'THE PERSONA IN APULEIUS' FLORIDA' text published in: M. Zimmerman, R. van der Paardt, Metamorphic reflections. Essays presented to Ben Hijmans at his 75th birthday, (Peeters) Leuven/Dudley MA 2004, 174-87 [p.174]In literary studies, the word ‘I’
has lost its innocence. No longer can it be taken for granted that every ‘I’
simply refers to the person who is supposed to be speaking, let alone that it
represents the author of the text. A speaking character in a drama may, in fact,
be voicing insights not of himself but of others (such as the actual author or
part of the audience), whereas a seemingly direct assertion by the author can
turn out to be the result of a role that is played to achieve some special
affect. The assumption that the ‘I’ who is
telling a text normally refers directly to the author himself, the so called
‘biographical fallacy’, continued to live particularly long in Classical
Studies. It was the mainstream idea from classical antiquity until at least the
last decades of the 20th century, and the notion is not completely obsolete
today. The cause for this seems evident: given the scarcity of documentary
material from antiquity, literary texts are often the only possible source of
information about an ancient author. Hence, it becomes tempting to use the
literary texts for reconstructions of the author’s life and personality. For instance, who can resist a
biographical reading of the works of Tacitus, whose very name seems to
underscore the nearly complete absence of reliable information about him? Or
what about Lucretius, about whom we know hardly anything at all, even if we mine
his De rerum natura for possible indications of his personal life? In the
case of several other Latin authors too, their works easily seduce the reader to
a biographical approach. Examples quickly come to mind: Catullus, Ovid, Seneca,
Pliny the Younger, and, not least of all, Apuleius.[1] [p.175]However, caution is necessary.
Generally, all forms of Latin poetry have become ‘suspect’ as sources for
biographical information. This goes particularly for Roman elegy and
love-poetry, for satire and epigram. I mention the groundbreaking work of Susan
Braund in the field of Roman satire,[2]
where she has developed the notion of personae, masks put on by the
narrator to perform specific roles. For example, the speaking ‘I’ in
Juvenal’s famous third satire cannot be said to express the critical ideas and
feelings of the real Juvenal who is fed up with Rome, but represents a certain
exaggerated and hypocritical attitude that even seems to be exposed to ridicule. Recently, the persona notion
has been extended to other works, such as the epigrams of Martial.[3]
Not every ‘I’ in the epigrams that is complaining about poverty, uncaring
patrons, or lack of freedom necessarily voices a reality experienced by the real
Martial. The epigrammatist rather plays with notions known to all and elements
which have become properly literary motifs. Modern research in the field of the
Roman novel too has fundamentally discarded the biographical approach. The surge
of Apuleian studies since about 1975 has produced many examples of sensible,
careful analysis of the Metamorphoses, in which the text is not reduced
to a directly accessible mine of information about the author, or, for that
matter, Roman Imperial society in general. The rise of narratology in Classical
Studies has still further diverted the attention away from such positivistic
interests towards questions of literary play and strategy, including
intertextuality.[4] Curiously, Apuleius’ so called
‘minor works’, which have always been so dear to Ben Hijmans, have only
marginally profited from the modern scholarly developments sketched above. The Florida
and above all the Apology are almost invariably treated as relatively
uncomplicated sources for information[5]
about the author [p.177]of the Metamorphoses, a work now commonly seen as a
piece of fiction and a highly rated one at that. The present contribution focuses on Apuleius’
Uncertainties At first sight, the
If a strictly ‘scientific’ approach were to be adopted and only hard
facts and reliable evidence were to count in the discussion, a nearly complete
silence about these
It would be a pity, however, to discard the
In the following pages, I will adopt two working hypotheses: first, I
assume that the text are more or less representative of the lost Apuleian corpus
of speeches. Here it does not really matter whether or not the anthologist was
Apuleius himself. In their range of themes and interests, the
[p.179]Religion What image do we get from the ‘I’
in the Vt
ferme religiosis uiantium moris est, cum aliqui lucus aut aliqui locus sanctus
in uia oblatus est, uotum postulare, pomum adponere, paulisper adsidere: ita
mihi ingresso sanctissimam istam ciuitatem, quanquam oppido festine<m>,
praefanda uenia et habenda oratio et inhibenda properatio est. Neque
enim iustius religiosam moram uiatori obiecerit aut ara floribus redimita aut
