOE. Untersuchungen zur Formengeschichte religiiiser Rede, Leipzig — Berlin 1913 (It. tr. in ID., Dio ignoto, ed. C. O. Tommasi Moreschini, Brescia 2002). O'BRIEN, D., Orig~ne et Plotin sur le roi de l'univers, in EOcLIHE MAIHTOPEE «Chercheurs de sagesse», Hommage a Jean Pepin, edd. M.-O. Goulet-Caz~~et Al., Paris 1992 (Etudes Augustiniennes. S~rie Antiquite, 131), pp. 317-342. O'BRIEN, M., Apuleius and the Concept of a Philosophical Rhetoric, in «Hermathena», 151 (1991), pp. 39-50. PARATORE, E., La novella in Apuleio, Messina 1942. PENWILL, J. L., Slavish Pleasures and Profitless Curiosity. Fall and Redemption in Apuleius' Metamorphoses, in «Ramus», 4 (1975), pp. 49-82. — Ambages reciprocae: Reviewing Apuleius' Metamorphoses, in «Ramus», 19 (1990), pp. 1-25. PERNOT, L., Platon contre Platon: le probl~me de la rh~torique dans les discours platoniciens d'Aelius Aristide, in Contre Platon, 1, Le platonisme devoil~, ed. M. Dixsaut, Paris 1993 (Tradition de la pens~e classique), pp. 315-338. — L'Ombre du tigre. Recherches sur la reception de D~mosth~ne, Napoli 2006 (Speculum. Contributi di filologia classica). — Aspects meconnus de l'enseignement de la rhetorique dans le monde greco-romain a l'epoque imperiale, in L'enseignements superieur dans les mondes antiques et medievaux, ed. H. Hugonnard-Roche, Paris 2008 (Textes et traditions, 16), pp. 283-306. PERRY, B. E., The Ancient Romances. A Literary-Historical Account of Their Origins, Berkeley — Los Angeles 1967 (Sather Classical Lectures, 37). PFLIGERSDORFFER, G., Zu Boethius, De Interpr. ed. sec. I, p. 4, 4 sqq. Meiser nebst Beobachtungen zur Geschichte dei Dialektik bei den R~mern, in «Wiener Studien», 66 (1953), pp. 131-154. PLASBERG, 0., Praefatio, in FULGENTIUS, Mitologiarum libri, ed. Helm, Leipzig 1898. POHLENZ, M., Das zweite Buch der Tusculanen, in «Hermes», 44 (1909), pp. 23-40. PRAECHTER, K., Zum Platoniker Gaios, in «Hermes», 51 (1916), pp. 510529 (repr. in ID., Kleine Schriften, Hildesheim — New York 1973, pp. 81-100). — Das Altertum, in Grundri der Geschichte der Philosophie, Hrsg. F. Uberweg, 1, Berlin 1920 (repr. Basel 196210)

