The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The AmericanJournal of Philology.

http://www.jstor.org

The Priesthood of Apuleius Author(s): J. B. Rives Source: The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 115, No. 2 (Summer, 1994), pp. 273-290Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/295303Accessed: 27-08-2014 18:53 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

This content downloaded from 134.76.63.66 on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:53:58 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS

Apuleius has long been of central importance to the study of reli- gion in the Roman empire. His writings provide some of the richest and most personal evidence we possess for a number of important religious trends: his discussion of magic in his Apology, his short treatise on daimones in De Deo Socratis, and above all his description of the cult of Isis in his Metamorphoses. As a consequence, Apuleius himself is often given a paradigmatic role in discussions of religion in the second cen- tury C.E.' But these discussions rarely take into account one of the few facts about his life that is well established. Apuleius held an important public priesthood in Carthage, which he mentions in one of the longer selections in his Florida, and which on the evidence of Augustine has usually been identified as the provincial priesthood of the imperial cult.2 Previous scholars of religion have paid relatively little attention to this fact, I think, because of a general assumption that although this office may tell us something about Apuleius' economic and social position, it does not shed much light on his religious interests. In this essay I argue that the identification of this priesthood is not as secure as most people have thought, and that Apuleius may in fact have been a priest in an- other cult altogether, one to which true religious significance may more readily be conceded. I further suggest that even if the traditional identi- fication is correct, the religious significance of the priesthood should not be dismissed.

The generally accepted identification of this priesthood rests on the following evidence. Apuleius mentions an important public priest-

'See, e.g., Nock, Conversion 138-55; Festugiere, Personal Religion among the Greeks 72-77; Beaujeu, "Les dieux"; and Martin, Hellenistic Religions 16-29; all but Beaujeu focus on the Metamorphoses. Citations to Florida and Apology refer to the text and numbering in Vallette's edition of 1924.

2Thorough accounts of Apuleius' life are given by Schwabe, 246-48; by Butler and Owen in their introduction, vii-xix; and by Vallette in his introduction, v-xiii. All three agree that he was a provincial priest, and are followed by the entries in the Oxford Classical Dictionary2 and Der Kleine Pauly.

American Journal of Philology 115 (1994) 273-290 ? 1994 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

Apuleius has long been of central importance to the study of reli- gion in the Roman empire. His writings provide some of the richest and most personal evidence we possess for a number of important religious trends: his discussion of magic in his Apology, his short treatise on daimones in De Deo Socratis, and above all his description of the cult of Isis in his Metamorphoses. As a consequence, Apuleius himself is often given a paradigmatic role in discussions of religion in the second cen- tury C.E.' But these discussions rarely take into account one of the few facts about his life that is well established. Apuleius held an important public priesthood in Carthage, which he mentions in one of the longer selections in his Florida, and which on the evidence of Augustine has usually been identified as the provincial priesthood of the imperial cult.2 Previous scholars of religion have paid relatively little attention to this fact, I think, because of a general assumption that although this office may tell us something about Apuleius' economic and social position, it does not shed much light on his religious interests. In this essay I argue that the identification of this priesthood is not as secure as most people have thought, and that Apuleius may in fact have been a priest in an- other cult altogether, one to which true religious significance may more readily be conceded. I further suggest that even if the traditional identi- fication is correct, the religious significance of the priesthood should not be dismissed.

The generally accepted identification of this priesthood rests on the following evidence. Apuleius mentions an important public priest-

'See, e.g., Nock, Conversion 138-55; Festugiere, Personal Religion among the Greeks 72-77; Beaujeu, "Les dieux"; and Martin, Hellenistic Religions 16-29; all but Beaujeu focus on the Metamorphoses. Citations to Florida and Apology refer to the text and numbering in Vallette's edition of 1924.

2Thorough accounts of Apuleius' life are given by Schwabe, 246-48; by Butler and Owen in their introduction, vii-xix; and by Vallette in his introduction, v-xiii. All three agree that he was a provincial priest, and are followed by the entries in the Oxford Classical Dictionary2 and Der Kleine Pauly.

American Journal of Philology 115 (1994) 273-290 ? 1994 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

Apuleius has long been of central importance to the study of reli- gion in the Roman empire. His writings provide some of the richest and most personal evidence we possess for a number of important religious trends: his discussion of magic in his Apology, his short treatise on daimones in De Deo Socratis, and above all his description of the cult of Isis in his Metamorphoses. As a consequence, Apuleius himself is often given a paradigmatic role in discussions of religion in the second cen- tury C.E.' But these discussions rarely take into account one of the few facts about his life that is well established. Apuleius held an important public priesthood in Carthage, which he mentions in one of the longer selections in his Florida, and which on the evidence of Augustine has usually been identified as the provincial priesthood of the imperial cult.2 Previous scholars of religion have paid relatively little attention to this fact, I think, because of a general assumption that although this office may tell us something about Apuleius' economic and social position, it does not shed much light on his religious interests. In this essay I argue that the identification of this priesthood is not as secure as most people have thought, and that Apuleius may in fact have been a priest in an- other cult altogether, one to which true religious significance may more readily be conceded. I further suggest that even if the traditional identi- fication is correct, the religious significance of the priesthood should not be dismissed.

The generally accepted identification of this priesthood rests on the following evidence. Apuleius mentions an important public priest-

'See, e.g., Nock, Conversion 138-55; Festugiere, Personal Religion among the Greeks 72-77; Beaujeu, "Les dieux"; and Martin, Hellenistic Religions 16-29; all but Beaujeu focus on the Metamorphoses. Citations to Florida and Apology refer to the text and numbering in Vallette's edition of 1924.

2Thorough accounts of Apuleius' life are given by Schwabe, 246-48; by Butler and Owen in their introduction, vii-xix; and by Vallette in his introduction, v-xiii. All three agree that he was a provincial priest, and are followed by the entries in the Oxford Classical Dictionary2 and Der Kleine Pauly.

American Journal of Philology 115 (1994) 273-290 ? 1994 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

Apuleius has long been of central importance to the study of reli- gion in the Roman empire. His writings provide some of the richest and most personal evidence we possess for a number of important religious trends: his discussion of magic in his Apology, his short treatise on daimones in De Deo Socratis, and above all his description of the cult of Isis in his Metamorphoses. As a consequence, Apuleius himself is often given a paradigmatic role in discussions of religion in the second cen- tury C.E.' But these discussions rarely take into account one of the few facts about his life that is well established. Apuleius held an important public priesthood in Carthage, which he mentions in one of the longer selections in his Florida, and which on the evidence of Augustine has usually been identified as the provincial priesthood of the imperial cult.2 Previous scholars of religion have paid relatively little attention to this fact, I think, because of a general assumption that although this office may tell us something about Apuleius' economic and social position, it does not shed much light on his religious interests. In this essay I argue that the identification of this priesthood is not as secure as most people have thought, and that Apuleius may in fact have been a priest in an- other cult altogether, one to which true religious significance may more readily be conceded. I further suggest that even if the traditional identi- fication is correct, the religious significance of the priesthood should not be dismissed.

The generally accepted identification of this priesthood rests on the following evidence. Apuleius mentions an important public priest-

'See, e.g., Nock, Conversion 138-55; Festugiere, Personal Religion among the Greeks 72-77; Beaujeu, "Les dieux"; and Martin, Hellenistic Religions 16-29; all but Beaujeu focus on the Metamorphoses. Citations to Florida and Apology refer to the text and numbering in Vallette's edition of 1924.

2Thorough accounts of Apuleius' life are given by Schwabe, 246-48; by Butler and Owen in their introduction, vii-xix; and by Vallette in his introduction, v-xiii. All three agree that he was a provincial priest, and are followed by the entries in the Oxford Classical Dictionary2 and Der Kleine Pauly.

American Journal of Philology 115 (1994) 273-290 ? 1994 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

Apuleius has long been of central importance to the study of reli- gion in the Roman empire. His writings provide some of the richest and most personal evidence we possess for a number of important religious trends: his discussion of magic in his Apology, his short treatise on daimones in De Deo Socratis, and above all his description of the cult of Isis in his Metamorphoses. As a consequence, Apuleius himself is often given a paradigmatic role in discussions of religion in the second cen- tury C.E.' But these discussions rarely take into account one of the few facts about his life that is well established. Apuleius held an important public priesthood in Carthage, which he mentions in one of the longer selections in his Florida, and which on the evidence of Augustine has usually been identified as the provincial priesthood of the imperial cult.2 Previous scholars of religion have paid relatively little attention to this fact, I think, because of a general assumption that although this office may tell us something about Apuleius' economic and social position, it does not shed much light on his religious interests. In this essay I argue that the identification of this priesthood is not as secure as most people have thought, and that Apuleius may in fact have been a priest in an- other cult altogether, one to which true religious significance may more readily be conceded. I further suggest that even if the traditional identi- fication is correct, the religious significance of the priesthood should not be dismissed.

The generally accepted identification of this priesthood rests on the following evidence. Apuleius mentions an important public priest-

'See, e.g., Nock, Conversion 138-55; Festugiere, Personal Religion among the Greeks 72-77; Beaujeu, "Les dieux"; and Martin, Hellenistic Religions 16-29; all but Beaujeu focus on the Metamorphoses. Citations to Florida and Apology refer to the text and numbering in Vallette's edition of 1924.

2Thorough accounts of Apuleius' life are given by Schwabe, 246-48; by Butler and Owen in their introduction, vii-xix; and by Vallette in his introduction, v-xiii. All three agree that he was a provincial priest, and are followed by the entries in the Oxford Classical Dictionary2 and Der Kleine Pauly.