spelunca frondibus inumbrata aut quercus cornibus onerata aut fagus pellibus
coronata, uel enim colliculus sepimine consecratus uel truncus dolamine
effigiatus uel cespes libamine umigatus uel lapis unguine delibutus. Parua haec
quippe et quanquam paucis percontantibus adorata, tamen ignorantibus transcursa.[11] This wonderful, short fragment comes
from a speech delivered by the speaker shortly after entering a town, possibly
The fragment forms one long
comparison: ‘Apuleius’ argues that it is his duty to deliver a speech, no
less than he would have to call a halt to his journey on religious grounds when
coming across a spot marked by devotional symbols. This, of course, is a great
honour for the city where the speech is delivered. The comparison implicitly
also works the other way around: the present speech is a sacred task and its
speaker appears to be something like a holy man. The images of the speaker and a
worshipper are effectively combined and fused in the notion of the
‘traveller’. The interest of Apuleius in pagan religion is well attested,[12]
and so the fragment may be said to be fully in accordance with the general image
of Apuleius as it can be formed on the basis of his other works. In another fragment, the speaker even
tells that he was a priest of Aesculapius (Fl. 18,38),[13]
in which function he composed speeches [p.180]and hymns about the god. The reference is
clever, in that it simultaneously reinforces the portrait of himself as a devout
worshipper of the Gods and as a prolific writer.
Modesty concerning his own literary achievements was obviously not the
author’s fundamental attitude. Already in the Apology he repeatedly
dwelled with pride on this theme,[14]
but the In the first of these, Fl. 9, a
long discussion of the manifold talents of the sophist Hippias leads up to a
short comparison of the sophist with the speaker himself, who, so he argues,
does not care for some of the arts and crafts exercised by Hippias: (...)
sed pro his praeoptare me fateor uno chartario calamo me reficere poemata
omnigenus apta uirgae, lyrae, socco, coturno, item satiras ac <g>riphos,
item <h>istorias uarias rerum nec non <o>rationes laudatas disertis
nec non dialogos laudatos philosophis atque haec <et> alia[et] eiusdem
modi tam Graece quam Latine, gemino uoto, pari studio, simili stilo.
(9,27-29) As the text shows, some of the words
involve textual problems, but the general idea is quite clear: the speaker
claims to write poetry and prose in nearly all possible genres, both high
(tragedy, oratory, philosophical dialogues) and low (comedy, satire), and in
both Greek and Latin. His high aspirations are met with praise by experts, most
explicitly so in the case of his speeches and dialogues.[15] [p.181]The second passage occurs nearly at
the end of the collection, in Fl. 20. The short piece starts from an
ancient maxim about drinking, comparing the various stages of basic education to
successive ‘bowls’. The speaker shows that he has enjoyed more than just
elementary education: Ego
et alias creterras Athenis bibi: poeticae comptam, geometriae limpidam, musicae
dulcem, dialecticae austerulam. Iam uero uniuersae philosophiae inexplebilem
scilicet <et> nectaream. Canit enim Empedocles carmina, Plato dialogos,
Socrates hymnos, Epicharmus modos, Xenophon historias, [Xeno]Crates satiras:
Apuleius uester haec omnia nouemque Musas pari studio colit, maiore scilicet
uoluntate quam facultate, eoque propensius fortasse laudandus est, quod omnibus
bonis in rebus conatus in laude, effectus in casu est... (20,4-6) In this panegyric of his own culture
and erudition, literature is given a prominent place: various forms of poetry,
dialogues, historiography and satire are specifically mentioned.[16]
Finally, some expressions of false modesty serve to lessen the potentially
harmful effect of the exuberant laus sui. Interestingly, the speaker also
mentions his own name here, in a truly Caesarean style, using a third person
singular, but the self-ostentation is immediately softenened by the clever
reference to the public: I, the famous writer, am ‘your Apuleius.’ (I
will return to this point shortly.) One can consider the above two fragments as key texts to the whole
collection and read the rest of the Finally, and perhaps most importantly,
apart from presenting himself as a religious, widely-travelled and well-educated
author of first class Greek and Latin poetry and prose in many genres, the
‘I’ also pictures himself as a V.I.P. who remains loyal to his African
cultural background and even brings home some cultural prestige to his native
land. The protagonist in these rhetorical fragments does not hesitate to put
himself on a par with some of the highest authorities in ancient culture. I
already mentioned his easy handling of all earlier literature. Furthermore, the
Moreover, the speaker shows an ardent
concern to show his familiarity and good relations with local proconsuls.
