'"APULEIUS, QUI NOBIS AFRIS AFER EST NOTIOR"' Augustine's polemic against Apuleius in De Civitate Dei text published in: Scholia. Studies in classical antiquity, N.S. 12, 2003, 82-95 (published August,2004) [p.82]Summary:
St.Augustine studied his fellow-African author Apuleius intensely. Several
traces of the pagan author's works appear in his oeuvre. This article studies
the various links between both authors, focussing mainly on the polemic of
Augustine in De Civitate Dei against Apuleius' writings on demonology. The
Church Father's discussion of Apuleius must of course be considered in the
context of the general aims of De Civitate Dei. Nonetheless, it shows a
remarkable one-sidedness and does not fully do justice to the actual content of
Apuleius' text.
It
is, therefore, no surprise that Augustine's works show pervasive influences from
pagan authors.[2]
Some of his favorites belong to the top of the Latin canon: Cicero and Virgil
are mentioned or referred to most often. But other authors seem less obvious:
Sallust, for example, provides him with both arguments and fine phrases to
support his rather dark views on
One
of the least expected names here is that of Apuleius of Madauros (ca. 125- ca
180).[3]
According to the Augustinus-Lexikon,[4]
Augustine pays more [p.83] attention
to Apuleius than to any other post-classical author from Latin literature.
Starting from this curious fact, the following contribution aims to examine this
relationship more closely. After a survey of some scattered references to
Apuleius, I shall focus on Augustine' treatment of Apuleius in De civitate
Dei, a polemic discussion that dominates most of books 8 and 9, and attempt
to analyse to what extent Augustine's criticism is justified by Apuleius' texts
as we know them, and what may have caused the bishop to deal with the earlier
author in the way he does.[5] The
first reason for Augustine's knowledge of Apuleius is a simple one: they share a
native country, being both from Apuleius
enim, ut de illo potissimum loquamur, qui nobis Afris Afer est notior...
(Ep. 138,19). 'But, to speak more especially of Apuleius, who as an
African is better known to us Africans...'[6]
Their
fathers belonged to the higher classes, although Augustine' father does not seem
to have been very rich.[7]
While there is a gap of time of more than two centuries between both authors, in
antiquity this distance in time was probably felt to be less important than it
would be nowadays. Apuleius certainly [p.84]
remained a famous writer for many centuries after his death, and it is
beyond doubt that this must also have been the case in his native town Madauros. It
was in this city Madauros where Augustine went to school from 366 to 370.[8]
He was already a catechumen, but had not received baptism, and his studies were
not yet directed towards the teaching of Christianity. On the contrary, he was
an avid and passionate reader of Virgil and he detested Greek (Conf.
1,20-23). Given his preference for Latin and Latin literature, it is simply
unimaginable that during his formative years in Madauros, the young, fiery
Augustine did not read the works of Apuleius, with all their thrilling rhetoric
and fascinating stories about magic. Apuleius'
fame was even manifest on the streets in African towns. Apuleius himself tells
of statues erected for him in
Augustine's
later writings prove that he did know several of Apuleius' works.[12]
First, there is Apuleius' great speech in defence of himself, the Apology,
delivered in 156 in Oea.[13]
The author had stood trial for 'magical practices', with which he allegedly
bewitched a rich widow, Pudentilla, who was a local celebrity, into marrying
him, even though he was a poor man and an [p.85]
outsider. In the speech, a brilliant, and indeed unique, piece of Latin
oratory, the speaker uses all the possible means of ancient rhetoric to deny the
charge and refute all the arguments of the prosecution as clumsy lies, forged by
silly, evil, envious barbarians, and to praise himself and celebrate his own
splendid achievements. Meanwhile, the reader easily observes that the charges
may have been misplaced but that Apuleius knew quite a lot about ancient magic.
It is, to put it briefly, a text that is un-christian to the highest degree.[14] Put
against this background, it is rather surprising to find Augustine extolling the
speech as a magnificent piece of literature: Huius
autem philosophi Platonici copiosissima et disertissima exstat oratio, qua
crimen artium magicarum a se alienum esse defendit seque aliter non vult
innocentem videri nisi ea negando, quae non possunt ab innocente committi
(Civ. 8,19).[15] The
brief quotation already shows some of Augustine's ambivalence towards Apuleius.