— Nikostratos der Platoniker, in «Hermes», 57 (1922), pp. 480-517 (reprint in ID., Kleine Schriften cit., pp. 101-137). PRANTL, C., Geschichte der Logik im Abendlande, 4 vols., Leipzig 18551867. RAMBAUX, C., Trois analyses de l'amour, Paris 1985 (Collection d'~tudes anciennes). REDFORS, J., Echtheitskritische Untersuchung der Apuleischen Schriften De Platone and De mundo, Lund 1960. REGEN, F., Apuleius philosophus Platonicus, Berlin 1971 (Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur and Geschichte, 10). rev. BEAUJEU, J., Apul~e. Opuscules philosophiques. Fragments (Paris 1973), in «Gottingische Gelehrte Anzeiger», 229.3/4 (1977), pp. 186-227. - Formlosen Formen. Plotins Philosophic als Versuch, die Regressprobleme des Platonischen Parmenides zu losen, in «Nachrichten der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen», 1 (1988), pp. 3-51. — Il De deo Socratis di Apuleio, in «Maia», n.s. 51 and 52 (19992000), pp. 429-456 and 41-66. RESCIGNO, A., Desiderari componi a deo. Attico, Plutarco, Numenio sulla materia prima della creazione, in «Koinonia», 21 (1997), pp. 39-81. — Su Aetio 15,3, in «Elenchos», 32 (2011), pp. 121-161. REITZENSTEIN, R., Das Miirchen von Amor and Psyche bei Apuleius, Leipzig 1912 (repr. in Amor and Psyche, edd. G. Binder — R. Merkelbach, Darmstadt 1968, pp. 87-158). — Eros and Psyche in der agyptisch-griechischen Kleinkunst, in «Sitzungs Berichte der Heidelberg. Akademie der Wissenschaft», 12 (1914), pp. 3-15 (repr. in Amor and Psyche cit., pp. 159-174). - Noch einmal Eros and Psyche, in «Archiv fiir Religions Wissenschaft», 28 (1930), pp. 42-87 (repr. in Amor and Psyche cit., pp. 235-292). RICH, A., The Platonic Ideas as the Thoughts of God, in «Mnemosyne», 7 (1954), pp. 122-133. ROHRICHT, A., Die Seelenlehre des Arnobius, Hamburg 1893. ROHDE, E., Zu Apuleius, in «Rheinisches Museum», 40 (1885), pp. 66-95 (repr. in Kleine Schnften, II, Tubingen — Leipzig 1901, pp. 43-74) . RUDIGER, H., Nachwort, in APULEIUS, Der goldene Esel, Ger. tr. by A. Rode, ed. H. Riidiger, Zurich 1960, pp. 517-559. RUNIA, D. M., Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, Leiden 1986 (Philosophia antiqua, 44).

394

395

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

RUSSELL, D. A., Aristides and the Prose Hymns, in Antonine Literature, ed. D. A. Russell, Oxford 1990, pp. 199-219. SALLMANN, K., Erziihlendes in der Apologie des Apuleius, oder Argumentation als Unterhaltung, in Groningen Colloquia on the Novel, VI, ed. H. Hofmann, Groningen 1995, pp. 137-168. SANDY, G. N., The Greek world of Apuleius. Apuleius and the Second Sophistic, Leiden 1997 (Mnemosyne, bibliotheca classica Batava Suppl., 174). Book 11: Ballast or Anchor?, in Aspects of Apuleius' Golden Ass, edd. B. J. Hijmans — R. van der Paardt, Groningen 1978, pp. 123-140. Apuleius' `Metamorphoses' and the Ancient Novel, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der riimischen Welt — Sprache and Literatur (einzelne Autoren seit der hadrianischen Zeit and Allgemeines zur Literatur des 2. and 3. Jahrhunderts), edd. H. Temporini — W. Haase, Berlin 1993 (ANRW II — 34,2), pp. 1511-1574. ScAzzoso, P., Le Metamorfosi di Apuleio. Studio critico sul signto del romanzo, Milano 1951. SCHLAM, C. C., Platonica in the Metamorphoses of Apuleius, in «Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association», 101 (1970), pp. 477-487. — The Scholarship on Apuleius since 1938, in «Classical World», 64 (1971), pp. 285-308. — The Metamorphoses of Apuleius: On Making an Ass of Oneself, Chapel Hill (NC) 1992. SCHLAM, C. C., — FINKELPEARL, E., A Review of Scholarship on Apuleius' Metamorphoses' 1970-1998, in «Lustrum», 42 (2000). SCHMEKEL, A., Die Philosophie der mittleren Stoa in ihrem geschichtlichen Zusammenhange, Berlin 1892. SCHRoDER, S., Plutarch on oracles and divine inspiration, in Plutarch. On the daimonion of Socrates, edd. H.-G. Nesselrath et Al., Tubingen 2010 (SAPERE, 16), pp. 145-167. SETAIOLI, A., Seneca e i Greci. Citazioni e traduzioni nelle opere filosofiche, Bologna 1988 (Testi e manuali per l'insegnamento universitario del latino, 26). SFAMENI GASPARRO, G., Elio Aristide e Asclepio, un retore e it suo dio: salute del corpo e direzione spirituale, in Cultura e promozione umana. La cura del corpo e dello spirito nell'antichitd classica e nei primi secoli cristiani. Un magistero ancora attuale?, Convegno internazionale di studi Oasi `Maria Santissima' (Troina, 29 ottobre — 1 novembre 1997), edd. E. Dal Covolo — I. Giannetto, Troina 1998 (Collana di Cultura e lingue classiche, 5), pp. 123-143.