Several of the longer pieces are addressed to proconsuls on some formal
occasion, such as their leave of office: Severianus in 9; an anonymous proconsul
in 15 (cf. tuis antecessoribus 15,27); and Scipio Orfitus in 17. As in
the Apology, where Apuleius constantly flatters the presiding magistrate
Claudius Maximus, readers are clearly invited to think of a very famous man, a
man of culture, who can side with the great men from both past and present. But the important thing is that all this personal glory is not presented
merely for its own sake: it becomes a decisive factor for other, further
purposes in the extant fragments. Fragment 9 about Hippias, partly discussed
above, is a case in point. After the speaker’s exuberant self-advertisement,
he says he wishes he could offer all his talents to the departing proconsul, who
is then lavishly praised. The self-praise reinforces the persuasive character of
the speech. That is, the orator first ‘establishes’ himself as a worthy and
important speaker, before using his powers of speech to praise the local
magistrate. This official duty is perfomed on behalf of the whole province
before the official representant of [p.183] Something similar happens in Fl. 16, where he delivers a gratiarum
actio (speech of thanks) for a statue granted to him by the city of
Quibusnam
uerbis tibi, Aemiliane Strabo, uir omnium, quot umquam fuerunt aut sunt aut
etiam erunt, inter optimos clarissime, inter clarissimos optime, inter utrosque
doctissime, quibus tandem uerbis pro hoc tuo erga me animo gratias habitum et
commemoratum eam, qua digna ratione tam honorificam benignitatem tuam celebrem,
qua remuneratione dicendi gloriam tui facti aequiperem, nondum hercle repperio.
Sed quaeram sedulo et conitar, ‘dum memor ipse mei, dum spiritus hos regit
artus.’
(16,31-33) We may note the proud display of a
famous Vergilian phrase,[18]
which is suggestive not only of the speaker’s fine erudition, but also of his
confidence and self-esteem: he applies words of
Meanwhile, a closer reading of the
whole piece shows that Apuleius is postponing his definite praise until
the city has actually erected the statue for which a place has already been
alotted, and perhaps he is even asking for a second statue.[19]
In other words, his self-advertisement strengthens his praise now, and this
praise in turn serves another purpose: an exhortation to further favours, which
will be followed by more praise. In the end it is the benefactors, the proconsul
and the townsmen, who will be immortalized by the speaker: Sed
de hoc tum ego perfectius, cum uos effectius. Quin etiam tibi, nobilitas
senatorum, claritudo ciuium, dignitas amicorum, mox ad dedicationem [p.184]statuae meae
libro etiam conscripto plenius gratias cana<m> eique libro mandabo, uti
per omnis prouincias eat totoque abhinc orbe totoque abhinc tempore laudes
benefacti tui ubique gentium semper annorum repraesentet.
(16,47-48) The speaker’s personal prestige and
glory will achieve their ultimate effect in the glorification of his
surroundings. Occasionally, the ‘I’ of the
Throughout the
Not only the city itself, but also its
famous men are celebrated by the speaker. In 18,37-42, he announces a
Greco-Latin hymn to the city’s favourite God Asclepius, followed by an equally
bilingal dialogue in which famous local speakers will be the main speakers:
Safidius Severus (who speaks Latin) and Iulius Perseus (who speaks Greek).[21]
Even Carthaginian buildings are given attention: 18,1-8 contains what amounts to
a description of the local theatre, which is clearly presented as a worthy place
for the speech. Finally, the curia and bibiliotheca of the town
are mentioned (18,8-9). The finest celebration of
This is striking praise indeed.