American Journal of Philology 115 (1994) 273-290 ? 1994 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

Apuleius has long been of central importance to the study of reli- gion in the Roman empire. His writings provide some of the richest and most personal evidence we possess for a number of important religious trends: his discussion of magic in his Apology, his short treatise on daimones in De Deo Socratis, and above all his description of the cult of Isis in his Metamorphoses. As a consequence, Apuleius himself is often given a paradigmatic role in discussions of religion in the second cen- tury C.E.' But these discussions rarely take into account one of the few facts about his life that is well established. Apuleius held an important public priesthood in Carthage, which he mentions in one of the longer selections in his Florida, and which on the evidence of Augustine has usually been identified as the provincial priesthood of the imperial cult.2 Previous scholars of religion have paid relatively little attention to this fact, I think, because of a general assumption that although this office may tell us something about Apuleius' economic and social position, it does not shed much light on his religious interests. In this essay I argue that the identification of this priesthood is not as secure as most people have thought, and that Apuleius may in fact have been a priest in an- other cult altogether, one to which true religious significance may more readily be conceded. I further suggest that even if the traditional identi- fication is correct, the religious significance of the priesthood should not be dismissed.

The generally accepted identification of this priesthood rests on the following evidence. Apuleius mentions an important public priest-

'See, e.g., Nock, Conversion 138-55; Festugiere, Personal Religion among the Greeks 72-77; Beaujeu, "Les dieux"; and Martin, Hellenistic Religions 16-29; all but Beaujeu focus on the Metamorphoses. Citations to Florida and Apology refer to the text and numbering in Vallette's edition of 1924.

2Thorough accounts of Apuleius' life are given by Schwabe, 246-48; by Butler and Owen in their introduction, vii-xix; and by Vallette in his introduction, v-xiii. All three agree that he was a provincial priest, and are followed by the entries in the Oxford Classical Dictionary2 and Der Kleine Pauly.

American Journal of Philology 115 (1994) 273-290 ? 1994 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

This content downloaded from 134.76.63.66 on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:53:58 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

J. B. RIVES J. B. RIVES J. B. RIVES J. B. RIVES J. B. RIVES J. B. RIVES

hood, without identifying it, in a speech he delivered in order to thank the Carthaginians for the honor of a public statue. This statue had been erected at personal expense by his friend Aemilianus Strabo, who had requested a public site for that purpose.3 Strabo included a number of arguments in support of his proposal, citing his own friendship with Apuleius and noting that similar honors had been decreed to him in other cities. His final point, according to Apuleius, was that argumento suscepti sacerdotii summum mihi honorem Carthaginis adesse (Flor. 16.38). Presumably the identity of this priesthood was familiar to his audience, because Apuleius says nothing more about it. More specific information is provided by Augustine when he describes Apuleius as a man qui sacerdos provinciae pro magnofuit, ut munera ederet venatores- que vestiret et pro statua sibi apud Oeenses locanda, ex qua civitate habebat uxorem, adversus contradictionem quorundam civium litigaret (Ep. 138.19). It has naturally been assumed that this was the priesthood to which Apuleius himself referred in the Florida passage. The provin- cial priesthood of the imperial cult was indeed a high honor, the highest honor, in fact, that a provincial Roman could obtain without embarking upon the equestrian or senatorial cursus honorum. Moreover, the asso- ciation of the priesthood with public statues by both Apuleius and Au- gustine is suggestive, for provincial priests were characteristically cele- brated in this way. The regulations of the provincial cult of Narbonensis include detailed provisions for the erection of such statues in honor of the chief priests after their year in office.4 As a result of this evidence, it has been generally accepted that Apuleius was at some point in his career the sacerdos provinciae Africae.

Despite its apparent cogency, this argument contains a number of weak points. Since the critical and seemingly decisive evidence is that of Augustine, a digression into the Nachleben of Apuleius is necessary in order to evaluate it fully.5 Augustine, after all, was born almost two centuries after the death of Apuleius, and so it is reasonable to ask how much he actually knew about the earlier writer. The earliest reference to Apuleius in the extant writings of Augustine is in Epistle 102, proba-

3Apuleius describes him as vir consularis, brevi votis omniurn futurus proconsul (Flor. 16.40); according to the Acta Arvalium (CIL VI 2086.67), he was suffect consul in 156 C.E.

4CIL XII 6038 = ILS 6964, 9-13; cf. Fishwick, Imperial Cult I.1 135-36. 5The references to Apuleius in Augustine are collected and discussed by Hagen-

dahl, Augustine I 17-28, II 680-89, who notes that Apuleius is cited by Augustine more than by any other postclassical author; on the perception of Apuleius in late antiquity see also Moreschini, "Fama di Apuleio."

hood, without identifying it, in a speech he delivered in order to thank the Carthaginians for the honor of a public statue. This statue had been erected at personal expense by his friend Aemilianus Strabo, who had requested a public site for that purpose.3 Strabo included a number of arguments in support of his proposal, citing his own friendship with Apuleius and noting that similar honors had been decreed to him in other cities. His final point, according to Apuleius, was that argumento suscepti sacerdotii summum mihi honorem Carthaginis adesse (Flor. 16.38). Presumably the identity of this priesthood was familiar to his audience, because Apuleius says nothing more about it. More specific information is provided by Augustine when he describes Apuleius as a man qui sacerdos provinciae pro magnofuit, ut munera ederet venatores- que vestiret et pro statua sibi apud Oeenses locanda, ex qua civitate habebat uxorem, adversus contradictionem quorundam civium litigaret (Ep. 138.19). It has naturally been assumed that this was the priesthood to which Apuleius himself referred in the Florida passage. The provin- cial priesthood of the imperial cult was indeed a high honor, the highest honor, in fact, that a provincial Roman could obtain without embarking upon the equestrian or senatorial cursus honorum. Moreover, the asso- ciation of the priesthood with public statues by both Apuleius and Au- gustine is suggestive, for provincial priests were characteristically cele- brated in this way. The regulations of the provincial cult of Narbonensis include detailed provisions for the erection of such statues in honor of the chief priests after their year in office.4 As a result of this evidence, it has been generally accepted that Apuleius was at some point in his career the sacerdos provinciae Africae.

Despite its apparent cogency, this argument contains a number of weak points. Since the critical and seemingly decisive evidence is that of Augustine, a digression into the Nachleben of Apuleius is necessary in order to evaluate it fully.5 Augustine, after all, was born almost two centuries after the death of Apuleius, and so it is reasonable to ask how much he actually knew about the earlier writer. The earliest reference to Apuleius in the extant writings of Augustine is in Epistle 102, proba-

3Apuleius describes him as vir consularis, brevi votis omniurn futurus proconsul (Flor. 16.40); according to the Acta Arvalium (CIL VI 2086.67), he was suffect consul in 156 C.E.

4CIL XII 6038 = ILS 6964, 9-13; cf. Fishwick, Imperial Cult I.1 135-36. 5The references to Apuleius in Augustine are collected and discussed by Hagen-

dahl, Augustine I 17-28, II 680-89, who notes that Apuleius is cited by Augustine more than by any other postclassical author; on the perception of Apuleius in late antiquity see also Moreschini, "Fama di Apuleio."

hood, without identifying it, in a speech he delivered in order to thank the Carthaginians for the honor of a public statue. This statue had been erected at personal expense by his friend Aemilianus Strabo, who had requested a public site for that purpose.3 Strabo included a number of arguments in support of his proposal, citing his own friendship with Apuleius and noting that similar honors had been decreed to him in other cities. His final point, according to Apuleius, was that argumento suscepti sacerdotii summum mihi honorem Carthaginis adesse (Flor. 16.38). Presumably the identity of this priesthood was familiar to his audience, because Apuleius says nothing more about it. More specific information is provided by Augustine when he describes Apuleius as a man qui sacerdos provinciae pro magnofuit, ut munera ederet venatores- que vestiret et pro statua sibi apud Oeenses locanda, ex qua civitate habebat uxorem, adversus contradictionem quorundam civium litigaret (Ep. 138.19). It has naturally been assumed that this was the priesthood to which Apuleius himself referred in the Florida passage. The provin- cial priesthood of the imperial cult was indeed a high honor, the highest honor, in fact, that a provincial Roman could obtain without embarking upon the equestrian or senatorial cursus honorum. Moreover, the asso- ciation of the priesthood with public statues by both Apuleius and Au- gustine is suggestive, for provincial priests were characteristically cele- brated in this way. The regulations of the provincial cult of Narbonensis include detailed provisions for the erection of such statues in honor of the chief priests after their year in office.4 As a result of this evidence, it has been generally accepted that Apuleius was at some point in his career the sacerdos provinciae Africae.

Despite its apparent cogency, this argument contains a number of weak points. Since the critical and seemingly decisive evidence is that of Augustine, a digression into the Nachleben of Apuleius is necessary in order to evaluate it fully.5 Augustine, after all, was born almost two centuries after the death of Apuleius, and so it is reasonable to ask how much he actually knew about the earlier writer. The earliest reference to Apuleius in the extant writings of Augustine is in Epistle 102, proba-

3Apuleius describes him as vir consularis, brevi votis omniurn futurus proconsul (Flor. 16.40); according to the Acta Arvalium (CIL VI 2086.67), he was suffect consul in 156 C.E.