As an oratorical achievement, the speech is given lavish praise, but the speaker
himself does not seem entirely free of charges. For whoever denies only what
cannot possibly be admitted, one could say, is probably not without blame and
may even take pride in it. Any reader of the Apology will readily agree
with the implication of Augustine's words, for in the speech Apuleius even
ventures to show off his knowledge of magic, and does not even shrink from using
menacing words that look like magical incantations.[16] [p.86]
Magic Nowadays,
Apuleius' fame rests chiefly on his novel Metamorphoses or Asinus
Aureus ('the Golden Ass'). In this book, the protagonist Lucius shows a
marked interest in magic and wishes to be transformed into a bird. His
metamorphosis, however, ends rather differently than had been envisaged, for by
accident he is changed into an ass. In this asinine form, he goes through
various adventures and misfortunes, to be changed into a man again at the end of
the book, by the intervention of The
reception of Apuleius' novel in antiquity is a largely obscure matter. Except
for a few scattered remarks in late sources,[17]
we do not know to what extent the novel found favor with contemporary readers
and later generations. But the way Augustine mentions the novel may well be
symptomatic. In a key passage in De Civitate Dei, he tackles the subject
of 'transformation of men into animals'. Expressing his personal disbelief in
the whole phenomenon, Augustine goes on to warn his readers against the many,
widespread stories about it. He tells how in (...)
sicut Apuleius in libris, quos asini aurei titulo inscripsit, sibi ipsi
accidisse, ut accepto ueneno humano animo permanente asinus fieret, aut
indicauit aut finxit. Haec vel falsa sunt vel tam inusitata, ut merito non
credantur.
(Civ. 18,18)[18] Augustine's
testimony is quite remarkable for several reasons.[19]
First, it is a rare reference to the novel as such, a firm proof of the fact
that it was still known in his day, and it may even be taken to suggest a
certain renown. Moreover,
it raises a still burning question for specialists: what was the exact [p.87] title of the novel? Was it Metamorphoses, as is now
commonly assumed on the basis of the manuscripts, or was it the rather more
appealing Asinus Aureus ('Golden Ass'), for which Augustine is the main
witness? Since Augustine is such an important author, his authority is by no
means to be despised, and time and again scholars attempt to reopen the
discussion in favor of Asinus Aureus.[20]
It is a nice title indeed, and various arguments have been brought forward in
support of it, notably some alleged allusions to Egyptian religion.[21]
However, the fact remains that Apuleius' story nowhere mentions a 'golden ass'
(or any other golden animal),[22]
and that the ass can hardly be called 'golden', given his miserable fate and bad
habits throughout in the novel. Nonetheless,
Augustine's remark remains also highly interesting because he does not hesitate
to interpret the novel as a piece of autobiography. In his view, Apuleius tells
how he changed into an ass while retaining his human intelligence. Only at the
end of the quotation does the Church Father express some doubt: Apuleius either
states or fakes this transformation. So while it may well be a lie, a fiction,
the possibility remains that it is real after all. This also shows in
Augustine's final sentence: such stories are simply not true, or else they are
so uncommon that they should not be believed. But in the second case, the
argument seems rather curious, for whatever is highly uncommon, may still be
completely true and should not be ruled out in advance. In
what follows the quotation given above, Augustine develops the theory that such
metamorphoses are physically impossible but may involve cases of extreme
illusion or hallucination, possibly under the influence of poison or the
activity of demons. So
the traditional notion, cherished by so many generations of readers and
scholars, that the protagonist in Apuleius' novel is none but Apuleius himself,
seems to date back at least to Augustine. Of course, literary studies in the
20th century have shown the great importance of making a distinction between the
'I' in any literary text and the person of its author (even where the author is
manifestly writing about 'himself'), and this has by now become a basic rule in
interpreting literature. In
the case of the Metamorphoses, it is, in fact, surprising how this lack
of distinction between the 'I' and Apuleius could come about in the first place,
[p.88]and how it could persist. The protagonist in the text calls
himself 'Lucius' and states on the first page that his roots were in Attica,
Corinth and the Peloponnese, from where he went to Rome and learned Latin. The
rest of the story is located in Thessaly. So what reason is there to equate the
African Apuleius from Madauros with this Lucius from Attica?[23]
It is strange indeed that this elementary point was not noticed by an
intelligent philosopher such as Augustine. For if he had made the point, he
could easily have reinforced his point about the non-reality of metamorphoses:
look, this is not about Apuleius, but about some fictional character. One cannot
help wondering whether the prologue of the novel as we have it, was indeed the
first page in Augustine's copy too.[24] In
this connection one may refer to a curious remark of Peter Brown. Speaking about
the 'gifted African' who 'delighted in the sheer play of words, in puns, rhymes
and riddles', briefly: in the 'African fire', he notes that these writers also
composed novels. He then mentions 'the only two books from Latin Literature that
a modern man can place with ease beside the fiction of today, the Asinus
Aureus by Apuleius, and the Confessiones by Augustine.[25]
Brown's judgement on Apuleius' book will be shared by many modern readers: most
would even agree that it is very good fiction. But as far as the Confessiones
are concerned, we are in for a surprise. Here we find Augustine's book drawn
into the sphere of fiction, whereas it generally counts as a famous example of
autobiography. Fact or fiction: the question remains complex.[26] [p.89]
Demons Apart
from the Apology and the Metamorphoses, several other works of
Apuleius have been preserved,[27]
but about these Augustine is mostly brief or remains silent. He briefly refers (Civ.