The self-praise of the speaker has
effectively been transferred to the town and the audience at large. Together
they celebrate each other and their town and society. This may well be called an
interactive process, since each party parts gains strength from the other party:
the speaker glorifies himself; his glory reflects upon the city, which in turn
adds to the status of the speaker, in a potentially endless process of
self-promotion. Culture In the end, the Florida do not
so much provide us with reliable evidence about the author, much as we would
wish so, but gives us a fine insight in how a man of culture such as Apuleius
wished to be thought of, how he wanted to be perceived by his fellow-citizens
and fellow-Africans: as a man of great religious and cultural prestige, a
well-traveled man who knows his way in Athens and Rome, a student of the wise, a
friend of the mighty, a benefactor who deserves much praise and in turn makes
his fellow citizens and his whole fatherland share in his glory. This was not a simple, one-sided affair, but a complex process of
constant interaction with the local audience. One feels tempted to regard the
[p.186]Of course, I have not been able to highlight all aspects of the ‘I’
in the Whether the Apuleian persona closely corresponds to the
biographical facts of the author’s life is something we will never know: we
only have his literary texts by which to judge. In any case, the closeness of
the ‘I’ of the As in the case of most ancient genres
mentioned at the start of this paper, modern readers do not have access to the
‘real life’ of the respective authors. What we see, what we read and have to
interpret, is only the outer mask, the facade. We cannot know the real Apuleius
anymore than the real Seneca or the real Pliny the Younger.[23]
Fortunately, it is not real life that eventually counts in literature, but ideas
and style. And for this, ancient literature in general and Apuleius in
particular have much to offer. BIBLIOGRAPHY Braund, S. 1992. Roman verse satire,
Braund, S. 1996. The Roman satirists and their masks,
Harrison, S.J. 1999 (ed). Oxford
readings in the Roman Novel, Harrison, S.J. 2001 (ed.). Apuleius, Rhetorical works, translated
by S.J. Harrison, J.L. Hilton and V.J.C. Hunink,
Hijmans, B. 1987. ‘Apuleius
Philosophus Platonicus’, in: ANRW 2,36,1, 395-475 Hijmans, B. 1994. ‘Apuleius orator: "Pro se de Magia" and
" Holzberg, N. 2002. Martial und das
antike Epigramm, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftlichte Buchgesellschaft Hunink, V. 1995. ‘The prologue of
Apuleius’ "De deo Socratis"‘; in: Mnemosyne 48, 292-312 Hunink, V. 2001. Apuleius of Madauros, Florida edited with a
commentary, Hunink, V. 2002. ‘The date of
Apuleius’ Metamorphoses’, in: Pol Defosse (ed.), Hommages à Carl Deroux,
II Prose et linguistique, Médicine, Bruxelles: Editions Latomus, 224-235 Kahane, A. / Laird, A. 2001 (edd.). A
Companion to the Prologue of Apuleius’ Metamorphoses,
Ludolph, M. 1997. Epistolographie und
Selbstdarstellung. Untersuchungen zu den ‘Paradebriefen’ Plinius des Jüngeren,
Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag Paardt, R. van der 1981. ‘The unmasked "I", Apuleius Met.
XI 27’, in: Mnemosyne
34, 96-106 (also in Sandy, G. 1997. The Greek world of Apuleius, Apuleius & the
Second Sophistic, Toschi, A. 2000. Apuleio Neosofista, Discorso per la sua statua a
Carthagine (Floridum 16), introduzione, testo, traduzione e commento a cura
di Alberto Toschi, Winkler, J.J. 1985. Auctor &
actor; a narratological reading of Apuleius’s ‘The Golden Ass’,
NOTES [1]
It is, of course, no coincidence that this list includes some of the Latin
authors that have been studied by Ben Hijmans during his long career. His
contributions to Apuleian studies may count as his most important and
lasting achievements as a classical scholar. Personally, I have been
inspired by these studies to pursue my own research in this field. The
present paper is intended as a token of my recognition and respect for this
great Apuleian scholar from the high North of Groningen. I thank André
Lardinois for his comments on the first version of the text. [2]
See Braund 1992 and 1996. [3]
See notably Holzberg 2002. [4]
The now classical study in this field is Winkler 1985. See further various
essays in Kahane/Laird 2001. [5]
It may be relevant to briefly review the main details in the
Fl. 16,37 is often used for an approximate date for
his birth: a reference to a known magistrate suggests that he, and by
implication Apuleius himself, must have been born in the 120s. / Fl.