4CIL XII 6038 = ILS 6964, 9-13; cf. Fishwick, Imperial Cult I.1 135-36. 5The references to Apuleius in Augustine are collected and discussed by Hagen-

dahl, Augustine I 17-28, II 680-89, who notes that Apuleius is cited by Augustine more than by any other postclassical author; on the perception of Apuleius in late antiquity see also Moreschini, "Fama di Apuleio."

hood, without identifying it, in a speech he delivered in order to thank the Carthaginians for the honor of a public statue. This statue had been erected at personal expense by his friend Aemilianus Strabo, who had requested a public site for that purpose.3 Strabo included a number of arguments in support of his proposal, citing his own friendship with Apuleius and noting that similar honors had been decreed to him in other cities. His final point, according to Apuleius, was that argumento suscepti sacerdotii summum mihi honorem Carthaginis adesse (Flor. 16.38). Presumably the identity of this priesthood was familiar to his audience, because Apuleius says nothing more about it. More specific information is provided by Augustine when he describes Apuleius as a man qui sacerdos provinciae pro magnofuit, ut munera ederet venatores- que vestiret et pro statua sibi apud Oeenses locanda, ex qua civitate habebat uxorem, adversus contradictionem quorundam civium litigaret (Ep. 138.19). It has naturally been assumed that this was the priesthood to which Apuleius himself referred in the Florida passage. The provin- cial priesthood of the imperial cult was indeed a high honor, the highest honor, in fact, that a provincial Roman could obtain without embarking upon the equestrian or senatorial cursus honorum. Moreover, the asso- ciation of the priesthood with public statues by both Apuleius and Au- gustine is suggestive, for provincial priests were characteristically cele- brated in this way. The regulations of the provincial cult of Narbonensis include detailed provisions for the erection of such statues in honor of the chief priests after their year in office.4 As a result of this evidence, it has been generally accepted that Apuleius was at some point in his career the sacerdos provinciae Africae.

Despite its apparent cogency, this argument contains a number of weak points. Since the critical and seemingly decisive evidence is that of Augustine, a digression into the Nachleben of Apuleius is necessary in order to evaluate it fully.5 Augustine, after all, was born almost two centuries after the death of Apuleius, and so it is reasonable to ask how much he actually knew about the earlier writer. The earliest reference to Apuleius in the extant writings of Augustine is in Epistle 102, proba-

3Apuleius describes him as vir consularis, brevi votis omniurn futurus proconsul (Flor. 16.40); according to the Acta Arvalium (CIL VI 2086.67), he was suffect consul in 156 C.E.

4CIL XII 6038 = ILS 6964, 9-13; cf. Fishwick, Imperial Cult I.1 135-36. 5The references to Apuleius in Augustine are collected and discussed by Hagen-

dahl, Augustine I 17-28, II 680-89, who notes that Apuleius is cited by Augustine more than by any other postclassical author; on the perception of Apuleius in late antiquity see also Moreschini, "Fama di Apuleio."

hood, without identifying it, in a speech he delivered in order to thank the Carthaginians for the honor of a public statue. This statue had been erected at personal expense by his friend Aemilianus Strabo, who had requested a public site for that purpose.3 Strabo included a number of arguments in support of his proposal, citing his own friendship with Apuleius and noting that similar honors had been decreed to him in other cities. His final point, according to Apuleius, was that argumento suscepti sacerdotii summum mihi honorem Carthaginis adesse (Flor. 16.38). Presumably the identity of this priesthood was familiar to his audience, because Apuleius says nothing more about it. More specific information is provided by Augustine when he describes Apuleius as a man qui sacerdos provinciae pro magnofuit, ut munera ederet venatores- que vestiret et pro statua sibi apud Oeenses locanda, ex qua civitate habebat uxorem, adversus contradictionem quorundam civium litigaret (Ep. 138.19). It has naturally been assumed that this was the priesthood to which Apuleius himself referred in the Florida passage. The provin- cial priesthood of the imperial cult was indeed a high honor, the highest honor, in fact, that a provincial Roman could obtain without embarking upon the equestrian or senatorial cursus honorum. Moreover, the asso- ciation of the priesthood with public statues by both Apuleius and Au- gustine is suggestive, for provincial priests were characteristically cele- brated in this way. The regulations of the provincial cult of Narbonensis include detailed provisions for the erection of such statues in honor of the chief priests after their year in office.4 As a result of this evidence, it has been generally accepted that Apuleius was at some point in his career the sacerdos provinciae Africae.

Despite its apparent cogency, this argument contains a number of weak points. Since the critical and seemingly decisive evidence is that of Augustine, a digression into the Nachleben of Apuleius is necessary in order to evaluate it fully.5 Augustine, after all, was born almost two centuries after the death of Apuleius, and so it is reasonable to ask how much he actually knew about the earlier writer. The earliest reference to Apuleius in the extant writings of Augustine is in Epistle 102, proba-

3Apuleius describes him as vir consularis, brevi votis omniurn futurus proconsul (Flor. 16.40); according to the Acta Arvalium (CIL VI 2086.67), he was suffect consul in 156 C.E.

4CIL XII 6038 = ILS 6964, 9-13; cf. Fishwick, Imperial Cult I.1 135-36. 5The references to Apuleius in Augustine are collected and discussed by Hagen-

dahl, Augustine I 17-28, II 680-89, who notes that Apuleius is cited by Augustine more than by any other postclassical author; on the perception of Apuleius in late antiquity see also Moreschini, "Fama di Apuleio."

hood, without identifying it, in a speech he delivered in order to thank the Carthaginians for the honor of a public statue. This statue had been erected at personal expense by his friend Aemilianus Strabo, who had requested a public site for that purpose.3 Strabo included a number of arguments in support of his proposal, citing his own friendship with Apuleius and noting that similar honors had been decreed to him in other cities. His final point, according to Apuleius, was that argumento suscepti sacerdotii summum mihi honorem Carthaginis adesse (Flor. 16.38). Presumably the identity of this priesthood was familiar to his audience, because Apuleius says nothing more about it. More specific information is provided by Augustine when he describes Apuleius as a man qui sacerdos provinciae pro magnofuit, ut munera ederet venatores- que vestiret et pro statua sibi apud Oeenses locanda, ex qua civitate habebat uxorem, adversus contradictionem quorundam civium litigaret (Ep. 138.19). It has naturally been assumed that this was the priesthood to which Apuleius himself referred in the Florida passage. The provin- cial priesthood of the imperial cult was indeed a high honor, the highest honor, in fact, that a provincial Roman could obtain without embarking upon the equestrian or senatorial cursus honorum. Moreover, the asso- ciation of the priesthood with public statues by both Apuleius and Au- gustine is suggestive, for provincial priests were characteristically cele- brated in this way. The regulations of the provincial cult of Narbonensis include detailed provisions for the erection of such statues in honor of the chief priests after their year in office.4 As a result of this evidence, it has been generally accepted that Apuleius was at some point in his career the sacerdos provinciae Africae.

Despite its apparent cogency, this argument contains a number of weak points. Since the critical and seemingly decisive evidence is that of Augustine, a digression into the Nachleben of Apuleius is necessary in order to evaluate it fully.5 Augustine, after all, was born almost two centuries after the death of Apuleius, and so it is reasonable to ask how much he actually knew about the earlier writer. The earliest reference to Apuleius in the extant writings of Augustine is in Epistle 102, proba-

3Apuleius describes him as vir consularis, brevi votis omniurn futurus proconsul (Flor. 16.40); according to the Acta Arvalium (CIL VI 2086.67), he was suffect consul in 156 C.E.

4CIL XII 6038 = ILS 6964, 9-13; cf. Fishwick, Imperial Cult I.1 135-36. 5The references to Apuleius in Augustine are collected and discussed by Hagen-

dahl, Augustine I 17-28, II 680-89, who notes that Apuleius is cited by Augustine more than by any other postclassical author; on the perception of Apuleius in late antiquity see also Moreschini, "Fama di Apuleio."

274 274 274 274 274 274

This content downloaded from 134.76.63.66 on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:53:58 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS

bly written in 408/9 C.E. This letter is in fact a short treatise, written at the request of a friend, in which Augustine replies to six of the criti- cisms raised by a pagan opponent of Christianity. The last of these concerned the prophet Jonah: how could anyone believe that he really spent three days in the belly of a whale? In the course of his response, Augustine notes that if a similar story were told about Apuleius Madau- rensis or Apollonius Tyaneus, whom pagans praise as magi vel philoso- phi, their response would be not laughter but pride.6 This comment indicates that the popular image of Apuleius at the time had much in common with that of Apollonius. The pair appear again in the exchange of letters that led ultimately to the writing of The City of God. Flavius Marcellinus, an imperial commissioner in Carthage and a Christian, was so impressed with a letter Augustine had written, refuting certain charges of the pagans, that he asked for a more full exposition. In particular, he wanted to know what Augustine would reply to those who said that Apollonius and Apuleius aliique magicae artis homines had performed as great if not greater miracles than Jesus.7

This repeated association of Apuleius with Apollonius should serve as a warning sign, since the latter provides such a clear example of how legendary material could build up around a historical figure. Apol- lonius lived in the first century C.E. and was apparently very interested in the Pythagoreanism of his day, just as Apuleius was interested in the Platonism of his own time.8 It is difficult to say a great deal more about the historical Apollonius, however, because after his death he became the subject of a number of stories elaborated by both admirers and detractors. By the early third century, when Philostratus wrote his ac- count of Apollonius for Julia Domna, he was known not only as a sage but also as a wonder worker who could understand the languages of

6Ep. 102.32: Et tamen si hoc, quod de lona scriptum est, Apuleius Madaurensis vel Apollonius Tyaneus fecisse diceretur, quorum multa mira nullo fideli auctore iactitant . . ., si de istis, ut dixi, quos magos vel philosophos laudabiliter nominant, tale aliquid narraretur, non iam in buccis creparet risus, sed typhus. For the date of the epistle see Brown, Augustine 186; the pagan opponent may have been Porphyry (Wilken, Christians 143).