4,2) to the De mundo, Apuleius' Latin translation of the
pseudo-Aristotelian Peri kosmou but he does not mention either the Florida,
a collection of fragments from speeches, or the De Platone, a minor,
rather conventional treatise on the teachings of Plato.[28] Much
attention, by contrast, is given to a small, philosophical speech by Apuleius
that does not find many readers today but which for centuries was Apuleius' most
popular and most influential text, the De Deo Socratis (hereafter: DDS).
The small book, with its curious (only partly appropriate) name, deals with
Middle Platonic demonology.[29]
The text was probably delivered as a popular philosophical lecture before a huge
audience gathered in a theatre. This rather short text (what is left of it
amounts to no more than twenty pages)[30]
is the target of a heated discussion by Augustine in books 8 and 9 of De
Civitate Dei (from here: Civ.). This may seem surprising. What
prompted Augustine to devote so much space and effort in attacking this innocent
little speech? Let
us first have a look at Augustine's text. In books 6 to 10 of Civ.
Augustine discusses various questions concerning pagan polytheism. The earlier
books had shown that the pagan cult of gods was by no means a guarantee of
success and prosperity on earth, the sad fate of the Roman Empire being a case
in point. This in turn now prompts the further question, [p.90]
whether such pagan cult may be important for life after death. Hardly
surprisingly, here too Augustine strongly opposes pagan religion. In
the eighth book of Civ. he enters into discussion with the Platonists. In
Augustine's view, they have some ideas that are correct, such as Plato's concept
of a single god, but inevitably they also cherish many ideas that he feels
obliged to object to. Among the latter, there is the notion, common among Middle
Platonists, of a partition of the world into three spheres: heaven and earth are
inhabited by, respectively, gods and men, whereas the air is the special reserve
of daemones 'demons', beings between gods and men, who share the
immortality of the gods and the passions of men, notably that for the theatre.
It is these demons that are the main target of Augustine's discussion, and it is
in this context that the name of Apuleius is immediately mentioned (esp.
8,14-22). Augustine explicitly mentions Apuleius' work about Socrates: Apuleius
tamen Platonicus Madaurensis de hac re sola unum scripsit librum, cuius esse
titulum voluit "de deo Socratis", ubi disserit et exponit, ex quo
genere numinum Socrates habebat adiunctum et amicitia quadam conciliatum a quo
perhibetur solitus admoneri ut desisteret ab agendo, quando id quod agere
volebat non prospere fuerat eventurum
(8,14)[31] But
critical remarks follow right away. Had not Plato rightly banished poets from
his ideal state? And was this not done to rob the demons of their pleasures of
the theatre? So, Augustine argues, either Apuleius is simply wrong, or Plato
gives contradictory advice concerning demons (both allegedly honoring them as
well as fighting their pleasures), or, worse still, Socrates' friendship with a
demon is bad (8,14).[32]
In that context, Augustine somewhat maliciously suggests that Apuleius himself
felt shame to use 'de daemone' in his title and deliberately chose the
(incorrect) 'de deo'. Then
follows a passage (8,14) which sums up Augustine's view of DDS: not even
Apuleius could find anything to praise in these demons, except for the
combination of fine structure and firmness in their bodies and the loftier
region [p.91]they inhabit. The demons
are bad in many respects, and it is no wonder that they wanted to include
shameful stage displays among their sacred rites, and wished to pass themselves
off as gods. In
what follows, Augustine resumes the various points raised here. He argues at
considerable length that Apuleius' demons really do not have anything that is
good. Neither their superior bodies, nor their high position puts them above
man, for else we would also be surpassed by birds and other creatures (8,15).