— Dio unico, pluralitd e monarchia divina. Esperienze religiose e teologie nel mondo tardo-antico, Brescia 2010 (Scienze e storia delle religioni, n.s. 12). SHAW, G., Theurgy and the Soul: The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus, Pennsylvania 1995 (Hermeneutics: Studies in the History of Religions). SHUMATE, N., Crisis and Conversion in Apuleius' Metamorphoses, Ann Arbor (MI) 1996. SIMMONS, M. B., Arnobius of Sicca. Religious Conflict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian, Oxford 1995 (Oxford early Christian studies). SINKO, TH., De Apulei et Albini doctrine platonicae adumbratione, Krakow 1905. STEINHEIMER, E., Untersuchungen fiber die Quellen des Chakidius, diss. Wiirzburg 1912. STRACHE, H., De Arii Didymi in morali philosophia auctoribus, diss. Berlin 1909. — Der Eklektizismus des Antiochos von Askalon, Berlin 1921 (Philologische Untersuchungen, 26). STROHM, H., Studien zur Schrift von der Welt, in «Museum Helveticum», 9 (1952), pp. 137-175. SULLIVAN, M., Apuleian Logic. The Nature, Sources and Influences of Apuleius's Peri Hermeneias, Amsterdam 1967 (Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics). SWAHN, J. 0., The Tale of Cupid and Psyche, Lund 1955. TARRANT, H., Moral goal and moral virtues in Middle Platonism, in Greek and Roman Philosophy 100 BC — 200 AD, edd. E. W. Sharpies — R. Sorabji, 2 vols., London 2007 (Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Suppl., 94), II, pp. 419-429. TATUM, J., The Tales in Apuleius' Metamorphoses, in «Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association», 100 (1969), pp. 487-527 (repr. in Oxford Readings in The Roman Novel, ed. S. J. Harrison, Oxford 1999, pp. 157-194). — Apuleius and the Golden Ass, Ithaca (NY) — London 1979. TESTARD, M., Saint Augustin et Ciceron, 2 vols., Paris 1958 (Collection des Etudes augustiniennes. S~rie Antiquite, 5-6). THEILER, W., Die Vorbereitung des Neuplatonismus, Berlin 1934 (Problemata. Forschungen zur klassischen Philologie, 1). - Tacitus and die antike Schicksalsehre, in Phyllobolia fur Peter von der Mahn, edd. Gigon et Al., Basel 1946, pp. 35-90 (repr. in ID., Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus, Berlin 1966, pp. 46-103). Forschungen zum Neuplatonismus, Berlin 1966 (Quellen and Studien zur Geschichte der Philosophic, 10).