7Ep. 136.1: Sed tamen etiam ego in hac parte, quia plurimis, quicquid rescripseris, profuturum esse confido, precator accesserim, ut ad ea vigilantius respondere digneris, in quibus nihil amplius dominum, quam alii homines facere potuerunt, fecisse mentiun- tur, Apollonium si quidem suum nobis et Apuleium aliosque magicae artis homines in medium proferunt, quorum maiora contendunt extitisse miracula. This series of letters is treated in detail by Moreau, "Le dossier Marcellinus" 49-77.

8See, e.g., Philostr. VApoll. 1.7, 1.32, 6.11. Iamblichus (VPyth. 254) cites Apol- lonius as a source for the life of Pythagoras.

bly written in 408/9 C.E. This letter is in fact a short treatise, written at the request of a friend, in which Augustine replies to six of the criti- cisms raised by a pagan opponent of Christianity. The last of these concerned the prophet Jonah: how could anyone believe that he really spent three days in the belly of a whale? In the course of his response, Augustine notes that if a similar story were told about Apuleius Madau- rensis or Apollonius Tyaneus, whom pagans praise as magi vel philoso- phi, their response would be not laughter but pride.6 This comment indicates that the popular image of Apuleius at the time had much in common with that of Apollonius. The pair appear again in the exchange of letters that led ultimately to the writing of The City of God. Flavius Marcellinus, an imperial commissioner in Carthage and a Christian, was so impressed with a letter Augustine had written, refuting certain charges of the pagans, that he asked for a more full exposition. In particular, he wanted to know what Augustine would reply to those who said that Apollonius and Apuleius aliique magicae artis homines had performed as great if not greater miracles than Jesus.7

This repeated association of Apuleius with Apollonius should serve as a warning sign, since the latter provides such a clear example of how legendary material could build up around a historical figure. Apol- lonius lived in the first century C.E. and was apparently very interested in the Pythagoreanism of his day, just as Apuleius was interested in the Platonism of his own time.8 It is difficult to say a great deal more about the historical Apollonius, however, because after his death he became the subject of a number of stories elaborated by both admirers and detractors. By the early third century, when Philostratus wrote his ac- count of Apollonius for Julia Domna, he was known not only as a sage but also as a wonder worker who could understand the languages of

6Ep. 102.32: Et tamen si hoc, quod de lona scriptum est, Apuleius Madaurensis vel Apollonius Tyaneus fecisse diceretur, quorum multa mira nullo fideli auctore iactitant . . ., si de istis, ut dixi, quos magos vel philosophos laudabiliter nominant, tale aliquid narraretur, non iam in buccis creparet risus, sed typhus. For the date of the epistle see Brown, Augustine 186; the pagan opponent may have been Porphyry (Wilken, Christians 143).

7Ep. 136.1: Sed tamen etiam ego in hac parte, quia plurimis, quicquid rescripseris, profuturum esse confido, precator accesserim, ut ad ea vigilantius respondere digneris, in quibus nihil amplius dominum, quam alii homines facere potuerunt, fecisse mentiun- tur, Apollonium si quidem suum nobis et Apuleium aliosque magicae artis homines in medium proferunt, quorum maiora contendunt extitisse miracula. This series of letters is treated in detail by Moreau, "Le dossier Marcellinus" 49-77.

8See, e.g., Philostr. VApoll. 1.7, 1.32, 6.11. Iamblichus (VPyth. 254) cites Apol- lonius as a source for the life of Pythagoras.

bly written in 408/9 C.E. This letter is in fact a short treatise, written at the request of a friend, in which Augustine replies to six of the criti- cisms raised by a pagan opponent of Christianity. The last of these concerned the prophet Jonah: how could anyone believe that he really spent three days in the belly of a whale? In the course of his response, Augustine notes that if a similar story were told about Apuleius Madau- rensis or Apollonius Tyaneus, whom pagans praise as magi vel philoso- phi, their response would be not laughter but pride.6 This comment indicates that the popular image of Apuleius at the time had much in common with that of Apollonius. The pair appear again in the exchange of letters that led ultimately to the writing of The City of God. Flavius Marcellinus, an imperial commissioner in Carthage and a Christian, was so impressed with a letter Augustine had written, refuting certain charges of the pagans, that he asked for a more full exposition. In particular, he wanted to know what Augustine would reply to those who said that Apollonius and Apuleius aliique magicae artis homines had performed as great if not greater miracles than Jesus.7

This repeated association of Apuleius with Apollonius should serve as a warning sign, since the latter provides such a clear example of how legendary material could build up around a historical figure. Apol- lonius lived in the first century C.E. and was apparently very interested in the Pythagoreanism of his day, just as Apuleius was interested in the Platonism of his own time.8 It is difficult to say a great deal more about the historical Apollonius, however, because after his death he became the subject of a number of stories elaborated by both admirers and detractors. By the early third century, when Philostratus wrote his ac- count of Apollonius for Julia Domna, he was known not only as a sage but also as a wonder worker who could understand the languages of

6Ep. 102.32: Et tamen si hoc, quod de lona scriptum est, Apuleius Madaurensis vel Apollonius Tyaneus fecisse diceretur, quorum multa mira nullo fideli auctore iactitant . . ., si de istis, ut dixi, quos magos vel philosophos laudabiliter nominant, tale aliquid narraretur, non iam in buccis creparet risus, sed typhus. For the date of the epistle see Brown, Augustine 186; the pagan opponent may have been Porphyry (Wilken, Christians 143).

7Ep. 136.1: Sed tamen etiam ego in hac parte, quia plurimis, quicquid rescripseris, profuturum esse confido, precator accesserim, ut ad ea vigilantius respondere digneris, in quibus nihil amplius dominum, quam alii homines facere potuerunt, fecisse mentiun- tur, Apollonium si quidem suum nobis et Apuleium aliosque magicae artis homines in medium proferunt, quorum maiora contendunt extitisse miracula. This series of letters is treated in detail by Moreau, "Le dossier Marcellinus" 49-77.

8See, e.g., Philostr. VApoll. 1.7, 1.32, 6.11. Iamblichus (VPyth. 254) cites Apol- lonius as a source for the life of Pythagoras.

bly written in 408/9 C.E. This letter is in fact a short treatise, written at the request of a friend, in which Augustine replies to six of the criti- cisms raised by a pagan opponent of Christianity. The last of these concerned the prophet Jonah: how could anyone believe that he really spent three days in the belly of a whale? In the course of his response, Augustine notes that if a similar story were told about Apuleius Madau- rensis or Apollonius Tyaneus, whom pagans praise as magi vel philoso- phi, their response would be not laughter but pride.6 This comment indicates that the popular image of Apuleius at the time had much in common with that of Apollonius. The pair appear again in the exchange of letters that led ultimately to the writing of The City of God. Flavius Marcellinus, an imperial commissioner in Carthage and a Christian, was so impressed with a letter Augustine had written, refuting certain charges of the pagans, that he asked for a more full exposition. In particular, he wanted to know what Augustine would reply to those who said that Apollonius and Apuleius aliique magicae artis homines had performed as great if not greater miracles than Jesus.7

This repeated association of Apuleius with Apollonius should serve as a warning sign, since the latter provides such a clear example of how legendary material could build up around a historical figure. Apol- lonius lived in the first century C.E. and was apparently very interested in the Pythagoreanism of his day, just as Apuleius was interested in the Platonism of his own time.8 It is difficult to say a great deal more about the historical Apollonius, however, because after his death he became the subject of a number of stories elaborated by both admirers and detractors. By the early third century, when Philostratus wrote his ac- count of Apollonius for Julia Domna, he was known not only as a sage but also as a wonder worker who could understand the languages of

6Ep. 102.32: Et tamen si hoc, quod de lona scriptum est, Apuleius Madaurensis vel Apollonius Tyaneus fecisse diceretur, quorum multa mira nullo fideli auctore iactitant . . ., si de istis, ut dixi, quos magos vel philosophos laudabiliter nominant, tale aliquid narraretur, non iam in buccis creparet risus, sed typhus. For the date of the epistle see Brown, Augustine 186; the pagan opponent may have been Porphyry (Wilken, Christians 143).

7Ep. 136.1: Sed tamen etiam ego in hac parte, quia plurimis, quicquid rescripseris, profuturum esse confido, precator accesserim, ut ad ea vigilantius respondere digneris, in quibus nihil amplius dominum, quam alii homines facere potuerunt, fecisse mentiun- tur, Apollonium si quidem suum nobis et Apuleium aliosque magicae artis homines in medium proferunt, quorum maiora contendunt extitisse miracula. This series of letters is treated in detail by Moreau, "Le dossier Marcellinus" 49-77.