And as to their character, Apuleius' text says that they are liable to the same
emotions as men, such as confusion or anger.[33]
The whole sphere of magic and prophecy belongs to the demons too, something
which in Augustine's eyes can hardly count as a recommendation. So why should we
honor these demons? Because they are eternal, perhaps? The answer is typical for
Augustine: ...quod tempore aeterna, quid boni est, si non beata? (8,16)
'that they are eternal in time, what does that profit them, if they are not
blessed?'.[34]
Christian bliss is unknown to the demons, so their eternity is worth nothing. If
Apuleius had at least ascribed some virtus to them, they would have been
worth something, although veneration would have to be directed towards God only
(8,16). Apuleius'
demons are thus clearly considered from a Christian view and strongly rejected.
Augustine's position here must be related to the development of the word
'daemon', which in the course of centuries before him had acquired an
increasingly negative sense: it had almost exclusively come to refer to evil
spirits and frightful creatures. For
many chapters the Church Father keeps on attacking the demons with all the
arguments his great intelligence and considerable rhetorical talents can
furnish: the demons are eternally unhappy, forever prey to emotions, entirely
unworthy of our veneration. Again and again Augustine returns to what seems his
main concerns: the theatrical love of the demons and the forms of magic with
which they were intimately connected. Talking about magic, he subtly adds that
it was not only rejected by the Christians, for the earliest of Roman laws
already condemned it. And was not Apuleius himself arraigned on account of the
very accusation of magic (8,19)?[35] [p.92]A
new point of criticism is the notion that demons would stand, as it were,
between gods and men. In the Platonic theory, there is no direct communication
between gods and human beings, but here the help of intermediate beings is
needed. A god who communicates with evil demons rather than with men? This is of
course completely unacceptable to Augustine, and he launches a vehement,
rhetorically colorful attack against the idea (8,20-1). A
fine example is his concluding argument in 8,21. The question is raised of what
the demons have told the gods about Plato's abhorrence of poetical fictions
about the gods. Did they tell them, but remain silent about their own preference
for such tales (1)? Or (2) did they keep secret both facts, or (3) tell about
both? Finally, (4) they may have remained silent about Plato but expressed their
own liking. This
argument with two variables neatly produces four possibilities, which are then
subsequently presented as unacceptable: for if (1), the gods would not
communicate with the good Plato while keeping in touch with evil demons. If (2),
what would be the point of having intermediaries at all, if they suppress the
truth? Possibility (3) would even be insulting to the gods and (4) would be the
worst option, for it would leave the gods with the bad news only. The
conclusion then, is clear: Apuleius' theory is untrue, his demons are bad and
should be rejected. They are malicious spirits keen on injustice and evil,
holding human beings of light belief spell-bound (8,22). This
discussion, extending for well over a page, may seem a school exercise in
rhetoric rather than a theological discussion, and an inexperienced reader may
have some difficulty following it. Apuleius, for his part, who was a great lover
of such arguments, might well have been amused by Augustine's reasoning. Meanwhile,
he could have easily defended himself against several points raised here. For
instance, nowhere in DDS does he mention a specific connection between
demons and the theatre,[36]
and nowhere does he argue that the demons work against men, or keep them away
from the gods. Moreover, he might have argued that Augustine refers exclusively
to the first part of his speech (I-XV),[37]
thereby leaving out of account all that is positive in [p.93] it. Augustine
tacitly assumes that the demons are always evil, a claim that seems
unwarranted by Apuleius' text. On the contrary, that text even suggests that
demons can exert a positive
influence on the people they accompany. Thus, Socrates is explicitly said to be
refrained by his demon whenever he starts doing something that is wrong or
dangerous (DDS 17 (157), 19 (162-3)). And this demon is nothing else but
the Genius, the inborn spirit that can be said to be identical with a
person's mind (DDS 15 (151)), or, in a second sense, the guardian spirit
that each man receives at birth. This demon is the inseparable witness of every
soul, and if it is rightly cultivated by virtuous behaviour, it will offer
protection, warnings, and help. It wards off evil and supports the good. No
wonder, then, Apuleius concludes, that Socrates honoured this God within him (DDS
16-17 (155-7)). It
is quite clear that according to Apuleius this highest species of daemones[38]
functions as a 'conscience' and promotes the good; it must be honored with
purity and justice, after the shining example of Socrates. The notion expressed
here can fairly easily be combined with any of the ancient philosophical systems
(except, perhaps, Epicurean and Sceptical teachings) and does not show the
slightest trace of moral decadence or extravagance. Augustine's
starting points are, obviously, not those of the source he is attacking. He
rather presents the evidence from his own perspective, and then uses logical
means to extrapolate matters ad absurdum. His starting points are firmly
Christian: demons are evil and they have a strong connection with the theatre.