396

397

APULEIUS AND THE METAMORPHOSES OF PLATONISM

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TIMOTIN, A., La d~monologie platonicienne. Histoire de la notion de daimon de Platon aux derniers n~oplatoniciens, Leiden 2011 (Philosophia Antigua, 128). TOMMASI MORESCHINI, C. 0., Per un bilancio di Agnostos Theos, in E. NORDEN, Dio ignoto, Brescia 2002 (Letteratura cristiana antica. Studi), pp. 9-122. - Gnostic Variations on the Tale of Cupid and Psyche, in Intende lector echoes of myth, religion and ritual in the Ancient Novel, edd. M. Futre Pineiro et AL, Berlin 2013 (MythosEikonPoiesis, 6), pp. 123-144. TRAINA, A., Vortit barbare, Roma 1970 (Ricerche di Storia della Lingua Latina, 7). - Lo stile drammatico del filosofo Seneca, Bologna 19874 (Testi e manuali er1'insegnamento universitario del latino, 11). RAPP, M. B., Plato's Phaedrus in Second-Century Greek Literature, in Antonin Literature, ed. D. A. Russell, Oxford 1990, pp. 141-173. TuLLIus, F., Die Quellen des Amobius im. 4., 5. and 6. Buch seiner Schrift Adversus Nationes', Berlin 1934. USTINOVA, Y., The Supreme Gods of the Bosporan Kingdom: Celestial Aphrodite and the Most High God, Leiden 1999 (Religions in the Graeco-Roman world, 135). VALLETTE, P., L'apologie d'Apul~e, Paris 1908. VAN DEN BROEK, R., Apuleius, Gnostics and Magicians on the Nature of God, in Studies in Gnosticism and Alexandrian Christianity, Leiden - New York - Cologne 1996 (Nag Hammadi and Manichaean studies, 39), pp. 42-54. VAN LIFFERINGE, C., La Th~urgie. Des Oracles ChaldaIques a Proclus, Liege 1999 (Kernos Supplement, 9). VAN WINDEN, J. C. M., Calcidius on Matter. His doctrine and sources, Leiden 1959 (Philosophia antiqua, 9). - An Early Christian Philosopher, Leiden 1971 (Philosophia Patrum. Interpretations of patristic Texts, 1). VERSNEL, H. S., Ter Unus: Isis, Dioysos, Hermes. Three Studies in Henotheism, Leiden 1990 (Studies in Greek and Roman religion, 6). VON KLEIST, H., De Lucii Apulei Madaurensis libro qui inscribitur Philosophia morali, diss. Gottingen 1874. WALSH, P. G., The Roman Novel: the `Satyricon' of Petronius and the `Metamorphoses' of Apuleius, Cambridge 1970. - Apuleius and Plutarch, in Neoplatonism and Early Christian Thought: Essays in Honour of A. H. Armstrong, London 1981, pp. 20-32.

WASZINK, J. H., Observations on Tertullian's Treatise Against Hermogenes, in «Vigiliae Christianae», 9 (1955), pp. 129-147. - Praefatio, in CALCIDIUS, Timaeus a Calcidio translatus commentarioque instructus, edd. P. J. Jensen - J. H. Waszink, in Plato Latinus, IV, London - Leiden 19752. WHITTAKER, J., Parisinus Graecus 1962 and the Writings of Albinus, in «Phoenix», 28.3-4 (1974), pp. 320-354 and 450-456. - The historical background of Proclus' doctrine of the AiiBlr,r6crrwra, in De Jambliche ~~Proclus, ed. H. Diirrie, Vandoeuvres - Geneve 1975 (Entretiens sur l'Antiquit~~classique, 21), pp. 193-230. - Self-Generating Principles in Second-Century Gnostic Systems, in The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, I, The School of Valentinus, proceedings of the International Conference on Gnosticism at Yale, New Haven, Connecticut (28-31 March 1978), ed. B. Layton, Leiden 1980 (Studies in the history of religions, 41), pp. 176-189. - Platonic Philosophy in the Early Centuries of the Empire, in Aufstieg and Niedergang der riimischen Welt - Philosophie, Wissenschaften, Technik: Philosophie (Historische Einleitung: Platonismus), edd. H. Temporini - W. Haase, Berlin - New York 1987 (ANRW II - 36,1), pp. 81-123. - Alcinoos: Enseignement des Doctrines de Platon, Paris 1990 (repr. 2002, CUF S~rie grecque, 336). VON WILAMOWITZ-MOELLENDORFF, U., Platon, 2 vols., Berlin 1919. WINKLER, J. J., Auctor & Actor. A narratological Reading of Apuleius' The Golden Ass, Berkeley 1985. WITT, R. E., Albinus and the History of Middle Platonism, Cambridge 1937 (repr. 2013, Cambridge Classical Studies). WITTMANN, W., Das Isisbuch des Apuleius, Stuttgart 1938 (Forschungen zur Kirchen and Geistesgeschichte, 12). WLOsox, A., Zur Einheit der Metamorphosen des Apuleius, in «Philologus», 113 (1969), pp. 68-84. ZAMBON, M., Porphyre et le Moyen-Platonisme, Paris 2002 (Histoire des doctrines de l'Antiquit~~classique, 27). ZELLER, E., Die Philosophie der Griechen in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, III, Die nacharistotelische Philosophie, 2 vols., Leipzig 18813.