8See, e.g., Philostr. VApoll. 1.7, 1.32, 6.11. Iamblichus (VPyth. 254) cites Apol- lonius as a source for the life of Pythagoras.

bly written in 408/9 C.E. This letter is in fact a short treatise, written at the request of a friend, in which Augustine replies to six of the criti- cisms raised by a pagan opponent of Christianity. The last of these concerned the prophet Jonah: how could anyone believe that he really spent three days in the belly of a whale? In the course of his response, Augustine notes that if a similar story were told about Apuleius Madau- rensis or Apollonius Tyaneus, whom pagans praise as magi vel philoso- phi, their response would be not laughter but pride.6 This comment indicates that the popular image of Apuleius at the time had much in common with that of Apollonius. The pair appear again in the exchange of letters that led ultimately to the writing of The City of God. Flavius Marcellinus, an imperial commissioner in Carthage and a Christian, was so impressed with a letter Augustine had written, refuting certain charges of the pagans, that he asked for a more full exposition. In particular, he wanted to know what Augustine would reply to those who said that Apollonius and Apuleius aliique magicae artis homines had performed as great if not greater miracles than Jesus.7

This repeated association of Apuleius with Apollonius should serve as a warning sign, since the latter provides such a clear example of how legendary material could build up around a historical figure. Apol- lonius lived in the first century C.E. and was apparently very interested in the Pythagoreanism of his day, just as Apuleius was interested in the Platonism of his own time.8 It is difficult to say a great deal more about the historical Apollonius, however, because after his death he became the subject of a number of stories elaborated by both admirers and detractors. By the early third century, when Philostratus wrote his ac- count of Apollonius for Julia Domna, he was known not only as a sage but also as a wonder worker who could understand the languages of

6Ep. 102.32: Et tamen si hoc, quod de lona scriptum est, Apuleius Madaurensis vel Apollonius Tyaneus fecisse diceretur, quorum multa mira nullo fideli auctore iactitant . . ., si de istis, ut dixi, quos magos vel philosophos laudabiliter nominant, tale aliquid narraretur, non iam in buccis creparet risus, sed typhus. For the date of the epistle see Brown, Augustine 186; the pagan opponent may have been Porphyry (Wilken, Christians 143).

7Ep. 136.1: Sed tamen etiam ego in hac parte, quia plurimis, quicquid rescripseris, profuturum esse confido, precator accesserim, ut ad ea vigilantius respondere digneris, in quibus nihil amplius dominum, quam alii homines facere potuerunt, fecisse mentiun- tur, Apollonium si quidem suum nobis et Apuleium aliosque magicae artis homines in medium proferunt, quorum maiora contendunt extitisse miracula. This series of letters is treated in detail by Moreau, "Le dossier Marcellinus" 49-77.

8See, e.g., Philostr. VApoll. 1.7, 1.32, 6.11. Iamblichus (VPyth. 254) cites Apol- lonius as a source for the life of Pythagoras.

bly written in 408/9 C.E. This letter is in fact a short treatise, written at the request of a friend, in which Augustine replies to six of the criti- cisms raised by a pagan opponent of Christianity. The last of these concerned the prophet Jonah: how could anyone believe that he really spent three days in the belly of a whale? In the course of his response, Augustine notes that if a similar story were told about Apuleius Madau- rensis or Apollonius Tyaneus, whom pagans praise as magi vel philoso- phi, their response would be not laughter but pride.6 This comment indicates that the popular image of Apuleius at the time had much in common with that of Apollonius. The pair appear again in the exchange of letters that led ultimately to the writing of The City of God. Flavius Marcellinus, an imperial commissioner in Carthage and a Christian, was so impressed with a letter Augustine had written, refuting certain charges of the pagans, that he asked for a more full exposition. In particular, he wanted to know what Augustine would reply to those who said that Apollonius and Apuleius aliique magicae artis homines had performed as great if not greater miracles than Jesus.7

This repeated association of Apuleius with Apollonius should serve as a warning sign, since the latter provides such a clear example of how legendary material could build up around a historical figure. Apol- lonius lived in the first century C.E. and was apparently very interested in the Pythagoreanism of his day, just as Apuleius was interested in the Platonism of his own time.8 It is difficult to say a great deal more about the historical Apollonius, however, because after his death he became the subject of a number of stories elaborated by both admirers and detractors. By the early third century, when Philostratus wrote his ac- count of Apollonius for Julia Domna, he was known not only as a sage but also as a wonder worker who could understand the languages of

6Ep. 102.32: Et tamen si hoc, quod de lona scriptum est, Apuleius Madaurensis vel Apollonius Tyaneus fecisse diceretur, quorum multa mira nullo fideli auctore iactitant . . ., si de istis, ut dixi, quos magos vel philosophos laudabiliter nominant, tale aliquid narraretur, non iam in buccis creparet risus, sed typhus. For the date of the epistle see Brown, Augustine 186; the pagan opponent may have been Porphyry (Wilken, Christians 143).

7Ep. 136.1: Sed tamen etiam ego in hac parte, quia plurimis, quicquid rescripseris, profuturum esse confido, precator accesserim, ut ad ea vigilantius respondere digneris, in quibus nihil amplius dominum, quam alii homines facere potuerunt, fecisse mentiun- tur, Apollonium si quidem suum nobis et Apuleium aliosque magicae artis homines in medium proferunt, quorum maiora contendunt extitisse miracula. This series of letters is treated in detail by Moreau, "Le dossier Marcellinus" 49-77.

8See, e.g., Philostr. VApoll. 1.7, 1.32, 6.11. Iamblichus (VPyth. 254) cites Apol- lonius as a source for the life of Pythagoras.

275 275 275 275 275 275

This content downloaded from 134.76.63.66 on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:53:58 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

J. B. RIVES J. B. RIVES J. B. RIVES J. B. RIVES J. B. RIVES J. B. RIVES

animals and predict the future. He was furthermore thought to have ascended bodily into heaven and then to have reappeared on earth in order to reassure his followers of the afterlife. It was because of the miracles attributed to him that Apollonius was taken up by pagan writers who were looking for a figure to set against Jesus. In particular, Sossianus Hierocles, a leading figure in the administration of Diocletian and an alleged instigator of the Great Persecution, wrote a tract in which he used Philostratus' work to show that Apollonius had displayed just as many signs of divinity as Jesus. This work drew responses both from Eusebius of Caesarea, who devoted a whole treatise to its refuta- tion, and from Lactantius, who included his comments in his Divine Institutes. Among other remarks, Lactantius expresses surprise that Hierocles passes over Apuleius, cuius solent et multa et mira memorari.9 This is the earliest extant reference to Apuleius, and it suggests that already by the reign of Diocletian he was widely identified as a wonder worker similar to Apollonius.

By the late fourth century there was certainly a fair amount of interest in Apuleius. He is mentioned by several writers, and appears on the contorniates, medallions given away in Rome as part of the New Year's festivities.10 But none of this indicates any actual knowledge about his life. Most later writers refer to him simply as the author of Metamorphoses and Apology, and these texts, far from countering the popular perception of Apuleius as a magician, actually encouraged it. Apology is of course a defense against an accusation of magic, a charge

9Div. Inst. 5.3.7; cf. 5.3.21. On Apollonius see Smith, Jesus the Magician 84-91, and, most recently, Dzielska, Apollonius. On his role in anti-Christian polemic see also de Labriolle, La reaction 309-15; and on Hierocles see Speyer, "Sossianus Hierocles."

'?Writers: SHA Alb. 12.12; Auson. Cent. Nupt. epilogue; Macrob. Somn. Scip. 1.2.8; Sid. Apol. Ep. 2.11.5 (where Pudentilla and Apuleius are cited as a classical example of a married couple!) and Ep. 4.3.1. More interesting is Jerome, Tractatus in Psalm. 81.8: Non est autem grande facere signa. Nam fecerunt signa et in Aegypto magi contra Moysen. Fecit et Apollonius, fecit et Apuleius: et infinita signa fecerunt. Contorniates: Alfoldi, Die Kontorniaten, cat. no. 109, with plate 37.12, and cf. II 101-2. A. Alfoldi (II 53- 55) argued that both Apollonius and Apuleius were used by the pagan aristocracy of Rome in their fight against Christianity, a position which is apparently supported by the refutation of Augustine; see in general Bloch, "The Pagan Revival." The whole notion of a "pagan opposition," however, has been seriously challenged by Cameron, "Paganism and Literature." It is perhaps more likely that Augustine and his friends were concerned with attacks by earlier critics, such as Porphyry; that his work against the Christians continued to be of concern is indicated in that it was burnt by imperial decree as late as 448 C.E. (Cod. Just. 1.1.3).

animals and predict the future. He was furthermore thought to have ascended bodily into heaven and then to have reappeared on earth in order to reassure his followers of the afterlife. It was because of the miracles attributed to him that Apollonius was taken up by pagan writers who were looking for a figure to set against Jesus. In particular, Sossianus Hierocles, a leading figure in the administration of Diocletian and an alleged instigator of the Great Persecution, wrote a tract in which he used Philostratus' work to show that Apollonius had displayed just as many signs of divinity as Jesus. This work drew responses both from Eusebius of Caesarea, who devoted a whole treatise to its refuta- tion, and from Lactantius, who included his comments in his Divine Institutes. Among other remarks, Lactantius expresses surprise that Hierocles passes over Apuleius, cuius solent et multa et mira memorari.9 This is the earliest extant reference to Apuleius, and it suggests that already by the reign of Diocletian he was widely identified as a wonder worker similar to Apollonius.

By the late fourth century there was certainly a fair amount of interest in Apuleius. He is mentioned by several writers, and appears on the contorniates, medallions given away in Rome as part of the New Year's festivities.10 But none of this indicates any actual knowledge about his life. Most later writers refer to him simply as the author of Metamorphoses and Apology, and these texts, far from countering the popular perception of Apuleius as a magician, actually encouraged it. Apology is of course a defense against an accusation of magic, a charge

9Div. Inst. 5.3.7; cf. 5.3.21. On Apollonius see Smith, Jesus the Magician 84-91, and, most recently, Dzielska, Apollonius. On his role in anti-Christian polemic see also de Labriolle, La reaction 309-15; and on Hierocles see Speyer, "Sossianus Hierocles."