As to the latter view, Augustine is not the first one to adopt it, for it can be
found as early as Tertullian's De Spectaculis. Augustine himself
repeatedly refers to the theatrical link with demons, e.g. in the famous passage
in the Confessiones where he tells of his own fascination for the theatre
(Conf. 3,4-5). Only
at the beginning of book 9 of Civ., when the discussion of the Apuleian
demons has in fact been concluded, Augustine brings up the question of whether
there exist good demons, and in that context he mentions Apuleius again (Civ.
9,2-3). But immediately he returns to the point which is crucial for him: the
demons' liability to emotions. He then even quotes from DDS,[39]
as if to prove that this is conceded by Apuleius [p.94] himself. What he does not tell us, is that the quoted remark
about the demons in DDS forms the starting point for an account of the
majestic, eternal gods, who are entirely free of passion, unlike the demons,
who, being intermediaries between gods and men, possess characteristics of both.
In other words, what Apuleius is concerned with in the context of the lines
quoted by Augustine, is not the demons, but the majestic status of the gods. Several
times, Augustine resumes the issue of the demons' passions (Civ. 9,6;
9,7), and the alleged lack of positive qualities ascribed by Apuleius to the
demons (9,8). Their place in the cosmos and their inevitable eternal unhappiness
are also discussed again (9,12-13). Finally,
Augustine mentions the only real intermediator between God and man, namely Jesus
Christ. In his view, demons do exist, but they are only evil spirits who keep
men away from the good and lead them into temptation. God does not need any help
from demons to communicate with men, whom he can address directly (9,16).
Neither does man need the help of demons, but only the intercession of Christ
(9,17). At this point, Apuleius' little work on demons is no longer mentioned.[40] Other
aims [p.95]
Having
said this, one cannot help wondering why Augustine reacts in so strong a manner,
and why he simply omits the positive aspects of Apuleius' theory of demons. His
attitude may partly be explained by the sheer popularity of the Middle Platonic
system "men - demons - gods". The notion was widespread, if only
because it easily combined with much of ancient philosophy and mythology. Its
simplicity and intrinsic clarity must have made it a serious rival to Christian
theories on the organization of the world, which are rather more complicated.
Faced with the attractive pagan theory, Augustine may have felt obliged to
combat it at some length.[41] The
specific tone and approach may also betray an element of personal concern. To
Augustine, with his strong, direct experience of God, it must have been utterly
unacceptable that God could not communicate with man, or that man could not
reach God, but that both would be in need of intermediate powers. Maybe his own
experience was so strong that it prevented him from taking a clear and fair view
of the old pagan system. He may simply have been unable to give up some of the
fundamental thoughts of his belief, even for the length of the discussion. Meanwhile,
Augustine's discussion of Apuleius' DDS, for all its one-sided approach,
is not as exceptional as it may seem. For many centuries, rhetorical polemics
had always aimed at bringing forward one's own point of view in as powerful a
manner as possible, not by carefully scrutinizing the opponent's theory, but
rather by identifying some points that were best suited for strong criticism.
Apuleius' own works, such as the colorful and powerful Apology, had been
full of such personal polemics, even to the point of insults and invective,
depths to which Augustine certainly does not sink here. Posthumously, one could
say, Apuleius received no more than his fair share, having become a target of
polemic himself. Nonetheless, it remains strange to see how an acute reader such
as Augustine could misrepresent his views, in spite of their common background
as Africans. [1]
I thank dr. S.J. Harrison ( [2].