18,15 seems to confirm a birthplace of the author in All
in all, even if the
[6]
In secundary literature on Apuleius, the [7]
Apart from the studies mentioned so far, this paper was also inspired by
Ludolph 1997. In this modern German study of the letters of Pliny the
Younger, the author carefully analyses a group of letters, showing that far
from being a collection of private, spontaneous documents, haphazardly put
together, as Pliny wants us to believe, the letters are artful compositions
arranged in such a way as to give a most flattering portrait of their
author. Pliny is on top of things all the time, selecting and rewriting his
material to compose a self-portrait that is entirely designed. As in the
case of Martial, so it seems, his choice of a ‘low profile’ literary
genre for his high literary aspirations is deliberate: it effectively
protects the author from public inuidia. [8]
The principal point of controversy here is the so called ‘prologue’ to De
Deo Socratis, a set of five fragments that is considered by many
scholars to have been a part of the [9]
Cf. Hunink 2001, 12-18. [10]
Ben Hijmans has always adopted a methodologically strict attitude,
constantly defending scholarship based on facts rather than ‘unsupported
opinion’ (Hijmans 1994, 1781). It may be added, however, that between the
lines he was also charmed by more speculative approaches (cf. idem, 1782).
So I hope he will forgive me if I occasionally have to cross the line
between fact and speculation. [11]
Latin quotations from the [12]
Cf. not only individual statements such as Apol. 55,8-11, notably 8 sacrorum
pleraque initia in Graecia participaui. The whole of the Metamorphoses
and De deo Socratis, to mention only manifestly authentic works,
clearly attest the point. [13]
Fl. 16,38 suscepti sacerdotii may refer to the same
priesthood, though Augustine Ep. 138,19 also reports that A. was sacerdos
provinciae Africae, and this may be the function meant here. [14]
To mention just a few instances: cf. Apol. 4-5 (eloquence); 6 and 9
(own poetry); scientific works (36); and speeches (55,10-12). [15]
For a detailed discussion of the various genres mentioned in this and the
following fragment, see Hunink 2001, 115-117 ad loc. and 204-205 ad loc.;
further [16]
Interestingly, in neither list the Metamorphoses, undoubtedly the
work that has immortilized Apuleius’ name, is mentioned. This would seem
to suggest a late date of publication of the novel. For a detailed
discussion of this issue, see Hunink 2002. [17]
On Fl. 16, see also the separate edition and commentary Toschi 2000. [18]
Verg. Aen. 4,336. Interestingly, in Vergil’s text, the line is
spoken by Aeneas to Dido, the symbol of pre-Roman [19]
The interpretation of Fl. 16 presents some problems on these points.
See notes in the commentaries of Toschi 2000 and Hunink 2001. [20]
The assumption, then, would be that the anthologist, whether Apuleius
himself someone else, made his selection from a personal sense of national
pride, or with his eyes set on a clearly marked audience, e.g. the city
elite in Carthage. It remains impossible, of course, to provide any any
proof on such matters. [21]
Both men may well have been pupils of Apuleius; for this suggestion see
Harrison 2000, 125. [22]
It could even indicate that it was the same writer, Apuleius, who was the
anthologist of the [23]
Educated, experienced readers, for their part, do not necessarily open their
hearts and minds to everything they read: they too often construct
protective layers and defensive walls, behind which their private life
remains out of immediate reach of the texts. If we see the literary process
as a process of communication, the balance between authors and readers is
even.
latest changes here:
30-07-2012 16:01
|
|