'?Writers: SHA Alb. 12.12; Auson. Cent. Nupt. epilogue; Macrob. Somn. Scip. 1.2.8; Sid. Apol. Ep. 2.11.5 (where Pudentilla and Apuleius are cited as a classical example of a married couple!) and Ep. 4.3.1. More interesting is Jerome, Tractatus in Psalm. 81.8: Non est autem grande facere signa. Nam fecerunt signa et in Aegypto magi contra Moysen. Fecit et Apollonius, fecit et Apuleius: et infinita signa fecerunt. Contorniates: Alfoldi, Die Kontorniaten, cat. no. 109, with plate 37.12, and cf. II 101-2. A. Alfoldi (II 53- 55) argued that both Apollonius and Apuleius were used by the pagan aristocracy of Rome in their fight against Christianity, a position which is apparently supported by the refutation of Augustine; see in general Bloch, "The Pagan Revival." The whole notion of a "pagan opposition," however, has been seriously challenged by Cameron, "Paganism and Literature." It is perhaps more likely that Augustine and his friends were concerned with attacks by earlier critics, such as Porphyry; that his work against the Christians continued to be of concern is indicated in that it was burnt by imperial decree as late as 448 C.E. (Cod. Just. 1.1.3).

animals and predict the future. He was furthermore thought to have ascended bodily into heaven and then to have reappeared on earth in order to reassure his followers of the afterlife. It was because of the miracles attributed to him that Apollonius was taken up by pagan writers who were looking for a figure to set against Jesus. In particular, Sossianus Hierocles, a leading figure in the administration of Diocletian and an alleged instigator of the Great Persecution, wrote a tract in which he used Philostratus' work to show that Apollonius had displayed just as many signs of divinity as Jesus. This work drew responses both from Eusebius of Caesarea, who devoted a whole treatise to its refuta- tion, and from Lactantius, who included his comments in his Divine Institutes. Among other remarks, Lactantius expresses surprise that Hierocles passes over Apuleius, cuius solent et multa et mira memorari.9 This is the earliest extant reference to Apuleius, and it suggests that already by the reign of Diocletian he was widely identified as a wonder worker similar to Apollonius.

By the late fourth century there was certainly a fair amount of interest in Apuleius. He is mentioned by several writers, and appears on the contorniates, medallions given away in Rome as part of the New Year's festivities.10 But none of this indicates any actual knowledge about his life. Most later writers refer to him simply as the author of Metamorphoses and Apology, and these texts, far from countering the popular perception of Apuleius as a magician, actually encouraged it. Apology is of course a defense against an accusation of magic, a charge

9Div. Inst. 5.3.7; cf. 5.3.21. On Apollonius see Smith, Jesus the Magician 84-91, and, most recently, Dzielska, Apollonius. On his role in anti-Christian polemic see also de Labriolle, La reaction 309-15; and on Hierocles see Speyer, "Sossianus Hierocles."

'?Writers: SHA Alb. 12.12; Auson. Cent. Nupt. epilogue; Macrob. Somn. Scip. 1.2.8; Sid. Apol. Ep. 2.11.5 (where Pudentilla and Apuleius are cited as a classical example of a married couple!) and Ep. 4.3.1. More interesting is Jerome, Tractatus in Psalm. 81.8: Non est autem grande facere signa. Nam fecerunt signa et in Aegypto magi contra Moysen. Fecit et Apollonius, fecit et Apuleius: et infinita signa fecerunt. Contorniates: Alfoldi, Die Kontorniaten, cat. no. 109, with plate 37.12, and cf. II 101-2. A. Alfoldi (II 53- 55) argued that both Apollonius and Apuleius were used by the pagan aristocracy of Rome in their fight against Christianity, a position which is apparently supported by the refutation of Augustine; see in general Bloch, "The Pagan Revival." The whole notion of a "pagan opposition," however, has been seriously challenged by Cameron, "Paganism and Literature." It is perhaps more likely that Augustine and his friends were concerned with attacks by earlier critics, such as Porphyry; that his work against the Christians continued to be of concern is indicated in that it was burnt by imperial decree as late as 448 C.E. (Cod. Just. 1.1.3).

animals and predict the future. He was furthermore thought to have ascended bodily into heaven and then to have reappeared on earth in order to reassure his followers of the afterlife. It was because of the miracles attributed to him that Apollonius was taken up by pagan writers who were looking for a figure to set against Jesus. In particular, Sossianus Hierocles, a leading figure in the administration of Diocletian and an alleged instigator of the Great Persecution, wrote a tract in which he used Philostratus' work to show that Apollonius had displayed just as many signs of divinity as Jesus. This work drew responses both from Eusebius of Caesarea, who devoted a whole treatise to its refuta- tion, and from Lactantius, who included his comments in his Divine Institutes. Among other remarks, Lactantius expresses surprise that Hierocles passes over Apuleius, cuius solent et multa et mira memorari.9 This is the earliest extant reference to Apuleius, and it suggests that already by the reign of Diocletian he was widely identified as a wonder worker similar to Apollonius.

By the late fourth century there was certainly a fair amount of interest in Apuleius. He is mentioned by several writers, and appears on the contorniates, medallions given away in Rome as part of the New Year's festivities.10 But none of this indicates any actual knowledge about his life. Most later writers refer to him simply as the author of Metamorphoses and Apology, and these texts, far from countering the popular perception of Apuleius as a magician, actually encouraged it. Apology is of course a defense against an accusation of magic, a charge

9Div. Inst. 5.3.7; cf. 5.3.21. On Apollonius see Smith, Jesus the Magician 84-91, and, most recently, Dzielska, Apollonius. On his role in anti-Christian polemic see also de Labriolle, La reaction 309-15; and on Hierocles see Speyer, "Sossianus Hierocles."

'?Writers: SHA Alb. 12.12; Auson. Cent. Nupt. epilogue; Macrob. Somn. Scip. 1.2.8; Sid. Apol. Ep. 2.11.5 (where Pudentilla and Apuleius are cited as a classical example of a married couple!) and Ep. 4.3.1. More interesting is Jerome, Tractatus in Psalm. 81.8: Non est autem grande facere signa. Nam fecerunt signa et in Aegypto magi contra Moysen. Fecit et Apollonius, fecit et Apuleius: et infinita signa fecerunt. Contorniates: Alfoldi, Die Kontorniaten, cat. no. 109, with plate 37.12, and cf. II 101-2. A. Alfoldi (II 53- 55) argued that both Apollonius and Apuleius were used by the pagan aristocracy of Rome in their fight against Christianity, a position which is apparently supported by the refutation of Augustine; see in general Bloch, "The Pagan Revival." The whole notion of a "pagan opposition," however, has been seriously challenged by Cameron, "Paganism and Literature." It is perhaps more likely that Augustine and his friends were concerned with attacks by earlier critics, such as Porphyry; that his work against the Christians continued to be of concern is indicated in that it was burnt by imperial decree as late as 448 C.E. (Cod. Just. 1.1.3).

animals and predict the future. He was furthermore thought to have ascended bodily into heaven and then to have reappeared on earth in order to reassure his followers of the afterlife. It was because of the miracles attributed to him that Apollonius was taken up by pagan writers who were looking for a figure to set against Jesus. In particular, Sossianus Hierocles, a leading figure in the administration of Diocletian and an alleged instigator of the Great Persecution, wrote a tract in which he used Philostratus' work to show that Apollonius had displayed just as many signs of divinity as Jesus. This work drew responses both from Eusebius of Caesarea, who devoted a whole treatise to its refuta- tion, and from Lactantius, who included his comments in his Divine Institutes. Among other remarks, Lactantius expresses surprise that Hierocles passes over Apuleius, cuius solent et multa et mira memorari.9 This is the earliest extant reference to Apuleius, and it suggests that already by the reign of Diocletian he was widely identified as a wonder worker similar to Apollonius.

By the late fourth century there was certainly a fair amount of interest in Apuleius. He is mentioned by several writers, and appears on the contorniates, medallions given away in Rome as part of the New Year's festivities.10 But none of this indicates any actual knowledge about his life. Most later writers refer to him simply as the author of Metamorphoses and Apology, and these texts, far from countering the popular perception of Apuleius as a magician, actually encouraged it. Apology is of course a defense against an accusation of magic, a charge

9Div. Inst. 5.3.7; cf. 5.3.21. On Apollonius see Smith, Jesus the Magician 84-91, and, most recently, Dzielska, Apollonius. On his role in anti-Christian polemic see also de Labriolle, La reaction 309-15; and on Hierocles see Speyer, "Sossianus Hierocles."