The standard reference work is: H. Hagendahl, Augustine and the Latin
Classics, 2 vols., (Gothenburg 1967). Cf. further Sabine MacCormack, The
shadows of poetry : Vergil in the mind of Augustine, [3]
Many details concerning Apuleius' life remain vague. Only his date of birth
is relatively certain, since it can be deduced from indications in his work.
The date of death depends on the date one assumes for Apuleius' novel Metamorphoses,
which is a highly debated question; see Vincent Hunink, 'The date of
Apuleius' Metamorphoses', in: Hommages à Carl Deroux, Latomus,
Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History (Bruxelles 2002)
(forthcoming). [5]
For earlier studies of Augustine's attitude to Apuleius, see Hagendahl [1]
17-28 (testimonia) and 680-687 (analysis); C. Moreschini, Apuleio e il
Platonismo ( [6]
Translation: [7]
On his father Patricius, cf. Aug. Conf. 2,5 ...patris, municipis
Thagatensis admodum tenuis. Cf. Garry Wills, Saint-Augustine
(London 2000) 3, who assumes Patricius was a local town-councillor, a decurio.
We are informed by Apuleius that his own father had held the office of duumuir;
cf. Apul. Apol. 24,9. Apuleius' father seems to have been rather
wealthy: Apol. 23,1. [9]
See [10]
`The citizens of Madauros to the Platonic philosopher who confers glory upon
them'. Cf. RE 14,1,202 s.v. Madauros; ILA 2115. [12]
For a discussion of all the passages where Augustine mentions Apuleius, see
Hagendahl [1], 17-28 and 680-687; further M. Horsfall-Scotti, 'Apuleio tra
magia e filosofia: la riscoperta di Agostino', in: Dicti Studiosus,
Scritti di filologia offerti a Scevola Mariotti dai suoi allievi (Urbino
1990) 295‑320. [13]
For a new English translation with introduction and notes, see Apuleius, Rhetorical
works, translated by S.J. Harrison, J.L. Hilton and V.J.C. Hunink
(Oxford 2001) 11-121. [14]
There may even be some anti-christian allusions in the speech; cf. Vincent
Hunink, 'Apuleius, Pudentilla, and Christianity' in: VChr 54 (2000)
80-94. [15]
'But of this Platonist philosopher, Apuleius, there survives a very full and
elegant speech, in which he defends himself against the charge of practising
the arts of magic and shows no desire to appear innocent except by denying
actions which cannot be performed by an innocent man.' Translation: Saint
Augustine, The city of God against the pagans, vol. III, books
VIII-IX, with an English translation by David S. Wiesen (Cambridge
Mass./London 1988) (The Loeb Classical Library nr. 413), 89. [16]
E.g. Apol. 64,1-2 'May this god, the messenger between upper world
and underworld, call the wrath of the divine powers of both upon you,
Aemilianus, as a punishment for your lie! May he continually bring
appearances of the dead before your eyes, and whatever shades, malevolent
ghosts, spirits and spooks there are; and all nocturnal phantoms, all fears
of the grave ─
from which you, through age and merit, are not that far away.' Translation:
Hunink, [12]. [17]
Cf. S.J. Harrison, 'Apuleius' Metamorphoses', in: G. Schmeling (ed.), The
Novel in the Ancient World ( [18]
'(...) as was the case real or imagined of Apuleius, who in The Golden
Ass tells how he drank a potion and was turned into an ass, preserving
throughout this experience his rational powers. Now, such phenomena are
either too unfounded in fact or too far beyond general experience to deserve
belief.' Translation: Saint Augustine, The City of God, books XVII-XXII,
translated by Gerald G. Walsh s.j. and Daniel J. Honan, New York 1954,
p.106-7. [19]
The Augustine passage is also discussed by [20]
For the discussion see notably John J. Winkler, Auctor and Actor, a
Narratological Reading of Apuleius's 'The Golden Ass', (Berkeley / Los
Angeles / Oxford 1991), 291-298. Winkler strongly supports Asinus Aureus
as part of Apuleius' title. [22]
The most natural assumption here is that an ancient title would either have
to occur somewhere in the text as a phrase, or be a traditionally formed
name (Aeneis) or a neutral indication (Annales). Literary
titles that carry jokes, hidden meanings and ironical turns are a typical
feature only in modern literature. [23]