398

399

INDEX OF NAMES by Diego Ianiro iueJF. ,ns v-W.esS

}.

References are given to the page numbers. An 'n' after a page number refers back to a footnote on that page. Numbers in italics indicate a substantial treatment of the item. Variant forms of names and original Latin names are given between parentheses. Surnames of modem authors are written according to the most commonly found spelling.

Achilles (myth.) 135, 141 Acoreus, Egyptian priest 194 Actaeon (myth.) 112 Adam (bib.) 90 Adler, A. 170n Adorno, F. 250-251, 250n Aelianus, Claudius 33n, 166-167, 166n-167n, 177n; De natura animalium 33n; Varia historia 166-167, 166n-167n Aelius Aristides, vide Aristides, Aelius Aemilianus, accuser of Apuleius (Apologia) 32 Aeneas (myth.) 167, 167n Aeschines of Sphettus 179n Aetius, philosopher 220, 220n, 225, 252, 257 Agamennon (myth.) 135 Agrippa, Menenius Lanatus 32 Albinus, platonist 15-17, 16n, 21, 121n, 130n, 173n-174n, 174, 255n, 270, 276, 286n, 291292, 305, 307, 307n, 329n; Isagoge 307, 307n Alcinous 13, 15-19, 21, 21n, 2324, 42, 53n, 121-122, 121n122n, 130, 130n, 132, 132n, 140n, 190, 198, 204, 213214, 213n, 220-224, 220n221n, 226-228, 227n, 251256, 256n, 258n, 259-260, 263-264, 264n, 269, 270, 278,

282-283, 285, 285n-289n, 287, 289-291, 294-297, 301302, 301n, 305-308, 311-316, 311n-313n, 318, 320, 320n, 322, 323n, 327, 328n-329n, 329-334, 333n-334n; Didaskalik~s 15-16, 24, 42n, 122n, 130n, 132n, 140n, 190n, 204, 204n, 213n, 220n-224n, 226n227n, 252n-256n, 258n-259n, 264n, 270n, 282n-283n, 285n, 287n-290n, 292n, 294n-297n, 301n, 303n, 306n-308n, 311n316n, 318n, 320n, 322n-324n, 327n, 329n, 331n-332n, 334n Alesse, F. 25n, 120n Alexander of Aphrodisias (Alexander Aphrodisiensis) 74, 283, 283n, 286n, 304, 304n; De anima 304, 304n; De fato 283n Alexander III of Macedon, the Great (Alexander Magnus) 164, 167 Alexander, W. H. 297n Amann, J. 179, 179n, 182, 182n Amato, E. 153, 153n, 155n, 167n Ammonius of Athens, teacher of Plutarch 25 Ammonius Saccas 264 Amphiaraus (myth.) 132, 346 Anaxagoras 31, 176 Anderson, G. 73-74, 74n, 154n

401