'?Writers: SHA Alb. 12.12; Auson. Cent. Nupt. epilogue; Macrob. Somn. Scip. 1.2.8; Sid. Apol. Ep. 2.11.5 (where Pudentilla and Apuleius are cited as a classical example of a married couple!) and Ep. 4.3.1. More interesting is Jerome, Tractatus in Psalm. 81.8: Non est autem grande facere signa. Nam fecerunt signa et in Aegypto magi contra Moysen. Fecit et Apollonius, fecit et Apuleius: et infinita signa fecerunt. Contorniates: Alfoldi, Die Kontorniaten, cat. no. 109, with plate 37.12, and cf. II 101-2. A. Alfoldi (II 53- 55) argued that both Apollonius and Apuleius were used by the pagan aristocracy of Rome in their fight against Christianity, a position which is apparently supported by the refutation of Augustine; see in general Bloch, "The Pagan Revival." The whole notion of a "pagan opposition," however, has been seriously challenged by Cameron, "Paganism and Literature." It is perhaps more likely that Augustine and his friends were concerned with attacks by earlier critics, such as Porphyry; that his work against the Christians continued to be of concern is indicated in that it was burnt by imperial decree as late as 448 C.E. (Cod. Just. 1.1.3).

animals and predict the future. He was furthermore thought to have ascended bodily into heaven and then to have reappeared on earth in order to reassure his followers of the afterlife. It was because of the miracles attributed to him that Apollonius was taken up by pagan writers who were looking for a figure to set against Jesus. In particular, Sossianus Hierocles, a leading figure in the administration of Diocletian and an alleged instigator of the Great Persecution, wrote a tract in which he used Philostratus' work to show that Apollonius had displayed just as many signs of divinity as Jesus. This work drew responses both from Eusebius of Caesarea, who devoted a whole treatise to its refuta- tion, and from Lactantius, who included his comments in his Divine Institutes. Among other remarks, Lactantius expresses surprise that Hierocles passes over Apuleius, cuius solent et multa et mira memorari.9 This is the earliest extant reference to Apuleius, and it suggests that already by the reign of Diocletian he was widely identified as a wonder worker similar to Apollonius.

By the late fourth century there was certainly a fair amount of interest in Apuleius. He is mentioned by several writers, and appears on the contorniates, medallions given away in Rome as part of the New Year's festivities.10 But none of this indicates any actual knowledge about his life. Most later writers refer to him simply as the author of Metamorphoses and Apology, and these texts, far from countering the popular perception of Apuleius as a magician, actually encouraged it. Apology is of course a defense against an accusation of magic, a charge

9Div. Inst. 5.3.7; cf. 5.3.21. On Apollonius see Smith, Jesus the Magician 84-91, and, most recently, Dzielska, Apollonius. On his role in anti-Christian polemic see also de Labriolle, La reaction 309-15; and on Hierocles see Speyer, "Sossianus Hierocles."

'?Writers: SHA Alb. 12.12; Auson. Cent. Nupt. epilogue; Macrob. Somn. Scip. 1.2.8; Sid. Apol. Ep. 2.11.5 (where Pudentilla and Apuleius are cited as a classical example of a married couple!) and Ep. 4.3.1. More interesting is Jerome, Tractatus in Psalm. 81.8: Non est autem grande facere signa. Nam fecerunt signa et in Aegypto magi contra Moysen. Fecit et Apollonius, fecit et Apuleius: et infinita signa fecerunt. Contorniates: Alfoldi, Die Kontorniaten, cat. no. 109, with plate 37.12, and cf. II 101-2. A. Alfoldi (II 53- 55) argued that both Apollonius and Apuleius were used by the pagan aristocracy of Rome in their fight against Christianity, a position which is apparently supported by the refutation of Augustine; see in general Bloch, "The Pagan Revival." The whole notion of a "pagan opposition," however, has been seriously challenged by Cameron, "Paganism and Literature." It is perhaps more likely that Augustine and his friends were concerned with attacks by earlier critics, such as Porphyry; that his work against the Christians continued to be of concern is indicated in that it was burnt by imperial decree as late as 448 C.E. (Cod. Just. 1.1.3).

276 276 276 276 276 276

This content downloaded from 134.76.63.66 on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:53:58 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS THE PRIESTHOOD OF APULEIUS

which was traditionally supposed to have been made by enemies against Apollonius as well. Likewise, there has always been a tendency to identify Apuleius with the hero of his novel, who was clearly a dab- bler in the magic arts. By the time of Augustine, then, the available information about Apuleius was probably not much more historically accurate than that which Philostratus provides about Apollonius.

But we should perhaps expect something more from Augustine, who was not only a highly educated rhetorician but also a fellow Afri- can. Although he followed the general tendency to identify Apuleius with Lucius, the hero of the Metamorphoses, he was more cautious in assuming that the writer was actually telling the truth. 1 Certainly in his response to Marcellinus' question about the comparison of Apuleius with Christ, he casts doubts on Apuleius' alleged magic powers by presenting what we would consider a more reliable historical account. Since this is the critical passage, it is worth quoting in full.

Who would think it worthy even of mockery, the fact that they try to compare Apollonius and Apuleius and other adepts of the magic arts with Christ, or even prefer them to Him? . . . For Apuleius (to speak in partic- ular about him, who as an African is more familiar to us Africans) with all his magic arts was unable to attain, I would not say to a kingdom, but not even to any judicial office in the state, although he was of respectable birth in his hometown and was liberally educated and endowed with great eloquence. Perhaps as a philosopher he intentionally looked down on such things? The same man who made such a fuss as provincial priest, so that he could sponsor games and outfit venatores, and take to court cer- tain citizens opposed to the erection of his statue in Oea, the hometown of his wife? He even handed down to posterity a written version of the speech he delivered in that case, so that it would not be hidden from them. Therefore, in regards to success in this world, that man was indeed a magician, as far as he was able. And from this it is apparent that he never achieved a greater position, not because he was unwilling, but because he was unable.12

"Note CD 18.18: Apuleius in libris, quos Asini Aurei titulo inscripsit, sibi ipsi accidisse, ut accepto veneno humano animo permanente asinus fieret, aut indicavit aut finxit.

'2Ep. 138: (18) Quis autem vel risu dignum putet, quod Apollonium et Apuleium ceterosque magicarum artium peritissimos conferre Christo vel etiam praeferre conan- tur? . . (19) Apuleius enim, ut de illo potissimum loquamur, qui nobis Afris Afer est notior, non dico ad regnum sed ne ad aliquam quidem iudiciariam rei publicae potestam cum omnibus suis magicis artibus potuit pervenire, honesto patriae suae loco natus et

which was traditionally supposed to have been made by enemies against Apollonius as well. Likewise, there has always been a tendency to identify Apuleius with the hero of his novel, who was clearly a dab- bler in the magic arts. By the time of Augustine, then, the available information about Apuleius was probably not much more historically accurate than that which Philostratus provides about Apollonius.

But we should perhaps expect something more from Augustine, who was not only a highly educated rhetorician but also a fellow Afri- can. Although he followed the general tendency to identify Apuleius with Lucius, the hero of the Metamorphoses, he was more cautious in assuming that the writer was actually telling the truth. 1 Certainly in his response to Marcellinus' question about the comparison of Apuleius with Christ, he casts doubts on Apuleius' alleged magic powers by presenting what we would consider a more reliable historical account. Since this is the critical passage, it is worth quoting in full.

Who would think it worthy even of mockery, the fact that they try to compare Apollonius and Apuleius and other adepts of the magic arts with Christ, or even prefer them to Him? . . . For Apuleius (to speak in partic- ular about him, who as an African is more familiar to us Africans) with all his magic arts was unable to attain, I would not say to a kingdom, but not even to any judicial office in the state, although he was of respectable birth in his hometown and was liberally educated and endowed with great eloquence. Perhaps as a philosopher he intentionally looked down on such things? The same man who made such a fuss as provincial priest, so that he could sponsor games and outfit venatores, and take to court cer- tain citizens opposed to the erection of his statue in Oea, the hometown of his wife? He even handed down to posterity a written version of the speech he delivered in that case, so that it would not be hidden from them. Therefore, in regards to success in this world, that man was indeed a magician, as far as he was able. And from this it is apparent that he never achieved a greater position, not because he was unwilling, but because he was unable.12

"Note CD 18.18: Apuleius in libris, quos Asini Aurei titulo inscripsit, sibi ipsi accidisse, ut accepto veneno humano animo permanente asinus fieret, aut indicavit aut finxit.

'2Ep. 138: (18) Quis autem vel risu dignum putet, quod Apollonium et Apuleium ceterosque magicarum artium peritissimos conferre Christo vel etiam praeferre conan- tur? . . (19) Apuleius enim, ut de illo potissimum loquamur, qui nobis Afris Afer est notior, non dico ad regnum sed ne ad aliquam quidem iudiciariam rei publicae potestam cum omnibus suis magicis artibus potuit pervenire, honesto patriae suae loco natus et

which was traditionally supposed to have been made by enemies against Apollonius as well. Likewise, there has always been a tendency to identify Apuleius with the hero of his novel, who was clearly a dab- bler in the magic arts. By the time of Augustine, then, the available information about Apuleius was probably not much more historically accurate than that which Philostratus provides about Apollonius.

But we should perhaps expect something more from Augustine, who was not only a highly educated rhetorician but also a fellow Afri- can. Although he followed the general tendency to identify Apuleius with Lucius, the hero of the Metamorphoses, he was more cautious in assuming that the writer was actually telling the truth. 1 Certainly in his response to Marcellinus' question about the comparison of Apuleius with Christ, he casts doubts on Apuleius' alleged magic powers by presenting what we would consider a more reliable historical account. Since this is the critical passage, it is worth quoting in full.

Who would think it worthy even of mockery, the fact that they try to compare Apollonius and Apuleius and other adepts of the magic arts with Christ, or even prefer them to Him? . . . For Apuleius (to speak in partic- ular about him, who as an African is more familiar to us Africans) with all his magic arts was unable to attain, I would not say to a kingdom, but not even to any judicial office in the state, although he was of respectable birth in his hometown and was liberally educated and endowed with great eloquence. Perhaps as a philosopher he intentionally looked down on such things? The same man who made such a fuss as provincial priest, so that he could sponsor games and outfit venatores, and take to court cer- tain citizens opposed to the erection of his statue in Oea, the hometown of his wife? He even handed down to posterity a written version of the speech he delivered in that case, so that it would not be hidden from them. Therefore, in regards to success in this world, that man was indeed a magician, as far as he was able. And from this it is apparent that he never achieved a greater position, not because he was unwilling, but because he was unable.12

"Note CD 18.18: Apuleius in libris, quos Asini Aurei titulo inscripsit, sibi ipsi accidisse, ut accepto veneno humano animo permanente asinus fieret, aut indicavit aut finxit.