It is only at the end of the novel that there is some cause for concern. In
a famous passage (Met. 11,27) Lucius refers to himself as Madaurensem,
sed admodum pauperem. In that case, the author Apuleius of Madauros
deliberately confuses his own identity with that of his protagonist and
narrator Lucius of Corinth. On the passage, see notably R.T. van der Paardt,
'The Unmasked 'I': Apuleius, Met. 11,27' in: S.J. Harrison (ed.), Oxford
Readings in the Roman Novel ( [24]
The prologue of Apuleius' novel (a mere 119 Latin words) is notorious for
the many problems it involves. Cf. Ahuvia Kahane and Andrew Laird (edd.), A
Companion to the Prologue of Apuleius' Metamorphoses (Oxford 2001). The
twenty-four discussions in the volume (over 300 pages) all tacitly assume
that the prologue is the opening of the novel as Apuleius wrote it (and a
majority of contributors supports the view that it is Lucius who is speaking
there). Surely, in the context of an extensive inquiry to the prologue, the
academic question whether it really is the prologue, should at least
have been put. Another recent contribution on the prologue is: A.P. Bitel,
'Quis ille Asinus Aureus? The Metamorphoses of Apuleius' Title and its
Entomological Subtext,' Ancient Narrative 0,2000. [26]
Several other attempts have been made to associate the Confessiones
and Metamorphoses. Cf. M. Tasinato, Sulla curiosità. Apuleio e
Agostino ( [29]
For a convenient survey of ancient pagan demonology, see J. Beaujeu, Apulée,
opuscules philosophiques (du dieu de Socrate, Platon et sa doctrine, Du
monde) et fragments ( [30]
Most scholars assume that the text is not complete, but there is
considerable debate on the question where a part has gone lost and how much
text this may have been. For a discussion see e.g. [31]
'The Platonist Apuleius of Madaura wrote a single book about this subject
alone, choosing to call it On the God of Socrates. In it he discusses
and explains to which category of divinities belonged the familiar spirit
that Socrates had attached and bound to himself by a kind of friendship, and
which, as is generally believed, was accustomed to warn him against a
meditated action, when such an action would not have had a happy
conclusion.' Translation: Wiesen [14], 65. [32]
Fick [4], 198 not unjustly ranges this argument among the 'sophisms' of
Augustine preparing for his disqualification of Apuleius' work. [35]
In this context, Augustine mentions Apuleius' Apology. Cf. the
quotation from Civ. 8,19 in [14]. [36]
The point is also made by Fick [4], 198. At most, there is a link in DDS
between demons and religious ceremonies or forms of sacred cult: DDS
14 (148-50). [37]
The point is made by Hagendahl [1], 682. Hagendahl further observes that
Augustine does not refer to Apuleius' treatise in his De Divinatione
Daemonum (written between 406 and 411), and convincingly concludes that
Augustine studied DDS only in the preparation of Civ. [38]
In DDS the existence of evil spirits is not denied, but the class of
demons it is mainly concerned with obviously does not belong to that
category. [39]
Civ. 9,3: DDS 12 (145-6). Except for two minor points,
Augustine's quotation of some 10 lines is accurate, as far as we can see.
This seems proof that he had a written edition of the text at his disposal. [40]
In the scholarly literature on Augustine and Apuleius, the Church Father's
polemics are generally justified, if they are analysed at all. Even Fick
[4], after showing how Augustine uses 'sophismes' (p.198), 'extrapolation'
and 'extrême simplification' (p.199), so as to make a caricature of
Apuleius' views (p.200), seems eager to defend Augustine's approach: 'Sous
l'apparence d'une critique textuelle, la diatribe contre le De Deo
Socratis revêt les caractéristiques d'une éloquence fidéiste qui
utilise toutes les ressources de la rhétorique traditionelle pour affirmer
un message exclusif' (p.205). Fick points to Augustine's pastoral concerns:
wishing to increase his flock, he does not so much want to convince but to
persuade, to invite people to accept a complete, fundamental change,
briefly, to be converted (p.205-6).
latest changes here:
30-07-2012 16:01
|
|