'2Ep. 138: (18) Quis autem vel risu dignum putet, quod Apollonium et Apuleium ceterosque magicarum artium peritissimos conferre Christo vel etiam praeferre conan- tur? . . (19) Apuleius enim, ut de illo potissimum loquamur, qui nobis Afris Afer est notior, non dico ad regnum sed ne ad aliquam quidem iudiciariam rei publicae potestam cum omnibus suis magicis artibus potuit pervenire, honesto patriae suae loco natus et

which was traditionally supposed to have been made by enemies against Apollonius as well. Likewise, there has always been a tendency to identify Apuleius with the hero of his novel, who was clearly a dab- bler in the magic arts. By the time of Augustine, then, the available information about Apuleius was probably not much more historically accurate than that which Philostratus provides about Apollonius.

But we should perhaps expect something more from Augustine, who was not only a highly educated rhetorician but also a fellow Afri- can. Although he followed the general tendency to identify Apuleius with Lucius, the hero of the Metamorphoses, he was more cautious in assuming that the writer was actually telling the truth. 1 Certainly in his response to Marcellinus' question about the comparison of Apuleius with Christ, he casts doubts on Apuleius' alleged magic powers by presenting what we would consider a more reliable historical account. Since this is the critical passage, it is worth quoting in full.

Who would think it worthy even of mockery, the fact that they try to compare Apollonius and Apuleius and other adepts of the magic arts with Christ, or even prefer them to Him? . . . For Apuleius (to speak in partic- ular about him, who as an African is more familiar to us Africans) with all his magic arts was unable to attain, I would not say to a kingdom, but not even to any judicial office in the state, although he was of respectable birth in his hometown and was liberally educated and endowed with great eloquence. Perhaps as a philosopher he intentionally looked down on such things? The same man who made such a fuss as provincial priest, so that he could sponsor games and outfit venatores, and take to court cer- tain citizens opposed to the erection of his statue in Oea, the hometown of his wife? He even handed down to posterity a written version of the speech he delivered in that case, so that it would not be hidden from them. Therefore, in regards to success in this world, that man was indeed a magician, as far as he was able. And from this it is apparent that he never achieved a greater position, not because he was unwilling, but because he was unable.12

"Note CD 18.18: Apuleius in libris, quos Asini Aurei titulo inscripsit, sibi ipsi accidisse, ut accepto veneno humano animo permanente asinus fieret, aut indicavit aut finxit.

'2Ep. 138: (18) Quis autem vel risu dignum putet, quod Apollonium et Apuleium ceterosque magicarum artium peritissimos conferre Christo vel etiam praeferre conan- tur? . . (19) Apuleius enim, ut de illo potissimum loquamur, qui nobis Afris Afer est notior, non dico ad regnum sed ne ad aliquam quidem iudiciariam rei publicae potestam cum omnibus suis magicis artibus potuit pervenire, honesto patriae suae loco natus et

which was traditionally supposed to have been made by enemies against Apollonius as well. Likewise, there has always been a tendency to identify Apuleius with the hero of his novel, who was clearly a dab- bler in the magic arts. By the time of Augustine, then, the available information about Apuleius was probably not much more historically accurate than that which Philostratus provides about Apollonius.

But we should perhaps expect something more from Augustine, who was not only a highly educated rhetorician but also a fellow Afri- can. Although he followed the general tendency to identify Apuleius with Lucius, the hero of the Metamorphoses, he was more cautious in assuming that the writer was actually telling the truth. 1 Certainly in his response to Marcellinus' question about the comparison of Apuleius with Christ, he casts doubts on Apuleius' alleged magic powers by presenting what we would consider a more reliable historical account. Since this is the critical passage, it is worth quoting in full.

Who would think it worthy even of mockery, the fact that they try to compare Apollonius and Apuleius and other adepts of the magic arts with Christ, or even prefer them to Him? . . . For Apuleius (to speak in partic- ular about him, who as an African is more familiar to us Africans) with all his magic arts was unable to attain, I would not say to a kingdom, but not even to any judicial office in the state, although he was of respectable birth in his hometown and was liberally educated and endowed with great eloquence. Perhaps as a philosopher he intentionally looked down on such things? The same man who made such a fuss as provincial priest, so that he could sponsor games and outfit venatores, and take to court cer- tain citizens opposed to the erection of his statue in Oea, the hometown of his wife? He even handed down to posterity a written version of the speech he delivered in that case, so that it would not be hidden from them. Therefore, in regards to success in this world, that man was indeed a magician, as far as he was able. And from this it is apparent that he never achieved a greater position, not because he was unwilling, but because he was unable.12

"Note CD 18.18: Apuleius in libris, quos Asini Aurei titulo inscripsit, sibi ipsi accidisse, ut accepto veneno humano animo permanente asinus fieret, aut indicavit aut finxit.

'2Ep. 138: (18) Quis autem vel risu dignum putet, quod Apollonium et Apuleium ceterosque magicarum artium peritissimos conferre Christo vel etiam praeferre conan- tur? . . (19) Apuleius enim, ut de illo potissimum loquamur, qui nobis Afris Afer est notior, non dico ad regnum sed ne ad aliquam quidem iudiciariam rei publicae potestam cum omnibus suis magicis artibus potuit pervenire, honesto patriae suae loco natus et

which was traditionally supposed to have been made by enemies against Apollonius as well. Likewise, there has always been a tendency to identify Apuleius with the hero of his novel, who was clearly a dab- bler in the magic arts. By the time of Augustine, then, the available information about Apuleius was probably not much more historically accurate than that which Philostratus provides about Apollonius.

But we should perhaps expect something more from Augustine, who was not only a highly educated rhetorician but also a fellow Afri- can. Although he followed the general tendency to identify Apuleius with Lucius, the hero of the Metamorphoses, he was more cautious in assuming that the writer was actually telling the truth. 1 Certainly in his response to Marcellinus' question about the comparison of Apuleius with Christ, he casts doubts on Apuleius' alleged magic powers by presenting what we would consider a more reliable historical account. Since this is the critical passage, it is worth quoting in full.

Who would think it worthy even of mockery, the fact that they try to compare Apollonius and Apuleius and other adepts of the magic arts with Christ, or even prefer them to Him? . . . For Apuleius (to speak in partic- ular about him, who as an African is more familiar to us Africans) with all his magic arts was unable to attain, I would not say to a kingdom, but not even to any judicial office in the state, although he was of respectable birth in his hometown and was liberally educated and endowed with great eloquence. Perhaps as a philosopher he intentionally looked down on such things? The same man who made such a fuss as provincial priest, so that he could sponsor games and outfit venatores, and take to court cer- tain citizens opposed to the erection of his statue in Oea, the hometown of his wife? He even handed down to posterity a written version of the speech he delivered in that case, so that it would not be hidden from them. Therefore, in regards to success in this world, that man was indeed a magician, as far as he was able. And from this it is apparent that he never achieved a greater position, not because he was unwilling, but because he was unable.12

"Note CD 18.18: Apuleius in libris, quos Asini Aurei titulo inscripsit, sibi ipsi accidisse, ut accepto veneno humano animo permanente asinus fieret, aut indicavit aut finxit.

'2Ep. 138: (18) Quis autem vel risu dignum putet, quod Apollonium et Apuleium ceterosque magicarum artium peritissimos conferre Christo vel etiam praeferre conan- tur? . . (19) Apuleius enim, ut de illo potissimum loquamur, qui nobis Afris Afer est notior, non dico ad regnum sed ne ad aliquam quidem iudiciariam rei publicae potestam cum omnibus suis magicis artibus potuit pervenire, honesto patriae suae loco natus et

277 277 277 277 277 277

This content downloaded from 134.76.63.66 on Wed, 27 Aug 2014 18:53:58 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

J. B. RIVES J. B. RIVES J. B. RIVES J. B. RIVES J. B. RIVES J. B. RIVES

Augustine then goes on to point out that David, in gaining a kingdom, was much more successful than Apuleius even without the help of magic: this being the case, it is even more absurd to compare Apuleius with Christ.

Augustine makes his case well, but where did he get his informa- tion about the career of Apuleius? It is certainly possible that he had access to information not available to us. For one thing, he grew up in Thagaste, some fifteen miles from Apuleius' hometown of Madauros, and actually studied in that town before being sent to Carthage (Conf. 2.3). It is possible that his teachers there fondly preserved the memory of their great fellow citizen and spoke of him to their students. There may even have been public monuments to Apuleius in Madauros, for a fragmentary inscription records the dedication of a statue to a philoso- phus Platonicus whose name is unfortunately lost. 3 Likewise, we know that Apuleius published a number of works that are no longer extant, but which Augustine may have read; the speech concerning his statue in Oea was perhaps one of these. Apart from that one citation, however, Augustine mentions only the extant writings of Apuleius: De Mundo (CD 4.2), Apology (CD 8.19), Metamorphoses (CD 18.18), and above all De Deo Socratis, which he used as his major source for the Neoplatonic teaching on demons. 14 More importantly, he provides little information about Apuleius that cannot be extracted from these writings. Apuleius himself describes his family background in Apology (24.9), and his edu-

liberaliter educatus magnaque praeditus eloquentia. An forte ista, ut philosophus, volun- tate contempsit, qui sacerdos provinciae pro